Book Ten

10.1.1 - 10.5.7

Introduction

10.6.8 - 10.27.38

The Search for God in Memory (For details see below)

10.28.39 - 10.43.70

temptatio est vita humana super terram

10.30.41 - 10.34.53

concupiscentia carnis

10.30.41 - 10.30.42

Sense of Touch

10.31.43 - 10.31.47

Sense of Taste

10.32.48

Sense of Smell

10.33.49 - 10.33.50

Sense of Hearing

10.34.51 - 10.34.53

Sense of Sight

10.35.54 - 10.35.57

concupiscentia oculorum

10.36.58 - 10.39.64

ambitio saeculi

10.40.65 - 10.41.66

The Search for God: Memory and Temptation

10.42.67 - 10.43.70

verax mediator

If conf. were merely the story of A.'s ascent to God, the work could well end with 10.27.38;¹ that it does not is a sign that the work is more ambiguously constructed, reflecting the continuing search for God and the continuing failure of that search to achieve perfect fruition. The themes of the two halves of this book (parr. 1-38, 39-70) were already linked at mus. 6.14.48, `quamobrem neque in voluptate carnali [i.e., concupiscentia carnis], neque in honoribus et laudibus hominum [i.e., ambitio saeculi], neque in eorum exploratione quae forinsecus corpus attingunt [i.e., concupiscentia oculorum] nostra gaudia conlocemus, habentes in intimo deum [cf. 10.20.29], ubi certum est et incommutabile omne quod amamus.' For temptation as the threat to mysticism, see Gn. litt. 12.26.54, `una ibi et tota virtus est amare quod videas et summa felicitas habere quod amas. ibi enim beata vita in fonte suo bibitur, unde aspergitur [see on 9.10.23] aliquid huic humanae vitae, ut in temptationibus huius saeculi temperanter, fortiter, iuste prudenterque vivatur. propter illud quippe adipiscendum, ubi secura quies erit et ineffabilis visio veritatis, labor suscipitur et continendi a voluptate et sustinendi adversitates et subveniendi indigentibus et resistendi decipientibus.' ² (When temptation is sent by God--the temptations of this book are at least partly to be seen that way--they are a vehicle of self-knowledge: s. 2.2.2, `sic ergo ignarus est deus rerum, sic nescius cordis humani, ut temptando hominem inveniat? absit: sed ut ipse homo se inveniat.')

The first half of Bk. 10 renews the ascent theme (see prolegomena).³ What A. learned to do at Ostia he now does, in writing this text. This is no longer an account of something that happened somewhere else some time ago; the text itself becomes the ascent.⁴ The text no longer narrates mystical experience, it becomes itself a mystical experience (for A.; it will further become in Bks. 11-13 a mystical experience for the reader as well). The failure to make the adjustment has led to serious failures to see the purport of this and the later books of conf.⁵

The proof of these assertions lies in the close parallels between the structure and contents of the first half of Bk. 10 to the structure and contents of the Ostia vision (9.10.23-25). The main correspondences are shown here, while others are noted in the commentary.⁶

9.10.23praeterita obliviscentes	A. now in Bk. 10 turns his back on the past represented by Bks. 1-9 . . .
in ea quae ante sunt extenti	. . . turning to the rest of his life, the future.
9.10.24, perambulavimus gradatim cuncta corporalia et ipsum caelum	10.6.9, interrogavi terram . . .
ascendebamus interius	10.6.9, melius quod interius . . . homo interior
venimus in mentes nostras et transcendimus eas	10.8.12, transibo ergo et istam naturae meae, gradibus ascendens ad eum qui fecit me, et venio in campos et lata praetoria memoriae.
ut attingeremus regionem ubertatis indeficientis	10.17.26, volens te attingere, unde attingi potes
primitias spiritus	a state represented by 10.27.38?
et remeavimus ad strepitum oris nostri	10.40.65, sed recido in haec aerumnosis ponderibus et resorbeor solitis et teneor
9.10.25, quoniam si quis audiat, dicunt haec omnia non ipsa nos fecimus, sed fecit nos qui manet in aeternum	10.6.9, non sumus deus et ipse fecit nos
quem in his amamus	10.6.8, hoc est quod amo, cum deum meum amo
subtrahantur aliae visiones longe imparis generis	10.6.8, `non candorem lucis ecce istum amicum oculis . . . amo, cum amo deum meum'
recondat in interiora gaudia spectatorem suum	10.40.65, `aliquando intromittis me in affectum multum inusitatum introrsus ad nescio quam dulcedinem'
si continuetur hoc . . . et haec una rapiat et absorbeat et recondat . . . ut talis sit sempiterna vita, . . . nonne hoc est: `intra in gaudium domini tui'?	10.40.65, `quae si perficiatur in me, nescio quid erit quod vita ista non erit.'

In the last year of his life, A. transmitted a copy of conf. to a friend, accompanied by remarks that show the opening pages of Bk. 10 firmly in mind: ep. 231.6 (in 429, to Darius), `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 [10.4.6] in me ipso per me ipsum. 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 [10.6.9]; nos autem perdideramus nos, sed qui fecit, refecit. cum autem ibi me inveneris, ora pro me ne deficiam, sed perficiar [10.4.5, `consumma imperfecta mea']; ora, fili, ora.' (Cf. ep. 27.4, to Paulinus, `in his enim quae tibi recte, si adverteris, displicebunt, ego ipse conspicior, in his autem quae per donum spiritus quod accepisti recte tibi placent in libris meis, ille amandus, ille praedicandus est apud quem est fons vitae, et in cuius lumine videbimus lumen sine aenigmate, et facie ad faciem, nunc autem in aenigmate videmus.')

E. Williger, Zschr. für die neutest. Wiss. 28(1929), 81-106, argued that Bk. 10 was the last of conf. to be written and inserted (p. 105: `eingefügt') in its present place; this thesis has found favor among scholars otherwise disposed to find strong and determinative neo-Platonic influence on A., and for whom the second half of Bk. 10 is thus particularly recalcitrant. Agreement was expressed in more or less detail by Theiler, P.u.A. 60-69, Courcelle, Recherches 25-26, and O'Meara 16. A variant is that of A. Pincherle, La Nouvelle Clio VII-VIII-IX (1955-58), 196-7 (repeated by him at Aug. Stud. 7[1976], 119-33), who claims (followed by Courcelle, Les Confessions 579-580, arguing the hypothetical influence of Paulinus of Nola) that only the examination of conscience (10.30.41-10.37.60) was intercalated after a first draft of the rest was completed. The most systematic refutation of the original thesis, from a scholar working without subjective assumptions about the content, is Knauer 19n1, 149-150, 154-155, and even so Plotinian a student of A. as R. J. O'Connell, Saint Augustine's Confessions (Cambridge, Mass., 1969), 121n1, saw a structural unity including Bk. 10.

The main difficulty with that thesis is the absolute lack of attestation or parallel. A. in retr. offers no slightest support for such a reading, and nothing in the history of ancient literature known to the present writer offers a parallel for writing an additional book for a work already more or less completed and inserting the additional book in the middle of the text, with all the implications for renumbering of books, etc. In the one case we know of where A. did write an additional book for a completed work, Gn. litt., he added it to the end (retr. 2.24.1, `duodecimum addidi'), though for its subject matter it could as well have been inserted after Bk. 8. Bk. 10 is only scandalous to those whose view of conf. as a whole is partial and one-sided. The burden of proof must remain on those who would impose their drastic hypothesis on the text (and so simplify for themselves the task of reading the text as a whole).

A more integrated view is that of P. Landsberg, La Vie Spirituelle 48(1936), 33, `Les neuf premiers livres des Confessions pourraient être intitulés Memoria, le dixième Contuitus, et la dernière partie Expectatio.' He was followed by J.-M. le Blond, Les Conversions de saint Augustin (Paris, n. d. [1950]), 50, and Knauer 160n1. If a single scheme is needed to explain the strucure of conf., this is the best; see prolegomena for discussion of other possibilities and of the need for a more pluralistic reading.

The last four books of the Confessions have suffered the same relative want of celebrity that has befallen the last six books of the Aeneid.⁷ There are accordingly fewer studies, and fewer outstanding ones, to expound them. Of particular merit is C. P. Mayer, Augustiana 24[1974], 22-74; the approach is specialized (`Signifikationshermeneutik'), but for that reason the author is not tempted to claim that he has explained everything about these books, and what he has to offer is of correspondingly greater interest and merit. (Note, however, that his interpretation [38-9] glosses swiftly over the obstacle of the second half of Bk. 10.)

What makes this relative neglect possible? (Whether it is justified is a meaningless question, but what happens must be explained.) Such discussions always run the risk of becoming narrowly subjective, and such has been the case with conf. The prevalent explanation seems to be that the first nine books are full of lively biographical interest, while the last four, confined to theological disquisition, are of less intrinsic interest. Better to pay heed to what might be called the `density' of the text: above all the density of scriptural allusion. That density consists not merely of frequency of echoes of other texts, but of the indirection with which those echoes are heard, hence the complexity of the explanation required. Bks. 10-13 are more (in medieval terms) literal than allegorical. What A. has to say now, he says on the surface, and says clearly. (This feature of these books is probably what has most effectively defused attempts to identify their sub-texts: for they seem so transparent, and so merely irrelevant--at least to some readers.) By contrast the `narrative' books are anything but narrative in their construction; their distinctive feature is not the lively biographical interest they evoke, but rather the complexity of the confessional mode, the allusiveness, and the indirection of the text's construction. It is not, in short, what A. says in those books that attracts attention (any more than it is what he says in the last books that attracts less attention), but how he says it.

10.1.1

The opening paragraphs are artfully constructed. I printed a text per cola et commata at Augustiana 29(1979), 280-303, with an earlier version of this commentary. For the text here (specifically: from 9.13.37, `-lem, cui' through 10.3.4, `verum tamen') we have the witness of a fragment of a sixth-century manuscript in Madrid, now lost and known only through a photocopy preserved in the papers of E. A. Lowe (see Verheijen, Augustiana 28[1978], 13-17): the fragment agrees exactly with the text printed by Skutella (and Verheijen and here) except that at 9.13.37 the obvious error confessionus appears.

cognoscam . . . cognoscam: sol. 2.1.1, `noverim me, noverim te.' The ambiguity of tense and mood made possibility by Latin verb forms is fruitful: perhaps more subjunctive in the first case, more future indicative (as the scriptural echo suggests) in the second; A. did not necessarily have to decide (subjunctive in both preferred by Knauer, Hermes 85[1957], 234n4, with few followers: cf. Mayer, Augustiana 24[1974], 27n26). W. Steidle in Romanitas-Christianitas (Festschrift Straub: Berlin, 1982), 476, takes the complementary phrase, `cognoscam te sicut et cognitus sum' to anticipate the two halves of Bk. 10. See G. Verbeke, Augustiana 4(1954), 495-515, for the demonstration that the link between self-knowledge and knowledge of God for A. is essential. Knowledge of God is only possible through knowledge of self (God is not, therefore, an object external to the self in the world of creature).

1 Cor. 13.12, `videmus enim nunc per speculum in aenigmate, tunc autem facie ad faciem; nunc cognosco ex parte, tunc autem cognoscam sicut et cognitus sum.' Gal. 4.9, `nunc autem cognoscentes, immo cogniti a deo'; cf. also 1 Cor. 8.2-3, `quisquis autem diligit deum, hic cognitus est ab illo.' The texts suggest escape from the regio dissimilitudinis to full vision: spir. et litt. 24.41, `“cum autem venerit quod perfectum est”, et totum hoc “quod ex parte est” fuerit “evacuatum” [1 Cor. 13.8-9], tunc verbum quod adsumpta carne carni apparuit ostendet se ipsum dilectoribus suis; tunc erit vita aeterna, ut cognoscamus unum verum deum; tunc similes ei erimus, quoniam tunc cognoscemus sicut et cogniti sumus.' All three verses quoted at trin. 9.1.1 (n.b.: trin. 9 begins the second half of that work), alongside Phil. 3.13-15 (see on 9.10.23). God's knowledge of humanity: en. Ps. 1.6, `dictum est [“novit dominus viam iustorum”] ut hoc sit nesciri a domino quod est perire, et hoc sit sciri a domino quod est manere'.

virtus [2]: Cf. 11.8.10, `in hoc principio, deus, fecisti caelum et terram in verbo tuo, in filio tuo, in virtute tua'; 1.5.6, `angusta est domus animae meae quo venias ad eam: dilatetur abs te.'

sine macula et ruga: Eph. 5.27, `gloriosam ecclesiam, non habentem maculam aut rugam aut aliquid huiusmodi, sed . . . sancta et immaculata.' Since for A. the best way to clean and smooth cloth was to stretch it on a wooden frame, he reads this verse in a special way: en. Ps. 147.23, `ut abluatur a maculis, mundetur fide; ut rugam non habeat, tendatur in cruce'; sim. at en. Ps. 44.22, 132.9. A. later tried to prescribe a reading at retr. 2.18, `ubicumque autem in his libris [de baptismo contra donatistas] commemoravi “ecclesiam non habentem maculam aut rugam,” non sic accipiendum est quasi iam sit, sed quae praeparatur ut sit, quando apparebit etiam gloriosa. nunc enim propter quasdam ignorantias et infirmitates membrorum suorum habet unde cotidie tota dicat: “dimitte nobis debita nostra.”' bapt. was written 400/1, so his attitude there was probably the same as that in conf.; but n.b. in retr. he fortifies the text against a misreading, but he does not say that he mis-intended. He certainly quotes it (e.g., at bapt. 1.17.26, 4.3.4-4.4.5) in a way that does not exclude the reading he later decries as optimistic.

haec est mea spes . . . cetera vero vitae huius: Suggests the structure of the Bk., mixing hope (10.1.1-10.27.38) and temptation (10.28.39 - 10.39.64): see above.

spes: With confirmation at the end of Bk. 10: 10.43.69, `merito mihi spes valida est.' Cf. 11.22.28, `et ego credidi, propter quod et loquor. haec est spes mea.'

ideo loquor: Faith precedes speech, but faith is accomplished in speech (= confessio): en. Ps. 115.2, `“credidi, propter quod locutus sum”; hoc est, perfecte credidi. non enim perfecte credunt qui quod credunt loqui nolunt; ad ipsam enim fidem pertinet etiam illud credere quod dictum est, “qui me confessus fuerit coram hominibus, confitebor eum coram angelis dei” [Mt. 10.32].' Cf. 1.5.5, `miserere ut loquor.'

spe gaudeo: The phrase is oxymoron of sorts, with scriptural warrant and for A. a specific pertinence: Rom. 12.10-12, `caritatem fraternitatis invicem diligentes . . . (11) spiritu ferventes, domino servientes, (12) spe gaudentes, tribulatione patientes, orationi instantes.' Cf. en. Ps. 131.16, `accepto pignore spiritus sancti,⁸ laetentur membra [corporis Christi] spe resurrectionis, quae praecessit in capite. eis enim apostolus dicit, spe gaudentes'; en. Ps. 75.15, `iam enim innovavit nos dominus in baptismo, et facti sumus novi homines, in spe quidem gaudentes, ut in tribulatione simus patientes, tamen non debet de memoria nostra recedere quid nobis praestitum sit.'

sanum: As adv. not attested before A.; see civ. 18.49, `sola spe gaudens, quando sanum gaudet'; b. vid. 17.21, `sed absit ut hoc sapiat, qui sanum sapit'; civ. 4.26, `quis non videat, qui sanum sapit . . .?'; civ. 18.51, `ut sanum rectumque sapiant.' For a comparable word (also attested at Apul. met. 5.28), cf. s. 179.2.2, `tunc solidum gaudeo, dum audio.'

cetera . . . fletur in eis: Cf. 10.28.39, `laetitiae meae flendae'. The idea, expressed with deliberate compression, is that in this life we weep for the wrong things and fail to weep when we should. Cf. en. Ps. 38.20, `de quibus gaudeam, de quibus gemam? de transactis gaudeo, pro his quae restant gemo. . . . numquid enim quia tanta transilivi, quia tanta transcendi, iam non fleo? nonne multo magis fleo? . . . nonne quanto magis quod abest desidero, tanto magis donec veniat gemo, tanto magis donec veniat fleo? nonne tanto magis, quanto magis crebrescunt scandala, quanto magis abundat iniquitas, quanto magis refrigescit caritas multorum?'

in eis: `when among them' (Ryan) perhaps better than `sur eux' (BA).

ecce enim veritatem dilexisti: Ps. 50.8, `ecce enim veritatem dilexisti; incerta et occulta sapientiae tuae manifestasti mihi'; en. Ps. 50.11, `veritatem dilexisti, id est, impunita peccata etiam eorum quibus ignoscis, non reliquisti. . . . ignoscis confitenti, ignoscis, sed seipsum punienti; ita servatur misericordia et veritas: misericordia, quia homo liberatur; veritas, quia peccatum punitur.'

qui facit eam: Jn. 3.21, `qui autem facit veritatem venit ad lucem, ut manifestentur opera eius quia in deo sunt facta'; cf. 1 Jn. 1.6, `si dixerimus quoniam societatem habemus cum eo et in tenebris ambulamus, mentimur et non facimus veritatem'; Eph. 4.15, `veritatem autem facientes in caritate augeamur in illo per omnia, qui est caput Christus.' (Contrast 10.37.62, `ut ipse me seducam et verum non faciam coram te in corde et lingua mea'.) Io. ev. tr. 12.13, `ad lucem, id est, ad Christum . . . quia qui confitetur peccata sua et accusat peccata sua, iam cum deo facit. accusat deus peccata tua; si et tu accusas, coniungeris deo. . . . initium operum bonorum, confessio est operum malorum. facis veritatem, et venis ad lucem. quid est, facis veritatem? non te palpas, non tibi blandiris, non te adulas, non dicis, “iustus sum,” cum sis iniquus, et incipis facere veritatem. . . . quia et hoc ipsum quod tibi displicuit peccatum tuum, non tibi displiceret, nisi deus tibi luceret, et eius veritas tibi ostenderet.' Hence the development at 10.30.41-10.39.64 `makes truth' in an important way. See also J. Ratzinger, REAug 3(1957), 385-389; and cf. prolegomena.

coram te: Cf. `in conspectu tuo' (at 10.2.2 and saep.); both expressions invoke the presence of God, upon whose silence the speech of this text trespasses. The phrase (and minor variants, e.g., `coram oculis tuis') occurs at 2.1.1, 2.9.17, 5.6.11, 8.2.4, 9.2.2, 9.4.7 (`libri disputati . . . cum ipso me coram te'--i.e., sol.), 9.4.8, 10.3.4 (`etiam hominibus coram te confiteor per has litteras'), 10.4.6, 10.37.62, 11.25.32, 12.16.23, 12.25.35, 13.16.19, 13.24.36, 13.27.42. Cf. Mt. 10.32, `qui confessus me fuerit coram hominibus, confitebor illum et ego coram patre meo qui est in caelis.'

10.2.2

The opacity of speaker to hearer and the unbridged distance between them often led A. to sober reflection, usually concentrating on the inadequacies of the speaker: cf. f. et symb. 3.4, `inter animum autem nostrum et verba nostra quibus eundem animum ostendere conamur, plurimum distat. . . . quid enim aliud molimur, nisi animum ipsum nostrum, si fieri potest, cognoscendum et perspiciendum animo auditoris inferre? ut in nobis quidem ipsi maneamus, nec recedamus a nobis, et tamen tale indicium quo fiat in altero nostra notitia proferamus'; cf. s. dom. m. 2.25.82, exp. prop. Rom. 71 (79), `nec audeamus de alterius corde, quod non videmus, ferre sententiam.' All three texts from the years 391/5 at Hippo; sim. at en. Ps. 41.13; pastorally at epp. 58.1, 92.2.

cuius oculis . . . conscientiae: Heb. 4.12-14, `vivus est enim sermo dei et efficax et penetrabilior omni gladio ancipiti et pertingens usque ad divisionem animae ac spiritus, compagum quoque ac medullarum, et discretor cogitationum et intentionum cordis. (13) et non est ulla creatura invisibilis in conspectu eius: omnia autem nuda et aperta sunt oculis eius, ad quem nobis sermo, (14) habentes ergo pontificem magnum qui penetravit caelos, Iesum filium dei, teneamus confessionem'; cf. Sirach 42.17-18, `nonne dominus fecit sanctos enarrare omnia mirabilia sua quae confirmavit dominus omnipotens stabiliri in gloria sua? (18) abyssum et cor hominum investigavit et in astutia eorum excogitavit.' Echoed elsewhere (La Bonnardière, REAug 3[1957], 137-162) only at ep. 144.3, `[homines] deum, cui nuda est humana conscientia, nec testem fallunt nec iudicem fugiunt.'

conscientiae: See on 1.18.29.

absconderem: Cf. 1.5.5, `noli abscondere a me faciem tuam.'

nunc autem . . . displicere me mihi: adn. Iob on 13.18, `quasi ipsa sit hominis iustitia in confessione sibi non parcere.'

ut erubescam . . . nisi de te: The heart of confessio is in this attempt (or tour-de-force: how far successful, and how far imitable, are other questions) to abdicate self-will and accept the will of another, to find self-knowledge only through knowledge of another, and then to give voice to that novel situation. Cf. the last sentence of this paragraph (true speech arises from God and is given back to God in confessio: true speech person-to-person is a by-product of this grace-driven interchange). The attempt goes against the grain of human language, where the deepest underlying assumption is that one who speaks, speaks with authority; in seeking to cede authority to God and to speak only what divine authority then allows, A. struggles to unite the intellectual discourse of Christianity to the practice of the religion.

manifestus sum: 2 Cor. 5.11, `deo autem manifesti sumus, sero autem et in conscientiis vestris manifestos nos esse'; cf. 10.1.1.

dixi: Cf. 10.3.4, `nam illum fructum [sc. confessionum] vidi et commemoravi.' The reference is not clear; G-M say, `sc. in the last sentence but one' --beginning `nunc autem'; Pellegrino ad loc. cites 2.3.5, 2.8.16, 4.1.1, 5.1.1, 9.12.33. The multiple references do not include any single passage in which A. explicitly presents the fructus confessionis. The sense seems to be rather, `I have said (well enough over and over again, more and less explicitly)'.

cum enim malus sum . . . non tribuere mihi: Embracing the traditional categories, confessio peccati and confessio laudis.

hoc non tribuere mihi: 2.7.15, `quis est hominum, qui suam cogitans infirmitatem audet viribus suis tribuere castitatem atque innocentiam suam?'

tu, domine, benedicis iustum: A. here echoes Ps. 5.13, `quoniam tu benedices iustum', but reinterprets it to reverse the meaning, as he does more pedantically at en. Ps. 5.17, `bona enim voluntas dei praecedit bonam voluntatem nostram, ut peccatores vocet in paenitentiam' (there follows a little florilegium of apt quotations from Romans: 3.23, 8.30, 8.33, 8.31, 5.9-10). The phrasing is artful, a sign of the care taken to capture and domesticate this scriptural sentiment (see Knauer 178-179).

iustificas impium: Rom. 4.5, `ei vero qui non operatur, credenti autem in eum qui iustificat impium, deputatur fides eius ad iustitiam.' By way of explanation years later, spir. et litt. 11.18, `quae ideo iustitia dei dicitur, quod impertiendo eam iustos facit'. en. Ps. 118. s. 3.3, `itaque in viis domini, quas omnes fides una complectitur, qua in eum creditur qui iustificat impium, qui etiam dixit, “ego sum via,” nemo peccatum operatur, sed confitetur. . . . ergo convertantur, et in eum qui iustificat impium pie credant, atque in illo misericordiam peccatis dimissis et veritatem completis promissis, hoc est, universas vias domini inveniant: in quibus ambulantes non operabuntur iniquitatem; quia non tenebunt infidelitatem sed fidem, quae per dilectionem operatur, et cui peccatum non imputatur.' The attempt to pin A. to a rigidly-hypostasized view of `justification' is not likely to succeed. To omit both the multiple roles of Christ (patria, dux, via) and the crucial stage of confessio in A.'s sense produces mere doctrine: e.g., conc. Trident. sess. 6, cap. 7, `iustificatio . . . non est sola peccatorum remissio, sed et sanctificatio et renovatio interioris hominis per voluntariam susceptionem gratiae et donorum: unde homo ex iniusto fit iustus.' A. himself could do what no conciliar doctrine can allow itself to do, hold and cherish two apparently contradictory propositions at once: crudely put, Grace and Free Will. No amount of badgering on his part, or on the part of his most subtle followers, will in itself succeed in enabling any reader to perform the same feat; no amount of badgering on the part of any of his less subtle followers will make either a Predestinarian or a Semipelagian Augustine credible. We are left watching A. perform on the high wire: en. Ps. 31. en. 2.6, `noli ergo praesumere de operibus ante fidem. noveris quia peccatorem te fides invenit, etsi te fides data fecit iustum, impium invenit quem faceret iustum. “credenti” inquit. “in eum qui iustificat impium deputatur fides eius ad iustitiam.” si iustificatur impius ex impio fit iustus.' Such a balancing act works if the actor remains in motion on the wire; compel him to stop where he is, hold the position, and answer detailed interrogatories, and he shortly falls ingloriously to the ground. One of A.'s names for the balancing act is confessio (see next note).

confessio . . . in conspectu tuo: Ps. 95.6, `confessio et pulchritudo in conspectu eius'; en. Ps. 95.7, `pulchritudinem amas? vis esse pulcher? confitere. non dixit, pulchritudo et confessio, sed “confessio et pulchritudo.” foedus eras, confitere ut sis pulcher; peccator eras, confitere ut sis iustus. . . . confitentur enim peccata sua, vomunt mala quae avide voraverant; non redeunt ad vomitum suum, sicut canis immundus; et erit confessio et pulchritudo. amamus pulchritudinem: prius eligamus confessionem, ut sequatur pulchritudo.'

10.3.3

Here A. comes to a question begged throughout the first nine books: what authority does he claim for his narrative? His view is implicit earlier (see esp. 7.6.9, `talis quippe narraverat'), and see on 10.1.1: `truth' is a quality of the speaker, not the text, and it is the authority of the speaker, now guaranteed by God (if at all) that stands behind the text.

quasi ipsi . . . languores meos: Ps. 102.3-5, `qui propitius fit omnibus iniquitatibus tuis, qui sanat omnes languores tuos, (4) qui redimet de corruptione vitam tuam, qui coronat te in miseratione et misericordia, (5) qui satiat in bonis desiderium tuum, renovabitur sicut aquilae iuventus tua.' The Christological interpretation is guaranteed by an evangelical echo: Mt. 4.23, `et circumibat Iesus totam Galilaeam, docens in synagogis eorum, et praedicans evangelium regni, et sanans omnem languorem et omnem infirmitatem in populo.' For interpretation, see en. Ps. 102.5-8, partly quoted on 10.36.58. This verse remains on the table throughout Bk. 10, here introduced as an unreal possibility; it reappears at 10.30.42, at the beginning of the development on temptation, as a rhetorical question suggesting, but then immediately denying, that God might be less than omnipotent; in 10.36.58, it is the basis of bald assertion of hope and confidence. For details, see text and notes at 10.30.42, 10.33.50, 10.36.58, 10.41.66, 10.43.69, 10.43.70; echoes already at 4.11.16 and 6.11.20, and a further definite assertion at 11.9.11. See Knauer 144-150. For the implicit metaphor of healing, cf. on `medice meus intime' at 10.3.4.

curiosum: Cf. s. 19.2, `desperati autem homines, quanto minus intenti sunt in peccata sua, tanto curiosiores sunt in aliena.' Cf. also 13.20.28, `genus humanum profunde curiosum [2] et procellose tumidum [1] et instabiliter fluvidum [3]'; on curiositas see the fuller development at 10.35.54-57 (10.35.54, `vana et curiosa cupiditas nomine cognitionis et scientiae palliata'). Courcelle (Recherches 26), Solignac (BA 13.18) and Pincherle (Aug. Stud. 7[1976], 128) find this passage marked by annoyance or bad temper. That emotionalizes the text in a way that is not called for.

nemo scit hominum: 1 Cor. 2.11, `quis enim hominum scit quae sint hominis, nisi spiritus hominis qui in ipso est?' See on repeated citation at 10.5.7.

cognoscere se: For the transformations of the familiar `Know thyself', see P. Courcelle, Connais toi toi-même de Socrate à S. Bernard (Paris, 1974-5), esp. volume 1, and see further on 10.8.15 below. Cicero made explicit that the `self' is the mind: Tusc. 1.22.52, `cum igitur “nosce te” dicit [Apollo], hoc dicit: “nosce animum tuum.” . . . hunc igitur nosse nisi divinum esset, non esset hoc acrioris cuiusdam animi praeceptum tributum deo.'

cognoscit: sc. se.

caritas omnia credit: 1 Cor. 13.7, `[caritas] omnia suffert, omnia credit, omnia sperat, omnis sustinet.' Caritas making human communication possible at all: doctr. chr. pr. 6, `et poterant utique omnia per angelum fieri, sed abiecta esset humana condicio si per homines hominibus deus verbum suum ministrare nolle videretur. . . . deinde ipsa caritas, quae sibi homines invicem nodo unitatis adstringit, non haberet aditum refundendorum et quasi miscendorum sibimet animorum, si homines per homines nihil discerent.' (Essentially the same argument about reading scripture at, e.g., 11.3.5 and 12.18.27: the value of a reading of scripture is its consonance with the will of God, whatever the author's intention. Again it is God who guarantees the reading.) Not unlike this passage is the confidence placed in his own flock's trust of him, with a similar argument, at c. litt. Pet. 3.10.11.

unum facit: Cf. Eph. 4.2-4, `supportantes invicem in caritate, (3) solliciti servare unitatem spiritus in vinculo pacis: (4) unum corpus, et unus spiritus'; Col. 3.14, `caritatem habete, quod est vinculum perfectionis'; Rom. 12.5, `ita multi unum corpus sumus in Christus'; 1 Cor. 11.20, `convenientibus ergo vobis in unum'; 1 Cor. 12.12, `cum sint multa, unum tamen corpus sunt'; 1 Cor. 12.13, `etenim in uno spiritu omnes nos in unum corpus baptizati sumus'; Gal. 3.28, `omnes enim vos unum estis in Christo Iesu'; Eph. 2.14, `ipse enim est pax nostra, qui fecit utraque [i.e., Jew and gentile] unum.'

10.3.4

medice meus intime [2]: cf. 10.28.39, `medicus es', and cf. 2.7.15; cf. `medicina tua' at 5.9.16, 7.8.12, 9.8.18, 10.43.69, and at 10.3.3 the echo of Ps. 102.3, `qui sanat omnes languores tuos'. For `intime' of God, sim. at 3.6.11, 4.12.18, 9.9.21. The image is pastoral rather than dogmatic, occurring far more often in sermons than in other works; popular in Africa (reflecting the efforts of Christianity to combat the appeal of the cult of Asclepius), it is extremely frequent in A. See R. Arbesmann, Traditio 10(1954), 1-28, and more briefly in Aug. Mag. 2.623-629.

quae remisisti et texisti: Ps. 31.1, `beati quorum remissae sunt iniquitates et quorum tecta sunt peccata'; en. Ps. 31. en. 1.2, `quorum peccata in oblivionem ducta sunt'; en. Ps. 31. en. 2.9, `si texit peccata deus, noluit advertere; si noluit advertere, noluit animadvertere; si noluit animadvertere, noluit punire; si noluit punire, noluit agnoscere, maluit ignoscere.'

mutans animam meam fide et sacramento tuo: A. marks the end of the account of his praeterita mala with his baptism in 9.6.14.

cum leguntur et audiuntur, excitant cor: retr. 2.6.1, `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.' The cum-clause is taken by some to indicate preliminary `publication' of Bks. 1-9 (or, by those who think Bk. 10 was inserted later, of Bks. 1-9 and 11-13). Solignac, Lectio X-XIII 11-12, takes a moderated position, thinking that it may refer to informal readings of parts of 1-9, and surely no more than that need be assumed.

evigilet in amore: Cf. Cant. 5.2, `ego dormio, et cor meum vigilat; vox fratuelis mei pulsat ad ianuam' (text from Io. ev. tr. 57.2); Mt. 25.1-13 (parable of the virgins), esp. 13, `vigilate itaque, quia nescitis diem neque horam.'

potens est omnis infirmus: 2 Cor. 12.9-10, `sufficit tibi gratia mea: nam virtus in infirmitate perficitur. libenter igitur gloriabor in infirmitatibus meis, ut inhabitet in me virtus Christi. (10) propter quod placeo mihi in infirmitatibus meis, in contumeliis, in necessitatibus, in persecutionibus, in angustiis pro Christo: quando infirmor, tunc potens sum.' Linked to the incarnation at en. Ps. 58. s. 1.7, `doctor autem humilitatis, particeps nostrae infirmitatis, donans participationem suae divinitatis, ad hoc descendens ut viam doceret et via fieret, maxime suam humilitatem nobis commendare dignatus est; et ideo a servo baptizari non dedignatus est, ut nos doceret confiteri peccata nostra et infirmari ut fortes simus, habere potius apostoli vocem dicentis: “quando infirmor, tunc potens sum.”'

quo itaque fructu . . . fuerim: confessio takes place outside this text, but this text does not so much represent that activity as continue it in a more public forum. The tension between past and present is resolved in favor of the present (`adhuc quis ego sim, non quis fuerim': cf. the beginning of 10.4.6); even where past is the object of narrative, it is the present self that confesses and so `makes the truth' about itself.

adhuc: Knöll and Skutella both place a comma after `adhuc'; but Vega and Verheijen rightly delete (cf. `sed quis adhuc sim' below); see Knauer 126n2 on `die grosse Bedeutung des “adhuc” bei Augustin' --the tenth book is the book of adhuc (as 6 was the book of iam). The motif returns notably at 10.30.42.

multi . . . cupiunt: A. never comes closer than this to corroborating the view that the work arose in response to requests from Paulinus of Nola; but cf. the echo of ep. 24.1 for a further link. Two groups are asyndetically limned in these lines: those who have known A. (and not [really] known him--hence their desire to know more), and those who have heard him or heard about him, but not heard the words of his heart.

confitente confitente C D S Knöll Skut. Ver.:   confitentem G O Maur.

dicit enim eis caritas: ep. 24.1 (Paulinus to Alypius), `accepimus . . . litteras . . . ut nobis caritatem tuam non agnoscere sed recognoscere videremur, quia videlicet ex illo qui nos ab origine mundi praedestinavit sibi caritas ista manavit, in quo facti sumus antequam nati, quia “ipse fecit nos, et non ipsi nos,” [Ps. 99.3: see on 10.6.9] qui fecit quae futura sunt. huius igitur praescientia et opere formati in similitudinem voluntatum et unitatem fidei vel unitatis fidem praeveniente notitiam caritate conexi sumus, ut nos invicem ante corporales conspectus revelante spiritu nosceremus.' Even the best readers of this text will end by believing but not knowing what Augustine says of himself to be true. Caritas is the link that makes discourse possible, but even caritas is inadequate for fullness of speech.

ipsa in eis credit mihi: 1 Cor. 13.7 (see on 10.3.3).

10.4.5

munere tuo . . . pondere meo: For munus = spiritus sanctus, see on 13.38.53; cf. vera rel. 55.112, `ecce unum deum colo unum omnium principium [1], et sapientiam [2] qua sapiens est quaecumque anima sapiens est, et ipsum munus [3] quo beata sunt quaecumque beata sunt'; and see on 13.9.10 for the equation pondus = amor.

a multis . . . a multis: 2 Cor. 1.11, `adiuvantibus et vobis in oratione pro nobis, ut ex multorum personis, eius quae in nobis est donationis, per multos gratiae agantur pro nobis.'

doces: The verb recurs often in the temptation paragraphs: 10.31.44, 10.31.46, 10.34.52, 10.40.65, 10.43.70.

dextera eorum dextera iniquitatis: Ps. 143.7-8, `erue me de aquis multis et de manu filiorum alienorum (8) quorum os locutum est vanitatem, et dextera eorum dextera iniquitatis.'

approbat . . . improbat: The same antithesis at 3.9.17, 4.14.23, 13.23.34; for approbare, see on 10.10.17.

hymnus . . . turibulis tuis: Cf. Apoc. 8.3-4, `et alius angelus venit et stetit ante altare habens turibulum aureum, et data sunt illi incensa multa ut daret de orationibus sanctorum omnium super altare aureum quod est ante thronum dei. (4) et ascendit fumus incensorum de orationibus sanctorum de manu angeli coram deo.'

sancti templi: 1 Cor. 3.17, `templum enim dei sanctum est, quod estis vos'; en. Ps. 122.4, `templum enim dei sanctum est, quod estis vos. sed omnes adhuc infirmi et secundum fidem ambulantes, secundum fidem sunt templum dei, erunt aliquando et secundum speciem templum dei.'

miserere mei: Ps. 50.3, `miserere mei deus secundum magnam misericordiam tuam, et secundum multitudinem miserationum tuarum dele iniquitatem meam.' Just as at 9.12.31, the whole of Ps. 100 is invoked through quotation of its first line, so here Psalm 50, the penitential Psalm par excellence, is summoned at the outset of A.'s meditations on `who he now is'.

propter nomen tuum: Mt. 10.22, `et eritis odio omnibus propter nomen' meum (sim. at Mt. 24.9 and Jn. 15.21).

nequaquam . . . imperfecta mea: Phil. 1.6, `qui coepit in vobis opus bonum, perficiet usque in diem Christi Iesu'; sim. at 10.30.42 (at the beginning of the temptation paragraphs); cf. also 11.2.2, `primordia inluminationis tuae et reliquias tenebrarum mearum'.

10.4.6

qualis sim: c. Cresc. 3.81.93, `sed quid ad rem cuius inter nos vertitur quaestio, qualis ipse sim, cum in area dominica sim stipula si malus, granum si bonus?'

secreta exultatione . . . cum spe: Ps. 2.11, `servite domino in timore et exultate in tremore'; en. Ps. 2.9, `optime subiectum est “exultate”, ne ad miseriam valere videretur quod dictum est, “servite domino in timore.” sed rursus ne idipsum pergeret in effusionem temeritatis, additum est “cum tremore”, ut ad cautionem valeret circumspectamque sanctificationis custodiam.' Cf. Phil. 2.12, `cum tremore et timore vestram ipsorum salutem operamini'; cf. also 10.30.42, `exultans cum tremore in eo'.

in auribus credentium filiorum hominum: Cf. Ps. 106.8, 15, 21, 31: `confiteantur domino misericordiae eius, et mirabilia eius filiis hominum.'

mortalitatis meae: 1.1.1, `circumferens mortalitatem suam, circumferens testimonium peccati sui'.

civium . . . peregrinorum: Cf. 10.5.7, `quamdiu peregrinor abs te, mihi sum praesentior quam tibi.' The idea of `citizenship' is slow to emerge in A. (see A. Lauras and H. Rondet, études Augustiniennes [Paris, 1953], 99-160); for a parallel of roughly the same date as conf., see cat. rud. 19.31.

vitae vitae O S Skut. Ver.:   viae C D G Knöll Maur. Pell.
Cf. the same variants at 8.1.1; in both cases, the less authoritative manuscripts transmit the more literal-minded lectio facilior.

quibus iussisti ut serviam: Allusion to A.'s role as bishop, the present (cf. `qualis sim').

verbum . . . faciendo praeiret: The logos; another link to the doctrine of the incarnation; Jn. 13.15, `exemplum enim dedi vobis, ut, quemadmodum ego feci vobis, ita et vos faciatis.'

cum ingenti periculo: The risk is to himself; cf. 10.38.63, `temptationem periculosissimam'.

sub alis tuis: Cf. Ps. 16.8, `sub umbra alarum tuarum proteges me'; en. Ps. 16.8, `in munimento caritatis et misericordiae tuae protege me'. Cf. Ps. 35.8, `filii autem hominum in tegmine alarum tuarum sperabunt.' For sub alis evoking the outstretched arms of Christ (standing before the cross in glory, the common portrayal in late antique iconography), see Knauer 88n1. The phrase recurs at 12.11.11 and 12.11.13, and cf. 4.16.31 (`in velamento alarum tuarum').

tibi subdita est anima mea: Cf. Ps. 61.2, `nonne deo subicietur anima mea?' Cf. 7.21.27, `nemo ibi [sc. in platonicorum libris] cantat, nonne deo subdita erit anima mea?'

idem ipse est: Cf. Ps. 101.28, `tu vero idem ipse es' (quoted at Hebr. 1.12); en. Ps. 101. s. 2.12 connects to Exod. 3.14, `ego sum qui sum'; see on 1.6.10.

indicabo ergo talibus . . . sic itaque audiar: A verbal echo marks an important difference between Bk. 1 and Bk. 10: at 1.5.5, `dic animae meae, “salus tua ego sum.” sic dic, ut audiam' --that in the paragraph where A. listens in order to find the power to speak, to confess; now he speaks with more confidence. For the mood of `audiar', cf. on 10.1.1, `cognoscam'.

neque me ipsum diiudico: 1 Cor. 4.3-4, `mihi autem minimum est ut a vobis diiudicer aut ab humano die. sed neque meipsum diiudico, (4) nihil enim mihi conscius sum, sed non in hoc iustificatus sum. qui autem diiudicat me, dominus est.' en. Ps. 147.13, `quando enim potestis diiudicare conscientiam meam? quando examinare quo animo facio, quidquid facio? quantum possunt homines de alio iudicare? plus homo utique ipse de se; sed deus plus de homine, quam homo de se.'

10.5.7

nemo scit hominum: 1 Cor. 2.11, `quis enim scit hominum quae sint hominis nisi spiritus hominis qui in ipso est, ita et quae dei sunt nemo cognovit nisi spiritus dei.' The first half of the citation appears here (and already at 10.3.3), while it is only completed at the end of the work (13.31.46). The verse thus brackets the meditative Bks. 10-13 with a scriptural text that declares the unknowability of humanity and divinity.

tu . . . scis eius omnia: An important variation on the recurrent `tu scis' that runs through conf. as acknowledgement of the confessor's deference to the one to whom he confesses (Knauer 76-77). Note also the similarly thematic phrase, `tu autem domine' (also at 1.6.9, 8.7.16, 10.4.5, 10.42.67, 13.37.52, 13.38.53), another recurrent reminder of that deference.

despiciam . . . cinerem: Job 42.6 (VL), `auditu quidem auris audiebam te prius, nunc autem oculus meus videt te. ideo despexi memetipsum et distabui et aestimavi me terram et cinerem'; cf. Sirach 10.9, `quid superbit terra et cinis?' and Gn. 18.27, `respondensque Abraham, ait: “quia semel coepi, loquar ad dominum meum, cum sim pulvis et cinis.”' See on 1.6.7, `terram et cinerem', where the sense from Genesis predominates; also at 7.8.12.

videmus . . . faciem: 1 Cor. 13.12, `videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate, tunc autem facie ad faciem'; `nondum' shifts the emphasis, but unless we recognize the scriptural origin of the words, they are empty. See on 10.1.1.

quamdiu peregrinor abs te: 2 Cor. 5.6, `dum sumus in corpore, peregrinamur a domino'; see on 10.4.6.

nullo modo posse violari: On divine immutability, see on 7.1.1.

ego vero . . . nescio: See 10.31.44, `his temptationibus cotidie conor resistere'; cf. ep. 130.2.4, `sed quousque talis invenitur, de cuius animo et moribus sit in hac vita certa securitas? nam sicut sibi quisque nemo alter alteri notus est et tamen nec sibi quisque ita notus est, ut sit de sua crastina conversatione securus.' At civ. 11.12 he has in mind the exceptional cases of those who receive divine revelation in scripture: `quis enim hominum se in actione provectuque iustitiae perseveraturum usque in finem sciat, nisi aliqua revelatione ab illo fiat certus qui de hac re iusto latentique iudicio non omnes instruit, sed neminem fallit?'

quia fidelis es: Both `because you are faithful' and `because scripture tells us that you are faithful' : the first reading is empty optimism without the second: en. Ps. 94.9, `vide utrum ipsae temptationes non prosint. attende apostolum: “fidelis deus, qui non vos sinet temptari supra quam potestis ferre; sed faciet cum temptatione etiam exitum, ut possitis sustinere” [1 Cor. 10.13].'

confitear . . . in vultu tuo: Is. 58.10-11, `orietur in tenebris lux tua et tenebrae tuae erunt sicut meridies, (11) et requiem tibi dabit dominus semper.' en. Ps. 7.19, `qui ergo deserit eum a quo factus est, et inclinatur in id unde factus est, id est in nihilum, in hoc peccato tenebratur; et tamen non penitus perit, sed in infimis ordinatur.' Cf. 11.2.2, `reliquias tenebrarum mearum.' Ps. 89.8, `in inluminatione vultus tui' (et sim. saep. in OT).

10.6.8

percussisti cor meum: en. Ps. 76.20, `verba enim evangelistarum sagittae fuerunt. similitudines enim sunt. nam proprie nec sagitta est pluvia, nec pluvia sagitta; at vero verbum dei et sagitta est, quia percutit, et pluvia, quia rigat. . . . “sagittae tuae pertransierunt.” quid est, “pertransierunt”? non in auribus remanserunt, sed corda transfixerunt.' adn. Iob on 6.4, `“sagittae enim domini in corpore meo sunt”: verba dei, quibus anima transfigitur cum cogitur ad confessionem.' Cf. 9.2.2, `dederas sagittas acutas' (and see en. Ps. 119.5 quoted there), 9.2.3, `sagittaveras tu cor nostrum caritate tua et gestabamus verba tua transfixa visceribus'; 12.1.1, `cor meum . . . pulsatum verbis sanctae scripturae tuae'; cf. also Io. ev. tr. 18.5. The phrase is only half-metaphor in light of mag. 5.12, using the etymology `appellata sunt . . . verba scilicet a verberando'. Cf. c. ep. Parm. 1.1.1, `omnibus sanctarum paginarum vocibus circumtusus', and s. 360, `sic et ego de ecclesia catholica toto orbe diffusa circumtundebar divinarum vocibus litterarum.'

undique mihi dicunt: 9.10.25, `quoniam si quis audiat, dicunt haec omnia, non ipsa nos fecimus, sed fecit nos qui manet in aeternum.' They speak, but before Ostia, without grace, A. had not been willing to hear them clearly.

ut sint inexcusabiles: Rom. 1.20; see text on 7.9.14. This half-line of this verse, containing the harshest judgment on `paganism' is echoed only here in all of conf.; here, only this half-line, evocative but unobtrusive. This is apparently the first time A. ever quoted, cited, or alluded to this half-verse; there are only 11 other passages in which he does so, and the other earliest are c. Faust. 20.19 and qu. ev. 2.46.2 (allusion rather than quotation); the next in date then is probably s. 241.1.1 (405/10).

altius . . . fueris: Rom. 9.14-15, `quid ergo dicemus? numquid iniquitas apud deum? absit. (15) Moysi enim dicit, miserebor cuius misereor, et misericordiam praestabo cuius miserebor' (cf. Exod. 33.19, `et miserebor cui voluero, et clemens ero in quem mihi placuerit'); see on 9.13.35.

caelum et terra . . . laudes tuas: Ps. 68.35, `laudent illum caeli et terra, mare et omnia repentia in eis'; en. Ps. 68. s. 2.19, `verae divitiae huius pauperis istae sunt, considerare creaturam et laudare creatorem. . . . et creatura sola ista laudat deum, cum considerata ea laudatur deus.'

speciem corporis . . . amplexibus: These lines show how what began as a rhetorical device to organize A.'s text became a structural element in his thought. For convenience, this device is referred to consistently here as `sequence of the senses', and indeed one sequence is most commonly, but not exclusively, followed (as in the organization of Bk. 10, where the sequence is preserved in reverse order): sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch.<sup>9</sup> It is at some level purely rhetorical (and commended as such at rhet. Herr. 2.5.8) to invoke the five senses in turn, to give concrete examples of sense-knowledge by way of example in a philosophical discussion (so Cic., Lucullus 7.21, Cic. div. 2.3.9), and so the earliest texts with the list in A.: mus. 6.5.12, 6.14.44, esp. quant. an. 23.41, `(Ev.) sensus esse quinque audire soleo, videndi, audiendi, olfaciendi, gustandi atque tangendi . . . . (A.) partitio ista vetustissima est, et fere in contionibus celebrata.' The device begins to organize A.'s text more ambitiously in lib. arb. 2.13.35, in an elegant comparison of the pleasures of sense (touch [i.e., as always, sexual pleasure]-taste-smell-sound-sight) with the pleasures of Truth. Elsewhere in lib. arb. the sequence is frequently invoked (1.8.18, 2.3.8, 2.6.14), but note particularly the further development at 2.3.8: `(Ev.) magis arbitror nos ratione comprehendere esse interiorem quendam sensum ad quem ab istis quinque notissimis cuncta referantur. namque aliud est quo videt bestia, et aliud quo ea quae videndo sentit vel vitat vel appetit. ille enim sensus in oculis est, ille autem in ipsa intus anima, . . . hic autem nec visus, nec auditus, nec olfactus, nec gustatus, nec tactus dici potest, sed nescio quid aliud quod omnibus communiter praesidet.' From then on, the rhetorical device becomes commonplace (cf. Gn. c. man. 1.24.42, 2.14.21, duab. an. 2.2, s. dom. m. 1.12.34, div. qu. 59.3 [`videntur itaque mihi quinque virgines significare quinquepartitam continentiam a carnis illecebris. continendus est enim animi appetitus a voluptate oculorum, a voluptate aurium, a voluptate olfaciendi, gustandi, tangendi.'], div. qu. 64.7, epp. 92.5, 147.4, trin. 11.1.1, 12.9.14, 15.3.5, civ. 11.26, 22.29; see also Mayer, Zeichen 1.203. The development here in conf. is the most ambitious: here the sequence of the senses appears at the outset of the positive, ascending section of Bk. 10, it recurs at 10.8.13, 10.9.16, 10.10.17, 10.12.19, and 10.21.30, and it gives order and beauty to 10.27.38, but it recurs as an essential element in the structure of the later, earthbound section as well (see above preceding 10.1.1 for an outline of the structure there), and occurs within that section on a small scale as well (10.35.54, 10.35.55). See also on 1.20.31 and 7.17.23.

Thus the inner person has a structure that resembles the outer, hence, the outer person is a signum of the res of interiority; similarly, created nature is a signum of the res of divinity. Further, though the attempt to perceive God with the senses of the body is doomed to failure, there is nevertheless a way in which God is commensurate to the senses of the inner person, in which he is not merely high up and far away, but to be found more reliably within. This principle is the basis of the whole development through 10.27.38. See also civ. 11.27, `habemus enim alium interioris hominis sensum isto longe praestantiorem, quo iusta et iniusta sentimus, iusta per intellegibilem speciem, iniusta per eius privationem. ad huius sensus officium non acies pupulae [sight], non foramen auriculae [hearing], non spiramenta narium [smell], non gustus faucium [taste], non ullus corporeus tactus [touch] accedit. ibi me et esse et hoc nosse certus sum, et haec amo atque amare me smiliter certus sum.'

The question of the image's origins and A.'s contribution to its development has evoked a lively discussion. See K. Rahner, Rev. d'Ascet. et Myst. 13(1932), 113-145; Rev. d'Ascet. et Myst. 14(1933), 263-99; A. Solignac, Nouvelle revue theologique 80(1958), 726-738. P. Hadot, Porphyre et Victorinus (Paris, 1968), 2.292n1 sees an echo of Stoic doctrine transmuted by Porphyry; for discussion see O'Daly 102-105 and BA 6.466-467.

amplexibus: The range of meanings in conf. includes the sexual (6.11.20, `si feminae privarer amplexibus'), the non-sexually physical (8.8.20, `si consertis digitis amplexatus sum genu'), and the (apparently) completely metaphorical mystical (1.15.24, `et amplexer manum tuam totis praecordiis meis'; 7.18.24, `donec amplecterer mediatorem dei et hominum'). The present passage bridges the sexual to the mystical in linking the inner and outer person. Also: 2.2.3, 3.4.8, 5.12.22, 6.2.2, 6.16.26, 8.5.10, 8.11.27, and 13.8.9. Something analogous appears at Plot. 6.5.10.1-11.

10.6.9

This paragraph exemplifies the practice recommended at Rom. 1.20ff and previously demonstrated at Ostia, that of approaching God through the visible things of creation, whose beauty (species) is an instrument reflecting the greater divine beauty, the sign of divine creation (Rom. 1.20 cited in 10.6.10: cf. vera rel. 24.45, `ergo ipsis carnalibus formis quibus detinemur nitendum est ad eas cognoscendas quas caro non nuntiat'). See also s. Mai 126.6 (c. 417, citing Rom. 1.20), `alius, ut inveniat deum, librum legit. est quidam magnus liber ipsa species creaturae: superiorem et inferiorem contuere, attende, lege. non deus, unde eum cognosceres, de atramento litteras fecit: ante oculos tuos posuit haec ipsa quae fecit. quid quaeris maiorem vocem? clamat ad te caelum et terra: “deus me fecit.” [cf. Ps. 99.3]' The compatibility with neo-Platonic views of the ascent was noted already by G-M, citing Plotinus 5.1.4.1-9

This is the first of nineteen paragraphs from here to 10.21.31 (exceptions: 10.8.15, 10.16.25, 10.17.26, 10.20.29, 10.22.32) without second person singular direct address to God. The mind ascending to God does not address God (cf. notably 9.10.25, also without direct address): that is the function of confessio. (This drought is otherwise unmatched in conf.; on the prevalence of such direct address elsewhere, see on 1.1.1.)

quid est hoc: See on 7.6.10.

interrogavi . . .: The four elements are invoked, in the sequence earth, water, air, fire, in order; the rhetorical device is the same as that applied to the senses above (10.6.8). For the interrogatio, cf. s. 241.2.2, (`interroga mundum . . . interroga omnia, et vide si non sensu suo tamquam tibi respondent, deus nos fecit'), quoted on 9.10.23. For the idea, cf. civ. 11.4, `exceptis enim propheticis vocibus mundus ipse ordinatissima sua mutabilitate et visibilium omnium pulcherrima specie quodam modo tacitus et factum se esse et non nisi a deo ineffabiliter atque invisibiliter magno et ineffabiliter atque invisibiliter pulchro fieri se potuisse proclamat.'

abyssos: Job 28.14 (VL), `abyssus dixit, non est in me, et mare dixit, non est mecum.'

reptilia: Gn. 1.20, `producant aquae reptilia animarum viventium' (see 13.20.26).

Anaximenes: To study Anaximenes is for the curious: ep. 118.2.12, `quid nobis est . . . quaerere quid senserit Anaximenes, et olim sopitas lites inani curiositate recoquere . . . ?' The issue is critical, because it harks back to A.'s difficulties in conceiving God without a body; A. describes in detail Cicero's refutation (at nat. deor. 1.10.26) of Anaximenes' view at ep. 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 . . . nequaquam eum movebit quod de infinito aere sensit, quicumque sensit quod ipse esset deus.' (See on 7.1.2 and cf. 1.3.3; he also treats Anaximenes briefly [depending on the same passage of Cic.] at civ. 8.2, 8.5, 18.37 and at c. Iul. 4.15.75.) As one of the ancient wise men of Greece, Anaximenes had a place in other canons of the time, most notably in the `history of philosophy' written (or translated?) by Mallius Theodorus (clearly implied, without the name, by Claudian, M. Theod. 70, leading a catalogue: see Courcelle, LLW 135).

ipse fecit nos: Ps. 99.3, `scitote quoniam dominus ipse est deus; ipse fecit nos, et non nos'; see on 9.10.25. BA ad loc. thinks this inspired by Plotinus 3.2.3.18-25; mirum est, quomodo viri doctiores legant verba scripturae sacrae et dicant ea mutuata a philosopho platonico.

intentio: See on 9.10.23, `in ea quae ante sunt extenti'.

responsio eorum species eorum: Cf. 11.4.6, `et vox dicentium est ipsa evidentia'. s. 241.2.2, `pulchritudo eorum, confessio eorum'; en. Ps. 144.13, `ista contextio creaturae, ista ordinatissima pulchritudo ab imis ad summa conscendens, a summis ad ima descendens, nusquam interrupta, sed dissimilibus temperata, tota laudat deum . . . . vox quaedam est mutae terrae, species terrae.' lib. arb. 3.23.70, `et re vera si pie ac diligenter attendas, omnis creaturae species et motus qui in animi humani considerationem cadit eruditionem nostram loquitur, diversis motibus et adfectionibus quasi quadam varietate linguarum undique clamans atque increpans cognoscendum esse creatorem.' Sim. at en. Ps. 26. en. 2.12.

corpus et anima: beata v. 2.7, `manifestum vobis videtur ex anima et corpore nos esse compositos?'; cf. mor. 1.4.6.

radios oculorum meorum: Sight is always an active sense for A., where hearing is more passive: s. 277.10.10, `quod enim vidis, oculi tui radio contingis. si velis videre longius et interponatur aliquod corpus, inruit radius in corpus obiectum, et transire non permittitur ad id quod videre desideras,' and see s. 277.11.11, quoted on 7.17.23, and Io. ep. tr. 6.10, quoted on 7.10.16, `radians'; cf. Gn. litt. 1.16.31 and see on 10.34.52. For more details, and the Stoic connection of this idea, see J. Rohmer, Aug. Mag. 1.491-498; BA 48.125n; O'Daly 82. On its importance for A.'s metaphor of intellectual vision, see M. Miles, Jour. Rel. 63(1983), 125-142. With a different view, TeSelle 96-97 strongly doubts that A. believed the ray theory of vision, but without considering s. 277.

homo interior: Rom. 7.22, `condelector enim legi dei secundum interiorem hominem' (clearly cited at 7.21.27 and 8.5.12); 2 Cor. 4.16, `sed licet is qui foris est noster homo corrumpatur: tamen is qui intus est renovatur de die in diem'; Eph. 3.16, `virtute corroborari per spiritum eius in interiorem hominem'.

interrogavi . . . ipse me fecit: Verheijen moves these lines to the beginning of the paragraph, immediately following `et quid est hoc'; Herrmann, Aug. Mag. 1.138-139, had moved them to precede `et dixi omnibus his'. By changing the point preceding `interrogavi' from a period to a comma, the incongruity Verheijen sensed is removed. The iteration and summary is clear and intended. To put these lines first would spoil the effect of the original four interrogations of the elements.

10.6.10

This paragraph resembles 7.17.23 (as Theiler, P.u.A. 67, observed), the second `ascent' of that book, and so strengthens the parallels suggested in notes at the beginning of this book between the program of Bk. 10 and the earlier lessons in mystical ascent (more often that of Ostia).

anima pusilla et magna: Ps. 103.25, `repleta est terra creatura tua, hoc mare magnum et spatiosum, ibi repentia quorum non est numerus, anima pusilla et magna.' As G-M remark here, animals do have the interior sensus that correlates sense data--see 10.7.11; for the sequence, see 7.17.23, `interiorem vim . . . ratiocinantem . . . iudicandum'.

invisibilia dei: Rom. 1.20.

amore subduntur eis: Plotinus 5.1.1.17-22, hama gar diôketai allo kai thaumazetai, kai to thaumazon kai diôkon himologei cheiron einai: cheiron de hauto tithemenon gignomenôn kai apollumenôn atimotaton te kai thnêtotaton pantôn hôn timai hupolambanon oute theou phusin oute dunamin an pote en thumôi baloito.

iudicantibus: see `iudex ratio' above.

vocem . . . speciem: Created nature speaks of God, but only to those who hear; God himself, demonstrably silent, is also the object of the same claim--that he speaks to those who hear. Both claims concentrate attention on the act of interpretation: the quality of communication no longer depends on the speaker, but on the listener; cf. mag. 11.38 quoted in next note.

intus cum veritate conferunt: i.e., with the incarnate word of God, second person of the trinity, incommutable truth itself, `inside' the soul of the person who has been liberated by faith and baptism. The insight has Platonic resonance: civ. 8.7, `lumen autem mentium esse dixerunt [sc. platonici] ad discenda omnia eundem ipsum deum a quo facta sunt omnia'; cf. Plot. 5.1.10-11, 5.3.3. Cf. mag. 11.38, `intus ipsi menti praesidentem consulimus veritatem . . . . ille autem, qui consulitur, docet, qui in interiore homine habitare dictus est Christus'; sim. at Io. ev. tr. 54.8, `non sic loquitur veritas: intellegentibus mentibus intus loquitur, sine sono instruit, intellegibili luce perfundit.' For a formulation more purely linguistic, cf. trin. 15.11.20, `proinde verbum quod foris sonat signum est verbi quod intus lucet, cui magis verbi competit nomen. nam illud quod profertur carnis ore vox verbi est, verbumque et ipse dicitur propter illud a quo ut foris appareret adsumptum est' (and see on that passage R. A. Markus, Phronesis 2[1957], 81, with discussion in Meijering 20 [both writers observe that the difference between earlier formulations and that of trin. may have escaped A.'s attention].)

non est deus tuus: Cf. Exod. 21.4, `non facies tibi sculptile, neque omnem similitudinem quae est in caelo desuper et quae in terra deorsum, nec eorum quae sunt in aquis sub terra visitans iniquitatem patrum in filios.'

viden? viden? Ver.  `scribendum putavi' Ver.:   vident G O S Knöll Skut. Pell.:   videns C D V E M:   videnti A H Maur. Vega  (with the next words down to `in toto' in quotation marks):   vide en B P
Herrmann Aug. Mag. 1.138 reads as `vide an moles est minor in parte quam in toto' and stigmatizes as a medieval gloss. Verheijen p. xliii explains, `Le scribe de l'archétype n'a pas vu qu'Augustin commence ici à parler à son âme. Il va l'affirmer en toutes lettres: tibi dico anima, "c'est à toi mon âme que je parle."' This is the best cure for a long-troublesome problem. (The form is attested in a suitably lofty context at Aen. 7.779, describing Romulus in the underworld: `viden, ut geminae stant vertice cristae?') Vident has the merit of important manuscript attestation, but requires convoluted interpretation: `They see' is taken to govern not any form of indirect discourse but an independent clause following (in usual punctuation) a colon, and with it a change in verb-number is made from `dicit' (with `natura' as subject) to `vident' (drawing a subject from `eorum')--there is much variation in number of subjects and verbs in this paragraph, but this goes too far. The appeal of videnti, no less great to modern editors than to the medieval scribes who first wrote it, is that it returns to the initial topic of the paragraph, that created nature speaks to the one who . . . `judges' --and there is the problem, for the word videnti would apply to both those who judge and those who do not (`si alius tantum videat'); and if, after videnti, `moles est . . . toto' can be placed in quotation marks, another problem arises, for est should in that case be sum. For vident, cf G-M, and for videnti cf. BA ad loc. and O. Tescari, Riv. filol. istr. class. N. S. 13(1935), 525-529.

moles est, minor in parte quam in toto: Cf. 1.3.3, `ergo est aliqua pars tua maior, aliqua minor?' If the line is a gloss, the scholiast had a sharp memory for the exactly apposite passage in conf.

tibi dico, anima: For apostrophes to the soul, see on 3.2.3, 4.11.16, 11.15.19, and cf. the format of sol.'s dialogue between `Augustine' and `Reason.' The conscious alienation from self (or part of self) is much more commonly expressed, e.g., 4.4.9, `interrogabam animam meam'.

vitae vita: See on 3.6.10, `vita es animarum', and cf. 7.1.2, `vita vitae meae', and 10.20.29, `vivit enim corpus meum de anima mea et vivit anima mea de te.'

10.7.11

transibo vim meam: The phrase again at 10.8.12, then not until the long discourse on memory is completed and A. ascends past memory toward God at 10.17.26 (5x); see on 5.1.1 `transiens ad te', and cf. 9.10.24, `mentes nostras . . . transcendimus eas'. vis = `faculty' (see on 10.8.15).

non ea vi: For the ascent from sense (the province of anima) to interior sense (of animus) to intellect (of spiritus), see on 10.6.10 above, citing 7.17.23.

equus et mulus: Ps. 31.9, `nolite fieri sicut equus et mulus, quibus non est intellectus'; horse and mule pass for higher animals because of their posture (en. Ps. 31. en. 2.22, `equus et mulus erecta cervice sunt').

sensifico: A. is credited with this neologism (Hrdlicka 16), but it is scarcely likely that Mart. Cap. 9.908 is consciously following A.

oculo . . . et auri: Rom. 11.8, `sicut scriptum est [Deut 29.4], dedit illis deus spiritum compunctionis, oculos ut non videant, et aures ut non audiant, usque in hodiernum diem.'

10.8.12

A long drought of scriptural citations here sets in while A. discusses memory.

gradibus ascendens: 4.12.19, 9.10.24, and quant. an. 33.70-76.

campos et lata praetoria memoriae: Knauer 115 contrasts, both for imagery and tone, 1.5.6, `angusta est domus animae meae . . . ruinosa est'; cf. 10.8.14, `in aula ingenti memoriae meae', 10.40.65, `recessus memoriae meae'. Memory in conf. is an active force (1.8.13, `prensabam memoria'), a repository of images (4.1.1, 6.9.14), and already by implication a place where God is found (7.17.23, `sed mecum erat memoria tui . . . non mecum ferebam nisi amantem memoriam').

thesauri: See 10.8.13, `thesaurus' and `thesauro'; Io. ev. tr. 23.11, `vides aliquid, et per oculos percipis, et commendas memoriae; ibi est intus quod memoriae commendasti, in abdito reconditum quasi in horreo, quasi in thesauro, quasi in secretario quodam et penetrali interiore.' The image was commonplace (cf. rhet. Herr. 3.16.28, `nunc ad thesaurum inventorum atque ad omnium partium rhetoricae custodem, memoriam, transeamus'); but note that A. contradicts Porphyry flatly: Porph. sent. 15, hê mnêmê ouk esti phantasiôn sôtêria, alla tôn meletêthentôn ek neas probolê.

imaginum: Cf. 7.1.2, `per quales enim formas ire solent oculi mei, per tales imagines ibat cor meum'; forma is the external fact of `shape', imago the internal correlative; mag. 12.39, `imagines in memoriae penetralibus rerum ante sensarum quaedam documenta gestamus, quae animo contemplantes bona conscientia non mentimur cum loquimur.'

vel augendo vel minuendo: ep. 7.3.6, `unde igitur evenit ut quae non videmus cogitemus? quid putas, nisi esse vim quandam minuendi et augendi animae insitam quam quocumque venerit necesse est adferat secum?' Sim. with the same verbs at ep. 162.5, trin. 11.5.8, and in nearly the same words, c. ep. fund. 17.20.

catervatim . . . ex abditis: The imagery closely echoes that of Vergil's treatment of the behavior of bees in geo. 4, as W. Hübner, REAug 27(1981), 247-255 showed (see also 10.9.16, `miris tamquam cellis'; Hübner also suggests 10.10.17, `quasi in caveis', but `cavis' is the correct reading). This is a case, however, where the resemblance is more likely unconscious, i.e., a constellation of imagery coming together in A., influenced by his reading of V., but without conscious recollection.

narro memoriter: As he did, e.g., in Bks. 1-9.

Excursus: Memory in Augustine

This is the use of memory:
For liberation--not less of love but expanding
Of love beyond desire, and so liberation
From the future as well as the past.

Eliot, `Little Gidding'

A. enters this discussion with a fixed purpose--discovery of the truth about himself and about God--and he continues this discussion at such length because he believes that memory has much to tell him about both himself (cf. 10.17.26, where he is finally ready to ask, `quid ergo sum, deus meus? quae natura sum?' --and in the same paragraph he is ready to transire even memory in the search) and God (only in memory: also at 10.17.26). The intersection of the seemingly static entities `self' and `God' is what A. calls beata vita (10.20.29-10.23.34), and it is there that A.'s meditation comes to its conclusion.

A. had predecessors in the admiration of memory, but pride of place must go to Cicero, for whom¹⁰ memory set humanity apart from the beasts: Tusc. 1.24.57-1.27.66, e.g., 1.25.61, `. . . utrum capacitatem aliquam in animo putamus esse, quo tamquam in aliquod vas ea quae meminimus infundantur? absurdum id quidem. . . . an inprimi quasi ceram animum putamus, et esse memoriam signatarum rerum in mente vestigia?' <sup>11</sup> In his own work, see notably c. ep. fund. 17.20, `quid si eius memoriam cogitemus? . . . quis digne cogitet ubi capiantur istae imagines, ubi gestentur, vel ubi formentur? . . . nunc vero cum perexiguam terrae partem occupet corpus, immensarum regionum et caeli ac terrae imagines animus volvit, quibus catervatim discedentibus et succedentibus non fit angustus, atque hinc se ostendit non diffusum esse per locos, quia maximorum locorum imaginibus non quasi capitur, sed potius eas capit, non sinu aliquo sed vi potentiaque ineffabili, qua licet eis et addere quodlibet et detrahere, et in angustum eas contrahere, et per immensa expandere, et ordinare ut velit, et perturbare, et multiplicare, et ad paucitatem singularitatemve redigere.' That the context there is anti-Manichean suggests that the discussion here in Bk. 10 is at least partly in the same vein.

Memory for A. is a storehouse of images;¹² it is a passive faculty, on which intellect and will exercise their forces. When memory, intellect, and will are hypostasized as an image of the trinity in humanity (esp. in trin. 11: cf. du Roy 439-443), memory corresponds to the first person of the trinity (cf. esp. trin. 11.8.14, `ita fit ut omnis qui corporalia cogitat, sive ipse aliquid confingat, sive audiat aut legat vel praeterita narrantem vel futura praenuntiantem, ad memoriam suam recurrat et ibi reperiat modum atque mensuram omnium formarum quas cogitans intuetur'), and is the locus of the self (10.8.14, `ibi mihi et ipse occurro meque recolo'), the force that links present with past and gives identity.

Underlying A.'s view of memory and its importance is his belief in the transience of the present. The present moment slips away so rapidly into memory that it may almost be said that we do not know the present, the fleeting instant poised between past and future, for as soon as we can know it, it is our memory of the present that we know: he even spoke (at 4.1.1) with deliberate sense of the paradoxes of praesens memoria. Guitton, Le temps et l'éternite chez Plotin et Saint-Augustin (Paris, 1933), 234-5: `L'instant n'est pas pour lui une limite abstraite déterminée par le mouvement. Il est un acte de l'esprit,--non certes un acte immobile, comme serait celui de la pensée séparée, mais un acte réel, formé par la superposition d'une tension et d'une détente. . . . Quant à l'instant, il est, dans cette histoire, le point critique où sous l'effet de l'espace la tension de l'esprit se brise et s'éparpille. C'est un événement de conscience, puisqu'il ne saurait exister sans une conscience expectante pour le prévoir et une conscience remémorante pour le retenir. De la conscience il est à la fois la condition et l'effet.' Cf. Le Blond Les Conversions de saint Augustin (Paris, 1950), 16, `Aussi ne la [mémoire] définit-il pas premièrement comme la faculté du passé, mais comme la faculté du présent, de ce présent qui nous échapperait si par la mémoire nous ne dominons pas le morcellement indéfini des instants.' See also le Blond, 181-6.¹³

The delicate interplay of past, present, and future and the power of memory as de facto the locus of the `present' is important through the last books of conf. (see Landsberg quoted preceding 10.1.1 above), and it is worth lingering on the importance of this `vanishing present' and its place in A.'s texts; cf. 11.26.33, `praesens, quia nullo spatio tenditur'; 11.27.34, `quoniam praesens nullum habet spatium'; 11.28.37, `quis negat praesens tempus carere spatio, quia in puncto praeterit?' A sampling, esp. from before conf.:

ord. 2.2.6 (on the anima of the wise man), `quibus autem est memoria necessaria nisi praetereuntibus et quasi fugientibus rebus? ille igitur sapiens amplectitur deum eoque perfruitur qui semper manet, nec expectatur ut sit, nec metuitur ne desit, sed eo ipso quo vere est, semper est praesens.' At 2.2.7 Licentius responds, `quid, inquit, memoria opus est, cum omnes suas res praesentes habeat ac teneat [sapiens]? non enim vel in ipso sensu ad id quod ante oculos nostros est, in auxilium vocamus memoriam. sapienti igitur ante illos interiores intellectus oculos habenti omnia, id est deum ipsum fixe immobiliterque intuenti, cum quo sunt omnia quae intellectus videt ac possidet, quid opus est quaeso memoria?'

ep. 2. (to Zenobius, from Cassiciacum), `bene inter nos convenit, ut opinor, omnia quae corporeus sensus attingit, ne puncto quidem temporis eodem modo manere posse, sed labi, effluere et praesens nihil obtinere, id est, ut latine loquar, non esse.'

en. Ps. 9.11, `. . . in his rebus quae temporis volubilitate praeterfluunt, nihil habentes nisi “erit” et “fuit”. quoniam quod in illis futurum est, cum venerit, fit statim praeteritum, exspectatur cum cupiditate, amittitur cum dolore.'

Gn. litt. 12.16.33, `itemque in auditu, nisi auribus perceptae vocis imaginem continuo spiritus in se ipso formaret ac memoria retineret, ignoraretur secunda syllaba utrum secunda esset, cum iam prima utique nulla esset, quae percussa aure transierat. ac sic omnis locutionis usus, omnis cantandi suavitas, omnis postremo in actibus nostris corporalis motus dilapsus occideret neque ullum progressum nancisceretur, si transactos corporis motus memoriter spiritus non teneret, quibus consequentes in agendo conecteret.'

Of several passages in trin. the most interesting is:

trin. 11.8.15, `memoriam vero a sensu voluntas avertit, cum in aliud intenta non ei sinit inhaerere praesentia. quod animadvertere facile est cum saepe coram loquentem nobis aliquem aliud cogitando non audisse nobis videmur. falsum est autem; audivimus enim, sed non meminimus, subinde per aurium sensum labentibus vocibus alienato nutu voluntatis per quem solent infigi memoriae. verius itaque dixerimus cum tale aliquid accidit, “non meminimus”, quam, “non audivimus.” nam et legentibus evenit, et mihi saepissime, ut perlecta pagina vel epistula, nesciam quid legerim et repetam. in aliud quippe intento nutu voluntatis, non sic est adhibita memoria sensui corporis quomodo ipse sensus adhibitus est litteris.' See also trin. 14.11.14.

A. wrote of memory often. To trace its role in his thought is the subject of a monograph not yet written; in the meantime, see best BA 14.557-567; also of interest is W. Schmidt-Dengler, REAug 14(1968), 69-89; Solignac, Lectio X-XIII 18-25 supplements his earlier notes in BA (esp. for discussion of the parallels between A.'s development and that of Cic. Tusc. 1.24.56.-1.25.61 [see above], not previously adduced in comparison). The recent discussion of O'Daly 131-151 is confined to `memory in the empirical sense'. A separate issue is the controversy over the possibility of a memoria dei, discussed by L. Cilleruelo, J. Morán, and G. Madec from 1954 to 1966: the positions are summarized by Madec, REAug 11(1965), 89-92, and Cilleruelo, REAug 12(1966), 65-84.

Platonic anamnesis gave memory its philosophic importance (and A. gave some early explicit allegiance to that doctrine: ep. 7.1.2 to Nebridius), but Aristotle was in many ways more important (in a lost treatise, and in his own de anima 3.7) and rhetorical training had its own reasons for emphasizing the skill, and A. has his debts there too. In a Platonic vein, A. sees memory as the repository of number (and Wisd. 11.21 enables him to link numerus to the Logos: see on 5.4.7): ord. 2.14.41, `sive in rhythmis, sive in ipsa modulatione intellegebat regnare numeros totumque perficere; inspexit diligentissime cuius modi essent; reperiebat divinos et sempiternos, praesertim quod ipsis auxiliantibus omnia superiora contexuerat. et iam tolerabat aegerrime splendorem illorum atque serenitatem corporea vocum materia decolorari. et quoniam illud quod mens videt semper est praesens et immortale approbatur--cuius generis numeri apparebant--sonus autem quia sensibilis res est praeterfluit in praeteritum tempus imprimiturque memoriae, rationabili mendacio iam poetis favente ratione Iovis et Memoriae filias Musas esse confictum est.' See also mus. 6 passim. A.'s own originality (BA 14.558) is in his insistence that the memory contains not only images, but ideas (both Aristotle and Plotinus [4.3.30.5-7] deny this).

What of the `Ancient Memory Technique' (on which see Frances Yates, The Art of Memory [Chicago, 1966], and Herwig Blum, Die antike Mnemotechnik [Hildesheim, 1969])? Is A. one of its practitioners, and does his treatment of memory here depend on those doctrines? The answer must be a tentative no (Blum 141). There is no indication that A. ever knew the rhetorica ad Herennium, the crucial text; he knew the de oratore, but never alludes to the section on mnemotechnic. His own practice and his most famous anecdote about a prodigy of memory (Simplicius, reported at nat. et or. an. 4.7.9) give no secure evidence to show that he knew or practiced the technique. The most that may be said is that he drew on a store of imagery congruent with the technique.

For the history of the ancient memory technique is not the story of superior powers of recollection in those days, but rather of their perceived decay in the face of literacy and of artificial devices to counterfeit their restoration. Plato already foresaw that literacy would destroy memory (Phaedrus 275a) and mnemotechnic is only intelligible as a private writing, a help for what is felt to have grown feeble. Cf. rhet. Herr. 3.30 and Blum 3, `In der römischen Literatur ist der Vergleich mit dem Schreiben bei Erwähnung der Mnemotechnik topisch geworden. Oft wird er nur ganz kurz angedeutet, aber der kundige Leser weiss sofort, worum es geht' (with citations from rhet. Herr., Cic. de or., Cic. acad., Cic. part. or., Sen. contr., Quint., and Mart. Cap.). Blum 136-42 shows that it is likely that the technique was little known in late antiquity. It is more likely that the technique, with its vivid anecdote of Simonides rescued from death by the Dioscori, was never a practical instrument in antiquity: if it became one in the Renaissance, that was perhaps more a tribute to the tenacious fidelity with which the early moderns recreated even some parts of antiquity that never existed.¹⁴ For a contrary view and systematic attempts to find the memory technique underlying the composition of conf., see most recently D. Doucet, REAug 33(1987), 49-69, and cf. W. Hübner, REAug 27(1981), 245-263, and W. Hübner, REAug 14(1968), 69-89.

10.8.13

Memory has the power to supplant `reality', or at least what mortals know of reality: indeed, the whole argument of this half of Bk. 10 is that it is through memory that, after the fall, we encounter a more authentic reality.

sicut lux . . .: The sequence of the senses (sight, sound, smell, taste, touch) as developed here has one feature alien to the ancient memory technique: its insistence on the variety of sensory origins of memory artefacts, relying not merely on the sense of sight, which Simonides of Ceos was reported to have called (Cic., de or. 2.87.357) `acerrimum autem ex omnibus nostris sensibus'.

cogitationi: For etymology, see 10.11.18; cogitatio is pre-eminently a matter of visualization. For the spatial metaphor earlier, see 9.2.3, `in sinum cogitationis'; cogitatio is a process of manipulating imagines (see on 7.1.1).

cum (appareat): concessive.

10.8.14

in aula ingenti: Renewing (and continuing through the paragraph) the spatial metaphor from 10.8.12, `in campos et lata praetoria'; cf. Amb. Noe 7.17, `in capite . . . quasi in aula imperiali virtutum'.

ibi enim mihi caelum et terra et mare: It now becomes clear that the beginning of the ascent (at 10.6.8-9), where heaven and earth and all creation are called to witness at the outset of the ascent, itself took place already in memory.

ibi mihi et ipse occurro: The metaphor is spatial, but should not distract from what A. is trying to say: that memory, which is in some sense the self, is the place in which the self experiences itself. The sense of alienation implicit in `meeting' oneself in memory is not minimized.

ex eadem copia: From a