VU Research Portal · Augustine’s anthropology. Indeed, the metaphor is submerged within my...
Transcript of VU Research Portal · Augustine’s anthropology. Indeed, the metaphor is submerged within my...
VU Research Portal
From the Circular Soul to the Cracked Self
Napier, D.A.
2010
document versionPublisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Link to publication in VU Research Portal
citation for published version (APA)Napier, D. A. (2010). From the Circular Soul to the Cracked Self: A Genetic Historiography of Augustine'sAnthropology from Cassiciacum to the Confessiones.
General rightsCopyright and moral rights for the publications made accessible in the public portal are retained by the authors and/or other copyright ownersand it is a condition of accessing publications that users recognise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights.
• Users may download and print one copy of any publication from the public portal for the purpose of private study or research. • You may not further distribute the material or use it for any profit-making activity or commercial gain • You may freely distribute the URL identifying the publication in the public portal ?
Take down policyIf you believe that this document breaches copyright please contact us providing details, and we will remove access to the work immediatelyand investigate your claim.
E-mail address:[email protected]
Download date: 14. Jul. 2021
VRIJEUNIVERSITEIT
FromtheCircularSoultotheCrackedSelf:
AGeneticHistoriographyofAugustine’sAnthropologyfromCassiciacumtotheConfessiones
ACADEMISCHPROEFSCHRIFT
terverkrijgingvandegraadDoctoraandeVrijeUniversiteitAmsterdam,opgezagvanderectormagnificus
prof.dr.L.M.Bouter,inhetopenbaarteverdedigen
tenoverstaanvandepromotiecommissievandefaculteitderGodgeleerdheid
opvrijdag26november2010om15.45uurindeaulavandeuniversiteit,
DeBoelelaan1105
door
DanielAustinNapier
geborenteFresno,California
2
promotor:prof.dr.P.J.J.vanGeest
3
TableofContentsIntroductionandChapterPrécis ……4PartICircularSoul,SalvificContemplationandtheDefectofAction ……33
Chapter1TheCircularSoulinContemplation:TheCassiciacumProjectandAugustine’sEarlyAnthropology(386‐387)……34Chapter2TemporalSoul,FallenBodiesandtheDefectofAction(MilanthroughThagaste,387‐391) ……72SummaryConclusionsforPartI ……112
PartIIAugustine’sDiscoveryofRedemptiveAction ……115
Chapter3Augustine’sInventionoftheHeart:StandingwithJesusbetweenPlatoandtheStoa(391‐394) ……118Chapter4TheAnthropologyofGrace:StoicCompatibilism,PsychologyofthePassionsandGraceIrresistible(394‐396) ……174SummaryConclusionsforPartII ……228
PartIIITheCrackedSelfandBeyond:Augustine’sAnthropologyintheConfessiones ……232
Chapter5MirrorofFallenNature:CommendatiotoActionandits ……235PerversioninConfessionesIChapter6Augustine’sAccountofContemplation:PerverseandRedemptive ……293AscentsintheConfessionesSummaryConclusionsforPartIII ……382
Conclusion ……386AbbreviationsandEditionsofAncientTexts ……392BibliographyofSecondaryLiterature ……401Abstract ...….440Samenvatting ……446
4
Introduction
ThisisabookaboutAugustineofHippo’sconceptionsofthehumanperson–both
theoreticalandapplied–andthephilosophicalresourceshecalledupontoconstruct
(andreconstruct)them.ButitismoreaboutAugustinethanabouthissources.
Iwillengageinhighlytechnicalanalysesofantiquephilosophieswhenthey
promisetoelucidateAugustine’sphilosophicalanthropology.Thoseanalysesmay
requiredetoursalongtheway.Butmyprimarygoalisalwaystounderstandthe
winsome,imposingand,often,profoundthoughtofAugustine.Clarifyinghis
philosophicalcoordinatesandthelandscapeoverwhichhetraveledconstitutesmybest
methodfortrackinghismovementthroughaconfusingterrain.Thereadermustpass
judgmentontheexpeditionanditsmethod’ssuccessretrospectively,basedonthe
numberandclarityofsightingsalongtheway.Myembarkinghopeisthatwewill
observeAugustineactiveinsettingsoftenneglectedbycontemporaryscholarshipand
thuscometoanewappreciationofhim.
Ichoosethemetaphoricsofmigratorytraveladvisedlyinspeakingof
Augustine’santhropology.Indeed,themetaphorissubmergedwithinmychosentitle.I
don’tthinkAugustinewouldobject.ForAugustine’sthoughtisalwaysmoving.His
conceptschangethroughouthislife,butneverinamerelyhaphazardorerraticfashion.
Rather,Augustineperseveresinsearching,andthustravelingconceptually,forclearer
andevermoreadequatewaysofunderstandingthenatureanddestinyofhumanbeings
beforetheirCreator.
5
Conceptualtourismisnotrecommendedinthisregion.Theterrainof
Augustine’schosenexpeditionisrough,andtheindigenousflorathickenoughtoensure
sweatandstrain.Butforthehearty,philosophicallytrainedadventurer,ourjourney
willwindalongthevaryingpeaksandtroughsoftwothematicridges,whichmay
providerewardingvistas.
FirstThematicFocus:
Augustine’sTheoreticalAnthropologyfromtheCircularSoultotheCrackedSelf
Attheleveloftheoreticallyformulatedconceptions,thegeneraltrajectoryof
Augustine’santhropologicalreflectionsmaybecharacterizedasajourneyfromearly
affirmationsofaquasi‐divinesoultrappedwithinafragmentingbodytohismature
discoveryofamoreintegralself,whichparadoxicallyacknowledgesafragmentationof
soul.
Theyouthfulphilosopher,insearchingforanadequatemetaphor,describesthe
soul,one’strueself,assomehowakintotheimmaterialpointgoverningacircle,the
bestofbodilyfigures(an.quant.11.181221).1Fifteenyearslaterthenowwizened
bishopspeakstoacrowdinCarthage.Reflectingupontheoft‐dismalfateofour
heartfeltaspirationstodowhatisgoodandthelightthosefailurescastuponthereality
oftheself,hefindsaratherdifferentmetaphorappropriate.
1an.quant.servesasahingetextinourhistoricalschematic.ItiscomposedimmediatelyinthewakeofAugustine’scatechismandbaptism,andthusbearsthecharacteristicsofbothhisCassiciacumperiodandhispost‐catecheticalalterations.Consequently,portionsofthistextwillbeusedtodescribebothhisCassiciacumspeculationsandthesignificantmodificationspromptedbyhisreceptionofthefaithfromAmbrose.
6
We,withourgoodintentions,haveallbeenfiredinthekilnoflife.Andwehave
emergedcracked(en.Ps.99.11).Thejourneyhastakenatoll.Howisit,onemay
wonder,thatAugustine’sthoughtspannedtheterrainfromthecircularsoultothe
crackedself?ThisquestionofAugustine’schangingtheoreticaldepictionofhuman
beinganditsconstituentsprovidesafocalorientationoverthecourseofourexpedition.
SecondThematicFocus:
Augustine’sPrescriptiveAnthropologyfromPlatonicPedagogytoEcclesial
Mystagogy
AsAugustinetravelledalongthephilosophicalterrain,hisgazewasfarfrom
disinterested.Eachnewvista,everysignificantalterationinhistheoreticalconception
ofhumanbeing,instantlyinspiredanewplanofdevelopmentaimedatachieving
humanblessedness.
Fromthebeginning,Augustineentwinedhisreflectionsonthestructureand
natureofthesoulwithdescriptionsofthehappylifeandprescriptiveschemesfor
achievingit.Ashisconceptionofhumanbeingbroadensanddeepens,sodoeshis
appliedprogramforhumandevelopment.Theoreticalanthropologyprovidesa
conceptualbackdropforaskesis,andaskesisalwaysfunctionsasanapplied
anthropologyinAugustine.Indeed,thisisatruismapplicabletoanyancient
philosopherortheologian.2Buttheinstability,creativityanddiscernablelinesof
2Moreontheaccompanyingmethodologybelow.Theaptcoupling,however,ofanthropologicalconceptionsandprescriptiveschemesforattainingblessednessarerootedinHadot’swork,especiallyhisinvestigationoftherelationbetweenformsofdiscourseandformsoflifeinHadot,Pierre.1995.PhilosophyasaWayofLife:SpiritualExercisesfromSocratestoFoucault.Malden,MA:Blackwell.,pp.49‐70.NotealsoFoucault’sworksplayingthe“knowyourself”themeofancientthoughtoffthe“take
7
developmentinAugustine’sthoughtconcerningthehumanbeingmakehisapplied
programsofhumanformationpeculiarlyinterestingmovementstoreconnoiter.
TheremnantsofAugustine’sappliedanthropologiesspeckletheridge.Hisfirst,
roughlyPlatonizingattempttobuildapedagogicalascentenabledapurelycognitive
vision.ButthatwasbeforereceivingcatechismandmystagogicorationsfromAmbrose.
Intime,Augustine’smigrationcarriedhimasfarasanexpansive,ecclesialprogramfor
humanformation,whichIwilldescribeasamystagogicgradus.SoAugustine’sever
developingestimationofthemeansforattainingblessednesswillcommandagoodly
shareofourattention.
OneThematicEnvironAvoided:OriginandFalloftheSoul
Severaldecadesago,afewbraveadventurerssetupcampatonepointnearthe
beginningofAugustine’strail.Theytoiledlongandhardtocleartheground.Todaya
vastsettlementhasgrownuparoundtheirstudiesofapeculiarsubthemein
Augustine’sthought–thePlotinianideaofthepreexistentsoulfallenintobodies.3
careofyourself”theme,inFoucault,Michel,andPaulRabinow.1997.Ethics:SubjectivityandTruth.NewYork:NewPress.,pp.223‐251andpassimFoucault,Michel.1988.TheCareoftheSelf.TheHistoryofSexuality,vol.3.NewYork:VintageBooks. Likewise,twofairlyrecentworksdemonstratetheusefulnessofthecouplinginrelationtopatristicandAugustinianworks,respectively.Behr,John.2000.AsceticismandAnthropologyinIrenaeusandClement.OxfordEarlyChristianStudies.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.and,Stalnaker,Aaron.2006.OvercomingourEvil:HumanNatureandSpiritualExercisesinXunziandAugustine.MoralTraditionsSeries.Washington,D.C.:GeorgetownUniversityPress.3Ofcourse,IrefertotheimpressiveworkofFatherO’Connellandhisscholarlyentourage.EspeciallyCf.,O'Connell,RobertJ.1968.St.Augustine'sEarlyTheoryofMan,A.D.386391.Cambridge,Mass:BelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress.,O'Connell,RobertJ.1987.TheOriginoftheSoulinSt.Augustine'sLaterWorks.NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress.;TeSelle,Eugene.1970.AugustinetheTheologian.London:Burns&Oates.;Teske,RolandJ.2008.“St.Augustine’sViewoftheOriginalHumanConditioninDeGenesicontraManichaeos”inTeske,RolandJ.2008.ToKnowGodandtheSoul:Essays
8
Todayanunwittingtravelercouldeasilybeswallowedupwithinthissinglecomplexof
questionsandproceednofurther.
SinceweaimtotraceagoodlyportionofAugustine’santhropologicaljourney,I
havechosentoskirttheedgesofthissettlementandfocusnomorethannecessaryon
thenarrowerquestionoftheoriginandfallofthesoul.Ahandfulofconsiderations
motivatemyselectiveengagement.
First,Augustineneverexplicitlydecidesontheissueofthesoul’sorigin.Indeed,
hetoyswiththeidea,makingselectiveuseofit,andwewilldulynotethefact.ButI
personallyfindargumentsforAugustinesecretlyholdingaconvictionthathepublically
disclaimedtobehighlyimprobable.Augustine’simposingpersonalityandrhetorical
tenacitymakemethinkhisrealbeliefsprobablymadeitoutofhismouth.Muchmore
likely,onmyreading,isthatearlyinhisjourneyAugustinetendedtoincorporateand
manipulateimagesfromPlotinus,thedeeperimplicationsofwhichhedidnotyetfully
grasp.Myargumentforthisreadingwilloccupypartofchaptersoneandtwo.
Second,Ithinkthequestionhasreceivedmuchgreaterclarityinrecentyears
throughRonnieRombs’differentiationofthreepossiblemeaningsthat“fallofthesoul”
languagecouldtakeinAugustine’svariousworks.4Ontological,cosmogonicandmoral
aspectsarefullycapableofbeingdifferentiated.AnycontributionIcouldmakewould
ontheThoughtofSaintAugustine.Washington,D.C.:CatholicUniversityofAmericaPress.;Rist,JohnM.1996.Augustine:AncientThoughtBaptized.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.;Cary,Phillip.2000.Augustine'sInventionoftheInnerSelf:TheLegacyofaChristianPlatonist.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.4Rombs,RonnieJ.2006.SaintAugustine&theFalloftheSoul:BeyondO'Connell&HisCritics.Washington,D.C.:CatholicUniversityofAmericaPress.
9
beancillaryatthispoint.EvenRolandTeske,avenerablepersonagetoallinthe
settlement,paystributetothegreaterutilityofRomb’sconceptualdistinctions.5
Finally,despitetheexpansive,promisingtitleofO’Connell’sseminalwork,6the
questionoftheoriginandfallofsoulactuallyconstitutesabackgroundtoAugustine’s
anthropologyandcontributesrathermodestlytoAugustine’sfulltheoryofthehuman
beingasfoundinthispresentlife.JustasAugustinefoundhimselfconstrainedtolook
elsewhereinordertoproduceatheoryofhumanbeingsuitedtothespecificteachings
ofJesusandPaul,sooureffortstotraceAugustine’sconceptualjourneynecessitate
venturingintovicinitiesscarcelyrelatedtothesoul’soriginandfall.Andtherewewill
findAugustinefrequentingdifferentphilosophicalenvirons.Sonewterritorybeckons.
5Cf.theshortqualifyingstatementprecedingthearticleTeske,RolandJ.2008.“St.Augustine’sViewoftheOriginalHumanConditioninDeGenesicontraManichaeos”inTeske,RolandJ.2008.ToKnowGodandtheSoul:EssaysontheThoughtofSaintAugustine.Washington,D.C.:CatholicUniversityofAmericaPress;Teske,RolandJ.2007."SaintAugustineandtheFalloftheSoul:BeyondO'ConnellandHisCritics(review)".TheCatholicHistoricalReview.93(3):609‐610.6O'Connell,RobertJ.1968.St.Augustine'sEarlyTheoryofMan,A.D.386391.Cambridge,Mass:BelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress
10
MyTravelCompass:GeneticResearchMethod
TrailingAugustine’smigrationthroughhisancientterrainrequiresaninterpretive
compassandafewtrustworthyconceptualtools.Myprimaryinterpretivecompasshas
beentheintentiontoproduceageneticaccountofhisanthropology.7Inotherwords,
I’vefollowedAugustine’santhropologicalthoughtwiththespecificissueofinternal
developmentinmindandsoughtanswerstoafewpertinentquestions.8
7TwodevelopmentalstudiesinAugustineprovidedearlyinspirationforthisproject,thoughwithoutoverlappingmuchinthematiccontent.Theyhelpedmerealizethevalueofarigorouslychronologicalstudyofconceptualdevelopment.TeSelle,Eugene.1970.AugustinetheTheologian.London:Burns&Oates.And,Cary,Phillip.2000.Augustine'sInventionoftheInnerSelf:TheLegacyofaChristianPlatonist.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.BehindtheworkofTeSelleandCary,onecouldpointtoseveralseminalworksusingadevelopmentalapproachinstudyingeminentphilosophers,thebestknownofwhichwouldbeLutosławski,Wincenty.1897.TheOriginandGrowthofPlato'sLogic;withanAccountofPlato'sStyleandoftheChronologyofhisWritings.London:Longmans,GreenandCo.,andJaeger,WernerWilhelm.1923.Aristoteles:GrundlegungeinerGeschichteseinerEntwicklung.Berlin:Weidmann.8Thedeeprootsofthisgeneticresearchmethod,likeallresearchinthehumanities,reachbacktotheworkofWilhelmDiltheyinclarifyingthemethodologicaldifferencesbetweenthenaturalandhumansciences.Inparticular,bydistinguishingamutuallyinteractive,structuraltriadofhumanlifeasconstitutedbytheplaybetweenexperience(Erlebnis),expression(Ausdruck),andunderstanding(Verstehen),Diltheyemphasizedthathumanscometoknowthemselvesprimarilythroughthedetourofself‐expressionsratherthanthroughintrospection.Theseself‐expressions,includingtextualexpressions,arealsoaccessibletoothers.Sincepersons’self‐knowledgealwaysarisesthroughexpressionandreflexiveunderstandingofexpression,Diltheyprovidedatheoreticalrationaleforhistorianstosearchoutanevolutionofthoughtwithinthehistoricalpersonagestheywouldunderstand.Forhelpfuldiscussionsofhishermeneuticaltheoriesandtheirapplicationtotheologicalhistoriographyconfer,Geest,Paulvan.2005.“‘Omnisscripturalegidebeteospirituquofactaest’:OntheHermeneuticsofWilhelmDiltheyandAlbertDeblaere”inFaesen,Rob,andAlbertDeblaere.2005.AlbertDeblaere,S.J.,19161994:EssaysonMysticalLiterature.Leuven:Peeters.Also,cf.Grondin,Jean.1994.IntroductiontoPhilosophicalHermeneutics.YaleStudiesinHermeneutics.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.
11
First,howandwhydoesAugustine’santhropologysequentiallychangefromone
specificformtothenextovertime?9Second,whichresourcesdoeshecallupon–both
fromwithinhisownpriorthoughtandfromexternalsources–toproducethenovel
form?And,finally,whatphilosophicaldynamicspresshimtorespondinthismanner?
Ofcourse,producingageneticaccountofaperson’sthoughtrequiresadherence
tostrictchronologicalparametersintraversingthetextualterraindiachronically.
Chronologicalsequencepointstruenorth.Whenonebeginstravelingunderthis
directive,itisshockinghowmanyAugustiniantravelguidesseemoblivioustothe
possibilityofconceptualchangeovertime.Butforthisjourney,I’veinsistedthatno
latertextsbeevokedforexplanatorypurposeswithoutveryclearlinesofcontinuity
stretchingfromearliertextswithintheperiodunderdiscussion.
SomyprimarymethodconsistssimplyinclosereadingsofAugustine’stexts,in
chronologicalorder,whilefocusingonthephilosophicalandtheologicalconcepts
involved.Ofcourse,Iusehistoricalandphilologicaltoolsinwaysthatscholarsof
antiquethoughthavecometoexpectfromeachother.Mydoggedlyconceptualfocus
constitutestheprimarydifferencefromliterary‐critical,sociological,historyof
religions,andbiographicalapproachestoAugustine’swork.10
9RobertPierceyhasprovidedahelpfulanalysisofgeneticapproachestohistoricalphilosophyasappropriatelyfocusedonlargetotalitypictures(likeAugustine’s“anthropology”).Ofcourse,argumentsandtheoriesareimportant.Buttheydon’treallychange.Theysimplysucceedorfail.Sothegeneticphilosopherdoesphilosophyhistoricallybyfocusingonthebigpictures,whichdoevolve,oftenintergenerationally,andrarelystandorfallbasedonanyoneargumentortheorywithinthem.Piercey,Robert.2003.“DoingPhilosophyHistorically”inReviewofMetaphysics56:4,pp.779‐800.10Theresearcherinthehumanities,accordingtoDilthey’smodel,movesfromexpressions,inthiscaseliterary,backtotheexperiencesandunderstandingsinherentlyintertwinedwiththem.Buttheexperiencesandunderstandings,themselves,possessmanyaspects.Thehistoricalphilosopherwillfocusontheconceptsandworld‐pictures
12
CartographicLegend:
PrescriptiveAnthropologyasMystagogyandasSpiritualExercise
Mapmakinghasalwaysbeenessentialtosuccessfulexploratoryexpeditions.Andafew
questionstendtochallengecartographersinsymbolicallydistinguishingthechangesin
terrainforprospectivetravelers.Howdoesonenametheplacesvisited?Doesonelabel
allthelocationswiththeirindigenousnames?Ordoesoneusetheexonymsofthe
traveler’snativetonguetorepresentsalientfeaturesofthemap’sthematicfocus?
InleavingamapofAugustine’santhropologicalmigrations,thesymbolization
andlabelingofhisprescriptiveanthropologypresentsaspecialsetofchallenges.For
AugustinestartsoutengagedinabroadlyPlatonicprogramofprescriptive
anthropology.ItiswelldescribedasaVarronian‐PlatonicwayoflifewithaChristian
twist.ButAugustineendswithaverydifferentprogramofhumandevelopmentin
place,onemoreproperlyknowntotheecclesiallocalsasmystagogy.Thecontinuities
betweentheprogramsarereal,butthedistinctionsarealsovitallyimportant.
FrombeginningtoendIwilldescribetheconstituenttherapeuticmodalities
employed,irrespectiveofthespecificformoflifepursued,asspiritualexercisesor
askesisoranasceticprogram.Thesespecifictherapeuticmodalitiesformageneric,
overarchingcontinuitybetweenAugustine’svariousprescriptiveanthropological
programsevenashischosenformoflifeevolves.Butthetermmoreindigenoustolate
ancientChristianity,mystagogy,IwillreserveforthepeculiarityofAugustine’slater
withinthoseunderstandingsandimplicitwithintheassociatedexperiences.Sociological,literary,religiousandbiographicalapproachessimplysearchoutdifferentaspectswithintheunderstandingsandexperiences.
13
programasconstitutingacompleteformoflife.Awordaboutthesecartographiclabels
seemsinorder.
SpiritualExerciseandAskesis:
CartographicSymbolsforTherapeuticModalitiesinPrescriptiveAnthropology
Thelanguageofspiritualexerciseanditsroughequivalents(“technologiesoftheself,”
or“techniquesofsubjection,”11“askesis,”12“therapeuticargumentation,”13“aretegenic
interpretationsandpractices”14)hasexperiencedarenaissanceoflateamong
philosophers,largelyduetoitsutilityinuncoveringdimensionsofphilosophical
practiceoncequicklypassedoverastheoreticallyuninterestingorlogicallysuspect.A
fewpioneeringscholarsaretobethankedforthisrenewedfocusonspiritualexercise.15
11Foucault,Michel,andPaulRabinow.1997.Ethics:SubjectivityandTruth.NewYork:NewPress.,pp.223‐251andFoucault,Michel.1988.TheCareoftheSelf.TheHistoryofSexuality,vol.3.NewYork:VintageBooks.12Wimbush,VincentL.,andRichardValantasis.1995.Asceticism.NewYork,N.Y.:OxfordUniversityPress.13Nussbaum,Martha.1994.TheTherapyofDesire:TheoryandPracticeinHellenisticEthics.PrincetonandOxford:PrincetonUniversityPress.14Charry,EllenT.1997.BytheRenewingofyourMinds:ThePastoralFunctionofChristianDoctrine.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.seemstobeunawareofthephilosophicalcategoryofspiritualexerciseandtheusesHadot,Foucaultandothershavefoundforit.ButherapproachtoChristiandoctrineasintentionallyaretegeniccertainlysharesastrong,ifhidden,kinshipwithspiritualexercise.15Hadot,Pierre.1995.PhilosophyasaWayofLife:SpiritualExercisesfromSocratestoFoucault.Malden,MA:Blackwell.,Hadot,Pierre.1998.TheInnerCitadel:TheMeditationsofMarcusAurelius.Harvard:Cambridge;Hadot,Pierre.2002.WhatisAncientPhilosophy?Cambridge:BelknapHarvard.AlsonoteworthyisNehamas,Alexander.1998.TheArtofLiving:SocraticReflectionsfromPlatotoFoucault.SatherClassicalLectures,vol.61.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
ThemostdetailedworkforindividualspiritualexercisesandtheirfunctioningisfoundinSorabji,Richard.2000.EmotionandPeaceofMind:FromStoicAgitationtoChristianTemptation.Oxford.
Nussbaum,Martha.1994.TheTherapyofDesire:TheoryandPracticeinHellenisticEthics.PrincetonandOxford:PrincetonUniversityPress.providesbeautifully
14
Amongtheseretrievals,itistoPierreHadot’scarefuldistinctionsthatIowemyprimary
conceptualdebts.Inhisworks,Hadotdevelopsanddisplaysthefruitsoftheancient
notionofa¶skhsißanditsLatinequivalent,exercitatioanimi.
Spiritualexercises,onHadot’stelling,areregularpracticesofdiversevariety
thatareaimedattransformingthesubjectinordertofullyinhabitaschool’schosen
formoflife.Theseexercisesmaybephysical,discursiveorintuitivesolongasthe
primaryintentionisthemodificationortransformationofthepracticingsubject.The
ultimateaimistofindtheselfasnomoreorlessthanapartofthewhole,whichis
universalreason.16
Twoemphasesarekey.First,properlyspeaking,aspiritualexerciseisalwaysa
regularpracticeaspartofaformoflife.Hadot’sinsistenceuponpracticereachesback
toafoundationaldistinction,articulatedinhis1983inaugurallectureattheCollègede
France,betweenformsoflifeandformsofdiscourse.Everyschoolofancient
philosophyisfoundeduponthechoiceofawayoflife.17FortheGreekandRoman
philosophers,theformoflifeisphilosophyproper.
Nonetheless,peculiarformsofdiscoursewerecentraltothephilosophicalforms
oflife.AmongthePlatonists,submissiontothedialectic(andlater,commentaryupon
Plato’stexts)wascentraltotheirwayoflife.Percussivedialecticandpublictaciturnity
detailedphilologicalreadingsoftheprimarytextsthatunveiltherapeuticargumentationatwork.
Offeringavaluabletypologyofapproachestospiritualexerciseintheseseminalwriters,cf.Antonaccio,Maria.1998.“ContemporaryFormsofAskesisandtheReturnofSpiritualExercises”inAnnualoftheSocietyofChristianEthics18,pp.69‐9216Hadot,Pierre.1995.PhilosophyasaWayofLife:SpiritualExercisesfromSocratestoFoucault.Malden,MA:Blackwell.,p.211.17Hadot,Pierre.1995.PhilosophyasaWayofLife:SpiritualExercisesfromSocratestoFoucault.Malden,MA:Blackwell.,pp.49‐70.
15
amongtheStoicswasindispensable.Buttheformofdiscoursewasalwaysapartofor
subsequenttotheprimarilyphilosophicalchoiceforaformoflife.
Second,allspiritualexerciseshaveastheirprimaryaimtotransformourvision
oftheworldandtoreshapethepersonality.18However,theparticularworld‐visionand
personalityshapesoughtwillberelativetotheschool’schosenformoflife.Hadot’s
secondkeyemphasisfixesitsbeamupontheintentionalmovementinvolvedinthe
practiceofaspiritualexercise.Thisisthegoldenthread.Namingaparticulardiscourse,
practiceorintuitivereconfigurationofthoughtasaspiritualexerciseisprimarilya
judgmentconcerningitsdirectionortrajectory.Oftenelementsintellective,imaginative
andappetitivearefusedinthelivedpracticeandthetextualvestigesbequeathed.But
thisfusionisalsotypicalofanynumberof“thoughtexperiments”employedforends
wellguardedfromself‐transformation.
Hadotdistinguishesfourbasictypesofspiritualexercise.19Firstaredisciplines
ofattention,orlearningtolivewell.Theseprimarilyconsistinbeingmindfullyin
controlofone’sthoughts,feelings,andinterpretationsatthepresentmoment.Second,
disciplinesofmeditationinvolvememorizationandreflectionupontheschool’smaxims
asapreparationforapplyingthesetoeverydaylifesituations.Third,intellectual
exercisesteachonetodialogueandread.Theseincludesuchexercisesasreading
philosophicalworks,writingasexaminationofconscience,listening,dialectic,and
exegesisofauthoritativetexts.Fourth,bodilydisciplinesdesignedtotemperthebody
18Hadot,Pierre.1995.PhilosophyasaWayofLife:SpiritualExercisesfromSocratestoFoucault.Malden,MA:Blackwell.,pp.82.(«Enfait,cesexercices…correspondentàunetransformationdelavisiondumondeetàunemétamorphosedelapersonnalité.»,2002.Exercicesspirituelsetphilosophieantique.Paris:AlbinMichel.,pp.21).19Hadot,Pierre.1995.PhilosophyasaWayofLife:SpiritualExercisesfromSocratestoFoucault.Malden,MA:Blackwell.,pp.49‐70,81‐125.
16
forphilosophicalrigorsandtocreateorbreakhabitsalsoplayaroleinshapingtheself
tofitwithintheschool’sformoflife.20
TheverybreadthandmultiformityofHadot’sconceptofspiritualexercises,
particularlyassubservienttoalargerchoiceoflife,enhancesitsusefulnessin
comparativestudies.Abroadvarietyofsubspeciesofexercises,minedfromtheworks
ofdiverseschools,mayberelatedtoeachotherwithintheoverarchinggenreof
spiritualexercise.Theutilityofspiritualexerciseasa“bridgeconcept”forinterreligious
comparativestudieshasrecentlybeendemonstrated.21StudyingAugustine’sdiachronic
developmentgeneticallyinvolvescomparingthevarioussynchronicslicesof
Augustine’sthoughtwitheachother.InordertorelateAugustine’searlyPlatonizing
programwithhislaterecclesialprogram,Hadot’sconceptionofspiritualexercisehas
provedausefullybroadtermfornamingthespecificpracticesinvolved.22
20ThesespiritualexercisesthatproceedbyalteringbodilybehaviorsreceiveamorethoroughexaminationinSorabji,Richard.2000.EmotionandPeaceofMind:FromStoicAgitationtoChristianTemptation.Oxford.21Stalnaker,Aaron.2006.OvercomingourEvil:HumanNatureandSpiritualExercisesinXunziandAugustine.MoralTraditionsSeries.Washington,D.C.:GeorgetownUniversityPress.AlsonotetheusageinSchofer,JonathanWyn.2004.TheMakingofaSage:AStudyinRabbinicEthics.Madison,Wis.:UniversityofWisconsinPress.22Ofcourse,evenwithinsynchronicandnon‐comparativestudiesofAugustinetheconceptualcategoryofspiritualexercisehasprovenhelpful.Amongrecentfruits,cf.Cameron,Michael.2005.“TotusChristusandthePsychagogyofAugustine’sSermons”inAugustinianStudies36:1,pp.59‐70;Kamimura,Naoki.2005.“Augustine’sFirstExegesisandtheDivisionsofSpiritualLife”inAugustinianStudies36:2,pp.421‐432;Strozynski,Mateusz.2009.“Time,Self,andAporia:SpiritualExerciseinSaintAugustine”inAugustinianStudies40:1,pp.103‐120.
17
Mystagogy:
CartographicSymbolfortheEcclesialFormofLifeinPrescriptiveAnthropology
Mystagogyconstitutesamodeofinductionintoapreciselyecclesialformoflife
entailingitsownsubspeciesofspiritualexercises.Assuchitwouldcorrespondto
Hadot’sgenericcategoryofaformoflife,morethantoanyparticularspiritualexercise
oraskesisusedinserviceofthatwayoflife.Allowmetoclarify.
Liketheconceptofspiritualexercise,mystagogyhasprovedusefuloflateasan
organizingdescriptorforseveralpeculiarlyecclesialpracticesanddiscoursesacrossa
broadfieldoftheologicalsubdisciplines.23Inmanyways,therediscoveryofmystagogy
withintheologicalcirclescanbetracedtotheinfluenceofKarlRahner’sthoughtasthat
shapedVaticanIIandsubsequenttheologizing.24
23Asamplingoftheliteratureshouldillustrate:Mazza,Enrico.1989.Mystagogy:ATheologyofLiturgyinthePatristicAge.NewYork:PuebloPub.Co.;Jackson,Pamela.1989.“AmbroseofMilanasMystagogue”inAugustinianStudies20,pp.93‐108.;notethecollectionofarticlesinFleteren,Frederickvan,JosephC.Schnaubelt,andJosephReino.1994.AugustineMysticandMystagogue.CollectaneaAugustiniana.NewYork:P.Lang;Harmless,William.1995.AugustineandtheCatechumenate.Collegeville,Minn:LiturgicalPress.,esp.pp.69‐78,300‐345.;Satterlee,CraigAlan.2002.AmbroseofMilan'sMethodofMystagogicalPreaching.Collegeville,Minn:LiturgicalPress.;Waaijman,Kees.2002.Spirituality:Forms,Foundations,Methods.Leuven:Peeters.;Muksuris,Stylianos.2004.“LiturgicalMystagogyandItsApplicationintheByzantineProthesisRite”inGreekOrthodoxTheologicalReview49:34,pp.291‐306.;Meconi,DavidVincent.2008.“BecomingGodsbyBecomingGod’s:Augustine’sMystagogyofIdentification”inAugustinianStudies39:1,pp.61‐74.;Clarahan,MaryAnn.2009.“MystagogyandMystery”inWorship83:6pp.502‐523.;Geest,Paulvan.forthcoming.“‘SeeingthatforMonkstheLifeofAntonyisaSufficientPatternofDiscipline…’:AthanasiusasMystagogueinhisVitaAntonii”inGeest,Paulvan.2010.AthanasiusofAlexandria:HisSearchfortheChristianDoctrineofGod,hisDesertAsceticismandSignificance.ChurchHistoryandReligiousCulture,vol.90.Leiden:Brill.24Cf.Rahner,Karl.1969.“Man(Anthropology)III.Theological”inRahner,Karl.1969.SacramentumMundi:AnEncyclopediaofTheology.volume3.NewYork:HerderandHerder.,pp.365‐370.Also,Rahner,Karl.1969.“Mystery”inRahner,Karl.1969.SacramentumMundi:AnEncyclopediaofTheology.volume4.NewYork:HerderandHerder.,pp.133‐136.ThebestsecondarydiscussionofRahner’sconceptionof
18
Inthenarrowestsense,mystagogyreferstoliturgicalinitiationintothe
sacraments.Inthe4thand5thcenturies,mystagogicalorationsemergedastheChurch
FathersdeliveredsermonseitherjustpriortotheEastervigiltothoseformallyenrolled
forbaptism,ortoneophytesandtheassembledfaithfulduringtheEasterOctave
followingbaptism.25Theseteachingsweredesignedtoinvitethebaptizedintoadeeper
spiritualandintellectualapprehensionoftheritestheyhadrecentlyundergone.26
However,thisspecificallyliturgicalsenseofmystagogyonlyreflectsonesubsetofthe
currentretrievaleffort.27
Thegeneralizedsenseofmystagogy,soinspirationaltoRahner,hasbeenmore
interestingtoretrieve.Mystagogy,inthisproperlyexpansivesense,isconceivedas
leadinganinitiateintoadeeperunderstandingofhimselfandallhisexperiences28as
attainingmeaninginrelationtothedivinesecret.29Afterall,thesacramentswerenot
craftedtobeself‐referential,buttopointtowardtheinitiate’srelatednesstoGodin
Christ.Assuch,themystagogue’scraftwasnotpurelycognitive,butentailed
mystagogyisBacik,JamesJ.1980.ApologeticsandtheEclipseofMystery:MystagogyAccordingtoKarlRahner.NotreDame,Ind:UniversityofNotreDamePress.Cf.also,King,J.Norman.1978.“TheExperienceofGodintheTheologyofKarlRahner”inThought53:209,pp.174‐202.25Harmless,William.1995.AugustineandtheCatechumenate.Collegeville,Minn:LiturgicalPress.,pp.69‐78.BothAmbroseandAugustine,alongwithCyrilofJerusalem,observedthedisciplinaarcaniandreservedtheirexplicitmystagogicorationsforthebaptizedalone.26Harmless,William.1995.AugustineandtheCatechumenate.Collegeville,Minn:LiturgicalPress.,pp.69‐78,300‐345.Also,Satterlee,CraigAlan.2002.AmbroseofMilan'sMethodofMystagogicalPreaching.Collegeville,Minn:LiturgicalPress.27Theliturgicallyfocusedworksonmystagogyappeal,withoutexception,tothequandariesofpracticesurroundingthecallforreintroducingmystagogyintheR.C.I.A.of1972(andagainin1988).28Chrysostom’sorationsparticularlyfocusonmoralactivity,andtheneedformoraldevelopmenttocorrespondwiththemysteriesencountered.29Forageneralintroductiontomystagogy,cf.Waaijman,Kees.2002.Spirituality:Forms,Foundations,Methods.Leuven:Peeters.
19
accompanyingtheinitiatethroughaprocessoftransformationinvolvingthewhole
personalityandadvancedbyfosteringattentivenesstothewaysinwhichselfandworld
areintimatelyrelatedtoGod.30
Thusmystagogy,thoughentailingdistinctmomentsoftheologicalinstruction,in
itsbroaderroleservesamaieuticfunction.Asamidwifefortheunderstanding,the
mystagogueleadstheinitiatetobirthadeeperunderstandingoftheexperiencealready
partiallyinaugurated.InDiltheanterms,theformalproblemmystagogyaddressesisthe
residualdisconnectionbetweenexperience,expressionandunderstanding,whichthus
leavesthepersonunbalancedandconflicted.Themystagoguewouldhelptheinitiate
closethosegapsbyarticulatingorprovidingameansofexpressiontodeepen
experienceoflifebeforeGodandbycorrectinginterpretationsofselfandworldthat
diminishorinhibitfurtherexperienceofthedivinesecret.
Asaccompaniedinductionintoaspecificallyreligiousformoflife,mystagogy
providestheoverarchingframeanddirectionforanecclesialsubspeciesoftherapeutic
modalitiesorspiritualexercises.
Therefore,theprimaryquestioniswhataspectsdoesAugustinedistinguishin
thetransformationprocessandwhatspecificpractices,orspiritualexercises,are
appropriatetoeachstage?WhileAugustine’searliestformofprescriptive
30Thisexpansivereadingofmystagogyhasinspiredaresearchagendaforspirituality,andnowguidesthepatristicresearchconductedbytheCentrumvoorPatristischOnderzoek(http://www.patristiek.eu/centrum.htm).Foraparadigmofthisbroaderreadingofmystagogyatworkinhistoricaltheologyandspirituality,cf.Geest,Paulvan.forthcoming.“‘SeeingthatforMonkstheLifeofAntonyisaSufficientPatternofDiscipline…’:AthanasiusasMystagogueinhisVitaAntonii”inGeest,Paulvan.2010.AthanasiusofAlexandria:HisSearchfortheChristianDoctrineofGod,hisDesertAsceticismandSignificance.ChurchHistoryandReligiousCulture,vol.90.Leiden:Brill.Myheart‐feltthankstoprof.dr.PaulvanGeestforintroducingthisconcepttomeandgraciouslysharingthisarticlepriortopublication.
20
anthropologyfollowsafairlygenericPlatonistapproach,onefeatureemergeswhich
remainsconstantinAugustine’sprescriptiveschemas.
Thesubmergedmetaphorofspiritualgrowthassteps(gradus)onaladder
stretchingfrominitiationtoconsummationprovesremarkablystable.Thecontentof
thegradus–wherethefirstmetaphoricrungbeginsandthelastrungreaches–changes
dramaticallyfromCassiciacumtotheConfessiones.Buttheladderitselfpossesses
lastingutility.Soattentiontoschematicladdersforspiritualgrowthwillprovehelpful
fordeterminingaspectsinAugustine’sprescriptiveanthropology.
Second,asAugustine’sformoflifeprogressivelymorphsintoamore
distinctivelyecclesialmode,attentiontohisuseofallegoricalinterpretationprovides
anothermethodologicaltool.Wepossessnomystagogicorationinwhichallegorical
interpretationplaysanunimportantrole.Indeed,Augustine’sstagedmigrationfroma
broadlyPlatonicprescriptiveanthropologytoonerootedinChristianmystagogyleaves
specificspiritualexercisesassignpostsalongtheway.Inparticular,theprimaryvehicle
ofspiritualexerciseshiftsfromadialecticalandexegeticalpedagogyinliberal
disciplinestoinductionbymeansofscripturalinterpretationculminatinginallegorical
readings.Thistransitionincharacteristicspiritualexercisescorrespondstoabroader
migrationinAugustine’sconceptionofthehumanpersonandtheformoflifeAugustine
self‐consciouslypursues.
ANovelToolintheTravelPack:DetectingSubmergedConceptualMetaphors
Ialsoemployonesetofconceptualtoolsinmyclosereadingsthatmightrequiresome
explanation.Namely,inexaminingAugustine’sdevelopingconceptsIkeepmyeyes
peeledforsubmergedconceptualmetaphors.Andatheoreticalcommitment,not
21
universallysharedbyAugustinianscholars,drivesmypeculiarmodeofprobing
Augustine’sphilosophicalconceptsforsubmergedmetaphors.
Metaphortheoryhasprovidedaparticularlyversatiletoolforscholarly
expeditionsinrecentyears.Inemployingthisconceptualapparatus,Iwouldlocate
myselfwithinthetraditionthatextendsoutwardfromtheseminalworksofMaxBlack31
andMaryHesse32on“conceptualmetaphor.”33Thisideahasbeenquitefruitfulacrossa
numberofdisciplines.Assuch,thelineofinfluenceextendsthroughitsadaptationand
employmentinwide‐rangingfieldssuchashermeneutics,34cosmology,35symbolic
anthropology,36theology,37philosophyofscience,38andmedievalstudies.39
31Black,Max.1962.ModelsandMetaphors.Ithaca:Cornell.Seeespeciallychapter3,whichcontainshisarticle“Metaphor”andchapter13,“MetaphorandArchetypes.”32Hesse,Mary.1965.“TheExplanatoryFunctionofMetaphor”inLogic,MethodologyandPhilosophyofScience.ed.Y.Bar‐Hillel.Amsterdam.33MyownintroductiontothetheoryanditsmethodscamethroughElaineBotha’scarefulinstruction.ThefruitofherlaborsmaybelocatedinBotha,M.Elaine.2007.MetaphorandItsMoorings:StudiesintheGroundingofMetaphoricalMeaning.Bern:PeterLang.34Cf.Ricoeur,Paul.1977.TheRuleofMetaphor.UniversityofToronto.Originallypublished1975asLamétaphorevive.ÉditionsduSeuil.35Cf.Pepper,Stephen.C.1942.WorldHypotheses.Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia.Also,Lakoff,George.1987.Women,FireandDangerousThings:WhatCategoriesRevealabouttheMind.Chicago:UniversityofChicago.Lakoff,GeorgeandJohnson,Mark.1980.MetaphorsWeLiveBy.Chicago:UniversityofChicago.Lakoff,GeorgeandJohnson,Mark.1999.PhilosophyintheFlesh:TheEmbodiedMindanditsChallengetoWesternThought.NewYork:BasicBooks.36Cf.Turner,Victor.1974.Dramas,FieldsandMetaphors.Ithaca:CornellUniversity.pp.23‐59.37Cf.McFague,Sallie.1982.MetaphoricalTheology:ModelsofGodinReligiousLanguage.Philadelphia:FortressPress.andSoskice,JanetMartin.1985.MetaphorandReligiousLanguage.Oxford:ClarendonPress.38Cf.Leatherdale,W.H.1974.TheRoleofAnalogy,ModelandMetaphorinScience.Amsterdam:NorthHollandPublishing.39Cf.Bynum,CarolineWalker.1995.ResurrectionoftheBodyinWesternChristianity,2001336.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversity.andBynum,CarolineWalker.2001.MetamorphosisandIdentity.NewYork:ZoneBooks.
22
Basically,thisapproachcontendsthatmetaphorsarenotfullytranslatableinto
literallanguagebutdospecialconceptualworkoftheirown.Infact,conceptual
metaphorscanbeconstitutiveofthought.Themostabstractofthinkersoftenbegins
withsimplementalimagesfromwhichshewillelucidateherthoughtandconstructher
arguments.Theseconceptualmetaphorsaregenerativeofnewtheoreticalinsights.For
instance,whenasociologistbeginstothinkofsocialgroupingsasorganismsinsteadof
viewingthemasinformationsystems,anewrangeofpossibleconnectionsisopened
up.Likewise,inthesamechoiceofmetaphorsotherconnectionsbecomeintuitively
implausible.Sothesubmergedorientingmetaphororrootmetaphor,tousePepper’s
term,40mayactuallyproduceandguideabstractthought.
Ofcourse,myprojectdoesnotaimtoproducealexiconofAugustinian
conceptualmetaphors.Sothetoolwillnotbeondisplayforitsownsake.But
Augustine’sdeeplymetaphoricalaccountoftheselfasaspatialclearing,personal
attentionasturningorstretchingwithinthatspace,andlearningaseating–toname
onlyafew–supplyamplerationaleforreadingwithaneyetosubmergedmetaphors
andtheirpossibleroleinhisdevelopingthought.
CharacteristicPathfindingMethods
IntrackingdevelopmentsinAugustine’santhropology,I’vefoundafewinterpretive
strategiestoaidinkeepingthetrailfromgrowingcold.
First,Ihavereadwithaneyefortheinternaltensionsandcontradictionswithin
Augustine’sownphilosophicalandtheologicaldiscourses.Oftenenoughtheinternal
contradictionsstemfromcombiningtenentsfromdiverse,evenconflicting,40Pepper,Stephen.C.1942.WorldHypotheses.Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia.
23
philosophicalpatrimonies.Thustheyprovidecluestoexplainwhyhistheoreticalpath
suddenlydeviatesinanovelanthropologicaldirection.ThetensionsbetweenMiddle
andNeo‐PlatonistconceptsprovehelpfulintracingAugustine’sveryearly
developments.Later,interplaybetweenStoicandPlatonistconceptsontheonehand,
andPaulineutilizationsontheotherbringothertensionstothesurface.Wewillattend
tothefaultlinesandhowAugustinenegotiatestheminhistravels.
Second,I’vepaidattentiontohowAugustinereadsauthoritativetextsintermsof
eachotherandthusproducesnovelunderstandings.Alongthisjourney,wefindhim
engagedinproducinginterpenetratingreadingsofStoic,MiddleandNeo‐Platonist
anthropologicaltheoriesintermsofChristianscriptureandsimultaneouslyreading
ChristianscriptureintermsofStoicandPlatonisttheories.
Third,IhavefoundAugustineimpossibletotrackwithoutattendingtohisuseof
allegoricalinterpretation.Verymuchinoppositiontomyprotestantevangelical
instinctsofscripturalinterpretation,Ihavetakenpainstoseriouslyattendto
Augustine’sallegoricalreadingsofthescripturesasafoundationfortheologicaland
philosophicalwork.SomyfocusonideasshouldnotbeconstruedaspressingAugustine
intoanarrowlypropositionalistmold.Instead,I’vefoundthatAugustine’sallegorical
interpretationproducesaproliferationofconceptualmetaphorsthatorienthis
descriptionsofhumanbecoming.Suchdynamicsareevidentineachstage,butbecome
starkandpervasiveespeciallyinhisConfessiones.Thusthisstrategywillbecome
especiallyevidentinchaptersfiveandsix.
24
AMethodologicalcaveatlector
Finally,toproperlydiscernAugustine’strail,thetravelermustmaintainanattentive
eyebothconcerningwhenceAugustine’sphilosophicalideashailandwithrespectto
Augustine’srelativecompetenceinusingandtransformingthem.Inthisgeneticproject,
Ihavestriventoacknowledgethebroader(ifoccasionallythinner)philosophical
resourcesavailabletoandemployedbyAugustine.
Specifically,Stoicpsychologiesofactionandpassionplayamuchlargerrolein
Augustine’sthoughtthangenerallyrecognized.41AndAugustine’susagebetraysamuch
moredetailedunderstandingofunderlyingissuesthanheretoforeacknowledged.
Nonetheless,wefindnoovertendorsementoftheirphilosophicalsystem.Onlythe
trainedeyewillnoticehisindebtedness.Conversely,Augustine’speriodofgreatest
enthusiasmforPlotinianphilosophyturnsouttobetheperiodwhenheunderstands
thedistinctivenuancesofitleast.
Consequentlyweshouldbecarefultodistinguishovertenthusiasmfora
philosophyfromcompetencewithinit.Thetwostates,inAugustine’scase,tendtohold
41Afewsplendidexceptionsarenoticeableincontemporaryscholarshipandshouldbegratefullyacknowledgedfromthebeginning.vanGeest,Paul.2004.“StoicAgainstHisWill?:AugustineontheGoodLifeinDebeatavitaandthePraeceptum”pp.533‐550inMélangesoffertsàT.J.vanBavelàl'occasiondeson80eanniversaire,Leuven.;Byers,SarahC.2002.Augustine’sTheoryoftheAffections.Ph.D.dissertation.UniversityofToronto.;Byers,Sarah.2003.“AugustineandtheCognitiveCauseofStoicPreliminaryPassions(propatheiai)”JournaloftheHistoryofPhilosophyXLI.4pp433‐48;Djuth,Marianne.1990.“StoicismandAugustine’sDoctrineofFreedomafter396”inSchnaubelt,JosephC.,andFrederickVanFleteren.1990.CollectaneaAugustinianaAugustinesecondfounderofthefaith.NewYork:P.Lang.;Wolfson,HarryAustryn.1961.“St.AugustineandthePelagianControversy”inWolfson,HarryAustryn.1961.Religiousphilosophy:Agroupofessays.Cambridge,Mass:TheBelknapPressofHarvardUniv.Press.
25
aninverserelationship.AssoonasAugustineapproachesmasteryofaphilosophical
system,hefindsitlackinginsomewayandthustravelson.
PrécisofChapters:AnOverviewofourItinerary
ChapterOne
Inchapterone,webeginwithAugustine’sgratefuldiscoveryofPlotiniannon‐bodily
substance,andhisrathertruncatedunderstandingofit.Atthispoint,Augustine’s
partialunderstandingproducesa“twoworlds”ontologicaltheorywhereinonly
sensibleandintelligibleareclearlydistinguished.Mutabilityatthispointislumpedin
withsensibility.HavingimbibedthemythicpresentationofPlotinus,Augustine
conceivesthebodyprimarilyasanencumberinghindrancetothesoul.Thesoulis
preexistent,divineorstructurallyinviolableanddesignedonlyforcontemplation.
Buttwointernaltensionsareimmediatelyevident.First,thesoulseemsto
changewithtime,butAugustinecannotadmitthetemporalityofsoullestitbecome
mutableandsensiblewithinhistwoworldstheory.Second,Augustine’sattemptto
provideaphilosophicaldemonstrationofthesoul’simmortalitymanifestsanodd
admixtureofincompatibleMiddle‐PlatonicandNeo‐Platonicaxioms.Asaresult,
Augustineperformsaterriblyimportant,non‐Plotinianmodificationwhereinthelower
soulprovesontologicallymorestablethanthehighersoul.
Atthisstage,Augustine’sprogramofaskesisorappliedanthropologyconsistsin
athoroughlycognitiveaccountofblessednessachievedthroughcontemplation.His
prescriptiveprogramforachievingblessednessbeginswithathoroughstudyofthe
liberaldisciplinesandrisesfromtheretothecontemplationofintelligiblereality.
26
ChapterTwo
Inchaptertwo,Augustine’scatechismsupplieshimwithakeydistinctionembeddedin
theNiceneformula,whichheusestoproducehisthree‐tieredontologicalschema.Soul
isnowexplicitlynamedascreature.Withinhisnewlydifferentiatedview,mutability
andsensibilityaredistinguishedsothattemporality(i.e.mutabilityintimewithout
accompanyingmutabilityinspace)becomesthedistinguishingmarkofsoul.Soonafter
AugustinesetshimselftointerpretingGenesis’openingpagesand,thereby,comesto
describecreatedhumanbeingsasaprelapsarianbody‐soulcomplex.Thekey
distinctionmovesfromasimplebody‐souloppositiontoasharpcontrastbetween
soulishandspiritualmodesofexistencewithinthatcomplexhumanentity.
TheoriginalcreationofGodturnsouttobeasoulishstateofhumanexistence
thatcorrelatestothelowerfunctionsofsoul.SubsequentilluminationbyGodelevated
theseprimordialhumanstospiritualexistenceinParadisefromwhichtheirfall
constitutedarelapsetotheiroriginalsoulishstate.IndistinctivelyAugustinianfashion,
thelowerfunctionsturnoutmoreontologicallystablethanthehigher.
Inexaminingthisbottomupstateofexistence,Augustinefindsbothactionand
contemplationasinversepossibilitiesofhumanintentio.TherebyAugustineliftshis
firstkeyanthropologicalconceptfromtheRomanStoicsandusesittodescribehowthe
soultwistsfromcontemplationtoactionandthusfalls.Temporalmutation,
distinguishedfromitspotentialinontologicalmutability,turnsouttobean
epiphenomenonofintentionalaction.Experientiallythesoulregisterstemporalityas
affectivemutationconsequentuponintentionalactionthroughbodies.Likewise,a
27
cognitivestainintheformofturbulentmentalimagesnamedphantasmsnowplagues
thesoulfallenthroughaction.
Augustine’sappliedanthropologyatthisstageconsistsofaprogramtouproot
memorialphantasmsandgrowtowardintelligiblecontemplation.Buttheearlier
resourcesforascentintheliberaldisciplineshavebeenlargelyreplacedbythemilkand
meatofChristianscriptureanditstransmissionwithinthechurch’steaching.
ChapterThree
Inchapterthree,wetraceAugustine’sfirstphilosophicalconceptoftheheartasit
emergesentwinedwithhisfirstpositiveaccountofintentionalaction.Hisreadingof
Jesus’SermonontheMountnecessitatedboth.ThePlatonistsofferednoviable
psychologyofactionandpassiontoadapt,soAugustineturnstoStoicaccounts.Therein
Augustinedescribestheheartasthetotalityofpresentself‐awarenessthatproduces
theintentiopreviouslyfoundunderlyinghumanactionandcontemplation.Theheart,as
whollypresent,mustbedistinguishedfromtwootherpsychictotalityconcepts:mens
andmemoria.Likewise,theheart(aswellasmensandmemoria)maylegitimatelybe
analysedintodifferentiatedactsofintellect,volitionandaffect.
Augustine’sappliedanthropologyatthisstagefocusesonproducingthepurityof
hearttowhichJesusadmonishes.HavinggraftedtheheartontohisearlierStoicising
notionofintentio,AugustineadaptsalittlemoreoftheStoicthought.Purityofheartin
actioncomesthroughaChristianadaptationoftheStoicspiritualexerciseofprosoch/.
TheStoics’exercisecenteredonretainingpreceptsinmindandreferringeveryaction
totheendoffulfillingprecept.PurityofheartfollowsfromretainingJesus’preceptsand
referringeveryactiontoapeculiarend.ButnowAugustineintegrateshisStoicising
28
exercisewithhisearlierPlatonizingontologicalbackdrop.Wereferallintentional
actionstoeternalratherthantemporalends.
ChapterFour
InchapterfourwefollowAugustineinhisexegesisofPaulandobservehissupremely
intricatereadingofStoicpsychologyofactionandpassionintermsofPaulandPaulin
termsoftheStoictheories.Therein,Augustinefindsahumanbody‐soulcomplexso
thoroughlyintegratedthatonlyatransformed,resurrectedbodycanfullyovercome
internaldivisionwithinthesoul.Inthepresent,thehumanbeinglaborsundera
disintegratedcapacityforassentanddissent.Twolaws,orsetsofnormative
propositionalcontent,andtwosimultaneousyetcontradictorycapacitiestoassentor
dissentstirwithinthehumanperson.Theselfhascracked.
Augustine’sshockingconclusionwhilereadingPaulisthatonlyanactofGodcan
renderonedirectionofassentanditspropositionalcontentstrongerthanitsinternal
opponentwithintheperson.Anewdoctrineofelection,ratherthananappliedprogram
foraskesis,emergesfromthisanthropologicalrealization.Onlythecongruentcallof
God,inkeepingwithwhollyunmeritedelection,canturnapersonandsethimonthe
pathtoblessedness.
29
ChapterFive
IntheConfessiones,soonafterhiselevationasbishop,Augustinepresentshisfirst
maturesynthesisofhisPaulinizingStoicpsychologyofactionandhis(originally)
Platonisingpenchantforcontemplation.ChapterfivefocusesonAugustine’sanalytic
depictionofthelowersoulastherootofhumanactionpresentedinConfessionesI.The
RomanStoics,respondingtoacomplexhistoryofinternaldebate,transcendentalized
theoldStoicdoctrineofoijkei/wsißandtherebyconceptualizedaunderlyingthreefold
commendatiotobodilypreservation,interpersonalassociationandknowledge.They,
likewise,reasserteditsoldStoictwindoctrineofdiastrofh/asperuersiointwoforms:
firsthanderrorinjudgmentrootedindeceitfulnessofappearancesandasocialechoing
ofverbalizedmisjudgments.
AugustineincorporatestheRomanStoicaccountofcommendatioandperuersio
withahandfulofcrucialalterations.Becausethecorruptionofsinprecedesindividual
experienceinthislife,notemporal‐developmentaldistinctionexistsbetween
commendatioandperuersioinAugustine’saccount.ConfessionesIdescribesthe
sequentialemergenceofathreefoldcommendatioalreadypervertedbysin.Thefirst
formofperuersioiscompletelysubsumedbythecorruptionofnatureinAugustine’s
thought.However,thesecondformofperuersiobysocialechoingisemployedto
describethesocialperversionperpetratedbylateRomanschools,theremnantsofthe
cursushonorum,hereticalreligiousteachingandthepretensionsofpaganphilosophy.
Thesepervertingfactorsarepresentedspecificallyasparodiesofanecclesiallybased
programofhumanformationintimatedallegoricallyinthehexaemeron.
30
ChapterSix
Augustine’scorrelativeaccountofcontemplationenvisionsadistinctiveformof
ecclesiallyindigenouscontemplationrisingfromscriptureandmarkedofffroma
presumptiveformofcontemplationinpaganphilosophy.Twokeydistinctionsenable
thisdifferentiationinmodesofcontemplation.First,thedirectionofepistemic
mediationdiffersinthetwoformsofcontemplation.Second,thetwodirections
correspondtodifferingsourcesofcapacityforcontemplation–pagansrisebythe
ingeniumoftheirlowersoul,Christiansbythepowerofgraceinfused.Augustine’s
conceptualsourceforthesedistinctionsisacreativeuseofRom.1:20foundconsistent
inhisinteractionswithpaganphilosophy.
OnAugustine’smatureaccount,twofeaturescharacterizepagancontemplation.
First,itproducesepistemiccertaintybutnotsalvation,becausesalvationrequiresin
additiontocertaintyatransformationintheimpulsestoaction.Second,pagan
Platonistssystematicallyignoreandevadetherootsofactionwithintheirsoul,yetthe
impulsetoactspecificallypreventstheircapacityforongoingcontemplationandkeeps
themfromafullersalvation.
Christiancontemplationdoesnotexistasanisolatedorstandalone
phenomenon.But,asonepolewithinthelargerecclesialprogramofhuman
transformation,contemplationcanbetheoretically(thoughnotpractically)isolated
throughamaneuverofconceptualprecision.
InConfessionesXIII,Augustine’spracticeasamystagoguecomestothesurface
andsituatesChristiancontemplationinitsappropriateplace.Thewholeprogramof
ecclesialformation,ormystagogy,comprisesarhythmicalterationbetweenirreducibly
activeandcontemplativetherapiesandisallegoricallyintimatedthroughareadingof
31
thehexaemeroninConfessionesXIII.TheliterarystructureofConfessionesIVIIconsists
ofsequentialparodiesofthehexaemeralprogram.Thehexaemeralliterarystructure
verifiesthatthePlatonistascentsofConfessionesVIIareintendedasparodiesnot
paradigmsofcontemplation.
Havingclearedtheinterpretivepathway,Christiancontemplationemergesasa
patterneddescenttothescripturesthatresultsinbeingliftedbyGod’sgracetoafull‐
souled(upperandlowersoul)focusonGod.Theveryaspectsofscripturedespisedby
thePlatonistsfunctiontotransformthewholehumanperson.Specifically,divine
agencyintimerevealsthepossibilityofmorallygooddownwardcausality,named
humblelove.Likewise,theverbalmanifestationofloveinhumblespeechproves
especiallyeffectivefortransformingtheotherwiseneglectedimpulsestoaction.
Thedescendingandrisingofcontemplationthroughscripturerevealsthe
followingpattern.First,onesubmitstoamultilayeredmediationofGodthroughthe
scripturesandofthescriptureswithallcreaturesthroughGod’sspirit.Second,affective
engagementdrawsthewholesoul(notjusttheintellectiveaspect)intointeractionwith
scriptureandGod.Third,ascendingdistinctionsensuecarryingthedevoted
practitionerthroughaprocessofdifferentiatingsensiblefromintelligible,temporal
dispensationsfromGod’sunderlyingeternalplan,andfinallytheinterplayofunityand
trinityinGodandself.Fourth,intheprocessofcontemplation,pastmemoriesascordial
distractionsaretemporarilyobliterated.Fifth,thisallowsacompletefocusonGodwith
theheartorthetotalityofpresentawareness.Asdistinguishedfromthepartial
engagementofintellectualvision,Augustinedescribesthistotalfocusofawareness
(intellective,desiderative,affectivetogether)intermsofthehearttouching.Inthe
processofthistotalengagementofthesoulwithGod,theperversemediatorydirection
32
ofRom.1:20isreversed.God’sspiritnowmediatesinteractionwithcreatures.The
Christiantransformationofcontemplationandactionfindfruitioninadoxological
orientationofthegrace‐integratedself.
33
PartI
TheCircularSoul,SalvificContemplationandtheDefectofAction
34
Chapter1
TheCircularSoulinContemplation:
TheCassiciacumProjectandAugustine’sEarlyAnthropology
BiographicalBridge
InSeptember386,anerstwhileprofessorofrhetoricwithdrew,withasmallgroupof
friends,familyandstudentsinattendance,toasmallvillacalledCassiciacumnortheast
ofMilan.Augustinewassufferingfromachroniclungailmentand,ostensibly,this
conditionhadforcedhisretirementfromthechairofrhetoricinMilan.
Beneaththesurface,however,spiritualaspirationsandphilosophical
perplexitiesdrovehimon.Hismindstillswirledwiththeinchoateinsightsgained
throughanencounterwith“quosdamPlatonicorumlibros(conf.VII.9.13)”42andthe
introvertingascentthosetextssetinmotion.Ofcourse,whatexactlyAugustine
understoodfromhisfirstreadingsinPlatonistphilosophyremainsatopicoffruitful
discussiontoday.43ButafocusuponthewritingsproducedduringhisCassiciacumstay,
42Ofcourse,inbeatau.4justafewmonthsaftertheevent,Augustinenamesthesetextsas“Plotinipaucissimislibris”(readingCCSLtexteditedbyW.M.GreenwhoconcurswiththetextcriticaljudgmentsofHenry,Paul.1934.Plotinetl'occident.FirmicusMaternus,MariusVictorinus,SaintAugustinetMacrobe.SpicilegiumsacrumLovaniense,fasc.15.Louvain:"SpicilegiumSacrumLovaniense"Bureaux.pp.79‐89againstthemajorityreadingof“Platonispaucissimislibris”).Underthemetaphorofapreciousointment,AugustineagainemphasizesthepaucityofhisPlotinianreadinginAcad.II.2.5:“pretiosissimiunguentiguttaepaucissimae.”43ForthethesisthattheConfessionesareamotivatedredressingofAugustine’strueconversiontoNeo‐PlatonismratherthanChristianity,seeHarnack,Adolfvon.1903.AugustinsKonfessionen:einVortrag.Giessen:Riecker.(EnglishtranslationavailableasHarnack,Adolfvon.1913.Monasticism:ItsIdealsandHistory;and,TheConfessionsofSt.
35
justmonthsfollowingthisencounter,showsaratherclumsyandsporadicuseofNeo‐
Platonistconceptsincomparisonwithhismorerefinedandself‐consciousadaptations
oflateryears.AlthoughhehasthoroughlyinternalizedafewkeyconceptsfromPlotinus
andPorphory,Augustine’sphilosophicalmethodinhisearlyperiodcanonlybe
Augustine.CrownTheologicalLibrary,v.28.London:Williams&Norgate.,cf.pp.138‐141).DevelopingasimilarthesisinHarnack’swake,see,Becker,Hans.1908.AugustinStudienzuseinergeistigenEntwicklung.Leipzig:J.C.Hinrich.;andThimme,Wilhelm.1908.AugustinsgeistigeEntwicklungindenerstenJahrennachseiner"Bekehrung",386391.Berlin.Themosthyperbolicexampleofthisthesis,andconsequentlytheonemostoftennoted,istheworkofAlfaric,Prosper,andAugustine.1918.L'evolutionintellectuelledeSaintAugustin:[Vol.]1,DuManicheismeauNeoplatonisme.
ThemostcelebratedearlyrebuttaltoAlfaricisBoyer,Charles.1920.ChristianismeetnéoplatonismedanslaformationdesaintAugustin,parCharlesBoyer.Paris:G.Beauchesne.
However,itwasCourcelle,PierrePaul.1950.RecherchessurlesConfessionsdesaintAugustin.Paris:E.deBoccard.,ch.3&4,whounearthed,largelythroughastudyofAmbrose’sextantsermons,aMilansaturatedwithanexplicitlyChristianNeo‐Platonismandthushighlightedtheanachronisticstateofthequestion.AugustinecouldnothaveconceptualizedanoppositionbetweenPlatonistphilosophyperseandChristianity.Withonlyslighthyperbole,onemightsaythatinMilan,theCatholicChurchwastheinstitutionalhomeofNeo‐Platonicphilosophy.
CorroboratingstudiessoonfollowedinthewakeofCourcelle,cf.Solignac,Aimé.1955.“Nouveauxparalle \lesentresaintAmbroiseetPlotin”Archivesdephilosophie19,pp.148‐156.OnefoundfurtherrelianceofAmbroseonPlato’sPhaedoandPhaedrus,cf.Hadot,Pierre.1956.“PlatonetPlotindanstroissermonsdesaintAmbroise”Revuedesétudeslatines34,pp.202‐220.
Morerecently,acontingentofscholarshasreturnedtoconf.VIIwiththemoreelementalquestionofgenre.Forexample,O'Connell,RobertJ.1996.ImagesofconversioninSt.Augustine'sConfessions.NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress.,ch.2andCary,Phillip.2000.Augustine'sinventionoftheinnerself:thelegacyofaChristianPlatonist.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.,ch.3arguethatreadingconf.VIIasnarrative,andthusappropriatelycritiquedintermsofahistoricalcriterionofchronologicalaccuracy,issimplyaconfusionofgenre.Therearenonarrativedetailsinthisbook,onlyareportontheconceptualmeaningof“certaintextsofthePlatonists.”TheonlyhistoricalclaimperseisthatthesebookscausedAugustinetoturninwardandthat,uponlookingupfromwithin,hesawtheintelligiblelightwhoisGod.Therestofconf.VIIisanexposition,fromtheviewpointofBishopAugustine’sdeeperlearning,ofthemeaninginherentinthosetexts.Truth,notthechronologyofaconvert’scogitations,isAugustine’saim.Forlearned,andchastened,reassertionoftheplausibilityofhistoricalaccuracy,cf.Kenney,JohnPeter.2005.ThemysticismofSaintAugustine:rereadingTheconfessions.NewYork:Routledge.
36
describedaseclecticandinconsistent.44GiventhefactthatAugustine’sfirstencounter
withphilosophyisthroughCicero’smediation,eclecticismwouldseempredictable.45
Indeed,whatwefindinhisearliestwritingsisanexperimentalapproachashetrieson
newideasandwalksamileorsointhem.46
WhileAugustine’seclecticismismarkedbyretentionofsignificantdimensionsof
otherphilosophicaldoctrines47,scholarshiphastendedtoaffirmtheobvious.
Augustine’sprimaryphilosophicaldebtinthisperiodistoNeo‐Platonism.48Butthe
questionremains,whatexactlydidAugustineinternalizethroughhisfirstreadingofthe
libriPlatonicorum?44AccordingtoO’Connell,R.J.1970.“DeLiberoArbitrioIRevisited”AugustinianStudies1:4968,AugustineexperimentswithandthenabandonsaStoicapproachtoethicaldescriptionrootedinadogmatically‘deontological’accountofvirtue.Ofcourse,theanachronismofdescribingStoicethicsas‘deontological’ismanifest.ButtheStoicinfluencesonAugustine’sethicsactuallycomeinalaterperiodandatadeeperlevelthanO’Connellsupposes.Cf.vanGeest,Paul.2004.“StoicAgainstHisWill?:AugustineontheGoodLifeinDebeatavitaandthePraeceptum”pp.533‐550inMélangesoffertsàT.J.vanBavelàl'occasiondeson80eanniversaire,LeuvenforanaccountofthepurduringresidueofStoicstrainsinAugustine’sethicalthought.Also,cf.theanalysisofferedinchapters3‐5below.45Cf.Frank,Tenney.1932.“Cicero”ProceedingsoftheBritishAcademy.London:OxfordPress,esp.pp.126‐127;Michel,Alain.1965.“LaphilosophiedeCicéronavant54,”Revuedesetudesanciennes,67:32441;Merlan,Philip.1967.“GreekPhilosophyfromPlatotoPlotinus,”inArmstrong,A.H.1967.TheCambridgehistoryoflaterGreekandearlymedievalphilosophy.London:CambridgeU.P.,pp.53‐56.46LateinlifeAugustinewillspeakofhimselfasonewholearnedbywriting(trin.III.prol.1).47NotableamongtheseretentionsisAugustine’sincorporationanddevelopmentofStoiccognitivistaccountsoftheemotions.SeeByers,SarahC.2002.Augustine’sTheoryoftheAffections.Ph.D.dissertation,UniversityofToronto.Cf.alsoSorabji,Richard.2000.EmotionandPeaceofMind:FromStoicAgitationtoChristianTemptation.Oxford.pp.372‐384,foracompetingaccountemphasizingAugustine’sdebttopriorChristianreformulationsofthepropatheiaiaslogismoi.FormoreextensiveincorporationofStoicelementsinhispsychologyofactionanddoctrineofthecongruentcall,cf.chaptersthreeandfourbelow.48E.g.,uerarel.7,itasihancuitamilliuirinobiscumrursusagerepotuissent,uiderentprofecto,cuiusauctoritatefaciliusconsulereturhominibus,etpaucismutatisuerbisatquesententiischristianifierent,sicutpleriquerecentiorumnostrorumquetemporumPlatonicifecerunt.
37
ByAugustine’sownanalysisinConf.V.10.19,hisunderlyingprobleminturning
toGodwashisincapacitytothinkofnon‐bodilysubstance.49Consequently,young
Augustine’sthoughtwasboundbyphantasmsofararified,bodilysubstancespreadout
throughoutthecosmosandbeyond.50Withoutaclearconceptionofimmaterial
existence,AugustinewaspowerlesstoconceiveGod’smodeofpresencetohimselfand
thebroadercreation.51
IntheworkofPlotinusandPorphory,Augustineencounteredaconceptionof
substantialimmaterialitydrivenbytheneedtoarticulateanotionoftheintegral
omnipresenceoftheintelligibletothesensibleworldthroughitsparticipationtherein
(Enn.IV.2;VI.45;VI.9).Indeed,thecapacitytobefullypresenteverywhere(totus
ubique)isadistinctivecharacteristicofthingsintelligible(ep.4.2).52Bodilyentities,in
contrast,canonlybepresentbyspatialextensionandproximity.Thusbodiesalways
aregreaterinthewholethanineachpart(imm.an.25).53FromAmbroseandhiscircle,
49Cf.conf.V.25,quodsipossemspiritalemsubstantiamcogitare,statimmachinamentaillaomniasoluerenturetabicerenturexanimomeo:sednonpoteram.50NotethesimilaritytotheStoicaccountofuniversallogos.Augustine,however,explicitlyrejectsthepantheisticimplicationsandseeksinvaintoattachatranscendentdimensiontohisformulation.51SeeBrown,PeterRobertLamont.1967.AugustineofHippo;ABiography.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress,pp.79‐100,foracompellingaccountofthesignificancethisdiscoveryheldforAugustine.Ofcourse,theNorthAfricanchurchhadnotyetfoundeitherneedorresourcesforthinkingofGodinnon‐materialistterms.TheespeciallystartlingfigureinthisregardisTertullianwhoarguedmoreStoicorumthatGodmustbeabodytoexist(adu.Prax.7;carn.Chr.9).SuchapatrimonyleftAugustinedefenselessagainsttheManichees.52Augustine’searliestusageofthisphrasecomesinmor.I.19,soonafterhiscatechism.However,theNeo‐Platonicconceptisalreadyoperative,withthecatchphraseinep.4.2.Notealsowithinadecade,Simpl.2.6;conf.I.3;VI.4.Forverylateusage,cf.ciu.I.29;VII.30;XVI.5;trin.XIV.21.53Cf.Augustine’slaterdescriptionforJeromeofwhathemeansby“corpus”inEp.166.4andnotethecontinuitywithearlieraccountssuchasquant.an.4.6,c.ep.Man.16.20,etc…Foranattempttomakethesedescriptionsofcorporealityaccessibletocontemporarythought,seechapteroneofHölscher,Ludger.1986.TheRealityofthe
38
Augustinehasnowlearnedtoexcludeallcharacteristicsofcorporealitywhenthinking
ofGodandthesoul(animaduertienimetsaepeinsacerdotisnostrietaliquandoin
sermonibustuis,cumdedeocogitaretur,nihilomninocorporisessecogitandum,neque
cumdeanima,beatau.4).Asintelligiblebeing,therefore,Godiseverywhere(ubique
deusest,ord.II.10)
ThisdistinctionprovidesanewopticforAugustine(ord.I.32).Atthispointhe
conceivesofabinaryuniverse–a“twoworlds”theory54,ifyouwill–andbeginsto
interprettheworldaccordingtohisfundamentaldistinctionbetweenthingssensible
andintelligible(Acad.I.22;ord.I.32;II.27;sol.I.8;II.6;ep.3.23;ep.4.1;imm.an.10;lib.
arb.II.12;cf.alsoep.13.24innextperiod).
WhileatCassiciacum,Augustinecontinueshisconversationwithaclosefriend
namedNebridiusbymeansofepistles(ep.314).55ItwasduetoNebridius’generosity
inhelpingthegrammarianVerecundussustainhisteachingload,thatAugustineandhis
entourageweregrantedtheuseofVerecundus’villaatCassiciacumthatautumnin386
(conf.VIII.6.13;IX.3.56).SoAugustineattemptedtokeepNebridiusabreastofhis
discoveriesandinsightsinNebridius’absence.56
Mind:Augustine'sPhilosophicalArgumentsfortheHumanSoulasaSpiritualSubstance.StudiesinPhenomenologicalandClassicalRealism.London:Routledge&KeganPaul.54Cf.ord.I.11.32,“esseautemaliummundumabistisoculisremotissimum,quempaucorumsanorumintellectusintuetur…”Later,inretr.I.3.2,AugustinemakesclearthathisaffirmationoftwoworldsisrootedinaPlatonizingreadingstrategyofthetime.Cf.alsoAcad.III.19.42.55ForasummaryreconstructionofoursourcesandknowledgeofNebridiussee,Gavigan,JohnJ.1946.“St.Augustine’sFriendNebridius”CatholicHistoricalReview31.pp.47‐58.CatholicUniversityofAmerica:Washington;alsoFitzgerald,AllanD.1999.“Nebridius”inFitzgerald,Allan,andJohnC.Cavadini.1999.AugustineThroughtheAges:AnEncyclopedia.GrandRapids,Mich:W.B.Eerdmans.pp.587‐588.56ForananalysisoftheconsequentcorrespondenceseeFolliet,Georges.1987.“LacorrespondanceentreAugustinetNébridius”inL'operaletterariadiAgostinotra
39
Atthebeginningofthiscorrespondence,AugustinesummarizesforNebridius
theskeletaloutlinesofhisnewlyacquiredvisionoftwoworldsandthetrajectory,asit
were,tojourneyfromthisrealmoffalseimagestothetrueworldofintelligibility(ep.
3.34).Augustine’saffectionatelabelforthistrainofthoughtisillaratiuncula(ep.3.3;
4.2)andheconsidersitsimporttolieprimarilyinastrikingcontrastandtrans‐
valuationofvisionasintelligibilityinjuxtapositiontovisionasamodeofsense
perception(mentematqueintellegentiamoculisethocuulgariaspectuessemeliorem.,
ep.4.2).Thesameconceptualoutlineisdiscernablebeneaththesurfaceofseveral
Augustinianworksofthisperiod(esp.mus.VI.2ff).57
Afewfeaturesareworthdrawingtothesurfacehere.Theargumentalways
beginsbyestablishingthedistinctionbetweenbodyandsoul,whetherthatdistinction
isconstruedascontrastingorparallelinnature(ep.3.4;beatau.79;imm.an.1017;an.
quant.2).Augustinethenleadshisinterlocutorintoaninquiryconcerningthegoodof
thelesserthing,namelybody(quidlaudaturincorpore?,ep.3.4;cf.alsomus.VI.6).
Havingreceivedaninitialanswer(nihilaliuduideo
quampulchritudinem,ep.3.4;cf.alsoimm.an.13),Augustineseekstoanalyzethe
constituentsofthegoodnamed(quidestcorporispulchritudo?,ep.3.4).Theconstituents
ofgoodnessinthebodilyrealmarealwaysreducible,forAugustine,tonumber
attemptingunityinform.Thusheestablisheshisvisionofthesensibleworldasmere
CassiciacumeMilano.AgostinonelleterrediAmbrogio.pp.191‐215.Palermo:EdizioniAugustinus.57Indeed,risingfromthingssensibletothingsintelligiblemarksthediscursivetrajectoryofAugustine’splannedworksontheliberalarts,outlinedinord.II.12.3519.51,ofwhichmus.providesthesoleextantexampleofabasicallycompletework(retr.I.3.1).
40
copyofadeeperrealityofintelligibleforms,whichareconfigurationsofintelligible
number(certesensibilismundusnesciocuiusintellegibilisimagoessedicitur,ep.3.3).
Atthispoint,Augustineswingshisinterlocutor’sattention,asifonahinge,
towardnon‐bodily,intelligiblesubstance.Where,heasks,isformornumberbetter,
whereitistrueorwhereitisfalse?(ubiueramelior,anubifalsa?,ep.3.4;cf.alsoord.
II.42;mus.VI.2).Bylocalizingthetruthquestion,withinacontextcontrolledbya
cosmologicalmetaphoricsofexemplarandimitator,Augustineforcesawedgebetween
bodily,senserealitiesandintelligible,non‐bodilyrealities(ep.3.4;ord.II.42).Thatvery
wedgeincitesalongingtoescapefromthisillusionaryworldandattainavisionof
thingsintelligible.
Indeed,thedisjunctionisintentional.Atthispoint,Augustineconsidersthe
worldofbodiesandtheworldofintelligiblenumbertostandinarelationofcontrariety
(ep.3.2;ord.II.42).Theseworldsinverselymirroreachother.Sensiblebodiesare
infinitelydivisible,butcannotbeincreasedinfinitely(ep.3.2;cf.alsothesecondhalfof
imm.an.12).58Likewise,intelligiblenumbersarecapableofinfiniteincrease,butcannot
beinfinitelydividedbecausetheMonadisindivisible(ep.3.2).Regardlessofthe
58ThisdescriptionbearsmoreresemblancetoMiddlePlatonicthoughtasmediatedbyCicerothanitdoestotoPlotinus(esp.inEnn.I.8).InAcad.I.,CiceroputsAntiochus’double‐archaiphysicsintothemouthofVarro.Thefirstarcheistheactiveprincipleofform.Thesecondarche,materia,ispassiveandcomeswiththisdescription:sedsubiectamputantomnibussineullaspecieatquecarentemomniillaqualitate…materiamquondam,equaomniaexpressaatqueeffictasint,quaeunaomniaacciperepositomnibusquemodismutariatqueexomniparte,atqueetiaminterire,noninnihilumsedinsuaspartes,quaeinfinitesecariacdividipossint,cumsitnihilomninoinrerumnaturaminimumquoddividinequeat…(Acad.I.27).Ofcourse,Enn.II.4.7,2027alsodescribestheutterdivisibilityandcontinuityofu¢lhasentailingarejectionofanyatomictheoryofsubstrates.ButPlotinusneversuggestsalimittomaterialincrease,indeedsizeandquantityisafeatureofformnotmatteronhisanalysis(Enn.II.8.1519).Mattermustbewhollyindefinitetofunctionasasubstrateandthisprivationofeveryqualityalsomakesittherootofevil(Enn.II.1316).
41
subterfugeemployedindesiringsensiblethings,allloveisultimatelyincitedbythe
Monad.59Nootherdesideratumexists(ergoetindiscernendoetinconectendounumuolo
etunumamo,sedcumdiscerno,purgatum,cumconecto,integrumuolo,ord.II.48).60
Whenoneaskswherethisworldofexemplarynumber,formandunityis
accessed,theothersideoftheoriginaldistinctionemerges.Onlyinthesoul,andmore
specificallywithinthesoul’smindandintelligence,doesoneencounterthenon‐bodily
exemplars(ep.3.4).Therealoneisformtrue(sedinquaparteanimiestistaueritas?in
menteatqueintellegentia.,ep.3.4).61
59Cf.alsoconf.IV.24,this,theonlyothermentionoftheMonad(andDyad)inAugustinesoeuvre,occursinhisaccountofalostpieceofjuvenilia,depulchroetapto.Ofcourse,theMonadandDyadasco‐evalontologicalfirst‐priniciplesharkenstoancientaccountsofbothPythagorean(cf.,Porphyry’svitaPyth.38)andPlatonistorigin(onAristotle’stestimony,cf.Meta.I.VI.).TheinterminglingofNeo‐PythagorianandPlatonistthoughtamongtheMiddlePlatonistshasbeenwellstudied,Merlan,P.1967,“TheOldAcademy,”“TheLaterAcademyandPlatonism,”and“ThePythagoreans”inArmstrong,A.H.1967.TheCambridgeHistoryofLaterGreekandEarlyMedievalPhilosophy.London:CambridgeU.P,pp.14‐38,53‐106;Dillon,JohnM.1977.TheMiddlePlatonists:AStudyofPlatonism,80B.C.toA.D.220.London:Duckworth,pp.3ff;Kenney,JohnPeter.1991.MysticalMonotheism:AStudyinAncientPlatonicTheology.Providence,R.I.:BrownUniversityPress,pp.32‐43.
O’ConnelladmitsinpassingthatAugustine’speculiarnumbertheoryatthisstageisNon‐Plotinian,cf.O’Connell,RobertJ.1968.St.Augustine’sEarlyTheoryofMan.BelknapHarvard:Cambridge,p.191.TheparticularPlatonistmostlikelyinspiringAugustineinpursuingthisthemeisVarro,cf.O’Donnell’sexcursusontheliberalesdisciplinaeinAugustine,andJamesJosephO'Donnell.1992.Confessions.Oxford:ClarendonPress,v.2,pp.269‐278.60NoteAugustine’slatereffortsinmus.VI.13tosynthesizethisbasicallyPlotinianaccountofbeautyasunity(cf.Enn.VI.7.32)withtheCiceroniannotionofbeautyassymmetryoftheparts(Tusc.IV.33).61ThisdistinctionbetweenahigherandloweraspectofsoulsurelyimpliessomePlotinianorPorphyrianinfluence.However,onesearchesinvainforasettledsenseinAugustine’searlyworksthatthehighersoulitselfconstitutestheontologicalhookbywhichonemightascendthroughidentifyingwiththehighersoulinsteadofthelowersoul.Rathertheintelligiblecontentofthesoul,asacquiredorperhapsrememberedthroughliberaldisciplines,constitutestheprimaryclaimtoeternalexistence(sol.II.24;imm.an.7;ep.7.2).SinceGodisTruth,thesametruthinternalizedorawakenedthroughdialectic,contemplativeknowledgeoftheeternalproducesimmortalityofsoul(beatau.34;sol.II.24;imm.an.7).SoAugustine’searlyascetictheorywillemphasizethe
42
Atthispoint,onecanturnbackandgazefromanewvistauponthesensible
scaffoldingascendedtoreachthisintelligiblereality.Nowthescaffoldingisnolonger
helpful(…inmenteatqueintellegentia.quidhuicaduersatur?sensus.,ep.3.4).Rather,it
castsitsmarringpresenceoverthefaceofintelligiblebeauty.Indeed,sensation
constitutesatemptationtoactionthatmustberesisted(resistendumergosensibustotis
animiuiribusliquet.,ep.3.4).Consequently,thetwofoldtaskofAugustine’sascetic
programatCassiciacumemergesasthenaturalextensionofhisworld‐picture.Thesoul
mustfirstwithdrawfromsensationandtheopinionrootedtherein.Thenthesoulmust
learntore‐engageintelligiblerealityandfindherdelightwithinit(quidsisensibilia
nimiumdelectant?fiat,utnondelectent.undefit?consuetudinehiscarendiappetendique
meliora.,ep.3.4).HereinisthebasisforAugustine’searlyasceticprogram.
EarlyAnthropologicalFormulations
Beforeweconsiderhisasceticprogram,however,weneedtoobservehowthis
cosmologicaldualismisreflectedinhisearliestanthropologicalformulations.Through
outtheCassiciacumperiod,Augustineviewsthebodyprimarilyasahindrancetothe
soul’sdiscoveryofthingsintelligible,especiallyGodandthesoul(sol.I.24;Acad.I.3;I.9;
an.quant.76).Thebodyisacageorcavewithinwhichthesoulexperiencestravail(sol.
acquisitionofeternaltruththroughcontemplationasthefruitionofimmortalityinthesoul.Whensearchingforanontologicalguarantorofthesoul’spersistentbeingdespitedescentintofoolishness,Augustineturnstoastrategyofsecuringthelowestlevelofrationalsoul.Cf.discussionbelow.
ForsecondarydiscussionsofthisratheroddtrainofthoughtseeZumBrunn,Emilie.1988.St.Augustine:BeingandNothingness.NewYork:ParagonHouse.OriginallypublishedasZumBrunn,Emilie.1969.LeDilemmedel'êtreetdunéantchezsaintAugustin,despremiersdialoguesaux"Confessions.”Paris(8e):Étudesaugustiniennes,8,rueFrançoisIer.;andCary,Phillip.2000.Augustine'sInventionoftheInnerSelf:TheLegacyofaChristianPlatonist.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.95‐104
43
I.24).Thesoulexperiencesthebodyasadarkprison(Acad.I.9)holdingherbackfrom
theheavenswhencesheisderived(sol.1.24;Acad.I.9).Philosophyteachesherto
despisethingsvisibleandtouchablewiththesenses(Acad.I.3).Herobjectiveisto
escapefromthebodyandtheworldofsenseexperiencetowhichittiesher(an.quant.
76)andtoreturntohercelestialhome.Oftenthisthemeisreadasindicativeofyoung
Augustine’s“conversion”toNeo‐Platonism,butthenotionofreturningtotheheavens
closedCicero’sHortensiusanddoesnotrequirerecoursetoPlotinianinfluence.62
TheFalloftheSoul
WhatdoesseemtobePlotinianisAugustine’scorollarynotioninthisperiodofthenon‐
corporealsoul’sfallintothebody.InhisexultantliberationfromManichean
materialism,Augustinedefinesthehumanbeingasprimarilyanon‐corporealsoulusing
abody(an.quant.61).Sincethesoul’soriginiselsewhereandother,hefeels
constrainedtosurmisesomethingconcerninghermodeofentryintothebody.Of
course,thesoul’soriginwasatopicofspeculationinmanycircles,bothpaganand
Christian,ofAugustine’sday.Onlywiththeemergenceofaclearconceptionofnon‐
corporealsouldoesheroriginbecomeapressingquestion.Augustine’sCassiciacum
worksarepepperedwithimagesofpre‐existentsoulfallingintothebody(cf.beatau.2;
ord.II.31;Acad.II.22;ep.7.23).63
62Augustinequotesthepassageintrin.XIV.26.cf.Teselle,Eugene.1970.AugustinetheTheologian.London:Burns&Oates.p.69.63ForaclosereadingoftextscontainingthisnotioninAugustine’searlyworks,seeO’Connell,RobertJ.1968.St.Augustine’sEarlyTheoryofMan.Cambridge:BelknapHarvard,esp.ch.4.ManyworksassumeandbuilduponO’Connell’swritings,themostnotableisCary,Phillip.2000.Augustine'sInventionoftheInnerSelf:TheLegacyofa
44
CircularityoftheDivineSoul
TheconceptualbackdroptothefallinPlotinusisanotionofsoulasinherentlydivine.
Priortohiscatechism,Augustineassumes,oratleastentertainstheideaof,thedivinity
ofthesoul.64Ofcourse,divinityisreadintheweakerancientsenseofimmortality
rootedinastructuralinviolability.65Whenthesoulinquiresafterherownnature,she
hastowonderifhernatureisnotsomedivinenumberthatservesastheconditionfor
thepossibilityofcorporealnumerosity(ord.II.43).
Duringthisperiod,Augustinetendstodescribesoulonlyincontrasttothebody
belowherwithoutmakingexplicitcontrastsbetweenthesoulandGod.Thesoul’s
relationtothebodyisbestimaginedingeometricterms.Soulisakintothenon‐
corporealsignumorpunctumthatgovernscorporealcirclesandspheres(an.quant.18
21).Andthatcircularcenterpointalsofunctionstorelatesoultothebody’smotion.Just
asapivotorhingeremainsunmovedinthemotionofadoor,andajointremainsstable
whilethelimbtravelsroundit,sothesoulfunctionsastheunmovedmoverofthebodyChristianPlatonist.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Ofcourse,criticsalsoaboundthemostnotablebeingGoulven,Madec.1978.“TheNotionofPhilosophicalAugustinianism:AnAttemptatClarification”Medievalia4,pp.125‐146,andO’Daly,Gerard.1987.Augustine’sPhilosophyofMind.Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia.Forararelydifferentiatedaccountofvariousaspectsofmeaningthe“fallensoul”thesistookatdifferentperiodsinAugustine’swork,seeRombs,RonnieJ.2006.SaintAugustine&theFalloftheSoul:BeyondO'Connell&hisCritics.Washington,D.C.:CatholicUniversityofAmericaPress.64However,Augustine’soneattempttoactuallyexplicateanargumentfortheimmortalityofthesoul(sol.andimm.an.),byfollowingPlotinus’account,showshowclumsyandunreliablehisunderstandingofthisdoctrinereallyisatthisstage.Cf.discussionbelow.65Courcelle,Pierre.1950.RecherchessurlesConfessionsdeSaintAugustin.Paris:deBoccard,pp.202‐210;O’Meara,J.J.1951.“Augustine’sViewofAuthorityandReasoninAD386”IrishTheologicalQuarterly18,pp.338‐346;O’Connell,RobertJ.1968.St.Augustine’sEarlyTheoryofMan.Cambridge:BelknapHarvard,esp.ch.4.;Cary,Phillip.1994.“GodintheSoul,ortheResidueofAugustine’sManicheanOptimism”inUniversityofDaytonReview22:3,pp.69‐82,andCary,Phillip.2000.Augustine'sInventionoftheInnerSelf:TheLegacyofaChristianPlatonist.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
45
(an.quant.23).Othercumbersomeyettraditionalmetaphorsforgovernancearealso
employedinpassing–therider’scontrolofthehorse(ord.II.18)66andacraftsperson
bestowingformonbody(imm.an.24).Buttheprimaryimpulseistofindsomeanalogy
foranincorporealandstructurallyinviolableprincipleexercisinggovernanceovera
bodilyentity.67Andforthatpurposethegeometricmetaphorworksbest.Thecircular
soulisconstitutivelyhigherthanthefragmentationsofbody.68Shecannotbedivided
spatiallyandthusisnotsubjecttodeteriorationanddeath.
EarlyAmbiguitiesconcerningTime
Augustinealsoexhibitsamarkedhesitancytoattributetemporalitytothesoulatthis
stageinhisreflections.Sincetemporalmutabilityturnsouttobethedistinguishing
markofsoulinAugustine’smaturethought,hishesitancyinthisperiodtoattribute
temporalitytosoulsurelybespeaksaquitedifferentunderlyingontology.69When
pressedbyEvodius,Augustineseemsunabletoaddresstheessentiallytemporalnature
ofsoul(an.quant.28).Evenwhenheisforcedtoacknowledgesomedegreeof
mutabilityasimplicitinthesoul’sgrowthinthepowersofspeechandreason,
Augustinepreferstodistancethatgrowthfromnotionsoftemporality(an.quant.28
66Ofcourse,Platoinitiatedthisimageinslightlymorecomplexformwhenhedescribethetripartitesoulasconsistingofacharioteer(reason)drivingtwohorses,thedark,ill‐behavedhorseoftheappetitesandalight,gentlehorsesignifyingthespiritedpartofthesoul(Phaedr.246a248e;253c256d).67FortheindivisibilityofsoulinPlotinus,cf.e.g.Enn.IV.4.18.68ThemeritsofcircularityarealsoevidentinhowAugustineemploystheStoicfigureofthecircularityofvirtue(an.quant26).Augustine’susageofthislocusincorporatesanallusiontoHorace(sat.II.7.86).However,hecertainlywouldhavebeenfamiliarwithoccurrencesinCicero(Denat.deor.2.10.45ff)andSeneca(ep.74.27).69Cf.discussionofthesoul’stemporalmutabilityinchapter2below.
46
30).TimeandbodyaretoocloselyintertwinedforAugustinetonamesoulastemporal
atthisstage(imm.an.3).
Congruentwithhisvisionofthestructurallyinviolablesoulgoverningthebody,
Augustinefounditeasytoaffirmthesoul’smoralself‐sufficiency(AcadI.3;I.11;ord.
II.67;II.8).Theclassic,StoicimageofthesageemergesatCassiciacum–imperviousto
passionandmorallyself‐establishedbeyondfate’sfickledesigns.70Thegoodsoffortune
shouldberejectedandtheworldofbodiesandsensationheldincontempt(Acad.I.3).
Throughafullextirpationofthepassions(ord.II.8;Acad.I.11),thesagecanachieve
continuousvisionofGodevennow(ord.II.67).71
Whenonebeginstoconsiderthemethodofmoralgrowth,however,certain
tensionsandinconsistenciesemergeinAugustine’searlythought.Augustine’searliest
writingsintimateaprogramforhealingofthesoulthroughspiritualnutrition.The
soul’sfoodisintellectionofthingsandknowledge(beatau.8)andthesicksoulis
discernedbyitslackofappetiteandinabilitytodigestthisfood(beatau.9).Butdoesan
inviolable,intrinsicallyimmortalsoulstandinneedofnutrition?Furtherproblems
emerge.Areeducationandwisecompanytobedespisedbecausetheyaregoodsof
fortune(ep.3.5)?And,ifcontinuousintellectualvisionofGodispossiblenow,wouldthe
Sagehaveanyuseformemory(ord.II.7)?
Indeed,aperceptivereaderisforcedtoaskhowgloballyAugustinetakeshis
ownaffirmationsofstructuralinviolabilityandimmortality.Arethesequalitiesreally
intrinsictothesoulperse?Or,perhaps,theseaffirmationsshouldbeseenaslimitedto
70Ofcourse,whenAugustineagainvisitsStoicanthropologyandethics,hisinteractionsaremuchmorenuancedandcriticalinhisincorporations.Cf.chapters3‐5below.71Cf.O’Connell,R.J.,1970.“DeLiberoArbitrioI:StoicismRevisited”inAugustinianStudies1:4968.
47
unidirectionalcomparisonsbetweensoulandbodyusefulforspecificrhetorical
circumstances.Whenthoughtofincontrasttothebody,thesoulisdescribedasoneand
inviolable.Butdoesthedescriptioncarryoverintootherdiscursivecontexts?These
questionsareneverexplicitlyansweredinthisperiod,inlargemeasurebecause
Augustine’sthoughtconcerningthesoulisstillinchoate,evenconflicted.
TheearliestworksofAugustineembodyacertaincontradiction.Thepublicvoice
ofAugustinetendstowardsanalmostblusteryoptimismconcerningtheincorporeal
substanceandimmortalityofthesoul.Butthecompositionssetinsolitudebetraymuch
handwringingoverthepossibilityofprovingorattainingtoimmortality(e.g.,sol.;imm.
an.).
MuddledPlotinianismandtheBivalenceoftheSoul’sBeing
Augustine’sprojectedfinaletohisintrospectingconversationwithreasonthatbeganin
Soliloquiaexistsonlyintheformoflaconicepitomesofpartiallyplannedarguments
published,againstAugustine’swishes,asDeimmortalitateanimae(imm.an.).Inthis
tersecollectionofnotes,Augustineisclearlynotathisbest.72Presumably,theimm.an.
wouldhavematchedtherhetoricalbeautyofthesol.,hadAugustinebeenleftwiththe
timenecessarytoclarifyhisthoughtandworkitintoasimilarliteraryform.
Nonetheless,aswefindit,thetextoftheimm.an.appearsasasomewhatconfused
expositionofPlotinus’positiveargumentinEnneadIV.7.914.73
72Ofcourse,thebookwaspiratedandcirculatedinunfinishedform.ButevenAugustine,inlateryears,notesthebewilderingmixtureofconceptsatplayinhisownway,…quiprimoratiocinationumcontortioneatquebreuitatesicobscurusest,utfatigetcumlegituretiamintentionemmeam,uixqueintellegaturameipso.,retr.I.5.173SoO'Connell,RobertJ.1968.St.Augustine'sEarlyTheoryofMan,A.D.386391.Cambridge,Mass:BelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress.,pp.135‐145,however,as
48
ThecentralclaimofPlotinus,whichAugustinewouldverymuchliketo
recapitulate,isthis:Thesoulisnecessarilyeverlastingbecauseitpossesseseverlasting
knowledge(Enn.IV.7.12,812;imm.an.1).74Augustinewouldliketodevelopthis
argument,buthecannot.ForAugustinelacksthenuancedunderstandingofhow
Plotinus’ontologyandepistemologyintersectbywhichhecouldextendtheargument.
Augustine’smisunderstandingisimplicitinhisopeningwords‐sialicubiest
disciplina–andimmediatelybecomesmanifestthroughhisoddutilizationofapremise
ofStoicmaterialistontologytakenoverbytheMiddlePlatonist,AntiochusofAscalon
(imm.an.1).75Soafteropeningwithhiskeyargumentinnuce,Augustineintroducesthe
StoiccumMiddlePlatonistpremisethatforsomethingtoexistitmustbesomewhere–
locatedinsomeplace(estautemalicubidisciplina;namestetquicquidest,nusquamesse
nonpotest.,imm.an.1).76AugustineencounteredthisprincipleinCiceroonthelipsof
thePlatonistVarro(nihilestenimquodnonalicubiessecogatur,CiceroAcad.I.VI.24)and
soughttouseittoexplicateaturnofphrasehefoundinPlotinus’text(Enn.IV.7.9).
Afterall,theneophytemightthink,theybothderivedfromeminentPlatonist
philosophers.
wewillsee,O’Connellclearlyoverestimatesthedegreeofassentgivento,oratleasttheunderstandinggainedof,Plotinus’mostcharacteristicarguments.74Cf.theopeningwords,sialicubiestdisciplinanecessenisiineoquoduiuitpotestetsemperestnequequicquam,inquoquidsemperest,potestessenonsemper,semperuiuit,inquoestdisciplina.,imm.an.1.75ForahelpfulintroductiontoAntiochus’thoughtasrecoveredthroughfragmentaryevidencechieflyinCiceroanddeftlyresistanttohavinghisswallowedupbyPosidonius’stature,seeDillon,JohnM.1977.TheMiddlePlatonists,80B.C.toA.D.220.Ithaca,N.Y.:CornellUniversityPress.76Cary,Phillip.2000.Augustine'sInventionoftheInnerSelf:TheLegacyofaChristianPlatonist.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.,ch.7,isrighttonotetheStoicpatrimonybutmissesthefactthatitwaspassedonspecificallyasaPlatonistteaching.
49
Afterarguingforadistinctionbetweenanimatingprincipleandthingsanimated,
Plotinusclaimsthatonpainofinfiniteregresstheremustbesomeimmutableand
necessarylifefromwhichalllivingthingsderivetheirlife(Enn.IV.7.9,1014).Hehas
alreadyalludedtotheroleoftheworld‐soulinmaintainingthebeautyandorderofthe
universe(Enn.IV.7.9,36).Plotinuscontinuesfromhisclaimofanecessarylifeto
localizetheoriginofallthatisdivineandblessedtherein(Enn.IV.7.9,1318).
Fromthere,ofcourse,allthatisdivineandblessedmustbesituated,living
fromitselfandbeingfromitself,beinginthefirstorderandlivinginthe
firstorder,havingnopartinchangeasregardsbeing,neithercominginto
beingnorbeingdestroyed.Forwhencecoulditcomeintobeing?Orinto
whatcoulditsufferdestruction?(Enn.IV.7.9,1318,emphasisadded)
e¡nqa dh\ kai\ to\ qeivon a¢pan kai\ to\ maka/rion iJdruvsqai deiv zwvn par’
auJtouv kai\ o£n par’ auJtouv, prw/twß o£n kai\ zwvn prw/twß, metabolhvß
kat’ oujsi/an a¡moiron, ou¡te gino/menon ou¡te ajpollu/menon. po/qen ga\r
a£n kai\ ge/noito, h£ eijß ti/ ajpo/loito; (Enn.VI.7.9,1318).
AugustinecallsuponhispriorknowledgeofPlatonicontology,derivedthrough
Cicero'sMiddlePlatonicVarro,inordertomakesenseofPlotinus'metaphorical
localizationofessentiallife(imm.an.1).Butthecombinationisdoomed.
ThemixtureofaStoicizingMiddlePlatonicaxiomwithaPlotinianaxiom
createsthefollowingconfusion.Augustinefindshimselfclaimingboththe
necessaryexistenceofdisciplina77becauseofitsimmutability(itemsemperest
77Incidently,theemphasisondisciplinaalsopointstoAugustine’sattempttointegrateVarroandPlotinusinthisinfelicitouslineofargument.
50
disciplina.namquodestatqueinmutabileest,sempersitnecesseest)andthe
intrinsicdependenceofsaid'necessary'existenceuponamentalplace(est
autemalicubidisciplina;namestetquicquidest,nusquamessenonpotest.,imm.
an.1).Thesameillicitmarriageofprinciplesrecursafewchapterslater
(nusquamporroesse,quodest,uel,quodinmutabileest,nonessealiquandoqui
potest?imm.an.5).
ApartfromhisadmirationforVarro,thechiefreasonAugustineattempts
suchaparadoxicalargumentatthisstageishisinabilitytograspanAristotelian
detailofPlotinus'epistemology.DevelopingdescriptionsinAristotle'sdeanima,
Plotinusconstruesaformalidentitybetweentheknowerandwhatisknown.
Augustine'smisunderstandingcauseshimtoliteralizetheinherently
metaphoricaluseoflocalizationinPlotinus'argumentandreaditintermsof
Varro'sdictum.
Incontrast,Plotinus’confidenceisrootedinacognitiveexperienceofan
intelligible,highersoulthatwhenpurifiedofbodyandsenseisobviouslydivine
(Enn.IV.7.10).Knowing,inandofitself,securesimmortalityforthelevelofsoul
thatknowsimmortalentities(Enn.III.8.5,10ff).Identityoftheintelligiblesoul
withtheintelligibleworldsecuresitsdivinityandimmortality(Enn.III.8.5;
V.1.2).
Augustinewouldverymuchliketosharethatconfidence.Buthecannot
becausehedoesnotfullyunderstandthe‘excessiverealism’ofPlotinus’
thought.78Whenstrippeddown,Augustineissurehissoulknowseternalthings
78Foruseofthisterm,andasympatheticaccountofitsunderlyingconvictions,seetheintroductionofMerlan,Philip.1960.FromPlatonismtoNeoplatonism.TheHague:M.
51
butcannotgrasphowthatwouldmakethesoulitselfeternal.Thebestreason
Augustinecanmusteristhatthesoulcouldnotdiewhilecontainingeternal
things(sienimmanetaliquidinmutabileinanimo,quodsineuitaessenonpossit,
animoetiamuitasempiternamaneatnecesseest.,imm.an.5).Andthushetriesto
maketheimmortalthingknownaqualityinthesouloftheknower(atutsedes
artinullasineuitaest,itanecuitacumrationeullinisianimae.nusquamporro
esse,quodest,imm.an.5).Ofcourse,verymuchcontrarytoAugustine'sintention
thismoveisconceptuallyAnti‐Platonicandmustsoonbeabandoned.79Because
Augustinepossessesaninsufficientunderstandingofthephilosophicalbasisfor
formalrealisminPlotinus,hecannotsuccessfullysecureimmortalitythereby.
Nijhoff.,alsothemoreneutralterm“theologicalrealism”inKenney,JohnPeter.1991.MysticalMonotheism:AStudyinAncientPlatonicTheology.Providence,R.I.:BrownUniversityPress.,passim.79TheAnti‐Platoniccharacterofthismoveliesindestroyingtheexemplaristfunctionoftheformsbyreducingthemtomerethoughts,ontologicallydependentonsomeintellect.Platoinsistedthattheformsorideaswerenotthoughts,thoughthoughtscouldbeaboutthem(Parm.132bd).Ofcourse,onestreamofdemiurgictheologyinHellenicPlatonismmadetheformsideasinthemindofthedemiurge(PlutarchdeEapudDelphos392e393bprovidestheearliestclearaccountamongpaganPlatonists,andPhiloOpif.16providesaveryclearearlieraccount).ButnocompetentPlatonistcoulddreamofmakingthemdependentonthesoul.Cf.Dillon,JohnM.1977.TheMiddlePlatonists,80B.C.toA.D.220.Ithaca,N.Y.:CornellUniversityPress.,pp.91‐96foranargumentthatthedoctrinecertainlyextendsatleasttoAntiochusofAscelon.
Plotinusbrilliantly,ifsomewhatcontroversially,resolvestheenigmaticrelationbetweenaprincipleofintellectionandexemplaryforms,whichhadlongtroubledthePlatonictradition.Plotinusmadeeveryformamonadicintelligenceandeachmonadicintelligencecoinhereineveryother(Enn.V.5).ButPlotinuscouldonlybuildhiscasebyconstruingtheOneasthatwhichgroundsbeingandintelligibilitywhileitselfpersistingbeyondclassificationasanentity–evenasupremelyintelligibleandexistententity(Enn.VI.9;V.6;cf.alsoPorphyry,uitaPlot.1721forthecontroversiessurroundingPlotinus’account).ButAugustineiscertainlymovinginaverydifferentthought‐world.ForreadingsofPlotinuswellsituatedinrelationtoHellenicPlatonisms,cf.esp.Armstrong,A.H.1967.TheCambridgeHistoryofLaterGreekandEarlyMedievalPhilosophy.London:CambridgeU.P.,pp.195‐268andKenney,JohnPeter.1991.MysticalMonotheism:AStudyinAncientPlatonicTheology.Providence,R.I.:BrownUniversityPress.,pp.91‐149.
52
ButthisveryinsufficiencyineruditionprovokesAugustinetodevelopa
peculiarstrategyforsecuringthebeingofsoulthat,inbroadoutlines,hewill
retainevenafterhisphilosophicallearningincreases.Augustineknowsthatthe
soulcanbecomewiserormorefoolishovertime(imm.an.7).80Itforgetsand
learns(imm.an.6).Andthisdimunitionandgrowthoftheknowledgeand
goodnessofsoulalsomustconstitutesomelossandgrowthofbeing(imm.an.
12).Forthesoulisconstitutivelysuspendedbetweentheheightsofbeingin
divineratioandtheabyssofnothingness,soanymovementupwardinvolvesa
growthinbeingandanydeclensioninvolvesalossofbeing(imm.an.12).81
Plotinustooturnsfromhisaccountoftheobviouslydivinesoul,initspurified
andintelligiblelevel,todiscussthedescentofsoulintobodies(Enn.IV.7.13).
Intheprocess,bothPlotinusandAugustineaskaquestionrequiringa
programmaticresponse.Whatpreventsasoulthatdescendsfromwhatis
supremetowhatislowerandtowardnothingfromlapsingaltogetherinto
nothingness?(Enn.IV.7.1213;imm.an.12).
80Augustineformulatesthisobservationinarhetoricalquestion–quaeautemmaiorquamincontrariasoletessemutatio?etquisnegatanimum,utomittamcetera,stultumalias,aliasueroessesapientem?(imm.an.7).Ironicallytheanswertohissecondrhetoricalquestionmustbe,“Plotinus,”theveryphilosopherAugustinewouldemulateinthisundevelopedtreatise.ForPlotinus’soulneverdescendsfully.81atenimauersioipsaaratione,perquamstultitiacontingitanimo,sinedefectueiusfierinonpotest.sienimmagisestadrationemconuersuseiqueinhaerens,ideoquodinhaeretinconmutabilirei,quaeestueritas,quaeetmaximeetprimitusest,cumabeaestauersus,idipsumesseminushabet,quodestdeficere.omnisautemdefectustenditadnihilum…(imm.an.12).Thebestdiscussionofthemagisesse–minusessethemeintheearlyworksofAugustineisZumBrunn,Emilie.1969.LeDilemmedel'êtreetdunéantchezsaintAugustin,despremiersdialoguesaux"Confessions.".Paris(8e):Étudesaugustiniennes,8,rueFrançoisIer.AnEnglishtranslationavailableas,ZumBrunn,Emilie.1988.St.Augustine:BeingandNothingness.NewYork:ParagonHouse.
53
Plotinustiestheindestructabilityofsoultotheinalienabilityofitsform
(Enn.IV.7.12).Augustineresolutelyfollowssuit(imm.an.1314).Buttheformof
soulinquestionturnsouttoberadicallydifferent.82AndthusAugustine's
peculiarapproachtosecuringthesoul'sbeingbecomesapparent.
Plotinus'inalienableformistheundescended,intelligiblesoul(Enn.
IV.7.13).Thishighersoul,itselfintrinsicallydivine(Enn.V.8.1011),cannotbe
deprivedofformbecauseitisalwaysalreadyonewiththeintelligibleworldof
form(Enn.V.1.23).Highersoulcannotloseitsformbecauseincontemplative
introversionitdiscoversthatitsimplyisanexpressionofitsindividualform
(Enn.V.7.13).83ThusPlotinussecuresthesoul'sbeingbyfasteningittoan
82PiecesofPlotinus’polemicalarguments,againsttheStoicsandAristotle,forthesubstantialincorporealityofsoulrecurthroughoutAugustine’stext,albeitwithvaryingdegreesofcomprehensiondemonstrated.
Soforinstance,AugustineprovidesacompetentandsuccinctcondensationofPlotinus’argumentagainsttheStoics(Enn.IV.7.2&4):namprorsus,situncmorituranimus,cumeumdeserituita,illaipsauita,quaehuncdeserit,multomeliusintellegituranimus,utiamnonsitanimus,quicquidauitadeseritur,sedeaipsauita,quaedeserit(imm.an.16).
ButAugustine’srefutationofthosewhotakethesoultobeatemperatioofthebody(imm.an.17)seemstoemergefromaconflationoftwoPlotinianrefutations(Enn.IV.7.8,4&5).Plotinusfirstrefutestheharmonythesisofthesoul,stretchingbacktoSimmiasinthePhaedo(Enn.IV.7.8,4).ThenPlotinus’refutesAristotle’sdoctrineofentelechy(Enn.IV.7.8,5).ButAugustinelacksthephilosophicaleruditiontodistinguishthesedoctrinesandhisrefutationofthesoulastemperatioseemstomingleandconfusethesehistoricalpositions(imm.an.17).Likewise,Plotinus’refutationofStoicpsychiccorporealismarguedfromsensation(Enn.IV.7.7)appearsattheveryendofAugustine’sessay(imm.an.25),againbleedingintofragmentsofPlotinus’refutationofentelechy(Enn.IV.7.8,5;imm.an.25).Tobefair,wedonothaveVictorinus’translation.SowecannotbecertainthattheconflationwasnotdeliveredtoAugustinereadymade.Butevenifthatwereso,Augustineatthisstageobviouslylackedthephilosophicaleruditiontonoticetheconflationofpositions.83Forthevexedissueofhowhighersoulremainsamongtheobjectsofintellectionyetisstillnamedsoul(indistinctionfromtheformsoftheintelligiblelivingbeing),seeRist,JohnM.1963."FormsofIndividualsinPlotinus".ClassicalQuarterly.13:2,pp.223‐231.;Blumenthal,H.J.1966."DidPlotinusBelieveinIdeasofIndividuals?"Phronesis.11:1,pp.61‐80.;Rist,JohnM.1971.“IdeasofIndividualsinPlotinus:AreplytoDr.
54
ontologicalhookfromabove,ifyouwill(Enn.V.1.23).Soulisattachedto
Intellectandcandescendnofurther.Ofcourse,Plotinuswasalwaysmore
ambigiousconcerningthefateofthelowersoulasaprincipleofbodily
animationandaction(Enn.V.I.10,25ff).ItmayinfactdescendtoHadesfor
punishment,evenasthehighersoulremainsunmovedincontemplation.For
deathsimplysevershigherandlowersoul(Enn.I.1.1112).
Augustinetakesanoppositetack.Heseekstoputaconceptualfloorover
thebasementofnothingness,asitwere,thussecuringthesoul'sbeingfrom
below(imm.an.14).Foolishnessdoesindeeddeprivethesoulofherformtoa
certaindegree(quoniamspeciealiquasuapriuatur,dumstultusest...,imm.an.
13).SotheheightsofsoulcannotbeformallyinviolabletoAugustineasin
Plotinus.TheformAugustinefindsinalienableisonethatsubsistsdespiteutter
descentintofoolishness(imm.an.14).84Thisinviolableformestablishesamere
beingoftherationalsoulasrationalsoul,nowdistinguishedfrombeingahappy
orwiseorgoodrationalsoul(cf.an.quant.72).85Itisthelower,notthehigher,
Blumenthal.”Revueinternationaledephilosophie92:2,pp.298‐303.;Armstrong,A.H.1977.“Form,IndividualandPersoninPlotinus”Dionysius1,pp.49‐68.TheissuehasrecentlybeenrevisitedandappliedtoPatristicanthropologybyCorrigan,Kevin.2001.“TheProblemofPersonalandHumanIdentityinPlotinusandGregoryofNyssa”inStudiaPatristica37,pp.51‐68.84Inthenextperiod,Augustinecontinuestodevelopthisconceptofalower(asopposedtohigher)limitbeneathwhichthesoulcannotdecend,nowexplicitlyattributingthestabilizationabovenothingnesstodivineprovidence:seddeibonitaseoremperducinonsinitetomniadeficientiasicordinat,utibisintubicongruentissimepossintesse,donecordinatismotibusadidrecurrantundedefecerunt.itaqueetiamanimasrationales,inquibuspotentissimumestliberumarbitrium,deficientesaseininferioribuscreaturaegradibusordinat,ubiessetalesdecet…dictumestenim:nihilperdiuinamprouidentiamadidutnonsitperuenirepermittitur.,(mor.II.9).85NotethebreadthofcapacitiesentailedwithinthemerebeingofrationalsoulinAugustine’searlythought,withoutreferencetohigherknowledgeandgoodness:ergoadtollereintertiumgradum,quiiamesthominiproprius,etcogitamemoriamnon
55
soulwhichistheperduring,inviolableformofthehumansoulinAugustine's
thought.86Anddespiteevolvingdescriptionsofthelowersoul,thisremainsthe
caseatleastthroughtheConfessiones.87
Thisirreducibleformofrationalsoul–entailingalsoitssubstantial
immateriality,circularityandstructuralinviolability–issimplygiven,whether
byitselforahigherbeingAugustinecannottellatthisstage(imm.an.18).88This
basicformofsoul,wherebyitexists,liesoutsideitsownpowerofvolitionand
functionstopreventthesoulfromslidingintotheontologicalcategorybeneathit
consuetudineinolitarum,sedanimaduersioneatquesignisconmendatarumacretentarumreruminnumerabilium,totartesopificum,agrorumcultus,exstructionesurbium,uariorumaedificiorumacmoliminummultimodamiracula,inuentionestotsignoruminlitteris,inuerbis,ingestu,incuiuscemodisono,inpicturisatquefigmentis,totgentiumlinguas,totinstituta,totnoua,totinstaurata,tantumlibrorumnumerumetcuiuscemodimonumentorumadcustodiendammemoriamtantamquecuramposteritatis,officiorum,potestatum,honorumdignitatumqueordines,siueinfamiliissiuedomimilitiaequeinrepublicasiueinprofanissiueinsacrisadparatibus,uimratiocinandietexcogitandi,fluuioseloquentiae,carminumuarietates,ludendiaciocandicausamilleformessimulationes,modulandiperitiam,dimetiendisubtilitatem,numerandidisciplinam,praeteritorumacfuturorumexpraesentibusconiecturam.magnahaecetomninohumana.sedestadhucistapartimdoctisatqueindoctis,partimbonisacmalisanimiscopiacommunis.,(an.quant.72).BythetimeoftheConfessiones,thisvastbreadthwillbesystematizingthroughinteractionwithRomanStoicanthropologiesintothreecreatedformsofcommendatioandtheircorruptions,cf.chapter5foranalysisanddiscussion.86Notethestartingpointofargumentinbeatau.7–scisergohabereteuitam,siquidemuiuerenemonisiuitapotest–foranearlyanticipationofthisfocus.87Cf.chapter5belowandthediscussionofAugustiniancommendatioastheshapeofthelowersoulandthefoundationofactionandtemporalknowledgeintheConfessiones.88sedsi…illaomnia,quaequoquomodosunt,abeaessentiasunt,quaesummemaximequeest,autabillaestanimus,inquantumest,autperseipsumest.sedsiperseipsumest,quoniamipsesibicausaexsistendiestetnumquamsedeserit,numquaminterit,utsupraetiamdisputauimus.siueroexilla,diligenteropusestquaerere,quaereseipossitessecontraria,quaeanimoauferatanimumesse,quodillapraebet.,(imm.an.18).
56
–whetherthatbeconstruedasbody(imm.an.2024)orasmerelyvegetiveand
sensitivesoul(imm.an.25).89
SoAugustineclearlyhasinternalized,fromPlotinus,abroadmythicvisionofthe
soul’sincorporealsubstantialityandconstructedatwo‐worldsvisionofrealitybased
uponit.
However,Augustine’sgraspofthephilosophicalnuancessupportingPlotinus’
assertionsappearsmuddled.AugustinemisreadsPlotinus’metaphoricaluseofspatial
languagebecauseAugustinedoesnotunderstandtheepistemologicalunderpinningsof
Plotinus’formallyrealistontologyasrootedinAristotle’sidentitytheoryofknowledge.
Tofilltheconceptualgap,AugustineappealstoaMiddle‐Platonicaxiomnativetoa
materialistontology.Theresultisconfusion.
Augustine’slackofphilosophicaleruditiondriveshimtocreateanovel
conceptualunderpinningforthesoul’sstructuralinviolabilityandimmortality.Butthe
instabilityofhistheoreticalpowersatthispointdoesnothinderAugustinefrom
articulatingabroadlyPlatonicasceticprogramwherebyonecouldrisetoasalvific
contemplationofthingseternal.
CognitiveAskesisandContemplativeSalvation
Whenone’sattentionshiftstothesequential,educativeaspectofAugustine’sproject
theintrinsicambiguityofhisthoughtagainmanifests.Immortalityislinkedtoan
elusiverelationbetweenthesoulandeternalintelligibleverities(sol.II.24;imm.an.2;7;
10;ep.3.4;ep.7.2).Insofarasthesouliseitheridentifiedwiththoseintelligiblethings89Kenney,JohnPeter.2001.“SaintAugustineandtheLimitsofContemplation”inStudiaPatristica38,pp.199‐218noticesthatAugustine’saccountofthesouliswhollydescended,butlacksanygeneticexplanationfortheAugustinianalteration.
57
orcomesthroughlearningtoenclosethem,shemayrightlybeconsideredimmortal(ep.
3.4;ord.II.4350;imm.an.2;10).Augustine’sthoughtsfollowthispattern.Either“I”am
ratio,orIcancometocontainratio.Ifthefirst,Iamsimplyimmortalbynature.Ifthe
second,Icanbecomeimmortalthroughtheexerciseofratio(ord.II.4350;imm.an.2;
10).90ResolutionofthetheoreticalquestionissimplybeyondAugustine’scapacityat
thispoint.
Nonetheless,inpracticeAugustine’schoiceisclearer.Hearticulatesabroadly
Platonicasceticprogram,whichassumesthatblessedness(andperhapsimmortality)
comethroughasequentialascenttothingsintelligible.Therebythesoulfeastsuponthe
stabilityofintelligibleverities.Andthatcontemplativeknowledgeisitselfsalvific.91
Inkeepingwithhisexperimentationwiththefallensoulthesis,Augustineplays
withthePlatonicdescriptionoflearningasrecollection(sol.II.35;an.quant.20.34;imm.
an.6;cf.alsoretr.I.4.4).Perhapsthesequenceoftheascentissimplyuncoveringan
originalepistemicconnection?Perhaps.Yet,thistooleavesopenthequestionofthe
soul’simmortality.Isitstructuralandrootedinnature,orisitproximateand
predicatedonacontingentconnectiontothingsintelligible?Augustineneverexplicitly
90Forcommentariesonthislineofreasoning,anditsaccompanyingattempttoidentifyratiowiththeartofdialectic,seeO’Connell,RobertJ.1968.St.Augustine’sEarlyTheoryofMan.Cambridge:BelknapHarvard,ch.5andCary,Phillip.2000.Augustine’sInventionoftheInnerSelf:TheLegacyofaChristianPlatonist.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,ch.7.91Augustineneverentertainsthenotionatthisstagethatahumansoulcouldknowwhatishighestandnotloveit(cf.imm.an.18).Thatverydistinction,however,marksthebeginningsofAugustine’smatureaccountofcontemplationinConfessiones.Cf.chapter6below.Ofcourse,thisdistinctionwillalsoconstituteadefinitivebreakwiththeSocraticassumptionwithinthePlatonictradition.ForSocrates,toknowthetruthistoloveit.Isocratesalreadythoughtotherwiseandhispositionprovedparadigmaticfortherhetoricaltraditions(cf.Antidosis).
58
answersthetheoreticalquestioninthisperiod.Buthisasceticprogramassumesthe
latter.
InourdiscussionofAugustine’sillaratiunculaabove,wenotedthatthe
controllingdynamicofthoughtinthisperiodliesinthebinaryuniverseconceived
throughhisreadingofthelibriPlatonicorum.Bothhisanthropologicaldualismandhis
earlyasceticprogramaredirectapplicationsoftheinsightsachievedtherein.Sowhat
doesacircularsoul,trappedwithinthisworldofbodiesandillusoryimages,needto
do?
Antony’sAsceticIdeal:PurgationofActionthroughSolitaryWithdrawl
Augustineseestheendclearly.Likeothertherapeuticphilosophers,
Augustine’sasceticprogramflowsfromandintoaratherthinlyveiledimageoftheideal
sage.92Thatimage,forearlyAugustine,isprovidedbyAntonyoftheDesert.Andthe
productofhislifeservesasanexemplarlendingshapetoAugustine’sasceticgoals.
Augustine’stheoreticaldescriptionoftheasceticprocessandgoalisclear.Oneis
towithdrawthesoulfromcognitiveimmersionintheexternalsensesandtheir
collectivesedimentationinhumanopinion(ord.I.3).Thesoulistherebydrawnbackinto
herself–collectedandretained(inseipsumcolligendiatqueinseipsoretinendi,ord.I.3).
Thustherealmoffalseimagesisleftbehindandthewoundstheyinflictuponthesoul
canbeginhealing(ord.I.3).Fromhersafeplacewithin,thesoulcanre‐engageher
attentiontowardintelligiblerealitiesandfinddelighttherein(ep.3.4).
92Cf.Hadot,Pierre.2002.WhatisAncientPhilosophy?Cambridge:BelknapHarvard,pp22‐51andHadot,Pierre.1998.TheInnerCitadel:TheMeditationsofMarcusAurelius.Cambridge:Harvard,pp76‐77.
59
Theresultistwofold.Withregardtothingsintelligible,onecomestoknowledge
ofselfandGod.Andinthatknowing,thesoulfindsastabledelightinintelligibleverities
liberatingherfromlesserloves.Augustine,atthisstage,neverentertainsthequestion
ofwhetheronecouldknowintelligibleveritiesandnotlovethem.Withregardto
sensiblerealities,thesouldiscoversanextraordinaryself‐possessionandfreedomin
utilizingcorporealthingswhichAugustinenamescontinence.Bothoftheseresultsare
identifiedinAugustine’smindwithAntony’sachievement.
ConsiderwhatAthanasiusdescribesasAntony’spurityofsoulwhenheemerges
fromtheabandonedfortressafternearlytwentyyearsofsolitary,contemplativeaskesis
(u.Antonii14.34).ThosewhosawAntonymarveledattheequanimityheexuded.He
wasneitherfatfromlackofexercisenoremaciatedfromexcessivefasting.No
expansionorconstrictionofsoulmanifesteditselfathissightofotherpeople.Inperfect
self‐possession,governedbyreason,Antonywasindifferenttosuchoccurrencesand
thusfreetoenactthegoodwithremarkablepower(u.Antonii14.34).93
Likewise,theChristianascetic’ssolitarylifestrikesAugustineasasignof
somethingdeeper(mor.I.6467).Humanbeingscannotlivealoneasmerehumans.Long
agoAristotlehaddescribedtheintrinsicallysocialnatureofhumanbeing.Ifonelives
alone,heiseitheragodorabeast,butcertainlycannotbeahumanbeing(Pol.I.2).94
SuchwasAristotle’sclaim.And,whileAugustinehadnotreadmuchofAristotle,in
93Forthecontextandimportofthispassage,withinthewholeu.Antoniiasamystagogicitinerary,cf.Geest,Paulvan.forthcoming.“‘SeeingthatforMonkstheLifeofAntonyisaSufficientPatternofDiscipline…’:AthanasiusasMystagogueinhisVitaAntonii”inGeest,Paulvan.2010.AthanasiusofAlexandria:HisSearchfortheChristianDoctrineofGod,hisDesertAsceticismandSignificance.ChurchHistoryandReligiousCulture,vol.90.Leiden:Brill.94NoteAristotle’sdismissalofsolitudeasaviablehumanmodeofexistenceintheNichomacheanEthics1097b620,1169b321,etpassim.
60
general,heconcursonthispoint.Yet,Antony’spracticeembodiesacontemptforthe
worldandsocietythat,whilefranklyinhuman,issomehowglorious.
Likewise,Antonyachievesthislifewithoutthesequentialstudyofonewho
reads(u.Antonii3.7).Rather,byaspecialgift,thisilliteratememorizesthescriptures
readtohim.Asaresulthismemory,insilence,replacesthesoundofbooksbeingread
andhislifebecomesavisible,livedinscriptionofGod’sword(cf.u.Antonii3.7inlightof
mus.VI.59;doctr.chr.prol).95
Suchgifts,Augustineconcludes,areonlypossiblethroughaflamingsortof
contemplativelove.ThereinAugustineascribestoAntonyandhissortdescriptions
typicallyreservedforangelicbeings.(Perhaps,Aristotle’ssolitarygodsarenotsofar
away?)AndAugustineaverstheirgiftmustbeproducedbyanextraordinarilyclear
visionofGod(mor.I.6465).Whatelsecouldproducealovesoardent?
Indeed,inhislaterrecollectionoffirsthearingAntony’sstory,aspecifictermis
appliedtoAntonyandthosewhofollowhisexemplarymodeoflife.Thesolitaryisan
amicusdei(conf.VIII.6.15).96Suchaoneiselevatedfrombestialitybyavisionand
95Ofcourse,ourdescriptionsofAntony’sgracedachievementsareactuallyattachedtoAntony’snameonlyinlaterperiodsofAugustine’swork,beginningaboutoneyearlaterinmor.I.6467.However,Augustine’sconversion,inhisownmemory,isimmediatelyprovokedbyahearingofAntony’sstoryandtheeffectitstellinghadonPontitianusandhisfriends(conf.VIII.6.147.16).Likewise,thedescriptionsofcontinence,solitudeandthecharismbywhichtheilliterate’sloveachievestheendofscripturewithoutstudyarestablethroughoutAugustine’scareer.Hence,myinferencethatAntony’ssubmergedimageisoperativealreadyhere.96Thistermwasincommonusagetodescribevariousformsofthenewmonasticmovement,accordingtoLienhard,JosephT.1994.“FriendshipwithGod,FriendshipinGod:TracesinSt.Augustine”inAugustine:MysticandMystagogueed.VanFleteren,SchnaubeltandReino,NewYork:PeterLang,pp.207‐229.However,hehastenstonotethatAugustinedoesnotassumethistermforhisintentionalcommunitiesinThagasteandHippo.Rather,Augustinepreferstobeknownasaseruusdei.
61
charity,attainableonlybyaspecialcharismoftheSpirit,andsodwellsincommunity
withtheGodheloves(cf.mor.I.6566;mus.VI.59;doctr.chr.prol).
Whenoneinquiresconcerningthemethodofpurgativewithdrawalfromthe
sensibleandturningtowardthingsintelligible,Augustineacknowledgesatwofoldpath
–solitudeandstudy(ord.1.3).Some,likeAntony,achievespurityofsoul,andthereby
knowledgeofselfandGod,throughsolitude.Byremovinghimselffromeveryday
intercoursewithhumanopinionandtheself‐diffusionrequiredforthatinteraction,the
solitaryeffectivelycollectshimselfwithinandtherecontemplatestherealityofGodand
thesoul(mor.I.66).AugustinealwaysassumedAntonyandthedesertfatherswere
primarilyengagedincontemplatingGodandintelligibleverities(mor.I.66).97
Augustinehimselfmakeshesitantattemptsinthisdirectionthroughoutthis
period.TheopeningoftheSoliloquiesfindsReasonadmonishingAugustinetoleavethe
amanuensisbehind,forthissortofthoughtrequiressolitude(sol.I.1).Afewyearslater,
AugustinerespondstoNebridius’complaintconcerninganoppressivesolitudeand
remindshimofthebenefitsaffordedthereby(ep.9).Bydistancingtheasceticfrom97Ofcourse,contemporarystudentsofthedesertfatherstendtofindaverydifferentsenseintheirbattleswithdemons,extremecorporealasceticism,andaphoristicwisdom.Foraccessibleintroductionstocontemporaryreadings,seeBrown,PeterRobertLamont.1988.TheBodyandSociety:Men,Women,andSexualRenunciationinEarlyChristianity.LecturesontheHistoryofReligions,NewSeries,no.13.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversityPress.,pp.213‐240;andHarmless,William.2004.DesertChristians:AnIntroductiontotheLiteratureofEarlyMonasticism.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Contemporaryreconstructionsaside,Augustinealwaysassumedthedesertsolitariesweresomethinglikespeciallygraced,super‐contemplatives(inthePlatonizingsense)bearingwitnesstothesuperiorityofChrist’steaching.Thesesolitaryexemplarsdweltcontinuouslyincontemplationoftheintelligiblerealmandtherebyattainedtheblessedlifehereandnow:nihildehisdicamquospauloantecommemoraui,quisecretissimipenitusabomnihominumconspectu,panesolo,quieisperdigestainteruallatemporumaffertur,etaquacontenti,desertissimasterrasincoluntperfruentescolloquiodei,cuipurismentibusinhaeserunteteiuspulchritudiniscontemplationebeatissimi,quaenisisanctorumintellectupercipinonpotest.,(mor.I.66).
62
distractionandsocialopinion,solitudefacilitatesaninwardturntothemind.Onlythere
canoneattaincertaintyofnon‐local,intelligibleverities(ep.9).98Afewyearslater,the
fillingofthedesertswithsolitaryasceticswillstrikeAugustineasanindicationof
Christ’ssuccesswherePlatofailed(uerarel.5).Butthispathisnotsuitableformost
people.Antony’smeanstocontemplationwerepossibleonlybyaspecialcharismof
graceandshouldnotbeattemptedbythosenotsogifted(cf.mus.VI.59;doctr.chr.prol).
Nonetheless,theanthropologicalandasceticendofcontemplationremainsbasicinthis
period.
RemedialAsceticProgram:AscenttoContemplationthroughLiberalDisciplines
Augustine,therefore,setsouttochartasecond‐bestway,asitwere.Heseeksamore
schoolishroutetoAntony’scontemplativeend.Bytracingaprogramofstudythrough
theliberaldisciplines,AugustineseekstomimictheeffectsofAntony’ssolitaryaskesis
withinapeculiarformoflearningcommunity.Antony’ssilentcontemplationmarksthe
goal,butAugustinemustfindadifferentandmoreaccessiblepathtothatdestination.
MostlikelymakinguseofVarro’sdisciplinarumlibriIX(ord.II.35;II.54;ep.26.3),
Augustineenvisionsaprogressiveascentthroughtheliberaldisciplinesrisingbysteps
fromthingscorporealtothingsincorporeal(retr.1.3).Augustine’scurriculumprovidesa
discursiveitineraryleadingawayfromsense‐basedopinionandtowardtheclarityof
visionandintensityoflovethatAntonyfoundbymeansofsocialwithdrawal.Through
98Ep.9.1–conferteadanimumtuumetillumindeumleua,quantumpotes.ibienimcertiushabesetnosnonpercorporeasimagines…sedperillamcogitationem,quaintellegisnonlocoessenossimul.
63
study,then,onemightparallelAntony’sproductionofareason‐governedlifeof
continenceandcontemplativeloveforGod,albeitbyaslower,moreploddingpath.99
ContemplativeFulfillmentandCognitiveNutrition
Augustine’sschoolishasceticismprovidesanewwaytoachievecontemplativefruition
andtherebytraversethedividefromthefoolishsoul’sminusessetothemagisesseof
salvificwisdom.Augustine’sasceticprogramassumesthatblessednessonlyarrives
withtheheightsofcontemplation(beatau.35;ord.II.35;II.39;lib.arb.II.36).Action
throughbodilymotiononlydistractsandhindersthesoulfromcontemplativebeatitude
(sol.I.24;Acad.I.3;I.9;an.quant.76).Sobasicmoraltrainingisnecessaryasa
preliminaryandaccompanimenttobasicstudies,primarilybecausethevirtuesquiet
thesoul’simpulsestobodilymotionandpreparehertorenouncebodilyactivity(ord.
II.25).
Theconsummationofbeatitude,however,isalwayscontemplativeinthisperiod
(beatau.35;ord.II.35;II.39;lib.arb.II.36).Sothehappylifeconsistsinapiousand
perfectactofknowing(hocestbeatauita,pieperfectequecognoscere…,beatau.35).
Indeedtobecumdeo,asopposedtomerelynonessesinedeo,consistsentirelyin
knowingGodasanintelligiblereality(ord.I.35).Andwhilerationalityappearsinthree
forms,thehighestandfinalformisthedelightandblessednessofcontemplation(ord.
99OnecanscarcelyhelprecallingAugustine’slaterconversionaccount.Embroiledindeepconflictoverhisincapacitytocommittoaphilosophical,ChristianaskesislikeAntony’s,Augustinehearsavoicechantingtolle,lege.God’sowncalltoAugustine,itseems,isacalltoalifeofreading.
64
II.35).100Thiscontemplationepitomizestheaspirationofratioandmaybedescribedas
themostblessedcontemplationofdivinethings(hincseillaratioadipsarumdiuinarum
rerumbeatissimamcontemplationemrapereuoluit.,ord.II.39).101
Withcontemplationasthesingularlyacknowledgedgoal,Augustineemploysa
metaphorcomplexunderwhichhedescribesthegrowthinbeingthatculminatesin
contemplativewisdom.Spiritualnutrition–eatingteachingsandthroughcognitive
digestionattainingconceptualtruth–namestheprocessbywhichasoulmaygrowin
being.ThismetaphorcomplexcontinuesthroughoutAugustine’slife,butthespecific
referentsmigratewithhisanthropologicalcommitments.AtthisstageAugustine’s
usagebasicallyparallelstheusagefoundinpopularPlatonistandStoicteachers.
Knowledgeitselfisnutritive(beatau.8).Conceptualveracitylendsbeingtothesoul
(beatau.8).
Augustine’susagebuildsonametaphoricalparallelismbetweenbodyandsoul
(beatau.7).Aswithclassicalphilosophicalusages,Augustineenvisionsthesoulas
requiringnutrition,102exerciseandsometimesmedicine103tomaintainorrestore
health.Awholecomplexofmetaphoricalreferentsemergesfromthisbasiccorrelation.
InhismaturewritingsAugustineextendsthemetaphorcomplexinpowerfulandnovel
100ergoiamtriagenerasuntrerum,inquibusilludrationabileapparet,unumestinfactisadaliquemfinemrelatis,alterumindiscendo,tertiumindelectando.primumnosadmonetnihiltemerefacere,secundumrectedocere,ultimumbeatecontemplari,(ord.II.35)101Cf.alsolib.arb.II.36;andacontinuousaccountofcontemplativefulfillmentisfoundearlyinthenextperiod,uerarel.110;mor.I.35;mor.I.66.102Fortheancientphilosophicalcommonplaceofknowingtruthasnourishment(cf.e.g.Plato,Phdr.247be;EpictetusDiss.I.26.1517;Diss.II.9.1719;Ench.46;Aureliusmed.X.31.2).103Forthecommonplaceofthephilosopherasaphysicianandphilosophicalargumentandexhortationasmedicine(ordiet,surgery,cautery,etc…),cf.e.g.,Plato,Gorgias462bff;Seneca,ep.22.1;27.1;40.5;50.4;64.8;72.56;94.24;95.29.
65
waysbyadaptingitselementstohisequallynovelanthropologicalcommitments.104But
atthisstage,Augustine’susagecouldonlybedescribedasrelativelythinand
conventional.
Themostspecificidentificationofspiritualnutritioncentersonknowledgeof
truth.AugustinerejoicesbecausehehasbrokenthebondsofAcademicskepticismthat
causedhimtodespairoftruth,whichisthepasturageofthesoul(…quodestanimi
pabulum,ep.1.3).Inabroadersense,thefoodofthesoulisintellectumrerumatque
scientia(beatau.8).Byteachingonetodespiseallthingsvisibletomortaleyesand
touchablewiththesenses,philosophynourishesthesoulwhotakesrefugeinher(Acad.
I.3).Butthatistotakephilosophyinaverybroadsense.Whendescribingtheorderof
studies,risingthroughliberaldisciplinestophilosophyproper,Augustinepromisesthat
themathematicaldisciplines(music,geometryandastrology)nourishsoldiersof
philosophy(ord.II.14).Sotruthfulcogitationnourishes.
Thusthesoulsoflearnedmenarefullerandgreaterthanthesoulofan
uneducatedperson(beatau.8).Thosesoulswhohaveneverdrunkfromthefountof
theliberaldisciplinesareinastateofstarvation(beatau.8).Trygetius,therefore,who
hasveryrecentlydecidedtoengageinphilosophicalinquiry,mustbedescribedasstill
lackingnutritionandeducation(AcadI.8).
Underordinarycircumstances,alackofeducationmustalsoresultinethical
worthlessnessornequitia(beatau.8).Themoralandcognitivepovertyofan
uneducatedsoulmanifeststheformofrationalsoulexistinginastateofminusesseand
thusbereftofblessedness,goodnessorhealth.Ofcourse,thegiftednessofsome
humanlyuneducatedsoulslikeAntonyandMonicacircumscribeandqualify104Foradiscussionofafewnovelelements,seechapter6below.
66
Augustine’stheoreticalstatementofthenorm(beatau.10,ord.II.3133).105Afterall,
behindandabovetheteachersofliberaldisciplinesandthephilosophers,itisGodwho
ultimatelyprovidestheintellectualfeastoftruthregardlessofwhichmethodsareused
(beatau.17).
Theaffectivedimensionoflearningreceivesveryminimalexpressionin
Augustine’searliestusageoftheculinary‐digestivemetaphorcomplex.Butwherever
theaffectivedimensionreceivesencoding,Augustine’susageisagainwholly
conventional.
So,rhetoricalpopularizationsofphilosophicalargumentsmaybemetaphorically
encodedassweetforetastes(Acad.I.3).Augustinereferstoaparticularlycatchy
refutationthatdelightsbyitssenseofself‐evidenceasscholastichoney(beatau.13).
Buttoomuchsweetnesscandamageaperson.Abitterthingmightcounterbalanceand
bringhealth.Somethingbittersweet,likehoneyfromMt.HymettusinAttica,includes
rigorenoughtonotbloatthestomach(beatau.14).
Nutritionalprescriptionsvarydependingonthehealthofthesoul.Sicksouls
cannoteatandactuallyvomitoutfood(beatau.9).Besidestheillnessandbloatingthat
excessivesweetnessmightincur,spiritualgluttonyalwaysresultsinindigestion(beata
u.13).Thuscalmandsincereinvestigationmustbepracticed,foreatingmorethancan
bedigestedproducesillspiritualeffects(beatau.13).BehindAugustine’scaution
concerningspiritualorintellectualgluttonylaysthestandardrationaleofthe
105ForAntony,seeaboveandcf.u.Antonii3.7inlightofmus.VI.59;doctr.chr.prol.
67
philosophicalproscriptionagainstreadingtoomanybooks(e.g.,Epictetus,Diss.1.26.15‐
17).106
Spiritualorintellectualgluttonyultimatelyshowsitselfasone“vomits”the
hastilyingestedformsofspeechwithoutsignsofproperdigestion.Awordforthis
conditionhascomesdowntousinmodernEnglish.Wecallthestudentinthiscondition
a‘sophomore’–a‘wise‐fool.’Heiscapableandfondofregurgitatingelevatedsentences,
butdoesnotreallyknowwhatheistalkingabout.Hisspeech,evenifformallycorrect,
doesnotstemfromanappropriatebasisinthoughtandexperience.Thelinguisticform
oftheteachingiswellinhand,buttheintelligiblesubstanceremainselusive.Augustine
warnshischargesofjustthispossibility(ord.II.17).107Toguardagainstthismalady,
Augustinepresentshisstudentswithphilosophicalargumentsinsmall,digestible
packagessuitedtotheirlevel,andurgesthemtoprocessitcalmlyandwithsincerity
beforemovingon(beatau.13).Thusthecognitivepowersofthesoulcanbenourished
andgrowtowardstheireventualbeatitudeincontemplation(ord.II.14).
106... au¢th ou™n ajrch\ touv filosofeivn, ai¡sqhsiç touv ijdi/ou h˚gemonikouv pwvç e¡cei: meta\ ga\r to\ gnwvnai o¢ti ajsqenwvç oujk e¡ti qelh/sei crhvsqai aujtwˆv pro\ç ta\ mega/la. nuvn de\ mh\ duna/menoi/ tineç to\n ywmo\n katapi/nein su/ntaxin ajgora/santeç ejpiba/llontai ejsqi/ein. dia\ touvto ejmouvsin hª ajpeptouvsin: ei™ta stro/foi kai\ kata/rroiai kai\ puretoi/. e¡dei d’ ejfista/nein, eij du/nantai. (Diss. 1.26.15-17)....This,therefore,isaproperstartingpointforphilosophy.Namely,afeelfortheconditionofone’sowngoverningprinciple.Forwhenonerealizesitissickly,henolongerwantstouseitongreatthings.Butasitis,somewholackthestrengthtoswallowacrumbtakeituponthemselvestobuyawholetreatiseandeatit.Sotheyvomitorsufferindigestion.Thencomestomachcramps,runnynosesandfevers.Buttheyshouldhavefirstconsideredwhethertheywerehealthy.(Diss.1.26.15‐17)107siquistemereacsineordinedisciplinaruminharumrerumcognitionemaudetinruere,prostudiosoillumcuriosum,prodoctocredulum,procautoincredulumfieri.,(ord.II.17).
68
BasicTrajectoryoftheEducationalAscent:RisingtoEatbyIntellection
Soinnon‐metaphoricalterms,whatwouldthisspecialdietofabuddingphilosopher
consistof?Howdoesthesickandweaksoul,existingatthelowestpossiblelevelasa
formallyrational,yetfoolishsoul,sequentiallyrisetospiritualhealth,cognitiveclarity
andfullnessofbeing?Augustine’sanswerutilizesaVarronianascentthroughtheliberal
disciplinesculminatinginanunderstandingofphilosophyandpoliticssharedbyNeo‐
PythagoreanandMiddlePlatonistapproaches.
Augustinetellsustheorderofnumbersissogreatthatstudyingmusic,geometry
orastrologyinevitablyleadstovisionofintelligiblethings(ord.II.14).108Theroleof
number,andparticularlyunityasthatfromwhichallorderarises,servesasthe
conceptuallinchpininAugustine’saccount.However,becauseobscuritymakes
intellectualvisionofunityinaccessibletomostpeople,atwofoldpathisoffered(ord.
II.16).Firstwemustfollowtheauthorityofgreatteachers,afterwardreasonwillgrow
toprovideunderstanding(ord.II.16;II.26).Thisprogressionfromauthoritytoreason,
frombelieftounderstandingmarksthetrajectoryofthenourishingjourneythroughthe
liberaldisciplines.
Authorityenjoinsculticandritualmysteries(ord.II.16),butalsopreceptsfora
manneroflifethatmakesstudypossible(ord.II.25).Sincecontemplationmarksthe
fruitionofthejourney,thereislittlesurprisethatthemoralorderingoflifeprimarily
involvestrainingfortheceasationofactivity(ord.II.25).Infact,thebenttoward
viewingmoralityasaprogressiontowardsinactivitymanifestsinAugustine’sstriking
108iaminmusica,ingeometrica,inastrorummotibus,innumerorumnecessitatibusordoitadominatur,ut,siquisquasieiusfontematqueipsumpenetraleuideredesideret,autinhisinueniatautperhaeceosineulloerroreducatur(ordII.14).
69
substitutionofthenegative‘silverrule’inplaceofJesus’‘goldenrule’(neminifaciant,
quodpatinolunt.,ord.II.25).Moralpreceptbeginstoreduceimpulsestoactivityand
thuspreparesthesoultomovesequentiallytowardpurecontemplation.
Realnourishmentthroughthedisciplinaewouldbeginwithratiodistinguishing
andconnectingthingslearned(ord.II.30).Andthisrequiresaregressionintotheself
(ord.II.30).DisciplinaistheverylawofGodtobewrittenonhumansouls(ord.II.25).
Thenewlaw,whichJeremiahpromiseswillbeenscribedonhumanheartsandnot
tabletsofstone,resonatesinthebackground(ord.II.25;cf.Jer.31:31ff).
Justasthesoulfallsbygoingouttowardmortalthings,thesoulreturnsinward
bydrawingbackintoratio(namutprogressusanimaeusqueadmortalialapsusest,ita
regressusesseinrationemdebet,ord.II.31).Indeed,byturningawayfromthingsmortal,
thesoulbecomesdivine.Or,atleastfailingtoturnfrommortalthingswoulddeprivethe
soulofdivinity(hincnisiseauerterit,diuinanonerit.,ord.II.31).
Thedisciplinaefallintoaduplexorderofknowledge:anorderedunderstanding
oftheproperuseofspeech,andknowingthepowerofnumbers(adistarumrerum
cognitionemneminemadspiraredeberesineillaquasidupliciscientiabonaedisputationis
potentiaequenumerorum.,ord.II.47).Andtheproperorderofstudyleadsthrougha
sevenstepgradus(ord.II.39)fromthemoreexternalanddiffuseformsofknowledge
foundinmanipulationoflanguage,tothemoreinwardandunifiedbranchesof
numericalknowledge.Numerosityprovidesthemostnourishmentandprovidesan
explicitbridgetoknowledgeofGodandthesoul(ord.II.14).
Theordostudiorumprovidesageneraltrajectoryfromthemorecorporeal
dimensionsoflanguagetothemoreintelligiblenatureofnumber.Grammar,which
includeshistory,emergesasasynthesisofwords,lettersandaveryrudimentaryuseof
70
numberinginorderingsyllablelengths(ord.II.3536).Assuch,grammarbasically
providesincentivetosearchoutthedeeperpowerunderlyingtheproductionofthearts
(ord.II.3537).Dialectictakesupthistaskinearnest.Inthecourseofthesearch,
dialecticbecomestheveryself‐manifestationofratio(ord.II.38).Whileusingwords,
nothingbecomesmoreunifiedandintelligiblethandialectic(ord.II.38).Rhetoricenters
theitineraryhereasaconcessiontothefoolishstateofone’sfellowmanandthus
makesupthepersuasiveweaknessofdialectic(ord.II.38).Buttheverystudyofwhat
delightsandmovesinspeechopensthesoultoanewsortofstudy.
Bynoticingandsearchingoutthedifferencebetweensonusandsignificatio,
reasonnowfocusesonthedelighttobefoundsimplyinthesonus(ord.II.39).Thisleads
toanisolationofthenumericalrelationsofsoundandthestudyofmusic(ord.II.3940).
Infurtherconsideringthenatureofmusic’snumericalrelations,ratiofindsnumerical
relationstobedivineandsempternal(ord.II.41).109Atthispointratiohassearchedout
thedivineandsempternalelementinsound.
Nextratioleadsthesoultoconsiderthedivineandsempternalinthingsvisible.
Geometryconceptuallyisolatesthebeautyofvisiblefiguresanddiscovershowthese
arereducibletodimensionsandthencetonumber(ord.II.42).Astrologyuncoversthe
numericalrelationsinthevisiblecelestialspheres(ord.II.42).
Reasonthenfindsnumerosityasthecommonalitybetweenthedisciplinaethat
emergesthroughcontemplation,andrealizesonlyvestigesandshadowsexistinthe
thingsbeheldbythesenses(ord.II.43).Byseparatingitselffromtheseimaginesfalsae
109Ofcourse,thesixbooksdemusicaprovideaclearexampleofhowAugustinedilatesthislineofreasoning.
71
rerum,thesoulbeginstocontemplateitselfandwondersifthesubstanceofsoulmight
notbenumerosityitself(ord.II.43).
Ifattheendofthisjourneythroughtheliberaldisciplines,thesoulcollectsand
condensesallthescatteredelementsofthedisciplinesintoasingle,trueandcertain
unitythesoulwillnotonlybelieve,butalsobeabletointellectuallycontemplatedivine
matters(ord.II.44).110Sophilosophyproperensueswhereinonesearchesoutthe
natureoftheselfandGod(ord.II.47).Thesoul,alreadytrainedinthedisciplinae,
seipsuminspicitandthusarrivesatthebeginningofcontemplation(ord.II.48).
ContemplationofGodcomesnext(ord.II.51).
Atthelevelofcontemplationnourishmentbecomescomplete,foronlyheredoes
onefullydiscerntwoworlds(ord.II.47)andseesthebeautyofeachpartinthe
intelligibleworldisasperfectasthewhole(ord.II.51).Sotheliberaldisciplineshaveled
thesoulupwardtoadiscoveryoftheintelligibleworld,withthesoulandGodasits
mostillustriousinhabitants(ord.II.47;II.51).Andjustasingestingbitsofcorporealstuff
nourishesthebody,sothecircularsoulisnourishedbycontemplativelyingesting
veritiesfromtheintelligibleworld(beatau.78;ep.1.3).
110quibussiquisquenoncesseritetillaomnia,quaepertotdisciplinaslateuariequediffusasunt,adunumquiddamsimplexuerumcertumqueredegerit,eruditidignissimusnominenontemereiamquaeritilladiuinanoniamcredendasolumuerumetiamcontemplandaintellegendaatqueretinenda.,ord.II.44.
72
Chapter2
TemporalSoul,FallenBodiesandtheDefectofAction(Milanthrough
Thagaste,387391)
BiographicalBridge
Withthefroststilluponthem,Augustineandhisfriendsreturnedinearly387toMilan
andBishopAmbrose’scatecheticalorations.There,forthefirsttime,thecreedwas
deliveredtoAugustine.Anditsimplications,aswewillsee,werefarreachinginthe
developmentofAugustine’sthought.Apartfromreceivingthecreedandbaptismat
Ambrose’shands,AugustinealsocameincontactwithsomewritingsofPorphyryatthis
time.111
Ofcourse,followinghisbaptismAugustineandMonicabegantheirreturnto
Africa.MaximushadinvadedRomeandthefamilywasforcedtowinteratOstia.Earlyin
388,AugustineandMonicasharedaforetasteoftheblessednesstocome.112Afewdays
laterMonicaisdead.AugustinestaysinRomeformostoftheyearandfinallyreturnsto
CarthageandthenThagaste.There,onhisancestralinheritance,heestablishesa
111DuRoy,Olivier.1966.L’intelligencedelafoienlaTrinitéselonSaintAugustin,genésedesathéologietrinitairejusqu’en391.Étudesaugustiniennes:Parispp183‐195providesasketchoftheprimarytracesofPorphorianontologyinAugustine’swritingsofthisperiod.ForspeculationsonwhereheacquiredthesewritingsseeTeselle,E.1970.AugustinetheTheologian.London:BurnsandOates,p.90.112Thescholarlyidiom,largelyunderpressuretoassimilatethisexperiencetoaPlatonicactofintellectualvision,hasproducedthegenerallyacceptedlabel,“OstiaVision.”However,Augustinestudiouslyavoidsthelanguageofvisioninhisaccount.Sowewilldissentfromthescholarlyvernacularonthisinstance.Cf.discussioninch.6below.
73
communityofseruiDeitopursuealifeofChristianphilosophytogether.Histhought
developsinarathercontinuousmannerthroughthisperioduntilhisforcedordination
in391catapultshimintodeeperstudyofthescripturesandacloserattentiontotheir
concernswithpositiveaction.
CatecheticalAlterations:TheNiceneDistinctionandaThreeTieredOntology
Augustine’smostbasicconceptualalterationatthistimestemsfromgraspingthe
distinctionimplicitintheNiceneCreed’saffirmationsanddenials.Herealizesthatthe
distinctionbetweenCreatorandcreaturethoroughlytraversesthespanofreality.113
Thereisnohalfwaypointbetweenthetwo.Ashedeclaresinhisfirstworkagainstthe
Manichees,“omnequodest,autdeus,autcreaturaest”(mor.I.23;cf.alsogn.adu.Man.
II.11).
GraspingtheNicenedistinction,therefore,forcesAugustinetorethinkhisearlier
notionofthedivine,immortalsoulrootedinhisbinaryontologicalschemeof
intelligibleandsensiblereality.Anewplaceisneededfornon‐divine,intelligible
realitiessuchasthehumansoul.ForthefirsttimeAugustineunambiguouslydeclares
thatthesouliscreature(an.quant.77;mor.I.2021&23;gn.adu.Man.II.11).114
113Ofcourse,AugustinewillconsidertheopeninglinesofCicero’stranslationofPlato’sTimaeusasteachingtheself‐sameontology,quidestquodsempersitnequeullumhabeatortum,etquodgignaturnecumquamsit?quorumalterumintellegentiaetrationecomprehenditur,quodunumatqueidemsemperest;alterumquodadfertadopinionemsensusrationisexpers,quodtotumopinabileest,idgignituretinteritnecumquamesseuerepotest(Cic.Tim.2.3[27d]).ForanaccountofthedialecticalintepretationoftheGenesisandTimaeuscosmogoniesintheLatinChristiantradition,seePelikan,Jaroslav.1997.WhathasAthenstodowithJerusalem?:TimaeusandGenesisinCounterpoint.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress.114Foraccessibleaccountsofthisrealizationsee:Burt,D.X.1996.Augustine’sWorld:anIntroductiontohisSpeculativeTheology.Maryland:UniversityPressofAmerica,ch.4andTeske,Roland.2001.“Augustine’sTheoryofSoul”inTheCambridgeCompanionto
74
Bydistinguishingmutabilityandimmutabilityfromhisearlierintelligibleversus
sensibledichotomyandthenoverlayingthematanangle,Augustineisabletodevelop
hisoft‐commentedthree‐tieredontology(ep.18).115TheCreator‐creaturedistinction
coincideswiththedistinctionbetweenthingsimmutableandmutable(ep.18).All
immutablethingsareGod,threeinone.Ofcourse,Godisalsointelligibleinnature.
Otherintelligiblethings,souls,aremutableintimebutnotspace(ep.18).116Theseare
creaturesandtheyaregivenanintermediateplaceinreality.Sensible,bodilythingsare
mutableinbothtimeandspace.Thesearethelowestofcreatures(ep.18).
Thisschemahasacertainpowerandcomplexity,whencomparedwithhis
earlierbinarynotion,butitstillraisesproblemsconcerningthenatureofahuman
person.Sometheoryofthebody‐soulrelationisdemanded.Augustine’searliestworkof
thisperiodcontainsanessentiallydisincarnatedefinitionofhomoasrationalsoulusing
abody(an.quant.22;cf.alsomor.I.6),andhestrugglesthroughoutthisperiodto
synthesizehisincorporealontologyofsoulwiththebiblicalaccountofcreatedbodies.
GivenhisrecentinstructionconcerningtheCreatorofheavenandearth,asimple
oppositionbetweenbodyandsoulseemsincreasinglyuntenable.Havingrejected
importantaspectsofPlotiniansoul(whetherthroughgeniusorincompetence),
Augustine,ed.StompandKretzmann,Cambridge:Cambridge,esp.117‐118.ThemostthoroughtreatmenttodateisCary,Phillip.2000.Augustine’sInventionoftheInnerSelf:LegacyofaChristianPlatonistOxfordpp.105‐114.115E.g.Bourke,VernonJ.1958,“WisdomintheGnoseologyofAugustine”inAugustinus3:331336.116ForanaccountofhowtheChristiandoctrineofcreationforcedAugustineto“cleavethePlatonicintelligibleworldintwoparts,onecomprisinguncreatedandtheothercreatedintelligiblereality,”seeHolte,Ragnar.1990.“FaithandInteriorityinS.Augustine’sConfessions”inInterioritàeintenzionalitàinS.Agostinoatti.Roma:Institutumpatristicumaugustinianum,esp.pp.74,77.
75
AugustinenowexperimentswithPlotiniannotionsofcorporealitytomakesenseof
createdbodies.
AnthropologicalConfusionsandForays
Theanthropologicalformulationsthatemergeduringthisperiodexhibitafruitful
instability.TheinternaltensionisbestseeninDeGenesiaduersusManichaeoslibriduo
(gen.adu.Man.)117Therewefindstrongtracesofasubmergedassimilationofthe
PlotinianWorld‐Soulandthefallofthesoulintoindividuatedexistencethroughapre‐
incarnatesin(gen.adu.Man.II.56).IfthiswerereadinitsfullPlotiniansense,one
wouldexpecttofindAugustinestillaffirmingthedivinityofsoul.
Butthissubmergedusageforexplicatingtheallegoricalmeaningofcreationis
combinedwithexplicitprofessionofthedoctrineofcreatioexnihilo.Indeed,even
Augustine’sfirst,boldannouncementthatthesoulisnotwhatGodis(an.quant.7778),
concludesanascentinwhichheascribestosoulthecharacteristicsofPlotinianWorld‐
Soul(hincenimanimasenonsolumsuo,siquamuniuersipartemagit,sedipsietiam
uniuersocorporiaudetpraeponere,an.quant.73).Likewise,theindividuationofhuman
souls,withinthegen.adu.Man.,mayalsobeascribedtothegoodnessofthebodieswith
whichGodpersonallycreatedhumanbeings(gen.adu.Man.II.9).Obviously,Augustine’s
117BothO’ConnellandTeskehoneinonthistextasthebesttestcasefortestingthefallensoulhypothesisintheearlyAugustine,howeverdifferingtheirestimationofthePlotinianinfluencemaybe.Cf.,O'Connell,RobertJ.1968.St.Augustine'sEarlyTheoryofMan,A.D.386391.Cambridge,Mass:BelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress.,pp.155‐183andTeske,RolandJ.1991.“St.Augustine’sViewoftheHumanConditioninDeGenesicontraManichaeos”AugustinianStudies22:141‐155,reprintedinTeske,RolandJ.2008.ToKnowGodandtheSoul:EssaysontheThoughtofSaintAugustine.Washington,D.C.:CatholicUniversityofAmericaPress.,pp.180‐194.
76
anthropologicalconsiderationsarestillmorecomplex,orevenconflicted,thanasimple
incorporationofPlotiniananthropology.118
Howisthistoberead?Attentiontogenreishelpfulhere.Augustineis
experimenting,withinanapologeticproject,toseehowmuchofPlotinushecan
incorporateintoananti‐materialistreadingofGenesis.Therefore,Augustine’sproject
requiresmovingintwodirectionsatonce.Ontheonehand,Augustineneedsto
assimilatethisreadingtoaprojectofcorrectiveorthodoxyagainsttheManicheans.So
thescripturaltextcreatesagenuinenecessityofexplanation.
Ontheotherhand,inordertorefutetheManicheans,Augustineneedstoemploy
Plotiniannotionsofimmateriality.Thesenotionsareprimarilyderivedthrough
associationwithPlotinianimages.WehavealreadyseenthatAugustine’sutilizationof
Plotinus’thoughtconcerningthesoulfunctionsbetteratthelevelofmythicimagery
thaninAugustine’sgraspoftheactualphilosophicdetailinvolved.Indeed,Augustine’s
attemptatadetailedphilosophicalaccountofthesoul’sontologicalstabilitydiverges
widelyfromPlotinus’.119Yet,inhisfervortodefeattheManicheanreading,Augustine
sometimesmixesscripturalandPlotinianideasinfelicitouslyandsubjectshimselfto
internalcontradictions.Itis,afterall,anoccupationalhazardofthephilosophical
theologian.
Whatdoesthisinternaltensionrequiremethodologically?Iamproposingthat
onemustreadthegen.adu.Man.withaneyetowardthesubmergedPlotinianimages,
118Teske,Roland“Augustine’sViewoftheOriginalHumanConditioninDeGenesiContraManichaeos”inTeske,RolandJ.2008.ToKnowGodandtheSoul:EssaysontheThoughtofSaintAugustine.Washington,D.C.:CatholicUniversityofAmericaPress.,pp.180‐194doesthebestjobofhighlightingtheinternalconflictsinAugustine’sinscribedexposition.119Cf.discussionofhismuddledPlotinianisminch.1above.
77
evenwhileproblematizingtheassociativemeaningsthatPlotinustypicallyattachedto
them.Inotherwords,tounderstandAugustineatthisfruitfullyunstablestage,one
mustbepreparedtoseparatePlotinianmeaningsfromPlotinianimages.Augustine’s
useofPlotinusinallegoricallyreadingGenesis,bothutilizesPlotinianimageryand
transformsthemeaningofthatimagery.120IfPlotinus’exactmeaningsarebracketed,a
fairlyintelligiblebutcertainlystrangenarrativeemergesofthebody‐soulrelationatthe
levelofAugustine’sexplicitaffirmations.ItisthatlevelofexplicitaffirmationtowhichI
willattend.
PrelapsarianBodies:AnimalandCelestial
AstrikingtensionmarksAugustine’sdiscussionofhumanoriginsingn.adu.Man.One
theonehand,Augustinedepictstheinvisiblecreation(andthesoulasaconstituent
thereof)aspossessingvitalitypriortoanyearthlyembodiment(gn.adu.Man.II.4).
Indeed,thesoulcomestoearththroughsinning(antequamessetsuperterram[Gn2,5],
intellegitur:antequamanimapeccaret.,gn.adu.Man.II.5).ThePlotinianFalloftheSoul,
atleastinitsmythicpresentation,surelylurksinthebackground.121
120ConsiderGoulvenMadec’shesitationsaboutassumingcontinuityofmeaningwhenanimageistransposedfromonementalworldtoanother.“Réservefaitedelapertinencedesrapprochementstextuels,jenevoispascequel’onpeutavoircontreuntelprocédé,quandils’agitsimplementdemontrerqu’unauteuraempruntételleexpression,telleimage,teldéveloppement.Maisilenvadifféremment,quandils’agitd’apprécierl’influencedoctrinale;danscecas,onenpeutsedispenserdemesurerlatransformationquesubissentlesempruntsdefaitd’êtretransposesdansunnouveluniversmental.”Madec,Goulven.1965.“Bulletinaugustinienpour1963,”no.317inRevuedesétudesaugustiniennesII:373.121O'Connell,RobertJ.1968.St.Augustine'sEarlyTheoryofMan,A.D.386391.Cambridge,Mass:BelknapHarvard,pp.146‐183istheseminalaccountofthisutilizationofPlotinus.ThetensionbetweenAugustine’saccounts,however,O’ConnellwouldattributetotheinherentambiguityinPlotinusbetweenthedescentofsoulasontologicallynecessaryandasinstigatedbyaudacity.Icannotfindthissubletyin
78
Ontheotherhand,whenAugustineturnstothecreationofthehumanbeingthe
initialdirectionofmovementreversesfromprimordialfalltoaprelapsarianelevation
(gn.adu.Man.II.10).Godfirstcreateshumanbeingswithbodiesfromdustandendows
themwithapurelyanimalorsoulishexistence(nondumtamenspiritalemhominem
debemusintellegerequifactusestinanimamuiuentem[Gn2,7],sedadhucanimalem.,gn.
adu.Man.II.10).Onlylater,afterelevationtotheaffectivestateofParadiseand
receptionofthecommandmentmayhumanbeingsbeconsideredspiritual(tuncenim
spiritaliseffectusest,cuminparadiso,hocestinbeatauita,constitutuspraeceptumetiam
perfectionisaccepit,utuerbodeiconsummaretur.,gn.adu.Man.II.10).Asaconsequence,
whenhumanbeingssinnedtheirbodieswerenotdegradedtoanaliensoulish
existence,but“remained”intheirmerelysoulishstateofnature(itaquepostquam
peccauitrecedensapraeceptodeietdimissusestdeparadiso,ineoremansitutanimalis
esset.,gn.adu.Man.II.10).
Ofcourse,whenpressedinthepreviousperiodtoprovideaphilosophical
accountofsoul’spurduringontologicalstatus,Augustineresortedtosecuringthesoul’s
existencefrombelow(imm.an.14).122Againwefindthelowerlevelofrationalsoul,a
merelysoulishexistencedistinguishedfromhigherspiritualfunctions,emergingas
primaryandprovidingthebulwarkagainstdescentintonothingness(gn.adu.Man.
II.10).ForwhensincausesdismissalfromthespiritualexistenceofParadise,thislower
levelofanimalexistencerestrainsthesoulfromdescendinganyfurther(gn.adu.Man.
II.10).And,ofcourse,Paul’swordsinICor.15:46nowcorroboratethetackAugustine
initiallyassumedamidhiswrestlingswithPlotinus’argumentation(sicenimapostolusAugustine’stext.ThetensionactuallystemsfromcompetingstorylinesinAugustine’sthought.122Cf.analysisinch.1above.
79
dicit:sednonpriusquodspiritaleest,sedquodanimale,sicutscriptumest:factusest
primusAdaminanimamuiuentem,nouissimusAdaminspiritumuiuificantem[1Cor
15,4446],gn.adu.Man.II.10).
Afterreceivingtheinalienableformofsoulishexistence,Godraisesthefirst
humanstoanEdenicexistenceasspiritualbeings(gn.adu.Man.II.10).Inthis
prelapsarianelevationtoparadise,thehumanbodyissuffusedwiththetransparency
andfluidityappropriatetocelestialbodiesgovernedbyfullyrationalsouls.
TheEdenicandresurrectedformsofhumanexistenceshareacommon
descriptionthroughoutthisperiod(mor.II.9).123Inbothstatesoursoulslendfull
contemplativeattentiontoGod.Indeed,contemplationasthehighestexpressionof
ratiomarkshumanbeingsastrulycreatedadimaginemdei(gn.adu.Man.I.28).The
innerman,asreasonandintellect,isthefirstreferentofthedivineimage(quodhomo
adimaginemdeifactusdicitur,secunduminterioremhominemdici,ubiestratioet
intellectus,gn.adu.Man.I.28).Byreasonofthisintellectivecapacity,theinnerman
exercisesdominion(potestas)overallanimals(gn.adu.Man.I.28).Apparently,the
originalsoulishbody,liketheotheranimals,respondstotheinnerman’sdominionand
thusrisestoanewformofexistencebeyonddeath(gn.adu.Man.I.29;II.15).
Theprimordialbody,governedbythiselevatedandenlightenedsoul,nowtakes
onthecharacteristicsofPlotinus’celestialbodies(gn.adu.Man.II.32;Enn.IV.3.18,13
22).Thecelestialorspiritualbodypossessesaperfectlyreceptivefluiditytothesoul’s
decrees–nottomisleadbysaying‘desires.’Forthepeculiarmotionofcelestialbodiesis
notdrivenbyimpulsesofdesirebutexpressesthedecreesofprovidencewithout123Later,whilewritinghisgn.litt.,AugustinewillquestionandrevisethisidentificationandprovideadistinctaccountofEdenic(yetanimal),fallenandresurrectedbodies.Theresurrectedstateremainsthesame.
80
distractingattention(Enn.IV.3.9;IV.3.13).Hence,itis“unobserved”(latens),remaining
subterraneanandhiddeninitsuse.Likethegrowthofhornsorbeard,orspots
manifestingonaleopard,thecelestialmotionsproceedundersoul’spowerbutwithout
requiringtheattentiontoreallyqualifyasactions(Enn.IV.3.13;cf.alsoEnn.III.8.3,4).
Bodilygovernance,therefore,neednotdistractsuchaonefromcontinuously
gazinguponhermaker(gn.adu.Man.II.15).Indeed,theonly‘work’inParadise
consistedofmaintainingtheorderthecelestialcouplealreadypossessed(namquein
tranquillitatebeataeuitae,ubimorsnonest,omnisoperaestcustodirequodtenes.,gn.
adu.Man.II.15).Adam’scomplete,contemplativeforgetfulnessofbodyandappetitein
Paradisereceivesfigurativeexpressionintheaccountofhis‘slumber’producingEve
(cuiuscontemplatioquiainteriorestetsecretioretabomnisensucorporisremotissima,
conuenienteretiamistasoporisnomineintellegipotest.,gn.adu.Man.II.16).Thesingular
focusofthesoul’sattentioninParadisewasupontheintelligiblerealityofGodalone
(gn.adu.Man.II.16).
Becauseofitsperfectlymalleableexpressionofthesoul’sstate,theEdenicbody
waseffectivelytransparent,justlikePlotinus’celestialbodies(gn.adu.Man.II.32;Enn.
IV.3.18).124Thesebodieswerenotinvisible,ratherprimordialbodiesperfectly
124NoticethecloseparallelevenintheusageofanalogybetweenAugustineandPlotinus.Therecanbenodoubtofderivation.First,considerAugustine’stext:nequeeniminilliscorporibuscaelestibussiclaterepossecogitationescredendumest,quemadmoduminhiscorporibuslatent;sedsicutnonnullimotusanimorumapparentinuultuetmaximeinoculis,sicinillaperspicuitateacsimplicitatecaelestiumcorporumomnesomninoanimimotuslaterenonarbitror.(gn.adu.Man.II.32).ThenconsiderthearchetypicaldiscriptioninPlotinus:oujde\ dh\ fwnaivß, oi™mai, crhvsqaiv nomiste/on ejn me\n twˆv nohtwˆv ou¡saß kai\ pa/mpan, sw/mata d’ ejcou/saß ejn oujranwˆv, o¢sa me\n dia\ crei/aß h£ di’ ajmfisbhth/seiß diale/gonta ejntauvqa, ejkeiv oujk a£n ei¡h: poiouvsai de\ ejn ta/xei kai\ kata\ fu/sin e¢kasta oujd’ a£n ejpita/ttoien oujd’ a£n sumbouleu/oien, ginw/skoien d’ a£n kai\ ta\ par’ ajllh/lwn ejn sune/sei. ejpei\ kai\ ejntauvqa polla\ siwpw/ntwn ginw/skoimen di’
81
expressedthethoughtsofthesoul(nequeeniminilliscorporibuscaelestibussiclatere
possecogitationescredendumest,gn.adu.Man.II.32;cf.alsoEnn.IV.3.18).Thusthey
madeinvisiblethoughtsvisible(gn.adu.Man.II.32).Edenicbodies,onemightsay,told
thetruth.Perhapstheytoldthetruthpreciselybecausenointentionalactionyet
occupiedthemand,consequently,duplicitousexpressionremainedimpossible.Like
facesandeyesinfallenbodies,thewholeEdenicbodyfaithfullyandeffectively
mediatedtheinnerrealityofcontemplativepersons(sedsicutnonnullimotusanimorum
apparentinuultuetmaximeinoculis,sicinillaperspicuitateacsimplicitatecaelestium
corporumomnesomninoanimimotuslaterenonarbitror.,gn.adu.Man.II.32;Enn.
IV.3.18).ThusAugustineemploystheveryimageofthesilentlycommunicatingeyesby
whichPlotinusanalogizesthetransparencyofcelestialbodiestoafacetofcurrent
experience(ejpei\ kai\ ejntauvqa polla\ siwpw/ntwn ginw/skoimen di’ ojmma/twn: ejkeiv
de\ kaqaro\n pavn to\ swvma kai\ oi∞on ojfqalmo\ß e¢kastoß kai\ oujde\n de\ krupto\n
oujde\ peplasme/non,Enn.IV.3.18,2023).
Sohumanspeech,withitsbeatingofexternalair,wouldhavebeenredundantin
Paradiseandconsequentlydidnotexist(Enn.IV.3.18).Instead,God“spoke”directlyto
theintelligence,asifthroughaninteriorspringoftruthwellingupwithin(irrigabat
eamfonteinterioreloquensinintellectueius,utnonextrinsecusuerbaexciperettamquam
desupradictisnubibuspluuiam,sedfontesuo,hocestdeintimissuismananteueritate
ojmma/twn: ejkeiv de\ kaqaro\n pavn to\ swvma kai\ oi∞on ojfqalmo\ß e¢kastoß kai\ oujde\n de\ krupto\n oujde\ peplasme/non, ajlla\ pri\n eijpeivn a¡llwˆv ijdw\n ejkeivnoß e¡gnw.(Enn.IV.3.18,1324).ThedifferenceisthatPlotinusisdescribingthebodiesofstars,Augustineusesthisasadescriptionofangelic,Edenicandresurrectionbodies–thoroughlyconflatedinone.
82
satiaretur.,gn.adu.Man.II.5).Andfromthosewatersoftruththesoulwassufficiently
nourished(gn.adu.Man.II.6).
Intheseetherealbodies,humansoulswereplacedatthemid‐pointofthecosmic
order(gn.adu.Man.II.12;cf.Enn.IV.1.1,45;IV.8.7,18).Thebodilyrealmwasbelowher
andfullywithinherdominion(gn.adu.Man.I.2829;II.15).Theintelligiblerealmand
Godwereabove.Thecouple’sonlyneedwastosustainanattentivegazetowardGod
whileeffortlesslyrulingoverthefullysubmissiverealmofthingsbodily(gn.adu.Man.
II.16;Enn.IV.3.9).Insodoing,theywouldholdtheirproperplaceinthecenterofthe
ontologicalorder.Thusthesymbolicmeaningofthetreeoflife,plantedinthemiddleof
thegarden,referstothewisdomofmaintainingthismiddlepositioninreality(gn.adu.
Man.II.12).
FallofBodyandSoul:Augustine’sEmendationofthePlotinianFall
HavingentertainedasuggestionfromtheDevil,however,humanity’sprideswellsand
consentstograspexperientialknowledgeofevilinhopesofsurmountingGod’sheight
(gn.adu.Man.II.22,cf.alsotheslightlylateren.Ps.I.6).Thisconstitutesaturnawayfrom
thetruthofGodandtowardalieconcerningoneself(gn.adu.Man.II.22).
Theresultisdescribedasahidinginthemiddle,suspendedasitwereinone’s
ownhalfwaypositionintheworld(gn.adu.Man.II.22).Neitherbodilythingsbelow,nor
theintelligibleabovewouldanylongerbeinreach.Humanityisenclosedinwhatis
propertoitselfalone,thelie(gn.adu.Man.II.24).Havingconcealedtheirheartsthrough
an‘itch’fordeceptionsymbolizedbyfigleaves(foliaueroficipruritumquendam
significant,gn.adu.Man.II.23),GodconcursandaltersEdenicbodiestomatchthesoul’s
83
state(gn.adu.Man.II.32).SotheEdenicbodyfallstoitsprimordialanimalstate(gn.
adu.Man.II.10)anditsmortalityandopacityissignifiedallegoricallybytunicsofskin
(gn.adu.Man.II.32).
Now,inthesetunicsofskin,thoughtsandfeelingsarehiddenfromview(gn.adu.
Man.II.32).Opacityofbody,mirroringdeceptionofsoul,isolateshumanbeingswithin
themselves.Atragicallymutilatedinteriorityimpedesfreeinteractionwithother
personsoutside,andholdstheselfatarmslength,asitwere,fromaclearvisionofGod
andintelligiblerealitiesabove(gn.adu.Man.II.32).
Withhumanity’sturntothelie,theinnerspringoftruthdriesupandtheyare
forcedtosearchoutside,throughexteriorwords,forsometrickleofnourishmentfor
thesoul(gn.adu.Man.II.30).OnAugustine’saccountoneisforcedtosearchthrough
eyesandearsforaccesstotruth(gn.adu.Man.II.30).Thusthewhollydescendedstate
ofthesoul,incontradistinctionfromPlotinus,manifestsitselfinrelianceuponthe
corporealinstrumentsofscriptureandverbalteaching(gn.adu.Man.II.30).Inthis
whollydescendedcondition,humanlanguageemergesasasecond‐bestway(a
redemptivepossibilitywithintheconditionofthefall)piecedtogetherfromthe
fragmentsofbodilytransparency(gn.adu.Man.II.30).
Yet,evenaswepostureandanglebehindfigleaves,ourfallenbodieshavenot
utterlylosttheircapacitytomediate(gn.adu.Man.II.32).Theyretainanoften‐perverse
traceoftheiroriginalfunction,especiallyinthatpartmostinfusedwithlight,namely,
theeyes(gn.adu.Man.II.32;diu.qu.47).AugustinepickedupthishintfromPlotinus
(ejpei\ kai\ ejntauvqa polla\ siwpw/ntwn ginw/skoimen di’ ojmma/twn: ejkeiv de\ kaqaro\n
pavn to\ swvma kai\ oi∞on ojfqalmo\ß e¢kastoß kai\ oujde\n de\ krupto\n oujde\
peplasme/non,Enn.IV.3.18,2023)
84
ButAugustinealsodevelopsthehintquitefullywithregardtoourcurrent
animalcorporality,probablybecausehistrainingasarhetoralreadystressedthe
communicativeroleofthefaceandeyes(gn.adu.Man.II.32;diu.qu.47,cf.Cicero,deor.
II.56.213223,esp.,216,221andthelastlineof222;Orator5556,60;Leg.I.9,26;
QuintillianInst.II.3,65ff).125OnAugustine’sreading,intenseaffectionsstillshine
throughinourpresentstateofbody.Angeristheclearestexample,thoughlustisalso
readilyrecognizednonverballythroughfacialexpression(diu.qu.47;cf.thelater,yet
continuousaccountofthisphenomenonincat.rud.2.3;4.7).
Ofcourse,physiognomycontinuedtoappearinAugustine’sworldasalegitimate
practiceevenforphilosophers(AulusGellius,NoctesAtticaeI.9;alsoAmbrose,off.
I.18.7175).126Porphyry’suitaPlotiniincludesananecdoteinwhichPlotinus,by
inspectingthefacesofaburglaredwidow’sgatheredslaves,discernstheculpritwithout
anyneedforinterrogation(uitaPlot.11).PresumablyPlotinus’gazewasengagedin
physiognomicreadingofthesoulthroughthecountenance(uitaPlot.11).So
Augustine’sintuitionaboutresidualfragmentsofbodilytransparencytravelsin
recognizablecompany.
125AlsonotePs.Aristotle’sPhysiognomicsanditsreferencespassimtotheface.Thelastparagraphindicatesitimportanceindeducingcharacterfrombody.Forasecondarydiscussion,cf.Evans,ElizabethCornelia.1935.“RomanDescriptionsofPersonalAppearanceinHistoryandBiography”HarvardStudiesinClassicalPhilology46,pp.43‐84,esp.pp.46‐47.AndrecentlyadetailedstudyhasemergedinSwain,Simon,andG.R.Boys‐Stones.2007.SeeingtheFace,SeeingtheSoul:Polemon'sPhysiognomyfromClassicalAntiquitytoMedievalIslam.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.126Parsons,MikealCarl.2006.BodyandCharacterinLukeandActs:TheSubversionofPhysiognomyinEarlyChristianity.GrandRapids,Mich:BakerAcademic.,pp.17‐65,providesaveryhandysurveyofGreco‐RomanphilosophicalestimationsofphysiognomyandacompanionchaptercoveringearlyChristianandJewishaccounts.
85
Intentio:ImpetusoftheSoul’sMovementandConditionfortheFall
SowehaveinvestigatedthepeculiarmannerinwhichAugustinedescribesboththe
simultaneouselevationofbodyandsoultoEdenicspiritualenlightenmentandthe
conjunctfallofbodyandsoultoamerelysoulishlevelofexistence.Butcanwepress
deeperinAugustine’stheory?Nowweaskthequestion,whatonAugustine’sreadingis
theanthropologicalconditionforthepossibilityofelevationandfall?Whatmakes
turningtowardorawayfromGodpossible?
Theunderlyingimpetusofthisintrinsicallyspiraledturning(eitherinward‐
upwardoroutward‐downward)inresponsetoperceivedbeautyisnamedintentioor
attentio.127Hereinliesthesourceofthesoul’sloves(mus.VI.7;VI.46).Hereinherjoys
andsorrows.Ofcourse,consistentwithAugustine’srhetoricalpredilectionsheisloath
tousejustoneterm.Butthese,theircognates(e.g.distentio,extensio)andrough
equivalents(e.g.animaduerto,erigoanimum)formthecoreofhisdescriptive
terminology.127ForhelpfulrecentdiscussionsofthisaspectofAugustine’santhropologyseeO'Daly,GerardJ.P.1987.Augustine'sPhilosophyofMind.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.pp84‐87;Corrigan,Kevin.2006.“TheSoul‐BodyRelationinandbeforeAugustine”pp57‐80inInternationalConferenceonPatristicStudies,FrancesMargaretYoung,MarkJulianEdwards,andPaulM.Parvis.2006.Studiapatristica43,Augustine,otherLatinWriters.Leuven:Peeters.;Martino,CarlaDi.2000.“Ilruolodellaintentionell’evoluzionedellapsicologiadiAgostino:dalDeliberoarbitrioalDeTrinitate”Revuedesétudesaugustiniennes.173‐198;Rist,John.1997.“Augustine:Freedom,LoveandIntention”pp7‐21inCentrodistudiagostinianidiPerugia,LuigiAlici,RemoPiccolomini,andAntonioPieretti.1997.IlmisterodelmaleelalibertàpossibileIV:ripensareAgostino:attidell'VIIISeminariodelCentrostudiagostinianidiPerugia.Roma:Institutumpatristicumaugustinianum.Thefollowinghelpfulstudiesarecollectedinthesamevolume:Madec,Goulven.1990.“Conversion,interiorité,intentionnalité”pp7‐19inAlici,Luigi.1990.InterioritàeintenzionalitàinS.Agostinoatti.Roma:Institutumpatristicumaugustinianum.;Holte,Ragnar.1990.“FaithandInteriorityinS.Augustine’sConfessions”pp71‐83inAlici,Luigi.1990.InterioritàeintenzionalitàinS.Agostinoatti.Roma:Institutumpatristicumaugustinianum.
86
Augustine’schosenterm,intentio,hasahistoryinRomanStoicism.Theto/noß
pneumatiko\ß,whentranslatedintoLatin,becameknownastheintentio.128Thereisan
outsidepossibilitythatAugustinewasencouragedinusingthisterminologybyreading
aLatintranslationofPorphyry’suitaPlotini.ForPlotinusisdescribedasstudiously
maintainingaconstantmentaltensionduringwakinghours(ejpimelei/aß th\n pro\ß to\n
nouvn ta/sin oujde/pot’ a£n ejgrhgoro/twß ejca/lasen,uitaPlot.9.17)andneverrelaxing
hisself‐attention(…kai\ th/n ge pro\ß eJauto\n prosoch\n oujk a¡n pote ejca/lasen,
uitaPlot.8.20)eveninthemidstofconversation.129Butsincewedonotpossess
Victorinus’translations,thepossibilityofadditionalPlotinianorPorphyrianinfluence
couldonlybeahighlyspeculativeconjecture.
BehindtheseStoictermsisaphenomenoninneedofexplanation.Pneuvma,for
theStoics,ismaterial,yetspansthewholeofthecosmosholdingittogetherandlending
itvitalenergy(SVFII.439ff).130Atthelevelofindividualhumans,pneuvmaalso
integratesandvivifies(SVFII.458‐462).Theelasticityofpneuvmaismanifestinits
characteristicstrivingandtensing(to/noß)–simultaneouslyreachinginwardand
outward(SVFII.450,458).Therebyitbothpullselementsinwardtoconstituteasingle
bodyandpushesthoseelementsoutwardinpurposive,externalaction.131Thisis
intentioforthematerialistStoics.
128SeeArnold,E.Vernon.1958.RomanStoicism.NewYork:HumanitiesPress.passimandesp.pp.88‐89and160‐161.129NotediscussionspassimonPlotinus’useofStoicspiritualexercisesinHadot,Pierre.1993.PlotinusorTheSimplicityofVision.Chicago:theUniversityofChicagoPress.130Cf.Long,A.A.1986.HellenisticPhilosophy:Stoics,Epicureans,Sceptics.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.pp.152‐158.White,MichaelJ.2003.“StoicNaturalPhilosophy(PhysicsandCosmology)”inInwood,Brad.2003.TheCambridgeCompaniontotheStoics.Cambridge,U.K.:CambridgeUniversityPress.,pp.124‐152.131Apossiblematerialexplanationforthisinternallyoppositionalactivitymaybefoundintheelementalcompositionofpneuvma.Composedoftwoactiveelements(coldairand
87
Ofcourse,Augustine’snotionisthoroughlyde‐materialized.132Nonetheless,the
similaritiesinfunctionbetweenAugustine’sintentioandtheStoics’areimportant.The
cohesionofdisparateelementswithinasinglebodyisexplainedbyrecoursetothe
actionoftheto/noß pneumatiko\ß(SVFII.441,448).Likewise,inAugustine’sworkof
thisperiod,intentioisseenbehindthesoul’stemperatioofthebody(imm.an.17;
mus.VI.910).Additionally,tracesoftheusagetospeakofmuscularexertionare
retainedinAugustine(an.quant.39).
TheStoic’sto/noßnamesboththeconditionforanddirectionalityofmoral
action(SVFIII.473).ForAugustine,everypersonalactionmanifestsadeeperintentio
thatsetitinmotionandistheultimatereferencepointforjudgmentsofhuman
morality(an.quant.71;mus.VI.3639).Thereis,ofcourse,avitaldifference.Stoicto/noß
istriumphantlyself‐referential.133
Whileanimationortemperingofthebodyisattributedtoanactofintentio(imm.
an.17;mus.VI.910),thecharacteristicmanifestationofintentiointhisperiodismoreahotfire),pneuvmamaybethoughttotendatoncetowardexpansion(throughheat)andcontraction(throughcold).Cf.Galen’sfragmentinSVFII.446;alsoAlexanderinSVFII.442andNumesius70,6‐71,4andcommentaryinLong,A.A.,andD.N.Sedley.2006.TheHellenisticPhilosophersVolume1TranslationsofthePrincipalSourceswithPhilosophicalCommentary.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.,pp.286‐289.132O'Daly,GerardJ.P.1987.Augustine'sPhilosophyofMind.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.p.85statesthatintentioinAugustine,“hasitsphysicalsourceinthebrain”citinggn.litt.XII.20.42.Ofcourse,thispassagelieswelloutsideourcurrentchronologicalparameters.Nonetheless,amorethoroughexaminationofthepassageincontextrevealsthesourceoftheintentioisinthesoulormind.Thebrainismerelythephysicalchannelthroughwhichitoperatesinsensation,memoryandbodilyaction.InthiscaseAugustineconsidersaconditioninwhichthephysicalchannelbecomesoccluded.Iincludethelargersententiaheretoaidthereader:sedsopitoautperturbatoautetiaminterclusoitinereintentionisacerebro,quadirigitursentiendimodus,animaipsa,quaemotupropriocessareabhocoperenonpotest,quiapercorpusnonsinituruelnonplenesiniturcorporaliasentireueladcorporaliauimsuaeintentionisdirigere,spiritucorporaliumsimilitudinesagitautintueturobiectas.,(gn.litt.XII.20.42).133Cf.Hadot,Pierre.1998.TheInnerCitadel:TheMeditationsofMarcusAureliustrans.MichaelChase.Harvard:Cambridge,pp.193‐200.
88
matterofmentalconcentrationorfocuspointedinoneoftwodirections(an.quant.71;
mus.VI.3639).Intentioisspenteitherinengagementwiththeexteriorworldresulting
inaffectivelychargedsensationandbodilyaction(an.quant.71)orinengagementwith
theinteriorprocessesofcogitationandcontemplationofthingseternal(mus.VI.3637).
Thesearecontrarymotionsandmanifestdifferingunderlyingloves(mus.VI.39and42;
latercf.lib.arb.III.7576).
Overtime,one’ssouladaptstotheseconsistent,constitutivestretchings.
Intentiongraduallysedimentsintohabit.134Thecontrarietyofintentionaldirectionis
reflectedinthePaulineterminologybywhichAugustinenamesthesehabits(mus.
VI.33).“Flesh”isnotastateofbody,orembodiment.Rather,fleshisastateofmind
accustomedtofindingdelightinsenseexperience(mus.VI.33,andstillin393,f.etsymb.
23).Soullovesbodybyforceofhabit(mor.I.40).Thisdispositiontowardaffectively
chargedsensationcausesthesoulitselftobenamedintermsofwhatitseeks.Sothe
soul,thusinclined,islabeled“flesh.”Intheresurrection,therefore,thebodywillrise
withanangelicimmutability.Andwewillhavebodies,butnoflesh(f.etsymb.24).135
GoverningFallenBodies:Animation,SensationandCognitionthroughExternals
Howthenisonetounderstandthesoul’spresencewithinthefallenbody?Beingnon‐
bodilyinsubstance,thesouldoesnotmaintainherpresencetothebodythroughspatial
134Augustinemorefullydevelopshisaccountofhabitinthenextperiod,cf.discussionbelowinch.3.135N.B.,however,Augustine’srevisionofthisclaimsubsequenttohisdiscoveryofLuke24:39.Augustine’searliestrealizationofJesus’resurrectedclaimseemstobeagon.26.Hisfirstnuancedaccountoftheresurrectionbodywithadiscriminationbetweencaroasbodyandcaroassin‐taintedhabitappearsintheextendeddiscussionofc.Faust.XI,seeesp.XI.7.NotealsoAugustine’sre‐assessmentofhisteachinginf.etsymb.inretr.I.17.
89
proximity(an.quant.6469).Inthatsense,thesoulisnotinthebodyatall(andthusis
simultaneouslypresenttothewholeandeachpartofthebody,imm.an.25;Enn.IV.9.1).
However,thesouloccupiesandgovernsthebodythroughasortofagentialintention–
astretchingforth,asitwere,incareforthebodyasameansofaction(egoenimab
animahoccorpusanimarinonputo,nisiintentionefacientis.,mus.VI.9;cf.alsoan.quant.
71).136
Thesoulebbsandflowsinherintentionalinteractionwiththebodyand,inso
doing,lendslifeandsenseandimage‐ladencognitiontohercharge(an.quant.7073;
mus.VI.9).Plotinusdescribessensation,thoughnotanimation,intermsofanupswing
anddownswingofthesoul(Enn.IV.4.1819).AlsolikePlotinus,Augustinefindsagency
unidirectionalinallthesemovements.137Soulactsuponbody,butbodyneveractsupon
soul(mus.VI.9).Thusconceptualinfluenceislikely,buttheAugustinianalterationis
telltale.138
ForPlotinus,thesoulonlysensesandactsthroughintentionalinteraction(Enn.
IV.4.1819).Mereanimationrequiresnoagentialintention(Enn.IV.3.13;cf.alsoEnn.
III.8.3,4).Thesoul’sawarenessisfreetotraversethevariouslevelsofsoulandthus
136Cf.continuous,yetlater,accountinep.166.4137PaceBuckenmeyer,RobertE.1962.“AugustineandtheLifeofMan’sBodyintheEarlyDialogues”AugustinianStudies3,pp.131‐146,esp.pp.133‐134.138ConceptualderivationfromPlotinusseemstobeawideconsensus,cf.Gannon,M.AnnI.1952.TheActiveTheoryofSensationinPlotinusandSt.Augustine.Ph.D.diss.,SaintLouisUniversity;O'Connell,RobertJ.1968.St.Augustine'sEarlyTheoryofMan,A.D.386391.Cambridge,Mass:BelknapHarvard.,ch.5;Nash,RonaldH.1969.TheLightoftheMind;St.Augustine'sTheoryofKnowledge.Lexington:UniversityPressofKentucky.,ch.4;Miles,MargaretR.1979.AugustineontheBody.Missoula,Mont:distributedbyScholarsPress.,ch.1.Although,O'Daly,GerardJ.P.1987.Augustine'sPhilosophyofMind.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.,ch.3,rightlyproteststheassumptionthatanactivetheorymustbederivedfromPlotinus,foralltheancientschoolsoutsidetheEpicureansheldtoanactivetheorysensation.
90
ascendunimpededtoitsown,unfallenplacewithIntellect.However,Augustine’s
animalbodiesareanimatedbytheagentialintentionofanimalsouls(egoenimab
animahoccorpusanimarinonputo,nisiintentionefacientis.,mus.VI.9).Evidentlythe
soul’sanimationrequiressomeagentialfocusinAugustine,becauseAugustine’spost‐
Edenicsouliswhollydescended.
AndAugustineusesarangeoftermstodescribethisactivityofsoulfrom
differentperspectives.Whenviewedfromtheangleofthesoul’srelationtobody,this
ebbingandflowingisnamedprocessionandrecession(an.quant.55).Thesoulmoves
outintothebody(ord.1.3)andthenpullsback,onlytorepeattheprocessagain
(mus.VI.24).
Whenthisisviewedfromthevantageofthesoul’srelationtoherself,theactivity
iscalleddispersionandcollection(an.quant.70,lib.arb.II.41).Byattuningher
attentionandstretchingtowardtherealmofthingsbodily,thesouldiffusesandscatters
outwardfromherrelativeunity(ord.II.43,an.quant.33,ep.7.2,gen.adu.Man.II.29).As
shepullsbackfromthemultiplicityofbody,thesoulpurgesherselfofexternaldirtand
gathersherfragmentedbitstogether,thusapproximatingheroriginalunity(an.quant.
71).Thisiscollection(ord.I.3,lib.arb.II.41).
Whenthesoul’sself‐dispersionisviewed,notfromtheangleofherself‐relation,
butintermsoftheresultanteffectsuponthebody,aparadoxemerges(an.quant.70).
Thediffusionofthehigherissimultaneouslythecollectionofthelower.Byscattering
herselfdownwardintothebody,thebodyistherebydrawnupandcollectedintoa
relativeunity(an.quant.70).
Thisebbandflowisrecapitulatedonvariouslevelstoexplainthesoul’sarrayof
activitieswithinthebody.Themostbasicactivityistheverytemperingofthebodyinto
91
alivingunity.Bypouringherselfintomatter,theveryadmixture,asitwere,collectsthe
fourconstituentelementsintoacomplexunity(an.quant.70).Thusthesoullendsform
tothebody(imm.an.24).Sheordersandsustainsthevitalmotionsofthebody,suchas
breathing,chewinganddigesting,accordingtorhythmsofrationalnumber(mus.VI.20).
Souldoesnotsettheseactivitiesinmotionbyanycrasslyphysicalmeans.Rather,she
movesthebodyinthesamewaysheoccupiesit,byintentionratherthanbulk(an.
quant.30).InherEdenicbody,suchactivitieswouldbeconductedwithoutany
diversionofawarenessatall(gn.adu.Man.I.29;II.15;cf.Enn.III.8.3,4;IV.3.9;IV.3.13).
Underconditionsofrelativehealth,thefallenbodyalsocarriesoutthesemotions
withoutrequiringmuchstrainingofthesoul’sattention(mus.VI.13).ButAugustine
thinkssomemeasureofagentialintentionmustbepresentinpost‐Edenicanimation
(mus.VI.9),onlyintheresurrectionwillthebodyagainrequirenoneofthesoul’s
attention(mus.VI.13).
Thesecondlevelofgovernanceissensation(an.quant.71).Sensationisthe
actionbywhichthesoul,inherprocession,takesnoticeofsomepassionthebodyis
undergoing.Actually,Augustine’slanguageismorepeculiar.Commentatorshavelong
notedtheoddityofAugustine’stheoryofsensation.139Passion,toamodernmind,
seemsthemostobviouscategoryforone’ssensing.AndsoitwastotheEpicureans
(Lucretius,nat.rerum4.722822;DiogenesLaertiusX.4653).ButAugustinecannot139Cf.Gannon,M.AnnI.1952.TheActiveTheoryofSensationinPlotinusandSt.Augustine.Ph.D.diss.,SaintLouisUniversity;Buckenmeyer,RobertE.1962.“AugustineandtheLifeofMan’sBodyintheEarlyDialogues”AugustinianStudies3,pp.131‐146;O'Connell,RobertJ.1968.St.Augustine'sEarlyTheoryofMan,A.D.386391.Cambridge,Mass:BelknapHarvard.,ch.5;Nash,RonaldH.1969.TheLightoftheMind;St.Augustine'sTheoryofKnowledge.Lexington:UniversityPressofKentucky.,ch.4;Miles,MargaretR.1979.AugustineontheBody.Missoula,Mont:distributedbyScholarsPress.,ch.1.;O'Daly,GerardJ.P.1987.Augustine'sPhilosophyofMind.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.,ch.3;
92
stomachtheideaofthingslowerandbodilyactingdirectlyuponanentitysosuperioras
thesoul(cf.hisearliertrainofthoughtinord.II.6).140Instantiatinghishesitation,
Augustinedefinessensationasthesoul“notbeingunaware”(nonlatere)ofthebody’s
passion(an.quant.41;48;mus.VI.10&11).Plotinususesasimilarperiphrasisin
describingthesoul’sawarenessofpain(perilamba/nwn de\ dhlono/ti touvto shmai/nei,
wJß ojdu/nh meta\ touv mh\ laqeivn th\n ojdu/nhn th\n ai¡sqhsin.,Enn.IV.4.19,25,emphasis
added).
ActionasTemptationandTimeasMutationofActiveSoul
ThusAugustineandPlotinushighlightthe(relative)freedomandagencyofthesoul
overagainstthebody’spassivityinsensation(an.quant.41;48;mus.VI.911).At
bottom,thesoulisawareoftheexteriorworldofbodilyentitiesandcausesherselfto
feeltheirjostlingforonereason.Shewantsto(mus.VI.10).
Augustinebemoansthestateofthefallensoul.Miserystemsfromher
enthrallmenttoherowncapacitytoactuponthebody.Inthismidpointofactingbyher
ownresourcesuponthelowerworld,sheexperiencestheaffectivelycharged
sensationsthatbindher(mus.VI.9).Herbodymustbeviewedasatoolthroughwhich
sheintentionallyactsandthebyproductofthisengagementissensation(mus.VI.9).
Whentheexternalworld’sresistanceyieldstoherintentionaleffortsthroughthebody,
pleasurepoursthroughthesoul(uerarel.72;mus.VI.9).Whenresistancefrustrates,the
soulenactspainwithin(mus.VI.9).Thetragedyisthatfallensoulpreferspleasure,
140SowhiletheStoicsandPeripateticsalsoheldtoanactivetheoryofsensation,Augustine’sreasonsfordoingsoherearedistinctivelyPlatonist.
93
throughtheovercomingofexternalresistance,tothehealthfulstateofattentive
contemplationwhereintherewouldbenoresistanceatall(mus.VI.13).
EpiphenomenonofAction:InventingSoulishTemporality
Inthepreceedingperiod,evenwhenpressed,Augustinefoundhimselfvery
uncomfortabletalkingaboutthesoulasatemporalentity(an.quant2829,34).For
withinhisbinaryuniverseofthetime,temporalitysuggestedasensibleandnotan
intelligiblemodeofexistence.141Suchaconcessionwouldhaveseriouslydisruptedhis
flightfromManichaeism.ButnowAugustinehasdistinguishedmutabilityfromthe
distinctionbetweensensibilityandintelligibility.Andwiththediscoveryofintentio
beneaththesoul’sfailureofcontemplationnamedaction,thestageisclearforafurther
realizationconcerningthehumansoul.142
WithinAugustine’sthree‐tieredontology,temporalmutabilityisthe
distinguishingmarkofsoul’smiddlepositioninthecosmos(ep.18).Godaboveis
immutable.Bodiesbelowchangeintimeandplace.Butsoulonlychangesintime(ep.
18).Sheexperiencesnospatialmutability.Butwhatsortofchangewouldtemporal,
non‐spatialmutationcomprise?Or,tobebolder,inwhatmanneristemporalmutation
registeredinpersonalexperience?Howdoesthesoulknowwhenshe’sdoingit?
Augustine’sanswerfollows.Temporal,non‐spatialmutationisexperiencedas
emotionalchange(mutariautemanimampossenonquidemlocaliter,sedtamen
temporalitersuisaffectionibusquisquecognoscit,uerarel.18).Theaffections,bytheir
141Cf.discussioninchapter1above142Holte,Ragnar.1990.“FaithandInteriorityinS.Augustine’sConfessions”inAlici,Luigi.1990.InterioritàeintenzionalitàinS.Agostinoatti.Roma:Institutumpatristicumaugustinianum.esp.pp.80‐83
94
perpetualalterations,markthesoulasintrinsicallytemporal.Theshiftsofloveand
hate,attractionanddisgust,entrancedyearningfollowedbyindifferentboredomall
gesturetowardtheunderlyingnatureofthesoulastemporal(gn.adu.Man.II.7;uera
rel.18).Thesesubjectivealterationsinaffectareproduced,inpart,bythemutabilityof
thosethingsthesoulsetsheraffectionsuponinexternalaction(uerarel.65).Thevery
alterationsinaffectiondirectlyfollowfromtheinevitablelossofabelovedobject(uera
rel.65).
TheclearestopticforthisdescriptioninAugustinemaybefoundinobservinghis
accountofthemomentwhensoultransitionedfrommutabletoactuallymutating.Of
course,IrefertohisaccountoftheFallfromcontemplative,spiritualexistenceinEden
(gn.adu.Man.II.20ff).Affectivealteration,externalactionandexperienceoftemporality
areintertwinedinhisreadingoftheexpulsionfromtheGarden.Paradiseisnotaplace,
forAugustine.Rather,Paradiseisanaffectofblessedness(gn.adu.Man.II.20)derived
throughfullcontemplativeattentiononGod(gn.adu.Man.II.16).Theaffective
blessednessofcontemplationconsequentlyheldtheprimordialcoupleineternity
immunetotime(uerarel.38).143Temporality,intentionalactionandmutableaffectivity
areconvertibleinAugustine’smindoftheperiod.144
Thisiswhytheserpentisneverdescribedas“inParadise”butonly“amongthe
beasts,”fortheinstrumentoftemptationcouldnotenjoytheblessednessofstable
contemplation(gn.adu.Man.II.20).Nonetheless,theserpenthadaccesstothewoman,143Cf.ca.394,s.Dom.m.I.35quibusperactistamquamdeparadiso,hocestdebeatissimaluceiustitiae,inmortemhomoexpellitur144Cf.gn.adu.Man.II.7,“diesautemiste,cuiusnomineuniuersumtempussignificaridiximus,insinuatnobisnonsolumuisibilem,sedetiaminuisibilemcreaturamtempuspossesentire;quoddeanimanobismanifestatur,quaetantauarietateaffectionumsuarumetipsolapsu,quomiserafactaest,etreparatione,quarursusinbeatitatemredit,temporemutariposseconuincitur.”Alsosees.dom.m.II.27earlyinthenextperiod.
95
notwithstandinghisexclusionfromParadise,becauseheraffectiveexperienceof
blessednessdidnotremoveherspatiallyfromhisalluringvoice(gn.adu.Man.II.20).
Eveandtheserpentoccupiedthesamespatialspheresimultaneously,butbyreasonof
differingaffectiveexperiencestheywerelivingindifferenttimes.SoitisthatintheFall
humanityisexpelledfromParadiseintothisage(itahomodeparadisoinhocsaeculum
expulsusest,uerarel.38).Withachangeinaffect,expressedthroughintentional
externalaction,humanityenterstherealmoftemporality(uerarel.38).145
ForAugustine,mutabilityisintrinsictothenatureofsoul(ep.18).Butactual
mutationisnot.Indeed,whetherasoulactuallyexperiencesmutationthroughthe
twistingandturningofherlovesiswhollydependentontheobjectsofherlove(mus.
VI.14).For,shewascreatedwithinarelationalproximitytoGodthatobviatedherever
needingtomutate.Ifshesetherintentioonlyandalwaysaboveincontemplation,the
soulwouldhavebeenmutable,butneverexperiencemutation.Forthefocalpointofher
longingwouldbeimmutable.
Sequentialityofphysicalmovementdoesnot,however,constituteasufficient
conditionfortemporalityinAugustine(gn.adu.Man.II.15;cf.alsoEnn.IV.3.913;Enn.
III.8.3,4).Foremotionalattachmenttobodies,andnotmereinteractionwithbodies,
drivesthesoul’smutation.EdenicsoulsbeforetheFallwouldstillhavegoverneda
spiritualbody,butwouldhaveunconsciouslyexpressedperfectmotionswithoutany
descentintointentionalaction(gn.adu.Man.II.15;cf.alsoEnn.IV.3.913;Enn.III.8.3,4)
145Anotherwayofnamingthedistinctionisthateternallifesurpassestemporallifepreciselyintheintensityoflifeorvivaciousnessofexistence.Andthisformoflifeisonlyaccessiblethroughintellection(aeternaenimuitauitamtemporalemuiuacitateipsasuperat,necquidsitaeternitasnisiintellegendoconspicio.,uerarel.97).Thustoleaveintellectioninintentionalactiondrawsthesouloutofeternityintotemporality.
96
Byturningtothingsbelowinaction,thesoulinevitablyexperiencesemotional
change,becausetheobjectsofherlovedissolveanddisappear(uerarel.65).146Places
offerthingstolove,saysAugustine.Andtimestearthosethingsfromthesoulleaving
turbulentphantasmsintheirplace(locaofferuntquodamemus,temporasurripiuntquod
amamus,etrelinquuntinanimaturbasphantasmatum,uerarel.65).Thedistentionof
mindwherebythesoulcontortsherselfthroughanachingforlovesonlyremembered
andwistfullongingfordesiresnotyetpresentisconsequenttoherfundamentalchoice
tosetherintentioonthingsbelow(lib.arbII.41).147
146Onemightfairlyaskifthisactofturning,inAugustine’sestimation,isreallythesameasmereattention,intheminimalsenserequiredfortyingone’sshoesordoingthelaundry.Thephilosophicaldistinctionbetweenprovidentialgovernanceofbodilymotions(suchasdigestion,growthofhairandnails,etc…)andintentionalaction,whichAugustineseemstoborrowfromPlotinus(Enn.IV.3.13;cf.alsoEnn.III.8.3,4),doesnotclearlyaddressthequestionofapossiblymiddlingsortofintentionality.
Ofcourse,oureverydayexperiencesofabsorptiveattentionwouldcertainlybeamanifestationofthesoul’sturningforAugustine.WhenIamengrossedinanovel,orfixatedonatheatricalperformanceorsprintingwithlaserfocustobeatmytimeinthe100mdash–allthisinvolvesanabsorptionofselfintheactivitywhichforbidsconcurrentcontemplationofGodandindicatesanemotionalattachmenttotheendsought.Inotherwords,ourexperienceofabsorptioninactivity,whenviewedagainsttheendofcontemplatingGod,isnotamanifestationoffocusbutofseveredistractibility.
However,PorphyryseemstosuggestamiddlingformofattentiontoactionaspracticedbyPlotinus(uitaPlot.8.20;9.17).Duringtheentertainmentofguestsandattendingtothemundanebusinessofeverydaylife,Plotinusretainedaneverpresentcontemplativeengagementwithhimselfinthebackground(uitaPlot.8.20;9.17).
Nonetheless,wefindnothoroughincorporationofthismiddlingstateinAugustineandactuallyfindhimarguingagainstJulian’suseofitmuchlaterinlife(c.Iul.5.5.20ff).Perhaps,Augustine’santipathytothisdistinctionalsoturnsonhisnotionofthefullydescendedsoulandit’sanchoringfrombelow?Forsecondarydiscussionofdebatesee,Sorabji,Richard.2000.EmotionandPeaceofMind:FromStoicAgitationtoChristianTemptation.TheGiffordLectures.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.,pp.409ff.147Foraconvincingchronologicalanalysisoflib.arb.thatattributeseverythinguptolib.arb.II.43tothisperiod,seeDuRoy,Olivier.1966.L'intelligencedelafoienlaTriniteselonsaintAugustin:genesedesatheologietrinitairejusqu'en391.Paris:Étudesaugustiniennes.,pp237‐238.Theremainder,byAugustine’sownaccount,wascompletedatHippo.
97
Earlyinthenextperiod,thisimmersionofthesoulintimewillbeassociated
withthebiblicallanguageofEcclesiastes–“vanity”describestheconditionofamorous
mutability(en.Ps.IV.3).Onebecomesauanitatorbylovingtemporal,mutablethings
(en.Ps.IV.3).Thefutilityentailedthereinisnotnativetothemutablenatures
themselvesortotheirsequentialexistence.Fortheyfillprovidentialnichesperfectly
andarethusgoodintheirappropriateorder(uerarel.41).Futilityarisesfromthesoul’s
intentioseekingfulfillmentingoodslesserthanGod.Theresultantaffectiveoscillation
betweenfixationandlossalmostconstitutesacorporalizationofthesoul(uerarel.
28).148
148Affectivewearebynatureandaffectivewewillremain(aeternoenimcreatoriadhaerentesetnosaeternitateafficiamurnecesseest.,uerarel.19).ButtheaffectionswhenintentionallyfastenedtotheimmutableGodbecomevirtues(cf.mus.VI.37&50)andthussourcesofstability,notofchange(cf.later,lib.arb.III.21).
Alsonote,imm.an.3,gn.litt.inp.16.59,Constancyandstabilityseemtobecardinalfeaturesofuirtusinthebroadsenseofboth“power”and“virtue”forAugustine.Seealsotheverylate,c.Iul.4.20fortheinverseclaimthatinconstancyisvice.
98
Phantasms:TheResidualStainofActionintheSoul
Inwhatsensedoestheaffectivemutationconsequenttointentionalactioncorporalize
thesoul?Asthesoulrecedesintoherselfagainfollowingherejaculationinbodily
action,sheinevitablycarrieswithheratraceofhersenseexperience(sol.II.34;mag.39;
mus.VI.32;lib.arb.II.23).Theseaffectivevestigesofsenseexperiencearecalled
imagines–mentalimages(mag.39).ButoccasionallyAugustineexploitsthesubtlety
affordedbythetwinGreekterms,fantasi/ai (phantasai)andfanta/smata
(phantasmata,sol.II.34;mus.VI.32;lib.arb.II.23).
Phantasiaiaretheimmediateresultofsenseexperience–thewell‐definedinitial
stain,asitwere,documentingthesoul’sactiveengagementinthebody’spassion(mus.
VI.32).Theveryretentionofsuchthingsbespeaksadangerousinterestinbodilyaction.
Andtoconsiderthemasknownorcertainbringsonealreadytothebrinkoferror(quas
procognitishabereatqueproperceptisopinabilisuitaest,constitutainipsoerroris
introitu.,mus.VI.32).
Buttheseintitialstainsofbodilyactiontendtopropagatenewmaladiesforthe
soul.Phantasmsarederivativeimages,patchedtogetherbythealterationand
conflationofotherimages(uerarel.18;mus.VI.32).Theycanbedescribedasimagesof
images(tamquamimaginumimagines,mus.VI.32).Incomparisonwiththediffusive
activityofsensation,thedrawingtogetherofdiversesensationsintoaunifiedmental
imageisconsideredanactofcollection(uerarel.105).Relativeunityisproducedfrom
themultiplicityofexternalstimuli.149However,phantasmsshouldbeconsideredfailed
149N.B.themultiplicity,orshallIsaydisparity,oftermsusedtodescriberoughlythesamephenomenoninAugustine’swritingsofthisperiod.E.g.sensusinterioroccursonlyinonetextofthisperiod(lib.arb.II.816)androughlycorrespondsinfunctiontowhat
99
orperversecollectionsstemmingfromanover‐engagementwithbodilysensation(mus.
VI.32).
Theproblempresentedbythesemiscollectedimagesisthewaytheytakeona
lifeoftheirownwithinourminds(mus.VI.14;VI.32).Theinitialstain,phantasia,
possessesaresidualcapacityforself‐motioninthememorybestowedthroughthe
emotionalintensityofthealways‐activesensation(motusigituranimaeseruans
impetumsuum,etnondumexstinctus,inmemoriaessedicitur,mus.VI.14).Indeed,the
vividnessandenduranceofimaginesareproportionatetotheaffectiveintensitylentto
theoriginalsensation.Asaresult,thoseforgedthroughintenseaffectiveengagement
continuetopossessacapacitytomovewithinus(uerarel.65;mus.VI.14).And,without
ourintending,theycanusurpourattentionandrecombinetoproducenovelimages
(mus.VI.14).Theprinicipleofcombinationseemstofunctionthroughtheattractionof
liketolike(etcuminaliudintendituranimus,quasinoninestanimopristinusmotus,et
reueraminorfit,nisiantequamintercidat,quadamsimiliumuicinitaterenouetur,mus.
VI.14).
Augustinecertainlyconsiderstheseproliferatingandmutatingstainsofactionas
aconsequenceoftheFall(gn.adu.Man.II.30;II.41).Thusfullcontemplativebeatitude
canonlyholdwhenoursoulishbodiesaretransformedintospiritualbodiesandthese
hybridstainsareobliteratedfromourmemoriesaltogether(mus.VI.51;VI.52).
Forthesoulatpresent,thephantasmpresentsadouble‐edgeddanger.Onthe
skywardedge,theseimagesmaybeeasilymistakenforthingsintelligible(mus.VI.32;
aredescribedasoccursoresnumeriinmus.VI.21.Foragenealogyofthishaltingevolutionofterms,seeMartino,CarlaDi.2000.“Ilruolodellaintentionell’evoluzionedellapsicologiadiAgostino:dalDeliberoarbitrioalDeTrinitate”Revuedesétudesaugustiniennes.,pp.173‐198.
100
VI.51;gn.adu.Man.II.30;uerarel.40;64;95101).150Oneneedonlyrememberyoung
Augustine’sfailingattemptstoimagineGod’somnipresencetosensethedangerofthis
mistake(cf.conf.VII.1.12).Nonetheless,allofhumanityslipsintothispracticesincethe
Fall(gn.adu.Man.II.41).Soonemustassumethatnotonlyone’sownunconverted
thoughts,butalsosocialopiniongenerally,sinksitsrootsintophantasms(sequuntur
autemnonnulliphantasmatasuatampraecipites,utnullasitaliamateriesomnium
falsarumopinionum,quamhaberephantasiasuelphantasmataprocognitis,quae
cognoscunturpersensum.,mus.VI.32).Externalactionreconfigurescognitionand
inhibitsintellectualvisionofGod(mus.VI.32;VI.51;gn.adu.Man.II.30;uerarel.40;64).
Ontheearthwardedge,phantasmsconstitutetemptationstopursuefurther
action(mus.VI.14;VI.32;uerarel.40).Theypressustopursuesensepleasure(mus.
VI.14;VI.32;uerarel.40).Mentalimagesretainanunbridleddynamismproportionateto
thedelightthesoultookintheactsbywhichtheywereimpressed(mus.VI.14.VI.32).
Likewise,thememoryinteractsinvoluntarilywithone’sexperience,automatically
associatingliketolike(mus.VI.14).Wheneveranelementofone’spresentexperience
bearsasimilaritytoanelementofone’spaststoredinamemorialphantasm,that
phantasmisbroughttothesurface.Hence,incidentalsimilaritiesbetweenmemoryand
presentexperience(e.g.acertainscent,innocuousinitself,butpresentalsointhe
memoryofsomecarnalexperience)mayinflameandstirtheresidueofdesire
150ThebestaccountofthisjudgmentistobefoundinthetwinarticlesbyTeske,R.J.,1993.“Augustine,MaximusandImagination”Augustiniana43:2741and1994.“HeresyandImaginationinSt.Augustine”Studiapatristica27,pp.400‐404..Therein,TeskeillustratesAugustine’sconsistentandoft‐repeatedanalysisofdiverseheresiesasrootedinafundamentalconfusionbetweenphantasmsandintelligiblerealities.Hereticsviciouslyclingtowhattheycanimagine.Orthodoxycallsonetothinkwhatonecannotimagine.
101
triggeringafloodofmentalimages.Theseimagesprovokethesensualhabitsandcause
asuddenafflictionofcarnaldesire(mus.VI.14;uerarel.40).
AsceticProgram:NegotiatingtheExternalRequirementsofLearning
Augustine’sbasicasceticprojectthroughoutthisperiodistouprootresidualphantasms
andthusfreethemindfromtemptationtoactionandforcontemplationofGodin
intelligiblepurity(mus.VI.32;VI.52;uerarel.3;65;9497).Giventhestateofourwholly
descendedsouls,however,apitfallisnecessarilyentailedinthisproject(gn.adu.Man.
II.30;II.41).151Theinnerspring,bywhichGodonce“spoke”directlytoour
understandingsthroughpurepresentationsoftruth,hasdriedup(gn.adu.Man.II.7).
Nowwemustturntosensiblethings,namelyexteriorwords,tofindinstruction
intruth(etquoniamnecessitateiamperhosoculosetperhasauresdeipsaueritate
admonemur,gn.adu.Man.II.30).Andyettheveryprocessofattendingtosensationis
productiveofphantasiaandphantasms(etdifficileestresisterephantasmatisquaeper
istossensusintrantinanimam,quamuisperillosintretetiamipsaadmonitioueritatis,gn.
adu.Man.II.30).Sincethesetendtodistractanddeceiveusinoursearchfortruth,the
veryactoftextuallearninginevitablycontainswithinitseedsoftemptation.Therefore,
greatlaborisrequiredtocultivateone’smindsoastolearnthroughhumanspeechand
writingwhilesimultaneouslyuprootingtheseedsofphantasmsalongtheway(gn.adu.
Man.II.30).ThereinliesthespiritualsenseofAdam’ssweatingbrowproducing
nourishmentforthesoul(inistaergoperplexitatecuiusuultusnonsudet,utmanducet
panemsuum?,gn.adu.Man.II.30).151etquoniamnecessitateiamperhosoculosetperhasauresdeipsaueritateadmonemur,etdifficileestresisterephantasmatisquaeperistossensusintrantinanimam,quamuisperillosintretetiamipsaadmonitioueritatis,gn.adu.Man.II.30
102
FromtheLiberalDisciplinestoScripturalContemplation
Obviously,Augustine’sinterpretationofeatingbreadbythesweatofone’sfallenbrow
assumesthatthereceivedculinary‐digestivemetaphorcomplexliesbackofthe
scripturaltext(gn.adu.Man.II.30).152ButAugustine’sthoughtthroughthisperiod
evincesadecisivemotiontowardamorethoroughlyecclesialusageofthismetaphor
complex.Tothesedevelopments,readinlightofthealterationsinhisasceticprogram,
wenowturn.
Duringthisperiod,Augustineseemstooccupyanoddlyhybridpositioninhis
asceticprogram.Asdescribedinthepreviouschapter,Augustine’searliestproject
strovetorisethroughthedisciplinaeliberalestointellectualvisionofGod(ord.II.35ff;
retr.1.3).Withinafewyears,doctrinaChristianawillusurptheintroductoryroleofthe
disciplinaeinAugustine’sasceticprogram(doc.Chr.).Butatthistransitionalphase,we
findAugustinedescribingatwofolddisciplinainscripture(mor.I.56)thatconstitutes
notonlynourishmentbutmedicinefortheailingsoul(mor.I.55).
Augustineagaininvokesthebody‐soulparallelismbehindhisearliestuseofthe
metaphorcomplex(mor.I.52;cf.beatau.7).ButinthecontextofbattlingtheManichees,
nourishmentistoolimitedagoal.Nowheconceivesananalogybetweenbodily
medicineanddisciplinaforthesoul(mor.I.52).153Mindssothoroughlyentrustedto
phantasmsneedradicalhealing.Ofcourse,healingmayincludediet–prescriptionsof
152Cf.ch.1abovefordiscussionofAugustine’searliestusageandthephilosophicalpatrimonybehindit.153Forthecommonplaceofthephilosopherasaphysicianandphilosophicalargumentandexhortationasmedicine(ordiet,surgery,cautery,etc…),cf.e.g.,Plato,Gorgias462Bff;Seneca,ep.22.1;27.1;40.5;50.4;64.8;72.56;94.24;95.29.
103
foodanddrink(mor.I.52).Butthemainpointistofindindisciplinathatwhichrestores
healthtothemind(mor.I.55).
Augustineseemstoalludetohisearlier,ratherinvolvedanddiffuse,plantorise
tocontemplationthroughtheliberaldisciplines(mor.I.55).Thereisstillvalueinit.We
doindeedassistthemindwithinstruction(disciplinaanimosubuenimus,mor.I.55).But
thenAugustinesignalsachangeinfocus.Thereareothermeansbywhichthesoul’s
varieddiseasesmaybehealed,namely,throughagreatinfusionofratiothatoutstrips
speech(suntueroalia,quibusmultimodiuariiquemorbianimorummagnaquadamet
prorsusineffabilirationesanantur,mor.I.55).And,forpeoplesofargoneinsinasthe
Manichees,onlythisGodsentmedicinecanofferhopeofsalvation(quaemedicinanisi
diuinituspopulismitteretur,nullaspessalutisessettamimmoderataprogressione
peccantibus,mor.I.55).
Thetwofolddisciplinainscripturecorrespondstotheprimarydivinestrategyin
theoldandnewtestaments,respectively(mor.I.56).Althoughbothtestamentsproperly
readcontainbothstrategies(quamquamenimutrumqueinutroquesit,praeualettamen
inueteritimor,amorinnouo.,mor.I.56).Thefirststageofdisciplinaisdeterrencefrom
actingonsinfulimpulses.Thisstageofthestrategymanifestsprimarilyintheold
covenant(praeualettameninueteritimor,mor.I.56)andemploysfearofpunishmentas
thedeterent(mor.I.56).
Thesecondstageaimstoinstructinlove(mor.I.56).Andthisstrategybecomes
obviousprimarilyinthenewcovenant(praeualettamen…amorinnouo,mor.I.56).
Togetherthetwotestamentsconstitutethereguladisciplinae(mor.I.56)thatleadsusto
thetwofoldloveofGodandneighbor,whichistheGodgivenformauiuendiforthe
church(mor.I.62).
104
MilkandMeat:DevelopingtheCulinaryDigestiveMetaphorComplex
Thetwofolddisciplinaofscripturealsomapsontospecificformsofnutritionwithinthe
culinarydigestivemetaphorcomplex.Thedistinctionbetweenformsofteachingasmilk
andasmeat,thoughnotcompletelyunattestedoutsideChristianwritings,154seems
peculiarlyadaptedtoecclesialteachings.155AtCassicacum,Augustineneveremployed
thispeculiardistinction.NowAugustinedevelopsitatlength(an.quant.76;mor.I.17;154Philoisthenearestofkinamongnon‐ecclesialwriters.Heutilizedacontrastbetweenmilkandwheatenbreadtodescribeappropriatetraininginthecycleofstudiesfortheinfantsoulbeforemovingontothesolidfoodofphilosophy(deag.9;decongress.1419;prob.160).Otherwise,noexplicitusageofthedistinctioncanbelocatedamongthephilosophers.Epictetusreproachespeopleforrefusingtobeweanedandwhiningfortheirnannyinsteadofgrowingup(Diss.II.16.39;III.24.9).ButtheStoicsneverdevelopanexplicitdistinctionbetweenmilkandmeatasformsofteaching.155EcclesialusageofthemilkandmeatmetaphoremergesintheNewTestamentandabinitiodescribesmodesofgrowthwithinanembeddedmetaphorcomplexofnewbirth.Themetaphoricalneighborhoodconsistsofthefollowinginteractiveconnections:Thewordorgospelisseedorsperm(Mk4:120,2632;Matt.13:335;Lk.8:415;ICor.4:15;Philem.10;Jam.1:1718;IPet.1:2324)that,whenwell‐received,causesonetobesiredagainorgeneratedagain(Jhn.1:13;ICor.4:15;Philem.10;Jam.1:1718;IPet.1:2324)andthisspiritualpregnancyissuesinthebirthofaspiritualinfantinneedofspeciallyadaptedmoralandspiritualnutritiontogrow(ICor.3:13;Heb.5:1114;IPet.2:13,cf.alsoOdesofSolomon19).Whenfullygrown,theinitialseedandfoddermanifestsasanewselfornewcreation(Jam.1:1718;IPet.1:32:3).
ForsecondarydiscussionsofNewTestamentusageofthemilkandmeatmetaphor,cf.Thompson,James.1982.TheBeginningsofChristianPhilosophy:TheEpistletotheHebrews.TheCatholicBiblicalQuarterly,13.Washington,DC:CatholicBiblicalAssociationofAmerica.,pp.17‐40;Jobes,KarenH.2002.“GotMilk?SeptuagintPsalm33andtheIntepretationofIPeter2:1‐3”WestminsterTheologicalJournal63,pp.1‐14offersacounter‐intuitive,andultimatelyunconvincing,perspectivethatmilkisGod’sgracegenericallynotteaching;Corrington,Gail.1989.“TheMilkofSalvation:RedemptionbytheMotherinLateAntiquityandEarlyChristianity”HarvardTheologicalReview.82:4,pp.393‐420arguesforaliturgicalcontextwithabackgroundintheIsismysterycult,soalsoCorrington,GailPaterson.1992.HerImageofSalvation:FemaleSaviorsandFormativeChristianity.Louisville,Ky:Westminster/JohnKnoxPress.,pp.89‐98;Tite,Philip.2009."Nurslings,MilkandMoralDevelopmentintheGreco‐RomanContext:AReappraisaloftheParaeneticUtilizationofMetaphorin1Peter2.1‐3".JournalfortheStudyoftheNewTestament.31(4):371‐400;foranadjacentmetaphorwithoutexplicitdiscussionofmilkcf.Malherbe,AbrahamJ.1970.""GentleasaNurse":TheCynicBackgroundtoIThessII".NovumTestamentum.12(2):203‐217.
105
I.64;gn.adu.Man.I.14;II.41;uerarel.49;100;cf.alsoen.Ps.8.510earlyinthenext
period).
ForAugustinethematerialcontentofmilkandsolidfoodarethesame.156Both
refertoGod’srevelationoftruthinscripture(gn.adu.Man.II.12).Thedifferencein
nourishmentliesinthevaryingdegreesofintellectualprocessingrequiredtomake
certaintextsintelligible.Eachonereceivesfromthescripturesaccordingtohiscapacity
(mor.I.17).157Thus,astheselfsametextisread,onepersonsucksmilkandanother
chewsmeat(mor.I.17;uerarel.49).Sotheprimarydistinctionisnolongerbetween
publicandesotericteaching,respectively,asinthefirstandsecondcenturychurch.158
Nowmilkandmeatrefertothesurfaceandthedepthsofscripture,respectively.Of
course,expositionsofscriptureinasecondarysensecanstilloffermilkormeat,
dependingonthepenetrationofinsightverbalized(alimentalactealargeauidispluribus
atqueinstanterinfundunt,ualidioribusautemcibiscumsapientibuspaucisuescuntur.,
uerarel.51).
Sothemilkofscripture,whichisalsothecontentofthemilkofmotherchurch,
beginstoannexthepropaedeuticroleofthedisciplinaeliberales(an.quant.76;mor.156Thelatetextusclassicus(Io.eu.tr.9698),spellsoutAugustine’scasequitefully.However,thislengthydiscussionseemstobeincontinuitywithoperativeassumptionsinhisusagedatingfromhiscatechismonward.ForadiscussionofIo.eu.tr.9698inlightofancientesotericism,cf.Stroumsa,GuyG.1996.HiddenWisdom:EsotericTraditionsandtheRootsofChristianMysticism.Leiden:E.J.Brill.,pp.132‐146157Inamuchbroadersense,thisprinciplegovernednotonlythemilkandmeatmetaphor,butalsothelogicofGod’seconomyinIreneaus,cf.adu.haer.IV.38,1ff.Also,Behr,John.2000.AsceticismandAnthropologyinIrenaeusandClement.OxfordEarlyChristianStudies.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.,pp.23‐128.158ForthefunctionofesoterichexameralexpositionsinearlyJewishChristianityseeDaniélou,Jean.1964.TheTheologyofJewishChristianity.London:Darton,Longman&Todd.ForpossibleconnectionswithGnosticismseeStroumsa,GuyG.1996.HiddenWisdom:EsotericTraditionsandtheRootsofChristianMysticism.Leiden:E.J.Brill.,alsotheessaysinKippenberg,HansG.,andGuyG.Stroumsa.1995.SecrecyandConcealment:StudiesintheHistoryofMediterraneanandNearEasternReligions.Leiden:E.J.Brill.
106
I.17;I.64;uerarel.49).159InAugustine’susageofmetaphor,drinkingasopposedto
eatingindicatesanimmediateinternalizationofthecontentwithoutneedforlaborious
ratiocination.160Drinkisalreadysuitedforimmediateincorporation,butsolidfood
requireschewingtobecomesuitableforplacementinthebody.161
Inthepresentage,themilkofmotherchurchenterstheinnermandirectlyby
meansoffaithinauthoritativeteaching(an.quant.76;mor.I.17;I.64).Thusthe
teachingsreceivedinthecatechism,whicharesimplytobebelieved,aresustinenceand
milkfrommotherchurch(quamueranobiscredendaimperatasintquamqueoptimeac
saluberrimeapudmatremecclesiamnutritifuerimusquaeuesitutilitaslactisillius,an.
quant.76).Webelieveintheresurrectionofthebody,theincarnationandthevirgin
birthbasedonauthoritywithoutanyinterveningprocessesofrationaldistillation(an.
quant.76).Insodoing,wememoriallyinternalizetheaspectoftruthalreadyfittedto
oursoulwithoutanyinterveningjudgmentandthusdrinkthemilkofmotherchurch
(an.quant.76;mor.I.17).
Likewise,thescriptures,underacertainaspect,providemilkforthespiritual
infant(an.quant.76;uerarel.49;51).Ofcourse,Paulcallsattentiontothefactthatheis
dispensingmilk(ICor.3:13).AndAugustinetakesnote(an.quant.76).ButAugustine
159Notealso,diuinarumscripturarumconsiderationeettractationepascamusanimumatquepotemus…hocuereliberalietingenuoludosalubritererudiamur,uerarel.100.160N.B.Augustinecomeseventuallytouseliquidanddrinkingmetaphorsforsensation,becausetheinternalizationrequiresnointerveningdiscursiveprocesses,e.g.trin.XI.6;XI.13.161Thisassumption,operativealreadyinthisperiod,becomesexplicitthroughanexplanatoryglossafewyearsintothenextperiod:namfortasseproptereaetpanisdictusestnonpotus,quiapanisfrangendoatquemandendoinalimentumconuertitur,sicutscripturaeaperiendoetdisserendoanimampascunt,potusautemparatussicutiesttransitincorpus,utistotemporepanissitueritas,cumcotidianuspanisdicitur,tuncautempotus,cumlaborenullodisputandietsermocinandiquasifrangendiatquemandendiopuseritsedsolohaustusinceraeacperspicuaeueritatis.,s.dom.m.II.37.
107
alsonamestheaspectofscripturethatspecificallydependsonauthorityandis
internalizedbyfaithalone,namely,history(uerarel.49).Morespecifically,theinner
babe,notyetaman,isgiventosuckleatthebreastofusefulhistory(primaminuberibus
utilishistoriae,uerarel.49).Thebabeextractsthenutrimentofmilkintheformof
moralexamples(…quaenutritexemplis.,uerarel.49).Allofthistranspiresthrough
imbibingaliteralreadingofthetextbyfaithinauthority(an.quant.76;uerarel.49).
Themetaphorofmilkresonateswithapeculiarnotionofphysicalcharacter
tranferenceamongtheRomans.162Twotexts,availabletoAugustine,explicate
underlyingassumptionsaboutfather’sseedandmother’s(ornurse’s)milktransferring
charactertotheneonate(Cicero,Tusc.III.2;AulusGellius,Noct.Att.XII.1).AulusGellius
tellsofaccompanyingthephilosopherFavorinustocongratulateacertainsenator
whosewiferecentlygavebirthtoason(Noct.Att.XII.1,14).Favorinusisshockedto
hearaplancirculatingtoemployanurse,andurgestheprotagonisttoallowthemother
tobewhollyandentirelythemotherofhersonbypersonallybreastfeedinghim(Oro
te…sineeamtotamintegrammatremessefiliisui,Noct.Att.XII.1,6).Formother’smilk,
muchlikepaternalseed,haspowertoshapethebodyandrationalsoulinitslikeness
(sicutualeatadfingendascorporisatqueanimisimilitudinesuisetnaturaseminis,non
secusadeandemremlactisquoqueingeniaetproprietatesualere,Noct.Att.XII.1,14).
Totakeanoble’schild,whowasnourishedbyhismother’sbloodinutero(Noct.
Att.XII.1,6),andsubjecthimtothemilkformedfromamorallyinferiorwoman’sblood
wouldpollutehischaracter(Noct.Att.XII.1,17).Hiringawet‐nursethusinfectsthe
162Tite,Philip.2009."Nurslings,MilkandMoralDevelopmentintheGreco‐RomanContext:AReappraisaloftheParaeneticUtilizationofMetaphorin1Peter2.1‐3".JournalfortheStudyoftheNewTestament.31(4):371‐400providesabroadandhelpfuloverviewoftheideainGreco‐Romanliterature.
108
noblechildwithaperniciouscontagion,namelythespiritoftheworstclassofpeople
(Patiemurneigiturinfantemhuncnostrumperniciosocontagioinficietspiritumducerein
animumatqueincorpussuumexcorporeetanimodeterrimo?,Noct.Att.XII.1,18).
Likewise,Cicerolinksthispracticeofwet‐nursingwiththeveryearlyperversionof
otherwisegoodcharacter(Tusc.III.2).163SotheunderlyingRomanassumptionisthat
milkimbuescharacter,goodorbad,intotheinfant(quoniamuidelicetinmoribus
inolescendismagnamferepartemingeniumaltricisetnaturalactistenet,Noct.Att.
XII.1,20).164
ToAugustine’smindatthistime,internalizingthemoralexemplarsinscripture
beginstheprocessofmoraltransformationthatwillleadawayfromactionandendin
contemplation(an.quant.76;uerarel.49).Thebackgroundlinkagebetweencharacter
formationandthemilkimbibeddrawsspecialattentiontotheprimaryhistorical
exemplarAugustinefoundinscripture’smilk–theincarnation,virginbirthandother
miraclesoftheSon(quiadexemplumsalutisnostraeacprimitiasafiliodeipotentissimo,
aeterno,inconmutabilisusceptumhominemeundemquenatumessedeuirgineceteraque
huiushistoriaemiracula,an.quant.76).Byinternalizingthesehistoricalexamples,one
163ForthelargercontextofStoicdoctrinesofdiastrofh/orperuersioinCicero’susage,cf.chapter5below164Ofcourse,Augustine’saccountofsoulisthoroughlydematerialized.Nonetheless,hiscapacitytousethismetaphorofcharactertransferencethroughmilkseemsunhinderedasheplaysoffCicero’sTusc.III.2inconf.III.8:ethocsolummeintantaflagrantiarefrangebat,quodnomenChristinoneratibi,quoniamhocnomensecundummisericordiamtuam,domine[Ps24,7],hocnomensaluatorismei,filiitui,inipsoadhuclactematristenerumcormeumpiebiberatetalteretinebat,etquidquidsinehocnominefuissetquamuislitteratumetexpolitumetueridicumnonmetotumrapiebat.
109
acquiresenoughmoralcharactertomovetowardcontemplationwhereallactionwill
cease.165
Thespiritualinfanttakesthenextsteptowardcontemplation,whenhenolonger
sucklesmoralexamplarsfromscripturalhistorybutchewsthetextallegorically.Solid
foodisfoundinratioalone(estomnisratio,quaecibusestanimae,gn.adu.Man.II.12).
Sincethespecificshapeofhistorycannotbereducedtouniversallyvalidaxiomsand
propositions,onecanonlyarriveatratiobyrisingabovehistory.Thusnaïveassentto
historicaleventsbasedonauthoritycanneverprovidesolidfood.
Themeatofscriptureisacquiredthroughallegoricalreadingleadingtorational
understandingbeyondhumanspeechandmentalimages(gn.adu.Man.I.14;II.41;uera
rel.49).Thefirstnibblesofsolidfoodbeginwithfigurativereading(uerarel.49).166
Therebywe,likePaul,forgetthingshumanandstretchouttowardsdivinethings
throughseekingouttheimmutablelawsofreasonbehindthehistoryweinitially
receivedonauthority(iamobliuiscentemhumanaetaddiuinatendentem,inquanon
auctoritatishumanaecontinetursinu,sedadsummametincommutabilemlegempassibus
rationisinnititur,uerarel.49).
165Veryearlyinthenextperiod,thislocationofscripturalmilkinhistory,includingtheincarnation,findreaffirmation:consuliturautemcumilliquoquenondumcapacescognitionisrerumspiritaliumatqueaeternarum,nutriunturfidetemporalishistoriae,quaeprosalutenostrapostpatriarchasetprophetasabexcellentissimadeiuirtuteatquesapientiaetiamsusceptihominissacramentoadministrataest,inquasalusestomnicredenti,utauctoritatecommotuspraeceptisinseruiat,en.Ps.8.5166Cf.,ClementofAlexandria,paed.I.6andstrom.V.10,forasimilardistinction.Catecheticalmilkandcontemplativemeatultimatelyderivefromtheselfsamesource,onClement’stelling,becausebloodissimplyliquidfleshandmilkisbloodboiledwithinthemothertorenderitmoreeasilydigested.TheprimarydifferenceisthatClementdoesnottheorizehistoryasinherentlymilk‐likebecauseepistemicallybasedonauthority.
110
Ofcourse,thisrequiresthepreparatorymoralwork,ofsubmittingto
authoritativecommandsreceivedinthemilk(salusestomnicredenti,utauctoritate
commotuspraeceptisinseruiat,en.Ps.8.5,earlyinnextperiodbutcontinuous).Bybeing
cleansedfromphantasmsandestablishedinlove,apersonbeginstoattainthe
understandingandknowledgethatconstitutessolidfood(en.Ps.8.5).167Forthe
certaintyofknowledge,whichissolidfood,canonlypertaintothingseternal(perquem
inaliquidcertum,quodessenisiaeternumnonpotest,en.Ps.8.6).
Augustinespecifieshowtheattentivereadercanrisefromhistoricalnarrativeto
intellectionofunchangingtruththroughallegoricalinterpretation(uerarel.99).
Allegoricalintepretation,accordingtoAugustine,explicitlyfollowsthepatternofascent
inRom.1:20(uerarel.101).168Havingrecountedthestandardlistofimagesfrom
scripturethatcouldnotbeliterallyGodworthy(uerarel.99),Augustineasksaleading
question(uerarel.101).Thebodyperceivesalltheseimages,andthesoulisknownto
bebetterthanthebody(uerarel.101).Sowouldn’toneexpectthesoultoseethingson
itsown,andwouldn’tthoseobjectsofintellectualvisionbemoreexcellentand
altogetherpreeminentcomparedtobodilyperception?(nihilneperseanimusipse
conspicietautquodconspicietpotestessenisimultoexcellentiuslongequepraestantius?,
uerarel.101).169Augustine’sprogrammaticanswerfollows.
167quibuspurgatusunusquisqueetincaritateradicatusatquefundatuspossitcurrerecumsanctis,noniamparuulusinlacte,sediuuenisincibo,comprehenderelatitudinem,longitudinem,altitudinemetprofundum,scireetiamsupereminentemscientiamcaritatisChristi.,en.Ps.8.5168Thisearly,favorablequotationofRom.1:20isoutofsyncwithAugustineprimaryusageinphilosophicalcontexts,foradetailedaccountcf.chapter6below.169Augustine’sfavoritelittleargument(ep.3;4)fromCassiciacumsurfacesagain,cf.discussionaboveinchapter1.
111
Bodilyperceptions,includingthoseinscripture,requireustopassjudgmentupon
themtoestablishtheirmeaning(uerarel.101).Thisdecisionimpliesthepresenceof
someextra‐sensorycriterionoftruth,forsensationitselfcannottellthedifference
betweenphantasmanddirectsensation(diu.qu.9).Thusthelightoftruthalone
enablesonetoaccuratelynamephantasmsasfalse(uerarel.64).Butthosesensualand
imageladenthingswejudgecanbeusedassomanyremindersproddingustoturnour
mindstowardtheimmutablelawsorformsbywhichwejudge(uerarel.101).Whenwe
thusturnfromsenseimagetoimmutableform,weseetheinvisiblethingsofGod
throughwhathasbeenmade(uerarel.101).Fortheintelligiblelightofformissuesfrom
GodandalltrulyrationalsoulsjudgeeverythingelseaccordingtoGodasthestandard
oftruth(diu.qu.30).Sothesoul’sintentionalturn,fromtherealmofactionandsense‐
derivedimagestointellectualcontemplation,actuallyconstitutesthereturnfrom
temporalitytoeternitythatrefashionsthenewmanoutoftheold(uerarel.101).By
rightlyallegorizingthetext,theconvertleavesbehindthetemporalityofintentional
actionforfullyfocusedcontemplationoftheintelligiblerealmofGodandthereinfinds
anevernew,eternallife(uerarel.101).
112
SummaryConclusionforPartI:AnthropologyofAugustine’sEarlyPeriod
Intheaboveanalyses,wehavefollowedthefirstcrucialtransformationinAugustine’s
anthropology–fromthefallencircularsoulthesistorelapsedsoulishbodies.
AtCassiciacumwewitnessedayouthfulenthusiasmforastilllargelymythic
accountofthecircularsoulderivedfromareadingofPlotinus.Thereinthesoulwas
constitutivelydivineandindestructablebutfallenintohumanbodies.Theprimarytask
ofthatsoulwastoescapethebodyandriseagaintotheheavens.However,the
philosophicaldetailofAugustine’sPlotiniansoulwasriddledwithcontradictions.
AugustinesimplylackedthetechnicalphilosophicskillstomakegoodsenseofPlotinus’
mythicpresentation.Inattemptingtomakesenseofthesoul’simmortality,Augustine
invertedthePlotinianthesis.Augustine’ssouldescendsutterlyintofoolishnessbut
findsresidualontologicalstabilityinthelowerpartofrationalsoul.
Afterreceivingthecatechism,Augustineimmediatelydispenseswiththedivine,
circularsoulthesis.Thesouliscreatureandthustemporallymutable.However,hestill
neededtountangletherelationofbodytocreaturelysoul.Inhisearliestcommentary
onGenesis,wefoundAugustinepressedbyscripturalaffirmationstoreconceivethe
Fallassomethingsecondarytocreation.Sincethesoulishmancomesbeforethe
spiritualman,Godoriginallycreatedsoulishoranimalhumansasbody‐soul
compoundsandthenelevatedthemtospiritualexistence,againbodyandsoul.When
prideenducedthemtoactandthusfall,thebody‐soulcompoundfelltoitsoriginary
lowerlevelasasoulishbody.Sothelowerlevelofsoulprovidesthemorebasic
ontologicalstabilitystill,nowwithinamorescripturalmythicpresentation.
113
Augustine’stheoryofhumanfulfillment,however,changesabitlessdramatically
throughthisperiod.Frombeginningtoend,beatitudeisultimatelyamatterofpure
contemplationofintelligiblereality.Actionassuchisnothingbutdistraction,thoughit
maybeanecessitytobeenduredandmanipulateduntilcontemplativefulfillment
becomespossible.
ThepracticaldirectivesAugustineemploysforprogressivelymovingtoward
contemplativefulfillmentchangemoresignificantly.Whilevirtueultimatelyonlycounts
asapreparationforcontemplativetranscendenceofactivity,Augustine’saccountof
wherevirtuecomesfromandhowtorisetocontemplationalterssignificantly.At
Cassiciacumtheprimarypropaideuticforcontemplationwastrainingintheliberal
disciplines.Afterhiscatechism,Augustinebeginstoconsiderthecatecheticalteachings
andthemoralexemplarsofscripturalhistoryasamoresureandpowerfulpreparation
forcontemplation.Andonefindsinitiationintointelligiblecontemplationmoresurely
throughallegoricalinterpretationofscripturethanthroughthedialecticalexercisesof
Platonicphilosophy.Whiletheroleofliberaldisciplinesisnoteradicated,scriptural
milkandmeatseemasurermeanstocontemplativefulfillment.
Finally,asAugustineseeksapsychologicalmechanismbehindtheprimordial
elevation,spiritualcontemplationandthefallintoactionofthebody‐soulcomplex,we
findthefirstindicationthatactionmayhaveasomewhatStoicisingexplanation.Inhis
earlydoctrineofintentioAugustinefindsthatamodifiedStoicaccountofmentalfocus
offersaconceptualtooltodescribeasinglepsychologicalmechanismbehind
contemplationandaction.ItremainsonlyahintofStoicinfluenceinthisperiod,for
Augustine’saccountoffulfillmentisfundamentallyPlatonicandhehaslittledesireto
114
analyzeactionmoreclosely.Inthenextperiod,however,Augustinewillbecatapulted
intointerpretingJesus’interestinactionandtheStoictoolswillproveveryhandy.
115
PartII
Augustine’sPriestlyDiscoveryofRedemptiveAction
BiographicalBridge
Inthespringof391,AugustinetraveledtoHippoRegiusinordertomeetwithanold
acquaintance,animperialagent,whowascontemplatingtheassumptionofamonastic
life(cf.Possidius,uitaIII.35).AugustinehopedtofoundamonasterythereinHippo(s.
355.12)andorientitsactivitiesashehadtheseruiDeigatheredabouthimselfin
Thagaste.
Valerius,theagedGreekbishopofHippo,conjureddifferentplans,however.
Whilethetownwasgatheredinchurch,Valeriusbegantospeakpassionately
concerningthegreatneedofhischurch(uitaIV.1).Soonalleyeswereturnedtoward
Augustine.Whileweepingoverthelossofcontemplativeleisure,Augustinewasforcibly
ordainedaspriestofthechurchinHippo(uitaIV.2).Muchagainstthecustomofthe
Africanchurch,Augustinewasalmostimmediatelychargedwiththetaskofpreaching,a
functionjealouslyguardedassoleprivilegeofthebishop.Godhadsnatchedhimfrom
thelifeofpurecontemplation.
Soonafterhisordination,AugustinewrotetoValeriuspleadingfortimeoffto
studythescripturesbeforeresuminghisdutiesinministeringthe“sacramentandword
ofGod”(ep.21.3).Despitehisliteraryproductionsandearliercriticismofpriestly
activism,AugustinenowrealizeshisinadequacyforthetaskathandandfearsGod’s
judgmentinshirkingsogreatacalling.Noticethetherapeuticphilosopherpresentin
116
thepastor’splea.Specifically,Augustinepleadsignoranceofallthemedicamentsof
soul,whichmustbecontainedwithinthescripturesandseeksoccasiontodiscover
them(ep.21.3).OnlytherebywouldAugustine’ssoulandthoseofhischargesbemade
healthy.
ValeriusgrantsAugustineleave,andforseveralmonthsAugustineimmerses
himselfinthesacredtexts.Threelociclaimhisattentionduringhisstudyleaveand
continuethroughhisresumptionofpreachingduties.First,judgingfromthebulkof
questionsrecordedwithinhiscommunityatthisperiod,Augustineturnstothegospels
themselves(diu.qu.5165).Jesus’SermonontheMountcontainswithinitallthe
directivesweneedforlife(s.dom.mI.1)andbecomesthefocusofAugustine’searliest
commentaryfromthegospels(ca.393).Simultaneously,Augustinelaunchedintohis
meditationsonandexplicationofthePsalms.Hissermonsandoutlinedcommentson
Ps.132werecompletedwithinthefirstyearofhispastorate.Finally,thewritingsof
Paulincreasinglycapturedhisattentionfromtheyear394(notetheshiftinfocusatdiu.
qu.66ff).
ThissuddenimmersionintheholytextsledAugustinetoanincreasing
commitmenttothepeculiarlanguageofscripture.Andhisnewfounddevotiontothe
idiomofscripturedirectlyresultsinoneofthemostimportantanthropological
developmentsofAugustine’spriestlycareer–hisinventionoftheheart.Nonetheless,
alongsidethisbaptisminscripturewefindeverfinelytunedincorporationofStoic
conceptualitiesininterpretingthosescriptures.
117
ChapterItineraryforPartII
Therealfocusofthismiddlesectionofourproject,therefore,isAugustine’sinterwoven
readingofscripturalaccountsofactionintermsofRomanStoicpsychologiesofaction,
andhismeticulousanalysisoftheStoictheoriesintermsofscripture’steaching.
Soinchapterthree,weturntoAugustine’sdiscoveryofJesus’teachingsabout
theheart,hisStoicisingreadingoftheheartandthedetailedpsychologyofactionthe
resultingconceptenabled.Allthistranspiresintheearlypriestlyperiod,primarily
between391and394.
Theninchapterfour,ourfocuswillzoominonthefurtheranthropological
developmentsinthelaterpriestlyperiodinitiatedbyreadingPaulfrom394to396.
ThereinAugustinefindsPauldrawingonandcruciallyalteringStoicconceptsofthe
linkagebetweenpre‐passionatemovements,assentandtheactualimpulsetoaction
knownasuoluntas.AsAugustinewrestleswithPaul,anewanthropologyofgrace
emergesinwhichthebeginningsoffaithconstituteapassion.Atthesametime,wewill
findAugustinefallingbackonsomeoldStoicresolutionsofthefate‐freewillconundrum
inordertoarticulatehisnewdoctrineofelection.
118
Chapter3
Augustine’sInventionoftheHeart:
StandingwithJesusbetweenPlatoandtheStoa:(StudyLeaveof391394)
DelineatingtheHeart:Discoveringcorbeneathintentio
JustasAugustine’sdistinctiveconceptofintentiowascomingintofocus,Augustine
foundhimselfdrawntocommentuponJesus’wordsinMatt.6(mus.VI.29).Therein
Augustinediscoversthebiblical“heart”(perhapswithsomeimportedStoicand
Platoniccontent)underlyingandenrichinghisearlier,morephenomenological
descriptionoftheoriginallyStoicintentio.
InthischapterIwilltracetheoutlinesofthatinvention.Iamaimingata
diachronicaccountofthedevelopmentofAugustine’santhropology.So,inthischapter,
Ifocussimplyontheoriginsofhisdistinctnotionoftheheart,tracingthelineamentsof
interpenetrationbetweenbiblicalmetaphorandearlierphilosophicaldescriptionsof
intentio.Ofcourse,Augustinemakesmuchmoreofthisconceptinlaterwritings.ButI
willprimarlyfocusonAugustine’stextsfromthepriestlyperiod.
StoicMatrixofaKeyTerm:IntentioinAugustine
Forthesakeofconceptualclarity,IreturntotheStoicbackgroundofAugustine’s
languageofintentio.InStoicthoughtspiritualtensionpermeatesallthingsandholds
thecosmostogether(SVFII.450,458,459ff).Withineachlivingbeing,thebasicstates
andfunctionsaresimplymanifestationsofvariousdegreesoftension.Fromthe
119
cohesionofstonestovegetativegrowth,thesensationandappetitiveactionofbeasts
and,finally,therationaljudgmentofhumanbeingsandgod170,escalatingdegreesof
spiritualtensionproduceeachact.
Ofcourse,fortheStoictheemanatingdirectionofspiritualtensionalwaysmoves
fromthehigherfunctionstothelower.Andso,forinstance,thereisnocohesionwithin
beastsexceptthroughtheverytensionexpressedintheirsensitiveandappetitive
actions.Likewise,allthelowerfunctionsofhumanbeingsaresimplyaspectsofthe
spiritualtensioncenteredinthehJgemoniko/norprincipale171andphysicallylocatedin
theheart(SVFII.837;II.879881;III,Diog.II.30).172Thespiritualtensioninhuman
beingsismostitself,onemightsay,astherationalgoverningpowerofthesoul.Butit
morphsandextendsitselfinturntoproducethevarioustensionsmanifestintheeight
partsofthesoul173,namely,thefivesenses174,speech175,procreation176andthe
170Fortheplaceofgodinthehierarchyofanimalsjustabovehumanbeings,cf.Inwood,Brad.1985.EthicsandHumanActioninEarlyStoicism.Oxford:ClarendonPress,pp.18‐27.171Thisisbestseenintheiraccountofrationalimpressions.TheStoicsclaimedthatallimpressions (h˚ fantasi/a) arenotofthesamekind.Thoseofanimalsandinfantsarenon‐rational(a¡logoi).Allimpressionsofanadulthuman,onthecontrary,arerational(logikai/), inasmuchastheyareintincturedwithrationaldiscursivityandhavethoughtprocesses (noh/seiç)(SVFII.61.2125). Thisdoesnotguaranteetheywillberationalinthenormativesense,butonemustberationalbynaturebeforehecandistorthisnatureinirrationality.Whatmakesrationalimpressionsdistinctfromnon‐rationalistheentwinedpresenceofthe‘sayable.’Asayableisthatwhichunder‐girdsarationalimpression.Andarationalimpressionisoneinwhichwhathasbeenimpressedispresentablebyspeech(lekto\n de\ u˚pa/rcein fasi\ to\ kata\ logikh/n fantasi/an u˚fista/menon. logkh\n de\ ei™nai fantasi/an kaq’ h§n to\ fantasqe\n e¡sti lo/gwˆ parasthvsai SVFII.187.2325).172N.B.,however,theinternaldebatesignaledinSVFIII,Diog.II.33whereinaminoritypositionheldthatthehJgemoniko/nresidedinthehead.173Theeight‐memberaccountofthesoulisbroadlyattestedinthesurvivingfragments.Cf.AëtiusinSVFII.827,DiogenesLaertiusinSVFII.828,PorphyryinSVFII.830andIamblichusinSVFII.831.
120
principaleitself.Theprincipalecompletelycontrolsandregulatesallthesubordinate
formsoftension.Insodoing,itdoesnotloseitsrationalitybutinfusesallthelower
functionswithrationality.
Themostbasic,healthfulexpressionofthetensionwithinthehJgemoniko/nis
namedinlaterRomanStoicism177asadeliberateawarenessoralertness(prosoch/)178,
174Notehoweachofthesensesaremanifestationsoftension.Concerningthevisualrays,emittedbytheeyes,cf.,SVFII.863andAulusGellius,Noct.Att.IV.16,2.175Forthevoiceasintentioaeris,cf.Seneca,NaturalesQuestionesII.6,3.176So,Aëtius,placitaphilosophiaeIV.21.4=SVFI.150“twvn de\ loipwvn to\ me\n le/getai spe/rma, oºper kai\ aujto\ pneuvma/ ejsti diateivnon ajpo\ touv hJgemonikouv me/cri twvn parastatwvn” (emphasisadded).177Despiteitsdate,Arnold,EdwardVernon.1958.RomanStoicism.NewYork:HumanitiesPress,remainsworthyofconsultation.FormorerecentsynthetictreatmentsofRomanStoicdistinctives,seeGill,Christopher.2003.“TheSchoolintheRomanImperialPeriod”inInwood,Brad.2003.TheCambridgeCompaniontotheStoics.Cambridge,U.K.:CambridgeUniversityPress.Also,Reydams‐Schils,GretchenJ.2005.TheRomanStoics:Self,Responsibility,andAffection.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.,arguesthattheRomanStoicsdevelopedanovelmodeloftheselfasamediatingstructuredesignedtomaintainhealthfultensionsbetweenrational,moralidealsandthepracticalnecessitiesofsocialcohesionandbonding.
ForspecificRomanStoics,IsuggestonecoulddoworsethanstartingwithLong,A.A.2002.Epictetus:aStoicandSocraticGuidetoLife.Oxford:ClarendonPress.,theseriesofessayscollectedinInwood,Brad.2005.ReadingSeneca:StoicPhilosophyatRome.Oxford:ClarendonPress.,andHadot,Pierre,andMarcusAurelius.1998.TheInnerCitadel:TheMeditationsofMarcusAurelius.Cambridge,Mass:HarvardUniversityPress.trans.MichaelChase[originallypublishedasHadot,Pierre.1992.Lacitadelleintérieure:introductionauxPenséesdeMarcAurèle.Paris:Fayard.].178ThefullesttextaddressingthisactivityisEpictetus’Diss.IV.12–Peri\ prosochvß.Thesamebasicactivityisdescribedvariouslyelsewhereundersuchtermsas“following”or“attending”(parakolouqe/wDiss.1.6,1222)oras“stretchingthemind”(tei/nein th\n dia\noian Ench.7).Cf.alsoDiss.III.16.15;III.22.105;IV.2.1;IV.3.7andEnch.33.6 However,thischaracteristiccalltoprosoch/certainlyenteredRomanStoicthoughtthroughtheearlyinteractionsofPanaetius.AulusGelliusrecordsthefollowingglossonPanaetius’exhortationstodeliberateselfawarenessgiveninlightoftheconstantdifficultiesofhumanlife.Adeacauendaatquedeclinandaperindeesseoportetanimopromptosemperatqueintento,utsuntathletarum,qui‘pancratiastae’uocantur…”(Noct.Att.,XIII.28.34,emphasisadded).IalsotakeSeneca’scallstoasiduaobseruatioinresistingtheonslaughtofprepassions(e.g.DeiraII.4.2)tobeacontinuationofthischaracteristicpostureofRomanStoicism.
121
whichisitselfproductiveoffurtherpsychictension.179Thiseffortinfusedself‐
awarenessprovidesthepsychicfoundationsuponwhichallotherformsofspiritual
exercisebuild.180
Inhisfullesttreatment,Epictetusdescribesdeliberateself‐awarenessas
consistingoftwopracticallyinseparable,butlogicallydistinguishable,activities.First,
onemustkeepthefundamentalpreceptsreadyathand(e¶cein pro/ceira).Thusthe
mind’sbasictoolswillalwaysbeaccessibleandthestateofthesoulinrelationtothose
diagnostictoolswillcontinuouslybemonitored(Diss.IV.12.15).Second,onemust
stretchthesoultautlytowardthemark(teta/sqai th\n yuch\n ejpi\ touvton to\n
skopo/n)whichthosepreceptsdefine(Diss.IV.12.15).Especiallyvigilantself‐awareness
iscalledforinsettingswheremoralmisstepsaremoredifficulttoavoid.Onsuch
occasions,“letyourawarenessbestretchedtautwithinyou”(ejnteta/sqw soi hJ
prosoch/ Ench.33.6).
Sodeliberatealertness,inRomanStoicthought,isadispositionalconfiguration
oftensionpeculiarlyappropriateforrationalbeings.Byatwofoldprocessofself‐
monitoringvis‐à‐visconsciouslyretainedpreceptsandintentionalengagementwithor
strivingforthosemoralgoals,theprincipalepossessesitselfinawareness.Thusself‐ ForabriefacknowledgementofthethemeinRomanStoicthought,seeRoskam,Geert.2005.OnthePathtoVirtue:theStoicDoctrineofMoralProgressandItsReceptionin(Middle)Platonism.AncientandMedievalPhilosophy,33.Leuven:LeuvenUniversityPress.,p.43.179NoticeEpictetus’analogyfordeliberateself‐awarenessanditspervasivepracticeamidquotidianactivities,“Justasonavoyage,whenyourshiphasanchored,ifyoushouldgoonshoretogetfreshwater,youmaypickupasmallshellfishoralittlebulb,butyouhavetokeepyourattentionfixedontheship(teta/sqai de\ deiv th\n dia\noian ejpi\ to\ ploivon)andturnaboutfrequentlyforfearleastthecaptainshouldcall.Andifhedoescallyoumustgiveupallthesethingsandrun…”(Ench.7).Onemustexerciseself‐awarenesstomaintainthetensionnecessaryforsudden,positiveaction.180Thus,prose/cein seautwˆv(“payattentiontoyourself”)sumsupthewholeofthephilosophiclifeandnameshowSocratesbecamewhathewas(Ench.51.1‐3).
122
awarenessisaformoftensionmostappropriatetorationalbeings,whichproduces
further,healthfultension.
TheHeartinAugustine:ZoneofSelfAwareEngagementinthePresent
Augustine,too,hasawayofspeakingaboutself‐awareengagementinthepresent–he
callsthisdynamictheheart.Theheart,forAugustine,isazoneofself‐presenceand
consciousengagementwithotherthings.Anditsprimaryactistoproduceanddirect
thesoul’sintentio.
Inhisearliestwritings,thedistinctiveconceptofheartissimplyabsent.The
pivotalroleofintentioiseverywhere,butpriortohisordinationtothepriesthoodin
391theconceptuallythicklanguageoftheheartisnowheretobefound.181However,
181Anyonesearchingtheveryearly,philosophicaltextsofAugustineinpursuitofanthropologicalformulationswillnotfindtheheartplayinganydistinctiverole.Thispartiallyexplainsthesurprisinglyscantattentiongiventotheheartinphilosophicalaccountsofhisanthropology.Indeed,IknowofnostandardaccountthatincludesananalysisoftheheartasaconceptuallydistinctdimensionofAugustine’santhropology. Gilson,Etienne.1960.TheChristianPhilosophyofSaintAugustine.NewYork:RandomHouse.trans.L.E.M.Lynch.,esp.pp.44‐55,269‐70[OriginallypublishedGilson,Étienne.1929.Introductionàl'étudedesaintAugustin,parEtienneGilson.2emille.LePuy‐en‐Velay:Impr."LaHaute‐Loire",23,boulevardCarnot.,cf.pp.53‐70],Bourke,VernonJ.1945.Augustine'sQuestofWisdom;LifeandPhilosophyoftheBishopofHippo.Milwaukee,Wis:BrucePub.Co.pp91‐95,Portalié,Eugène.1960.AGuidetotheThoughtofSaintAugustine.Chicago:H.RegneryCo.,pp.145‐151,haveeachofferedschematicaccountsoftheAugustinianselfwithvaryingdegreesofsubtlety.Notonediscussestheheart.RobertO’Connell’smagisterialandcontroversialmonographonAugustine’searlytheoryofmanlikewiseissilentconcerningtheheart.Cf.O'Connell,RobertJ.1968.St.Augustine'sEarlyTheoryofMan,A.D.386391.Cambridge,Mass:BelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress.PhilipCary’swonderfullysuggestiveworkontheoriginsofAugustine’snotionofaprivateinnerself,Cary,Phillip.2000.Augustine'sInventionoftheInnerSelf:theLegacyofaChristianPlatonist.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.,likewiseshowsnoawarenessofadistinctiverolefortheheart.Onpp49‐51Carydiscussesthenotionof“ChristintheHeart”butdoesnotconsidertheheartasanythingbeyondageneralsynonymforthe“innerman.”
123
withhispriestlyeffortstocommentuponscripture,theconceptoftheheartemerges
withasurprisingfullnessandcomplexityabinitio.182Infact,itsveryfullnessand
evidentintertwinementwithearliernotionsofintentiocauseonetosuspectAugustine’s
initialusageisdrawinguponpriorresources.But,forthemoment,thatcanonlyremain
asuspicion.
AsweturntotheconceptualshapeoftheAugustinianheartinitsearliest
expression,183wefindimportantsimilaritieswiththeStoicnotionofself‐awarenessand
itsrelationtopsychictension.Theclearestwaytodistinguishthisshapeoftheheartis
byaseriesofconceptualtriangulationswithotherpsychicentitiesfoundinAugustine’s
anthropology.
182ThecentraltextforanalyzingtheoriginsofAugustine’susageiss.dom.mon.,especiallybookII.183ThreescholarlyproductionsdofocusontheheartinAugustine’swork.LaPeza,Edgardode.1962.Elsignificadode"cor"enSanAgustín.Paris:Étudesaugustiniennes.;Maxsein,Anton.1966.Philosophiacordis.DasWesenderPersonalitätbeiAugustinus.Salzburg:Müller.(cf.alsohisearlierschematicaccountoftheprojectinMaxsein,Anton.1954.“PhilosophiacordisbeiAugustinus”inCongrèsinternationalaugustinien.1954.Augustinusmagister:CongrèsInternationalAugustinien,Paris,2124Septembre1954.Paris:Etudesaugustiniennes.,pp.357‐371).However,methodologicalissueshavelimitedtheirusefulness.BothLaPezaandMaxseinassumeasynchronic,non‐developmentalperspectiveandthenexpositthemesdrawnoutandmixedtogetherwithoutchronologicaldiscriminationfromallperiodsinAugustine’swork.Also,notetheworkofGowans,ColeenHoffman.1998.TheIdentityoftheTrueBelieverintheSermonsofAugustineofHippo:ADimensionofhisChristianAnthropology.Lewiston,N.Y.:E.MellenPressthatbringsawelcomespecificationofcontextualandgenericperimeterstothediscussion.
124
Heart,MindandMemory:Predifferentiated,MultiModalPsychicEntities
Threepsychicentities–heart,mindandmemory–standoutinAugustine’sthoughtas
alikeinonecrucialway.Anthropologically,eachoftheseentitiesismanifestly
expansiveandcomplexinfunction.Thatcomplexityisseeninthewayeventsofheart,
mindandmemoryaresusceptibletofurtheranalysisintointellective,affectiveand
volitionalaspects.184Inthissense,thedensityandextensivenessoftheheart,mindand
memoryresultfromthepre‐differentiatedstateoftheseentitieswithintheself.
Twoclustersofmetaphor,usedinquasi‐technicalways,highlightthepre‐
differentiateddensityofthesepsychicentitiesandshedsignificantlightonthe
similaritiesanddifferencesbetweentheminAugustine’sthought.
SpatioLocativeMetaphors
ThefirstclusterofmetaphorsAugustineemploysconsistsoflocativeorspatial
metaphors.Thesehighlightthecommonalitiesbetweenourthreeconcepts.Spatial
metaphorshaveapeculiarutilityinaddressingthepre‐differentiatedcomplexityof
heart,mindandmemorybecausetheyprovideanintuitivelyaccessiblewaytospeakof
thesimultaneityandinterrelationofirreduciblepsychicevents.185Augustinenever
184E.g.s.dom.mon.I.34,consentireis,forAugustine,bothanactoftheheartandofreason.Likewise,mensbothdesiresandjudgesbyintellectsol.II.35;ratioestmentismotio,ord.II.30;prauitasuoluntatisisinthemens,mor.II.1;menscontainsbothactsofknowinganddesiring,lib.arb.II.26;forfurthermodalsubdistinctionswithinmensseealsouerarel.62;diu.qu.51.4.Forthememoryascontainingactsdistinguishableintointellective,affectiveandsensitivemodes,ord.II.41;lib.arb.I.19;an.quant.8;mus.II.5.185Forcontemporaryaccountsoftheutilityanddiversityofspatio‐locativemetaphorsinabstractconceputaldescriptions,cf.Lakoff,George,andMarkJohnson.1980.MetaphorsWeLiveBy.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.,pp.25‐32;Lakoff,George.1994.“TheContemporaryTheoryofMetaphor”inOrtony,Andrew.1994.Metaphorand
125
speaksofthe“room”ofintellect,or“fields”ofaffect,or“courts”ofthewill.Forthese
termsnamedifferentiatedaspectsoftheselfandlacktheinclusivecomplexity
characteristicofheart,mindandmemory.
Incontrast,Augustinefirstindentifiestheheartasaninteriorroom(en.Ps.3.4,s.
dom.m.2.11,s.50.7)186ortemple(en.Ps.4.6,s.dom.m.I.27)187whereGoddeignstomake
himselfpresenttotheself.188Distinguishableintellectualandaffectiveactsfillthisinner
spacewithallegoricalobjectsandmotions.Thealtarreferstosincerityoffaithbecause
thisrationalaffectpropsupandformstheacceptablegroundforallgiftsofferedtoGod
(s.dom.m.I.27).Leavingthealtarandgoingforforgivenessisnotprescribingbodily
motion.Rather,amovementoftheaffectionsconcerningone’sbrotherandasignof
humilitybetokensaninnerchange(s.dom.m.I.27).Otherformsofaffectivealteration,
suchasjoyorsorrow,referallegoricallytoexpansionorconstrictionofthetempleitself
(cf.en.Ps.4,2and6;forlaterconsistentaccounts,seeconf.1.15,enPs.118.10.6;en.Ps.
118.11.1;qu.2.107;loc.5.19).Thespatialityoftheunderlyingmetaphorsprovidea
Thought.Cambridge:CambridgeUniv.Press,pp.202‐251,esp.pp.213‐222.Forfurtherdimensionsofmetaphoricalspatiality,cf.Botha,M.Elaine.2007.MetaphorandItsMoorings:StudiesintheGroundingofMetaphoricalMeaning.Bern:PeterLang,pp.71‐99.186Forlater,continuousaccountsoftheheartasinteriorcubiculumcf.e.g.,s.352.9,conf.8.19,Io.eu.tr.10.1,en.Ps.33,2,8&15;en.Ps.35.5,en.Ps.65.22,en.Ps.74.9,en.Ps.93.9,en.Ps.141.3,s.46.9,s.132.2,s.180.8.187WithoutovershootingAugustine’spriestlyperiod,thefollowinginstancesoftheheartastemplumshouldbeconsidered:en.Ps.17.7,f.et.symb.14,s.dom.m.I.27&II.18,ps.c.Don.200p,ep.29.5.188Ofcourse,theinvisibilityofinnerspaceisaxiomatictoAugustineandformspartofhisaccountoftheheart.Circa394,inex.propRm.7879,heconsidersPaul’sadmonitionaboutnotjudgingone’sbrotheraslogicallyrootedintheinvisibilityofanother’sheart.Thisheartisequatedwithagoodorbadanimus
126
pictureoftheselfasaclearingwithinwhichcomplexandoverlapping,onemighteven
saymessy,activitiestranspire.189
Althoughthereferencesarenotsonumerous,Augustinealsoconsideredspatial
metaphorsappropriatefordescribingtheactivitiesofmindandmemory.Themensis
referredtobothasaninnerroomandasaninnertemple(mag.2).Earlyinthenext
period(ca.399‐400),Augustinewilldescribethemensasaninteriordomus(qu.eu.
2.41).190Thefamousdescriptionsofmemoriaasfieldsandpalaces,filledwithcavesand
cavernsandtreasuries,occuronlyinconf.X.12&26atthebeginningofthenext
period.191However,themetaphoricalspatialityofmemoryseemstofollownaturally
fromthatofmindandheart.Ifmindandheartrequirespatialmetaphorsbyreasonof
thecomplexinterrelationsoftheiractivities,surelymemorialtracesofthosemoments
wouldexhibitasimilarcomplexityatleastsomeofthetime.
189LestIseemtobeinvokingHeideggeronthesly,allowmetoclarify.Mychoiceoftheterm“clearing”restssolelyonfindingitthebestgenerictermtoencompassthediversespatialmetaphorsAugustineemployssuchashouse,room,temple,field,etc…FascinatingasHeidegger’smuch‐discussedconceptofLichtungmaybe,Augustinehashisownmetaphoricsenseoftheselfasaclearing,whichIwillseektoexplorephilologically.
IfImightriskonesuggestionasadabblerinanother’sbusiness,IwouldsuggestscouringHeideggerforindicationsofinitialconceptualderivationfromAugustine.HisadoptionofthenotionofcarewhilelecturingonAugustineandNeoplatonismduringthesummersemesterof1921iswelldocumented,e.g.Kisiel,Theodore.1993.TheGenesisofHeidegger'sBeingandTime.Berkeley,Calif:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.,pp.149‐220.Thecoincidenceofspatialmetaphorsfortheselfmightnotbeaccidental.190Allegoricalinterpretationsofdomusasreferringtocorarethickinen.Ps.asawhole.Onecouldbeginwithen.Ps.30.2,3,4&8andproceed.191Indeed,detailedreflectionsuponmemory’scontents(asidefromthedangersposedbyitsretentionofphantasms)andaccountsofthemetaphoricalstructureofmemoryreallyonlyemergeinthenextperiod.Themetaphorsforheartarefoundalreadyinourpresentperiodandcontinueconsistentlyintothenext.Soourmetaphoricalcomparisons,engagedinforthesakeofconceptualclarity,doentailaslightmeasureofchronologicaltransgression.Meaculpa,meaculpa…
127
Ofthethreeentities,mensisclearlythenameforthetotality.Whilecorand
memoriasharethemulti‐modalcomplexityofmens,theyaredifferentiatedfromthe
psychictotalityinonecrucialway.Wewillconsiderthatdifferentiationalongsidethe
nextmetaphorcomplex.Butfirstweneedtopointtoaspecialdistinctionofthemens.
MensandtheFragilityofGod’sImageinHumanBeings
Ahandfulofcrucialpassages,pennedduringAugustine’spriestlyperiod,locatethe
imageofGodwithinthemens.192Well,thatisnotquiteaccurate.Inhisearliest
statementduringthisperiod,Augustinesayshumanbeingsweremade“totheimage
andlikenessofGod”butthatwasdestroyedbytheirsin(homoenimfactusestad
imaginemetsimilitudinemdei,quampeccandocorrupit–en.Ps.4.8).Thehumanperson
isnotexactlytheimageofGod,butmadetoapproximatetheimageandiscapableof
losingcorrespondence.ThisnotionthattheapproximateimageofGodinhumanity
couldbedestroyedisconnectedtoafewotherfeaturesofAugustine’steaching.Butthe
claimitselfwillbeconsistentuntilthebeginningofthePelagiancontroversyin412.193
192cf.AgoodintroductiontoAugustine’sdoctrineoftheimagemaybefoundinBonner,Gerald.1984.“Augustine’sDoctrineofMan:ImageofGodandSinner”AugustinianumXXIV,pp.495514.AhelpfulcomparisonofAugustine’searlydoctrinewiththesynthesisofOrigenistandPlotinianimagesintheAmbrosiandoctrineoftheimagodeimaybefoundinseeMcCool,G.A.SJ.1959.“TheAmbrosianOriginofSt.Augustine’sTheologyoftheImageofGodinMan”TheologicalStudies20,pp.62‐81.Ambroses’PlotiniansourcesaregraphicallycorrelatedinCourcelle,PierrePaul.1950.RecherchessurlesConfessionsdesaintAugustin.Paris:E.deBoccardpp.106‐132.ThemostdetailedandhyperbolicaccountoftheAlexandrianelement,whichclaimsnotonlymediatedinfluencethroughAmbrosebutdirectinfluenceofOrigen’swritingsontheearlyAugustineisHeidl,György.2003.Origen’sInfluenceontheYoungAugustine:AChapteroftheHistoryofOrigenism.Louaize,Lebanon:NotreDameUniversity.193Cf.Bonner,Gerald.1984.“Augustine’sDoctrineofMan:ImageofGodandSinner”AugustinianumXXIV,pp.495514
128
Aboutayearlater,Augustinespecifiesthelocationoftheapproximatingimage
withinhumanbeingsasthemens,whichhealsonamesastheprincipale(Gn.litt.inp.
16.60).TheovertonesofStoicanthropologyareunmistakable.However,theimage
itself,towardwhichthehumanmindiscrafted,alsoreceivesanexplicitdesignation
here.TheSon,whoisTruth,istheimageofGod.Thehumanmindwascreatedtostretch
towardhistruth.Themind’simagingofGodisthusconditionedbyproximitytoTruth.
Noothernatureneedmediatethatrelationship(Gn.litt.inp.16.60;diu.qu.51.2).Herein
liesthemeaningofourcreationadimaginemdei.
TheproximitytoTruth,whichconstitutesourparticipationintheimageofGod,
alsoexplainsitscorruptionbysin.Augustinemakesthisimplicationexplicitinthe
contextofhisrefutationoftheManichee,Adimantus.Thestatementthathumanswere
createdadimaginemetsimilitudinemdeiwasmadebeforetheysinned,saysAugustine
(c.Adim.5.1).Becausesincorruptedtheimage,humanbeingsarenowfoundad
imaginemdeionlybymeansofspiritualrenewal(cf.Col.3:11‐12).Theverylanguageof
renewal,Augustinenotes,impliesthepriorlossoftheimage,whichhadbeendisplaced
bythehabitofsin(c.Adim.5.2).194
CulinaryDigestiveMetaphorsandSelfAwareEngagement
Thesecondcluster,culinary‐digestivemetaphors,providesameansofdistinguishing
thesepre‐differentiated,multi‐modalpsychicentities.Whilethespatialmetaphors194NoteAugustine,atthisperiod,wouldhavesharedthedoctrinewithOrigen,ifthisdetailofanti‐Origenistpolemicsaretobebelieved(Epiphanius,Ancoratus55ff;Panarion64.4.9).Cf.Bammel,C.P.1989.“AdaminOrigen”inChadwick,Henry,andRowanWilliams.1989.TheMakingofOrthodoxy:EssaysinHonourofHenryChadwick.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.,pp.62‐93.And,ofcourse,Heidl,György.2003.Origen’sInfluenceontheYoungAugustine:AChapteroftheHistoryofOrigenism.Louaize,Lebanon:NotreDameUniversity.
129
providewaystospeakofthesimultaneityofirreduciblepsychicevents,theculinary‐
digestivemetaphorsspecificallyhighlightpresenceandabsenceofself‐aware
engagementinvarioussectionsoftheself.Thesemetaphorsareexpansiveandrichin
themselves,butforourpurposesapartialdelineationissufficient.
Whenheseekstodescribetheinterrelationsbetweenwhatisinsideandwhatis
outsidetheself,Augustinefrequentlyemploysaclusterofmetaphors,whichpicturethe
selfasavastdigestivesystem.Thepartsoftheselfarereliablyapportioneddistinct
functionswithinthatprocessofeatinganddigesting.Theheartisconsistentlynamedas
the“mouth”inthissystem(ep.19,mend.3437,cont.25).Atthebeginningofthenext
period,thememoryiscontrastedas“quasiuenteranimi”(conf.X.21).Andthusit
remains(cf.c.Faust.6.7,cat.rud.22,en.Ps.59.1;141.1,trin.12.23).
Amongotherfunctions,tasteandspeechdemarcatethetemporallypresent
engagementoftheheartfromtheirresidualeffectsinmemory.Thustheheartstands
outfromthememoryasbeingtheleadingedgeoftheselfinthepresent.Theheart
engages,bothintheaffectivereceptivityoftasteandtheexpressivityofspeech,while
thememoryretainstracesofthatengagementintheheart’sabsence.
Thepassagefrompresentengagementtomemorialretentiontypicallyresultsin
agradualdetachmentofaffectiveandcognitiveaspectsoftheretainedexperience.
Thus,Augustinenotes,theretainedmemoryofanexcruciatingtoothachedoesnot
producepain.Indeed,onecanevenrecallmomentsofpastsorrowwithjoynow,or
momentsofbygoneblisswithsadnessinthepresent(conf.X.21).Metaphorically,this
processofdissolvingandreorderingtheinnerconnectionsbetweenaffect,imageand
conceptcanbethoughtofasdigestion.
130
Obviously,thecontentsofnowabsentengagementsarenotirrevocable.Thusthe
heart,throughrecall(significantly,recordari),canpartiallymergewithmemoryfora
spell.195Thisactofbringingmemorialretentionsintopresentawareness,soastoagain
experiencesomeentwinedcognitiveandaffectiveengagementwiththem,iscalled
ruminatioandamountstotastingagainthecontentsofthestomach(conf.X.22).The
distinctionbetweenmemorialabsenceandtheself‐presenceoftheheartishighlighted
byametaphoricalequivalenceoccasionallysubstitutedbyAugustine.Themouthofthe
heartmayalsobenamedastheoscogitationisindistinctionfromthestomachof
memory(conf.X.22,c.Faust.6.7,en.Ps.59.1).Thusthepresentchurningofthoughts
standsinasarough,intellectuallytingedequivalentfortheself‐presentengagementof
theheart.
DeterminativeImpulsesandtheirSources:Heart,HabitandWill
Asecondtriageoftermsrelatetovariousmodesofdeterminativeimpulsetoactionin
Augustine’sthought.ToattainaclearunderstandingofAugustine’semerging
conceptionoftheheartinthisperiod,weneedtodemarcatetheinterrelationbetween
threesourcesofdeterminativeimpulsetoaction.
Themostgeneralcomplexoftermsusedcentersarounduoluntas,appetitusand
impetus,whichcanbeappliedtoanydeterminativeimpulsetoactionwhatever.196That
195Cf.Maxsein,Anton.1966.Philosophiacordis.DasWesenderPersonalitätbeiAugustinus.Salzburg:Müller.,pp.177‐193foranaccountofrecordatiothattendstoassimilatememoryintoheartratherthancontrastthem.196TheliteraturethathasgrownuparoundtheambiguitiesofAugustine’susageofuoluntasisthickand,likeAugustine’susage,oftenconvoluted.AmongthosewhohaveattendedtothegeneticconnectionsbetweenStoicoJrmh/andAugustinianuoluntas,afewareworthyofspecialmention.Gauthier,René‐Antoine.1970.L’ÉthiqueaNicomaqueI.1.Louvain:PublicationsUniversitaires,seesAugustine’susageasmerelyrecapitulating
131
impulsemightbethewhimofthemomentoradispositionalbent197ofthepersonina
givendirection.Itmightberationalorapurelycorporealdrive.Regardlessand
irrespective,uoluntasandherroughequivalentscoveralldeterminativeimpulsesto
action.
Augustine’susagehasaphilosophicalprehistory.Cicero,whentranslatingthe
technicallanguageoftheStoicpsychologyofaction,tendedtouseuoluntastoglossthe
eupatheticimpulse,bou/lhsiß,198(Tusc.IV.12)orthebroadertermformoralchoice,
proai/resiß(Defat.IX.23,deor.II.22f).Appetitus(Acad.II.24;fin.III.23,IV.39,V.17,etc…)
andimpetus(Off.II.11)typicallytranslateoJrmh/,thegenerictermforadeterminative
impulsetoactioninStoicthought.However,Cicerodoesnotconsistentlyreserve
uoluntasforuseasatermofart.Rather,spontaneousdesiresandrationalimpulses
alikearesometimesnamedbythesameword(Tusc.IV.34;IV.82;V.5).199Ofcourse,
theStoics.Rist,John.1997.“Augustine:Freedom,LoveandIntention.”InIlMisterodelMaleelaLiberta\Possibile(IV):RipensareAgostino.StudiaEphemeridisAugustinianum,59.Rome:InstitutumPatristicumAugustinianum,makesthemorecogentargumentforastrategyofreplacementinAugustine.ThebishopofHippoissynthesizingStoicoJrmh/withelementsofPlatonicerostoproduceanalternativepathwaybetweentheStoicsandPlatonists. O’Daly,Gerard.1987.Augustine’sPhilosophyofMind.Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia,leavesthenotionofuoluntaswithoutaformaldefinition,butoffersvariousglossesspeckledthroughouthiswork.Theseglossestendtolinkuoluntaswith“impulse”orwhatgivesrisesto“impulse”orgivesrisetoconsent.SoO’DalyseemstobeofferingabroadlyStoicisingaccount,albeitwithoutidentifyingthegeneticrelationinvolved.Cf,pp.25‐26,52‐53,89,etpassim.197Someemphasizepresentwillingandothersstressthedispositionaldimensionofuoluntas.DenBok,Nico.1994.“FreedomoftheWill”Augustiniana44:237‐270,p.255showsawarenessofbothusages.198Later,Augustinetoowoulduseuoluntastotranslatethecategoryofeujpaqeiainamedbou/lhsiß(cf.ciu.XIV.8).Buthislate,semi‐technicalusageinciu.isnottypicalofAugustinegeneralpracticeatthistime.LikeCiceroheisrarelyconsistentinuseoftechnicalterms.199ForadiscussionofCicero’susageseeDihle,Albrecht.1982.TheTheoryofWillinClassicalAntiquity.SatherClassicalLectures,V.48.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.,pp.132‐134.
132
Cicero’spurposewasnottotranslatewordforword(evenassumingsuchatasktobe
possible).HewantedtoLatinize,beautifyandultimatelyreplacetheGreekthinkershe
calledupon(Tusc.I.68).200
ThevariabilityofCicero’susageismatchedbythevagariesofSeneca’s.Onething
isclear.VoluntasdoesnottranslateonespecificGreekterminhiswriting.Rather,itis
usedmostlyinthecolloquialsensesrangingfromwishtoconsidereddesire,willingness
orintention.201
ClassicalStoicusageacknowledgesbothdispositionalandoccasionalformsof
impulseoroJrmh/.SomethingverysimilarisatworkinAugustine’sthought.Thevery
distinctionbetweendispositionalandoccasionalimpulsepermitsanambiguitybasicto
Augustine’santhropologicalthought.Voluntastypicallyfollowsupontheactofconsent
(e.g.libarbIII.75;s.dom.m.II.9,etc…)and,ifunimpeded,issuesinaction.However,
whenpressedforthereasononeconsentedinthefirstplace,Augustinewillrespondby
referringbacktoanunderlyinguoluntasasitssource(e.g.,lib.arb.III.29;uerarel.28;
duab.an.18).Voluntas,itseems,isbothpriorandposteriortotheactofconsent.
Thetacitdistinction,whichmakesthisconundrumintelligible,isthatbetween
dispositionalimpulsestoactionandoccasionalimpulses.202Theseflowfromtwo
200FortheRomanprojectofnotonlytransmittingbutreplacingGreekthoughtintheirtranslations,cf.thefirstchapterofCopeland,Rita.1995.Rhetoric,Hermeneutics,andTranslationintheMiddleAges:AcademicTraditionsandVernacularTexts.CambridgeStudiesinMedievalLiterature,11.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress201Methodologically,themostsubtleandhelpfularticleonthenotionofwillinSeneca,stretchingbeyondmerelexicalstudiestoconceptualcomparison,isInwood,Brad.2005.ReadingSeneca:StoicPhilosophyatRome.Oxford:ClarendonPress.,chapter5,“TheWillinSeneca.”202ForanexpositionofthedistinctioninearlyStoicism,seeInwood,Brad.1985.EthicsandHumanActioninEarlyStoicism.Oxford:ClarendonPress.ForuseofthedistinctionincriticalpassagesofthelateAugustine(esp.inciu.),seeByers,SarahC.2002.Augustine’sTheoryofAffectivity.Ph.D.dissertation,UniversityofToronto.
133
distinguishablesourcesintheself,whicharepotentiallyinconflictwitheachother.203
Toidentifythesourcesandthepossibilityoftheirconflict,wemustnowturntoa
considerationofheartandhabitinrelationtodeterminativeimpulsestoaction.
BasicActofHeartistoproduceintentio
Themostbasicactoftheheartistoproducespiritualtension,butthattensionproduces
acascadeofeffects.ThisisbestseeninAugustine’scommentsonJesus’words
concerningadulteryintheheart(s.dom.m.I.3335;cf.alsoutil.cred.33).SuchisJesus’
designationfortheactoflookingonawomaninordertolustforher.Augustine’sgloss
makesexplicittheconnectionbetweenintentionandheart–“idesthocfineethoc
animoadtenderit”(s.dom.m.I.33).Theactofstretchingoutinacertainspiritand
towardacertainendimpliesassentorconsentinthehiddenrecessesoftheheart(s.
dom.m.I.34).Givensufficientlyconvenientconditions,actioninevitablyfollowsupon
consent.Thechainofeffectsstretchesfromtheheart’sintention,throughanactof
judgment,totheresultantbodilyaction.
Thiscomplexofactivities(tension,judgment,action)iscommontoAugustine’s
notionoftheheartandtheStoic’sunderstandingofthespiritualtensionamplified
throughself‐awareness.TheOldStoicssaiditthisway.
203Augustinebetraysawarenessofthisambiguityindiu.qu.40,andinthisparticularpassagechoosestoreserveuoluntasfordispositionalimpulsesresultingfromhabit,appetitusforthefirstmovementresultingfromapresentation,adipiscifortheoccasionalimpulsetoaction.exdiuersisuisisdiuersusappetitusanimarum,exdiuersoappetitudiuersusadipiscendisuccessus,exdiuersosuccessudiuersaconsuetudo,exdiuersaconsuetudinediuersaestuoluntas.,diu.qu.40.
134
Justasbodilystrengthissufficienttensioninthenerves,sostrengthof
soulissufficienttensionintheactsofjudgingandactingorrefraining
(SVFI.563).
kai\ oJmoi/wß w¢sper ijscu\ß touv sw/matoß to/noß ejsti/n iJkanoß ejn
neu/poiß, ou¢tw kai\ hJ thvß yuchvß ijscu\ß to/noß ejsti/n ijkano\ß ejn twˆv
kri/nein kai\ pra/ttein h¡ mh/ (SVFI.563)
Thesilentlinkageinthissuccessionissuppliedbyanunderstandingthatconsent,in
theactofjudgment,issuesimmediatelyandinevitablyinadeterminativeimpulseto
action.Likewise,shouldtheprincipaledissentfromthecontentofthepresentationthis
wouldresultinrefrainingfromacting.
Thejudicialactofconsentireisatonceanactofreason,inAugustine’s
description,andanactperpetratedbytheheart(s.dom.m.I.34).Consentgoesbefore
anyactionandgivesrisetoit.Thejudicialactunifiestheinnertensionoftheheartina
givencourseofaction.Thus,consentproducesuoluntasorappetitusasadeterminative
impulsetoaction(libarbIII.75;s.dom.m.II.9).
Augustineinsiststhattheheart’sactofconsentmustbecarefullydistinguished
fromthesuggestionsandtitillationsstirredbyanyphantasmorsenseimpression(s.
dom.m.I.34).Likewise,thesurgeofappetitivedesireprecedingconsentmustnotbe
conflatedwiththeactofconsent.204Moralweightrestssolelyontheheart’sjudgment
204Augustine’sanalysismapsontoanOldStoicdistinctionastransmittedthroughthepermutationsofOrigenandtheDesertFathers(cf.Sorabji,Richard.2000.EmotionandPeaceofMind:fromStoicAgitationtoChristianTemptation.TheGiffordLectures.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.pp.343‐384).Thekeydistinctionisthedifferencebetweenpassionsasfalsejudgmentsandprepassionsorfirstmovementsasnon‐voluntarymotionspreceedingsaidjudgments.ForathoroughanalysisofStoicpassionasfalsejudgmentsincontrasttoinitialcontractionsorexpansions,feltinthechestor
135
(s.dom.m.I.34).Onlywhentheheartdecidesitwouldactthusgivensufficiently
convenientconditionshasconsentbeengranted.Atthispoint,evenlookingcanbe
adulterous,forunderneaththepurposefullookisanintentiontoinflamelust.Andthat
presupposesconsent.ThismuchanyRomanStoiccouldhavetaught,albeitwithout
employingJesus’languageoftheheart.
Thereisonecrucialdifference,however,towhichwewillreturnbelowin
greaterdetail.Butsomementionofitmustbemadenow.Thecriterionofcorrect
judgment–assentingordissentingfromappearances–haschangedradicallyandin
twoways.
First,theconsentgranted,accordingtoAugustine,istothepleasure
accompanyingthesuggestionortitillation,nottothepropositionalcontentofthe
presentation.Thisconcernwiththeaccompanyingfeelings,andnotjustwiththe
conceptualcontentbeingjudged,setsAugustineapartfromClassicalStoicismand
identifieshimasholdingsomeaffinitywiththose,suchasPosidonius,whoacknowledge
irrationalpowersofthesoul.
Second,fortheStoicthereisnosuchthingasexternalgoodsorevils.Theonly
goodisinatension‐guardedself‐hoodconsistentwithcosmicreason.ButAugustine
livesinacosmoscreatedgoodfromtoptobottom.Thusexternalsaregoodtoo.Allof
stomach,whichprovidetheoccasionforfalsejudgmentsseeibid,pp29‐54.Stoicfirstmovementsarebodily,notconceptual.
TheChristianpermutationistoconsiderfirstmovementsasprimarilymental,ratherthanbodilyphenomena.Fortheprecursortopassionisnotaswellingofcorporealsoulfeltinthestomach,butmentalsuggestionsorevenmomentarydoubtsmakingonesusceptibletosuggestion.Cf.Byers,Sarah.2003.“AugustineandtheCognitiveCauseofStoicPreliminaryPassions(propatheiai)”JournaloftheHistoryofPhilosophyXLI.4pp433‐48
136
themare.Sothequestionaproperjudicialactofheartmustanswerismorenuanced.
Namely,“isthisatemporalgoodoraneternalgood?”(s.dom.m.I.34,II.9&39).
Toanswerthatquestion,Augustine’sintentiomustreachbeyondjudgingthe
propositionalcontentofaphantasmandevenassessingitsconcomitantaffective
texture.Rather,Augustine’sintentiomustconstituteanewandalternateformof
apprehensioninitself.Butfirstweneedtopositiontheimpulsetoaction,whichflows
fromtheheart’sintentio,inrelationtoanalternatesourceofdeterminativeimpulses
withintheAugustinianself.
TheAlienationoftheImpulsetoActioninHabit
Theheartistheleadingedgeoftheselfasitengagestheworld.Butnotalloflifeislived
withinitsbounds.Muchofhumanlifetranspiresbelowtheradarofself‐conscious
engagement.Thedepthspossesstheirowndynamismandproducetheirownimpulses.
Sometimesthoseimpulsestaketheheartbysurpriseintheireruptionsandtheperson
findsherselfsayingordoingthingsofwhichherheartdisapproves(e.g.c.Fort.22).
Whiletheheartmaydisapprovenow,priorenactedintentionsstandbehindthe
creationofthoseunrulyimpulses.Indeed,consistentactsoftheheartresultinthe
sedimentationofhabit(mus.VI.1314;38).Anythingengagedinrepetitivelywillcreatea
patterneddynamismintheselfthatisknownashabit(mus.I.10).Thus,theimpulseto
actionisgraduallyalienatedfromtheheartthroughhabituation.Habit,onceformed,no
longerrequirestheheart’spermissiontosetitselfinmotion.
Thoughpresent,self‐awarecommitmentsmaybeviolatedbyahabitualimpulse,
habitnonethelessprovidesaquiteaccuratediagnosticofone’sdiachronicloves(si
animaduerterisquibusrebusmaximeanimumsoleamusintendereetmagnumcuram
137
exhibere,nameasopinoressequasmultumamamus,mus.VI.38).Theresidueofour
affectivestretchingproducesasedimentedweightofhabitconfiguredintheoften‐
conflictedshapeofourvariousloves.
Habitandmemoryarenotseparatefaculties,butexistaspolesofasingle
continuumofdynamictendencyinAugustine.Whentheengraininginvolvedrelatesto
action,orimpulses,theresultingdynamictendencyisnamedhabit.Buttheselfsame
powerorforce(uis)iscalledmemory,whenitissufficientlydistantiatedfromthe
objectsofitsactionyetwithstandsthepassageoftime(an.quant.71).Thoughbothlie
beyondthepaleoftheheart’sself‐awareness,habitissituatedclosertothesurfaceof
determinativeimpulsethanismemory.Thushabitconstitutesaformofdispositional
uoluntas,whichispotentiallyinconflictwithcurrentintentionsoroccasionaluoluntas.
Amoralandspiritualescalationofwoesmaybefoundintheprocessofhabit
formation–iftheactionsbeingengrainedaresinful.Augustinedescribestheonslaught
ofwoeinaparable(s.dom.m.I.35).Whentheheartconsentstosinthisisakintodying
withinone’shouse.Theexternalactexacerbatesthesituation–oneiscarriedoutside
forburial.Whenasinfulhabitisfullyformed,aweightbearsdownonthesoulakinto
therottingofaburiedcorpse(s.dom.m.I.35).205Ofcourse,thegospelsgiveusgood
reasonforhope.Jesushasraisedpeoplefromallthreedegreesofdeath(s.dom.I.35).
Thesameprocessofalienationisfoundinthesermonsandthedemendacio.The
fullestaccountisinalater(ca.411)sermonthatdeals,inpart,withgovernanceofthe
tongue(s.Denis20).Althoughtheheartinitiallydecidestospeakviciously,onceahabit
isformed,onemayfindthehabitpromptingactionagainstthewishesofone’sheart.205NotetheStoicaccountofproclivitiesproducedastheresultofperturbations–morbi(sickness),aegrotationes(severedisease),vitiositas/habitus(habitualvice)–astransmittedbyCiceroinTusc.IV.23‐24,29.
138
Likeawheelgivenapush,thehabitwill“roll”accordingtoitsnature.Themindmight
decidetotelltruthinthiscase,butthetongueisalreadylyingbyforceofhabit(s.Denis
20).206
Inthisperiod,Augustinefindstheverysamelogic,inlessvividimagery,
operativebehindJesus’prudentialadvicetoforgothepracticeofswearing(mend.28,s.
dom.m.I.5153).Thebanonswearingisnotanabsolutelaw.But,asaruleofthumb,it
preventsthehabitofswearingtobecomefullyformed(mend.28).Thishabitwould
makeoneparticularlysusceptibletofalsewitnessing,andJesuswouldguardusfrom
suchweakness(mend.28,cf.alsohischallengetoFortunatus,c.Fort.22,ands.dom.m.
I.5153).
ThoughAugustinedoesnotdwellonitatgreatlength,hedoesbelievethissame
capacityforhabitformationcanbeharnessedforwealaswellaswoe.Itsimplyisnot
true,attheconceptuallevel,thatAugustine’saccountofhabitisonlyanaccountofbad
habitorofhabitasthedynamicofresistancetograce.207Augustine’stherapeuticand
rhetoricalaimsrequiredhisoverwhelmingemphasisuponthesenegativedimensions
inmostofhiswritings.Nonetheless,Augustinedoesacknowledge,inthisperiod,
positiveexamplesofhabitandevenincorporatesthenotionintohisasceticalprogram.
206NoteCicero’susageofthesamemetaphorderivedfromChrysippusindefato42,andtheparallelusagereportedbyAulusGelliusinNoctesAtticae7.2.Themetaphorwasusedinanefforttoreconciledeterminismandmoralfreedombyarguingthatthespecificconfigurationsofminddeterminetheirowninevitableresponsestothepromptingsoffate.ForAugustine’sadaptionofthisconcepttoexplainthecongruentcallinSimpl.I.2,cf.chapter4below.207PacePrendiville,JohnG.1972.TheDevelopmentoftheIdeaofHabitintheThoughtofSaintAugustine.NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress.Prendiville’sinsistenceonreadingAugustine’snotionofhabitonlyasasubsetofthedoctrineofsinrequiresthatheturnablindeyetothepositivepossibilitiesofhabitwithinAugustine’santhropologicaltheory.
139
Thetwomostimportanttextswerebothcomposedinoppositiontothe
Manicheans.Theearlieraccountofgoodhabitcomesfromthepreviousperiod(gn.adu.
Man.II.2931).ReflectingonthecurseuponthewomaninGen.3:19,Augustinefindsa
redemptivepossibilityconsonantwithhisfigurativereading.Eachofushavea
“soulish,”affectivepartthroughwhichalonethedevilcanreachuswithtemptation.
Thissoulish,subrationalpartreceivesfigurativerepresentationinthetextbythe
woman(gn.adu.Man.II.28).208Thecurseofpaininchildbirthreferstothiswomanly
partofourpsyches,nottophysicalpaininEve’sbody.
Abstainingfromcarnalpleasuresisalwayspainfulatfirstanditpersistsuntilthe
affectivepartbecomeshabituatedtosubmittingtoitsbetter(gn.adu.Man.II.29).209
Whenthathabitofsubmissiontoreasonisfullyformed,twofiguresdescribetheresult.
First,asonisbornasgoodhabitisestablishedandpreparestheaffectionsforgood
deeds(quodcumprouenerit,quasinatusestfilius,idestadbonumopusparatusaffectus
perconsuetudinembonam,gn.adu.Man.II.29).Second,thathabitofsubmission
constitutesafigurativeturningtowardthehusband,whoistherationalpartofthesoul
(gn.adu.Man.II.29).Whenthisturningiscomplete,ourrealignedaffectionsare
appropriatelycalledthemotheroftheliving,thatis,ofrightactions(gn.adu.Man.
II.29).Augustineapparentlyenvisionsanasceticprocessofaffectivetransformation
208Cf.Teselle,Eugene.1993.“Serpent,Eve,andAdam:AugustineandtheExegeticalTradition”inLienhard,JosephT.,EarlC.Muller,andRolandJ.Teske.1993.Augustine:presbyterfactussum.CollectaneaAugustiniana.NewYork:P.Lang,pp.341‐361fortheexegeticaltraditionofallegorizingEdenandAugustine’sdeparturefromAmbrose’sallegory.209Verumtamenmagnumsacramentumesthuiussententiae,quodnullaabstinentiafitauoluptatecarnali,quaenonhabeatinexordiodolorem,donecinmeliorempartemconsuetudoflectatur…(Gn.adu.Man.II.29)
140
wherebyproperuseofhabituationcouldrealigntheappetitesforuseindefeating
temptation.
Asimilarconceptionofhabit’sambivalentusefulnessunderliesthesecond
importantpassage(c.Fort.22).Butafewnoteworthydevelopmentshaveaccruedinthe
meantime.Augustinenowexplicitlylinkshisaccountofhabittoachangedsituationof
humanityafterAdam.Thefirstmanwascreatedwith“liberumuoluntatisarbitrium”(c.
Fort.22).Hewasfullyfreetochoosewithoutanythingrestrainingthatdecision.Of
course,wefindourselvesinadifferentposition(c.Fort.22).AfterAdam,andespecially
afterpersonalexperienceofcarnalpleasure,weexperiencearesistancetofreechoice
calledhabit.Andhabitisregisteredexperientiallyasaformofnecessityorconstraintin
ourchoosing.Theologically,AugustinealignsthisnecessityofsoulwiththePauline
languageof“flesh.”
But“flesh,”asahabitofsoul,isamalleablestateofaffairs.Badhabitscanbe
overcome.Goodhabitscandisplacethem.InlightofAugustine’sexplicitidentification
ofhabitwithanecessitatingforceconstrainingchoice,thepossibilityofforginggood
habitsisimportant.Augustinehaseffectivelyconceptualizedthepotentialofapositive
limitationtowillingandthusmarkedonegoalofhisasceticprogramastheprogressive
limitationofchoicepreciselythroughavoluntaryproductionofcounterhabits.
IfoneconsiderstheChristianlifeasakintoanycomplex,exactingactivitythe
practicalvalueoflimitingchoicebecomesapparent.Perhapswecanclarifybydrawing
outAugustine’smetaphorofwarfare(en.Ps.9.8;s.dom.m.I.34;I.54;II.58;diu.qu.69.8).
Thewarriormustbesotrainedthathedoesnotneedtodeliberateovereverymove.
Onlywhenmostoftheworkhasbeenentrustedtowell‐trainedhabits,cantheagent
devoteproperattentiontothestrategicchoicesthatariseinthemidstofcombat.
141
SoalsotheChristianwhohasreplacedabadhabitofswearingwiththegood
habitofsimpletruth‐telling,touseAugustine’sexample,willbefreedfromthe
distractionofdeliberationbyagoodhabit’slimitationofpracticalchoice(s.dom.m.
1.5153;mend.28,c.Fort.22).Havingthusalignedhabitwithone’sconsciouslychosen
directioninlife,theheartisfreedtoattendtomoreimportantmatters.
SummaryoftheConceptualCorrelations
Perhapsasummarystatementofourquestthusfarwouldbeasmallkindnesstothe
reader.Wehaveperformedtwoactsoftriangulationandfoundthetriageoftermsin
bothcasestooverlappartiallybutsignificantly.
Theheart,mindandmemoryareallmulti‐modal,pre‐differentiatedentitiesbut
theyaredistinguishable.Mensreferstothepsychictotalityandissubdividedintoheart
andmemory.Coristheconsciouslyawareengagementoftheselfinthepresent.
Memoriaistheretentionofpastengagements.Heartandmemoryinterpenetrateinacts
ofrecall,wherebypreviousengagementsarere‐engagedinpresentawareness.
Heart,habitandwillpartiallymapontothefirsttriageofterms.Theoverarching,
totalityconceptwhendiscussingdeterminativeimpulsestoactioniswilling.Butthe
sourcesofdeterminativeimpulses–volitions–aredouble.Thepresent,self‐aware
productionofimpulsecomesthroughtheheart’sintentionalconsent.But,habit,asa
corollarytomemoryintherealmofaction,retainsthedynamicofpastintentions
enactedandcreatesitsownimpulseswhichcandoviolencetothoseproducedbythe
heart.
142
OverarchingMoralConcern:SimplicityandDuplicityoftheHeart’sIntention
WenowturnourattentionfromtracingthelineamentsofAugustine’sconceptofheart
todiscerningthemoralandphilosophicalworkthatconceptismeanttoperform.
Augustine’sprimaryconcernpertainingtotheheartresidesinthehumantendencyto
divideourattentionandthusfragmentourmoralstrength.Thisdimensionof
Augustine’sthoughtisreadilyrecognizableasStoicising.Indeed,hedrawsuponspecific
strategiestheStoicsusedforpromotingself‐awareness.However,theStoicising
strategiesareemployedforlargelyPlatonicends.Augustineisnotonlyconcernedwith
thediffusionofourawarenessendinginweaknessofwill.Hedescribesanintrinsic
linkagebetweenthatdiffusionandaconsequentimpedimenttocontemplationofGod.
DiffusingourattentionpollutestheinnereyeandsoilsGod’sproperabodewithinthe
self.
SituatingAugustine’sProjectindeSermoneDominiinMonte
Sinceaponderousamountoftherelevantmaterialforinterpretationisfoundins.dom.
m.,IbeginwithabriefoverviewofAugustine’sprojectinthatwork.Augustinereads
Jesus’SermonontheMountasanindependentpositiononthepurduringphilosophical
debateconcerningthenatureandmeanstohappiness.Alltheancientphilosophical
schoolswereorganizedarounddistinctive,competingaccountsofhappiness–
eujdaimoni/a.210Theoneunanimousagreementbetweentheschoolswasthathumanlife
210Foroverviewsofthevariousschoolsinlighttheirdistinctiveconceptionsofeujdaimoni/aanddifferingstrategiesforachievingit,seeHadot,Pierre.2002.WhatisAncientPhilosophy?Cambridge,Mass:HarvardUniversityPress,Nussbaum,MarthaC.2001.TheFragilityofGoodness.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.,Nussbaum,MarthaCraven.1994.TheTherapyofDesire:TheoryandPracticeinHellenisticEthics.
143
wasproperlydirectedatthisendalone211andthattemporaldurationwasirrelevantto
thequestionofhappiness.212Wheretheydifferedsharplywasonthequestion,“what
constituteshappiness?”
WhenCiceroinventedfortheRomansaphilosophicalvocabularyadjacenttothe
Greeks’,hesubsumedthequestionofeujdaimoni/aunderthemoreLatinnotionofuita
beataorbeatitudo.Augustine,ofcourse,hadthoroughlyabsorbedCicero,alongwith
whateverhecouldfindofthephilosophicaltraditionsinLatin.ThusJesus’
pronouncementofwhowouldbeblessed(beatus)andwhy,immediatelystruck
AugustineasJesus’ownaccountofhappiness.Sincethephilosophicschoolscarriedon
aperennialdebateonthistheme,thisbodyofteachingmarksoffJesus’schoolfromthe
others.213Cicero’sdictumsurelyapplieshere,“quiautemdesummobonodissentit,de
totaphilosophiaerationedissentit”(fin.V.V.14).
Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress.Forcontinuinginfluenceoftheseapproaches,especiallySocrates’,intomodernityseeNehamas,Alexander.1998.TheArtofLiving:SocraticReflectionsfromPlatotoFoucault.SatherClassicalLectures,V.61.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPressandHadot,Pierre,1995.PhilosophyasaWayofLife:SpiritualExercisesfromSocratestoFoucault.Malden,MA:Blackwell.211NoteAugustine’slatesummary(c.413‐414)ofthefiveschoolsallaimingatasinglegoalvariouslydefined:primogeneraliterauditeomniumphilosophorumcommunestudium,inquostudiocommunihabueruntquiquediuisionesetdifferentiassententiarumpropriarum:communiteromnesphilosophistudendo,quaerendo,disputando,uiuendoappetiueruntapprehendereuitambeatam.,s.150.4212OntherareagreementoftheHellenisticphilosophiesonthisissuesee,Hadot,Pierre,1995.PhilosophyasaWayofLlife:SpiritualExercisesfromSocratestoFoucault.Malden,MA:Blackwell.,ch.8,“’OnlythePresentisourHappiness’:TheValueofthePresentInstantinGoetheandinAncientPhilosophy.”Ofcourse,Augustineratherstarklydepartsfromthisnotioninhisinsistencethatonlyaneverlastingpossessionofthegoodcouldproducehappiness.213Perhapsabriefreminderofthevariousschools’positionsconcerningeujdaimoni/awouldbeusefulforclarifyingAugustine’sinterpretationofJesus’way.
Plotinianascentseesvirtueasapreparatorystep,whichissurpassedincontemplativevision.Wisdom,visionandhappinessarecoextensiveandresideabovevirtue.Cf.McGroarty,Kieran,andPlotinus.2006.Plotinusoneudaimonia:acommentary
144
SoAugustinebeginshiscommentarybyassuringhisreadersthatthisDominical
discoursecontainsallthepreceptstheyneedforlife(appareatineopraeceptaesse
omniaquaeadinformandamuitampertinent.,s.dom.m.I.1).214Herein,Jesusoffersan
onEnneadI.4.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.Also,Hadot,Pierre.1993.Plotinus,or,TheSimplicityofVision.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
AugustinehasnotimefortheEpicureans,primarilybecausetheyconsideredthegoodandthushappinesstoconsistinaformof(radicallycircumscribed)pleasure.InAugustine’sstereotypicalwords(againc.413414),interrogemuspriusEpicureos,quaeresfaciatbeatamuitam.respondent:uoluptascorporis.,(s.150.5).ForamoresympatheticandinternalperspectiveontheEpicureanschool,IsuggeststartingwiththelifeinD.L.X,thentheoverviewsprovidedinHadot,Pierre.2002.WhatisAncientPhilosophy?Cambridge,Mass:HarvardUniversityPress,Nussbaum,MarthaCraven.1994.TheTherapyofDesire:TheoryandPracticeinHellenisticEthics.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,andStriker,Gisela.1993.“EpicureanHedonism”inSymposiumHellenisticum,JacquesBrunschwig,andMarthaCravenNussbaum.1993.Passions&Perceptions:StudiesinHellenisticPhilosophyofMind:ProceedingsoftheFifthSymposiumHellenisticum.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
ClassicalStoicsconsiderthegood,wisdomandvirtuetobecoextensiveandnotsusceptibletoacquisitionbydegrees.Everyoneiseitherasageorafool,infallibleorignorant,perfectlyvirtuousoramoralshipwreck.Therearenoin‐betweenstates.
However,thoseStoicsresponsibleformuchoftheinfluenceonRomanthoughtalreadyadoptedahybridpositionandacknowledgedstagesofgrowthamongnon‐sages.ThepossibilityofmediatingpositionsbetweenPlatonicandStoicthoughtwaswellestablishedlongbeforeAugustine’stime.Cf.Roskam,Geert.2005.OnthePathtoVirtue:TheStoicDoctrineofMoralProgressanditsReceptionin(Middle)Platonism.AncientandMedievalPhilosophy,33.Leuven:LeuvenUniversityPress.
Whetherinstantaneousperfectionorgradualgrowthisassumed,theknowledge‐virtueinquestionisfoundinthemindorrationalsoul.Augustineaffirmsasmuchinhislatercaricature–althoughhiscritiqueisobviouslyconcernedwiththepelagians,quiddicitis,Stoici,quaeresfacituitambeatam?respondent:uirtusanimi.,(s.150.5)…sedetiamStoicus,inanimoponenssummumhominisbonum,inrequidemmeliorihominisposuit,sedetiamipseinsespemposuit.,(s.150.8).214VanFleteren,Frederick.1999.“Sermonedominiinmonte,De”inFitzgerald,Allan,andJohnC.Cavadini.1999.AugustineThroughtheAges:AnEncyclopedia.GrandRapids,Mich:W.B.Eerdmans,statesthattheprimaryimportanceofthistextisAugustine’ssyntheticreadingofthebeatitudes,thePaternoster,andthegiftsoftheHolySpiritallthroughthelensoftheascentofthesoul.Fromavantageofcomparisionwithotherpatristicauthors,vanFleteren’sestimatemaywellbeaccurate.
However,withinageneticaccountofAugustine’sdevelopingthought,thistextstandsoutasthefirstoccasiononwhichAugustinedevoteslengthyreflectiontotheroleofpreceptandactioninpurificationofheart.Indeed,theimportanceofthistextforunderstandingAugustineliesspecificallyinfindingactiontobeapurduringdimension
145
authoritativeaccountofhappinessanditsacquisition–whichturnsouttobe
synonymouswithaperfectusuitaechristianaemodus(s.dom.m.I.1).Augustine
explicitlycontraststhelowermoralityofadjudicatingexternalactions(associatedby
JesuswiththepracticesoftheScribesandPharisees)withthehighermoralityofJesus
thatcentersinemotionalrealignmentandpurgationofunderlyingintentions(s.dom.m.
I.21,33).
TheDominicalladdertohappinessischronologicallylinear215andconsistsof
sevenrungsdividedintotwodistinctphases(cf.,thetracesofAugustine’sexegesisin
en.Ps.11.7namseptemsuntetiambeatitudinisgradus,quosineodemsermonequem
habuitinmontedominusexsequiturkata\Matthaeum…dequibussententiisseptem
totumillumsermonemprolixumdictumesseanimaduertipotest.).Thefirstfivesteps
constitutethefirstphaseandoccupythecommentsofs.dom.m.bookI.
Thefirstfivestepsformasubstratumofmoralreformationpreparatorytoa
moreintellectualorcognitivecompletioninthelasttwosteps.Thismuchoneexpects,
sinceAugustine’stheoriesofvirtuesofarhavebeenpreparationsforceasingallactivity
incontemplation.Ins.dom.m.,however,Augustineforthefirsttimeexplicitlyrefusesto
relegatemoral,bodilyactiontoapreliminaryphase(cf.Augustine’swordsinthefinal
paragraphofthiswork,s.dom.m.II.87).216Throughoutthefirstphaseof
ofthesoul’shappiness–evenifpoorlyintegratedatthisstagewithhismoredevelopedcontemplativeaccountofhappiness(s.dom.m.II.86).215Plotinus’understandingwascyclicalforthedurationofembodiment.216Besidestheexpositionsinthefirsttwochaptersabove,afruitfulcomparisonforascertainingthedevelopmentinAugustine’sthoughtwouldbetheearlierdiu.qu.35.Therein,Augustineoffersapurelycognitiveaccountofhappinessaspossessionofaneternalgoodthroughknowingit‐quidestaliudbeateuiuerenisiaeternumaliquidcognoscendohabere?Cf.alsohisexplicitdisavowalofthepurelycognitiveaccountlateinlife(retr.I.26).
146
transformation,theemphasisfallsdistinctlyupontheproductionofequanimityandthe
needtopreparetheheartfortheinevitableobstaclestoChristianliving.217
Ineffect,AugustineoverlaysJesus’beatitudeswiththesevengiftsoftheHoly
SpiritinverselydetailedinIsaiah11:2‐3(en.Ps.11.7,s.dom.m.I.1011,doctr.chr.II.9
11).TheconnectionwasnaturalgivenAugustine’scontext.Whocoulddoubtthatthe
endofaphilosophicalpursuitofhumanflourishingwaswisdomitself?Whatelsecould
makeofmortalssonsofGodandproduceperfectequanimityintheprocess?This
compositeheinterpretsbyinventinganarrativeofprogressivemoraltransformation
thatexplainsthenaturalconnectionsandmovementbetweenthevariousstages.Herein
Jesus’accountofthepathwaytohappinessisfound.
Thestorygoeslikethis(cf.,Augustine’ssynthesisins.dom.m.I.1011).God’s
wordintrudesfrombeyondtheselfandinitiatestheprocess.UponreceivingGod’s
word,thesoulexperiencesafear(Is.11:3)ofjustjudgmentandgrowshumble(Mt.5:3)
beforeGod(s.dom.m.I.3).Withhernewfoundmalleability,shebeginstocarefullyread
thescriptures(pietas,Is.11:2)andmeekly(Mt.5:4)submittowhatitsays(s.dom.m.
I.4).Theresultisagrowingknowledge(scientia,Is.11:2)ofhersinfulnessandshe
beginstogrieve(Mt.5:5)overhercarnalhabitsandsins(s.dom.m.I.5).Griefinstigates
adesiretochange.Hardlaborensuesassheresistsandgraduallyuprootsentrenched
habits.OnlywithGod‐givenfortitude(Is.11:2)cansheaccomplishthissincesevering
thedelightsofsincausesaspiritualpainakintohungerorthirst(Mt.5:6,cf.,s.dom.m.
I.6).Indeed,thetoilsandwoecausethesoultocryoutforhelpatthispoint.She
receivestheonesoundcounsel(Is.11:2)forobtaininghelp.Helpisgiventothosewho
217OnemightdiscernhereadominicaladmonitiontotheStoicspiritualexerciseofpraemeditatiomalorum.
147
helpothersinwhateverwaystheycan.Andsoshebeginstoshowmercy(Mt.5:7)and
thusreceivesdivinemercytoaidinconqueringcarnalhabit(s.dom.m.I.7&1011).
Thesefirstfivestepsestablishafoundationofgoodconsciencethatcalmsthe
mind(s.dom.m.I.5661).Thisserenityandcomposurewillbenecessarytoendurethe
ensuingpurgationofheartandattainwisdomindivinelikenessatlast.Theclimbis
steeponthetworemaininglevelsofthejourney.Andthewaytraversedlieswholly
withintheheart.
Thepinnacleofwisdomwithintheheartresultsinaformofapatheia
(…nullusquemotusaduersusrationemrebellisest,s.dom.m.I.11),suchasAugustinein
thisperiodbelievestheApostlesachievedintheirlifetimes(s.dom.m.I.12;cf.hislater
mindonthequestion,retr.I.19.12).Therewardofvirtue‐wisdomisintrinsic,asitwas
withtheStoics.AndJesushasanameforit–thekingdomofheaven.Heavenandearth
standforcontrarydirectionsofthehumanperson,towardholinessandsinrespectively
(s.dom.m.I.15,53.II.17).Whenalltherebelliousaffectshavebeenquelledthrough
perfectholinessofintention,thestatewithinthesouliscalledhappinessorthe
kingdomofheaven(s.dom.m.I.13).
TheStruggleforSingularity:PurityandPollutioninSacredSpace
Thesecondbook,takingupthefinalphaseoftheDominicalladder,beginswiththe
projectofmundatiocordis(s.dom.m.II.1).218Thelanguageofpurificationwithina
218Forsyntheticoverviewsofthetheme,withoutdiachronic,developmentaldistinctionsorconsiderationofphilosophicalpatrimonies,seeGillette,Gertrude.1999.“PurityofHeartinSt.Augustine”inRaasch,Juana,HarrietLuckman,andLindaKulzer.1999.PurityofHeartinEarlyAsceticandMonasticLiterature:EssaysinHonorofJuanaRaasch,O.S.B.Collegeville,Minn:LiturgicalPress.,pp.175‐195.Also,Gowans,ColeenHoffman.1998.TheIdentityoftheTrueBelieverintheSermonsofAugustineofHippo:A
148
philosophicalaccountofobtainingeujdaimoni/aimmediatelyconjuresthenamesand
doctrinesofPlatonistteachers.219Indeed,Augustinedoesinteractwiththoseteachings.
However,hisinterestsandhisexplanationsofJesus’wordsaremuchmorecomplex
thanasinglephilosophicalpedigreecanenclose.
PlatonistModelsofPurification
Platonistpurificationisessentiallyanintellectualaffair.PriortoPlato,thewordhJ
ka/qarsißhasthebasicmeaningof“clearingaway”obstaclesor“clarification.”220For
Plato,theobstacletobeclearedawaywasanythingbodilythattaintedorobscuredthe
soul’sviewoftheforms.221But,ofcourse,Augustine’sinteractionwithPlatowas
entirelymediatedthroughthePlatonistheavyweightsofhisownera.
Plotinus’accountofpurificationsurelycountsasafaithfullyintellectualist
readingofPlato.Butitisjustascertainlyacreativereading.Plotinushasrelocatedthe
toposofthediscussion.Sinceclarificationprecedesvision,andthusisleftbehind,
Plotinusidentifiesitwithvirtueaspreparationforintellectualvision.
DimensionofhisChristianAnthropology.Lewiston,N.Y.:E.MellenPress.,pp.211‐241andLaPeza,Edgardode.1962.Elsignificadode"cor"enSanAgustín.Revuedesétudesaugustiniennes.Paris:ÉtudesAugustiniennes.,pp.83‐87.219ForathoroughaccountofthethemeinPlotinianphilosophyseeTrouillard,Jean.1955.Lapurificationplotinienne.Paris:PressesuniversitairesdeFrance.220SeeNussbaum,MarthaC.2001.TheFragilityofGoodness.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.,pp.388‐390.221Cf.e.g.,Phaedo65e83eforpurityandpollutionofsoul,Soph.230adforSocraticrefutationasintellectualclarificationorpurification,Rep.508c,describesclearorpurecognitionaspossiblewhenthesoulisnotimpededbybodilyobstacles,Phdr.65ff&110ffspecifythekaqaro/n,the“clear”or“pure,”aswhatistrulyknowable.
149
Plotinianvirtuefallsintotwocategories–thesocialandthepurificatory(Enn.
I.1.10;I.2;I.4;II.9;VI.9).222Bothstandassequential,preparatorystageswithinthe
cyclicalebbingandflowingofcontemplationandearthwardplummeting.Afterfalling
backintoquotidianexistence,thephilosopherbeginstheprocessofpurificationfor
anotherboutofcontemplation.Thefirststepiscivicorsocialvirtue.Hereonemanages
thecompositemixtureofbodyandsoulinitsinterrelationswithotherembodiedsouls.
Thecardinalvirtues–prudence,justice,fortitude,andtemperance–allbelonginthis
categoryasmerepreludestopurificationofmind.Inthemselves,thesemerelyimage
thelaterpurgative,intellectualvirtues.Theydonotcleansethesoul.
Whenthesoulpressesontointellectualpurgation,sheattainssomedegreeof
likenesstoGod(Enn.I.2.1).Justasevilcomesthroughthesoulgettingmixedupinthe
bodysothatitcomestofeelwiththebodyandevenevaluatethingswiththebody,so
virtueandgoodnesscomewhenthesoulrefusestoevaluatewiththebodyandbegins
toperformitsownactalone(Enn.1.2.3).223Purificationchiselsawayeverythingaliento
thesoul.Whatisleftover,nottheactofpurificationitself,istheGood(Enn.I.2.4).But
purificationbeginswithconversion,turningawayfromthedarknessofbodyand
towardtheintelligiblelight.Toattainknowledge,thesoulmustthrustitselftowardthe
intelligibleray(deiv prosbaleivn twˆv fwti/zonti –Enn.I.2.4).PurificationhastheGood
asitsgoalandvisionfloodstheeyewithlightonceclarificationisaccomplished(Enn.
VI.7.36).222TheprincipletextsareEnn.I.1.10;I.2;I.4;II.9;VI.9.ThebestbriefsummariesareHadot,Pierre.1993.PlotinusorTheSimplicityofVision.Chicago:theUniversityofChicagoPress.,ch.5.,andLouth,Andrew.2007.TheOriginsoftheChristianMysticalTradition:fromPlatotoDenys.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.,ch.1&3223 £H ejpeidh\ kakh\ me/n ejstin hJ yuch\ sumpefurme/nh twˆv sw/mati kai\ oJmopaqh\ß ginome/nh aujtwˆv kai\ pa/nta sundoxa/zousa, ei¡h a£n ajgaqh\ kai\ ajreth\n e¡cousa, eij mh\te sundoxa/zoi, ajlla\ mo/nh ejnergoiv (Enn.I.2.3).
150
Somemeasureofvictoryoverthepassionsasentailmentsofbodilyengagement
results.Thrustingtowardsthelightsimultaneouslyinvolvesdisengagementwiththe
body(Enn.I.2.5).However,thepassionsdonotgoawayentirely.Thesoulsimplylearns
toremainalooffromthemandtoceaseallying(andthusalloying)itselfwiththem.
Plotinus’strategyvis‐à‐visthepassionsisoneofcontainment,noteradicationor
moderation.Confinedtotheirproperabode,thepassionsareweakenedandthesoul
experiencesnomilitantstruggle(mach/)withthem(Enn.I.2.5).224Theclarifiedsoul
residesalone,apartfromearthlythings(Enn.III.6.5).
ButthenameAugustinemorereadilyattachestoPlatonistpurificationisthatof
Porphyryandhisaccountoftheurgicalritual.225Porphyriantheurgy226wasaimedat
purificationofthe“spiritualsoul”oremotionalpartthatPlatoidentifiedinRep.IV.
Porphyryconsideredthisprocessusefulforthoseunabletoenduretherigorsof
Plotiniancontemplation.227Plotinusrepudiatedthepracticeoftheurgy,consideringit
224NotethesharpcontrastwithAugustine’sinsistenceonavaliantmilitiaChristianainovercomingbadhabitandestablishinggoodhabitstendingtowardseternallife,cf.s.dom.m.I.34,c.Faust.V.9,op.mon.33,35,ep.151.8.FortheuseofmilitarymetaphorsinChristianliteraturepriortoAugustine,Harnack,Adolfvon.1981.MilitiaChristi:TheChristianReligionandtheMilitaryintheFirstThreeCenturies.Philadelphia:FortressPressremainsbasic.225Porphyry,inmoreorthodoxdevelopmentofPlotinus’views,alsoelaboratesafourfoldtheoryofthevirtuesinhisSententiae34.Thesocialandpurgativevirtuescomprisethefirsttwostagesandconstitutetheprimaryworkofthislife.Theoreticandparadigmaticvirtuesdetailtheenergyinvolvedinintellectualactivityofsoulandthepatternscontainedwithinthesoul,respectively.Augustine,however,seemstohaveattachedPorphyry’snameonlytotheurgicalnotionsofpurification.226Aquickoverviewoftheurgicalhistoryandpractice,stillworthconsulting,isDodds,E.R.1951.TheGreeksandtheIrrational.SatherClassicalLectures,V.25.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.,AppendixII.ForabroadbasedstudyoftheurgyinAugustine’serasee,Lewy,Yochanan,andMichelTardieu.1978.ChaldaeanOraclesandTheurgy:Mysticism,MagicandPlatonisminthelaterRomanEmpire.Paris:Étudesaugustiniennes.227Cf.Smith,Andrew.1974.Porphyry'sPlaceintheNeoPlatonicTradition:AStudyinPostPlotinianNeoPlatonism.TheHague:M.Nijhoff.,pp.81‐144.
151
damaging.Duringhismaster’slifetime,Porphyryapparentlychangedhismind
concerningtheurgy’sbenefitsandcomposedhisskepticalletteradAnebontem
Aegyptium.228
OuronlyaccesstoPorphyry’sprimary,positiveaccountoftheurgyinDe
RegressuAnimaeisfromAugustine’scomments229inciu.X.230AccordingtoPorphyry,
emotionalpurificationresultsinreceivingvisions–Augustinespecifiestheseasmere
phantasms(ciu.X.10).Indeed,thetheurgists’ritespollutetheemotionalsoulrather
thanpurifyit,byAugustine’slights.Fortheyproducephantasmswhichcontaminate
andhinderthehigherpowersoftheintellect(ciu.X.27).
Porphyrydoesadmitthepossibilityofpurifyingtheemotional‐spiritualpartof
thesoulwithouttheurgicritesbyexercisingthevirtueofcontinence(ciu.X.28).And
Augustinemusttacitlyconcur.ForhenotesthatunderthedispensationoftheOld
Testament,thejustwereenabledbyfaithinthegospel‐prefiguredtopurifythemselves
throughpiousliving(ciu.X.25).231
228Augustineaddressestheinconsistenciesbetweenthisandthederegressuinciu.X.11.Eusebiusisalsofamiliarwiththisletter,cf.Prep.Evang.III.4andV.810.229HereIstepoutsidemymethodologicalcommitmenttoreadingAugustine’stextsinchronologicalorder,becauseforthemomentIusehimsimplyasasourceoftestimonia.Andsincethereisnoquestionofdevelopmenthere,Iordermyuseofthefragmentstotheirrelativeimportanceinreconstructingthetheorybegintheurgicalpractice.Hencemychoicetodealwithtestimoniafromciu.beforediu.qu.230ThestandardcriticalcollectionofthetestimoniaisBidez,Joseph.1964.ViedePorphyre:lephilosopheNeoPlatonicienaveclesfragmentsdetraités"Periagalmaton",et"Deregressuanimae".Hildesheim:GeorgOlms.O’Daly,Gerald.1999.Augustine’sCityofGod:AReader’sGuide.Oxford,pp.125‐134,257‐259discussesAugustine’sknowledgeanduseofPorphyryinciu.X.231Ofcourse,asharpdifferenceisnoticeableinAugustine’sprimaryresponseinciu.Xandhiscriticalassimilationofemotionalpurificationins.dom.m..forhisdoctrineofgracehastakenasharpturninthemeantime.NowChrist’sincarnationistheonlypurificationneededforalllevelsofbodyandsoul(ciu.X.2224,cf.alsothefinalparagraphsofConf.X).
152
OneminorPlatonistfiguredeservesmentioninthiscontext.Fonteiusof
CarthagewasfamiliartoAugustinebutisotherwiseunknowntous.Inresponseto
questionsposed,AugustinetreatedhislittlecommunityatThagastetothissnippetofa
philosophicalcampfiretaleFonteiustoldaboutpurityandpollution.Consequently,they
requestedthisexcerpttoberecordedanditisnowfoundasdiu.qu.12.Giventhe
imagery,whocouldresist?
Acertainmalignusspiritus,thestorygoes,mixesitselfwiththethingsof
sensationandpassion(hereresolutelyconflated)andifnotresistedwilldefilethe
domiciliumoftheself.Thefoeslithersthroughtheopeningsaffordedbysensation.
Thereitsetsthepassionsboilinguntiltheirvaporsthickentoblockthecorridor
wherebyarayoflightcouldotherwisedeliverunderstanding.Themind’srayofreason,
whichthemalignantonewouldblock,consistsofetherandmirrorsthedivinepresence.
WithinthatrayarefoundconjoinedGod,blamelesswillandthemeritofrightaction
(diu.qu.12).
CommonalitiesofPlatonicAccountsofPurification
Alltheseaccountshaveafewthingsincommon.First,andmostimportantly,thereisno
rationalpsychologyofactiondiscernableinanyofthem.ConsistentwithaPlatonictri‐
partitionofsoul,theydonotfeelcompelledtorootallbodilyactioninrational
processes.Thoughtandactionarenotclearlyconnected,letalonetheoretically
delineated.
Second,theyallregisterasharpbreakbetweenbodilyactivity–includingmoral
agencythroughthebody–andthefinalpurgationofmind.Socialvirtuemayplaysome
153
preparatoryrole.Butthereisnocleartheoreticalcontinuitybetweensociallyenacted
virtueandpurgationofmind.Assuch,virtueseemsmerelypreliminary.
Finally,theircontainmentstrategyvis‐à‐visthepassionsopensupthepossibility
ofsimultaneousadjacentexperienceofbodilyemotionandintellectualclarity.Even
Porphyry’saccountofemotionalpurgationthroughtheexerciseofcontinenceleaves
theemotionalpurityachievedseparatefrompurgationofmind.Andtheurgic
purificationisexplicitlylimitedtosubrationalaspectsoftheself.
AugustineunquestionablysharesthePlatonicconcernwithintellectual
purgationandthecomplexitiesofclearingawaybodilyimagestoallowpure
intellection.232Wewilladdresshispeculiarstrategiesforthecontemplativefruitionof
actioninthefollowingsection.Nonetheless,allthreeoftheabovecommonalities
conflictwithAugustine’saccountoftheheart’scleansinginhispriestlyperiod.
AugustineonPollutionandPurgation
Augustine’sprimaryconcernwhendiscussingpurificationisthesingularityorduplicity
ofintentionbehindmoralaction.ThisfocuscomesfromareadingofChristian
scriptures,butAugustine’scommentsandconsequenttheorizationarenotsimply
replicationsoftherelevanttexts.Rather,hefindsintheStoic’srationalpsychologyof
actionanamicablesystemoftheory(givenafewadjustments)thatallowshimto
232ForanaccountemphasizingAugustine’sdebttoPlatonicdoctrinesofpurgation,see,Burnaby,John.1938.AmorDei,aStudyoftheReligionofSt.Augustine.TheHulseanLecturesfor1938.London:Hodder&Stoughton.,pp.60‐82.Morerecently,seeCary,Phillip.2008.InnerGrace:AugustineintheTraditionsofPlatoandPaul.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.,pp.10‐14.ButwhileBurnabyrecognizesapartial,thoughunspecified,departurefromPlatonicpurificationinAugustine’sthought(cf.p.69),Caryseemstobetone‐deafto(orperhapssimplyuninterestedin)non‐PlatonicresonancesinAugustine’swork.
154
articulatetheconnectionbetweentheheart’sintentionandhumanaction.Thustheyfill
agapinthePlatonizingaccountAugustinehasbeendevelopingsofar.Intheend,a
synthesisofStoicandNeo‐Platonicemphasesisutilizedtoexplainananthologyof
scripturaltexts.
Theheartisthezoneofconsciousself‐awarenessinAugustine.233Andpurityof
heartabinitioisidentifiedwithsimplicityofheart(s.dom.m.I.8).Jesus’wordsare
glossedbyWisdom’sadmonition(Wis.1:1)toseektheLordinsimplicitatecordis(s.dom.
m.I.8).WhilepurityofheartisconnectedinscripturewithseeingGod(andthus
immediatelycoalescestothePlatonistagendainAugustine’smind),Augustineis
acutelyawarethatJesusconsideredthehearttobethesourceofbodilyaction–good
andevil–aswellasrationalspeech(Mt.15:19;cf.,cont.5).
Exegeticalfidelityrequirestheverysamedimensionoftheselftofindsimplicity
andpurificationinbodilyaction,speechandcontemplativevision.234Thus,thezoneof
sanctityandpollutionismuchmoreinclusiveforAugustinethanPlotinus.Notsimply
anintellectualpartofthesoul,buttheentiresphereofpresentself‐awarenessbecomes
holyorprofanetogether.
Likewise,Augustine’sbiblicalconcernforsingularityofintentionresonates
clearlywiththeStoicworryaboutfragmentingmoralstrengththroughdivisionof
233Maxsein,Anton.1966.Philosophiacordis.DasWesenderPersonalitätbeiAugustinus.Salzburg:Müller,pp.13‐17etpassim,expoundinglatertexts,findsthehearttobetheintegrativecenterofbodyandsoul,aswellasdisparateelementsofsoul.Theheartendsupbeingtheposteriorprincipleofunitythatdrawstogetheradeeperontologicalcomplexityofbodyandsoul.Ofcourse,critiquinghisreadingoflatertextsfallsoutsidethescopeofthischapter.ButIhavefoundAugustine’susageinthisearlierperiodtopointmoretowardstheprior,undifferentiatedtotalityofself‐awarenesswhichmaythenbedifferentiatedintorational,volitionalandaffectiveaspects.234Cf.chapter1and2foraccountsofactionandspeechasfailuresofcontemplativevisionandtherequirementtoleaveactionbehindforhumanfruition.
155
attention(s.dom.m.I.8;II.48;II.64;II.67;II.74;cf.Seneca,DeiraII.4.2;EpictetusDiss.;
Diss.I.6,1222;Diss.III.16.15;III.22.105;IV.2.1;IV.3.7;IV.12andEnch.7;33.6;Aulus
Gellius,Noct.Att.,XIII.28.34).However,Augustineapproachesthisphenomenonwitha
veryunStoicconcern.Theheart’szoneofawarenessisintendedtobethemeetingplace
withatranscendent,irreduciblyhigherdeity(s.dom.m.I.27;II.1;II.1718;II.54).So
singularityofintentiondoesn’tjustachievemoralself‐consistency,itshapesthatzone
ofawarenesstobeGod‐likeandthusafitclearingforGod’sabode(s.dom.m.II.14).
Buthowdoesthepurificationofheartworkindetail?Purificationofheart
entailsanentwinedcomplexofethicalagencyandepistemologicaldistantiationfrom
corporealimagery.Thiscomplexfindsintegrityinanaccountofuprightorperverse
lovesastheintentionalsubstanceunderlyingbothbodilyactionandcontemplative
vision.
Purificationcomesfromagoodconscienceofgooddeedsandfreestheintellect
tocontemplatethehighestgoodinserenityandpurity(cordismunditiadebona
conscientiabonorumoperumualensadcontemplandumilludsummumbonum,quodsolo
puroetserenointellectucernipotest,s.dom.m.I.10).Conscienceretainsaninfallibleand
unalterabletraceoftheaffectiveandcognitivetextureofconsensualactspast(cf.,
quoniamreateneturinconsensioneconscientia,gn.adu.Man.II.21).
Actually,conscienceisyetmorebasic.Conscienceregisterswhatoneisawareof
whetherheadmitsitornot(cf.mor.I.64;andlib.arb.III.29,conscientiamortalitatisas
anunderlyingawarenessofdeath’sapproach).Assuch,conscienceretainsa
comprehensiverecordofone’sheartandconstitutesaprivateknowledgeaccessible
onlytoselfandGod(mag.39).Thiserectsanineradicablebulwark,whichdoesnot
156
totallypreventself‐deceptionbutdoesstandasaperpetual,innerwitnessto
uncomfortabletruths(mor.I.80).
Thusconsciencecomplexifiesself‐deceitenoughtorequireclearlyculpable
motivationwhenlyingtoselfandothers.PriortotheFall,thedivinepresencewasin
theconscience–inthesimpleawarenessofbeingacreatureandthusdependentupon
theCreator(mus.VI.40).Pride,inessence,isfleeingoutwardfromthesecretario
conscientiaeinanefforttoappearaswhatoneknowinglyisnot(mor.II.6).
Onemustmakepeacewiththisinnerwitnesstouncomfortabletruths,by
honestlytransformingone’sintentionalactivity,beforeclarityofheartispossible(s.
dom.m.II.89).ThisiswhereWisdom’sadmonitiontosimplicitybecomesrelevant.
Simplicityandgoodconscienceuniteinananalysisofmotivationwithinthepsychology
ofaction.Or,inStoicterms,simplicityandgoodconscienceresideintheconsentthat
givesrisetoanyimpulse.
Theusualconcomitantsofgoodactionsposeathreattosimplicityofmotivation
(s.dom.m.II.1).Thereshumanis,wherebypeopleneedtopraisethosewholivewell,
carrieswithitapotentthreatforthosepraised.Thereisdelighttobehadinpraise(s.
dom.m.II.8).Itfeelsgoodtobewellreceivedbythoseoneesteems.Inthisway,human
praisethreatenstosubtlydisplaceorcontaminatethegoodoffulfillingdivineprecept
asthegoalofone’saction(s.dom.m.II.9).Simplicityconsistsinsingularity–in
stretchingtowardonlyoneend(s.dom.m.II.9;II.11).
Butsingularityandsimplicityofintentiondonotpurifyirrespectiveofthesingle
endsought(cf.discussionofs.162.2below).Thatendmustbemorallypraiseworthy.
HereAugustinewedsaNeo‐Platonichierarchyofeternalandtemporalgoodstohis
moreStoicanalysisofintention.Thepraiseworthygoalisalwaysandonlyeternal.
157
Blameproperlyfallsuponanytemporalandearthlyobjectsofdesire(s.dom.m.II.911,
etpassim).Buttheunchangeableandincorporealareimpossibledirectobjectsofbodily
action.Onesimplycannotdirectlystretchforincorporealsubstancesbymeansof
physicalactivity–hencethePlatonist’sdisjunctionbetweensocialvirtueand
intellectualpurification.Sosomethinghastostandinforthatupperlevelof
praiseworthyobjectsintherealmofintentionalaction.
Predictably,AugustinereachesintohisStoictoolkittosupplythemissing
surrogate.TheRomanStoic’sstrategyforenhancingself‐awareness(prosoch/)adhered
totwoelements:preceptandend.Onecultivatesself‐awarenessbyconsciously
retainingpreceptsandstretchingtautlytowardthesko/poßtheymarkouttothe
exclusionofalldistractions(cf.Epictetus,Diss.IV.12.15;Ench.33.6).ForAugustine,the
fulfillmentofdivinepreceptstandsinfortheeternalgoodtosupplyanimmediategoal
forintentionalaction(s.dom.m.II.8).Oncethedivinepreceptisreceivedwithinthe
heart,theprimarymoralstruggleistoavoidthedistractionsofferedbysocialfavorand
stretchtowardthatendalone(s.dom.m.II.811;II.56).Asimpleandpureintentionis
foundinstretchingtowardthegoodoffulfillingdivinepreceptwithoutthoughtof
humanpraiseorblame(s.dom.m.II.9).Thatintentionleavesitstraceinapure
conscience(s.dom.m.II.9).
Conversely,duplicitydiffusestheheart’smoralintentionandcontortsthe
conscience(s.dom.m.II.89;II.40;II.43;II.49).Augustineisverysensitivetothe
histrionicunderpinningsofduplicitythatJesusnames.Afictiveloveofseeming,already
associatedwithpride(mor.II.6),underliesallactsofduplicity(s.dom.m.II.5).Positive
self‐presentationproducespleasureordelight,evenifthepresentedselfisfictional.
Socialfavorobtainedbyappearinguprightmayspursimulationofmoralactions(en.Ps.
158
7.9;s.dom.m.I.58,II.6466).Iftheheart’sreasonconsentstothatpleasure,thus
stretchinginitsdirection,itbecomesanend(finis)oftheaction(s.dom.m.I.33;II.45).
Thehypocrite,throughloveofseeming,directshisheart’stensioninsome
measuretowardpositioningapositiveimageofhimselfbeforemen(s.dom.m.II.5).But
hisconsciencestandsalwaysbeforeGod,theinspectorcordis,andthusretainsapullon
thehypocrite’sself‐awareness(s.dom.m.II.1;II.5;II.9).Theheartnecessarilydoubles
itselftocarryoutthedramaticroleofsimulatioitdesires(s.dom.m.II.40;II.43;II.48
49).
Theveryactofadjoiningopposingendsinasingleactionrequires
compartmentalizingandthusalienatingsectorsoftheself.Augustineseesthese
sectionedintentionsunderJesus’languageabout“righthandknowledge”and“lefthand
knowledge”inrelationtoactsproperlydone“insecret”(s.dom.m.II.89).Thelefthand
standsfordelectatiolaudis(s.dom.m.II.8).Therighthandsignifiesstretchingtofulfill
divineprecept(dextraautemsignificatintentionemimplendipraeceptadiuina,s.dom.m.
II.8).Inonepart,theselfseeksaggrandizementandimplicitlyenviesGod’srightful
glory.Simultaneously,anotherpartoftheselfseekstorenderobediencetoGod’s
commands.
Consciencecannotjoininthepretence.Shelieswounded,bearingthefactual
stainofdissimulationandveiledenvy(s.dom.m.II.9).Duplicityinevitablyproducesa
badconscience,whichfurtherfrustratesgrowthtowardvisionofGod(s.dom.m.II.9).
Uncomfortable,suppressedknowledgeofcompetingloveshinderscontemplative
attentionoftheheartonGod(s.dom.m.I.10).Onecannotstandinwondrousjoyand
rapturebeforeTruthwhilesimultaneouslyexpendingefforttosuppresstruth.Thusthe
159
conflictedconsciencepresentsaprimaryobstacletothepracticalfulfillmentof
contemplatingGod.
Distension:Augustine’sPhenomenologyofDissipatedFocus
Augustinehasanameforthisconflictedstateoftheheartconsequentwithduplicity.
Distentio,amalformedanddiseasedmutationofintention,displacestheheart’s
healthful,singulartensioninthatstate.Wantingtoomanythingsdissipatestheheart’s
powerofstretchingforthinpursuitandfrustrateshumanaction.Deliberativeparalysis
strikeswhenoneconsidersamultiplicityofgoodswithoutacknowledgingtheirplace
withintheproperhierarchyofgoods.Theselffreezesinitsincapacitytochooseasingle
direction.Thedistentionofheartlastsuntilthecompetingimpulsesareeffectively
unifiedinasingularintentiontopursueonegoodaboveothers.Thebestdescriptionof
thisphenomenonisfoundlaterinconf.VIII.24,however,plentyofexamplesare
availableintheperiodunderconsideration.
ThefollowingpassagesfromAugustine’spriestlyperiodservetoillustratethe
primaryformsofintentionalcomplexitywithinhispurviewatthetime(s.dom.m.I.3;s.
353.1;103.5;162.2andearlyinnextperiod,s.177.6).Thefundamentalrootofduplicity,
andthusdistentionofheart,isprideandheraccompanyingvices(quisueronesciat
superbosinflatosdicitamquamuentodistentos?,s.dom.m.I.3).Whenthemindfallsinto
itspossession,pride’ssearchforself‐enlargementrendstheunityofconscienceand
heart,asdescribedabove.
Thevacillationbetweenintentionswithinthedoubledheartdissipatesthesoul’s
attention(s.353.1,ca.394).Inasimilarway,avaricethroughitsmultiplicityofdesires
(ordesireformultiplicity)createsaparadoxicalbloatingoftheheartakintobodily
160
dropsy(s.177.6).235Asthesoulseekstofillherlackthroughaccumulationoftemporal
goods,theheartswellswithamixtureofoutwardtensionanddiseasedinnerflaccidity
(s.177.6).Justastheoneafflictedwithdropsycravesliquiddespitehisbloating,sothe
heartseizedbyavaricedesiresmorethingsevenasitacquiresmore(s.177.6).
Butevenmorallyuprightacts,whentheyrequirenegotiatingmultiplicity,are
capableofcausingdistention(s.103.5).AsAugustineconsidersthestoryofMaryand
MarthainLuke10:38‐42,thephenomenonachievesaclearerfocus.Theveryactof
servicedistendsthesoulbecausethespatiallocationofneededarticlesrequiresmotion
andgatheringofthingsfromdifferentplaces(s.103.5).Theguestishere.Thefoodhas
tobepreparedoverthere.Somethingelseisneededbutabsent.Themindflitsin
multipledirectionsatonce(s.103.5).Serviceinthefleshalmostinevitablyproduces
distentionofmind,lamentsAugustine(s.103.5).
Paradoxically,theactoffornicationisparticularlydangerousbecauseits
intensitypreventsthepossibilityofdistention(s.162.2).236Inallotherformsofvice,
one’smindandbodymightbesomewhatdetached.Habit’scapacitytoalienatethe
235Scholarlyconsensusplacesthissermonveryearlyinthenextperiod(summer397),butitseemscontinuouswiththethoughtofthisperiod.Cf.Augustine,EdmundHillandJohnE.Rotelle.1992.Sermons(148183)ontheNewTestament.TheWorksofSaintAugustine;ATranslationforthe21stCentury,pt.3v.5.NewRochelle,N.Y.:NewCityPress.,p.288,n.1.HillappealsforhisdatingtoPerler,presumablyPerler,Othmar,andJeanLouisMaier.1969.LesvoyagesdesaintAugustin.Paris:Étudesaugustiniennes.NotealsoRebillard,Éric.1999.“Sermones”inFitzgerald,Allan,andJohnC.Cavadini.1999.AugustineThroughtheAges:AnEncyclopedia.GrandRapids,Mich:W.B.Eerdmans.236Cf.Augustine,EdmundHillandJohnE.Rotelle.1992.Sermons(148183)ontheNewTestament.TheWorksofSaintAugustine;ATranslationforthe21stCentury,pt.3v.5.NewRochelle,N.Y.:NewCityPress.,p.150,n.1foracogentargument,basedupontheclumsyexegeticalmethodandunfinishedpresentationthatthis“sermon”actuallyconsistsofthestenographicrecordofAugustinespoutingoffextemporetohiscommunityofseruiDeisometimebefore393.ThestrangenessofhisproposedtheoryinhisworkwouldseemtovalidateHill’sconjecture.
161
impetusforactionfromtheheartalsoenablesacertaindistantiationfromactsof
wrongdoing.Mytonguemaybegossiping,butmymindisnotfullyintendingtheevil
underway.Thisisadimensionoftheinternalfragmentationnameddistention.Anditis
amarkofbrokennessandtherootofmuchsin.Butitisbetterthanachievingunity
throughsingularintentionofsin(s.162.2).
IncommentinguponPaul’swarningconcerningfornication,assinningagainst
one’sownbody,Augustineconsidersthepeculiarintensityoffocusinvolvedinsexual
intercourse(s.162.2).Thesexualencountersooverwhelmsandfixesmindtobodythat
one’sfullintentioncanonlybedirectedintotheevilact(s.162.2).Paradoxically,the
overcomingofdistentioninwrongdoingisworsethanthedistentionitself(s.162.2).237
Evidently,theverytemporalityandmultiplicityofbodilythingspresentsa
dangerouspulltowarddistentionforAugustine(uerarel.18;40;s.353.1;103.5).Onlya
veryintenseactoffocuscanovercomeit(s.162.2).Butnotjustanyobjectoffocuswill
doforasingularityofheartthatispure.Andnowthegravitationalpulltowarda
PlatonicsystemofevaluationcomesintoviewbehindAugustine’sprescriptionsfor
cordialfocus.
TwoPriorActsofHeartthatIntegrateStoicandPlatonicConcepts
Thefirststageofpurgationcentersontheheart’speculiarroleastheoriginatorand
directorofembodiedaction.Onlybyfocusingintently,indeedexclusively,upon
fulfillmentofdivinepreceptcantheheartquellitsfreneticalterationsbetween237Ofcourse,thisphenomenologyofthesexualencounterisananomalyinAugustine’soeuvre.Hismaturecomplaintisactuallytheinverse.Genitalarousalandrelaxationescapescognitivecontrolandthuspointstoadeeperfragmentationoftheself,whichisapunishmentoforiginalsin.Thus,Adam’sfirstindicationofhisinternalrupturingwasaninvoluntaryerection(c.Iul.imp.).
162
intentionalobjects.Divinepreceptoffersafocalpointfortheintention.Andthefocused
heart,throughitsgooddeeds,begetsatranquilmindfreefrompangsofconscience.
Buttheveryactoffocusingforintegralaction,Augustineargues,presupposes
priorinterpretiveandperceptualworkwithintheheart(s.dom.m.II.1;II.3;II.76).Here
anothermetaphorfortheheartcomesintoplay–theoculicordis.Thismetaphoris
manifestlyconnectedtothePlatonicfigureofthemind’seye,alsomuchbelovedof
Augustine.238ButDominicaldictionunderliesthepregnantmetaphoricshiftfrommind
toheart.ThepureinheartwillseeGod,Jesussays.Sotheheart,andnotjustintellect,
mustbetheinstrumentofspiritualvision.
Significantly,thismetaphoremergesinAugustine’swritingsinthepriestly
periodfirst(s.dom.I.8;I.1012,II.1;II.14;II.45;II.76;II.82;c.Adim.28;doctr.Chr.II.11).
Anditisalwaysusedincontextsofconcernfor“cleaning”theeye,bywhichAugustine
meansasimplificationofawarenessresultinginimprovedfocusuponthehighestgood.
Simplificationrequiresperceptualpruningandorderlybindingofvalues.Jesus’
238Forthemetaphorofintellectualvision,withtheimpliedmetaphorofthemind’seye,inthePlatonictraditionseee.g.,PlatoRep.VII.533d;CiceroTusc.I.73;PlotinusEnn.I.6.79;V.3.17;V.5.78;VI.7.36.UsefulsecondarydiscussionsincludeHadot,Pierre.1993.Plotinus,or,TheSimplicityofVision.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress,esp.pp.35‐47and61‐63.ThechaptersonPlatoandPlotinusinLouth,Andrew.2007.TheOriginsoftheChristianMysticalTradition:FromPlatotoDenys.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPresshighlightsthedimensionsofusageChristianslateradopt.
ForAugustine’susageseee.g.,imm.an.10;an.quant.11,24,61;mor.II.1;lib.arb.II.36;mag.21,31;uerarel.4;105106andlater,conf.VI.6;VII.1,5,12;cat.rud.12;en.Ps.53.11;trin.XI.68;XI.16.SecondarydiscussionofAugustine’suseofthemetaphorinMiles,Margaret.1983."Vision:TheEyeoftheBodyandTheEyeoftheMindinSaintAugustine'sDeTrinitateandConfessions."TheJournalofReligion63,pp.125‐42.,Teske,Roland.1994.“St.AugustineandtheVisionofGod”inVanFleteren,Frederick,JosephC.Schnaubelt,andJosephReino.1994.AugustineMysticandMystagogue.CollectaneaAugustiniana.NewYork:P.Lang.,pp.287‐308,Cary,Phillip.2000.Augustine'sInventionoftheInnerSelf:TheLegacyofaChristianPlatonist.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,passim.
163
guidelinesboildowntoinstructionsaboutwhatIshouldandshouldnotthinkabouton
thisembattledjourneythroughlife(s.dom.m.II.58).
Inparticular,purgationoftheeyesoftheheartinvolvesestablishingarigid
hierarchyofvaluesaccordingtowhichalternativeends(a.k.a.,temptations)areeasily
identifiedasproperlyplacedinsubordinationtothehighestgood(doctr.chr.II.11).This
hierarchyenablesthehearttoquicklyreleasefromitsattentionlesserthingsandso
pursueGodwithsingularityofintention(doctr.chr.II.11).Failuretopassbytemporal
thingsinone’sawarenessisasymptomofprideandresultsindistortionoftheheart’s
vision.Simplificationcomesbywayofsubtraction;subtraction,itseems,bymeansof
humility.
WhenAugustineintroducesthisperceptualfunctionoftheheart,henamesits
taskastwofold:“lookinginto”things(intueri)and“connectingup”ormakingsenseof
onethingintermsofanother(referre,s.dom.m.II.1).ConsiderationofAugustine’s
peculiaruseofthesetermsinrelationtoself‐awareengagementmanifestshiscreative
synthesisbetweenPlatonicandStoicconceptualities.
Intuition:SeeingtheHierarchyofValues
To“lookinto”or“intuit”inAugustinemeansdiscerningdeepstructures–rightlyor
wrongly–inthingsandinself.Priortohisinventionoftheheart,Augustinetendstouse
thistermtodescribetheloneintellectlookingintotruthorGodoraformalexemplarin
ordertojudgetheadequacyofanimage(e.g.Acad.II.6,7;III.40;beatau.35;imm.an.10,
11,17,18)ortonametherealitybehindasignandthusendtheplaybetweensignifiers
(dial.7;mag.40).ThePlatonicpatrimonyinvolvedisblatantwhenAugustinepraises
thefewhealthypersonswhoseintellectscanintuitanother,higherworld(ord.I.32,cf.
164
alsohismeaculpainretr.I.3.2).Forinstance,thetrainedintellectfindsdelightby
intuitingthesymmetryofwindowsandlightinthebaths(ord.II.34).Intuitinghere
seemstoimplyapenetrativeperceptionoftheunderlyingratiosandnumerical
relationshipsthatconstituteaphenomenon(lib.arb.II.42makestheconnection
explicit).Indeed,thenatureandpowerofnumbersisafittargetforthestudent’s
intuition(ord.II.50).
Whenintroducingtheoculicordismetaphor,Augustineanchorsitspurityor
pollutioninintendingactionswithinitspriordeploymentofintuition.Thecleaneye
doesnotfindthedeepstructureofrightconductinhumanpraise(pertinetergoad
oculummundumnonintueriinrectefaciendolaudeshominum,s.dom.m.II.1).Abroadly
sophisticethics,whereinmoralnormsaremerelybyproductsofemergentsocial
consensus,seemstobeinAugustine’smindhere.Cicerohadslanderouslyascribedthis
unmanlyethictotheEpicureansaswell(fin.II.XV.4850).ButevenCicerotiesthismode
ofevaluationlesstoanarticulatedtheoryandmoretotheperennialshallownessof
publicopinion(…utenimconsuetudoloquitur,idsolumdiciturhonestumquodest
popularfamagloriosum,fin.II.XV.48).Noschoolingisrequiredtofindtherealreasonfor
moralityinwhatothersarewhisperingroundabout.
Therightnessofrightactioncannotbeanchoredinthefluxofhumanpraiseand
blame,saysAugustine(s.dom.m.II.1).Thosewatersaresimplytooshallow,forhuman
beingscannotseebeyondovertactionandthuscannotseparategenuinegoodnessfrom
simulation(s.dom.m.II.1).Rather,thesortofperceptionthatgivesrisetotrulymoral
actionsailsbythehistrionicsofsocialconventionandsetsanchorinanintuitionof
divinepraiseandblamealone.
165
Augustine’speculiarlanguageisinstructive.Forheexplicitlybindstogether
threethemes:purityofheart,theheart’sactofintuitionandaverticalmetaphorof
ascent(nonergohabetsimplexcor,idestmundumcor,nisiquitranscendithumanas
laudesetillumsolumintuetur…quiconscientiaesolusinspectorest.,s.dom.m.II.1).The
metaphorofascentistelltale.Augustine’searlierdescriptionsofintellectualintuition
weremanifestlyPlatonic,asillustratedabove.Now,Augustineseekstointegratethe
PlatonicconcernforintellectualvisionwiththeStoicconcernforsimplicityofmoral
intention.
Allhumanactionpresupposesacognitivehierarchyofvalues.TheStoics’was
supremelyelegant.Oneasks,“Isthisgood,evilorindifferent?”oftheimplicit
propositionalcontent(lekto/n/dicibile)tuckedawayinsideanypresentation.239
Anythingexternaltomymoralchoicecanonlybeindifferent(e.g.,Epictetus,Ench.1;
Diss.I.1.7;I.4.27;I.22.9;II.5.4).Onlyvirtueisgood.Theonlyevilismoralevil.Ifonecan
persuadethepresentationtostandstillforamoment,thestandardforjudgingitis
simple.
ButAugustinelivesinaworldcreatedgoodfromtoptobottom.Godsaidso.
Externals,therefore,aregoodanditwouldbevicioustodenytheirgoodness.So
Augustinerequiresadifferentsetofdistinctionstoconstructausablehierarchyof
values.ForthisheturnstoaPlatonizingreadingofJesus’warningconcerningthe
placementofone’streasuresandthoughtsabouttomorrow(s.dom.m.II.4344;II.56).
239ForaquickaccountoftheStoicassertable(ajxi/wma)andsayable(lekto/n),cf.Bobzein,Susanne.2003.“StoicLogic”inInwood,Brad.2003.TheCambridgeCompaniontotheStoics.Cambridge,U.K.:CambridgeUniversityPress.,pp.85‐123,esp.pp.85‐99.Toseehowthisphilosophicalterminology,withitslogicalrelations,becomesLatinized,cf.Augustine’susageindial.5andOrth,Emil.1959.“Lekton=dicibile”inHelmantica.10,pp.221‐226.
166
ForAugustine,thequestionofvalueisalwayscastagainstabackdropof
transcendence(s.dom.m.II.4344;II.56).Theorientingquestion,towhichintuition
providesananswer,impliesagradationofgoodsfallingintotwocategories.Sothe
Christianasksofagivenpresentation,“Isthisatemporaloraneternalgood?”(s.dom.
m.II.4344;II.56).Ascaleofvaluesfromhighesttolowestisimpliedandthemoral
injunctionistoeverpursuethehigherinpreferencetothelower.Pollutioncanoccurby
addingothergoodthings,iftheyarelessergoods(s.dom.m.II.44).Theadditivewill
assuredlybecleanandgoodinitself,whenfillingitspropernicheinthecreation(…ipsa
terrainsuogenereatqueordinemundasit.,s.dom.m.II.44),butpollutionresultsfrom
mixingdesiresforitwithhigheraspirationsforthingseternal.
Themostimportantaspectofthishierarchyisthetwofoldcategorization.One
mightbecomeconfusedaboutrelativeworthwhencomparingtwoormoretemporal
things.Littleharmwouldbedonethereby.Butthelowesteternalthingvastlysurpasses
thehighesttemporalthing.Moralerrorresultswhentemporalthingsareintuitedasif
theywereeternal.Across‐eyedgazeoftheheartissuesinpollutionandtwisted
intentions.
Jesusoffersadmonitionstoguideus.“Don’tthinkabouttomorrow,”Jesussays.
Havingconnected“tomorrow”withthenotionoftemporalgoods,Augustineoffersthis
counselofpurification(s.dom.m.II.43).Allowingone’sthoughtstochurnonthe
necessitiesofthislifeinjurestheinnereyeandduplicatestheheart(s.dom.m.II.43).So,
inone’smoralconduct,fixyourconcentrationoneternalthingsandjustdon’tthink
abouttemporalthings(ergocumaliquidbonioperamur,nontemporaliasedaeterna
cogitemus!,s.dom.m.II.56).
167
Sobehindconsentanddeterminativeimpulsestoaction,liesanactofintuition
whereintheheartascribestothegoodinquestionaparticularplacementwithina
hierarchystretchingfromcarnal,temporalthingstothingseternal.Thepureheartrises
abovethelowerelementsofthatscale,goodastheymaybeintheirownorder,and
findsthedeepstructureofmoralactioninGodalone,beforewhomone’sconscience
mustpassmuster(idestmundumcor,nisiquitranscendithumanaslaudesetillumsolum
intuetur…quiconscientiaesolusinspectorest.,s.dom.m.II.I).
WhileAugustineenricheshisethicsandintegratesthemwithhisontologyinhis
accountofintuition,healsonecessarilycomplexifieshisaccountofwhatconstitutes
singularityofintention.Toresolve,oratleastlessen,thetension,Augustinecallsupon
anothercordialactivity,withadifferingpatrimony.
Reference:MakingConnectionsbetweenThingsintheLightoftheHierarchy
Iftheactofintuitionpegsentities,rightlyorwrongly,ontoahierarchyofvalues,then
theotherconstitutiveactoftheoculicordisinvolvesthinkingtherelationshipbetween
thosepeggedentities.Byembracingtheideaofagradedmultiplicityofgoods,
Augustinepartscompanywiththerigorous,ethicalmonismoftheStoics(cf.Cicero,fin.
III&V).Butaproblemarisesimmediately.Multiplegoodslegitimatemultipledesires
andimpulses.HowcanAugustinehopetomaintainhisaccountofsimplicityofintention
aspurityofheart?
TheStoicshadalreadyaddressedthisproblemintheirownway.Althoughthey
didnotadmitthenotionofmultiplegoodsintheory,theStoicsdidacknowledgeranges
ofappropriatedesirabilitywithinthecategoryofadiaphorawithoutallowingthose
thingsintrinsicgoodness.Thepreferableindifferent(to\ kaqhvkon/officium)maybe
168
consideredusefulorexpedient(to\ sumfe/ron /utile)andthusproperlyselectedgiven
theopportunity.Onlythehonestum(translatingtheGreek,to\ kalo/n)hasintrinsic
worth,however,foritaloneconsistsofmoralintention.Soselectionofthepreferables
involvesdiscerningatentativemeans‐endsrelationbetweenthingspreferableand
intrinsicallygood.Preferablesandthehonestumappropriatelyconstituteproximateand
ultimateends,respectively.
Thusethicalmonismandapluralityoflesservaluesarerenderedcompatible.
Butthisstory,stretchingfromtheStoics’moraldistinctionstoAugustine’saccountof
theheart’sactof“connectingup,”meandersthroughadetouroftechnicaldistinctions
andtheirreplacementinCicero’sLatin.
Inordertosafeguardtheirdistinction,andtheinvincibilityofmoralgoodnessin
itself,theStoicsproducedatechnicaldistinctionwithintheirvocabulary.240The
immediateorproximategoalofactionborethenameof“target”orskopo/ß.Thetarget
wasacorporealentity(whetheritbeanartifacttoobtainoranactiontoperform).In
contrast,theendorte/loßofone’sactionwasanincorporeal‘sayable’(lekto/n/
dicible).241Thustheskopo/ß- te/loßdistinctionintherealmofethicalactionwas
analogoustothefwnh/ - lekto/ndistinctioninlogic.Wemightdescribetheendasa
proposition,whichisrelatedtothetargetandformsthecontentofone’smoral
intentionthroughassent.Soaspeaker’svoicemightbedrownedoutbyanothernoise
240Aristotleusedthetermsinterchangeably,cf.Pol.VIII.13,1331b2833.241cf.Long,A.A.1976.“TheEarlyStoicConceptofMoralChoice”inVerbeke,Gérard,andFernandBossier.1976.ImagesofManinAncientandMedievalThought:studiaGerardoVerbekeabamicisetcollegisdicata.Leuven:LeuvenUniversityPress.,pp.77‐92;Inwood,Brad.1985.EthicsandHumanActioninEarlyStoicism.Oxford:ClarendonPress.,pp.42‐101;Kerferd,G.B.1983.“TwoProblemsConcerningImpulses”inFortenbaugh,WilliamW.1983.OnStoicandPeripateticEthics:theWorkofAriusDidymus.NewBrunswick:TransactionBooks.pp.87‐98.
169
withoutchangingwhatthespeakermeans,sothetargetofone’sactionsmayprove
unobtainablewithoutdeprivingtheagent’sendofitsintention.Therefore,thesage’s
endcanneverbediminishedbyexternalfailureforitisformulatedwithreservation
(Seneca,tranq.XIII.23;ben.IV.34,45;Epictetus,Ench.62,2;MarcusAurelius,med.
IV.1,2;V.20,2;VI.50,2).Andasingularte/loßconstitutesasingularpointofintentional
focus.
Cicero,neveronegiventoabstrusedistinctions,seemsawareoftheStoicjargon
butdoesnotattempttotranslateitinhissummariesofStoicthought.Thete/loßtravels
underacopiousvarietyofnamesinhisaccounts–extremum,ultimum,summumor
simplyfinis(fin.III.VII.26).ButheneveroffersaLatinequivalentforskopo/ß.Inone
passage,Ciceroseemstohavethedistinctioninmind(fin.III.VI.22).Butheomitsthe
technicaltermsandinsteadutilizesthesubmergedmetaphorofarcherytoillustratethe
distinction.Theultimumconsistsindoingeverythingwithinone’spowertoaimwell.242
Butactuallyhittingthemarkissimplypreferableortobeselected,notdesired(…ut
feriat,quasiseligendum,nonexpetendum.,fin.III.VI.22).
Sohowdoesthecrucialconnectionbetweenpreferredindifferentsandgoods
findahomeinLatin?InplaceofStoicjargon,Cicerosubstitutedamorehermeneutic
languagetodescribetherelationbetweenproximategoalsandthemorebasicobjective
athand.Cumueroillaquaeofficiaessedixiproficiscanturabinitiisnaturae,necesseestea
adhaecreferri,utrectedicipositomniaofficiaeoreferriutadipiscamurprincipia
242NoteCicerohereassumesAntipater’sunorthodoxgloss–“todoallthatisclearlyandinviolablywithinone’spowertoattaintheprimarynaturaladvantages”(pavn to\ kaq’ auJto\n poieivn dihnekwvß kai\ ajparaba/twß pro\ß to\ tugca/nein twvn prohgoume/nwn kata\ fu/sin.,SVFIII.Ant.57)–onthemoreorthodoxdictum,coinedbyDiogenes,“toactrationallyintheselectionofnaturaladvantages”(oJ me\n ou™n Dioge/nhß te/loß fhsi\ rJhtwvß to\ eujlogisteivn ejn thv twvn kata\ fu/sin ejkloghˆvˆ, D.L.VII.88=SVFIII.Dio.45).
170
naturae…(fin.III.VI.22).Tomakeanappropriateactivityone’sproximateendistorefer
ormentallyconnectthatactivityinasubordinatingrelationwiththehigher,ultimate
end.Thusconnectedinone’sintentions,theproximategoaliseffectivelyusedforthe
sakeofahigherend.TheStoic’ssingularityofintentionremainsintact,forinnertension
isconcentratedupontheendreferredto(fin.III.VI.33).
Inthisperiod,AugustineinitiallymakesuseofCicero’sutilehonestum
distinction(diu.qu.3031),beforedevelopinghisowndistinctionbetweenususandfrui
(doctr.chr.I.3.3ff).Buttheelementofreferentialitybetweenthebinariesremains
constant,evenwhenthewordschange.Thehonestum,Augustineexplains,iswhat
shouldbesoughtpropterseipsum.Conversely,usefulthingsfindtheirvalueonlyin
connectingupwithsomethingotherandbetter(…utileautemquodadaliudaliquid
referendumest.,diu.qu.30).ThelanguageisstillCicero’s(cf.fin.III.VI.21).ButAugustine
nowmapsTully’sdistinction,howeverawkwardly,ontoaChristian‐NeoPlatonicscaleof
intuitedvalues(honestatemuocointellegibilempulchritudinem,quamspiritalemnos
propriedicimus,utilitatemautemdiuinamprouidentiam,diu.qu.30).
HerewemustconsiderhowAugustineintertwinestheactsof“connectingthings
up”and“intuiting”intheoculicordis.Theheart,intheactofconnectingthingsup,
implicitlyanswersthequestionaddressedtoanyobjectoractivity,“propterquid?”The
answerreceivedconstitutestheagentsintendedend.JustastheStoics,Augustine
placesthemoralvalueofanactioninitsintendedend‐finisenimquoreferunturea
quaefacimus,idestpropterquemfacimusquicquidfacimus,sinonsoluminculpabilissed
etiamlaudabilisfuerit,tuncdemumetiamfactanostralaudealiquadignasunt(mor.
II.27).Thus,AugustinecancontrasttheprodigiousenduranceofCatiline,withthatof
theApostles.Catiline’sostensiblevirtuewasviciousbecauseheenduredhungerand
171
coldforthesakeofsatingagrossercupidity.TheApostlesboresuchthingsforthesake
ofquashingdistorteddesiresandforcingthemtoservereason(mor.II.28).
ButAugustineisconvincedthatthequestionofreferencecanneverbeanswered
withoutpriorintuition.Thehierarchyofvaluesmustbeestablishedandthedeep
structureofthingsdiscernedbeforeonecandeterminetheproperwaytomentally
connectthemtoeachother.Oneearlytextprovidesaparticularlyclearillustrationof
theprior‐posteriorrelationbetweenintuitionandreference(lib.arb.II.4142).
Augustinehadnotinventedhisconceptofheartyet,buthehadalreadyeffectedthe
synthesisbetweentheseacts,whichhelatermappedontohisconceptofheart.
Incontext,LadyWisdomiscallingthesoulbackwithinwhereshedeignstomeet
thesoul.Andshedoessobytheverytracessheleavesonexternal,bodilythings.Anact
ofintuitionrevealsbeautyinformandnumberwithinform(intuerecaelumetterramet
mareetquaecumqueineisueldesuperfulgentueldeorsumrepuntueluolantuelnatant.
formashabentquianumeroshabent,lib.arb.II.42).Wisdomleavestraces,leadingback
toherself,sothesoulcouldunderstandthatactsofcomparisonwouldbeimpossible
withoutpriorpossessionofalawofbeautytowhichexternalsarereferred(ut…inte
ipsumredeasatqueintellegasteidquodadtingissensibuscorporisprobareautinprobare
nonposse,nisiapudtehabeasquasdampulchritudinislegesadquasreferasquaeque
pulchrasentisexterius.,lib.arb.II.41).Referencepresupposesthehierarchyofvaluesis
alreadyinplace.AndoneascertainsthatPlatonichierarchybymeansofintuition.
Theoculicordisatonceintuitsthehierarchicalscaleofvaluesandrefersthings
tootherentitiesagainstthebackdropofthatscale(pertinetergoadoculummundum
nonintueriinrectefaciendolaudeshominumetadeasreferrequodrectefacis,idest
propterearectefacerealiquid,uthominibusplaceas.,s.dom.m.II.1).Thisrelation
172
remainsstableevenasAugustineincreasinglyappliesittotextualinterpretationapart
frombodilyactivity(cf.,cat.rud.6,c.Faust.16.23,ciu.XX.21).
Purity,assingularityofintention,isevaluatedaccordingtothesingularityor
multiplicityofendsmoreStoicorum.Pluralityofproximategoalsdoesnotpolluteifall
thegoalstendtowardonepureend(s.dom.m.II.56).Butthedistinctionbetween
singularityandmultiplicityofendsmaps,withoutremainder,ontotheintuited
distinctionbetweentemporalandeternalgoods.243
Temporalgoodsnecessarilyentailmultiplicity.ThePlatonizingtendenciesare
palpableinAugustine’sdistinctionbetweeneternalandtemporal.Butacloser
investigationhelpstocircumscribethespecificcontentofAugustine’sconcern.Bodily
activityandembodimentpersenevercomprisehisconceptoftemporality.Rather,two
concernsloomlarge.
First,inhispsychologyofactionAugustinehastwoviciousmotivationstructures
inview.Thecoupletofwealthandreputationrecurasdistortedendstowhichthe
viciousrefertheiractivities(diu.qu.35.1,s.dom.m.II.89,5455;andlater,en.Ps.
118,12.2).Ontheonehand,valorizationofsocialfavororreputationmayleadto
ostensiblymoralbehavior,butitwouldbemeresimulationofgoodness(s.dom.m.II.8
9).Ontheotherhand,asqueamishshrinkingfrombodilydiscomfortoracognitive
preoccupationwithnutritionalandmonetarynecessitiescouldleadtoabandoningeven
externalappearancesofmorality(s.dom.m.II.5455).
Second,Augustinecontinuestoworryaboutthetendencytoconfusemental
imagery(phantasms)withnotionsofintelligibility(s.dom.m.II.11).Thecognitive243Theoneexception,whichprovestherule,isAugustine’sanomalousdiscussion,consideredabove,ofthesexualactparadoxicallyovercomingdistentioninasingularintentionofsin(s.162.2).
173
confusionofphantasmswithintelligiblerealitiesinvolveselevatingatemporalentityto
thestatusofeternity.Epistemologicalconflationsdisordertherigidhierarchy,bywhich
behavioralintentionsaregivenfocus,thuscompromisingmoralaction.
Onlyaneternalgoodcanbeintendedwithsingularity.Scripturalpreceptand
reproofthusteachesustoreferallourbodilyactionstotheoneendofclingingtoGod
eternal(en.Ps.17.36).Allourservicetoandbenefitsfromotherhumanbeingsshould
likewisebeconnectedupmentallywiththeendoflovingGodtogether(doctr.chr.I.30).
SoitcomesasnosurprisetofindAugustinespeakingexplicitlyofendsthat
purify.Scripture,initstwofoldlovecommand,providestheendthatcleansesthesoul
necessarilyengagedinbodilyactivity(adhuncigiturfinemsiomnesilloshumanae
actionismotusnumerosquereferamus,sinedubitationemundabimur.,mus.VI.43).
Referringanactivitytoagivenendsimultaneouslyconstitutesthefocusofone’s
attentioninthataction.Indeed,Jesusutteredpreceptsassomanyprescriptionsfor
cleansingtheheart(s.dom.m.II.11).Onlyasingular,simplefocusuponeternallife,
stemmingfromapureandlonedispositionalloveofwisdom,renderstheheartclean
(…nonmundatnisiunaetsimplexintentioinaeternamuitamsoloetpuroamore
sapientiae.,s.dom.m.II.11).
Thesafeststrategyistoadoptapostureofforgetfulnesstowardtheintermediate
goalsandstrivetothinkonlyuponthesingularendofeternallife(s.dom.m.II.43,56).
ButAugustinereluctantlyadmitsthiswillbeimpossibleformostpeoplewhileserving
intheflesh(s.103.5),andthushighlightstheresidualtensioninsynthesizing
intrinsicallyactiveandcontemplativeapproachestohappiness(s.dom.m.II.71,8687).
174
Chapter4
TheAnthropologyofGrace:StoicCompatibilism,PsychologyofthePassions
andGraceIrresistible(394396)
SettingtheStage:Augustine’sEarlyAccountofPaulineElection
SoonafterAugustine’sappointmenttotheepiscopacyin395,Simplicianus,theaged
successortoAmbroseinMilan,writestobeganswerstoseveralquestions(ep.37is
Augustine’simmediate,promissoryresponse).Simplicianus’firsttwoquestionselicited
explanationsofRom.7:7‐25andRom.9:10‐29,respectively.Inretrospect,Augustine
pinpointsthisworkashisfirststepstowardplacingtheinitiumfideiwithinalarger
doctrineofelection(retr.II.I;praed.Sanct4.8;perseu.20.52;21.55).Indeed,accordingto
hislatermemory,thisconclusioncamealmostagainsthiswill(retr.II.1).Strongly
echoingSaulofTarsus’conversion(cf.Acts26:14),theoldbishopdescribesstruggling
toavoidseeingthebeginningsoffaithasprimarilyextrinsictofreehumanchoice.But
graceconqueredinthecourseofthiscomposition244(…incuiusquaestionissolutione
244FortreatmentsofAugustine’sreconstrualofgraceasa“second”or“final”conversion,seePegis,Anton.1975.“TheSecondConversionofSt.Augustine”inGesellschaft,Kultur,Literatur:RezeptionundOriginalitätimWachseneinereuropäischenLiteraturundGeistigkeit.Stuttgart.,pp.79‐93andFerrari,Leo.1984.TheConversionsofSaintAugustine.Villanova,pp.70‐84.IdonotdoubtAugustinewouldhaveagreedtotheterm“conversio”indescribingthismoment.ButtheedginessthatdescriptorcarriesincontemporarycirclesdrawsonanassumptionAugustinecertainlydidnotshare.Thisassumptionisthatconversionissupposedtobeaone‐time,onceforallsortofevent(anideasharedbymanyancients,cf.theStoicnotionof“surfacing”aswitnessedinPlutarch’sComm.not.1061e1062).
175
laboratumestquidemproliberoarbitriouoluntatishumanae,seduicitdeigratia,
retr.II.1).
Gracemaywellhaveconquered.Butastringofconceptualalterationsleadingup
toSimpl.I.2madethatvictoryfairlypredictable.FortwoyearspriorAugustinehad
beenengagedinawrestlingmatchwithkeyPaulinetexts.245Theprimarytraceofthat
encounterisfoundinaseriesoffragmentednotesrecordingresponsestoquestions
fromwithinthecommunityatHippo(diu.qu.66&68;ex.prop.Rm.).Two
commentaries,onebarelybegunandtheothercomplete,alsoprovideimportant
insightsintohisdevelopinginterpretationofPaulinegrace(ep.Rm.inch;exp.Gal.).246
ButconversioninAugustine’sestimationwouldbeafittingdescriptionforanyof
theinnumerable,dailyvictoriesofgracewherebythesoulturnsorreturnstoGodinsomeaspectoflife.Thisconversionwasneitherthenumericalsecond,northefinaloneofAugustine’slife.Foracleareraccountofconversion,perse,inAugustineseeCary,Phillip.2008.InnerGrace:AugustineintheTraditionsofPlatoandPaul.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPresspp.63‐66,102‐105.ForabriefaccountofAugustine’srealizationforphilosophicalaccountsofknowledgeandbeliefinthewesterntradition,seeTeske,Roland.2008.“AugustineasPhilosopher:theBirthofChristianMetaphysics”inToKnowGodandtheSoul:EssaysontheThoughtofSaintAugustine.WashingtonD.C.:CatholicUniversityofAmerica.245AfewauthorsprovidehelpfuloverviewsofAugustine’searlyexegeticalstruggleswithPaul:Babcock,William.1979.“Augustine’sInterpretationofRomans(A.D.394‐396)”inAugustinianStudies10:5574.Villanova.;Fredriksen,PaulaLee.1979.Augustine’sEarlyInterpretationofPaul.1979.Augustine'sEarlyInterpretationofPaul.Ph.D.thesis,PrincetonUniversitypp.119‐232,and,morerecently,1988.“BeyondtheBody/SoulDichotomy:AugustineonPaulagainsttheManicheesandthePelagians”inRecherchesaugustiniennes23,pp.87‐114;Burns,J.Patout.1980.TheDevelopmentofAugustine’sDoctrineofOperativeGrace.Étudesaugustiniennes:Parispp.17‐52;Cary,Phillip.2008.InnerGrace:AugustineintheTraditionsofPlatoandPaul.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPresspp.33‐68.246JosephLienhardprovidesavaluableserviceinshowinghowAugustine’strainingingrammar,dialecticandrhetoricshapedhisinterpretivestrategiesinhisexegeticalworks.Cf.Lienhard,Joseph.T.1996.“ReadingtheBibleandLearningtoRead:TheInfluenceofEducationonSt.Augustine’sExegesis”AugustinianStudies27pp.7‐25.
176
ThedoctrinesofgraceandelectionthatAugustineembracedinhisearlyPauline
exegesesareeasytosummarize.247PriortoSimpl.I.2,AugustineseesgraceasaGod‐
givenbridgeoverthegapbetweenagoodwillandagooddeed.Thatgapwasopenedup
bytheFall.Humanbeings,afterAdam,candesiretodogoodworksbutcannotmanage
worksofobediencewithoutGod’sgracetohelp(nostrumenimestcredereetuelle,illius
autemdarecredentibusetuolentibusfacultatembeneoperandiperspiritumsanctum,ex.
prop.Rm.61.7).Gracehelpshumansfulfilltheirgoodintentionsbyinfusingsufficient
lovetocompleteintendedactsofobedience(ex.prop.Rm.48.9;61.7).
Paulisclear.Grace’shelpcomesonlytothosewhobelieve.But,wheredoesthe
beliefcomefrom?PriortoSimpl.I.2,Augustineunderstandsfaith’sorigintobeapurely
human,freelychosenact(ex.prop.Rm.60.12).Onecanbelievesimplybychoosingto
assenttothegospelcall,andthengracereliablyempowersthehumanwilltoobeyout
oflove(Inliberoautemarbitriohabet,utcredatliberatorietaccipiatgratiam…ex.prop.
Rm.44.3).
ButPaulalsosaysGodpredestines–choosespeoplebeforetheyareborn.Inhis
earlyPaulineexegeses,AugustineconsistentlysubordinatesGod’schoicetohis
foreknowledge.248God’spredestination,inthisview,issimplyamatterofGod
acknowledginginadvancewhatheforeknowsoffreehumanchoicesinfaith(nec
praedestinauitaliquem,nisiquempraesciuitcrediturumetsecuturumuocationemsuam,
quosetelectosdicit…,ex.prop.Rm.55.5).Justicerequiressomeformofdesertto
247Cf.Burns,J.Patout.1980.TheDevelopmentofAugustine’sDoctrineofOperativeGrace.Paris:Étudesaugustiniennespp.30‐36.248Throughouthislife,AugustinemaintainsadistinctionbetweenGod’sforeknowledge(or,moreproperly,simplyeternalknowledge),whichdoesnotcauseevents,andpredestinationwherebyGod’schoicecausallydeterminesevents.Cf.Sorabji,Richard.1983.Time,CreationandtheContinuumLondon:Duckworthpp.253‐267foranalysis.
177
differentiatebetweenthosewhomGodchooses(sienimnullomeritononestelectio,
aequalesenimomnessuntantemeritumnecpotestinrebusomninoaequalibuselectio
nominari,ex.prop.Rm.60.8).ThePaulinesurprise,onAugustine’sfirstreading,is
simplythatmeritaccruestofaithnotworks(ex.prop.Rm.62.12).Sothejustlydeserved
graceofelectionisrootedinGod’schoicebyforeknowledgeoffaith,notworks(…non
quidemdeuselegitopera,…sedtamenelegitfidem,exprop.Rm.60.9).Thisisafair
arrangementbecausebeliefisstrictlywithinthecapacityofourfreewill,butactions
arenotthissideofEden(quodergocredimus,nostrumest,quodautembonumoperamur,
illius,quicredentibusinsedatspiritumsanctum.,ex.prop.Rm.60.12).
AnthropologicalConceptionsBeneaththeEarlyPaulineExegeses
SowhatpromptsAugustine’smomentouschangeashecomposesareplyto
Simplicianus?Themostelementalandpreciseanswerissimple.249Foreknowledgeof
faithandforeknowledgeofworkswerenolongersufficientlydistinctconceptsfor
AugustinetoexplaindifferentiationsinGod’schoices(cf.,Simpl.I.2.5forthemoment
thisdawnsonAugustine).Butinordertoexplainwhy,wemustfirstconsiderkey
developmentsinAugustine’spsychologyofactionandbeliefoverthecourseofhis
priestlyexegeticalwork.
AcloseexaminationofAugustine’santhropologicalconceptsinhisearlyPauline
exegesisrevealsacloseinteractionbetweenhisreadingsofPaulandhisdiscoveries249Indeed,onewondersatthepersistentretreatinthesecondaryliteraturefromphilologicalandconceptualanalysistoenvironmentalexplanationsthatturnonimpressionisticaccountsofincreasing“pessimism”,orgradualpollutionbyNorthAfrican“harshness”and“rigidity”(cf.Brown,Peter.1967.AugustineofHippo,ABiography.Berkley:UniversityofCaliforniapp.146‐157),orageneralabandonmentof“philosophy”for“religion”and“scripture”(cf.Pincherle,Alberto.1947.LaformazioneteologicadiSant'Agostino.Roma:EdizioniItaliane.pp.85‐87).
178
sparkedbycommentingonJesus’SermonontheMount.250Ourlastchapterhighlighted
theentwinedusesAugustinemadeofStoicandPlatonicconceptualitiesininterpreting
Jesus’admonitiontopurityofheart.Thischaptermustbuilduponit.
AboutthetimeAugustineachievedastableconceptionoftheheartandthe
moralidealofpuritytherein,thequestionsofhisbrothersatHippobeckonedhiminto
theworldofdetailedPaulineexegesis.TheseearlyexegesesshowAugustine’s
considerable,ongoingdebttoStoicconceptualitiesinconstructinghischaracteristic
interpretationofPaul.BycloselyexaminingAugustine’smixtureofDominical,Pauline
andStoicanthropologicalconceptsthroughthisperiod,wewillilluminatetheprecise
matrixofthathistoricdecisionintheadSimplicianumI.2.
TheFourAges:Augustine’sAnalysisofConsentpriortoadSimplicianumI.2
TheprimaryanthropologicaldevelopmentsemergeinAugustine’sglossesonPaul’s
crypticdescriptionoflifesinelege(Rm.7:9ff)incontrasttothearrivalofpreceptsand
mandates,whichresultinamanifestmasteryofsin.Paul’sownaccountdescribes
strangealterationsintheactofconsentafterthearrivaloflaw(Rm.7:16‐17).Augustine
alsosawacleararticulationthatdivinegracecreatedathirdstateofvictoryoversin
andhintsofafinalresolutionachievableonlywiththeendofbodilymortality(Rm.
7:24‐25).
Bysynthesizingthisprogressive,historicalmovementwithhisearlierstructural
pictureofthestruggleforconsensualpuritywithintheheart,Augustineinventeda
250ForahelpfuldiscussionofAugustine’stendencyatthispointtoreadPaulthroughagospellens,albeitwithoutanyspecificfocusontheanthropologicalconceptsinvolved,seetheintroductoryessaysinPlumer,Eric.2003.Augustine’sCommentaryonGalatians:Introduction,Text,Translation,andNotes.Oxford:OxfordEarlyChristianStudies.
179
schemaofthefourstagesorlevels(gradus)ofhumanspiritualdevelopment–ante
legem,sublege,subgratia,inpace(diu.qu.66.3;ex.prop.Rm.1318;exp.Gal.36).251
Augustine’sfirstformulationofthefourstagesiscastintermsofovercomingorbeing
overcomebycarnaldesireandhabit(diu.qu.66.3ff).252Byhissecondvoicingofthe
schema,however,Augustinepreferstohighlightadifferentsetoftermsthatenablea
greaterdegreeofnuance.Thisformulationbecomeshisstandard:
Wedistinguishthereforethesefourlevelsofhumankind:beforelaw,
underlaw,undergraceandinpeace.Beforelawwefollowthedesireof
theflesh,underlawwearedraggedbyit,undergraceweneitherfollowit
noraredraggedbyit,inpeacethereisnodesireoftheflesh(ex.prop.Rm.
1318).
itaquequattuoristosgradushominisdistinguamus:antelegem,sublege,
subgratia,inpace.antelegemsequimurconcupiscentiamcarnis,sublege
trahimurabea,subgratianecsequimureamnectrahimurabea,inpace
nullaestconcupiscentiacarnis(ex.prop.Rm.1318).251Ofcourse,insodoing,Augustinealsodisplacedhisearlyusageofthetraditionalsixagesofmanastheprimaryschemaforhumanlifeandhistory–infantia,pueritia,adolescentia,iuuentus,grauitasetsenectus.Cf.Gn.adu.Man.1.35,40;diu.qu.58.2;64.2.Hereafter,thefouragesfoundinPaulbecomeAugustine’sprimaryschema. ForadiscussionofthetraditionalsixagesofmanasusedinpriorChristianexegesisandbyAugustinepriortothisdevelopmentseeMarkus,R.A.1970.“Augustine”inCambridgeHistoryoftheLaterGreekandEarlyMedievalPhilosophy.Cambridge.Or,Markus,R.A.1970.Saeculum:HistoryandSocietyintheTheologyofSaintAugustine.Cambridge.252InSenecanterms,Augustine’searliestdescriptionturnsonthepresenceorabsenceofthirdmovements,constitutedbythevanquishingofreason(cf.iraII.4.2).Thedistinctionsbetweenthese“movements”andAugustine’sappropriationofthemwillbeexplainedbelow.
180
Thesubmergedmetaphorhaschanged.Insteadofabattle,issuinginvictoryor
defeat,Augustineenvisionshumanrelationtofleshlydesiresasakintobeingtied
behindanunstoppablesourceofmotion–perhapsahorsedrawncart.Sooneiseither
draggedorfollows,orisbygracecutloose.Themetaphoricsettinghasevolvedfroma
battletoitsaftermath.Thekeymetaphorsnowconjureatrainofcaptives.Butone
mightproperlyaskwhythechoiceofmetaphorandwhencedoesitderive?Dothese
specificmetaphorshearkenbacktoanidentifiablephilosophicalpatrimony?Ifso,what
submergedconnectionsdothesemetaphorsdisclose?
Augustinecorrelatesthesemetaphorswithspecificallynuancedmentalactsvis‐
à‐viscarnaldesireanddivineprecept.Againtheassociatedterminologyofmentalacts
provesphilosophicallypregnant.
Following(sequi/sectari)orbeingled(duci),whichAugustineuses
interchangeably(exp.Gal.47),amountsinpsychologicaltermstoconsentinthefullest
sense.TheearlyPaulineexegesesemployseveraldescriptivephrasestohighlightthe
qualitativedistinctionofconsentinfollowing.
Followingonlyhappenswhenapersoniswillinginanundividedway.So
Augustineclarifiesthefirststageofhumanexistence(sequimurconcupiscentiamcarnis)
asimplyingtheabsenceofevenpartial(exparte)resistancetocupidity(exp.Gal.46.4).
Likewise,approval(approbare;ex.prop.Rm.1318.3),oranunqualifiedconsent,prove
aptfordescribingthefirststageofhumanexistence.So,forinstance,Paulliststhe
worksofthefleshtoshowtheGalatiansthat“siadoperandumistadesideriiscarnalibus
consenserint,tuncducicarnenonspiritu”(exp.Gal.48.1).Inthecontextoffollowing
God’scall,notcarnaldesire,Augustinewillassociatefollowingwithfreechoice(ex.
181
prop.Rm.60.15).ButAugustineseemstobecharyofdescribinganyactoffollowing
carnaldesireasanexerciseoffreechoice.Foritclasheswithhisunderlyingmetaphor
ofoverarchingconstraintinmotion.
Tobedragged(trahi),ontheotherhand,isassociatedwitharangeoftermsthat
allrefertolesserformsofconsent(ex.prop.Rm.1318.3;exp.Gal.46.5,9;54.2;Simpl.
I.9.910).SeveraltimesAugustineimpliesthatdraggingisasubspeciesofconsent.The
demonstrationofthisisthatwheneverconsentiswithheld,bothfollowingandbeing
draggedareprevented(ex.prop.Rm.1318.89&4546).Thisisthedefiningfeatureof
transitionfromlifesublegetosubgratia.
WhenAugustinefirstusestheterminologyofbeingdraggedbydesiretoidentify
thesecondstageofhumanexistence,thistermiscontrastedwithwillingconsentas
beingunwillingyetovercome(…nolumusfacere,sed…superamur.,ex.prop.Rm.1318.3).
ButthefullestdescriptioncomesinhisreflectionsonPaul’slettertotheGalatians.
Draggingreferstowhathappenswhensimultaneousdesiresfortemporaland
eternalgoodscomeintoconflict(exp.Gal.46.5).Giventhepsychologyofaction
AugustinehasincorporatedfromtheStoics,noactionispossiblewithoutconsentor
someanaloguetoconsent.Draggingoccurswhenthe“weightoftemporaldesire”leads
onetoactiondespitepartialresistancefromcontrarydesires(exp.Gal.46.5).Augustine
thinksofthisfragmentationofimpulseinwhichlowerdrivesoverridehigherdesiresas
asortofcaptiveconsent(…dumeamconcupiscentiacarnisinconsensionempeccati
captiuamducit…,exp.Gal.46.9).So,inthecaseofequalyetopposeddesires,onecannot
182
followbutonlybedraggedorparalyzed–strandedafloat,asitwere,amidthefluxof
changingdesiderativetides(exp.Gal.54.2).253
Themosttellingandtechnicallypreciseidentificationofthedraggingmetaphor
occursinSimpl.I.1.9.Augustinecomposedthisresponseimmediatelypriortohis
momentousrestructuringofdivineelectionandtheinitiumfidei.Augustineusesthe
Stoictechnicalterm“toyield”(cedere)inordertoidentifythepsychologicalprocess
metaphoricallytagged“beingdragged”(loquiturenimadhucexpersonahominissublege
…quiprofectotrahitur…cupiditasquippeidoperatur,cuisuperanticeditur.,Simpl.I.1.9).
TofullyunderstandthedevelopmentsinAugustine’stheologyofgraceintermsofhis
changinganthropology,wemustcarefullyconsiderthesignificanceofthisequation.
CollationofKeyTermsinFourAges
HavingconductedapreliminaryidentificationofAugustine’sterminologyconcerning
thefourstagesofhumanexistence,Iventuretwoobservationsleadingtotwo
questions.
Thefirstobservationpertainstothedistinctionbetweengracedlifeandits
consummationinpace(stagesthreeandfour).Sincethespecificdifferencebetweensub
gratiaandinpaceexistenceconsistsinachangeintheflesh,onewouldexpectthe
differencebetweenantelegem,sublege,andsubgratiaexistencetoconsistinchanges
ofmindorspirit.ThisexpectationreceivesexplicitconfirmationbyAugustine(nondum
enimetiamcorpusreformatumestincaelestemillamimmutationem,sicutspiritusiam
253idsectabimur,quodampliusdilexerimus,sitantundemutrumquediligitur,nihileorumsectabimur,sedauttimoreautinuititrahemurinalterutrampartemaut,siutrumqueaequaliteretiamtimemusinpericulo,sinedubioremanebimusfluctudelectationisettimorisalternantequassati.,exp.Gal.54.2
183
mutatusestreconciliationefideiaberroribusconuersusaddeum.,ex.prop.Rm.53.20).
Thetransitionfromsublegetosubgratiaexistencemanifestspreciselyasachangein
spiritus.
Thesecondobservationseeksspecificityconcerningthedistinctionbetweenthe
gracedlifeandwhatprecedes(betweenstagethreeandthefirsttwostages).Insub
gratiaexistencewenolongerfollownoraredraggedbycarnaldesires,butcarnal
desiresdopersist.Wesimplydonotconsenttothem(ex.prop.Rm.1318.89&4546).
Withholdingconsentisthenewelementofactionundergrace.Butinthetwopreceding
stages,whereinweconsentedtocarnaldesire,adistinctionismadebetweenfollowing
(asfullconsent)andbeingdragged(asyieldingorcaptiveconsent;exp.Gal.46;Simpl.
I.1.9).
Sotwoprogrammaticquestionsfollow.Wheredoesthisrootmetaphorof
followingandbeingdraggedcomefrom?And,whatisthespecificdifferencein
psychologyofactionbetweenconsentinfollowingand“captiveconsent”oryieldingin
beingdragged?Boththesequestionsleadusbacktokeydistinctionsformulatedamong
theStoicstodealwiththeoreticaltensionsinternaltotheirphilosophy.
StoicMatrixofKeyTermsintheirThoughtWorldI:Draggingv.s.Following
Competingphilosophicschools254intheancientworldnevertiredofpointingoutthe
tensionsbetweenStoicmacrocosmicandmicrocosmicteachings.255TheStoics’global
254Forasocialhistoricalaccountofpublicdebateandcompetitionforstudentsamongancientschoolsafewworksarehelpful.Bowersock,G.W.1969.GreekSophistsintheRomanEmpire.Oxford:ClarendonP.;Simon,Marcel.1979.“FromGreekHairesistoChristianHeresy”inGrant,RobertMcQueen,WilliamR.Schoedel,andRobertLouisWilken.1979.EarlyChristianLiteratureandtheClassicalIntellectualTradition:InHonoremRobertM.Grant.Théologiehistorique,53.Paris:ÉditionsBeauchesne.pp.101‐
184
pictureturnedonanaffirmationofthecompletedeterminationofeachdetailofthe
cosmos(SVFII.937).256Thismuchseemedthenecessarycorrelateofuniversalordering
accordingtoDivineReason(SVFII.943).Sufficientreasonrequiresthateverythinghave
acause,adueexplanation(SVFII.945).257Causes,bydefinition,maketheireffects
necessary.Universalreasonimpliesuniversalcausation.Universalcausationrenders
necessityuniversal.Anall‐pervasivefatefollows(SVFII.917).258
Whendealingwithhumanbeings,however,Stoicsemphasizedtheinherent
freedomofthehJgemoniko/norprinicipaletoassentordissenttothelekto/nimbedded
inanypresentationandthuslivefreeoffate(cf.e.g.,Epictetus’Diss.I.1.24;I.17.26).259
Theentireworldexternal,includingone’sbody,isenmeshedinthechainofantecedent
causesnamedfate.Butassentanddissentisuptous(ejf’ hJmivn/innostrapotestate)
134,andStowers,StanleyKent.1984.“SocialStatus,PublicSpeakingandPrivateTeaching:TheCircumstancesofPaul’sPreachingActivity”NovumTestamentumXXVI,1pp.59‐82.255TheearliestweightyopponentwasCarneadestheAcademic(cf.Cicero’secho“quiintroducuntcausarumseriemsempiternam,eimentemhominisuoluntateliberaspoliatamnecessitatefatideuinciunt.,fat.IX.20).But,onemustalsocalltomindPlutarch’sDeStoicorumrepugnantiisandtheperipateticpolemicofAlexanderofAphrodisiasinhisDefato.256Forusefuldiscussions,seeWatson,Gerald.1971.“TheNaturalLawandStoicism”inProblemsinStoicismed.A.A.Long.London:AthlonePresspp.261‐238andBrennan,Tad.2005.TheStoicLife:Emotions,Duties,andFate.Oxford:ClarendonPressch.4.
Forhistoricalinfluencesee,Sharples,Robert.2007.“TheStoicBackgroundtotheMiddlePlatonistDiscussionofFate”inPlatonicStoicism,StoicPlatonism:TheDialoguebetweenPlatonismandStoicisminAntiquityed.BonazziandHelmig,Leuven:LeuvenUniversityPress.257mhde\n ga\r ajnaiti/wß mh/te ei™nai mh/te gi/nesqai twvn ejn twˆv ko/smwˆ dia\ to\ mhde\n ei™nai twvn ejn aujtwˆv ajpolelume/non te kai\ kecwrisme/non twvn progegono/twn ajpa/ntwn., SVFII.945258oiJ Stwikoi\ eiJrmo\n aijtiwvn, toute/sti ta/xin kai\ ejpisu/ndesin ajpara/baton.,SVFII.917259AccessibleintroductionstoStoicnotionsoffreedommaybefoundinRist.J.M.1969.StoicPhilosophy.Cambridgepp.112‐132andLong,A.A.1971.“FreedomandDeterminismintheStoicTheoryofAction”inProblemsinStoicism,ed.A.A.Long.London:AthlonePress.
185
andthusfree.Or,atleast,itcanbeinprinciple.260Thecapacityforchoice,proai/resiß,
lieswithintheindividual’simmediatecontrolalone.Andthereinlaysthenucleusof
moralvalueandresponsibility.
Thetensionbecomesmostacutewhenoneconsidersthatthefreelyassented
actionsofhumanbeingsmustthemselvesbeanintegralpartofauniversally
determinedworld(SVFII.943).IfDiogenes’siringofachildwithhisslavegirlisfated,
thepassionoflust,whichdrovehismisconduct,mustalsobefated.Ifthepassionis
fated,theassenttofalsepresentation,whichcausedthepassion,alsofallsunderfate’s
dictates(cf.Cicero,fat.XVII.40).Freechoicedissolvesintofate…ordoesit?261
TheStoicsemployedsophisticatedargumentstodemonstratethecompatibility
betweenfreewillandfate.262Twoofthesearguments,andtheirassociatedmetaphors,
arerelevanttoourprojectinthischapter.
Thefirst,andearliest,argumentcomesfromChrysippus.Twotextualwitnesses
havesurvived,namely,Cicero’sdefatoXVIII.41XIX.45andAulusGellius’NoctesAtticae
VII.2.Chrysippus’argumentturnsonacrucialdistinctionbetweenlevelsofcausation(…
260Ofcourse,theverycapacityforassentmakesslaveryinthedeepestsensepossible,cf.Epict.Diss.IV.1.5467.Everythinghangsontheusetowhichoneputsit.SpecifictrainingfordealingwithexternalimpressionsismodeledinDiss.III.8.261OnegenreofargumentsagainstStoiccausaldeterminismistypicallylabeledthe“lazyargument.”Inessence,opponentsaccusedtheStoicdoctrineofremovingallmotivationforworkormoralimprovement.Afterall,ifeverythingisdeterminedwhybother?(cf.e.g.Cicerofat.XII.28XIII.30).Chrysippus’responseisthatcertaineventscanonlybeconceivedas“co‐fated”withothers.Theargumentforcompatibilitybetweenfreewillandfatetofollowisasubspeciesofthisnotionofco‐fatedness.Inthiscase,thatsusceptibilitytomoralfailurecanonlybeco‐fatedwithaprior,morallynegligentstateofinternalcharacter.Cf.Bobzein,Susanne.1998.DeterminismandFreedominStoicPhilosophy.Oxford:ClarendonPresspp.180‐233.262Ressor,M.E.1965.“FateandPossibilityinEarlyStoicPhilosophy”Phoenix19,pp.285‐297
186
causarumgeneradistinguit…fat.XVIII.41).263Fateprovidesonlytheproximateor
auxilarycause(…cumdicimusomniafatofiericausisantecedentibus…hocintellegi
uolumus…causisadiuuantibusetproximis,fat.XVIII.41).Theproximatecauserefersto
externalcircumstances,whichspecificallydeterminestheformofsomepresentation
(fat.XVIII.42).Withoutanexternalpresentation,therecouldnotbeanyassentor
dissent(necesseestenimassensionemuisocommoueri,fat.XVIII.42).
Buthowthesoulactuallymovesinresponsetothatpresentationwilldepend
upontheinternalstateofthesoul.Thesoul’sowndegreeofinternaltensionor
flaccidityconstitutestheprimaryorperfectcauseofassent(fat.XVIII.41).
Inordertorenderthissubtledistinctionintuitive,Chrysippusemployedan
analogybetweenthesoul’sdegreeoftensionandtheshapesofphysicalartifacts.
Specifically,Chrysippusaskedhisinterlocutorstoconsiderthedivergentmotionsofa
cylinderandacone,respectively,whenstruckbyanidenticalforce(fat.XIX.43).
Forceherecorrespondstothosepresentationsfatedtoexternallypressinona
person.Thecylinderwillrollandtheconewillspinwhenidenticalexternalconditions
areapplied.Andalthoughthecylinderreceivedapushfromoutside(theexternal‐
proximatecause),thatpushdidnotbestow“rollability”(uolubilitatemautemnondedit,
fat.XIX.43)uponthecylinder.Sotheprimarycauseofrolling,asopposedtospinning,
lieswithinthecylinderitself.
Analogously,theviciouspersoncannotfallintopassionwithoutanexternal
presentation.Buttheassentgrantedtothatpresentationandthedurationofthe
263Cf.Frede,Michael.1987.EssaysinAncientPhilosophy.Minneapolis:UniversityofMinnesota,ch.9,“TheOriginalNotionofCause”andBobzien,Susanne.1998.“Chrysippus’TheoryofCauses”inTopicsinStoicPhilosophy,ed.Ierodiakonou,Oxford:ClarendonPress.
187
ensuingpassiondirectlyfollowsfromthespecificlackofinnertensionwithineachsoul
(fat.XIX.43).Hereinliesprimarycausalityandmoralresponsibility.Thisdistinction
betweenfatedexternalcausesandtheinternalcauseofeachperson’scharacter
preservesmoralfreedomandrendersresponsibilitycompatiblewithaworldof
thoroughlyfatedoccurrences(fat.XIX.44).
InessencetheStoicsdefinedthefreedomofanactionorbeliefintermsof
willingness(aslocatedinassenttotheimpulsivepresentation)andnotintermsof
counter‐factualpossibility(whichisnotarticulatedasacompetingtheoryuntil
AlexanderofAphrodisiasearlyinthethirdcenturyA.D.).264
Chrysippus’distinctionformedthebackboneofStoicresponsestoquestions
concerningthecompatibilityoffreewillandfate.Butanotheranalogybecamecommon
amongRomanStoicteachersinthecontextofmoralexhortation.WhenCleanthes
hymnshispraisetoZeus,acquiescingtowhatevermaybefated(SVFI.527),theRoman
Stoicssupplyametaphoricallypregnantendingforthepurposesofmoralexhortation.
“Thefatesleadthewilling,anddragtheunwilling”(Ducuntuolentemfata,nolentem
trahunt,Seneca,ep.107.10).
Externalnecessitywillproceedasfated.Butmoralpraiseandblameare
properlyattachedtotheinnertensionofpersonswithinthosefatedcircumstances.To
willinglyenterthefatedhardship,tochoosewhatfatedictates,amountstofollowing
God(EpictetusDiss.III.10.1819).Thisismorallypraiseworthy(Diss.III.23.42).Those
264Themostexhaustive,historicalreconstructiontodateremainsBobzien,Susanne.1998.DeterminismandFreedominStoicPhilosophy.Oxford:ClarendonPress.OneshouldalsoconsultSalles,Ricardo.2005.TheStoicsonDeterminismandCompatibilism.Ashgate:Aldershotforhisclearanalysisoftheconcepts.
188
whoareunwillingtoembracefatedcircumstancesare,nonetheless,draggedby
externalconstraint.Blamerightlyattachestothismentalstate.
Thekeyterms,astheyappearinAugustine’sdescriptionofthefourages,derive
fromSeneca’sadditionstoCleanthes’hymn.Buttheanalogyofthedogandcartis
amplifiedinEpictetus’applicationsofthehymnformoralexhortation(Ench.53.1).
Thereafter,themetaphorbecomesacommonplaceinRomanStoicexplanationsoffree
willanddeterminismincontextswheremoralexhortationistheoverarchingconcern
drivingtheresolution(Epictetus,Ench.53.1,Seneca,ep.107.1011;uitabeata15.6…).
ThatAugustineknowstheStoicprovenanceofthismetaphor,atleastlateinlife,
isclearfromadirectquotationheoffersoftheSenecanlinesinciu..V.8.Ofcourse,
AugustineimpliesanearlyfamiliaritywithSeneca’scorpusinhisshockedmemoryof
thedearthofFaustus’reading(…etquialegerataliquasTullianasorationeset
paucissimosSenecaelibros…,conf.5.11).
StoicMatrixofKeyTermsintheirThoughtWorldII:Yieldingvs.Consenting
ThesecondsetofStoicdistinctions,whichAugustineemploysindescribingthefour
stagesofhumanexistence,originatesinadifferentsetting.Thedistinctionbetween
yieldingandconsentinghasaprehistoryinearlyStoicaccountsofthepsychologyof
actioninnon‐rationalandrationalanimals.ButthedistinctionasAugustineusesitis
nativetotheRomanStoicprojectofdistinguishingbetweenpassionsandpre‐passions.
Augustinepreservesthisdistinctionbetweenyieldingandconsentinginthecontextof
thepsychologyofthepassions.ButhealsomapsitontotheStoicmetaphorofthedog
andcartinawaytheStoicsthemselvesdidnot.
189
ProceduralItinerary
Sincethissectionwillinevitablybecomplex,abriefstatementofouritinerarymaybe
helpful.First,wewillofferabasicexplanationofhowthreekeydistinctionsofRoman
Stoicpsychologyofthepassionsdevelopedwithintheirownthoughtworld.Thistask
comprisesrelatingtheearlyStoic’sdevelopmentalusageoftheyielding‐consent
distinction.Withthatinhand,wewillexplorethedevelopmentsofthefirstmovement‐
passiondistinctioninRomanStoicismandtheiraccompanyingdiscriminationbetween
movementslocatedintheanimusandthemens.
Second,wewillobservehowAugustinepreservedtheessenceofthese
distinctionsinhispriestlyperiodleadinguptoSimpl.I.2.Ofcourse,Augustinehasnot
yetformulatedthefouragesoremployedthedragging‐followingdistinction.Sowewill
considerhowthemensanimusdistinctionfunctionsforAugustineinthecontextof
morallyappraisingthepassionswithoutanyconsiderationofhowthisfitsintopatterns
ofcosmicdetermination.
Finally,wewillseekanaccountofhowandwhyAugustinemapstheyieldingand
consentingdistinctionontothemetaphorsofbeingdraggedandfollowing.TheStoics–
originalauthorsofbothdistinctions–nevermadetheconnection,whydidAugustine?
NativeHabitatofYieldingandConsenting:RomanStoicTheoriesofthePassions
TheStoicspresentedtheonlythoroughlyrationalpsychologyofactionintheancient
world.Allactionsarerootedinimpulses.Irrationalanimalsautomaticallyproduce
impulseswhenapresentationofsomethingasdesirableorrepulsivestrikestheir
senses.Buttheimpulsesofrationalanimals–godsandhumanbeingsovertheageof
fourteenorso–aretheoreticallyfreefromdeterminationbythepresentation.The
190
hJgemoniko/n,ifsufficientlyhealthy,canassenttoordissentfromtheimplicit
propositionalcontent(lekto/n)ofthepresentation.IfthehJgemoniko/ngivesassentto
thelekto/nofanimpulsivepresentation,i.e.apresentationofsomethingas
appropriatelydesirableorrepulsive,thecorrelatedimpulseimmediatelyproceeds.
Becauserationalassentisgivenorwithheldfromthelekto/n(ameaningcapable
ofbeinglinguisticallyarticulated),thecapacityforlinguisticelaborationofreasonsfor
oragainstappropriateactionformsthebackboneofStoicexplanationsbothofhuman
actionandofmoralresponsibility.265Childrenandbeastssimplylackthecognitive
equipmenttoberesponsibleandthuscanbeneithermoralnorimmoral.Butsomesort
ofcognitiveactivitymustalsoconnectpresentationstoimpulsesinanimalsandpre‐
rationalhumanchildren.
HeretheStoicspostulateaseriesofquasi‐capacitiesincludingananalogueto
assentinpre‐rationalchildrenandbeasts(SVFII.821;Seneca,ira.I.3.6;Varro,ling.Lat.
VI.56;Plutarch,Desollertiaanimalium961ef).266TheoldStoics’ei™xiß/cedereseemsto
besomethinglikeanautomaticproductionofimpulsefromanimpulsivepresentation,
withoutjudgmentintervening(D.L.VII.51).Yieldingisasymptom,withinthe
psychologyofaction,ofthatsub‐rationalcognitiveflacciditymorespecificallylocatedin
ageneralinabilitytoformorjudgelekto/n.Inyielding,thebeastorchildcognitively
265Ofcourse,Aristotlelocatedmoralresponsibilityindeliberation–thatinternalconversationbywhichoneweighsalternatives–notinatheoreticallyspecifiedactofassent.Cf.Nussbaum,MarthaC.2001.TheFragilityofGoodness.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.266Cf.Inwood,Brad.1985.EthicsandHumanActioninEarlyStoicism.Oxford:ClarendonPresspp.66‐91.
191
endorsesanimpulsivepresentationassuchwithoutreferencetoanypropositional
contentimplicittherein.267
ASecondUseforYielding:RecrudescenceinTheoryofthePassions
TodescribethecontextinwhichAugustinewouldhavebeenintroducedtotheyielding‐
consentdistinction,wemustprovideabasicintroductiontoRomanStoictheoriesofthe
passions.268ItwouldbedifficulttooveremphasizethesignificanceofPosidonius’
thoughtinaccountingfortheeventualshapeofRomanStoicaccountsofthepassions.269
Chrysippus’psychologywassothoroughlyrationalthatnosourcesofimpulse
couldbeacknowledgedasindependentofthehJgemoniko/n.270Indeed,Chrysippus
identifiesimpulsesandassentsocloselythatthedistinctionalmostcollapses.Impulses,267foratextdistinguishingassentandyieldinginthecontextofimpulse,seeSVFIII.459268Theseminalworksarefamiliar:Hadot,Ilsetrant.1969.SenecaunddiegriechischrömischeTraditionderSeelenleitung.Berlin:WalterdeGruyter&Co.;Nussbaum,MarthaCraven.1994.TheTherapyofDesire:TheoryandPracticeinHellenisticEthics.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress.;Sorabji,Richard.2000.EmotionandPeaceofMind:FromStoicAgitationtoChristianTemptation.TheGiffordLectures.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.;Brennan,Tad.1998.“TheOldStoicTheoryofEmotions”inSihvola,Juha,andTroelsEngberg‐Pedersen.1998.TheEmotionsinHellenisticPhilosophy.TheNewSyntheseHistoricalLibrary,V.46.Dordrecht:KluwerAcademicPublishers.,providesahelpfulcorrectivetoNussbaum’saccountoftheeupatheiaiasdirectedatpreferredindifferents.269TheearliestcloseexaminationisKidd,I.G.1971.“PosidoniusonEmotions”inProblemsinStoicismed.A.A.Long.London:Athlonepp.200‐215.Cf.alsoSorabji,Richard.1998.“AHigh‐LevelDebateonEmotion”inTheEmotionsinHellenisticPhilosophyed.SihvolaandEngberg‐Pedersen,Dordrecht:KluwerAcademicPublishers.,pp.149‐170.Also,Tieleman,Teun.2003.Chrysippus’OnAffections:ReconstructionandInterpretation.Leiden:Brillpp.198‐324.270ThemonismofChrysippeanpsychology,itsnatureandrelationtohistheoryofthepassionshasspurredasubstantialbodyofsecondaryliterature.Thefollowingwillprovideasufficiententretotheissues:Lloyd,A.C.1978.“EmotionandDecisioninStoicPsychology”inTheStoicsed.Rist.Berkley:UniversityofCalifornia;Inwood,Brad.1985.EthicsandHumanActioninEarlyStoicism.Oxford:ClarendonPress.;Nussbaum,Martha.1994.TherapyofDesire:TheoryandPracticeinHellenisticEthics.PrincetonandOxford:PrincetonUniversityPress.;Tieleman,Teun.2003.Chrysippus’OnAffections:ReconstructionandInterpretation.Leiden:Brill.
192
forallpracticalpurposes,simplyarejudgments.Sopassionsaremisjudgments(SVF
III.463464).Chrysippus’officialdefinitionprovidesacleartarget.Apassionisan
impulsethatoverflowsandisdisobedienttothedictatesofreason.271Butnoimpulse
issuesinrationalanimalswithoutassent.Passions,onChrysippus’account,areactsof
reasonthatexceedtheboundsofreason.Hepostulatesemotionasreasondisobeying
reason.Atleast,suchwasthecriticismofPosidonius.
AccordingtoGalen’stestimony,Posidonius’dissatisfactionwiththeChryssipean
theoryofthepassionssprangfromhissearchforcausesorsufficientexplanation.
Posidonius’questionwassimple.Ifapassionisanactofreasonthatexceedsthe
boundsofreason,whatisthecauseofexcessiveness(F161,164,168)?272Chrysippus’
theoryseemstopreventanyclearanswer.Byexplicitlydenyingtheexistenceofany
non‐rationalsourcesofmotioninadulthumans,Chryssipushasrequiredthewholeof
passiontotranspirewithinthehJgemoniko/n.Apassionissimplyanimpulse
automaticallyfollowingfromafalsejudgment.Buthowwouldtheimpulsefollowingon
theheelsofreason’sjudgmentdisobeyreason?Theverycomponentofexcessiveness
seemstoimplytheinvolvementofsomeforcesinthosehumanimpulsesnamed
passionsthatlieoutsidereason’sactofassent.
271Pa/qoß d’ ei™nai/ fasin oJrmh\n pleona/zousan kai\ ajpeiqhv twˆv aiJrouvnti lo/gwˆ…(SVF.III.378)272ReferencesaretothenumberedfragmentsfoundinEdelstein,LandKidd,I.G.1972.PosidoniusI.TheFragments.inCambridgeClassicalTextsandCommentaries13.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.MostofthefragmentsrelevanttoourstudyarecollatedfromGalen’s,Deplacitishippocratisetplatonis.Thestandardeditionofthistext,whichservedasKidd’ssource,isDeLacy,Phillip.1978‐1984.OntheDoctrinesofHippocratesandPlato.Berlin:Akademie‐Verlag.
193
Likewise,ifpassionsareessentiallyfalsejudgments,whydosomepassionswear
offovertimeregardlessofcontinuedassenttofalselekto/n (F165,166)?273Ifreasonis
thesolecauseofitsownexcessivemotion,thatexcessivemotionshouldprecisely
matchthetemporaldurationofthefalsebelief.Sowhataccountsfortheabatementof
myanger,forinstance,whenthebeliefthat“Marcellinusintentionallycausedmereal
injury”hasnotchanged?274
Posidonius’AccountofthePassions:AModeratedStoicPsychology
ByPosidonius’account,Chrysippuswentwrongindenyingtheexistenceofnon‐
rationaldynamicswithinthehumansoul.Galen,alwaysintentonchampioningthe
Platonistsaccount,tellsusthatPosidoniusaffirmedPlato’saccountofnon‐rational
partsofthesoul.ThereisgoodreasontoquestionPosidonius’ascriptionof“parts”to
thesoul.275Galen’spolemicaltaskshouldnotbeforgotteninreadinghisdescription.
ButPosidoniusdoesseemtofindtheresolutiontohisChrysippeanaporiasin
273Ofcourse,Chrysippushadpostulatedthatanemotioncouldonlyproceedifthebeliefwas“recent”(pro/sfatoß,SVFIII.463),butthisonlybeggedthequestionwhy?Cf.Sorabji,Richard.2000.EmotionandPeaceofMind:FromStoicAgitationtoChristianTemptation.Oxford,ch.7274PosidoniusalsomayhaveseentheChrysippeanaccountascreatingadeficientaccountofhumandevelopmentfrominfancytoadulthood(F159,166,169ab).Whathappens,Posidoniusmightask,towhateverproducespre‐rational,lekto/n‐freeimpulsesofchildrenwhentheyreachtheageofreason?ForaneartotaldisjunctionemergesinChrysippus’theorybetweenpre‐rationalimpulsesofchildrenandrationaladultimpulses.Whythedevelopmentaldiscontinuity?Sincereason’sassentaloneseemstoolimitedtoexplainthefullexperienceofapassion,mighttherebesomecontinuitybetweenpre‐rationalimpulseinchildrenandthesourceofexcessivenessinthoseadultimpulsesidentifiedaspassions(F159)?275ForcogentcriticismsseeCooper,JohnM.1998.“PosidoniusonEmotions”inTheEmotionsinHellenisticPhilosophyed.SihvolaandEngberg‐Pedersen,Dordrecht:KluwerAcademicPublisherspp.71‐111andTieleman,Teun.2003.Chrysippus’OnAffections:ReconstructionandInterpretation.Leiden:Brill,pp.202‐220.
194
acknowledgingamultiplicityofdynamicswithinthesoul,someofwhicharedistinctly
non‐rational.
Posidonius’termforthesenon‐rationaldynamicswithinthehumansoulis
paqhtikai\ kinh/seiß(F153)oraiJ kata\ pa/qoß kinh/seiß(F158,169.115).Pathetic
movementsonPosidonius’reckoningwereneitherconstitutedbyrationaljudgment(as
inChrysippus)norfollowedfromrationaljudgment(aswithZeno).Priortoeither
mentalstate,thispatheticdynamicofsoulproducedavariable“emotionalpull”
(paqhtikh\ oJlkh/)withwhichtherulingfacultymustcontendinmakingjudgments
(F169e).
Patheticmovementsarewhollynon‐rationalinorigin.Appealingtoananalogy
withbodilymomentumasthesourceofexcessinathleticblunders,Posidonius
construesthespecificexcessivenessofimpulseinpassion,whichoutstripsrational
judgment,asduetothenon‐rationalpressureofanunderlyingpatheticmovement
(F34).
Posidonius’accountadvancedStoictheorybyallowingforcontinuitybetween
pre‐rationalimpulsesinchildrenandtheongoingpatheticmovementswithinrational
adults.Childrenandanimalsdo,onPosidonius’account,experiencethesamemotions
registeredasangerandfearinrationaladults.Thesourceofexcessisofonepiece.An
addedlayerofcomplexityandmoralsignificanceadherestothepassionsofrational
adults,butthesourceofnon‐rationalexcessivenessremainsthesame.
Atthispoint,onemightwellaskwhywasPosidoniusstillconsideredaStoic?
Theanswerissimple.Despiteacknowledgingtheexistenceofnon‐rationalsourcesof
motioninthesoulandidentifyingtheprincipleofpassionateexcesswithinit,for
Posidoniustherewasnopassionintheadulthumanwithouttheassentoftheruling
195
faculty.276Patheticmovements,inrationalanimals,arenotpassions.Ifnon‐rational
motionscouldconstitutefullpassions,PosidoniuswouldhavebeenaPlatonist(atleast
asfarashispsychologyofactionisconcerned).ThePlatonist’ssoulisso
compartmentalizedthatafullpassioncouldbeunderwayintheappetitivepartwhile
themindorrationalpartisfreefrompassion(Enn.I.2.35;III.6.5).NoStoiccouldconcur.
WhilePosidoniusdissentsfromChrysippusinacknowledgingmultiple,internal
sourcesofmotion,PosidoniusisfullyStoicinaffirmingthatpassionsproperonlyensue
whenthefalseimpressionisassentedtobytherulingfaculty.Whileheenvisionsa
differentenvironmentofjudgmentinwhichinternalmovementsmaypressthe
hJgemoniko/ntoassenttoafalseimpression,PosidoniusstillaffirmsthatthehJgemoniko/n
issingularandthesolelocusofmoralresponsibility.ForthisreasonPosidoniusisa
Stoicindeed.
Seneca’sFirstMovements:HowChrysippusandPosidoniuscanbothbe
accommodated
TheearliestinteractionsofRomanswithStoicthoughttranspiredthroughthefavorof
Posidonius’teacher,Panaetius,intheScipioniccircle.277Cicerolaterstudiedwith
PosidoniusinRhodesin78‐77B.C.SothroughCicero,Posidonius’ponderousintellect
shapedtheearliestLatinphilosophicalwritings.
276SoCooper,JohnM.1998.“PosidoniusonEmotions”inTheEmotionsinHellenisticPhilosophyed.SihvolaandEngberg‐Pedersen,Dordrecht:KluwerAcademicPublisherspp.71‐111277Panaetius’fragmentsandtestimoniahavebeencollectedinAlesse,Francesca.1997.PaneziodiRodiTestimonianze:Edizione,traduzioneecommento.Bibliopolis.ForthesocialsettingofPanaetius’introductiontoRome,seeBrown,RuthMartin.1934.AStudyoftheScipionicCircle,IowaStudiesinClassicalPhilologyScottsdale,Pa.:MennonitePress;also,Rist,John.M.1969.StoicPhilosophy.Cambridge,pp.173‐193
196
Posidonius’thoughtposedapowerfulchallengetoChrysippeanStoicism.Butthe
RomanStoicsofthefirstcenturyA.D.lookedforwaystoidentifywiththeearlierschool
asawhole.ChrysippusandPosidoniusbothheldvaluableinsightsandtheRoman
Stoicssoughttoreconcilethisintergenerationalconflict.
Seneca’stheoryofthepassionsdemonstratesanuancedefforttoaccommodate
theleadinglightsofStoicthought(Zeno,ChrysippusandPosidonius).278Hisstrategyis
toincorporatetheprimaryinsightsofeachtheoristintothestorylineofapassion’s
lifecycle.Theresultisanaccountofthepassionsinthreemovements(iraII.4.12).
The“firstmovement”(primusmotus)ofthesoulisnotyetapassion,butan
involuntary(nonuoluntarius)momentaryeffectofapresentation(iraII.4.1).These
movementsarevariouslydescribedbySenecaas“quasipraeparatioadfectus”(ira
II.4.1),orprimusictusanimi(iraII.2.2)oragitatioanimi(iraII.3.5).Whichevertermone
latchesonto,theeffectofthesefirstmovementsseemstobeprimarilymanifestinthe
bodilyshock(corporispulsus)anddoesnotimplyanyconsentoftheprinicipale(ira
II.3.2).279Thedoctrineoffirstmovementsseemscraftedtosubsume,inamore
Chrysippeanvoice,theinsightsofPosidonius280regardingpatheticmovements.281
278SuchistheargumentofSorabji,Richard.1998.“AHigh‐LevelDebateonEmotion”inTheEmotionsinHellenisticPhilosophyed.SihvolaandEngberg‐Pedersen,Dordrecht:KluwerAcademicPublisherspp.149‐170.ForearlieraccountsofPosidonianinfluenceonSeneca’sdeiraseeHoller,E.1934.SenecaunddieSeelenteilungslehreundAffektpsychologiederMittelstoa.Kallmünz:M.Lassleben,andFillion‐Lahille,Janine.1984.LeDeiradeSéne \queetlaphilosophiestoïciennedespassions.Paris.279Senecalikensthesemovementstothestirringeffectsofdramaticorliteraryimmersionandmusicalengagement(iraII.2.46).Onefeelsalternatesinkingsandexpansionsinthestomachbasedpurelyonimpressionsoneknowstobefictional.Musculartensionsprepareforactionbeforeanyassentissuesintruefearorrage(iraII.2.46).280Inwood,Brad.1993.“SenecaandPsychologicalDualism”inPassionsandPerceptions:StudiesinHellenisticPhilosophyofMind,ProceedingsoftheFifthSymposiumHellenisticumed.BrunschwigandNussbaum,Cambridge,representsadissentingvoice,
197
Thesecondmovementtakesthesoulacrossthethresholdofpassionby
voluntarily(cumuoluntate)assentingtothepresentation(iraII.4.1).Hereinreason
commitsitselfbyassentingtothefalsepropositionimplicitwithintheinitial
presentation.Theprinicipalemisjudgesbyassentingtotheproposition“oporteatme
uindicari,cumlaesussim”(iraII.4.1).ThenucleusofChrysippus’doctrinesisnestled
here.Misjudgmentcreatesthepassionproper.Butnoexcessofmotionhasyet
disobeyedtheprincipaleanditsratio.Byisolatingthisasamomentwithinanarrative
account,SenecaaffirmsthecoreofChrysippus’theory.
Thethirdmovement(tertiusmotus)ofapassioninvolvesthetemporary
abolitionofreason(rationemeuicit,iraII.4.2).Oncereasonmisjudgesanappearance,
therebyhandingovercontrol,thepassion‐captivatedsoulcanrunbeyondreason.This
thirdmotionexplainswhyarationalactcouldleadtoastateexceedingreason.Zeno
haddefinedpassionasdisobediencetoreason.Thethirdandfinalmovementofpassion
depictsthestateofasoulinutterdisregardanddisobediencetoreason’scommands.
TheMensanimusDistinction:ARomanStoictendencyintheTheoryofPassions
Whendiscussingthedistinctionbetweenfirstmovementsandpassions,Senecahasa
generaltendencytoattributepre‐passionstotheanimusalone(cf.iraI.16.7).Likewise,
Cicero’sdiscussionof“bites”and“littlecontractions”tendstolocatethemintheanimus
primarilybasedonmethodologicalskepticismconcerningtheuseofareconstructedsource(suchasPosidonius)astheassumedtemplatebywhichtointerpretthefulsomeliteraryoeuvreofsomeonelikeSeneca.Sorabji’slaterargumentsforPosidonianinfluence(inSorabji,Richard.2000.EmotionandPeaceofMind:fromStoicagitationtoChristiantemptation.Oxford),withoutaddressingInwoodbyname,seemthestrongercase.281OnemightalsoconsiderhowSenecaincorporatesnon‐rationaltherapeuticmodalitiesforchildrenakintoPosidonius’,cf.iraII.18.221.11.
198
(Tusc.III.34.83).Theirusageisfarfromtechnicalconsistency.ButAugustineseemsto
havereadtheirtendenciesaslooseapproximationsofastricttechnicaldistinctionmore
fullyelaboratedinAulusGellius.
AulusGellius,inhissnippetconcerningthesagecaughtinastorm(Noctes
AtticaeXIX.1),createsanimpression282oftechnicallyconsistterminologywhen
translatingafragmentofEpictetus’FifthDiscourseintoLatin.283Intranslating
Epictetus’discussion,AulusGelliusmappedthreedistinctionsontoeachother.Aulus
Gelliusconsistentlyusesanimustodesignatethepsychiclocationofpre‐passions.
Presentations(uisaanimi)registerintheanimusandthereevokepredictable,yet
uncontrollableresponses.Eventhesagemustundergobriefmovements,contractions
andpallor,simplybecausetheresponseoftheanimusoccurssomuchfasterthanmens
andratiocanperformtheirduty(sapientisquoqueanimumpaulispermouerietcontrahi
etpallescerenecessumest,…quibusdammotibusrapidisetinconsultis,officiummentis
atquerationispraeuertentibus,Noct.Att.XIX.1.17).Thuspre‐passionstranspirewithin
theanimusandfull‐blownpassions(whichrequireamisuseofconsentastheofficium
mentis)envelopethemens.
AulusGellius’translationfurtherspecifiesthedistinctionbetweenthepre‐
passionoftheanimusandthepassionofthemensasamountingtodifferentdegreesof
cognitiveendorsementofthepresentation.Theanimusofsageandfoolalikemoves
involuntarilyundertheshockofsuddenuisa.Thedifferenceliesinthebestowalof
consent,wherebycognitiveendorsementconstitutesachangeinbelief.Thefoolthinks
282ThepaucityofprofessedlyStoicwritingsinLatin,outsideSeneca,makesitimpossibletodeterminewhetherthistechnicalprecisionwasindeedtheLatinnorm.283Ofcourse,weonlyhavethefirstfourDiscoursesinfairlycompleteform.SowehavenooriginalagainstwhichtocompareAulusGellius’translation.
199
thepresentation,asinitiallyreceived,istrueandimmediatelygiveshisassent(talia
esseueroputateteademincepta,tamquamsiiuremetuendasint,suaquoqueadsensione
adprobatkai\ prosepidoxa/zei…,Noct.Att.XIX.1.19).Thesage,ontheotherhand,
undergoesanidenticalinitialdisturbanceinhisanimus,butdoesnotconsenttothe
appearance(…uisaistaecanimisuiterrifica,nonadprobat…,Noct.Att.XIX.1.18).Soon
thiswithholdingofconsentisspecifiedasrefusingtochangehisbeliefaboutthe
indifferenceofthesituation(…sedstatumuigoremquesententiaesuaeretinet...,Noct.
Att.XIX.1.20).Botharemovedinanimus,thesageretainshispreviousbeliefstructurein
hismensbutthefool’sbeliefsmutatewiththemoment.
AthirdlayerofidentificationprovescriticalforAugustine’sreadingoftheStoics’
psychology.AsAulusGelliussumsuptheimportanceofhisvignette,helinesupone
moresetofdistinctionswithinthismappingofpsychicevents.Thepre‐passion,inthe
animus,whichisnotassentedtoand,thus,cannotchangeone’sbeliefsnowreceivesa
newnametotravelunder.Thisstructurallyinevitablemotionissimplyayieldingand
notconsent(…ineotamenbreuimotunaturalimagisinfirmitaticedamusquamquod
esseeaqualiauisasuntcenseamus,Noct.Att.XIX.1.21).
ThustheoldStoicanaloguetoassentinanimalsandpre‐rationalchildren(ei™xiß
/cedere)re‐emergestolabelanimportantdistinctionbetweenpre‐passionatemotions
andfull‐blownpassions.Yieldingnamesthemotionofsoulthatoccurswithoutachange
inbelieforalterationinone’sstructureofvaluation.TherebytheRomanStoics
acknowledgethecontinuedpresenceofacertainsub‐rationalflaccidityaroundthe
outeredgesoftheselfwheresensationtranspires.Theanimussimplyendorses
presentationswithoutjudgment,likeachildorbeast.Eventhesageisnotimmuneat
thislevel.
200
Butyieldingbearsnomoralsignificanceinitself,foritisnot“uptome”andthus
occursoutsidetheinvulnerablecoreoftheprincipale.Onlyconsent,firmlywithinthe
sayoftheprincipale,produceschangeofbeliefandthusfull‐fledgedpassionwithinthe
mens.
YieldingConsentandMensAnimusDistinctionsinAugustinepriortoSimpl.I.2
FromAugustine’slateretellingofNoct.Att.XIX.1inciu.IX.4,Augustine’sperceptionof
AulusGellius’three‐layeredmappingbecomesapparent.284AlthoughAugustinesteadily
insistsonreferringtoallmotionsofsoulaspassions(simplydistinguishingvicious
passionsfromvirtuouspassions),thesubstanceofAulusGellius’frameworkis
preservedbysteadilyplacingviciouspassionswithinthemensandvirtuousor
innocuouspassionswithintheanimus.Indeedhisoverlayingoftheanimusmensand
cedereconsentiredistinctionsinciu.IX.4makestheconnectionmoreexplicitthanAulus
Gellius’text(…stultianimuseisdempassionibusceditatqueadcommodatmentis
adsensum;sapientisautem,quamuiseasnecessitatepatiatur,retinettamendehisquae
adpetereuelfugererationabiliterdebetuerametstabileminconcussamentesententiam.,
ciu..IX.4).Whilethisdemonstratesexplicittextualderivationofthedistinctionfrom
Noct.Att.XIX.1andAugustine’sclearperceptionatthetimeofathree‐foldmappingof
thedistinctions,thepassageisquitelate.Sowemustseekindependentindicationsof
howAugustineusedthissetofdistinctionspriortoSimpl.I.2.
Althoughwefindno“smokinggun”passagesakintociu.IX.4,Augustine’svery
earlyusagebetraysageneralaffinitytotheRomanStoicdistinctionbetweenmotionsin284Theindispensiblecommentaryonthistext,whichpromptedmetolookmorecloselyforthedistinctioninAugustine’searlierworks,isByers,SarahC.2002.Augustine’sTheoryofAffectivity,Ph.D.dissertation,UniversityofToronto,pp.75‐82
201
theanimusandmensasfoundinNoct.Att.XIX.1.AsearlyashisreturnfromCassicacum
toMilan,Augustinedescribestheproperorderofthehumanpersonintermsofratio
uelmensuelspiritusrulingovertheinrationalesanimimotus,(lib.arb.I.18).Clearly,
Augustineacknowledgesirrationalaspectsofthesoulandtheoriginationofmotions
withinthatsphere.Ifirrationalmotionsinthesoulamountedtofullyviciouspassions,
thenAugustinewouldhaveherebyplacedhimselfwithinaPlatonisttheoryofthe
passions.Thistext,however,holdsnoevidenceofsuchaconception.Indeed,these
irrationalmotionsseemtobelumpedinwithbasicactsofsensationandappetitive
motionsofsoulwesharewiththebeasts(lib.arb.I.18).
UponhisreturntoAfrica,Augustinecontinuestoexploittheusefuldistinction.
Augustinediscerns,withinthefirstchapterofGenesis,anallegoricallyencodedgradus
ofspiritualprogress.Thesixdaysofcreationfigurativelyrelatethestagesofspiritual
growthfromthefirstwobblingstepsoffaithtothespiritualfecundityofamatureadult.
Thedivineadmonitiontoexerciseauthorityandruleoverfish,flyingthingsand
crawlingbeastsentailsanallegoricalinstructiontoprogressivelysubjectomnes
affectionesetmotusanimitothedominionofreason(gn.adu.Man.I.31).
Theprogressivesubjectionamountstodomesticatingthevariousbestial
motionsofsouluntilthenon‐rationalmotions,throughtherenovationofhabit,also
satethemselvesonthingsmorallypraiseworthyandrational(pascunturetiamnobiscum
cognitionerationumetmorumoptimorumetuitaeaeternaetamquamherbisseminalibus
etlignisfructiferisetherbisuiridibus,gn.adu.Man.I.31).Peaceofmind,indeedthe
happylife,comeswhenthenon‐rationalmotionshavebeenfullydomesticated(gn.adu.
Man.I.31).Oneascendsthetoprungofthegraduswhenmensachievesastablerule
over“motusomnesanimi”(gn.adu.Man.I.43).InMoses’figure,Godhasnowproduced
202
livesoulfromtheearth.Withthestableruleofmens,theaffectionsservejusticeand
reasonsothatbothfemale‐emotiveaspectsandmale‐rationalaspectsofsoulbecome
theimageofGodandspiritualfecundityensues.
Inhisearlypriestlyperiod,Augustineimmediatelyreaffirmshisconvictionthat
peacecomesfromtheconcordpresentwhenomnesanimisuimotusaresubjectedto
ratioandmens(s.dom.m.I.9).ButadeeperaffinitywiththeRomanStoictheorynow
emergesasheexplicitlydistinguishesbetweenviciousandvirtuouspassionsandmaps
themontomotionsinthemensandanimus,respectively.
Toexplainthepsalmist’sadmonition,irascimini,etnolitepeccare(Ps.4.5),
Augustineoffersagloss,“idest,etiamsisurgitmotusanimi,quiiampropterpoenam
peccatinonestinpotestate,saltemeinonconsentiatratioetmens”(enPs.4.6).Thekey
distinctionsfromRomanStoictheoryofthepassionsareallpresent.Non‐vicious
passionoccurswithintheanimusand“nonestinpotestate.”Seneca’sdescriptionoffirst
movementsspecifiesthatreasoncannotcontrolthem(iraII.4.2)andAulusGelliustwice
saystheyarenecessary(Noct.Att.XIX.1.13&17).Theinitialsurgecanbepreventedfrom
developingintoafullpassionbywithholdingconsentinthemensorratio.Ofcourse,
AugustinefurtherspecifiesthesourceofthesefirstmovementsinthepenaltyofAdam’s
sin.NoStoiccouldhaveimaginedthat.Buthisbasicpsychologyofviciousand
innocuousmovementsadherestoRomanStoicusage.
Augustineusedthesamedistinctioninpsychiclocation(animusnotmens)to
identifybothwhattheStoicscalled“pre‐passions”(motionsofsoultendingtowardvice
butnotyetvicious)andwhattheStoicscalled“goodfeelings”(motionsofsoul
consideredinnocuousorevenvirtuous).Augustinethinkstheirrefusaltouseplain
Latin,asitwere,andcallthesemotions“passions”amountstomerepretenseand
203
verbalsmokescreening.ButAugustinedidembracetheunderlyingconceptual
distinctionbetweenvirtuous,innocuousandviciousmotionsofsoul.285
ThedistinctioncomesoutmostclearlywhenAugustineconsidersthedifference
inthemanifestlyemotionalresponsesrecordedofPeterandJudasinthegospels(s.
dom.m.I.74).Followingthecrucifixion,bothregistertheirsinthroughamovementof
soul.ButqualipaenitentiaewasknowntoGod.HeretheRomanStoicdistinctionscome
intoplay.
Petrineremorseservesasaparadigmofvirtuousemotion.Themotionisbest
described,Augustinethinks,asadhumiliandumetobterendumcor,whichmaybe
furtherspecifiedasthemovementoftheanimusbeggingforgiveness(s.dom.m.I.74).
Earlierinthesametext,AugustinecommentedonJesus’admonitiontoleaveone’s
sacrificeonthealtarandgoimmediatelytoone’sbrotherforforgiveness.Noliteral
motionofbodyisintended.Rather,Jesusisapprovingavirtuousmotionoftheanimus
towardone’sbrotherthatisnamedhumility(nonpedibuscorporissedmotibusanimiut
tehumiliaffectuprosternasfratri…,s.dom.m.I.27).Virtuousemotiontranspireswithin
theanimus.
Judas’remorse,ontheotherhand,servesasaparadigmofviciousemotion.
Judas’angerwithhimself(sibisuccensent)overflowshisanimustopenetratehismens
(quammentisaffectionem…,s.dom.m.I.74).Inkeepingwiththedistinctionfoundin
NoctesAtticaeXIX.1,Augustineglossesthismutationofthemensasgenerationofafalse
belief.Namely,Judasassentedtothepropositionthathewasalreadydamned(s.dom.
m.I.74).Viciousemotionsaffectthemensthroughchangeofbeliefs.
285Cf.Byers,SarahC.2003.“AugustineandtheCognitiveCauseofStoicPreliminaryPassions(Propatheiai)”inJournaloftheHistoryofPhilosophy41:4pp.433‐448.
204
AugustinianPermutations:
HowYieldingandConsentMapontoDraggingandFollowing.
ThedistinctionbetweenyieldingandconsentingisnativetotheStoics’psychologyof
thepassions.Thedistinctionbetweenbeingdraggedandfollowingemergeswithin
discussionsofcosmicdeterminationandfreewill.TheStoicsneverlinkedthetwo.But
Augustine,wehaveseen,mapsthemontoeachotherinthecourseofinventingthefour
agesorlevelsofhumanexistence.NowwemustconsiderhowandwhyAugustinemade
thiscrucialidentificationwhentheStoicsdidnot.
Onecriticaldifferenceinusageimmediatelypresentsitself.TheStoicsusedthe
metaphorofdraggingorfollowingtodescribetheinevitabilityofexternallydetermined
circumstancesdespiteinternalresolutionstoresist.Theexternalityofforceisessential
fortheirresolutionoffreewillanddeterminism(cf.Cicerofat.XVIII.41XIX.45andAulus
GelliusNoct.Att.VII.2).But,inmappingthedraggingandfollowingmetaphorontothe
psychologicaldistinctionbetweenyieldingandconsenting,Augustineannexesthe
causalchainfromexternalconditionstointra‐psychicdynamicsinconflict.Thefour
stagesofhumanexistenceportraythevariousrelationsofinternalforcestoamoral
injunction.Constrainingforcehasmovedinward.
Augustinecertainlywasphilosophicallydisposedtomakethisconnectiondueto
thepost‐PosidonianelementshefoundinRomanStoicism.AlreadyAugustineidentified
theobjectofassentinsinaspleasureordelight(s.dom.m.I.3435).LikePosidonius,
Augustineenvisionedinternalforcesatworkintandemwithexternalpresentationsand
theirimplicitpropositionalcontent.Irrationalmovementsofdelightaccompanythe
externalpresentationandbeckonsconsent.Thus,moralpressurearisesnotonlyfrom
205
externalpresentationbutalsofrominnercompulsions.Viceonlyfollowsfromconsent,
butamultiplicityofforcesactingupontheprincipalecomplexifiesthe,perhaps,too
elegantaccountofChrysippus.Post‐PosidonianStoicismcouldcountenancesucha
variegatedpsychologyofaction.
Nonetheless,thekeyfactorinthismeldingofmetaphorsisclearlyAugustine’s
concerntoexplainPaul’speculiardescriptionsoflifebeforelawandunderlaw.Tobe
precise,hisreadingofPaulleadsAugustinetoenvisiontheinternality,notonlyof
morallyrelevantpressures,butevenofnecessity.WeturnnowtoexaminethePauline
thoughtbehindAugustine’smomentousidentificationoftheyielding‐consentand
dragging‐followingdistinctions.
WhyInternalizedraggingandfollowing?:PaulineReconfigurationofFatein
Augustine
Themetaphoricdistinctionbetweenfollowingandbeingdraggedhailsfromtheoretical
attemptstoreconcileStoicfateandfreewill.Stoicfatesimplyreferstoachainof
antecedentcausesthatdetermines(Cicerodiu.I.55).Theuniversalityofcausation(by
logoß/ratio)issuedinanaffirmationofuniversalnecessity(SVFII.943,945).But
AugustinediscernedtwochainsofcausationinPaul’sexplanationsofhumanhistory
andlife(esp.Rm.58).286Ofcourse,thetwochainsareneithercoevalnorco‐extensive.
286Wolfson,HarryAustryn.1961.“St.AugustineandthePelagianControversy”inWolfson,HarryAustryn.1961.ReligiousPhilosophy:AGroupofEssays.Cambridge,Mass:TheBelknapPressofHarvardUniv.Press.,arguesthatAugustine’slateconceptoffreedomissimplyaChristianizedversionofStoiccompatibilism.ThepatrimonyWolfsonascribedwascorrect;thesimplicityofitsbaptismwasnot.HeneversawtheintricacyandhistoryofthatChristianizationprocess.Although,infairness,hisessaywasapledgeoffurtherresearchwhichhedidnotlivetoproduce.
206
Buttheyarerealsourcesofcausationandthusnecessity.Andacknowledgmentof
necessitymakesthedraggingandfollowingmetaphorintuitivelyappropriate.287
ThelinksofonecausalchainstretchfromAdamtoeachhumanbeingthrough
thecommonconditionofbodilymortality(ex.prop.Rm.1318.1012;36.5;46.7;50).The
othercausalchainisconstitutedbyGod’sgraceinChrist.God’sgracepourstheHoly
Spiritintoourheartsandsuppliesthestrengthtoactonthegoodweintend(quodergo
credimus,nostrumest,quodautembonumoperamur,illius,quicredentibusinsedat
spiritumsanctum,ex.prop.Rm.60.12).Graceisthecauseofmeritoriousaction.
Whatistheprincipleofefficiencyinthesecausalchains?Delightorlove.Evenas
heusestelltalelanguageofdraggingandfollowingtodescribeourvariousstatesof
relationtoGod’spreceptsandcarnaldesire,Augustineexplicitlyspecifieswhat
necessitatesinhumanpsychologyofaction(…quodenimampliusnosdelectat,secundum
idoperemurnecesseest…exp.Gal.49).
TheAdamicchainofdesiderativecausationisanchoredinourongoingstateof
mortality(ex.prop.Rm.1318.1012;36.5;46.7;50).288Mortalitycreatesdesiresfor
287ConsiderAugustine’swords,muchlater,inciu..V.1,“Quaesiproptereaquisquamfatotribuit,quiaipsamDeiuoluntatemuelpotestatemfatinomineappellat,sententiamteneat,linguamcorrigat.”Theword“fate”istiedintopaganassumptionsaboutimpersonalastralcausationandmustbediscarded.ButthenecessitatingchainofcausationstemmingfromGod’schoiceturnsouttobetherealityofwhich“fate”wasashadowydistortion.HereAugustinedoesnothesitatetopraiseSenecaforhiswillingnesstofollowfate,orinvincibleGod,“IpsamitaquepraecipueDeisummiuoluntatem,cuiuspotestasinsuperabiliterpercunctaporrigitur,eosappellarefatumsicprobatur.,ciu..V.8.Divineelectionandgrace,areAugustine’swords,lateinlife,fortruefate.288ThispenalstateofmortalitysoconditionsourwillsthatAugustineadmits“cumautemdeliberauoluntaterectefaciendiloquimur,deillascilicetinquahomofactusestloquimur.,lib.arb.III.52.ThecauseofthispenalstateisthepervertedwillofAdammanifestedinthefirstsin.ButAugustinesteadilyrefusesinthisperiodtoaskaboutthecauseofthefirstsin(lib.arb.III.48;c.Fort.2122).Lateinlife,Augustinewillventurethatthepossibilityofsinstemsfromourcreationexnihilo.Suchabeinghasthe
207
temporalgoods.Ithappenslikethis.Mortalbodiesrequireprovisionstostaveoffdeath,
thusnaturallyandinevitablycreatingdesiresforthoseprovisions.Bodilyactionis
necessarytosecurebodilyprovisions,whichbydefinitionaretemporalgoods.Thusa
degreeofdesirefortemporalgoodsisbuiltintofallennaturesinceAdam.Paul’shasa
specialphraseforthisnaturalpulltowardtemporalthingsduetobodilymortality–the
lawofsinanddeath(Simpl.I.1.13).
Butnaturaldesiresareonlythestartingpointforourpresentcondition.By
seekingtemporalgoodsthroughbodilyactionweingrainhabits(Simpl.I.1.10).These
constantlystrengthentheinclinationsoffallennature.Habituatedimpulsesproducea
greatersenseofdeprivationwhenfrustratedandagreatersenseofpleasurewhen
fulfilledthansimplynaturaldesires(mus.VI.33;s.dom.m.I.3436;diu.qu.66.3;70).
Moreover,habitsruboffquicklyinhumansociety,duetothedevelopmentalnecessity
ofimitation,sohabitweighsdownnotonlyindividualsbutalsointergenerational
groups(exp.Gal.8.2).
Togetherthesefactors–naturaandconsuetudo–formacausalchainso
powerfulthatfreechoiceofwillisseverelycircumscribedandamountstolittlein
humanbeingsapartfromgrace(Simpl.I.1.10).Theonlypossibilitywithoutgraceisto
followcarnaldesireorbedraggedbyit(diu.qu.66.6).Seneca’scartisassociatedin
Augustine’smetaphoricalmindwithfleshlydesiresofmortalbodies.Adamicfleshfates
thoseoutsidegrace.Or,italmostdoes.
ThereremainsoneoddlyundeterminedmomentinAugustine’saccountpriorto
Simpl.I.2.Thetransitionalmomentfromexistencesublegetolifesubgratiaturnsonan
possibilityofturningagaintowardnothing,thoughthiscannotbecalledacauseofsin(ciu..XIV.26;corrept.10.2812.34).
208
utterlyfreedecisiontoassentordissenttoGod’scall(inliberoautemarbitriohabet,ut
credatliberatorietaccipiatgratiam,ex.prop.Rm.44.3;quodergocredimus,nostrum
est…,ex.prop.Rm.60.12).Giventhedevelopmentofhisaccountofnecessitatingdesire
andbodilymortalitycreatinginevitabledesires,thisaccountcanonlybeseenas
exceptional.Wemustreturntothisobservationbelow.
Lifesubgratiafollowsfromtheimpositionofadifferentcausalchainintheform
ofanewfounddelightinGodforGod’ssakeandjusticeforjustice’ssake(exp.Gal.4.6;
46.67).Thenewdelightflowswithin,butonlyafterone’sfreechoiceopenstheselfto
grace.Thiscausalchainonlyattracts,nevercoerces.Sooneisnowfreefromcarnal
servitude,andneitherfollowsnorisdraggedbytheAdamiccart(ex.prop.Rm.1318.89
&4546).Conversely,oneisfreenowtofollowthenewlyinfuseddelightinGod.Not
untilafter418doesAugustinespeakofbeingdraggedbygrace(e.g.,en.Ps.87.13).
Twofactorsremainwithinthefreechoiceofhumanbeings:1)theinitiumfidei
(ex.prop.Rm.44.3;60.12)and2)theongoingdecisiontoremaininthegraceofthe
Spirit(ex.prop.Rm.60.15).289Botharedestinedtochange.Thefirstinshortorder.The
secondwillrestundisturbeduntilrousedlateinthePelagiancontroversy(cf.
persue.).290
BeforeturningtotheinevitabledemiseofAugustine’searlyaccountofGod’s
predestinationinsubordinationtoforeknowledgeoffaith,wemustcompleteour
expositionofthefourstagesofhumanexistence.Anyadequate,geneticdescriptionof
289quodsiuocatusuocantemsecutusfuerit…inquopermanensquodnihilominusestinliberoarbitriomerebituretiamuitamaeternam,ex.prop.Rm.60.15290Cf.Burns,J.Patout.1980.TheDevelopmentofAugustine’sDoctrineofOperativeGrace.Étudesaugustiniennes:Paris,pp.159‐182andCary,Phillip.2008.InnerGrace:AugustineintheTraditionsofPlatoandPaul.Oxfordpp.99‐126
209
Augustine’snotionofthefourstagesmustattendtohowitincorporateshisrecently
discovered,Dominicalanalysisofpurityandduplicityofheart.
PaulineDifferentiations:HowtheFourStagesmapontoPurityofHeart
Wehaveindicatedhowtheacknowledgmentofdelightasnecessitycouldprompt
AugustinetoannexmetaphorsofdraggingandfollowingfromStoicexternalconstraint
tointra‐psychicdynamics.Butwhyspecificallyequatedraggingwithyieldingand
followingwithconsent?Toanswerthisquestion,wemustconsiderhowPaul’sanalysis
ofmoralweaknessinRom.7:5‐25291interactedwiththebitsofStoicanthropology
AugustineusedinexplainingDominicalpurityandduplicityofheart.
Paul’saccountofmoralweaknessturnsonatwistingorfracturingofconsent
anditsrelationtodeterminateimpulse(Rom.7:14‐17).Humanexperiencesublege
entailsmomentsofinnercontradiction,wherebyassentfailstoproduceadeterminate
impulsetoactionanddissentdoesnotinfactdissipatedeterminateimpulsestoaction
(sedignorosicdictumesthocloco,utintelligatur,nonapprobo,ex.prop.Rm.43.2).Fresh
fromhisexpositionoftheSermonontheMount,Augustineimmediatelyrecognizesthis
asdescribingaheartinthoroughdisrepair.Indeed,Paulmustbeanalyzingthe
psychologyofactioninherentinJesus’descriptionoftheduplexcor(s.dom.m.II.89,40,
43.49).
291ForanaccountofPaul’sownthoughtincontext,meldingpeculiarlyJewishandpopularnotionsfromHellenisticphilosophy,see:Napier,Daniel.2002."Paul'sAnalysisofSinandTorahinRomans7:7‐25"RestorationQuarterly44:1.ForacloserlookattheMedeanimageryimbeddedtherein,seeStowers,Stanley.1994.ARereadingofRomans:Justice,JewsandGentiles.Yale:NewHaven.
210
Signsofconceptualgraftingareclear.Wewillconsiderinturntheroleof
consent,thefunctionofintuitedvaluesandreferentialityofaction,andthecentralityof
preceptintheDominicaladmonitionsandthefourstagesofhumanexistence.
ConsentintheFourStages
TheprimarytaskoftheDominicalheartistoproduceintentionasmanifestedin
consent(s.dom.m.I.34).Divergenceinmodesandobjectsofconsentmarkthespecific
differencesbetweenthe3stagesofexistenceinistauita.AccordingtoAugustine’s
readingofJesus,thedoubledheartresultsfromcombiningincompatibleintentions.
Mixeddesiresfortemporalgoods,especiallyreputationorbodilypleasures,andeternal
goods,suchasadivinepleasureandeternallife,splitone’sinnertensionindivergent
directions.Dissipationoffocus(distensio)andlossofmoralstrengthensue.Theheart
haslostitspurity.Whenaskedhowthisrelatestoconsent,Augustineconsidersonehas
consentedtotemporalpleasureratherthandivineprecept(s.dom.m.I.3435).
ButPaul’sanalysisdemandsabitmorenuance.PriortothearrivalofGod’slaw,
humanbeingssimplyconsentedtopleasureanddidsowithoutadropofreservation
(exp.Gal.46.4).ButwhenGod’slawcametopersonsoftwisteddesire,whole‐hearted
consenteventopleasurebecameimpossible.Duplicityofheartrunsdeeperthan
Augustineinitiallyexpected.
AccordingtoPaul,theveryactofconsentbifurcates.Moralmisconductinsub
legeexistenceinvolvessimultaneouslyconsentingtocontradictorystatesofaffairs.The
sublegehumanconsentstothepropositionalcontentofGod’slaw(exeoquodscit
consentitlegi)andsimultaneouslyyields(givesweakassentorflaccidendorsement)to
thedelightofsin(…exeoautemquodfacitceditpeccato,Simpl.I.1.10).
211
Previously,Augustinehadconceptualizedtheconflictbetweentheheart’s
presentconsentandtheseparablesourceofdeterminateimpulsenamedhabit.In
roughlythesametimeperiod,Augustinepicksupanunfinishedtextofdeliberoarbitrio
uoluntatisanddecidestocompleteit.Thefirstbookbreathedadifferentair.Evilwas
simply–onemightsay,monolithically–inthewill(lib.arb.I.1).Inordertoattainthe
good,allonehastodoischooseit.AndEvodiuscanbarelycontainhimselfwiththe
thoughtofhoweasyblessednesscouldbe(lib.arb.I.29).Butinthisfinalbook,written
amidhisPaulineexegeses,willingisn’tsoeasy.Opinioandconsuetudoareuncoupled
andconflicted(lib.arb.III.23).Onecanknowsomethingisgoodandwanttodo
somethingelse(lib.arb.III.23).Thenewdevelopmentisthathabit’sproductionofa
determinateimpulsetoactionisnowexplicitlycoupledwithasubrationalformof
consent(Simpl.I.1.10).
Ifhabitualactioninvolvesaformofconsent,theremustbesomeimplicit
propositionalcontenttowhichconsentisgranted.292Paulportraysthispropositional
contentofhabitasarivalsetofpreceptsorlawforhumanlife(uideoaliamlegemin
membrismeisrepugnantemlegimentismeaeetcaptiuantemmesublegepeccati,quaeest
inmembrismeis,Rm.7,23;ex.prop.Rm.4546;Simpl.I.1.13).Bifurcationofconsent
correspondstoadualityofdirectivesinlife–tryingtofollowtwolaws,ifyouwill.One
setoflawsoffersdirectivesforattainingeternalgoodsandPaulcallsthis“spirit”orthe
lawofthemind(Simpl.I.1.13).Ashadowlawprovidesdirectivesforattainingtemporal
goods.Paulcallsthisflesh,orthelawofsinembeddedinmortalhumanbodies(Simpl.
I.1.13).292Onemayconceptualizethisintermsofthecapacitytoputtheunderlyingdesireintowords,suchas“anotherscoopoficecreamwillcalmmynerves.”Ofcourse,oneneednotactuallyarticulatedesireinthatwayforittobecapableofarticulation.
212
AugustinefindsthisdeepenedsenseofcordialduplicitywithinPaul’s
descriptionoflifesublege.Thereisnosurprise,then,thatAugustineinitiallyportrays
subgratiaexistenceasequivalenttoDominicalpurityofheart.Therein,God’sgrace
providesthestrengthtonolongerconsent–evenweakly–tofleshlypleasures(ex.
prop.Rm.1318.89&4546).Noweternalgoodscreategreaterdelightandtothem
aloneisconsentgranted(diu.qu.66.6).InPaul’slanguagethisisservingthelawofGod
inone’smind(ex.prop.Rm.36.4).ButthethickdescriptionmatchesDominicalpurityof
heart.Theidentificationmaybecomeclearerifwemovetoanotheraspectofcordial
purity.
IntuitionandReferenceintheFourStages
Ins.dom.m.II.1,Augustinearguedthattwoactsofheartliebackofconsent–intuition
andreference.Theheartintuitsordiscernstherelativevalueofthingseternaland
temporalandthenrefersspecificactionstodifferingends,whichcorrespondtointuited
values.293Thevariousformsandcombinationsofconsentinthethreestagesof
existenceinthislifecorrelatepreciselytoestimationofrelativevalueoftemporaland
eternalgoods.
Antelegemexistenceisbeneathduplicityforitattendsonlytotemporaldelight
withoutanymoralmisgivings.Onereferseveryactiontotemporalpleasurealone.Sub
legeexistenceisexplicitlydescribedintermsofadoomedduplicityofintentional
reference.Prudentia,inPaul,namestheactofaimingorreferringone’sactionstowarda
perceivedgood,whilethegenitivetofollowidentifiesthetarget.Soprudentiacarnis
meansaimingforgoodsoffleshasendsinthemselves(exp.Gal.46.23).Theprudentia293Cf.discussioninchapterthreeabove.
213
carniscannotpleaseGod,becauseitapproachesdivinepreceptasameanstotheendof
temporalgain.Whentemporalgoodsarethreatenedbyobedience,divinepreceptmust
bediscarded(ex.prop.Rm.48.23;exp.Gal.46.23).Becausetheunderlyingcordial
capacitytorefermeanstoendsremains,prudentiacarnisnevercompletelydisappears
buttransformsintoprudentiaspirituslikesnowonheatingtransformsintowater(ex.
prop.Rm.49.35).
Lifesubgratiaisexperiencedasacapacity,derivedfrominfuseddelight,tointuit
valueandreferactiontoeternalgoodsalone(diu.qu.66.6;exp.Gal.46.67).Theexternal
deedsofthegracedlife,insomecases,maybeidenticaltolifesublege.Buttheend
soughtdiffers‐“sedaliofine,quoliberoseafaceredecet,idestcaritatis…”(exp.Gal.43.2).
Dominicalpurityofheartexistswhereactionfindsasingularendinthepureloveof
thingseternal(s.dom.m.II.11).Thecapacitytovalueandreferone’sactionstothings
eternalnowbecomestheprimarymarkeroflifesubgratia.Thischangeofspirit,
movingonefromsublegetosubgratiaexistence,isnowconsideredtobeequivalentto
believing(ex.prop.Rm.53.1621).
Ofcourse,theresidualmotionsofcarnalhabitandamortal’snaturaldesirefor
thingstemporalcreateastrainforeventhepureofheart.Buttheinfusionofcharity
fromtheHolySpiritallowsonetoservethelawofGodwithone’smind,evenasthelaw
ofsintugsthroughone’smortalbody.Thiscapacitysubgratiaconstitutesa
transformationofmindorspiritus.Transformationofbody,inpace,willeventually
dispensewithanynaturaldesirefortemporalthingsduetomortality(ex.prop.Rm.
53.1621).Intuitionandreferencetoeternalthingswillthenproceedwithout
competition.
214
RoleofPreceptintheFourStages
Divineprecepts,andtheuseshumanbeingsmakeofthem,playacriticalrolein
identifyingduplicityandpurityofheart.Doublingofheartconsistsinenactingthe
bodilyactionprescribedbydivinepreceptforreasonsextrinsictothegoodnessand
God‐givenessthereof.Purityofheartamountstointendingnothinginbodilyactionbut
thefulfillmentofdivineprecept.Thetherapeuticstrategyrecommendedforachieving
purityofheartconsistsinfocusingintentlyonthepreceptfulfilledinanyactionand
blockingoutthoughtsofanyotherconsequenceorimplicationofaction(s.dom.m.II.43,
56).294
Atbase,thefourstagesofhumanexistencecompriseahistoricalschematicthat
centersinaseriesofchangesinrelationtodivineprecept(diu.qu.66.3;ex.prop.Rm.13
18;exp.Gal.36).Westartwithoutpreceptsoflaw.Whenpreceptarrives,thefirst
changeinspiritormindtranspires(Simpl.I.1.24).Weexperiencetwodifferentformsof
mentalrelationtothosepreceptsinthislife.Finally,thepromiseofpeaceconsistsin
removingthefinalsourceofresistancetolawwithintheself,namelythemortalityof
thebody.Thesubstanceofeachstageisfoundinananalysisofwhatblocksorenables
fulfillmentofdivineprecept.
Thecontinuingimportanceofpreceptshouldnotbemissed.Thetransitionfrom
sublegetosubgratiaexistencedoesnotinvolvedispensingwithprecept.Rather,the
preceptsmoveinwardbyGod’sgrace.OnseveraloccasionsAugustineoffersalternate
terminologyforlifesubgratiathatdoesnotremovelaw.Theonewhobecomesspiritual
byGod’sgraceisnolongerunderlawbut“withlaw”(similisenimquisquefactusipsilegi
facileimplet,quodpraecipit,neceritsubillasedcumilla,ex.prop.Rm.41.2).Likewise,294Seediscussioninchapterthreeabove.
215
thejustmannowlivessubdeo(exp.Gal.17.4)butthelawremains.Onlyhisrelationship
tolawhaschanged.Insteadoflivingunderlaw,henowlives“inlaw”(inillaestenim
potiusquamsubilla,exp.Gal.17.6;alsodiu.qu.66.1).Becauseone’sdesiressubgratia
burnmostardentlyforthingseternal,thebodilyenactmentofpreceptnolonger
registersasconformitytoexternaldemand.Rather,divinepreceptssimplysketchthe
externalshapeoftheinternaldesiresalreadypresentthroughgrace.
Stoicmoraltheoryhadalreadyelucidatedaversionofthisexperiencethrough
itsinfamousparadoxes.Solumsapientiemesseliberum,etomnemstultumseruum(par.
stoic.V.33).Stoicvirtue,goodnessandknowledgeareultimatelyone.Onemight
performanappropriateactionorduty(kaqh/konta/officium)withoutcomplete
knowledgeorevenunwillingly(SVFIII.495).Butmorallygoodorrightacts
(katorqw/mata/rectefacta)requirecompletewillingness,andthusperfectknowledge
(SVFIII.501).Onlyasagecanmanageamorallygoodact.Wefoolsmerelyapproximate
thoseactionsintheformofduty.295
Butthesameknowledgeablewillingness,whichmakesasage’sactionmorally
praiseworthy,alsomakeshimtrulyfreeinthemidstofanutterlydeterminedworld
(SVFI.222;III.355).Quidestenimlibertas?potestasuiuendiutuelis.Quisigituruiuitut
uultnisi…quinelegibusquidemproptermetumparetsedeassequituratquecolitquiaid
salutaremaximeesseiudicat,quinihildicitnihilfacitnihilcogitatdeniquenisilibenterac
295Theinternaldebateconcerningthenatureandpossibilityofprogressinvirtue(proko/ptein/procedere)providesthecontextforanalysesoftherelativeuseofprecepts(praecepta)anddoctrines(decreta).MuchoftheprimarymaterialfortheOldStoicsiscollectedinSVFIII.127168;491556.Aburgeoningsecondaryliteratureisavailabletoday:Roskam,Geert.2005.OnthePathtoVirtue:TheStoicDoctrineofMoralProgressanditsReceptionin(Middle)Platonism.Leuven:LeuvenUniversityPress;also,theessaysinPassionsandMoralProgressinGrecoRomanThought,ed.JohnT.Fitzgerald,NewYork:Routledge.
216
libere…(parad.Stoic.V.34).Thesagenolongerneedsprecept,becauseperfect
understandingobviatestheuseofanyexternallyimposedcommand.Nonetheless,his
everyactionwouldnaturallyembodytrueprecept(SVFIII.520,cf.alsoSVFIII.297,502).
Forthesagehasinternallychosencosmicorder,andhisplacethereinmustnolongerbe
externallyimposed.
Anisomorphicfreedommarksthelifesubgratia.296Whatoneexperiencedas
externalcompulsionunderthelaw,nowbecomesfreeexpressionofgraceddesires
(accedenteautemgratiaidipsumquodlexoneroseiusseratiamsineonereaclibentissime
implemus,diu.qu.66.1).TheStoicswereright.Anactcommittedunwillinglyorslavishly
cannotbemorallypraiseworthy.ButtheylackedthenamefortruefreedomthatJesus
supplies.Notomnisciencebutcharitymarkstheboundarybetweenexternal
complianceandfreeobedience(iustitiaeautemnonseruiliter,sedliberaliterseruiendum
est,idestcaritatepotiusquamtimore.,diu.qu.66.1).297Onemightmanageduplicitous
imitationsofexternalprecepts,butthecentralpreceptoflovingGodandneighbor
cannotbefulfilledbyanythingbutapureheart.Onlythepure,gracedheartistrulyfree
andtrulyobedienttodivineprecept.
NowweareinaproperpositiontosaywhyAugustineequateddraggingwith
yieldingandfollowingwithconsent.Themetaphorofdraggingandfollowingproved
296PaulhimselfmayhaveincorporatedbitsoftheStoicconceptionoffreedom,seeMalherbe,AbrahamJ.1995.“DeterminismandFreeWillinPaul:TheArgumentof1Corinthians8and9”inPaulinHisHellenisticContext,ed.TroelsEngberg‐Pedersen.Minneapolis:AugsburgFortress.ForanattempttodelineatePaul’spsychologyofactionincontext,seeEngberg‐Pedersen,Troels.2008.“TheLogicofActioninPaul:HowDoesHeDifferfromtheMoralPhilosophersonSpiritualandMoralProgressandRegression?”inPassionsandMoralProgressinGrecoRomanThoughted.JohnT.Fitzgerald,NewYork:Routledge.297NoticethataJmarth/mataarefrequentlydefinedasactionsnotinaccordwith ojrqo\ß lo/goß (SVFIII.501).Onlytheomniscientsagecanescapesin.
217
appropriatebecauseAugustinediscernedtruecausationandthustruenecessityin
Paul’saccountofhumanexistence.Butthisnecessityiscomplex.Twoformsof
obligationorlawviewithinfallenhumans.First,weexperiencethenaturalobligationto
provideforourmortalbodieswithtemporalgoods.Second,theobligationsofdivine
preceptenteranddirectustoseeketernalgoodsalone.
Theseobligationsaredistinguishablefrom,butrelatedto,twosourcesofdesire.
Natural(andsoonhabitual)desiresfortemporalgoodstosateandsalvethemortal
bodyaretherefrombirthinmortalexperience.Ofcourse,theycontinuewithvarying
degreesofdominanceuntiltheresurrection.Butaninfused,God‐givendesirefor
eternalgoodsissubsequentlyawakenedbygrace.Thesetwodesiresastheyrelateto
thetwoformsofobligationconstitutedistinctchainsofcausation.
Butagapexistsbetweenthem.Precept,andwithitasenseofobligationtoseek
eternalgoods,intervenesbeforethecorrespondingdesireisbestowed.Thestaggered
sequenceofdifferingobligationsanddesires,andtheoverlapbetweenthem,creates
thethicktextureofhumanexistenceportrayedinthefourstages.
Desiredeterminesactionandbelief.Butitonlydoesitthroughthevehicleof
consent.Whichchainofcausationprovesvictorious(andthustrulynecessary),
therefore,turnsonourgradedactsofcognitiveendorsement.WhenIflaccidlyendorse
impulsivepresentationsoffleshlydesiresdespiteapprovingthecontentofdivine
precept,Adamicfleshnecessitatesmyexistence.Iamdraggedinmyyielding.When
graceddesireanddivinepreceptlineup,Irationallyendorsethesuperiorvalueof
eternalgoodsandactaccordingly.Gracehasconquered.IfollowGodinmyconsentto
hisprecept.WhilethekeytermsinvolvedareStoic,theyconvergehereforthefirsttime
218
becausetheexperientialterraintheyareusedtodescribeisdistinctivelyPauline,not
Stoic.
AdSimplicianumI.2andtheDemiseofaDistinction:WhyFaithcannotMerit
differentlythanWorks
WecomeatlasttoAugustine’smomentousrealizationreachedinthemidstof
composingSimpl.1.2.God’schoicesofspecificpersonsforsalvationordamnation
cannotbebasedonforeknowledgeoftheirfreelychosenfaith,Augustinesays(Simpl.
I.2.5).Butwhy?
OverthecourseofhisreflectionsonJesus’teachingandPaul’s,Augustinehas
incorporatedsignificantportionsofStoicanthropology.Theresultisarealizationthat
beliefandaction(or,faithandworksinPaul’slanguage)arenotsufficientlydistinct
conceptstoexplainthejusticeofGod’schoice.Theproblemwasneversimplythat
foreknowledgecouldn’texplainachoiceoffaithratherthanworks.IdoubtAugustine
everlaboredundertheillusionthatGod’sforeknowledgecouldreachtoseeingfaithbut
somehowcouldn’tpickouttheworksthatnaturallyfollowed.
Rather,meritordesertisatissueinthiscontext(quomodoestenimiustaaut
qualiscumqueomninoelectio,ubinulladistantiaest?,Simpl.I.2.4).Stoicaccountsofbelief
andactionturnuponacommonhinge–theactofassent.Overthecourseofthreeyears,
AugustinehasintertwinedthisStoicpsychologyofactionandbeliefwithDominicaland
Paulineteachings.Thelocusofmoralfreedomandresponsibilityisidenticalinaction
andbelief,thusmeritmustalsobeidentical.
Inaction,animpulsivepresentation(suggestiones/admonitiones),a
presentationofsomethingasdesirableorrepellant,pressesinthroughoutwardsenses
219
ortheinnerstockofmemoryandhabit.Judgmentofthepresentationproperlyleadsto
assentordissent.Ofcourse,aweaksoulmaybeoverwhelmedbythepresentationitself
andyieldwithoutjudgment(giveweakassent).Butfullassentinwhicheverformleads
toimmediateaction,unlessexternalcircumstanceintervenes.Regardless,themorality
oftheactisfoundinassent(s.dom.m.I.3435).
Likewise,inbelief,propositionalcontentispresentedeitherimplicitlythrough
sensationandmemorialimaginesorexplicitlythroughthecollectionofscatteredideas
within.Properjudgmentispasseduponthepropositionalcontentpresentedby
comparingittotheuniversalstandardsofdivineTruth(uerarel.64;diu.qu.9;30).If
judgedtrue,oneassents.Ofcourse,onecanfailtojudgeproperlyandthusassent
falsely.Butthefreedomandmoralsignificanceofbeliefisrootedinassent.
Paulineanalysishasleadtoamorecomplexpicture.Wholeheartedassent
provesmoredifficultthanoriginallyimagined.Also,Augustineisnowclearaboutthe
likelihoodofconflictedpartialassentsleadingtoeitherparalysisormereyielding(exp.
Gal.54.2).Butdespitethecomplexityofreachingassent,theappropriatelocusofpraise
andblameremainsthemomentofassent,weakorstrong.
ThisisthesuppressedpremisebeneathAugustine’srhetoricalquestionatthe
precisemomenthedispenseswithhispriorunderstandingofelectionaccordingto
foreknowledge(siigiturelectioperpraescientiam,praesciuitautemdeusfidemIacob,
undeprobasquianonetiamexoperibuselegiteum?,Simpl.I.2.5).Foreknowledgeof
humanbeliefisnolessproblematicasamodeofjustdifferentiationthan
foreknowledgeofhumanaction.Forthemorallysignificantcomponentofbothbelief
andactionisassent,andPaulspecificallylinksGod’schoicetoatimecumenimnondum
220
natifuissentnequealiquidegissentbonumseumalum(Simpl.I.2.5;quoting,Rm.9,11).So
God’schoicemuststandwithoutreferencetohumanassentandthemeritsthereof.
AsecondconsiderationalsopressesAugustinetowardhisnewdoctrineof
election.Paul’sanalysisoffragmentationinconsenthasforegroundeddesire,natural
andgraced,astheengineofconsent.Fallenhumanstypicallyfacemultiple,
contradictorypresentationsandafragmentedpersoncanassentinsomeformtoboth
simultaneously.Asdifferentdesirescompetewithinusourfragmentedactsofconsent
producepartialimpulsesandpartialbeliefs.Theselfiscracked.Dominantbeliefsand
actionseventuallysurfacewhenonedesireoutstripstheothers.Sowrongthingsmay
bedonebynecessity(necessitate)whenapersondesirestodoright,buthasnotenough
desiretooverpoweracontrarydesire(lib.arb.III.51,appealingtoRm.7:18‐19and
Gal.5:17).Thedominanceofstrongerdesiresoverweakerdesiresconstitutesan
internalformofnecessityinhumanlife(exp.Gal.49).
Indeed,Augustinehasrecentlyrealizedthatthepenalnecessityoftemporal
desiresspecificallyafflictsbothofthemodesofassentthroughignoranceanddifficulty
(lib.arb.III.52)298.Duetoourpenalstateweoftenassenttofalsepropositions
unwittingly(exignorantiadehonestaterror…adprobarefalsaprouerisuterretinuitus,
lib.arb.III.52).Likewise,thisstatehandicapsourcapacitytoassenttothegoodand
dissentfromthebad.Ifwedomanage,itiswithdifficulty(exdifficultatecruciatus
adfligit….etresistenteatquetorquentedolorecarnalisuinculinonpossealibidinosis
298ForananalysisofAugustine’slaterusageofthisnotionofpenaldifficultassee,Rist.JohnM.1994.Augustine:AncientThoughtBaptized.Cambridgepp.135‐147.
221
operibustemperare,lib.arb.III.52).299Thedesiresofourpenalconditionaffectboth
modesofassent.
Moreover,thewellspringofinevitablywaywarddesiresisthemortalstateofour
bodiessinceAdam.Thistrapshumanbeingswithinthecausalchainlinkedtogetherby
twisteddesiresandgalvanizedbyinveteratehabit.Augustine,baseduponhisreadingof
Rom.7:23‐25,hasassertedtheimpossibilityofescapingthesedesiresbeforebodiesare
remadeimmortal(ex.prop.Rm.1318.1012;36.5;46.7;51;diu.qu.66.23).Anenduring
causeshouldhaveanenduringeffect.
Givensuchconsiderations,Augustinerealizeshisearlierresolutionofdivine
justiceinpredestinationperchesonadoublyunstabledistinction.Themeritoffaithand
themeritofworkscanonlybedistinguishedatasurface,verballevel.
Anthropologically,botharerootedinanidenticalactofassent.And,giventhe
uninterruptednecessitatingroleofcarnaldesire,nopsychologicallycoherentaccount
couldbeprovidedforanungraceddivergenceofassentwhenpresentedwithan
identicalgospel.Thecartofcarnaldesireshouldcontinuedraggingourdoggishly
fragmentedcapacityforchoice.
Undertheseconceptualcircumstances,Augustine’sexceptionalclaimthatthe
initiumfideilieswithinpurelyhumancapacitytochoosecannotremainunrevised.The
reasonforGod’sjustchoice,andforsubsequenthumandivergenceinassent,must
ultimatelyresidewithinGod,nothumanbeings.299Harrison,Simon.Augustine’sWayintotheWill:TheTheologicalandPhilosophicalSignificanceofDeLiberoArbitrio.TheOxfordEarlyChristianStudies.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPresspp.125‐130interpretsAugustinehereasarguingforanexperientialtouchstonewherebyadeedIamcommitting,despitesaying“nolo”actuallybecomesapassionratherthananaction.However,HarrisonmissesthediscussionsincontemporaneousPaulineexegeseswherebyAugustineclearlyseesasimultaneityofinneruoloandnolointhesepenallyconditioneddeeds.
222
ChrysippeanResolutions:ExternalityofPresentationandthePassionofFaith
SomecausaldifferencemustbepostulatedthatoriginateswithGod.Theinteraction
betweenPaul’sclaimsaboutGod’schoicesandthestateofAugustine’spsychologyof
assentdemandit.Gracehastobeirresistible.300However,twopossibilitiesremain.God
couldsortthisoutfromtheinside(throughalteringhumanperceptionordesire)or
fromtheoutside(throughalteringthepresentationreceived).301
Ontheonehand,Augustinecouldpostulatedirectdivineinterventioninthe
internalprocessofhumanassent,therebyrequiringseverecircumscriptionordisposal
oftheideaoffreechoice.Ontheotherhand,Augustinecouldattributethedifferencesin
humanassenttoGod’sregulationoftheprovidentialavailabilityand/orforceof
externalpresentationswithoutdirectinterferenceintheinternalprocessofdesireand
assent.Infact,Augustineoptsforthesecondexplanation,atleastforthemeantime.But
theinterestingpartliesinhowhedoesit.
300TheliteratureonAugustinianirresistiblegraceisvast.Thefollowinghavebeenhelpful,O’Daly,Gerald.1989.“PredestinationandFreedominAugustine’sEthics”inThePhilosophyinChristianity,ed.Vesey,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPresspp.85‐97;Burns,J.Patout.1980.TheDevelopmentofAugustine’sDoctrineofOperativeGrace.Étudesaugustiniennes:Parispp.121‐183;Cary,Phillip.2008.InnerGrace:AugustineintheTraditionsofPlatoandPaul.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPresspp.69‐126.301Cary,Phillip.2008.InnerGrace:AugustineintheTraditionsofPlatoandPaul.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPresspp.53‐67isveryawareofthedistinctionbetweeninternalandexternalmeansofgraceandhelpfullyhighlightsthecontrastinthistext.However,hefailstorecognizethedegreeofinterpenetrationbetweenAugustine’spsychologyofbeliefandaction(heavilyindebtedbothtoStoicismandPaulinethought)andhisPlatonisthunchesaboutdelightanddesire.Indeed,CarytendstoviewPlatonismandStoicismasmuchtooself‐containedanddistincttomatchAugustine’slateantiqueworld.SoCaryreadsAugustineasalternatelydrawingonassentanddelightascausalexplanations,apparentlyunawareoftheintricateinterweavingofthoseconceptsinAugustine’sthoughtleadinguptoSimpl.I.2(cf.s.dom.m.I.34whereassentinsinistodelight!).
223
LiketheStoics,Augustineisloathtorelinquishfreechoiceasrootedintheactof
assent.302But,alsoliketheStoics,Augustinenowstandsinthepositionofaffirmingan
extra‐psychicdeterminatecauseofhumanchoice.303Fortunately,thedogandcart
metaphorisnottheonlysetofrelevantdistinctionsavailableintheRomanStoic
patrimony.
Chrysippus’distinctionbetweenlevelsofcausationinfatedchoicesnowcomes
inhandy(fat.XVIII.41).304Atthemacrocosmiclevel,externalorproximatecauses
associatedwithpresentationseffectchoices.Buttheirefficiencyproceedsthrough
internalcausesidentifiedwithindividualcharacter.Theforceofanexternal
presentationcanensureassent(oratleastyielding)withoutanydirectimpingementon
theinternalconditionsoffreechoice(fat.XIX.44).
Augustinenowfallsbackonthislineofexplanation.ThevehicleofGod’selection
isanirreduciblyexternalpresentation,orinbiblicalparlanceacall(uocatio,Simpl.
I.2.7).Bymatchingthevaryingforceofhiscalltothepeculiarshapeofeachindividual’s
character,Godensuresthatfreehumanchoicewillinternallyrespondaccordingtothe
divinechoice.Augustine’stermforthematchingofvariablemodesofpresentationto
302NoticeAugustine’sneedtorepeatedlyemphasizeinhisexegesisthatPaulisnotdenyingfreedomofthewill(ex.prop.Rm.1318.1;44.1;60.15;62.1,3,13;diu.qu.68.5).HisearlyinterestinestablishingfreedomofchoicewascultivatedasananswertotheManicheanclaimthatevilhadanindependentexistencewhichlimitedhumanchoiceandDivineaction(retr.I.9.2).SoAugustinehasmuchtoloseinNorthAfricaifherecantsthisclaim.303Ofcourse,despiteutilizingtheirtechnicaldistinctions,thetermfatumisstrictlyshunnedbyAugustine,primarilybecauseofitconnotatesanimpersonalforce.cf.Boeft,Janden.1996.“Fatum”inMayer,CorneliusPetrus.1996.AugustinusLexikon.Vol.2,CorFides.Augustinus‐Lexikon.Basel:Schwabe.,pp.1240‐1244.304Djuth,Marianne.1990.“StoicismandAugustine’sDoctrineofFreedomafter396”inSchnaubelt,JosephC.,andFrederickVanFleteren.1990.CollectaneaAugustinianaAugustineSecondFounderoftheFaith.NewYork:P.Lang.noticesAugustine’suseofChrysippus’compatibilismofnecessitatingcharacterandexternalcircumstance.
224
individualcharacterisaptus(Simpl.I.2.13)or,inanactivedescription,congruenter
uocare(Simpl.I.2.13).
Chrysippus’olddistinctionbetweenexternal‐proximateandinternal‐primary
causesresurfaceshere.305Humanvolitionsturnouttobebivalententities.Twocauses
areatwork.Inasmuchasexternalpresentationandinternalassentareboundtogether
inthecreationofasinglevolition,humanwillingisbothGod’sandours(Simpl.I.2.10).
HumanvolitioniscausedbyGodatthelevelofpresentationorcallandbyindividual
humansatthelevelofassentorfollowing(utuelimusenimetsuumesseuoluitet
nostrum,suumuocandonostrumsequendo.,Simpl.I.2.10).
AnalysisofConsentintheInitiumFidei:Whathappensinternallyinresponsetoa
suitablecall?
Ironically,Augustine’sdifficultyistheinverseofChrysippus’.Chrysippusneededto
explainhowapassioncouldbebothfated(andthusexternallycaused)andculpable
becausefree(andthusinternallycaused).Chrysippus’exampleassumedanaturalfit
betweentheexternalpowerofapresentationandtheinternal,culpableweaknessof
305AversionoftheoldChrysippean(andAugustinian)resolutionoffreewillanddeterminismiscurrentlyundergoingarevivalinphilosophicalconversations,cf.especially,Frankfurt,Harry.1988.TheImportanceofWhatWeCareAbout:PhilosophicalEssays.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress;Wolf,SusanR.1990.FreedomwithinReason.Oxford;Frankfurt,Harry.1999.Necessity,Volition,andLove.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.ForadetailedargumentthatAugustiniancompatibilismultimatelyworkssee,Kenney,Anthony.1975.Will,FreedomandPower.Oxford:Blackwell.Likewise,Clark,MaryT.1994.“AugustinianFreedom”Augustinus39,pp.123‐129.Ofcourse,thecounterargumentremainsvigorous.Cf.Rist,JohnM.1969.“AugustineonFreeWillandPredestination”JournalofTheologicalStudies20,pp.420‐447arguesthistheologyrendershumanbeingsmerepuppets.Theargumentbetweenlibertarians,harddeterministsandcompatibilistshasragedforcenturies.Ultimatearbitrationinthisdisputeisbeyondmyaspirationsinthistext.
225
thefool’smind.Thefool’sflaccidprincipalewasalreadyprimedtomovewhereverfate’s
presentationsdictated(fat.XVIII.43XIX.44).
Augustine,ontheotherhand,hastoexplainhowafoolissetonthepathto
wisdombymeansexternaltohimself.Indeed,howheisimmeasurablyandinstantly
improvedbyapresentationagainstwhichheisalreadyinternallyopposed.
ThestrangenessofAugustine’sprojecthereproceedsfromhisneedtoexplain
whathappenedwithSaulofTarsusontheDamascusroad(Simpl.I.2.22).306Saul’s
narrativeforbidsAugustinetheunspokenassumptionofpriorcompatibilitybetween
externalcallandinternalassent(quamrabidauoluntas,quamfuriosa,
quamcaeca!,Simpl.I.2.22).ForinSaul’scase,limitconditionthoughitbe,thehuman
willwassteadfastlysetinoppositiontothedivinecall.307
Augustine’sdifficultybecomesapparentinthetelltaleslippageofhisterm
“congruity.”InitiallyAugustinedescribesthecallascongruentwithhumancharacter
andthuseffective(Simpl.I.2.13).ButwhenGod’scallprovesineffective,thehuman
beinghasprovedincongruent(Simpl.I.2.13).Humanbeingswhoproveincongruent
havebeencalledbutnotchosen,otherwisetheywouldhavefollowed(Simpl.I.2.1213).
Augustineevenconsidersthepersonsohardenedastobeinsensitivetoany
mannerofcalling.PerhapshisstateisthesignofGod’spriorchoicenottosuitablycall
306Cf.Fredriksen,Paula.1986.“PaulandAugustine:ConversionNarratives,OrthodoxTraditions,andtheRetrospectiveSelf”JournalofTheologicalStudies36,pp.3‐34andFredriksen,Paula.1988.“BeyondtheBody/SoulDichotomy:AugustineonPaulagainsttheManicheesandthePelagians”inRecherchesaugustiniennes23,pp.87‐114foradiscussionofAugustine’sgrowinginterestinSaul’sbiographyleadinguptothisexegeticaldecision.307ForaperceptiveaccountoftheunresolvedtensionbetweenAugustine’sdisparatedepictionsofPaulinRom.7andSaulontheDamascusRoad,seeWetzel.James.1992.AugustineandtheLimitsofVirtue.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPresspp.156‐160and187‐197.
226
earlierinlife(Simpl.I.2.14)andAugustinewondersifthisisPharaoh’ssituation(Simpl.
I.2.15).Butthisanswercannotpersist,forithedgesGod’sfreedomtocallwhenhe
pleases(…quianulliusdeusfrustramiseretur,Simpl.I.2.13).Saul’snarrativestandsasthe
limitconditionAugustine’sdoctrineofelectionmustexplain.
Sowhatwouldasuitableexternalcalldototheinnerassentofahostilehuman
personlikeSaul?AugustinerelatestheeffectofGod’ssuitablecallusingthepeculiar
linguisticdistinctionsheinheritedtodescribethedifferencebetweeninnocuous
passions(akintoStoicpre‐passionatemotions)andviciouspassions.
Anychangetotheself,especiallyfromoutsidetheself,isbydefinitionamotion
ofsoul.Thequestionis,whichkind?Prepassionateyielding,orinnocuouspassion,
occursintheanimusbutdoesnotchangethestructureofaperson’sbeliefs(en.Ps.4.5
6;s.dom.m.I.74).Full,viciouspassionsgodeeper.Theinitialyieldingiscompoundedby
acorrespondingchangeinbelief,whichconstitutesanalterationinthemens(s.dom.m.
I.74;cf.alsolaterciu.IX.4).
HereisAugustine’spredicament.Sinceyieldingneitherchangesstablepatterns
ofbeliefnorconstitutesafullyvolitionalmotion,theinitiumfideicannotproperlybe
conceptualizedasayielding.Movementintheanimusseemstooshallow.Conversion
hastogodeeper.Ontheotherhand,themovementofthemensthroughchangeofbelief
underthepressureofanexternalpresentationconstitutesviciouspassioninthefullest
sense.HowcanAugustineaccountforasuitableexternalcallchanginghumanbelief?
Augustinecaststheinitiumfideiasasingularity.Herealoneonefindsthe
supremevirtuecomingthroughmeansofafull‐blownpassion.Augustine’sanalysisof
theinitiumfideispecifiesthatthedepthofmotionfollowsfromauisumorpresentation
touchingtheverymens(Simpl.I.2.21).Thesuitablecallnotonlyshakestheanimus,it
227
reachesintountwistandcorrecttheverybeliefstructureofthemens(quitamenuna
desuperuoceprostratusoccurrenteutiquetaliuiso,quomensillaetuoluntasrefracta
saeuitiaretorquereturetcorrigereturadfidem.,Simpl.I.2.22)
Paradoxically,Augustinehassavedtheinternalfreedomofhumanassentby
postulatinghumansalvationasanoverwhelmingfromwithoutofthatveryinternal
faculty.Inotherwords,Augustinehasfoundthepsychologicalstructureofthefirst
comingoffaithtobeisomorphictothatofapassion.
ThereliesSaul,blindandtrembling,prostratenexttohisdonkeyonthe
Damascusroad.Hisbeliefshavechangedinalastingway.Theyhavenotchanged
withouthisassent,tobesure,but,justascertainly,theirchangewasnotduetothe
powerofhisjudgment.Hiscapacitytoassenthasbeenoverwhelmedbythepowerofan
externalpresentationspecificallysuitedtorewirehisinternalmakeup(Simpl.I.2.22).
228
SummaryConclusionPartII–Augustine’sDiscoveryofRedemptiveAction
Intheaboveanalyseswefollowedthesecondcrucialcomplexofanthropological
developmentsinAugustine–hisdiscoveryofapositivepsychologyofaction.Largely
throughenthusiasticimmersioninJesus’andPaul’steachings,readinconstantdialogue
withStoicpsychologiesofaction,Augustinecomesinhispriestlyperiodtoan
impressivelynuancedpsychologyofactionthatfillsthegapleftinhisearlier
platonisingaccountofthesoul.Fourprimaryconclusionsarewarranted.
First,Augustine’sphilosophicalconceptionoftheheartandhisnewfound
interestinthepsychologyofactionemergetogetherandfromthebeginningappeal
irreduciblytobothDominicalandStoicteaching.Jesus’teachingdrivesAugustineto
reconsidertheroleofactioninthepurgationandcontinuinghappinessofsoul.Not
findinganyPlatonistconceptualitysuitabletothetask,AugustineturnstotheStoic
psychologyofactionforaidinconceptualizingtheanthropologicalimplicationsofJesus’
emphasis.
Second,thesetextsdisplayasubstantialintegrationofStoicandPlatonist
elementsfromthebeginning.BytransposingtheStoicactofjudgment,asthelocusof
intentionalpurityandmoralevaluation,ontoaPlatonizingontologicalbackdropof
eternalandtemporalgoods,Augustineconstructsadistinctivepsychologyofaction.
Purityofheartinactionbecomespossible,withinAugustine’spsychologyof
action,throughamodificationoftheStoicspiritualexerciseofprosoch/orvigilantself‐
awareness.TheStoicsachievedsingularityofintentionthroughkeepingpreceptsready
229
inmindandreferringeveryintermediateactiontotheendoffulfillingprecept.Tiedup
withAugustine’sfirstdistinctiveconceptionoftheheartasthetotalityofpresentself‐
awareness,wefindhimprescribingthepreciseformulaforpurgationofferedbythe
Stoicprosoch/.
However,Augustine’saccountofreferentialityinactioninsiststhatreference
alwaysdependsuponapriorintuitionofvaluestructures.Boththeactofintuitionand
theschematicstructureofvaluationaseternaldistinguishedfromtemporalsinktheir
rootsintoPlatonistsoil.SoAugustine’sPlatonizingontologyprovidesthespecific
differencethatsetshisfirstpositivepsychologyofactionapartfromtheStoics’.But,of
course,hispsychologyofactionundergoesrapiddevelopmentthroughhispriestly
period.
Thethirdconclusionismultifacited.Moreintricateincorporationand
transformationofelementsfromtheStoics’psychologiesofactionensuesthrough
Augustine’sPaulineexegesesbeginningin394.Thelocusofmoralfreedomand
responsibilityarestillfoundintheactofassent,evaluatedinrelationtoanontological
schemaofvalueseternalandtemporal.Augustine’sdetailedpicture,however,ofhow
thathappensandthepsychologicalcomponentsinvolvedbecomesmuchmorecomplex
infourspecificways.EachcomplexificationdirectlyrisesfromreadingPaulintermsof
theStoicsandtheStoicsintermsofPaul.Sofoursubpointsfollowconcerning
complexificationofassentrelatingtothefourstages,bodilymortality,disintegrationof
assentandthepervasivenessofconsensualdisintegrationencompassingbothbelief
andaction.
ThemostbasiccomplexificationcomeswhenAugustinemapshisearlieraccount
ofcordialpurityontothefourstagesofhumanexistenceimpliedinPaul.Theoriginal
230
conceptwassynchronic,butPaul’saccountisbothexperientialandhistorical.So
variousformsofassentandrelationtodivinepreceptemergethroughexistenceante
legem,sublege,subgratiaandinpace.
AlsoinreadingPaul,Augustinefindsanirrevocablelimitationtosinglehearted
assenttodivinepreceptinthislifespecificallyattachedtothestateofhumanbodies.
Bodilymortalitynowsetsalimitoncordialpuritybecausemortalitycreatesanatural
pulltowardandineradicabledesirefortemporalgoods.Habitintensifiesthis
predilection.TheresultisAugustine’sfirstadmissionthatblessedness,inthefullest
senseoftheterm,simplycannotbeachievedinthislife,inthisbody.
Thepsychologicaleffectofbodilymortalityalsorequiresanoveldisintegration
ofStoicisingassent.InreadingPaul,Augustinefindstheconflictbetweenhabitand
mindinthepresenceofdivineprecepttoimplymorecognitivedimensionstohabit
thanpreviouslyimagined.Sincehabitcreatesadeterminativeimpulsetoaction,there
mustbesomeimplicitformofweakassent.Thisassentcouldonlybetoanimplicit
propositionalcontentandPauldescribesthatpropositionalcontentoffleshlyhabitas
the“lawofsinanddeath.”ThusPauldescribesthebifurcationofthepsychological
facultyofjudgment.Humanbeingscanassenttomultiple,contradictorythingsatonce.
Thedeterminingquestionthereforebecomeswhichformofassentisstronger?
Thepervasivenessandstrengthofcorruptionbynatureandhabitcompromises
theintegrityofassentinbothforms–beliefandaction.Asaresultweareplaguedby
ignoranceanddifficulty.Integralassentinbeliefisnomorewithinourpowerthan
integralassentinaction.Anethicalconsequencefollows.Sincemoralpraiseandblame
ofbothbeliefandactionarerootedintheself‐samepsychologicalactofassent,merit
231
cannotaccruemoretrulytobeliefthantoaction,orviceversa.Thisleadstothefourth
andfinalconclusion.
Fourth,whenAugustinealtershisanthropologytoaccommodateaPaulinizing
Stoicpsychologyofaction,theimmediatetheologicalconsequenceishisproductionofa
newdoctrineofelection.And,inconstructinghisdoctrine,weagainfindAugustine
revisingandemployingStoicconceptualdistinctionstoreconcilehumanfreedomof
choiceandtheirresistibilityofGod’scallfortheelect.
232
Part3
TheCrackedSelfandBeyond:Augustine’sAnthropologyintheConfessiones
BiographicalBridge
Withinayearofhiselevationtobishopin396,AugustineoffershisConfessionesto
thosewhomurmuredandthosewhocheeredatnewsofhisconsecration.Augustine’s
laborinthirteenbookscallsforthhisfirstmaturesynthesisofthedisparate
philosophicalstreamsexploredinhisChristianthoughttodate.
Torecapourjourneythusfar,Augustine’sveryearlywritingsteemedwith
inchoatearticulationsofaNeo‐Platonicvisionofthehumanbeingasessentiallyan
inviolable,incorporealsoul.ContemplationisthesingularconcernofPlatonicsoul,even
initsnewlybaptizedform.Thebodyisaprison.Actionisnothingbutdistractionand
temptation.Ofcourse,revisionsarediscernablefollowinghisreceptionofthecreedand
baptismfromAmbrose.ButtheclearestchangecomeswhenAugustineisforcefully
ordainedin391.
Thepriestlywritingsbreatheanewair.Notonlyisscripturalexegesis
increasinglycentral,thephilosophicalresourcesAugustinecallsuponaredifferent.
Neo‐Platonicaccountsofnon‐corporealbeingstillemergewhenneededandAugustine
makespainstointegratethempiecemealwithhisemergentanthropology.Butthefocus
hasclearlychanged.Hispriestlywritingsmustcometotermswiththeconcernfor
ethicalhumanactionAugustinefindsinJesusandPaul.ThePlatonistslackanadequate
psychologyofactionandpassion,soAugustinebeginstoincorporateandtransform
StoicpsychologiesofactionthroughhisinterpretationofJesus’andPaul’steachings.
233
ThisfermentofStoicandscripturalpsychologiesofactionleadstomomentouschanges
inAugustine’santhropologyandtheologyofgrace.
Soin396,ashebearswitnesstohisperegrinepastandGod’sgraceinpursuit,
Augustinemustshowhowthedisparatestreamsofhisearlierthoughtflowtogether
intoasingletorrentofbishop‐worthyteaching.Thetwostreamsalwayscorrelatedto
distinctareasofhisanthropology.
TheNeo‐Platonistsprovidedcrucialelementsofhisontologyandhisaccountof
non‐corporealsoulincontemplation.AboutthistimeAugustinewritestoPaulinusof
NolaandrequestscopiesofaworkAmbrosecomposedduringAugustine’stimein
Milan(ep.31.8).Ambrose’sdesacramentoregenerationissiuedephilosophiapresenteda
rebuttalofthosewhoclaimedthatJesusprofitedbyreadingPlato’swritings(ep.
31.8).308Ambrose’sargumentturnsonpointingouttheresidualdisorderofsinin
humanaction(c.Iul.2.15)andclaimingthattruecontinenceonlycomesthroughthe
sacramentofbaptism(c.Iul.2.14).Thusthephilosopherscouldmanageonlyaparody
ofthattruecontinenceachievedbythebaptizedalone(c.Iul.2.24).309Clearly,Augustine
isrevisitingtheMilaneseChristianPlatonismofhisearliestChristianformationand
seekinganintegratedperspective.
TheStoicsofferedalucidaccountofthesoulasagent,whichAugustineneeded
toarticulateananthropologysuitedtoafullyChristianaccountoftheloveofneighbor
308librosbeatissimipapaeAmbrosiicredohaberesanctitatemtuam;eosautemmultumdesidero,quosaduersusnonnullosinperitissimosetsuperbissimos,quidePlatonislibrisdominumprofecissecontendunt,diligentissimeetcopiosissimescripsit.,ep.31.8;cf.also,doctr.chrII.28.43andretr.II.4.2309Onlythreedirectquotesarestillextant,allfoundinthesecondbookofAugustine’sfirstrefutationofJulian,c.Iul.2.14;2.15;2.24.ThefullestdiscussiontomyknowledgeisinMadec,Goulven.1974.SaintAmbroiseetlaphilosophie.Paris: Étudesaugustiniennes.O’Donnell,J.J.1992.Confessions.Oxford:Claredon,p.xxxviii
234
inandthroughbodiesintegraltohumanpersonhood.Ofcourse,theStoicismAugustine
employsisnotthatofChrysippus.Rather,MiddleandRomanStoicpsychologiesof
actionandpassionprovideajumpingoffpointforAugustine’sexegeticaltheorizing.
IntricatetransformationsensueasheinterpretsJesusandPaulthroughtheStoicsand
theStoicsthroughJesusandPaul.
IntheConfessionesAugustinebringsthestreamstogether.Thetransformed
PlatonistandStoicelementsarefusedinadistinctivelyChristianaccountofthehuman
personasconstitutivelydesignedforbothactionandcontemplation.Inthissectionwe
willtraceAugustine’saccountofthehumanpersonactingandcontemplatinginboth
twistedandredemptiveways.SinceAugustinebeginswiththerootsofhumanaction,
wewilltoo.
235
Chapter5
MirrorofFallenNature:
CommendatiotoActionanditsPerversioninConfessionesI
HellenisticandRomanphilosophicalanthropologies,concernedastheywerewith
competingpsychologiesofaction,routinelystartedwithaccountsofhumaninfancy(cf.
Cicero,fin.III.V.16;Senecaep.121).Augustine,inhisfirstmaturesynthesis,isno
exceptiontothisrule.310ConfessionesIpresentsanaccountofhumaninfancyand
childhoodthatbetraysanuancedunderstandingofthephilosophicalissuesunderlying
previousdepictionsandofferingarichalternativeintheologicallyandphilosophically
310Scholarlyattentiontothisfacthasbeensingularlyandsurprisinglylacking.Starnes,Colin.1975.“SaintAugustineonInfancyandChildhood:CommentaryontheFirstBookofAugustine’sConfessions”AugustinianStudies6,pp.15‐43(substantiallyreproducedinStarnes,Colin.1990.Augustine’sConversion:AGuidetotheArgumentofConfessionsIIX.Waterloo,Ontario:WilfredLaurier)isthemostthoroughexegeticalreadingoftheentiretextofConfessionsI.AndStarnesseemsunawareofthelivelydebateregardinginfantiainHellenisticphilosophyandtheissuesunderlyingthatdispute.
OtherclosereadingsofConfessionesIfocusonprojectsofhistoricalpsychoanalysisofAugustinesuchasMiles,MargaretR.1982.“Infancy,Parenting,andNourishmentinAugustine’sConfessions”inJournaloftheAmericanAcademyofReligion,50:3,pp.349‐364,orattempttocorrectAugustine’sdepictionofinfancyfromthestandpointofoneoranotherschoolofcontemporary,developmentalpsychology,soDombrowski,Daniel.1980.“StarnesonAugustine’sTheoryofInfancy;APiagetianCritique”AugustinianStudiesvol11pp.125‐133.
Stock,Brian.1996.AugustinetheReader:Meditation,SelfKnowledge,andtheEthicsofInterpretation.Cambridge,Mass:HarvardUniversityPress.,pp.23‐33providesadetailedinterpretationofelementsofConfessionesIintermsspeechacquisitionandAugustine’searlyeducationinreadingandwriting.Stock’suseofQuintillian,inreadingbookone,isasexemplaryasitisrare.
236
nuancedfashion.Inthefollowingpageswewillseektoplacethatphilosophicaldebate
inclear,developmentalreliefandthenreadConfessionesIwithinthatcontext.
NatureasNative:ThePhilosophicalContestoverInfancy
Cicero’sdictumsummarizesthegeneralfunctionofinfancyaccountsinthese
philosophies.Philosophicaldescriptionsofhumaninfancyandchildhoodconstitutea
“mirrorofnature,”ifyouwill,withinwhichonecanwitnessthepre‐conventional
impulsesofthe(almost)humananimal311(indicantpueri,inquibusutinspeculisnatura
cernitur.,fin.V.22.61).
Aseminaldistinctionhailingfrompre‐Socratictimes,betweenconvention
(no/moß) andnature (fu/siß),guidedthissearchforindirectreflections.Althoughthe
earliestusagesoftheconvention(no/moß) versusnature (fu/siß)distinctiontendedto
viewthemaspolesofacontinuum312,therhetoricofthefirstSophisticquicklyturned
themintoantitheseseffectiveinswayingopinionconcerningeverythingfromexistence
ofthegods,topoliticalorganization,divisionofhumanraces,slavery,thecharacterof
languageandtheveryexistenceofmoralstandards.313
311Forinfantsaspre‐rationalandthuspre‐humanseeAristotle,Eth.Eud.II.1219b5;Pol.I.1260a14;VIII.1336a101339a30;Pr.X.46.898a19;Cicero,Respublicap.137,ed.Zieglerfrag.Incert.5;SenecaEp.33.7,118.14.Bakke,O.M.2005.WhenChildrenbecamePeople:theBirthofChildhoodinEarlyChristianity.trans.BrianMcNeil,Minneapolis:Fortress,pp.15‐55providesahelpfuloverviewofthecommonHellenisticdeprecationofchildhood.312SeeNaddaf,Gerard.2005.TheGreekConceptofNature.SUNYSeriesinAncientGreekPhilosophy.Albany,NY:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.foradetailedconceptualarcheologyunearthingageneticistvisionoftheworldunderpre‐Socraticfu/siß.ForadiachronicaccountofhowtheideadevelopedseeHadot,Pierre.2006.TheVeilofIsis:AnEssayontheHistoryoftheIdeaofNature.Cambridge,Mass:BelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress.313MostexhaustiveaccountremainsdissertationofHeinimann,Felix.1945.NomosundPhysis:HerkunftundBedeutungeinerAntitheseimgriechischenDenkendes5.
237
EmergingonthefarsideofAthenianascendency,theHellenisticphilosophies
couldmanageneitherthenaïvehubrisfoundintheClassicalSophists’praiseof
conventionnortheircavilerprojectsofexplicitmoralconstructivism.314Convention
andtheformsofdiscursivereasonshapedtherebycouldonlybeseenasflawedand
perverse.315Butthereinliestheconundrum.Ifourverypowersofreasoninghavebeen
shapedbytheconventionsofadiseasedsociety,wherecouldwefindasalutaryclueto
thehealthystateofnatureweleftbehind?Wherearenatureandhernormstobe
found?316
TheHellenisticphilosophies’contestedaccountsofimpulseininfants(aswellas
inbeastsandbarbarians)findtheirraisond'êtreintheprevailingperplexityabout
discoveringnatureandhernorms.317Inparticular,Hellenisticaccountsofinfancy
servedtheconstructionofapsychologyofactionandtheethicalnormsembedded
Jahrhunderts.SchweizerischeBeiträgezurAltertumswissenschaft,Heft1.Basel:F.Reinhardt.Aquick,accessibleoverviewofsophisticusagemaybefoundinGuthrie,W.K.C.1962.AHistoryofGreekPhilosophy.Cambridge:UniversityPress.,vol.III,ch.4.314ForanaccountofhowmoralrelativismtendstoappealmorereadilywithsocialprojectsofdemocracyseeRoochnik,David.2004.RetrievingtheAncients:AnIntroductiontoGreekPhilosophy.Malden,MA:BlackwellPub.315Ofcourse,themostradical,andnotoriouslybombastic,formofanti‐conventionalistethicwasembodiedinDiogenestheCynic.Cf.D.L.VI.2081.Also,Malherbe,AbrahamJ.1977.TheCynicEpistles:AStudyEdition.Atlanta:ScholarsPress.ForthehistoricalconnectionbetweenCynicismandStoicismseeRist,JohnM.1969.StoicPhilosophy.London:CambridgeUniversityPress.316ForvirtueaslivinginaccordwithnatureseeGass,Michael.2000.“EudaimonismandTheologyinStoicAccountsofVirtue”JournaloftheHistoryofIdeas61:1,pp.19‐37.Also,confertheessaysinthesecondpartofSchofield,Malcolm,andGiselaStriker.1986.TheNormsofNature:StudiesinHellenisticEthics.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.And,Nussbaum,MarthaCraven.1994.TheTherapyofDesire:TheoryandPracticeinHellenisticEthics.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress.317Thecontemporaryprojectofevolutionarypsychology,withstudiesofintergenerationalpatternsofparent‐childabuseinrhesusmonkeysandthelike(e.g.DarioMaestripieri,TanjaJovanovic&HaroldGouzoules.2003.“CryingandInfantAbuseinRhesusMonkeys”inChildDevelopment71:2pp.301‐309)strikesmeasisomorphicinfunctiontotheHellenisticobsessionwithinfancy.
238
therein.318Differingschools,particularlytheStoicsandEpicureans,engagedinan
ongoingdebateconcerningthefirstnaturalimpulseofthehumananimal.
Twopointsofagreementbetweenopposingschoolscircumscribedthezoneof
debate.First,societalconventionascurrentlyexperiencedisdiseased,sonormative
ethicsmustberootedinanaccountofwhatisnatural.319Second,sincenaturemustbe
foundinexamplesuntaintedbyconvention,oneshouldlooktothebehaviorofthose
notyetacculturated,particularlythosejustborn.Sonaturemustbenative.
Twindoctrinesoccupiedtheepicenterofthisdebate.Thedoctrineofoijkei/wsiß,
“appropriation,”describesthestateofnaturepriortosocialcorruption,whichis
expectedtomanifestitselfinthe“firstimpulse”(hJ prw/th oJrmh/)or“firstthings
accordingtonature”(ta\ prwvta kata\ fu/sin).320Suchaclaimtacitlyimpliesits
318SeeBrunschwig,Jacques.1986.“TheCradleArgumentinEpicureanismandStoicism”inSchofield,Malcolm,andGiselaStriker.1986.TheNormsofNature:StudiesinHellenisticEthics.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.pp.113‐144.319ForanintroductiontothenatureoftherapeuticargumentationandthemedicalmodelofphilosophyunderlyingitseeNussbaum,Martha.2006.“TheTherapyofDesireinHellenisticEthics”inAckeren,Marcelvan,andJörnMüller.2006.AntikePhilosophieverstehen=Understandingancientphilosophy.Darmstadt:WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft.320Thesecondaryliteratureunearthingthedoctrineofoijkei/wsißisvast.Thefollowingwillprovideasufficientpointofentryfortheinterestedreader.Pembroke,S.G.1971.“Oikeiosis”inLong,A.A.1971.ProblemsinStoicism.London:AthlonePress.;Kidd,I.G.1971.“StoicIntermediatesandtheEndforMan”inLong,A.A.1971.ProblemsinStoicism.London:AthlonePress.;White,NicholasP.“TheBasisofStoicEthics”HarvardStudiesinClassicalPhilology83,pp.143‐178;Görgemanns,Herwig.1983.“OikeiosisinAriusDidymus”inFortenbaugh,WilliamW.1983.OnStoicandPeripateticEthics:TheWorkofAriusDidymus.RutgersUniversityStudiesinClassicalHumanities,v.1.NewBrunswick,N.J.:TransactionBooks.;Inwood,Brad.1983.“CommentsonProfessorGörgemann’sPaper:TheTwoFormsofOikeiosisinAriusandtheStoa”inFortenbaugh,WilliamW.1983.OnStoicandPeripateticEthics:TheWorkofAriusDidymus.RutgersUniversityStudiesinClassicalHumanities,v.1.NewBrunswick,N.J.:TransactionBooks.;Striker,Gisela.1996.EssaysonHellenisticEpistemologyandEthics.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.,pp.281‐297;Engberg‐Pedersen,Troels.1986.“DiscoveringtheGood:oikeiosisandkathekontainStoicEthics”inSchofield,Malcolm,andGiselaStriker.1986.TheNormsofNature:StudiesinHellenisticEthics.Cambridge:
239
conceptualtwin,thedoctrineofdiastrofh/or“corruption,”whichaccountsforthe
nearuniversalperversionofhumanbeingsdespitetheirbirthintoapristinestateof
nature.321Thetwinsseemtohavegeneticlinkstopre‐Hellenisticphilosophy,both
Platonic322andAristotelian.323However,sincethelineageisobscure,much
controvertedandnotessentialourpurposes,itwillnotdetainushere.324
CambridgeUniversityPress.pp.145‐183;Brunschwig,Jacques.1986.“TheCradleArgumentinEpicureanismandStoicism”inSchofield,Malcolm,andGiselaStriker.1986.TheNormsofNature:StudiesinHellenisticEthics.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.pp.113‐144;Long,A.A.1996.StoicStudies.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.,ch.11‐12;Engberg‐Pedersen,Troels.1990.TheStoicTheoryofOikeiosis:MoralDevelopmentandSocialInteractioninEarlyStoicPhilosophy.Aarhus:AarhusUniversityPressdetailsandexpandsthebasicargumentpresentedinhis1986article.321Theliteratureondiastrofh/orperuersiorationisissurprisinglysparse.ThosesourcesvonArnimconsideredusefulforreconstructingChrysippeandoctrinearefoundinSVFIII.228236.However,Hellenisticdevelopmentsaremethodicallyexcluded.Reydams‐Schils,Gretchen.1999.DemiurgeandProvidence:StoicandPlatonistReadingsofPlato's"Timaeus".Monothéismesetphilosophie,2.Turnhout:Brepols.,ch.5andBoeft,J.den.1970.CalcidiusonFate;HisDoctrineandSources.PhilosophiaAntiqua,v.18.Leiden:Brill.pp.58‐65discussthetestimoniuminCalcidius(SVFIII.229).A.A.LongprovidesafewhelpfulcritiquesinhisreviewofdenBoeftin1975.ClassicalReview25:1,pp.52‐54.322Platoparticularlyoffersprecursorstodiastrophictheory,e.g.,Rep.549Cffpossessesanaccountofthesonofagoodfatherbeingcorruptedbythegrumblingofmotherandslaves.AntiochusofAscalonclaimedthatPolemon,thirdsuccessortoPlato’sAcademyandsometimeteacherofZenoofCitium,wasthetruesourceofthedoctrineofoijkei/wsiß.Hewasthefirsttourgeethicallife“inaccordancewithNature”anddescribedthefirstimpulseofanycreature’sexistenceasself‐loveissuinginself‐perseveration(testimonyinCicero,fin.V.26).FordiscussionofAntiochusandhissignificance,cf.Dillon,JohnM.1977.TheMiddlePlatonists:AStudyofPlatonism,80B.C.toA.D.220.London:Duckworth,pp.40‐41.323vonArnim,Hans.1926.AriusDidymus'AbrißderperipatetischenEthik.WienHölder‐Pichler‐Tempskywasthefirsttoargue,basedonthefragmentinAriusDidymus,thatTheophrastuswastheoriginatorofthedoctrineandZenoacquiredtheconceptthroughPolemon’smediation.324DetaileddiscussionsofthehistoryofscholarshipontheissueoflineagemaybefoundinPembroke,S.G.1971.“Oikeiosis”inLong,A.A.1971.ProblemsinStoicism.London:AthlonePress.;Görgemanns,Herwig.1983.“OikeiosisinAriusDidymus”inFortenbaugh,WilliamW.1983.OnStoicandPeripateticEthics:TheWorkofAriusDidymus.RutgersUniversityStudiesinClassicalHumanities,v.1.NewBrunswick,N.J.:TransactionBooks.
240
DeducingInfancy:OldStoicDoctrinesofoijkei/wsiß and diastrofh /
Theearliestextantuseofthespecifictermoijkei/wsiß,notitscognates,comesinthe
fragmentedtestimoniestoChrysippus’writings.Themostextensivewitnessappearsin
DiogenesLaertius(D.L.VII.85=SVFIII.178):
Theysaythefirstimpulseofalivingthingistopreserveitself,because
naturefromthebeginningisappropriating(oijkeiou/shß)it,justas
ChrysippussaysinhisfirstbookOnEnds.Therehesays,thefirst
possession(oijkeivon)ofanylivingthingisitsownconstitutionandits
awarenessthereof.325Foritwouldnotbelikelyeitherthatnaturewould
considerthelivingthingforeign,northathavingmadeit,shewould
neitheralienatenorappropriateittoitself.Thereforeitfollowsthatin
constitutingthelivingthingshewouldappropriateittoitself.Andthusit
thrustsawayharmfulthingsandacceptsthingsthatarepropertoit(ta\
oijkeiva).(D.L.VII.85).
Th\n de\ prw/thn oJrmh/n fasi to\ zwˆvon i¡scein ejpi to\ threivn eJauto/,
oijkeiou/shß auJtwˆv thvß fu/sewß ajp’ ajrchvß, kaqa/ fhsin oJ Cru/sippoß
ejn twˆv prw/twˆ Peri\ telwvn, prwvton oijkeivon le/gwn ei™nai panti\ zwˆ/wˆ
th\n auJtouv su/stasin kai\ th/n tau/thß sunei/dhsin: ou¶te ga\r
ajllotriwvsai eijko\ß h™n aujto\ (auJtwˆv) to\ zwˆvon, ou¡te poih/sasan aujto/,
325Iamtemptedtorenderthesubstantiveoijkeivon byaverbalphraseinEnglishtotheeffect,“Thefirstclaimanylivingthingstakesistoitsownconstitutionanditsawarenessthereof.”
241
mh/t’ ajllotriwvsai mh/t’ oijkeiwsai. ajpolei/petai toi/nun le/gein
susthsame/nhn aujto\ oijkeiwvsai pro\ß eJauto/: ou¢tw ga\r ta/ te
bla/ptonta diwqeivtai kai\ ta\ oijkeiva prosi/etai.(D.L.VII.85).
ThisistheseminalstatementofStoicoijkei/wsiß.Inmakinglivingthings,Nature
appropriatesthemtoherself,andconsequentlycausesthecreaturestopossessasortof
proprietaryattachmenttothemselves(D.L.VII.85).Chrysippusfurtherspecifiesthat
attachmenttoselfentailstwoelements.First,alivingthingisattachedtoitsspecific
composition(su/stasiß)or,inotherwords,thewayitspartsfittogether.Second,some
implicitconsciousnessofthatconstitutionisimplicitlyactiveintheveryattachment.
Withthissortofinnateself‐attachmentthelivingthingnaturallyembraceswhatisakin
andappropriateandrepulseswhatmightdamageit.Thusoijkei/wsiß manifestsinthe
firstimpulseofself‐preservation(D.L.VII.85).Sofar,sogood.
ButChrysippus’strategyinthistextimmediatelystrikesanyonewhohasread
thefullrangeoftestimoniestoStoicoijkei/wsißassomehowodd.Lateraccountsmove
fromdescriptionsofinfantbehaviortoconclusionsaboutnaturalimpulse.Their
proceduremovesfromthebottomup.
ButChrysippussimplyassertsthatthefirstimpulseisself‐preservationand
proceedstodeducehisclaimfromtheassumptionthatNaturemadealllivingthings.326
SinceNaturemadethemitisunlikelythatshewouldbeindifferentorhostiletothem.326ThelogicallydeductivecharacterofChrysippus’doctrinehasledTroelsEngberg‐Pedersentoaningeniousargumentforthecoalescenceofpersonalandsocialoijkei/wsiß,seeEngberg‐Pedersen,Troels.1990.TheStoicTheoryofOikeiosis:MoralDevelopmentandSocialInteractioninEarlyStoicPhilosophy.Aarhus:AarhusUniversityPress.Theflaw,however,inEngberg‐Pedersen’sargumentisitssuccessrequireshisdisregardofthetwindoctrineofdiastrofh/andthepossibilityofsubstantialdevelopmentinthetwinStoicdoctrinesbetweenChrysippusandSeneca.
242
Thus,postulatingthatsheappropriatesorconsidersthemherownintheactofmaking
them.Next,Chrysippusconsidersitunlikelythathavingconsideredhercreaturesasher
own,Naturewouldmakethemindifferenttothemselves(alienationtoselfistacitly
rejectedasunthinkable).ThusChrysippusdeducesthatNaturemusthavemade
creatureswithanattachmenttothemselves(D.L.VII.85).
ThistopdownapproachseemstodiewithChrysippus.LaterStoicswillhaveto
defendtheiraccountagainstcounter‐descriptionsthatChrysippus,atleastinextant
texts,doesnotconfront.Wewillconsiderthemostcogentcounterdescriptionsindue
course.ButfirstwemustexploreasecondaspectofOldStoicoijkei/wsiß.
TheStoicsalsoclaimedanatural oijkei/wsißtoallhumanbeingsandthusto
society.ThisappropriationofhumansocietyformedthebasisforStoic
cosmopolitanism.Howthissocial oijkei/wsißrelatestotheearlieroijkei/wsißtoself‐
constitutionandcoherencehaslongexercisedinterpreters327andprovidedtargetsfor
philosophicalopponents.328Butperhapstheimmediateconnectionisrathersimpleand
organic.
327ThemostvigorousdefenseoflogicalunityisfoundinEngberg‐Pedersen,Troels.1990.TheStoicTheoryofOikeiosis:MoralDevelopmentandSocialInteractioninEarlyStoicPhilosophy.Aarhus:AarhusUniversityPress.Manyhavearguedforvariousdegreesofconnectionanddisconnectionbetweenthetwoversions.Pohlenz,M.1940.GrundfragenderStoischenPhilosophie.Göttingen:Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht.arguesthatthisdoctrineasitextendstocosmopolitanismformstheveryfoundationofStoicethics.Pembroke,S.G.1971.“Oikeiosis”inLong,A.A.1971.ProblemsinStoicism.London:AthlonePressmodifiesPolhenzconceptualarcheology,butagreesthatStoicethicsbeginshere.White,NicholasP.“TheBasisofStoicEthics”HarvardStudiesinClassicalPhilology83,pp.143‐178,andStriker,Gisela.1996.“TheRoleofOikeiosisinStoicEthics”inStriker,Gisela.1996.EssaysonHellenisticEpistemologyandEthics.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.,pp.281‐297findthedoctrineancillarytoOldStoicethicaldoctrine.328Cf.Carneades’plank(Lact.inst.V.17)discussedbelow
243
ConsidertheprogressioninPlutarch’stersesummaryofChrysippus’claim.
Immediatelyuponbirthweareappropriatedtoourselves,ourmembersandour
offspring”(oijkeiou/meqa pro\ß auJtou\ß eujqu\ß geno/menoi kai\ ta\ me/rh kai\ ta\ e¡kgona
ta\ eJautwvn., deStoic.Repugn.12.1038b=SVFIII.179).Theprogressionofattachment
movesfromself,tobodilymembersconstitutingtheself,andthentooffspring.The
severalcompetingembryologiesofthetime329allmakeroomforviewingoffspringas
essentiallyextensionsofoneself–fragmentsofthesamecorporealsoul,asitwere.Thus
appropriationtoselfandmymemberswouldnaturallyimplyasimilaraffectionformy
offspring.Perhaps,Chrysippus’initialclaimwentnofurther.330
Butmoreextensiveclaimscertainlyfollowed.Baseduponthisinitial
appropriationofchildrenasotherselves,onecouldpresumablyreasonbackwardand
forwardtofindsomedegreeofcorporeal‐psychiccontinuitywitheveryhumanbeing.
AndsincehumansasrationalanimalscontainasparkofNature’srationalfire,thatbond
ofsocialsolidarityextendsthroughthegodsabovetoeveryrationalanimal.Thusfor
theStoicnothingrationalisalien(SVFI.262263;III.314348).Andtheentirecosmos
formsonegrandsocietywithinthesingulardesignofNature.331
329AconcisesummaryofthethreeprimaryGreektheoriescanbefoundinvanderHorst,PieterWillem.1990.“Sarah’sSeminalEmission:Hebrews11:11intheLightofAncientEmbryology”inGreeks,RomansandChristians:EssaysinHonorofAbrahamJ.Malherbe.Minneapolis:FortressPress.330Aconsistentfailureinmoreglobalaccountsofunitybetweenthetwoformsofoijkei/wsißisthetendencytorelyheavilyonthetestimonyofCicero’sfin.IVVforChrysippeandoctrine.Infact,AntiochusofAscelonandPosidoniushaveheavilycoloredCicero’saccount.Cf.,White,NicholasP.“TheBasisofStoicEthics”HarvardStudiesinClassicalPhilology83,pp.143‐178andthediscussionofRomanStoiccommendatiobelow.331SeeColish,MarciaL.1985.TheStoicTraditionfromAntiquitytotheEarlyMiddleAges.StudiesintheHistoryofChristianThought,v.34‐35.Leiden:E.J.Brill,vol.1,pp.
244
Specificethicalconsequencesfollow.Somefindthemdeep,others
contradictory.332Itseemstheappropriationofnaturethatbeginsbymakingananimal
attachedtoitsownindividualwelfareendsbyincliningthesamerationalanimaltothe
welfareofallhumanbeings.ThisformedthebasisofStoiccosmopolitanisminethics.
Bynaturerationalanimalssetthecommonadvantagebeforetheirown(fin.III.64).
CarneadesseemstobethefirsttoattackthetwoformsofStoicoijkei/wsißas
inconsistent(LactantiusInst.V.17).333Howcantwoformsofoijkei/wsiß,one
fundamentallyegocentricanditscounterpartother‐oriented,bereconciled?Carneades
posesahypotheticaldilemma.Imagineasageamongacrewthatsuffersshipwreck.
Suddenlythesagefindshimselfinthewaterwithanothermanandasingleplankof
woodthatisonlysufficienttokeeponemanafloat.Thesagemustkilltheothermanor
drown.Whatwillhedo?Inotherwords,whichformofoijkei/wsißgoesdeeper?
ResolutionofthispredicamentprovedfruitfulfortheStoics,butthatresolutionbears
themarksofalatergenerationofStoicthinkersandwillbedealtwithinitsappropriate
place.
OldStoicDoctrineofdiastrofh/
SincetheStoicsimaginedhumanbeingsasborninastateofnature,whichinclines
themtovirtuesofself‐careandsocietalcare(ejpei\ hJ fu/siß ajforma\ß di/dwsin
38‐41;Vogt,KatjaMaria.2008.Law,Reason,andtheCosmicCity:PoliticalPhilosophyintheEarlyStoa.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress. pp. 65-110. 332ForcontemporarycritiqueseeBerges,Sandrine.2005.“LonelinessandBelonging:IsStoicCosmopolitanismstillDefensible?”ResPublica11,pp.3‐25.333Cicero’sderespublicacontainedtheprimarywitnesstoCarneades’twospeechesinRomeonsuccessivenights,thefirstinpraiseofjusticeandthesecondarguingnostateispossiblewithoutinjustice.Thesecondspeechcontainedthisparadox.TheprimarywitnesstoCicero’stextisLactantius’Inst.VVI.
245
ajdiastro/fouß.,D.L.VII.89=SVFIII.228),onemightwonderwhyhumanlifeisroutinely
foundinsuchasorrystate.Theconceptualtwintoadoctrineofhumannatureasnative
manifestsintheOldStoicdoctrineofdiastrofh,/ or“corruption,”whichdescribesafall
fromnatureintheverytransitionfrominfancytoadult,rationalanimal.
Chrysippusputsitthisway.334Arationalanimaliscorruptedwhenit
incorporatesfalsebeliefsinoneoftwoways.Ontheonehand,corruptionofreason
occurswhenonesuccumbstotheseductivenessofexternalmatters(diastre/fesqai
de\ to\ logiko\n zwˆvon, pote\ me\n dia\ ta\ß twvn e¡xwqen pragmateiwvn piqano/thtaß.,
D.L.VII.89=SVFIII.228).Allexternalsareindifferent.But,evidently,somehaveanaura
ofgoodness.Ifoneispersuadedbyappearancesbecausehelacksthestrengthofreason
toproperlyjudgeanddissent,335errorensuesandcorruptionbegins.Sincereasononly
functionswhenconsistent(oJmologi/a)withitself(SVFIII.459),introducingasinglefalse
beliefamountstoinfectingthehJgemoniko/nwithaviralerror(SVFIII.548556).Vice
followsinevitablyandpervasively(SVFIII.657670).Thisformofcorruptionbegins
withintheindividual,butcomeslaterandconstitutesadeviationfrominnatenature
(ejpei\ hJ fu/siß ajforma\ß di/dwsin ajdiastro/fouß.,D.L.VII.89=SVFIII.228).
Anothermodeofcorruptionstemsfromsocialinteraction(kath/chsiß twvn
suno/ntwn).Inthissecondmodeofdiastrofh/,rationalanimalspickupfalsebeliefs
throughthecorruptinginfluenceofhumanspeech.Aspeoplelistentotheirassociates
andechobacktheirdistortedjudgments,reasondegeneratesandproducesfurthervice
(diastre/fesqai de\ to\ logiko\n zwˆvon… pote\ de\ dia\ th\n kath/chsin twvn
334diastre/fesqai de\ to\ logiko\n zwˆvon, pote\ me\n dia\ ta\ß twvn e¡xwqen pragmateiwvn piqano/thtaß, pote\ de\ dia\ th\n kath/chsin twvn suno/ntwn: ejpei\ hJ fu/siß ajforma\ß di/dwsin ajdiastro/fouß.(D.L.VII.89=SVFIII.228).335Cf.thediscussionof“yielding”inchapter4.
246
suno/ntwn, D.L.VII.89=SVFIII.228).Thissecondformofcorruptionconstitutesa
twistingthatsomehowworksthroughthesecondformof oijkei/wsißtohumansociety.
NaturalInclinationtoPleasure:EpicureanCounterDescriptionsofInfancy
Ofcourse,Chrysippus’descriptionsofnativenaturecouldnotgounopposed.Aperusal
oftheextantwritingsofEpicurusrevealsthathisaccountofpleasureastheprinciple
andendofahappyliferequirednoappealtoinfancy(D.L.X.121135).336Asonewould
expectinapost‐Aristotelianaccountofnature,337Epicurus’argumentsinhisLetterto
Menoeceuspicturedarationaladult,reflectinguponhisexperienceofpleasureandpain,
asthearbitratorofnature.However,thisapproachleftEpicurus’doctrinesubstantially
exposedtopolemicalargumentsthateducation,notnatureresultsinthisorientationto
pleasure.
ThisdeficiencywassoonremediedintheEpicureantraditionandretroactively
attributedtoEpicurusinthedoxographicaltradition(D.L.X.137;SextusPyrr.hyp.
III.194195;adu.Math.XI.96;Cicerofin.I.30;I.71).338Inalllikelihood,theEpicurean
336EpicurusinhisLettertoMenoeceus(D.L.X.121135)providesanexpositionofhisdoctrineconcerningthenaturalendsofhumanlifewithoutonceappealingtoacradleargument.Cf.thediscussioninBrunschwig,Jacques.1986.“TheCradleArgumentinEpicureanismandStoicism”inSchofield,Malcolm,andGiselaStriker.1986.TheNormsofNature:StudiesinHellenisticEthics.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.pp.113‐144.337Aristoteliannatureisalwaysdefinedbytheactual,matureexampleofaspecies.Soinfancyismerepotencyforbecominganadultmale,Eth.Eud.II.1219b5;Pol.I.1260a14;VIII.1336a101339a30;Pr.X.46.898a19338TheconservatismoftheEpicureanschoolislegendaryamongtheancients.MemorizationandmeditationofEpicurus’texts,alongwiththeculttoEpicurusfacilitatedthisconservatism.ItalsonecessitatedretroactivelyascribinganyinnovationstoEpicurushimself.Cf.Clay,Diskin.1998.ParadosisandSurvival:ThreeChaptersintheHistoryofEpicureanPhilosophy.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress.forararedevelopmentalaccountoftheEpicureantradition.FordiscussionsofEpicureandoctrineandconservativismseeNussbaum,MarthaCraven.1994.TheTherapyof
247
accountofinfancywasfirstevokedasacounter‐descriptiontotheStoicdoctrinesof
oijkei/wsißand diastrofh/.TheEpicureanscouldalsoappealtotheinfantandthebeast
assomanypre‐conventionalmirrorsofnature.Alllivingthingsarebornwithan
immediate,innatedispositiontopursuepleasureasanendandtopullbackfrompain.
Sothefirstnaturalimpulseistoseekpleasureandavoidpain(D.L.X.137;SextusPyrr.
hyp.III.194195;adu.Math.XI.96;Cicerofin.I.30;I.71).Throughtheircounter‐
descriptiontheEpicureansspecificallysoughttodismantletheStoicdescriptionofwhat
isinnateandwhatiscorrupt.339Sotheyclaimedtheimpulsetopleasureforprecisely
thatperiodwhichisasyetuntaintedbydiscourse(cwri\ß lo/gou,D.L.X.137)andasyet
notperverted(ajdia/strofa o¡nta,SextusPyrr.hyp.III.194‐195).340
Inproposingtheircounter‐description,theEpicureanshadalongtraditionof
commonplaceassumptionsontheirside.Accordingtoreceivedwisdom,children,
womenandslaveslackthedeterminateformofreasonandthusarecharacteristically
giventothepassions(Plato,Rep.IV.431c;leg.VII.808c809a).Theexplanationsforthis
observationvariedwidely.Perhapschildrenstillpossessedtoomuchfireandthuswere
Desire:TheoryandPracticeinHellenisticEthics.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,andHadot,Pierre.2002.WhatisAncientPhilosophy?Cambridge,Mass:HarvardUniversityPress.339Ofcourse,theEpicureanssharedthebasicdistinction,althoughtheydifferedradicallyonwhichelementsofhumanexperiencewouldfitintowhichcategory.Cf,Epicurean’sversionofdiastrofh/throughincorporationofemptydesires(kenai/ ejpiqumi/ai)andtheirpunningdistinctionbetweencanonicalpreconceptionsandfalseassumptionspickedupfromsociety(ouj ga\r prolh/yeiß eijsi/n, ajll’ uJpolh/yeiß yeudeivß...,D.L.X.124).340TheabsenceofanyaccountofinfancyinEpicurus’extanttextscombinedwiththewayinwhichthedoxographicalattributionspresupposeandechotheStoic’spositionleadsmetofollowBrunschwiginconsideringtheEpicureandoctrinesaspost‐Chrysippeanresponses.Cf.,Brunschwig,Jacques.1986.“TheCradleArgumentinEpicureanismandStoicism”inSchofield,Malcolm,andGiselaStriker.1986.TheNormsofNature:StudiesinHellenisticEthics.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.pp.113‐144.
248
giventochaoticmotion(leg.II.664e).Whateverthereasons,childrenareeasilyswayed
byinfluenceofpleasureandsorrow(Rep.IV.431c;VII.808d).341Thismuchwasagreed
uponandlenttheEpicureancounter‐descriptionanimmediateairofself‐evidence.
InlightoftheEpicureans’challenge,Chrysippus’deductiveaccountofwhat
infancymustbeappearedoverlyvulnerabletoallegationsofquestionbegging.The
Stoicsneededanewargumenttosecuretheirclaimstoinnatenature.Aninnovative
solutionwasforthcoming,butitprovedasfrighteningtotheStoicsastotheEpicureans.
MiddleStoicAdaptations:Posidonius’ThreefoldTheoryofoijkei/wsiß
TheMiddleStoics(PanaetiusandPosidonius)wantedtobringStoicismuptodate.342In
sodoing,theystrategicallysoughtmediatingpositionsbetweenthemostrobustand
paradoxicalclaimsofChrysippusandtheintuitivelyobviouspositionsofcompeting
schools.Andtomakeroomfortheirrevisedpositions,bothtendedtoemphasizethe
noveltyofChrysippeanaccountsoveragainstZeno,theearlyPeripateticsandtheEarly
Academy,whichwereviewedasagenerallycohesiveunitnamedtheAncients(oiJ
palaioi/).343
341Forsimilarreasons,Aristotleconsideredchildrenprimarilyasunformedpotenciesofadultmales(Eth.Eud.II.1219b;Pol.I.1260a;VIII.1336a1339a).Plato’smetaphorofchildrenbeinglikewaxtablets–malleableandimpressionable–alreadymovesinthisdirection(leg.VII.789e;Rep.II.377ab).342Rist,JohnM.1969.StoicPhilosophy.London:CambridgeUniversityPress,chapters10‐11,andSandbach,FrancisHenry.1975.TheStoics.NewYork:Norton,ch.8,provideadequateoverviews.Abird’seyehistoryisavailableinSedley,David.2003.“TheSchool,fromZenotoAriusDidymus”inInwood,Brad.2003.TheCambridgeCompaniontotheStoics.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.343ThisrecoveryprojectalsodirectedtheaspirationsoftheMiddle‐PlatonistsbeginningwithAntiochusofAscelon,seeDillon,JohnM.1977.TheMiddlePlatonists,80B.C.toA.D.220.Ithaca,N.Y.:CornellUniversityPress.
249
AgoodexampleofthisprocessoccursinPanaetius’revisionofindifferentsas
lessergoods,andhisexplicitintroductionoftheprogessor(proko/ptwn)tomitigatethe
radicaldisjunctionbetweensageandfool.344Likewise,Posidoniusiswellknownforhis
impulsetoseekempiricalverificationforStoictheoriesandhiswillingnesstorevise
establishedtheorieswhenhisobservationssodemanded(deplacitisIV.390;Strabogeo.
II.3.8).
Posidoniuswasdeterminedtofindaduecauseorexplanation(aijti/a)for
everything(deplacitisIV.390;Strabogeo.II.3.8;F18,F95,F164,F187).345Andhismost
famousrevisionscomethroughseekinganexplanationforpassionasanexcessive
impulse(F159).TheChrysippeandoctrinesofoijkei/wsißanddiastrofh/aremeantto
explaintheuniversalityofpassioninaworldofthoseborninastateofnature.
PosidoniusthinksChrysippus’theoryfails(F169).Inparticular,Chrysippus’account
lacksthecapacitytoascribeanadequatecausetopassion’sexcess.Ifhumanbeings
werebornwithoutanyinnatetendencytopassion,whywouldtheerrorsofpeople
aroundthempossessanyenticementforthem(F169.5457)?346
Bypostulatingadistinctmechanismthroughsocialcorruption,Chrysippushas
pushedthequestionbackanotch,butcontinuestobegratherthananswerit.Forthe
questionnowbecomeswhydohumanbeingssoreadilysuccumbtoexternal
344SeeRoskam,Geert.2005.OnthePathtoVirtue:TheStoicDoctrineofMoralProgressandItsReceptionin(Middle)Platonism.AncientandMedievalPhilosophy,33.Leuven:LeuvenUniversityPress.345CitationsoffragmentsarefromthecollectioninPosidonius,LudwigEdelstein,andI.G.Kidd.1972.Posidonius.Cambridge:Cambridge:UniversityPress.346ejgw\ de\ uJpe\r eJkate/raß aujtwvn ajporwv kai\ prw/thß ge thvß ejk twvn pe/laß ginome/nhß. kai\ ga\r dia\ ti/ qeasa/mena kai\ ajkou/santa para/deigma kaki/aß oujci\ miseiv touvto kai\ feu/gei twˆv mhdemi/an oijkei/wsin e¡cein pro\ß aujto/…F169.5457
250
corruption?Consequently,byreworkingtheideaofoijkei/wsiß,Posidoniusintendsto
presentaformofStoicismwithgreaterexplanatorypower.
Posidonius’revisionisthoroughandrevolutionary.Bybringingtherootsof
diastrofh/intohisaccountofoijkei/wsiß,Posidoniusincorporatesandre‐describesthe
commonobservationsthatgavecurrencytoEpicureancounter‐descriptionsofinfancy.
Healsoprovidesarationalexplanationfortheexcessivenessofpassionateimpulses
(F34,F168,F187).347
Posidoniusarguesforthreedistinctformsofoijkei/wsiß (F169.1821).348
Children,asyetuntaught,haveanaturalattachment(oijkeiouvsqai)firsttopleasure
(pro\ß hJdonh\n),thentovictory(pro\ß∂ ni/khn),andfinallydevelopanaturalattachment
tothemorallygoodastheycometotheageofreason(pro\ß to\ kalo\n e¡cei tina\
fusikh\n oijkei/wsin,F169.1821).
Eachformof oijkei/wsißfulfillsanimportantroleinPosidonius’projectof
explanation.Thefirsttwoinparticularareworthfurtherconsideration.Theyboth
relatetoinfancyandchildhood,andsharetwocommonfeatures.
First,theyarenaturallydiastrophic,onemightsay,inthattheytendtoward
distortionandpassion(F169).Togethertheyformtheirrationaldynamicofthesoul349
andexertanemotivepull(paqhtikh\ oJlkh/)toexplainthemomentumunderlying
passionateexcess(F169).Theattachmenttopleasureprovidesacausalexplanationfor
347Ofcourse,asAugustinelaterrealizedwhenrefusingtopostulateanefficientcauseforAdam’sfall,arationalexplanationofvicetendstosimultaneouslyexpunge.ForthisreasonPosidonius’explanationwillnotreignundisputedinRomanStoicthought.348ou¢twß ou™n oijkeiouvsqai kai\ ta\ paidi/a fai/netai kai\ pro\ß hJdonh\n kai\ pro\ß∂ ni/khn, w¢sper u¢stero/n pote dei/knusin, ejpeida\n probai/nhˆ kata\ th\n hJliki/an, o¢ti pro\ß to\ kalo\n e¡cei tina\ fusikh\n oijkei/wsin. (F169.1821)349paqhtikai\ kinh/seiß (F153)oraiJ kata\ pa/qoß kinh/seiß (F158,169.115).
251
excessinappetitivepassion.Thesecondattachmenttovictorynamesthecauseof
passionateexcessrelatedtoaggressionanddomination.
Second,theyoccupypartofthesameconceptualspaceasthetwoformsof
Chrysippeanoijkei/wsiß.Thenon‐rationalimpulsetopleasuredovetailswithsomeof
thedutiesthatChryssipus’firstoijkei/wsißtoself‐preservation,butconcedesaplaceto
theEpicureans’observationaboutinfantileinclinationtopleasureandavoidanceof
painasthefirstnaturalimpulse(D.L.X.137;SextusPyrr.hyp.III.194195;adu.Math.
XI.96;Cicerofin.I.30;I.71).
Presumably,Posidoniusisnotmerelycapitulating,forheremainsopposedtothe
Epicureandoctrineofpleasureastheendofhumanlife.Posidonius’ethicand
psychologyofactionremainessentiallyStoic,forheinsiststhatnopassionovertakesan
adulthumanwithoutassentofthehJgemoniko/n.350ButPosidoniusalsoknowsthateven
Chrysippusexplicitlydeniedrationalitytochildren.
Posidoniusseemstobegrantingthatseekingpleasureandavoidingpain
constitutethefirstinchoateelementsofanon‐rationaldesirethatretrospectively,from
thevantageofreason’sonset,canbeseenasacomponentofthedesireforself‐
preservation.
Theimpulsetovictorylikewiseoccupiessomeoftheconceptualspaceclaimed
byChryssipus’second oijkei/wsißtowardrelationwithotherhumanbeings.
Competition,dominationandbattleare,afterall,waysofrelating,diastrophicthough
theymaybe.HerePosidoniusmayberespondingtothecriticismofCarneades
(Lactantius,Inst.V.17)byincorporatingcompetitionasaninchoate,non‐rational
350Seediscussioninchapter4above.
252
impulsewithinhisaccountofsocialattachment.Afterall,competitionrequiressome
degreeofsocialawareness.
Again,Posidoniusdoesnotadvocateunbridledpursuitofvictory,butseesthe
impulsetodominateasthenon‐rationalprecursortoafullerimpulsetosocial
attachment.Onthefarsideofreason’sadventonecanlookbackandseetheinchoate
beginningsofanimpulsethatreasoncantemperintoagenuineconcernforallhuman
beings.
Posidonius’complexthoughtpatternmightbeobliquelymanifestby
consideringonefragmentmoreclosely(F169.2634).351Posidoniusreportedly
explainedthatintheirtheoriesofoijkei/wsiß,Epicurusonlysawtheworstandthus
describedanoijkei/wsißtopleasureonly;Chryssipusonlysawthebestandthus
describedanoijkei/wsißtowhatismorallybeautifulandgood.Theancientsalone
theorizedallthreeformsofattachment(F169.2634).
Twopointssurfaceimmediately.First,Posidonius’critiquecontendswith
perceivedimplicationsandnotexplicitclaimsofChrysippus’theory.Posidoniussenses
anincapatibilitybetweenChrysippus’doctrineofinfancyandhisdoctrineofemergent
rationality,andherearticulatestheimplications.ForChrysippusdidnot,accordingto
anyextantfragment,claimaspecificoijkei/wsißtothegoodperse.Rather,oijkei/wsiß
servedanostensiblymoreremedialfunctionofshowingcontinuitybetweenthefirst
naturalimpulseandthenormsofrationalhumanlifetocome.Chrysippus’doctrineof 351triwvn ou™n tou/twn hJmivn oijkeiw/sewn uJparcouswvn fu/sei kaq’ e¢kaston twvn mori/wn thvß yuchvß ei™doß, pro\ß me\n th\n hJdonh\n dia\ to\ ejpiqumhtiko/n, pro\ß de\ th\n ni/khn dia\ to\ qumoeide/ß, pro\ß de\ to\ kalo\n dia\ to\ logistiko\n jEpi/kouroß me\n th\n touv ceiri/stou mori/ou thvß yuchvß oijkei/wsin ejqea/sato mo/nhn, oJ de\ Cru/sippoß th\n touv belti/stou fa/menoß hJmavß wˆjkeiwvsqai pro\ß mo/non to\ kalo\n, o¢per eivnai dhlono/ti kai\ ajgaqo/n. aJpa/saß de\ ta\ß treivß oijkeiw/seiß qea/sasqai mo/noiß toivß palaioivß uJphvrxe filoso/foiß.F.169.2634.
253
oijkei/wsißwasalwaystiedtoinfancy(D.L.VII.85),andsinceinfancyisnon‐rational
therewasnoquestionofexplicitattachmenttothemoralgood.Onlyafterreasonfully
emergedaroundagefourteen(SVFI.149;II.83),throughtheassemblingofasufficient
quantityofnotionsandconcepts(SVFII.841),wasahumanrationalandthuscapableof
moralgoodnessorvice(SVFII.841).
Likewise,pleasureandvictoryareneitherevilnorgood,butindifferent
accordingtoStoicethics(SVFIII.71;III.117123).Allthingsbeingequalandin
conformitywithNature’sdictates,theStoiccouldrationallyprefervictorytodefeat,and
bodilypleasuretopain.SoEpicurus’preferenceforpleasurewouldnothavetobebad
atallifdetachedfromthemorepervasive,erroneousclaimsaboutpleasureassupreme
end.AndbyChrysippus’theoryanon‐rationalanimalsuchasaninfant,whichlacked
thefullcapacityforjudgmentandassent,couldbeneitherviciousnorgoodintending
towardpleasure.
SowhatisPosidonius’point?Hiscritiqueseemstobethis.Bytacitlyprojecting
therationalityofadulthumansbackoninfancyandchildhood,Chrysippusartificially
purifiedoijkei/wsißandhomogenizedthehumanpsyche.Asaresult,Chrysippuscould
nolongeradequatelyexplainthepassions(F161;F164;F168).Likewise,Epicurean
theoriesofpleasureasthefirstimpulsewerejustfinewhenleftininfancy.Whatelse
couldbeexpectedfroman,asyet,non‐rationalanimal?TheEpicureansonlybecame
viciouswhentheyinsistentlyrefusedtoriseabovethataffinitywhenemergentreason
dictated.352ThusPosidoniusstrengthensStoicethicsbyvaccinatingitwithelementsof
counter‐observationsfromcompeting(EpicureanandAcademic)schools.
352ForamoresympatheticandinternalperspectiveontheEpicureanschool,IsuggeststartingwiththelifeinD.L.X,thentheoverviewsprovidedinHadot,Pierre.2002.What
254
TranscendentalArgumentsfromInfancy:RomanStoicSynthesisandCorrection
Generallyspeaking,theRomanStoicssoughttore‐claimtheOldStoicaccountsby
synthesizingandcorrectingtheaccountsofChrysippusandPosidonius.Indeed,the
tensionbetweentheMiddleandOldStoicaccountsdrovetheLaterStoicstotruly
innovativephilosophicalwork.353Inthepreviouschapter,wesawSenecahardatwork
synthesizingOldandMiddleStoicaccountsofthepassions.Senecastrategically
arrangedPosidonius’,Chrysippus’andZeno’sprimarydefinitionswithinanarrative
accountofthreemovementsinthelifecycleofapassion.Similarlythoughtfulworkled
toseveralphilosophicaladvancesinPost‐Posidonianaccountsof oijkei/wsiß and
diastrofh /.
LatinizingtheStoics:SomePhilologicalCorrelations
SincethebulkofourtextualevidencenowshiftstoLatin,afewphilologicalcorrelations
mustprecedeourexplorationofLateStoicaccounts.CicerofirstbroughttheStoic
doctrinesofoijkei/wsiß and diastrofh /overintoLatin.HavingstudiedwithPosidonius
inRhodes(78‐77B.C.),CiceroincorporatedandrevisedsubstantialsectionsofStoicisAncientPhilosophy?Cambridge,Mass:HarvardUniversityPress.,Nussbaum,MarthaCraven.1994.TheTherapyofDesire:TheoryandPracticeinHellenisticEthics.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress.,andStriker,Gisela.1993.“EpicureanHedonism”inSymposiumHellenisticum,JacquesBrunschwig,andMarthaCravenNussbaum.1993.Passions&Perceptions:StudiesinHellenisticPhilosophyofMind:ProceedingsoftheFifthSymposiumHellenisticum.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.353ScholarlyresearchisgraduallycorrectingtheoldnotionthattheRomanStoicsweremeremoralizerswithlittlecapacityforconceptualproductivity.Foracurrentappraisal,seeSorabji,Richard.2000.EmotionandPeaceofMind:fromStoicAgitationtoChristianTemptation.TheGiffordLectures.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.;Inwood,Brad.2005.ReadingSeneca:StoicPhilosophyatRome.Oxford:ClarendonPress.;Reydams‐Schils,GretchenJ.2005.TheRomanStoics:Self,Responsibility,andAffection.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
255
ethicsinhisownwritings.SeveralsectionsofdefinibusIIInotonlytranslate,but
LatinizeandappropriatetheStoicterms.354Foroijkei/wsißCicerosuppliesaLatin
phraseconciliatioetcommendatio,“ajoiningtogetherandapproval”(fin.III.V.16).
Senecapreferstheverbalformulaconciliarisibi,“tobejoinedtooneself”(ep.121.14).
AulusGelliusemploysthephraseamoretcaritasnostri,“loveandcareforourselves”
(NoctesAtticaeXII.V.7).
AsimilardiversityofterminologymarkstheLatinreceptionofdiastrofh/.
Ciceroagainemploysafewtermstocopiouslycommunicate355thisideaasdeprauatio,
“distorting”(Tusc.III.I.12)orprauitas,“crookedness”(Leg.I.11.31).Hismostvividand
poeticdepictionsenvisioncorruptionspreadingfromveryearlyinlifeaswedrinkin
deceptionwiththenurse’smilk(cumlactenutriciserroremsuxisse.,Tusc.III.I.2)356or
sufferstainingandbendingatthehandoftutors(…quitenerosetrudescumacceperunt,
inficiuntetflectunt,utvolunt…,leg.I.17.47).Senecatoousesarichvarietyoflanguage,
preferringtodescribetheprocessofcorruptionratherthansimplytranslatetechnical
terms.HisdescriptionswillbeexploredbelowwhenweconsiderRomanStoic
peculiaritiesinadaptingthisdoctrine.ButonemoreLatintranslatormustbe
mentioned.ChalcidiusinhiscommentariusadTimaeum165‐168providesaprotracted,
354FortheRomanprojectofnotonlytransmittingbutreplacingGreekthought,cf.thefirstchapterofCopeland,Rita.1995.Rhetoric,Hermeneutics,andTranslationintheMiddleAges:AcademicTraditionsandVernacularTexts.CambridgeStudiesinMedievalLiterature,11.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.355Notehismethodologicalstatement–nectamenexprimiverbumeverbonecesseerit,utinterpretesindisertisolent,cumsitverbumquodidemdeclaretmagisusitatum;equidemsoleoetiam,quodunoGraeci,sialiternonpossum,idempluribusverbisexponere(fin.III.4.15).356ForadiscussionofRomannotionsofphysicalcharactertransferencethroughmilk,whichaddressesacomplementaryaspectofthistext,cf.discussioninchapter2above.
256
andconceptuallyconvoluted,expositionoftheStoicdoctrineofdiastrofh/.Therein
Chalcidiusglossesdiastrofh/asperuersio.357
PostPosidonianConciliatioetCommendatio
CiceroandtheRomanStoicsquicklyreaffirmseparatedoctrinesofcommendatio358and
peruersio359inresponsetoPosidonius’substantialcollapsingofthedoctrines.
Post‐Posidonianaccountsshareacommonstrategy.Whileincorporatinglarge
sectionsofPosidonius’moreempiricalaccount,post‐PosidonianStoicsproceedby
arguingthatarevisedChrysippeanoijkei/wsiß suppliestheconditionsforpossibility
beneaththeEpicureanandskepticalcounter‐observations,whichPosidoniushad
conceded.NodoubttheyconsideredthisaverbalizationandextensionofChrysippus’
tacitassumptions.ButitcertainlyconstitutedanadvanceinStoicdoctrine.
SoinCicero’sfullestaccountofcommendatio,Catoexplicitlyrejectsthe
EpicureanandPosidonianaccountsofthefirstnaturalimpulsebecauseoftheethical
dangersinherenttocedingthatposition(fin.III.V.17).360Catoprovidesananalytic
357Calcidius’glosshasbecomestandardinmodernscholarshipbecausevonArnimusedittosubtitlethesectionoffragmentsreferringtodiastrofh/asDeperuersionerationis(SVFIII.V.3).358ForthesakeoffidelitytoourLatinwriters,andacknowledgingthesignificantdevelopmentsinthedoctrine,IwillusecommendatiotorefertoLatinStoicaccountsofthedoctrineearlierStoicsdevelopedasoijkei/wsiß.359Likewise,foreaseofreferenceIwillgenerallyrefertoLatinStoictheoriesofdiastrofh/asaccountsofperuersio.ToproduceanadjectivalversionIusearangeofterms,fromdiastrophic(playingofftheGreek)toperverse,twistedorbentplayingoffvariousLatinequivalents.Ofcourse,indiscussingquotationsIwillusewhatevertermthespecificauthorprefers,againintheinterestofinterpretivefidelity.360Inprincipiisautemnaturalibuspleriquestoicinonputantuoluptatemesseponendam;quibusegouehementerassentior,ne,siuoluptatemnaturaposuisseiniisrebusuideaturquaeprimaeappetuntur,multaturpiasequantur.,fin.III.V.17
257
refutationoftheEpicureanpleasurethesis.361Cato,asapost‐PosidonianStoic,argues
thatthesearchforpleasuremightexplainrootingforthebreastafterthefirstnursing
session.Butwhywouldthenewlybornroot?Thefirstimpulseprecedesanyexperience
ofpleasure,whatcouldunderliethatimpulse?
Appetiteitself,whetherforpleasureorpreservation,presupposesadeeper
senseofselfandaffectionforthatself(fieriautemnonposseutappeterentaliquidnisi
sensumhaberentsuieoquesediligerent.,finIII.V.16).362Thus,thefirstimpulsemust
correlatetothemostelementalformofself‐love,whichisnotpleasurebutpreservation
ofself‐integrityandhealth(necueroutuoluptatemexpetatnaturamouetinfantem,sed
tantumutseipsediligat,utintegrumsesaluumqueuelit.,fin.II.xi.33).Pleasureisonlythe
aftermathofsatisfyingarequirementforself‐preservation.Ifyougetbeneathpleasure
andpainyouwillfindthatitsconditionofpossibilityiscommendatioasself‐love(ex
quointellegidebetprincipiumductumesseasediligendo.,fin.III.V.1617).
SoCicero’ssummarystatementofthefirstimpulsedrawstogetherthe
implicationsofself‐care.363Frombirth,animalsarejoinedtothemselvesandapproveof
theirownpreservation(simulatquenatumsitanimal(hincenimestordiendum),ipsum
sibiconciliarietcommendariadseconservandum,fin.III.V.16).Morespecifically,they361Inthisdiscussion,IwillhighlightthecontinuitybetweenCicero’susageandtheRomanStoics.ForthepeculiarlyCiceronianadaptationsofcommendatioandthefinepointsofhisdissentfromtheStoics,IreferthereadertoNoe,DavidCraig.2003.Oikeiosis,ratio,andnatura:theStoicChallengetoCicero'sAcademisminDefinibusandNaturadeorum.Ph.D.Thesis.UniversityofIowa,2003362Long,A.A.1993.“Hieroclesonoikeiosisandselfperception”reprintedinLong,A.A.1996.StoicStudies.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.assimilatesthepassagesinCicero,SenecaandHieroclesandoffersthecontemporarynotionof“proprioception”asahandyequivalentforoijkei/wsißorcommendatio.363Placethis…quorumratiomihiprobatur,simulatquenatumsitanimal(hincenimestordiendum),ipsumsibiconciliarietcommendariadseconservandumetadsuumstatumeaquequaeconservantiasunteiusstatusdiligenda,alienariautemabinterituiisquesrebusquaeinteritumvideanturaffere(fin.III.V.16).
258
lovetheirstatusorconditionandthusthethingsthatpreservethatcondition.Likewise,
theyaresetatvariancewithdestructionandthingsthatseemtoleadtoruin(fin.
III.V.16).
Seneca,askingwhatwouldbetheconditionforseekingpleasureandavoiding
pain,findsself‐possessionofone’sconstitutionunderneath(ep.121.17).364Actions,as
distinguishedfrommeremotions,conformtopatternsofreferentiality.Thisisdonefor
thesakeofthat(debetenimaliquidesse,adquodaliareferantur.,ep.121.17).Sothe
Epicureanobservesthatweseekpleasureandfleepain.Yes,butseekandfleefor
whom?Forme.Ergomeicuramago(ep.121.17).AndifIdoallthingsforthesakeof
self‐care,self‐careispriortoallactions.Again,commendatiotoself‐careformsthe
conditionforthepossibilityofseekingpleasureandshunningpain.365
Thistranscendentalstrategyofargumentationalsounderscoredrelevant
counter‐examplesinearlychildhood.Ifattainingpleasureandavoidingpainwerethe
naturalendofaction,thenabasicfeatureofanimaldevelopmentwouldbeinexplicable.
Consider,Senecaproposes,theinfant’simpulsetoattainnatural,adultmotion(ep.
121.8).Thefledglingtoddlerwillrepeatedlyendurethepainofcollapseandpress
himselfthroughtearsuntilheattainsthecapacitytostandandwalk.Likewise,the
tortoisewhenturnedonitsbackfeelsnopain,yetwillnotrestuntilitturnsitselfover
(ep.121.8).Theseimpulsesstemfromadeepersenseofone’sconstitutionandits
364Primumsibiipsumconciliaturanimal,debetenimaliquidesse,adquodaliareferantur.Voluptatempeto,cui?Mihi.Ergomeicuramago.Doloremrefugio,proquo?Prome.Ergomeicuramago.Siomniaproptercurammeifacto,anteomniaestmeicura.Haecanimalibusinestcunctisnecinseritur,sedinnascitur(ep.121.17).365AsimilarargumentisfoundinthefragmentsofHierocles,aHellenisticpost‐PosidonianStoic.Thefirstsensationuponbirthisself‐perceptionofcorporealsoulinone’sparticularbody,whichprovidestheimplicitknowledgeforthefirstimpulseofself‐preservation.Cf.HieroclesElements,papyruscol.I.34‐39,51‐57,II.1‐9.
259
properfunction(ep.121.9).Desireforfullfunctionalityisentailedintheinnateimpulse
toself‐preservation.Thuspleasureandpain,abstractedfromreplenishmentandinjury,
aresimplyextraneousaccretionstocommendatio.
ThreeStageCommendatio:IncorporatingPosidonius’DevelopmentalSchema
CiceroandtheRomanStoicsemphaticallyrejectedPosidonius’collapsingofoijkei/wsiß
and diastrofh/.However,oncetheyremovedthediastrophicseedsfromhisaccount
throughtranscendentalargumentation,theyfoundhisthreefolddevelopmentalschema
ofcommendatioworthretaining.366
LikePosidonius,Senecaclaimsadistinctcommendatiotoreason(ep.121.14).
Andthederivationisnotmysterious,SenecaconfessesPosidonius’stimulusinthe
openinglinestoLucilius(ep.121.1).Senecaprojectsanimaginaryvoiceofdissentinto
thisletteronLucilius’behalfinordertodrivetheargumentdeeper.367EvidentlySeneca
claimsthateverylivingthingisattachedtoitsownconstitution(omneanimalprimum
constitutionisuaeconciliari...,ep.121.14).ThusfarSenecatravelsinChrysippus’
company.Butahumanbeing’sconstitutionisrationalandthushumansattachto
themselvesnotonlyasliving,butalsoasrationalbeings.AtthispointPosidonius’third,
distinctformof oijkei/wsißemergesinSeneca’steaching.
366Inthepreviouschapter,wesawSenecastrategicallyarrangingPosidonius’,Chrysippus’andZeno’sprimaryemphaseswithinanarrativeaccountofthreemovementsinthelifecycleofapassion.ThereareclearsignsofthesamenarrativefusionofChrysippeanandPosidonianelementsinSeneca’sdoctrineofcommendatio.367Foruseofspeech‐in‐characterinRomaneducation,cf.QuintillianInst.IX.2.30.ForastudyofepistolaryusageseeStowers,StanleyK.1995.“Romans7.7‐25asaSpeech‐in‐Character(proswpopoii/a)”inEngberg‐Pedersen,Troels.1995.PaulinhisHellenisticContext.Minneapolis:FortressPress
260
SoLucilius,inhisimaginedvoice,asksthecrucialquestion.Howcananinfant,
thatlacksreason,attachitselftoarationalconstitution?(quomodoergoinfansconciliari
constitutionirationalipotest,cumrationalisnondumsit?,ep.121.14).Withthatquestion
thestageissetforSeneca’ssignaturesynthesisofChrysippeanandPosidonianthought.
Senecaintroducesatimed,narrativeelementintothetheory.Commendatiois
alwaystoone’sconstitution,butconstitutionschangeovertime.AndSenecanames
thosetimes.Significantly,onlyfourofsixagesarementionedwithreferencetothe
humanconstitution–infancy,boyhoodandadolescenceallincontrastwitholdage(alia
estaetasinfantis,pueriadulescentis,senis…ep.120.16).Thetraditionalagesofyouthand
maturity(iuuentusetgrauitas)arefirstomitted,andthenlumpedtogetherwitholdage.
Seneca’sassumptionseemstobethatthefirstthreedevelopmentalstages,
correspondingtoinfancy,childhoodandadolescence,possessdistinctiveconstitutions.
Posidonius’threefoldoijkei/wsiß lurksinthebackground.
Senecaonlydealswiththefirstcommendatiotoself‐preservationatlength.And
therehedemonstratesthatanyinclinationtowardpleasureandawayfrompainis
epiphenomenaltoanunderlyingdesireforhealthorself‐preservation(amorsalutis;ep.
120.20).ButthatselectivityofemphasiswassetfromthebeginningwhenSeneca
proposedtoexaminewhetherallanimalspossessasenseoftheirownconstitutions(ep.
121.5).
Onemightwonderifthesameprocedurewaseverappliedtotheothertwo
modesofPosidonianoijkei/wsiß.Wefindnoexplicitargumentsaimedatunearthing
structuralconditionsforanimpulsetovictory.However,theimagery,foundinCicero
(off.I.XVII.5358)andHierocles(Stobaeus,Florilegium4.671),ofsocialattachmentbeing
261
gradatedlikeconcentriccirclesgoesalongwaytowardansweringCarneades’
conundrumoftheshipwreckedsage.
Likewise,bysynthesizingaccountsofself‐preservationandhumanattachment
withinanarrativeaccountofappropriation,theconcentriccirclesmakeroomfor
Posidonius’observationofinnatecompetitivenessinchildrenwithoutmakingvictory
itselfaprimarynaturalobject.
Becausehumanattachmentmovesinconcentriccircles,onewouldexpect
competitiveimpulsestonaturallyariseininteractionswiththeouterringsinacontext
ofscarcity.Moreover,themoraladmonitionfoundinHierocles’accountthatoneshould
seektomovepeoplefromoutertoinnerringsassumesthatawarenessofattachmentto
successiveringsproceedsthroughtime.368Soanarrativestrategyseemstoundergird
post‐Posidonianaccountsofthesecondformofcommendatio.
Extendingthedoctrineofcommendatiobeyondchildhoodtotheageofreasonis
uniquelyPosidonian,butCiceroandSenecaclearlyadoptedadistinctthirdformof
commendatio(fin.III.V.1718;ep.121.1417).InSenecathecommendatiotoreason
emergesonlyinadolesence,asthechildconstitutionallydevelopsintoarationalanimal
(ep.121.1417).CicerodoesnotacceptthetechnicalStoicaccountofreason,andthus
findsinchoateexpressionsofreasoneveninchildren,whichheusestoarguefora
commendatiotoknowledge.Childrendelightinrationaldiscoverybythemselvesapart
fromanyconsiderationofutility(fin.III.V.1718).Thiscontinuestodevelopsothatwe
consideractsofcognition(cogitationes)appropriatetoengageinfortheirownsake,
368Long,A.A.1993.“Hieroclesonoikeiosisandselfperception”reprintedinLong,A.A.1996.StoicStudies.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.providesahelpfuldiscussion.
262
becausetheyinteractwithandcontainadegreeoftruth(fin.III.V.17).Hereinliesthe
anthropologicalbasisforthesciences(fin.III.V.18).
ReassertingPeruersio:RomanStoicRehabilitationsofexternaldiastrofh/
TheRomanStoicprojectofreconstructingatranscendentaldoctrineofcommendatio
underlyingcorruptionrequiredasimilarreconstructionoftheolddoctrineof
diastrofh/.PosidoniusarguedthatChrysippus’purelyexternaldoctrinecouldnot
accountforcorruptionasmanifestedinpassionateexcess.
TheRomanStoicsemphaticallydistinguishedcommendatiofromperuersio.
ConsiderSeneca’sstatement.Wearewrongtoconsiderfaultsasinbornandnatural.
Ratherlikeanenemythey“overtakeus”orlikebadfoodwe“ingest”them(Errasenim,
siexistimasnobiscumuitianasci;superuenerunt,ingestasunt.,ep.95.55).Errorandvice
comefromtheoutsidein.SomuchChrysippuscouldhavesaid,butapost‐Posidonian
Stoicneedstoexplaintwothingsinmoredetail.First,howcanexternalthingssoeasily
penetrateandcorruptinnategoodness?Or,whywouldtheinnatelypurebetempted?
Second,bywhatmechanismdoescorruptionhappenearlyenoughtoaccountfor
Posidonius’observationsofimpulsestopleasureandcompetitivedominationin
children?
Chrysippushadalreadyconceptualizedatwofoldmechanismofdiastrofh/(D.L.
VII.89).Thefirstmechanism,namelythepersuasivenessofexternalaffairs,operatedby
afailureofanindividual’sfacultyofjudgment,butenvisionedanadolescentalready
enmeshedinsocietyastheagentofthatmisjudgment(D.L.VII.89).Ciceropicksupthis
internalfailureofjudgment,butafterPosidoniustheStoicizingtheoristneedstospecify
263
howveryearlyexperienceofexternalsalreadypersuadestomisjudgment.SoCicero
specifiesthemechanismofdeceptionasvice’spartialimitationofvirtue(Leg.I.11.31).
Thefirstcorruptingmisjudgmentstemsfromthelevityandcharmofpleasure
bearingagenuinebutpartialresemblancetogoodness(Leg.I.11.31).Likewise,
reputationeasilymasqueradesasgoodcharacterthroughaconfusionofeffectforits
cause(Leg.I.11.32).Theinherentdeceptivenessofexternalappearancestoamindnot
yetequippedwithafullcapacityforproperjudgmentallowsperuersiotoalmost
immediatelyovertakenativecommendatio.Thedistinctionbetweencommendatioand
peruersioissecuredthroughtranscendentalargumentation,butscarcelyahair’s
breadthseparatestheminhumanexperience.
ThesecondChrysippeanmechanism,kath/chsiß,explicitlyattributes
corruptiontotheverbalizedjudgmentsofsocietalpeers(D.L.VII.89).AfterPosidonius,
theRomanStoicsmustproduceanaccountofhowverbalizedmisjudgmentscorruptin
amuchearlierstageoflife.Theirgeneralstrategyistoreadthesocietalsourcesof
corruptionbackintoveryearly,post‐natalexperience.
Forinstance,Cicerodescribeshowthelittlespark(igniculos)ofhealthandvirtue
instilledinusatbirthisoverwhelmedfirstbythedeceptionwedrinkinwithour
nurse’smilk,probablytheevilofcallingpleasantfeelingsgood(Tusc.III.I.12).369
369CalcidiusinaPosidonianconflationofinternalandexternalfactors,markedbyPosidonius’signatureinterestinphysiognomy,postulatesaconfusionbetweenpleasurablerelieffrompainandgoodnessemergingintheveryswaddlingandwarmingbynursesatbirth(comm.adTim.165168).Boeft,J.den.1970.CalcidiusonFate;hisDoctrineandSources.PhilosophiaAntiqua,v.18.Leiden:Brill.pp.58‐65,missesthePosidonianelements.ButA.A.LonginhisreviewofdenBoeftin1975.ClassicalReview25:1,pp.52‐54,andReydams‐Schils,Gretchen.1999.DemiurgeandProvidence:StoicandPlatonistReadingsofPlato's"Timaeus".Monothéismesetphilosophie,2.Turnhout:Brepols.,ch.5,accuratelydistinguishthePosidonianspinCalcidiusputsonChrysippus’doctrine.
264
Parents,teachers,thepoets,andpublicopinion–thewholeeducationalprojectofa
pervertedsociety–subsequentlyreinforceandentrenchthatdeception(Tusc.III.II.3).
CorrupthabitsandfoolishopinionstwistanddivertourmindsfromthepathNature
originallysetthemon(leg.I.29).Asaresultthesoulbecomesgravelyillwithvicious
beliefsandfindsitselfindireneedofphilosophicaltherapy(Tusc.III.III.57).
Senecaalsoemphasizesthesocialtransmissionofperuersio(ep.94.5355,68).
Evenasapersoningestsbadness,hepassesitontoothers(ep.94.54).Parentsand
slavespropellittleonesintodistortion.Parentsinstillwithinusadmirationforsilver
andgoldasgoods,andthatseedsproutsandgrowswiththechild(ep.115.11).Through
suchtwistedexamplesandverbalizedmisjudgmentswecomeovertimetohaveour
chestsfilledwitheviltalkwhichwemustclearoutandreplacewithmoralprecepts(ep.
94.68).
AugustinianInfancy:NatureasCreationalandFallenNativity
IncomposinghisaccountofinfancyinConfessionesI,Augustinedisplaysanuanced
awarenessofthephilosophicalissuesunderlyingStoicaccountsofcommendatioand
peruersioandcraftshisowndepictioninasubtle,criticalinteractionwiththem.
Ofcourse,Augustine’sworldisnotfundamentallyStoic.Hisontologyis
emphaticallynon‐corporealinitsdepths,havinggratefullyandcriticallylearnedfrom
Platonistaccountsofnon‐bodilysubstance(conf.VII.9.1317.23).370Likewise,human
beingsaredesignedbothforreceivingeternaltruththroughcontemplationandfor
temporaleffectivenessthroughaction(s.dom.m.II.71Cumenimbeatauitaactioneet
370ForPlotiniandoctrineseeEnn.VI.45;VI.9andIV.2;cf.alsoan.quant.6;c.ep.Man.16.20;Ep.166.4forAugustine’sappropriation.
265
cognitionecompleatur,actiofacultatemuirium,contemplatiomanifestationemrerum
desiderat;cf.alsos.dom.m.I.38;exp.Gal.19.9;conf.XIII.18.22;c.Faust.22.2728;ciu.
VIII.4).TheStoicshavealottosayaboutaction,butnothingaboutcontemplatingthings
non‐bodilyandimmutable.371SoAugustine’sfruitfulinteractionwiththeStoicsis
confinedtotherealmofthepsychologyofaction.
ButAugustinecannotsimplyembracetheStoics’psychologyofaction
unaltered.372Humannature,onaChristianreading,nowhasacrackinit.Whilethat
flawdoesnotgoallthewaybacktocreation,itcertainlyprecedesanyindividualhuman
experience(conf.I.7.11).Sothenaturedistinctfromperuersio,whichtheHellenistic
philosopherssought,isfoundinprimordialcreationalone(cumautemdelibera
uoluntaterectefaciendiloquimur,deillascilicetinquahomofactusestloquimur.,lib.arb.
III.52).Theinnateisalreadydiastrophicorperverse(conf.I.7.11).Infancymostly
providesamirroroffallennature.
However,withthattheologicalqualificationthefollowingisclear.When
discussinginfantilepsychologyofaction,Augustine’saccountofhumanlifelargely
conformstoaRomanStoicaccountofcommendatiotothreeformsofactionemerging
sequentiallywithconstitutionalchangesthroughoutinfancyandboyhood.373Indeed,
theorderlyemergenceofathreefoldcommendatioprovidesthebasicstructurefor
371Ofcourse,accordingtoStoicontologyanythingunchangeable,eitherthroughactionorpassion,isnon‐bodily,andanythingnon‐bodilyisnon‐existent.372Cf.chapters3and4fordiscussionofspecificalterations.373AugustinefollowsCiceroinfindingtheearlyemergenceofacommendatiotoknowledgeinboyhood.ThisworksforAugustineinpartbecauseofaverynon‐Stoicdistinctionbetweenthecommendatiototemporalknowledgeandtheemergenceofcontemplativereason,whichorientsalwaystoeternalwisdom(conf.XIII.21.31).Foradiscussionofthispeculiardistinctionandtheroleofcontemplationitimplies,seechapter6below.
266
ConfessionesI.6.710.16,atwhichpointAugustineshiftstheprimaryfocustoanaccount
ofsociallytransmittedperuersio.
AttheendofConfessionesI,Augustinedrawsthethreeformsofcommendatio
togetherforthereaderanddistinguishestheunderlyingcreationalimpulsesfromtheir
innatelyperverseexpressions(conf.I.31).Augustinealsointimatesaprocessof
redeemingcommendatiothatfurtherrevealshowcreatedcommendatiocorrespondsto
RomanStoictranscendentalformsofcommendatio(conf.XIII.21.31).Wewillexamine
thesetextsindetailinduecourse,butofferashortsummarynowasagracetothe
reader.
CommendatioandPeruersio:Augustine’saccountinnuce
Thehumanbeingsequentiallymanifeststhreecreatedformsofcommendatioinan
alreadypervertedmanner.Thereisnotemporal,developmentaldistinctionbetween
commendatioandperuersioinhumanexperienceonAugustine’stelling.First,the
impulsetoself‐preservationofbodilyhealthemergesalreadytwistedintothesearch
forcarnalpleasure(conf.I.6.7).Acorrelativeaversiontopainandinjurycomeswiththis
impulse.Next,theimpulsetorelatesociallyemergeswrappedupinathirstforvictory,
dominationandeventuallyreputation(conf.I.6.88.13).Correlatively,aversiontodefeat,
frustrationandshamemanifests.Finally,thecreatedimpulsefortemporalknowledge
emergesasperversecuriosityorcravingforsenseexperienceinitselfirrespectiveof
truth(conf.I.9.1410.16).Eveninthethrowsofcuriosity,humanbeingsfindthemselves
aversetobeingdeceivedandfallingintoerror.Thusthenaturalpatternsof
commendatioemergealreadycorruptandeastofEden,ifyouwill.
267
Theinnateperversionofcommendatiodoesnotrenderthedoctrineofperuersio
irrelevantoruselessforAugustine.FortheRomanStoicshadpasseddowntwo
mechanismsofperuersio–namely,first‐handerrorsofjudgmentcausedbythe
deceitfulnessofappearancesandtheverbalizedmisjudgmentsofsocietyechoedbackin
distortedjudgmentsbytheindividual(Cicero,Leg.I.11.3132;Tusc.III.1.13.7;Seneca,
ep.94.5355,68;ep.115.11).
Augustinehastwosimilarcategoriesofcorruption:naturaandconsuetudo
(Simpl.I.I.10).Augustinenamesourinnatetendenciestofallintodeceptionand
perverseactionasthepenaltyofignoranceanddifficultyborneinourfallennature(lib.
arb.III.52).Thismuchisnaturaafterthefall,anditentirelysubsumesthefirstmodeof
peruersioinRomanStoicthought.
However,thesecond,socialmodeofperuersiofindsadistinctplacein
Augustine’saccountthatisclearlycontinuouswithitsfunctioninRomanStoicthought.
Wereceiveandsociallytransmittwistedformsofconsuetudo(exp.Gal.8.2).374These
galvanizethechainofthewillconstitutedbypenallymortalnature.AsinCicero,the
verbalizedjudgmentsofsociety,imbibedthroughinteractionwithparents,teachers,
poetsandpublicopinion,polluteandcorruptpeopleintheirveryearlyformative
periods(cf.,Tusc.III.1.13.7inrelationtoexp.Gal.8.2;en.Ps.136.21).375Specifically,
diastrophicformationfindssocialembodimentinthelateRomanschools,376the
374Segregaturquodammododeuentrematris,quisquisacarnaliumparentumconsuetudinecaecaseparatur,acquiescitautemcarnietsanguini,quisquiscarnalibuspropinquisetconsanguineissuiscarnalitersuadentibusassentitur,exp.Gal.8.2375LaterAugustinewillusethenotionofearlypost‐natalperuersiotodescribetheplightofthosebornintoschismaticfamilies,en.Ps.30.2.2.8;64.6.376Kevane,Eugene.1964.AugustinetheEducator;aStudyintheFundamentalsofChristianFormation.Westminster,Md:Newman.providesahelpfulaccountofAugustine’squarrelwiththeLateRomanschools.
268
remnantsofthecursushonorumchartingascendencyinpubliclife,andfinallythe
contemplativepretensionsofpaganphilosophy.377Thus,whilenoperiodofhumanlife
isfreefromperuersio,adistinctaddedroleofsociallytransmittedperuersioclearly
manifestsinhumanexperienceaccordingtoAugustine(conf.II.8.16).
ThescripturesprovideAugustinewithwarrantforfindingaperverse
manifestationoftheRomanStoics’threefoldcommendatio.Donotlovetheworld,
warns1John2:16,foreverythingintheworldcanbesummedupinthreeformsof
perversion‐concupiscentiacarnis,concupiscentiaoculorumandambitiosaeculi(cf.uera
rel.70;conf.X.30.41;X.35.54;ep.Io.tr.2.1113).378Thethreeperversionsof
commendatiomapontothethreethingsoftheworldwithoutremainder,albeitwitha
377Cf.thediscussionbelowinchapter6,subtitled“DiastrophicShadesofEcclesialFormation:TheHexaemeronofConfessionesXIIIandtheStructureofConfessionsI‐VII”.378Augustinesometimesusesthemoregeneraltermfordesire.cf.,sednondiligamusmundum,nequeeaquaeinmundosunt.quaeeniminmundosunt,desideriumcarnisest,etdesideriumoculorum,etambitiosaeculi[1Io2,16].(ep.Io.tr.2,11).
269
needtorevisetheorder.379Augustineregularlyalternatesbetweenthescripturalorder
andthedevelopmentalorderofcommendatio.380
Soturningfromhealthfulprovisionforthebodytoseekingpleasureinselfand
creaturestranslatesintoconcupiscentiacarnis(conf.I.20.31).TwistingtheGod‐given
desirefortemporalknowledgeintocuriosityoralustforsensationperseproduces
concupiscentiaoculorum.And,whenthecreatedimpulsetoassociatedegeneratesinto
thequestforvictory,dominationandreputation,ambitiosaeculihastakenoverthe
reigns.
Theessenceofperuersio,bothoriginalandconcurrent,liesininvertingthe
properorderofhumanduplexengagement.Bycreation,wearedesignedto
contemplateandact,inthatorder(c.Faust.22.27).381Wereceiveeternaltruththenact
379SinceHarnack,Adolfvon.1903.AugustinsKonfessionen:einVortrag.Giessen:Ricker.and,especially,afterAlfaric,Prosper.1918.L'évolutionintellectuelledesaintAugustin.Paris:E.Nourry.thebulkofscholarlyattentionhasbeenpaidtoeitherseekingorfleeingfromNeo‐PlatonicsourcesbehindAugustine’sphilosophicalconcepts.Theiler,Willy,andJuliusSchniewind.1933.PorphyriosundAugustin.SchriftenderKönigsbergerGelehrtenGesellschaft.GeisteswissenschaftlicheKlasse,10.Jahr,Heft1.Halle(Saale):M.Niemeyer,pp.37ff,postulatesanorigininPorphyry’sdeabstinentia.O’Connell,RobertJ.1963.“ThePlotinianFalloftheSoulinSt.Augustine”Traditio19:1‐36likewiseseekstoexcavateaPlotiniansource,withoutanycloseanalogue.Indeed,nosingleextanttextoftheNeo‐Platonistsprovidesanexampleofthefulltriad.NotethehesitancyofTeSelle,Eugene.1970.Augustine,theTheologian.London:Burns&Oatespp.109‐111,tolendcredencetoNeo‐Platonicetiologies(HeconsideredVarroapossibility,butnomore.).Oddlyenough,inthealternatingfervorfor,andpanicover,possiblePlatonicinfluences,noonethoughttoconsidertheRomanStoicpatrimony,whichprovidestheonlypreciselyanalogoustriadinextricablylinkedtobothapsychologyofactionandaccountsofinfancyandchildhood.380Augustine’sveryfirstusebeginswiththedevelopmentalorderandthenmapsitonto1John2:16(uerarel.6970).Thenarrativeofconf.Ifollowsthedevelopmentalorder,butregularlyalludestothetextof1John2:16.Attheendofconf.I,whensummarizingtheelementsofcreational,non‐perversecommendatioAugustinefollowstheorderof1John.2:16.381inqueipsaratione,quaepartimcontemplatiuaest,partimactiua,proculdubiocontemplatiopraecellit.InhacenimetimagoDeiest,quaperfidemadspeciemreformamur.Actioitaquerationaliscontemplationirationalidebetobedire,siveperfidem
270
temporallyinkeepingwithit.Distortionoccursbyprivilegingtemporalactionover
contemplationoftheeternalandthusdetachingactionfromtruth(mus.VI.40).Such
wasAdam’spridefulsin.382Nowallarebornfallenandhumandevelopmentfollowsan
inverseprogression(astheStoicsdescribed).EastofEden,wenecessarilylearntoact
beforewelearntocontemplate.Andthisdevelopmentalinversionofcapacitiesmakes
authorityaredemptiverequirement.
Thisleadstoonelastimportantcontrast.ForAugustine,allthreemodesof
commendatioconstituteaspectsofthepsychologyofaction(conf.XIII.21.31).Stoic
psychologyinitstotalityappliesmerelytothelowerdimensionofthesoul,because
eventhecommendatiotoknowledgeorientshumanstotemporalknowledge.383The
higher,contemplativefunctionswillbediscussedonlyinthenextchapterwherewe
considerAugustine’sallegoricaldecipheringofanecclesialprogramforhuman
formationwithinthescriptures.
ThreeStagesofCommendatioinConfessionesI
Augustine’saccountofinfancybeginsbysettingupabackdropofpenalignoranceand
divineprovisioneastofEden(conf.I.6.7).Augustineremembersneitherinfancynorthe
periodofgestationinhismother’swombwherebyGodfashionedabodyforhiminimperanti,sicutiestquamdiuperegrinamuraDomino;siueperspeciem,quoderitcumsimileseierimus,quoniamuidebimuseumsicutiest,c.Faust.22.27.382NotethescripturalconnectioninIJohn2.LoveofFather,whogiveseternallife,issetinoppositiontothethreeluststhatconstitutetheworld.Johnsaystheworldispassingaway,sothechoicefortemporalovereternalisembeddedintheJohanninetext.Thisinversionoftemporalloveovereternalloveliesatthebaseofperuersioofthethreefoldcommendatio.383However,wehavealreadyseeninchapter1&2thatAugustine’slowersoulhasadistinctiverole,settingitapartfromPlotinus’.Forthelowersoul,notthehigher,constitutestheontologicalretainerthatpreventsthefallensoulfromdescendingentirelyintonothingness.
271
time.SoAugustine’sstorystartswithableakoblivionalreadyawashintemporality.384
ButGod’sprovisionovershadowsthisperiodofforgetfulness(conf.I.6.7).
AndAugustine’semphasisofdivineprovisioniscrucial,becausetheinnate
perversionofcommendatioafterthefallconsistsintryingtofulfillthethreecreated
impulsesoutofcreaturelyresourcesalone(hocenimpeccabam,quodnoninipso,sedin
creaturiseiusmeatqueceterisuoluptates,sublimitates,ueritatesquaerebam,conf.
I.20.31).SobeforeAugustinedescribeshisfirstimpulse,hesetsthestagebyrecounting
theabundanceofmilkfrombreaststhatdidnotfillthemselves.385God’scare
abundantlysuppliesnourishmentandgrantsAugustinetonotwantmoremilkthanGod384ForthePlotiniandepictionoflowersoulawakeningafterthefall,confusedandforgetful,inaparticularbody,cf.Enn.IV.8.12,8.ForadiscussionofthePlotinianthemeofamnesiainthebackgroundtothispassagecf.O'Connell,RobertJ.1969.St.Augustine'sConfessions;theOdysseyofSoul.Cambridge,Mass:BelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress.Notealso,however,thesparse,superficialreadingO’ConnellmustofferofAugustinianinfancyandinfantilepsychologyofaction(onlyfourpagesforConfessionesI),becausehismonocularreadingthroughPlotinusleavesagapingblindspotoverAugustine’ssubtleinteractionswithRomanStoicism.385Doubtlessquasi‐sacramental,maternalfluidsplayalarger,anagogicroleinAugustine’stale.ForMonica’stearsforetellhispredestination(conf.III.12.21),evenashehadimbibedthenameofChristwithhermilk(conf.III.4.8).JustasMonicahadmadepainstoensureAugustineconsideredGod,ratherthanPatricius,hisFather(conf.I.11.17),sointheendsherealizesherroleiscompleteinseeingAugustinesafewithinmaterecclesiaandsohersojournonearthisappropriatelycomplete(conf.IX.10.26).
Thedeeprootsofthematerecclesiatheme–developedfromareadingofGal.4:26,probablyinAsiaMinor–areelucidatedthroughadetailedconceptualexcavationinPlumpe,JosephConrad.1943.Materecclesia;anInquiryintotheConceptoftheChurchasMotherinearlyChristianity.Washington,D.C.:CatholicUniversityofAmericaPress.
ForalessallusivewayintoAugustine’sthoughtpatternconsidertheroughlycontemporarywordsins.22.10–quiaduoparentesnosgenueruntadmortem,duoparentesnosgenueruntaduitam.parentesquinosgenueruntadmortem,AdamestetEua.parentesquinosgenueruntaduitam,Christusestetecclesia.etpatermeusquimegenuit,Adammihifuit;etmatermeaEuamihifuit.natisumussecundumistamprogeniemcarnis,exmunerequidemdeiquiaetistudmunusnonestalteriusseddeiettamen,fratres,quomodonatisumus?certeutmoriamur.praecessoresgenueruntsibisuccessores.numquidgenueruntsibicumquibushicsemperuiuant?sedtamquamdecessuri,quiillissuccederentgenueruntsibi.deusautempateretmaterecclesia,nonadhocgenerant.generantautemaduitamaeternam,quiaetipsiaeternisunt.ethabemushereditatempromissamaChristouitamaeternam.
272
hassupplied(conf.I.6.7).LaterAugustinewillturnhisattentiontothisfactastruth
criesoutbothinsideandoutsidehim(conf.I.6.7).
FirstStageofCommendatio:BodilyProvisionDistortedintoSeekingPleasure
Butinfancybeginswithadistortionofattention(notethecontrastinganimaduerti
postmodum,conf.I.6.7).TheimpulsetopreservebodilyhealthisagiftfromGodby
whichwemaintainatraceofdivineunity(conf.I.20.31).Godhimselfimplantedthe
urgesthatwouldleadtobodilyunityandsafety(tuitaque,dominedeusmeus,quidedisti
uitaminfantietcorpus,quodita,utuidemus,instruxistisensibus,compegistimembris,
figuradecorastiproqueeiusuniuersitateatqueincolumitateomnesconatusanimantis
insinuasti,conf.I.7.12).NoticethesimilaritybetweenAugustine’saccountofcreated
commendatioandtheRomanStoicaccountsofatranscendentalcommendatiotoself‐
preservationrecountedabove.
ButinthemidstofGod’sabundantsupplythroughhisnurse’smilk,Augustine
theinfantknewonlythetwomotivesthattheEpicureansandPosidoniusrelatedasthe
firstnaturalimpulse(D.L.X.137;SextusPyrr.hyp.III.194195;adu.Math.XI.96;Cicero
fin.I.30;I.71).386Heknewtosuckandbequietedbycarnalpleasure(namtuncsugere
norametadquiesceredelectationibus…[carnismeae],conf.I.6.7).387Andheknewtocry
whenhisfleshwasbumpedorfrustrated(…flereautemoffensionescarnismeae,nihil
amplius.,conf.I.6.7).Sotheimpulsetobodilypreservationemergesalreadytwisted.The
386NoteO’Donnell’scommentonthislinetotheeffectthattheinfantis“almostanEpicurean.”Augustine,andJamesJosephO'Donnell.1992.Confessions.Oxford:ClarendonPress,v.2,p.36387Miles,Margaret.1991.DesireandDelight:ANewReadingofAugustine’sConfessions.NewYork:CrossroadPublishing.catchesthebivalenceofpleasureinAugustine’stext,butmissestheStoicizingnuancesinAugustine’sunderlyingpsychologyofaction.
273
infant’sattentionisdrawntowardtheaffectiveaccruementsofaction,nottheproper
endofactioninbodilyhealth(conf.I.6.7).388Andtheinfant’sconsciousnessseems
sealedinsideitsflesh,withcriespurelyreactivetobodilystimuliand,asyet,unlike
futureintentionstocommunicate.389ThusAugustinecompleteshisdepictionofthefirst
stageofcommendatioandmovestotheveryearlyappearanceofthesecondstage.
SecondStageofCommendatio:AssociationDistortedintoDomination
Thesecondstageofcommendatiotopersonalinteractionandsocialcohesionlikewise
emergesalreadydistortedwithinnatedesiresfordominationandmanipulation(conf.
I.6.88.13).ThissecondstageAugustinerelatesintwophases,onethoroughly
speechless(conf.I.6.89)andtheothertransitioningtowardspeechandboyhood(conf.
I.6.108.13).
AtriangularcontrastbetweenGod’seternalorderingoftemporalchange(conf.
I.6.9),Edenicbodilytransparencyasthecreatedbasisforpersonalrelation(gn.adu.
388OneplacethiscommendatiotobodilypreservationappearsinAugustine’slaterworkisinhissteadfastinsistencethataninstinctivefearofdeath,asbodilydissolution,wasnaturalandineradicable(e.g.,ciu.I.1126;XIX.4).However,thenaturalimpulsetobodilypreservationproducesafearequivalenttoapre‐passionandnotafullpassionofthemens.Thus,evenfearofdeathmaybesurmountedinfaithfulactionandbelief.389ThisstagematchestheEpicureanaccountoflanguageoriginsaspurelynaturalexpulsionsofairtomatchthephysiologicalimpactofanimpression.SoEpicurus(LettertoHerodotusinD.L.X.7576)explainsthatnameswerenotinventedbycoining,rathervaryingexpulsionsofairnaturallyfolloweduponhuman’sfeelingsproducingdifferingsoundsornames.Thesenamesarelaterextendedbyconvention.Notealso,Lucretiusnat.rerumV.10281090.ForsecondarydiscussionsseeStevens,BenjaminE.2008.“SymbolicLanguageandIndexicalCries:ASemioticReadingofLucretius5.1028‐90”AmericanJournalofPhilology129,pp.529‐557,andReinhardt,Tobias.2008.“EpicurusandLucretiusontheOriginsofLanguage”ClassicalQuarterly58:1,pp.127‐140.Ofcourse,verysoontheinfantwillmovefrompurelyreactiveexpulsionstomorecomplexexpressionsofappetiteandaversioninrelationtootherhumanbeingsaspotentialsuppliersofdesiderata.
274
Man.II.32),andthepenalconditionofopaquemortalbodies(gn.adu.Man.II.32)creates
arichconceptualbackdropthroughoutthissection(conf.I.6.88.13).390
Augustine’saccountbeginsbyrelatinganinfantiletraceoflostbodily
transparency.391Aboutthistimetheinfantbeginstosmile(Postetriderecoepi…conf.
I.6.8).Theinfant’sgrinisapalesparkofthecreatedimpulsetowardhumanassociation
andavestigeofthebodilytransparencythatGodoriginallydesignedtofoster
association.Theconnection,inAugustine’smind,betweensmilingandtheassociative
impulseisclear.Forsoonaftersmilingtheinfantbeginstosensehislocationamong
otherhumans(paulatimsentiebamubiessem)andwillstomakehisvolitionsknown(et
uoluntatasmeasuolebamostendere…conf.I.6.8).
Similarly,thewayAugustinelinksthefutilityofthatdesiretoanimpasse
betweeninteriorandexteriorsensationelucidatesthevestigialallusiontoprimordial
bodilytransparency(conf.I.6.8).AftertheFall,agapexistsbetweenhumanpersonsthat
Goddidnotcreate(gn.adu.Man.II.32).Theweaknessofeachsoul’ssensation,coupled
withtheopacityofmortalbodies,incapacitatesadequatecommunicationbetweentwo
soulsthroughthecreatedmediumofbodilyexpression(etnonpoteram,quiaillaeintus
erant,forisautemillinecullosuosensuualebantintroireinanimammeam.,conf.I.6.8).
TheintusforisimpasseAugustineheredescribesmarksthepenalconditionwithin
whichinfantileassociationfirstemerges.
Butaninnateperuersiomanifestsitselfmorebasicallyintheinfant’svolitions
(conf.I.6.8).Thesecondcommendatiotohumanassociationemergesasanalready390AdiscussionoftherelevantconceptsofEdenicembodimentandtheFallthroughintentionalactionisprovidedinchapter2above.391Forpartialexpressionsofbodilytransparencyinthisfallenstate,cf.besidestheperformativedescriptionsinconf.I.6.8ff,Augustine’saccountsindiu.qu.47andcat.rud.2.3;4.7.
275
twisteddesiretodominateotherpersons(etcummihinonobtemperabatur…,
indignabarnonsubditismaioribusetliberisnonseruientibus…)andtousepeopleforthe
sakeofsatisfyingcarnaldesires(etuoluntatesmeasuolebamostendereeis,perquos
implerentur…,conf.I.6.8).392Toloveone’sneighborasoneselfinGod’spresence,the
createdendofacommendatiotoassociation,seemsalongwayoff.
Theperverseappearanceofthesecondcommendatio,inthecontextofpenal
bodies,leadsdirectlytothefirst,inchoateuseofsigns(signa…paucaquaepoteram,
qualiapoteram,conf.I.6.8).393Andtheseinchoatesignscorrespondtothetwoformsof
peruersiofoundinthefirstexpressionofacommendatiotoassociation.
Thefirstsignsareusedtomanipulateandattainobjectsoftheinfantappetite
(conf.I.6.8).Sotheinfantthrashesaboutwithlimbandvoiceproducinganembryonic
anticipationoflanguagethatmorecloselymatchestheerraticstateofaninfant’s
volitions(iactabammembraetuoces,signasimiliauoluntatibusmeis…,conf.I.6.8),than
reallyresemblingtheobjectsofitsdesire(nonenimerantueresimilia.,conf.I.6.8).
Wheninchoatesignsinevitablyfailtosecureobedience,thesecondimpulseto
dominationfindsexpressionthroughauseofcryingtoavenge(etcummihinon
obtemperabatur…medeillisflendouindicabam.,conf.I.6.8).Thuslanguagefindsitsdeep
rootsinanaturalassociativedesiretoovercomethepenallyimposedintusforis
392Ofcourse,Augustine’smostfamousexpositionofthelibidodominandicomesinciu.I.ForjudiciousdiscussionsofAugustine’smaturethoughtonthissubjectseeBonner,Gerald.1962.“LibidoandConcupiscentiainSt.Augustine”StudiaPatristica6,pp.303‐314,andRist,JohnM.1994.Augustine:AncientThoughtBaptized.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.214‐225.393ForaclassictreatmentofAugustine’ssigntheory,cf.Markus,R.A.1957.“St.AugustineonSigns”Phronesis,2:1,pp.60‐83.Augustine’spracticeofsubsumingofhissigntheorywithinalargeraccountofspiritualsolidarityisinsightfullyexploredthroughthelimitconditionofdivinationinMarkus,R.A.1994.“AugustineonMagic:ANeglectedSemioticTheory”RevuedesÉtudesAugustiniennes,40,pp.375388.
276
impasse,butactuallyemergesasacrudeexternalizationofalreadyperversedesires
(conf.I.6.8).
Beforemovingontodescribethetransitionfrominfancytoboyhoodinlanguage
acquisition(…etsigna,quibussensameanotaaliisfacerem,iaminfineinfantiae
quaerebam.,conf.I.6.10),Augustineonceandtwicecirclesbacktocontrasthuman
beingschangingconstitutionsandinnatesinfulnesswiththeeternityofGod(conf.I.6.9
10).ThoughAugustinecannotaccessanylifebeforethewombthroughmemory,
whatevermightbethereissecureinGod’scare.ForGodholdstheunchangingcausesof
allchangeablethings(conf.I.6.9)inaself‐samenesshumanscanscarcelyunderstand
(conf.I.6.10).
Reflectionupondivineself‐samenessleadsnaturallytoaninquisitionconcerning
infantilesin(conf.I.7.11).Fortemporalmutation,drivenbythesoul’sshiftingofloves,
specificallynamestheconditionofthefallforAugustine(gn.adu.Man.II.7;uerarel.38;
s.dom.m.I.35).SothereisnosurprisethatAugustinebeginsthisreflectionbyexplicitly
contradictingtheStoicassumptionofinnatenaturalgoodness(…nemomundusa
peccatocoramte,necinfans,cuiusestuniusdieiuitasuperterram…,conf.I.7.11).394
ButthisinterrogationconcerningthesinsofinfancyleadsAugustinebackto
earlyattemptstosignusingthenaturallanguageofbodilyperformanceand
descriptionsofinfantiletracesofbodilytransparency(conf.I.7.11).Thelittleonecasts
longingeyeswhilecrying(inhiabamplorans),usestearstoask(flendopetere),triesto
injurebyhitting(feriendonocere)and,finally,exhibitswithhisbodycompetitive
jealousybyglaringwhitewithbitterness(intuebaturpallidusamaroaspectu…,conf.
394Cf.Seneca’sdictum,errasenim,siexistimasnobiscumuitianasci;superuenerunt,ingestasunt.,ep.95.55
277
I.7.11).Thesepre‐conventionalattemptstosignemployremnantsofabodily
transparencylost(gn.adu.Man.II.31;diu.qu.47;cat.rud.2.3;4.7)combinedwith
externalizationsthatpartlyperformassociativefrustrationandpartlypointtowardthe
deniedobject.
Thefailureofpre‐conventionalsigningtocrosstheintusforisdivideandthus
secureobedienceleadsdirectlytothefirstattemptstograspatconventionalsignswith
thememory(cumgemitibusetuocibusuariisetuariismembrorummotibusedereuellem
sensacordismei,utuoluntatipareretur,necualeremquaeuolebamomnianecquibus
uolebamomnibus.prensabammemoria…,conf.I.8.13).Theinfantcullstheostensive
referenceofconventionalsignsbyattendingtoamixtureofvocalizationandvestigial
bodilytransparencyinadults.Humanlanguageoriginatesinaninherentlyslippery
triangulationofinnerdesires,externalobjectsandvocalsounds.Butthatcorrelation
requiresathirdelementtosupplytheinitialsenseofinternaldesires(conf.I.8.13).
Specifically,adultsusevariousvestigesofbodilytransparencytomakethemost
basicinnervolitionsknown(conf.I.8.13).Byuseofbodilymovement,gesture,facial
expression,castingofeyesandtoneofvoicetheadulttransmitstwobasicaffections–
acquisitivedesireorrepulsiverejection(hocautemeosuelleexmotucorporis
aperiebaturtamquamuerbisnaturalibusomniumgentium,quaefiuntuultuetnutu
oculorumceteroquemembrorumactuetsonituuocisindicanteaffectionemanimiin
petendis,habendis,reiciendisfugiendisuerebus.,conf.I.8.13).Bycombiningbodily
expressionofaffectwithconcomitantsoundandostensivegestureorbodilymovement,
theinfant’smindbeginstocorrelateconventionalvocalsignswithaffectsandobjects
(prensabammemoria,cumipsiappellabantremaliquametcumsecundumeamuocem
278
corpusadaliquidmouebant,uidebam,ettenebamhocabeisuocariremillam,quod
sonabant,cumeamuellentostendere.,conf.I.8.13).
Throughthisprocesstheinfant’sconstitutionmorphsintochildhood,gradually
accumulatingastockofwordsintheirsententialplacesandlearningtoexercisehiswill
throughoralsigning.395SoAugustinecompleteshisaccountofthesecondcommendatio
tohumanassociationpursuedeastofEdenthroughacquisitionoflanguagefromthe
scatteredremnantsofcreatedbodilytransparency.And,beforemovingtothethird
formofcommendatio,Augustineexplicitlyreconnectstheacquisitionoflanguagewith
theimpulsetosocietysuchasitiseastofEden(siccumhis,interquoseram,uoluntatum
enuntiandarumsignacommunicauietuitaehumanaeprocellosamsocietatemaltius
ingressussumpendensexparentumauctoritatenutuquemaiorumhominum.,conf.I.8.13).
ThirdStageofCommendatio:KnowledgeDistortedintoCravingforExperience
Withtheadventofboyhood,Augustinemovesintohisaccountofthethirdcommendatio
toknowledge(conf.I.9.1410.16).396Godfashionedhumanbeingswithacreated
impulsetoseeksufficientknow‐howoftemporalthingstoeffectivelylovetheir
neighborsasthemselves(conf.IX.9.21)397andmovetowardalovingknowledgeofGod
395Augustine’sthoughtheresharesacertainkinshipwiththeStoicnotionofreasonbeingconstitutedbyasufficientstockofconceptsandnotions(SVFII.841).Thedifferencesareimportant,however.First,Augustine’srealistnon‐corporealontologyfreeshimfromtheStoicnotionofreasonasabodyandthusacomposite.And,second,baseduponthisdistinction,thecommendatiotoknowledgeremainsdistinctinAugustine’smindfromsubjectiontoeternalreason(conf.XIII.21.31).396BeginningofI.8.13hintsforwardtotheemergenceofboyhood,butthenrevertstocompletehisaccountoflanguageacquisitionasthetransitionfrominfancytoboyhood.ThethirdcommendatioandboyhoodAugustinetakesupinearnestatI.9.14397N.B.,thetamingofMonica’sthirdcommendatioresultsinrepeatingonlythoseelementsofother’sdivulgencesthatareusefulformakingpeacebetweenthem(conf.IX.9.21).Thispassagewillbediscussedbelow.
279
(conf.XIII.21.31).ThatmuchisGod‐given(conf.I.20.31).AndGodgrantedtoAugustine
theappropriatemeasureofmemoryandnativeabilityforthispurpose(nonenim
deerat,domine,memoriauelingenium,quaenoshabereuoluistiproillaaetatesatis…,
conf.I.9.15).
Afterrepeatedlamentationsofinfancy’smemorialinaccessibility,anew
accessibilityaccompaniesthisperiod(nonenimeraminfans,quinonfarer,sediampuer
loquenseram.etmeminihoc,…conf.I.8.13).Withasufficientcommandoflanguagein
hand,Augustinethechildproducesmemoriesthebishopcanstillaccess.Andso,with
languageacquisition,theoblivionshroudingAugustine’sdeeppastbeginstolift.
AugustinehasretainedaStoicsenseofhowmemoriesneedlekta/toberealmemories,
andthusnon‐rationalanimals,suchasinfants,canonlypossessquasi‐memories
(Plutarch,Desollertiaanimalium961ef).398Forthisreasonlinguisticfacilityandthe
firstaccessiblememoriesturnouttobecoeval(conf.I.8.13).
Memoryandlinguisticfacilitymarkthefirststirringsofaninchoateimpulseto
temporalknowledge,andwithitthebeginningsofthethirdcommendatio(conf.I.9.14).
Accordingtohumancustom,schoolsaredesignedtoharnessanddirectthebudding
andfirstflowerofthehumancommendatiotoknowledge.SoAugustinebeginshis
discussionofthecommendatiotoknowledgeandadifferentiatedaccountofits
peruersiowiththeadventofelementaryeducation(conf.I.9.14).
398Thisneednotcontradicthisratherlooseattributionofmemorytobeastsinconf.X.17.26.ForincontextAugustineisseekingtomovebeyondmemoryitself,notjustoneformofmemory.AndAugustinemostcertainlywouldnotclaimbrutesalsocontainliberaldisciplines,numbersandmemoriesofmemoryintheirfaculties.AllAugustinealludestoisasortofknowledgeimplicittomigratorysuccess,theverysortofknowledgeatissueintheStoicattributionofaquasi‐memorytoanimals.
280
Forthefirsttimeaspecificdifferentiationisrequired.External,institutionalized
formsofperuersionowbecomeasignificantaspectofAugustine’sformation.TheStoic
doctrineofperuersiothatissociallytransmittedthrough kath/chsißordiuulgatio
famaefindsitsplacehere(D.L.VII.89;Tusc.III.1.13.7;leg.1.29;Sen.ep.94.5355,68;ep.
115.11),notastheoriginofcorruptionbutasanexacerbationofnativetwistedness.
Augustinemakesthedistinctionclear.Hisnativeperuersiomanifestsasaloveofplay
(seddelectabatludere)thatmakeshimhatethedisciplineofstudying(conf.I.9.15).
Lurkingwithinthosestudies,however,wasasecondformofperuersio
constitutingtheveryprogramofhumanformationensconcedintheschools.The
programofrightlivingpresentedtoAugustinetherewascompletelyimmersedin
temporality(quandoquidemrectemihiuiuerepueroidproponebatur,obtemperare
monentibus,utinhocsaeculoflorerem,conf.1.9.14).Onemustobeythosewhoadmonish
inordertoflourishbymeansofverbalprowessleadingtoreputationandriches,both
distortionsofthefirsttwoformsofcommendatiobyAugustine’slights(etexcellerem
linguosisartibusadhonoremhominumetfalsasdiuitiasfamulantibus.,conf.I.9.14).Inthe
nextsectionAugustinewillenteralonganddetailedexpositionofthisformofsocially
transmittedperuersio.
But,first,Augustineconfesseshisnativeperversionofthecommendatioto
knowledge(conf.I.10.16).Asaboyheresistedstudybecause,likeallchildren,he
emergedindigenouslytwistedtowardloveofplay(nonenimmelioraeligensinoboediens
eram,sedamoreludendi)andpublicshows(spectacula,conf.I.10.16).Sodesireforsense
experienceitselftrumpedanydesirefortrueknowledge,thustwistingthethird
281
commendatiointheviceofcuriosity(mor.I.38;gn.adu.Man.I.40;II.27;mus.VI.39;VI.48;
conf.X.35.5457).399
Augustine’sdepravitywasalsocompoundedbyaprouddesireforvictoryand
forhavingstoriesspunaboutit(amansincertaminibussuperbasuictoriasetscalpiaures
measfalsisfabellis…,conf.I.10.16).Sotheperversionoftheimpulsetoknowledgeis
furtheraggravatedbyacorruptionoftheimpulsetoassociation.ThusAugustine
completeshisaccountofthethreesequentiallyappearingformsofcommendatio,each
oneemergingwithaninnateperuersio.AttheendofConfessionesIhewillcirclebackto
closehisfirstbookwithanaffirmationofcreatedcommendatioindistinctionfromtheir
perversemanifestationsinfallenhumans.ButnowAugustinelaunchesintoacomplex
ofcomparisionsthatwillcarryhimthroughthefirsthalfoftheConfessiones.400
TheEcclesialProgramforHumanFormationanditsPerverseParodiesinConf.I
ConfessionesI.11.1718.29proceedsbysystematicallycontrastingthediastrophic
programofhumanformationtowhichAugustinewasentrustedwiththelatent,God‐
givenprogramforhumanformationfoundinthepilgrimsocietynamedchurch(conf.
XIII.12.1334.49).Indeed,thecontrastcontinuesthroughConfessionesVIIandformsone
ofseveraloverlaidprinciplesoforganizationusedincomposingtheConfessiones.By
tracingthelineamentsofthecontrastonecanseetheexpansiveuseAugustinemadeof
thesecondformofperuersio.
399SeveralfineexpositionsofAugustine’sunderstandingofcuriositasareavailable,albeitwithoutanyconnectiontothedoctrineofcommendatio.Cf.Torchia,N.Joseph.1988.“CuriositasintheEarlyPhilosophicalWritingsofSaintAugustine”AugustinianStudies19,pp.111‐119.ForlaterusagesseeRist,JohnM.1994.Augustine:AncientThoughtBaptized.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.140‐145.400ForasummaryaccountofAugustine’ssubmergedschematic,cf.chapter6below.
282
ADeferredBaptism:DiastrophicShadesofDayOne
SoAugustinerecountsthedeferralofhisbaptism(conf.I.11.1712.19).Afterstomach
painsandfeverseizedyoungAugustine,hebeggedforbaptismandMonicaalmost
consented(conf.I.11.17).Butasuddenreliefofsymptomscausedhisbaptismtobe
postponedandtherebywithheldAugustinefromthefirststageofGod’sprogramfor
humanformationinthechurch(conf.I.11.17;XIII.12.1314.15).
SpiritualreadingofthesixdaysofcreationprovidesAugustinewithanitinerary
forhumanreformationwithinthechurch(conf.XIII.12.1334.49).Thefirstday’slight,
calledforthoverthedeep,symbolizesrepentanceandbaptism(conf.XIII.12.13).
BaptismwouldhaveconstitutedarepentantacceptanceofthehumilityofChristand,by
restraintofwaywardimpulses,wouldhaveinitiatedtheprocessofmoral
transformationthatculminatesinfullcontemplationofGod(conf.XIII.12.1314.15).
Instead,throughdeferralofbaptism,thereinsofsinningwererelaxedfor
Augustine(quasilaxatasintlorapeccandi;conf.I.11.18).Augustine’simageryisneither
haphazardnorinnocent.Theprimarytaskofphilosophyintherealmofactionisto
restrainorbridlewaywardimpulsesthusproducingcontinence(conf.X.31.47;c.Faust.
22.28).Later,AugustinewillrelatehowMonica’sconductressfaithfullyreinedin
(frenabat)thefirstdistortionofcommendatioinMonica–theimpulsetopursue
pleasureoverbodilyhealth–byseverelyrestrictingaccesstowateroutsidemealtimes
(conf.IX.8.17).Bydelayinghisbaptismandrepentance,Augustine’smotherhas
unwittinglysetherson’sfeetmovingdownthediastrophicpathofhumancustom.
WhatlearningAugustinedidaccomplishtranspiredonlyunderduress(nonenim
discerem,nisicogerer.,conf.I.12.19).Hisinnateperversionsethimagainstanyformof
283
discipline.Buttheschool’scoercionwasnotwholesomeinintent.Foritwasdrivenby
temporallustforwealthandfame(illienimnonintuebantur,quoreferremquodme
discerecogebantpraeterquamadsatiandasinsatiabilescupiditatescopiosaeinopiaeet
ignominiosaegloriae.conf.I.12.19).Nonetheless,Godusedittoprovidetherudimentsof
readingandwriting,whichwouldlaterbeturnedtogooduseintheecclesialprogram
ofhumanformation.
Presumably,theecclesialprogramofformationwouldalsoinstilltherudiments
oflinguisticfacilityatthisdevelopmentalstage.Indeed,thelaborioustaskoflearningto
read,countandwritearenamedaspartofthepenaltyofAdamicflesheastofEden
(conf.I.9.14).401Theecclesialprogramofrepentanceandconstraintofimpulsesby
turningtothehumbleonewouldproperlycoincidewiththehumbletaskof
rudimentarystudies.Theseweretrulyvaluable,Augustineaffirms(conf.I.13.20).Itis
thelaterstudieswithwhichhewillfindgreatfault.
PoeticAuthority:DiastrophicShadesofDayTwo
Augustine’sprogressionfromrudimentarystudiestoreadingthepoetswiththe
grammatici(conf.I.13.2017.27)providesashadysemblanceoftheecclesialtraining
conveyedspirituallyintheseconddayofcreation(conf.XIII.15.1616.19).Augustine
makesthecontrastexplicit(conf.I.13.2122).402
401Foranindicationoftheseearly,pre‐grammaticalstudiesinRomansocietyseeQuintillianinst.I.1.402Inthiscontextofhisfirstexposuretothepoets,Augustinealsobringstheimageryofechoingandverbaltransmissionofvice–thesecondformofStoicperuersiothroughkath/chsißorinsusurro/diuulgatiofamae–tothesurface(conf.I.13.21).Fromthevantageofanecclesialformation,thesewhispersbecomeshoutsofdefiance(conf.I.13.22),andAugustinemustprayforGod’shelplesthebeshouteddowninhisconfession.
284
ByreflectingonhisnewfoundlovefortheLatinpoetsincontrasttohisloathing
ofbothprimaryLatinstudiesandtheGreekpoets,Augustinehighlightshowhisdelight
instyleandmythicfancieswasutterlydisconnectedfromtruthandmoralworth.The
earlierstudieswereunquestionablymorevaluableasprovedbytheirdependability
andindispensability(conf.I.13.20).Likewise,GreekandLatinformsofpoetryare
equallyvainandimmoral(conf.I.14.23).Yet,Augustine’ssoulgravitatedtotheeaseof
LatinpoetryandshrankfromthebittereffortrequiredtomakesenseofitsGreek
equivalent(conf.I.14.23).
ThusAugustine’sindigenousperversionreassertsitselfasaninertleaning
towardeaseofaction,brokenofffromanysenseoftruthorgoodness(cf.,uerarel.72).
Likewise,hisaffectivesensitivitiesareallaskew.Augustinemanifestsahypersensitivity
totemporalaffectionscoupledwithsheernumbnesstothediseaseanddeathofhisown
eternalsoul(conf.I.13.20).Augustine’smisreadingofVirgilwherebyheidentified
affectivelywithDidotellsitall.
VirgilcomposedtheAeneidbetween30and19B.Candhadalreadydrunk
deeplyfromthepopularizedRomanStoicismofhisday.TheparticulartaleAugustine
drawsoutformentionisAeneas’seven‐yearliaisonwithDidoQueenofCarthageand
hersubsequentsuicide.Augustinethebishopknewitsliterarycontextwell.Aprophecy
hastoldAeneasthatheistoestablisharaceinthewestandbuildacitythatwillrule
theworldinpeaceandprosperity.TheentranceofDidois,onVirgil’stelling,a
temptationforAeneastoshirkthehardshipsofdutyinfavorofprivatepleasureand
ease.Aeneasmustlearntomakeandacceptsacrificesinordertofulfilladestinyforthe
goodofhisdescendantsandthehonorofhisfather.Forsevenyears,Aeneaserrs.The
285
triumphofreason’sacquiescencetofateddutyisaccomplishedwhenAeneasheeds
Mercury’swordsandleavesCarthageinsearchofhiswesternhomelandtobe.
ButallAugustineidentifieswitharethelover’spainsofDidoandthedramaof
hersuicidewhendutyisagaintriumphant.403Augustine’sowntearsflowedforherself‐
destructiveways.Yet,hemissedAeneas’triumphofrationalityanddutyintheVirgilian
text.Likewise,hecouldnotseetheironyofnotlamentinghisownmiseryapartfrom
God(conf.I.13.21).
ThetwistingofmoralvalueandtruthwerenotAugustine’salone.The
conventionalprogramofstudywiththegrammaticimanifestsageneralcommitmentto
cultivatingaffectivestyleindisregardofveridicalandmoralsubstance.404ToAugustine
thisinversionrevealsmuch.Inthenextsection,hewilldescribehowthiscommitment
shapestheformationofsocialgroupingsandstandingtherein(conf.I.18.2829).But
firstAugustinereflectsonhowthesameinversioninvolvesarejectionofanystandard
ofauthoritative,eternalTruthabovetemporalaffect(conf.I.16.25).
Augustinedrawsonesetofincompatibleclaimstothesurfaceforconsideration.
Ofcoursehischoiceismetaphoricallypregnantanddeliberatelychosentohighlightthe
poets’perverseimitationofthescriptures(cf.conf.XIII.15.1616.19).Jupiter,thepoets
claim,isboththundererandadulterer(conf.I.16.25).Theimageofthethundererasone
speakingfromtheauthorityoftheskyabovedirectlycontrastswiththeallegorical403Dyson,JuliaT.1996.“DidotheEpicurean.”ClassicalAntiquity15:2,pp.203‐221providesapowerfulreadingofVirgil’sdepictionofDidoasafailedEpicurean.BytracingallusionsbetweentheAeneidandLucretius’DeNaturaRerum,DysonillustratestheironicdissolutionofDido’sattemptedEpicureanism.Didofailsbecauseher“philosophy”isprovedfalseinthestory.Thegodsdointervene.Fate,especiallyAeneas’fate,doesimpingeuponherlife.And,bythegods’nefariousschemes,sheisfelledbytheveryvicesofimmoderatesexualpassionherphilosophyeschews.404TheallegationthatpublicschoolscorruptmoralsisoldandwellknowntothosewhotheorizedtheRomanschool,cf.Cicero,Tusc.III.1.13.7;Quintillianinst.I.2.
286
placeofscriptureasfirmament(conf.XIII.15.1616.19).Augustinemakestheconceptual
contrastclearbynamingJupiter’sfalsethunderingasaparodyofauthorityfromthe
heavens(…uthaberetauctoritatemimitandumuerumadulteriumlenocinantefalso
tonitru.,conf.I.16.25).405
Authorityandmediationarethesubstantiveissuesunderneaththeaerial
metaphors.Forhumansubmissiontotheauthorityofthescripturesconstitutesthe
spiritualreferentofGodhangingthesolidfirmamentintheheavensondaytwo(conf.
XIII.15.16).Andthescriptures’placementbetweenhighestheavenandearthpoints
spirituallytotheirmediationofGod’smercyintime(conf.XIII.15.18).Thepoetic
fictions,ontheotherhand,provideafalse,twistedformofmediationthatismoretruly
likepimping(lenocinantefalsotonitru.,conf.I.16.25).Forthepoets’falsemediation
ascribesdivinitytoshamefuldeedsandthusallowshumanperversiontomasquerade
asimitationofcelestialdeity(sedhominibusflagitiosisdiuinatribuendo,neflagitia
flagitiaputarenturetutquisquiseafecisset,nonhominesperditos,sedcaelestesdeos
uidereturimitatus.,conf.I.16.25).
Thosewhopeddlethediastrophicprogramforhumanformationclaimthe
practiceofennarratiopoetarumisutterlynecessaryforactionandknowledge.406By
405Thethemeofdemonicimitationofdivineauthority,andthemaliceunderneath,runsthroughoutAugustine’sthought.Aparticularlyaccessibleandthoroughaccountcanbefoundindiuin.daem.,esp.6.1010.15406AccordingtoQuintillian,grammarisdividedintotwoparts–“Haecigiturprofessio,cumbreuissimeinduaspartesdiuidatur,recteloquendiscientiametpoetarumenarrationem…(inst.I.4.2).”Hisaccountofthesetwoparts(inst.I.48)providesanessentialpointofdepartureinreadingconf.I.ForarunningcomparisionbetweenQuintillianandAugustine,cf.Stock,Brian.1996.AugustinetheReader:Meditation,Selfknowledge,andtheEthicsofInterpretation.Cambridge,Mass:HarvardUniversityPress,pp.23‐42.ThereferencestoQuintillianarerelegatedtothecorrespondingnotesonpp.305‐315.ForasuccinctaccountofQuintillian’sprescriptionforthegrammatici,cf.Colson,F.H.1914.“TheGrammaticalChaptersinQuintillianI.4‐8”ClassicalQuarterly
287
theiraccountitprovidesboththeeloquencetopersuadepeopleconcerningimportant
mattersandthecapacitytounravelmeanings(hincuerbadiscuntur,hincadquiritur
eloquentiarebuspersuadendissententiisqueexplicandismaximenecessaria.,conf.
I.16.26).ButAugustinedisagrees.
TwiceinthissectionAugustineintimatesacontrastingprogram,auiatuta,for
educatingchildren(conf.I.15.24).Thesecondallusionspecifiesthatthealternativeto
ennarratiopoetarumwouldbeexercisesinthepraiseofGodfromtheScriptures(conf.
I.17.27).407Thisisthenextstepintheecclesialprojectofhumanformationspiritually
describedastheseconddayofcreation(conf.XIII.15.1616.19).
Clingingtothefirmauthorityofscriptureprovidesanormativetrajectory
towardTruth.Atthisstagethelittleonescannotunderstandtruthbeyondtime.But
clingingtoscripturalauthoritymovesthemtowardeventualunderstandingbyfirst
mediatingthestoriesofGod’smercifulactionintime(conf.XIII.15.18).Thusby
submissiontoscripturalauthorityapersonembracesmoraltruthevenbeforeshecan
graspitintellectually.408Andthesewritingsaredivinelyeffective.Nootherbooks
possesschastewordswithsuchpowertopersuadehumanbeingstohumility(conf.
XIII.15.17).Whilethepoetsparadeafalseauthorityusedtoseducementoadultery,and
8:1,pp.33‐47.Also,Copeland,Rita.1995.Rhetoric,Hermeneutics,andTranslationintheMiddleAges:AcademicTraditionsandVernacularTexts.CambridgeStudiesinMedievalLiterature,11.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.407SuchaprojectmaybebehindAugustine’scompositionofdoc.chr.,cf.Kevane,E.E.1966.“Augustine’sDedoctrinachristiana:ATreatiseonChristianEducation”Recherchesaugustiniennes4,pp.97‐133.408Forfaithinauthorityasanecessarystartingpointofknowledge,theclassicstatementfromhispriestlyperiodisutil.cred.7.1418.36.Cf.alsoconf.VI.5.7;gn.litt.II.5.9;ciu.XI.3.ForsecondarydiscussionsseeTeSelle,Eugene.“Faith”inFitzgerald,Allan,andJohnC.Cavadini.1999.AugustineThroughtheAges:AnEncyclopedia.GrandRapids,Mich:W.B.Eerdmans.Also,Rist,JohnM.1994.Augustine:AncientThoughtBaptized.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.41‐91.
288
throughtheiruseinrhetoricalcontestsentrenchmoraldissolutionandambition,409the
church’sscripturesconvincelittleonestohumblybowtheirneckstoJesus’gentleyoke
andthusworshipGodwithoutthoughtforpersonalambitions(conf.XIII.15.17).
MergingwiththeTemporallyAmbitious:DiastrophicShadesofDayThree
Havingsufficientlycontrastedtheeducationalpracticeofenarratiopoetarumwiththe
studyofChristianscriptures,Augustinemovesontodescribetheperversemodeof
socialsolidarityfosteredamongthosewhoholdthetemporallyambitioustobeproper
exemplarsofhumanlife(conf.I.18.2829).Thisprocessofassimilatingtothetemporally
orientedsocialgroupingcontrasts,inAugustine’smind,withthesocialsolidarityamong
thosewhoreferalltemporalmatterstoeternalends.410AndinthiscontrastAugustine
depictsthenextstageofhislifeasaperverseparodyoftheecclesialsolidarity
spirituallydescribedasdaythreeofcreation(conf.XIII.17.2021).
Conventionalprocessesofformationnowpresenttheschoolboy,already
attachedbyperverselovestoafalsepoeticauthority,withexemplarsforimitation
(conf.I.18.28).Paragonsoftemporalsocietyareforthcomingandprovideanimageof
sociallifedevotedtotemporalhappiness.Theseclingtightlytoaconventionalpacta
litterarumetsyllabarumbuthavenointerestintheaeternapacta(conf.I.18.29).The
409NoticehowQuintillianpraisestheverycompetitionsAugustineherecondemns,andforpreciselythesamereason,scilicettheircapacitytoinflameambition(inst.I.2.1825).410Ofcourse,themostfamoususeofthisbasiccontrastisfoundciu.XIV.28withreferencetothetwocities.ButthenotionthatsharedlovesformthefoundationofsocialsolidarityrunsthroughoutAugustine’sthought.Cf.Markus,R.A.1970.Saeculum:HistoryandSocietyintheTheologyofSt.Augustine.Cambridge:UniversityPress,pp.45‐71,andBurt,DonaldX.1999.FriendshipandSociety:AnIntroductiontoAugustine'sPracticalPhilosophy.GrandRapids,Mich:W.B.EerdmansPub.
289
resultisanever‐present,latentprojectofcompetitionforhonorforthesakeofwhich
meticulouscareofspeechmaybeusedtodestroyone’sneighbor(conf.I.18.29).411
Augustinealludestothecontrasting,ecclesialprogramthroughout.Thebitter,
darkwatersofsocialarrangementsdirectedtowardtemporalendsalone(conf.
XIII.17.20;cf.en.Ps.64.9)contrastwiththedrylandreferringtosoulswhothirstforthe
eternalamidtemporalsociety(conf.XIII.17.21).Daythree’sspiritualmeaningsand
scripturalimagesgovernAugustine’sdescriptivemetaphorsofthisstage.
Temporallyorientedsocialarrangementsweredeepwatersanddarknessoutof
whichGodgracestodrawAugustine(etnunceruisdehocimmanissimoprofundo…nam
longeauultutuoinaffectutenebroso.,conf.I.18.28).Augustine’ssoulwasimmersedin
thosewaters.ButhisthirstforeternaldelightsandhissearchforGod’sfaceforeshadow
hiseventualplaceamongthoseonthedrylandofeternallyorientedsociety(etnunc
eruisdehocimmanissimoprofundoquaerentemteanimametsitientemdelectationes
tuas,etcuiuscordicittibi:quaesiuiuultumtuum;uultumtuum,domine,requiram[Ps
26,8],conf.I.18.28).
Thisdrylonging,whensociallyconsolidated,leadstofruitfulnessthrough
obediencetodivineprecept(conf.XIII.17.21).Whenthedevoutfollowscripture’s
precepttoloveneighbor,thedrylandproducesfruitbothinthesimpleprovisionof
temporalneedsandthemorerobustenforcementofsocialjustice(conf.XIII.17.21).But
inthebitternessofAugustine’ssea‐sweptcondition,theonlywitness,deepandmuted,
tothatlandanditsfruitisthenon‐syllabicwritingofconsciencethatoneshouldnotdo
411Theimplicitsocialsolidaritybehindspeechisperverted,andthusrendereddemonicbyusingspeechinserviceofpersonalambition(conf.I.17.27).ForanaccountofthispactwithdemonsinanothercontextseeMarkus,R.A.1994.“AugustineonMagic:ANeglectedSemioticTheory”RevuedesÉtudesAugustiniennes,40,pp.375388
290
toanotherwhatonewouldn’twantdonetooneself(conf.I.18.29).And,ofcourse,that
witnessisignored(conf.I.18.29).
Augustine’sdepictionofdiastrophicparodiesandecclesialrealitiesofdaythree
isnotcomplete.HecontinuesinConfessionesIIwithacontrastbetweenperverse
twistingofcompanionshipandthesalutaryrestraintofdivineprecept,followedby
reflectiononthesham,stolenfruitcastupbythewavesoftemporallyorderedsocial
solidarity.412Butbeforecontinuingwithhisconfession,Augustinedeemsitnecessaryto
sealhisaccountofcommendatioindistinctionfromsociallytransmittedandinnate
peruersio(conf.I.19.3020.31).
Commendatio:DiastrophicandCreated
Augustinesummarizeshisyouthfulstateasadherencetoadiastrophicbeliefthatthe
goodlifeconsistedinwinningsocietalfavor(conf.I.19.30).Theresultisthoroughgoing
perversionofthethreefoldcommendatio.Augustinedoublydistortedhiscommendatio
toknowledgebylying(dissimulatingtruth)inordertofreehimselftoplayandtakein
spectacles(seekingexperienceinitself,conf.I.19.30).Augustine,likewise,distortedhis
commendatiotobodilypreservationbystealingtosatisfygluttony(conf.I.19.30).
Stealingalsocontributedsomewhattohisperversionofthecommendatiotohuman
association.Forhestoletobribehisplaymatestoincludehimandthenfurther
pervertedthatassociationintodominationbymeansofcheating(conf.I.19.30).
ButAugustine’speruersio,bothinnateandsociallytransmitted,isnotthelast
wordconcerningtherootsofhumanaction.Inthanksgiving,Augustinenowturnsto
delineatethecreationalgiftofthethreefoldcommendatiounderlyinghisperverse412Cf.discussioninchapter6below.
291
manifestationsthereof(sedtamen,domine,tibiexcellentissimoatqueoptimoconditoriet
rectoriuniuersitatis,deonostrogratias[2Cor2,14],conf.I.20.31).
FollowingtheorderofIJohn.2:16,Augustinerelatesthecreatedcommendatioto
bodilypreservationintermsquiteathomeinRomanStoictranscendentalaccounts,
althoughexplicitlyinterpretedwithintheframeworkofaChristian‐Platonicontology
(uestigiumsecretissimaeunitatis,exquaeram,conf.I.20.31).Sothefirstcreational
commendatioconstitutesasensationofhealthfulbodilyunity,whichisitselfatraceof
divineunity,andacaretokeepitfromdanger(sentiebammeamqueincolumitatem,
uestigiumsecretissimaeunitatis,exquaeram,curaehabebam,conf.I.20.31).Avoiding
painservestheproperfunctionofself‐preservation(fugiebamdolorem,conf.I.20.31).
ThecreationalcommendatiotoknowledgelikewiseresemblesCicero’sStoicizing
accountofanunderlyingimpulsetodiscoveryoftrutheveninchildren,whichgrowsto
providetheanthropologicalbasisforthesciences(fin.III.5.1718).Sothethird
creationalcommendatio(byStoicordering)consistsinmaintainingtheinnersenseby
whichexternalstimuliareintegrated,andinfindingdelightinthinkingabouttruthto
thedegreeconstitutionallypossible(custodiebaminterioresensuintegritatemsensuum
meoruminqueipsisparuisparuarumquererumcogitationibusueritatedelectabar.,conf.
I.20.31).Thecontraryisalsoentailed.Bycreatedconstitution,humansavoidbeing
deceived,drawbackfromignoranceanddevelopmemorytoaidintheprocess(falli
nolebam,memoriauigebam,…fugiebam…ignorantiam,conf.I.20.31).
Thecreatedcommendatiotohumanassociationconsistsprimarilyinthe
underlyingimpulsetocommunicateandfindsoothingcomfortinfriendship(locutione
instruebar,amicitiamulcebar,conf.I.20.31).Sincebothsocialrejection(fugiebam…
292
abiectionem)andabsorptionofidentity(confusiones)opposeproperassociation,
createdcommendatiofleesfromthosestates(conf.I.20.31).
InthesethreecreatedformsofcommendatioAugustinefindsmuchworthyof
praiseandwonder(quidintalianimantenonmirabileatquelaudabile?,conf.I.20.31).
Godmadetheseunderlyingdimensionsoftheselfandtheyaregood(atistaomniadei
meidonasunt.nonmihiegodedihaec:etbonasuntethaecomniaego.,conf.I.20.31).
Theperuersioofsindoesnotresideinthecreatedinclinations.Sinenterswith
theattempttofulfillourcreatedaffinitiesthroughdirectactionandthusoutofcreated
resourcesalone(hocenimpeccabam,quodnoninipso,sedincreaturiseiusmeatque
ceterisuoluptates,sublimitates,ueritatesquaerebam,conf.I.20.31).Insodoingweinvert
theproperorderwherebycontemplativeadhesiontotheeternalalwaysprecedes
temporalaction.Asaresult,ourdiastrophicquestforpleasures(uoluptates)endsin
sorrows(dolores),oursearchforsocialdistinctions(sublimitates)endsinabsorptive
lossofidentity(confusiones),andourgraspingfortemporaltruths(ueritates)yields
onlyerrors(errores,conf.I.20.31).
Peruersiocomesfromprivilegingtemporalactionovercontemplativereception
oftheeternal(mus.VI.39;VI.48).SoAugustine’sprayerendsthisfirstbookofthe
ConfessioneswiththanksgivingforthecontemplativemediationofactionthatGod
enables(conf.I.20.31).TherebyGodbecomesourprimarysweetness,honorand
epistemicconfidence(gratiastibi,dulcedomeaethonormeusetfiduciamea,deusmeus,
gratiastibidedonistuis…)allowingthesecreatedrootsofactiontogrowandreachtheir
appropriateends(…etaugebunturetperficienturquaededistimihi,conf.I.20.31).Butthe
descriptionofhowthatworksrequiresanexaminationofAugustine’sunderstandingof
contemplationintheConfessiones,towhichwenowturn.
293
Chapter6
Augustine’sAccountofContemplation:
PerverseandRedemptiveAscentsintheConfessiones
ContemplationintheConfessiones,likeimpulsestoaction,comesintwoforms.The
fallenselfcanrisethroughaself‐fueledascenttotheveryheightsofknowledgeand
thusattainabriefglimpseofGod’snon‐corporealsubstance(conf.VII.10.16;VII.17.23;
VII.20.26).Buttheseascentsalwaysproveabortiveandmorallynon‐transformative.
Platoniccontemplation,asAugustineunderstandsit,fallsintothiscategory.
Ontheotherhand,Godhasprovidedanindirectmodeofgracedascentasapart
ofChrist’sbody,whichiseveryrisingtojoinhisdivinity(conf.VII.18.24).God’sindirect
routeincorporatesseasonsofcontemplation,butdoesnotproceedbycontemplation
alone.Evengracedcontemplationdoesnotlastforeverinthislife,butintandemwith
ecclesiallydirectedreformationsofaction,itdoeshealandtransform.Andthegoal,like
themode,ofthisgracedcontemplationturnsouttobesubstantivelydifferent.Sointhe
ConfessionesAugustineproposesadistinctivelyChristianformofpost‐Platonic
contemplation.413
413By“post‐Platoniccontemplation”IrefertoanaccountofcontemplationthatwouldnotbeimaginablewithoutpriorincorporationofPlatonictheories,yetcannotbereducedto,orfitwithoutremainderwithin,aNeo‐Platonicunderstandingofcontemplation.Augustine’stheoryowesmuchtoPlotinianthought,butintroducesdistinctlynovelelementsthatcannotbeconstrued,withinterpretivefidelitytoAugustine,asmerelyextraneous.
294
PresumptiveContemplation:GlimpsingtheCreatorthroughCreatures
ThekeytoidentifyingAugustine’saccountofChristianandPlatoniccontemplationlies
innoticingtworelatedpointsinhisthought.
First,Augustinesubtlydistinguishestwopossibilitiesinthedirectionof
mediation.414ForAugustinetheissueisnotwhetheronethingwillmediateforanother.
Godfashionedsoulsinanontologicallymiddlingposition(ep.18).415Bytheirvery
constitutionhumanswillmediatebetweenimmutableGodaboveandbodiesbelow(ep.
18).Byvirtueofthismiddlingposition,humansoulsarecapableofimmediately
interactingwithoneortheotherlevelofreality,butnotwithbothsimultaneously.
Angelicintelligencesalsooccupythismiddlingclass,albeitwithoutanyfallintosin
(conf.XII.9.9).Thequestionisinwhichdirectionwillthemediationflow?Ifhumans
approachcreaturesimmediately,God’spresenceismediated(andsomewhatmitigated)
thereby(conf.X.27.38).WhenhumansapproachGodimmediately,theyencounter
414ContemporaryphilosophicaltheologianshavecriticizedAugustineforlivingwithina“dreamofimmediacy.”AgoodexampleisSmith,JamesK.A.2000.TheFallofInterpretation:PhilosophicalFoundationsforaCreationalHermeneutic.Downer’sGrove,Illinois:IntervarsityPress.,pp.133‐148.ButSmithhasnotreadAugustinecloselyenough,formuchnuanceismissed.Augustinedoesnotimagineimmediacyallaround,asitwere,toGodandotherhumanbeings.Rather,Augustine’saccountofprimordialspeechlessnessisacomplexnotionofimmediateinteractionofthehumanmindwithGodthatmaintainshumansintheircreated,bodilystatewhereinunfallenbodieseffortlesslyperformfullyfunctionalmediationbetweenhumansoulsunderGod(gn.adu.Man.II.2232).Thustheproductionofsignificantsoundwasobviatedbyvirtueofasuperiorformofmediationbetweenhumanbeings.Likewise,Augustinehasdistinguishedcreatedembodiment,andthus‘finitude’,frompenalmortalityofbody(e.g.,ex.prop.Rom.1318.1012;36.5;46.7;50),apointofwhichSmithseemsunaware.415Forafullerdiscussionofthesoul’smiddlingpositioninrealityandtherelevantliterature,cf.chapter2above
295
creaturesthroughthemediationofGod,whocontainstheirunchangingcauses,and
nothingofthecreatureislostthereby(conf.XIII.31.46).416
Thesecondpointfleshesoutthefirst.Platoniccontemplationrisesunaided
throughtheresidualstrengthofactionrootedinthethirdcommendatiotoknowledge.
Augustineclearlydistinguishesbetweenthisformofcommendatio,whichconstitutesan
ingenium(conf.V.3.4),andreasonpropertowhichitmustbesubjected(conf.
XIII.21.31).417Forthehumanbeing’sinnateinclinationtoknowledge,whenuntouched
bygrace,approachesthingsfromtheoutsideinandseeksthroughinterrogationor
explorationoftemporalthingstoobtaintheirunchangingforms(hominesautem
possuntinterrogare,utinuisibiliadeiperea,quaefactasunt,intellectaconspiciant[Rm
1,20],conf.X.6.10).Buttheverychoicetoconsistentlypursueknowledgeofcreatures
immediately,andthusfromtheoutsidein,constitutesaperverseloveofcreatures
abovetheircreator.418BythatlovewelooseourjudicialcapacityasimageofGod419
416Cf.,alsoAugustine’saccountofangelicknowledgeingn.litt.IV.20ff.417etserpentesboninonperniciosiadnocendum,sedastutiadcauendumettantumexplorantestemporalemnaturam,quantumsufficit,utperea,quaefactasunt,intellecta[Rm1,20]conspiciaturaeternitas.seruiuntenimrationihaecanimalia,cumaprogressumortiferocohibitauiuuntetbonasunt(conf.XIII.21.31).418Suchistheviceofcuriosity,cf.mus.VI.39;VI.48.Cf.Torchia,N.Joseph.1988.“CuriositasintheEarlyPhilosophicalWritingsofSaintAugustine”AugustinianStudies19,pp.111‐119.Later,Augustineindicatesthatthedevilfellthroughdelightingindirect,eveningknowledgeoftheworldandthusnotconvertingtoreceivemorningknowledgethroughdivinemediation,gn.litt.IV.24.41;gn.litt.IV.32.49.419Augustine’searlydoctrineoftheimagodeiconceivedtheWordasimageofGodandthehumanmensascreatedtotheimageoftheWord(gn.litt.inp.16.60).TherelationofimagingmeansthatnoothernatureneedmediatebetweenthemensandtheWordwhoisTruth(gn.litt.inp.16.60;diu.qu.51.2).Ofcourse,hisunderstandingofcreationprogressedbythetimeoftheConfessionestodiscerningatrinitarianimageinthemens(conf.XIII.11.12),butthisimmediacyofthemindtoGodremainsvitaltoAugustine’sunderstanding.NotehislateappealtotheimmediacyofthemindtoGodinciu.10.2.AgoodintroductiontoAugustine’sdoctrineoftheimagemaybefoundinBonner,Gerald.1984.“Augustine’sDoctrineofMan:ImageofGodandSinner”AugustinianumXXIV,pp.495514.AhelpfulcomparisonofAugustine’searlydoctrinewiththesynthesisof
296
(conf.XIII.22.33)andcreaturesbecomeincreasinglyopaquetoourinterrogativegaze
(sedamoresubduntureisetsubditiiudicarenonpossunt.necrespondentista
interrogantibusnisiiudicantibus…,conf.X.6.10).
Sointhefamousseroteamauipassage,thebeautifulthingsofcreationonceheld
AugustinebackfarfromGod(eametenebantlongeate)preciselybecauseAugustine
wasapproachingthemdirectly,fromtheoutsidein(conf.X.27.38).420Aswewillsee
below,thedistancedoesnotdenyintellectualvision,onlymorallikeness.Itispossible,
onAugustine’saccount,toriseunaidedthroughthemediationofcreaturestoapartial,
intellectualvisionofGod.
WithinafewyearsoftheConfessionesAugustinewilldescribealterationsinthe
directionofmediationinspiritualcreatures’knowingasproducingeventideand
morningknowledge,respectively(gn.litt.IV.22.3924.41).421AlreadyintheConfessiones
Augustineconceptualizestwodirectionsofmediationinhumancontemplationand
OrigenistandPlotinianimagesintheAmbrosiandoctrineoftheimagodeimaybefoundinseeMcCool,G.A.SJ.1959.“TheAmbrosianOriginofSt.Augustine’sTheologyoftheImageofGodinMan”TheologicalStudies20,pp.62‐81.Ambrose’sPlotiniansourcesaregraphicallycorrelatedinCourcelle,PierrePaul.1950.RecherchessurlesConfessionsdesaintAugustin.Paris:E.deBoccardpp.106‐132.ThemostdetailedandhyperbolicaccountoftheAlexandrianelement,whichclaimsnotonlymediatedinfluencethroughAmbrosebutdirectinfluenceofOrigen’swritingsontheearlyAugustineisHeidl,György.2003.Origen’sInfluenceontheYoungAugustine;aChapteroftheHistoryofOrigenism.Louaize,Lebanon:NotreDameUniversity.420etecceintuserasetegoforisetibitequaerebametinistaformosa,quaefecisti,deformisinruebam.mecumeras,ettecumnoneram.eametenebantlongeate,quaesiintenonessent,nonessent(conf.X.27.38).421FordiscussionofAugustine’saccountofangelicknowledge,cf.Gorman,MichaelMurray.1974.TheUnknownAugustine:AStudyoftheLiteralInterpretationofGenesis(degenesiadlitteram).Ph.D.dissertation,UniversityofToronto,ch.1.Also,Augustin,EugèneTréhorel,andAiméSolignac.1962.OeuvresdeSaintAugustin.LesConfessions,livresIXIII.14,Dieuetsonoeuvre.Paris:DescléedeBrouweretCie,pp.613‐617.
297
describeshowtheyleadtoverydifferentdestinations.422Thedistinguishing
characteristic,andcritique,ofPlatoniccontemplationappearsthroughAugustine’s
peculiaruseofPaul’sanalysisinRom.1:20.423
ThreeUsesofRom1:20inAugustine’sThought
AugustineusesPaul’stextdifferentlydependingontherhetoricaloccasionathand.But
theattentivereaderwilldiscernthreeprimaryusesofRom1:20inAugustine’sthought.
422LaterAugustinewilldescribethetwopossibledirectionsofmediation,inreflectionuponJohn’swords,asthedifferencebetweenfindingjoyinwisdomobtainedonone’sownandfindingjoyinthewisdomGodgives,…quodesthocgaudium?gaudiogaudetpropteruocemsponsi[Io3,29].intellegatergohomononsegauderedeberedesapientiasua,seddesapientiaquamaccepitadeo.nihilplusquaerat,etnonamittitquodinuenit.,Io.eu.tr.14.3423ThisseemsthebestplacetospecifythedifferencesbetweenmyreadingofAugustine’stheoryofcontemplationandthatofKenney,JohnPeter.2005.TheMysticismofSaintAugustine:RrereadingTheConfessions.NewYork:Routledge.andKenney,JohnPeter.2001.“SaintAugustineandtheLimitsofContemplation”inWiles,M.F.,EdwardYarnold,andP.M.Parvis.2001.StudiaPatristica38,pp.199‐218.
Intheend,KenneyreadsAugustineasendorsingaformofcontemplationthatisphenomenologicallyidenticaltowhatAugustinethinksthePlatonistsareengagedin.TheonlydifferenceisthatAugustinethinkscontemplationyieldsonlyknowledgebutnotsalvation.ThedistinctionbetweenepistemiccertaintyandsalvationistruetoAugustine,asIwilldemostrateinthischapter.However,threeweaknessespreventKenneyfromseeingtheAugustiniandistinctionbetweenChristianandPlatoniccontemplationasdeterminedbythedirectionofmediation.
First,KenneyassumestheallusionstoRom.1:20inconf.VII.10.16;VII.17.23andVII.20.26signifyAugustine’sendorsementofthiscontemplationasaChristianenterprise(cf.Kenney.2001,p.209andKenney.2005.pp.61ff).BythusmissingAugustine’suniformlycriticaluseofRom.1:20inpolemicsagainstpaganphilosophy,Kenneyassumestheaccountofconf.VIImustbeaparadigmofAugustiniancontemplation.
Second,KenneybetraysnosenseofthehexaemeraltemplatebywhichAugustinestructuresconf.IVIIasparodiesoftheecclesialprogramofhumanformation.ThushecannotrecognizeAugustine’sliterarycuetoreadconf.VII.10.16ffasaparodyofChristiancontemplation.
Third,althoughKenneynotesthe“moralaxis”asunchangedinthecontemplationofconf.VII,hedoesnotrecognizethemodifiedStoicelementsofthepsychologyofactionaskeytoAugustine’scritiqueofPlotinianfailuretherein(cf.Kenney.2005.pp.67,73‐76).
298
ThefirstcommonusageassimilatesthePaulinetextintoadiscussionofthethreeforms
ofvision(bodily,spiritual,intellectual),ofteninanti‐Manicheanoranti‐Arianrhetorical
contexts(e.g.,c.Adim.28;trin.II.25;s.126.3).
Thesecondusagebecomescommoninlaterworks.AugustineappealstoRom
1:20asjustificationforrisingbyanalogyfromamentaltriadtodiscussionofthedivine
Trinity(s.52.15;ep.120.12;trin.XV.3).IfGodmakeshiseternalattributesintellectually
visiblethroughcreatures,howmuchmorewouldGodrevealhimselfthrough
contemplationofthatcreaturefashionedinGod’simage!Asonemightexpect,
AugustinetendstowardarhetoricalforgetfulnessofPaul’saccompanyingcritiquein
thesecontexts(e.g.,s.52.15;ep.120.12;trin.XV.3).
Augustine’sthirdusage,however,isbyfarthemostcommonandcoversallthe
relevantallusionsintheConfessiones.Paul’swordsinRom.1:20allowAugustineto
categorizeboththepossibilityandtheculpabilityofthepaganphilosopher’sknowledge
ofGod(conf.V.3.34.7;VII.10.16;VII.17.23;VII.20.26;s.68.38;s.141;s.241.13;s.
Dolbeau26.2740;Io.eu.tr.2.26;trin.XIII.24).VeryofteninthesecontextsAugustine
interweaveshisreadingofPaulwithappealstoWis.13:1‐13424andMatt.11:25.425We
424uanisuntautemomneshominesquibusnonsubestscientiaDeietdehisquaeuidenturbonanonpotueruntintellegereeumquiestnequeoperibusadtendentesagnoueruntquisessetartifexsedautignemautspiritumautcitatumaeremautgyrumstellarumautnimiamaquamautsolemetlunamrectoresorbisterrarumdeosputaueruntquorumsispeciedelectatideosputaueruntsciantquantodominatoreorumspeciosiorestspecieienimgeneratorhaecomniaconstituitautsiuirtutemetoperaeorummiratisuntintellegantabipsisquoniamquihaecconstituitfortiorestillisamagnitudineenimspecieietcreaturaecognoscibiliterpoterithorumcreatoruiderisedtamenadhucinhisminorestquerellaethiienimfortassiserrantDeumquaerentesetuolentesinuenireetenimcuminoperibusilliusconuersenturinquiruntetpersuasumhabentquoniambonasuntquaeuidenturiterumautemnechisdebetignoscisienimtantumpotueruntscireutpossentaestimaresaeculumquomodohuiusDominumnonfaciliusinueneruntinfelicesautemsuntetintermortuosspesillorumestquiappellaueruntdeosoperamanuumhominumaurumetargentumartisinuentionemsimilitudinesanimaliumautlapideminutilemopusmanus
299
turnnowtoconsiderthekeypassagesinwhichAugustinereadsPlatoniccontemplation
throughthecriticallensofRom.1:20.
KnowingGodinIniquity:PaganPhilosophyandRom1:20
GiventhetrajectoryofAugustine’sveryearlythought,itshouldcauselittlesurprisethat
hisearliestuseofRom.1:20comeswithoutaPaulinecritiqueattached.Indeed,hisfirst
accountsimplyequatesascentwithattainingtoeternalstabilityandthusbeing
transformed(haecestatemporalibusadaeternaregressioetexuitaueterishominisin
nouumhominemreformatio.,uerarel.101).Sincecontemplationprovidedtheexclusive
andsufficientpathwaytohappinessinhisearliestanthropology,thisconflationistobe
expected.426
AugustinedoesnotmakeuseofthisPaulinepassageagainuntiltheConfessiones.
Fourtimestherein,whiledescribingpaganphilosophers,Augustineincorporatesa
quotationorstrongallusiontoRom.1:20bywayofcritique(conf.V.3.34.7;VII.10.16;
VII.17.23;VII.20.26).ThemostexpansiveexamplecomesbeforeAugustineencounters
thebooksofthePlatonistsandprovidesanintra‐textualfoundationforinterpretinghis
antiquaeautsiquisartifexfaberdesilualignumrectumsecaueritethuiusdocteeradatomnemcorticemetartesuaususdiligenterfabricetuasutileinconuersationeuitaereliquiasautemeiusoperisadpraeparationemescaeabutaturetreliquumhorumquodadnullosususfacitlignumcuruumetuerticibusplenumsculpatdiligenterperuacuitatemsuametperscientiamartissuaefiguretilludetadsimiletilludimaginihominis(Sap.13.113)425inillotemporerespondensIesusdixit:confiteortibi,pater,dominecaelietterrae,quiaabscondistihaecasapientibusetprudentibus(Matt.11.25)426Cf.VanFleteran,F.1977.“AugustineandthePossibilityoftheVisionofGodinthisLife”inConferenceonMedievalStudies,JohnR.Sommerfeldt,andThomasH.Seiler.1977.StudiesinMedievalCulture,XI.StudiesinMedievalCulture,11.Kalamazoo,Mich:MedievalInstitute,WesternMichiganUniversity,pp.9‐16.
300
moreconcisereferenceswhenrecountingthePlatonicmodeofcontemplation(conf.
V.3.34.7).
TheNaturalPhilosophersandRom1:20
Thoughthenaturalphilosophersprovidedmorereliableaccountsofthecelestial
creationthantheManicheans,theirknowledgestemmedfromaproudcuriositywhich
preventedthemfromdiscoveringGod(necinuenirisasuperbis,necsiillicuriosaperitia
numerentstellasetharenametdimetiantursidereasplagasetuestigentuiasastrorum.,
conf.V.3.3).Althoughtheyperformedveryprecisemeasurementsofthingstemporal
andbodily,theirsearchwasnotconductedwithareligiousspirit,fortheydidnotseek
outthesourceoftheirinnatecommendatiotoknowledge(nonenimreligiosequaerunt,
undehabeantingenium,quoistaquaerunt,conf.V.3.4).ThisisAugustine’scritiqueofthe
naturalphilosophersthatdonotknowGod.
ButAugustinedoesnotstopthere.AndthePaulineallusionsbeginnowin
earnest.EvenifthepaganphilosophersdiscovertheirCreator,theyareunwillingto
givethemselvesovertotheGodwhomadethem(etinuenientes,quiatufecistieos,non
ipsisedanttibi,conf.V.3.4).Iftheyhad,Godwouldhavepreservedhiscreationby
acceptingthesacrificialdeathofthesortofselftheyhadmadeforthemselves(seut
seruesquodfecisti,etqualesseipsifecerantocciduntsetibi,conf.V.3.4).ThenAugustine
delineateswhatsortofselfthesephilosophershadmadebyrecountingthethree
pervertedformsofcommendatio(exaltationessuas…etcuriositatessuas…luxuriassuas,
conf.V.3.4).
TheirspecificdefectliesintheirignoranceoftheWaywhoistheWord(sednon
noueruntuiam,uerbumtuum,conf.V.3.5;cf.alsos.198.41;Io.eu.tr.2.4).Theincarnate
301
one,whomediatesawayofreturntoimmediateknowledgeofGod,atoncechannels
thecreationofallnumerable,temporalthings(perquodfecistieaquaenumerant,et
ipsosquinumerantetsensum,quocernuntquaenumerant,etmentem,dequanumerant)
andremainseternallybeyondallnumerable,temporalchange(etsapientiaetuaenon
estnumerus[Ps146,5].,conf.V.3.5).AssuchtheWordprovidestheonlypossible
pathwaytoreturntoeternalstability.
Butthephilosophersprefertheirownperverseingeniumtothehumblepathlaid
outbytheunigenitusthatrequiresdescendinginordertoascend(ipseautemunigenitus
factusestnobissapientiaetiustitiaetsanctificatio[1Cor1,30]…nonnouerunthancuiam,
quadescendantadillumaseetpereumascendantadeum,conf.V.3.5).Pride,throughits
loveofindependenteffectiveness,barsthemfromacceptingagracedmodeofascentto
wisdom(cf.,alsos.141;s.68.7;Io.eu.tr.2.26;s.241.3;s.Dolbeau26.2740).
Pridealwaysprecedesafall.Thenaturalphilosopherswerenoexception.By
consideringthemselvesindependentlywise,theyinfactbecamefools(nonnouerunt
hancuiametputantseexcelsosessecumsideribusetlucidos,eteccerueruntinterram,et
obscuratumestinsipienscoreorum[Rm1,21].,conf.V.3.5;cf.alsos.241.3;s.68.38).In
reality,theywereonlytemporallyknowledgeableconcerningcreatures(etmultauera
decreaturadicuntetueritatem),andtheingeniumbywhichtheyinquiredand
calculatedtheoutsidesofcreatureswasitselfagiftofGod(conf.V.3.5).
BecausethenaturalphilosophersrefusedtoacknowledgeGod’sgiftingratitude,
eventhosewhodiscoveredsomethingoftheCreatorsubsequentlydisappearedinto
theirownthoughtsratherthanreceivingGod’srevelation(autsiinueniunt,
cognoscentesdeumnonsicutdeumhonorantautgratiasagunteteuanescuntin
cogitationibussuis[Rm1,21],conf.V.3.5).Byattributingwisdomtothemselves,theyhad
302
claimedtopossesswhatbelongstoGodalone(etdicuntseessesapientes[Rm1,22]sibi
tribuendoquaetuasunt,conf.V.3.5;alsos.68.38;s.141;s.241.13).
Fullinversioninevitablyensuedasmanifestedinpaganpoetryandcultic
devotion(s.141;s.241.13;s.Dolbeau26.3537).Astheyfadedawayintotheirown
thinking,theynotonlyattributeddivinequalitiestothemselvesbutalsoattributed
creaturelyqualitiestoGod(acperhocstudentperuersissimacaecitateetiamtibitribuere
quaesuasunt,conf.V.3.5).Thepoets’fablesoflyingdeitiesandthepagancultic
distortionsthatpictureGodashuman‐likeorbestialstandasconcretecultural
witnessestothefoolishnessofthosewholovethecreatureabovetheCreator(conf.
V.3.5;cf.alsoconf.I.16.25).427
Allthesecritiques,andonemore,Augustineappliestothepagannatural
philosophersandthePlatonistsalike.Havingdelineatedtheperversemannerof
discoveringGodthroughcreatures,Augustineturnstodifferentiatebetweenknowledge
andblessedness(conf.V.4.7;cf.alsos.Dolbeau26.29afewyearslateron1January404).
Knowledge,inandofitself,doesnotendearapersontoGod(numquid,dominedeus
ueritatis[Ps30,6],quisquisnouitista,iamplacettibi?,conf.V.4.7).Nordoesknowledgeof
temporalthingspossessanyinherentconnectiontohumanhappiness,positivelyor
negatively.Ahumanbeingthatknowsallthingstemporally,butdoesnotknowGod
wouldbeunhappy(infelixenimhomo,quiscitillaomnia,teautemnescit,conf.V.4.7).
Likewise,onewhoknowsGodandclingstoGod(inhaerendotibi)whileignorantof
creatureswouldstillbeblessed(beatusautem,quitescit,etiamsiillanesciat,conf.V.4.7).
427mendaciascilicetinteconferentes,quiueritases,etimmutantesgloriamincorruptideiinsimilitudinemimaginiscorruptibilishominisetuolucrumetquadrupedumetserpentium[Rm1,23],etconuertuntueritatemtuaminmendacium[Rm1,25]etcoluntetseruiuntcreaturaepotiusquamcreatori[Rm1,25].,conf.V.3.5.
303
Andaddingknowledgeofcreaturestothemixwouldnotincreasebeatitude,fora
grateful,lovingknowledgeofGodisnotonlynecessarybutalsosufficientforhuman
flourishing(quiueroetteetillanouit,nonpropterillabeatior,sedproptertesolum
beatusest,conf.V.4.7).
ThusAugustinecharacteristicallyconcludeshisreflectionsonthepagan
philosopher’sknowledge.Insummary,paganphilosophersriseupbythepoweroftheir
owningeniumgrantedinthecreatedcommendatiotoknowledge.Theirpridefulrefusal
togivethemselvesovertoGodcausesthemtorejectthegracedwayprovidedbythe
incarnateword.Byattributingwisdomtothemselves,theybecomefoolishasisvisibly
manifestedintheperversionofthepagancult.Finally,Augustinecategorizestheir
knowingbyexplicitlydistinguishingknowledgeandsalvation.Alltheseaspectsrecurin
Augustine’saccountofPlotiniancontemplationtowhichwenowturn.
PlatonistContemplationandRom1:20(conf.VII.10.16;VII.17.23;VII.20.26)
AugustinedevotesmuchofConfessionesVIItorecountinghisinitialencounterwiththe
booksofthePlatonists.ThesebooksledAugustinetosuccessfullyrisetoapartial,
intellectualvisionofGodinthemannerheconsideredstandardforPlatonist
contemplation.428TwopassagesspecificallydescribetheculminationofPlatonicascent,
428Inscholarlyaccounts,theseattemptsareusuallyinterpretedasunsuccessful.Thisinterpretiveposturesinksitsrootsintotheold,anachronisticattempttoreconstructwhetherthe“historicalAugustine”wasinitiallyconvertedtoNeo‐PlatonismorChristianity.TheassumptionwasthatAugustineencounteredaratherpureformofPlotinianphilosophy.Thatassumptionissimplyerroneous(cf.Courcelle,PierrePaul.1950.RecherchessurlesConfessionsdesaintAugustin.Paris:E.deBoccardonMilaneseChristianPlatonism).Furthermore,thesecondpassage(conf.VII.17.23)veryexplicitlytellsusthatAugustineindeedachievedavisionofidquodest.AccordingtoAugustine’s
304
andbothinterpretthatachievementthroughthelensofRom.1:20(conf.VII.10.16;
VII.17.23).
AugustinefamouslydescribeswhathefoundinthebooksofthePlatonistsin
termsoffragmentsofChristianscripture,theideasofwhichtheydidordidnotcontain
(conf.VII.9.1314).429ThePlatonist’sbookstaughtabouttheoneGod,whoispriortoall
things,andhisWordgeneratedfromGod’sownsubstanceandthenatureofnon‐
corporealsubstanceitself(conf.VII.9.1314).However,whattheydidnotcontainclosely
correlatestothedefectofthenaturalphilosophers(conf.V.3.34.7).Augustinedidnot
findthereanyteachingabouttheimmanenceofGod’sactionintheworldorthehumble
waythattheincarnateoneopenedupforhumansalvationbyhislife,deathandbodily
resurrection(conf.VII.9.1314).
AndAugustine’sanalysisofwhythePlatonistslackedthisknowledgereplicates
hisanalysisofthenaturalphilosopherswiththesameappealtoRom.1:21‐25(conf.
VII.9.14).ThePlatonists,proudthroughloveoftheirownaccomplishments,refuseto
humblethemselvesandacceptdivineinstructionandaid(cf.alsos.141;s.68.7;Io.eu.tr.
2.26;s.241.3;s.Dolbeau26.2740).Theirattachmenttoactiveproductionofknowledge
shinesthroughAugustine’suseofscripturalmetaphorsoflaboronone’sown
contrastedwiththerestavailableinbowingtoJesus’yoke.Likethenatural
philosophers,thePlatonistsdidnotshowgratitudeintheirknowledgeandbyclaiming
tobewise,attributeddivineattributestothemselves(etsicognoscuntdeum,nonsicutunderstandingofPlotinus,nomorecouldbeexpectedofaPlatonicascent.Cf.Augustine,andJamesJosephO'Donnell.1992.Confessions.Oxford:ClarendonPress,xxxiii.;andKenney,JohnPeter.2005.TheMysticismofSaintAugustine:RereadingTheConfessions.NewYork:Routledgepp.61‐72.429Althoughmuchhasbeenmadeofthisrhetoricalstrategy,notethisisAugustine’snormalstrategyfordescribingphilosophicaltextswithmeasuredusefulness.ConsiderhisdescriptionoftheHortensius’contentsintermsofCol.2:8ff(conf.III.4.8)
305
deumglorificantautgratiasagunt,sedeuanescuntincogitationibussuisetobscuratur
insipienscoreorum;dicentesseessesapientesstultifactisunt[Rm1,22].,conf.VII.9.14).
Theirproudperversionlikewisebecomesclearintheculticdistortionsinto
whichtheyfall(etideolegebamibietiamimmutatamgloriamincorruptionistuaein
idolaetuariasimulacra,insimilitudinemimaginiscorruptibilishominisetuolucrumet
quadrupedumetserpentium[Rm1,23],uidelicetAegyptiumcibumconf.VII.9.15).Inthe
Platonists’case,theculticdistortionprovidesaparticularlydramaticexample.Their
non‐corporealontologyandidolworshipvisiblyconflict,thushighlightinghowtheir
knowledgeandlovehavemovedinincompatibledirections(cf.also,s.141;s.241.13;s.
Dolbeau26.3537).Augustineneverdescendstoparticipationinanidol’scult,buthe
doesfollowtheirwayofknowingGodandendsinthesamepridefulstateofsoul(conf.
VII.20.26).430
Augustine’sPlatonicContemplation:HearingandSeeingGoddelonginquo
Continuingtodescribehisowninwardturn,AugustineinretrospectknowsthatGodled
andenabledhim(conf.VII.10.16).Innamingthesoul’sfacultyofintellectualvisionas
oculusanimae,Augustineassociatesthiscapacitywiththelower,activedimensionof
soul.ThroughthisinnatecapacityAugustinerisestoavisionofnon‐corporeal
substanceontologicallysuperiortohissoul.Hesawbeing,butinthatvisionAugustine
realizedthathedidnotyethavebeing(…essequoduiderem,etnondummeessequi430Ofcourse,theironyinAugustine’spersonalhistorythatgivesrisetothegenuineambivalenceofhisassessmentofthePlatonistsisthis.TheveryphilosopherswhofreedhimfromtheManicheans’conceptualidolatryturnouttobeidolatersofamorebasekind.FortheidolatryentailedintheManichean’sphantasms,seeconf.VI.7.12,andTeske,R.J.1993.“Augustine,MaximusandImagination”Augustiniana43,pp.2741,andTeske,R.J.1994.“HeresyandImaginationinSt.Augustine”Studiapatristica27,pp.400‐404.
306
uiderem.,conf.VII.10.16).431ThePlatonistvisionhighlightedAugustine’sdissimilarityto
Godandcausedhimtofallback(etreuerberastiinfirmitatemaspectusmeiradiansinme
uehementer,etcontremuiamoreethorrore:etinuenilongemeesseateinregione
dissimilitudinis,conf.VII.10.16).
Buttheascenthadproduceditsintendedresult.Augustinenowpossessed
indubitableknowledgeofincorporealbeing,havingachieveditthroughintellectual
visionofthingsmade(undedubitaremfaciliusquedubitaremuiueremequamnonesse
ueritatem,quaeperea,quaefactasunt,intellecta[Rm1,20]conspicitur.,conf.VII.10.16).
ThereferencetoPaul’sanalysisforeshadowsacritiqueofhisownPlatonicvision,which
Augustinewillunpackinconf.VII.20.2621.27.Butfirstheturnstoelucidatethepositive
workthisvisionanditsepistemiccertaintyperformedinfreeinghimfromthe
Manicheanheresy.
Inlightofhisnewfoundcertaintyconcerningincorporealbeing,Augustineturns
toreconsidertheunfinished,quasi‐beingpropertocreatures(etuidinecomninoesse
necomninononesse,conf.VII.11.17).Bymoreclearlydefiningtherelationbetweennon‐
corporealbeingandthepartialexpressionsofbeingincreatures,Augustinedissolves
theManichean’sproblemofevil.Corruptiblesaregoodtotheextentthattheyexist,but
becausetheyarenotBeingitselfneitheraretheyGoodnessitself(conf.VII.12.18).And
evilmerelysubsistsasaparasite,aprivationofbeing,inthesortsofthingsthatfall
betweenBeingandnothingness(conf.VII.13.1915.21).Iniquitythereforeturnsoutto
benothingbutaperversewilltwistedawayfromthehighestdivinesubstancetoward
thelowest,throwingawaywhatisinsideandswolleninarousalforwhatisoutside(et
431O'Connell,RobertJ.1969.St.Augustine'sConfessions;theOdysseyofSoul.Cambridge,Mass:BelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPresspp.75‐80.
307
quaesiui,quidessetiniquitas,etnoninuenisubstantiam,sedasummasubstantia,tedeo,
detortaeininfimauoluntatisperuersitatemproicientisintimasua[Ecli10,10]et
tumescentisforas.,conf.VII.16.22).
Havingstatedclearlythesourceofevilintwistedvolitions,Augustineproceeds
toexplainhowhecouldatoncerisetoanintellectualvisionofidquodestandlackthe
volitionalstabilitytostaythereinlove(conf.VII.17.23).Termsandexplanationsfrom
Augustine’spsychologyofactionreemergehere.Augustinelacksthestandingorstaying
powertoloveGodforGod’ssake(etmirabar,quodiamteamabam,nonprote
phantasma,etnonstabamfruideomeo.,conf.VII.17.23).432Theweightthatpulls
AugustinedownfromenjoyingGodiscarnalhabit(etpondushocconsuetudocarnalis.,
conf.VII.17.23).433
Throughintellectualvisionhehaspassedbeyondanydoubtconcerningthe
existenceofincorporealbeing,buthisincapacitytoclingtoincorporealdivinityhasnot
changedthereby(conf.VII.17.23,cf.also,s.Dolbeau26.29).And,again,thereasonis
rootedinhispsychologyofaction.Thepenalstateofhismortalbodyweighsdownhis
soulanddragshisawarenessintoamultiplicityofthoughts(quoniamcorpus,quod
corrumpitur,aggrauatanimametdeprimitterrenainhabitatiosensummultacogitantem
432NotethereoccurrenceofthethemeofstandinginContinence’sexhortationimmediatelyprecedingAugustine’sconversion:quidintestasetnonstas?proiceteineum,nolimetuere;nonsesubtrahet,utcadas:proicetesecurus,excipietetsanabitte(conf.VIII.11.27).433FortheroleofconsuetudoinAugustine’spsychologyofactionseechapter3,“Augustine’sInventionoftheHeart.”Also,cf.chapter4forthePaulinerevisionwhenAugustinefindsananalysisoffallenpsychologyofactioninRom.7.Specifically,adisconnectsurfacesbetweenconsenttothepropositionalcontentoflawandthedeterminativeimpulsetoaction.Thustwolawsandtwoconsentsviewitheachother–oneinthemindandtheotherinthebodilymembers.
308
[Sap9,15],conf.VII.17.23).SoAugustine’sbodilycondition,whichproducesnecessity
anddifficultyinaction,rendersstablecontemplationimpossible.
AGlimpseofBeingbeyondBodies:ThePossibililityofPlatonicKnowledgeofGod
Augustine’saccountofthepossibilityofPlatonicvisionofGod,usinghimselfasthetest
case,beginsandendswithanallusiontoRom.1:20(conf.VII.10.1617.23).Despitethe
contemplativeimpassecreatedbyhismortalweakness,theepistemiccertaintythat
Augustinehadgainedbyrisingthroughthingsmadepersisted(eramquecertissimus,
quodinuisibiliatuaaconstitutionemundiperea,quaefactasunt,intellectaconspiciuntur,
sempiternaquoqueuirtusetdiuinitas[Rm1,20]tua.,conf.VII.17.23).And,atthispoint,
AugustinerecountsthestepsbywhichPlatoniccontemplationrisestointellectual
vision.
ThePlatonist’sascenttovisionfollowsan‘inthenup’patternofinquiry.434A
desireforformalunityfuelsthePlatoniccontemplative,butthevehicleofascentisan
internalprocessofquestioningandreceivinganswers(cf.also,conf.X.6.10).Beginning
withexternalbodies,thePlatonistturnsinwardtothepowerthatunifiesdisparate
externalsensedataintoasingleinternalobject(atqueitagradatimacorporibusad434Cary,Phillip.2000.Augustine'sInventionoftheInnerSelf:TheLegacyofaChristianPlatonist.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.seesthispatternasthedistinctiveinnovationofAugustineoveragainstanallegedpublicinteriorityinPlotinus.However,throughouthiswritingsAugustineattributesthispatternofascenttothePlatoniststhemselves–movinginwardfromformalityofbodiestoobservationofthesoul,thenupwardinsearchofsomethingunchangeableabovethesoul(conf.VII.10.1617.23;s.Dolbeau26.27;s.241.2).Likewise,Cary’sreadingofanimpersonal,universalsoulinPlotinusmissestheperduringindividuationofthesouleveninitsreturntotheOne(Enn.VI.9.3.111).FordiscussionofPlotinus’doctrineofformsofindividuals,seeKenney,JohnPeter.1991.MysticalMonotheism:AStudyinAncientPlatonicTheology.Providence,R.I.:BrownUniversityPress,p.124,andCorrigan,Kevin.2001.“TheProblemofPersonalandHumanIdentityinPlotinusandGregoryofNyssa”inStudiaPatristica37,pp.51‐68.
309
sentientempercorpusanimamatqueindeadeiusinterioremuim,cuisensuscorporis
exterioranuntiaret,conf.VII.17.23).Eventhebeastspossessthiscapacity.Sothe
Platonistredirectshisattentionbeyondtothepartofthesoulthatquestions.
Augustine,thePlatonist,drawsfurtherwithintothepowerofdiscursivereason
wherebytheunifiedsenseimageissubjectedtorationaljudgmentforassentordissent
(atqueinderursusadratiocinantempotentiam,adquamreferturiudicandum,quod
sumiturasensibuscorporis,conf.VII.17.23).Buteventhiscapacityprovesmutable,and
soAugustine’sascendingreasonliftsitselfupfurtherinsearchofsomethingimmutable
(conf.VII.17.23).
Thenextlevelachievedisconsiderationofthesoul’sownintelligence(quaese
quoqueinmecomperiensmutabilemerexitseadintellegentiamsuam,conf.VII.17.23).
Thistransitionfromtheimaginabletointelligibilityrequiresamightystruggleagainst
thecarnalhabitofthinkinginphantasms(etabduxitcogitationemaconsuetudine,
subtrahenssecontradicentibusturbisphantasmatum,conf.VII.17.23).435Butresisting
carnalcognitivehabits,Augustineseeksthesourceofincorporeallight,whichhe
encountersintheveryindubitabilitybywhichheknowsimmutablethingsarebetter
thanmutablethings(utinueniretquolumineaspergeretur,cumsineulladubitatione
clamaretincommutabilepraeferendumessemutabili,conf.VII.17.23).Realizingthathis
intellectcouldnotjudgeimmutabilitybetterthanmutabilitywithoutknowing
immutabilityinsomemanner,Augustinerisestothinkofimmutablebeingitself.436
435FortheorthodoxcallinAugustinetothinkwhatcannotbeimaginedseethetwinarticles:Teske,R.J.1993.“Augustine,MaximusandImagination”Augustiniana43:2741,andTeske,R.J.1994.“HeresyandImaginationinSt.Augustine”Studiapatristica27,pp.400‐404.436FortheconceptualfoundationsofthispeculiarlyancientandPlatonictrainofrealistthought,withoutreferencetoAugustine,seeKenney,JohnPeter.1991.Mystical
310
Throughthenotionofimmutability,thebuddingphilosophercatchesapartial
glimpseofGodthroughcreatures.ByAugustine’slights,thisisasuccessfulPlatonic
ascent.Hismindarrivesat‘thatwhichis’inatremblingflashofvision(etperuenitadid
quodestinictutrepidantisaspectus,conf.VII.17.23).ThebeneficialresultofPlatonic
visionispurelyepistemic(soalsos.Dolbeau26.29).Augustine’sintellectualvisionhas
risentoviewGod’sinvisiblebeingthroughthethingsmade(tuncueroinuisibiliatuaper
eaquaefactasuntintellecta[Rm1,20]conspexi,conf.VII.17.23).ButAugustine’spenal
state,elaboratedinhispsychologyofaction,cannotbedeniedforlong.Hishabitual
temporalattachmentshadmadeAugustineweak,andsohismentalgazewasnotstrong
enoughtofixitselfabove(sedaciemfigerenoneualuietrepercussainfirmitateredditus
solitis,conf.VII.17.23).UnabletosufficientlyloveGod,thePlatonist’sthoughtfallsback
tobodies.
WithanotherallusiontoRom.1:20,andaclearindicationthatthePlatonist’s
impulsetoactionlimitshiscapacitytocontemplatewithoutinterruption,Augustine
sumsuphisdisappointmentwithPlatoniccontemplation.Theascentlefthimwiththe
memorialfragranceofafeastfromwhichhecouldnotmanagetoeatandderiveactual
nourishment(nonmecumferebamnisiamantemmemoriametquasiolefacta
desiderantem,quaecomederenondumpossem.,conf.VII.17.23).437
Monotheism:AStudyinAncientPlatonicTheology.Providence,R.I.:BrownUniversityPress.Forthephilologicalmilieuwithinwhichtherealistintuitionoriginated,seeKahn,C.1973.TheVerb‘Be’anditsSynonyms:TheVerb‘Be’inAncientGreek.Dordrecht.Also,Brown,Leslie.1994.“Theverb‘tobe’inGreekphilosophy:someremarks”inEverson,Stephen.1994.Language.CompanionstoAncientThought,3.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.212‐236.437Augustineherebybreakswiththeancientphilosophicalcommonplaceofknowingasnourishment(cf.e.g.Plato,Phdr.247BE;EpictetusDiss.I.26.1517;Diss.II.9.1719;Ench.46;Aureliusmed.X.31.2).ForAugustineaffectmustcompletetheepistemicconnection.
311
SeeingwithoutDwelling:Augustine’sCritiqueofPlatonicVision
AtthispointAugustinecirclesbacktocompletehiscritiqueofthePlatonicvisionof
God.First,thePlatonistsprovidenomeanstotransformthesoul’simpulsestoaction
andtherebytoloveGodenoughforamoresteadycontemplativeattachment.Because
hecouldnoteatthenourishingfeastofdivineincorporealbeing,Augustinebegan
lookingforawayofgainingstrengthsufficienttoenjoyGod(etquaerebamuiam
comparandiroboris,quodessetidoneumadfruendumte,conf.VII.18.24).Butthe
Platonistsprovidednothingappropriate.Hedidnotfindawayuntilheembracedthe
incarnatemediatorbetweenGodandhumanbeings(necinueniebam,donecamplecterer
mediatoremdeiethominum,hominemChristumIesum[1Tm2,5],conf.VII.18.24).Jesus,
asmediator,providesaccessiblefoodfortheweakbymeansofbeliefinauthoritative
teachingabouthisincarnation(etcibum,cuicapiendoinualiduseram,miscentemcarni,
quoniamuerbumcarofactumest[Io1,14],utinfantiaenostraelactesceretsapientiatua,
perquamcreastiomnia,conf.VII.18.24).438Throughimbibingthechurch’steaching,
healingnourishmentcomestotheinfirmsoul.ButAugustine,atthispoint,istooproud
toacceptthehelpofaweaksavior(nonenimtenebamdeummeumIesumhumilis
humilemneccuiusreimagistraesseteiusinfirmitasnoueram.,conf.VII.18.24).
Misunderstandingsaboutthenatureoftheincarnationcontributedto
Augustine’sreluctancetoaccepthelpfromJesusandhighlightedthedegreetowhichOnlytruththatisstablylovedintheknowingcannourish,andonemusttakejoyinwhatistrueandgoodtobefedthereby(conf.XIII.25.3827.42).438Formilkascatecheticalteachingseee.g.,an.quant.33.76;mor.I.17.Otherusesofthemetaphorofdrinkingasopposedtoeatinghighlightthedifferencebetweentheneedforintellectualprocessinganddirectinfusionthrougheitherbelieforconceptualimplantation,e.g.s.dom.m.II.37;trin.XI.6;XI.13.Foradiscussionofthemilkandmeatdistinction,cf.chapter2below.
312
Platoniccontemplationonlyamountstoaparodyofecclesialcontemplation(conf.
VII.19.25).439Forcontemplationofscripturewithintheecclesialprogram,whichwewill
considerbelow,enablesnotonlyaglimpseofincorporealbeingbutalsoan
understandingofunityinTrinityandtrinityinUnity(conf.XIII.22.32).Followinghis
Platonicascent,Augustinecannotevenfathomtheincarnation,letalonetheintricacies
oftrinitarianbeingthatmakeredemptivedownwardcausalitypossible(conf.VII.19.25).
Theprimaryproblem,however,waspride.Oncemoreconnectinghiscondition
withRom.1:20,Augustinedescribesindetailtheparadoxicalmixtureofepistemic
certaintyandvolitionalweakness(incorporeamueritateminuisibiliatua
pereaquaefactasuntintellecta[Rm1,20]conspexi…certusquideministiseram,nimis
tameninfirmusadfruendumte.,conf.VII.20.26).Hislackofgratitudeandhumilityin
knowing,likePaul’spagansinRom.1:20,manifestsashechattersonasifexpertand
wantstobeseenaswise(garriebamplanequasiperitus…iamenimcoeperamuelle
uiderisapiens…,conf.VII.20.26).Hisknowledgedidnotcontainanysavingcharity,
ratherhewaspuffedupaboutwhatheknew(insuperetinflabarscientia.,conf.
VII.20.26).
Augustinespecificallycontraststhepridefulknowledgeachievedbythe
Platonistswiththeecclesialwayofcontemplationandconfession(conf.VII.20.26).In
retrospect,AugustinerealizesthatGodarrangedforhimtoencounterthisperverse
alternativefirstsothatlaterhecouldclearlyseethedifferencebetweenthetwo
approaches(conf.VII.20.26).440Presumptivecontemplationseekstoseeand
439Cf.“DiastrophicShadesofEcclesialFormation”belowforanaccountofhowthisfollowsfromitsplacementwithintheliterarystructureoftheConfessiones.440namsiprimosanctistuislitterisinformatusessemetinearumfamiliaritateobdulcuissesmihietpostinillauoluminaincidissem,fortasseautabripuissentmea
313
intellectuallydistinguishdivinebeauty,butwillnotfollowthewayprovidedinorderto
actuallydwellthere(conf.VII.20.26;cf.also,Io.eu.tr.2.26).441Confession,ontheother
hand,startsoutalongthewaywithoutseeinginordertoeventuallydwellinthebeauty
ofthefatherland(discernerematquedistinguerem,quidinteressetinterpraesumptionem
etconfessionem,interuidentes,quoeundumsit,necuidentes,qua,etuiamducentemad
beatificampatriamnontantumcernendamsedethabitandam.,conf.VII.20.26).
PlatonistswouldratherseeGodfromadistance,thansubmittothewayofthe
incarnateandcrucifiedone.Inlightofthisexplicitcritique,oneshouldnotethe
languageusedinAugustine’sPlatonicascentswhereinhehearsandseesincorporeal
beinglonge…ate(conf.VII.10.16)anddelonginquo(conf.VII.21.27).Thelanguageof
distanceinAugustinedoesnotrefertoproximity,butmoralandspiritualdisparity
(conf.IV.2.2;VII.10.16;VII.21.27;XIII.1.1;gn.litt.XII.34.36;s.141.1).
ThePlatonistrefusestorelinquishtheself‐satisfactionofknowledgebyhisown
innatepower.Thegracedwayofecclesialascentrequireswithdrawingtrustfromone’s
owntwisted,innatepowertoknow(conf.VII.18.24).Inordertotrodthatpath,onemust
acknowledgetheweaknessoffleshthatimpedesascentandclingtotheincarnateone
whosefleshbecomesavehicleforliftingus(nefiduciasuiprogrederenturlongius,sed
potiusinfirmarenturuidentesantepedessuosinfirmamdiuinitatemexparticipatione
tunicaepelliciaenostraeetlassiprosternerenturineam,illaautemsurgensleuareteos.,
conf.VII.18.24).Inotherwords,onecanonlyascendrightlyaspartofthetotusChristus,
solidamentopietatis,autsiinaffectu,quemsalubremimbiberam,perstitissem,putaremetiamexillislibriseumposseconcipi,sieossolosquisquedidicisset(conf.VII.29.26).441Thisdistinctionbetweenseeingtemporarilyandaculminatinginhabitationinwisdomgoesbacktohissevenfoldgradusinan.quant.7575,albeitwithoutanyfunctionindistinguishingPlatonicandecclesialformsofcontemplationoranyallusiontoPaul’scritiqueinRom.1:20.
314
notasagreat‐souledindividual.EcclesialcontemplationrequiresdescendingtoChrist’s
fleshinordertoreceivethehealingandnourishmenttorisebeyondourselvesto
Christ’sdivinity(perquamsubdendosdeprimeretaseipsisetadsetraiceret,sanans
tumoremetnutriensamorem,conf.VII.18.24).
BecausethePlatonistsrefusetoacknowledgetheirweakness,theymustsettle
formomentaryvisionsfromafarwithouttouchingorclingingordwelling(conf.
VII.20.2621.27).Theecclesialitineraryforascent,incontrast,plodsalonganindirect
routedesignedtohealtherootsofactionwhileprovidingmomentsofcontemplative
touchingandclingingnow,whichprovideaforetasteofthecontinuousdwellingto
come.Wewilldelineatetheecclesialpathbelow.Butfornowwesimplynoticethe
contrastingterminology.
InreadingPaulontheheelsofPlatoniccontemplation,Augustinefinds
somethingmore.TheChristianscripturescallonenotonlytoaPlatonicseeing,butalso
tobehealedandthusholdtotheincorporealGod(nonsolumadmoneaturutuideat,sed
etiamsaneturutteneat.,conf.VII.21.27).Andtheonewhoisfaroffinmoralandspiritual
dissimilaritycantravelalongthispathtonotonlyseebutalsoholdGodatlonglast(et
quidelonginquouiderenonpotest,uiamtamenambulet,quaueniatetuideatetteneat.,
conf.VII.21.27).AgreatdifferenceseparatesthePlatonists’glimpseofthefatherland
fromawoodedheightandtheChristianwhoclingstothewaythatactuallyleadsthere
(etaliudestdesiluestricacumineuiderepatriampacis…etaliudtenereuiamilluc
ducentem,conf.VII.21.27).
315
SituatingActionandKnowledge:TwoPointsinSummary
First,thereissimplynowaytoleaveactionbehindincontemplationforlong.The
Platonistsknowasmuch.Buttheyrefusetoacknowledgethathumanperuersiointhe
impulsestoactiondoesnotstemfrombodilyexistenceorbodilyactivityperse(s
Dolbeau26.2740).442Theinabilitytotranscendthebasicimpulsestotemporal,bodily
provisionnecessarilylimitshumanboutsofcontemplation.Andthepenallymortalstate
ofhumanbodiesmakesthisuniversalandnecessary.443
Augustineexplicitlyconnectsthelimitationofhumancontemplationtothe
innatelytwistedfragmentationoftheimpulsetoactionelaboratedinhisreadingof
Paul.444ThePlatonistsstrategicallyidentifythemselveswiththeirdelightingoodness
accordingtotheinnerman,whileignoringanddissociatingthemselvesfromthe
twistedimpulsestoactionthatoccupytheirbodies(quia,etsicondelecteturhomolegi
deisecunduminterioremhominem[Rm7,22],quidfacietdealialegeinmembrissuis
repugnantelegimentissuaeetsecaptiuumducenteinlegepeccati,quaeestinmembris
442Plotinus’containmenttheoryofthepassions,onAugustine’sreading,despairedoftransformingthesoul’simpulsetoactioninthebodyandsoughtinsteadtoascendwithoutthehumbleprocessofmoralrenovation.Somoralpurgation,onPlotinus’telling,amountstopreparationforthecessationofallactivityandanescapefrombodies.Platonicmoralpurgationisnotawayoftransforminghumanactiontolivewellwithinabody.ThusPlotinustheorizedandcontentedhimselfwithcyclicalascentsandearthwardplummetscf.Enn.I.1.10;I.2;I.4;II.9;VI.9.Also,cf.discussionofPlatonicpurificationinchapter3above.OnAugustine’sreading,Plotinus’accountofpurgationfollowsfromproudlydenyingsinandthusfailingtodifferentiatethepenalstateofpresenthumanbodiesfromcreatedbodies.Instead,Platonistswouldratherdespiseallbodiesthanadmittheirbodyismarredbysin(s.Dolbeau26.240).443Sothepenalstateofourbodiesnecessitatesthatevenecclesialcontemplationwillbemomentaryuntiltheresurrection(conf.IX.10.25).444Cf.discussionaboveinchapter4ofthefragmentationofhumandeterminativeimpulsestoaction.
316
[Rm7,23]eius?,conf.VII.21.27).445Asaresult,theydamnthemselvestocontemplative
ephemeralityandanincapacitytoeverhold,enjoyanddwellinwhattheyclaimtoseek
(Io.eu.tr.2.26;s.141).Forgracealonehealsthefragmentedimpulsestoactionand
therebyleadsindirectlytoatherapeuticcontemplationinthisworldandfullnessinthe
worldtocome(quidfacietmiserhomo?quiseumliberabitdecorporemortishuiusnisi
gratiatuaperIesumChristumdominumnostrum[Rm7,24sq.],…hocillaelitteraenon
habent.,conf.VII.21.27;cf.alsoconf.VIII.5.1012).
Second,knowledgeisnotblessedness(conf.V.4.7;VII.20.26;s.141;s.Dolbeau
26.29).446WhilePlotiniancontemplationclaimstobebothepistemicandsalvific,
Augustinefindsepistemiccertaintywithoutanysalvificstabilityoflove.Followinghis
Platonicascent,AugustinenotesthatknowledgeofGodthroughcreaturesdidnotbring
thesalutarycharityfoundonlythroughhumility(conf.VII.20.26).Knowledgeisnot
utterlyunrelatedtoblessedness.Theendstateofblessedness,orsalvation,canbe
describedasafullnessofknowledgeinwhichtheknoweralsoclingsinlovetotheGod
known(aliudestenimperuenireadcognitionemdei,aliudperuenireadsalutem,ubifitet
plenaipsacognitio,cuminhaeretcognitoricognito.s.Dolbeau26.29).447Inotherwords,
445Cf.Enn.I.I.–ThehighersoulistheselfinPlotinus’view,oratleastitcanbe,ifsochosen(Enn.III.4.3;III.4.6).ThelowersoulwillgotoHadesandsuffertorment.ForPlotinus’notionofthesoulpossessingmanylevelsfromwhichitcanchoosealevelwithwhichtoidentify,seeEnn.III.4andCorrigan,Kevin.2001.“TheProblemofPersonalandHumanIdentityinPlotinusandGregoryofNyssa”inInternationalConferenceonPatristicStudies,MauriceF.Wiles,EdwardYarnold,andP.M.Parvis.2001.CappadocianWriters,OtherGreekWriters.Leuven:Peeters.446ForelaborationofthisdistinctioninAugustine’sreadingofPlotinus,seeKenney,JohnPeter.2005.TheMysticismofSaintAugustine:RereadingTheConfessions.NewYork:RoutledgeandKenney,JohnPeter.2007.“ConfessionandtheContemplativeSelfinAugustine’sEarlyWorks”AugustinianStudies38:1pp.133‐146447Thisexceptionallylongsermonwaspreachedon1January404.AnexhaustivestudyofitstheologyisnowavailableinJones,DanielJ.2004.Christussacerdosinthe
317
beatituderequiresbothcontemplationandaction–inthiscasethatpeculiarformof
determinativeimpulsetoactionnamedloveandclingingisrequired(s.dom.m.II.71).448
Elsewhere,AugustinespecifiesthenatureofascenttoPlatonicknowledge(conf.
X.6.10;s.68.6).Thespeciesofcreatures–theirformaldimension–initiatestheascent
wheninterrogated(conf.X.6.10;s.68.6).Thevehicleofascentistheformalityof
creaturesviewedfromtheoutsidein.TheculminationofPlatonicascentisan
intellectualvisionofbeingitselfasmediatedbytheinterrogationofform(etperuenitad
idquodestinictutrepidantisaspectus;conf.VII.17.23).Augustineexplicitlyconnectshis
useofaspectusinthiscontexttotheintellectaconspiciantofRom1:20(conf.VII.17.23).
Belowwewillseeadistinctive,pre‐differentiatedlanguageoftheselfemployedin
describingtheculminationofecclesialascents(conf.IX.10.24).449Platonicascent
momentarilyconnectstheintellectasadifferentiatedaspectoftheselftotheformal
aspectofbeing.Thecognitiveconnectionisrealandproducesthepositiveresultof
epistemiccertaintyconcerningincorporealbeing(conf.VII.10.16;VIII.1.1).Degreesof
formalitydoindeedmediatebeingintime,450thusallowingknowledgeofGodthrough
PreachingofSt.Augustine:ChristandChristianIdentity.Patrologia,Bd.14.FrankfurtamMain:PeterLang.448Augustine’sdistinctionbetween“clinging”and“grasping”receivesaclearexpositioninSchlabach,GeraldW.2001.FortheJoySetBeforeUs:AugustineandSelfDenyingLove.Indiana:NotreDame,pp.59‐91.ThosetermsrefertosemanticclustersandnotsingleLatinterms.Asusual,Augustinetendstocopiousnessindescription.Soclingingtranslatesaclusterofwordswithsignificantsemanticoverlaphavinghaereoastheirrootincluding,inhaereo,adhaereo,cohaereo.Grasping,ontheotherhand,standsforaclusterincludingappetere,rapere,adipisci,capere,possidereandvariouswordswithprehendoattheirroot(comprehendo,adprehendoandprehendeo,whenusedinnon‐cognitivesenses).449Forthedistinctivenatureoftheheartaspre‐differentiatedtotalityoftheselfinpresentawarenessseechapter3above.450Indeed,varyingdegreesofformalityinmatterconstitutetheprocesswherebybodilycreaturesundergogenesisanddecay.Andthisprocessofcorporealmutationistheexternalsubstratumoftime,whichmakespossiblethedistensioanimiwherebythesoul
318
thingsmade.Butformsonlymediateoneaspectofbeing.Forafuller,moreredemptive
connectionoftheselftoGodrequiresamorethoroughformofmediation.Tothatway
wenowturn.
TheWaythatLeadsThere:Christ’sHumbleMeanstoSalvation
ThePlatonistsascentfollowsan‘inthenup’pattern(conf.VII.10.1617.23;s.Dolbeau
26.27;s.241.2).451Ecclesialascentcertainlyrequiresmomentsofinwardreturn,butthe
overallpatternproceedsbya‘downthenup’trajectoryinwhichgracedcontemplation
andactionformarhythmiccadenceasthecreatureplodsalongarevealedpath.The
humilityoftheincarnateonemadeaway–ameansofusingbodiestosubordinateinternallymeasurestime(…dequaterrainuisibilietincomposita,dequainformitate,dequopaenenihilofacereshaecomnia,quibusistemutabilismundusconstatetnonconstat,inquoipsamutabilitasapparet,inquasentirietdinumeraripossunttempora,quiarerummutationibusfiunttempora,dumuarianturetuertunturspecies,quarummateriespraedictaestterrainuisibilis.,conf.XII.8.8;…etquidquiddeincepsinconstitutionehuiusmundinonsinediebusfactumcommemoratur,quiataliasunt,utineisaganturuicissitudinestemporumpropterordinatascommutationesmotionumatqueformarum.,conf.XII.12.15).Ofcourse,thisnotionoftimeasconstitutedbytheformalalterationsofcorporealmotionfindsitsrootsinPlato(Tim.37c39e).ThedoctrinewasavailabletoAugustinethroughCicero’stranslation(Cic.Tim.8.289.29),however,alacunainCicero’stextpreventsusfromknowinghowmuchofthedetailinPlato’sthoughtwouldhavebeentransmittedtoAugustine.ThePlotiniansenseofatemporalityintrinsictodiscursivethoughtwhichconstitutesthelifeofthesoul(justaseternityisthelifeofintellect,Enn.III.7)alsofindsitsplaceinAugustine’sthought(cf.ep.18;uerarel.18;38;gn.adu.Man.II.20;conf.XI.14.1731.41).Thetwoseemtobeconnectedbyviewingcorporealtime,asthefluctationofformwithinmatter,astheobjectivesubstratum.Thesoul’sexperienceoftimecomesthroughaffectivemutation,whichinevitablyfollowsondevelopingaffectiveattachmentstoparticular,changingbodies.Cf.“Timeastheaterofthemutablesoul”inch.2above.451Cary,Phillip.2000.Augustine'sInventionoftheInnerSelf:TheLegacyofaChristianPlatonist.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPressseesthispatternasthedistinctiveinnovationofAugustineoveragainstanallegedpublicinteriorityinPlotinus.However,throughouthiswritingsAugustineattributesthispatternofascenttothePlatoniststhemselves–movinginwardfromformalityofbodiestoobservationofthesoul,thenupwardinsearchofsomethingunchangeableabovethesoul(conf.VII.10.1617.23;s.Dolbeau26.27;s.241.2).SoAugustinealsoprojectedtheinnovationCarydetectedontothePlatonists.
319
actiontoreceptionfromGod,therebymakingroomforgracetoliftusup(ipseautem
unigenitusfactusestnobis…hancuiam,quadescendantadillumaseetpereum
ascendantadeum,conf.V.3.5).452Thechurch,asthebodyoftheincarnateone,provides
thehumbleactionsandwordstochartthewayofreturn(conf.VIII.2.4).453
Augustinepresentshisfullestaccountofthesehumblemeansandthespiritual
itinerarytheychartinhisreadingspiritaliterofthesixdaysofcreation(conf.XIII.12.13
34.49).SincethisaccountprovidesamajorstructuringdevicefortheConfessionesasa
wholeanddelineatestheindirectpathwaytocontemplativeandactivefruitionwithin
thechurchanexaminationofthewholeiswarranted.
EcclesialMeansofHumility:TheMystagogicItineraryoftheHexaemeron
AugustineclearlyreadsthecreationaccountinGenesisasadetailedforeshadowingof
hisnewcreationinthecommunitycalledchurch,andthusasschematicforthe
mystagogic454process(conf.XIII.12.1334.49).455Thespiritualitineraryofthesixdays
452Cf.also,…perquamsubdendosdeprimeretaseipsisetadsetraiceret,sananstumoremetnutriensamorem,nefiduciasuiprogrederenturlongius,sedpotiusinfirmarenturuidentesantepedessuosinfirmamdiuinitatemexparticipationetunicaepelliciaenostraeetlassiprosternerenturineam,illaautemsurgensleuareteos(conf.VII.18.24).453confiteri,reusquesibimagnicriminisapparuiterubescendodesacramentishumilitatisuerbituietnonerubescendodesacrissacrilegissuperborumdaemoniorum,quaeimitatorsuperbusacceperat,depuduituanitatieterubuitueritatisubitoqueetinopinatusaitSimpliciano,utipsenarrabat:eamusinecclesiam:christianusuolofieri.,conf.VIII.2.4.454ThespecificsetofallegoricalcorrelationsAugustineproducesinreadingthesixdays,almostdisappearsfromhisworksaftertheConfessiones.Hesoontakesuptheprojectofprovidingacompellingliteralreading(gn.litt.).However,theoneplaceanearlyidenticalsetofallegoricalinterpretationsappearsaftertheConfessionesisinaseriesofshortmystagogicalorationsdeliveredduringtheEasterOctave(cf.s.229R229W).Clearanti‐DonatistmodificationstoAugustine’sexplanationofthesacramentsins.229Umakesadatingof400‐410probable.455ForthefunctionofhexameralexpositionsinearlyJewishChristianityseeDaniélou,Jean.1964.TheTheologyofJewishChristianity.London:Darton,Longman&Todd.Foranaccountofthesecrecywithwhichtheseearlyteachingswereheld,andpossible
320
entailsameasuredalterationbetweenbodilyactionandcontemplativeattachmentto
scriptureineverdeepeningcycles.So,ondaysone,threeandfivethespiritualinitiate
engagesinveryspecificactionsappropriatetohislevelofmaturity(conf.XIII.12.13
14.15;XIII.17.2021;XIII.20.2628).Andondaystwo,fourandsixheturnstoreceive
fromthescriptures,accordingtohisdevelopmentalcapacity(conf.XIII.15.1616.19;
XIII.18.2219.25;XIII.21.2934.49).Actionandcontemplationformtwopolesbetween
whichtheChristianlifemustconstantlyalternateuntilfullsimultaneitybecomes
possibleinresurrectedbodies.456
Theallegoricalmeaningofthesixdaysfurtherdepictsathree‐stageoverall
patternofgrowth–eachpossessinganactiveaspectandacontemplativeaspect.
Throughthisgradualmystagogicprocess,theinitiateisledtoincrementallytransformconnectionswithGnosticismseeStroumsa,GuyG.1996.HiddenWisdom:EsotericTraditionsandtheRootsofChristianMysticism.Leiden:E.J.Brill.,alsotheessaysinKippenberg,HansG.,andGuyG.Stroumsa.1995.SecrecyandConcealment:StudiesintheHistoryofMediterraneanandNearEasternReligions.Leiden:E.J.Brill.AgallopingoverviewofthegenremaybefoundinRobbins,FrankEgleston.1912.TheHexaemeralLiterature;aStudyoftheGreekandLatinCommentariesonGenesis.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.ArarecomparisonofthemedievalfunctionofthisgenreisavailableinFriebergs,Gunar.1981.TheMedievalLatinHexameronfromBedetoGrosseteste.Ph.D.diss.,UniversityofSouthernCalifornia.ForthespecificinfluenceofAmbrose’sExameronseeGorman,Michael.1999.“FromIsidoretoClaudiusofTurin:TheWorksofAmbroseonGenesisintheEarlyMiddleAges” RevuedesÉtudesAugustiniennes,45,pp.121‐138456TheangeliccapacityforsimultaneityinactionandcontemplationprovidesaparadigmforAugustineofredeemedhumanityinresurrectionbodies.ForanaccountfromthesameperiodastheConfessiones,cf.c.Faust.22.27…inqueipsaratione,quaepartimcontemplatiuaest,partimactiua,proculdubiocontemplatiopraecellit.inhacenimetimagodeiest,quaperfidemadspeciemreformamur.actioitaquerationaliscontemplationirationalidebetoboediresiueperfidemoperanti,sicutiest,quamdiuperegrinamuradomino,siueperspeciem,quoderit,cumsimileseierimus,quoniamuidebimuseum,sicutiest,effectietiaminspiritalicorporeexgratiaeiusaequalesangeliseiusreceptastolaprimainmortalitatisetincorruptionis,quaindueturhocmortaleetcorruptibilenostrum,utabsorbeaturmorsinuictoriaiustitiaperfectapergratiam,quiaetsanctiacsublimesangelihabentcontemplationemetactionemsuam;idenimsibiagenduminperant,quodille,quemcontemplantur,iubet,cuiusaeternoimperioliberaliter,quiasuauiter,seruiunt(c.Faust.22.27).
321
heroverallperspectivefromindividualself‐containmenttofullself‐identificationas
simplyapartofthetotusChristus.457OncefullywithintheChristo‐ecclesialperspective,
theinitiateiscapableofseeingcreationthroughtheHolySpirit,whichistheanimating
principleofthetotusChristus.458
AlthoughAugustineneverexplicitlyemploysthelabel,totusChristus,inthe
Confessiones,459thesubmergedimagefunctionsasarootmetaphorforthewholewithin
whichhumansaretofindthemselvesasapart.TheConfessionesasawholeare
bookendedbythesearchofaliquaportiocreaturaetuaetofindrestinGod(conf.I.1.1)
andbythepromiseofrestfortheone,nowintegratedwithChrist’sbody,inwhomGod
worksandrests(conf.XIII.37.52).Theinterpenetrationofdivineandhumanactivitiesin
thetotusChristus,asanextensionofthecoinheringthreeinone,correspondswitha
perspectivalshiftwhereinonecomestoseeallcreaturesthroughtheHolySpirit(conf.
457ForsecondarydiscussionsofthetotusChristusthemeinAugustine’sworks,cf.Grabowski,StanislausJustin.1946.“St.AugustineandtheDoctrineoftheMysticalBodyofChrist”inTheologicalStudies7:1,pp.72‐125.;McGinn,Bernard.1991.TheFoundationsofMysticism.NewYork:Crossroad,pp.248‐251.;Cameron,GlennMichael.1996.Augustine'sConstructionofFigurativeExegesisagainsttheDonatistsintheEnarrationesinPsalmos.Ph.D.Thesis,UniversityofChicagoDivinitySchool,esp.pp.272‐301;Fiedrowicz,Michael.1997.PsalmusVoxTotiusChristi:StudienzuAugustins"EnarrationesinPsalmos".FreiburgimBreisgau:Herder.;Fiedrowicz,Michael.2000.“GeneralIntroduction”inAugustineandMariaBouldingandJohnE.Rotelle.2000.TheWorksofSt.Augustine.ATranslationforthe21stCentury..PartIII.Volume15:ExpositionsofthePsalms132.NewRochelle:NewCityPress.;Cameron,Michael.2005.“TotusChristusandthePsychogogyofAugustine’sSermons”inAugustinianStudies36:1,pp.59‐70.458Grabowski,StanislausJustin.1944.“TheHolyGhostintheMysticalBodyofChristaccordingtoSt.Augustine”inTheologicalStudies5:4,pp.453‐483,andGrabowski,StanislausJustin.1945.“TheHolyGhostintheMysticalBodyofChristaccordingtoSt.Augustine.II”inTheologicalStudies6:1,pp.62‐84.459Clearly,Augustine’stheologyofthetotusChristusiswell‐developedbeforethetimeoftheConfessiones.Thefirstsubstantialusagedatesfromsermonsdeliveredin393.,cf.en.Ps.3.9;4.12;9.4;9.14;15.5;16.1;17.2;22.1;24.1;29.12.;cf.alsoc.Adim.9.1.Significantcontemporaryusesinclude,c.Faust.2.5;3.5;11.6;12.39;16.1415;cons.eu.1.54.
322
XIII.29.44;XIII.31.46).ThelinguisticcuesAugustineusesforthissummitofthe
hexaemeralmystagogyarenativetohissermonicperformancesofthetotusChristus(cf.
e.g.,en.Ps.83.5;en.Ps.21.2.4;en.Ps.30.2.3.1),whichoftenbeginbyexhortinghis
listenerstodeliberatelyandconsciouslysituatethemselveswithinthetotusChristus(cf.
en.Ps.45.1;52.1;60.1;79.1;130.1).
OverviewofStageOne:
IndividualSubmissiontoEcclesialandScripturalAuthority(DaysOne&Two)
Theoverallpatternofecclesialmystagogyrequiresonetodescendinordertoascend
(conf.V.3.5).Thedescentphasebeginsonthefirsthexaemeraldaywhenaninitiateis
joinedtothebodyofChrist,whicheverriseswithhisdivinity.460Thusthemetaphorical
“descent”frompridemanifestsasrelinquishingself‐directionbyobedientlyjoiningthe
bodyofChrist.Andtheascentmanifestsasgraduallycomingtoseealloflifefromthe
perspectiveofthetotality,whichistheunityofGodandhumanityinChristandchurch.
Hexaemeraldaysoneandtwoemphasizesubmissionoftheindividualtotheauthority
ofChristinhisecclesialbodyandhiswrittenmanifestationintheScriptures.
460ForthesharedfleshasconditionforthepossibilityofrisingwithChrist’sdivinityandthustheassumedenvironmentofAugustine’sworkasamystagogue,cf.Cameron,Michael.2005.“TotusChristusandthePsychogogyofAugustine’sSermons”inAugustinianStudies36:1,pp.59‐70.
323
DayOne:ActiveSubmissionofIndividualtoEcclesialAuthority
Thefirstdaybeginswithwordsandwater(conf.XIII.12.13).Faithinauthoritative
wordsrequiresahumblingofourinnateimpulsetoknowledgeandsubmissionto
baptismconstitutesarepentantembraceofthehumbleChrist.461
Baptisminthetriunenamecreatesanewtrajectoryforhumanlife,thoughthe
initiatecannotyetgraspthistruth.Thus,twoentitiesemergefrombaptism.Spiritual
andcarnalmembersofthechurchsurface,asifanewheavenandearth,drippingfrom
thebaptismalfont(conf.XIII.12.13).God’smercy,hoveringastheSpiritovertheabyss,
extendstohumansintheirformlessignorancewithaword(conf.XIII.12.13).“Repent”
reverberatesinhumanearsandtherebyspirituallightiscalledforthoverthedepths
(conf.XIII.12.13).WhenthesoulturnstoGod,lightiscreated,formreceived.462
461TheclassicstatementfromAugustine’spriestlyperiodconcerningfaithasthestartingpointofknowledgeisutil.cred.7.1418.36.cf.alsoconf.VI.5.7;ciu.XI.3.ForsecondarydiscussionsseeTeSelle,Eugene.“Faith”inFitzgerald,Allan,andJohnC.Cavadini.1999.AugustineThroughtheAges:AnEncyclopedia.GrandRapids,Mich:W.B.Eerdmans.O’Meara,J.J.1951.“Augustine’sViewofAuthorityandReasoninAD386”inIrishTheologicalQuarterly18,pp.338346,providesaconciseaccountofAugustine’searlierthought,whichplacedgreatoptimisminhumanreasoninthisworld.ForanaccountthatincorporatesthelaterworksseeRist,JohnM.1994.Augustine:AncientThoughtBaptized.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.41‐91.462Thecreatio–conversio/formatiopatterninAugustine’sthoughtfindsitsmostexplicitarticulationingn.litt.I.3.79.17.ThemostconcisesecondarytreatmentisAugustin,EugèneTréhorel,andAiméSolignac.1962.OeuvresdeSaintAugustin.LesConfessions,livresIXIII.14,Dieuetsonoeuvre.Paris:DescléedeBrouweretCie,pp.613‐617.AfullertreatmentisavailableinGorman,MichaelMurray.1974.TheUnknownAugustine:AStudyoftheLiteralInterpretationofGenesis(degenesiadlitteram).Ph.D.dissertation,UniversityofToronto.Theontologicalbasis,however,uponwhichAugustine’saccountisbuiltwasestablishedearly.Namely,Augustine’searlyworksconceivedatwo‐leveltheoryofthesoulinwhichaminimallevelofparticipationinbeingcomeswiththemerefactofcreation,whileadeeperparticipationinbeingthroughwisdomawaitstheconsentoftheuoluntas(imm.an.6.1112.19).Cf.ZumBrunn,Emilie.1988.St.Augustine:BeingandNothingness.NewYork:ParagonHouse.OriginallypublishedasZumBrunn,Emilie.1969.LeDilemmedel'êtreetdunéantchez
324
Submissiontoauthorityisnecessaryatthisstage,becausetheinitiatecannotyet
occupyaperspectivalpositionasapartwithinthewholeChrist.Thuscognitiveand
affectivedistortionisinevitableatthisstage.Andtheaspirantmaysufferboutsof
sadnessashediscernshisstillillformedstateandthesinoccupyinghismembers(conf.
XIII.14.15).ButcourageisfosteredbyconsideringthatGod’smercydrewusupfromthe
darkinnerwatersofourignoranceandcanbetrustedtoseeusthroughtodaybreak.In
themeantime,onlyGoddiscernsthedifferencebetweendarknessandlight.Sothe
initiatemustnotpassjudgmentonanything,notevenonhimself,prematurely(conf.
XIII.14.15).Submissiontoauthority,eveninself‐judgment,safeguardstheneophyteby
checkingwaywardimpulsesinactionandsettinglimitstowanderingattemptsat
interpretationfromahighlyself‐containedperspective.
DayTwo:ContemplativeSubmissionofIndividualtoScripturalAuthority
Ondaytwo,Godspreadsoutafirmstructureofintellectualauthorityoverthenewly
baptized(conf.XIII.15.16).Godplacesacollectionofwritingsbeforethenewconvert
andthespiritualaspirantmusthumblehimselfbeneaththeirauthority(conf.
XIII.15.17).Thoughtheinitiateisnotyetinapositiontoseeclearly,scripturalauthority
certainlyisnotarbitrary.
Thesebooksalonespeakwithadivine,internalconsistency(concordesutique
sermonestuos,conf.XIII.15.16)463andalonepossessachasteeloquence,which
saintAugustin,despremiersdialoguesaux"Confessions.”Paris(8e):Étudesaugustiniennes,8,rueFrançoisIer.463Styleandsubstanceareinseparableinscripture(conf.VII.21.27)andinteachingthatconformstoandrepresentsscripture(conf.V.13.2314.24).Considerthecontrastwiththepoet’sauthoritydepictedinthecontradictoryclaimofIovetonansetadulterans(conf.I.16.25).
325
effectivelydestroysprideandpersuadeshumanbeingstobowtheirneckstoJesus’easy
yoke(conf.XIII.15.17).Augustine’scharacterizationofthescripturesaspossessinga
castaeloquiacomesfromPs.11:7.Inhissermonsonthispassage,Augustineglossesthe
phraseasmeaningwithoutsimulation(en.Ps.11.7).TheChristianscripturespresent
theonlysourceofwordsuntaintedbyanymeasureofduplicity.464
Atthisstepinthegradus,theinitiatemustprayforthehumilityneededtosee
clearlywhatiswritteninthescriptures(conf.XIII.15.17).Pride,likeamistintervening,
impedesvision.ButGodgiveswisdomtothosewhoreadwithsubmissivefaith.When
received,themediatingstructureofscripturetemporallyannouncesthemercyofthe
Godwhomadetime(conf.XIII.15.18).WhenGod’stemporaleconomyiscomplete,the
scriptureswillbedispensedwithandtheonewhohumbledhimselfbeneaththemwill
seeGodfacetoface,liketheangelicwaters465abovethefirmament(conf.XIII.15.18).466
464Incontrast,thepoet’scovertprojectofauthorizinglustandthePlatonist’sbooks,withtheirincompatiblemixtureofincorporealontologyandidolworship,inevitablyspeakwithameasureofduplicity.Humanpriderequiresit(gn.adu.Man.II.23.cf.also,uirg.44;ep.153.11;s.Denis25.2).ButthescripturesprovidewordsthecontentandstyleofwhicharedesignedforthesingulartaskofconvertinghumanbeingstotheGodoftruth(conf.XIII.15.17).465FordiscussionofAugustine’saccountofangelicknowledgeingn.litt.IV,cf.Gorman,MichaelMurray.1974.TheUnknownAugustine:AStudyoftheLiteralInterpretationofGenesis(degenesiadlitteram).Ph.D.dissertation,UniversityofToronto,ch.1.466Thefullreversalofmediatorydirectioncomesintheresurrection.Duetoweaknessinthislife,atbest,weebbandflowbetweenapproachingGodthroughcreaturesandcreaturesthroughGod.Butcondescendingingrace,Godhasprovidedaspecialcreatureinthescriptures,whichallowsevenourebbingtofindahealingfocus.ThusthescripturesshouldbeconsideredthefaceofGodfornow(ergoprofaciedei,tibiponeinterimscripturamdei.liquesceabilla.paeniteatte,cumaudishaecdepeccatistuis.,s.22.7).
326
OverviewofStageTwo:
EcclesialRedirectionofActionandContemplation(DaysThree&Four)
Inthesecondstage,constitutedbythemystagogicstepsofdaysthreeandfour,the
initiatebeginstomanifestthebarerudimentsofcommunalconsciousnessaspartof
Christ’sbody.
Distinctchangeswithintheinitiate’spsychologyofactioncorrespondtoself‐
consciousidentificationwithanewsocialgroupingorientedtoeternalends(conf.
XIII.17.21).Charitynowbeginstomotivateandother‐servingactionfollows.The
converthasbeguntomanifestthehumbleloveofChristinredirectedaction(conf.
XIII.17.21).
Butcharityalsotransformscontemplation.Ondayfourtheinitiateclingstothe
scripturesincontemplativelove,andthusisgrantedvaryingdegreesofillumination
(conf.XIII.18.2223).Thedegreesofillumination,however,arenotviewedasindividual
achievements,butascommunallyorientedcharismsgivenforthesakeofhelpingothers
alongthepilgrimjourney(conf.XIII.18.23).
Followinghumblesubmissioninstageone,thesecondstageproceedsby
reinitiatingactionandcontemplationinserviceofothers.Andthishumblere‐initiation
ofactionandcontemplationensuesaccordingtothedegreeofeternalperspectiveand
other‐regardgranted.
DayThree:MoralActionReinitiatedforthesakeofEternalEnds
Ondaythree,Goddrawstogethertwosocietiesdistinguishedbytheendsoftheir
respectivepsychologiesofaction(conf.XIII.17.2021).Andatthispointtheaspirant
327
beginstoself‐consciouslyassociateandidentifywiththepilgrimsocietynamed
church.467Theactionofdayonewasfocusedontheindividual’srepentantacceptance
ofauthoritativeinstructionandbaptism.Atthestageofdaythree,personalactioncan
focusonitsresultsforotherswithinalargerschemeofeithertemporaloreternalends
(conf.XIII.17.20).Twogroupsemerge.
Soulsdrawntogetherintheearthlysociety,symbolizedbythebitterwaters,find
theirultimateendintemporalhappiness(conf.XIII.17.20).Becausetemporal
attachmentsalwaysendindisappointmentandlosstheyaredepictedasbitterinthe
scriptures.Thewaveshighlighttheerraticmotionofcompetingcares,whichGod
providentiallyandmercifullycoordinatesintemporalsocialgroupings(conf.
XIII.17.20).468
Incontrast,thedrylandsignifiesthosesouls,amongwhomtheinitiatesees
himself,whothirstandseekafterGod(conf.XIII.17.21).Byseekingadifferentendin
theiractions,eternalwellbeing,theyaredistinguishedfromthebitternessoftemporal
society(atanimassitientestibietapparentestibialiofinedistinctasasocietatemaris
occulto,conf.XIII.17.21).AndsothedrylandproducesfruitatGod’scommand,andby
respondingtodivineprecepttheeternalsocietybeginstolovetheirneighborsthrough
467Unsurprisingly,thebestconciseaccountofAugustine’secclesiologywaswrittenbyvanBavel,TarsiciusJ.1999.“Church”inFitzgerald,Allan,andJohnC.Cavadini.1999.AugustineThroughtheAges:AnEncyclopedia.GrandRapids,Mich:W.B.Eerdmans.ForaviewofAugustine’schurchatgroundlevel,thebesttreatmentremainsMeer,Frederikvander.1962.AugustinetheBishop;theLifeandWorkofaFatheroftheChurch.London:SheedandWard.468Ofcourse,thisthemeoftheeverpartialandperverted,yetsubstantial,expressionsofjusticeintemporalsocietyreceivesitsmostexplicitandthoroughdescriptioninciu.4.34.7;19.428.Cf.Markus,R.A.1970.Saeculum:HistoryandSocietyintheTheologyofSt.Augustine.Cambridge:UniversityPress.,pp.45‐104.
328
simpleprovisionofbodilyneedsandrobustenforcementofsocialjustice(conf.
XIII.17.21).
DayFour:ContemplationReinitiatedforsakeofChrist’sBody
Ondayfour,thematuringinitiatepassesfromactivefruittothedelightsof
contemplatingscriptureandbyclingingtothefirmamentofscripturebecomesoneof
manylightsinthesky(conf.XIII.18.22).Butthedelightsofcontemplationarenolonger
forindividualgainorpride.Theynowservethegreaterpurposeofequippingmembers
forservicetothebodyofChrist(conf.XIII.18.23).
Atthisstage,contemplationofscriptureprogressesuntilonecandistinguishnot
onlybetweensensibleandintelligiblerealitiesbutalsobetweentemporaldispensations
andGod’seternalcounsel(conf.XIII.18.22).Andthecontemplativereadernow
understandsthevaryingtaskstowhichGodcallspeopleatdifferenttimesandhowthe
Godwhoneversufferschangeanswersprayersatappropriatetimes(conf.XIII.18.22).
Throughscripturalcontemplation,Godgiftsteachersandworkerswithvarious
degreesofilluminationaccordingtoGod’spurpose(conf.XIII.18.23).Thosewhopossess
wordsofwisdombecomelikethesun,speakingtoguidethosewhosedelightistruth
(conf.XIII.18.23).Themoon’slesserlightbetokensthosegiftedwithwordsof
knowledgedealingwithsacraments.Andvariousstarsspeckletheskyasothersemerge
fromlessthoroughcontemplationwithcapacitiesforhealing,miracleworking,
prophecy,discerningofspiritsandspeakingintonguessuitedtoproducefaithincarnal
persons(conf.XIII.18.23).Thusvariousdegreesofcontemplativeillumination,bydivine
providence,producearangeofnewcapacities.Andeachcapacityisviewedsolelyin
329
termsofhowtheyhelpothersalongthepilgrimjourney(conf.XIII.18.23).Communal
consciousnesshasflowered.
OverviewofStageThree:
MaturationofChristoEcclesialConsciousnessinActionandContemplation
Inthefinalstageofgrowth,theinitiate’sperspectivematurestoseehiseveryaction
andcontemplativemomentasnomoreorlessthanapartialmanifestationofGod’s
actionandcontemplation.Buttheindividualdoesnotdisappeartherebyintoa
communalblur.Rather,thedistinctivenessofeachpersonremainsastheprovidential
vehicleofGod’sownaction,restandtemporalexperienceandthusasapartofthe
Christo‐ecclesialwhole.Fullself‐identificationwiththetotusChristusallowsa
perspectivalshiftwhereinoneisgracedtoviewcreaturesthroughtheeyesoftheHoly
Spirit.
DayFive:SacramentalActionfortheConversionofTemporalSociety
So,ondayfive,sacramental469actionandspeechissetinmotiononlyforthesakeof
respondingtotemporalsociety’sneedforconversion(conf.XIII.20.2628).470The
469Ofcourse,Augustine’sunderstandingofwhatconstitutesasacramentisverybroad.AnyexternalactionorentitythatfunctionsasasignwherebyGodinvitesustounderstandanunderlying,invisible,religiousrealityAugustinewilldescribeasasacrament(cf.,e.g.c.Faust.19.1117;ep.55;doc.chr.III.9.13).Couturier,Charles.1953."Sacramentum"et"mysterium"dansl'oeuvredesaintAugustin.Étudesaugustiniennespp.161‐274wasseminal.ForconnectionwithsigntheoryseeMarkus,R.A.1996.SignsandMeanings:WorldandTextinAncientChristianity.Liverpool:LiverpoolUniversityPress.,pp.71‐104.AlsoCary,Phillip.2008.OutwardSignsthePowerlessnessofExternalThingsinAugustine'sThought.NewYork,NY:OxfordUniv.Press,pp.155‐258forasomewhatidiosyncraticanddissentingvoice.Forbroaderaccountsofsacramentalityincreation,cf.Harrison,Carol.1992.BeautyandRevelationintheThoughtofSaintAugustine.OxfordTheologicalMonographs.Oxford:ClarendonPress,pp.85‐96,ch.5
330
underlyingconsciousnessofother’sneedsinlightofeternalendsindicatesabroader
awarenessofidentityasChrist’sbodydescendinginlovefortheworld.
Thematuringadeptclearlyseeshisactioninbaptizing,performingmiraclesand
preachingasthevehicleforChrist’sactivityintheworld.Anewpower,derivedfrom
Godthroughscripture,pervadeshisactionsandevokeswonder(conf.XIII.19.25;
XIII.20.28).
Spirituallyread,thetwoformsofsealifeondayfiverefertothesaintsproducing
deedsintwoforms(conf.XIII.20.26).Thethingsthatcreepthroughthewatersreferto
thesacramentofbaptismactivelyinterveninginthemidstoftemporaltemptations
(conf.XIII.20.26).Thegreatseamonsters(cetigrandes)aremiraclesorprodigioussigns
designedtoshakethecomplacentfromtheirstupor(conf.XIII.20.26).471
passim,244‐247.AndforabalancedaccountofAugustine’sunderstandingoftheliturgicalsacraments,cf.Bonner,Gerald.1987.God'sDecreeandMan'sDestiny:StudiesontheThoughtofAugustineofHippo.Variorumreprint,CS255.London:VariorumReprints.470ThespecificneedsGodrespondstointemporalsocietystemfromAdam’sfall(conf.XIII.20.28).Adam’ssinproducedaracemarkedbythreedistortedformsofcommendatio.Curiositydistortsthecommendatiotoknowledge.Prideandimpulsestodominate,likeawindblownswelling(procellosetumidum),dragstheremnantsofthecommendatiotohumanassociation(conf.XIII.20.28).Andthechasingofpleasures,likeanunstableflux(instabiliterfluvidum),pervertstheGod‐givencommendatiotopreservationofbodilyhealth(conf.XIII.20.28).TheseperversionsbarpeoplefromdirectcontemplationofGodandcreateaneedformysticaldeedsandutterancestoengagetemporalsocietyinbodilyandsensibleways(…sinonessetlapsusAdam…nonopusesset,utinaquismultiscorporaliteretsensibiliteroperarenturdispensatorestuimysticafactaetdicta.,conf.XIII.20.28).471Augustine’stheoryofmiraclesisbipartite–quotidianmiraclesandprodigioussigns.TheworldisfullofeverydaysignsofGod’spresenceandgrandeur–suchasthesacraments.ButbyturningtowardcreatureswehavelostourcapacitytowonderatGod’sactivityandgivethanks.ThusGodoccasionallyprovidesprodigioussignstoshockdullsensesandprovideaninvitationtowonderthatislesseasilydismissed.AwonderfulencapsulationofAugustine’sbipartiteaccountisfoundinen.Ps.110.4memoriamfecitmirabiliumsuorum[Ps110,4]:hunchumilans,ethuncexaltans.memoriamfecitmirabiliumsuorum[Ps110,4]:reseruansopportuneinusitataprodigia,quaeinfirmitashominisnouitatiintentameminerit,cumsinteiusmiraculaquotidiana
331
Thebirdsflyingabovethelandandbeneaththefirmamentrefertotheclear
voicesofGod’sservantsinteachingandpreachingfromscripture(conf.XIII.20.26).They
flyclosetothefirmamentofscriptureandprojecttheirteachingdownwardtomeetthe
needsofthebittersea(conf.XIII.20.26).Ofcourse,theyflyoverthelandaswellandthis
gesturestowardtheirfurtherusefulnessforthefaithfulondryland(conf.XIII.21.29).
DaySix:ChristoEcclesialIntegrationinActionandContemplation
Ondaysix,progresspulsesonwardwithanewlevelofsynergybetweenactionand
contemplationinthechurch.Buttherhythmicalterationcontinues.Thereisno
apotheosisofcontemplativeblisswhereinactionbecomesdispensable.
Theadeptcomesatlasttosubmiteverymotionofthethreefoldcommendatioto
ratioandthusattainscontinence.Personsbecomelivingsoulsbythepurificationof
theirheartstodelightinGodalone(conf.XIII.21.29).Genesisenumeratesthreeformsof
livingsoul–beasts,domesticanimalsandreptiles.SoGod’sministerteachescordial
purityofreference,orcontinence,inthreespecificwaysthatcounteractthethree
distortionsofcommendatiointheworld(conf.XIII.21.30).Augustinecallsthesethree
distortionsthemotionsofadeadsoul(conf.XIII.21.30).
maiora.totperuniuersamterramarborescreat,etnemomiratur:arefecituerbounam,etstupefactasuntcordamortalium;sedmemoriamfecitmirabiliumsuorum[Ps110,4].hocenimmiraculummaximeadtentiscordibusinhaerebit,quodassiduitasnonuilefecerit.(en.Ps.110.4).cf.also,s.126.4;ciu.X.817;XXII.810.Ofcourse,evenprodigiescanbemisusedwhenthesignsarereferredtothetemporalratherthaneternalends(en.Ps.105.67).Foranaccountoftheunderlyingunitybetweeneverydayregularitiesandprodigies,throughtherationescausales,cf.gn.litt.VI.14.2518.29.Agrislyapplicationofthisrationaletoexplainbodiescapableofeternaltormentmaybereadinciu.XXI.68.IamgratefultoBobSweetman,whofirstintroducedmetoAugustine’stheoryofmiracleinaseminar.Meer,Frederikvander.1962.AugustinetheBishop;theLifeandWorkofaFatheroftheChurch.London:SheedandWard,pp.527‐557remainsuseful.
332
Butwhenwildprideisstrippedaway,continencegiveslifetoagentlebeast
referringtogentlenessinassociation(conf.XIII.21.31).Continencestripsawaythe
inertiaofluxuriouspleasureandgiveslifetodomesticatedanimals.Therebythesoul
engagesinnoexcesswheneatingandsuffersnolackwhennoteating(conf.XIII.21.31).
Asfalseknowledgefallsaway,continenceanimatesharmlessserpentsdisplaying
practicalcautionandexploringtemporalnatureonlytotheextentusefulforattaining
intellectualvisionthroughwhatismade(conf.XIII.21.31).
Thuspurityofcordialreferenceextirpatesinnateperuersioandgradually
producesareformedsetofimpulsestoactionthataccordswiththecreated
commendatiotobodilypreservation,personalassociationandknowledge.Thesenew
formsoflivingsoulmultiplyaccordingtotheirkind,thatis,bythemediatingprocessof
moraleducation(conf.XIII.21.31).472Thushumanactionatlastrendersproperservice
toeternalreason(seruiuntenimrationihaecanimalia,cumaprogressumortifero
cohibitauiuuntetbonasunt.,conf.XIII.21.31).
AugustinehasclearlyidentifiedratiowiththeSonofGod,whoisWisdomand
thebeginningthatspeakstous(conf.XI.8.10).Socontinenceonlybecomespossible
whentheindividualcomestofullygraspthathisbodilyself,structuredbythreefold
commendatio,issimplyapartwithinthewholeChrist.Wheneverythingthatconstitutes
hisindividualstructureappearstohimassimplyalimbofChrist,thewayward
472ThesubsumptionofmoralexemplaritywithinthecontextoffriendshipischaracteristicofAugustine’sunderstandingoffriendship(cf.sol.1.2.71.12.22;diu.qu.71.57;f.inuis.2.35.8;conf.4.4.74.14.24;VI.7.1116.26;ep.73).FortheclassicalbackgroundseeKonstan,David.1996.FriendshipintheClassicalWorld.KeyThemesinAncientHistory.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.ForAugustine’sapplicationcf.Hadot,Ilsetraut.“Amicitia”inMayer,Cornelius.1986.AugustinusLexikon:Vol.1.Basel:Schwabe&Co.
333
impulsescomefullyundertheswayofeternalreasonasheadofthebody(conf.
XIII.21.31).
Concurrently,thematuringmindoftheChristo‐ecclesialpersonbeginsto
directlyperceivethecoinherenceofpersons.Godfashionstheculminatingcreature
accordingtotheTrinity’simageandsimilitude(conf.XIII.22.32).473Havingbecome
continent,Godcannowdirectlyteachthecontemplativetoseethetrinityofunityand
theunityoftrinity(etdoceseumiamcapacemuideretrinitatemunitatisuelunitatem
trinitatis.,conf.XIII.22.32).Trinitarianunderstandingofthreeinoneandviceversa
becomesintuitivelyobvious,inlargepartbecausetheinitiatenowinhabitsthepersonal
perspectiveofapartthoroughlyidentifiedwiththewholeChrist.
Atthispoint,onedirectlydiscernsGod'swillbecauseitnolongerpresentsitself
asanexternalrequirementbutasaperceptionofwhatisgood,pleasingandperfect.At
thispoint,rightjudgmentoversacraments,verbalizedexpressionsoffaithandbodily
impulsesofthethreefoldcommendatio,becomespossible(conf.XIII.23.3334).
Contemplationandaction,andthosemorefullygiventoonepoleoranother,
nowformasymbioticwebofmutualnourishmentwithinthechurch(conf.XIII.25.38).
Justasthemoreactivemembersofthechurchreceivenourishmentthroughthe
teachingandsacramentsdispensedbythemorecontemplativemembers,themore
contemplativemembersarenourishedbythecharityofactivemembers(conf.
XIII.26.3940).473Augustine’searlydoctrineoftheimagodeiconceivedtheWordasimageofGodandthehumanmensascreatedtotheimageoftheWord(gn.litt.inp.16.60).TherelationofimagingmeansthatnoothernatureneedmediatebetweenthemensandtheWordwhoisTruth(gn.litt.inp.16.60;diu.qu.51.2).Ofcourse,hisunderstandingofcreationprogressedbythetimeoftheConfessionestodiscerningaTrinitarianimageinthemens(conf.XIII.11.12),butthisimmediacyofthemindtoGodremainsvitaltoAugustine’sunderstanding.NotehislateappealtotheimmediacyofthemindtoGodinciu.10.2.
334
Theintentionbehindanactofcharityprovidespropernourishmentforthe
contemplative(conf.XIII.26.39).Inprinciple,thesoulisnourishedbywhatgivesitjoy
(undeautemgaudet,indepascitur,conf.XIII.26.39;indequippeanimuspascitur,unde
laetatur,conf.XIII.27.42).Sothecontemplativewhotakesdelightineatinganother’s
actsofcharityisspirituallyfedthereby(pascunturautemhisescisquilaetantureis,conf.
XIII.26.39).
Attheendofthesixdays,Godlooksuponthecreationandpronouncesitvery
good(conf.XIII.28.43).HereinAugustinefindsthecomplete,redemptivereversalofthe
directionofepistemicmediation.RepeatedlywehavefoundGodmediatedthrough
createdthings,andfoundspecificcritiquesattachedtothosewhocontentthemselves
withthatsortofvision.474Atlasttheinitiateisgivenavisionofcreationthroughthe
eyesoftheSpirit,whichistheanimatingprincipleofthetotusChristus(conf.XIII.29.44).
God’seternalvisionbecomessuccessivewhenhumanbeingsviewthecreation
throughGod’sSpirit(conf.XIII.29.44).InthesamewayasscriptureaffirmsGod’s
temporalspeechthroughhumanagents,soGodtemporallyseesandaffirmsasgood
throughhumanagents(conf.XIII.31.46).
WhenhumanpersonsseecreatedthingsthroughGod’sSpirit,Godseesthose
thingsinthem(quiautemperspiritumtuumuidentea,tuuidesineis.,conf.XIII.31.46).
Likewise,whateverpleaseshumanbeingsforGod’ssake,Godistheonegivingpleasure
474Inadifferentcontext,AugustineplacesthefallofSatanandhisdemonswithinthecontextoftheangelicalterationbetweenday,eventideandmorningknowledgeasafailuretoturnbackfromdirectknowledgeofcreatures(quianonremanetangelicascientiaineo,quodcreatumest,quinhoccontinuoreferatadeiuslaudematquecaritatem,inquoidnonfactumesse,sedfaciendumfuissecognoscitur:inquaueritatestandodiesest.namsiueladseipsamnaturaangelicaconuerteretursequeampliusdelectareturquamillo,cuiusparticipationebeataest,intumescenssuperbiacaderet,sicutdiabolus,gn.litt.IV.24.41).
335
inthem(etquaecumquepropterteplacent,tuineisplaces,conf.XIII.31.46).Andthose
thingsthatpleasehumanbeingsthroughGod’sSpiritpleaseGodinhumanbeings(et
quaeperspiritumtuumplacentnobis,tibiplacentinnobis.,conf.XIII.31.46).
Theinterpretivegymnasticsseemforeigntothemoderninterpreter.But
Augustinehasexplainedthehermeneuticalpresuppositionpreviously.475Thesingular
understandingneededtocementthevastarrayofinterpretivetranspositionstogether
istherealunityofthetotalChrist,headandbody.Theperspectivalshiftthatreverses
theperverseRom.1:20directionofepistemicmediationissimplebutprofound.Atthis
point,Augustineisdescribinginfirstpersonperspectivethelineofsightavailablewhen
oneisfullyintegratedwiththetotusChristus.
Threeseparatemodesofknowingandappraisingcreaturesemerge.Onemay
approachcreaturesdirectlyandfindthemnotgood(conf.XIII.30.4531.46).Thisisthe
sinoftheManichees.Second,apersonmayapproachcreaturesdirectlyandfind
pleasureinthecreatureabovetheCreator(conf.XIII.31.46).Those,includingthe
Platonists,denouncedinRom.1:20followthisroutetoknowledgeofGodthrough
creatures.Third,humanbeings,attheendofmystagogicalintegrationwiththeChristo‐
ecclesialwhole,maycometoviewthecreaturethroughGodand,inapprovingthe
creature,loveGodinwhathehasmade(aliudautem,ut,cumaliquiduidethomoquia
bonumest,deusinillouideat,quiabonumest,utscilicetilleameturineo,quodfecit,qui475quodideodicimus,nequisarbitreturuerbumdei,perquodfactasuntomnia,quasiperlocospossedefinirietalicuiuisibiliteradparerenisiperaliquamuisibilemcreaturam.sicutenimuerbumdeiestinprophetaetrectediciturdixitprophetarecteitemdiciturdixitdominus,quiauerbumdei,quodestChristus,inprophetaloquiturueritatem:sicetinangeloipseloquitur,quandoueritatemangelusadnuntiat,etrectediciturdeusdixitetdeusadparuitetitemrectediciturangelusdixitetangelusadparuit,cumilluddicaturexpersonainhabitantisdei,illudexpersonaseruientiscreaturae.exhacregulaetiamapostolusait:anuultisexperimentumaccipereeius,quiinmeloquitur,Christi?[2Cor13,3],(c.Adim.9.1).
336
nonamareturnisiperspiritum,conf.XIII.31.46).Thereintheinversionandredemption
ofRom.1:20iscomplete.476
ThusAugustineexplicitlydepictsChristiancontemplationasapartialescape
fromcreaturelymediationofGod.Belowwewillexplorethecontemplativeaspectof
Augustine’smystagogyindetail.Butfirstwemustconsiderhowthemetaphoricsofhis
ecclesialprogramforhumanformationprovidesastructuraltemplateforthe
Confessionesasaliterarywhole.
DiastrophicShadesofEcclesialFormation:
TheHexaemeronofConfessionesXIIIandtheStructureofConfessionsIVII
OneofthestructuringdevicesAugustineusedincomposingtheConfessioneswasa
deliberatedepictionofhislifeintheworldasconsistingofshadowyparodiesofthe
ecclesialprogramintermixedwithcloseencounterswiththetrueway.477To
demonstratethisreadingexhaustivelywouldrequireamonographallitsown.Buta
condensedsurveyoftheConfessiones,highlightingrelevantallusionsandthegeneral
structuringprincipleatwork,seemsappropriateatthispoint.478
476Ofcourseseveralchaptersfollow:conf.XIII.32.4734.49providesareview,nowexplicitlythroughtheSpirit,oftheliteralcreaturescalledforonthesixdays(conf.XIII.32.47),thenatersereviewoftheontologicalsubstructureoftemporality,formalityandmaterialityunveiledinconf.XIXII(conf.XIII.33.48),andfinallyareviewofthecreatedthingsspirituallysignifiedbytheliteralcreaturesofthesixdays(conf.XIII.34.49).477Indeed,Augustineinitiateshistaleofperuersiobyexplicitlycontrastinghispathwaywiththebeginningsofthehumble,ecclesialwayofdescendingtoascend(audieramenimegoadhucpuerdeuitaaeternapromissanobisperhumilitatemdominideinostridescendentisadsuperbiamnostrametsignabariamsignocruciseiusetcondiebareiussaleiamindeabuteromatrismeae,quaemultumsperauitinte.,conf.I.17).478Thefollowinginterpretivesummaryisnecessarytodemonstrate,throughtheliteraryplacementofconf.VII,thatAugustine’saccountofPlatoniccontemplationis
337
DiastrophicShadesofDayThree
Inthepreviouschapterwesawhowperversionsofthefirstthreedays,encasedbya
distinctiveaccountofcommendatio,structuredAugustine’spresentationinConfessiones
I.479Thesecondbookbeginsinshadesofdaythreewiththethemeofbitterness
(recolensuiasmeasnequissimasinamaritudinerecogitationismeae,conf.II.1.1)and
pursuesthesocialdimensionoflifewithintemporalsociety.Twodistortionsofsocial
connectionareinherentlyrepulsivetothecreatedcommendatiotoassociation.Both
socialrejection(fugiebam…abiectionem)andabsorptionofidentity(confusiones)
opposeproperassociation(conf.I.20.31).Andcreatedcommendatio,therefore,flees
fromthosestates(conf.I.20.31).ButAugustinebyturningfromGoddisappearedinto
multiplicity(dumabunoteauersusinmultaeuanui.,conf.II.1.1).Sociallythismanifested
asabsorptivelossofidentityinrelations(sednontenebaturmodusabanimousquead
animum,quatenusestluminosuslimesamicitiae,conf.II.2.2).
SoConfessionesIIproceedsbyreflectingonsocialsolidarity,awashintheseaof
temporallyorientedsociety,asamotivetosin.Thesexualpassionsofhisyouthwereso
manywaves,which,inretrospect,Augustinewisheshadtossedhimupontheshoreof
matrimony(utusqueadconiugalelitusexaestuarentfluctusaetatismeae,conf.II.2.3).If
onlyAugustinehadlistenedtothepreceptsinobediencetowhichthedrylandbecame
fruitfulondaythree,hewouldnothavesunkintotheabyss(conf.II.2.34).Indeed,
Augustinedoesencounterdivineprecept,spokenbyMonica’slips,butheconsidersthe
indeedintendedtobereadasaparodyofChristiancontemplationandnotaparadigmthereof.479Thereadermayrefertochapter5above,thediscussionwillnotberepeatedhere.
338
advicewomanlyanddisdainsitassomethingthatwouldmakehimlosefacebeforehis
socialpeers(conf.II.3.57).
Augustinethenturnstoreflectonthewaysocialsolidarityintemporalsociety
spurredhimontosin.Hecouldaccumulaterenownbyrecountinghisindecentacts,and
feltmotivatedtoinventstoriesofescapadeswhenhehadnonetorelate(conf.II.3.7).
ThusbyheedingtemporallyorientedsocialpressuresabovedivinepreceptAugustine
foundhimselfcarriedalongbythecurrentoftemporaldesire(conf.II.3.8).
Thefamouspeartheftepisodeservestohighlighttheshamfruitfulnessofthe
bittersea(conf.II.4.9).480Whilethedrylandproducesthefruitofactivecharityonday
threetoprovidefortheneedsofothers,Augustine,inhismaritimeantic,stealsfruit
withoutanypersonalneedfornourishmentsimplyforthethrillofdeprivinganother(et
alienidamniappetitus,nullalucrimei,conf.II.9.17).Afteranalyzinghismotives,
Augustinefindsnopossibleindependentgoodnesstobesoughtinthestolenpears
(conf.II.5.107.15).Andheconcludesthattheverysocialsolidaritywithinthat
temporallytwistedsocietyofboysprovidedtheonlypossiblemotivation(conf.II.8.16
9.17).
480Ferrari,Leo.1970.“ThePear‐TheftinAugustine’s‘Confessions’”Revuedesétudesaugustiniennes16,pp.233‐242pointsoutwaysthisepisodebothevokeselementsofthefirstsininGenesis3andwouldshockaManicheanreader.Expositorshavecontinuedtodrawontheinsight(e.g.Vaught,CarlG.2003.TheJourneytowardGodinAugustine'sConfessions:booksIVI.Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.,pp.54‐65).Kotzé,Annemaré.2004.Augustine'sConfessions:CommunicativePurposeandAudience.SupplementstoVigiliaeChristianae,v.71.Leiden:Brill,pp.212‐213emphasizestheshockvalueforaManicheanreader.Nodoubtmanylayersofimagesareatplay,Edenicsinincluded.Butthehexaemeralparallelswithdaythreehaveescapedattentionuntilnow.
339
DiastrophicShadesofDayFour
ConfessionesIIIopenswithcontinuingdisruptioninAugustinethroughpervertinghis
commendatiotohealthintopleasureseekingandhiscommendatiotoassociationinto
thesearchforreputationamidtemporalsociety(conf.III.1.1).Butdiastrophicshadesof
dayfour,andthefirstfruitsofscripturalcontemplation,appearasAugustinegroups
togetheraseriesofperverseformsofknowledge.Augustine’searlyloveoftheater,as
anexpressionofcuriositas(conf.III.2.23.5),precedesbriefmentionofthewreckersand
hisfurtiveassociationwiththem(conf.III.3.6).
Soonimitatorsofscripturalteachersparadethroughthetextonebyone.
AugustineencountersCicero’sHortensius,burnsforwisdomitself,butdoesnotfind
Christ’snamethere(conf.III.4.78).Heturnstothescripturesbutfindstheirstyle
distasteful(conf.III.5.9).Becauseheistooproud,Augustinecannotbowhisneck
beneathscripture’sauthority,asshouldhavehappenedondaytwo,andconsequently
failstounderstandit(conf.III.5.9).
Insteadofcontemplatingthescripturesandreceivingilluminationondayfour,
AugustineseeksnourishmentfromtheManicheeswhoprovideashadyparodyof
scripture’struth(conf.III.6.107.12).ButtheManichees’critiqueofthepatriarchsrests
onignoranceofhowGod’smercifulactionsaremediatedintime(conf.III.7.1310.18),
theverythingslearnedbythefirstlevelofscripturalcontemplationondayfour(conf.
XIII.18.22).Byrefusingtobowbeneathscripture,theManicheesareboundtolack
discernmentofthedifferencebetweeneternalstandardsandchangingtemporal
dispensations(conf.III.7.1310.18).Soallisdarknessonthedaywhencontemplation
shouldhaveledtovariousluminariesspecklingthesky.
340
TheaccountofMonica’svisionsattheendofbookthree(conf.III.11.1912.21)
bothmarksoutMonicaasalesserluminary(conf.XIII.18.23)andseguesintothefocus
onsignsinConfessionesIV.Withthefocusonsigns,weenterthemetaphoricsofday
five.
DiastrophicShadesofDayFive
Augustinebeginshisdiastrophicparodyofdayfivebyencounteringtwofalsewonders.
TheManicheesclaimafalsepurgationthroughtheirpracticeoffeedingtheelect(conf.
IV.1.1).ButAugustineencountersthemorevigorouspurveyoroffalsesignsintheform
oftheastrologers(conf.IV.3.46).Theirpurelynaturalknowledgeofastrology
masqueradesassignsofsupra‐temporalknowledge,andcontrastwiththegenuine
signsproducedbythebodilyactionofthesaintsinanswertotheneedsoftemporal
society(conf.XIII.20.2627).Augustinedid,however,findtruesignsimmediately
juxtaposedtothefalsesigns.Bodilybaptisminexplicablytransformsthemindofhis
unconscious,dyingfriend(conf.IV.4.78).481TogetherwiththevisionsofMonica,this
eventstandsasacounter‐witnessofthetruesignsproducedalongtheecclesial
pathwayondayfive.
BookfiveoftheConfessionesisallaboutvoices,especiallythecontrastbetween
Faustus’emptystylebecausedevoidofscripture(conf.V.6.107.13),andAmbrose’s
weightyintegrityofstyleandsubstance(conf.V.13.2314.25).Ambrose’seloquence
correspondstotheproductionofflyingthingsondayfiveasthosewhohave
481Inpassingonemightnotehowthisepisode,whichdirectlycontradictshisthesis,hassimplybeenignoredinCary,Phillip.2008.OutwardSigns:ThePowerlessnessofExternalThingsinAugustine'sThought.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
341
contemplatedscripturebegintoteachandpreachforthesakeofbittertemporalsociety
(conf.XIII.20.26).Butdiastrophicparodiesabound.
Augustinemakeshisopeningdiscussionconcerningvainnaturalphilosophers
calculatingastrologicalcycles(conf.V.3.34.7)directlycontrastwiththesaints’activities
ondayfive(conf.XIII.20.2628).Theirproudhypertrophyoftemporalknowledgedoes
notleadthemtodiscoverGod.AndiftheydoknowtheCreator,theydonothonorhim
bysacrificingtheirdistortionsofcommendatio(conf.V.3.4).Thesedistortions
specificallyimpersonatetheactsofdayfive–prideshouldbeslainasasacrificeofbirds
andcuriosityasanofferingoffish(conf.V.3.4).Sotheastrologers’teachingsprovidea
veryspecificparodyofChristianteachersasbirdsofdayfive.482Likewise,the
pretensionofthephilosopherstobeingexaltedtothestarsandlightsmarksthemout
asengagedindiastrophicparodiesofdayfive(putantseexcelsosessecumsideribuset
lucidos,eteccerueruntinterram,etobscuratumestinsipienscoreorum[Rm1,21].,conf.
V.3.5).
DiastrophicShadesofDaySix
HavingdepictedfalsevoicesofnaturalphilosophersandFaustustheManicheein
contrasttoAmbrose,Augustineturnsinbooksixtohismisuseofecclesialexemplarsof
482ManydetailsofAugustine’saccountonlymakesensewhentheconceptualcontrastwithdayfiveiskeptinmind.Forinstance,hisinclusionofpayingtributetoCaesarindescribingtheWay:etsapientiaetuaenonestnumerus[Ps146,5].ipseautemunigenitusfactusestnobissapientiaetiustitiaetsanctificatio[1Cor1,30]etnumeratusestinternosetsoluittributumCaesari(conf.V.3.5).Thosewhoflyclosetothefirmamentofscripturenowdistinguishthetemporaldispensationsindistinctionfrometernity(conf.XIII.18.22).God’swisdomisinnumerableandthusnon‐temporal.Buttheincarnateonebecamenumerable,andthustemporal,andabidedbythedispensationofhistimeinpayingtributetoCaesar.
342
continenceandhisalternativeattachmenttolesser,immoralmodels.Ondaysix,God’s
ministerspresentthemselvesasmoralexemplarsandbyfollowingtheirteachingand
exampleChristiandisciplestamethethreebeastsofpervertedcommendatioandlive
anewascontinentpersons(conf.XIII.21.2931).
SoafloodofnamesandpersonagessweepacrossthepagesofConfessionesVIas
thelivingsoulofdaysixachievesonlyasardonicstillbirth.Monica’sabsentioususeof
wineatthemartyr’sshrinesanddocilewillingnesstogiveupthepracticealtogetherat
Ambrose’sdecreeprovidedatrueexampleofChristiancontinence,whichAugustine
failstoimitate(conf.VI.1.12.2).AmbrosecomesnextandAugustineconsidershim
fortunatebecausepowerfulandimportantbutcannotimaginehappinesscoinciding
withsexualcontinence(conf.VI.3.3).NextAugustineencountersadrunkenbeggar,
temporarilyblissfulinhisinebriation,andperplexesoverhowthisbeggarishappier
thanhimselfinhishighsocialposition(conf.VI.6.910).Accountsofthefragile
goodnessofAlypius(conf.VI.7.1110.16)andNebridius(conf.VI.10.17),withanecdotes
pertainingthereto,roundoutAugustine’spresentationofvariousmoralandnot‐so‐
moralexemplars.ThefinalpageshighlightAugustine’scontinuingstruggleswithillicit
sexualityandhisincapacitytodecidebetweenmarriageandphilosophicalotium(conf.
VI.11.1816.26).Followinghisowndiastrophicpath,Augustinecannotbringcontinence
tobirth.
Incontext,Augustine’sencounterwiththelibriPlatonicoruminConfessionesVII
presentsitselfasashadyparodyofthecontemplationoftheTriuneGodachievedon
daysix,oncemoralcontinencehasproducedlivesoul(conf.XIII.22.32).Neo‐Platonism
providesanascenttointellectualapprehensionofnon‐corporealbeing,butitdoesnot
producetransformation(conf.VII.17.23).Likewise,itprovidesanaromaofeternalfood,
343
butdoesnotplaceAugustineinthepositiontoeatit(conf.VII.17.23).Hisincapacityto
discerntheincarnationfollowingPlatoniccontemplation(conf.VII.19.25)contrastswith
thecapacity,receivedinecclesialcontemplationondaysix,tounderstandtheunityin
trinityandthetrinityinunity(conf.XIII.22.32).Ofcourse,theendresultofthis
diastrophicparodyofecclesialformationisathoroughlypridefulsimulationofwisdom
(conf.VII.20.26).Nowtheparodiesoftheecclesialprogramhaverunfullcircleandthe
timehascomeforconversiontothegenuinepathoftheincarnateone.
Conversion:ReformingCommendatioandReversingDiastrophicFormation
(ConfessionesVIIIIX)
TheeighthbookoccupiesthestructuralcenterpointoftheConfessiones.Followinghis
Platonicascent,Augustinetellsusthathedidnotlackcertainty,butstability(neccertior
dete,sedstabiliorinteessecupiebam,conf.VIII.1.1).Inotherwords,hissoul’simpulses
toactionneededredemptionbeforeconversionandgenuineecclesialcontemplation
wouldbepossible.Alreadyambition,thedistortionofassociativecommendatio,had
largelyfallenawayfromAugustine(conf.VIII.1.2).Butthemorebasicperversion,
wherebythecommendatiotobodilypreservationdegeneratesintothequestfor
pleasure,continuedtocontrolAugustine(conf.VIII.1.2).Recallingthecondemnationof
Rom.1:20,AugustineremembersthatsomeseeGodthroughcreaturesandyetfailto
loveGod.AmongthemAugustineconfesseshewasoncenumbered,butnowGodwas
liftinghimoutofthatprouderrorandteachinghimthatpietyiswisdom(conf.VIII.1.2).
344
SoAugustinemakeshiswaytoagedSimplicianus(conf.VIII.2.3).Andaseriesof
storiesfollowofcongruentcallstoGod’sservice.483Eachofthestoriesservesto
dismantlethedissimulativestoriesbywhichAugustinemaintainshimselfinpride.First
comesVictorinusandthehumilitywherebyheatlastbowedhisnecktoenterthe
ecclesialway(conf.VIII.2.34.9).Simplicianus’talesparksagreatstrugglewithin
Augustine,andagaintheterminologyofhispsychologyofaction,484developedinhis
priestlyexegeticalwork,namestheroadblocktoalifeofecclesialdevotion(conf.
VIII.5.1012).485
Next,PonticianustellsofAntony’scallandthewondersworkedathishandand
atthehandsofhisbrothersinthedesert(conf.VIII.6.14).AugustineandAlypius
listenedinattentivesilenceasPonticianustoldofhowtwofellowagentesin
483ForAugustine’sunderstandingofthecongruentcall,alongwiththeChrysippeanbackground,cf.chapter4above.Relevantliteratureiscitedthere.484Specificallytheterms:uoluntas,consuetudo,necessitas,andtrahohaveverystrongconnectionswithhis(somewhatStoicising)psychologyofactiondevelopedduringhispriestlyperiod.Thereadermayconsultchapters3and4belowforexpositions.Portionsoftherelevanttextfromconf.VIII.5.10&12arereproducedbelowforthereader’sconvenience.…cuireiegosuspirabamligatusnonferroalieno,sedmeaferreauoluntate…quippeexuoluntateperuersafactaestlibido,etdumseruiturlibidini,factaestconsuetudo,etdumconsuetudininonresistitur,factaestnecessitas.…itaduaeuoluntatesmeae,unauetus,alianoua,illacarnalis,illaspiritalis,confligebantinterseatquediscordandodissipabantanimammeam.,conf.VIII.5.10…frustracondelectabarlegituaesecunduminterioremhominem[Rm7,22],cumalialexinmembrismeisrepugnaretlegimentismeaeetcaptiuummeduceretinlegepeccati,quaeinmembrismeis[Rm7,23]erat.lexenimpeccatiestuiolentiaconsuetudinis,quatrahituretteneturetiaminuitusanimuseomerito,quoineamuolensinlabitur.miserumergomequisliberaretdecorporemortishuius[Rm7,24]nisigratiatuaperIesumChristum,dominumnostrum?[Rm7,25],conf.VIII.5.12485Stark,JudithChelius.1990.“TheDynamicsoftheWillinAugustine’sConversion”inSchnaubelt,JC.1990.CollecteanaAugustiniana:Augustine,SecondFounderoftheFaith.NewYork:P.Lang,pp.45‐64providesahelpfulsurveyofthesetermsinConf.VIII,albeitwithoutanysenseoftheStoic‐PaulinealchemybehindAugustine’spsychologyofaction.
345
rebushappeneduponacopyoftheuitaAntonii.Atthefirstread,hefoundhimself
changedwithin(etlegebatetmutabaturintus,ubituuidebas,conf.VIII.6.15).Theworld,
encapsulatingthethreeperversionsofcreatedcommendatioinIJohn.2:16,wassucked
fromhismind(etexuebaturmundomenseius,conf.VIII.6.15).Andwhileheread,the
waveofhisheart(ascripturalimageAugustineadoptedfromthebitterseatodepict
temporaldesires)changeddirectionandwithagroanthemandecideduponthebetter
way(namquedumlegitetuoluitfluctuscordissui,infremuitaliquandoetdiscreuit
decreuitquemeliora,conf.VIII.6.15).AndwiththatthemanbelongedalreadytoGod
(iamquetuus,conf.VIII.6.15).Hisfriendfollowedsuit.
Allthesestoriesprovideatemplateforconversionthroughreading.Therich
detailsofhowreadingscriptureleadstoatransformationinone’spsychologyofaction
wouldprovidesubstanceforanintriguing,independentmonograph.Butthepointof
thisbriefsurveyistorelatethewaythissectionfitsintoAugustinetemplatefromthe
sixdays.
ThemomentleadinguptohisowncongruentcallshowsAugustinereducedtoa
stateofessentialinfancy(conf.VIII.12.28).486Ingroansandconvulsivegestures,with
tormentedfacialexpressions,tearsandinabilitytospeak,Augustinetherhetorfinds
himselfstrippeddowntothestatewhereinhisfirstcommendatioforbodily
preservationwaspervertedintoasearchforpleasure(conf.VIII.12.28).SoAugustine’s
conditiononthebrinkofconversionharkensbacktoinfantileformlessness(conf.
486Miles,MargaretR.1982.“Infancy,ParentingandNourishmentinAugustine’sConfessions”inTheJournaloftheAmericanAcademyofReligion,September1982,pp.349‐364highlightsthisconnection.However,sheproceedstoreaditintermsofpsychologicalarchetypes(“hisreturntotheinfantileconditionandselectionofadifferentmother…”)andmissestheliteraryandtheologicalpointofcomparisonwiththehexaemeron.
346
I.6.7ff),whichalsocorrespondstotheshapeless,primordialabyssoverwhichtheSpirit
deignstohover(conf.XIII.3.44.5).
Receivingthetolle,legeasadivinecommand,Augustineturnstoscripture(conf.
VIII.12.29).Andascripturalword,readattherightmoment,releasesAugustinefromhis
addictiontosexandlendsformtohisabysmallyconflictedwill.BytheendofRom.
13:13‐14,alightofcomposurefloodsAugustine’sheartandallthedarknessofhis
hesitationisdispersed(statimquippecumfinehuiuscesententiaequasilucesecuritatis
infusacordimeoomnesdubitationistenebraediffugerunt.,conf.VIII.12.29).487Augustine
hasreceivedtheformative,chastewordsofholywritandthesuddentranquilityofhis
facebespeakstheinternalchange(conf.VIII.12.30).God,throughhisscriptures,had
freedAugustinefromtwistedimpulsestopleasureandambition(conf.VIII.12.30).
RecapitulatingDayOneandTwo
SoAugustinerepentsandcomesundertheauthorityofscripture,thusbeginninghis
pathdowntheecclesialpathwayofhumanformation.Thetolle,legenarrativeinbook
eightbringsAugustinethroughdayoneandintodaytwoofthehexaemeralitinerary.
ConfessionesIXcontainsacondensedseriesofepisodes,whichsequentiallyrecapitulate
thepositivejourneyofthesixdays.Sobookninebeginswithasummaryaccountof
howthecongruentcallinthegardenravishedAugustinewithasweetness(greater
delight)thatmaderenouncingthetwistedformsofcommendatio(pleasure,curiosity,
487TranslatorsroutinelytakeAugustine’scontrastbetweensecuritasanddubitatioinapurelyepistemicsense.ButAugustinehasrepeatedlyinsistedthatnopossibilityofepistemicdoubtoruncertaintyremainedafterhisPlatonicascent.Theissue,incontext,ishisincapacitytogiveawholeheartedcommandtohimselffromaunifiedwill.ThereforeItakesecuritasintheactivesenseofcomposureanddubitatiointhecommondeliberativesenseofhesitancyorwavering.
347
honor)easy(conf.IX.1.1).TherebyAugustinetraversesthepathwayofdaysoneand
two,exceptinghisbaptism,whichfollowsoutoforder.ButatthispointAugustineadds
hisnametothoseseekingbaptismthefollowingEaster.
RecapitulatingDayThree
NextAugustinedecidestorenouncehiscareer(conf.IX.2.2).Thetransferofallegiance
fromthebitterseaoftemporalsocietytothedrylandofeternalsocialsolidarityis
markedbythecurioustransitionfromindividualtogroupplansbeforeGod(etplacuit
mihiinconspectutuo…subtrahereministeriumlinguaemeaetoconsiliumergonostrum
eratcoramte,conf.IX.2.2).Havingcomeundertheauthorityofscripture,Augustineis
nowjoinedinanewwaywithasocietyforwhometernalgoodnessconstitutestheend
ofalltemporalactions.SoGod’swordsproducecharitywithinthissmallbandgathered
aroundAugustine,andtheexemplaseruorumtuorumnowprovideatrajectoryfor
eternallyorientedsocialsolidarity(conf.IX.2.3),justastheworldlyexemplarshad
fosteredAugustine’ssolidaritywiththebittersea(conf.I.18.2829).Thesubmerged
templateofdaythreerequiresAugustineatthispointtoincludethenarrativesofhow
VerecundusandNebridius,thenunbaptized,nonethelessdiedwithinthefoldofthe
eternalsociety(conf.IX.3.56).And,finally,Augustinerecountsthearrivalofthenewly
orientedsocialgroupinginCassiciacum(conf.IX.4.7).
RecapitulatingDayFour
Atthispointtheeventsofdayfour,andthefirstwaveofscripturalcontemplation,bring
AugustinetorecounthisscripturalreadingsatCassiciacum(conf.IX.4.7).Byreflecting
onPs.4,Augustineprovidesafairlydetailedexampleofhisfirstcontemplativeascent
348
throughscripture(conf.IX.4.811).Wewillreturntothispassagebelowwhenwecollate
Augustine’sdepictionsofChristiancontemplation.488
RecapitulatingDayFive
TheprodigiousandsacramentalsignsofdayfivealongwiththevoicesofChristian
teachersemergenext(conf.IX.4.127.16).Augustine,whilestillatCassiciacum,suddenly
suffersatoothachethatlefthimincapableofspeech.Thethoughtentershisheartto
havethecommunityprayforhishealing.Theverymomenttheykneelinpetitionhis
painvanishes(conf.IX.4.12).WonderandfearshakeAugustineattheprodigioussign.
Ambrose’steaching,nowthroughepistolarysurrogate,comesnext(conf.
IX.5.13).489ThentheyreturntoMilanandreceivethesignofbaptism(conf.IX.6.14).But
488Kotzé,Annemaré.2004.Augustine'sConfessions:CommunicativePurposeandAudience.SupplementstoVigiliaeChristianae,v.71.Leiden:Brill,ch.3providesaclosereadingoftheManicheanresonancesinthispassage.CertainlyshehasestablishedthatoneelementofAugustine’spurposehereinistoconverthiserstwhileco‐religionists.
However,anexaminationofthe“Manicheanterminology”towhichKotzéappeals,inthecontextoftheConfessiones,revealsthatmanyofthemapplyequallytothePlatonistsandtotheManicheansinAugustine’sthought(e.g.lackofconfessionandrepentence(p.110,cf.conf.VII.20.26)andpride(p.113,cf.conf.VII.9.13;20.26)certainlyareassociatedinAugustine’smindwiththePlatonists.Likewise,theculinaryimageryharkenstoalong‐standingphilosophicaltoposofspiritualnourishmentthroughinternalizingtruth,athemeAugustineemploystocritiquePlatonistcontemplation(p.112,cf.conf.VII.17.23).Moreover,Augustine’ssummaryofthreemodesofvisionattheendoftheConfessionesseemstotargetbothManicheanandPlatonistasperverseinoppositewaysandsetthemincontradistictiontothefruitsofecclesialcontemplation(conf.XIII.31.46).
SoIconcurthatprotrepticisemployed,buturgethatabi‐focallensmustbeused.ForAugustinedarestoappealtoPlatonistsandManicheansalike.Kotzé’snote51onpg.23suggestssherealizesasmuch,butneededtofocusontheManicheansaloneduetotheconstrainsofherproject.489Forthecommonantiqueunderstandingoflettersassurrogatepresenceoftheindividualwhencircumstancesforbidbodilypresence,cf.Stowers,StanleyKent.1986.LetterWritinginGrecoRomanAntiquity.LibraryofEarlyChristianity,5.Philadelphia:WestminsterPress.,andMalherbe,AbrahamJ.1988.AncientEpistolaryTheorists.SourcesforBiblicalStudy,no.19.Atlanta,Ga:ScholarsPress.
349
theemphasisherefallsonthevoices,asifflyingthings(conf.XIII.20.26).Hisbaptismis
recountedinpassingtoamoredetaileddiscussionofthehymnsandcanticlesbywhich
vocesillaeinfluebantauribusmeis,eteliquabaturueritasincormeum(conf.IX.6.14).The
prodigioussignsaccompanyingdiscoveryofthebodiesoftwomartyrs,Gervasiusand
Protasius,alsoleaptoAugustine’smindascoalescingwiththeformativeeventsofday
five(conf.IX.7.16).
RecapitulatingDaySix
Accordingtothehexaemeraltemplate,Augustineshouldnowdescribehowhis
threefoldcommendatiowasreformedthroughfollowingecclesialexemplars.Daysix
beginsthatway(conf.XIII.21.2931).SorelatingMonica’sstoryseemstobreakthe
progressionuntilonelookscloselyattheformatofhertale.Monica’sstoryunfolds
sequentiallyunderthetemplateofhowthethreeformsofcommendatioaretamedby
yieldingtoamoralexemplar(conf.IX.8.1722;cf.conf.XIII.21.3031).
InMonica’scase,themoralexemplarwasanagedservantplacedoverherasa
child(conf.IX.8.17).Theservantreinedin(frenabat)Monica’sfirstdistortionof
commendatio–theimpulsetopursuepleasureoverbodilyhealth(conf.IX.8.17).By
severelyrestrictingaccesstowateroutsidemealtimes,theservantsoughttoreformthe
impulsetodrinkbysubjectingittowhatwasnecessaryforhealth(conf.IX.8.17).This
correspondstothereformofthefirstcommendatioondaysix(etpecorabonanequesi
manducauerint,abundantia,nequesinonmanducauerint[1Cor8,8],egentia…,conf.
XIII.21.31).
Thesecondcommendatioachievesthematicfocusinitiallyassocialdistortionin
thewickedslavewhosecuttingrebukewasunwittinglyusedasaprovidentialcurefor
350
Monica’swinebibbing(conf.IX.8.18).ThenAugustineexemplifiesMonica’sowntaming
ofthesecondcommendatiotosocietyinthestoryofhergreatgentlenesswinningover
theloveofbothPatriciusandhismother(conf.IX.9.1920).Thiscorrespondstothe
secondreformofcommendatioondaysix(itaeruntinanimauiuabestiaebonaein
mansuetudineactionis.mandastienimdicens:inmansuetudineoperatuaperficeetab
omnihominediligeris[Ecli3,19].,conf.XIII.21.31)
Finally,AugustinerelateshowMonicatamedthethirdcommendatioto
knowledge(conf.IX.9.21).Augustinefindsthisreformmanifestedthroughthe
extraordinaryrestraintinhandlinggossipbywhichMonicaprovedagiftedpeacemaker
(conf.IX.9.21).Bycurbingcuriosity,theimpulsetotemporalknowledgehadbeen
appropriatelysubjectedtoeternalendsofreconciliationbetweenpersons(nihiltamen
alteridealteraproderet,nisiquodadeasreconciliandasualeret.,conf.IX.9.21).Thusthe
thirdreformofcommendatioondaysixemergesinMonica’sstory,albeitinamore
activethancontemplativemode.490
WiththecontinenceAugustinereceivedinthegardenandMonicadeveloped
throughsequentialtamingofthethreeformsofcommendatio,anaccountofChristian
contemplationoughttofollowinkeepingwiththehexaemeraltemplate.Thesocalled
Ostia“vision”(conf.IX.10.2325)naturallyfallsintotheplaceofthecontemplative
emergenceofreasonondaysixwherebyhumansbegintotrulyimageGod(conf.
XIII.22.32).Intruth,thereisaglaringlackofanyreferencetovisioninthisepisode.
Rathertactile,auditoryandculinarymetaphorspervadethedescriptionofthisecclesial
490etserpentesboninonperniciosiadnocendum,sedastutiadcauendumettantumexplorantestemporalemnaturam,quantumsufficit,utperea,quaefactasunt,intellecta[Rm1,20]conspiciaturaeternitas.seruiuntenimrationihaecanimalia,cumaprogressumortiferocohibitauiuuntetbonasunt.,conf.XIII.21.31
351
ascent(conf.IX.10.2325).PerhapswewoulddobettertospeakoftheOstiapalpation?
Butwewillconsiderthedetailsofthisepisodeinthecontextofotheraccountsof
ecclesialcontemplationbelow.
ContemplativeapprehensionoftruthimmediatelyleadsMonicatoactasasound
judgeoftemporalmatters(conf.IX.10.26).Augustinerecountsadirectconnection
betweentheOstiaascentandMonica’srealizationthatthepurposeofherearthly
sojournwascompletedwithAugustine’sincorporationintothechurchcatholic(conf.
IX.10.26).Likewise,hersuddenreversalofconcernfortheplacementofherbodyafter
deathsignaledanewcapacitytorenderproperjudgmentinthingstemporal(conf.
IX.11.2728).
Augustine’scapacityforjudgmentreceivesamoreambiguousbutstill
fundamentallypositiveassessment(conf.IX.12.2913.34).Hisconfessedtearsandthe
inwardpainwhencetheyflowed,comeunderthediagnosticcategoryofapre‐passion
rootedinresidualconsuetudo.Thetechnicaldesignation,uulnusrecens,distinguishes
Augustine’ssourceoftearsfromthefullpassionconstitutedbyachangedbelief(conf.
IX.12.30;conf.IX.13.34).491ThusinbooknineAugustinerecapitulatestheeventsofthe
sixdaysfrombeginningtoend.Booktenconstitutesanexampleofecclesial
contemplationthatreversesthediastrophicdirectionofmediationfoundinPlatonic
contemplation.Andsoweturnnowtoanaccountofthedistinctivelyecclesialmodeof
contemplation.
491ForZeno’sconceptofpassionsasimpingingonlywhilepro/sfatoß/recensanditsmodificationinlaterStoicismcf.SVFI.212;III.378;III.391;III.463;III.481.ForsecondarydiscussionseeSorabji,Richard.2000.EmotionandPeaceofMind:FromStoicAgitationtoChristianTemptation.TheGiffordLectures.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.108‐114.ForAugustine’snovelappropriationofthecategoryofpre‐passions,seechapter4aboveandthereferencestherein.
352
EcclesialContemplation:DescendingtotheScripturestobeLiftedtoGod
Christiancontemplation,onAugustine’stelling,formsjustonepoleofarhythmically
sequentiallifepatternwithinthechurch.Withinanindividual’slife,actionand
contemplationrhythmicallyalternate(conf.XIII.12.1331.46).Butalsowithinmater
ecclesiacertainpeoplearevariouslygiftedbyGodtoengageindifferentdegreesof
charitableactionandcontemplation(conf.XIII.25.3831.46).Soanyefforttoextract
contemplationfromtheebbingandflowingofecclesiallifewillnecessarilyentaila
degreeofdistortion.
Tominimizeconceptualwarping,wemustbeginbyreaffirmingtheoverall
trajectoryofecclesialmystagogyandofcontemplationwithinit.TheChristianpathway
toGodfollowsa‘downthenup’patternofascent,whichmarksitofffromPlatonist
ascents(conf.I.17;IV.12.19492;V.3.5;VIII.2.4;XIII.12.13).
ThePlatonists,intheirpride,refusetoacknowledgetheirfallenstateandthe
inherentconstraintsoftheirpenallymortalbodies(s.Dolbeau26.240).Whilesome
peoplerespondtotheirexperienceofbodilynecessitywithgrosssensuality,the
Platoniststookadifferenttack.493Theyrefusedtoacknowledgethepenalstateoftheir
492…filihominum,quousquegrauescorde?[Ps4,3]numquidetpostdescensumuitaenonuultisascendereetuiuere?sedquoascenditis,quandoinaltoestisetposuistisincaeloos[Ps72,9]uestrum?descendite,utascendatis,etascendatisaddeum.cecidistisenimascendendocontradeum.,conf.IV.12.19493Noticethatinconf.X.29.4041.66Augustinemustnavigatebetweenoppositetemptationsinusingeachaspectofsensation(cf.e.g.,itaquefrenigutturistemperatarelaxationeetconstrictionetenendisunt.,conf.X.31.47)andeventhecommendatiotoassociation(conf.X.38.6339.64).Useofthecreatedordercangoastrayboththroughtoomuchindulgence,“looseningofthereigns,”andthroughcontemptofthingsbodily,“holdingthereignstootightly”(conf.I.11.18;IX.8.17;X.31.47;c.Faust22.28).
353
bodies,countedbodiesperseastheproblemandchosetoliveincontemptoftheir
bodilyconditionevenasitunderminedtheirabortiveascents(s.Dolbeau26.240).
TheChristian‘downthenup’pathwayfollowstheroadlaiddownbythehumility
oftheincarnateone(conf.I.17;IV.12.19;V.3.5;VIII.2.4;XIII.12.13).Thisuniqueway
followsatwo‐prongedapproachthatusestheverystateofourfallenbodiesto
subordinateouractivesoultoGod.Throughoutthehexaemeralitinerary,submissive
andexpansivereadingofscripturerhythmicallyalternateswithspecificformsofactive
obediencedesignedtotransformouruseofbodies(conf.XIII.12.1331.46).Bowing
underauthority,firstinrepentantaction(conf.XIII.12.1314.15)andtheninpiousbelief
ofscripture(conf.XIII.15.1616.19),constitutesaninitialdescentfrompride’sself‐
conceit.Buttheendofthisjourneyfindsthehumanpersonuplifted,withoutleaving
humilitybehind,toathoroughlyintegratedattachmenttoGodandacapacitytoseeand
lovecreationthroughGod’sspirit(conf.XIII.22.3231.46).
ScripturalMediationandtheCharacterofDivineAction
Beforeweextracttheelementsofthecontemplativepoleofecclesialmystagogy,a
closerlookatAugustine’sunderstandingofscriptureintheConfessioneswilloffera
propervantage.Forthewordsofscripturebreakinandstarttheprocessofascentin
Christiancontemplation(conf.IX.4.811;IX.10.2326;X.6.8;XIII.18.2219.25;XIII.22.32).
AlthoughthescripturesmediateGod’spresencetohumanbeings,theconsummationof
theirmediatoryworkistobringustoaninteractionunmediatedbyanycreature(conf.
XIII.31.46).AtthatpointtheconditiondescribedinRom.1:20isreversedand
transformedhumanbeingsbegintoseethecreaturethroughGod’sSpirit(conf.
XIII.31.46).SobeforeexaminingthecommonfeaturesofChristiancontemplation,we
354
considerhere,inturn,Augustine’sunderstandingofthescripturesintermsoftheir
temporality,witnesstodivineagencyandintentionality,and,finally,thepeculiarnature
oftheirefficacy.
TheTemporalityofScripture
ThescripturesmediatethemercyofGodintime(quodfirmastisuperinfirmitatem
inferiorumpopulorum,ubisuspicerentetcognoscerentmisericordiamtuamtemporaliter
enuntiantemte,quifecistitempora.,conf.XIII.15.18).Thenoteoftemporalityimpliesfor
Augustineaffectivemutability,whichsparksthewholerangeofissuesimbeddedinhis
psychologyofaction(uerarel.18;38;65;gn.adu.Man.II.7;II.20;lib.arb.II.47;en.Ps.
IV.3;conf.XI.29.3931.41).494Affectivemutationdrivesdistentionoftheheart’sfocus
creatingduplicity,vanityandimpurityofmotivesinaction(s.353.1;s.177.6;s.103.5;
conf.VIII.10.2224;XI.11.13).495Thedepthsofhumantwistednessflowfromaffective
attachmenttothingstemporal.
Andthislinkageisclearinhisdescriptionofthosecreaturespositonedabovethe
scriptures(conf.XIII.15.18).Angeliccreaturesreadthesamemercyimmediatelyfrom
God’sownfaceashisunchangeableplan(conf.XIII.15.18).Buttheirmodeofnon‐
syllabicreadingisexplicitlysituatedwithintherealmofaction–bychoosingandloving
theyreadGod’simmutableplan(eligendoenimetdiligendoleguntipsam
incommutabilitatemconsiliitui.,conf.XIII.15.18).Becausetheirpsychologyofactionis
pureandstable,theyliveabovethemutation,whichwouldotherwisebetheirsby
494Cf.discussioninchapter2above.495Cf.discussioninchapter3above.
355
nature(conf.XII.9.9).496Likewise,theircontemplative‘reading’ofGodneverceasesor
dissipates(nonclauditurcodexeorumnecplicaturlibereorum,quiatuipseillishoceset
esinaeternum[Ps47,15],quiasuperhocfirmamentumordinastieos,conf.XIII.15.18).
Forthesakeofhumanweakness–thefragmentationofourcapacitytofocuson
onethinginactionandcontemplation–scripturehasbeenspreadoutabovetomediate
knowledgeofGod’smercyintime(quodfirmastisuperinfirmitateminferiorum
populorum,ubisuspicerentetcognoscerentmisericordiamtuamtemporaliter
enuntiantemte,quifecistitempora.,conf.XIII.15.18).Thepenalstateofourbodiesmakes
ameasureofdistentionandsuccessivitynecessaryinhumanthoughtandaction(en.Ps.
4.6;ex.prop.Rom.1318.1012;36.5;46.7;50).497God,inthescriptures,hasmetour
needwithhumblewordsthatannounceGod’scharacterinsequentialepisodeswecan
followinourinfirmity(conf.XIII.15.18).
DivineAgencyinScripture
DivineactionintimeispreciselywhatAugustinedidnotfindinthelibriPlatonicorum
(conf.VII.9.1315).498TherehefoundnoimminentactivityofGodtoenlightenhumans
496nimirumenimcaelumcaeli,quodinprincipiofecisti,creaturaestaliquaintellectualis,quamquamnequaquamtibi,trinitati,coaeterna,particepstamenaeternitatistuae,ualdemutabilitatemsuampraedulcedinefelicissimaecontemplationistuaecohibetetsineullolapsu,exquofactaest,inhaerendotibiexceditomnemuolubilemuicissitudinemtemporum.,conf.XII.9.9497Cf.chapter4abovefordiscussionofnecessityandmortalityinAugustine’spsychologyofaction.498…seduerbum,deus,estlumenuerum,quodinluminatomnemhominemuenienteminhuncmundum[Io1,9];etquiainhocmundoerat,etmunduspereumfactusest,etmunduseumnoncognouit[Io1,10].quiaueroinsuapropriauenitetsuieumnonreceperunt,quotquotautemreceperunteum,dediteispotestatemfiliosdeifiericredentibusinnomineeius[Io1,11sq.],nonibilegi.,(conf.VII.9.13).…sedexdeonatusest;sedquiauerbumcarofactumestethabitauitinnobis[Io1,14],nonibilegi…sedquiasemetipsumexinaniuitformamseruiaccipiens,insimilitudinehominum
356
withintheworld,noincarnation,noself‐sacrificeleadingtoexaltation,nomentionof
God’sabsolvingloveandthehumility,whichdroveitall(conf.VII.9.1315).
AndthereisnosurprisethatAugustinedidnotfinditthere.Fornotonlydidthe
Platonistsnotknowabouttheincarnation,theycouldnotknowit.FortheNeo‐Platonic
Oneisnotanagent.499Andthisveryabsenceofdivineagencyleadsdirectlytoidolatry
inAugustine’smind(conf.VII.9.1415).500ThePlatonistmayhaveatrueepistemic
conceptofGodasnon‐corporealandthusimmutablebeing,butinaction–inthings
pertainingtobodies–theyremainedsubjectindevotiontocreaturesabovetheCreator
(conf.VII.9.15).SoAugustine’ssummaryflowsintoanothercriticalallusiontoRom.
1:20ffandphilosophicknowledgerunningagroundontherocksofidolatry(conf.
VII.9.1415).
Neo‐PlatonismprovidedAugustinenoaccountofontologicallydownward
causationthatismorallygood(conf.VII.9.1314).ThisisthegapatthecenterofPlatonic
thoughtonAugustine’sreading.Emanation,whenviewedfromabove,bearswitnessto
factusethabituinuentusuthomo,humiliauitsefactusoboediensusqueadmortem,mortemautemcrucis:propterquoddeuseumexaltauitamortuisetdonauiteinomen,quodestsuperomnenomen[Phil2,79],utinnomineIesuomnegenuflectaturcaelestium,terrestriumetinfernorumetomnislinguaconfiteatur,quiadominusIesusingloriaestdeipatris[Phil2,10sq.],nonhabentillilibri…quodautemsecundumtempusproimpiismortuusest[Rm5,6]etfiliotuounicononpepercisti,sedpronobisomnibustradidistieum[Rm8,32],nonestibi.,(conf.VII.9.14).499ForthestruggleinMiddlePlatonicthoughttofindanon‐demiurgicphilosophicaltheology,theproblematicthatdroveitandPlotinus’novelsuccessinthisregard,cf.Kenney,JohnPeter.1991.MysticalMonotheism:AStudyinAncientPlatonicTheology.Providence,R.I.:BrownUniversityPress.500…quiautemcothurnotamquamdoctrinaesublimioriselatinonaudiuntdicentem:disciteame,quoniammitissumethumiliscorde,etinuenietisrequiemanimabusuestris[Mt11,29],etsicognoscuntdeum,nonsicutdeumglorificantautgratiasagunt,sedeuanescuntincogitationibussuisetobscuraturinsipienscoreorum;dicentesseessesapientesstultifactisunt[Rm1,22].etideolegebamibietiamimmutatamgloriamincorruptionistuaeinidolaetuariasimulacra,insimilitudinemimaginiscorruptibilishominisetuolucrumetquadrupedumetserpentium[Rm1,23],(conf.VII.9.1415).
357
anexcessivenessofgoodnessintheOne(Enn.III.8.10;IV.8.6;V.4.2).Butintentionality
andthusmoralitycannotbeascribedtoemanation,fortheOneremainswhollyturned
towardsitselfanditsperfectionfructifiesbynecessity(Enn.V.I.6;V.4.1).Andforthe
entitydescendingfromahigherontologicallevel,downwardcausalitycanonlybe
motivatedbyto/lma–audacity(Enn.V.1.1;VI.9.5;III.8.8).501Pridecreates.Audacityacts.
AChristianontology,ontheotherhand,requiressomeaccountofmorallygood
downwardcausality–oragencyforthegood–otherwisethereisnoconceptualroom
foradoctrineofcreationdistinctfromsin,noroomfortheincarnation,noroomfor
bodilyactivityasgood.
Scripture,onAugustine’sreading,distinguishestwomodesofintentional
downwardcausalityoragency.Prideisdownward(orlateral)causalityforthesakeof
feelinghigher,orfortheaffectiveregistrationofpower(cf.en.Ps.1.1;lib.arb.III.76;
conf.IV.15.27;s.354.6;gn.litt.XI.14.18;s.Mai101.2;ciu.XXI.16).502Andthisishow
501Cf.alsoPlotinus’discussionoftheoriginoftime(Enn.III.7.11),whichdoesnotusetheword to/lma,butdoesappealtothedesireforself‐possessionasthesourceofthedescentthatcreatedtime.Forsecondarydiscussions,cf.thebriefaccountinArmstrong,A.H.1967.TheCambridgeHistoryofLaterGreekandEarlyMedievalPhilosophy.London:CambridgeU.P,pp.242‐245.MoredetailedaccountsareavailableinTorchia,N.Joseph.1993.Plotinus,tolma,andtheDescentofBeing:AnExpositionandAnalysis.AmericanUniversityStudies,v.135.NewYork:P.Lang,andinMajumdar,Deepa.2007.PlotinusontheAppearanceofTimeandtheWorldofSense:APantomime.Aldershot,England:Ashgate,pp.183‐224.502ForananalysisofAugustine’sunderstandingofpride,seeGreen,WilliamM.1949.Initiumomnispeccatisuperbia.AugustineonPrideastheFirstSin.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.Also,TeSelle,Eugene.1970.Augustine,theTheologian.NewYork:HerderandHerder,pp.107‐113.ForPlotinianparallelsseeO'Connell,RobertJ.1968.St.Augustine'sEarlyTheoryofMan,A.D.386391.Cambridge,Mass:BelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress,pp.173‐183.Rombs,RonnieJ.2006.SaintAugustine&theFalloftheSoul:BeyondO'Connell&hisCritics.Washington,D.C.:CatholicUniversityofAmericaPress,pp.109‐214providesahelpfulcorrectivetoO’Connell,etal.bydistinguishingvariousaspectsofmeaninginthelanguageofthefallinAugustine(ontological,cosmogonic,andmoral)andshowinghowthematureAugustineusesPlotiniannotionsofthefallonlytoproduceapsychologyofsin.NoticealsoTeske’s
358
Augustineunderstandstheamoractionisbywhichhumanbeingsfell(mus.VI.40;lib.
arb.III.76).503Humility,ontheotherhand,isdownwardcausalityforthesakeof
improvingoraidingone’sneighbor,orforthesakeofsubmittingtoGodandthereby
beingraiseduptoclingtoGod(f.etsymb.6;exp.Gal.15;exp.Gal.2425;diu.qu.69.9;
conf.I.11.17;III.8.16;c.Fel.2.8).
Theincarnationunveilstheverynatureofdivinedownwardcausality504aslove
andmakesthecleardistinctionbetweenpridefulandhumbleagencypossible(discea
Christo,quodnondiscisabhomine:inilloestnormahumilitatis;adhuncquiaccedit,prius
inipsahumilitateformatur,utinexaltationedecoretur.,s.68.11).505Withoutthis
distinction,thePlatonistcannotunderstandtheIncarnationasanythingotherthan
anotherfallensoul.
Scripture’sdistinctioninformsofagencyalsocutsatanangleacrossthe
honorable‐shamefulandpleasurable‐arduouscategoriesthatAugustine,asalate
Roman,foundcompetingwithinhisbreast.Soconsiderhisincapacitytoprocess
Ambrose’sexampleofcontinence(conf.VI.3.3).AllAugustineseesisajuxtapositionof
muchhonorwithlittlepleasure,andhecannotdecideifthecloutoutweighsthe
gratefulacceptanceofRombsdistinctionsinhisbriefretractioprefacingthereprintofhisarticle“TheWorld‐SoulandTimeinAugustine”inTeske,RolandJ.2008.ToKnowGodandtheSoul:EssaysontheThoughtofSaintAugustine.Washington,D.C.:CatholicUniversityofAmericaPress,pp.216‐217.ForlaterdevelopmentseeMarkus,R.A.1990.“Deciuitatedei:PrideandtheCommonGood”inSchnaubelt,JosephC.,andFrederickVanFleteren.1990.Augustine:"SecondFounderoftheFaith.NewYork:P.Lang.503generalisueroamoractionis,quaeauertitauero,asuperbiaproficiscitur,quouitiodeumimitari,quamdeoseruireanimamaluit.,mus.VI.40504cf.…mitisitaqueethumilis,tamquamuiamChristumsequens,debetesseanimaeactiotendentisadrequiem;nontamenpigraetdesidiosa;utcursumconsummet,sicutscriptumest:inmansuetudineoperatuaperfice[Ecli13,19].,en.Ps.114.6505Also,notethedistinctionbetweenprideandmercyasmotiveforcesofdownwardcausalityinep.Io.tr.2.10.Forsecondarydiscussion,cf.Ruddy,DeborahWallace.2004.“TheHumbleGod:Healer,Mediator,andSacrifice”Logos7:3,pp.87108
359
deprivation(conf.VI.3.3).Inretrospect,fromthevantageoftheincarnation,Augustine
findsthesocialhonoratemptation,capableofluringoneawayfromhumilityinaction.
Andnowheunderstandsthesecretdelightsofscripturalcontemplation,which
thoroughlyeclipsemeresexualpleasure(conf.VI.3.3).Augustine’sbasiccategoriesfor
appraisingproposedactionshavebeenchanged.
MediatingDivineIntentionalityinScripture
ThescripturesprovideamediationofGodmoreadequatethantheformalityofbodies
forbeginninganascent.Ofcourse,thesuperiorityofscripturedoesnotturnsomuchon
asuperiorcapacitytoproduceformalknowledgeofGod.Bodilycreationmediates
formalitysufficientlytoprovideknowledgeofGodthroughthingsmade(conf.VII.17.23;
X.6.9).Throughcontemplationofcreatedforms,God,asnon‐corporealandimmutable
being,isdiscoveredasthenecessarysourcebehindourlatentideaofimmutable
goodness.Indeed,thereisnothingmoretobelearnedaboutnon‐corporealbeingperse
evenintheresurrectedlifetocome(gn.litt.XII.28.56).506
Butthescriptures’enunciationofGod’sactsmediatesdivineintentionality,the
consiliumdei(conf.XIII.15.18),inawaymereformalitynevercould(conf.VII.9.1314).507
506cf.Teske,RolandJ.1994.“St.AugustineandtheVisionofGod”inVanFleteren,Frederick,JosephC.Schnaubelt,andJosephReino.1994.AugustineMysticandMystagogue.CollectaneaAugustiniana.NewYork:P.Lang,pp.287‐308,foranexaminationofAugustine’scontinuingaffirmationofparitybetweenintellectualvisionnow(inafewgracedinstances,likeMosesandPaul)andintellectualvisionintheworldtocome.507About411‐412,AugustineusesthestrikingimagefromPs.22,ofChrist’sheartmeltinglikewax,toconveythisthoughttoHonoratus:…autcerteprofundumsacramentumnosintellegereuoluit,utcordissuinominesignificaretscripturassuas,ubieiusutiquelatebatconsilium,quodtuncapertumest,cumea,quaedeilloprophetatafuerunt,passusimpleuit.solutaesuntergoscripturaeeiusinhis,quaeperfectasuntaduentueius,natiuitate,passione,resurrectione,glorificatione.quisenimeaiamnon
360
Theeconomyofprovidence,everrootedinGod’seternallystableloveandchoice,
resonatethroughthepages(cf.alsoep.140.36;en.Ps.105.35;en.Ps.118.15.1;s.Dolbeau
22.16).Divineactsofmercyintimeandtheirnarrationinscriptureconstitutesomany
mediationsofbeing(ubisuspicerentetcognoscerentmisericordiamtuamtemporaliter
enuntiantemte,conf.XIII.15.18).Buttheirsisafullermediation.Forthescripturesnot
onlyunveilincorporealbeingbehindtheformalityofacreature,theyalsoyield,tothose
sograced,insightsintoGod’sunchangingmercyandhowhiseternalplanappointed
differentusesofthosecreaturesatdifferenttimes(conf.XIII.18.22).
Scripture’smediation,whencomplete,obviatesitself(conf.XIII.15.18).When
God’sredemptionculminatesinresurrectionbodiesattheendoftheecclesialjourney
throughtime,scripturewillberolleduphavingserveditspurposeofleadingtothe
eternallyutteredWord(conf.XIII.15.18).SothatisthefirstcontrastAugustinewould
convey,thescripturesmediatemoreofGodthanbodilyformsdo.
HumbleEfficacyofScripture
Thescripturespossessatransformativepowerotherwiseunknownandinaccessible.
FormalknowledgeviaPlatonicascentdoesnotsufficetotransformhumanpsychology
ofaction.Augustinetrieditandfoundout(conf.VII.17.2320.26).Scripture’smediation
ofdivinemercy,ontheotherhand,proveseffectivefortransformingtheconstituentsof
humanaction(conf.VIII.12.2930;IX.1.1).Inotherwords,Platonicascentdoesnot
producecontinence(conf.VII.18.2421.27;VIII.1.12),butcontemplationofscripture
intellegitinprophetis,quandousqueadintellectumetiamcarnalismultitudinisperuenerunt?,ep.140.36
361
coupledwithactiveobediencetopreceptandritechannelsthegracethatproduces
continentimpulses(conf.XIII.21.2931).
Scripture’suniquepowerflowsfromthenatureofdivineaction.Wordsof
scriptureareinfusedwithGod’sowncharacterandboundupwiththeincarnationin
Augustine’smind,becausethescripturestooareanexpressionofhumble,loving
downwardcausality(conf.VI.5.8;s.Guelf.32.5).508
Theverysyllablesanddictionofscriptureareimplicated.509Forwords,afterthe
fall,areprimarywaysofmovingsouls(mus.VI.41).510Tobeattheairsyllabicallyisan
actofdownwardcausalityandthuscomesintwomodes–pridefulandhumble.
LateRomanrhetoric,asameansofmanipulatingpersonsverbally,standsfor
Augustineastheparadigmaticexampleofdeceitfulprideinspeech(conf.I.17.2718.29;
III.3.6;VIII.5.10;IX.2.2).511Thesecularrhetorplieshiscraftbyformulatingspeechto
playoffthedistortionsinhumancharacter(asencapsulatedinthethreeformsof
508…quoetomnibusadlegendumessetinpromptuetsecretisuidignitateminintellectuprofundioreseruaret,uerbisapertissimisethumillimogenereloquendisecunctispraebensetexercensintentionemeorum,quinonsuntleuescorde,utexciperetomnespopularisinuetperangustaforaminapaucosadtetraiceret,multotamenplures,quamsinectantoapiceauctoritatisemineretnecturbasgremiosanctaehumilitatishauriret(conf.VI.5.8).…doctorhumilitatissermoneetopere:sermoneenimsemperabinitiocreaturaenumquamtacuit,perangelos,perprophetas,docerehominemhumilitatem;doceredignatusestetiamexemplosuo.(s.Guelf.32.5).509cf.,Jordan,Mark.1980.“WordsandWord:IncarnationandSignificationinAugustine’sDeDoctrinaChristiana”AugustinianStudiesII,pp.177‐196.510ForadiscussionseeCary,Phillip.2008.OutwardSigns:ThePowerlessnessofExternalThingsinAugustine'sThought.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress,pp.77‐86.511TherhetoricofAugustine’sdayfallswithinthefourthcenturyrenaiscanceofthesecondSophistic.ForanoverviewofsecondSophisticdistinctivesseeBowersock,G.W.1969.GreekSophistsintheRomanEmpire.Oxford:ClarendonP.,andAnderson,Graham.1993.TheSecondSophistic:ACulturalPhenomenonintheRomanEmpire.London:Routledge.FortherenaiscanceinAugustine’sday,seeKennedy,GeorgeAlexander.1995.ANewHistoryofClassicalRhetoric.Princeton,N.J.:PrincetonUniversityPress,pp.230‐270.
362
commendatio).Sorhetoricalstylesmanipulatethesensualdimensionoflanguagethatis
capableofgivingsensualpleasureonitsown(ord.II.3334;conf.I.18.2819).Flattery
andshamingsteerpersonsbyleveragingwhatistwistedintheirimpulsesto
association(conf.VI.6.9).512Irrelevantdisplaysoftemporalknowledgefeedhuman
curiosityandcreateafalsesenseofconfidenceintherhetor.Thesecularrhetoraimsto
bendhumanactiontohiswill,regardlessofproprietyortruth(namcumperartem
rhetoricametuerasuadeanturetfalsa…,doc.Chr.VI.2.3).
IntheChristianscripturesAugustinefoundadifferentmodeofspeech,an
alternatewayofmovingsoulsforwhichhisdiastrophiceducationhadneverprepared
him(conf.III.5.9).513InthescripturesAugustineencounteredasinglefaceofchaste
eloquence(etapparuitmihiunafacieseloquiorumcastorum,conf.VII.21.27).Styleand
substancefuseinseparablyinscripture(ueniebantinanimummeumsimulcumuerbis,
quaediligebam,resetiam,quasneglegebam;nequeenimeadirimerepoteram.,conf.
V.21.24).514Scripturedoesnotemployanysensuousenticementsorexcitatorylanguage
512…cumpararemrecitareimperatorilaudes,quibuspluramentirer,etmentientifauereturabscientibuseasquecurasanhelaretcormeumetcogitationumtabificarumfebribusaestuaret,conf.VI.6.9513Forahumblemodeofscripturalspeech,matchedtotheweaknessofourcondition,cf.alsointhisperiod,trinI.2(likelycomposedcirca400)…rebusenimquaeincreaturareperiuntursoletscripturadiuinauelutinfantiliaoblectamentaformarequibusinfirmorumadquaerendasuperioraetinferioradeserendaprosuomodulotamquampassibusmouereturaspectus…,butthewholechapterisrelevant.Alsoconsider,gn.litt.V.3.6…siautemnondumpossis,haecrelinquasconspiciendaualentibus,tuautemcumscripturanondeserenteinfirmitatemtuametmaternoincessutecumtardiusambulanteproficias,quaesicloquitur,utaltitudinesuperbosinrideat,profunditateadtentosterreat,ueritatemagnospascat,affabilitateparuulosnutriat…cf.alsoSimpl.II.2.1;gn.litt.V.6.19.ep.137.18.514Cf.,Augustine’slaterdescriptionoftheeloquenceindigenoustotheChristianscriptures,…etinquibusfortelocisagnoscituradoctis,talesresdicuntur,utuerba,quibusdicuntur,nonadicenteadhibitasedipsisrebusuelutspontesubiunctauideantur,quasisapientiamdedomosua,idestpectoresapientis,intellegasprocedere,ettamquaminseparabilemfamulametiamnonuocatamsequieloquentiam.,(doctr.chr.IV.10).
363
extraneoustotheideasexpressed.Rather,theverylucidityoftruthdelightsastheideas
arehumblyconveyedwithoutpretenseormanipulation.515
AugustinefindsinthewordsofPs.11:7adescriptionofGod’sredemptive
speech.Chasteeloquencereferstoaformofspeechinwhichconceptualbeautyshines
throughwithoutulteriormotivationstodeceiveormanipulate.TheChristianscriptures
providetheonlysourceofwordswithoutanyduplicitywhatsoever.516Intheirvery
simplicityandunalloyedhonesty,thescripturespossessacapacitytodestroythe
dissimulativestrategiesofpride(nequeenimnouimusalioslibrositadestruentes
superbiam,itadestruentesinimicumetdefensoremresistentemreconciliationituae
defendendopeccatasua.,conf.XIII.15.17),andpersuadehumanbeingstoadoptasimilar
humilityintheirmodeofspeakinganddevoting(nonnoui,domine,nonnouialiatam
castaeloquia,quaesicmihipersuaderentconfessionemetlenirentceruicemmeamiugo
tuoetinuitarentcoleretegratis.,conf.XIII.15.17).517
515Ofcourse,thesermohumilisbecomesastandardChristianrhetoricalapproachintheyearsfollowingAugustine,seeAuerbach,Erich.1965.LiteraryLanguage&itsPublicinLateLatinAntiquityandintheMiddleAges.BollingenSeries,74.NewYork:PantheonBooks.ForAugustine’sownusage,cf.agon.,whichaccordingtoAugustine(retr.II.3)iswritteninthehumblestyle.516Ofcourse,thisconvictionpulsesattheheartofAugustine’searlyconflictwithJeromeovertheinterpretationofGal.2:11ff,cf.esp.exp.Gal.15;ep.28;ep.75;ep.82.517Cf.Augustine’saccountofhumblespeechandtheneedtoexplainitsrelianceuponprayerratherthanvoicewhencatechizingrhetors,cat.rud.13.
364
HowChristianContemplationWorks
Weturnatlasttoacollativeanalysisoftheconstituentsofecclesialcontemplation.The
Christiancontemplativebeginsherascentbyreadingscripturealreadyenmeshedina
twofoldmediationthatcontrastswithPaul’scritiqueinRom.1:20.Thesubmissionto
mediatedunderstandingofbothGodandcreaturesmarkstheinitialdescentinorderto
beliftedupincontemplation.
ScripturalMediationofGodandCreatures
First,inecclesialcontemplation,scripturemediatesknowledgeofbothGodaboveand
bodiesbelow.Themediationofdivineknowledgebynowisunsurprising.Meditationon
scripturedrawsAugustineuptoidipsumatCassiciacum(conf.IX.4.811).Andthe
colloquyontheeternallifeofthesaints,bywhichAugustineandMonicariseatOstia,
implicitlydrawsfromareadingofPhil.3:13amongothertexts(conf.IX.10.2326).518
Andthroughouthissynopsisoftheecclesialprogramofhumanformationfromthe
hexaemeron,Augustinedescribescontemplationofscriptureasdrawingoneupto
variousdegreesofepistemicandaffectiveengagementwithGodculminatingin
contemplationoftheTrinity(conf.XIII.18.2219.25;conf.XIII.22.32).
ButAugustinealsoconceivesthebeginningofthemystagogicjourneyasa
humblesubmissiontoscripturallymediatedknowledgeofcreaturesaswell.Soin
ConfessionesXAugustineexemplifiesChristiancontemplationindetailandatlength
(conf.X.6.828.39).TheascentbeginswhenGod’swordstrikesAugustine’sheartand
518ForAugustine’suseofthistext,seeO’Daly,Gerard.1977.“TimeasDistentioandSt.Augustine’sExegesisofPhilippians3,12‐14”Revuedesétudesaugustiniennes23,pp.265‐271.
365
renderstheaccompanyingvisiblewitnessofcreatedbodiesaudible(percussisticor
meumuerbotuo,etamauite.sedetcaelumetterraetomnia,quaeineissunt,ecce
undiquemihidicunt,utteamem,neccessantdicereomnibus,utsintinexcusabiles[Rm
1,20]…alioquincaelumetterrasurdisloquunturlaudestuas.,conf.X.6.8).Likewise,the
seroteamauiencomiumconcludinghiscontemplativeascentinbookteninvolvesa
transpositionofAugustine’susualorderofthesensessothathearingcomesbefore
seeing(uocastietclamastietrupistisurditatemmeam,coruscasti,splenduistietfugasti
caecitatemmeam,conf.X.27.38).Ofcourse,thereadershouldregisterthedeparture
fromPlotinus’notionofmnemonicbeauty,whichassumesanimmediateaccessibilityof
formalityinbodies(Enn.I.6.2).519FortheAugustineoftheConfessiones,God’sword
throughscripturemustmediatethecontemplative’sperceptionofformalbeautyin
creaturelybodiesforasalvificascenttoensue(conf.X.6.8;conf.X.27.38;conf.XIII.31.46).
DivinePresenceMediatestheScriptures
Butasecondformofentwinedmediationalsohelpsinitiatetheascent.Allthe
descriptionsofChristianascentbeginalreadyinthepresenceofGod(conf.IX.4.8;
IX.10.23;X.5.7;XIII.18.2219.25).SoGodmediateshumaninteractionwithscripture,
evenashisscripturesmediatehumaninteractionwithGod.Moreprecisely,Godopens
theinsideofthescripturestoviewforfrailhumansthroughthemediator,theGod‐man
ChristJesus(uide,pater,aspiceetuideetapproba,etplaceatinconspectu[Ps18,15]
misericordiaetuaeinueniremegratiamantete,utaperianturpulsantimihiinteriora
519Pa/lin ou™n ajnalabo/nteß le/gwmen ti/ dhvta/ ejsti to\ ejn toivß sw/masi kalo\n prwvton. ¡Esti me\n ga/r ti kai\ bolhˆv thˆv prw/thˆ aijsqhto\n gino/menon kai\ hJ yuch\ w¢sper suneivsa le/gei kai\ ejpignouvsa ajpode/cetai kai\ oi∞on sunarmo/ttetai…(Enn.I.6.2)
366
sermonumtuorum.obsecroperdominumnostrumIesumChristumfiliumtuum,conf.
XI.2.4).
ThusatCassiciacumAugustinecarriesonhissoliloquyonPs.4coramte(conf.
IX.4.8).Andlater,atOstia,AugustineandMonicabegintheirconversationalascentby
searchingforthereferenttothescripturalpromiseofresurrection,anddosoapud
praesentemueritatemquodtues(conf.IX.10.23).520Inhishexaemeralinterpretationof
humanformationtheSpiritcomesintoplaywiththeturntoscripture(conf.XIII.18.22
19.25).Sowhiletheecclesialascentrequireshumblingonselftoacceptmediated
knowledgeofGodthroughscriptures,theveryinstrumentofmediationrequiresthe
furthermediationofGod’sSpirittoenablehumanunderstanding.Withlayersof
necessarymediation,wearefarawayinChristiancontemplationfromtheNeoPlatonic
philosopherwhoisalwayssaviorofhimself(abstin.11.49.2).521
AffectiveEngagementwithGodandScripture
ThepresenceofGodandhisgraceinstantiatedinscriptureengagetheChristian
contemplativeaffectively,notonlycognitively(conf.IX.4.8;conf.IX.10.24;conf.X.6.8;
conf.XIII.18.2219.24).522Familiaraffectionandfearmixedwithexultanthopestirin
520Cf.Kenney,JohnPeter.1993.“ThePresenceofTruthintheConfessions”StudiaPatristicaXXVII,pp.329‐336521oJ ojntwß filo/sofoß pantaco/qen swˆvzwn eJauto/n.(abstin.11.49.2).522Thetwofoldmediation,wherebythescripturesmediateknowledgeofGodandGodmediatesinteractionwiththescriptures,andtheaffectiveengagementmaywellbeinterconnected.WithinafewyearsofcomposingtheConfessiones,Augustinebeginshisgranddetrinitate.AmongthesectionscomposednearthetimeofConfessiones,bookeightholdsspecialimportanceforourtheme.ForAugustinebeginsbyofferingtworatherPlatonicascentstoanon‐bodilynotionofGod,whichhejudgestobeinsufficient(trin.VIII.23;trin.VIII.45)preciselybecausewehavetoclinginlovetothisGodweseektoknow(trin.VIII.6).Thusheinitiatesadialecticalinquiryintotherelationbetweenknowingandloving(trin.VIII.69),whichleadstoAugustine’sultimate
367
AugustineashebeginshisfirstChristianascentatCassiciacum(quomodomecumet
mihicoramtedefamiliariaffectuanimimei.inhorruitimendoibidemqueinferbui
sperandoetexultandointuamisericordia[Ps30,8],pater,conf.IX.4.89).Paradoxical
combinationsofaffection,likemingledfearandhope,markthisengagementas
differentfromthetypicalfluxofsequentialaffectivemutationproducedbymovingfrom
oneobjectofperceptiontoanother(conf.IX.4.89).Rather,affectiveregistrationofthe
Godwhoseexcessivegoodnessinspiresthedescriptiveparadoxesofconf.I.4.4now
producesanemotionalregisterunliketheimpressofanytemporalobject(conf.IX.4.8
9).
judgmentthathumbleloveisGodandlovingproducesintrospectiveknowledgeofGodinwaythatascentscannot(trin.VIII.1012).
Noteesp.,quapropterquiquaeruntdeumperistaspotestatesquaemundopraesuntuelpartibusmundiauferunturabeolongequeiactanturnoninteruallislocorumseddiuersitateaffectuum;exteriusenimconanturireetinteriorasuadeseruntquibusinteriorestdeus.itaqueetiamsialiquamsanctamcaelitempotestatemuelaudierintuelutcumquecogitauerint,factamagiseiusappetuntquaehumanamiraturinfirmitas;nonimitanturpietatemquadiuinarequiescomparatur.maluntenimsuperbehocpossequodangelusquamdeuotehocessequodangelus.nonenimsanctusquisquampotestatesuagaudetsedeiusaquohabetpossequidquidcongruenterpotest,etnouitpotentiusesseconiungiomnipotentipiauoluntatequampropriauoluntatepossequodcontremescantquitalianonpossunt.itaqueipsedominusIesusChristustaliafaciensutmirantesdoceretamplioraettemporalibusinsolitisintentosatquesuspensosadaeternaatqueinterioraconuerteret:uenite,inquit,admequilaboratisetoneratiestis,etegouosreficiam;tolliteiugummeumsuperuos[Mt11,28sq.].etnondixit:disciteamequiatriduanosmortuossuscito,sedait:disciteamequiamitissumethumiliscorde[Mt11,29].potentiorestenimettutiorsolidissimahumilitasquamuentosissimacelsitudo.etideosequiturdicens:etinuenietisrequiemanimabusuestris[Mt11,29].dilectioenimnoninflatur[1Cor13,4],etdeusdilectioest[1Io4,8;1Io4,16],etfidelesindilectioneadquiescuntilli[Sap3,9]reuocatiabstrepituquiforisestadgaudiasilentia.ecce,deusdilectioest[1Io4,8;1Io4,16].utquidimusetcurrimusinsublimiacaelorumetimaterrarumquaerenteseumquiestapudnossinosesseuelimusapudeum?,trin.VIII.11.Forthedating,cf.DuRoy,Jean‐Baptiste.1962.“L'expériencedel'amouretl'intelligencedelafoitrinitaireselonsaintAugustin”Recherchesaugustiniennes2,pp.415‐445.
368
SotheChristiancontemplativebringshisaffectivityintohisknowingofGod.523
MonicaandAugustineatOstiastretchedthemselvesbyburningaffectintobeingitself
(erigentesnosardentioreaffectuinidipsum,conf.IX.10.24).Theascentofbookten
beginswithGod’swordpiercingAugustine’sheartsothathefallsinlove(percussisticor
meumuerbotuo,etamauite.,conf.X.6.8).Atthebeginningandendofhisdepictionof
thefirstboutofcontemplationonhexaemeraldayfour,Augustinereiteratesthe
affectiveconnectionoftheChristiancontemplativetothescripturesandtheirnon‐
temporalreferentabove(conf.XIII.18.22;XIII.19.24).Socontemplationbeginsby
clingingtothescripturalfirmament(cohaerentesfirmamento[Gn1,14]scripturaetuae.,
conf.XIII.18.22).524Andthesuccessfulilluminationofthecontemplative,wherebyhe
becomesaluminaryinthefirmament,cannothappenwithouttreasuringscriptureand
therebyplacingone’sheartthere(utfiantettibiluminariainfirmamentocaeli[Gn1,14]:
quodnonfiet,nisifueritilliccortuum[Mt6,21];quoditemnonfiet,nisifueritillic
thesaurustuus[Mt6,21],conf.XIII.19.24).Ofcourse,Augustineunderstandsthetreasure
thatdeterminestheheart’slocationasreferentiallyofpresentawareness(s.dom.m.
II.44).Thepre‐differentiatedheart,anditsreferencing,alwaysincludestheaffections
alongwiththecognitiveandvolitionalaspectsoftheself.525
523NotethatthepurgativecontainmentofaffectisprerequisiteforPlotiniancontemplation.Onecannotcontemplatewhileawareofaffections,Enn.I..1.1013;I.2;I.4;III.6.5.Augustine’secclesialcontemplationhereincludesmoreoftheselfthanPlotinuswouldallow.524Again,thebestplaceforanexpositionofthehaereowordgroupisSchlabach,Gerald.2001.FortheJoySetBeforeUs:AugustineandSelfdenyingLove.NotreDame,Ind:UniversityofNotreDamePress.525Cf.discussioninchapterthree,“Augustine’sInventionoftheHeart.”
369
SeriesofThreeAscendingDistinctions:
SensibleIntelligible,TemporalDispensationsandTrinitarianUnderstanding
Nextscripturalmeditationleadsthecontemplativethroughaseriesofthreeascending
distinctions.Thefirstdistinctionmadeinreadingscripturecontemplativelyisthat
betweensensibleandintelligiblerealities(conf.XIII.18.22).ByAugustine’saccountthis
isthecrowningachievementofthePlatonistsastheyrisetoknowGodasnon‐corporeal
substancethroughthingsmade(conf.VII.17.23).ThePlatonistsarduouslyachievetheir
ascentthroughtheformalaspectofcreatures.ButtheChristianascent,gracedwith
scripture’smediation,beginshereandproceedswellbeyond.
Thesecondstageofcontemplativeascentencompassestemporaldistinctionsin
lightofGod’seternity.Meditatingonscripture,thecontemplativelearnstodifferentiate
God’seternalcounselfromtheperiodicstandardsofdifferenttemporalepochs(conf.
XIII.18.22;cf.also,c.Faust.26.7;en.Ps.105.35;118.15.1;s.Dolbeau22.16).Augustine’s
critiqueoftheManichees’mistakenallegationsofimmoralityinthepatriarchsshows
thissortofdistinctionatwork(conf.III.7.1310.18).526
Thisdistinctionalsoleadstoanewunderstandingofthenatureoftheoldlife
andthenewlife(conf.XIII.18.22).Theoldlife,awashinunrestrainedaffectiveflux,
foundmoralfocusimpossiblebecauseitsdistancefromtheeternalcounselgaveit
nothingstabletowhichitcouldattachitself.
526InanotherwisemeticulousaccountofthewaysAugustineaimstoconvertaManicheanaudience,thisparticularroleofthetemporal‐eternaldistinctionismissedinKotzé,Annemaré.2004.Augustine'sConfessions:CommunicativePurposeandAudience.SupplementstoVigiliaeChristianae,v.71.Leiden:Brill.ButobviouslyitlendsaddedweighttoherthesisconcerningAugustine’sManicheanconcern.
370
Obviously,thismoveswellbeyondthePlatoniccontemplativeascentfrombody
toformtoanideaofimmutablebeing(conf.VII.17.23).Platonistsseethereissomething
beyondbodyandtime,sotheirknowledgestretchesfromcreaturesuptoGod(conf.
VII.17.23).Buttheyknownothingofdivineagency–thedownwardcausationnamedin
thescripturesashumilityandlove.Consequently,theycannotdistinguishrelations
betweeneternityandspecifictemporalepochs,becausetheseepochsarerootedin
divineintentionscoterminouswithdivineagency(conf.VII.18.2421.27).Thespecific
failureofPlatonicascentinthisregardishighlightedbyAugustine’sincapacityto
discerntheincarnationofChristimmediatelyfollowinghisvisionofidquodest(conf.
VII.18.2419.25).
Theserialprogressionfromdistinguishingsensibleandintelligiblerealitiesto
discerningtherelationbetweentemporalandeternalclarifiestheitineraryofthe
ChristianascentsintheConfessiones.SothemoveinwardinAugustine’sfirstscriptural
ascentthroughPsalm4resultsinbeingpiercedwithsorrow,sacrificinghisoldself(the
veryactthephilosophersofconf.V.3.4refusedtodo),andmeditatingwhilehopingfor
therenovationofthenewself(intusincubili,ubicompunctuseram,ubisacrificaueram
mactansuetustatemmeametinchoatameditationerenouationismeaesperansinte,conf.
IX.4.10).
AtOstia,MonicaandAugustineascendfirstbyrisinginaffectionabovesensation
andbodies,andthenascendmoreinwardlycogitandoetloquendoetmirandooperatua
(conf.IX.10.24).Progressionfromthesensible‐intelligibledistinctiontodivineagency
leadsfurtherintothehumanmindandbeyond,forGod’sactivityofrenovationleads
throughtheinternalrealityoftemporalmutationandbeyond(etuenimusinmentes
nostrasettranscendimuseas,conf.IX.10.24).
371
TheotherwisepuzzlingtrajectoryoftheascentinConfessionesX.6.827.38also
followsthispattern.Throughmemory,Augustinerisesfirstthroughthedistinctions
betweenvariouslevelsofsensiblesandintelligibles(conf.X.8.1212.19).Thisfirststage,
indetail,encompassesajourneythroughsensationtophantasiaandphantasmata(conf.
X.8.128.14).Thisleadstothephantasmsoftheself(conf.X.8.15).Thenriseshigher
withinintelligiblethingsthroughtheliberaldisciplinesandnumbers(conf.X.9.16
12.19).Augustinethenturnstothedistinctionbetweentimesbyexaminingaffectiones
animiintheformofrecallingactsofremembering,forgetting,andpermutationsthereof
(conf.X.14.2123.34).ThenAugustinerisesbeyondallmutationtoGodinand
unchangeablyabovehismindinno‐placeandno‐time(conf.X.24.3527.38).Ironically,
theChristiancontemplativeiscarriedbeyondthePlatonistbyattendingtotemporal
events–bothhistoricalandpsychic–thatunfoldunderthedecreeofGod’seternal
counsel.
ButathirdlevelofdiscernmentfollowsinthehigheststageofChristian
contemplation(conf.XIII.22.32).Throughscripturethegracedadeptcomesto
understandthethreenessandonenessofGodandofhumanbeings(conf.XIII.22.32).
RenovationintotheimageofGodgrantsunderstandingofthesinglewillofGod,named
asathreefoldquodbonumetbeneplacitumetperfectum[Rm12,2]byPaul(conf.
XIII.22.32).Elsewhere,Paulsays,wearesingularlyrenewedinagnitionedeisecundum
imaginemeius,quicreauiteum[Col3,10](conf.XIII.22.32).PonderingGenesis1:26‐27,
AugustinerecallsanalterationbetweenpluralandsingularbothinGod’screativeaction
ofhumanbeingsandinthedescriptionofhumanity’smodesofimaging.Sorenewalinto
knowledgeofthepluralandsingularCreatorleadsthecontemplativetodistinguishthe
unityintrinityandtrinityinunity(conf.XIII.22.32).Andfromthisrenewed
372
understandingofGodandthehumanmind,threeinone,properjudgmentnow
becomespossible(conf.XIII.22.3223.33).
Perhapsawordwouldbeappropriatenowconcerningtheanthropological
trinitiesinAugustine’sthought.527Augustinefindswithinthecreatedorderaseriesof
ascendingtrinities,whichconstitutesomanyvestigesbespeakingtheTriunenatureof
theirmaker.Atthelowestcreatedlevel,bodilycreationthatmutatesintimeandspace,
allthingsarefashionedaccordingtomensuraetnumerusetpondus(cf.lib.arb.II.24;gn
adu.Man.I.26;I.32;mus.VI.5658;Simpl.I.2.22;II.6;conf.V.4.7;c.Faust.20.7;21.6;22.78,
89).TheTrinitarianstructureofcreationfirststruckAugustineinRomethrough
reflectionontheaquo,perquem,inquoofPaulinRom.11:36(an.quant.34,77;mor.
I.24).528ButsoonthebookofWisdomdeclaredthistoAugustineinamorepreciseway
andprovidedhismostcharacteristictriadforbodilybeing(Wis.11:21).Inpursuingthe
rootsofactioninthehumansoul,AugustinefoundamongtheRomanStoicsatriadic
accountoftranscendentalcommendatiotobodily‐preservation,knowledgeand
association(conf.I.20.31).529Andperversionsoftheseinclinationstoactionmapped
perfectlyontothethreeJohanninelusts(IJohn.2:16).Finally,withinthemensasimage
ofGod,AugustineintheConfessionesbeginstodiscernananalogousrelationbetween
527ThemostthoroughexaminationofthisfeatureinAugustine’searlythoughtremainsDuRoy,Olivier.1966.L'IntelligencedelafoienlaTrinitéselonsaintAugustin,genèsedesathéologietrinitairejusqu'en391.Paris:Étudesaugustiniennes.Anaccessible,conciseaccountofthesameperiodisavailableinTeSelle,Eugene.1970.AugustinetheTheologian.London:Burns&Oates,pp.116‐123,andanoverviewofdevelopmentsinAugustine’searlyepiscopalperiodleadinguptothecompletionofgn.litt.in410maybefoundonpp.223‐237.528AtableofAugustine’susageisavailableinDuRoy,Olivier.1966.L'IntelligencedelafoienlaTrinitéselonsaintAugustin,genèsedesathéologietrinitairejusqu'en391.Paris:Étudesaugustiniennes,pp.479‐485.529Cf.discussioninchapter5above.
373
theTrinityandthreeacts–esse,nosse,uelle(conf.XIII.11.12).530SowhileAugustineis
exegeticallyconvincedthatthehumanmindmustbeintheimageofboththetrinityand
unityofGod,hisdevelopmentofapsychologicalanalogyremainsembryonicatbestin
comparisonwiththegranddevelopmentsofthedetrinitate(conf.XIII.11.12;XIII.22.32).
OblivionEntailedinOvercomingDistention
TurningtodescriptionsoftheculminationofChristiancontemplation,wefindadistinct
portrayalofthegracedapex.Augustinedepictstheecclesialcontemplativeaspartially
transcendingthetemporaldissipationofsin’scondition.Platonistsriseabovebody,but
remaininsin(conf.VII.20.26).Inotherwords,theyachieveepistemiccertaintythrough
conceptualizationofnon‐bodilybeing,butdonotexperiencetransformationin
impulsestoaction(cf.alsotrin.VIII.11).Conversely,incontemplation,thedisciple
ploddingalongtheecclesialwayreceivespartialforetastesofreleasefromtheaffective
mutationcausedbysinfulattachments(conf.IX.10.25).Andthosegracedforetastes
providefurtherpowertoreleasetemporalattachments,thusfurtheringthe
transformationofactiveimpulses(conf.XIII.12.1314.15;XIII.17.2021;XIII.20.2628).531
Thecriticalstepofattachingone’shearttoeternalGodcomesthroughreleasing
thepast(conf.IX.4.11;conf.IX.10.23;conf.X.14.2122).Forgettingthepast,andperhaps
evenoneself,provescrucialbecauseattentiontomemory,likeanticipationofthingsto
530uellem,uthaectriacogitarenthominesinseipsis.longealiudsuntistatriaquamillatrinitas,seddico,ubiseexerceantetprobentetsentiant,quamlongesunt.dicoautemhaectria:esse,nosse,uelle.sumenimetscioetuolo:sumsciensetuolensetscioessemeetuelleetuoloesseetscire.inhisigiturtribusquamsitinseparabilisuitaetunauitaetunamensetunaessentia,quamdeniqueinseparabilisdistinctioettamendistinctio,uideatquipotest.,conf.XIII.11.12531Notethediscussionaboveofthehexaemeralitinerary,anditsmeasuredalterationbetweenactionandcontemplation.
374
come,distendsordissipatescordialfocus(conf.XI.26.39).532Soreleasingattentionto
thepastisprerequisiteforatotalconcentrationofpresentawarenessonthingseternal
(lib.arb.III.76).533
ThisoblivionofpastpursuitsmarkstheChristianascentsinAugustine’smind.
AscendingthroughPsalm4,AugustinerealizesthatrestinGodrequiresforgettingthe
distortionsofpastaction,justasitmeansturningfromallpresentpursuitsofthings
otherthanGod(etinterequiesobliuiscenslaborumomnium,quoniamnullusaliustecum
necadaliamultaadipiscenda,quaenonsuntquodtu,conf.IX.4.11).AtOstiatheascent
proceedsbyforgettingthepast(praeteritaobliuiscentes,conf.IX.10.23).Andthis
concernlurksinthebackgroundofAugustine’sdiscussionofaffectionsbeing‘tasted’
onlyinthepresent(conf.X.14.2122).Ifaffectionspastnecessarilyimpingedonpresent
awarenessthencordialfocus,evenmomentarily,wouldbeimpossible.
Twocaveatsshouldbekeptinmind.First,Augustinedescribesthegraced
forgetfulnessofhisascentspreciselyinthemidstofconfessinghispast.Moreover,his
confessionisatoncehisservicetoGodandneighbor(conf.X.1.14.6)andhisalternative
topresumptiveascents(conf.VII.20.26).Second,Augustineunderstandsameasured
alterationbetweencontemplationandactiontobenormativeintheecclesialway(conf.
XIII.12.1331.46).Memory,onAugustine’stelling,isentailedwithinsequentialaction
532eccedistentioestuitamea,etmesuscepitdexteratua[Ps17,36;Ps62,9]indominomeo,mediatorefiliohominisinterteunumetnosmultos,inmultispermulta,utpereumapprehendam,inquoetapprehensussum[Phil3,12],etaueteribusdiebusconligarsequensunum,praeteritaoblitus[Phil3,13],nonineaquaefuturaettransiturasunt,sedineaquaeantesuntnondistentus,sedextentus[Phil3,13],nonsecundumdistentionem,sedsecundumintentionemsequoradpalmamsupernaeuocationis[Phil3,14]…(conf.XI.26.39).533LikelycomposedwithintwoyearsofConfessiones,cf.esp…utautemincontemplationesummaesapientiae…meliorestautemcumobliuiscitursuipraecaritateincommutabilisdeiuelseipsumpenitusinilliuscomparationecontemnit…,lib.arb.III.76.
375
andthuscommontohumansandbeasts(conf.X.17.26).Soforgettingpastandfuture
constitutesarhythmicmomentoftotalcordialfocusthatdoesitsworkwithinalarger
lifeofhumblelove.
TheCordialTouch:GracedConcentrationTranscendsTemporality
Havingleftthepastinmomentaryoblivion,totalconcentrationoftheheartoneternal
hopeunifiestheselfbeyondtemporalvariation(i.e.affectivemutation)foramoment.
Bypurifyingthesoulofanyotherappetite,Godconstitutestheselfinsingularfocus
uponhimself(quoniamnullusaliustecumnecadaliamultaadipiscenda,quaenonsunt
quodtu,sedtu,domine,singulariterinspeconstituistime[Ps4,10].,conf.IX.4.10).
AhandfuloftermsdemarcatetheculminationofChristiancontemplationfrom
Platonicvision.WhereasthePlatonicascentterminatesinadifferentiatedactof
intellectualvision(etperuenitadid,quodestinictutrepidantisaspectus.tuncuero
inuisibiliatuapereaquaefactasuntintellecta[Rm1,20]conspexi,conf.VII.17.23),the
Ostiaascentclimaxesinatotalreferenceoftheheartbestdescribedthroughthe
metaphoroftouching(attingimuseammodicetotoictucordis,conf.IX.10.24).Theheart
alwaysreferstothepre‐differentiatedtotalityofpresentawareness.534
Likewise,theavoidanceofdescriptorsthatwouldassimilatetheirOstiaascentto
purelyintellectualvisionisstrikinginthiscontext(conf.IX.10.2324).Augustineprefers
thelanguageoftouching(conf.IX.10.2324).RecallinghiscriticismofPlatonic
contemplation,Augustine’sdictionbecomespregnantwithmeaning.ThePlatonistsrise
inapresumptivemannerbecausetheyarecontenttoknowwithoutdwelling(conf.
VII.20.26),toseewithoutholding(conf.VII.21.27).TouchingattheheightofChristian534Cf.chapterthree.
376
contemplationisnotyetdwellingorholding.Butitseekstobe.Anditdrawscloserthan
mereintellectualvision,whilestilllackingthecapacitytodwellandclingwithoutend.
SoatthebeginningofhistransitionfrommemorytoGodintheascentofbook
ten,Augustinedeclareshisintentiontotouchandcleaveasmuchaspossible(transibo
etistamuimmeam,quaememoriauocatur,uolensteattingere,undeattingipotes,et
inhaereretibi,undeinhaereritibipotest.,conf.X.17.26).
ThreetimesAugustineusesthelanguageoftouchingeternalwisdomortruthin
theOstiaascent(conf.IX.10.2425).HeandMonicatravelbeyondthesummitoftheir
mindsinordertotouchtheregionofinexhaustibleabundancewhereGodfeedsIsrael
ineternitywiththefoodoftruth(etuenimusinmentesnostrasettranscendimuseas,ut
attingeremusregionemubertatisindeficientis,ubipascisIsrahelinaeternumueritate
pabulo,conf.IX.10.24).Whenmotherandsonactuallyarrivetheytouchitbrieflywitha
totalconcentrationofheart(attingimuseammodicetotoictucordis,conf.IX.10.24).
Finally,theytalkabouthowtheyhadpresently‘extended’themselvesandinaflashof
thoughttouchedeternalwisdomdwellingaboveallthings(sicutnuncextendimusnoset
rapidacogitationeattingimusaeternamsapientiamsuperomniamanentem,conf.
IX.10.25).Sotouching,morethanjustseeing,distinctivelynamestheculminationof
Christiancontemplation(conf.IX.10.2425;X.17.26).
InthefinalOstiareferencetotouchingeternalwisdom,anotherterminological
distinctionsurfaces,whichhelpstonamethegoalofChristiancontemplation.Thetotal
concentrationofheart(conf.IX.10.24)evidentlycoincideswithanactofextensio(conf.
IX.10.23&25).Augustinedistinguishesmereintentioanditsperversecounterpart
distentiofromtheactofextensio(conf.XI.29.39;conf.XII.15.2216.23;s.255.6).Indeed,
377
Augustineassociatesthistermextensioanditscognateswithaneschatological
resolutionofdistensionintheworldtocome(conf.XI.29.39;conf.XII.16.23).
ForAugustineintentionamestheheart’scapacitytostretchoutinawareness
anddesire,withoutreferencetodirection.Whenthiscordialfocusisdissipatedby
attachmenttotemporalthings,intentiobecomesdistensio.Butproperintentiofocused
withoutalloyoneternalGodbecomesextensio(conf.XI.29.39;conf.XII.16.23).The
eschatologicalresolutionoftemporallydissipatedfocuscomesthroughforgettingthe
pastandstretchingone’scordialtension,nottowardthefuture,whichwouldonly
distend,buttotheeternalalone(praeteritaoblitus[Phil3,13],nonineaquaefuturaet
transiturasunt,sedineaquaeantesuntnondistentus,sedextentus[Phil3,13],non
secundumdistentionem,sedsecundumintentionemsequoradpalmamsupernae
uocationis[Phil3,14],conf.XI.29.39).
Christiancontemplation,accordingtotheOstiaaccount,providesapartial
foretasteoftheextensiobywhichredeemedhumanitywillonedaystretchwithout
intervalordifficultytoeternalwisdomand,thereby,livebeyondsin,deathor
dissipation(sicutnuncextendimusnosetrapidacogitationeattingimusaeternam
sapientiamsuperomniamanentem,conf.IX.10.25).SowhilethePlatonistrisestoavision
ofbeingbeyondbodies,theChristianrisestoagraced,prolepticexperienceoflife
beyondsin’saffectivemutations.Indeed,Augustinesaysasmuch(sicontinueturhoc…
nonnehocest:intraingaudiumdominitui[Mt25,21]?,conf.IX.10.25).
ForetastesofJoy
Christiancontemplationofthescripturesleadstoaprolepticforetasteoflifebeyond
sin,sothereshouldbenosurprisethateverydescriptionofscripturalcontemplationin
378
theConfessionesconspicuouslypresentsjoyastheoutcome.Touchingeternalwisdom
producesjoyinthetruth.
Augustineoffersaretrospectiveestimationofthoseoccasionsinwhichhe
watchedonasAmbrosereadsilently(conf.VI.3.3).Nowheknowsthatthemouthof
Ambrose’sheartmusthavebeenfilledwith‘tastyjoy’ashechewedthebreadofeternal
wisdom(etoccultumoseius,quoderatincordeeius,quamsapidagaudiadepanetuo
ruminaret,conf.VI.3.3).Augustine’sownfirstscripturalascentatCassiciacumbrings
sweetnessandjoyinhisheart(conf.IX.4.10).Ofcourse,wehavealreadyseenhis
descriptionoftheOstiaascentandaforetasteoftheeschatologicalfruitionofentering
intothejoyoftheLord(sicontinueturhoc…nonnehocest:intraingaudiumdominitui
[Mt25,21]?,conf.IX.10.25).535Theascentinbooktendescribesthegoalofbeatauitaas
gaudiuminueritatewithoutinterruption(conf.X.20.2923.34).536
EscapingfromRom.1:20
GiventheprominentuseofPaul’sanalysistocritiquetheiniquitiousknowledgeof
variouspaganphilosophers,onewouldexpectsomerepositioningofecclesial
535Contemplativeexperiencesremainprolepticbecauseresurrectionbodiesareanecessaryconditionforcontinuouscontemplation(conf.IX.10.26).OnlywhenGodliftsthepenaltyofbodilymortality,whichproducesignoranceanddifficulty,willhumanbeingsbecapableofuninterruptedcontemplationamidsimultaneousaction.Thefragmentationofourimpulsestoactioncontinuestolimitourcapacitytocontemplate.Thisdisintegrationisitselfrootedinapenalconditionofbody.SothepinnacleofChristiancontemplationnaturallyflowsintoareassessmentofresidualperversionwithourimpulsestoaction,orastatementofhopeconcerningthetransformedbodytocome(cf.conf.X.29.4043.70).536Bytheendofthehexaemeralitinerary,afurthersourceofjoyemerges.Notonlydowefindjoyincontemplationofthescripturalfirmamentabove,wefindjoyintheactiveobediencewherebyscripture’spreceptsareinscribedinthelivesofotherhumanbeings.Allofthisnourishes,forthesoulfeedsonwhatgivesitjoy.Andthusactiveandcontemplativepersonsmutuallynourisheachother.(conf.XIII.25.3827.42)
379
contemplationvis‐à‐visRom.1:20.Thatexpectationisnotdisappointed(conf.IX.10.25;
X.6.7;X.6.10;XIII.21.31).
TheOstiaascentdescribestheeternallifeofthesaints,whichMonicaand
Augustinehavejustsampled,asanexplicitreversalofRom.1:20modesof
contemplation(etloquaturipsesolusnonperea,sedperseipsum,conf.IX.10.25).
Likewise,theendresultofecclesialformationunveiledinthehexaemeron,withits
rhythmicalternationbetweenactionandcontemplation,isamodeofviewingthe
creationthroughtheSpirit(quiautemperspiritumtuumuidentea…,conf.XIII.31.46);
thusfullyinvertingthedirectionofmediationinRom.1:20(conf.XIII.29.4431.46).
ThecharacteristicactofknowingthroughtheSpiritisnotabareintellectual
visionissuinginconceptualcertainty.Rather,gratitudeandpraisecharacterizethe
reversalinepistemicmediation,fortheknowledgetherebygainedisspecificallyofthe
goodnessofbeingasderivedfromGod(sicrectedicitur:nonuosestis,quiscitis,eis,qui
indeispiritusciunt.nihilominusigiturrectedicitur:nonuosestis,quiuidetis,eis,quiin
spiritudeiuident:itaquidquidinspiritudeiuidentquiabonumest,nonipsi,seddeus
uidet,quiabonumest,conf.XIII.31.46).Thisvisionofgoodness,rootedinGod’screative
knowing,constitutesthemostinwardknowledgeavailabletohumanity(nositaqueista
quaefecistiuidemus,quiasunt,tuautemquiauidesea,sunt.etnosforisuidemus,quia
sunt,etintus,quiabonasunt,conf.XIII.38.53).Indeed,thecognitioninvolvedturnsout
tobeboundupinafullerinteractionthatwouldmoreproperlybecalledlove(conf.
XIII.31.46).537
537Cf.theisomorphictrajectoryintrin.VIII.213,likelycomposedsoonafterConfessiones.
380
Thusecclesialcontemplation,byallowingareversalinmediatorydirection,
specificallyaddresseswhatwaslackingintheiniquitousknowledgeofRom.1:21–qui
cognoscentesdeumnonsicutdeumglorificaueruntautgratiasegerunt.Salvation,which
isconstitutedbyaGod‐mediatedknowingandclinging,findsitsexpressionthroughthe
spiritenabledactofthanksgivingandpraiseforthewaylowerlevelsofcreaturelybeing
reflectthegoodnessoftheirmaker(quinonamareturnisiperspiritum,quemdedit,
quoniamcaritasdeidiffusaestincordibusnostrisperspiritumsanctum,quidatusest
nobis[Rm5,5],perquemuidemus,quiabonumest,quidquidaliquomodoest:abilloenim
est,quinonaliquomodoest,sedestest.,conf.XIII.31.46).Inthiswayitforeshadows
Augustine’sconclusionconcerningangelicknowledge,thehighestknowingcomeswhen
intellectualcreaturesrefereachlevelofcreaturelygoodnessbacktotheCreatorin
lovingpraiseandthanksgiving(gn.litt.IV.24.41).
WhenweseecreationthroughtheSpirit,Godseesandrejoicesinus(conf.
XIII.31.46).Andthatdivinemediation,connectingustocreaturesfromtheinsideout,
enableshumanbeingstoexerciseagencythatistrueandgood.Guidedbythecausal
knowledgeandabundantgoodnesstheSpiritprovides,humancreaturesatlastcan
walkawayfromprideandbegintoactinsimplehumilityandlove(etnosaliotempore
motisumusadbenefaciendum,posteaquamconcepitdespiritutuocornostrum,conf.
XIII.38.53).Thustherhythmicalterationbetweenactionandcontemplationcontinues
whilethisworldlastsandweawaittheunendingdayofresurrectedjoy(conf.
XIII.35.5038.53).
Sohavingliftedfallenhumanityfromtheabyssoftemporalpassionandcarried
hertotheheightsoftrinitariancontemplation,Godnowinfusesherwiththevery
humilityandlovebywhichtheAlmightystoopedbothtocreateandtocallher(conf.
381
XIII.31.46).Thislowlycharityenableshertoreentertheworldwitheyesandheart
newlyattuned,andtoactinsimplegratitudeandcarefortheworldthatGodsoloved.
382
SummaryConclusionforPartIII:Augustine’sAnthropologyintheConfessiones
TheaboveanalysiswarrantsthefollowingconclusionsconcerningAugustine’s
anthropologicalthoughtatthetimeoftheConfessiones:
First,Augustineisprovidingananthropologyofthecrackedselfspecificallyas
creature.Ofcourse,hemaintainsanddeepenshisaccountofhumanfragmentation
rootedintheimpulsestoactionthathefirstdevelopedduringhissomewhatStoicising
priestlyperiod.ButnowAugustinemoreemphaticallydepictsthehumanself,inallits
fragmentation,aswovenintoandbearingthemarksoftheorderofcreation.Onepoint
ofhiscomplexhexaemeralechoesthroughouttheConfessionesistomakeknownthe
humanselfinthislifeassuspendedbetweeneveningandmorning–betweenthe
spirituallyunformedgiftofexistence,alreadystructuredthroughvariousformsof
commendatiobutspirituallydark,andthefullyformedstateofconversionperfectly
accomplishedonlyinthemorningoftheresurrection.SoAugustineaimsforadeeper
pictureofthehumanselfascreature.
Second,intermsofanthropologicalstructures,Augustinehighlightsvestigial
featuresoftheselfthatpointtowardtheTriuneCreator.Threeascendingtriadsmark
creaturelyexistence.Thefirstremainslargelyinthebackground,asmeasure,number
andweightconstituteallcreaturesgreatandsmall.Augustinehasrepeatedlyexposited
thistriadthroughouthisearlierworks.Butthesecondreceivesratherfuller
developmentintheConfessiones.AugustinefindsaversionoftheRomanStoics’
threefoldcommendatiotobodilypreservation,knowledgeandassociationasanother
manifestationofcreaturelygoodness,subjecttoperversion,thatbespeakstheTriune
creatoreveninspirituallyunformedhumanpersons.Thistriadconstitutestherootsof
383
humanactionwhichhavebeenpervertedandmustbeprogressivelyredeemedinthe
ongoingprocessofconversion.Finally,afirst,inchoateattemptatarticulatingthetriune
imageinthehumanmindmakesabriefappearanceasbeing,knowingandwilling.
ThedistinctionAugustinemakesbetweenthethreefoldcommendatioand
reason,betweenthetamedbeastsandthedivineimageofdaysix,correspondswiththe
wayheconceivesthehumansoulasstructurallydesignedincreationforbothaction
andcontemplation.Butthedistinctionalsoseemstoimplysomepost‐Plotinian
distinctionbetweenahigherandlowersoul.
AfewthoroughlyChristianemendations,however,makeitquitedefinitelypost‐
Plotinian.First,thewholeselfisfallenandthewholeself(bodyandsoul)istobe
redeemed.Noundescendedsoulprovidesanontologicalhookbywhichtoascendand
nopartofthecreatureisultimatelytobeleftbehind.Second,asinhisearliest
wrestlingswiththesoul’sontologicalstability,thelower‐activesoulprovidesthe
perduringontologicalelement.Whenthesoulfalls,thelowersoulrestrainsitfrom
descendingtonothingness.Third,boththelowerandhighersoulbeardiffering
measuresoftheTrinitarianimage.ThetriunityoftheChristian’sGod,andnotabsolute
simplicity,marksthegoodnessatthecoreofbeingandthearchetypeofthatbeing
fashionedafterGod’sownimage.
Third,intermsofanthropologicalfulfillmentordestiny,thehumanselfis
constitutivelyactiveandcontemplative.TheAugustineoftheConfessionesnever
envisionsanapotheosisofcontemplativeblisswhereinactionwouldbecome
superfluous.Rather,rhythmicalternationswithintheChristo‐ecclesialwayleadtoward
relativehumanfulfillmentovertime.Thistimedalternationcomprisesaredemptive
concessiontofallenmortalityandtheresidualdistortionsinthesoul’simpulsesto
384
actionthatevenecclesialobediencecannotaltogethercureinthislife.Butactionand
contemplationwillcontinueintheworldmaderightthroughresurrectedbodiesatlast
equaltotherequirementofsimultaneityinthetwotasks.
Fourth,humanfulfillmentinactionandcontemplationconsistsinfullintegration
withinthetotusChristusandissuesindoxology.ThefleshofChristmediatesentryinto
thetotalityofGodinfleshandthusprovidesadoorwaytotheinsideofGod,sotospeak.
ThePlatonists,onAugustine’stelling,risetoseeGodfromafar.Butbytheirintroverting
ascenttheyonlymanagetogazeatGod.BydescendingtoChrist’sfleshandrisingwith
hisdivinity,theChristiancomeswithinthetotusChristustoseecreaturesthroughthe
SpiritofGod.SohavingrisenupwardandinwardwithChrist,theculminationof
mystagogicascentinvolvesturningagainfromtheheights(orisitdepths?)ofChrist’s
divinitytoviewcreaturesinhumblelovethroughGod’seyes,withouttherebyleaving
God.
Confession,astheformofconsequentdoxology,isthereferralofselfandworld
ascreaturesbacktoGodinpraise.Evenconfessionofhumansinisanactofpraise,for
God’screativegoodnessistherebyaffirmed.Assuch,confessionconstitutestheproper
linguisticexpressionoftheconvertingformationofthehumancreature.Soafter
windingthroughthehexaemeralpathwayoftheConfessiones,wearebroughtagainto
Augustine’sdictumatthebeginning‐ettamenlaudareteuulthomo,aliquaportio
creaturaetuae.tuexcitas,utlaudaretedelectet,quiafecistinosadteetinquietumestcor
nostrum,donecrequiescatinte(conf.I.1.1).Andnowweseethatbeneaththeverbal
manifestationofhumanpraisepulsesGod’sownSpiritimmediatelyprovidingthe
causalknowledgeandlovebywhichwecanreferthegoodnessofcreationbacktoGod
inunfeignedadoration(conf.XIII.31.46;37.5238.53).
385
Afifth,non‐anthropological,suggestionmightbeappropriatehere.Theabove
analysisseemstoprovidealiteraryadvanceasafringebenefit.Ifthehexaemeral
itineraryofConfessionesXIIIdoesindeedprovideatemplateforConfessionesIIX,thenit
istimetoretiretheoldthesisthatthefirstninebookswereinitiallycomposedand
circulatedindependently.Theroleofthehexaemeroninstructuringthewholeshould
vanquishanydoubtofcompositionalunity,orattheveryleastrequireareversalinthe
presumedorderofcomposition(i.e.requiringbooksX‐XIIItobecomposedbeforebooks
I‐IX).Perhapsintheend,20thcenturydifficultiesinreadingtheConfessionesrevealed
lessaboutAugustine’scompositionalprowessasarhetorandmoreaboutamodern
unwillingnesstoseriouslyentertainthestrikinglyforeignyetdeeplyChristianthought
patternsofallegoricalexegesis.
386
Conclusions
RetrospectivelysurveyingthetrajectoryofthisstudyspanningAugustine’s
anthropologicalthoughtfromCassicacumtotheConfessionesfourgeneralconclusions
seemwarranted.
First,Augustine’sconceptofthehumanbeingundergoescleardevelopment
fromitsbeginningsinthecircularsoul,alwaysalreadydivine,tothecrackedand
creaturelyself.
Torecap,Augustineinitiallyadoptsapictureofthefallen,immortalsoulfrom
Plotinus.Buthereconsidersthenatureofsoul,beginningveryearly.Theroleofthe
highersoulasanontologicalhookdisappearsfromAugustine’sthought,immediately
afterCassiciacum,duringhistimeawaitingbaptisminMilan.Fromthispointonwefind
thelowerdimensionsofsoulastheperduringontologicalstabilizer(chapter1).Soon
afterhisreturntoNorthAfrica,Augustine’sattemptsatallegoricalexegesisleadhimto
conceiveaprimordialbody‐soulunitythatiscreatedsoulish,elevatedtoParadiseand
subsequentlyrelapsestosoulishexistence(chapter2).
Thestilllargelymythicaccountsofthesoulishpersonacquirephilosophical
detailfirstinAugustine’saccountofintentio(chapter2)andthenthroughafuller
conceptoftheheartastotalityofpresentself‐awareness.Theintegralself,forwehave
nowmovedbeyondanessentiallyindependentsoulasagent,displaysanuanced,yet
potentiallytriumphant,psychologyofaction(chapter3).Augustine’sdetailedexegesis
ofPaulrevealscrackswithinthehumanpsychologyofactionthatwillremainuntilthe
resurrectionbody(chapter4).
387
Finally,intheConfessioneswefindAugustineintegratinghistheoriesofthe
lowersoul–nowachievingaveryspecificshapethroughthecreatedcommendatioto
bodilypreservation,associationandtemporalknowledge(chapter5)–withthehigher
soulascontemplativereason(chapter6).ThereinAugustineprovideshisfirst
integratedaccountofthecrackedselfasconstitutivelyactiveandcontemplative,body
andsoul.Thuswehavetracedhisdevelopmentfromthecircularsoultothecracked
self.
Second,Augustine’saccountofhumanbeatitudeandhispracticalprogramsfor
achievingitdevelopinlockstepwithhischangingconceptofthehumanperson.The
generaltrajectoryconsistsinamovefromearlycognitiveascentstoapurely
contemplativefulfillmentandjourneystoanaccountofhumanfulfillmentthroughthe
integrallygracedmystagogicjourneythatbeginsbydescendingtoChrist’sfleshinorder
toascendwithhisdivinity.
Augustine’searliestcontemplativesoteriologycorrespondstothePlotinian
projectofself‐identificationwiththehighersoul.ButsinceAugustinehadacceptedthis
projectwithonlyarathermythicunderstandingofthedivinesoul,theprojectchanges
ratherrapidly.TheCassiciacumwritingsalreadybetraytensionsandparadoxes.But
conceivingaratherambitiousprogramofascenttocontemplativevisionthroughthe
liberaldisciplinesconsolesAugustine’sfearsandpromisesameanstoattain
unwaveringvisionofGodnow.Salvationstartsoutinaprimarilycognitiveaccountof
contemplation.Actionstemsfromprideandproducesthefall(chapter1).
Soonafterhiscatechism,however,themeansofcontemplativefulfillment
migratefromtheliberaldisciplinestothemilkandmeatofChristianscripture.Inthis
historybelievedanditsunderlyingintelligiblerealitiesdiscerned,theChristian
388
cogitateshiswaytospiritualhealthandfulfillment.Thusthemeansofcontemplative
fulfillmentarefoundwithinthechurch.Butactionremainsprimarilyasourceof
temptationandfall(chapter2).
Withhisforcedordinationandconsequentimmersioninthedetailsofscripture,
Augustine’sestimationofactionchangesrapidly.Beatitudemustsomehowcombine
actionandcontemplation.Moreover,AugustinefindsanewprograminJesus’andthe
Stoics’teachingsforcleansingtheheartandenablingcontinuousvisionofGodinthis
life.Bymemorizingdivinepreceptfromthescripturesandfocusingone’sself‐
awarenessinactiononnothingbutthefulfillmentofdivineprecept,singularityof
intentionbecomespossible.Thisproducesacleanconscience,whichfreestheheartfor
contemplation(chapter3).
Ofcourse,PauldestroyedAugustine’sprogramsforachievingperfectbeatitude
inthislife.Thecrackedself,irrevocablydividedinternallythroughthepenalmortality
ofitsbody,cannotachievepurityinactionorcontemplationapartfromaspecialgiftof
God.Andevenagracedpresentation,mixedwiththeSpirit’ssubsequentinfused
delight,cannoteradicateeverytraceofmortalignoranceanddifficultyinthislife.Such
isthelotofafallencreature,acrackedself(chapter4).
SointheConfessionesAugustinethemystagoguedepictsachastenedprogramof
personalformation,suitedtotheconstitutivelyembodiedandnowfallencreature,
withinthetotusChristus.Noapotheosisofcontemplativeblissbeckons.And,byitsown
powerandintelligence,theselfcandonothingbutinventparodiesofthetrueway.
Rather,alifelongjourneyensuesthatispropheticallyintimatedundertheveilofthe
hexaemeronandintitatedbythehumbledescentofGodinChrist(chapters5‐6).
389
Onthispersonalpilgrimage,theselflearnstohumblysubmitbothactionand
contemplationtotheauthorityofGodmediatedthroughscriptureandmotherchurch.
Thenarhythmicallyalternatingascentensuesasthecreatedcumpervertedimpulsesto
actionandtocontemplationaretransformedintandem.Bythistransformativerhythm,
theselfcomestobothknowandloveinafullyintegratedway.Theendoftheascent
withinthetotusChristusfindstheself’stwistedformsofinteractionreversed.Shenow
knowscreaturesthroughtheSpiritofGod,actsoutofthegratefullovethatSpirit‐
mediatedknowledgeprovides,andgrowsthroughthejoyofseeingGodworkinthe
world(chapter6).ThuswehavetracedhowAugustine’sasceticprogramdevelopsfrom
apurelycognitiveprogramofcontemplativeascenttoanintegralmystagogyfor
transformingactionandcontemplationwithinthegracedenvironsofthetotusChristus.
OurthirdconclusiontakesusbeyondthespecificquestionsofAugustine’s
anthropologyandascetictheories.Augustine’sphilosophicalresourcesandstrategical
alliancesturnouttobemuchbroaderthanmost20thcenturyaccountshave
acknowledged.ThespectoroffindingthefatherofwesternChristianityasaself‐
disguisedPlatonistprovokedsomuchreligiousandscholarlyangstthatawhole
centuryofscholarshipseemedtoforgetotherphilosophicalschoolsexistedfromwhich
Augustinecouldderiveconceptualresources.Inparticular,Augustinemademuchmore
extensiveuseofStoicconceptualitiesandargumentativestrategiesthanheretofore
considered.Theepicenterofhisborrowingsandadaptationsintheperiodunder
evaluationwastheconstructionofasuitablepsychologyofaction.Ofcourse,the
consequencesofthispsychologyofaction,whenreadindialoguewithPaul,resultedin
AugustinealsoemployingasetofStoicconceptstoelucidatehisdistinctivedoctrineof
election.Likewise,Augustine’sadaptationoftheRomanStoics’threefoldcommendatio
390
contributeddirectlytohisunderstandingofhumancreatureliness.Sotheprimaryfocus
ofAugustine’sfurtiveStoicismunquestionablyisfoundinhisphilosophical
anthropology.However,theconsequencesalsoextendintotherealmofdogmatic
theologyproper.
Perhapsafourthandfinalsuggestion,nottosayconclusion,mightbe
countenancedathispoint?Discussionsofphilosophicalinfluencesandborrowingsin
Augustine’sthoughthavealwaysstirredupananxiousimpulsetocategorizehim.Is
AugustineafterallaPlatonistoraChristian?Or,perhaps,aChristian‐Platonistor
Platonist‐Christian?LestweaddthelabelChristian‐Stoictoanalreadytiresomelist,
pleaseentertainahumblesuggestion.
IfonedemandedahyphenatedtermtouseassubscriptonAugustine’snametag,
themostpropertermwouldbeaChristian‐eclectic.ForAugustinedrawsfrom
whateverprovesphilosophicallyuseful,thoughhisinteractionsshouldnotbe
construedashaphazardordabblingthereby.Butperhapsthetimehascometorelegate
thesehyphenatedtermstothepastalongwiththemisguidedidealsofhermetically
sealedconceptualpuritywithinChristiangroups,whichoftenaccompanythem.
FromAugustine’sownworld,whereintophilosophizeistoengageinalifeof
spiritualexercise,asayingringsacrosstheages.AccordingtoCicero,thepeculiarideal
ofhumanfulfillmentorblessednessthatfunctionsasthenorthstarforaphilosophic
school’sspiritualpilgrimagewhenassentedtoordissentedfrom,simultaneouslymarks
theboundariesofaschool.quiautemdesummobonodissentit,detotaphilosophiae
rationedissentit(fin.V.V.14).Withinanygivenphilosophicschool,includingChristianity,
internalquestionsanddiversedebateswillalwaysprovidegristforproductionofrival
theories.Buttheschool’svisionofblessednessprovidesthesinequanonofphilosophic
391
affiliation–thepeculiarshapeofitsformoflife.Ifthatistrue,thenAugustineinhis
matureworkcanbeneitherStoicnorPlatonistbutbelongswithinthatschool
designatedasphilosophiaChristiana.
392
AbbreviationsandEditionsofAncientTextsCriticalEditionsinSeriesCCL 1953‐.CorpusChristianorum.SeriesLatina.Turnhout:BrepolsCSEL 1865‐.CorpusScriptorumEcclesiasticorumLatinorum.Vienna:
TempskyGCS 1897‐.DiegriechischenchristlichenSchriftstellerdererstendrei
Jahrhunderte.BerlinLCL 1912‐.LoebClassicalLibrary.Cambridge,Mass:HarvardUniversity
Press.MA Morin,D.G.1930.MiscellaneaAgostiniana.vol1,SanctiAugustin
sermones.Roma:tipografiapoiglottavaticana.PG Migne,J.P.1857‐1866.PatrologiaeCursusCompletus.SeriesGraeca.
ParisPL Migne,J.P.1844‐1864.PatrologiaeCursusCompletus.SeriesLatina.
ParisSVF Arnim,Hansvon.1964.Stoicorumveterumfragmenta.Stutgardiae:
B.G.Teubner.AugustineofHippoAcad. ContraAcademicoslibritres CCL29,361c.Adim. ContraAdimantumManicheidiscipulumliberunus CSEL25,1,115190agon. Deagonechristianoliberunus CSEL41,101138an.quant. Deanimaequantitateliberunus CSEL89,131231bapt. Debaptismolibroseptem CSEL51,145375beatau. Debeatauitaliberunus CCL29,6585b.coniug. Debonoconiugaliliberunus CSEL41,187231b.uid. Debonouiduitatis CSEL41,305343cat.rud. Decatechizandisrudibusliberunus CCL46,121178ciu. DeciuitateDeilibriuigintiduo CCL47,1314;48,321866conf. Confessioneslibritredecim CCL27,1273cons.eu. Deconsensueuangelistarumlibriquattor CSEL43,162.81418cont. Decontinentialiberunus CSEL41,141183Cresc. AdCresconiumgrammaticumpartisDonatilibriquattor
393
CSEL52,325582curamort. DecurapromortuisgerendaadPaulinumepiscopum CSEL41,621660dial. Dedialectica
Augustine,BelfordDarrellJackson,andJanPinborg.1975.Dedialectica.Synthesehistoricallibrary,v.16.Dordrecht,Holland:D.ReidelPub.Co.,pp.83120
diu.qu. Dediuersisquaestionibusoctogintatribusliberunus CCL44A,11249diuin.daem. Dediuinationedaemonumliberunus CSEL41,599618doctr.chr. Dedoctrinachristianalibriquattor
Augustinus,Aurelius,AureliusAugustinus,andManlioSimonetti.2006.L'istruzionecristiana.Milano:FondazioneLorenzoValla.,pp.6362
duab.anim. Deduabusanimabusliberunus CSEL25,1,5180en.Ps. EnarrationesinPsalmos CCL38,1616;39,6231417;40,14252196ench. Defidespeetcaritateliberunus(Enchiridion) CCL46,49114ep. Epistulae CSEL34,1,1125;34,2,1744;44,1736;57,1656ep.Io.tr. InepistulamIohannisadParthostractatusdecem PL35,19772062c.ep.Man. ContraepistulamManicheiquamuocantfundamentiliberunus CSEL25,1,193248c.ep.Parm. ContraepistulamParmenianilibritres CSEL51,19141ep.Rm.inch. EpistulaeadRomanosinchoataexpositioliberunus CSEL84,145181exp.Gal. ExpositioepistulaeadGalatasliberunus CSEL84,55141ex.prop.Rm. Expositioquarundampropositionumexepistulaapostoliad
Romanos CSEL84,352c.Faust. ContraFaustumlibritrigintatres CSEL25,1,251797c.Fel. ContraFelicemManicheumlibriduo CSEL25,2,801852f.etop. Defideetoperibusliberunus CSEL41,3597f.etsymb. Defideetsymbololiberunus CSEL41,332
394
f.inuis. Defidereruminuisibilium CCL46,119c.Fort. ActacontraFortunatumManicheumliberunus CSEL25,1,83112 gn.litt. DeGenesiadlitteramlibriduodecim CSEL28,1,3435gn.litt.inp. DeGenesiadlitteramliberunusinperfectus CSEL28,1,459503gn.adu.Man. DeGenesiaduersusManicheoslibriduo CSEL91,67172gr.etlib.arb. Degratiaetliberoarbitrioliberunus PL44,881912gr.etpecc.or. DegratiaChristietdepeccatooriginalilibriduo CSEL42,125206imm.an. Deimmortalitateanimaeliberunus CSEL89,101128Io.eu.tr. InIohanniseuangeliumtractatusCXXIV CCL36,1688c.Iul. ContraIulianumlibrisex PL44,641874c.Iul.imp. ContraIulianumopusimperfectum libri13=CSEL85,1,3506 libri46=PL45,13371608lib.arb. Deliberoarbitriolibritres CSEL74,3154c.litt.Pet. ContralitterasPetilianilibritres CSEL52,3227mag. Demagistroliberunus CCL29,157203mend. Demendacioliberunus CSEL41,413466c.mend. Contramendaciumliberunus CSEL41,469528mor. DemoribusecclesiaecatholicaeetdemoribusManicheorumlibri
duo CSEL90,3156mus. Demusicalibrisex libri15=PL32,10811194
liber6=Augustine,andMartinJacobsson.2002.AureliusAugustinus,DemusicaliberVI:acriticaleditionwithatranslationandanintroduction.ActaUniversitatisStockholmiensis,47.Stockholm:Almqvist&WiksellInternational.,pp.6116
nat.b. Denaturaboniliberunus CSEL25,2,855889nat.gr. Denaturaetgratialiberunus CSEL60,233299
395
op.mon. Deoperemonachorumliberunus CSEL41,531596ord. Deordinelibriduo CSEL63,121185perseu. DedonoperseuerantiaeliberadProsperumetHilariumsecundus PL45,9931034praed.sanct. DepraedestinationesanctorumliberadProsperumetHilarium
primus PL44,959992ps.c.Don. PsalmuscontrapartemDonati
Augustine,andRosarioANASTASI.1957.PsalmuscontrapartemDonati.Introduzione,testocritico,traduzioneenoteacuradiRosarioAnastasi.Pubblicazionidell'IstitutoUniversitariodiMagisterodiCatania.Serieletteraria.Testicritici.no.1.,pp.4470
qu. Quaestionumlibriseptem CCL33,1377qu.eu. Quaestioneseuangeliorumlibriduo CCL44B,1118qu.uet.t. Deoctoquaestionibusexueteritestamento CCL33,469472retr. Retractationumlibriduo CCL57,1143s.dom.m. Desermonedominiinmontelibriduo CCL35,1188s. Sermones s.150=CCL41,3633 s.51340=PL38,3321484 s.341396=PL39,14931718s.Denis SermonesaM.Denisediti MA1,11164 s.Denis20=CCL41,218229s.Dolbeau SermonesaF.Dolbeauediti
Augustine,andFrançoisDolbeau.1996.Vingtsixsermonsaupeupled'Afrique.Collectiondesétudesaugustiniennes,147.Paris:Institutd'étudesaugustiniennes.,pp.23615.
s.Guelf. SermonesMorinianiexcollectioneGuelferbytana MA1,450585s.Mai SermonesabA.Maiediti MA1,285386Simpl. AdSimplicianumlibriduo CCL44,791
396
sol. Soliloquiorumlibriduo CSEL89,398spir.etlitt. DespirituetlitteraadMarcellinumliberunus CSEL60,155229symb.cat. Desymboloadcatechumenos CCL46,185199trin. Detrinitatelibriquindecim CCL50,3380;50A,381535uerarel. Deuerareligioneliberunus CCL32,187260util.cred. Deutilitatecredendiliberunus CSEL25,1,348PatristicAuthorsandTextsAmbroseoff. Deofficiis PL16Athanasiusu.Antonii VitaAntonii PG26,835976ClementofAlexandriastrom. Stromateis GCS52paed. Paedagogus
Clement,JosefFischer,andJustin.1964.Paidagogos.AschendorffsSammlung.MünsterWestfalen:Aschendorff.
IrenaeusofLyonadu.haer. Aduersushaereseslibriquinque.
Irenaeus,LouisDoutreleau,andAdelinRousseau.1982‐2002.Contreleshérésies.Sourceschretiennes,293‐294,210‐211.Paris:ÉditionsduCerf.
LactantiusInst. Divinaruminstitutionumlibriseptem.
Lactantius,EberhardHeck,andAntonieWlosok.2005.Divinaruminstitutionumlibriseptem.Monachii:Saur.
Tertullianadu.Prax. Tertullianus,QuintusSeptimiusFlorens,andErnestEvans.1948.
Q.SeptimiiFlorentisTertullianiAdversusPraxeanliber=Tertullian'streatiseagainstPraxeas.London:S.P.C.K.
carn.Chr. Tertullianus,QuintusSeptimiusFlorens,andErnestEvans.1956.DecarneChristiliber=TreatiseontheIncarnation.London:S.P.C.K.
397
Possidiusuita VitaAugustini
Possidius,andMichelePellegrino.1955.VitadiS.Agostino:introd.,testocritico,versioneenoteacuradiMichelePellegrino.Alba:Ed.Paoline.
ClassicalAuthorsandTexts(AlphabeticalOrder)Aristotleanim. Deanima
LCL288Pol. Politics LCL264Meta. Metaphysics LCL271;287Pr. PriorAnalytics LCL325Eth.Eud. EudemianEthics LCL285AulusGelliusNoct.Att. NoctesAtticae LCL195;200;212CiceroAcad. Academics LCL268Cic.Tim. Timaeus
Cicero,MarcusTullius,andWilhelmAx.1977.M.TvlliCiceronisscriptaqvaemanservntomnia.Fasc.46,Dedivinatione.Defato.Timaevs.Stvtgardiae:Teubner.
Denat.deor. Denaturadeorum LCL268Deor. Deoratore LCL348;349diu. Dediuinatione LCL154fat. Defato LCL349fin. Definibus LCL40Leg. Delegibus LCL213off. Deofficiis LCL30
398
Orator Orator LCL342par.Stoic. ParadoxaStoicorum LCL349Tusc. Tusculanaedisputations LCL141DiogenesLaertiusD.L. Vitaephilosophorum LCL184;185EpictetusDiss. DissertationesabArrianodigestae LCL131;218Ench. Enchiridion LCL218Galendeplacitis DeplacitisHippocratisetPlatonis
Galen,andPhillipDeLacy.1981.OnthedoctrinesofHippocratesandPlato.CorpusMedicorumGraecorum,V4,1,2.Berlin:Akademie‐Verlag.
HieroclesElements ElementsofEthics
Hierocles,IlariaRamelliandDavidKonstan.2009.HieroclestheStoic:ElementsofEthics,FragmentsandExcerpts.Atlanta:SocietyofBiblicalLiterature.
Horacesat. Satires LCL194IsocratesAntidosis Antidosis LCL229Lucretiusnat.rerum Dererumnatura LCL181MarcusAureliusmed. Meditations LCL58PhiloofAlexandria
399
decongress. Decongressuquaerendaeeruditionisgratia LCL261deag. Deagricultura LCL247prob. Quodomnisprobusliber LCL363opif. Deopificiomundi LCL226PlatoGorg. Gorgias LCL166leg. Laws LCL187;192Parm. Parmenides LCL167Phdr. Phaedrus LCL36Phd. Phaedo LCL36Rep. Republic LCL237;276Soph. Sophist LCL123Symp. Symposium LCL166Tim. Timaeus LCL234PlotinusEnn. Enneads LCL440;441;442;443;444;445;468PlutarchdeStoic.repugn. DeStoicorumrepugnantiis LCL470deE DeEapudDelphos LCL306desoll.an. Desollertiaanimalium LCL406Panaetius FragmentsofPaneatiusF.Pan. PanaetiusandFrancescaAlesse.1997.PaneziodiRodi
Testimonianze:Edizione,traduzioneecommento.Bibliopolis.Porphyryabstin. Deabstinentia
400
PorphyryandAugustNauck.1886.PorphyriiphilosophiPlatoniciopusculaselecta.BibliothecascriptorumGraecorumetRomanorumTeubneriana.Lipsiae:inaedibusB.G.Teubneri.
sent. SententiaeadintelligibiliaducentesPorphyriusandLucBrisson.1970.Porphyre:Sentences.Histoiredesdoctrinesdel'antiquitéclassique,33.Paris:Libr.PhilosophiqueVrin.
uitaPlot. VitaPlotinii LCL440PosidoniusF FragmentsofPosidonius
Posidonius,IanGrayKidd,andLudwigEdelstein.1972.Posidonius.vol.1,Cambridge:UniversityPress.
Ps.AristotlePhysiognomics Physiognomics LCL307QuintillianInst. Institutionesoratoriae LCL124;125;126;127;494Senecaben. Debeneficiis LCL310ep. AdLuciliumepistulaemorales LCL75;76;77ira Deira LCL214tranq. Detranquilitateanimi LCL254nat.quae. Naturalesquaestiones LCL450;457uitabeata Deuitabeata LCL254SextusEmpiricusadu. Math. Aduersusmathematicos LCL382Pyrr.hyp. Pyrrōneioihypotypōseis LCL273Stobaeusflor. Florilegium
Stobaeus.1893.IoannisStobaeiFlorilegium.Lipsiae:Holtze.
401
Strabogeo. Geographia LCL49;50;182;196;211;223;241;267 Varroling.lat. Delingualatina LCL333;334
BibliographyofSecondaryLiterature
Alfaric,Prosper.1918.L'evolutionintellectuelledeSaintAugustin:vol.1,Dumanicheisme
auneoplatonisme.Paris:Nourry.
Alfeche,Mamerto.1992.“TheTransformationfromCorpusAnimaletoCorpus
SpiritualeAccordingtoAugustine”inAugustiniana.42,pp.239‐310.
_______________.1995.“Augustine’sDiscussionswithPhilosophersontheResurrectionof
theBody”inAugustiniana.45,pp.95‐140.
Alici,LuigiL.1981.“LinguaggioetempoinS.Agostino”inSpracheundErkenntnisim
Mittelalter.Bonn,20,pp.1037‐1045.
Anderson,Graham.1993.TheSecondSophistic:ACulturalPhenomenonintheRoman
Empire.London:Routledge.
Antonaccio,Maria.1998.“ContemporaryFormsofAskesisandtheReturnofSpiritual
Exercises”inAnnualoftheSocietyofChristianEthics1,pp.69‐92.
Armstrong,A.Hilary.1966.St.AugustineandChristianPlatonism.TheSt.Augustine
Lecture1966.Villanova:VillanovaUniversityPress.
________________.1972.“NeoPlatonicValuationsofNature,BodyandIntellect”in
AugustinianStudies.3,pp.35‐49.
_________________.1977.“Form,IndividualandPersoninPlotinus”inDionysius1,pp.49‐
68.
402
Arnim,Hansvan.1926.AriusDidymus'AbrißderperipatetischenEthik.WienHölder‐
Pichler‐Tempsky
Arnold,W.H.Duane&PamelaBright,ed.1995.DeDoctrinaChristiana.AClassicof
WesternCulture.NotreDame,Ind.:UniversityofNotreDamePress.
Arnold,E.Vernon.1958.RomanStoicism.NewYork:HumanitiesPress.
Auerbach,Erich.1965.LiteraryLanguage&ItsPublicinLateLatinAntiquityandinthe
MiddleAges.BollingenSeries,74.NewYork:PantheonBooks.
Augustin,AiméSolignac,EugèneTréhorel,andAndréBouissou.1962.Oeuvresdesaint
Augustin.13,Lesconfessions,livresIVII.Paris:DescléeDeBrouwer.
AugustineandMariaBouldingandJohnE.Rotelle.2000.TheWorksofSt.Augustine.A
Translationforthe21stCentury.III:15:ExpositionsofthePsalms132.
NewRochelle,N.Y.:NewCityPress.
Babcock,William.1979.“Augustine’sInterpretationofRomans(A.D.394‐396)”in
AugustinianStudies10,pp.55‐74.
Bacik,JamesJ.1980.ApologeticsandtheEclipseofMystery:MystagogyaccordingtoKarl
Rahner.NotreDame,Ind:UniversityofNotreDamePress.
Bakke,O.M.2005.WhenChildrenBecamePeople:theBirthofChildhoodinEarly
Christianity.trans.BrianMcNeil.Fortress:Minneapolis.
Bammel,C.P.1989.“AdaminOrigen”inHenryChadwickandRowanWilliams.1989.
TheMakingofOrthodoxy:EssaysinHonourofHenryChadwick.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.62‐93.
Bavel,TarsiciusJ.van.1999.“Church”inAllanFitzgeraldandJohnC.Cavadini.1999.
AugustineThroughtheAges:AnEncyclopedia.GrandRapids,Mich:W.B.
Eerdmans.
403
Becker,Hans.1908.Augustin:StudienzuseinergeistigenEntwicklung.Leipzig:J.C.
Hinrich.
Beckley,F.1993.“WhyPears?TheRoleofLittleSinsinAugustine’sConfessions”in
Augustiniana.43,pp.53‐75.
Behr,John.2000.AsceticismandAnthropologyinIrenaeusandClement.OxfordEarly
ChristianStudies.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Berges,Sandrine.2005.“LonelinessandBelonging:IsStoicCosmopolitanismStill
Defensible?”ResPublica11,pp.3‐25.
Bidez,Joseph.1964.ViedePorphyre:lephilosopheNeoPlatonicienaveclesfragmentsde
traités"Periagalmaton",et"Deregressuanimae".Hildesheim:GeorgOlms.
Black,Max.1962.ModelsandMetaphors;StudiesinLanguageandPhilosophy.Ithaca,
N.Y.:CornellUniversityPress.
Blumenthal,H.J.1966."DidPlotinusBelieveinIdeasofIndividuals?"Phronesis.11:1,
pp.61‐80.
Boas,George.1948.“ProfessorWolfson’sPhilo”inJournaloftheHistoryofIdeas.
Pennsylvania:9:3,pp.385‐392.
Bobzien,Susanne.1998.DeterminismandFreedominStoicPhilosophy.Oxford:
ClarendonPress.
_________________.1998.“Chrysippus’TheoryofCauses”inKaterinaIerodiakonou.Topics
inStoicPhilosophy.Oxford:ClarendonPress.
_________________.2003.“StoicLogic”inBradInwood.TheCambridgeCompaniontothe
Stoics.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.85‐123.
Boeft,J.den.1970.CalcidiusonFate;HisDoctrineandSources.PhilosophiaAntiqua,18.
Leiden:Brill.
404
Boeft,Janden.1996.“Fatum”inMayer,CorneliusPetrus.AugustinusLexikon,2.Cor
Fides.Augustinus‐Lexikon.Basel:Schwabe.pp.1240‐1244.
Bonner,Gerald.1962.“LibidoandConcupiscentiainSt.Augustine”StudiaPatristica6,
pp.303‐314.
________________.1984.“Augustine’sDoctrineofMan:ImageofGodandSinner”
AugustinianumXXIV,pp.495‐514.
________________.1986.“Augustine’sConceptionofDeification”inJournalofTheological
Studies,37,p.369‐386.
________________.1987.God'sDecreeandMan'sDestiny:StudiesontheThoughtof
AugustineofHippo.Variorumreprint,CS255.London:VariorumReprints.
Boodin,JohnElof.1943.“TheDiscoveryofForm”inJournaloftheHistoryofIdeas.4:2,
pp.177‐192.
Booth,E.E.1979.“St.Augustine’s‘notitiasui’RelatedtoAristotleandtheEarlyNeo‐
Platonists”inAugustiniana.290,pp.97‐124.
Bourke,VernonJ.1945.Augustine'sQuestofWisdom;LifeandPhilosophyoftheBishopof
Hippo.Milwaukee,Wis:BrucePub.Co.
________________.1958,“WisdomintheGnoseologyofAugustine”inAugustinus3,pp.331‐
336.
Botha,M.Elaine.2007.MetaphorandItsMoorings:StudiesintheGroundingof
MetaphoricalMeaning.Bern:PeterLang.
Bowersock,G.W.1969.GreekSophistsintheRomanEmpire.Oxford:ClarendonPress.
Boyer,Charles.1920.ChristianismeetnéoplatonismedanslaformationdesaintAugustin,
parCharlesBoyer.Paris:G.Beauchesne.
405
Brennan,Tad.1998.“TheOldStoicTheoryofEmotions”inJuhaSihvolaandTroels
Engberg‐Pedersen.TheEmotionsinHellenisticPhilosophy.TheNew
SyntheseHistoricalLibrary,46.Dordrecht:KluwerAcademicPublishers.
________________.2005.TheStoicLife:Emotions,Duties,andFate.Oxford:ClarendonPress.
Brown,Leslie.1994.“TheVerb‘tobe’inGreekPhilosophy:SomeRemarks”inStephen
Everson.Language.CompanionstoAncientThought,3.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress
Brown,Peter.1967.AugustineofHippo,aBiography.Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia.
_______________.1988.TheBodyandSociety:Men,Women,andSexualRenunciationinEarly
Christianity.LecturesontheHistoryofReligions,NewSeries,13.New
York:ColumbiaUniversityPress.
Brown,RuthMartin.1934.AStudyoftheScipionicCircle.IowaStudiesinClassical
Philology,1.Scottdale,Pa:MennonitePress.
Brunschwig,Jacques.1986.“TheCradleArgumentinEpicureanismandStoicism”in
MalcolmSchofield,andGiselaStriker.TheNormsofNature:Studiesin
HellenisticEthics.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.pp.113‐144.
Buckenmeyer,RobertE.1962.“AugustineandtheLifeofMan’sBodyintheEarly
Dialogues”AugustinianStudies3,pp.131‐146.
Burnaby,John.1938.AmorDei,AStudyoftheReligionofSt.Augustine.TheHulsean
Lecturesfor1938.London:Hodder&Stoughton.
Burns,J.Patout.1980.TheDevelopmentofAugustine’sDoctrineofOperativeGrace.
Étudesaugustiniennes:Paris
Burnyeat,M.F.1982.“IdealismandGreekPhilosophy:WhatDescartesSawand
BerkeleyMissed”inThePhilosophicalReview.91:1,pp.3‐40.
406
Burt,DonaldX.1996.Augustine’sWorld:AnIntroductiontohisSpeculativeTheology.
Maryland:UniversityPressofAmerica.
________________.1999.FriendshipandSociety:AnIntroductiontoAugustine'sPractical
Philosophy.GrandRapids,Mich:W.B.EerdmansPub.
Burton,Philip.2007.LanguageintheConfessionsofAugustine.Oxford:Oxford
UniversityPress.
Byers,SarahC.2002.Augustine’sTheoryoftheAffections.Ph.D.diss.,Universityof
Toronto.
________________.2003.“AugustineandtheCognitiveCauseofStoicPreliminaryPassions
(propatheiai)”JournaloftheHistoryofPhilosophyXLI:4,pp.433‐48.
Bynum,CarolineWalker.1995.ResurrectionoftheBodyinWesternChristianity,200
1336.NewYork:ColumbiaUniversity.
________________.2001.MetamorphosisandIdentity.NewYork:ZoneBooks.
Cameron,GlennMichael.1996.Augustine'sConstructionofFigurativeExegesisagainst
theDonatistsintheEnarrationesinPsalmos.Ph.D.Thesis,Universityof
ChicagoDivinitySchool.
Cameron,Michael.2005.“TotusChristusandthePsychagogyofAugustine’sSermons”
inAugustinianStudies36:1,pp.59‐70.
Canning,RaymondR.1983.“LoveofNeighborinSt.Augustine:APreparationfororthe
EssentialMomentofLoveforGod?”inAugustiniana.330,pp.5‐57.
________________.1984.“LoveYourNeighborasYourself(Matt.22,39):SaintAugustineon
theLineamentsoftheSelftoBeLoved”inAugustiniana.340,pp.145‐197.
Caranfa,Angelo.2004.“SilenceandSpiritualexperienceinAugustine,Pseudo‐
Dionysius,andClaudel”inLiterature&Theology,18:2,pp.187‐210.
407
________________.2006.“VoicesofSilenceinPedagogy:Art,WritingandSelf‐Encounter”in
JournalofPhilosophyofEducation,40:1,pp.85‐103.
Cary,Phillip.1994.“GodintheSoul,ortheResidueofAugustine’sManicheanOptimism”
inUniversityofDaytonReview.22:3,pp.69‐82.
________________.1998.“WhatLicentiousLearned:ANarrativeReadingoftheCassiciacum
Dialogues”inAugustinianStudies.29:1,pp.141‐163.
________________.2000.Augustine'sInventionoftheInnerSelf:TheLegacyofaChristian
Platonist.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
________________.2008.InnerGrace:AugustineintheTraditionsofPlatoandPaul.Oxford:
OxfordUniversityPress.
_________________.2008.OutwardSigns:ThePowerlessnessofExternalThingsinAugustine's
Thought.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Charry,EllenT.1997.BytheRenewingofyourMinds:ThePastoralFunctionofChristian
Doctrine.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Clancy,FinbarrS.J.2006.“St.Augustine’sCommentaryontheEmmausSceneinLuke’s
Gospel”inStudiaPatristica.43,pp.51‐58.
Clarahan,MaryAnn.2009.“MystagogyandMystery”inWorship83:6,pp.502‐523.
Clark,T.Mary.1994.Augustine.London:GeoffreyChapman.
________________.1994.“AugustinianFreedom”Augustinus39,pp.123‐129.
Clay,Diskin.1998.ParadosisandSurvival:ThreeChaptersintheHistoryofEpicurean
Philosophy.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress.
Colish,MarciaL.1985.TheStoicTraditionfromAntiquitytotheEarlyMiddleAges.
StudiesintheHistoryofChristianThought,34‐35.Leiden:E.J.Brill.
408
Colson,F.H.1914.“TheGrammaticalChaptersinQuintillianI.4‐8”ClassicalQuarterly
8:1,pp.33‐47.
Conybeare,Catherine.2006.TheIrrationalAugustine.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Cooper.JohnC.1971.“WhydidAugustineWriteBooksXI‐XIIIoftheConfessions?”in
AugustinianStudies.20,pp.37‐46.
Cooper,JohnM.1998.“PosidoniusonEmotions”inJuhaSihvolaandTroelsEngberg‐
Pedersen.TheEmotionsinHellenisticPhilosophy.TheNewSynthese
HistoricalLibrary,46.Dordrecht:KluwerAcademicPublishers.,pp.71‐
111.
Copeland,Rita.1995.Rhetoric,Hermeneutics,andTranslationintheMiddleAges:
AcademicTraditionsandVernacularTexts.CambridgeStudiesinMedieval
Literature,11.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress
Cornford,FrancisMacdonald.1952.PrincipiumSapientiæ;TheOriginsofGreek
PhilosophicalThought.Cambridge:UniversityPress.
Corrigan,Kevin.2001.“TheProblemofPersonalandHumanIdentityinPlotinusand
GregoryofNyssa”inStudiaPatristica37,pp.51‐68.
________________.2006.“TheSoul‐BodyRelationinandBeforeAugustine”inStudia
Patristica43,pp.57‐80.
Corrington,Gail.1989.“TheMilkofSalvation:RedemptionbytheMotherinLate
AntiquityandEarlyChristianity”HarvardTheologicalReview.82:4,pp.
393‐420.
________________.1992.HerImageofSalvation:FemaleSaviorsandFormativeChristianity.
Louisville,Ky:Westminster/JohnKnoxPress.
409
Courcelle,PierrePaul.1950.RecherchessurlesConfessionsdesaintAugustin.Paris:E.de
Boccard.
Couturier,Charles.1953."Sacramentum"et"mysterium"dansl'oeuvredesaintAugustin.
inRondet,Henri.Étudesaugustiniennes.Théologie,28.Paris:Aubier.,
pp.161‐274.
Daniélou,Jean.1964.TheTheologyofJewishChristianity.London:Darton,Longman&
Todd.
DeLacy,Phillip.1978‐1984.OntheDoctrinesofHippocratesandPlato.Berlin:
Akademie‐Verlag.
DenBok,Nico.1994.“FreedomoftheWill,”Augustiniana.44:pp.237‐270.
Dihle,Albrecht.1982.TheTheoryofWillinClassicalAntiquity.SatherClassicalLectures
48.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Dillon,JohnM.1977.TheMiddlePlatonists:AStudyofPlatonism,80B.C.toA.D.220.
London:Duckworth.
________________.1992.“OrigenandPlotinus:ThePlatonicInfluenceonEarlyChristianity”
inThomasFinanandVincentTwomey.1992.TheRelationshipbetween
NeoplatonismandChristianity.Dublin:FourCourtsPress.
Dixon,L.Sandra.1999.Augustine:TheScatteredandGatheredSelf.St.Louis:Chalice
Press.
Djuth,Marianne.1990.“StoicismandAugustine’sDoctrineofFreedomafter396”in
JosephC.SchnaubeltandFrederickVanFleteren.1990.Collectanea
AugustinianaAugustineSecondFounderoftheFaith.NewYork:P.Lang.
Dodaro,Robert,andGeorgeLawless.2002.AugustineandHisCritics:EssaysinHonourof
GeraldBonner.London:Routledge.
410
Dodaro,Robert.2004.ChristandtheJustSocietyintheThoughtofAugustine.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Dodds,E.R.1951.TheGreeksandtheIrrational.SatherClassicalLectures,25.Berkeley:
UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Dombrowski,Daniel.1980.“StarnesonAugustine’sTheoryofInfancy;APiagetian
Critique”AugustinianStudies11,pp.125‐133.
DuRoy,Jean‐Baptiste.1962.“L'expériencedel'amouretl'intelligencedelafoitrinitaire
selonsaintAugustin”Recherchesaugustiniennes2,pp.415‐445.
DuRoy,Olivier.1966.L'IntelligencedelafoienlaTriniteselonsaintAugustin:genesede
satheologietrinitairejusqu'en391.Paris:Étudesaugustiniennes.
Dyson,JuliaT.1996.“DidotheEpicurean.”ClassicalAntiquity15:2,pp.203‐221.
Engberg‐Pedersen,Troels.1986.“DiscoveringtheGood:OikeiosisandKathekontain
StoicEthics”inMalcolmSchofieldandGiselaStriker.TheNormsofNature:
StudiesinHellenisticEthics.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.pp.
145‐183.
________________.1990.TheStoicTheoryofOikeiosis:MoralDevelopmentandSocial
InteractioninEarlyStoicPhilosophy.StudiesinHellenisticCivilization,2.
Aarhus,Denmark:AarhusUniversityPress.
________________.2008.“TheLogicofActioninPaul:HowDoesHeDifferfromtheMoral
PhilosophersonSpiritualandMoralProgressandRegression?”inJohnT.
Fitzgerald.PassionsandMoralProgressinGrecoRomanthought.
RoutledgeMonographsinClassicalStudies.London:Routledge.
Evans,G.R.1982.AugustineonEvil.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
411
Evans,ElizabethCornelia.1935.“RomanDescriptionsofPersonalAppearancein
HistoryandBiography”HarvardStudiesinClassicalPhilology46,pp.43‐
84.
Faesen,Rob,andAlbertDeblaere.2005.AlbertDeblaere,S.J.,19161994:Essayson
MysticalLiterature.Leuven:Peeters.
Fantham,Elaine.1978.“ImitationandEvolution:TheDiscussionofRhetoricalImitation
inCiceroDeOratore2.87‐97andSomeRelatedProblemsofCiceronian
Theory”inClassicalPhilology.73:1,pp.1‐16.
Ferrari,LeoC.1970.“ThePear‐TheftinAugustine’s‘Confessions’”Revuedesétudes
augustiniennes16,pp.233‐242.
________________.1978.“The‘FoodofTruth’inAugustine’sConfessions”inAugustinian
Studies.90,pp.1‐14.
________________.1979.“TheDreamsofMonicainAugustine’sConfessions”inAugustinian
Studies.100,pp.3‐17
________________.1984.TheConversionsofSaintAugustine.TheSaintAugustineLecturefor
1984.Villanova,Pa:VillanovaUniversityPress.
Fiedrowicz,Michael.1997.PsalmusVoxTotiusChristi:StudienzuAugustins
"EnarrationesinPsalmos".FreiburgimBreisgau:Herder.
_________________.2000.“GeneralIntroduction”inAugustineandMariaBouldingandJohn
E.Rotelle.TheWorksofSt.Augustine.ATranslationforthe21st
Century.III:15:ExpositionsofthePsalms132.NewRochelle,NewYork:
NewCityPress.
Fillion‐Lahille,Janine.1984.LeDeiradeSéne \queetlaphilosophiestoïciennedes
passions.Paris.
412
Finan,Thomas.1992.“ModesofVisioninSt.Augustine:DeGenesiadlitteramXII”in
ThomasFinanandVincentTwomey.TheRelationshipbetween
NeoplatonismandChristianity.Dublin:FourCourtsPress.
Fitzgerald,AllanD.1999.“Nebridius”inAllanFitzgeraldandJohnC.Cavadini.1999.
AugustineThroughtheAges:AnEncyclopedia.GrandRapids,Mich:W.B.
Eerdmans.,pp.587‐588.
Fleteran,F.van.1977.“AugustineandthePossibilityoftheVisionofGodinthisLife”
StudiesinMedievalCulture,11,pp.9‐16.
Fleteren,Frederickvan,JosephC.Schnaubelt,andJosephReino.1994.AugustineMystic
andMystagogue.CollectaneaAugustiniana.NewYork:P.Lang.
Flore,RalphR.1975.“ReadingandSpeechinSt.Augustine’sConfessions”inAugustinian
Studies.60,pp.1‐13
Folliet,Georges.1986.“LacorrespondanceentreAugustinetNébridius”inGiovanni
Reale,LuigiFrancoPizzolato,JeanDoignon,JoséOrozReta,Goulven
Madec,andGeorgesFolliet.1986.L'operaletterariadiAgostinotra
CassiciacumeMilano.AgostinonelleterrediAmbrogio.Palermo:Edizioni
Augustinus.,pp.191‐215.
Fortin,ErnestL.1970.“ThePoliticalImplicationsofSt.Augustine’sTheoryof
Conscience”inAugustinianStudies.10,pp.133‐152.
Foucault,Michel.1988.TheCareoftheSelf.TheHistoryofSexuality,3.NewYork:
VintageBooks.
_________________.1997.Ethics:SubjectivityandTruth.NewYork:NewPress.
Frank,Tenney.1932.“Cicero”ProceedingsoftheBritishAcademy.London:OxfordPress.
413
Frankfurt,HarryG.1988.TheImportanceofWhatWeCareAbout:PhilosophicalEssays.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
________________.1999.Necessity,Volition,andLove.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Frede,Michael.1987.EssaysinAncientPhilosophy.Minneapolis:Universityof
Minnesota.
Fredriksen,PaulaLee.1980.Augustine'sEarlyInterpretationofPaul.Ph.D.thesis,
PrincetonUniversity.
Fredriksen,Paula.1986.“PaulandAugustine:ConversionNarratives,Orthodox
Traditions,andtheRetrospectiveSelf”inJournalofTheologicalStudies
36,pp.3‐34
_________________.1988.“BeyondtheBody/SoulDichotomy:AugustineonPaulAgainstthe
ManicheesandthePelagians”inRecherchesAugustiniennes23,pp.87‐
114.
Friebergs,Gunar.1981.TheMedievalLatinHexameronfromBedetoGrosseteste.Ph.D.
diss.,UniversityofSouthernCalifornia.
Gannon,M.AnnI.1952.TheActiveTheoryofSensationinPlotinusandSt.
Augustine.Ph.D.diss.,SaintLouisUniversity.
Garnsey,Peter.1998.“SlaveryasInstitutionandMetaphorintheNewSermons(with
specialreferencetoDolbeau2and21)”inColloqueInternationalde
Chantilly,andGoulvenMadec.Augustinprédicateur(395411):actesdu
ColloqueInternationaldeChantilly.Collectiondesétudesaugustiniennes,
159.Paris:Institutd'étudesaugustiniennes.pp.471‐479.
414
Gass,Michael.2000.“EudaimonismandTheologyinStoicAccountsofVirtue”Journalof
theHistoryofIdeas61:1,pp.19‐37.
Gauthier,René‐Antoine.1970.L’ÉthiqueaNicomaqueI.1.Louvain:Publications
Universitaires.
Gavigan,JohnJ.1946.“St.Augustine’sFriendNebridius”CatholicHistoricalReview31,
pp.47‐58.
Geest,Paulvan.2004.“TransformationinOrderandDesire:ThomasaKempis'
IndebtednesstoStAugustine”inJudithFrishman,WillemienOtten,and
GerardRouwhorst.ReligiousIdentityandtheProblemofHistorical
Foundation:TheFoundationalCharacterofAuthoritativeSourcesinthe
HistoryofChristianityandJudaism.JewishandChristianPerspectives
Series,8.Leiden:Boston.,pp.438‐456.
________________.2004.“StoicAgainstHisWill?:AugustineontheGoodLifeinDebeata
vitaandthePraeceptum”inMélangesoffertsàT.J.vanBavelàl'occasionde
son80eanniversaire.Louvain:Augustijnshistorischinstituut.,pp.533‐
550.
________________.2005.“‘Omnisscripturalegidebeteospirituquofactaest’:Onthe
HermeneuticsofWilhelmDiltheyandAlbertDeblaere”inFaesen,Rob,
andAlbertDeblaere.AlbertDeblaere,S.J.:EssaysonMysticalLiterature.
Leuven:Peeters.
________________.forthcoming.“‘SeeingthatforMonkstheLifeofAntonyisaSufficient
PatternofDiscipline…’:AthanasiusasMystagogueinhisVitaAntonii”in
Geest,Paulvan.2010.AthanasiusofAlexandria:HisSearchforthe
415
ChristianDoctrineofGod,hisDesertAsceticismandSignificance.Church
HistoryandReligiousCulture,vol.90.Leiden:Brill
Gill,Christopher.2003.“TheSchoolintheRomanImperialPeriod”inBradInwood.The
CambridgeCompaniontotheStoics.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Gillette,Gertrude.1999.“PurityofHeartinSt.Augustine”inJuanaRaasch,Harriet
Luckman,andLindaKulzer.PurityofHeartinEarlyAsceticandMonastic
Literature:EssaysinHonorofJuanaRaasch,O.S.B.Collegeville,Minn:
LiturgicalPress.,pp.175‐195.
Gilson,Étienne.1929.Introductionàl'étudedesaintAugustin,parEtienneGilson.2e
mille.LePuy‐en‐Velay:Impr."LaHaute‐Loire",23,boulevardCarnot.
________________.1960.TheChristianPhilosophyofSaintAugustine.trans.L.E.M.Lynch
NewYork:RandomHouse.
Görgemanns,Herwig.1983.“OikeiosisinAriusDidymus”inWilliamW.Fortenbaugh.
1983.OnStoicandPeripateticethics:TheWorkofAriusDidymus.Rutgers
UniversityStudiesinClassicalHumanities,1.NewBrunswick,N.J.:
TransactionBooks.
Gorman,MichaelM.1974.TheUnknownAugustine:AStudyoftheLiteralInterpretation
ofGenesis(degenesiadlitteram).Ph.D.diss.,UniversityofToronto.
________________.1999.“FromIsidoretoClaudiusofTurin:TheWorksofAmbroseon
GenesisintheEarlyMiddleAges”Revuedesétudesaugustiniennes,45,pp.
121‐138.
________________.2001.“TheManuscriptTraditionofAugustine’sDeGenesiContra
Manichaeos”inRevuedesétudesaugustiniennes.47,pp.303‐311.
416
Goulven,Madec.1978.“TheNotionofPhilosophicalAugustinianism:AnAttemptat
Clarification”Medievalia4,pp.125‐146.
Gowans,ColeenHoffman.1998.TheIdentityoftheTrueBelieverintheSermonsof
AugustineofHippo:ADimensionofhisChristianAnthropology.Lewiston,
N.Y.:E.MellenPress.
Grabowski,StanislausJustin.1944.“TheHolyGhostintheMysticalBodyofChrist
accordingtoSt.Augustine”inTheologicalStudies5:4,pp.453‐483.
________________.1945.“TheHolyGhostintheMysticalBodyofChristaccordingtoSt.
Augustine.II”inTheologicalStudies6:1,pp.62‐84.
________________.1946.“St.AugustineandtheDoctrineoftheMysticalBodyofChrist”in
TheologicalStudies7:1,pp.72‐125.
Green,WilliamM.1949.Initiumomnispeccatisuperbia.AugustineonPrideastheFirst
Sin.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Griffiths,J.Paul.2004.Lying:AnAugustinianTheologyofDuplicity.GrandRapids:Brazos
Press.
Grondin,Jean.1994.IntroductiontoPhilosophicalHermeneutics.YaleStudiesin
Hermeneutics.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.
Guthrie,W.K.C.1962.AHistoryofGreekPhilosophy,III.Cambridge:UniversityPress.
Hadot,Ilsetraut.1969.SenecaunddiegriechischrömischeTraditionderSeelenleitung.
Berlin:DeGruyter.
_________________.1986.“Amicitia”inCorneliusMayer.AugustinusLexikon,1.Basel:
Schwabe&Co.
Hadot,Pierre.1956.“PlatonetPlotindanstroissermonsdesaintAmbroise”Revuedes
étudeslatines34,pp.202‐220.
417
________________.1992.Lacitadelleintérieure:introductionauxPenséesdeMarcAurèle.
Paris:Fayard.
_________________.1993.PlotinusorTheSimplicityofVision.Chicago:TheUniversityof
ChicagoPress.
_________________.1995.PhilosophyasaWayofLife:SpiritualExercisesfromSocratesto
Foucault.Malden,MA:Blackwell.
_________________.1998.TheInnerCitadel:TheMeditationsofMarcusAurelius.Harvard:
Cambridge.
_________________.2002.Exercicesspirituelsetphilosophieantique.Paris:AlbinMichel.
_________________.2002.WhatisAncientPhilosophy?Cambridge:BelknapHarvard.
_________________.2006.TheVeilofIsis:AnEssayontheHistoryoftheIdeaofNature.
Cambridge,Mass:BelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress.
Hanson‐Smith,Elizabeth.1978.“Augustine’sConfessions:TheConcreteReferent”in
PhilosophyandLiterature.2:2,p.176‐189.
Harmless,William.1995.AugustineandtheCatechumenate.Collegeville,Minn:
LiturgicalPress.
Harnack,Adolfvon.1888.AugustinsKonfessionen:einVortrag.Giessen:Riecker.
________________.1981.MilitiaChristi:theChristianReligionandtheMilitaryintheFirst
ThreeCenturies.Philadelphia:FortressPress.
Harnack,Adolfvon,E.E.Kellett,andF.H.Marseille.1901.Monasticism:ItsIdealsand
History,andTheConfessionsofSt.Augustine:TwoLectures.Crown
TheologicalLibrary.NewYork:G.P.Putnam'sSons.
Harrison,Carol.1992.BeautyandRevelationintheThoughtofSaintAugustine.Oxford
TheologicalMonographs.Oxford:ClarendonPress.
418
________________.2006.RethinkingAugustine’sEarlyTheology.AnArgumentforContinuity.
Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Harrison,Simon.2006.Augustine'sWayintotheWill:TheTheologicalandPhilosophical
SignificanceofDeliberoarbitrio.TheOxfordEarlyChristianStudies.
Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Harmless,William.2004.DesertChristians:AnIntroductiontotheLiteratureofEarly
Monasticism.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Heidl,György.2003.Origen’sInfluenceontheYoungAugustine;AChapteroftheHistory
ofOrigenism.Louaize,Lebanon:NotreDameUniversity.
Heinimann,Felix.1945.NomosundPhysis:HerkunftundBedeutungeinerAntitheseim
griechischenDenkendes5.Jahrhunderts.SchweizerischeBeiträgezur
Altertumswissenschaft,Heft1.Basel
Henry,Paul.1934.Plotinetl'Occident.FirmicusMaternus,MariusVictorinus,Saint
AugustinetMacrobe.SpicilegiumsacrumLovaniense,fasc.15.Louvain.
Hesse,Mary.1965.“TheExplanatoryFunctionofMetaphor”inBar‐Hillel,Y.1965.Logic,
MethodologyandPhilosophyofScience.Amsterdam.North‐HollandPub.
Co.
Holler,Ernst.1934.SenecaunddieSeelenteilungslehreundAffektpsychologieder
Mittelstoa.Kallmünz:M.Lassleben.
Hölscher,Ludger.1986.TheRealityoftheMind:Augustine'sPhilosophicalArgumentsfor
theHumanSoulasaSpiritualSubstance.StudiesinPhenomenologicaland
ClassicalRealism.London:Routledge&KeganPaul.
419
Holte,Ragnar.1990.“FaithandInteriorityinS.Augustine’sConfessions”inInterioritàe
intenzionalitàinS.Agostinoatti.Roma:Institutumpatristicum
augustinianum.
_________________.1994.“Monica‘thePhilosopher’”inAugustinus.Vol39,pp.293‐316
Horst,PieterWillemvander.1990.“Sarah’sSeminalEmission:Hebrews11:11inthe
LightofAncientEmbryology”inAbrahamJ.Malherbe,DavidL.Balch,
EverettFerguson,andWayneA.Meeks.Greeks,Romans,andChristians:
EssaysinHonorofAbrahamJ.Malherbe.Minneapolis:FortressPress.
Inwood,Brad.1983.“CommentsonProfessorGörgemann’sPaper:TheTwoFormsof
OikeiosisinAriusandtheStoa”inWilliamW.Fortenbaugh.OnStoicand
PeripateticEthics:TheWorkofAriusDidymus.RutgersUniversityStudies
inClassicalHumanities,1.NewBrunswick,N.J.:TransactionBooks.
_________________.1985.EthicsandHumanActioninEarlyStoicism.Oxford:Clarendon
Press.
_________________.1993.“SenecaandPsychologicalDualism”inSymposiumHellenisticum,
JacquesBrunschwig,andMarthaCravenNussbaum.Passions&
Perceptions:StudiesinHellenisticPhilosophyofMind:Proceedingsofthe
FifthSymposiumHellenisticum.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
________________.2003.TheCambridgeCompaniontotheStoics.Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
_________________.2005.ReadingSeneca:StoicPhilosophyatRome.Oxford:Clarendon
Press.
Jackson,Pamela.1989.“AmbroseofMilanasMystagogue”inAugustinianStudies20,pp.
93‐108.
420
Jaeger,WernerWilhelm.1923.Aristoteles:GrundlegungeinerGeschichteseiner
Entwicklung.Berlin:Weidmann.
Jobes,KarenH.2002.“GotMilk?SeptuagintPsalm33andtheIntepretationofIPeter
2:1‐3”WestminsterTheologicalJournal63,pp.1‐14.
Johnson,DouglasD.“VerbumintheEarlyAugustine”inRecherchesAugustiniennes.80,
pp.25‐53.
Johnson,HaroldJ.1967.“ThreeAncientMeaningsofMatter:Democritus,Plato,and
Aristotle”inJournaloftheHistoryofIdeas.28:1,pp.3‐16.
Jordan,Mark.1980.“WordsandWord:IncarnationandSignificationinAugustine’sDe
DoctrinaChristiana”AugustinianStudies11,pp.177‐196.
Kahn,CharlesH.1973.TheVerb"Be"inAncientGreek.FoundationsofLanguage.
SupplementarySeries,16.Dordrecht:D.Reidel.
Kamimura,Naoki.2005.“Augustine’sFirstExegesisandtheDivisionsofSpiritualLife”
inAugustinianStudies36:2,pp.421‐432.
Kelly,LouisG.1975.“SaintAugustineandSaussureanLinguistics”inAugustinian
Studies.60,pp.45‐64.
Kennedy,GeorgeAlexander.1995.ANewHistoryofClassicalRhetoric.Princeton,N.J.:
PrincetonUniversityPress.
Kenney,JohnPeter.1991.MysticalMonotheism:AStudyinAncientPlatonicTheology.
Providence,R.I.:BrownUniversityPress.
_________________.1993.“ThePresenceofTruthintheConfessions”StudiaPatristica28,pp.
329‐336.
_________________.2001.“SaintAugustineandtheLimitsofContemplation”inStudia
Patristica38,pp.199‐218.
421
_________________.2002.“Augustine’sInnerSelf”inAugustinianstudies.33:1,pp.79‐90.
_________________.2005.TheMysticismofSaintAugustine:RereadingtheConfessions.New
York:Routledge.
_________________.2007.“ConfessionandtheContemplativeSelfinAugustine’sEarly
Works”inAugustinianStudies38:1,pp.133‐146.
Kenney,Anthony.1975.Will,FreedomandPower.Blackwell:Oxford.
Kerferd,G.B.1983.“TwoProblemsConcerningImpulses”inWilliamW.Fortenbaugh.
OnStoicandPeripateticEthics:TheWorkofAriusDidymus.New
Brunswick:TransactionBooks.
Kevane,Eugene.1964.AugustinetheEducator;AStudyintheFundamentalsofChristian
Formation.Westminster,Md:Newman.
________________.1966.“Augustine’sDedoctrinaChristiana:ATreatiseonChristian
Education”inRecherchesaugustiniennes.460,pp.97‐133.
Kidd,I.G.1971.“PosidoniusonEmotions”inA.A.Long.ProblemsinStoicism.London:
AthlonePress.
________________.1971.“StoicIntermediatesandtheEndforMan”inA.A.Long.Problems
inStoicism.London:AthlonePress.
King,J.Norman.1978.“TheExperienceofGodintheTheologyofKarlRahner”in
Thought53:209,pp.174‐202.
Kippenberg,HansG.,andGuyG.Stroumsa.1995.SecrecyandConcealment:Studiesinthe
HistoryofMediterraneanandNearEasternReligions.Leiden:E.J.Brill.
Kisiel,Theodore.1993.TheGenesisofHeidegger'sBeingandTime.Berkeley,Calif:
UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
422
Kleinberg,A.M.1987.“DeAgoneChristiano:ThePreacherandHisAudience”inJournal
ofTheologicalStudies.38,pp.16‐33.
Knox,BernardM.W.1968.“SilentReadinginAntiquity”inGreek,RomanandByzantine
Studies.9:4,p.421‐435.
Konstan,David.1996.FriendshipintheClassicalWorld.KeyThemesinAncientHistory.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Kotzé,Annemaré.2004.Augustine'sConfessions:CommunicativePurposeandAudience.
SupplementstoVigiliaeChristianae,71.Leiden:Brill.
Lakoff,George,andMarkJohnson.1980.MetaphorsWeLiveBy.Chicago:Universityof
ChicagoPress.
________________.1999.PhilosophyintheFlesh:TheEmbodiedMindanditsChallengeto
WesternThought.NewYork:BasicBooks.
Lakoff,George.1987.Women,FireandDangerousThings:WhatCategoriesRevealabout
theMind.Chicago:UniversityofChicago.
________________.1994.“TheContemporaryTheoryofMetaphor”inAndrewOrtony.
MetaphorandThought.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.202‐
251.
Leatherdale,W.H.1974.TheRoleofAnalogy,ModelandMetaphorinScience.
Amsterdam:NorthHollandPublishing.
Lewy,Yochanan,andMichelTardieu.1978.ChaldaeanOraclesandTheurgy:Mysticism,
MagicandPlatonisminthelaterRomanEmpire.Paris:Études
augustiniennes.
Lienhard,JosephT.1994.“FriendshipwithGod,FriendshipinGod:TracesinSt.
Augustine”inFrederickVanFleteren,JosephC.Schnaubelt,andJoseph
423
Reino.AugustineMysticandMystagogue.CollectaneaAugustiniana.New
York:P.Lang.,pp.207‐229.
_________________.1996.“ReadingtheBibleandLearningtoRead:TheInfluenceof
EducationonSt.Augustine’sExegesis”AugustinianStudies27,pp.7‐25.
Lloyd,A.C.1978.“EmotionandDecisioninStoicPsychology”inJohnM.Rist.TheStoics.
MajorThinkersSeries,1.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Lombardo,J.Gregory.1988.St.AugustineonFaithandWorks.NewYork:TheNewman
Press.
Long,A.A.1971.“FreedomandDeterminismintheStoicTheoryofAction”inProblems
inStoicismed.A.A.Long.London:AthlonePress.
________________.1976.“TheEarlyStoicConceptofMoralChoice”inGérardVerbekeand
FernandBossier.ImagesofManinAncientandMedievalThought:studia
GerardoVerbekeabamicisetcollegisdicata.Leuven:LeuvenUniversity
Press.,pp.77‐92
________________.1986.HellenisticPhilosophy:Stoics,Epicureans,Sceptics.Berkeley:
UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
________________.1993.“HieroclesonOikeiosisandSelfperception”reprintedinA.A.Long
StoicStudies.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress
Long,A.A.,andD.N.Sedley.1987.TheHellenisticPhilosophers.Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
Lössl,Josef.1994.“TheOne(unum)–AGuidingConceptinDeuerareligione.AnOutline
oftheTextandtheHistoryofItsInterpretation”inRevuedesétudes
augustiniennes40,pp.79‐103.
424
Louth,Andrew.2007.TheOriginsoftheChristianMysticalTradition:fromPlatoto
Denys.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Lutosławski,Wincenty.1897.TheOriginandGrowthofPlato'sLogic;withanAccountof
Plato'sStyleandoftheChronologyofhisWritings.London:Longmans,
GreenandCo.
Madec,Goulven.1974.SaintAmbroiseetlaphilosophie.Paris:Étudesaugustiniennes.
__________________.1990.“Conversion,interiorité,intentionnalité”inLuigiAlici.Interiorità
eintenzionalitàinS.Agostinoatti.Roma:Institutumpatristicum
augustinianum,pp7‐19.
Maestripieri,Dario,TanjaJovanovicandHaroldGouzoules.2003.“CryingandInfant
AbuseinRhesusMonkeys”inChildDevelopment71:2pp.301‐309.
Majercik,Ruth.1992.“TheExistence‐Life‐IntellectTriadinGnosticismand
Neoplatonism”intheClassicalQuarterly42:2,pp.475‐488.
Majumdar,Deepa.2007.PlotinusontheAppearanceofTimeandtheWorldofSense:a
Pantomime.Aldershot,England:Ashgate.
Malherbe,AbrahamJ.1970.""GentleasaNurse":TheCynicBackgroundtoIThessII".
NovumTestamentum.12:2,pp.203‐217.
_______________________.1977.TheCynicEpistles:AStudyEdition.Atlanta:ScholarsPress.
_______________________.1988.AncientEpistolaryTheorists.SourcesforBiblicalStudy,19.
Atlanta:ScholarsPress.
_______________________.1995.“DeterminismandFreeWillinPaul:TheArgumentof1
Corinthians8and9”inTroelsEngberg‐Pedersen.PaulinhisHellenistic
Context.Minneapolis:FortressPress.
Markus,R.A.1957.“St.AugustineonSigns”Phronesis,2:1,pp.60‐83.
425
______________.1970.“Augustine”inCambridgeHistoryoftheLaterGreekandEarly
MedievalPhilosophy.Cambridge.
______________.1970.Saeculum:HistoryandSocietyintheTheologyofSaintAugustine.
Cambridge.
______________.1990.“Decivitatedei:PrideandtheCommonGood”inJosephC.
SchnaubeltandFrederickVanFleteren.Augustine:"SecondFounderofthe
Faith.NewYork:P.Lang.
______________.1994.“AugustineonMagic:ANeglectedSemioticTheory”Revuedesétudes
augustiniennes,40,pp.375‐388.
______________.1996.SignsandMeanings:WorldandTextinAncientChristianity.
Liverpool:LiverpoolUniversityPress.
Martino,CarlaDi.2000.“Ilruolodellaintentionell’evoluzionedellapsicologiadi
Agostino:dalDeliberoarbitrioalDeTrinitate”Revuedesétudes
augustiniennes.,pp.173‐198.
Matthews,GarethB.1999.TheAugustinianTradition.Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia
Press.
Maxsein,Anton.1954.“PhilosophiacordisbeiAugustinus”inCongrèsInternational
Augustinien.Augustinusmagister:CongrèsInternationalAugustinien,
Paris,2124Septembre1954.Paris:Étudesaugustiniennes.
__________________.1966.Philosophiacordis.DasWesenderPersonalitätbeiAugustinus.
Salzburg:Müller.
Mazza,Enrico.1989.Mystagogy:ATheologyofLiturgyinthePatristicAge.NewYork:
PuebloPub.Co.
426
Mazzeo,J.A.1962.“St.Augustine’sRhetoricofSilence”inJournaloftheHistoryofIdeas,
23:2,pp.175‐196.
McCool,G.A.1959.“TheAmbrosianOriginofSt.Augustine’sTheologyoftheImageof
GodinMan”TheologicalStudies20,pp.62‐81.
McEvoy,JamesJ.1992,“NeoplatonismandChristianity:Influence,Syncretismor
Discernment?”inThomasFinanandVincentTwomey.TheRelationship
betweenNeoplatonismandChristianity.Dublin:FourCourtsPress.
McFague,Sallie.1982.MetaphoricalTheology:ModelsofGodinReligiousLanguage.
Philadelphia:FortressPress.
McGinn,Bernard.1991.TheFoundationsofMysticism.NewYork:Crossroad.
McGroarty,Kieran,andPlotinus.2006.Plotinusoneudaimonia:ACommentaryon
EnneadI.4.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
McMahon,ClaraP.1963."PedagogicalTechniques:AugustineandHugoofSt.Victor".
HistoryofEducationQuarterly.3:1,pp.30‐37.
Meconi,DavidVincent.2008.“BecomingGodsbyBecomingGod’s:Augustine’s
MystagogyofIdentification”inAugustinianStudies39:1,pp.61‐74.
Mennel,Susan.1994.“Augustine’s‘I’:The‘KnowingSubject’andtheSelf”,inJournalof
EarlyChristianStudies,2,pp.291‐324.
Merlan,Philip.1967.“GreekPhilosophyfromPlatotoPlotinus,”inA.H.Armstrong.The
CambridgeHistoryoflaterGreekandEarlyMedievalPhilosophy.London:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
__________________.1967,“TheOldAcademy,”“TheLaterAcademyandPlatonism,”inA.H.
Armstrong.TheCambridgeHistoryofLaterGreekandEarlyMedieval
Philosophy.London:CambridgeUniversityPress,pp.14‐38.
427
__________________.1967.“ThePythagoreans”inArmstrong,A.H.TheCambridgeHistoryof
LaterGreekandEarlyMedievalPhilosophy.London:CambridgeUniversity
Press,pp.53‐106.
Meer,Frederikvander.1962.AugustinetheBishop;TheLifeandWorkofaFatherofthe
Church.London:SheedandWard.
Michel,Alain.1965.“LaphilosophiedeCicéronavant54,”Revuedesétudesanciennes,
67,pp.324‐41.
Miles,MargaretR.1979.AugustineontheBody.Missoula,Mont:ScholarsPress.
_________________.1982.“Infancy,Parenting,andNourishmentinAugustine’sConfessions.”
JournaloftheAmericanAcademyofReligion50:3,pp.349‐364.
________________.1983."Vision:TheEyeoftheBodyandTheEyeoftheMindinSaint
Augustine'sDeTrinitateandConfessions."TheJournalofReligion63,
pp.125‐42.
________________.1991.DesireandDelight:ANewReadingofAugustine’sConfessions.New
York:CrossroadPublishing.
Mourant,JohnA.1966.“AugustineandtheAcademics”inRecherchesAugustiniennes.40,
pp.67‐96
Muksuris,Stylianos.2004.“LiturgicalMystagogyandItsApplicationintheByzantine
ProthesisRite”inGreekOrthodoxTheologicalReview49:34,pp.291‐306.
MurrayMichael.1974.TheUnknownAugustine:AStudyoftheLiteralInterpretationof
Genesis(degenesiadlitteram).Ph.D.diss.,UniversityofToronto.
Naddaf,Gerard.2005.TheGreekConceptofNature.Albany:SUNY.
Napier,Daniel.2002."Paul'sAnalysisofSinandTorahinRomans7:7‐25"Restoration
Quarterly44:1,pp.15‐32.
428
Nash,RonaldH.1969.TheLightoftheMind;St.Augustine'sTheoryofKnowledge.
Lexington:UniversityPressofKentucky.
Nehamas,Alexander.1998.TheArtofLiving:SocraticReflectionsfromPlatotoFoucault.
SatherClassicalLectures,61.Berkeley:UniversityofCaliforniaPress.
Noe,DavidCraig.2003.Oikeiosis,ratio,andnatura:TheStoicChallengetoCicero's
AcademisminDefinibusandNaturadeorum.Ph.D.Thesis:Universityof
Iowa.
Nussbaum,MarthaC.2001.TheFragilityofGoodness.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
Nussbaum,Martha.1994.TheTherapyofDesire:TheoryandPracticeinHellenistic
Ethics.PrincetonUniversityPress:PrincetonandOxford.
Nussbaum,Martha.2006.“TheTherapyofDesireinHellenisticEthics”inMarcelvan
AckerenandJörnMüller.AntikePhilosophieverstehen=Understanding
AncientPhilosophy.Darmstadt:WissenschaftlicheBuchgesellschaft.
O’Connell,RobertJ.1963.“ThePlotinianFalloftheSoulinSt.Augustine”Traditio19,
pp.1‐36.
________________.1968.St.Augustine’sEarlyTheoryofMan.Cambridge:BelknapHarvard.
________________.1969.St.Augustine'sConfessions;TheOdysseyofSoul.Cambridge,Mass:
BelknapPressofHarvardUniversityPress.
________________.1970.“DeLiberoArbitrioI:StoicismRevisited”inAugustinianStudies1,
pp.49‐68.
_________________.1990.“Faith,Reason,andAscenttoVisioninSt.Augustine”in
AugustinianStudies.21,pp.83‐126.
429
_________________.1996.ImagesofconversioninSt.Augustine'sConfessions.NewYork:
FordhamUniversityPress.
O’Daly,Gerard.1977.“TimeasDistentioandSt.Augustine’sExegesisofPhilippians
3,12‐14”Revuedesétudesaugustiniennes23,pp.265‐271.
_________________.1987.Augustine’sPhilosophyofMind.Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia.
_________________.1989.“PredestinationandFreedominAugustine’sEthics”inThe
PhilosophyinChristianity,ed.Vesey,Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
_________________.1999.Augustine'sCityofGod:AReader'sGuide.Oxford:ClarendonPress.
Oldfield,JohnJ.1987.“TheChristologicalDimensionsofAugustinianInteriority”in
AugustinianHeritage.33,pp.131‐141.
O’Meara,J.J.1951.“Augustine’sViewofAuthorityandReasoninAD386”Irish
TheologicalQuarterly18,pp.338‐346.
Orth,EmilE.1959.“Lekton=dicibile”inHelmantica.10,pp.221‐226.
Paffenroth,Kim.1997.“TearsofGriefandJoy.ConfessionsBook9:Chronological
SequenceandStructure”inAugustinianStudies.28:1,pp.141‐154.
Paffenroth,KimandRobertP.Kennedy.2003.AReader’sCompaniontoAugustine’s
Confessions.Louisville&London:WestminsterJohnKnoxPress.
Parsons,MikealCarl.2006.BodyandCharacterinLukeandActs:TheSubversionof
PhysiognomyinEarlyChristianity.GrandRapids,Michigan:Baker
Academic.
Pegis,Anton.1975.“TheSecondConversionofSt.Augustine”inGesellschaft,Kultur,
Literatur:RezeptionundOriginalitätimWachseneinereuropäischen
LiteraturundGeistigkeit.Stuttgart.
430
Pelikan,Jaroslavol.1997.WhathasAthenstodowithJerusalem?:TimaeusandGenesisin
Counterpoint.AnnArbor:UniversityofMichiganPress.
Pembroke,S.G.1971.“Oikeiosis”inA.A.Long.ProblemsinStoicism.London:Athlone
Press.
Pepper,Stephen.C.1942.WorldHypotheses.Berkeley:UniversityofCalifornia.
Perler,Othmar,andJeanLouisMaier.1969.LesvoyagesdesaintAugustin.Paris:Études
augustiniennes.
Peters,EdwardE.1984.“WhatWasGodDoingBeforeHeCreatedtheHeavensand
Earth?”inAugustiniana.34,pp.53‐74.
Peza,Edgardodela.1962.Elsignificadode"cor"enSanAgustín.Paris:Études
augustiniennes.
Piercey,Robert.2003.“DoingPhilosophyHistorically”inReviewofMetaphysics56:4,pp.
779‐800.
Pincherle,Alberto.1947.LaformazioneteologicadiSant‘Agostino.Roma:Edizioni
italiane.
Pizzani,Ubaldo.1990.“IntentioedescatologianelsestolibrodelDemusicadiS.
Agostino”inCentrodistudiagostiniani,andLuigiAlici.Interioritàe
intenzionalitàinS.Agostino.Roma:Institutumpatristicum
augustinianum.
Plumer,Eric.2003.Augustine’sCommentaryonGalatians:Introduction,Text,
Translation,andNotes.Oxford:OxfordEarlyChristianStudies.
Plumpe,JosephConrad.1943.Materecclesia;anInquiryintotheConceptoftheChurch
asMotherinEarlyChristianity.Washington,D.C.:CatholicUniversityof
AmericaPress.
431
Pohlenz,M.1940.GrundfragenderstoischenPhilosophie.Göttingen:Vandenhoeck&
Ruprecht
Portalié,Eugène.1960.AGuidetotheThoughtofSaintAugustine.Chicago:H.Regnery
Co.
Posidonius,IanGrayKidd,andLudwigEdelstein.1972.Posidonius.Cambridge:
UniversityPress.
Prendiville,JohnG.1972.TheDevelopmentoftheIdeaofHabitintheThoughtofSaint
Augustine.NewYork:FordhamUniversityPress.
Press,GeraldA.1980.“TheSubjectandStructureofAugustine’sDeDoctrinaChristiana”
inAugustinianStudies.110,pp.99‐124.
Rahner,Karl.1969.“Man(Anthropology)III.Theological”inRahner,Karl.1969.
SacramentumMundi:AnEncyclopediaofTheology,3.NewYork:Herder
andHerder.,pp.365‐370.
________________.1969.“Mystery”inRahner,Karl.1969.SacramentumMundi:An
EncyclopediaofTheology,4.NewYork:HerderandHerder.,pp.133‐136.
Rebillard,Éric.1999.“Sermones”inAllanFitzgeraldandJohnC.Cavadini.Augustine
ThroughtheAges:AnEncyclopedia.GrandRapids,Mich:W.B.Eerdmans.
Reinhardt,Tobias.2008.“EpicurusandLucretiusontheOriginsofLanguage”.in
ClassicalQuarterly.58:1,pp.127‐140.
Ressor,M.E.1965.“FateandPossibilityinEarlyStoicPhilosophy”Phoenix19,pp.285‐
297.
Reydams‐Schils,Gretchen.1999.DemiurgeandProvidence:StoicandPlatonistReadings
ofPlato's"Timaeus".Monothéismesetphilosophie,2.Turnhout:Brepols.
432
Reydams‐Schils,GretchenJ.2005.TheRomanStoics:Self,Responsibility,andAffection.
Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
Ricœur,Paul.1975.Lamétaphorevive.L'ordrephilosophique.Paris:Seuil.
_______________.1977.TheRuleofMetaphor:MultiDisciplinaryStudiesoftheCreationof
MeaninginLanguage.UniversityofTorontoRomanceSeries,37.Toronto:
UniversityofTorontoPress.
Rist,JohnM.1963."FormsofIndividualsinPlotinus".ClassicalQuarterly.13:2,pp.223‐
231.
________________.1969.StoicPhilosophy.Cambridge
________________.1969.“AugustineonFreeWillandPredestination”JournalofTheological
Studies20,pp.420‐447.
________________.1971.“IdeasofIndividualsinPlotinus:AReplytoDr.Blumenthal.”Revue
internationaledephilosophie92:2,pp.298‐303
________________.1990.“Augustine:Freedom,LoveandIntention”inInterioritàe
intenzionalitàinS.Agostinoatti.Rome:InstitutumPatristicum
Augustinianum.
________________.1994.Augustine:AncientThoughtBaptized.Cambridge.
Rombs,RonnieJ.2006.SaintAugustine&theFalloftheSoul:BeyondO'Connell&His
Critics.Washington,D.C.:CatholicUniversityofAmericaPress.
Roochnik,David.2004.RetrievingtheAncients:AnIntroductiontoGreekPhilosophy.
Malden,MA:BlackwellPub.
Roskam,Geert.2005.OnthePathtoVirtue:TheStoicDoctrineofMoralProgressandits
Receptionin(Middle)Platonism.AncientandMedievalPhilosophy,33.
Leuven:LeuvenUniversityPress.
433
Ruddy,DeborahWallace.2004."TheHumbleGod:Healer,Mediator,andSacrifice".
Logos:AJournalofCatholicThoughtandCulture.7:3,pp.87‐108.
Saenger,PaulP.1990.“TheSeparationofWordsandtheOrderofWords:TheGenesisof
MedievalReading”inScritturaeciviltà,14,pp.49‐74.
Salles,Ricardo.2005.TheStoicsonDeterminismandCompatibilism.Aldershot,Hants,
England:AshgatePub.
Sandbach,FrancisHenry.1975.TheStoics.NewYork:Norton.
Satterlee,CraigAlan.2002.AmbroseofMilan'sMethodofMystagogicalPreaching.
Collegeville,Minn:LiturgicalPress.
Schlabach,Gerald.2001.FortheJoySetBeforeUs:AugustineandSelfDenyingLove.
NotreDame,Ind:UniversityofNotreDamePress.
Schofer,JonathanWyn.2004.TheMakingofaSage:AStudyinRabbinicEthics.Madison,
Wis:UniversityofWisconsinPress.
Schofield,Malcolm,andGiselaStriker.1986.TheNormsofNature:StudiesinHellenistic
Ethics.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
Sedley,David.2003.“TheSchool,fromZenotoAriusDidymus”inBradInwood.The
CambridgeCompaniontotheStoics.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press
Shanzer,Danuta.1992.“LatentNarrativePatterns,AllegoricalChoicesandLiterary
UnityinAugustine’sConfessions”inVigiliaeChristianae,46,pp.40‐56.
Sharples,Robert.2007.“TheStoicBackgroundtotheMiddlePlatonistDiscussionof
Fate”inMauroBonazziandChristophHelmig.PlatonicStoicism,Stoic
Platonism:TheDialoguebetweenPlatonismandStoicisminAntiquity.
434
AncientandMedievalPhilosophy,39.Leuven,Belgium:LeuvenUniversity
Press.
Simon,Marcel.1979.“FromGreekHairesistoChristianHeresy”inRobertMcQueen
Grant,WilliamR.Schoedel,andRobertLouisWilken.EarlyChristian
LiteratureandtheClassicalIntellectualTradition:InHonoremRobertM.
Grant.Théologiehistorique,53.Paris:ÉditionsBeauchesne.pp.101‐134.
Sirridge,MaryJ.1975.“St.Augustineand‘theDeputyTheory’”,inAugustinianStudies.5,
pp.107‐116.
Smith,Andrew.1974.Porphyry'sPlaceintheNeoPlatonicTradition:AStudyinPost
PlotinianNeoplatonism.TheHague:M.Nijhoff.
Smith,JamesK.A.2000.TheFallofInterpretation:PhilosophicalFoundationsfora
CreationalHermeneutic.Downer’sGrove,Illinois:IntervarsityPress.
Smith,ThomasA.2001.“AgonismandAntagonism:MetaphorandtheGallicResistance
toAugustine”inStudiapatristica,38,pp.283‐289.
Solignac,Aimé.1955.“Nouveauxparalle \lesentresaintAmbroiseetPlotin”Archivesde
philosophie19,pp.148‐156.
Soskice,JanetMartin.1985.MetaphorandReligiousLanguage.Oxford:ClarendonPress.
Sorabji,Richard.1983.Time,CreationandtheContinuum.Duckworth:London,
________________.1998.“AHigh‐LevelDebateonEmotion”inJuhaSihvolaandTroels
Engberg‐Pedersen.TheEmotionsinHellenisticPhilosophy.TheNew
SyntheseHistoricalLibrary,46.Dordrecht:KluwerAcademicPublishers.,
pp.149‐170.
________________.2000.EmotionandPeaceofMind:FromStoicAgitationtoChristian
Temptation.Oxford.
435
Stalnaker,Aaron.2006.OvercomingourEvil:HumanNatureandSpiritualExercisesin
XunziandAugustine.MoralTraditionsSeries.Washington,D.C.:
GeorgetownUniversityPress.
Stark,JudithChelius.1990.“TheDynamicsoftheWillinAugustine’sConversion”inJ.C.
Schnaubelt.CollecteanaAugustiniana:Augustine,SecondFounderofthe
Faith.NewYork:PeterLang.
Starnes,Colin.1975.“SaintAugustineonInfancyandChildhood:Commentaryonthe
FirstBookofAugustine’sConfessions”AugustinianStudies.6,pp.15‐43.
________________.1990.Augustine’sConversion:AGuidetotheArgumentofConfessionsIIX.
Waterloo,Ontario:WilfredLaurier.
Stevens,BenjaminE.2008.“SymbolicLanguageandIndexicalCries:ASemioticReading
ofLucretius5.1028‐90”AmericanJournalofPhilology129,pp.529‐557.
Stock,Brian.1996.AugustinetheReader:Meditation,SelfKnowledge,andtheEthicsof
Interpretation.Cambridge,Mass:HarvardUniversityPress.
Stowers,StanleyKent.1984.“SocialStatus,PublicSpeakingandPrivateTeaching:The
CircumstancesofPaul’sPreachingActivity”NovumTestamentum26:1,pp.
59‐82.
_________________.1986.LetterWritinginGrecoRomanAntiquity.LibraryofEarly
Christianity,5.Philadelphia:WestminsterPress.
_________________.1994.ARereadingofRomans:Justice,JewsandGentiles.Yale:New
Haven.
________________.1995.“Romans7:7‐25asaSpeech‐in‐Character(proswpopoii/a)”in
TroelsEngberg‐Pedersen.1995.PaulinhisHellenisticContext.
Minneapolis:FortressPress.
436
Striker,Gisela.1993.“EpicureanHedonism”inSymposiumHellenisticum,Jacques
Brunschwig,andMarthaCravenNussbaum.Passions&Perceptions:
StudiesinHellenisticPhilosophyofMind:ProceedingsoftheFifth
SymposiumHellenisticum.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
_________________.1996.EssaysonHellenisticEpistemologyandEthics.Cambridge:
CambridgeUniversityPress.
Stroumsa,GuyG.1996.HiddenWisdom:EsotericTraditionsandtheRootsofChristian
Mysticism.Leiden:E.J.Brill.
Strozynski,Mateusz.2009.“Time,Self,andAporia:SpiritualExerciseinSaint
Augustine”inAugustinianStudies40:1,pp.103‐120.
Swain,Simon,andG.R.Boys‐Stones.2007.SeeingtheFace,SeeingtheSoul:Polemon's
PhysiognomyfromClassicalAntiquitytoMedievalIslam.Oxford:Oxford
UniversityPress.
Sweetman,Robert.2005.“GettingInLine:JustinMartyr,St.Augustine,andtheProject
ofIntegralChristianScholarship”inProRege,33,pp.26‐36.
Teselle,Eugene.1970.AugustinetheTheologian.London:Burns&Oates.
_________________.1993.“Serpent,Eve,andAdam:AugustineandtheExegeticalTradition”
inJosephT.Lienhard,EarlC.Muller,andRolandJ.Teske.Augustine:
presbyterfactussum.CollectaneaAugustiniana.NewYork.
_________________.1999.“Faith”inAllanFitzgeraldandJohnC.Cavadini.Augustine
ThroughtheAges:AnEncyclopedia.GrandRapids,Mich:W.B.Eerdmans.
Teske,RolandJ.1991.“St.Augustine’sViewoftheHumanConditioninDeGenesicontra
Manichaeos”AugustinianStudies22,pp.141‐155.
437
_________________.1993.“Augustine,MaximusandImagination”Augustiniana.43,pp.27‐
41.
_________________.1994.“HeresyandImaginationinSt.Augustine”Studiapatristica27,pp.
400‐404.
_________________.1994.“St.AugustineandtheVisionofGod”inFrederickVanFleteren,
JosephC.Schnaubelt,andJosephReino.AugustineMysticandMystagogue.
CollectaneaAugustiniana.NewYork:PeterLang.
_________________.2001.“Augustine’sTheoryofSoul”inTheCambridgeCompanionto
Augustine,ed.StompandKretzmann,Cambridge:Cambridge.
_________________.2008.“AugustineasPhilosopher:theBirthofChristianMetaphysics”in
ToKnowGodandtheSoul:EssaysontheThoughtofSaintAugustine.
Washington,D.C.:CatholicUniversityofAmericaPress.
_________________.2008.ToKnowGodandtheSoul:EssaysontheThoughtofSaint
Augustine.Washington,D.C.:CatholicUniversityofAmericaPress.
Theiler,Willy,andJuliusSchniewind.1933.PorphyriosundAugustin.Schriftender
KönigsbergerGelehrtenGesellschaft.GeisteswissenschaftlicheKlasse,10.
Jahr,Heft1.HalleSaale:M.Niemeyer.
Thimme,Wilhelm.1908.AugustinsgeistigeEntwicklungindenerstenJahrennachseiner
"Bekehrung",386‐391.Berlin.
Thompson,James.1982.TheBeginningsofChristianPhilosophy:TheEpistletothe
Hebrews.TheCatholicBiblicalQuarterly,13.Washington,DC:Catholic
BiblicalAssociationofAmerica.
Tieleman,Teun.2003.Chrysippus'onAffections:ReconstructionandInterpretation.
PhilosophiaAntiqua,94.Leiden:Brill.
438
Tite,Philip.2009."Nurslings,MilkandMoralDevelopmentintheGreco‐RomanContext:
AReappraisaloftheParaeneticUtilizationofMetaphorin1Peter2.1‐3".
JournalfortheStudyoftheNewTestament.31:4,pp.371‐400.
Trouillard,Jean.1955.Lapurificationplotinienne.Paris:PressesUniversitairesde
France.
Troup,CalvinL.1999.Temporality,Eternity,andWisdom:TheRhetoricofAugustine's
Confessions.StudiesinRhetoric/Communication.Columbia,S.C.:
UniversityofSouthCarolinaPress.
Torchia,n.Joseph.1988.“CuriositasintheEarlyPhilosophicalWritingsofSaint
Augustine”AugustinianStudies19,pp.111‐119.
________________.1993.Plotinus,Tolma,andtheDescentofBeing:AnExpositionand
Analysis.AmericanUniversityStudies,135.NewYork:P.Lang.
Turner,VictorWitter.1974.Dramas,Fields,andMetaphors:SymbolicActioninHuman
Society.Symbol,Myth,andRitualSeries.Ithaca:CornellUniversityPress.
Vaught,CarlG.2003.TheJourneyTowardGodinAugustine'sConfessions:BooksIVI.
Albany:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.
________________.2004.EncounterswithGodinAugustine'sConfessionsBooksVIIIX.
Albany,N.Y.:StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.
_________________.2005.AccesstoGodinAugustine'sConfessions:BooksXXIII.Albany:
StateUniversityofNewYorkPress.
Vogt,KatjaMaria.2008.Law,Reason,andtheCosmicCityPoliticalPhilosophyintheEarly
Stoa.Oxford:OxfordUniversityPress.
Waaijman,Kees.2002.Spirituality:Forms,Foundations,Methods.Leuven:Peeters.
439
Watson,Gerald.1971.“TheNaturalLawandStoicism”inProblemsinStoicismed.A.A.
Long.London:AthlonePress.
Wetzel,James.1992.AugustineandtheLimitsofVirtue.Cambridge:Cambridge
UniversityPress.
White,MichaelJ.2003.“StoicNaturalPhilosophy(PhysicsandCosmology)”inThe
CambridgeCompaniontotheStoics.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity
Press.
White,NicholasP.1979."TheBasisofStoicEthics".HarvardStudiesinClassical
Philology.83,pp.143‐178.
Wimbush,VincentL.,andRichardValantasis.1995.Asceticism.NewYork,N.Y.:Oxford
UniversityPress.
Wolf,SusanR.1990.FreedomWithinReason.NewYork:OxfordUniversityPress.
Wolfson,HarryAustryn.1961.ReligiousPhilosophy.Cambridge:BelknapPressof
HarvardUniversityPress.
Zemler‐Cizewski,Wanda.1994.FromMetaphortoTheology:"Proprium"and
"translatum"inCicero,Augustine,Eriugena,andAbelard.Ottawa,Ont.:
CarltonUniversity.
ZumBrunn,Emilie.1969.Ledilemmedel'êtreetdunéantchezSaintAugustin:Des
premiersdialoguesaux"Confessions".Paris:ÉtudesAugustiniennes.
______________________.1988.St.Augustine:BeingandNothingness.NewYork:Paragon
House.
440
Abstract
FromtheCircularSoultotheCrackedSelf:AGeneticHistoriographyof
Augustine’sAnthropologyfromCassiciacumtotheConfessiones
ThisdissertationisaboutAugustineofHippo’sconceptionsofthehumanperson–both
theoreticalandprescriptive–andthephilosophicalresourceshecalleduponto
construct(andreconstruct)themfromtheperiodimmediatelyfollowinghisconversion
tohisproductionoftheConfessiones.
Myprimaryintentionininvestigatingthesetwinfocihasbeentoproducea
geneticaccountofhisanthropology.Inotherwords,IhavefollowedAugustine’s
anthropologicalthoughtwiththespecificissueofinternaldevelopmentinmind.Inso
doing,Ihaveaskedwhichresourcesdoeshecallupon–bothfromwithinhisownprior
thoughtandfromexternalsources–toproducehisnovelforms?And,what
philosophicaldynamicspresshimtorespondinthistheoreticalmanner?
IntracingdevelopmentswithinAugustine’sappliedanthropology,two
methodologicaldistinctionshaveprovedmosthelpful.First,IemployPierreHadot’s
distinctionbetweenanancientphilosophicschool’schosenformoflifeandthespecific
spiritualexercisesemployedtoconformtheselftothatlifeform.Roughlyidentical
spiritualexercisesortherapeuticmodalitiescanbeemployedinserviceofstrikingly
differentwaysoflife.Second,Christianmystagogyconstitutesamodeofinductioninto
aspecificallyecclesialformoflifewhereintheinitiateincreasinglyunderstandshimself
441
andallhisexperiencesasattainingmeaninginrelationtothedivinesecret.Mystagogy,
inthematureAugustine’swork,providestheoverarchingframeanddirectionforan
ecclesialsubspeciesoftherapeuticmodalitiesorspiritualexercises.
Withthismethodology,IturninchapteronetoAugustine’sCassiciacumwritings
andarguethus.Augustine,havingimbibedPlotinus’mythicpresentationofthefallen
soul,conceivesthebodyprimarilyasanencumberinghindrancetothesoul.Thesoulis
preexistent,divineorstructurallyinviolableanddesignedonlyforcontemplation.But
internaltensionsareimmediatelyevident.Augustine’sattempttoprovidea
philosophicaldemonstrationofthesoul’simmortalitymanifestsanoddadmixtureof
incompatibleMiddle‐PlatonicandNeo‐Platonicaxioms.Asaresult,Augustineperforms
aterriblyimportant,non‐Plotinianmodificationwhereinthelowersoulproves
ontologicallymorestablethanthehighersoul.
Atthisstage,Augustine’sappliedanthropologyconsistsinathoroughlycognitive
accountofblessednessachievedthroughcontemplation.Hisprescriptiveprogram
beginswithastudyoftheliberaldisciplinesandrisesfromtheretothecontemplation
ofintelligiblereality.
ChaptertwoexaminestheanthropologicaldevelopmentsfollowingAugustine’s
receptionofthecatechismandbaptism,butprecedinghisordinationtothepriesthood.
ThereinIarguethathumanity’soriginalstateofcreationturnsouttobeasoulishsort
ofexistence,whichcorrelatestothelowerfunctionsofsoul.Subsequentilluminationby
GodelevatedtheseprimordialhumanstospiritualexistenceinParadisefromwhich
theirfallconstitutedarelapsetotheiroriginalsoulishstate.IndistinctivelyAugustinian
fashion,thelowerfunctionsturnouttobemoreontologicallystablethanthehigher.
442
Inexaminingthisbottomupstateofexistence,Augustinefindsbothactionand
contemplationasinversepossibilitiesofhumanintentio.TherebyAugustineliftshis
firstkeyanthropologicalconceptfromtheRomanStoicsandusesittodescribehowthe
soultwistsfromcontemplationtoactionandthusfalls.Acognitivestain,intheformof
turbulentmentalimagesnamedphantasms,nowplaguesthesoulthatfellbyindulging
inaction.
Augustine’sappliedanthropologyatthisstageconsistsofaprogramtouproot
memorialphantasmsandgrowtowardintelligiblecontemplation.Buttheearlier
resourcesforascentintheliberaldisciplineshavebeenlargelyreplacedbythemilkand
meatofChristianscriptureanditstransmissionwithinthechurch’steaching.
Inchapterthree,myfocusshiftstoAugustine’searlypriesthood.Itrace
Augustine’sfirstphilosophicalconceptoftheheartasitemergesentwinedwithhisfirst
positiveaccountofintentionalaction.HisreadingofJesus’SermonontheMount
necessitatedboth.ThePlatonistsofferednoviablepsychologyofactionandpassionto
adapt,soAugustineturnstoStoicaccounts.ThereinAugustinedescribestheheartas
thetotalityofpresentself‐awarenessthatproducestheintentiopreviouslyfound
underlyinghumanactionandcontemplation.
Augustine’sappliedanthropologyatthisstagefocusesonproducingthepurityof
heartJesuscounsels.Inaction,purityofheartcomesthroughaChristianadaptationof
theStoicspiritualexerciseofprosoch/.TheStoics’exercisecenteredonretaining
preceptsinmindandreferringeveryactiontotheendoffulfillingprecept.Purityof
heartfollowsfromretainingJesus’preceptsandreferringeveryactiontoeternalrather
thantemporalends.
443
Inchapterfour,IanalyzeAugustine’slaterpriestlyPaulineexegesesandargue
thatAugustineproducesanintricatereadingofStoicpsychologiesofactionandpassion
intermsofPaulandPaulintermsoftheStoictheories.Therein,Augustinefindsa
humanbody‐soulcomplexsothoroughlyintegratedthatonlyatransformed,
resurrectedbodycanfullyovercomeinternaldivisionwithinthesoul.Inthepresent,
thehumanbeinglaborsunderadisintegratedcapacityforassentanddissent.Twolaws,
orsetsofnormativepropositionalcontent,andtwosimultaneousyetcontradictory
capacitiestoassentordissentstirwithinthehumanperson.Theselfhascracked.
Augustine’sshockingconclusionisthatonlyanactofGodcanrenderone
directionofassentanditspropositionalcontentstrongerthanitsinternalopponent
withintheperson.Anewdoctrineofelection,ratherthananappliedprogramfor
spiritualexercise,emergesfromthisanthropologicalrealization.Onlythecongruent
callofGod,inkeepingwithwhollyunmeritedelection,canturnapersonandsethimon
thepathtoblessedness.
Inchapterfive,IturntotheConfessionesandarguethatAugustinepresents
thereinhisfirstmaturesynthesisofhisPaulinizingStoicpsychologyofactionandhis
(originally)Platonisingpenchantforcontemplation.Chapterfivebeginsthisargument
byfocusingonAugustine’sanalyticdepictionofthelowersoulastherootofhuman
actionpresentedinConfessionesI.AugustineincorporatestheRomanStoicaccountsof
commendatioandperuersiowithahandfulofcrucialalterations.ConfessionesI
describesthesequentialemergenceofathreefoldcommendatioalreadypervertedby
sin.TheRomanStoicaccountofperuersiobysocialechoingisfurtheremployedto
describethesocialperversionperpetratedbylateRomanschools,theremnantsofthe
cursushonorum,hereticalreligiousteachingandthepretensionsofpaganphilosophy.
444
Thesepervertingfactorsarepresentedspecificallyasparodiesofamystagogicprogram
ofhumanformationintimatedallegoricallyinthehexaemeron.
Inthesixthandfinalchapter,weconsidertheanthropologicaldimensionsof
contemplationintheConfessiones.Augustineenvisionsadistinctiveformofecclesially
indigenouscontemplationrisingfromscriptureandmarkedofffromapresumptive
formofcontemplationinpaganphilosophy.Twokeydistinctionsenablethis
differentiationinmodesofcontemplation.First,thedirectionofepistemicmediation
differsinthetwoformsofcontemplation.Second,thetwodirectionscorrespondto
differingsourcesofcapacityforcontemplation.Augustine’sconceptualsourceforthese
distinctionsisacreativeuseofRom.1:20foundconsistentinhisinteractionswith
paganphilosophy.
Christiancontemplationdoesnotexistasanisolatedorstandalone
phenomenon.But,asonepolewithinthelargermystagogicprogramofhuman
transformation,contemplationcanbetheoreticallyisolatedthroughamaneuverof
conceptualprecision.Christiancontemplationemergesasapatterneddescenttothe
scripturesthatresultsinbeingliftedbyGod’sgracetoafull‐souled(upperandlower
soul)focusonGod.
First,onesubmitstoamultilayeredmediationofGodthroughthescripturesand
ofthecreatedorder,includingthescriptures,throughGod’sSpirit.Second,affective
engagementdrawsthewholesoul(notjusttheintellectiveaspect)intointeractionwith
scriptureandGod.Third,ascendingdistinctionsensuecarryingthedevoted
practitionerthroughaprocessofdifferentiatingsensiblefromintelligible,temporal
dispensationsfromGod’sunderlyingeternalplan,andfinallytheinterplayofunityand
trinityinGodandself.Fourth,intheprocessofcontemplation,pastmemoriesascordial
445
distractionsaretemporarilyobliterated.Fifth,thisallowsacompletefocusonGodwith
theheartorthetotalityofpresentawareness.Asdistinguishedfromthepartial
engagementofintellectualvision,Augustinedescribesthistotalfocusofawareness
(intellective,desiderative,affectivetogether)intermsofthehearttouchingGod.Inthe
processofthistotalengagementofthesoulwithGod,theperversemediatorydirection
ofRom.1:20isreversed.God’sspiritnowmediatesinteractionwithcreatures.The
Christiantransformationofcontemplationandactionfindfruitioninadoxological
orientationofthegrace‐integratedself.
Idrawthreeconclusions.First,Augustine’sconceptofthehumanbeing
undergoescleardevelopmentsfromaPlatonizingaccountofthecircularsoul,always
alreadydivine,toapost‐Plotinianaccountofthecreaturelyembodiedself.Second,
Augustine’sappliedanthropologydevelopsfromearlycognitiveascentsaimedat
contemplativefulfillmenttohismatureaccountofhumanfulfillmentthroughthe
integrallygracedmystagogicjourneyinitiatedbydescendingtoChrist’sfleshinorderto
ascendwithhisdivinity.Third,Augustine’sphilosophicalresourcesandstrategic
alliancesaremuchbroaderthanmost20thcenturyaccountshaveacknowledged.In
particular,AugustinemademuchmoreextensiveuseofStoicconceptualitiesand
argumentativestrategiesthanheretoforeconsidered.Theepicenterofhisborrowings
andadaptationsintheperiodunderevaluationwastheconstructionofasuitable
psychologyofaction.Howevertheconsequencesalsoextended,throughmotivatinghis
characteristicdoctrineofelection,intotherealmofdogmatictheologyproper.
446
Samenvatting
Vancirculairezieltothetgebarsten‘zelf’.Deontstaansgeschiedenisvan
Augustinus’antropologievanhetCassiciacumtotaandeConfessiones
Dezedissertatie handelt over de ideeëndieAugustinus ontwikkelde over demens in
zoweltheoretischalsnormatiefopzicht.Centraalstaandewerkendiehijindeperiode
na zijn bekering tot aan de vervaardiging van zijn Confessiones schreef. Deze ideeën
worden geduid in het licht van de filosofische bronnen waar Augustinus uit putte.
Getracht is in dit onderzoek de verschillende etappes in de ontwikkelingsgang van
Augustinus’antropologie–theoretischentoegepast‐tebeschrijven.Onderzochtisdus
degenesevanzijnideeënhieromtrent.
OmdeontwikkelingenbinnenAugustinus’ toegepasteantropologie te traceren,
blekentweemethodologischedistinctiesdienstig.AllereerstwerduitgegaanvanPierre
Hadotsonderscheidtussendegekozenlevenswijzevaneenantiekefilosofischeschool
enerzijds en anderzijds de specifieke geestelijke oefeningen die bepaalde antieke
filosofen gebruikten om het ‘zelf’ te vormen binnen het kader van deze levenswijze.
Vergelijkbare of bijna identieke geestelijke oefeningen of therapeutische methoden
blijken te kunnen worden toegepast in levenswijzen die van elkaar verschillen. Ten
tweedewerduitgegaanvandegedachtedatAugustinuszicheenmystagoogbetoon.Hij
wilzijnlezerleidennaareenspecifiekchristelijkeenkerkelijkelevenswijzewaarinde
geïnitieerdegaandewegmeervanzichzelf leertbegrijpenenzijnervaringenbetekenis
447
verkrijgen in relatie tot het goddelijke geheim. In het rijpere werk van Augustinus
vormt zijn streven, mystagoog te zijn de opmaat tot de vervaardiging van een
omvattend kader, waarin de therapeutische methoden of geestelijke oefeningen,
ontleendaandeveteres,hunbeslagkrijgen.
Dezetweemethodologischevertrekpunteninogenschouwnemend,staaninhet
eerste hoofdstuk Augustinus’ geschriften uit zijn Cassiciacum‐periode centraal. In dit
hoofdstukisbetoogddatAugustinuszichallereerstPlotinus’mythischevoorstellingvan
degevallenziel toe‐eigende.Het lichaamvattehijvervolgenshoofdzakelijkopalseen
belemmeringvoordeontplooiingvandeziel.Indezeperiodebeschouwdedekerkvader
dezielalspre‐existent,goddelijkenstructureelonaantastbaar.Daarbijbeschouwdehij
dezielalsuitsluitendgeschapenvoordecontemplatie.Inzijnpoginglangsfilosofische
wegaante tonendatdezielonsterfelijk is, treedteenmerkwaardigevermengingvan
onverenigbare midden‐ en neo‐ platoonse grondinzichten aan het licht. Het gevolg
hiervan isdatAugustinuseenbelangrijkewijzigingaanbrengt,dieniet teherleiden is
totzijnschatplichtigheidaanPlotinusmaardieveeleergetuigtvanzijnoriginaliteiten
denkkracht. Ervan uitgaande dat innerlijke spanningen in de zielwaarneembaar zijn,
stelthijvastdatdelagerezielontologischmeerstabielisdandehogereziel.
In dit stadium beschrijft Augustinus de door contemplatie verkregen
gelukzaligheidopzeerpregnantewijze.Zijn ‘toegepaste’ antropologiewordtduidelijk
inderichtlijnen tenbehoevevandecontemplatie. Indezerichtlijnenblijktdatstudie
vandeartesliberalescruciaalisvoordebeschouwingvandebevattelijkewerkelijkheid.
Inhet tweedehoofdstukzijndeontwikkelingen inAugustinus’ antropologie in
kaartgebrachtdieplaatsvondennazijndoopin387maarvoorzijnpriesterwijdingin
391. In dit hoofdstuk is betoogd dat de oorspronkelijke staat van de mens voor de
448
zondevaleenlevenvolgensdelagerefunctiesvandezielbehelsde.Dedaaropvolgende
verlichtingvangodswegeverhoogdehetbestaanvandezeoorspronkelijkemenstoteen
zuivergeestelijkbestaaninhetparadijs.Devalvandeeerstemenshieldeenterugvalin
deoorspronkelijkestaatin,waarindemensdusvolgensdelagerefunctiesvandeziel
leefde.HetistyperendvoorAugustinusdathijookinditstadiumdelagerefunctiesvan
dezielinontologischopzichtalsstabieleropvatdandehogerefunctiesvandeziel.De
menselijkeexistentievanuitde lagere functiesvandezielbestuderend,onderkenthij
zoweldeactiealsdecontemplatiealsmogelijkhedendieomgekeerdevenredigzijnaan
de menselijke intentio. Bij de verdere ontwikkeling van dit antropologische
sleutelbegrip in zijn denken, betoont hij zich zeer schatplichtig aan de romeinse
stoïcijnen.Hijgebruiktdetermalshijdewijzewilbeschrijvenwaaropdezielovergaat
vancontemplatienaaractieendaaromvalten tegrondegaat.Eenmaalgevallendoor
een overgave aan de actie, wordt de ziel gekweld door misvorming van het
kenvermogen in de vorm van onstuimige mentale beelden, die fantasmen worden
genoemd.
Augustinus’ toegepasteantropologiebestaat indit stadiumuit eenprogramma
waarin demens zich kan ontdoen van deze fantasmen in de herinnering. Vervolgens
voorzietditprogrammaerindatdemensgroeitinendoormiddelvandecontemplatie
die Augustinus in het bereik van het verstand situeert.Maarwaar de opgang eerder
middelsdeartesliberalestotstandkwam,wordtdezenubewerktdoordemelkenhet
vleesvandeHeiligeSchriftendeoverdrachthiervanindeleervandekerk.
In het derde hoofdstuk staan de werken centraal die Augustinus in de eerste
jarenvanzijnpriesterschapheeftvervaardigd.AllereerstwordtAugustinus’filosofische
uiteenzetting over het ‘hart’ geanalyseerd, zoals deze in zijn beschrijving van de
449
intentionele actie in zijn commentaar op Jezus’ Bergrede naar voren komt. De
platonistenbodenhemgeen ‘psychologievanactieenpassie’diehijkonbewerkenof
konovernemen.DaarombaseerdeAugustinuszichopstoïcijnse teksten.Hijbeschrijft
hethartalshetgeheelvanhethuidigezelfbewustzijn,waaruitde intentio voortkomt;
dezeintentioblijkttengrondslagteliggenaandemenselijkeactieencontemplatie.
In zijn toepassing van de eerder als ‘theoretisch’ te duiden antropologische
inzichten richtAugustinus zichopdedoor Jezusvoorgestanezuiverheidvanhart.Op
hetvlakvandeactieziethijdezezuiverheidvoortkomenuiteenchristelijkebewerking
van een stoïcijnse geestelijke oefening,prosoch/. Deze stoïcijnse oefening was er op
gericht de geboden inhet verstand te houdenopdat elke actie naarhet einddoel van
dezegebodenzouverwijzen.OpgrondhiervanherleidtAugustinusdezuiverheidvan
hart tot het naleven van Jezus’ geboden.De zuiverheid vanhart hangt samenmet de
ontwikkelingvanhetbewustzijndatinelkeactietochvooraldeeeuwigeinplaatsvan
detijdelijkedoeleindenvoorogengehoudenmoetenworden.
In het vierde hoofdstuk worden de werken geanalyseerd waarin Augustinus
brievenvanPaulusuitlegt.HierinisgetrachtduidelijktemakendatAugustinusuiterst
geraffineerdeenaantalelementenvandestoïcijnsepsychologievanactieenpassie in
de terminologie van Paulus ‘verpakt’, en, vice versa, Paulus’ gedachten in de
terminologievandestoïcijnse theorieën. IndezeperiodegeeftAugustinusaandatde
menselijkezielenhetmenselijklichaamzoonlosmakelijkmetelkaarverbondenzijnin
een mens dat slechts in een getransformeerd, herrezen lichaam de innerlijke
verdeeldheidvandezielvolledigoverwonnenkanworden. Inhethierennubezitde
menseenhetconflicterendevermogen in testemmenofaf tewijken. Indemenszelf
zijn twee tegengestelde normatieve proposities aanwezig met betrekking tot de
450
waarheid en de doelen van aan handeling (die Paulus ‘ wetten’ noemt) en twee
eveneens aan elkaar tegengestelde vermogens deze proposities aan te nemen of te
verwerpen. Met andere woorden: de menselijke capaciteit om ‘ ja’ te zeggen tegen
tegengestelde proposities is gefragmentariseerd. Mensen betuigen halfslachtig
instemmingmetveelvuldige,aanelkaartegengesteldepropositiesenontkennenineen
anderegedeeltevanhunhartweerdatzijdezeinstemminghebbengegeven.Het‘zelf’
isgebroken.
AugustinusschokkendeconclusieisdatuitsluitendeendaadvanGoddemensin
staat steltde richtingvande instemming (enhaar inhoud)overheersend te latenzijn
tenopzichtevandetegengesteldekrachtbinnendemenszelf.Uitdezeantropologische
bewustwordingblijkt eennieuwe ‘leer’ vanuitverkiezingvoort tevloeien, eerderdan
eentoegepastprogrammavoorgeestelijkeoefening.Uitsluitenddevocatiocongruavan
godswege kan een mens, geheel onverdiend uitverkoren, op de weg naar de
gelukzaligheidzetten.
In het vijfde hoofdstuk staan de Confessiones centraal. Hierin is betoogd dat
Augustinus zijn eerste volwaardige synthese presenteert van zijn door Paulus
geïnspireerde stoïcijnse psychologie van de actie en zijn (oorspronkelijk)
platoniserende hang naar contemplatie. In dit hoofdstuk is eerst onderzocht hoe
Augustinusde lagere ziel alsbronvandemenselijkeactie analyseert enweergeeft in
Confessiones I. Hij blijkt zich de Romeins‐stoïcijnse ideeën van commendatio en
peruersiotoegeëigendtehebbenmaarbrengthierinweleenaantalwijzigingenaan.In
ConfessionesIbeschrijfthijdedrievoudigecommendatiodiebijopkomstalmisvormdis
door zonde.DeRomeins‐stoïcijnse uiteenzetting vanperuersiowordt verder gebruikt
omdesocialeperversie tebeschrijvendie latereRomeinsescholenkenmerkte inzijn
451
idee en die concreetwerd in de relicten van de cursus honorum, in ketters‐religieus
onderricht en indepretenties vandeheidense filosofie.Dezeperverterende factoren
zijn door Augustinus weergegeven als parodieën op een adequaat mystagogisch
programma,waarreedsallegorischnaarwerdverwezenindeHexameron.
In het zesde en laatste hoofdstuk zijn ten slotte de antropologische dimensies
vancontemplatieindeConfessionesgeëvalueerd.Augustinusblijktaandecontemplatie
dieeigenisaandekerkeenapartevormtoetekennen.Hijziethaarvoortkomenuitde
Schriftenachthaarscherponderscheidenvanmogelijkevormenvanbeschouwing in
de heidense filosofie. De christelijke vorm van contemplatie is in twee opzichten
verschillend van de heidense vorm. Ten eerste is er een onderscheid wat betreft de
kentheoretische richting te constateren. Ten tweede verschillen de respectievelijke
vormenvancontemplatieomdaterverschillendevermogens inwordenaangesproken.
DoorRomeinen1:20vrij te interpreterendientdeze tekstAugustinusalsbron indit
bestek. Zijn interpretatiewijze van deze passage is evenwel consistent met de wijze
waarophijomgaatmetde‘heidense’filosofie.
Christelijke contemplatie blijkt in Augustinus’ antropologie geen op zichzelf
staandgegeven.Maaralspoolinhetgrotegeheelvandemystagogietenbehoevevande
menselijke (om‐)vorming kan de contemplatie als zodanig conceptueel gepreciseerd
worden.Christelijkecontemplatieblijkttebestaanuiteengeordende,steedsherhaalde
‘afdaling’naardeSchrift,dieuiteindelijkresulteertineenverheffingvandevolledige‐
hogere en lagere ‐ ziel door Gods genade. Hierdoor is het de ziel mogelijk zich
onvermengdopGodterichten.
InAugustinus’ ideekaneenmenszichteneerstedusslechtsonderwerpenaan
eenmeervoudigebemiddelingvanGod–doordeSchriftendoordescheppingsorde–
452
als Gods Geest hem hiertoe in staat stelt. Ten tweede speelt niet alleen het intellect
maarspelenookdeaffecteneencrucialerolalsdezielincontacttreedtmetdeSchrift
enGod.Tenderdebehelzendeonderscheidenfasenindeopstijgingeenproces,waarin
degenediezichtoegewijdtoelegtopditproces,hetzintuiglijkevanhetintelligibelegaat
onderscheiden en ook het onderscheid gaat maken tussen enerzijds de tijdelijke
beschikkingenenanderzijdshetplanvanGoddathieraantengrondslagligt.Ookkomt
eensoortinzichttotstandindewisselwerkingtusseneenheidendrie‐heidinGodenin
het ‘zelf’. Ten vierde worden in dit proces van contemplatie herinneringen, zijnde
afleidingen,tijdelijkuitgewist.Ditlaatstemaakthet,tenvijfde,mogelijkdefocusvanhet
hart – het gehele bewustzijn – volledig op God te richten. In tegenstelling tot een
verdeelde betrokkenheid van het intellect beschrijft Augustinus deze volledige focus
van het bewustzijn (waarin het verstand, het verlangen en de affectie samen één
dynamisme vormen) als het hart dat God aanraakt. In dit proces van volledige
betrokkenheid van de ziel op God is de richting, die in Rom. 1:20 is aangegeven,
omgedraaid.Godsgeest isnudebemiddelaarbijhetcontactmetdeschepselen. Inde
betekenis,dieuiteindelijkinhetchristendomaancontemplatieenactiewordtgegeven
vindtvoltooiingplaatsdoordatdevangenadevervuldemenseendoxologischerichting
inzijnlevenheeftgevonden.
Aanheteindevandedissertatiewordendrie conclusiesgetrokken.Teneerste
kanwordenvastgestelddatAugustinus’begripvandemensduidelijkeontwikkelingen
heeftondergaan.Deplatoniserendeuiteenzettingvandecirculaireziel–teallentijdeal
goddelijk–heeftplaatsgemaaktvooreenpost‐plotiniaansebeschrijvingvanhet‘zelf’
dat schepsellijk is en in een lichaam is gevat. Ten tweede blijkt ook de toegepaste
antropologie van Augustinus een ontwikkeling doorgemaakt te hebben. Ziet hij de
453
vervulling vandemensmiddels de contemplatie eerst voornamelijk tot stand komen
doorhetverstand,ineenlaterefasevandebestudeerdeperiodezalhijeenmystagogie
ontwikkelenwaarindemensdebewustwordingontwikkeltdatzijnvervullinggelegen
isinhetgaanvaneenwegwaarinGodsgenadedegrootsterolspeelt.Dezewegbegint
metdeafdaling totChristus’ concrete lichamelijkheid,omzoop tekunnenstijgen tot
zijn goddelijkheid. Ten derde zijn Augustinus’ filosofische bronnen en ‘strategische
allianties’ veel uitvoeriger dan de meeste twintigste‐eeuwse studies hebben erkend.
Augustinusmaaktveeluitvoerigergebruikvanstoïcijnseconceptenenargumentatieve
strategieëndantotnutoewerdgedacht.Indedooronsbestudeerdeperiodepastehij
deze conceptenen strategieën toemethetdoel tot eenadequate ‘psychologie vande
actie’ te komen.De consequenties zijn later ookmerkbaar geweest in het gebied van
zijn ‘dogmatische theologie’, omdat het gevolgen had voor de wijze waarop hij de
‘verkiezing’motiveerde.