a iret inet f vi } ! Secale: baal tts } are “patrtatntont aia pa gt aaah tate ana fit Ea an Ae hae nny sacra tities ce y ; stl sf : “y vie bats necdt “ub by H r Nearen sete te etic bat aby Svilsg i sf READ mnamielicn tat ot aetna hehe Autti : ita tincbeessed 5 ; mt : Had bee eh een tice at \ it 3 i * Meaty Fe E ise bbb vera vyt eae ya be!

a Lol abt PSR at aahtt peers) 2 ply es ; uh pieeeds tiles rina Be Fae pegs ' 1} dhe a Fea ee of icteae i :

* siete patted aa bla

ita ae


oA Yer

tt a ea

& a 4 Bash 138 +4

tt ia

wren it


r the tr t f bits ve

Owes a pened Stam naatiate

phe § Tee a

> + f . ¥ ry oie 4 ; hee) Pal ats Rooney aeeet a i *

- Py ee HED cede’ Fant & . 7 4 t

ai Wg 0e ae seld bokeh fate

4 Uinaihes : i

“Aeon ra We

afi Soft

tek EAD 4 Saag af rts shepatie Meholh) ha area Bits so! (€ wh geet HY

eee is Hey

HEV teeosed 4 ear eae

£405 9 Sale Pied scent

shal se ioe +

4.428 ae


had Pa


vate y

had od A ot pees be ee 14) Tos pet itare iY je RA rip Ato


Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2008 with funding from Wellesley College Library


urn on








By S. Aneus, M.A.

Exspectabat enim fundamenta habentem Civitatem cuius artifex et conditor Deus.




Page. 1 Note, ; : : : : 3 2 Bibliography, . : ; : : : 4 3 Introductory, . : : 6

I Literary Sources in Bootes. I—x 9 Note on Composition of DCD. by A. F. iene 60

II Annotations on Books 1—x . : : 64

III Augustine’s Knowledge of Greek . : 236

Some Theses, ; : ; ; 274

General Analysis, : : : 279

Errata, 281 Wer esnien!


BE—Benedictine Edition (in Migne). DCD—De Civitate Dei. RD—The last sixteen books (Rerum Divinarum) in Varro’s




The following treatise—the work of three happy years— was not at first intended as a thesis fcr a doctor’s degree, but has been converted from its original purpose.

It was started in the first place at the suggestion of Professor A. F. West, and it is due to his personal encourage- ment that it has been completed. I wish to offer him my sincere thanks for having read through all my work in MS, forcalling my attention to some things I had overlooked, and for the help derived from his own MSnotes. Thanks are also due to Professors Winans and Westcott for suggestions; alsoto Dr. E. C. Richardson, Librarian of Princeton University, and to Rey. J. H. Dulles, Librarian of Princeton Theological Seminary, for having procured for me so many books I wished to consult.

Seat Classical Seminary, Princeton University, March, Igo6.


1. In preparing this thesis it was necessary to read of Au- gustine’s writings the following entire: De Civitate Dei, Con- fessiones, De Doctrina Christiana, De Urbis Excidio, Retrac- tationes, and all his exegetical and controversial works; and in part also the Epistulae (especially the letters to Jerome, Mar- cellinus and Paulinus) and Sermones ; also the following entire: Livy (with the Epitomes), Florus and Eutropius, Velleius Paterculus, Valerius Maximus, Sallust, Cicero’s philosophical and rhetorical works, Quintus Curtius, Justin, Orosius, and the remains of Varro and Porphyry; also most of Aulus Gellius, Apuleius, Minucius Felix, Lactantius, Plotinus, Hy- ginus, and parts of Plutarch, Plato, Tertullian, Arnobius, Cyprian, Rufinus, Paulinus of Nola, Eusebius, Ambrose, Ausonius, Symmachus, Procopius, Sozomen and Socrates; beside consulting other ancient writers incidentally.

2. The list given below excludes standard writers of gen- eral reference, such as Zeller, Mommsen, Milman, Gib- bon, Villemain, Gregorovius, Ozanam, Boissier and Bury; as well as editions of Augustine and the other ancient writers consulted. An asterisk is prefixed to a few which have been found to be of especial importance.

*Agahd, R.: Quaestiones Varronianae (in Jahrbiicher fiir classische Philologie, Supplementband 24. Leipzig, 1897).

*Clausen, H. N.: Aurelius Augustinus Hipponensis Sacrae Scripturae Interpres. Hauniae, 1827.

Cunningham, W.: S. Austin and his place in the history of Christian thought (Hulsean lectures, 1885). London, 1886.

Dill, S.:. Roman society in the last century of the Western empire. London, 1898.

* Francken, C. H. J.: Fragmenta M. Ter. Varronis quae inveniuntur in libris S. Augustini De civitate Dei, Lugduni Batavorum, 1836.

Frick, C.: Die Quellen Augustins im XVIII Buche seiner Schrift de civitate dei. HO6xter, 1886.


* Grandgeorge, L.: Saint Augustin et le néo-platonisme. Paris, 1896. (Bibliothéque de l’école des hautes études, vol. 7.)

Jiirges, P.: De Sallustii historiarum reliquiis capita selecta. Einbeck, 1892. * Kuhlmann, Hermann: De veterum historicorum in

Augustini de civitate dei libro primo altero tertio vestigiis. Schleswig, 1g00.

* Loesche, G.: De Augustino Plotinizante in doctrina de deo. lIenae, 1880.

McCabe, J.: Saint Augustine and his age. London, rgoz.

Martin, Jules, Saint Augustin. Paris, 1gor.

Maurenbrecher: C. Sallusti Crispi Historiarum reliquiae. Leipzig, 1891.

Neimann, A.: Augustin’s Geschichtsphilosophie. Geifs- wald, 1895.

Nourrisson: La philosophie de Saint Augustin (2 vols.). Paris, 1866.

_ * Pirogoff, W.: De Eutropii breviarii ab U. C. indole ac fontibus. Berlin (no date. Thesis for 1873).

Poujalet, : Histoire de Saint Augustin (3 vols.). Paris, 1845.

*Reuter, H.: Augustinische Studien. Gotha, 1887.

Richter, A.: Neu-Platonische Studien. Darstellung des Lebens und der Philosophie des Plotin. Halle, 1867.

Saisset, Emile: La cité de Dieu de Saint’ Augustin, French trans. (4 vols.). Paris, 1855.

Schmid, Reinhold: Marius Victorinus Rhetor und seine Beziehungen zu Augustin. Kiel, 1895.

Schéler, H.: Augustins Verhaltniss zu Plato in genetischer Entwicklung. Jena, 1897.

*Schwarz: De Varronis apud sanctos patres vestigiis in Jahrbiicher fiir classische Philologie. Supplementband. Leipzig, 1888, pp. 409-499.

Schneegans, C. F.: Appréciation de Saint Augustin d’aprés ses travaux sur l’herméneutique sacrée. Strasbourg, 1848,

Seyrich, G. J.: Die Geschichtsphilosophie Augustins nach | seiner schrift De Civitate Dei. Chemnitz, 1891.

Smith, J. R.: Augustine as an Exegete. (In Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1904).

Spence, H. D. W.: Early Christianity and Paganism. New York (no date).

Trench, R. C.: Exposition of the Sermon on the Mount drawn from the writings of St. Augustine. London, 1869.

Zumetikos, A. M.: De Alexandri Olympiadisque epistu- larum fontibus et reliquiis. Berlin, 1894.


This thesis has three parts. ‘The first attempts to ex- hibit completely, and in detail under each author, all the as- certainable literary sources, except the Bible, used by Augus- tine in the first ten books of The City of God. This part on the Literary Sources has been written to include the sources as given by Dombart and Hoffmann, and in addition the con- clusions I have worked out in the second part of this thesis, the Annotations to Books I-X. In order to do so I have gone over every case where a literary source is required, and have searched all the extant sources to which Augustine could have had access, and several to which he could not, or did not, have access. In the Annotations, which are almost exclusive- ly restricted to the sources not specified in Dombart, when I quote from, or refer to, the writings of Valerius Maximus, Velleius Paterculus, Julius Obsequens, also to Plutarch, Por- phyry, Plotinus and Plato in Greek, and others not mentioned in the part on the Sources, it is not to be supposed that these are suggested as sources for Augustine’s knowledge. They are given simply for fulness of detail, or because they have pre- served for us information once found in sources used by Au- gustine but now no longer extant. For example when Plut- arch is quoted, it is because he either confirms Livy (Augus- tine’s source for the particular place), or because he has pre- served for us information which was found in portions of Livy now lost, and of which we have only the later epitomes.


Similarly Julius Obsequens has been quoted to confirm Livy’s own work or to supply the missing part required.

The Annotations on books I-X contain matter which could not be treated of in the part on the Sources. The fact that the Annotations has partly the same aim as the part on the Sources may excuse the frequent cross-references, and the perhaps too frequent repetition of the same Latin passages. These latter have been given for the sake of fulness and for convenience of the reader. Each part is intended to supple- ment the other. Biblical passages and references have not been touched upon, as Dombart gives them almost complete. I have, however, added one instance which he has not re- corded.

The text adopted as the basis for working has been that of Dombart (2 vols., Leipzig, 1877-92), not without reference to Hoffmann’s text. The former is referred to by page and dine throughout the notes; and the pair of heavy-faced numbers given at the edge of the page before each note also refers to Dombart’s text.

In the Annotations I have not mentioned any of the re- ferences given in Dombart, except occasionally for some parti- cular purpose. As Dombart did not make any special study of the sources, there are but few cases where there is occasion to quote his references, and all such I hope have been acknowl- edged. Dombart himself took his references chiefly from Duebner as we learn from his own words: Notas lo- Comin abs A wemstino ex) aliks) (hi biris allliegatqarum prope omnes ex editione

DPwe Deny, \qwi« tah asc Ofse Tis) 1p arte TACHen tt Ssime versatus est,’)mutuatwus Sam. wd font e's wu nede Augustinus

Patathe Dat aecwratius indapgan dos, cum Mii meqie tempus neque vires stp - Dicimertsewn t= hoc nes oti ~aliis Tae Net ny Gricaad-urm putaviy (pra ef . pi: x).

For the acknowledged fragments of Varro, where nothing more could be added, reference is made the editions of

Francken, Schwarz and Agahd; but one fragment not noticed by these I have discussed and assigned to Varro.

Most of the fragments of Porphyry, to be found in the ten books of City of God which lie within the scope of this thesis, have not hitherto been collected and specifically as- signed to their respective books. Ihave collected them and attempted to assign each to its source in the light of all evi- dence I could find.

The necessity for the third part of this thesis—the part on Augustine’s Knowledge of Greek—was suggested by Au- gustine’s references to Plato, Porphyry and Plotinus in the DCD. I have not followed any authority here. Besides reading the limited literature on this subject, it was necessary to go over all the Confessions and City of God and all his exegetical and controversial works, as well as several others, with a view to collect the principal evidence bearing upon that subject.

For the convenience of readers some of the principal theses maintained are excerpted and printed together at the end. A table of such errata as have been noticed is added.

Finally great care has been taken to avoid mistakes in references, but it is to be feared some slips may still remain uncorrected.

And now may this slight though laborious contribution to the explanation of Augustine’s masterwork be commended to readers in his own closing words: Quibus parum V 6d) Qiu i'bars ond miicwm- herst) mien ie Sioengorse Gant >iquib us. aluit¢€m?.s-atisre sit, mo noah, Seid -Dire.o mrec ulm com er atelier nytee Se oieeains



We shall take up first those Sources which Augustine him- self mentions as having known, and secondly those Sources which, though not mentioned by him, we have evidence to show he used.


I. Among these we find the names of pagan poets all of whom were Latin except Homer.


In DCD V. 26 he mentions Claudian and quotes from him two verses in praise of Theodosius from the De tertio ¢onsulatu Honorii. He has either given the quo- tation from memory, as we find he has quoted elsewhere, DCD Veoseand omitted the line-fiun dit a,b an.t.ris| Aveo- lus armatas hiemes cui, or else this line was not found in his manuscript if he had one. - But it is more likely that he has erred in the quotation, as c ui occurs at the same place in both lines and passing from the first cui to the word following the second cti gives a hexameter line. He Saysnonsclaudian oa, Co hrisiti inomiime; akren us, and this testimony of his should be accepted as we cannot rea- sonably conclude from Claudian’s poems that he was a Chris- tian ; and Orosius supports the opinion of Augustine, speaking Greclaudianeas: ; po1est ay quidem, ex tmaus, sed pao Wis, perv ic a-cissimius.. Pheabove/ 1s, the only place in all the writings of Augustine where he mentions Claudian.


This poet he knew through the writings of Cicero, see DCD II. 21, where he cites Ennius from the De Republica of Cicero. But he had a larger knowledge of Ennius than this, for in De Trinitate 13. 3.6 he quotes a verse of Ennius—found again, slightly different, in Ep. 231.3—-which cannot be found


in ai! the works of Cicero. From DCD VII. 27 we gather that he knew Ennius’ translation of the i¢pa avaypady of Euhemerus: et -a:u.a ea d* “haime rem yp ritamyem ti a crome- Sequtn tur, totam det woe FE a hteam~emans pand@dit historia m <q wa mi Ba puss ines ast inum wertit efoqunium,) unde ‘quia spiu- rim a posu-er unt: Qui c omtras hut us amo da errores ante nos hve Greate cio Sreingmiomue vel Latino ise ri psen wnt; mony aijns-erom ma i placuit inmorari-—a possage which suggests that Augustine knew more about the Euhemerus of Ennius than he could have got by solely consulting the only place in Cicero where the same translation is referred to (De Natura Deorum T2142. 119.)): (Quid? quia wt 4 oF tis! amet Mawes aut potentis Winos traduant posit mom. tem ad deos peéetrvenisse; oa iq wer es ce fpesio'S Qu-0os: mios ‘colete precart vy emcee nique sol é€ amas), niornimie: i¢x.ple rt cysees meee religionum omniwm? “quae Tatitoe Gowaa- tmee tra cit-atia: va b, oa aahre mre co) “eis 1 aqpare mm mos ter <itvintie rp Tretia t use t) Sieiciu t wysme ser praetervceteros Enntrus. In spiteoithesimie- larity between this passage and that of Augustine, still Augus- tine’s own words quae ad hanc rem per t1- nen tia conmsequnn turand non an yeoman placuit inmorari lead us to infer he knew more about this subject than is found in Cicero, if he had seen fit to dwell upon it.


There are three quotations in the DCD. In DCD I. 3 Augustine quotes Horace (naming him): secundum ela nid) ME so rata

Oiu-o- s'em elves t “im b wit “rec ens Ys cave bart iord ore ms

Me Seed. oc lptl.


Evidently he knew his Horace well enough to quote some familiar commonplaces. In DCD V. 13 he mentions and quotes Horace against the Romans. Augustine there cites him Ep. 1. 1. 36 to show that Horace held the same views as he himself didon amorem laudisvitium esse, and: again, Odes 2.2.9, ad reprimendam domi- Raman ht hidime m. ita ce cinit.


There are six quotations in DCD. That Augustine used Lucan we are not at all surprised, as lLucan’s poem was in itself a rebuke to the Romans, painting in the darkest colours the decadent state of Rome, the corrup- tion of politics, private enmity, public calamity, the horrors of civil war, the dubious attitude toward religion. The pre- prevailing hopelessness of Lucan about his country would find such expression as would suit Augustine to use in his arguments against the pagans. In DCD I. 12 he quotes him (Phar. 7. 819) in connection with the argument for the comparative unimportance of burial, and in III. 13 for the civil war between Caesar and Pompey. In III. 27 he quotes Lucan in proof of the terrible vengeance taken by Sulla on his entry into Rome. In DCD X. 16 he quotes him (Phar. 6.506) for witchcraft. .


In DCD II. 6 Augustine cites Persius (Sat. 3.66) as an example of the moral lessons which the people ought to hear, but do not hear, at public spectacles, and in the next chapter (II. 7) for a description of passion.


In DCD VI. 2 (see also DCD vol. 2, p. 257.22) he quotes a hendecasyllabic verse from the poet Terentianus Maurus in praise of the great learning of Varro. Terentianus was an African, like Augustine himself, who may have used as a text-


book the poem of Terentianus, De litteris, syllabis, pedibus, metris. In De utilitate credendi 7.17 Augustinesays Nulla im buwtus poeti ca divs cacp Itimia eave entice num Mautrum sine maerstro Sattiwnme ere non auderes.


Though Augustine has elsewhere often mentioned and quoted Terence, he does so only once in DCD I-X, namely II.7, where he cites from the Eunuchus (584).


Augustine did not know Valerius Soranus directly, as he found in Varro the two verses he cites from him in support of LON 1S [omnia p lena (DED VEIee):


Of all the poets mentioned by Augustine he made the most frequent and extensive use of Virgil. He quotes him about seventy times in the DCD--more than the total of his quotations from all the other poets. The quotations are massed most heavily in the opening five books. He tells us of his boy- ish interest inthe story of Aeneas (Cont, 12 13: 27\sq)cand for Virgil he has the greatest praise. Augustine knew his Virgil intimately.. He ‘says-of him (DCD 1.3), feimeras ebibitus animis non facile. ob livaromee pos sit a boleri. (He quotes, fromthe. Acnemarne Eclogues and the Georgics, but far most frequently from the Aeneid. Augustine quotes Virgil for Roman history and mythol- ology im DCD Is2, IIt.'2, LIL. 11, dT. reel 14. Vion = for the pride and high estate of Rome in DCD praef.,1.6,V. 12; for the helplessness of the gods of Rome to protect their worshipers and their need of their worshipers’ to protect, “them: jain - DCD Sikes sae cic qualibus dics: ur beim Ro mani sie. yam diam (sex iceo.mn- m1 sus sie g-a ude bian-t, 1.4, TE 7h sr Tne EDeEie ze he quotes Virgil with sarcastic reference to the gods being of- fended at the morals of the citizens ; and for the moral deteri-


oration of Rome in DCD III. 10. For the dangers and im- morality arising from the Roman religion he cites the favorite poet of the Romans against themselves in DCD I. 19, where those who died by suicide are represented by Virgil as having an unhappy existence in the under world; in VIII. rg for the evilsof magicae artes, and in X ro about the many- shaped Proteus. In DCD IV. g, IV. 10, VII. 9 he quotes him for the all-permeating influence of Jupiter ; compare also DCD IV. 11. In DCDV. 18 he cites him to prove that Brutus who slew his own sons for the sakeof his country was in felix. In DED Vis wmthe words: so len te ni mies s e:aid risum ParcHidoesare an echo of Virgil! Eel. 3;:9 s-e. d fiacl les nymphae risere. In DCD IX. 16 Augustine probably cites Virgil’s clarissima mundi 1umin aindirectly from Apuleius De deo Socratis chap. 1. In DCD VII. 9 he cirese ties line felix: qui poeturt)\//rerum xoeostnO SEC (ef e. CaS a Ss with reference to De uses t iridium habe ns’ p.otestahem Ca usa rum Gunes, aliquwidtfi1t in “mundo; he “quotes him in DCD IX. 4 to describe perfect composure of mind. In X. 30 he shows how Prophyry has refuted one of the doctrines of Virgil in regard to purified souls being called to taste of Lethe. In X, 27 Augustine quotes from the fourth eclogue of Virgil as prophetic of the coming glory of the Kingdom of Siitst—p Oetice quidem quia in ‘alter ias Hum btalta “persona, veraciter tamen Sarat ps wim re feirias.) Lastly we notice) what) we may term an etymological use of Virgil, in DCD V. 19 from Mele 200: for the: use “of ‘the word ty ranmn17 ‘niom Mess 1 thi a.tiq we improbi Ricie Eis. Se McinG Calm oOm in ¢ tow tes. dicitis handigagain) in eeretor -co loa i. from Aen: 1212. to. HOMER.

As for Homer, Augustine had read him, though distaste- ful, in his school days (Conf. 1. 14. 23). Yet he mentions or quotes him only four (or five) times in the DCD, never in Greek, always in Latin, and does not seem to have made any


extensive use of him. In DCD III. 2 he tells us Homer makes Neptune oppose and Apollo favor the Trojans. In DCD V. 8 he quotes two verses quos Cicero in Latinum vertit. . He probably found these lines in the De Fato of Cicero ; twice more he refers to Homer on the authority of Cicero, and once on the authority of Varro. In DCD IX. 1 it is a question. whether Ico wrens a) Dae sO Mise nt flatéeantur nun cp a t am is foundin our’ Homer, except by implication in Iliad I. 222. I do not believe that this statement of Augustine has been made from direct knowl- edge of Homer, as fateantur seems to be against this. I think Augustine took it from Lactantius Div. Inst. 4. 27. 15. See note p. 368. 16.

II. Turning now from the poets used and named by Augustine in - De Civitate Dei 1-x to the prose writers named we find much greater variety. Some of them call for little or no notice. Those mentioned by name in books t-x are (in alphabetical order) Apuleius, Cicero, Aulus Gellius, Justinus, Labeo, Livy, Plato, Pliny, Plotinus, Pomponius, Porphyry, Sallust, L. Annaeus Seneca, Tertullian and Varro,


The use of Apuleiusis almost exclusively confined to the parts of the DCD which discuss Neoplatonism. ‘The first men- tion in the DCD occurs in VIII. 12: in wtraqgue autem lingua, id est et Graeca et Latina, Apuleius Afr Ti ex titi t, Pl ation ice@us aco baltic. Anonstine mentions the De deo Socratis of Apuleius in DCD VIII. 14) UU) MSC Apis tp» dha bur wena sceutl aiiSeaeensasne tat wilum) v0.1 mit yd.€ ydve.o7/Siote, aia Hinge a isis the work from which Augustine has quoted most, and the one which he has most severely criticised. In DCD VIII. 14 the earlier part of the chapter (before mention of Apuleius occurs) is evi- dently taken from that author. Augustine uses the quote- word inquiunt twice (p. 347. roand 23), andthe subject of gods, demons and men, and of their respective places and


relations, is what we find in the de deo Socratis, and in line Bomiecssayss quae Jicet ‘apud alios. quoeque ime PRchinieariaicten.. Ach We TOS. 29'S nthe oy a (dve beacerme Soba seri ps tt 11 br um.

Augustine then briefly explains the subject matter of the de deo Socratis in some general statements. The whole four- teenth chapter is taken in substance from that work. The fifteenth chapter is largely a criticism of the same. In it he still refers to the same author as we see from inquiunt (onan s)rands Arp uw eliwis. i). di Gite. 344/22): Inchap. 16he begins De moribus ergo daemonum tier dem (lactonicus leqiwe re tur and) then gives quotations mostly word for word from Apuleius and fol- lows these by a criticism.

Eaciap. 17 We treats of the: per tr b a ti om es. to which Apuleius granted the demons were subject, and shows how unworthy such beings are of worship who are moved by all the passions of humanity; iste Apuleius (p. 347.7). In chap. 18 the criticism of the same work is continued. This same work was in Augustine’s mind in chapters 20, 21, 22.

In DCD IX. 3 he again quotes from the de deo Socratis and proceeds to criticism, and chap. 4 is connected with this, because the review of opinions of philosophers on de his amet Sm ort 1b u's:, raly Lor “pve rtiu tbiatt lo nes arises out of the quotation from Apuleius in the preceding chapter, so that chapters 4 and 5 really continue the criticism. In chap. 6 he again names Apuleius.

In chap. 7 he takes up a new subject from Aptleius, namely the distinction of the functions of gods and demons. This is continued (with quotations) in chap. 8 and criticised in chap. 9. Chap. 10, where Augustine introduces the opinion of Plotinus, is a criticism on Apuleius’ work, for Augustine has kept him still in mind, as he begins chap. 11 with dicit referring to Apuleius. Chap. 12 gives large quotations from the de deo Socratis with Augustine’s criticism which is also continued in chap. 13,and after an excursus devoid of all liter- ary citation in chap. 14 and 15, he returns in chapter 16 to the same author.

In DCD X. 9 (ad fin).) he again refers to the de deo Socratis, though not mentioning that work. In X. 27 there is another reference to the same work.

We thus see that Augustine was thoroughly conversant with the de deo Socratis of Apuleius, that he has given large quotations from it and attacked it with severe criticism.

He was also acquainted with the Asclepius, or Dialogus Hermetis Trismegisti, though he does not refer to it so often or quote so much from it as from the De deo Socratis. He refers first to it in DCD VIII. 23 where he also gives large extracts ; and in chap. 24 he gives a long quotation and then a criticism, and so again in chap. 26. In DCD IV. 2 he refers to and quotes from the De Mundo. Though Augustine has not quoted from the Apologia, or De Magia, it is likely he had read it: he mentions it in connection with magic arts in DCD Wadi 19 Vex ta t OT a tao Squuba (Cia mei dae ae Mast. Cia ft UM. a S-6. a] en wim, eisyse. dvegsennuauia: Sera ee alpine non Veta dt ivi NOC lesa te in Vietldee ti nd Say e.a..0e Clanad 07 G did ee ml Om preises Mibu 20D >, 1D nN. O.Ce nite Cc Om Melt ti, 9 hese words, seemmto show that he had read it enough to know the method of Apuleius’ defense. From Apuleius Augustine no doubt got much general information on theology and philosophy which he does not specifically mention.


Cicero is one of the most important of Augustine’s sources in DCD I-X. He mentions him by name often: Compare DCD! Tso, Hl 13 s1l aa? U. ea. Bie e9 ae eemeeon PV."320, Vive, V8; Vi v3, V. 26, Vee VI ne ee He quotes him verbatim in II. 9 evidently with a copy of Cicero before him,-deinde paulo post (p. 63.15) andia.d. ov er b wm €x Clem pre ndia jsareb iit eapewas Sam” (p63. 23); hen. dil e eae A ag ol leaner ene 26, U1V ) 20, Vic.8; -Viies VA ee ee Se lint DCD see O pavie cannot be certain whether the words O miserum cui


preeccare lteebat are. verbatim from Cicero | or whether they merely give the sentiment. In DCD II. 11 and II. 12 herefers to the De Re pub. of Cicero. The above named passages need no remark.

More interesting is it to note the use which Augustine has made of Cicero as an authority zwzthout mentioning him as such

In DCD I. 3 (p. 8. 9) Augustine uses the expression Gonrdatos homin es. ihe: word, orda to's savours of Ennius, but as we find only a scanty use of Ennius made by Augustine, it is quite possible that Augustine got this word from Cicero Tusc I. 9. 18 or De Re pub. I. 18. 30 with both of which works Augustine was well acquainted. Of course he may have met the word also inthe viri cordati Gite vulvate. but, gor the ltala of Job 34. 10: but if Augustine had had this in mind he would naturally have writ- HenwGoorr Castors. vir Os, for-¢or datos hom in-és:

In DCD I. 15 (p. 26.33) Augustine writes Si autem ceieaten t; Mer Reerou bum eti-aim im il]. ba, ¢sa-p\- ftir he willis gue Cru ci ati bts: ;¢or po ris Mii Vwittute béatum jesse potuisse. Surelyshere he: had in »mind Cic.. De Finn. 2)20.65 dic et PaOwmLe 1 Sta “vit tas: nec dubitabit ts ti Wwesno DbeatouM. Ke cu-lum antepomere

Sealed Mat oven t Hus, ib ea ti om e-m* fu is s:e Wide pl O.b anne min orosa Lhoriuom.. The coincidence of the language and thought suggests that he had Cicero in mind.

In DCD I. 22 (p. 36.27) it seems to me that the story of Sleombrotus ille potius Cléeombrotus in ha-c Hii = Mac ni tu dine “reperi tur quem Pewethn tar ce.¢ tor P lat.onmd § -ili.bero,.0.ubi die Mimo r taki tate (animae disp utavit, ‘se IpmcmexGci pi tem d ¢d:ies se od *niuy oat que ita Sreeeaancy Vitis em ior ass:e- aid: ‘e.a)m* Jq-wea m ere wt ait. e's siev-m ee) 1.0.6 em: N-phvil 67.1 m Broce Dat att calamitatits;jaut)¢criminis


must have been suggested by Cicero Tusc. 1.34.84 Cal- Im ave ht “qrudt d eame"e piie t.ammpa eine Amb cla ciotam “Cle om bt ot umes tequenmea it cum ei “nahwl <a choad as srt <2 daviesmsii ae mist O 2s/e im mare aibte c1s se.) Phere is really no other source used by Augustine, which contains the story.

In DCD II. 14 we have the account of Plato’s banishing the poets from his ideal state, and his reasons for doing so: [sttie vero et deorwm- dni semrda om eC twlirt “ect f acand ciowmr ump q-u ee ieleoenine mimes animos civium noluit. Of course Augustine did not get this from Plato’s Republic in the original. He proba- bly had recourse to the fourth book of Cicero’s De Re pub., with which book we know that he was well acquainted, and in which we learn from the casual fragment of Nonius this sub- ject was treated. A somewhat similar notice is found in Tusc 2.11.27, but we rather think that the fourth book of Cicero’s De Re pub. was Augustine’s source here (see note p. 69.10).

In DCD II. 16 Cicero seems to be Augustine’s authority for, writing: “qiu-am ya's =Lvyic wae us, | ierauciendr acer monivs leces €x Apollinvs avictoni tare in stituts se cio mn fim x em & See De wDiviei4 3306 and N.D. 3.38.91; and probably Cicero De Re pub. 2.14.26 was known to Augustine in his account of the civil and relig- ious legislation of Numa Pompilius found in this same chapter, though Livy seems here to be at least a co-ordinate source. Compare Livy 1.19 sq.

Cicero is undoubtedly Augustine’s authority in DCD II. 20 (p. 79.5) in the story of Sardanapalus. Compare, with the account of Augustine, Tusc. 5.35.101 Sardanapalli

Qu Anet di Tess ito in Deus ito): saree: sha .b 0 “quale. edly Vaqrura eg. .e.. ess ract Ee tata, libad so

Hausit¢ fat. 11.lat tacemtimudta ety p rae. ela ratred 1c tia.


Cicero mentions the voluptousness of the same king in De Finn. 2.32.106, and we know from the scholiast on Juvenal 10.362 that Cicero said something of him in the the third book of the De Re pub.—probably more than the scholiast gives. We know of no other literary source than Cicero from which Augustine could have drawn this narrative so much resem- bling that of Cicero.

Perhaps also the contrast between Marius and Regulus in DCD II. 23 was suggested by Cicero Paradoxa 2.16.

In DCD III. 9 (p. 106 11) Augustine refers to Cicero in Hicewordss “viele at alii ev oOklunt, triginta novem anni, for the length of Numa’sreign .This is the number which Cicero gives (De Re pub. 2.14. 27) following the authority of Polybius.

Again Cicero is Augustine’s chief authority in the account of the death of Romulus and the action of Julius Proculus in DCD III. 15. As we know from the rest of the chapter (on which see notes p. 116.12, 117.8) Cicero was not his only au- thority, but he has followed him principally, if not altogether, in the opening part of the chapter. Cicero alone is the au- tiGttye tor S.u born a tum lu liwims Proj wlum., And Augustine shows below that he knew the account of icerien( Pe 660,30); Cre ero illam enter d eos RAO t6-C\e pit ome m: < ~“o- =, (sic mah iciat quoting from the De Re pub. andforthe solis defectio he gives a fragment on p. 117.21 from the Hortensius of Sicerommiet ea.s dem, ten eras @f fica t. qaucas Ctgmecr ain, in teri tu R/owm~ i) 14.q ut obs cuir = Ppoihes Sor lis Yes t,. fa-c\t usc )) | Lhe, ppt op ter PMemOrceted Len <a Sen aktu Giscerptwim €.S,S ¢, it is true, does not occur in any of the extant works of Cicero. Livy gives this (1.16.4) as a report which he did not credit : MURESESe we es oy. abi uroO.s) Guid. d is.e.er pita m Bec pPatium Maniibus tacrt4 arg uer - ent. It is possible that Augustine while following Cicero’s narrative may have had in his mind this detail from his knowl-


edge of Livy, but there is no reason why we should suppose that this dismemberment of Romulus by the Senate was not recorded either in one of the lost parts of Cicero’s De Re pub- lica or in the iost Hortensius.

In DCD IV. 4 (p. 150.27) we have another clear case where Cicero: has been used | Arex ard: £10 al 1.) Mia eno qCuidam (C:04m-pre hie ns use pa reat peter spon dit. .Nabmy scrim a dyer) dire oho mnivneesm im ter £019. a.S Siete Gasind=, Ge 1 meeey ace pe seatien tlt mare. um fies ta re ty, alle) li-b- ei a evo et ipmeas— Cia: Omod tb i. ctmequnist), = tee Sobre ulate. tarum > sed qu i-a,i-de-¢ 0 (em Omommed vale oO fac1o,. dartsr:0- (WO"CiO ney sql ae eine teat: a classe,imperator. Compare with these words those of Cicero preserved by Nonius (pages 125, 318, 534) M. Tul- lives dse rie: peu ib! Slt by? 3 tea mc it sepia rie eretur® x’. e/o: iqiuro “sice lie 1c chomp sumecaites Maire haberet tn fest Wm sun OFmyy oiprasmom ie. Seo diem ange tty ‘quo: buon pre nr teria geass There is no doubt but that the passage from which this extract of Nonius is taken would have told the whole story given above by Augustine. Nonius’ extract is very incomplete, as he wished to quote only so much from Cicero as would serve his purpose, namely to prove that infestum mare haberet, pro mare-'lTatrocinmanmdesim tes taret. Wesee this also from the way the extract begins cum quareretur ex eo,—Nonius not being con- cerned to state or identify the noun (pirata) in Cicero to which the eo refers, Pirata in Cicero is all important to the story, but of no importance to Nonius for purely lexical purposes,

In DCD IV. 20 (p. 169 15) we must conclude that Cicero is the Source :\v-ir't £ em” in qiaarte AOlr Ss pre Cities distri buend am e's)s.6 waidiemin ty pr a dre me tiam, ‘iustitiams> fortitndimem, vem perantiam. This four-fold division of Plato (De Legg. 1.631 C), is repeated in Apuleius (De dog. Platonis 2.1) in


whoseaccount pudicitiam isthesame astemperan- tiam of Augustine. See note p. 169.14 where it is shown Jerome knew that this four-fold division was found in the works of Cicero, and from Augustine’s own testimony (De Trin. 14.- ome) that hei found it in the lest Hortensius of ;Cicero,, It may be noticed that it was found more than once in Cicero, as Jerome speaks of Cicero treating these four virtues in of - ficiorum libris, while Augustine says De omni- DisSstamen quattuar (virtuti bas ) imvkieus sin Hortensio daalo sc o.-.dis pu, tans. There is therefore no doubt that in the DCD IV. 20 Cicero, though not there mentioned, is Augustine’s source.

Bom uthie en ob tl) er) til ud jc o mym-en tia mt ide Mews ro ta Tin DCD) V. 3 (ps 193: 32) there'is, so°far as I know, no literary authority except this passage of Augustine, and it is impossible to say with certainty whom Augustine has followed in this story. But the probabilities are greatly in favor of Ciceronian authority. See the note on this passage (p. 193-32) in which it is pointed out that the Nigidius Figulus, about whom the story is related, was on very friendly terms with Cicero, had some correspondence with him and is chiefly mentioned in his works. A second argument which I think points in the same direction is derived from the words in - quit, inquit (p. 194.6 and g) used parenthetically in relating the story. These words I take as referring still to the same author, namely Cicero, who has been his authority in chap. 2. A third and still stronger argument in support of Ciceronian authority, may be advanced from a close examina- tion of the context. Chap. 3 is closely connected with chap, 2, note itaque, and itis stillonthe same subject. Ltebeoins iF mustira itaque adfertur no bile fo Liaid commen tum ide figuli rota). Towhat does adfertur refer? Insupport of what is nobile illud commmentum brought forward? Only one answer is possible : it refers back to the astrologia treated of in the preceding chapter, in which chapter Cicero was the authority. From all this we conclude that he tao is the


authority for this story in the beginning of chap. 3, which is all the more likely because followed by the words inquit, inquit mentioned already. These three arguments seem to point beyond doubt to Cicero as Augustine’s authority here. Moreover if the narrative about Hippocrates and Posidonius Stoicus in DCD V. 2 is referred to the treatise De Fato, to which it seems most natural to assign it, as Dambart and the editors of Cicero do, then I havenodoubt nobile illud commentum de figuli rota is also a fragment of the same.

in DCD V.85 (p.-197.03) could? a) fa dataeen-e m nut lis op teatend acca) Cir aq-ucond =) quunt<doaam\aus arp 1(esn's horam).le¢ it (quad cum, wx.0 re mco nem mi - beret, unde £iliwm- migiachwlems) gienie ret be a fragment of Cicero’s De Fato? It isasubject kindred to what we find Augustine has taken from Cicero in chap. 2, and we find inthe case of thei\q wos djaym* “frat tes, ((p: 192.12) that Posidonius Stoicus said the position of the stars at the hour of conception had something to do with the subse- quent simultaneous suffering of twins. These considerations render it highly probable Cicero was the source, and that the statement was found by Augustine in the De Fato.

In DCD V. 20 (p. 231.6) Cicero was evidently Augustine’s mind whenhe wrote Solent philosophi-qui finem bonthumaniinapsa vir tute comstitu unt SAME ee 2) (ta bail. avm! qu 4 midsarmevde@ bi sepin- eerie wbA! ovo mop tiacs) ised iea reap a la quastdelicata quaedam me aimaconsidae, elq Wwe < vir tutes.» fauneullasves ssw bt) calaynetuer:: From Cic. De Finn 2.21.69 sq. (as Dombart indicates)

pucde bit tie, (an gi alms tis et arbyuMlsare quaym Clean thies, Sane scro-m mio, die, Wy enb is dieip inig'e Fé.) sco Debate) Slanibsetbat fo cions a anu

audivebant secum ip sos coed bar éxpuret am in tabula v.olup tia tem pic feel ram Owe st titu et) orn.atul re@adipains 0. lave) Ssved em tem, praesto esse yigtutes ut ancillulas


quacwnthtboaliud agereéent, nuallum suum Thi etaim duce rent (nish wt. voluptati Mans t are n't .

For the subject-matter in general of DCD VIII. 2 and 3 it is likely that Augustine had a fair general knowledge of philosophy from what he learned of it in the schools of his day. But one of the literary sources of his knowledge of philosophy in general (excluding Neo-platonism, of course) was no doubt Cicero, not only in his works which are extant but in those no longer extant, particularly the MHortensius. To this last named work we may attribute a large amount of his knowledge of philosophy, both because of the high appreciation he had of this work and because of what we know of its comprehen- sive scope. In Conf. 3. 4. 7 Augustine writes usitato Pit disc 6nd i omdiné -p-erveneram- ~in

la-ber a im quemdam Give Fen ise cuius Paemeia my tere OMNES: mWirant er, “p.e et us Mmomeaitd. 5 e.d° liber ille tpsias exhor- BatLomem continet ad philosophiam et WMErctrihn Hiereensias. Elke. vero li. ber

Mec i taf fe ct im. meu met. ad-tei psimm; DomLie-smwtiavit preces meas et vota SenGespaeria mea, fecit alia; and again in De beatavitat.4 postquam in schola rhetoris Pprumoati um Ciceronis qui Hiorténsi us MOuciiatihis dsG CiGrpits 4 (tdi to Gasmo-t.e> philoso - Putae Swecens ws Sum