Porphyry's Philosophy from Oracles in Augustine

Citation preview

Porphyry's Philosophy from Oracles in Augustine '

By the same

author

I. Giraldus Cambrensis in Topographia Hibernie Text of the First Recension (Proc. Royal Irish Academy vol. LII, C, 4, 1949) II. Topography of Ireland of Giraldus Cambrensis ' ‘Translation with Introduction and Notes Dundalgan Press, 1951 III. St. Augustine : Against the Academics Ancient

Christian

Writers

no.

12,

I95I

IV. Origen : Prayer and Exhortation to Martyrdom Ancient Christian Writers no. I9, 1954 V. The Young Augustine Longmans, 1954 La Jeunesse de Saint Augustin Translated

by Jeanne

Henri

Librairie Plon, 1958

Marrou

Porphyry's Philosophy from Oracles in Augustine by

JOHN

J. O'MEARA

Professor of Latin at University College, Dublin

ÉTUDES

AUGUSTINIENNES 8, rue

Frangois-Ier PARIS

1959

Table of Contents Foreword

σὰ (? PART

AND

THE

PHILOSOPHY

The Title de regressu animae... . cesses ls Titles in the ciu. Dei and the Title : Περὶ τῆς ἐκ : λογίων φιλοσοφίας esse The Scope of the de regressu animae...............

The Scope of the Philosophy from Oracles........... The Dating of the Philosophy from Oracles and the de regressu animae... .. ee NEM "The Assumptions of Wolff and Kroll...............

II THEMES AND EXPRESSIONS FROM THE PHILOSOPHY FROM ORACLES AS REPORTED BY AUGUSTINE I. 2.

3.

Part

bene ee eb eben nee e eee ΞΕ

‘I THE de regressu animae FROM ORACLES. ΝΗ

Part:

Cece

III

ctu, Det XIX 23......ὍὉ.ὐονννννννννν ee eee νων Other texts from the ciu. Dei. ....... 0... cee eee A. ciu. Det XX 24 woe cece ee nnn B. civ. Dei XVIII 53-54-00... ccc eee eee C. ciu. Det XXII 25-28 ....... lesse De consensu euangelistarum 2.0.0... cc cece eee Sermo 241. ΝΣ THE

TENTH

BOOK

OF

THE

cíw. Dei

Wolff's outline of the Philosophy from Oracles...... Outline of Porphyrian Elements in ciu. Dei X ...... I.

Daemomia

....

ccc

2.

Principia. eeseeen

3.

Christus,

cece

eee e ener e tenes

uta wniuersalis eee

CONCLUSION ...... Note

ccc

eee

eee

nnn

: Arnobius, Mamertus, Theodoret, Aeneas of Gaza .....ceeeeeeee eh 9 n ntn

I

I5 23 29 33 39

ba

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

CoroLLARY : APPLICATION OF THE CONCLUSION TO OTHER AUGUSTINIAN TEXTS I.

2.

De

Trimiate

eee

I5I

24... hh mn — IV 13 ff ................ eee eee eee Confessionum libri ......... ccc cece eee eee ene — X 67£................... eese

152 152 155 156

—

3.

XIII

12

VII

0...

13

ccc

cece

£- VIII 4...............

156

— VIII 28-29 ................. eus. —. . VWIHII24f[.......... ee ees. De quantitate animae 75 6. cece cece eee neene De moribus ecclesiae Catholicae I. 11 £...............

168 168 170 170

4. Retractationes I. 4. 3 ..... MEME ' ' Contra. Academicos I. 1 .......... sse. —

I 3............ eene

—

De

II. 2,5 etc. ..... ERE beata wita 3, 31, 33, 30....... ccc cc nee

De ordine I. 10... . ec ccc ccc tect — I a — INDEX

Il.

eee

eens

WO... ccc eects

OF AUGUSTINIAN TEXTS ..........

eene

I7I 171 172 173 174

175 176 176 177

Foreword

This study attempts to prove that the book of Porphyry described by St. Augustine (and by him only) under the title de regressu animae in ciu. Dei X 29 and 32 (and in these adjacent chapters of one work

only) is in reality the Περὶ τῆς ἐκ λογίων φιλοσοφίας or part of it. In the first section of this study are outlined the reasons for suspecting that this is so, a general survey of what is known of both the de regressu animae and the Philosophy from Oracles, and some examination of the assumptions

on which

the separateness

of the books

has

beén

based.

The second part deals with the knowledge which can be gained of the Philosophy from Oracles from Augustine alone and from a selection only of his work. It will be seen that this additional information at once

greatly enlarges the scope of Porphyry’s book beyond what is indicated in Wolff’s collection of fragments, and also changes considerably its tone and direction.

In the third part the whole of ctu. Dei X (from which all, or nearly all, of the book described as the de regressu animae is derived) is examined in the light of the conclusions of Parts I and

II. It is concluded

that

the de regressu animae and the Philosophy from Oracles axe separate titles referring to the same work whose formal title was Philosophy from Oracles. A note at this point indicates how Augustine was very much in line with Christian apologists — and others — in giving such emphatic attention to the Philosophy from Oracles. There is added by way of corollary and confirmation an examination

of some other texts from Augustine in which distinct traces of the reconstituted Philosophy from Oracles can be found. These include certain most important texts from the Confessions and the early Dialogues which, in the light of this study, lead us to believe that the Philosophy from Oracles was probably the Platonic text which most directly affected

Augustine’s conversion. *

*

*

The argument of this book is in the main concerned with demonstrating mostly from texts of St. Augustine that the Philosophy from Oracles

2

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN

AUGUSTINE

and the de regressu animae are one and the same work : in a sense, then,

the argument is one internal to certain texts of Augustine. Augustine was no modern scientific philologist and did not consider it necessary when reporting, or referring to, a passage in an author to do so either accurately or even, if he used the passage often, in identical terms. He did, however, tend to repeat topics, and in reading him we soon begin to recognize them, get to know their characteristic details, and watch their development and later entry into a larger synthesis. Here the economical and effective method of parallel texts cannot be employed, not only because of the number of texts involved, but especially because the repetition of words and phrases is here less significant, Each text must be scrutinized carefully in itself and its context and in relation to

the others. This necessarily leads to much

quotation and repetition:

some of this the reader may omit, but at least the evidence will always

be there before him. The results of this study, if sound, are valuable, partly for what they are in themselves and partly for the suggestions for further study which

they involve. Thus a completely new edition of the combined fragments of the Philosophy from Oracles and de regressu animae and other additional fragments becomes necessary. A new assessment of the Phslosophy from Oracles will reveal more clearly Porphyry's development, and reduce the seeming inconsistency between Porphyry the rationalistic disciple of Plotinus and the irrational devotee of demons. It is forty years since

Bidez spoke ad nauseam on the necessity of a new edition of Porphyry’s, fragments : it is still no less necessary.

In the meantime

we

may

be

able to reclaim large portions of the Phtlosophy from Oracles and reveal its importance as a major work. From the point of view of Augustinian studies the results are noo less valuable. On the one hand the true nature of the ciu. Det as an apolo-

getic work reaching its climax in the refutation of the Philosophy from Oracles is revealed. Thus the ciu. Dei falls into line with Eusebius’ Prae. eu. and

Arnobius ' Adv.

nationes

—. among

other such works.

On

the

other hand the known fact of Augustine's very much greater acquaintance with the Philosophy from Oracles (assuming the identity of the de regressu animae

with

it) than

with

any

other work

of Porphyry

or any other

Neo-Platonist can be understood.. "There is still the question of the application of the results of this study to the Confessions and the conversion of Augustine. If these results are accepted as sound, then the double controversy as to the sincerity of Augustine's

conversion

in A.D.

386

and the Platonist whose

books

most vitally affected him is solved : Augustine was sincerely converted and Porphyry played the major role. P. Courcelle has anticipated the conclusions outlined in the last two paragraphs when he wrote in 1943 : « Son grand effort apologétique

-

INTRODUCTION

3

de la Cité de Dieu consiste, si je ne me trompe, à méditer sur le processus de sa propre conversion pour acheminer les disciples de Porphyre vers le christianisme. (Les Lettres Grecques en Occident p. 168.) * *

*

This study was completed before the author could avail himself of the valuable work of H. Lewy, Chaldaean Oracles and Theurgy, (Recherches d’Archéologie, de Philologie et d’Histoire, XIII, Le Caire, 1956). Lewy maintains that the Chaldean Oracles « appear to have constituted the nucleus of the collection published in (Porphyry’s) book On the Philosophy of the Oracles » (p. 64). This independent conclusion, even if treated with some reserve, cannot but be striking confirmation of the argument of this study. Lewy has much else to say in confirmation and explanation

of what is written here. In particular his account

(pp. 312-326, 344)

of the close relationship between the Chaldean Oracles and the contem-

porary Middle-Platonists Celsus, Apuleius, and particularly (even when they disagree with one another) Numenius and Albinus is very illuminating. His further remark (p. 360) that the philosophic source of the Chaldean Oracles leads always to the exegesis of the Timaeus is frequently illustrated in the pages that follow. It has been found possible to use some of Lewy’s conclusions on matters relevant to our subject partly in foot-notes and occasionally in the text. *

*

c

The author is happy to have the opportunity of acknowledging his particular indebtedness to Professor Harold Cherniss of the Institute for

Advanced

Study,

Princeton,

N. J.

for

many

services

generously

rendered. To the Institute itself, where the present book was for the most part completed in the session 1956-57, and to its Director, Dr. Robert

Oppenheimer, a special debt of gratitude is due. This book has profited greatly from the advice and criticism of Professors A. H. Armstrong, E. R. Dodds, H. I. Marrou and Christine Mohrmann : they have no

part in its defects. The publication of this volume has been made possible by grants from both the Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, and the National University of Ireland, for which the author is duly grateful.

Finally he wishes to thank R. P. Georges Folliet of Etudes Augustiniennes for his patient co-operation.

PART

The

I

de regressu anime

and the Philosophy from

Oracles

CHAPTER

ONE

The Title de regressu anime

The title de regressu animae fot a book of Porphyry's is known only from its being mentioned in two adjacent chapters of the ciw. Dei, book X. It will be well to examine the texts in question. The firstof these is in X. 29 : An forte wos offendit... quod ipswm corpus (Christi) morte depositum et in melius resurrectione mutatum . iam incorruptibile neque mortale in superna subuexit; hoc fortasse credere recusatis intuentes Porphyrium in his ipsis libris, ex quibus multa posut, quos de regressu animae scripsit, lam crebro praecipere omne corpus esse fugiendum, ut anima possit. beata permanere cum Deo ? Sed ipse pottus isla

sentiens

corrigendus

fuit,

praesertim

cum

de

anima

mundi

huius

wisibilis ... cum illo tam incredibilia. sapiatis. In this passage Augustine is addressing the living followers of Porphyry : Scio me frustra loqui mortuo, sed quantum ad te adtinel : quaniwm autem ad eos, qui te magnipendunt et uel qualicumque amore sapientiae uel curiositate artium, quas non debuisti discere, diligunt, quos potius in tua conpellatione adloquor, fortasse non frustra}. For

the moment,

however,

we

wish

to draw

attention

only

to the

words : in his ipsis libris, ex quibus multa posui, quos de regressu animae scripsit. Scholars have taken this to mean that, apart from the chapter dealing

with

Porphyry's

Letter to Anebo

(chapter

XI),

almost

all the

Porphyrian matter in cw. Dei X — that is to say almost everything in book X — is inspired by the de regressu animae. We may refer to Bidez* : « Sauf quelques allusions et des répétitions peu importantes, tous les emprunts faits par Augustin au De regressu se trouvent dans le livre X de la Cité de Dieu. Ils y sont nombreux. Presque tout ce qui vient de Porphyre dans ce livre — excepté le résumé de la Lettre à Anébon qui remplit le chapitre XI — peut étre attribué sürement au 1. Cf. a similar address in a similar context : csu. Des XXII, 2. J. Bidez,

Μὲς

de Porphyre,

Gand,

1913,

p.

159.

28, p. 4. '

8

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

De regressu : Yarticle « Porphyrius » de /'index nominum, dans l'édition du Corpus de Vienne, aurait besoin, à cet égard, d'étre revisé soigneu-

sement!. Wolff lui-méme, le consciencieux éditeur du Περὶ τῆς ἐκ λογίων φιλοσοφίας a commis plusieurs méprises dont une seulement est relevée dans ses Corrigenda ». G. Wolff, in his Porphyrii de philosophia ex oraculis haurienda (Berlin 1856) had indicated a number of passages from the tenth book of the ciu. Dei which

ἐκ λογίων

he had

φιλοσοφίας,

reason to think were inspired by the Περὶ

a work

which

for

convenience

we

τῆς

shall call

here the Philosophy from Oracles. One of these (Wolff p. 146) he seems to have abandoned (p. 243) without, however, ascribing it to a book known as de regressu animae. A second he continued to maintain (p. 149. I3 ff)! although he was not followed by Bidez. A third he maintained and was followed in this by Bidez (Wolff. p. 180 ; Bidez, op. cit. p. 32*)*. Here then in a sense is the beginning of our enquiry — for Wolff,

Dombart (in his ascriptions to titles in the Index to his edition of the

ciu. Dei), Hoffmann (in his edition of the οὖν. Dei in the C.S.E.L.), and even Bidez have had to decide to which title certain passages should be ascribed : to the de regressw animae or the Philosophy from Oracles ? Bidéz’ opinion in favour of the absolute minimum ascription of parts of the tenth book of the ciu. Dei to the Philosophy from Oracles has tended to overshadow earlier views. But even he could not rule out all such ascription. If, therefore, in the consideration of certain passages from ciu. Dei X we discover similarities to fragments from the Philosophy from Oracles, we can not only feel justified in taking account of the Philosophy from Oracles, but we are bound to do so : for it is all part of a question opened long ago. : Bidez goes on to write a paragraph which may raise some doubts in our minds : « Indépendamment

d'Augustin, Arnobe

est le seul écrivain

chez qui l'on découvre peut-étre quelque vestige des doctrines du De regressu. Seulement il ne semble pas qu'Arnobe ait eu dans les mains ' ni le texte grec ni une traduction du traité. On trouvera p. 29* et 40*

les seules données qu'il fournit : elles n'ajoutent rien d'utile aux extraits de la Cité de Dieu

(160). »

Here Bidez informs us that there is no trace whatever, in any author,

of the doctrines — and he means also the title — of the de regressu 1. Bidez in a note writes : « Les passages groupés sous les mots ‘ praeterea de daemonibus ' auraient dá étre placés, les uns, dans la part du De regressu, les autres. dans le lot de la Letire à Anébon

(notamment

480,

12). » This is hasty

correction

of Hoffmann

(and

Dombart)

view of the known topics of the Philosophy from Oracles as admitted by Bidez himself. 2. Reported as 147.11 by Bidez on p. 32° and as 148.13 ff. on p. 159. 3. See p. 4. See n.

126. 1 above.

in:

THE TITLE « DE REGRESSU ANIMAE animae

other than Augustinel.

no trace of the title in any

»

9

He might have

other work

added that there was

of Augustine,

or any

book

of

the cw. Dei other than the tenth, and there only in two places together near the end. This is surprising. If Augustine devotes nearly the whole of what some regard as the climactic book of his great work to the de regressu animae, we might expect to hear of it again. It is quite otherwise with the Philosophy from Oracles which, apart from its being mentioned often elsewhere, is given its full title a dozen times by Eusebius,

for example, We

are

in his fae. not

forgetting

eu. Bidez’

reference

to

Arnobius,

which,

the

reader will note, is couched in very careful terms : chez qui l'on découvre peut-étre quelque vestige des doctrines du De regressu. Seulement il ne semble pas qu’Arnobe ait eu dans les mains mi le texte grec ni une traduction dw tratté. Les seules données qu'il fournit n’ajoutent rien. It is only fair to let the reader see these texts from Arnobius : Adv.

nat. II, 62 : quod magi spondent, commendaticias habere se preces quibus emollitae nescio quae potestates vias faciles praebeant ad caelum contendentibus subvolare ; II, 13 : quid illi sibi volunt secretarum artium ritus,

quibus adfamini nescio quas potestates, ut sint vobis placidae neque ad sedes remeantibus patrias obstacula impeditionis opponant ? ; II, 62 : neque illud obrepat aut spe vobis aeria blandiatur, quod ab sciolis nonnullis et plurimum sibi adrogantibus dicitur, deo esse se gnatos nec [ati obnoxios

legibus, si vitam restrictius egerint, aulam sibi eius patere, ac post hominis [unctionem prohibente se nullo tamquam in sedem referri patritam. Courcelle?

is, rightly

we

think,

more

definite

in the

view that

these

passages are inspired by the de regressu amimae and that Porphyry is the chief adversary behind Arnobius' second book. This, however, does not in the least exclude the possibility, for example, that the Philosophy from Oracles and the de regressu animae are one and the same

book ; and there is nothing in Courcelle's case that slightest against that possibility. Indeed Courcelle's de regressu animae at this point lend suport to such regressu était, en effet, particuliérement redoutable

militates in the remarks on the a view : « Le De : susceptible de

tenter les Chrétiens par sa haute spiritualité, ses promesses sa théodicée, οὐ ils reconnaissaient le Pére et le Fils, voire

de salut, le Saint-

Esprit, il les détournait de la foi en l'Incarnation et en la résurrection de la chair; il les raillait d'étre incapables, ici-bas, d'extase »*. While the de regressu animae is unknown by name outside of the pages of the

tenth book

of the οὖν. Dei, the Philosophy from

Oracles is very well

1. This is not true, as we shall see, as far as the doctzines are concerned. 2. ‘Tes Sages de Porphyre et les « Viri Novi » d'Arnobe ', Revue des Etu:ies Latines,

1954, pp. 257 ft. 3. Ibid.

p.

270.

.

X N XI,

Io

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

known indeed as a fierce anti-Christian document, in which the topics mentioned by Courcelle get emphatic treatment!, *

*—*

The second of the texts giving the title de regressu animae comes from book X 32 : Haec est religio, quae untuersalem continet uiam animae liberandae, quoniam nulla nisi hac liberari potest. Haec est enim quodam modo regalis uta, quae una ducit ad regnum, non temporal: fastigio nutabundum, sed aeternitatis firmitate securum. Cum autem dicit. Porphyrius in primo iuxta finem de regressu animae libro nondum receptum in unam quandam

sectam,

quae

wniuersalem

contineat.

utam

animae

liberandae,

uel a philosophia uerissima aliqua uel ab Indorum moribus ac disciplina, aut inductione Chaldaeorum. aut alia qualibet uta, nondumque in suam notitiam eandem wiam historiali cognitione perlatam : procul dubio ‘confitelur esse aliquam, sed nondum in suam uenisse notitiam. Ita ei non sufficiebat quidquid de anima liberanda studiosissime didicerat. sibique uel potius aliis nosse ac tenere uidebatur... ... testatur neque 1llis quae ab Indis neque ἔς quae a Chaldaeis didicerat hanc wniuersalem utam liberandae animae contineri : et utique se a Chaldaeis oracula diuina sumsisse, quorum

adsiduam

commemorationem

facit, tacere non potuit... Neque

ait

non esse sed hoc tantum bonum tantumque adiutorium nondum receptum, nondum in suam notitiam esse perlatum ; nec mirum. Tunc enim Porphyrius erat in rebus humanis, quando ista liberandae animae uniuersalis uia, quae non est alia quam religio Christiana, obpugnart permittebatur ab idolorum daemonumque cultoribus regibusque terrenis, propter adserendum et consecrandum martyrum numerum... Videbat ergo ista. Porphyrius et per huius modi persecutiones cito istam utam perituram et propterea

mon esse ipsam liberandae animae uniuersalem butabat*. Now it is noteworthy that this whole passage which, on Augustine's authority, is known to have been inspired by the end of the first book of the de regressu animae, and which discusses the search for a universal way to the kingdom, to the Father, should have an echo precisely at

the end (as arranged by Wolff) of the first book of the Philosophy from Oracles. We shall quote the text as recovered from Eusebius, prae. eu.

IX. 1o : Ὅ δέ Πορφύριος ἐν τῷ πρώτῳ τῆς ᾿Εκ λογίων φιλοσοφίας...

1. But see pp. 145 f. for a list of Porphyrian

topics in the first two books of the Ado.

Nationes.

2. Cf. pp. 138 ff. for a further consideration of this passage.

THE

TITLE

« DE

REGRESSU

ANIMAE

» .

11

« αἰπεινὴ μὲν ὁδὸς μακάρων τρηχεῖά τε πολλόν, χαλκοδέτοις τὰ πρῶτα διοιγομένη πυλέῶσιν' ἀτραπιτοὶ δὲ ἔασιν ἀθέσφατοι éyyeyavias, ἃς πρῶτοι μερόπων ém ' ἀπείρονα πρῆξιν ἔφηναν oí τὸ καλὸν πίνοντες ὕδωρ Νειλώτιδος αἴης" πολλὰς καὶ Φοίνικες ὁδοὺς μακάρων

ἐδάησαν,

᾿Ασσύριοι Λυδοί τε καὶ ‘EBpaiwy γένος ἀνδρῶν" » καὶ τὰ τούτοις ἀκόλουθα. οἷς 6 συγγραφεύς ἐπιλέγει" « Χαλκόδετος γὰρ ἡ πρὸς θεοὺς ὁδὸς αἰπεινή τε καὶ τραχεῖα, ἧς πολλάς ἀτραποὺς βάρβαροι μὲν ἐξεῦρον, “Ελληνες δὲ ἐπλανήθησαν, οἱ δὲ κρατοῦντες ἤδη καὶ διέφθειραν. τὴν δὲ εὕρεσιν Αἰγυπτίοις 6 θεὸς ἐμαρτύρησε Φοίνιξί τε καὶ Χαλδαίοις (᾿Ασσύριοι γὰρ οὗτοι) Λυδοῖς τε καὶ “Ἑβραίοις. ἔτι πρὸς τούτοις καὶ ἐν ἑτέρῳ χρησμῷ φησιν 6 AnéMwv: μοῦνοι Χαλδαῖοι σοφίην λάχον 78’ ἄρ ' 'Εβραῖοε, αὐτογένεθλον ἄνακτα σεβαζόμενοι θεὸν ἁγνῶς

»

Eusebius in prae eu. XIV. 10 again quotes the χαλκόδετος γὰρ ... but this time it is preceded by the significant words : ᾿Ακήκοας πόσος πόνος, ἵν᾽ ὑπὲρ σώματός τις τὰ καθάρσια θύσῃ, ody ὅτι τῆς ψυχῆς THY σωτηρίαν ἐξεύροι ; χαλκέδοτος γὰρ ... Here we learn that τῆς ψυχῆς ἡ σωτηρία was a topic, if not the topic of the Philosophy from Oracles?, and the full text falls into line with Augustine's remarks : cum autem dicit Porphyrius: in primo iuxta finem de regressu animae libro nondum receptum in unam quandam sectam, quae untuersalem contineat uiam animae liberandae.... It is to be particularly noted, too, that in this latter text from the Philosophy from Oracles Porphyry implies that purificatory sacrifice

may be employed for the salvation of the body, but not of the soul. This is reminiscent of an important paragraph at the beginning of cu. Dei X c. 9 where Augustine sets out formally to consider Porphyry's views in a work or works which Bidez supposes to be the de regressu animae : nam et Porphyrius quandam. quasi. purgationem animae per theurgian, cunctanter tamen. et pudibunda quodam modo disputatione promittit ; reuersionem uero ad Deum hanc artem praestare cuiquam negat ; ut uideas eum inter uitium sacrilegae curtositatis et philosophiae professionem sententiis alternantibus fluctuare... uelut... cedens utilem dicit esse mundandae parti animae, non quidem intellectuali ... sed spiritali, qua corporalium rerum capiuntur imagines ... ex quibus tamen theurgicts leletis fateretur intellectuali animae

nihil purgationis

accedere. Porphyry,

as we shall see?, returns again to this clear separation of the purgations of body (including the ' spirital’ soul) and intellectual soul.

I. ed, K. Mras, Berlin, 2. See pp. 29 f. 3. Cf. pp. 125, 142.

1954,

I

pp.

495

f. (Wolff, pp.

139

ff.).

12

« PHILOSOPHY

It

is difficult

to

avoid

the

FROM

feeling

ORACLES

» IN

these

passages,

that

AUGUSTINE

one

from

Augustine and two from Eusebius, could derive from the same source. In both there is question of the way to the gods. In both it is said that the finding of that way

is difficult. It is a royal way

(Augustine) ; its

portals are bound in brass (Eusebius). It has no earthly trappings (non lemporali fastigio) ; it is steep and rough (Eusebius). This way is of great,

inestimable,

benefit

to

all men

(hoc

tantum

bonum

tantumque

adiutorium, uniuersalem uiam. animae liberandae, μερόπων ἐπ᾿ ἀπείρονα πρῆξιν). The Greeks, the Chaldeans and others discovered numerous ways. The Greeks were in error (non sufficiebat quidquid de anima libetanda studiosissime didicerat — explained more fully by the words which

are omitted from the text as quoted above : satis ostendit uel eam philosophiam, in qua ipse philosophatus est, non esse uerissimam, uel ea non contineri talem. uiam, “EAXnves δὲ ἐπλανήθησαν). effect they can have on the ‘ salvation’ of the body, fices are not the way to the liberation of the soul. Not only are the Chaldeans mentioned in both the Philosophy from Oracles, and in the present passage

Finally, whatever purificatory sacrifragment from the in Augustine, but

they receive emphasis in both : μοῦνοι Χαλδαῖοι σοφίην Adyov. Porphyry gives an example of their calculations : « εἷς ἐν παντὶ

πέλει

κόσμου

κύκλος,

ἀλλὰ

σὺν ἑπτὰ

ζώναισιν πεφόρηται ἐς ἀστερόεντα κέλευθα, ἃς δὴ Χαλδαῖοι καὶ ἀριζήλωτοι ᾿Εβραῖοι οὐρανίας ὀνόμηναν, ἐς ἑβδόματον δρόμον ἕρπειν. »t Augustine

adds that Porphyry

in the book

which

he calls de regressu

animae had been dealing with Chaldean oracles : e£ utique se a Chaldaeis oracula diwina sumsisse, quorum adsiduam commemorationem facit. The alia qualibet wia can certainly cover the other peoples mentioned in Porphyry's fragment : the Egyptians, Phoenicians, Assyrians (if they

are distinct from

the Chaldeans)

and

Lydians.

The

Hebrews,

of

course, receive special consideration from Augustine both in ciw. Dei X. and especially in XIX 23 for their piety and wisdom. Finally there is just the possibility that in the conjunction of Indorum

mores ac disciplina and the diuina oracula (which, Augustine says, Porphyry took from the Chaldeans) with philosophia we are given in some confused way the title ἐκ λογίων φιλοσοφία.

1. Eusebius, prae. eu. IX. 10, Mras I. pp. 496 (Wolff. 141). 2. There is a similar conjunction of curiositas and philosophia in a context of regressus in a text which we have just quoted from ciu. Dei X, chapter 9 : reuerstonem uero ad Deum hanc

artem praestare cuiquam negat ; ut uideas eum inler uttium sacrilegae curtositatis et philosophiae professionem... fluctuare. Cf. c. Acad. 1.1; quam editam... philosophia pollicetur. See pp. 171 f.

sententiam

uberrimarun

doctrinarum oraculis : -

THE

TITLE

« DE

REGRESSU

ANIMAE

s»

I3

*

x

*

There is a further indication that the two passages which we have just been discussing may come from the same work. (1) Eusebius! quotes es coming from the Philosophy from Oracles :

« σοφίην Adxov ἠδ᾽ dp’ “Ἑβραῖοι, αὐτογένεθλον ἄνακτα σεβαζόμενοι θεὸν ἁγνῶς. » Augustine in cw. Dei XIX 23 quotes as coming from the same

(1) source

: Iudaei suscipiunt Deum

magis

κρατοῦντες of Eusebius) ; in Deum ante

omnia,

quem

tremit

quam

tstt (Christiani i.e. the ot

uero, inquit, generatorem et in regem

et caelum

et terra

adque

mare

et infernorum

abdita et ipsa numina perhorrescunt ; quorum lex est pater, quem ualde sancti honorant Hebraei ; sapientes Hebracorum.... uenerari magis caelestes deos, amplius autem uenerari Deum — Patrem... ipsum colere ubique imperant... Augustine has here seemingly used the same section of the Philosophy from Oracles as had Eusebius. (111) In the chapter in ctu. Det X, which we are discussing (i.e. 32), having

written

what

we

have

both

quoted

above

and

compared

to

fragments of the Philosophy from Oracles preserved in Eusebius, Augustine frequently refers to the special piety of the Hebrews, and notably in the following terms : Tunc ipse (Abraham) primitus a Chaldaeorum superstitiontbus liberatus unum uerum. Deum sequendo coluit ; haec. est igitur uniuersalis animae liberandae uia, quam sancti prophetae prius in paucis hominibus et maxime in Hebraea gente significarunt. These three loci seem to be connected, and it is as difficult as it is unnecessary to avoid the suspicion that they are all connected in being related to a single work. In view of the naming of the Philosophy from Oracles in two of the texts and the silence — apart from two entries in adjacent chapters of ciu. Dei X — about the existence of the de regressu animae, it seems reasonable to raise the question if the Philosophy from

Oracles is the work of which de regressu animae is a descriptive title ? This is a possibility which we must immediately investigate.

I. Prae. eu. IX. 10 (Mras I. 496).

CHAPTER

TWO

Titles in the civ. De: and the Title : Περὶ τῆς ἐκ λογίων φιλοσοφίας.

It is hardly necessary to prove that both in ancient and in modern times books, among many other things, have been known by more

than one name. H.

Zilliacus,

For ancient practice in this matter one may refer to

« Boktiteln

i antik

Litteratur

», Evanos

XXXVI

(1938)

pp. 1-411 and E. Nachmanson, « Der Griechische Buchtitel, einige Beobachtungen, » Géteborgs Hógskolas Arsskrift, XLVII (1941) No. r9. Within the philosophical tradition itself the practice of referring to books not only by their titles but by either their subject matter or in

other identifying ways was quite common. Thus Aristotle refers to Plato's Symposium as ἐν τοῖς ἐρωτικοῖς Adyous*, or to his Menexenus

as ev τῷ ᾿Ἐπιταφίῳϑ. Sometimes when he wants to mention the title itself he does so formally : ὁ ἐν τοῖς ᾿Ορφικοῖς ἔπεσι καλουμένοις λόγοις". Iamblichus reveals how confusing references to the titles of books can

be — he refers to a work of Nicomachus in one place as Εἰσαγωγὴ ἡ κατὰ tov Πυθαγόρειον Νικόμαχον, in another as : Νικομάχου ἀριθμητικῆς εἰσαγωγής, and in still another place as : ἀριθμητικὴ τέχνηδ. In referring to this very same work Philoponus leaves us puzzled as to whether Ammonius merely made some remarks on it or wrote a full book about it®.

Philoponus himself, referring to Eth. Nic. 1096 A 12 ff. identifies it with the words : ἐν τοῖς πρὸ τῶν ἠθικῶν μέλλων πάλιν εἰς τὸν περὶ

OV tA

4»

GO

S

M

αὐτῶν (sc. τῶν ἰδεῶν) εἰσβάλλειν ἔλεγχον.... Again he refers to the same work, now descriptively : ἐν τῷ περὶ ἀδιαιρέτων μεγεθῶν βιβλίῳ, . Cf. especially p. 38 f. . Pol. 1262 B 1. . Rhet. 1415 B 30. . De anima 410 B 28; cf. de gen. animal. 734 A 18-19. . Introd. p. 125, 14; p. 125, 17; and p. 4, 14 respectively

. In I Néc. Introd. Math.

1, 3, ζ 4 and 1, 3. n. 1 (Hoche).

(Pistelli).

16

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

and now by title: xdv τῷ ἐπιγραφομένῳ περὶ ἀτόμων γραμμων). Simplicius refers to Aristotle's

Categories

work as : τοῦ τῶν

κατηγοριῶν

in a variety of ways

ἀρχόμενος

βιβλίου

and

ἤτοι

to Archytas'

τῶν

καθόλου

λόγων". An instance of a title which does not describe the contents of the book, but which is used for a special reason is found in Proclus : he says that Parmenides : τὴν περὶ τῶν αἰσθητῶν πραγματείαν διὰ τοῦτο

πρὸς Δόξαν ἐπέγραψεν, ὡς τῶν αἰσθητῶν δοξαστῶν ὄντων κατὰ τὴν ἑαυτῶν φύσιν. Proclus adds that Parmenides τὰ μὲν πρὸς ᾿᾽Αλήθειαν ἔγραψε, τὰ δὲ πρὸς Δόξανδ. If we knew nothing more about Parmenides' actual poem, these words would have led us to believe that there were two separate poems in question. Similarly the title de regressu animae might be a more helpful indication of the contents

of Porphyry's

book than

Περὶ τῆς ἐκ λογίων φιλοσοφίας, which nevertheless was justified by the oracles used, but the two titles might easily refer to but one work. One could continue adding* to the list of variations in titles — but perhaps enough has been given for our present purpose. With such variation in title-giving the possibility of erroneously positing from scattered fragments the previous

existence

of more

books

than

an

author

actually

wrote

becomes great indeed. * *

x

To give a detailed study of Augustine's use of titles would be a long task and not necessary for our purpose,

which

can be no more

ambi-

tious than to illustrate what might have happened rather than prove (from titles alone) what did. For no matter how many instances can be given of the incidence of a particular phenomenon, this alone will never prove that in any particular case it happened again. Hence we shall confine our study to the ciu. Det, which is the work of Augustine most

relevant

to our

enquiry.

Augustine's references in the ciu. Dei to works of Varro, for example,

run into hundreds, most of them being to the Antiqustates. The title is given only once : quadraginta et unum libros scripsit antiquitatum (VI. 3) to which he adds

: hos in res humanas

diuinasque diuisit, rebus

humanis uiginti quinque, diuinis sedecim tribuit. On five occasions he refers to the work in a way which might lead one to suppose that there

1. De aetern. mundi,

YI. 2 (p. 30, 15 Rabe) ; de gen. et corrupt. p. 164, 10-11

(Vitelli) ; and

tbid. p. 34, 2-3, respectively. 2. Categ : pp. 15, 26-16, 31 and p. 18, 3-6 ; p. 43, 26-27 (Kalbfleisch) respectively. cf. sbid. P. 17, 26-27.

3. In Timaeum, respectively.

Y. p. 252,

1-4

(Diehl);

In

Parmenidem,

col.

1024,

4. Cf. Priscian, p. 41 f. (Bywater) ; Asclepius, pp. 3, 222 f. (Hayduck).

10-12 (Cousin

V?)

THE

TITLE

: ΠΕΡῚ

ΤΗΣ EK AOTION

ΦΙΛΟΣΟΦΙΑΣ

17

were two separate works with the titles de rebus humanis and de rebus diwinis ; for example : cum rerum humanarum adque diuinarum dispertitos faceret libros (IV. 2), prius de rebus humanis,

de diuinis autem postea

scripsisse (VI. 4), rius de rebus humanis scripsisse, postea de diuinis (loc. cit.), rerum humanarum libros scripsit... rerum diuinarum libris (loc. cit.), and prius scripserit de rebus humanis, posterius de diuinis (VI. 5). He speaks of : in his enim, quae scripsit de rebus humanis (VI. 4) (an instance rather similar to in his ipsis libris quos de regressu animae scripsit), and he speaks of libros rerum diuinarum (VI. 4) — again leaving it open, if these references were isolated, to the reader to misunderstand.

Not only that, but he refers to that portion of the work dealing with de rebus diuinis as ea theologia, quam ciuilem uocant, quae a Marco Varrone sedecim uoluminibus explicata est (VII. 1), and to portions of the work as cum enim de simulacris ageret (VI. 10), de regionibus loquens (IV. 31), trium extremorum primum de dis certis cum absoluisset librum, in altero de dis incertis dicere (VII. 17), in hoc libro, quem de dis selectis ultimum scripsit (VII. 5) (an instance which shows that Augustine in the words in primo iuxta finem de regressu animae libro could, in the title de regressu

animae, be still referring only to a part of a larger work), in eodem de dis selectis libro (VII. 23), «n tertio isto de dis selectis (VII. 17), and finally there

are

several

instances

where

misunderstanding

might

arise

with

such expressions as de naturali theologia (VI. 6), and de locis (VII. 28). It is curious to note that in all his references to three of Varro's other works he gives on each occasion a correct or almost correct title. It would seem, as is but natural, that when he was dealing at length with

a particular book, references to its title were omitted to parts of it often wear the guise of a full title.

and references

Augustine's references to books of Cicero in the ciw. Det are sixty-five in number. The « ordinary » title, as for instance de re publica, occurs

thirteen

times.

Titles

in libris Academicis,

which

are

approximately

normal,

for example

occur four times. In other cases the references

are

such as to make the title of the book known, either because a following quotation

can

be traced

to the

book,

or because

the

reference

is suffi-

ciently descriptive. Some items may be of interest and use in our enquiry. Thus the Consolatio de luctu minuendo is referred to as Consolatio de morte filiae (XVIII. 4). The Pro Ligario is referred to with the equally descriptive phrase : Cicero in Caesaris laude locutus est (VIIII. 5). In another place he says : frustra hoc exclamante Cicerone, qui cum de poetis ageret (II. 14). If the quotation following was not known for other reasons to come from the de re publica, someone might have suggested, in spite of all negative evidence, that Cicero wrote a de poetis. Similarly readers might have been misled by others of Augustine's descriptive references such as : recolamus etiam hoc loco illud, quod de Romuli credita diuinitate Tullius admiratur (i.e. in de re publica II. 10), and quamquam nec in ipsis

18

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

philosophiae libris Tullius... cum enim de studiis talibus loqueretur (V. 13) — two possible titles here ; but the reference is to Tusc. disp. I. 2. The Metamorphoses of Apuleius is referred to once, with the description in libris quos asini aurei titulo inscripsit. (XVIII. 18). The de mundo is given its correct title on the one occasion on which it is used (IV. 2), and the de deo Socratis has its correct title once (VIII. 14) and is elsewhere referred to in the words : de moribus daemonum cum loqueretur (VIII. 16). Reference to this last work is most frequent, although the title is mentioned only once. There are nearly thirty references to the Catilina of Sallust, but never an indication of the title. Phrases are used to describe its contents or

parts of its contents, for example, corruptione quam describit Sallustius, and a quo scribit seditiones graues coepisse Sallustius (both II. 21). The Historiae are referred to about a dozen times, once only with its title :

in primo historiae suae libro (II. 18). The one reference to the Jugurtha has no indication of title (XVI. 17). 'There are about

to the Aeneid,

a hundred

references to Virgil,

but a title is given once only —

(X. 27). It would seem that,

over seventy

of them

to the fourth Eclogue

as we have suggested,

Augustine felt it

unnecessary to give titles, or indications of titles, to authors and works which were presumed well known. Hence although their works are used in the ctu. Det, there is no reference to title in the case of many

authors

such as Claudian, Ennius, Lactantius, Livy, Lucan and Persius. Rather

more care is given, for example, to Origen ; in libris quos appellat περὶ ἀρχῶν (XI. 23), although no title is given on the two other occasions when works of his are used. Eusebius' Chronica is given its title three times in six references.

Augustine's references to Plato are instructive.

On one occasion only (VIII. 11), for example, does he refer to the Timaeus by

that

name,

and

even

then

he

adds

a descriptive

title

: in

Timaeo

aulem Plato, quem librum de mundi constitutione conscripsit. In all other cases he refers to this book under the title de mundo or some such title as de dis a se factis (e.g. X. 31, XII. 27, XXII. 26). The case of references to Porphyry's works is of particular interest here. He refers to works of Porphyry

or topics in them over fifty times

in the course of the civ. Dei. The only title (other than the two cases in question of the de regressu animae) which he gives fully (but not fully correctly)

is

the

Philosophy

from

Oracles

: in

libris,

quos

ἐκ

λογίων

φιλοσοφίας! appellat. Twice he refers to the Letter to Anebo, but less formally : cum ad Anebontem scribit. Aegyptium (X. 11), and ipsum, ad quem scribit, Anebontem (also X. 11). In all other cases, apart from prope ad epistulae finem in X. 11 (which obviously refers to the Letter to

1. eglogion, a

beg p; ciu. Dei XIX,

23.

THE

TITLE

: ΠΕΡῚ

THE EK AOTIQN

ΦΙΛΟΣΟΦΙΑΣ

I9

Anebo), indications of the title of the work being used or referred to are not manifestly clear. Such indications as are given usually are concerned with oracles or magic, such as : confitente Porphyrio adque id oraculis deorum suorum probare cuptente (XX. 25) — which, if there had been no mention

of de regressu animae in X. 29 and 32, one

would

confidently

have referred to the Philosophy from Oracles. Briefly, then, we may

conclude from our examination of Augustine's

practice in the case of the ciu. Dei that he used full titles of books sparingly especially in the case of a book with which he was dealing at some length, frequently gave no indications of title at all, and sometimes gave descriptive titles, which had no evident connection with the formal title of the book, or used descriptive titles for parts of a work. The case of his references to Varro's Antiquitates is especially informative. ~ *x

κε

The question can arise, therefore, if the words used twice by Augustine in ciu. Det X. 29 : intuentes Porphyrium in his ipsis libris, ex quibus multa posui, quos de regressu animae scripsit, and X. 32 : cum aulem dicit Porphyrius in primo iuxta finem de regressu animae libro, can be merely a descriptive title of a whole such as (in referring to the Timaeus) quem librum de mundi constitutione conscripsit, or of part of a work such as in his quae scripsit (Varro) de rebus humanis, or in hoc libro, quem de dis selectis ultimum scripsit (Varro) ? The answer must be that they can. Indeed when one looks closely at the first mention of this title one may feel that there may be something unusual about it. The reference is rather prolix : the books are indicated by his, ipsis, libris, quibus,

and qwos. Either in his (ipsis) libris ex quibus multa posus or tn his (ipsis) libris quos de regressu animae scripsit would have told the contemporary reader which books were in question. The use of both reminds one of the earlier title used by Augustine : in Timaeo quem librum de mundi constitutione conscripsit. If we have the same thing here, then isis... ex quibus multa posui takes the place of some formal title (perhaps one in Greek) and quos de regressu animae scripsit is descriptive in the same way as is quem librum de mundi constitutione conscripsit. 'The guide to the identification, then, would be the contents of the preceding chapters : ex quibus multa posut. And there is no doubt, as we shall see, that — prescinding from the mention of the title de regressu animae — the contents of these chapters point to the title Philosophy from Oracles. We are justified, then, in examining the contents of ciu. Dei X with our eye on the Philosophy from Oracles. As we have said, if it were not for the mention of the title de regressu animae, they would long ago have been related to it. If these words

have

misled

us, then they have

20

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN

AUGUSTINE

been responsible for serious misunderstandings in the study of Augustine, Porphyry, and the Chaldean Oracles. *

x

&*

It may be helpful to glance briefly at the use of the title Περὶ τῆς ἐκ

λογίων φιλοσοφίας both in Augustine

and, in this case, other authors

also.

The first thing that strikes us about it is that Eusebius

mention

it. Thus Augustine

it they

both

employ some

writes : nam

when Augustine and

formality

in introducing

in libris, quos ἐκ λογίων dudogodias!

apellat, in quibus exsequitur ... Eusebius' reference to the title is also : somewhat unusual. On at least eight occasions in the course of the prae. eu. he mentions the title formally always using these words i ἐν οἷς ἐπέγραψε Περὶ τῆς ἐκ λογίων φιλοσοφίας. Although he does use the same

formula

in referring

on four

of several

occasions

de abstinentia®, and once uses ἐν οἷς dvréypaije*

when

to Porphyry's

referring

to his

Βοήθῳ Περὶ ψυχῆς, in all other places — when referring, for example, to the Against the Christians, the Letter to Anebo, Recitatto Philologica,

he uses

no such

formal

words,

On Images,

or the

nor is it his normal

practice to do so when referring to the titles of other peoples’ books’. Apart from Augustine and Eusebius, Theodoret, who, like them, was interested in refuting Porphyry and took issue with the Philosophy from

Oracles,

refers

to the

title five

times®,

and

once

follows

Eusebius

in formally drawing attention to it with the words : 6 Περὶ τῆς ἐκ λογίων φιλοσοφίας éméypaiev?. Philoponus refers to the book as follows : ἐν τῷ δευτέρῳ λόγῳ τοῦ περὶ τῆς ἐκ λογίων φιλοσοφίας. The other sources for the Philosophy from Oracles such as Aeneas of Gaza, Chrysostom, Cyril, Justin Martyr, Lactantius, and Nicephorus Gregoras, either do not mention the title of the book at all, or do so in a manner which is of no value either way in our enquiry. Only Firmicus Maternus

. ciu. Dei XIX 23. eglogion a b e g p. . Mras, I. pp. 152, 176, 178, 206, 232 ( bis), 287, 293. Also e.g. in Dem. ew. III. 7. . $bid., pp. 36, 118, 182, 183.

. fbid., II, p. 287. He uses sometimes a descriptive title such as, for example

Paws

Wewndn

however, says squarely ; in libris enim, quos appellat Περὶ τῆς ἐκ λογίων φιλοσοφίας.

ψυχῆς for Plato's Phaedo. P.G. Vol. 83, pars. 705, 775, 954, 957, 963. loc. cit. par. 957.

. De opificio munds IV. 20 (Reichardt). . De errore prof. relig. XIII.

(Mras II, p. 2 37) ἐν τῷ Περὶ

THE

TITLE

: ΠΕΡῚ

ΤΗΣ EK ΛΟΓΊΩΝ

ΦΙΛΟΣΟΦΙΑ͂Σ

2I

This rapid survey justifies us in thinking that, if the Philosophy from Oracles and the de regressu animae are one and the same

book, the most

usual title of that book in Greek was Περὶ τῆς ἐκ λογίων φιλοσοφίας. Another, and an important, consideration arising from this survey is that ordinarily when ecclesiastical writers took account of oracles used by Porphyry, they either explicitly referred them to Porphyry's

Philosophy from Oracles, or their references have frequently been traced to that book. Are we to suppose that in ciu. Dei X, when Augustine, who

later refers to Porphyry's Philosophy from Oracles by name, Chaldean

Oracles

used

by

Porphyry

—

oracles

which

treats of

it will

be

our

purpose to show can belong to the known fragments of the Philosophy from

Oracles, —

he is not also, in all probability,

referring to the PA:lo-

sophy from Oracles, even if he uses what may be a descriptive title ? Or, to put it in another way, is there any evidence from antiquity — other than the passages in the ciu. Det — in which oracles used by Porphyry are quoted as coming from the de regressu animae ? 'The answer

is in the negative. Even the uncertain evidence of Aeneas of Gaza may best be explained in terms of the identity of the de regressu animae with the Philosophy from Oracles}. . Before we leave the question of the title of Porphyry’s book as given, presumably by him, in Greek, we might draw attention to the fact that scholars have already supposed that in some other cases separate titles actually refer to the same works of Porphyry. Thus Busse and

Immisch have suggested that the two titles Περὶ διαστάσεως Πλάτωνος καὶ ᾿Αριστοτέλους and Περὶ τοῦ μίαν εἶναι τὴν Πλάτωνος καὶ ᾿Αριστοτέλους αἵρεσιν refer to the same work. Likewise modern editors identify the Πρὸς ᾿Αριστείδην with the Eis τὸ Θουκυδίδου προοίμιον.

One final remark It is awkward

about the title : Περὶ τῆς ἐκ λογίων φιλοσοφίας.

to handle, and awkward to translate into Latin : we have,

in fact, no Latin translation of it from antiquity which, in view of the notoriety of the book in ecclesiastical circles, may

seem strange.

I. See pp. 41 ff., 147 f.

2. Cf. Bidez, op. cit. pp. 68* and was known as Περὶ πέντε φωνῶν.

71*. Similarly the

Πορφυρίου

εἰσαγωγὴ

τοῦ Φοίνικος

CHAPTER

The

THREE

Scope of the de regressu animae

Scholars have correctly taken the title de regressu

animae to mean

the return of the soul from the body to the Father. Thus Bidez writes : « Sous quel titre Porphyre avait-il publié son ouvrage ? Nous savons par

Lydus que

composa

Jamblique — qui fut presque en tout l'émule de Porphyre —

un traité Περὶ

καθόδου ψυχῆς. Certes, le mot

xafó8os, qui

s'applique au ‘ retour ' d'un exilé dans sa patrie, pourrait avoir signifi par analogie le ‘ retour ' de l'àme dans le ciel. Mais les textes réunis par Wyttenbach, ainsi que le titre du chapitre VIII de la quatriéme Ennéade, donnent

lieu de penser

que,

dans l'école comme

dans les mystéres, le

mot κάθοδος s'opposant à ἄνοδος, était employé pour désigner la descente des ámes et l'incarnation. Holstenius et Zeller n'ont donc pas si mal deviné en intitulant plutót l'ouvrage de Porphyre Περὶ τῆς ἀνόδου τῆς ψυχῆς. On trouve le mot ἄνοδος employé avec le méme sens chez Jamblique, et dans un fragment de Porphyre lui-méme, on lit καὶ ὅτι

ὡς παῖδας πατέρων ἀποσπασθέντας εὔχεσθαι προσήκει περὶ τῆς πρὸς τοὺς ἀληθινοὺς ἡμῶν πατέρας, τοὺς θεούς, ἐπανόδου, ce qui suggérerait l'idée d'intituler nos fragments, peut-étre, Περὶ ψυχῆς ἐπανόδου". ». It is eminently clear, then, that Bidez took the book as dealing mainly with the return of the soul to the Father. Courcelle appears

to take a similar view — for example : « Contre M. Cumont ... je crois que les emprunts au De regressu se limitent aux théories de Macrobe sur le retour de l’4me ; mais pour la descente de l'àme dans les lieux inférieurs, Macrobe s'inspire du Περὶ Zrvyós?. » Itis

easy

to understand

why

scholars should have

taken

this

view

of the book. In particular the second of the texts (οὖν. Dei X. 32) in which the words de regressu animae occur can strongly suggest such a meaning — since the moti/ of the way back to the Father is present as

1. op. cit. pp. 160 f. 2. Les Lettres Grecques en Occident, Paris, 1943, pp. 29 f.

24

well.

« PHILOSOPHY

Thus

we

read

: Haec

FROM

est religio,

ORACLES

quae

» IN

uniuersalem

AUGUSTINE

continet.

uiam

animae liberandae, quoniam nulla nist hac liberari potest. Haec est enim quodam modo regalis uta, quae una ducit ad regnum, non temporali fastigio nutabundum, sed aeternitatis firmitate securum. Cum autem dicit Porphyrius in primo iuxta finem de regressu animae líbro nondum recebtum in unam quandam sectam, quae wuniuersalem contineat uiam animae liberandae ... procul dubio confitetur esse aliquam. Nevertheless we know that, although the #itle of the book : de regressu animae indicates that Porphyry treated there of the return of the soul

from body to the Father, he also treated with emphasis the connected question of the re-descent in the Platonic cycle of the soul from the Father to body.

He

disagreed

with

had been joined to human

both

Plato

and

Plotinus

that souls

that

bodies should return subsequently to join

a bestial body, and he furthermore contended that perfectly purified souls never returned to body, human or bestial, at all!. This teaching is set out at length in a number of places in the ctu. Det but especially

in X. 29 and 30, where its derivation from the de regressu animae is obvious : (29) A» wero quod ipsum corpus morte depositum et in melius resurrectione mutatum tam incorruptibile neque mortale in superna subuexit, (Christus),

hoc

fortasse

credere

recusatis

intuentes

Porphyrium

in

his

tpsis libris, ex quibus mulia posui, quos de regressu animae scripsit, tam crebro praecipere omne corpus esse fugrendum, ut anima possit beata permanere cum Deo? ... (30) Nam Platonem animas hominum post mortem reuolut usque ad corpora bestiarum scripsisse certtssium est. Hanc sententiam Porphyrii doctor tenuit et Plotinus ; Porphyrio tamen iure displicuit. In hominum sane non sua quae dimiserant, sed alia noua corpora redire humanas animas arbitratus est ...ex magna parte correctus est in hac opinione Porphyrius, wt saltem in solos homines humanas animas jraecipitari posse sentirel... Dicit. etiam ad hoc Deum animam mundo dedisse, ut materiae cognoscens mala ad Patrem recurreret nec aliquando iam talium polluta contagione teneretur. These ideas are expressed over and over again in these chapters and also in other sections of the cu. Det with which we shall deal in due course?, This aspect of the de regressu animae is summed up briefly by the phrase often repeated by Porphyry in the de regressu animae and as

often repeated by Augustine in the ciu. Dei : omne corpus est fugiendum. The important thing to remember is that Porphyry, as represented by Augustine, thinks of this principally in terms of fleeing re-union with body. It is not merely that he counsels us to shun the body in this life,

1. Cf. H. Dórrie, ‘ Kontroversen um die Seelenwanderung im Hermes 85. 4 (Dec. 1957) pp. 422 ff. 2. Cf. XIII, 18, 19 ; Sermo 241. 7 aud pp. 72 ff., 92 f.

kaiserzeitlichen

Platonismus,

THE

SCOPE

OF

THE

« DE

REGRESSU

ANIMAE

»

25

but he places still greater emphasis on fleeing from re-union with a body, once one has got to the next life. To this extent the book dealt with the κάθοδος of the soul. It is to be noted in passing that the question of omne corpus fugiendum

as expounded in the de regressu animae is introduced at this point in the ciu. Dei in relation to Christ's resurrection. Augustine asks if the Platonists do not accept Christianity because it teaches that Christ's body — and the bodies of the saved — is in heaven ? For Porphyry teaches in

the de regressu animae that being in heaven and being in body are incompatible. The question arises as to whether or not Porphyry in the de regressu animae

in

considering

this

question

had

taken

account

of

Christian

teaching ? Two things are certain : he could have had the Christian teaching on this matter in mind! ; he did consider the question of Christ's resurrected body in the earlier (if not identical) Philosophy from Oracles. A third certainty might be added : Augustine supposed that Porphyry introduced a change into the teaching of Plato and even Plotinus from a desire to avoid accepting Christianity for apparently rational grounds :. quid est quod, ut beati simus, omne corpus fugiendum esse opinamini, ut fidem Christianam quasi rationabiliter fugere uideamini, nisi quia illud est, quod iterum dico : Christus est humilis, uos superbi (ciu. Dei X. 29). In short Augustine states that the omne corpus fugiendum, ut anima possit beata permanere cum Deo — a characteristic refrain of the de regressu animae —

was introduced by Porphyry precisely to counte-

ract the Christian teaching of the resurrection. He repeats this idea twice in X. 29 : Qwid ergo est, quod, cum wobis fides Christiana suadetur, tunc. obliuiscimini, aut ignorare uos fingitis, quid disputare aut docere soleatis ? (that is, that divinities can be joined to bodies) Qwid causae est, cur propter opiniones uestras, quas uos ipsi oppugnatis, Christiani esse nolitis, nisi quia Christus humiliter uenit et uos superbi estis? ? On the face of it this unqualified supposition of Augustine should lead us to the conclusion that Porphyry in the de regressu animae contested the Christian doctrine implication.

of

the

resurrection

either

explicitly

or

by

clear

When we add to this the texts from ciu. Dei X. 29 in which Augustine says that Porphyry, presumably in the de regressu animae also, refused in addition — and for the same reasons — to accept the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation, we can but conclude that to Augustine, at any rate, the de regressu animae seemed a serious anti-Christian document. It was as serious, if we are to judge even by οὖν. Dei

X alone, and treated

I. According to the received dating, the de regressu animae was composed after the κατὰ Χριστιανῶν (C. 274 A.D.) cf. Bidez, op. cit. pp. 67, 81, 87. But see p. 33. 2. Cf. a strong statement of their view in civ. Dei XIII. 16.

26

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

of similar topics, as the Philosophy from Oracles! which Eusebius similarly confronts in his prae. ew. The texts from ciu. Dei X. 29. contesting the Incarnation can be represented by the following : incarnationem incommulabilis Filis Dei, qua saluamur, ... non uultis agnoscere... O st cognoutsses Dei graliam per Iesum. Chrisium dominum nosirum ipsamque eius incarnationem, qua hominis animam corpusque suscepit ... et quia naturaliter indidit (Christus) nobis, ut beati inmortalesque esse cupiamus, manens beatus suscipiensque mortalem, ut nobis tribueret quod amamus, perpetiendo docwit contemnere quod timemus. It seems necessary, however, to be on our guard against two things :

firstly, the simple acceptance of Augustine's interpretation of Porphyry's doctrine, that a divinity cannot be joined to body, as a deliberate anti-

Christian move — a rhetorical and polemical writer must be judged severely in these matters; secondly (and to the opposite effect) we should be careful not to underrate the possible anti-Christian bias of the de regressu animae — we should not suppose that it was a detached exposition in philosophy. To resume : we should not, moreover, because of the great importance and interest of the treatment of the omne corpus fugiendum from the « heavenly » (and anti-Christian, if Augustine is to be trusted) point of view overlook the fact that the phrase was also used by Porphyry in relation to purgation in this life. Thus in cis. Det XII 27 we read : Vnde quoniam Porbhyrius propter animae purgationem dicit corpus omne [ugsendum simulque cum suo Platone aliisque Platonicis sentit eos, qui $mmoderate atque inhoneste uixerint, propter luendas poenas ad. corpora redire morialia. More explicitly in cis. Dei XIII. 16 we have : perfectam beatitudinem (animae) iunc illi fieri existimant, cum omni prorsus corpore exuta ad. Deum simplex et sola et quodam modo nuda redierit —— even though here the actual phrase omne corpus fugiendum is not used. Purgation in this life was definitely, as everyone assumes, a theme. We might conclude by drawing attention to a short text in the de ordine II. 31 which is helpful in giving a general idea of the development of the idea of the regressus animae ; homo est animal rationale mortale. Hic genere posito, quod animal dictum est, widemus additas duas differenlias, quibus credo admonendus erat homo, et quo sibi redeundum esset εἰ unde fugiendum. Nam ut progressus animae usque ad mortalia lapsus est, ila regressus esse in rationem debel; uno werbo a bestiis, quod rationale, alio a diwinis separatur, quod mortale dicitur. Illud igitur nisi tenuerit, bestia erit, hinc nisi se auerterit, diuina non erit. Since it is generally

I. An agreed fragment of which is found just immediately before in X. 27, cf. p. 126. See pp. 97 ff. for a brief comparison

of the

Porphyrian topics of ciu. Dei X which

fragments of the

Philosophy from Oracles with the

is taken to be dominated by the de regressu animae.

THE

SCOPE

OF

THE

«ΡῈ REGRESSU

ANIMAE

»

,

27

agreed! that Augustine read the de regressu animae before he wrote the de ordine, readers will have little difficulty in seeing how aptly the ideas expressed in this text generally fit in with what we have been discussing in connection with the de regressu animae as it reveals itself in ciu. Dei X (especially 29 ff.) and elsewhere. We may note that progressus is employed by Augustine for the Greek x«d0o80s*. The basic description of god, man, and beast as animal is here. The injunction to turn away from what is mortale, that is, body, and fly to what is rationale, that is to the divine, is very clear. We cease to be divinities, if we are joined to bodies ; if we are so joined, we must fly the body. Both aspects of what

we have been discussing — that divinities as well as human souls should fly the body —

are clearly present.

Liberation of the soul : this is the theme of the de regressw animae expressed in the text, (X. 32) : Cum autem dicit Porphyrius in primo, iuxta finem de regressu animae libro nondum receptum in unam quandam sectam, quod uniuersalem contineat uiam animae liberandae, uel a philosophia werissima aliqua uel ab Indorum moribus ac disciplina, aut inductione Chaldaeorum aut alia qualibet uta ... procul dubio confitetur esse aliquam.

We

have

already

seen that this very text may

carry within

itself an echo of the title Philosophy from Oracles*. We shall now

say

something briefly on the nature of that book — one greatly misunderstood,

perhaps precisely because of its title.

1. Cf. Courcelle, op. cit. pp. 167 ff. 2. Cf. similar uses of the word in cis. Dest XI. 23. 3. See p. 12.

CHAPTER

FOUR

The Scope of the Philosophy from

Oracles

At this point it is necessary to dispel certain possible illusions as to the nature of the Philosophy from Oracles. Very few of the fragments come to us from any source other than Eusebius. Eusebius quoted them in his prae. eu. in a context dealing largely with demons. Therefore the fragments as we have them convey for the most part matter relating to this point!. We can get a more accurate idea of the scope of the

whole

book

from

Porphyry’s

own

words,

quoted

by

Eusebius,

in his preface to the Philosophy from Oracles : βέβαιος δὲ καὶ μόνιμος ὁ ἐντεῦθεν ὡς ἂν ἐκ μόνου βεβαίου τὰς ἐλπίδας τοῦ σωθῆναι ἀρυτόμενος" οἷς δὴ καὶ μεταδώσεις μηδὲν ὑφαιρούμενος... ἔξει δὲ ἡ παροῦσα συναγωγὴ πολλῶν μὲν τῶν κατὰ φιλοσοφίαν δογμάτων ἀναγραφήν, ὡς οἱ θεοὶ τἀληθὲς ἔχειν ἐθέσπισαν᾽ ἐπ᾽ ὀλίγον δὲ καὶ τῆς χρηστικῆς ἁψόμεθα πραγματείας, Tw πρός τε τὴν θεωρίαν ὀνήσει καὶ τὴν ἄλλην κάθαρσιν τοῦ βίου". ἣν δ᾽ ἔχει ὠφέλειαν ἡ συναγωγή, μάλιστα εἴσονται ὅσοιπερ τὴν ἀλήθειαν ὠδίναντες ηὔξαντό ποτε τῆς ἐκ θεῶν ἐπιφανείας τυχόντες ἀνάπαυσιν λαβεῖν τῆς ἀπορίας διὰ τὴν τῶν λεγόντων ἀξιόπιστον διδασκαλίαν. He then adds a plea not to divulge this doctrine to the many : δοτέον

δὴ τοῖς τὸν βίον ἐνστησαμένοις πρὸς τὴν ψυχῆς σωτηρίανϑ. It will be noticed in this important

extract from

Porphyry

himself

that the principal aim of the Philosophy from Oracles was the salvation

of the soul : this is twice mentioned : 6 ἐντεῦθεν ὡς dv ἐκ μόνου βεβαίου 1. But cf. pp. 97 for a brief comparison of the fragments with the Prophyrian topics of ciu. Dei X which is taken to be dominated by the de regressu animae. 2. Elsewhere, prae eu. IV. 6, Mras I. 176, Porphyry's intention is given as: ἱκανοὺς εἶναι

als τε ἀπόδειξιν τῆς τῶν Θεολογουμένων ἀρετῆς, eis τε προτροπὴν ἧς αὐτῷ φίλον ... ὀνομάζειν θεοσοφίας... 3. Prae. eu. IV. 7, Mras I pp. 177 f. (Wolff pp. 109 f.).

30

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

τὰς ἐλπίδας τοῦ σωθῆναι dpvrópevos, and δοτέον δὴ rois τὸν βίον ἐνστησαμένοις πρὸς τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς σωτηρίαν. This, en passant, corresponds to the aim of the de regressu.animae as outlined in ciu. Dei X. 5423. The matter, moreover, of the Philosophy from Oracles is here set out under two heads, the first of which is clearly indicated as the chief, and the second as being of lesser importance : the book contained much

(πολλῶν μέν) on philosophy

and a little (ἐπ᾽ ὀλίγον δέ) on divination.

This of course is not at all sufficiently represented, at any rate not obviously, in the fragments found in Eusebius and collected by Wolff. Nevertheless we have Porphyry's own word for it. It is to be remarked

that

when

Augustine

formally

introduces

the

consideration

of that

book of Porphyry’s which lies behind most of ctu. Dei X he indicated a similar division to that employed by Porphyry in this introduction

to the Philosophy from Oracles. Augustine there says : Nam et Porphyrius quandam quasi purgationem animae per theurgian, cunctanter tamen et pudibunda quodam modo disputatione promittit ; reuerstonem uero ad Deum hanc artem praestare cuiquam negat ; ut uideas eum inter uitium sacrilegae curtositatis et bhilosophiae professionem sententiis allernantibus fiuctuare?.. Here there is the same division between philosophy and divination. At the end of οὐ. Det X. 328, when Augustine is drawing to

a close

his remarks

upon

Porphyry's

book,

he

makes

a comment

which may be taken in a similar way : Cum autem dicit. Porphyrius in primo iuxta finem de vegressu animae libro nondum receptum in unam quandam sectam, quae uniuersalem contineat uiam animae liberandae, uel a philosophia uerissima aliqua uel ab Indorum moribus ac disciplina, aut inductione Chaldaeorum aut alia qualibet uia... et utique se a Chaldaeis oracula diuina swmsisse ... Here again there is a division between philosophia and divination. Finally in ciu. Det XIX 23 Augustine, this time speaking explicitly of the Philosophy from Oracles, indicates the same combination of topics : Nam in libris, quos ἐκ λογίων φιλοσοφίας appellat, in quibus exsequitur adque conscribit rerum ad philosophiam pertinentium uelut. diuina responsa ... ᾿ "We learn more about the contents of the Philosophy from Oracles from Augustine himself, from ciu. Dei XIX 23 : « Sunt, inquit ( Porphyrius in the Philosophy from Oracles) spiritus terreni minimi loco quodam malorum daemonum potestati subiecti ... ab his ergo Hebraei daemonibus pessimis et minoribus spiritibus uetabant religiosos et ipsis uacare prohibebant ; uenerari autem magis caelestes deos, amplius autem uenerari Deum Patrem. Hoc autem, inquit, et di praecipiunt et in superioribus ostendimus,

quem ad modum animum aduertere ad Deum monent et illum colere wbique

THE

SCOPE

OF

THE

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

»

31

imperant. Verum indocti et inpiae naturae, quibus uere fatum non concessit ab dis dona obtinere neque habere Iouis inmortalis notionem, non audientes et deos et diuinos wiros deos quidem omnes recusauerunt, brohibitos autem daemones

et hos non odisse, sed reuereri. Deum

autem

simulantes

colere,

ea sola, per quae Deus adoratur, non agunt. Nam Deus quidem, utpote omnium Pater, nullius indiget ; sed nobis est bene, cum eum per iustitiam et castitalem aliasque uirtutes adoramus, ipsam uitam precem ad ipsum facientes per imitationem et inquisitionem de ipso. Inquisitio enim purgat, inquit ; imitatio detficat adfectionem ad ipsum operando. » Bene quidem praedicauit Deum Patrem, et quibus sit colendus moribus dixit... It is evident from this passage that in the Philosophy from Oracles Porphyry treated by quotation or comment or both oi a First Hypostasis, the Father, and the manner of his cult : Porphyry says that earlier

in the book he had spoken of how we should turn our: minds to the Father and worship him everywhere. He does not need any offering; on the contrary we do good to ourselves when we worship him through the practice of justice, chastity, and the other virtues — when we make

our life a prayer to him in imitating him and seeking for him. This seeking for him is purgation, and the imitation of him deifies us in directing our love towards him. This is a lofty doctrine, worthy of Porphyry at his best, and so far removed from the excesses of divination and demonology that sacrifice to evil demons is strictly condemned in the passage. The emphasis is not on material sacrifice to any deity, but rather on the worship of the

mind.

We

shall come back to this passage again and study its impli-

cations for our enquiry in full. For the moment

it may be sufficient to

use it in order to put the Philosophy from Oracles in its proper light — to show, however briefly here, that its doctrine was as exalted as that of the de regressu animae as revealed by Augustine in ciu. Dei X. There

is,

therefore,

no

impossibility

in

the

de

regressu

animae

and

the Philosophy from Oracles being identified, either on account of any marked

difference in topic or, what may

be called, orientation.

On the

contrary there is a strong suggestion at the outset that they are but one

and

the

same

work.

There

are

seeming

which we must next proceed to examine.

I. See

pp.

55 ff.

difficulties,

nevertheless,

CHAPTER

The

FIVE

Dating of the Philosophy from Oracles and the de regressu animae

Bidez in the preface (p. 11) to his Vie de Porphyre (Gand 1913) quotes Bernays' opinion of forty years before : celui qui veut avoir une idée de sa vie et juger Son ceuvre ne découvre que des sujets d'incertitude. Nevertheless Bidez has left a picture (even if not in itself particularly consistent) of the development of Porphyry's mind and chronology of his works which at once belies the incertitude admitted and has been accepted with too great confidence by his successors. According to Bidez Porphyry was born about 232/3 A.D., went to Alexandria about 248 (p. 13), came to Rome about 262/3 (p. 38), and went to Sicily about 268 (p. 53). He conjectured that the Philosophy from Oracles (p. 15), On Images (p. 25), and perhaps the History of Philosophy (p. 34) were written before Porphyry met Plotinus in Rome, and that the de regressu animae was written after the Letter to Anebo which embodies Plotinian ideas (p. 81) and therefore, it is presumed, after 262/3. Sodano! places the de regressu animae after 268, and Dodds? puts it after Plotinus' death in 269. Bidez’

hypotheses

are based

on

the

external

evidence

of Eunapius

and the alleged internal contradictions of the two works with which we are here concerned.

Here is the text from Eunapius (V.S. p. 6 ed. Boissonade, quoted by Bidez pp. 47* ff) : αὐτὸς μὲν οὖν φησι (νέος δὲ ὧν ἴσως ταῦτα ἔγραφεν, ὡς ἔοικεν) ἐπιτυχεῖν χρηστηρίῳ μηδενὶ τῶν δημοσίων, ἐν δὲ αὐτῳ τῷ βιβλίῳ καταγράφει" καὶ μετὰ ταῦτα ἄλλα πραγματεύεται πολλά, ὅπως χρὴ τούτων ποιεῖσθαι τὴν ἐπιμέλειαν. This Bidez takes to refer to the Philosophy from Oracles. He further concludes from this external evidence

1. ed. Naples 1958. 2. The Greeks and the Irrational, University of California 1951, p. 287.

34

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN

AUGUSTINE

that the Philosophy from Oracles was written νέος δὲ ὦν. To do so, however, with confidence is to ignore not only the ἴσως and ὡς ἔοικεν but also the force of κατα-γράφει (which properly means to register what has previously been recorded : éypadev). It is to be noted also that the

μέν and δέ separate the φησι (véos δὲ dv) and the βιβλίῳ καταγράφει. Unless Eunapius is writing carelesslyit is legitimate to interpret the text

as meaning

that

he

reported

in the

Philosophy

from

Oracles

an

account of the incident made when he was young. But even if Bidez’ interpretation were correct, the term véos in the context could imply, if anything, a time later than Porphyry’s meeting with Plotinus : for less than twenty lines earlier on Eunapius

describes

how Plotinus went to Sicily in search of Porphyry : πεφευγότα νεανίσκον ἀναζητῶν, ie. about 268 (on Bidez’ own reckoning) when Porphyry was about 36. Eunapius was, moreover, impressed by the age to which Porphyry lived : eis γῆρας βαθύ in relation to which νέος can have some extension. The whole trend of Eunapius’ account in fact conveys the impression that

Porphyry

rushed

through

his

studies

both

before

and

in

his

Athenian period : τυχὼν δὲ τῆς προσηκούσης παιδείας, ἀνά τε ἔδραμεν τοσοῦτον καὶ ἐπέδωκεν ὡς “ογγίνου μὲν ἦν ἀκροατὴς καὶ ἐκόσμει τὸν διδάσκαλον ἐντὸς ὀλίγου χρόνου. Although the learning acquired from Longinus is described as τὴν ἄκραν παιδείαν, nevertheless it is also

called τὴν πρώτην παιδείαν in relation to the subsequent studies with Plotinus.

Significantly

the

Plotinus is on learning . Gero τῶν

ἄλλων

καὶ

emphasis

on

his earlier

relationship

with

: Πλωτίνῳ συνῆλθεν εἰς ὁμιλίαν, πάντων ἐπελάπροσέθετο

φέρων

ἑαυτὸν

ἐκείνῳ.

᾿Ακορέστως

δὲ

τῆς παιδείας ἐμφορούμενος καὶ τῶν πηγαίων ἐκείνων καὶ τεθειασμένων λόγων, χρόνον μέν τινα els τὴν ἀκρόασιν ἤρκεσεν ... εἶτα ... διαπλεύσας εἰς Σικελίαν... It is only after the description of Plotinus' recovering him from depression in Sicily that we get the first mention of Porphyry's writing anything — and the impression is then conveyed of feverish activity.

There is therefore in Eunapius' account perhaps more evidence for believing that the Philosophy from Oracles was written after Porphyry's return

from

Sicily

(268)

than

before

he

met

Plotinus

period!.

or any

earlier

. * *

There

remains

the

question

there is, it is contended,

ck

of alleged

doctrinal

incompatibility

:

an abyss between the Philosophy from Oracles

. One wonders if this could provide some explanation Porphyry as Siculus : cf. de. consensu eu. 1.23.

for

Augustine’s

references

to

THE DATING

and

OF THE

« PHILOSOPHY...»

the Letter to Anebo

AND

THE « DE REGRESSU...»

or the de regressu animae

which

35

are accepted

as having been written after meeting with Plotinus (Bidez p. 15. n. 3). Here Bidez is guilty of misrepresentation : le cauchemar démoniaque qui obséde la Philosophie des oracles (p. 22) : démonologie, magie, astrologie, superstitions orientales, c'est là d'ailleurs ce que nous retrouvons

d'un bout à l'autre (p. 15) ; le traité nous donne tout un systéme de théurgie.. au premier rang les superstitions les plus arriérées (p. 17) ; ce manuel de magie (p. 18). We have seen both from the preface to the Philosophy from Oracles itself and Augustine’s references in ciw. Dei XIX. 23 that Bidez' description, as applied to the book as a whole, is in absolute contradiction with that given by Porphyry. Moreover the fact that Porphyry quotes oracles does not mean that he approves

of everything contained in them. A too common pitfall in connection with the study of the Philosophy from Oracles is to attribute to Porphyry doctrine which he quotes, frequently only to criticize. Augustine took pains at times to avoid this, even if he did not always do so!. The matter is further complicated by the possibility that Porphyry's attitude may have been equivocal. In the main, however, Bidez’ description is

misleading. It is also contended that whereas in the de regressu animae the Chaldean Oracles are quoted, there is no trace of them in the Philosophy from Oracles. Therefore the Philosophy from Oracles is earlier than the de regressu animae. Thus E. R. Dodds writes : « but there is no trace of his having quoted the Chaldean Oracles (or used the term theurgy) in this work ; probably he was still unaware of their existence when he wrote it ... it was probably... after the death of Plotinus, that he disinterred the Chaldean Oracles from the obscurity in which they survived (as such books do) for more than a century, wrote a commentary on them, and

« made

continual

Chaldean

mention

Oracles,

of them

it is believed?,

» in his de regressw animae?.

were

written

by

one

Julianus

The who

lived under Marcus Aurelius (A.D. 121 - 80) in Rome. To suppose that Porphyry, when writing a book on oracles one hundred years after Julianus, is more likely not to have known the Chaldean Oracles than to

have known them is surely less justifiable than to suppose the opposite — other things being equal. But other things are not equal : not only are the Chaldeans mentioned in the Philosophy from Oracles, but H. Lewy in his recent book concludes : the « Chaldean Oracles appear to have constituted the nucleus of the

4$uo€Wwnu

collection published in ...0n the Philosophy of the Oracles »*. It is no

. Cf.

ciu. Dei

X.

21,

23.

See p.

8o.

. op. cit. p. 287. ibid. pp. 283 ff. ; Lewy, op. cit. pp. 3 ff. . P. 64 f. ; cf. op. cit. pp. 8, 44, 47, 51 ff.

36

« PHILOSOPHY

part of of this E. R. theurgy

FROM

ORACLES

» IN

AUGUSTINE

our purpose to review Lewy's arguments here ; but the conclusion study will supply independent confirmation on this point. Dodds attaches importance to the alleged absence of the term from the Philosophy from Oracles — a term sufficiently technical

to indicate a date separate from, in fact earlier to, the date of the de

regressu animae. But one must remember with Professor Dodds that « the special branch of magic known as theurgy ...is still imperfectly understood ...much is still obscure »!. If while the study is obscure we determine the meanings of terms progress will become difficult. One

must insist that the thing is more important than the term, and Dodds’ own total report on the Philosophy from Oracles elsewhere reads : « extensive fragments preserved, containing curious information about theurgtc practices »*. In this he was following Bidez who refers several times to theurgy in the Philosophy from Oracles : tout l'appareil de la théurgie (p. 24), le systéme de théurgie que Porphyre avait professé d'abord (p. 27 cf. p. 17). In any case Iamblichus, for example, used the term so loosely that a conclusion from its use is quite impossible. Lewy has now shown that the term /heurgy cannot be confined to magical actions,

but « designates in the writings of the later Neo-Platonists method of union with the gods and the supra-rational highest order of the divine attainable to a human being ception of the term fits in very well with the nature of

both a practical union with the »*. Such a conthe Philosophy

from Oracles as set out in its preface’. The term, however, does in fact occur in a fragment of the Chaldean

Oracles (Lydus, Mens. II. 10. p. 31, 16 = Kroll 59) : οὐ yap ὑφ᾽ εἱμαρτὴν ἀγέλην

πίπτουσι

Θεουργοΐδ. If, as Lewy

maintains, the Chaldean Oracles

formed the nucleus of the collection used in the Philosophy from Oracles, the absence of the term in the fragments collected by Wolff can hardly

be considered so decisive. More serious as an indication of an abyss between the Phtlosophy from Oracles and the de regressu animae would be a conflict in attitudes towards the Plotinian hypostases. It is not necessary to agree with Bernays’ suggestion’ that Porphyry disagreed with Plotinus about these hypostases$. It is sufficient for the present to point out that in

sbpbbbbbb

this matter both the Philosophy from Oracles and the de regressu animae reflect principally a background of Middle Platonism. In point of fact

op.

cit. pp.

285

ff.

. Oxford Classical Dictionary s. v. Porphyty.

. See Lewy, op. cif. p. 464. bid. p. 463. See

p.

29.

See Lewy,

op. cit. p. 212, n. 143 and p. 461, n. 2.

ibid. p. 506, n. 38. See for another point

of difference

p. 24.

THE DATING

OF THE « PHILOSOPHY...» AND THE « DE REGRESSU...»

the de regressu animae reveals as much from Oracles. Augustine specifically notes st enim tertiam, sicut Plotinus ubi de disputat ...iste autem cum dicil medium, Moreover the general tone of the account

37

of this as does the Philosophy that it disagrees with Plotinus : tribus principalibus substantiis non postponit, sed interponit}. at this point is Chaldean rather

than Plotinian.

The principal object of Parts II and III of the present study is, setting arbitrary

notions

aside,

to reveal

the extent

of the concord

between

the Philosophy from Oracles and the de regressu animae : this as an argument is more fundamental, comprehensive and reliable than the absence of individual words or notions from a collection of fragments. . If we accept the received dating of the de regressu animae, i.e. after 263 and more probably after 268, and if we identify it with the Philosophy from Oracles, then we must face the possibility that in the Philosophy from Oracles use could have been made by Porphyry of even the latest of Plotinus’essays.

Professor Dodds supposes* that Porphyry, in admitting in the de regressu

animae that theurgic reAerai could purify the πνευματικὴ ψυχή, while remaining still a Plotinian at heart had made dangerous concessions to the followers of the theurgists. It may be that because he was reluctant to think that such concessions could be made during the lifetime of Plotinus that he dates the de regressu animae after Plotinus’ death, Porphyry would thus seem to have progressed from the uncritical period of the Philosophy from Oracles, to a Plotinian critical period, to a relapse into the theurgy of the de regressu animae.

But there has been, as Dodds

admits, a growing volume of opinion which would see in Plotinus not only a philosopher, but a theurgist also?; his arguments against this position do not seem stronger than those which he opposes —

and are

weakened considerably if one accepts, in addition to the magical, a non-magical supra-rational meaning for theurgy*. The fact that the revelations

of Zoroaster,

Zostrianus

and

the Gnostics

were

noticed by

Plotinus and criticised in his school is stronger evidence that in his school there was an interest in these things than that all revelations were altogether rejected. Porphyry’s attitude, even to the Chaldean Oracles, was also critical, but along with Plotinus he did not deny the efficacy

of magic. school

One simply has to accept the possibility

of Plotinus was

affected

by some

domestic

porary interest in revelations with a Middle

that work in the as well as contem-

Platonic background.

In

short, the de regressu animae is not likely to have been a relapse, and the

Mw

Philosophy from Oracles could have been written whenever ἐξ was written. . Ciu. Det X. 23. See pp. The

Grecks

and

ou

. ibid. pp. 285 f. . See

p.

36.

117 ff.

the Irrational,

p.

287.

CHAPTER

The Assumptions

SIX

of Wolff and Kroll

Wolff’s conclusions! with regard to many matters relevant here have tended on the whole to determine later views and will have to be given in full : p. 28 ff. : simul cum Plotino disputavit ( Porphyrius) adversus gnosticos, gut Zoroasiris nomine abutentes illo tempore oracula finxerant (vit. Plot. 16.). Haec agitur oracula quum non probaret, Chaldaica oracula et genwina esse censuit el suum in usum convertit in sex de materia libris (Suid. Simplic. phys. ausc. 1 fol. 50.b). Docte de his libris Thilo in disp. de coelo empyreo ... commentatur. « Continwit, » inquit, « de materia senten-

- Has Porphyrii, cuius summam praebent ἀφορμαὶ πρὸς τὰ νοητά Sect. 21..., quas consentire demonstrat cum Plotino gorets, Platone, Aristotele, theologia libros Holstenius, Fabricius, Thilo

(enn. 2 lib. 4 2. ὕλης), Pytha-

Graecanica et Chaldaea. » Ad hos ea referunt, quae Aeneas Gazaeus

sophista Theophrasti p. 51. Boiss. praebet : οὐ yap ἀγένητος οὐδε dvapyos ἡ ὕλη. Τοῦτό σε kai Χαλδαῖοι διδάσκουσι καὶ 6 Πορφύριος. ’Emypader δὲ καθόδου" τὸ βιβλίον, d? εἰς μέσον προάγει τῶν Χαλδαίων τὰ λόγια, ἐν οἷς γεγονέναι τὴν ὕλην ἰσχυρίζεται, 1.6. quorum testimonio confirmat, materiam esse genitam. Eosdem de materia libros αὖ Augustino de civ. dei X. p. 27 ...sigmificari arbitror : « Tu » (Porphyri) « autem didicisti hoc non a Platone, sed a Chaldaeis, magistris tuis, μὲ in aethereas vel empyreas mundi sublimitates el firmamenta coelestia extolleres vitia humana, ut possent dii vestiri theurgis pronuntiare divina : quibus divinis te tamen per tntellectualem vitam facis altiorem, ut tibi videlicet tanquam philosopho theurgicae artis purgationes nequaquam necessariae videantur : sed aliis tamen importas.» Et p. 23 : « Dicit etiam Porphyrius, divinis oraculis fuisse resbonsum, 1. G. Wolff, Porphyrit de philosophia ex oraculis haurienda, Berlin 1856, 29 f. 2. Wolff notes : Sic Boissonadius pro καθόλου. Id est de animae in corpora descensu. Hoc unt librorum de materia Porphyrius. inscripserat. Idem postea. Περὶ ἀνόδου τῆς ψυχῆς adv. Chaldaeos scripsit, $.e. de regressu s. liberatione animae, de ratione, qua anima ad deum et actherem

efferetur. Cf. Augustin. de ciu. Dei 10. cap. 32. Frustra καθ᾽ ὅλου Thilo defendit. 3. Sic Boiss. pro ó.

40

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

non nos purgari lunae teletis atque solis, ut hinc ostenderetur, nullorum deorum teletis hominem posse purgari. Denique eodem dicit oraculo expressum, principia (ie. ras ἀρχάς) posse purgari. » Porro quibus in libris Chaldaica oracula a Porphyrio allata sint, in iisdem etiam Plotini dispulationem πόθεν τὰ κακά (enn. I lib. 8) tractatam esse Aeneas 1. comm. tradit. Scriptos igitur esse apparet, quum. Porphyrius Longini doctrina iam esset imbulus. Sed nosse iam oracula oraculorum Zoroastris fide tudicare voluit.

Chaldaica debebat, si recte de Zoroastris vaticinationes ultra

Chaldaicarum rationem. procedunt, velut posteriores ultra priores. Solebat Porphyrius, quo erat veritatis studio, quidquid ad cognitionem sapientiamque perducere posse videretur, in usum

suum

convertere, simulac nosset. Itaque,

si quid video, de materia scripsit, antequam Zoroastris versus: propagari coepti suni ; Chaldaica oracula, quae vel linguae numerorumque barbarie tertit fere saeculi speciem prae se ferunt, non ita multo ante gnosticorum

fraudes Porphyrio innotuerunt, certe postquam libros π. τ. ἐκ λογίων Pid. confecit, in quibus nullum. oraculum a Chaldaeis arcessitur, quamquam numinis

Graeci ibi vaticinatio affertur,

quae Chaldaeorum

gentem

rerum

divinarum peritissimam esse praedicabat. Chaldaica igitur placita praeterire ibi non poterat, si novisset. Atque multo altius illa in philosophiae recessus descendunt quam deorum oracula a Porphyrio explicata ; illa multas res tollunt et damnant, sacrificia.

quas haec praedicant atque praecipiunt, exempli gratia

Libris de materia posteriores etiam libri de recessu (corrected to regressu p. 242) animae [uerunt, ex quibus excerptae fortasse sunt ἀφορμαὶ πρὸς τὰ νοητά ab Holstenio editae, quam animae liberationem secundum Plotinianae doctrinae rationem exponant, sicut libri de regressu, teste Augustino civ. dei 10.19.2 : multis enim ibi Porphyrius corpus fugi iubet, ut anima possit. beata manere et cum deo coniuncta. Augustin. ibid. 10.32.1 : « dicit Porphyrius in primo iuxta finem de regressu animae libro, nondum receptam esse unam quandam sectam, quae universalem. contineat viam. animae liberandae, vel a philosophia verissima aliqua, vel ab Indorum moribus ac disciplina, aut inductione Chaldaeorum, aut alia qualibet via, nondumque in suam notitiam eandem viam historial cognitione perlatam. » Addit Augustinus : « utique se a Chaldaeis divina oracula sumpsisse, quorum assiduam

commemorationem

facit,

tacere

non

potuit,

» i.e.

in

libris

de

materia. Solebant enim ecclesiae scriptores Porphyrio, adversario acerrimo, opinionum. inconstantiam ita exprobrare, ut alium eius librum ἐχ alio refellerent.

Itaque tenuit. Porphyrius primum oracula et explicavit, nulla ve extrinsecus ascila ; tum in libris de materia ad philosophica Chaldaeorum oracula transit ; postremo in libris de regressu haec quoque abiecit, veritatem in his frustra

se quaesivisse

confessus.

Let us comment on these remarks in order. The references given to Suidas and Simplicius justify only the statement that Porphyry wrote

THE

ASSUMPTIONS

OF

WOLFF

AND

KROLL

41

six books Περὶ ὕλης. The reference to vit. Plot. 16 justifies the statement that Porphyry did not approve of the oracles of Zoroaster. There is no justification in the references given for

the statements

that

Porphyry

considered the Chaldean oracles « genuine » and used them in his books

περὶ ὕλης. It will be noticed that while Wolff quotes Thilo’s description of the contents of the Περὶ ὕλης, he suggests — as against Thilo — that the ᾿Αφορμαὶ πρὸς τὰ νοητά sect. 21 may have been excerpted from the de regressu animae. So far, in fact, we discover that we still have authority

only for the statement that Porphyry wrote a work Περὶ ὕλης in six books : it cannot even be presumed that in such a work he agreed with all the notions of Plotinus,

the Pythagoreans,

Aristotle, and the Greek

and Chaldean theology on matter. Coming to the quotation from Aeneas of Gaza, which Wolff, agreeing with Holsten, Fabricius and Thilo, refers to the Περὶ ὕλης, we must first make some remarks upon the text itself which is allegedly corrupt :

Bouillet declares that it is évidemment corrumpu®. Kroll remarks : a cuius emendatione satius est sese continere. Boissonade alters καθόλου

to καθόδου and 6 ro (4. In this he is followed by Wolff. The Migne editor ‘takes the title of the book referred to to be καθ᾽ ὅλονδ. Bouillet suggests the title Περὶ ὕλης καθόλου. Nevertheless

the

manuscript

readings

are

not

in dispute

and

are

capable of sense. Thilo accepted καθ᾽ ὅλου. Bidez writes: « J'ai vu les meilleurs manuscrits, et il faut maintenir la lecon καθόλου qu'ils donnent tous »5. M. C. Astruc has examined the MSS Paris Gr. 460, 461, and 1058 for the purposes of the present study and reports that all three have

καθόλου. The meaning of the unamended text would be : « The Chaldeans teach you this and also Porphyry.

He gives a general title to the book

which? adduces the oracles of the Chaldeans... » In the Philosophy from —— —

1. Even

M

this was questioned by

Gildersleeve ; cf. Wolff,

Porph. stud. Homer p. 6 not. 5 coniicit apud

op. cit. p. 29 n : falso

igitur G. de

Suidam s. Porphyrio ( post π. ὕλης eiiciendum

esse et librum de materia partem fuisse συμμίκτων ζητημάτων, ubi etiam π. γεωμετρ. ὕλης sermo fuerit. At alia est materia apud philosophos, alia apud mathematicos. Vocabulum idem, res diversa & rebuttal, which may, or may not, convince. 2. Les Enneades de Plotin, Paris 1859, t. ii, p. 686, n.1. 3. W. Kroll, De Oraculis Chaldaicis, Breslau 1894, pp. 6 f. 4. Aeneas of Gaza, Theophrastus, ed. J. F. Boissonade, Paris 1836, p. 51. 5. P.G. vol. 85, col. 96r. 6. op. cit. p. 160, n. 5.

7. It seems best to take 6 as the subject of προάγει. If not, the phrase 6 (acc.) eis μέσον προάγει would be both unnecessary and unusual (as against ἐκδιδόναι or ἐκφέρειν in the sense of publish). Lewy, op. cit. adopts our sense : « in which the Oracles of the Chaldaeans are quoted ὁ (p. 450). τὰ λόγια will then be the object of προάγει. This has the effect of excluding τῶν Χαλδαίων rà λόγια as the title of the book referred to, which in any case is said to have a general title —— aud there would

be nothing

unusually general about

the title

τῶν Χαλδαίων τὰ λόγια : τὰ λόγια, moreover, as part of a title would be a less natural antecedent for ἐν οἷς. Nor do we know of any book of Porphyry's entitled τῶν Χαλδαίων rà

λόγια. καθόλου certainly obviates the need of an actual title after ἐπιγράφει. 4

42

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

Oracles Porphyry does bring forward oracles on which he comments, and its title is more general than, for example, Chaldean Oracles : it mentions oracles without any limitation.

If, however, one were to accept Boissonade's emendation of καθόλου to καθόδου, the general contention which we are making would be merely enforced

would

: for Boissonade

entitle

κάθοδος

suggests

with

the

the identity

Philosophy

of the book

from

Oracles.

which

He

he

says

innuere Aeneas videtur Porphyrii librum qui Περὶ τῆς ἐκ λογίων φιλοσοφίας ab aliis nuncupatus futt!. That is to say the Philosophy from Oracles is the book from which the passages quoted by Augustine in the cis. Dei X

as coming from the de regressu animae The original context in which Wolff’s is found, moreover, tends to confirm the from Oracles is the work of Porphyry to with the destruction of the world*, a ciu. Dei leads us to believe is treated of

are derived. quotation from Aeneas of Gaza hypothesis that the PAilosophy which Aeneas refers, for it deals theme which Augustine in the in the Philosophy from Oracles*.

Aeneas even quotes* a passage from Plato's Timaeus

in this connection

which Augustine quotes twice in contexts where the Philosophy from Oracles is almost certainly in question’. There are in addition other indications that Aeneas of Gaza in the Theophrastus, which dealt with the immortality of the soul and the resurrection of the body (themes which gave occasion to Augustine to consider the de regressw animae), was encountering the same opposition as was Augustine when dealing with precisely the same topics in the ciu. Dei, that is Porphyry's Philo-

sophy from Oracles. This can occasion no surprise ; for Aeneas was, like Eusebius and Augustine, a Christian engaged in defending his faith against such as Porphyry. What more natural then, if, like Eusebius and Augustine, he should have chosen to attack the Philosophy from

Oracles ? Finally the quotation from Aeneas of Gaza contains an explicit reference to Plotinus' Πόθεν rà xaxd, of which there may be echoes in the Philosophy from Oracles as known to us through Augustine". Turning to Wolff's view (not accepted by either Kroll or Bidez) that the passages quoted by him from the ciu. Dei come from Porphyry's Περὶ

NO

tA A.

Ww

WY oM

ὕλης, it should be apparent that the great uncertainty affecting that work — the number of its books ; whether or not it is the work referred

. . . .

op. cit. 271. Cf. Boissonade pp. 48 f. (Migne, P.G. 85, cols. 958 f.). Cf. pp. 66, 69. Boissonade p. 45 (Migne, col. 951).

. Cf. pp. 73 ff., 92 f. . Enn. J. 8. Cf. Boissonade p. 51. . Cf. p. 56 : nullius indiget (cf. Henry and Schwyzer I. p. 122, 2, 1-10) and the common

use of Tim. 41, sg. (Henry and Schwyzer I. p. 130, 7, 8-17) and e. g. ciu. Dei X, 29; XXII, 26 and Sermo 241, 7. See n. 5 above.

:

THE

ASSUMPTIONS

OF

WOLFF

AND

KROLL

43

΄

to by Aeneas of Gaza ; whether its theme is summarized in the "Adopyai

πρὸς τὰ νοητά (which are definitely not excerpted from the de regressu animae) — these uncertainties make Wolff's suggestion that the passages : « Tu autem didicisti ... from ciu. Dei X. 27, and Dicit etiam. Porphyrius, diuinis oraculis ... from X. 23 refer to these books of Porphyry on matter untenable. These quotations from Augustine have nothing to do with the question of the generation of matter, but rather with purgation by

certain rites. Wolff alleges the association of these

passages with the

Περὶ ὕλης because of the mention in Aeneas of Gaza of τῶν Χαλδαίων τὰ λόγεα

when

he is

considering

the generation

of matter.

Even

if, however,

it could be proved that Aeneas was referring in fact to the Περὶ ὕλης the mere mention of τῶν Χαλδαίων rà λόγια would not justify the conclusion that Augustine with the words

: « Tu autem didicisti hoc

non a

Platone, sed a Chaldaeis... and diwinis oraculis . fuisse responsum was referring to the Περὶ ὕλης and not rather to the more obvious Philosophy from

Oracles,

where

there

and purgation!. Wolfi's following remarks

was

definitely

mention

of Chaldeans,

are not such as to win conviction

oracles

: quibus

in libris Chaldaica oracula a Porphyrio allata sint, in iisdem etiam Plotini disputationem tractatam esse Aeneas l. comm. tradit. Scriptos igitur esse apparet, quum Porphyrius Longini doctrina iam esset imbutus. Sed nosse tam oracula Chaldaica debebat, st recte de oraculorum Zoroastris fide iudicare volwit. Zoroastris vaticinationes ultra Chaldatcarum rationem. procedunt velut posteriores ulira riores. Solebat Porphyrius, quo erat veritatis studio, quidquid ad cognitionem sapientiamque perducere posse videretur, in usum suum

convertere,

simulac nosset. Itaque,

st quid video, de materia

scripsit,

antequam Zoroastris versus propagart coepti sunt. One would expect that the conclusion from the reference to Plotinus' Πόθεν τὰ κακά would be that he knew Plotinus’ doctrine before he wrote the Περὶ ὕλης. But Wolff,

as we shall see immediately

which

Porphyry

got

has a clear notion

(and straightway

used)

his ideas;

of the order in

and although

it would be true to say that at this time Porphyry knew at least the Πόθεν τὰ

κακά

clusion

of Plotinus,

that he had

Wolff

prefers

knowledge

to take

the

of the teaching

more

conservative

of Longinus;

con-

that

is,

Wolff appears to suggest that Porphyry, when writing the Περὶ ὕλης, was still more under the influence of his Athenian period and Longinus than (if at all, as yet) of the Roman period and Plotinus. The text, of course, does not warrant such arrangement. The assumption that Porphyry must have known the Chaldean Oracles before he could judge of the Zoroastrian is plainly gratuitous.

1. Cf.

pp.

29

ff.

©

44

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN

AUGUSTINE

The basic assumption which underlies the argument of Wolff at this point

is that

Porphyry

immediately

used

in his

next

book

whatever

he had just read : solebat Porphyrius, quo erat veritatis studio, quidquid ad cognitionem.

saptentiamque

perducere

posse

videretur,

in suum

usum

convertere simulac nosset. It is scarcely credible that one would proceed to erect an argument on such a doubtful hypothesis. Yet on it Wolff bases the following points : 1) Porphyry did not know the Chaldean Oracles when he wrote his Philosophy from Oracles — otherwise he must have used them in it (and according to Wolff, he did not); 1) he did

not know the Zoroastrian oracles when he wrote his Περὶ ὕλης — otherwise he must have referred to them : Zoroastris vaticinationes ultra Chaldaicarum rationem procedunt, velut posteriores ultra priores... Itaque,

δὲ quid video, de maleria scripsit, antequam Zoroastris versus propagari coepti sunt. It is even assumed that as soon as a book was published Porphyry

had to. read it!

Wolff then supposes, this time without any reason being given, that Porphyry learned of the Zoroastrian oracles not long after he had heard of the

Chaldean

Oracles,

which

(according

to Wolff)

he heard

of only

after he had written the Philosophy from Oracles : Chaldaica oracula, quae vel linguae numerorumque barbarie terti fere saeculi speciem prae se ferunt, non ita multo ante gnosticorum fraudes Porphyrio innotuerunt,

certe postquam libros Περὶ τῆς ἐκ λογίων φιλοσοφίας confecit, in quibus nullum oraculum a Chaldaeis arcessitur, quamquam numinis Graeci ibi vaticinatio affertur, quae Chaldaeorum gentem rerum divinarum peritissimam esse praedicabat. Chaldaica igitur. placita praeterire 1by non poterat, si novissel. Atque multo altius 1lla in philosophiae recessus descendunt. quam . deorum oracula a Porphyrio explicata ; illa multas ves tollunt et damnant,

quas haec praedicant atque praecipiunt, exempli gratia sacrificia. These

last points

Chaldean Oracles animae

oracles

affect

of any

our

case

kind

were

whereas they were used, : this would, of course,

profoundly,

not

used

for it is asserted

that

in the Philosophy from

as is asserted later, in the de regressu make the identity of the two books

impossible. Wolff assumes, it would appear, that as soon as the Chaldean Oracles could be read by Porphyry, they were read by him. He assumes that, although their language and metre point generally to any time in the whole of the third century, they were read by Porphyry nearer the

time when he encountered the Zoroastrian oracles in the company

of

Plotinus. Therefore the Chaldean Oracles became available to Porphyry shortly before he came to Rome for the first time. Therefore they were

published just then, that is about 262 A.D. Oracles was, therefore, published still earlier.

1. Cf. Bidez, op. cit. p. 38.

The

Philosophy

from

THE

ASSUMPTIONS

OF

WOLFF

AND

KROLL

45

We have already indicated how untrustworthy are the assumptions on which these conclusions are based. If we look at the facts alleged, we perhaps shall not be more convinced of their value. Wolff can date the Chaldean Oracles only to the nearest century, a century covering Porphyry's lifetime. This dating is, therefore, of little use as an indication of when Porphyry read them. Wolff asserts that in the Philosophy from Oracles there is no use made of any Chaldean oracle. He should remember that we have only fragments, and these derived almost

entirely from Eusebius who was selecting for his own purposes. Furthermore Wolff has to admit that there is in fact mention of the Chaldeans,

and in terms of great respect. The statement that the Chaldean Oracles went more deeply into philosophy than did the oracles of the Philosophy from Oracles, is, to begin with, made on the evidence of the fragments only, from which Chaldean oracles are said to be absent, and in any case is very doubtful, if not actually untrue’. Finally we

have the direct evidence of Augustine, as against the statement of Wolff, that the Philosophy from Oracles did not recommend physical sacrifice : Deum autem simulantes colere, ea sola, per quae Deus adoratur non agunt. Nam Deus quidem, utpote omnium Pater, nullius indiget ; sed nobis est bene, cum eum per iustitiam et castitatem. aliasque virtutes adoramus,

ipsam

inquisitionem

uitam

precem

ad

ipsum

facientes

per

imitationem

et

de ipso. Inquisitio enim purgat, inquit. (sc. Porphyrius) ;

imitatio deificat adfectionem ad ipsum operando... optimum sacrificium nos

ipsi sumus (ciw. Det XIX. 23)*. Wolff's further remarks about the de regressu animae have little new to add and will not long detain us. He suggests that the ᾿Αφορμαὶ πρὸς τὰ νοητά may have been excerpted from the de regressu animae, because they

are Plotinian in their doctrine of the liberation of the soul. Thilo

and others, however, seem to have

associated the 'Adoppuai πρὸς τὰ

νοητά rather with the Περὶ ὕλης. In any cally Plotinian in the exhortation

case there is nothing specifi-

to flee the body,

and, in fact, as we

have seen*, the phrase omne corpus fugiendum is used by Augustine in contexts where Porphyry principally is in question. The quotations from

Augustine

then

given by

Wolff

only

raise once

more

the whole

question on which we are engaged. Nor, finally, is there any significance in the remarks : solebant enim ecclesiae scriptores Porphyrio adversario

acerrimo,

opinionum

inconstantiam

exprobrare,

ut

alium.

eius

librum ex alio refellerent, as if this were a principle on which one could suppose that when Porphyry is alleged to contradict himself, two of his works (in this case the de regressu animae and the de materia) are involved ---

t. See p. 29 ff. On all these points see pp. 35 f. 2. Quoted by Wolff himself, without comment however,

3. See pp. 7, 73.

pp.

185 f.

46

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN

and never one. Augustine in ctu. Det XIX 23 — to cite — accuses Porphyry of contradicting himself within the Philosophy from Oracles. From all of this we are justified in concluding that that the passages of Augustine in ciw. Dei X 27 Porphyry's Περὶ ὕλης is unproved. It is certainly more

AUGUSTINE

but one instance the compass of Wolff's assertion and 23 refer to natural and fits

in better with the evidence to take them as referring to either the de regressu animae or the Philosophy from

Oracles, if it is a separate work.

Nothing that Wolff has said has made this impossible or unlikely. Before we leave this matter, however, we should make a brief reference

to Kroll’s work. He does not examine the case made by Wolff, but simply states : primus adhibuisse videtur oracula Porphyrius, nondum

ts quidem in libris Περὶ τῆς ἐκ λογίων φιλοσοφίας, sed in libris de regressu animae,

ut testatur Augustinus

de civ. Dei

X.

29.

321.

He

differs,

there-

fore, from Wolff on the important point of the inspiration of the passages in ciw. Dei : he takes them to be derived from the de regressu

animae and not from the Περὶ ὕλης. On the question as to whether or not the source of inspiration could be the Philosophy from Oracles, he merely follows Wolff in believing that when Augustine attributes these ideas to the de regressu animae, he is ipso facto excluding the Philosophy from Oracles as a possible source. This, however, as we are concerned to prove, is not necessary. Kroll, it may be noted, dates the Chaldean Oracles at the end of the second century or the beginning of the third : Sed mordicus hanc coniecturam tenere nolo; utut. de hac ve tudicamus,

circa alterius saeculi. finem tertitve exordium pristinas oraculorum partes compositas esse existimo?. This of course would

mean

that the Chaldean

Oracles were available to Porphyry when he was writing his Philosophy from Oracles. ΤΊ we were to employ Wolff’s method of reasoning, then, we should conclude, therefore, that Porphyry did use them in the PAilosophy from Oracles. We may, however, be able to give some better reasons for this view.

1. Op. cit. p. 6. He refers to Lobeck as well as Wolff. Lobeck,

has nothing more to offer than what is later found in Wolff. 2. op. cit., pp. 72 f.

4 glaophamus, 1829, pp. 103 ff.

J PART II Themes and Expressions from the Philosophy from Oracles as reported by Augustine

CHAPTER

ONE

Civ. Det XIX.

23 :

Explicit reference to themes from the Philosophy from Oracles is found in ciu. Dei XIX 23. Augustine in the previous chapter has worked up to

a climax in answering the question ‘ What god is worthy to be the sole object of cult ? ' There should, he contends, be no doubt on this point any longer : He is the God whose prophets were by Him enabled to make such

certain

predictions;

He

is the

God

who

foretold

to Abraham

the

birth of Christ from his seed ; He is the God whose Spirit inspired the prophecies fulfilled in the expansion of the Church ; He is the God called Jupiter! by Varro, the most learned of the Romans, whose knowledge

was such that he could not conclude that there was no such God or that such a God could be unworthy ; postremo ipse est Deus, quem doctissimus philosophorum, quamuis Christianorum. acerrimus inimicus, etiam per eorum oracula, quos deos putat, deum magnum Porphyrius confitetur. (23) Nam in libris, quos ἐκ λογίων φιλοσοφίας appellat, in quibus exsequitur adque conscribit rerum ad philosophiam pertinentium uelut diuina responsa, ut isa uerba eius, quem ad modum ex Graeca lingua in Latinam interprelata sunt, bonam. ... The rest of the chapter is devoted to extracts and comments on this work of Porphyry's, and is naturally a source used by

Wolff for his collection of fragments. Attention should be drawn to the central question raised by Augustine : ‘ What god is worthy to be the sole object of cult ? ' It should be noticed too that Porphyry gets supreme prominence in the dénouement of the reply. The topic of the book as set out here does not correspond to the impression

given by the fragments

collected by Wolff,

the philosophy (as understood by Augustine)

but centres on

conveyed by the oracles.

One can also conclude that when this chapter of the ciu. Dei was written

(after 420) Porphyry's work in question was available in Latin : this 1. Cf. De consensu euang. I. 35. cf. pp. 88 ff. 2. eglogion a b e g p.

50

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN

AUGUSTINE

would be the natural conclusion of the impersonal phrasing : tnterpretata

sunt (above) and wersus ... non stante metro Latine interpretat: sunt (below). It would, of course, be wrong to conclude that the translation had only

just become available to Augustine : it could have been made at any time after the work had been composed, and therefore might have been available to Augustine during the whole of his life. Augustine resumes : ‘ Interroganti, inquit (Porphyrius), quem deum placando reuocare possit uxorem suam a Christiantsmo, haec ait wersibus Apollo.’ Deinde uerba uelut Apollinis ista sunt : * Forte magis poteris in aqua inpressis litteris scribere aut adinflans leues pinnas per aera auis ‘uolare, quam pollutae reuoces inpiae uxoris sensum. Pergat quo modo uult inanibus

[fallaciis

[perseuerans

et

lamentari

fallaciis)

mortuum

Deum

cantans, quem iudicibus recta sentientibus perditum pessima in speciosis ferro uincta mors. interfecit. ' Deinde post hos uersus Apollinis, qui non stante metro Latine interpretati sunt, subiunxit adque ait : ‘In his quidem inremediabile sententiae eorum manifestauit dicens, quoniam Iudaei susctpiunt Deum magis quam isti.’ Ecce, ubi decolorans Christum Iudaeos praeposuit Christianis, confitens quod Iudaei suscipiant Deum. Sic enim exposuit

uersus.

Apollinis,

ubi

a iudicibus

recta

sentientibus

Christum

dicit occisum, tamquam illis iuste iudicantibus merito sit. ille punitus. Augustine was pleased to understand that this oracle, quoted by Porphyry, was approved by him : confitens quod Iudaei suscipiant Deum. Porphyry, in others words, confessed that the God of the Jews was the God, the sole God to whom sacrifices might be offered. The question

put in ciu. Dei XIX chapter 22 was : ' Qui iste Deus est aut unde dignus probatur, cui deberent obtemperare Romani, ut nullum. deorum praeter ipsum colerent sacrificiis ?' Now Porphyry's reply had been given. It will be developed later, and we shall see that question of sacrificing to the God was important. For the moment, however, we must pay attention to other points in the text above. The oracle of Apollo specifically mentioned the death of Christ, approved of the justice of the sentence of that death, and spoke also of the shameful and painful nature of the crucifixion : inanibus fallactis mortuum Deum cantans, quem iudicibus recta sentientibus perditum pessima in spectosis ferro uincta mors

interfecit?.

Augustine

took it that Porphyry

agreed with Apollo : indeed he goes on to say : Vidertm quid de Christo uates mendax Apollinis adque iste (i. e. Porphyrius) crediderit aut fortasse

I. Cf. Wolff, pp. 183 f. 2. Wolff, pp. 184 f. quotes what he calls the twin oracle from Lactantius, Instit. 4.13.11 : « Propterea Milesius Apollo consultus, utrumne (i.e. Christus) deus an homo fuerit, hoc modo respondit :

τὸς ἔην κατὰ σάρκα, σοφὸς τερατώδεσιν ἔργοις, ἀλλ᾽ ὑπὸ Χαλδαίοισι δικασπολίαισιν ἁλωκώς,

γομφωθεὶς σκολόπεσσι πικρὴν ἀνέπλησε τελευτήν.

« CIV.

DEI

ualem,

» XIX.

quod

non

23

.

dixit, dixisse iste ipse confinxerit!,

This,

51

therefore,

in

Augustine's view, was quite thoroughly Porphyry's attitude to the death of Christ. This oracle alone, it is important to note, could be the source

and inspiration for Augustine’s frequent insistence on Porphyry's contempt for a Christ who died, and died shamefully. Here, moreover,

Porphyry is understood not only to condemn

Chris-

tians, but to condemn them specifically for deception, ‘ pollution ’, impiety, and the incorrigible nature of their position : fallaciis, pollutae, inpiae, inremediabile sententiae. It was a characteristic of the Porphyry-Christian conflict, as we shall see later in the case of Augustine, that the Christians

attributed to Porphyry the defects which he purported to discover in them. The charges outlined above are among the commonest laid so frequently by Augustine

against Porphyry,

and this oracle could have

given the impetus to such accusations. Augustine goes on : Deus itaque Iudaeorum, cui perhibet testimonium, audiendus fuit dicens : Sacrificans dis eradicabitur, nist Domino

tantum.

(Exod. 22, 20). Sed ad mantfestiora uentamus et audiamus quam magnum Deum dicat esse Iudaeorum. Item ad ea, quae interrogauit Apollinem, quid melius, uerbum siue ratio an lex : * Respondit, inquit, uersibus haec dicens '. Ac deinde subicit Apollinis uersus, in quibus et isti sunt, ut quaniwm satis est

inde decerpam : ‘ In Deum uero, inquit, generatorem et in regem ante omnia, quem tremit et caelum et terra adque mare et infernorum. abdita et ipsa numina perhorrescunt ; quorum lex est Pater, quem ualde sanct: honorant Hebraei '. Tali oraculo det sui Apollinis Porphyrius tam magnum Deum dixit Hebraeorum, ut eum et ipsa numina perhorrescant. Cum ergo Deus iste dixerit : Sacrificans dis eradicabitur, miror quod ipse Porphyrius non perhorruerit et sacrificans dis eradicari non formidauertt.

The God of the Hebrews, approved of by Porphyry, is described here as Deum

generatorem, regem ante omnia, quem tremtt et caelum et terra ...

et tpsa numina perhorrescunt, quorum lex est Pater. This description of the Hebrew,

Porphyrian,

and Christian God, involving the significant titles

of Pater, rex, and generator, could be the source of similar descriptions by Augustine in contexts that have manifestly Neo-Platonic or specifically Porphyrian reference. This

text,

however,

is mainly

exploited

by

Augustine

to

condemn

Porphyry for his cult of demons (also called by him and Augustine dz). Since Porphyry truly revered the Hebrew

i. One

of Augustine’s

characteristic suppositions.

accuracy in reporting these oracles

been

(cf. Eusebius,

God, he should have obeyed

Porphyry’s

protestation

of scrupulous

Praep. eu. IV. 7, Mras I pp. 177 f.) has not

questioned.

2. Cf. Wolff, pp. 142 f. He quotes the version found in Lactantius, de ira 23.12 :

'Es δὲ θεὸν βασιλῆα, καὶ és γενετῆρα προπάντων, ὃν τρομέει καὶ γαῖα καὶ οὐρανὸς ἠδὲ θάλασσα ταρτάριοι τε μυχοί, καὶ δαίμονες ἐκφρίσσουσιν.

52

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN

AUGUSTINE

His injunction not to sacrifice to any other deity, whether he be called god, angel, or demon. Porphyry did not obey.

To proceed : Dicit etiam bona philosophus 1ste de Christo, quasi oblitus illius, de qua paulo ante locuti sumus, contumeliae suae, aut quasi in somnis

di eiuws maledixerint Christo et eutgilantes eum bonum esse cognouerint digneque laudauerint. Denique tamquam mirabile aliquid adque incredibile prolaturus : ‘ Praeter opinionem, inquit, profecto quibusdam uideatur esse quod dicturi sumus: Christum enim di piissimum pronuntiauerunt et inmortalem [actum et cum bona praedicatione eius meminerunt ; Christianos wero

pollutos,

inquit,

et contaminatos

et

errore

inplicatos

esse

dicunt

et

multis talibus aduersus eos blasphemtis utuntur’. Deinde subicit. uelut oracula deorum blasbhemantium Christianos et post haec : ' De Christo autem, inquit, interrogantibus si est Deus, ait Hecate : Quoniam quidem inmortalis anima post corpus ut incedit, nosti ; a sapientia autem abscisa semper errat. Viri pietate praestantissimi est illa anima ; hanc colunt aliena a se ueritate '. Deinde post uerba hutus quasi oraculi sua tpse contexens : ' Piissimum igttur wirum, inquit, eum dixil el eius animam, sicut et aliorum piorum,

post obitum inmortalitate dignatam et hanc colere Christianos ignorantes '. * Interrogantibus autem, inquit : Quur ergo damnatus est ? oraculo respondit dea : Corpus quidem debilitantibus tormentis semper obpositum est ; anima autem prorum caelesti sedi insidet. Illa uero anima aliis animabus fataliter dedit, quibus fata non adnuerunt deorum dona obtinere neque habere Iowis inmortalis agnitionem, errore inplicart. Propterea ergo dis exosi, quia, quibus fato non fuit nosse Deum

nec dona ab dis accipere, his fataliter dedit iste

- errore inplicari. Ipse wero pius et in caelum, sicut pit, concessit. Itaque hunc quidem non blasphemabis, misereberis autem hominum dementiam, ex 60 in eis facile praecepsque periculum ἢ, Augustine took some pleasure in discovering inconsistencies in Porphyry. À little earlier in this chapter he had remarked : Quam sibi constet (Porphyrius) uel ipsa oracula inter se faciat conuenire postea uidebimus. Now he has pleasure not only in showing that Porphyry was inconsistent in approving of the Hebrew God while disobeying His injunction about sacrificing to others than Himself, but also in showing that his attitude to Christ was inconsistent. But on the other hand here, as in many places, Augustine chooses to suppose that the demons, and not Porphyry, may

have been responsible for the inconsistency. This shifting approach to what Porphyry reports, an approach shared notably by Eusebius in his Praeparatio Euangelica, causes much confusion. Augustine reports opinions of oracles as being the genuine opinion of the demon and shared by Porphyry, or the genuine opinion of the demon and perhaps not shared by Porphyry, or not at all the genuine opinion of the demon but quite

I. Cf. Wolff, pp. 180 ff. where this oracle as found in Eusebius, Dem. eu. III. 6 f. is quoted.

'

« CIV.

DEI

» XIX.

23

53

simply fabricated by Porphyry. This approach is maintained by Augustine in many of his references to Porphyry! : sometimes he wishes to point out for admiration how near he came to Christianity and how noble was his

quest ; at other times he wishes to indicate him as an example of what may befall

a man who has truck with demons. One may remark in pas-

sing that the attitudes of both Eusebius and Augustine are on the whole appreciative and do more justice to Porphyry than do their occasional abuse and charges of inconsistency. These charges, however, have dama-

ged the reputation of Porphyry even to this day, so that it is difficult to see in the theurgic servitor the acute disciple of Longinus and the critical follower of the author of the Enneads.

'The oracle referred to above distinguished. between Christ and Christians : Christ was described as pitsstmum ; they as follutos, contaminatos and errore inplicatos. Augustine draws our attention to the fact that he omits certain oracles in which the Christians are ' blasphemed '. It is well to remember this, for scholars are tempted to assume that the remains

of Porphyry's book as collected by Wolff represent fairly the whole of the book. This is an easy, but fatal assumption. If, for example, we found elsewhere in Augustine Porphyrian abuse of Christians, we would not

be justified in saying that it was not derived from the Philosophy from Oracles,

merely because

elements in the expression were not present in

the oracles actually reported by Augustine. And in a larger way it is important to remember that whole themes also could have been treated in Porphyry's work without their being represented in the fragments found in Eusebius, Augustine and a few others. Actually it is remarkable how Augustine's own admitted contributions to these fragments widen their scope and affect their direction. The burden, however, of the text cited is that Christ in the opinion

of the oracle was not God. He was pitssimus, pietate praestantissimus, and again piissimus and pius ; his soul was immortal as were the souls of all #2 ; but his body shared forever the fate of all bodies. So far was he from having any special union with Wisdom, that he merited condem-

nation for having misled his followers : illa uero anima aliis animabus fataliter dedit. errore inplicari. The emphasis at once on Christ's ‘ piety’ and nothing more is remarkable. Of nearly equal prominence — so that we must stress it — is the insistence on the error, ignorance, hatefulness and madness of the Christians : aliena a se ueritate, ignorantes, dis exosi, hominum dementiam. It was fated that they should never obtain the gifts of the gods or gain knowledge

I. There are several instances of it in the chapter under discussion, e.g. aut ab homine callido eoque Christianis inimicissimo haec oracula fuisse conficta aut ab inpuris daemonibus... Iste uero philosophus, uel potius phyrius uel Hecate.

qui talibus...

oraculis

credunt...

Sane

Christum

laudans

uel Por-

54

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN

AUGUSTINE

of God : quibus fata non adnuerunt deorum dona obtinere ... fato non futt nosse Deum. And in this fate they were easily and precipitously plunged

into error by Christ : factle praecepsque periculum... errore inplicars. Augustine takes it for granted that the reader will see immediately that a clever enemy of the Christians (Porphyry) or impure demons made up these oracles with the intention of deceiving men : in praising Christ they would give the impression of being fair-minded, so that when they came to abusing the Christians they would more easily be believed. Their special purpose was to prevent men from becoming Chris-

tians ; for in so becoming they escaped from the domination of the demons. The

demons,

therefore,

always

tried to cut men

off from

Christianity,

the way of salvation : μέ scilicet, quoniam. laudant Christum, propterea credantur ueraciter vituperare Christianos adque ita, si possint, intercludant wiam salutis aeternae, in qua fit quisque Christianus. Over and over again at this point in the chapter under discussion Augustine dwells upon the subtlety of the demons’ approach, astutiae milleformi, in praising Christ and vituperating Christians. In doing this they hoped to gain in many ways. Firstly they did not really give Christ the praise that was his due : he remained in their eyes, according to Augustine, merely a man : ita laudant Christum, ut, quisquis in eum talem crediderit, qualis ab eis praedicatur,

Christianus

nianus

hominem, .non

haereticus,

qui tantummodo

uerus

non

sit, sed Photi-

etiam Deum

nouerit

Christum. Secondly, they prevented men from becoming true Christians and so cut them off from salvation : :ntercludant uiam salutis aeternae ...

et ideo per eum (i. e. Christum Photinianum) saluus esse non possit. Finally in preventing men from becoming true Christians they retained them in their own power : nolint homines esse Christianos, quia nisi Christiani erunt, ab eorum (sc. daemonum) erut potestate non poterunt ... istorum tamen daemonum dominatu eum non liberet Christus ... nec istorum menda-

ciloquorum daemonum point

: the

demons

laqueos witare wel soluere. This last was the real

were

the villains in the

interest in retaining as many

had

a definite

as possible within their power.

piece;

they

The only

escape from that power, according to Augustine, was through true Christianity. Hence the bitter attack of demons upon Christians. Christians should, therefore, ignore both the demons ' praise of Christ and their abuse

of themselves : nos et uituperatores et laudatores Christi fallaces daemones witaremus.

Only a reading of the whole of the actual text itself will adequately convey the emphasis Augustine gives to these ideas and the frequency with which he resorts to the same terms in which to set them forth. What we must stress here, however, is that the oracle just quoted as coming

from Hecate could be the source of Augustine’s ideas as above outlined. Augustine

next comments

on the causes

according

to Porphyry

(or

maybe Hecate) of the error into which the Christians fell. But first he

« CIV.

DEI

» XIX.

23

55

asks if Christ acted willingly or unwillingly in thus misleading his followers ? If he acted willingly how could he be called just ; and if unwillingly, how could he be called ' blessed’ — beatus ? He does not attempt to develop this criticism of Porphyry's position but goes on immediately : Sed tam causas ipsius awdiamus erroris. ' Sunt, inquit. (Porphyrius), spiritus lerreni minimi loco quodam malorum daemonum potestati subiecti. Ab

his sapientes

Hebraeorum

(quorum

unus

iste etiam Iesus fuit, sicut

audisti diuina Apollinis, quae superius dicta sunt) — ab his ergo Hebraei daemonibus pessimis et minoribus spiritibus uetabant religiosos et ipsis wacare prohibebant ; uenerari autem magis caelestes deos, amplius autem uenerart Deum Patrem. Hoc aulem, inquit, et di praecipiunt et in supertoribus ostendimus,

quem

ad modum

animum

aduertere

ad Deum

monent

et

illum colere ubique imperant. Verum indocti et inpiae naturae, quibus uere fatum non concessit ab dis dona obtinere neque habere Iowis inmortalis notionem, non audientes et deos et diuinos uiros deos quidem omnes recusauerunt, prohibitos autem daemones et hos non odisse, sed reuereri. Deum

autem simulantes colere, ea sola, per quae Deus adoratur, non agunt. Nam Deus quidem, utpote omnium Pater, nullius indiget ; sed nobis est bene, cum eum per iustitiam et castitatem. aliasque. uirtutes adoramus, ipsam witam precem ad ipsum [facientes per imitationem et inquisitionem de ipso. Inquisitio enim purgat, inquit ; imitatio detficat adfectionem ad ipsum operando! ’. | First we should notice that twice in the above passage Porphyry is reported by Augustine as referring to matters already related by him

in the Philosophy from Oracles, but not actually reported by Augustine : quorum unus Iesus fuit, sicut audisti diuina Apollinis, quae superius dicta sunt (but not in Augustine), and wenerari autem magis caelestes deos, amplius autem uenerari Deum Patrem. Hoc autem, inquit, et di praectpiunt et in superioribus ostendimus, quemadmodum animum aduertere ad Deum monent et illum colere ubique imperant (also not in Augustine). This is a reminder again of how much more was in the Philosophy from Oracles and was available to Augustine than we now find assembled in the pages of Wolff. It will be seen presently that this very passage from Porphyry’s book contains ideas which have not been remarked upon by commentators and which are important for our present argument. The surprising thing at first blush about this passage is that Porphyry

accuses the Christians of worshipping, not the Deus Pater, but the demons, whose worship was explicitly forbidden by the Hebrews. This is perhaps another instance of charge answered by counter-charge : Augustine accuses Porphyry of demon-worship ; Porphyry accuses the Christians of the same. At any rate the Christians, unlearned, impious, and fated

1. Cf. Wolff, pp. 185 f.

56

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN

AUGUSTINE

not to receive gifts from the gods and have knowledge of immortal Jupiter : indocti, inprae naturae, quibus uere fatum non concessit ab dis dona obtinere

neque habere Iouis inmortalis notionem, refused to listen to gods and divine men, turned their backs on the gods, and not only did not hate the demons whose cult was forbidden to them, but actually worshipped them. This was, according to Porphyry, the cause of the error of the Christians. They pretend, therefore, to worship God, but in fact do eve-

rything to that end but what should be done. The comparative wealth of information, which is given in this fragmentary passage excerpted by Augustine from, one may presume, a more extended treatment in the Philosophy from Oracles, receives no comment from Wolff. The passage contains, however, some important details on the nature of the Father, on a way of life for humans, and on the demons. Firstly we are told that the Deus Pater should receive higher worship

than the caelestes deos : amplius wuenerari. He should be worshipped everywhere : s/lum colere ubique (taking, as seems natural, the wbique . with colere). He is immortal; nothing

: louis

inmortalis

He is the Father of all; He has need of

notionem,

omnium

Pater,

nullius

indiget.

The passage also reveals the existence of caelestes deos who should be worshipped but with a worship less than that given to the Father : uenerari autem magis caelestes deos, amplius autem uenerart Deum Patrem. Hoc autem et di praecipiunt. Porphyry does not in the fragment before us give any information about these caelestes deos! ; nor does Augustine make any comment. The

most significant information,

however,

is that given in this short

excerpt on our own duty to the Father. It is described as $nquistito, and imitatio et $nquisilio. The term 1nqwisitio is, of course, pregnant in our study? : We are advised to search, make enquiry about Him. We should turn our attention to Him and worship Him everywhere : animum aduer-

tere ad Deum et illum colere ubique. We should worship Him with the highest worship and none other in the same way. When we worship Him in the practice of justice and chastity and the other virtues, making our lite itself a prayer to Him

through

imitating

and seeking

about

Him,

we do good but to ourselves : sed nobis est bene, cum eum per iustitiam et castitatem aliasque uirtutes adoramus, ipsam witlam precem ad ipsum facientes per imitationem et inquisitionem de ipso. For the search is purgation, and imitation, in turning our love to Him,

makes

us divine : imquisstio

enim jurgat ; imitatio deificat adfectionem ad ipsum

operando.

This is

1. But cf. Eusebius, prae. eu. IV. 5, Mras I pp. 174 f., which is discussed on pp. 60 ff., 118 ff. and where we are given more information on the Pater, the caelestes di, and the daemones

pessimi. 2. Inquisitio is the key-note of the Contra Acad. also.

« CIV.

DEI

» XIX.

23

:

57

the sole worship which we should offer to the Father. Apart from Him, we should worship in a lesser degree the caelestes deos, and hate demons and inferior spirits. It will be seen from all this that the conception of the Father conveyed by

Porphyry

here is lofty : He is all-sufficient, He is immortal,

He is

superior to all others, and this especially — His worship is a spiritual worship, a worship of seeking Him, imitating Him, of making one's life a prayer to Him, of honouring Him through the practice of justice, chastity and the other virtues. This is the sole worship to be given Him. There is by implication a prohibition of worshipping Him through the offering of material objects : for He has need of nothing : nullius indiget. And the life prescribed for one who would worship Him and do his duty

to Him

as he ought is a life of high ideal. He aims at becoming

divine through the imitation of the Father. His is a life of purgation in the

seeking

for, and

love in imitating

Him

: inquisitio

enim

purgat ;

imitatio deificat adfectionem ad ipsum operando. Our life should thus be a prayer

to Him,

turning our mind

to Him and worshipping Him

every-

where : ipsam uitam precem ad ipsum ... animum aduertere et illum. colere . ubsque. We should pay cult to the caelestes deos and abhor demons : prohibitos daemones odisse. We should, moreover, listen to the words of gods and ‘ divine ' men : audientes et deos et diwinos utros.

Augustine

could have

found

in this passage from

Porphyry-which

moreover is merely an excerpt from the full text, or at any rate from a larger excerpt of the Philosophy from Oracles — the basic notions of a way to the Father, a life of purgation, virtue, imitation of the Father, seeking for Him, worshipping Him spiritually, and aiming at ultimate

divinization!. Finally the passage tells us something about the demons. They are evil. They have within their power in a certain place spirits that are earthly and inferior. They are to be shunned and not to be worshipped. Thus speak the wise men of the Hebrews, and Porphyry seems to approve. Bene quidem praedicauit Deum Patrem, et quibus sit colendus moribus dixit ; quibus praeceptis prophetict libri pleni? sunt Hebraeorum, quando sanctorum wila siue imperatur siue laudatur. Augustine is clearly impressed by Porphyry's summary account of the Father : bene quidem praedicautt

Deum

Patrem.

He is equally impressed by the prescriptions in living

»

1. It is interesting to note that Eusebius, prae. eu. IV. 10 ff., reports a similar ' ascent ’ to the Father, but from Porphyry's de abst. See p. 169. 2. Augustine has an uncanny, whether conscious or unconscious, habit of using clichés at points which are critical. In Contra Acad. II. 5 he writes : libri quidam pleni ; in De ord. II. 28 he writes : magnorum hominum et paene diuinorum libri plenissimi sunt. All three contexts are relevant to the question of the identity of the Platonist books which he read at the time of his conversion. 5

58

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN

AUGUSTINE

for one who would worship Him. He even says that the way of life prescribed is similar to that prescribed in the Hebrew Scriptures for those who would be holy : quando sanctorum uita imperatur. This is the last direct quotation from the Philosophy from Oracles in this chapter. Whether Augustine’s final comment : bene quidem praedicauit Deum Patrem, et quibus sit colendus moribus dixit, was intended by him to refer to the whole of the book, or to the extracts which he has given in this chapter of the οὖν. Dei, or merely to the final passage quoted,

it may not be amiss to draw attention to the fact that in that final judgment he has discovered in the Philosophy from Oracles two sets of connected ideas : teaching on the Father, the gods, and demons on the one hand, and teaching on a way of life of purgation and divinification on the other.

Augustine is satisfied that Porphyry, having shown such grasp of truth in his words on the Father and the proper way of life, could not have made the mistake which he made in accusing the Christians of demono-

logy except through the intervention of these demons themselves : Sed 1n Christianis tantum errat aut tantum calumniatur, quantum volunt daemones, quos opinatur deos ; quasi cuiquam difficile sit recolere, quae turpia, quae dedecora erga deorum

obsequium

in theatris agebantur et templis, et

adtendere quae legantur dicantur audiantur in ecclesiis, uel Deo uero quid offeratur, et hinc intellegere ubi aedificium, et ubi ruina sit morum.

Quis

autem huic dixit uel inspirauit, nisi diabolicus spiritus, tam uanum apertumque mendacium, quod daemones ab Hebraeis coli prohibitos reuereantur potius, quam oderint Christiani.

It is important to stress the fact that Augustine concluded from the words of Porphyry which we have been discussing that he accused the Christians of paying cult to demons, of making sacrifices that were unworthy, and of moral turpitude. These charges were, in Augustine's view,

incredible even to an outsider. Nevertheless Porphyry made them. Augustine could only suppose that Porphyry must have been completely in the power of these same demons. So completely, in fact, that, if we interpret Augustine’s words correctly, he was brought to believe in these incredible charges, or, even though he knew them to be completely

false, nevertheless spoke against his better judgment and calumniated the Christians to the extent demanded

by the demons

and no more

Sed in Christianis tantum errat aut tantum calumniatur, quantum uolunt daemones, quos opinatur deos. [n this short sentence we have brought together some of the complicated elements in Augustine's Porphyry : he almost knew the whole truth ; he was fully the demons in certain particulars ; he was not deceived by but was so much in their power.that he obeyed them even

attitude to deceived by the demons, against his

own better judgment. It is clear that Augustine could have derived from the passage we have discussed his oft repeated and summary judgment that Porphyry was led astray by demons.

:

« CIV.

DEI

» XIX.

23

59

For the remaining portion of ciu. Det XIX.

23, Augustine returns to

the development of his main theme which was introduced with the question : ' Quts iste Deus est aut unde dignus probatur, cui deberent obtemperare Romani, ut nullum deorum praeter ipsum colerent sacrificiis ? ' The answer

had

seemed

obvious

to Augustine;

but

he

had

called

a series

of witnesses ending in the climax of the testimony of Porphyry, the most

learned of the philosophers : he had pointed to the God of the Hebrews : Iudaei suscipiant Deum. Augustine had immediately reminded Porphyry that that very God of the Hebrews had declared : Sacrificans dis eradicabitur, nisi domino tantum. Porphyry should have taken heed, but did

not : on the contrary he had allowed himself to fall into the power of the demons and sacrifice to them : ifse Porphyrius non perhorruerit et sacrificans

dis eradicari

non

formidauerit.

This

is the theme

to which

Augustine now returns and which receives the most extensive and empha-

tic treatment in the whole of this chapter. Not only does the God of the Hebrews most threateningly enjoin that sacrifice is not to be offered to the demons — which the nations call dz, gods (Ps. 95.5) -— but sacrifice is not to be offered to the angels in heaven

either : caelesttbus sanctis angelis et wirtutibus Dei sacrificari uetat intonans, ualde minaciter dicens : Sacrificans dis eradicabitur. ne quis ergo putaret caelestibus uel omnibus uel aliquibus sacrificari esse permissum, mox addidit : nist domino

soli, id est nist Domino

tantum.

Augustine over and over again repeats this text, which he takes to be both clear and peremptory : Ecce hoc unum breuiter, immo granditer, minaciter, sed ueraciter dictum ab illo Deo audiatur timeatur inpleatur, ne inoboedientes eradicatio consequatur. It is clear that Porphyry’s false

accusation against the Christians of sacrificing to demons, and also his dwelling upon the immateriality of the offerings to be made to the God revealed in the oracles, could have been the inspiration of passages where, in a Neo-Platonic context, Augustine insists repeatedly upon offering sacrifice to the One True God and to Him alone. The chapter concludes with a tribute to Porphyry

and an outline of

how the*God of the Hebrews (and Christians) : cui tam magnum tantus etiam isle philosophus perhibet testimonium, corresponds to the God described by Porphyry in the details revealed in the Philosophy from Oracles.

Indeed the divine oracles that were the Scriptures : per Prophetas Hebraeos oracula increpuere diuina, were much clearer and more definite in their accounts of the supreme God : non obscuram et incognitam, sed omnibus tam

gentibus diffamatam ... non enim abstrusa uel rara sunt

(as against

Porphyry’s oracles, presumably) sed aperta et crebra ... luce clarius. Sacrifice was to be offered to Him alone. Nevertheless He did not need anything : mon quo rei egeat alicuius. We benefit ourselves in worshipping Him : sed quia nobis expedit, ut ret eius simus ... dixi domino : Deus meus

es tu, quoniam bonorum meorum non eges (Ps. 15.2). Our sacrifice to Him

60

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

should be of ourselves : Praeclarissimum adque optimum sacrificium nos ipsi sumus. Christians practise justice in obeying God's commands and in the control of the body by the soul, and vices by reason (corres-

ponding to Porphyry’s justice, chastity and other virtues) : «bi non est ista iustitia, ut ciuitati obedienti Deus imperet ... animus eliam corpori adque ratio witits imperet. In this way, offering sacrifice from the rising of the sun to the going down thereof : a solis ortu usque ad occasum, we love

God : populus iustorum uruat ex fide, quae operatur per dilectionem (cf. Porphyry's adfectionem ad tpsum operando),

as He should be loved

: homo

diligit Deum, sicut diligendus est Deus. ‘It is evident that the description of God as given by Porphyry in his

Philosophy from Oracles, and Porphyry’s approval of the Hebrew God had both impressed Augustine greatly and prompted him to compare the Hebrew God with the God of the pagan oracles reported by Porphyry. This is a point of importance in our argument ; for Augustine both in his Dialogues and Confessions reports that he was impressed by the accounts given by the Platonists of God ant that he compared with these accounts that given in the Scriptures. It is a point which shall be treated of in due course. For the moment it will be enough to indicate that in Porphyry's

Philosophy from Oracles he could have read of this exalted God, of the disciplined life we should lead, and the suggestion that the God of the . Christian Scriptures was the same God. It is hardly necessary to add that in the other places where he mentions this matter, as here too, Augustine

found the scriptural account of God and of how we should live in His sight both more clear and, in his opinion, superior in every way. It may be well at this point to give a text from Eusebius’ prae. eu.

IV. 5 (Mras I pp. 174 f.), the chapter immediately preceding his formal introduction of Porphyry’s Philosophy from Oracles. This text has every appearance of anticipating at least some of the doctrine of the P/:lo-

sophy from Oracles and is useful both as bearing out the evidence of ciu. Dei XIX 23 on the Philosophy from Oracles, and also providing a frame of reference, illustration and confirmation of other texts which

we have δὴ τὴν πρῶτον τε ὄντα ὑπάρχειν ἃ πάντα

yet to study. The relevant portions of this text? ard*: Οἱ μὲν ᾿Ελληνικὴν θεολογίαν ἐξηκριβωκότες ... πρώτιστα πάντων τὸν ἀφορίσαντες θεὸν εἰδέναι φασὶ τοῦτον εἶναι τὸν ἐπὶ πᾶσι, πρῶτόν καὶ πάντων θεῶν πατέρα τε καὶ βασιλέαϑ, μεθ᾽ ὃν γένος τὸ θεῶν δεύτερον, ἑπόμενον δὲ τὸ δαιμόνων, τὸ δὲ ἡρώων Téraprov: τῆς τοῦ κρεΐττονος ἰδέας μετασχόντα πῆ μὲν ἄγειν, πῆ δὲ ἄγεσθαι,

1. See pp. 156 ff. and 173 ff.

2. Not mentioned by Wolff. The words and phrases relevant to the consideration of cíu. Dei XIX 23 are underscored. Lewy, of. cif. pp. its source is the Philosophy from Oracles.

3. Cf. ciu. Dei XXII 25 and p. 75.

509

ff. has

cóncluded

independently

that

« CIV.

DEI

» XIX.

23

61

καὶ φῶς ἅπαν προσαγορεύεσθαι τὸ τοιόνδε φωτὸς μετοχῇ. ... ταῦτα τοῦτον διαστειλάμενοι τὸν τρόπον θεοῖς μὲν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὸν ἄχρι σελήνης αἰθέρα φασὶν ἀποτετάχθαι, δαίμοσιν δὲ τὰ περὶ σελήνην καὶ ἀέρα, ψυχαῖς δὲ τὰ περὶ γῆν καὶ ὑπόγεια. τοιούτῳ δ᾽ ἀφορισμῷ κεχρημένοι πρῶτον ἁπάντων φασὶ τοὺς οὐρανίους δεῖν καὶ αἰθερίους θεοὺς θεραπεύειν, δεύτερον τοὺς

ἀγαθοὺς δαίμονας, τρίτον τὰς τῶν ἡρώων ψυχάς, τέταρτον τοὺς φαύλους καὶ πονηροὺς ἀπομειλίσσεσθαι δαίμονας. Ταῦτα δὲ λόγῳ διαιροῦντες ἔργῳ συγχέουσι τὰ πάντα, μόνας ἀντὶ τῶν εἰρημένων πάντων τὰς πονηρὰς δυνάμεις θεραπεύοντες καὶ ὅλοι ταύταις καταδουλούμενοι .. ἢ

1. Cf. pp. 102, 107, 114 f., 118, 123 f., 125.

CHAPTER

Other

It

seems

losophy

permissible

from

Texts

to

TWO

from the civ. Dei

add

to

the

Oracles, clearly indicated

in ciu. Dei XIX

texts

from

as such

Porphyry’s

Phi-

by Augustine himself

23, other texts from the civ. Det which can with good

reason be considered as coming from the same work. Augustine finished off the last six or eight books of the ciw. Dei within the years 420-425, and it is far from unlikely that in his reference to Porphyry, in these books at least, he is thinking from time to time of that book whose title he mentions in the nineteenth book. Accordingly we shall now review

a number of passages in these books which for one reason or another can be connected with the Philosophy from Oracies rather than with any . other work. In doing this we are omitting mention of passages which are likely to have reference to the Philosophy from Oracles, but where useful

evidence for the particular connection is not available. Confining our attention to the last six books of the ciu. Dei, we may remark on the frequency with which Augustine speaks of the scriptures as oracula.

Thus,

for example,

in the sixteenth

book

alone we

have

:

iam considerandae sunt promissiones Dei factae ad Abraham. In his enim apertiora Dei nostri, hoc est Dei ueri, oracula apparuere (16), accepit diuinum oraculum (18), oraculo tertio dixit Dominus (21), accepit etiam Isaac tale oraculum (36), and Iacob in somnis accepit oraculum (38). In the seventeenth book we have oracula illa diuina ad Abraham (3) and psalmorum oracula (18). In the eighteenth book we have oraculo sunt eius admoniti (12), oracula prophetarum (27), oracula diuina (41) and some other instances in chapters 53 and 54 which we shall discuss presently. It was perhaps natural that in these particular books, where Augustine .is treating specifically of the progress of the two cities and particularly

the progress of the city of God, he should speak of God's gradual revelation of Himself, and thus speak of prophets and oracles. And since the Christians,

while

inheriting

from

the

Jews,

nevertheless

came

from

amongst the gentiles, it was natural that, having spoken of the gradual ‘Hebrew

revelation,

Augustine

should

arrive at his climax

in speaking

64

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN

AUGUSTINE

of the revelation of God to the Greeks, to Porphyry, from whom, as from the Hebrews, the Christians, their debtors, considered themselves

independent. It is well, however, to realize how the climax with Porphyry in the nineteenth book overshadows all the preceding books in this way.

In this particular point Augustine’s ciu. Dei draws very close to Eusebius ’ prae. eu. There too the author is concerned to show the Christian debt to, and independence of, the Hebrews. There too the author was at pains to recognize what good there was in the Greeks, while at the same time

excusing himself and other Christians from following them in religion. In both Eusebius and Augustine the Greek author singled out is Porphyry, to whom, apart from the incidental criticism of polemics, respect is paid and whose opinions are considered and quoted at greater length than those of others. This may seem surprising. But it is even more surprising to reflect that in both of their lengthy and important works Augustine and Eusebius, having chosen Porphyry as an opponent worthy of their most serious attention, did not choose to give more than passing notice to his treatise Against the Christians, but concentrated deeply on his Philosophy from Oracles. Obviously this latter work seemed more important to them

than it has seemed to us. A. CIV. DEI XX

24

In ciu. Dei XX 24 we find the following passage : Multa de tudicio nowuissimo dicuntur in psalmis, sed eorum plura transeunter et strictim. Hoc tamen quod de fine huius saeculi apertissime ibi dictum est nequaquam silentio praeteribo. ‘ Principio terram tu fundasti, Domine, et opera manuum tuarum sunt caeli. Ipsi peribunt, tu autem permanes’ (Ps. 101.26 sqq.) ... Quid est quod Porphyrius, cum pietatem laudet Hebraeorum, qua magnus et uerus et ipsis numinibus terribilis ab ets colitur Deus, Christianos Οὗ hoc arguit maximae stultttiae etiam ex oraculis deorum suorum, quod istum mundum dicunt esse periturum ? Ecce in litteris pietatis Hebraeorum dicitur Deo, quem confitente tanto philosopho etiam ipsa numina perhorrescunt : ' Opera manuum tuarum sunt caeli, ipsi peribunt '. ... Si haec sententia Tout displicet, cuius, ut scribit iste philosophus, uelut grautoris auctoritatis oraculo in Christianorum credulitate culpatur : quur non similiter sapienliam tamquam stultitiam culpat Hebraeorum ὃ... Porro si in illa sapientia, quae Porphyrio tam multum lacet, ut eam deorum quoque suorum uocibus praedicet, legitur caelos esse perituros : quur usque adeo uana est ista fallacia, ut in fide Christianorum uel inter cetera uel rae ceteris hoc detestentur, quod in ea -periturus creditur mundus, quo utique nisi pereunte caeli perire non possunt ? Having quoted the words of St. Peter in the New Testament on the point, he goes on : Non enim dignabuntur (sc. Porphyrius et sui sequaces) de Petri apostoli locutione, quem uehementer oderunt, Hebraeorum

« CIV.

DEI

» XX.

24

65

defendere pietatem, deorum suorum oraculis adprobatam ... restat ut dicant, quod Propterea di eorum Hebraeam sapientiam. laudauerunt, quia istum psalmum (xor) non legerant. While it cannot be absolutely demonstrated that this passage owes its inspiration to the Philosophy [rom Oracles, one can have good confidence that

it does.

In the immediately

preceding

book

Augustine

had

been

seriously occupied with the Philosophy from Oracles, and had mentioned it by name. On that occasion he had instituted a comparison, inspired perhaps by Porphyry's own words, between the Hebrew God and the God of Porphyry's oracles. Here again in the twentieth book he compares the Hebrew and the Porphyrian oracles ' position on the question of the final destruction of the world : he finds them at variance, and rather flippantly suggests that Porphyry had approved of Hebrew wisdom, merely because he had not read Psalm

ror.

Apart, then, from the reference being to Porphyry, and from the proximity to the nineteenth book where the Phtlosophy from Oracles is mentioned specifically, and the institution of the comparison with Hebrew wisdom, the following sentiments and phrases strongly suggest that the source of inspiration for the passage is the same as for the passage in ciu.

Det

XIX

where

these

indentical

or very

similar

sentiments

and

phrases are found : pietatem laudet Hebraeorum, qua magnus et uerus et ipsis numinibus terribilis ab eis colitur Deus, Christianos arguit stultitiae .. ex oraculis deorum suorum ... confitente tanto philosopho etiam ipsa numina perhorrescunt ... Ioui ... eam (sc. sapientiam) deorum suorum uocibus $raedicet ... fallacia. Some of these phrases, or ones like them, Augustine repeats, as is his way, several times in this passage, but perhaps one instance of each will suffice for the present purpose. Three times in the course of this short passage Augustine seems to identify his source by the words : cum pietatem laudet Hebraeorum, porro δὲ in illa sapientia, quae Porphyrio tam multum lacet, and Hebraeorum defendere pietatem ut eam deorum quoque suorum uocibus praedicet, deorum suorum oraculis adprobatam. These phrases all refer to an oracle approving of the Hebrew God. This oracle spoke of the Hebrew God as : magnus et uerus et ipsis numinibus terribilis (quem) tpsa numina perhorrescunt. Furthermore the oracle mentioned Jupiter :

ous cuius oraculo. Porphyry

quoted the oracle in an attack on the Christians : si haec sententia Iowi displicet cuius oraculo in Christianorum credulitate culbatur. These mounting evidences of identification point clearly to the Philosophy from Oracles as we know it from our study of it in ciu. Dei XIX. 23. If it is suggested that this present passage could have been inspired by Porphyry's Against the Christians, one has to admit that it could, but on the condition that that part in question in the Against the Christians followed very closely what is to be found in the Philosophy from Oracles. But since

there is no reference to the Against the Christians in the ctu. Dei, and

66

« PHILOSOPHY

since we have

no evidence

FROM

whatever

that

ORACLES

» IN

such a passage,

AUGUSTINE

with these

precise identifications, ever was in the Agatnst the Christians, and since the whole context and details allow a clear identification with part of the

Philosophy

unreasonable than in the Assuming, from Oracles

from

Oracles

just

treated

of

by

Augustine,

it seems

to seek for the inspiration behind this passage elsewhere Philosophy from Oracles. then, that this passage has been inspired by the Philosophy one may proceed to indicate what additional information!

it gives us for that work of Porphyry's. Immediately we are told that one of the main points of attack by Porphyry against the Christians was their teaching that the world would perish : in fide Christiana uel inter cetera uel prae ceteris detestentur, quod in ea periturus creditur mundus ... Christianos ob hoc arguit maxime stultitiae?. Furthermore we are told of his method : ex oraculis deorum suorum. Porphyry went further and adduced an oracle of Jupiter, to Porphyry of greater authority than the Old Testament, to censure the Christians for their credulity : Jowi cutus, ut scribit iste philosophus, uelut. grautoris auctoritatis oraculo in Christianorum credulitate culpatur. The words : grawioris auctoritatis at least might come directly from the Phtlosophy from Oracles. The final piece of information.is not unimportant for us ;

Porphyry hated St. Peter, or at de Petri apostoli locutione, quem Lest it might still be argued passage is the Philosophy from

least (as far as this text goes) his writings: uehementer oderunt. that whereas the inspiration behind the Oracles, nevertheless the additional infor-

mation may have been imported by Augustine from another work, say the Against the Christians, in which Porphyry assailed Christians for their ignorance, credulity, and stupidity, one may remark that, whatever

might or might not have been mentioned in the Against the Christians, the Philosophy from Oracles did, as we have seen, attack the Christians for

being errore inplicatos, ignorantes, for being mad in their folly, dementiam hominum, and for being deprived of truth, aliena a se ueritate. And in the present passage the charge of credulty is twice specifically connected with the oracle in the Philosophy from Oracles : cum pietatem laudet Hebraeo-

rum, Christianos ob hoc arguit maximae stuliitiae quod tstum mundum dicunt esse periturum — the connection is established by the cum. A gain si haec sententia (sc. caeli peribunt) Ioui displicet cuius oraculo in Christianorum credulitate culpatur — the connection is established by the Joui cuius oraculo. It has to be admitted that for the final piece of additional information, that Porphyry and his followers violently hated St. Peter : quem ueheI. Wolff, does not mention this passage. On the other hand Hoffmann in the C.S.E.L. edition of the ciu. Det lists parts of it in the Index as having reference to the Philosophy from Oracles. 2. Cf. Aeneas of Gaza, of. cit. pp. 957 ; cf. pp. 147 f.

« CIV. DEI » XX. 24

67

menter oderunt, we have no separate mark of identification with the oracles reported in ciu. Dei XIX 23, other than its presence in a passage where everything else is clearly connected,

sophy

from

Christians,

Oracles who

did draw

were

and the fact that the Phslo-

a clear distinction

described

between

as hateful to the gods

Christ and

: dis exost, and

vituperated by Porphyry and his followers. The specification of St. Peter, however, cannot for the moment, be demonstrated.

B. CIV. DEI XVIII. 53-54 We

may

derive some help, however,

from the following passage at

the end of book eighteen (ciu. Det XVIII. 53 and 54) : Sed haec quia euange-

lica sententia est (sc. frustra annos qui remanent huic saeculo conputare ac definire, cum hoc scire non esse nosirum ex ore Veritatis audiamus), mirum

non est non ea repressos fuisse deorum multorum falsorumque cultores, quominus fingerent daemonum responsis, quos tamquam deos colunt, definitum esse quanto tempore mansura essel religio Christiana. Cum enim wuiderent nec tot tantisque persecutionibus eam potuisse consumi, sed his potius mira incrementa sumsisse, excogitauerunt nescio quos uersus Graecos tamquam consulenti diwino oraculo effusos, wbi Christum quidem ab huius tamquam sacrilegii

crimine

subiungunt, annos,

faciunt.

ut coleretur

deinde

conpleto

innocentem,

Petrum

Christi nomen memorato

numero

autem

maleficia

per trecentos: sexaginta. annorum,

sine

mora

fecisse

quinque sumeret

finem. O hominum corda doctorum ! O ingenia litterata digna credere ista de Christo, quae credere non uultis in Christum, quod eius discipulus Petrus ab eo magicas aries non didicerit, sed, ipso innocente, tamen eius maleficus

fuerit nomenque illus quam suum coli maluerit magicis artibus suis, magnis laborius et periculis suis, postremo etiam effusione sanguinis sui! Si Petrus maleficus fecit, ut Christum sic diligeret mundus, quid fecit innocens Christus, ut eum sic diligeret Petrus ? ... Deinde isti di qui sunt, qui possunt ista praedicere nec possunt auertere, ita succumbentes uni malefico et uni sceleri magico, quo puer, ut dicunt, anniculus occisus et dilaniatus et ritu nefario sepultus est, ut sectam sibi aduersariam tam prolixo tempore conualescere, tot tantarumque

persecutionum

horrendas

crudelitates

non

resistendo,

sed

patiendo superare et ad suorum simulacrorum templorum, sacrorum oraculorum euerstonem peruenire permitterent ? Quis postremo est deus, non noster utique,

sed ipsorum,

qui uel inlectus tanto scelere uel inpulsus

est

ista praestare ? Non enim alicui daemoni, sed deo dicunt illi uersus haec Petrum arte magica definisse. Talem deum habent; qui

Christum non habent.

(54). Haec atque huius modi multa colligerem, si nondum annus ipse transtssel, quem diuinatio ficia promisit et decebta uanttas credidit. Cum wero, ex quo nominis Christi cultus per eius in carne praesentiam et per apostolos institutus est, ante aliquot annos anni trecenti sexaginta quinque conpleti sint, quid aliud quaerimus,

unde ssta falsitas

refellatur ὃ... Ibi

68

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN

AUGUSTINE

( Hierusalem) ergo exorsus est huius nominis cultus, ut in Iesum Christum, qui crucifixus fuerat et resurrexerat, crederetur. Ibi haec fides tam insignibus

initis incandwit,

ut aliquot hominum.

milia in Christi nomen

mirabili

alacritate conuersa ... se usque ad mortem pro ueritate certare non armata

potentia, sed potentiore patientia praepararent. Hoc si nullis magicis artibus facium est, quur credere dubitant eadem uirtute diuina per totum mundum id fieri potuisse, qua hoc [actum est ? Si autem ut Hierosolymis sic ad cultum nominis Christi. accenderetur tanta hominum. multitudo, quae illum tn cruce uel fixerat prensum uel riserat fixum, iam maleficium illud fecerat

Petrus, ex ipso anno quaerendum est, quando trecenti. sexaginta quinque conpleti sint. ... Tunc itaque nominis illius cultus exorsus est, sicut nos credimus

et ueritas

habet,

efficacia

Spiritus

sancti ; sicut.

uanitas inpia uel putautt, magicis artibus Petri ... quando iam secundum illud oraculum daemonum nulla esse debuit religio Christiana, quid per alias factum sit, non fuit necesse perquirere ; interim,

autem

finxit

consule Mallio Theodoro, aut figmentum hominum terrarum partes forsitan quod scimus, in ciuitate

nolissima et eminentissima Carthagine Africae Gaudentius et Ioutus comites

imperatoris

Honorii

... falsorum deorum

templa

euerterunt et simulacra

fregerunt. Ex quo usque ad hoc tempus per triginta ferme annos quis non

uideat quantum. creuerit. cultus nominis Christi, praesertim. postea quam multi eorum Christiani facti sunt, qui tamquam uera illa diuinatione reuocabantur a fide eamque conpleto eodem numero annorum inanem ridendamque widerunt ? Nos ergo, qui sumus uocamurque Christani, non in Petrum credimus, sed 1n quem credidit Petrus ; Petri de Christo aedificati sermonibus, non carminibus uenenati ; nec decepti maleficiis, sed beneficiis eius adiuti ... terrena ( ciuitas) fecit sibi quos voluit uel undecumque uel etiam ex hominibus

falsos deos, quibus sacrificando seruire ; illa autem, quae caelestis peregrinatur in terra, falsos deos non facit ; sed a uero Deo ipsa fit, cuius uerum sacrificium ipsa sit. Our first task is to establish the connection between these last two chapters of book eighteen with the twenty-third chapter of the next following book in which there is, as we have seen, explicit mention of the Philosophy from Oracles. This time the name of Porphyry is not

mentioned. Nevertheless the evidence for connecting this long excerpt with Porphyry’s Philosophy from Oracles is sufficient. First we may take in order the indications which point to the same source as that which inspired ciu. Dei XIX. 23. Here we are told of : deorum. multorum cultores, fingerent daemonum responsis quos tamquam deos colunt, excogitauerunt nescio quos uersus Graecos tamquam consulenti diuino oraculo effusos, ubi Christum quidem ab huius tamquam sacrilegii crimine faciunt innocentem, Petrum autem maleficia fecisse subiungunt ... digna credere ista de Christo, quae credere non uultis in Christum, quod

eius discipulus Petrus ab eo magicas artes non didicerit, sed ipso innocente, tamen eius maleficus [uerit nomenque illius quam suum coli maluerit magicis

« CIV. DEI à XVIII, 53-54

69

artibus swis ... innocens Christus ... isti di qui possunt ista praedicere ... suorum simulacrorum templorum, sacrorum oraculorum ... Non enim alicui daemoni, sed deo dicunt illi uersus ... diwinatio ficta et decepta wuanitas ... finxit uanitas inpia ... secundum illud oraculum daemonum aut figmentum hominum ... lamquam uera illa diuinatione ... carminibus uenenati .. decepti maleficiis ... fecit sibi quos uolutt falsos deos, quibus sacrificando seruire

... (caelestis ciwitas) a uero Deo ipsa fit, cuius uerum sacrificium

tpsa sit. Here we have the same suggestion that the oracles were made up : fingerent, ficta, finxit, figmentum, excogitauerunt, that cult was paid to

the demons

: daemonum

quos tamquam

deos colunt, even to sacrificing

to them : quibus sacrificando seruiret, whereas the Christians made a sacrifice only of themselves : a wero Deo, cuius werum sacrificium ipsa Sit. The revelation is, of course, given by oracles : daemonum responsis,

nescio quos uersus Graecos tamquam consulenti diwino oraculo effusos, di ista. praedicere, illi uersus, diuinatio, oraculum daemonum,

carminibus. It

is insisted that Christ was innocent : ?nnocentem, ipso innocente, innocens Christus, credere non wultis in Christum, whereas his followers — but here only one follower, St. Peter, is specified — are vituperated : Petrum maleficia fecisse, magicas artes didicerit, maleficus, magicis artibus suis,

digna credere ista de Christo. In spite of their gods’ perception of the future: qui possunt isla praedicere, these men were deceived in their vanity : decepta uanitas, uanitas inpia. Above all they were unlike St. Peter who sought no cult of his name : nomen illius quam suum coli maluerit, or Christians as a whole, who made of themselves the true sacrifice to the

true God : wero Deo cuius uerum sacrificium ipsa sit. The reader will not have failed to notice that this passage from ciu. Dei XVIII both confirms the reference to St. Peter, which we had

noted in the passage from ciu. Dei XX. 24, and explains it : quem wehementer

oderunt.

Here

we are told

repeatedly

: Peirum

autem

maleficia

fecisse, maleficus! (three times) maleficium illud fecerat Petrus, and also that he used magic : magicas artes didicerit, magicis artibus suis, sceleri magico, arte magica definisse, magicis artibus Pelri. It was St. Peter who was responsible for the error of the Christians in paying cult to Christ : nomen illius quam suum coli maluerit. It may

also be noted that the present passage is introduced

by the

consideration of the ending of the world. We saw that ciu. Det XX. 24 dealt with this topic.

I. Cf. ciu. Dei X. 9 : magian uel detestabiliore nomine tocant,

qui quasi

conantur ista. discernere

et inlicitis

goelian uel honorabiliore theurgian

artibus

deditos alios damnabiles, quos

et

maleficos uulgus appellat (hos enim ad goetian pertinere dicunt), alios autem laudabiles uideri *iolunt, quibus theurgian deputant,

70

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN

AUGUSTINE

Again — an important detail — the words : quis postremo est deus qui uel inlecius tanto scelere uel inpulsus est ista praestare, where the god of the oracle is declared to have been constrained by Peter's evil-doing and magic to give oracles against his will, and oracles, moreover, which foretold the growth of Christianity and the decline of the gods themselves — an event which the gods were quite powerless to avoid : deinde isti dt qui sunt, qui possunt ista praedicere nec possunt auertere ut sectam sibi aduersariam ad suorum simulacrorum templorum, sacrorum oraculorum euersionem peruenire. permitterent ? — this topic was, we know, treated of in the Philosophy from Oracles}. Finally, to round off our remarks on this passage, it is to be noted that the believers in the oracles are called ' learned ' : O hominum corda doctorum ! O ingenia litterata. These words, half serious and half ironical, were ever on Augustine’s lips when speaking of Porphyry and his fol-

lowers. And as they were learned, so were they opposed to Christians as their adversaries : sectam sibi aduersariam. Augustine could have got these notions from the oracle now being discussed. Perhaps it may be conceded, then, that cru: Dei XVIII. 53, 54, joined to XX. 24, each confirming the other, are inspired as was XIX. 23,

to which

they

are both independently

from Oracles. There remains,

connected,

for the moment

by the Phtlosophy

the task of seeing if this

present passage? gives us any additional information, such as we found in our study of XX. 24. The first piece of information might be a quotation from the Philosophy from Oracles, or even the words of the oracle itself : Petrum autem maleficia fecisse. This is repeated at least six times in the course of the two

chapters, and very probably echoes a phrase or word in the oracle quoted by Porphyry. The same is true of Peírws magicas artes (didicerit), in which case the operative words are found at least five times in the two chapters. It will be remembered that Augustine was inclined to hurl

I. Cf. Wolff, pp. 175 ff. and pp. 170 ff. Here he quotes the evidence of Philoponus, De optficto

mundi IV. 20 on the compulsion done by men to the gods : βιαζόμενοι ὑπ᾽ αὐτῶν of θεοὶ παρὰ μοῖραν διὰ τήν βίαν τῶν ἐπανάγκων ἄκοντες λέγειν, and the fragments preserved by Eusebius, Prae. eu. VI. 5 (Mras I p. 299) on this compulsion : of δὲ μένουσι καὶ λέγειν ἀναγκάζουσι... εἶπε γοῦν 6 ᾿Απόλλων ποτέ ... : ἱκλεῖε βίην κάρτος τε λόγων᾽ and VI. 3 (Mras I p. 297) on the foretelling of the destruction of the oracles:

ἢ

« aloa yap ἦν δολιχοῖσι χρόνοις περικαλλέα σηκὸν πυρσῶν αἰώρῃσι διιπετέεσσι δαμῆναι. » Nor can we omit the pathetic lines preserved in Eusebius, op. cif., V. τό (Mras Ip. 251):

Πυθῷον δ᾽ οὐκ ἔστιν ἀναρρῶσαι λάλον ὀμφήν" ἤδη γὰρ δολιχοῖσιν ἀμαυρωθεῖσα χρόνοισι Βέβληται κληῖδας ἀμαντεύτοιο σιωπῆς. Cf. also Philoponus loc. cit. 2. Neither Wolff nor Hoffmann has any reference to it. Courcelle, op. cif. p. 172 n. assigns it to the Philosophy

from

Oracles.

« CIV. DEI » XVIII, 53-54

71

back at Porphyry the accusations he had made against Christians. Hence it may be in this oracle that Augustine found his inspiration for his constant charge against Porphyry that he not only gave cult to the demons!, but, as we shall see, was involved arts.

In some

with their evil doings

connection with the phrases about Christ's

and

magical

innocence

and

Peter's evil-doing and magic must have been found in the oracle quoted by Porphyry the words : coleretur Christi nomen per trecentos sexaginta

quinque annos, deinde conpleto memorato numero annorum, sine mora sumeret finem or something equivalent. This is a very precise detail indeed?. Augustine was greatly impressed by the circumstances that not only had this prophecy been disproved, but the oracles had been silenced, some of the devotees of the demons had become Christian, and the

Church itself had benefited from the opposition of the demons : it had now widely expanded : nec tot tantisque persecutionibus eam potutsse consumi, sed his polius mira incrementa sumsisse ... persecuttonum horrendas crudelitates superare ad suorum simulacrorum templorum, sacrorum oraculorum euersionem peruenire ... per totum mundum id fieri ... falsorum deorum templa euerterunt et simulacra fregerunt ... quis non uideat quantum creuerit cultus nominis Christi, praesertim postea quam multi eorum Christani facti sunt, qui tamquam uera illa diuinatione reuocabantur a fide eamque conpleto eodem numero annorum inanem ridendamque widerunt. These reactions of his to the non-fulfilment of the oracle's prophecy are to be found, as we shall see, in many places where he is dealing with Porphyry : it is at least possible that they first came to him when he read this oracle in the Philosophy from Oracles. It may be remarked, by the

way,

that the followers of Porphyry,

according to Augustine,

usually

scoff at Christianity : here, having become Christian, they scoff at a prophecy in which they had once believed, inanem ridendamque uiderunt.

Eusebius, in the beginning of the fifth book of his prae. ew? can scarcely control his satisfaction now that « the oracles are dumb. » He writes of the deliverance from the evils of former times which was provided for all men by the Saviour's teaching in the Gospel : ἄκουε τοιγαροῦν αὐτῶν ᾿Ἑλλήνων ὁμολογούντων ἐκλελοιπέναι αὐτῶν τὰ χρηστήρια, οὐδ᾽ ἄλλοτέ ποτε ἐξ αἰῶνος ἢ μετὰ τοὺς χρόνους τῆς σωτηρίου καὶ εὐαγγελικῆς

I. For Porphyry’s position on this point see de abst ΤΊ. 34 ff. Augustine does not always distinguish between Porphyry's view and that of the oracles which he quotes. Cf. Lewy, op. cit. DP- 505 ff. for an estimate of Pocphyry’s debt to Origen in the matter of demonology. 2. The question occurs as to whether or not Porphyry believed in this prophecy. It is not

necessary to suppose that he did, since Augustine is careful not to mention him by name and attributes credulity to a vague ' they. ' One must also remember that he, even if to a lesser degree than Eusebius, could have « attributed » to Porphyry belief in an oracle which Porphyry

was but reporting. 3. V. 1, Mras I p. 219 f.

72

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN

AUGUSTINE

διδασκαλίας τὴν ἑνὸς τοῦ παμβασιλέως καὶ δημιουργοῦ τῶν ὅλων θεοῦ γνῶσιν φωτὸς δίκην πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἀνατειλάσης. αὐτίκα γοῦν μάλα ὅσον οὐδέπω παραστήσομεν ὡς ἄρα μετὰ τὴν ἐπιφάνειαν αὐτοὺ καὶ θάνατοι τῶν δαιμόνων ἱστορήθησαν καὶ τὰ θαυμαστὰ καὶ πάλαι βοώμενα χρηστήρια διαλελοίπασιν. Augustine likewise — and this is a point which is of some significance for our argument — dates the ending of many evils with the coming

of Christ

in the

Incarnation.

In the present

passage

he draws attention to this matter : annus ipse transisset, quem diuinatio ficta promisit et decepta uanitas credidit. Cum uero, ex quo nominis Christi cultus per eius in carne praesentiam et per apostolos institutus est... The

last piece of additional

information which

the passage

gives us

is contained in the following : quo fuer anniculus occisus et dilaniatus et ritu nefario sepultus est. These words are, apparently, introduced as an explanation of the sceleri magico perpetrated by Sf. Peter in order to compass

his nefarious

end,

namely

to promote

the cult of Christ's

name rather than his own and make the world love Christ : nomen tllius quam suwm coli maluerit, and Petrus fecit ut Christum sic diligeret mundus. Peter is said to have achieved this result — for which he is alleged to be solely responsible — by magical arts : magicis artibus suts, sceleri magico. The nature of the scelus magicum is then indicated in the words, which are given as a quotation : quo Puer, ut dicunt, anniculus occisus et dilaniatus et ritu nefario sepultus est. Whatever be the interpretation of these

words,

they

may

be

traceable

C. CIV. DEI

to

the

XXII.

Philosophy

from

Oracles.

25-28

Very early in the last book of the ciu. Dei we come upon familiar sen-

timents familiarly expressed : Idem Deus quem perhorrescunt numina paganorum, etiam teste Porphyrio, nobilissimo philosopho paganorum (3)}. This clearly is of the same inspiration as chapter 23 of the nineteenth

book. We might just draw attention in passing to the praise here given to Porphyry,

and

that

as the

philosopho paganorum.

representative

of the pagani

: nobilissimo

This is of some importance in view of the fact

that the ciu. Dei was written contra paganos. At the very end of the same book, the twenty-second

and

last, of

Augustine's great work we find the following passage? : (25) Verum de animi bonis, quibus post hanc witam beatissimus per[ruetur, non a nobis dissentiunt. philosophi nobiles : de carnis resurrectione contendunt, hanc quantum possunt negant. Sed credentes multi negantes paucissimos reli1. Not

in Wolff.

Referred

by Hoffmann

in the

Index

to the C.S.E.L.

edition of the ciu.

Dei to Porphyry's Philosophy from Oracles. 2. Not in Wolff, op. cit. Referred, in part, by Hoffmann,

from Oracles.

loc. cit. to Porphyry's Philosophy

᾿

« CIV. DEI » XXII. 25-28

]

73

querunt et ad Christum, qui hoc quod tstis uidetur absurdum in sua resurrectione monstraust, fideli corde conuersi sunt, docti et indocti, sapientes mundi

et insipientes. Hoc enim credidit mundus, quod praedixit Deus, qui etiam hoc praedixit, quod hanc rem mundus [uerat crediturus ; neque enim Petri maleficiis eam cum laude credentium tanto ante praenuntiare conpulsus est. Ille est enim Deus, quem (sicut tam dixi aliquotiens, nec commonere me piget) confitente Porphyrio adque td oraculis deorum suorum probare cuptente ipsa numina perhorrescunt : quem sic laudauit, ut eum et Deum patrem el regem uocaret. Absit enim, ut sic intellegenda sint quae pracdixst, quo modo uolunt ht, qui hoc cum mundo non crediderunt, quod mundum crediturum esse praedixit. Quur enim non potius sta, sicut crediturus tanto ante praedictus est mundus, non sicut pauctssimi garriunt, qui hoc cum mundo, quod crediturus praedictus est, credere noluerunt ? Si enim propterea dicunt alio modo esse credenda, ne, si dixerint uana esse conscripta,

iniuriam faciant illi Deo, cut tam magnum perhibent testimonium ... (26) Sed Porphyrius ait, inquint, ut beata sit anima, corpus esse omne fugiendum.

Nihil ergo prodest, quia incorruptibile diximus futurum corpus, si anima beata non erit, nist omne corpus effugertt. Sed ... tstorum omnium magister Plato ... illud euertst quod dicunt, quoniam est inpossibilis, ideo resurreclionem carnis non esse credendam. Apertissime quippe iuxta eundem philosophum, ubi dis a se factis promisit Deus non factus inmortalitatem, quod inpossibile est se dixit esse facturum. Sic enim eum locutum narrat Plato : ' Quoniam

estis orti, inquit, inmortales esse et indissolubiles non potestis ;

non lamen dissoluemini neque wos ulla mortis fata periment nec erunt ualentiora quam consilium meum, quod maius est uinculum ad perpeiuttatem uestram quam illa quibus estis conligati '. (cf. Timaeus 41a. The translation is Cicero's ; cf. ciu. Dei XIII. 16). Ille igitur carnem incorruptibilem, inmorlalem, spiritalem resuscitabit, qui iuxta Platonem td quod inpossibile est se facturum esse promisit ... Non ergo, ut beatae sint. animae, corpus est omme fugiendum, sed corpus incorruptibile recipiendum. Et in quo conuenientius incorruptibili corpore. laetabuntur, quam in quo corruptibili gemuerunt ? ... sic, inquam, cupiditatem reuertend: ad corpora non habebunt, cum corpora, in quae reuerti cupiunt, secum. habebunt et sic habebunt, ut numquam non habeant ... (27) Singula quaedam dixerunt Plato adque Porphyrius, quae si inter se communicare potuissent, facti essent fortasse Christiani. Plato dixit sine corporibus animas in aeternum esse non posse ... ideo ad corpora redituras. Porphyrius autem dixit animam purgatissimam, cum redierit ad Patrem, ad haec mala mundi numquam esse redituram. Ac per hoc, quod uerum widit Plato, si dedisset Porphyrio, eliam iustorum ... purgatissimas animas ad humana corpora redituras ; rursus quod uerum uidit Porphyrius, si dedisset Platoni!l, numquam vedi-

1. Corrected from misprint in Hoffmann's edition.

74

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

turas ad miserias corruptibilis corporis animas sanctas ... puto quod widerent esse tam consequens, ut et redirent animaead. corpora, et talia. reciperent corpora, in quibus beate adque inmortaliter usuerent ... Haec itaque non erunt nisi illa quae fromitist Deus, beatas animas in aeternum cum sua acterna

carne

facturus.

Hoc

enim,

quantum

existimo,

iam

facile

nobis

concederent ambo, ut, qui faterentur ad inmortalia corpora redituras animas esse sanctorum, ad sua illas redire permitterent, in quibus mala huius saeculi pertulerunt, in quibus Deum,

ut his malis carerent, pre. fideliterque

colue-

runt. (28) ... Varro quidem ... aliquid (dixit), quod licet falsum sit ... tamen mulia inpossibilitatts, qua contra nos ἰδέ garriunt, argumenta conuellit et desiruit. Qui enim hoc sentiunt siue senserunt, non eis uisum est fieri non posse, ut dilapsa cadauera in auras in puluerem, in cinerem in umores,

in corpora uescentium bestiarum uel tpsorum quoque hominum ad id rursus redeant, quod uerunt. Quapropter Plato et Porphyrius, uel potius quicumque illos diligunt et adhuc uiuunt, ... adsumant etiam hoc de Varrone, ut ad eadem corpora redeant, in quibus antea fuerunt, et apud. eos tota quaestio de carnis in aeternum resurrectione soluetur. This whole passage, excerpted from four of the concluding chapters of the civ. Dei, deals with the resurrection of the flesh : the theme is introduced at the beginning of 25 : de carnis resurrectione contendunt, and completed with the last words of 28 : tota quaestio de carnis resurrectione soluetur. The opponents are Porphyry and his followers : philosopm nobiles, baucissimos, istis, hi qui hoc cum mundo non crediderunt, paucissimi garriunt, Deo cui tam magnum perhibent testimonium, sed Porphyrius ait, inquiunt, istorum omnium magister Plato, isti garriunt, Plato

et Por-

phyrius, uel polius quicumque illos diligunt et adhuc wiwwnt. The argument to a large extent centres on Porphyry, for it has two parts in both of which Porphyry is involved as a principal. Firstly, it is argued that since Porphyry (in his Philosophy from Oracles) had approved of the God accepted by Hebrews and Christians, he should accept

the declaration of that God (who is Christ to Christians) that what seems impossible, namely the resurrection of the flesh, will in fact take place. Plato, moreover, to whom all the Platonists look up as to their master, made a similar declaration in the Timaeus. Secondly, since Plato said

that souls would return to bodies, and since Porphyry said that souls would not return to corruptible bodies, and since Varro said that souls would return to the same bodies which they had in this life, all three of

them, if these assertions were joined together, asserted precisely what the Christians asserted. Once again we see Augustine’s ambivalent attitude to Porphyry : he numbers him among the $Ailosophi nobiles (indeed he is

the philosophus nobilis), and he also includes him among the paucissimt who garriunt (words twice repeated here and frequently used elsewhere of Porphyry

Hebrew

God,

by Augustine);

he applauds

Porphyry's

approval

of the

and criticizes him for not accepting Christ's declaration

« CIV.

DEI

νυ XXII.

25-28

75

that the flesh would rise again ; he accepts Porphyry's view that souls cannot return to bodies that are corruptible, but criticizes him for understanding this in the sense that a// bodies were corruptible and should therefore be shunned. It is easy to see that certain portions of this passage at least have reference to the Philosophy from Oracles. Thus the following phrases clearly establish the connection

: Petri maleficiis, Deus

quem

confitente

Porphyrio adque id oraculis deorum suorum probare cupiente isa numina perhorrescunt ; quem sic laudawit, ut eum et Deum patrem et regem! wocaret, Deo cui tam magnum perhibent testimonium and, possibly, Deum pie coluerunt. It will be remarked that all these phrases, with the exception of the

last one, come from chapter 25. No one could deny that the whole of chapter 25 does centre around Porphyry's Philosophy from Oracles. The question arises, however, whether or not the other chapters, even

though they centre around Porphyry, are inspired by the same work. It might be argued, for example, that the important principle : omne corpus fugiendum, which is the key to the Porphyrian contribution in these " chapters, could have been taken from some other work of Porphyry's. One has to admit straight away that it could. The work which immediately

suggests itself is the work referred to by Augustine as de regressu animae in ciu. Dei X. 29 and 32. As, however, it is our purpose to establish that the Philosophy from Oracles and the de regressu animae are one and the same work, this is a consideration which would clearly indicate the Philosophy from Oracles as the inspiration behind chapters 26-28 of the twenty-second

book,

if our main

case were in fact established.

Let us begin by drawing attention to the fact that these last books of the ci«. Dei are all preoccupied with Porphyry more than any other philosopher, and up to this point are preoccupied with his Philosophy from Oracles. They make no demonstrable reference to any book of his other than the book, if it be a different book, which is the source for the

omne corpus fugiendum : from this, however, we must at present prescind. Next we must pay due regard to the fact that the topic, which is one, is introduced in the whole of chapter 25 in terms of the Philosophy from Oracles. Unless we have a definite reason for supposing that the inspiration behind chapters 26-28 is other than the PAilosophy from Oracles,

we cannot be said to act unreasonably in assuming, at least to begin with, that the inspiration behind these other chapters is also the Philosophy from Oracles. There

are,

however,

indications here which

apart

make

from

these

general

considerations,

it easy to believe that the omne

I. Cf. p. 51 and Eusebius, Prae. eu. IV. 5 and p. 60.

certain

corpus

76.

« PHILOSOPHY

fugiendum Oracles,

theme

and

make

FROM

ORACLES

» IN

AUGUSTINE

could have been treated of in the Philosophy [rom it unnecessary

to

look

for

any

other

inspiration

behind chapters 26-28. If we return to ciu. Dei XIX. 23 we see that the oracle spoke of Christ as mortuum : mortuum Deum cantans, and again, in answer to the question

whether or not Christ was God, Hecate replied : corpus quidem debilitantibus tormentis semper obpositum est. Apollo insists on the justice and shame of Christ's death : quem iudicibus recta sentientibus perditum pessima tn spectosis ferro uincta mors interfecit. Porphyry in his comment on this oracle of Apollo takes no greater account of any possibility of

the resurrection of Christ's body. The oracle as quoted in Lactantius is equally without reference to the possibility of Christ's resurrection : θνητὸς ἔην κατὰ σάρκα, σοφὸς τερατώδεσιν ἔργοις, ἀλλ᾽

ὑπὸ Χαλδαίοισι

δικασπολίαισιν

ἁλωκώς,

γομφωθεὶς σκολόπεσσι πικρὴν ἀνέπλησε τελευτήν. On the other hand Porphyry in his comment and Hecate in her oracle are

emphatic about the immortality of Christ's soul : Christus inmortalem factum, inmortalis anima post corpus ut incedit, nosti, animam post obilum inmortalitate dignatam, anima piorum caelesti sedi insidet, ipse uero pius et in caelum concessit. The oracles and Porphyry were perfectly clear on the point that Christ’s body did not accompany his soul to heaven :

anima post corpus, animam post obitum. Augustine was equally clear that that was their view : he understood that Christ in their view was, apart from

his being pitsstmus,

like any

other man,

whose

body,

of course,

was destined to perish and never to rise again — tantummodo hominem, non etiam Deum nouerit Christum. It can safely be taken, therefore, that in the Philosophy from Oracles

the equality in divinity of Christ with the Father and the resurrection of his body, were in no way countenanced. This, in any case, is not sur-

prising, since these teachings are basic to and characteristic of the Christian faith, which we know was attacked in the Philosophy from Oracles.

It is equally true that the immortality of Christ’s soul was both conceded and even approved.

In the light of these remarks we may now see more clearly the full implications

of the beginning

of chapter

25 of book

XXII

of the ciu.

Dei : Verum de animi bonis, quibus post hanc witam beatissimus perfruetur, non a nobis dissentiunt philosophi nobiles : de carnis resurrectione contendunt, hanc quantum possunt negant. Sed credentes multi negantes paucissimos reliquerunt et ad Christum, qui hoc quod istis widetur absurdum in sua resurrectione monstrauit ... hoc enim credidit mundus, quod

I. Instit. 4.13.11 ; cf. Wolff, p. 185.

« CIV. DEI » XXII. 25-28

77

praedixit Deus ... Ille est enim Deus, quem confitente Porphyrio

... isa

numina perhorrescunt. It is clearly implied here that Porphyry not only considered the question of the resurrection of the body, but denied its

possibility and went so far as to say tians appealed to Christ's prophecy order to rebut their arguments. This Christ with the Father, said was not brief Porphyry's view was that the was absurd : hoc quod istis widelur trauit

: hoc cum

mundo

non

such a thing was absurd. The Christhat he would arise after death in too the Platonists, refusing to equate fulfilled : Christ did not rise again. In resurrection of Christ's or any body absurdum in sua resurrectione mons-

crediderunt,

and

de carnis resurrectione

...

hanc quantum possunt negant. At the same time the oracle had clearly implied, according to Augustine, that Christ was ' beatus ' : sane Christum laudans uel Porphyrius uel Hecate, cum dicat ipsum fataliter dedisse Christianis, ut inplicarentur errore, ... quaero ... utrum uolens and nolens dederit. Sit nolens, quo modo beatus ? (ciu. Dei XIX. 23.) We are thus in a position where we can say that Porphyry in the Philosophy from Oracles held that Christ was ' beatus ', but that it was absurd to hold that his body was with his soul. Similarly Porphyry held that the

same was true in relation to the body of anyone else. This in effect — the assertion that the soul that is beata cannot have a body attached —

is tantamount to what is quoted at the beginning of chapter 26 : Sed Porphyrius ait, inquiunt, ut beata sit anima, corpus esse omne fugiendum.

That ' beata ' is used in reference to life after death is clear from the immediately following words : mthil ergo prodest, quia incorruptibile diximus futurum corpus, si anima beata non erit, nisi omne corpus effugerit.

It is of vital importance to remember that this Porphyrian adage : omne corpus fugiendum is used precisely in relation to this kind of beatitude!. As in the tenth book Christ's resurrection was the point for Augustine's introducing Porphyry's omne corpus fugiendum, so in book XXII, chapter 26 it has been introduced in the same connection. We have already seen that in chapter 25 Christ's resurrection had been considered and denied by Porphyry in the Philosophy from Oracles. It can hardly be denied that the omne corpus fugiendum of ciu. Dei XXII. 26 could have come from the Philosophy from Oracles, where Porphyry was considering Christ's beatitude and the absurdity, in his view, of his having in this condition any kind of body.

Christ prophesied that he would rise again from the dead and

that

he would draw all things to himself — that the world would believe him.

This prophecy is mentioned several times in these chapters of book XXII. Christ had, moreover, according to Augustine, fulfilled this prophecy :

I. E.g., civ. Dei X. 29 passim and especially : Quo modo ergo nec umquam soluetur a corpore, nec umquam carebit beatitudine, si, ut beata sit anima, corpus sit omne fugiendum

ἢ

78

« PHILOSOPHY

hoc enim credidit mundus,

FROM

ORACLES

» IN

AUGUSTINE

quod praedixit Deus, qui etiam hoc praedixit,

quod hanc rem mundus fuerat crediturus ; and again : non sicut mundus ea

credidit, quem crediturum ipse laudawit, ipse promisit, ipse conpleutt. The prophecy is perhaps not solely confined to that made by Christ, but may extend to what the Christians took to be the foreshadowings of the event in the Old Testament. The Christians also saw in the fulfilment οὗ Christ's prophecy the guarantee of the promise of their own resurrection. And, according to Augustine, the whole

world, with the exception

of some few, had gone over to Christ : doct: et indocti, sapientes mundi et insiftentes. What was Porphyry's attitude towards this prophecy of resurrection — of Christ's and therefore of that of all men ? Augustine tells us in chapter 25 : St enim propterea dicunt alio modo esse credenda, ne, si dixerint uana esse conscripta, iniuriam faciant illi Deo, cut tam magnum perhibent testimonium ; tantam prorsus ei uel etiam grauiorem faciant iniuriam, si aliter dicunt esse intellegenda, non sicut mundus ea credidit, quem crediturum ipse laudauit, ipse promisit, ipse conpleuit. Porphyry did not say that the prophecy was vain ; he said that it was to be understood in a way diffe-

rent from the way the Christians understood it. This Augustine would not have : Absit enim, ut sic intellegenda sint quae praedixit, quo modo wolunt hi, qui hoc cum mundo non crediderunt. Porphyry, evidently, suggested in the Philosophy from Oracles an interpretation of Christ's prophecy which Augustine considered more blasphemous

than

asserting that the

prophecy was empty and vain — which Porphyry was unwilling to do in his

respect

for the

God,

cut

tam

magnum

perhibent

testimonium.

Augustine therefore asks — still in chapter 25 which is clearly, as we have seen, to be connected with the Philosophy from Oracles — why will their opponents not accept the Christians' understanding of the prophecy ? He

suggests that there may

be two

reasons

: that the resurrection

of

the flesh is impossible, or an evil and unworthy of God : wirum enim non potest facere ut resurgat caro et uiuat in azternum, an propterea credendum non est id eum esse facturum, quia malum est adque indignum Deo ? In reply to these objections Augustine first briefly says that he has already answered both objections at an earlier stage! and to these answers he refers the curious. He cannot resist an attempt to score a debating point

on Porphyry by telling him that there is one thing God cannot do and that is, lie : hence his prophecy of the resurrection must be true. Nevertheless in chapter 26 he sees an opportunity of tackling the ques-

tion of the possibility or the impossibility of the resurrection in an argumentum ad hominem. To this argument the whole of the chapter is devoted. The objection, raised in the previous chapter, which is to be connected

1. ciu. Dei XIII

-

« CIV. DEI » XXII. 25-28

79

with the Philosophy from Oracles, is stated now in Porphyry's own words : Sed Porphyrius ait, inquiunt, ut beata sit anima, corpus esse omne fugiendum. Nihil ergo prodest quia incorrubtibile diximus futurum sorus, st anima beata non erit, nisi omne corpus effugerit. Augustine is not going to go into this argument again ; he will concentrate on one point, a personal point, and that only : Sed tam et hinc in

libro memorato (sc. XIII)

quantum oportuit disputaut ; uerum hic unum

inde tantum commemorabo.

Emendet libros suos istorum omnium

magister

Plato et dicat eorum deos, ut beati sint, sua corpora fugituros, id est esse morituros, quos in caelestibus corporibus dixit. inclusos ; quibus tamen Deus, a quo facli sunt, quo possent esse securi, inmortalitatem, td est in eisdem

corporibus aeternam permansionem,

non eorum natura id habente,

sed suo consilio pracualente, bromisit. Ubi etiam tllud euertit quod dicunt, quoniam est inpossibilis, ideo resurrectionem carnis non esse credendam. He then goes on, as we have seen, to quote from the Timaeus to the effect that God, according to Plato, would do the impossible : would make

it possible for them to be ' beati ' in heaven with their generated and dissoluble bodies. He comments : Si non solum absurdi, sed surdi non sunt

qui haec audiunt, non utique dubitant dis factis ab illo Deo qui eos fecit secundum Platonem quod est inpossibile fuisse promissum. He insists over and over again upon Plato's approval for his view : qui iuxta Platonem

td quod inpossibile est se facturum esse promisit, and Deum, qui etiam secundum Platonem [acit inpossibilia. He concludes, therefore, towards the end of this chapter 26 his argumentum ad Platonicum : non ergo, ut beatae sini animae, corpus est omne fugiendum, sed corpus incorruptibile recipiendum. It will be seen that this whole chapter is but an appendage to chapter 25 : it takes up one point and treats it in a narrow and personal way. The point is entirely concerned

with God's assertion, whether it be the

Christian God or the God of Plato, that He would do what seemed impossible — make generated bodies immortal. This topic was introduced in chapter 25 in the context of the identification of Christ with the Hebrew God approved of by Porphyry (an approval which is given in the Philo-

sophy [rom Oracles) : neque enim Petri maleficiis eam cum laude credentium tanto ante praenuntiare conpulsus est. Ille est enim Deus, quem (sicut iam dixi aliquotiens, nec commonere me piget) confitente Porphyrio adque id oraculis deorum suorum probare cupiente tpsa numina perhorrescunt ; quem sic laudautt, ut eum et Deum patrem et regem uocaret. In chapter 26 the same God, now in one respect likened to the God of Plato, is again

mentioned : Quid adhuc, quod bromisit Deus, quod Deo promtittenti credidit mundus, qui etiam ipse promissus est crediturus, esse inpossibile clamant, quando quidem nos Deum, qui etiam secundum Platonem facit inpossibilia, id facturum esse clamamus ὃ

80

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN

AUGUSTINE

Chapter 26, in point of fact, has very little to say about Porphyry directly : it considers rather the reply given by both the Christian God and the God of Plato to his objections that Christ’s prophecy must not be interpreted in the Christian sense, and the resurrection of the flesh was in any case absurd — objections formulated in chapter 25 and summed up in the opening words of chapter 26 : Sed Porphyrius ait, inquiunt, ut beata sit anima, corpus esse omne fugiendum. What we have been saying comes down to this : chapters 25 and 26 in so far as they

refer to Porphyry

refer to his Philosophy

from

Oracles

and the words : w beata sit anima, corpus esse omne fugiendum. are not likely to be an exception. We have already shown that the whole of that

idea in its proper understanding is to be found in the Philosophy from Oracles. Only the words are missing. Even they are not entirely missing.

Just as in 14 beata sit anima, corpus esse omne fugiendum, the destiny of anima is to be in heaven and the destiny of the body is to be separated from it, so in cis. Dei XIX. 23, the oracle twice mentions the same des-

tinies : quoniam quidem inmortalis anima post corpus! ut incedit, nosti, and again : corpus quidem debilitantibus tormentis semper obpositum est * anima autem piorum caelesti sedi insidet. — the soul in heaven is separated from body. It may be noted in passing that'another aspect of the corpus fugere seems to have been corpus deponere which is used both here in ciu. Dei XXII, 26 : numquam ea (corpora) prorsus uel ad exiguum quamlibet tempus ulla morte deponant and in X. 29 (of Christ's body) : ?fsum corpus morte depositum. It seems not unreasonable, therefore, to suggest that Augustine could have got the words : ut beata sit anima, corpus esse

omne

fugiendum

in the Philosophy

from

Oracles seeing that

they

occur in chapters of the ciu. Dei completely dominated by that work of Porphyry's.

At the end of chapter 26 Augustine, having disposed of Porphyry's objection against the resurrection of all bodies : non ergo, ut beatae sint animae, corpus est omne fugiendum, sed corpus incorruptibile recipiendum,

has yet to give reason for the soul's being invested in heaven once again with the individual body, now incorruptible, however, which it had on earth. Porphyry, it would seem from the following words in chapter 28,

raised certain difficulties against this point : Varro quidem siue illi genethliact nescio qui ... mulla illius inpossibilitatis, qua contra nos isti. garriunt, argumenta conuellit et destruit. Qui enim hoc sentiunt siue senserunt, non eis uisum est fieri non posse ut dilapsa cadauera in auras in puluerem, in. cinerem in wmores, tn corpora uescentium bestiarum wel ipsorum quoque hominum ad id rursus redeant, quod fuerunt. The isti garriunt, quite apart

1. Cf. Macrobius's similar use of post corpus in In Somn. Scip. 1.9.6. (and several times earlier on), a text which can be connected with the Philosophy from Oracles cf. pp. 145 n. 2.

« CIV. DEI » XXII. 25-28

81

from the context, probably pin-points Porphyry and his followers (paucissimi garriunt! of chapter 25 confirms this). Indeed Augustine immediately adds : Quapropter Plato et Porphyrius, uel potius quicumque illos diligunt et adhuc uiuunt : he includes the followers of Plato and Porphyry because he is vitally involved with the living and not with the dead. Porphyry, then, made these objections. Augustine, therefore, having

successfully

exploited

the

opinion

of Plato

against

Porphyry,

being in any case, while critical, in admiration of Porphyry,

and

and seeing

the possibility, moreover, of using the teachings of another respected philosopher, Varro, put together, without qualification, three of their assertions and in this way, in another argumentum

ad Platonicos, gave

reason for the Christian view : Plato dixit sine corporibus animas in aeternam esse non posse. Ideo enim dixit sapientium animas ad corpora redituras ; Porphyrius dixit animam purgattssimam, cum redierit ad Patrem, ad haec mala mundi numquam esse redituram ; adsumant etiam hoc de Varrone, ut ad eadem corpora redeant, in quibus antea fuerunt — et apud eceos tota quaestio de carnis resurrectione soluetur. This in substance is the content of the end of chapter 26 and the whole of chapters 27 and 28. The argument is still concerned with the resurrection of the body, introducefl in chapter 25 ; and Porphyry is mentioned, this time in an appraising way, but only for his opinion : there is no

discussion of it. Hence these chapters too are a kind of appendage to chapter 25 where Porphyry and his Philosophy from Oracles are confronted.

The question arises, however, if there is anything in these chapters — apart from the general line of argument arising in chapter 25 — which connects them with the Philosophy from Oracles ? We are met at the outset with Porphyry’s reported words : Porphyrius autem dixit animam purgatissimam,

cum

redierit ad Patrem,

ad haec mala

mundi

numquam

esse redtturam. This purports to be a quotation from a work of Porphyry and indeed that it is so (at least roughly) is made almost certain by Augustine's characteristic repetition of these expressions for the rest of the chapters : numquam redituras ad miserias corruptibilis corporis animas sanctas, talia reciperent corpora in quibus beate adque inmortaliter wiuerent, ad mala mundi huius sanctae animae non redtbunt, non redibunt ad mala,

ad corpora redire in quibus nulla patiantur mala, ad inmortalsa corpora redituras

animas

sanctorum,

and

nec

tamen

ad

mala

ulla

redituras.

It can, perhaps, be said that this idea and its formulation resembles the oracles quoted by Augustine in ciu. Dei XIX.

23 concerning Christ

and taken from Porphyry's Philosophy from Oracles. Although the full contexts in XIX. 23 (where sacrifice to God is dealt with) and XXII. 25-28 (where the resurrection of the body is the theme) are widely

1. See

p.

160.

82

« PHILOSOPHY

different

and

therefore

would

make

FROM

ORACLES

it inevitable

» IN

that

AUGUSTINE

Augustine,

if

drawing upon the same source for reported Porphyrian ideas, would not use precisely the same parts of that source and the same expressions in both places, nevertheless the resemblance between the reported . Porphyrian idea at the beginning of ciu. Dei XXII. 27 and XIX. 23 is sufficiently close to warrant the assertion that, in this context dominated by the Philosophy from Oracles, the source for : animam pur-

gatissimam, cum redierit ad Patrem, ad haec mala mundi numquam

esse

redituram could be Porphyry's Philosophy from Oracles}.

Moreover there are a few small details which help to link chapters 2628 with chapter 25, which is more obviously connected with Porphyry's

Philosophy from absurdt, sed surdi absurdum in sua nos ἰδέ garriunt,

Oracles. In chapter 26 we have the words : non solum which are an echo of : Christum qui hoc quod isti widetur resurrectione monstrauit. In chapter 28 we have : contra which is likewise an echo of : non sicut paucissimi gar-

riunt in chapter 25. And, as we have mentioned, it is just possible that

Deum pie fideliterque coluerunt at the end of chapter 27 is an echo of : Pater, quem ualde sancti honorant Hebraei, amplius autem ueneran Deum Patrem, Deum colere ubique imperant and similar phrases in ciu. Dei XIX. 23. We must next ask ourselves what these chapters have added to our

information about the contents of the Philosophy from Oracles. The items in question have all been discussed in the argument so far, and here it will be necessary only to list them in the order of their occurrence. i) Chapter 25 : Christum, qui hoc quod istis uidetur absurdum (sc. carnis resurrectio) in sua resurrectione monstrautt. ii) hoc cum mundo, quod crediturus praedictus est, credere noluerunt ? si enim propterea dicunt alio modo esse credenda (Christ's prophecies)... To this must be added : si aliter. dicunt esse intellegenda. iii) Chapter 26 : Sed Porphyrius ait, inquiunt, ut beata sit anima, corpus esse omne fugiendum. iv) Ubi etiam illud. euertit quod. dicunt, quoniam est inpossibilis, ideo resurrectionem carnis non esse credendam. v) Chapter 27 : Porphyrius autem dixit : animam purgatissimam, cum redierit ad Patrem, ad haec mala mundi numquam esse redituram.

We have seen that Augustine refers to this sentiment of Porphyry's in various, but similar, ways in these chapters. vi) Chapter 28 : Varro quidem siue illi genethliaci nescio qui multa illius inposstbilitatts, qua contra nos tsti garriunt, argumenta conuellit et destruit. Qui enim hoc sentiunt siue senserunt, non eis uisum est fieri non posse, ut dilapsa cadauera in auras in puluerem, im cinerem. in umores, in corpora uescentium bestiarum uel ipsorum quoque hominum ad id rursus redeant, quod fuerant.

I. The two senses of « retum »are conveniently brought together in this text. Cf. also p. 137.

« CIV.

DEI

» XXII.

25-28

83

It would seem from what we already know about the Philosophy from Oracles, and from this additional information that the book, in attacking Christianity,

denied the equality of Christ with the Father, denied the

resurrection of his body, interpreted his prophecies about that resurrection and the belief of all men in him in a way different from that accepted by the Christians,

and denied the resurrection of all bodies as absurd.

It taught that for beatitude in heaven the soul must be separated from all body of whatever kind : there could be no question of the soul's returning to its original body in any condition. It admitted that Christ's soul was immortal and in heaven, a lot which could be possessed by any human. But the body of Christ and all other bodies must be left behind at death

to perish and dissolve. In brief : where there is question of heavenly beatitude, there can be no question of the body : μέ beata sit anima, corpus

omne fugiendum. ) The Philosophy from Oracles, in so far as it considered the future life of the soul, in relation to the claim of Christians, denied the resurrection

of the body. Since the Christians appealed to Christ's prophecy and its fulfilment to prove their view, Porphyry’s book on this point concentrated on the question of Christ's resurrection. The oracles were used to

prove that no such resurrection took place. Here, at least, Porphyry's Philosophy from Oracles and his de regressu animae (if it were a separate work) would be at one.

CHAPTER

De

THREE

consensu evangelistarum ; Sermo

A. DE

CONSENSU

EVANGELISTARUM

241. 7

I, 11 sq

Among the passages in Augustine's works said to be inspired by the Philosophy from Oracles is one which is generally admitted to be such. Thus Courcelle, in his Les Lettres Grecques en Occident assumes this to be so!. The passage in question is from the de consensu euangelistarum? which is dated roughly by Courcelle in 400, that is over twenty years

before the passages we have studied from the cit. after the composition of the Confessions. As the long, we shall indicate only the particular parts our purpose. The main purpose in giving this text here is to ciu. Dei XXII. 25 and 26 belong together as one book : the Philosophy from Oracles. Other reasons

Dei, and not very long passage is exceedingly which are relevant to confirm the view that topic inspired by one are, the possibility of

adding to our stock of information on the content of that book, and its

indication that Augustine had read that work, and had developed his attitude towards it at an early stage in his career. De

consensu

euangeltstarum

I.

11

: solet nonnullos

mouere,

cur ipse

dominus nihil scripserit, ut aliis de illo scribentibus necesse sit credere. Hoc enim dicunt illi uel maxime pagant, qui dominum ipsum Jesum Christum culpare aut blasbhemare non audent eique tribuunt. excellentissimam sapientiam, sed tamen tamquam homini, discipulos wero eius dicunt magistro suo amplius tribuisse quam erat, ut eum filium dei dicerent et uerbum dei, per quod facta sunt omnia, el ipsum ac deum patrem unum esse, ac si qua similia sunt in apostolicis litteris, quibus eum cum patre unum deum colendum .esse didicimus, honorandum enim lamquam sapientissimum. uirum putant, colendum autem tamquam deum negant. (13) fama, quae de catholica 1. pp. 171 f. 2. P.L. 34, 1041 ff. (C.S.E.L.

43).

86

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN

AUGUSTINE

ecclesia, quam stupent toto orbe diffusam, mirabili claritate dispergitur, tenues istorum rumores incomparabiliter utnctt ; ea porro fama tam magna, tam celebris, ut eam timendo isti trepidas et tepidas contradictiunculas in sinu suo rodant, iam plus metuentes audiri quam uolentes credi, filium dei

unigenitum. et deum praedicat. Christum, per quem facta sunt omnia |... nos certe haec de dis eorum credimus quae habet et scriptura eorum antiquior et fama celebrior. Quae si adoranda sunt, cur ea rident in, theatris ? st ridenda

sunt, plus ridendum est, cum adorantur in templis ... si aliquos libros habere se dicunt, quos eum (Christum) scripsisse adserant, prodant eos nobis. profecto enim. utilissimi et saluberrimi sunt, quos, ut ipsi fatentur, wir sapientissimus scripsit. (14) Ita wero isti desipiunt, ut ilis libris, quos eum

scripsisse existimant,

dicant contineri

eas artes,

quibus

eum

putant

illa fecisse miracula, quorum fama ubique percrebruit ... Christum propterea sapientissimum putant fuisse, quia nescio quae inlicita nouerat, quae non solum disciplina christiana, sed etiam ipsa terrenae rei publicae administratio iure condemnat... (15) Quid quod etiam diuino iudicio sic errant quidam eorum, qui talia Christum scripsisse uel credunt uel credi uolunt, ut eosdem libros ad Petrum et Paulum dicant tamquam epistulari titulo $raenotatos... (16) Cum enim uellent tale aliquid fingere Christum scripsisse ad discipulos suos, cogitauerunt, ad quos potissimum scribere potuisse facile

crederetur.

... et occurrit

eis Petrus

et Paulus,

credo,

quod

pluribus

locis simul eos cum illo pictos uiderent ... sic omnino errare meruerunt ... nec mirum, si a pingentibus fingentes decepti sunt. toto enim tempore, quo Christus

in. carne

mortali

... uixit,

nondum

erat

Paulus

discipulus

eius.

We may interrupt the text for the moment to point out that here as in ciu. Dei XXII.

25? Augustine

places emphasis

on the acceptance of

Christ by the whole world : it impresses him, and it impresses the Platonists, who are so intimidated by it that they fall back nervously on weak contradictions, afraid even to be heard, unwilling to be believed. As in ciu. Dei XIX. 23, he has scathing remarks to make on the cult of the gods in their temples. The Platonists evidently claimed that they had books written by Christ, which showed how by various tricks he per-

formed the miracles he did perform. These arts were in fact condemned . not only by the Christian religion, but by the state laws. The books in question were supposed to be in the form of letters to Peter and Paul.

Augustine supposes that the Platonists pretend merely that these letters exist, or, if they exist, that they are forged. It is hardly necessary to

point out the other themes which are so clearly to be associated with ciu. Dei

XIX.

23. One

point,

however,

we

may

draw

attention

to, and

that is the denial by the Platonists that Christ should be the object of cult : colendum autem tamquam deum negant. I. Cf. pp. 104, 127.

2. Cf. XVIII. 54.

« DE

CONSENSU

EVANGELISTARUM »

I,

11

sq.

87

17 : lllud quoque adtendant ... uirum potuerit magicis artibus tantos prophetas diuino spiritu antequam in terra nasceretur implere, qui de illo talia futura praelocuti sunt ... neque enim, si magicis artibus fecit, ut coleretur et mortuus, magus erat antequam natus... (20) nec alia re magis clarust illius gentis regnum ct. templum el sacerdotium et sacrificium ... quam quod occisi Christi resurrectio postea quam coepit credentibus praedicari illa omnia cessauerunt. (21) Rem sane mirabilem non aduertunt pauct agam, qui remanserunt, deum Hebraeorum ... nunc praedicari et colt ab omnibus gentibus ... hoc faclum est per nomen Christi uenientis ad homines ex semine ipsius Israhel, qui nepos fuit Abrahae ... in semine tuo benedicentur omnes tribus terrae ... per Chrisli euangelium, ueri regis et sacerdotis, quod illo regno et sacerdotio futurum pracfigurauit, nunc ipse deus Israhel ubique delet idola gentium...

(22) Puto, quia haec de se futura ut per tot prophetas

et per cuiusdam etiam gentis regnum et sacerdotium praenuntiarentur, non magicis artibus fecit Christus, antequam esset in hominibus natus... (23) Quid quod isti uani Christi laudatores et christianae religionis obliqui obtrectatores non audent .blasphemare Christum, quia quidam philosophi eorum, sicut in libris suis Porphyrius Siculus prodit, consuluerunt deos suos, quid de Christo responderent, illi autem oraculis suis Christum laudare conpulst sunt? nec mirum, cum et in euangelio legamus eum demones fwisse confessos ; scriptum est autem in prophetis nosiris : quoniam di gentium demonia. ac per hoc isti, ne contra deorum suorum responsa conentur, continent blasphemias a Christo; el eas in discipulos eius effundunt ; mihi autem uidetur, quod illi d gentium, quos philosophi paganorum consulere potuerunt, etiam, st de discipulis Christi interrogarentur, ipsos quoque laudare cogerentur. (24) Verum tamen isti ita disputant, quod haec euersio templorum et damnatio sacrificiorum et confractio simulacrorum non per doctrinam Christi fiat, sed per discipulorum eius, quos aliud quam ab illo didicerunt

docuisse

contendunt,

ita uolentes

honorantes laudantesque conuellere, facta

adhuc

et dicta

Christi

istis iam

adnuntiata

chrishanam

fidem

quia utique per discipulos sunt,

paucissimis, nec tam

quibus

constat

obpugnantibus,

religio

Christum

Christi et christiana

sed tamen adhuc

mussitantibus, inimica. sed. si nolunt credere Christum talia docuisse, pro-

phetas legant. The stress upon fulfilment of prophecies, made so long in advance of Christ's coming, is also found in ctu. Det XXII. 25. The prefiguration

of Christianity that was found in the Hebrew religious customs is emphasised in ciu. Dei XIX. 23, as also their ceasing with the coming of Christ.

It is to be noted that the dead Christ's resurrection is indicated by Augustine as the precise time of the cessation. The foreshadowing of the coming of Christ as far back as the choosing of Abraham, and the prophecy

that all would be blessed in his seed, is part of Augustine's treatment of this topic arising out of the consideration of Porphyry's Philosophy from Oracles in ciw. Dei XIX. 23. The destruction of the temples and

88

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN

AUGUSTINE

oracles is also part of that topic. It is to be noted that while Porphyry and his followers abuse the disciples of Christ, and notably Peter (and as we learn from this passage, Paul), the oracles do not. Cis. Dei X XII. 25 also has reference to the Platonic contention that Christ taught one thing, while his disciples understood it differently : the Platonic version of that is to disagree with the Christian view and interpret for themselves what Christ's view was. The purpose of the Platonic praise of Christ is, of course, to win confidence for the abuse of his disciples and the prevention of the spread of Christianity. Again the opposition of the Platonists is represented as weak and from a very few. Section 25 and following sections dwell at length on the peculiarity of the Hebrew god among other gods in that, while they did not prohibit cult of gods other than themselves, the god of the Hebrews did. Likewise there are many references to the fulfilment of prophecies, and a few to the fact that only a meagre group now resists Christ and Christianity. (29) : st autem tam fidenter istum cols prohibent, ut plus audiri timeant (sc. Pla-

tonict) quam prohtbere audeant, hoc ipso quis non sapiat, quis non sentiat ilium esse potius eligendum, qui istos colt tam publice prohibet, qui eorum simulacra euerti iussit, praedixit, euertit ὃ... (30) Quid interrogem homines,

qui euanuerunt cogitando, quis iste sit ? Having discussed the Roman pantheon he goes on to consider the Platonic reaction to the question of the gods : 35 : Erubuerunt hinc phlosophi eorum recentiores Platonici, qui tam christianis temporibus fuerunt, ut Saturnum. aliler. interpretari conati sunt dicentes. appellatum Cronon uelut a satietate intellectus eo, quod Graece satietas coros, intellectus autem siue mens πῆς dicitur. cui widelur suffragari et Latinum nomen quasi ^ ex prima Latina parte et Graeca posteriore compositum, ut diceretur Saturnus tamquam

satur

nás!,

uiderunt,

quam essel. absurdum,

si filius temporis

Iuppiter haberetur, quem deum aeternum uel putabani uel putart uolebant. at uero secundum istam nouellam interpretationem, quam ueteres eorum si habuissent,

mirum

si Ciceronem

Varronemque®

latuisset, Saturni filium

louem dicunt tamquam ab illa summa mente profluentem spiritum, quem uolunt esse uelut animam mundi huius omnia caelestia et terrena corpora 1mplentem. unde illud Maronis est ... Iouis omnia plena ... neque enim ullam. animam rationalem. sapientem fieri disputant nist participatione summae illius incommutabilisque sapientiae, non solum cuiusquam hominis animam, sed tpsius etiam mundi, quam dicunt. Iouem ... uirum autem uniuersa ista corporalis moles, quae mundus appellatur, habeat quandam animam uel quasi animam suam, id est rationalem uitam, qua ita regatur sicut unumquodque animal, magna adque abdita quaestio est.

1. Cf. Plotinus, Enn. V.1.4. Cf. J. Pépin, Mythe et All£gorie, Aubier 1958, pp. 378 ff. 2. Cf. ciu. Dei XIX. 22 ; XXII. 28.

« DE

CONSENSU

EVANGELISTARUM »

I, 1I

sq.

89

Section 37 refers to those who hold the new interpretation of Saturn as being

too proud

to humble

themselves before Christ, and

continues

to stress the unique position of the Hebrew god as one who prohibits cult of other gods, and whose angels and prophets foretold true things. In 38 Jupiter is again described in the new interpretation as caeli corpus aut spiritus implens caelum et terram, while Saturn is described as mens superna, ex qua (Iuppiter) dicitur emanasse, and again as (Saturn) prima mens and (Jupiter) as anima a (prima mente) genita. Significantly there is mention of Juno as the persecutor of Hercules : Hercules Iunonem persecutricem suam. 39 identifies these worshippers again in the following words : Istos autem iam paucos deorum multorum falsorumque cultores quis non miretur nolle obtemperare illi, de quo cum ab eis quaeritur quisnam deus sit, quodlibet opinando respondeant, deum tamen esse negare non audent, quia si negent, operibus eius et praedictis adque conpletis facillime conuincuntur ἢ... ab Abraham in hominibus facta eius exordtor. huic enim

facta est per angelicum oraculum manifesta bromissio, quam nunc uidemus impleri. huic quippe dictum est : in semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes ... spse deus omnium gentium siue nescientium siue tam scientium... (40) Neque enim. temporibus christianis, sed tanto ante praedictum est quod per Christianos impletur ... ipst habent et legunt prophetam dicentem : ad te gentes uentent ab extremo terrae ... ecce nunc fit, ecce nunc gentes ab extremo terrae

ueniunt... quomodo ergo discipuli Christi docuerunt quod a Christo non didicerunt, sicut stulti-desipiendo iactitant ὃ... (41) frustra ergo miseri, quia blasphemare Christum etiam a dis suis, hoc est demonibus, nomen Christi metuentibus

prohibiti sunt, uolunt ab eo doctrinam istam facere alienam,

qua Christiani idola disputant...

(42) De deo Israhel

respondeant,

docere ista et iubere non tanium Christianorum, sed etiam

quem

Iudaeorum libri

testantur, de ipso consulant deos suos, qui Christum blasphemari prohibuerunt ... quis ergo est, qui propter deos alios solus ab istis non colitur, et euersis dis aliis tam euidenter efficit, ut solus colatur, humiliata omni superba altitudine, quae se aduersus Christum erexerat pro idolis persequens interficiensque Christianos ?... (43) timore franguntur, timendo legem uel ipsius (Dei) uel eorum qui credentes in eum gentibusque regnantes talia sacrilegta prohiberent... (46) adhuc isti fragiles contradictiunculas garrientes... (47) dest-

nant ergo dicere mali laudatores Christi, qui nolunt esse Christiani ... ecclesia eius per orbem diffunderetur... (48) si de Christi diuinitate discipulos eius putant esse mentitos, numquid de Christi passione dubitabunt ? resurrexisse non solent credere ; at illa omnia ab hominibus humana perpessum etiam libenter credunt, quia hominem tantummodo credi uolunt... (49) Quid ad haec dicunt peruersi laudatores Christi et Christianorum obirectatores ὃ... numquid, ut (ecclesia) sic dilatet locum tabernaculi sui omnes nationes et linguas occupans, ut longius, quam Romani imperii iura. tenduntur, «usque in Persas et Indos aliasque barbaras gentes funiculos porrigat ... ut non timuertt hominum minas et furias, quando in sanguine martyrum I

go

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN

AUGUSTINE

tamquam honore purpureo uestiebatur, ut pracealeret tam multis tamque uchementibus et potentibus persecutori bus suts... (50) hinc intellegant Christi peruersi laudatores et christianae veligionis exsecratores etiam Christ discipulos contra deos eorum ea didicisse adque docuisse quae doctrina continet Christi ... st enim Christum mira dementia suspicantur deos eorum coluisse ac per hos eum tanta potuisse, numquid et deus Israhel deos eorum coluit... ? ...ubi auguria uel auspicia uel haruspicia uel oracula demonum ? .. offendimus, inquiunt, deos nostros et deseruerunt nos, ideo aduersus nos Christiani pracualuerunt et humanarum rerum felicitas defessa ac deminuta

dilabitur. hoc sibi certe per Christianos fussse euenturum legant ex libris uatum suorum, sed ea legant, ubi st non Christus, quia eum deorum suorum uolunt

fuisse

cultorem,

saltem

deus

Israhel

tnprobatus

et detestatus

sit,

quem constat istorum euersorem. sed nunquam hoc proferent... It is not necessary to indicate in the preceding excerpt the themes, which from οὖν. Det XIX. 23, and XXII. 25 and elsewhere, we know to have been treated in the Philosophy from Oracles, and in dealing with which Augustine always took up the same attitude expressed in much the

same terms. This long excerpt, however, contains a few minor points of interest and one major one. The mention of Juno as a persecutor of Hercules is paralleled in οὖν. Dei X. 21 and in the fragments of the Philosophy from Oracles! ; the emphasis on Abraham and the promise made to him is an integral part of Augustine's handling of the theme of the God of the Hebrews and the truth of his prophecies. The mention of the decline of material prosperity, for which Christianity is blamed, did not have to wait on the arrival of Alaric for its formulation or on the ciu. Dei for its treatment by Augustine. It is to be noticed that here the Platonists are spoken of as being only too anxious to agree that Christ died but they denied his resurrection : this is an important point’. The chief interest of this passage, however, is the account of the gods : Saturn and Jupiter. It is to be emphasised that there can be little doubt, as the reading of all these passages will show, but that Porphyry and the Platonists of the Philosophy from Oracles are here in question. .These then are said here to have posited a first god whom they describe as satur nus (1ntellectus, mens), summa incommutabilis saptentia,

mens superna, prima mens. From him emanated a second god, whom they describe as : a summa menie profluens spiritus, corpus caeli aut spiritus implens caelum et terram. He is said to have emanated from the superna mens : ex menie superna emanasse, and to have been generated by the prima mens : anima a (prima mente) genita. He is spoken of as the son : filius, of the first god. This second god, moreover, is called the anima mundi huius omnia caelestia et terrena corpora implentem. It is to be I. Cf. Aeneas

of Gaza,

2. Cf. ctu, Dei XIX

23.

Theophrastus p. 38 (Boissonade)

=

Wolff p. 177. See pp.

114, f.

« DE

CONSENSU

EVANGELISTARUM »

I,

11

sq.

9r

remarked that the reason alleged by Augustine for this new interpretation

of Saturn

Jupiter eternal son of Chronos haberetur, quem full significance De

and

Jupiter

is related

to the desirability

of making

: it was absurd that he should be considered to be the : widerunt quam esset absurdum, si filius temporis Iuppiter deum aeternum uel putabant, uel putari uolebant. The of all this will become apparent when we discuss οὖν.

X. 23-31.

Section 51 of de consensw euangelistarum continues with a remonstration for the philosophers, who, though they formerly inveighed against abuses in the theatre, now complained seeing that what they had wanted was being accomplished not by them but by the Christians — this was the only prosperity destroyed by the Christians : cadunt theatra, caueae

— turpitudinum et publicae professiones flagitiorum, cadunt et fora uel moenia, in quibus demonia colebantur. Section 52 repeats at length all the details of the topic of Christ being a man of most excellent wisdom, of his not

having written anything or wrought miracles through the gods, of there being no difference between his teaching and that of his disciples, and of the unique position of the god of the Hebrews who not only forbade the cult of gods other than himself but showed his power in prophecy and fulfilment, even to the spread of the Christian religion and the destruction of the pagan sacrilegas uanitates. Section 53 has some interesting points : Christ who is the wisdom of the Father, by participation in whose wisdom whoever is wise is wise, through divine providence for the cares of men became flesh : in quo temporaliter nasceretur, uiueret, moreretur, resurgeret, congrua saluti nostrae dicendo et faciendo, patiendo et sustinendo fieret. et deorsum. hominibus

exemplum redeundi, qui sursum est angelis exemplum manendi. nisi enim et in animae rationalis natura temporaliter aliquid oreretur, id est inciperet esse quod non erat, numquam ex wita bessima el stulta ad sapientem adque optimam peruentret. ac per hoc, cum rebus aeternis contemplantium ueritas perfruatur, rebus autem ortis fides credentium debeatur, purgatur homo per rerum temporalium fidem, ut aeternarum percipiat ueritatem. nam et quidam eorum nobilissimus philosophus Plato in eo libro, quem Timaeum uocant, sic att - quantum ad id quod ortum est aeternitas ualet, tantum ad fidem ueritas. duo 1lla sursum sunt, aeternitas et ueritas, duo ista deorsum, quod

ortum est et fides. ut ergo ab imis ad summa reuocemur adque td quod ortum est recipiat aeternitatem, ber fidem uentendum est ad ueritatem. The first book

ends with a strong affirmation that the writings of the disciples about Christ are as true as if Christ wrote them. It will be noticed that the words redeundi, reuocemur, and redducuntur

and redderet (both of which occur in parts of this section which not quoted) suggest the theme of a de regressu animae, in the returning from earth to heaven. It will also be remarked that also an example to the angels in heaven to remain there. The

we have sense of Christ is emphasis

.

92

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN

AUGUSTINE

upon aeternitas and ueritas as specific of the next life, while quod ortum est and fides are specific of this, and the quotation from Plato's Timaeus are to be noted, for Augustine returns to them. Thus ends a book which from its first sections to its last constantly uses the themes and expressions of the Philosophy [rom Oracles as known to us from ctu. Det XIX. 23 and elsewhere. It also provides a strong parallel for the linking up of civ. Dei XXII. 25 and 26, and therefore for the connecting of the omne corpus fugiendum with the Philosophy from Oracles, B. SERMO

241.7

Furthermore we might draw attention to the following passage from sermo 241.7 (c. 405-410 A.D.) : Sed att Porphyrius : sine causa mihi laudas

corpus ; qualecumque? sit corpus, si uult esse beata anima, corpus est omne fugsendum. Hoc dicunt philosophi : sed errant, sed delirant. Sed nolo hinc diutius disputare, libros uestros lego : mundum istum animal dicitis, id est, coelum terram, maria, omnia quae sunt ingenlia corpora, immensa

usquequaque elementa ; totum hoc, universumque corpus, quod ex his elementis omnibus

constat, dicitis esse animal

magnum,

id est, habere animam

suam, sed sensus corporis non habere ; quia extrinsecus nihil est quod sentiri possit : habere tamen intellectum, haerere Deo : et ipsam animam mundi vocari Jovem, vel vocari Hecatem, id est, quasi animam universalem mundum

regentem, et unum quoddam animal facientem. Eundemque mundum aeternum esse dicitis, semper futurum, finem non habiturum. Si ergo aeternus est mundus, el sine fine manet mundus, et animal est mundus ; anima ista

semper tenetur in mundo : cerle corpus est omne fugiendum ? Augustine then proceeds to continue the argument as he does in ciu. Dei. X. 29 and XXII. 26, using the same reference to the Timaeus.

Apart from its own context and its comparison with the passage from the de consensu euangelistarum?, which is so clearly akin to ciu. Dei XIX. 23 and XXII.

25, there is a specific reason for connecting this passage in

the sermon with the Philosophy from Oracles. Kroll, discussing the role played by Hecate in the Oracles, remarks‘ : ut hoc ad orientem nos ducit,

ita illud, quod deos Graecos neglegi videmus prae Hecate. Quam tantas agere partes non mirabitur, qui reputavertt, quantopere haec dea inde ab altero fere saeculo culta, quot eius oracula tum circumlata sint ... Sed cur dico Hecaten ἡ Quae enim a Chaldaeis 11a nominatur, non tam pristina

1. P.L. 38. 1137.

.

2. This can be taken as ruling out the Christian teaching of the union of the blessed with a resurrected body — $n melius mutatum. Cf. ciu. Det X. 24, 29. 3. Cf. ipsam animam mundi vocari Jovem, vel vocari Hecatem ; see p. 88.

4. op. cit., p. 69.

soul

« SERMO

» 241. 7

93

est Hecate, sed commixta cum aliqua vel aliquot deabus orientalibus vivificis ... Anima mundana dicilur ab August. serm. 242 (sic), 7 et in oraculo

Porph. p. 122 W : ... He then quotes the oracle : « Οὐδὲν ἐν ἀθανάτοισι θεοῖς ποτε Sia μάταιον οὐδ᾽ ἀκράαντον ἔλεξε σοφοῖς ‘Exdrn θεοφήταις, ἀλλ᾽ ἀπὸ παγκρατέροιο νόου πατρόθεν κατιοῦσα αἰὲν ἀληθείῃ σελαγίζεται, ἀμφὶ δὲ μῆτις ἔμπεδος ἀρρήκτοισι μένει λογίοις βεβαυῖα. δεσμῷ δ'οὖν κλήϊζε: θεὴν γὰρ ἄγεις με τοσήνδε, ὅσση ψυχῶσαι πανυπέρτατον ἤρκεσα κόσμον. ᾿ There is, therefore, a strong likelihood that the account of the gods given by Augustine as coming from Porphyry in the sermo and the de

consensu euangelistarum comes

from

the Philosobhy from

Oracles.

We

shall come back to this account later, when dealing with ctu. Det X?. We wish to draw particular attention here to the connection of the omne corbus fugiendum, ut beata sit anima, which occurs both in the sermo

and in ciu. Dei XXII. 26, to the question of heavenly beings associating with earthly and temporal bodies : to the question of the eternity or destruction of the world and, as we know from other places, the return

of individual souls to bodies.

r. Eusebius, prae. eu. V 7, Mras I, p. 234. 2. Cf. Serm. 234.3 ; 235.4 ; 240.2, 5; 241 passim; 242.6, 7 for other passages relevant to our study.

The

Tenth

PART

III

Book

of the civ. De:

Before we begin the analysis of book ten of the ciu. Dei it might be well to give Wolff's summary skeleton of the topics of the Philosophy from Oracles as shown in the fragments! and compare

similar outline of the Porphyrian summary

with this summary

a

elements in ciu. Dei X. This latter

outline will be set out here in three parts, partly to facilitate

the handling of such a large body of material, and partly because the book lends itself to such a loose, although not fully satisfactory, division.

These divisions have been headed : I Daemonia, II Principia, and III Christus, μία uniuersalis. The of purgation runs through all three.

Wolff's

Outline of the Philosophy

from

idea

Oracles

I Περὶ Θεῶν : προοίμιον, περὶ εὐσεβείας", περὶ θρησκείας θεῶν, περὶ πολιτείας θεῶν, οἷστισι χαίρουσιβ, περὶ ἀγαλμάτων, ποίοις σχήμασι φαίνονται, [ποίοις διατρίβουσι τόποις], περὶ θυσιῶν, quibus diebus singula numina invocanda sint (et ἐκ ποίας ἡμέρας δεῖ ἐκτρέπεσθαι), quae gentes rerum divinarum sint peritissimaet. IT Περὶ Δαιμόνων : περὶ δαιμόνων ἀγαθῶνδ, περὶ δαιμόνων πονηρῶν, περὶ τῆς πρακτικῆς θεοσοφίας καὶ τῶν ἐπανάγκων, περὶ ἀστρολογίας, περὶ εἱμαρμένης. III Περὶ ἩΗρώων : διὰ τὶ ψεύδονται ἐνίοτε οἱ θεοΐ, qui sint heroest, περὶ Χριστοῦϊ, περὶ τῆς Χριστιάνῶν ἀνοίας.

I. op. cst. pp. 42 f. 2. This and the two following topics are considered in ciu. Dei X. 1, where the Greek

terms

εὐσεβεία and Θρησκεία are quoted. Augustine says that he has no quarrel with the excellentiores philosophi about these things.

3. This and the five following topics are mentioned in ciu. Dei X. 3 and occasionally elsewhere in book X. 4. This is mentioned in ctw. Dei X. 32.

*. This and the following topic are among the chief, if not the chief, matters discussed ciu. Dei X. in almost every chapter.

6. Ciu. Dei X. 21 deals with this topic. 7

Ciu. Dei X. 23-32 deals with this and, in part, with the following topic.

in

98

« PHILOSOPHY

Outline of Porphyrian

FROM

ORACLES

Elements

» IN

in civ. Dei

AUGUSTINE

X

Among the topics of cis. Dei X. discussed in the first section which we have called Daemonia are : the contrast between the good (angels) and evil demons, both of whom Porphyry sometimes calls ‘ gods’ (ds). The one seek cult for God ; the others for themselves. The angels dwell in the aether ; the demons in the air. The demons are dangerous, envious, willing to side with an evil and envious man rather than with the innocent,

and have first to be placated before the devotee can come into contact with the good god. They seek more the souls of men than the smells of

the sacrifices offered to them. They are the enemies of virtue. Theurgy is accepted by Porphyry, with some shame and hesitation, however, as good but at best limited in its effect to a quasi-purification of the : Spirital' soul only, rendering it capable of receiving spirits and seeing gods. It cannot touch the intellectual soul (which has an independent approach to the Father). The demon can elevate one some little distance from the earth after death, but again the way to union with the angels is quite other. Magic (goetia) is evil. Both theurgy and magic are prohibited by law and are the work of demons. Christians and Porphyry agree about beatitude in general, but disagree about the resurrection of the flesh: Porphyry, unlike Christians, attributes human passions to the

gods.

Among the topics discussed in the section which we have headed : Principia, are that, according to the divine oracles, the princifia can purge the soul, whereas rites of even the celestial gods cannot. The principia are the Father, the Son and a third principium intermediate between the two — or so Augustine supposes Porphyry to mean. Porphyry was ashamed of his subjection to demons ; because of that subjection he failed to

recognize Christ as the frincipium, the πατρικὸς νοῦς by whom

alone

ignorance and vices could be purged. Philosophy, which is superior to all rites, is necessarily only for the few ; purgation of the spirital soul can (but Porphyry sometimes seems to deny this) be wrought by certain

rites, but in no case can such purgation bring the soul to the Father : the most that Porphyry might seem to claim for it was that it could bring the soul to the gods of the aether. Moreover the spirital soul can be purged

without such rites, which in any case are dangerous either in themselves or on account of legal penalties. The assumption behind the rites of theurgy is that the deities of the aether are subject to human passions and

can

be prevented

by

evil demons

from

granting

purgation.

This

cannot be : the demons moreover cannot announce the will of the gods : only the good should cult be Among the untuersalis are

angels can declare the will of the Father. To Him only paid. topics in the section which we have headed Christus, uta that the soul descended to body to learn the evils of matter.

THE

TENTH

BOOK

OF

THE

« CIV. DEI

»

99

'To return to the Fatherland the mass of men needs some universal way — and although Porphyry suggests at one stage that the few philosophers can independently find salvation — no one can reach the perfection

of wisdom in this life (but those who sought to find their way back through intelligence will be rewarded when this life is over). Porphyry sought for this way in all sources expert in theology, but found it nowhere. He explicitly refused to recognize Christ as the universal way, either because

he contemned

the Virgin Birth or found the resurrection of the flesh

incredible. But the Platonists themselves believed in the union of a human

soul (and therefore body) with the Father's Mind and also in the immortality of deities who were created with mortal bodies but were made immortal in their bodies by God. There was, therefore, nothing incredible to a Platonist in either the Incarnation or the Christian teaching of the resurrection of bodies. Porphyry, in fact, did well to correct the Platonists in their view that souls returned to the bodies even of beasts : they returned, as the Christians and Porphyry said, to human bodies — according to Porphyry (but only when they were not completely purged of all evil) to bodies other than their own ; according to the Christians, to

their own, glorified, bodies. Only pride prevented Porphyry from seeing that the universal way of the soul's salvation was the Christian religion. It is useless for him to ask why the revelation should have

been made

just then. Porphyry might think that there was a good and bad form of divination ; but only the angels who sought cult for God should be believed.

CHAPTER

ONE

Daemonia

The tenth book of the c#u. Dei marks a climax in the work, which is

made up of two parts, one negative (the first ten books) and one positive (the last twelve). The first part is divided into two equal sections of which the second is the more important in as much as it confronts the more honourable, more serious, and perhaps more dangerous adversaries. In this final book of the first part Porphyry is singled out as the doughtiest champion of the Platonists — just as in ciu. Dei XIX. 23 he is named with the greatest honour as the most worthy philosopher bearing witness to the One God. In fact, as we shall see presently, ciu. Dei XIX. 23

is in certain respects a summary doublet of Book X — and there can be no doubt as to which book of Porphyry’s is in question in cis. Dei XIX. 23.

The topic of Book X is indicated briefly in the last few lines of Book IX. It deals with the angels who,

unlike the demons,

do not seek for cult

from men in return for the prospect of happiness in the future life, but who rather seek that the one God should be worshipped : sisi unum Deum coli, by whom

they were created

and in whose

participation they are

happy. The contrast between the demons and the angels, between their attitude towards sacrifices, and the insistence on the worship of one God only, XIX. 23.

show

immediately

the

connection

between

Book

X

and

The book itself starts off with the assertion, which Augustine supposes is accepted by the Platonists, that happiness in the future life is achieved in the soul's participation in the light of the Creator : ita tllud, quod omnes homines adpetunt, id est uitam beatam, quemquam isti adseculurum negant,

qui non illi uni optimo, quod est incommutabilis Deus, puritate casti amoris adhaeserit.

102

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN

AUGUSTINE

He goes on immediately to say, however, that these same Platonists either yielded to others, or pretended to yield, in commending the cult

of demons : Sed quia ipsi quoque siue cedentes uanttati errorique populorum siue,

wl ast

apostolus,

euanescentes

in

cogitationibus

suits,

multos

deos

colendos ita putaucrunt uel putari uoluerunt, ut quidam corum etiam daemonibus diuinos honores sacrorum et sacrificiorum deferendos esse censerent, With

this problem

he has, he says, to a large extent, dealt.

The immediate discussion will concentrate rather on the intention of demons or angels in seeking cult : is it for themselves or for God : utrum etiam sibi an tantum Deo suo, qui eliam noster est, placeat eis ut

sacra faciamus et sacrificemus, uel aliqua nostra seu nos ipsos religionis ritibus consecremus ?

Augustine, however, takes delight in showing how the Platonist con-

ception of the supreme God (as it appeared to Augustine) was identical with the Christian ; so here (chapter 2) he instances the parallel between the teaching of Plotinus and the opening of the Gospel according to St. John. He then goes on as before to complain that the Platonists did not live up to their knowledge : si Platonici uel quicumque alii ista senserunt cognoscentes Deum sicut Deum glorificarent et gratias agerent. nec euanescerent in cogitationibus suis nec populorum erroribus partim auctores fierent, partim resistere non auderent, profecto confiterentur ... unum Deum

colendum, qui et noster est et the worship of the true God borrowed from any number to Porphyry's Philosophy

tllorum (3). He then describes the manner of in terms which, while they might have been of pagan cults, may yet owe more directly from Oracles (with which he connects the

worship of the one true God in csu. Des XIX. 23) : eius est altare cor nos-

irum ... cruentas uictimas cacdimus,

... suawissimo adolemus incenso, ...

dona uouemus ... sacrificamus hositam in ara cordis igne feruidam ... and

ad hunc uidendum*. He ends the chapter by returning to what he said was the particular point : the intention of demons or angels in seeking cult :-st colit Deum, non «ult se coli pro Deo. Ils enim polius diuinae senlentiae suffragatur et dileclionis uiribus faucet, qua scriplum est : Sacrificans dis eradicabitur, nisi Domino soli (Exod. 22.20). The use of this

quotation from Exodus is significant. It is used only in XIX. 22 (end) I. See Eusebius, prac. eu. IV. 5 and pp. 60 f. Cf. participato lumine and φωτὸς μετοχῇ. 2. Cf. Eusebius, prae. eu. IV, 9, Mras I. p. 180 (Wolff,

115) :

« doco & ἀμφὶ γέην πωτώμενοι αἰὲν ἔασιν, τοῖσδε φόνου πλήσας πάντη πυριπληθέα βωμὸν

ἐν πυρὶ βάλλε δέμας θύσας ζῴοιο ποτανοῦ καὶ μέλι φυρήσας Δηωΐῳ ἀλφίτῳ ἔνθευ ἀτμούς τε λιβάνοιο καὶ οὐλοχύτας ἐπίβαλλε. ewww

tn

ἐπὶ 3° εὐχὰς πέμπετε τοῖσδε. »

C . V. 12, Mras p. 246 f. (Wolff pp. 130 f.) « ... καὶ ἀγάλματι πολλὸν

Keivw ἐπευχόμενος δι΄ ὕπνων ἐμέ τοι ἀναθρήσεις.

»

« DAEMONIA

»

103

and 23 apart from this chapter and X. connection with the Philosophy from Chapter 5 treats further of sacrifice to is in need of none of our offerings, and former times in the offering of material

7. In XIX. 23 it is used in direct Oracles. the supreme deity who, of course, who was worshipped by men in sacrifices as symbols and foresha-

dowings. Again the chapter as a whole and certain details in it connect it with XIX. 23 and through it with the Philosophy from Oracles. Thus the text found here : Dixi Domino, Deus meus est tu, quoniam bonorum

meorum non eges (Ps. 15.2) is used in XIX. 23 apropos of the words : non quo rei egeat alicuius sed quia nobis expedit ut res etus simus, and nowhere else is it to be found in the ciu. Dei. One can go so far as to say with confidence that the words Dixi Domino ... ne ipsa quidem iustitia hominis Deus egere credendus est, totumque quod recte colitur Deus homini prodesse, non Deo are an echo of Porphyry's words : Nam Deus quidem, utpote omnium Pater, nullius indiget ; sed nobis est bene, cum eum per iustitiam ... adoramus, and Augustine's comment on them in ciu. Dei XIX. 23 : sacri-

ficans dis eradicabitur nist Domino tantum ; non quo. rei egeat. alicuius, sed quia nobis expedit, ut res eius simus. Huic enim canitur in sacris litteris Hebraeorum : Dixi Domino... Likewise the words hwius autem praeclarissimum adque optimum sacrificium nos tpsi sumus ... uictimas quas in umbra futuri offerebant Iudaei which follow in ctu. Dei XIX. 23 have their counterpart in the words following in X. 5 : nec quod ab antiquis patribus alia sacrificia facta sunt in uictimis pecorum ... aliud intellegendum est, nisi rebus illis eas fwisse

significatas, quae aguntur in nobis. Finally in ciu. Dei XX. 24, which we have been able to connect with the Philosophy from Oracles!, he refers back to this very chapter in Book X and to the scriptural quotation : misericordiam uolo quam sacrificium (Osee VI. 6) — another quotation found only in these two places in the οὖν. Dei?. Chapters 6-8 continue the theme of the proper sacrifice to God, the intention of the good angels in seeking cult (for God), and the approbation by countless miracles of the truth of the Scriptures which prescribe : sacrificans dis eradicabitur, nisi Domino soli. So far it can hardly be denied that there is a connection between this

first part of Book X with Book XIX. 23 both in theme and expression. This involves, a connection with Porphyry's Philosophy from Oracles.

I. pp. 64 ff. 2. Misericordiam

«uolo quam

sacrificium... sicut in huius operis decimo

me disseruisse remi-

^iscor. In these words Augustine himself indicates a connection between Book later part of the οἷν. Dei.

X and this

104

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN

AUGUSTINE

* *

*

We come now with chapter VIIII to the first mention of Porphyry in this book, and the rest of the book continues to deal with him. The mira-

cles which were wrought to confirm the scriptures were done by faith and piety, not by incantations or magic. Some people, Augustine says, approve of a ‘good’ form of magic which they call ' theurgy ', while disapproving of a ‘ bad’ form of it: Nam et Porphyrius quandam quasi purgationem animae per theurgian cunctanter lamen et pudibunda quodam modo disputatione promittit ; reuersionem uero ad Deum hanc arlem praestare cuiquam negat ; ut wideas eum inler uitium sacrilegae curiosttatts et philosophiae professionem sententits alternantibus fluctuare.

Nunc enim

et in ipsa actione periculosam nunc

autem

hanc

artem

et legibus prohibitam!

uelut. eius laudatoribus

cedens

tamquam

cauendam

fallacem

monet ;

utilem. dicit esse mundandae

parti animae, non quidem intellectuali ... sed spiritali. This is a clear reference to a work of Porphyry — to the Philosophy from Oracles or the de regressu animae, if it is a separate work. The word disputatio can refer to either ; it is actually used of the cu. Dei itself by Augustine in XIX. 23. It will be observed that Porphyry is represented

as inconsistent in his attitude in sented for the Philosophy from in question here refers at once to God. The description of it as phiae

professio

reminds

us

this present work, as he is likewise repreOracles in ciu. Dei XIX. 23*. The work to purgation through theurgy and return revealing ustium curtositatis and philoso-

of the

description

of the

Philosophy

from

Oracles in XIX. 23 : in quibus exsequitur adque conscribit rerum ad philosophiam pertinentium uelut diuina responsa : the book was philosophical and did use oracles. The

conjunction

of reuersto on the one hand

and

curiosas with philosophia on the other suggests that the book could have been described under either heading — de regressu or Philosophy from Oracles. Similarly in X. 32 the book known

as de regressu animae

is referred to in like manner : uel a philosophia uerissima aliqua uel ab Indorum moribus ac disciplina, aut inductione Chaldaeorum^. In addition we have Porphyry's own words for it that the Philosophy from Oracles

dealt at once with purgation and divination and also with philosophy — all directed to the salvation,

in Porphyry's

scheme,

the return of the

soul*. 1. Cf. prae. eu. V. 6, Mras I, p. 233 (Wolff, p. 129) where, Porphyry reports, the demon Pan killed nine men ; cf. de cons. eu. I. x4 and p. 86. Cf. also ciu. Dei X 28 (p. 127). 2. See p. 52 et passim. 3. See pp. 158 ff. 4. Eusebius, prae. eu. IV. 7, Mras I. p. 177 (Wolff, pp. rog f.), quoted on p. 29. Cf. an earlier

consideration of this text on pp. 29 ff.

« DAEMONIA

»

105

There is, in short, good reason for thinking that Augustine at this point in the ciu. Dei has not changed his attention from the book of Porphyry which, as we have thought, he has been referring to : the Philosophy from Oracles. Augustine next reports Porphyry’s account of the effect of this theurgy : Hanc (animae partem spiritalem) enim dicit per quasdam consecrationes theurgicas, quas teletas uocant, idoneam fieri adque. aptam susceptioni spirituum et angelorum et ad widendos deos. Ex quibus tamen theurgicis teletis! faterentur intellectuali animae nihil purgationis accedere, quod eam faciat idoneam ad uidendum deum suum et perspicienda ea, quae were sunt. Ex quo intellegi potest, qualium deorum uel qualem. wisionem fieri. dicat theurgicis consecrationibus, in qua non ea uidentur, quae uere sunt. Denique animam

rationalem

siue, quod magis

amat

dicere, intellectualem,

in sua

posse dicit euadere, etiamsi quod eius spiritale est nulla theurgica [uerit arte purgalwm? ; forro autem a theurgo spiritalem purgari hactenus, ut non ex hoc ad inmortalitatem aeternttatemque perueniat. There are a number of passages in the fragments of the Philosophy from Oracles which illustrate the ideas recounted above. One might instance a passage from Eusebius, prae. ew. IV. 235. Again there is the instance of the prophet who was eager: «αὐτοπτῆσαι

TO θεῖον καὶ ἐπειγομένου 6 ᾿Απόλλων ἀδύνατον ἔφη τὸ τοιοῦτο πρὶν λύτρα τῷ πονήρῳ δαίμονι δοῦναι. »*

Again : « Δεηθέντος γάρ τινος καταδέξασθαι θεόν, εἰπὼν 6 θεὸς ὅτι ἀνεπιτήδειός ἐστι διὰ τὸ ὑπὸ φύσεως καταδεδέσθαι, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ἀποτροπιασμοὺς ὑπαγορεύσας ἐπάγει" ... δι’ ὧν καὶ σαφῶς δεδήλωται ὅτι ἡ μαγεία

ἐν τῷ λύειν τὰ τῆς εἱμαρμένης παρὰ θεῶν ἐδόθη εἰς τὸ ὁπωσοῦν ταύτην παρατρέπειν.

»5

Further,

when

the

‘ gods’

appear,

they

sometimes

knowingly

speak

falsely, because they are constrained by the suppliant. Such ‘ gods ' cannot be true gods : « πολλάκις γοῦν προλέγουσιν ὅτι ψεύσονται" oi δὲ μένουσι kai λέγειν ἀναγκάζουσι διὰ τὴν ἀμαθίαν »9, ex quo intellegi potest,

qualium

deorum

uel qualem.

wisionem..

Finally, we have in the fragments some instances of susceptio spirituum et angelorum. They are found in Eusebius prae. eu. V. 8. Here is one example

:

1, Cf. De Trinitate IV. 13: pollicens etiam purgationem animae, ber eas quas τελετάς appellant. Cf. pp. 152 ff.

2. Cf. pp. 115, 125 (where there is strong evidence in favour of connecting the 3. 4. 5. 6.

this idea with

Philosophy from Oracles.) Mras I, pp. 213 f. (Wolff, pp. 147 ff.) Prae. eu. IV. 20, Mras I. p. 207 (Wolff, p. 152 f. ) op. cit. VI. 4, Mras I. p. 298 (Wolff, p. 165). op. cit. VI. 5, Mras I. p. 299 (Wolff, p. 175) ; cf. Philoponus de opificio mundi IV. 20 (ed.

Reichardt).

106

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN

AUGUSTINE

ῥεῦμα τὸ Φοιβείης ἀπονεύμενον ὑψόθεν αἴγλης πνοιῇ ὑπὸ λιγυρῇ κεκαλυμμένον ἠέρος ἁγνοῦ, θελγόμενον μολπαῖσι καὶ ἀρρήτοις ἐπέεσσιν κάππεσεν ἀμφὶ κάρηϑον ἀμωμήτοιο δοχῆος λεπταλέων ὑμένων: μαλακὸν δ΄ ἐνέπλησε χιτῶνα, ἀμβολάδην διὰ γαστρὸς ἀνεσσύμενον παλίνορσον" αὐλοῦ 8’ ἐκ βροτέοιο φίλην ἐτεκνώσατο φωνήν. » These few examples may serve to illustrate how the themes of the passage quoted from ciw. Dei X. 9 were treated in the Philosophy from Oracles : certain rites had to be practised before a ‘ god ' would come to possess

or be seen.

It is not said in the remaining

fragments

that

these magic rites do not purify the highest part of the soul or reveal the true deity — but it is implied at least in Augustine's quotation from

the Philosophy from Oracles in ciu. Det XIX. 23 : ea sola, per quae Deus adoratur ... Deus nullius indigel ... eum per iustitiam et castitatem aliasque uirtutes adoramus ... inquisitio enim purgat. ibsam uitam precem ad ipsum facientes per imitationem et inquisitionem de ipso. Inquisitio enim bur gat, inquit ; imitatio detficat adfectionem ad ipsum operando. The word sola is vital in this connection. Similarly the same fragment from Augustine implies that the soul can come to the Father without any rites affecting any part of it. The visions won through these rites are not true visions of true gods. Finally we have already seen reason to believe that Por-

phyry in the Philosophy from Oracles expressed himself strongly against any

idea

that

part was? — We

might

anything

bodily

or material

could aspire to immortality recall also Porphyry's

own

—

such

as the

' spirital'

or eternity?. description of the contents of

the Philosophy from Oracles : there was a short treatment of divination which helped θεωρία and the general purification of life. The work would be particularly helpful for those, however, who are in travail for truth. It would give them information without any reserve. What he had written was for those who arranged their plan of life with a view to the salvation of the soul*. Here again there seem to be implied two levels of help : one with divination at a lower level and one more intellectual at a higher level. The chapter continues : quamquam itaque discernat a daemonibus angelos, aeria loca esse daemonum, aetheria uel empyrea disserans ange-

lorum, et admoneat utendum alicuius daemonis amicitia, quo subuectante

1. 2. qua 3.

Mras I. p. Cf. Bidez, corporalium Cf. pp. 74

239 (Wolff, p. 160). op. cit., p. 89 and note r ; Augustine rerum capiuntur imagines. ff.

4. Cf. pp. 29 ff.

ciu. Dei X. 9 : parti animae... spirilali,

« DAEMONIA »

107

uel paululum a terra possit eleuari quisque post mortem, aliam uero utam esse perhibeat ad angelorum superna consortia. In the frac. eu. a few lines before he formally introduces Porphyry's Philosophy from Oracles by name, Eusebius gives, as we have seen}, an account of the hierarchy

of gods,

angels,

demons

and

heroes which is

likely to reflect an account given in the Philosophy from Oracles : he introduces the Philosophy from Oracles just at this stage to illustrate what he has been saying. Here we point out that it too divides the angels and the demons allotting them to the aether and the air respectively : θεοῖς μὲν οὐρανὸν kai τὸν ἄχρι σελήνης αἰθέρα φασὶν ἀποτετάχθαι,

δαίμοσὶν δὲ τὰ περὶ σελήνην καὶ ἀέρα. Cauendum iamen daemonum societatem expressa quodam modo confessione testatur, ubi dicit animam post mortem luendo poenas cultum daemonum a quibus circumuentebatur horrescere : ipsam theurgian, quam uelut conctliatricem angelorum deorumque commendat, aput tales agere potestates negare non potuit, quae uel ipsae inuideant purgationi animae, uel artibus . seruiant inuidorum, querelam de hac ve Chaldaei nescio cuius expromens : * Conqueritur, inquit, uir in Chaldaea bonus, purgandae animae magno in molimine frustratos sibi esse successus, cum wir ad eadem potens tactus inuidia adiuratus sacris precibus potentias adligasset, ne postulata concederent, Ergo ei ligautt tlle, inquit, et iste non soluit *. Quo indicto dixit apparere theurgian esse tam boni conficiendi quam mali et apud deos et aput homines disciplinam ; pati etiam deos et ad illas perturbationes passionesque

deduci, quas communiter daemonibus et hominibus Apuleius adtribuit. "^ Wolff oddly enough quotes? part of this passage as being relevant, presumably, to the matter of his book and the particular passage being discussed by him ; but adds that it comes not from the Philosophy from

Oracles, but from the de regressu animae. The excerpt clearly is relevant to

the

Philosophy

from

Oracles

and

would

assigned to it, were it not for Augustine’s

have

been

unhesitatingly

mentioning

of de regressu

animae. We know from Augustine in ciu. Dei XIX.

23 that Porphyry in

the Philosophy from Oracles approved of the prohibition of the cult of demons,

which

prohibition

may

fragments that the demons that

rites were

spoken

imply

roamed

of as useful

sanctions.

We

know

from

the

abroad? laying traps for people‘ ; in winning

the favour

of ' gods '

and placating the wicked demons5 ; and that the demons were malicious

1. Eusebius, op. cit. IV, 5 (Mras I. p. 174)

and

pp. 60

f. Cf. Wolff

112 ff., 145 (quoted

on

p. 118). See further pp. 118 ff. 2. op.

cit., p.

166. Lewy,

op. cit. p. 286 inadvertently attributes it to the Philosophy from

Oracles.

|

3. Cf. Wolff, p. 186. 4. Cf. ibid. p. 177. See

5. Cf. ibid. pp.

152,

pp.

89,

90,

115.

165. See also Eusebius,

prae ew. IV, 5 quoted on p. 60.

108

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN

AUGUSTINE

and could force a god to do their will!. Finally the gods were subject to the same passions and perturbations as men’. In the whole of this chapter there has been very little for which we cannot find a corresponding treatment in the scattered fragments of the Philosophy from Oracles. And from what we know of that book, all of it could have been found there. Chapter 10 repeats the ideas of Chapter 9 with comments, but contains nothing of any precise value in favour of or against our argument’.

Chapter

11 is entirely and explicitly devoted to the consideration of

Porphyry's Letter to Anebo, which although it covers closely many of the topics of the Philosophy from Oracles is, nevertheless, as we know

from Eusebius* and elsewhere, a separate work. Chapter 12 resumes the argument which had been interrupted by the consideration of the alleged

miracles and powers of the demons of theurgy : these miracles had been compared with the miracles and prophecies which guaranteed the truth of scripture and the injunction : sacrificans dis eradicabitur, nist Domino soli.

It is assumed that miracles performed by demons and not commending the cult of one god are deceptive and should be shunned, while miracles commending the cult of one god are ultimately wrought by him. Here he meets

with

a Platonic

objection

: the invisible

god

cannot

do visible

miracles. Augustine answers the objection by saying that the Platonists themselves

said that

god

made

the world.

God,

moreover,

made

man.

Man is more wonderful than anything else, but we take him for granted. God is not changed by such activities, for he is outside of time. This

answer is reminiscent of his reply to the Platonic objection to the resurrection of the flesh in ciu. Det X XII. 25, a chapter which is to be connected, as we have seen’, with the Philosophy from Oracles. Plato's authority is

appealed to, to prove that God can do what seems to us impossible. Similarly, when in chapter r3 Augustine goes on to explain that God talked with men, and notably Moses when he was given the commandments : cwm igitur oporteret Dei legem in edictis angelorum terribiliter

dari, non unt homini paucisue sapientibus, sed uniuersae genti et populo ingenti ... cum enim lex dabatur populo qua coli unus tubebatur Deus ... we are reminded

of ciu. Det XIX.

23 : Deus

igitur Hebraeorum,

cui tam

magnum tantus etiam iste philosophus perhibet testimonium, legem dedit Hebraeo populo suo ... non obscuram et incognitam, sed omnibus gentibus

1. 2. 3. one 4.

Cf. ibid. pp. 154 f., 162, 175. Cf. ibid. pp. 123 f., 128 f. The exclamations : O theurgia praeclara, O animae praedicanda purgatio, ..may remind of the O hominum corda doctorum ! O ingenia litterata... of ciu. Dei XVIII. 53. Cf. p. 70. prae. eu. V. 7, Mras I. p. 235.

5. Cf. pp. 72 ff.

.

« DAEMONIA

»

109

diffamatam, in qua lege scriptum est ... breuiter, immo granditer, minaciter .. sacrificans dis eradicabitur nist Domino

tantum.

One should not forget that for all his discussion of philosophy or theurgy Augustine's main line of argument is biblical. The Bible gives the truth. Miracles commend the Bible. The Bible enjoins the cult of one god. These are the central points of his discussion. When he comes to take notice of theurgy, of demons, good and bad, of miracles and pro-

phecies alleged to be caused by demons, Augustine counters by speaking of the oracles! of the Bible, its miracles and prophecies. Over against the ' true ' revelation of the oracles is placed the Law given by God to the Hebrews. Against the prophecies of the Chaldeans is placed the prophecy made to Abraham?, who once was a Chaldean, but who departed from amongst his superstitious people. Augustine sees in all these various revelations, true and false, local and more general, the gradual revelation in due time of God to men, until in his own day the clarity of that reve-

lation in the Christian church was plain for all to see : ab illo articulo temporis, qui factus est in patre Abraham, ubi clariora leguntur. promissa diuina, quae nunc in Christo uidemus inpleri (ciu. Dei XVI. 12). Thus in Chapter 14 he resumes his argument with these words : Sicut autem unius hominis, ita humani generis, quod ad Dei populum pertinet, recta eruditio ber quosdam articulos temporum tamquam aetatum profecit accessibus, ut a temporalibus ad aeterna capienda et a wisibilibus ad inuisibilia surgeretur ; tta sane ut etiam illo tempore, quo wuisibilia promittebantur diuinitus Draemia, unus iamen colendus commendaretur Deus. God is the source of material as well as spiritual favours. The testimony of Plotinus is brought forward to witness that as God’s providence extends to all things, so God himself is the source of all. It is important, therefore, to seek for material goods (later to be despised) from him also — so that cult be paid to no one else : non tamen nisi ab uno Deo expectare consuescit, ut ab illius cullu in istorum desiderio non recedat. Chapter 15 has no new evidence for us : it speaks of the office of the angels in bridging the abyss between god and man, making known god's

will, and gradually teaching men to understand in material favours the spiritual gifts implied. Twice the cult of the one true god is commended in this short chapter. The reader may have a feeling, too, that there is something in common between this chapter and a long fragment (Wolff, pp. 144 ff.) from the PAilosophy from Oracles, where the Father and the

I. Cf. pp. 63 ff. 2. Constantly referred to, as if this separation of Abraham from the Chaldeans, this separation of wisdom from their oracles, were of especial significance : cf. X. 8, 32 (Abraham diuinum

accepit oraculum... qui fuit quidem

gente Chaldaeus... tussus est discedere) ; XVI.

12 (apud

Chaldaeos tam etiam tunc superstitiones impiae), 16, 18, 21 ; XVII. 3. Cf. de consensu eu. I. 37 ff

See pp. 89 ff.

110

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN

AUGUSTINE

angels who carry out his will are described — but the link is too indefinite to be of use here!.

Chapter 16 again asks the question : which angels are to be believed — those who seek cult for themselves, or those who seek cult for the one true

god ? Quibus igitur angelis de beata et sempiterna uita. credendum esse censemus ? Utrum eis, qui se religionis ritibus coli uolunt sibi sacra et sacrificia flagstantes a mortalibus exhibers, an eis, qui hunc omnem cultum

uni Deo creatori omnium deberi dicunt eique reddendum uera pietate praecipiunt, cuius et ipsi contemplatione beati sunt et nos futuros esse promittunt ἢ This question is basically the question behind this whole tenth book of the ciu. Dei. Augustine is combating the view that the gods of the pagans are helpful to them for their future life. This cannot be, it is argued, since there is but one god, the object of cult, and the demons

seek for cult for

themselves. Life after death is ἃ life of happiness in union with the one god. The demons,

who seek for cult for themselves,

are the real obstacle

to the recognition of these facts. Hence Augustine's continued preoccu‘pation with them. Here in this chapter he asks the question, which we have just quoted, over and over again : Cum ergo ad hunc unum quidam angeli, quidam uero ad se ipsos latria colendos signis mirabilibus excitent,

et hoc ita, ut illi istos colt prohibeant, isti autem illum prohibere non. audent . resbondeani, inquam, eisne sacrificandum sit dis uel angelis, qui sibi sacrificart iubent, an illi uni, cui iubent hi qui et sibi et istis prohibent ? Anyone familiar with the fragments of the Philosophy from Oracles will recall any number of instances where the oracles speak of sacrifice to demons and where the demons themselves prescribe the ritual of

that sacrifice. More immediately helpful, however, are Augustine's own words in ciu. Dei XIX. 23 : ab his ergo daemonibus pessimis et minoribus spiritibus uetabant religiosos et ipsis uacare prohibebant ; uenerari autem magis caelestes deos, amplius autem uenerart Deum Patrem ... Deus ille, quem coluerunt sapientes Hebraeorum, etiam caelestibus sanctis angelis et wirlutibus Dei ... sacrificari uetat intonans in lege sua quam dedit Hebraeo populo suo... These words are used apropos of Augustine's consideration of the Philosophy from Oracles. Augustine

next

proceeds

to

consider

which,

on

their

assertions,

one

should believe in : those who seek cult for themselves, or those who seek

cult for the one true god ? Obviously one should trust those who were unselfish. One should still do this on rational grounds, even if they performed

no miracles,

Augustine

while the demons

argues that the good

did. In point of fact, however,

angels have performed

miracles that

were matora, certiora, and clariora. The reader will recall a similar contrast

1. See p. 118. 2. Cf. Wolff, pp. 112 ff., 129 f.

« DAEMONIA

»

III

in civ. Dei XIX. 23 apropos of the oracles : non enim abstrusa uel rara sunt, sed aperta et crebra ... luce clarius. He then considers three kinds of miracles

: those known

to history,

(such as the, apparently uncaused, transference of the Penates from one place to another), those done amongst the people of the: true god, and those done by magic by the demons, which are prohibited by the pagans themselves, and which are usually in any case fraudulent. The final

decision, however, must be based on the purpose and end of such miracles : ilhs enim multi tanto minus sacrificiis colendi sunt, quanto magis haec expetunt ; his uero unus commendatur Deus, qui se nullis talibus indigere εἰ

scripturarum

suarum.

testificatione

et

eorundem

postea

sacrificiorum

remotione demonstrat. This is a clear echo of Deus quidem ... nullius indiget ... non egeat alicuius ... Dixi Domino : Deus meus es tu, quoniam bonorum meorum

non

eges

...

cessaturas

offerebant Iudaei per prophetas ciu. Det XIX. 23. The

chapter

ends

with

enim

uictimas,

Hebraeos

several

oracula

repetitions

quas

in

wmbra

increpuere

of the

theme

diuina in of seeking

cult for self or for the one true god, and concludes with the alli iubent ut sacrificio seruiamus, cutus nos ipsi esse sacrificium which again remind us of Àwius autem praeclarissimum adque sacrificium nos ipsi sumus in ciu. Det XIX. 23. Chapter 17 continues the same theme but is concerned with one of a miraculous happening

among

futuri

words : debemus optimum instance

the children of the true god —

the

wonderful story of the Ark of the Testament, where was placed the /ex Dei, quae in edictis data est angelorum, in qua unus Deus deorum religione sacrorum tussus est coli, alii uero quilibet prohibiti. The various miracles connected with the Ark are recounted and then, once again, Augustine appeals to them as irresistible testimony to the truth of that religion, quae omnibus caelestibus, terrestribus, infernis sacrificart uetat, unt Deo

iubens, tempora mutanda ad eum

qui solus diligens et dilectus beatos facit eorumque sacrificiorum imperata praefiniens eaque per meliorem. sacerdotem. in melius praedicens ... non ut ipse his honoribus sublimetur sed ut nos colendum eique cohaerendum igne amoris eius accensi, quod nobis,

non illi, bonum est, excitemur. It will be obvious that these ideas and words are paralleled in ctu. Dei XIX. 23, especially in : caelestibus ... sacrificari

uetat ... nisi Domino soli ... ex fide, quae operatur per dilectionem, qua homo dihgit Deum, sicut diligendus est Deus ... cessaturas esse wictimas ... et unum sacrificium gentes a solis ortu usque ad occasum oblaturas ... omnium Pater, nullius indiget ... sed nobis est bene ... non quo ret egeat alicuius, . Sed quia nobis expedit, ut rei eius simus. Chapter 18 considers the objection that these miracles are alleged, and did not happen. This would argue that the objector held the view that the gods had no care of men. Augustine, however, is not concerned here with such persons : non eos suscepimus refellendos, qui uel ullam

-

II2

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

esse uim diuinam negant uel humana

nostro Deo ... deos hwius wisibilis et. el uitae beatae non torem. Eius enim

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

non curare contendunt, sed eos, qui

suos praeferunt, nescientes mutabilis inuisibilem et de his, quae condidit, sed propheta ueracissimus ait

eum ipsum esse cham mundi incommwutabilem conditorem de se ipso uerissimum largi: mihi autem adhaerere deo

bonum esi ... Hoc enim docuerat, cui uni tantummodo sacrificandum sancli

quoque angeli eius miraculorum etiam contestatione monuerunt ... cus unt soli sacrificandum praecipiunt. It will be noticed that in the course of this passage, which ends with

words almost certainly having reference to Porphyry's Philosophy from Oracles,

there

is

mention

of

beatitude.

Augustine

tells

us

elsewhere

(ciu. Dei XXII. 25). Verum de animi bonis, quibus post hanc uitam beatissimus perfruetur, non a nobis dissentiunt philosophi nobiles ; de carnis autem

resurrectione

contendunt.

While

Plotinus

and

others

may

be

in

question in this quotation, Porphyry is certainly the person most in mind. This is borne out not only by the context dealing with the opposition to the resurrection of the flesh and the whole chapter where, as we have seen!, connection with the Philosophy from Oracles can be shown,

but also by the very first few words of the following chapter : Sed Porphyrius ait, inquiunt, ut beata. sit anima, corpus esse omne fugiendum. We have pointed out that the omne corpus fugiendum is used specifically of beatitude in the next life*. Augustine constantly uses these words also and with them such words as adhaerere? or inhaerere deo in the same connection. But we wish to draw attention to the fact that in the passage above quoted from X. 18, the inspiration for the words : adhaerere deo is at least

also biblical : eius enim propheta ueracissimus ait : mihi autem adhaerere deo bonum est. Similarly the same or approximate phrases have been used already a number of times so far in Book X where the inspiration is also biblical rather than Porphyrian‘.

Chapter 19 continues the same matter, but gives us even closer parallels to what we found in ciu. Dei XIX.

23. It starts by insisting that one

cannot pretend to offer immaterial offerings to the true god while making material offerings to others : for even material offerings are symbols of the offerings of the soul : sacrificantes non alteri wisibile sacrificium offerendum esse nouerimus quam illi, cutus in cordibus nostris inwisilile

sacrificium nos ipsi esse debemus nos ipsi sumus and Porphyry,

(cf. XIX.

23

: optimum

sacrificium

de abst. 2.34). If we attempt to sacrifice

to the good angels, they will prevent us, as examples

show. The last

$OQOM M

lines of this chapter are incontestably connected with ctu. Det XIX. 23:

ciu. Dei XXII. 25. See pp. 72 ff. . Cf. pp. 23 ff.

. Cf. θεῷ μόνῳ mpocavéxew attributed by Lewy, op. cit. p. 26 to the Chaldean Oracles, . Cf. chapters 3, 4, 6, 12.

« DAEMONIA »

II3

Nec ob aliud fallaces 3lli superbe sibi hoc exigunt, nisi quia uero Deo deberi sciunt. Non enim re uera, ut ast Porphyrius et nonnulli putant, cadauerinis

nidoribus, sed diwinis honoribus gaudent. Copiam uero nidorum magnam habent undique, et si amplius uellent, ipsi poterant exhibere. Qui ergo diuinitatem sibi adrogant spiritus, non cuiuslibet corporis fumo, sed supplicantis animo delectantur, cut decepto subtectoque dominentur, intercludentes iter ad Deum uerum, ne sit. homo illius sacrificiwun, dum sacrificatur cuipiam praeter illum. Ciu. Det XIX. 23 has : fallaces daemones ... intercludant uiam salutis aeternae ... ab istorum (amen dominatu eum non

liberet. Christus ... ideo per eum (Christum) saluus esse non possit nec istorum mendactloquorum daemonum laqueos. uttare uel soluere ... nisi Christiani erunt, ab eorum. (daemonum) erus potestate non poterunt ... optimum sacrificium nos ipst sumus. There are also several passages in the fragments of the Philosophy from Oracles, where the demons are represented as rejoicing in the odours of meat and cadavera!. It will be noticed that Augustine, as often, allows it to be understood that Porphyry was only saying this, while others actually believed it. Chapter

20 is very

short,

running

to only

about

a dozen

lines.

Its

theme is Christ as the true sacrifice to the true god, which is only indirectly mentioned in cw. Det XIX.

23. Yet even here there are phrases

to connect the chapter with ciw. Dei XIX.

23 : Cuius rei sacramentum

cottidtanum esse uoluit ecclesiae sacrifictum ... huius ueri sacrificii multi-

plicia wariaque signa erant sacrificia brisca sanctorum, cum hoc unum per mulia figurarelur ... huic summo weroque sacrificio cuncta. sacrificia falsa cesserunt. Ciu. Det XIX.

23 has : cessaturas enim uictimas, quas in

umbra [uluri. offerebant Iudaei, et unum sacrificium. gentes a solis ortu usque ad occasum ... oblatwras per prophetas Hebraeos oracula increpuere diwina*. Chapter 21 introduces the idea that the demons were allowed to raise persecution against the church so that the number of martyrs would be increased. These martyrs, if ecclesiastical custom allowed, Augustine would like to call Heroes. But let us hear Augustine : Moderatis autem

praefinitisque temporibus etiam potestas permissa daemonibus, ut hominibus quos fossident excilatis inimicitias aduersus Det ciuitatem tyrannice exerceant sibique sacrificia non solum ab offerenttbus sumant et a uolentibus

expetant, werum etiam ab inuttis persequendo utolenter extorqueant, non solum perniciosa non est, sed etiam utilis inuenitur ecclesiae, ut martyrum numerus inpleatur ; quod ciuitas Dei tanto clariores et honoratiores ciues

1. Cf. especially Wolff, pp. 112 ff., Eusebius, Prae. eu. IV. 9 (Mras I. 180), druotaw λαροῖσιν

ἐνιπλήσαντες ἅπαντα ἡέρα ῥευσταλέον ; 147 ff. (μάλιστα 8 αἵματι χαίρουσι καὶ ταῖς ἀκαθαρσίαις). 2. Ct. de consensu ew. I. 20 : nec alia re magis claruit slláus gentis regnum et templum et sacerdolium et sacrificium ... quam quod occisi Christi resurrectio posteaquam coepit ... praedicari, illa omnia cessaverunt ; 21.

114

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

habet, quanto fortius aduersus inpietatis peccatum et usque ad sanguinem certant. Hos multo elegantius, si ecclesiastica loquendi consuetudo pateretur,

nostros heroas uocaremus. ᾿ It will be remembered that in cw. Det XVIII. 53 which we have been

able to connect with the Philosophy from Oracles!, we have the same theme : the providential disposition in due time which allowed persecution for the benefit and expansion of the church : Non est uestrum

scire tempora, quae Pater posuit in sua potestate. Sed haec quia euangeltca sententia

est, mirum

non

est non

ea repressos

fuisse

deorum.

multorum

falsorumque cultores ... cum enim widerent nec tot tantisque persecutionibus eam potuisse consumi, sed potius mira incrementa sumsisse ... Petrus ... nomen illius (Christi) quam suum coli maluerit ... etiam effusione sanguinis sut ... tot tantarumque persecutionum horrendas crudehtates non resistendo, sed patiendo superare. : Augustine then discusses the Christian and pagan Heroes : Hoc enim nomen a Iunone dicitur tractum, quod Graece Iuno Ἥρα appellatur ... hoc uidelicet ueluti mysticum significante fabula, quod aer Iunoni deputetur, «bi uolunt cum daemonibus heroas habitare ... Sed martyres nostri heroes

nuncuparentur ... non quo eis essel cum daemonibus in quod eosdem daemones, id est aerias uincerent potestates Iunonem, quae non usquequaque inconuenienter a poetis uirtutibus el caelum petentibus uiris fortibus inuida® ... Porphyrius, deum

quamuis

uel genium

non

ex sua sententia,

non uenire in hominem,

aere soctetas, sed el in eis tpsam ... inducitur intmica Ex qua opinione

sed ex aliorum,

dicit. bonum

nisi malus fuerit ante placatus ;

tamquam fortiora sint aput eos numina mala quam bona, quando quidem mala inpediunt adiutoria bonorum, nisi eis placata dent locum, malisque nolentibus bona prodesse non possunt ; nocere autem mala possunt, non sibi ualentibus reststere bonis. Non est tsta uera ueraciterque sanctae religionis wia*. This is an important

text for our argument.

Wolff in his outline of

the topics of the Philosophy from Oracles, allots the whole of the third book to the Heroes. Within that book he assigns Qui sint Heroes to the second section. ration of Christ that Augustine unconventional

This is followed as a Hero. There could have got idea of describing

in his reconstruction by the consideis some reason, therefore, for believing the inspiration for this ecclesiastically the martyrs as Heroes from the Philo-

PWD κ᾿

sophy from Oracles in a fragment of which (apropos of the uolunt heroas ... habitare in ciu. Dei X. 21) we read :

. pp. 67 ff. . Cf. de consensu eu. 1. 49. p. 89.

. Cf. p. 9o. . Cf. X. 32 and pp. 129 ff.

aer ... ubi

« DAEMONIA

»

II5

ψυχὴ μὲν, μέχρις οὗ δεσμοῖς πρὸς σῶμα κρατεῖται φθαρτὰ νοοῦσα πάθη θνηταῖς ἀλγηδόσιν εἴκει" ἡνίκα 8° αὖτε λύσιν βροτέην μετὰ σῶμα μαρανθὲν ὠκίστην εὕρηται, ἐς αἰθέρα πᾶσα φορεῖται αἰὲν ἀγήραος οὖσα, μένει δ΄ εἰς πάμπαν ἁτειρής. πρωτόγονος γὰρ τοῦτο θεοῦ διέταξε πρόνοια. ε»,

This fragment,

€

ss

Pd

,

^

~

b

echoed by Augustine in ciw. Det XIX.

23 : inmortalis

anima post corpus ul incedit, nosti, is taken to refer to Christ, the first of

the Christian * Heroes '. The description in the fragment, therefore, and especially the last line (with which compare the sentiment in : »oderatis autem praefinitisque temporibus etiam potestas permissa daemonibus at

the beginning of ciu. Dei X. 21) could well, as we have said, have suggested to Augustine the name of Heroes for the martyrs. The details of the demon-heroes living in the air?, and the fact that Hera was envious of brave men are fully borne out in the fragments. Aeneas of Gaza has

preserved for us the following apposite piece of information on this latter point : λέγει που, τοὺς φαυλοτάτους δαίμονας τοῖς ἀγαθοῖς ἀνδράσι λόχους καὶ ἐνέδρας καθίζειν καὶ ἐξαίφνης ἐπιτίθεσθαι, καθάπερ ἡ "Hpa Διονύσῳ καὶ ᾿Ηρακλεῖβ. The necessity to placate wicked demons (who thus are represented

as being powerful to prevent

receive a good demon sophy from

good)

before a man

is to be found in the fragments

Oracles*, as is, of course,

the idea of a way

of the Philoof religion,

way to god5. The mention of werae ueraciterque sanctae is an anticipation of the topic of X. 32. Chapter

22 discusses the Christian

method

can

of purgation

or

religionis uta and

has no

evidence relevant to our problem.

I. pp. 42 f. = Lactantius, Inst, 7.13.5. 2. Cf. Eusebius, prae. eu. IV. 9, Mras I. pp. 179 ff. (Wolff, pp. 112 ff.) ; $bid., V. 8, Mras I.

p. 237 lines 6 ff. (Wolff, p. 155). See also IV. 5 quoted on p. 6o. 3. Theophr. p. 38 Boissonade (Wolff, p. 177). Cf. pp. 89 f. 4. Cf. Eusebius op. cit., IV. 20, Mras I, p. 207 (Wolff, pp. 152 f.) : Σπεύδοντος γοῦν τοῦ

προφήτου αὐτοπτῆσαι τὸ θεῖον καὶ ἐπειγομένου ὃ ᾿Απόλλων ἀδύνατον ἔφη τὸ τοιοῦτο πριν λύτρα τῷ πονηρῷ δαίμονι δοῦναι. Cf. also op. cit. VI. 4, Mras I, p. 298 (Wolff, p. 165). | 5. Cf. Eusebius, op. cit. IV. 9, Mras I, p. 179 (Wolff, p. 112) : τήνδε Θεόσδοτον ἐς τρίβον ἐλθών, ibid., IX, το, Mras I, p. 496 (Wolff, p. 140) : αἰὐπεινὴ μὲν ὁδὸς μακάρων ... ἀτραπιτοΐ

ἀθέσφατοι ... ὁδοὺς μακάρων.

CHAPTER TWO

Principia

Chapter 23 is important : Dicit etiam Porphyrius diuinis oraculis fuisse responsum nos non purgari lunae teletis adque solis, ut hinc ostenderetur nullorum deorum teletis hominem posse purgari. Cuius enim teletae purgant, st lunae solisque non purgant, quos inter caelestes deos praecipuos habent ἢ Denique eodem dicit oraculo expressum principia posse purgare, ne forte, cum dictum esset non purgare teletas solis et lunae, alicuius alterius det de turba ualere ad purgandum teletae crederentur. Quae autem dicat esse principia tamquam Platonicus, nouimus. Dicit enim Deum Patrem et Deum Filium, quem Graece appellat paternum intellectum wel paternam mentem ; de Spiritu autem sancto aut nihil aut non aperte aliquid dicit ; quamuis quem alium dicat horum medium, non intellego. Si enim tertiam, sicut Plotinus, ubi de tribus principalibus substantiis disputat, animae naturam etiam iste uellet intellegi, non utique diceret horum medium,

id est Patris

et Fili medium. Postponit quippe Plotinus animae naturam paterno intellectui ; iste autem cum dicit. medium, non postponit, sed énterponit. Et nimirum hoc dixil, ut potuit siue ut uoluit, quod nos sanctum Spiritum. It is to be remarked that Porphyry is represented here as quoting oracles : diuinis oraculis responsum ... eodem oraculo expressum. We have already seen from chapter 9 of the tenth book that here there is question of the intellectual part of the soul as opposed tal 2. No ‘ gods’ whatever can purge that soul. Only the do so. We may recall that passage in XIX 23 where the by way of comment on an oracle (reserved there, however,

to the ‘ spiriprincipra can same teaching to the Father

or first principle) is implied : Deum autem simulantes colere, ea sola, per quae Deus adoratur, non agunt ... nobis est bene, cum eum per iustitiam et castitatem aliasque uirtutes adoramus, ipsam uitam precem ad ipsum facientes ber imitationem et inquisitionem de ipso. Inquisitio enim purgat, inquit ; imitatio deificat adfectionem ad ipsum operando. I. p.

104. Cf. also p.

37.

-

118

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

The fragments tell us clearly that the Sun and Moon were great ‘ gods ' in the oracles. The Sun is identified with Apollo : “Haws, *Qpos, "Oops, ἄναξ, Διὸς vids, ᾿Απόλλων!, and the Moon with Hecate : εἰ yap τὴν ‘Exarny αὐτὴν (σελήνην) εἶναι djocovow*. Indeed nearly all the oracles given in the fragments are spoken by Apollo or Hecate who, from many indications other than those given above, are not only clearly regarded as being identified with the sun and moon’, but also are the greatest of the ‘gods’. Thus Apollo is spoken of as πάνσοφε, παντοδίδακτε, πολύστροφε, and again as : ἁρμονίη κόσμοιο, φαεσφόρε, πάνσοφε δαῖμον", and Hecate is represented as in charge.οὗ the other ‘ gods’ or demons’. Augustine, therefore, had sufficient authority from the Philosophy from Oracles for the view that the Sun oracles as chief ‘ gods’.

and

Moon

were

represented

in the

We come now to the principta described by Porphyry. We have no difficulty in showing from the fragments, whether as found in Augustine or elsewhere, that the teaching here about a First Principle was available to Augustine from the Philosophy from Oracles. Augustine, as we have seen, speaks in XIX. 23 of the Deus Pater : uenerari autem magis caelestes deos, amplius autem uenerart Deum Patrem. Hoc autem, inquit, et di praecipiunt et in superioribus ostendimus, quem ad modum animum aduertere ad Deum monent et illum colere ubique imperant ... Deum autem simulantes colere, ea sola, per quae Deus adoratur, non agunt. Nam

Deus

quidem, utpote omnium Pater, nullius indiget. Sed nobis est bene, cum eum per iustitbam el castitatem aliasque. uirtutes adoramus, ipsam uttam precem ad ipsum facientes per imitationem et inquisitionem de ipso. Inquisitio enim purgat, inquit ; imitatio deificat adfectionem ad ipsum operando. Bene quidem praedicauit Deum Patrem...6. And amongst the fragments is found this famous one : ?

40

ανάτων ἄρρητε πατήρ, αἰώνιε, μύστα, ,

*

td

,7

,

κόσμων ἀμφιδρόμων ἐποχούμενε δέσποτα νώτοις / αἰθερίοις, ἀλκῆς^ tva σοι μένος ἐστήρικται Ld > 9 , , ^ πάντ᾽ ἐπιδερκομένῳ kal ἀκούοντ᾽ οὔασι καλοῖς, κλῦθι τεῶν παίδων, οὕς ἤροσας αὐτὸς ἐν ὥραις. σὴ A yàp^ ὑπὲρ κόσμον re Kal οὐρανὸν ἀστερόεντα « , 3» 3 'd χρυσῆ ^ ὑπέρκειται πολλὴ A αἰώνιος ἀλκή, > » ἧς ὑπερῃώρησαι cpivwv φωτὶ ^ σεαυτόν, 3 ^ ἀενάοις ὀχετοῖσι τιθηνῶν νοῦνLJ ἀτάλαντον,

OQ C

c

MN

HM

3

. Eusebius, op. cif., III. 15, Mras I. p. 155 (Wolff, pp. 127 f.) . $bid., III. 16, Mras I. p. 156. Cf. ibid., V. 8, Mras I. p. 239 (Wolff p. 160) ; V. 7, Mras I. p. 235 (Wolff, pp. 123 f.). . Lactantius, Instit. 1.7.9. (Wolff p. 186). . Eusebius, prae. eu. IV. 23, Mras I, p. 215 (Wolff p. 151). . Cf. ibid. IV. 5 and pp. 60 f.

« PRINCIPIA

»

II9

ὅς pa κυεῖ τόδε πᾶν, τεκνούμενος ἄφθιτον ὕλην, L4

t

a

/,

~

,

L4

Ld

ἧς γένεσις δεδόκηται, 6 τε ade τύποισιν ἔδησας. ἔνθεν ἐπεισρείουσι γοναὶ ἁγίων μὲν ἀνάκτων ἀμφὶ σε, παντόκρατορ βασιλεύτατε καὶ μόνε Üvgró» ἀθανάτων τε πάτερ μακάρων" ai δ᾽ εἰσὶν ἄτερθεν, ἐκ σέο μὲν γεγαυῖαι, ὑπ᾽ ἀγγελίῃσι δ᾽ ἕκαστα πρεσβυγενεῖ διάγουσι νόῳ καὶ κάρτεϊ τῷ σῷ. wv , v tA , 3 7 πρὸς* 8° ^ ἔτι καὶM] τρίτον ἄλλο γένος ποίησας ἀνάκτων

οἵ p. ἑκὰς ἦμαρ ἄγουσιν ἀνυμνείοντες ἀοιδαῖς βουλόμενόν σ᾽ ἐθέλοντες, ἀοιδιάουσι δ᾽ ἐσῶδεϊ. v

t»

[300.1

λό

There

ld

is another

3

26

»

3

$1

3

fragment

,

wo

,

also.which

3

δ᾽

speaks

^

3

Do

1

of the Father

:

Τύνη 8’ ἐσσὶ πατὴρ καὶ μητέρος ἀγλαὸν εἶδος καὶ τεκέων τέρεν ἄνθος, ἐν εἴδεσιν εἶδος ὑπάρχων καὶ ψυχὴ καὶ πνεῦμα καὶ ἁρμονίη καὶ ἀριθμός. The words of Kroll may be helpful : Quaeritur enim, quae ratio inter-

cedat inter patrem, mentem paternam, secundam mentem. Pro tribus dis eos habwit Porphyrius et anonymus Taurinensis, plures ex eis fecerunt recentiores. Re uera duo sunt : pater qui lamen etiam mens est et ideo mens paterna dicitur : « mens patris » si appelatur, de altera persona cogitandum non est ; secunda mens. Mentem enim paternam ut a patre non disiungam maxime eo commoveor, quod in compluribus. [fragmentis sine dubio summi dei partes agif. Est enim αὐτογένεθλος, quod de altero deo dici nequit : dyas secundae mentis opponitur patris monadi*. Again in another place Kroll tells us : At πατρικὸς νοῦς non

Platonicorum

est proprius, sed Chal-

daeorum. Quae autem de tertio deo inter hos medio dicit Augustinus, cuius naturam non plane perspexit, quaeque de anima mundana paternum intellectum sequente, ea egregie conueniunt cum obscuris de secunda mente praeceptis et de mundi animae sede. Neque igitur de meris Porphyrii opinionibus agitur ... sed de Chaldaicis utcunque cum | Porphyrianis consociatts*.

Lewy$* has a great deal to say on all of these problems and some short relevant ‘ The mythical remains

extracts from his comments may serve a useful purpose here : Chaldaean hierarchy is headed by a Supreme God, Whose predicates are : ' Father’, ... the personality of the ‘ Father ' transcendent, but His action unfolds itself through His Power.

1. Wolff, pp. 144 f. See Lewy, op. cit. pp. 9 ff. for translation. 2. Wolff, pp. 48 ff.

pp.

146

f.; cf. Festugiére,

La Révélation

d'Hermés

Trismégiste

IV

(Paris

1954),

3. Cf. ciu. Dei X. 28 where Augustine's words tend to confirm this view : paternam mentem siue intellectum, qui paternae est conscius uoluntatis. See p. 127. 4. Kroll, op. cit. p. 14.

5. sbid. p. 6. 6. op.

cst. pp.

7 ff.

120

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

Power, δύναμις, is the sum of the noetic potencies included in the Supreme God... The ‘ Father’ himself has no direct external activity ; He uses intermediaries. These intermediaries are His faculties who in their virtuality are identical with the Supreme Being, but acquire in the state of actuality a particular existence. The action of the transcendent God is thought; consequently the first entity that issues from

Him is His Intellect, the πατρικὸς νοῦς. His Will (βουλή) acts in harmony with this entity ; for His volition is thought, and His thought is action!. Intellect, Will and Power constitute as the immediate faculties of the ‘ Father ' the ‘ Paternal Monad. ' ... His Will and His Intellect cooperate in the unfolding of His Power. Every act of thought of the Paternal Intellect brings forth new noetic orders, described as procreations... They constitute the ‘ intelligible world ' ‘ begotten ' of Him (cf. p. 13: the supreme God ... causes... the ' First Intellect ' to generate the ideas

who form the Second ‘ Intellect ' ... These ideas constitute the ‘ spiritual immortal form ' which the Supreme God has created before the corporeal world, and serve as a model for it ... The relationship between the ‘ Second Intellect ' and his originator... is described... as that between

a son and his mother. The feminine principle ‘ suckles ' this world-forming Intellect.) ... After the ‘ Father’ and the ‘ Mother ', ‘ the children's tender flower is mentioned, that is to say, the Ideas generated by the Intellect, viz. the Power of the Father. After these come Psyche, the World-Soul, last of the noetic entities. Beneath the Intellect, and close to Psyche ... we may situate Aion ... As ' Power’ is the transmitter of the ‘ Father's ' activity, she constitutes... a reservoir of all the powers enclosed in Him... As ‘ Power ' belongs in Greek to the feminine gender,

this entity ... is addressed as ‘ the Mother's radiant Form '. The Supreme Being constitutes in conjunction with Power an androgynous primordial

principle ... As the First Intellect is the originator of all the potencies which fill the * womb ' of Power, the terms ' Source of Sources ', etc., apply also to him. ... Psyche ... was created by the ' Father’ without any intermediaries, and is filled with His Intellect, who, being her ruler,

is designated as the ‘ Vigour of Strength ', or ‘ Power of Strength ” ... Psyche is therefore called in the Oracles : ' Strength of the Father ', ‘ Eternal Strength ' and ‘ Living Power '. Psyche is not only a noetic entity, but also a goddess worshipped in the Chaldaean cult ... Hecate and Psyche perform in the universe the same function. Several texts attest their identity .... Aion may accordingly be regarded as identical with the ‘ Light’ through which... ‘the Father moves’. The Light

of Aion is the motion of the Supreme God ... it represents, accordingly, a particular faculty of the Supreme Principle, resembling in this respect 1. He

refers to civ. Dei, X,

28. See p. 127.

2. ἀλκῆς μένος, cf. Lewy, op. cit. pp. 86 f.

« PRINCIPIA

»

I2I

the Paternal Intellect, His Power

and Will. There

is, however, a diffe-

rence : the three entities we have named last cannot be detached from the ‘ Father ', while Aion (as well as Psyche) has a separate existence. ... This ... is, in a sense, the chief numen of the Theurgists ; for the absolutely transcendent ‘ Father ' manifests Himself in him .... This ... God

Aion ... is identical with the

God Chronos (pp. 115 f.) (The) world-forming

Ideas subsisting in the Second Intellect are, likewise, designated in the Oracles by various names. In one fragment they are called the ‘ Prin-

ciples ' (ἀρχαί) ... The choice of the term ‘ Principles’ is due to the Supreme Creator being called ‘ the Principle of the All’ (pp. 141 ff). .. Aion is ... conceived both as the chief of the ‘ Rulers’ and as the regulator of the movements of two others ... Ás Aion rules the intelligible, and the sun the ethereal world, it is probable that the moon is considered as dominating the ' hylic’ world ... the (three) Rulers purify (p. 455). In one of the passages! of the De regressu animae excerpted by Augustine, Porphyry attempts a Platonic reinterpretation of a Chaldean verse. The Oracles declared that ‘ Not the sun and the moon, but the three Rulers purify '. We have shown that in their terminology

these ‘ three Rulers ' (ἀρχαί) signify Aion, the sun and the moon. Porphyry, however, explained that the three dpyai mean the three noeti¢ principles πατήρ, πατρικὸς νοῦς and a μέσος ápdotv.' To resume Lewy’s conclusions briefly : The Father or Principle of All is a Monad who acts through faculties that are inseparable from him i) The πατρικὸς νοῦς or First Intellect, ii) his Will and iii) Power or the Mother with which the Father forms the androgynous primordial Principle. The second noetic entity is the Second Intellect or Son formed

of the Ideas which constitute the intelligible world and are also called Principles. There follows Aion, a faculty of the Father like his Intellect,

Will and Power but, unlike them, separable from him. He is the chief Ruler (ápy5) or principle, the chief numen of the theurgists and is identified

with

Chronos.

The

last noetic entity,

placed

below

Aion,

is

Psyche, termed ἀλκή, the world-soul and identified with Hecate. This

scheme,

even

if taken

with

the

reserve

which

such

a difficult

question justifies, at once bears out Kroll’s identification of the mens paterna with the Father and his interpretation of its relationship with the secunda mens. It also provides us with the background for the understanding of the passage from the de consensu eu. I. 35 ff. which is to be connected with the Philosophy from Oracles*. It fits in with the description in Arnobius Adv. Nationes II. 25 which is suspected of connection with the Philosophy from Oracles. I. The passage from the civ. Dei on which we are now commenting. 2. See p 88. 3. See p. 145 f. and Lewy, op. cit. pp. 324 f.

122

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

It is clear that when in this chapter 23 of book X Augustine reports Porphyry as saying that the oracles had answered that princspia posse purgare, and speaks of the Paterna mens, the ἀλκῆς μένος of the fragment quoted, the Philosophy from Oracles must be considered a very likely sourcel. Augustine continues in X. 24 : Verum itaque dictum est non purgan hominem nisi principio, quamuis pluraliter aput cos sint dicta principia : non purgari hominem nist principio is in effect the teaching of the oracle quoted from the Philosophy from Oracles in civ. Dei XIX. 23. Augustine's following words bring us close to the Philosophy from Oracles : Sed subditus Porphyrius inuidis potestatibus, de quibus et erubescebat, et eas libere redarguere formidabat, noluit intellegere Dominum

Christum esse principium, cuius incarnatione purgamur. Eum quippe in ipsa carne contemsit, quam propier sacrificium nostrae purgationss adsumit, magnum scilicel sacramentum ea superbia non intellegens, quam sua ille humilitate deiecit uerus

benignusque

Mediator, in ea se ostendens

morta-

litate mortalibus, quam maligni fallacesque mediatores non habendo se superbius extulerunt. miserisque hominibus adiutorium. deceptorium uelut inmortales mortalibus bromiserunt. Bonus itaque werusque Mediator ostendit peccaium

esse

malum,

non

carnis

subsianiiam

uel naturam,

quae

cum

anima hominis et suscipt sine peccato poturt et haberi, et morte deponi et in melius resurrectione mutars® ; nec ipsam mortem, quamuts esset poena peccats, quam tamen pro nobis sine peccato ipse persolust, peccando esse uitandam, Sed polius, st facultas datur, pro tustitia perferendum. Ideo enim soluere potuit moriendo peccata, quia et mortuus est, et non pro beccato. Hunc ille Platonicus non cognoutt esse principium ; nam cognosceret. purgatorium. Neque enim caro principium est aut anima humana, sed Verbum per quod facta sunt omnia ... Haec est medialio, qua manus lapsis sacentibusque porrecta est; hoc est semen dispositum per angelos, tn quorum edictis εἰ lex dabatur,

qua

et unus

Deus

coli iubetatur

et hic Mediator

uenturus

promsttebatur. The whole of this passage is reminiscent of ciw. Dei XIX. 23 or sections from the civ. Dei adjacent to it with which the Philosophy from Oracles is to be connected. Thus swbditus Porphyrius inuidis potestatibus, de quibus et erubescebat*, et eas libere redarguere formidabat reminds us of :

in Christianis tantum errat aut lantum calumniatur, quantum uolunt daemowes ... quis autem huic dixit uel inspirauit, nisi diabolicus spiritus (XIX.23). Porphyry is always represented as subject to the demons but only to the

x. For an attempt to clear up Augustine's difficulty as outlined in the chapter, see Lewy,

op. cit., pp. 455 f. 2. Cf.

X.

29

: corpus

morte

depositum

ct in melius

resurrectione

mutatum

against

Porphyry urged the omne corpus fugiendum. Cf. ciu. Dei XII. X 25 ff. See pp. 72 ff. 3. Cf. de consensu eu. I. 35 : erubuerunt hinc philosophi eorum recentiores.

which

« PRINCIPIA

»

123

extent of their willing — he was just afraid to contradict them. Porphyry's refusal to recognize Christ as equal to the Father, by whom therefore we could be purged, is clearly set out in XIX. 23, not only in the words of the oracles quoted, but also in Porphyry's own comments. His contempt for the flesh, and therefore for an incarnation, is also evidenced there. Porphyry and his followers are also represented by Augustine, when he is commenting on the Philosophy from Oracles, as arrogant and proud in comparison with the docility and meekness of Christians, and the humility of Christ. That the flesh was not evil was asserted by Augustine apropos of the resurrection of the body, contested by Porphyry (appatently in the Philosophy from Oracles)!, in ciu. Dei XXII. 25 : utrum enim: non potest facere ut resurgat caro ... an propterea credendum non est id eum (Deum) facturum, quia malum est adque indignum Deo ? There he agreed that the corruption of the flesh was evil : corruptio, quod est corporis malum. Christ showed in his resurrection that the flesh in itself was not evil : in sua resurrectione monsirauit. The deceit of the demons is fully illustrated in XIX. 23, not only in phrases such as fallaces daemones, mendaciloquorum daemonwm, and nocendi millejormi astutiae, but also

by their reported intentions in praising Christ while vituperating Christians. That Christ died without sin is also there. That Christians should meet death, as did St. Peter, for Christ is attested in ciu. Det XVIII. 53.

The oracles, as reported in ciu. Dei. X. 23, spoke only of Christ's body | and soul: if Christ was only body

and human

soul, Porphyry

justified in refusing to recognize him as the Principle : He homo piissimus. But Christ was much more than that. He He was foreshadowed by the Law by which «nus Deus Chapter 25 is a long chapter, much of which is not discussion,

would be

would be just a was the Word. coli iubebatur?. relevant to our

and what is relevant is not new.

Chapter 26 contains a passage which Wolff! in one place connected with the Philosophy from Oracles and in another with the de regressu animae : Nescio quomodo (quanium mihi uidetur) amicis suis theurgis erubescebat Porphyrius. Nam ἰδία utcumque sapiebat, sed contra multorum deorum culium non libere defendebat. Et angelos quippe alios esse dixit, qui deorsum | descendentes hominibus theurgicis diuina pronuntient ; alios autem, qui in terris ea, quae Patris sunt, et altitudinem eius profunditatemque declarent. Num igitur hos angelos, quorum ministerium est declarare uoluntatem Patris, credendum est uelle nos subdi nist ei, cutus nobis

adnuntiant

uoluntatem ?

1. Cf. pp. 72 ff.

Unde

optime

admonet

etiam

ipse

Platonicus

:

2. Many of the details mentioned in this paragraph can be independently connected with the Philosophy from Oracles through the de consensu euangelistarum. See pp. 85 ff. 3. Op. cit. pp. 146, 243.

—

124

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

imitandos eos fragment with The possible is difficult to

potius quam inuocandos. We have already quoted the which Wolff thought this to be connected!. connection of this passage with the fragment in question deny. If the title de regressu animae had never been

heard

connection

of,

the

civ. Dei XIX.

would

be

23 that Augustine

taken

as definite*.

We

saw

from

from his reading of the Philosophy

from Oracles on the one hand took it that Porphyry approved of the one true God of the Hebrews, while on the other he observed that Porphyry

approved, or seemed to approve, of the cult of many gods. This is exactly what Augustine is saying here in book X. 26 also : tsta (sc. unum Deum

coli) utcumque sapiebat, sed contra multorum deorum cultum non libere defendebat. This was the inconsistency in Porphyry which Augustine alleged in ctu. Dei XIX. 23, and was the main point of his quarrel with him. There,

as here, he suggests that Porphyry

was not a free agent :

he did not speak courageously his own mind. There are, of course, many instances in the fragments of angels, ' gods ' or demons, revealing truths to men who practise certain rites. Frequently, moreover, men are advised

not to seek to induce even the good demons to speak to them’. And as in ciu. Dei XIX. 23, so here Augustine presumes that the good angels wish us to pay cult and be subject, not to them, but only to the one true god.

Non itaque debemus metuere, ne inmortales et beatos uni Deo subditos non ets sacrificando offendamus.

Quod enim non nisi unt uero Deo deberi

sciunt, cui et ipsi adhaerendo beati sunt, procul dubio neque per ullam significantem figuram, neque per ipsam rem, quae sacramentis significatur, sibi exhiberi uolunt. Daemonum est haec adrogantia superborum adque miserorum, a quibus longe diuersa est pietas subditorum Deo nec aliunde quam 1lli cohaerendo beatorum ... Quid adhuc trepidas, o philosophe, aduersus potestates et ueris uirtutibus et uert Det muneribus inuidas habere liberam uocem ? Iam distinxisti angelos, qui Patris adnuntiant uoluntatem, ab eis angelis, qui ad theurgos homines nescio qua deducti arte descendunt. Quid adhuc eos honoras, ut dicas pronuntiare diuina ? Quae tandem diuina pronuntiant, qui non uoluntatem Patris adnuntiant ? Nempe illi sunt, quos sacris precibus inuidus adligawit, ne praestarent. animae purgationem,

1. See p. 118. The relevant phrases are : af δ᾽ εἰσὶν drepbev, ἐκ σέο μὲν yeyaviat, ὑπ᾽ ἀγγελίῃσι δ᾽ ἕκαστα πρεσβυγενεῖ διάγουσι νόῳ καὶ κάρτει τῷ σῷ. πρὸς 8 ἔτι καὶ τρίτον ἄλλο γένος ποίησας ἀνάκτων, οἵ ῥ᾽ ἑκὰς ἦμαρ ἄγουσιν ἀνυμνείοντες ἀοιδαῖς Βουλόμενόν σ᾽ ἐθέλοντες, i δ᾽ ἐσῶδ Porphyry comments (Wolff, pp. 145 f) : ὅτι τρεῖς τάξεις ἀγγέλων ὁ χρησμὸς οὗτος δηλοῖ" τῶν ἀεὶ τῷ θεῷ παρεστώτων, καὶ χωριζομένων αὐτοῦ καὶ εἰς ἀγγελίας

καὶ διακονίας ἀποστελλομένων, καὶ τῶν φερόντων ἀεὶ τὸν αὐτοῦ θρόνον. The discussion of the angels immediately after the Principia, as in the fragment, is hardly without significance. . 2. Cf. Eusebius, Prae. eu. IV. 5 and pp. 60 f.

3. Cf. Eusebius, prac. ew. V. 8, Mras I, pp. 237 ff. (Wolff, pp. 155 ff.). 4. See pp. 118 and n. 1 above.

« PRINCIPIA »

ες

128

nec a bono, wl dicis, purgare cupiente ab illis winculis solui et suae potestati reddi potuerunt.

Adhuc

dubitas haec maligna

esse daemonia,

uel te fingis

fortasse nescire, dum non wis theurgos offendere, a quibus curiositate deceptus ista perniciosa et insana pro magno beneficio didicisti ? Audes istam inuidam non. polenttam, sed pestilentiam, et non dicam. dominam, sed, quod tu fateris, ancillam potius inuidorum isto aere transcenso leuare in caelum

et inter deos uestros etiam sidereos conlocare, uel ipsa quoque sidera his obprobrits infamare ? The first three sentences above continue the theme of this whole book, which is so obviously the same as that of ciu. Det XIX. 23. The supposition that Porphyry takes sides with the demons only because he is afraid of, or subject to them, is all part of the same theme in Augustine's eyes : Porphyry knew only one god should receive full cult and that the gods should not so be honoured. All the other details — the demons’ envy,

the distinction between demons, the summoning of demons by magic, their revelations, the impossibility of good demons doing anything if an evil demon

cannot be placated,

and finally his possible inclusion of

demons which Augustine calls evil!, among the gods of the aether — all these ideas are in the fragments of the Philosophy from Oracles as we have seen. Chapter 27 is both long and relevant to our purpose. It starts with words of praise for Apuleius, who did not, unlike Porphyry, permit deities who resided above the moon agitari morbis passionum mentisque turbelis. — ab omni labe istarum perturbationum quanta potuit disputatione secreutt. He then apostrophizes Porphyry : Tu autem hoc didicisti non a Platone, sed a Chaldaets magistris tuis, ut in aetherias uel empyreas mundi

sublimitates

et firmamenta

caelestia

extolleres

witia

humana,

ut

possent di wesiri theurgis pronuntiare diuina ; quibus diuinis te tamen per intellectualem uitam facis altiorem, ut tibi uidelicet tamquam philosopho theurgicae artis purgationes nequaquam necessariae uideantur ... ut uidelicet quicumque a philosophiae uirtute remoti sunt, quae ardua nimis adque paucorum est, te auctore theurgos homines, a quibus non quidem in anima intellectuali, uerum saliem in anima spiritali purgentur, inquirant ... Hoc enim tibi inmundissimi daemones, deos aetherios se esse fingentes, quorum

praedicator et angelus factus es, promiserunt, quod in anima spiritali? theurgica arte burgati ad Patrem. quidem non redeunt, sed super aerias plagas inter deos aetherios habitabunt. Non audit ista hominum multitudo, propler quos a daemonum dominatu liberandos Christus aduenit... In silo enim habent misericordissimam purgationem et mentis et spiritus et corporis Sui ... Quem tu quoque utinam cognoutsses eique te potius quam wel tuae

I. Cf. Eusebius, prae. eu. IV. 5 and p. 60. 2. Cf. pp. 105, 115, 142.

126

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

wiriuli, quae humana, fragilis et infirma est, uel perniciosissimae curtositati sanandum tutius commisisses. Non enim te decepisset, quem westra, ut tu ipse scribis, oracula sancium tnmortalemque confessa sunt.

Bidez is agreed that the last few words of the above passage come from the Philosophy from Oracles!, and indeed it would be difficult to

deny

it,

since

it is clearly

paralleled

in

the

oracles

quoted

in

ciu. Det XIX. 23. While it is entirely possible that Augustine might have switched from one book to another in his references to Porphyry — here, on Bidez' supposition, from the de regressu animae to the Philosophy from Oracles and back again, just as in chapter XI of this book he expli-

citly switched from either the de regressu animae or the Philosophy from Oracles (if they are separate books) — nevertheless it is at least equally possible

that

he did

not?.

There are, moreover, phrases which particularly suggest the Philosophy from Oracles as the work of Porphyry which Augustine has here mostly in mind. Thus on audit ista hominum multitudo, propter quos a daemonum dominatu liberandos Christus aduenit. This is taken up again at the end of this chapter 27 of book X: unde ad eum (Chrislum) mundus uobis quidem stomachantibus, mirantibus lamen. stupentibusque concurrit. Οὐ. Dei XXII. 25, a chapter which makes clear reference to the Philosophy from Oracles, has : Sed credentes multi negantes paucissimos reliquerunt et ad Christum ... fideli corde conuersi sunt, docti et indocti, sapientes mundt et insipientes. Hoc enim credidit mundus. This idea is repeated over and over again in ciu. Dei XXII. 25. Cou. Dei XVIII. 53, a chapter which also

can be connected with the Philosophy from Oracles, has propter aeternam uitam Christum diligeret mundus, and sectam sibi aduersariam (sc. Christianam) tam prolixo tempore conualescere ... et ad suorum simulacrorum templorum sacrorum oraculorum euersionem peruenire permitterent. Finally in ciu. Det XIX.

23 we have words which are nearer : ab istorum daemo-

num dominatu eum (non) liberet. Christus ... unum sacrificium. gentes a solis ortu usque ad occasum ... oblaturas*. ‘Kroll* thinks that the words : aethertas wel empyreas munds sublimstates et firmamenta

caelestía

come

from

the

collection

of Chaldean

Oracles.

1. op. ctt., p. 32°.

2. An important difference in the two cases is that the title of the Epistle tot Anebo iis known aliunde, whereas the de regressu is not.

3. Cf. pp. 89 f. where we indicate similar details in de consensu euangelistarum. I. Perhaps

in quorum praedicator et angelus factus es there is an echo of ὑπέρ re τούτων ( Θεῶν) πρεσβεῦσαι of Eusebius, introduced.

prae.

eu. IV.

6 (Mras,

4. Cf. op. cit., pp. 6 and 31 ff.

I p. 176)

where

the Philosophy

from

Oracles is formally .

« PRINCIPIA

»

125

Other details in this passage are familiar to us and their connection, either possible or actual, with the Philosophy from Oracles has already

been indicated!. Chapter 28 has some familiar and relevant points : Mittis ergo homines in errorem certissimum, neque hoc tanium malum te pudet, cum uirtutis et

sapientiae profitearis amatorem? ; quam si were ac fideliter amasses, Christum uirtutem et Dei sapientiam cognouisses nec ab eius saluberrima humiltlate

tumore

inflatus

uanae

scientiae

resiluisses.

Confileris

tamen

etiam

spiritalem animam sine theurgicis artibus et sine teletts, quibus frustra discendis elaborasti, posse continentiae wirlute burgari. Aliquando etiam dicis, quod teletae non post mortem eleuant animam, ut iam nec eidem ipsi, quam spiritalem uocas, aliquid post huius witae finem prodesse wideantur ; et tamen uersas haec multis modis et repetts, ad nthil aliud, quantum existimo, nisi ut talium quoque rerum quasi peritus appareas et placeas inlictlarum artium curiosis, uel ad eas facias ipse curiosos. Sed bene, quod metuendam dicis hanc artem uel legum periculis uel ipsius actionis? ... Ignorantiam cerle et propter eam mulia uitia per nullas teletas purgari dicis, sed per solum πατρικὸν νοῦν, id est baternam mentem siue intellectum, qui paternae est conscius uoluntatss*. Hunc autem Christum esse non credis ; contemnis enim eum propter corpus ex femina acceptum et propter crucis obprobrium, excelsam uidelicet. sapientiam spretis adque abiectis infimis idoneus de superioribus carpere. At ille inplet, quod prophetae sancti de tllo ueractter praedixerunt ... He ends with a quotation from I. Cor. I. 19 ff including the words : Iudaei signa petunt et Graeci sapientiam quaerunt ; nos autem, inquit, praedicamus Christum | crucifixum, Iudaeis quidem scandalum, gentibus autem stultitiam, ipsis uero uocatis Iudaeis et Graecis Christum Dei uirtutem et Dei sapientiam ; quoniam stultum Dei sapientius est hominibus, et infirmum Dei fortius est hominibus. This passage under consideration has certain

words

which

suggest

that it could have been inspired by the Philosophy from Oracles : hunc autem Christum esse non credis ; contemnis enim eum propler corpus ex femina acceptum et propter crucis obprobrium. Ciu. Dei XIX. 23 gives ample evidence that Apollo in the Philosophy from Oracles vituperated Christ on account of his death : perditum pessima in spectosis ferro uincta mors inler[ecit, a vituperation which was endorsed by Porphyry

: morte -

I. Cf. de consensu eu. I. 21, 24, 39, 46 ; the preface to the Philosophy from Oracles in Eusebius,

prae. eu. IV. 8, Mras I p. 128 : καὶ ταῦτα πειρῶ μὴ δημοσιεύειν μηδ᾽ ἄχρι καὶ τῶν βεβήλων Trew. po Cf. Eusebius, prac. eu. IV. 6, Mras I. p. 176 : ἐκλεξάμενος ἑαυτῷ ἡγήσατο ἱκανοὺς εἶναι els re ἀπόδειξιν τῆς τῶν Θεολογουμένων ἀρετῆς εἴς re προτροπὴν ἧς αὐτῷ ( Πορφυρίῳ ) φίλον ὀνομάζειν θεοσοφίας. 3. Cf, De consensu eu. I. 14 (p. 86) and ciu. Dei X. 9 (p. 104). 4. See pp. 115 ff.

128

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

pessima excruciandum esse. Porphyry's contempt for Christ's crucifixion is often mentioned in Augustine. The Philosophy from Oracles gave strong expression to that contempt. Augustine certainly read it there

— and quite possibly read about it for the first time there.

CHAPTER THREE

Christus

via

universalis

Chapter 29 brings us to the first mention of de regressu animae. But first the following passage at the beginning of the chapter must be quoted : Praedicas Patrem! et eius Filium, quem wocas paternum intellectum. seu mentem, et horum. medium, quem putamus te dicere Spiritum Sanctum, et more uestro appellas tres deos. Ubi, etsi uerbis indtsciplinatis utimini, widetis tamen. qualitercumque et quasi per quaedam tenuis imaginationis umbracula, quo nitendum sit; sed incarnationem incommutabilis Filii Dei, qua saluamur, ut ad illa, quae credimus uel ex quantulacumque parte intellegimus, uenire possimus, non uultis agnoscere. Itaque widelis utcumque, etsi de longinquo, elsi acie caligante, patriam in qua manendum est, sed uiam qua eundum est non tenetis. Confiteris tamen gratiam, quando quidem ad Deum per wiriutem intellegentiae peruenire baucis dicis esse concessum .. Uteris etiam hoc werbo apertius, ubi Platonis sententiam sequens nec ipse dubitas in hac uita hominem nullo modo ad perfectionem sapientiae peruenire, secundum intellectum tamen. uiuentibus omne quod deest proutdentia® Dei et gratia post hanc uitam posse conpleri* ... Scio me frustra loqui mortuo, sed quantum ad te adtinet : quantum autem ad eos, qui te magnipendunt et te uel qualicumque amore sapientiae uel curiositate artium, quas non debwisti discere, diligunt, quas potius in tua conpellatione adloquor, fortasse non frustra.

^u» »"

We have already considered* at some length to what extent there is reference to the Pater, paternus intellectus, and the horum medium in the Philosophy from Oracles. For the moment we might assume that the possible relevance of various points in the text just quoted is evident

. Cf. eiu. Dei XIX 23 : bene quidem praedicautt Deum Patrem. . Cf. Philosophy from Oracles, Wolff p. 178 = Lactantius, Inst. 7.13.5 quoted . This is a large part of the theme of the Contra Acad. Cf. pp. 56. . See

pp.

115

ff.

p. 115.

I30

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

and proceed to concentrate on the image introduced here of the return of the soul to the Fatherland. The image is nof that of an ascent by way of return above, but that of a return over land, as is borne out by the use

of the same image twice in the Confessions : quid interesset inter widentes, quo eundum sit, nec uidentes qua, et utam ducentem ad beatificam patriam non lantum cernendam sed et habitandam (VII. 26), and aliud est de siluesiri

cacumine uidere patriam pacis et iter ad eam non inuenire et frustra conari per inuta circum obsidentibus et insidiantibus fugitiuts desertoribus cum principe suo leone et dracone, et aliud tenere uiam illuc ducentem. cura calestis imperatoris munitam (VII. 27). Courcelle!

sees in Macrobius*

(who,

however,

attributes

the

matter

to Plotinus?) another possible reference to the de regressu animae which perhaps also brings the de regressu animae nearer to the Philosophy from Oracles : Nam in arcanis DE ANIMAE REDITU disputationibus fertur in hac uita delinquentes similes esse super aequale solum cadentibus, quibus denuo

sine difficultate praesto sit surgere ; animas

uero ex hac wita cum

delictorum sordibus recedentes aequandas Ms, qui in abruptum ex alto praecipitique delapsi sint, unde numquam [facultas fit resurgendt. Ideo ergo ulendum concessis witae spatiis, ut sit perfectae purgationis maior facultas .. Here again the journey — so far as it affects this life — is evidently over land. This text from Macrobius, if it is, as Courcelle suggests, from

Porphyry and the de regressu animae, gives additional reasons for identifying the de regressu animae with the Philosophy from Oracles : for apart from the significant words : in arcanis de animae reditu disputationibus, which easily fit the secret doctrines (as Porphyry describes them*) of the Philosophy from Oracles, Courcelle suggests that the words : in hac wita ulendum concessis ... perfectae burgationis correspond to Uteris ... in hac vita ... perfectionem (to which he adds purgatamque from ciu. Dei X. 30) in the passage we have just quoted from Augustine. Courcelle writes : « Le dessein de Macrobe et d'Augustin est tout différent : le premier utilise Porphyre pour condamner le suicide, l'autre pour prouver la Gráce ; mais ils se référent à la méme page du De regressu de Porphyre, selon lequel la prolongation de notre vie ici-bas (in hac vita) est un don de Dieu (concessum) destiné à nous permettre la purification parfaite (perfecta purgatio). Courcelle is in my opinion right in seeing a connection between these two passages of Macrobius and Augustine, and between ‘them and the work of Porphyry which is indicated in ciu. Dei X. by the words de regressu animae. But the very words he underlines are to be found in large part in an explicit quotation from the Philosophy from

X. Les Lettres Grecques en Occident, Paris 1943, pp. 26 1. 2. In Soman, Scip.

1.13.16. (Eyssenhardt,

Teubner

1893).

_

.

3. Courcelle, following Cumont, rightly supposed that Porphyry is the real source. 4. Eusebius, Prae. eu. IV. 8, Mras I, p. 178 (Wolff p. 110).

« CHRISTUS

VIA

UNIVERSALIS

Oracles in ciu. Dei XIX.

»

131

23 : quibus were [atum non concessit ab dis dona

obtinere... inquisitio enim purgat, and quibus fata non adnuerunt deorum dona obtinere, and quibus fato non fuit nosse Deum nec dona ab dis accipere.

If the connection between the passage in Macrobius and in Augustine (ctu. Dei X. 29) is established, and the connection between the two and the fragment from the Philosophy from Oracles in ciw. Dei XIX. 23 is considered more than possible, then the identification of the de regress animae and the Philosophy from Oracles is brought close indeed. It may help in this connection to quote from an earlier passage in Macrobius! : solae faciunt uirtutes beatum, nullaque alia quisquam uia hoc nomen adtpiscttur. unde qui aestimant nullis nist philosophantsbus inesse uirtutes, nullos praeter philosophos beatos esse pronuntiant. agniHonem enim rerum diuinarum. sapientiam proprie wocantes eos tantum modo dicunt esse sapientes, qui superna et acie mentis requirunt et quaerendi sagaci dili gentia conprehendunt et, quantum wutwuendi perspicuitas praestat, imitantur : et in hoc sola esse atunt exercitia uirtutum, quarum sic officia

dispensant. brudentiae esse mundum istum et omnia, quae in mundo insunt, diuinorum | contemplatione dispicere omnemque animae cogitationem. $n sola diwina dirigere : temperantiae omnia relinquere, in quantum natura patitur, quae corporis usus requirit : fortitudinis non terreri animam a

corpore quodam modo ductu philosophtae recedentem, nec altitudinem. perfectae ad superna ascensionis horrere : iustitiae ad unam sibi huius propositt consentire wiam unius cuiusque wirlulis obsequium ... Sed Plotinus... This passage is explicitly indicated as not being indebted to Plotinus, but it is with little doubt, although not explicitly, indebted to Porphyry and, if we compare it with οὖν. Det XIX. 23, to the Philosophy from Oracles.

If the connection between the two passages is considered as at all likely, then the account of the four cardinal virtutes given in Macrobius is of great interest ; for it teaches the doctrine characteristically described

as Porphyry's by the phrase : omne corpus fugiendum, which

we pro-

visionally connected.with the Philosophy from Oracles. This would suggest

an identification of the de regressu animae Oracles*.

with the Philosophy from

To return to our main argument — the passage which we have quoted

from the beginning of chapter 29 of book X of the ciu. Dei accuses Por1. $bid. 2. There is notable definition

1.7.3-5. is room for further examination of this point. It may be purely accidental, but it that both in In Somn. Scip. 1.8.13 and ciu. Dei XIX 23 we have mention of the of the. ciuttas : coetus hominum iure sociati and coetus hominum iuris consensu et

wtilitatis communione post corpus

(In Somn.

sociatus (cf. Περὶ Scip.

1.9.6—and

πολιτεῖας Θεῶν in: Wolff pp. 40, 129) ; the formula several

times

earlier on—and

ciu. Det

XIX.23)

to

describe the stage of soul after death : anima post corpus ut incedit, nosti ; and some other small, doubtful, points of possible connection between In Somn. Scip. and ciu. Dei in a common source in Philosophy from Oracles.

132

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN

AUGUSTINE

phyry of refusing to recognize the Incarnation : sed incarnationis incommutabihs Filii

Dei, qua saluamur,

ut ad illa ... uentre possimus, non uultis

agnoscere. We know from ciu. Dei XIX. 23 that in the Philosophy from Oracles Porphyry considered Christ's claim and rejected it : he did not believe that Christ was god on the one hand, and rejected any union

between a Principle and body : Piissimum igstur uirum ... corpus quidem debilitantibus tormentis semper obpositum est : anima autem piorum caelesti sedi insidet ... hominem tantum. Finally — a matter of little consequence perhaps, — the words : scio me frustra loqui mortuo, sed ... quantum ad eos,

qui te magnipendunt et te uel qualicumque amore sapientiae ... diligunt, quas potius in tua conpellatione adloquor, fortasse non frusira are echoed in civ. Dei XXII. 28 (which we have given some reason for connecting with the Philosophy [rom Oracles!) : Quapropter Plato et Porphyrius, uel polius quicumque illos diligunt et adhuc wiuwunt ... adsumant etiam hoc... Augustine proceeds : Sed Jic weritati (sc. Incarnationis) ut possetis adqutescere, humilitate opus erat, quae ceruict uestrae difficillime persuadert potest. Quid enim incredibile dicitur, praesertim uobis qui talia. safistis, quibus ad hoc credendum wos ipsos admonere debeatis ; quid, inquam uobis incredibile

dicitur,

cum

dicitur

Deus

adsumsisse

humanam.

animam

et

corpus ? Vos certe lantum tributtis animae intellectuali, quae anima utique humana est, ut eam consubstantialem paternae illi menti, quem Dei Filium confitemini, fieri posse dicatis. Quid ergo incredibile est, st aliqua. una intellectualis anima modo quodam ineffabili et singulari pro multorum salute suscepta est ? Corpus wero animae cohaerere, ut homo totus et plenus sif, natura tpsa nostra teste cognoscimus. Quod nist usttatissimum esset, hoc profecto esset. incredibilius ; facilius quippe in fidem recipiendum est, etsi humanum diuino, elsi mutabilem incommutabili, lamen spiritum spiritui, aut ut uerbis utar quae tn usu habetis, incorporeum incorporeo, quam corpus incorporeo

cohaerere.

An

forte uos

offendit inusitatus

corporis partus

ex

wirgine ? Neque hoc debet offendere, immo potius ad pietatem suscipiendam debet adducere, quod mirabilis mirabiliter natus est. An wero quod ipsum corpus morte depositum et in melius resurrectione mutatum tam incorruptibile neque mortale tn superna subuexit, hoc fortasse credere recusatis intuentes Porbhyrium in his tpsis libris, ex quibus multa poswi, quos de regressu animae scripsit, lam crebro praecipere omne corpus esse fugiendum, ut anima possit beata permanere cum Deo ? Sed ipse polius ista sentiens corrigendus futt, praesertim cum de anima mundi huius wisibilis e tam ingeniis corporeae molis cum tllo tam incredibilia safiatis. Platone quippe auctore animal esse dicitis mundum et animal beatissimum, quod uultis esse etiam sempiternum. Quo modo ergo nec umquam soluetur a corpore, nec umquam carebit. beatitudine, st, ut beata sit anima, corpus sit omne

I. See pp. 74 f.

« CHRISTUS VIA UNIVERSALIS ».

—

133

fugiendum ? Solem quoque istum et cetera sidera non solum in libris uesiris corpora esse fatemint, quod uobiscum. omnes homines et conspicere. non cunctantur et dicere ; uerum etiam altiore, ut putatis, peritia haec esse anima-

lia beatissima perhtbetis et cum his corporibus sempiterna. Quid ergo est, quod, cum uobis fides Christiana suadetur, tunc obliutscimini, aut ignorare

+ vos fingitis, quid disputare aut docere soleatis ? Quid causae est, quur propter opiniones uesiras, quas wos ipsi obpugnatis, Christiani esse nolitis, nisi quia Christus humiliter uenit et uos swberbi estis ? Qualia sanctorum corpora in resurrectione futura sint, potest aliquanto scrupulosius inter Christianarum scripturarum doctissimos disbulari ; futura tamen sempiterna minime dubitamus, et talia futura, quale sua resurrectione Christus demons-' trauit exemplum. Sed qualiacumque. sint, cum incorruptibilia prorsus et inmortalia niMloque animae contemplationem, qua in Deo figitur, inpedientia praedicentur uosque etiam. dicatis esse in caelestibus inmortalia corpora inmortaliter beatorum : quid est quod, ut beati simus, omne corpus fugiendum esse opinamini, ut fidem Christianam quasi rationabiliter fugere uideamint, nist quia illud est, quod iterum dico : Christus est humilis, uos superbi ? From the vital words : an uero quod tpsum corpus morte depositum et in melius resurrectione mutatum iam incorruptibile neque mortale! in superna subuextt, hoc [fortasse credere recusatis intuentes Porphyrium in his ipsis libris ... tam crebro praecipere omne corpus esse fugiendum, ut anima fossil beata permanere cum Deo ? to the end we have a very close doublet of book XXII chapter 25 — a chapter the first part of which is beyond

doubt inspired by Porphyry's Philosophy from Oracles, and the

second probably also?. 'The theme of both is the refusal by Porphyry to believe in the resurrection

of Christ's

body

and

its continued

existence

with

his soul

in

heaven : quod ipsum corpus morte depositum et in melius resurrectione mutatum tam incorruptible neque mortale in superna subuexit, hoc credere recusatis. In ciu. Dei

X XII. 25 we have : de carnis resurrectione contendunt,

hanc quantum possunt negant ... Chrisium, qui hoc quod istis uidetur absurdum in sua resurrectione monstrauit ... utrum enim non potest facere ut resurgat caro et uiuat in aelernum ? non erit illic ulla corruptio. (We have seen? that this theme is also present in ciw. Dei XIX. 23 in the very words of the oracles themselves : corpus quidem debilitantibus tormentis semper obpositum est ; anima autem piorum caelesti sedi insidet). In chapter 26 of

εἶ. Dei XXII appeal is made to Plato against Porphyry : Plato had made the gods immortal, even though it appeared impossible : emendet libros

I. Cf. sermo 241.7 (See pp. 92) : sed ait Porphyrius : sine causa mihi laudas corpus ; qualecumque sit corpus, si uult esse beata anima, corpus est omne fugiendum. We have connected

the sermo independently with the Philosophy from Oracles. See pp. 92 f. 2. See pp. 74 ff. 3. See pp: 50 ff.

134

« PHILOSOPHY FROM ORACLES » IN AUGUSTINE

suos istorum omnium magister Plato εἰ dicat eorum deos, ut beats sint, sua

corpora fugtturos, id est morituros, quos in caelestibus corporibus dixit inclusos : quibus lamen Deus, a quo factt sunt, quo possent esse securi inmortalitatem,

id est in eisdem corporibus aeternam. permanstonem,

non

eorum natura id habente, sed suo consilio praeualente, bromisit. Ubs eiiam illud euertit quod dicunt, quoniam est inpossibilis, ideo resurrectionem carnis non esse credendam ... Ille igilur carnem incorrupti bilem, inmortalem spiritalem resuscitabit. In the passage from chapter 29 of Book X, the passage under discussion, appeal is likewise made to Plato against Porphyry, but this time not in connection with gods in general, but with special beings who are beaíissim:i — the universe, the sun, and other stars : Sed ipse ( Porphyrius) potius tsta sentiens corrigendus [ust ... Platone quippe auctore animal esse dicitis mundum et animal beatissimum, quod uultis esse eliam. sempiternum. Quo modo ergo nec umquam soluetur a corpore, nec umquam

carebit beatitudine, si, ut beata sit anima, corpus sit

omne fugiendum ? Solem quoque istum et cetera sidera ... cum his corporibus sempiterna. It is evident that the appeal is not only to the same authority,

but in regard to the same point — even if a few are specified in one instance and a group is considered in the other!. In both passages Augustine says that there is room for disagreement on details concerning the bodies of the saints in heaven : qualia sanctorum corpora in resurrecitone futura sini, potest aliquanto scrupulosius inter Christianarum | scribiurarum doctissimos disputari (X. 29) and non erit illic ulla corruptio ... de ordine elementorum iam disbulauimus ; de alis hominum coniecturis satis diximus ; quanta sit futura in corpore incorruptibili facilitas motus ... Finally, the conclusion in both cases is the same and expressed in similar words : cum incorruptibilia prorsus οὐ inmortalsa nihilogue animae. contemplationem, qua in Deo figitur, inpedientia praedicentur uosque ei$am. dicatis esse tn caelestibus 3nmortalia corpora tnmortalster beatorum : quid est quod,

ut beats simus, omne corpus fugiendums esse opinamini ὃ Ciu. Det XII. X 26 concludes : son ergo, ut beatae sint animae, corpus est omne fugiendum, sed corpus incorruwbtille recipiendum. In both cases, it may be remarked, the appeal to Plato is preceded by the enunciation of this principle : μέ beata sit anima, corpus est omne fugiendum (XXII. 26), omne corpus esse fugiendum, ut anisna possil beata permanere cum Deo (X. 29). It is impossible to deny that the two passages we have compared have

the same inspiration in Porphyry. It might be possible to argue that the inspiration, in so far as it is confined to one work of Porphyry,

would

be limited in its application to those parts introduced in both cases by the enunciation of the principle : omne corpus fugiendum, containing the I. Arnobius,

Adv.

nat. II. 36, appeals

to the same

passage of the Timacus as is used by

Augustine in civ. Dei XXII. 26 in a similar argument in that part of his work which defends Christianity against Porphyry's Philosophy from Oracles, ot de regressu animae. See pp. x45 f.

« CHRISTUS

VIA

UNIVERSALIS

»

135

appeal to Plato, and conciuded by the denial of omne corpus fugiendum — in other words to hold that, whatever else comes from the PAilosophy from Oracles (and it is quite undeniable that XXII. 25 is largely inspired by that work), this section in both cases comes from the de regressu ammae. To do so, however, is to ignore completely the theme out of which the

mention of the omne corpus fugiendum and the appeal to Plato arises : the resurrection and glorification of Christ's body : An uero quod ipsum corpus morte deposttum et in melius resurrectione mutatum tam 1ncorruplibile neque mortale in. superna subuexit, hoc fortasse credere recusatts intuentes Porphyrium tn his spsts libris, ex quibus multa posus, quos de regressu animae scripsit, tam crebro praccipere omne corpus esse fugiendum, ut anima possit beata permanere cum Deo ? The topic under discussion has been Christ’s Incarnation

: the union there of divinity with body.

Another aspect of this problem is the question of the union of Christ’s soul with his body, resurrected and glorified. This is precisely the point at which Augustine mentions a place where Porphyry had denied that Christ's body was resurrected and glorified : quod corpus morte depositum et in melius resurrectione mutatum credere recusatis intuentes Porphyrium. If he had not mentioned the title de regressu animae, we would inevitably

have concluded that the place in question was the Philosophy from Oracles —

for Augustine tells us in ciu. Dei XIX.

23 explicitly that Porphyry

did precisely this there, quoting the oracles of Apollo : ‘ morituum Deum cantans, quem sudicibus recta sentientibus perditum pessima in spectosis ferro wincta mors snteríecit ', and Hecate : De Christo autem, inquit, 1nierrogantibus si est Deus, ait Hecate : ' Quoniam quidem inmortalis anima post corpus ut incedit, nosti ; a sapientia autem abscisa semper errat '. Porphyry adds : pitssimum igilur virum, inquit, eum dixil eb eius animam, sicul et aliorum piorum, post obitum inmortalitaie dignatam. Hecate goes on : corpus quidem debilitantibus tormentis semper obposttum est ; anima autem piorum caelesti sedi insidet. The semper obpositum est is emphatic. Hecate with the word semper discountenanced the Christian view of the resurrection of Christ’s body. It must be emphasized that so far is there not any change in the context between this consideration of Christ’s resurrection — the denial of it by Porphyry who, however, admits that Christ’s soul was in heaven — and

the principle omne corpus fugiendum, that the context is strictly continuous : there is no occasion to suppose that a work of Porphyry’s other than the Philosophy from Oracles is being referred to. As we have said before!, the words omne corpus fugiendum do not primarily refer here to this life at all, but rather to the life of the soul after death, when, if

1, See pp. 23 ff.

136

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

it is to remain blessed, it must flee any return to body. This is very clearly expressed at this very point in cis. Dei X. 29 : omne corpus esse fugiendum, ul anima

possil beata permanere cum Deo. Permanere,

even if we had not

much more evidence for this interpretation, is decisive : beata permanere cum Deo. The principle is, therefore, most appositely used in the context of denying that Christ's body is in heaven, or that his soul which is blessed (beatus in ciu. Dei XIX. 23) has any union with it : ut fidem Christianam

quasi rationabiliter fugere uideamini ... obinamini ... ut beat. simus |... omne corpus fugiendum ; Christiani esse nolitis-bropter opiniones uestras, quas uos ipsi obpugnatis (X. 29). The same continuity is to be observed in ciu. Det XXII. 25, which likewise discusses Christ's resurrection and encounters, at the beginning of chapter 26, Porphyry’s μέ beata sit anima,

corpus esse omne fugiendum. And it is beyond all reasonable doubt that ciu. Dei XXII. 25 is connected with the Phslosophy from Oracles. In other words ctu. Det XXII. 25 and 26 refer almost certainly to one theme and to one work of Porphyry, which in this case is identified

with the Philosophy from Oracles, a title given explicitly as such. This draws with it the conclusion that the passage we have been discussing

from ciu. Dei X. 29, being evidently one theme also, is inspired by the same work, even if here a descriptive title, de regressu animae is given. This conclusion, arising from this passage in Book X, is confirmed by some lesser considerations which we may be permitted to omit. Finally we draw most particular attention to the parallel — amounting in the second case almost to identity — between the present passage of ciu. Dei X. 29 and passages we have examined from de consensu eu!. and

sermo 241%, both of which for independent reasons we have connected with the Philosophy from Oracles. Chapter 30 confirms in a convincing manner the connection we have indicated between chapter 29 of Book X and chapters 25 and 26 of

Book XXII — for it corresponds to chapter 27 of XXII. The theme is Porphyry’s correction of Plato : Plato said that souls return from heaven to bodies — even.to the bodies of beasts. Porphyry refused to believe in such a cycle ; but he did allow that souls might return to human bodies

other than those which they had had before : δὲ post Platonem aliquid emendare. existimatur indignum, quur ipse Porphyrius nonnulla et non parua emendawit ? Nam Platonem animas hominum post mortem reuolui «sque

ad corpora

bestiarum

scripsisse

cerlissimum

est. Hanc

sententiam

Porphyrii doctor tenwit et Plotinus ; Porphyrio tamen iure displicuit. In hominum sane non sua quae dimiserant, sed alia noua corpora redire humanas animas arbitratus est.

See

pp.

91

f.

2. See

1.

pp.

92

f.

s CHRISTUS

VIA

UNIVERSALIS

»

137

In XXII. 27 Porphyry's opinion is quoted with the difference that souls do not return to bodies at all : (Plato) dixit sapientium animas post quamlibet longum tempus, tamen ad corpora redituras. Porphyrius autem dixit animam purgattssimam, cum redierit ad Patrem, ad haec mala mundi numquam esse redituram. Ac per hoc, quod uerum uidit Plato, si dedisset

Porphyrio ... rursus quod werum uidit Porphyrius, si dedisset Platoni ... secundum Platonem etiam sanctae animae ad humana corpora redibunt ; secundum Porphyrium ad mala mundi huius sanctae animae non redibunt : dicat itaque cum Platone Porphyrius : Redibunt ad corpora ; dicat Plato cum Porphyrio : Non redibunt ad mala... It is to be noted too that immediately before this passage in XXII. 27 Augustine quotes a line from Virgil, which he also quotes in X. 30 : Rursus et incipiant in corpora uelle reuerti (Aen. VI. 750). It is evident that these sections are still part of the doublet between Books X and XXII, which, as we have indicated, starts with chapter 29

in Book X and chapter 25 in Book XXII. The parallel continues, not so closely but nevertheless this time bringing us to Book XII X 25, and so nearer to the Philosophy from Oracles : Quanto creditur honestius, quod sancti et weraces angeli docuerunt, quod prophetae Dei spiritu acti locuti sunt, quod ipse quem uenturum Saluatorem jraemissi nuntii braedixerunt, quod missi apostoli qui orbem. terrarum euangelio repleuerunt, — quanto, inquam, honestius creditur reuerti animas. semel ad corpora propria. Ciu. Dei XXII. 25 has : de carnis resurrectione contendunt, hanc quantum possunt negant. Sed credentes multi negantes paucissimos reliquerunt et ad Christum, qui hoc quod istis uidetur absurdum in sua

resurrectione

monstrautt,

fideli corda

conuersi

sunt

... Hoc

enim

credidit mundus, quod praedixtt Deus, qui etiam hoc praedixit, quod hanc rem mundus fuerat crediturus The passage in XXII. 25 continues with incontrovertible references to the Philosophy from Oracles. Book X, chapter 30 continues : Dicit ( Porphyrius)

etiam ad hoc Deum

animam mundo dedisse, ut materiae cognoscens mala ad Patrem recurreret nec aliquando iam talium polluta contagione teneretur. The second part of this sentiment is found a number of times in XXII. 27 — for example : ad mala huius mundi sanctae animae non redibunt!, Chapter 31 continues the argument in favour of the Christian teaching on all such matters as the future life : quur ergo non potius diuinitati credimus de his rebus. Here the precise question is the creation of the soul : the Platonists argue that if it is to be eternal in the future, it must

have been eternal in the past. Augustine on this point puts forward two considerations to weaken the Platonic position : Plato's own confession that he had made certain beings immortal, when they had been created *

I. Cf. Plotinus, Enn. IV. 8.5 : κἂν μὲν θᾶττον φύγῃ, οὐδὲν βέβλαπται γνῶσιν κακοῦ mpooλαβοῦσα xal φύσιν κακίας γνοῦσα. .

10

138

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLBS

» IN AUGUSTINE

mortal : eos coepisse et habere initium, finem tamen non habituros (here he refers to the quotation from the Timaeus which he had already used, and was to use in XII. X 26, and elsewhere and which must have appeared in Porphyry's work!) Secondly the soul’s beatitude, depending for its fullness on the knowledge of evil, began only with time ; it too is to be eternal. Hence we have another instance from the Platonists themselves of something beginning to be, but destined to be eternal.

Quapropter diuinae auctoritati humana cedat. infirmitas, eisque beatis et inmortalibus de wera religione credamus, qui sibi honorem non expetunt, quem Deo suo, qui etiam noster est, deberi sciunt, nec iubent, ut sacrificium

faciamus, nisi ei tantum, cuius et nos cum illis, ut saepe dixi et saepe dicendum

est, sacrificium esse debemus,

per eum

sacerdotem

offerendi,

qui in

homine, quem suscejit, secundum quem et sacerdos esse uoluit, etiam usque ad mortem sacrificium pro nobis dignatus est fieri. Here we return temporarily to the main theme of the book : we should

trust those beati et inmortales, qui sibi honorem non expetunt. They direct cult, not to themselves, but to God, to whom alone sacrifice is due : et tantum — the sacrifice of ourselves : nos cum tilts sacrificium esse debemus This, of course, is the theme of ciu. Dei XIX. 23.

We come now to the last chapter, 32, in book X. It begins : Haec est religio, quae uniuersalem continet wiam animae liberandae, quoniam nulla nist hac liberari potest. Haec est enim quodam modo regalis uta, quae una ductt ad regnum, non temporalt fastigio nutabundum, sed aeternitatis firmitate securum. Cum autem dicit. Porphyrius in primo tuxta finem de regressu animae libro nondum receptum in unam quandam sectam, quae uniuersalem contineat uiam animae liberandae, uel a philosophia uerissima aliqua uel ab Indorum moribus ac disciplina, aut inductione Chaldaeorum aut alia qualibet uia, nondumque in suam notitiam eandem uiam historiali cognitione perlatam : procul dubio confitetur esse aliquam, sed nondum in suam wenisse notitiam. Ita ei non sufficiebat quidquid de anima liberanda studiosissime didicerat sibique uel potius alis nosse ac tenere videbatur. Sentiebat enim adhuc sibi deesse aliquam praestantissimam auctoritatem, quam de re tanta sequi oporieret. Cum autem dicit. uel a philosophia uerissima aliqua nondum in suam notitiam peruentsse sectam, quae wniuersalem contineat utam animae liberandae : satis, quantum arbitror, ostendit uel cam philosophiam, in qua spse philosophatus est, non esse uerissimam, uel ea non contineri talem uiam ... Cum autem addit

et dicit : ‘ Vel ab Indorum moribus ac disciplina, uel ab inducttone Chaldaeorum

uel alia

qualibet

uia ', mantfestissima

quae ab Indis neque illis quae a Chaldaeis

uoce

testatur neque

sllis

didicerat hanc. wnisiersalem

uiam animae contineri ; et utique se a Chaldaeis oracula diuina sumsisse,

I. See pp. 73, 91, 129, 132.

« CHRISTUS

VIA

UNIVERSALIS

»

I39

quorum adsiduam commemorationem facit, tacere non potuit. Quam uult ergo intellegi animae liberandae uniuersalem uiam nondum receptam uel ex aliqua werissima philosophia uel ex earum. gentium. doctrinis, quae magnae uelut in diuinis rebus habebantur, quia plus aput eas curiositas ualuit quorumque angelorum cognoscendorum et colendorum, nondumque in suam notitiam historiali cognitione perlatam ὃ Quaenam ista est uniuersalis uta, nisi quae non suae cuique genti propria, sed uniuersis gentibus quae communis essel diuinitus impertita est ? Quam certe iste homo non mediocri ingenio praeditus esse non dubitat. Prouidentiam quippe diuinam sine isla uiuersali uta liberandae genus humanum relinquere potuisse non credit. . We have already seen! the discernible similarity between this passage, which Augustine says was inspired by the end of the first book of the de regressu animae, and a passage from the Philosophy from Oracles

preserved for us by Eusebius, prae. eu. IX. 10, which is placed by Wolff at the end of his first book of fragments. In both there is question of the way to the gods.

Here we must add some details to our earlier indication of the correspondence between the passage from Augustine given as being inspired by the de regressu animae, and the quotation given in Eusebius as coming from the Philosophy from Oracles. The aim of the religion commended by Augustine is the liberation of the soul : wa animae liberandae. This is repeated over and over again. The aim of what Porphyry calls his ‘ theosophy ’ is likewise the salvation

of the soul : in his preface, as quoted by Eusebius? he declares : βέβαιος δὲ καὶ μόνιμος ὁ ἐντεῦθεν ὡς ἂν ἐκ μόνου βεβαίου τὰς ἐλπίδας τοῦ σωθῆναι dpurdpevos®, and again δοτέον δὴ τοῖς τὸν βίον ἐνστησαμένοις

πρὸς τὴν τῆς ψυχῆς σωτηρίαν. It is to be noted that each says that his is the only way : nulla nisi hac liberari ... quae una ducit : ὡς dv ἐκ μόνου βεβαίου. The destiny of the souls is in Augustine the regnum. In the Philosophy from Oracles also, the Father is spoken of as : παντόκρατορ βασιλεύτατε καὶ μόνε θνητῶν ἀθανάτων τε πάτερ uakdpo»*. Bómer and Courcelle? have already suggested that there is a correspondence between the words ab Indorum. moribus ... and Claudianus Mamertus, de statu animae II. 8 (P.L. 53. col. 750) : Quid ergo nunc Zoroasiris, quid Brachmanum ex India, quid Anacharsidis ex Scythia ... in defensionem sententias adferam. This need not surprise us, for there is evidence

I. pp. ro ff. 2. Prae. eu. IV. 7, Mras I, pp. 177 f.

3. cf. ἡνίκα δ' αὖτε

λύσιν Βροτέην ... εὕρηται, preserved in Lactantius

pp. 177 £.). 4. Wolff, op. cit., p. 145. 5. Les Lettres Grecques, p. 229.

Inst. 7.13.5

(Wolff

140

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

of Claudianus Mamertus' using the same source and that that source was probably the Philosophy from Oracles'. It will be noticed that there is especial emphasis put upon the views of the Chaldeans : ef utsque* se a Chaldaeis oracula diuina sumsisse, quorum adsiduam eommemorationem facit

—

an

emphasis

which

merely

reproduces

Porphyry's

own.

The

words : quae magnae uelut in diuinis rebus habebaniur may remind us

of πολλὰς kai Φοίνικες ὁδοὺς μακάρων ἐδάησαν in the fragment of the Philosophy from Oracles with which we have compared the beginning of this passage. Angelorum cognoscendorum et colendorum recalls the theme of ciu. Det XIX. 23, as the phrases : quaenam ista est uniuersalis uta, nisi

quae non suae cuique genti propria, sed uniuersis gentibus quae communis esset diuinitus inpertita est ? also recall Deus igitur Hebraeorum ... legem dedit ... non obscuram et incognitam sed omnibus tam gentibus diffamatam .. in ctu, Dei XIX. 23. Finally the words : Prouidentiam quippe diuinam sine tsta untuersali uta liberandae animae genus humanum relinquere potuisse non credit may be paralleled in the fragment dealing with the . liberation of the soul in the Philosophy from Oracles : ἡνίκα 8’ αὖτε λύσιν βροτέην μετὰ σῶμα μαρανθὲν

ὠκίστην εὕρηται, ἐς αἰθέρα πᾶσα φορεῖται αἰὲν ἀγήραος οὖσα, μένει 5’ εἰς πάμπαν ἀτειρής. πρωτόγονος γὰρ τοῦτο θεοῦ διέταξε πρόνοιαϑ Chapter 32 proceeds

: Neque enim ait non esse, sed hoc tantum

bonum

tantumque adiutorium nondum receptum, nondum in suam notitiam esse perlatum ; nec mirum. Tunc. enim Porphyrius erat in rebus humanis, quando tsta liberandae animae uniuersalis uia, quae non est alia quam religio Christiana, obpugnari permittebatur ab idolorum. daemonumque cultoribus regibusque terrenis, propter adserendum et consecrandum martyrum. numerum, hoc est testium ueritatis, per quod ostenderetur omnia corporalia mala pro fide pietatis et commendatione ueritatis esse toleranda. Videbat ergo ista Porphyrius et per huius modi persecutiones cito tstam uiam perituram et propterea non esse ipsam liberandae animae uniuersalem putabat, non intellegens hoc, quod eum mouebat et quod in eius. electione perpeti metuebat, ad eius confirmationem robustioremque commendationem potius pertinere. We have already seen that this topic is treated in ciu. Dei XVIII. 53 (which we have connected with the Phtlosophy from Oraclesy*. The chapter continues : Haec est igitur animae liberandae untuersalts uia, id est uniuersis gentibus diuina miseratione concessa, cuius profecto

I. Cf. p. 146. 2. Curiously enough the words et utique occur at a significant point in the Confessions VII. 15. See pp. 163 f. 3. Lactantius, Inst. 7.13.5 (Wolff p. 178). 4. Cf. de consensu eu. 1, 49.

« CHRISTUS

VIA

UNIVERSALIS

»

'141

nolitia ad quoscumque tam uenit et ad quoscumque uentura est, nec debuit nec debebit ei dici : Quare modo ὃ el : Quare sero ? quoniam mittentis constlium non est humano ingenio penetrabile. Quod sensit etiam iste, cum dixit, nondum receptum hoc donum Dei ... Haec est μία, de qua fidelis Abraham diuinum accepit oraculum : In semine tuo benedicentur omnes gentes. Qui fwit quidem gente Chaldaeus ... tussus est discedere de terra sua ... Tunc ipse primitus a Chaldaeorum superstitionibus liberatus unum Deum sequendo coluit, cut haec promtttents fideliter credidit.

If Courcelle is correct

when

he discovers in Macrobius!

In Somn.

Scip. I. 13.16, as we have seen!, a parallel with ciu. Dei X. 29 centring on the word concessum, then we have another instance of this idea here : diuina miseratione concessa and donum Dei. Here, however, the donum, which is the /iberatio animae, is given not to the few, but to all : untuersts gentibus. And, of course, this brings the identity of the theme in this

passage with a passage in ciu. Dei XIX. 23 very close; for there we read : uerum indocti et inpiae naturae, quibus uere [atum non concessit ab dis dona

obtinere

neque

habere Iouis

inmortalis

notionem

and,

earlier

in that chapter : quibus fata non adnuerunt deorum dona obtinere neque habere Iouts inmortalis agnitionem ... quibus fato non fuit nosse Deum nec dona ab dis accipere. Here there is direct connection with an oracle taken explicitly from the Philosophy from Oracles and from nowhere else. There are other details in the passage just quoted which have definite Porphyrian connections, but which are not relevant to our precise enquiry. However, the last few words : unum Deum sequendo coluit, cut haec promittit fideliter credidit have a direct reference to the oracles of the Philosophy from Oracles, as quoted by Augustine in ciu. Dei XIX. 23; and can be connected with the idea of believing in god's assurance as developed in cw. Dei XXII. 25, a chapter which is clearly to be connected with the Philosophy from Oracles. . Augustine next quotes a number of prophecies of that universal way from the Old Testament and adds : Haec est igitur uniuersalis animae liberandae uia, quam sancti angeli sanctique prophetae prius in paucts hominibus ubi potuerunt Dei gratiam reperientibus et maxime in Hebraea gente, cuius erat ipsa quodam modo sacrata res publica in prophetationem et praenunitationem ciuitatis Dei ex omnibus gentibus congregandae, et tabernaculo et templo et.sacerdotio et sacrificiis significauerunt et eloquiis quibusdam manifestis, plerisque mysticis praedixerunt : praesens autem in carne ipse Mediator et beati eius apostoli iam testamenti nowi gratiam reuelantes apertius indicarunt, quae aliquanto occultius superioribus sunt significaia temporibus, pro aetatum generis humani distributione, sicut eam Deo sapienti placuit ordinare, mirabilium operum diuinorum, quorum

1. See pp. 130 ff.

142

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

superius pauca tam posui, contestantibus signis. Non enim apparuerunt tantummodo uistones angelicae ei caelestium ministrorum sola uerba sonuerunt, uerum eliam hominibus Dei uerbo simplicis pietatis agentibus spiritus inmundi de hominum corporibus ac sensibus pulsi sunt... We have seen that according to Augustine in ciw. Dei XIX. 23 the Hebrews were singled out for special commendation by Porphyry in his

Philosophy from Oracles. There are many points of contact between the passage above and XIX. 23. Thus Iwdaei suscipiunt Deum magis quam istt (Christiani) and quem ualde sancti honorant Hebraei, both coming from oracles of Apollo, have their counterpart in the maxime in Hebraea gente above. The phrases cwiws erat ipsa quodam modo sacrata res publica in prophetationem ... praedixerunt recall cessaturas enim wiclimas, quas in umbra futuri offerebant Iudaei ... in omnibus hominibus ad eandem (sc. Det)

ciuitatem pertinentibus ... in XIX. 23. Itis curious also that here he should use the words : quorum superius pauca iam posut, and in XIX. 23 the words : ex quibus quantum satis uisum est, nonnulla. protulimus et huic tam operi adspersimus. Parts of the passage above have also connections with ciu. Det XVIII. 54 with which we have already connected the PAilosobhy from Oracles. Thus fraesens autem in carne Mediator et beati eius apostoli ... here corresponds to nominis Christi cultus ber eius in carne praesentiam et per apostolos institutus

est in

XVIII.

54. The

quotation

from

the Old Testament

Ex Sion enim prodiet lex et uerbum Domini ab Hierusalem (Esai. 2.3) is given in both places, and is followed here by : lex uerbumque Domini non in Sion et Hierusalem remansit, sed inde processit, ut se per uniuersa diffunderet, and. in XVIII. 54 by : unde ei ipse per omnes gentes dixit

jraedicari oportere in nomine suo paenitentiam, sed tamen incipientibus ab Hierusalem. Both passages have reference to miracles, especially to Christ's resurrection, and to the defeat of evil : inferna cesserunt (X. 32), falsorum deorum templa euerterunt (XVIII. 54). . Christ's resurrection receives, along with his Incarnation, special

prominence in ciu. Dei X. 32 : exceptis ipsius Saluatoris propriis. singularibusque miraculis, maxime natiuitatis et resurrectionis, quorum in uno maternae uirginitatis tantummodo sacramentum, in altero autem etiam eorum, qui in fine resurrecturt sunt, demonstrauit exemplum. Haec uta totum

hominem

mundat

et inmortalitati mortalem

constat partibus preparat. Ut enim non alia quam. uocat intellectualem Porphyrius, alia aliaque ipsi corpori : propterea totum suscepit mundator atque saluator. Praeter hanc.utam,

1. Cf. also de consensu eu. 1; See pp. 87 ff. 2. Cf. pp. 105, 117, 125.

ex

omnibus

quibus

purgatio ei parit quaereretur, ei, quam uocat. spirstalem?, ueracissimus potentissimusque quae, partim cum haec futura

:

« CHRISTUS

VIA

jraenuntiantur, defuit,

nemo

UNIVERSALIS

»

143

partim cum facta nuntiantur,

liberatus

est,

nemo

liberatur,

nemo

numquam

generi humano

liberabitur.

The importance of Christ's resurrection as a guarantee that men too would rise bodily again is stressed also in ctu. Det XII. X

25, a chapter

which is obviously connected with the Philosophy from Oracles. There we read : Christum, qui hoc quod istis uidetur absurdum in sua resurrectione monstrawit. That Christ is the only means by which liberation can be achieved is emphasized here, and also in XIX. 23 : si possent, intercludant

uiam salutis aeternae, in qua fit quisque Christianus ... daemonum dominatu ... Liberet Christus per ( Christum) saluus esse ... possit ... nist Christiani erunt, ab eorum (daemonum) erui potestate non poterunt, It is to be remarked that the whole of the topic that Christ is the wia, by which the soul is liberated (liberet Christus) — the souls of all men (quisquis, homines, later omnibus iam gentibus) — is fully present in XIX. 23. Quid hac historia uel inlustrius inueniri potest, quae uniuersum orbem tanto apice auctoritatis obtinutt, uel fidelius, in qua 11a narrantur praetertta,

ut futura etiam praedicantur, quorum mulia uidemus inpleta, ex quibus ea quae restant sine dubio speremus inplenda ? Non enim potest Porphyrius uel quicumque Platonici etiam in hac uia quasi terrenarum rerum et ad uitam tstam mortalem pertinentium diwnationem praedictionemque contemnere, quod merito in altis uaticinationtbus et quorumlibet modorum uel artium diwinationibus faciunt. Negant enim haec uel magnorum hominum uel magni esse pendenda, el recte. Nam uel inferiorum fiunt praesensione causarum, sicut arie medicinae quibusdam antecedentibus signis plurima euentura ualetudini praewidentur ; uel inmundt daemones sua disposita facta praenuntiant, quorum ius et in mentibus adque cupiditatibus iniquorum ad quaeque congruentia facta ducendis quodam modo sibi windicant, et in maleria infima fragilitatis humanae. Non talia sancti homines in isa untuersalt animarum liberandarum uia. gradienles tamquam magna prophetare curarunt, quamuis et tsta eos non fugerint et ab eis saepe praedicta sini ad eorum fidem faciendam, quae mortalium sensibus non poterant intimari nec ad experimentum celeri facilitate perduci. Sed alia erant uere magna adque diuina, quae quantum dabatur cognita Dei uoluntate futura nuntiabant, Christus quippe in carne uenturus et quae in illo tam clara perfecta sunt adque in eius nomine inpleta, baeniientia hominum et ad Deum conuersio woluntalum ... per uniuersum orbem in ueram diuinitatem multitudo credentium, culturae simulacrorum daemonumque subuersio et a tentationtbus exercitatio, proficientium purgatio et liberatio ab omni malo, ... resurrectio mortuorum ... in huius wiae scripturis praedicta adque. promissa sunt ; quorum tam mulia inpleta conspicimus, ut recta pietate futura esse cetera confidamus. Huius uiae rectitudinem usque ad Deum widendum eique in aeternum cohaerendum tn sanctarum scripturarum qua

144

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

praedicatur adque adseritur ueritate quicumque non credunt et ob hoc nec intellegunt, obpugnare possunt, sed expugnare non possunt! Augustine here distinguishes between two kinds of divination and prediction affecting this mortal life : one is to be contemned — as Augustine and Porphyry contemn it — for it is fraudulent : seersor demons by various tricks foretell what can be calculated or what they themselves

have already arranged. The other is true and useful in instances where other demonstration is impossible. This kind of divination and prediction Augustine not only approves of for himself, but supposes that Porphyry

does too. Porphyry, in fact, in his preface to the Philosophy from Oracles does so approve in a similarly limited way : ἐπ᾽ ὀλίγον δὲ Kal τῆς

χρηστικῆς ἁψόμεθα πραγματείας, ἥτις πρὸς Te THY θεωρίαν ὀνήσει καὶ τὴν ἄλλην κάθαρσιν τοῦ βίουδ. This is the kind of divination and prediction which was sometimes

used in the confirmation

of Christianity.

The Christian religion is therefore remarkable not only in its universal acceptance : quid inlustrius inueniri potest, quae uniuersum orbem tanto apice auctoritatis obtinuit, but also in having so many prophecies fulfilled : in qua narrantur praeterita, ut futura etiam praedicantur, quorum multa widemus inpleta, ex quibus ea quae restant sine dubio speremus inplenda. Augustine then outlines some of the great and divine prophecies affecting Christianity

: Christ's

incarnation

and

the

other

miraculous

events

concerning him, the doing penance and conversion of men, the multitude of believers throughout the whole world, the overthrow of the demons and their cult, the exercising of Christians through persecution and the resurrection of the dead. This way to salvation and beatitude can be attacked, but not destroyed. Not only did Porphyry in his preface to the Philosophy from Oracles allow as does Augustine, divination in a limited way, he also pointed out,

as does Augustine in the passage above, that the demons’ prophecies depend on calculation and not foreknowledge. The calculation is based usually on the observation of the stars. Thus he tells us : d yap λέγουσιν οἱ θεοί, εἴπερ τὰ μεμοιραμένα γινώσκοντες λέγουσιν, ἀπὸ τῆς τῶν ἄστρων φορᾶς δηλοῦσιν, καὶ τοῦτο σχεδὸν πάντες ἐξέφηναν οἱ ἀψευδεῖς τῶν θεῶν. He then gives several instances to illustrate this kind οὗ divination®. These prophecies, therefore, according to Porphyry, are not to be greatly admired : negant enim haec uel magnorum hominum uel magni esse pendenda. The other items in this passage — the universal acceptance of the Christian religion and the events and miracles recounted — are all to

I. Cf. de consensu eu. I, passim see pp. 85 ff. 2. Eusebius, Prae. eu. IV. 7, Mras I, p. 177 (Wolff, p. 110).

3. tbid. VI. τ ff., Mras I, pp. 294 ff. (Wolff, pp. 166 ff.) ; cf. ibid. V. 14, Mras I, pp. (Wolff, p. 138 ff.).

247 f.

CONCLUSION

145

be found in sections of the ciu. Dei and other passages of Augustine which we have connected with the Philosophy from Oracles. Thus in XVIII.

53 we have the topics of persecution as a way to add strength,

the extension of the Christian religion, and the overthrow of the oracles : ut Christum sic dtligeret mundus, persecutionum horrendas crudelttates patiendo conualescere, stmulacrorum templorum | sacrorum | oraculorum euersionem ... tantis persecutiontbus mira incrementa sumsisse. The topic of the expansion of Christianity is emphasised over and over again in XXII. 253. In XVIII. 54 the theme of the events of Christ's life and the conversion

of men

is dwelt upon

at length

: aliquot hominum

milia in

Christi nomen mirabili. alacritate conuersa... quinque hominum milia crediderunt, ac deinde aliis adque aliis accessibus credentium creuit ecclesia. Many even of the Platonists were converted : multi eorum Christiani facti sunt. 'The topics of purgation and liberation are dealt with in XIX. 23.

The topic of Christ's resurrection and with it the resurrection of the bodies of men is treated in XXII. 25 and following chapters, as also is the topic of the fulfilment of the Christian prophecies. Between this final passage from book X. and all of f these chapters there is a close connection, with motifs and expressions constantly repeated or echoed.

And

all of these chapters,

we have seen, are connected

with the Philosophy from Oracles.

CONCLUSION The conclusion implied by our discussion of book ten of the ciu. Dei is that in that book Augustine was confronting especially the Philosophy from Oracles with all, or part of which at least, the work described as de regressu animae is to be identified.

NOTE It may help at this point to mention, however briefly, some? authors

— other than Augustine and Eusebius — who likewise, either explicitly or, unless we are mistaken, apparently aimed at rebutting the same work of Porphyry.

I. ARNOBIUS (fl. c. 300) Aduersus Nationes (ed. Reifferscheid, C.S.E.L. vol. 4; P.L. 5): LI : Christianity brought calamities with it ; 24 : neglect of temples and divination ; 37 : elevation of mortals after death (Heroes) ;

1. Cf. de consensu eu. I. 13, 40, 47, 49, 52. See pp. 85 ff.

2. Others are Macrobius (cf. Courcelle, Les Lettres Grecques en Occident, pp. 22 ff. and especially p. 26 ; see pp. 130 ff.), Philoponus, de opificio mundi, and Lactantius, instit.

I46

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

40 : Christ's crucifixion ; 42 : Christ's miracles, not performed by magic ;

55 : expansion of Christianity ; 57 : charge that Christians fabricated falsehoods about Christ ; 60 : the Incarnation incredible ; 62 f. : Christ's crucifixion. II.5 : expansion of Christianity ; 13 : audetis ridere nos, quod

mortuorum dicamus resurrectionem futuram, quam quidem nos dicere confitemur, sed a wobis aliter quam sentiamus audiri ?! Demons can block the way back to heaven ; 36 : Timaeus of Plato tells us that mortal gods were made immortal ; 39 ff., 43 : souls were sent down (to know) evil? ; 63 : why did Christ come so late? ; 65 : Christ is the one hope of salvation ; 66 : demons can block the way back to heaven ; 74 f. : why did Christ come so late? ; 76: if Christianity is true, why is it persecuted ? In addition there are a number of items which may also suggest asso-

ciation with the Philosophy from Oracles : I.I

: the oracular* background

to the

calamities;

complaint

that

Christianity

brought

34

the

simile

of the sower (cf. Wolff, pp. 144 f. : ais ἤροσας αὐτὸς ἐν ὥραις ; IL13: trabalibus clauis adfixi, nailed to bodies (cf. γομφωθεὶς σκολόπεσσι, Wolff. p. 184 : Lactantius, Insíit. 4.13.11 : See p. 50 n. 2) ; 25 : anima...

post Deum principem rerum et post mentes geminas locum obtinens quartum (cf. Wolff,

pp.

144 f. the

whole

fragment)

36

: sed alterum

quempiam

genitorem his esse, dignitatis et potentiae gradibus satis plurimis ab imperatore diiunctum, eius tamen ex aula et eminentium nobilem sublimitate natalium ? (cf. Wolff, pp. 144 f. see p. 118) ; 62 : certain powers born of

god and not subject to fate (cf. ἡ μαγεία ἐν τῷ Mew τὰ τῆς εἱμαρμένης παρὰ θεῶν ἐδόθη : Eusebius, rae. eu. VI. 4, Mras I. p. 298, Wolff, p. 165).

The quotation from Ej. 102.8, which Courcelle?, following Harnack, attributes to the Kara Χριστιανῶν — as against Labriolle — is more likely to come from the Philosophy from Oracles. II. CLAUDIANUS MAMERTUS* (ob. A.D. 362) De statu animae II. chs. vr1IX (ed. Engelbrecht, C.S.E.L. vol. XI pp. 128 ff). Sed nec Porphyrius Plato-

nicus multis post saeculis a magistro uspiam in hac eadem causa dissensit. Inlustri quippe voce genus humanum

suae dignitatis admonuit : Si beati,

inquit, esse volumus, corpus est omne fugiendum... quid ego nunc Zoroastris, quid Brachmanum ex India, quid Anacharsidis ex Scythia, quid vero Catonum, quid M. Ciceronis, quid Chrysippi ... in defensionem veri sententias afferam ὃ... Facile profecto hoc idem [actu mihi esset, nisi adici quempiam

coacta testium turba non sineret et divina iam nunc oracula pandere vel tempus foret vel ratio commoneret. There follow opinions from Gregory of Nazianzus,

Ambrose,

Augustine and others.

I. Cf. ciu. Det XXII. 25 : alio modo esse credenda ... aliter dicunt ( Platonici) esse intellegenda. See p. 73. 2. I. 1 : insanire, bacchari et uelut quiddam promptum ex oraculo dicere. ' Les Sages de Porphyre et les « Viri novi » D'Arnobe, ' Revue des Etudes Latines, XXXI

1954 p. 266 n. 5. 4. Cf. Courcelle, Les Lettres Grecques en Occident, pp. 224 ff.

CONCLUSION

The ter, or and a III.

I47

reference to oracles, while it can obviously refer to those of Zoroasthe opinions of the others mentioned, may also refer to Porphyry book of his using oracles. THEODORET (//. 2nd quarter 5 th century) Graecarum Affectionum

Curatio (P.G. 83). The Philosophy from Oracles is explicitly (e.g. col. 1064) mentioned, and large quotations from that work, unfortunately borrowed

from Eusebius, are given. The work is divided into twelve λόγοι of which the

following

titles

will,

almost

of

themselves,

sufficiently

illustrate

the similarity of the work to both οὖν. Det X and the Philosophy from Oracles : 2 : de principio ; 3 : de angelis, et illis qui dii vocantur, ac de malis daemonibus ; 4 : de materia el mundo ; 6 : de providentia ; 7 : de sacrificiis ; 8 : de martyribus ; τὸ : de veris el falsis oraculis. Among the topics treated are the wisdom of the Brahmins, Zamolksis, Anacharsis and the

Greeks (797) : the destruction of the pagan temples and idols, the expansion of the Christian church, the fulfilment of the Prophecies of the Old

Testament (col. 989) ; the deceit of demons (992) ; the demons’ worship of many

gods

(992);

the feasts and

statues

of many

gods

(993);

the

delight of demons in the odours of sacrifice (996); pure sacrifice to God (997) ; expansion of the Christian church (1009) ; heroes (1012 f.) ; Porphyry against sacrifices to demons (1065). It is to be remarked that there is no reference in this work to a de regressu animae}. IV. AENEAS oF Gaza (fl. end 5 th. century), Theophrastus = de inmorta-

litate animae et corporum resurrectione® (P.G. 85. The edition by J. F. Boissonade, Paris 1836, is superior, but difficult to get. Hence we shall generally refer to P.G.) The topic of the work is sufficiently indicated by the title : it dealt with the immortality of soul and body as taught by

Christians — a subject evidently discussed in both the de regressu animae and the Philosophy from Oracles (if they are separate books). Boissonade is of the opinion, as we have seen, that the work of Porphyry referred to in the text: τοῦτό σε καὶ Χαλδαῖοι διδάσκουσι καὶ 6 Πορφύριος. Ἐπιγράφει δὲ καθόλου τὸ βιβλίον ὃ εἰς μέσον προάγει τῶν Χαλδαίων τὰ λόγια, ἐν οἷς γεγονέναι τὴν ὕλην ἰσχυρίζεται. καὶ, τὸ Πλωτίνου διανοίγων βιβλίον « Ὅθεν τὰ κακά », φησί που λέγων ἀγένητον δὴ εἶναι τὴν ὕλην, καὶ τὸ ἐν ἀρχαῖς τιθέναι ὡς ἄθεον δόγμα παραιτητέον (Boiss.) is Porphyry's Philosophy from Oracles. He writes (p. 270 f.) : innuere Aeneas fere

videtur Porphyrii librum qui Περὶ τῆς ἐκ λογίων φιλοσοφίας, ἡ τῶν λογίων συναγωγή, ab aliis nuncupatur. ΤῸ confirm this it may be mentioned that the generation of matter 7s stressed in a fragment of this work of Porphyry's :

1. The admiration of Amelius — who is introduced as τῆς Πορφυρίου mpwrevaas διατριβῆς — for the Prologue to St. John's Gospel is quoted 44 f.) and Augustine, Conf. VII. 13).

2. See pp. 39 ff.

(Cf. Eusebius, Prae

eu. XI.

19 (Mras II.

148

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN

AUGUSTINE

ὅς pa κυεῖ τόδε πᾶν, τεκνούμενος ἄφθιτον ὕλην, ἧς γένεσις δεδόκηται, 6 τε σφε τύποισιν ἔδησας". Some of the topics treated of in Aeneas' work are of obvious use to us in the present connection : the point as to whether souls returned in cycle to the bodies of men only or of beasts also (P.G. cols. 889 ff.) : Porphyry's and Iamblichus' correction of Plato on this point (893 : this correction is justified on the basis of the difference between beings who do or do not possess Adyos) ; the Brahmins, Chaldeans, Egyptians and Greeks are mentioned as being skilled in theology (904 f.) : of ras τελετὰς ἀγείροντεφ, καὶ γοητεύειν τῶν πάλαι τελευτησάντων τὰς ψυχὰς ἐπαγγελλόμενοι, καὶ ταῖς ἐπῳδαῖς ἄγειν τε καὶ ἕλκειν ὅπη ἂν ἐθέλωσιν ; evil demons attack heroes (given by Wolff, p. 177, as a fragment of the Philosophy from Oracles) ; the « polity » of the gods is described as a democracy (945); the Timaeus is quoted to prove that God made mortal gods immortal (952); the dissolution of the world (957); the principia (960) ; the resurrection of bodies even when their parts have been dispersed over other bodies, including those of animals (976 f.).

1. Wolff.

pp.

146

f. See

p.

118.

COROLLARY

Application of the Conclusion to Other

Augustinian Texts

De

Trinitate

There are many passages in the De Trinitate (PL vol. 42) in which one can detect some influence of the Philosophy from Oracles. Beginning with the books of a later date, that is those (XII!, XIII) which were composed at the end of 418 or early in 4102, and therefore nearly contemporary with the tenth book of the ctu. Det, we may draw

attention to the following short passages, keeping the main emphasis for a passage to follow from book IV. XIII. 12

: cut lamen

animae

beatam

vitam

non

invenerunt

stabilem,

id est veram : ad miserias eam quippe vitae hujus etiam post beatitudinem redire dixerunt. Et qui eorum de hac ve erubuerunt sententia, el animam purgatam in sempiterna beatitudine sine corpore collocandam putaverunt, lalia de mundi retrorsus aeternitate sentiunt, ut hanc de anima sententiam

suam ipst redarguant (he then refers to his treatment of this question in ciu. Dei XII. ch. 20) Fides autem ista totum hominem immortalem futurum ... divina auctoritate promittit. Et ideo cum diclum esset in Evangelio, quod Jesus dederit potestatem filios Dei fieri its qui eum receperunt ; et quid sit recepisse eum, breviter fuisset. expositum, dicendo, Credentibus in nomine ejus ; quoque modo filii Dei fierent, esset adjunctum, qui non ex sanguinibus, neque ex voluntate carnis, neque ex voluntate viri, sed ex Deo nati sunt; ne ista hominum quam videmus et gestamus infirmitas tantam excellentiam desperaret, illico annexum est, Et Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis ut a contrario suaderetur quod incredibile videbatur. Si enim natura Dei Filius propter filios hominum misericordia factus est hominis filius ; hoc est enim, Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis hominibus. It is of importance to observe that the use of the prologue to St. John's

Gospel* is here introduced immediately after the consideratior of Por-

r. Cf. XII. 5 (where there is question of the

theory

of the three principia

as Father, Son

and Mother — equivalent to Saturn, Jupiter and Rhea — of which Porphyry (cf. de consensu eu. I. 35 ff.) was ashamed cf. pp. 118 ff.), 14, 16, 23 (reminiscent of Conf. VII. 16.26). 2. Cf. La Trinité, Mellet et Camelot, OEuvres de Saint Augustin 15, Desclée de Brouwer,

1955, p. 560. 3. Cf. pp. 136, 147 n. rz, τόσ f.

I52

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

phyry's opinion, in which he corrected both Plato and Plotinus, that the soul's happiness depended on not returning to body ; animam purgatam in sempiterna beatitudine sine corpore collocandam — wt beata sit anima, corpus est omne fugiendum. It is to be further remarked that this sentiment of Porphyry's comes from his de regressu animae,

identified with the Philosophy from Oracles.

which we have

-

XIII. 24. : Verbum est sine tempore et sine loco, est Patri coaeternum et ubique totum ... et cum lego, Verbum caro [actum est, et habitavit in nobis ;

in Verbo intelligo verum Dei Filium ... Propter quod sequitur et dicit, Et vidimus gloriam ejus, gloriam quasi Unigeniti a Patre, plenum gratiae et veritatis. Quod vero idem ipse est Unigenitus a Patre plenus gratiae et veritatis, id actum est ut idem ipse sit 1n rebus pro nobis temporaliter gestis, cui per camdem fidem mundamur, ut eum stabiliter contemplemur in rebus aeternis. Illi autem praecipui gentium. philosopht, qui invisibilia Dei, per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta conspicere potuerunt, iamen quia sine Mediatore, id est, sine homine Christo philosophati sunt, quem nec venturum Prophetis, nec venisse Apostolis crediderunt, veritatem detinuerunt, sicut de illis dictum est, in iniquitate. Nom potuerunt enim in his rerum infimis constituti, nisi quaerere aliqua media per quae ad illa quae intellexevant sublimia pervenirent : atque ila in deceptores daemones inciderunt, jer quos factum est ut immularent. gloriam incorrupitbilis Dei, in similitudinem imaginis corruptibilis hominis et volucrum et quadrupedum et serpentium (Rom. I. 20, 18, 23). It may be agreed that among the philosophi here mentioned as living later than the Apostles, whom they would not believe, is especially Por-

phyry. Of him and his Philosophy from Oracles could it be said that they heeded

neither the Prophets!

nor Apostles

and

fell into the power

of

deceiving demons. The use of stabiliter, moreover, helps to identify Porphyry? and, if we have been able to identify the de regressu animae with the Philosophy from Oracles, the latter work. Here again, therefore,

we find the interesting conjunction of the Philosophy from Oracles with the Prologue of St. John's Gospel and the text from Rom. I. 18-233. 1V. I3 ff.4 : hominem per elationis tybhum ... aut per falsam philosophiam magis inflans diabolus ; aut per sacra sacrilega trretiens, $n quibus eliam magicae fallactae, curiosiores superbioresque animas deceptas illusasque jraecipitans, subditum. tenet, pollicens etiam purgationem animae, per eas quas τελετάς appellant ... (15) nequaquam igitur per sacrilegas 1. See pp. 87, 89, 127, 137, 141. 2. See p. 151. 3. Cf. also XIII, 22. 4. Date, about 400 ; cf. La Trinité (1-vi1), Mellet et Camelot,

1955, p. 561.

COROLLARY

: « DE

TRINITATE

»

153

similitudines et impias curiosttates et magicas consecrationes animae pur-. gantur et reconciliantur Deo : quia falsus mediator non trajicit ad superiora, sed potius obsidens intercludit viam per affectus, quos tanto maligniores, quanto superbiores suae societati inspirat ; qui non possunt ad evolandum pennas nuirire virtutem, sed potius ad demergendum pondera exaggerare vitiorum, tanto gravius anima ruitura, quanto sibi videlur evecta sublimius .. 20S, tton qua venimus, sed per aliam viam in patriam redire debemus,

quam rex humilis docuit, et quam rex superbus humili regs adversarius obsidere non possit ... (18) Hinc etiam diabolus adhuc suos illudst, quibus se per sua sacra velut purgandis, et potius implicandis atque mergendis, falsus mediator opponit, quod superbis facillime persuadet irridere atque contemnere mortem Christi, a qua ipse quanto est alienior, tanto ab eis creditur sanctior atque divinior. Qui lamen apud eum paucissimi remanserunt, agnoscentibus gentibus et pia humilitate bibentibus pretium suum, ejusque fiducia deserentibus hostem. suum, et concurrentibus ad redemptorem suam. Nescit enim diabolus quomodo illo et insidiante et furente utatur ad salutem fidelium suorum excellentissima sapientia Dei ... Superbi autem homines, quibus Christus, quia mortuus est, viluit ... se daemonibus esse meliores non dubitant credere, eosque maledictis omnibus insectari detestarique mon cessant ... aliquid sibi prodesse arbitrantur perfidorum et invidorum amicitiam, quorum intentionis nullum negotium est, nisi impeditio reditus nostri. (x9) Non intelligunt ne ipsos quidem superbissimos spiritus honoribus sacrificiorum gaudere potuisse, nisi uni vero Deo pro quo coli volunt, verum

sacrificium

deberetur ; neque id posse rite offerri, nisi

per sacerdotem sanctum et justum ... (20) Sunt autem quidam qui se putant ad contemplandum deum et inhaerendum Deo virtute propria posse purgari : quos ipsa superbia maxime maculat ... Hinc enim purgationem sibi ists virtute propria pollicentur, quia nonnulli eorum potuerunt. aciem. mentis ultra

omnem.

creaturam.

transmittere,

et

lucem.

incommutabilis

veritatis

quantulacumque ex parte contingere : quod christianos multos ex fide sola viventes, nondum potutsse derident. Sed quid prodest superbienti et ob hoc erubescenti lignum conscendere, de longinquo prospicere patriam. transmarinam ... (21) Hi etiam resurrectionem carnis nos credere reprehendunt, sibique polius etiam de his rebus credi volunt ... (22) Prophetarum nomen non omnino alienum est a litteris eorum (sc. philosophorum) : sed plurimum interest, uirum experimento praeteritorum futura conjiciantur ; sicut medici multa praevidendo, etiam litteris mandaverunt, quae ipsi experta notaveunt ... an vero jam ventura processerint, et longe visa venientia nuntientur pro acuto sensu videntium quod cum faciunt aereae potestates divinare creduntur ; tamquam si quisquam de montis vertice aliquem longe videat venientem, et proxime in campo habitantibus ante nuntiet ... (23) Ergo de successtonibus saeculorum et de resurrectione mortuorum philosophos nec illos consulere debemus, qui Creatoris aeternitatem, in quo vivimus, movemur

et sumus,

quantum potuerunt intellexerunt. Quia per ea quae facta sunt "

154

« PHILOSOPHY

cognoscentes Deum,

FROM

non sicut Deum

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

glorificaverunt, aut gratias egerunt,

sed dicentes se esse safsentes, studtt facts sunt. Et cum idonei non essent, in

aeternitalem

spiritualis

incommwulabilisque

naturae

aciem.

mentis

tam

constanter infgere, ... aique ut ibi viderent. conversiones in melius, non solum animorum, sed eiiam corporum humanorum ... cum ergo ad haec ibi videnda nullo modo essent idonei, ne ad illud quidem dignt habiti

sunt, ut eis ἰδίᾳ per sanctos Angelos nuntiarentur ... sicut patribus nostra vera pietate praeditis haec demonstrata sunt ... Potestates autem aereaec superbae atque fallaces, etiam si quaedam de soctetate et civitate sanctorum et de vero Mediatore a sanctis Prophetis vel Angelis audita per suos vates dixisse reperiuntur, id egerunt, ut per haec aliena vera etiam fideles Dei, si

possent, ad sua falsa iraducerent. Deus autem per nescientes id egit, ut veritas undique resonaret, fidelibus in adjutorium, impits in testimonium, Our chief purpose in giving these passages is to show Augustine’s use of the prologue to St. John’s Gospel and the text from the Epistle to the Romans in contexts where Porphyry's Philosophy from Oracles seemed to be in question. We shall presently be faced with the possibility that we have precisely the same thing happening in a significant passage of the Confessions, which is nearly contemporary with book IV of the De

Trinitate.

2

Before that, however, we should glance very briefly at some texts from the De consensu eu. I, which is beyond dispute connected with the PÀilosophy from Oracles, as we have seen, and is also nearly contemporary with the Confessions.

I. Section 24 has the words : dixit quidam

et

illorum

(sc. philosophorum)

qui quondam

apud Graecos sapientes habiti sunt : « quantum ad id quod ortum est aeternitas valet, tantum ad fidem veritas, » These words are quoted and expressly attributed to Plato's Timaeus in the contemporary and related first book of the de comsensu ew. (53). See pp. ΟἹ, and n. To

the passages which we have quoted from the De Trinitate may be added I. 1; IV. 1, 2, 6; VIII, 12.

2. Within the period between the last books of the De Trinitate (419) and the Confessions (397) the following, among other, passages from the Epistulae are relevant to our subject, but need not be discussed here since, apart from confirming, they do not affect our argument: 137.12-16 (date, 412) ; 138. 18 (412) ; 102.2-21 (408-9).

COROLLARY

: « DE

CONSENSU

De

I. 11 aut

: d

consensu

non audent,

»

155

evangelistarum

.. pagani, qui dominum

blasphemare

sed lanquam

EVANGELISTARUM

ipsum

eique tribuunt

Jesum

Christum.

excellentissimam

culpare

sapientiam,

homini : discipulos vero ejus dicunt magistro suo amplius

iribuisse quam erat, ut eum Filium Dei dicerent, et Verbum Dei per quod

facta sunt omnia, et ipsum ac Deum Patrem unum esse ; ac si qua similia sunt in apostolicis Litteris, quibus eum cum Paire unum Deum colendum esse didicimus. Honorandum enim tanquam sapientissimum virum putant ; colendum autem tanquam Deum negant.

A reasonable implication of this passage is that Porphyry in his PAdosophy from Oracles considered the claims made in the Prologue to . St. John's Gospel : Verbum Dei ... ber quod facta sunt omnia — and denied them. Such an interpretation is borne out by a later passage of the De consensu eu. : 1.52 : nonnulli ... volunt ... discipulos ejus non solum de illo fwisse mentitos, dicendo illum Deum per quem facta sunt omnia, cum aliud nihil quam

homo fuerit, quamvis excellentissimae sapientiae...

We are told, as a matter of fact, by Theodoret, deriving his information from

Eusebius,

that

Amelius

considered

the

Prologue

to St.

John!

Δηλοῖ δὲ roro σαφῶς ὁ ᾿Αμέλιος, τῆς Πορφυρίου mpwrevoas διατριβῆς. “Ὑπεράγαται γὰρ τὸ τῆς ᾿Ιωάννου Θεολογίας προοίμιον, οὑτωσὶ λέγων" « καὶ οὗτος ἄρα ἦν ὁ Adyos, καθ᾽ ὃν ἀεὶ ὄντα τὰ γιγνόμενα ἐγίγνετο" δι ' οὗ τὰ πάντα ἁπλῶς γεγενῆσθαι. ἐν ᾧ τὸ γενόμενον, ζῶν καὶ ζωὴν (elvas), καὶ ὃν πεφυκέναι. » While this Neo-Platonic admiration for the prologue to St. John's Gospel may go back to Plotinus?, it still remains true that we have reason for thinking that Amelius and Porphyry had it too. It is to be remarked that the words ἐν ᾧ τὸ γενόμενον, ζῶν καὶ ζωὴν (elvar), καὶ ὃν πεφυκέναι, corrected by Mras : ἐν ᾧ TO γενόμενον ζῶν καὶ ζωὴν καὶ ὃν πεῴφυκεναι in his edition of Eusebius (II. 45), are curiously reminiscent of Acts XVII. 28: found in De Trinitate IV. 23 and in Conf. VII. 15 which we are about to discuss. Confessions

It can safely be assumed, from the contemporary passages which we have been discussing, that Augustine could have the Philosophy from Oracles in mind when he was writing any part of his Confessions. I. op. ctt., 33 (P.G. 83. col, 852).

2. Theodoret,

op.

cit. 95

(P.G.

977) : 4 οὕτω

84 ἐξ ἑνὸς νοῦ xal τοῦ

ἀνέστη τόδε τὸ πᾶν καὶ διέστη. » (= Plotinus, Ens. III. 2.2, Henry x f.) which Theodoret asserts was taken by Plotinus from St. John.

ἀπ᾽

αὐτοῦ λόγου

et Schwyzer I p. 270,

:

I56

)

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

Confirmation of this can be had from a short text from book X, where we may discover in combination the elements of the regressus animae and the recourse to divination : X. 67 f.! : Multi conantes ad te redire, neque per seipsos valentes, sicut audio,

tentaverunt haec

(sc. angelos,

sacramenta),

et inciderunt

in desi-

derium curtosarum visionum, et digni habiti sunt illustonibus. Elati enim te quaerebant doctrinae fastu, ... et adduxerunt sibi per similitudinem cordis sus conspirantes et socias superbiae suae potestates aeris huius, a quibus per polentias magicas deciperentur, quaerentes mediatorem per quem purgarentur, e£ non erat. Diabolus enim ... tllexit superbam carnem, quod carneo corpore ibse non erat ... Verax Mediator ... demonstratus est antiquis sanctis, ut ita tpst per fidem futurae passionis eius, sicut nos per fidem fraeteritae, salvi fierent. We

come

now to a critical text in the Confesstons*®

:

VII. 13 ff. : Et primo volens ostendere mihi quam resistas superbis ... et quanta misericordia tua demonstrata sit hominibus via humilitatis, quod Verbum tuum caro factum est, et habitavit inter homines ; procurasti mihi per quemdam hominem immanissimo typho turgidum, quosdam Platonicorum libros ex graeca lingua in latinum versos : et ἐδὲ legi, non quidem his verbis, sed hoc idem omnino multis et multiplicibus suadert rationibus, quod in principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum : hoc erat in principio abud Deum ; omnia per ipsum facta sunt, et sine ipso factum est nihil quod factum est : in eo vita est, et vita erat lux hominum,

et lux in tenebris lucet, et tenebrae

eam non comprehenderunt.

Et quia hominis anima quamvis testimonium perhibeat de lumine, non est tamen ipsa lumen ; sed Verbum Dei, Deus, est lumen verum quod illuminat

omnem hominem venientem in hunc mundum ... Quia ... sui eum non receperunt ; quotquot autem receperunt. eum, dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri, credentibus in nomine eius : non ibi legi. (14) Item ibi legt? quia Deus

Verbum, non ex carne, non ex sanguine, non ex voluntate viri, neque

ex voluntate carnis, sed ex Deo natus est. Sed quia Verbum caro [actum est, et habitavit in nobis ; non ibi legi. Indagavi quippe in illis litteris varie dictum, et multis modis, quod sit Filius in forma Patris, non rapinam arbitratus esse aequalis Deo, quia naturaliter idibsum est. Sed quia semetipsum exinanivil formam servi accipiens ... humiliavit se factus obediens

I. P.L. 32. 2. For a review of recent literature dealing

with

Augustine's conversion

Bolgiani's important La conversione di S Agostino, Turin

(including Franco

1956 and P. Courcelle's valuable

articles) see H. I. Marrou, Rev. d'Histoire Eccléstastique, vol. LIII, n°. 1, 1958, pp. 47 ff.

COROLLARY

:« CONFESSIONS

»

ὁ

157

usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis : propter quod Deus eum exaltavit a moriuis, et donavit ei nomen quod est super omne nomen ... et omnis lingua confiteatur quia Dominus Jesus Christus in gloria est Dei Patris ; non habent illi libri. Quod enim ante omnia tempora, et supra omnia tempora incommutabiliter manel unigenitus Filius tuus. coaeternus tibi, et quia de plenitudine eius accipiunt animae ut beatae sint, et quia participatione manentis in se sapientiae renovantur ut sapientes sint ; est ibi. Quod autem secundum tempus pro impiis mortuus est ... non est ibi. Qui autem

cothurno

tanquam

doctrinae

sublimioris

elati non audiunt

dicentem,

Discite a me quia milis sum ... elsi cognoscunt Deum, non sicut. Deum glorificant aut gratias agunt ; sed evanescunt in cogitationibus suis, et obscuratur insipiens cor eorum ; dicentes se esse sapientes, stulti fiunt. (15) Et ideo legebam ibi etiam tmmutatam gloriam incorruptionis tuae in idola et varia simulacra, in similitudinem imaginis corruptibilis hominis, et volucrum, et quadrupedum, et serpentum ; videlicet. Aegyptium cibum quo Esau perdidit primogenita sua ... Inveni haec ibi, et non manducavi... vocasti Gentes in hereditatem tuam. Et ego ad te veneram ex Gen-

übus, et intendi in. aurum quod ab Aegypto voluisti ut auferret. populus tuus ... Et dixisti Atheniensibus per Apostolum tuum, quod tn te vivimus et movemur et sumus ; sicut el quidam secundum eos dixerunt : et utique inde erant illa libri. Et non attendi in idola Aegyptiorum ... qui ... servierunt creaturae polius quam Creatori. (16) Et inde admonitus redire ad memetipsum, intravi in intima mea, duce te ; et potui, quoniam [actus es adjutor meus. Intravi, et vidi qualicumque oculo animae meae, supra eumdem oculum animae

meae,

supra

meniem

meam,

lucem

incommutabilem ; ... Nec

ita

erat supra meniem meam sicul oleum super aquam, nec sicut coelum super

terram ; sed superior, quia ipse fecit me, et ego inferior, quia factus sum ab ea. Qui novit veritatem, novit eam.

O aeterna veritas, et vera charitas,

et chara aeternitas ... Et reverberasti infirmitatem. aspectus mei, radians in me vehementer, et contremut amore, et horrore ; et inveni longe me esse

a te in regione dissimilitudinis ... et dixi : Numquid nihil est veritas, quoniam neque per finita, neque per infinita locorum spatia diffusa est ? ... faciliusque dubitarem vivere me, quam non esse veritatem, quae per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta conspicitur. (17) Et inspexi caetera infra te, et vidi nec omnino esse, nec omnino non esse : esse quidem, quoniam abs te sunt ; non esse aulem, quoniam id quod es non sunt. Id enim vere est, quod incommutabiliter manet. Mihi autem inhaerere Deo bonum est ... Et Dominus Deus meus es, quoniam bonorum meorum non eges ... (23) sed aciem figere non evalui : et repercussa infirmitate redditus solitis, non mecum ferebam

nisi amantem memoriam ... (24) Et quaerebam viam comparands roboris quod essel idoneum ad fruendum te; nec inveniebam, donec amplecterer mediatorem Dei et hominum ... dicentem : Ego sum via, veritas, et vita ... Verbum ... tuum aeterna veritas ... (25) Ego vero aliud putabam, tantumque sentiebam de Domino Christo meo, quantum de excellentis sapientiae viro,

158

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

cui nullus posset aequari ; praesertim quia mirabiliter natus ex virgine, ad exemplum contemnendorum temporalium pro adipiscenda immortalitate ... Quid autem sacramenti haberet Verbum caro faclum, ne suspicari quidem poteram. Tantum cognoveram ... non haesisse carnem illam Verbo two, nisi cum anima et mente humana ... ( Chrisium) non persona Veritatis, sed magna quadam naturae humanae excellentia, et perfecttore participatione sapientiae praeferri caeteris arbitrabar ... aliquantius postertus didicisse me fateor, in eo quod Verbum caro factum est, quomodo catholica veritas a Photini falsitate dirimatur. (26) ... Garriebam plane quasi peritus ... et inflabar scientia ... ut ... distinguerem quid interesset inter ... videntes quo eundum sit nec videntes qua, et viam ducentem ad beatificam patriam, non

lantum cernendam, sed et habitandam ... (27) ... aliud est de silvestri cacumine videre patriam acis, et iler ad eam non invenire, et frustra conari per invia, circum obsidentibus et insidiantibus fugiituts desertoribus, cum principe suo leone et dracone : et aliud tenere viam illuc ducentem, curia coelestis Imperatoris munitam ... Book VIII. 3 ... Ubi autem commemoravi legisse me quosdam libros Platonicorum, quos Victorinus quondam rhetor urbis Romae ... in latinam linguam transtulisset ; gratulatus est (Simplicianus) mihi quod non in aliorum. philosophorum scripta incidissem ... in istis autem, omnibus modis insinuart Deum et eius Verbum ... Victorinum ipsum recordatus est, quem, Romae cum essel, familiarissime

noverat : deque illo mihi narravit quod non silebo ... quemadmodum ille doctissimus senex ... usque ad illam aetatem venerator tdolorum, sacrorumque sacrilegorum particeps, quibus tunc tota fere Romana nobilitas inflata inspirabat populo iam et omnigenum deum monstra, et Anubem latratorem ... quae iste senex Victorinus tot annos ore terricrepo defensitaverat : non erubuerit esse puer Christi tut ... edomita fronte ad crucis opprobrium. (4) ... Amicos enim suos reverebatur offendere superbos daemonicolas, quorum ex culmine Babylonicae dignitatis, quasi ex cedris Libani ... graviter ruituras in se inimicitias arbitrabatur. .. reusque sibi magni criminis apparwit erubescendo de sacramentis humilitatis Verbi tut, et non erubescendo de sacris sacrilegis superborum daemoniorum, quae imitator superbus acceperat. . It may be best to start the analysis of this long text with a considera-

tion of the words in VII. 25 which we have quoted. Here there is mention made twice of Augustine's view of Christ at this juncture as a man of excellent wisdom : excellentis sapientiae viro ... magna quadam naturae humanae excellentia. He mentions the connection of this view with the heresy of Photinus. It will be recalled that Augustine in ciu. Dei XIX. 23 expressly attributes praise of Christ, but only as a man, to the Philosophy: from Oracles, and he goes on to connect this view there too with

the heresy. of Photinus : ' Christum enim di pitsstmum pronuntiauerunt ... et cum bona praedicatione eius meminerunt. ... ' Viri pietate praestantissims. est illa anima (Chris) '. Hecate, however, denied that he was

COROLLARY

: « CONFESSIONS

»

159

God. Augustine in civ. Dei XIX. 23 then goes on to say : quisquis in ( Christum) talem crediderit, qualis ab eis praedicatur, Christianus uerus non sit, sed Photinianus haereticus, qui tantummodo

hominem,

Deum nouerit. Christum ... hominem pitssimum, sed hominem These passages have already been connected by Courcelle!.

non etiam

tantum.

There can be no reasonable doubt, then, but that in Conf. VII. 25 at least, the influence of the Philosophy from Oracles can be clearly seen.

When the whole of this section (25) is put in the background of all the other texts which are similar to it and which we have quoted in the course of this study the conclusion becomes even clearer. Thus — to indicate but a few points — excellentis sapientiae viro is echoed in De consensu eu. I. II : Pagani, qui (Christo) iribuunt excellentissimam sapientiam, sed tamen tamquam homini ... honorandum enim tanquam sapientissimum uirum putant; I. 14 : Christum ... sapientissimum putant fuisse ; I. 23 : philosophi eorum, sicut in libris suis Porphyrius Siculus prodit, consuluerunt deos suos, quid de Christo responderent, tllt autem oraculis suis Christum. laudare conpulsi sunt; I. 48, : hominem tantummodo credi voluntf?. Few will doubt that in the De consensu eu. the source behind these words is the Philosophy from Oracles. Likewise similar expressions, as we have seen, are found in other texts which we have connected with this work of Porphyry. Further, the connection of Conf. VII. 25 with ciu. Det X. 29 is very © clear : in both the Platonists are said to deny the possibility of the union

of the Verbum (Deus) with a human body. Conf. VII. 25 has : non haesisse carnem illam Verbo tuo, nisi cum anima et mente humana. Ciu. Dei X. 29 has : quid, inquam, uobis incredibile dicitur, cum dicitur Deus adsumstsse

humanam animam et corpus ? Vos certe tantum tributtis animae intellectuali, quae anima utique humana est, ut eam consubstantialem paternae alli menti, quem Det Filium

confitemini, fieri posse dicatis. We

have,

in

addition, seen many other texts, which we have connected with the Philosophy from Oracles, and which treat of this topic in this way. We may add that in Conf. VII. 25 and ciu. Dei X. 29 we also have the repe-

tition : mirabiliter natus ex virgine (Conf.) and mirabilis mirabtliter natus est (ciu. Dei). It is possible that the words in Conf. VII. 25 : ad exemplum contemnendorum | temporalium pro adipiscenda immorialitate ‘echo the sentiment of the omne corpus esse fugiendum, ut anima possit beata permanere cum Deo of ciu. Dei X. 29. Finally, in connection with

1. Cf. ‘ Litiges sur la lecture des «libri Platonicorum, »’ 4 là oü A. confesse avoir... partagé ... l'hérésie de Photin ... il directe de la Philosophie des Oracles de Porphyre. » Cf. also tinien » à Milan, ' Ricerche di storia religiosa, t. I, 1954, pp. 2. cf. I. 13, 42, 52.

Augustiniana, Nov. 1954 p. 228 : signifie ... qu'il était sous l'emprise Courcelle's * Saint Augustin « pho63-71.

160

Conf.

« PHILOSOPHY

VII.

25 we may

remark

FROM

ORACLES

» IN

AUGUSTINE

that the idea of beings participating in

wisdom : participatione safientiae, while it can have a very general reference, is something

which in a specific way

can be traced in passages

which we have felt were influenced by the Philosophy from Oracles — as, for example, De consensu eu. I. 531. Taking the text from Conf. VII 13 ff. and VIII. 3 f. as we have given it, as a whole,

we cannot fail to observe that it is a veritable mosaic of

words, phrases, sentiments, and scriptural quotations which we have seen over and over again in many texts where we have suspected the influence

of the ciu. Dei

Philosophy (especially

from book

Oracles X),

De

—

but

particularly

Trinitate

and

De

those

consensu

from

the

eu. Thus,

taking some of the scriptural quotations, we can point to the following, as they occur in the text from the Conf.

: evanescunt in cogitationibus

suts ... dicentes se esse sapientes, stulti fiunt ; immutatam gloriam tncorruplionis tuae in idola et varia simulacra ... servierunt creaturae potius quam creatori ; veritas, quae per ea quae facta sunt, intellecta conspicitur ; mihi autem inhaerere Deo bonum est ; dominus Deus meus es, quoniam bonorum

meorum eges. It is not suggested that these and similar quotations from the scripture, constantly repeated throughout the texts which we have connected with the Philosophy from Oracles, in themselves afford any decisive evidence — for it was but natural that Augustine should use the same quotations for similar, but not necessarily at all related, themes

— but the very frequency of their use must have some weight. The repetition of certain words and phrases may be of some significance also. Examples of this are the ascription of pride through the employment

of such a word as typhus to Porphyry and his followers? ; non quidem his verbis, sed hoc idem omnino multis et multiplicibus suaderi rationibus ... in tllis htteris varie dictum, et multis modis? ; garriebam* and sacrorum _sacrilegorum, ... sacris sacrilegis superborum daemoniorum?. An odd instance of this is the use of e£ utique inde erant ills libri in Conf. VII. 15 and

et utique se a Chaldaeis oracula diuina sumstsse in ciu. Dei X. 32 : this may be a mere coincidence, or it may hint at the solution to our enquiry.

The nerve of our enquiry, however, concerns the substance of what Augustine read in the Platonist books, and what he did not read there.

1. The insistence by Augustine that he considered

Christ

to be a man

only, and

not

God,

makes it evident that there was an interval after his reading of the Platonist books during which whatever his interest in Christianity may have been, he followed Porphyry in not believing the central Christian teaching of the Incarnation. His admission in Conf. VII. 25 that it was sometime later : aliquanto posterius didicisse me fateor that he understood the Christian teaching on the Verbum caro factum makes this clear. 2. See Ep. 102.32 ; De Trinitate VIII, 12; XII. r3. 3. See p. 168. 4. See pp. 73 ff., 80 ff., 89, 158. 5. See pp. 67, 89, 91, 152.

COROLLARY

: « CONFESSIONS

»

161

He read : in principio erat Verbum, et Verbum erat apud Deum, et Deus erat Verbum ... omnia per ipsum facta sunt ... in eo vita est, et vita erat lux hominum ... Verbum Det, Deus, est lumen verum quod illuminat omnem hominem ... Deus Verbum ex Deo natus est ... Filius in forma Patris, non

rapinam arbitratus, esse aequalis Deo, quia naturaliter idipsum est ... ante omnia tempora, et supra omnia tempora incommutabiliter manet unigenitus Filius tuus coaeternus tibi, et quia de plenitudine eius accipiunt animae ut beatae sint, et quia participatione manentis in se sapientiae renovantur ut sapientes sint. (15) tmmutatam gloriam incorruptionis tuae in idola et varia

simulacra,

in

similitudinem

imaginis

corruptibilis

hominis,

et

volucrum, et quadrupedum, et serpentum, videlicit Aegyptium cibum. The teaching was summarised by Victorinus (Conf. VIII. 3) as : omnibus modis insinuari Deum et eius Verbum. If we analyse the content of these statements and make allowance for the fact that they are expressed in terms not of Neo-Platonic philosophy, but of the Christian Scriptures, we see that these books taught of the eternal existence of the Father, of the generation from the Father of a Son, who was equally divine and unchanging, the source of creation, life, light, wisdom and permanent happiness. But in these books too there

was a corruption of true worship, and cult was allowed (or prescribed) for idols and the images of man, birds, four-footed beasts and serpents, such as was found in Egyptian worship. While

it is impossible

to know

exactly

how

literally the scriptural

terms are to be understood here, this much at least can be said that these Platonist books taught of the existence of the Father and the Son, the

dependence of created things upon them for their being and their destiny, and the corruption of the pure worship of the Father and Son with a mixture of idolatry.

-

If we look for a moment at what was not taught (either because it was simply

missing or was condemned)

we discover that Augustine did not

find there : quotquot receperunt eum ( Christum), dedit eis potestatem filios Dei fieri, credentibus in nomine eius (Christi) ; Verbum caro factum est, et habitavit in nobis ; obediens usque ad mortem,

propter quod Deus super omne nomen This amounts to Platonist books of

mortem

autem

crucis :

eum exaltavit a mortuis, et donavit ei nomen quod est ... Jesus Christus in gloria est Des Patris. either the absence or the condemnation in the Neobelief in Christ (and his promise about becoming the

sons of God), the Incarnation, Christ's crucifixion, Christ's resurrection,

and Christ's glorification in heaven. One item, of immense

importance

in this context, is the absence, in

the positive teaching of these books, of the mention of any kind of third hypostasis — the Christian Holy Ghost or Neo-Platonic third principle. The later passage from ctu. Dei X. 23 may be of help in this matter : Dicit. ( Porphyrius) Deum Patrem et Deum Filium, quem Graece appellat

162

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

paternum intellectum. uel paternam mentem ; de Spiritu autem sancto aut nihil aut non aperte aliquid dicit ; quamuis quem alium dicat horum medium, non sntellego. Si enim tertiam, sicut Plotinus, ubi de tribus principalibus

substantiis disputat, animae naturam etiam iste wellet intellegi, non utique diceret. horum medium, id est Patris εἰ Filis medium. Postponit quippe Plotinus animae naturam paterno intellectut... While it cannot absolutely be assumed that Augustine knew Plotinus' doctrine on the three hypostases in 400, as he evidently did when writing ciu. Dei X later on, neither can it be safely assumed that he was more

certain of Porphyry's-arrangement

and number

of hypostases

in the

earlier period than in the later — and in the later he says that Porphyry says nothing, or nothing clearly; about the Holy Ghost.

For this reason alone one would have cause for suspecting that in Conf. VII. 13 ff. Augustine is speaking of the hypostases which he is expressly speaking of in the related ciw. Dei X. 23 and not of the Plotinian!. , But there are many additional reasons. The summary analysis of the

positive teaching, omissions or condemnations of the books in question, which we have outlined above, points very much to the doctrine of the Philosophy from Oracles, as known to us from the fragments, principally found in Eusebius, or from the texts we have studied in Augustine, especially from the ciw. Dei, De Trinitate, and De consensu eu. It should be unnecessary at this stage to quote the evidence there on the Father, Son, the cult of demons, the opposition to the incarnation, the crucifixion and especially the resurrection and glorification of Christ. One must stress the importance given to the cult of demons and opposition to Christ's incarnation, crucifixion, resurrection and glorification. It

is hardly possible to associate these items with Plotinus Enneads

: it

is hardly possible not to associate them with Porphyry's Philosophy from Oracles.

On the recital by Augustine

of what he read in the Platonist books

and what he did not read, we need merely observe that the same topic

of the conjunction of Neo-Platonic philosophy with the prologue to St. John's Gospel is treated of in the same way, using the same scriptural quotations, in De Trinitate XIII. 24 and in ciu. Dei X. 29 and in many other passages which we have connected or can be connected with Porphyry and the Philosophy from Oracles. It should be particularly emphasised that De Trinitate IV. 13-23 is a very close doublet of the whole of Conf. VII. 13 to the end. The concluding words of Con. VII. 14 and all of 15 are paralleled

I. See

p.. 118 ff,

COROLLARY

: « CONFESSIONS

»

163

not only in De Trinitate IV. 23 and elsewhere! but in a remarkable way

in Serm. 241 (P.L. 38) which is concerned with philosophers' arguments against the resurrection and particularly that of Porphyry, who is explicitly mentioned. In section 3 we read : sic ergo pervenerunt ad cognoscendum Deum qui fectt, per ista quae fecit. Sed non sicut Deum honorificaverunt, aut gratias egerunt : tpse dicit Apostolus. Sed evanuerunt in cogttationi bus suis, et obscuratum est insiptens cor eorum. Dicentes se esse sapsentes, stulis facti sunt. Sibi arrogando quod acceperant, perdiderunt quod ienebant. Dicentes se quasi magnos esse, stulti facti sunt. Et quo pervenerunt ? Et immutaverunt, inquit, gloriam incorrubti lalis Det, in similitudinem imaginis corruptibilis hominis. Idola dicit. Et barum erat [acere idolum ad speciem hominis, e ad sui operis similitudinem. addicere artificem : barum fuit hoc. Sed insuper quid ? Et volucrum, et quadrupedum, et serpentium. Omnia quippe isla muta animalia et irrationabilia, illi. quasi magni- sapientes, deos sibi fecerunt. Reprehendebam, quando adorabas imaginem canis, imaginem colubri, tmaginem crocodili ? Pervenerunt usque ad ista. Quantum quaerentes in superna evecti sunt, lantum cadentes in profunda demerst sunt. Altius enim mergitur, quod de alto cadit. The themes, moreover, of the gentes coming into the inheritance of the Jews and the Jews taking for themselves the spoils of Egypt — both of them in Conf. VII.

15 — are found in Augustine in contexts reminiscent

of the Philosophy from Oracles*, and both applied to the advantage of Augustine and the disadvantage of the Platonist. There is, in connection with the second of these for example, a text from the De doctrina Chris-

tiana (396) which can.be connected with Porphyry's Philosophy from Oracles : 11.60 : Philosophi autem qui vocantur, st qua forte vera et fidei . nostrae accommodata

dixerunt,

maxime

Platonici,

non

solum formidanda

non sunt, sed ab eis eliam lanquam iniustis possessoribus in usum nostrum vindicanda. Sicut enim Egyptii non solum idola habebant et onera. gravia, quae populus Israel detestaretur et fugeret, sed etiam vasa atque ornamenta de auro et argento ... sic de ... ipso uno Deo colendo nonnulla vera inveniuntur apud eos (maxime Platonicos) ; quod eorum tanquam aurum et argentum .. de quibusdam quasi metallis divinae providentiae ... eruerunt, et quo perverse aique inturiose ad obsequia daemonum abuntuntur, cum ab eorum misera societate sese animo separat, debet ab eis auferre christianus. Various interpretations have been given to the words :. et utique inde erani illi libri. Yet it should be obvious that they can refer only to Athens.

1. Cf. De consensu eu. Y. 39 ff. ; Conf. V. 5. A fragment of the Philosophy from Oracles (Eusebius, Prae eu. IV. 9, Mras I. 179 f., Wolff. pp. 112 ff.) illustrates this charge made by Augustine. Eusebius, op. cit. III, 13 f. (Mras I. p. 151 ff.) uses the same text from Romans (I. 2r ff.) also

in connection with Porphyry’s Philosophy from Oracles. 2. Cf. De doctrina Christiana, Y. 10-12, 34 ; 11.28, 30, 32, 35 ff. ; de mor. eccl. 1.12 (see p. 170f.) Cf. pp. 86, 89. '

164

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

Augustine represents himself as taking from the Platonists (or in the allegory, the Egyptians) their gold of true doctrine — an example of which was the Athenian (i.e. Platonic) doctrine of the God in which we live, move, and have our being. Whether therefore the inde refers to Athens or Egypt, it refers really to Athens — once the allegory is removed.

In point of fact inde goes most naturally with Atheniensibus ... quidam secundum eos ; and et non attendi in idola Egypttorum the sequence introduced by : et dixisti. Atheniensibus.

seems to resume

The effect of this interpretation is that any Platonist could be understood. The question arises, however, if the reference to Athens might have

a more particular meaning. There can be no doubt but that the sense would improve if it could have. those of Plato, and Porphyry had than had Plotinus, the question the author particularly in view

Since the books were not likely to be a more obvious connection with Athens naturally arises if Porphyry might be ? When Augustine in ctu. Dei X. 30

distinguishes between Plotinus and Porphyry's teacher — Porphyrii doctor et Plotinus! — he supplies us with evidence of his knowledge of Porphyry's connection with Longinus and Atheus, and this may supply the answer to our question. Another

text which

refers to these books

may

throw

some

light

on

the matter. In Contra. Acad. II. 5 we read : ecce tibi libri quidam pleni, ut att Celsinus, bonas res Arabicas ubi exhalarunt in nos. We shall examine this text in greater detail presently, but for the moment we may suggest

that the libri ... leni ... bonas res Arabicas would not be an inept description of (the probably Tyrian) Porphyry's collection wisdom of the oracles of Egyptians, Phoenicians, and Hebrews :

(cvvaywyy)* of the Assyrians, Lydians

« of τὸ καλὸν πίνοντες ὕδωρ Νειλῶτιδος αἴης. πολλὰς καὶ Φοίνικες ὁδοὺς μακάρων ἐδάησαν, ᾿Ασσύριοι λυδοί τε καὶ ‘EBpaiwy γένος ἀνδρῶν.

»5

Porphyry's comment on these words of the oracle speaks, curiously enough,

of the Greeks (as for Augustine, the Platonists) falling into error and also of the Egyptians (hence the appositeness of the allegory in Conf. VII. 15) : πολλὰς ἀτραποὺς βάρβαροι μὲν ἐξεῦρον, Ἕλληνες δὲ ἐπλανήθησαν, ... τὴν δὲ εὕρεσιν Αἰγυπτίοις 6 θεὸς ἐμαρτύρησε Φοίνιξί τε καὶ Χαλδαίοις (᾿Ασσύριοι γὰρ οὗτοι) Avdois τε καὶ ᾿Εβραίοις. Augustine in the ciu. Dei X. 32, writing of the de regressu animae, also mentions a number of peoples who had wisdom — the Indi and the Chaldaei and adds, in a phrase very reminiscent of the one with which we are engaged, e£ utique se a Chaldaeis oracula diuina sumsisse... I. See p. 136.

2. Cf. Eusebius, prae. eu. IV. 7, Mras I. 177 (Wolff p. 110), cf. p. 173. 3. Ibid, IX. 10, Mras I. p. 496 (Wolff. pp. 140 f.).

COROLLARY

: « CONFESSIONS

»

165

The special appropriateness of the allegory of the sfolia when applied to Augustine's reading of the PAtilosophy from Oracles must be emphasised in this connection. In that Neo-Platonic book especially he found true doctrine,

which

he

could

take

with

profit,

and

superstitious

idolatry.

which he would not touch : e£ non attend: in idola Aegyptiorum, quibus de auro tuo ministrabant, qui transmutaverunt veritatem Dei tn mendacium,

et coluerunt, et servierunt creaturae. potius quam Creatori. These last few words from the Scriptures may be intended by Augustine to refer to the

theme

so constantly

exploited in cu. Det XIX.

23 in connection

with the PAilosophy from Oracles : sacrificans dis eradicabitur nisi domino tantwum!. Coming to Conf. VII. 16 we see immediately that Augustine is describing an ascent of the mind in Platonic and even Plotinian terms?*. At the same time it must be remembered that this kind of ascent is described elsewhere a number of times in contexts more obviously Porphyrian?. Thus, for example, we have in De Trinitate a very close parallel : Book XII.

23 : manent autem, non tanquam in spatiis locorum fixa veluti corpora - sed in natura incorporali sic intelligibilia praesto sunt mentis aspectibus ... ad quas menlis acie pervenire paucorum est ; el cum pervenitur, quantum fieri potest, non in eis manet ipse perventor, sed veluti acie ipsa reverberata repelistur, et fit rei non transitoriae transitoria cogitatio. Quae tamen cogitatio transiens per disciplinas quibus eruditur animus, memoriae commendatur, ut sit quo redire possit, quae cogitur inde transire ... ad eam (incorpoream veritatem) sine phantasia spatii localis potutt pervenire. To this we. may add IV. 20 f. : Sunt autem quidam qui se putant ad contemplandum Deum et inhaerendum Deo virtute propria posse purgari : quos ipsa superbia maxime maculat ... nonnulli eorum potuerunt aciem. mentis ulira omnem creaturam. iransmillere, et lucem incommutabilis veritatis quantulacumque ex parte contingere : quod christianos multos ex fide sola viventes, nondum potwisse derident. Sed quid superbienti et ob hoc erubescenti lignum conscendere, de longinquo prospicere patriam transmarinam ... (21) Ht etiam resurrectionem carnis nos credere reprehendunt, sibique potius etiam de his rebus credi volunt ... Prophetarum nomen non omnino alienum est a litteris eorum. ... (23) Ergo de successtontbus saeculorum et de resurrectione mortuorum philosophos nec illos consulere debemus, qui Creatoris aeternitatem, in quo vivimus, movemur et sumus, quantum potuerunt intellexerunt... idonei non essent im aeternitatem spiritualis incommutabtlisque naturae 1. Cf. De consensu eu. 1. 52. 2. To the items of comparison

indicated

by

others

may

be added

the

clear

connection

between tpis passage (and indeed the whole text) and ciu. Dei X. 1 and especially 2 which is explicity connected with Plotinus. It is to be remarked that the $ regione dissimilitudinis (VII. 16 - Enn. 1.8.13) comes from the passage mentioned by Aeneas of Gaza : see p. 147 ff. 3. Cf., in outline only, ciu. Dei XIX. 23 ; De quant. an. 75 (see p. 170) and De mor. eccl. Y. 11 (see p. 170).

166

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

aciem mentis tam constanter infigere. There can be no doubt whatever about Porphyry being the dominant philosopher behind this second passage ; nor can there be any doubt but that the topic and terms are very closely related to and, since they are contemporary, perhaps even dependent on those of Con/. VII. 16 : aciem mentis infigere, lucem! incommutabilem, inhaerere Deo, (Det) veritas, (Dei) aetersitas. The concentration on aefermitas and veritas is brought out even more clearly in De Trinitate IV. 24 : dixit quidam et illorum ... quantum ad id quod ortum est aeternitas valet, tanium ad fidem veritas, a text attributed, as we have

seen, in the De consensu eu. (1.53) to to that of the texts in the De Trinitate We come finally to the theme of qua, et viam ducentem ad beatificam

Plato's Tisnaeus in.a and Conf. with which videntes quo eundum patriam. Augustine's

context similar we are dealing? sit nec videntes inspiration for

the idea of this vía could have come from a Biblical source, such as Moses’

journey to the promised land, or the Magi's return, in spite of Herod's efforts to prevent them, to their own country (used by Augustine in De Trinitate IV. 15 apropos of the demons' efforts to block the return of the soul). It could have come from Plotinus whose words in this connection are employed by Augustine in civ. Det IX. 17 : fugiendum est igitur ad carissimam patriam ... quae igitur classis aut fuga ? Nevertheless it is hardly possible not to suspect — because of the clear connection between Conf. VII. 26 f. and ciu. Dei X. 32 and also De Trinitate IV. 13-20 and a fragment of the Philosophy from Oracles*, — that he is also inspired by this work of Porphyry’s.. The story of Victorinus gives much emphasis to the demonological side of his Platonism : venerator dolorum, sacrorumque sacrilegorum particeps, to his fear of offending his demon-worshipping friends, his sharing of demons’ pride, his initial shame of Christ's birth : erubescendo de sacramentis humilitatis Verbi tut, and crucifixion : edomita fronte ad crucis.

opprobrium. These points bear all the marks of a Porphyrian approach as set out in the Philosophy from Oracles*.

I.

σὴ yàp ὑπὰρ κόσμον τε xal οὐρανὸν ἀστερόεντα ἧς ὑπερῃώρησαι ὀρίνων φωτὶ σεαυτόν

(Wolff., p. 144) ; cf. Eusebius, prac. eu. IV. 5 (Mras I p. 174) φωτὸς μετοχῇ. The ordo elementorum in Conf. VII. 16 : supra mentem meam sicut oleum super aquam, nec sicut coelum super terram reminds one of Augustine’s answers to Porphyry’s objections against the glorification of resurrected bodies ; cf. sermo 242, 8 ff., ciw. Des XIII, 18; XXII. 25. 2. The recurrence of the Timaeus, known to him from Cicero's translation,

in

certain

contexts in Augustine, raises the question if it received special prominence in the Philosophy from Oracies and therefore took on a peculiar interest for Christians subsequently : cf. pp. 42,

73, 91, 92, 132, 138, 146, 148, 154.

3. See pp. 1r ff. . 4. There is a curious, and not altogether unconscious parallel between Victorinus!

tience

as told by

Augustine

and

Augustine's

own.

Even

the

reverebatur

daemonicolas may be reproduced in the me nonnullorum hominum De beata vita 4.

offendere

expe-

superbos

existimatio commoueret of

—

COROLLARY

: « CONFESSIONS

»

167

Simplicianus, in commending the Platonist philosophers to Augustine, draws a distinction between them and other philosophers whose writings were full of : fallactarum et decebtionum secundum elementa huius mundi. This might seem to raise a difficulty against supposing that such a work as the Philosophy from Oracles, which (no matter how lofty its spiritual teaching in some parts) to some extent at least and in however embarrassed a way gave, according to Augustine, some support to demonology, could be amongst those read by Augustine and commented by Simplicianus. Apart from the possibilities that Simplicianus made little of the demonological element in the Philosophy from Oracles, or that Augustine may

not have told him what Platonist books were in question, or

had told him only of some of them or some parts of them, we discover from ctu. Det VIII. 9 f., a text which has many points in common with Conf. VII. 13 ff. (and which it, therefore, helps to illustrate) that there too

a distinction is drawn between those who philosophize secundum elementa huius mundi — cauete ne quis wos decipiat per philosophiam et inanem seductsonem — and others. He then goes on to indicate that there are others : ne omnes tales esse arbitretur, audit ab eodem apostolo dici de quibusdam ... Inwisibilia enim eius a constitutione mundi per ea, quae facta sunt, intellecta conspiciuntur, sempiterna quoque. wirius eius et diwinslas, et ubi Atheniensibus loquens ... in illo utuimus et mouemur et sumus ... sicul et uestri quidam dixerunt ... ubi entm dictum est, quod per ea, quae facta sunt, Deus illis manifestautt tntellectu conspicienda inwisibilia sua : ibi etiam dictum est non sllos ipsum Deum

recte coluisse, quia et aliis rebus,

quibus non oportebat, diwinos honores illi uni tanium debitos detulerunt : Quoniam cognoscentes Deum non sicut Deum glorificauerunt ... et inmutauerunt gloriam incorruptibilts Det in similitudinem imaginis corruptibilis hominis et uolucrum et quadrupedum et serpentium ... In quo autem nobis consentiunt de uno Deo huts uniuersttatis auctore (qui ... est ... lumen nostrum) in hoc eos ceteris anteponimus. It is clear from this passage and from a consideration of ciu. Dei XIX. 23 that Porphyry is definitely included here with the Platonists and against those who philosophize secundum elemenia huius mundi. One final remark before we leave the consideration of Conf. VII. 13 ff.

— in section I8 ff. there is a rather extended examination of the nature of evil. It may owe something directly to Plotinus Enn. 1.8 or perhaps indirectly through the Philosophy from Oracles — on the assumption that it is of that book that Aeneas of Gaza is speaking in a text which we have quoted, and that it was in that book that Porphyry expounded Enn. 1.8}.

1. Cf. pp. 39, 147 f.

168

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN

AUGUSTINE

VIII. 28-29 : Before we pass on from the consideration of the Confessions we may make mention briefly of the possible connection of two

other matters with the Philosophy from Oracles. The first is the famous /olle lege scene : VIII. 28-29. The passage is sufficiently known to dispense here with quoting more than the bare words which we consider relevant to our enquiry.

Conf. VIII. 28 : Et non quidem his verbis, sed in sententia multa dixi tibi : Et tu, Domine, usque quo ? ... (29) ... Et ecce audio vocem ... repetentis : tolle lege ; tolle lege ... surrexi, nihil aliud interpretans, nist divinitus mihi iuberi ut aperirem codicem ... audieram enim de Antonio quod ex evangelica lectione ... admonitus fuerit ... et tali oraculo confestim ad te esse conversum

... (30) ... ( Alypius) tali admonitione firmatus est ... convertisit enim me ad te, ut nec uxorem quaererem, nec aliquam spem ... stans in ea regula fidei in qua me ante tot annos ei ( matri) revelaveras. Scholars! have sought the inspiration behind this oracular episode in many,

and

some

rather

distant

sources.

They

have

hesitated

about

its historicity, because the oracular element in the description seemed somewhat forced. If, however, it be accepted that the Philosophy from Oracles had just played a major part in preparing Augustine for his conversion, it might not seem so forced for him to speak of oracles in this context. It is to be remarked that the emphasis on the oracular in this passage is very strong : folle lege, diuinitus tubert, admonitus, oraculo conversum, admonitione ... revelaveras. It is curious that Augustine should here even hark back to the earlier dream of his mother, a dream similar to these

indicated in the fragments of the Philosophy from Oracles?. VIIII. 24 : Finally in connection with the vision of Ostia, Conf. VIIII. 24

f,

which

has

been

taken

to

have

many

Plotinian

overtones,

one

should relate it at least both to Conf. VII. 13 ff. and X. 9, and also to Sermo 241. 2 f. These are all parts of a Neo-Platonic ascent through creatures to the Creator, but they vary in the angle from which they are presented : sometimes Augustine remains concentrated at the top of the

1. Cf. P. Courcelle, * L’oracle d'Apis et l'oracle du jardin de Milan,’ Revue de l'histoire des religions, CXL, 1951, pp. 216-231. 2. The words : et non quidem his verbis... seem to be a kind of cliché used by Augustine ; cf. non quidem his verbis, sed hoc idem omnino multis et multiplicibus suaderi rationibus (Conf. VII 13) ; dicebam talia, ets$ non isto modo et his uerbis (Conf. IX. 26) ; etsi uerbis indisciblinatis utimini, uidetis lamen (ciu. Dei X. 29) ; passages which can be connected with the Philosoph y from Oracles. Admonitio, likewise, is used — possibly in an oracular sense — in Conf. VII. 16, 26 ; In De beata vita 35 admonitio seems to be used of the Holy Ghost. It is perhaps not irrelevant in connection with the folle lege to mention that very many of the oracles in the Philosophy

from Oracles are, as is the folle lege (cf. the λαβὼν ἀνάγνωθι in Eusebius, prae. eu. XIV. 4 (Mras II. 268.12) which, unfortunately, op. cit., V. 9, Mras I. 239 f.

is of no

use

to us),

in the imperative

mood

: cf. Eusebius,

COROLLARY

ascent,

: « CONFESSIONS

»

169

as in the vision of Ostia and Con/. VII.

spends more time in the description Conf. X. 9 and Sermo 241. 2 (which these descriptions of ascent could be are in some cases at least related to

16; and sometimes he

of the stages in the ascent, as in are extraordinarily similar). While generally Neo-Platonic (since they philosophers who are clearly Pla-

tonists, e.g. Sermo 241. 2 f.), or Plotinian, we are concerned to point out here that we have already connected Sermo 241. 3 with the Philo-

sophy from Oracles ; and that we have attempted to do likewise for Conf. VII. 13 fJ. The skeleton of such an ascent is discoverable in ciu. Det XIX.

23,

which is quite certainly indebted for its inspiration to the Philosophy from Oracles : ab his ergo Hebraei daemonibus pessimis et minoribus spirilibus wetabant religiosos et ipsis uacare brohibebant ; wenerari autem magis caelestes deos, amplius

autem uenerart Deum

Patrem.

Hoc autem, inquit,

et di praecipiunt et in superioribus ostendimus, quem ad modum animum aduertere ad Deum monent et illum colere ubique imperant... Deum autem (indocti) simulantes colere, ea sola, per quae Deus adoratur non agunt. Nam Deus quidem, utpote omnium Pater, nullius indiget ; sed nobis est bene, cum eum per iustitiam et castitatem aliasque. virtutes adoramus ipsam uitam precem ad ipsum facientes per imitationem et inquisitionem de ipso. Inquisitio enim purgat, inquit ; imitatio desficat adfecttonem ad ipsum operando. There is a passage in Porphyry's De abstinentia which not only resembles that just quoted, but also has references to first fruits, which may be of interest in connection with the primitias spiritus? of Conf. X. 24, and also

stresses silence in the presence of the Father (cf. οἱ cut sileat tumultus carnis...). De abst. 11. 34 : Θεῷ μὲν TQ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν .. μηδὲν τῶν αἰσθητῶν μήτε θυμιῶντες μήτ᾽ ἐπονομάζοντες: οὐδὲν γὰρ ἔνυλον ὃ μὴ τῷ ἀΐλῳ εὐθύς ἐστιν ἀκάθαρτον. διὸ οὐδὲ λόγος τούτῳ ὃ κατὰ φωνὴν οἰκεῖος οὐδ᾽ ὁ ἔνδον, ὅταν πάθει ψυχῆς ἦ μεμολυσμένος, διὰ δὲ σιγῆς καθαρᾶς καὶ τῶν περὶ αὐτοῦ καθαρῶν ἐννοιῶν θρησκεύσωμεν αὐτόν. δεῖ ἄρα συν αφ-

θέντας καὶ ὁμοιωθεντας αὐτῷ τὴν αὑτῶν ἀναγωγὴν θυσίαν ἱερὰν προσάγειν τῷ θεῷ, τὴν αὐτὴν δὲ καὶ ὕμνον οὖσαν καὶ ἡμῶν σωτηρίαν. ἐν ἀπαθείᾳ ἄρα τῆς ψυχῆς, τοῦ δὲ θεοῦ θεωρίᾳ ἡ θυσία αὕτη τελεῖται. τοῖς δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐκγόνοις, νοητοῖς δὲ θεοῖς ἤδη καὶ τὴν ἐκ τοῦ λόγου ὑμνῳδίαν προσθετέον.

ἀπαρχὴ γὰρ ἑκάστῳ, ὧν δέδωκεν, ἡ θυσία καὶ δι΄ ὧν ἡμῶν τρέφει καὶ εἰς τὸ εἶναι συνέχει τὴν οὐσίαν. ὡς οὖν γεωργὸς δραγμάτων ἀπάρχεται καὶ τῶν ἀκροδρύων, οὕτως ἡμεῖς ἀπαρξώμεθα αὐτοῖς ἐννοιῶν τῶν περὶ αὐτῶν καλῶν.

I. See pp. 92 ff., 156 ff. . 2. Cf. J. Pépin, * Primitiae Spiritus,’ Revue de l'histoire des religions, CXL,

1951, pp. 155-202. 12

170

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

The similarity of these passages from the PAilosophy from Oracles and the De abstinentia suggests that there may have been here, as elsewhere

in Porphyry, some repetition of matter in the one book from the other. *

*

*

3 We give the two following texts from works earlier than the Confessions without comment!, since their relevance and purpose should be evident. De quantitate animae (A.D. 388) 75 : aliud iam serenum atque rectum aspectum in id quod videndum est, dirigere. Quod qui prius volunt facere quam

mundali

et sanati fuerint, ita illa luce reverberantur veritatis ... ut

... ΤΉ Suas tenebras ... refugiant ... (76) ... etiam tpsam resurrectionem carnis, quae partim lardius, partim omnino non creditur, $a certam teneamus .. lam vero eos qui ad exemplum salutis nostrae ac primitias, a Filio Dei potentissimo, aeterno, incommutabili susceptum hominem, eundemque natum esse de virgine, ceteraque huius historiae miracula irrident, sic contemnemus ... mors ..., id est ab hoc corpore omnimoda fuga et elapsio, pro

summo munere desideratur ... (78) ... Deus tgitur solus ei colendus est, qui solus eius est auctor. Homo autem quilibet alius, quanquam sapientissimus et perfectissimus, vel prorsus quaelibet anima rationis compos aique beatissima, amanda tantuummodo et imitanda est... De moribus ecclesiae Catholicae (388, 389/90) I. 11 f. : confugiendum

est tgitur ad eorum praecepta, quos sapientes fuisse probabile est ... at ubi ad divina perventum est, avertit sese (mens), intueri non potest, palpitat, aestuat, inhiat amore, reverberatur luce veritatis, et ad familiaritatem tene-

brarum ... convertitur ... ergo refugere in tenebrosa cupientibus per dispensationem ineffabilis Sapientiae, nobis illa opacttas auctoritatis occurrat, et mirabilibus rerum, vocibusque librorum. veluti signis temperatioribus veritatis, umbrisque blandiatur. (12) ... ab humanis et proximis incipientes, verae religionis fide, praeceptisque servatis, non deseruerimus viam quam nolis Deus, et Patriarcharum segregatione, et Legis vinculo, et Prophetarum praesagio, et suscepti Hominis sacramento, et Apostolorum testimonio, et Martyrum sanguine, et Gentium occupatione munivit ... audiamus oracula, nostrasque ratiunculas divinis submittamus affatibus?. r. Among other texts which have some relevance may

be mentioned De utilitate credendi

(391), especially 33-35 ; De vera religione (390), which, with the De catechisandis rudibus, (396 Cf. 31 ff.), is a remarkable foreshadowing of the ciu. Det (which might also be called de vera religione : cf. XI. 5: ad istam disputationem religionis admittere, XVII. 4 : ipsam religionem Christianam, ipsam ciwitatem Dei) especially 48-52. 2. Cf. also 65 ff., 74.

COROLLARY

: « RETRACTATIONES

»

171

* *

*

4 . Coming to the Soliloguia and Dialogues of Cassiciacum (all towards the end of 386! and before his baptism) we can hardly fail to be impressed by his own later reaction to them in the Retractationes. Again and again he censures himself for seeming to give support to philosophical, Platonic, or Pythagorean sentiments which he later knew to be at variance with Christian

doctrine.

Only

one text,

dealing with the Soliloquia,

will be

given here : Retract. 1. 4. 3 : Εἰ wbi dixi de Patre et Filio, qui gignit, et quem gignit unum est ; dicendum fwit, unum sunt, sicul aperte ipsa Veritas loquitur, dicens : Ego et Pater unum sumus ... Item quod dixi, Ad sapientiae coniunctionem non una via perveniri, non bene sonat ; quasi alia via sit praeter. Christum ... quamvis alia sit illa universalis via, aliae autem viae de quibus in Psalmo canimus : Vias tuas, Domine, notas fac mihi ... Et in eo quod ibi dicium est, Penitus esse ista sensibilia fugienda, cavendum

[wit ne putaremur illam Porphyrii falsi philosophi tenere sententiam, qua dixit : Omne corpus esse fugiendum. Non autem dixi ego, Omnia sensibilia ; sed, ista, hoc est, corruptibilia ; sed hoc potius dicendum fuit : Non autem talia sensibilia futura sunt in futuri saeculi Courcelle? concludes from the last part had read and assimilated the De regressu conversion. One should, however, notice in

tions in this : Oracles : the the Christian of salvation.

coelo novo et terra nova. of this text that Augustine animae at the time of his addition that other correc-

text are concerned with sentiments of non-correspondence of the Porphyrian Father and Son, and the absence of a The omne corpus fugiendum is again

the Philosophy from Father and Son with single universal way here understood in

relation to the after life. From the Dialogues of Cassiciacum we give only a few passages which

can more Oracles.

obviously

have

some

connection

with the Philosophy

from

Contra Academicos? I. 1 : nibil seu commodi seu incommodi contingit in parte, quod non conueniat ei congruat uniuerso. Quam sententiam uberrimarum | doctrinarum. oraculis. editam remotamque | longissime ab

I. For tne influence of the Philosophy from Oracles on Augustine in June-July 386 see P. Courcelle, Saint Augustin « photinien » à Milan, Ricerche ds storia religtosa, t. I, 1954, pp. 63-71. 2. Les Lettres Grecques en Occident, p. 167; cf. O'Meara, Against the Academics, Ancient Christian Writers vol. 12, 1950, p. 181. 3. Ed. W. M. Green, Stromata Patristica et Mediaevalia, II. Utrecht, 1955.

172

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

intellectu profanorum se demonstraturam ueris amatoribus suis ad quam te inuito philosophia pollicetur ... si diuina prouidentia pertenditur usque ad nos, quod minime dubitandum est ... Starting with the reference here to providence, we observe that it is mentioned again in De ordine I.I in similar terms : diuinam prouidentiam .. usque in haec ultima et ima pertendi. Both instances are paralleled in ciu. Dei X. 14 : De prouidentia certe Plotinus Platonicus disputat eamque a summo Deo ... usque ad haec terrena et ima pertingere ... conprobat!. The philosophy philosophy of the

mentioned, therefore, in Contra Acad. I.I is the school of Plotinus. The conjunction, however, of

Philosophia with oracula wberrimarum doctrinarum — which are further said to be inaccessible to the understanding of the profani? — is suggestive at least of the idea that, even if Augustine was referring to an essay of Plotinus (which might have come to him through a work

of Porphyry's such as the Philosophy from Oracles?, the notion of the kind of book the Philosophy from Oracles was came to his mind at the

same time‘. I.3 : tpsa (philosophia) enim docet ... nthil omnino colendum esse totumque contemni oportere, quiquid mortalibus oculis cernitur, quicquid ullus sensus attingit. Ibsa wuerissimum et secretissimum deum perspicue se demonstraturam promittit et 1am iamque quasi per lucidas nubes ostentare dignatur. — Of this in the Retract. I. 1. 2 he writes : nihil omnino ... ullus sensus attingit ; addenda erant verba, ut diceretur, quidquid mortalis corporis ullus sensus attingit : est enim sensus et mentis. Sed eorum more tunc loquebar qui sensum non nisi corporis dicunt, et sensibilia non nisi corporalia. Itaque ubicumque sic locutus sum, barum est ambiguitas evitata, nisi apud eos quorum consuetudo est locutionis huius. Augustine throughout these Dialogues had great need of this correction. As we have seen, he explicitly mentioned Porphyry's omne corpus fugiendum in Retract. 1.4.35 in terms which lead one to believe that this principle of Porphyry was the inspiration of these expressions, later to be censured by him.

Here then in Contra Acad. 1.3 he found the same reprehensible notion, namely that all objects of amy sense should be spurned : in view of the

Christian doctrine of the resurrection of the body and its glorification - as a body he should have said any sense of mortal body.

1. Enn. 3.2.3, 13. For the Porphyrian connection of ciu. Det X. 14 see p. 109. 2. Cf. prologue to Philosophy from Oracles in Eusebius, prae. eu. IV. 8, Mras

(Wolff. p. 110) : μὴ δημοσιεύειν μηδ᾽ ἄχρι 3. See Courcelle, Les Lettres 4. See also p. 12 n. 3.

5. See p. 171.

Grecques

καὶ τῶν βεβήλων en Occident

p.

28.

ῥίπτειν

αὐτά.

I, p.

178.

—

COROLLARY

: « CONTRA

In addition is reminiscent to reveal the very much in

one should note that the formulation of nihil colendum esse of omne corpus fugiendum esse, and also that the promise secret god and show him appearing through the clouds is accord with the fragments of the Philosophy from Oracles!

—

ACADEMICOS

»

173

and indeed rather puzzling without such a context.

II.2 : Ergone non erumpet aliquando ista uirius et multorum desperantium risus in horrorem stuporemque conuertet et locuta in terris quasi quaedam futurorum signa rursus protecto tolius corporis onere recurret in-caelum ὃ This conjunction of an oracular inspiration with the words : proiecto totius corporis onere and the additional recurret in caelum suggest some connection with the Philosophy from Oracles as identified with the De regressu

animae

in

which,

we

are

told,

was

repeated

: omne

corpus

]ugiendum. II. 5 : cum ecce tibi libri quidam pleni, ut att Celsimus, bonas res Arabicas exhalarunt in nos, ubi illi flammulae instillarunt bretiossissimi ungents guitas

paucissimas,

incredibile,

Romaniane,

incredibile...

incendium

concitarunt. Quis me tunc honor, quae hominum pompa, quae inanis famae cupiditas, quod denique huius mortalis uitae fomentum atque retinaculum commouebat ? Prorsus totus in me cursim redibam. Respexi tamen, confiteor,

quasi de itinere in illam religionem ... arripio apostolum Paulum. Neque enim were, inquam, ἰδέ tanta potutssent uixtssentque ila, ut eos wixisse manifestum est, st eorum lillerae atque rationes huic tanto bono aduersarentur. Perlegt totum intentissime atque castissime. The connection of this passage with Conf. VII. 13 ff. needs no demonstration. If it has been shown that Conf. VII. 13 ff. can be connected with the Philosophy from Oracles, then there is reason to expect that there might be some trace of this work here too.

We have already mentioned? the possibility that the words pleni and bonas res Arabicas may refer to the συναγωγή of oracles, some of which might be said to have come from an « Arabian » source. The words redibam,

de sinere

and

mortalis ustae retinaculum

may

refer to the de

regressu animae, the uia qua eundum est, and the omne corpus fugiendum motif. The context suggests that the Platonist books had made diíficulties about the writings of Christians, among others perhaps especially St. Paul : we have seen that Porphyry in the Philosophy from Oracles did attack Christians and especially St. Peter and St. Paul. Finally one must draw particular attention to the image used in the earlier part of the passage : it is one of throwing fragrant unguents on a flame,

x. Cf. e.g. Wolff. pp. 125 ff. (Mras I p. 152 f.) and 152 (Mras I. p. 207). 2. see p. 164.

174

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

which thereupon flares up : flamma, summa nos arreptura, qua lenta aestuabamus, bonas res Arabicas, flammulae instillarunt pretiosissimi unguenti guttas pauctssimas, incredible incendium. There were suggestions in the Philosophy from Oracles for an image such as this : it may suffice here to quote briefly from one! : χεῦε μέλι νύμφαισι Διωνύσοιό τε δῶρα"

ὅσσοι 9^ ἀμφὶ γέην πωτώμενοι αἰὲν ἔασιν, τοῖσδε φόνου πλήσας πάντη πυριπληθέα᾽ βωμὸν ἐν πυρὶ βάλλε δέμας θῦσας ζῴοιο ποτανοῦ καὶ μέλι φυρήσας Δηωΐῳ ἀλφίτῳ ἔνθευ

ἀτμούς τε λιβάνοιο καὶ οὐλοχύτας ἐπίβαλλε... ἀτμοῖσιν λαροῖσιν ἐνιπλήσαντες ἅπαντα ἠέρα ῥευσταλέον" We shall see? that there is use of a similar image in De ordine Y. 10 which can be brought fairly close to a fragment of the Philosophy from Oracles’.

Some other possible connections* between the Contra Academicos and the Philosophy from Oracles may be indicated by II. 22 : (animus)... rediturus in caelum (censured in Retract. 1.1.3); II.24 : ne ... temere pollutis mentibus et quasi profanis quaedam ueritatis sacra proderentur® ; ITI. 11, 13: the introduction of Proteus — indice alicuius modi numine ... si assit . ueritatem ... demonstrare dignetur. ... quanta intentione in optimum philosophiae genus? ; the story of the two wiatores in III. 34 which is an extended version of the image of the wa in Con}. VII. 26 f. — there is the same emphasis on the simple believer and the arrogant unbeliever, the former of whom is saved, and the latter loses his way in the woods and

mountains (this image we have connected with the wia of the De regressu animae in ciu. Dei X. 32.) . De beata vita.

The De beata uita has but little that can be argument. Apart from the possibility that (and probably the Philosophy from Oracles) text : mentes uestras ... cum tntentt estis in non contemnere. statui. It is also possible

definitely used in the present section 3 refers to Porphyry we find in 31 the interesting deum, uelut quaedam oracula that cum wero sapientiam

I. Eusebius, op. cit., IV. 9, Mras I. pp. 179 t (Wolff pp. 115 ff.).. 2. See p. 175.

3. It is possible that the ῥέξας paucissimas might have some special reference to excerpts from Plotinus in the Philosophy from Oracles. See pp. 172. 4. Only those which might be immediately relevant here are given : there are many others ; e.g. I. 11 (cf. Mamertus, of. cit., III. 9.3), II 6 f. (compare. Sermo 241.2), III. 42 : redire... 5. See pp. 29 ff.

6. Cf. Aeneas of Gaza, op. cit., P. G. 85, 940 : Πρωτεὺς θεὸς εἶναι τοῖς Αἰγυπτίοις νομίζεται. The remark about genus philosophiae may suggest that Augtistine was not fhinking of Virgil so much as a rather special approach to philosophy.

COROLLARY : « DE BEATA UITA »

175

contemplatur inuentam cumque ... ad ipsam se tenet nec se ad simulacrorum fallaciam, quorum pondus amplexus a deo suo cadere atque demergi solet ... (33) and ad deum reditus noster (36) may have some relevance to our argument. De

ordine.

I. 10 : The first text. we wish to draw attention to in the De ordine is of some importance. The interlocutor Licentius is speaking : Haec modo, inquit, omitte quaeso, ne me hoc uafrum quiddam et captatorium a nescio qua diuina re, quae mihi se ostentare coepit et cut me inhiantem suspendo, detorqueat atque disrumpat. — Hic ego multo uberius cernens abundare laetitias meas, quam uel optare aliquando ausus sum, uersum istum gestiens effudi : sic pater tlle deus faciat : (Aen. X. 875) Perducet enim ipse, st sequimur, quo nos ire iubet atque ubi ponere sedem, qui dat modo augurium nostrisque inlabitur animis. Nec enim altus Apollo est, qui in speluncis in montibus in nemoribus nidore iuris pecudumque calamitate concitatus inplet insanos, sed alius Profecto est, alius ille altus

ueridicus atque ipsa ... ueritas, cuius uates sunt, quicumque possunt esse sapientes.

Here there is without question an oracular setting. The whole contribution of Licentius to the debate is raised beyond his probable competence to a level which could be justified only by the fiction that he was inspired

and not fully responsible for allowance for whatever has still a large residue which given by Apollo too, in the quoted in connection with following : δεδήλωκε δὲ τοῦτο ὃ ἐν

what he was saying. When one has made due an origin in Virgil in this passage, there is has something in common with an oracle, Philosophy from Oracles and which we have Contra Academicos II.5! — or perhaps the βραγχίδαις

᾿Απόλλων

διὰ τούτων"

ἐννέα γὰρ

εὑρέθησαν ἀποθανόντες" πυνθανομένων οὖν τῶν τὸν ἀγρὸν οἰκούντων τὴν αἰτίαν ἔχρησεν ὁ θεός. Xpvoókepws Proovpoto Διωνύσου

θεράπων Πὰν

βαίνων ὑλήεντα κατ᾽ οὔρεα χειρὶ κραταιῇ᾿ ῥάβδον ἔχεν, ἑτέρῃ δὲ λιγὺ πνείουσαν ἔμαρπτε σύριγγα γλαφυρήν, Νύμφῃσι δὲ θυμὸν ἔθελγεν"

ὀξὺ δὲ συρίξας μέλος ἀνέρας ἐπτοίησεν ὑλοτόμους πάντας, θάμβος δ᾽ ἔχεν εἰσορόωντας δαίμονος ὀρνυμένον κρυερὸν δέμας oloTpHevros® .

I. See p. 173.

.

MEME

2. Eusebius, of. cit., V. 6. Mras I. 233 (Wolff pp. 128 f.)

176

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

ORACLES

» IN AUGUSTINE

We know in addition that one of the first things to appear in the Phtlosophy from Oracles was an oracle given by a man possessed by Serapis!.

I. 13f. Another interesting text from De ordine is the following : ( Augustinus) Nam et ego in philosophia puer sum ei non nimis curo, cum interrogo, per quem mihi tlle respondeat, qui me cotidie querulum accifit, cuius te quidem credo quandoque uatem futurum ... (Licentius) non enim cuiquam in potestate est, quid ueniat in mentem — sic nescio quo modo circumagitur, ut me ipse doceat, quid tibi debeam respondere. Namque oro te, si haec, quae a nobis dicta sunt, litteris, ut instiluisti, mandata peruagentur paulo latius ad hominum famam, nonne ita res magna widelur, ut de

illa consultius aliqui uates magnus aut Chaldeus respondere debuerit, multo antequam euenit ὁ... Numquidnam enim talia futura quisquam illorum aut per se dixit aliquando aut a consultore coactus est dicere ? The first thing to be observed is that Augustine expects to receive philosophical instruction from, apparently, God, but through some oracular message delivered by a seer : this, of course, is precisely the idea

behind the Philosophy from Oracles. Attention should be drawn to the oracular behaviour of Licentius. In this connection one should mention that either Licentius' contribution to the debate at this point is entirely a fiction of Augustine's own, or Licentius, due no doubt to his contact

with Augustine, had oracular pronouncements on philosophy very much on his mind.

The

reference to prophecy,

to a Chaldean

seer, and

the

compulsion exercised by one consulting the oracle upon the god are all suggestive of the Philosophy from Oracles. There is little in De ordine II to detain us. Section 16 with its treatment of the ways of ratio and auctoritas, its insistence that only a very few are saved by ratio, its statement that the business of true

philosophy was to teach quod sit omnium rerum principium sine principio quaniusque in eo intellectus quidue inde in nostram salutem sine ulla degeneratione manauertt quem unum deum ... docent weneranda | mysteria, quae fide sincera et inconcussa populos liberant, nec confuse, ut quidam, nec

contumeliose,

ingeniosorum suggest

the

ut

multi,

superbia

which

Philosophy

from

x. Cf. Wolff p. 111

praedicant*,

and

its condemnation

refused to accept

the

of

the

Incarnation, may

Oracles.

quoting Finmicus Maternus, De

errore prof.

allusion to this idea in De ordine I. 20 : tantum deum sustinere,

relig. ch.

13. We

.

2. Cf. civ. Dei XIX 23 : non obscuram et incognitam... luce clarius. Cf. pp. 108, 110.

have an

INDEX

OF

AUGUSTINIAN

IV.2: 17 f.; 31 : 17.

CONFESSIONES.

60. V. 5

VI. 3 : 16; 6 :17;10:17.

: 163.

VII. 13 : 147, 168 f., 173; 1327 : 156-167 ; 15 : 140, 155, 160; 16 : 151, 168 f.; 25 : 158 f.; 26 : 130, 151 ; 26 f. : 174 ; 27 : 130. VIII. 3 : 161; 3 f. : 158; 28 f. :

168. IX. 24 : 169 f. ; 26 : 168. X. 9 : 168 f. ; 24 : 169 ; 67 : 156.

42

: 174;

34

RUDIBUS.

: 17;

VII. 1, 5, 17, 23, 28 : 17. VIII. 9 : 167 ; 11, 14, 16 : 18. IX. 5 : 17; 17 : 166. X.1:97,165;2:165;3:97; 5,6,7 : 103 ;8 : 103, 109; 9 : 11 f, . 30, 69, 102-108, 117, 127 ; 10 : 108 ; 172 ; 15 : 109; 16 : 110; 17, 18 :

23 : 35, 37, 39, 43, 46, 97, 117-122, 161 f.; 24

26

: 123

: 92, 122; 25

f. ; 27

: 123;

: 18, 26, 39, 43,

46, 125 f. ; 28 : 104, 119 f. ; 29 : 7,

I9, 24-27, 42, 46, 75, 77, 80, 92,

: 174.

DE CATECHIZANDIS 31 ff. : 170.

5

III; 19 : 4o, 112; 20 : 113; 21 : 35, 90, 97, 113 ff. ; 22 : 115;

: 174;

DE BEATA VITA. 174. 3:174;4 :166;31 :174;33 175 ; 35 : 168 ; 36 : 175.

4: 17;

11 : 18, 108 ; 12, I3 : 108 ; 14 : 109,

CONTRA ACADEMICOS. 56, 60, 129, 171 f. I. 1 : 12, 171 £., 174 ; 8 : 172. II. 2 : 173; 5 : 57, 164, 173, 175; 6 f. : 174; 22 : 174 ; 24 : 174.

II. 11, 13

TEXTS

I22, 131, 134, 136 f., 141, 159, 168 ; 30 : 24, 130, 136 f., 164; 31 : I8, 137; 32 : 10-13, 19, 23 ff., 27,

30, 39 £., 46, 75, 97, 104, 109, 114, :

115, 138-145, XI. 5 : 170; XII. 5, 14, 27 : 18, 26. XIII. 18 :

160, 164, 166, 174. 23 : 18, 27. 16, 20, 23 : I5I;

24,

166;

19

: 24;

16 : 26, 73. DE

CIVITATE

DEI.

Summary of Book X : 98 f., 147. II. 14 : 17; 18, 21 : 18.

XVI. 12 : 109; 16 : 63, 109; 17 : 18; 18, 21 : 63, 109 ; 36,38 : 63.

178

« PHILOSOPHY

FROM

DE

ORACLES

20 : 176.

54 : 86, 142, 145.

DE

18,

20,

67 f.,

30,

35,

45,

69 f., 72,

49-60,

63,

I.

76 f., 8o,

16

10

: 174

f£.; 13

: 176;28 : 57;

: 165,

I. 1 IV.

25 ff. : 72-83 ; 26 : 18, 42, 85, 92 f., 134, 136, 138 ; 27 : 136 f£. ; 28 : 88.

ANIMAE.

170.

: 154. 1,

2,

6

:

154;

13

85-92, 126, 136, 142, 144, 154 f., 162.

DE UTILITATE CREDENDI. . 83-35 : 170.

I. 11 : 85, 155, 159; 13 : 85, 145 ; 14 : 85, 104, 127, 159; 15, 16 : 86; 17 : 87; 20 : 87, 113;

EPISTOLAE.

21 : 87, 113, 127; 22 : 87; 23 : 34, 87, 159 ; 24 : 87, 127; 25, 29, 30 :

89, 159; 49 : 89, 1x14, 140; 50 : 90 ; 51 : 9r ; 52 : gt, 145, 155,

DE

: ΟἹ, 154, 160,

DOCTRINA

166.

CHRISTIANA.

I. 10-12, 34 : 163.

II. 28, 30, 32, 35 ff., 60 : 163.

DE MORIBUS ECCLESIAE CATHOLICAE I. 11

: 165, 170;

12

: 163.

105,

102. 2-21 : 154; 8 137. 12-16 : 154. 138. 18 : 154.

: 146,

154.

:

89, 109 ; 38 : 89 ; 39 : 89, 127, 163 ; 40 : 89, 145; 41, 42, 43 : 89; 46 : 89, 127 ; 47 : 89, 145; 48 :

165; 53

:

DE VERA RELIGIONE. 48-52 : 170.

EVANGELISTARUM.

: 49, 88, 121 f., 151 ;-37

: 26.

I52; 13-20 : 166; 15 : 166; 20 f. : 165 ; 23 : 155, 163, 165; 24 : 166. VIII. 12 : 154, 160. XII. 13.: 160 ; 23 : 165. XIII. 12 : 151; 24 : 152, 162.

XXII. 25 : 19, 60, 85, 87 f., 90, 92, 108, 112, 122 f., 126, 133, 135 ff., 141 f., 145 f., 166;

88; 35

31

f.,

DE TRINITATE. 151-154, 162.

86 £.,

XX. 24 : 64-67, 69 f., 103.

CONSENSU

: 172;

QUANTITATE 76

90, 92, Ior-104, 106-108, rro f., 112Í., II5, 117 f., 122 f., 124-127, 129, 131 ff, 135 f, 138, 140 f., 142 f., 158 f., 165, 167, 169, 176.

DE

1

11.

65,

AUGUSTINE

ORDINE.

XVII. 3 : 63, 109; 4 : 170; 18 : 63. XVIII. 4 :17;12:603;18 :18; 27, 41 : 63; 53 : 108, 114, 123, 126, 140, 145; B3 f. : 67-72; XIX. 22 : 50, 88, 102 ; 283 : 12 f.,

» IN

RETRACTATIONES.

171. I. 1.2 171 f.

: 172; 1. 3 : 174; 4. 3 :

SERMONES. 234, 241. I69 ; 7 242.

235, 240 : 93. 2 : 93, 168 £., 174 ; 3 : 163, : 24, 42, 92 f., 133, 136. 8 ff. : 93, 166. U

SOLILOQUIA. 171. I. 24

^:

..

: 171.

II

INDEX

OF

SCRIPTURAL

TEXTS

GENESIS. 25. 33, 34 : 157 ; 28. 14 : 87, 141. EXODUS. 3. 22

: 157;

22.

20 : 5I, 59,

102 f., 165.

PSALMS.

15. 2 : 59, 103, 157, 160; 24. 4 : 171 ; 72. 28 : 112, 157-160; 95. 5:

59, 87, 89; 101. 26 : 64 f. ISAIAS. 2. 3 : 142. OSEE. 6. 6 : 103. JOHN.

Prologue : 102, 147, 156 ff., 167 ; 14. 6 : 157.

ACTS. 17. 28

: 153,

155,

157,

167.

ROMANS. I. 18-23 : 102, 152, 154, 157, 160 f., 163, 165, 167; 5. 6 : 157. CORINTHIANS. 1.1. 19 ff. : 127. PHILIPPIANS. 2. 6-1I : 157, 161. COLOSSIANS. 2. 8 : 167.

III

GENERAL

Abraham 49, 89 f., 109. Aeneas of Gaza 20 f.; 39 ff., 42 f.,

66, 90, x15, 147 f., 165, 167, 174. Aion

INDEX

Bouillet 41. Brahmins 139, Busse

146

ff.

21.

120 f.

Alaric 90. Alypius 168. Ambrose 146. Amelius I47, I55. Anacharsis 139, 146 f. ἄνοδος 23.

Camelot

151 f.

Cato 146. Celsinus 164, 173. Christ, crucifixion of 50,

Antony 168. Apollo 50 f., 55, 76, 118, 135, 142,

—

homo piissimus 52 f., 76, 123, 135, 155, 158.

—

Incarnation

Arnobius 8 ff., 121, 134, Asclepius 16. Astruc 4I. Aurelius,

Marcus

—

145 f.

35.

Bernays 33, 30. Bible, the Holy 63, 109, 160 ff., 166. Bidez 7 ff., 1r, 21, 23, 25, 33-36, 41 f., 44, 106, 126. Boissonade 33, 39, 41 f., 90, II5, I47. .— Bolgiani 156. Bómer 139.

25 f., 99, 123,

132, 135, 142, 144, 146, 170, 176.

175. Apuleius 18, 107, 125. Archytas 16. Aristotle 15 f., 39, 41.

162.

resurrection

of

25,

72-83,

98, 132 f., 135, 142, 144 Í., 153, 161 f., 163, 170, 172. Christianity, spread of in persecution 71, 113 f., 140, 144, 145 ff., 170. Christians,

attacks on 51-54.

C(h)ronos 88, 9r, 12r. Chrysippus 146. Chrysostom 20. Cicero 17 f., 73, 88, 146, 166. Claudian 18. Courcelle 9 f., 23, 27, 70, 85, 130, 139, 141, 145 f., 156, 159, 168,

170, 172. Cumont 23, 130. Cyril 20.

« PHILOSOPHY

182

Daemones 51-59, 98-115, di(1) caelestes 55 f. Dionysus 115, 174 f. divination,

contrasted

125.

Gnostics

with

philo-

Dodds 33, 35 ff. Dombart 8.

18.

et utique inde erant illi libri 163 f. Eunapius 33 f. Eusebius 20, 42, 45, 52 f., 147, 155. .

Chronica 18. Dem. eu.3.6:52;3.7:

20. —

.

Prae. eu. 9, 26, 29, 52, 64.

III. 13 : 163 ; 15,16: 118,

IV.5 : 56, 60, 75, 102 107,

115,

118,

124

f.,

166; 6 : 29, 126 f.;7: 29,

5I,

104,

108,

139,

144, 164 ; 8 : 127, 130, 172 ; 9 : 102,

113, II5,

163, 174; 10 :57 ; 20 : I05, 115; 23 : 105, 118. V. 6 : 104, 175; 7 : 93, 118; 8 : 105, 115, II8, 124; 9 : 168 ; 12 :

I02 ; 14 : 144 ; 16 : 7of.

AUGUSTINE

37, 39, 44.

Green (W. M.) 171. Gregory of Nazianzus

146.

120 f., 135, 159. Henry 42, 155. Hera 114 f. Hercules 90, 115. Herod 166. Heroes 113 ff., 145, 147.

Hoffmann

8, 70, 72 f.

Holsten 23, 39 ff. Honorius 68. Iamblichus 15, 23, 36, Immisch 21. Iouius 68.

148.

Julianus 35 f., 39 ff., 43 ff. Juno 114 f. Jupiter 49, 56, 65 f., 88 f., go f.,

92, justin

I4I,

151.

Martyr

20.

κάθοδος 23-27, 98, 137, 146. Kroll 36, 39, 41 f., 46, 92, 119, I21, I26.

VI. 1 : 144; 3 : 70; 4 : τοῦ, 115, 146; 5 :

Labriolle, de 146.

70, I05.

Lactantius 18, 20, 50 f., 76, 118, 129, 139 f., 145 f.

IX.

10

: ro,

12

f.

II5, 139, 164. XI. 19 : 147. XIV.4 : 168 ;10 : 1r.

Maternus

Lewy 110

II5,

(H.) 35 f., 41, 60, 107, 112, ff., 122.

Licentius 175 f. Livy 18. Lobeck 46. Longinus 24, 34, 40, 43, 136, 164. Lucan 18.

Fabricius 39, 4I. Festugiére 119. Firmicus

» IN

Harnack 146. Hecate 52 f., 54, 76, 92 f., 178,

Dorrie 24.

— —

ORACLES

Gaudentius 68. Gildersleeve 41.

sophy 30, 99, 144, 167.

Ennius

FROM

20,

176.

Lydus

23, 36.

GENERAL

INDEX

Macrobius Mamertus, 174.

183

23, 80, 130 f., 141, 145. Claudianus 139, 146,

Plotinus 24, 33 ff., 36 f., 39, 41, 43, 88, 102, 112, 117, 130f., 155, 162, 164 ff., 168 f.,

Marrou 156. Mellet 151 f.

172, 174.

Moses

42 Í., 167; 8. 13 : 165. II. 4 : 39. III. 2. 2 155;

108,

Mother Mras

(the)

I. 6. 8 : 166;8 : 40,

166.

120 f., 151.

155.

2. 3, 13 : 109, 172. Nachmanson 15. Nicephorus Gregoras Nicomachus 15.

IV.

20.

— O'Meara 171. omne corpus fugiendum 75-81,

92,

112,

I31

25 f., 45, f.,

134

ff,

Paul (St.) 86, 88, 173. Pépin 88, 169. 18.

f.,

86,

Plato 18, 24, 39, 41, 43, 73 £., 108,

— —

5

:

of St

102, 147, I51 Í., 154 Í.,

—

129, 133-137, 148, 164. Menexenus 15. Phaedo 20.

Symposium 15. Timaeus 18 f., 42, 73 £., 79,

OI, 134, 138, 146, 148, 154, 166. Platonism, Middle 36 f.

‘Agoppai 39 ff., 42, 45.

ὠ ΒβΒΒοήθῳ περὶ ψυχῆς 20.

--

De abstinentia 20, 57, 112

—

169 f. De materia 39 f., 41 ff.,

—

Eis τὸ Θουκυδίδου προοί-

— — — —

History of Philosophy 33. Isagoge 21. Letter to Anebo 7 f., 18, 20, 33, 35, 108, 126. On images 20, 33.

—

Philosophy

45 f.

μίον

88,

II4, 123, 173. Philoponus 15 f., 20, 70, 105, 145. Photinus 54, 158 f.

— —

8.

156-167. Porphyry 24, 33 £., 36 f., 51 f., 58. — Against the Christians

—

72

23;

20, 25, 64 ff., 146.

Pan 175. . Parmenides r6. Pater 51, 55 ff, 60, 73, 119 ff, 129, 137, 139, I5I, τότ f., 169, 171. πατρικὸς νοῦς 98, 117, 119 ff., 127, 129, 132, 162.

Peter (St.) 64-66,

:

John

161 f., 170 f., 173. Origen 18. Ostia 168 f.

Persius

8

81 f., 137. V.1.4.: 88. and the Prologue

21.

from

Oracles

8, 18, 20, 97.

(ed. Wolff)40 : 131 ; 42 : 115; 109 : 29, 104; 110 : 130, 144,

164, 172; 111 : 176; 112 : 107, IIO, 113, II5, 163; 115 : ro2, 174;

122

: 93;

123

108,

118;

125

: 173;

127

: 118;

128

:

: 108,

184

« PHILOSOPHY

175 ; 129

: 104,

IIo,

131; 130 : 102; 138 : 144 ; 139 : 10; 140 : IIS, 164; 141 : 12;

142 : 51; 144 : 109, 119, 146,

166;

139 ; 146

145

: 124,

: x19, 148;

147 : 105, 113; 151 : 118; 152 : 105, 107,

IIS, 165, 108 ; 155

173; 154 : : 115, 124;

160 : 106, 118 ; 162 : 108 ; 165 : 105, I15,

146; 166 : 107, 144; 170 : 70; 175 : 70, 105,

108;

177

: go,

107,

115,

139,

148;

178

: 129, 140; 180 :

52 ; 183 : 50; 184 : 50,

146;

—

—

: 55,

76;

186 : 107, 118. I]. διαστάσεως II. kai ' A. 21.

—

—

185

.

Il. Ervyós 23. IT.

τοῦ

μίαν

εἶναι

Rhea

151.

Rulers (ἀρχαί)

» IN

AUGUSTINE

121.

Sallust 18. Saturnus

88 f., 91, 151.

Schwyzer 42, 155. Serapis 176. Simplicianus

158,

167.

Simplicius 16, 39 f. Sodano 33. spiritalis (anima) purgation II f., 98,

105

f., 117,

of

125,

127,

Theodoret 20, 147, 155. Theodorus, Mallius 68. theurgy 35 ff., 98, 104, 107,

109,

142. Suidas 39 ff.

I2I, I24 f.

Thilo 39, 41, 45. titles 15 f. — in Augustine 16-20. — in Eusebius 20.

τὴν Varro 16 f., 19, 49, 74 f., 80 ff., 88.

Recitatio

Virgil 18, 88, 137, 174.

Victorinus

Philologica 20.

—

Studia Homerica

—

Σύμμικτα

41.

r.

166.

Wolff 8, 36, 39-46, 49, 53, 55 f., 60,

f.,

See Porphyry. Wyttenbach 23.

world, destruction of 42, 64 ff. Zamolksis Zeller 23.

147.

Zilliacus 15. Zoroaster 37, 39 ff., 43 f., 139, 146 f.

Proteus 174. Psyche 120 f. Pythagoreans 39.

26,

161,

66, 70, 72, 97, 107, 114, 123, 139.

143 f., 145, 147, 152 f., 154, 170.

l'Est,

158,

41.

ζητήματα

Prophecies 49, 59, 63, 87, 89, 141,

de

ORACLES

II. καὶ ' A. αἵρεσιν 21. Πρὸς ᾿Αριστείδην 21.

— Vita Plotini 39, 41. Power (δύναμις) 120 f. principia 40, 98, 117-129, 147 I51, 16x f., 176. Priscian 16. : Proclus 16.

Imp.

FROM

Zostrianus 37. Renan,

Besancon

Dépót légal 1959. 2° trimestre. -— N° 3647