Augustine: Earlier Writings (continued)
yO AUGUSTINE: EARLIER WRITINGS
speaking. Flutes and harps make melody. Birds sing. Sometimes we hum a bit of music without words. All these things may be called singing but not speaking. Do you disagree? Ad.—No. Not at all.
2. Aug.—You agree, then, that there is no other reason for the use of words than either to teach or to call something to mind? Ad.—I would agree were I not impressed by the fact that we use words when we pray; and it is not proper to beheve that we teach God anything or remind him of anything. Aug.— dare say you do not know that we have been commanded to pray in closed chambers, by which is meant our inmost mind, for no other reason than that God does not seek to be reminded or taught by our speech in order that he may give us what we desire. He who speaks gives by articulate sounds an external sign of what he wants. But God is to be sought and prayed to in the secret place of the rational soul, which is called "the inner man." This he wants to be his temple. Have you not read in the Apostle: "Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?" (i Cor. 3:16) and "that Christ may dwell in the inner man" (Eph. 3:17)? Have you not observed in the Prophet: "Commune with your own hearts and be stricken on your beds. Offer the sacrifice of righteousness and hope in the Lord" (Ps. 4:4-5)? Where do you think the sacrifice of righteousness is offered save in the temple of the mind and on the bed of the heart? Where sacrifice is to be offered, there is prayer to be made. \Vherefore when we pray there is no need of speech, that is of articulate words, except perhaps as priests use words to give a sign of what is in their minds, not that God may hear, but that men may hear and, being put in remembrance, may with some consent be brought into dependence on God. What do you think? Ad.—I entirely agree. Aug.—And you are not disturbed by the fact that our great Master, in teaching his disciples to pray, taught them certain words, so that it looks as if he had taught them actually what words to use in prayer? Ad.—No. That does not disturb me. For he did not teach them words merely, but by words, by means of which they could keep themselves in constant remembrance, he taught them realities—what they should pray for, and from whom, when they prayed in their inmost mind, as we said. Aug.—You have correctly understood the point. And I beheve you have also noticed a further point. It might be contended that, though we utter no sound, we nevertheless use words in thinking and therefore use speech within our minds.
THE TEACHER yi
But such speech is nothing but a calling to remembrance of the realities of which the words are but the signs, for the memory, which retains the words and turns them over and over, causes the realities to come to mind. Ad.— I understand and follow. ii, 3. Aug.—Wc agree, then, that words are signs. ^^.—We do. Aug,—That alone can be a sign which signifies something? Ad,—Certainly. Aug,—How many words are there in this verse?
Si nihil ex tanta superis placet urbe relinqui
[If it pleases the gods that nothing be left ofso great a city]
Ad,—Eight. Aug,—Then there are eight signs? Ad,—There are. Aug,—I suppose you understand the meaning of the verse. Ad,—Yes, I think so. Aug,—Tell me what each word signifies. Ad,—I know what si signifies, but I can think of no other word to explain it. Aug,—At least you can explain the state of mind signified by that word. Ad,—It seems to me to signify doubt, and doubt is found in the mind. Aug.—I accept that in the meantime. Go on to the next word. Ad.—Nihil signifies simply what is not. Aug,—Perhaps you are right. But I am prevented from giving my assent by what you admitted a moment ago. You agreed that only that can be a sign which signifies something. Now, what is not cannot be something. So the second word in the verse is not a sign, because it does not signify something. We were wrong, therefore, in laying it down that all words are signs, or that all signs must signify something. Ad.— You press me sore. But surely it is utterly foolish to use a word if we have no meaning to attach to it. When you are speaking with me I believe that you do not utter any merely empty sound, but that in everything that proceeds from your mouth you are giving me a sign by which I may understand something. So you ought not in speaking to pronounce these two syllables unless by them you mean something. If you see that they are necessary to set forth some idea and to teach and remind us of something when they sound in our ears, you assuredly also see what I wish to say but cannot clearly explain. Aug.—What then are we to do? Shall we say that the word, nihil, signifies a state of mind rather than a thing which is nothing; the state of a mind, I mean, which does not see an object, and discovers or thinks it has discovered nonentity? Ad,—Perhaps that was what I was trying to explain. Aug,—However it may be, let us go on to the next point lest something most absurd happen to us. i4^.—What do you mean? ^m.—If "nothing" should detain us. and yet we should suffer delay. Ad.—It is indeed ridiculous, and yet somehow I see it can happen and indeed has happened.
4. Aug.—At the proper time we shall understand more clearly this kind of difficulty, if God will. Now go back to the verse and do your best to unfold what the other words signify. Ad.—The third word is the preposition ex for which I think we can substitute de. Aug.—But I am not asking you to substitute for one well-known word another equally well-known word which you say means the same thing, if indeed it does mean the same thing. But let that pass meantime. If the poet had written not ex tanta urbe but de tanta urbe, and I asked what de signified, you would say ex, since these two words, that is, signs, signify, you think, one and the same thing. But I am looking for the one thing which is signified by these two signs. Ad.— I think they mean a separation of a thing A, from a thing, B, in which it had formerly existed. A is said to be "of" or "out of" B. And this in one or other of two ways. Either B does not remain, as in this verse. For Troy has been destroyed but some Trojans could still exist. Or B remains, as when we say that business-men of the City of Rome are in Africa. Aug.—I shall concede your point, and not seek to enumerate the many exceptions that can be found to your rule. But you can at least observe that you have been explaining words by means of words, that is, signs by means of signs, well-known words and signs by words and signs also well-known. But I want you to show me, if you can, what are the things of which these are the signs. iii, 5. Ad.—I am surprised that you do not know, or rather that you pretend not to know, that what you ask cannot be done in conversation, where we cannot answer questions except by means of words. You ask for things which, whatever they may be, are certainly not words, and yet you too use words in asking me. First put your questions without using words, and I shall reply on the same terms. Aug.—I admit your challenge is just. But if I were to ask what was signified when these three syllables, par-i-es, are pronounced couldn't you point with your finger, so that I should immediately see the thing itself of which that trisyllabic word is the sign? You would be pointing it out without using any words. Ad.—I agree that is possible, but only in the case of names signifying corporeal objects, if these objects were at hand. Aug.—But surely we do not call a colour a corporeal object? Is it not rather a quahty of a corporeal object? Ad.—It is so. Aug.—Why then can it, too, be pointed out with the finger? Do you include the qualities of corporeal objects