6^ fyxmW ^mmxii pik^g THE GIFT OF ..!P>VVS,A«-.aiX&ri &rVU. AAX.a.J.:^4C Irr^.l't.l.D.lg.. 4534 '.^1^ ^pm^mfm 111 fhedat^nowlf'iPV'hAthls volume was taken. """ All Books subject to Recall. » Books not needed for instruction or re- search are returnable/' within 4 weeks. Volumes of periodi- cals and of pamphlets life hel^ in the library ''as much as possible. For special purposes ^'ley are given out for limited time. Borrowers should t use their library, ivileges for the bene- ilFSf other persons. Books not needed during recess periods should be returned to the library, or arrange- ments made for their return during borrow- . er's absence, if wanted. Books needed by more than one person are held on the reserve list. Books of special value and gift books, when the giver wishes it, are not allowed to circulate. Marking books strictly for- bidden. « - Readers are asked to report all cases of books marked or muti- lated. Cornell University Library BR65.A92 D294 1906 Sources of the first ten books of August Clin 3 1924 029 218 371 Cornell University Library The original of tiiis book is in tine Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://www.archive.org/details/cu31924029218371 THE SqilRCES OF THK ,I?1RST'' tEN BQOK8 , OIv AOQUSf INE^S: D# CIVITATE DEJ PKIJiCETON. THE SOURCES OF THE FIRST TEN BOOKS OF AUGUSTINE'S DE CIVITATE DEI A THESIS Presented TO THE Faculty of Princeton University FOR the degree OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY By S, Angus, MA. Exspectabat enim fundamenta habentem civitatem cuius artifex et conditor Deus. PRINCETON 1906. 3> A . "2 G 5 7 :■ CONTENTS. Page I Note, 3 2 Bibliography, ..... 4 3 Introductory, ..... 6 I Literary Sources in Books i — x 9 Note on Composition of DCD. by A. F. West, 6o II Annotations on Books i — x 64 III Augustine's Knowledge of Greek 236 Some Theses, 274 General Analysis, 279 Errata, .... 281 SPECIAL ABBREVIATIONS USED. BE — Benedictine Edition (in Migne). DCD— De Civitate Dei. RD — The last sixteen books (Reram Divinarum) in Varro's Antiquitates. NOTE. The following treatise — the work of three happy years — was not at first intended as a thesis fcr a doctor's degree, but has been converted from its original purpose. It was started in the first place at the suggestion of Professor A. F. West, and it is due to his personal encourage- ment that it has been completed. I wish to offer him my sincere thanks for having read through all my work in MS, for calling my attention to some things I had overlooked, and for the help derived from his own MS notes. Thanks are also due to Professors Winans and Westcott for suggestions; also to Dr. E. C. Richardson, Librarian of Princeton University, and to Rev. J. H. Dulles, Librarian of Princeton Theological Seminary, for having procured for me so many books I wished to consult. S. A. Classical Seminary, Princeton University, March, I906. BIBLIOGRAPHY. 1. In preparing this thesis it was necessary to read of Au- gustine's writings the following entire : De Civitate Dei, Con- fessiones, De Doctrina Christiana, De Urbis Excidio, Retrac- tationes, and all his exegetical and controversial works; and in part also the Epistulae (especially the letters to Jerome, Mar- cellinus and Paulinus) and Sermones ; also the following entire : Livy (with the Epitomes), Floras and Eutropius, Velleius Paterculus, Valerius Maximus, Sallust, Cicero's philosophical and rhetorical works, Quintus Curtius, Justin, Orosius, and the remains of Varro and Porphyry ; also most of Aulus Gellius, Apuleius, Minucius Felix, Lactantius, Plotinus, Hy- ginus, and parts of Plutarch, Plato, TertuUian, Arnobius, Cyprian, Rufinus, Paulinus of Nola, Eusebius, Ambrose, Ausonius, Symmachus, Procopius, Sozomen and Socrates; beside consulting other ancient writers incidentally. 2. The list given below excludes standard writers of gen- eral reference, such as Zeller, Momrasen, Milman, Gib- bon, Villemain, Gregorovius, Ozanam, Boissier and Bury ; as well as editions of Augustine and the other ancient writers consulted. An asterisk is prefixed to a few which have been found to be of especial importance. *Agahd, R. : Quaestiones Varronianae (in Jahrbiicher fiir classische Philologie, Supplementband 24. Leipzig, 1897). * Clausen, H. N. : Aurelius Augustinus Hipponensis Sacrae Scripturae Interpres. Hauniae, 1827. Cunningham, W. : S. Austin and his place in the history of Christian thought (Hulsean lectures, 1885). London, 1886. Dill, S. : Roman society in the last century of the Western empire. London, 1898. *Francken, C. H. J.: Fragmenta M. Ter. Varronisquae inveniuntur in libris S. Augustini De civitate Dei, Lugduni Batavorum, 1836. Frick, C. : Die Quellen Augustins im XVIII Buche seiner Schrift de civitate dei. Hoxter, 1886. * Grandgeorge, L. : Saint Augustin et le n^o-platonisme. Paris, 1896. (Bibliothfeque de I'^cole des hautes Etudes, vol. 7.) Jiirges, P. : De Sallustii historiarum reliquiis capita selecta. Einbeck, 1.892. * Kuhlmann, Hermann: De veterum historicorum in Augustini de civitate dei libro primo altero tertio vestigiis. Schleswig, 1900. * Loesche, G. : De Augustino Plotinizante in doctrina de deo. lenae, 1880. McCabe, J. : Saint Augustine and his age. London, 1902. Martin, Jules, Saint Augustin. Paris, 1901. Maurenbreclier: C. Sallusti Crispi Historiarum reliquiae. Leipzig, 1891. Neimann, A. : Augustin's Geschichtsphilosophie. Geifs- wald, 1895. Nourrisson: La philosophie de Saint Augustin (2 vols.). Paris, 1866. * Pirogoff, W. : De Eutropii breviarii ab U. C. indole ac fontibus. Berlin (no date. Thesis for 1873). Poujalet, : Histoirede Saint Augustin (3 vols.). Paris, 1845. *Reuter, H. : Augustinische Studien. Gotha, 1887. Richter, A. : Neu-Platonische Studien. Darstellung des Lebens und der Philosophie des Plotin. Halle, 1867. Saisset, Emiie: La cit6 de Dieu de Saint Augustin, French trans. (4 vols.). Paris, 1855. Schmid, Reinhold: Marius Victorinus Rhetor und seine Beziehungen zu Augustin. Kiel, 1895. Scholar, H. : Augustins Verhaltniss zu Plato in genetischer Entwicklung. Jena, 1897. *Schwarz: De Varronis apud sanctos patres vestigiis in Jahrbiicher fur classische Philologie. Supplementband. Leipzig, 1888, pp. 409-499. Schneegans, C. F. : Appreciation de Saint Augustin d'apres ses travaux sur I'hermdneutique sacrde. Strasbourg, .1848. Seyrich, G. J. : Die Geschichtsphilosophie Augustins nach seiner schrift De Civitate Dei. Chemnitz, 1891. Smith, J. R. : Augustine as an Exegete. (In Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1904). Spence, H. D. W. : Early Cliristianity and Paganism. New York (no date). Trench, R. C. : Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount drawn from the writings of St. Augustine. London, 1869. Zumetikos, A. M. : De Alexandri Olympiadisque epistu- larum fontibus et reliquiis. Berlin, 1894. INTRODUCTORY. This thesis has three parts. The first attempts to ex- hibit completely, and in detail under each author, all the as- certainable literary sources, except the Bible, used by Augus- tine in the first ten books of The City of God. This part on the Literary Sources has been written to include the sources as given by Dombart and Hoffmann, and in addition the con- clusions I have worked out in the second part of this thesis, — the Annotations to Books I-X. In order to do so I have gone over every case where a literary source is required, and have searched all the extant sources to which Augustine could have had access, and several to which he could not, or did not, have access. In the Annotations, which are almost exclusive- ly restricted to the sources not specified in Dombart, when I quote from, or refer to, the writings of Valerius Maximus, Velleius Paterculus, Julius Obsequens, also to Plutarch, Por- phyry, Plotinus and Plato in Greek, and others not mentionedin the part on the Sources, it is not to be supposed that these are suggested as sources for Augustine's knowledge. They are given simply for fulness of detail, or because they have pre- served for us information once found in sources used by Au- gustine but now no longer extant. For example when Plut- arch is quoted, it is because he either confirms Livy (Augus- tine's source for the particular place), or because he has pre- served for us information which was found in portions of Livy now lost, and of which we have only the later epitomes. Similarly Julius Obsequens has been quoted to confirm Livy's own work or to supply the missing part required. The Annotations on books I-X contain matter which could not be treated of in the part on the Sources. The fact that the Annotations has partly the same aim as the part on the Sources may excuse the frequent cross-references, and the perhaps too frequent repetition of the same Latin passages. These latter have been given for the sake of fulness and for convenience of the reader. Each part is intended to supple- ment the other. Biblical passages and references have not been touched upon, as Dombart gives them almost complete. I have, however, added one instance which he has not re- corded. The text adopted as the basis for working has been that of Dombart (2 vols., Leipzig, i877-'92), not without reference to Hoffmann's text. The former is referred to hy page and line throughout the notes; and the pair of heavy-faced numbers given at the edge of the page before each note also refers to Dombart's text. In the Annotations I have not mentioned any of the re- ferences given in Dombart, except occasionally for some parti- cular purpose. As Dombart did not make any special study of the sources, there are but few cases where there is occasion to quote his references, and all such I hope have been acknowl- edged. Dombart himself took his references chiefly from Duebner a.s we learn from his own words: N o t a s 1 o - corum ab Augustino ex aliis libris allegatorum prope omnes ex editione Duebneri, qui in hac operis parte diligentissime versatus est, mutuatus sum. Ad fontes unde Augustinus hauriebat accuratius indagandos, cum mihi neque tempus neque vires sup- peterent, hoc negotii aliis relin- quendum putavi (praef. p. x). For the acknowledged fragments of Varro, where nothing more could be added, reference is made , the editions of Francken, Schwarz and Agahd; but one fragment not noticed by these I have discussed and assigned to Varro. Most of the fragments of Porphyry, to be found in the ten books of City of God which lie within the scope of this thesis, have not hitherto been collected and specifically as- signed to their respective books. I have collected them and attempted to assign each to its source in the light of all evi- dence r could find. The necessity for the third part of this thesis — the part on Augustine's Knowledge of Greek — was suggested by Au- gustine's references to Plato, Porphyry and Plotinus in the DCD. I have not followed any authority here. Besides reading the limited literature on this subject, it was necessary to go over all the Confessions and City of God and all his exegetical and controversial works, as well as several others, with a view to collect the principal evidence bearing upon that subject. For the convenience of readers some of the principal theses maintained are excerpted and printed together at the end. A table of such errata as have been noticed is added. Finally great care has been taken to avoid mistakes in references, but it is to be feared some slips may still remain uncorrected. And now may this slight though laborious contribution to the explanation of Augustine's masterwork be commended to readers in his own closing words: Quibus parum vel quibus nimium est, mihi ignos- cant; quibus autem satis est, non mihi, sed Deo mecum congratulantes agant. S. A. I. Literary Sources of Augustine. De Civitate Dei I-X. We shall take up first those Sources which Augustine him- self mentions as having known, and secondly those Sources which, though not mentioned by him, we have evidence to show he used. A. SOURCES MENTIONED BY AUGUSTINE. I. Among these we find the names of pagan poets all of whom were Latin except Homer. I. CLAUDIAN. In DCD V. 26 he mentions Claudian and quotes from him two verses in praise of Theodosius from the D e t e r t i o consulatu Honorii. He has either given the quo- tation from memory, as we find he has quoted elsewhere, DCD V. 8, and omitted the line fundit ab antris (Aeo- lus armatas hiemes cui, or else this line was not found in his manuscript if he had one. But it is more likely that he has erred in the quotation, as c u i occurs at the same place in both lines and passing from the first cui to the word following the second c u i gives a hexameter line. He says of Claudian a Christi nomine alienus, and this testimony of his should be accepted as we cannot rea- sonably conclude from Claudian's poems that he was a Chris- tian ; and Orosius supports the opinion of Augustine, speaking of Claudian as poeta quidem eximius sed paganus pervicacissimus. The above is the only place in all the writings of Augustine where he mentions Claudian. 2. ENNIUS. This poet he knew through the writings of Cicero, see DCD II. 21, where he cites Ennius from the De Republicaof Cicero. But he had a larger knowledge of Ennius than this, for in De Trinitate 13. 3.6 he quotes a verse of Ennius — found again, slightly different, in Ep. 231.3 — which cannot be found in all the works of Cicero. From DCD VII. 27 we gather that he knew Ennius' translation of the Upa avaypdri of Euhemerus: et quae ad hanc rem pertinentia con- sequuntur, totam de hoc Euhemerus pandit historiam quamEnnius in Lat- inum vertit eloquium, unde quia plu- rima posuerunt qui contra huius modi errores ante nos vel Graeco sermone vel Latino scripserunt, non in eo mihi placuit inmorari — a possage which suggests that Augustine knew more about the Euhemerus of Ennius than he could have got by solely consulting the only place in Cicero where the same translation is referred to (De Natura Deorum 1. 42. 119.) : Quid? qui autfortis autclaros aut potentis viros tradunt post mor- tem ad decs pervenisse, eosque esse ipsos quos nos colere precari venera- rique soleamus, nonne expertes sunt religionum omnium? quae ratio max- ime tractata ab Euhemero est quem noster et interpretatus et secutus est praeter ceteros Ennius. In spite of the simi- larity between this passage and that of Augustine, still Augus- tine's own words quae ad hanc rem perti- nentia consequnntur and non in eo mihi placuit inmor-ari lead us to infer he knew more about this subject than is found in Cicero, if he had seen fit to dwell upon it. 3. HORACE. There are three quotations in the DCD. In DCD I. 3 Augustine quotes Horace (naming him) : secundum illud Horatii Quo semel est imbuta recens serva- bit odorem. Testa d i u. Evidently he kn^w his Horace well enough to quote some familiar commonplaces. In DCD V. 13 he mentions and quotes Horace against the Romans. Augustine there cites him Ep. 1. I. 36 to show that Horace held the same views as he himself did onamorem laudisvitium esse, and again, Odes 2. 2. 9, ad reprimendam domi- nandi libidinem ita cecinit. 4. LUCAN. There are six quotations in DCD. That Augustine used Lucan we are not at all surprised, as Lucan's poem was in itself a rebuke to the Romans, painting in the darkest colours the decadent state of Rome, the corrup- tion of politics, private enmity, public calamity, the horrors of civil war, the dubious attitude toward religion. The pre- prevailing hopelessness of Lucan about his country would find such expression as would suit Augustine to use in his arguments against the pagans. In DCD I. 12 he quotes him (Phar. 7. 819) in connection with the argument for the comparative unimportance of burial, and in III. 13 for the civil war between Caesar and Pompey. In III. 27 he quotes Lucan in proof of the terrible vengeance taken by Sulla on his entry into Rome. In DCD X. 16 he quotes him (Phar. 6.506) for witchcraft. S. PERSIUS. In DCD II. 6 Augustine cites Persius (Sat. 3.66) as an example of the moral lessons which the people ought to hear, but do not hear, at public spectacles, and in the next chapter (II. 7) for a description of passion. 6. TERENTIANUS MAURUS. In DCD VI. 2 (see also DCD vol. 2, p. 257.22) he quotes a hendecasyllabic verse from the poet Terentianus Maurus in praise of the great learning of Varro. Terentianus was an African, like Augustine himself, who may have used as a text- 12 book the poem of Terentianus, De litteris, syllabis, pedibus, metris. In De utilitate credendi 7.17 Augustine says I-, u 1 1 a imbutus poetica disciplina Terertia- num M a u r u m sine m a g i s t r o attingere non auderes. 7. TERENCE. Though Augustine has elsewhere often mentioned and quoted Terence, he does so only once in DCD I-X, namely II. 7, where he cites from the Eunuchus (584). 8. VALERIUS SORANUS. Augustine did not know Valerius Soranus directly, as he found in Varro the two verses he cites from him in support of lovis omnia plena (DCD VII. 9). 9. VIRGIL. Of all the poets mentioned by Augustine he mcde the most frequent and extensive use of Virgil. He quotes him about seventy times in the DCD— more than the total of his quotations from all the other poets. The quotations are i.. ,jsed most heavily in the opening five books. He tells us of his boy- ish interest in the story of Aeneas (Conf. i. 13. 21 sq); and for Virgil he has the greatest praise. Augustine knew his Virgil intimately. He says of him (DCD 1. 3) t e n e r i s ebibitus animis non facile oblivione possit aboleri. He quotes from the Aeneid, the Eclogues and the Georgics, but far most frequently from the Aeneid. Augustine quotes Virgil for Roman history and mythol- ologyinDCDL 2, IIL 2,111. ii,IIL 13, IIL 14, III i6,VIL27; for the pride and high estate of Rome in DCD praef.,1.6, V. 12; for the helplessness of the gods of Rome to protect their worshipers and their need of their worshipers to protect them in DCD I.3: ecce qualibus diis urbem Romani servandam se com- misissegaudebant, 1.4, IIL 7, III 31. In DCD n.22 he quotes Virgil with sarcastic reference to the gods being of- fended at the morals of the citizens ; and for the moral deteri- '3 oration of Rome in DCD III. lo. For the dangers and im- morality arising from the Roman religion he cites the favorite poet of the Romans against themselves in DCD I. ig, where those who died by suicide are represented by Virgil as having an unhappy existence in the under world; in VIII. 19 for the evils of magicae artes, and in X 10 about the many- shaped Proteus. In DCD IV. 9, IV. 10, VII. 9 he quotes him for the all-permeating influence of Jupiter ; compare also DCD IV. I r. In DCD V. 18 he cites him to prove that Brutus who slew his own sons for the sake of his country was i n f e 1 i x. In DCD VI. I the words solentenimess'ead risum f a c i 1 e s are an echo of Virgil Eel. 3. 9 sed faciles nymphae risere. In DCD IX. 16 Augustine probably cites Virgil's clarissima mundilumina indirectly from Apuleius De deo Socratis chap. i. In DCD VII. 9 he cites the line felix qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas with reference to Deusest, inquiunt, habens potestatem causarum quibus aliquid fit in mundo; he quotes him in DCD IX. 4 to describe perfect composure of mind. In X. 30 he shows how Prophyry has refuted one of the doctrines of Virgil in regard to purified souls being called to taste of Lethe. In X. 27 Augustine quotes from the fourth eclogue of Virgil as prophetic of the coming glory of the Kingdom of Christ — p oetice quidem quia in alterius adumbrata persona, veraciter tamen si ad ipsum referas. Lastly we notice what we may term an etymological use of Virgil, in DCD V. 19 from Aen, 7. 266 for the use of the word tyranni; non pessimi atque improbi reges, sed vetere nomine fortes dicti, and again in X. I for c o 1 o n i from Aen 1.12. 10. HOMER. As for Homer, Augustine had read him, though distaste- ful, in his school days (Conf. i. 14- 23). Yet he mentions or quotes him only four (or five) times in the DCD, never in Greek, always in Latin, and doe§ not seem to have made any 14 extensive use of him. In DCD III. 2 he tells us Homer makes Neptune oppose and Apollo favor the Trojans. In DCD V. 8 he quotes two verses quos Cicero in Latinum V e r t i t. He probably found these lines in the De Fato of Cicero ; twice more he refers to Homer on the authority of Cicero, and once on the authority of Varro. In DCD IX. i it is a question whether lovem.. ab Homero fateantur nuncupatum is found in our Homer, except by implication in Iliad I. 222. I do not believe that this statement of Augustine has been made from direct knowl- edge of Homer, as fateantur seems to be against this. I think Augustine took it from Lactantius Div. Inst. 4. 27. 15. See note p. 368. 16. II. Turning now from the poets used and named by Augustine in De Civitate Dei i-x to the prose writers named we find much greater variety. Some of them call for little or no notice. Those mentioned by name in books c-x are (in alphabetical order) Apuleius, Cicero, Aulus Gellius, Justinus, Labeo, Livy, Plato, Pliny, Plotinus, Pomponius, Porphyry, Sallust, L. Annaeus Seneca, Tertullian and Varro. I. APULEIUS. The use of Apuleius is almost exclusively confined to the parts of the DCD which discuss Neoplatonism. The firstmen- tion in the DCD occurs in VIII. 12: in utraque autem lingua, id est et Graeca et Latin a, Apuleius Afar extitit Platonicus nobilis. Augustine mentions the De deo Socratis of Apuleius in DCD VJII. 14: unum scripsit librum cuius esse titulum voluit de deo Socratis. This is the work from which Augustine has quoted most, and the one which he has most severely criticised. In DCD VIII. 14 the earlier part of the chapter (before mention of Apuleius occurs) is evi- dently taken from that author. Augustine uses the quote- word i n q u i u n t twice (p. 341. 10 and 23), and the subject of gods, demons and men, and of their respective places and IS relations, is what we find in the de deo Socratis, and in line 30 he says quae licet apud alios quoque reperiantur, Apuleius de hac re sola scripsit librum. Augustine then briefly explains the subject matter of the de deo Socratis in some general statements. The whole four- teenth chapter is taken in substance from that work. The fifteenth chapter is largely a criticism of the same. In it he still refers to the same author as we see from i n q u i u n t (P- 344- 3) and A p u 1 e i u s. . . . dicit. (p. 344.22). In chap. 16 he begins De moribus ergo daemonum cum idem Platonicus loqueretur and then gives quotations mostly word for word from Apuleius and fol- lows these by a criticism. In chap. 17 he treats of the perturbationes to which Apuleius granted the demons were subject, and shows how unworthy such beings are of worship who are moved by all the passions of humanity; iste Apuleius (p. 347.7). In chap. 18 the criticism of the same work is continued. This same work was in Augustine's mind in chapters 20, 21, 22. In DCD IX. 3 he again quotes from the de deo Socratis and proceeds to criticism, and chap. 4 is connected with this, because the review of opinions of philosophers on d e his animi motibus, TrdOrj or perturbationes arises out of the quotation from Apuleius in the preceding chapter, so that chapters 4 and 5 really continue the criticism. In chap. 6 he again names Apuleius. In chap. 7 he takes up a new subject from Apuleius, namely the distinction of the functions of gods and demons. This is continued (with quotations) in chap. 8 and criticised in chap. 9. Chap. 10, where Augustine introduces the opinion of Plotinus, is a criticism on Apuleius' work, for Augustine has kept him still in mind, as he begins chap. 11 with dicit referring to Apuleius. Chap. 12 gives large quotations from the de deo Socratis with Augustine's criticism which is also continued in chap. 13, and after an excursus devoid of all liter- ary citation in chap. 14 and 15, he returns in chapter 16 to the same author. i6 In DCD X. 9 (ad fin).) he again refers to the de deo Socratis, though not mentioning that work. In X. 27 there is another reference to the same work. We thus see that Augustine was thoroughly conversant with the de deo Socratis of Apuleius, that he has given large quotations from it and attacked it with severe criticism. He was also acquainted with the Asclepius, or Dialogus Hermetis Trismegisti, though he does not refer to it so often or quote so much from it as from the De deo Socratis. He refers first to it in DCD VIII. 23 where he also gives large extracts ; and in chap. 24 he gives a long quotation and then a criticism, and so again in chap. 26. In DCD IV. 2 he refers to and quotes from the De Mundo. Though Augustine has not quoted from the Apologia, or De Magia, it is likely he had read it: he mentions it in connection with magic arts in DCD VIII. 19 extat oratio qua crimen artium magicarum a se alienum esse defendit, seque aliter non vult innocentem videri nisi eanegando quae non possunt ab innocente committi. These words seem to show that he had read it enough to know the method of Apuleius' defense. From Apuleius Augustine no doubt got much general information on theology and philosophy which he does not specifically mention. ' 2. CICERO. ' Cicero is one of the most important of Augustine's sources in DCD I-X. He mentions him by name often : Compare DCD II. 9, II. 13, II, 14, II. 21, II. 27, III. 15, IV, 26, IV. 30, V. 2, V. 8, V. 13, V. 26, VI. 2, VIII. 5, IX. 4, IX. 5. He quotes him verbatim in II. 9 evidently with a copy of Cicero before him, d e i n d e p a u 1 o post (p. 63. 15) and ad verbum excerpenda arbitratus s u m (p 63. 23); II. 13, II. 14, II. 21, III. IS, III. 27, IV. 26, IV, 30, V. 8, V. 13, VI. 2, IX. 5. In DCD. V. 26 we cannot be certain whether the words Omiserum cui 17 peccare licebat are verbatim from Cicero or whether they merely give the sentiment. In DCD II. ii and II. 12 he refers to the De Re pub. of Cicero. The above named passages need no remark. More interesting is it to note the use which Augustine has made of Cicero as an authority ivithout mentioning him as such In DCD I. 3 (p. 8. 9) Augustine uses the expression cordatos homines. The word c o r d a t os savours of Ennius, but as we find only a scanty use of Ennius made by Augustine, it is quite possible that Augustine got this word from Cicero Tusc I. 9. 18 or De Re pub. I. 18. 30 with both of which works Augustine was well acquainted. Of course he may have met the word also in the viri cordati of the vulgate, but not the I t a 1 a of Job 34. 10: but if Augustine had had this in mind he would naturally have writ- ten cordatos viros for cordatos homines. In DCD I. 15 (p. 26.33) Augustine writes Si a u t em dicunt M. Regulum etiam in ilia cap- tivitate illisque cruciatibus corporis animi virtute beatum esse potuisse. Surely here he had in mind Cic. De Finiar. 2.20.65 d i c e t pro me ipsa virtus nee dubitabit isti vestro beato M. Regulum anteponere ■. . . . clamat virtus beatiorem fuisse quam potantem in rosa Thorium. The coincidence of the language and thought suggests that he had Cicero in mind. In DCD I. 22 (p. 36.27) it seems to me that the story of Cleombrotus ille potius Cleombrotusinhac animi magnitudine reperitur quern ferunt lecto Platonis libro, ubi de inmortalitate animae disputavit, se praecipitem dedisse de muro atqueita ex hac vita emigrasse ad eam quam credidit esse meliorem. Nihil enim urgebat aut calamitatis aut criminis must have been suggested by Cicero Tusc. 1.34.84 Cal- limachi quidem epigramma in Ambra- ciotam Cleombrotum est quern ait cum ei nihil accidisset adversi, e muro se in mare abiecisse. There is really no other source used by Augustine, which contains the story. In DCD II. 14 we have the account of Plato's banishing the poets from his ideal state, and his reasons for doing so: Iste vero et deorum iniurias indigne tulit et fucari corrumpique figmentis animos civium noluit. Of course Augustine did not get this from Plato's Republic in the original. He proba- bly had recourse to the fourth book of Cicerp's De Re pub., with which book we know that he was well acquainted, and in which we learn from the casual fragment of Nonius this sub- ject was treated. A somewhat similar notice is found in Tusc 2. 1 1. 27, but we rather think that the fourth book of Cicero's De Re pub. was Augustine's source here (see note p. 69.10). In DCD II. 16 Cicero seems to be Augustine's authority for writing quamvis Lycurgus Lacedae- moniis leges ex Apollinis auctoritate se instituisseconfinxerit. See De Div. 1.43.96 and N.D. 3.38.91; and probably Cicero De Re pub. 2.14.26 was known to Augustine in his account of the civil and relig- ious legislation of Numa Pompilius found in this same chapter, though Livy seems here to be at least a co-ordinate source. Compare Livy 1.19 sq. Cicero is undoubtedly Augustine's authority in DCD II. 20 (p. 79.5) in the story of Sardanapalus. Compare, with the account of Augustine, Tusc. 5.35. loi S a r d a n a.p a 1 1 i qui incidi iussit in busto: Haec habeo quae edi quaeque exsatu- r a t a libido Hausit; at ilia iacent multa et prae- c 1 a"r a r e 1 i c t a . 19 Cicero mentions the voluptousness of the same king in De Finn. 2.32.106, and we know from the scholiast on Juvenal 10.362 that Cicero said something of him in the the third book of the De Re pub. — probably more than the scholiast gives. We know of no other literary source than Cicero from which Augustine could have drawn this narrative so much resem- bling that of Cicero. Perhaps also the contrast between Marius and Regulus in DCD II. 23 was suggested by Cicero Paradoxa 2.16. In DCD III. 9 (p. 106 11) Augustine refers to Cicero in the words : vel ut alii volunt, triginta novem anni, for the length of Numa's reign .This is the number which Cicero gives (De Re pub. 2.14. 27) following the authority of Polybius. Again Cicero is Augustine's chief authority in the account of the death of Romulus and the action of Julius Proculus in DCD III. 15. As we know from the rest of the chapter (on which see notes p. 116. 12, 117.8) Cicero was not his only au- thority, but he has followed him principally, if not altogether, in the opening part of the chapter. Cicero alone is the au- thority for subornatum lulium Proculum. And Augustine shows below that he knew the account of Cicero (p. 116.30) Cicero illam inter deos Romuli receptionem . . . significat quoting from the De Re pub. and for the solis defectio he gives a fragment on p. 11 7. 21 from the Hortensius of Cicero :ut easdem tenebrasefficiat quas effecit in interitu Romuli qui obscur- atione solis est factu-s. The propter ferocitatem a senatu discerptum esse, it is true, does not occur in any of the extant works of Cicero. Livy gives this (1.16.4) as a report which he did not credit : fuisse . . . aliquos qui discerptum regem patrum manibus taciti arguer- e n t . It is possible that Augustine while following Cicero's narrative may have had in his mind this detail from his knowl- edge of Livy, but there is no reason why we should suppose that this dismemberment of Romulus by the Senate was not recorded either in one of the lost parts of Cicero's De Re pub- lica or in the lost Hortensius. In DCD IV. 4 (p. 150.27) we have another clear case where Cicero has been used : Alexandro illi Ma- gno quidam comprehensus pirata re- spondit. Nam cumidem rex hominem interrogasset quid ei videretur ut mare infestaret, ille libera contuma- cia: Quod tibi, inquit, ut orbem ter- rarum; sed quia id ego exiguo navigio facio, latro vocor; quia tu magna class e, imperator. Compare with these words those of Cicero preserved by Nonius (pages 125, 318, 534) M. T u 1 - lius de re pub. lib. 3: nam cum quaer- eretur ex eo quo scelere com pulsus mare haberet infestum uno myoparone: 'code m', inquit, 'quo tu orbem terrae.' There is no doubt but that the passage from which this extract of Nonius is taken would have told the whole story given above by Augustine. Nonius' extract is very incomplete, as he wished to quote only so much from Cicero as would serve his purpose, namely to prove that infestum mare haberet, pro mare latrocinando infes- taret. We see this also from the way the extract begins cum quareretur ex eo , — Nonius not being con- cerned to state or identify the noun (pirata) in Cicero to which the e o refers. P i r a t a in Cicero is all important to the story, but of no importance to Nonius for purely lexical purposes. In DCD IV. 20 (p. 169 15) we must conclude that Cicero is the source : virtutem in quattuor species distribuendam esse viderunt, pruden- tiam, iustitiam, fortitudinem, tem- perantiam. This four-fold division of Plato (De Legg. 1. 631 C), is repeated in Apuleius (De dog. Platonis 2.1) in whose account pudicitiam is the same as tempera n- t i a m of Augustine. See note p. 169. 14 where it is shown Jerome knew that this four-fold division was found in the worlds of Cicero, and from Augustine's own testimony (De Trin. 14.- 9.12) that he found it in the lost Hurtensius of Cicero. It may be noticed that it was found more than once in Cicero, as Jerome speaks of Cicero treating these four virtues in o f - ficiorum libris, while Augustine says D e omni- bus tamen quattuor (virtutibus) . . . Tullius in Hortensio dialogo dispu- tans. There is therefore no doubt that in the DCD IV. 20 Cicero, though not there mentioned, is Augustine's source. For the nobile illud commentum de figuli rota in DCD V. 3 (p. 193.32) there is, so far as I know, no literary authority except this passage of Augustine, and it is impossible to say with certainty whom Augustine has followed in this story. But the probabilities are greatly in favor of Ciceronian authority. See the note on this passage (p. 193.32) in which it is pointed out that the Nigidius Figulus, about whom the story is related, was on very friendly terms with Cicero, had some correspondence with him and is chiefly mentioned in his works. A second argument which I think points in the same direction is derived from the words i n - quit, i n q u i t (p. 194.6 and 9) used parenthetically in relating the story. These words I take as referring still to the same author, namely Cicero, who has been his authority in chap. 2. A third and still stronger argument in support of Ciceronian authority, may be advanced from a close examina- tion of the context. Chap. 3 is closely connected with chap. 2, note i t a q u e , and it is still on the same subject. It begins Frustra itaque adfertur nobile illud commentum de figuli rota. To what does adfertur refer ? In support of what is nobile illud commmentum brought forward ? Only one answer is possible : it refers back to the astrologia treated of in the preceding chapter, in which chapter Cicero was the authority. From all t;his we conclude that he too is the authority for this story in the beginning of chap. 3, which is all the more likely because followed by the words i n q u i t , i n q u i t mentioned already. These three arguments seem to point beyond doubt to Cicero as Augustine's authority here. Moreover if the narrative about Hippocrates and Posidonius Stoicus in DCD V. 2 is referred to the treatise De Fato, to which it seems most natural to assign it, as Dambart and the editors of Cicero do, then I have no doubt n o b i 1 e i 1 1 u d commentum de figuli rota is also a fragment of the same. In DCD V. 5 (p. 197.13) could illud a nonnul- lis praedicatur quod quidam sapiens horam elegit qua cum uxore concum- beret, unde filium mirabilem gigneret be a fragment of Cicero's De Fato ? It is a subject kindred to what we find Augustine has taken from Cicero in chap. 2, and we find in the case of the quosdam fratres (p. 192.12) that Posidonius Stoicus said the position of the stars at the hour of conception had something to do with the subse- quent simultaneous suffering of twins. These considerations render it highly probable Cicero was the source, and that the statement was found by Augustine in the De Fato. In DCD V. 20 (p. 231.6) Cicero was evidently Augustine's mind when he wrote Solent philosophi qui finem boni humani in ipsa virtuteconstituunt tabulam quandam verbis pin- gere ubi voluptas in sella regali quasi delicata quaedam regina considat, eique virtutes famulae subiciantur. From Cic. De Finn 2.21.69 sq. (as Dombart indicates) pudebit te, inquam, illius tabulae quam Cleanthes sane commode verbis depingere solebat. lubebat eos qui audiebant secum ipsos cogitare pictam in tabula voluptatem pulcherrimoves- titu et ornatu regali in solio seden- tem, praesto esse virtutes ut ancillulas 23 quae nihil aliud agerent, nullum' suum officium ducerent nisi ut voluptati ministrarent. For the subject-matter in general of DCD VIII. 2 and 3 it is likely that Augustine had a fair general knowledge of philosophy from what he learned of it in the schools of his day. But one of the literary sources of his knowledge of philosophy in general (excluding Neo-platonism, of course) was no doubt Cicero, not only in his works which are extant but in those no longer extant, particularly the Hortensius. To this last named work we may attribute a large amount of his knowledge of philosophy, both because of the high appreciation he had of this work and because of what we know of its comprehen- sive scope. In Conf. 3. 4. 7 Augustine writes u s i t a t o iam discendi ordine perveneram in librum quemdam Ciceronis, cuius linguam fere omnes mirantur, pectus non ita. Sed liber ille ipsius exhor- tationem continet ad philosophiam et vocatur Hortensius. Ille vero liber mutavit affectum meum et ad teipsum, Domine, mutavit preces meas et vota ac desideria mea fecit alia; and again in Debeatavita 1. 4 postquam in schola rhetoris librum ilium Ciceronis qui Hortensius vocatur accepi, tanto amore philoso- phiaesuccensus sum ut statim ad eam me transferre meditarer. Cicero himself tells us of the scope of the Hortensius : compare Tusc. 2.2.4 Nos autem universae philosophiae vituperatoribus respondimus in Hor- t e n s i o , and ibid. 3. 3. 6 de universa philoso- phia.quanto opere et expetenda esset et colenda, satis, ut arbitror, dictum est in Hortensio, also De Finn. 1.1.2. In such a book there must have been a great amount of information on philosophy in general which Augustine made his own ; and 24 that it contained more tlian philosophy we learn from DCD III. 15 where Augustine says he found in this dia- logue an account of the death of Romulus and the obscuratione soils. We point out these facts to show that this book ought to be given a very high place among the sources of Augustine. In DCD VIII. 4 either Cicero or Apuleius may have been Augustine's source for the narrative of the travels of Plato. The division of sapientia into a c t i v a and contemplativa was probably taught in the schools, but for a literary source Augustine had Cicero, as we learn from the De Trin. 14.19.26 that he found the contem- plativa in the end of the dialogue Hortensius ; and no doubt Cicero treated both of the a c t i v a and contem- plativa. Augustine's literary source for the three-fold division of the Platonic philosophia into m o r a 1 i s n a t u r a 1 i s and r a t i o n a 1 i s was probably Cic. Acad. 1. 5. 19, though no doubt this was taught in the schools in the discussions on Platonism. In DCD VIII. 7 Augustine probably had Cicero in mind while writing notiones quas appellant eVi/otas Compare Tusc. 1.24.57, De Finn 3.6.21, Acad. 2.7.22, 2.10.30. In DCD VIII. 13 Cicero is again the authority in regard to Plato banishing the poets out of his state. No doubt too Augustine must have remembered Cicero in perturbatio est enim quae Graece iraOo's d i c i t u r in DCD VIII. 17. Perhaps he had also Cicero in mind along with Apuleius in DCD IX. i6:Deum quidem summum om-- nium creatorem . . . . sic aPlatone praedicari asseverat, quod ipse sit solus qui non possit sermonis huraani quavis oratione vel modice conpre- h e n d i . Compare Cic. N. D. 1.12.20. 25 In one place Augustine has followed Cicero as against Lactantius, namely, in DCD X. 3 (p 406. 16) religentes, unde et religio dicta perhibetur: compare N.D. 2.28.72 sunt dicti religiosi ex religendo, which Lactantius denies : Div. Inst. 4.28.3. Perhaps also in DCD X. 6 sacrificium res di- vina est, ita ut hoc quoque vocabulo id Latini veteres appellaverint Cicero was in Augustine's thoughts: compare De Div. 2.10.25 ^^^ N.D. 3.18.47. 3. AULUS GELLIUS. This author is mentioned only in one chapter in the DCD, namely IX. 4 (p. 372.9): I n libris quibus titulus est Noctium Atticarum scribit A. Gel- lius, vir elegantissimi eloquii et mul- tae ac facundae scientiae. In addition to this place I have been unable to find evidence in the first ten books of the City of God which would prove that Augustine in these books had specifically followed Gellius, except in one place, DCD I. 14, qui tamen in suis litteris credunt Arionem Methymnaeum, nobil- issimum citharistam, cum esset delec- tus e navi exceptum delphini dorso et ad terras esse pervectum. It is not to be supposed for an instant that Augustine took this story from Herodotus, nor could he have got the given details from Cicero's extant works, and we know of no lost work of Cicero in which the incident was given. It seems then that Augustine took it from Gellius. 4. JUSTINUS. Justinus is named only once in the DCD (IV. 6), and in this place extracts are made from the first book of his epitome of the Historiae Philippicae of Trogus Pompeius. There is no other place, I can find, in the first ten books of the City of God which need be assigned to Justinus. 26 S. LABEO. The Labeo to whom Augustine refers is M. Antistius Labeo the younger, the son of M. Antistius Labeo. The elder Labeo was a jurist and pupil of C. Trebatius Testa, Cicero's young friend. The younger Labeo flourished in the time of Augustine and was one of the two great jurists of that age — the other being C. Ateius Capito. This Labeo was a very voluminous writer, and among other things wrote on Roman religion. No work of his is specified by Augustine and no direct citations given. He evidently wrote on theology and in this department was one of Augustine's sources. Augustine refers to him for a distinction between deities: cum praesertim Labeo, quem huiusce modi rerum peritissimum praedicant, numina bona a numinibus malis ista etiam cultus diversitate distinguat, ut malos deos propitiari caedibus et tristibus supplicationibus asserat, -bonos autem obsequiis laetis atque iucundis, qualia sunt, ut ipse ait, ludi convivia lecti- s t e r n i a (p.66. i). This is referred to again in DCD III. 25 secundum Labeonis distinctionem: com- pare also VIII. 13 (p. 340.34). In DCD II. 14 he tells us Labeo placed Plato among the s e m i d e o s and s e m i d e o s autem heroibus anteponit; sed utrosque inter numina conlocat. Perhaps through Labeo Augustine gained some knowledge of Plato. In DCD IX. 19 we are told that Labeo is one of those who eosdem perhib- ent ab aliis angelos dici quos ipsi daemones nuncupant. Doubtless if we had the works of Labeo extant we should be able to find other traces of him used as a source by Augustine. See note p. 66.1. 6. LIVY. Augustine mentions or identifies Livy only twice in the entire DCD,— II. 24 scribit Livius in connection with the civil wars of Sulla and Marius, and again in III. 7 u t 27 scribit Livius as authority for the survival of the shrine of Minerva amid the burning of Ilium by Fimbria; other- wise he never comes nearer to indicating him than by such a phrase as alii scriptores. Yet Livy is one of his primary sources. But though Augustine only in the two places given above refers to Livy by name, we can prove that he was familiar with the narrative of Livy, and had him often in mind in his historical references, and sometimes very closely follows the words of Livy and twice at least gives a verbatim quotation. In DCD I. 6 Augustine narrates the capture of Syracuse by M. Marcellus, and adds refertur cam prius flevisse ruituram et ante eius sanguinem suas illi lacrimas effudisse. Of Augustine's authorities Livy alone records this, (25.24. ii.) That Livy was Augustine's authority here we have still stronger proof in the words (p. 11. 5) ne quis corpus liberum violaret, which are taken verbatim from Livy 25.25.7; and Livy is the only historian who mentions this edict of Marcellus. In the account of the taking of Tarentum by Fabius Maximus Cunctator Augustine has closely followed the narra- tive of Livy. This will be clearly seen by a comparison of the words of Augustine with those of Livy. The former writes (p. 11. 11) Fabius, Tarentinae urbis eversor, a simulacrorum depraedatione se abstinuisse laudatur. Nam cum ei scriba suggessisset quid de signis deorum quae multa capta fuerant fieri iuberet, continentiam suam etiam ioc- ando condivit. Quaesivit enim cuius modi essent et cum ei non solum multa grandia verum etiam renuntia- rentur armata: 'Relinquamus,' inquit, 'Tarentinis deos iratos.' Livy tells the same in the words: Sed maiore animo generis eius praeda abstinuit Fabius quam 28 Marcellus; qui interroganti scribae quid fieri signis vellet ingentis mag- nitudinis deos iratos Tarentinis relinqui iussit (27.16.8). Here Livy speaks of Fabius' view of the booty, and Livy alone is the authority for the reply of Fabius to the s c r i b a, and in his woric alone Augustine could find the comparison of Marcellus and Fabius. In DCD I. 15 for the details of Regulus' death Augustine probably knew Cicero, as shown in the note on this passage, but in addition to Cicero he had the narrative of Livy in the eighteenth book now lost. Probably if this book were extant we should find that he has followed closely the account of Livy, although he also knew Cicero's remark concerning the happi- ness of Regulus on account of his virtues. For the narrative of Lucretia (DCD I. 19) Augustine had at least two sources. He had heard the story treated as a theme for a rhetorical exercise (quidam declamans ait, DCD I. 19), from which he got the words m i r ab i 1 e dictu,duo fuerunt et adulterium unus a d m i s i t . Also he knew the account of Livy, as he seems to agree with Livy in mentioning only CoUatinus and Brutus as present at the suicide of Lucretia. (Livy 1.58.) In DCD I. 23 Livy's lost one hundred and fourteenth book was no doubt the authority for the opinion of Cato's friends in regard to his suicide and for his advice to his son In DCD I. 30 and I. 31 Augustine's knowledge of Scipio Nasica pontifex maximus was derived from Livy who gives the details recorded in Augustine. The same Scipio is mentioned in DCD II. 5. Also in the account of the institution of the 1 u d i s c a e n i c i (DCD I. 32) the words of Augustine, p o p u 1 o bellicoso et soils an tea ludis circen- sibus adsueto, seem to be an echo of those of Livy nova res bellicoso populo, nam circi modo spectaculum fuerat (7.2.3.). 29 If such a general statement as non aliquot annos rjost Romam conditam abAthe- niensibus mutuarentur leges Solonis (DCD II. i6) is to be referred to a specific literary source we may find such a source in Livy 3.31.8; m i s s i 1 e g a t i Athenas iussique inclitas leges Solonis describe re. Livy is probably the primary source used in the reference to the activity of Numa Pompilius in establishing laws and ceremonial rites; though Augustine does not speak enough in detail to enable us to decide between Cicero and Livy here. Augustine begins DCD II. 17 with a remark taken from Sallust (whom he mentions) and then leaves Sallust and passes on to illustrate Sallust's words by examples taken from Livy. He first mentions the rapt as S a b i n a s, the source of which is found in Livy i. 9. This might have been taken also from Cic. De Re pub. 2.7.12, and Augustine's language is too vague to resemble either; but it seems more likely that Livy is his source, as he is in the remainder of the chapter; though we shall find instances in which Augustine has made use of more than one authority in the same chapter. See DCD III. 9, III. 15, III. 16, III. 19 with the notes. Livy 2.2 is the source for the expulsion of Lucius Tarqiii- nius Collatinus by Brutus, as also for the narrative of Camillus as given in the same chapter. Livy is the only authority, as Kuhlman points out (De veterum historicorum in Augustini de civitate Dei libro primo altero tertio vestigiis. p. 11), for absens etiam damnaretur. It has been proved in the note on p. 86.23 that Livy was the source for the account of Marius in DCD II. 23. Livy is mentioned by Augustine in the beginning of DCD II. 24, and we cannot doubt that the source of the other incidents in DCD II. 24 and II. 25 is Livy. In the words quod illi quadraginta tres anni in tam longa pace transact! sunt regnante Numa (DCD J II. 9) it is difficult 3° to say whether Augustine is following Livy or Eutropius, or both, as both give the same number of years. Augustine has not confined himself to only one authority in this chapter, as we know from the words triginta novem, which he found in Cicero. The lost fifty-ninth book of Livy was the source for the incident related in the opening lines of DCD III. ii. It is true that the same incident is referred to in Julius Obsequens 28, but Augustine has given details not found there, and which we may reasonably assign to the lost narrative of Livy. Livy may have been included by Augustine in the alii scriptores DCD III. 15 (p. 1 1 7. 8) as Livy Florus and Eutropius speak of the tempest at the death of Romulus. In DCD III. 16 Livy seems to have been the source for Brut us consanguineus Tarquinii fuisse perhibetur; compare L. lunius Brutus, Tarquinia, sorore regis, natus (i. 56. 7). It is worth noting that in DCD., III. 16 (p. 121. 7) while Augustine has Eutropius before him, he corrects the error of that author in regard to the praenomen of Valerius from Livy 2.8.9. In DCD III. 17 and III. 18 Augustine has followed the narrative and order of Livy for a conspectus of the disasters of Rome from the death of the consul Valerius to the end of the first Punic war. For the details see the notes on this part. For some of the events referred to there is no extant authority, but it is shown in the notes that these may all be placed with good reason in the lost parts of Livy's work which covered this period. In these two chapters (17 and 18) I have not been been able to find any trace of the use of any other historian but Livy. He alone was Augustine's authority, and we con- clude from the manner in which he has followed the order of Livy's narrative that he had a copy of Livy before him for reference. This is not generally so in Augustine's use of Livy, as he seems to have found him too long and full to consult continuously^pften only having him in memory for his general narrative. 31 Kuhlmann admits only Livy and Florus as sources used by Augustine in DCD III. 19 and does not think Augustine used Eutropius here. With this I cannot agree. Kuhlmann says (work cited above p. 12) Itaque enim in 1. Ill capitibus 19, 20 componendis Livius Augustino praecipuus fuit auctor, praeter eum Florus adhibitus. This is true as far as it goes. But I have shown in the note p. 129. i that the words tres modios anulorum aure- orum Cathaginem misit occur verbatim and in the same order in Eutropius (Brev. 3.11). One might say, however, that this is the only way of expressing in Latin " he sent three modii of gold rings to Carthage." Even supposing two different authors independently of each other, expressed the same thing by the same words in the same order, yet for the amount of rings sent Eutropius seems to be the sole authority. Kuhlmann says (p. 7) Atque quod Augustinus 'tres modios anulorum,' Livius autem 'supra tres modios' Car- thaginem esse missos tradidit, minor mihi videtur discrepantia esse quam ut Augustinum ex Livio pendere ea de causa negetur. This might be so, if Livy had written as Kuhlmann has cited him; though even thus it seems to be more natural to suppose he is using Eutropius as his authority. But Kuhlmann has omitted d i m i d i u m before supra tres modios in Livy 23. 12.1, which renders it the more improbable that Livy was Augustine's authority. Again, if Augustine were following Livy here, it is likely he would have taken notice of the dimidium supra tres modios or even supra tres modios, as it is evidently by no means Augustine's purpose to minimise the disasters of Rome. On the contrary he gives details to show the greatness of the disasters and thus heighten the effect of his own argument. For example in this chapter he uses the words of Florus similior victo fuerit ille qui v i c i t (p. 128. 19); and in the battle of Cannae he 32 says the slaughter was so great that Hannibal c a e d e satiatus parci iussisse perhibetur(p. 128. 29, not found in Livy) ; and so great was the want of soldiers after this defeat that to the s e r v i t i a (p. 129.9) he adds the r e o s f a c i n o r u m (p. 129.8 — not found in Florus or Eutropius). A similar tendency may be noticed in the v e 1 nono (p. 130.10) and in the dubious addition of nam etiam suorum cadaveribus a nonnullis pasta perhibetur (p. 130.13). Another objection to Livian authority here seems to me to be found in the state- ment of Livy immediately following the d i m i d i u m supra tres modios,to the effect that one m o d i u s was nearer the truth ; Fama tenuit, quae pro- pior vero est, haut plusfuisse modio. Even if Augustine wished to give the higher number, he could hardly in justice have passed over this express declaration that the smaller number was nearer the truth. • Thus in DCD III. 19 Augustine no longer adheres to the work of Livy alone, but passes over to Florus whom he in some respects closely follows for the second Punic war. His use of Florus here will be noticed in its place. Once also he has adopted the account and followed the words of Eutropius. Yet Augustine proves from his own account that, though he has called to his service Florus and Eutropius in chapter 19, he was acquainted with Livy's history of the second Punic war. He supplemented or corrected Florus whom he had before him from his recollection of the account of Livy. The following words deserve note: — D enique tanta militum inopia secuta est ut Romani reos fa- cinorum proposita inpunitate colli g- erent, servitia libertate donarent... Servis...arma defuerunt. Detractasunt t e m p 1 i s. Here Augustine follows Florus (Epit. 1.22.23) as far as the words are concerned, but Livy for the matter. He had the narrative of Livy in his mind and that of Florus before his eyes. He unites both, giving the preference to Livy. 33 In the next chapter (III. 20) Augustine has departed more from floras and returned to Livy. In the words m i s s i legati ad Hannibalem Contempti Carthaginem pergunt he has followed Livy who gives the double embassy (21.9.3). Florus gives only a single mission (Epit. 1.22.7). Livy again was his only authority for octavo (p. 130.10). See Livy 21. 15.3 octavo mense quam coeptum oppugnari captum Saguntum quidam scripsere. Another point of contact between Augustine's narrative and that of Livy has been pointed out by Kuhlmann (De veterum historicorum in Augustini de civitate Dei libro primo altero tertio vestigiis p. 12) namely, that both Augustine and Livy call Saguntum civitas opulent issima (Augustine p. 130.8, Livy 21.7.2). In DCD III. 2 1 Augustine returns to Livy as his sole authority. He opens the chapter with a notice of Sallust's statement about the morality and peace of Rome between the second and third Punic wars. But for the historical facts there is no trace of any other historian except Livy, to whom he has adhered closely, even quoting his words. Compare n u 1 1 o illius urbis captus desiderio and n e saltern mortuo in ingrata patria funus f i e r e t with Livy 38.53.8: sine desiderio urbis and ne funus sibi in ingrata patria f i e r e t . There is also a striking resemblance between the words of Augustine in this chapter :Asiatica liixuria Romam omni hoste peior inrepsit. Tunc enim primum lectiaerati et pre- tiosa stragula visa perhibentur; tunc inductae in convivia psaltriae et alia licentiosa nequitia, and those of Livy : L u x- uriae enim peregrinae origo ab exer- citu Asiatico invecta in urbem est. li primum lectos aeratos, vestem stragulam, pretiosam, plagulas et alia textilia et, quae tum magnificae 34 suppellectilis habebantur, monopodia et abacos Romam advexerunt. Tunc psaltriae sambucistriaeque et convi- valia alia ludorum o b 1 e c t a m e n t a addita epulis (Livy 39.6.7.). The reference to the massacre of Romans by the order of Mithridates DCD III. 22 is too vague to assign with certainty to Livy. DCD III. 24 is to be referred to the lost sixty-first book of Livy. Florus cannot be the authority, as there are details given which are wanting in that author, namely L. O p i m i u s ....tria milia hominum occidisse per- h i b e t u r , and haec enim pactio caedem praecesserat, and occisus est cum libris Marcus Fulvius consularis. To the same lost book of Livy we must refer the a e d e s Concordiae facta est of DCD III. 25. See note p. 136. 25. Perhaps, as pointed out in the note on p. 138.9, the e x paucissimis, hoc est minus quam sep- tuaginta, gladiator ibus of DCD III. 26 is to be referred to the lost ninety-fifth book of Livy. It is not a fatal objection to this that Epit. 95 gives quattuor et septuaginta. Kuhlmann (De veterum historicorum in Augustini de civitate Dei libro primo altero tertio vestigiis, p. 19) would also refer to Livy the differences between Augustine's narrative in DCD III. 27 and that of Florus, viz. Baebiuset Nu- mitorius unco tracti sparsis visceri- bus interirent and In ipsius autem Marii oculis continuo feriebantur, quibus salutantibus dexteram porri- gere noluisset. Perhaps these differences do neces- sitate the introduction of another authority, which, of course, would be Livy. This passage is more fully treated under Florus. 3S Livy is also the authority for the prodigies of DCD III. 31 as shown in the notes. In DCD IV. 20, for Mucius, Curtius and the Decii, Livy must be posited as the source, as Eutropius does not give these details, and Florus does not mention Curtius, while Livy gives them all. It is impossible in DCD IV. 23 to say whether Augustine got deae (Felicitati) post tot Romanos principes Lucullus aedem constituit in Varro, or in the lost forty-eighth book of Livy, the epitome of which tells of Lucullus' imprisonment by the tribunes and his subsequent campaigns in Spain. In DCD V. 18 Augustine has followed three different authorities Livy, Florus and Eutropius, though Kuhlmann (work cited above p. 6) admits only Livy, and Eutropius: for the use of Florus here see note p. 227. 5. In the first part of the chapter Livy is the authority for the death of the sons of Brutus by their father's order, also that of Torquatus' son, for Furius Camillus, Mucius, Curtius and Marcus Pulvillus. In connection with the last Augustine writes d e d i c a n s aedem lovis lunonis Minervae (p. 226. 10) and Livy lovis a e d e s (2.8.6), and Kuhlmann remarks (work cited above p. 6) that Augustine ex sua rerum cognitione Livi verbis 'lovis aedes' addit 'lunonis Minervae,' nam lovis templum ex dextra et sinistra parte lunonis et Minervae cellam ha- buisse nulli illorum temporum viro docto non notum erat. This seems to be the last use of Livy as an authority by Augustine in the first ten books of the City of God. There is, so far as I know, no pas- sage in books VI, VII, VIII, IX or X in which there is any trace of Livy. Thus the employment of this author as a source is limited to the first of the two sections (I-V and VI- X), of the first part of the DCD (I-X). 36 7. PLATO. This author is mentioned often by Augustine, for which see Dombart's index. Little need be said about Plato as a source, for it will be shown in the thesis on Augustine's knowl- edge of Greek that he did not know Plato in the original. His knowledge of Plato was gained from the philosophic dis- cussions in the schools of his day and especially from Neo- platonism. He had some Latin versions of parts of Plato's writings, such as those made by Cicero. Cicero's works in general and those of Apuleius added to his store of knowledge of Plato. In reading the City of God we find after all a very limited use of Plato, though Augustine speaks highly of him. The references (always in Latin versions) are not frequent nor specially significant, as they usually are either commonplaces or mere inferences, or if specific, come entirely through Cicero or Apuleius. Possibly he got some knowledge of Plato from the D e P h i 1 o- s o p h i a of Varro which he knew (DCD XIX 1-3). 8. PLINIUS. Pliny the elder is mentioned by name in the DCD XV. 9, XV. 12; but in the first ten books the only use of Pliny seems to be VIII. 15 (p. 343. 18) serpentibus, qui etiam deposita tunica senectutem de- ponere atque in iuventam redire per- h i b e n t u r, if indeed it is necessary to find a literary source for so common a phenomenon which Augustine must have observed for himself. See note on p. 343. 18. 9. PLOTINUS. Augustine's relation to Plotinus, which is not so marked in the DCD as in some other works, has been sufficiently worked out by others, especially by Grandgeorge and Loesche. All the references to Plotinus occurring in the DCD are given by Dombart, except in X. 2 which I have supplied. See note to p. 404. 18. Perhaps Augustine had Plotinus in mind also in DCD V. II. See note p. 210.31. 37 lo. POMPONIUS. A certain Pomponius is mentioned in DCD IV. i6: u t ait Pomponius, in connection with the explanation of the deity Murcia. It is impossible to say which Pomponius this was, and probably Augustine did not know him at first hand, but found him mentioned in the work of Varro treating of Murcia. II. PORPHYRY. There is no doubt that Porphyry is one of the Neo- platonists whom Augustine informs us in his Confessions he read through the Latin version of Victorinus. Porphyry is the chief literary source for the lath book of the DCD. Augustine mentions him in DCD VII. 25 and in VIII. 12. But in book X there is frequent and extensive use of him; see X. 9, X. 10, X. II, X. 19, X. 21, X. 23, X. 24, X. 26, X. 28, X 29, X. 30, X. 32. Porphyry's epistula ad Anebontem is mentioned in X. 11: cum ad Anebontem scripsit Aegyptium; the de regressu animae X. 29: quos de regressu animae scripsit and X. 32. The fragments or these found in this part of Augustine are collected in my notes on this book, and in the case of the De regressu animae, I think for the first time. In addition to these works of Porphyry we have evidence in DCD VII 25 and from Euseb. Praep. Evang. 3. 11 that Augus- tine also used Porphyry's irepi dyaX/xdroiv. See note p. 306. 23. In DCD X. 21 we have reason to believe from the evidence of Euseb. Praep. Evang. 4. 23 that the dicit bonum deumvel geniumnon venire in hominem nisi malus fuerit ante placatus is a fragment of the -n-epi t-^9 €k \oyiwv iva Xeyovcri wroXajSovra efevEi/cai €7ri Taivapov. Augustine,, however, hardly went to Herodotus for it. Nor could he well get it from Cicero, who only once (Tusc. 2.27.67) refers to Arion: praesto est qui exci- piat vel delphinus ut Arionem Methym- naeum. Compare Ovid Fasti 2.110 sq. Hyginus Fab. 194 also gives a full account. But I have no doubt that Augustine got the story from Aulus Gellius, whose writings he refers to in the DCD IX.4. See N. A. 16. 19 where Gellius gives it on the authority of Herodotus : fabulam scripsit Hero- dotus super fidicine illo Arione. 25. 21. Marcus Regulus, imperator populi Romani Captivus apud Cartha- ginienses fuit. Qui cum sibi mallent a Romanis suos reddi quam eorum tenere captivos ad hoc impetrandum etiam istum praecipue Regulum cum legatis suis Romam miserunt, prius iuratione coDstrictum si quod volebant rainime peregisset rediturum esse Carthagi- nem....in senatu contraria persuasit ....Nee post hanc persuasionem a suis ad hostes redire compulsus est. ..At illi eum excogitatis atque horrendis cruciatibus necaverunt. Inclusum quippe angusto ligno, ubi stare cogeretur, clavisque acutissimis undique confixo ... etiam vigilando peremerunt. 76 There were many sources of information at hand in regard to Regulus which Augustine might consult. See Livy Epit. i8 Regulus missus a Carthaginien- sibus ad senatum ut de pace et, si eam non posset impetrare, de commutadis captivis ageret, sed iure iurando ad- strictus rediturum se Carthaginem si commutari captivos non placuisset, utrumque negandi auctor senatui fuit, et cum fide custodita reversus esset, supplicio a Carthaginiensibus de eo sumpto perit. Also Florus Epit. i. i8. 23 sq. Eutrop. Brev. I. 21, I. 25. Val. Max. i. 1. 14, 9. 2. Ext. i, C a r - thaginienses Atilium Regulum palpeb- ris resectis machine in qua undique praeacuti stimuli eminebant, inclusum vigilantia pariter et continuo tractu doloris necaverunt. Also Cic. De Off. 3. 26. 99. sq. In 3. 27. 100 Cicero writes vigilando necaba- t u r which Augustine may have had in mind in writing vigilando peremerunt, Id. De Finn 2. 20. 65 cum vigiliis et fame cruciaretur. In such variety of authors it is impossible to say Augustine used only one or, if so, which one, while it would seem from the words (p. 26, 33) Si autem dicunt M. Regulum etiam in ilia captivitate illisque cru- ciatibus corporis animi virtute beatum esse potuisse that Augustine bad before him Cicero dicet pro me ipsa virtus nee dubitabit isti vestro beato M. Regulum antepo- nere...clamat virtus beatiorem fuisse quam potantem in rosa Thorium (De Finn. 2. 20. 65) . See id. 5. 29. Si. Yet Augustine must have had in mind also the detailed account of Regulus as was found in the eighteenth book of Livy, now no longer extant, in which no doubt something corresponding to vigilando pere- merunt was found, and probably in the main Augustine has here followed Livy's account. 77 27. 3- cum aliud civitas non sit quam concors hominum multitudo. See Augustine's letter to Marcellinus (Ep. 138, 10) quid est autem civitas nisi multitudo homi- num in quoddam vinculum redacta Con- cordia? See C i . D e Re pub. i. 25. 39. Augustine discusses Cicero's theory of the state in DCD XIX. 21. 30. 14. Obstetrix virginis cuiusdam integritatem manu velut explorans sive malevolentia sive inscitia sive casu, dum inspicit, perdidit. This is some story for which there appears to be no literary source except this passage. 31. 12. Lucretiam certe, matronam nobilem veteremque Romanam, pudici- tiae magnis efferunt laudibus. Huius corpore cum violenter oppresso Tar- quinii regis filius libidinose potitus esset, ilia scelus improbissimi iuvenis marito Collatino et propinquo Brute ...indicavit eosque ad vindictam con- strinxit. Deinde...se peremit. Augustine's account seems to follow the story as told in detail by Livy (i. 57-59). See also Floras Epit. i. i. 7, and Eutrop. Brev. 1.8.2: Nam cum filius eius et ipse Tarquinius iunior nobilissimam feminam Lucretiam eandemque pudi- cissimam, Collatini uxorem, stuprasset eaque de iniuria marito et patri et amicis questa fuisset, in omnium con- spectu se occidit. Eutropius thus adds e t a m i - c i s which is not given in Livy nor followed by Augustine. Compare Cic. De Finn. 2. 20. 66 who says testata civis, Id. 5. 22. 64, De Re pub. 2. 25. 46 : p a t r i s e t p r o p i n - quorum. De Legg. 2. 4. 10, Ovid Fasti 2. 760 sq. 78 Juv. 10. 293. While these sources give substantially the same account, Augustine does not follow them but Livy, who seems to make only Brutus and CoUatinus go to see Lucretia, and adds conclamat vir paterque (Livy 1. 58) after her suicide before their eyes. Dion. Hal. Antiq. Rom. 4. 64 gives the fullest account of the interview previous to the crime. 31. 20. Egregie quidam ex hoc vera- citerque declamans ait: 'Mirabiledictu, duo fuerunt et adulterium unus admisit'. Nothing nearly approaching to these words is found in any account of Lucretia with which I am acquainted. Augus- tine says they were spoken by quidam declamans, and they evidently came from a declamation in some school of rhetoric. Juvenal Sat. 1. 16. and 7. 150 and Quintilian Inst. Or. 10. 5. 13-14 give some samples of the subjects chosen for such declamations, and this famous incident was probably a trite theme. Compare for the form of the expression Livy i. 58. 7, ceterum corpus est tantum violatum, animus insons. 31. 29, Nam ille patria cum patre pulsus est. The source is Livy i. 60. 2 ; for the passage see note on 31. 12. 34. 4. in Sanctis canonicis libris. Augustine in the De Doctrina Christiana, chap. 8, gives his opinion of the nature and number of the libri canonici, from which we learn that the canon as received by Augustine included all the books of our present Bible, and the apocrypha also. 35. 4, Manichaeorum errori. Augustine was a follower of this sect for nine years and was well acquainted with all their tenets; Conf. 4. i : Per idem tempus annorum novem, ab unde- vigesimo anno aetatis meae, usque ad 79 duodetrigesimum seducebamur et se- ducebamus, falsi atque fallentes in variis cupiditatibus. After his conversion he bitterly opposed the system of Manichaeism as may be seen from his numerous attacks on it in his Confessions. He also wrote many works to refute it, among which are De moribus Manichaeorum, De libero arbitrio, De vera religione, De duabus animabus contra Manichaeos, Contra Adimantum Manichaei discipulum, Contra epistolam Manichaei quam vo- cant fundamenti, Contra Faustum Manichaeum, De actis cum Felice Manichaeo, De natura boni, Contra Secundinum, De Genesi contra Manichaeos, Disputatio contra Fortunatum. Manichaeism held good and evil to be coordinate and eternal. Compare Augustine, De Haeresibus46: Man- ichaei a quodam Persa exstiterunt, qui vocabantur Manes.... Iste duo prin- cipia inter se diversa et adversa, ea- demque aeterna et coaeterna, hoc est semper fuisse, composuit:duasquena- turas atque substantias, boni scilicet etmali....opinatusest. Quarum inter se pugnam et commixtionem et boni a malo purgationem, et boni quod pur- gari non poterit, cum malo in aeternum damnationem secundum sua dogmata asseverantes. . . . et passim. 36. 27. Illepotius Cleombrotusinhac animi magnitudine reperitur, quem ferunt lecto Platonis libro, ubi de im- mortalitate animae disputavit, se prae- cipitem dedisse de muro atque ita ex hac vita emigrasse ad eam, quam cre- didit esse meliorem. Nihil enim urge- bat aut ca.lamitatis aut criminis. Compare Cic. Tusc. i. 34. 84: C a 1 1 i m a c h i q u i - dem epigramma in Ambraciotam Cleom- 8o brotum est quern ait, cum ei nihil ac- cidisset adversi, e muro se in mare abiecisse lecto Platonis libro. Compare also Cic. Pro Scauro 3. 4. which seems to be the literary- authority for saying the book was the Phaedo. Compare Lact. Div. Inst. 3. 18. 9. quid A m b r a - ciotes ille, qui cum eundem librunii perlegisset, praecipitem se dedit nullam aliam ob causam nisi quod Pla- toni credidit? 38. I. nisi ilium Catonem qui se Uticae o c c i d i t . See Livy Epit. 114, Florus Epit. 2. 13. 71 sq., Val. Max. 3. 2. 14, Lact. Div. Inst. 3. 18. 8, Aul. Gell. N. A. 12.20. 3, 11, 14. Augustine probably derived this information from Livy 114, of which we have only the epitome in which is briefly mentioned the suicide of Cato. Here also we may conjecture Augustine found authority for writing quod a m i ci eius etiam docti quidam viri qui hoc fieri prudentius dissuadebant, imbe- cillioris quam fortioris animi facinus esse censuerunt (p. 38. 5). 38. 10. Nam si turpe erat sub victoria Caesaris vivere, cur auctor huius tur- pitudinis filio fuit, quem de Caesaris benignitate omnia sperare praecepit? The fact that Cato Uticensis commanded his son to hope from the clemency of Caesar does not seem to be mentioned in the writings of Cicero, Florus, Eutropius, Valerius Maxi- mus, Velleius Paterculus, Lactantius or Aulus Gellius. It is most likely that Augustine found this in the 114th book of Livy of which we have only the epitome in which we find the words interveniente filio, so that Cato's son was pre- sent at his father's death ; and no doubt on this occasion he received the above advice from his father. Another source in which Augustine might have found this information was the 8i iyKuifiLov KaTwvos which Plutarch (Vitae, Caes. 54 and Cic. 39) informs us was written by Cicero. Compare Aulus Gellius 13.20.3M. Catonis, praetorii viri, qui belle civili Uticae necem sibi gladio manu sua conscivit, de cuius vita liber est M. Ciceronis qui inscribitur laus Catonis; of which we are assured by Cicero himself De Div. 2. 2. 3, Cato noster in horum librorum numero ponendus est. Orator 10. 35 Catone abso- lute. Ad Att. 12. 4. 2 de Catone ■n-pofiXruj.a 'ApxlmSuov est....; ibid. , 12. 5. 2, 12. 40. I, 12. 41. 5, 12. 44. I. 13- 27. I, 13. 46. 2 1 e g i e p i s t o 1 a m (i. e. Cae- saris ad Balbum) : multa de meo Catone. Top. 94 Caesar contra Catonem meum. Compare also Tac. Ann. 4. 34, Quintilian 5. 10. 10 But it is more probable that Livy was Augustine's authority. 38. 13. Nam si eum filium, qui contra imperium in hostem pugnaverat, etiam victorem laudabiliter Torquatus occidit. See Livy 8. 7 who gives a detailed account too long to cite. Cic. De Off. 3. 31. 112., De Finn. i. 7. 23., pro Sulla 11.32: An vero clarissimum virum generis vestri ac nominis nemo reprehendit, qui filium suum vita privavit ut in ceteros firmaret imperium. See also Florus Epit. i. 9., Val. Max. 2. 7. 6. Aulus Gellius N. A. 9. 13 relates the incident on the authority of the older historian Quadrigarius. 38. 21. tantum gloriaeipsiusCaesaris, ne ab illo etiam sibi parceretur, ut ipse Caesar dixisse fertur, invidit. Augustine no doubt found this statement in one of the lost books of Livy of which we have only the epitome. The only now extant Latin source that Augustine could have con- sulted would seem to be Val. Max. 5. i. 10 Catonis quoque morte Caesar audita et se illius 82 gloriae invidere et ilium suae invidissc dixit. But Augustine did not make use of Valerius Maximus. Compare Plutarch, Vitae, Cato 72 is Se ijKova-e tov ddvarov avTOV X.eyeTai to(tovtov eiTreic ''fi Kareov, (l>Oov!o croi tov davdrov • xai yap c/xot (TV T^s cravTou croirrjpLa's e(j>96vT](ra^ . Id. Vitae, Caesar 54 wnich gives almost the same words. Compare also Zonaras, a twelfth century writer, who followed and epitomized D i Cassius, Epit. Hist: 10. 10. 13. Also Appian, Bellum Civile 2. 99: Si Kalcrap ir] fJLev oi 6ovrjaLv6fJievov 7rpo<7eTn(j}V€iv " outcos So/cei 8c /xoi KOI KapxrjSbva fjiij etvat " tovvuvtiov hi no-!rA.ios %klttlwv 6 NacrtKas fTriKoXovp.e.vo'; ad SuTc'Xei \iyuiv koX a.Tro(l>aiv6jxivov Kol Tw TvXrjOii TrtSavcoraTos Id. 5. 16. also Aristoph. Ach. 289. avoLidxuvTOi €1 KOL pSeXvpbi w irpoSoTa t-^s irarptSos. Cf. Id. ibid 377, 659; Vesp. 62, 242, 596, 759. For Kleophon see Aristoph. Thesm. 805. Kai KXeocf>u)v x^'p'"'' i"'*'''''^? 8rj/jLov 'S,aXafia)^ov's Id. Ranae 678. 91 For Hyperbolus see Thuc. 8. 73: 'Yirip^oXov rt nva tZv ' AOyjvaiuiv ^ IJ.o\6r]p6v avOptairov, (oo-TpaKicrjiie'vov .... Sia novrjpLav Kal al(T)(yvr]v irdXetos, also Aristoph., Eq. 1304 avSpa p.o)(6rip6v TToXiTrjv o^iv-qv "YTripfioXov. 63. 9. i n q u i t This word both in the singular and plural has two distinct uses in the DCD: (i) as a quote-word which Augustine uses to show he is quoting the words of an author. In this use it is equivalent to our quotation marks in printing or writing; (2) a much less frequent use as equivalent to our "they say," or the Greek Xiyova-iv, or French "on dit, " or German "man sagt." 65. 10. quod in eo quoque de re publi- ca libro commemoratur, Aeschines Atheniensis, vir eloquentissimus, cum adulescens tragoedias actitavisset, rem publicam capessivit et Aristode- mum, tragicum item actorem maximis de rebus pacis ac belli legatum ad Philippum Athenienses saepe mise- runt. This is the only place where this fragment is preserved. Mueller gives it, De Re pub 4. 11. 13. 66. I. cum praesertim Labeo, quem huiusce modi rerumperitissimumprae- dicant, numina bona a numinibus malis ista etiam cultus diversitate distinguat, ut malos deos propitiari caedibus et tristibus supplicationibus asserat, bonos autem obsequiis laetis atque iucundis, qualia sunt, ut ipse ait, ludi convivia lectisternia. There is some difficulty in regard to the person of this Labeo. There were several Labeones. Who is the Labeo to whom Augustine here refers and what was his praenomen ? Other writers speak of Labeo without an additional name. 92 We must try to decide on this question by considering some of tlie references to Labeo, and the nature of the works which he is reported to have written. There seems to be some con- fusion between an Antistius Labeo and a Cornelius Labeo, and to one or other of these Augustine refers. The Bened. note (ad h. 1) reads Labeones exstitere tres, iuris civilis scientia clari;sed unus omnium doctissimus Antistius Labeo qui cum Caesare Au. gusto vixit, non iuris mode sed tot i. us antiquitatis peritissimus de quo hie Augustinus. Augustine mentions Labeo also DCD IL14 Hunc Platonem Labeo inter semideos commemorandum putavit, sicut Herculem, sicut Romulum. Semi- deos autem heroibus anteponit; sed utrosque inter numina conlocat; DCD IIL 25 secundum Labeonis distinctionem referring back to p. 66. i: DCD VIII. 13 repeating II. 14; DCD IX. 19, quoniam nonnulli istorum, ut ita dixerim, daemonicolarum, in qui- bus et Labeo est, eosdem perhibent ab aliis angelos dici.... DCD XXII. 28, Labeo etiam duos dicit uno die fuisse defunctos et occurrisse invicem in quodam compito, deinde ad corpora sua iussos fuisse remeare et constituisse inter se amicos esse victuros, atque ita esse factum, donee postea moreren- t u r . . These citations give us some idea of the character of at least part of the writings of Labeo. The only Labeo who suits these statements is M. Antistius Labeo mentioned often by Aulus Gellius, from whom we learn that he was the famous jurisconsult of the time of Augustus. See Noct. Att. i. 12, i qui de virgine capienda scripserunt quorum diligentissime scripsit Labeo Antistius; 13. 10. i Labeo Antistius iuris quidem civilis disciplinam principal! 93 studio e X e r c u i t , 13. 12. i ; a grammarian, 4. 2. 3 sq., 13. 10. 2, 15. 27. i; he wrote commentaries on the twelve tables I. I 2. 18 ; 6. 15. I ; 20. i. 13; he wrote on the p r a e.- t o r i s e d i c t u m 13. 10. 3 ; he was versed in anti- quity litterasque antiquiores altioresque pen etraverat. Compare Suet. Aug. 54. For the passage quoted above compare Apul. De deo Socratis 14 (Hildebrand's edition, vol. 2, p. 142); E t sunt nonnulli ex hoc divorum numero qui nocturnis^vel diurnis promptis vel oc- cultis laetioribus vel tristioribus hostiis vel caerimoniis vel ritibus g a u d e a n t. 68. 4. sicut apud Ciceronem idem Scipio loquitur.... The" quotation which follows is preserved here alone. Mueller gives it De Re pub. 4. 10, as Dombart gives. 68 17. Illas theatricas artesdiu virtus Romana non noverat. See Livy 7. 2 where is found the account of their first in- troduction. 69. 10. An forte Graeco Platoni potius pal ma danda est, qui cum ratio ne for ma- ret, qualis esse civitasdebeat,tamquam adversarios veritatis pofetas censuit urbe pellendos? In book -2 of the Republic of Plato the 7rot7?Tai are in- cluded under the general term fxifir/rai as requisite for the for- mation of a /x€i'Com irdA-ii/. In book 3, 398, the poets are politely conducted out of the state: a.iroiriit.iroiixa' n eU akX-qv TToXiv ixvpov Kara riji K£<^aX^s Karax^avrei koX Ipita (TTpefavTi';. But in 10, 606 sq., they are expelled without any apology. The expulsion of Homer, the woirynKtiraTov and wpS>Tov tZv TpaywStojrotSv vexes Plato's heart, but he too must go. Augustine's source is Cicero's De Re publica. Nonius, p. 308. says: M. Tullius de re publ. lib 4: 94 "Ego vero eodem, quo ille Hotneruffl redimitum coronis et delibutum un-" guentis emittit ex ea urbe quam sibi ipse fingit." Compare Cic. Tusc. 2. 11. 27 : Recta igitur a Platone eiciuntur ex ea civitate quam finxit ille, cum optimos mores et optimum rei publi-- cae statum exquireret, also Tert. Ad Natt. 2.7: criminatores deorum poetas eliminari Plato censuit, ipsum Homerum sane coronatum civitate pellendum. Augustine did not read Plato for himself: Cicero is his source here. In support of this observe that Augustine has in the preceding chapter (13) quoted from the fourth book of the Republic of Cicero, and the passage cited from Nonius shows . that such an account was found by him also in the same book of Cicero's Republic. 69. 13. Iste vero et deorum iiiiurias indigne tulit et fucai'i corrum pique f i g m e n t i s a n i m o s c i v i u m n o 1 u i t . Compare Plato, Repub. 365 Dsq., 377 D sq., 491 E. etal, This also came from Cicero. 70. 35. frustra hoc exclamante Cicerone This is preserved only here — given by Mueller and Baiter De Repub. 4. 9 9., as Dombart also gives. 71. 17. ut tres solos flamines habere nt tribus numinibus institutos, Dialem lovi, Martialem Marti, Quirinalem R o m u 1 o. See Livy i. 20. 2. f 1 a m i n e m a d s i d u u m s a - cerdotem creavit insignique eum veste et curuli regia sella adornavit. Huic duos flamines adiecit, Marti unum, alterum Quirino. 95 Also Varro L. L, 7 45, E u n d e m P o m p i 1 i urn ait fecisse fla mines, qui cum omnes sunt a singulis dels cognominati, in quibusdam apparent Iri'/ia, ut cur sit Mar- tialis et Quirinalis. It is likely that Varro gave all the details from which Augustine derived his knowledge. 71.31. non aliquot annos post Romam conditam ab Atheniensibus mutuaren- tur leges Solonis. Compare Livy 3. 31. 8 missi legati Athenas . . . . iussique inclitas leges Solonis de- scribe r e . 72. 3. quamvis Lycurgus Lacedaemo- niis leges ex Apollinis auctoritate se instituisse confinxerit. See Cic. De Div. i. 43. 96. Lycurgus q u i d e m qui Lacedaemoniorum rem publicam temperavit, leges suas auctoritate Apollinis Delphiciconfirmavit. id. N, D. 3. 38. 91. nee Lacedaemoniorum disci- plinam dicam umquam ab Apolline po- tius Spartae quam a Lycurgo datam. The first mention of this story is in Herodotus i. 65. 72. 6. Numa Pompilius.... quasdam leges, quae quidem regendae civitati nequaquam sufficerent, condidisse fertur qui eis multa etiam sacra con- st i t u i t . It is impossible to assign the exact source. The story is a commonplace, recorded in many writers. Compare Livy i. 19. sq. ; Florus Epit. i. i. 2, i 1 1 e sacra et caerimonias omnemque cultum deorum immortalium docuit, ille pon- tifices augures Salios ceteraque pop- uli R. sacerdotia creavit. Eutrop. Brev. I. 3., Cic. De Re pub. 2. 14. 26., Id. N. D. 3. 2. 5. g6 72. g. non tamen perhibetur easdetti leges a numinibus accepisse. Yet Florus (Epit. i. i. 2.) says: haec omnia quasi monitu deae Egeriae, quo magis barbari acciperent, which Florus has taken from Livy 1. 19. 5: simulat sibi cum dea Egeria congressus nocturnes esse, eius se monitu.... sacra instituere, sacerdo' tes suos cuique deorum praeficere. 72. 22. raptas Sabinas. See Livy i. 9., Eutrop. Brev. i. 2., Val. Max., 2. 4. 4., Cic. De Re pub. 2. 7. 12. Livy is the source. 72. 23. fraude spectaculi. We learn from Livy, Valerius Maximus and Cicero that the name of this spectaculum was the C o n s u a 1 i a. 73. 12. post expulsum cum liber is sui.s re gem Tarquinium, cuius filius Lucre- tiam stupro violenter oppresserat. See note on p. 31. 12. 73. 14. Junius Brutus consul L u c i u m Tarquiniuni Collatinum, maritum eius- d e m L u c r e t i a e , c o 11 e g a m s u u m , b o n u m atque innocentem \'irum, propter no' men et propinquitatem Tarquiniorum coegit magistratu se abdicare nee vivere in civitate permisit. See Livy 2. 2., where Brutus addresses Collatinus; h unc tu, inquit, tua voluntate, L. Tarquini, re- move metum, meminimus, fatemur, eie- cisti reges; absolve beneficium tuum, aufer hinc regium nomen. Then a b d i c a v i t se consulatu. rebusque suis omnibus Lavinium translatis civitate cessit. Doubtless Augustine has here followed Livy- Compare also Eutrop, Brev. i. 9., Cic. De Off. 3. 10. 40. 97 ^i- at. Marcus C a m 1 1 1 u s . . . . q u i V e i e n-- tes gravissimos hostes populi Romani post tlecennale bellum. . .. superavit. invidia obtrectatorum virtutis suae et insolentia tribunorum plebis reus fact us est tarn que i n grata m sensit quam libefaverat civitatem, ut de sua damnatione certissimus in exilium sponte disced eret et decern milibus aeris absens etiam damnaretur, mox iterum a Gallis vindex patriae futurus i n g r a t a e. See Livy 5. 19 sq. For Camillus' total defeat of the Gauls see chap. 49 ne nuntius quid em cladis r e li c t u s. The only authority Augustine had for writing a b s e 71 s etiam damnaretur seems to be Livy, who is Augustine's source for the account of Camillus. See also Val, Max. 4. i. 2,, 5, 3. 2a. ; Aulus Gellius, N. A. 17, 21. 20, Cic. De Re pub. i. 3. 6., Id. De .donio sua 32. 86, Eutrop. Brev. 1. 20.; Fl irus Epit. i. 7. But whence does Augustine get the authority for writing decern milibus aeris? Of the authors mentioned in this note, Cicero, Aulus Gellius, Florus and Eutropius do not stale the amount of the fine. Livy (s, 32 ad fin.) expressly says absens quindecim milibus gravis aeris damna- t u r. Valerius Maximus (5. 3. 2a) agrees with Livy. So also Plutarch (Vitae, Camillus 13) S>Xe Trjv SiKrjv iprnx-qv, Tifxri/la iJLVpiiin> Kal TTiVTaKia-xiXiiav aa-crapiuiv i-xovaav. If the manuscripts are cor- rect we must conclude that Augustine has here made a numer^ ical error. 74. In chap. 18 we have several fragments of Sallust's lost Historias. See Maurenbrecher, Historiarum Reliquiae 11 and 16. 74. 18. Nasica... . Carthaginem nole- bat everti. See note p. 47, 12, 75- 28. Dicit deinde plura Sallustius de Sullae vitiis ceteraque foeditate rei publicae etalii scriptores in haec consentiunt, qua m vis eloquio multum i m p a r i . It is not easy to say who tlie alii scriptores are. Au- gustine seems to limit them to those who wrote d e Sullae vitiis ceteraque foeditate rei publicae, which would of course eliminate writers like Tacitus, Juvenal and Persius. Again he speaks of them as compared with Sal- lust as eloquio multum imparl, which, how- ever, according to his view, would not eliminate Livy. Com- pare Livy Epit. 88 sq., Florus Epit. 2. 9 sq., Eutrop. Brev. 5. 4 sq. , Veil. Pat., Hist. Rom. 2. 28. 2 sq. Compare Plut. Vitae, Lysander and Sulla 3. 2, 8 S' ovre vios u)v irepl ras ItnOvixia^ ifj-erpial^ 810 rrjv nreviav ovT( yrjpa.a(rav. io8 88. 17. Deinde cum venisset Tarentum Sulla atque ibi sacrificasset, vidit in capite vitulini iecoris similitudinem coronae aureae. Tunc Postumius harus- pex ille respondit praeclaram ei significari victoriam iussitque utextis illis solus vesceretur. Postea parvo intervallo servus cuiusdam Lucii Pontii vaticinando clamavit: A Bellona nun- tius venio, victoria tua est, Sulla. Deinde adiecit arsurum esse Capitolium. Again we have only Plutarch ; see Vitae, Sulla 27. ^ucravTos fj-h/ yap tvdloi'; y SUfirj Trcpt Tapavra, Sdc/ji/ijs aTe6r] iv Si 'S,ikovLW r](ra' OLKeTrjv TIovtwv 6io6p-qTov ivTv^eiv airal Xeyovra irapa ttjs 'Ei'Wotjs Kparo^ iroXefiov koi VLKrjv awayyiXkuv. il 8e furj cnrivtraev i/jLTreTTp^trdat to KaTTiTcoXtov. Augus- tine no doubt got his information here from the now lost eighty-fifth book of Livy, in the epitome of which we find mention of Sulla's return to Italy. 89. 26. in quadam Campaniae lata planitie, ubi non multo post civiles acies nefario proelio conflixerunt,ipsi inter se prius pugnare visi sunt. Namque ibi auditi sunt primum ingentes fragores, moxque multi se vidisse nuntiarunt per aliquot dies duas acies proeliari. Quae pugna ubi destitit, vestigia quo- que velut hominum et equorum, quanta deilla conflictatione exprimi poterant, invenerunt. This incident, " The Battle of the Demons," is not men- tioned anywhere in the extant works of Livy. Compare Jul. Obseq. 57(ii8)L.Scipione C. Norbanocoss, per Syllana tempora inter Capuam et Volturnum ingens signorum sonus armo- rumquecum horrendo clamore auditus, 109 ita ut viderentur duae acies concurrere perplures dies. Rei miraculo interius considerantibus vestigia equorum homi- numque et recenter protritae herbae et virgulta visa. But there can be no doubt that Augustine got it from one of the books of Livy no longer ex- tant. 90. 5. miles quidam, dum occiso spolia detraheret, fratrem nudato cadavere agnovit ac detestatus bella civilia se ipsum ibi perimens fraterno corpori a d i u n X i t . See Livy Epit. 79, in quo bello duo fratres, alter ex Pompeii exercitu, alter ex Cinnae, ignorantes concurrerunt, et cum victor spoliaret occisum, agnito fratre, ingenti lamentatione edita, rogo ei exstructo, ipse se supra rogum transfodit. 92. 19. C a e I e s t i s . See note p. 57. 11. 93. 19. Vir gravis et philosophaster T u 1 1 i us . A fine touch of amused scorn. Philosophaster is used only this once in the DCD, and indeed it is a.7ra^ Xeyofxevov not only in the writings of Augustine but in Latin literature. This is the only instance in Forcellini (where the re- ference Cic. 7. Verr. 14 should be C i c. 5 . V e r r . 14) and does not occur in Du Cange. Even in the above passage from Augustine some MSS. read philosophus tertullius, which, of course, is incorrect. 95. 26. sanguine nobis banc patriam peperere suo. Both Dombart and Hoffmann have printed these words as ordinary prose — not noticing that they are a quotation from Virgil Aeneid 11. 24. 96. 5- lapis C a p i t o 1 i n u s. It is not perfectly clear whether reference is made to some stone statue of Jupiter or to some sacred stone on the Capito- line hill. Saisset (footnote on this passage) says: "St. Augustin veut parler de la fameuse statue de pierre 61ev^e k Jupiter au Capitole. Aul. Gell. i. 21." The words found in Aulus Gellius are: lovem lapidem, inquit, quod sanctissimumiusiurandum habitum est. . . . The classical passage is found in Polybius, 3. 25, ccTTt Se TO Ala XlOov tolovtov. A.ayScbi' £is Trjv X^^P'^ kidov b TTOiovfiivos TO. opKia TTipi Tuiv avvOrjKuii', iTreiSoLv Oyu,d(r7y ^•qfiocria TrCcmi Aeyct Taoe, evopKovvrt /acv Trotcti/ raya^a • el Se aWws StavoT^^ctT/v n 7j Trpd^ai/jLL iravTiiiv tS>v aWwv at^tpixivrnv kv rais iStats iraTpLcriv, iv tois tSiois vofjiois f Jri T(ov iSitov /Bluiv iepuiv tokJiwv, eyo) /x6vo<; CKiretroi/ii ouTws (i)S oo€ \iOo^ vvv. /cat Tairr' eliroiv ptTrret tov XiBov Ik t^s x^tpos. See Tyrrell's note on 'lovem lapidem iurare' on Cic. Fam. 7. 12, where he quotes this passage from Poly- bius, and Strachan-Davidson's note on the same passage in his Prolegomena VIII. (p. 73-80) to Selections from Polybius, Oxford 1888. BOOK III. 100. 24. Romulum Martis. See Livy i. 4, Florus Epit. i. i, Romulus Marte genitus et Rhea Silvia, Eutrop. Brev. i. i, Martis cum Remo fratre.uno partu editus est, Cic. De Re pub. 2. 2. 4. loi. 5. vir doctissimus eorum Varro falsa haec esse. . . . paene fatetur. Sed utile esse civitatibus dicit ut se viri fortes, etiamsi falsum sit, diis genitos esse credant, ut eo modo animus hu- manus velut divinae stirpis fiduciam gerens res magnas adgrediendas prae- sumat audacius, agat vehementius et ob hoc impleat ipsa securitate felicius. (^uae Varronis sententia expressa, ut potui, meis verbis.... For this, as for all subsequent quotations from or para- phrases of Varro, see Francken, Fragmenta Varronis (Lug- duni-Batav. 1836), Schwarz, De Varronis apud sanctos patres vestigiis, (Leipzig 1888), and Agahd, M. Terenti Varronis Antiquitatum Rerum Divinarum libri I., XIV., XV., XVI., (Leipzig 1898.) 102. g. Romani antiqui in stupro detec- tas Vestae sacerdotes vivas etiam de- fodiebant. See Livy. 2. 42. ii, 8. 15. 7., Epit. 2, 63. Compare Jerome's Chronicle of Eusebius 2, (vol. 8, col. 384 in BE) virgo vestalis Sunia deprehensa in stupro viva defossa est. Servius on Verg. Aen. 11.206. The best account of the death of a supposed guilty Vestal is found in the younger Pliny Ep. 4. 11. 6. 102. II. adulteras autem feminas, quamvis aliqua damnatione, nulla tamen morte plectebant. This sweeping statement of Augustine is not correct. From Aulus Gillius N. A. lo. 23 we learn that the husband had power to put to death his wife if caught in adultery. Gellius quotes from a speech of Cato entitled de dote : in q u a i d quoque scriptum est in adulterio ux- ores depr eh ensas ius fuisse maritis necare.... De iure autem occidendi ita scriptum: In adulterio uxorem tuam si prehendisses sine iudicio in- pune necares. This continued until the introduction of the lex Julia de adulteriis et pudicitia, passed by Augustus B.C. 18, by which the death of an unfaith- ful wife at the pleasure of the husband (sine iudicio) was forbidden, and a family court required for such condemna- tion. Probably Augustine had reference to Livy 10. 31. 9 Q. Fabius Gurges consulis filius aliquot matronas ad populum stupri damnat as pecunia multavit,a reference given in the BE note. 103. 17 quid miserum commiserat Ilium, ut a Fimbria, Marianarum partium ho- mine pessimo, everteretur.... porro autem Fimbria prius edictum proposuit ne cui parceretur, atque urbem totam cunctosque in ea homines incendio concremavit. The account of this was to be found in Augustine's day in the now lost eighty-third book of Livy; compare Epit. 83, urbem Ilium, quae se potestati Syllae reservabat, expugnavit ac delevit. Com- pare Augustine DCD. III. 7 (p. 104, 2), I 1 1 i e n i m con- tra Fimbriam portas clauserant ut Sullae servarent integram civitatem. Though the epitome does not mention the edict of Fimbria, "3 we cannot doubt but that it was found in Livy's own work. This is not recorded by Florus or Eutropius. 104. 27. Eversis quippe at incensis omnibus cum oppido simulacris solum Minervae sub tanta ruina templi illius, ut scribit Livius, integrum stetisse perhibetur. The reference here must be to the lost eighty-third book of Livy, the epitome of which mentions the sack of Ilium by Fimbria. Livy's description has been saved in Julius Obse- quens, 56. (116), Ilio a C. Fimbria incenso cum aedes quoque Minervae deflagras- set, inter ruinas simulacrum antiquis- simum inviolatum stetit spemque res- titutionis oppido portendit. 105. 9. Expugnante Fimbria cecidit Ilium. Unde ergo stetit Minervae sim- ulacrum? See the two preceding notes. 105. II. a Gallis ipsa Roma capta et incensa est.... ad vocem anseris cito redierunt ut saltern Capitolinum col- lem, qui remanserat, tuerentur. See note, p. 84, 21. 105. 20. Hi etiam Numam Pompilium successorem Romuli adiuvisse cre- dunturut to to regni sui tempore pacem haberet et lani portas, quae bellis patere adsolent, clauderet, eo merito scilicet, quia Romanis multa sacra constituit. See Livy i. 19 (ad init.) Qui regno ita potitus urbem novam, conditam vi et armiSjiure eam legibusque ac moribus deintegro condere parat. Quibus cum 114 inter bella adsuescere videret non posse, quippe efferari militia animos, mitigandum ferocem populum armorum desuetudine ratus, lanum ad infimum Argiletum indicem pacis bellique fecit, apertus ut in armis esse civitatem, clausus pacatos circa omnes populos significaret. Eutrop. Brev. 1.3, Numa,Pom- piliusrexcreatusestqui bellum quidem nullum gessit. Floras, Epit. i. 2. See note p. 72. 6. 106. II. Quid ergo est quod illi quad- raginta tres, vel, ut alii volunt tri- ginta novem anni, in tam longa pace transact! sunt regnante Numa. Livy gives 43 years and Cicero 39. Livy i. 21. 6, Numa tres et quadraginta, Plutarch, Vitae, Numa 20, aW iirC y( Trji No/ia /3acn\eia^ ovSeixiav rj/xepav avewy/xivoi &drjj rpia Si Kal TCTTapaKOVTa err] (ruvep^ois ifxeive K€KA.6t(ryu.£vos. Eutrop. Brev. I. 3 also gives 43 years, though the Bened. note (ad h. 1.) says he assigns only 41 to Numa's reign. Jerome's Chron of Eusebius (sub Numa) assigns 41 years. But Cicero (De Re pub. 2. 14. 27) writes Sic ille cum undequad- raginta annos summa in pace concordi- aque regnavisset (sequamur enim potissimum Polybium nostrum quo nemo fuit in exquirendis temporibus diligentior) excessit e vita. In spite of the statement above quoted from Plutarch we might get 40 or 41 years by comparing the closing words of chap. 21 ireXevTria-e 8e xpovov ov TToKvv Tois oySor/KOVTa Trpoa^imoaas with the opening words of chap. 5 (iA.A.a. yap iros ijSrj SiareXoBvTt tu No/ia TiaaapoLKOorTov ^kov aTro 'Pw/trjs 01 TrpccrjScis TrapaKaXovvrei im, ttjv /3a(Ti\eiav. 106, 15. vix post tam multos annos ab urbe condita usque ad Augustum pro IIS magno miraculo unus commemoratur annus post primum bellum Punicum, quo belli portas Romani claudere potuerunt? See Livy i. 19. bis deinde post Numae regnum clausus fuit, semel T. Ma n J i o consule post Punicum primum perfec- tum bellum,.... also Plutarch, Vitae, Numa 20, vo/it^£Tat av€<2)(0ai fxev auTov OTav -q TroXt/iOS, KCKXiLcrdai 8e ilpT^vrjS ■yevojuevijs. o Srj ^aXcTrov rjv Kal CTTraviws yivofxevov TrXr/v im •ye Tov Se/Sao-Tov Kat'crapos cKXeicrfiij Ka^eXdvTOS 'Avroii'iov, Kal Trporepov VTraTivovTwv Map/cou 'AtiXioii koI TItov MaXXiou ;ypovov ov iroX-vv. 108. 18. Neque enim aliunde Apollo ille Cumanus, cum adversus Achaeos regemque Aristonicum bellaretur, quad- riduo flevisse nuntiatus est.... Compare Julius Obsequens 28 (Jahn's edition), P u b 1 i u s Crassus adversus Aristonicum dimicans occisus. Apollinis simulacrum Cumis lacrimavit per quatriduum. Vates re- sponderunt Graeciae fore exitium, unde deductum esset. Sacrificatum turn a Romanis donaque in templo p o s i t a . Jahn quotes from Augustine in the footnote on this passage. Cicero probably refers to the same (De Div. i. 43. 98), cum Cumis Apollo sudavit. The war to which Augustine refers seems to be that men- tioned in Livy Epit. 59, Floras Epit. i. 35, Eutrop. Brev. 4. 20, and Augustine's authority here must be the lost fifty-ninth book of Livy, as he gives a fuller account than that found in Julius Obsequens. Why does Augustine add adversus Achaeos? In Livy 43. 13. 4, a similar incident is recorded, but it is not the one referred to by Augustine. 109. 22. rex quippe Tarquinius ibi Capi- tolium fabricavit. Ii6 See Livy i. 55. Eutrop. Brev. i. 6, Capitolium i n c h o a V i t . Compare Cic. De Re pub. 2. 20. 36, where the aedemque in Capitolio lovi optimo m a X i m o was vowed by L. Tarquinius, and 2. 24. 44, where Tarquinius Superbus votum patris Capitolii aedificatione persolvit. It is not clear whether Augustine here follows Livy or Varro, for in DCD IV. 23, where the same building is referred to, Varro is the authority (see note p. 174. 30). log. 23. Aesculapius autem ab Epidauro ambivit ad Romam. See Livy 10. 47. 7, inventum in libris, Aes- culapium ab Epidauro Romam arces- s e n d u m , and Epit. 11, cum pestilentia civitas laboraret, missi legati ut Aesculapi signum Romam ab Epidauro transfer- rent. Livy is the source. 109. 25. mater etiam deum nescio unde a Pessinunte. See Livy 29. 10 sq. See note p. 57. 11 and p. 46. 29. no. I. Cynocephalum, qui longe postea venit ex Aegypto. Augustine here probably got his knowledge of Cynoce- phalus from Varro. In DCD XVI. 8 he says of Cynocephali quid dicam de Cynocephalis, quorum canina capita atque ipse latratus magis bestias quam homines confitetur? In Tert. Ap. 6, Cynocephalus is mentioned along with other Egyptian deities as prohibited from the Capitol. Compare Minucius Felix, Octav. 22, Isis perditum filium cum Cynocephalo suo et calvis sacer- dotibus luget, plangit, inquirit . . . . mox invento parvulo gaudet Isis, ex- ultant sacerdotes, Cynocephalus in- ventor gloriatur. From the passage quoted above from Augustine (DCD XVI. 8), Cynocephali seem to be a 117 monstrous race of men, and Cynocephalus is also an Egyp- tian deity, probably, from the derivation of the word {kvuiv and Kecj>a\rj), to be identified with Anubis. no. 8. ut Varro dicit, certos atque i n c e r t o s . This was in the 39th and 40th books of Antiquities (Quadraginta unum libros scripsit antiquitatum, DCD VI. 3), or in the 14th and 15th books of the second division of his work " de rebus divinis :" Hanc velut pompam obsequiorum in tribus, qui restant, dii ipsi sequuntur extremi, quibus iste universus cultus inpensus est: in primo dii certi, in secundo incerti .... (DCD VI. 3 contains the complete analysis of Varro's Antiquitates). III. 3. ut ea dolo raperent moxque compellerentur pugnare cum soceris, ut miserae feminae nondum ex iniuria maritis conciliatae iam parentum san- guine dotarentur?.... 111. 25. Romani autem soceros inter-- ficiebant in proeliis quorum iam filias amplexabantur in thalamis. See note p. 72. 22. . 112 12. Romulus de suorum iam virtute desperans lovem oravit ut starent, atque ille hac occasione nomen Sta- toris invenit.... See Livy i. 12 sq. Florus Epit. i . i. i, a t r x in ipso foro pugna, adeo ut Romulus lovem oraret, foedam suorum fugam sisteret; hinc templum et Stat or Ju- piter. Compare Plut. Vitae, Romulus 18. Livy is Augus- tine's source. 112. 17. Deinde Titum Tatium regem Sabinorum socium regni Romulus ferre ii8 compulsus est....Unde et ipso inter- fecto, ut maior deus esset, regnum solusobtinuit. See Livy I. ii sq. Florus Epit. i. i. i, sic pax facta cum Tatio foedusque percussum, sequutaque res mira dictu, ut relictis sedibus suis novam in urbem hostes demigrarent. Here Augustine lays the blame of the death of Titus Ta- tius on Romulus. On what authority has he done so ? Eu- tropius, Florus, Velleius Paterculus, Valerius Maximus and Cicero do not, in their extant writings, mention the death of Titus Tatius. Augustine did not find this account in Livy, who thus records the death of Tatius: Nam L a v i n i , cum ad sollemne sacrificium eo venis- set, concursu facto interficitur. We can only suppose that Augustine here, in the passion of argu- ment, has become too rhetorical and made a misstatement, in which he is followed by his contemporary, Orosius (Adv. pag. 2. 4. 6), Titum Tatium....mox ut in socie- tatem regni adsumpsit occidit. 113. I. Quam crebrae strages Romani Albanique exercitus fuerunt et utrius- que comminutio civitatis! Alba namque ilia.... a Tullo Hostilio rege provo- cata conflixit,....Tunc eventum belli de tergeminis hinc atque inde fratribus placuit experiri: a Romanis tres Hora- tii, ab Albanis autem tres Curiatii processerunt. . . . See Livy i, 22 sq., Eutrop. Brev. i. 4. But the reference comes straight from Florus Epit. i. i. 3. exercita iuventute provocare ausus Albanos, gravem et diu principem populum. Sed cum pari robore fre- quentibus " proeliis utrique com- 119 minuerentur, misso in compendium bello, Horatiis Curiatiisque, tri- geminis hinc atque inde fratribus, utriusque populi fata permissa sunt .... Augustine seems here to follow closely the account and words of Florus. Note Augustine says, utriusque comminutio civitatis ; Florus u t r i q u e comminuerentur, and the words tergeminis hinc atque inde fratribus are taken ver- batim from Florus. Compare Cic. pro Milone, 3. 7. M. Horati,for- tissimi viri, qui nondum libera civi- tate tamen populi Romani comitiis liberatus est, cum sua manu sororem esse interfectam fateretur. Id. De. Inv. 2. 26. 78. 113. 2. Alba namque ilia quam filius Aeneae creavit Ascanius. See Livy i. 3. 3. 113. 28. Marcellus Syracusanam civi- tatem recolens eius paulo ante culmen etgloriam sub manus suas subito con- cidisse communem cogitans condicio- nem flendo miseratus est? See note p. 11. i. 115. 16. Horatiorum soror. See note p. 113. i. 115. 27. Alba, ubi Amulius expulso f r a t r e . See Livy i. 3. 11. pulso fratre Amulius r e g n a t . Florus Epit. i. i. 4. 116. 12. De Romulo viderit adulatio fabulosa, qua perhibetur receptus in caelum; viderint quidam scriptores eorum qui eum propter ferocitatem a senatu discerptum esse dixerunt sub- ornatumque nescio quem lulium Pro- culum, qui eum sibi apparuisse diceret eumque per se populo mandasse Romano utinter numinacoleretur.... Acciderat enim et solis defectio. Compare Livy's account i. i6., from which it will easily be seen that Augustine has not here followed Livy, as the latter gives neither the subornatum lulium Pro- c u 1 u m nor the solis defectio. Compare Cic. De Re pub. 2. xo. 20. Proculo lulio.... qui inpulsu patrum quo illi a se invidiam interitus Romuli pellerent, in con- tione dixisse fertur a se visum esse in eo colle Romulum qui nunc Quiri- nalis vocatur; eum sibi mandasse ut populum rogaret ut sibi eo in colle delubrum fieret; se deum esse et Quirinum vocari, also De Legg i. i. 3. Though Cicero in these passages does not mention the solis defectio, we know from Augustine's own words that he found that in Cicero. Compare p. 117. 21. In Hortensio vero dialogo... ut eas- dem, inquit, tenebras efficiat quas effecit in interitu Romuli, qui ob- scuratione solis est factus, and from this dialogue Augustine may have taken the whole account. Augustine's authority is doubtless Cicero, whom he mentions and quotes from in this chapter. Also p. 117. 8. he says alii scriptores eorum defectioni solis addunt etiam subitam tempestatem. Here, after he had consulted Cicero, he evidently noted the accounts given of the same event by other writers. Livy (i. 16) and Eutropius (Brev. i. 2. 2.) tell of the tempest ; Florus (Epit. i. i. i) mentions both the tempest and the eclipse of the sun. Both Livy and Cicero write Proculus lulius, but Florus lulius Proculus. 117. 8. nam et alii scriptores eorum defection! solis addunt etiam subitam "tempestatem. See Livy I. 16. I, subito coorta tempestas cum mag no fragore tonitribusque tam denso regem operuit nimbo ut conspec- tum eius contioni abstulerit. Eutrop. Brev. I. 2, orta subito tempestate. Florus Epit. I. I. I, oborta tempestas solisque defectio consecrationis speciem prae- b u e r e . 117. 12 and 28. qui e t ipse ( T u 1 1 u s H o s - tilius) fulmine absumptus est. See Livy I. 31. 8, sed ira lovis sollicitati prava religione fulmine ictum cum domo conflagrasse. Eutrop. Brev. i. 4, ful- mine ictus cum domo sua arsit. Jerome's Chron. of Eusebius (BE vol. 8, col 363). 117. 26. excepto Numa Pompilio et Anco Marcio qui morbo interierunt. Livy I. 21. 6 does not say how Numa died, but we may probably infer from this silence that Livy supposed he died a natural death. Florus Epit. i. i. 2 likewise says nothing as to the manner of his death. Cic. De Re pub. 2. 14. 27, e x - cessit e vita; Eutropius alone (Brev. i. 3) writes expressly morbo decessit; Plutarch, Vitae, Numa 21 (ad fin.), 6 NoyuSs ireXevTyjcnv oi rai^ei'as ouS' al(j>vi8Lov yivo/j.evrj's avT(S T^s TiXevT^'i, akXa Kara fiiKpov inrb yrjpmoi)Xoviiou Kect>a\-qv. Compare also Pliny N. H. 33. 3. 48: cum Septumuleius C. Gracchi familiaris auro rependendum caput eius abscisum ad Opimium tulerit, plumboque in os addito parricidio suo rem p. etiam circumscripserit. 136. 19. occisus est cum liberis Mar- cus Fulvius consularis. The source was Livy ; see Epit. 61., Veil. Pat. Hist. Rom. 2.6: Flaccus in Aventino cum filio maiore iugulatus est; also Plut. Vitae, C. Gracchus 17. 136. 25. aedes Concordiae facta est. An account of this was probably found in the now lost sixty-first book of Livy; Plutarch (Vitae C. Gracchus 17) mentions its construction. That some contemporaries of the event felt as Augustine did about the erection of the temple we have evidence in the words of the inscription which Plu- tarch (Vitae, C. Gracchus, 17 ad fin.) tells us some one wrote by night on the temple, ipyov diroi'oias vaov oiJ.ovoia% TTOiii. 138. 4. Lucius Saturninus tribunus plebis et Gaius Servilius praetor, et multo post Marcus Drusus quorum omnium seditionibus caedes iam tunc gravissimae . .. . See Livy Epit. 69 sq. Veil. Pat. Hist. Rom. 2. 12 sq. Val. Max. 9. 7. 3, Florus Epit. i. 4. 7. 8, 2. 4. i sq., 2. 5. i sq. Plut. Vitae, Marius 28 sq. 138. 7. deinde socialia bella exar- s e r u n t . See Livy Epit. 72: Italici populi de- fecerunt Picentes Vestini Marsi 142 Paeligni Marrucini Samnites Lucani, Florus Epit. 2. 6, Veil. Pat. Hist. Rom. 2. 15, Eutrop. Brev. 5. 3. 138. 9. Bellum deinde servile succes- sit....Iam ex paucissimis,' hoc est minus quam septuaginta, gladiatoribus quem ad modum bellum servile con- tractum sit.... In Livy Epit. 56 and 69 there is mention of bellum servile. But the one to which Augustine here refers is that of Livy Epit. 95 sq. Compare Florus Epit. 2. 7. and 2. 8, Veil. Pat. Hist. Rom. 2. 30, Eutrop. Brev. 6. 7. Ex paucissimis, hoc est minus quam septuaginta, gladiatoribus. There is the greatest diversity in regard to the exact number of gladiators who caused the bellum Spartacium. Seventy is probably a round number here. Livy Epit. 95 quattuor et septuaginta, with which Eutropius agrees (Brev. 6.7). Florus (Epit. 2. 8. 3) Spartacus Crixus Oenomaus effracto Lentuli ludo cum triginta aut amplius eiusdem fortunae V i r i s . Veil. Pat. Hist. Rom. 2. 30. 5 s e x a g i n t a quattuor fugitivi. Cic. Ad Att. 6. 2. 8 , n o n amplius, inquis, quinquaginta. Cum Spartaco minus multi primo fuerunt. Orosius (later than Augustine by a few years) gladiatores septuaginta et quattuor (Adv. pag. 5. 24. i). If the MSS. are correct it might seem as if Augustine followed Velleius Paterculus. It is true that Florus and Cicero as shown above give a number which is indeed minus quam septuaginta, but Augustine would not have used these words if he had had in mind either the number given by Cicero or that given by Florus. It is also quite possible that minus quam sep- tuaginta occurred in Livy's own work, and that the Epitome is a conscious correction from a later source. Com- 143 pare Livy Epit. i (ad fin.) regnatum est annis CCLV, with Livy i. 60. 3, regnatum annos ducentos quadraginta quattuor: and Epit. 23 quos (anulos aureos) exces- sisse modii mensuram traditur with Livy 23. 12. I dimidium super tris modios ex- plesse sint quidam auctores, Fama tenuit, quae propior vero est, haut plus fuisse modio. But against this Livian authority it should be noted that in DCDj IV. 5 Augustine writes tres duces habuerunt (p. 151. 16) while Livy Epit. 95 gives only two Crixus and Spartacus, un- less we suppose that here again the epitome contains a conscious departure from Livy's own statement. The tres duces habuerunt of DCD IV. 5 tells against assum- ing Velleius Paterculus as the authority because he mentions only one leader (Hist. Rom. 2. 30. 5). The best solution is to suppose that Augustine's authority for the bellum servile was the Historiae of Sallust, and that there he found both the tres duces of DCD IV. 5, and the minus quam septuaginta. See Maurenbrecher, Historiarum Reliquiae, p. 146 sq., and frag. 3- 9°- 138. 10. b e 1 1 a c i V i 1 i a . See Livy Epit. 77 sq., Florus Epit. 2. 9 sq., who gives a brief account of all the civil wars to the Bellum cum Antonio et Cleopatra; Eutrop. Brev. 5. 4 sq., Anno urbis conditae sexcentisimo sex- agesimo secundo primum Romae bellum civile commotum est. Veil. Pat. Hist. Rom. 2. 19 sq. 138. 23. bella piratarum. See Livy Epit. 99, Veil. Pat. Hist. Rom. 2. 31 sq., Eu- trop. Brev. 6. 12. sq., Florus Epit. i. 41. 139. 17. caput Octavii consulis pon- eretur in rostris, Caesares a Fimbria 144 domibus trucidarentur suis, duo Crassi pater et filius in conspectu mutuo mactarentur, Baebius et Numitorius unco tracti sparsis visceribus interi- rent, Catulus hausto veneno se mani- bus inimicorum subtraheret, Merula flamen Dialis praecisis venis lovi etiam suo sanguine litaret. In ipsius autem Marii oculis continue ferieban- tur, quibus salutantibus dexteram n o 1 u i s s e t . In this passage Augustine must have had before his eyes Florus Epit. 2. 9. 14 (quoted in Literary Sources of Augustine DCD I-X, p. 43). It will be seen from a comparison of these two passages that Augustine either has made a rhetorical in- ference in the words unco tracti sparsis viscer- ibus from the words of Florus per medium forum unci traxere carnificum, and has misunderstood Florus al- together in the last statement, or, as Kuhlmann has pointed out (work cited above, p. 19), there are evidences of the use of another historian — doubtless Livy — in the divergence of the narrative of Augustine from that of Florus. See Livy Epit. 80 sq.. Veil. Pat. Hist. Rom. 2. 24. The great difficulty in the above passage of Augustine is connected with the readings of Caesares a Fimbria or Caesar et Fimbria. The MSS of Augustine read Caesar et Fimbria, which reading the BE (1864) re- tains. This is also the reading given in Strange's ed. 1850, and the one observed by Saisset in his French translation. In the passage from Florus (Epit. 2. 9. 14) by which editors seek to correct Augustine the codex Bambergensis, E. III. 22, reads caesare fimbria; the codex Palatinus and codex Vossianus caesar et fimbria which is the reading found in the above passage from Augustine. C a e - sares a Fimbria is the correction of Graevius upon Florus, and this correction is adopted in the Bipontine edition 1783, in Jahn's edition (Leip. 1852), in Seebode's edition I4S (Leip. 1821), in K. Halm's edition (Leip. 1872), in Rossbach's edition (Leip. 1896). Other readings are caesi a Fim- bria, caesi a Funebria. A. Schott proposed Caesares a Cinna or caesares fratres. Dombart corrects Augustine from Florus, Caesares a Fimbria Florus 2. 9. 14; caesar et fim- bria m s s V (crit. note on the place) ; and Hoffmann fol- lows Dombart here. Little light is thrown on this subject from our extant histories, but Caesares a Fimbria seems to suit better the facts we know. Fimbria's death is thus described in Livy Epit. 83: Fimbria desertus ab exercitu, qui ad Sullam transierat, ipse se percussit, impetravit de servo suo praebens cervicem ut se occideret, and Plutarch — not that we may lay too much stress on his ac- curacy as an historian — Vitae, Sulla 25, bpSiv St 6 $i/i/8ptas t-^v /iera/SoX^v Koi tov 5vA-A.av (Ls dSidXXaicTov S«8oiku)S auTos eavTOv ev tm orpaTOTreSai Si£(j>6eLp€. 140. 7. post Marii maioris pristinas ac recentissimas caedes additae fue- runt aliae graviores a Mario iuvene atqueCarbone earundem partium Mar- ianarum, qui Sulla imminente non solum victoriam verum etiam ipsam desperantes salutem cuncta suis aliis caedibus impleverunt. See Livy Epit. 83 sq., Florus Epit. 2. 9. 13 sq., Veil. Pat. Hist. Rom. 2. 26. 140. 13. obsesso etiam senatu de ipsa curia, tamquam de carcere, produce- bantur ad gladium. Florus is clearly the source. See Fpit. 2. 9. 20 : o b - sessaque curia sic de senatu quasi de carcere qui iugularentur educti. 140. 15. Mucins Scaevola pontifex ...suo paene sanguine extinxit. 146 See Livy Epit. 86: Q. Mucius Scaevola pontifex maximus fugiens in vesti- bule aedis Vestae occisus est; Florus Epit. 2. 9. 21 Mucius Scaevola pontifex Vestalis amplexus aras tantum non eodem igne sepelitur, Veil. Pat. Hist, Rom. 2. 26, Cic. De Orat. 3. 3. 10, Lucan, Pharsalia i. 126. Au- gustine probably had the account of Florus in mind. 140. 18. Urbem deinde Sulla victor intravit, qui in villa publica non iam bello sed ipsa pace saeviente septem milia deditorum (unde utique inermia) non pugnando sed iubendo prostra- V e r a t . There is the greatest diversity in our authorities as to the number whom Sulla thus put to death. Compare Livy Epit. 88; octo milia dediticiorum in villa publica trucidavit; Florus Epit. 2. 9. 24 : quattuor milia deditorum inermium civium in villa publica interfici ius- s i t ; Val. Max. 9. 2. i: quattuor legiones contrariae partis fidem suam secutas in publica villa.... obtruncari iussit; Plut. Vitae, Sulla, 30 ajua 8' aurds t€ Xeyeiv h'-jp)(€TO Koi KariKOTrrov ol TCTayfjievoi Tovi i(aKia-)^t.kiov^. Oros. Adv. Pag. 5. 21. i, sep- tem milia tunc Romanorum Romani interfecerunt and 5. 21. i, Sulla mox atque urbem victor intravit, tria milia hominum qui se per legates dediderant contra fas contraque fidem datam inermes securosque interfecit; Seneca De Clem. i. 12. 2: qui septem milia civium Romanorum contrucidari iussit. Septem milia may have been found in Livy's own work ; if the MSS. are correct Augustine would seem to have followed Seneca here who alone gives septem milia; •47 but it is better to suppose that he has got confused in regard to the number slain by Sulla on his entrance into the city and the number slain in battle before that. Compare the two places cited above from Orosius. It is very strange that Augustine while closely following Florus in this chapter (28) should disagree with him here. It may be that Augustine has made a mistake. 140. 24.- donee Sullae suggereretur sinendos esse aliquos vivere ut es- sent quibus possent imperare qui V i c e r a n t . See Florus Epit. 2. 9. 25, a d m o n e n t e F u f i d i o vivere aliquos debere ut essent qui- bus imperarent. This is clearly the source. 140. 27. tabula ilia cum magna gratu- latione proposita est quae hominum ex utroque ordine splendido, equestri scilicet atque senatorio, occiden- dorum ac proscribendorum duo milia continebat. See Livy Epit. 88, Florus Epit. 2. 9. 25 : proposita est ingens ilia tabula et ex ipso equestris ordinis flore ac senatu duo milia electi qui mori iuberentur, Veil. Pat. Hist. Rom. 2. 28, Plut. Vitae, Sulla 31. Val. Max 9. 2. I. Evidently Florus is here Augustine's authority. See also in connection with the cruelty of Sulla his epitaph given by Plutarch Vitae, Sulla 38. (ad fin.) : to 8e ewLypafjifid (pamv airov imoypaij/diievov KaTaXLireiv ov Ke<^dA.aiov ccttiv (is ovre tS>v i\ii>v Tts airov ev woitav ovT€ tUv i)(6pu>v KaKW'; VTrepepa\.eTO. 141. 3. Quendam enim sine ferro lan- iantium manus diripuerunt, inmanius homines hominem vivum quam bestiae Solent discerpere cadaver abiectum. From Florus Epit. 2. 9. 26: Baebium sine ferro, ritu ferarum, inter manus lancinatum. Here the language of Augustine is an echo of that of Florus. 148 141. 6. Alius oculis effossis et par- ticulatim membris amputatis in tantis cruci. atibus diu vivere vel potius diu mori coactus est. From Florus Epit. 2. 9. 26: M a r i u m , oculis effossis manibus cruribusque effractis, servatum aliquamdiu ut per singula membra moreretur. Seneca, De Ira 318, M . Mario.... L. Sulla praefringi crura, erui oculos, amputari linguam, manus iussit et, quasi totiens occideret quotiens vulnerabat, paulatim et per singulos artus laceravit. 141. 8. Subhastatae sunt etiam, tam- quam villae, quaedam nobiles civi- t a t e s . From Florus Epit. 2. 9. 27: municipia Italiae splendidissima sub hasta venierunt, Spoletium Interamnium Praeneste F 1 o r e n t i a . 141. 9. una verOjVelut unusreus duci iuberetur, sic tota iussa est truci- d a r i . From Florus Epit, 2. 9. 28: Sulmonem... non expugnat aut obsidet iure belli, sed quo modo morte damnati duci iubentur, sic damnatam civitatem iussit Sulla d e 1 e r i . 141. 24. Olim Gallorum et paulo ante Gothorum inruptionem. See notes pp. i. 3 and 84. 21. 141. 32. Gothi vero tarn multis sena- toribus pepercerunt ut magis mirum sit quod aliquos peremerunt. 149 Augustine here takes the milder view of the extent of the slaughter. On the other hand compare Procopius De bello Vandalico I. 2. 12: tods re dv^pwirous airavras eKxetvov otroi eycVoiro iv TTOcriv, b/jLOLoii fj,lv TrpecrjSvTai 6/xoitus 8e veous ovn yvvaiKuiv ovre TraiSuiv (fxiBo/jLevoi : and Socrates, Hist. Eccl. 7. 10, who says that many senators were tortured and slain : Kal ttoWous t^s cnjyKA.jjToi) /SovXrj'; Sia(f>6poi% SiKats iTro/SaA.di/Tcs dirtiiXco-av. 142. 21. bella Sertorii. See Livy Epit. 79, 90 sq., Florus Epit. 2. 10, Eutrop. Brev. 6. i, Veil. Pat. Hist. Rom. 2. 30. 142. 21. bella. . . . Catilinae. See Cic. In Cat., Sail. Cat., Livy Epit. 102 .sq., Florus Epit. 2. 12, Eutrop. Brev. 6. 15. 142. 23. Lepidi et Catuli helium. See Florus Epit. 2. 11, Eutrop. Brev. 6. i sq. Livy Epit. 90. 142. 24. ad Pompei et Caesaris (bellum). See Florus Epit. 2. 13, Eutrop. Brev. 6. 19 sq., Livy Epit. 109 sq. 143. 2. Gaium Caesarem....tamquam regni adpetitorem quorundam nobilium coniuratio senatorum velut pro rei publicae libertate in ipsa curia truci- davit. See Livy Epit. 116, Florus Epit. 2. 13. 92 sq., Eutrop. Brev. 6. 25, Veil. Pat. Hist. Rom. 2.56, Cic. De Div. 2. 9. 23, Phil. 2. 12. 29. But in this, as in the rest of this chapter, it is impossible to say which particular writer or writers Au- gustine has followed for his authority. 143. 8. Antonius, cui vehementer pro eadem ilia velut patriae libertate Cicero resistebat. The source of this is uncertain. It cannot be Florus. See Cicero's In M. Antonium Philippicae XIV, Veil. Pat. 150 Hist. Rom. 2. 64. 2: Haec sunt tempora qui- bus M. Tullius continuis actionibus aeternas Antoni memoriae inussit notas, also Id. 2. 66. Florus and Eutropius do not expressly men- tion his hostility to Antonius, but speak of his assassination in the proscriptions to which Antonius was a party. See Florus Epit. 2. 16. 5, Eutrop. Brev. 7. 2 (ad fin.) Livy Epit. 120. 144. 21. boves locutos. See Livy 3. 10. 6 ; 24. 10. 10 ; 27. 11. 4 ; 28. 11. 4 ; 35. 21. 4; 41. il. 2. Jul. Obseq. 15, 26, 27, 43, 53. Verg. Georg. I. 478. 144. 21. infantes nondum natos de uteris matrum quaedam verba clamasse. See Livy 24. 10. 10 i n f a n t e m in u t e r o matris in Marrucinis 'io triumphe' clamasse. 144. 22. volasse serpentes. Various prodigies in connection with serpents are related in Livy. Compare 7. 17. 3, Epit. 18, 21. 22. 8, 25. 16. 2, 26. 19. 7 ; but to none of these does Augustine 'refer here. He probably had in mind such a prodigy related in one of the books now lost. This is all the more likely because he has evidently taken the other prodigies from Livy's narrative. It is strange that if the above incident occurred in Livy it is not repeated by Julius Obsequens in his Prodigiorum liber, as we can prove from his language he knew and in many cases followed Livy, though not always. 144. 22. feminas et gallinas et homines in masculinum sexum fuisse conversas. See Livy 22, i. 13 ; 24. 10. 10 ; this is not recorded in Julius Obsequens. 144. 27. pluit terra. See Livy, 10. 31. 8 ; 35. 21. 3 ; 37- 3- 3 ; 42. 20. 5 ; 45, 16. 5. Jul. Obseq. i (55), 14 (73). 144. 27. pluit creta. See Livy 24. 10. 7. Jul. Obseq. 47 (107). 144. 27. pluit lapidibus. See Livy i. 31. i ; 21. 62. 6 ; 22. i. 9 ; 22. 36. 7 ; 26. 23- 5 ; 30- 38- 8. Jul. Obseq. i (55), 18 (77), 44 (104), 51 (ill). 54 (114). 144. 29. Legimus apud eos Aetnaeis ignibus ab ipso montis vertice usque ad littus proximum decurrentibus ita mare ferbuisse ut rupes exurerentur, ut pices navium solverentur....Eodem rursus aestu ignium tanta vi favillae scripserunt oppletam esse Siciliam, ut Catinensis urbis tecta obruta et pressa dirueret; qua calamitate per- moti misericorditer eiusdem anni tributum ei relaxavere .Romani. No doubt this was taken from one of the now lost books of Livy (59 or 60). See Servius on Verg. Georg. i. 472, Vidimus undantem ruptis fornacibus Aetnam].... ut dicit Livius, tanta flamma ante mortem Cacsaris ex Aetna monte defluxit, ut non tantum vicinae urbes sed etiamRegina civitas adflaretur. Julius Obsequens refers to the same (Prodig. lib. 32) Aetnae incendio Catina consumpta. Orosius writes of this (Adv. pag. 5. 13. 3) : eodem tempore Aetna mons ultra soli- tum exarsit et torrentibus igneis superfusis lateque circumfluentibus Catinam urbem finesque eius oppres- sit ita ut tecta aedium calidis cineri- bus praeusta et praegravata con- ruerent : cuius levandae cladis causa senatus decern annorum vecti- galia Catinensibus remisit. Thus Augus- 152 tine and Orosius differ somewhat, the former saying that the Romans remitted eiusdem anni tributum, the latter decern annorum vectigalia, and it is impossible to decide which is the more correct. 145. 3. Lucustarum etiam in Africa multitudinem prodigii similem fuisse, cum iam esset populi Romani pro- vincia, litteris mandaverunt; con- sumptis enim fructibus foliisque lig- norum ingenti atque inaestimabili nube in mare dicunt esse deiectam; qua mortuaredditaque littoribus atque hinc aere corrupto tantam ortam pestilentiam ut in solo regno Masi- nissae octingenta hominum milia perisse referantur et multo amplius in terris littoribus proximis. Tunc Uticae ex triginta milibus iuniorum quae ibi erantdecem miliaremansisse confirmant. See Livy Epit. 60, Jul. Obseq. 30 who has preserved Livy's account, apparuit lucustarum ingenti agmine in Africa, quae a vento in mare deiectae fluctibusque eiectae odore intolerabili Cyrenis morti- feroque vapore gravem pestilentiam fecerunt pecori; hominumque DCCC milia consumpta tabe proditum est. Compare Orosius Adv. pag. 5. 11. sq. who again differs from Augustine, and gives a fuller account. The former says that in Numidia. where there were octingenta milia hominum, plus quam ducenta milia perisse traditum est, apud ipsam vero Uticam civitatem triginta milia militum . . . . extincta atque abrasa sunt.... apud Uticam sub una die per unam portam ex illis iunioribus plus quam mille quingentos mortuos elates fuisse narretur. IS3 BOOK IV. 146. 16. Note how Augustine says he derived his infor- mation for the facts related in the three preceding books : partim ex recenti memoria and p a r t i m ex litteris eorum. 147. 23. quae uno locoApuleius brev- iter stringit in eo libel lo quem de mundo scripsit, terrena omnia dicens mutationes. . . . These words and on to p. 148. 8 are taken as a solid piece from chapter 34 (in Hildebrand's edition) of De Mundo, sed magna lectionum diversitate, as Hildebrand says. 150. 27. Eleganter enim et veraciter Alexandro illi Magno quidam compre- hensus pitata respondit. Nam cum idem rex hominem interrogasset quid ei videretur ut mare infestaret, ille libera contumacia: Quod tibi, inquit, ut orbem terrarum; sed quia id ego exiguo navigio facio, latro vocor; quia tu magna classe, imperator. See Cic. De Re pub. 3. 14. 24 (preserved by Nonius, pp. 125, 318, 534). Nam Cum quaereretur ex eo quo scelere impulsus mare haberet infestum uno myoparone, 'eodem,' inquit, 'quo tu orbem terrae'. This is not recorded in Curtius Rufus. Cicero is evidently Augustine's source for this story. See Literary Sources of DCD I-X p. 20. 151. 15. quando paucissimi gladiatores in Campania de ludo fugientes mag- 1 54 num exercitum compararunt, tres duces habuerunt. See note p. 138. 9. ^53- 4- Qualibet autem fide rerum vel iste vel Trogus scripserit (nam quaedam illos fuisse mentitos aliae fideliores litterae ostendunt) constat tamen et inter alios scriptores reg- num Assyriorum a Nino rege fuisse longe lateque porrectum. It is not possible to say to what sources Augustine here refers. Compare Chron. of Euseb. (Jerome, B E vol. 8, col. 44). Ninus fuit rex Assyriorum, maxi- morum insigniumque facinorum auctor. Id. col. 49, col. 259. 153. 9. Nam sicut scribunt qui chron i- cam historiam persecuti sunt, mille ducentos et quadraginta annos ab anno primo, quo Ninus regnare coepit,per- mansit hoc regnum donee transferre- tur ad Medos. Compare Chron. of Euseb. (Jerome BE vol. 8, col. 50) Tempus imperii Assyriorum secundum accuratos scriptores anni mille du- centi quadraginta; secundum vero alios mille trecenti. The same number is given in col. 347. On the other hand lustinus Epit. i. 2. 13 Imperium Assyrii. . . . mille tre- centis annis tenuere. Hence Augustine here agrees with the Chronicle of Eusebius and not with lustinus. Compare DCD, XII. 11. in quibus regnum Assyriorum in eadem epistula Alexandri quinque milia excedit an- norum; in Graeca vero historia mille ferme et trecentos habet ab ipsius Beli principatu 157. 5. Hunc Varro credit etiam ab his coli qui unum Deum sine simula- cro colunt, sed alio nomine nuncu- pari. For the fragments of "Varro in the fourth book of DCD see Francken pp. 8-31, Schwarz especially pp. 438-449, Agahd, index p 367. ^57- ^7- Though Augustine does not mention Varro by name in Chapters 10 and 11, there can be little doubt from the nature of the subject and the similarity with other authen- ticated remains of Varro that these passages are to be attrib- uted to him also. 159. 20. Cui etiam Phoenices donum dabant de prostitutione filiarum, ante- quam eas iungerent viris. Though Francken, Schwarz and Agahd do not mention this passage I have no doubt that it is to be referred also to Varro, whom Augustine follows in the preceding and succeed- ing pages. Probably Varro added this information in his sixteenth book of R D entitled "De Diis selectis. " This is treated more fully under Varro in The Sources of Augustine, p. 40. 165. 32. Quietum vero appellantes, quae faceret quietum, cum aedem ha- beret extra portam Collinam. Compare Livy 4. 41. 8, via Labicana ad fa- num Quietis. From this we learn that there was an a e d e s dedicated to Q u 1 e s located extra por- tam Collinam, while there was a f a n u m to the same deity on the via Labicana. 167. II. Hoc (i.e. bonos esse decs) Plato d i c i t . Compare Plato Rep. 2. 379 B, ovkovv ayadoi o ye Scos tw oVTi TE Kttl XiKTioV OVTOJS; TL /JLT^V. Ibid. 379 C OvS' tt/Dtt ^V 8' iyia, O 6(6^, iireiSri aya66s, TrdvTOiV av ilr] aiTios ovk apa airooiKreov ovre IS6 OfjL-^pov ovt' aXXov TTOL-^TOV TavTtju Tr/v a/xapTiav Trepl rois Btovi avoTjTtoi aixaprdvovTOS Ibid. 380. 381B aXX.a. jx-qv 6 6eos ye Kal to. Tov 6eov TrdvTrj apicrra €)(ei. Id. Theaet. 176. C. Bio's ovhajj.^ oiSa/jiwi aSiKos ..... But the above is rather an inference on the part of Augus- tine from his knowledge of Platonism and Neo-Platonism than a reference to any specific statement of Plato, as no such definite statement is found in Plato. 168. 13. quam Fortunam vocant, ut simulacrum eius, quod a matronis dedi- catum est et appellata est Fortuna muliebris, etiam locutum esse memor- iae cortimendaverint atque dixisse non semel sed iterum. See Livy 2. 40. Lact. Div. Inst. 2. 7. 11, I 1 1 u d etiam mirabile, quod simulacrum For- tunae muliebris non semel locutum esse traditur; ibid. 2. 16. 11, quod Fortuna muliebris periculura denuntiavit; Val. Max. I. 8. 4, Id. 5. 2. I. No doubt this .deity was treated of in Varro's work. 169. 5. Virtutem quoque deam fecer- u n t . See Livy 27. 25. 7 sq.' Id. 29. 11. 13, a e d e m V i r - tutis eo anno ad portam Capenam M. Marcellus dedicavit. Lact. Div. Inst. i. 20. 12, I. 20. 19, Inst. Ep. 15. 6, Cic. N. D. 2. 23. 61, 3, 36. 88, De Legg. 2. 8. 19, 2. 11. 28, De Re pub. i. 14. 21, Val. Max. I. I. 8. 169. 9. et Fides dea credita est et accepit etiam ipsa templum et altar-e. See Livy 1.21.4, et soli Fidei sollemn'e i n s t i t u i t ; Cic. N. D. 2. 23. 61, 3. 18. 47, De Legg. 2. 8. 19, 2. II. 28. 169. 14. Quando quidem virtutem in quattuor species distribuendam esse 157 viderunt, prudentiam, iustitiam, for- titudinem temperantiam. Augustine's literary source for the four cardinal virtues was Cicero's Hortensius, as we learn from the De Trinitate 14. 9.12, De omnibus tamen quattuor (vir- tutibus)....Tullius in Hortensio dia- logo disputans. That this was not the only place in the works of Cicero where the four- fold division of virtue was found we know from Jerome (Comm. in Zach. works, BE, vol. 6, col. 1498) : quattuor scilicet virtutes prudentia iustitia fortitude temper- antia, de quibus pleniss'ime in Offi- ciorum libris Tullius disputat.scrib- ens proprium quoque de quattuor vir- tutibus librum. A similar list is found in Apuleius (De dogmate Platonis, 2. 1 ; Hildebrand's edition, vol. 2, p. 213) where p u d i c i t i a m stands for the temperan- tiam of Augustine and Cicero. See the Literary Sources of BCD I-X, p. 20. 169. 25. Mucio, cum dexteram porrexit in f 1 a m m a s . This comes from Livy 2. 12. 12 cum rex simul ira infensus periculoque conterritus circumdari ignis minitabundus iuberet, nisi expromeret propere quas insidia- rum sibi minas per ambages iaceret, 'en tibi,' inquit, 'ut sentias, quam vile corpus sit.iis qui magnam gloriam vident' dextramque accenso ad sacri- ficium foculo inicit. See Florus Epit. i. 4. 5. 169. 27. Curio, cum se pro patria in abruptam terram praecipitem dedit. The source is Livy, in whose history there are two ac- counts of the origin of the lacus Curtius, i. 13 and 7. 6. It is to the event which took place on the latter occas- ion (7. 6. 3) that Augustine here refers, turn' M, Cur- IS8 tium, iuvenem bello egregium casti- gasse ferunt dubitantes an ullum magis Romanum bonum quam arma virtusque esset? Silentio facto tem- pla deorum immortalium, quae foro imminent, Capitoliumque intuentem et manus nunc in caelum nunc in patentes terrae hiatus ad deos manes porrigentem se devovisse, equoque deinde quam poterat maxime exornato insidentem .armatum ,se in specum i m m i s i s s e . In the examples (Mucius, Curtius, Decii pater et filius) of fortitudo which Augustine gives at the close of this chapter he has not followed Florus, for Florus does not record the case of Curtius, nor has he followed Eutropius or Cicero as they do not give the information here required. Augustine's authority must therefore be Livy. 169. 28. Decio patri et Decio filio cum pro exercitu se voverunt. Livy is the source — P. Decius Mus pater at Vesuvius in the war against the Latins in the year 340 B. C. See Livy 8. 9 sq. Florus Epit. 1.9. 3. P. Decius Mus filius at Sentinum B. C. 29s in the war against the Gauls Etruscans Samnites and Um- brians. See Livy 9. 40 sq. 10. 28., Florus Epit. i. 12. 7 nam oppressus in sinu vallis alter consulum Decius more patrio devotum diis manibus obtulit caput. 173. II. Cur denique tarn sero huic tantae deae (Felicitati) post tot Romanos principes Lucullus aedem constituit? This perhaps occurred in the forty eighth book of Livy now lost, but Augustine may have found itin Varro's writings. There is no mention of Lucullus' building a temple to Felici- tas in any of the extant writings of Livy, Florus, Eutropius, 159 Valerius Maximus, Velleius Paterculus, Seneca, Aulus Gellius, Tertullian or Lactantius. From Cic. In Verr. 4. 57. 126 we know that there existed a temple to Felicitas, but Cicero does not say that Lucullus built it. Arnobius, Adv. Natt. 4. i. i mentions Felicitas among other deities who had shrines. L. Licinius Lucullus, the grandfather of the Lucullus who subdued Mithridates, is the Lucullus here mentioned. He was consul 151 B. C. and became notorious for his acts of cruelty in Spain, especially against the Vaccaeans. 174. 30. Nam sicut habent eorum lit- terae, cum rex Tarquinius Capito- lium fabricare vellet .... per augurium quaesivit utrum concedere locum vellent lovi; atque ipsi inde cedere omnes voluerunt praeter illos quos comme- moravi Martem Terminum luventatem. See Livy i. 55. 4, who mentions Terminus alone as not yielding, while the Epitone of this same book gives Ter- mini et luventae arae moveri non potuerunt. So also Florus Epit. 1. i. 7 cedenti- bus ceteris diis^mira res dictu — restitere luventas et Terminus. Au- gustine by his addition of Mars to the dissenting deities dis- agrees with Livy and Florus. This different version Augustine probably obtained from Varro. Francken says: Hoc magis confirmatur iquod ceteri, quos adire potui, scriptores Martem lovi non cedentem non commemorant. See his note p. 22 sq. 177. 26. Iste alienarum dicitur adul- ter uxorum; iste pueri pulchri im- pudicus amator et raptor. These stories about the immorality of Jupiter were doubtless well known in the popular religion. They need not therefore be referred to any particular literary source. Com- pare DCD, IV. 26. (p. 179. 9) in illis ludis cor- i6o ruptorem pudicitiae lovem turpissimi histriones cantabant agebant place- bant. 178. 7. Cur ergo ludi scaenici ubi haec dictitantur cantitantur actitan- tur, deorum honoribus exhibentur, inter res divinas a doctissimis con- scribuntur? The main source seems to be Varro. See Livy 7. 2. 3. ludi quoque scaenici. . . .inter alia caelestis irae placamina instituti d i c u n t u r . Id. 36. 36. 4. Varro must be included in the doctissimis. Compare DCD III. 4. v i r d o c t i s - simus also DCD. IV. 31 (ad init.) Quid ipse Varro, quem dolemus in rebus divinis ludos scaenicos, quamvis non iudicio pro- prio, posuisse. 178. 17. Tito Latinio rustico Romano patri familias dictum est in somnis in senatum nuntiaret ut ludi Romani instaurarentur. . . . See Livy 2. 36, Val. Max. i. 7. 4, Cic. De Div. i. 26. 55, Lact. 2. 7. 20. In regard to assigning this fragment to Varro see Francken p. 28, and Schwarz pp. 144, 445, 451. 179. 21. Relatum est in litteras doc- tissimum pontificem Scaevolam dis- putasse tria genera tradita deorum, unum a poetis, alterum a philosophis, tertium a principibus civitatis. Primum genus nugatorium dicit esse, quod multa de diis fingantur indigna; secundum non congruere civitatibus, quod habeat aliqua supervacua, aliqua etiam quae obsit populisnosse. There can be little doubt that Augustine's authority is here Varro, as Bremer (lurisprudentia Antehadriana, Leipzig i6i 1896, vol. I, p. 48) has noticed : Scaevolam.... quem tria genera deorum statuisse Augustinus de civ. dei IV. 27 Varrone auctore narrat. See also Agahd p. 145. The Scaevola here mentioned was Quintus Mucins Scaevola, who was killed by the party of Marius 82 B.C. 179. 28. solet enim et a iuris peritis dici: superflua non nocent. These words were evidently a law maxim, and one which cannot be traced to any particular source. This whole passage p. 179. 2i-p. 180. 19 is given by Bremer (work cited vol. i. pp. 102-3) as a fragment plane incertae sedis of Scaevola ; after which he adds the remark Fortasse haec disputatio in libros recepta non e r a t . 182. 21. Termini imperii deficientibus multis ad Hannibalem civitatibus in angustum fuerant coartati. See Livy 22. 61. 11, d e f e c e r e a u t e m ad Poenos hi populi: Atellani, Calatini, Hirpini, Apulorum pars, Samnites praeter hos Uzentini et Graecorum omnis ferme ora, Tarentini, Meta- pontini, Crotonienses Locrique et Cisalpini omnes Galli. Eutrop. Brev. 3. 11. Augustine could not be following Floras here, as Florus does not record this defection to Hannibal after Cannae. Appar- ently Eutropius is the source. 182. 26. postea in orientalibus parti- bus Hadriani voluntate mutati sunt termini imperii Romani. Ille naraque tres provincias nobiles, Armeniam Mesopotamiam Assyriam Persarum concessit imperio. Apparently from Eutropius. See Brev. 8. 6. 2 Qui Traiani gloriae invidens statim pro- 1 62 vincias tres reliquit, quas Traianus addiderat, et de Assyria, Mesopo- tamia, Armenia revocavit exercitus ac finem imperii esse voluit Euphra- ten. Jerome, Chron. of Euseb. BE vol. 8 col. 465. 183. 1. lulianus.... immoderato au s u naves iussit incendi, quibus alimonia portabatur; qua exercitus destitutus mox etiam ipso hostili vulnere ex- tincto in tantam est redactus inopiam ....nisi placito pacis illic imperii fines constituerentur. Apparently from Eutropius, Brev. 10. 16. 189. 3. Nee Lucinam mulieres illae invocaverunt. . . . Perhaps with special reference to Exodus i. 19 : n o n sunt Hebraeae sicut Aegyptiae mulieres: ipsae enim obstetricandi habent scientiam, et priusquam veniamus ad eas, pariunt. 163 BOOK V. 193. 32. nobile illud commentum de figuli rota, quod respondisse ferunt Nigidium hac quaestione turbatum unde et Figulus appellatus est. This Nigidius Figulus was, according to Gellius (N. A. 4. 9. 1), iuxta M. Varronem doctissimus. He was an astrologer and grammarian, and, as we learn from Apuleius (Apol. 42), was well versed in magic arts. Cicero employed him in the trial of Catiline in 63 B. C. Subsequent- ly he played a considerable part in politics (Cic. pro. Sulla 14. 42, ad Q. F, I. 2. 16, Ad Att 2. 2. 3). In the civil war he es- poused the cause of Pompey (Ad Att. 7. 24) and consequently was obliged to retire into exile in which he died in 46 B. C. Of the commentum de figuli rota re- ferred to by Augustine I can find no other mention, but I sus- pect Augustine took it from some work of Cicero no longer extant, as this Nigidius Figulus is most frequently mentioned in Cicero's works. Two other arguments for Ciceronian authority here may be derived first, from the use of i n q u i t . . . . inquit (p. 194. 6 and 9) and secondly, from the close connection of this chapter with the foregoing (f r u s t r a itaque adfertur). This passage is treated more fully in the part on The Literary Sources of Augustine, p. 21. 197. 13. illud a nonnullis praedica- tur, quod quidam sapiens horam ele- git qua cum uxore concumberet unde filium mirabilem gigneret. There seems to be no extant literary source for this state- ment before the time of Augustine. It has been shown in the Literary Sources of Augustine (p. 22) that it may with a high degree of probability be referred to the De Fato of Cicero. It might seem as if a nonnullis (plural) p r a e - 164 d i c a t u r were against single Ciceronian authority. But we have several instances in Augustine where he uses the plural number where he really would require only the singular. Conspicuous among such examples is .one which occurs in this same book (DCD V. 20. p. 231. 6) where Augustine writes Solent philosophi, where he has clearly only Cicero in mind. If then philosophi can stand for Cicero in particular, surely a n o n n u 1 1 i s may do the the same service. It might be said that philosophi here represents philosophers in general, of whom Cicero was the first exponent in Augustine's mind for the particular state- ment he was making (tabulam quandam verbis p i n g e r e etc. p. 231. 10). So also we may answer that a nonnullis praedicatur may equally well repre- sent in general the opinions of those who believed in astrology or divination (mathematici), when Augustine had in mind chiefly this remarkable example given by Cicero. Other examples of the use of the plural numbers for single authority may be found in DCD IV. 24 in which the word i n q u i u n t is twice (p. 176. 15 and 29) used, where ap- parently only Varro is referred to ; and again in DCD IV. 26, where the words a doctissimis conscribuntur refer chiefly to Varro, as we learn from DCD IV. 31 (p. 185. 18). Livian authority has also been disguised by Augustine in a similar general and indefinite manner. Compare DCD III. 31 where the three plural expressions Legimus apud e o s (p. 144. 29), scripserunt (p. 144. 34) 1 i t - teris mandaverunt (p. 145. 5) stand principally, if not altogether, for the authority of Livy. 202. 6. Illi quoque versus Homeric! huic sententiae suffragantur quos Cicero in Latinum vertit. Augustine was apt to prefer a translation when it was at hand to the Greek original. Compare Confess, i. 14, Nam et Homerus peritus texere tales fa- i6s bellas, et dulcissime vanus est, et mihi tamen amarus erat puero. The lines given by Augustine do not occur in Cicero's extant works, but are assigned, as by Mueller, to the fragments of the De Fato. They evidently occurred in one of his philo- sophical treatises, as Augustine tells us in the context : Stoicos dicit vim fati asserentes istos ex Homero versus solere usurpare, and it is more natural to assign them to the De Fato than to the Acad., to which Dombart refers them though with a ques- tion mark. « 202. 23. Quam (divinationem) sic con- atur auferre, ut neget esse scientiam futurorum, eamque omnibus viribus nullam esse omnino contendat vel in homine vel in deo, nullamque rerum praedictionem. See Cic. De Div. 2. passim, De Fato. 6. 11, n o n en i m credo nullo percepto aut ceteros ar- tifices versari in suo munere, aut eos qui divinatione utantur futura prae- d i c e r e , ibid 14. 33, et passim. 203. 33. non enim fieri aliquid potest quod non aliqua efficiens causa prae- cesserit: si autem certus est ordo causarum, quo fit omne quod fit, fato, inquit, fiunt omnia quae fiunt. See Cic. De Fato. 10. 20, m o t u s ergo sine causa nullus est. Quod si ita est om- nia, quae fiunt, causis fiunt antegres- sis; id si ita est, fato omnia fiunt; efficitur igitur fato fieri quaecumque f i a n t, ibid 11. 26, 18. 41, 19. 44. 204. 5. quod si concedimus, inquit, omnis humana vita subvertitur, frus- 1 66 tra leges dantur, frustra o b i u r g a t i o n e s laudes vituperationes exhortationes adhibentur, neque ulla iustitia bonis praemia et malis supplicia constituta sunt. See De Fato 17. 40, ex quoefficitur ut nee laudationes iustae sint nee vitupera- tiones nee honores nee supplicia. 210. 31. qui non solum caelum et ter- ram, nee solum angelum et hominem, sed nee exigui et contemptibilis ani- mantis viscera nee avis pinnulam,nec herbae flosculum nee arboris folium sine suarum partium convenientia et quadam veluti pace dereliquit: nullo mode est credendus regna hominum eorumque dorainationes et servitutes a suae providentiae legibus alienas esse voluisse. Compare DCD X. 14, where Augustine, speaks of Plo- tinus' theory of providence and its extent usque ad haec terrena et ima pertingere flos- culorum atque foliorum puchritudine. So in the passage on which we are commenting Augustine may have been influenced by Plotinus. Loesche (De Augustino Plotinizante in doctrina de Deo. lena. 1880, p. 61,) actually cites two passages from Plotinus as parallel to the words of Augustine: Set rrju Trpovoiav cttI Travra cf>9dv(LV Kal to ipyov avTrjv Kapirtav eictv a.va\oyiq. TrpocrrjKOVTK. AW o p.h/ "Attis tiov Kara, to iap Ttpo^a.wofj.iviov avd^mv Koi TrpXv reXccrioyoi'^o-at SiappeovTiov, oOev Kal Trjv twv alooimv airoKOTrrjv avT0a(Ta.VTO)V iXOeiv tS>v KapTrZv cis rijv cnrcpjuaTi/c^i' rcXtttutrtv. This may be the 183 passage Augustine had in mind in writing the above. Euse- bius seems to be quoting there from some work dealing with images ; and such a work Stobaeus (Eel. Phys. i. 25) mentions under the title wepi dyaX/idTMv. If these are the words to which Augustine refers they are taken not from the irepi dvdSou i/^x'^' (De Regressu animae), but from this irepl dyaX/idTcov, though Augustine does not mention the latter as he does the former. Compare Arnobius, Adv. nationes, 5. 5. sq. 309. 7. totam de hoc Euhemerus pan- dit historiam quam Ennius in Lati- num vertit eloquium. See Cic. N. D. i. 42. 119, quae ratio maxime tractata ab Euhemero est, quem nos- ter et interpretatus et secutus prae- ter ceteros Ennius. Lact. Div. Inst. i. 11. 33, antiquus auctor Euhemerus . . . . res gestas lovis et ceterorum qui dii pu- tantur collegit historiamque contex- uit ex titulis et inscriptionibus.... Hanc historiam et interpretatus est Ennius et secutus. Arnob. Adv. Natt. 4. 29. See Literary Sources of Augustine, DCD I-X, p. 10. 318. 27. istos Varronis ad Caesarem pontificemscriptos. Compare Lact. Div. Inst. i. 6. 7, in libris rerum divinarum quos ad C. Caesarem ponti- ficem maximum scripsit. 321. 31. Italicum genus auctorem hab- uit Pythagoram Samnium, a quo etiam ferunt ipsum philosophiae nomen ex- ortum, . . . . iste interrogatus quid pro- fiteretur philosophum se esse re- spond i t . The source is uncertain, probably the Hortensius of Cic- ero. See Tusc. 5. 3. 8. sq., De Sen. 21. 78., Lact. Div. Inst. 'V< 1 84 3. 2. 6, Pythagoras, qui hoc primus no- men invenit,.... Itaque cum ab eo quaereretur quemnam se profiteretur, respondit philosophum, id est quaesi- t o r e m s a p i e n t i a e. Id. 3. 14. 5. See Literary Sources, p. 23. 322. 3. lonicivero generis princeps fuit Thales Milesius, unus illorum septem qui sunt appellati sapientes. Augustine's source here was probably the lost Hortensius of Cicero. Compare Lact. Div. Inst. 3. 16. 12, Horten- sius, ex eo posse intellegi philosoph- iam non esse sapientiam quod princi- pium et origo eius appareat. Quando, inquit, philosophi esse coeperunt? Thales ut opinor primus. 322. II. Aquam tamen putavit rerum esse principium et hinc omnia ele- menta mundi ipsumque mundum et quae in eo gignuntur existere. See Cic. Acad, prior. 2. 37. 118, T h a 1 e s . . . . ex aqua dixit constare omnia, N. D. i. 10. 25, Lact. Div. Inst. i. 5. 16, ibid. 2. 9. 18. 322. 16. Anaximander eius auditor .... ex suis propriis principiis quas- que res nasci putavit. Quae rerum principia singularum esse credidit in- finita, et innumerabiles mundos gig- nere et quaecunque in eis oriuntur; eosque mundos modo dissolvi modo iterum gigni existimavit. See Cic. N. D. i. 10. 25, A n a x i m a n d r i a u t e m opinio est nativos esse deos longis intervallis orientis occidentisque, eosque innumerabiles esse mundos. i8s Acad, prior. 2. 37. ii8, is enim infinitatem na- turae dixit esse, e qua omnia gigner- e n t u r . 322. 24. Iste Anaximenen discipulum et successorem reliquit, qui omnes rerum causas aeri infinito dedit, nee deos negavit aut tacuit: non tamen ab ipsis aerem factum, sed ipsos ex acre ortos credidit. See Cic. Acad, prior. 2. 37. 1 18, p o s t e i u s audi- tor Anaximenes infinitum aera, sed ea quae ex eo orerentur definita;gigni autem terram aquam ignem, turn ex his omnia. N. D. i. 10. 26, Lact. Div. Inst. i. 5. 19. 322. 27. Anaxagoras vero eius audi- tor harum rerum omnium, quas vide- mus, effectorcm divinum animum sen- sit et dixit ex infinita materia, quae constaret similibus inter se particu- lis rerum omnium quibus suis et pro- priis singula fieri, sed animo faciente d i V i n o. See Cic. Acad. 2. 37. 118, Anaxagoras ma- teriam infinitam, sed ex ea particu- las, similes inter se minutas; eas pri- mum confusas, postea in ordinem ad- duct a s m e n t e d i v i n a . N. D. i. 11. 26. 322.32. Diogenes quoque Anaximenis al- ter auditor, aerem quidera dixit rerum esse materiam, de qua omnia fierent, sed cum esse compotem divinae ra- tionis sine qua nihil ex eo fieri pos- set. See Cic. N. D. i. 12. 29, a e r quo Diogenes Apolloniates utitur deo quern sensum habere potest aut quam formam dei? 1 86 323. 2. Anaxagorae successit auditor eius Archelaus. Etiam ipse de parti- culis inter se similibus, quibus sin- gula quaeque fierent, ita puta]vit constare omnia ut inesse etiam men- tem diceret. This Archelaus is mentioned only once in the extant writings of Cicero, Tusc. 5. 4. 10. Very little is known either of his life or of his teachings. No doubt he was dis- cussed in the schools in the days of Augustine along with the other philosophers. 323. 7. Socrates huius discipulus fuisse perhibetur. See Cic. Tusc 5. 4. 10 ad Socratem qui Archelaum, Anaxagorae discipulum, a u d i e r a t . 323. II. Socrates ergo primus uni- versam philosophiam ad corrigendos componendosque mores flexisse me- moratur, cum ante ilium omnes magis physicis, id est, naturalibus, rebus perscrutandis operam maximam in- penderent. See Cic. Acad, prior, i. 4. 15, Socrates m i h i videtur primus a rebus occultis et ab ipsa natura involutis, in quibus omnes ante eum philosophi occupati fuerunt, avocavisse philosophiam et ad vitam communem a d_d uxisse, ut de virtutibus et vitiis omninoque de bonis rebus et mails quaereret; Tusc. 3. 4. 8, 5. 4. 8, 5. 4. 10, Socrates a u t e m pri- mus philosophiam devocavit e coelo ....et coegit de vita et moribus re- busque bonis et mails quaerere. DeFinn. 5. 29. 88. Lact. Div. Inst. 3. 13. 6, 3. 20. 2, 3. 21. i. . i87 324. 3. vel confessa ignorantia sua vel- dissimulata scientia lepore mira- bili disserendi et acutissima urbani- tate agitasse atque versasse. Cicero seems to be the source. See Acad. 2. 5. 15. ita cum aliud diceret atque sentiret, libenter uti solitus est ea dissimu- latione, quam Graeci ilptov^iav v o c a n t ; also ibid. 2. 23. 74, De Div. 2. 72. 150, De Off. i. 30. 108, De Orat. 2. 67. 270, Brut. 292, De Inv. i. 31. 53. 324. 6, Sed cum postea ilia ipsa, quae pub lice damnaverat, Atheniensium civitas publice luxit,in duos accusa- tores eius usque adeo populi indigna- tione conversa, ut unus eorum oppres- sus vi multitudinis interiret, exilio autem voluntario atque perpetuo poe- nam similem alter evaderet. It is difficult to discover Augustine's literary source here. We know of no extant account from which Augustine might have taken this. Compare Diodorus 14 37 (ad fin.) : dSiKou 0£ TTjs KaTrj-yopLai yeyevrj/xevrj^ 6 8^;u,os fiiTefjLiXrjdn] T-qXcKOVTOV avSpa ueaiptav avrjprjfji.ivov • SioTrep roiis KarrfyoprjcravTa^ 8t opy^s eix' '"'' ■'''''^''5 d/cptVous airiKTetviv, which account differs considerably from that given by Augustine. Compare also Diog. Laert. 2. 43: A.0rjvaiOt 8' evOvs fiereyvoicrov toore K\€to"at /cat 7raA,atcrrpa9 kol yvp.va.vya.Sivcrav, McXtVov 8^ Odvarov Karlyvwaav which Still differs from Augustine. It is probable that Cicero in one of his now lost works related this story, and that Augustine got it from him. Cicero probably treated of Socrates and and the Socratic philosophy in the Hortensius, where it would be natural for him to record the death of Socrates. 324 22. quidam summum bonum esse dicerent voluptatem, sicut Aristip- p u s . See Cic. Acad. 2. 42. 131, alii voluptatem finem esse voluerunt quorum princeps Aristippus, qui Socratem audierat. Id. De Finn. i. 8. 26, 2. 6. 18, 2. 7. 20, 5. 7. 20, Lact. Div. Inst. 3. 7. 7, 3. 8. 6. 324. 24. quidam virtutem, sicut An- tistlienes. See Tusc. 5. 9. 26. No doubt Cicero was the literary source — probably in the Hortensius, 325. 6. in Aegypto didicit (Plato) quaecunque magna illic habebantur atque docebantur. See Cic. De Finn. 5. 29. 87, Cur Plato A e g y p - tum peragravit ut a sacerdotibus bar- baris numeros et coelestia acciper- e t ? Apul. De dog. Plat. i. 3 (Hildebrand's edition), e t astrologiam adusque Aegyptum ivit petitum, ut inde prophetarum ritus etiam addisceret. Lact. Div. Inst. 4 2. 4. 325. 7. et inde in eas Italiae partes veniens, ubi Pythagoreorum fama celebrabatur. . . . See Cic. De Finn. 5. 29. 87, cur post Tarentum ad Archytam? cur ad reliquos Pytha- g o r e o s ? Tusc. i. 17. 39, Platonem ferunt ut Pythagoreos cognosceret in Italiam venisse et didicisse Pythagorea om- nia. Apul. De dog. Plat. i. 3 (Hildebrand's edition): E t ad Italiam iterum venit et Pythagor- eos Eurytatum(?) Tarentinum et sen- iorem Archytam sectatus. Augustine may here be following either Cicero or Apuleius. 325. 15. Itaque cum studium sapien- tiae in actione et contemplatione versetur, unde una pars eius activa, altera contemplativa dici potest. 1 89 This two fold division of sapientia Augustine probably found in Cicero's Hortensius. Compare De Trin. 14. 19. 26. Hanc contemplativam sapientiam.... Cicero commendans in fine dialogi H o r t e n s i i . 325. 22. Proinde Plato utrumque iun- gendo philosophiam perfecisse lauda- tur, quam in tres partes distribuit: unam moralem quae maxime in actione versatur; alteram naturalem quae contemplationi deputata est; tertiam rationalem, qua verum disterminatur a f a 1 s o . It is impossible in tiie extant works of Plato to find this three-fold stoic division into ethics, physics and logic. Such a division was developed by some later interpretors of or com- mentators on Plato such as we find in Cic. Acad. i. 5. 19, Fuit ergo iam accepta a Platone ratio triplex, una de vita et moribus, altera de natura et rebus occ'ultis, tertia de disserendo et quid verum quid falsum quid rectum in oratione parumve quid consentiens quid re- pugnans esset iudicando. This may have been the source from which Augustine derived the above statement, but it is more likely that this three-fold divis- ion was an established one in the philosophy of Plato as taught in the schools of Augustine's day. Lactantius Div. Inst. 3. 4. 12, mentions duo philosophiae genera, but he also gives the three divisions of philosophy, viz: m o r a 1 i s and p hy si c a (Div. Inst. 3. 7. i) the former of which seems to correspond to e t h i c a (Inst. Epit. 28. 13), and third Xoyiicij superest pars ilia philosophiae- tertia quam vocant XoyiKr]v, in qua tota dialectica et omnis loquendi ratio continetur (Div. Inst. 3. 13. 4, Inst. Epit. 30. 5). I go This three-fold division of Lactantius into m o r a 1 i s or ethica, physica and XoytK^ corresponds to Augus- tine's moralem, naturalem and r a t i o n a - 1 e m . We should note here also the passage in Apuleius, De dog. Platonis, which (in Hildebrand's edition book i, chapter 3) reads ut primus tripartitam philo- sophiam copularet sibique invicem necessarias partes neque pugnare in- ter se tantummodo sed etiam mutuis adiuvare auxiliis ostenderet. Nam quamvis de diversis officinis haec ei essent philosophiae membra suscepta, naturalis a Pythagoreis, dialectica atque moralis ab ipso Socratis fonte, unum tamen ex omnibus et quasi pro- prii partus corpus effecit. 327. 25. Alexander Macedo scribit ad matrem sibi a magno antistite sacro- rum Aegyptiorum quodam Leone pate- facta.... Timens enim et ille quasi revelata mysteria petens admonet Al- exandrum ut, cum ea matri conscripta insinuaverit, flammis iubeat concre- m a r i . There are several notices of letters of Alexander the Great to his mother, Olympias, but we cannot decide which one of these, if any, is the one referred to here by Augustine. I examine the evidence somewhat in detail, because this is professedly one of Augustine's sources. Compare DCD VIII. 27, sicut Leone sacer- dote prodente ad Olympiadem matrem scribit Alexander. DCD XII. 11, i 1 1 a epis- •tula Alexandri Magni ad Olympiadem matrem suam quam scripsit narra-, tionem cuiusdam Aegyptii sacerdotis insinuans, quam protulit ex litteris igi quae sacrae apud illos haberentur, continet etiam regna quae Graeca quoque novit historia. Such is the informa- tion which Augustine gives us in reference to this epistle of Alexander the Great to his mother. Plutarch, Vitae. Alex. 27, says: airos 8e 'AXe'^arSpos Iv (TnarToXyf ir po<; ttjv fii^ripa ^-qtri yiyovevai Tifos aurw jxavTiiw; airoppT^TOv; a? afiros itraveXOiiyv pd0VTa {mep TU)V 'Iv&Hv rrj^ yrji aX\a t6 ypatpo-i Koi on SoKOtr; aiuTo! i^f.vp7iK€vax Tov Net'Aov TOs 7rr;yas .... which Cannot be the one referred to by Augustine. Aulus Gellius, 13. 4. i says In pie risque monimentis rerum ab Alexandro ges- tarum et paulo ante in libro M. Var- ronis qui inscriptus est Orestes vel de insania, Olympiadem Philippi uxo- rem festivissime rescripsisse legimus Alexandro filio. Nam cum is ad matrem ita scripsisset: Rex Alexander lovis Hammonis filius Olympiadi matri salutem dicit, Olympias ei rescripsit . . . . Tertullian seems to refer to the same letter as Augustine (De Pallio 3): quod Aegyp- tii narrant et Alexander digerit et mater legit de tempestate Osiridis qua ad ilium ex Libya Ammon facit ovium dives. See also id. De Corona 7. Compare also Cyprian, De idolorum vanitate 2 (works BE vol. 2. 588) Hoc ita Alexander Magnus insigni volumine ad matrem suam scribit metu suae potestatis proditum sibi de diis hominibus a sacerdote secretum; Minucius Felix, Octavius, 21. 192 That this epistle was well-known we gather from the words of Augustine DCD XII. 11 ilia epistola (p. 527. 11) and quae maxime innotuit (p. 528. 8). Augustine seems to have been familiar with the contents of this letter. He speaks of the same Leon De Consensu Evang. i. 23. 32: N.umquid et Leon ille sacerdos Aegyp- tius, poeta vel academicus fuit, qui Macedoni Alexandro diversam quidem aGraecorum opinione istorum deorum originem verumtamen ita prodit ut eos homines fuisse declaret? Arnobius (Adv. nationes 4. 29) speaks of him as Pellaeo Leonte and as one of those who could prove omnis istos, nobis quos inducitis atque appellatis deos, homines fuisse — which may have been the same work as that referred to above by Augustine. 331. 26. hinc asseverantes animum concipere notiones quas appe. llant See Cic. Tusc. i. 24. 57, notiones quas iwoiai v o c a nt . De Finn. 3. 6. 21, Acad. 2. 7, 22, 2. 10. 30, ex quibus efficiuntur notitiae rerum quas Graeci turn eVi/oias turn TrpoX-jxI/eis v o c a n t . 332 25. qui dicuntur addidisse ter- tium genus bonorum quod appellatur extrinsecus. See Cic. Tusc. 5. 38. 85: tria genera bono- rum, maxima animi, secunda corporis, externa tertia, in which externa is equivalent to extrinsecus; see also De Finn. 3. 13. 43, and Apuleius De dog. Plat. 2. 2 (Hildebrand's edition) where after the bonum primum and secundum a third is given accidens autem bonum est et putatur quod corpori rebusque venientibus extrinsecus copulatur. 193 333- ^S- Nunc satis sit commemorare Platonem determinasse finem boni esse secundum virtutem vivereet ei soli evenire posse, qui notitiam Dei habeat et imitationem nee esse aliam ob causam beatum; ideoque non dubi- tat hoc esse philosophari amare D e u m . 333- 29. Ipsum autem verum ac sum- mum bonum Plato dicit Deum. Augustine of course did not read Plato in the original, and he has not in mind here any particular passages of that author. What Augustine gives above is found in substance in the writings of Plato, but is not explicitly stated. No doubt he is giving rather a Neo-platonist inference from Platonism. 337. I. supputata temporum ratio quae chronica historia continetur Platonem indicat a tempore, quo pro- phetavit Hieremias, centum ferme annos postea natum fuisse, qui cum octoginta et unum vixisset ab anno mortis eius usque ad id tempus quo Ptolomaeus rex Aegypti scripturas propheticas gentis Hebraeorum de ludaea poposcit et per septuaginta viros Hebraeos. . . . interpretandas habendasque curavit anni reperiun- tur ferme sexaginta. Jerome Chron. of Euseb. (BE vol. 8, col. 367) Hieremias prophetare orsus in the year 1386 of Abraham or in the third year of the thirty-seventh Olympi- ad; and in the year of Abraham 1592, or in fi'rst year of the eighty-ninth Olympiad Plato nascitur Athenis which statements make a much longer period than the cen- tum ferme annos of Augustine. Plato m o r i t u r in the year of Abraham 1672, or first of the one 194 hundred and ninth Olympiad ; and Ptolomaeus Philadelphus . . . . divinas scripturas in Graecam vocem ex Hebraea lingua per LXX interpretes transferri cura- V i t in the year of Abraham 1736, or first year of the one hundred and twenty-fifth Olympiad. Neither of these statements agrees with those of Augus- tine, as the first of Jerome (1592-1386) gives 206 years for centum ferme annos of Augustine, and the sec- ond 64 (1736-1672) for ferme sexaginta. It is im- possible to say on what authority Augustine has based his calculations. Another place where he has recorded the cor- rection here given on the statement cum quando perrexit in Aegyptum, Hieremiam au- disse vel scripturas propheticas in eadem peregrinatione legisse is found in Retract 2. 4. 2: Et in eo quod dixi, De tem- porum historia sanctum Ambrosium solvisse quaestionem, tamquam coaetanei fuerint Plato et Hieremias, me fefellit memoria. 338. 12. ea quae mutabilia facta sunt non sint, vehementer hoc Plato tenuit et diligentissime commendavit. Here we have an inference from Plato rather than a refer- ence to any specific statement. Augustine no doubt made this statement from his knowledge of Neo-Platonism. It is found implicitly in Plato. Compare Philebus 22 and 60 B-C. 339. 5. cum Aristoteles Platonis dis- cipulus . . . . sectam Peripateticam condidisset, quod deambulans dispu- tare consueverat. See Cic. Acad. i. 4. 17: Peripatetici dicti sunt quia disputabant inambulantes in L y c e o . '95 339- 10. post mortem vero Platonis Speusippus, sororis eius filius et Xenocrates. . . . See Cic. Acad. i. 4. 17, i. 9. 34. De Orat. 3. 18. 67. 339. 30. Sed habemus sententiam Pla- tonis dicentis omnes deos bonos esse nee esse omnino ullun deorum malum. Augustine here is not referring to any specific passage in Plato, but is giving an inference from his teachings. What he gives, as the sententiam Platonis is not ex- pressly stated in Plato, but is implied — compare Theaetetus 176C, and Republic X 378-380 especially 379 A-B. See note p 167. II. 340. II. Quid enim de ludis scaenicis Plato senserit, notum est cum poetas ipsos....censet civitate pellendos. See note p. 69. 10. 340. 19. poscentes turpia etiam ma- ligna gesserunt, Tito Latinio aufer- entes filium.... See note p. 178. 17. 341. 10. Omnium, inquiunt, animalium, in quibus est anima rationalis, tri- pertita divisio est in deos homines daemones. This three-fold division is assumed in Plato and Apuleius. Compare Plato, Symposium 202 koL yap irav to Sai/xoviov /xira^v ia-TL 6eov re /cat 6vrp-ov. De Legg, 8. 848 D, ibid. 10. 906 A. ^TjfjLfxa^oi o€ -qfjilv Oeot t€ a/Aa kol oaifiopes, 17/^619 S^ av KT-yjfxaTa Oeuiv kol Saiixovoiv. But Augustine had in mind Apuleius when he wrote the above words (quae licet apud alios quoque reperiantur, Apuleius tamen Platonicus Madaurensis de hac re sola unum scripsit librum. 1. 30). Apu- leius in the De deo Socratis begins (Hildebrand's edition. 196 chap. I. vol. 2. p. III.) Plato omnem natur am rerum quod eius ad animalia praecipue pertineat, trifariam divisit. He then begins with the gods whom he first discusses (to chap. 3 p. 120 in Hildebrand's edition) ; then he passes on to discuss men (tandemque orationem de caelo in ter- ram devocabo in qua praecipuum animal homines sumus), and in chap. 6 he takes up demons, Ceterum sunt quaedam divinae mediae potestates inter sum- num aethera et infimas terras.... hos Graeci nomine Sai/iova's nuncupant. 341. 33. ex quo genere numinum So- crates habebat adiunctum et amicitia quadam conciliatum, a quo perhibe- tur solitus admoneri ut desisteretab agendo, quando id quod agere volebat, non prospere fuerat eventurum. Compare Apul. De deo Socratis, chap. 19 (Hildebrand's edition, vol. 2, p. 154) : Quod autem incepta Socrati quaepiam daemon ille ferme prohibitum ibat, nunquam adhortatum quodammodo ratio praedicta est. Enim Socrates, utpote vir apprime perfec- tus ex sese, ad omnia congruentia sibi officia promptus nullo adhortatore umquam indigebat, at vero prohibit- ore nonnunquam, si quibus forte con- atibus eius periculum suberat, ut mon- itus praecaveret, omitteret coepta i m p r a e s e n t i a r u m quae tutius vel postea capesseret vel alia via adoriretur. 342. 4. dicit enim apertissime et co- piosissime asserit non ilium deum fuisse sed daemonem. 197 See Apul. De deo Socratis, chap. 19, quoted in last note (P- 341. 33), et al. 342. 6. pertractans istam Platonis de deorumsublimitate et hominum humili- tate et daemonum medietate senten- t i a m . See De deo Socratis, chap. 3 (Hildebrand's edition, vol. 2, p. ii8): Hos namque cunctos deos in sublimi aetheris vertice locates; again chap. 4: deos ah hominibus plurimum differentes loci sublimitate; chap. 5 : si omnino homines a diis immortalibus procul repelluntur atque in haec ter- rae tartara relegantur; chap. 6, for the dem- ons, quaedam divinae mediae potestates inter summum aethera et infimas ter- ras, and he also speaks of them as corpora aeria (chap. 13). 342. 8. Plato etiamsi non diis quos ab omni humana contagione semovit.... Compare De deo Socratis, chap. 3 (Hildebrand's edition, vol. 2, p. 118): ab humana contagione pro- cul discretos, though here not avowedly on the au- thority of Plato; compare the rest of the chapter, also chap. 6 on Plato's authority (responderit enim Plato pro sententia sua mea voce), Neque enim i 1 1 o s a c ur a rerura humanarum sed contrectatione sola removi. Compare Plato. Symposium 203. A, Qio% Sc av6pu)7r<^ oi fnuywrai. 342. 23. deos a daemonibus tam dili- genter copioseque discernit. See chap. 6 (De deo Socratis). 342. 34. Nam de moribus eorum, cum de omnibus generaliter loqueretur, 1 98 non solum nihil boni dixit sed etiam plurimummali. This seems to be a rather unfair criticism on the part of Augustine of the statements of Apuleius in the De deo So- cratis. We cannot see how Augustine could say nihil boni dixit. Surely chap. 6 (Hildebrand's edition, vol. 2, p. 128) is against this: inter homines coeli- colasque vectores hinc precum inde donorum, qui ultro citro portant hinc petitiones inde suppetias ceu quidam interpretes et salutigeri.... These and other like offices of the daemons mentioned by Apuleius make Augustine's criticism (nihil boni dixit) untrue. Of course Apuleius has also very unfavorable things to say against the demons, for which compare chaps. 12 and 13. In chap. 16 Apuleius speaks of the better kind of demons: sunt autem non posteriore numero prae- stantiori longe dignitate, superius aliud augustius genus daemonum qui semper a corporis compedibus liberi certis potestatibus curant. 343. 18. serpentibus qui etiam depo- sita tunica senectutem deponere atque in iuventam redire perhibentur. See Pliny H. N. 8. 27. 99, a n g u i s h i b e r n o situ membrana corporis obducta feniculi suco impedimentum illud exuit niti- dusque vernat, ibid. 8 31. in; Theophrastus auctor est angues modo et stelliones senectutem exuere. As Augustine has elsewhere, in the DCD XV. 9 XV. 12, mentioned Pliny and quoted from, though without naming, the Historia Naturalis, it is likely that here also Pliny is his authority, if indeed a literary source is required. 344. I. At enim volatilia cum volan- do fatigantur vel reficiendum alimen- 199 tis corpus habent terram repetunt vel ad requiem vel ad pastum, quod daemones, inquiunt, non faciunt. Compare De deo Socratis, chap. 8 (Hildebrand's edition, vol. 2, p. 134) : Semper enim illis victus omnis in terra, ibidem pabulum, ibi- dem cubile; tantum quod aera proxi- mum terrae volitando transverberant. Ceterum cum illis fessa sunt remigia pennarum terra seu portus est. That the demons do not come to earth for rest or food, as the birds do, is rather implied than stated by Apuleius. Compare De deo Socratis, chap. 9. 344. 16. Nam et ilia ratio Platonis, qua elementa quattuor proportione contexit atque ordinal, ita duobus extremis, igni mobilissimo et terrae inmobili, media duo, aerem et aquam interserens. Compare Plato, Timaeus 31 B, oOev ck wpb^ koi yrj^ to tov Trai/Tos d.p)(6iJ.ii'0'S ^vviaTcivaL a-u)fj.a 6 6eos irroUi .... 32 B, outo) S^ iTTjpos Ti KOL yrj'; vSojp de'pa re 6 ^cos iv /xeVu) Bus, Koi irpo's a\XijA.a Ka6'' ocrov ^v Svvarov dva tov avrov \6yov a.-mpyaaa.fx.^vo'S, o tl irtp irvp Trpos ctepa, TOVTO aepa Trpos vSiop, koi o tl a.rjp Trpo^ vowp tovto votAijv h Trarpiba rts ovv 6 (ttoAos koI rj <^uyr; J . . . • Trarpis 8e rjjxTv odevTrep jjKdofjiev koi Trarrjp iKcl. Tts ovv o crrdA-os Kai rj (^uyj;; Dom- bart gives this reference. 394. 17. Nos autem, sicut scriptura loquitur,.... angelos quidem partim bonos partim malos, numquam vero bonos daemones legimus. The passages of Scripture bearing on this point are num- erous. See (Vig.) Gen.. 16. 7, 24. 7, 28. 12; 1 Reg. 29. 9; i Par. 21. 12; Ps. 90. II, 96. 7, 103. 4; Mai. 3. i; Mat. 4. 11, 13. 39, 16. 27; 2 Cor. II. 14; I Tim. 5. 2r, where good angels are spoken of. For the bad angels see Mat. 25. 41; i Cor. 6. 3; lud. 6. 395.- 8. Daemones enim dicuntur (quo- niam vocabulum Graecum est) ab scien- tia nominati. See Lact. Div. Inst. 2. 14. 6, daemones autem grammatici dictos aiunt quasi SaT^/xoi/m, id est peritos ac rerum scios, which is also the derivation given in Plato Cratylus 398. B. on (ppovcfioL KOL Sa^q/jLOVis ■^(Tav Sai/xovas airous wvofj-airev. 398. 5. Hos si Platonici malunt d.eos quam daemones dicere eisque adnum- erare quos a summo Deo conditos deos scribit eorum auctor et magister Plato. Cicero did not get this reference (Tim. 41 A) directly from Plato, but from Cicero's Latin version of the Timaeus, as we learn from DCD XIII. 16, where Augustine quotes ver- batim Cicero's Latin version of the passage to which he refers here rPlatonis haec verba sunt, sicutea Cicero in Latinum vertit (p. 575. 17). BOOK X. 402. 8. Aarpeiav quippe nostri, ubicum- que sanctarum scripturarum positum est, interpretati sunt servitutem. See Hatch and|Redpath's Concordance to the Septuagint, Dutripon's Concordance to the Vulgate, and Moulton and Geden's Concordance to the Greek New Testament, on ^.arpua and s e r V i t u s . 402. 9. Sed ea servitus quae debetur hominibus, secundum quam praecipit apostolus servos dominis suis subdi- tos esse debere, alio nomine Graece nuncupari solet. That is SovXeia. The distinction between SovXcia and Xarpeia is often mentioned by Augustine. Compare Quaest. in Ex. 94 SouXeia debetur Deo tamquam Domi- n o , Xarpeta vero nonnisi Deo tamquam Deo, et al; and between the verbs karpivuv and SovXevuv in Quaest. in Lev. 66. 403. 25. Unde in scripturarum locis, ut distinctio certior appareret, non €ia-e/3etav, quod ex bono cultu, sed d^oa-ipuav quod ex Dei cultu compositum reso- nat, dicere maluerunt. See under these words Moulton and Geden's Concordance to the Greek Testament, and Hatch and Redpath's Concord- ance to the Septuagint. 404. 18. Saepe multumque Plotinus asserit sensum Platonis explanans, ne illam quidem, quam credunt esse universitatis animam, aliunde beatam esse quam nostram, idque esse lumen quod ipsa non est, sed a quo creata est at a quo intellegibiliter inlumi- nante intellegibiliter lucet. Datenim similitudinem ad ilia incorporea de his caelestibus conspicuis amplisque corporibus, tamquam ille sit sol et ipsa sit luna. Lunam quippe solis obiectu inluminari putant. Dicit ergo ille magnus Platonicus animam rationa- lem, sive potius intellectualis dicenda sit, ex quo genere etiam immortalium beatorumque animas esse intellegit, quos in caelestibus sedibus habitare non dubitat, non habere supra se naturam nisi Dei qui fabricatus est mundum, a quo et ipsa facta est. Compare Plotinus Enn. 2. 9. 2, ix.ivu re aTrpayfidvios air^, ovK €K Siai/oias StoiKoScra, ouSc ti SLopOov/xenj, aX.Xa. r-rj £19 to Trpb aire's 6ia KaTaKoo-fjLOixra owdfiei OavfjiaaTyj • ov Kot ouvaTdjrepa. KOLKeWcv e^ovo'a, SiSmcn rw fX€T^ avrrjv, Kal uxnrep iWd/xTTOvcra ael iWafXTrerai ; also ibid. 2. 9. 3, 3. 9. r, 4. 3. 11, Tjv Se fov's EKCivos o exet -^Aios • oBros yap rj/j.lv yiyviadui irapaSuyixa. toS \oyov • i'pe^rj'; 0€ tovto) ^v^rj e^-rjpr'qfxiv'q^ fxivovTO'i vov, fxevovaa, Stowcrt 8c avrr] ret Trepara air^s to. Trpos tovtov toi' ^A.iov, tovtu} tco 17A.IU), and ibid. 5. 6. 4. These references have not been given by Dom- bart. 406. i5. religentes, unde et religio dicta perhibetur. Augustine follows Cicero. See N. D. 2. 28. 72, qui autem omnia quae ad cultum deorum peftinerent diligenter retractarent et tamquam relegerent sunt dicti re- ligiosi ex religendo. Compare Lact. Div. Inst. 4. 28. 3, hoc vinculo pietatis obstricti deo et religati sumus: unde ipsa re- ligio nomen accepit.non ut Cicero in- 213 terpretatus est a religendo, ibid. 6, lo. 2, Inst. Epit. 64. 5. 410. 14. sacrificium res divina est, ita ut hoc quo que vocabulo id Latini vet-, eres appellaverunt. See Cic. De Div. 2, lo. 25, si e 11 i m nihil fit extra fatum, nihil levari re divina potest. N. D. 3. 18. 47, in both of which cases res divina evidently stands for sacrificium. See Plautus Epid. 3. 3. 34 (415), Facturum dixit rem esse di- vina m d o m i , and Amph. 3. 3. 13 (968), qui re di- vina facta mecum prandeat. Terence Eun. 3- 3- 7 (513). Hecyra i. 2. 109 {184). 415. 13. alios damnabiles, quos et maleficos vulgus appellat. These words seem to be from Lact. Div. Inst. 2. 16. 4: et ii quos vere maleficos vulgus ap- pellat. 415. 18. Nam et Porphyrius quandam quasi purgationem animae per theur- gian. . . disputatione promittit; rever- sionem vero ad Deum hanc artem praestare cuiquam negat . . .. Nunc enim hanc artem tamquam fallacem et in ipsa actione periculosam et legi- bus prohibitum cavendam monet; nunc autem....utilem dicit esse mundanae parti animae.... Hanc enim dicit per quasdam consecrationes theurgicas quas teletas vocant idoneam fieri atque aptam susceptioni spirituum et angelorum et ad videndos deos. Ex quibus tamen theurgicis teletis fate- tur intellectuali animae nihil purga- tionis accedere, quod cam faciat idon- 214 earn ad videndum Deum suum et per- spicienda ea quae vere sunt . . . . Denique animam rationalem sive. . . . intellectualem in sua posse dicit eva- dere, etiamsi quod eius spiritale est nulla theurgica fuerit arte purgatum; porro autem a theurgo spiritalem pur- gari hactenus, ut non ex hoc ad in- mortalitatem aeternitatemque perve- niat. Quamquam itaque discernat a daemonibus angel os, aeria loca esse daemonum, aetheria vel empyrea dis- serens angelorum, et admoneat uten- dum alicuius daemonis amicitia, quo subvectante vel paululum a terra pos- sit elevari quisque post mortem, aliam vero viam esse perhibeat ad angel- orum superna consortia; cavendam tamen daemonum societatem expressa quodam modo confessione testatur, ubi dicit animam post mortem luendo poenas cultum daemon um a q u i b u s circumveniebatur horrescere; ipsam- que theurgian quam velut concilia- tricem angelorum deorumque commen- dat apud tales agere potestates ne- gare non potuit quae vel ipsae invid- eant purgationi animae, vel artibus serviant invidorum, querelam de hac re Chaldaei nescio cuius expromens: 'Conqueritur,' inquit, 'vir in Chal- daea bonus, purgandae animae magno in molimine frustrates sibi esse suc- cessus, cum vir ad eadem potens tac- tus invidia adiuratas sacris precibus potentias alligasset ne postulata concederent. Ergo et ligavit ille, in- 215 quit, et iste non solvit.' Quo indicio dixit apparere theurgian esse tarn boni conficiendi quam mali et apud deos et apud homines disciplinam; pati etiam deos et ad illas perturba- tiones passionesque deduci quas com- muniter daemonibus et hominibus Apuleius adtribuit; deos tamen ab eis aetheriae sedis altitudine separ- ans et Platonis asserens in ilia dis- cretione sententiam. 417. 5. Porphyrias per nescio quam theurgicam disciplinam etiam deos obstrictos passionibus et perturba- tionibus dicit. We are led by the nature of the subject of these extracts, which is chiefly the purification of the soul, to assign them to Porphyry's lost work -n-epl avoSov i/'u^'^s (De Regressu Animae). 416. 29. pati etiam deos et ad illas perturbation es passionesque deduci quas communiter daemonibus et homi- nibus Apuleius adtribuit. Compare Apul. De Deo Socratis 12-13 (Hildebrand's edition vol. 2, p. 140 sq.) : Quapropter debet deus nullam perpeti vel opis vel amoris temporalem perfunctionem, et idcirco nee indignatione nee miseri- cordia contingi, nullo angore con- trahi, nulla alacritate gestire, sed ab omnibus passionibus liber nee dolere unquam nee aliquando laetari, nee aliquid repentinum velle vel nolle. Sed et haec cuncta et id genus cetera daemonum mediocritati congruunt. Sunt enim inter nos et deos ut loco regionis ita ingenio 2l6 mentis intersiti, habentes cum superis communem immortalitatem, cum inferis passionem. Nam proinde ut nos, pati possunt omnia animorum placamenta vel incitamenta, et ira incitantur et misericordia flectuntur et donis invitantur et precibus leniuntur et contumeliis exasperantur et honori- bus mulcentur aliisque omnibus ad similem nobis modum variantur: quippe, ut in fine comprehendam, daemones sunt genere animalia, in- genio rationabilia, animo passiva, corpora aeria, tempore aeterna. Ex his quinque quae commemoravi tria a principio eadem quae nobiscum, quartum proprium, postremum com- mune cum diis immortalibus habent, sed differunt ab his passione. Quae propterea passiva non absurde, ut arbitror, nominavi, quod sint iisdem quibus nos perturbationibus mentis o b n o X i i . The first words of this quotation of Apuleius are the direct opposite of the words pati etiam deos which latter, however, are not the words of Apuleius but of Porphyry. Compare the words beginning chap. lo, E c c e nunc alius Platonicus quem doctiorem ferunt, Porphyrius, per nescio quam theurgicam disciplinam etiam ipsos obstrictos passionibus et perturba- tionibus dicit. Compare the words of Porphyry (Epistula ad Anebontem 5. Parthenys edition p. XXXI) Za-Te. ov^ ol Sai/xoi/cs fiouov elorlv c/x7ra^€ts, dWa kol ol 6eoL Kara tov "Oixrjpov * o-rpe-irroi 8e t€ kol d^ol avToi Here Porphyry disagrees with his teacher Plotinus (Enn. 3. 5. 6.) in regard to the airddua of the gods TO fjLev Sr] dtSiv d;ra6es Xiyojj.e.v, Kai vofnitpfiiv yci'os ; 8aiij.ocn Bk TTjOoo-Tt^e/ttv wadrj. 217 4i8. i8. Melius sapuit iste Porphyr- ius cum ad Anebontem scripsit Aegyptium ubi consulenti s i m i 1 i s et prodit artes sacrilegas et evertit. By these words Augustine seems to be passing to another work of Porphyry from which he had not been quoting prev- iously. The letter of Porphyry to Anebo, the Egytian, has not been preserved entire, but only in fragmentary form. All the extant fragments of it have been put together by Thomas Gale in his edition of lamblichus De Mysteriis (London 1670), and by Partheny in his edition of the same (Berlin 1875). It was printed before these only in the Poemander at Venice in 1483. 418. 20. Et ibi quidem omnes dae- mones reprobat, quos dicit ob in- prudentiam trahere humidum vaporem et ideo non in aethere sed in aere esse sub luna atque in ipso lunae globo.... Quosdam nam que benignos daemones more appellat aliorum, cum omnes generaliter inprudentes fatea- t u r . Augustine has preserved for us this information in regard to Porphyry's opinions of demons as expressed in the letter above named. But the original is lost. 418. 27. Miratur quod non solum dii alliciantur victimis sed etiam com- pellantur atque cogantur facere quod homines volunt. See Ep. ad Anebontem 28 (Partheny's edition p. XXXVIII.) iravv Se fji€ OpaTTCi Trois a)S KpeiTTovs 7rapa/caA.ou'/x€vot c^rtrarroi^rat (os ^eipovs, Koi SiKaiov fTvai d^ioBvTes rov OepdwovTa, to, abiKa avTol KcXeucr^evres 8pav virofxivovciy /cat KaOapw p.\v firj ovtl e^ d(^pooto"ta>i' ovk av KaKovvTi vTraKovcratev, avrol oe ay€tv €t? irapavofxa dc^pootcrta tov? TvxovTav VTroSe^o/iivutv u>(Tr€ iK (j^avKmu (TTrauSat'as aircpydt^^crOai. 419. 12. Unde dicit alios opinari esse quoddam genus cui exaudire sit pro- prium, natura fallax, omniforme, multimodum, simulans deos et dae- mones et animas defunctorum, et hoc esse quod efficiat haec omnia quae videntur bona esse vel prava; ceterum 2ig circa ea, quae vere bona sunt, nihil opitulari, immo vero ista nee nosse, sed et male conciliare et insimulare atque inpedire nonnumquam virtutis sedulos sectatores, et plenum esse temeritatis et fastus, gaudere nidor- ibus,adultationibus capi, et cetera. Compare Partheny's edition 26 (p. XXXVII) : ot 8e dvai fiiv e^Ofv TiOevrai to uttij/coov yevo'S dTrarijXrj' 'i>iJO'«<"5 ■iravT6fJLOp6v re Koi iroXvTpoirov, VTroKpivo/xfvov xai 6eov<; koI Sat/xovas kol tf/v)^ai TiOvrjKOTiav, Koi 8ia tovtwv Travra Svvafrdai rmv Sokovvtwv ayaOuiv t] KaKbiv etvai. eiret eis to, ye ovtcus ayaOa, ainp tlvai Kara il/v)(7]v, /j.ijSei' Ka6a.Tra^ (rvfj.ftdX\icrOai Swaa-Qai, pirjSi ciSci/at ravra, aWa KaKoa-xp- XivicrOai Ktti TiiiOd^iiv Koi e/LiToSt'^eiv woWafCts toTs eh apeTrjv a.LKVOVfii.4voL^, 7r\^peis t« elvai Tvov Koi )(aipuv a.Tp.oZ% koX Overlaid. 419. 35. Quareit enim cur tamquam melioribus invocatis quasi peioribus impetretur, ut iniusta praecepta hom- inis exsequantur; cur adtrectatum re Veneria non exaudiant inprecan- tem, cum ipsi ad incestos quoque concubitus quoslibet ducere non mor- entur; cur animantibus suos antis- tites oportere abstinere denuntient, ne vaporibus profecto corporeis pol- luantur, ipsi vero et aliis vaporibus inliciantur et nidoribus hostiarum, cumque a cadaveris contactu prohibe- atur inspector, plerumque ilia cadav- eribus celebrentur. See the passage quoted p. 418. 27. 420.15. Dicit etiam scripsisse Chaere- monem quendam . . . . ea quae apud Aegyptios sunt celebrata runioribus vel de Iside vel de Osiride marito eius, roaximam vim habere cogandi deos ut faciant imperata, quando ille, qui carminibus cogit, ea se prodere vel evertere comminatur, ubi se etiam Osiridis membra dissipaturum terri- biliter dicit si facere iussa neglex- e r i n t . The passage of the Epistula ad Anebontem to which Au- gustine here refers is preserved by Eusebius Praep. Evang. 5. 10 (198 A), and by lamblichus De Mysteriis 6. 5. Partheny, in his edition of lamblichus De Mysteriis, p. XXXIX, par. 3., gives it thus : t6 yap Xiyuv OTi Tov ovpavov Trpocrapa^ii koX to. KpvTTTO. T^s 'IctiSos eKcfeavel koi to iv 'AySuScu a-n-opprjTOv Bel$eL Kal rrjv ^apiv (TTrjaei koI to. fiiXr] tov 'Ocr/ptSos Siao-KcSacrei tu>i'i. 421. 16. prope ad epistulae finem petit se ab eo doceri quae sit ad beatitudi- nem via ex Aegyptia sapientia. Cet- erum illos qui bus conversatio cum diis ad hoc esset ut ob inveniendum fugitivum vel praediumcomparandum, aut propter nuptias vel niercaturam vel quid huius modi mentem divinam inquietarent, frustra eos videri dicit coluisse sapientiam; ilia etiam ipsa numina, cum quibus conversarentur, etsi de ceteris rebus vera praedicer- ent, tamen quoniam tie beatitudine nihil cautum nee satis idoneum mon- erent, nee deos illos esse nee benignos daemones, sed aut ilium qui dicitur fallax aut humanum omne commentum. Partheny, p. 46 sq. , gives this as follows: 0e\u> ovv Trap' v^tjiV rrjv ets evSatfxovtat/ ooou C7rtO€t^at /xot, KOi eu rtVt Ketrat 17 avT^S ovtTia .... fj.a.Tqv airots 17 aotjita c^ricr K-qrai Trepl SpaTTtTov evpicreuii rj ^wptov wvyj'i ■^ yajxov el TV)^ot rj ifXTropla.^ Toi^ Oelov vovv lvo)(Xrj(Tao'iV ' €t o oil Traptirat /xei', ol crvvoure^ Trept fxei^ Tthv aXXoiV TaXyjOecrTara \eyovcrt, TTipl 8e evSaLixoviai oiSei' dcr(^aA.es oiS' i)(eyyvov Ip^ovcri, ^^aXeira p-iv SLafj.f\iTu)VTt'S a;^pijo-Ta 8c rots av^puTrois, ovk rjo-av 3.pa ovt€ 6iol ovt'' ayapot oai/i.ov€v fvprifjia Ktti ^i/jjT^s <^uo-ea)S di/airXao-ytia. 423. 24. quem ad modum suo Lycurgo Lacedaemonii, quod a love seu Apol- line leges quas condidit, accepisset. See note p. 72. 3. 424. i.^. Omnia quippe quae prae- stare hominibus vel angeli vel homines possunt,in unius esse Omnipotentis potestate quisquis diffitetur, insanit. Loesche (De Augustino Plotinizante in doctrina de Deo p. 61) cites the words of Plotinus (Enn. 3. 2. i) as containing a similar view : to /xev tw avro/xaro) KOi TV)(r) StSofat rovSe rov iravTO's TT/v ov(riav Kai a-vinacnv (is oXoyov koX dvSpos ovre vovv ovt€ aicrOrjcriv KCKTrjixevov, orjXov ttov Kai irpo Xoyov koX ttoWoi iKavoi KaTa^ifiXr/VTaL SeiKVVVT€S TOVTO XoyoL. 424. 16. De providentia certe Plotinus Platonicus disputat eamque a summo Deo, cuius est intellegibilis atque ineffabilis pulchritudo_, usque ad haec terrena et ima pertingere flos- culorum atque foliorum pulchritudine comprobat; quae omnia quasi abiecta et velocissime pereuntia decentis- simos formarum suarum numeros habere non posse confirmat nisi inde formentur, ubi forma intellegibilis et incommutabilis simul habens omnia perseverat. See Plotinus Enn. 3. 2. 13 (given by Dombart). There are other references, not given by Dombart. Thus in Enn. 2. 9. 16 Plotinus speaks of the working of divine Providence of the world. Compare also Enn. 3. 3, 5. i. Compare the passage in Cic. N. D. 2. 45. 116 sq. , 2. 47. 120: Age ut a caelestibus rebus ad terrestres veniamu-s, quid est in his in quo non naturae ratio intellegentis appareat? Principio eorum, quae gignuntur e terra, stirpes et stabili- tatem dant iis", quaesustinent, et e terra sucum trahunt, quo alantur ea quae radicibus continentur, obducun- turque libro aut cortice trunci quo sint a frigoribus et caloribus tutiores. ....2. 51. 127: Ut vero perpetuus mundi esset ornatus magna adhibita cura est a providentia deorum, ut semper essent et bestiarum genera et arbor- um omniumque rerum, quae a terra stirpibus continerentur. Quae qui- dem omnia eam vim seminis habent in se, ut ex uno plura generentur.... 426. 13. Ilia namque visio Dei tantae pulchritudinis visio est et tanto amore dignissima, ut sine hac qui- buslibet aliis bonis praeditum atque abundantem non dubitet Plotinus in- felicissimum dicere. See Plotinus Enn. i. 6. 7, ^s 6 /xev rvf^iiv, fxaKiipLo^, o\pLv fjiaKapiav T^deaixivoi ■ arvf^rj'S 8e oEtos 6 /x^ tv)(wv. For this V i S i O D e i compare also ibid. i. 6. 8, i. 6. 9, also 5. 3. 17. ovTto Tot Kai i/'i'X'? a.(!>Ti(TTo^ dOeaTO's (Ktivov 4>mTi f<^ai/facr5at cfimTO? Ikuvov koI avTiaTi, akk' avTW 81 ov Kai opa : ibid 5. 5. 7, 5. S. 8, 6. 7. 34 sq. 6. 9. 7, 6. 9. 8. Dombart has given the first of these references. 427. 20. inusitati partus animalium. Compare Livy 23. 31. 15; bos eculeum pje p e r i t . 27. 4. 11, Tusculi agnum cum ubere lactenti natum....haec pro- digia hostiis maioribus procurata de- 223 creto pontificum et supplicatio diem Romae ad omnia pulvinaria, et al. Com- pare also Jul. Obseq. i (55), 5 (60), 14 (73), 15 (74), 20 (79), 25 (84), 26 (85) et passim. 427. .20. caelo terraquererum insoli- ta facies.... Compare Livy i. 31. 2, cum grandinem- venti glomeratam in terras agunt^ crebri cecidere caelo lapides . . . . Romanis quoque ab eodem prodigio novendiale sacrum publice susceptum est. 3. 10. 6: eo anno caelum ardere visum, terra ingenti motu concussa est.... libri per duumviros sacrorum a d i t i; also 4. 21. 5, 10 31. 8, 21. 62. 4, 22. i. 8. sq., 24. 10. 6, 25. 7. 8, et al. Compare also Jul. Obseq. i {55), II (70), 12 (71), 20 (79), 21 (80), et passim. 427. 23. sed ea dico quae vi ac potes- tate eorum fieri satis evidenter ap- p a^r e t , u^t est quod effigies deorum P eji atium, quas de Troia Aeneas fugiiens advexit, de loco in locum migrasse referuntur. Compare Virgil, Aen. i. 6, i. 68, i. 378, 2. 717, 4. 598, 5. 632 et passim ; also Servius on Virgil Aen. i. 378 : V a r r o deos penates quaedam sigilla'lignea vel marmorea ab Aenea in Italiam dicit advecta . . . . Idem Varro hos deos Dardanum ex Samothraca in Phrygiam, de Phrygia Aeneam in Italiam memorat portavisse. 427 .£27. quod cotem Tarquinius nova- cula secuit. SeeJLivy i. 36. 4: ' a t q u 1 hoc a n i m o a g i - tavi,' inquit 'te novacula cotem dis- 224 cissurum'. . . . turn ilium haud cunctan- ter discidisse cotem ferunt. Cic. De Div. I. 17. 32; Tarquinius autem se cogi- tasse cotem novacula posse praecidi. Tum Attium iussisse experiri. Ita cotem in comitium allatam inspec- tante at rage at populo novacula esse d i s c i s s a m . Compare Floras Epit. i. i. 5. Lact. Div. Inst. 2. i6. 11; ab augure lapis novacula incisus est. If Augustine got this not from Varro but from another source, it is impossible to say whether that source would be Livy, Cicero or Florus as all three give sub- stantially the same account, and Augustine's notice is too brief to give us sufficient evidence to decide. 427. 27. quod Epidaurius serpens Aes- culapio naviganti Romam comes ad- h a e s i t . See Livy Epit. 11; mis si legati ut Aescu- lapi signum Romam ab Epidauro transfarrent, anguam qui se in navam eorum contulerat, in quo ipsum numen esse constabat, deportaverunt. Com- pare Val. Max. i. 8. 2, where a more detailed account is given. Lact. Div. Inst. 2. 16. 11; quod serpens urbem Romam pestilantia liberavit Epidauro accersitus. 427. 28. quod navem, qua simulacrum matris Phrygiae vehebatur, tantis hominum boumque conatibus inmobi- lem redditam una muliercula zona al- ligatam ad suae pudicitiae testimon- ium movit et traxit. The name of the mulierculae was Claudia Quinta. See Livy 29. 14. 12, Cic. De Harusp. Resp. 13. 27. Lact. Div. Inst. 2.16. 11: quod Claudiae manum navis secuta est. 225 427. 32- quod virgo Vestalis, de cuius corruptione quaestio verteba- tur, aqua inpleto cribro de Tiberi neque perfluente abstulit contrb- V e r s i a m . The story is found fully related in Val. Max. 8. i. 5 ; Tucciae virginis Vestalis incesti criminis reae castitas infamiae nube obscurata emersit. Quae conscientia certa sinceritatis suae spem salutis ancipiti argumento ausa petere est: arrepto enim cribro 'Vesta' inquit, 'si sacris tuis castas semper admovi manus, effice ut hoc hauriam e Tiberi aquam et in aedem tuam perferam' audaciter et temere iactis votis sacer- dotis rerum ipsa natura cessit. This was probably found in the twentieth book of Livy which is no longer extant, but the Epitome of which gives T u c c i a virgo Vestalis incesti damnata est, though damnata here might imply she suffered the usual death penalty, which is the opposite of what we learn from Augustine and Valerius Maximus. Compare Pliny H.N. 28. 2. 12; extat Tucciae Vestalis incesti deprecatio qua usa aquam in cribro tulit anno urbis DXVIIII. But Augustine's source here was Varro, as we learn from DCD XXII. 11 (vol. II, p. 586. 12) : quod Varro commemorat, Vestalem virginem, cum periclitare- tur de stupro falsa suspicione, crib- rum implesse aqua de Tiberi et ad suos iudices nulla eius perstillante parte portasse. Francken, Fragmenta Varronis, p. 121 sq. has assigned this whole passage, p. 427. 16-34. to Varro. 433- 3- Non enim re vera, ut ait Porphyrius et nonnulli putant, cada- 226 verinis nidoribus sed divinis honori- bus gaudent. The reference is here to one one of the lost works of Porphyry, but we have not sufficient data on which to assign it to its particular source. (For an opinion the opposite of what Augustine here attributes to Porphyry compare Por- phyry De Abstinentia 2. 34.) 435. 6. Ex -qua opinione Porphyrias, quamvis non ex suasententia sed aliorum, dicit bonum deum vel gen- ium non venire in hominem nisi malus fueritante placatus. The language here used would lead us on conjecture to assign the passage to the iripl dvdSov \)/vxiioti t/iavres Iv rots lepois iTTipprjCTOVTaL, Kol ^uia TrposovSi^cTat Trpo t^s OpijcTKiia'; tZv ^eSv, i^eXavvovTtiiv tSiv icpe'mv tovtov% 8ta tou Sovvat irvtvfiia rj atp.a ^umdv, koL Sta T^s Tov de'pos TrXrjy^s, iva. tovtihv aireXOovTUiv Trapovaia tov deov yiv-qrai. This seems beyond doubt to be the passage to which Augustine refers, and we know that he was acquainted with the €K Xoyiwv (^iXoo-oi^ias of Porphyry, for in DCD XIX, 23 he mentions that work and gives large quotations from it. 436. 19. Dicit etiam Porphyrius divinis oraculis fuisse responsum nos non purgari lunae teletis atque solis.... Denique eodem dicit oraculo expres- sum principia posse purgare.... Dicit enim Deum Patrem et Deum Filium, quem Graece appellat paternum in- tellectum vel paternam mentem; de Spiritu autem sancto aut nihil aut non aperte aliquid dicit, quamvis 227 quem alium dicat horum medium non i n t e 1 1 e g o . Augustine does not make any statement as to the worl? of Porphyry from which he has given this extract. He is prob- ably quoting from the irepl avoSov \j/vxrj's (De regressu animae) On p. 446. 27 he refers to the same passage, and also on p. 447. 25, and in the same chapter he says he has quoted much from the same work of Porphyry. 436. 33. Si enim tertiam sicut Ploti- nus ubi de tribus principalibus sub- stantiis disputat, animae naturam etiam iste vellet intelligi, non uti- que diceret horum medium....Post- ponit quippe Plotinus animae natur- am paterno intellectui. The first book of the 5th Ennead- is devoted to a discus- sion irepi tZv Tpiuiv a.p)(iKS)V virocTTdaioiv. 437. 20. nec dicamus tamen quod haeretici Sabelliani, eundem esse Patrem qui est et Filius, et eundem Spiritum sanctum qui est et Pater et Filius. Compare Augustine De Haeresibus 41 (BE. 8.32): Sabelliani ab illo Noeto....dicuntur; nam et discipulum eius quidam per- hibent fuisse Sabellium....Quomodo de Sabellianis intelligi potest cum innotuerint dicere Patrem passum, unde Patripassiani quam Sabelliani crebrius nuncupentur? . . ..Vel quo- modo possunt intelligi quilibet eorum Patrem passum fuisse non dicere, cum dicant eundem ipsum esse et Patrem et Filium et Spiritum sanc- tum? Ad Orosium contra Prise, et Origen. i. 4. 4, (BE 8. 671): Priscillianus Sabellianum anti- 228 quum dogma restituit, ubi ipse Pater qui Filius, qui et Spiritus sanctus periiibetur. • Also Contra Sermonem Arianorum 34. 32, Contra Maximinum i. 13: Alium vero esse Patrem, alium esse Filium, quoniam non est Pater ipse qui Filius, et nobis contra Sabellianos est dogma commune. Sermo 71. 3. 5 (BE. 5. 448). Compare also Jerome Comm. in Ep. ad Eph. chap. 4., vv. 5. 6. (BE. vol. 7. col. 527): Hoc autem dico propter Sabellium, qui eundem Deum Patrem arbitratur et Filium, confundique personas, dum" eandem divinitatem in utroque deprehendit. Eusebius H. E 7. 6 speaks of the heresy of Sabellius : ovto; aa-e^ov^ koI /3A.ao-<^)7/iiW iroXA^v e;(0VT05 Trepl tov wavTOKpa.Topo'i Oeov, Trarpos Tov Kvpiov rjfxSiv 'Irjaov XptOToi}, a7n(TTtav re TToXAvyi' Tr^pl tov /xovoyivovs TratSos avTOv Kol TrpwTOTOKOv Trdcrr]^ KTt'cr€a)5, tov evai ^pcuTTT^cravTO? A.dyou, avaLaOrjcrtav o€ TOV ayCov irvivfx.aTo'i, and Epiphanius, Haer. 62. 442. 14. Et angelos quippe alios esse dixit qui deorsum descendentes hom- inibus theurgicis divina pronuntient; alios autem qui in terris ea quae Patris sunt et altitudinem eius profundita- temque declarant . . .. Unde optima admonet etiam ip. se Platonicus imi- tandos aos potius quam invocandos. It is impossible to say with certainty to which work of Porphyry this fragment belongs — probably to the Trtpi avo&ov ij/vxv^ (De regressu animae), from which he quotes largely. Compare DCD X. 9 (p. 416. 9): Quamquam itaque discernat a daemonibus angelos, which is evidently from the De regressu animae. Wolff (Por- phyrii de philosophia ax oraculis haurienda librorum reliquiae. Berlin, 1856. p. 146) thinks this fragment may belong to the irepl T^s €K XoyLujv (j>i\o(ro(j>iai. 229 444- 3^' Non enim te decepisset (Christus) quern vestra, ut tu ipse scribis, oracula sanctum immortal- emque confessa sunt. It is likely that Augustine's statement here refers to the work of Porphyry, entitled Kara Xpia-navZy. Our knowledge of this work is so small that we cannot assign Augustine's reference, even if it comes from that work, to its place among the fifteen books composing the Kara Xpicrnavwv. We may say, however, that it probably was not found in the first book which treated of the contradictions of Scripture, or in the third, which contained a discussion on the various modes of interpreting Scriptures, or in the fourth, which comprised the early Mosaic period and Jewish antiqui- ties, or in the twelfth or thirteenth, in which were his criti- cisms of the book of Daniel. If the above statement oc- curred in the Kara Xpio-TiacMv how did Augustine become in- formed of it? Did he read that work in the original? We think this is improbable, and that it is likely Augustine read the Kara XpicrTiaviov in a Latin version. Even this it is not neces- sary to suppose, because the attack of Porphyry on Chris- tianity became so famous and widely known, and called forth so many replies from the Christians, it is very easy to see how Augustine may have got hold, from what was popularly known of Porphyry's views, of such an interesting admission as that the enemies of Christianity acknowledged Christ to be divine. Compare Augustine, De consensu evang. i. 15. 23: Quid quod isti vani Christi laudatores et Christianae religionis obliqui obtrec- tatores propterea non audent blas- phemare Christum, quia quidam philo- sophi eorum, sicut in libris suis Por- phyrius Siculus prodidit, consulerunt deos suos quid de Christo responder- ent,illi autem oraculis suis Christum laudare compulsi sunt. May the statement of 230 Augustine, on which we are commenting, have been taken from Porphyry's Trepl rrj^ ck Koyiutv t^iXoa-ot^ia. ? 446. 13. Confiteris tamen etiam spiri- talem animam sine theurgicis artibus et sine teletis, quibus frustra discen- dis elaborasti, posse continentiae virtute purgari. Aliquando etiam dicis quod teletae non post mortem elevant animam, ut iam nee eidem ipsi, quam spiritalem vocas, aliquid post huius vitae finem prodesse vide- antur; et tamen versas haec multis modis et repetis.... Sed bene, quod metuendam dicis hanc artem vel legum periculis vel ipsius actionis. Here again we have a fragment, no doubt from the Trepi avo^ov il/vxTJ-s (De regressu animae) to which we should also add line 26 below ilgnorantiam certe et propter earn multa vitia per nullas teletas purgari dicis, sed per solum TrarpiKov vovv, id est paternam mentem sive intel- lectum, qui paternae est conscius vol- untatis. 446. 29. Hunc autem Christum esse non credis: contemnis enim eum prop- ter corpus ex femina acceptum et propter crucis opprobrium. The connection of these words with the foregoing would perhaps suggest that they came from the same work of Por- phyry, namely nepl avoSov i/'ux% (De regressu animae). The first part, however, Hunc autem Christum esse non credis, is probably only an inference drawn by Augustine from the words of Porphyry. We know from the opening words of chap. 29 that Porphyry did treat of t r e s deos: Praedicas Patrem et eius Filium quern vocas paternum intellectum 231 seu mentem, et horum medium, quem putamus te dicere Spirit um sanctum, e t more vestro appellas tres deos. Here Porphyry may have paused and said such things against Christ as Augustine gives (propter corpus ex femina acceptum et propter crucis opprobrium) , but it is more likely that this state- ment comes from Augustine's general knowledge of the sub- ject matter of Porphyry's Kara XpicrnavZv. 448. 10. Uteris etiam hoc verbo aper- tius ubi Platonis sententiam sequens nee ipse dubitas in hac vita hominem nullo modo ad perfectionem sapien- tiae pervenire, secundum intellectum tamen viventibus omne quod deest providentia Dei et gratia post hanc vitam posse compleri. 449. 6. Vos certe tantum tribuitis animae intellectual! quae anima utique humana est ut eam consubstantialem paternae illi menti quem Dei Filium confitemini, fieri posse dicatis. These seem to be also taken in substance from the -a-epl dvoSov KTrj<; videretur. Compare Augustine, Conf. 8. i. i, 8. 2. 3, Retract 2. i. i; Simplicianum ecclesiae Mediolanensis antistitem qui beatissimo successit A m b r o s i o . Augustine addressed also two books De diversis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum. Simplicianus was ac- quainted with Ambrose, by whom he was regarded with deep respect. We have four letters which Ambrose addressed to him: Epp. 37. 38. 61. 67. 451. 16. Nam Platonem animas homi- num post mortem revolvi usque ad 233 corpora bestiarum scripsisse certis- s i m u m est. Compare Plato, Phaedo 8i E, Phaedrus 246 B, 249. B, Laws 903 D, 904 E, Timaeus 41 E-42 D. But Augustine did not get this from Plato, but from the Latin version of Ploti- nus. Compare Enn. 3. 4. 2. 451. 18. Porphyrio tamen iure dis- plicuit (i. e. animas hominum post mortem revolvi usque ad corpora bestiarum) . . . . 451. 32. ut salt em in solos homines humanas animas praecipitari posse sentiret, beluinos autem carceres evertere minime dubitaret. Dicit etiam ad hoc Deum animam mundo dedisse ut materiae cognoscens mala ad Patrem recurreret nee aliquando iam talium polluta contagione tenere- t u r . 452 8. quod mundatam ab omnibus malis animam et cum Patre constitu- tam numquam iam mala mundi huius passuram esse confessus est. 453. I. Vidit hoc Porphyrius purga- tamque animam ob hoc reverti dixit ad Patrem ne aliquando iam malorum polluta contagione teneatur. 455. 3. Cum autem dicit Porphyrius in primo .iuxta finem de regressu animae libro nondum receptum in unam quandam sectam quod universa- lem -contineat viam animae liberandae vel a philosophia verissima aliqua vel ab Indorum moribus ac discip- lina, aut inductione Chaldaeorum 234 aut alia qualibet via, nondumque in suam notitiam eandem viam historiali cognitione perlatam. These all seem to be taken in substance from Porphyry's ■rrepl ai/oSov if/vxns. The last fragment, on Augustine's own statement, is taken from the first book of Porphyry's work. 451. 18. Hanc sententiam Porphyrii doctor tenuit et Plotinus. Compare (with Dombart) Plotinus Enn. 3. 4. 2. koito if/vxr) TTO-iTa intfjieXeLrai tov di^w'^oi;, iirl ravTT]^ ixaXi(Tra • at o' aA,A.at aA.Xa)S. iravra Se ovpavov TrepiiroXet aXXorc iv aXA.ot5 GLOeo'tv^ rj iv atcr07]TiK(2 etSet, 1) kv XoyLKopa. rj iv toutois to Sia^opOK rojv TOiOVTOiV TTOiet. 0<70L Se fji€T^ eTTiOvjiia? KOL Trj^ rjSov^s tov iinOv/xovvTO'Sj TO, OLKoXaara twv ^uioiv Kat yaaTptjjiapya • et ok fiijok alo'Oijo'eL fxeTa TOVTOiVy dXXa vujOeia alo'Oyjo'eoi^ jjlgt^ aurtui', Kal VTd. jxovov yap tovto ^■ jxaXuTTa ivrjpyei to (Jivtlkov, Kal r/v avTol^ jieXiTTj SEi'SpeoS^j'at . ToiJs 8e <^tXo/xot;o"OVS t^kv^ Ka$aptovs 5e to. aXXa ets ra wSiKa. tov<^ Sk dXdytos /SatrtXeas, dcTois, €t jj.rj aXXrj xaKt'a Trapelrj. jxeTewpoXoyovs Sk avev 4>povrjCTiui sion: Petimus ergo et nobiscum petit oninis Africanarum ecclesiarum studiosa so- cietas, ut interpretandis eorum libris 243 qui Graece Scripturas nostras quam optime tractaverunt, curam atque operam impendere non graveris. Potes enim efficere ut nos quoque habea- mus tales illos viros, et unum potis- simum quern tu in tuis litteris sonas. In this case a translation was not at hand, yet Augustine pre- ferred to send to Jerome for such rather than to attempt the Greek commentators himself. When he quotes Homer, it is in a Latin version, as in DCD V. 8: illi quoque versus Homerici ....quos Cicero in Latinum vertit. From the above citations we see that Augustine on all ordinary occasions preferred a Latin version when he could get it. The fact that Augustine shows this propensity for using translations, taken by itself, would lead us to think he knew very little about Greek, but we cannot draw a complete conclusion from this single feature alone. 2. Second. In regard to Augustine's use of Greek words and phrases. There are many such scattered through his works. Compare DCD IV. 21, quod Graece apirr] dicitur" virtus; V. 21, servitutem religionis quam Xarpuav Graeci vocant; VI. 5. /jlvOos Graece fabula dicitur ; VII. i, d e i t a t e m — OioT-qTa; VII. 6, m u n - di quem Graeci vocant koV/xov ; VII. 8, pa- latum Graeci oipavov appellant. VII. 35, veKVLOfi-avTelav (or vtKpo/u,avT«av). So also VIII. 7, ivuoias ; VIII. 17, Tra^os ; X. I, 6prjcrK€La, evcrelSaav, deoaefiuav, XarpeM. X. 28, TrarpiKov vovv id est paternam mentem sive intelleCtum. XL 13, <^Xiyp.a; XIII. 24, 7rveS/i«. '^""'J- In De Haeres. 4, he gives the numerical equivalents of the letters composing the cabbalistic word ajSpaaa^; in 17 he ex- plains O p h i t a e' from o<^ts; 51, o/jlolovo-lov ; 52, Uvevfx.a- To/jLaxov^ ; 57, €uxiVat ab orando sic appellati; in 63 he explains Passalorynchitae by irao-o-aXos enim Graece dicitur palus et pvyxos n a s u s , 244 cum Graece et dicatur digitus SoktvAos — Dactylorynchitae. De Trin. 4. 10. 13, reAeras; ibid. 14. I. I, dioa-i^ua ; ibid. 4. 21. 31, adhibito spir- itu etiam rationali vel intellectuali — h oc enim quibusdam placuit appellate quod Graeci dicunt voipov. Enarr. in Ps. 118, sermo 17. 2, disciplinam quam Graeci ap- pellant -TraiSct'av; ibid, sermo II. 6, trXiov enim L a t - ine plus est: e^is habitus est. ...a plus habendo appellata est TrXe-ovi^ia ; ibid. '^LXapyvpia quo verbo signifi.catur amor pecuniae; Sermo. 45. 5, evangelium enim Latine bonus nuntius est; Sermo 207. i, E 1 e m o - syna quippe Graece misericordia est; De Gen. ad litteram 2. 17. 35, experimenta quae i 1 1 i dTTOTeXeo-^ara V o c a n t : Enarr. in Ps. 77. i, Propo- sitiones autem quae Graece appellan- tur ■Kpoft'krijj.aTa. In DCD XVIII. 23 Augustine translates 'IijcroCs Xpio-Tos ®co5 vlo'i cru)Tr/p quod est Latine lesus Christus Dei filius salvator, and in the same chapter he explains the mystic monogram tx^u's. Such are examples of Augustine's knowledge of Greek words and their derivations. He was also able to distinguish between the Greek syno- nyms, e. g: Enarr. in Ps. 118, sermo 4. i, he says ayav is equivalent to n i m i s , and cr(j>6Spa to v a 1 d e . In Quaest. in Hept. i. 65 (Gen. 24. 41) opKos enim d i c i - tur 'iuratio,' apa 'maledictum.' In DCD X. I he distinguishes Xarpua, 6pr)a-Kua eio-eyScta aud Oeoae/iua. In Ep. 197. 2 he distinguishes xpo'vovs from Katpois : N o s t r i autem utrumque hoc verbum tempora appellant sive xP°'""'s s i v e Katpois, cum habeant haec duo inter se non negle- gendam differentiam: Kaipows quippe ap- pellant Graeci tempora quaedam, non tamen quae in spatiorum voluminibus transeunt, sed quae in rebus ad ali- 245 quid opportunis vel importunis sen- tiuntur, sicut messis vindemia calor frigus pax bellum et si qua si m ilia: Xpovovi autem ipsa spatia temporum V o c a n t . This cannot be said to be a superficial distinction on the part of Augustine; he thoroughly understood how to discriminate these two words. He also knew the difference between ^w)} and /3ios : quam vitam Graeci non l,uir]v s e d ySi'ov V o c a n t , D e T r i n . 12. 7. n. DCD XIII. 24 Quod itaque Graece Ttvorj d 1 c i - tur nostri aliquando 'flatum,' ali- quando 'inspirationem' vel 'aspira- tionem,' quando etiam Dei dicitur, interpretati sunt; irvevfia vero numquam nisi 'spiritum' sive hominis....sive pecoris....sive istum corporeum, qui etiam ventus dicitur. In Quaest. in Lev, 51 he distinguishes between a-Kevo's (hoc enim nomen generale est omnium utensilium) and ayyeiov (nam et hoc Latina lingua 'vas' dicitur, sed ayyctoi' illud magis intelli- gitur vas quod liquorem cap it); in Quaest. in Num. 3, between dXA.oyei/^s and a\\64>v\o^. In Quaest. in Deut. 23 he says 'parere' quippe est TLKTiiv quod est ex femina....'gig- nere' autem est yevrav. In Locut. in Gen. 48. i 8'5jLtos=p 1 e b s , o^A-os^t u r b a . In Locut. in Gen. 50. 2 he distinguishes between ivTaid&ai. and da.\f/ai. These in- stances are only a small part of what might be cited — all of like tenor. All such instances show is that Augustine knew many Greek words with their Latin equivalents, and was fair- ly well able to distinguish between synonyms. His etymo- logies are, of course, crude, even when they are correct, as is usually the case. 3. Third. Wenowpass to a more interesting topic, namely, Augustine's use of Greek in his exegetical works. We begin with the Quaestiones in Heptateuchum. From the opening 246 words of the prooemium we learn that Augustine consulted the Septuagint : Cum Scripturas sanctas, quae appellantur canonicae, legendo at cum aliis codicibus secundum Sep- tuaginta interpretationem conferendo percurreremus.... In Quaest. in Hept. i. 11 (Gen. 7. 24) he mentions the versions of Aquila and Sym- machus, but we cannot find evidence for his having consulted them in Greek : nam Aquila dixit 'obtinuit,' Symmachus 'praevaluerunt;' ibid i. 43 (Gen. 19. 11) caecitate: Graeci habent aopao-ia quod magis significat, si dici possit, 'avidentia'....Hoc aopaaia e t illi percussi sunt qui qua_erebant E 1 i s a e u m . Here Augustine not only consulted the LXX on the passage in question, and showed that the Greek word expressed more than the word representing it in the Latin version, but he also found the word aopaaia. occurred in another place in the LXX (4 Reg, 6. 18) of a similar kind of blindness. Ibid. 1.65 (Gen. 24.41) Latini codices. . . 'a iuramento meo,' vel, 'iuratione mea,' Graeci habent 'a maledicto meo'; opKos enim dicitur 'iuratio,' dpo, 'maledictum.' Here he examined the LXX awo Trji apas ^ov; ibid. i. 69 (Gen. 24. 63) exerceri: qui verbum de hac re Graecum nesciunt, exercitationem corporis -putant. Scriptum est autem G r a e c e aSokea-xTJa-ai : dSoXetrxeiv vero ad animi exercitationem pertinet, et saepe vitio deputatur. ibid i. 74 (Gen. 25. 27) homo simplex: Quod Graece dicitur awXaa-ro^ hoc Latini 'simplicem' interpretati sunt: proprie autem aTrXttoros 'non fictus,' unde aliqui Latini interpretes 'sine dolo' interpretati sunt. ibid. i. 80 (Gen. 27. 33) Quod habent Latini codices 'ex- pavit autem Isaac pavore magno 247 valde,' Graeci habent i^ia-rri Se 'la-aaK ^KO-raaiu fi.eya.Xyjv a-()>6Spa. ibid. i. 82 (Gen. 28. 2) L a t i n i codices ....'vade' .... Graeci codices non habent 'vade' sed 'fuge,' lioc est, djrdSpa^t. ibid I. 91. (Gen. 30. 11) b e a t a v e I f e 1 i x facta sum: Graeci habent eirvxr) quod magis bonam fortunam significat. In this same place, however, Augustine falls into the mistake of deriving rdxa from rvxn- Ibid. i. 93 (Gen. 37. 42) he also . consulted the LXX : quod tanto obscurius, quanto brevius a Septuaginta dictum est. ibid. i. 105 (Gen. 33. 10) m a x i m e quia sine articulo in Graeco dictum est; quo articulo evidentissime solet veri Dei unius fieri significatio: non e n i m dixit irpocrunrov Tol Oeov, S e d dixit irpoa-wirov 6eov. Facile a u t em hoc intelligunt qua distantia dicatur qui Graecorum eloquium a u dire atque intelligere Solent. This distinction mentioned shows some criiical observation on the part of Augustine in the use of the LXX. In ibid. i. 117. 1 (Gen. 35. 26) he says that some would read facti sunt instead of nati sunt according to the LXX iyevovTo. In ibid i. 132 (Gen. 41. i) he compares the iirl TTJ's Tnqyrj^ of Gen. 24. 13 with the im Tov iroTafx.ov of the pas- sage on which he is commenting, ibid. i. 152 (Gen. 46, 56-27) — on this disputed passage he again consults the LXX. Less important passages in the first book of Quaest. in Hept. are 31. 70. 108. 127. 131. 136. From this examination of the Quaest. in Gen. we would infer that Augustine throughout consulted the LXX. We find the same phenomena in the Quaestiones in Exo- dum. Compare Quaest. in Ex. 47 (Ex. 12. 37), where Au- gustine consulted the LXX. irXijv t^s dTroo-Keu^s, a e t e r instructum' vel 'censum.' He remarks that the same word is used in Gen. 43. 8, where it is rendered by substantia. In Quaest. 66 (Ex. 18. 12) he quotes the 248 LXX. ivavTcov Tov 6eov. Again Quaest. in Ex. 78 (Ex. 21. 8), Quod si in Graeco dictum esset a-no\vTp(T(Tat scriptum est. In lioc au- t e m loco airoXvTpuicrei 1 e g i t u r . Quaest. in Ex. 94 (Ex. 23. 35), Hie Graecus SovXeva-rj^ habet non Xarpcuo-Tjs. In Quaest. in Ex. 114 (Ex. 28. 3) lie would correct the Latin version which gave intellectus instead of sensus for alcrd^a-eu)^. In Quaest. 116 (Ex. 28. 22) he notices rationale is the usual translation of Xojlkov, not of Xdyiov which the LXX here gives. Quaest. 131 (Ex. 30. 4), in duo latera facias in duobus lateribus; quoniam Graecus habet eh TO, Svo kXItt) TTOtrjcreis if tois Svcrt TrXivpol^. Nam k/Vitt? latera sunt, e t wXevpa latera sunt. Unde qui- dam Latini sic interpretati sunt, 'In duas partes facies in duobus lat- eribus.' Non autem ait Graecus p.eprf quod est 'partes' sed kXittj quod 'la- tera. ' He then says that the same word kAiV?; is found in Ps. 127. 3 {iv KXiTccrt TTJ^ oiKta? 0-ou). Quaest. 15 I, Graecus habet yvuxTTwi, hoc quidam Latini inter- pretati sunt 'manifeste,' cum Scrip- tura non dixerit (pavepuii. Potuit ergo fortasse aptius dici.... 'scienter.' In Quaest. 154 (Ex. 33. 19) he comments on the Latin ren- dering of the two words iXerja-u> and oiktci/d-^o-oj of the LXX. Quaest. 157 (Ex. 34. 12), Non enim habet Grae- cus 'nequando ponas' sed 'ne quando p o n a t .' Quaest. 168, 'Demptionem' sane interpretati sunt Latini quod Graecus habet d(^atpc/ia. For the other instances of the employment of the Sep- tuagint in the Quaest. in Ex. not noticed above see Quaes- tiones ii, 42, 43, 50, 80, 86, 98, 104, 109, 115, 117, 118, 120, 132, 133, 150, 177: I. 2. 9. 17 (on the tabernacle.) 249 Thus we find in the Quaestiones in Exodum a more fre- quent comparison of the Latin version with the Septuagint rendering. In the Quaestiones in Leviticum (Quaest. in Hept., book 3) we do not find the LXX used to the same extent, but we do findit used often enough to lead us to infer that Augustine had that version before him throughout. Compare Quaest. in Lev. 15 (Lev. 6. 20), 'post meridiem' quod Graecus habet Sukivov .... fresa si tarn en hoc recte interpretatum est ex illo quod Graecus habet ipiKra.. Quaest. 29 (Lev. 9. 24) 'amens factus est': quod alii interpretes dixerunt 'expavit' con- antes transferre de Graeco quod dictum est i^ea-rr] U n d e eKO-Tacris d i i t u r . Quaest. 38 (Lev. 11. 47) quae Graecus habet ^(Doyovovvra nostri quidam 'vivificantia' interpretari maluerunt. Quaest. 40 (Lev. 12. 6) Merito ergo quidam nostri inter- pretati sunt. ...ut non dicerent 'su- per filio aut super filia'. Hanc enim vim huius praepositionis esse intel- lexerunt hoc loco, ubi Graecus ait €(Ti<; autem 'confirmatio.' For the other instances of Augustine's use of Greek in the Quaestiones in Leviticum not mentioned above see Quaest. 2, II, 17, 20, 25, 34, 35, 43. SI, S3, 54, SS, 66. In the Quaestiones in Numeros (Qiiaest. in Hept. 4) it is- evident that he consulted the Septuagint there also, though •the instances are not so numerous as in the Quaestiones on Genesis and on Exodus and on Leviticus. In Quaest. i (Num. I. 16) he wonders why the tribal officers are called x'^'-dcrixaTi^ Quaest. 39, Quam dixit superius 'aquam contradictionis,'ipsam dicit hie 'mal- edictionis', non enim ait avTiXoyia^ s e d XotSopias. In Quaest. 41 (Num. 26. 3) he gives the derivatioa of avdOe/xa — cltto tov ai'a) TiOivai, The other instances of the use of Greek in this book will be found in Quaest. 4, 14, 49, 52, 55. We see that, although Augustine had the LXX version before his eyes all 251 through, he mentions its readings' only twelve times in the Quaest. in Numeros. Still less frequently does he mention it in the Quaest. in Deut. (Quaest. in Hept. 5). Quaest. 23 (Deut. 15. 19), irpoiTOTOKov. Quaest. 39 (Deut. 24. 7), where he would correct Auferte malum ex vobis ipsis by showing that the Greek reads t6v -n-ovripov not to irovrjpovj as the latter was represented in Latin by hoc malignum and the former by hunc malignum. Quaest. 5 2 (Deut. 29. 19) avafidpTrjTov. Quaest. 55 (Deut. 32. 5) Quod est in G r a e c o rcKva /xm/ir/Ta. 'I'hus there are four references to the Septuagint in the Quaestiones in Deut. There are the same number (four) of references to the Septuagint in the Quaestiones in lesum Nave (Quaest. in Hept. 6). Compare Quaest. 4 (los. 4. 7) ews rot) alwvo's. In Quaest. 12 (los. 5. 4) an instance occurs worth citing : N o n n u 1 1 i codices et Graeci et Latini habent.... 'super humeros suos,' alii vero qui veraciores videntur non habent 'su- per humeros' sed 'super asinos.' Sim- ilitudo enim verbi in Graeca lingua mendositatem facilem fecit.... wp-wv q u i p p e e t ovav non multum ab invicem dissonant. In Quaest. 19 (los. 16. 10) he thinks the latter half of the verse has been added by the Septuagint in- terpreters after the event, as indeed it is found in the LXX, but not in the Hebrew or in Jerome's version. In Quaest. 24 (los. 23. 14) he would correct the recurro viam of the Itala to percurro or excurro from the LXX aTTOTpe^a). In the Quaestiones in ludices (Quaest. in Hept. 7) we find a similar employment of the LXX version. In Quaest. 41 he gives the Greek words for Epud or Ephud though they do not occur in the verses on which he is writing. Compare also Quaest. 45 (lud 9. 23) where he notes that the Greek word which occurs in that verse occurs also in Ps. 42. 3, where it is translated e m i 1 1 e as in the Itala of lud. 9. 23. 252 From the above investigation in the Quaestiones in Hept. we see that Augustine used the Septuagint, more or less, through- out; that he could consult it intelligently, give the different shades of meaning of different Greek words, that he at- tempted elementary textual criticism on it, that he could amend or justify the Latin versions by comparing them with it. We next take up the seven books of the Locutiones in Heptateuchum in which we find similar phenomena with the above in the Quaestiones in Heptateuchum. Compare Locut in Gen. 3. i, in Graeco scriptum est (j>povifjLi!)TaTos n o n o-ov a.KaOapTO'i ecrrat, quasi dicer- et 'immundus existens immundus erit.' So" also in the Locutiones deNumeris (Locut. in Hept. 4). 14-35 Quaerendum est sane quid sit quod Graece positum est rj fjLrjv, nostri enim interpretes hoc paene ubique inter- pretati sunt 'nisi'; 15. 28 Et ideo 'in- vita' positum est, quia Latine non potuit exprimi quod Graece dictum est aKova-Laadua-qi, non enim potuit dici no- lent a t a ; 18. 6 Sd/xa SiSoft.€vov. 20. 30; 29. I. In the Locutiones de Deuteronomio (Locut. in Hept 5) we find the LXX used to about the same extent. Compare Locut. de Deut. 11. 3; 11. 14; 15. 6; 28. 48; 28. 54 where he refers to the LXX of Prov. 23. 6; Graecus habet avSpi ySao-Kavo) ; fidaKavos autem fascinus dicitur. 28. 63; 31. 29 uno verbo autem Graece dicitur 'iniquitatem facietis' -quod est avofX,ii](TeTe. 32. 14. In the Locutiones de lesu Nave there is only one recorded instance of the employment of the Septuagint, viz: 8. i8 on Extende manum tuam in gaeso. Hoc interpres Symmachus 'scutum' appel- lasse perhibetur. Septuaginta autem interpretes, secundum quos ista tractamus, qui posuerunt 'gaeson,' miror si et in Graeca lingua 'hastam' vel 'lanceam' Gallicanam intelligi voluerunt. This is an important passage, though the only one in the book in which the Septuagint is mentioned. 2SS We learn from it that the Septuagint was the norm of authority for Augustine. Moreover, he informs us that here at least he was not acquainted first-hand with the version of Symmachus (Symmachusperhibetur). Similarly in the Locutiones de ludicibus (Locut. in Hept. 7). Compare 3. 21; 4. 16; 4. 18 sic e n i m h a b e t GraeCUS iv ry Seppet auTTjs. 7. 12. Thus both in the Quaestiones and Locutiones in Hept. Augustine would seem to have had a copy of the LXX before him, and to have made frequent reference to it. He evidently consulted it throughout in these seven books ; and has only mentioned its readings where he thought them noteworthy. We shall observe the same use of the Septuagint version in Augustine's other and much larger exegetical work — the Enarrationes in Psalmos. Compare Ennar. in Ps. 3. 5 iyu) Se €K0ifJ.T^6riv Koi mruuicra. 4. 6; 6. 3; 9. 7; 67. 19; 67. 41; 71. 8; 7i.i7;7i.2i;77.i8 quoniam in Graecis codici- b u s n o n evcTrdSicrci/ quod est 'impedivit,' s e d o-uv£7ro8tcrev legimus quod est potius 'compedivit, 87.7 Quod enim Graece positum est ^u/nos diverse interpretati sunt nostri. Nam ubi Graeci codices h a b e n t opyr] ibi 'iram' Latine dicere nullus fere dubitavit interpres; ubi a u t e m Sw/xos positum est plerique non putaverunt 'iram' esse dicendam.... In alio psalmo (41. 8).... fluctus tui super me ingressi sunt, vel sicut quidam melius transtulerunt 'super me transierunt;' ^LrjXdoy enim est in Graeco, non ila-rjXOov. 92. 6; 98. 9; 105. 2; 105. 31 118 sermo 4. i; it8. 11. 6; 118. 14. 4; 118. 15. 5; ibid. 15. 8 118. 24. 7; 118. 26. 2; 118. 28. 4; 118. 29. 3; 119. i; 123. 8 135 I- Augustine, according to the above citations and references, seems to have had the Septuagint at hand in writing his great commentary on the Psalms, and though he did not mention it 256 so frequently as we should suppose he would, still he does mention it enough to give us to know he could use it. When we turn from the three works of Augustine which we have been considering above to his commentary on the book of Job we are rather disappointed to find no reference to the Septuagint, and evidently no use made of that version in this work. This concludes our investigation of Augustine's use of Greek, especially of the Septuagint, in his writings on the Old Testament books. Though he does not seem to have employed it for Job, yet from the Quaestiones in Hept. and the Locutiones in Hept. and the Enarrationes in Psalmos we know he employed the Septuagint version. In fact he seems to have had it before him and to have consulted it often in the course of those writings. He was not only able to read it, but, to some extent, to use it critically and to verify or emend his Latin version from its text. In face of all this we cannot understand how Dr. Philip Schaff wrote: "But in his exe- getical and other works he very rarely consults the Septuagint or Greek Testament, and was content with the very imperfect Itala or the improved version of Jerome." (Church History, vol. 2, p. 1001, footnote, and repeated in The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, prolegomena p. 9, footnote). Next we ask did Augustine make use of the New Testa- ment in the original Greek ? We do not find any trace of the use of the original in the two books Quaestiones Evange- liorum nor in the Quaestiones septemdecim in evangelium secun- dum Matthaeum. Still more strange is it that the lengthy work In lohannis evangelium tractatus seems to have been executed with very little reference to the Greek. In it (Tract. 10. 12) occurs the fanciful formation of the word Adam from the initial letters of amroA.^ quod est Oriens, Suo-ts quod est Occidens, apKxos quod est Sep- t e n t r i o , fj.ea-ri/j./3pia quod est Meridies; also the numerical value of the different letters found in 'ASaju, as 46, the number of years which was occupied in the build- ing of the temple. In Tract. 38. 11 on P r i n c i p i u m of loh. 8. 25, he says Principium me credite. 257 In Graeco namque eloquio discernitur quod non potest in Latino. Apud Graecos enim feminini generis est p r i n c i p i u m . This cannot be said to be a good instance of his consulting the Greek text. A better one is found in Tract. 115. 4, where on the in hoc natus sum of Joh. 18. 37 he says ad hoc natus sum.... In Graeco namque evangelio nihil est huius locutionis ambiguum, where he had evidently referred to the Greek text ei's tovto yeyeVi'iy/tat. In Tract 100. I he does comment on the different renderings of the word Sofao-et of loh. 19. 14, and again in Tract. 105. 3 on So^acTov in the Greek text of John 17. i. Lastly, in Tract. 117. 2, on the irapacTKevrj of John 19. 14. With such triflmg exceptions this work on John appears to have been written without reference to the Greek text. It is true Augustine may have consulted the Greek text without having thought it necessary to make any more remarks than those given above. But this is by no means probable, as surely he would have found, had he consulted the Greek text, some things better worth a remark than those which he has chosen ; for example he did not remark upon the aya-n-av and (^iXetv of John 21. 15 sq. In addition to this we have evidence that he neglected the Greek text outside of the gospel of John while writing the Tractatus. In Tract. 79. i he gives Heb. 11. i as Est autem fides sperantium substantia; thus by sperantium, which is the best attested read- ing here, and occurs again in Tract. 95. 2, Augustine trans- lates, or acquiesces in the translation of, tZv cA.m^o/ieVujv of the Greek text — an obviously incorrect rendering which he could not have omitted to notice if he had consulted the Greek. The vulgate more correctly renders it sperandarum r e r u m . In Tract. 97. 4 he gives profanas ver- borum novitates evita for 2 Tim. 2. 16, mis- translating Kivo(j>opTCov (verse 5). In his Expos- itio epistulae ad Galatas, 58 and 59, he does not notice any difference or contradiction at all. In De consensu evange- listarum 3 7. 27 we have noticed his difficulty about a d Caiapham in praetorium. See also 3. 24. 65 for his difficulty about Mat. 28. i. But though Augustine in all the above named works shows little or no acquaintance with the Greek text, we know from other facts that he could and did consult it. This we should naturally expect him to do in the New Testament text when we know, as shown above, that he had a considerable knowledge of the Septuagint Greek, and could with a certain amount of facility consult that text. Augustine in a letter to Jerome in which he tries to dissuade him from translating from the Hebrew, and asks him to be satisfied with correcting the Septuagint text, also expresses his appreciation of Jerome's new version of the gospels, thus: Proinde non par- vas Deo gratias agimus de opere tuo quo evangelium ex Graeco int e^r p r e - tatus as, quia paene in omnibus nulla offensio est cum Scripturam Graecam contulerimus (Ep. 71. 4. 6. BE vol. 2. 243). From these words of Augustine himself we infer that he compared Jerome's version of the gospels with the Greek original, or he compared at least enough of that version to pass judgment. He also seems while so doing to have had a judgment of his own in the matter. He would agree that Jerome was correct in most points (paene in omnibus nulla of- fensio est), but not absolutely all. The above cited words in themselves would seem to be evidence enough for Augustine's ability to read, and for his actual reading of, the Greek of the New Testament. But there is more evidence yet from actual examples of his having used or known the Greek text. In DCD XIII. 24 he discusses the difference between TrveO/xa and irvor) with refer- ence to the Greek text of Gen. 2. 7 and of loh. 20. 22 to prove that Inspiravit Deus in faciem eius 26o s p i r i t u m (Trvorjv) v i t a e was a different act from Accipite spiritum {wvevjj.a) sanctum : and for the same discussion he cites i Cor. 2. 11, Matt. 28. 19, John 4. 24 evidently with the knowledge of the Greek text in these places. In Ep. 149. 28 he notices the omission in Col. 2. 18 of the negative in some MSS, evidently meaning Greek MSS. Compare also Ep. 193. 10 on different readings of i Cor. 15. 36, quod in plerisque codicibus legitur 'omnes resurgemus'. . . . Et quod nonnulli codices habent 'omnes dormiemus.' In DCD XX. 19 he approves of the ren- dering in templum Dei rather than in t e m p 1 o Dei in 2 Thess. 2. 4, sicut in Graeco est. Here he had consulted the Greek text cis t6v vaov rov deov. In Quaest. in Ex. 51 he shows a familiarity with the words of the Greek text of the New Testament ; has autem dicit 'progenies' Latinus interpres quas -ytvcas Graeci vocant, quae in evangelic 'generationes' appellantur. Again in Quaest. in Ex. 1 14 when commenting on the rendering of ato-^jjcreras in Ex. 28. 3 he says i b i (i. e. Hebr. 5. 14) enim quod posuit 'sensus' Graecus h a b e t ala-d-qa-i'i, the Greek word in Heb. 5. 14 being alo-drjTiipia. In Quaest. in Levit. 20 he writes apostolus autem ubi dicit 'si praeoccupatus fuerit homo in aliquo delicto,' TrapaTTTaixaTi Graecus habet, which is the word in the Greek text of Galat. 6. i. He was acquainted with the Greek text of Eph. 5. 27 as we learn from Quaest. in Levit. 41: Posset ergo quod ad solum colo- rem attinet arnXov dicere quo verbo usus est apostolus ubi ait de ecclesia: 'Non habentem macula m aut rugam.' In Quaest. in Deut. 39 while commenting on the t6v irovtjpov of Deut. 24. 7 he recalls the similar expression in i Cor. 5. 13 auferte malum ex vobis ipsis. Nam Graecus habet t6v Trovrjpov ....Nee ait to 26 1 TTovrjpov, id est 'hoc malignum,' sed t6v TTovrjpov quod est 'hunc malignum.' In Ennar. in Ps. ii8 sermo 15. 8 (verse 56) on i u s t i t i a s tuas exquisivi he quotes from Rom. 10. 3 i g n o - rantes Dei iustitiam and then draws a distinc- tion between StKotocrwas and SiKauD/xara, which latter word occurs in the verse (56) on which he is commenting, the former in the Greek text of Rom. 10. 3. He must therefore have been familiar with the Greek of Rom. 10. 3. Compare also Contra Faustum Manichaeum 11. 4 qui factus est ex semine David secundum carnem.... quia nulla in eo variat codicum auctoritas. Etsi enim in quibusdam Latinis exemplar^ibus non legitur 'factus' sed 'natus ex semine David,' cum Graeci 'factus' habeant, unde non ad verbum sed ad senten- tiam transferre voluit dicendo 'natum' Latinus interpres. Here again he has consulted the Greek text (Rom. I. 3) toC yivofxlvov Ik ij.fvy and adds et multis aliis divinarum Scripturarum locis lege ubi inveneris hoc verbum et inspice codices Graecos in eisdem testimoniis sanctarum Scripturarum et videbis unde sit ap- pellata dialectica. Augustine had evidently ex- amined all such passages himself in the original in order to re- fute his adversary; and he relied on his knowledge of Greek, whether extensive or inconsiderable, in doing so. Contra Gaudentium Donatistam i. 5. 6, Quod enim quidam interpretati sunt, 'sapientissimum omnium bestiarum,' 'prudentissimum' potius Graeci codices, habent, unde in Latinam linguam scriptura ilia translata est. Having here (Gen. 3. i) examined the LXX he found (^povt/xcoTaros and thus spoke with authority. Compare Contra litteras Petiliani 2. 38. gi, where he states his contention without hesitation, Et ego quidem Graecae linguae perparum assecutus sum et prope nihil; non tamen im- pudenter dice me nosse okov non esse 'unum' sed 'totum,' et Ka6^ oXov 'secun- dum totum.' Such a statement as this, it is true, en- tailed only a very limited knowledge. In Ad Orasium contra Priscillianistas et Origenistas 5. 5 on ite in ignem aeternum he says Nee movere debet ut hoc loco 'aeternum' pro 'diuturno' accipiamus, quod alibi scriptum est 'In aeternum et in sae- culum saeculi.' Latinus quippe inter- pres noluit dicere 'in aeternum et in aeternum aeterni.' Sed quoniam id quod aloiv Graece dicitur et 'saecu- lum' et 'aeternum' interpretari potest 26s commodius alii interpretes transtul- erunt 'In saeculum et in saeculum saeculi.' Sed non hoc dictum est ubi dictum est 'Ite in ignem aeternum.' Non enim dictum est alSiva sed aialviov quod si a saeculo, declinatum esset 'saeculare' Latine diceretur non 'aeternum'' . . . . But the best examples of Augustine's controversial em- ployment of Greek occur in the work Contra lulianum Pela- gianum i. 6. 22. Here Augustine is discussing the question of infant baptism against Julian, who had ciied the words of John Chrysostom, and by his own interpretation had tried to make them teach his view. Augustine consulted the words of Chrysostom and pointed out the incorrectness of Julian's translation. Ego ipsa verba Graeca quae a. lohanne dicta sunt ponam Aia tovto koI Ta iraiSta ^airrl^ofjLiv Kairoi OLfjiapri^jiaTa ov)( l;^ovTa, q U O d est Latine 'Ideo et infantes baptizamus quamvis peccata non habentes.' Vides certe non ab eo dictum esse 'parvu- los non coinquinatos esse peccato sive peccatis,' sed 'non habere pec- cata': intellige 'propria' et nulla contentio est. And again against the same oppon- ent ibid. I. 6. 26. he says Quid enim apertius quam id quod ibi dixit 'Venit semel Christus et paternis nos cautionibus invenit astrictos quas conscripsit Adam. Ille initium obligationis os- tendit, peccatis nostris fenus accre- vit.' Auciistine hominem in fide Catho- lica et eruditum et erudientem, dis- tinguentem debitum paterni chiro- graphi quod haereditarium nobis in- haesit, ab eis debitis quorum per nostra peccata fenus accrevit? Audis 266 quid parvulis in baptismo relaxetur qui nondum propria debita contraxe- runt, nee tamen a paterno chiro- grapho immunes esse potuerunt? Verba quippe eius non interpretata sic leguntur in Graeco: "Epx^rai ajraf o Xpto-ros, evpev rjfjLwv y(eip6ypaov irarptaov 6 Ti eypacjxv 6 'ASa/j. ■ txai/os Trjv apxrjv ilurjyayiv Tov xpeiovi, rj/xels tov SaveiafjCov rji^-qnajxiv rais lx(Tayf.veiXo(To4>co.s of Porphyry, ut ipsa verba eius quem ad modum ex Graeca lingua in Latinam interpretata sunt, ponam. In these words Augustine is not referring to his own transla- tion of the passage, but gives it from some version of Por- phyry which he had before him. He does not, it is true, mention the name of any author of a. version either of Por- phyry or of Plotinus, though so thoroughly conversant with the writings of these two Platonists. Dr. Philip Schaff (Saint Augustin, Melanchthon, Neander, N. Y., 1886, p. 88) says: " He probably read Plotinus and Porphyry in the original." But from the extent of Augustine's knowledge of Greek, which we have shown above, and from the limited use he made of Greek, it is unlikely that he should have read either Por- phyry or Plotinus in the original. His knowledge of both was entirely through Latin versions. While there is absolute lack of evidence that Augustine read Plato in the original, while he 269 made so comparatively limited use of the LXX, while he seems to have preferred translations on all occasions, while he did not consider himself equal to the task of reading the Greek fathers on the subject of the Trinity, would he, in all proba- bility, be able to read the philosophic writings of Porphyry and Plotinus ? We do not think so, but believe, as stated above (p. 239), that both Porphyry and Plotinus must be re- ferred to the quosdam libros Platonicorum quos Victorinus quondam rhetor urbis Romae....in Latinam linguam trans- t u 1 i s s e t of Conf. 8. 2. 3. What does Augustine mean by the words of sermo 225. 3. 3, ad infantes: — Inveni te Latinum, Lati- num tibi proferendum est verbum. Si autem Graecus esses Graece tibi loqui deberem et proferre ad te ver- bum Graecum? Does this mean that Augustine here implies that he could speak Greek to the children if they were Greek ? He is referring simply to the propriety of speaking Latin to Latin children, telling them that in the same way if they were Greeks he ought (deberem) to speak Greek to them, without hinting whether he himself understood Greek enough to speak it. Having thus completed our examination of the works of Augustine with a view to discover the extent of his knowledge of Greek, we have seen that he himself claims to have known very little about Greek, that on all occasions he seems to have preferred a Latin version of a Greek author, that he did not consider his knowledge of Greek extensive enough to make a large reading acquaintance with original writings of the Greek fathers, that he did not read even his favorite Platon- ists in the original, that he sometimes made mistakes in his use of Greek. On the other hand we have found that there is a large number of single Greek words and Greek phrases in his works, that he could with a con- siderable amount of precision distinguish between Greek synonyms — nearly all of them technical terms, that he was 270 by no means ignorant of the derivation of Greek words, that he was conversant with and could consult for the simpler and primary critical and exegetical purposes the Septuagint ver- sion, or at least portions of it — the Heptateuch and Psalms, that from the LXX he could confirm or correct the Itala; that he knew something of the original language of the New Tes- tament — though apparently not to the same extent as that of the Septuagint; that from the New Testament Greek text he occas- ionally ventured to correct his Latin version; that for contro- versial purposes he regarded his knowledge of Greek as sufficient to presume upon it in order to confute his opponent; that he perhaps read the epitome of the Greek work of Epiphanius on heresies in the original. In his commentary on Job he seems not to have consulted the LXX, and in his works on the New Testament we are disap- pointed to find so little use made of the Greek text. After all the evidence given above, it would be very far from the truth to assert Augustine knew little or nothing about Greek. In his early days this may have been so. But Augus- tine later on applied himself to the study, and .no doubt a man of his earnest temperament would spare no efforts to master that language for practical purposes. We may say then that Augustine's knowledge of Greek was different at different times, or rather that it increased with his years and his use of it. That he was not ignorant of the advantages and value of such a study we may see from De doctrina Chris- tiana 2. 13. 19: non apparet (sententia) nisi in ea lingua inspiciatur quam inter- pretantur; et plerumque a sensu auc- toris devius aberrat interpressi non sit doctissimus; aut linguarum illar- um ex quibus in Latinam Scriptura pervenit petenda cognitio est, so also ibid. 2. [4. 21 and 2. 15. 22(adfin.),Latini ergo ....codices Veteris Testamenti, si necesse fuerit, Graecorum auctori- tate emendandi sunt. . . . Libros autem 271 Novi Testamenti si quid in Latinis varietatibus titubat, Graecis cedere oportere non dubium est, et maxime qui apud ecclesias doctiores et dili- gentiores reperiuntur. We cannot, therefore, limit Augustine throughout his after life to the little acquaintance with Greek of his school days. The disgust for the study of Greek arising out of the bad. method employed by his teacher evidently did not con- tinue. Clausen's examination of Augustine's writings with a view to determine his knowledge of Greek was not sufficiently com- prehensive, and some important passages he has failed to note. He concludes his investigation thus: In his o b - servandis corrigendisque, si a paucis admodum discesseris, Augustinum verum feliciter assecutum esse nemi- nem fugit; quare tantum, si quid video, abest ut ignarus linguae Graecae dici debeat, ut res gramma- ticas bene edoctus et subtilis verbo- rum indagator existimandus sit. At facile tamen patet cognitionem hanc, quae ultra elementa linguae non prodeat, nullo modo sufficere ad libros Graecos nedum eos qui dia- lecto Hellenistica conscripti sunt, intelligendos. (Aurelius Augustinus Hipp. Sacrae scripturae Interpres p. 39). The latter part of this conclusion is too strong, even against Augustine's limited knowledge of Greek. Such an opinion as that of Clausen is at variance with the facts which have been given above. Augustine's knowledge of Greek did certainly extend ultra ele- menta linguae and Clausen's other statement null_^o modo sufficere ad libros Graecos nedum eos qui dialecto Hellenistica 272 conscript! sunt intelligendos is also equally erroneous. Reuter (Augustinische Studien. Gotha 1887. pp. 170-182) has given the question of the extent of Augustine's knowledge of Greek a fuller and better treatment than Clausen, though he has not exhausted the material. He has taken different passages from those given by Clausen and collected other evi- dence as he says: " Die Stellen, welche er zu diesem Behufe gesammelt hat, sind andere als diejenigen, welche ich gefun- den habe. Beide Sammlungen konnen einander erganzien." (p. 171, footnote 2). His conclusions are fairer and more liberal to Augustine's knowledge of Greek: " Er war jeden- falls imstande, nicht bloss Worter, sondern auch ganze Satze zu verstehen, wenn auch nicht ohne Anstrengung, nicht ohne in Irrungen zu geraten, nicht ohne Aufwand von Zeit. Um diesen sich zu ersparen, griff er offenbar fur gewohnlich zu einer lateinischen Version, wenn diese vorhanden, ein Exemp- lar derselben ihm zuganglich war. In Fallen aber, wo er in dieser Unverstandliches oder Anstossiges fand, verglich er den griechischen Urtext. Ich bezweifle somit duichaus nicht, dass er fahig gewesen ware, wenn auch mit Miilie, ein vollstandiges griechisches Buch auszulegen, falls damit ein dringendes personliches Bedurfnis zu stillen ware" (p. 178- 179). The facts given above bear out these statements of Reuter. He has arrived at a conclusion which 1 consider cor- rect and well supported, though he has not exhausted all the evidence and has omitted to mention some important notices in the writings of Augustine relevant to the subject. In finding the extent of Augustine's acquaintance with Greek I have attempted to collect every important statement of his own in regard to Greek and every use of Greek — the most important of which have been given above — to be found in the Confessions, in the City of God, in all his exegetical and controversial works and in the De Trinitate, De doctrina Christi- ana, De sermone Domini in monte, De haeresibus, De consensu evangelistarum, Retractationes, Sermones and Epistulae. 273 In conclusion, this investigation into the data, from which a true estimate of Augustine's knowledge of Greek may be gained, does not by any means warrant us in concluding that the great North African father had a mere elementary knowl- edge of Greek, confined only to the school rudiments and to an acquaintance with a few words and derivations and pas- sages. His knowledge of Greek was imperfect, limited and incomplete, but cannot be described as merely elementary: it was altogether less than his ability to use it ; his method of employing it was more perfect than his knowledge of it was extensive. Besides we have reason to believe that he could have made more use of his Greek than he did. The fact that he used the Septuagint in the Quaestiones in Hepta- teuchum and also in the Locutiones and more or less in the Enarrationes in Psalmos proves that he could also have con- sulted it throughout on the book of Job if he had cared to do so. And we may gather from the few examples of his em- ployment of the Greek text of the New Testament that he could have used it more extensively if he had felt so inclined. The fact that Augustine could have done so, but has not done so, leads to conclude that his knowledge of Greek was not so extensive that he could use it with ease ; but he has given us abundant examples of having called his knowl- edge of Greek into frequent service, so that we cannot say it amounted to little. On the other hand we may not exaggerate his knowledge of Greek. While we learn from his exegetical and contro- versial works that he had a considerable knowledge, the fact that he did not employ Greek more, especially in the former class of works, shows that his Greek was not very exten- sive. This is further borne out by the consideration that Au- gustine's serviceable Greek knowledge appears to have been limited entirely to Biblical and Patristic Greek. His largest field in Greek learning was the Greek of the Septuagint, next in order comes his knowledge of the Greek of the New Testament, and finally, but a very small amount of Patristic Greek. Of the Greek classics he was almost entirely ignorant and did not consult any of them in the original. SOME THESES. I. New or hitherto unnoticed fragments: — A. Add to the fragments of Cicero (De Fato) : — (i) DCD V. 3 (p. 193. 32),. nobile illud com- mentum de figuli rota, quod re- spcndisse ferunt Nigidium hac quaestione turbatum, unde et Figulus appellatus est. Dum enim rotam figuli vi quanta potuit intorsisset, currente ilia bis numero de atramento tamquam uno eius loco summa celeritate percussit: deinde inventa sunt signa, quae fixerat, desistent e motu, non parvo intervallo in rotae illius extremitate distan- tia. Sic, inquit, in tanta rapa- citate caeli, etiamsi alter post alteram tanta celeritate nasca- tur, quanta rotam bis ipse per- cussi, in caeli spatio plurimum est: hinc sunt, inquit, quae- cunque dissimillima perhibentur in moribus casibusque gemi- n o r u m , (2) DCD V. 5 (p. 197. 13), illud a nonnullis praedicatur, quod quidam sap- iens horam elegit, qua cum ux- ore concumberet, unde filium mirabilem gigneret. 275 B. Editors of Cicero's worlcs have overlooked the frag- ment expressly attributed to Cicero by Augustine in DCD VIII. 19 (p. 349. 5)_ q u o d hac pestif- era scelerataque doctrina fruc- tus alieni in alias terras trans- ferri perhibentur, nonne in duo- decim tabulis, id est Romanor- um antiquissimis legibus, Cicero commemorat esse conscriptum et ei qui hoc fecerit supplicium constitutum. c. Add to the hitherto acknowledged fragments of Varro, De Rebus Divinis (book 16 De diis selectis): DCD IV. 10 (p. 159. 20), C u i (Vestae) P h o e n - ices donum dabant de prostitu- tione filiarum, antequam eas iungerent viris. II. So far as the testimony of Augustine's writings is con- cerned, his attitude to the fall of Rome and the state of the Roman empire of his day was one neither of intense and deeply patriotic feeling, nor of heartless indifference, though nearer to the latter than to the former. To say the least he appears surprisingly calm in the face of so terrible a calamity. Augustine's pride in Rome was centered in her achievements of the past, not in her present. He was more of a Christian than a Roman. III. Augustine sometimes has a way of disguising or referring to particular authorities by general or indefinite plural expressions, e. g., DCD II. 22 (p. 83. 22) secun- dum eorum auctores doctissi- m o s for Sallust. DCD II. 23 (p. 86. 28) e o s qui scripserunt; DCD III. 31 (p. 144. 30), a p u d e o s; (p. 144. 34) s c r i p s e r u"n t ; (p. 145. 5)litteris mandaverunt, for Livy. 276 DCD III. IS (p. 116. 14) q u i d a m scrip- tores ; DCD V. 5 (p. 197. 13) a n o n n u 1 - lis; DCD V. 20 (p. 231. 6), p h i 1 o s o p h i for Cicero. DCD III. 19 (p. 128. 17) h i s q u o q u e fatentibus for Florus. DCD IV. 10, IV. 24, inquiunt; DCD IV. 26, a doctissimis; DCD VII. 9, i n q u i u n t for Varro. DCD VIII. 14, inquiunt for Apuleius. DCD IX. i (p. 368. 17) fateantur for Lactantius. It should be noticed, however, that in such instances Augustine uses these plurals also in a kind of generic sense. He means the particular writers whom he has in mind to stand as representatives of the pagans gen- erally. IV. On the testimony of Augustine's works he had a limited working knowledge of biblical Greek, a very slight working knowledge of patristic Greek and apparently no working knowledge of classical Greek. V. The lost Hortensius of Cicero must be regarded as one of Augustine's chief literary authorities for the history of philosophy. VI. Augustine alone has preserved for us the information of the sack of Nola by the Goths after that of Rome in 410. VII. Note the following mistakes in facts in the first ten books of the City of God: A. Proved mistakes. I. DCD I. 2, legant et proferant . . . . aliquem ducem barbarorum prae- cepisse, ut inrupto oppido nul- lus feriretur, qui inillo vel illo templo fuisset inventus. (See note p. s. 30.) 277 2. DCD I. s, Cato, sicut scribit Sal- lust i u s . (See note p. 9. 31.) 3. DCD I. 34, Romulus et Remus asy- lum constituisse perhibentur. (See note p, 50. 31.) 4. DCD II. 16, n n t a m e n p e r h i b e t u.r easdem leges a numinibus accep- i s s e . (See note p. 72. 9.) 5. DCD II. 17, decem milibus aeris damnaretur. (See note p. 73. 21.) 6. DCD II. 23, Metellus.... qui habuit quinque filios consulares. (See note p. 86. 11.) 7. DCD III. 5, adulteras autem feminas, quamvis aliqua damnatione, nul- la tamen morte plectebant. (See note p. 102. II.) 8. DCD III. 13, ipso interfecto ut maior deus esset regnum solus obtin- u i t . (See note p. 112. 17.) 9. DCD III. 20, nam etiam suorum ca- daveribus a nonnullis pasta per- il i b e t u r . (See note p. 130. 13.) 10. DCD V. 18, L. Valerium qui in suo defunctus est consulatu (after Eu- tropius. — See note p. 227. 2.) 11. DCD V. 22, quintus ei annus finem d e d i t (after Eutropius. See note p. 234. 13.) 12. DCD VIII. 14, nihil boni dixit. (See note p. 342. 34.) 13. DCD IX. 4, irdGt] .... quidam vero si- cut iste (Cicero) de Graeco ex- pressius, passiones vocant. (See note p. 371, 9.) 278 2. B. Possible but unproved mistakes. 1. bCD II. 6, F u g a I i a . (See note p. 59. 25.) 2. DCD II. 23, Marius.... perfrui diis i r a t i s . (See note p. 85. 23.) In ipsius autem Marii oculis continuo feriebantur, quibus salutantibus dexteram porrigere n o I u i s s e t . (See note p. 139. 17.) DCD III. 31, qua calamitate permoti misericorditer euiusdem anni tributum ei relaxavere Romani. Octoginta hominum milia per- isse referantur. (See notes p. 144. 29, 145- 3-) GENERAL ANALYSIS. First Part: Literary Sources of DCD, I-X. Pages 9-59. I. Sources mentioned by Augustine. II. Sources not mentioned by Augustine. [Conspectus of Literary Sources.] [Note on Composition of DCD by A. F. West] Second Part: Annotations to DCD, I-X, 64-234 Book I. p. 64. Book II. p. 87. Book III. p. III. Book IV. p. 153. Book V. p. 163. Book VI. p. 179. Book VIL p. 182. Book VIIL p. 183. Book IX. p. 204. Book X. p. 211. Third Part: Augustine's Knowledge of Greek. 236-273 I. What does he say of his knowledge of Greek ? 237 II. Use of Greek in his writings. 239 1. Use of Latin versions. 239 2. Scattered Greek words and phrases. 243 3. Exegetical use of Greek — 245 a. In the LXX. 245 b. In the New Testament. 256 4. Controversial use of Greek. 263 5. Other considerations. 266 Summary and conclusions. 269 Some Theses : 274 ERRATA. Page. Line from Top. lO 34 32 23 31 19. 27. 31 34 14 36 16 45 12 46 14-19 [The page numbers mean pages of this dissertation.] omt'f period a/Ur o d r e m insert in a/ier evidently /or supra read super (correcting Kuhl- mann) for 1 i b r i s read 1 i b e r i s insert Plotinus before Cicero for e f f o s i s read e f f s s i s Sallust, and not Florus, is Augustine's author- ity for the Servile war, as may be argued from other passages in the DCD. See also Jilrges, De Sallustii historiarum reliquiis, P- 15- for a n n n o s read a n n o s insert to after put omit only and add Sallust omit Florus or Eutropius (?) and add ^3\\\x?,t for XVII. read XVIII. for praetierunt read praeterierunt add probably after was for Liviy read Livy for 625 read 125 for Q u i e t u m read Q u i e t e m for Epitone read Epitome insert book viii My misunderstanding of Augustine's words. He does not mean that Apuleius was tried before Christian judges. for Ascelepius read Asclepius for Q u a r e i t read Q u a e r i t for 6e\5> read deXu) for mulierculae read m u 1 i e r c u 1 a for TeX-eras read reXcTas for -^QXiaprjipi read ;)(i\iapxo' for TO read to 47 25 5° 9 54 23 54 36 61 28 70 14 80 33 85 13 132 18 155 23 159 18 183 27-2 201 27 202 19 219 16 220 31 224 33 244 2 250 10 253 28 ^^%r^