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:vuresearchportal.ub@vu.nl

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.