Book Three

Book 3 is tripartite:

3.1.1 - 3.3.6

Student life at Carthage: from flagitiosi amores to the spectacula

3.4.7 - 3.10.18

Quest for `Wisdom'

3.4.7 - 3.5.9

In Cicero's Hortensius

3.6.10 - 3.10.18

Among the Manichees

3.11.19 - 3.12.21

Monnica's attitude.

Curiositas predominates, but all three temptations are present; note concupiscentia carnis here in 3.1.1 and superbia in 3.3.6.

3.1.1

This dense and vivid passage reprises the opening of Bk. 2. (The beginnings of books of conf. are more often closely related to the conclusions of the books just finished, as at the junctures of 3/4, 5/6, 7/8, 8/9, 10/11; cf. civ. 2.2, recapitulating the first book.). Here the opening paragraph recapitulates to facilitate forward motion, and so only seems retrospective rather than prospective.

BA 13.665-667 gives a detailed note on this passage, from which extracts are given under the lemmata below; they react against G. Wijdeveld, Vig. Chr. 10(1956), 231-235. BA 665: `Augustin en effet ne décrit pas l'expérience telle qu'il la vécut en son temps, mais bien telle qu'il la réfléchit et la juge en évêque et en philosophe.' This paragraph is so vivid and memorable that it is often treated as if it were narrative in content, when it is in reality a tissue of meditative abstractions.

Carthaginem: Carthage, not Rome, remained for him the familiar epitome of urban life: ep. 43.3.7, `erat Carthago civitas ampla et inlustris, unde se per totum Africae corpus malum quod ibi esset exortum tamquam a vertice effunderet. erat etiam transmarinis vicina regionibus et fama celeberrima nobilis.' ep. 118.2.9, `cum duae tantae urbes latinarum litterarum artifices, Roma atque Carthago, nec taedio tibi sint . . . nec taedia tua curent'. The reputation of the city changed with time and with the outlook of the observer. Apul., flor. 20, had the old veneration for the place: `Carthago provinciae nostrae magistra venerabilis, Carthago Africae Musa caelestis, Carthago Camena togatorum'; but Salvian, two generations younger than A., was notoriously critical of the mores of the city (though it is far from clear how reliable his information was): gub. 7.16-17, `scaturrientem vitiis civitatem . . . quae enim fuit pars civitatis non plena sordibus, quae intra urbem platea aut semita non lupanar?'

sartago: Probably still `frying pan' (Lev. 6.21 [quoted at qu. hept. 3.15], `in sartagine, in oleo fiet, consparsam offeret eam'), but perhaps of the contents rather than the instrument at s. 273.8.8, `oderunt martyres lagenas vestras, oderunt martyres sartagines vestras, oderunt martyres ebrietates vestras.' Souter s.v. takes it as `a heated instrument of torture,' citing Cyprian Fort. 11, but that is clearly not what it is in A.'s sermon.

amare: amare G O1 Knöll S Skut. Ver.:   amari C D1 O2
See on 2.1.1; for the paradoxes, cf. div. qu. 35.1, `amandum est sine metu vivere. . . . an amor quoque ipse amandus est? ita vero, quando sine hoc illa non amantur. sed si propter alia quae amanda sunt amor amatur, non recte amari dicitur. nihil enim aliud est amare quam propter se ipsam rem aliquam appetere. . . . est enim et turpis amor, quo animus se ipso inferiora sectatur, quae magis proprie cupiditas dicitur, omnium scilicet malorum radix.'

secretiore indigentia (= `fames . . . ab interiore cibo'): BA: `c'est l'indigence de l'homme qui, faute de se connaître soi-même et de discerner la dignité de sa véritable essence, se disperse dans le sensible au lieu de se concentrer en soi pour y découvrir Dieu'; cf. 2.10.18, `regio egestatis', and texts cited there.

oderam me: As often in Latin (as with English `hated'), oderam is not much stronger than `disliked' (E. Fraenkel, Horace [Oxford, 1957], 263). For the implications here (when is self-love `really' a form of self-hatred?), see O. O'Donovan, The Problem of Self-Love in Augustine (New Haven, 1980), esp. 37-59; but he does not discuss the present passage.

minus indigentem: Take the clause thus: `In the midst of the regio egestatis I suffered an indigentia that affected me deep within (thus secretiore), and so I hated the very thought of what I might be like if I did not suffer that indigentia (`me minus indigentem'), hence I was entirely averse to anything that might have had a good effect on me. I "hated" the one thing that was good, "in love" with "Love", foolishly.' Hence the desperate need to love wrongly below. en. Ps. 118. s. 1.1, `nam quisquis libidinibus deditus luxuria stuprisque corrumpitur, in hoc malo beatitudinem quaerit et se miserum putat, cum ad suae concupiscentiae voluptatem laetitiamque non pervenit, beatum vero non dubitat iactare cum pervenit.'

securitatem et viam sine muscipulis: BA: `la securitas serait la consistance, la certitude, la sérénité de la vie chrétienne, ou du moins celle qui résulterait d'une légitime conception de l'amour humain; ce serait la vena et le candor d'une amicitia qu'aucun sentiment trouble ne viendrait ternir. La via sine muscipulis est celle où l'âme est à l'abri des corruptions (ou mieux des corrupteurs) de l'amour.' Wijdeveld, Vig. Chr. 10(1956), 233, cites en. Ps. 36. s. 3.13 (`ergo est securitas, sed si intus sit deus') and s. 40.5.7 (`quae est autem securitas, fratres, vel mea vel vestra, nisi ut domini iussa intente et diligenter audiamus et promissa fideliter expectemus?').

viam sine muscipulis: The editors adduce Wisd. 14.11, `propter hoc et idolis nationum non erit respectus, quoniam creaturae dei in odium factae sunt et in temptationem animis hominum et in muscipulum pedibus insipientium.' But the `path without pitfalls' is Christ (Ps. 141.4, `in via hac qua ingrediebar absconderunt mihi muscipulam'; en. Ps. 141.9, `via haec qua ingrediebatur, Christus est; ibi illi absconderunt muscipulam, qui persequuntur in Christo, propter nomen Christi'), who either did or did not encounter muscipulae himself. One consistent line of interpretation says he did: s. 130.2 (`ad pretium nostrum tetendit muscipulam crucem suam'), s. Guelf. 21.2 (= s. 263.1: `muscipula diaboli, crux domini'), s. Mor. 17.5 (`crux Christi muscipula fuit'). On the other hand there is en. Ps. 90. s. 1.4: `et longe ab ipsis muscipulis ambulant homines qui in Christo ambulant; non audet enim in Christo tendere muscipulam; circa viam ponit, in via non ponit. via autem tua Christus sit, et tu non cades in muscipulam diaboli. aberranti a via, iam ibi est muscipula.' Sim. at ss. 134.5.6 and 216.6.6.

Muscipula is common in A.'s Psalter, though rare in the Roman and Gallican versions. The flavor is important to catch: Ps. 90.3, `sperabo in eum, ipse eruet me de muscipula venantium et a verbo aspero' (cf. en. Ps. 90. s. 1.4 just quoted); Ps. 9.16, `in muscipula ista quam occultaverunt comprehensus est pes eorum' (en. Ps. 9.15, `muscipula occulta est dolosa cogitatio. pes animae recte intellegitur amor; qui cum pravus est, vocatur cupiditas aut libido; cum autem rectus, dilectio vel caritas.'); Ps. 30.5, `educes me de muscipula ista, quam occultaverunt'; Ps. 123.7, `anima nostra sicut passer eruta est de muscipula venantium; muscipula contrita est, et nos eruti sumus' (en. Ps. 123.12, `muscipula erat dulcedo vita huius'). Cf. also Ps. 9.31, 34.7-8, 63.6, 139.6, 140.9; and 1 Tim. 6.9 (VL). For treatments of the image without direct discussion of the present passage, see S. Poque, Le langage symbolique dans le prédication d'Augustin (Paris, 1984), 1.22-28, and J. Rivière, RTAM 1(1929), 484-496; the latter is an excellent survey, but makes no reference to conf. or this passage.

Other snares: 4.6.11 (`evellens de laqueo pedes meos'), 6.12.21 (`dulces laqueos in via eius'), 10.34.52 (`ut tu evellas de laqueo pedes meos').

ab (interiore cibo): `for want of.' BA: `ce n'est pas une faim de la nourriture intérieure, mais une faim par privation de cette nourriture.' He hungers for God, but does not know his hunger (`ea fame non esuriebam') and hence has no longing for incorruptible things (`sed eram sine desiderio alimentorum incorruptibilium'), not out of satiety (`non quia plenus eram'), but vacuity (`inanior').

fastidiosior: fastidiosior C1 D O1 S Knöll Skut. Ver. Pell.:   eo fastidiosior C2 O2 Maur.

ulcerosa: Cf. Job 2.7-8 (VL), `egressus diabolus a facie domini percussit Iob vulnere pessimo, a pedibus usque ad caput. (8) et tulit sibi testam, ut raderet saniem. et ipse sedebat in stercore.' The scene immediately precedes the temptation Job hears in the words of his wife: en. Ps. 133.2, `tunc Eva [!] ausa est eum temptare, “dic aliquid in deum tuum, et morere.”' But ulcerosus for A. regularly refers to the story of Dives and Lazarus (Lk. 16.20ff: en. Ps. 145.7, `duo erant: pauper ulcerosus ad ianuam iacens divitis, et dives indutus purpura et bysso, in epulis quotidie splendidis'); cf. `elegans et urbanus' below.

foras: See on 1.18.28, `ibam foras'; cf. also 4.15.27 and 7.16.22.

contactu: Touch is the sense to which sexual temptation appeals: see on 2.5.10.

si non haberent animam: G-M: `we do not speak of “loving” inanimate objects. A's meaning is that, even in this association, stained as it was with lust, he was seeking, however mistakenly, the satisfaction of a real soul hunger.' With the sentence that follows, it seems clear that he means that at this time, avid for contact with the sensible, he wanted to Love, and could not love what was without anima; hence, lust as the particular focus of his evil, the perverse parody of a central virtue. He could not stop loving, but he could only love in an evil way.

amare et amari: See on 2.2.2.

magis: The comma preceding introduced by Vega; magis occurs elsewhere at the beginning of a clause or extended phrase (1.6.8, et me talem fuisse magis mihi ipsi indicaverunt nescientes quam scientes nutritores mei; other examples at 1.9.15, 1.18.29, 3.1.1, 3.10.18, 4.15.26, 5.12.22, 5.14.25, 6.10.16, 9.4.7). Other editors (Knöll, Skut., Pell., Ver.) have put the comma after magis, (1) making `dulce . . . magis' a quasi-comparative (not impossible in later Latin, but not attested in conf.; for A.'s variations on traditional comparative forms, see Arts 43-45) and (2) reducing the affirmation to a single statement (`Love was sweeter if . . .'), breaking up the sequence (`Love was sweet, indeed even sweeter if . . .').

venam igitur amicitiae . . . obnubilabam: The wording brings us back to the opening of Bk. 2, reinforcing the prevalence of concupiscence in what has gone between. Cf. 2.2.2, `luminosus limes amicitiae' and `obnubilabant atque obfuscabant cor meum,' and 3.2.3, `vena amicitiae' (with context that makes clear that a channel for liquid is envisioned by the metaphor). The vena amicitiae is close in sense to the vena caritatis in similar context at b. coniug. 16.18 and Io. ep. tr. 6.2.

de tartaro libidinis: 8.4.9, `de tartaro caecitatis'.

foedus atque inhonestus: imm. an. 8.13, `quod si non id quod est in mole corporis, sed id quod in specie facit corpus esse, quae sententia invictiore ratione approbatur--tanto enim magis est corpus, quanto speciosius est atque pulchrius, tantoque minus est, quanto foedius ac deformius, quae defectio non praecisione molis . . . sed speciei privatione contingit.'

elegans et urbanus: J. V. Fleming, Reason and the Lover (Princeton, 1984), 95-96, renders `fine and courtly', with comments. At c. acad. 2.2.6, the true beauty of philosophy, hidden from one who is mired down in worldly delights (`baias et amoena pomeria et delicata nitidaque convivia et domesticos histriones'), though he struggles towards true beauty: `inde est illa hospitalitas, inde in conviviis multa humanitatis condimenta, inde ipsa elegantia, nitor, mundissima facies rerum omnium, et undique cuncta perfundens adumbratae venustatis urbanitas.' See the rest of that passage quoted on 2.1.1. On deformiter, cf. 10.27.38, `et in ista formosa quae fecisti deformis inruebam.'

misericordia mea: Mea corresponds to an objective genitive. Ps. 58.18, `adiutor meus, tibi psallam, quia deus susceptor meus es, deus meus misercordia mea'; en. Ps. 58. s. 2.11, `totum quidquid sum, de misericordia tua est.' Cf. Ps. 143.1-2; cf. also 3.3.5, bracketing this section: `et circumvolabat super me fidelis a longe misericordia tua.' Knauer 37, `Beide Stellen sagen das gleiche aus und sind wohlverständlich--Gott als “refugium” oder “auxilium”. Es kommt aber noch hinzu, dass sie den Abschnitt einrahmen, in dem Augustin die Theaterleidenschaft und ihre Motive . . . behandelt (3.2.2-4). Im Theater, wo seine eigenen “miseriae” dargestellt werden, wird doch nur eine “mirabilis insania” erregt (3.2.2). Je stärker man selber von dem vorgestellten Affekten betroffen ist, um so mehr verfällt man dieser Leidenschaft, die, erleidet man sie selber, “miseria”, leidet man aber für andere mit, “misericordia” genannt zu werden pflegt.'

felle . . . aspersisti: (see on 9.10.23, `aspersi') 1.14.23, `difficultas . . . quasi felle aspergebat omnes suavitates graecas fabulosarum narrationum.'

occulte: Vega: `Distinguíanse entre los romanos dos clases de concubinato: uno legal, público, en el que la mujer no tenía derechos jurídicos de esposa, y otro privado, o simple concubinato. San Agustín quiere dar a entender--más adelante lo dice claramente--que su unión fue de este segundo modo.' Per contra, Peter Brown, `Augustine and Sexuality', Colloquies of the Center for Hermeneutical Study, Protocol 46 (Berkeley, 1983), 2: `it was a relationship beyond moral reproach, even among the Catholic clergy' (which leaves occulte unexplained).

vinculum . . . nexibus: The attachment to sexual desire is often expressed as a bondage; see on 8.11.25. For `conligabar', cf. 8.1.2, `conligabar ex femina'; 8.8.20, `conligata vinculis' (again of sexual attachment, but more metaphorical).

ut caederer: To what is A. referring? He is at least deliberately taking upon himself the conventional ideas of the quarrels and the troubles of obsessed young lovers. That he uses hints of biblical language tacitly passes judgment on the relationship.

virgis ferreis: Ps. 2.9, `reges eos in virga ferrea'; en. Ps. 2.8, `in inflexibili iustitia'.

suspicionum . . . rixarum: Gal. 5.20, `manifesta autem sunt opera carnis quae sunt . . . contentiones, aemulationes, irae, rixae, dissensiones, sectae.'

3.2.2

Curiositas is always a vice for A. For a definition using the word itself, vera rel. 52.101, `quid enim appetit curiositas nisi cognitionem quae certa esse non potest nisi rerum aeternarum et eodem modo se semper habentium?'; though the word is absent, more revealing perhaps is vera rel. 33.62, `ille [animus] autem vult mentem convertere ad corpora, oculos ad deum. quaerit enim intellegere carnalia et videre spiritalia, quod fieri non potest.'

For bibliography, see on 10.35.54. There is much originality to A.'s development, but the possible influence of Ambrose has not been sufficiently considered. Not that Ambrose has a concept of curiositas, but some of his suspicions of the excesses of the philosophers are at least apposite to A.'s own thoughts, though A. develops them further. See Amb. off. 1.26.122 (written 386), `itaque tractant in veri investigatione tenendum illud decorum, ut summo studio requiramus quid verum sit, non falsa pro veris ducere, non obscuris vera involvere, non superfluis vel inplexis atque ambiguis occupare animum. quid tam indecorum quam venerari ligna, quod ipsi faciunt? quid tam obscurum quam de astronomia et geometria tractare, quod probant, et profunda aeris spatia metiri, caelum quoque et mare numeris includere; relinquere causam salutis, erroris quaerere?' Such ill-guided search for knowledge Amb. then contrasts to Moses' superior wisdom.

The subject emerges early and pervades the years before conf.; at ord. 1.8.26 he recalls watching a cock-fight: `cur . . . nos ipsa pugnae facies aliquantum et praeter altiorem istam considerationem duceret in voluptatem spectaculi?' Later in the same work, he cautions measure in inquiry: ord. 2.5.17, `si quis temere ac sine ordine disciplinarum in harum rerum cognitionem audet inruere, pro studioso illum curiosum, pro docto credulum, pro cauto incredulum fieri' (cf. ord. 1.11.31, `curiosi vel nimium studiosi'); specific examples are offered: ord. 2.12.37 (the trivial pursuits of grammarians), 2.15.42 (on astronomy: `astrologiam genuit, magnum religiosis argumentum tormentumque curiosis'); cf. quant. an. 19.33. The noun curiositas itself is introduced at mus. 6.13.39, `avertit [a contemplatione aeternorum] denique amor vanissimae cognitionis talium rerum. . . . curiositas nascitur ipso curae nomine inimica securitati, et vanitate impos veritatis'. Connection with 1 Jn. 2.16 (see on 1.10.16 and on 10.30.41) is slower coming, though it may underlie mor. 1.21.38: `quamobrem recte etiam curiosi esse prohibemur, quod magnum temperantiae munus est. . . . reprimat igitur se anima ab huiusmodi vanae cognitionis cupiditate, si se castam deo servare disposuit.' Similar discussions occur later: cf., e.g., trin. 10.1.3, `aut si tam curiosus est ut non propter aliquam notam causam sed solo amore rapiatur incognita sciendi, discernendus quidem est ab studiosi nomine iste curiosus; sed nec ipse amat incognita, immo congruentius dicitur, odit incognita, quae nulla esse vult dum vult omnia cognita.'

A clear echo of 1 Jn. 2.16 occurs at lib. arb. 2.19.53 (nothing in the work can be surely dated before it was put in final form, which may have been as late as 395), `ad proprium convertitur [1], cum suae potestatis vult esse; ad exterius [2], cum aliorum propria vel quaecumque ad se non pertinent cognoscere studet, ad inferius [3] cum voluptatem corporis diligit. atque ita homo superbus [1] et curiosus [2] et lascivus [3] effectus excipitur ab alia vita quae in comparatione superioris vitae mors est.' But comparable echoes may be found at Gn. c. man. 1.23.40 (quoted on 10.30.41) and 2.18.27 (`genus tertium temptationis his verbis figurare, quod est curiositas').

The last thing A. wrote before his ordination in 391 was vera rel., whose structure and contents are heavily influenced by 1 Jn. 2.16; there are clear attacks on curiositas at vera rel. 3.4, 4.7 (`nam tertio vitio curiositatis in percontandis daemonibus'), 29.52 (`in quorum consideratione non vana et peritura curiositas exercenda est, sed gradus ad immortalia et semper manentia faciendus'), 38.70, 38.71 (quoted on 10.30.41 for the link between the temptations of 1 Jn. and the three temptations of Christ in the desert), 49.94 (`iam vero cuncta spectacula et omnis illa quae appellatur curiositas, quid aliud quaerit quam de rerum cognitione laetitiam?'), and cf. also vera rel. 52.101-54.105, and see div. qu. 68.1, quoted on 5.3.5 below.

When we bring our modern incomprehension to A.'s disdain for what is now an unquestioned virtue, we forget that for him curiositas led directly to demons: cat. rud. 25.48, `qui christianum nomen oderunt . . . et adhuc simulacris et daemoniorum curiositatibus servire desiderant,' and Io. ep. tr. 2.13 (on 1 Jn. 2.16), `iam quam late patet curiositas? ipsa in spectaculis, in theatris, in sacramentis diaboli, in magicis artibus, in maleficiis ipsa est curiositas.' See also trin. 4.11.14-4.12.15, civ. 10.26, 10.28 (where he presents Porphyry playing to an audience of the curious: `ut talium quoque rerum quasi peritus appareas et placeas inlicitarum artium curiosis, vel ad eas facias ipse curiosos'), and 10.29. (A familiar villain for fourth-century Christians was similarly led astray by curiositas, acting in concert this time with ambitio saeculi: civ. 5.21, `apostatae Iuliano, cuius egregiam indolem decepit amore dominandi sacrilega et detestanda curiositas'.) For the word and the thing, see further on 10.35.54.

Curiositas emerges here in narrative as A. comes to the great city and finds himself surrounded by all manner of marvels. One innocent recollection may date to this awed time: civ. 16.8, `quosdam [homines] sine cervice oculos habentes in umeris, et cetera hominum vel quasi hominum genera, quae in maritima platea Carthaginis musivo picta sunt, ex libris deprompta velut curiosioris historiae.'

spectacula . . . imaginibus: Students were discouraged by the local authorities from too much spectacle-going: cod. theod. 14.9.1 (12 March 370), `neve spectacula frequentius adeant'. The same law declared that indiscipline could be punished (at least at Rome and Constantinople) by whippings and forced rustication. A similar moralizing restriction was enjoined upon the young Julian by his tutor Mardonius (Julian, misopogon 351c-d), and Libanius (ep. 976.) thought the theater a distraction for students. A.'s remarks here make it clear that it was the enacted stories that appealed to him most, as later the circus (6.7.11-12) and the gladiatorial combats (6.8.13) would appeal to Alypius; these seem to have been the three main classes of entertainment available to A. (and classed by him as spectacula): s. 198.3, `delectantur nugatorio spectaculo et turpitudinibus variis theatrorum, insania circi, crudelitate amphitheatri, certaminibus animosis eorum qui pro pestilentibus hominibus lites et contentiones usque ad inimicitias suscipiunt, pro mimo, pro histrione, pro pantomimo [these three are from the theatra], pro auriga [from the circus], pro venatore [from the gladiatorial amphitheater].' ¹

Spectaculum in A. is almost always accompanied by verbs of seeing, frequently with word-play on spectare; in this paragraph note `spectacula', `spectat', `spectator', `spectat', and add 3.2.3, `spectaculi', 3.2.4, `spectare', 3.8.16, `spectatores', 3.8.16, `principandi [1] et spectandi [2] et sentiendi [3] libidine'; the recapitulation at 4.1.1 (parallelling the recapitulation of Bk. 2 at 3.1.1) speaks of `spectaculorum nugas'.

The appeal is to the concupiscentia oculorum (s. Den. 14.3, `quae mala facit turpis curiositas, concupiscentia vana oculorum, aviditas nugacium spectaculorum, insania stadiorum, nullo praemio conflictus certaminum!'; cf. Io. ep. tr. 2.13, quoted above). Compare Alypius covering his eyes at the gladiatorial spectaculum, but yielding, `curiositate victus' (6.8.13); cf. 1.10.16 (`eadem curiositate magis magisque per oculos emicante in spectacula'), 1.13.22, 10.35.54 (`ex hoc morbo [curiositatis] in spectaculis exhibentur quaeque miracula'); theatra also appeal to curiositas (10.35.56). Cf. vera rel. 22.43, `nec ob aliud a talibus prohibemur spectaculis, nisi ne umbris rerum decepti ab ipsis rebus quarum illae umbrae sunt aberremus'; sim. at vera rel. 49.94, 54.105; and again at trin. 4.11.14. civ. 2.4, `veniebamus etiam nos aliquando adulescentes ad spectacula ludibriaque sacrilegiorum, spectabamus arrepticios, audiebamus symphoniacos, ludis turbissimis qui diis deabusque exhibebantur oblectabamur, Caelesti virgini et Berecynthiae matri omnium, ante cuius lecticam die sollemni lavationis eius talia per publicum cantitabantur a nequissimis scaenicis qualia non . . . matrem ipsorum scaenicorum deceret audire. . . . quae si inlecta curiositate adesse potuit circumfusa, saltem offensa castitate debuit abire confusa.' civ. 2.26, `ante ipsum tamen delubrum, ubi simulacrum illud [Caelestis] locatum conspicebamus . . . intentissime spectabamus, intuentes alternante conspectu hinc meretriciam pompam, illinc virginem deam.' See also civ. 1.32-3, 1.35, 2.8, 7.26.

G-M, Theiler P.u.A. 60, and BA all attempt to situate this text in the tradition of ancient discussions of the emotional impact of the theater. There is nothing here in conf. to connect A.'s views with any of the surviving discussions, but he is surely their heir at some distance (at civ. 8.13 he even invokes Plato's suspicion of poets in support of his views). Dominant is surely his own notion of the connection to curiositas. His works nevertheless (including the passages just cited from civ.) offer some glimpses of what the life of the spectacula entailed in the Carthage of his day. See also en. Ps. 103. s. 1.13 (`videtis quid faciat civitas ubi abundant spectacula: in agro securius loquerer'), 146.4, 147.8, s. 241.5 (quoted on 1.13.20, `Aeneae nescio cuius'). Alfaric 32-33 offers additional texts.

imaginibus: Cf. `imaginum' below, and `imaginarie' at 3.2.3 immediately following. The counterfoils of reality, imagines loom in conf. in two ways. (1) Not used until the present passage, the word and its corresponding verb imaginare are common from here on (but especially here in Bk. 3--the book of the temptations to vision, and in Bk. 10 [41x from 10.8.12-10.25.36] in the discussion of memory, which is the faculty of the soul replete with imagines [10.8.12, `campos et lata praetoria memoriae, ubi sunt thesauri innumerabilium imaginum']), as the appearances that both suggest a reality beyond appearance and at the same time veil it from direct sight. (See further on 4.10.15.) (2) In a few contexts, the word marks the special relationship with God that is authorized by the text of Gn. 1.26, `faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram.' This topic is first introduced briefly at 3.7.12, recurs strongly at 6.3.4-6.4.5, appears at 7.7.11, and then returns for full development from 13.22.32 to the end of the work. In the present context, note that imagines recur as powerful incitements to concupiscentia carnis when that temptation is reviewed in Bk. 10: 10.30.41f. In that light, `fomitibus' here is probably further explanation of `imaginibus': `images that called to mind my misery and further kindled the fire of my libido'.

et dolor ipse est voluptas eius: A. was not always so insightful and usually settled for a facile opposition of voluptas and dolor; cf. div. qu. 36.1, `nemo est qui non magis dolorem fugiat quam appetat voluptatem'; qu. ev. 1.47, `cupiditati voluptatis opponitur timor doloris.' Even at 1.20.31, the two are opposites: `voluptates . . . quaerebam, atque ita inruebam in dolores' (see notes there). A variation on the synergy of pleasure and pain is proposed at 10.31.43, `nunc autem suavis est mihi necessitas . . .'

mirabilis: mirabilis C D O S Skut. Ver.:   miserabilis G Maur. Knöll Pel.
Miserabilis is thinly attested and the facilior lectio besides. Elsewhere in conf. madness itself can be marvelous (4.15.26, `mira dementia'), and a variety of other abstract substantives (notably both continentia at 6.10.16 and abstinentia at 10.31.46) are mirabilis: see also 4.4.8, 4.14.21, 9.4.12, 9.6.14.

miseria . . . misericordia: Wordplay concentrates the effects of one form of curiositas, extended through 3.2.4. The real fall through curiositas of this book will be the lure of Manicheism, but here at the outset we get a self-contained display of another dimension of that same fault, not unlike--with different rhetorical proportions--the pear-theft from Bk. 2. He interpreted misericordia etymologically: c. Adim. 11., `ex eo appellatam misericordiam dicunt, quod miserum cor faciat dolentis aliena miseria'; sim. at mor. 1.27.53, civ. 9.5.

actori: actori O Maur. Isnenghi Pell. Ver.:   auctori CDGS Knöll Skut.
But auctor here would have to apply to the author of a text being enacted (civ. 2.14, `qua ratione rectum est, ut poeticorum figmentorum et ignominiosorum deorum infamentur actores, honorentur auctores?'; cf. `agantur' here, 3.2.4, `actio histrionis'); actor with appropriate genitives is common in A.'s discussion of theatrical representations in civ. (civ. 2.11, `scaenicos actores earundem fabularum'; 2.13, `actores talium fabularum'; 2.14, `actores poeticarum fabularum'). In conf., auctor appears 3x of God (3.8.15, 5.5.9, 11.13.15), once hypothetically of the devil (7.3.5), and once of the writers of the books of scripture (13.24.37).

imaginum: At civ. 6.9, imago is the word for the relation between the theatrical portrayal of the gods and the purportedly serious civil theology on which it is based: `illam theatricam et fabulosam theologian ab ista civili pendere noverunt et ei de carminibus poetarum tamquam de speculo resultare, et ideo ista exposita, quam damnare non audent, illam eius imaginem liberius arguunt et reprehendunt.'

gaudens lacrimat. ergo: gaudens lacrimat. ergo CDEFGV Ver.:   gaudens lacrimat * ergo O1  (Ver. xlii: `Avant la correction O a peut-être donné lacrimatur. Mais lacrimat, appuyé malgré tout par la le[ccedil]on de O, a l'avantage de mieux correspondre au doleat de la même phrase.'):   gaudens lacrimat. lacrimae ergo A H Pell.:   gaudens. lacrimae ergo O2 S B P Z Knöll Skut. Vega Löfstedt  B. Löfstedt, Symb. Osl. 56(1981), 106 (with a question mark after the following dolores.):   gaudens lacrimatur. ergo Maur.:   gaudens lacrimator. ergo M

The context offers `ergo amentur dolores aliquando' a few lines below in 3.2.3, bracketing (with `ergo amantur et dolores' beginning that paragraph) the demonstration (with no mention of lacrimae). On palaeographical probability, the reading could be that of AH: gaudens lacrimat lacrimae, but the want of a subject for amantur could inspire haplography, and the presence of lacrimae robs the `et' before `dolores' of its emphatic force (see en. Ps. 4 cited in notes on 1.1.1). On weight of MSS, one would incline to the reading of O2SBPZ: gaudens. lacrimae. (Ergo in first position in its clause is less frequent in conf. [26x against 167x post-positioned], but well attested [as esp. here with iteration later].) But on content, the authentic reading was that of CDEFGVO1, gaudens lacrimat ergo; a simple error, repeated later and encouraged by the context (the oxymoron of `gaudens lacrimat' would discourage reading the two words together, taken with the availability of `amantur et' to attract a subject), created `lacrimae'. lacrimat lacrimae is haplography reinventing the same error. (On tears in conf., see on 3.2.4.)

3.2.3

The derangement of misericordia by concupiscentia carnis and curiositas is the pretext for another measurement of the distance between present and past (presented as identical with the tension between right and wrong). The paragraph is circular in composition: First, `ergo amantur dolores . . . ergo amentur dolores'; then, `cave immunditiam . . . cave immunditiam'; then, `neque enim nunc non misereor . . . nunc vero magis misereor', leading to the conclusion, `haec certe verior misericordia, sed non in ea delectat dolor.'

ergo amantur: On text and punctuation, see on 3.2.2.

quod quia . . . hac una causa: some redundancy; `is it for this reason, that misericordia is not without dolor, for this reason alone that dolores are loved?' Translators generally dispense with one of the conjunctions (e.g., BA, `. . . puisqu'on prend plaisir pourtant à être miséricordieux et que cela ne va pas sans souffrance, ne serait-ce pas pour cette unique raison que l'on aime les souffrances?').

et hoc: emphatic, `and this too.'

vena amicitiae: Cf. 3.1.1, `venam igitur amicitiae coinquinabam'. What follows (`ut quid decurrit . . .') makes it clear that `vena' is taken as a channel for liquid.

torrentem picis: Isaiah 34.9 (of the dies ultionis), `et convertentur torrentes eius in picem, et humus eius in sulphur, et erit terra eius in picem ardentem.'

taetrarum libidinum: For other epithets with libido, see on 2.2.2.

ergo amentur dolores aliquando: Wijdeveld, Vig. Chr. 10(1956), 235 punctuates (paralleling the immediately previous question and answer): `ergo amentur dolores? aliquando.'

immunditiam: First occurrences in conf. here; strongest contrast at 13.7.8, `affectus sunt, amores sunt, immunditia spiritus nostri defluens inferius amore curarum et sanctitas tui attollens nos superius amore securitatis'; cf. also 10.31.46, `immunditiam cupiditatis'; elsewhere, 4.6.11 of his grief for the death of his friend (`talium affectionum immunditia'); 7.1.1 of his Manichean-influenced ideas of God (`circumvolantem turbam immunditiae'), and cf. 8.11.27 where Continentia advises, `obsurdesce adversus immunda illa membra tua super terram, ut mortificentur.'

anima mea: This brief apostrophe to his own soul is repeated in a much longer and more complex passage: 4.11.16 - 4.12.19 (see on 4.11.16), and see also 10.6.10.

tutore: God as tutor also at 10.4.6, 12.16.23. Taken with `deo patrum nostrorum' here, the appeal is to the first person of the trinity. The word is otherwise rare in both A. and scripture, and there are no useful parallels. Note, however, that the word occurs a number of times in civ. (1.3, 3.9, 3.13, 3.20, 18.41) applied to the `pagan' divinities to whom Rome look in vain for protection (infrequent but classical: CIL 14.25, `Iovi tutori').

superexaltato in omnia saecula: Cf. Dan. 3.52, `benedictus es domine, deus patrum nostrorum, et laudabile et superexaltatum in omnibus saeculis' --the first words of the Song of the Three Children, i.e., the first words spoken by young men of virtue trapped in a pit of fire from which, through divine assistance, they will escape; cf. the `torrentem picis' above.

congaudebam amantibus: G-M: `The plays to which A. refers were evidently not of a quality to suggest the Aristotelian point of view.' (!)

imaginarie . . . ludo spectaculi: 3.2.2, `spectacula theatrica plena imaginibus'. A. is the first writer attested for imaginarie: c. ep. fund. 43.49, `phantasmata, quae de carnali sensu tracta imaginarie cogitatio nostra versat et continet'.

gererent: gererent O Maur. Skut. Ver. Pell.:   gererentur C D G:   gerent S:   agerent coni. Vega  adducing 3.2.2, `si calamitates illae hominum vel antiquae vel falsae sic agantur' (and cf. also 3.2.2, `actori'); civ. 2.26, `ludos qui agebantur intentissime spectabamus' (both refs. given inaccurately by Vega).

sese amittebant: not reflexive elsewhere in conf.; cf. here, `amissione verae felicitatis'.

misereor: misereor C D G O Maur. Ver. Pell.:   miseror S Knöll Skut. Vega
The question here is morphology rather than semantics. On available evidence, the following may be said of A.'s practice. In conf. passages where the reading is not in dispute, misereor or its derivatives appear 22x, miseror et al. 8x; but of those miseror appears 6x in perfect and imperative forms, where it has euphony on its side. In imperative, imperfect, and present forms (both ind. and sub.), the prevalence of misereor stands at 19x to 2x.

caritatis: Second occurrence in conf. here, first where caritas is a quality of human actions (earlier: 2.6.13, `neque blandius est aliquid tua caritate'); first with scriptural echo not until 4.4.7, `caritate diffusa in cordibus nostris'. 34x in all.

germanitus: ep. 140.34.79, `neque enim germanitus dixerunt: apud te laus mea . . . cum ignorantes dei iustitiam iustitiam suam constituerent'; nat. et or. an. 3.14.20, `intus et germanitus in corde sensisti'. Rare and archaic, a grammarian's keepsake.

(misericors) est: where esset would be normal in view of the next line; but A. wishes to grant the preposterous hypothesis, to emphasize the distastefulness of the conclusion to which it leads. Vega puts a question mark at the end of the next sentence (after `misereatur'), unnecessarily.

hoc: i.e., `quod nullo dolore sauciaris.'

et ad haec quis idoneus: 2 Cor. 2.16-17, `et ad haec quis tam idoneus? (17) non enim sumus sicut plurimi adulterantes verbum dei, sed sicut ex sinceritate, sed sicut ex deo coram deo in Christo loquimur.' At en. Ps. 77.30, A. uses the same exclamation to hint at the ineffability of divine ways; if we would follow his thoughts through the next verse of Paul, we would hear him claiming authority for what he says, despite its inadequacies. Paul's text, of course, compares awkwardly with Lk. 18.11, "pharisaeus stans haec apud se orabat, "deus, gratias ago tibi quia non sum sicut ceteri hominum."'

3.2.4

miser . . . amabam: Cf. 3.1.1, `amare amabam . . . quaerebam quid amarem'. The intervening exposition of his reaction to the spectacula makes it clear that the quest for love leads to dolor. Cf. 1.20.31, where the quest for voluptates ends in dolores.

lacrimae: A.'s tears over the spectacula are his first adult tears (as infans and puer, he wept regularly: 1.6.7, `flere autem offensiones carnis meae'; 1.13.21, `et flebam Didonem extinctam'), but they are not his last. Episodes of weeping in conf.: Monnica's tears for A., 3.11.19-3.12.21 (see on 3.11.19, `fleret'); the death of A.'s friend, 4.4.9-4.7.12; Monnica abandoned at Carthage, 5.8.15; the garden scene at Milan, 8.12.28-8.12.30; A.'s emotional reaction to the hymns and psalms of the church not long thereafter, 9.6.14, (cf. the tears shed in the Cassiciacum dialogues: ord. 1.8.22 and 1.10.30, c. acad. 2.7.18, sol. 1.14.26 and 2.1.1); the death of Monnica, 9.11.27-9.12.33. The `confessional' parts of Bk. 10 speak of tears and weeping (10.1.1, 10.28.39 [`laetitiae meae flendae'], 10.40.65 [`et resorbeor solitis et teneor et multum fleo']), but Bks. 11 through 13 are free of tears except for two mentions of ways in which tears will pass away (12.11.13, `si iam factae sunt ei lacrimae suae panis'; 13.13.14, `transierint lacrimae'). The most important tears that he had not yet shed were the `lacrimas confessionis' of 7.21.27. Weeping and prayer explicitly connected: 5.8.15 (of Monnica), 8.12.28-29 (the garden scene), 9.6.14, 9.7.16, 10.4.5. On tears in Christian prayer in antiquity, see J. Balogh, Didaskaleion n. s. 4 (1926), 10-21, on the way licit tears for A. draw us nearer to God, not to earthly things, and with numerous good texts from Christian antiquity.

infelix pecus: Verg. ecl. 3.3, `infelix o semper, oves, pecus!' The Vergilian echo both evokes the lost sheep and includes the most powerful Dido epithet, infelix (see C. Bennett, REAug 34[1988], 59-60). Here again the secular and Christian motifs intertwine inextricably. The lost sheep parable occurs in the same chapter of Luke as the prodigal son: Lk. 15.4, `quis ex vobis homo qui habet centum oves, et si perdiderit unam ex illis, nonne dimittit nonaginta novem in deserto et vadit ad illam quae perierat donec inveniat illam?' The parallel synoptic version is at Mt. 18.12; cf. also Ps. 118.176, `erravi sicut ovis quae periit; quaere servum tuum, quia mandata tua non sum oblitus'; 1 Pet. 2.25, `eratis enim sicut oves errantes, sed conversi estis nunc ad pastorem.'

turpi scabie . . . sanies horrida: The deliberately graphic imagery of a festering wound, the foothold that death can take in a sound body. Was this life?

foedarer: 2.1.1, `transactas foeditates meae'; 3.1.1, `foedus atque inhonestus'.

spectare: the detachment of curiositas enables the soul, already fallen through concupiscentia carnis, to participate vicariously in deformities yet more perverse than those in which it really participates.

3.3.5

et circumvolabat . . . misericordia tua: The summary here turns from the encapsulated exemplum of curiositas in the theater to the wider issues of his life at this time, and so underlining the persistence of concupiscentia carnis ( cf. `concupiscere'). The judgmental present intrudes only in the apostrophe `o tu praegrandis . . .'

longe: Cf. `ad longe' below, with reversal of point of view; on longe elsewhere, see on 1.18.28.

sacrilega curiositate: sacrilega curiositate C D G O2 S Knöll Skut. Vega:   sacrilegam curiositatem O1 Maur. Ver. Pell.
Ablative of manner; cf. 4.16.31, `cum deformiter et sacrilega turpitudine in doctrina pietatis errarem'. Cf. c. Cresc. 4.10.12, `sacrilegium vero tanto est gravius peccatum, quantum committi non potest nisi in deum.' The epithet elsewhere in conf.: 5.9.16, `corde sacrilego', 8.2.4, `non erubescendo de sacris sacrilegis', 8.7.17, `superstitione sacrilega', 10.35.56, `omnia sacrilega sacramenta detestor'. c. Faust. 13.15, `philosophi gentium de filio dei aut de patre deo vera praedixisse seu dixisse perhibentur. . . . quamobrem quantum distat de Christi adventu inter praedicationem angelorum et confessionem daemoniorum, tantum inter auctoritatem prophetarum et curiositatem sacrilegorum.'

The word sacrilegus (rare in scripture, only 2x in NT [Act. 19.37, Rom. 2.22], in both cases deriving from Gk. e(erosule/w, `to rob a temple'; already in Tertullian) is another example of the surprisingly large vocabulary of `pagan' religion taken over with little modification by Christianity.

ima: See on 2.5.10.

circumventoria: First (only?) here in Latin (TLL).

daemoniorum: Cf. 1.17.27, `non enim uno modo sacrificatur transgressoribus angelis'; c. Faust. 20.22, `illi quippe superbi et impii spiritus non nidore ac fumo, sicut nonnulli vani opinantur, sed hominum pascuntur erroribus.' For the `demonic' in his own conduct at the time, see on 3.3.6. Deut. 32.17, `immolaverunt daemonibus et non deo', echoed at 1 Cor. 10.20.

The Gk. original of the word came over to Latin by two different paths at about the same time: as a technical term of Platonic philosophy with Apuleius, and as a pejorative in Latin translations of scripture (and in Christian writers from Tertullian on). It is difficult to see any distinction for A. between daemon (in conf. only at 4.2.3, 9.7.16, in the form daemonibus) and daemonium (in conf. here and at 3.3.6 and 8.2.4), not least because the two words share a nom./acc. plural (daemonia, as at 4.2.3).

We will never know what A. really thought of demons, even as we catalogue his pronouncements. One document takes us a little closer to actuality, his divin. daem. (406/11?). This pamphlet begins as transcript of a discussion that took place in A.'s episcopal secretarium before divine service during the octave of Easter. The laici with whom he was speaking (divin. daem. 1.1) probably included some newly baptized at the Easter vigil. The discussion (and the more connected exposition that follows it) assumes in explicit material terms that demons exist, that they perform actions in the material world, and that they have various advantages (including a light, ethereal body that has keener senses and swifter motion than anything human or animal, and a wealth of ancient experience besides that enables them to predict future events more accurately than we [divin. daem. 3.7-4.7]) over mortals in the attempt to know the future. They can also foretell events that they will themselves cause. The least that must be admitted is that the bishop catered to a belief that he had no particular polemical or apologetical reason for accepting. His limit is reached only by the naive suggestion from one of his interlocutors that the ancient religious rites dictated by the libri pontificales were in some way licit and approved of God (divin. daem. 2.5), and that it is only secret and illicit sacrifice by night to demons that merits censure. A.'s theoretical discussion of demons is more familiar (esp. civ. 8.14f) but brings us perhaps less close to the actuality.

flagellabas: Rare in script. in any positive sense, but cf. Ps. 72.14, `et fui flagellatus tota die' (Knauer 76n1), Tob. 13.2 (from the canticum Tobiae: see preceding comm. on 1.1.1), `quoniam tu flagellas et salvas'.

in celebritate sollemnitatum tuarum: Becoming a specific term for `the celebration of Mass'; celebrare is usual for important services, and sollemnitas for `feast, holyday, service'. un. eccl. 25.74, `quid si ergo fictus accedit atque adversus veritatem et ecclesiam cor inimicissimum gerit; quamvis peragatur in eo solemnitas, numquid reconciliatur, numquid inseritur? absit'; en. Ps. 54.19, `festa martyrum celebrabamus, erant tibi mecum; paschae sollemnitatem frequentabamus, erant ibi mecum'; sollemnitas often elsewhere, e.g., en. Ps. 61.10, 69.2, 73.7, s. 267.1.1 (`ideo enim sollemnitas celebratur, ne quod semel factum est, de memoria deleatur'). See also on 8.3.6.

This incident is regularly extracted by biographers and commentators to capture the flavor of A.'s disorderly life. In context, two features become noteworthy: (1) He was a churchgoer in these pre-Manichean days at Carthage. (2) The lines before and after make it an example of the way in which God's punishing flail was never far away; the specifics of the incident and the concrete form that punishment took is left to our imagination.

intra parietes: The parietes ecclesiae recur emphatically at 8.2.4.

agere negotium procurandi fructus mortis: A. shies away from this act with recourse not merely to euphemism, but to the construction of this elaborately ambiguous but unambiguously judgmental phrase, which has the ring of scriptural authority. But no plausible parallel can be found other than Rom. 7.5, `cum essemus in carne, passiones peccatorum quae per legem erant operabantur in membris nostris ut fructificarent morti.'

misericordia mea, deus meus: Ps. 58.18, `deus meus misericordia mea'; Ps. 143.2, `misericordia mea'. Knauer 118: `3.1.1 und 3.3.5--sie rahmte die Verurteilung der falschen “misericordia” ein.' Virtually the same phrase (`deus meus, misericordia mea') occurred at 3.1.1 as a guide to the passions of his early days at Carthage; now that they have been recounted and understood, the citation is repeated with this asseveration and the emphatic `praegrandis'.

refugium: See on 1.9.14, `puer coepi rogare te, auxilium et refugium meum'.

longe: See on 1.18.28.

amans vias meas: i.e., not the `viam sine muscipulis' of 3.1.1?

fugitivam libertatem: The flight of the prodigal. For libertas, see on 2.6.14.

3.3.6

For the first time, the third temptation of 1 Jn. 2.16, ambitio saeculi, exercises an influence directly on A. (in Bk. 1, it was his parents whose ambition directed his education). These opening paragraphs set a stage for the intellectual drama presented in the rest of the book. Their central focus is A.'s reaction to the spectacula, and hence his curiositas, but both of the other two Johannine temptations have been given cameo roles. A. paints himself both grasping and detached, and not a little vulnerable to outside influence.

honesta: 1.13.21, `honestiores et uberiores litterae', 5.3.3 (of Faustus' reputation), `honestarum omnium doctrinarum peritissimus', 7.6.9, `honestam educationem liberalesque doctrinas'.

fora litigiosa: Ovid, fasti 4.187-188:

spectate, Quirites
    et fora Marte suo litigiosa vacent.

-- from Ovid's description, s.d. 4 April, of the ludi Matris Magnae; though A. never mentions Ovid and barely cites him (see Hagendahl 213-214: he may know the story of Pyramus from O.'s metamorphoses, and there is one probable echo of met. 1 in civ. 22.24), it was at about this time in A.'s life that he attended the rites of the Magna Mater at Carthage. The phrase here may hint that he looked into Ovid to learn more of those rites. The context reveals that the memory was associated for A. with his adolescent passion for the spectacula, and suggests again the connection between the stage and non-Christian religion that explains some of A.'s own hostility to these memories: see civ. 2.4, quoted above on 3.2.2, `spectacula . . . imaginibus'.

caecitas: Cf. 2.3.7, where caecitas is also the metaphor for a heedlessness inspired by camaraderie.

typho: A leit-motif for ambitious pride; see on 7.9.13 (`typho turgidum'); often associated with `swollenness'; with tumidus or tumesco at civ. 11.33, c. Iul. 4.3.28, en. Ps. 149.10, s. 4.30.33.

remotus omnino ab eversionibus: In ep. 93., addressed to his old school-friend Vincentius, now (408) a bishop of the small Rogatist sect of Donatists, the young A. appears similarly restrained (see on 2.1.1).

eversionibus: At 5.12.22, the eversiones of the next generation of students (perhaps 10 years later) so disturb A. the teacher that he explains his departure for Rome in part as an attempt to escape to a more peaceful academic atmosphere. Cf. vera rel. 40.75, `his [angelis iracundiae] similes sunt homines qui gaudent miseriis alienis et risus sibi ac ludicra spectacula exhibent vel exhiberi volunt eversionibus et erroribus aliorum.' The theme of Bk. 3 is curiositas, which feeds on the spectacula and leads to error: there is thus an odd appropriateness to the ways of the eversores. The words eversio/eversor have a legal use of squandering paternal property (Tac. ann. 6.17, `eversio rei familiaris', cod. theod. 12.6.1), the sort of thing that a prodigal son might do, or that one who saw himself nervously as a possible prodigal might frown upon; in one case, the devil is `fidei eversor' (s. Guelf. 31.1) and in another perhaps inadvertently revealing case, Christ is seen by the Jews as an `eversor legis' (Io. ev. tr. 20.2), though more common is a use A. follows elsewhere, of famous generals who sacked ancient cities (e.g., civ. 1.6, `Fabius, Tarentinae urbis eversor'; cf. civ. 1.34, 3.15); evidently a vivid expression, whether it is merely A.'s term of abuse or an authentic piece of local slang. On student life in this period generally (mixing evidence from east and west), see A. Müller, Philologus 69(1910), 292-317.

urbanitatis: See c. acad. 2.2.6, quoted on 3.1.1.

pudore impudenti: Oxymoron heightens the perversity of his values, as before. But here the love of comradeship that led him into sin in the pear-theft seems to have faded a little. He still enjoys the comrades, but does not share their wrong-doing (which has taken on a specific malice directed against other people). The passage is almost exculpatory, but now his sinfulness separates him from his fellows.

ignotorum: `Here might almost be rendered freshmen.' (G-M) Ryan settles for `new students', BA for `nouveaux'.

daemoniorum: See above on 3.3.5. To go by this account, A. was cautious about invoking these powers. He resists a suggestion at 4.2.3 and sees them defeated by the power of the relics of Gervasius and Protasius at 9.7.16. Here they offer a threatening simile for the deeds of his boisterous friends. Cf. `diabolicum'.

3.4.7

A. reads philosophy, and turns (3.5.9) to scripture, ending in frustration. The same sequence of readings occurs at 7.9.13, in changed circumstances, with a different result.

A.'s dialogue with Cicero is a subtext of the next books of conf. In 46/5 BC, Cicero wrote the main body of his philosophical œuvre, in the order clearly recorded at his div. 2.1.1, a text A. knew (civ. 3.17): Hortensius, academica, de finibus bonorum et malorum, Tusculanae disputationes, de natura deorum. Here in Bk. 3, A. reports his encounter with the Hortensius; in 5.10.19, he turns his attention to the Academics; at 6.16.26, he and Alypius discuss between themselves the issues `de finibus bonorum et malorum', where A. says he would have sided with the Epicureans (cf. Cic. fin., Bks. 1-2) except that he was oppressed by `metus mortis' --the first subject of the Tusculans. Till then there seems a clear pattern, a hint that A.'s philosophical investigations parallel those of Cicero. It is in Bk. 7 that new masters, the Platonists and Paul, are found, but even beyond that traces of the Ciceronian sequence may be descried: the Tusculans match in spirit and to some extent in substance (n.b. particularly Tusc. 2, `de tolerando dolore', and cf. 9.2.4 and 9.3.5 on A.'s ailments--the pain in his chest and a bad toothache) the discussions at Cassiciacum, especially as both lead to a doctrine concerning the beata vita, which is also a central concern of conf. 10 (see on 9.4.7 for more parallels). To urge a parallel between the last three books of conf. and Cicero's three books de natura deorum is obviously to go beyond the bounds of evidence: but to consider the possibility is to measure not only the similarities, but also the divergences, between Cicero and his most imaginative disciple. (For a similar coordination between the progress of the text of conf. and a different authoritative text, see the remarks in notes on 8.1.1 concerning the Pauline echoes in Bk. 8.)

Modern readers are generally willing to infer from A.'s enthusiasm--we have not much else to go on--that the Hortensius was a powerful and important book. A salutary minority view comes from O'Meara 57-58, who belittles the Hortensius and thinks that the effect here is all that of A.'s personality, not the book itself: `If it was a great book, how explain its comparative obscurity until Augustine read it, and its eventual disappearance? . . . Or was it after all just an ordinary book that happened to set off a flame in Augustine's mind when that mind was prepared to be inflamed?' Even A. was willing to remember that Cicero was an orator who praised philosophy, not a philosopher per se: trin. 14.9.12, `ita ille tantus orator cum philosophiam praedicaret recolens ea quae a philosophis acceperat et praeclare ac suaviter explicans . . .'; cf. civ. 2.27, `philosophaster Tullius'; on the other hand, his contemporaries certainly knew the text (ep. Sec. 3 shows that A.'s Manichee critics had it).

Since the reading of texts is so important for A. and others in conf., it is worth sketching a short catalogue of readings explicitly reported: the Aeneid (1.13.20), Hortensius and scripture here, 5.3.3, `multa philosophorum', 7.9.13, `platonicorum libros', 7.21.27ff, Paul (esp. 8.12.29-30, garden scene), 9.4.8, Psalms esp. Ps. 4, and Gn. 1 in Bks. 11-13 (with most of Bk. 12 [12.14.17-12.32.43] discussing proper methods of reading). Reading as solution to his problems: 3.12.21, `ipse legendo reperiet quis ille sit error et quanta impietas.' The courtiers at Trier read the life of Antony (8.6.15); Ambrose is a model of reading at 6.3.3 (silent) and 6.3.4 (public exegesis: and already at 5.14.24); and the role of the reader in relation to conf. is frequently evoked and discussed: e.g., 10.3.3f, 12.26.36. See R. Flores, Aug. Stud. 6(1975), 1-13.

Bks. 2 and 3 have depicted the adolescent A. as a particular prey to sexual temptation and transgression. It is important to the structure of conf. that he not encounter--to our eyes--decisive advice to elect continentia until Bk. 8, where continentia is the focus of the garden scene in Milan. Signs there (see on 8.7.17) hint that the issue, and the possibility of continentia, were not new to him. But he makes no mention here that one of the things we know he would have found in the Hortensius was just this advice: frg. 81M (c. Iul. 4.14.72 and 5.10.42, partly corroborated by Nonius 412.8 Lindsay--given here in form conflated from the two passages in c. Iul.): `an vero voluptates corporis expetendae, quae vere et graviter a Platone dictae sunt inlecebrae esse atque escae malorum? quae enim confectio est valetudinis, quae deformatio coloris et corporis, quod turpe damnum, quod dedecus quod non evocetur atque eliciatur voluptate? cuius motus, ut quisque est maximus, ita est inimicissimus philosophiae. congruere enim cum cogitatione magna voluptas corporis non potest.' Sim. at frg. 74M (Nonius 33.7 Lindsay) and frg. 80M (Nonius 503.15 Lindsay).

This paragraph and the next are the focus of an unpublished study by E. Feldmann, Der Einfluß des Hortensius und des Manichäismus auf das Denken des jungen Augustinus von 373 (Diss., Münster, 1975), with detailed commentary on these paragraphs at 1.381-513. The work merits publication, perhaps in briefer compass. In the meantime, Feldmann's note at Atti-1986, 316-330, usefully presses the question, earlier raised by Theiler (P.u.A. 5n1), of how far A. read the Hortensius `mit den Augen des Neuplatonikers'. Better to say that A. read all of Cicero with late antique eyes.²

eminere cupiebam . . . per gaudia vanitatis: i.e., per ambitionem saeculi; see `omnis vana spes' below.

usitato iam discendi ordine: Cf. c. acad. 3.4.7, quoted below.

cuiusdam Ciceronis: The phrase has evoked abundant discussion; concise survey at Pellegrino, Les Confessions 84n12; more briefly BA 13.667; more extensively, Testard 1.11-19 (who sees nothing pejorative). Mohrmann, Vig. Chr. 13(1959), 235-240 (reviewing Testard) invokes a Christian habit of citing as quidam a `pagan' author cited anonymously--but as Pellegrino, Les Confessions 84n12 (on 86) noted, here it is anonymity that is ruled out. According to Hagendahl 579, the word `clashes with the rest of the account'. Vega ad loc. sees in it a `manera algún tanto despectiva--no ignorativa--de citar a un escritor tan conocido y estimado de el; pero no es extrano al estilo del Santo.' Quidam alone need imply no derogation: 11.23.30, `et cuiusdam [= Joshua, otherwise unnamed] voto cum sol stetisset, ut victoriosum proelium perageret, sol stabat, sed tempus ibat.'

But though his usage is diverse, it is hard to charge inconsistency; at c. acad. 1.3.7 A. could speak of Cicero noster and at c. acad. 3.18.41 of `Tullius noster', while at conf. 1.16.25 he introduces a direct quotation from Tusc. with the expression `ex eodem pulvere hominem clamantem et dicentem'; in 413, `philosophaster Tullius' (civ. 2.27); from about the same time, Io. ev. tr. 58.3, `cuiusdam saecularis auctoris verba laudantur . . . ille homo eloquentissimus'; in the fourth book of doctr. chr. (not written in this form until many years after conf.), Cicero becomes quidam again: doctr. chr. 4.10.24, `unde ait quidam'; 4.12.27, `dixit enim quidam'; but 4.17.34, `ipse Romani auctor eloquii'. At civ. 14.18, a quotation from Tusc. is introduced by a quidam juxtaposed with high praise from a Roman source: `sicut ait etiam quidam “Romani maximus auctor eloquii”' (Lucan 7.62-63). See also on 1.13.20, `Aeneae nescio cuius'. Of the commentators, BA comes closest; there is something slightly arch about the expression, but the derogatory tone is no more than is, surely, Cicero's due; in an address to God, the expression signifies the vanity of a fame like that of Cicero in the presence of God.

pectus: s. 108.7.7, `quod est intus in corde tuo, hoc dicatur foris. non aliud pectus tegat, et aliud lingua proferat.' Cf. Testard 1.18, on the Ciceronian opposition of lingua and pectus (not as abundantly attested in C. as Testard seems to think, however). Pectus is the organ whence arise the thoughts and sentiments that take shape as words on the lingua: Aul. Gell. 1.10.4, quoting his teacher Favorinus: `vive ergo moribus praeteritis, loquere verbis praesentibus atque id, quod a C. Caesare, excellentis ingenii ac prudentiae viro, in primo de analogia libro scriptum est, habe semper in memoria atque in pectore, ut “tamquam scopulum, sic fugias inauditum atque insolens verbum.”' The pectus was in a direct physical sense a deeper source of speech than the lingua, so in a metaphorical application it would play a similar, superior, role. Cf. 4.14.23 (`aurae linguarum flaverint a pectoribus opinantium') and 6.3.4 (`de tam sancto oraculo tuo, pectore illius' [sc. Ambrosii; cf. ep. 31.8, `pectus tuum tale domini oraculum est']). Secundinus in ep. Sec. 5, after much praise of A.'s eloquence at ep. Sec. 3, praises A. for his `aureum pectus'. Also to be read in that context are the reports of his illness in the summer of 386 at 9.2.4 and 9.5.13 (`dolore pectoris').

To admire someone's pectus is then to praise him for sincerity and disingenuousness--for an ability to match words to thoughts truthfully and truly. In this light, other passages of conf. take the eye (7.5.7, `talia volvebam pectore misero,' 8.8.19, `illuc me abstulerat tumultus pectoris,' 9.9.21, `docente te magistro intimo in schola pectoris'), as does the frequency with which pectus is used in a less explicit metaphorical sense for the seat of feelings close to speech (2.3.6, 5.9.17, 6.1.1, 6.2.2, 6.16.26, 7.2.3, 8.2.4, 8.4.9, 10.42.67).

One moralizing interpretation is congruent and should be kept in mind: Gn. c. man. 2.17.26, `nomine enim pectoris significatur superbia, quia ibi dominatur impetus animi: nomine autem ventris significatur carnale desiderium, quia haec pars mollior sentitur in corpore.' If that passage is taken as determinative, then to criticize Cicero's pectus is to accuse him of excessive ambitio saeculi: not an unverisimilar charge in Cicero's case.

philosophiam: Though the early A. did not scruple to use the word of Christian doctrine (e.g., beata v. 1.1), he uses it in conf. only here and in the next paragraph, and only in a sense that is at least ambivalent. There are philosophi further on in conf. (but only as far as 8.2.3), but again only figures ambivalent at best and not identifiably Christian. In Ambrose, the word never applies to Christian doctrine or life, though that sense is not uncommon in earlier Christian writers (see Madec, Saint Ambroise 41, noting the one possible exception).

Hortensius: The majority of references and allusions to the Hortensius in A. occur at Cassiciacum; from 387-413, there are only repetitions of previously quoted passages; new and important fragments occur in late books of trin. (416ff) and in c. Jul. (421). His reading of the Hortensius lingered in his mind for half a century, ever vivid where he gives a long quotation on the mind's ascent to God in the conclusion to the fourteenth book of trin. (14.19.26). That fragment clearly shows that the philosphia with which the Hortensius inspired A. was a philosophy of the mind's ascent, shaping his taste when he came to the Platonists years later: note here `surgere coeperam ut ad te redirem' and at 3.4.8, `quomodo ardebam, deus meus, quomodo ardebam revolare a terrenis ad te!'

Might A. have modelled the first book of c. acad. on Hortensius? At c. acad. 1.1.4, he calls that work inductorium, and it was certainly a dialogue (trin. 14.9.12, etc.). See beata v. 1.4, quoted in prolegomena, and cf. sol. 1.10.17 (`prorsus unus mihi Ciceronis liber facillime persuasit nullo modo appetendas esse divitias'), c. acad. 1.1.4 (of Cassiciacum and the young men: `praesertim cum Hortensius liber Ciceronis iam eos ex magna parte conciliasse philosophiae videretur'), c. acad. 3.4.7 (to Licentius he says, `et ad scholam redeas nostram, si tamen aliquid iam de te Hortensius et philosophia meretur, cui dulcissimas primitias iam vestro illo sermone libasti, qui te vehementius quam ista poetica incenderat ad magnarum et vere fructuosarum rerum scientiam'); an allusion is obvious at util. cred. 1.1, `de invenienda ac retinenda veritate . . . cuius, ut scis, ab ineunte adulescentia magno amore flagravimus.'

There is considerable literature; see first Testard 1.19-39, then Hagendahl 79-94 (fragments/testimonia) and 486-497 (discussion). Of specialist studies on A.'s use of the Hortensius, the most recent is R. Russell in Aug. Stud. 7(1976), 59-68, and cf. Feldmann's dissertation cited above. The Hortensius is quoted by the fragment numbers of Müller's Teubner edition, but of interest is also the work of M. Ruch, L'Hortensius de Ciceron: Histoire et reconstitution (Paris, 1958), with texts (but non-standard numbers of fragments).

mutavit affectum meum: Cf. 10.3.4, `mutans animam meam fide et sacramento tuo'. Brown 169: `An intellectual event, such as the reading of a new book, is registered only, as it were, from the inside, in terms of the sheer excitement of the experience, of its impact on Augustine's feelings: of the Hortensius of Cicero, for instance, he would never say "it changed my views" but, so characteristically, "it changed my way of feeling" --mutavit affectum meum.'

mutavit preces meas: Ryan: `it turned my prayers to you, Lord'; BA: `m'orientant vers toi, Seigneur, il changea mes prières'; but mutavit does not take ad + obj. in the sense `changed x [by turning] towards y'; G-M rightly take `ad te ipsum' closely with `preces meas': `changed the character of the prayers that I offered to thee.'

concupiscebam: This word hints that something was not right with his attitude towards philosophy.

surgere coeperam: Luke 15:18-20 (the prodigal again), `surgam, et ibo ad patrem meum, et dicam ei: pater, peccavi in caelum, et coram te . . . (20) et surgens venit ad patrem suum.'

redirem: See on 1.18.28.

maternis: The word strikes sharply and unexpectedly: the last we heard, it was Patricius who was struggling to provide the funds (2.3.5, `animositate magis quam opibus patris'). Now we hear of his death only in an ablative absolute. The natural interpretation of the present passage is that M. succeeded to control of the property.

Readers of c. acad. here expect mention of the long and generous support of Romanianus for A.'s ambitions, something congruent to the praise at c. acad. 2.2.3: `tu me adulescentulum pauperem ad studia pergentem et domo et sumptu, et quod plus est, animo excepisti. [This is generally and rightly taken as indicating where A.'s father made up the deficiency of his own funds.] tu patre orbatum amicitia consolatus es, hortatione animasti, ope adiuvisti. tu in nostro ipso municipio, favore, familiaritate, communicatione domus tuae paene tecum clarum primatemque fecisti'. See on 6.14.24 for possible reasons for this silence.

annum aetatis undevicensimum: A.'s nineteenth year ran from Nov. 372 to Nov. 373; his father thus died as early as late 370, as late as 371; the episode of Bk. 2 (in his sixteenth year) fell 369/70 (2.3.6). Incautious narrators often postdate these events by assigning them to the year following A.'s nineteenth birthday, i.e., his annum aetatis vicensimum.

locutio: locutio Löfstedt  B. Löfstedt, Symb. Osl. 56(1981), 106:   locutionem MSS edd.

locutio . . . quod loquebatur: See above on lingua/pectus; distrust of showy outward form in default of significant content is a leit-motif in the upward progress of A.'s conversion; he puts his disappointment with Faustus in those terms at 5.6.10, and finds himself vulnerable to Ambrose when the bishop's eloquence turns out to harbor a more valuable truth (5.14.24).

3.4.8

This paragraph must be allowed to have its surprises for us. Did A. at age 18 consciously hanker after the flight from earthly things to God--and did he do so in those words (not so different from those of the Platonists that would, he alleges, come as a surprising revelation more than a decade later)?

A.'s preference for the nomen Christi is not completely surprising, but must have been a mildly unusual reaction to this particular Ciceronian text. It was not entirely obvious (in spite of his `itaque' opening 3.5.9) that the reader of the Hortensius would turn first to scripture to pursue the quest encouraged there.

The spirit of religious enthusiasm is clearly meant to portray the event (how faithfully, we cannot tell) as the forerunner of all the attempts A. will recount at an intellectual ascent to God (first concerted effort: 4.13.20ff). See du Roy 25-29.

revolare: The metaphor of flight, common among non-Christian speculations of this period for the salvific journey occurs only once otherwise in conf., and then to emphasize its metaphorical quality: 1.18.28, `non . . . filius ille tuus . . . avolavit pinna visibili'.

apud te est enim sapientia: Job 12.13 (VL), `apud eum est sapientia et virtus.' The topic of philosophy evokes from A. a scriptural tag, to which is appended, by an autem, the first element in a brief synopsis of the contents of the Hortensius.

amor autem sapientiae: Cic. Hortensius (at Boethius diff. top. 2: PL 64.1187-1188), `philosophia amor sapientiae est; huic studendum nemo dubitat; studendum igitur est philosophiae. hic enim non definitio rei, sed nominis interpretatio argumentum dedit, quo Tullius enim in Hortensio in eiusdem philosophiae usus est defensione.' The etymology evidently played a fairly large part in the argument of the Hortensius; here it introduces A.'s summary of the contents of the lost dialogue. (The fragment is not accepted by Müller and Ruch, but recognized and promoted by H. Diels and H. Hagendahl [see Hagendahl § 196].)

sunt qui seducant per philosophiam: The caution was a constant of protreptic, e.g., Boethius, cons. 1. P3.7, on the `epicureum vulgus et stoicum.'

manifestatur: A favored word for A. (counting verb, adj., and related forms, 28x in conf., comparably frequent in other works), as in scripture (e.g., vb. manifesto 52x in Vg.)

A. `reads' a pre-Christian philosophical text and claims to find therein a message he thinks he can present fairly using the ipsissima verba of scripture. This device will recur with notable effect at 7.9.13ff (see notes there); the difference here is that at age 18 he did not know the scriptural text to juxtapose with the philosophical one (see `et ego illo tempore' below).

videte . . .: Col. 2.8-9, `videte ne quis vos decipiat per philosophiam et inanem seductionem, secundum traditionem hominum, secundum elementa mundi, et non secundum Christum, (9) quia in ipso inhabitat omnis plenitudo divinitatis corporaliter.' The citation is picked up at 3.6.10 (`de istis elementis mundi, creatura tua') and recurs in Simplicianus' praise of the Platonists at 8.2.3. The verse in A. always speaks to those who fail in the achievement of philosophy, and specifically of those who depend on sensus and imaginatio rather than intellegentia (TeSelle 74). c. acad. 3.19.42 is unmistakeable: `non enim est [sc. una verissimae philosophiae disciplina] ista huius mundi philosophia quam sacra nostra meritissime detestantur, sed alterius intellegibilis cui animas multiformibus erroris tenebris caecatas et altissimis a corpore sordibus oblitas numquam ista ratio subtilissima revocaret'; sim. at ord. 1.11.32, coordinating the Platonic realm of the intelligible with Jn. 18.36, `regnum meum non est de hoc mundo' (underlining the hoc). The passage from c. acad. goes on to invoke the incarnation as the divinely provided means for the soul to return to the patria `etiam sine disputationum concertatione'. The Pauline corporaliter strengthens the argument: ep. 149.2.25, `ideo “corporaliter” dixit quia illi umbraliter seducebant'; cf. en. Ps. 67.23. Cf. Madec Saint Ambroise 200-207, `l'inspiration Paulinienne': This is the only occurrence of the word philosophia in scripture; for Ambrose the passage is a caution against excessive reliance on secular wisdom (e.g., exam. 2.1.2-3, Abr. 2.8.54). In dealing with the prodigal son, Amb. proposes an interpretation invoking this verse that is congruent with A.'s own exposition of his past, whether A. knew the Ambrosian text or not: Amb. in Luc. 7.218, quoted below on 3.6.11.

At mor. 1.21.38, the Pauline text is a warning against the pre-eminent sin here in Bk. 3, curiositas, and contains a warning that parallels the course A. describes for his own career from here on: `recte etiam curiosi esse prohibemur, quod magnum temperantiae munus est. hinc illud est, “cavete ne quis vos seducat per philosophiam”. et quia ipsum nomen philosophiae si consideretur rem magnam totoque animo appetendam significat, siquidem philosophia est amor studiumque sapientiae, cautissime apostolus ne ab amore sapientiae deterrere videretur, subiecit “et elementa huius mundi”. . . . tali enim amore plerumque decipitur, ut aut nihil putet esse nisi corpus; aut etiamsi auctoritate commota, fateatur aliquid esse incorporeum, de illo tamen nisi per imagines corporeas cogitare non possit, et tale aliquid esse credere, quale fallax corporis sensus infligit.' (As Manichee, A. had just the difficulty with imagining incorporeal reality that he warns against here: see particularly on 3.7.12 and 7.1.1.)

lumen cordis mei: cf. Jn. 1.9 (VL), `lumen verum' (see on 1.13.21, `lumen cordis mei').

delectabar: See on 1.1.1 for delectatio; here, as commonly in conf., its presence is the sign that a moral suasion from outside has struck sparks and will have effect--here, mainly for the good.

quaererem: The word is a reminder to compare this attempted ascent to `Wisdom' with the pattern prescribed at 1.1.1; the obvious defect here is that there has been no antedecent praedicatio, hence no accurate knowledge of what A. was seeking. Thus A. falls into the trap foretold at 1.1.1: `aliud enim pro alio potest invocare nesciens'.

amplexarer: amplexarer G O2 S Maur. Knöll Skut.:   amplexarem C D O1 Ver.

quod nomen Christi non erat ibi: At age 18, not yet a Manichee, encountering philosophy in the attenuated and mostly notional form of the Ciceronian protreptic (which he read without context or philosophical guidance and instruction), A. had the Christian expectations of his environment in a pronounced form. What the Manichees had that Cicero did not was just that for which he now pined: the nomen Christi. The phrase is common in the first books of civ., and cf. cons. ev. 1.14.22, where A. thinks of heretics and `pagans' who are so impressed with the figure of Christ that they use his name on their pseudonymous works: `ita sentiunt etiam inimici Christi ad suadendum quod proferunt contra doctrinam Christi nullum sibi esse pondus auctoritatis, si non habeat nomen Christi.') For the structure of conf. it is important that it is the second person of the trinity whose absence he feels and seeks to remedy (see on 7.18.24 and 8.12.29). (See also c. Faust. 13.17, quoted below in notes on 3.6.10, `viscum'.)

The depth of A.'s Christian attachments at the time he encountered the Manichees is hard to measure, but there is one revealing text: at c. ep. fund. 8.9, he tells how the Manichees played down the Pascha, because it was only seeming passion, and played up their own feast of the Bema, because it was real: `hoc enim nobis erat in illa bematis celebritate gratissimum, quod pro pascha frequentabatur, quoniam vehementius desiderabamus illum diem festum subtracto alio qui solebat esse dulcissimus.' ³

secundum misericordiam tuam: Cf. Ps. 24.7, `delicta iuventutis et ignorantiae meae ne memineris, secundum misericordiam tuam . . . domine'.

in ipso adhuc lacte matris: 1.11.17, `audieram enim ego adhuc puer (n.b., not infans) de vita aeterna promissa nobis per humilitatem domini dei nostri descendentis ad superbiam nostram.'

3.5.9

The encounter with Cicero leads to A.'s first reported direct encounter with scripture, which disappoints. He could not accept in an appropriate sense what he approached in an inappropriate way. He recounts his pride, and his disdain for the literary quality of the text, and no more (what he read he leaves unstated); at least one of his problems with the substance of scripture may be surmised (cf. on `inclinare cervicem' below), but that is not his concern here. His approach to Manicheism came from a bad reading of scripture, tainted by curiosity and underlying pride. We do not see him approach scripture again until 5.11.21, when he begins to get an inkling from Elpidius that things might be other than they seemed. (Bear in mind that access to copies of the scriptural texts was not easy and universal. The reading recounted here may have been his first opportunity to approach the texts seriously.) Another report on his disappointment: util. cred. 6.13, `nihil me existimare prudentius, castius, religiosius, quam sunt illae scripturae omnes quas testamenti veteris nomine catholica ecclesia retinet. miraris, novi. non enim dissimulare possum longe aliter nobis fuisse persuasum. sed nihil est profecto temeritatis plenius, quae nobis tunc pueris [see duab. an. 15.24 quoted below] inerat, quam quorumque librorum expositores deserere, qui eos se tenere ac discipulis tradere posse profitentur, et eorum sententiam requirere ab his qui conditoribus illorum atque auctoribus acerbissimum nescio qua cogente causa bellum indixerunt.'

The pride here is not ambitio saeculi/superbia vitae but the underlying Pride that begets all sin. The range of expressions is remarkable: `superbis', `non eram ego talis . . . gressus', `tumor . . . meus', `dedignabar esse parvulus', and `turgidus fastu'.

itaque: See on 3.4.8; he turns to scripture to combine his new zeal for philosophy with his need for the nomen Christi.

videre . . . video: [cf. `visa est', `acies mea'] the approach to scripture is made out of curiositas, i.e., concupiscentia oculorum.

ecce video: Courcelle, Recherches 38n6, takes `non enim sicut modo loquor . . .' here as proof that in this line `ecce video' is only a manner of speech; hence he wants to take the `ecce audio' of the garden scene (8.12.29) likewise. Here `ecce video' is true present (cf. the next sentence), whereas in 8.12.29 `ecce audio' is historic present.

compertam: compertam C D O Maur. Knöll Skut. Ver. Pell.:   confectam GS Vega  (Vega incorrectly reads this in O)

velatam mysteriis: s. 51.4.5, `honora in eo quod nondum intellegis; et tanto magis honora, quanto plura vela cernis. quanto enim quisque honoratior est, tanto plura vela pendent in domo eius. vela faciunt honorem secreti, sed honorantibus levantur vela. inridentes autem vela, et a velorum vicinitate pelluntur. quia ergo transimus ad Christum, aufertur velamen.'

The description of scripture, in terms reminiscent of the theophany of a goddess, is curious and forceful. One must bow the head to enter, but then the space revealed opens out in height and mystery. `Tumor' below answers `humilem' here, and `interiora' to `velatam'.

non eram ego talis: s. 51.5.6, `loquor vobis, aliquando deceptus, cum primo puer ad divinas scripturas ante vellem affere acumen discutiendi quam pietatem quaerendi: ego ipse contra me perversis moribus claudebam ianuam domini mei: cum pulsare deberem, ut aperiretur [cf. Mt. 7.7, and see on 1.1.1], audebam [so Pellegrino, Les Confessions 93n26, against Maur. addebam], ut clauderetur. superbus enim audebam quaerere quod nisi humilis non potest invenire. quanto vos beatiores estis modo! quam securi discitis, quam tuti, quicumque adhuc parvuli estis in nido fidei [cf. 4.16.31, `parvulis tuis'], et spiritalem escam accipitis! ego autem miser, cum me ad volandum idoneum putarem, reliqui nidum, et prius cecidi quam volarem. sed dominus misericors me, a transeuntibus ne conculcarer et morerer, levavit et in nido reposuit. haec enim me perturbaverunt, quae modo vobis securus in nomine domini et propono et expono.'

On s. 51 cf. Cour. Recherches 61-62 (with 62n2 on the use here of puer to describe A. at age 18). He goes further (63) to say that the `principale difficulté sur laquelle ait achoppé le jeune Augustin' was the discordance of the nativity stories and the genealogies. The Manichees made much of this (cf. Alfaric 199-203), for if they could impugn the nativity, they could dispense with the virgin birth and the physical incarnation of God. (Such criticism was regarded later by A. as an attempt to play upon curiositas to lead the naive astray: cons. ev. 2.1 promises to discuss the relations of the gospel narratives `ne quid ex hoc in fide christiana offendiculi patiantur qui curiosiores quam capaciores sunt, quod non utcumque perlectis sed quasi diligentius perscrutatis evangelicis libris inconvenientia quaedam et repugnantia se deprehendisse existimantes magis ea contentiose obiectanda quam prudenter consideranda esse arbitrantur.' Manichean tactics are more explicitly but more briefly described at agon. 4.4.)

But it goes too far to call this the principal difficulty--there were others, and to judge by the analysis he gives in a few paragraphs of the threads that bound him to Manicheism, others were equally pressing. The retrospective selection of questions undermining the historical incarnation is consistent, on the other hand, with a central feature of conf.: from 7.9.14 through Bk. 8, the central issue is A.'s attempt to find a place--and the right place--for the incarnate Christ in his theology. If we are justified in reading anything of s. 51 into the narrative here, it is that the mature A. thought that it was lack of faith in the incarnate Christ that sent him astray in youth. (At 1.11.17, his childhood religion did contain the incarnation [`per humilitatem domini dei nostri descendentis'], but was not taken to its logical conclusion in baptism.)

At doctr. chr. 2.8.12ff, A. outlines the proper way to approach scripture, which has the effect of offering indirect negative commentary on his approach here. He emphasizes reading all of canonical scripture, avoiding non-canonical books, emphasizing first `praecepta vivendi vel regulae credendi' (2.9.14), and putting off more obscure passages for later consideration.

inclinare cervicem: en. Ps. 8.8, `inclinavit ergo scripturas deus usque ad infantium et lactentium capacitatem, sicut in alio psalmo canitur, “et inclinavit caelum et descendit.” et hoc fecit propter inimicos, qui per superbiam loquacitatis inimici crucis Christi, etiam cum aliqua vera dicunt, parvulis tamen et lactentibus prodesse non possunt.'

indigna: cf. Hier. ep. 22.30, to whom it was the language that offended: `sermo horrebat incultus'. doctr. chr. 2.14.21, `tanta est vis consuetudinis etiam ad discendum ut, qui in scripturis sanctis quodammodo nutriti educatique sunt, magis alias locutiones mirentur easque minus latinas putent quam illas quas in scripturis didicerunt, neque in latinae linguae auctoribus reperiuntur.' At cat. rud. 8.12-9.13, he envisions two types of catechumen, the most learned and the somewhat learned: he himself matches the first category, but it is from the second category that he expects fastidiousness: (9.13), `maxime autem isti docendi sunt scripturas audire divinas, ne sordeat eis solidum eloquium, quia non est inflatum, neque arbitrentur carnalibus integumentis involuta atque operta dicta vel facta hominum, quae in illis libris leguntur, non evolvenda atque aperienda ut intellegantur, sed sic accipienda ut litterae sonant; deque ipsa utilitate secreti, unde etiam mysteria vocantur, quid valeant aenigmatum latebrae ad amorem veritatis acuendum discutiendumque fastidii torporem, ipsa experientia probandum est talibus, cum aliquid eis quod in promptu positum non ita movebat, enodatione allegoriae alicuius eruitur. . . . ita enim non inridebunt, si aliquos antistites et ministros ecclesiae forte animadverterint vel cum barbarismis et soloecismis deum invocare, vel eadem verba quae pronuntiant non intellegere perturbateque distinguere.'

autem: autem C D G O Ver.:   tamen S Knöll Skut. Vega Pell.

parvulis: Cf. en. Ps. 8.8, quoted above.

turgidus fastu: See on 7.9.13, `typho turgidum', of the unnamed individual who procured for him the platonicorum libri (that individual, at a time when A. is reading philosophy and turning to scripture, has the qualities that made A. a bad reader here); cf. 3.3.6, `tumebam typho' (--> here, `tumor meus').

3.6.10

An early reader: Secundinus in ep. Sec. 3, `legit enim aliquanta exile meum et qualecumque Romani hominis ingenium reverendae tuae dignationis scripta, in quibus sic irasceris veritati [cf. `veritas et veritas' here] ut philosophiae Hortensius. . . . in medium solis ac lunae inventus es accusator [cf. `sol et luna' here].'

The extensive food metaphor reflects the practice of the Manichean elect, who consumed particles of the divine in their banquets. At 3.1.1, a parallel use of metaphor (`famis mihi erat') marked A.'s isolation from authentic nourishment; here now he ingests all manner of false victuals. The emphasis on phantasmata is likewise apt: curiositas has led him into a world of images--eye-food, images of things that never existed. The paragraph thus moves from imagery drawn from concupiscentia carnis (wolfish feeding on food that does not satisfy) to imagery drawn from concupiscentia oculorum (greedy gazing at phantasmata that are hollow and empty): all against a backdrop of empty words.

In this commentary no attempt will be made to provide systematic exposition of Manichean doctrines or assessment of the accuracy of A.'s reports--others have done that; it will be enough to provide parallels from A.'s writings that illustrate how he understood the particular doctrines that he mentions or to which he alludes here. A brief summary⁴ from A.'s hand: ep. 236.2, `auditores autem qui appellantur apud eos et carnibus vescuntur et agros colunt et, si voluerint, uxores habent, quorum nihil faciunt qui electi vocantur. sed ipsi auditores ante electos genua figunt, ut eis manus supplicibus imponatur non a solis presbyteris vel episcopis aut diaconis eorum sed a quibuslibet electis. solem etiam et lunam cum eis adorant et orant. die quoque dominico cum illis ieiunant et omnes blasphemias cum illis credunt, quibus manichaeorum haeresis detestanda est, negantes scilicet Christum natum esse de virgine nec eius carnem veram confitentes fuisse sed falsam ac per hoc et falsam eius passionem et nullam resurrectionem fuisse contendunt. patriarchas prophetasque blasphemant. legem per famulum dei Moysen datam non a vero deo dicunt sed a principe tenebrarum. animas non solum hominum sed etiam pecorum de dei esse substantia et omnino partes d