Book Seven

The years 385 and 386. The disease of curiositas is now brought to a crisis and largely cured. The central reading of the platonicorum libri and the `tentatives d'extase' that follow have been the object of much attention and controversy.

7.1.1 - 7.8.12

Problems of God and evil: A.'s state of mind

7.6.8 - 7.6.10

Fate and the stars (cf. 4.3.4-6)

7.9.13 - 7.9.15

Reading the platonicorum libri

7.10.16 - 7.21.27

Reactions.

7.10.16

Frustrated Ascent

7.11.17 - 7.16.22

The Problem of Evil

7.17.23

Ascent

7.18.24 - 7.21.27

Christological Confusion: Turning to Paul

The search for `wisdom' dating to A.'s nineteenth year has been presented mainly as an intellectual inquiry. That inquiry comes to an end with Bk. 7, and we should not hesitate to grant that the formulations achieved here are for the most part those that A. will carry at least to his bishopric. What is surprising and unexpected, however, is that intellectual success proves so unsatisfactory. Bk. 8 relocates the inquiry on moral rather than intellectual terrain and finds resolution there; the Christological uncertainties of Bk. 7 and their resolution in Bk. 8 are an important link between the two.

The book reflects a structure of A.'s thought that du Roy has patiently excavated. A. comes, through reading the platonicorum libri, to a knowledge of the triune Godhead, a knowledge he may be thought to have shared on most essentials with some non-Christian philosophers. Then he began an ascent to a knowledge of the incarnate Christ, a knowledge not attained by the philosophers. This approach is the reverse of what, on A.'s own terms, it should be. On his theory, it should be the mediator of God and man, Christ Jesus, who introduces us to the full triune deity; but in practice (and du Roy shows how it is always this way for A.), it is the other way around. The trinity is accessible to philosophical speculation, the incarnate redeemer is not. Whether du Roy (esp. at 450-458) is correct to suggest that this paradox is responsible for constraining A.'s trinitarian thought within limits it might otherwise have transcended is another matter.¹

But A. was always a master of capturing in his words what many of his readers have had trouble retaining or expressing, the tension of the middle time between redemption and resurrection, between conversion and beatific vision. The middle time is the time of paradox, and many of the perplexities to which A. gives voice, and to which he does not give satisfactory monovalent solutions (e.g., the dilemma of grace versus freedom: by `satisfactory' I mean a solution that would remove an issue from further debate among his heirs) are themselves reflections of this time of paradox in which A. saw himself living. Faith seeks understanding in A., with profound awareness that the search is unending; but that awareness came slowly. Where at the outset (e.g., at the time of which he writes here), satisfactory monovalent solutions were certainly what he sought, by the time at which he writes here a fruitful `disenchantment' ² has supervened. Scholarship that reproaches A. for not finding those solutions is often itself inadequately disenchanted in that sense.

It remains true that, as du Roy repeatedly observes, it was A.'s own experience of God, as recounted in conf. and as abundantly displayed in his other works, that gives structure and direction to his theology. That western Christianity since has been so heavily influenced by A. means that many others have been led to think of God in ways that reflect the personal experience of this one man.

7.1.1

See C. Baguette, REAug 16(1970), 47-77, discussing 7.1.1, 7.1.2, and 7.5.7 in detail. He goes too far when he take the description of A.'s state of mind through these paragraphs as a vivid and specific autobiographical record of a particular moment. Here A. rather puts on paper the view of God that he had carried with him unconsciously through Manicheism and skepticism and that he became aware of in terms like those reported here only when the platonicorum libri brought to light a new and different view. Thus the separation of these paragraphs from the account of the reading of the Platonists is one of narrative convenience rather than chronological sequence. To Baguette's identification of Stoic themes may be raised the general objection³ that doctrines introduced by the Stoics did not necessarily come to A. with the manufacturer's label intact. Baguette 57 quotes a conversation with Mandouze for the suggestion that the discussion here is still marked by Manicheism; there is truth to that, insofar as A.'s idea of God in his Manichean days was itself an eclectic mixture, guided and directed by the Manichees to be sure, but containing A.'s own contributions from his reading (and there was no such thing as pure untainted Manicheism, any more than there is ever pure untainted Christianity). Baguette's best evidence is to be found in the parallels he adduces from Cic. nat. deor. There, at least, he deals with a text A. certainly knew; whether the reflections here are signs of renewed contact with that text by A. in Milan (which would carry further the pattern of Cicero readings suggested above on 6.16.26) remains unclear.

adulescentia . . . iuventutem: For the ages of a man, see on 1.8.13. Milan and `youth' go together in memory: s. 318.1, `nobis iuvenibus apud Mediolanum constitutis'. Advance in age brought new capacity for understanding: vera rel. 24.45, `his ergo carnalibus vel corporalibus formis inhaerere amore pueros necesse est, adolescentes vero prope necesse est, hinc iam procedente aetate non est necesse.' If iuventus corresponds to the fourth day of creation, then it should be (and is here in Bk. 7) the time of the bringing of light (L. Pizzolato, Le fondazioni dello stile delle "Confessioni" [Milan, 1972], 83n8).

vanitate: See on 4.1.1, `vani'; 7.14.20, 8.1.2, and 10.35.57, taken together, suggest that this emptiness is associated with the concupiscence of the eyes and curiositas.

cogitare: Etymology (from Varro) at 10.11.18, `nam cogo et cogito sic est, ut ago et agito, facio et factito . . . cogitando quasi conligere'. See BA 16.606, note by Agaësse on trin. 10.5.7: `L'idée signifiée est donc celle de "grouper," de "rassembler." En raison de l'usage le mot en est venu à désigner l'acte par lequel l'âme rassemble les connaissances éparses et latentes dans la mémoire pour les poser en quelque sorte sous son propre regard et les amener ainsi à la conscience claire.' See below on `corporeum aliquid', and again in 7.1.2 and 7.4.6.

substantiae: strictly speaking, inappropriately predicated of God (see on 5.10.20): the use of the word here is thus a clue that A. was going about his inquiry the wrong way.

non te cogitabam, deus: Earlier moments in the struggle to think about God: 4.7.12, 4.16.29, 5.10.19.

in figura corporis humani: He had believed that catholic doctrine was anthropomorphic (5.10.19), and so the Manichees had attracted him with their anti-corporal views (3.7.12), but Ambrose had set him right (6.3.4, 6.4.5, 6.11.18, and here), so he was half-way to a solution of that one of the three Manichean `difficulties for Catholics' catalogued at 3.7.12. The first, the interpretive difficulties posed by the OT, had been set aside by Ambrose's preaching (see on 6.4.6), and the third, the origin of evil, will be addressed shortly (7.3.4) and resolved later in the book (7.11.17ff).

audire aliquid de sapientia coepi: See 3.4.7 (the Hortensius).

coepi, semper coepi, semper C D Maur. Knöll Skut. Ver.:   coepissem per O S:   coepi sed semper G
The semicolon after `humani' and a comma (for a semicolon) after `coepi' are new corrections; the punctuation has already been questioned, and a similar solution proposed, by A. Gabillon, Homo Spiritalis (Festschrift L. Verheijen: Würzburg, 1987), 440-441. Elsewhere, A. regularly uses indicative with ex quo (sc. tempore), e.g., civ. 3.3, 12.13, bapt. 1.15.23, 3.12.17 (2x).

gaudebam me hoc repperisse: At ep. 147.6.17, A. begins extended discussion of a text from Ambrose's in Luc. (which A. probably heard while in Milan) that speaks directly to the question of how one sees God, but the subtext is the anthropomorphic question: how to imagine God without limbs and eyes and hands. That letter, known separately under the title de videndo deo, is an important and beautiful text. He concludes: ep. 147.23.52, `tene mecum sancti viri Ambrosii sententiam iam non eius auctoritate sed ipsa veritate firmatam. neque enim et mihi propterea placet, quia per illius os potissimum me dominus ab errore liberavit et per illius ministerium gratiam mihi baptismi salutaris indulsit, tamquam plantatori et rigatori meo nimium faveam, sed quia de hac re et ipse hoc dixit, quod pie cogitanti et recte intellegenti loquitur etiam ille qui incrementum dat deus.' He then repeats the crucial quotation from 147.7.18; see also ep. 148.2.7, 148.2.10.

conabar: The verb of frustrated human effort, particularly of the mind struggling to ascent: see on 7.21.27, `conari'.

homo et talis homo: = Augustine, as at 1.1.1 and elsewhere.

solum et verum deum: Jn. 17.3, `ut cognoscant te solum deum verum'.

incommutabilem: The immutability of God can scarcely be called a Christian doctrine, insofar as there is little explicit Christian scripture to warrant such an assertion (Num. 23.19, `non est deus quasi homo ut mentiatur, nec ut filius hominis, ut mutetur', and Malach. 3.6, `ego enim dominus, et non mutor', are the best proof texts, scarcely compelling or authoritative), and the other texts A. adduces in such contexts (e.g., Ps. 101.28, `tu autem idem ipse es, et anni tui non deficient' : see on 1.6.10) do not themselves compel such a doctrine absent a predisposition in that direction. A. himself, moreover, is saying here that the doctrine was part of him when he was least Christian himself; certainly his dismay (on which the Manichees played: 3.7.12) at the thought of an anthropomorphic God reflects a congruent attitude. The challenge for any Christian doctrine of immutability, of course, is that there is plenty of evidence that God is mutable--if the Old Testament be read literally. And of course the scandal of the literal Old Testament was one of the factors that drove A. into the arms of the Manichees (see on 3.7.12).

A. does not hesitate to credit the Platonists with seeing the link between immutability and a correct notion of God as bodiless (civ. 8.6). It is central to A.: Gilson 22 calls it `the most profound and most constant element in his metaphysical thought'; B. J. Cooke, Modern Schoolman 24(1947), 42: `The more one studies St. Augustine and notes the place of immutability in relation to the other divine attributes, the more it seems that immutability is the basis on which the other attributes rest, the root from which they spring' --Cooke's study is important for the abundance of texts quoted and discussed and for placing immutability in the wider context of A.'s thought. In conf., see 1.4.4, 4.15.26 (de pulchro et apto), Bk. 7 almost passim (here, 7.9.14 [reading the platonicorum libri], both `ascents' [7.10.16, 7.17.23], and after [7.19.25]), 10.25.36, Bk. 12 again almost passim, and the trinitarian discussions of Bk. 13 (esp. 13.11.12, 13.16.19). A. is the first attested writer to use, and use often, the noun and adverb forms incommutabilitas/incommutabiliter.

The doctrine's antecedents are philosophical (but emphatically not Ciceronian and not Stoic: Colish, The Stoic Tradition 2.148); it has a Platonic warrant (rep. 2.381b-c is a suitable proof-text) but it would be wrong to call it `Platonic' here, for A. claims stoutly that the doctrine was part of him before ever he read the Platonists. It is present from Cassiciacum (sol. 2.20.35, imm. an. 5.7-6.10), and throughout the early works: mus. 6 passim, quant. an. 34.77, lib. arb. 2 passim, vera rel. 3.3 and passim; cf. s. 7.7 (perhaps as early as 397, on Exod. 3.14), `esse, nomen est incommutabilitatis. omnia enim quae mutantur desinunt esse quod erant et incipiunt esse quod non erant'; nat. b. 1.19.39 (from 399; see on 1.7.12 for the importance of this treatise for A.'s ontological views at the time of conf.). The same emphasis is not so evident in A.'s later works, but see trin. 15.23.43.

medullis: Source of sighs (3.6.10; cf. en. Ps. 85.8, `sincerissimis medullis castisque suspiriis ipsum dilige'), confessio (6.8.12) and other truly sincere speech (en. Ps. 39.20, 62.9, 90. s. 2.8), sacred song (9.3.6), and the voice of conscience (en. Ps. 45.3, `medulla conscientiae', 101. s. 1.10, `medulla cordis'); en. Ps. 65.20, `nihil enim interius medullis nostris: interiora ossa sunt carne, medullae interiores sunt ipsis ossibus.'

clamabat: Lam. 2.18, `clamavit cor eorum ad dominum super muros filiae Sion; deduc quasi torrentem lacrymas per diem et noctem, non des requiem tibi.'

phantasmata: See on 3.6.10.

circumvolantem turbam immunditiae: Aen. 3.233 (of the Harpies gathering a second time [here see `conglobata rursus' ] to harass the Trojan refugees), `turba sonans praedam pedibus circumvolat uncis, polluit ore dapes'.

in ictu oculi: Echoes 1 Cor. 15.52; see on 7.17.23, `in ictu trepidantis aspectus'.

corporeum . . . aliquid: The corporeality of the gods is defended by Cicero (e.g., nat. deor. 1.12.30). For the locus of divine activity, cf. Cic. nat. deor. 1.37.103, which distributes deities among the four elements (n.b. here `terreno . . . caelesti', and again 7.1.2: `caelesti' evokes `fire' because the sidera caeli stand for fire: see the corresponding list at 7.5.7, `terra et mare et aer et sidera'), and 2.23.60, on the gods of Epicurus (whose denial of their corporeality is confuted at 1.25.71ff) `in regione caeli conlocati'. O'Daly 66, `a concept of God that closely resembled the Stoic one which he knew from Varro, . . . not unaffected by Manichaeism, or at least . . . it grows out of Augustine's critical preoccupation with Manichaean views about God.' A similar difficulty transcending the corporeal affects Evodius' view of the soul reported and discussed at quant. an. 3.4, and cf. mor. 1.10.17. Against the Manichees: c. ep. fund. 43.49, `quae suorum phantasmatum fidem secuta et divinam substantiam per locorum spatia quamvis infinita velut informem molem disiecit atque diffudit'.

sive infusum . . . diffusum: Colish, Stoic Tradition 2.148, `In short, the physics and theology with which Augustine wrestled in Confessions 7 reflect a substantial modification of the more strictly Stoic view of the deity, and of being as such, to which he reports his attachment in Confessions 5, a modification resulting from the decidedly unStoic notion of God as immutable.'

prorsus nihil: On the paradoxes of `nihil', mag. 2.3.

tamquam spatiosum nihil: G-M: `a nothingness which yet possessed the quality of space.'

7.1.2

Knowledge of God: A.'s model for knowing is that sensory data generate an image, which thought then regards. He is not concerned here with the problem of the origin of the image in God's case, but that difficulty underlies his judgment elsewhere (see on 3.6.10) that his view of God under the influence of Manicheism was only a phantasma, object of a seeming-knowledge that is not knowledge. He passes over the paradox that he already `knew God' in a variety of ways. He `knew' that God exists, he had various expectations (immutability, inviolability, incorruptibility) of God, and he would not accept any teaching that did not have the nomen Christi. But `knowledge-about' is not the direct cognition that he now sought.

Similar problems afflicted his opinions of the soul. One issue that preoccupied debaters was the mutability of the soul under the mutilation of the body. See both quant. an. 31.62 (an anecdote from Cassiciacum) and the recollection at nat. et or. an. 2.6.10 of a youthful conversation with Vincentius Victor (later divided from A. by schism) `de amputatis membris corporis absque animae sectione'. On his later view, he needed a clarification of vision (and clarification of vision is exactly what follows here: see on 7.8.12, `collyrio'): trin. 7.6.11-12, `non enim potest [animalis homo] cogitare nisi moles et spatia, vel minuta vel grandia, volitantibus in animo eius phantasmatis tamquam imaginibus corporum. (12) ex qua immunditia donec purgetur credat in patrem et filium et spiritum sanctum, unum deum, . . . omnium visibilium et invisibilium conditorem, et quidquid de illo pro humana facultate digne vereque dici potest' (`quidquid': e.g., or perhaps i.e., the remainder of the Nicene Creed). His view in 386/7 was only partially dematerialized; he was willing to affirm the immaterial nature of spiritual creature, but could not understand how to retain spatial metaphors in talking about such things. Material-sounding language made him think in material terms, and that problem was not yet solved: retr. 1.5.2, `quod vero dixi, “animum propterea non posse ab aeterna ratione separari, quia non ei localiter iungitur” [imm. an. 6.11, in a work generally agreed to be largely a collection of unassimilated Platonism, perhaps Porphyrianism], profecto non dixissem si iam tunc essem litteris sacris ita eruditus ut recolerem quod scriptum est: “peccata vestra separant inter vos et deum.” [Is. 59.2] unde intellegi datur etiam earum rerum posse dici separationem, quae non locis sed incorporaliter iunctae fuerant.' (Another implied link to Ambrose is dimly visible here: one of the sermons A. almost certainly heard was that which survives as the de Isaac vel anima; for this kind of implication, see on 6.16.26, `metus mortis'.)

incrassatus corde: Cf. Mt. 13.15 (Jesus explaining why he speaks in parables), `incrassatum est enim cor populi huius et auribus graviter audient et oculos suos cluserunt'; cf. Act. 28.27 (Paul explaining why his message has difficulties), `incrassatum est cor populi huius et auribus graviter audierunt et oculos suos compresserunt.' Both passages follow Isaiah 6.10 (God's charge to Isaiah), which in LXX is identical with the Greek of the Matthew and Acts passages. A. Maxsein, Augustinus 3(1958), 323-330 describes the heart for A. in the biblical sense, not as the seat of the affections, but of just and deep thoughts, the place where we perceive truth and adhere to it. Incrasso itself is Christian (from Tertullian on, 7x in Vg) = Gk. pachunô, `to make fat', hence in passive `become insensitive, stupid'.

conspicuus: `present to sight, transparent' (7.10.16, `lucem . . . vulgarem et conspicuam omni carni'). Cf. en. Ps. 147.16, `cum adhuc nemo est alteri conspicuus, nemo videt cor alterius.'

intentionem: `attention' in a high sense (reminiscent of Simone Weil, quoted on 11.18.23), nearly `consciousness'; see 12.15.18. A.'s critique of any rash materialism survives: even if `consciousness' is understood as the result of the interaction of material entities, that very notion of interaction itself goes beyond a common-sense materialism.

vita vitae meae: See on 1.4.4, `deus meus, vita mea'; sim. at 3.6.10, 10.6.10; cf. Jn. 14.6.

ut haberet te terra . . . nusquam: This passage offers a gloss on 1.3.3, `capiunt ergo te caelum et terra . . .'; see also below.

aeris huius: Thus expressly and carefully not the aer ingenitus of the Manichees: c. Fel. 1.18, `immo tres sunt: pater ingenitus, terra ingenita, et aer ingenitus'; cf. c. Faust. 20.2.

terrae corpus pervium: Cf. 7.1.1, `sive infusum mundo'. Cf. Aen. 6.724-727:

principio caelum ac terras camposque liquentes
lucentemque globum lunae Titaniaque astra
spiritus intus alit, totamque infusa per artus
mens agitat molem et magno se corpore miscet.

inspiratione: If A. was reading Cicero at this time (as 6.16.26 suggests, and cf. Cic. nat. deor. quoted above on 7.1.1), he could have found this support at nat. deor. 2.7.19: `haec ita fieri omnibus inter se concinentibus mundi partibus profecto non possent, nisi ea uno divino et continuato spiritu continerentur.'

administrantem administrantem C D G O Ver.:   administrante S Knöll Skut.

est (autem) est O S Knöll Skut. Ver.:   es CDG Maur.  not without verisimilitude.

inluminaveras tenebras meas: Ps. 17.29, `deus meus, inluminabis tenebras meas'; en. Ps. 17.29, `nos enim peccatis nostris tenebrae sumus' (cf. 9.4.10, `fuimus aliquando tenebrae'). See 6.1.1, 11.2.2, 11.25.32, 13.8.9.

7.2.3

deceptos deceptores: s. 8.2.3, `in sua vanitate decepti decipiunt'; en. Ps. 61.23, `diu mathematicus fuit; seductus seducens, deceptus decipiens'; see on 4.1.1, `seducebamur et seducebamus, falsi atque fallentes'. Three scriptural passages are closer to this in the Greek than in the Vulgate: 2 Tim. 3.13, `mali autem homines et seductores proficient in peius, errantes, et in errorem mittentes' (Gk.: planôntes kai planômenoi); Judg. 11.35 (B text), tarachêi etaraxas me, kai su ês en tôi tarachôi mou, and 2 Pet. 3.3, en empaigmonêi empaiktai (quoted at civ. 20.18 as `inlusione inludentes', where the Vg. has `deceptione inlusores'). Porphyry, v. Plot. 16.5-8, of Christians apokalupseis te propherontes Zôroastrou . . . kai allôn toioutôn pollous exapatôn kai autoi êpatêmenoi; cf. Philostr., vita Apollonii 7.3, Platôn . . . sphaleis te kai sphêlas; see P. Wendland, Rhein. Mus. 49(1894), 309-310, with further analogous expressions from Philo, Dio Chrysostom, and Julian. A similar phrase occurs in the `Sentences of Sextus' (ed. H. Chadwick [Cambridge, 1959]), #393: pseudesthai phulattou: estin gar apatan kai apatasthai (in Rufinus' Latin: `mentiri vita: decipere est et decipi').

quoniam: reinforces our interpretation at 1.4.4, `vae tacentibus de te, quoniam loquaces muti sunt'; the Manichees are talkative, but their talkativeness is de facto silence, for what comes forth is not the Word, but mere words (cf. J. Ries, Lectio III-V, 11).

a Nebridio proponi: Nebridius' argument against the Manichees meant much to A. at every stage in his controversy with them. For texts that use the argument in one form or another, see (in chronological order: this list supplements that of Alfaric 249) ord. 2.17.46, mor. 2.12.25-26, `hinc enim illud exortum est, quod etiam cum studiose vos audiremus, nos magnis premebat angustiis nec ullum exitum reperiebamus, quaerentes, quid factura erat deo gens tenebrarum, si cum ea nollet cum tanta partis suae calamitate pugnarer. . . . (26) illud vero nondum dictum erat, quod nuper apud Carthaginem audivi. cum enim quidam quem maxime illo errore cupio liberari hac quaestione in easdem compingeretur angustias, ausus est dicere, scilicet regnum habuisse quosdam fines suos, qui possent invadi a gente contraria. nam ipsum deum nullo modo potuisse violari. sed dixit quod neque auctor ille vester ullo modo dicere cogeretur'; c. Fort. 1., 36-7, c. Adim. 28.1, c. Fel. 1.19, 2.8, nat. b. 43, c. Faust. 13.6, 21.14, 22.22, c. Sec. 20, `ut respondeatis: quid factura erat deo gens tenebrarum, si cum ea pugnare noluisset? quam si dixeritis aliquid fuisse nocituram, fatebimini corruptibilem et violabilem deum; si autem dixeritis quod ei nocere non possit, quaeretur a vobis, cur ergo pugnavit?' --the argument was already in circulation because there A. was responding to ep. Sec. 6, which claimed that there were things in Manichean doctrine that defy explanation: `sunt quaedam res quae exponi sic non possunt ut intellegantur; excedit enim divina ratio mortalium pectora. ut puta hoc ipsum, quomodo sint duae naturae aut quare pugnaverit qui nihil poterat pati'; see also Evodius, de fide c. man. 18 (PL 42.1144). Cf. esp. 1 Tim 1.17, quoted at c. Adim. 28.1, where A.'s text reads `regi autem saeculorum, invisibili, incorruptibili,⁴ soli deo honor et gloria in saecula saeculorum'.

Courcelle, Recherches 45, objects to what he sees as a chronological leap here, but the failure to mention the argument until now is characteristic of A.'s method in conf. He speaks of positive developments only at the moment in the narrative when they affected his inner dispositions decisively (so the recollection of Elpidius contra manichaeos at 5.11.21).

si autem . . .: A concise summary of Manichean doctrine, displayed here to show its weakness in the face of the objection raised by Nebridius--`itaque si te . . .' below represents the conclusion to which A. would force them.

substantia: Again, the use of the word (improperly applied to God) is a sign of the derangement of the argument; see on 5.10.20.

hanc esse animam: Translators (BA, Ryan, Vega, Carena) regularly get bogged down in this sentence and so punctuate to start a new sentence with this phrase, supplying a verb (corresponding to an understood dicerent); Pusey follows the text most faithfully, but the resulting English is not readily intelligible.

tuus sermo: not verbum; G-M suggest this hints that the Manichean doctrine is not on the mark, that their `Christ' was a phantasma. Sermo is, though infrequent, not impossible of divine speech, but not used by A. of the pre-existent second person of the trinity. Cf. 5.9.17, 11.2.4, 12.13.16, 13.20.26, 13.15.16, 13.15.18, and esp. 11.9.11, `audiat te intus sermocinantem qui potest', 12.10.10, `tu mihi sermocinare'.

sat erat ergo: Picks up the beginning of the paragraph to reiterate that the argument of Nebridius was enough.

omni modo evomendos a pressura pectoris: A potent metaphor; cf. Apoc. 3.16 (to the Laodiceans), `sed quia tepidus es, et nec frigidus, nec calidus, incipiam te evomere ex ore meo'. The a is apparently instrumental; pectus (OLD s.v. 2a) may be `the breast considered as a receptacle or channel for food', quoting Celsus 3.7.1.a, `vomitu pectus purgare'.

7.3.4

incontaminabilem et inconvertibilem et nulla ex parte mutabilem: = `incorruptibile, inviolabile, et incommutabile' (7.1.1).

explicatam explicatam C D O Ver.:   explicitam GS Maur. Knöll Skut.
A. nowhere else uses the form explicitus, -a, -um.

causam mali: The third of the Manichean challenges catalogued at 3.7.12; see on 7.1.1.

quod quaerebam: i.e., causa mali.

quaerendo: G-M take with the object; so the translators (Pusey, Ryan, `in their search for the cause of evil', BA, `car je les voyais, dans la recherche de l'origine du mal, remplis de malice', Carena, Vega). The difficulties are that (1) A. regularly uses the present participle in such cases (1.10.16, `libera nos iam invocantes te'), and (2) he regularly uses the dat./abl. gerund with a main verb not as a pseudo-participle, as in medieval Latin, but with a genuine sense of instrumentality: `by means of . . .'. In this aporia, it is decisive that the indirect question `unde malum' occurs 3x else in conf., always governed by some form of quaero: 3.7.12, 7.5.7, 7.7.11.

repletos malitia: Rom. 1.29, `repletos omni iniquitate, malitia, fornicatione, avaritia, nequitia', etc., for two more verses. This paragraph of Rom. will come to the fore in 7.9.14; the echo here makes it clear that he includes the Manichees among the `pagans' against whom the Pauline text is directed. Cf. Ecclesiastes 9.3, `unde et corda filiorum hominum implentur malitia et contemptu in vita sua, et post haec ad inferos deducentur.'

7.3.5

intendebam: See on 7.1.2, `intentionem'.

audiebam: Apart from the self-contained encounter with Firminus (7.6.8-10), this is the only verb in Bk. 7 before the appearance of the platonicorum libri that describes something A. was doing at the time in which someone else could have been involved.~ The verb audio is used 6x of A.'s attendance on Ambrose's sermons in Bk. 6 alone. On what he heard, see Courcelle, Recherches 99-100, 106-120; Alfaric 370 cites Amb. in Luc. 8.36", while Courcelle, Recherches 100, prefers exam. as source: exam. 1.8.31, `quod enim possumus non facere si nolimus, huius electionem mali nobis potius debemus quam aliis ascribere. . . . quid alienam naturam accersis ad excusationem tuorum lapsuum?' (Cf. `naturam' to 5.10.18, `adhuc enim mihi videbatur non esse nos qui peccamus, sed nescio quam aliam in nobis peccare naturam'. (Courcelle adds Amb. Iacob [Feb. 386] 1.1.1 and 1.3.10 and Isaac 61, behind which he descries Plotinus 3.2.10. and 6.8.6.)

ut male faceremus: A. narrows the focus of his investigation to moral evil; he knew the distinction: c. Adim. 26., `dupliciter enim appellatur malum: unum quod homo facit, alterum quod patitur; quod facit peccatum est; quod patitur, poena.'

rectum iudicium tuum: Ps. 118.137, `iustus es domine et rectum iudicium tuum.'

conatus mergebar: The phrasing re-evokes the vocabulary of the ascent (e.g., 4.15.26, `conabar ad te'), and thus prepares the way for the `tentatives d'extase' of 7.10.16 and 7.17.23.

sciebam me habere voluntatem: duab. an. 11.15, `quis dubitet tunc esse peccatum, cum et velle iniustum est et liberum nolle? et ideo definitionem illam et veram et ad intellegendum esse facillimam et non modo nunc sed tunc quoque a me potuisse dici: “peccatum est voluntas retinendi vel consequendi quod iustitia vetat et unde liberum est abstinere”?' lib. arb. 3.17.49, `sed quae tandem esse poterit ante voluntatem causa voluntatis?' Cf. J. Rist, JThS 20(1969), 420-447, but the literature is vast.

causam causam C D G O2 Maur. Knöll Skut.:   causa O1 S Ver.  (understanding it as ablative `à cause de son péché' and adducing parallels for that ablative preceding the genitive it governs: c. acad. 3.7.15, s. dom. m. 1.14.39, 1.15.40, b. coniug. 10.11).

animadvertebam animadvertebam C D G O Maur. Ver.:   advertebam S Knöll Skut.

quis fecit me?: The same question, and the same answer, is a stepping stone on the ascent of the mind to God at Ostia (9.10.25) and the answer alone plays a similar part at 10.6.9, with both passages approximating the mind's ascent to God in different ways.

insevit insevit O S edd.:   inseruit C D G

plantarium: Cf. s. 47.15.28, `“et excitabo eis plantarium pacis” [Ez. 34.29 (VL)]. testamentum pacis, plantarium pacis. germinet quod plantat deus et extirpentur quod seminavit haereticus.' (See C. Carena, Riv. filol. istr. class. 92[1964], 423-427, with further parallels for the metaphor of sowing.)

amaritudinis: See on 2.1.1, esp. for contrast with `dulcissimo' in the next phrase.

quod si et . . . esset: The query posed here, if it authentically dates from 385/6, betrays an awareness of catholic doctrine; the fullest treatment of the problem is at civ. 12.1-9, but even there he claims to have no `answer' to this question, only an explanation (that seems sophistic to most modern readers) of why the question is unanswerable (see civ. 12.7, quoted on 2.6.12).

ubi nemo tibi confitetur: Cf. Ps. 6.6, `in inferno autem quis confitebitur tibi?'; en. Ps. 6.6, `ut infernum dixerit, caecitatem animi, quae peccantem, id est, morientem excipit et involvit.'

7.4.6

The purpose and significance of this paragraph are not obvious without consideration of its place in the book as a whole. Philosophically, the paragraph shows how close A. was to a solution of the twin problems of the nature of evil and of the nature of God, and prepares those problems for the resolution the platonicorum libri would offer. Biographically, it shows how far, at this time, A. was capable of going by means of his own efforts (cf. `nitebar'), in the order of `natural theology'.

The Plotinian echo suggested at BA 13.589n (citing Plot. 6.8) is at best incidental (anachronistically using Plotinian ideas to characterize his position at the last moment before Plotinian influence was felt), for to present express Plotinian doctrine here would undermine the structure of the book. Some justice must be done to the difficulty A. found in attempting to sort out all his ideas of the time into a linear pattern more than a decade after the fact. This book represents not so much a period as a moment (the arrival of the platonicorum libri) and its consequences.

The exposition from `nullo . . . modo' is unscriptural but dogmatic. What should not be missed is the hint of trinitarian structure: incorruptible substance [1], `voluntas' and `potentia' unlimited [3], and knowledge unbounded (`qui nosti omnia') [2].

confitebar: In the chronological sequence of events narrated, this is the first confessio A. records.

summum . . . bonum: See on 2.6.12, and cf. the discussion of the de pulchro et apto at 4.15.24.

praeponebam: Cf. 7.1.1, `praeponebam'. G-M see a parallel to Anselm's ontological proof.

esset . . . esses: The voluntas would only be greater than God himself if God himself were greater than God himself--because in God, self and will are identical.

7.5.7

Here we enter a represented aporetic interior monologue of the time, following 6.11.18-19 and preceding 8.7.18, and resembling both. Here he depicts himself as anima naturaliter platonica. The `vision' that follows anticipates in form that of Ostia (9.10.25), suggesting that this passage is to be seen as another step on the path to intellectual ascent to God, hence the counterpart to 7.10.16 and 7.17.23, the more successful steps taken after the reading of the platonicorum libri.

et constituebam: Ps. 15.8, `providebam dominum in conspectu meo semper'.

universam creaturam: Taken up by 7.13.19, `universae creaturae tuae'.

angelos: This is the first direct reference to angels in conf. (earlier: references to fallen angels at 1.17.27, 7.3.5; to Manichean pseudo-angels at 3.10.18, 4.1.1; and to Monnica's veneration for Ambrose `sicut angelum dei' [6.1.1]). They are infrequent henceforth, with no consistent exegetical or doctrinal reference save that at 12.11.12, it is they who are by implication equated with the `caelum caeli' in the interpretation there discussed. A. is always diffident in speaking of angels (Madec, Aug.-Lex. 1.314-315: `les observations d'A. sur les anges se caractérisent en effet par leur circonspection'), and they often occur as possible intermediaries to be considered but rejected (e.g., 9.10.25, `neque per vocem angeli', 10.42.67, `ambiendum mihi fuit ad angelos?', and 13.38.53, `et hoc intellegere quis hominum dabit homini? quis angelus angelo? quis angelus homini?').

ordinavit ordinavit C D G cett. Maur.:   ordinata, ut OS Knöll Skut. Ver.
Translators take `ut imaginatio mea' as if it were `ut in imaginatione mea' or `secundum imaginationem meam' (BA: `selon mon imagination', Vega: `según mi fantasía'); better, Ryan, `as my imagination dictated'. Pellegrino prints `ordinata, ut' but Carena on the facing page translates `che la mia immaginazione distribuiva pure in vari luoghi.' Given the importance of ordo in A.'s trinitarian thought (see on 1.7.12 and cf. `formavit atque ordinavit' below), it seems clear that A. implies here that he was taking on himself a divine function--giving order to created nature in a conglomeration of imagines that would be both phantasiae and phantasmata. The attentive reader who catches that signal will not be surprised that the inquiry based on this `vision' did not succeed.

distinctam: G-M: `adorned with', but there is little to corroborate that translation; cf. (suggesting a connection to the creative activity of the Word) 12.3.3, `informem materiam formares atque distingueres', 12.20.29, `quae nunc iam distincta atque formata', and 12.28.39, `alius iam formatas distinctasque naturas'. Elsewhere distinguo/distinctio are associated about as often with forma [2] and ordo [3]: They are conjoined with both in both Gn. litt. imp. and Gn. c. man.; in Gn. litt. (e.g., 1.17.35, `a formata re ad hoc distincta est illa informitas') they seem more often associated with `formatio'. Whether they stand for one or the other or indifferently for both, their frequency of appearance in such contexts assures them a place in the economy of creation, associated with either the second or third person of the trinity, or both. Here, the `formation' of informis materia is clearly suggested.

ex omni parte . . .: Cf. 7.1.2, with notes there on links to 1.3.3; Plotinus 4.3.9.36-41, cited by G-M: keitai [ho kosmos] gar en têi psuchêi anechousêi auton kai ouden amoiron estin autês, hôs an en hudasi diktuon tengomenon zôiê, ou dunamenon de hautou poieisthai en hôi estin: alla to men diktuon ekteinomenês ndê tês thalassês sunektetatai, hison auto dunatai.

spongiam: ep. 187.4.14, `sic est deus per cuncta diffusus, ut non sit qualitas mundi sed substantia creatrix mundi sine labore regens et sine onere continens mundum non tamen per spatia locorum quasi mole diffusa'. The negative example of the image of the sponge recurs at Gn. litt. 8.21.42, `cum anima non sit natura corporea nec locali spatio corpus inpleat, sicut aqua utrem siue spongiam, sed miris modis ipso incorporeo nutu commixta sit uiuificando corpori, quo et inperat corpori quadam intentione, non mole.'

implet ea: The period after ea is from Löfstedt, Symb. Osl. 56(1981), 106 (replacing a colon).

radix: 1 Tim. 6.10, `radix enim omnium malorum est cupiditas.'

an omnino non est: He approaches here the solution that he will finally accept only after reading the platonicorum libri (7.12.18-7.13.19).

quanto non est . . . timemus: `The evil is greater the more its object is non-existent, and we fear it nonetheless.'

timemus: See on `de timore mortis' below.

(idcirco) aut: The conjunction recurs 8x in all to mark the alternatives that define the extent of A.'s aporia.

deus fecit . . . bona: Gn. 1.31, `viditque deus cuncta quae fecerat et erant valde bona.'

fecit ea [1] . . . et formavit [2] atque ordinavit [3] eam: See on 1.7.12 (and note below of himself: `adhuc informis').

per infinita retro spatia temporum: The hypothesis here resembles the jibe of the Manichees about God's idleness before creation rebuffed at 11.10.12-11.13.16.

ageret: G-M have a note reading this and `institueret' to follow (with Pusey's translation) as iussive; preferable as punctuated here and in all recent editions (including G-M).

non enim esset omnipotens: Gn. c. man. 1.6.10, `non enim debemus esse similes istis qui omnipotentem deum non credunt aliquid de nihilo facere potuisse, cum considerant fabros et quoslibet opifices non posse aliquid fabricare nisi habuerint unde fabricarent.'

curis mordacissimis: See on 9.1.1.

de timore mortis: A reminder of 6.16.26, `metus mortis et futuri iudicii tui'.

fides: This fides denotes no more than the insistence on the nomen Christi that goes 3.4.8, but the assertion is entirely different from the Academic skepticism of 5.14.25. The palpable difference is that he has heard the sermons of Ambrose showing him that the OT can be read fruitfully and found therein a confidence lacking earlier. The qualifications here (`informis . . . fluitans') are given substance by the pseudo-creed summarizing his position at 7.7.11.

domini et salvatoris nostri: 2 Peter 2.20, `si enim refugientes coinquinationes mundi in cognitione domini nostri et salvatoris Iesu Christi, his rursus implicatis superantur.'

informis: The second stage of creation (12.3.3ff) is the addition, through the agency of the second person of the trinity, of forma to formless matter; thus the hint here is that what was lacking in A.'s faith was the formative influence of the (incarnate) Christ; at 7.18.24, that lack will be made explicit.

7.6.8

Firminus is not known otherwise. Where and when did A. know him? See BA 13.595n posing the question, Vega ad loc. arguing for Carthage. Courcelle, Recherches 77n6, thinks that if Carthage were the venue, A. would have known Firminus' family (cf. his relation to Alypius' father [6.7.11]); Mandouze 100n5 thinks the placement in conf. shows that his rupture with the astrologers came only after his break with the Manichees. In favor of a continued association or one beginning at Milan is the record of a letter to him in Possidius' indiculum (MA 2.182), mentioned immediately after those to Nebridius (epp. 3-14), Hermogenianus (ep. 1.), and Zenobius (ep. 2.).

The scientific debunking of the Manichees (5.3.4-5.5.9) has a place here. Though the scientific and mantic aspects of stargazing might be distinct enough for the mature Augustine to see them clearly, many blurred that line. The earlier treatment of the question ended at 4.3.6 with an aporia that a serious interest in astronomy would have influenced.

These links suggest another aspect of the episode recounted here. The appeal of astrology to Augustine is that of curiositas. Its placement at the beginning of Bk. 4, the most various of the early books, is meant to mark how far A. had fallen in his Manicheism, into which he fell through youthful curiositas; the narrative of his astrological views is continued to show him still floundering in the grasp of the superstition. It is then abruptly dropped.

The subject recurs here abruptly, poorly integrated with the surrounding context. To read to the end of 7.5.7 and then to skip to the beginning of 7.7.11 leaves no sense of omission (but see on 7.7.11). The topic of surrounding chapters (the search for the nature of God through the resolution of the question of the origins of evil) is nowhere mentioned in this episode. Prima facie, A. admits that the episode is chronologically misplaced (`iam etiam . . . reieceram'). In sum, in Bk. 4, astrology measures the slide into curiositas; in Bk. 5, it is the benchmark against which another form of curiositas can be judged and found wanting; and here it marks liberation from curiositas.

But of what character is the episode? A friend is `procured' (`procurasti' 2x) for A. by God. In conversation with him, A. comes suddenly to see (7.6.9, `omnis illa reluctatio mea resoluta concidit') the error of his ways. In those terms it bears comparison both to the central episode of this book, the `procuring' (7.9.13, `procurasti') of the platonicorum libri, and to the two preliminary incidents of Bk. 8, the visits from Simplicianus and Ponticianus, both of whom recount to A. events elsewhere in a way that leads to a change of heart. Bk. 7 is mainly an account of A.'s intellectual conversion, as Bk. 8 recounts his moral conversion; in both cases, the lesser episodes and the conversions of others parallel and illustrate A.'s own experience. Though he is already detached from Manicheism, his pre-Manichean curiositas hounds him through these early chapters of Bk. 7, for he is still seeking the answer to two of the main questions that drove him into the Manichean camp. So, just as Bk. 3 had two kinds of temptation of the eyes (the spectacula and Manicheism--and another, astrology itself, appeared in Bk. 4), so Bk. 7 has two kinds of conversions from curiositas: first here, in a way that foreshadows the mechanism that will work again in 8, and second, the reading of the platonicorum libri.

The privacy of A.'s struggle (cf. 7.7.11, `nullus hominum') is borne out in the way Bk. 7 is constructed. Nebridius appears twice in the first part (7.2.3 and here: in both cases he is the one immune to concupiscentia oculorum, just as Alypius is immune to concupiscentia carnis), and Alypius appears once later in a single sentence recounting his Christological view (7.19.25). Otherwise no named individuals appear; the only other individual even alluded to is the man `typho turgidum' who provides the platonicorum libri in 7.9.13. Apart from the encounter with Firminus, there is no episodic narrative in this book. A. is alone with his thoughts.

mathematicorum: See on 4.3.4.

deliramenta: Disordered acts of intellect (1.17.27), associated with errors of curiositas: 3.6.10 and 5.3.6 (of Manicheism), here and 7.6.10 (of astrology).

confiteantur . . . miserationes tuae: Ps. 106.8: see on 1.15.24.

intimis visceribus animae meae: At 11.29.39, these viscera stand in apposition to cogitationes meae; at 5.10.20, with the comparable construction where miserationes is the confessing subject, there is a parallel prepositional phrase: `cui confitentur ex me miserationes tuae'.

erroris: Cf. 7.3.5, `infernum . . . erroris'; see on 1.20.31, where errores have the place in the triad as punishment for curiositas, so often in Bks. 3-6 (e.g., 4.7.12, `sed vanum phantasma et error meus erat deus meus').

vita [2] . . . sapientia [2] . . . inluminans [2] . . . lumine [2]: Curiositas [2] is the sin against the Word.

procurasti: cf. esp. 7.9.13, `procurasti'; in the astrological narrative at 4.3.6, `et hoc . . . per illum [Vindicianum] procurasti mihi'. See also 3.3.5, 6.15.25, 9.10.23.

crebro dicenti: 8.12.29 (of the `tolle lege' chant), `dicentis et crebro repetentis'.

segnem: Wijdeveld (REAug 5[1959] 33) reports a Vienna MS with signem and conjectures insignem; BA describes as `conjecture habile, mais pas assez justifiée'. Firminus is quick to consult astrologers, but does not know their texts at all well--in other words, enthusiastic but uninstructed.

eas litteras: The technical documents of the astrologers; 7.6.10, `litterisque . . . easdem litteras'; cf. here, `librorum'.

curiosum: With `curiosissimum' below and 7.6.9, `curiositate', explicit indicators of the place of this episode in the moral architecture of conf.

liberaliter: Cf. 7.6.9, `liberalesque doctrinas'. F. had been educated in the disciplinae in a way that should have led his mind upwards to philosophical wisdom (see on 4.16.30); he resembles A. (just as Victorinus in 8.2.3-5 will appear in a conversion narrative as a Doppelgänger.).

constellationes: doctr. chr. 2.22.33, `constellationes enim quas vocant notatio est siderum, quomodo se habebant cum ille nasceretur de quo isti miseri a miserioribus consuluntur'; also at div. qu. 45.2 (fuller on technicalities), Gn. litt. 2.17.36, c. Faust. 2.5, s. 56.8.12, civ. 5.3-5.7, and c. ep. pel. 2.6.12. Infrequent elsewhere; at Calcidius (comm. 118 and 148) = Eng. `constellation'. One ancient gloss equates to Gk. katasterismos, but the meaning here is different.

conicere: Cf. Cic. div. 1.52.118, `male coniecta maleque interpretata signa falsa sunt', and Plin. nat. 10.49, `praesagivere victoriam, ita coniecta interpretatione'; see div. qu. Simp. 1.2.3, `coniectant', quoted below on 7.6.10, `de Esau et Iacob', and civ. 5.9, `in his autem mathematicorum coniecturis refutandis'.

flatabant flatabant O Maur. Ver. Skut.  (citing ep. 55.11.21, `ad ipsum autem ignem amoris nutriendum et flatandum' [his app. wrongly reads ep. 50.]):   flabant G:   flagitabant C D:   flagrabant S Knöll

conligerent: A technical term, repeated through 7.6.10; cf. Amb. exam. 4.4.14, `magnam vim dicunt esse nativitatis eamque minutis quibusdam et certis conligi oportere momentis ac, nisi verius conligatur, summam esse distantiam. . . . hoc quemadmodum possint conligere respondeant.'

praegnans: For the accusative, cf. `Lampridius', Commodus 1.3, `Faustina cum esset Commodum cum fratre praegnans' (Löfstedt, Symb. Osl. 56[1981], 106).

dealbatiores: G-M: `comparatively brilliant.' They rightly prefer this to the old suggestion (going back to a note of Jean le Clercq reprinted at PL 47.208: cf. BA ad loc.) that `since a newly made, or mended, Roman road was white from the lime used for binding, “dealbatiores” = “well-kept”.'

7.6.9

talis quippe narraverat: Authority in narrative reflects the moral stature of the speaker; cf. 10.3.3 for A.'s reflections on the authority of his own narrative.

vera pronuntiarem: Of astrological fortune-telling, as at 4.3.5 and 7.6.10.

at si at si C D G O Maur. Knöll Ver.:   ac si S Skut.

conditionem servilem: For these words and all that follow to 8.5.12, manuscript C is defective and so D must be relied on.

unde . . . inde: The present punctuation, linking the two words as correlative, is that of A. Gabillon, Homo Spiritalis (Festschrift Verheijen: Würzburg, 1987), 441-2.

conlegi conlegi O S Ver.:   conligi DG Maur. Knöll Skut.

non arte dici sed sorte: See on 4.3.5; cf. 7.6.8, `vim sortis', and 7.6.10.

7.6.10

ruminando: 3.6.11, 6.3.3, 10.14.22, 11.2.3.

gemini: A standard Augustinian argument against astrology: div. qu. 45.2, doctr. chr. 2.21.32-2.23.35, Gn. litt. 2.17.36, civ. 5.1-8; but the argument was conventional: Persius 6.18-19, `geminos, horoscope, vario producis genio'.

litterisque: Cf. 7.6.8, `eas litteras' and `easdem litteras' here.

de Esau et de Iacob: Gn. 25-7; div. qu. Simp. 1.2.3 (concerning Rom. 9.10ff, on God's predestination of Jacob and Esau), `ad hoc commendandum ait, “ex uno concubitu”, ut nec astrologis daret locum vel eis potius quos genethliacos appellaverunt, qui de natalibus nascentium mores et eventa coniectant. . . . et facile animadvertunt, si volunt, responsa illa quae miseris venditant nullius artis expositione sed fortuita suspicione proferri.'

non ergo arte sed sorte: See on 7.6.9.

iustissime moderator universitatis [1].

occultis meritis: He comes closest here to connecting this episode with the circumambient discussion of the causes of evil; cf. 7.3.5, `rectum iudicium tuum ut pateremur'.

ex abysso iusti iudicii tui: Ps. 35.7, `iudicia tua abyssus multa'; cf. 4.4.8, 13.2.3, 13.12.13.

quid est hoc: Sir. 39.25-26, `a saeculo usque in saeculum respicit, et nihil est mirabile in conspectu eius. (26) non est dicere, quid est hoc, aut quid est istud? omnia enim in tempore suo quaerentur. A characteristically curious question, therefore; elsewhere in conf. at 1.6.10, 8.3.8, 8.8.19, 10.6.9, 10.14.21, 10.21.31, 13.24.35.

7.7.11

If 7.6.8 - 7.6.10 were omitted, this paragraph would pick up smoothly from the end of 7.5.7, but with some repetition. In other words, the Firminus episode is not a later interpolation, but is deliberately encapsulated in the middle of a discussion that has its own continuity; see on 7.6.8.

adiutor meus: Ps. 29.11, `dominus factus est adiutor meus', Ps. 62.8, `quia factus es adiutor meus', Ps. 17.3, `deus meus adiutor meus', Ps. 58.18, `adiutor meus, tibi psallam'; Ps. 18.15, `domine adiutor meus, et redemptor meus'. Also at 7.10.16, 8.6.13, 9.1.1 (the latter two passages also marked by liberation from vincula).

fluctibus: Cf. Ps. 68.3, `infixus sum in limo profundi, et non est substantia; veni in altitudinem maris et tempestas demersit me'; Ps. 106.25, `exaltati sunt fluctus eius'.

credebam: Just on the verge of intellectual discovery, A. presents here a creed of that time, summarizing his state of mind: for a similar summary at a slightly more advanced stage, see 7.20.26 (and cf. on 8.1.2). Every item in this creed has already been discussed and where relevant its acceptance by A. documented. He already believes in God the Father, in God the Son, and in the scriptures as guaranteed by the catholic church; no mention of incarnation.

auctoritas: See on 6.11.19, `tam eminens culmen auctoritatis'.

viam: Jn. 14.6, `ego sum via et veritas et vita.' The noun via occurs 8x in Bk. 7 and is consistently to be taken as denoting incarnate Logos (following 5.3.5, `viam, verbum tuum'), as scriptural echoes and context make clear. This corroborates the Christological focus of the book. Apart from the present passage: 7.9.13, 7.18.24 (2x), 7.20.26 (2x), 7.21.27 (3x). The expression enters A.'s writing at c. acad. 1.5.13-14, `recta via vitae sapientia nominatur' (influenced by Cic., Tusc. 1.1.1, `ad rectam vivendi viam'), ord. 2.5.16, `duplex enim est via', sol. 1.13.23, `non ad eam una via pervenitur' (qualified at retr. 1.4.3: it is clear that Christ is a way for A. in 386, but perhaps less clear that he understands Christian doctrine to be as exclusive as he later took it to be: du Roy 168-171); in a similar sense at lib. arb. 2.9.26, 2.17.45, and vera rel. 1.1. First with unmistakeable reference to Jn. 14.6 probably mor. 1.13.22, but it would be hard to argue that A. was unaware of the equation already at Milan or Cassiciacum (especially bearing in mind the reluctance to mention the nomen Christi at Cassiciacum [see on 9.4.7]). Also early are div. qu. 38. (from Thagaste) and f. et symb. 4.6, quoting Prov. 8.22, Jn. 1.3 and 1.14 (see 7.9.13), and Phil. 2.6-7 (see 7.9.14)--as one would expect, this latter is his earliest fully ecclesiastical exposition. Among many later examples, cf. doctr. chr. 1.11.11, `cum ergo ipsa sit patria, viam se quoque nobis fecit ad patriam'; sim. at doctr. chr. 1.34.38 (linking Prov. 8.22 and Jn. 14.6) and trin. 1.12.24, quoting Prov. 8.22 and Jn. 14.6. The verse is an apt proof-text in an anti-Platonic context, e.g., s. 141.1.1 or civ. 10.32, where A. takes the phrase `universalis via animae liberandae' from Porphyry's de regressu animae and reiterates it over and over, emphasizing that the true `universal way' is Christian (citing Jn. 14.6 as he does); this is ironic insofar as the verse is one where Platonic teaching supported A.'s reconciliation with orthodoxy (even if it did not lead him as far as the incarnation).

The literal-minded consistency of A.'s exegesis by the time of his episcopal ordination and ever after makes it probable, therefore, that via is to be interpreted in conf. as a marker of the incarnate Logos wherever it occurs in a context that does not positively contradict the interpretation; numerous passages in this commentary refer to the present note with that intention. Studies include T. van Bavel, Augustiana 7(1957), 245-281; and L. C. Ferrari, Aug. Stud. 7(1976), 47-58. Van Bavel, art. cit. 267-76, emphasizes the view that via consists of the events of Christ's earthly life; but there is a touch of special pleading here, in that van Bavel is attempting to show that A. does not unduly neglect the `historical Jesus'.

aures tuae: Also at 3.11.19, 4.5.10, 5.8.15, 6.11.20, 9.12.33, 10.35.57, 11.2.3.

magnae voces: BA, perhaps anachronistically: `il ne s'agit pas d'une prière explicite, d'une prière au sens strict du mot, mais d'un tourment intérieur à la recherche du vrai qui, par sa sincérité même, attire la miséricorde divine.'

nullus hominum: The privacy, even loneliness, in which A. labored (see on 7.6.8) would not have been evident to his `friends' --the nameless crowd that constantly surrounds him, and from which he seems in these years so detached. (At Hippo as well, he lived in a crowd, perhaps on no greater terms of real intimacy.)

rugiebam a gemitu cordis mei: Ps. 37.9-11, `rugiebam a gemitu cordis mei, (10) et ante te est omne desiderium meum, et gemitus meus non est absconditus a te. (11) cor meum conturbatum est, et deseruit me fortitudo mea, et lumen oculorum meorum non est mecum'; en. Ps. 37.14, `ipsum enim desiderium tuum, oratio tua est; et si continuum desiderium, continua oratio.' Cf. 11.19.25, 12.18.27.

intus enim erat, ego autem foris: See on 10.27.38.

intendebam: The `looking' here resembles that of 9.10.25 (Ostia), with the difference that there the things of creation shrugged off A.'s gaze and passed him along to God. Here he is incapable of seeing into, or through, or beyond them. In terms of Rom. 1.20ff (see on 7.9.14), he does not yet see God in the visible things of creation, and to that end this attempt at `nature mysticism' is a failure.

locum ad requiescendum: See on 4.11.16, `locus quietis imperturbabilis'.

superior enim eram istis: As often, to suggest the deficiencies of his position at the time, A. sketches the true doctrine he was lacking. Cf. Gn. 1.28, `replete terram et subiicite eam, et dominamini piscibus maris'.

media regio salutis meae: For the soul poised between God and material creation, see du Roy 476-478. Cf. Gn. c. man. 2.15.22 (`illa medietate per quam deo subiecti erant et corpora subiecta habebant'), epp. 140.2.3, 18.2 (`qui Christo credit non diligit infimum, non superbit in medio atque ita summo inhaerere fit idoneus'), lib. arb. 2.19.50, Io. ev. tr. 20.11, trin. 12.11.16. The theme is easily linked (implicitly in several of these passages, explicitly in the trin. text) to the notion of the `weight' (pondus) of the love that drags the soul down or allows it to rise (see on 13.9.10).

regio: See on 2.10.18 and 7.10.16.

ad imaginem tuam: Gn. 1.26, `faciamus hominem ad imaginem nostram'; see on 13.22.32.

tibi . . . corpori: BA 13.681-682n cites Io. ev. tr. 1.4, trin. 10.5.7, which loosely parallel the development here.

in cervice crassa scuti mei: Iob 15.26 (VL), `et cucurrit contra eum contumeliose, in crassa cervice scuti sui'; adn. Iob 15.26, `“et cucurrit contra eum contumeliose”: adversaria faciendo quam praecepit. “in crassa cervice scuti sui”: praesumens de protectione sua.' en. Ps. 128.9, `et ibi cervicem nominavit; quia sic te erigis, et non elidis oculos ad terram, et tundis pectus, et dicis, “domine, propitius esto mihi peccatori” [Lk. 18.13]; sed iactas te de meritis tuis, “et vis mecum”, inquit deus, “iudicio contendere, intrare mecum ad iudicium”; cum debeas in reatu tuo satisfacere deo, et clamare ad illum.'

redeunti: sc. ad deum; see on 1.18.28. On the punctuation here, cf. A. Gabillon, Homo Spiritalis (Festschrift L. Verheijen: Würzburg, 1987), 443-444.

humilasti: Ps. 88.11, `tu humilasti sicut vulneratum superbum'; en. Ps. 88. s. 1.11, `vulneratum enim intellegas diabolum, non penetrata carne, quam non habet, sed percusso corde, ubi superbus est.'

tumore . . . oculos meos: See on 7.8.12, `collyrio'.

7.8.12

This paragraph is a tissue of biblical echoes and reminiscences, a signal of the importance of the stage to be reached in the next paragraph.

tu vero . . . manes: Ps. 101.13, `tu vero domine in aeternum manes'; en. Ps. 101. s. 1.13, `mei dies sicut umbra declinaverunt, et tu in aeternum manes: temporalem salvet aeternus.'

non . . . nobis: Ps. 84.6, `non in aeternum irascaris nobis'; cf. Ps. 102.9, `non in finem irascetur, neque in aeternum indignabitur'.

terram et cinerem: Job 42.6 (VL), `ideo despexi memetipsum et distabui et aestimavi me terram et cinerem'; see on 1.6.7, and cf. 10.5.7.

et placuit: Ps. 18.15, `et erunt, ut complaceant eloquia oris mei et meditatio cordis mei in conspectu tuo semper, domine adiutor meus et redemptor meus'; en. Ps. 18. en. 2.16, `superba anima in conspectu hominum vult placere; humilis anima in occulto, ubi deus videt, vult placere.' Cf. Dan. 3.40, `sed in anima contrita et spiritu humilitatis suscipiamur; . . . sic fiat sacrificium nostrum in conspectu tuo hodie ut placeat tibi.'

deformia mea: Cf. 10.27.38, `deformis inruebam'; the opposite of forma [2].

et stimulis: Aen. 11.336-337, `gloria Turni obliqua invidia stimulisque agitabat amaris': regularly cited by the editors, though the Vergilian stimuli must be taken in malo, and those here in bono: further from the wording but closer to the thought is Eccles. 12.11, `verba sapientium sicut stimuli'.

et residebat . . .: The disordered use of sight (curiositas) leaves him with vision clouded, hankering for a clear vision of God: that is the project of Bk. 7, and it will both succeed and fail; cf. 7.18.24, `verbum enim tuum, aeterna veritas . . . sanans tumorem et nutriens amorem' (see on 3.5.9).

medicinae: i.e., Christ: cf. 9.13.35, `exaudi me per medicinam vulnerum nostrorum, quae pependit in ligno et sedens ad dexteram tuam te interpellat pro nobis'; en. Ps. 118. s. 9.2, `eius a Iudaeis inrisam crucem totamque humilitatis christianae medicinam, qua sola tumor ille sanatur quo inflati cecidimus et iacentes amplius intumuimus'.

collyrio: Apoc. 3.18, `et collyrio ungue oculos tuos ut videas'. Elsewhere in A., collyrium is proper to the incarnate Christ (whose dolores were pre-eminently salubres) and occurs surprisingly often: Io. ev. tr. 2.16, `quia vero verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis, ipsa nativitate collyrium fecit, unde tergerentur oculi cordis nostri, et possemus videre maiestatem eius per eius humilitatem. ideo factum est verbum caro, et habitavit in nobis. sanavit oculos nostros. . . . omnia enim collyria et medicamenta nihil sunt nisi de terra. de pulvere caecatus es, de pulvere sanaris; ergo caro te caecaverat, caro te sanat. . . . verbum caro factum est: medicus iste tibi fecit collyrium.' The expression is already in Cyprian, de opere et eleemosynis 14, `collyrio Christi', is implicit in Ambrose, exp. Ps. 118.3.22, and cf. Paul. Nol. carm. 19.34, `collyrio . . . medentis Christi' with Paulinus to A. (= A.'s ep. 94.1), `lucerna semper est pedibus meis verbum tuum et lumen semitis meis. ita quotienscumque litteras beatissimae sanctitatis tuae accipio, tenebras insipientiae meae discuti sentio et quasi collyrio declarationis infuso oculis mentis meae purius video ignorantiae nocte depulsa et caligine dubitationis abstersa.' Similar blindness and want of collyrium in A. at Io. ev. tr. 35.6 (`de corpore suo collyrium fecit luminibus nostris'), en. Ps. 39.21, 43.14, 65.5; ss. 126.5.7, 136.4 (`de sanguine suo collyrium fecit caecis'), 317.2.2, s. Lam. 25.1 (PLS 2.828); cf. Io. ev. tr. 18.11, quoted on 7.10.16. (The word collyrium itself is medical Greek, but occurs in CL [Horace and Juvenal] as well as in Apoc., and so may have come to A. through any of those channels; A. is well aware of the medical use: qu. Mt. 13.3--if authentic.) On purging the eye without collyrium, cf. Io. ev. tr. 1.19, ss. 88.5.5, 88.15.14, 117 (on Jn. 1: central to 7.9.13), which deals throughout with purity of vision (esp. s. 117.1.1, 117.3.5; s. 117 also contains the Philippians and the Matthew texts quoted through 7.9.14), and sol. 1.6.12 (`oculi sani mens est ab omni labe corporis pura, id est a cupiditatibus rerum mortalium iam remota atque purgata')--that passage (through sol. 1.6.13, and cf. sol. 1.13.23, `oculi tam sani et vegeti') expands on purity and strength of vision in a remarkable amalgam of neo-Platonic and Christian vocabulary, demanding fides, spes, caritas as the prerequisites for vision. (On the subject of vision, but without discussion of collyrium, see M. Miles, Jour. of Rel. 63[1983] 125-142; Mayer, Zeichen 2.258.)

de die in diem: See on 6.11.20.

7.9.13

Nel mezzo del cammin. (1) With six books before and after, this one stands in the middle. (That A. could count like this is demonstrated by Gn. litt. 2.13.26, `septem quippe dierum medius quartus est.') By count of words or lines of text, this paragraph stands at the middle of the Bk. 7.⁵ (2) As long as A.'s goal was intellectual enlightenment, the reading of the platonicorum libri was the decisive intellectual event that reoriented his ways of thinking as nothing before or after would do. (3) The present passage has been the focus of every debate in the present century over the meaning of A.'s intellectual autobiography. What books of the Platonists did he read? What effect did they have upon him--in 386 and later? As heirs of generations of patient investigation, we can discuss those questions with greater precision than ever, but they continue to elude decisive, and universally acclaimed, answer.

The first words of this paragraph (as du Roy 61 observes) summarize the rest of Bk. 7 (cf. 7.20.26, on the difference between praesumptio and confessio). God resists the proud when he refuses illumination to those who grasp at it through pride of intellect; and he gives grace to the humble when he allows the least sinner access through the way that is the incarnate Christ. In attending as closely as we do to the platonicorum libri and even to the texts of scripture, we mistake Augustine's drift in a crucial way. What he is attempting to describe is an encounter between his haughty intellect and the humbling grace of God, an encounter in which the books on the table were instruments, not in themselves indispensable.

Central to A.'s presentation of the doctrines of the Platonists employs a rhetorical device that has gone comparatively unattended. He does not quote or paraphrase the Platonic books themselves (thereby making their identification difficult), but he quotes the ipsissima verba of Christian scripture as though they offered a fair summary of contents of an non-Christian philosophical work; incidentally the device allows close comparison of the doctrines of Platonists and Christians. He has already employed the device, in his last account of reading a philosophical classic, the Hortensius (at 3.4.8, quoting Col. 2.8-9; see below for further parallels). The syncretism he makes is one that seemed obvious at the time.⁶

Some attention must be given to the way this `reading' is presented. The ancient reader, no less than the modern, must have had expectations on first reading that are sharply confounded by the extended quotation from John. To be told that the books of the Platonists contained Christian scripture is a striking thing, and risks misreading on several levels. The first subtext we risk neglecting is the bishop's assertion that these books contained a great deal that was good. They were good enough to seem to be the culmination of a long search, and if they led to the further discovery that this culmination was not enough, that does not minimize the positive effect they made. He has, as always, high praise for the Platonists mixed with specific and unyielding criticism; we find it hard to take him seriously on both counts at once, but in the face of the consistency of his statements over many years (the difference separating his most Plotinian or Porphyrian remarks at Cassiciacum and his most cautious rectifications in retr. forty years later is slight), he must be given the benefit of the doubt. A good way to measure what change there was is to examine the thirteenth book of trin., which uses Jn. 1.1-14 at length to show the difference between philosophical and Christian doctrine of God. The incarnational verse 1.14 is again emphasized, but there are differences in approach. The trin. discussion is more subtle, both granting more credit to the philosophers and drawing the line between their achievement and the fullness of what Christianity has to offer more sharply.

The way A. presents his reading here allows another parallel to emerge (noted by Mayer, Zeichen 1.150). At 3.4.7, he read the Hortensius and turned away to scripture; here, another vivid encounter with the ancient philosophical tradition depicts him immediately making comparisons to specific texts of scripture. The difference is that in Bk. 3, the turn to scripture is frustrated and he rebounds into Manicheism; here, scripture manages to maintain its grip.

Courcelle, Recherches 172-173, holds that the comparison of the platonicorum libri with scripture was constructed by A. shortly after reading them, after the disillusionment of his `tentatives d'extase', and presented in conf. more or less as then written, `comme s'il lui avait sauté aux yeux dès le moment où il dévorait passionnément ces livres.' There is little evidence for any of this (notably the adverb `passionnément', which better suits his reading of the Hortensius), and the text does not allow us to date the exercise in defining the parallels.⁷ The text we have is not of 386 but of 397 or later, and the criticism of neo-Platonism implicit and explicit here was shaped over the intervening years.

The presentation of his encounter with these books is almost devoid of circumstance and narrative accoutrement (the garden scene in Bk. 8 stands in sharp contrast in this regard), but some account of the circumstances must be made. These books not were A.'s first introduction to the teachings of the Platonists (books would not have been indispensable for that purpose among the Milanese intellectuals, and he knew much simply from Cicero--to say nothing of many other sources⁸ ), but he clearly recalls a specific encounter with particular codices. Having heard much of the Platonists, he seeks out their books (foreshadowed in his recollection at 6.11.18 of a need for books: `ubi ipsos codices quaerimus?') to learn more, as full of his usual hopes as he was on turning to scripture after reading the Hortensius. To his surprise on plunging into them he finds not what he was looking for but something else entirely (and that kind of surprise is familiar in this text from his encounters with both Faustus and Ambrose).

It is a misreading to say that in Bk. 7 A. becomes a neo-Platonist. What he says is that in the midst of all his philosophizing--Platonic, neo-Platonic, and idiosyncratic--the specific texts put in front of him brought him new light and new frustration, and thus had the effect of driving him towards scriptural authority, where, in Bk. 8, the real resolution of his difficulties would be worked out. Bk. 7 teaches, in the end, that intellectual enlightenment, contrary to all A.'s youthful expectations, is not sufficient.

There is no suggestion, anywhere in A. or in any of the modern commentators, that he ever took his `Platonism' so far as to indulge in theurgy.⁹ The only possible liturgy for him now was Christianity; the ascent of the mind was non-sectarian in that important, even crucial, sense. But in one significant way, the Platonic pattern may have influenced his expectations of Christianity in a way that also goes unattended. The function of theurgy is to bring about the presence of the God, visibly. What does Christianity have that would have appeared to a half-Christian Plotinus/Porphyry-reader as the rough equivalent of theurgy? Eucharist: making the god be present. The Mass as Christian theurgy? Or as Christian counterpart to theurgy? The place in which we might have expected to find such an analogy developed is Ambrose's lost work de sacramento regenerationis sive de philosophia.

The most ambitious theological critique of A. in our time is O. du Roy's L'intelligence du foi . . . (Paris, 1966), and it requires a response in its own theological terms.¹⁰ The substance of his criticism is that A. puts trinity ahead of incarnation, then imprudently grants the Platonists a full doctrine of the trinity; the Platonists know all about the Fatherland, but lack only the Way to get there (du Roy 96-106). They know the pre-existent Logos, but not the incarnate Christ. But whether A. is depicted as coming to a full understanding of the trinity anywhere in the text of conf. before Bks. 11-13 is a serious question. The sequence is not trinity, then incarnation, but rather incarnation (Bk. 8), then trinity (Bks. 11-13). The Platonists acquire knowledge that is accurate insofar as it goes, but utterly insufficient. That their doctrines, described to show the alleged resemblance to Christian teachings to best advantage (Porphyry would not have been pleased with A.'s reports of Platonic teaching), facilitate understanding (or even did facilitate understanding for A.) of the doctrine of the trinity is irrelevant. The failure of the Platonists to grasp the truth of the incarnation would be, on that score, a divinely-managed stroke of bad luck. For the incarnation is the one piece of knowledge that has the greatest power to lead on to full and sufficient knowledge of God--that was, for A., the purpose of the incarnation.¹¹ The Platonists stumble onto everything else, but in a way that is wholly inadequate to a real understanding; they are closer to the demons who `believe and shudder' (Jas. 2.19) than to the humblest of baptized Christians.

The platonicorum libri enjoy unparallelled prestige among scholars, to whom they have become a talisman for locating the secret springs of A.'s spiritual life. With the hope of restoring perspective, even at the risk of tarnishing their prestige, we may consider a few of the things that A. did not do with them. He does not identify the books he read; he does not quote them at Cassiciacum (where he quotes scriptural texts and Vergil explicitly); he does not make them the objects of explicit discussion with quotation;¹² he does not write commentary upon them (the way he comments upon scripture); they never become part of his explicit, spontaneously quoted literary life;¹³ there is no sign of continuous contact with them, for the extended discussion in civ. 8-10 reflects a return to old studies rather than a constant occupation; there is no sign in his correspondence of his handling them, recommending them, or using them as authoritative; and he does not remain in correspondence with any of his Platonic acquaintances from Milan days--the break with those times on his return to Africa is nearly total (Simplicianus is the sole, and very ecclesiastical, exception). The dialogues he records under the influence of Platonic ideas involve without exception A. and others of his African entourage, never any of the so-called neo-Platonic circle of Milan, except as dedicatees.¹⁴ The intellectual movement of his recorded writings, beginning at Cassiciacum and lasting until his death, is consistently and continuously away from neo-Platonism.

But the debate with Platonism is assuredly a subtext in almost everything A. wrote; here it will suffice to quote a few passages of particular pertinence to this description of his first serious encounter. The first signs of reserve are already there at Cassiciacum, as the second text indicates:

c. acad. 3.18.41, `os illud Platonis, quod in philosophia purgatissimum est et lucidissimum, dimotis nubibus erroris emicuit maxime in Plotino, qui platonicus philosophus ita eius similis iudicatus est, ut simul eos vixisse, tantum autem interest temporis, ut in hoc ille revixisse putandus sit.'

sol. 1.4.9, `[Ratio] si ea quae de deo dixerunt Plato et Plotinus vera sunt, satisne tibi est ita deum scire, ut illi sciebant? [A.] non continuo, si ea quae dixerunt vera sunt, etiam scisse illos ea necesse est. nam multi copiose dicunt quae nesciunt, ut ego ipse omnia quae oravi, me dixi scire cupere, quod non cuperem si iam scirem.'

vera rel. 4.7, `ita si hanc vitam illi viri [Plato et platonici] nobiscum rursus agere potuissent, viderent profecto cuius auctoritate facilius consuleretur hominibus et paucis mutatis verbis atque sententiis christiani fierent, sicut plerique recentiorum nostrorumque temporum platonici fecerunt.' ¹⁵

The one piece of solid information about Plotinus himself that A. relates elsewhere is ep. 118.5.33, `tunc Plotini schola Romae floruit habuitque condiscipulos multos acutissimos et sollertissimos viros. sed aliqui eorum magicarum artium curiositate depravati sunt, aliqui dominum Iesum Christum ipsius veritatis atque sapientiae incommutabilis, quam conabantur attingere, cognoscentes gestare personam in eius militiam transierunt.' ¹⁶

The most famous testimony to the rapprochement of Platonism and Christianity, seen from a Platonic perspective, but reported by A. to reinforce the Christian view, is at civ. 10.29, `quod initium sancti evangelii, cui nomen est secundum Iohannem, quidam platonicus, sicut a sancto sene Simpliciano, qui postea Mediolanensi ecclesiae praesedit episcopus, solebamus audire, aureis litteris conscribendum et per omnes ecclesias in locis eminentissimis proponendum esse dicebat. sed ideo viluit superbis deus ille magister, quia “verbum caro factum est et habitavit in nobis.”' ¹⁷ The mention of Simplicianus (see on 8.1.1) dates this episode to the period under review here. A. always credits the Platonists with a knowledge of the triadic nature of God (e.g., civ. 8.5, 8.10, and [more trinitarian than merely triadic] 10.23).

As many writers have noted, the question of `sources' can be dangerously misleading, for it is not only Latin translations of Greek Platonic texts that need be in question (though obviously there were some of those), but also the sermons of Ambrose (some mediating ideas from Greek Platonic texts), and well-informed oral tradition. Much debate since Courcelle has been concerned with identifying the textual sources as closely as possible, and with dating A.'s contacts with them. Better to follow the example of Mandouze 476-478, who summarizes concisely and lucidly the most ambitious attempts to provide a schedule for A.'s readings (and hearings) of Platonic ideas, while setting that exercise aside as essentially secondary. Here is the pattern that Mandouze summarizes; see his discussion for documentation for each suggestion:

Beginning of 386	Ambrose, de Iacob et vita beata
Holy Week, 386	Ambrose, exameron18
May 386	Ambrose, de Isaac vel anima; de bono mortis
June/July 386	Porphyry, Philosophy from Oracles19
June/July 386	platonicorum libri
July/August 386	Paul

The unanswerable question remains how much of A.'s neo-Platonism he imbibed from Ambrose, and how much from his reading, and how far those two bodies of doctrine coincided. The optimism of Courcelle (that the two coincided closely) must be measured by consideration of the objections that can be brought against it, as by Theiler at Gnomon 25(1953), 114-119. Even if Theiler's parti pris on behalf of Porphyry is excessive, there remain problems.

quam . . . gratiam: Prov. 3.3-4, Jas. 4.6, 1 Pet. 5.5: see on 1.1.1.

demonstrata: used of Christ at 10.43.68, `verax autem mediator, quem secreta tua misericordia demonstrasti hominibus et misisti, ut eius exemplo etiam ipsam discerent humilitatem, mediator ille dei et hominum, homo Christus Iesus.'

via: See on 7.7.11. From this paragraph on, humilis/humilitas occur 11x in Bk. 7 alone, signs of that quality of the incarnation that human beings are meant to imitate.

quod verbum . . . homines: The central doctrine missing in the platonicorum libri was the incarnation (7.9.14), but here is a clear statement from c. 397 that God sent these books to A. in order to get him to believe in the incarnate Christ, in order to teach him something they did not contain. The one thing he says he learned is the one thing that was not there.

quendam hominem: The identity of this man has exercised much curiosity. A. is careful (see on 4.4.7) to name in conf. only those who contributed to his religious pilgrimage in positive ways--a category generous enough to include the heretic Faustus. To refrain from naming this man is then a judgment against him, corroborated by the words that describe him. Was he Mallius Theodorus? That was Courcelle's identification (Recherches 153-156, following LLW 134-140), and it remains the most compelling. It is not, however, universally accepted. O'Meara, The Young Augustine (London, 1954), 152, thinks the man must be Porphyry; Solignac makes a case in favor of Celsinus (see BA 13.103); Mayer Zeichen 1.128n146 doubts it can be Theodorus: `Wahrscheinlich handelt es sich um einen nicht-christlichen Neuplatoniker, der aus seinem philosophischen Dünkel--was in den Augen des Bischofs der Confessiones nur Stolz ist --, sich dem Joch des Glaubens nicht beugte.' (The other case of someone in conf. in whom A. later had reason to be disappointed is Romanianus: see on 6.14.24).

For Theodorus' career in outline see PLRE 1, s.v. Theodorus 27. His known career ran from c. 376 to 399; he may well have been contemporary with A. or only slightly older. After several minor posts in the late 370s, he held one of the major financial ministries (either comes sacrarum largitionum or comes rerum privatarum) in 380. In 382 he seems to have reached the acme of a civil career, serving as praetorian prefect for Gaul. About the time of the death of Gratian in 383, he retired from public life, to reappear only as praetorian prefect under Stilicho for the central province of Illyricum, Italy, and Africa in 397-9, and he was consul in 399 along with the eastern vizier Eutropius. He was at ease among the correspondents of Symmachus (he received Symm. ep. 5.4-16, none of much interest). He was the subject in 399 of a panegyric by Claudian, from whom we learn (Claudian, M. Theod. cos. 124) that he lived at Milan, and hear in dignified hexameters of his learned works:

omnia Cecropiae relegis secreta senectae
discutiens, quid quisque novum mandaverit aevo
quantaque diversae producant agmina sectae.

(67-69)

Of the effects of his work, Claudian says (94) `in Latium spretis Academia migrat Athenis,' and that hint of Platonic loyalties is confirmed at 149-50, `scilicet illa tui patriam praecepta Platonis erexere magis.' (Claudian's religious inclinations and the nature of his `paganism' are notoriously hard to describe [A. Cameron, Claudian (Oxford, 1970), 189-227], so while there is emphatically nothing here to suggest any Christian affiliation at all, that is not conclusive evidence.) Theodorus' treatise on meter is printed at Keil 6.585; he wrote an epitaph for a sister who was a `nun' (Courcelle, REL 46[1944], 66-73).

A. dedicated to Theodorus his own beata v. (beata v. 1.1), but regretted the decision later: retr. 1.2, `displicet autem illic quod Mallio Theodoro, ad quem librum ipsum scripsi, quamvis docto et christiano viro, plus tribui quam deberem.' A. speaks (beata v. 1.4) of Ambrose and Theodorus at that epoch in the same breath, but also asserts that Theodorus was a student of Plotinus: beata v. 1.4, `lectis autem Plotini paucissimis libris, cuius te esse studiosissimum accepi'. (Many have said that the wording makes the report sound indirect and suggests that T. could n