Title

egoque ipse multa quae nesciebam scribendo me didicisse confitear. trin. 3. pro. 1

ex multiloquio non effugies peccatum. Prov. 10.19

Aureli Augustini: The praenomen is thinly attested. Neither A. nor any of his correspondents or polemical opponents use it, and it has been thought to be a misreading of something in Orosius (A. M. LaBonnardière, Rev. Bén. 91[1981], 231-237, citing Oros. liber apologeticus 1.4); but its frequent occurrence in early manuscript colophons (cf. M. M. Gorman, JThS 35 [1984], 475-480) cannot be explained as a vulgar error. See also Mandouze 71-74 on A.'s name and attempts (mainly drawing on the names of Monnica and Adeodatus) to give A. a non-Roman genealogical and cultural background (e.g.,W. H. C. Frend, JThS 43[1942], 188-191, reprised in his The Donatist Church [Oxford, 1952], 230). More objective is C. Lepelley, Atti-1986 1.104, showing the extreme rarity in Africa of the names Augustinus (3 others attested in Mandouze, Pros. chr. and CIL 8), Patricius (2 others), and Monnica (1 other), with a certain (perhaps remote) aristocratic pretension in the names of father and son. Whatever the facts, and whatever `African' character in the luxuriance of A.'s style, this text is thoroughly Latin, Roman, and Christian.

A. never mentions his own name in conf., and does so rarely elsewhere, usually self-consciously (en. Ps. 36. s. 3.20, saying how he would have his congregation defend him against critics: `Augustinus episcopus est in ecclesia catholica, sarcinam suam portat, rationem redditurus est deo'; c. Sec. 1, `senti de Augustino quidquid libet, sola me in oculis dei conscientia non accuset').

confessionum libri tredecim: Title directly attested at retr. 2.6.1, `confessionum mearum libri tredecim'; cf. also persev. 20.53, ep. 231.6, and Possidius, indiculum (ed. Wilmart MA 2.161-208) 103.6.

confessionum: It is perhaps a rhetorical gesture when A. says at en. Ps. 30. en. 1.11, `vita mea est confiteri te,' but it is also a warning that `confession' runs beyond the pages of this text and a suggestion that the relationship of this text to A.'s life is not that of signifier to signified.

On the term, see M. Verheijen, Eloquentia Pedisequa (Nijmegen, 1949), 11-81, and J. Ratzinger, REAug 3(1957), 375-392. There are biblical roots; note esp. Ps. 9.2, `confitebor tibi, domine, in toto corde meo; narrabo omnia mirabilia tua'; Ps. 31.18, `confitebor adversum me iniustitiam meam domino, et tu remisisti impietatem peccati mei'; Ps. 34.18, `confitebor tibi in ecclesia magna.' The connotations of praise and thanksgiving are innate in the word's biblical usage (Verheijen 69), but not in classical usage (Ratzinger 376f cites ps.-Quint. decl. 314, `ego enim confessionem existimo qualemcumque contra se pronuntiationem. . . . immo ea natura est omnis confessionis, ut possit videri demens qui de se confitetur. furore impulsus est: alius ebrietate, alius errore, alius dolore, quidam quaestione. nemo contra se dicit, nisi aliquo cogente.'), and other Christian writers at least acknowledge them. Origen in Ps. 135.2 (PG 12.1653-1655), h( e)comolo/ghsis th\n eu)xaristi/an kai\ docologi/an shmai/nei: kei=tai de\ kai\ e)pi\ th=j e)comologh/sews tw=n a(martiw=n We encounter the theme in Hilary of Poitiers (in Ps. 66.6, `invenimus confessionem duplici ratione tractandam: esse unam confessionem peccatorum . . . aliam laudationis dei'--he was probably following Origen or Eusebius [so Jerome at A., ep. 75.6.20]), and in Jerome as well, e.g., in Is. 2.38, `confessioque in hoc loco non pro paenitentia sed pro gloria et laude accipitur.' For the influence of Christian martyrdom on the one hand and of penitence on the other in shaping the attitude that A. embodies, see Ratzinger 380-382.

Confiteri is a verb of speaking, and confessio is speech that is made possible, and hence authorized, by God: 1.5.5, `miserere ut loquar' (and cf. adn. Iob on 6.10, `non alia dixit quam audivit a deo, id est de homine generaliter prophetantis, quia auxilio indiget in confessione'). God is ordinarily the addressee of this speech, but not exclusively (e.g., 10.37.62, `confitear oraturis pro me fratribus meis'). Depending on the subject, the effect may be that of praise (confessio laudis), self-blame (confessio peccatorum), or (least common in A. and in conf.) determined avowal (confessio fidei). That there is one confessio taking different forms in different circumstances is clear from 10.1.1, `cum enim malus sum, nihil est aliud confiteri tibi quam displicere mihi; cum vero pius, nihil est aliud confiteri tibi quam hoc non tribuere mihi' (sim. at en. Ps. 105.2).

A. knew he was insisting on a breadth of meaning that was not always felt by his listeners, who had our specialized sense clearly in mind, as at en. Ps. 141.19, `duobus autem modis confessio intellegitur, et in peccatis nostris, et in laude dei. in peccatis nostris nota est confessio, et ita nota omni populo, ut quando auditum fuerit nomen confessionis in lectione, sive in laude dicatur, sive de peccatis dicatur, currant pugni ad pectus.' (Sim. at en. Ps. 78.17, 137.2, ss. 29.2.2, 67.1.1.)

The verb confiteor and noun confessio occur 111 times in conf. (Verheijen 11-21). Some notes:

By presenting his words as a `confession', A. claims not to claim authority for his own text (and by so doing does exactly what he claims not to do), but refers those who question his authority for speaking to a higher authority. He turns away skeptics by telling them (at 10.3.3) that his text is for those who are joined to him in caritas (again invoking the higher authority), and that it is not surprising if others refuse to believe what they read in it. This strategy aims to freeze out the hostile or skeptical reader. A. admits that the text has no authority with such a reader, but implies that this failure is the fault of the reader, not of the writer. His business is with his God, for the edification of those who are chosen by his God to benefit from the text; other readers are left to shift for themselves.

A.'s comments on his own work are few and all date from the last years of his life, when he often found himself going back over old ground, especially in his quarrel with Julian of Eclanum.

retr. 2.6.1 (426/7), `confessionum mearum libri tredecim et de malis et de bonis meis deum laudant iustum et bonum, atque in eum excitant humanum intellectum et affectum. interim quod ad me attinet, hoc in me egerunt cum scriberentur et agunt cum leguntur. quid de illis alii sentiant, ipsi viderint; multis tamen fratribus eos multum placuisse et placere scio. a primo usque ad decimum de me scripti sunt, in tribus ceteris de scripturis sanctis, ab eo quod scriptum est: “in principio fecit deus caelum et terram,” usque ad sabbati requiem.'

persev. 20.53 (428/9), `quid autem meorum opusculorum frequentius et delectabilius innotescere potuit quam libri confessionum mearum? cum et ipsos ediderim antequam pelagiana haeresis extitisset, in eis certe dixi deo nostro et saepe dixi: “da quod iubes et iube quod vis.” [10.29.40] quae mea verba Pelagius Romae, cum a quodam fratre coepiscopo meo fuissent eo praesente commemorata, ferre non potuit et contradicens aliquanto commotius paene cum eo qui illa commemoraverat litigavit. . . . et in eisdem etiam libris quod de mea conversione narravi, deo me convertente ad eam fidem quam miserrima et furiossima loquacitate vastabam, nonne ita narratum esse meministis, ut ostenderem me fidelibus et cotidianis matris meae lacrimis [see on 3.11.19-12.21] ne perirem fuisse concessum?'

ep. 231.6 (to Darius: 428/9), `sume itaque, mi fili, sume, vir bone et non in superficie sed christiana caritate christiane, sume, inquam, etiam libros quos desiderasti confessionum mearum; ibi me inspice, ne me laudes ultra quam sum, ibi non aliis de me crede sed mihi, ibi me attende et vide quid fuerim in me ipso per me ipsum. [Cf. 10.3.3-10.4.6] et si quid in me tibi placuerit, lauda ibi mecum quem laudari volui de me, neque enim me, quoniam “ipse fecit nos et non ipsi nos” [Ps. 99.3, see on 9.10.25, 10.6.9]; nos autem perdideramus nos, sed qui fecit refecit. cum autem ibi me inveneris, ora pro me, ne deficiam sed perficiar.'

The last words of doctr. chr. (4.31.64; written about the same time as retr.) reflect a similar spirit: `ego tamen deo nostro ago gratias, quod in his quattuor libris non qualis ego essem, cui multa desunt, sed qualis esse debeat qui in doctrina sana, id est christiana, non solum sibi sed aliis etiam laborare studet, quantulacumque potui facultate disserui.'

The 13th chapter of Tobias (a book not often quoted by A., but accepted as canonical at doctr. chr. 2.8.13, and cf. 10.34.52, `o lux quam videbat Tobis'), the canticle of Tobias, resembles conf. both for content and structure (Vg. text).1 Italics here indicate the most notable parallels to conf.:

1. aperiens autem Tobias senior os suum benedixit dominum et dixit:

`magnus es domine in aeternum [1.1.1]

et in omnia saecula regnum tuum, [Bk. 11 generally]

2. quoniam tu flagellas et salvas, [2.2.4, 3.3.5]

deducis ad infernum et reducis, [1.2.2]

et non est qui effugiat manum tuam.

3. confitemini domino filii Israhel

et in conspectu gentium laudate eum, [1.16.26 et saep.]

4. quoniam ideo dispersit vos inter gentes quae ignorant eum,

ut vos narretis mirabilia eius et faciatis scire eos, [4.15.24, 8.6.14, etc.]

quia non est alius deus omnipotens praeter eum.

5. ipse castigavit nos propter iniquitates nostras

et ipse salvabit nos propter misericordiam suam.

6. aspicite ergo quae fecit vobiscum

et cum timore et tremore confitemini illi [see on 2.3.6]

regemque saeculorum exaltate in operibus vestris.

7. ego autem in terra captivatitis meae confitebor illi, [see on 2.10.18]

quoniam ostendit maiestatem suam in gentem peccatricem.

8. convertimini itaque peccatores et facite iustitiam coram deo,

credentes quod faciat vobiscum misericordiam suam.

9. ego autem et anima mea in eo laetabimur.

10. benedicite dominum omnes electi eius,

agite dies laetitiae, confitemini illi

11. Hierusalem civitas dei, castigavit te dominus: [see esp. 12.16.23]

in operibus manuum tuarum

12. confitere domino in bonis et benedic deum saeculorum,

ut reaedificet in te tabernaculum suum

et revocet ad te omnes captivos [2.6.14, 7.21.27, 8.5.12]

et gaudeas in omnia saecula saeculorum. [13.38.53]

13. luce splendida fulgebis et omnes fines terrae adorabunt te. [10.2.2, 10.6.8]

. . .

19. anima mea, benedic dominum,

quoniam liberavit Hierusalem civitatem suam

20. beatus ero si fuerint reliquiae seminis mei

ad videndam claritatem Hierusalem.

. . .

23. benedictus dominus qui excitavit eam,

ut sit regnum eius in saecula saeculorum super eam. amen.

A similar set of parallels obtains between conf. and the text of Ps. 4; see on 9.4.8 for text and see 9.4.8-11 for exegesis. Other, earlier Christian analogues to A.'s self-analysis are few, sketchy, and not really comparable to this confessio: see J.-M. Le Blond, Les conversions de saint Augustin (Paris, 1950) 5n1, and cf. Hil. Pict. trin. 1.1-15. P. Frassinetti, Gior. Ital. Filol. 2(1949), 50-59, adduces Arnob. nat. 1.31, `o maxime, o summe rerum visibilium et invisibilium procreator, o ipse invisibilis et nullis umquam comprehense naturis, dignus, dignus es vere, si modo te dignum mortali dicendum est ore, cui spirans omnis intellegensque natura et habere et agere numquam desinat gratias.' Liturgical usage and the developing vocabulary of prayer undoubtedly lie behind such expressions. A.'s genius lay in making a book of such discourse, and making a good book.

The claim that A.'s confessio is related to the annual Manichean confession of sins at the Bema festival (A. Adam, Zschr. für Kirchengesch. 69[1958], 7: `Was Augustin als manichäischer Katechumen Jahr um Jahr hat wiederholen müssen, das hat er in den Konfessionen auf seine christliche Existenz übertragen. Er hat sogar ein anderes kennzeichnendes Stilmittel des manichäischen Denkens dabei übernommen: die überquellende Bildhaftigkeit, die in keiner seiner übrigen Schriften in gleicher Weise festzustellen ist.') has not been sustained (see Brown 179n1 citing div. qu. Simp. 1.2.21; cf. also doctr. chr. 1.33.37, `vicinissime dicitur frui “cum delectatione uti.”' In phrasing the matter that way, Brown approaches the position of Cornelius Jansen, who distinguished delectatio from voluntas, and made the former a determining force on the latter; for an orthodox critique of that view (taking what is indeed the more defensible position that for A. `delight' and `will' are two names for the same thing), see E. Gilson, The Christian Philosophy of Saint Augustine (New York, 1960), 321n81-323n84.

Book One

1.1.1 - 1.5.6
  • Proem
    • 1.6.7 - 1.7.12
  • Infantia
    • 1.8.13 - 1.19.30
  • Pueritia
    • 1.20.31
  • Gratiarum actio

    • The narrative of childhood is not specially Christian. Cic. Tusc. 3.1.2 - 3.2.3 displays the same pattern and could stand as a summary of what A. says: `simul atque editi in lucem et suscepti sumus, in omni continuo pravitate et in summa opinionum perversitate versamur, ut paene cum lacte nutricis errorem suxisse videamur. cum vero parentibus redditi, dein magistris traditi sumus, tum ita variis imbuimur erroribus, ut vanitati veritas et opinioni confirmatae natura ipsa cedat. (3.2.3) accedunt etiam poetae, qui cum magnam speciem doctrinae sapientiaeque prae se tulerunt, audiuntur leguntur ediscuntur et inhaerescunt penitus in mentibus.'

    text of 1.1.1

    1.1.1

    There have been various attempts to find precedents for this form of opening, 2 but in the history of Latin literature, its originality and oddity are clear. Most Latin prose works begin with a dedicatory epistle or a formal proem: this work has neither. 3 It begins abruptly, with speech directed to a silent God - but speech chosen from the words of that God himself. The first sentence is followed by a reflective pause for inquiry, which should not blur the main purpose: invocation, an opening more appropriate to poetry than prose. The work is not verse, but it is not conventional prose either: study of its rhythms has shown that the pattern of the work's sentence endings is neither quantitative nor accentual, and sui generis in A.'s own works (see prolegomena, n. 126). A. invented a form and style unique in his own oeuvre and in the traditions he inherited. In retrospect we can see him working towards this style through earlier, far more conventional works (e.g. sol., where the dialogue form prevails, and the prayer of invocation is carefully set off within the dialogue at sol. 1.1.2-6, but conf. represents a breakthrough for A.

    This opening can give rise to the disconcerting feeling of coming into a room and chancing upon a man speaking to someone who isn't there. He gestures in our direction and mentions us from time to time, but he never addresses his readers. As literary text, conf. resembles a one-sided, non-fiction epistolary novel, enacted in the presence of the silence (and darkness) of God. 4 What A. attempts is a radical turn away from common sense - seen as tragically flawed by mad self-love - towards the wholly other, and thus towards the true self - for to him, we are not who we think we are (see on 10.8.15). 5

    magnus es, domine: The work begins with confessio laudis. 6 Strictly speaking, these two lines contain a complete confession (see en. Ps. 143.12 [quoted on 8.2.4], which shows the proud of this world giving way and confessing thus: `dicturi sunt: tu magnus, domine') that renders the remaining 78,000 or so words of the text superfluous. This exclamation is self-sufficient; nothing more need be said, ever. But the fall from eternity into time brought with it the fall from timeless immutability of discourse into a restless and open-ended search for God in the inspired texts. Cf. en. Ps. 145. 6, `quando implet laudator excellentiam laudati?' Hence he adds another line of Psalm-text, a link to what will follow.

    Ps. 95.4, `quoniam magnus dominus et laudabilis valde'; Ps. 144.3, `magnus dominus et laudabilis valde, et magnitudinis eius non est finis'; Ps. 47.2, `magnus dominus et laudabilis valde, in civitate dei nostri, in monte sancto eius'; cf. Tob. 13.1, `magnus es domine in aeternum' (see preceding comm. above on Tob. 13). en. Ps. 95.4, `quis “dominus”, nisi Iesus Christus, “magnus et laudabilis nimis”?' (The text at en. Ps. 95.4 has nimis for valde with the Roman Psalter; but the Verona Psalter has valde, and the adverb is the same in the LXX at all three texts cited here: sfo/dra.) Psalm-citation is not (v. Knauer passim) mere ostentation of erudition: en. Ps. 26. en. 2. 1, `voces istae psalmi quas audivimus et ex parte cantavimus, si dicamus quod nostrae sint, verendum est quemadmodum verum dicamus; sunt enim voces magis spiritus dei quam nostrae. rursum si dicamus nostras non esse, profecto mentimur.'

    domine: A. speaks to God alone. At 11.1.1, after canvassing his own past (Bks. 1- 9) and present (Bk. 10), he expects his readers to be able to join him in the present: `sed affectum meum excito in te et eorum qui haec legunt, ut dicamus omnes: “magnus dominus et laudabilis valde”' (see notes there). The second person direct address to God pervades conf., occurring in 381 of the work's 453 paragraphs (measured by the presence of vocatives, second person singular pronouns, and verb forms: but the second person verb form does not seem to occur addressed to God without either a vocative or a pronoun to specify the reference). Paragraphs without such address include some notably desolate and God-less passages (e.g., 6.15.25, on the banishment of his mistress), but not all are of that sort; see in particular on 10.6.9 for the longest stretch without such address. On the forms of address to God in conf., see Knauer 31-74 and J. Morán, Aug. Stud. 4(1973), 141-157, with a catalogue of 165 passages at 152-157.

    magna virtus tua et sapientiae tuae non est numerus: Ps. 146.5, `magnus dominus noster et magna virtus eius et sapientiae eius non est numerus'; en. Ps. 146.11, `conticescant humanae voces, requiescant humanae cogitationes; ad incomprehensibilia non se extendant quasi comprehensuri, sed tamquam participaturi; participes enim erimus.' 1 Cor. 1.24, `Christum dei virtutem, et dei sapientiam'; this is the first scriptural text A. cites in his surviving works, at c. acad. 2.1.1 and beata v. 4.34; from c. Faust. 20.2 (where Faustus cites the text to claim that virtus resides in the sun and sapientia in the moon) it is clear that to call Christ virtus and/or sapientia would particularly irritate Manichees - the text is also cited against them at c. Fort. 9. Cf. 5.3.5, `sed non noverunt viam, verbum tuum . . . et sapientiae tuae non est numerus'.

    virtus . . . sapientiae: God in action . . . God at rest.

    non est numerus: Io. ev. tr. 39. 4, `pater et filius et spiritus sanctus trinitas. si tres, quid tres? deficit numerus. ita deus nec recedit a numero, nec capitur numero. quia tres sunt, tamquam est numerus; si quaeris quid tres, non est numerus. unde dictum est, “magnus dominus noster et magna virtus eius, et sapientiae eius non est numerus.” ubi cogitare coeperis, incipis numerare: ubi numeraveris, quid numeraveris non potes respondere.' The second person of the trinity is Word par excellence, but for A. he is also Number: see on 5.4.7.

    et laudare te vult homo: Cf. Verheijen, 90-95, on et and its frequency of use in conf.: abundant in some passages, rare in others, often occurring where a more restrictive conjunction (sed, cum, si) would be expected. V. estimates that in Bk. 8 et occurs with more than `la simple valeur copulative' more than 100 times, in Bk. 1 more than 75 (cautioning that such calculations are subjective). A. on the force of the conjunction, hinting that its part in the struggle to restore integrity to language is not insignificant: en. Ps. 4. 4 (on Ps. 4.4 - see on 9.4.8-11), `sed si quem movet coniunctio superaddita, quod ait, “et scitote”, facile est ut in scripturis animadvertat huius locutionis genus familiare esse illi linguae qua prophetae locuti sunt. nam saepe invenis ita coeptum: “et dixit dominus ad illum; et factum est verbum domini ad illum.” quae iunctura coniunctionis, cum sententia non praecesserit cui sequens adnectatur, mirabiliter fortassis insinuat prolationem veritatis in voce cum ea visione quae fit in corde esse coniunctam.'

    For comparison, in sample works of Cicero, et appears with the following relative frequencies: Brutus 3.6%, de amicitia 2.4%, pro Caelio 1.8%; from A., in civ., approx. 3.3%, in en. Ps. approx. 4.5%, and in trin. approx. 5.2%; in conf. 5.8% (4585 out of 78,858 words).

    laudare . . . vult: not laudat, for the praise in the first two lines is imperfect, the expression in words more wish than deed (cf. 2.1.1, `recordari volo'). A. seeks to praise. In the implicit question whether he succeeds is encompassed the tension of the whole text. At the moment of giving praise, his words fall back into self-reflection and doubt. His mortality might well seem a good reason for not praising the creator who made him mortal: but already in that objection, the explanation begins to obtrude.

    homo: A. means not homo quidam, but speaks directly of himself, his own act of attempted praise in the first lines. An exact parallel at 1.7.11, `exaudi, deus: vae peccatis hominum! et homo dicit haec, et misereris eius, quoniam tu fecisti eum [cf. here `fecisti nos ad te'] et peccatum non fecisti in eo.' In both cases the author's voice is heard in spontaneous exclamation, followed immediately by a less spontaneous, more detached reflection on what that first exclamation means in view of the creature/creator relation of humankind to God. Cf. also 7.1.1, `homo et talis homo'. (To be sure, the form of expression emphasizes A.'s representativeness, hence inviting readers to share in the inquiry and praise that follow; a similar representativeness underlies the whole of Bks. 11-13.)

    mortalitatem: a fact that speaks of A. (`testimonium peccati'), and of God (`testimonium quia superbis resistis'), evidence of alienation, a pretext perhaps for angry avoidance of praise. But instead, praise prevails. Cf. 10.4.6 (of Christian believers), `sociorum gaudii mei et consortium mortalitatis meae': mortality is the counterweight of the joy from which praise might rightly be expected to rise. Death is punishment already at mus. 6. 33, 6.46, and Gn. c. man. 1.16.26, 1.18.29, 2.26.38 and elsewhere, then at vera rel. 26.48 (`erga eos qui peccato mortalitatem meruerunt'), and consistently afterwards. For the expression here, cf. s. dom. m. 2.9.35, `istam mortalitatem circumferimus' (sim. at s. 49.3.3).

    quia superbis resistis: Prov. 3.34 (VL), `deus superbis resistit, humilibus autem dat gratiam'; quoted at 1 Pet. 5.5 and Jas. 4.6 in the same form (following the LXX). The second half of the text is here unspoken (as at 4.15.26; spoken at 3.5.9, 4.3.5, 7.9.13, 10.36.59). Cf. civ. 1. pr., `rex enim et conditor civitatis huius de qua loqui instituimus in scriptura populi sui sententiam divinae legis aperuit, qua dictum est: “deus superbis resistit, humilibus autem dat gratiam.” hoc vero, quod dei est, superbae quoque animae spiritus inflatus adfectat amatque sibi in laudibus dici: [Aen. 6.853]“parcere subiectis et debellare superbos.”' The Vergilian juxtaposition suggests a partial explanation for the appeal of the scriptural text to A. Cf. La Bonnardière, Biblia Augustiniana: Proverbes 202-204, for a list of 42 other citations of the text in A.'s œuvre. The verse may have been a recent discovery: before doctr. chr. the verse appears only at en. Ps. 18. en. 1.8, 18. en. 1.15, and s. dom. m. 1.11.32. Note doctr. chr. 3.23.33, `nulla enim fere pagina est sanctorum librorum in qua non sonet quod “deus superbis resistit, humilibus autem dat gratiam.”' 7 On superbia in conf., see the catalogue and discussion by M. Testard in Homo Spiritalis (Festschrift Verheijen: Würzburg, 1987), 136-170.

    et tamen: One of A.'s commonest ways (59x in conf., 12x in Bk. 1) of asseverating in the face of apparent contradiction and paradox. See Pizzolato, Lectio I-II 10 (but he undercounts the frequency).

    excitas: 16x in conf.; cf. 5.1.1, `accipe sacrificium confessionum mearum de manu linguae meae (quam formasti et excitasti, ut confiteatur nomini tuo)'; 11.1.1, `affectum meum excito in te'; cf. 10.3.4, `confessiones praeteritorum malorum meorum . . . excitant cor ne dormiat in desperatione.' Cf. retr. 2.6.1 (quoted more fully above), `confessionum . . . libri . . . excitant humanum intellectum et affectum'; sol. 1.1.3, `deus, cui nos fides excitat, spes erigit, caritas iungit' (and fides is basis of confessio, as the remainder of this paragraph demonstrates). See E. Feldmann, Augustinus 31(1986), 113-122.

    laudare te delectet: Brown 155, `Augustine came to view “delight” as the mainspring of human action,' citing div. qu. Simp. 1.2.21; cf. also doctr. chr. 1.33.37, `vicinissime dicitur frui “cum delectatione uti.”' In phrasing the matter that way, Brown approaches the position of Cornelius Jansen, who distinguished delectatio from voluntas, and made the former a determining force on the latter; for an orthodox critique of that view (taking what is indeed the more defensible position that for A. `delight' and `will' are two names for the same thing), see E. Gilson, The Christian Philosophy of Saint Augustine (New York, 1960), 321n81-323n84.

    The role of delectatio is strongly foreshadowed in the rhetorical tradition. Cf. Cic. or. 21.69, `erit igitur eloquens . . . qui in foro causisque civilibus ita dicet, ut probet, ut delectet, ut flectat' (quoted with slight modifications at doctr. chr. 4.12.27), with parallels at Brut. 49.185, de or. 2.28.121, opt. gen. or. 1.3. Between probare (the establishment of a fact) and flectere (stirring the audience to act), delectare is the crucial moment of motivation. See on 1.6.7.

    inquietum . . . requiescat: This initial disquiet is answered by the adumbration of eternal rest at 13.35.50 - 13.38.53, the last lines of the text; cf. also 1.5.5, `quis mihi dabit adquiescere in te?' This restlessness arises from disorder: 13.9.10, `minus ordinata inquieta sunt; ordinantur et quiescunt.' For ordo, see on 1.7.12 and see further on 13.9.10. Cf. en. Ps. 38.5, `coepit esse inquietum cor meum. . . . et suspirans in finem quendam, ubi ista non erat passurus, in illum, inquam, finem quo dicturus est bono erogatori dominus, “intra in gaudium domini tui.”' (Mt. 25.21: cf. 9.10.25, where the same scriptural quotation is the culmination of the Ostia vision); cf. also en. Ps. 91.2, 48. s. 2.6. This phrase has evoked an abundant literature: A. Di Giovanni, L'inquietudine dell'anima (Rome, 1964), esp. 87n8; A. Pincherle, Augustinus 13(1968), 353-368 (on requies and the link to the last pages of conf.); E. Maccagnolo, Riv. di Filos. Neo-scolastica 71(1979), 314-325; G. Lawless, REAug 26(1980), 45-61 (on `interior peace'); and generally de la Peza (see next note).

    cor: 10.3.4, `ad cor meum, ubi ego sum quicumque sum' . E. de la Peza, El significado de `cor' en San Agustin (Paris, 1962); in summary form in REAug 7(1961), 339-368; and cf. A. Maxsein, Philosophia cordis. Das Wesen der Personalität bei Augustin (Salzburg, 1966), 46-52. Cor in A. is a word whose use is demonstrably influenced by contact with its scriptural employment; it is in A. an expression for the indivisible, authentic center of human life, where the tensions of a sinful world are most clearly felt. The term is, as others have observed, unphilosophical, even untheological, but it is eminently scriptural, and Augustinian. Cf. Ps. 37.11, `cor meum conturbatum est et deseruit me fortitudo mea'; en. Ps. 37.15, `haec patitur homo intus, ibi secum, in seipso, et seipsum, de nemine ad neminem praeter se.'

    donec: Pizzolato, Lectio I-II 13, `Donec pare il termine-chiave dell' espressione.' The temporal dimension of disquiet is both an important manifestation of the problem itself (as Bk. 11 will make clear) and at the same time a suggestion here of hope.

    da mihi: 11.3.5, `da et mihi haec intellegere'. (See above on `magnus es domine' for ref. to 11.1.1: Bk. 11 marks a renewed beginning in several ways.) Cf. Ps. 118.34, `da mihi intellectum, et scrutabor legem tuam, et custodiam illam in toto corde meo' ; en. Ps. 118. s. 11.4, `quid habeat utilitatis etiam hoc ipsum quod “lex subintravit, ut abundaret delictum,” [Rom. 5.20] nemo comprehendit, nisi a domino acceperit intellectum; unde iste adiungit et dicit: “da mihi intellectum, et scrutabor legem tuam, et custodiam illam in toto corde meo.” cum enim quisque legem scrutatus fuerit, et ad eius alta pervenerit in quibus tota pendet, profecto debet deum diligere ex toto corde, ex tota anima, ex tota mente, et proximum suum tamquam seipsum. [cf. Mt. 22.37]' On the quest of faith for understanding (Io. ev. tr. 29.6, `noli quaerere intellegere ut credas, sed crede ut intellegas' ), see R. Holte, Béatitude et Sagesse (Paris, 1962), and O. du Roy, L'Intelligence de la foi en la trinité selon saint Augustin (Paris, 1966); when expressed in its fullest form as in the passage just cited, the understanding is (a) scriptural, (b) allegorical, and (c) directed beyond intellection to action. The inquiry introduced here by these words is itself about the proper form of inquiry, and shares implicitly all three of those qualities. Placed here, it reflects the intrinsic importance to A. of the content of the inquiry, but also sets a paradigmatic model of the search for understanding that ends in praise here on the first page. (For the form of expression, cf. Tiberianus [4th c. AD], versus Platonis, ed. Baehrens, PLM 3.268, lines 26f: `da nosse volenti', and further M. Zepf, Augustins Confessiones [Tübingen, 1926], 64n4.)

    Only God can give this gift: cf. the last words of conf. (with an echo of Mt. 7.7, also echoed below in 1.1.1): 13.38.53, `et hoc intellegere quis hominum dabit homini? quis angelus angelo? quis angelus homini? a te petatur, in te quaeratur, ad te pulsetur: sic, sic accipietur, sic invenietur, sic aperitur.'

    scire: The sense here is probably not distinguished sharply from credere, hence the passage is congruent with A.'s treatment of faith and understanding. Cf. sol. 1.3.8, `omne autem quod scimus recte fortasse etiam credere dicimur'; retr. 1.14.3 (demurring at a sharp distinction between scire and credere at util. cred. 11.25), `proprie quippe cum loquimur, id solum scire dicimus quod mentis firma ratione comprehendimus. cum vero loquimur verbis consuetudini aptioribus, sicut loquitur etiam scriptura divina, non dubitemus dicere scire nos et quod percipimus nostri corporis sensibus et quod fide dignis credimus testibus, dum tamen inter haec et illud quid distet intellegamus.'

    An alternate view is possible, according to which scire and intellegere here would be hendiadys: mag. 11.37 (of exegetical difficulties raised by the three boys in Daniel), `haec autem omnia quae in illa leguntur historia ita illo tempore facta esse ut conscripta sunt, credere me potius quam scire confiteor: neque istam differentiam idem ipsi quibus credimus nescierunt. ait enim propheta, “nisi credideritis, non intellegetis.” (Is. 7.9 [VL])'

    The former view is to be preferred. It imparts to the text a tension between present and future that is at home on this page: scire (= credere) would apply to the inquiry in the present paragraph, while intellegere would anticipate the fuller comprehension to be worked out through the remainder of conf. and through the rest of A.'s life. Against that, the hendiadys is flat and far from obvious; such redundancy of expression is out of place with the concise and carefully chosen style of this opening page.

    invocare . . . laudare . . . scire: Ps. 104.1, `confitemini domino, et invocate nomen eius' ; en. Ps. 104.1, `praemissa enim laude, invocatio sequi solet . . . exaudit quippe invocantem, quem laudantem videt: laudantem videt; quem probat amantem.'

    aliud . . . pro alio: G-M: `A. probably has in mind the objects of his own worship in his Manichaean days,' when he invoked God without faith. Cf. sol. 1.1.6, `fac et me, pater, vindica me ab errore: quaerenti te mihi nihil aliud pro te occurrat' ; sim. at doctr. chr. 2.6.7, en. Ps. 78.9; qu. hept. 1 pr., `nonnulla enim pars inventionis est nosse quid quaeras.' Cf. 5.5.9, `aliud pro alio sentientem' .

    quomodo autem: Rom. 10.13-14, `qui invocaverit nomen domini salvus erit' [Joel 2.32]. quomodo autem invocabunt, in quem non crediderunt? (14) aut quomodo credent, quem non audierunt? quomodo autem audient, sine praedicante? aut quomodo praedicabunt, si non mittantur.' Text from s. 57.1.1, where he explains: `missi sunt ergo praedicatores, praedicaverunt Christum. illis praedicantibus populi audierunt, audiendo crediderunt, credendo invocaverunt' (the verse is quoted similarly at the outset of each of A.'s sermons on the Lord's prayer for competentes [ss. 56.1.1, 57.1.1, 58.1.1, and 59.1.1], and cf. s. 115.1.1 is taken to show that fides is the fons orationis); cf. div. qu. Simp. 1.2.7 and 1.2.10. The principle invoked is one that A. much later marked as one that distinguished his mature thought from that which preceded the watershed div. qu. Simp.: praed. sanct. 3.7, `credere non possemus, si non praecederet praeconium veritatis; ut autem praedicato nobis evangelio consentiremus, nostrum esse proprium, et nobis ex nobis esse arbitrabar. quem meum errorem nonnulla opuscula mea satis indicant, ante episcopatum meum scripta' ; in the next paragraph there A. retracts exp. prop. Rom. and endorses div. qu. Simp.

    credent: credent C D G O2 Maur. Knöll  (ss. 56.1.1, 57.1.1; c. Faust. 12.45; div. qu. Simp. 1.2.10):   credunt O1 S Eug. Skut. Ver.  (s. Guelf. 1.1; div. qu. Simp. 1.2.7)
    The Greek NT has the aorist subjunctive (pisteu/swsin), as for the other verbs in the passage. A. regularly omits the ei that occurs after credent in the Vg. The passage was apparently condensed for rhetorical effectiveness.

    et laudabunt . . . requirunt eum: Ps. 21.27, `edent pauperes, et saturabuntur. et laudabunt dominum qui requirunt eum. vivent corda eorum in saeculum saeculi'; en. Ps. 21. en. 2.27, `quare sunt pauperes? quia dominum laudant, et dominum quaerunt. dominus est divitiae pauperum; ideo inanis est domus, ut cor plenum divitiis sit. . . . pauperes quaerunt unde cor impleant; et cum impleverint, laudant dominum qui requirunt eum.' The verse recurs in the last words of Bk. 10 (10.43.70--see there for important eucharistic overtones), completing what is begun here, preparatory to beginning again in 11.1.1.

    quaerentes enim inveniunt eum: Mt. 7.7, `petite et dabitur vobis; quaerite et invenietis; pulsate et aperietur vobis.' Echoes and citations in conf.: 6.4.5, 6.11.18, 6.11.20, 11.2.3, 11.22.28, 12.1.1, 12.12.15, 12.15.22, 12.24.33, 13.38.53 (last words of conf.). At s. 51.5.6, he describes the errors of his youth as a failure to knock and seek.

    The verse was significant from before his baptism: c. acad. 2.3.9 (one of very few scriptural echoes at Cassiciacum), `nam mihi credite, vel potius illi credite qui ait, “quaerite et invenietis,” nec cognitionem desperandam esse, et manifestiorem futuram quam sunt illi numeri'; cf. sol. 1.1.3, 1.1.6. A. throws the verse up to the Manichees as one they were fond of: mor. 1.17.31, `nam si sapientia et veritas non totis animi viribus concupiscatur, inveniri nullo pacto potest. at si ita quaeratur ut dignum est, subtrahere sese atque abscondere a suis dilectoribus non potest. hinc est illud quod in ore habere etiam vos soletis, quod ait, "petite et accipietis, quaerite et invenietis, pulsate et aperietur vobis. nihil est occultum quod non revelabitur."' It recurs in anti-Manichean polemic, e.g., Gn. c. man. 2.2.3 (of exegesis).

    Linked to the search of faith for understanding, it also appears at lib. arb. 2.2.6, `nisi enim et aliud esset credere aliud intellegere et primo credendum esset quod magnum et divinum intellegere cuperemus, frustra propheta dixisset: “nisi credideritis, non intellegetis.” 8 ipse quoque dominus noster . . . iam credentibus dicit, “quaerite et invenietis,” nam neque inventum dici potest quod incognitum creditur, neque quisquam inveniendo deo fit idoneus, nisi ante crediderit quod est postea cogniturus.' Cf. lib. arb. 3.20.58. See also A.'s plea to Valerius for time for strengthening his grasp of scripture (ep. 21.4), and elsewhere in the years before conf. it occurs with ease and frequency, e.g., ep. 23.7, util. cred. 14.30, with formal exposition at s. dom. m. 2.21.71, 9 `petite et dabitur . . . pulsanti aperietur: petitio pertinet ad impetrandam sanitatem firmitatemque animi, ut ea quae praecipiuntur implere possimus, inquisitio autem ad inveniendam veritatem. cum enim beata vita actione et cognitione compleatur, actio facultatem virium, contemplatio manifestationem rerum desiderat. horum ergo primum petendum, secundum quaerendum est, ut illud detur, hoc inveniatur. sed cognitio in hac vita viae prius quam ipsius possessionis est. sed cum quisque veram viam invenerit, perveniet ad ipsam possessionem, quae tamen pulsanti aperietur.' Cf. also Jer. 29.12-13, `et invocabitis me, et ibitis; et orabitis me, et ego exaudiam vos. (13) quaeretis me, et invenieritis, cum quaesieritis me in toto corde vestro.'

    The questions posed here by A. (from `da mihi, domine' to `ut sciaris') are met by a sequence of authoritative scriptural dicta, collected from three different sources, in part themselves questions--but only rhetorical questions (on that device see below on 1.3.3). These citations together provide the data required to answer the questions that precede. (The phrase `invenientes laudabunt eum' does not come with clear scriptural warrant: it appears as a conclusion drawn by A. himself.)

    The scriptural data may be schematized thus:

    These reduce without difficulty to:

    The inquiry arose from a moment of unfulfilled intention (`et laudare te vult homo') that is now situated in its context. Such a quest leads to discovery and praise, but arises from invocation, which arises from belief, which in turn finally arises from the antecedent act of preaching (the only act in the sequence performed by someone other than the speaker). Invocation, therefore, is the possible and necessary place to begin for a search that will end, for purposes of this book, at 13.38.53, and that will end for A., in the fullness of divine requies. But invocation itself (as the next paragraph will develop) is problematical.

    Listening precedes speech elsewhere in conf.: 12.15.22, `quid igitur ex his quae clamavit cor meum ad deum meum, cum audiret interius vocem laudis eius, quid tandem falsum esse contenditis?' 11.8.10, `sic in evangelio per carnem ait, et hoc insonuit foris auribus hominum ut crederetur et intus quaereretur et inveniretur in aeterna veritate, ubi omnes discipulos bonos et solus magister docet.' So also, grace precedes invocation: 1.10.16, `libera etiam eos qui nondum te invocant, ut invocent te et liberes eos.' Cf. s. 17.4.4, `qui vult audiri a deo, carissimi, prius audiat deum.'

    inveniunt: inveniunt G O1 S Knöll Skut. Ver.:   invenient C D O2 Maur.

    per humanitatem filii tui: The incarnation of the Word is the fundamental act of revelation.

    per ministerium praedicatoris tui: Who is the praedicator? Ambrose? (So Pusey ad loc. in his translation.) Christ? (So Courcelle, Recherches 43n5.) Paul? (div. qu. Simp. 1.2.22, `repente ex evangelii mirabili persecutore mirabilior praedicator effectus est,' with the same transformation of Paul from persecutor to praedicator at least 10x elsewhere in A., and cf. 10.23.34, where Paul is `homo tuus verum praedicans'; suggested to me by Prof. Paula Fredriksen.) Perhaps the generic should be allowed to stand unspecified.

    text of 1.2.2

    1.2.2

    Invocation is postponed by consideration of the problems it raises. Every half-assertion to be inferred from a rhetorical question seems cancelled by later questions. This paragraph and the next pursue the inquiry preliminary to the attempt at invocation itself beginning in 1.4.4. The organization of the pattern is similar to a series of concentric circles: homo within caelum et terra within quidquid est. The paradox is that of calling down into a man a God who is already there. This concern with the `place' of God, is tied up with A.'s pre-conversion notion of God permeating all matter (see on 7.1.2 and cf. 7.5.7, `spongiam quamlibet magnam'). See also 13.1.1 for renewed invocation (and confirmation that the speaker's invocation is preceded by divine speech). Of many parallel passages (see others below), n.b. en. Ps. 74.2, `noli antequam confitearis invocare; confitere, et invoca' (reading Ps. 74.2, `confitebimur tibi, deus, confitebimur tibi, et invocabimus nomen tuum').

    A. acts up to his training as grammarian when he chooses to explore difficulty through etymology; cf. Marrou 127-128, but even he underestimates the practicality of the device for A. as a way of opening discussion of a difficult subject. For an exact parallel, cf. en. Ps. 30. en. 2 s. 3.4, `invocas deum, quando in te vocas deum. hoc est enim illum invocare, illum in te vocare, quodam modo eum in domum cordis tui invitare.' Sim. at en. Ps. 30. en. 2 s. 3.4, 52.8, 85.8, s. 47.7.8. Two passages offer further nuances: en. Ps. 79.14, `“et nomen tuum invocabimus” (Ps. 74.19); id est, te diligemus'; en. Ps. 144.22, `ergo qui deum ipsum, a quo accepit de quibus gaudet, praeponit his omnibus rebus quas accepit, ipse invocat deum in veritate. . . . tunc eris rectus, cum in omnibus bonis quae facit, deus tibi placet; in omnibus malis quae pateris, deus tibi non displicet. hoc est invocare deum in veritate.'

    vocabo vocabo C D O Maur. Ver.:   invocabo G S Eug. Knöll Skut.

    qui fecit caelum et terram: Gn. 1.1, `in principio fecit deus caelum et terram.' (The fecit is characteristic of the version in which Augustine quotes Genesis: for text, see on 13.1.1.) Because Bks. 11-13 comment at length on the first chapter of Genesis, this verse offers the most frequently repeated verbal pattern in conf.

    caelum et terram: See on 12.2.2ff for full discussion (and cf. also Gn. litt. 1). The phrase may mean either the visible heaven and earth as representative of all of visible creation, or it may be taken to represent both invisible and visible creation--on that reading, terra represents all that is material and visible, while caelum becomes the caelum caeli (12.2.2). A.'s interpretation ensures that the phrase remains all-embracing, even for readers who do not share the cosmology of the author of Genesis.

    inferi: inferi C D G O1 S Knöll Skut.:   inferis sum O2:   in infernis Maur:   in <profundis> inferi Ver
    (cf. 3.6.11, `in profunda inferi') Interpretation is controversial:

    nam etsi descendero: Ps. 138.8, `si ascendero in caelum, tu ibi es; si descendero in infernum, ades'; en. Ps. 138.11, `etiam illic ades, ut vindices. quo ergo iturus sum, ut a facie tua fugiam, id est, iratum te non sentiam?' This descent is not ethically neutral, but implies sin, flight, and avoidance. On that, cf. Cassian conl. 1.14.2 quoting Ps. 113.17-18 and adding a parenthetical gloss: `“non mortui laudabunt te, domine: neque omnes qui descendunt in infernum” (sine dubio: peccati).'

    As in 1.1.1, the method is to proceed by questioning (quaerere); adducing scriptural authority, this is the first declarative sentence in the paragraph. The second declarative sentence that follows makes explicit the conclusion authorized by scripture. He then (`an potius . . . omnia') revises the conclusion just reached through further inquiry culminating in renewed citation of scriptural authority. The revision is affirmed in the elliptical sentence to follow (`etiam sic . . .').

    ex quo omnia: Not an echo only of Rom. 11.36, `quoniam ex ipso et per ipsum et in ipso sunt omnia: ipsi gloria in saecula saeculorum. amen.' du Roy 479-485 shows that this is a liturgical doxology based on the Romans verse but fused with 1 Cor. 8.6 (`ex quo omnia . . . per quem omnia'). Both the `doxology' and a more accurate `citation' of the Romans verse occur at all periods of A.'s career, but the `doxology' form appears as early as quant. an. 34.77 and mor. 1.14.24, hence (on du Roy's argument) attests a liturgical influence at an early period that scholars have tended to see as intellectualist and Platonic rather than churchly. (Only here so fully in conf.; echoes with a light touch at 1.6.10, 4.12.18, 4.15.24, 7.20.26, 12.7.7, 12.19.28 [some so indirect as to be unable to tell whether they reflect the `doxology' or the `citation'; where it is possible to judge, these echoes favor the `doxology', but they are not on du Roy's list]).

    qui dixit: Jer. 23.24, `numquid non caelum et terram ego impleo? dicit dominus.' This passage is regularly used as an affirmative statement, not even a rhetorical question, by Augustine: cons. ev. 1.23.31, civ. 12.26, 22.29, trin. 2.5.7, `ubique enim erat qui ait “caelum et terram ego impleo.”'

    The collocation of Ps. 138.8 + Rom. 11.36 (both as `citation' and as `doxology') + Jer. 23.24 is frequent in A. as evidence for the ubiquity of God-as-trinity: Knauer 132. So trin. 2.5.7, en. Ps. 49.18, ep. 187.4.14, and (only Ps. + Jer.) Io. ev. tr. 36.8. (See also 4.9.14, Jer. with Ps. 138.7.) Ps. + Rom. at trin. 5.8.9, `nam et . . . dicitur . . . et “si ascendero in caelum tu ibi es,” quod ad locum [dicitur]. . . . itaque omnipotens pater, omnipotens filius, omnipotens spiritus sanctus, nec tamen tres omnipotentes, sed unus omnipotens, “ex quo omnia, per quem omnia, in quo omnia; ipsi gloria.” quidquid ergo ad se ipsum dicitur deus et de singulis personis ter dicitur patre et filio et spiritu sancto, et simul de ipsa trinitate non pluraliter sed singulariter dicitur.'

    text of 1.3.3

    1.3.3

    Argument by rhetorical question: There are almost 700 question marks in the text of conf.: many are explicitly `rhetorical' (`put not to elicit information, but as a more striking substitute for a statement of contrary effect': Fowler, Modern English Usage), and most of the rest are like those in the last two sentences here, open-ended when asked, but swiftly resolved by A. This is a high frequency of interrogation, but ancient practice was more abundant in this regard than modern: in 31 OCT pages of Cic. har. resp., e.g., there are 38 question marks (about half the conf. rate), while in a comparable piece of modern expository prose, there are only 15 (less than a quarter the conf. rate). Where it is difficult to speak of God (cf. the end of 1.4.4), the rhetorical question has the effect of sharing the burden of direct assertion with the audience; and where quaerere is a theme, the audience can share that as well.

    ergone: Enclitic interrogative -ne occurs 33 times in conf., 17 in the form of nonne (then always in first position in phrase or clause); in every case save this one, the word to which -ne is attached stands first in the caesum or membrum (twice the word is ergone: 4.14.22, 10.37.61).

    refundis: refundis O C D Maur Skut Ver:   refundes G S Knöll
    Present time is required by `restat', `imples', and the context.

    quoquam: quoquam C D O1 S1 edd.:   a quoquam G O2 S2

    effunderis: Act. 2.17, 18, `effundam de spiritu meo': Peter's first speech, quoting Joel 2.28-29 (Vg.), `effundam spiritum meum super omnem carnem; . . . (29) in diebus illis effundam spiritum meum' (following Vg. Joel); in the divine voice also elsewhere in OT, e.g., Is. 44.3, `effundam spiritum meum'.

    erigis: Ps. 145.8, `dominus erigit elisos'; en. Ps. 145.17, `quare elisi sunt? quia erecti erant. quare eriguntur? quia humilati sunt. cecidit atque elisus est Adam: ille cecidit, Christus descendit. quare descendit qui non cecidit, nisi ut levaretur qui cecidit?' Cf. 9.10.24 (Ostia), `erigentes nos ardentiore affectu in idipsum'.

    conligis nos: Is. 11.12, `et levabit signum in nationes et congregabit profugos Israhel et dispersos Israhel conliget.' (The context is messianic: cf. 11.1ff, `radix Iesse'.) Ps. 146.2, `aedificans Hierusalem dominus, et dispersiones Israhel conligens'; en. Ps. 146.4, `induit enim se ille mortalitatem carnis, et ibi erat sanguis quo fuso redimeremur. illo sanguine conlegit dispersiones Israel.' s. 96.6.6, `a multis curre ad unum, dispersa conlige in unum.' The notion recurs in conf.: cf. 1.4.4, 2.1.1, `conligens me a dispersione' (sim. at 10.11.18, 12.16.23), 10.29.40, `per continentiam quippe conligimur et redigimur in unum, a quo in multa defluximus,' 10.40.65. The scriptural language has a neo-Platonic correlate (e.g., Plotinus 4.8.4.14-15, [yu/xh] me/ros genome/nh monou=tai/ te kai\ a)sqenei= kai\ polupragmonei= kai\ pro\s me/ros ble/pei; Plotinus 6.9.1.1-14, pa/nta ta\ o)/nta tw=| e(ni/ e)stin o)/nta ... kai\ dh\ kai\ ta\ twn futw=n kai\ zw|/wn sw/mata e(\n o)/nta e(/kasta ei) feu/goi to\ e(\n e)is plh=qos qrupto/mena, th\n ou)si/an au(tw\n, h(\n ei)=xen, a)pw/lesen ou)ke/ti o)/nta a(\ n)=n), but neither scripture nor Plotinus is ever a wholly sufficient explanation for such expressions.

    (1) Though it may seem self-evident that A. found such notions in his neo-Platonic sources, then sought out the scriptural warrants that would support them, the process is likely to have been more complicated. What he found in the neo-Platonists that appealed to him had some correspondence to what he knew and thought before ever he read the platonicorum libri, for he did not come to those texts in any specially naive or untaught way. What he selected of the neo-Platonists to retain by the time of writing conf. was further influenced by what of their doctrine he thought compatible with (better: thought to be a reflection of) Christian doctrine. Moderns find his mature doctrine (that Christian teaching is the antecedent and lucid whole, neo-Platonism the derivative and imperfect reflection) to be the reverse of what we expect, and we now portray an A. who manufactured Christian doctrines from neo-Platonic cloth: the argument may perhaps be sustained, but we should never forget that to A. it seemed otherwise.

    (2) Here, moreover, a doctrine of dispersion of divine being into material fragments, and the hope of restoration of wholeness, was central to the Manichees: ep. 236.2, `animas non solum hominum sed etiam pecorum de dei esse substantia et omnino partes dei esse arbitrantur. deum denique bonum et verum dicunt cum tenebrarum gente pugnasse et partem suam tenebrarum principibus miscuisse eamque toto mundo inquinatam et ligatam per cibos electorum suorum et per solem ac lunam purgari asseverant et, quod purgari de ipsa dei parte non potuerit, in fine saeculi aeterno ac poenali vinculo conligari'. The coincidence points to a late antique habit of thought that perceived the world-as-experienced as a place of shards and fragments, and supplemented that perception with a yearning for wholeness. A. knew Manichean, Platonic, and Christian forms of that perception and that yearning and chose to use Christian ones here, without having to abjure echoes of other forms.

    ubique totus: Again at 3.7.12, 6.3.4 (`ubique totus es'), 12.2.2. For the phrase in A., see du Roy 469-470, at 470: `Chez Augustin en tout cas, ce thème est certainement d' origine plotinienne et provient sans doute de Enn. 6.4-5. . . . Ce thème n'apparaît donc qu'en 388, au moment du séjour d'Augustin à Rome.' For a more ambitious attempt to find roots in Plotinian thought, see R. J. O'Connell, REAug 9(1963), 1-39. Note also Mart. Cap. 7.731 predicating `ubique totum' of the Monad (see on 4.15.24), and Macrob. somn. Scip. 1.17.11 applying `ubique tota, ubique perfecta' to the `world soul' in a paragraph expressly citing Plotinus (prob. Plot. 2.2.1.39-40, e)/ti pantaxou= ou)=sa h( yuxh\ o(/lh; the same idea, less verbally apposite, at Porph. sent. 2, a)sw/mata ... pantaxh= e)stin ... a)merws).

    Of the numerous parallels in fourth-century Christian writers cited by du Roy, the most important is Amb., de fide 1.16.106 (in form not unlike conf. 1.4.4), `complens omnia, nusquam ipse confusus, penetrans omnia, nusquam ipse penetrandus, ubique totus eodemque tempore vel in caelo, vel in terris, vel in novissimo maris praesens.' Since A. attributes his doctrine of divine being (and the confutation of the notion that Christianity required anthropomorphism) to Ambrose, the bishop's formulation may have had a more proximate influence than the philosopher's. (Other Christian texts cited by du Roy include: the Latin Origen, Basil, Chrysostom, Arnobius adv. nat. 6.4, `ubique esse totos', Hil. Pict. trin. 2.6, `totus ubicumque est' [and 3x in his Psalm comms.], Hier., in Eph. 1.2, `totus ubique'; the thought without the ipsissima verba is in Paulinus of Nola, ep. 24.1, `qui unus atque idem ubique terrarum'; ep. 30.2, `unus atque idem . . . ubique'.)

    Appearances in A. begin in 388 and continue throughout his career (this list substantially expands du Roy 469-470, but is probably not complete): mor. 1.11.19 (`postremo quis me locus ab eius caritate divellet, qui non ubique totus esset si ullo contineretur loco'); lib. arb. 2.14.38, c. ep. fund. 15.20 (`ubique integram, ubique praesentem'), 16.16, div. qu. Simp. 2.6, trin. 5.1.2, 13.19.24, and 14.15.22, Gn. litt. 11.33.43, Io. ev. tr. 1.8, 31.9, 34.6, 78.1, civ. 1.29, 7.30, 11.5, 11.10, 16.5, and 22.29 (quoting Jer. 23.24: see on 1.2.2 above), qu. hept. 2.151, 5.10, Dulc. qu. 8.1, haer. 86, epp. 92.3, 118.4.23 (`qui enim didicerit deum non distendi aut diffundi per locos neque finitos neque infinitos, quasi in aliqua parte maior sit in aliqua minor, sed totum ubique esse praesentem'), 120.3.14-17 (3x), 137.2.4-7 (2x), 137.3.12, 140.3.6, 147.12.29, 148.1.1-3 (4x), 155.4.13 (`qui ubique praesens est et ubique totus, non pedibus licet ire licet sed moribus': on `non pedibus', see on 1.18.28), 162.9, 166.2.4, 187.4.14, 187.5.17, 187.6.18, 187.8.29, 187.12.35, 187.13.38, and 187.13.41, ss. 12.12.12, 52.5.15, 53.8.7, 120.2-3 (3x: here it is the Verbum that is ubique totum), 264.4, 277.13.13 (2x), 277.19.18, 341.2.2, and 377.1, s. Mai 158.4, en. Ps. 18. en. 2.3, 67.7, 99.5.

    text of 1.4.4

    1.4.4

    Invocation at last: A. calling on his God to give power to his speech. Once again inquiry finds its answer in a scriptural text--again a rhetorical question.

    The paragraph is a tissue of paradoxes, with a submerged polemical purpose. The commonest antitheses are between the apparent mutability and this-worldly action of God and the immutability and otherwordliness that orthodoxy proclaims. One effect of asserting those pairs of opposites is to rule out Manichean criticism of the God of the Old Testament. For the criticism as A. saw it, cf. mor. 1.10.16, `desinite errare, non colimus paenitentem deum, non invidum, non indigum, non crudelem, non quaerentem de hominum vel pecorum sanguine voluptatem, non cui flagitia et scelera placeant, non possessionem suam terrae quadam particula terminantem. in has enim atque huiusmodi nugas graviter copioseque invehi soletis.'

    For the form of the paragraph, cf. Amb. de fide 1.16.106 (quoted above on 1.3.3, `ubique totus'). Detailed discussion of this paragraph by W. Simon, Wissenschaft und Weisheit 45(1982), 130-157; he collects many more biblical parallels for the expressions here, confining himself less strictly to specific verbal echoes.

    es: es C D G O Maur. Ver.:   est S Knöll Skut.
    For the comma after `ergo', see B. Löfstedt, Symb. Osl. 56(1981), 105.

    quis enim dominus: Ps. 17.32, `quoniam quis deus, praeter dominum? et quis deus praeter deum nostrum?' The MSS are unanimous in favor of `dominus' against the Ps.-text.

    summe, optime . . .: Cf. Wisd. 7.22, `sanctus, unicus, multiplex, subtilis, disertus, mobilis, incoinquinatus, certus, suavis, amans bonum, acutus'. See below on `innovans omnia'.

    summe: `furthest above', viewed from beneath, not from afar (contrast `altissimus' : Ps. 7.18 and often elsewhere in OT); 6.3.4, `altissime et proxime'.

    omnipotentissime: Language here is pressed beyond its own extremes; omnipotens strictly should have no comparative or superlative, but it is used, e.g. by A. at civ. 21.9, `per miraculum omnipotentissimi creatoris', and by Macrob., somn. Scip. 1.17.12, `deus ille omnipotentissimus'.

    misericordissime et iustissime: Paradox is another way beyond the limits of language. Here, as often, it has scriptural warrant: Ps. 114.5, `misericors dominus et iustus, et deus noster miseretur'; en. Ps. 114.5, `misericors primum, quia inclinavit aurem suam mihi; et nesciebam propinquasse aurem dei mei ori meo, nisi per illos speciosos pedes excitarer, ut invocarem; quis enim eum invocavit, nisi quem ipse prior vocavit? hinc ergo primum misericors. iustus autem, quia flagellat.' Cf. also c. adv. leg. 1.20.40 quoted below on `paenitet te'.

    Though the comparative and superlative of misericors are not unexampled elsewhere, A. is noticeably fond of the superlative particularly. TLL 8.1128 reports the comparative once each in Plautus and Cicero as well as ps.-Quintilian and 3x in civ.; the superlative is only attested from A. `saepe' (56x; in conf. at 6.5.7, 6.8.13, 9.2.4), ps.-Amb. s. 17.2, and Leo Magnus s. 2.2.

    secretissime et praesentissime: `Most hidden away and most at hand'. Not merely facts about place, but attributions of mystery and benevolence; cf. 6.3.4, `secretissime et praesentissime,' quant. an. 34.77, `quo nihil sit secretius, nihil praesentius,' and civ. 1.29, `deus meus ubique praesens, ubique totus [see on 1.3.3], nusquam inclusus, qui possit adesse secretus, abesse non motus.' Both the remoteness and the presence of God are evoked later, in approximately equal proportions. secretus: 1.18.29 (`quam tu secretus es'), 5.6.11, 9.7.16 (`in thesauro secreti tui'), 10.42.67, 10.43.68, 11.2.3, 11.31.41. praesens: 5.2.2, 5.8.14 (`et praesentissima in nos misericordia tua'), 5.9.16 (`tu autem ubique praesens'), 7.1.2, 9.8.18, 9.9.22, 12.11.12.

    pulcherrime: See on 10.27.38 (`pulchritudo').

    incomprehensibilis: Jn. 1.5, `et tenebrae eum non comprehenderunt'; Jer. 32.19, `magnus consilio, et incomprehensibilis cogitatu'; Rom. 11.33, `quam incomprehensibilia sunt iudicia eius!'

    G-M: `A's rhetorical ingenuity finds play in the series of antitheses which follow.' The matter is more serious than that. Here it is the elusiveness--the incomprehensibility--of God that reduces A. to the rhetoric of paradox (see en. Ps. 146.11, quoted on 1.1.1, `magna virtus tua').

    immutabilis: The immutability of God is a principle firmly held, and often stated, by A. at all periods--even, to hear him tell it, in his Manichean phase; cf. on 1.6.10, `non mutaris' , and on 7.1.1, `incommutabilem'. en. Ps. 43.5, `“tu es ipse rex meus et deus meus.” tu es ipse, non enim mutatus es. tempora mutata video, creator temporum non mutatur.'

    innovans omnia: Wisd. 7.27, `in se ipsa manens innovat omnia' (cf. trin. 2.8.14, `eadem quippe incommutabilitas eius commemorata est ut diceretur, “in se ipsa manens innovat omnia”'). Also at 7.11.17, 9.10.24, and often echoed and cited, e.g., lib. arb. 2.17.45, `conficitur itaque ut corpus et animus forma quadam incommutabili et semper manente formentur.'

    in vetustatem perducens: Job 9.5, `qui in vetustatem perducit montes et nesciunt'; adn. Iob on 9.5, `qui in vetustatem perducit montes et nesciunt: id est ad infirmitatem, ut est, “inveteravi in omnibus inimicis meis.”' (Ps. 6.8) Cf. Gal. 6.15, `nova creatura', et sim. For the substitution of superbos for montes, en. Ps. 143.12, `montes superbos' (see on 8.2.4).

    quietus: 13.38.53, `tu autem bonum nullo indigens [cf. `et non egens' here] bono semper quietus es, quoniam tua quies tu ipse es'; cf. 13.36.51.

    conligens: See on 1.3.3, `conligis nos'.

    non egens: Act. 17.25 (Paul on the Areopagus), `nec manibus colitur indigens aliquo, cum ipse det omnibus vitam, et inspirationem, et omnia.' Divine self-sufficiency is classical from Plato Tim. 29d on (cf. Plotinus 5.4.1.); cf. 13.4.5, `non ex indigentia' , and see on 13.8.9.

    implens: Cf. 1.3.3.

    zelas . . . paenitet . . . irasceris: c. adv. leg. 1.20.40, `non enim sicut hominem paenitet deum; sed sicut deum, quemadmodum non sicut homo irascitur nec sicut homo miseretur nec sicut homo zelat, sed omnia sicut deus. paenitentia dei non est post errorem; ira dei non habet perturbati animi ardorem; misericordia dei non habet compatientis miserum cor, unde in latina lingua nomen accepit; zelus dei non habet mentis livorem. . . . [see quotation below on `diximus'] . . . sic ergo quando eum paenitet, non mutatur et mutat; sicut quando irascitur, non movetur et vindicat; et quando miseretur, non dolet et liberat; et quando zelat, non cruciatur et cruciat.' The parallel between the present passage of conf. and the quotation (from 420) suggests that the emotions predicated of God, which do not seem to occur together in any scriptural passage, were grouped this way in controversy known to A. before he wrote conf., probably from Manichee days. Cf. the following scriptural occurrences (samples only):

    usuras exigis: Mt. 25.14-30, the parable of the talents; for the conventional expression, cf. Amb. off. 1.32.168, `si ipse non exigas avarus'.

    supererogatur: cf. Lk. 10.35, `quodcumque supererogaveris, ego cum rediero reddam tibi.'

    et quis habet: 1 Cor. 4.7, `quid autem habes quod non accepisti?' Cf. gr. et lib. arb. 6.15, `dona sua coronat deus, non merita tua; si tibi a te ipso, non ab illo sunt merita tua.'

    reddis: reddis C G O Maur. Skut. Ver.:   reddens S Knöll
    Cf. 9.13.36, `dimissa debita sua ab eo cui nemo reddet quod pro nobis non debens reddit'; Mt. 6.12, `dimitte nobis debita nostra'.

    donas: donas C D G O S1 Maur. Skut. Ver.:   donans S2 Knöll

    diximus: i.e., in this very paragraph. Invocation is inadequate. Io. ev. tr. 13.5, `omnia possunt dici de deo et nihil digne dicitur de deo'; c. adv. leg. 1.20.40 (ellipsis from passage quoted above: the `adversary of the Law' shared with the Manichees a disdain for the Old Testament), `unde iste qui tam loquaciter exagitavit dei paenitentiam, discat primo vix inveniri aliquid quod digne de deo dici possit, sed plurima et paene omnia nos de illo dicere loquendi necessitate, quae magis homines ex hominibus metiuntur. . . . propter quod providentissime scriptura divina de illo ineffabili loquens ad quaedam etiam verba descendit, quae iam hominibus et ipsis carnalibus, cum de deo sermo est, videntur absurda et indigna: ut, cum timentur ista sic accipi quomodo in hominibus solet et discutiuntur quemadmodum de deo bene accipi possint, ibi discatur etiam illa quae humanis sensibus in eisdem scripturis deo digna videbantur, non secundum hominum mores intellegi vel credi oportere.' Sim. at doctr. chr. 1.6.6 (`diximusne aliquid et sonuimus aliquid dignum deo?'), Gn. c. man. 1.8.14 (`nihil enim de deo digne dici potest'), s. 117.10.15 (`illud verbum, de quo tanta et tam multa diximus, et nihil dignum diximus'), s. 341.7.9 (`quid ergo de deo digne dicitur? . . . qui autem et ista transcenderit et de deo, quantum homini conceditur, digne cogitare coeperit, inveniet silentium ineffabili cordis voce laudandum.'). For concise summary of an important subject, R. Flores, Aug. Stud. 6(1975), 1-13; sim. in M. Colish, The Mirror of Language (rev. ed. Lincoln, Neb., 1983), 17-48.

    vita mea: Jn. 11.25, `ego sum resurrectio et vita'; Jn. 14.6, `ego sum via veritas et vita.' As vocative to God again at 1.13.20, 1.17.27, 3.6.10, 7.1.2, 9.13.35, 10.17.26, 12.25.34.

    dulcedo mea sancta: See on 1.6.9. `dulcedo mea'.

    tacentibus: Cf. Ps. 31.3, `quoniam tacui, inveteraverunt ossa mea'; en. Ps. 31. en. 1.3 paraphrases: `quoniam non protuli ore confessionem ad salutem'; en. Ps. 31. en. 2.13, `tacuit confessionem, clamavit praesumptionem. “tacui” enim dixit, “non sum confessus.”'

    quoniam loquaces muti sunt: `For though they say much [about other things] they are mute [in all that matters]'; 10 BA: `Et malheur à ceux qui se taisent sur toi puisque, bavards, ils sont muets.'. The oxymoron (mutus offers the natural antonym for loquax at civ. 4.19, `Fortuna loquax et muta Felicitas') has puzzled. The preceding sentence (`et quid diximus . . . cum de te dicit') treats those who, like A., do speak of God; this sentence refers to those who say nothing at all of God--or better, who utter many words but succeed in saying nothing that genuinely speaks of the God who is. The phrase recurs at 7.2.3, `sat erat mihi . . . adversus . . . loquaces mutos [sc. manichaeos] . . . illud quod . . . proponi solebat'. Its use there does not suggest that the persons referred to in the present passage are well-intentioned. The Manichees are models of curiositas (see on 3.6.10); at 7.6.8, there is a parallel case of curiosi (astrologers) who rattle on, their language out of control, so much so that they even foretell the future correctly by pure chance sometimes, and cf. civ. 18.24, `philosophorum subtilis et acuta loquacitas'; en. Ps. 144.7, `eloquentes muti, laudantes creaturam, obliviscentes creatorem'. Cf. 5.7.12, where `loquaces . . . dicentes nihil,' also refers to the Manichees; cf. also 8.10.22, `vaniloqui et mentis seductores' --of Manichees (sim. association at civ. 5.26, `quid est loquacius vanitate?': vanitas linked with loquacitas at least 17x in A.'s works); they are the frequent, but not exclusive, targets of the same reproach often elsewhere (e.g., Gn. c. man. 1.16.26-17.27, 2.25.38 [`nulli enim loquacius']; of himself as a Manichee at persev. 2.55, `quam [fidem catholicam] miserrima et furiosissima loquacitate vastabam').

    An alternate interpretation is not uncommon: Pusey: `Yet woe to him that speaketh not, since mute are even the most eloquent.' J. M. Campbell and M. R. P. McGuire, The Confessions of Saint Augustine (New York, 1931, ad loc.: `even the most eloquent in his praise are as if mute'. Others equivocate (e.g., G-M: `since those who say most are no better than dumb'). W. Simon, Wissenschaft und Weisheit 45(1982), 156-157, turns the expression on its head by seeing in `loquaces muti sunt' allusion to Gospel passages where the mute are made to speak (Pellegrino/Carena suggest the same link), but he does not discuss the force of loquax in A.

    Pizzolato, Lectio I-II 26 and 26n95, wavers between two translations: `dal momento che anche chi è muto ne parla' (silence speaks volumes--this the version he mainly prefers: but if our silence praises God anyway, then why worry whether we speak or not?), and `dal momento che anche chi ne parla è muto' (speaking much says nothing). Neither reading takes into account the pejorative quality of loquaces. Pizzolato also cites several parallel passages, corroborating A.'s insistence on the ineffability of God, but not pertinent here: doctr. chr. 4.19.38, en. Ps. 32. en. 2 s. 1.8, en. Ps. 148.3, en. Ps. 134.11 (`ipsum voluisse laudasse est. non enim verba a te quaerit deus, sed cor'). To the same end, see also en. Ps. 102.8, `ergo si non possumus dicere, et prae gaudio non permittitur tacere, nec loquamur, nec taceamus. quid ergo faciamus, non loquentes et non tacentes?'

    If loquacitas is most at this period a fault charged to the Manichees, it becomes for A. the pre-eminent flaw of Julian's character: from the first paragraph of c. Iul. imp., the accusation occurs no fewer than 78 times in that work. Thus faults of speech were at all times ones that A. felt strongly about, and feared to fall into (n.b. also late in life, retr. pr. 2 quoting Prov. 10.19, `ex multiloquio non effugies peccatum' as a caution prior to reviewing his own abundant literary output).11

    text of 1.5.5

    1.5.5

    adquiescere: Cf. 1.1.1, `inquietum'; 13.38.53.

    inebries: en. Ps. 22.5, `inebrians . . . oblivionem praestans priorum vanarum delectationum'; see further on 5.13.23, `sobriam vini ebrietatem'.

    amplectar: See on 10.6.8.

    quid mihi es? . . . quid tibi sum ipse: sol. 1.1.7, `(A.) ecce oravi deum. (Ratio) quid ergo scire vis? (A.) haec ipsa omnia quae oravi. (Ratio) breviter ea conlige. (A.) deum et animam scire cupio. (Ratio) nihilne plus? (A.) nihil omnino.' sol. 2.1.1, `deus semper idem, noverim me, noverim te.'

    miserere ut loquar: cont. 1.1, `nam qui eam [continentiam] donat continentibus fidelibus suis, ipse dat sermonem de illa loquentibus ministris suis.' s. Caill. 2.5.1, `inde loquamur quod ipse donabit.' (See on 6.3.3 for other expressions of the way a bishop preaches not his own words but those given him by God for the occasion.) A.'s regular recourse to scriptural language is a sign of a deliberate attempt to accept--or to appropriate--the divine language for his own discourse.

    miserere . . . irascaris: en. Ps. 59.3, `merito “iratus es, et misertus es nostri.” non miserereris nisi irascereris. destruxisti nos in ira tua; sed ira tua in vetustatem nostram fuit, ut destrueretur vetustas. sed misertus es nostri propter novitatem'.

    per miserationes tuas: Here, it is not A. that confesses, but the merciful acts of God in A. speaking for him: Ps. 106.8, `confiteantur domino miserationes eius.' The verse occurs 4x in the Psalm as A. reads it (verses 8, 15, 21, 31); he makes this the pretext for an extended discussion of four kinds of temptation (liberation from which leads to this repeated prayer: Solignac, Lectio X-XIII 13, describes parallels to conf.): en. Ps. 106.8, `prima temptatio erroris et famis verbi [e.g., of one completely untouched by the word of God--A. when young]; secunda difficultatis vincendarum concupiscentiarum [e.g., A. in Bk. 8]; tertia taedii atque fastidii [cf. en. Ps. 106.6, `iam non te illicit adulterium, nec tamen delectat dei verbum' --an anticipation of monastic accidie]; quarta tempestatis et periculorum in gubernandis ecclesiis [cf. 10.36.59ffff]; et in his omnibus exclamationes, et liberationes, et miserationum dei confessiones.' Elsewhere, with variations, at 1.15.24, 5.10.20, 7.6.8.

    ecce: 115x in conf., evenly distributed; less common in his other works of sustained exposition (over a comparable amount of text in civ., 17x, in trin., 24x), but common in en. Ps. (85x in one sample of comparable length). A spoken punctuation mark, adding emphasis.

    aures cordis: Cf. 1.20.31, `interiore sensu' (lib. arb. 2.4.10, `arbitror etiam illud esse manifestum, sensum illum interiorem non ea tantum sentire quae accepit a quinque sensibus corporis, sed etiam ipsos ab eo sentiri'); see on 10.6.9-10 for the interior homo and interior sensus. The connection, giving reality to what began as metaphor, is already implied in `amplectar'.

    dic animae meae: Ps. 34.3, `dic animae meae, salus tua ego sum'; en. Ps. 34. s. 1.5, `cum dixeris animae meae, “salus tua ego sum,” iuste vivet [anima], ut neminem in adiutorium praeter te quaeram.' A. seeks divine help to speak; to signify his intention of accepting that help, he cites scripture; the scripture he cites contains the word of another man asking God to speak to him. The verse recurs significantly at 10.4.6, where it marks another transition from hearing to independent speech. On this verse in conf., see M. Pellegrino, Augustinianum 7(1967), 221-257.

    noli abscondere: Exod. 33.20 (on Sinai), `non poteris videre faciem meam: non enim videbit me homo et vivet.' en. Ps. 12.1, `avertere autem deus faciem dicitur, dum non dat animae notitiam sui, quae adhuc purum mentis oculum non habet'; en. Ps. 9.5, `“a facie” dei, id est a cognitione dei'. See on 1.18.28, `quaesivi vultum tuum' (Ps. 26.9). On facies, cf. on 1.18.28.

    moriar, ne moriar, ut eam videam: s. 231.3.3, `qui autem nondum mortuus est, nec resurrexit, male adhuc vivit: et si male vivit, non vivit: moriatur, ne moriatur. quid est, moriatur, ne moriatur? mutetur, ne damnetur. . . . “mortui enim estis, et vita vestra abscondita est cum Christo in deo.” [Col. 3.3]' That passage is decisive against misreadings, e.g., G-M: `Lit. I would die to see it, lest I die (by not seeing it).' Pusey's note is closer to the truth (`i.e., Let me see the face of God, though I die, since if I see it not, but it be turned away, I must needs die, and that “the second death”'); the alternate punctuation of G. Wijdeveld, Vig. Chr. 10(1956), 229-231 (as already in an old note by J. le Clercq [1657-1736] reprinted at PL 47.204), is likewise excluded.

    text of 1.5.6

    1.5.6

    domus animae meae: en. Ps. 100.4, `domus enim nostra interior, cor nostrum est'; cf. Is. 49.20, `angustus est mihi locus, fac spatium mihi ut habitem'; Mt. 8.8, `non sum dignus ut intres sub tectum meum.' In a different sense, but not long before conf., cf. ep. 27.1 (to Paulinus of Nola), `quo modo ergo non doleam, quod nondum faciem tuam novi, hoc est domum animae tuae, quam sicut meam novi?'

    For metaphor introduced as epexegetic genitive, see Verheijen, Eloquentia Pedisequa, 135-136, and cf. 1.7.12, `oblivionis tenebrae'; 1.16.26, `vinum erroris'; also common in biblical Latin, e.g., Ps. 59.5, `vinum compunctionis', Job 3.5, `tenebrae mortis'.

    quo: Wijdeveld (REAug 5[1959], 33), proposed repunctuation: `angusta est domus animae meae. Quo venias ad eam, dilatetur abs te.' Against that punctuation is the arrangement of the following two sentences (`refice eam' parallels `dilatetur abs te', while `quae offendant oculos tuos' offers a parallel for the subordinate clause) and the construction itself: in conf. quo introduces a purpose clause without comparative (LHS 679-680) at least three times (6.13.23, 8.3.7, 9.12.32), but in those cases the quo-clause comes second in the sentence. It is not easy to find parallels for the construction and arrangement Wijdeveld proposes.

    ruinosa: Ezech. 36.10, `et habitabuntur civitates, et ruinosa instaurabuntur'; Ezech. 36.33, `et instauravero ruinosa.' At s. 86.1.1, `domus terrena ruinosa est: domus caelestis aeterna est,' offers a metaphor for the contrast between the mortal body and the resurrected body. The image in different context: s. 311.17.14, `sed mala, inquis, fiunt in mundo, aspera immunda, odiosa. foedus est, non ametur. ecce talis est, et sic amatur. ruinosa est domus, et piget migrare.'

    fateor: first occurrence of fateor; confiteor not until 1.6.9.

    ab occultis: Ps. 18.13-14, `delicta quis intellegit? ab occultis meis munda me, domine, et ab alienis parce servo tuo.' lib. arb. 3.10.29, `cum enim duae sint origines peccatorum, una spontanea cogitatione, alia persuasione alterius, quo pertinere arbitror quod propheta dicit, “ab occultis meis munda me, domine, et ab alienis parce servo tuo.”' Identical interpretation with noteworthy continuity of opinion at en. Ps. 18. en. 1.14 (392) and en. Ps. 18. en. 2.13 (411/12). See also on 2.9.17, `delicta quis intellegit?'

    propter quod: speech the earnest of faith: Ps. 115.10, `credidi propter quod locutus sum, ego autem humilatus sum nimis'; 2 Cor. 4.13, `habentes autem eundem spiritum fidei, sicut scriptum est, “credidi propter quod locutus sum,” et nos credimus, propter quod et loquimur'; en. Ps. 115.2, `hoc est, perfecte credidi. non enim perfecte credunt qui quod credunt loqui nolunt.' Cf. 11.22.28. The punctuation is from B. Löfstedt, Symb. Osl. 56(1981), 105, with evidence on position of vocatives.

    tu scis: Knauer 76-77 lists the nineteen occurrences of `tu scis', an expression with strong biblical and Psalmish overtones. The phrase emphasizes the personal tone, and is markedly `confessional'. God could tell this story better than A., if only he would.

    prolocutus sum: The rare verb means `reveal, expound, expose'; cf. 5.3.3, `proloquar in conspectu dei mei annum illum undetricensimum aetatis meae.' The word is a curio here. It is