Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-fscjk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:32:24.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Development of the Idea of Habit in the Thought of Saint Augustine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  29 July 2016

John G. Prendiville
John G. Prendiville*
Affiliation:
St. Thomas More College, University of Western Australia
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This study is concerned with Augustine's use of habit (consuetudo) to explain man's reluctance to raise his mind to God, and his difficulty in doing good. In the books that will be examined here, consuetudo is nearly always used in a pejorative sense, and can thus be translated as bad habit (be it of a psychological or ethical nature). Habit as a formal instrument of thought was known to Augustine early in his life from a reading of the Categories. There he learned that habit was a quality of a substance, not a substance itself: ‘One kind of quality let us call habits ἕξιϛ and conditions (διάθεσις). A habit differs from a condition in being more stable and lasting longer. Such are the branches of knowledge and the virtues. Justice, temperance, and the rest seem to be not easily changed.’ Augustine was also aware of the idea of habit as a second nature (consuetudo secunda natura), i.e. a tendency which is created by one's own activity, and which in turn produces effects in a predictable sort of way. This idea was a commonplace of the ancient world, and may have come to Augustine through the professors of rhetoric, who taught speech and composition through the inculcation of good habits.

Type
Articles
Information
Traditio , Volume 28 , 1972 , pp. 29 - 99
Copyright
Copyright © Fordham University Press 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 It was probably in the Latin translation of Marius Victorinus, according to Marrou, H., Augustin, S. et la culture antique (Paris 1938) 34. L. Minio-Paluello puts forward the hypothesis that it was the translation of Albinus, who may have been one of Macrobius's circle. ‘The text of the Categoriae: the Latin Tradition’ in Classical Quarterly 39 (1945) 66. Conf. 4.16.28.Google Scholar

2 Categories 8b,26. See Bekker, (ed.) (Berlin 1831) 8.Google Scholar

3 See the word list in Bréhier, E. (ed.) Ennéades VI2 (Paris 1938): ἕξιϛ (p. 217) and διάΘ∊σις (p. 212).Google Scholar

4 Lists of consuetudo in Augustine's works (by no means complete) can be found in Lenfant, D., Concordantiae Augustinianae (Paris 1656–1665) 2 vols. and in the general index to Augustine (PL 46.185).Google Scholar

5 Retractationes Prologue par. 3.Google Scholar

6 E.g. De ordine 1.1.3; 3.6; De moribus ecclesiae catholicae et de moribus Manichaeorum 2.19.70; De quantitate animae 33.71; De genesi contra Manichaeos 1.22.34; 2.19.29; 21.31; 22.34; De musica 2.8.15; 5.5.10.Google Scholar

7 De vera relig. 1. Latin citations from this work will be given from CCL 32 (1962) and by paragraphs only.Google Scholar

8 De vera relig. 5 (CCL 32.191).Google Scholar

9 La Révélation d'Hermès Trismégiste IV (Paris 1954) 261.Google Scholar

10 And also when he speaks of the soul being demersa, implicata in temporal things, e.g. De ordine 1.10.29; 2.11.20. Cf. also De moribus ecclesiae catholicae et de moribus Manichaeorum 1.3.3.Google Scholar

11 De vera relig. 3 (CCL 32.189).Google Scholar

12 Ibid. 6 (CCL 32.192).Google Scholar

13 Ibid. 64 (CCL 32.228).Google Scholar

14 Ibid. 65 (CCL 32.229).Google Scholar

15 Ibid. 88 (CCL 32.244). Note his usage in other works: ‘In five passages [in the sermons] corpus and caro are mentioned as the opposite of the human soul in almost the same breath.’ Schumacher, W. A., Spiritus and Spiritualis. A Study in the Sermons of St. Augustine (Mundelein 1957) 60. Cf. M. Löhrer, Der Glaubensbegriff des heiligen Augustinus in seinen ersten Schriften bis zu den Confessiones (Einsiedeln 1955) 72.Google Scholar

16 De vera relig. 22; 67.Google Scholar

17 De vera relig. 40, cf. ibid. 95.Google Scholar

18 Ep. 3 (CSEL 34.8). Cf. also Contra academicos 1.3.9; De ordine 2.6.19. I have kept the dichotomous presentation in this outline since this work is concerned not so much with the soul in itself, as the relation between body and soul. However, to understand many of the citations that follow, it is as well to recall here the trichotomous explanation: the soul as concerned with ideas is often called animus (De ordine 2.6); as concerned with the body it remains anima, or sometimes anima animalis (on the relation between the two cf. Siebeck, H., Geschichte der Psychologie Part I, section 2 [Amsterdam 1961] 386). Mens is a faculty of the animus (Ep. 3.4) which is capable of a lower discursive function called ratio (De ordine 2.30, 38, 50), and a higher intuitional function called intellectus (De ordine 2.41, 42; Ep. 3.4). R. Schwarz finds the trichotomous division in the Fathers from the time of Justin, Irenaeus, and the Alexandrians (influenced by 1 Thess. 5.23). (See ‘Die leibseelische Existenz bei Aurelius Augustinus’ in Philosophisches Jahrbuch der Görres-gesellschaft 63, 2er Halbband [1955] 325.) Cf. J. J. O'Meara's note in St. Augustine, Against the Academics (Ancient Christian Writers 12; London 1951) 169 n. 6; Dom Mark Pontifex's note in St. Augustine, The Problem of Free Choice (Ancient Christian Writers 22; London 1955) 242 n. 19; R. A. Markus, ‘Marius Victorinus and Augustine’ in The Cambridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (Cambridge 1967) 354–376.Google Scholar

19 Cf. De quantitate animae 23.41.Google Scholar

20 ‘Sensus est corporis passio per seipsam non latens animam’ De quantitate animae 30.59 (PL 32.1068). On this definition Colleran, J. M. writes: ‘At the basis of this conception of sensation are the principles (i) that the human soul is never inferior to the body (De musica 6.5.8) and (ii) that all subject matter is inferior to that which acts upon it (‘… omnis materia fabricatore deterior,’ ibid.) Hence, it follows that the soul cannot receive anything from the body, or be acted upon by it. It is the soul alone that acts, and it notices the physical effects that occur in the body’ (The Greatness of the Soul [Ancient Christian Writers 9; London 1950] 208 n. 73). Cf. De quantitate animae 23.41; 24.46; 25.48.Google Scholar

21 De vera relig. 3 (CCL 32.188). Cf. also De div. quaest. 83, 9 (PL 40.13), and Contra academicos 3.11.26 (CSEL 63.67).Google Scholar

22 De quantitate animae 33.74 (PL 32.1076).Google Scholar

23 De quantitate animae 33.70 (PL 32.1074). Cf. also: ‘Quaeris quid sit animus: facile respondeo. Nam mihi videtur esse substantia quaedam rationis particeps, regendo corpori accommodata’ (De quantitate animae 13.23 [PL 32.1048]).Google Scholar

24 De quantitate animae 33.71–72 (PL 32.1074–5).Google Scholar

25 De musica 6.5.9 (PL 32.1168).Google Scholar

26 De musica 6.5.10 (PL 32.1169).Google Scholar

27 ‘… sic animus a se ipse fusus immensitate quadam diverberatur et vera mendicitate conteritur, …’ De ordine 1.2.3 (CSEL 63.123).Google Scholar

28 Later he will speak of the soul abandoning itself, so to speak, for the sake of the body (De musica 6.5.12 [PL 32.1169–70]). J. Trouillard has noticed the same thing in Plotinus's theory of sensation: ‘Il faut que la passion soit assumée par la raison pour ětre quelque chose d'humain. Mais alors la raison doit se prěter à l'impression et donc se livrer à elle pour une part. L'affectivité de la sensation est moins subie que consentie’ (apropos of Enn. 3.6.1; La purification Plotinienne [Paris 1955] 30).Google Scholar

29 ‘Ratio ad intellectum cognitionemque perducit.’ De vera relig. 45 (CCL 32.215).Google Scholar

30 De vera relig. 19.Google Scholar

31 Cf. the similar idea of the Incarnation in Lactantius: ‘nam cum justitia nulla esset in terra, doctores misit quasi vivam legem, … ut verum ac pium cultum per omnem terram et verbis et exemplo seminaret.’ Divinae institutiones 4.25 (CSEL 19.375). And also Irenaeus (particularly Adversus haereses 3.20.2): cf. Pierre Évieux, ‘Théologie de l'Accoutumance chez Saint Irénée,’ in Recherches de Science Religieuse 55.1 (1967) 5–54.Google Scholar

32 De vera relig. 4.Google Scholar

33 Ibid. 31.Google Scholar

34 Ibid. 98.Google Scholar

35 Ibid. 47.Google Scholar

36 ‘… videamus, quatenus ratio possit progredi a visibilibus ad invisibilia et a temporalibus ad aeterna conscendens.’ De vera relig. 52 (CCL 32.221).Google Scholar

37 Ibid. pars. 52–68.Google Scholar

38 Ibid. 56–57 (CCL 32.224).Google Scholar

39 Ibid. 65.Google Scholar

40 1 John 2.16. De vera relig. 70.Google Scholar

41 Ibid. 65 (CCL 32.230).Google Scholar

42 Ibid. 72 (CCL 32.234)Google Scholar

43 Ibid. 88,89.Google Scholar

44 ‘… ipse recte utitur temporalibus …’ op. cit. 91 (CCL 32.247).Google Scholar

45 De vera relig. 49 cf. De quantitate animae 75.Google Scholar

46 De vera relig. 90 (CCL 32.246).Google Scholar

47 Conf. 7.17.23; 9.10.24.Google Scholar

48 E.g. the hermits of Trier (Conf. 8.6.15) and the description of Pachomian monasticism in the De moribus ecclesiae catholicae et de moribus Manichaeorum 1.31. 67–68.Google Scholar

49 Ibid. 1.33.70.Google Scholar

50 Rom. 14.3.Google Scholar

51 Rom. 14.15.Google Scholar

52 De moribus ecclesiae, etc. 1.33. 70–73.Google Scholar

53 ‘detestantes turbulentas humanae vitae molestias paene iam firmaveramus remoti a turbis otiose vivere …’ Conf. 6.14.24 (BA 13.566). Citations from the Confessions come from the critical edition of Skutella, H. (1934), published in the Bibliothèque Augustinienne (BA) series, vols. 13 and 14 (Paris 1962).Google Scholar

54 ‘Sed si hoc excedit nostram tolerantiam.’ De moribus ecclesiae 1.31.67.Google Scholar

55 Holte, R., Béatitude et Sagesse (Paris 1962) 189. Note also: ‘La conception du christianisme, telle qu'Augustin l'a exprimée dans ses premiers écrits, s'accorde parfaitement, dans ses lignes essentielles, avec la gnose d'Alexandrie. Lorsqu'Augustin désigne le Christ comme veritas ou sapientia, cela signifie que, pour lui tout comme pour Clément, seul un intellect philosophiquement exercé et purifié moralement est capable de le comprendre’ (Ibid. 187).Google Scholar

56 Conf. 3.9.8.Google Scholar

57 Possidius, Vita Augustini 3. For the monastic background to Thagaste I am particularly indebted to Rudolf Lorenz, ‘Die Anfänge des abendländischen Mönchtums im 4. Jahrhundert’ Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 77 (1966) especially 38–41.Google Scholar

58 Ep. 6.Google Scholar

59 Ep. 4.2.Google Scholar

60 ‘… deificari enim utrisque in otio licebat.’ Ep. 10.2 (CSEL 34.24); cf. ‘agite otium …’ De vera relig. 65.Google Scholar

61 Ibid. According to Folliet, G., Augustine's expressions in this letter, in particular deificari in otio (which he understands as reflexive), suggest ‘que son idéal de vie présent est beaucoup plus proche de celui du sage, tel que le présentent les philosophes néoplatoniciens, que de celui de l'Évangile; la préoccupation de la mort, la possession dès ici-bas de l'apatheia et du bonheur, la purification qui à elle seule nous “rend semblable à Dieu,” sont des traits caractéristiques de l'ascèse néoplatonicienne’ (‘ “Deificari in otio,” Augustin, Epistula, X,2’ in Recherches augustiniennes 2 [1962] 226).Google Scholar

62 See Retractationes 1.26.2.Google Scholar

63 De div. quaest. 83, 12.Google Scholar

64 Contra academicos 1.1.3. Cf. also 2.2.3.Google Scholar

65 De utilitate credendi 1.2.Google Scholar

66 Contra academicos 2.3.8.Google Scholar

67 Ibid. 1.1.3.Google Scholar

68 ‘… postquam tuas acerrimas interrogationes’ De vera relig. 12.Google Scholar

69 Ep. 15.Google Scholar

70 Ep. 7 (PL 61.179).Google Scholar

71 Retractationes 1.13.1.Google Scholar

72 De vera relig. 17.Google Scholar

73 ‘Defendi autem adversus loquaces, et aperiri quaerentibus, multis modis potest …’ De vera relig. 20 (CCL 32.200).Google Scholar

74 De vera relig. 107.Google Scholar

75 For sympathetic accounts of Manichaeism, based on the latest research, see Gerald Bonner, St. Augustine of Hippo (London 1963) 157–193, and Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo (London 1967) 46–61. Both authors attempt to show the Manichaean myth as a serious effort to come to grips with the problem of evil. Only such an approach can explain how a sophisticated man of his times like Augustine could have been a Manichaean for nine years. Cf. also Puech, H., ‘Der Begriff der Erlösung in Manichäismus’ in Eranos Jahrbuch (1936) 183–286, and ‘Le Manichéisme; son fondateur, sa doctrine’ (Paris 1949) 59–93; R. Jolivet and M. Jourjon, Introduction to Six traités Anti-Manichéens BA 17 (1961) 41–49; G. Widengren, Mani and Manichaeism, trans. C. Kessler (London 1965) 122–126.Google Scholar

76 De vera relig. 16.Google Scholar

77 De haeresibus 46.6.Google Scholar

78 Manichäische Homilien ed. Polotsky, H. J. (Stuttgart 1934) 6.Google Scholar

79 A Manichaean Psalm Book, Part II ed. Allberry, C. R. C. (Stuttgart 1938) 135.Google Scholar

80 De moribus ecclesiae catholicae 2.18.65.Google Scholar

81 Allberry, C. R. C., ed. op. cit. 99; 117; 149. On the ugliness of the body cf. Kephalaia I (Stuttgart 1940) 200.Google Scholar

82 De vera relig. 21 (CCL 32.200).Google Scholar

83 ‘… unus Deus, una veritas, una salus omnium, et prima atque summa essentia, ex qua est omne quidquid est, in quantum est …’ ibid. ‘Unde fecit? Ex nihilo.’ Ibid. 35 (CCL 32.209).Google Scholar

84 Ibid. 21 (CCL 32.200). Cf. ‘Nulla substantia malum est’; ibid. 32 (CCL 32.207). ‘Quoniam quidquid est, quantulacumque specie sit necesse est; ita etsi minimum bonum tamen bonum erit et ex Deo erit.’ Ibid. 35 (CCL 32.209).Google Scholar

85 Ibid. 36 (CCL 32.209).Google Scholar

86 Ibid. 21 (CCL 32.200).Google Scholar

87 ‘… vita, quae fructu corporis delectata neglegit Deum, inclinatur ad nihilum, et ista est nequitia.’ Ibid. 22 (CCL 32.201).Google Scholar

88 ‘Et hoc est totum quod dicitur malum, id est peccatum et poena peccati’ op. cit. 23 (CCL 32.202). Cf. ‘Vitium ergo animae est quod fecit, et difficultas ex vitio poena quam patitur. Et hoc est totum malum.’ Ibid. 39 (CCL 32.211).Google Scholar

89 Ibid. 23 (CCL 32.202). Cf. ‘… diligendo inferiora in egestate voluptatum suarum et in doloribus apud inferos ordinatur’ ibid.Google Scholar

90 Ibid. 67 (CCL 32.231). Cf. Ibid. 38: the tree of Paradise was not evil, but the transgression of God's command.Google Scholar

91 Ibid. 25 (CCL 32.202).Google Scholar

92 Ibid. 44. Note, too, Augustine's remark on Christ's Resurrection, that it shows how God saves our entire human nature, and how easy it is for the body to serve the soul, when the soul is subject to God, op. cit. 32. See Marrou, H., The Resurrection and Saint Augustine's Theology of Human Values (Villanova 1966) 12.Google Scholar

93 De vera relig. 64 (CCL 32.228).Google Scholar

94 Ibid. 96 (CCL 32.249). Cf. also 40 and 95.Google Scholar

95 Ibid. 63 (CCL 32.228).Google Scholar

96 Ibid. 64 (CCL 32.229).Google Scholar

97 Ep. 19.Google Scholar

98 ‘Die ersten Kapitel der Einleitung muten wie ein Bekenntnis zum Neuplatonismus an.’ Dörries, H., ‘Neuplatonisches und Christliches in Augustins de vera religione’ in Zeitschrift für Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 33 (1924) 77.Google Scholar

99 For Plotinus see Enneads 4.7.8: ‘Sensation is the perception of material objects by the soul using the body.’ The ‘non latere’ of Augustine is similar to the μὴ λα∊ĩν of Plotinus (Enn. 4.4.19).Google Scholar

100 According to Dörries, H., in the seven grades listed in par. 49 of the de vera religione ‘begegnen wir einem reinen Neuplatonismus’ op. cit. 78.Google Scholar

101 Plotinus, The Enneads trans. Mackenna, S. (London 1962) 206. Henceforth referred to as Mackenna.Google Scholar

102 (CCL 32.189).Google Scholar

103 Mackenna, , op. cit. 32. O. du Roy places Enn. 1.2 on his list of passages read by Augustine (L'Intelligence de la Foi en la Trinité selon Saint Augustin [Paris 1966] 70).Google Scholar

104 De mus. (PL 32.1170).Google Scholar

105 De ordine 1.1.3 (CSEL 63.123).Google Scholar

106 Solignac, A., ‘Plotiniennes et Porphyriennes dans le début du De Ordine de S. Augustin,’ Archives de Philosophie (1957) 456.Google Scholar

107 Ibid. See also Bidez, J., Vie de Porphyre, le philosophe néo-platonicien (Gand 1913) 110–111.Google Scholar

108 Ch. 41, p. 40, lines 4–6 (Mommert ed. Leipzig 1907). Solignac thinks that Augustine knew the Sentences because Marius Yictorinus introduced some passages at least of these Porphyrian glosses in his translation of the Enneads. See op. cit. p. 462. J. J. O'Meara gives an important place to Porphyry in Augustine's early development; cf. The Young Augustine (London 1954) 143 ff. and ‘Augustine and Neo-Platonism,’ Recherches Augustiniennes I (1958) 97. See also M. N. Bouillet (trans.) Ennéades (Paris 1857) 2.555.Google Scholar

109 Sentences ch. 37 p. 33 (Mommert ed.).Google Scholar

110 Ibid. ch. 32 p. 23.Google Scholar

111 The Hortensius, quoted in Contra Julianum 4.14.72.Google Scholar

112 De natura deorum 2.17.45 (Loeb ed. pp. 164–166).Google Scholar

113 Testard, M., Saint Augustin et Cicéron vol. I (Paris 1958) 75.Google Scholar

114 Cf. Dörries, H., ‘Neuplatonisches und Christliches’ 81.Google Scholar

115 Enn. 1.8.14. Mackenna 77.Google Scholar

116 Bréhier, E., La philosophie de Plotin (Paris 1928) 64–68; A. Festugière, La Révélation d'Hermès Trismégiste III (Paris 1953) 95 ff.; C. Tresmontant, La métaphysique du Christianisme (Paris 1961) 319–344.Google Scholar

117 Enn. 4.7.2. Mackenna 357.Google Scholar

118 Ibid. Mackenna 358.Google Scholar

119 Dodds, E. R., Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety (Cambridge 1965) 25.Google Scholar

120 Enn. 4.7.13; 5.1.1; 4.8.4.Google Scholar

121 Enn. 6.9.5.Google Scholar

122 Enn. 5.1.1.Google Scholar

123 Enn. 5.2.2.Google Scholar

124 Note the remarks of Puech, H. in the discussion of his paper ‘Plotin et les Gnostiques': ‘Plotin a pris de plus en plus conscience de ce qui l'opposait à ceux-ci. Il a voulu dissiper les équivoques, écarter les confusions possibles.’ Les sources de Plotin (Entretiens sur L'Antiquité Classique, Tome V; Vandœuvres - Genève 1960) 185.Google Scholar

125 Enn. 5.7.12. Mackenna 432.Google Scholar

126 Enn. 2.9.11.Google Scholar

127 Mackenna 272.Google Scholar

128 Enn. 1.1.12.Google Scholar

129 Enn. 1.4.16. Mackenna 52.Google Scholar

130 O'Connell, R. J., ‘The Plotinian Fall of the Soul,’ Traditio 19 (1963) 7. I have, unfortunately, not been able to take into consideration the fuller exposition O'Connell presents of this idea in St. Augustine's Early Theory of Man (Cambridge, Mass. 1968).Google Scholar

131 E.g. De civitate Dei 11.23. 1–2 and Ep. 166 to Jerome.Google Scholar

132 See above pp. 45–47.Google Scholar

133 De vera relig. 51 (CCL 32.221).Google Scholar

134 Ibid. 25 (CCL 32.202).Google Scholar

135 Ibid. 29 (CCL 32.205).Google Scholar

136 Ibid. 38 (CCL 32.210).Google Scholar

137 Ibid. 41 (CCL 32.212).Google Scholar

138 ‘Si autem diligatur ab anima, quae neglegit Deum, ne sic quidem malum fit ipsa …’ ibid. 40 (CCL 32.211).Google Scholar

139 Ibid. 41.Google Scholar

140 Ibid. 41.Google Scholar

141 ‘Tune sentiet, quam bene currus et tota illa iunctio fabricata sit …’ De vera relig. 83 (CCL 32.242).Google Scholar

142 Ibid. 106 (CCL 32.255).Google Scholar

143 De lib. arbit. 1.16.33.Google Scholar

144 He later retracted this: ‘Care should have been taken to avoid being thought to hold the opinion of the false philosopher, Porphyry, who said everything bodily is to be avoided. Of course, I did not say “All sensible things” but “these sensible things,” meaning corruptible things. … Sensible things which are corruptible will not exist in the new heaven and the earth of the age to come’ (Retract. 1.4.3).Google Scholar

145 Soliloquia 1.11.18.Google Scholar

146 E.g. De moribus ecclesiae catholicae 1.19.36; 20.37; De vera relig. 22, 24, 83; Ep. 19 ‘a faece corporis’ (CSEL 34.46).Google Scholar

147 ‘Tradition platonicienne et traditions chrétiennes du corps-prison’ in Revue des Études Latines 43 (1965) 430.Google Scholar

148 ‘… hoc corpus, hoc est tenebrosum carcerem …’ Contra academicos 1.3.9 (CSEL 63.10); cf. ‘… non corpus carcer, sed corruptio corporis …’ Enarr. in ps. 141.17 (PL 36.1843).Google Scholar

149 Porphyry, ‘On the Life of Plotinus and the Arrangement of his Work’, trans. Mackenna in Plotinus, The Enneads (London 1962) 1.Google Scholar

150 ‘The antithesis between Plotinian self-dependence and Gnostic or Christian grace has indeed been attenuated, if not denied, by one of the subtlest of Plotinian scholars, Jean Trouillard, M., but his argument leaves me unconvinced.’ E. R. Dodds, ‘Tradition and Personal Achievement in the Philosophy of Plotinus,’ Journal of Roman Studies 50 (1960) 4.Google Scholar

151 De vera relig. 45.Google Scholar

152 Armstrong, A. H., ‘Salvation, Plotinian and Christian,’ in Downside Review 75 (1957) 132–3.Google Scholar

153 ‘Nonnulli … renascuntur interius et ceteras eius partes suo robore spiritali et incrementis sapientiae corrumpunt et necant …’ De vera relig. 49 (CCL 32.218).Google Scholar

154 Ibid. 24 (CCL 32.202).Google Scholar

155 Löhrer, M. finds the question of grace ‘unclear’ in the writings before the commentary on Romans. See Der Glaubensbegriff des heiligen Augustins 226.Google Scholar

156 De vera relig. 41.Google Scholar

157 ‘La faute selon Plotin … est faiblesse de l’ǎme. Elle ne dresse pas l'ětre devant Dieu, et ne gǎte pas l'intime de l'ǎme. Aussi le mal peut-il ětre réparé sans lutte ni pardon, sans repentir ni expiation, par simple changement de plan. Pas de drame du péché. Cultive la sagesse et fais ce que tu voudras.’ Trouillard, J., La purification plotinienne (Paris 1955) 202.Google Scholar

158 Enn. 4.8.8. (Mackenna 364).Google Scholar

159 Conf. 8.2. (References to the Confessions will give book and paragraph numbers only.) See also ‘Nor had I now any longer my former plea that I still hesitated to be above the world and serve you, because the truth was not altogether certain to me; for now it too was.’ Conf. 8.11. Cf. ‘veritate convictus,’ Conf. 8.12 (BA 14.32).Google Scholar

160 Conf. 8.1.Google Scholar

161 Conf. 8.2.Google Scholar

162 Conf. 8.2. (BA 14.10).Google Scholar

163 Conf. 8.10 (BA 14.28).Google Scholar

164 Conf. 8.2 (BA 14.10).Google Scholar

165 See, e.g. Conf. 2.2; 3.1.Google Scholar

166 Conf. 8.17.Google Scholar

167 Conf. 8.27.Google Scholar

168 ‘I was certain that it was better to give mysell up to Your love than to yield to my cupidity.’ Conf. 8.12. ‘I had found the precious pearl, and I ought to have sold all I had and bought it.’ Conf. 8.2. ‘I was in both [wills], but more in that which I approved in myself, than in that of which I disapproved.’ Conf. 8.11.Google Scholar

169 Conf. 8.26 (BA 14.60). Cf. the similar uses of consuetudo in ‘… remanserat muta trepidatio et quasi mortem reformidabat restringi a fluxu consuetudinis, quo tabescebat in mortem.’ Conf. 8.18 (BA 14.46) and ‘… sed adhuc vivunt in memoria mea, de qua multa locutus sum, talium rerum imagines, quas ibi consuetudo mea fixit …’ Conf. 10.41 (BA 14. 212).Google Scholar

170 ‘Non igitur monstrum partim velle, partim nosse, sed aegritudo animi est, quia non totus assurgit veritate sublevatus, consuetudine praegravatus.’ Conf. 8.21 (BA 14.52).Google Scholar

171 Conf. 8.19.Google Scholar

172 Conf. 8.10 (BA 14.28). Cf. ‘consuetudo satiandae insatiabilis concupiscentiae me captum excruciabat.’ Conf. 6.21 (BA 13.564).Google Scholar

173 ‘… quo in eam volens inlabitur.’ Conf. 8.12 (BA 14.32). Note too: ‘Sed tamen consuetudo adversus me pugnacior ex me facta erat, quoniam volens quo nollem perveneram …’ Conf. 8.11 (BA 14.30).Google Scholar

174 ‘… animam unam diversis voluntatibus aestuare.’ Conf. 8.23 (BA 14.56). Augustine often uses ‘voluntas’ when he means an act of the will. Cf. Conf. 8.10 (BA 14.28), quoted above (n. 172). ‘… ex voluntate perversa …,’ where there would be no point in the analysis, if the ‘voluntas perversa’ meant the faculty itself.Google Scholar

175 Conf. 8.11.Google Scholar

176 Conf. 8.12.Google Scholar

177 Conf. 8.12.Google Scholar

178 Conf. 8.12.Google Scholar

179 Conf. 8.22.Google Scholar

180 Conf. 8.22.Google Scholar

181 Conf. 8.9 (BA 14.24).Google Scholar

182 Conf. 8.25 (BA 14.58).Google Scholar

183 Conf. 8.13 (BA 14.34).Google Scholar

184 Conf. 9.1 (BA 14.70).Google Scholar

185 Conf. 8.12.Google Scholar

186 Ep. 29.11.Google Scholar

187 Ep. 22.2.Google Scholar

188 Ibid. 3.Google Scholar

189 Ep. 29.3.Google Scholar

190 Ep. 29.9.Google Scholar

191 Possidius, Vita Augustini 25.Google Scholar

192 De serm. Dom. in monte 1.17.51 (PL 34.1255).Google Scholar

193 Serm. 180.4.4.Google Scholar

194 Serm. 180.9.10 (PL 38.977).Google Scholar

195 De serm. Dom. in monte 1.17.51 (PL 34 1256).Google Scholar

196 Serm. 308.3.2 (PL 39.1409).Google Scholar

197 Salvian, De gubernatione Dei 7.16.65 (CSEL 8 176–177).Google Scholar

198 ‘Ideo non cesso tangere quintam istam chordam, propter ipsam perversam consuetudinem et labem totius ut dixi, generis humani.’ Serm. 9.9.12 (PL 38.84). According to Tillemont (Mémoires 13 [Paris 1710] 252) the style and length of this sermon lead us to think that it is one of his early works. Some of the congregation asked: how did he come here? Evidently Augustine had not been in Hippo for long.Google Scholar

199 Serm. 9.4.4 (PL 38.78).Google Scholar

200 Serm. 9.4.4 (PL 38. 78–79). For evidence of the habit in later sermons see Serm. 82. 8.11 (408–409); Serm. 132.4.4 (427); Serm. 124.2.2 (412). The dates are those given by Kunzelmann, A., ‘Die Chronologie der Sermones des H. Augustinus’ in Miscellanea Agostiniana 2 (Rome 1931) 512–516.Google Scholar

201 De ii anim. 1.Google Scholar

202 Ibid. 24.Google Scholar

203 Conf. 5.10.18.Google Scholar

204 De vera relig. 16 (CCL 32.198).Google Scholar

205 De util. cred. 1.2.Google Scholar

206 E.g. Diocletian's rescript ordering the seven great books of Manichaeism to be burnt (see Adam, A., Texte zum Manichàismus [Berlin 1954] 82–83); the law of 382 punishing stubborn Manichees with death (Cod. Theod. 16.5.9); the official purge of the Manichees at Carthage in 386.Google Scholar

207 ‘… scripsi … contra Manichaeos De duabus animabus, quarum dicunt unam partem Dei esse, alteram de gente tenebrarum … et has ambas animas, unam bonam, alteram malam, in homine uno esse delirant: istam scilicet malam propriam carnis esse dicentes… omnia vero mala illi malae animae tribuunt.’ Retract . 1.14.1 (CSEL 36.71). When Augustine talks of two ‘souls’ in man, is he interpreting Mani correctly? There has been a great deal of discussion on this point (see Ries, J., ‘Introduction aux études manichéennes’ in Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, 35. 2 [avril-juin 1959] 365–372). It seems that it would be more in keeping with Manichaean teaching to speak of two ‘natures’ rather than two ‘souls’ (see R. Jolivet and M. Jourjon, Introduction to Six Traités Anti-Manichéens BA 17 [1961] 43). The term ‘nature’ includes the ‘flesh,’ which is certainly evil in the Manichaean system. When Fortunatus debates against Augustine, he does not talk of two ‘souls’ but rather of the opposition of body and soul, truth and lying, light and darkness. In point of fact, Augustine does speak of two ‘natures’ e.g. when describing Manichaeism in the Confessions (5.10.18) and in Contra Fortunatum 21. Whatever the term he may use, he does convey the essentials of the Manichaean position. I have tried to avoid this trouble over terminology by speaking of two ‘substances’ in man (except when citing Augustine).Google Scholar

208 De util. cred. 1.2. This appeal to reason was what had attracted the young Augustine to Manichaeism: ‘I persuaded myself that belief was more to be given to those who taught than to those who gave orders.’ De beata vita, 1.4. Cf. Widengren, G., Mani and Manichaeism (London 1965) 123.Google Scholar

209 ‘Cur non magis hoc signum est unius animae quae libera illa voluntate hue et hue ferri, hinc atque hinc referri potest’ De ii anim. 13.19 (CSEL 30.75).Google Scholar

210 Ibid. ‘Nam mihi cum accidit, unum me esse sentio utrumque considerantem, alter-utrum eligentem.’Google Scholar

211 Ibid. ‘… sed plerumque illud libet, hoc decet, quorum nos in medio positi fluctuamus.’Google Scholar

212 Ibid. ‘Ita enim nunc constituti sumus, ut et per carnem voluptate affici, et per spiritum honestate possimus.’Google Scholar

213 De ii anim. 13.19 (CSEL 25.75). Cf. ibid. 12, where the same equation of terms is made: ‘… sensibilia ab intelligibilibus, carnalia scilicet ab spiritualibus…’ Since Augustine equates ‘carnal’ with ‘sensible’ here, I shall translate ‘flesh’ (caro) as the senses.Google Scholar

214 De vera relig. 41.Google Scholar

215 De ii anim. 13.19 (CSEL 25.76).Google Scholar

216 ‘Sed factum est nobis difficile a carnalibus abstinere, cum panis verissimus noster spiritualis sit. Cum labore namque nunc edimus panem’ De ii anim. 13.19 (CSEL 30.75).Google Scholar

217 Ibid. (CSEL 25.76).Google Scholar

218 Possidius, Vita Augustini ch. 6.Google Scholar

219 C. Fort. 1.19.Google Scholar

220 Retract. 1, 1.16.1.Google Scholar

221 C. Fort. 20.Google Scholar

222 Ibid. 21. This formula runs like a leitmotif through Augustine's works, e.g. ‘Hoc est totum quod dicitur malum, peccatum et poena peccati’ (De vera relig. 12); ‘Nusquam scilicet nisi in voluntate esse peccatum’ (De ii anim. 9.12); ‘peccatum est voluntas retinendi vel consequendi quod iustitia vetat, et unde liberum est abstinere’ (11.15).Google Scholar

223 1 Tim. 6.10.Google Scholar

224 C. Fort. 21 (CSEL 25.101). It is the same situation as that with Evodius: ‘Now what could precede the will and be its cause? Either the will itself (and then nothing else but the will is the root of evil), or not the will (and then there would be no sin). … Sin cannot be attributed to anything except to the sinner’ De lib. arb. 3.17.49.Google Scholar

225 See Ries, J., ‘La Bible chez S. Augustin et chez les manichéens’ Revue des Études Augustiniennes 9 (1963) 201–215.Google Scholar

226 C. Fort. 21.Google Scholar

227 C. Fort. 21.Google Scholar

228 ‘… Nos in necessitatem praecipitati sumus, qui ab eius stirpe descendimus’ C. Fort. 22 (CSEL 25.104).Google Scholar

229 C. Fort. 22 (CSEL 25.104). ‘It cannot overcome’ (vincere non possit) should be taken in the general context of Augustine's thinking about habit, and alongside his parallel analysis of love of hunting (De diversis quaestionibus 83.70), where habit can be overcome, not however absque molestia et sine angore. Jourjon and Jolivet point out the significance of this remark: ‘On ne peut ǒter à l'homme tout pouvoir de sa volonté sur l'habitude elle-měme: s'il en devient le jouet, c'est pour avoir accepté librement d'en ětre l'esclave alors qu'il le pouvait refuser.’ Six Traités Anti-Manichéens BA 17 (1961), note complémentaire 14.770.Google Scholar

230 C. Fort. 22.Google Scholar

231 Ibid. (CSEL 25.105).Google Scholar

232 C. Fort. 22.Google Scholar

233 C. Fort. 22 (CSEL 25.104).Google Scholar

234 Ibid.Google Scholar

235 C. Fori. 22 (CSEL 25.105).Google Scholar

236 ‘Anima vero cum carnalia bona adhuc appetit, caro nominatur. Pars enim eius quaedam resistit spiritui non natura, sed consuetudine peccatorum, unde dicitur “mente servio legi Dei, carne legi peccati”’ par. 23 (PL 40.194). Cf. a similar usage in De musica 6.11.33 (PL 32.1181) ‘Haec autem animae consuetudo facta cum carne, propter carnalem affectionem, in Scripturis divinis caro nominatur.’Google Scholar

237 De genesi contra Manichaeos 2.1.421. In par. 15 Eve is described as given to Adam to teach him obedience in a tangible way: as she must obey him, so he must obey God. She symbolizes the pars animalis of the soul which the virilis ratio submits to its laws, and uses as an aid to command the body (cf. also pars. 31 and 28). Augustine's ‘spiritual’ exegesis of ‘You will bring forth your children in sorrow, and you will turn toward your husband and you will be subject to him’ is along the same lines: the pars animalis experiences difficulties in overcoming bad habits [the pains of childbirth], and turns voluntarily to reason's orders for fear of falling into them again (par. 29). Cf. also De opere monachorum 32.40 (PL 40.580); Tractatus in Johannis evangelium 15.19 (PL 35.1517); De trinitate 12.12.17–19; 13.20–42 (PL 1007–9).Google Scholar

238 De serm. Dom. in monte 1.12.34 (PL 34.1246).Google Scholar

239 The chapter is on adultery, but Augustine intends it to be applied to all sinners: ‘When I say adulterers, I mean every carnal and lustful concupiscence.’ De serm. Dom. in monte 1.12.36.Google Scholar

240 Ibid. (PL 34.1246–7).Google Scholar

241 ‘Talis enim delectatio vehementer infigit memoriae quod trahit a lubricis sensibus’ De musica 6.11.33 (PL 32.1181). Cf. also ‘Motus igitur animae servans impetum suum, et nondum exstinctus, in memoria esse dicitur …’ De musica 6.5.14 (PL 32.1154). Here the impetus would appear to refer back to the ‘carnalium negotiorum … impetus effrenatus consuetudine diuturna …’ of the same paragraph. Note that there are two ‘memories’ in Augustine. There is the more metaphysical memory of his theory of reminiscence and illumination. There is the ordinary, psychological memory which is a faculty retaining and reproducing impressions received from the external senses. Cf. De quantitate animae 33.70 and Thonnard, F.-J., La Musique (BA 7; Paris 1947) note 83 p. 522.Google Scholar

242 ‘[Anima] post peccatum divina lege facta imbecillior, minus potens est auferre quod fecit.’ De musica 6.5.14. It is with some hesitation that one uses Book VI of De musica in a work that is attempting to trace the historical development of Augustine's thought. While all six books were written in 389, the sixth book, according to Marrou, was revised by Augustine after he became bishop (Saint Augustin et la fin de la culture antique [Paris 1938] 580–583). The evidence for this is found in a letter to Memorius (Ep. 101.408–9) where Augustine says that he had corrected this book. As a result, it is difficult to know what passages were written at Thagaste, and what inserted at Hippo. The references to St. Paul on the flesh-spirit conflict probably belong to the emendations.Google Scholar

243 ‘… cum vi consuetudinis malae tamquam mole terrena premitur animus, quasi in sepulcro iam putens.’ De serm. Dom. in monte 1.12.35 (PL 34.1247).Google Scholar

244 De serm. Dom. in monte 1.12.34.Google Scholar

245 Ibid. 1.9.57.Google Scholar

246 Ibid. 1.12.25.Google Scholar

247 Ibid. 1.12.36. See St. Augustine, The Lord's Sermon on the Mount (Ancient Christian Writers 5; Westminster, Maryland 1948) note 144, 190.Google Scholar

248 Ibid. 1.12.34 (PL 34.1247). Cf. note 140 on Christian warfare in St. Augustine, The Lord's Sermon on the Mount 190.Google Scholar

249 The eighth beatitude repeats the first.Google Scholar

250 ‘Inde iam incipit scire quibus modis saeculi hujus per carnalem consuetudinem ac peccata teneatur.’ De serm. Dom. in monte 1.3.10 (PL 34.1233).Google Scholar

251 ‘… id est, contemplatio veritatis, pacificans totum hominem et suscipiens similitudinem Dei.’ Ibid. 1.3.10 (PL 34.1234).Google Scholar

252 Ibid. 1.2.9.Google Scholar

253 Ibid. 1.9.12.Google Scholar

254 On Augustine's special effort to improve his knowledge of the Bible at the beginning of his priesthood, see Holl, A., Augustins Bergpredigtexegese (Vienna 1960) 11.Google Scholar

265 ‘Cum enim charitas Legem impleat, prudentia vero carnis commoda temporalia consectando spirituali charitati adversetur …’ Ep. ad Gal. 46 (PI 35.2138).Google Scholar

256 Ibid. Cf. Prop. ep. ad Rom. 13 (PL 35.2065), where the four conditions are put more pithily: ‘… Ante Legem, sequimur concupiscentian carnis; sub Lege trahimur ab ea; sub gratia, nec sequimur eam, nec trahimur ab ea; in pace, nulla est concupiscentia carnis.’Google Scholar

257 ‘… sic secunda est sub Lege ante gratiam, quando prohibetur quidem et conatur a peccato abstinere se, sed vincitur quia nondum justitiam propter Deum et propter ipsam justitiam diligit, sed eam sibi vult ad conquirendum terrena servire. Itaque ubi viderit ex alia parte ipsam, ex alia commodum temporale, trahitur pondere temporalis cupiditatis, et relinquit justitiam …’ Ep. ad Gal. 46 (PL 35.2138).Google Scholar

258 Ibid.Google Scholar

259 ‘Caeterum qui tanguntur hujusmodi motibus, et immobiles in majore charitate consistunt, … regnum Dei possidebunt’ Ep. ad Gal. 48 (PL 35.2139).Google Scholar

260 ‘… major enim et praepollentior delectatio eorum justitia est’ Ep. ad Gal. 49 (PL 35.2140).Google Scholar

261 Ibid.Google Scholar

262 Ep. ad Gal. 46.Google Scholar

263 Aristotle, e.g. Rhetoric 1.10.1369b6; 1.11.1370a7. Also to be found in Heraclitus, Empedocles, Democritus, and the Pythagoreans, according to Funke, G., ‘Gewohnheit,’ in Archiv für Begriffsgeschichte 3 (Bonn 1958) 139.Google Scholar

264 ‘… consuetudine quasi alteram quandam naturam effici …’ De finibus 5.25.74 (Loeb ed. London 1951) 476. Macrobius, ‘… consuetudo quam secundam naturam pronunciavit usus …’ Saturnalia 7.9 (Macrobii Opera; Leyden 1670) 608. Basil, ἔΘος λὰϱ διὰ µακϱοέ χϱόνου β∊βαιωΘὲν ϕέσ∊ως ἰσχὺν λαµβάν∊ι'… consuetudo per longum tempus corroborata, naturae vim ac robur obtinet.’ Regulae fusius tractatae 6 (PG 31.926 B). ‘Non enim frustra consuetudo quasi secunda, et quasi affabricata natura dicitur’ De musica 6.7.19 (PL 32.1173).Google Scholar

265 De fide et symbolo 10.23 (CSEL 41.29).Google Scholar

266 De libero arbitrio 3.18.52 (CSEL 74.132).Google Scholar

267 Ep. ad Gal. 48 (PL 35.2140).Google Scholar

268 De diversis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum 1.1.10 (PL 40.106).Google Scholar

269 Ibid. 1.1.11 (PL 40.107).Google Scholar

270 De actis cum Felice Manichaeo 2.8 (CSEL 25.837). Cf. also ‘Invaluit enim consuetudo carnalis et naturale vinculum mortalitatis quo de Adam propagati sumus' De div. quaest. 83, 66.5 (PL 40.64).Google Scholar

271 Conf. 1.1.1. Cf. also ‘… the body which is born subject to the penalty of the first man's sin, that is, the liability of death’ (‘Corpus quod de poena peccati, hoc est de mortalitate primi hominis nascitur’) De lib. arb. 3.20.57 (CSEL 74) and Enarr. in ps. 18.1.3; 29.1.12; 129.1.Google Scholar

272 Rom. 6.12; 7.14. cf. 1 Cor. 15.54.Google Scholar

273 Adam, A. compares Augustine with Luther and Barth, pointing out that his reading of Romans was the beginning of ideas which ultimately changed the face of the Christian world. Adam, A., ‘Das Fortwirken des Manichäismus bei Augustin’ in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 69 (1958) 3.Google Scholar

274 ‘… legem peccati dicit, qua quisque carnali consuetudine implicatus astringitur’ Prop. ep. ad Rom. 45–46 (PL 35.2071).Google Scholar

275 Augustine regards Paul as speaking in verses 7–25 in the person of unjustified man. Retract. 1.23.1.Google Scholar

276 ‘… ut possit per gratiam charitas, quod per Legem timor non poterat’ Prop. ep. ad Rom. 45–46 (PL 35.2072). Cf. also Prop. ep. ad Rom. 13.Google Scholar

277 The Apostle ‘iam spiritualis erat …’ Retract. 1.23.1 (CSEL 36.105).Google Scholar

278 De div. quaest. 83, 65.Google Scholar

279 ‘Definitio prudentiae in appetendis bonis et vitandis malis explicari solet’ Prop. ep. ad Rom. 49 (PL 35.2073).Google Scholar

280 Ibid.Google Scholar

281 ‘L’Agostino dell’ VIIIº libro delle Confessioni dà alla consuetudo peccati una porta veramente centrale nel processo di conversione, mentre la prospettiva teologica degli scritti in sostanza contemporanei — dal 397 in poi — sembra già essere andata oltre questa fase, iscrivendo il problema della consuetudo e della sua risoluzione, in quello della caduta d'origine e della grazia predestinante — senza per altro arrivare alle posizioni ben più avanzate della lotta antipelagiana. … Abbiamo notato con interesse anche l'osservazione fatta dal Lekkerkerker [Römer 7 und Römer 9 bei Augustin (Amsterdam 1942)], p. 131, che, studiando l'esegesi agostiniana di Rom. VII, osserva che le pagine delle Confessioni relative alla conversione non sono teologicamente sulla stessa posizione, per es., della 2a q. del 1 libro dell’ Ad Simplicianum.’ Bolgiani, F., La Conversione di S. Agostino e l'VIIIº libro delle ‘Confessioni’ (Turin 1956) 70–1.Google Scholar

282 De verbis Domini serm. 98.6.6.Google Scholar

283 Tractatus in Johannem 49.3. De verbis Domini serm. 98.5.5.Google Scholar

284 E.g. on lying, Serm. Denis 20.2; swearing, Serm. 180.11.12.Google Scholar

285 E.g. De civ. Dei 12.3.Google Scholar

286 E.g. Ennarratio in ps. 136.21; De civ. Dei 21.16.Google Scholar

287 Serm. 151.9.4.Google Scholar

288 Enn. in ps. 5.6 (CCL 38.21). Cf. ‘In homine carnali tota regula intelligendi est consuetudo cernendi’ Serm. 242 (PL 38.11.39).Google Scholar

289 ‘Gnade und Erkenntnis stehen einander nicht feindlich gegenüber, ja es scheint eine innere Beziehung zwischen ihnen zu walten.’ ‘Gnade und Erkenntnis bei Augustinus’ in Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte 75 (1964) 22.Google Scholar

290 Opus imperfectum contra Julianum 5.11. Henceforth referred to as Op. imp. Google Scholar

291 Contra Julianum 2.10.37. Henceforth referred to as C. Jul. The controversy began with De nuptiis et concupiscentia, Book I (419), which Augustine wrote to show that marriage is good (not evil, as the Pelagians were accusing him of saying). Julian replied to this with 4 books to Turbantius. Extracts from the first of these were sent to Augustine, and answered in Book II of De nuptiis et concupiscentia (420/21) — it is concupiscence, not marriage, that is evil. Augustine then read the four books of Julian, and composed the Contra Julianum (422). In the next move Julian replied to De nuptiis et concupiscentia II with his 8 books to Florus. And the Opus imperfectum is Augustine's reply to this (429/30).Google Scholar

292 For this breakdown of vitium I am indebted to Martin Strohm, ‘Der Begriff der natura vitiata bei Augustin’ in Theologische Quartalschrift (2es Quartalheft 1955) 193ff.Google Scholar

293 See Bonner, G., St. Augustine of Hippo (London 1963) 401 (Appendix C).Google Scholar

294 ‘Ita hoc dicis, quasi nos concupiscentiam carnis in solam voluptatem genitalium dicamus aestuare. Prorsus in quocumque corporis sensu caro contra spiritum concupiscit, ipsa cognoscitur …’ Op. imp. 4.28 (PL 45.1352). Cf. concupiscentia as applied to lust and drunkenness in C. Jul. 6.18.55. See also Solignac, A., ‘La condition humaine dans la Philosophie de Saint Augustin’ (unpublished thesis), ch. 4, ‘La Loi de Péché,’ Rome, Pont. Univ. Gregoriana (1950–1951) 125, and H. Rondet's treatment of the ‘sens profond’ of concupiscence in ‘L'anthropologie Religieuse de Saint Augustin’ in Recherches de Science Religieuse (1939) 170.Google Scholar

295 See Prop. ep. ad Rom. 13–18; De div. quaest. ad Simp. 1.1.12ff. A. Solignac has noted this point: concupiscence ‘contraint et limite sans cesse le vouloir sans toutefois le déterminer absolument’ op. cit. 123. Likewise Mausbach, J., Die Ethik des heiligen Augustinus 2 (Freiburg 1909) 218. N. P. Williams thinks this is running with the hare and hunting with the hounds. ‘He wants to keep freedom in order to preserve man's responsibility for actual sin, and yet he wishes to throw it overboard in order to provide scope for irresistible grace.’ The Idea of the Fall and of Original Sin (London 1927) 370.Google Scholar

296 Solignac, A. has analyzed Augustine's notion of concupiscence as a sort of fundamental tendency ‘dont les deux aspects principaux seraient l'innéité et la perversion. Perversion comme désordre de la personnalité sur le plan psychologique; perversion comme révolte de la chair contre l'esprit, loi du péché, sur le plan éthique. La concupiscence de la sorte sous-tend et pervertit les instincts de l'homme dès le principe de son existence’ (op. cit. 124).Google Scholar

297 There are useful accounts of Pelagianism in Bonner, G., St. Augustine of Hippo (London 1963) 352–394; T. Bohlin, Die Theologie des Pelagius und ihre Genesis (Uppsala - Wiesbaden 1957); P. Brown, Augustine of Hippo (London 1967) 340–387; and, especially for Julian, Albert Bruckner, Julian von Eclanum in Texte und Untersuchungen 15 (Leipzig 1897) 136–165, and F. Refoulé, ‘Julien d'Éclane, théologien et philosophe,’ in Recherches de science religieuse 52 (1964) 42; 233.Google Scholar

298 ‘… indidit affectum quo sibi haec corpora miscerentur Deus … nihil autem malum nihil reum fecit Deus’ Op. imp. 4.40 (PL 45.1360); cf. Op. imp. 1.71; 2.145; 3.142; 4.67; 5.5 and 8.Google Scholar

299 Ibid. 6.20 (PL 45.1545).Google Scholar

300 Ibid. 6.23 (PL 45.1554).Google Scholar

301 Ibid. 6.41 (PL 45.1604).Google Scholar

302 Ibid. 6.19 (PL 45.1543).Google Scholar

303 Ibid. 6.25ff. (PL 45.1553).Google Scholar

304 ‘… sed quia patrum in omnibus efficacior est et major auctoritas, eum dixit [Paulus] formam fuisse peccati, non a quo coepit delictum, sed qui per potestatem sexus virilis, magis fuisse probatur imitabilis’ Op. imp. 2.190 (PL 45.1224).Google Scholar

305 Op. imp. 3.95 (PL 45.1288).Google Scholar

306 ‘Nos dicimus peccato hominis, non naturae statum mutari, sed meriti qualitatem’ Op. imp. 1.96 (PL 45.1112).Google Scholar

307 ‘… nulla magis re quam imitatione vitiorum invaluisse peccata …’ Op. imp. 2.48 (PL 45.1162).Google Scholar

308 ‘Ipsa gratia legem in adiutorium misit: ad eius spectabat officium, ut rationis lumen, quod pravitatis exempla hebetabant et consuetudo vitiorum, multimodis eruditionibus excitaret, atque invitatu suo foveret’ Op. imp. 1.94 (PL 45.1111).Google Scholar

309 C. Jul. 6.23.73.Google Scholar

310 Op. imp. 1.94 (PL 45.1111).Google Scholar

311 Ibid. 2.171.Google Scholar

312 Ibid. 1.67; 110.Google Scholar

313 ‘Liberias arbitrii, qua a Deo emancipatus homo est in admittendi peccati et abstinendi a peccato possibilitate consistit’ Op. imp. 1.78 (PL 45.1102). Cf. Julian's other definitions of freedom: ‘Liberum autem arbitrium et post peccata tam plenum est, quam fuit ante peccata’ Op. imp. 1.91 (PL 45.1108); ‘Voluntas enim nihil aliud est quam motus animi cogente nullo’ Op. imp. 5.40 (PL 45. 1476); ‘Libertas autem nihil aliud est quam possibilitas boni malique, sed voluntarii’ Op. imp. 6.11 (PL 45.1519); and Op. imp. 5.28.Google Scholar

314 E.g. ‘In quibus verbis evidenter apparet, liberum arbitrium malo suo usu esse vitiatum’ Op. imp. 6.13 (PL 45.1524).Google Scholar

315 For details of his earlier exegesis see Platz, P., Der Römerbrief in der Gnadenlehre Augustins (Würzburg 1938) 147.Google Scholar

316 Augustine gives the reasons for his first view in Contra Julianum 6.23.70 and Contra ii ep. Pelag. 1.10.20.Google Scholar

317 The date given by Platz (op. cit. 148). A. Rétif sees signs of a change as early as 412, ‘Apropos de l'interprétation du chapitre VII des Romains par Saint Augustin’ in Recherches de Science Religieuse 33 (1946) 368.Google Scholar

318 For instances of this change see Platz, P., op. cit. 149–150.Google Scholar

319 Op. imp. 1.67.Google Scholar

320 Retract 1.22.1 (CSEL 36.106). ‘Unde quidem iam evertitur haeresis pelagiana, quae vult non ex Deo nobis, sed ex nobis esse caritatem qua bene ac pie vivimus.’Google Scholar

321 C. Jul. 6.23.70. Cf. ‘… quae postea lectis quibusdam divinorum tractatoribus eloquiorum, quorum me moveret auctoritas, consideravi diligentius …’ Retract, ibid.Google Scholar

322 From the Apologeticus primus de sua fuga, cited in C. Jul. 2.3.7 and also in Op. imp. 1.69.Google Scholar

323 C. Jul. ibid. Google Scholar

324 De Oratione Dominica, cited in C. Jul. 2.3.6.Google Scholar

325 Ibid.Google Scholar

326 Cited ibid.Google Scholar

327 De paenitentia 1.3.13 cited in C. Jul. 2.3.5.Google Scholar

328 C. Jul. 2.3.5.Google Scholar

329 E.g. Phil. 3.12–14; 2 Cor. 4.7; 12.7. P. Platz shows that as early as the De sermone Domini in monte and the De continentia, Augustine was applying the words of Paul to a Christian's life. Op. cit. 147.Google Scholar

330 C. Jul. 2.3.5; 8.30; 3.26.61; 6.23.72; Op. imp. 1.67; 6.15.Google Scholar

331 Op. imp. 1.67 (PL 45.1086). Cf. also 1.69; 1.105; 5.59; 6.12–13.Google Scholar

332 Op. imp. 1.67.Google Scholar

333 1 Tim. 1.15–16, cited ibid.Google Scholar

334 Op. imp. 1.67 (PL 45.1086–1087).Google Scholar

335 See Nemesius of Emesa, On the Nature of Man, trans. Telfer, William (Library of Christian Classics 4; London 1955) Introduction 206–210.Google Scholar

336 See Brown, P., Augustine of Hippo 382.Google Scholar

337 Nemesius, 41 pp. 421–422. Nemesius uses ἕξιϛ (PG 40.778BC).Google Scholar

338 ‘Hinc in persona eius hominis loquitur qui legem accipit, id est, qui primum Dei mandata cognoscit, cum consuetudinem habeat delinquendi.’ Pelagi Expositio in Romanos ed. Souter, A. (Texts & Studies 9; Cambridge 1926) 56.Google Scholar

339 ‘Non ego, quia >velut> invitus, set consuetudo peccati, quam tamen necessitatem ipse mihi par vi.’ Souter, 59.velut>+invitus,+set+consuetudo+peccati,+quam+tamen+necessitatem+ipse+mihi+par+vi.’+Souter,+59.>Google Scholar

340 Smith, A. J., ‘The Latin Sources of the Commentary of Pelagius on the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans,’ in The Journal of Theological Studies 19 (1917–1918) 191.Google Scholar

341 Ibid. 193.Google Scholar

342 Ibid. 194.Google Scholar

343 Ibid. Cf. similar parallels on vv. 7 and 20, op. cit. 191–193.Google Scholar

344 Prop. ep. ad Rom. 45–46 (PL 35.2071). Note also ‘lex enim peccati est violentia consuetudinis' Conf. 8.12 (BA 14.32).Google Scholar

345 Op. cit. 19.202; 20.55–59, 61, 64. Cf. also Souter, A., The Earliest Latin Commentaries on the Epistles of St. Paul (Oxford 1927) 198, though note the warnings of B. Leeming on one of these parallels, the massa perditionis in ‘Augustine, Ambrosiaster and the massa perditionis' in Gregorianum 11 (1930) 58–91.Google Scholar

346 In 392 Augustine had written to Jerome, asking for translations of Greek commentators on the Bible, especially of Origen (Ep. 28.2.2). The commentaries did not arrive. Origen, in fact, fell out of favor at this time. We do know that Augustine had codices of Hilary of Poitiers in his library, and in one of these we come across the ‘habit-chain’ image again. Hilary is appealing for instruction in good morals from one's youth on: ‘Difficile est enim ab usitatis desinere, difficile est a familiaribus abstrahi, magnum in se consuetudo habet vinculum’ Tract. in 118 Psal. Lit. 2.1 (CSEL 22.370).Google Scholar

347 ‘Quod si judicium de bono habet voluntas, consuetudo autem carnalium vitiorum, quae lex carnalis vel lex membrorum appellata est, obsistit et subripit, ex eo quod boni voluntatem gero, licet agam mala. … Consuetudinem namque peccandi peccatum nominavit.’ Origenis commentarii in epistolam b. Pauli ad Romanos 6 (PL 14.1087).Google Scholar

348 Op. imp. 1.67.Google Scholar

349 ‘Tu quoque ipse … dicis “evenire hominibus affectionalem qualitatem atque ita inhaerescere, ut aut magnis molitionibus, aut nullis separetur omnino”’ Op. imp. 1.105 (PL 45.1119).Google Scholar

350 ‘Quod in unoquoque agitur per violentiam consuetudinis … hoc actum esse per violentiam summi illius maximique peccati primi hominis in omnibus qui erant in lumbis ejus …’ Op. imp. 5.59 (PL 45.1493). ‘Si autem propter malam consuetudinem, sicut sapis, clamat homo, “Non quod volo, facio bonum; sed quod nolo malum, hoc ago” (Rom. 7.19): certe vel in isto fatemini humanam voluntatem vires bonorum operum perdidisse, cui nisi divinae gratiae subveniat adjutorium, quid ei prodest copiosum et ornatum cujuslibet exhortantis eloquium?’ Op. imp. 2.10 (PL 45.1145). ‘Sed hoc vos non vitiatae in primo homine naturae humanae, sed malae consuetudini cujusque tribuitis, quam sibi praevalentem volens, nec valens homo vincere, suamque libertatem ad bonum perficiendum integram non inveniens, dicere ista compellitur; quasi vero vim consuetudinis malae insuperabilem patiatur, ut ab ea se poscat Dei gratia liberari, nisi infirmata natura’ Op. imp. 6.13 (PL. 45.1524). The same idea is expressed in Op. imp. 1.105; 2.15; 6.12,17.Google Scholar

351 These are words from Julian's attack on Augustine, Op. imp. 4.103 (PL 45.1397).Google Scholar

352 Op. imp. 4.103 (PL 45.1398).Google Scholar

353 ‘Ac per hoc, etiam secundum vos, peccandi necessitas unde abstinere liberum non est, illius peccati poena est, a quo abstinere liberum fuit, quando nullum pondus necessitatis urgebat. Cur ergo non creditis tantum saltem valuisse illud primi hominis ineffabiliter grande peccatum, ut eo vitiaretur humana natura universa, quantum valet nunc in homine uno secunda natura ? Sic enim a doctis appellari consuetudinem nos commemorandos putasti’ Op. imp. 1.105 (PL 45.119). ‘Illum saltem attende, qui dicit “Non quod volo, hoc ago, sed quod odi, illud facio”: quem vos non vultis vitiata origine, sed prevalente mala consuetudine laborare; ac sic etiam vos fatemini liberum arbitrium, male se utendo, posse deficere; et non vultis illo tam grandi peccato, ut omni mala consuetudine fuerit majus et pejus, vitiari potuisse in humana natura liberum arbitrium.’ Op. imp. 6.12 (PL 45.1523).Google Scholar

354 Op. imp. 3.154.Google Scholar

355 Op. imp. 1.69. Cf. also 1.97; 3.187; 5.25; 6.28.Google Scholar

356 ‘Per illas igitur sordes … sibi vindicavit diabolus imaginem Dei, non per substantiam, quam creavit Deus’ Op. imp. 1.63 (PL 45.1082).Google Scholar

367 Op. imp. 1.63; 3.189. M. Strohm explains naturae vitiosae as natures affected with a corruption which seeks to destroy their natural good. ‘Der Begriff der natura vitiata bei Augustin’ 188.Google Scholar

358 ‘Sed illi sic dicunt malam carnis naturam, ut eam malum esse dicant, non malum habere, quia ipsum vitium non substantiae accidens, sed substantiam putant esse’ Op. imp. 3.189 (PL 45.1330).Google Scholar

359 ‘Nos autem a Manichaeo longe sumus, qui naturae bonae sive in grandibus, sive in parvulis, et vitium confitemur et medicum’ Op. imp. 6.13 (PL 45.1525).Google Scholar

360 Brown, P., Augustine of Hippo 393.Google Scholar

361 ‘Itane vero non cernis, Manichaeo te, ignoranter quidem, sed instanter tamen isto tuae loquacitatis inflato atque spumoso strepitu suffragari?’ Op. imp. 6.9 (PL 45.1515). Cf. Op. imp. 1.97; 4.50, 56, 72; 5.25; 6.6, 41. See Yves de Montcheuil, ‘La polemique de S. Augustin contre Julien d'Éclane d'après l’ Opus imperfectum’ in Recherches de Science Religieuse 44 (1956) 193–198.Google Scholar

362 Op. imp. 6.9 (PL 45.1515).Google Scholar

363 Op. imp. 5.41.Google Scholar

364 ‘Addunt ergo vires eidem concupiscentiae peccata, quae accedunt propria voluntate peccantium, et ipsa consuetudo peccandi, quae non frustra dici solet secunda natura’ Op. imp. 6.41 (PL 45. 1605).Google Scholar

365 ‘Vincere consuetudinem, dura pugna, nosti. … Vides quam male facias, quam detestabiliter, quam infeliciter, et facis tamen. … Unde raperis? Quis te captivum trahit? An illa lex in membris tuis repugnans legi mentis tuae?’ Enarr. 2a in p. 30.13 (CCL 38.201).Google Scholar

366 ‘… et tamen malo resistitur, dum concupiscentiae per continentiam denegatur, quod per consuetudinem concupiscitur’ C. Jul. 6.18.55 (PL 44.855).Google Scholar

367 ‘… et tanto amplius in ea superanda voluntas laborabit, quanto majores ei consuetudo vires dedit’ ibid.Google Scholar

368 ‘Something similar’ (‘tale aliquid’) in Op. imp. 4.103 and 5.64. Cf. Mausbach, J., Die Ethik des heiligen Augustinus 2.220–221.Google Scholar

369 The ground for this distinction can be found, e.g. in the Retractations, where Augustine, commenting on his statement ‘There is no natural evil,’ says ‘I was speaking here of nature as it was first created without any defect. This is the nature of man in the true and proper sense’ Retract. 1.10.3. Note also: ‘We use the word “nature” properly speaking of the nature which men share in common, and with which at first man was created in a state of innocence. We also use nature to mean that nature with which we are born mortal, ignorant, and slaves of the flesh, after sentence has been pronounced on the first man’ De libero arbitrio 3.19.54. And ‘primae suae perfectaeque naturae …’ De vera relig. 19 (CCL 32.199). Cf. F.-J. Thonnard, ‘La notion de nature chez Saint Augustin,’ in Revue des Études Augustiniennes 11.3–4 (1965) 246.Google Scholar

370 ‘Man, under the pressure and weight of habit, can simultaneously will to practice righteousness and be under the necessity of committing sin’ Op. imp. 4.103.Google Scholar

371 ‘Adhuc enim habet quo crescat [concupiscentia]; quoniam minor est, quamdiu non a sciente, sed ab ignorante peccatur’ Op. imp. 6.41 (PL 45.1605).Google Scholar

372 De nuptiis et concupiscentia 1.28. He also compares it to drunkenness and timidity. C. Jul. 6.18.55.Google Scholar

373 C. Jul. 2.10.36.Google Scholar

374 C. Jul. 6.20.64.Google Scholar

375 C. Jul. 1.4.12. cf ‘An forte et categorias Aristotelis, antequam tuos libros legant, eis exponens ipse lecturus es?’ Op. imp. 2.51 (PL 45.1163).Google Scholar

376 Op. imp. 2.36.Google Scholar

377 C. Jul. 2.10.36. cf. 5.1.4.Google Scholar

378 C. Jul. 2.10.37.Google Scholar

379 C. Jul. 5.14.51. See also C. Jul. 6.18.54. Op. imp. 3.189.Google Scholar

380 C. Jul. 5.14.51.Google Scholar

381 Ibid.Google Scholar

382 Marrou speaks of ‘un empirisme d'accent très moderne’ S. Augustin et la fin de la culture antique 457. Thonnard contributes an interesting explanation: ‘De fait, les antagonistes n'étaient pas (comme ce sera le cas de saint Thomas) des professeurs d'Université cherchant à préciser d'après les catégories d'Aristote la nature de l'homme et des attributs divins, ou la nature de la liberté et de la grǎce, du péché originel et des privilèges (surnaturels ou préternaturels) du premier homme. C'étaient des moralistes, plus exactement des ascètes, évěques ou moines, qui cherchaient les meilleurs moyens de conduire les fervents chrétiens à la perfection terrestre et au but de la vie éternelle. Aussi s'intéressent-ils avant tout … à la situation historique des hommes actuels et aux ressources qu'ils peuvent trouver dans leur nature, telle qu'elle est maintenant, pour réaliser l'idéal de l'Évangile …’ (‘La notion de nature chez saint Augustin’ 265).Google Scholar