Augustine: Earlier Writings (continued)
that conversely there are necessarily the same number of difficulties from the point of view of writers. Either one may write usefully and be misunderstood or both the writing and the understanding may be at fault, or the reader derives an advantage while the writer meant something quite different. Of these three possibilities I make no adverse comment on the first, and the third does not concern me. I cannot blame a writer who is misunderstood through no fault of his own. Nor am I troubled when I see that a writer who has not grasped the truth does not harm his readers. But the best and most admirable situation is found only when good things are written and are properly understood by the readers. Even in this case, because we have to do with two minds, the possibility of error is not completely excluded. For it often happens that the writer's views are sound, and the reader's also, but the latter holds them, in a different sense, sometimes a better sense, sometimes an inferior sense, but always profitably. But when we share the views of our author and they are suited to promote good conduct, the cause of truth is ser\'ed in a high degree and no place is left open to falsehood. Now, when we have to do with vers' obscure matters this kind of relationship between author and reader is extremely rare, and in my opinion it is not a case where clear knowledge is possible but only faith. How can I find out the intention and meaning of an author who is absent or dead, in such a way that I could give evidence as to them on oath. Even if he were present and could be interrogated, even if he were not a bad man, he could still conceal many things from a sense of duty. But I do not think that the character of an author has much to do with the task of sifting truth. It is most honourable to believe that an author was a good man, whose writings were intended to benefit the human race and posterity.
12. Now let the Manichees tell me how they would classify what they are pleased to call the error of the Catholic Church.
If in the first class, the charge is grave, but a long defence is not necessars'. It is sufficient to say that we do not so understand the Old Testament as they seem to imagine when they attack us. If in the second class, the charge is no less grave, but the same answer refutes it. If in the third class, there is no indictment at all. Just consider the Scriptures themselves. What exactly do they object to in the books of the Old Testament? Are they good books but badly understood by us? But the Manichees refuse to accept them. Are they bad books and badly understood by us? The previous reply is sufficient here too. Will they say that THE USEFULNESS OF BELIEF 301 they are bad books though well understood by us? But that is simply to absolve living adversaries with whom the case is being argued, and to accuse men long since dead with whom there can be no argument. For my part, I believe that the authors of the Old Testament were great and divine men, who to our profit handed down their writings, and that the Law was promulgated and codified at the command and by the will of God. And I can easily prove it (though I know very few books of this kind) if a calm and not too obstinate mind will give me its attention. I shall do so when you give me a kindly hearing. But when shall I have such an opportunity? Is it not enough for me at present that you should not be deceived as to how the matter stands? vi, 13. I call my conscience to witness, Honoratus, I call God who dwells in pure souls to witness, that I am convinced there is nothing more wise, more chaste, more religious than those Scriptures which the Catholic Church accepts under the name of the Old Testament. You are amazed, I am sure. For I cannot pretend that I was not formerly of a very different opinion. But there is nothing more rash—and of rashness as a boy I had plenty—than to desert the professed expositors of books which they possess and hand on to their disciples, and instead to go asking the opinion of others who, for no reason I can think of, have declared most bitter war against the authors of these books. Who ever thought of having the obscure and recondite works of Aristotle expounded to him by an enemy of Aristotle? I am speaking of studies in which the student may slip without committing sacrilege. Who ever wished to read or learn the geometrical treatises of Archimedes with Epicurus as his master, who, understanding nothing of them so far as I can judge, nevertheless pertinaciously attacked them in his discourses? Are the Scriptures of the Law, which the Manichees attack vainly and foolishly, so very plain and open to vulgar understanding? These men seem to me to resemble the woman whom they are wont to deride. In her religious simplicity, irritated because a Manichaean woman praised the sun and commended it as an object of worship, she leapt up in her excitement and stamped on the place on the floor illumined by the rays that came in through the window, exclaiming: "Lo, I tread under foot the sun, your God." Utterly foolish and so like a woman! No one denies it. But don't you think the Manichees are just like that, who with floods of oratory and malevolent criticism tear to pieces books which they do not understand, of which they do not know the purpose or the nature, books which look quite simple but, to those who understand, are subtle and divine; and, because the ignorant applaud, think they have achieved something wonderful. All that is in these Scriptures, believe me, is profound and divine. All truth is there, and learning suited to refresh and restore souls, but in such a form that there is no one who may not draw thence all he needs, provided he comes to draw in a spirit of piety and devotion such as true religion demands. To prove that to you would require many reasons and a long discourse. I must get you first not to hate these authors and then to love them, and how else can this be done except by expounding their writings and their teachings.
If we hated Vergil, indeed if we did not love him, before we knew anything about him, because our seniors praised him, we should never derive any satisfaction from the innumerable Vergilian questions that are wont to excite and agitate teachers of literature. We should not be willing to listen to anyone who discussed these questions and praised the poet. We should be favourably impressed by any one who tried to show that he was wrong or mad. But now, many teachers try to explain these questions variously according to the capacity of each; and those obtain the greatest applause by whose exposition the poet appears in the best light, so that even those who do not understand him at least believe that he was guilty of no error and that his poems are admirable in all respects. So if in any question the teacher fails to give an answer, we are angry with him, and do not attribute his dullness to the fault of Vergil. If he tried to defend himself by blaming so famous an author he would soon be without pupils and fees. Surely we should show a similar respect to those through whom the Holy Spirit spoke, as agelong tradition has affirmed. But we, intelligent youths forsooth, marvellous explorers of reason, without turning over these books, without seeking teachers, without the slightest suspicion of our own slowness of comprehension, without the slightest heed paid to those whose care it has been that these books should be read, guarded and studied throughout the world and for so long a time we had the temerity to suppose that nothing such men said was to be believed, influenced as we were by their bitter enemies, among whom, because of their false promise of reason, we were compelled to believe and cherish an unheardof number of fables. vii, 14. Now I shall, if I may, go on with my task, and I shall endeavour, not meantime to explain the Catholic Faith, but to