The Literal Meaning of Genesis

The Literal Meaning of Genesis

BOOK SEVEN 251 not supported by any authority in the canonical books of Scripture.

4. God placed the causal reason of the soul in some corporeal creature. This is immediately dismissed as impossible (7.23.34).

5. God created the soul in its own proper being among the works of the six days. Aug. thinks it reasonable to suppose that God created man on the sixth day in the sense that He made the causal reason of his body and laid it away in the elements of the world, whereas He made the soul in its own proper being on the first day and stored it away in the works of creation (et creata lateret in operibus Det) until He would breathe it into the body formed from the slime of the earth (7.24.35). This, then, is Augustine's opinion about the soul of Adam. The discussion about the souls of the rest of mankind is left to Book 10.

See Agaésse-Solignac 48.714-17, and Portalié, DTC 1.2359-61 (tr. Bastian 148-51).

Rom. 9.11. SCL? Cors:10. 6°All the MSS of z, and in addition also Bod and Pal, read qui. No MSS authority is cited for quae, the reading of m.

67Plotinus has a similar theory about the soul in Enn. 4.3.13. ©8Conf. 12.6.6: "The mutability of mutable things is itself able to receive all the forms into which mutable things are changed." This is precisely what matter is.

69See nn. 7 and 48 to Book 1 supra. 70in 1.15.29 supra, Aug. explains that the voice is the matter of words, and words form the voice, but both proceed simultaneously from the vocal organs.

71Augustine's speculations have inclined him to the theory that the soul of Adam was made among the original works which God created simultaneously (see 7.24.35 supra). In this paragraph he considers the two possible positions that might be taken by an adversary of his theory: (1) God created the soul out of nothing at the moment He breathed it into Adam's body (in which case He must have created the causal reason of the soul on the sixth day); or (2) at the moment when God breathed the soul into Adam's body, He made it from some creature He had previously created in the six days. Both of these positions pre-

252 NOTES sent for Aug. serious problems, which he has already considered in Book 7, especially in chs. 5-9 and 22-23.

72See Augustine's analysis of this hypothesis in 6.2.3—-6.3.5 supra.

73Gen. 1.27-28.

PA SENI 27: Gen. 2519. 76Gen. 2.4-5. Geni 25: 78Eccli. (Sirach) 18.1 (according to the Latin translation).

79Gen. 2.2 and John 5.17. 80See Gen. 2.1 and 2.3. 81] Tim 6.16. See Aug., De Trin. 1.1.2 (CCL 50.29,54-64, ML 42.821): "Sacred Scripture rarely mentions what is said properly of God and is found in no creature. An example is the statement made to Moses: J am.who am, and He who ts has sent me to you (Exod. 3.14). For since both body and soul are said in a sense 'to be,' unless God wished being to be understood in a proper sense, He surely would not say this. The same is true of St. Paul's statement, who alone bas immortality (1 Tim. 6.16). Since the soul is said to be immortal and is immortal in a certain sense, the Apostle would not say who alone bas except for the fact that immortality is immutability, which no creature can have, for it belongs to the Creator alone." See also Aug., Epsst. 143.7 (CSEL 44.257,15-17 Goldbacher; ML 33.588).

82 Another interpretation of this sentence, based on the text of E and z, is given by Agaésse-Solignac 48.571. My interpretation follows the text of m, which is supported by P, R, S, Bod, Pal, and it tries to take into account what seems to be an intended parallelism in wt aut noverit ... aut... sciat, in which both verbs are in the third person. The passage cited from Epist. 143.7 by Agaésse-Solignac, pp. 570-71 n. 41, is compatible with both m and z.

BOOK EIGHT

BOOK EIGHT

2.8. ?The corporeal or literal meaning is advocated by Jerome, Epist. $1.5.6-7 (CSEL 54.404,18-405,19 Hilberg; ML 22.522-23) and by John Chrysostom, Hom. in Gen. 13.3 (MG 53.108). The spiritual or allegorical meaning is espoused by Origen, Jn Gen. hom., tr. Rufinus, 2.4 (GCS 29.32,19-33,6 Baehrens; MG 12.170A-B). Ambrose, De paradiso 1.5—6 (CSEL 32.267 Schenkl; ML 14.276) finds both meanings present. See Agaésse-Solignac 49.497-99. 3Rom. 5.14. *The reading of Bod, Pal, and m (and I presume of the other MSS also) is eum. The reading cum in z appears to be a typographical error.

5Terra scilicet. This is the reading of P, R, S, C, Bod, Pal, and m. The reading terrae scilicet of z, based on E, seems unlikely: sctlicet calls for terra in the nominative in apposition to /ocus.

°For the age of Adam, see Gen. 5.3-5; for the translation of Enoch, see Gen. 5.24; for conception in old age, see Gen. 5.3.

7Aug. here refers to De Genest contra Manichaeos (ML 34.173220), written when he was a young man on his return to Africa from Rome. In it he made extensive use of allegorical interpretation, being unable at that time to see all the possibilities of literal interpretation which he discovered later. See his remarks in the next chapter and also Retract. 1.9 or 1.10 (CSEL 36.47-51 Knoll; ML 32.599-600).

8Aug. probably had in mind Origen and writers influenced by him. For a criticism of some of the details of Origen's figurative interpretation of Paradise, see a letter by Epiphanius translated by Jerome and included among Jerome's works, Epzst.

51.5 (CSEL 54.403-5 Hilberg; ML 22.521-23). On Origen and the typological interpretation of Scripture, see Jean Daniélou, Origen, tr. W. Mitchell (New York 1955) 139-73.

this context, the figurative meaning seems to be identified with the allegorical, whereas the proper meaning is the literal. Note the words and phrases which Aug. opposes in this chapter: SUTIN waa ce lie Cipte Gia Wiese o.0ee ooas0 (eH Rip let) Rd aH ON ad litteram

254 NOTES

JRLUTONE i sain Sz SEO Eg ae ee ae proprie secundum allegoricam locutionem . . secundum propriam locutionem.

10See n. 7 above. 11See Matt. 7.7. 12De Gen. c. Man. 2.2.3 (ML 34.197). 13Gen. 2.8. Augustine's text as cited earlier (6.3.5) is: Et plantavit Deus paradisum in Eden ad orientem, et posuit thi hominem quem finxerat. His gloss here, in a delightful place (in delicits), is based on the reading of Gen. 2.15 according to the LXX in the Cod. Vat. and other MSS: kai Gero avrov év T@ Tapadeiow THs Tpvetis (And He placed him in the garden of delight). The word Tpve7 is used to translate the Hebr. Eden, which (according to one theory) is connected with the Hebr. verb meaning "to delight." See B. S. Childs, The Interpreter's Dictionary of the Bible 2 (1962) s.v. "Eden, Garden of," 22.

14Gen. 2.9. The word "again" translates the Latin adbuc. In Gen. 1.12 it has already been stated that the earth brought forth trees. According to Augustine's interpretation, that statement designates the original creation of trees in their causal reasons; it is later that God, working in the causal reasons, makes the trees appear above ground. It is in this sense that Aug. interprets adhbuc ("again"). They are not different trees; they are the same trees now coming to their full perfection.

15Gen., 1.29. 16{Jen. 2.9. 17Prov. 3.18. 18Gal. 4.24-26.

19) Cor. 10.4. Cf. Exod. 17.6, Num. 20.11. 20The word sacramentum (used to translate pvornptov in the NT) in Aug., as in other Latin Fathers, had a broader meaning than it came to have in the Middle Ages, when it was more strictly defined as applying exclusively to baptism, confirmation, penance, Eucharist, orders, matrimony, and extreme unction. See J. Finkenzeller, LTK 9 (1964) s.v. "Sakrament," 222-24. In Aug. sacramentum is a sign that relates to divine things; see

Epist. 138.1.7 (CSEL 44.131 Goldbacher; ML 33.527) and Sermo

272 (ML 38.1247). 21Cf. Exod. 12.3-11.

22Luke 15.23. *3Rerum figurata significatione gestarum. This is the reading of z and apparently of all the MSS on which that text is based. It is also the reading of Bod and Pal. The text of m has significatio. The "figurative meaning of events that really happened" is what modern biblical criticism calls the typical sense. See R. Brown, JBC 2 (1968) "Hermeneutics," 618: "The typical sense is the deeper meaning that the things (persons, places, and events) of Scripture possess because, according to the intention of the divine author, they foreshadow future things."

24Gen. 28.18.

25Ps. 117.22; cf. Acts 4.11. ?6Luke 23.43. For Augustine's later speculations about the good thief and Paradise, see 12.34.66 infra.

27Luke 16.24. Tertullian, De anima 7.1 (CCL 2.790; ML 2.697), refers to this passage in Luke and claims that it is evidence that the Evangelist holds the materiality of the soul.

28 Aug. again alludes to the mysterious bosom of Abraham in 12.33.63 infra. See also Conf. 9.3.6. 2°9For Augustine's use of the word "sacrament," see n. 20 supra.

30Gen. 2.24, Eph. 5.31-32. 31Aug. probably has Origen in mind. Origen seeks everywhere in the narrative of creation and Paradise not the literal but the spiritual or allegorical meaning; but in Jn Gen. hom. 7.2 (GCS 29.71-73 Baehrens; MG 12.198-200) he takes the narrative concerning Hagar and Sarah and Ishmael and Isaac as historical, although he sees a symbolic meaning in the persons and events.

32Aug., De civ. Dei 15.2, commenting on Gal. 4.21-31, observes that Sarah and her son Isaac prefigure the heavenly city, whereas the slave girl Hagar and her son Ishmael prefigure the earthly Jerusalem, which in turn is a symbol of the heavenly city.

331] Kings 19.5-8. The reference is to the food that nourished Elijah on his journey to Mt. Horeb.

34] Kings 17.16. The reference is to the miracle God worked for Elijah and the widow of Zarephath.

35Aug. treats this question briefly here but at greater length in chs. 13 to 16 infra.

256 NOTES

Ci Gen, 131. 37Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum 2.25 (Oxford Early Christian Texts, pp. 66-69 Grant; MG 6.1092), says that the tree did not contain death (that was the result of disobedience); that there was nothing in the fruit but knowledge (which is good if used properly); and that Adam had to grow and mature before he would be ready for it; hence God's command. See also Aug. 8.13.28-30 and 11.41.56 infra. 38Theodoret of Cyrus, Quaest. in Gen. 2.26 (MG 80.124), notes that the tree was called the tree of the knowledge of good and evil in accordance with a Hebr. custom of naming places and things after striking events that occurred in them or at them.

39Gen. 2.10-14. 40Philo, Questions and Answers on Genesis 1.12 (LCL, p. 8 Marcus), suggests the possibility of an allegorical interpretation of the four rivers, in which they would represent the four cardinal virtues. This thought occurs also in Ambrose, De paradiso 3.14 (CSEL 32.273,12-14 Schenkl; ML 14.280C), and in Aug., De Gen. c. Man. 2.10.13 (ML 34.203).

41See Virgil, Aen. 8.330-32; Ovid, Fasti 2.389-90. 42Josephus, Jewish Ant. 1.38-39 (LCL 4.18-21 Thackeray), identifies the Phison with the Ganges and the Geon with the Nile. See also Ambrose, De paradiso 3.14 (CSEL 32.273,6-9 Schenkl; ML 14.280B), and Jerome, Lib. hebr. quaest. in Gen. 2.11 (ML 23.941A).

43 Augustine's point is that the geographical details of the narrative suggest a historical account rather than an allegory. The narrative of Genesis is therefore intended primarily in the literal sense; but this does not rule out the possibility of finding figurative meanings in the things narrated or described.

44Luke 10.30. 45Gen. 2.15-17. In the first line of v. 15, the text of m and z reads Dominus Deus, but all MSS collated (E, P, R, B, Bod, Pal) except S omit Dominus. In view of what Aug. says in 8.11.24 infra, Dominus must belong in the text.

46See Gen. 2.8.

47 Malleolus: mallet-shoot. Defined by OED 6.89, s.v. "mallet,"

BOOK EIGHT 2.517 n. 6: "a hammer-shaped slip of a tree or shrub for planting." See TLL 8.191.37-38. It is described by Columella, De re rustica 3.6.3.

5.5.14 supra: "For thus the earth at God's word produced these things before they sprang forth, receiving all the numbers of those beings which it would bring forth in their kinds through the ages." The Neoplatonists, following the Neopythagorean tradition, were accustomed to identify forms with numbers. See n. 58 to Book 6. ae KSor9327. 5°The OL text used by Aug. reads: ut operaretur et custodiret. Thus the two verbs have no object expressed. In my translation I have supplied the pronoun "it" (Paradise) as object.

51Aug. correctly notes that the LXX has a pronoun in the accusative case: epyaleo Oat avrov Kat pud Adooetv. But he feels that this leaves an ambiguity in the text, since the pronoun could refer to Paradise and function as the object of the two infinitives, or it could refer to the man and function as the subject of the two infinitives. In the latter case the verbs would apparently be taken in an intransitive sense.

52Gen. 2.5: Nec erat homo qui operaretur terram. 53That is to say, man taught himself by his work, so that there was a spiritual harvest for his bodily labor. Disciplina implies a learning process.

54Gen. 3.18. 55Cf. Gen. 2.19. 56Cf. Gen. 1.29-30. 57s the Maurist editors have pointed out (Vol. 3/1, cols. 233-

34, note; ML 34.381, note), this interpretation is inconsistent with the Hebr. text, where the pronoun object of the two verbs in the purpose clause is feminine and therefore must refer back to "Paradise." Apart from the fact that Aug. was not familiar with the Hebr. text, this interpretation seems to have struck him only as an afterthought, since the interpretation he has given in the preceding paragraph is the obvious conclusion of all that he has previously said on the subject. However, as Aug, has already said (1.19.38) in discussing two possible interpretations of an obscure passage, on the supposition that both are consistent with 258 NOTES the faith and the context: "... there is no difficulty if he [the writer] is thought to have wished both interpretations if both are supported by clear indications in the context." See n. 66 to Book 1.

58Eccli. (Sirach) 10.12. S9Speaking of a spiritual creature, Aug. says in 1.1.2 supra: "it is by this turning towards its Creator that it receives its form and perfection, and if it does not thus turn, it is unformed... ."

60The expression "Lord God" (Dominus Deus), in which "Lord" (Dominus) translates the Hebr. Yahweh, begins at verse 4b of ch. 2 in the Vulg. and occurs also in verses 5, 7, 8, and 9 (see Quentin Gen. 146). However, Aug. was following the OL text, and it omits Dominus in all these verses (see Fischer VL 37-

42: but note some variants cited there). The LXX in most MSS has Lord God (kbptoc 6 8€6c) in verses 4b and 8, but not in 5, 7, and 9 (however, there are some variants; see Brooke-McLean Octateuch 4). Apparently the LXX text which Aug. was using omitted Kiptoc in all these verses before verse 15. According to modern exegetes, the creation narrative in Gen. 1.1 to 2.4a, in which the one word "God" (Elohim) is consistently used, comes from the Priestly tradition (P); but the narrative in Gen. 2.4b to 3.24, where the word "Lord" (Yahweh) is added, comes from the Yahwist tradition (J). See Eugene H. Maly, JBC 1 (1968) "Genesis," 9. Aug., of course, was not familiar with the Hebr. text.

61This is an interpretation of Gen. 2.15 proposed by Aug. above in 8.10.23. But it is not consistent with the Hebr. text. See n. 57 supra.

64Pe. 15.2: 63Ps, 72.28. 64In 8.9.17-18 supra, Aug. distinguishes the natural and the voluntary working of Providence.

65 Pg372.28. 66Ps, 58.10. See Augustine's comment, Enarr. in Ps. 58, Sermo

1, n. 18 (CCL 39.742-43; ML 36.704): "There is an origin and source of strength, there is a root of wisdom, and if it needs to be said, there is what we may call a region of unchangeable

Truth. Withdrawing from this, the soul is in darkness; approaching it, the soul is illuminated. Approach and be illuminated, because withdrawing you are in darkness. Therefore J will keep my strength turned towards Thee. 1 will not withdraw from Thee, I will not rely on myself."

67Eph. 2.8-10. SOP ink 2:43. ere 2 V5: 70Gen. 2.16-17. See Augustine's comment on this text, 8.6.12 supra.

71Cf. Gen. 1.12 and 1.31.

72 Aug. in his works against the Manichees consistently maintains that an evil substance cannot exist and that evil is simply the privation of good. For a summary of his doctrine on this point, see De natura boni 1-18 (CSEL 25/2.855-62 Zycha; ML 42.551-57) and Enchiridion 3.10-12 (CCL 46.53-54; ML 40.23637). 73See Book 11, especially chs. 12-13 infra. 74Aug. frequently speaks of pride (and all the vices that flow from it) as a perverse imitation of God. See Conf. 2.6.13; De civ. Dei 19.12.2; De vera relig. 45.84 (CCL 32.243,21-23; ML 34.160).

75See 8.6.12 supra. 76Such a person has no experiential knowledge of evil; but since he must make choices to avoid losing the good which he possesses, he must have some knowledge of evil. He knows it, as Aug. goes on to say, per prudentiam bon1. For a penetrating analysis of this problem and of this whole chapter, see Agaésse Solignac 49.507-10.

771sa. 7.14, Matt. 1.23. eo Tima2.5:2 79John 1.1 and 1.14. 80It is not clear why Aug. used Christ as an example of one who did not choose evil. He certainly did not mean that there was a possibility for Christ to choose evil (see the references given by Agaésse-Solignac 49.509 to show that Aug. explicitly rejects such a possibility).

81Isa, 7.16 (according to the LXX). The correct translation

260 NOTES from the Hebr. is: For before the child knows how to refuse the evil and choose the good, the land before whose two kings you are in dread will be deserted (RSV).

82] read amissione on the authority of Bod, Pal, and m. The reading amissio in Zycha (p. 254, line 4) seems to be a typographical error, since he quotes no variants.

83John 6.38. 84Rom. 5.19. 851 Cor. 15.22. 86]t is not known who these writers are. Agaésse-Solignac 49.509 suggest the possibility of a disciple of Marcion and a disciple of Porphyry.

87In discussing the creation of Adam, Aug. had already considered (6.2.3 supra) the hypothesis that Gen. 2.7 is a recapitulation of Gen. 1.27-29, but he rejected this theory.

88Gen, 2.16: Ab omni ligno quod est in paradiso esca edes. Augustine remarks: Non dixit, edetis. His point is that since the verb is in the singular, God is addressing Adam alone.

89Gen. 2.17. Augustine's version is from the OL text based on the LXX. It reads as follows (with the three finite verbs in the plural): De ligno autem cognoscendi bonum et malum non manducabitis de illo. Qua die autem ederitis ab eo, morte moriemini. The Vulg. correctly translates this verse from the Hebr. with these verbs in the singular: De ligno autem scientiae boni et mali ne comedas. In quocumque enim die comederis ex eo, morte morieris. But in both the Vulg. and the OL, as well as in the Hebr. and LXX, the singular is used in v. 16.

9] Cor, 14.35. °1The text of this passage is perplexed: see the apparatus in z, and Agaésse-Solignac 49.66-67 n. 32. I follow the reading of P and m: quo transgresso reus esset. However, I have found MSS authority for the reading of z, quo transgressor eius esset, in Bod and Pal.

92Gen. 3.8. See Augustine's reconsideration of this, 8.27.50 infra.

93[n 8.9.17-18 supra, Aug. distinguishes a twofold activity of Providence: natural and voluntary.

941 Tim. 6.16.

At this place in the text (as pointed out in the apparatus of z) there is a dislocated line in the Migne edition. The first line in ML 34.388, immoto cardine moveatur: sic tota palma ab articulo, should be the first line in col. 389. This displacement took place in the Migne reprint, not in the original Maurist edition.

concreated the matter and form of all things simultaneously, as explained in 1.15.29 supra. See nn. 7 and 48 to Book

1 supra. °7The doctrine of three levels of reality (God in every way unchangeable, the soul changeable in time but not in place, and body changeable in both time and place) is a frequent theme in Aug. See e.g. De vera relig. 10.18 (CCL 32.199; ML 34.130) and Epist. 18.2 (CSEL 34/1.45 Goldbacher; ML 33.85). This doctrine is fundamental in Augustine's metaphysics: see Bourke 118-19 and 226-27.

98At this place in the text there is a line missing in Migne's edition. See n. 95 supra.

99Skin bottle: utrem. By a misprint the text in Migne reads utrum (but not so in the original edition of m). The uter referred to is the skin of an animal sewn to serve as a bottle, commonly used by the ancients for transporting wine and water. See V. Chapot, DarSag 5 (1919) s.v. "Uter," 613-16.

100Tnfluence: intentio. In a letter to Jerome, Epist. 166 (De orig. animae hominis) 2.4 (CSEL 44.551,7-9 Goldbacher; ML 33.722), Aug..says: "For it [the soul] reaches throughout the whole body which it animates, not by a local diffusion of parts but by a vital influence (quadam vitali intentione)." See n. 46 to Book 7 supra.

101 Quod (not quae), on the authority of R, Pal, and m. 102As pointed out by Agaésse-Solignac 49.512, Aug. in this passage is concerned about a philosophical problem: the relationship of the free will of creatures to the providence of God, which rules the world. He is not here concerned with the theological problem that preoccupied him in the Pelagian controversy: whether a corrupt will could perform good deeds and how a human act could be good in the sense of meritorious. It is entirely possible that he had finished Book 8 of this work before 262 NOTES the outbreak of the controversy with the Pelagians. He was working on the commentary on Genesis, A.D. 401-15. The anti Pelagian polemic began A.D. 412.

103Cyi non prosit, according to the MSS collated by z, as well as Bod and Pal. There is no MSS evidence cited by z for the reading of m, cui non praesit.

104]t would be unrealistic to expect in a theologian of the Sth c. the concern about the inequities in human society that one finds in theologians of the late 20th c. We might say, of course, that these inequities do not come about by God's command (iussu) but by His permission (permissu): see 8.24.45 infra. But commenting on Gal. 3.28, There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus, Aug., Epist. ad Gal. 28 (ML 35.2125), says that this ideal will find its fulfilment when we shall see God face to face, and that these differences are taken away by the unity of the faith (ab unitate fidei) but they remain in the life of mortal man (in conversatione mortali); and he goes on to say that the apostles have told us that these differences are to be observed. In Augustine's view, then, they are part of the human condition in view of the fall of man.

105The Devil may assail the body of man but not his soul. Satan for a time seemed to have supreme power over Job, but he could do nothing that God did not permit him to do: see Aug., Enarr. in Ps. 26, Enarr. 2, n. 5 (CCL 38.156; ML 36.201). Aug. remarks also that the Devil had no power to force our first parents to sin: he could only use the subtle art of persuasion. See /n loannem 12.10 (CCL 36.126; ML 35.1489). On the other hand, as Aug. points out in 8.24.45 infra, God uses His angels as His ministers in carrying out the designs of His providence, and He has made subject to them the whole of corporeal nature, all irrational life, and all wills that are weak and corrupt.

106Commenting on Ps. 2.12, Embrace discipline, lest at any time the Lord be angry, and you perish from the just way, Aug. says, Enarr. in Ps, 2.10 (CCL 38.6; ML 36.72): "This is a severe punishment, which is feared by those who have had any taste of the sweetness of justice, for he who perishes from the way of justice will wander with utter misery through the ways of iniquity."

107See Augustine's comments on the twofold activity of God's providence, 8.9.17-18 supra.

108T'o prepare the way for a discussion of the manner in which God spoke to Adam, Aug. in this chapter distinguishes the various ways in which creatures are preserved and cared for under God's providence. They are sustained "intrinsically" (intrinsecus) by God Himself, who creates and illuminates them, and "extrinsically" (extrinsecus) by creatures according to God's will and plan. They are sustained "'by an incorporeal force" (incorporaliter) when the help comes from God directly or from a created spirit, and "by a corporeal force" (corporaliter) when the help comes from a material being.

109Rom. 11.36. For Augustine's reading of this text, see n. 7 to Book 4 supra.

110Spirit (spiritus) in this commentary on Gen. has a special meaning. Aug. defines it, 12.9.20 infra, as "'a power of the soul inferior to the mind, wherein likenesses of corporeal objects are produced." See my article, '""The Meaning of Spiritus in St. Augustine's De Genesi, XII," Modern Schoolman 26 (1949) 211-18. See also n. 13 to Book 12 infra.

111fn Book 12 Aug. explains three kinds of vision which the soul has: (1) through the eyes (per oculos), (2) through the spirit or imagination (per spiritum), and (3) through the mind (per contuitum mentts). See 12.6.15 infra.

112See 8.24.45 supra. 137m eis ipsis, which is the reading of P, R, S, Bod, Pal, and m. An angel sees all creatures in his companions because, according to Aug., God first produced in the minds of angels the works He would create before creating them in their own order of being. See 2.8.16-17 supra.

114See 12.36.69 infra. 115Reason-principle: ratio. The eternal reason-principles or forms (rationes aeternae) of all created things are in the Word of God, where they are identified with Him and His life. In this sense the ratio of a creature is said to be life in God. See my article, "Augustine, Conf., IX, 10, 24," in American Journal of Philology 79 (1958) 66-70.

116The mystery of God's transcendence and immanence is the 264 NOTES subject of Augustine's reflections in Conf. 1.2.2-1.4.4. Confronted with this mystery, he prefers to say that we are in God rather than that God is in us (Conf. 1.2.2): "Therefore I should not be, O my God, I should not be at all unless You were in me; or rather must I not say, I should not be unless I were in You, from whom are all things, through whom are all things, in whom are all things?"

117Cf, Conf. 10.27.38: "Late have I loved Thee, Beauty ever ancient, ever new, late have I loved Thee!"

18Gen. 2:16=17. 119Cf, John 1.1-3. 120[n an indescribable way: ineffabiliter, according to the reading in E1(?), P, R, S, Eug, Bod, Pal, and m.

121 Augustine's speculation here about the way in which God may have spoken to Adam is not in agreement with the opinion he adopted in 8.18.37 supra, where he said that God must have spoken through a creature. One is tempted to ask whether Aug. returned to the latter part of Book 8 and revised it or expanded it after completing Book 12. Certainly the ideas and the language of Book 8, ch. 25, where the ground is prepared for ch. 27, are remarkably similar to what is found in Book 12 about vision, dreams, ecstasy, and the "spirit." See Agaésse-Solignac 49.514. 122Gen. 3.8. 123Aug. is thinking of the Arians. In Epist. 148.2.10 (CSEL 44.340,8-16 Goldbacher; ML 33.626) he says: "The most blessed Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, when he was arguing against the Arians, who say that only God the Father is invisible, but think that the Son and the Holy Spirit are visible, proved by the authority of holy Scriptures and by his own careful reasoning that the Trinity is equally invisible, pressing the point vigorously that God has not been seen except by taking the appearance of a creature; that according to the essential nature of His Godhead, God is completely invisible, that is, Father and Son and Holy Spirit, except in so far as He can be known by mind and spirit" (tr. Sr. W. Parsons, FOC 20.231). See Berthold Altaner, "Augustinus und Athanasius," Kleine patristische Schriftey (TU

83, Berlin 1967) 260-68.

BOOK NINE

TimeGi 16: 125The correct reading is in doubt. The variants are: in consequenti sperandum est: E, S, R2, z in consequentis perandum est: Bod in consequentis parandum est: P in consequentibus parandum est: R', B, m. If we assume that E etc. have the original reading and that Bod is a corruption of that, it is easy to understand P as an unsuccessful attempt at emendation of Bod and to see in R! etc. an emendation of P introduced to make the text grammatical.

BOOK NINE

1Gen. 2.18-24. In 6.5.7 supra, Aug. has explained that in the works of the six days God created living beings potentially and in their causes and that now He works in a different manner as He creates these beings in their full perfection in the course of time.

3On the fifth day: see Gen. 1.20-23. 4Ps. 148.7.

5] read 11, following P, R, S, Bod, Pal, and m; and in the next sentence 141 also on the authority of P, R, Bod, and m. Zycha, following E (and also S in the second sentence), reads ud in both places, thus making these two sentences questions.

6Arida is the reading of P, R, S, Bod, Pal, and m. tren, 2-18. 8Ps. 84.9. 77 gc 9.

1 Matt:'3:1711See 8.27.49-50 supra. 12Apoc. 1.14-15. 13Gen. 1.27-28. 14Heb. 13.4. 15SBefore Augustine's time it was commonly held that there would not have been any sexual intercourse for the procreation of children in Paradise if man had not fallen. John Chrys., Hom. in Gen. 18.4 (MG 53.153), says that our first parents in Paradise

266 NOTES imitated the life of the angels and that it was as a result of their disobedience that God provided that the human race should be propagated by sexual intercourse; and again in De virginitate

14.5-6 (SC 125.142 Musurillo-Grillet; MG 48.544) he says that marriage is the consequence of the fall of our first parents. If Adam, then, had not sinned, how would men have been multiplied? Like the angels, by the creative act of God: see /oc. cit. Similarly, Greg. Nyss., De hominis opificio 17 (MG 44.188-89), holds that the desire for the union of the sexes for the purpose of procreation is the result of the Fall. There would have been no procreation if man had not fallen, and man's life would have been like that of the angels. Aug. goes against this tradition when he holds that marriage and human sexuality are not a consequence of the Fall. In this view, human procreation would have taken place in Paradise if man had not fallen, but it would have been without /ibido. Aug. looks upon human sexuality as something created by God antecedent to the Fall and independent of it. In guarding himself against the errors of the Manichees, who held that sexual desire and procreation were from the Evil Principle, he came to a balanced view of human sexuality which is remarkable in a writer of that period.

16Tn 3.21.33 supra, Aug. suggests that sexual union would take place in Paradise "with only the devout affection of charity, and not the concupiscence associated with our corrupt flesh" (solo piae caritatis adfectu, nulla corruptionis concuptscentia).

17In the prime of life: in aliquo formae statu, i.e., without suffering the decline of old age and eventually death.

18Without any death: sine ulla morte. Zycha reads sine tlla morte, but this must be a typographical error.

19St. Paul, 1 Cor. 15.44, makes a distinction between the natural body (corpus animale) which we now have and the spiritual body (corpus spiritale) which we shall have in the resurrection. In 6.19.30 supra, Aug. argued that Adam was given a natural body. He maintains, therefore, that if man had not sinned, his natural body sine ulla morte would be transformed in aliam qualitatem, i.e., into a glorified state. The transformation would not take place by death, in which the soul leaves the body, but by a blessed change from mortality to immortality, from a natural state to a spiritual state: see De bono coniugali 2.2 (CSEL 41.190,1-6 Zycha; ML 40.375). 20The theory expressed here about the generation of children in Paradise if man had not fallen was already proposed in 3.21.33 supra.

21Deut. 29.5: I have led you forty years in the wilderness; your clothes have not worn out upon you, and your sandals have not worn off your feet (RSV).

221 understand mortale as a predicate adjective referring back to genus humanum.

?3Aug. has already suggested that man cultivated the soil in Paradise with delight and pleasure and without any wearisome toil. See 8.8.15 supra.

24Augustine's attitude towards women was not entirely unaffected by the social customs of his times. One should remember, however, the deep love he had for the woman who bore him a son (Conf. 6.15.25), the place of honor his mother Monica held in the community at Cassiciacum, where she took part in philosophical discussions with Aug. and his friends (as e.g. in De beata vita), and the courtesy and consideration he manifested towards women with whom he corresponded as a bishop.

25Cf. Matt. 22.30. 26In Book 6, chs. 19-23, Aug. argued that Adam was created and placed in Paradise with a natural (i.e., mortal) body. If he had not sinned, he would have been exempt from death by a special gift of God and his body would have been transformed into a spiritual and glorious body.

27Cf. Matt. 20.10.

28), Kings 2.11. 229Heb. 11.40. Augustine's reading of the text is: Pro nobis enim meliora providerunt, ne sine nobis perfecti perficerentur. These are the exact words in which he quotes the text also in De peccatorum meritis et remissione 2.31.50 (CSEL 60.121,17-18 Urba-Zycha; ML 44.181). But the Greek text reads: Tov Gov TEDL NUwV KpELTTOV TL MpoBAehapévor, tva wh Xwpls Hudv TeAELO@ov (Since God had foreseen something better for us in order that they might not be made perfect apart from us). The promises made to the OT saints would not be fulfilled until Christ had wrought our redemption, 268 NOTES and thus they would share in the fruits of the redemption with us (see M. M. Bourke, JBC 2 [1968] "Epistle to the Hebrews," 402). D. DeBruyne, "Saint Augustin réviseur de la Bible," in Misc. Ag. 2.537, holds that Aug. simply misunderstood the text.

But with good reason Agaésse-Solignac 49.102-3 suggest that Aug. may have read a Greek text different from the traditional one.

30Cf. Gen. 5.24. 31Cf, Mal. 4.5-6 Vulg. = 3.23-24 Hebr. Aug., Sermo 299.11 (ML 38.1376), says that the two witnesses of Apoc. 11.3-13 are Enoch and Elijah.

32Cf. Eccle. 3.5: A time to embrace and a time to refrain from embracing.

33Cf. De bono coniugali 9.9 (CSEL 41.200,24-201,3 Zycha; ML 40.380): "In the early days of the human race, especially for the purpose of propagating the people of God, through whom the Prince and Saviour of all the nations was to be proclaimed and to be born, the saints had an obligation to use the good of marriage, which was not to be sought as a good in itself but as a good necessary for the sake of another good." In Augustine's view, therefore, virginity was not recommended in the early years of human history because God's will required widespread procreation of children among the chosen people to fill up the number of saints determined by the divine plan. God's will for the human race in general is still that it should increase and multiply, but when this divine command is being carried out by an abundance of births, virginity is especially pleasing to God if it is embraced for good and holy reasons. Hence the OT period was the tempus amplexandi, and the NT period is the tempus continendi ab amplexu for those called to such a state.

34Sed propter boc bonum veniale est illud malum. It is veniale in the sense that it is excusable and allowable. The idea and the language are based on 1 Cor. 7.6: J say this by way of concession (kata ovyyvepnv, secundum veniam). Cf. De civ. Dei 21.26: Hoc secundum veniam concedit Apostolus ("The Apostle says this by way of concession"). The concupiscence, therefore, which is satisfied in the marital act is a result of original sin, and the offspring born of this union is caro peccati, but contugalis concubitus that takes place with procreation in view is not a sin. See Aug., De nuptiis et concupiscentia 1.12.13 (CSEL 42.226, 1-12 Urba-Zycha; ML 44.421-22), and Charles Boyer, S.J., Saint Augustin (Les moralistes chrétiens, Paris 1932) 237-38. Hence Aug., De bono coniugalt 3.3 (CSEL 41.191,14-16, ML 40.375), says: "There is a dignity associated with the ardor of passion when husband and wife think of themselves as father and mother as they are united in the marital act." And yet procreation is not the only good of marriage. Aug., De bono con. 3.3, speaks eloquently of the union between man and wife of advanced years who by mutual consent refrain from sexual intercourse and yet are bound together in a true companionship founded on deep love transcending the ardor of sexual desire.

35The threefold good of marriage, fides (fidelity), proles (offspring), and sacramentum (sacrament), is treated also in De bono coniugali 24.32 and De nuptits et concupiscentia 1.17.19. In those works the order is proles, fides, sacramentum, but here it is fides, proles, sacramentum. Fides is the perfect fidelity of husband and wife, excluding relations with any other persons. Proles means the loving acceptance of children, tender care for their upbringing, and provision for their religious education. Sacramentum (see Eph. 5.32) is the "sacramental meaning, that is, the indissoluble bond between Christian spouses which is a figure of the union of Jesus Christ with His Church" (E. Portalié, DTC 1 [1909] s.v. "Augustin," 2431 [tr. Bastian 267]). Pius XI incorporated-much of what Aug. says about these three goods in the Encyclical Casti connubi (Acta apostolicae sedis 22 [1930] 543-56).

36De bono coniugali (A.D. 400-401). See n. 33 supra for references to the text in CSEL and ML. There are English translations by C. L. Cornish in Library of the Fathers 22 (Oxford

1847), reprinted in NPNF 3 (1887, reprinted 1917); and C. T. Wilcox in FOC 27 (1955); and the Latin text with French tr. by G. Combés in BA 2 (1948). E. Portalié, DTC 1 (1909) s.v. "Augustin," 2304, says that this work is "the most complete patristic treatise on the duties of the married state" (tr. Bastian 66).

37See n. 15 supra. 38Matt. 22.30. The words for they will not be subject to death (non enim incipient mori) are not in the Greek text, or the Itala, or the 270 NOTES

Vulg. Milne Reconstruction does not give a quotation with these words included but does give a variant, neque morientur, in their place, from Contra Adimantum 25 (CSEL 25.183,25 Zycha; ML 42.168). Aug. was probably quoting from memory and apparently commingling Matt. and Luke. Luke 20.35-36 has: But those who are accounted worthy to attain to that age and to the resurrection from the dead neither marry nor are given in marriage, for they cannot die any more, because they are equal to angels (RSV).

39Gen. 2.17. 40Rom. 7.2225. 41Rom. 8.10. 42Aug. bases the distinction between natural and spiritual bodies on 1 Cor. 15.44: see 6.19.30 supra. A natural body is mortal; a spiritual body is immortal and glorious, such as the body we shall have at the resurrection. Aug. holds that Adam had a natural (i.e., mortal) body, but that he would have been exempt from death by a special gift of God if he had not sinned. His body would have eventually been transformed into a spiritual and glorious body. See Book 6, chs. 19-25.

43They touched: tetigerunt according to P, R, S, Pal, m.

44See n. 19 supra. 45§yntecticus (consumptive) is the reading of E, R (supra lin. manu 1), Bod, z.

46E ph. 2.3. 47See Arist., Hist. animalium 5.21, Verg., Georg. 4.197-202; Plin., Nat. bist. 11.16.46. For a survey of ancient theories on bees, see B. G. Whitfield, "Virgil and the Bees: A Study in Ancient Apicultural Lore," Greece & Rome, N.S. 3 (1956) 99-117. See also Aug., De Trin, 3.8.13 (CCL 50.140,52-54,; ML 42.876).

48Cf. Rom. 7.23. 49Rom. 7.23. 59Rom. 7.24. 51For Augustine's speculations on the origin of the soul, see Book 7 supra. There, after considering the possibilities regarding the soul of Adam, he suggested, as a probable opinion, that Adam's soul was created on the first day and laid away until God breathed it into the body He formed from the slime of the earth (7.24.35). With regard to the souls of Adam's descendant8, there

BOOK NINE PAG] at are greater problems because of the doctrine of the transmission of original sin. Here in Book 9, as also in 7.23.34, he suggests hesitatingly that God may create souls from the souls of parents. The problem of the origin of the soul troubled Aug. all his life.

For a survey of his tentative solutions and recurring doubts, see

E. Portalié, DTC 1 (1909) s.v. "Augustin (Saint)," 2359-61 (tr. Bastian 148-51).

52Cf. Gen. 2.19-20. 53Cf. Gen. 11.1-9. °4In De Gen. c. Man. Aug. had already proposed many figurative meanings, but he had not done so for Gen. 2.19-20.

55Gen. 2.22: Et aedificavit (wKod56unoev) Dominus Deus costam quam sumpsit de Adam in mulierem. Aug. is aware of the picturesque metaphor in the Greek verb otkodopéw used in the LXX, and he feels that the statement must have some figurative meaning. That meaning is brought out in 9.18.34 infra, where it is suggested that the formation of Eve from the side of Adam is a figure of the Church coming from the pierced side of Christ on the Cross. The figurative meaning is reinforced, according to Aug., by the verb "build" (aedificavit), which applies most aptly to the Church. See n. 85 infra.

Augustine's desire to find the literal meaning rather than prophetical allegory, see 1.17.33-34 supra. iGo 2509: 58See 8.9.17 supra, where Aug. distinguishes the natural working of God's providence from the voluntary. By the former he refers to God's providence working in the laws of nature; by the latter he refers to God's providence working through the ministry of angels and men. Cf. also 8.24.45—8.26.48 supra.

59In the preceding book, chs. 23-26, Aug. has explained how God uses the ministry of angels in governing the world. Newman from his early days was very close to Aug. in his belief in the ministry of angels in the forces of nature. See Apologia pro

Vita Sua (new ed. London 1902) ch. 1, p. 28.

60Augustine's word for imagination (with Neoplatonic overtones) is spiritus: see 12.9.20 infra and n. 110 to Book 8 supra.

61Jonah 2.1. 62Jonah 4.6-7.

2? NOTES

63See 8.26.48 supra. 64See n. 55 supra on Gen. 2.22. 65In this passage, where Aug. uses natura I have used '"'substance" in the translation. "Substance" in English, in the sense of the substratum in which accidents or properties inhere, seems to be the appropriate word. As a matter of fact, Aug. considers natura and substantia as synonyms. See e.g. De moribus eccl. cath. et de mor. Manich. 2.2.3 (ML 32.1346).

66Cf. Aug., De Trin. 3.8.13 (CCL 50.141,59-68; ML 42.876), where he says that parents are not creators of men nor farmers creators of crops, and so, too, angels (good or bad) are not creators even though they know the seeds of things hidden from us and can scatter them (with God's permission) to accelerate the growth of things.

671; Corn3st. 68Wisd. 11.21. For Augustine's philosophical reflections on this text, see Book 4, chs. 3-6 supra.

69See n. 58 supra and 8.9.17.

70In Books 4, 5, and 6 passim, Aug. has explained his views on the eternal reasons in God and the reason-principles in creation. For the eternal reasons, see especially 4.24.41 and 5.12.28; for the created reason-principles in nature, see especially 4.33.51-52 and 5:23.45. 71For views of the ancients on spontaneous generation, see Arist., Hist. animalium 5.19.

72Cf. Gal. 3.19. For Augustine's interpretation of this text, see n. 61 to Book 5 supra.

73Gen. 1.27. Aug. has already attempted to harmonize the two accounts of the creation of Adam by his theory that Adam's soul was created in the works of the first day (7.24.35 supra) and that the reason-principle of his body was created and placed in nature on the sixth day (6.5.7-8, 6.6.10, 6.8.13 supra). When God, therefore, formed Adam from the slime of the earth, He formed him visibly in accordance with the invisible reason-principle which He had already created (6.15.26 supra), and He then breathed into Adam's body the soul He had created on the first day. This chapter now takes up the question of the creation of Eve. If we assume that her soul was already created on the first day, how was her body made in the reason-principles created on the sixth day? Was the manner of the creation of Eve from the rib of Adam provided in the reason-principle of man as a necessity or as a possibility? This is the question raised in this chapter.

74In discussing miracles, 6.13.24-6.14.25 supra, Aug. has already suggested that reason-principles can have different potentialities to be fulfilled in accordance with the will of God the Creator according to a plan known to Him alone.

75"The spirit of life" is the soul. Cf. Gen. 2.7, and see Aug. 7.1.1-7.2.3 supra; cf. also Gen. 7.15, and see Aug., Quaest. in Hep.

1.9 (CSEL 28.7,17-22 Zycha; ML 34.550). The soul, of course, has certain appetites (such as the desire to attain the good, real or apparent) which free will cannot escape.

76Formative principles: Augustine's word is rationes. In this statement it refers to both the eternal reasons (rationes aeternae) in God and the seminal reasons (guasi seminales rationes) in the created world.

77Inserted and joined: inditae atque concretae. Concretae, which is the reading of E, P, Bod, Pal, and z, is from concerno. The form concrevit from this verb is also found above in the first sentence of this chapter (290.26 in Zycha's text).

78Cf. Num. 17.8. 79Cf. Gen. 18.10-15; 21.1-2. 80Cf. Num. 22.28. SPProwr 219: 82"Who will return": revertetur (the future) is the reading of Bod and z, and apparently of most of the MSS collated by z. P, Pal, and m read revertitur (the present). Agaésse-Solignac reproduce the text of z but translate according to the reading of m. f3Cr Eoht2.9: 84Cf. Heb. 7.9-10: One might even say that Levi himself, who receives tithes, paid tithes through Abraham, for he was still in the loins of bis ancestor when Melchizedek met him (RSV). See 6.8.13-6.9.14 supra.

85The mystery of the grace that was hidden (Eph. 3.8-11) was the Church, through which the unsearchable riches of Christ were to be bestowed on mankind. This mystery and all the 274 NOTES events and prophecies that were to prepare the way for it, according to Aug., were not hidden in the seminal reasons of the world but in the plan of God, which was made known to the angels and carried out through their ministry. The first and most striking foreshadowing of the Church is the creation of Eve. As Adam was in ecstasy (or sleep), his side was opened and from one of his ribs was created the woman who was to be the mother of the whole human race. In like manner, when Christ was dead on the Cross, His side was opened and the Church was born, the mother of us all, who would bring us forth to a new life in Christ. Aug. brings out this parallelism in very general terms here, but he is much more explicit in Sermo 336.5.5 (ML 38.1474 75) and Tract. in Ioban. 120.2 (CCL 36.661; ML 35.1953). Cf. John Chrys., Catecheses 3, Sermo ad neoph. 17 (SC $0.176 Wenger). It should be noted, however, that here in his commentary on Gen. Aug. points out two interesting aspects of the creation of Eve as foreshadowing the origin of the Church: (1) the use of the verb aedificavit (see n. 55 supra) in the narrative, and (2) the fact that God used a rib rather than flesh of Adam, the significance of which is explained by Aug. here in sect. 34.

86] follow the reading fuerunt of Bod and z, with which E and S, collated by z, apparently agree. P, R, Pal, and m read fuerant. aT(eeu. 1:27. 88Faceret is the reading of Bod and z and apparently of E and S, collated by z. P, R, Pal, and m read fieret. If we assume that faceret was the original reading, we can readily understand that a scribe would have inadvertently changed faceret to fieret as his eye fell on fieret just three words farther on in the same line.

89 ph. 3.10. For the problem raised by Augustine's reading of this text, see 5.19.38 supra (where it is quoted in full) and n. 62 ibid.

90Cf, Gal. 3.19. See n. 72 supra and n. 61 to Book 5.

91Cf.-1 Cor. 3.7. °21t is important to note that Aug. refers here to Adam's state in Gen. 2.21 as an ecstasy and that in translating that passage from the LXX at the beginning of this book (9.1.1 supra) he also used "ecstasy." Earlier, in De Gen. c. Man. 2.1.1 (ML 34.195), he had used sopor, and in this work (6.5.7 supra) mentts alienatto. The

BOOK TEN

word "ecstasy" (ka Tacts) is used in the LXX, and it aptly describes the state in which Adam had his prophetic vision according to Augustine's interpretation.

Ps. 72.17. Augustine's expression intellegeret in novissima is based on the LXX: ovuva €ts Ta ETXaTa av Tov.

ad se adductam mulierem suam videret, according to the text of E, S, R?, Bod, and z. But P, C, R', Pal, and m have costam before mulierem.

2.23-24. Augustine's allusion to St. Paul is to Eph. 5.31-32, where he quotes Gen. 2.24 and then adds: This 1s a great mystery, and I mean with reference to Christ and the Church. Christ is the new Adam from whose side, opened on the Cross, the Church came forth. The great mystery of which St. Paul speaks is the bond of Christian marriage between man and wife as a symbol of the union between Christ and the Church. Aug. seems to have been influenced in his interpretation of Adam's ecstasy by Tertullian, De anima 11.4 (p. 15,16-22 Waszink; ML 2.665). 96Matt. 19.4.

°71 accept the reading propter found in P, R, S, C, Bod, Pal, and m.

BOOK TEN

'The theory referred to by Aug. is called traducianism. A grossly materialistic form of this theory is found in Tertullian, who holds that the soul is corporeal and who says in De anima

19.6 (p. 27,28-31 Waszink; ML 2.681-82) that it is an offshoot of the soul of Adam; and in op. cit. 27.5 (p. 38,36-39,2 Waszink; ML 2.695—96) that in sexual intercourse the male seed which is implanted contains moisture from the body and heat from the soul to bring about the new being. As far as Eve is concerned, he says, op. cit. 36.4 (p. 52,30-34 Waszink; ML 2.713), that there was no need for God to breathe a soul into her because in the rib removed from Adam's side there was a shoot (tradux) of both his soul and his body. Aug. unhesitatingly rejects this materialistic traducianism of Tertullian: see Epist. 190.14 (CSEL 57.148,5-

276 NOTES

149,2 Goldbacher; ML 33.861), but here he considers the possibility of a spiritual traducianism, in which the immaterial souls of parents would somehow generate the souls of their children as their bodies generate children's bodies. Jerome, Epist. 126.1 (CSEL 56.143,13-16 Hilberg; ML 22.1086), says that Tertullian and Apollinaris and most of the writers of the West (but here he is surely exaggerating) are traducianists. For a survey of traducianist theories, see A. Michel, DTC 15 (1946) s.v. "Traducianisme," 1350-65. seni 2:2 3. *Gens 27, 4See Books 6-7 passim, especially 6.7.12, 6.12.22, 7.22.32. 5Eccli. (Sirach) 18.1. For an explanation of Augustine's understanding of this text, see n. 69 to Book 4 supra. For Augustine's explanation of the creation of Adam and Eve, harmonizing Gen.

1.27 with Gen. 2.7 and 2.21-22, see 7.28.40—43 supra. 6These speculations about the soul of Adam are to be found in Book 7 passim: see especially chs. 22-24. Augustine's tentative solution to the problem of Adam's soul is stated in 7.24.35: it was created in its own proper being (not in a reason-principle) on the first day and laid away until God breathed it into the body He formed from the earth. See my observations in n. 63 to Book

7 As | have just now explained it" (boc quod modo dixt), that is, according to the theory that all human souls (not just Adam's) were created on the first day. As Agaésse-Solignac 49.154-55 n. 8 have explained, and as Augustine's argument that follows makes clear, he is not referring to what immediately precedes in ch. 3 but to the theory proposed as probable and reasonable (credibilius vel tolerabilius) in ch. 2, namely, that the soul was created by God on the first day. As proposed in ch. 2, this referred only to Adam's soul. Now in ch. 3 Aug. offers it as the first of three possible explanations of the origin of a// human souls.

8"Finished and begun": consummatis et inchoatis. The words echo the statements in Gen. 2.1, Et consummata sunt caelum et terra, and Gen. 2.3, Jn ipso requievit ab omnibus operibus suis quae inchoavit Deus facere. Vhe works just begun are those created in their reason-principles but not yet visibly created. The Works

BOOK TEN 277, that are finished are those that have been created in their own substances.

this chapter Aug. has considered three possible positions: (1) all human souls were created in the original creation and are infused into their bodies at the appropriate time in history (creationism); (2) only Adam's soul was originally created, and all other souls are the offspring of it (spiritual traducianism); (3) only Adam's soul was originally created, and all other souls are directly and individually created by God throughout history (creationism).

10See 7.5.7 supra and n. 11 on that passage. 11Ezek. 37.9-10. In Hebrew the one word ruah means "spirit," "breath," "wind" (The Jerusalem Bible, p. 1407 n.). I have translated the Latin spiritus with "'breath."

12These words in Ezekiel foretell "the messianic restoration of Israel after the sufferings of the Exile. ... But also, by the imagery chosen, he is already preparing minds for the idea of an individual resurrection of the body ..." (The Jerusalem Bible, loc. cit.).

13John 20.22. 14Cf. 7.3.4-7.4.6 supra. 15Wisd. 1.7. 16In ch. 3 above (see n. 9), Aug. explained three possible theories on the origin of the soul. Here he considers only the second and third alternatives (spiritual traducianism and creationism). Aug. gives no explanation of why he suddenly changes from three alternative hypotheses to two. However, the first and third had this in common, that God directly creates souls ex nihilo, whereas in the second He creates souls as the offspring of Adam's soul. For a discussion of the problem, see Agaésse-Solignac 49.533-34.

57.16: For from Me a spirit will go forth, and I have made every breath (LXX).

18Ps. 32.15: Out finxit singillatim corda eorum. 19E ph. 2.8-10. 20Ps550.12; "TZechei 2 22Wisd. 8.19-20: Sortitus sum animam bonam, et cum essem mags

278 NOTES bonus, veni ad corpus incoinquinatum. The word bonus, "good," translates the Greek aya06c, which can also mean "noble" and is so rendered in some translations. In spite of the impression that this text gives when detached, the context shows that Greek ideas of pre-existence, with merit and demerit, are foreign to the author. See A. G. Wright, JBC 1 (1968) Wisdom 8.17-21, p. 562. For a further discussion of this text, see 10.17.30-31 infra.

23 Aug. probably has Origen in mind. See Origen, De principits 1.8.1 and 3.3.5 (GCS 5.96 and 261-62 Koetschau). Aug. has already rejected this theory, 6.9.15 supra.

24Rom. 9.11. 25Rom. 9.12. Cf. Gen. 25.23. For Augustine's views on the election of Jacob, see De div. quaest. ad Simpl. 1.2.1-12 (ML 40.111-18).

261 Tim. 2.5: One Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus. See 10.18.32—33 infra.

27Ps. 103.29-30. The Latin spiritus, which may mean either "spirit" or "breath," is used in both v. 29 and v. 30. I have translated it as "spirit," but "breath" could be used as well in rendering the text as it is discussed here.

28Cf. 2 Mac. 7.23. 29Cf. Ps. 102:14. 30Fecli. (Sirach) 10.9. 31Cf. Rom. 10.3. 32Job 42.6. The wording used by Aug. here is that of the OL, based on the LXX. He quotes the OL directly in De civ. Det

22.29 (CCL 48.859,117-18; ML 41.799) as follows: Propterea despexi memet ipsum et distabui et existimavi me terram et cinerem (I, therefore, despised myself and melted away, and I considered myself dust and ashes).

2:20. 34Eccle. 12.7. See Augustine's discussion of this text in Epist. 143.8-9 (CSEL 44.258,10-260,10 Goldbacher; ML 33.588-89). 35Cf. Gen. 3.19: In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken; you are dust, and to dust you shall return (RSV).

36Ps, 77.39. See 1.4.9 supra, where Aug. says that a creature by turning back to God its Creator is formed and perfected. Here he takes Ps. 77.39 as a description of the formlessness of the creature who lacks that necessary conversion to its Creator (conversio ad Creatorem).

37Rom. 5.12,18-19. See n. 33 to Book 6 supra for a explanation of Augustine's understanding of this text.

38Aug. may have Tertullian in mind. See Tert., De anima 40.1 (p. 56,15-17 Waszink; ML 2.719), and see Waszink's note, p. 448, together with the remarks of Agaésse-Solignac 49.535 ff.

39Cf. Rom. 9.11. *0Aug. is here drawn to the traducianist theory (spiritual traducianism) in order to account for the transmission of original sin. He does not see how infant baptism can be explained except on the basis of the traducianist hypothesis. Yet he is also attracted to creationism, and to the end of his days he was unable to solve this problem. See Retract. 1.1.8 or 1.1.3 (CSEL 36.16,8-9 Knoll; ML 32.587), where, commenting on a passage in his Contra academicos (A.D. 386), he says about his thinking concerning the origin of the soul: nec tunc sciebam, nec adbuc scto ("I did not know then, and I still do not know'). Cf. also Retract. 2.71.1 or 2.45 (CSEL 36.184,1-185,6 Knoll; ML 32.649) and 2.82.1 or 2.56 (CSEL 36.195,7-196,6; ML 32.653).

Gal. 5.17. cid ie SRB 43Eccli. (Sirach) 1.26(33). The reading will give (praebebit) is uncertain. The future, praebebit, is found in E?, R, and z. The present, praebet, is the reading of E!, P, S, B, Bod, Pal, and m. I accept praebebit as the more likely reading because it is the correct translation of the LXX, and also because it is found elsewhere when Aug. quotes this text: see Enarr. in Ps. 118, Sermo

22.8 (CCL 40.1740; ML 37.1566). 44See 12.24.51 infra, where Aug. says: "It is not the body that perceives, but the soul by means of the body; and the soul uses the body as a sort of messenger in order to form within itself the object that is called to its attention from the outside world."

45Luke 3.6. 46In one sense the flesh is at war with the spirit, but in an- 280 NOTES other it is also in the service of the spirit. With this in mind, Aug. refers to "the ministry of the flesh" (ministerium carnts), echoing Tert., De anima 40.2 (p. 56,18-26 Waszink; ML 2.719).

47Cf. Rom. 7.24: Wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from this body of death? se phad3. 49Cf. Rom. 5.20-21: Where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through justice to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

50Rom. 6.12-13. 51See Aug., Conf. 8.10.22-24, where he refutes the Manichean doctrine of two natures and two wills in man, one good and the other evil.

52Voluptatem (''pleasure") is the reading of E2, P, R, S, Bod, Pal, and m. Zycha reads voluntatem ('desire'), following E}.

53 Adulteris ('adulterous parents") is the reading adopted by z. It has the authority (apparently) of E, R', and of many MSS collated by the Maurists (see their note b.1L.). Adultertis ("'adulteries'') is the reading of P, R?, S, Bod, Pal, and m.

54Augustine's point is that the infant has not inherited any sin from his immediate parents, but only original sin from Adam. The child of a saintly father and mother is just as much in need of baptism as the child of adulterous parents.

55Cf. Rom. 5.19. 56This question was brought up by Celestius (a disciple of Pelagius), who was in Africa at the time of the conference of the Catholic and Donatist bishops, presided over by the imperial legate Marcellinus, A.D. 411. To inherit sin from Adam, Celestius said, it would be necessary that the soul, like the body, be generated by the carnal union of the parents; but most Catholics, he said, reject this explanation (traducianism). As for baptism, he held that the expression in remissionem peccatorum ("for the remission of sins") in relation to infant baptism was meaningless; for it implies guilt, and how can infants be guilty of anything? He admitted that infants needed baptism and should be baptized but denied that it was for the purpose of cleansing them from original sin. He was condemned by the Council of Carthage, A.D. 412. Since Aug. was working on his commentary on Genesis A.D. 401-15, it is highly probable that Celestius was in his mind when he was writing Book 10. For Celestius see ODCC 258-59; also Georges de Plinval, Pélage, ses écrits, sa vie, et sa réforme (Lausanne 1943) 254-60; and Bonner 381. or jere3d: °8This theory about the origin of the soul should be compared with what Aug. says in an early work (A.D. 388-95), De libero arbitrio 3.20.56-3.21.59 (CCL 29.307-10; ML 32.1298-1300). There he explained four different theories but confessed his inability to establish any one of them as true. Light is shed on our passage in De Gen. ad litt. by what he writes in De libero arbitrio about souls, which are said to come into bodies from a previous existence: "When they enter this life and submit to wearing mortal members these souls must also undergo forgetfulness of their former existence and the labours of their present existence, with consequent ignorance and toil which in the first man were a punishment involving mortality and completing the misery of the soul" (op. cit. 3.20.57, tr. John H. S. Burleigh, Augustine: Earlier Writings, The Library of Christian Classics 6 [London 1953] 204-5). It is important to note that although Aug. admits the possibility of the pre-existence of the soul (with subsequent forgetfulness on entering the body), he resolutely rejects the teaching of Origen and Priscillian, who held that souls were condemned to inhabit bodies in punishment for previous sins. See Epist. 164.7.20 (CSEL 44.539,4-8 Goldbacher; ML 33.717). Again, in Epist. 166.9.27, he rejects that error with the greatest emphasis: non credo, non adqutesco, non consentio. Origen's opinion was officially condemned in the 6th c. by Pope Vigilius, and Priscillian's opinion also in the 6th c. by the First Council of Braga. See H. Denzinger and A. Schonmetzer (eds.), Enchiridion symbolorum (34th ed. Barcelona 1967) nos. 403 and 456.

59In De baptismo contra Donatistas 4.25.32 (CSEL 51.260 Petschenig; ML 43.176) Aug. explains that two things are necessary for salvation: sacramentum baptismi (''the sacrament of baptism'') and conversio cordis ('conversion of the heart"). But in cases in which there is no bad will, God can supply for one or the other, as He supplied for the sacrament in the case of the good thief on the Cross and as He constantly supplies for conversion of the 282 NOTES heart in the case of infants receiving baptism. Aug., therefore, reminds us that God does not mercilessly condemn infants who, coming into the world with the stain of original sin, die in infancy without any personal guilt. See also Epist. 98.1-3 (CSEL

34.520-24 Goldbacher; ML 33.359-61). But unfortunately this leaves unexplained the mystery of infants who die without anyone to baptize them.

60The ignorance of infancy and childhood is due to the union of the soul with the flesh of fallen human nature; in other words, it is the result of original sin.

61Veri sacerdotis ('of the true Priest") according to z; but mediatoris veri sacerdotis ("of the Mediator who is true Priest"') according to m. The word mediatoris is lacking in all the MSS collated by Zycha and also in Bod and Pal; and a note in m states that it is absent from most MSS.

62"Tf it were now (nunc) necessary" is the reading of Bod and Pal and of z and all the MSS he collated. The reading of m is: "If it were not (mon) necessary."

63Cf. Rom. 9.11. Rom. 5.19. 65Wisd. 4.11. 61 Gar, 5a. 67Rom. 5.19. 68Rom. 5.12. For Augustine's understanding of this text, see n. 33 to Book 6 supra.

69 Aug. seems to mean that the traducianist theory more obviously points to the need of baptism for infants than the creationist theory does.

70See 10.7.12 supra. 71Wisd. 8.19-20. For the meaning of this text, see n. 22 supra. 72Wisd. 9.15: For a corruptible body weighs down the soul, and this earthy dwelling burdens the thoughtful mind.

FaWisd:7.2.

74Ps. 21.17-19. Ps. 21.2: 7©See Luke 2.40 and 2.52.

77 Aug. refers to Wisd. 7.1-2: J also am mortal like all men, a descendant of the first-formed child of earth; and in the womb of a mother I was molded into flesh, within the period of ten months, compacted with blood, from the seed of a man and the pleasure of marriage (RSV). His point is that these words cannot apply to Christ personally; He can be represented as saying them only in so far as He speaks for men whose nature He has assumed.

78Luke 2.4248. 79Rom. 7.23. 8°Similitudo carnis peccati. Cf. Rom. 8.3: Deus filium suum mittens 1n stmilitudinem carnis peccati (God sending His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh).

RUA Gral FAT; 82Original sin as transmitted to the descendants of Adam can be described as inherited disease (as it was generally described in the Christian East) or inherited guilt (as it was often described by the Latin writers. The two views can also be combined, and that is the way Aug. conceives original sin here and elsewhere. See Bonner 371.

83Heb. 7.4-10. 84Rom. 7.23. 85"Invisible concupiscence" (invisibilem concupiscentiam). Aug. uses this phrase to point out the difference between the seminal reason of Levi and that of Christ in the loins of Abraham. Since both Levi and Christ are descendants of Abraham, it can be said that their bodies were potentially present in his body by reason of the appropriate seminal reasons. But the seminal reason determining the conception of Levi in the womb of his mother was to cause the creation of that new body by means of the conjugal act in which concupiscence played a role (hence the invisible concupiscence in the seminal reason). The seminal reason, however, determining the conception of Christ in the womb of His virgin mother was to cause the creation of His body from her flesh by the action of the Holy Spirit without any male seed or carnal concupiscence.

86Melchizedek (to whom the tithes were paid) was a figure of Christ, who by His passion and death would bring to mankind a remedy for the wounds of sin.

87 Aug. elsewhere rejects the notion of a seed of the soul (semen animae) in a materialistic sense (materialistic traducianism), but 284 NOTES he does consider possible the theory that souls can be spiritually generated by souls (spiritual traducianism). See 10.1.1 supra and n. 1 ibid.

88This is Tertullian's opinion. See 10.26.44 infra. 89The Latin is quae incorporaliter numeros agit. In Augustine's terminology the "numbers" of a being are the laws that regulate its development. See 6.13.23 supra and n. 58 sbid.

Aug. does not seem to answer here the specific question raised at the beginning of this paragraph (Could not Christ have been in the loins of Abraham according to the soul without paying tithes?), but rather he presents an argument against traducianism in general by showing that the seminal reason of the soul, if there is such a thing, cannot function like the seminal reason of the body. He comes to the point, however, in what follows.

(arrangement) is the Latin word Aug. uses to translate the Greek &ppovia (harmony). Cic., Tusc. disp. 1.10.19, tells us that Aristoxenus, musician and philosopher, pupil of Aristotle, held that the soul is "a special tuning up (#ntentio) of the natural body analogous to that which is called harmony in vocal and instrumental music" (LCL, p. 24 King). Coaptatio is a Late Latin coinage, and Aug. was the first to use it as a translation of appovia (see TLL 3.1385,37-57).

92John 3.6. 93Matt. 7.7. 94Matt. 7.7—-11.

95 Aug. was firm and consistent in his conviction that the practice of infant baptism had been handed down from the apostles. See De baptismo 4.24.31 (CSEL 51.259,2-4 Petschenig; ML 43.174): "... what the universal Church holds on to, although it has not been defined by the councils but has always been kept intact, is rightly believed to have been handed down by the authority of the apostles. . . ." Also Sermo 176.2.2 (ML 38.950): "The Church has always had this practice, has always held on to it.

It has received it from the faith of our fathers, it guards it unfailingly to the end."

96Cf. Matt. 2.16. '

97In the Conf, Aug. often speaks of the serious problem he had of breaking with habits of thought he had acquired as a Manichee and of thinking of God as an immaterial being. See Conf. 3.6.10, 4.7.12, 5.10.19, 7.1.1.

or phantasms of images: phantasias vel phantasmata imaginum. In Augustine's terminology a phantasia is an image evoked from the memory of a sense object once perceived; a phantasma is a representation of a sense object not previously perceived but conjured up by the soul within itself, See Conf.

3.6.10 and De musica 6.11.32 (ML 32.1180). °°Cogitatio is the activity by which the soul gathers together and concentrates on groups of images stored in the memory. See Bourke 214-17 and 243; and cf. Conf. 10.11.18.

100In Conf. 7.1.1 Aug. speaks of the difficulty he had in his youth of conceiving of any substance that could not be seen by the eyes; but in Conf. 10.6.8 he explains that he now knows that the God whom he loves is beyond all that the bodily senses can possibly perceive. In De libero arbitrio 2.3.8-2.6.14 (CSEL 74.43,11-52,13 Green; ML 32.1244-49) he explains the distinction between the senses, which perceive material things, and reason, which perceives the eternal unchangeable. Later in this work on Genesis, 12.24.50 infra, he points out that the objects of intellectual knowledge transcend both bodies and the images of bodies in the imagination.

101Tert., De anima 7.3 (CCL 2.790,11-15; ML 2.698A), argues that a soul that has left the body and gone to hell cannot be nothing: "For it would be nothing if it were not a body" (Nihil enim st non corpus).

102Tert., Adversus Praxean 7.8 (CCL 2.1166,49; ML 2.186A): "For who will deny that God is a body, although God is a spirit?" (Quis enim negabit Deum corpus esse, etst Deus spiritus est?)

103Tert., De an. 7.4 (CCL 2.790,22-23; ML 2.698B). 104Qp. cit. 9.5 (CCL 2.793,43-44, ML 2.701B): "What other color, therefore, will you expect the soul to have except that of air and light?" (Quem igitur alium animae aestimabis colorem quam aertum ac lucidum?)

105Qp. cit. 9.8 (CCL 2.793,65-794,68; ML 2.702B). 106] jiterally,"'as in cogitation" (sicut in cogitatione). See n. 99 supra.

286 NOTES

107See Gen. 41.26. 108See Acts 10.11. 109Tert., De an. 37.5 (CCL 2.840,33-34; ML 2.759A). 110Jbid. (CCL 2.840,34-36; ML 2.759A).

111 After similitudine the text in m reads: eorum quae videmus. These words, which are not found in the MSS of z, nor in Bod or Pal, are almost certainly a gloss on the text.

112De an. 37.6-7 (CCL 2.840,36-49; ML 2.759A-B). Waszink 432 comments on the statement, "For it can be increased in its dimensions" (babitu), as follows: "this word . .. was of course intended to conceal the weak points of the argument; but already Augustine showed how little successful Tert. has been." Waszink refers, of course, to the paragraph immediately following in Aug.

BOOK ELEVEN

1Gen. 2.25-3.24. The text used by Aug. is the OL, which for the most part is based on the LXX. But contrary to the LXX text, the OL text of Aug. in Gen. 3.15 has the feminine pronoun ipsa (referring to the woman, namely, the Virgin Mary as the second Eve): [psa tibi servabit caput, et tu servabis etus calcaneum (She will lie in wait for your head, and you will lie in wait for ber heel). The LXX is faithful to the Hebr. here in using the masc. pronoun avréc referring to the seed or descendant, namely, Christ. The OL texts were not unanimous in reading ipsa. Thus, Cyprian, Testim. 2.9 (CSEL 3.74,13-14 Hartel; ML 4.733A), cites the passage as follows: [pse tuum calcabit al. observabit] caput et tu observabis calcaneum eius. See M. A. Fahey, S.J., Cyprian and the Bible: A Study in Third-Century Exegesis (Beitrage zur Geschichte der biblischen Hermeneutik 9, Tubingen 1971) 59.

2See 8.1.1-4 supra. 3For an example of this type of exegesis, see 5.19.39 supra. 4Rom. 7.23. 5See 9.3.5 to 9.11.19 supra; especially 9.3.6 and 9.10.18. 6Just as Adam's will had disobeyed God, so Adam's members would disobey his will. This is the meaning of iustisstmo recipro-

BOOK ELEVEN

catu ("by a just retribution"). This notion is also found in De civ. Dei 13.13.

4Gen; 3.1. 8Readings in the OL text are: sapientior, prudentior, astutior, sapientissimus, prudentissimus. See Fischer VL 56. The Vulg. reads callidtor.

follow the reading of z, impleri solent, which is attested by E, S, and Bod. P, R, Pal, and m read implere. I have not seen any MS evidence for so/et, the reading of m.

'0The Hebr. word ('arum) used to describe the serpent means "crafty," "shrewd," "sensible." It is predicated of persons both good and evil. See William Gesenius, Hebrew and English Lexicon of the Old Testament, ed. Francis Brown et al. (Oxford 1907) 791, and J. Skinner, Genesis (ICC, New York 1910) 71. ber 4:22: 2Luke 16.8. 13James 4.6 (cf. Prov. 3.34). 4Proy. 16.18. Aug. follows the OL text: Ante ruinam exaltatur cor, et ante gloriam humiltatur.

Pe Psh29 7: 16/bid. 8. 17James 1.14-15. PPSal Gd: 19Creaturam is found in E, P, R?, S, Eug, Bod, and z. The reading of R!, Pal, and m is naturam.

20Cf. Aug., Contra adversarium legis et prophetarum 1.14.20 (ML 42.614): "If they think that man should have been made in such a way that he would not wish to sin, they should not be displeased that he has been made in such a way that he would not be able to sin if he were unwilling. For if a man who would be unable to sin would be better, a man who would be able not to sin is good." Hence the better nature is that of the angels and saints in heaven, who have non posse peccare; but the nature of man in this life, who has posse non peccare, is good. Only the angels and saints in heaven have true /1bertas in Augustine's terminology; in this life we have /iberum arbitrium, which implies the possibility of choosing evil. See De correptione et gratia 12.33 (ML 44.936) and Gilson 323-24.

288 NOTES

21Cf. Rom. 11.20. 22Rom. 9.22-23.

232 Cor. 10.17. 24Cf. Rom. 12.3. 25See ch. 8 supra. 267 ycha's text reads omnipotens Deus, following E. But omnipotens is lacking in P, R, S, Bod, Pal, Eug, and m.

27Cf, Voltaire: "Le mieux est l'ennemi du bien." 28Exemplum (in the acc. case) is the reading of E, P, R, S, Bod, Pal, and z. Exemplo is found in Eug and m.

29Ps, 110.2. Augustine's understanding of this verse is clear from his comment, Enarr. in Ps. 110.2 (CCL 40.1622,28-30, ML

37.1464): "Thus, whatever you choose, Almighty God will not be at a loss to accomplish His will in you."

30To be revealed: prodendum, the reading of E, P, S, Eug, Bod, and z. Providendum is the reading of R, B, and Pal. Probandum is the reading of m, but the editors of m have this remark in a note: "In Mss. probae notae, prodendum."

31Cf, James 1.15: Then desire when it has conceived gives birth to sin; and sin when it is full-grown brings forth death (RSV).

32Cf. Rom. 9.22-23. 33Matt. 8.31-32. At the beginning of this chapter Aug. asks why the serpent was chosen rather than any other animal, but he does not answer his own question. However, in De civ. Dei

14.11, he points out that the Devil chose an animal suited to his purpose, inasmuch as it was "slippery and able to move with tortuous twists and turns."

34The "certain heretics" referred to here are the Manichees. For Mani's denial of the creation of the Devil by God, see Hegemonius, Acta Archelai 5 (GCS 16.7,5—7 Beeson; MG 1436A).

35See Aug., De natura boni 1-4 (CSEL 25.855-57 Zycha; ML 42.551-53). 36In accordance with the beliefs of his day, Aug. held that demons had corpora aeria, bodies composed of air. See De divinatione daemonum 3.7 (CSEL 41.603,15-19 Zycha; ML 40.584). For further details of his theories about demons, see De civ. Det, Books 9 and 10 passim, and F. van der Meer, Augustine the Bishop (London 1961) 67-75. .-

37Augustine's works against the Manichees written prior to the completion of De Genesi ad litteram were: De moribus ecclesiae catholicae et de moribus Manichaeorum (388-89), De Genesi contra Manichaeos (388-90), De duabus animabus contra Manichaeos (391-

92), Disputatio contra Fortunatum Manichaeum (392), Contra Adimantum Manichaeum (394), Contra epistulam Manichaei (397), Contra Faustum Manichaeum (400), De actis cum Felice Manichaeo (404), De natura boni (405), Contra Secundinum Manichaeum (405-6). For a study of Augustine's controversies with the Manichees, see Gerald Bonner, St. Augustine of Hippo: Life and Controversies (London 1963) 193-236.

38Tertullian's opinion is that the honor given by God to man stirred up in the Devil an impatience which led to envy; see Tert., De patientia 5.5—-6 (CCL 1.303; ML 1.1256B): "Even when the Lord God subjected to His own image, that is, to man, all the works He had made, the Devil bore it with impatience. For he would not have grieved, had he endured it, nor would he have envied man, had he not grieved ..." (tr. E. J. Daly, FOC 40.200). Envy was clearly the Devil's downfall, according to Cyprian's account: Cypr., De zelo et livore 4 (CSEL 3.421,8-11 Hartel; ML 4.665C): "From it [jealousy] the Devil in the very beginnings of the world, did first both perish and destroy. He who long had been upheld in Angelic majesty, he the accepted and dear to God, when he beheld man made after God's likeness, did in malignant wrath break forth into envy ..." (tr. C. Thornton, Library of Fathers 3 [Oxford 1840] 268). See E. Mangenot, DTC 4 (1911) "Démon d'aprés les Peres," 347-49. In what follows, Aug. proceeds to give a definition of envy, Cum igitur... invtdentia... sit odium felicitatis alienae, which echoes Cic., Tusc. disp.

3.10.21: Invidentia aegritudo est ex alterius rebus secundis. The word invidentia, coined by Cic., is a rare word but a favorite of Aug.: see H. Hagendahl, Augustine and the Latin Classics (Studia graeca et latina Gothoburgensia 20, Goteborg 1967) 148.

39Fccli. (Sirach) 10.13. See William M. Green, /nitium omnis peccati superbia: Augustine on Pride as the First Sin (Univ. of Cal.

Pub. in Class. Philology 13.13, Berkeley 1949) 407-31. aol Tams 6210.

41 Aug. sees significance in the fact that in Latin the adj. pri-

290 NOTES vatus ("private") is used as a synonym for proprius (personal, one's own") in referring to the object of the inordinate attachment of a heart that is filled with avarice and therefore pride. Immoderate love of one's own private good leads inevitably to a privation of one's true good; and this principle applies whether there is a question of the fall of the rebel angels or the fall of an avaricious man.

627 Ving: *F4Gorsi3 3: ba. 45Cf. De civ. Dei 14.28: "Two loves have built two cities: the love of self to the contempt of God has built the earthly city; and the love of God to the contempt of self, the heavenly city."

46Saeculum: "the world of men and of time."' See R. A. Markus, Saeculum: History and Society in the Theology of St. Augustine (Cambridge 1970) viii.

47 Aug. reveals here his intention to write his City of God. At this time that work was, in the words of E. Gilson, "still a project": see Gilson's foreword to The City of God in FOC 6.lviii. The De Gen. ad litt. was begun in 401 and finished in 415. The De civ. Dei was begun in 413 and finished in 426.

48John 8.44. It should be noted that Augustine's explanation of the fall of Satan here in 11.14.18 to 11.16.21 had a deep influence on the thought of St. Ignatius Loyola as expressed in the First Exercise of his Spiritual Exercises: see Hugo Rahner, Jgnatius the Theologian (New York 1968) 69-73.

49The text of the first two sentences of ch. 17 as found in z reads as follows: Quomodo enim duxisse vitam beatam inter beatos angelos credi potest, qui futuri sui peccati atque subplicit, td est desertionis et ignis aeterni, |praescius non fuit|? Si praescius non fuit, merito quaeritur, cur non fuerit. The text in m is substantially the same. I have added the brackets to indicate that the bracketed words, praescius non fuit, found in m and z, are not in the MSS (E, P, R, S, B, Bod, and Pal). In the absence of any known MSS authority, I assume that at some late date in the transmission of the text these words were added to supply a predicate for qui.

have rightly removed the interpolated words; but they have made the two sentences into one, thus leaving an awkward and puzzling anacolouthon after gui. This difficulty is eliminated if the first sentence is made to end with potest followed by a question mark, and then by a new sentence beginning with gui (as a connecting relative): Quomodo enim duxisse vitam beatam inter beatos angelos credi potest? Qui futuri sui peccati atque subplicit, id est desertionts et ignis aeterni, si praescius non fuit, merito quaeritur cur non fuerit.

Victorinus, /n epist. ad Eph. 1.21 (Teubner ed. 145,20 Locher; ML 8.1251B), speaks about two classes of angels, potestates vel mundanae vel caelestes. See also Victorinus, Adv. Arium 4.5.7-8 (SC 68.512 Henry-Hadot; ML 8.1116A). In 3.10.14 supra, Aug. noted that some Christian writers were of the opinion that the Devil and his followers were not caelestes or supercaelestes, but he did not espouse that opinion. See n. 34 to Book 3 supra.

51The body as it is in this life is called a "natural body" (corpus animale), after the resurrection it will be a "spiritual body" (corpus spiritale). See 1 Cor. 15.44. Aug. shows, 6.19.30 supra, that Adam's body, even in Paradise, was a natural body. a(aalh6. 1: 33Cf. Rom. 12.12. "Pa244, 55This is based on the theory that there are two categories of angels, mundani and caelestes (or supercaelestes): see n. 50 supra.

56For the "justice of faith," see Rom. 3.21-26. 57These writers attribute the creation of the Devil to God, and therefore they are not Manichees. Their identity is not known. Agaésse-Solignac 49.550 suggest Lactantius as one possibility, but the text is uncertain. Whoever they are, their position differs from that of Aug. in that they hold that God created the Devil in an evil state, whereas he holds-that the Devil was created as a good angel and that he turned away from God by his own free will.

58Job 40.14 (or 40.19). See n. 64 infra, and cf. De civ. Det 11.15. Pos. 103.26: 60The words enclosed in parentheses are found in Bod and Pal, and apparently in all the MSS collated by or for m and z; but the Maurist editors, influenced by a marginal note in the Codex Colbertinus, considered the passage a gloss and removed it

292 NOTES from the text (see note 4./. in m). Zycha and Agaésse-Solignac have followed the MSS (rightly, I believe) and included the passage in the text.

61Gen. 1.31. 62[t is difficult to say whose opinion Aug. has summarized in this paragraph. Since these writers are concerned about harmonizing Gen. 1.31 with their theory that God created the Devil as an evil creature, they are not Manichees but apparently Christians. Apart from the untenable opinion that God created the Devil as an evil creature, the rest of the paragraph is a fair summary of the thoughts of Lactantius on the mixture of good and evil in the world under divine providence. Thus he says, Div. inst. 5.7.8 (CSEL 19.420,16-17 Brandt; ML 6.571B): "... without evil and vice there is no virtue"; and Div. inst. 5.22.17 (CSEL) or 5.23 (ML): "How can a general prove the valor of his soldiers unless he have an enemy?" This concept was a familiar Stoic teaching: see Cic., Nat. deor. 3.35.86 and 3.37—38.90; and it is taken up into his system by Plotinus in his treatise on providence (Enn. 3.2 and 3). Aug. had developed the same theme in De ordine, Bk. 1 (written at Cassiciacum, A.D. 386, when he was preparing for baptism). See Aimé Solignac, S.J., "Réminiscences plotiniennes et porphyriennes dans le début du 'De ordine' de saint Augustin," Archives de philosopbie N.S. 20 (1957) 446-65, esp. 446-50. 63Matt. 25.31. 64Job 40.14 (40.19 in Hebr.). The OL of Aug. (based on LXX) reads: Hoc est initium figmenti Domini, quod fecit ut inludatur ab angelts eius. The Vulg. text is: Ipse est principium viarum Det; qui fecit eum applicabit gladium etus. RSV reads: He is the first of the works (Hebr. ways] of God; let him who made him bring near bis sword. The second line of the text in Hebr. is defective, and translations are conjectural: see Marvin H. Pope, The Anchor Biple: Job (New York 1965) 266. In the context two enormous beasts are described: Behemoth (= the hippotamus?) and Leviathan (= the crocodile?). The words in v. 14 (v. 19) refer to Behemoth. "'Behemoth and Leviathan are symbols of chaotic powers, monstrous, menacing, and incomprehensible to man; yet they, too, are of God's creation; in them he takes pleasure; through them aspects of his being are manifested" (R. A. F. MacKenzie, JBC

1 [1968] "Job," 532). It is not surprising, then, that Aug. and other commentators have taken Behemoth as representing the Devil.

concept of the wicked forming a kind of body of which the Devil is the head was familiar to Aug. from the Liber regularum of Tyconius, Donatist theologian of the late 4th c. (ML

18.15—66). Aug. discusses these rules in De doctr. christ. 3.30.423.37.55 (CCL 32.102-15; ML 34.81-88). The seventh rule is de diabolo et eius corpore. This notion is also found in Cyril of Alexandria, Hilary, Ambrose, and Ambrosiaster, as well as in certain later writers: see Sebastian Tromp, S.J., Corpus Christi quod est ecclesia 1 (2nd ed. Rome 1946) 160-66; and Agaésse-Solignac 49.551-52. 66Cf. Rom. 1.17. CL Ps, 93-15. 68Cf. Matt. 19.28. MCT 1 Cor. 6.3. 70John 8.44. 71Tsa. 14.12-15. 72This is the interpretation of Tyconius, Liber regularum 7 (ML 18.55-56). See Aug., De doctr. christ. 3.37.55 (CCL 32.115,15-

23; ML 34.88), and cf. De civ. Dei 11.15. 73For the concept of the Devil as head of the body of all the wicked, see ch. 22 supra and n. 65.

74Matt. 13.28: Inimicus homo hoc fecit. See Tyconius, Liber reg. 7 (ML 18.61A). 75John 6.70. erates. 24: yas 5,10.

733" Cor: 12712. 79Ezek. 28.12-13. See Tyconius, Liber reg. 7 (ML 18.60), and cf. Aug., De civ. Det 11.15.

↑ Back to top