Book Eight

Unique among books of conf., Bk. 8 consists almost entirely of a series of specific recalled episodes; the first two (conversations with Simplicianus and Ponticianus) containing embedded narratives of other conversion stories, the third (the garden scene) being A.'s own conversion story.¹ The conversation with Simplicianus defines the issues, the conversation with Ponticianus forces the issues to a resolution.

8.1.1 - 8.1.2

Introduction

8.2.3 - 8.5.12

Conversation with Simplicianus

8.2.3 - 8.2.5

Conversion of Marius Victorinus

8.6.13

Second Introduction

8.6.14 - 8.7.18

Conversation with Ponticianus

8.6.15

Conversion of the courtiers of Trier

8.8.19 - 8.12.30

A. and Alypius in the garden at Milan

8.12.28 - 8.12.30

Conversion of A. and Alypius

Each of these three central books (7, 8, 9) ends with a sustained, connected passage: 7.9.13-7.21.27 (the platonicorum libri), 8.6.14-8.12.30 (visit of Ponticianus and aftermath), 9.8.17-9.13.37 (Monnica's life and death). Each of these three passages is close in length to the others (variation no more than 10%).

Bk. 8 climaxes with A. and Alypius reading a crucial text from near the end of Romans; true to the program set out at 7.21.27, the whole of Bk. 8 is a record of reading Paul, particularly Romans. The identifiable citations of Rom. in Bk. 8 make a pattern:

8.1.2

Rom. 1.21-22

8.4.9

Rom. 4.17

8.5.11

Rom. 7.16-17

8.5.12

Rom. 7.22-25

8.10.22

Rom. 7.17, 20

8.12.29

Rom. 13.13

8.12.30

Rom. 14.1

The central issue, `conversion', is presented in terms that were only possible for A. after he reached the positions he expressed in div. qu. Simp. 1.2. To modern readers, the tension between the events as lived and the later interpretation A. imposes is irksome. It is far from clear that A. would have felt our objections, which are no less valid and perplexing for that reason. The reading of this text was perhaps for a long time free of this tension, but it can never be free of it again.

8.1.1

recorder: Cf. Is. 63.7, `miserationum domini recordabor, laudem domini super omnibus quae reddidit nobis dominus'; 2.1.1, `recordari volo' (first words of book).

gratiarum actione: Cf. Rom. 1.21 (text at 7.9.14); the will to give thanks (a eucharistic wish of sorts) marks an advance over the intellectual achievements of Bk. 7 toward a moral and liturgical goal not shared with the Platonists.

confitear . . . super me: Cf. Ps. 32.22, `fiat misericordia tua, domine, super nos, sicut speravimus in te'; cf. Ps. 85.13, `confiteor tibi domine deus meus, in toto corde meo, et glorificabo nomen tuum in aeternum; quoniam misericordia tua magna est super me, et eruisti animam meam ex inferno inferiore'; sim. at 4.16.31, 5.1.1.

perfundantur ossa mea dilectione tua: No scriptural parallel closer than Rom. 5.5, `caritas dei diffusa est in cordibus nostris'; for ossa, see Ps. 34.10 quoted in next note.

domine, quis similis tibi: The same verse marks the beginning of Bks. 5 (5.1.1) and 9 (9.1.1) as well (and see next note): Ps. 34.10, `omnia ossa mea dicent, domine, quis similis tibi?'; en. Ps. 34. s. 1.13, `quis digne de his verbis aliquid dicat? ego puto tantum pronuntianda esse, non exponenda. quid quaeris illud aut illud? . . . et ipsos angelos tu creasti. nihil sunt angeli, nisi videndo te.' The answer that A. implies to the rhetorical question is perhaps not what the Psalmist had in mind. Bearing in mind Gn. 1.26 (13.22.32) and the regio dissimilitudinis (7.10.16), A.'s answer is that every man is similis deo, insofar as the image and likeness is restored by divine grace: that will be demonstrated in Bk. 8.

dirupisti . . . laudis: Ps. 115.17, `o domine, ego servus tuus, ego servus tuus et filius ancillae tuae, dirupisti vincula mea: tibi sacrificabo sacrificium laudis'; for interpretation, see on 9.1.1 (en. Ps. 95.9, `confessio hostia est deo'). This scriptural echo, like Ps. 34.10, recurs in the same words at 9.1.1 (with a shift from the subjunctive sacrificem to the indicative future sacrificabo), thus bracketing the book of conversion stories with these verses.

vincula: For chains (several times in Bk. 8), see on 8.6.13.

benedictus dominus: Cf. e.g., Ps. 71.18-19, `benedictus dominus deus Israhel, qui fecit mirabilia solus, (19) et benedictum nomen gloriae eius in aeternum et in saeculum saeculi'; 2 Chron. 2.12, `benedictus dominus deus Israhel, qui fecit caelum et terram'; Ps. 134.6, `omnia, quaecumque voluit, dominus fecit in caelo et in terra'; Ps. 8.2 (= 8.10), `domine dominus noster, quam admirabile est nomen tuum in aeternum; Ps. 75.2, `notus in Iudaea deus, in Israhel: magnum nomen eius'; Ps. 88.53, benedictus dominus in aeternum'. See Knauer 84-85 on the artistry of the conflation.

inhaeserant: The underlying metaphor explicit at 10.6.8, `percussisti cor meum verbo tuo'.

praecordiis: also at 1.15.24, 9.12.29; the lower part of the chest as the seat of the feelings; infreq. in scripture and in A., but a tantalizing appearance at the end of Wisd. 8.21, whose first words (`cum scirem quia nemo esse potest continens, nisi deus det') are profoundly apposite to Bk. 8; the end of that verse (unquoted by A. anywhere) is `et dixi ex totis praecordiis meis', introducing the prayer of Wisd. 9.1. There may be some connection at a level beyond conscious recollection. Praecordia of a place of sage reflection also at Wisd. 4.14. See S. Katô, Atti-1986 2.131-154 on cor, praecordia, and viscera in conf.

certus: Cf. the programmatic sentence of sol. 2.1.1, `noverim me, noverim te'; half the goal is reached. The trajectory of Bks. 7 and 8 could be plotted by the `certitudes' through which he passes: certus appears at 7.1.1, 7.3.4, 7.3.5, 7.8.12, 7.12.18, 7.17.23 (2x), 7.20.26 (2x), 8.1.1 (2x), 8.2.5, 8.5.10, 8.5.11, 8.5.12, 8.7.17, 8.7.18 (2x).

in aenigmate . . . videram: 1 Cor. 13.12, `videmus nunc per speculum in aenigmate, tunc autem facie ad faciem; nunc cognosco ex parte tunc autem cognoscam sicut et cognitus sum'; en. Ps. 123.2, `tunc autem videbimus facie ad faciem, cum habuerimus corda mundata. beati enim mundo corde, quoniam ipsi deum videbunt. [Mt. 5.8]' Cf. 9.10.25, `nec per aenigma similitudinis'; for a link to knowledge of self and knowledge of God, see 10.1.1.

stabilior: 2.10.18 (last words of the book), `nimis devius ab stabilitate tua in adulescentia et factus sum mihi regio egestatis'; 4.12.18, `[animae] in illo [deo] fixae stabiliuntur'.

et mundandum erat: This one line concisely evokes a series of OT/NT, paschal, sacrificial, and hence eucharistic themes: en. Ps. 39.13 (commenting on Ps. 39.8, `sacrificium et oblationem noluisti'), `sacrificia vero quae ibi fiebant ablata sunt; et quod eis remansit ad signum Cain, iam perfectum est, et nesciunt. agnum occidunt, azyma comedunt: “pascha nostrum immolatus est Christus.” ecce agnosco agnum occisum, quia immolatus est Christus. quid de azymis? “itaque”, inquit, “diem festum celebremus, non in fermento veteri, neque in fermento malitiae et malignitatis” (ostendit quid sit vetus, vetus farina est, acuit), “sed in azymis sinceritatis et veritatis.” [1 Cor. 5.7-8] in umbra remanserunt, solem gloriae ferre non possunt; iam nos in luce sumus, tenemus corpus Christi, tenemus sanguinem Christi.'

via ipse salvator: Jn. 14.6; see on 7.7.11; cf. `in via tua' (and perhaps `sectandae viae' : see on text below) here. G-M: `the rhythm of the sentence suggests that “ipse” goes with “via” rather than with “salvator”, the gender being adapted to the significance of the metaphor,' with examples from Ambrose's hymns: attractive but unnecessary; perhaps, `and I was pleased with the Way, itself the savior.' (Löfstedt, Symb. Osl. 56[1981], 106 puts commas around `ipse salvator'.)

per eius angustias: Mt. 7.14, `quam angusta porta et arta via quae ducit ad vitam.'

immisisti: A divine act; not incidi, A.'s verb for voluntarily barging into trouble (see on 7.20.26). The idea comes from God (but it is also A.'s): the `both/and' is important, and the practice evokes a Vergilian disjunctive ambiguity (e.g., Aen. 9.211, `rapiat casusve deusve').

in conspectu meo: Ps. 15.8 (also quoted at Act. 2.25), `providebam dominum in conspectu meo semper'; cf. 8.12.28, `in conspectu cordis meae'.

Simplicianum: Born before Ambrose, therefore before 339, bishop of Milan from 397, died c. 400/1, and for years before that theological mentor of Ambrose. Amb. ep. 65.1 (to S.), `cum fidei et adquirendae cognitionis divinae gratia totum orbem peragraveris et cotidianae lectioni nocturnis ac diurnis vicibus omne vitae huius tempus deputaveris, acri praesertim ingenio etiam intellegibilia complectens, utpote qui etiam philosophiae libros, quam a vero sint devii, demonstrare soleas, et plerosque tam inanes esse, ut prius scribentium in suis scriptis sermo quam vita eorum defecerit.' Amb. approved S. as his successor replying three times `senex sed bonus' to the objection that S. was too old (Paulinus, v. Amb. 46). At civ. 10.29, A. calls him `sanctus senex', and in div. qu. Simp. pr. addresses him as `pater Simpliciane' (cf. A. ep. 37.1 to S., `adfectum in me paternum, tuo benignissimo corde non repentinum et novum hausi, sed expertum plane cognitumque repetivi') and speaks of his gratitude; A. was later careful to remember that his reply to S. was the first work of his own episcopacy: retr. 2.1.1, praed. sanct. 4.8, persev. 20.52, 21.55. He was not himself a writer; Gennadius, script. eccl. 36, attributes to him only an epistula propositionum, `in qua interrogando quasi disciturus, docet docuturum'. That approach well characterizes his role in evoking the div. qu. Simp. from A., and we can see him in the same role with Ambrose in Amb. epp. 37 (on Pauline difficulties: cf. div. qu. Simp.² ), 38 (these probably date from A.'s time at Milan: J.-R. Palanque, Saint Ambroise et l'empire romain [Paris, 1933], 514-515, 579), 65, and 67, all exegetical exercises compiled at S.'s instigation. He was the true center of the `Milan circle', such as it was; he got his Platonism from the best Latin Platonist of the time, Victorinus (see on 8.2.3 below). The de philosophia of Ambrose is likely to be close to what S. would have said himself.

Why go to S.? Mandouze 196 makes the observation that A. wasn't getting anywhere with Ambrose. We must not overstate the closeness of the tie, however: div. qu. Simp. and ep. 37. linked with it are the only known contacts with Milan after A. left; it was from Paulinus of Nola, e.g., that A. sought a copy of Ambrose's de philosophia (ep. 31.8); the arrival of Paulinus of Milan in Hippo years later was a windfall.

This conversation took place while Ambrose was distracted by the Priscillianist controversy, and perhaps absent at Trier (H. Chadwick, Priscillian [Oxford, 1976], 136-7, Palanque, Saint Ambroise et l'empire Romain 516-18).

senuerat: BA 14.531 arbitrarily but plausibly suggests his age was 60+ at the time.

vitae vitae O S Ver.:   viae DG Maur. Knöll Skut.  (who thought all the MSS read viae).
For the variant, cf. 10.4.6, `comitum vitae/viae meae'.

unde mihi ut proferret: Mt. 13.52, `omnis scriba doctus in regno caelorum similis est homini patri familias qui profert de thesauro suo nova et vetera.'

quis esset aptus [3] (see on 4.13.20) modus [1] . . . in via tua [2].

sic affecto: explained by `aestus meos'; cf. 8.8.19, `me sic affectum'; 7.20.26, `affectus essem'.

ad ambulandum in via tua: Cf. Ps. 127.1, `beati omnes qui timent dominum, qui ambulant in viis eius', using the singular here for Christological effect.

8.1.2

A. chose to see the issue as whether to espouse a continent life. Courcelle attempts to minimize the moral dilemma and keep the focus on the intellectual level: Les Confessions 537 (repeating his position from Recherches 168-70, criticized at BA 13.153): `Il faut croire que, lors de sa première visite à Simplicien, antérieure à la venue de Ponticianus, leur entretien roula seulement sur les néo-platoniciens et sur la conversion de Victorinus, non point sur le problème du choix chrétien entre la vie de mariage et la vie de continence.' A footnote admits that the present paragraph suggests otherwise. The issue as it presented itself was something like, `I think that perhaps I should embrace the life of continence and so make myself ready to take baptism: but I cannot bring myself to do it', and Simplicianus' answer was to show A. a parallel story about a man who did manage to overcome a native disinclination and take baptism. See A. Zumkeller, Aug.-Lex. 1.33-40.

Here again the de philosophia of Ambrose provides the link. It offered the Christian who would learn from the philosophers a challenge to achieve moral distinction equal to the best the philosophers could achieve (on this see prolegomena). Continence is particularly important in anti-Platonic Christianity.³ It obviates, on the Platonists' own admission, the need for theurgy: civ. 10.28 (addressing Porphyry), `confiteris tamen etiam spiritalem animam sine theurgicis artibus et sine teletis, quibus frustra discendis elaborasti, posse continentiae virtute purgari.'

Nowhere in Bk. 8 does A. offer the slightest suggestion that he had any remaining intellectual doubts about Christianity. Continence and baptism came together for him in a single crisis; continence was for him the test of his worthiness for baptism. (Cf. the case of Verecundus, another catechumen at Milan who linked baptism and continence: 9.3.5.) See f. et op. 1.1, `quibusdam videtur indiscrete omnes admittendos esse ad lavacrum regenerationis quae est in Christo Iesu domino nostro, etiamsi malam turpemque vitam facinoribus et flagitiis evidentissimis notam mutare noluerint atque in ea se perseveraturos aperta etiam professione declaraverint. verbi gratia, si quisquam meretrici adhaeret, non ei prius praecipiatur ut ab ea discedat et tunc veniat ad baptismum, sed etiam cum ea manens mansurumque se confitens seu etiam profitens admittatur et baptizetur nec impediatur fieri membrum Christi, etiamsi membrum meretricis esse perstiterit'. The topic runs through f. et op. (cf. the passages on competentes [recalling his own time in that group] at f. et op. 6.8-9); Amb. exp. symb. 1 `hands over' the creed only after assuring himself of the moral worthiness of candidates. Of greater possible prurient interest is the question whether `meretrici' there reflects a harsh later judgment on his own relations with his second concubine (6.15.25); the word might certainly be apt for his view of the relationship. (For parallels, see also s. 212, addressed to baptismal candidates and containing the following texts that have important parts to play in Bks. 7-8: Mt. 13.34 [margarita pretiosa], Rom. 5.5, Phil. 2.6, Jn. 1.1-3, Col. 1.16, Wisd. 9.15. For continence as reformation according to the image and likeness of God, see en. Ps. 83.1, quoted on 13.22.32.)

Milan exercised its influence in favor of continence in various ways. Quite apart from the de philosophia, Ambrose spoke early and often in favor of continence (see Madec, Saint Ambroise 36-37). Almost forty years later, A. recalled an anecdote about a libidinous eunuch he had known there (c. Iul. 6.14.41; cf. Amb. ep. 20.28, Joseph 6.30, on which see Courcelle, Recherches 219n4). The ideal of the Plotinian ascent of the mind, however Christianized, came with a requirement to achieve moral reform as a preliminary (mus. 6.11.33, `ita certis regressibus ab omni lasciviente motu, in quo defectus essentiae est animae, delectatione in rationis numeros restituta ad deum tota vita nostra convertitur, dans corpori numeros sanitatis, non accipiens inde laetitiam'; cf. mus. 6.13.39). Cf. also the undated letter to an old friend (the sort of friend to whom he quotes Lucan, Cicero, Terence and Vergil's fourth ecl.) who had long held out against Christianity: A. rejoices that he has changed his mind, but urges him to take the sacraments (a friend who, in other words, is in the same situation in which Victorinus found himself): ep. 258.5, `quod ut fiat, exhortor gravitatem et prudentiam tuam ut iam etiam fidelium sacramenta percipias; decet enim aetatem et congruit, quantum credo, moribus tuis. . . . iam profecto sic vivis ut sis dignus baptismo salutari remissionem praeteritorum accipere peccatorum.'

The ideal was already fervently held and discussed at Cassiciacum (see on 9.4.7). Important texts are sol. 1.10.17 (`nihil mihi tam fugiendum quam concubitum esse decrevi'), sol. 1.14.25-6 (perhaps the closest we come to a dramatization at that date of the conflict recounted here in Bk. 8), ord. 2.20.52 (`summa opera danda est optimis moribus'), ord. 1.4.10 (Trygetius: `ergo adgrediamur, Licenti, freti pietate cultores, et vestigiis nostris ignem perniciosum fumosarum cupiditatum opprimamus'), c. acad. 2.9.22 (specifically suggesting continence as preparation for baptism: `de vita nostra de moribus de animo res agitur, qui se superaturum inimicitias omnium fallaciarum et veritate comprehensa quasi in regionem suae originis rediens triumphaturum de libidinibus atque ita temperantia velut coniuge accepta regnaturum esse praesumit securior rediturus in caelum'), and beata v. 3.18 (Adeodatus: `ille est vere castus qui deum attendit et ad ipsum solum se tenet').

The issue of continence is easily elided in discussions of A.'s conversion. The account given by Mandouze 83-119 leaves the continence question entirely unmentioned; it occurs finally at Mandouze 176-191, depicting the conversion that occurred in the garden exclusively in a monastic context (evoked with uncharacteristic anachronism). M. can suggest that `monk' comes first, continence second: it is clear from A. that there is no anachronistic `monk-ishness' to be aspired to for itself (e.g., Gregorian chant, cowls, cloisters, rustic tranquility), but continence was a specific issue to be faced as a preliminary to a more abstract state of `perfection' to be espoused.

Special consideration must be given to the place of Manichean ideas and practices in A.'s life. See on 5.7.13, where he suggests that he had hoped to advance (`proficere') in that sect: by becoming an elect? But for that he would have needed continence. Does the Milan conversion finally enact what he had been anticipating for years? Is this the last `Manichean reflex', fortified by Ambrose? As Manichee, he saw the only way forward as perfection and perfect continence; catholic Christianity offers a way to heaven through marriage, so he starts down that path; and as he goes down it, the marvelous conversion of spirit that he had hoped for among the Manichees happens among the catholics. On Manichean continence (with, naturally, critique), see esp. mor. 2.18.65, on the `signaculum sinus', for the way they favored contraception over procreation.<sup>4</sup> The Manichees could claim, with some justification, that as far as continentia goes, A. had just not been a very good Manichee (Alfaric 240); A. recognized that the Manichees offered a vivid show of continence to attract followers: mor. 1.1.2, `vitae castae et memorabilis continentiae imaginem praeferunt'; and he grudgingly admitted that they took the issue seriously: util. cred. 1.3, `. . . tenebrosam spem gerens de pulchritudine uxoris, de pompa divitiarum, de inanitate honorum ceterisque noxiis et perniciosis voluptatibus. haec enim omnia, quod te non latet, cum studiose illos audirem cupere et sperare non desistebam. neque hoc eorum doctrinae tribuo; fateor enim et illos sedulo monere, ut ista caveantur.'

alius sic ibat, alius autem sic: cont. 1.1, `utrumque apostolus dei donum esse praedicavit, cum de vita utraque, id est et coniugali et ea quae est sine coniugio, loqueretur dicens: “vellem omnes homines sic esse sicut me ipsum; sed unusquisque proprium donum habet a deo: alius sic, alius autem sic.” [1 Cor. 7.7]' (Further echo at `nec me prohibebat'; n.b. there `maxime'.) Putting his dissatisfaction in Pauline terms suggests that his dissatisfaction was not the proud (or curious, or concupiscent) disdain of the unconverted, but a seeker's genuine concern.

non iam inflammantibus cupiditatibus: Making explicit the end of ambitio saeculi; cf. sol. 1.10.17: `[Ratio] quid honores? [A.] fateor eos modo ac paene his diebus cupere destiti' (Mandouze 197n2).

decore domus tuae: Ps. 25.8, `domine, dilexi decorem domus tuae'; en. Ps. 25. en. 2.12, `domus dei ecclesia est; adhuc habet malos, sed decor domus dei in bonis est, in sanctis est.'

conligabar ex femina: 1 Cor. 7.26-28, `existimo ergo hoc bonum esse propter instantem necessitatem, quoniam bonum est homini sic esse. (27) alligatus es uxori? noli quaerere solutionem. solutus es ab uxore? noli quaerere uxorem. (28) si autem acceperis uxorem, non peccasti; et si nupserit virgo, non peccavit. tribulationem tamen carnis habebunt huiusmodi, ego autem vobis parco.' A. echoes but modifies the Pauline text to sharpen the point; wedlock was not the bond that held him.

maxime volens: "specially wishing," i.e., this was the thing he wanted most; not = valde cupiens as some have taken it (for the clarification, see De Marchi 313).

infirmior: 7.20.26, `nimis tamen infirmus ad fruendum te'.

volvebar: The comma that follows (proposed by De Marchi 313-314) clarifies the parallel between `hoc' and `quod'.

marcidis: `weak, enervated' not (as G-M and Hrdlicka) in the active sense, `wearying'; cf. ep. 158.11, `omnibus perturbationibus et erroribus liberam [animam] demonstrat, non marcidam et quasi segnem et torpidam et implicatam facit'; util. ieiun. 2.2, `nec cum istis erat, pigris, torpidis, marcidis, somnolentis'; en. Ps. 40.12, `flammae lentae et marcidae'.

in aliis rebus: Perhaps a hint similar to that at 6.12.22, where insatiabilis concupiscentia is the force driving A. to marriage, utterly unconscious of `coniugale decus in officio regendi matrimonii et suscipiendorum liberorum'. In both places he hints that the only thing moving him to marriage was desire, and that the married state as a whole was unappealing to him. This should be borne in mind as a hint that a decision to reject marriage was itself not entirely unappealing.

ex ore veritatis: Jn. 14.6.

spadones: Mt. 19.12 (Vg.), `sunt enim eunuchi qui de matris utero sic nati sunt, et sunt eunuchi qui facti sunt ab hominibus, et sunt eunuchi qui seipsos castraverunt propter regnum caelorum; qui potest capere, capiat.' For spadones in this gospel passage (from VL), cf. c. Faust. 30.4 and virg. 23.23 (`sunt enim spadones qui ita nati sunt; sunt autem alii qui ab hominibus facti sunt; et sunt spadones qui se ipsos castraverunt'): see Milne 53.

vani sunt certe omnes homines: Wisd. 13.1-3 (except for the first clause, as quoted at trin. 15.2.3), `vani sunt certe omnes homines quibus non inest dei scientia, nec de his quae videntur bona, non potuerunt scire eum qui est, neque operibus attendentes agnoverunt artificem, (2) sed aut ignem aut spiritum aut citatum aerem aut gyrum stellarum aut violentiam aquarum aut luminaria caeli, rectores orbis terrarum deos putaverunt. (3) quorum quidem si specie delectati haec deos putaverunt, sciant quanto dominator eorum melior est; speciei enim generator creavit ea.'

at ego: Introducing a summary of Bk. 7 and its ascents.

contestante universa creatura: Cf. Rom. 1.20, which was echoed in trin. 15.2.3 just before passage cited in note above; Rom. 1.20ff provides the frame of repeated reference for this whole paragraph (as notes below); Col. 1.16, `quia in ipso condita sunt universa in caelis et in terra visibilia et invisibilia . . . omnia per ipsum et in ipsum creata sunt'; cf. Jn. 1.3.

creatura creatura O S Knöll Skut. Ver.:   creatura tua DG Maur.

te creatorem nostrum . . . creasti omnia: The Spirit is still absent from his creed; for other such concise creeds, cf. 7.7.11 and 7.20.26.

qui cognoscentes deum: The anti-philosophical verse (Rom 1.21) marks A.'s description at this stage of the Platonists. N.B. `incideram' : see on 7.20.26.

dextera tua: = Christus; see on 7.15.21, 11.2.4, and 11.29.39; cf. Knauer 121n4.

dixisti: Though the verb comes from the Job passage cited first, it governs the rest of the sentence and thus conflates from them a single divine command, directed against the philosophers.

ecce pietas est sapientia: Job 28.28 (VL), `et dixit homini, ecce pietas est sapientia'; quoted at 5.5.8 (see trin. 12.14.22 quoted there); cf. also trin. 14.1.1 (of theosebeia). At spir. et litt. 12.19 (after full quotation of Rom. 1.14-23), `dixit enim homini: “ecce pietas est sapientia.” ac per hoc dicentes se esse sapientes, quod non aliter intellegendum est, nisi hoc ipsum sibi tribuentes, stulti facti sunt.' (The following paragraph, spir. et litt. 12.20, quotes Jas. 4.6, `deus superbis resistit' --cf. 7.9.13.)

For pietas and cultus: civ. 14.28, `in hac autem [civitate caelesti] nulla est hominis sapientia nisi pietas, qua recte colitur verus deus'; ench. 2.1 adds, `hominis autem sapientia pietas est. habes hoc in libro sancti Iob. nam ibi legitur quod ipsa sapientia dixerit homini, ecce pietas est sapientia. si autem quaeras quam dixerit eo loco pietatem, distinctius in graeco reperies theosebeian, qui est dei cultus'.

For sapientia and continentia: b. vid. 17.21, `magna ista sunt duo munera sapientia et continentia; sapientia scilicet qua in dei cognitione formamur [2: corresponding to Bk. 7?], continentia vero qua huic saeculo non conformamur [3: corresponding to Bk. 8?].'

noli velle videri sapiens: Sirach 7.5, `non te iustifices ante deum, quoniam agnitor cordis ipse est, et penes regem noli velle videri sapiens'; earlier editors cite only Prov. 26.5, `sed responde illi contra imprudentiam eius, ne sibi sapiens videatur', and Prov. 3.7, `noli esse sapiens apud te ipsum', but note that neither offers the requisite ad verbum parallel to the present text: requisite because of the incorporation of three verses into a single command after `dixisti'.

quoniam dicentes . . . facti sunt: Rom. 1.22.

bonam margaritam: Mt. 13.45-46, `simile est regnum caelorum homini negotiatori quaerenti bonas margaritas. (46) inventa autem una pretiosa margarita, abiit et vendidit omnia quae habuit, et emit eam.'

venditis omnibus: Mt. 19.21, `si vis perfectus esse, vade, vende quae habes, et da pauperibus, et habebis thesaurum in caelo; et veni, sequere me'; the verse recurs implicitly at 8.6.14-15 and explicitly in the garden scene (8.12.29), in both cases arising from the story of Antony. It provides the model for the step A. is to take at the end of the book, hence its presence here completes the statement of the book's program. Also at 13.19.24.

8.2.3

A. took his problems to Simplicianus. The example of Marius Victorinus was undoubtedly set before A. by S. with some witting sense of its possibilities as a model: a rhetorician with philosophical interests (A., like Victorinus, had even written philosophy--the de pulchro et apto) and prospects of a worldly career, brought by Platonic philosophy to the door of the church, but hesitating to enter until goaded to the requisite humility. But the presentation here is deliberately constructed to underline those parallels further and to prepare us for the conversion to come. The episode is so useful for those purposes that we must be careful not to assume that we have anything like a full account of any conversation A. actually had with Simplicianus. On the following paragraphs, see above all Hadot, Marius Victorinus: Recherches sur sa vie et son oeuvre (Paris, 1971), passim; cf. R. MacMullen, Christianizing the Roman Empire (New Haven, 1984), 69, `All his life he had been a rhetor, deeply read and a deeply religious man, even an evangelist for the cult of the gods.' Courcelle's views are best stated at Les Confessions 69-74, `Le néo-platonisme de Marius Victorinus'. See on `sacrorumque sacrilegorum particeps' below.

perrexi: Only one conversation is attested here; Courcelle, Recherches 168-174, uses civ. 10.29 (quoted on 7.9.13: n.b. `solebamus audire' --but notice that what A. is literally saying there is that S. recounted the same anecdote repeatedly, not always a sign of a specially effective teacher) to infer a series of conversations in which S. indoctrinated A. in the mysteries of Christian Platonism.

ergo: Resuming the intention from 8.1.1; the device matches that used in Bk. 5, for example, where the intention to hear Faustus is stated at 5.3.3, but he is not actually shown arriving until 5.6.10, `ergo ubi venit'.

patrem: Amb. ep. 37.2, `paternae gratiae'.

in accipienda gratia = in baptism.

tunc: This word is the sole evidence for dating this passage to after the death of Ambrose 4 April 397, hence to setting 397 as a terminus post quem for conf.; see prolegomena. For the usage, cf. 5.13.23, `praefectus tunc Symmachus'.

circuitus: In the same sense at 4.1.1, 6.6.9.

quosdam libros platonicorum: See 7.9.13.

Victorinus: Hadot, Marius Victorinus 25, dates his birth to 281/91, surmising that he could have known Porphyry. That presses the probabilities a bit far but does not break them. Courcelle, Les Confessions 557-558, dates conversion to before 354 and erection of the statue in his honor to 354 (on the glory of earning such a statue, see Amm. Marc. 14.6.8; another Christian rhetor similarly honored in this period is the stern Magnus [Dessau, ILS 2951; cf. Hier. ep. 70.]), but here `usque ad illam aetatem' seems to insist that V. was unbaptized when he received the honor. The only real contemporary case is that of Prohaeresius known from Eunapius (v. soph. 10.7.3-4), and there the honoree was certainly non-Christian.

The only other contemporary evidence for V.'s work comes from Jerome, and is not unmixed. In his chron. (Eusebius, Werke [GCS 7]), s.a. 2370 from the birth of Abraham, i.e., 354, J. testifies to his eminence: `Victorinus rhetor et Donatus grammaticus, praeceptor meus, Romae insignes habentur. e quibus Victorinus etiam statuam in foro Traiani meruit.' But writing at almost the moment of A.'s conversation with Simplicianus, Jerome was more reserved about his theological writings: in Gal. pr., `non quod ignorem Caium Marium Victorinum, qui Romae me puero rhetoricam docuit, edidisse commentarios in apostolum, sed quod occupatus ille eruditione saecularium litterarum scripturas omnino sanctas ignoraverit, et nemo possit, quamvis eloquens, de eo bene disputare quod nesciat.' A few years later (392), Jerome was scarcely less critical (vir. inl. 101): `Victorinus, natione Afer, Romae sub Constantio principe rhetoricam docuit et in extrema senectute Christi se tradens fidei scripsit adversus Arium libros more dialectico valde obscuros (qui nisi ab eruditis non intelleguntur) et commentarios in apostolum.' (The criticism for obscurity is perhaps weakened by Jerome's later mention [in Ezech. 13: 410/15] of V. as an authority on types of literary obscurity.) There are arguments about the nature and strength of V.'s pre-Christian and Christian religious and philosophical leanings (see Hadot passim). A Christian funerary inscription in honor of a granddaughter dying young memoralizes his continuing reputation: Diehl, ILCV 1.104.

A.'s statement here that V. was the translator of the platonicorum libri he read at 7.9.13 is the only evidence to suggest V. ever did such a translation. But V. himself was a cautious `Christian Platonist', quoting Plotinus only once in his works (adv. Arium 4.22.8: Hadot 203: `dans l'oeuvre théologique de Victorinus l'influence plotinienne est proprement négligeable'); more problematic for us, in his non-theological works, only Porphyry is cited and there is no direct Plotinian influence. Further, Ambrose's translations for Greek philosophical terms are consistently (Hadot 205) different from those found in the surviving works of V.: this makes it unlikely that Ambrose drew upon any platonicorum libri translated by V. These facts render all speculations about the content of the platonicorum libri in the end moot. Internal evidence from A. makes them seem preponderantly Plotinian, while the external evidence from V. offers no help (and leaves room for Theiler, e.g., to open the battle over the comparative proportions of Plotinus and Porphyry to be found in A.).

Hadot 215-31 considers whether M. V. composed a neo-Platonizing commentary on Vergil (Servius quotes him, e.g., on geo. 4.373) and hesitates to assent to the hypothesis. It is certain that A., esp. in civ., repeatedly invokes Vergil as a witness in his debates with the Platonists, a witness largely favorable to the other side. Notable is civ. 14.3, where the same neo-Platonizing reading of Aen. 6.730-734 is also reflected at Macrob. somn. Scip. 1.14.14 and in Amb. (in Luc. 7.113, exam. 1.6.23). Passages not discussed by Hadot include civ. 10.30 (where A. presses the disagreement between Plotinus and Porphyry on the question of reincarnation in animal form [Plotinus favors, Porphyry denies]), 14.5, 21.13. But all these passages quote Vergil from a small portion of Aen. 6, what is more liely than an extensive commentary is a more restricted treatment in some form of particularly attractive and malleable Vergilian passages. Courcelle had tended (e.g., LLW 46 and, with a wide range of texts of great interest for the history of Vergilian interpretation, AHDLMA 22[1955], 5-74) to accept the argument of F. Bitsch, De Platonicorum quaestionibus quibusdam Vergilianis (Diss., Berlin, 1911), which has an interesting collection of texts and makes a persuasive, but not compelling, argument (and his treatment of A. omits conf.; he finds traces chiefly in A.'s civ. and cons. ev. and in Favonius Eulogius and Macrobius); cf. K. Schelkle, Virgil in der Deutung Augustins (Stuttgart, 1939), 185-186. Y. de Kisch, MEFR 82(1980), 362, emphasizes that Aeneid 6 is also almost exclusively the focus of the numerous episodes of the sortes in the HA.

One aspect of A.'s relation to V. requires emphasis: the lack of quotation or otherwise direct use, anywhere in A.'s canon, of any of Victorinus' theological works (rightly emphasized by R. J. O'Connell, Traditio 10[1963], 2). Surely, for example, his commentary on the Pauline epistles would have been apposite at the moment A. was encountering Simplicianus, and surely his anti-Arian work and his triadic hymn on the trinity would have been useful. But there is no word of them anywhere, and nothing in Hadot's Marius Victorinus speaks to the contrary. P. Hadot, Studia Patristica 6(1962), 402-442, dresses an impeccable account of similarities and differences in the area of greatest similarity, the trinitarian structure of the soul, but Hadot at 433: `En lisant le de trinitate [of Augustine], il est pratiquement impossible d'affirmer si Augustin a connu ou non l'ouvrage de Victorinus'; 440: `Plus que des différences, il y a entre eux, me semble-t-il, un abîme.' V. employed in his own works, moreover, a terminological rigor in the usage of animus and anima that is entirely lacking in A. (O'Daly 8). (A. was aware that V. was a theologian: doctr. chr. 2.40.61, listing those Christians who have spoiled the Egyptians of their gold, listing him with Cyprian, Lactantius, Optatus of Milev, and Hilary of Poitiers as distinguished deceased Latin Christian authors.⁵ )

quondam: The word is rare in A. (60x overall, 7x in en. Ps., 7x in civ., 3x at most in conf. [and once, 1.16.26, in quotation from Terence]), much more frequently with adjectives or (as here) ps.-adjectivally with nouns than with verbs; cf. 9.13.37, `Monnicae . . . cum Patricio, quondam eius coniuge'. Wherever used, the meaning is consistent with that passage: `at one time'. In view of that the comma introduced after `quondam' by Skutella should be either deleted or moved to follow `Victorinus'; but the question presents itself whether quidam might not have been the original reading here (n.b. at 4.14.21, `Hierium, Romanae urbis oratorem', where the insertion of quondam would have been just as apt as here). That would be consistent with A.'s practice elsewhere (see on 3.4.7).

audieram: A.'s first information about V.'s Christianity thus came from a source other than S., and may conceivably date to A.'s own time in Rome.

secundum elementa: Col. 2.8, `videte ne quis vos decipiat per philosophiam et inanem fallaciam secundum traditionem hominum secundum elementa mundi et non secundum Christum.' Note how the verse is being used to praise the Platonists at the expense of other philosophers (see on 3.6.10).

incidissem: See on 7.20.26.

deum et eius verbum: See 7.9.13, and esp. civ. 10.29 and Io. ev. tr. 2.4, quoted there, on neo-Platonic respect for the first chapter of John.

ut me exhortaretur . . . parvulis: Simplicianus is shown sharing the diagnosis that A. has presented as his own of his condition at this time: full of haughty philosophy, and needing the humilitas Christi--hence the recurrence of Mt. 11.25, `confiteor tibi pater, domine caeli et terrae, quia abscondisti haec a sapientibus et prudentibus et revelasti ea parvulis' : the verse has already bracketed A.'s account of reading of the platonicorum libri: 7.9.14 (which continues with quotation of Mt. 11.28: cf. `subiecto collo' below) and 8.1.1 (where it is preceded by Mt. 11.28). N.B. `puer . . . infans' below.

recordatus est: In what capacity did Simplicianus know Victorinus? The events in question took place many years earlier (so it is likely that S. was rather younger than V.) and many miles from Milan, at Rome. But higher clergy in this period were not especially mobile. Further, S. tells at 8.2.5 of V.'s dealings with the presbyteri at Rome, leaving the implication that he was not one himself. S. was most probably at that time either himself a philosophically inclined layman or else just possibly a cleric in minor orders. Modern readings of this passage have, on the other hand, assumed that Simplicianus represents the clerical, churchly view, against which Victorinus represents the philosophical laity. S. may well have been much more sympathetic and accessible at the time V. knew him than such a stereotype allows, and may in his own reminiscences have given himself a larger role in the conversion story than strictly necessary.

deque illo mihi narravit: The conversion narratives of this book are recounted in A.'s own voice, with occasional authorizing interruptions (8.2.4, `ut ipse narrabat'), with little indirect discourse or other methods for putting the stories in the mouths of the people (S. and Ponticianus) from whom A. heard the stories (W. Schmidt-Dengler, REAug 15[1969], 199). At 8.6.15, for example, the story of the courtiers of Trier begins in indirect discourse, but switches to direct even where it recounts Ponticianus' own actions, introducing only `narrabat haec Ponticianus' at 8.7.16 when the anecdote is over.

habet enim: 8 words of main clause, then conjunction and subject for subordinate clause (4 words), then 86 words of apposition and relative clauses, then 21 words completing the main subordinate clause. The impact of the sentence is in the grammatically subordinate material, esp. toward the end, where the impossibility of Victorinus's position as a `pagan' is made clear: he has participated in the eastern rites so popular at Rome, rites by which Rome (which Victorinus has defended over and over again with his words) is now supplicating to the gods it has vanquished--in that confusing welter, at the end of the long series of descriptive phrases and clauses, the choice to be a `puer Christi' and `infans' (with ironic application to a practicing rhetorician) seems not so surprising.

laudem gratiae tuae: Cf. Eph. 1.6, `in laudem gloriae gratiae suae'.

omnium liberalium doctrinarum: See on 4.16.30.

tam multa legerat: 5.3.3, `multa philosophorum legeram'. V.'s readings make clear the parallels (whether identified by S. or by A.) between Victorinus and the young Augustine. (The words philosophus/philosophia only occur in conf. from 3.4.7 [reading the Hortensius] to this point.)

statuam . . . acceperat: Confirmed by Hier. chron. (quoted above).

sacrorumque sacrilegorum particeps: Victorinus the theurgist? Cf. at trin. 4.10.13, the devil `sic hominem per elationis typhum potentiae quam iustitiae cupidiorem aut per falsam philosophiam magis inflans aut per sacra sacrilega inretiens, in quibus etiam magicae fallaciae curiosiores superbioresque animas deceptas inlusasque praecipitans, subditum tenet pollicens etiam purgationem animae per eas quas teletas appellant transfigurando se in angelum lucis per multiformem machinationem in signis et prodigiis mendacii.' (Cf. 2 Cor. 11.14, `Satanas transfigurat se in angelum lucis.'

spirabat spirabat G O S:   inspirabat D

±popiliosiam±: ±popiliosiam± ODonnell  Clearly the ductus literarum of the archetype:   popilios iam O S A H V E F M  Popilius is attested as a Roman gentile name, e.g., that of M. Popilius Laenas, cos. 172 BC, and would have been known to A. from Cic. off. 1.11.36, but there is no connection here.:   popilius iam D:   populiosiam P:   populuosiam Z:   populiosirim B:   populique iam G

This locus desperatus has resisted healing: :   populus etiam Louvain  Lovanienses; :   populo iam Maur. Knöll  Maurists, Knöll; :   populos iam Pusey  Pusey; :   prodigia iam Knöll (ed. min.)  Knöll (ed. min.); :   populo Osirim Ihm  M. Ihm, Rh. Mus. 51(1896), 638, followed by de Labriolle; :   Porden Pelusiam Vaccari  A. Vaccari, Didaskaleion n.s. 2(1924), 3-9 (repr. in his Scritti di erudizione e di filologia 2 [Rome, 1958], 219-227), with further discussion at Gregorianum 42(1961), 730-731; :   sperabat propitia sibi iam Colombo  S. Colombo, Didaskaleion n.s. 7(1929), fasc. 2, 17-22; :   propudiosa Sizoo  A. Sizoo, Mnemosyne ser. 3, 4(1936), 255-256; :   Populoniam Vega  (a city in Etruria), A.C. Vega, Religión y Cultura 10(1930), 260-265; :   propitia iam Vega  Vega in his ed.; :   populi ursam Vega  Vega in ed. (`fortasse'); :   propolis iam Skut.  Skutella: presumably dative, `shopkeepers': instancing civ. 7.26, `itemque de mollibus eidem Matri Magnae contra omnem virorum mulierumque verecundiam consecratis, qui usque in hesternum diem madidis capillis facie dealbata, fluentibus membris incessu femineo per plateas vicosque Carthaginis etiam a propolis unde turpiter viverent exigebant, nihil Varro dicere voluit'; :   propudia Castigilioni  Castigilioni, rev. Skut., Athenaeum (1935), 274; :   populusque iam Capello  Capello, in his ed. of conf. (Turin, 1948); :   pupulos iam Courcelle  Courcelle, REL 29 (1951), 295-307; :   propudiosa Herrmann  L. Herrmann, Aug. Mag. 1.138; :   Pelusiotam Preaux  J. Preaux, Hommages à Max Niedermann (= Collection Latomus, 23 [Brussels, 1956]), 286-295; :   Pupullosirim Solignac  `le bébé d'Osiris', Solignac (BA 14.15n2); :   popularium Preux  J. Preaux, rev. Courcelle, Les Confessions, Latomus 25(1966), 322-326;:   populi Pelusiam Ver.   Verheijen in his ed.

The recent arguments for seeing an allusion to the Egyptian city Pelusium (Vaccari, Preaux's earlier venture, and Verheijen all move in that direction) is important as an attempt to give the text further, suitably recherché, Egyptian reference. Vaccari usefully quotes Hier. in Is. 13.46, quoted below on the Vergil citation. Courcelle's argument at Les Confessions 82-88 for pupulos (`little boys', of the Egyptian gods) is good; his best argument, that in the context of the sentence, `senex . . . pupulos . . . puer' all speak to each other; but who is to say (to either of these Egyptianizing readings) that any of Augustine's readers would understand the reference, coming before the Vergil citation? And how many would understand it after? If C. is right, the pupulos refers to Harpocrates (i.e., Horus, son of Isis and Osiris), represented with a finger over his mouth, or being nursed by Isis (but even then the plural is a problem). But there is certainly little sign that A. knew much of Osiris: mentioned 5x in civ. (at least one, at 8.26, directly dependent on ps.-Apul. Ascl.).

No consensus has been reached or is likely. For further bibliography, see note at BA 14.536-537 and Courcelle, Les Confessions 75-88 (some texts quoted below on `Anubem'). If it may be permitted to add one suggestion to this list, consider:

Pompilii deos iam: cf. ep. 102.2.13, `Numa Pompilius deos colendos Romanis instituit'; civ. 3.9-12, 7.34-5, `ipsumque Numam Pompilium curiositate inlicita ad ea daemonum pervenisse secreta', 7.35, `curiosissimus rex ille Romanus'. On Numa's place in late fourth century literature, see Y. de Kisch, MEFR 82(1970), 331-332, quoting the hist. aug., Claudian, and Macrobius.

omnigenum . . . tenuerant: Aen. 8.698-700:

omnigenumque deum monstra et latrator Anubis
contra Neptunum et Venerem contraque Minervam
tela tenent.

The implication is that the Roman nobility has now changed sides and gone over to the eastern cults, betraying their heritage. Modern students of `paganism' have often repeated the charge.

Anubem: A literal reading seeks evidence for Egyptian worship in Rome in the fourth century, and this of course is forthcoming: A. Alföldi, A Festival of Isis (Budapest, 1937), finds an Isis priest portrayed in the Calendar of 354 and expands on fourth-century Isis-worship. But to denote such practices with a line from Vergil is a sign of conventionality at least (see below), and it is also possible that this passage is connected to the nest of Egypt-allusions at 7.9.15, on which see notes there. A. associates `the exodus from Egypt with Baptism (en. Ps. 80.15f.) with Christ as the guide (en. Ps. 43.10) who frees us from the former life of sin (en. Ps. 72.5)' : A. Di Berardino, Aug.-Lex. 1.139. The Egyptian quality of V.'s `paganism' makes him an apt candidate for baptism, and he is besides a merchant of Egyptian gold. (The Vergilian passage provides material for Prud. c. Symm. 2.514 [`molliaque omnigenum colla inclinare deorum'], 2.532 [`nil potuit Serapis deus et latrator Anubis'], and 2.535-536 [`non armata Venus, non tunc clipeata Minerva | venere auxilio']. Anubis barks in Propertius [3.11.42] and Ovid [met. 9.60] as well, and in the `carmen contra paganos' [Mommsen, Gesammelte Schriften (Berlin, 1909) 7.485ff] written in Italy during or not long after A.'s time there [95: `quid tibi sacrato placuit latrator Anubis?']; it is a stock example of `oriental paganism' and tells us nothing about actual practice.)

Courcelle, Les Confessions 70, concentrates on `terricrepo' (a vivid neologism, first here: Hrdlicka 13) and links it to Egypt; the Vergil text is quoted in the fourth century to stigmatize cults, esp. Egyptian animal-worship; `terricrepo' hints at the polemical, anti-Christian quality of what V. said in those days (cf. 8.4.9, `Victorini lingua, quo telo grandi et acuto multos peremerat'). Relevant texts are Rufinus trans. Greg. Naz. de luminibus 5.3 (CSEL 46.114.22), `nec Osiris membra discerpta et Aegyptiorum lamentationibus perquisita; non Isidis error infelix neque hirci Mendesii nec Apidos vituli praesepe Memphiticis cultoribus stulta adoratione veneratum . . . omitto pecudum et serpentium “omnigenumque deorum monstra” retexere'; Hier. in Esaiam 13.46, `“facta sunt simulacra eorum bestiis et iumentis,” [Is. 46.1] non quo simulacra gentilium in praedam bestiarum et iumentorum exposita sint, sed quo religio nationum simulacra sint bestiarum et brutarum animantium, quae maxime in Aegypto divino cultui consecrata sunt. de quibus Vergilius, ”omnigenumque deum monstra et latrator Anubis”. nam et pleraque oppida eorum ex bestiis et iumentis habet nomina [four examples are given] . . . ut taceam de formidoloso et horribili cepe et crepitu ventris inflati, quae Pelusiaca religio est'; Hier. in Ezech. 3.8.10, `hoc in delubris fanisque gentilium hucusque perspicimus, quod omnia genera bestiarum adoret stulta religio. unde et Vergilius ait, “omnigenumque deum monstra et latrator Anubis,” quasi non et illa sint monstra quae laudat: “contra Neptunum et Venerem contraque Minervam”'; Hier. adv. Iov. 2.7, `singulae paene in Aegypto civitates singulas bestias et monstra venerantur.' Courcelle, Les Confessions 78n2: `Pour l'emploi du vers de Virgile par Augustin et Jérôme, je croirais volontiers, comme Vaccari . . . à une source commune, sans doute un apologiste.' (But C. weakens that suggestion immediately by citing the proof that the charge was a commonplace: Maximus of Madauros, in A. ep. 16.2, `sed mihi hac tempestate propemodum videtur bellum Actiacum rursus exortum, quo Aegyptia monstra in Romanorum deos audeant tela vibrare minime duratura.')

infans: Jn. 3.5, `nisi renatus fuerit'.

fontis tui: Ps. 35.10, `quoniam apud te fons vitae'; en. Ps. 35.15, `quis est fons vitae, nisi Christus?'; Jn. 4.14, `fons aquae salientis in vitam aeternam' (6.1.1); Apoc. 21.6, `ego sitienti dabo de fonte aquae vivae gratis.'

subiecto collo: Sirach 51.34, `et collum vestrum subicite sub iugo et suscipiat anima vestra disciplinam'; Jer. 27.12, `subicite colla vestra iugo regis Babylonis'; Mt. 11.29-30, `tollite iugum meum super vos, . . . (30) iugum enim meum suave est et sarcina mea levis est.'

crucis opprobrium: Gal. 5.11, `scandalum crucis'; on the liturgical function, cf. on 1.11.17, `signabar iam signo crucis'. Cf. civ. 10.28, `contemnis enim eum [Christum] propter corpus ex femina acceptum et propter crucis opprobrium'; the same phrase also at ss. Mai 94.5, 126.11; there is in addition a raft of passages where opprobrium is visited upon those who show allegiance to the cross (e.g., en. Ps. 53.4, 59.9, 68. s. 1.2, 68. s. 2.4, 108.27, 119.1, 122.1). A.'s use is the earliest attested in TLL, but cf. also Amb. exp. Ps. 43.54, `opprobrium crucis . . . ; qui autem crucem illam putavit opprobrium et quasi opprobrium refugit, is vere in diuturno mansit opprobrio'; sim. at exp. Ps. 43.88.

8.2.4

The bashful respect for Christianity that A. depicts here was one he thought common in his time: s. 279.7, `multi credunt corde, et erubescunt confiteri ore. sciatis, fratres, prope iam neminem esse paganorum qui non apud se ipsum miretur et sentiat impleri prophetias de Christo exaltato super caelos, quia vident super omnem terram gloriam eius.'

o domine . . . fumigaverunt: Ps. 143.5, `domine, inclina caelos et descende, tange montes et fumigabunt.' The correct interpretation was found by Knauer 61-63. Note (1) that the text is interpreted as a prayer uttered by the church itself, (2) that the `caeli' are the apostles in their humility whose preaching represents the condescension of the heavens, (3) that the mountains are the proud of this world, who confess their sins using the very words with which A. began his own conf.: en. Ps. 143.12, `corpus Christi, humilis David, gratia plenus, de deo praesumens, pugnans in hoc saeculo, invocat adiutorium dei: “inclina caelos tuos, et descende.” qui sunt caeli inclinati? apostoli humilati. isti enim “caeli enarrant gloriam dei.” [Ps. 18.2] . . . cum ergo isti caeli emitterent voces suas per omnes terras, et facerent mirabilia, coruscante de illis et intonante domino miraculis et praeceptis, putati sunt dii descendisse de caelo ad homines. . . . “tange montes, et fumigabunt”: montes superbos, elationes terrenas, tumidas granditates: tange, inquit, tange istos montes; de gratia tua da istis montibus: et fumigabunt, quia fatebuntur peccata sua. . . . quamdiu non tacti, magni sibi videntur. dicturi sunt, “tu magnus, domine” [cf. 1.1.1]; dicturi sunt et montes, “tu solus altissimus super omnem terram.” [Ps. 82.19]'

The question answers itself. How did God insinuate himself into the heart of Victorinus? By apostolic preaching and by the moral purification that results in confession of sin. This confirms the scheme of presentation here: V. is being adduced not simply as a parallel for Platonic intellectual difficulties on the threshold of the church, but as parallel as well for the moral choice that A. thought must accompany entry.

secretius et familiarius: Paralleling A.'s approach to S.

parietes: In the fourth century there was a distinct alternative for men like Victorinus: `associate membership' in the church, marked by admission to the catechumenate and deferred baptism (see on 1.11.17, `signabar'). In his episcopal career, A. was conscious of individuals who might be catechumens of upright life and hesitate at baptism, wondering what it would bring them that they did not already have: Io. ev. tr. 4.13, 13.6; close to V.'s attitude is that reported at s. 37.5.6, `invenis alium dicentem tibi: “sufficit mihi in conscientia deum colere, deum adorare. quid mihi opus est aut in ecclesiam ire aut visibiliter misceri christianis?”' With both V. and A., S. rules out the easier path and demands the higher.

We must guard against incomplete interpretations of this passage, against being led astray by the consciously witty form in which V.'s objection is presented, for which Courcelle, Recherches ed. 2, 383-391, will stand as the most characteristic representative. Courcelle 383: `il finit par ne plus voir d'opposition entre christianisme et néo-platonisme et prit conscience qu'il était devenu chrétien.' At 391: `Nous ignorerons sans doute toujours comment Simplicien leva l'objection et pourquoi Victorinus se ravisa brusquement pour s'inscrire en vue du baptême.' The texts Courcelle collects show clearly that Christians were well aware that `walls' are not everything, and they themselves tended to downplay their importance: Hadot 247 quotes Hil. Pict. c. Aux. [arrian.] 12, `male enim vos parietum amor cepit, male ecclesiam dei in tectis aedificiisque veneramini'; cf. Lact. inst. 4.13.26, `ecclesia, quae est verum templum dei, quod non in parietibus est sed in corde ac fide hominum'. Slightly later is Hier. tr. ps. 133.1, `ecclesia non in parietibus consistit, sed in dogmatum veritate' (cf. Hier. epp. 52.10, ep. 58.7). A. himself: cat. rud. 27.55, `homines autem perversos, etiamsi intrent parietes ecclesiae, non eos arbitretis intraturos in regnum caelorum: quia suo tempore separabuntur, si se in melius non commutaverint'; sim. (including the word parietes) at s. 15.1.1 and en. Ps. 127.11. (A survey of the implicit doctrine down to the eighteenth century is provided by Y.-M.-J. Congar, La Maison-Dieu, no. 70 [1962], 105-114. At 107 he aptly quotes the rhetorical question of exc. urb., `an putatis, fratres, civitatem in parietibus et non in civibus deputandam?')

The key is probably `inridebat . . . inrisio' : granted the Stoic antecedents of the notion that divinity does not dwell in parietes, Victorinus likely knew the Christian use of the topos, and twisted the argument to his own advantage: `You say that Christianity isn't a matter of walls? Very well, you shan't mind then if I remain outside the walls.' Philosophy may seem not to have much to do with cult, but philosophers and students of philosophy were anything but cultless: rather, they did not see a necessary link between the two. It was a late antique invention that cult could be brought under the influence of texts and the ideas they contain, that one could not have the cult without the doctrine or the doctrine without the cult. V. did not quite see this. He wanted to have the Christian doctrine without taking the cult that went with it. A. does not say that he himself felt that way explicitly, but V.'s is the apposite story that S. tells him at the time, and he includes it in conf. here.

saepe dicebat: Another parallel with A.: 7.20.26, `garriebam plane quasi peritus.'

amicos: Friends a negative influence on A.: cf. 2.5.10, 2.9.17, and cf. 4.8.13. At the period of which S. relates (not long before or after 354), entry to the Christian community at Rome would have been for a distinguished rhetor a social move drastic enough to give pause.

daemonicolas: Apparently an Augustinian neologism (Hrdlicka 12); at civ. 9.19 he uses the word with an apologetic `ut ita dixerim', and cf. epp. 42, 169.1.1, 231.5, and civ. 18.41. For `superbos', see on `montes' above. On demons and `paganism' , see civ. 8.14.

Babylonicae: Cf. Is. 14.4, 14.12, 14.13, Apoc. 17.9, etc.; en. Ps. 136.2, `Babylonia . . . ibi appetant superbiam et perituram elationem odiosamque iactantiam.' Babylon = Rome, as so often (including Rev. 17.9 and in civ.). s. 216.4.4 (addressed to baptismal candidate), `Babylonicae captivitatis vos aliquando iam taedeat. ecce Hierusalem, mater illa caelestis, in viis hilariter invitans occurrit, et obsecrat ut velitis vitam, et diligatis videre dies bonos, quos nunquam habuistis nec unquam in hoc saeculo habebitis.'

cedris . . . contriverat: Ps. 28.5, `vox domini conterens cedros, et conteret dominus cedros Libani'; en. Ps. 28.5, `vox domini contritione cordis huMilans superbos. . . . conteret per paenitentiam dominus elatos nitore terrenae nobilitatis'. en. Ps. 103. s. 3.15, `Libanus dicitur “candidatio”: videtur autem candidatio esse saeculi huius, modo nitentis et fulgentis in pompis suis.' Cf. the image in parallel context at 9.4.7 (at Cassiciacum).

legendo: A first example of a conversion effected in large measure by reading; cf. 8.12.29, but recall the prophecy at 3.12.21 (the ex-Manichee bishop consoling Monnica): `ipse legendo reperiet . . .'

timuitque negari: Lk. 12.8-9, `dico autem vobis, omnis, quicumque confessus fuerit in me coram hominibus, et filius hominis confitebitur in illo coram angelis dei; (9) qui autem negaverit me coram hominibus, denegabitur coram angelis dei.' The position of this quotation suggests that this was V.'s `tolle lege'. Cf. s. 213.4.5 (addressed to baptismal candidates), `confiteamur salvatorem ne timeamus iudicem.'

sacris sacrilegis: Sim. at 8.2.3.

imitator superbus: Taken in the sense of 2.6.14, perverse imitation of the celsitudo dei.

depuduit . . . veritati: `he was unabashed in the face of vanitas, abashed in the face of veritas', i.e., he was no longer embarrassed when his deeds ran counter to his vanitas, and was now embarrassed when they ran counter to veritas. See TLL s.v. depudesco, `pudorem exuere, impudicum fieri'. Translators are hard pressed by the expression: best is Ryan, `he put aside shame from vanity and became modest before the truth.'

vanitati . . . vanitates: See on 7.1.1 for vanitas as common self-reproach and sign of curiositas: hence here another link between A. and Victorinus.

erubuit: s. 215.5 (addressed to baptismal candidates), `denique ne dubitares, ne erubesceres, quando primum credidisti, signum Christi in fronte tamquam in domo pudoris accepisti. . . . noli ergo erubescere ignominiam crucis, quam pro te deus ipse non dubitavit excipere.'

eamus in ecclesiam: Courcelle, Les Confessions 66, fundamentally misreads this passage by suggesting that 8.6.13, `frequentabam ecclesiam tuam', shows A. profiting by this exhortation to V. V.'s `let's go to church' implies his willing submission to the sacramental discipline of the catholic community, while A. haunting the churches at 8.6.13 represents only the obsession and frustration of the half-converted.

imbutus . . . sacramentis: For the catechumenate, see on 1.11.17; that it was `sacramental', cf. pecc. mer. 2.26.42, `nam et catechumenos secundum quendam modum suum per signum Christi et orationem manus impositionis puto sanctificari et, quod accipiunt quamvis non sit corpus Christi, sanctum est tamen et sanctius quam cibi quibus alimur, quoniam sacramentum est.'

Vega ad loc. argues that imbutus here speaks not to liturgical acts but to the homilies for competentes (citing Leo Magnus ep. 16., `in baptizandis electis . . . qui et frequentibus sunt praedicationibus imbuendi'). But here and at 8.10.23, 9.3.6, 13.20.26, 13.20.28, and 13.34.49, A.'s unambiguous reference is to sacramental actions to the exclusion of preaching. The only exceptions in conf. are 13.26.39 (quoting Phil. 4.12 [VL]) and 1.13.20, `graecas litteras . . . quibus puerulus imbuebar'. Elsewhere the association is frequent but far from universal; for some unambiguous passages over time, cf. Rom. inch. exp. 19, cat. rud. 13.19, and c. Iul. imp. 1.67, 2.92, and 4.122. (The association with cult acts perhaps carries further an association begun in CL [but the texts are few and ambiguous]: cf. T. Camelot, Aug. Mag. 2.892.) The expression also occurs elsewhere in A.: s. 269.2, `quamvis sacramento baptismi imbuatur'; s. 345.4 (= s. Frang. 3.4), `hoc sacramento imbutus sum.'

nomen dedit: See on 9.6.14.

Roma: The synecdoche is the exact counterpart of 8.2.3, `a se victis iam Roma supplicabat'.

irascebantur . . . tabescebant: en. Ps. 69.4, `non deest fremitus persecutorum; impetus suos ad cogitationes verterunt. . . . dictum est de his temporibus ecclesiae, “peccator videbit, et irascetur.” . . . “dentibus suis frendet, et tabescet.” [Ps. 111.10]' The same verse quoted of persecution at en. Ps. 32. en. 2 s. 2.9-10, s. 361.14.14, en. Ps. 78.13--taken as persecutor of the church (Knauer, 164).

deus erat spes . . . mendaces: Ps. 39.5, `beatus vir cuius est nomen domini spes eius et non respexit in vanitates et insanias mendaces.' See on 6.11.18 (of A.'s pre-conversion life) and cf. 9.2.2 (of A.'s rhetorical wares).

8.2.5

On this paragraph's narrative, see S. Poque, Augustinianum 25(1985), 133-143.

verbis certis conceptis retentisque memoriter: What is described here is the redditio symboli, where the baptismal candidate recited the creed⁶ he had been taught as part of baptismal preparation. The disciplina arcani of the church of the time resisted writing down the text of the creed (s. 212.2 `in traditione symboli': `nec ut eadem verba symboli teneatis ullo modo debetis scribere, sed audiendo perdiscere: nec cum didiceritis, scribere, sed memoria semper tenere atque recolere'; sim. in a note by the notarius at s. 214.1), hence the text must be reconstructed from allusions and expositions. The following reconstruction of the Roman creed of this time is from J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (3rd ed., London, 1972), 102--see Kelly's extensive discussion for the details, noting the absence of the `descent into hell' and the `communion of saints' clauses:

credo in deum patrem omnipotentem, et in Christum Iesum, filium eius unicum, dominum nostrum, qui natus est de spiritu sancto et Maria virgine, qui sub Pontio Pilato crucifixus est et sepultus, tertia die resurrexit a mortuis, ascendit in caelos, sedet ad dexteram patris unde venturus est iudicare vivos et mortuos; et in spiritum sanctum, sanctam ecclesiam catholicam, remissionem peccatorum, carnis resurrectionem.

de loco eminentiore: The custom is corroborated by a contemporary source: Rufinus, comm. in symb. apost. 3, `in ecclesia . . . urbis Romae . . . mos . . . servatur antiquus, eos qui gratiam baptismi suscepturi sunt, publice, id est fidelium populo audiente, symbolum reddere et utique adiectionem unius saltem sermonis eorum, qui praecesserunt in fide, non admittit auditus' (Poque, art. cit. 136).

fidelis: `baptized' (see on 2.3.6).

accessuri: Apparently almost a technical term: s. 58.6.7, `qui ad sanctum baptisma accedetis' (Poque, art. cit. 134).

insanorum: Apt of the customers for insanias mendaces (8.2.4).

instrepuerunt instrepuerunt G S Knöll Skut.:   strepuerunt DO Ver.
instrepere is much rarer; the pattern seems to be `instrepuerunt . . . strepitu' (of a loud outburst), then `sonuit presso sonitu' of a running whisper (cf. `sonuerunt . . . siluerunt' below); the reading strepuerunt arises from unfamiliarity with the form and a tendency to assimilate forms to pattern.

non eum non eum D G S Knöll Skut.:   eum non O Ver.
The reports of Sin the editions can confuse. The right side of this leaf is damaged and all supplements are speculative: what survives is aut, then a lacuna, then eum noverat (with the M inserted above the line) at the beginning of the next line. There is no sign of non after eum, so Sshould be taken as supporting the order non eum.

8.3.6

The question posed here is not answered: we are only told that it is so with God as well (`tu quoque'), and that scripture has examples, including most pertinently the prodigal son. The next paragraph is full of examples of similar emotions drawn from ordinary life. Then 8.3.8 presses the question again, ending with no answer but only a rhetorical question (`an is est modus earum . . . ?'); the rhetorical question stands for the answer (as often in A.), but here offers no more incisive suggestion than that this is the way God created us. The end of the inquiry is the exclamation there that God is beyond comprehension.

Note the constellation of echoes in this paragraph of Luke 15, the lost sheep, the lost drachma, and the prodigal son.

quid agitur in homine: Cf. 10.3.3, `nemo scit hominum quid agatur in homine nisi spiritus hominis qui in ipso est' (echoing there 1 Cor. 2.11).

misericors pater: Knauer 32n4: This is only the second use of pater in conf. applied to God `our father' (not `The Father'); 3.6.10, `mi pater, summe bone'. From here on, more common: 9.4.9, then 2x in Bk. 10, 3x in 11, 3x in 13.

plus gaudes: Lk. 15.4-7, `quis ex vobis homo qui habet centum oves et si perdiderit unam ex illis, nonne dimittit nonaginta novem in deserto et vadit ad illam quae perierat donec inveniat illam? (5) et cum invenerit eam, imponit in umeros suos gaudens (6) et veniens domum convocat amicos et vicinos dicens illis, “congratulamini mihi, quia inveni ovem meam, quae perierat.” (7) dico vobis, ita gaudium erit in caelo super uno peccatore paenitentiam agente quam super nonaginta novem iustis, qui non indigent paenitentia.'

quae erraverat: Lk. 15.4-6 above and Lk. 15.10 below; behind the gospel stands Ps. 118.176, `erravi sicut ovis perdita quaere servum tuum, quia mandata tua non sum oblitus' (Ps. and Lk. texts linked at en. Ps. 118. s. 32.7); cf. 12.15.21, `erravi sicut ovis perdita, sed in umeris pastoris mei, structoris tui, spero me reportari tibi.'

et drachma referatur: Lk. 15.8-10, `aut quae mulier habens drachmas decem, si perdiderit drachmam unam nonne accendit lucernam et everrit domum et quaerit diligenter doncec inveniat? (9) et cum invenerit, convocat amicas et vicinas dicens, “congratulamini mihi quia inveni drachmam quam perdideram.” (10) ita dico vobis, gaudium fit coram angelis dei super uno peccatore paenitentiam agente.'

et lacrimas . . . in domo tua: A scene in church on Sunday (`sollemnitatis' = `Mass': see on 3.3.5), showing the power of the spoken Word. Ps. 25.8, `domine, dilexi decorem domus tuae' (see on 8.1.2).

de minore filio tuo: On the prodigal in conf., see on 1.18.28; here cf. Lk. 15.32, `frater tuus mortuus erat et revixit, perierat et inventus est'; Lk. 15.24, `his filius meus mortuus erat et revixit, perierat et inventus est.' A. conflates the parables of the lost sheep and the prodigal at en. Ps. 70. s. 1.5; cf. en. Ps. 44.9, `sed etiam de nobis dictum est, mortuus erat, et revixit; perierat, et inventus est.'

tu semper idem: Cf. Ps. 101.28 (= Heb. 1.12), see on 7.20.26 etc.

qui qui D G O Maur. Ver.:   quia S Knöll Skut.

semper nosti omnia: Cf. Dan. 13.42, `qui nosti omnia antequam fiant', but the principle is more philosophical (incommutability: see on 7.1.1) than scriptural.

8.3.7

This meditation starts from Victorinus, but the real subject is A. himself: why was his conversion delayed so long? why should it be such an object of rejoicing? The form is unusual for conf. and Courcelle, Les Confessions 111n2, sees a resemblance to Stoic diatribe. There are two separate movements in the paragraph, each in three parts: extraordinary successes (an emperor's triumph, a shipwreck avoided, a dying man recovers) and ordinary pleasures (a dieter's delights, a drunk's devices, a bridegroom's impatience). See on `et institutum est'.

quid ergo agitur: Revives the question posed at the beginning of 8.3.6.

tempestas: Lk. 8.24, `at ille surgens increpavit ventum et tempestatem aquae et cessaverunt, et facta est tranquillitas' --but the motif is conventional. (At 6.1.1 A. is metaphorically shipwrecked.)

futura morte pallescunt: Aen. 4.644, `[Dido] pallida [nom.] morte futura [abl.]'.

vena eius malum renuntiat: The medical language is common elsewhere, though often metaphorical: en. Ps. 43.20, `medicus noverat, vena inspecta, quid intus ageretur in aegroto; aegrotus non noverat.'

et institutum est: The bridegroom impatient for the nuptials is in exactly the position in which A. outwardly found himself at this moment (see 6.13.23). Is the irony intentional, or is the development here merely conventional and unthinking?

8.3.8

hoc (4x): The general principle outlined in 8.3.7 (`easque ipsas voluptates . . .'), but the sequence here is clearly tied to concupiscentia carnis, ranging from fornication through marriage to friendship (see on 2.2.2, `luminosus limes amicitiae').

mortuus . . . inventus est: Lk. 15.24 = Lk. 15.32 (quoted on 8.3.6).

quid est hoc: Exod. 13.14, 16.15, Sirach 39.26; see on 7.6.10.

aeternum: With `gaudium'.

quaedam: G-M: `doubtless . . . the angels: the neuter is due to the conception, under Neo-Platonic influence, of the whole “caelum caeli” [see on 12.2.2] as animate.'

modus [1]: See on 1.7.12.

a summis caelorum: Mt. 24.31, `et congregabunt electos eius a quattuor ventis, a summis caelorum usque ad terminos eorum.'

ab angelo usque ad vermiculum: Cf. Io. ev. tr. 1.13, `quid praeclarius angelo in creaturis? quid extremius vermiculo in creaturis?'

excelsus es in excelsis: No clear biblical parallel, but Knauer 53 suggests Is. 33.5, `sanctus deus qui habitat in excelsis' (cf. 1.18.29, `habitans in excelsis'); and for the nom. many parallels, e.g., Gn. 14.20, `benedictus deus excelsus', Iob 36.23, `deus excelsus', Ps. 112.4, `excelsus super omnes gentes'. The agnosticism here resembles that which A. would later invoke programmatically in questions of grace and free will, then usually with the citation of Rom. 11.33-36 on the inscrutability of divine judgment: see on 4.4.8, `investigabilis abyssus').

redimus: See on 1.18.28.

8.4.9

Another encapsulated conversion story.

accende: 10.29.40, `o amor, qui semper ardes et numquam extingueris, caritas, deus meus, accende me!' First in conf. consistently in a worldly sense (2.8.16, `accenderem pruritum cupiditatis meae', 2.8.16 3.4.8 [2x], 4.14.21, 4.14.23), then (first here) consistently applied to divine activity working on A. (8.4.9, `accende et rape, flagra', 8.6.15, 9.2.3, 9.4.8, 13.9.10, `dono tuo accendimur et sursum ferimur', 13.14.15).

flagra flagra G D O2 Maur. Skut. Ver.:   fragla S:   fragra Knöll (emending)
The reading of O1 here is questionable, either flagra or fragra; cf. 9.7.16, 10.27.38.

ex profundiore tartaro: 1.16.26, `flumen tartareum', 3.1.1, `de tartaro libidinis'.

accedunt et inluminantur: Ps. 33.6, `accedite ad eum, et inluminami'; en. Ps. 33. s. 2.10, `nos ad eum accedamus, ut corpus et sanguinem eius accipiamus. . . . nos manducando crucifixum et bibendo inluminamur' --a sacramental reading for language that could otherwise be read as Plotinian.

quod si qui recipiunt: Jn. 1.9, 1.12 (for text, see on 7.9.13).

et (in singulis): = etiam.

accipiantur personae: Cf. Deut. 1.17, `ita parvum audietis ut magnum, nec accipietis cuiusquam personam, quia dei iudicium est'; sim. at Deut. 16.19, Sirach 42.1, Act. 10.34, Rom. 2.11, Gal. 2.6, Eph. 6.9, Col. 3.25, Jas. 2.1, 2.9, 1 Pet. 1.17.

The meditation continues to maneuver in the space between the model (Victorinus) and the confessor (A.). In the main, it has to do with V.'s conversion, but it also speaks to A.'s own situation. Why should the bishop write so trumpetingly of his conversion? What good will come of it? (And why should he not have been as diffident as Alypius apparently was?)

infirma mundi: 1 Cor. 1.27-28 (text from en. Ps. 149.14), `infirma mundi elegit deus, ut confunderet fortia, (28) et stulta mundi elegit deus ad confundendos sapientes, et ea quae non sunt tamquam ea quae sunt, ut quae sunt evacuentur.' en. Ps. 140.21, `de stercore erectus Petrus, et Paulus; et cum occiderentur, contemnebantur; modo iam saginata inde terra, exsurgente segete ecclesiae, ecce quod est nobile et praecipuum in mundo, imperator venit Romam; quo festinat? ad templum imperatoris, an ad memoriam piscatoris?'

ea quae non sunt: Rom. 4.17, `[deus] qui vivificat mortuos et vocat ea quae non sunt, quasi sint.'

minimus apostolorum: 1 Cor. 15.9, `ego enim sum minimus apostolorum'; also at 7.21.27.

proconsul proconsul G2 O2 Maur.:   pro consule DG1 O1 S Knöll Skut. Ver.
For the form, see on 4.3.5. Act. 13.7-12 recounts the conversion of a Roman dignitary named Paulus, but also the first occurrence, at Act. 13.9, of the apostle's new name: `Saulus autem, qui et Paulus, repletus spiritu sancto.' There is no other indication in the Acts text that the taking of the name was tied to this particular victoria. What is noteworthy is the form of the conversion--sudden, brought about by the words of the apostle Paul.

debellata superbia: Aen. 6.853, `parcere subiectis et debellare superbos'; civ. 1. pr. compares this command of Anchises to one of A.'s favorite verses, `deus superbis resistit, humilibus autem dat gratiam' (see on 1.1.1) and continues: `hoc vero, quod dei est, superbae quoque animae spiritus inflatus adfectat amatque sibi in laudibus dici: parcere . . . superbos.' Here, where the actor is indeed God himself, the echo is perfectly appropriate, a licit reading of the Aeneid (C. Bennett, REAug 34[1988], 47-69). (Also quoted, with approval for the content if not for the application, at civ. 1.6, 5.12.)

sub lene iugum Christi tui: Mt. 11.29-30, `tollite iugum meum super vos . . .; (30) iugum enim meum lene est et sarcina mea levis est.' For that form of the text (lene and sarcina [for onus]), see 9.1.1, 10.36.58, and 13.15.17; elsewhere he varied between lene and leve (Milne 36).

iugum: Also (with this allusion) at 8.2.3, 9.1.1, 10.36.58, 13.15.17; other phrases of Mt. 11.29-30: 7.9.14, 7.21.27