Skip to main content

Full text of "The sources of the first ten books of Augustine's De civitate dei"

See other formats

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 



tt a 

& a 
4 Bash 138 




r the 
tr t f bits 

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 

Wg 0e ae seld 
bokeh fate 

4 Uinaihes : i 

ra We 

afi Soft 

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

is Hey 

HEV teeosed 
4 ear eae 

£405 9 Sale 
Pied scent 

shal se ioe + 



had Pa “ 


vate y 

had od A ot 
pees be ee 14) 
Tos pet itare 
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. 




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. 

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, 

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- 

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 

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 

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 


Dre Ciywd tar tie Det IX: 

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 


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): 

9 WIR GI: 

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 
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 
sé 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. 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 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 

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 wt sita tim ad eam 

Meant hansterre meéeditarer. Cicero himself 
tells us of the scope of the Hortensius : compare Tusc. 2.2.4 
INGO:S* aust €)m ani vy en's ae. phitkos op hia e 

Mikwperagoribus respondimus: in H-or- 
hemsio and ibid: 3.3.6 de univers a philoso- 
Pata. dg ian to-opeéere et ex pietienda esset 
Ese GOvvem Gar aS a bison ty ar bit ror, dictum 
Sabai dH Ott 6 iS. 1.0., salso.De Finn: 11,2. . In, sucha 
book there must have been a great amount of information on 
philosophy in general which Augustine made his own; and 


that it contained more than philosophy we learn from 
DCD III. 15 where Augustine says he found in this dia- 
logue an account of the death of Romulus and _ the 
obscuratione ssolis.. We point out these facts to 
show that this book ought to be given a very high place among 
the sources of Augustine. 

In DCD VIII. 4xeither Cicero. or Apuleius may have 
been Augustine’s source for the narrative of the travels of 
Plato: 4 ihe-division of ssajpive nta intOreact lv ae and 
contemplativa was probably taught in the schools, 
but for a literary source Augustine had Cicero, as we learn 
from the De Trin. 14.19.26 that he found the contem - 
plativa inthe end of the dialogue Hortensius ; and no 
doubt Cicero treated bothof the activa and contem- 
plativa. Augustine’s literary source for the three-fold 
division of the Platonic philosophia into moralis 
maturalis and rationmalis was, probably  Cic. 
Acad. 1.5.19, though no doubt this was taught in the schools 
in the discussions on Platonism. 

In DCD VIII. 7 Augustine probably had Cicero in mind 
while writing notiones quas appellant évotas 
Compare Tusc:-1. 24.57, De Finns36.00, Acad.225 7520.72, 110..20- 

In DCD VIII. 13 Cicero is again the authority in regard 
to Plato banishing the poets out of his state. 

No doubt too Augustine must have remembered Cicero in 
pertut batio (es it ena sqaure. MGarareic ce secevos 
ahiecailtem n sine OCI) Vie 17. 

Perhaps he had also Cicero in mind along with Apuleius 
in? DCD TX. 16; Dieum qui d em, Vs umim wim fom = 
aa Sen Oa tio Tem?) J 4. 2A eo Seiie sa Ela ose 
piriaedicairi las Sev erat, Vequitods Milp sees = sant 
So lias! gq ul:in of) pio sisult ‘sieasmio mics! )hjuimaae 
@ilia-viss) owia t Lone “viel Umrodaiciey i cyom prio 
hen di? “Compare CicgN.D: ain2320, 


In one place Augustine has followed Cicero as against 
Eactantius, namely, in DCD X 3 (p 406.16) religentes, 
Mmundie se je renbiem 10nd) IC ta pie Thi be tur: compare 
Neen on sur tmGkite tigre lio lost ex religen dio, 
which Lactantius denies: Div. Inst. 4.28.3. 

RemapsdlsomeUC) xX, 6. Sacrificium, res di - 
Win AeSt ita tot sho. Gno gue vocab u lo 
Monto Vetenes oappellaverint Cicero 
was in Augustine’s thoughts: compare De Div. 2.10.25 and 
INE DD. 3.18.47. 


This author is mentioned only in one chapter in the DCD, 
RamelyxA (Ps 372-0): 1 n kibris qurbws titulus 
SwimeNsOcut him Act t ica trim Soritbit*A. Gel - 
Rutesrevader he cantissimi eloguiit et mu l- 
Muce wce facumdae scitentiae,. In addition to 
this place I have been unable to find evidence in the first ten 
books of the City of God which would prove that Augustine 
in these books had specifically followed Gellius, except in one 
Mace OCD ls ta. Gui tam én in Ss wis. Litters 
credunt Arionem Methymnaeum, no bil- 
Pisin Citharistam, cum @€sset deiec- 
Momecu elie Val xcept im del phint = dio rs © 
Sree iec Gt as es Se. perv CCtum. ites not to 
be supposed for an instant that Augustine took this story from 
Herodotus, nor could he have got the given details from 
Cicero’s extant works, and we know of no lost work of Cicero 
in which the incident was given. Itseemsthen that Augustine 
took it from Gellius. 


Justinus is named only once in the DCD (IV. 6), and 
in this place extracts are made from the first book of his 
epitome of the Historiae Philippicae of Trogus Pompeius. 
There is no other place, I can find, in the first ten books of 
the City of God which need be assigned to Justinus. 


5. LABEO. 

The Labeo to whom Augustine refers is M. Antistius 
Labeo the younger, the son of M. Antistius Labeo. The 
elder Labeo was a jurist and pupil of C. Trebatius Testa, 
Cicero’s young friend. The younger Labeo flourished in the 
time of Augustine and was one of the two great jurists of 
that age—the other being C. Ateius Capito. ‘This Labeo was 
a very voluminous writer, and among other things wrote 
on Roman religion. No work of his is specified by Augustine 
and no direct citations given. He evidently wrote on theology 
and in this department was one of Augustine’s sources. 
Augustine refers to him for a distinction between deities: c um 
praesertim, La bie o, = quiem cmudars cre- moda 
herwm pe ritis S4mum spcaedy cant. num ina 
bona. a no mia bas, smyadiins” aisttay set ia am 
Cultus idavy 61 Sitvante rid Nisin aut we uate ail os 
d/6.os pro pil tiarci cared bus tetas eas 2-p 0s 
Sl pip i.c.a t1. On a Duss) 2 S.Sie Giarts sab OynsONsea ut eC il 
Ob sye'qyust ws) lea 6 fis art qi ite iu @ mliadais.-s ama lita 
Sw nt,, sit i pis ie “aii. imide co may a-vitia~eieatai= 
sternia(p.66.1). Thisis referred to againin DCD Il) 25 
Secun' dam Lab €om is. dist nc to mre ml scom- 
pare also VIII. 13 (p. 340.34). In DCD II. 14 he tells us Labeo 
placed Plato among the semideos and semideos 
ax t-€:m heir -o-1- bows, jan tre porn it sees lar osiqhiie 
inter NnUumina con loc¢at. Perhaps: through” Labeo 
Augustine gained some knowledge of Plato. In DCD IX.19 we 
are told that Labeo isone of those who eosdem per hi b- 
ent. 1a Dada dis an ere lors) agin ei OS ae tpyised 
daemones nuncupant. Doubtless if we had the 
works of Labeo extant we should be able to find other traces 
of him used as a source by Augustine. See note p. 66.1. 

6. E1IVY. 

Augustine mentions or identifies Livy only twice in the 
entire DCD,—II. 24 scribit Livius in connection 
with the civil wars of Sulla and Marius, and again inIII. 7 ut 


scribit Livius as authority for the survival of the 
shrine of Minerva amid the burning of Ilium by Fimbria; other- 
wise he never comes nearer to indicating him than by such a 
phrase as alit.seriptores, Yet Livy is one of his 
primary sources. 

But though Augustine only in the two places given 
above refers to Livy by name, we can prove that he was 
familiar with the narrative of Livy, and had him often in mind 
in his historical references, and sometimes very closely follows 
the words of Livy and twice at least gives a verbatim quotation. 

In DCD I. 6 Augustine narrates the capture of 
Syracuse by M. Marcellus, and adds refertur eam 
Pec eke vai sis e-  MUTtWrdm et “ante ™-.e ins 
TaMemime gm Suas tllr kacrimas e€ffudisse. 
Of Augustine’s authorities Livy alone records this, (25.24. 11.) 
That Livy was Augustine’s authority here we have still stronger 
Proof wins the words (ps 11.5) 2m e. quis. c¢ or pus 
liberum violaret, which are taken verbatim from 
Livy 25.25.7; and Livy is the only historian who mentions this 
edict of Marcellus. 

In the account of the taking of Tarentum by Fabius 
Maximus Cunctator Augustine has closely followed the narra- 
tive of Livy. This will be clearly seen by a comparison of 
the words of Augustine with those of Livy. The former 

MCS (PL) Fabius, Tarentinae urbis 
EwWeems Or. 4 Simulacrorum depraedatione 
So eto Stan wis Se, bau da t wr, Nam) e@ 1 My es 

See ya: Stee eSSiSS et “quid “de  si-enis 
feoonum quae multia capta fujerant fieri 
Meet. CONT Me nl Clam sam “€ tia m i Orc- 
Pinus Om Gulvait, Ouaesivit “enim ¢ uiw’s 
Megane ac sis. eitiet/) “et. cwim ie in? nom). solu m 
He@itan eran dia verum: €tiaim )) ren uantia - 
iomoin aarmata: “Reelin guamus, inquit, 
Mawremirinis de O.5 “ira t-o ss ’ Livy tells the 
same in the words: Sed maiore ahimo generis 
Sms piae dat abstinwit.) Fabiws: quam 


Marcie Dl as = g Wa) SSiinte moron nab d BeeSscet dabrase 
quwind ?f ivevr 1” “sti/o nar spy ionelse tastenecaestatatas: ean oe 
atete Meh, test Ae ee die"os ) iimartiors ta Te nit tinmins 

relinqui iussit (27.16.8). Here Livy speaks of Fabius’ 
view of the booty, and Livy alone is the authority for the reply 
of Fabius to the scriba, and in his work alone Augustine 
could find the comparison of Marcellus and Fabius. 

In DCD I. 15 for the details of Regulus’ death Augustine 
probably knew Cicero, as shown in the note on this passage, 
but in addition to Cicero he had the narrative of Livy in the 
eighteenth book now lost. Probably if this book were extant 
we should find that he has followed closely the account of Livy, 
although he also knew Cicero’s remark concerning the happi- 
ness of Regulus on account of his virtues. 

For the narrative of Lucretia (DCD I. 19) Augustine had 
at least two sources. He had heard the story treated as a 
theme for a rhetorical exercise (quidam declamans 
ait, DCD I. 19), from’ which, he got the words =mirra bilie 
dice tus. duo: fue 1 uenst. ‘ext ard ull eteiaum, sues 
admisit. Also he knew the account of Livy, as he seems 
to agree with Livy in mentioning only Collatinus and Brutus as 
present at the suicide of Lucretia. (Livy 1.58.) 

In DCD I. 23 Livy’s lost one hundred and fourteenth book 
was no doubt the authority for the opinion of Cato’s friends in 
regard to his suicide and for his advice to his son 

In DCD I. 30 and I. 31 Augustine’s knowledge of Scipio 
Nasica pontifex maximus was derived from Livy who gives the 
details recorded in Augustine. ‘The same Scipio is mentioned 
in DOD» IL j 

Also in the account of the institution of the ludi 
scaenici (DCD I. 32) the words of Augustine, populo 
bites) liive.0-s’o> (et isjoal 1's anne rear aileugd Gs), ie ericae en 
sSibus-adsuéto, seem ito be an echovofithose of mivy 
novia tes bedi c¢ oso. poe puke inv my icinics 
mordsorns ipye.cit-a © ul uj mm! ei aes arts a(zse.3:)- 


livsuch “a general) statement (as non aliquot 
An Sea. sre Rk OLImia Mm. cio nvd.i tam jab A t h-e- 
MipesnsH Dales) a My iitotsa re mst.ur, \leéi/e,e's’ Siolo.mi-s 
(DCD II. 16) is to be referred to a specific literary source we 
May ined such aysource-in Livy 3.31.8: mis si slegatti 
Peat Aer Ih ay Sts =), % Sx: Mis Se Wen sme bat acs |. lee e's 
Sebo nis dyesie ti bee ne 

Livy is probably the primary source used in the reference 
to the activity of Numa Pompilius in establishing laws and 
ceremonial rites; though Augustine does not speak enough in 
detail to enable us to decide between Cicero and Livy here. 

Augustine begins DCD II. 17 with a remark taken from 
Sallust (whom he mentions) and then leaves Sallust and passes 
on to illustrate Sallust’s words by examples taken from Livy. 
He first mentions the ,raptas Sabinas, the source of 
which is found in Livy 1. 9. ‘This might have been taken also 
from Cic. De Re pub. 2.7.12, and Augustine’s language is too 
vague to resemble either; but it seems more likely that Livy 
is his source, as he is in the remainder of the chapter; though 
we shall find instances in which Augustine has made use of 
more than one authority in the same chapter. See DCDIII. 9, 
Miles etl. 16, Li ug: with the notes. 

Livy 2.2 is the source for the expulsion of Lucius Tarqui- 
nius Collatinus by Brutus, as also for the narrative of Camillus 
as given in the same chapter. 

Livy is the only authority, as Kuhlman points out (De 
veterum historicorum in Augustini de civitate Dei libro primo 
alterup tertio ivestigiis.. —p, (11); /for) albsems etiam 
damon are tur, 

It has been proved in the note on p. 86.23 that Livy was 
the source for the account of Marius in DCD II. 23. Livy is 
mentioned by Augustine in the beginning of DCD II. 24, and 
we cannot doubt that the source of the other incidents in 
PCH Miz4-and Il. 25 is Livy. 

Inthe words’ quod ili quadraginta. tres 
Mvitabie nvtam longa pace transac ti 
SCitere pnanté Numa (DCD 1119) it is difficult 


to say whether Augustine is following Livy or Eutropius, or 
both, as both give the same number of years. Augustine has 
not confined himself to only one authority in this chapter, as 
we know from the words triginta novem, which he 
found in Cicero. 

The lost fifty-ninth book of Livy was the source for the 
incident related in the opening lines of DCD III. 11. It is true 
that the same incident is referred to in Julius Obsequens 28, 
but Augustine has given details not found there, and whichwe 
may reasonably assign to the lost narrative of Livy. Livy may 
have been included by Augustine inthe alii scriptores 
DCD III. 15 (p. 117.8) as Livy Florus and Eutropius speak of 
the tempest at the death of Romulus. 

In DCD III. 16 Livy seems to have been the source for 
Brutus¢onsan eg wime us Carig windiot masse 
perhi be tury: compare: Ls Wao su seBiestaas 
Mf Arig m tal 4. “SiO TiO e. Mr eg irs, Milka wasa ns Osten). 

It is worth noting that in DCD., III. 16 (p. 121.7) while 
Augustine has Eutropius before him, he corrects the error of 
that author in regard to the praenomen of Valerius 
from Livy 2.8.9. 

In DCD III. 17 and III. 18 Augustine has followed the 
narrative and order of Livy for a conspectus of the disasters 
of Rome from the death of the consul Valerius to the end of 
the first Punic war. For the details see the notes on this part. 
For some of the events referred to there is no extant authority, 
but it is shown in the notes that these may all be placed with 
good reason in the lost parts of Livy’s work which covered this 
period. In these two chapters (17 and 18) I have not been 
been able to find any trace of the use of any other historian 
but Livy. Healone was Augustine’s authority, and we con- 
clude from the manner in which he has followed the order of 
Livy’s narrative that he hada copy of Livy before him for 
reference. This is not generally soin Augustine’s use of Livy, 
as he seems to have found him too long and full to consult 
continuously—often only having him in memory for his general 
narrative. : 


Kuhlmann admits only Livy and Florus as sources used 
by Augustine in DCD III. 19 and does not think Augustine 
used Eutropius here. With this I cannot agree. Kuhlmann 
Says work citedrabove p.2)  Ltaque 1. 

Pik) Wea pit 1b us jeKC) 2.0 CO mip eo nen: dls 
Miviws Ane UStimo.praccipuus fult auctor, 
pane hen sewmete torus vadhitbrtus.,) This:is 

true as far as it goes. But I have shown in the note p. 129. 1 
thatthe words tres modpos anulortum aure- 
rum "“Cathaci nem ‘mist. occur verbatim and 
in the same order in Eutropius (Brev. 3.11). One might say, 
however, that this is the only way of expressing in Latin ‘‘ he 
sent three modi of gold rings to Carthage.” Even supposing 
two different authors independently of each other, expressed 
the same thing by the same words in the same order, yet for 
the amount of rings sent Eutropius seems to be the sole 
authority. Kuhlmann \isays°(p: 97) At que quod 
PeUsertnSitd Mus) “Str e's” mod 4-0 Ss) -anmulorwm 
Piven sedate: Os ap tia) tirvé s- imo dois? ( 
iid ol Mem esse Miss os t-ra-did pty imi mot 
pie idle url diisere pa mtia es se) Guam 
hte AG US:t1 n wm ex Eine ip emrdrewt ey Nea 
de cawsa negetur. This might be so, if Livy had 
written as Kuhlmann has cited him; though even thus it seems 
to be more natural to suppose he is using Eutropius as his 
authority. But Kuhlmann has omitted dimidium before 
supra tres modios in Livy 23.12.1, which renders 
it the more improbable that Livy was Augustine’s authority. 
Again, if Augustine were following Livy here, it is likely he 
would have taken notice of the dimidium supra 
tanceus= Mm) Ord i O-S:* Or! even )Sulp fa tires mio diitois: 
as it is evidently by no means Augustine’s purpose to minimise 
the disasters of Rome. On the contrary he gives details to 
show the greatness of the disasters and thus heighten the effect 
of his own argument. For example in this chapter he uses 
ire words or Blorus simailivor wieoto fwerit ilte 
qui vicit (p. 128.19); and in the battle of Cannae he 


says the slaughter was so great that Hannibal caede 
Saitiatus par i isis disispeprereain in be. f) 0.0 1(p.a 25: 
29, not found in Livy); and so great was the want of soldiers 
after this defeat that to the’ servillttas (p. 129.9) he adds 
the reos facinorum (p. 129.8—not found in Florus 
or Eutropius). A similar tendency may be noticed in the vel 
nono (p. 130.10) and in the dubious addition of nam 
Etiam swoTrTwmi-Ca diay erwbas yas n on nad Paps 
pasta pet hibre tim Wp. 130.13)-— Another objection 
to Livian authority here seems to me to be found in the state- 
ment of Livy immediately following the dimidium 
Supra tres mo dios; tothe effect thatcone, mod imjs 
was nearer the truth. Haima (tenuate qiawaces ap Ti0- 
Pi Or wie Tro, 6 St, halt p lal siteusioasue: amo, d, 110, 
Eyen if Augustine wished to give the higher number, he could 
hardly in justice have passed over this express declaration 
that the smaller number was nearer the truth. 

Thus in DCD III. 19 Augustine no longer adheres to the 
work of Livy alone, but passes over to Florus whom he in some 
respects closely follows for the second Punic war. His use of 
Florus here will be noticed in its place. Once also he has 
adopted the account and followed the words of Eutropius. 
Yet Augustine proves from his own account that, though he 
has called to his service Florus and Eutropius in chapter 19, 
he was acquainted with Livy’s history of the second Punic war. 
He supplemented or corrected Florus whom he had before him 
from his recollection of the account of Livy. ‘The following 
words deserve note:—Denique tanta militum 
iO; pied (Se Ctra | eS. ust Ree um aungie rie ois aia 
CAAMOr UM: ~ pre p OS ita» Aum pa ny ied tec eco apo 
Esrsecnity Sie itey dsttl,ast ol tbe ment saat sOr Orica, are ant yar 
Serves ¢ 05 aut ina dies ue my usa t as Dieter esta. sine 
templis. Here Augustine follows Florus (Epit. 1.22.23) 
as far as the words are concerned, but Livy for the matter. He 
had the narrative of Livy in his mind and that of Florus before 
his eyes. He unites both, giving the preference to Livy. 


In the next chapter (III. 20) Augustine has departed more 
from Florus and returned to Livy. In the words missi 
Merasan tiga. Gr elias mt Dearly e) meg 31274 6 Con:tiem pti 
Carthaginem pergunt he has followed Livy who 
gives the double embassy (21.9.3). Florus gives only a single 
mission (Epit. 1.22.7). Livy again was his only authority for 
trey Or (1530.10)... ee. Livy 20.15.31 0.6 tav) 0 
Miemsc Guam Coe ptiim op pugnari captum 
Sonn tam gqiidam scrip s.éreé. “Another point 
of contact between Augustine’s narrative and that of Livy has 
been pointed out by Kuhlmann (De veterum historicorum in 
Augustini de civitate Dei libro primo altero tertio vestigiis p. 
12) namely, that both Augustine and Livy call Saguntum 
Givetas oO pwlentis Sima’. (Augustine p, 130.8, 
Livy 21.7.2). 

In DCD III. 21 Augustine returns to Livy as his sole 
authority. He opens the chapter with a notice of Sallust’s 
statement about the morality and peace of Rome between the 
second and third Punic wars. But for the historical facts 
there is no trace of any other historian except Livy, to whom he 
has adhered closely, even quoting his words. Compare nullo 
Pies hb Ss \.cap tus’ des iderio ’ ‘and: ne 
Waehiem: met io Pn Sine rata patria ‘fun ws 
Sicowet with Livy 38.53.56: Sime desi deri o Var Dis 
UeGhaenery itt ks <Siivbar am iniera't.a) “patria 
fieret. There is also a striking resemblance between the 
words of Augustine in thischapter: Asiatica luxuria 
Romam omni heGss: rE Pe Apres ORs Te prsrt t); 
ieunice ena Mic peri mum d ec titae rata et p re- 
PEOcie sth ae wlacv isasperhibien twrs twntc 
tude Gt acelin. GoOnvivra psaltriae tet alia 
licentiosa nequitia, andthose of Livy: Lu x- 
Weaaee hein gin per es fin ae lorieio varb.i/éx € Tr 
Semmes fat CO imvielGta, in larrbieim “els th. 
bier pir dona, Pole exti os Bel sial tO isis |i pawmeers t Cim 

Saraiva.) pietiose@m,.: plagulas ‘et 
eA ere Xt i bicd et, Qika e€. tum magni fic ave 


suppellectilis habe bant wes *mon op odia 
et ja baco's “Rom iaim)-adivwie xterm; Maenve 
pis alter Aace |. 'Sia-m bouvea Site ia jem tiers eb) (Cosa 
valia alia ludorum! oblectamenta “aldidita 
€pudis / (livy3050-7.): 

The reference to the massacre of Romans by the order of 
Mithridates DCD III. 22 is too vague to assign with certainty 
to Livy. 

DCD III. 24 is to be referred to the lost sixty-first book 
of Livy. -Florus cannot be the authority, as there are details 
given which are wanting in that author, namely L. Opimius 
oe bint tot lita hy Ooms nua nO) Cacundaisusie prea 
hi bret uc. and) bare ce {e nei, pa cata Om eravescse um 
Praecesserat, aud .oC¢cisms- est..cum, (ibis 
NMiastecuis- heaity 1 aes! ee nomiyS.dl ape aS), 

To the same lost book of Livy we must referthe aedes 
Cso.1.C/0 rid iae, facta, est. of UCD ii ions sce 
mote py 136. 25. 

Perhaps, as pointed out in the note on p. 138.9, the ex 
DP avL.G.11S/S.1)m0 0-5 ,5) bh O.Cy Cisutor an till Se ell eaede Sn 
tha Cinta. .¢ lia diatoms, .ot, DED Ti 2615 to 
be referred to the lost ninety-fifth book of Livy. It is not a 
fatal objection to this that Epit. 95 gives quattuor et 
Sie lp titisa Odemataale 

Kuhlmann (De veterum historicorum in Augustini de 
civitate Dei libro primo altero tertio vestigiis, p. 19) would also 
refer to Livy the differences between Augustine’s narrative in 
DCD lil. 27 and that of Flotus; viz. Barve ba use t (Ni ae 
Mi £ OG US. MCpO) yiawa Giale esapra ms Sriesy) pvelySIC-eupi- 
bitsy ginstewnidwien t rand Lay spirits | fapurtjerm 
Maina iorG a) sey terol tho. hie) tiney bia) me te 
quirbus salu tan tajbiajs; diese Bam pron ra 
gerée noluiss €t. (Perhaps thesedifierences do neces- 
sitate the introduction of another authority, which, of course, 
would be Livy. This passage is more fully treated under 


Livy is also the authority for the prodigies of DCD III. 31 
as shown in the notes. 

In DCD IV. 20, for Mucius, Curtius and the Decii, Livy 
must be posited as the source, as Eutropius does not give these 
details, and Florus does not mention Curtius, while Livy gives 
them all. 

It is impossible in DCD IV. 23 to say whether Augustine 
Pane de ae. (ie ii cx tatt)) post tot Roe main os 
paumtripre Sia cadlias <aljed em Voom 's tit urt 
in Varro, or in the lost forty-eighth book of Livy, the epitome 
of which tells of Lucullus’ imprisonment by the tribunes and 
his subsequent campaigns in Spain. 

In DCD V. 18 Augustine has followed three different 
authorities Livy, Florus and Eutropius, though Kuhlmann 
(work cited above p. 6) admits only Livy, and Eutropius: for 
the use of Florus here see note p. 227. 5. In the first part of 
the chapter Livy is the authority for the death of the sons of 
Brutus by their father’s order, also that of Torquatus’ son, 
for Furius Camillus, Mucius, Curtius and Marcus Pulvillus. In 
connection with the last Augustine writes dedicans 
fwockema Lovaas plunaomis ~_Minery ac \(p..) 226. 
ro) and Livy Iovis aedes (2.8.6), and Kuhlmann 
remarks (work cited above p. 6) that Augustine ex sua 
Bem. cognitiene Livir verbis: “lo wvyi's 
aporvers!. iad Git tarnyomis Minter viae, mam 
itonmmeas tee mp lt im; im dé xii nia, et simistra 
Pewigiece iO mis 6 t. Mime rya.e ‘cre isaa- ha- 
posses mulkli Tllorum. tem p.of um VvinEo 
Torahonn Om “not tie eifat .) Dis. scemsto; be the 
last use of Livy as an authority by Augustine in the first ten 
books of the City of God. There is, so far as I know, no pas- 
sage in books VI, VII, VIII, IX or X in which there is any 
trace of Livy. Thus the employment of this author as a 
source is limited to the first of the two sections (I-V and VI- 
X), of the first part of the DCD (I-X). 


7. PLATO. 

This author is mentioned often by Augustine, for which 
see Dombart’s index. Little need be said about Plato as a 
source, for it will be shown in the thesis on Augustine’s knowl- 
edge of Greek that he did not know Plato in the original. 
His knowledge of Plato was gained from the philosophic dis- 
cussions in the schools of his day and especially from Neo- 
platonism. He had some Latin versions of parts of Plato’s 
writings, such as those made by Cicero. 

Cicero’s works in general and those of Apuleius added to 
his store of knowledge of Plato. In reading the City of God 
we find after all a very limited use of Plato, though Augustine 
speaks highly of him. The references (always in Latin 
versions) are not frequent nor specially significant, as 
they usually are either commonplaces or mere inferences, or 
if specific, come entirely through Cicero or Apuleius. Possibly 
he got some knowledge of Plato from the De Philo- 
sophia of Varro which he knew (DCD XIX 1-3). 


Pliny the elder is mentioned by name in the DCD XV. 9, 
XV. 12; but in the first ten books the only use of Pliny seems 
to. be “WILL ag (ph 3435-28) Siestep e met buss, -qaugl 
etiam, dep 0 s.1 ta. Wm lear siemine cottt el (due- 
pion ere Jat ue. in) My emreta mere dune Sper 
hibentur, if indeed it is necessary to find a literary 
source for so common a phenomenon which Augustine must 
have observed for himself. See note on p. 343. 18. 


Augustine’s relation to Plotinus, which is not so marked in 
the DCD as in some other works, has been sufficiently worked 
out by others, especially by Grandgeorge and Loesche. All the 
references to Plotinus occurring in the DCD are given by 
Dombart, except in X. 2 which I have supplied. See note to 
p. 404. 18. Perhaps Augustine had Plotinus in mind also in 
DCD V.11. See note p.. 20:45. 



A certain Pomponius is mentioned in DCD IV. 16: ut 
ait Pomponius, in connection with the explanation 
of the deity Murcia, It is impossible to say which Pomponius 
this was, and probably Augustine did not know him at first hand, 
but found him mentioned in the work of Varro treating 
of Murcia. 

ie OP ELY RY: 

There is no doubt that Porphyry is one of the Neo- 
platonists whom Augustine informs us in his Confessions he 
read through the Latin version of Victorinus. Porphyry is the 
chief literary source for the roth book of the DCD. Augustine 
mentions him in DCD VII. 25 andin VIII. 12. But in book 
X there is frequent and extensive use of him; see X. g, X. 
HOP eee ee, TQ. OT. 29K ogy Ke S67 (205 XY ag; 
DeGooA 92. FOrphyry Ss Epirstiula ad Ake bon tem 
ee MmeMiOned, in Xk. Te: enum aid! An é bot tem 
iam Sige Ane ey pt tum - the “de ire ore ss it 
Pete 6 oe 25:5 qu Os “Ce Terres su anima e 
scripsit and X. 32. The fragments or these found in this 
part of Augustine are collected in my notes on this book, and 
in the case of the De regressu animae, I think for the first time. 
In addition to these works of Porphyry we have evidence in 
DCD VII 25 and from Euseb. Praep. Evang. 3. 11 that Augus- 
tine also used Porphyry’s zepi dyadpdrov. See note p. 306. 23. 
In DCD X. 21 we have reason to believe from the evidence of 
Busebs Pracp. Evang. 4 23 that the dicit' bon um 
Geum vel rénium non veniréein hominem 
oe tales tier t vanite placwetus  -is a 
fragment of the zepi ris é« Aoyiwy ditocodias—a work which 
Augustine mentions under its Greek title and gives large extracts 
froma Latin version in DCD XIX. +23. To this same 
source Wolff (Porphyrii de philosophia ex oraculis haurienda 
librorum reliquiae. p. 146) would also refer the fragment in 


DCD X. 26 (p. 442. 14). Perhaps the literary source of ut 
mpsres set tbs: (DED X. 2725p: (444. 32) cin regard to 
Christ’s being acknowledged as divine by the oracles of the 
heathen may have been the xara ypiorvavov of Porpyhry : also 
Foc id atve.m,  Cihyrirs) tamer es sie amon: some dalsi 
CO M-Ce-m His Mi mM ee) ep op te 1 Cloud paues 
ex fem Nya ya Cc ep tim Sets pino pit er, «cmuens 
Onp pit Olbitad Gem) (DCD 238). 

TRA eee Siilye 

Sallust was the standard historian taught in the schools 
in the days of Augustine, compare DCD III. 17:neque 
engin” Ae id v iUSy. eyre lho aivalkOmras edal Cem uss 
aCatOr yo U's" jelOlm ane Seite eortal liomeanert, NOM lca 
meus! few, A me playnr.e's sq ui brush t ‘aumle me werd tise 
Gem Gis /e:t i pis me Wa bro ma ver atmt este Mall) Oss 
Sauors “ela lb or iar e) ‘co mip elt ust. (Oa ant elm 
Suusie 6 1-S/e7m t4) Vg Wain drOm sme aieiadyemn bee este O20 
Gicertem «quod  S-aliwis tins fait? ~Augustiness 
use of Sallust as an authority presents no_ difficulty 
whatever. His pessimistic description of the times of which 
he wrote and his severe censures on the depraved morals of 
Rome before the introduction of Christianity rendered him a use- 
ful instrument for Augustine to turn against his own country- 
men. Augustine nowhere mentions the historian Tacitus, 
though it is hard to see how he could have failed to know 
about him. But Tacitus’ work was not so well adapted to 
his purpose, as the gloomy pictures painted by Tacitus 
belong to times after the introduction of Christianity. It is 
strange that Augustine, though he has not made so extensive 
a use of Sallust as of Livy, mentions the former nearly always 
by name and quotes him verbatim, while he only twice refers 
to Livy by name, and only twice seems to use the exact words 
of Livy. The reason of this is probably to be found in the 
fact that the works of Livy were too large and cumbrous for 
continuous use. Kuhlmann (work cited above p. 2) has tabu- 


lated the instances of Augustine’s use of Sallust’s Catiline and 
Histories. Augustine shows no trace of any use of the Jug- 


Lucius Annaeus Seneca is twice mentioned by name 
imties tWCD2 Ii V2'S five “verses ‘are cited from Ep: 
107—reference given by Dombart. Here Augustine 
quotes from=memory: Annaer Senecaeée sunt, 
Deeceier a lou =" ahh, is Again “in. Vil ro 
aud VI. 11 Augustine quotes from eo libro quem 
GGntna SuUperStittrones ‘con did it. (p. 267.9). 
Apart from these two references there is no use of Seneca 
elsewhere in the entire DCD. 


With the writings and views of his fellow-countryman 
Augustine was familar. He mentions him in Ep. 1go. 4. 14, 
De Haeres. 86, Contra adversarium legis et prophetarum 2. 9. 
g2000e Genesi ad lit. 25°and 26; De bono viduitatis 4..6 ; ‘5. 7; 
De anima et eius origine 2. 5. 9. In the DCD Augustine 
mentions him by name only once viz:in VII 1, quod face- 
Pomsneaite cles tulliamws | fortasis e quam 
cms eed Inve live wnt wr swt- bal bi- wtig ue 
SetLeme feproby Siudvecantwr: Outside sthis 
there is nothing from Tertullian in the DCD. 

IngvCD ikke Hor thes -wudie are. pr oO vie rib 1 mi: 
Rata a “di efit ~-cla usta Christ rani sam t 
it is true the nearest approach is in Tertullian, (see note p. 55. 
33,) but it is not likely that for the above words Augustine had 
in mind any specific literary source; no doubt he had heard 
the expression, as we would infer from vulgare pro- 
verbium. Nor is Tertullian required as the source of 
Aueustine se knowledge for* Caelesti.virgini in 
DeW is 4 (p-1574) 21)... he isi of service to us here as we 
learn from him that this deity was peculiarly African, hence the 
African Augustine would naturally be acquainted with the rites 
Ometre Cae Les tis.” v1 rg 0). 



The writings of Marcus Terentius Varro are the main 
literary source for the fourth, sixth and seventh books. 
Augustine used him particularly for Roman mythological 
religion, the classes names and relations of the gods and 
goddesses to one another, their individual functions, their re- 
spective rites and their acts of shame. Sometimes, but not fre- 
quently, he employs him for Roman history. In DCD IV, 23 
Francken has shown that Varro was Augustine’s authority for 
the story of the refusal of the three gods Mars, Terminus, and 
Iuventas to give place to Jupiter when Tarquinius was building 
the Capitol. Here in opposition to Livy and other authorities 
Jupiter is represented as encountering three-fold opposition. 

Francken (fragmenta M. Ter. Varronis quae inveniuntur in 
libris S. Augustini de civitate Dei. Lugduni-Batavorum 1836), 
Krahner (Varronis Curio de Cultu Deorum. Neobrandenburg, 
1851), Liittgert (I heologumena Varroniana a S. Augustino in 
iudicium vocata. Sorau, 1859), Schwarz (De Varronis apud sanc- 
tos patres vestigiis. In Jahrbiicher fiir classische Philologie. 
Supplementband 16; Leipzig, 1888. p. 407-499) and Agahd 
(Quaestiones Varronianae. In Jahrbiicher fiir classische 
Philolugie. Supplementband 24; Leipzig, 1898, p. 5-220 and 
367-368) have so carefully collected and fully annotated the 
fragments of Varro taken from the City of God, that little 
more can be said. ‘The work of these scholars is of very 
different merit. That of Liittgert is of little or no conse- 
quence, pis “mae ts - qwam dorctijs} homan i 
bel SS 0a Spek O-2r am ast al ese mes Can deprSuies Se: oval 
detur, as Schwarz says (work given above, p. 438), and 
that of Krahner comes next in unimportance. Francken’s 
work is superior to both of these: and Schwarz and Agahd 
are the most recent and complete authorities. 

To the work of these editors of the fragments of Varro I 
would however add the following: In DCD IV. ro (p. 159. 
20) Augustine writes. Cui «ets am -P ho enices doe 
num id‘ab anit de sp avers talttit 20 mre) Ausliiay cei 
antequam” eas iungeéerent ‘virijs:. “Vagro isjad- 


mittedely Augustine’s authority throughout this chapter and 
the succeeding. This raises a presumption in favor of Varronian 
source for the above cited words. Moreover, when Varro 
was treating of Venus what would be more natural for him 
than to add the piece of information about the practices of 
the Phoenicians in regard to Venus? It is all the more likely 
that Varro gave this detail about Venus when we learn from 
DCD VII. 19 some such details concerning the Poeni and 
Galli in their worship of Saturnus: dicit a quibus- 
Giaitiepie? OS.’ s.olitios 1mym,o].ari.sicut a 
Peers vet. aod U1 fh usd am -€.t1 am: ma io Tes 
Sere Graliis: and in DED VI 35, Ouo0od genus 
'Gituiievtionrs 1dem- Varro a. Persis dive1t 
allatum. In DCD IV. 3: (p. 186. 24) Varro evidently 
knew something of the customs of Jewish worship, because 
there he adduces the example of the Jews to prove the truth 
of his assertion that if the custom of the ancient Romans, of 
worshipping the gods sine simulacro, had remained, 
such worship would have continued purer. In DCD VII. 28 
Fanime etiam Sam othracum nobilia my s- 
ierdia th Sup e€rior e 11D r.o0-. sic... int erp reé- 
tatur—showing Varro knew the mysteriaof the 

The sum of the probabilities is therefore as follows: — 

(1) Varro is admittedly the sole source of all traceable 
information about deities given in this chapter. 

(2) It is natural that Varro should write this passage as 
an illustration of the worship of Venus in a non-Roman cult, 
just as it was his habit to give analogous illustrations for the 
worship of the deities in non-Roman cults, as shown above. 

(3) There is no other source used by Augustine in the 
DCD, or elsewhere, so far as I know, where this particular 
information could have been found. 


In addition to the authors whom Augustine mentions as 
having been used by him there are some others used by him 


whose names he passes over in silence. Some of these we are 
able to detect by the language or matter which Augustine has 
borrowed from them. 

i.) ELORUS. 

Chief among such is Florus with whom he was quite 
familiar. He uses Florus as a historical source, either alone 
aS a principal source, or as coérdinate or subordinate to Livy, 
Eutropius and Cicero. | 

Compare the words in DCD III. 19 similior. victo 
fume nit ibe. quid svaieat swith: Morus Bpit. i222. a 
Si mil i om victo: Sit. p op milmis tle sqnum en incdier 
and the words preceding this quotation, qui non tam 
nat rare, sie lla (Room aynea. 1g tam «Reon a noua 
Vo pre ra wm “Lad /dia ft € nm Sit lot ue rane evidently, 
are intended to describe the work of Florus. Compare arma 
deine rum to det ha Citsd Sou nt eticmal pumiese: (: 
129. 12) with Florus Epit. 1. 22: 23a fr ma, som ver amit = 
de@tracta sunt templis. Uhus a comparison of 
the language of both authors proves to us that Augustine had 
the very words of Florus before him here. 

In the account of Hannibal’s command to show mercy at 
Cannae, where Augustine writes tanta inimicorum 
Cae d 6 Sati a-tU) Spat Cir asues Suis Siemsprerr lia. 
tur he has followed Florus (Epit. 1. 22. 17) who is the only 
authority for this statement: itaque duo maximi 
6X © Hic tus, Claeys ad) sh.ossstai ame soastie traate am 
done¢ Hannibal dicenmet oma li tis uo, “sprasice 
fe ty On: 

Again in DCD) Ill. 14-compare: mu triu'siq ule. c-o mye 

MA ME A Os Catv Altay EMS, 1 ome Ce pee Marion Ss Lut ane 
a tq e> 4.n de (fr at cabauSawitheloruse i pity ears! 
lst hq Wie, YC Om Muienue Rien tee t{rée.e me nas 

hsipn ¢. ‘a.t'q tc Gonidie, trait ci boas. shis seemsmeyie 
dence enough that Augustine followed Florus for the fight 
between the Horatii and the Curiatii. 


But the indebtedness of Augustine to Florus is not confined 
to isolated expressions or short quotations, as will be seen by 
comparing DCD III. 27 (p. 139. 17) with Florus Epit. 2. 9. 14. 

theiemerneads: Caput Octavitr consulis 
PROMMScsmierL Ure 1 ny TOSt ra ss, -Caes.a-res a Fim - 
DaGdadco mM tbs trucidaréntur- Suis, dwo 
Cause spade & Leb Tilius “1n° Cons pe ctu 
imho mpc tarentur, “Bae bius et: N wm = 
HOmiws smc oO! tra chi-sparsis visceri bus 
Mineman rent. Catulus ha ws't'o. vieneno se 
mani us Larmicorum Subtraheret, Meruwla 
VWipiecnie 6) vais “oeae cists. vends) Lov 
Spiaitines wo sSanowine: Fitaret = “Ion “apis u's 
PiGemVMarin oculis continuo ferice ban - 
BiiadthiDas) Sahu tan tib us dex teramy pior- 
Eegcwerr Ge, niO-) Ui s\s-e't 

ne larter (in Rossbach’s text): Octavi consulis 
Sept ph Of TOS tr is: 6 x ponmitur, «Ann toni 
Fomusularis im Mari ipsims memsis. Caesar 
St kets ta thy penatia bus doi oT um’ su- 
Haibiimerricidanmtur, Crass, (pater ét  firlius 
Pipi tio al ier abtierius a spec tu., Bace- 
Miimee La N wt poOniam per medium forwm 
MeLecwientira ks er e ~ C.a trot iiccmm s Coat ulus . ‘sé 
Pennies hanes tu” bu divbirdo ho S tum ‘ex emt. 
Mec ia a lhamven Diakis im Capitolio lLovis 
ipsius Gcsu-ho se av em act um CeO ey Shee 
merhesthn wAneh ard is mwpsolvtden te. Miario 
Sommers Ss Urs "est Guia, fated eum a1) arm scr 
Pctete Mia Dum, non piorrie xe ra t (svallw tian ti. 

One cannot doubt that Augustine had Florus as his 
authority here, though he differs from him in omitting the 
death of Antonius, but still more in the last part where Augus- 
tine has heightened the effect by stating that those were put 
to death (feriebantur), whose salutation Marius was 
unwilling to grace by stretching out his right hand. On the 


contrary his authority records here only the death of one such, 
Ancharius, and that because he had not reached out his hand 
at Marius’ salutation. 

Kuhlmann is perhaps right in suggesting that the diffe- 
rences between Augustine and Florus demand the use of another 
historian. The points of difference pointed out by Kuhlmann 
are two: Biase-bau's Ge,t Net mito ns uls, “Sp a Sis 
VIS CErib Us tihterire nt, and’ thatlalreadymen- 
tioned about Ancharius. Kuhlmann says of these (work cited 
above p. 19) Au giuis hin ws. @ x, Lis quiae (La yvae 
iteverteOm “my.eam (OF ras petie. mi eriest achat neler wale dent ata 
addidisse. He does not take notice of Augustine’s 
omission of the death of Antonius. 

Florus seems to have been Augustine’s authority also in 
DCD III. 28. Compare especially obsesso etiam 
Sién-atu “de 1p sca “Cu F 1-2). (ha Quer aro ce Vea re 
Sere pt-0 dic ebacm tir tard) je ladaiuem), with 
Florus: Eipit. 2.9, 205. 0 DUsté Ss S acd ae mc) Unie a, Sate ydve 
Seta tl quasi die Ga rice mie. saul i autre tmlrate 
rentur educti. Augustine’s point of view as well as 
his words here so strongly resemble those of Florus that we 
must suppose he had Florus in mind. 

Who will doubt that the words donec Sullae 
SUS SEeEretur sinendos (esse jatlag Gas, we 
Vere, it €5:5.e nt (quit bis) 3p Os Ss emat | iymiprers 
Fare qui vice ran ty area, reproductidn of Florns 
ptt. 2.09. 25 domee “ardino nme mt oc uti die! wit 
vereraliqwdés id esber em tee ssc & oG.u tim as 
imperanreée ntr The account of thet ab ola. le 
(p. 140. 27) and duo milia (p. 140. 30) is evidently 
taken from this same place. 

We see also from a comparison of p. 141. 3-10 with Florus 
Epit. 2. 9. 26-28 that the former was written from the latter: 
Ou ensd-anm °6€n im siwe Pere oe) ame a nm tim m 
Manws ditrpweraint, imi mani ws hom) res 
Wominenm= vivwm ; ‘qua a bes trae “sic amet 


dgecrcrcst emo com © ad a,V er «ai bie ctu m:-, ~A Lis 
Mewiseseta Oss ts. Et partic ul atim «me m.- 
Daicw ae pate a tis in tants  Cruciatib us 
pte Velvee i Cx vac lm Ohel WS) -—d il! mo TF 14) .c.0/a ¢ = 
Mismcestt- SNM bah a Sita fac. Sint €tiam, tam - 
Guameavillace, quaedam nobiles civitates; 

Liste VAChIAOM VAC rletiGy ienellSmely ears) Gd uci) au bre ae = 
PimEshe tOta  tws Sa, ESt i trudicari (Augustine): 

Rvebiim. sime ferro  ritu  férarum 
Coie re maid nis hancinatuwm.Mearium, dueis 
Psi wratrem, apud Catnli stepulchrum 
Genius fet tosis: mani bw 's °¢r ur i biu sq ue 
Sener seServat tm akhiquandiu ut .per 
SineoGded Meira more re tur. Possis Sin- 
Ct Von time om in umferre poenas; mun i- 
Epi lteaiaees plen Gidiss ima scwb hasta 
VoMbenuint: opoletinum Interamnium \Prae- 
Mewes PvoOrmen tia. Nam “Suimomem 
oppidum socium atque amicum—facinus 
indignum—non expugnat aut obsidet 
MmiemceuD cls Ss e-@ — quo “mod oO,’ mio © tie: dam = 
iid wet imbentuc. (sic Gdamnatam cid v1 = 
mucin tts sit loa lila dele-ri.. (Florus). 

We thus see how closely Augustine has followed the 
language and the sentiment of Florus. Only Augustine is more 
general and indefinite, omitting the names of the victimised 
persons and cities (giving general words instead, like quen- 
diame alk Ss. -quaeare dia move 1 vilita‘t.eé si; un a;) 
— Florus being more specific. 

As will be seen from the note on p. 227. 5 Augustine had 
evidently Florus before him in addition to Eutropius in the 
account of Quintius Cincinnatus, DCD V. 18. 

In DCD V. 22 Eutropius is the authority used by Augus- 
tine, yet in this chapter he has either made a slip about the 
numbers given by Eutropius or has consciously set him aside 
and taken Florus Epit, 1, 21. 1 for the statement bellum 


Pain iC mos 6 ic u-nidta mm: So 2 pre Tac 31,0 5 ter 
Cem) ef" olcstioe Rie mamas yires¢ x tem iurawe 
(p. 234. 13). 

Augustine probably included Florusin the alii scrip- 
torres eorum detectionit- soliis “add ume 
etiam subitam temp estia tem, DCD Mis 
(p. 117. 8); and perhaps also de manubiis Capito- 
lium fabricantem (p. 118. 8) is taken from Florus 
(Bpit. 11.7) de manwibiits captarum ) ur bicim 
templum erexit: compare however Livy 1. 55. 7. 

In DCD III. 20 Florus has been used as a secondary 
authority when Augustine writes octavo vel nono a 
Pio nis meen sie delet a 6st. See NOte p..5 30mm: 

In DCD IV. 5 Florus (Epit. 2. 8, 3) is perhaps Augus- 
tine’s authority for writing paucissimi gladia- 
torres. in Caaiplanaia, dled nidio fi oui e nicters 

tres. duces. “habwmercumt.— Dhisis alveie 
more likely if Florus is Augustine’s authority for the epitome 
of the events of Roman history found in DCD III. 26. 

All these ascertainable uses of Florus by Augustine are 

found in the third, fourth and fifth books of the City of God. 


That the work of this epitomiser was well known to Augus- 
tine we have abundant evidence. Eutropius is used much as 
Florus is, but somewhat more as an independent source, even 
to the extent of preferring some of his statements to those 
both of Livy and Florus. 

For similarity of language between the two authors com- 
pare. DCD, Ill, 15-41 wo pi diowiiausssenuglo, 7 oe aeare 
Vicino .quattiord €.c¢im. Wt entra anes 
DPrivateame vita (qu te-tpss pai mi bse tesa 
uxore consenuit, whichis almost a quotation from 
Eutropius (Brev. 1. 11): Tusculum se contulit 
Gu ae Civitas non lon ee ab, tw: e's bya Cane 
ibi per qiatt word €crm- an Os Spay aie 

cum uxore consenuit. In addition to the verbal 


relationship between these two extracts, Eutropius has been 
also Augustine’s only authority for two statements given : 
Giatewordecim annos and cum Wx OFE 
Conse n uit. 

Specially noteworthy is the rememblance between DCD 
Vers=(p. 226.27) QGuoniam sicut RoOmanis eum 
bemere volentibus respondisse fertur, 
pois ued, quam Airis servie rat, -dt gn: it a- 
Petiettlichone sti civis haberenon posse t, 
and Eutropius (Brev. 2.25) offerentibus Romanis 
ieee timo O med ec ten erent, 0:6 pay it Sse in ea 
niece Ma Sat Win. 0 gia. pos tquam Afris 
Senrvierat, dienitatém DO eS ti. Beuevi ics 
habere non posset. Augustine had Eutropius before 
his eyes while writing this passage. 

As Eutropius has been Augustine's authority in the latter 
half of DCD III. 15, so no doubt he includes him among the 
Seine Cat pi tiO-F 6.5) (p. 157:8).. Eor the manner of the 
death of Numa Pompilius, Ancus Marcius, Tarquinius Pris- 
cus and Servius Tullius in this same chapter the authority 
is also Eutropius. 

Augustine has also chosen to follow this epitome in oppo- 
sition to better sources in the statement of the duration of the 
kingship at Romié—per ducentos ferme ‘et 
Gia diragimta tres jan ni nos (p.- 119.8), though 
Eutropius (Brev. 1.8.3)does not give anything corresponding to 
ferme of Augustine. si 

The same authority may be traced in the list of consuls of 
the year subsequent to the expulsion vf the kings, DCD III. 16, 
though Augustine has here corrected the praenomen of 
Valerius—given Lucius by Eutropius Brev. 1. 9. 4—to 
Publius on theauthority of Livy (2. 8. 9), while in DCD 
V.18 he has preserved theerror of Eutropius. 

I have already shown (p.31), asopposed to the view of 
Kuhlmann, that I do not regard tres modios anutu- 
lorum aureorum Carthaginem misit (DCD 
III. 1g) as amere accident, and written independently of Eutro- 


pius; and that Augustine has not merely reproduced the words 
of Eutropius, but has followed him as sole authority for tres 

Eutropius seems to have been the source also af DCD 
IV. 29. 

There is no doubt whatever about the authority for the 
latter part of DCD V.18. The remarkable similarity of 
language here between Eutropius (Brev. 2. 25) and Augustine 
(p. 226. 21) cannot be explained otherwise than as a clear case 
_of the dependence of Augustine on Eutropius. 

More evidence, not from similarity of language, but from 
agreement in subject matter, is found in the words L. V ale- 
iam qui in suo def unc tu sve s t coms ul aad 
(p. 227.2). Here Augustine has followed Eutropius (Brev. 1. 
11.4) evenin two mistakes, first,giving Lucius for the prae- 
nomen of Valerius, second, by making Valerius die during his 
consulship, both of which are in direct contradiction to Livy. 

Another instance of Augustine having thus followed 
Eutropius in an error is found in DCD V.22:quintus 
Sikes De hilo Tl talveo), amen ais: einem) rcdiesceta 
Dee MOLE Ip. 234.13. 

Again, forthe promissa etiam quarta parte 
regni—the offer of Pyrrhus to Fabricius—(p. 227. 12) 
Eutropius was Augustine’s only authority, unless this occurred 
in the lost thirteenth book of Livy. He has also had Eutro- 
pius before him for DCD V. 22, as will be seen from the notes 
On p. 234. 

It will be seen from the above brief treatment of Eutro- 
pius that Kuhlmann is not correct when he writes (work cited 
above p.19): Praecipue trium veterum his- 
tori co rum / Vest ieiia, Mims AGU ous. im dae 
Giveant ate (Dsea * labo, p ramos litiemmo) Mee meta 
coen os Cun tur: CS khastaa Cri Siping alae 
Livi, Iuli Flori—omitting Eutropius, and again (on p. 
20.) Uno tantum) loco Ih 3) 0¢)oa5- ea lt engage 
parte conscribenda, u ba quo m 0d)on memes 


Romani mortui sint-brevissime comp1ec- 
Pend Moe tat, Kutropius. videtur Au gu s- 
Pion O Dp Ole ul os fuls se? ttem que siuib fine m 
Cio CD se Mu Lws SRI ptoris vestigia 
Soc Wt Ss) St. 



In regard to Augustine’s manner of employment of Livy, 
Florus and Eutropius a few words more may be said. For 
lists and epitomes of events of Roman history, and for ac- 
counts of distinguished Romans, he seems to have employed 
Florus and Eutropius whenever they gave the information 
which he required, evidently because their works were briefer 
and more handy for such reference than the long and detailed 
account of Livy. He shows, however, such an extensive 
knowledge of Livy’s history that we may not doubt that, even 
in such cases, he knew the account of Livy, which he did not 
always follow. When the information Augustine sought was 
not to be found in Florus or Eutropius, or found in them in- 
complete or otherwise not suited to his purpose, he had re- 
course to Livy. 

As examples of what has been said we may observe that 
Florus was used in DCD III. 14 for the account of the mutual 
slaughter of Romans and Albans, the fight of the Horatii and 
Curiatii, and for the death of the sister of the surviving Hora- 
tius. Perhaps also the list in DCD III. 26 is from Florus, 
although the details given at the end of the chapter do not 
seem to be taken from Florus. We have shown already that 
thelist of the victims of the victoria Mariana in 
DCD III. 27 has been taken from Florus, as also the events 
given in III. 28. 

Somewhat more extensively has Eutropius been employed 
for such recapitulations; compare DCD III. 15 for the man- 
ner of the deaths of the kings: III. 16 (ad fin.) for the 
eouswisi or -the .year qui consules quiniq te 


habuit: perhaps also for the alterations in the boundary 
of the Roman state in the times of Hannibal, Hadrian and 
Iulianus respectively (DCD IV. 29). 

Certain examples are found in DCD V. 18 where Eutro- 
pius has been employed for the accounts there given of Regu- 
lus, Z. Valerius, Quintius Cincinnatus and Fabricius; and in 
DCD V. 22 for the enumeration of the different wars and their 
respective periods of duration. 

Livy has been put the same service when Florus and 
Eutropius did not give the needed or suitable information, 
e. g. in DCD I. 23 what is related of Cato Uticensis, Torqua- 
tus and Caesar was evidently taken from a portion of Livy now 
lost. Livy was employed for the events given in DCD II. 17, 
the details of which are not given by the other writers, and for 
the list of prodigies in II. 24 and II. 25, not found in Florus 
or Eutropius, 

The most conspicuous use of Livy in such a case is found 
in DCD III. 17 and III. 18 (p. 123-128); where he has been 
employed for the long review and conspectus of events of 
Roman history from the death of the consul Valerius until 
the beginning of the second Punic war, also in chapter 19 
and 20 along with other authorities and in chapter 21 as the 
authority for the list of events; and again in DCD III. 24 and 
III. 31; and in DCD IV. 20 for the bravery of Mucius, Curtius 
and the Decii father and son. 


Lactantius is mentioned by name in DCD XVIII. 23, and 
I think there are three traces of a use of his writings in the 
first ten books of the City of God. For example, for the state- 
ment made in DCD TX. 1; ita. wt “ipsam lo vem 
ripe, umes ab Home ro fa. treametai Td ave a0, neem 
nin cup atu m, ‘Lactantius (Div. Inst: 4:) 27. 15) 
must-beithe’source: cre dant Homer o qui sum—- 
me mit iol wm EP Oye amd a ieimtorni bs sdedueetrer- 
gavit. In addition to the difficulty as to whether this is 


really found in Homer, except by implication, Augustine’s 
language ab Homero fateantur does not seem to 
mean that he got it from Homer himself. If Augustine had 
meant to imply direct Homeric authority or even the indirect 
authority of a Latin version, he would naturally have written 
FeOmve ws (ips e) fatcatur (or some such’ ex- 

he De tee zc, va emo nres: \e niim, - di ¢ u n- 
(OU Caled ne ene Maree: Yl Sc te mn € ta’! St Omid mM a £71 is 
perhaps taken from Lactantius (Div. Inst. 2. 14.6) dae- 
MvOgiers Gaticte Mm) Cram im atici die¢tos aiunt 
Meiesesie toumpovas, 1d seSt pPeritos ac rerum 
SVC dO"S: j 

MhCe Wolds: ad lt OS. 3d ain nab i.icée Ss. >-q ues et 
imagiceone OSV! sods. oa pp ell at - (DED .X: 20) 
bear so striking a resemblance to those of Lactantius (Div. 
Mist FOr. 4) est. tt quuco's, vere mya let icons 
vulgus appellat_ that it would seem Augustine must 
have had in mind Lactantius at this place. 


Juvenal is not mentioned in the City of God or elsewhere 
by Augustine, but in Ep. 138. 3. 16 some verses are quoted from 
Hitieeeienwords: peririd diis. iratis- (DED IL 
23) in,connection with the name Marius seem to give a strong 
presumption that here Augustine had in mind the words of 
Wuvenal(Sat 0. 49) “fruitur dis tratis/— uséd of 
another Marius: See note p. 85. 23. 

In addition to all these authorities given, Augustine had 
no doubt others whom we cannot certainly identify, especially 
waiters -of« chronology; as aliae fideliores bit- 
Pema ec and. gut ch ton t-cam hh tst.oria my per - 
Se emst 1 sunt _ (DCD AV. 6). 

Another literary source used by Augustine was the letter 
of Alexander the Great to his mother Olympias. This is 
treated of in the note on p. 327. 25. 




(Except the Bible) 

For THE First TEN Books OF THE De Civitate Det. 


PREFACE. Virgil once cited. 

I LVone. 

2-4 Incidental use of Virgil, Horace,Cicero (or Ennius). 

5 Sallust only. 

6 Livy almost entirely— Virgil once used incidentally. 

7-11 LVone. 

12 Slight use of Lucan, and Cicero (?) 

13 LVone. 

14 Aulus Gellius used once. 

15 Livy and Cicero. 

16-18 LVone. 

19 Livy and Virgil—chiefly Livy. 

20-21 LVone. 

ee Cicero. 

23-24 Livy only. 

25-29 LVone. 

30-33 Livy only. 

34 Unknown—an error. 

35-36 None. 

Livy is thus the chief literary source for the first 


I-4 None. 
5 Livy. 
6 Persius, and perhaps an unknown source (for 
. Fugalia). 
7 Persius and Terence—b»th incidental. 
8 LVone. 
9 Cicero only. 
10 LVone. 
ia Cicero and Labeo. 
12-13 Cicero. 
14 Cicero and Labeo--chiefly Cicero. 
5 Varro and Livy. 
16 Cicero and Livy. 
17 Sallust and Livy—chiefly Livy. 
18 Sallust, Livy, alii scriptores — chiefly 
19 LVone. 
20 Cicero once. 
at Sallust, Cicero, Ennius—chiefly Cicero. 
22 Sallust and Livy—slight use of Virgil. 
23 Livy. Juvenal used once (?) 
24-5 Livy only. 
26 LVone. 
27 Cicero only. 
28 LVone. 
29 Virgil once quoted. 
Cicero, Sallust and Livy are the three chief literary 
sources for the second book, 
I LVone. 
2-3 Virgil, Homer, Sallust, 
4 Varro only. 

5 Livy. 














nk WN 


Livy ; Virgil once. 

Livy, Varro, Cicero—chiefly Livy. 

Sallust, Virgil, Livy. 

Livy and Virgil—chiefly Livy. 

Livy and Varro. 

Livy, Lucan and Virgil—chiefly Livy. 

Florus, Livy, Sallust and Virgil—chiefly Florus and 

Cicero, Eutropius, Florus, Livy, Virgil — chiefly 
Cicero and Eutropius. 

Sallust, Livy, Virgil, Eutropius—chiefly Eutropius 
and Livy. 

Sallust, Livy, Varro—chiefly Sallust and Livy. 

Livy only. 

Livy, Florus, Eutropius—chiefly Florus and Livy. 

Livy and Florus—chiefly Livy. 

Livy only. 
None-—Florus (?) 


Livy and Labeo—chiefly Livy. 

Livy only. 

Cicero, Lucan, Florus, Livy—chiefly Florus. 

Florus only. 

Florus (?) and unknown. 

Livy—Virgil once. 

Thus there are four principal literary sources in the 
third book—Livy, Florus, Eutropius and Cicero. 



Apuleius only. 


Florus or Eutropius (?) or Livy (?) 











Tustinus' (frog um Pom peru msec ut.u's), 
some unknown aliae fideliores lit- 
terae and someunknown qui chroni- 
Gam his toriam- pe rs'6.c uti sunt 

Varro chiefly—Virgil twice. 



Varro, Cicero, Livy — chiefly Cicero and Livy. 

Varro only. 

Cicero, Varro, Livy. 
Varro only. 

Varro and Eutropius. 

Cicero only. 

Varro only. 

Varro is the principal literary source for the fourth 


Cicero only. 


Annaeus Seneca and Cicero. 

Sallust, Cicero, Virgil—chiefly Sallust and Virgil. 
Horace and Cicero. 

Virgil, Livy, Eutropius, Florus—chiefly Eutropius. 
Sallust, Virgil and unknown. 



20 Cicero only. 

21 Unknown. 

22 Eutropius and Florus—chiefly Eutropius. 
23-24 LVone. 

25-26 Vone, partly Claudianus and Cicero. 
Cicero is the chief single source for the fifth book, 
and next to him come Livy, Eutropius and 

I LVone—but Virgil once used. 
2 Varro, Cicero, Terentianus Maurus. 

3-9 Varro only. 
1o-i1 . Annaeus Seneca only. 

12 Varro. 
Varro is almost the only literary source for the sixth 

I Varro and Tertullian. 

2 Varro only. 

3 Varro and Sallust — chiefly Varro. 

4-8 Varro only. 

9 Varro—Virgil once. 

10 Lone. 

11-12 Varro—Sallust once. 

13-24 Varro only. 

25 Porphyry. 

26 Vone—Varro. 

27 Virgil and the history of Euhemerus quam 
Fenn: ius) itn sLeartainin ae yee it, e-lzor- 





J 17 



Varro only. 
In the seventh book, asin the preceding, Varro is the 
principal source. 




Letter of Alexander the Great to his mother Olym- 
pias, and Varro and Cicero. 

Cicero (?) Labeo (?) writers on Neoplatonism., 

Apuleius only. 

Apuleius—and Pliny (?) 

Apuleius only. 

Cicero and Apuleius. 

Apuleius; Cicero once. 

Letter of Alexander the Great to his mother 

Apuleius is the chief literary source for the eighth 
book. ; 


Cicero, Aulus Gellius, Virgil. 
Apuleius only. 
Apuleius only. 





Cicero (in his translation of Plato’s Timaeus, see 
DCD X1IT: 16). 
So also in the ninth book Apuleius is the principal 
literary source. 


Virgil once. 

Cicero (?) 

Lactantius, Porphyry, Apuleius— chiefly Porphyry. 
Porphyry only. 


Plotinus, Varro, Lucan, Livy — chiefly Varro. 


Virgil once, and Porphyry. 

None. ; 

Apuleius, Porphyry, Virgil. 
Porphyry, Plotinus, Virgil. 
Cicero and Porphyry. 
Porphyry—in the Latin version of Victorinus —is 

the principal literary source for the tenth book. 


In the composition of Books I—V, full of historical 
color, we see that Augustine employed principally Livy, Sal- 
lust, Florus, Eutropius, Cicero (chiefly for Azstory), Labeo and 
Virgil. At the close of the fifth book he dropped these 
authors and took up for the philosophical-mythological books 
VI—X a different set composed of Apuleius, Plotinus, 
Porphyry, Plato (in incomplete versions and from general 
knowledge) and Cicero (chiefly for philosophy). Varro has been 
used in both divisions, but chiefly in the latter; and Augustine 
naturally deals with only the second part of Varro’s great 
work — the sixteen books De Rebus Divinis—as suiting his 

Augustine’s poetic quotations are confined — with but few 
exceptions — to the first five books. 

Note also that long lists and brief epitomes are to be 
found largely in the first five books. 

Of course Augustine uses the Latin Bible freely, both in 
the Vulgate and Itala. But these Biblical sources are so plain 
that they need no discussion here, and, moreover, nearly all 
the instances have been italicized and identified in Dombart’s 
edition. Some expressions are merely suggested by Biblical 
language, but I have noted one citation which Dombart has 
overlooked: praef..ip. 3.15, Deus adiutor noster 
est is a quotation from Ps. 61. 9. 



A. D. 354. Augustine born. 

A D. 410. Final sack of Rome by Alaric. Orosius 
(Adv. Paganos, 40) givesthe date: anno itaque ab 
lptbie fc omedist a eM CL GL lin ruprta oO “uirbries 
Pye Ayla iain. ofyac ita (nes 'ts: 

A. D. 412. Letter of Marcellinus to Augustine (BE vol. 
II. col. 515) reminding him of his promise to write. 

Before 415. Book I written and perhaps issued sep- 
arately as atimely short answerto the pagani. Augus- 
tine callsit a volumemn, not a-libexr, at itszend: 
Hee) ita, q ueunmyo diwis) Sunt: hours Sveonlanmnagies 
(p. 52. 31), whereas at the opening of Book IV, he speaks of 
itas “in. fine: p ranma Lieb © (py 1468 26):8) Aieatie 
end of Book V he expressly states that the first three books 
had been issued as one treatise: quorum tres priores 
edidissem, ¢tuin mul torum mani bis Je sire 
EyOres PS Se nit (ps 4247.10): 

A. D. 415. In this year Augustine added Books IV and 
V to the first three already issued, as he states in his letter 
to Evodius written at the end of that year: nam tribus 
Iles habras Die-eC invert e. (Duende a anos 
alios addidimus: (q wiibws: sqiutmqiuse wi 
DarutSi Gesvauteiss disputatum, arb trom, sete 
(BE. II. col. 742). By this time, then, the first five books are 
finished and, in the author’s eyes, constitute the first com- 
pleted section of a developed plan, which is to be completed 
by adding a similar second section (which becomes Books 
VI.-X.), as he himself promised at the end of his first book: 
Deinc¢ eps < dice mid usm) Selsstsacca t)  pamine 
libro peollie 1 ta sau) mus ead vem isuus, se) ors equa 
PRO p ter Vitam! post amos tem, / fate eae 
MeceSSarium -€-x is ti m amet sew) t usin, de oma 
SUOrTUmM, prop ter quameyita m7 Ghr is tia 
Sum us. His ib 0) pr i meron proddice 1 ta cipmenes 
refers to. Pos trem @ ad Views as) (elo. Gupcie:t mm 


(fait aconmamiuurvasse sere Non prop ter 
Wha copiimae sem tis mwtilitatem,\'s'e d pro p= 
fore nme Gia es post mortem futuria “est 
(ps 522 16). 

After A. D. 415. When his second section of five books 
is completed, making ten books in all, he asserts with apparent 
inconsistency, that he will go on to complete his promise in 
the first book by writing de duarum civitatum, 
Geomties pr ocursd, et debirtis fini bwes— 
the subject matter of the next twelve books which constitute 
the rest of the De Civitate Dei (p. 460.32). Such a promise does 
indeed occur in the first book, but in such a way as to suggest 
that he had in mind an additional discussion complementary 
to his original theme (DCD. I. 35, p. 51. 25.) The contra- 
diction is apparent rather than real. In Book I he did have 
the thought of his greater task in mind—but incidentally, and 
in suspense until his definitely mapped first treatise I—X was 
worked out. Zhen the suggestion of the latter treatise 
(XI-XXI]J) naturally takes on fuller form. 

The second part of the De Civitate Dei (Books XI-XXIJ) 
gives scarcely any information measuring the progress of the 
composition. ‘There are three sections of four books each. 
At the very opening (p. 462. 4-14) he merely reaffirms what he 
had written at the end of book X, and starts in his first section 
offour bookss ex Ordia tstarum duarum civi- 
tatum. At the end of this first section (XI-XIV) (II p. 57) 
there is no analysis or summary, and he passes on without 
comment to his second section (XV-XVII). At the end of 
the second section he states that he has been arguing 
Citsment sat durum ocivita tum... +e x- 
cursus(Il. p. 345.14), and hints at the character of his 
approaching third (or final) section: percipiat una- 
quaeque suum finem (II p. 345.23). 

The final section (XIX-X XII) opens with such evidence of 
deliberation, as though the author had rested after his weari- 
some progress and retired into his thoughts for a fully consid- 
ered last effort as he comes to the consummation, that it 


seems necessary to suppose he did not pass currente 
calamo from the second to the third section, but took a 
breathing space—more than days no doubt—but whether 
weeks or months, none can say — just a literary pause, enough 
to hold in the reins and look around before essaying the last 

The eighteenth book seems to have been finished shortly 
before 425 A. D., as may be argued from per triginta 
ferme annos in its last chapter (Dombart I]. 345. 1.). 
This leaves only a short time for Augustine to hasten to the 
end, and the increasing speed of this final section when .com- 
pared with the more labored earlier parts, is plain to every 

When he stops, his last sentence shows he knew his 
Male, Dum Opus -ert anid wou: was over: V1 deo 
mucha -die bi itiamy cin oe mi tits, — shy usiiues: Peon puestaiEs 
ad@invante Domino reddi disse. and se,onste 
his concluding emphatic Amen. Amen. 

A. D. 426-427. We can set no exact dates for the stages 
of his work after the first five books. His Retractations, 
however, written A. D. 426-427, mention the De Civitate as a 
completed and revised work (II. cap. 43) and give an analy- 
sis. Augustine says: Quod Opis, mey tenwit pier 
aliquot annos, apparently not feeling quite certain 
of the exact number of years. It was written between 410 and 
426-427, apparently after the letter-of Marcellinus in 412. 
We may therefore take 412-426 as the outer limits of its com- 
position. A. F. WEstT. 



(The pair of numbers prefixed to each annotation refers to the 
page and line in Dombart’s text.) 

Book I. 

Page +x, line? 3.) R70. a2 G- o,f hoor waa eee 
Eayomke™ vay Cre tottus 1S Wei heim ie Ach acta CiOnnee 
Cavite ts) ae sete. 

Rome was burned and sacked by the Goths in the year 
410, after the third siege in the second invasion of Alaric. 
Augustine in his Sermones ad populum, 106. g. 10, (works 
BE, vol. 5) in referring to the fall of Rome also notices 
the pagan charge that this calamity was due to the Chris- 
tians. See also Ep. 99, (BE. vol. 2) ; and Orosius, Adver- 
sus *Paganos. 7: 37-40, “Ades t “Alla wnime us, — stipe 
pid-am :R om am Hobs tide tit uy Dravte eae 
pit. Orosius gives the date (chapter 40) as 410 A. D. 
anno ataque ab wrbe condita MCrp aries 
ie rap to) O, Wor ba S- pre re AU asi dic 1am) plea, Cote iste 

Opposite positions have been taken by different scholars as 
to Augustine’s attitude to the fall of the Roman empire, some 
asserting that as a patriot he showed the most intense sym- 
pathy, others that as a Christian apologist he was utterly in- 
different to the catastrophe. Ozanam (History of Civilization 
in the Fifth ‘Century, Eng. trans: velo a. p. 22): But the 
catastrophe which terrified the whole world afforded no aston- 
ishment to St. Augustine, whether his great genius was less 
bound by an antique patriotism, or whether love had raised 
it to calmer heights, he was able to measure with a firmer 

glance the portentous events around him.” Gregorovius, 
(History of the City of Rome in the Middle Ages, Eng. trans. 
vol. I: p. 169): “If the laments, ef the tomer. (i. re: 

Jerome) express the consciousness of the ancient politi- 
cal greatness of Rome, the heart of the African Augus- 
tine is touched by no such considerations. ‘The greatest 
genius among the theologians of the Roman church was only 
intoxicated with enthusiasm at the victory of Christianity.”’ 


McCabe (St. Augustine and his Age p. 298) ‘‘The truth is 
that Augustine had scarcely a spark of human sympathy with 
the disasters of Rome. The sermon (De urbis excidio), 
which he preached on the receipt of the news, expresses only 
an eagerness to draw spiritual profit from the event.”’ On the 
other hand as opposed to these three citations we have the 
opinions of Dill (Roman Society in the last Century of the 
Western Empire, Bk. 1, chap. 3, p. 65): ‘‘ Yet here S. Augus- 
tine is guilty of a patriotic inconsistency. He is, after all, a 
true Roman at heart. He is proud of the great past of Rome. 
and of the qualities which had given her her place in the 
world;” and E. de Pressensé’s article on St. Augustine (in Dic- 
tionary of Christian Biography): ‘‘ The effect which his elo- 
quence produces is all the greater because we feel that 
Christian as he is, he remains still a citizen. Christianity has 
not inspired him with a selfish contempt of human sufferings, 
under the pretext that they form part of the plan mapped out 
in prophecy. He mourns over the calamities of Rome, but his 
tears do not conceal from him the destinies of the City of God:” 
and that mentioned by McCabe (p. 298): ‘A recent French 
writer ingeniously concludes that Augustine’s ‘soul was rent’ 
by the news of the fall of Rome, but he avoided the subject in 
the excessive pain it gave him.” 

To decide between these two conflicting sets of opin- 
ions we must go to Augustine himself. Compare De 
Epis LexXcidio, Sermo 2, 2.°-Hyvo rir e€n.d:a nobis nu n)- 
Paced Spee. S tha ce Sie WoaG-ta. oi mee em dia. ; 
Paneinid S-eNeh 6 Gt e.Gcb lO. eS eX C.F Cl artt-o;ne.s 
oO mee nti Ver wim es to. multa au div tm us, 
Ophea eH LM ws... Sidie pe if lev im us. Vv ix 
Somes Oo atl (Sm WS) Om | a Dino. nO ne ¢ © 
Maney ae ees! a tds set. jm wel tas in tla Car bee 
Gest cary C-Opla ties Sa oewin. 2.0 A he speaks of... the 
insi=nincance of the _sufferings,.at. the. fall, of Rome 
compared with eternal punishment, compara ad 
Cece minim: Tet. be ve 161s -t “0m n,é€ quo d..¢ogi- 
Bae ee temp) O fai Sol bl a eter Mu 5 es t., 


St UQui toprdgwe t vet qui Vomig uct ur) bieaise 
shows the necessity of repentance, and that God did not treat 
the city as it deserved, but in a sense spared it. He concludes 
with the lesson of the utility of temporal tribulation. Compare 
Schiro -105./ gs) 02)) | se:d am-om) 'dtca‘'t) idier “RR! Oana 
dictum esti de mes sO, si tace at -de Rona 
Gilaysi ‘“elg'o, Ams wl ta tor sim, et mon piotias 
Domini de pireicator, set western qualms = 
Chub cue: een oO fitat ors) Albis ity a) mine int. wi ne 
Smistienm 9 A ywielrtast (Di eus a cron idie> mero, Next 
ad Gl Ore Cons chen tiae mee ave. Wb amo ual 
eos Fratres non habutimus 2 non. a dine 
heaubvecmrus ? Port iho, perieri nia nts. lemma 
Giatlsesm) Ci vittidat is Tm, Our 1 D1) mea jornuay Adie orate 
These words would seem to imply that his hearers, or some one, 
had accused him of using words of indifference or of insult 
(quasi ego insultator) over the disasters of Rome. 
It is most remarkable that in the whole City of God there is 
not one really sympathetic reference adequate to the greatness 
of the calamities caused by the fall of Rome. It is true 
in the passage cited above from the De urbis excidio 
sermo Augustine says Omnia gemuimus, saepe 

Plevim ws, vix Con stolla tw os unt ws peters 
isolated instance of the expression of his sorrow should not be 
stretched so far as some scholars have stretched it. Prof. 
Dill cites two passages from DCD to show Augustine was 
‘‘proud of the great past of Rome and of the qualities which 
had given her her place in the world,” namely DCD V. 15 his 
olme nT bull. Sar ta bou ss) Stee myq lua Voc a. wit) lca 
Ssutit.) “aid “ho nsoyries: Moimypre pn au stie wo ton ta ade 
homorati Sunt im omnitbits. tere —o emt ubnns. 
iam pre tr ri (sSi Tt) sles eS in re Sane tt matic aie 
Sie nit basen. fe 2 Spey Cie pre rah te Pan Ca crerd eam 
suam; but Augustine had no such sentiment that I can dis- 
cover in regard to her present. He was indeed both proud and 
tender as he thought of the ancient civic and moral grandeur 
of Rome, despite her paganism. Compare his exhortation in 


Dei Sz2oi. Ot nid.ouwe.soRo-m an a. “l'a ada bi] is; 
Omnis Oo) Grew Wie Sue Roe.e elon um, 11S \cya.e-v ol a rum 
SemepscOmel Mm — Evasbarie Lorem ry 04h a. 8 Twine 
Cem net Dt loki a prope l-a ris: ad ft wit... 

Ppa OneTE Oclesicre te 7  Cuine.s ) (eS t. —“Si-Cuct Ex pier - 
MeCtid esin qui busdam ... .. (and so on through 
ees chapter). Professor Dill “also refers’ to DCD V. 21 
without specifying which words. We _ give those which 
monldiemost favor his, own view: ITlle tgitur 

LeMUPSoevecet tS. DiemrS agri nieve i ud ie Lo: ny exc 

Minit Om oO MeSerit enis hwmanum, qtando 
VOMitin et q Wamtumsyoluit. Romanis reg - 
mine dit. quiode dit Ass yriis vel etiam 
Persis. In these words where is the feeling about the 
present? They seem to put Rome only on the same plane 
with Assyria and Persia; yet it is not unpatriotic, but like 
Rudyard Kipling’s passionate ‘one with Nineveh and Tyre’ 
in his ‘ Recessional ’. 

Of course we are surprised to find so little lacrimae 
rerum in Augustine in face of so great a calamity as the 
fall of the mistress of the world. ‘This is emphasised by the 
contrast with the words of Jerome Ep. 126. 2 (works BE vol. 
Peco Lodo): Hzechielis volum én, ol dm ajg- 
Pamgedsmvcoul Wi sua eS ed pajie 1p sie dive tanidi 
Sod Oita wanim us meus Occ idien tal ium 
PRmev unc hat um. 6€t maxi me wrbis Rom ae 
ValeSttadetaleO, 1 6 CaOlm £ WkS tis: ersit wt, tuxta vw l= 
Bane prover bhi m. pro pr iw m quoque 
PeaiO mat em Vv orc abu lu ms din quire “tale ud , 
Srcehenirs ste Mm pil se sisre: baccrd mack Wins also Ep: 
ioe Ol whet as! ORbDis. terrarim rw its 
Wii Oo is peccata mon ruunt, “Urbs: mn 
Swittde ct skOM ani Lmperit Gaput, uno 
iat est. tm cen dito. New lla es titr ele 10 
Gitikaee r= no nl se xu lies) Rio manos ha biea t. “In 
Smbetesrrac fayilias “sacrace: qu ondam 
eee lestarce concider at 


We must also remember that Jerome did not write any 
great work called forth by the fall of Rome, in which he might 
more fitly embody his thoughts. 

i (65) USiist.a't,O om Ovum, 1 ne ) pave acm O.Se 

The name pagani as a synonym for gentes or 
gentiles was in common use at this time and even 
previously. Compare Jerome Ps.41: Siquidem pagani 
GsEsOS,'S.0 01S) Cao atyo4 oO site n-diulnite. 

LaQ-) 1 tee O'S ae ciaiale Der. 

Of the twenty-two books under the title of De Crvitate 
Dei, it is really only the second part (Books XI.—XXII. which 
treats of the de civitate Dei in the strict sense. The first part 
(Books I.—X.) deals mainly with the ¢errena civitas. This 
incongruity about the name of the work Augustine himself 
noticed and’ explained|; ‘Ista 0 mn .eS ay tec met iment: 
dtuvo.- Ti bra; .Carm:> (Sice ult. de: sust iaequie emcee 
tiajtie CO 1 :SrC.t ip £1) st it) a em Gralimeemn. santa 
VROre ac Cie per whet yj) Wot Sel crrare Der po) ees 
WAOnG a Enemy tw (e260) 

1 10. (Qu 0'd .orpeurs plese ca lar quusest 7a neners 
mie), te Roath 

See Prof. A. F. West’s Note on the Composition of the 
De Civitate Dei, p 60. 

3.) 20: Gl-0.1 10'S 1 'S-5 tomy ay meoal Vel task eunneDreate 

An echo of Ps. 86. 3 so often quoted by Augustine in 
this work: ¢ lori os aid festa, Sin edie atic). civde 
tas Dei. This announcement of the theme in the very 
opening words, in the ancient manner, occurs in similar words 
at the. opening. of ‘the second: part:.4C twat arte me Dem 
d teimu s “(DED 21"r) 

35 27. Shael tp Cjar i sss ce Ninaureenc Paiae 

His name was Flavius Marcellinus. He was brother of 
Apringius who became proconsulof Africa. He was first com- 
mended by Jerome to Augustine for the elucidation of some 


questions which were troubling him, and was kindly received 
by Augustine, between whom and Marcellinus we have extant 
a considerable correspondence, especially with reference to Vol- 
usianus, the friend of Marcellinus, whom the latter was very 
eager for Augustine to persuade to embrace the Chris- 
tian faith. Marcellinus was also appointed by Honorius to 
preside over the conference between the Donatists and 
Catholics, in which capacity his conduct was admired by 
Augustine. (Compare Augustine, Ep. 141, Cod. Theod. 16. 
11. 5). Marinus, after the revolt, defeat and death of 
Heraclian, seized and imprisoned Marcellinus on the charge 
of complicity with the party of the former, and then caused 

‘ his execution. In Retract. 2. 33 and 37 Augustine speaks of 
‘his dedication to Marcellinus of De peccatorum meritis et re- 

missione, et de Baptismo parvulorum, and De Spiritu et lit- 
feLa Compare Atcustine Epp. £29, ¥20, 133, 134,139, 141, 
Toi. TOO. et al. 

Alo Wie hoi Ver OI eam tan tise x ars 
Gece unt tenibus odiorum tamquwe mani - 
mefcettes Oe le tf ictus) rede mt pt Or 1 62 “e: 1 ys 
inieemaistl SU Net. UW terh-ord t-6./c-o.n-tt a 6a ny fin - 
Pin oieO De MOVE tel t. mist Lerrum pRostile 
Migihetintce:s: iil Stare hat is. eds. vit am 

iaveeon 68. t 

sce. OTostus, Adv; Pa manios 7.39: t:-adest 
Miteiews. trepidam Romam obsidet.tuc- 
Drece tncinmMm pit,; yta tren. +. prr.aec ep to 
Poebisy eit Si G Wiv in, jsancta Loca. prae- 
Capihe gine in) Sametorum apostolorun Petr i 

Ciena teht past lincas Comiusis sent, hos 
Pap tt iis Anviolatos “sé€e¢ ures que esse 


Augustine DCD I. 2 ad init. (p. 5. 26) challenges 
the heathen to read the records of wars vel ante con- 
tied Rom am vel “ab éau's ex ortu et 
imperio and seeif they could find aliquem ducem 


Dea tba. Om Wim) prae€ ¢ € pls’s 6.9. tote eine dap 
e pipaed ona ils: ferinet ur.) quaint lelomamerl 
Hie ,templonpiuisse t in vent us.) Compareialse 
Deiurbis excidiosermo.7, 7: multi an Vocus samee 
tose 1 Val eSraplavaliqie iS ema ait 1 eS mite 

5.30. -alaquvem duce m barbarous gpm aie 
Gepits se ut, tnt wip to Op pidvor mull us a emanes 
necinr ui sin who. velo wilo* tremmprlio, taneiesisiersr 
iev est 15). 

That Augustine has written these words either very 
ignorantly, or in the heat of the conflict against the pa- 
gans, very thoughtlessly, is evident. Even his Benedictine 
editors point this out in the note on this place which 
reads: —_Augustinum praetierunt nonnulla 
hiucintias, (rT en hitter as G Tiare 1 Sie it eanle caer 
Consign ata exe mpla. (Nam ret eri essen 
amus lib. 2 dé trebus 9 estas) Allee amedaan 
(cap; 24) capta Tyro0, “is qu on (te mipylaam 
Myerculivs confuger ant, 7A be xan denim pre 
Peneis sie. De Age's ila 0 (etiam Xenon nom 
in, Ag... (cap 2)) set lw be 4s die) teva See@agarer. 
Corum “(cap 3), > Pol uitan-ethais) (a(Capaao)emmear 
Emialiws Po bus im) Avece salva, @ (Capa) smear 
ran tips um. Ath emise mn sab ais) et, | Biore a taaes 
€e0rum que sociis in, pus na Coro nmeam 
devia tS.) NiO wicsiscems ceors = earesd ae Sqm Hae 
Miner v ae .“t € mp low my) ser ere. Cm a ake eo 
these examples there might be added others. 

85.9: C/O -Trad-a-t ofS sh oumaien jens. 

The only instance of the word cordatos in the 
DCD. It savors of Ennius, but Augustine probably got it from 
Cicero, who quotes it from Enniusin egregie corda- 
tus shom ©. (lusc. 1.978) and inge aries ec ommdae 
ts... ab Hunio ducts se Re pub. 1csge 
Annaeus Seneca and Lactantius, both of whom were read and 
quoted by Augustine, also used it, the formerin cordatus 


homo (Lud. de morte Claudii 12), the latter in the compara- 
tive form cordatiorem (Div. Inst. 3.20.2). Augustine 
also doubtless met the word in the viri cordati of 
Job. 34.10, which is the vulgate rendering, but cordati 
was not found in the Itala, which gave prudentes 
Gon de. 

G31. Cat o- 

mulethetancient, editors. and the best: Mss. (C.-A..K. F.) 
read Cafo in this passage, though the words quoted here from 
Sallust Cat. 51 are from a speech of Caesar. Dombart and 
Hoffmann retain the reading of the MSS., and the former adds 
(RASC) Ls eSkinuws parum accurate rém 
tractat. The Benedictine editors emend it, 
Caesar. Augustine is evidently either in error here or had a 
different reading in his text of Sallust, as the Bened. note 
Sidtese  OLUO d St im €oO Atrustinus, quod 
Seta tts MON tn qQiam contin git, memo - 
Biteea ps us est. aut. oallust_o, usus varie 
Swe mend os o. 


Pie koa Vea Cu SeaM are.el laysty (qou iS y it aici 
Scepter ere rttir Came yper ius yilver 
Wescuhwitinha mn et ante eius sane win em 
Smacaise ell ll acirsim as ef' é. 

Sec hivyo2s. 24-01 Marcellus ut. . arb em 

Pe Mpiecitham Cue tltis. vidtt. timlacrin as sie 
diienktwuin. y Val-.Max. 5.1.4; ; M. Miarece Lit cele - 
MeMelka Guba Clarum quamque meéem-orna- 
Dakecee mip lun hh aub¢ rt debet,. dui ica p tis 
Pee y hd CUSIS Wi ah ce Car tm (Con Sti - 
Mt rt ek et Orr ten a tam ex alto ¢/ér ne - 
Bette c.e fer ihmo ec aSum ews buoeu bre m in =: 
Meco het Gm coOhibier e€ nom) (po tenci.t. . Plorus 
Epit. 1.22.33 mentions the fact that the city was defended by 
Archimedes, and Eutropius Brev. 3. 14 speaks of its capture 
but, like Florus, omits details. Compare also Cic. In Verrem 
4.52.115. Livy is clearly Augustine’s authority. 


il. 5. (COMS tit it ediCtio,, moe 4G as «Com pals 
iaabre se tet, Walon sau ert. 

The words: “neq ais) c:o rp as 14)b ex um vo 
laret occur verbatim in Livy 25.25.7, who also seems to be 
the only authority for this statement, and we conclude he is 
the source of Augustine’s account. 

Ti, Il... faba ~ are mit im ave ur bis). we were 
SOst a) Sonu bac ror mm dye (pu arce caster ome see 
abs tinuwisse laudatur: ~ Nam.-caw mse s-cariibra 
Sai oe e SiSaS Siet qriacd sdve “Sia oniats, die ot em 
Pietra AUsb-e€ Wee, s61O Nitin en ta-a Kies Urasm et iaden 
1:0) Ca md ‘0 (Cro. ndsiv alt Bee. eal iam qu amass 
fa.Gqhadt.. Wa fem tsivm ins “Gre orS“adeh ak os 

This Fabius was the famous Q. Fabius Maximus Cunctator. 
Augustine derives the story from Livy, who appears to be the 
only authority for the details here given. See Livy 27.16.8: 
sed Maiore animo @emerrs seus) ep travers 
abSsStinuit Fabius quam Mare ell us mom 
im-terroegantt quid Wivetd ss ieee. 
We ddeti. 2 7dse0's> iorvart ose £ ie ait teieor ee eae 
qui iussit. Here Livy suggests the comparison of 
Marcellus and Fabius. ; 

16,12, hmimvanus .d wes 

This is a distinctly Christian expression. Literally ‘‘ hu- 
man day” or ‘‘the day of man,” the opposite of dies 
Domini, and so usually ‘‘human life,” ‘‘man’s judg- 
ment.” Thus’ aut ab hu mano, die “Yor by, manis 
judgment,” “a (Cor.4-c- 

10: 20) S pre Cius labors. 
‘‘Watchmen’’—this word occurs 1g times in the Vulgate. 
Augustine has just quoted it from Ezech. 33.6. 

19,11.) Pavujlinws mos ter Nolen Sis. sepa 
€.o pus, ,¢.x Jo pwihie nti.ssi1 mie day ites volun 
tate pauperrimus..... quando et ipsam 
Nolam baw bia tr i via seta ile een) {ci usm) sasbenetigs 
Venere tur. vi Sac a Co. nmidjeistio.. june eaip ame 

7 (9, 

DrOMsieie wa FeO, O) OL Nel MUS spb 6 C-a bia tur <2) $D:oj- 
Mpiiere wo ty emo tC Le F ip rio; prtiey ri) aju Fu met 
awe ot amy Hob) Seem, ‘Sin t) 0 Mm nt ay) m;e.a, 
fetes) Cyt. Si:5 

This is related after a personal interview (ut ab eo 
postea cognovimus). Paulinus was born in 353 
and after having spent many years in the services of the world, 
during which he enjoyed high civil honors, he accepted Chris- 
tianity and was baptised 389. He then gave up public life and 
visited Florence, where he met Ambrose, and Rome, where he 
met Pope Siricius. Thence he passed to Nola and was ap- 
pointed bishop in 409. This office he faithfully discharged 
until his death, which took place in 431. Of his writings we 
have extant his Epistulae and Poemata. To him also is 
attributed in the MSS. the Passio S. Genesii. This is the only 
place in the DCD where Augustine quotes the oral words of a 
contemporary. Elsewhere he refers to him and had a consid- 
erable correspondence with him. Ep. 27 is addressed to Pau- 
linus and is full of his praises. Ep. 186.12.39: Fragrant 
Simm eps ew hae ttac od ore’ simoeriss! mo 
Citmist. ib oer mail S Sim u's. gratiae 1p - 
Suncare G tol test /4G/o nf 67S's.o'r > a'p p air-€-5" 
We learn from Ep. 42 that Paulinus wrote a work against the 
pagans which Augustine repeatedly asked him to forward. 
The fact that Nola was sacked by the Goths in 410 is pre- 
served for us by Augustine alone. It was sacked by them on 
their southward march through Campania after their destruc- 
tion of Rome. This march is mentioned by Procopius: De 
bello Vandalico 1.2.24 ; Sozomen H. E. g.8, but they omit to 
menion Nola. Augustine refers to the same event in his De 
cura pro mortuis gerenda 16.19, where he says of the appear- 
anceno: Saint: Pelix “cum a barbaris Nola. ‘op- 
Peeienetms, Sad iviiimus (non, ince rtis 
PuMOLrtihD its. sed testi buss Certis.;, and it 1s 
highly probable that the same testibus ceértis is 
the source of the information given above by Augustine. 
Hodgkin says (Italy and her Invaders, vol. 1, p. 806), ‘‘We 


hear incidentally of one captured town, Nola, which had re- 
sisted Hannibal when flushed with his great success at Cannae, 
but which apparently did not delay the victorious march of 
Alaric,” and then records the incident about Paulinus of Nola. 

232n2.0) View Um steam’ em! 7S .eip ul 6 Ul tae iC Uetiaam 
eytiina mye Om ump hid O.s,o\p hi) Giom,tem pis 6 rim te 

Compare Soerates’ reply to his friends in regard to his 
burial in the death scene at the close of the Phaedo. See also 
Cic. Tusc. 1.43.102-104 for the reply of Theodorus to Lysi- 
machus, who threatened to crucify him, ‘Istis, quaeso’ 
INeGuMuigtne 1 Seti ih Oia bilsina Inel iw tia es pete 
Pultastis, tunis; 2 heodori, quidem, ona ihe 
i tuest e Sit haw im ane fain) 7s Ub limes puntieis evant 
and. for the story, of Diogenes :- pT o ike i sje) ica SiSiee 
iMpha mM a tum 4° Tum: aim ca: - “vol acon debmnismanes 
tpi Bist VO Mam me, Sve nO 5 MinmuGnlnl feasrere 
bavenllam. (pmo pt er mee quo Vaybaligva ms (prom 
tote “Oui, poteras ?* ailit Snom send aiseme 
tutes 1Q wa di) out wry moi hoi Sfivem-asuen learner 
tus 0 berit nihil sem tien ta 7): and themenlwos 
Anaxagoras to his friends’ enquiry whether he wished to be 
removed to his native Clazomenae si quid acci- 
disisrest ce scON ash” yn cere.67s"sie, ) e1S st eee niot allan 
Pu a Gig ule? en im) said sion, Fer @ Sy) sty ayiet oun @ eum 
Wilsase ge Seti: 

24.15. Sunt quidem et alia quae sancti 
Prstriaer Cc hoa ie vd eC lof po ti0b US siuis: -v er] se om 
die mdars, ¥ve 1) star ans ie rem dals saprt Oo palive tinker 
Spirituy dicta imtellioi voller mat. 

For condendis compare the directions given by 
iacob Gen. 49.29, Sep elit € me 7c um ip ats ibe 
Mets ein spe lun ca idm pluicd sia 6. esteem 
agro Hphton, Hethaeci- “and for “trans te- 
rendis the directions of Joseph Gen. 50.24, asportate 
Ors s'a = Me ay VO Dl SC omy 2dse 7 1GOnC.0) 175 tO 


25 Oa Qhumiue amie i) 1nisu isla ttier Msi '¢ re - 
uimtteA rione m Meth y mn ae um ;) nobilis - 
Simim wCult hart Ss tam, | ¢ um ‘esisiet detect us 
Cea ex ceptim delphinisrdoerso etrad 
Geo aS ye Sissies pe fv ee t um). 

The earliest mention of this story occurs in Hdt. 1.23, 24. 
Herodotus relates how Arion stood on board and played be- 
fore those who coveted his money, and how when he ceased 
they threw both him and his x@dpa into the sea and rov de 
dedAdiva Néyover troAaBovra eevetkar ert Talvapov. 

Augustine, however, hardly went to Herodotus for it. 
Nor could he well get it from Cicero, who only once (Tusc. 
227,07) eteters to Arion:; praes tio est qui ex ci= 
piat vel delphinus ut Arionem Methym- 
haeum. Compare Ovid Fasti 2.110sq. Hyginus Fab. 194 
also gives a full account. But I have no doubt that Augustine 
got the story from Aulus Gellius, whose writings he refers to 
inthe DCD IX.4. See N. A. 16.19 where Gellius gives it on the 
duthority of Herodotus: fabulam) scripsit Hero- 
CPuerwsis wpe tr) £1dii cine, illo, Ayrio ne. 

2b ect). Neat Cols hoe oo lus, 1m pe fF ator 
Pom wit Ro mea nt «Capit i v.uS  aspowd) “C ast hya = 
Seine tse Sst. Ot. Out cum ci bt male mt 

eROmanis smos reddi quam eorum ten ere 
Guapiivos ad hoc impetrandum “etiam 
PStilnh praeccipue Regulum eum legatis 
SieMseek O Md Mm Miser Wit. priws. iu rat tone 
CAOmucnt GG. tm “Si words v ol 6 bra nst, minim € 
Pemerrs set -rediturum: ¢€ss¢ Cart hagi- 

Veen. anny S Ci at Ww ccom tira risa (prers was it 
Pee Cumost hame. pre msi.asio nem. a. S Wis 
GaceeiivOvSste.S.) reduc) comp ulSs uss 6S €*. 2. t 

Piet cxc Ogitatis atique horre midis 
GHciatibus necaverunt. Inclusum quippe 
Pest On Niger. wb os tare coger et ut, 
Chav Sie, 2euwlissimis un dique co mt 1x0 
Pct ie Meo vie tiham do. prere mer unt. 


There were many sources of information at hand in 
regard to Regulus which Augustine might consult. See Livy 
Epi, 18) Reo ulus missus sa Cara hia ot nien- 
Sip ws. ad) siem apt ruim) ait) die \prarc-en rertne Ss haere 
MON; p.os set, 1 mpve tiyaite) +d el c oman tandes 
Ciaspitd Vis aime mielts lesieid) ian ee dtirsa neh paride: 
Stirietusim caiut ur ume se 1Claxit hao me mmeesm 
Som ma tara welaipit 1.V.0.s) maom)) ip la ica ads stenGe 
Moerum que nie gam di ia ule ton Ese mavt ai etiuga, 
Cute Citi "if ted “eeauns ts cduistya eon eevee Sallis: 1c SuSse mere 
Sip p bicaio a (Gan thd gm ie mes asides e710 
sumpto perit. Also Florus Epit. 1.18.23 sq. Eutrop. 
Bue. (i. 214) 4.25, Wal, Max.t15 1) 14,6. 2, xt (Cras 
thaginiven’s esi Ati lium (Regu lum pal pie be 
fis. Tesectis maichtme (in 9 qua: tu nedag ule 
Pracacuti stimulifeminebant, me lis um 
Wile lea neti a prarditiey Ae ty ic7O mgt iW Ostia te cate 
dolionts neca v enum t,)) Also Cich, DerOiys e26.ngn: 
sq. In 3. 27. 100 Cicero writes vigilando necaba- 
tur which Augustine may have had in mind in writing 
Vioilando peréemerunt, Id. De, hima 2 zoos 
CU m ovigi lias ‘e-to ft amie 9 Cor UC tea i ent sea 
such variety of authors it is impossible to say Augustine used 
only one or, if so, which one, while it would seem from the 
words (p. 26,33) Si autem, dicun tM Ree em lua 
é in ila sca-p t divas astieea iss au ce ceriins 
Ciatib Us COtT.p Of1S Amit. Va Bute ie asks 
esse potuisse that Augustine bad before him Cicero 
di-c-€ t. p r0) 4649p Sas Wl ts. a ee dau bait agiogiae 
ist? We sitto bea to. Me Rye cone jam. sac te ps0. 
mere... clamat vit tus, bie ti.o,t © me tis se 
Guam potantem in, cosa: 2 hyo nium (Peskin 
2.20. 65). Seeid. 5. 29. 83. Yet Augustine must have had 
in mind also the detailed account of Regulus as was found in 
the eighteenth book of Livy, now no longer extant, in which 
no doubt something corresponding to vigilando pere- 
merunt was found, and probably in the main Augustine 
has here followed Livy’s account. 

ieee se ile 


270i znowm alin dcavirtas non S1t..quiam 
com Gor s\hiom tn) m meu lt t tudo. 

See Augustine’s letter to Marcellinus (Ep. 138, 10) quid 
Cctuaut eum) Givi fa sins) multit u diop ho mt - 
Hitman quod diam vvinculum meda ctavc oni- 
€or ai? 

Scemietce = Drescher prob. i 25..2o. “Augustine 
discusses Cicero’s theory of the state in DCD XIX. 21. 

S004.) OC. Ds tet wi vVir Ginis feu tus dam 
it.e Otel ate Mam anu velut..explorams “sive 
Mpanee VoOnle NM Gia Si Wey 1 :n.S\Ca)\t. 4, aq {Sdsv e) sC.a-S uh, 
Mima yOrS PEC it 5 pe) d 1d.iit.. 

This is some story for which there appears to be no 
literary source except this passage. 

Siete wi ic. fe tl dd Cente, “Wi a t'ro.n am 
MoO ibicim wether emique Romanam , pudier- 
Pikacy mba nets, fier unt lawdi bus. ) He wias 
Somme. Culm: Wiolken ter “op pres so “far - 
pti Oe ect so Nem iiis. “Ia bi ditm ous e p.ort et ws 
ersisrcnteeel laste 6 louise 1m pro Da ssi mi tuvemts 
Meat oO, iGo,llatino vet, pil Oo pim quon, Byer wu to 
Pewudinca vit eosque ad «vindictam, ,qanr 
SEEatenexaists we ose igh’. 2. 4Shey apse Te) mk by; 

Augustine’s account seems to follow the story as told in 
detail by Livy (1. 57-59). See also Florus Epit. 1.1.7, and 
PMtCGOP breve 1.o.2 (Nea te cum | fa lis en u si° ‘ext 
ise “Lh arqainmits, Lunior nobilis s im am 
heMminam bLuweretiam eandemdwuwe  pudi- 
Sess am. Col Latin i wx orem, St upras set 
eaque “dhe iniuria marito et patri- et 
BiMpicies <qibe Sita. £iisset, in ‘omnium con - 
Spe ctu sie o¢ eid mi.) Hutropius thus adds et (aim i - 
cis which is not given in Livy nor followed by Augustine. 
Compare Cic. De Finn. 2. 20. 66 who says testata civis, 
id’s5 3122045: DeRe pubs 2: 25.462 paitri's) €t' pr opin 
Qworwm.) Detlegs. 2:4) 10, ‘Ovid 'Fasti |'2.. 760. sq: 


Juv. 10. 293. While these sources give substantially the same 
account, Augustine does not follow them but Livy, who seems 
to make only Brutus and Collatinus go to see Lucretia, and 
adds conclamat vir paterque (Livy 1. 58) after 
her suicide before their eyes. Dion. Hal. Antiq. Rom. 4. 64 
gives the fullest account of the interview previous to the crime. 

31.20. f © Lee 1 'e.1q it. dva im ex Siho.c veer 
Galtiem qe die c ta mean saat. “9M air abu le dure tau 
dao fiver un t veltiea dul ter ium ans sadist 

Nothing nearly approaching to these words is found in 
any account of Lucretia with which I am acquainted. Augus- 
tine says they were spoken by quidam declamans, 
and they evidently came from a declamation in some school 
of rhetoric. Juvenal Sat. 1. 16. and 7. 150 and Quintilian 
Inst. Or. 10. 5. 13-14 give some samples of the subjects 
chosen for such declamations, and this famous incident was 
probably a trite theme. 

Compare for the form of the expression Livy 1. 58. 7, 
cete rum VC.o Tip WSs Sesit ta nim vy 1 onl deem 
a0 mu S11 5.0: Si. 

31.29) (Niam! Cille “patria “(Cian spranaae 
Puls uss est. 

The source is Livy 1. 60. 2; for the passage see note on 
30. EZ. 

34.4, 1D San C445 (6.4 me micas. cldob teinss 

Augustine in the De Doctrina Christiana, chap. 8, gives his 
opinion of the nature and number of the libri canonici, 
from which we learn that the canon as received by Augustine 
included all the books of our present Bible, and the apocrypha 

35. 4, Manjrchacorumrer.o 1: 

Augustine was a follower of this sect for nine years and 
was well acquainted with all their tenets; Conf. 4.1: Per 
idem, tem pias (a m2 no Pum nol eam 5! mab unde- 
Vigesimo anno @aetiatis meacy usimquen ad 


tiodeatuinesitmmm jseduweebamur et s.e- 
Gumeverpram ts: of als Wa tqw¢e .fal le nities |,jin 
Vers cCupiditatitbusi.. After his conversion he 
bitterly opposed the system of Manichaeism as may be seen 
from his numerous attacks on it in his Confessions. He 
also wrote many works to refute it, among which are De 
moribus Manichaeorum, De libero arbitrio, De vera religione, 
De duabus animabus contra Manichaeos, Contra Adimantum 
Manichaei discipulum, Contra epistolam Manichaei quam vo- 
cant fundamenti, Contra Faustum Manichaeum, De actis cum 
Felice Manichaeo, De natura boni, Contra Secundinum, De 
Genesi contra Manichaeos, Disputatio contra Fortunatum. 
Manichaeism held good and evil to be coordinate and eternal. 
Compare Augustine, De Haeresibus 46: Man- 
teiaetd Guo Gam Pers 4 ex Ss titeru nt, q wi 
Veorert nd Gtuek Moa DeSean. . Ls ted ue) pr i m.- 
Cuma ber Sei.dkvy ers a 68 2d ye6niSa., -ea-= 
Wenge. d.¢ te tia cet ce Oaeterna,- hoe est 
Hobper CMisse,. COMpOSait>duasque na- 
Bacasea tg ue Sabstantias, boni scirlicet 
Steines OP ia tse St. Omari intier 
Teepe maim ef COMM! x typonem et boni a 
hdor pir satronmem, €t boni- quod pur- 
Porte MOtmerOoterit, cum maholtn wetern um 
Caminationem “secundum ~~ sua’ dogmata 
asceveranwt &s 4) . 4. et passim. 

20027, nike potims Cle om brotws tn hae 
ibis SN ud tne “reper it ur. g.uem 
emai tale. 6.t. 0. P. hia tiounsd.s) libro 35 a bt d.é.im- 
MmoOgtabitate amimaed, disputayvit, sé prae- 
Ep wrtresm se d'e.d1s.S €; die, mu Fo ait q weé;oi ta, ex 
Maveuved tay e Midicr aS S.é: ad eam. Guam (cre- 
eipiteene S.s-€. me hio rem PNoijh.t. en im, urge 
Beaybad. t,t jc.a-ha m itja ti-s;iaut..¢rbminis, 

Compare: Cice. Tusc. 1.34.84: ‘Callimachiqui- 
Men ve pi § fiamm a‘in, Aim bDraciotam .Cleom- 


DRottm es tig wemraiity “enim ret) nihid Vac 
Chldarsesve ty Pavdiv se1reshil; Pe. im) WO] Sey Wms ema 
dbitectiss e We cto) Platomis) libro. ~ Compare 
also Cic. Pro Scauro 3. 4. which seems to be the literary 
authority for saying the book was the Phaedo. 

Compare Lact: Divs Insti72.a6i.9) iquisd) GA um bya 
Ciotes: willivery sq wil scjuym) ie umn id-emnan || liebe 
Prehuplye ones sie ate PateaverGal, pri} ire pn sve de dit 
neu ydilva mm: vacliaim’! -0/b- (eras amin ise quu-ord* EP lac 
tO Miiene tie Cindi tar 

3551.7 ads ln (Cra bomen, “quis sicunl) taicrare 
Oe CH Olsiar 

see Livy Epit. 114; Florus, Epit: 2.13: 71 sq., Val. Max: 
R204 uact. Div..inst. 3, 18.6, Aul. Gell) NwAS tonzonss tae 
14. Augustine probably derived this information from Livy 
114, of which we have only the epitome in which is briefly 
mentioned the suicide of Cato. Here also we may conjecture 
Augustine found authority for writing quod amici 
Cis) eyt amy dvo.e ti jqsuindsaym. wala -Gunadesnsont 
fie ta pr usdvem-tiius: Idi siswusade bagiet.. lan prer 
eit ors aquiam! fortiori sami barcumaues 
esis € Ce 1 Stem, met (pesos). 

36.10. Nam sit tut pre ret, sab wie tomes 
Ciajes.a TUS), Vilwer Oe Culm alive to ir, bruise pee 
prtudinis fidisor £ uyit .q uses | dren aes acmies 
DENS nitate “Om nila Sipremwsaten spr arcrcre prt 

The fact that Cato Uticensis commanded his son to hope 
from the clemency of Caesar does not seem to be mentioned 
in the writings of Cicero, Florus, Eutropius, Valerius Maxi- 
mus, Velleius Paterculus, Lactantius or Aulus Gellius. It is 
most likely that Augustine found this in the 114th book of Livy 
of which we have only the epitome in which we find the words 
in‘tervenien tie £110; soithat Cato’sison was ipre- 
sent at his father’s death; and no doubt on this occasion he 
received the above advice from his father. Another source in 
which Augustine might have found this information was the 


éyxapuov Kérwvos which Plutarch (Vitae, Caes. 54 and Cic. 39) 
informs us was written by Cicero. Compare Aulus Gellius 
WaZOry vin c.atOmts, praetor vViri, quiche lilo 
CAiwmelioU takeme ine crem. sibivodadio mamniu ‘saa 
Gloenys Chnvolt.t) wd enc iars yt tran liv beet -eys tM. 
Civecn10 mics Mild 4 ns en i.bittuc haus Cations: 
of which we are assured by Cicero himself De Div. 2. 2. 3, 
Gatco. moister tm hoerwm. librorwm- nu mero 
pro muemdims. Vieisie, (Orator), ro +35) Catome - aibso- 
luto. Ad Att. 12.4.2 de Catone zpoPrAnpa ’Apxipydecov 
Crsteee e Id.  2, iS 2 ET ee AO. Wh. “Ee. tAr. Ge Tet. AA. 
Meh yeaa 1S) A0..2. Whee te pars to liam (4: [es Cae- 
Sanispad Balbumj: im mlt a die? m.eo .C atone. Top: 
SpeaGae sat cOmtrta Catonem, meu m:- Compare 
also Tac. Ann. 4. 34, Quintilian 5. 10. 10 

But itis more probable that Livy was Augustine’s authority. 

so0uie.s = Neaiesd eum Lilaumy! qui ‘contra 
ie pier id we tty Phos tie me puso nia Ve ba t,. € tata m 
Vaicworem- Wa ddia biliter'D o'r guat ws occids t, 

See Livy 8. 7 who gives a detailed account too long to 
cites Cics MDEOit. 402%. Fi2h) De Finns #47.) Sulla 
Peer eth Vier OO Clari sis imu my) iru m/e en-eriis 
Wie Sek a6 OO Minis! nie more pre he nd it; 
deiaear tron VS asus Vyitas ‘piri vaya. ust) “ah 
Clete OVS) 6 Ut Maer Clb; Ph Mm) pye.r la, ms. 

see also, Blorus  Epit.rre 9.,. Vals Max.,'2..7. 6.1, Aulus 
Gellius N. A. 9. 13 relates the incident on the authority of 
the older historian Quadrigarius. 

B8.-22.- Can tum “eloriae€ ip sits Caesars, 
iver a Db Mt Ove th amy SVD. pia r-€@s EtAL Ti ust 
LpsicuG.2 ecva ts (dix is sie JP erthir anvad te. 

Augustine no doubt found this statement in one of the 
lost books of Livy of which we have only the epitome. The 
only now extant Latin source that Augustine could have con- 
sulted would seem to be Val. Max. 5.1.10 Catonis 
Guo que. -m Girte) Caesiar audita et Se “rlliws 


elomrn ale jon w idvere he toi lium ssum@enimaaidasisie 
dixit. But Augustine did not make use of Valerius 

Compare Plutarch, Vitae, Cato 72 ws d€ jxovoe Tov Oavarov 
abrod A€yera Tocodtov eizetv OQ Katwv, pOove cou Tov Gavdtov~ Kal yap 
é“ol ov THS GavtTot cwrypias ePOdvnoas, Id. Vitae, Caesar 54 which 
gives almost the same words. Compare also Zonaras, 
a twelfth century writer, who followed and epitomized Dio 
Cassius, Epit. Hist: ro. 10,13. Also Appian, Bellum Civile 
2.99: 6 d€ Katoap éby pev ot POovnca Karwva kadijs éemideigews. 

39: 222) na Min wbam tiariviee tio 6d at ema nese 
Pracdepxe tent mus: 

Compare Val: Max. 4: 4.6. ‘con sSulitbus. scrip 
Suite Vv iulMiceouum: )) stones avouerlal{Oonsen ctr septem. 
Puce Tum in “Pau ipa naa heatbiesbsa-t) von 
Etim | ess €5 “olc.c asd 0 Mle meg ue | name Pua 
Myew ¢ CM Na Pi Wm. a Ort Onn nidses atu Sitelic Oo une 
Sitetol MC Net 0. dl 1/S°C\6\S)Sylss Sey,u aed exG1g wine) sp rentnestae 
“tesa ba (Ss Wc Cc é-s'Sio f M1 t ter et 1 mer delsicmiao 
AOL.) HOM) SiS 6st; Mn dO aa OE | ae amet 
Sui -alerentur,, It is) most likely, Aucustine hacia 
mind the lost eighteenth book’of Livy, the epitome of which 
gives a brief statement of the victory, defeat and death of 
Regulus. Florus does not mention the poverty of Regulus. 

46.29. Si Néais teas abe gS icaipaion vy es ties 
qaveon dam “pom tite x ey ver et.) 4G Ue mags aia 
terrore ~ biel 11) Pina ea) im es asics pane mudniic 
Phrygiis Stacris, Cum Wit optimus, quae: 
f-E€uye-t) War, iain v-(6 ie Sais yep sre mca Spe ese ante 

Compare! Livy, 20..445 782. <P orem p com cna 

and slice S.c € netie mm sien) Om Gates @U;ale St Or 1 tome 
Ludi Cav e€run tim a totaled woltragte. = veto em 
b.o'n 0 Tf U:m),0 p tim wm 6 Sse. 4.0 Corn ne luna 

Cm... 01m 1) DiS, ma itir jos 1.5) 4OUSitaieas Mel Te polis 
Sis; ObvViam ~ Ls qine Se ame die. nagar 
acc lup € r¢5 e2- diny tier hacume ed-aat gm oat ct adecarie 
here n-dam imatro mts. 


Wisewe oer Dew Harusi: Resp. £3.) 278 ) Hale V1 gi 
HU nmaved tes S Ward en tev quo ndam \ defessa 
iittala Pi mc onob ello. fat que Sab Han nics 
Mmacvimv eC matian sacra ts ta “nies tra’) mi ar- 
iomesuad Ss cl ta cx: Pir yo ia Ro m’aelioc on lo- 
Cldsatienv tae GQ tkae wo Val b. 0S ace € pi tip quiiite sit 
OMe tes. pie Rey ju di cat us. Pa Sea pos 
Compare also Val. Max. 7. 5. 2.; 8. 15. 3. Livy Epit. 49. 

a7 ete flee Sc Upto ip om tite x” mane 1- 
Micmac s tere ile iid Peo: t O.t1- Us Sena tas 
Weitre|-0 pet 1m Ws. istam vobis mveb a elms 
Scalamitatvem nokebat “acm ulam «ttn c 
Pipe hii wk Om ante Can t h a eine a. “d-rr ut, et 
Peacommemtimwt Girdenetur contrad ice biat 
Crart Onn ts 

Livy was no doubt the source: Epit 49 (ad. init.) inter 
Memeo O te tiny Cato Nem), ye ti o29.C.4. pion, © 1 
Meats he ain and) tO Wma lte t Salhi eu ti sisi m us 
Witte i vointea te, shia bie batur, alter op ti 
MuiSaiveit etiam aS 6a tuciud i cat use rat. 
dive nsisS certa tum s.ententiis est, Catone 
Sipancecmnt er bre lietiin ot ut tokheretur, dele- 
mer tit dithen' Cra. it bare oy Nasica dissua- 
dente +) Also Plorus,, Epit, 1. 31..4: Cato. in ex pia,- 
Dulisodiowdekend am ~esse Carthaiein em 
Cute scotemi, die. Yalivoosc ons tleretur pron un 
igasbaattyte S Ci p bor iNeasii-ca- serv anda m, one 
IMesttiea Dib ato jaemeul-ae ur bis: ux uria ri 
eMC ivtatsm iin Cape £ et). 

See Plutarch, Vitae, Cato maior 27, who has preserved 
the account of Livy:  éxetvo 8’ 3n Kai Biadrepov 76 Tepi mavTos 
ov dyrore mpaypatos yvwunv aropawopevov mpocerupwve “ ovTws 
Soxei 5€ prow kai Kapyydova pi) evar’? tovvavriov dé IdmAvos Sxuriwv 6 
Naotxds érixaovmevos del duereAer A€ywv Kal arropatvopevos “‘ doKet dé 

por Kapyydova etvar. 


A722 is nevis crmenticque )cedt tiomaburs 

The reference is probably tothe agrariae conten- 
tiomes;) fof the duo, charissim? (ing enivosi1sisima 
aya nf 1S:s iym a pile b is) PY Rioayamn a yy ty Oe ier 
ius and Caius Gracchus. See Livy Epit. 58,59. Florus Epit. 
2. chaps. 1-4. 

A723. det nde. m0-x9 mm arl-a 1m: "e,o nee x1 omnse 
Cia t's a mb eds extiea mn Cagy. 1plaDSent amet 
SHEuia So e1S: Pes Gyenn ge Mit lots, a ba nec tluSe Sean i Call du ere aie 
Pun Gert Citi s)  tyanyt au iCall iG der tee) BP) 101S) Cat Nap 
LLOmn Wm) ac rasp na Fam, Lien Vvietert: am m Aue. 

See Livy Epit. 69 sq., Florus Epit. 2. 6 sq. 

48: 275° GQ uvold adie) fips e) vee sere t ppOsmr tae 
fae xe Marx Mass, 2s eC avne um the aut. tales ene 
tw) c/o n)s\t 1 a err /esomyol 1 en trem (ab) vieave dmiise— 
prostttone Et, Ci piidi tater compres cme 
Pers Wa sitiq ure = Orato ne: oma vis scene 
Gra.etcam,” 1x Wri m,) evit ilaebns pra cateage 
MOT db Ws “parte rem ti © Oo bane sce mer 

See Livy Epit. 48 (ad. fin.) cum locatum a cen- 
SO ribs theatrum. es tru eine tues eee once 
nelio Nasica auctore tam quam “mute 
et) m ore tf uriwm pmb ls ex's! mot ibrwiS ean * Sema 
tus) (70 1 sul tro 2dvess € 1 us6 tu me Se sit, PAlSOmavaale 

Max. 2. 4. 1. Sq. No doubt Augustine’s authority was the 
now lost forty-eight book of Livy. 

48.-25. (Ut verbis .eu ws ico myn oe tats 6 nike 
f.G,kwl a. > pie OuvAiidse mtn a et iam Su bisve disks sas 
Quibus ad hora m sco nee s tis 1m) Iidio rim 
Spree tia.c 0 amy Wush (CigNd tyas COxe 2p © heater 
de yim Ce 1p .S) apd 0 Diese ejb audepouneiye 

See Livy Epit. 48 (adfin.) populusque aliquam- 
diu. Stans ludos spectawvirt,” alsouvialt Max 
2,4:.2,-Cautum €St. ne Guies .1m), te biel epimo- 


PMMUS Ve pass ws mia live isuibsellica. posuisse 
seune Naswve. lt uldors sip e.c.tare vy elle t, 

AGO Wid. Ss Cae miei. -spectacula-turpt- 
tment sete lie enti) ay ~viden iti atu m:n on 
hominwm vittis) sed deorum westrorum 
IneSEShinS TOUnPare tin Shee tic Stun to. 

AG atte -Diit pit Op te r= se G-en-d am. ¢.Orp o- 
Guiness tikentrham lbud:os. ‘sibi scaenncos 
exe Dues tC. De Dam t. . . “Guia pop ulo 
bpemileiiciossso. ert, SO l-is -amteda luwdis circee msi - 
Die eas ie t ob budorwm scacnicorum déli-- 
Gaba ess Doe bier av it. i: Sanita". 

Conlpareiviy 7.203. ect. -Cibm vis) mor Dt. nec 
Di Meieks  GOmSilid ss, Meco pe- divina le. 
Vedineiet — Vili Citys. Sipe mS tition ¢- a nim is 
Mee GO Guike SCa 6M C1, on 0-v.a. res belli 
Sos cm popt lo lam c1rcl modo spectac u- 
Mie twetat— Unter alia. caéle stirs) irae 
Mica mena. LMS trtwti dicuntur,  and<id: 
BOmsOeecniso Vial. Max: 9. 4.4, 2 Un Cc aus am ins ti- 
Pige mod ott m ~ bude am. cab “O Fig1n-é "(sua 
ReMppertd Whe)...  Livyis Augustine's source. 

EOmGe. Os stile tra quaereretis imtrare- 
Shoo im pleretis et imulto i1msaniora qwam 
Ptheubia Moto am tea fa cerme tas ? 

For the fact that great and widespread calamities tend to 
bring to the front the basest passions of men, compare 
Thucydides’ account of the moral effects of the plague at 
Athens (book 2, 53 sq.) The same is recorded of the plague 
at Constantinople in 542, in that at Florence in the middle 
of the fourteenth century (recorded by Boccaccio in his De- 
cameron), and in the Black Death in England in the seven- 
teenth century. 

Fosr Romulus ¢t Remus asylum con: 
Topatose | plethobemt ur,  -qiho quisque 


Cio mn fuse ene ty fa bom ni Sno meas Slaibiest we sesecnter 
A Woe res  Gelid ee mvt ess Ct ervalmudvave mulatta 
diignve ml he4 Ve itrastoics! 

Where Romulus avd Remus asylum constitu- 
mise perhiben tur it is impossible to Say.) So ar 
as I am aware there is no authority for it, and the statement 
seems to be a pvynpovkov apaptnua on the part of Augustine. 

pee liivy. ta 6.52 desin d Ceemes sve autinas sallciaomtiES 

Mra ond turd Os 7e:S siete ora dal te em.drace | matiletaine 
tdi 1 1S “Cea, Say ave teste + CO nS als.0n- ClOmeduesnE: 
Ese mi A ao One tiie CE MC ino usaeiyt oS 

die siciesnide netayb.u Ss) “ienetie rr dia ovSeel Micro. S elcuce 
asylum aperit, which account is given of Romulus 
alone after the death of Remus recorded in chapter 7. 
Compare Florus Epit-1. 1,09, € tact) im - pur ox imino 
hacen s hun Coas.jyaliem sfhacit (eR omnia annsy)a 
Lactantius also, Divin. Inst. 2. 6. 13, says Romulus 
é  COnmstitwitcasy lum = “alsow Vell) (Pat Hist 
Rom. 2 8.5. ft is worth notice that ins DCD pve cr jeu: 
223. 14) Augustine calls it asylum Romuleum- 



Bog o. ae x gwohim vm peritia illad quo- 
Giicn ertum) est vwwhe are prover bium.: 
Plvttiveaandcet Hie causa Chrisiti ami ss unt. 

So far as I know these words do not occur in this form in 
any other writer. The nearest approach is found in Tertullian, 
mMpol gonad init.) .q wod sexistiment omnis pu b- 
Miperanes -C lad iS 2.0 mon 1s “popularis in co m- 
MmOGiee Dristianos, €SS¢€ in  Causam . Si 
ieabacit:S as Gemant. in mo enta, Si “Nwlws 
Moma sce el Gite in arVa, Si Cale bam St é tit, 
Siererids iho Vit, Si ftames, si vlutes, sta tim 
CWheisis tia ncos sad Leonrem adc) amatur; and 
AdeNationes 1.9 (ad init) St Taiberis nredunda- 
Vetmiitoe sl IN ibwS Mon Led tan davit, Si eae- 
IMUeiMees tc tist Sie t eakiad. mM OV ice « Sri tpt ina 
(MavedeSstea Vet. 2 Si, tame s ta fil ix it. stat tm 
Mimi vox. Christian or wim mie rit om: (?) 

Compare Cyprian, Ad Demetrianum 2; Sed enim 
ciemedic as ip lirimos con quieri quod, bella 
Cee Metis SUELgant, quod lies, quod fames 
Sdreayel-amcts “Guo dd ue tm bres et p luvias 
Sememea UO mo a; Sues pei dant mob is — 1m p u-- 
Pubieana aso 3: Dix irs ti jp er 210s fiert et 
PEURCichye NO. is) sd.e pean t’ aim puitiat. “om nica 
Ibe iS. Mwai, nha dws iq Udattit wr set 
ere tHlste Gr Od “dit ves tri a. no bis non 
eolan t ur. 

Compare also Prudentius, Contra Symmachum 2, 684. 

Ege Snot. (Wt wl O01 Ss. be hia e x pro b fare 
Sut ist. 6 a ‘ 

Neomeed dU bhi ten 6. pos tq ua m. st.e.m pl or um 
Spire Vil Ml U.S 4.1% aS. 


Compare Augustine Enarr. in Psal. 80. 1 which reads et 
ViCst US 4qraacdienns ose da st emi pio re pes: Esher is 
tian ss clove pis pro vier bi ums, 5 Nom” pulue 
DresurS oC the=-avd> (Crh. rT 1S, tata, n0rs;, 

‘Tertullian (Apol. 40) points out to the pagans that mani- 
fold and great misfortunes happened to mankind before the 
introduction of Christianity. Oro vos, ante Ti- 
Dice ia ms) Vid est van te hirits t1 sa-d-y een trues 
Qua n't-ave; Clva idxe's” jo ribiem ce+ts “u mobiers vcletemte 
dieu nit... AlsoAd Natty 2.28: 

57. 7. V-€nle ba mus etiam. nos .2 lag ulammea 
adulesicen tes “ad spect acula. van diitbacee 
ag we “Sac rilegu Or Wim, Sipse ic t-aib.a mais sane 
Hegptl C1.0-S , acusd icesbvasm 0 Sms yemonsh oom ia, crouse 
Isuid is: “trp is sama Ss qvu i “dias id-e:a bauss;qmane 
exh Dsé Dvaenct a rouble esta, Dagmar. 

Augustine is here speaking of something which he once 
had seen (Spectabamus) andheard (audieba- 
mus) sand taken delight in (oblectabam un): 
For his former love of theatrical spectacles compare Conf. 3. 
2.2 Kea pie ban t mie. «Sp ect a Cyl iale st beeranre 
LAlcCoa aw pl ena 1 ia cin Bas miseriarum 
Inearum et fomiiti bus 4-1 Ws) med scom- 
pare also Lact. Div. Inst. 6. 20. 9'sq: 115 (SpeCctae u- 
lis publicus:) et de lectam ture tli bemutice un ts quae: GU Oia Mee mya x emda GSataee 
intitam en ta- Vit 1 Om Um ehteala We Over an. 
pendos. anim os — pe tient ss Gmer sv ade mee 

. . also Div. Inst. Epit. 58 sq. Tertullian De Spectaculis 
22. De Pudicitia 7. 

RMD ATES, Cases Seti with opiates 

From Tertullian Apol. 24 we learn that the Caelestis 
virgo was peculiarly an African deity: Unicuique 
etiam pyr Ovi Cla €* et. Cimitaci saws ecuens 
est; ut  Syritae  “Asstaw Ges. ae Avra paieage 
Dusares,. wt N Ofieds” Bre enuresis ae 


Teeeraemeaate lerser nish, In chap: 23" he calls her) :i-s ta 
tipicaav treo Ciaehes tis pilaviiarum-'p'oll i= 
citatrix. He mentions her in chap. 12 and again in Ad. 
Natesznon CG aelles tas Ali ror wm’. | Augustine’-as)\a 
North African would naturally have abundant opportunity 
of making himself familiar with the rites and with the manners 
of the worshipers of this African deity. 

Grote (bet cic yom toni e aMnvact rt, 

See Livy 29. 14; Catullus, carmen 63; Tert. Apol. 15, 1d. 
Ad Natt. 1. 10. 

For the immorality of the heathen gods and goddesses 
see Arnobius, Adv. Nationes, lib. 5 passim. 

58. 6. Nasicam Sculpt OnNee mar gai ler © Volek 
Ont ws! ao sre natiw e le Cit.uis ‘e°s: ft, 
See note p. 46; 20: 

Goethe uechverd. ttm aed th icia ri. 5 Sp 5 oO = 
See note p. 48, 17. 

Rime uhec abt Fugalia celebrarentur 
mtisano mn hice m tia tur pit udin tum Cet 
Wietiee sb Caldas. ase dG” pu doris, € t “hom esx- 
fa tras.) 

All that is known of the Fugalia is derived from 
this passage in Augustine, which seems to be the only place 
in extant Latin literature where the word occurs. The BE 
foot-note reads: Fugalia festa fuerunt Romae 
ie We, O-r 1 ao mi expulsorunm Re o wim fet 
ihorehieantyaye), ae tp. aid linc.a-ey si mys, € ityw ta) ‘quae 
meme ebruario celebrabantur- post 
exaae bam tee tim tmaddiia.) Ehistis:4 mere guessfrom 
the etymology of the word. Perhaps Augustine means the 
cries aur nioeps Un lsh Ss) ert oer bees Eyer acm is 
(Auson., Eclog. 15. 13), but this may or may not be so. 
Saisset says in his note on this passage: ‘‘ Que faut-il pen- 
ser de ces Fugalia? Sont-ce les fétes instituées en souvenir 


de |’ expulsion des rois, comme le conjecture un commenta- 
teur, ou bien faut-il croire 4 quelque méprise de saint Augus- 

tin?” The Totius Latinitatis Lexicon of Forcellini gives 
Sibewh.cvel<miOrmve Mi aap FO p Tou my eacd We cht Bale ae 
pea hes -a bis io lujtve tach burtamis aan p lure 
MDM)... <racnhturme ards ie nitive amedia® drersata 

quacae “Ro mace 1¢’e lreibir a biamsium 7 Vi) Key Manges 
post Lerminalia, 1n- memoriam, fue ato. 
Lum TectM, elfusa omni Iicentiia tue pie. 
Gham tsi, Wit; sadit. ANU etUS ti nus), ee) se Ciy 7D 1Ol a(n 
correctly quoting Augustine in the word turpitudinis). 

62.°31. Qui diautem hinie sie nice ri mtuheoe 
Mani veteres, Cicero tes tatur in 1ibaas 
qulos de Rep Wbliweay scrips it uw ba Sen eike 
dis 7p. ta m7s: aiete. 

63.5. Sicut in eis diem, Wavbmes, Lo amastime 
Aten eC a Mall Se 

63. 23:, Haec ex Ci ceromits sqiua tte amdne 
re pw blica lib road “vie rf bow sex Ce rpc mara 
act Malt teat Ss VSeulna: 

All the passages which Augustine here gives from Cicero’s 
Republic have been preserved by him alone. See Muelter’s 
editionsof Cic. De Re pub: 47 to. a7: 

63.'°8) -€leiom em: Cileop hrontem, jE ype qbor 


Cicero had probably in mind Thucydides and the come- 

Compare Thucydides 3. 36 ad fin. KAéwy 6 KAeawerov .... 
bv kal és Ta GAAa Bradtatos Tov Toditdv Te Te Syww Tapa TOAD ev TO 
tote miavararos and 4.21 avijp dnpaywyds Kar’ éxeivov TOV xpovov dv 
kal T® wARnOe mHavweratos Id. 5. 16. also Aristoph. Ach. 289. 
dvaiaxuvtos et Kal BdeAupos & mpoddra THs matpidos. Cf. Id. ibid 377, 
659; Vesp. 62, 242, 596, 759. For Kleophon see Aristoph. 
Thesm. 805. 

kat KXeopov xeipwv ravrws Sypov SadaBayods Id. Ranae 678. 


For Hyperbolus see Thuc. 8. 73: ‘YaépBodov re twa tov 
"A@nvatwv, oxOnpov avOpwrov, eotpakiopéevoy .... dua movnpiav Kai 
aicxvvyv moAews, also Aristoph., Eq. 1304 avdpa joxOnpov 
moXitny o€tvyv “YirépBoXov. 

6359, ing ait 

This word both in the singular and plural has two distinct 
uses in the DCD: (1) as a quote-word which Augustine uses 
to show he is quoting the words of an author. In this use it 
is equivalent to our quotation marks in printing or writing; (2) 
a much less frequent use as equivalent to our ‘‘they say,” or 
the Greek Aéyovow, or French ‘‘on dit,” or German ‘‘man 

GSO. quod im €oO quoque de re publi- 
Cea ib to Col Iie mr Our acti ; Aeschines 
Menemnhen sis, vir €loquentissim us, cum 
MUnPReIS Cems. tra cOoodias, actitaviss ¢t, 
Meme Pete D MiG aM Capress i vit, et Aris toade- 
Iii tha Cheum tem. actiore m Mia xi mis 
Wewoeec.biies, pacis- ac. belli begat um, ad 
Philippum  Athentenses saepe mise- 

This is the only place where this fragment is preserved. 
Mueller gives it, De Re pub 4. 11. 13. 

GO5't> Se um | prt iaeisier tim. (L.a bres 0 qiderm 
bMiaeSce modi rerumaperitissimum prae- 
dajcain t; NW myina  Sb.O Nay. ja numinibus 
MpAnCSR asics Cia e-tiiams sc. ul bass) div ei sii avtie 
cioMnnenast.< bolt. cmiad ous: d.e.o:S:)ip pe.pit peda 
Cred bees (et tris tibus supp li ca tijoni bus 
BS Siem. it + DiO'nO-S: awit mo. D's. equa ips: i liaieita's 
Baiduiic tsteesthn dats.) qitivayl ivay(S wim, ti, are pipisie 
abinte iGO fev i vei jheve ta s ter mila. 

There is some difficulty in regard to the person of this 
Labeo. There were several Labeones. Who is the Labeo to 
whom Augustine here refers and what was his praenomen? 
Other writers speak of Labeo without an additional name. 


We must try to decide on this question by considering some of 
the references to Labeo, and the nature of the works which he 
is reported to have written. There seems to be some con- 
fusion between an Antistius Labeo and a Cornelius Labeo, and 
to one or other of these Augustine refers. The Bened. note 
(adsht al) reads naib ero mies ve 37S) tl te east e:S , saleuptates 
Cuvilts se¢rventia lari: sted ans) omnia 
drove, €4's*sotmtais) Ashe st 0S. ane Om. Guu ig Ne suai 
Crave Siar 6 AW OistO Wc t... Om) ot TS ai OLE 
Syerd ct Ost imas,- Jame ie intyant (iS; phe ost tel ois timate 
de quo, hie Augustinuws. Augustine mentions 
abeo-alsos DEW We 14 > Hl unre (Plgarttiom etm G-agbecra 
im ter Se maldeos com memo tan diam, spill tasvelgie 
sre wt. Hier cu lem sa cut UR o ume io: 4 oie amauta 
dre.o's; “autem “hie-riod-by us). A inet erpvo mito cee 
Wtrosqucd imter nama na con) o.¢.a Depa 
26> S.e.c und wim» © UW avbie om Se a Gn ssatarnrcatp a one 
referring back to p. 66. 1: DCD VIN--12 repeating his a4. 
DCD 1X, 19; q ujOn1.arm, fon. mea a aes -4 oa mae, eae 
ita dix er im 5 2dvare mo nat co, asian, Lene mela 
‘bas est) la bve-o. Ye Sit, (e107s, die ms pred; neigoecsman 
ab’ Ja lias ane el os. Gaj6e sen) DCD Gio. 
Lvaibieo: St tam d tos di cit wns direst wainstsse 
Gderumnm CtGs “et. (oC Cal nt s:sie on ye cesmy aie 
quodam ‘com pi-to,° den aderad Corp oma sina 
it S'S,0'S:* fusies’s-e- Tr © mie a Ter tett: SevorniSrtvinemisiesysce 
in te. 0 'Ssely aamaye: O- Si ENS Se evAigeue M1055... atta uge 
ita. Sis ef a.€ -t-uim  diomyee pyoisit-e.a, Moie mee 
tur. These citations give us some idea of the character of at 
least part of the writings of Labeo. The only Labeo who suits 
these statements is M. Antistius Labeo mentioned often by 
Aulus Gellius, from whom we learn that he was the famous 
jurisconsult of the time of Augustus. See Noct. Att..1. 12, 1 
qui die (wine 4 te) ac amie mm dia pasic nh pisved; UanaD 
quorum) di lig enti ss. pimien sic peat. ainere 
Am trs tt us)s a gstoh a. -G-a brero, ant desc ti ast, eters 
quid em (civ ilis dis e2 p Lineaimicip ra alent pana 


iGO 26 wre IC Melby) 12.19. 7 sa erammarian, 4. 2: 3 
Sq., 13. 10. 2,-15. 27. 1; he wrote commentaries on the twelve 
PAMESET EATS. GO. Ro. ES 20p T1036 hewrote:on the ‘pir ae - 
Pomsiese. eC inc twins) ro.. ro, 22 he was versed in. anti- 
(Him tter as gus antigutores ‘albtiores que 
prem.etura vera-t. Compare Suct."Aug: 54. 

For the passage quoted above compare Apul. De deo 
Socratis 14 (Hildebrand’s edition, vol: 2, p. 142): Et sunt 
Meret tex “hoe ¢. divorum ina mero Gui 
morc nti Ns) viel) dain is prom p tis velo c= 
en ltis Fane tion i bus Wey! Bh S@ iO.t ib us 
heesrennuse: ved 6 aera mo Mid sve) rt tb a:s 

BSa)42) sS.ive at fae Oe ee 6 GO ml om idem 
Rove wep ico: Loa tt un, ; 

The quotation which follows is preserved here alone. 
Mueller gives it De Re pub. 4. 10, as Dombart gives. 

CGSuer7 metinas th erat ricastartes:dia: vint ws 
Rom ala 1 On n Oy €:r.a ty. 

See Livy 7. 2 where is found the account of their first in- 

Gqeio Xn sho nmte (Gr seco. Platoni- potirus 
Padma danda est, Qui. cum ratrone forma- 
melee ola is. .es Se lvl tas,.d e¢ peat, ta mqua m 
MdEvechi saliOns Sve net ats: Gpro:e tacs: Cen s wi t 
Hae, qretl isec dovsiz 

In book 2 of the Republic of Plato the zoraé are in- 
cluded under the general term pupyrai as requisite for the for- 
mation of a petCova woAw. In book 3, 398, the poets are 
politely conducted out of the state: doméuromey te eis GAAnV 
ToAW pvpov Kata THS Kepalyns KaTaxéavTes Kal épiw otpefavtes. But 
in 10, 606 sq., they are expelled without any apology. The 
expulsion of Homer, the roiytixwrarov and rpadrov tav Tpaywd.oroLov 
vexes Plato’s heart, but he too must go. : 

Augustine’s source is Cicero’s De Re publica. Nonius, 
peeoseesays eM ook ullims, dere publ: lirb- 4: 


{Hic 0) Mero. odem, quo 1rbe Heo m-er-uan 
edn tlie Om OM 1S. este die plin bau t thames 
CON Ge MC Si) Feat at atolet eps ea Her be quam 
Shiba) MiGs es. taneous) 9 (Compare, Cice dsc yeo sr amons 
RVC ie, Hie ictmit “aioe last omye Yer Crs met eae es 

Claw Cle velotcay tre Geom, yt ane xe tat ilies, pa cruyiM 
OMput im O.S) MOTE Ss -erta orp tam Wim ered psu balm 
Cae Sit ayt usm SRI Mis eyiae st. also Tert. Ad 

Nati 27 .C mh lymumpatyOptress  «GyesOnr sin) One nt mass 
eli man aria ila tovce ns uitt)-1p sm, Eo mien uid 
Sane. CQO Mea tum, 8 teveistiattye y pred veyed dame 
Augustine did not read Plato for himself: Cicero is his source 
here. In support of this observe that Augustine has in the 
preceding chapter (13) quoted from the fourth book of the 
Republic of Cicero, and the passage cited from Nonius shows 
that such an account was found by him also in the same book 
of Cicero’s Republic. 

69.13. 1s te, WV emo: set, ideo ame ie ees 
indienne tultt. € t. fiance. | clot ny mapriadsame 
(ME iMie nst.:S, | an MONS Gu Wy ations mnOsl eats 

Compare Plato, Repub. 365 Dsq., 377 Dsq., 491 E. etal. 
This also came from Cicero. 

70: 35. -frustra hoc) éxclamantes tGicres ome 

This is preserved only here — given by Mueller and Baiter 
De Repub. 4. 9. 9., as Dombart also gives. 

7%. 17, ut tress 0 los ft) amimess haber nt 
toi bDUS nt minib ws, “sn Sstuet wstO.s..) aad 
Komi, MM at ticadleim- novia ttn ©suriet d neaalte am 

See Livy 15 20.225 f:l-arm 4 nve mi, Baedesml a yuan sia 
cerdot.em “¢rea yi to imsaveona gauge “etim) v ec sic 
et Curt li) regia, ise blae a diosa watt. liane 
duos flamiain-es, adiecit.  Meaiita. cu maaga, 
az litre ptm. Omir one. 


AlsomVarco, i ie; 45 Ea ned. m~ Po mpi um 
ieee reicies Sie. cmon ye Ss ais © ulm” Jom) /e.s 
SO Pras tn Curls dels «Coon OM ina tt, “im 
(kum bauS damena pe pakem t cue, wt cur sit Mar= 
tiahise et Ouairinalis ) “itis likely that Varro gave 
all the details from which Augustine derived his knowledge. 

Treat oOo “ahiGuot ann os post Roma m 
Com Gata mab) At beni e€ ns 1b ws. mut uw area = 
El liencee S- Sor ona s. 

ComparetLivy 3.31.0) missi Leocatn Ajit hien as 
: PUSS Gte wm lita si leces So lo nis) de- 
SG Seo) ieee 

72. .3ceGulliaviiny ash ebyy Culm on Sy lv € é€ da Eamon 
pip Seti e One Sse Xe CAP Onl lint S “awk. Or Lt aut Sie 
igUeSst it W 1SiS €2) C.0.m ft im x eof if). 

See cic. Derive 1.43.90, liy Cite ms? @ ut diem 
ie leace dare Ml Omlorum rem ip wb) laicia m 
MeMMepICe a Veli) Glue Ces. “SU aS | atk C £06 it a tie 
Muon is Delp hret Comiinrmayit. ~id? N. 
Deisouot, = nec sl,acedavein Ontorum dis er - 
peliipam id inca m mmig uam/ ab: -A pol lime~ po- 
CiMiics oEplad € ae. Gq thay ae Ty. curso. dia t:aimi: 

The first mention of this story is in Herodotus 1. 65. 

72-0. oN tomate Ee ormepitl ws: 2.4) 5 ~q uva sid’aum 
Meyre Sg) u ace qh ui d-e mi "re oven idaeurc il v-1.t ait 1 
nequaquam Sait fhirc €:r er nner Gromydaideivsesiye 

Memeo eed 1 eles nu) Wot a. Se fam) Sia €-r-a- Cio n= 
Siitebe Watt: 

It is impossible to assign the exact source. The story is 
a commonplace, recorded in many writers. 

Compare Livy t.,.19:,Sq-;. Florus Mpit: i. 1, 42, 11 1¢ 
Maer nee Cdaeni mo nhas oO mniemaque: cultu m 
WON timo, talinm: doeurt, rile pion- 
Limes autres sa lio. Ceteraqtiwe pop 
ition eesrarc er dot ia. (© re avi t.- Butrop, Brev. 
ies peeic: De Repub: 23414. 203, Idi N. Di 3. 2.5: 


72.10. On stam én perhi bie tur eas quem 
ener Si a eihal i iad bats Taicic-eap MS ser 

Wer Plorisin(Epits 1. 1. (25) Says: > hvateie | Joumenmiea 
Quuvass temo n Gite dveae Bog er 1-acer,. quit Oo. mugangaiss 
barbari acciperent, which Florus has taken from 
iviyn i NO. he is lemme tl ate S14 eum dse-al Erosennmisa 
CrOnMve t:6 S/S yS. EM ONCE Wah MiO1S, PueS*s*e,2 8 Jets aeeone 
IMO ttc wt eS a Ct a Ne Gitoiet ter ea, 6st Cuean anor 
beets; SU O.S, SCulnixire 2 d-e8G) Tm” pp reae tine eater. 

72.022) 1 aD basins a2Dien ays. 
See ihivy a: 19... Huttop. Brev. r. 92. 3Viale (Max:s 27 lager 
Cic: De Re pubir2.7,02) ivy isthe source: 

7 2 e235. etal 2 Gue supue eat-aGolelaie 
We learn from Livy, Valerius Maximus and Cicero that 
the name of “this: sspree tae w ulm: was the +Gomsm aara 

735012.) PO.Suty €s0p Wal sium Sec wr my leebre als pasate 
fee C3 ol va riqriisneis un 6 -e-aiilesatot Leiba Sen eae aee 
tiarm St up eso) Vv avorl-e my tres ouput ers: SuCainaetes 

Dee note On) pr 2.12: 

73.14, Tune ws, Bir 0 ts) Tee mascuel ) Dac aapeat 
Doar eg vin mum YC ol at inn ) iia. palsies tS 
d-éom’ Ee twieme’ tt aes scroll e. azar gs) eo anna 
A Gike- Li Moc emt em Vain ms) prtjoup) techs ames 
fen) €t. poping bt a temo wa moll inion arm 
©O°e gist) Maso 1S tart Ul 8 Sie ae Cale kaut Cen lane ae 
Wie Viet Cs in) Caw lta ne np eer smal esniate 

See Livy 2. 2.,.where Brutus addresses Collatinus: hunc 
0. gare. tl ao won ui nb ate: aline ot ga eet nieleerniae r= 
mG Ve me tam, mem ip ims Ss ta tea. ede 
Cisti Teg ess abs oly € Diem etic mb winemy 
auntie; hime Tee rw nt me mena sihenrab a tac avaine 
sé ¢€o ns ul atm.) fe bas que, ys Unt a gos not bade 
Lavi kl Gm ot teas) la Cas) wee iy ie dese (C eusosmiias 
Doubtless Augustine has here followed Livy. Compare also 
Hutrop. Breve 1:9... Cic, DerOiin a; 1o-“40: 


Papete Nemeth Ss) © aun | huss). c22q bis Verte n= 
Hessen da vissiim.os dostes populi Romani post 
cacrere enna Ine 2 beet Tagmri. 30 7-2 Suprert ay wt™. 
Mipwindiida “Ol bhrme-ct ator iim= +Vvirtutits «Ss uae 
Simones olen tia tribimn oriam ple bis: seu 
mopentinse esata: tami me... iin ora tam ise n sit 
pulatiie lt De hka Vaeiart (Gi Vat at em.) ub) id ers ua 
dra mph a tio ne CExXCOE EessSit Wy i) S in rey baat aan, 
PupI@Miriea a Giesec end sectvet) et. adece m “nin t‘bjurs 
ec mist ab Sea Se Pelt tau Od amined ret Wor. mvorx 
muetormer dG Dlis -yaimnxe xt patriae futures 
iis ae ast ae; 

see Livy 5: 19 sq. For Camillus’ total defeat of the 
Gaulsesee chap. 49 Ne niu ptius ‘quidem cladis 
relictus, The only authority Augustine had for writing 
We sets et iva mid amen ate turf seéms~ tobe. Livy, 
who is Augustine’s source for the account of Camillus. See 
MISO Vale Mas. Aeon. °2.. 5,3. 20; Aulus. Gelling: Ni Ax 17; 
wee2oeeics We we pubs 1.03.6. ld. De dono stia; 32: 86, 
Eutrop. Brev. 1. 20.; Florus Epit. 1.°7. But whence does 
Augustine get the authority for writing decem milibus 
aeris? Of the authors mentioned in this note, Cicero, 
Aulus Gellius, Fiorus and Eutropius do not state the amount 
of theinite: Livy (5, 32° ad fin.) expressly says absiens 
MCR ce? a. MI Ais (Ss fa VIS. acer is” damn a- 
tur. Valerius Maximus (5. 3. 2a) agrees with Livy. Soalso 
Plutarch (Vitae, Camillus 13) &pde Hv di«nv épnyny, Tina puplov 
Kal TevTaKloXiAtwy dooapiwv exovcav, If the manuscripts are cor- 
rect we must conclude that Augustine has here made a numer- 
ical error. 

id a] 

74. Inchap. 18 we have several fragments of Sallust’s 
lost Historie. See Maurenbrecher, Historiarum Reliquiz 11 
and 16. 

TAattos oNears We a i. 5 Cet ha gin em -n ol ¢= 
eduty ee Vel brie 
See note p. 47, 12. 


75 26.) DO Msea ty <d-e.1 mh Gey pylier a Se Shanl lSy tans 
dvereSsualelsanewayelet igs. (Chertve © a@. ie! teorerdrintrautweammen 

Pan byline aie erivaulant  (Sielratyont ome ts an em haere 
Ccomsentiunt, “qsu.a mv is! elo qiu io imubiawem 
em pad) taly 

It is noteasy tosay who the alii scriptores are. Au- 
gustine seems to limit them to those who wrote de. Sullae 
Waltal dSe ere t Cyagune. fore diitealite fet pub asueaper 
which would of course eliminate writers like Tacitus, Juvenal 
and Persius. Again he speaks of them as compared with Sal- 
lust: Jasr-eliorqou 10, mal bum “pm pari. | which show. 
ever, according to his view, would not eliminate Livy. Com- 
pare Livy Epit. 88 sq., Florus Epit. 2. 9 sq., Eutrop. Brev. 
5.4 sq., Vell. Pat... Hist. Rom) 2.128 2 sq.” Compare Rint: 
Vitae, Lysander and Sulla 3. 2, 6 & ovre véos dv epi tas émOupias 
ewerpiale Sid THY weviav ovTe ynpacas dia TH HAtKtav, AAG TOUS TeEpt 
yapov Kal swoppootvys eionyeito vopmovs Tos ToXtTaLs abros epav Kai 
poryevov, ws pyc Yadovatvos. 

Augustine refers in the words given above to the now lost 
Historie of Sallust; he was the last literary person, so far as 
our evidence goes, to use the complete Historie, as has been 
pointed out by Maurenbrecher (Historiarum Reliquiz. Leip. 
1800; Pp. 4): P/O Sot Fe Meus.) qruO1a dc {ny oO; Se Sica mndace 
totasy, Sal hws tia oh is totais: jest) sAcueamase 
tay UySs 

79-5. sed dom ui Siar dana pal scom-, 
pat avert? -g ud Gq tvomidzagiie se es letcas et etee 
VOlwUp ta ti bias, die dit ws suste cipniets:e puglicime 
SO; SC ra Date “fh exc esr It eras Sz0 leap Sie elsasbnestae 
Mm Or ta Wm, q wales Inivbui.d*os eues ert 0 am sequen 
Viiw @r et “hvat iyr vem dso" se Orn Seu mbpissern taut 

See Cic: De Minn; 2.4 32, 100, GC Ohip Omi S svanietresim 
v o-lowip tas Si, et 1¢a sme spiriave thier ta sce le icone 
non inte lie o occ wr, (A,r aise oO tyere Ss) BOpasieaar 
nap ai ll “e(p io ra ma am a, (fyalnet opiemnve 2 dre pied erage 
in “quo ible rex, S yr la Jedvo mae tue omens 


SceeeStere wae il Pbiidaimn um ¥ 6 bw pt ateegece b's t u= 
iPestsse eld wise. 5) seo. ex. q uo ourdamapa lin, 
ORM eenmutt SiStlity Gotyer ate fees ert or) ad = 
Mipernc rth, Cuid, tmcidl Tus stt ih busto % 

Eeaec Mabieo Giuaeredis Giaequéc exsatus 
hata bib ido 

Pearse hat slslaymeac © ht im alta \6.f pra e= 
Caltasta- erie like. ta 

Omid call ur dy MG Ui let MeAS Tel SataOet enlersi 
SM OMOR tS. NO m 1 Mere iS. Sep wich roi n= 
scriberes?’ Cicero also mentioned Sardanapallus in the 
third book of the De Re pub., as we learn from the scholiast 
Oiehivenal. Sat 1o. 362; Sardanapallus rex, A‘s- 
Seon Meshiiix UstsivO.s tS. d equ oT wl lias in 
CEE Odee: a tie pO Obi iucra 'Siive pat ts .' Sa rdan-as 
Peet swllke =“vitits multe quam ‘hom ine 
Epineadec! Oc m-LoO Tr: Compare  justinus: pit 2. 3, 
who says of Sardanapallus vir muliere corruptior 

iinet te (Anet ba © tu S.)) eum, i nities, S@ ous 
HOM e oe py eS apis Pallas, COLO. én tie m vet 
Meme eebar ie hea bit wc un mo Li tia! Cor pio.r t's 
Cameo cnt Irom tem: ) Wtatseu via forme nels. “fem iin.a.s 
anteiret. For fuller details in regard to Sardanapallus 
see J. E. B. Mayor’s note on Juvenal, Sat. 10. 362. 

79. 15. For the corruption of Roman society and its con- 
trast with former days compare Sallust, Cat. 7 sq.: Ib1 
Dri im ines weyit exe remtus p. R. ‘antvare, 
PeOstame SU Pata ed Da Wash pict as, Sviasa 
Cae aia im tit, © a So ievea Lim. ac publics 
Saeed ce Gel i bora. “Siplolkia re. Sac ya’? p F.ol- 
iincepuve posi were (Chap: 12). “Pvo s tq ua md i= 
Veit one eho snwOLk if seySySiesCrOne Pie meet eras’ @ lori a 
Buopremiwon pot em tina Seq uecbatu bf, heb e s'- 
eran vir t us “pawpertas probro. hab eri; 
Pima c ett isa pro maliv ol en tia <due1 co &- 
Pale (chiap.i2), “Ss ecallibido Stupri, game ae 


Gate riqmereu lous: non mim iow neers cemaser 
Valitse Upbivewbrriva« spra t1,, um wl ivesnie ss fap me tneaa 
Lim) ine pir ul oO) hia ... 4 (Chapsi): 

793.205 4) G.uro), .(l., (Graccho), -Si erp 1 tem iSeeaaper 
EeMOsne Se Catia VaetS aC Ose Par S/S e115 aul leu Sat ese 
This fragment is No. 17 in Maurenbrecher’s edition. 

80. 20.-81. 23. ‘This passage is given in full by Mueller 
in his edition of Cicero as the argumentum of book 3 of the 
De Re publica. 

Ol. ho Deve Ml, | te. Pa Delsieciare — Ge terme 
tho Den - Ota) -d ixser ate a me SS ee ise Up Omipiene 

see. Cic. De Re/pub..1225..39. (EB Sit oe sie 
quit Africanws. 16s publica res, poplin 
populus awtem “non, Sounmmis | bho man um 
Coetus quoquwo modo comeregatus, sca 
Ccoectus multtt wi dintrs Turis Gomis ems user 
uwtilitatis cOmmUniomne s'ociatus,—reference 
given by Dombart. 

81. 28. ‘This passage is given in full by Mueller at the 
beginning-of De Repub. 5. (im) prin Crp io) aan 
libri). It has not been noticed by Dombart. 

82: 21. ELaec Cicero; Satie b astu jon see 
qu i-dve my: (pro.s*t. amlorrt © my CA far eran date ame aie 
suits libris” £ace1 t> die es spe bel ca diuvs.pae 

Africanus died 129 B. C.; Cicero’s De Re publica was 

written 54 B. C. 

83. 1. Mueller gives this passage as one of the Frag- 
menta incertae sedis of the third book of Cicero’s Republic. 

84. 9; <q was. die.o cium, lyetope si hi jee ees 
datas contempsie ri nt (Gaacicehi.. ut. sees 
f1/O Ne DiS, iC ne tas tur bvamemnare 


See Livy Epit. 58 sq., Florus Epit. 2. 1 sq., Sall. Jug. 42, 
Vell. Pat. Hist. Rom. 2. 2 sq., who says of the murder of Ti- 
berius Gracchus hoc initium in urbe Roma 
civilis sanguinis gladiorumque impuni- 
fa tis: f wit. Compare Val.’ Max. 3. 2. 1¢) 4. 2. 6. 

a4) 5. Gees Marius ek Cinna et Carbo, 
Bem hbelisa etiaasr pre'gredere mtiu rr) c= 
vilia causis iniquissimis suscepta et 
fan ietitea sesita crude lius quie iting ai; 
See Livy Epit. 77 sq., Florus Epit. 2. 9 sq., who says: 
tet hi met t cams aj belit: ane xpléebilis 
honorum Marii fames, dum decretam 
wy Lhae provinciam-Sulpiciaide@pe seblli= 
evtat and Vell-Pat., Hist. Rom. 2. 19 sq., Eutrop. Brev. 

5. 8 sq. 

oe.47. quas denique Swilhlavipsée, ewius 
watam mores facta describente Sallustto 
Mi sSagwme Striptertbus*historide.. 

From Augustine’s own words we learn that he had at 
least two sources of information about Sulla—describente 
Sallustio in the passage before us (compare also p. 75. 
25), ane sc ri bat. Layias DED II, 24 4p. 37:.28).3 For 
notices of Sulla in the extant work of Sallust, see Cat. 11, 37, 
51, and Jug. 95, 96. See also Florus Epit. 2.9 sq., Vell. Pat. 
Hist. Rom. 2. 19 sq., Livy Epit. 66-89. 

The work of Sullust referred to above by Augustine is 
evidently the now lost Historiae. It is supposed that Sallust 
started this work with the year of Sulla’s death (B.C. 78), as 
Maurenbrecher gives: Res populi Romani M. 
epitome, Oc, Cataleicamsuwlibus ac dein de 
militiae etdomi gestas composui (Frag1.1). 
It is also inferred from Sullust’s own words in Jug. 95, 
idomeum wisum est de natura cultuque 
EXne OA UCcis Micete +s neque em im oalico Loco 
meiaguldees re bustidic£ucicsumus,iee Li. 


Sisenna. 4. parum mihi libero ore locuatus 
videtur that he said little about Sulla in the Historiae. 

With this date the statement of Augustine vitam 
MUG Fe se fare a desc ripen te, 9 a0 luis td Otwomd 
seem to be rather inconsistent.. In. DCD II. 18 (p. 75. 28) 
Augustine writes Dacitdeinde pluras wll ws taans 
de Sullaevitiis, evidently also referring to the His- 
toriae. But in each of these cases it should be noted that 
Augustine shows that he had other authorities—aliisque 
(p> 84.:8), anda din sic © iipst or e's Hinvhiae c ico nis) em 
tiunt (p. 75. 30). No doubt Sallust treated briefly of 
Sulla at least by way of introduction. Compare also Plut. 
Vitae, Lysander and Sulla 3. 2, ws dyoi Sadovoros—in regard 
to the vices of Sulla. 

64, 2. Cum lon: €:an teq ua m mores con. 
rum permen-t ua ~ ja mitavqua i Sa Grades. akhwo uma 
C.aup ta "6 t Ad niciemeState mq bipecds sSnOal gui See verona ales 
Capitolinms se ra tq Usiece tia) apse 
Cra pier e try mist sia 1 trerm any sier els id thes dio lee 
Mise Gti Dpwis = vibe laumeumab. 

The source is Livy 5: 44.sq... See also Florus Epita.7, 
Eutrop. Brev. i. 20. 

85.14. Cui’ enim’ Mariam nev um “homia- 
nem €t 1¢n0 bil em, cru ents sim um ance. 
torem bellorum Foivilium “ata ue, toese 
tore am: ut Sie p tie ns consul PACT Hest 
aGanlivie £ wn ti atiq ues nia semua ym Slow cone 
Sulatupmoteretur <semielx: mye cain: mains 
Sud aver tf mtr a Sm: O-x ae et orm s inn th eyreie: 

See note p. $4. (5.1) Hlorus (pit. 2: 9.927.) says.) nvarere 
fot, (sc ma tus) fw investi Git cia keagive nedea Ss eeat 
du sia n-uca viet Mm ejnesiicss sve pitt asta Vi aera 
pu rip ria dress ty Ostid oa tai am soe 
nium cio ns ul at us aim-p less eit Compare) Vellwat: 
Hist; Rom..2: 23 (ad init.):5 et %s espt amin ont )) Meat ios 
in priorum .<dede€c is) in tts 2 eu aS east 


iMmoOfb oO Op pressus decessity vir in: bello 
Mose buns: ptm Oto Civib ls in-Lestissim u's 
Qumetis que im patientissim u's. |‘ Sallust’s’ es- 
timate of Marius is found in Jug. 63 sq. 

For the contrast between Marius and Regulus here given 
by Augustine it is interesting to compare Cic. Paradoxa 2. 16: 
Mec over oe 2.0 Mi. Ree ul um /aéerum nos um 
Mech t cli Cie. ih Nee. “mMmtSerum ~.wmg u am 
Palstauvel ne vee Ce veer O0  Meariu nm v idim: us, 
Chi wtii Secund ts, rebus un us ex «fo r- 
ined tis evhiomt nibs (adv é.r-S fs Ucniu.s ex 
Timms evilris widielbsa tars g t.o) “bie atius 
caststes iO. rt. aha) nihil “pot ers. t... Ne ’si Ci sa) <1m- 
Sanne ne STC PSG a-amtdas Viresivirtus haba t: 
iden Ds esecn Gur enim Marius tami fel i- 
CatennEs elprtslm) um feo nis ul) donut isdae Ss eniex 
est mortuus? Augustine. probably had in mind Livy 
for the narrative, while the contrast between Marius and Reg- 
ulus was perhaps suggested by Cicero. 

852-23) (peri rur diits' ir-at 1's: 

Compare Juvenal, Sat. 1. 49, 

Pexeucl gan bt 4 Ole ba voiae + Mua Trans. Dat birt 44"et 

Prinieur ds |era't ts: 

Eiere the words frurtur dis ira tis occur “in 
connection with the name Marius. It is hard to say when 
Augustine penned the words perfrui diis iratis, 
whether he did so independently, or while writing of one 
Marius he recalled the words of Juvenal about another Marius, 
or perhaps bya lapsus memoriae Augustine con- 
fused tne: Mara um: “iio Vv um shoo m ime'm: €t -i)g- 
nobilem withthe proconsul Marius Priscus referred to 
by Juvenal. That Augustine knew Juvenal we learn from one 
of his letters to Marcellinus (Ep. 138, 3. 16 in vol. 2 of BE), 
where he quotes a passage from the sixth satire of Juvenal. 

For the form of expressiom compare Juvenal, Sat. 10, 129: 

Dis while, sad yeas iS oe nits of a to qué 
Suaris. ta Oy 


Plaut. Mil. Glor. 314, quis magis dis inimicis 
nmatust quam tu atque iratis? Mayor in his 
noteon Juvenal, Sat. 10. 129, gives also Livy 9g. 1. 11, Persius 
4. 27, Sen. De Benef. 4: 4.3, Id.. Lud. de morte Claud. 11. 3, 
and one or two others. 

S524. Ree @ Ulu s). Ca pt 1 ¥ dtvaptre Sie st, vid Unere 
gm Oyp a ay Vloe el ads do vom ay Al S esx Gel aUsC i auielgeme 
MMO Fist Sedimasc Sy, 

See mote pi25.02 8. 

86. 11. Metellusenim Romanorumlau- 
datissimus qui quingue filtes censu- 
lates  hraboun t- 

See Gic, De) Finns 15. 27.82; .Q u-Mee te bl us vem 
tyeis fidacois acon swlesj; vidi t,e¢ qub wsct mime 
etiam G@ensoremet triumphant eni,qman- 
tum autem praetoaren: | ’e oisque ssa] vies 
Fie LA @ Mpiueie cis 8 Id. Tuse: 1) 35. 85, Moete liiws 
ille honoratis qwuattunar fikiis., Wale) Max 
tot fect t ut.~odem.tem pete, treS eel amcor 
consulares, Unum. etiam Gen sion, a) et 
triumphalem, quartum praectoriaum yvideret. 
Vell; Pat. 2.24, --qitat-t wee 44 the S Sisal te 
Omnis, adultae ; ae. tatiis, | widit .74),ommads 
reliquit superstites et honora tis Sim. S), 
Mortur eius lectum pir o. TS tn1s) suena 
lerunt.quattuor filii,,unws,consalagzis 
et. CE€nsorius, alter conmsula nis, ter tias 
cansul, quartus candidatus coasulatus 
quem honorem adeptus est... Se also Plutarch, 
De fortuna Romana 4, xat Katxiduos MéreAXos 6 Maxedovixds yépwv 
bro Teaodpwv waldwv UratikOv éxkomilouevos, Thus we see Augus- 
tine’s error in writing quinque filios against the 
authority of Cicero, Velleius Paterculus, Valerius Maximus 
and Plutarch. Probably Livy gave the same as these authors 
in one of the books (16-19) dealing with the period of the first 
Punic war when the Metelli first came into prominence. In 


Epit. 19 a victory of this same Metellus is mentioned. Onthe 
other hand against the above sources and against Augustine 
Filmy (EH. N.o7. 24. '50) ‘says: ‘cum’ ‘sex -libiéros 
Welimeawenretoand (7.43. 140) multos libéros 
meet wg e re: 

S613. .Catilina pessimmus Opp ress ws 
fropidee.t in bello sui scele ris prostratus 
TD co I. ae 

See Sallust Cat., Cic. In Cat., Livy Epit. 102, 103, Florus 
Epit. 2. 12,,Kutrop. Brev. 6. 15, Vell. Pat. Hist. Rom. 2. 34. 

864 23.5 Marisa miserantibius Mintar- 
mensibws | Marucae lweo eirws ¢om- 
Mem datas, €S ti wt.e i .omihia prosperaret; 
ee ex Sim ma) des peratione rev eé rsus in: 
Golumis, ta urbemedunit crudelem:. cru - 
Ghebis exered t wm) 

The account as given here is not to be found in Florus, 
Eutropius, Valerius Maximus or Velleius Paterculus. In 
Valerius Maximus we find the nearest approach (2. 10. 6) 
Minturnenses autem m@a@iestate itlius 
capticonprehensumiam etconstrictum 
dira fati-necessitate incol wae mp r’ae’- 
stiterunt, but he does not mention the goddess in 
whose grove Marius was concealed. Velleius Paterculus 
mentions the goddess, but his account is not that to which 
Augustine refers: extractus harudineto circa 
paludem'|Maricae itn quam se fugiens 
consectantisSullae equites abdiderat, 
iniectoincollum lore in carcerem Min- 
turnensium iussu duumviri perductuws 
est (Rom. Hist. 2. 19. 2). We may conclude that 
Augustine got his information here from one of the lost books 
of Livy, probably the eightieth, in the epitome of which we 
have mention of Marius’ return to the city and _ his cruelty, 
We may note that Plutarch gives the same facts to which 
Augustine refers (Vitae. Marius, 39). 


56; 27, /upbi \qiaam Jc Tile m tay vaqiamy mmed— 
Wielise Doo Sti li que. im man 41(e f7le Isis ay avertionnaina 
fpuge we dst evOIs) Gq Un, (SiC Ti p.sie runt serena mit rcnam 
virO, Leaamnety. 

See notes on pp. 84. 5, 85. 14, 86. 23. 

S727. (CU Ma p fi tiem. vad) Wor bean) -ciommeeaa 
Mari um sc. as tiria: miovisset, (Smllia). sardeeve 
Nacta Testa tim molan ti fu iss es camper 
Liviws at custodini sie Post umius hance 
pex Volwenit sca pitis Sap pl icusuam: ssa bee 
tars. nasa €la quate) iin) a name "ss uaa 
hbalibe me £0 dins) a.ulvoa nit dbus (acm pie warsiscentes 

This was evidently in the seventv-seventh book of Livy, 
which has been lost. In Epit. 77 we read of the first entrance 
of Sulla into the city againt Marius, L. Sylla consul 
Cwm. e xeric Ltu in wtb em vy enit etadwyermsmus 
bactionem Siulpici et, Mari) imps ainibe 
€ x piu en anv itere aim: q ules “ex prada 

Compare Plut. Vitae, Sulla. 9: 6 8€ pavris Toorovpuos 
Gicavros aitod Katapabov Ta onpeia Kai Tas xElpas dudorépas TO 
SvAAa mporewas, jgiov SeOjvar kal PvddrrecOar péxpr THs wdxns, ds 
ei py) wavTa Taxd Kal Kadds ait@ ovvtehecbein tiv eoydrnv Sixnv 
broayxeiv BovAdpevos. 

Thissame Postumius haruspex is mentioned 
in connection with Sulla in a sacrificial act in Cic. De Div. 
I. 33. 72; see also Val. Max. 1. 6. 4. We may also note here 
that Augustine has followed the authority of Livy as against 
that of Cicero and Valerius Maximus. Cicero (De Div. 1. 33. 
72) makes tke incident take place ante oppidum 
Nolam florentissima Samnitium castra 
cepit, soalso Val. Max. 1.6.4, qua visa Postumi 
haruspicis hortatu comtd nujome wer ert mun 
im expeditionem jé¢duxit acuortissimae) 
Samnitium castra cepit. In these words Valer- 
ius Maximus has very closely followed Cicero. Plutarch, 
Vitae, Sulla 9 (ad init.), gives the same account as 
Augustine. If it is the same incident, as it seems to be, 


that is referred to in all these cases, probably the version 
given here by Augustine, after Livy, is the correct one, 
as it was probably found also in the tropvyputa of Sulla, which 
Plutarch also knew. 

37825. Weinde cum, esset ini Asia bellum 
NMitisi daiti eum sierens, per Lwctum’ Titium 
eaypaiiian dhact wm \ersiti'yay dowe, -qu.0o/d, esisiet 
Meter idsa tem ys ulperaturius, leit. fae t um 
Ers7 ti. 

No doubt Augustine is here following Livy also, but that 
part of Livy’s history has been lost. According to Plutarch 
(Vitae, Sulla 17.) this man’s name was not Lucius Titius but 
Quintius Titius. ws d€ Swddas ajitos év Sexdtw tov dTopvnpdTwv 
yeypade Kotvtios Tirtos, obk adavis avinp tOv ev “EXAGSi rpayparevopévov, 
HKE mpos avrov Hdn THY ev Xatpwvela veviKnKOTa paynv arayyéAAwv Gre 
kat devtépav 6 Tpopwrvios airdbt paynv Kat viknv mpoonpaive évTds 

6ALyou xpovov. 

S72oe eeu plOisitca om Olientt redire itn 
Uiphem ¢t saas -amicorumquweée imiwria's 
ivihine Sats Utes Ti hed sici site ram ma nt- 
Meimsee st ab eo. demi Love  ypier militem 
eiaesmedia me € oi, Omnis. 4S.6 Xit ale), pris Use. die 
Metin ihd ative: (Pr Aen win tiasise j-viivet ond ade, 
Stati capriom it tere, dat ur um!’ se proties ta - 
Hema dua (rec uperaret ab inimicis 1©.em 
Diublt cam non Sime mu lto sanguine. ~ Tum 
Prcetecoonytea tu So Sm lla) qurae. fo cama: mal ce 4 
WateSecwis hier hits 2 h.«t ie 

Doubtless this was found in one of the now lost books of 
Livy and in Sulla’s memoirs. We find it preserved in 
Plutarch Vitae, Sulla, 17. pera 8& rodtrov avip trav ev tage 
oTparevopevwv dvoua Yadovnvios avyveyke Tapa Tov Geod TéAos oiov at 
Kata tyv “Iradiav mpages eueAXov eerv. dapdtepor O€ Tata wept TIS 
oupns eppagov. To yap ‘Odvpmiw Aut Kai td KdAXdos Kai TO péyeFos 
TapatAyo.ov ideiv epacay, 


88. 17. Deinde cumivenisset, LPareatum 
Sailibayadt q.Ge si ba) Sacrif i cassé€ ti) Ved teeae 
Capitescvitaliniviecoris. similitu da nem 
COronae,auréeaéc. Tunc Pos taint gs bane 

pex dalle fuse Oy Geivt Dia ech ar am en 
Se niticiariivijatoriam ia ssit-quaeiwtre seus 
Ghiais §s ol us!) we sic.e £ ie tr? Postea parvo 

imntervalbo servus cuinsdam Laci Penta 
Wea tical ma mid o selaimiarwirt:) A -Biell-oinia antiae 
CAMS wVie TN WO. 8 VAC OY iid <b Uta sie Site. ep OsUuleleame 
Dein deradiecit arsurum- esse Capit olaum: 

Again we have only Plutarch; see Vitae, Sulla 27. 
Oicavros pev yap eiOews 7 OveBy wept Tapavra, dapvys orepavov TUToV éxwv 
6 AoBos HP6n..... ev d€ SAroviw pool oixéernv Movriov eopdpyrov 
evtuxetv aito A€yovta Tapa THs ’Evvots Kpdtos woAguov Kal viknv 
amayyedrav. i O€ py omedoeev euwerpyoba 76 KamitoAvov. Augus- 
tine no doubt got his information here from the now lost 
eighty-fifth book of Livy, in the epitome of which we find 
mention of Sulla’s return to Italy. 

89, 26. in quadam Campaniae lata 
planitic, ubi°-nonsmalto post wawides! aicwes 
nefarivo proelio) ¢comhlixe ru ate gp sa eaters 
se prius pe nag ery ist somite oN agg mensions 
AN GLtEL Sint pra my mignseremit ecshiria « oes 
Meoxgn.e mu) tt pose. lhvadassen alin tian ame 
per -aliqwot idties iiuas aches ip roel iarae 
Ouse pwena wi Gesgtit kts west Sis Gao 
que welut,hominum et equoerum), quanta 
dealla cont{lictatton€ ¢s prime jooter aan 
PA Ve wn eur wienet. 

This incident, ‘‘ The Battle of the Demons,” is not men- 
tioned anywhere in the extant works of Livy. Compare Jul. 
Obseq: 57 (118) Ls Sci pthome Ce Np bane occr 
per Sy lla nia> stem, peo Tae donate Cai. a a cae ee 
YVolturayl mi pee svs LSD OF Cin sons. are: 
rumquecum horrendo clamoxe eau aut 


itaptiov dere nt ur -dwae cae ice.S con Cur rere 
pen plates  dtes, ike? min acu lo im tierius 
Cons defanti bus ve'st 121 a e€quorum ho'mi- 
MuMdube: Ror eicen ter “protritaeé her bae 
et wvirewita’ visa Bat there can’ be no doubt: that 
Augustine got it from one of the books of Livy no longer ex- 

Gos tnt he GS. Gitad am, dm, Oc .clso -spolia 
hove aweret. [rattem nidatoa cadayere 
BpeanOrGiit ac, Cie test atus. Die lla civilia se 
OCS Ue A Dis C.f i ihe ms sf rater neo neon p ori 
aa ta) nei ts : 

See Livy Epit; 7o, 1 n -qu.o. bello duo. fratreées, 
Crees Cre al Onl pr esl € x et Cl t a al ter -e.x 
Connare  eil O ta nt e,S. Corl CWnne rua) e,t 
ChugiMMiyi Cll Ou SM O.b ica tect, Ove Cis bm) ale gp 1 be 
fdiomer ib ce nti. lame m tat to ne. :: edict. 
moOrtmosmevig eX S.f 0.0.6 t Ov, a?DiS'€.. Siea § Upitay FO Um 
iva nm Soto da. te. 

G2rripjs Cave bes: t 1's’. 

See move pa 57. Li. 

Og Vir eravis- et philosophaster 
aoe Las: 

A fine touch of amused scorn. Philosophaster 
is used only this once in the DCD, and indeed it is drag 
Aeyopmevov not only in the writings of Augustine but in Latin 
literature. This is the only instance in Forcellini (where the re- 
ferences Cicer... Vie 64.4 Should be, Ces 53 oV err. 
14) and does not occur in Du Cange. Even in the above 
passage from Augustine some MSS. read philosophus 
tertullius, which, of course, is incorrect. 

Oy wos ae Wt me one bis:  hane patriam 
Pac wle © fe: S.Ur0!; 

Both Dombart and Hoffmann have printed these words as 
ordinary prose—not noticing that they are a quotation from 
Virgil Aeneid 11. 24. 


G02 05.) wlawp Ss. Capitola nas. 

It is not perfectly clear whether reference is made to some 
stone statue of Jupiter or to some sacred stone on the Capito- 
line hill. Saisset (footnote on this passage) says: ‘‘St. 
Augustin veut parler de la fameuse statue de pierre élevée a 
Jupiter au Capitole. Aul. Gell. 1. 21.” The words found in 
Aulus “Gellius) are; foo vem, “asp adie im -iniqeiiiate, 
quod sanctissimumiusiurandum habitum 
est... . The classical passage is found in Polybius, 3. 
25, com. O€ TO Ala AiHov rovotrov. AaBov eis tiv xeipa iBov 6 
TOLOUMEVOS TA OpKLA Tepl TOV GuVONnKdY, eredav 6poon Onpooia TicTEL 
Neyer Tade, “eVopKodvTe pev Toreiv Tayaba: ei dé GAAS SiavonHelyv TL 7 
mpagaip. Tavtwv Tov G\Awy cwlopevwy ev Tats idlars matpiow, év Tots 
idtots vopors el TOV idtwy Biwv tepdv Tadwv, ya povos exTreToLWL OUTS 
ws 00€ AiOos viv.’ Kal Tavr’ eimav pita tov iMov ek THS xELpos. 
Seen diyrrellis note on. “doy em 7 Vapnidie my inane. 
on Cic. Fam. 7. 12, where he quotes this passage from Poly- 
bius, and Strachan-Davidson’s note on the same passage in - 
his Prolegomena VIII. (p. 73-80) to Selections from Polybius, 
Oxford 1888. 



ZOO. 24. Rom. lum. M.a,r ts. 

See livy 1. 4, Plorus Epit.1.1, Romulus Marte 
Memult wis. e:t, Robe a-Si liv iva. Hutrop, Brev.) 2. 11; 
Midtaat css sciuvm Remo}. fia trie; an o ) par tin 
esduitt 1 Sane St. .Cic. We Re pub.:2. 224. 

LES Vit OO Cs Sil m ws eo rum  Viar ro 
Pct bee wes Sir... paene fat étur, sed 
Diikwene Sse nC lvl ia ti bws! Gdic1t wt sé) vari 
Meomtie Se til am,.sil teal sum” sit, dis fenrtos 
eassescredant, ut co modo animus hw - 
Metis Veeulibt divi nae Stirpis  fid a ciam 
ewe ms. 1/e.S sla. nas aid ore di én das .p'rae- 
Wimat aukdacitus, agcat vehementius. et 
Obamoceimpleat ipsa securitate felicius: 
Ore rN arr Omi se SOMte DM tid €xX press a uit 
Posey. win Etsy Vere bi Star. 

For this, as for all subsequent quotations from or para- 
phrases of Varro, see Francken, Fragmenta Varronis (Lug- 
duni-Batav. 1836), Schwarz, De Varronis apud sanctos patres 
vestigiis, (Leipzig 1888), and Agahd, M. Terenti Varronis 
Antiquitatum Rerum Divinarum libri I., XIV., XV., XVL., 
(Leipzig 1898.) 


12.9.9 OM gant anmtiqui im’ stupro detec= 
tase Nees tae is acerd ot e's: viva's' @ ti am dé; 
ford set Draenit:; 

See mlluivyn e242) Dias £5.7-, Epits 2)\63. ‘Compare 
Jerome’s Chronicle of Eusebius 2, (vol. 8, col. 384 in BE) 
Nate Ow Oe NSe Stra ies Seu wala, diem te hen sia’ i'n 
Se tproOnmv iva “diet os Sa” ‘eS ti? Servius on Vere. 
Aen. 11.206. The best account of the death of a supposed 
guilty Vestal is found in the younger Pliny Ep. 4. 11. 6. 


LO2 se DEs a eae Wl £5e Fas a dotie: aa fem) iia Sy 
quamvisvaliqua damnatiome. en wile tami 
monn t.€ sp lye ete baint - 

This sweeping statement of Augustine is not correct. 
From Aulus Gillius N. A. 1o. 23 we learn that the husband had 
power to put to death his wife if caught in adultery. Gellius 
quotes from a speech of Cato entitled de dote: in quaid 
Qi, O:quave:s ‘er tpt wim! Ves & ane a7d ud tet a onan 
GfES Vd éepirehenisals 10s 9fu tse: “ata Faas 
neicare 2... je 4 areo- an tietum occ mdse muda 
itide) SeCemle prt usm in? Jadu ltt entalo * mm 
Elisa mM” Sar ppt eshve nid Sus e°S Sin) eo Wend CH, On amare 
pune necares. This continued until the introduction 
of the lex ja laavdve ad milter iis et pu dave mt apes 
passed by Augustus B.C. 18, by which the death of an unfaith- 
ful wife at the pleasure of the husband (sine iudicio) 
was forbidden, anda family court required for such condemna- 
tion. Probably Augustine had reference to Livy ro. 31. 9 
Oe ab ius: Gute es. C10 nsru ys fay) au Soca anone 
matron as ad: (po p wl wm. s tpird sdiammunsasteans 
pecunia multavit, a reference given in the BE note. 

1030-47 quid maseru nm commis état wine 
utiia Krmbria, Marianarum parti um hos 
Hie (pes Simo; MEV e Tit ete faire, © a horourine 
autem Fim bria prius edietuam proposuim 
ne our -pareere tur, a tiqtc, wrb em to tam 
Ccunctosque in .€a hiomames | Vac entdas 
CO Nie te ana Voie 

The account of this was to be found in Augustine’s day 
in the now lost eighty-third book of Livy; compare Epit. 83, 
“x b.esm- I )4 wim yeni ase) -S ea-p.0 ties ta tie S yeleeace 
heservabat, e€x pug navitrac delew ity Come 
pare Augustine DCD. III. 7, (p: 104, 2), Lili enim ¢cen- 
tray Fimibriam.  portas ).clausera at g puss 
S,uldae S€irwviar én t.imite gram Ci vy iAcatie mag 
Though the epitome does not mention the edict of Fimbria, 


we cannot doubt but that it was found in Livy’s own work. 
This is not recorded by Florus or Eutropius. 

POA 27 LN en StS a Giulpape. ,¢ ty 1a C.e;n,S.1's 
Om nab us, Cwm, Oop pido  simulacris .solum 
Meine tveae (stb. tamta nuina templi,ilhlius, 
Uinsseh i bt to liaitw hws, in, feg Fumi ,) Stie tis:s'e 
perhwb et ur : 

The reference here must be to the lost eighty-third book 
of Livy, the epitome of which mentions the sack of Ilium by 
Fimbria. Livy’s description has been saved in Julius Obse- 
quchsago (rio) litho a Cy 9 Fim bi rica? 1n evens 0 
cum aecides' quoque Minervaevdeflagtas- 
Secs Limes Tutmas sslimulacrum tan tiquis= 
Sim tm anviolatumistetit-spemaque res= 
Hitt lO. is Op pu dios pOrihe a d i €. 

Moe Oo i bie pio Mant e, Fim birita ceerdit 
Pipi. Ut doe 61.0.0 1S fet it Mai mer . Siwn;- 
We avG.t Ww m:? 

See the two preceding notes. 

5 aha Galias ipsa Roma ‘capta ex 
acre beta Le sit. . oad, VOLES mM An s‘eris! Cito 
redirerunt/ ut ssalt-cm Caprteliium col 
Kem, qai-r@manserat, tuerentur. 

See note, p. 84, 21. 

105. 20.7 Had, 6,614, me Newimaim Pom pil tum 
SnMcreve'S.S.O 1 em < Rio min | i Andee WV 1 Suse) Cire) = 
Citi t tO tO fe Soil Sil tic mp O £6. pia c em 
heaebeime:t se:t lal. t.>p-o.4 CaS, <q. tale be b)ics 
Mweerenands O emt. —¢ lauderet, €.0\. meri to 
Seu kce ts Gita. RO tlanéas, )mulbta  sacera 
Gonos tit oor t.. 

Seo. lkivy 1. (10) (ade | amit.) OLOsi) bse. nO a lib a 
PeOnt tes, Ustebreoml .ib Onv adm.) co n°d.i:t.a.m\=.v1 et 
Ammen sss e Wea hlep4 bus gue at mori u's 
deitnmtec ro. condere piaitat. OQOuidbws tem 


imtier,,pelia Jaidsuescere, wid eile tt) eniom 
posse, quippe efferari) mala tia anwimions, 
miticandum ferocem poptlum “armeonum 
desmetudine catas. lan u ar Sad- in tame 
Moen ie tum 1 ned ic em pla ¢ cs ib eliligiien tt eenire 
appre h tus. at” (ia | armas Fes sie "C inv ai asteesmaee 
Claws us "pa cla tos “circa 0 mn es po paialior 

Sie ntti caret.) Mutrop. Brev. 1. 3, Nwuim a som 
PiltustTexicreatus est quit bel lim quidem 
nw llewim) seers Sit. yRlorus. Epit.. a2 02.0) see mote up: 

100, 11-5 /QOwiid  e€r¢go est: quody nia uad- 
fea pl Mita) (THe ISS, We lin) Git. Ral iy) “Wao plan nate eta 
Gin ta njowe mM, anna, in ‘tap lomioas pace 
tramsact1 js tries man tey Nama 

Livy gives 43 years and Cicero 39. Livy 1.21.6, Numa 
tres et quadzaginta, Plutarch,” Vitae, Numa co 
GAN eri ye ris Nowa Baorrelas obdeniav Auepav dvewypévos OpOy, tpia 
dé Kal TeTTApaKOVTa ery TUVEXas Eweve KexNecpEevos. Eutrop. Brev. 
1. 3 also gives 43 years, though the Bened. note (ad h. 1.) 
says he assigns only 41 to Numa’s reign. Jerome’s Chron of 
Eusebius. (sub Numa) assigns 41 years. But Cicero (De Re 
pub, 2.14.27) cwrites 7S. 1'¢* ai ilet (cata ya nydrerg mane 
raginta ann oS SUM ma 10) pace (COD cCiomeg 
aque Tr 6.9 Mia Vaiss et (sequamur enim 
potissimum Polybium O'S tr Wm quo 
nemo {wit in e€xquiren dis Stem porns 
dadvivgse nt Ot )) esx Ce Sis intses svelutaae In spite of 
the statement above quoted from Plutarch we might get 4o or 
41 years by comparing the closing words of chap. 21 éreAevryoe 
5 xpdvov od roAdv Tots dydojKovTa por Biwoaas with the opening 
words of chap. 5 daAAa yap éros On diatedotw7e to Nope 
TecoapaKootov Akov amo “Papyns ot mpéoBes Tapaxadovvtes ert THV 

106, .15., .V ix pO St. ta m cm yiglet.ols .am no Seyarb 
Wr Die sc On dita US Gi aid) VA sosesursit 1m pei 


Mino mir eculo “units  ¢ommeém oratur 
AemUSE post porimum bellum Punic um 5 
quiron abet lim po Mom anne c lau dere 
ProOVeuler wien te 

Sceuivyg.. 10. bis derndée post Num ae 
Pe nite Claus ws: ture, -semel To Manlio 
SGmesule post EPuniteum primum perfec = 
ue pre tem: =. .alsor Plutagch,, Vitae, Numa’ Zo; 
vopilerat avedyOar pev aitov orav 7 moAEnos, KeKAeioOar de eipyvns 
yevopevns. 0 01 xaderov HY Kal omaviws y.womevov. .... awAnV emt 
ye Tod SeBacrod Kaicapos éxreioOn xabeddvros ’Avrwviov, Kat mporepov 

bratrevovrwv Mdpkov “AriAiov Kat Tirov MadXéov xpovov ov rodwv. 

TOOTS a UN eine ne Dei Caleunrde ~Appol Lo 
MipteaG iinta nis. Cum, jadversus. A chaeas 
ewe miqike Aris tonieum bellaretur, quad- 
GEdikOws le viss ee nun ti at Ws. exs-t ; 

Compare Julius Obsequens 28 (Jahn’s edition), Publius 
Grass sa Ga vies is: ATS fon. cum): dim itcans 
Saqgusus:, Ajpolblinis simulhacrum,,C wmis 
Paci Mba vt per. Gua trid uum... Vates,re- 
Sponderun t  ~Grae'cta‘e fOlrie, ~ (6.x: ist. h Um 
imndre: ded ic thum: “€Ss'et.9 \oacriiteatum 
itm aes On amis donagtie - in’: tem plo 
posita. Jahn quotes from Augustine in the footnote on 
this passage. Cicero probably refers to the same (De Div. 1. 43. 
os oum Cumi's Apollo sudavit. 

The war to which Augustine refers seems to be that men- 
tioned in Livy Epit. 59, Florus Epit. 1. 35, Eutrop. Brev. 4. 
20, and Augustine’s authority here must be the lost fifty-ninth 
book of Livy, as he gives a fuller account than that found in 
Julius Obsequens. Why does Augustine add adversus 
Achaeos? In Livy 43. 13. 4, a similar incident is recorded, 
but it is not the one referred to by Augustine. 

foo. 22, “Fex quippe Tarquinius ibi Capi- 
fokru nh fabri e¢ atv it; 


see Liny 1.55. -Eutrop., Brev., t796,, Capt tonne we 
in choayit. Compare Cic. De Repub, 2.205 36, swiere 
the, ae dem que in, Gia p it o lio el 0 wip sop tiem 
maximo was vowed by L. Tarquinius, and 2. 24. 44, where 
Tarquinius Superbus v0 t Um pa tris) (Capa ove 
Qe 1 ieerast dopa er ptent sO lavnict It is “mot “clea 
whether Augustine here follows Livy or Varro, forin DCD IV. 
23, where the same building is referred to, Varro is the 
authority (see note p. 174. 30). 

109.23.  Aveisic:u la piws.iautemiab<h pidawre 
adm bitsy dita di /Ro;m-aay,. 

see dhivy noiays 7) (inv em tiw mam ab is, sages 
cailya pium> ab o> pi dau rio; | ak ovmea mat ee se 
sen dum, and Epit: 11, ¢um pestilentia icny thas 
hab orad e:t.- tmniissiy Sle oat Sowity aves cmndleagnes 
signum “Romam’ ab BE pidawre tramstec- 
Remit. | Livy issthejsource: 

109: 25.) mater et am dew mules co mae 
ay ib es Sot 0, Wat er 
see. Livy 20. 0 Sq. see note p. 57. 1x and. p. 46. 20. 

{io, 1. Cy no.c-ep ha lam qui. lonee (posed 
WAC oMaiat ge x) vAVe Oey “Die sOn: 

Augustine here probably got his knowledge of Cynoce- 
phalus from Varro. In DCD XVI. 8 he says of Cynocephali 
quad. » -dicyaan— ‘de. iC yon.2.cie plhva ies, Gino n ue 
Cam icn-a) scapes ab cue 5 tap Sse lata tags 
ma cis bestias hommes conti tenure 
In Tert. Ap. 6, Cynocephalus is mentioned along with other 
Egyptian deities as prohibited from the Capitol. Compare 
Minucius Felix, Octav. 22, “lis is. pie rid int mS nem 
cum, Cyn 0 ¢ie p hia do (si) est.) GC al yat ssi Ciera. 
do: 1 bou.s jlaeve te pl aun it eyo eter aut 
MG. 1 Venton pat Valo, (ota Gtisert elisnvoe. seem 
ultant: isa.cerd'o tes, “Cy niorce psa al Seen 
ventor gloriatur. From the passage quotedabove 
from Augustine (DCD XVI. 8), Cynocephali seem to be a 


monstrous race of men, and Cynocephalus is also an Egyp- 
tian deity, probably, from the derivation of the word (xtwy and 
kepady), to be identified with Anubis. 

HOG: wlkte Vea tao Gauent — ~C ey G0) Ss. j ait gq. € 
ia-G ett os. 

This was in the 39th and goth books of Antiquities 
(Qeradraciata wonwm » libros se ripsit 
mined uitatum, DCD VI. 3) or ins the, 24th and asth 
books of the second division of his work ‘‘de rebus divinis :”’ 
Peano ellltst. - NiO mp am, 90. D/sieq. Ud 0 ram: ia 
SMES eG Ui. Kes tal t G11 -fpsi Sie gu wnt mer 
Seimemic Git ws ste Univers us, cywkt ws 
CepneMmess tess GC Stas iether My Ou. Git Coen fil. ia 
ee eMmecgOr Dine Cit bt eos ni (DED Vi; 3 ‘contains 
the complete analysis of Varro’s Antiquitates). 

Eitess sob t ceray Gi sd orl ou ira pretmie nit meo xg u € 
commen e Ler Cm Clin yp wien ane ic mun’ |S’ Cer iis. 
Mmieimise nae feminae noudwm ex lind wriva 
Mea ie is) CON Ci liaiti dei aim yp are not wi mm: Ssiain= 
Ped dns dio ta ren td,r ..; 

Brien 4 Hh Guim anil facuite/m/isi0. ¢ ef oS -iinitiere 
Pecoheba Hit tip roeliis quorum tam frlias 
Da phe Maw an tur ant hal amis. 

NEG ACLE Pp, 72. 22. 

P2052 ek Ow hus ce Fs UO mii: Vam wiTrtute 
ess pied apnS: 71 Ove:my Of a vit: (mt) stare n, ty, 
Pecne cotllhes. Naanc: /OrG:C aS 1 O-n.e: sn 0, m-e m , (S faye 
PaiigSe GOTGVEe 0 dul ois 3s 

Seevuivy- gs. 12 sq... lors. Epit. 07 5..1,0 a tft o.x stn 

iusoe- foo - pie ma, ad eo 4 at. Roma lus 
bhOGem  Ofraret, foedam suorum, f usa m 
Secure ents Ri Gus ot C.mmep. kum) 6-t. 9b. 6,6 F: . Tae 

piter. Compare Plut, Vitae, Romulus 18. Livy is Augus- 
tine’s source. 

bi, 27.9) Dee inde, Dip ump, sativum), fe @ ¢ m 
Sia bt nO rain) jo Cum- rie ge ni Romulws ferre 


Cio m puudisu Ss vers't V2.2 Un dente st ipso enetrer 
ferro toy, “uta aror deus) elsis/ert ne eeu ae 
Slo GS) so biti nm uit. 

See Livy, axsq. , Blorus” Epits 1. 41.) Sa camprais 
facta cum Gatio foe du sigue pe rcusisumde 
Steg uu tea qi use UGie Ss Mira: dice tin, at re iciengs 
Seda bws suis’ now am Sim] Wa b\ewm™ “heositiers 
diemrive ra rie nt. 

Here Augustine lays the blame of the death of Titus Ta- 
tius on Romulus. On what authority has he done so? Eu- 
tropius, Florus, Velleius Paterculus, Valerius Maximus and 
Cicero do not, in their extant writings, mention the death of 
Titus Tatius. Augustine did not find this account in Livy, 
who thus records the death of Tatius: Nam Lavini, 
causm) ad soe mine Sa Cr Lice wim) eo) ye mnies 
Ske tzu (CoO Nn Carism (teac tas) om tieuns ipColshr ee een ie 
can only suppose that Augustine here, in the passion of argu- 
ment, has become too rhetorical and made a misstatement, in 
which he is followed by his contemporary, Orosius (Adv. pag. 2. 
4,6), Taitwm Mati wom) ooo} 5. mo. x “ae Min oroncomer 
tate mM Pe on 1 lad sium p's 1g oC en dict. 

113. 1. “Quam crieb tae) stra cies Riompasan 
AA Dan 1G wie “exec it US -f tue wane welt a Cnn 
que CoO Mam (nw tito servi at tsel= Alb amma mucus 
(Va. a) Dako. Sr joisttaiGir on si exone ap Gomvmce 
Cata’ com tli 24 2. ela nec, ec Vemst sme em oat 
die tere eminis ine atq wes nm es frat: moms 
placuit €x penirca: a Romantics tires Eyowa- 
tela’) ab) ASI bans © “ace em atarte ys Cun ratcambaied 
DOC 6"S ‘Sie t U mete a 

See Livy 1) 22 sq... Eutrop,, (Brev.01.04- > But tae 
reference comes straight «from Plorus | ipit;” 1) ass 
€exiercivta au vent u tte ip e Omorca fica aaiesuuns 
ADD anco7ss Tt avem: -ret pds principem 
populum. Sed! cum? pwc r ob of eairer 
quentibus pore aais Utara q.use com- 


Mb Re Tene ety, w oid Sus OW 1 My.) C OLm)p.6 nid 1. um 
biel o:, Hgoyr ati is Cer 1 ave hi sq) use: (oe) a es 
SEeiBti ih Shp) i MM Crp at qiuae) siinidie)..f ta tir ib us; 
emis que popu li) fatal pwermiss a sunt 

Augustine seems here to follow closely the account 
and words of Florus. Note Augustine says, utriusque 
COMM im wt ho, VCrviitatis = Florus -wtirique 
comminuerentur, and the words tergeminis 
heiG ea tq ule “in des fraitrit biuss.are taken ver- 
batim from Florus. 

Compare Cic. pro Milone, 3. 7, M. Horati, for- 
Sesto Viti, vq ud mond wm Jibera “civ 
indrECemora mien: — popu lt Reo mya ni, CC Om 1 tis 
PabKe a tus est. CCUG. Sika, manu so ror em 
STse biperfectam fatenre tur, Ids De. Inv. 
220.7 Oo: 

foe 2 lib. mam que alla quam filiws 
meme pe Greavirt As can fus: 
Seer liviy day 3. 4. 

Ig. 20.) Marieel lise Sty rac us‘anam cily t- 
Hatem tec ol ens eius pau lio anté ¢u lm-en 
Cte or ham, SG Ulb) manus) (Sma, s)'S’w b-it'o ‘cons 
SnGGs ser C0 MMi nem! Co@itans Condi ¢ 1-0 = 
mem: fiend o* mis'éra tus e's ti? 

See MOte PLE. 1. 

BELG etOs 2h O fa € 10. F Uni 'S/O.r oO. i, 
See NOtE P; £13. F. 

RIG a7eus ene b bide ow pw | Avm uch isus7 ex p wl s o 
ji EM eee 

Scowhivy ass it. pols o 'tratre ~Aim alius 
Regnat.. ~Elorus Epit. 1. \1.. 4. 

RiGee t2 eve. Reo minor fyi deri t: acd. u,lat.i 0 
ipaaee Ge GOuScay i Usd | -prertelti bie 6 ui r© exc: € pitas)’ in 
eager Wainy a Vile Crd net. Gitta, S\C. fi pit, OF E:s 


eorum quit (eum! proptet fer oct tat eam) ea 
SenatuJdiis cer p tu més.s e° di xe cam tvssugbe 
Ornatamque mesicio )quem’ Pudi wm Shiro 
earn: ag he ulm) ist bd aspip aa uiits sve daine-e agent 
éu'mq we pret se populo mandasse 
Ro; meatimro 208 tater vin a ih aoc Of exe tier 
ACCC dre rae) Curiam, 6.4 iS: 0. 435: deer tere bavow 
Compare Livy’s account 1. 16., from which it will easily 
be seen that Augustine has not here followed Livy, as the 
latter gives neitherthe subornatum lulium Pro= 

Cnt ihulme enor thes ssporlius .die ft ere-£ Wor Compare Cic. 
De Ke, pub, 2) ro: 20. Proictn- Vo OF ucht.o () Vay raya 
Pop ullis 4p ate wim! que41 a4 “a sle* aint 1d Seago 
( 1 ttuts.o Reem wilt | pie lie 5 ent @ ion yesomne- 

tijonie! dux is se) fe-r:t.ue. Jae vste* Dv i)Siu amne ebsesre 
im “e.0 7¢-o 1 leo Rom unm: qui sola ne © tage 

na lics. Voc at ur) - ve wm 4Si-bil. moan di aisisee see 
Po p ud um 1.0,¢ a rie t ~ Uutet S41 piil; 1e°0.- a cronialee 
ded br usin, | file tee tes) Sue yew Ge Wythe) SesSesre nent 
OG tran wm “v0 Catal. aliso. 7 De. Wreoue ie. tees 
Though Cicero in these passages does not mention the 
solis defectio, we know from Augustine’s own 
words that he found that in Cicero. Compare p. 117. 21. 
In ;Hortensso -wenro4 dijalo eon: 4 (Uther 
deim:., An qt tj tie mie bwtiass pets gre ast eo 

efie cit “in ti niter tus Rom wise sqidee or 
Siciu tra tiom-e, S011/S “est tha-ctm ss Sand tromechis 
dialogue Augustine may have taken the whole account. 
Augustine’s authority is doubtless Cicero, whom he mentions 
and quotes from in this chapter. Also p. 117. 8. he says 
aged Sse pt Ou e's, eo r wana de fie-c1t 7/0 nal BSparines 
add want, ge tikacm ssa bat asm. “ttesmme pes st-antsemuee 
Here, after he had consulted Cicero, he evidently noted the 
accounts given of the same event by other writers. Livy 
(1. 16) and Eutropius (Brev. 1. 2. 2.) tell of the tempest ; 
Florus (Epit. 1. 1. 1) mentions both the tempest and the 
eclipse of the sun. 


Both Livy and Cicero write Proculus Iulius, but Florus 
Iulius Proculus. 

EEF snl th aol ee said dives. c ra pt On eS. e:0 1 Wm 
Geivere 41,051 1.5 0) bis) ad. int €tiam Siu bit am 
erm pre Sita t 6m - 

Seeulivy ©. £6.51, 9S i bito ¢o0 Orta jen pesitas 
Ciimema cu of frac ore Lonitribusg te tam 
Ves oO ere moO perult nimbo' ut cons pec - 
Bipienenrins com tomes: a. bis tu ler it... -Butrop: 
Dacia, O Tht aeaceD GO, t.em pest ate. Klorus 
Epitcee tot. -OvOGtar ten pes tas sio.lisS-q ade 
Gemectio Conmsecrationis speciem prae- 

117. 12and 28. qui et ipse (Tullus Hos- 
Polinsy) fuabkmime abs am'p't us est’. 

Seeplivya.ege oo sed ta Lovins. sol hieieat1 
Pemidaved ei ire 1 one, si ti him ine. 1 ¢ tu m -\c.0m 
dro mon scconn tleao taS'S.e . | Kutrop.Brev: 1..4, ~ ful 
meme LOums chm domo Sua arsit.. Jerome's 
Chron. of Eusebius (BE vol. 8, col 363). 

£17, 20> (oacc.esp GO: iy Ninian AP wo m) pi) poi vest 
Mime om NWA ¢hO.d Ut mM Or b.On 1 mt Grit € rud.t:. 

Livy 1. 21. 6 does not say how Numa died, but we may 
probably infer from this silence that Livy supposed he died a 
natural death. Florus Epit. 1. 1. 2 likewise says nothing as 
forthe manner of hiscdeath., . Cic. De Re pub. 2. 14.27, € x - 
cessit e vita; Eutropius alone (Brev. 1. 3) writes 
expressly morbo decessit; Plutarch, Vitae, Numa 
2t (ad fin.), 6 Nowas éredevryoev od taxelas obd° aipvidiou yevomerys 
aito THs TeAeuTAS, GAAG Kata puKpov tro yypws Kal voodov paras 
arropapaivonevos ws totépyke Iicwr. 

In regard to Ancus neither Livy (1. 35) nor Florus (Epit. 
I. 1. 4) gives details as to how he died, nor does Cicero (De 
Re pub: 2. 18. 33): Jerome's ‘Chron. of Eusebius (BE 
voles, col. 466), adlextremum, morbo'\periit; 


Butrop:-pBrevetes 544) OT Dis, pera t eum jerome 
(BE 8. 359) says nothing about the death of Numa 
Pompilius. Accordingly in both cases Augustine has fol- 
lowed Eutropius. Is it possible that this statement and the 
following (p. 117, 28. 30. 31) were found also in the Horten- 
sius of Cicero, in which was recorded the translation of 
Romulus (p. 117, 21)? 

117), 26>) 2 ounlgsnss. uit, | dai iar Eisous tat leiatiecws 
Vac On "elise Vie SO fA libyaie.. Cilla | tO ca. Gommuo 
Shtras, ae lsmuienies «ec OMmycat e Mm) actull Sy cis ate 

Again Eutropius is Augustine’s authority. Compare Brev. 
Tee Coble tsar ire pia faa wit. eA sblam.ons a vaneage 

fame ne) Act S2) GC Ua dso m0 sua 
amrsit.) | Wivy “sives the same jaccount:) vel omnes 
Sroullasc that Spa awiay oriel lies drommrey yield imate 
inca m (ei 9 -dsopmyo; cio nf lavoin aisys 6 (ae 3ieuo). 

172, 30) 7 Passes eae Gg aisiind tdGSes (per ssa 
dieicresisio tas: fadavos “an tere moprt as, Vest. 

see Livy 2.40.7. Uhe source is Hutrop) Brey.) 20, 
per, Anci £11405 oC Cisus est. meus seus 
Clusia p Sve (S upCie esis € riait., (Cic. De Reypul2 een aso, 
Jerome’s Chron. of Euseb. BE, vol. 8, col. 357. 

117. GIA Serv ius, | ou lous. eee mye tt cael 
var @ Wind (Sper bay quidiven is iiesc ies Saiicamian 
Te Ce Uma ne fa ONS Cue Le Tie erO eG Mum) Sue scatee 

see Livy 1.48. . The source is Kutrop. Brev.01.7.) Ore = 
GiUSwuvS MeS.t. (Ss C.eceihe.o € Mive ile Supt als at seit 
Seucprerr Oa fas ae Aas? Se Oa Se CAI SeC aSmne 
Ges sera t.. ete falisave quam) stag inti 
habebat uxorem. Augustine here makes no mention 
of the participation of Tullia in the act, as Eutropius does, 
and Livy refers to the same, but compare p. 118. 30, generi 
SuuilS,.c,e6 1 ene. sn eC sive Mio mea mite selWlaica. | enone: 
Chrou. of Euseb., (Bened.ed.,vol..8, col. 473) 7 ar qua mit 
SU pre t)Di,, Ce next. Sid, eSelpre meio tsius sae soaigs 


firbikeeostcie le te: Olctcm Sms E15 t Augustine’s lan- 
guage here closely follows that of Eutropius, whom he seems 
to be following as his authority. 

ress. de manubins Capitelium fab rt - 
Giayn) te m.. 

See’ Florus Epit. 1.1.7. de manubiis capta- 
Pui or btitm templum ere xit, ~also Eutrop. 
Brev. c. 8, Livy 1. 55. 7. Augustine here has followed Florus 
or Livy rather than Eutropius. 

TiO. eps ode ener eve Pave; (St Uap nO. 
See Note p, 3u. 12. 

WIS... 16, Ar @ eam CLy 1t.a.t 6 mt unc (opp ue = 
See Livy 1. 57, Florus Epit. 1. 1. 7, Eutrop. Brev. 1. 8. 

EPRGy 27549 0 Orpied.o. =. boys cao Romae 
Wikcin Or Gulat.tu Or decim: utrhert ur, ann os 
Dotvatamavitam! quietus habait ,et)cjum 
Me GOurie CuO mus. 6 MU 1 ty, 

See leivivsss UGce7s eat Quasi tauUcS s2 1S) pieusO Mynat 
Reduitns: iin.c1s.ay we x Latta) fad i¢ 6 ne rum 
Neaemelh ium. O-c tia.viil & moet osc ulliu ms bet ate 
Florus does not mention this. But Augustine here closely 
follows: Hutropius, Brey. 1. 11, 9. Tusculam secon 
fallwete. Gain aver Ci v ktaisy non lomo. ¢)ab. unibie 
Crcut eat £6 G) WCU ie Duin| Pee Geth a, tot W Our die: mam - 
iv OaS ee a Polk A cv. capt Uus CiUyin, ues, OFF EN LC) Cems, Ee mauGi ty. 
Eutropius alone matches the words Petal ives CaUnSi 
dhitasete0 On d-e ims Faun n.o S,) sand .¢-a my" Gx o:5e 
consenuit, as Livy and others do not give these 

9g, per Gucentos ferm cc et qaadra:- 
Ch Mia st. © evSs) aciinNLo:s: : 

igyelpitim hie cmat wine ies tt annis € Clk V ; 
while Livy 1.60.3, regnatum Romae ab con- 


dita urbe ad liberatam duce nities 
quadraginta quattuwor, Cie, DeKe pub. 2740: 
coo 2 Lis, .enam “re giis(qulad ra giimit a, amines 
et du cemtis paulo... Ploruss pity 1-1.) pademea 
qe tas Sib ries ibis Pw ict pO ple Apres: caanyauors 
quadringentos which seems to have better MSS. 
authority. than’ the more correct’ -_p rope —dween tos 
Guln dqwacinitd per ann oS, jerome, Chron: scr 
used. *Benedi ed. vol: 8, "col: 331; Romanorum 
MesCKeUs) | edu! RC Osun GL, agSie mele ko Sq aie) wand 
Pat q van ida Sp.ext) ba my, 2 fm plese aye meu 
anim 1s -C CX Dy si-v.e. ut vara b.wis dra map liagecenty, 
CCG aA. Eade, CC s xeaeal Nisa: 

But Augustine is evidently following Eutropius as his 
authority; compare Brev. 1.5, Ista (Room ajer te eenea 
tum est pyer Sie«p te m Teovers Aememy des 
Gu.cle nits) %qutaddur aw inet) tire betes. 

IGG: 10; wa x all uid fim pier a uae 1m tie ae aw te 
emit sa bawe be mila da Want al vem init. 

See Eutrop. Brev. 1.8 (ad fin.), cum adhuc Ronva® 
abt Sp lini mem, iivis ws que -ald® qalimiteuym 
decimum miltarium “poss tderet% hand? fe- 
rome, Chron. of Euseb., BE, vol. 8, col. 381, vix usque ad 
XV ila pid éem Ro mia nite meh mit am pe rie am: 
If the MS. readings are correct Augustine seems to have made 
a Slip im writing in te al vio mtn lab mr ble San iia 
unless, of course, he is conscious that he is speaking very 
generally, for ‘‘XV.” is certainly intra viginti. 

119. 26..,.Nam, Junius, Baw tus fe x hon okae 
tum (e1¢6 ¢i+t , urbe) cco ee a my ue unm Alva 
Guat nanan Coll acta mam, 

See Note p. 73. 14. 

119. 28. ipse (luniws Bratus) nm shells 
cecidit imutuis cum) host ec ivi line ci bus, 
ecclisis: a Se ipso pprimituws  filins fsmie 


Cli MOURA SH Sit aven tit at fa bs”. quod) “és 
Pest wen d-o, dar q Uiihito Conti u tas Ser ‘C.OlLg 3 
MO V,.e°8 ality: 

Seculivy 225 sq... Cie, Luse: 71-4375 8o.) Td De Sen. 20: 
74. Hiorus *Epit. 1 3 sq., Hutrop. Brev. \1.\ 10. 

M20. Loge Ni aay veneueiGyeym! (Ben uiti us) (COU S ayn 
emu inee Wish) Via ti Quah wid flue Sis €.)p er by Db e,tiu, 7h 

ithevysouree, is evidently, Livy x: 56, 72) Jb. Luyniias 
Beats say L -ayt QnUbihm) Wet 2h O-mO Le TE OSs. Myat U.S): 
Eutropius gives a different version: Brutus parens 
eipent Sie, lay CG Utes (BEE Va ATO. 12) 

T2025.) C6 Os0/S Gee Cam ob toll t. O- Gir ea Enis ve .Set 
igen ties, Attic restiave: lL Parga Yas Cro 
att ne u's. 

peetlivy, # bo, Blorus Bpit, ‘1. 3, Eutrop. ‘Brev.i 1. 9; 
hoe rnimt ed tu “anim o prim oO aib)'é x pulsars 
Heme Malis Co Ones Weil ail writin Sor Ure mys he" 
ent Diag tim tus (Col lat veiw s.) m.a cht ars Leo 
CRAeRt lrcwien, 

Totes, ydecere tly Wes gq Gy) Onquuve. Git \wiiney don 
Chimy Baru ti st brio ga tus, (mor bo ante qiam 
Gea «ayn Molise term Nia rect. uit.) Sa bis wimp fas 
sien bea Pat Via d erius Gg) Wil 2S UCC €/SiS 6 Tait 
Gronviant Unions wet) Mii) BE otra baw Sie) og) tiie | Sprig 
dlewinuinvelt on pUiwye ir eutio Sid ite Cb ues). fae mrant 
MMM ll thm ow mM ere wmvatGg we tartar eu mi, 
Chie ce Ons wile s hq unig we) hia; bide). 4c Oo mpl evi 
Giga) nots. 

see ivy 2.8 sq. also, Hutrop, Brev. 1.10, Vial en ius 
Pb livC.Oylea ope let Gime tum nh Cu pit mam 
CrOueMencaii ss S MDa ete. Cle. Ucn et ia, ep a bie my, 
GqeaO.) MNO DO Smo nt a oO" sit € rom Elioum at 1 im 
EeODe vetamlct Tike cuOrlMlvere am 4S Dri) “Suamup Sart.) 1) Lyta 
Primus annus) Ging ue ¢ ons u Mes hi abudit, 
Gam Pa at goa tus Cro Ware ines. pieOrp. bt elr 


Nope Mm) jar pen iC 6S'S 1 S\S/et, BL iit Se di), ap tone de 
LO penis set, Sp.) Lice tis mor bio, gmaor- 
EUCGIS, Ses SHept,. 

It should be noted here that Augustine has followed Livy 
(2. 8. 9) in giving to Valerius the praenomen Publius, as 
against Eutropius (Brev. 1. 9. 4), who gives Lucius, in spite 
of the fact that Augustine had before him Eutropius at the 
close of this chapter (16), though in DCD V. 18 (p. 227. 2), 
where his authority is also Eutropius, he gives L. Valerium, 
thus repeating there the error of Eutropius which he has here 

123.0.) )q uamn'ao0, Valerius (co ms ul) abeex- 
Uasb Us et) iS er Vis; ins Ge n.s um) Cia ppiit olla nem 
Ca Maa de eytne es taterte JOU (CulsS WIS melsike 

See Livy 3. 18. 

123-12. (dan dod emis uss 1.mvsit aut io a ane i 
Viel tas Sted ditt om tim) Amya lois os (ica, mile soraMieors 
Athenas) missos ad (leg@ies) ) mu twiamidiars 
pia ula dss mG wie tas Cop yp er iret oman 
frase ple Sits lyeun tia qu es evea Sit atid) veySuter 

See Livy 3. 31-32. 

£23.) 14.) po'p) ulus), (cum fam vel lta by ongartaente 
Pracheect um *ann. on ae. prt Mam) Cre awe 
atq we tlla fam-e svn va les cem tie) Sipasaiuis 
Mavens’, | qiiia es wide mt multi underne 
Prime n ta ame tems e sit. te Cun asd tec taree 
Ciiidse nh. Mic fit, <e.b “eiWs dies) (purdvevice clea 
im stiantia sper ‘dict at 01 em 0. -Orud oseauaim 
acetate  deicrepltum, a ‘Omi nitro sve r valine 
Gea OUCIG SHU ss aners tue 

see (Livy4. \a2)'sq.i' Plorus’ Epit, “muin7,. Cic,. De Sen: 
50, tds Del Re pub. 2-27 49.) lds Wn Cate 1.3). ehitanc ie 
Vitae, Brutus 1. After examining all these sources we con- 
clude that Augustine here followed Livy. 

1235/25... qd and: oO. pies t& tole mbna acca 
exorta “diis sana tilt b's, jprop al uis: eyed 


multumque fatigatus nova MeeuEt Sie 
Hominea sq Ur ord:) ning ula mi) ain teva )f 6cer a, t' 
exahriibve muda a fbi tia €.ws” Ves te 

Rromahiny 52. bode oats pres tle misiq ue 
HMMM Des! Ne avinmiod eli tes") desert as) VEX Ce prlit.. 
Cismise ot i sa nab it. per aie e.g wand oO :neic 

Camus) Mhe cc) Lists. sini, emide) Dravt Ut ed Liber 
Sep yal lim i) sex.) Silesia t.wsy) ©.O nS alto. Vad itd 
SSUuHGE oy ee Oe thse bk lO. tn, €« pe) Mw my, in 

mt be Roo mana facto’. 

Iz3. 20. Guwand oper, die ccm (cont in u ois 
iorors, mid lire. pruve ma mn dO) (cre) bir a Se t) 7m ae - 
Mars) cl adie s apud Ne ehicors exer G devas 
RIGA DUS (AGc.e perat, Nisa. per” FE ari um 
Cam rtm tandems aby enire tur, \qiwem 
posted Civitas imerata damnavit?. ‘Uibs 
aha nt.) quam do) Gia lia’ Rio maim ¢/e pe rw xt 
spoliaverunt imcecend ér wat aed 1b ws 
Wimp le vj yr anti t 

From Livy ; see note p. 73. 21. 

P2340 Cum ilar ta sie nas) pe stale mt tia 
faim ienvovre me tiem Ss tia gxe mid eid e.g wat jet 
Viewer Panis) Ca mile Ss sex tine ttiusy 5e:s‘t : 

Hrom Livy) 7.4.58) (iia) x1 meg, ule | ‘e/a mi) pies t 1)- 
Memtika.m () ins tie nem) \m.oirs qua mi mati ra 
tice a Cie t bal) Mo) Boar i f.e ent 

Eee. kn hace!) pre s\t. ile mf tya)! S.C ae i 6'o Ss 
Rr dcons et. ye he Uole wr Ulin t. 
From Livy ; see note p. 4g. 8. 

Tay ala ad opel hen Gi ay Var a vals dae 
Wem e lirs) Mat © Oma fu mn exo Tr tia Grea tia 

ersit : 
From Livy 8. 18, who gives the names of two of them as 
Cornelia and Sergia. 


£24 GH 7e) VG iival Hyd 0% inne @.a Tpdhitnrarse) pha G twas 
A oa amen tab 13s\O"b Sie SiSM apna. O..Cquyamn eRenyC nt. 
Linecioms a hes) tvoiedas) Cami) iS toe duinm) ihacieme 
CHOP tt Shunt ita Mt eng: Gut t lvbMt Se Re Om sas aiES 
SHES Ge Mitsiys orb. Sadi) bus, @uaytal is Ticlettiem i) ma aimeise: 
Ses ah ais) paul GSC G1 1S piOnlvisaytel |p Te iuvia seakeGiee 
ie es MM Nop Nese Seay) yale eum) nos (ti Ulimy eec ure 
NG Siu Ine MU tySm aS dan) Cans) ana et. bee we yiiriG aude 

From) ivy9,)2isq.\) seeralso, Florus pit, 1 a1, /Eutgop: 
BECVs 124) 0; 

L242). Ih G atlga eeC 60, gravi pie Si tuulve may ceige 
Cetie miss, a bom an talbyaes mull tn! yf oe ieaiaaamiem 
CHE Calptulh ot Cithy atl anne plesk ern ment 

Promcivy oe gh 2a ie xe Tc) 1,tiu Ap iC. Ivan nacenn 
PRlReirOrS:quu ey) foray) mam aS de iO.S. tonsa miy ty) ay ceca 
SEG > 

2A TAG at arti ne tO ehrvas bala! Hpre siti emmnemna 
Ave sew tapi wim a bi Ep ard’ aur o'* qu asi? imvetdai 
om: d-eu m: | Rion) a vaidiv ioc ia ter att.q) tesrasd shaie- 
DUC KEEy MCHOMMapNUN usa) Wer Suiae 

From divy * See note p) 109.23. 

124, 19. C Wim, Ic OS piietiaym tiybmysy amo) trem 
pro rey uhO7S ea bt Seon Cray dS ee i Uta 1S. ae oaaaine= 
Mei tii iS.) Efe uis Cis ext » Spe momma ops) (Geaglelies 
Dit ARIN Ow va pv ged sl Meio ay tale) PuerGre yaa ety iS) Maailertae 
diesiin de> Cwm) \pariaveut) ove 107 ple SiS) Urs we Xe via 
Cal tiOySs (Sve. pit my) st rt Dy uUnsINS) | Charon medal <O. apre ie 

Un tibrus* et mila t am) trie dtetcuim~ an’ isle esis 

From Livy. Compare Epit: 12 : Canam) Ie soe aia 
KO).m ain ow usm ja, (Gra las, (Sie ntomv Pb s. ame 
PCKCUU Fe.S Sue mit brenl eons oul cducloMinGrcly | iticicm id umieee 
GG st Oyen), Te | © aie Cl, Wits. pit aveserOuks | oD ak GeMlES 
enim! eg! oma baursh) (Chaves Es) jelSttes =. |. 2) ora 
Np ties. ¥ Cet eue vel, unui. DO NVeRnSuuS..) (6 OrSue mene 

IL, tl © in @'S et Beieoia os et Eitr Ww sicos 


CMO mp Oreyl 1 Sava vic om plhi@rd bias, d wei = 
Disa bem ep te nat am, est7; calso Florus,Kpit, 1. 
Ly EitlOp. Bre. (2: 10. 

The exact details given by Augustine are not, so far as I 
know, found in any extant Latin author before the time of 
Augustine ; but the account was found in the twelfth book of 
Livy, of which we have only the epitome : the words from 
which (quoted above) briefly refer to circumstances in which 
such a calamity might well take place ; it mentions the four 
nations which were united against the Romans. 

i24ne2An (Pp OS ty Wome as vet. ora ves Ro mea e 
Seen @ eS.) squitbru Ss) yard a litiimeu mm pilje b's 
in Pain eu 1 wim hrovs eta dire m' pit i'o me 
SECU CYStShesr ayy le, ue treks MCCMING ta) Or Cuimel ascee rte uat 
Peo men’s bas! qi a4 p-lvevbire Tie. Ve Oreva itd in 
qordveril sinha Osi avd e'xs pir alvin ty, 

See Livy Epit 11: plve bs pis oO piter aes 
MMe Mm plo. St yo may eset. domig as iste di 
taomime:s ad wu Pei mm se che sisi iin) ain ici = 
Pies thon dive lay Or" (Hor te nis.i-o! ahi ce ‘ta. tore 
avecdhue ta, *"e Str LSquises “ih vip 'isto.A ima stivs < 
tratu decessit, and in this eleventh book of Livy’s 
own work Augustine found his information. 

PAS wht UseneO.p ta mid toi) “pir ol ext a fin 
int eses Meth it loa: YCOum Sic rt 1b € Tem tou. 1 

This is not recorded in the extant works of Livy. But we 
may without a doubt say that it was found originally in the 
earlier part of the twelfth book of Livy, and that for three 
reasons ; jirst, Augustine seems to have followed in this chap- 
ter an accurate chronological sequence, according to the order 
given by Livy, of the events of Roman history (Valerius 

Pow swe... . OCCISUS—legatos Ath enas 
Maca Os- = practectim “anim onae pri mam 
Cmeay le iG ctatorem ~L. Owintium — 

moye hectisternia—per decem Ccontinwos 
2a Se. apud Vere s — Gali io'm'a m 


ceperunt—ill/a ‘insignis "péstilent1a—_ 
Si@are mac o's) "lu dio. Ss =——"p.e\S €1 lem t4a7 or anwvets 
dev V.emMe wis matt o nar im 1m iC amidamiars 
Pure ulas—— mul ta ect a mn) ie xeric uy ciel 
fulmine—Aesculapium ab Epidauro — 
Go ms pi rT am tivb-a san oO.) tiempo re" hos tnebaues 
op elb's: ald, Ta nite ula —— Hor tem sans), 
on all of which see notes). This sequence seems to be con- 
tinued also after this event. So then the event to which 
Augustine refers would come naturally after the death of 
Hortensius which was related toward the end of Livy 11 (com- 
pare epit. 11 ad fin.); secondly, asthe terminus a quo 
would seem to be the death of Hortensius, sothe termi- 
nus) ad) sq uegn), would. seem sto abe AC CAs UKs 
etiam a.,laren tins, Py rr h ws. | which ewas 
evidently recorded in the latter part of Livy 12 ; compare 
Epit. 12, .P y ne has).). 2) Ot auexd lsum agen 
hinds. ferret 2 amend ta leap) vie ma the eee 
Augustine informs us that the proletarii were en- 
rolled) for “warfare, ‘after | jm lita, ) bye 1 a pusbarasure 
crebruerunt, and, since this does not occur in the 
extant books of Livy, what other time could better suit this 
than that described in Livy Epit 12, from which we learn that 
the Senonian Gauls, Samnites, Lucanians, Bruttians and 
Etruscans were in arms against Rome? 

Compare fragment 12 in Hertz’ edition of Livy from pope 
Gelasius Ep. adv. Andromachum: Livio auctore, 
Siaxe p' Sis mec in Rac. war bene x70sn tra 9p © Sues 
en tia: i njtin ita, hominid my smelt, Vd emer 
liSSé¢ .atq ue eo, fr e.g uiemit em wie Nat Wim. snoer 
Vix es set! wn die (Alice, “be ilme/0;s4)s wtyeqme 
POT) bus, exer Cit us pO t iss) siestesa. ds Con iabmes 

We should note the resemblance between Augustine’s lan- 
guage above and that of Orosius (Adv. pag. 4. 1. 3) Ro- 
Manos gid “qt antique, bh ositics, Cig em ane 
StréepSerent perm eitien.t su tam a adesar 
Mmecessitas proletarios Qquolmaile fm jam ia 


ClOpane ieee nhac) els &  eOSy Grid \in |. 5\bie> Ysiéim:- 
Drewes tit uue ie mn Gave) spyr.orlhi's ea wis a wa Ca Dat, 
fit ave aod Scr 1 be re. Orosius must have fol- 
lowed Augustine here, as Zangemeister admits. 

POA IIe AVG i Cuse ) etthiba mash arent. is 
Preyer fh us 3 

rom) Livy. (i See-Epit. 22s) Py rr hus) at) aa 
Meee. il ar eins tit mis, se e.ririekt 0) (ine) a ea 
Mac umMt) also Florus Epit; (1) 13, -Hutrop. Brev. 2. 112 Hi 
Giiaten bt na )) Pyne m pir reg €m-.) CO ii 
iia helm) aki oO. SM Miva x lbt um po pols cer wnt: 
Plutarch, Vitae, Pyrrhus 13. 

B22 OC td sane diee, etn ht tino 
Gventt con silent satis unbane Apollo 
SC na Mine t OW Um or a cul um: éid1.d.i1t., ) ucts 
duke pans qu idig wid) ace disse t.. \— dh 
Woibaiisiatbie tet un ) (ait) em rm, Dac oe te, 
Eye mnie: | Vin Cree) pi01s.s 6) Ro mi ain 07s, .)'. 

Compare Cic. De Div. 2. 56. 116, who quotes Ennius’ 
ine ras WO. aihen wave a Gil dra..) ROM) amiOls. Vi bnicre ne 
posse. This no doubt occurred in the latter part of Livy 
12, as Pyrrhus would naturally consult the oracle before en- 
tering on the war with Rome. From Livy Augustine evi- 
dently took this; first, because all the other events in this 
chapter seem to be taken from Livy; secondly, Augustine 
seems to be quoting accurately some definite source, Dico 
Men MwE Wert He ain ee Fe“. pjous,'S €0) ROAM am OVS 5 as 
compared with the line of Ennius quoted above. This is not 
mentioned in Plutarch’s life of Pyrrhus. 

I2pni2 in ta mitid Strace bellorum ‘etiam 
Peesivle nti a ravi s ex orta ist, mulver un. 
Name pmtirsqtam Matures partus ed¢er- 
Siew eb av id ae "Mm oOrie ba n tur: 

This event occurred in the war with Pyrrhus (in tanta 
strage bellorum) which was related in Livy 12 (lat- 
ter part), 13, and 14 (former part), and after the introduction 


of Aesculapius to Rome (ubi se, credo, Aescula- 
Pigs) exCuMS a bia it Sq Wierd. ar Chiat tine, «woe 
Ob seu ever weve ta s'p'to f1'tre sb asta) SANS 4) pre isetatn. 
lentia mulierum is not mentioned in the epitome of 
Livy, and we know not exactly at what time in the war it hap- 
pened, but we may assign it to Livy 13, which, as we learn 
from the epitome, gives a notice of the first fighting, or to 
the earlier part of 14, which gives the defeat of Pyrrhus and 
the conclusion of the war. Perhaps we might note here that 
in A. U. C. 472, the second year of the war with Pyrrhus, 
CiesnySyae Ss Uma tne lane a enc earp at ay Cy uP Che mvE ci Oucr 
toginta se pitvem ai lia) id urc em)ta tw ie med 
dao (Livy Epit) 13), and im ASU. Co477,. ce ns spapmye 
‘chap tiahy C1, vole. diGsexe mitia Seo pet Wave mates 
Wn wim imi ia dice mata | hind em tea (CG ua tito 
(Epit. 14)—showing a decrease in the population, doubtless 
owing to war and pestilence. 

625.) 16.0 Perc uid" si qinio, qruves sv mii") i tenia 
teed vane bs: 

This occurred in several pestilences, compare Livy 3. 6; 
2225) Gc hse 41, 21 but nome ote theseus reletred to henemas 
Augustine is speaking of the time of the war with Pyrrhus. 
Compare notes p T24-/30 .b2i5.) 2 

125.18; bajem s,) “ella ) majeum (oithay bp ages. 1) tram 
Wn Crre id dibs lads) pinyin iphay Geis WStaeny sine nS) = mnt 
Nighy Le biuy sy; hiog ren: dia aul tae apd iene) Velthitasminiaa 
£70.70») pret .diae S, .qyuavaid) pias inka sume nse mene DMeS 
iavb eer is» Gq uo.g, ey} ela caves dunmearie entauiine 

This is not mentioned in Livy’s epitome, but no doubt 
Augustine found it in the r3th or 14th book of Livy’s own 

125,22,  ililva itidem eer Ss pestis 
ential, | qimiatm) dita)! isvaiery 1G) agquaam mane tio:s 
pre-rem (ith | Our a en veruymy | (itn iano oi i) Saale 

mY wilt gravius fen diene eu tf fru Sit wa 


Pabidcensie Mere PAhe SC ua pi oO ald i tuim: | exs't! ad 
ib EtaSet ot Daynlh dT niorsya a WN almiey' €F gio) » devel = 
Ent Ny Mer Sstn evavmy, SENS Sree aruistarm pre Stile nit ta e 
qeincan palunit mas .ae ders sa enas* mul ei tove.- 
Gi pra tars! per tev a tim te mie rie nit. 

Nor is this incident mentioned in the Epitome, but it no 
doubt was taken from Livy book 13 or 14 (compare itidem, 
ACM eiaUis telay ip tT ave srem te, Aveis'¢ ib'ap, 1/0" )). 

M2G:-Ers Pou ni teiisss bet 11's". 

See for first Punic war Livy Epit 16 sq., Florus Epit. 1. 
18, Eutrop. Brev. 2. 20 sq. For the second Punic war see 
hivyj20y © sq.’ Kloras BE pit. 1/22,’ Eutrop: ‘Brev. 3: 7 sq: 
for the third Livy Epit. 48 sq., Florus, Epit. 1. 31, Eutrop. 
Brev.. 4. 10. 

La0e 2acoL iS) tauiiman’ tS, Wot tex awe tOrita ve 
hitpiso rT wim. Siiiby liam or iuesm, Mwid:i (sae chuslam.eés.; 
deiompigmy Crenlie biritaas ei ntier, (Cleon tdi my am no's 
PUeM at) iM Stitt a wie live tort b's q@ wie! seié.m = 
ProOMgsnb Ww S's mie myosiika, inve go les ec nptie yp € Hi erat). 
Reem oO via tr wnt) ettia m pro mit Wi ee Says tuydiars 
Sia e eons)), di Minie mis! eth) ip syors! abo lnitio'si iaininis 
Metnmors tim) melvori bw si. 

Augustine might have derived his information here from 
Varro. Compare Censorinus, De die natali, 17.8, Varro 
dicuns Clare nM eG Gs) ) sore m Wbia.s) Vbmbiro) i pir timo 
PuaSCriptum .©relig uit). |) But itus:fairly:certain 
that he is still following Livy, whose religious mind could 
hardly fail to note such events as important. Weshould refer 
the mention of these |udi to book 16, or,to one of the 
following books, of which we have only the epitome in which 
this is passed over in silence. Forthe ludi sacri com- 
Pater Epit, 16, Brutus .munus gladtatoriy m 
PieLomoe hem Cdelwnicti patris. piria us 
edidit. That Livy mentioned the ludi saeculares of the 
Augustan age we are assured by Censorinus, De die natali 17. 9. 

m7. tsee xn dam oe Mims: wilt ram o re m 
Bei vow  b vbe rime pale ne OM nia ur bis 


pilka na) sabe rs a) San ti) vadaiiss 7 una prestan 
Guila si it.ownme ntis: inp ud sause) pa ivi ve lant 
stagno sist) u) ran}0 ma dventlareitirs ait e 


The events referred to in this chapter occurred in the 
Hirst Punic war (op. 1m) .b ie llio WB min) Cie) yp: saainn2) 
and chapter 19 begins Secundo autem Punico 
breil voy: Augustine found this incident probably in the 
nineteenth book of Livy. The epitome does not mention it ; 
but it is related by Augustine between the disaster of Regulus 
(mentioned in Epit. 18) and the burning of the temple of 
Mesta:. (I's tam, dein de) pjes'tje mio o.1/s, pie rae 
cioOSior subséecutus est, whichis mentioned 
toward the end of epit. 19. At any rate Livy was un- 
doubtedly Augustine’s source. 

127, 17. 1s t:acmi) dieijnadre | pies tema eipceunies 
Pie DUC 0'SMyOsr,) “Su ibysje Cum fm Sse .s t. | qhuere 

tiejm: plo, Ves tare neo nl ple pe nc 1.0 2.8 leeC oan 
Wmepe tu Cx it ew mwtalenviirye Maers! Asia Cih ay ein lala 
fia tial i ac. - ew mi) ita by) (adllvom Vinee n dirioy mame 

ber'a re nom proms sven t. + Mee tie ld as op omic ites 
Suae quodam ‘mvord'o isjadw tsi 0 bliitasn ea 
EiMie nyS.| Cla: Sve duvs tars a bi niapru aie: 

See Livy Epit. t9 (ad fin.): cum templum Ves- 
tiatel sardrene ti; (Carercuynuuis) Meerte lGlinrsa apron. 
tit ex maximus Cx inc emyduizo sacra 
rapuit, and this 19th book of Livy’s own work was Augus- 
tine’s source. 

126: 17. ‘his iq Wovdiue ||) faite nit bu se aqaiel 
non Vtia im) ona rr aries (bieddkay (hom a nya) igen 
Rem an ulm “i/mip era woo lean dla e) ienys © te ue ee 
(EW ariet aa 

In these words Augustine refers chiefly to Florus whose 
words he at once proceeds to quote. 

128.19: ssiim iliow (vit oO mine naivt  lhemquer 
WiiCul eh. 


These words are a quotation from Florus Epit. i. 22. 1: 
Smt itor vie to tsut “pe pulas alte qa 
vicit, which is an additional proof that Augustine used 
Florus as one of his authorities. Dombart gives this refer- 

128) 27.) De Cann en si autem mirabiliter 
hyow.rie mn d'o, mia }'o'. 

See Livy 22. 44. sq., Florus Epit. 1. 22. 15, Ewutrop. 
Brey. 3) 10: 

128.428. ubi (amin bal si. tam tia, iin tami 
SOMnuUmy at rocissimOrwm! Gaedé satiatus 
Pace l 1USsissie plerhibetur. 

Here again Augustine has followed Florus, for Livy does 
not mention the incident. Compare Florus Epit. 1. 22. 17: 
Boaque) duo, Maxim tex ered tims) ica est ad 
ost iim «savtweta t.em, <donec), Hanna bal 
dincet.é€ tml a tise} ‘piare€ ferro.” 

rQ- ie Undies .b te Sm o,d ios > a nw lori m 
Jie oO um: Cath aw tnvem, imi Si £2. 

Sec ivy 23.) one2et dt wnt « in . iv e Sita bathe 
Pita e iiss it, an nos! a urieo sg Wi tan tus 
Meek Ves hwtit) it umietie nm ¢ ibis, dim id ium 
Sie piew ta; hs) mio dito sex plies: s © 1S 1b) ie) wie 
diam, jane to res. Hiama:tenwit iq wae pire - 
Pur Veto “est “haut: ptus f wis sie imodiol 
MorissHpitc 22. 18, modi duo anulorum Car- 
Phiaiginem “missi. Eutrop.. Brey. 3. 11: tres 
myordijos, | ianulVorum’ “aureorum ‘Catt ha, 
ginem misit. Augustine clearly follows Eutropius 
against Livy and Florus in the number of modii, for not 
only is the subject matter the same, but the very words tres 
Modiossanulorum jaureorum Cart ha gi - 
nem misit occur verbatim in Eutropius. Compare also 
Val. Max., 7. 2. 16, who also gives trium modiorum 
mensuram. Kuhlmann (p. 7) erroneously thinks that 


Augustine has taken this from Livy. (See Literary Sources 
of Augustine, DCD. I-X, page 31). 

1297.) Dien i qué) tan tia smi um mouse 
Sic aita.€ sit ut! Romani) mie oss) tra ca 0,0 72m 
proposita in plu n iitate C07 1a oxe rE esnite 
Sot Wt ia ll bert. ten G omva re nee ie ue 

See Livy 23.14." Floris pit. 1, 22:2) tony Sareea 
mye Mitu/m i beer atiay “sien abide) WBaitrops /pnevens. 
EON (asd) hans.) 3) Sieaivate ss Mand ord), int it may iecetts 
ante), Manu im dSisa) ve "tami iat erst avc.t iS aaunnee 
Thus Florus and Eutropius mention only servitia or 
servi, while Livyadds qui capitalem fraudem 
aus 1 quig ae plec wana e4 ain di ca ti) ane eye 
eulis ‘€sss.ent, which’ account Augustine” seems) te 
have followed here, though it should be noted how closely the 
words of Augustine (p: 129. 12)’ “arma defuerunt. 
Detracta sunt templis_ resemble those of Florus 
{22.23% Ja Timea’ mom teimamnt @ die t rac tiavis amt 
templis, while 1reéos facin or wm propo site 
inpunitate colligerent. ‘could not;come from 
Florus. Augustine had then the account as given by Livy in 
mind, while at the same time he perhaps had Florus before 
his eyes, using almost his words. 

129.730.) “€ X 1b 1m! PSiaro atneo Tul) ey eur 
See Livy 21. 6 sq., Florus Epit. 1. 22. 3 sq., and Eutrop. 
Brevis. 17: 

730.5. (mis si’ Legyatd) acd) Pia mimnubpaylgeam 
“Ut jab) <6 1S. Ob e. dis ciend e.6 et Jom 
Hemp Clatt ha oulnye mespre to dinate 

Comparing this with the account of Florus (Epit. 1. 22. 7) 
it is certain that Augustine did not use him as his primary au- 
thority here, as Florus does not mention the embassy first to 
Hannibal. The source is probably Livy: compare 21. 9g. 3. 
The same account is given by Eutropius Brev. 3. 7. 3: Huic 
Romani per legates den ume i ay equ act ae 


bie tou anbisht in-exmelt ks) elievoral t.ojse ) tad) mii t'> 
Heiney nol it. Room ami, jetiiiaim’ Crairitchacg in- 
em miserunt. The words which Augustine employs 
to denote the time sending embassies during the 
siege Dum hae morae aguntur (p. 130.8) may be anecho 
ofhivy 2t-ior. 3: Dim) Romani item p usi ter unt 
legationibus mittendis; this resemblance has 
been pointed out by Kuhlmann (work cited above p. 12). 

M300 tO; OVC tiawvio., “Wwe. lt. non oO} vay, E.o.e Mays 
mee wms.e dele tiauce st. 

Eutropius could not have been Augustine’s source here as 
he does not (Brev. 3. 7) state the number of months of the 
duration of the siege. That Augustine knew Florus here we 
argue from his giving vel nono _ with which compare 
Florus Epit. 1. 22.3. novem mensibus cited in note 
p. 129.30 ; but he did not here use Florus asa primary source, 
writing octavo vel nono, from which we conclude 
that Livy was his first authority: compare Livy 21 15. 3, 
OGtaVveO) | Mens e Guam) ¢C.0 €ptum opp wg - 
Make capo lm Sa cl nit um  quidjam \sc¢r1pi- 
sere. As Augustine had evidently Florus before him, as 
we saw from notes on chap. 19, he noticed that Florus gave 
nine months, hence he added vel nono. Also both 
Augustine and Livy speak of Saguntum as a civitas 
o pulleniti's si m-a) (Augustine DCD p. 130. 8, Livy 21. 
ia 2) 

T3O2 IAs w Nuasiiy Wek alm eS WO. k Wet, Cd Gea Vleck .- 
bisa he OM Re So! Pa scl pen vh ot bye tit. r,. 

This is not recorded by Livy or Florus or Eutropius, nor 
can we point to any authority which Augustine may have had for 
these words. Perhibetur_ seems to show that Augus- 
tine is not quoting, but has merely in mind some story of this 
or a similar siege. 

E32 1G Sie P LOlnes = iam) i) ¢ Or Um) jajeye Ww sal 
NOM Pears) /CveWS (Ss ante Cha ces G. ey plat hia, quam 


Sia vwintutie salvam -et liberamyced dudit. 
i op ipa dio) Lintiern ensip eget ie liaauiaim 
Gomipil ev itiqia eojivi tam, “ip o sit (ims gener 
SHltiim | t rau mip hum: mw lle iialiias ribiats 
Garpitiays) dels tdyeriivor, a tial) ut Vaiss Ss sieht pene 
hebeatuar |) ne sal tem! mo ntuio in nmigm ata 
Piaitwciia td nis: fer ext. 

See Livy 482 50..7: Riomia iy Vetri xv lc to rem 

Agaric mn im), .e x pe likaitie | 680 het ay delete; sane 
Cio us wl timus, davies. Ph. eSic ap iyo mie ian 
Iie se se eae Pos. tq) Ue) Scum ienay id dean eent 
Cenmtamina cum Cri bunts pimio spice mci. 
dive. len eio re. “pirvondivetia, irl ioe erased 
Co MCE 'S Suit, “and 8:05:32. oc aval ate ian, tae unui meres 
Sime desi deri our bis” Mom ate mite ne miei 

e1o7pl piso. (osc-0) “S eupenl rt |Sre amcOus Ss icsus Cyamnre nia 
net, MO MU Mien, tum Gude) nb any saverG tobtscia aaa 
me atu pu Ss. Si bt im, ime ra tal pia ter iva) ieee 
see also Val. Max. 5. 3,2: 3),e 0 Siquue: vy ol wm traman 
exilii ‘acer bit at eum) mom) pea Ca, tus) a daaiene 
femmes. Culdt, /svep ule f tio) 7S uo) “nis;c im aa 
iubendo “inera tia patria! nie «Oss /a) quate nm 
mea habes.’ But the source here is undoubtedly Livy, 
from whom Augustine took the words ne . . » . in in- 
Criaitia (practur lay ttn Wess eiaiee ee at 

1392.19. Deinde tunc primum per Gneum 
Meaniium pro conse u lem die Galion areas 
tEtwm phiantem Aisiatica, Tuawaria, omiaim 
om ned hi ositie p elton” im fe psa ti aneO ac) emntacnl 
Prim um lecti ae ta ti. et piewo Sra (Sate dee 
eulay visa perhi ben tum, st mre ionvduiestuace 
if €COnvVivia pSaltraae e€tyaliaula ce nitions 
Is Cx iatletyc tira. 

Augustine seems to have had in mind here the words of 
Livy found in 39. 6. 7. (quoted p. 33 in Literary Sources of 
Augustine DCD I-X). Compare Florus Epit, 1. 47. 7. 


139.7, "lata estietiam villa Vex Voconia, 
mre cq ius ihvewwed:é mm, sive np iin am) fa cre Tr et, pnvere 
Wy ds Cua mo) fri Vtia mi. 

See Livy Epit.403. (@ Viorconiws'  Saxa tri- 
bubmas pile bas; Vecem .tulit mse) iqum's mul 
heprem) here dem, in sitituer et. | Compare also 
Cic. pro Balbo 8. 21, and De Re pub. 3. 10. 17. 

roa. 29. Numantinum foedus horrenda 
Lem om in ia macgubosum:; volaverant enim 
prcsliendte: Ca Nerameuty Mam Cun, O., ClOin.S Wiliie, fee 
Grieuineee savoir dba. ma lium) fescielr arn t 2 

Seerkivy Epit so© et O Sit bio) Mia nye 1 nlo) xc .o ne 
SCRUM vewesya Grrsihivinesaemotve pet lid) (1x) Coaavieid | 96. O.- 
evict Units eG VC ds <6 nim ca. (N amsa ny 
Bins @t. CaS tras lex UhUsS Cum JSsipre Ss. nulla 
Sieuuaviari Gt emer t Cults) e's Sie: b,,. (pia Cre) (C-W m 
Gis he Cit (le momini-osiam: \Florus’ Epit) 1.34. -5-, 
Eutrop. Brev. 4. 17. The 55th book of Livy’s own work was 
Augustine’s source. 

FAs eqonds JM itihyt id ates). Ge x. -Avsii-aie 
Hep ME uVehe nen) AUS ta) eplet eer imam Ce)S . fC iv e,S 
Koma, oS. .2.t.q use i nen. amie ma bil t Coip ita 
SUES veo Off 11'S “ingen t OS. Wn O dive (0O'¢.c1/dai 
WUSuseiit. (ents dt aie Lum) Seb) : 

SCemlivy Ei pleon iG SS: UC lirer wen ucs) i, Qu iGs— 
Gquyvdw Ginvi ume Rlomiam OF ume im VY Avsitia yf uit 
inode. (orule 1 dratium “est. Floris, Epit. 1.40: 
fo watrop. Brev. 15:5 ;) Vell. Pat. Elst, Rom. 2. 18. Augus- 
tine’s brief mention of this massacre makes it impossible to 
determine exactly his source—probably Livy. 

E25. 195) (oN avm een avi tieyq Wm aml, is'e7;\a divie £i- 
sum Romam sociale Latium com- 
MOL Ve Tet) C Uy nketa Ieivai humanis 
LSHepiWes aS Ub d i tay cia ne-s:).eq uciilas tari! Bio. veers 
ete sqiibane quve jy 'alhiva . prec oir ai’ siucb: )hveun imp 


dio ma nito fu erium ty sitbite tetera tial vet 
dome sti cael lemiitiatd s) o blat ar. 

An account of this was probably found in the seventy- 
second book of Livy. Julius Obsequens 54 has preserved it 
foreus: from |Livy: }c¢ um (ex) Vag Tash 109 Un bem 
Dee Oma.) ar mien tia q uyer) Lait imi) | (algem ernst, 
strage hominum |p ajs simi aictararmie mitia 
neta: aim pha Die my 7 eon Gast agtraye say tee 
Vasitan do ‘suo s: jh ors tive) (iim aso nm acr evn ut ans 
bellum. Compare also Orosius, Adv. pag. 5. 18. 9, who 
probably knew this passage from Augustine. 

135. 28. Seditiones Gracchorum agrarits 
Peoib ws ex Citra tale: 

See Livy Epit. 58 sq., Florus Epit. 2. 1-3. Either of 
these authors, or both, may be the source of Augustine’s 
knowledge of the Gracchi. 

130. 82 Pos tyiG care © hay yaglit vein Mugs, (igen 
ferc.t.1 0 n.e, mm. Lure ims, 4.O} pi, mara Se PC .O Sin Tee 
fria. miliva- (hom imum) Jove ci diijsis.e pmpre wa 
Heiubert Wt. 

This was probably found in the now lost sixty-first book 
of Livy though not found in the epitome. See Plut. Vitae, 
C. Gracchus, 18 (ad init.) otros pévtor mparos éfovoia dixtaropos 
év brareia xpyodpevos Kai Katakteivas axpirous éml TpirxiAtols moAtTaLs 

Tatov Tpaxxov Kat PovABiov PAdkkov. 

136. 16 Percussor Crace hi ips tus) crane 
quantum @wrave enat, ) tanto paiyod sano me 
dere consuli vendidit; baec jenim, pactio 
Gaverdieimy) (Pp Taleyce SiS er arts 

Compare? Florus) Epit, “220 o3a016)- insu 1 tsa twa 
quoque mortis reliquis et: Miku d siamese 
Sanctuny caput tr tibia. p Veibus \iprenicuws- 
SOriLb Us) auro” + ep/einsatu me Des; samemmay 
have been found even with more detail in the lost sixty-first 
book of Livy. Most likely on Livy’s authority Augustine 
writes. hiavec €nim) pactio, cagdem) pracces- 


serat. This is put almost beyond doubt by the fact that 
Plutarch (Vitae C. Gracchus 17) records the same: jv yap 
MpOkEeKYpvypmevov ev apy THS waxys inoordc.ov ypvatov Tots aveveyKOvGL 
tH Vatov kai PovAoviov kepadyv. Compare also Pliny N. H. 33. 
Buy ote CM. Sferp tub wet als.) Cu Griaceh 1 
Pail ais is aliyro!. wt ep en de n dum |) 'e ap ult 
emcee ia bis Cassi: pad O pia tim: tale rice. 
DeaeMeb Org Uses" isny O'S a dvdi1t.0 Dare Lerdio 
SU Oommen pi. Meltsath (Car cum ser tps et 16: 

436.. /5Q-)) (O/CjC mS, ws! ers tc) m1. i.bie tM ar = 
CASH ee sy Viel US ss lC On Sym Isavnars: ¢ 

The source was Livy ; see Epit. 61., Vell. Pat. Hist. 
Romy 2) 6): FE ljare!ciuis im) A’viéeim tin o.)\ie)}uim 
PO Mid Ore pmieet liar tims. |e .S ts) -also..Plut. 
Vitae, C. Gracchus 17. 

130; 25.) alerdicts\ Con cordiae! facta ve sts 

An account of this was probably found in the now lost 
sixty-first book of Livy; Plutarch (Vitae C. Gracchus 17) 
mentions its construction. That some contemporaries of the 
event felt as Augustine did about the erection of the temple 
we have evidence in the words of the inscription which Plu- 
tarch (Vitae, C. Gracchus, 17 ad fin.) tells us some one wrote 
by night on the temple, €pyov amovoias vaov Opmovolas TOLL, 

ie 4a vt elo Ss 6S a tirnin us tr) bwin as 
Deve Pris yes . Goat aS) SG tiv 1.1) s\) ) por aveotcO.T: 
So muilit oo post, Mares  Drusius quo © um 
SOM Mm Sed i tivon ti buwt.s) (Ca. d e's. 14 thi. (tune 
gravissimae. ‘ 

See Livy Epit. 69 sq. Vell. Pat. Hist. Rom. 2. 12 sq. 
Vel Max .o7.13, Blonus Wpit.\1. (4.78, 2. 4.°1Sq., 2) 5. % 
sq. Plut. Vitae, Marius 28 sq. | 

Ree ce tm Gveun SO. cura | ta.) i boecdi dial) leix arr 
Sie yh oh ty 

pee ivy . Eipit.) 72%; Pita live ar apho) pauls Wye) er 
fecer wit Pipeovem t's Wiel sit iii Marsi 


Riave ding ai) Moar fac i mii), Samat ersy te rama, 
Florus Epit.. 2, 6, , Vell. Pat. Hist. Rom. 2.. 15, Hutrop: 
Brevi... /3- 

28.9.4 Bie ll um idea nidie ssieiny lve Spune;cre is. 
SHibty nies cick da M4 eX" Pa UE 1 SasmemMeIS. SOV Ca Se asEG 
mui naS) (qu aim. Sie pit Ua iat a, ola divat om bias 
quem jad) mo dum ) belli Wisremiy 1 We se crome 
tinea Cub G Ms Settee. 

In Livy Epit. 56 and 69 there is mention of bellum 
servile. But the one to which Augustine here refers is 
that of Livy Epit. 95 sq. Compare Florus Epit. 2. 7. and 2. 
8; Vell. Pat. Hist..Rom.’2; 30,’ Kutrop. Brev.. 6: 7: 

Bx “paucissit mis) hoc (es t mynd saquui aan 
Septuaginta, eladivatort bus. Where asitve 
greatest diversity in regard to the exact number of gladiators 
who caused the bellum Spartacium. Seventy is 
probably a round number here. Livy Epit.95 quattuor 
et septuaginta, with which Eutropius agrees (Brev. 
6.7)-) Florus’ (pit: 2. °8...3) Spartacus (Cries 
Qienomaus effiraic tio) Lien tad iusdsome uk 
tCreci nm ta.'a ut iam, plaius, jeius de my fom tramiae 

Virus... © Vell: Pat) Hist. Roms \2..:\30:45. Vste x anonimueea 
quuva t. ta ocr if ug Uta vile iCie Ad Att 1642. o.uenyon 
ample WSe) tne guts) Seg ling uae inet ae Cum 

Spat tac oO) Minas “mol ti spar timyo, fu em anger 
Orosius (later than Augustine byafewyears) gladiatores 
Sept waginta et qudttnor. (Adv pac. scala 
If the MSS. are correct it might seem as if Augustine followed 

Velleius Paterculus. It is true that Florus and Cicero as 
shown above give a number which is indeed minus quam 
septuaginta, but Augustine would not have used 

these words if he had had in mind either the number given by 
Cicero or that given by Florus. 

It is also quite possible that minus quam sep- 
tuaginta_ occurred in Livy’s own work, and that the 
Epitome is a conscious correction from a later source. Com- 


pareudiivy Epiter Cad? “film. ) ‘iregen'iat ium ‘e/srt 
deenes eC Clavel Viwithy ivy ©. 60:3), <ré gina tum 
aenolsy dit Cent OS (Gu iavd-ha gin 't a. qa’ tt. oir’: 
andriEpit..23° “iqruos (ain wl/os) au re oS)! .é xicie'si- 
Susisfe) modi! “mens uram traiditur) with Livy 
Poets Geiein td Wr tes) pret tr iis) =m Od) ios: erx t= 

Palte's:sie Sim te quad: dam!) laure!t one's . Fama 
emanirt = Gla 6 ipik Op hor Vv Er oO. eset, bra iust 
pus, futsse modio. But against this Livian 

authority it should be noted that in DCD,IV. 5 Augustine 
wites Et es duces “habiu‘erunt: (p: 151. 16) 
while Livy Epit. 95 gives only two Crixus and Spartacus, un- 
less we suppose that here again the epitome contains a 
conscious departure from Livy’s own statement. The tres 
duces habuerunt of DCDIV. 5 tells against assum- 
ing Velleius Paterculus as the authority because he mentions 
only one leader (Hist. Rom. 2. 30. 5). 

The best solution is to suppose that Augustine’s authority 
forthe bellum servile was the Historiae of Sallust, 
and that there he found both the tres duces of DCD 
VES andthe. ml In U's ‘qi tam sé pt wae i nt a. “See 
Maurenbrecher, Historiarum Reliquiae, p. 146 sq., and frag. 

ESGy TO. ere lol a Chey Jil a 

See Livy Epit. 77 sq., Florus Epit. 2. 9 sq., who gives a 
brief account of all the civil wars to thee Bellum cum 
Mineo mo et "Cleopatra ; Hutrop, Brev. 5. 4 sq. 
MA Ombve Dts Con dveaie, Sex Cen tisimo (se x= 
2esimo secundo primum Romae bellum 
Chyiebe 2c 6 mm Ge.dim est.’ Vell. sPat. | Hist. Rom. 

2. 19 Sq. 
£38.23: b el Vay pit rat a fw m., 
See Livy Epit. 99, Vell. Pat. Hist. Rom. 2. 31 sq., Eu- 
trop. Brev. 6. 12. sq., Florus Epit. 1. 41. 

39-27; iGaput "Oectaviri  conswlis pon 
Smetwr hin FOS tris; Caegsanes...a Fil mb ria 


dio A bins? tru cid are nitumr csuis. dito nr asisca 
Diditye cy ye ty  hidel aus") vom G) Cyo ml Sopresc tally pee 
Mm aiGtya meme Ur. . | Bia eb du sy vert) Nidan it omnimtns 
WineCrO, -t Tiare ti, S)p a TSS piv desvC rene SH tone enaeae 
Biesn cyC, aye las, hav stto ve miemion (sie seman 
DRGKSi iT nhiymy isc err sim) Sau ib tareavhieme fe isesrsueiEa 
faltaamnve sm: > SOavanl Ass) pre ave CuliS tse eee Mins mesa leo nual 
et iaim) )Sayo. Stain jo uae! ili trate ey Le ne md usa thts 
avuyt © mm Moavri \O%c willist clon tn meuvo. yen mei ane 
Leraelh ope quibus Sa, ] tia myteiebpuyss ud e7xitresrar 
HyOulnaapS Sie) Gr: 

In this passage Augustine must have had before his eyes 
Florus Epit. 2. 9. 14 (quoted in Literary Sources of Augustine 
DCD I-X, p. 43). It will be seen froma comparison of these 
two passages that Augustine either has made a rhetorical in- 
ference in the words, Wn)\C.o) tir arc ti iSipsainis1)S) NaS ciem- 
ibus from the words of Florus per medium forum unci 
traxere carnificum, and has misunderstood Florus al- 
together in the last statement, or, as Kuhlmann has pointed 
out (work cited above, p. 19), there are evidences of the use 
of another historian—doubtless Livy—in the divergence of 
the narrative of Augustine from that of Florus. See Livy 
Epit. 80 sq., Vell. Pat. Hist. Rom. 2. 24. 

The great difficulty in the above passage of Augustine is 
connected with the readings of Caesares a Fimbria 
or,Caesar et FimDbDria. “The MSs of Augustine read 
Caesar et Fimbria, which reading the BE (1864) re- 
tains. ‘This is also the reading given in Strange’s ed. 1850, 
and the one observed by Saisset in his French translation. In 
the passage from Florus (Epit. 2. 9. 14) by which editors seek 
to correct Augustine the codex Bambergensis, E. Iil. 22, 
reads caesare fimbria; the codex Palatinus and 
codex Vossianus, caesar et) fim bria whichis the 
reading found in the above passage from Augustine. Cae- 
sares a Fimbria isthe correction of Graevius upon 
Florus, and this correction is adopted in the Bipontine edition 
1783, in Jahn’s edition (Leip. £852), in Seebode’s edition 


(Leip. 1821), in K. Halm’s edition (Leip. 1872), in Rossbach’s 
edition (Leip. 1896). Other readings are caesi a Fim- 
byt) Glave Sm sa: ) BP umpe bir a...) A-wSchott) proposed 
Craseys) ai Gia Si va (Ciinminpa jor jejaieisialr.€ Sf, nat 1e\s). 
Dombart corrects Augustine from Florus,; Caesares a 
iigiimePene ass E OMS, 2.0 Jo. pace aels.air. elt, hami- 
bria mss_v (crit. note on the place); and Hoffmann fol- 
lows Dombart here. Little light is thrown on this subject 
from our extant histories, but Caesares a Fimbria 
seems to suit better the facts we know. Fimbria’s death is 
thus deseribed in Livy Epit.:$3: Fimbria desértwus 
BOmex errciveuis Ma wi ad: owl lam (trams erat, 
MBIT AS ep ec WSIS dt im pet fav Lt dveys er yo 
SeesGrap Edie Dees, sCieer VilpC erm. oUt Se, 0 Cc iden eit. 
and Plutarch—not that we may lay too much stress on his ac- 
curacy as an historian—Vitae, Sulla 25, épav 8€ 6 Pip Bpias rHv 
petaBoArAnv Kai Tov vAAav ws adidAAakTov Sedoikws avros Eavtov év TO 

otparotédw duepGerpe. 

40 7.0 P Ost Nari smvaiorils “pris ti nas 
Meme creMtissimas Caedes additae f£ue- 
ene avi ales yore a Vv isO Fr e:s) a. Muar vo Siu voerne 
Sogie sear bo me (ea riurmd em pat tiium Mar- 
Lina hom. quail) Sulia i mM neinvtie!) Mvocn 
Som nV leh O ml am lve Fam.) et 1am”, 1p s.aim 
es pre io a mires 3S aul. te;m. eu nLe ta) Siu tsiy alas 
Grave Guibas: i mip lecvielr umn! t 

pee) Livy Epit.\.83. sqz, Florus: Epit:)'2.)9. 13° sq., Vell: 
Pat Hist. Rom, 2) 26; 

FAQ }C ES. OD Sse Ses /0r \e coisa WS enna eh) Ge) sip) Sia 
Cheeta) ta. mq Wail, die. Ga Tice rs, pr .od uyCjiel: 
Piao yard elaid i mi, 

Florus is clearly the source. See Fpit. 2.9. 20: ob- 
Sess aque FC Uv diay ASC yy Gie. Se. lya-f oO '. oquikarsd 
(en ce aintyaih eG Gist) 1.0504 Ua ent Wir 6 GW citiy. 

140. 15.) | Mou ci wis Sictavleiw onl a=! pron tif ex 
PUSt Oumprace nie a siamig Tt nie) eatin! x 41. 


See: Livy /Epit. v86 >| Ov.) (Meas) /Sicare veo 
pro met if ex |) am asea mis’. \ ays) Vit: toy evsitie 
Dwushioy, apesduys.° V 6s tae ioc €tisiu's 9 est Plocas 
Hpit-)'2.u9;-21). oM mee us  /S cChaiew 10.1/ae prometinivesx 
Wrepsitiasia's \ ia maple. nis?! airs Wfta ort voor 
e€fosd exm,, “Wiempe) ss expe lastuir, © WViell, |. Pat abst) Ronit 
2..26, \Cic:/ De Orat.:3:.3:; 10; Lucan; Pharsaliaas 126) “Au- 
gustine probably had the account of Florus in mind. 

T4007 15.) Wir (bve;m) ide t nydvews suunlulia, Py a Gatiomn 
initia Vel t, qu 1p vil la jpsletic: a) 0) tava 
brevilvon sce.d) (i pis.a. \p-are & Vs.a leq Wemnutver uSLegnutvenm 
mitig deditorum  Cum-die: witi qa .1 mien mia) 
nowy spi go nan do ~s.ed) .i Web midio) pin ous ateaiaee 
Vie tea 0). 

There is the greatest diversity in our authorities as to the 
number whom Sulla thus put to death. Compare Livy Epit. 
66>) OCto milia dediticior wan) in evaded 
prueba jic,a tru cidia vat. Blorusy Wpit) 2, uo user es 
Giuattuor milia deditorwim simie m mitewen 
Caiyeunme in, vii tla. puibiliivea, inetie nf ibc ies 

Salites Mal. Max.) 9.2.01 +. usaxt (ti om) We opzounpers 
CiOMmve arr ivae€. pa rt 1s, -fivdierm,) JS ula mi) | Siexequuteaus 
immepuabil i ¢aovil las... ) 10) D tonnage iatesismie 

Plut. Vitae, Sulla, 30 dua 8’ airds Te Neyer evnpxero Kal KatéxoTTov 
ol TeTaypevor Tors éaxicyxiAiovs. Oros. Adv. Pag. 5. 21. 1, Se p- 
Hem mailia tunic Rom amio rum ~ Roman 
imetce 1 kerC Er net, cand) 5.25. 2, 0 snus gla emnome 
ane Give. | GUyrsb 6 iy. WV iC (Oss dnabacay dias teria 
maga a.) hvouml i nimem quit) Sste” Sipjes saike esa tiass 
dediderant contra fas contraque fidem inje m €1Ss <s €.custlo's Gq uiemim te rif ecu 
Seneca DerxGlem:) 1. 12. 253) eq) Sie'p treme an ania 
Ci wim “Roo um{a' mo rium: clon tired am 1 Ts site 
Septem milia may have been found in Livy’s own 
work ; if the MSS. are correct Augustine would seem to have 
followed Seneca here who alone gives septem milia; 



but it is better to suppose that he has got confused in regard 
to the number slain by Sulla on his entrance into the city and 
the number slain in battle before that. Compare the two 
places cited above from Orosius. It is very strange that 
Augustine while closely following Florus in this chapter (28) 
should disagree with him here. It may be that Augustine has 
made a mistake. 

TAO N24 GOON E.CrseS Ulilace. SUS oi Cene Uk 
Sime md OS eS.Sie> Val nq uig)S. J Vivie. fe Upty ers 
Hemet hue Oats wp Ors Senet | atm pre tame: Yeqvut 
Wiecre Goa mt. 

Seehorus Epit. 2; o, 25, acd monje n.tie; 
Vaelecnicu a: lip unos Gre Dre rier Ubi e,S Siem ty Git. 
Dis im perarent.. ‘Ehis/is clearly the source: 

m0. 27. tabwiha illa cum ma‘gna @ratu- 
Pata One pro posital est (qudeée) ‘ho. m-tntwm 
Seiheroquwe ondine splendid ay ‘eq. mesies 
Soukrceats atquse SS éenatoriia, “\oec¢iidie n/- 
choir uimy cate) "p bie mn dior wie diwoe) male 
Goneime bat . , 

see Livy Epit. 88, Florus Epit. 2. 9. 25: proposita 
Ssitey einyone nS: tela tia. b wilta, let Gx,” piso 
CePureIsnt tc. Ofna 1 mies i f1'o fe (aie. sven art w Vdinte 
Miwivae 6 hec th Gul mort tub erent ar.) Vell: 
atest, Rom, 25.25. Plut. Vitae; Sulla iz); Vali: Max o. 2. 
1. Evidently Florus is here Augustine’s authority. See also 
in connection with the cruelty of Sulla his epitaph given by 
Plutarch Vitae, Sulla 38. (ad fin.) : 76 d€ érlypoppda pacw airov 
broypaydpevov katadireiv ob KepddAaiov eat Os ovTe TaV PiAwy TLS 
airov ev ToLmv ore TOV exOpOv KaKas trepeBdAero. 

Ares NO) Wem amc Mim Ss ine jhe te Oy a n— 
imnptinm Manus diripawerunt, ina ani os 
homines hominem vivum quam bestiae 
SOWeme dis cémpere cadaver, ab iec t um,. 

From Florus Epit. 2. 9. 26: Bae bium sine ferro, 
hieu te hatims, inter manus )Vamic 1 nat om. 
Here the language of Augustine is an echo of that of Florus. 


PATS/On WAG TW S)oveltu Li's) 6 LatvO1sS/aS, | hen) iprarne— 
file wilcast i mesyimve mms br i's!’ amp uta fis nee ameedis 
Gru cillattiib us) d iu) viwie rie) y el (plo Caaiise data 
MuOrrA (Ce Ora Cit US! ES t.. 

From Florus: Epit. 2. 9:'26: Nya raid, ms, Oo. eaunliies 
eri-o.s sis ‘man i*biu's’ crurit bp ws ques ebt ra cris, 
Sein, “aliquam /diw) at oer soins raeled 
micum bray “mMior er et wr” Seneca, Dewars rose 
Mearivoig. “eh. “Sow lan pivaechm imines aCe tae 
eruit ocd lois, '“a mpwt ari Tin oa, mea ings 
ins) S urt) 4ert.. quasi L OlbayemS-)) sOxc CritGee dmieke 
qiuvertite/ ns! vou l nre ralb a th pracusiiattad ml, (ene mpm 
Sine uasois artis, liayevew, auvaiit. 

141.8), Siu: bh as tata e.s winlt) et i.a my eta, 
Guava | vuirl ave 7) jyqua-e'dyarmy me br Wie sg) ec lwate 
tia t)ecs\. ; 

From, Florus Epit:.2.9. 273 m wad carpi a dstiailiare 
sip Vem dt dis sma sib.) shjajsita) oy emi ea inmate 
Sapoulvert ium In) te ra min, im P rae este 
By Woynenn £1: .. 

BAT CO. /1ina) | Vue FO. wilel leur tien Sie eps emcminedt 
Ie Dyere tt UT, (SAC. tt-Ojt.a | tals Suan ces ty) atneme 
leh ag the 

From Florus Epit;.2. 9: 28:, 7/5 0 lm om ievm.. jes neon 
esx piu ona ty at.t Sou siudve st. 9 attense seo (ely ot meee 
@oago. meord. 0. mort e7-d'aim-n;ya ti id wce10 tbhe menage 
Sic (da mna'tarm ‘Civ (tat emis sa. Sel lee 


wr. 24, Orlim, lor wm, et paw lo fa nue 
Gobi on Wm) i n/rp tome mi.) | 
See notes pp. 1. 3 and 84. 21. 

147; 325) Gio thar \ve ron tia mi Fmiuelitas, Ysyemra 
tO Das | pepe nee ran t bu tc mate st indie 
Sit tqruio diva/lt quae’ Sp, exter err temube 


Augustine here takes the milder view of the extent of the 
slaughter. On the other hand compare Procopius De bello 
Vandalico 1. 2. 12: révus Te dvOpwrovs dravtas exteLvov aot éyevovTo 
ev TOTWW, Opotws pev TperBUTas Spoiws dé vous oUTE yuvatKav ovTE Taldwr 
peddouevor: and Socrates, Hist. Eccl. 7. 10, who says that 
many senators were tortured and slain : «ati rodXovs THs ovyKAHTOU 
Bovdras diadopors Sikas iroBadovres arwAecay, 

E42 are) Dre LiyayeS) ei rabyout lit. 
See Livy Epit. 79, 90 sq., Florus Epit. 2. 10, Eutrop. 
Brev.r6. 1 Vell. Pat, Hist. Rom. 2. 30. 

TAQ O20 se) lames 2 eral bill Moaxe.. 
See Cic. In Cat., Sall. Cat., Livy Epit. 102, sq., Florus 
Epit. 2. 12, Eutrop. Brev. 6. 15. 

p42: .23%) Lieimida eit Catuli. be Pawar, 
See Florus Epit. 2. ri, Eutrop: Brev.. 6. r sq. Livy 
Epit. go. 

142.24. ad Pom per et (Caesars (bellum). 
See, Fiorus) Epit: 2. 13, Hutrop. Brev. 6. rg sq:, Livy, 
Epit. rog sq. 

14a en) Gratin im: Ca esac em. ee ote By mh gece, 
Rem sadipeitht ac €m..q uo .run/diam, oobi Laum 
C10 Mt halt Olas torn mm. ve bw t pre) (ete 
Ba byliierave: wt Diet tay tie: sina i pisrat Goum Paty bie aE 
Gbaewail ts: 

See Livy Epit. 116, Florus Epit. 2. 13. 92 sq., Eutrop. 
Breese. 25, |Velle Pat. ist. Rom: 2496, \Cic:. DesDiv,:2:;o% 
23, Phil. 2. 12. 29. - But in this, as in the rest of this chapter, 
it is impossible to say which particular writer or writers Au- 
gustine has followed for his authority. 

143.56. A COM lus. CU t Vv e-h e\me mit er) pis, 0 
Cad ems Wikia “viel wt Pa tieliace lt biemwita tie 
Gc Or. ore si Ste brat’ 

The source of this is uncertain. It cannot be Florus. 
See Cicero’s In M. Antonium Philippicae XIV, Vell. Pat. 


Hist. Rom. 2.164. 23) ae c os init t 6 mip oman 
beds) OM alias Com tin Wise | farexe do meiab. aes 
Sete tT nays) An toni Memortae inilissit, mioltcr 
also Id. 2. 66. Florus and Eutropius do not expressly men- 
tion his hostility to Antonius, but speak of his assassination 
in the proscriptions to which Antonius was a party. See 
Florus Epit. 2. 16. 5, Eutrop. Brev. @. 2 (ad fin:)) Livy 
Epit. 120. 

tA; 21.) b ovie's lfoic ust'o si: 

Seenlivy, 3. 10. Gir 24. 40: 105 27 tied een Tien A sie 
2A At el 2. jul Obseq. 15,265 27.543) 535 miesor 
Georg. 1. 478. 

TAA 21. in ianites “in on duane) na tors. ade 
Ut era Si im atrum quaied am) ywerba, clamiasse- 

pee, Livy: .24.. 10, 10 |  infanijtiem, |) ine ,umemio 
myattind:s) iin) Moar riuicit ndas7) “jitos iti Oomepyare 

TAA 22) VO liasSi€ (Se 1 premmutie Se 

Various prodigies in connection with serpents are related 
indvivy. Compare 7.17: 3, Epit. 18, 2152258) ec oN oeees 
EO, 75) Dut to none of these does Augustine, seter ihere: 
He probably had in mind such a prodigy related in one of the 
books now lost. This is all the more likely because he has 
evidently taken the other prodigies from Livy’s narrative. It 
is strange that if the above incident occurred in Livy it is not 
repeated by Julius Obsequens in his Prodigiorum liber, as we 
can prove from his language he knew and in many cases 
followed Livy, though not always. 

144,22, 1 Gunvwien. as) 6 t ola (lhiingays exe | hiommves 
in mas Cola n Udi Ss ex un Vf USS e cron viemsiase 

see Livy 22) 1.1353) 24, 10: to); this issnot recorded an 
Julius Obsequens. 

IAGs 27-0 DA Ud te Lira 2 
DSeCvLivy, TOT. :Si5 095.020. 3 9039, ot Ag. 2Ocne aie 
£6.05. ) jl. Obseq. 1°('55)),, 7407.3). 


T4A0 a7 pl wit) 1c ee ta: 
See Livy 24. 10. 7. Jul. Obseq. 47 (107). 

144, 27,, .pludtbaip udii bru s): 

See slivyors Sih sete O26 022057. 9 2227-36. 70420, 
2aensO, 30. on jul Obseqy yr (55), 28 (77); 144; (104), 51 
(111), 54 (114). 

144.529). Cee im wis.) ap uid) ié,0.S) Ave tna ers 
Hemp Ss) rab) i piso) mo nit is Ver tice! us que 
Owe tts: Dro x imum “decarrentibws ita 
Haier Me DIG US seuAU tlt Ukpe's. ex ire ren ta 6. 
MeepieG eS Md tmim SiO liver é nt ur 2... Rodem 
EaligteS Uys) i ayeuS thus ineimio m tanita svi fa voi bl Wave 
Seeniypasse GW Dt) .Oppypil e)ta.m 7 esse) 5S, ie) amy, 
it aCia ti nen sis ae bills st'e:e't ai ob ruta’ ert 
PaAcosd  dirweme te Ggtta Calam (tate “per 
moti mise ricord 1 tex eius dem an ni 
Beeb ut um ei) Pela xavere’ Ro mia ni). 

No doubt this was taken from one of the now lost books 
of Livy (59 or 60). See Servius on Verg. Georg. 1. 472, 
Vadis aidan tem cup tas form 4.c ib ws 
Peet aname oe At a. ede) Livi aes) | © a nctie 
flamma anvt.e) mo © t/e.m Caesaris ez 
SVC Mv eIMvOMM ces ode t LU xt, at) mon ita n-tium 
wae CuieNeahe, Ultb)e)S. 5,.e-d, etiam R,e.o 1 na Ci w i tiass 
adflaretur. Julius Obsequens refers to the same 
(Erodign libe ge) Ave t mae.) tin cendio  -Catin a 
consumpta. Orosius writes of this (Adv. pag. 5. 13. 3): 
eodem tiem po pe Avett na) m ons, wilt masio li- 
Sum e k aes iit et. “torre nti bws |) ig nels 
Saupe rmtetiis 1S lia te dae (Circ um f lu en tt b uss 
Catiiam wrbem finesque eius opp res- 
Seometiaetenwt ee ta wa. di um ca lidis cin ert: 
bus PutedepuS teaesqmiests) « (pi have, 8.1 ai veal tea con- 
PaUrerr ei to: cuius le van diae € Rardiivs 
Cian Sia Siren da tt Sid 6 Cem kan noTru nm” veo tt - 
galbia Catinéen sib ws re ntisit. Thus Augus- 


tine and Orosius differ somewhat, the former saying that the 
Romans remitted (eius dem ania) treba fam, 
the jdtten) dle c.e/m" "a mi) no fu) m\ > vei bane agile aan 
it is impossible to decide which is the more correct. 

53 Lule wisit ata mye tam) tome van Ginea 

malieniud ine m pro die ia (same ms dntsisies 
EMligm)) tka tal 60S S°ejt! | pro.p, uli) y Reo mraay ds) men 

Vie ia. Clit ter is) “mia nid iabycerr ulm te clone 
Seu p) tas) Ye animy fr wet bi OS Vit ole, Iuseq uae tio. 
norum bnyg emit 1 | at.g/ave  Almvace st 1m arb iele 

nyasbee . hom) mya rie; diac uimypti ers Seq od esiteicstra mus 
Gia; Im) or tiuja,c ed di tia,q ue) lags 414s) 2 eq we 

ligt \eeae re Ort uipitie tantam ortam 
pest wlvem tam (atti Vso ow nie co miOn Madr 
Nys;s are oO Citien arernltha hominum ma Wa 
pegisse refvetamtwr et) multe amps 
in tenris littorl busi pro ei mils. Tunic 

Utvoae ex ) trigin tama hibyays, jin vere em 
quae) bd “ecr ain td) ecvenmynng isla en aun sinsisce 
Con. ti rma nit. 

See Livy Epit. 60, Jul. Obseq. 30 who has preserved 
Livy's account, apparuit lucustarum ingenti 
oman ew UAT ra C ail) OMI aVen vee) 6 Toe wane On imtan 
Measie Gvelve'G t ase. tal auc eM DitsiGs tues me erCabsase 
Od Orne init oO lesa Bila Cyare mus i Orta. 
feshiO.G ue | -V.a pO.rse) (tary Gum ip eisat ale nuraiaaan 
He cer unt. pie C,Oeni ls: )\ by O umuban namo a mine OID ike Nemes 
meiilava. C/O DSU Mm. pit a), tasove ip wOnd dtm se sace 

Compare Orosius Adv. pag. 5. 11. sq. who again differs 
from Augustine, and gives a fuller account. The former says 
that in Numidia where there were octingenta milia 
hom am, plus j/qoujam: )yd-ue.eart a) omega 
Die mMesisren ti piavd 1b a) ma ersito apud ipsam 
VG OF sO tiie am, Civ, dita teu of iri-omtin tya) smile 
Ma aed A er) Ne nt iG: fa ayigwuse abe aises 
Sh netwe ona p mG) wl ti era am oss bn mame /UCuine semaeis 
Ui am, pO ft am eux. ila Ss: Tt inidcour tb tS ulus 
qiuvaem: yim Ile. qyuuim.o 6 m t1O.S mont oS: Je laagtsons 
HU 4 SiSe> nan Te tir. 



146. 16. Note how Augustine says he derived his infor- 
mation for the facts related in the three preceding books : 
PioreLimne x Te Cemet men Orda ‘and par tim 
Grant ter 1s) eso n tm. 

147. 23. qQuae ono loco A puleias brew- 
Pie G st Fit Cutsem, eo) lad eslilio, .q uveym «ide 
Mudie oO) .5 6-Fi pSaite) tec Hel A ayo, mia) dic ems 
Bl Ut ave 10,0 6S |.) 

These words and on to p. 148. 8 are taken as a solid 
piece from chapter 34 (in Hildebrand’s edition) of De Mundo, 
Sen, umagna ~echianmm, diw er sit a.té,p)as 
Hildebrand says. 

PSO) 270) erate. ser 1m, (6v6. Viena, Cul te © 
Ahemandro Tihi Miayno qunidam com pre - 
MeMsinsh VO itieata Tes po nd 1.0) Nam cum 
idem) rex hominem tn terrogass et quid 
CMe CLere tir Ut ‘mvare imiestaret: ile 

Leoea Commit nina Cia: Oued tipi, tn quit, 
tieeo tvedne het rar ui: seid “quta hd” eco 
EeeoutO. Mawel at O) facie), 1 ’a t:F 0. ~vi-Ore Orr: 

Cwideweett. Ma hed Clas se. im per ator; 

See Cic. De Re pub. 3. 14. 24 (preserved by Nonius, pp. 
eats. 544). Naim CM im quiiaereret ur’ ex 60 
eos C cue Te) Vin pals uss 0 m aire) hia be £ elt 
ikMisere Sarin MW OMe My IOP der One: ORC cc on PRE 
Pathe. eg dO tu On bem: (terrae). This, is 
not recorded in Curtius Rufus. Cicero isevidently Augustine’s 
source for this story. See Literary Sources of DCD I-X p. 20. 

igi, 15. Guandio paucissimi gladiatores 
iM Campania die budio fmewe mtieis: om a g= 


Muy eo xenei tum yc OM anit), 5 es) aunicie Ss 
hyavbr ule © aati. 
See note p. 138. 9. 

EQ ae COmialigd eve 1 7ail item fides or eyraaya 
View MTS Dew ve ly lr O) OW Se SiC Msp S eur Istana aatlt 
Qiubarerd aim il ltols fuss e)) “mye mmnedutcors avlaave 
indven ivovr-e7s) live test are" oS tem dia muti) cio) Sateaee 
Camreme eto tmyt.e.t) al 1700S 4S Cir patio! Tieisi pare youe 
New Mie PASS YE iO. F Um," a. Na m.0> “fF efore tyumusus e 
homme inate :q ule, (por re.) tuimae 

It is not possible to say to what sources Augustine here 
refers. Compare Chron. of Euseb. (Jerome, B E vol. 8, col. 
44). Niviineas)) fwat mex (AS siyirdion ume ema 
MypOsLum) 1 nS oni um que! fa cil nio rum) Jaueto me. 
iid cols49; col: 259. 

r53e09.) Naim Sic ut) Serbia ait qi ie hom. 
Came historiam prerse Outi suit melas 
divcen tos et quadtaginta an mnvois ab anmio 
Drimo.,) quo IN in Ws if eo name) (C.0.eip let overt 
Mia misist, hole Tree num: donec. {rams ee 
tupenard), Mire dois. 

Compare Chron. of Euseb. (Jerome BE vol. 8, col. 50) 
Rem puisi mip. rit Avs siy rio .r um seem dom 
acct ait OS) /SICir i pt Ome ss amin | inte dau 
GCemtu quad raginta: sie cun'd um | wvvengo 
Aa OrSa in th lee Ee Clem tl. The same number is 
given in col. 347. On the other hand Iustinus Epit. 1. 2. 
i pam pe Tl wim VAS Sy wii. . 4 2 eat ler eter 
Cle Mutmism ev aynUnt Sia) ste meue te. Hence Augustine 
here agrees with the Chronicle of Eusebius and not 
with lustinus; -Compare DCD, XII. 11) in quibus 
re CMM) AS Sty ft 100) T Wm 1 1) ela doemmy ce pa Sica 
AC We xa naGanis Gg. isiin Gate. im) i) lia) rence did tapes 
Nnorumc) in (Grae ca vero. chiiswod 1a) ome 
ferme.’ yt  trievc.emitiors! )habverts salb  dkpisarngs 
Beet op samucayp at a 


roe oon Eun er Via Pr Ollie tT eld it, wevthiia my),.arb 
horse ol | qrai | am aim), Dreruwm, | Sine) si m:udia-- 
CeiOe eC OM b.t. Sveldy yall Ot PT. Or, 1 ne. pny bh AUG n< 
Prat 1. 

For the fragments of Varro in the fourth book of DCD 
see Francken pp. 8-31, Schwarz especially pp. 438-449, 
Agahd, index p 367. 

157. 17. Though Augustine does not mention Varro by 
name in Chapters 10 and 11, there can be little doubt from 
the nature of the subject and the similarity with other authen- 
ticated remains of Varro that these passages are to be attrib- 
uted to him also. 

REQ! 20. City jeeetia tm. | Pohio em vce Si do in/aim 
Gdabant de prostituttione filiaram, ante- 
qi Me 2S 10h @eme nt Viriis. 

Though Francken, Schwarz and Agahd do not mention 
this passage I have no doubt that it is to be referred also to 
Varro, whom Augustine follows in the preceding and succeed- 
ing pages. Probably Varro added this information in his 
sixteenth book of RD entitled ‘‘De Diis selectis.” This is 
treated more fully under Varro in The Sources of Augustine, 

Pp. 40. 

HOe S201 Onunve tw im )-'v.e f.0.) -.a.p pe. lisanitve se 
(hararc. fa Cle me. — Guus é1t WO.) <C Um: a.eidiem )hiai- 
Det et Verb fay prota Collin aim: 

Compare (Livy. 44.44. 3, Voiiaj) La baicianya. aid fa,- 
num Quietis. From this we learn that there was an 
deraies) dedicated to, OQiuies, located 6x tra p/o'r- 
tam iC o llinam«, while there. was.a fan um to the 
same deity onthe via Labicana. 

167102.) Hoc) (ive, (bon os €sSed eos) Plato 
Gyicid, t 

Compare Plato Rep. 2. 379 B, ovxovv dyafos 6 ye Geos To ovTe 
te kai Aextéov ovrws; ti pyv. Ibid. 379 C ovd’ dpa jv 8 eya, 6 Oeds, 

2 NS 2 , , a ” » > ¥ > 5 ! ¥ 


‘Opnpov ovr’ adXov rountou TavTHv THY Gpaptiav TeEpl TOUS Beovs avonTWS 
GpapTavovTos ..... Ibid. 380. 381B_  aAda pv 6 Beds ye Kai Ta 
Tov eod mavrn apiora exer. Id. Theaet. 176. C. Geds ovdapy oddapas 
GOuKOS Sieitel tie we 

But the above is rather an inference on the part of Augus- 
tine from his knowledge of Platonism and Neo-Platonism than 
a reference to any specific statement of Plato, as no such 
definite statement is found in Plato. 

FOS.) I3.) (quam!) Pein tw nratms ) Wwiore aunt aie 
simulacrum eius, quod a matronis dedt- 
Cjatum est: et j~apprel lata est) Men tema 
muliebris, etiam locutum esse mem er- 
iae commen dave int vatq@ we di x1ss eu nom 
Syestapeuls eG isietee sa pumriie 

pee Livy 2. do.) act (Dive) Inst. 2rn/7. or elle 
etiam mira bile, 7qw od si mula ¢Triuim eon - 
tunae smu liweba1a Si myo: | seamed.) ou aatendean 
ess. evtra di tur sibid: 2. 16.10, . ¢ aod sho nm taanes 
Mmelte bris pest ctuphulm): vdiemy am tiedv ttyss eve 
Max. 1. 8. 4, Id. 5.2.1. No doubt this deity was treated 
of in Varro’s work. 

£69: 5.0 Vir tut. em iqiorgiu @, id eam) ee ererewiae 
(Ol in 165 

See Livy: 27. 25. 7 Sd. ld. 20-711.) 13), el duesmi ns wecoee 
Surprise o anime ad ‘port am, Cap en adn ae: 
Neairce lias ‘dedi cavyrt. Lact Dive Inst aecsme. 
120119, inst. (Rips rs) 6,)"Cic.: Nene. ees OLN ee eonmon. 
De Lege.)2..3. 9,2. 11. 28, Deske pub. 1. 14. 206 Vala Niax. 
slain 398 

769.°9. et. Podve ss. died, iC me duyt.a. Versytument 
Lec pit etiam: ayp's'a (temp huemive ¢ aylit amen 

See ivy mise 4.4 et / sol i Wadient stole mene 
PRS ta tat Cicn Ny Divo. 235 Or) sme Ay.) De ulne ates 
Sh Tey Birr 25: 

169.14. (O.u,an dio qui derma itt ic. nme 
QwWaoe wor! Vs pe cies; dist rib ae nd au wensicre 


Vide muni f-jipimuidie Dette m), das Cat 1am) fo) r= 
fitradinve m) tiem plea tia m. 

Augustine’s literary source for the four cardinal virtues 
was Cicero’s Hortensius, as we learn from the De Trinitate 14. 
GEE2eeDie oO min tb as). t.a mee nq uy ait tavor (vat. 
PROPEL US) hes tee uel GTS seit) EP Our itye mn Sisto), divay= 
logo disputans. That this was not the only place in 
the works of Cicero where the four-fold division of virtue 
was found we know from Jerome (Comm. in Zach. works, BE, 
VORAoncol T4099): Quattuor Sci licet (v iptujtes 
DapOwdve mtd a, Mim site ica for tit wd).o | tem pen 
Piensa de.) (qeu tbuuese pl enon s/s imiiey ain Ow ft i 
CuO mim lt Duras adnan! tus) "diet 'Sipi ut act, .\s) ¢) ri) be 
CMswp iT Op. Ti me qin.o qi e. dé. qa att uo, (vy tr 
tutibus librum. A similar list is found in Apuleius 
(De dogmate Platonis, 2. 1; Hildebrand’s edition, vol. 2, p. 
213) where pudicitiam stands for the temperan- 
tiam of Augustine and Cicero. See the Literary Sources 
of DED TX, ‘p.-zo: 

169,25. - Migevo, cum dex tena m pir t é x it 
iin, fl a mim). a s:. 

his comes from ivy 2.12.12) ,¢um.|.re x, isim,nj! 
aan eon sms 1 pie rive ul O,@ me) C.O:m t\ 1 fais 
CHC em) Gas ie iy ean 1Sinm) ind) ta, buin,d u's, 1abemet, 
Mais) Ex pr Om net pro plexed tas jn si.diva- 
Eales shor iw Inplinna. Sip, € ©. iaymiyD) aye e.S\ 1a ice) elk. 
Dene rtdibal\c mn tennant Ub) Sve Mab. tra Sy) 1G Mya ED 
Vat eC. Ohh DUS Sib. tS) i. wk yon aye nm asm So Or tam 
Vide nut) dex tr amque  acicie nis @ ad. “s aeri- 
Peciui me! foe we. Miccit.)" See Flocus Npits 1.45. 

69s. 27) (Ci £ POs. e UM Se. Plo pray titi a yy tn 
PDA Pena mM, pip aecwp titejm jy idie ditt, 
The source is Livy, in whose history there are two ac- 
counts ofthe origin of the: lacus, Curtiws, 21..13,and 
4. 6. It is to the event which took place on the latter occas- 
ion (7. 6. 3) that Augustine here refers, tum M, Cur- 


tim) sav ene m |) ibiel lo. ere te Sarma asi 
gasse fern; t d'uibiitajnvtreise) vam anol una 
miaigis,) Romanum ~ bom wim gq aiam arma 
WHT eS eM mCIsiS et. f SL lveimst iol have -thonrtetate 
par mdieto-r aim) i mam-o-r tail aul qhuna eu stromal 
imminent; ‘Ca pi to liam que 4 aim t ue nite a 
eteem an ws) n.wnice hin) (c.are ios =n. oo eaten 
Diaten ties y tier ra eu hiisa tiuist tarda Gye.0Us. imvatieers 

pow cl ore ny te my se) CveNnOuvals sie.) 9 ie ql O) Gaume 
die isnrdye. (qi am! (po. tein apt nna et me) ex OE inaatnO 
ines inde nyt em armatum Sie hn Us pre) crue 

ipmar mas) 1)S)S.e 

In the examples (Mucius, Curtius, Decii pater et 
filius) of fortitudo which Augustine gives at 
the close of this chapter he has not followed Florus, for Florus 
does not record the case of Curtius, nor has he followed 
Eutropius or Cicero as they do not give the information here 
required. Augustine’s authority must therefore be Livy. 

169.28:) “Die cion) piast nig et rec Gove er iene 
Cia spur O 1 eX elbiCuhit aS: Ca VAO DV AC ati lat te 

Livy is the source—P. Decius Mus pater at Vesuvius in 
the war against the Latins in the year 340 B.C. See Livy 8. 9 sq. 
Florus Epit. 1.9. 3. P. Decius Mus filius at Sentinum B. C. 
295 in the war against the Gauls Etruscans Samnites and Um- 
brians. See Livy 9. 40 sq. ro. 28., Florus Epit. 1. 12.77 
Ava ms” Opypyr 6.SyS Urs; ) We) Sonu ey ea dase wae ets 
Con su lium’ Decius more “patriyo (de viot,am 
aGiis)ma nie bias vo. Dit ust Cncra padier. 

W732i.) Cur {6 aque: \\t.a mi iysielto phannre 
trary teaver nidneyare Give laine aetiah ei) post {'o.t 
Rom, alnvors!. (pr isn. c.yp eis!) wc Ines avterdiegmn 
CGyomisiea tout? 

This perhaps occurred in the forty eighth book of Livy 
now lost, but Augustine may have found itin Varro’s writings. 
There is no mention of Lucullus’ building a temple to Felici- 
tas in any of the extant writings of Livy, Florus, Eutropius, 


Valerius Maximus, Velleius Paterculus, Seneca, Aulus Gellius, 
Tertullian or Lactantius. From Cic. In Verr. 4. 57. 126 we 
know that there existed a temple to Felicitas, but Cicero does 
not say that Lucullus built it. Arnobius, Adv. Natt. 4. 1. 1 
mentions Felicitas among other deities who had shrines. 

L. Licinius Lucullus, the grandfather of the Lucullus 
who subdued Mithridates, is the Lucullus here mentioned. 
He was consul 151 B. C. and became notorious for his acts of 
cruelty in Spain, especially against the Vaccaeans. 

P7420 90.), 9 N asus cout hta\bre nt) e.o.8 am), Whar 
er aie wal 1G UM wet eo) Slain qin mia Ss! la pityore 
uemertat bin iG. reerev ce: I Met) 4. 1 up er anuig wind, wm 
G@husaesiivil to tm iconce dere Locum vwellenit 
owe at ue tts tl indie ced ere. \o m/nies 
WOktwerunit) (praeter itllio's quos')co mmier 
mona vii Mea rt.em he rim iam Tuyy ent a t em’. 

See Livy 1. 55. 4, who mertions Terminus alone as not 
yielding, while the Epitone of this same book gives Ter- 
ive evt., PiUWy eS nt ales carale. jm over 1) (non 

potuwerunt. SoalsoFlorus Epit. 1.1.7 cedenti - 
DuUsSi« -G eC he fis di tS =— IM tia Gh ers dictu — 
hes titer es uve nit as. et Terminus: Au- 

gustine by his addition of Mars to the dissenting deities dis- 
agrees with Livy and Florus. This different version Augustine 

probably obtained from Varro. Francken says: Hoc 
Mypavewise Cc Ona tirana tr “qiuyOnd. «eset ein i) qdyGns 
Didi Eee (pO i) sleirat pit .ne.S°) Mian tem . Lowi 
Mone € den tiem non € om mem orant. See 

his note p. 22 sq. 

W77a cops trey wavlive manu, SdyijGaetuye, vad uly 
Bete OU 0s Ste). ue ri, Lp al ehirivy wm 
Ogu Te UeSana ma tour) et) 1a) pyt,oin;: 

These stories about the immorality of Jupiter were 
doubtless well known in the popular religion. They need not 
therefore be referred to any particular literary source. Com- 
pace DED DV. 20.\(ps, u7 9.6). on, | 1 Wise, Vd) iis, 0) ri. 

160: | 

Pepe Or em psa disc 41 t tare. Wommemy tupmipiisys mn 
hirsitinaiomies | Vela, nit-al bia n, ta everbeain te please er 
Diagn ite. 

176.75 YOu nT ver £07 7 low dines crave nite na nb 
hyaercyrdscti/tan tur clanit iit a nt 1 a est tateannee 
fur. deorum hom ord bus. serxeh imbre neteupie 

inatien, res) dei vainia.s va id.o1e t 11S s)) myiuspc tone 
SiGorel bruent aunt 

The main source seems to be Varro. See Livy 7. 2. 3. 
Teabdsa)),G WsO.q/ tne, OSkeyare mil Ci any sie spend Eve omer alice 
Gravee s\Gi0S irae placamina ins tie wien 
dicuntur. Id. 36. 36. 4. Varro must be included in 
the, jdio ¢ f1,s,s im4;s\, ‘Compare DOD IM 4. vir sdio@icnse 
simus also DCD: IV. 31 (ad init:)) Qyuwiid) ips eV arao- 
quem dio lre mus). in “Me buys) vdiiiwad mii sy Lusdnors 
Si€a EN 1-10 S,,, q' uaymuy lS) non.) a udiite 1 or pyeor 
PAGE TOR yy DuO! Sk Ssae™ 

78.27.) 1 too atid or pu sitaccro. Ros, aanne 
pratt) fama lias: ‘dale t aim) Yes € Fin! sperma nies 
inl eSie na tim | nant alr est amt ol idiay Reommbasam 
NESEMaat sr aren fuer 2 Vea 

pee: Livy) 2.) /36,' Val. Max. t1..7-0eCics Dex Dive sreeo: 
55, Lact. 2. 7. 20. In regard to assigning this fragment to 
Varro see Francken p. 28, and Schwarz pp. 144, 445, 451. 

a7o. 2t. Reel at am ve Ss tinin int biet ass, whore 
EAS Sam Um!) po nti fic em, Sie ale, o lamp admnse 
PWitrarsisve 9 titiiia | vo emery tir adelitwa sclera taueme 
tim uma) prolejta ss’. salt ex win a phe oO sro praise 
evn ea um a Pfi nici p ibis € tivatiteave dice 
Prim) a miiie en as) a ao ato cima live int ers ster 
quavoyd) ma) tray ide dais pit nis a mn teuse st nee nae: 
Sievcpuend ulm) Non COM oir ule Te atcihyent ata bantuse 
qiuvo.d/ Hh aibielactr ali'quas uw perwaeu a, altiquy 
1th aml quale colbis'et” pio pulsar sinvors) se < 

There can be little doubt that Augustine’s authority is 
here Varro, as Bremer (lurisprudentia Antehadriana, Leipzig 

Lop 0, mvOln Wie py 45)) has, noticed :\"S\c\a.é vo liam). 
Cbikeimven Ub Gays oMiennuernias Wide Oflu) 7S taltia it Sse 
AGH EONS EMGtnt SHG ie) Glave. Gem a Livy. W297 > Veal G Ovni, e 
Ae CBO ih Cl Miatyrialy ty: See also Agahd p. 145. ihe 

Scaevola here mentioned was Quintus Mucius Scaevola, who 
was killed by the party of Marius 82 B.C. 

E7O1620. 1S,OU,eyt, vera dmls Ent ia) kinT Ws)\ pie ib is 
CsinGiie-y aes pre tf hua ns 1O.c e.n)t 

These words were evidently a law maxim, and one which 
cannot be traced to any particular source. This whole passage 
p- 179. 21-p. 180. 19 is given by Bremer (work cited vol. 1. 
Pp 2e2—3) as a fragment) plane in cert ae sed is 
of Scaevola ; after which he adds the remark Fortasse 
byascres eG Ws) pj) a tarttion dal a. bur Os. aievc e.pit.a \ mom 

162020. 1 ec minima mip er tind €five ie niti.b ws 
inet s. ad eam) ba hem Civitat ib us in 
PMrceurs i a me? fuer ian t colar ta t-i: 

Secculuivya2 (Om nt. | die fe cere «) aruitem | vad 

EAOre ROWS Vint uprorpea ans “Avtellia ni Gala tania, 
EL er ih, 1, Asp wll oF am Prayer sy, Samnites 
Peete ky mMoosh Uizie nti ni est) iG rae ¢ oxriuim 
Or Dbl Suite) temuer a GOnray, | ).tb aren! tay mais) Mietar= 
PO: Net nuts, Cr Ove On. ten) Sie) S LL OrG iva avelty ext 
Csr ipa vo minve ss Galli Butrop, | Breve )3. at. 

Augustine could not be following Florus here, as Florus does 
not record this defection to Hannibal after Cannae. Appar- 
ently Eutropius is the source. 

[62,0204 POIs hea in lortentalib us (part i- 
DeSean a dit ia ni) voouluntat-e. imu tata “stunt 

Hemimpin idm per ii Riomand .) L) le) mama we 
MBwess SPO im cias wm oib’d he's. Avrim/ent aim 
Mesopotamiam AUSUS We Tt apm ney Shaye) ul a 

GyOUnIG €'S,S) ict) il Ml. PLE 1/0). 
Apparently from Eutropius. See Brev. 8. 6.2 Qui 
fi oieaeh dono ost tae i fav iG) emis) sit a tim, ip ro - 


Vi dincGiital Ss: terres. rel gia t')) Weqhavals aie a ivasmetns 
ard di dienm art 1) exert den A isis) yan) Nite Son por 
rau ia Ar men ia rie Vr O'Cral velit me ene tt ates 
qc dnie ma a tumipien qt ers SUe™. Vaoslem iit (pk su np naine ae 
tem Jerome, Chron. of Euseb, BE vol. 8 col. 465. 

T9392) te) laud amy) S! (1.2, “mm Over aNtio pranuisnt 

Ny avVee Sh) WIS Suits din GC Con di.) glib ars uae temo nee 
Pio f)t.a Diayt Gene cilia” »€.X. 61 Cavtws, sdie-S © ie Geains 
mov Metta me iep sO ih oS tile | eviuslne men ae px 
Binet O; iy ptya mt am: Le Sit’ nm evdvale tas. amo pukagma 
ie Seen puLdANG 4) tO pa GMCS) aul Camae na meltantal 
fibneels VCrOMmESita twee te not were 

Apparently from Eutropius, Brev. to. 16. 

£S9:)39.) Neo Lac inva my) miurlinve eis. Walaelpane 
L flv FONG al Vie) Geter te, 

Perhaps with special reference to Exodus I. 19: non 
SU nitevderb ave ave Sl Cit Ave oy p Paale muiilibeiners: 
ipsae enim O bSitie tit ie amida hyaibyeinet 
Sic me mithvadme, |e jt) jp). r1 Uys q) ) vie ny a mans ana 
Glaus wpa lade mth 



rQ3. 92, m@Obilen wl lad) sc om men tum) die 
PnCalel te erLOLe avon QuunOrGin te! Spr Ouny GiyS) Se). sb eur, Unit 
Need iam hvac quae s tt one! tu f bya t um 
imate wee Sh te ukis a p pre Lia tas e's t. 

This Nigidius Figulus was, according to Gellius (N. A. 4. 
Came) visti xt ace NE Nita kor O Mem. |G Ole t 1951S; 1), WS). 
He was an astrologer and grammarian, and, as we learn from 
Apuleius (Apol. 42), was well versed in magic arts. Cicero 
employed him in the trial of Catiline in 63 B. C. Subsequent- 
ly he played a considerable part in politics (Cic. pro. Sulla 14. 
Azad. ob. 0. 2, 16, Ad Att 2.2, 3). In the civil.war hees- 
poused the cause of Pompey (Ad Att. 7. 24) and consequently 
was obliged to retire into exile in which he died in 46 B. C. 

Ofethe: com mentum “de fig uli <r ota: re- 
ferred to by Augustine I can find no other mention, but I sus- 
pect Augustine took it from some work of Cicero no longer 
extant, as this Nigidius Figulus is most frequently mentioned 
in Cicero’s works. ‘lwo other arguments for Ciceronian 
authority here may be derived first, from the use of inquit 

..inquit (p. 194. 6 and 9g) and secondly, from the 
close connection of this chapter with the foregoing (frustra 
inbiaGtine yardote rt ur): This passage is treated more 
fully in the part on The Literary Sources of Augustine, p. 21. 

RG7aeS. i lelhud ay mom new) iis! pir ajend>1.cca = 
Misr Gal Ord \ GiGi dyaym)\S asp ive nS. shor amelie = 
Siler Gua CU) tl oxo Fe! Ve Om culm ber et wnidie 
Piva) mir abil ei (ote ner ie t . 

There seems to be no extant literary source for this state- 
ment before the time of Augustine. It has been shown in the 
Literary Sources of Augustine (p. 22) that it may with a high 
degree of probability be referred to the De Fato of Cicero. 

It might seem asif a nonnullis (plural) prae- 


dicatur_ were against single Ciceronian authority. But 
we have several instances in Augustine where he uses the 
plural number where he really would require only the singular. 
Conspicuous among such examples is one which occurs in this 
same book (DCD V. 20. p. 231. 6) where Augustine writes 
siope mot: p hal osio ph vy where) he “has clearly vouby 
Cicero in) mind! If then’ p hil o/s. op ht scan (stand vio 
Cicero in particular, surely a nonnullis may do the 
the same service. It might be said that philosophi 
here represents philosophers in general, of whom Cicero was 
the first exponent in Augustine’s mind for the particular state- 
ment he was making (tabulam quandam verbis 
pingere etc. p. 231. 10). So alsowe may answer that a 
nonnullis praedicatur may equally well repre- 
sent in general the opinions of those who believed in astrology 
or divination (mathematici), when Augustine had in 
mind chiefly this remarkable example given by Cicero. 

Other examples of the use of the plural numbers for single 
authority may be found in DCD 1V. 24 in which the word 
in qQut unt) is twice (p.176. 15 and 29) usedsiwhererap- 
parently only Varro is referred to; and again in DCD IV. 26, 
where the words a doctissimis conscribuntur 
refer chiefly to Varro, as we learn from DCD IV. 31 (p. 
Loh. LO). 

Livian authority has also been disguised by Augustine ina 
similar general and indefinite manner. Compare DCD III. 31 
where the three plural expressions Legimus apud 
esos (Ds 1445/20). SKC Ta pys e run) ten(pa 44s ieee 
HenisMima nd ave x unt) /(p. 145. '5)\istand yprincipally, 
if not altogether, for the authority of Livy. 

202.6. “Lilla, pq a0 Gu € “vie TS Uys, lo mire ese 
yesh sce Sfeumetvempceare S:ustf tia game Vaqhurors 
Ca cero) ijn) doyayen nia my) Ve ay tat: 

Augustine was apt to prefer a translation when it was at 
hand to the Greek original. Compare Confess. 1. 14, Nam 
eta Homme Tinis: “pre Tiltiuis) pte xieapeqiet a eSaamtsaee 


bre haste vette di ule1s sumrey jvayn wis ) eis. tf et 
Midian ta) MLM} ya Maus; 56 mat Gprajerr O°. 

The lines given by Augustine do not occur in Cicero’s 
extant works, but are assigned, as by Mueller, to the fragments 
of the De Fato. They evidently occurred in one of his philo- 
sophical treatises, as Augustine tells us in the context : 
Scares di Gutiva mf ati asisie re nit esis to's 
exe) Hborm.e mol ivsee Ss uls.4 SfolLe re) Tas Uirip aire, 
and it is more natural to assign them to the De Fato than to 
the Acad., to which Dombart refers them though with a ques- 
tion mark, 

202729. O mam (divination em) S1/c\ “c’on’- 
Pet av uliaG re 4 aut one oe €/'E sis e? “sie 1.e ni tian 

PMO Tum: Neam que? co mini bus (wrt bus 
Wihigihame e556 om nino co mt en dat “wel vo 
Inomnaine vel ime -deo, % nw laa‘ que )yre 5 wim 

Pu aevd 16.610 nem). 

See Cic. De Div. 2. passim, De Fato. 6. 11, non enim 
Gmedio nu lio (perce pto  awt  Ceteros a r- 
PiMinChe Sh y-err sna kde “nl SU -ONem wn elr7e., aut eos 
CGiuendhiiivtT Marcicone! Uta mt wr fia tur a) pir ave: 
dicere, ibid 14. 33, et passim. 

203733 sumo ieee Mima fo em ya, biG. uid) plot esit 
iiroend. nom vadluquid, ef fiileiems Jc ayulsiay pra e.- 
GueisiSie miner Muse Ian uPhe Gre Tr tus. e0S tt, bor! do 
Sasa wm .an Ove d tO manne g WiO.d fl t. ba to) 
PCG Ubon wt unt Gund metas Ge icace faa mts 

ScevCic. Wey Kato.n1o, 20%) montis pyvem eo.) (Sine 
ChagteS) ume MUSi ye iSit 2 7 OnUhOrd, Suivi tia yreuseb oom - 
Aiwa enGuddvec: fd 0 Hib sik aa S.4.S)) fol Mame ia tie. or € Sie 
Store Sede Stl tea wes te. fa tio.) “oman al) M yuneeys 
Siete wid td o 1b tia toy £ Ve Tl) qua ecu mg We 
fica nt ibid) rr. 26, 18. 45.10: 44. 

204.55 gia o.dy sd) clone e'd mins! \imtq uli ts, 
Ommisihiuamial a Vitay subvert ht 1; fru's - 


tua Wie ove Svidsarnit/u Tr) firu's t rallo bain ait iemies 
audve Sty ivi teu pre ral thio: eis 16 xohtomitvay ta omnmlers 
aidehivbremp ear). nm ekg ae), usldaynviys taltalvaa) otOnmdns 
Pearce iets um, alas s\aipi plaice Waco) nisht ayers ct 

See De Wato 17.) 40) € x) qujove tii catiun) 0 times 
pasugdiant porn) €.Sy1s0/Sst ase a Sam tonne icy aval, TOepkenigare 
tiomNe si nyerc\! hO) Nn) O),G e)S) Baer. ism ypa dicdhae 

210.737. Qiu) m0 14s Oo lG@imvyera eltui im: ertatiers = 
iaies Nee.Ce/S Ol. ma miecenuime et) sn Ommta menue 
Sie.denverc elX 1, OC ty (Cte C.Onnuty Com pnt 1b) 1 duSenrcmania 
Mami tSiV 1S Cle ria ne ela yacsp yp wininm ul a.m a aumierc 
heed ibpaye: if. 0's cul ame mee .ce yar bon ise) fon lnianm 
Sune) Selva fi | py avr dl Wig) ChO LM, Voemmaine tits amment 
Gyunaidvaym: (vee lui pace sGre tne a Citiriits ten dalelee 
MUO. Oly. 6 Sst) GC rie die nud a-Sses mie ounyal | hyo mat mamta 
Gort um que, dom inva, f 1,0 e Sy et aS. 6G -v dieeitaens 
ASada Ee, pt Ov 1 deemittarey 7 eos s | ea le emnaaes 
eMsSi er sV Oli Susie. 

Compare DCD X. 14, where Augustine speaks of Plo- 
tinus’ theory of providence and its extent usque ad 
heage,c.  C Ckit €.Nea ert) Amb as ape dat: imp OveMin ie genase 
ewlorwm atque folyorum pwchraitudime: 
So in the passage on which we are commenting Augustine may 
have been influenced by Plotinus. Loesche (De Augustino 
Plotinizante in doctrina de Deo. lena. 1880, p. 61,) actually 
cites two passages from Plotinus as parallel to the words of 
Augustine: det tiv mpovoray emi ravta POavew Kal Td épyov aitis 
ToUTO eivar TO pndevos NueAnkévae (Enn. 3. 2. 6) and 6 ra &v te ravTi 
ywopeva Oewpdv Gewpel dua Kal tiv mpdvoray tiv éx’ aire - Térarau dy 
évi TaVvTa Kal Ta yiomeva Ta de eoTL Kal Coa Kal mpdges airav Kal 

dvadéoes (Enn. 3. 3. 5). 

2iA. 20:7 Qiuvas )(a,exdie's,)*¢.0 n ium € tis)s i mars 
COMMS ttt ae rw ot,  Vitribu tas ye-taeeeon oO Gass 
See Livy 27. 25. 7 and note p. 169. 5. 

220; 14.) foichavevy oO Wars? ¢t VCurtios met Diecvor. 

See notes’p: 169: 25;°27, 20. 

FIGS, Sick Vide, E elhigd Om 1S. qu am 
Natpetov Graeci vocant. 

This word Xarpeca occurs in the N. T. an equal number of 
times with dovAea (five times): Ioh. 16. 2, Rom. 9. 4, 12. 1, 
Hebe GQ: 1, 9. 0: 

O23 iA. aS yal emia meld) 7 Ro mu lke jum, 
See) note p. 50. 31. 

2s, Of. filios Brats) pot uit “ee OC Cie 
ave re. 
see note Pp; 119. 28. 

294.290. “5 1) (anh Se tia Mm) ROO ma, WS py dine 
Senin ieo 2 1 omnes borg watcas., . fi-liuam,, 
MOMmId Wi a | COMmitr a pat rivam,, sve dy) et tam 
Py OnMpra el Vato ele Ore CV dtt.. 

See note p. 25.) 13. 

294. soo) Fw rus.) Craim it Pu si. 
Nee NOLE p.'73. 25. 

295 0G. No 1 WS. 
Hee MOLE p. 169. 25. 

22 R20 sisal Curtius armatus equo con- 
Girton) ion Wh abba pt Wms), past um, ji ter njajen spe 
Pied ere puivt eum nd.erdii tc: 

SEE MOLE Pi 169. 277. 

22m 032, sol sie) 6. C\culd enn d OS “Cle:r ts yes bits 
Mic ordidum -Miterd Ol clo mse Gram ties: We.c 1 diet 
MeO Vienr ust t%2 

See note p. 169. 28. 

MovGiees tl Mareus (Phalvilhus -dedi cans 
ae de: ming Ovi Si; wou nom) soy Minee ry a.e. fa lisio 
SMe ao vot. ducs) em on te. Telit “mM un ta artia 
Pirie tt a cen ten psi t ut eum €t ita im 
Pion eh Jitnes ep ule m tu beret. 

See Livy, 2: 18.6, Cic. Dee domo suai 149, Elut)) Vitae; 
Publ. 14. 

2200GIGa wow vie Re oud ase) Pnge eC usGher ines t= 
SipmLoisy Ih OS tes.) tra n d.o7 fal Wea ert. asdene os 
a Dim prysiay Re OMl a “Te VETS US. JelSit, e Guu omnipaaa 
SC wets oak Oma aad) S), |e win \itve mn eeu svoslve myc Moats 
HesplO MiGs Se hie T tut p Ors tema aqrina my, eNetaeas 
Srey Gaver euncaity wind Toni it\a tied ae lelaiteus whee) nversurel 
CAV tes n)a pee Tie non” sp O'S 1s e/t,. 

These words bear so striking a resemblance to those of 
Eutropius that we may be certain Augustine had Eutropius be- 
for him. Compare Brev. 2. 24 (ad fin.) (quoted in Literary 
Sources p. 47.) 

227 2 AG Va lien i ms) Guin) ion) Sea normdner 
ffiuene tus je St cons ud a'tus ) tusiquver Wardsere 
Pia Wepre rie mot nN um; m 1's fa pio pu lo. icon lascas 
Cosas. Piatt U tar Cau Tt arm e bauer 

Seewduivys2, (16> 7. -P eV a lverramiisis v.45 ae 
pio sit (his fourth consulship 2. 16. 2) moritur, 
Sopa jAnee nti, (copiais’ af a mulivayeaeby uss 

Aero me x1 US VU tof Wine ey Sump tues) adveversr= 
Set ide publico -e'sit” edjaitus, tcompareyalso 
Wall Max. 4. 4. | 1,)) 4.)) tu 2 ewho i eives, Publiust anor 
Lucius, as praenomen. It will also be seen from Livy 
that Augustine has made a second mistake in saying that 
Valerius died during his consulship. From both these errors 
we may free Augustine, because it is clear he is here following 
Hutropius;brev,, 1. 11:4, Oui nto anno, Vallee 
iS abi tise Oils goa yest) iq) avtieiay, ‘chomswale 
(utabuter “Myomt UUs, jest ,. adel jp aq ipreinanue 
Gioia tas!) a. po piu lo) + neiimim sis ps unm p Euan 
habuerit sepulturae, and inthe immediate con- 
text he seems to follow Eutropius. See notes p. 227. 5, 227. 
ri Hor Valerius see note, p..a2n. 15. 

227 05.) Onan t ain iy Clone imal Gaul mee | cute 
Guatt wor iugieray pos side ret \e t | eag sums 


Ma Mich as icoleret, “ab “arlatro: ess ¢€ “aid = 
GeaGueiiny yey Che Garton Spe re t wich a eveiC.- 
ta Sidi a) bro ss iby wis ingentem orn a mM 
Gomes.e Gu ti m in eadem pa Uprer tra tie 

Mia mS is $6. 

Seealiny 13. 26 sq. Plorus pity 1. 52 521 “sieod) “hyoxs 
Pitediere ip uve Lt 09s Ou in tims dom wrt, 
Mbisen disc t artromy abi) aur at £0), i qi ui, “oubysyeisis a 
Cee pede Mer? Iedame! .eraep tia. ola nisl |} eorn svwilits 
Cease pe OL evita yVal Cito Pisa (tec Ui pre Tia. Vitib: 
Nieves) Ver astant em pus) for tie, js;emye'n £17s 
ChUpINeR Peat h ine MCU me Vals hth TN), en 1s ar ast 0 

SGUsGy leicc 11OLG tine S10 8 0 ple ren due pir exh en duit 
Misdueaatniy cA Coke dd amp tO) tie Ctra S..8 Mey AGuimind. va 

GS Cet | Op etl sim d ta tio ne Gi S) Siamese 
imLOMne pre Cou Gi mS UD ol U eu ma Siti. | (Se 
CeoOpreiatti Omer simita, Tedit. ad boves 
Mikes ust riwcapimalis. aaerico la. 

Here too Augustine had probably for one of his authorities 
Eutropius to whose language his bears a close resemblance. 
Compare’ Breviial a7) Ls) Olwintius Cimeinnatius 
uber tonnes & (ff ae CUS qui ia gr ums tq uvart 
Mino kal Weer um pos sid ens man ib us, Sas 
colebatj; yet not Eutropius alone, for the words of Au- 
gustine ads Waa taser or Vers se. kavdi di ic stew im: (‘have 
nothing corresponding to them in Eutropius, but resemble 
Hloms: diet at or: .a.b Vara trio: “Also; ‘sl ori1am 
Sous Wit Ui im ea dem pia up er tate ma n= 
sisse cannot be found in Eutropius, while it would corres- 
pond towie evd 16 ad) bioiv es nurs ws tr ium p ha - 
Piseaort cola Wor Ploras.. Cie: De Minn.-2. 4. 12.) ab 
ea te Oveaa d nex er wnt )) Vall) Max. 4) %4:"7. 

227 Elie i Mme haphr Ciguim (did i¢ er tt tian’ 
PRS Militeer Dl Sake yori ha) ) ree 1s; UR) perio t ar- 

Tims.) pi Om 1-s.Ssia,)) eb am Guinia ta parte 
ercen i aee RON nah Ghia 1utvay tle), Hon 7 pro tu 1'S's'e 


dive ila Dig we in sua pia ul ple rT tray tre 
Prd a tuna rma, nel e) ania linaisyses 

See Livy Epit. 13, Florus Epit: 1. 13. 21, Eutrop. Brev. 
2m, Pe neti “eux Metecastas Romanorum, 
Haver i Gui ms.) is iie- Jad malaaatiuys.. | chim aeniana 
Pravl plete, Ml! eS) S El) ee Onion lysiSceit , wUNe Fe Wanted 
pianite reg nit, pit Ocmil sista, 15. S70) Ihigemmt ayare 
WioUsnve mit). at. ard? jase, oN tera mes ion ety MenOnaE 
Be mupitusiq ue; esta Wlaubsriiicnio eV ale NMiaxceatasGe 
AN 4a AAG ri, Cic, Paradoxa a4046, use: 3, 23. 562 

Eutropius alone seems to mention the qu air ta 
parte regni_ unless it occurred in Livy 13 of which we 
have only the epitome. That Augustine is here following Eu- 
tropius alone is rendered more probable by the fact that on 
this same page Eutropius seems to be his sole authority about 

ey ca Weyril tym)  Seer MOLE np. noc tor 

227.59, wot sq Wd ams fe,on amet) Quiet migala 
DSi A CrOmMeS Ub Ladd Srsveutea| | seme Sel leo) esac neantat 
heommyin 1m), //pia Wipresria ym, epre elie estan ta iis Ont ag 
Emon Ee) )C Enis OE day. we qiuiferd)) (dieic ermal eprosnadia 

moe Not se) Aun) ViayS.S a ushvan Diet eb awe lO mp estakdEs 
Quidam is P. Cornelius Rufinus ; see Livy Epit. 14, 
Hlorus: Eipits\1. 13:.22,)\Cic. De! Orat. 25,66; 268, sAmliGelliGNe 
A. 4. 8. 7, 17. 21. 39. Augustine here has not followed Eu- 
tropius, but probably Florus. 

229.26.) Se.) Vhs US). Via til) Su mn ta beermn 
est) sGiula Sul’ ance m. “qian diam INferio) SC a ersiam 
Pca WIS! OD Caen) qeiate 

See Tac: Ann. 12. 69 to end of bk. 16, Jerome, Chron. of 
Huseb. BE} voli i8.Col..-45 0) Sq. , Luutrop, Menev. | 7a t4cune. 

Paterna dita multa Com mH Sant f part nie 
Wk Ove: silo rio fe? (2) © miat rey, Menstremm ie tans 
Ulin bem‘(aym imici em di tay eat. spe cara. 

Cali) ve isws) Mima ge toner Cre Tnve nics « 


22a ISH pio sitids ae) Ul amo 47.15 (qua nid 0 
Me TVUNS INS CoCpu.e itya, te! Vk t.o'b 1.a1e: 
See note p. 183. 2. 

24ar 2a le iil ten ere. GuilhOn )Silspre tT 1.0. fe 
hi bare. daxt miu s : 
SEE MOLE p. 174, 30. 

296..93) bellum pitratar tim ja Pom pe! 0. 
NEE MOte Pi 1 36. 23. 

230uo 4a bred tym yee tet Chim St esrxt tum), aly 
SEcuinplonnye. . 

SEC HOLE p.) 1264 s1. 

234, 22 UD el iwom qwhog te 2 hue htt yorum 
elbad!a tor um. 

Hee Note p. 138,99: 

SoA VOuMe ue eenytversey IM iant Sele pe el dion) tenner 
Hope kinMiewatalt 6mr) Cid Puyt, EL ioe re ot em prt'a v= 
earth, th): 

Bee mote pr asses 7. 

BAeit, wir coms hes pervert uc ty 

See Bmtrops brev. 5.3. 2, Livy pit. 73,-o wm Po Rog - 
Meise Gn sil pid hum pres p ere va div, en’ 
Mis Mac sos, pillomas Set, et bm prove lt oe.e = 
Giede es sve t 5 Epits 75, Pro mci d svc Orn! Sian sre 
Msp Te Ss pe ben me Sul st fis Sq iuie. acl. iqrao'= 
iveMnis.  Naart Sis) Ci Wim. Cd Set ae 6 Oh Um eo 
Moesmat cee id it. 

Sc Acer Son Guten, Chesed aan nh UlSs) fi nyeim “diediit: 

See Butrop, Brey. Bin tio. die mum, anno 
finem accepit. Augustine has here followed Eutro- 
pius in an error shown by Eutropius’ own narrative. For, 
though Eutropius says quinto demum anno finem 
accepit, he tells us that the social war began sex cen- 
Bes Mm Onno Gila 2 6S) mG nono. anno} ab 
Hie. €.O nid ta 2(5.13. 1:),and that it was ended pier .L. 


Cornelium Sullam/(5- 3.)3 and 5: 4) and Sulla, ac- 
cording to Eutropius’ own narrative, was consul with Marius 
that year) Sex Centesimo Ss ¢ xia eg eisimio (se.cun- 
do, so that including both the year of its commencement 
(659 A. U. C.) and the year of its completion (662 A. U. C.) 
we get only four years, not five as Eutropius and Augustine 
both give. 

234... 13:") Sie/d be 1] m > (Plain ive mms (Ss excounnee 
dium re Wim Mae nis dd ext n iimee mit set, seraweate 
mutate fred.’ pw bY i cia epee amen oS) drereremm 
et )70' Ct o Rom a nas) “vibe sie. xehie mural y siete eae 
Pee mMee COs UemMe pls tote. di uvoy bat sits epireovedmivias 
fico mre) sverp it Uae inital Rom avnfo- ra un pmsl wnt: 

See note p. 126. 11: “Livy 30.4445 2.) #1 neice ame isie 
Se pituimro, “de cijmo- ian os Mutrop,; Breva ae 2ouan 
funje mac ic ep itis e can nidiulm Pin vem pbye lieu 
POStiannium nonum, decim wn quam! pcoe- 
prec at > PlorusEpit. 0.22. 15) nm eye | emu dim Vaumiepe ies 
Gyekcze ml S6)t0).€ t\0) an, nes. shia bre te yetra Gallen! 
2) hie says gq ua, t't uo (rd) eed my “(on tr erdi ec ium) amin 
Miannibaliosuffecerimt. Augustine hereyseems 
to follow the first statement of Florus, perhaps Livy also by 
including the year of hostilities about Saguntum before a for- 
mal declaration of war. The two battles referred to are the 
nobilissad Trasy menn um (pw ena and ipimeme 
Cannensis, inthe former of which, according to Livy 
22) Teu2 wou dm dre cum) im dia, Ro miyainvo Guan 
aye ie) -alle's'a jin the latter (22: 40. 15) q) ui ad saloon 
qunio qe (mia lia | gui mn oer tay Sore ditties Sadar 
nVvd ay sverpht dm ole neti keg ma iptexsn went tanta 
Pt Orpse) Civil wa) {Sore Lor Wan dq) Use Nye pie TiSeieratersu 

aileron’ tur yi. oKlorus: does: not ystate the Mossesmat 
Drasymenus.’ Of Carnae he says (1. 22:15), WS © x avoninstea 
mivliwime caved é “pamtay n ovbiilin sta s er utco- 

pius does not mention the lacus Trasymenus, but tells of 


the death of Flaminius which occurred in that battle. Com- 
parerbuevers 025 mide yard Wiwsieitia m) vie nae ns 
Hea nimnbyadee Boalva mini On Cc Orn S Ul 1? 0O1G, 6 Urn 1b. 
ip Sim, av naw ml) tiny tern eymiat 3) Rvovma n= 
Oh mM, OX Ve nila, Gaes.a Sunt... He gives. the Cannae. (35 19:4), Perint enim 1m 0 .con- 
Selon eAne tm ilies) beat nis: (Co n.s u lar é:s) ape 
Pee iae CAO) Eel | kee Suemtit ay £ O;CnerSy in Caasp Eke lta) W Ly [O) G- 
Geiss XXX NEO Desa Veta (CCC 2) ma ta tam 
PGieinet liga, ¢ Guu tm: GT maa lay et \.fq nat moe 
genti. These combined losses amount to nearly 69,000, 
which may be expressed in Augustine’s ferme septua- 
Cuien, ta, met lta, 

Augustine would thus seem to have followed Florus’ first 
statement for the number of years during which the second 
Punic war lasted, and Eutropius’ record for the losses sus- 
tained by the Romans. Perhaps in both cases he intended 
to follow Eutropius, but the former statement may have been 
an unconscious departure from him. 

2347 ob ell wm) Punic ua my) yp tim um, per 
Vom MeMeCKE tne |S scene ONS. ple ka ct wim Fe sit. 

See mote p. t26, 11. , in Livy Epit, 16—19 there is no 
definite statement of the length of the first Punic war; such 
a statement probably occurred in Livy’s own work on that 
war, not now extant. Neither does Florus (Epit. 1. 18) make 
any such statement. Compare Eutrop. Brev. 2. 27. 1, anno 
Drei web suense 1.) wii Gre) S\ timo et) tre nt 0) (Ga tuo 
pen tM Clo mitr a. HAli rt o's) CO mim) SSW m,." eis b, 
which was the last year of the war, and this is evidently Au- 
gustine’s authority. 

esa.0rey) Bell wim sMit fr i.dia tic mq uiad - 
Tare inet ae. 

In Livy Epit. 77-102 there is no exact statement as to the 
length of this war. Livy may have given the number of years 
in this lost part of his works. Compare Florus Epit. 1. 4o. 2, 
ille (Mithridates) per quadraginta annos 


Hest) tit iutrop: Brev./0./12, 30 ¢ on) t mia, Rio mamiols 
bret lvaim shya bru t'\an nis) quads aon mt ae lus- 
tinus (Trogi Pompeii, Hist. Phil. Epit. 37. 1. 7) gives 46 
years. Eutropius was Augustine’s authority. 

234:\22;. ) bie Llum Si amin it ic mm fami tac 
Caen Jess ty fem e, ql img Ware it a) en eave 
peeniisot Miital, (AR Ouman i: West Salen ee ete Sai 
ged ma) ert iva Mm) ) ani tt enn. miter 2 

See #lorus Epit. /1)) 12) 6 hors) iteacmve a qian nee 
Gaia oa nyt-ar a DS) pie Tia alas. S a aGe yP a palianeors 
Prvtenes, Yeo rT, wim qrue, brew Os) ait ia Ss ues ominn: 
et SSG naga © a a8 fvancualne a’p Piast ievart ma) teria 
Giivartit a0 6 Set vie inter 1 ump blo tin eee 
trops breve 2: 9..3,) aim bream) eC sae tor emai 
tubewiss) per! aim nos. iqiuvad rave mytray | nvonvrem 
acl am!) suis ta Liew wnt 2)" Compare yhivy res tne 
Supersunt etiam nunc Samarti amb elsia 
Qiara €. Cio ntl n Wa, “plein Gra alti mean ome. 
Me Da nn Uy mig ure) “Sve xt um, Je. Gaivard irra. esa 
mags aM Via ve ea On ine nC Or ned uvomucloniT 
Sut bass quid wpm) sya mono.) var may eee 
timber unt, ae tans and pit. 14) cad itine) eesers 
pumaete rie a conta ewe amecors sect pb rioeeteons 
Csts) 1a) Mn ite Sy it ie Mee ible re aise Ss atiaSp 16 tye iyatattian 
Re 21'S" mo rit em) C.0) nyt diunsent).. 4 JANSO) eliiviy uote eas 
Cole pita m que) prop tie ny 0 Sune ane Scam te 
bwis) bed lump) plein Scie nth mee hospice seaunmnyors 
Via tive) tie: fon tiuma Verwcemet ut any gto lie wines 
23.742. 10) 1p € f «a MONVO/S) AC je mt im | CMM pOupEtle 
Rouma no) .b.e) lsum | sefelsis mgt Ss. oth on Omnia 
ion nies) Ca-m i picionins sibse 1 l-aimy Vandi ye .crsuuus 
Sra Myo Eielsi peti vam mols pir Oupheny) |Sieqpet aia 
ein tas Culm: Male nit sil o1Sst f lsee.c lard tebrins 
pessissemu's. “Augustine in his’ ferme quan 
quaginta_ seems to have followed the version of Eutro- 
pius. Orosius, Adv. pag. 3. 22. 10 also gives 49 years. 

Pict eY. SACRE npn! Rea, Gy atarariusy 0S). 3 ir ens Go- 
Poly One UgOletede sn 

We have not to seek any literary source here, as this 
event occurred in A.D. 406, only 9 years before the date at 
which Augustine wrote this book. He says above (line 9) 
mostra, Memoria necentissimo temp ore 
and below (line 30) nobis apud Karthaginem 
diite¢ebatur. Compare Orosius, Adv. pag. 7. 37- 4.8q: 

22602. (Coins tan ti num, 1m peta to nem.) 5... 

See Jerome, Chron. of Euseb. BE vol. 8, col. 493 sq., 
Eutrop. Brev. 10. 2. sq., Orosius, Adv. pag. 7. 25. 16 sq. It 
is impossible to say who was Augustine’s authority. 

236. 14., hovianum) multo;-cittius,. quam 
Ptabieaea Wid. -avbespt a lat,: 

Here too we cannot assign the authority. See Eutrop. 
Breve ros ¢16; 52; hors trl main u) initienti ect us 
eee (alias is ) te Vel (Kea lt.” fn t.....\ ym pre's. 
ANanOu See ps tien) yiaver teat djsiij al trerrio® lei tr t= 

cesimo anno. _ Jerome, appendix to Chron. of Euseb. 
BE, cok. sos*sqo (Ilulianws Camsnies) (wine; 
mien |S. 1) b.u-s OG Bion, Lovia nas ame ns i buts 
Ofer oO 

Compare Jerome, Ep. 60. 15 (BE vol. 22. 599) Iulia- 
moss Pi OWdyibta tT aud mye) Ss uae, et Che is ti- 

ie eve ou lati 0) F Sreenne BG LS\, Chris faim 
Syemsnit. ) in oi ed ia quem primum in 
Carla id em eee tact 3°. dou meq ue. OR: oman 01s 
Pee Guprarord Lie, wat It (fice Ss. p.eird id Lt. pr Ol p,a = 
CaanEO Sea Ony ia Gass) No Ue Sita tis), Ga Mot | Pes 
Malwepuss 0.01, 1.S4, foe tone piri n ah 0m Ss af fo 
Gants, Ss jon te, fait. ostendens omnibus 

aga a) SSsioty hia mya iva, po €/e%njt/i ia. 

BAG Geese tanta my) tier tr OM) tb ytd, DM) C!o 
Prien Mt Set sion (ie tot ant... 


Gratian, son of Valentinian, was born in 359, came 
to the throne in 375, and was assassinated in 383. 
Compare) Ambrose, Enatr.) in) (Ps: 61) 27) (BEF) vol: 
14, coly)i1230) Reco r da mins aliquem 
CG rath amitism i) pr o x ime arb vom mi bruis sa) pl. 
peti tum, <a ysuis des tit wt um ae: peorda- 
Hum quad diwid- um i'n; “shigdele sitias loc asteugs 
Lm perii, Subito eigen Ss) omim aaj Vab ap sis 
quorum Yhiae re di tari um fuer atees on tint uEs 
Obs eq unum. %C.o € pit) wre er i iene ren 
Dalise pin’ Geoxivtve mo. iin fe rie mv tutbia Sie mv0 etc me 
nidilorm -alupx i lia tioir e , )! niu ito itacns © storengo 
Susi. on uldco- Ac.ovm ite), also ibid: “2is% 

2960820. 1a.) The o/dso'sit 01 1w 1mi-d vera truysime set 
quve mm, rie Sai i parti ¢ tplemmy) aiercieaca theca 
Prasraveull em, hai bie ret)“ firialitinie mp) Gaavaacsinonr 
fidiae sSoicletatiss qd am) ni ma ate. pio ties — 

Augustine is here treating of almost contemporary history, 
for which it is hardly necessary to seek written sources. 
Compare p. 239, 16 Miilites | nioibjisi) quad “adie te 
anitirettulerunt.) fhe LPheodosius to whom Au- 
gustine here refers is Theodosius the Great, a Spaniard, born 
346 and died 395. 

236/20) pO Sit) 761, us) “myo r tiem) pu sims sale 
Gi us) imac enn fie c tio f 6) Maximo. Va lem tina 
yn Wes. pra choy aelouyM) at ined ite Cuma) sche e eux 
Cryer later 

See preceding note. 

2302155) s'end, fad)" Jto hiavn mem aan VATE ‘ony 
eremio Constitwt om, quem ‘Deny ser vinm pie t andi) si patur) i ti) )\apir ave dete tow. ma.) fame 
Goneburve s cremut ev d aidiyivc errtaty. 

Evidently the same as Johannes Aegyptius 
mon ach ws) qui jo be vitae. purtta temp ipio- 


Deeeitparer on atta, Va) Dro nino, ymaeriid t Of 
Prosper, Chron. More details are given by Augustine, as in 
De cura pro mortuis gerenda, 16. 21. A biography of him is 
found in Rufinus, Historia monachorum, chapter 1 (BE, vol. 
21,,COl, 201-405), envy 11G,e mn. ter im a.miq ue .ei Dio mi- 

Disp © O;p ay e.tvare | yr ast haym. ico nm t.w litt. i tha 
tensor t ane dame ct vel bite Ss. evt (pir oO Vid ie'ta bi:= 
DaGES@ESHU iS 5 se et bread pp r-ave-dyi Cie, tT eit.) sue a 
ra lem) pie rantwouris . Lhe ovdso S107. vel) quo s 

Dein esehtusiena Dit UT is ess et, vel aqui 
Diese eimlsOsdel So Val CAE Oot lat \ Cia pier et. de) ty. 
Paetint Sn (Sheu eren gia. Ord Vir Ll pt Com e)S, pia.s.- 
Jarws oSset © eM tium biarbararum ,.s.aepeé 
Petcare a Wx kt 

239212) 2 hhm  tytan mom. Ea een ium, 
Ritheine t Whictis map er ators: ) love um) /incon 
Keyoctoimee fwerat “is wbiro gat us ~a cee pi tio 
Wimstse pr opmetico res ponso fide ¢ert us 
Op phe: ss it. 

Compare Rufinus, Historia monachorum (ad fin.): hoc 
Moeimerie este iter iv OSV Ol O.,. gue d ho die f ma 
CihemynChOrtac. feller o Si prineipis il he o- 
croismti Avlie xvamdsrd ave nu n't ia tae) ‘sunt de 
Eugenio tyranno. Eugenius was a usurper in the 
reign of Theodosius and made a vain attempt to re-establish 
pagan worship. Compare Zosimus, Hist. 4. 54, 55, 58; Theo- 
doret, Hist.. Eccl. 5. 24. 

2404017 Gea Me. Ole nh) 1 ihe. s.s ay lsount clei: s 1:0 mt 
Shey sos lim Mes Cie lL uvSy, Ci 1, viva \e prsico.pis 
PiheGeecCeiti his promise rat indullsen- 
[EU Ne 00 ree 

Compare Prosper, p. 49, Immane Thessalo- 
Hicac estum facinus extineti pop uli 
SsLegvo poenitentiae exemplo Impera- 
fOr hetero sms el wit. 


245 n2OM qaoid?) ‘ant or wil Tasas adie (a quusoud yaya 
qui plecican d i 1icem tia felt x sap pediarbia- 
Pur: OMmiisve 5.0 m/,) cui ple ees ter TW clerb alte 

Mueller, in his edition of Cicero Philosophica, vol. 3, p. 
407, gives this as one of the fragmenta librorum incertorum, so 
also Baiter and Kayser, vol. II, p. 140. 



Zane Se lepsve rai tins heaie: tale (6 6.51610 
MOMiit me per hiine t wt in lit biris Ayea dem- 
ineninst: Cd. ats vacant 

Mueller, in his edition of Cicero Philosophica, vol. 1, p. 
go, is not certain from which book this fragment is taken. 

248. 24.-249. 30. ‘The complete analysis of Varro’s An- 
tiquitates, found in this chapter, has been preserved for us 
by Augustine alone. 

There is no reason why we should not regard this chapter 
(3) as taken in substance from Varro and largely in Varro’s 
own words. This is the view of Francken (p. 32 sq.): Haec 
Dice tre tml SS as mt sim edition e: JB 1p on 
Htmatee ahh ly tam en im p.e-diit 2 -qalo om fhmus 
Cmeadamus,) hua usmodir dis tri bia ti on em 
Aaiier i Sob ium i Wer Dols 6) Xp Tie7s/S aim Var ryo. mien 
Himimorn Lasik (S,0u), Op eri ) praemi'sisse, and 
Agahd, -pp. 15. 142. 

Here I transcribe from Dr. West’s MS. his graphic 

Antiquitatum rerum humanarum et divinarum |. XLI. 
[De Civitate Dei VI. 3.] 

I introductory, 1. 
II. Detailed account in four groups of six books each, 
1. Qui agant—De hominibus, II-VII. Descriptive 
of mankind. 
2. Ubi agant—De locis, VIII-XIII. Geography. 
3. Quando agant—De temporibus, XIV—XIX. Chron- 

4. Quid agant—De rebus, XX-XXV. History. 









1, I. Introductory, XXVI. 
II. Detailed account in five groups of three books 
each, XX VII-XLI. 
1. Qui agant—De hominibus [sacris], XX VII-XXIX. 
Sacred men. 
2. wa. De Pontinicibus, XOeViil 
3. b. De Auguribus, XXVIII. 
4. c. De Decemviris sacrorum, XXIX. 

2. Ubi agant—De locis [sacris], XXX-XXXII. Sa- 
cred places. 
5. a. De Sacellis, XXX. 
6. b. Se Sacris Aedibus, XXXI. 
7. ¢. De Locis Religiosis, XXXII. 
3. Quando agant—De temporibus [sacris], XX XIII- 
XXXV. Sacred times. 
Siiga0 We Kerns, Xx xe 
9. b. De Ludis Circensibus, XXXIV. 
ro. c. De [Ludis] Scaenicis, XXXV. 

4. Quid agant—De [rebus] sacris, XXX VI-XXXVIII. 
Sacred acts. 
Iz. a. Consecrationes, XXXVI. 
12, b. Sacra privata, XXXVII. 
13. C. Sacra publica, XXXVIII. 
5. Quibus agant — De Diis, XXXIX-XLI. Super- 
human sacred beings. 
T4u) 42.8 Dit cert OOM XTX: 
TS De Oiineertin Ola. 
ro; \¢, Dit praccipui et select, XLT 

205-927.) (Stern t (ha idieuny— iol piiniastiuis)) Viaaor 
Guliord pleat 1mreat”. “S.2)t Uinniuis) card) is camuinniar 

Compare Lingua Latina (Spengel’s edition) 5. 64, ab 
Saye, (ess baie t mss iia it ale nis): 

292. 29. The gods and goddesses spoken of by Augus- 
tine in this chapter (9) were treated of in Varro’s RD. Au- 


gustine gives an idea of the number of deities on whom Varro 
WHOLE AD 2007-95), 1p sie Vater oO. ¢€.0 mim'em or are 
Cate eel MnerE anaes) (Cee; O. Sea iC Onerp alt ja :G Oin-cre pi= 

tO mpe ehlOvMai TNS yy eran Gguuee Ser em ‘pein 
CuRsnte: eouisretes Va de ge Ge ,e.r ie: pitti hominis 
MpOuIsEVep IM Hier Cee neGrey ‘Clore:pil t.d e-0%s “arly toys 

soe n dere. quit PLeaeitlen es erayt non ad 
Lpssuam: hominem, sed, ad=> eva) gua e “sult 
DEOMI Si. tte 

267. 4. Sq. Inchapters 10 and 11 Augustine informs us 
that he is quoting Seneca in eo libro quem con- 
tra SuUperstitrvonies )conididi t —sa:work which 
has not come down to our day. 

270, 30. Cu m adversus Mia ni ¢ hae ors 
apovei mie; im WS). 

That is in the works mentioned in the note on p. 35. 4. 
His opposition to Manichaeism began with his conversion in 
386 ; even before that time he had noticed some weak- 
nesses in that system, as he tells us in his Confessions. 



272 etOs aC MIO ia) Gas esta 1s ait Tete tale 
Iivasnts, .tOn t ass 64) (Gq aan | ene leu Sy. ee Selma 
edtivemmst wor, Ut Duy ibe eet aug Ue. exe ties eer 
Duo bit uid can tur: 

The exact quotation from the Ad. Natt. 2. 9 is, accord- 
imeito) Oechler's edition; Sa> emailed en aitae Diao 
Sem enum tu rl) quad mom 0 esien ison: tee ae 
probi pronuntiantur. Dombart gives this refer- 

300:):237)) Est op tet y € © na lei qui pipte 
farce) tert ace, (qitivavey crete rt ais) (ers tamc enna 
ponibws! pulich rior ,0 PP omphy ra nis, pp halio 
Sioup hyvais: 1:0 Db wliists Ant time alo crseis 7) Sig anuiabae 
Clart en mpre.t (uta aun ate, Cit 1/0 abscisum 
Guna tlos decidit. antes tru et aa. 

This is the first mention of Porphyry inthe DCD. Au- 
gustine (using a Latin version) quotes often from him, but 
most of the works from which he has quoted are now no 
longer extant. In DCD X. 29 (p. 449. 25) Augustine says 
in whys! ip sis!) li bins: Len .qAauniabwi ss ereaneal ated 
PLoS ide (qpulo se die 1 ere Fels Si mea mudemyace sss Calon 
Saet. In DEDE Xs re (prigrs.15)0 PViedinnwiss sya gp mu slee 
visite. Porphytius ).cuim iad Avnie bomitem 
scripsit Aegyptium. _ In the passage on which 
we are commenting Augustine may have got his information 
from the De Regressu animae, but compare the words of Por- 
phyry given by Eusebius, Praep. Evang. 3. 11. “Artis d€ kal 
"Adwus 7H TOV KapTav eiclv dvadoyia mpoonkovtes. AAXN’ 6 pev "Artis TOY 
Kata TO €ap Tpopatvopevuv avOéwv Kal mplv TeAeotoyovnTat SuappesvTwr, 
dOev kai tiv Tav aidoiwy arokoTiy aitd mpocaveecuy, pi PbacavTwv 

e\Geiv TOV KapTav eis THY OTEppaTiKnV TeActwow. This may be the 


passage Augustine had in mind in writing the above. Euse- 
bius seems to be quoting there from some work dealing with 
images ; and such a work Stobaeus (Ecl. Phys. 1. 25) 
mentions under the title epi dyaAparwy. If these are the 
words to which Augustine refers they are taken not from the 
mept avodov wexns (De Regressu animae), but from this epi 
ayaAparwv, though Augustine does not mention the latter as he 
does the former. Compare Arnobius, Adv. nationes, 5. 5. sq. 

S0G-574 96 Oe an doe. hore, Eiurh e me £ Us) pian 
Git, Chri SutiOur i ati, Gal a) mo nissan) a asta 
PUA) Ve Cet Ee velo; a Ta mt. 

Seencice. Ne DiyGn-) 427 01rrg.| quate if alt 0% Inv alx ime 
ide ta ant al. i whse mre tio) e's.) iq adem: n.ors!- 
Meret ad Tp .esr Pore it hE US iElE <S ee Ut WS. hp ©varel= 
Bemc et err 0.S Chin m 1s.) tkact: Dive Inst.) 5 11.733° 
Ae Uiins: eal Cit Om) We a hetme russ: ith. ©! ers 
eqersatudaSe IsOnv, 1S) Cty Get Of oO hu m. iq ui ¢aid) pui- 
faenien te ee lOulve Colt bis f Obl am: qi €) con't €a- 
Tettencecrtlht twliS | .e1b)) tenes Ctl Die WOuld DNS... 1. 
Pac. UiStOrtam.- et interpreta tus. est 
DOmiwis et Ssecutus. Arnob: Adv. Natt./4. 29) See 
Literary Sources of Augustine, DCD I-X, p. to. 

BIG. 2 7e0 lS) ceOrs UP Veae rom sts. jand «Gave sia resm 
POs ih tC.e MeSc Fi p tos). 

Compare Lact. Div. inst), 5.0.7, tn Libis sre rum 
hiv iat Uieg.uyO'S)) ade Ci. 1C aes air € mop n-th 
Ecevit ml dex Wm id SiC fda prs ity 

B2re ton tala.e Upbh (one ay Wis aiwicto'r.em )hia b- 
mene otha o OF aim Seam al dum!) lal) q uvo; @t i aim 
Fe Gan ti ipsam jp hilo sioprh'ia¢e/miom'e mn “ex- 
Ortum 4... isitie A mitiersco ga tis quid pro- 
Peete tut 2 (phil os op ham SVEUEa E SiSaGe lr hie = 
S} pron). t:€:. 

The source is uncertain, probably the Hortensius of Cic- 
ero.) see Nusc., §.43%/o.. sq. (DeSen. (29r) 78., act., Div: Inst. 


Ree; seayitaal avoir ays. iqyult jhiere apir iam es ane 
MVE i fistvie malt sices (ne ly talqrutesy  esuh me eialioymero 
quae me ne tam) q aeimimM-a mse Piriof ttle felt, 
res pon dit) p hidios ofp hu my) fird) jes ty iq waresn- 
fol cieyiay | Shaupil e:nitiiaie. ) Gd) ealiraas) i isee sleitenany, 
Sources, p. 23. 

2220 (307 MON 1 Cl) Viedt0, pele Mue Cts ep) LleneciespEs 
fugete. Wiha less” Male sais.) ubnays.) Llama 
Sep trem iq ud sant jagpeprenikayta aes aop demptrcasr 

Augustine’s source here was probably the lost Hortensius 
of ‘Cicero, ‘Compare Lact, Diy, Imst:) 3..167 12. {Ho mre mi 
Sri S\ 2) Je Ky "€ O01, -p Ois/Sie;) tant ed Meio pubs orsho pn 
idem nO; se S/S'e: SS aypaieint arm) .qpavord) ip) raenicry- 
Digi et OT go ews yap pare a ts. O ulandor 
in quildyt.. 7p mal loysvo mp hm Exsisie) |) CO (epic une 
fivhvaslieS. uit. yo) pyimo = ep na mise 

822.11.) AVG U-aam *t-aymre np Ut amv date tema 
Cisse ( pr inet pad im, Yet) hanuc.  oomien Weageme dimes 
memt-a mun dir? “ips umiquve, im un diame eu: 
Gilitace: del 10) lve MU E ae eMkyl Satseumer 

pee Cic. Acad) prot. 2.2.3 7-5 1mos awa ie Seen ex 
a@euiag da x 1st ‘Cio n's ta re: ommin 1-as | Naw ae oper 
Wack, Div. inst. 1. 5. 165 1bids 2. ows: 

322.010) Aon aol mranndrerr ees ay ed tion 
@)X. US UjiSs “pit Op hai Ss: pb Cl pales samilaice 
GuuKe e Lies Gnvals' C1) prultca vil tye Orla ce.) ce ur let 

Pitino cipia sincula Tuam 7s Se; scone diiduityamm 
finpitia eye it nig aye tra bei liers) .mpu ordea)s seeugor 
mere, (6. t) Vquiale cuiniq ue.) in .e is) jon imate 
€.03S qlve) mun, dios. mo dio. Gdiissiod vy 1) pods 
Lytle, Talo 1 Nel es Sed Setat may dewalt. 

See Cic. Ni DD: 1. 10, 255 -A nia) x i-myamnad ah a aeeerm 
Opp 1 1.O© Sit.) sniaiit 4:v0'S, (e's se) Salvesos)) Bposaiones 
in jt esr yj asl as Oomliesn ties Oren Iidsei nit Sig ules 
60.5 Que dn name ria bet les, Ves sre dima dose 


MAG wpHOLA 237. 11S, 1S Emim fmf i ni ta tien ma - 
CUiGaed xa tess ey en Gua -olm mia oe nien- 
Graiti Wer 

S22. 240 eS hey Aen a xtreme nm “dis ea pw.) wm 
ce ssc cessOnrem Teliqguit, qui omnes 
Meio oC aus as Aen 1nitni to ded it. on ec 
dheorss “ie ay Cl awe bac tit: non —tam_en 
PU sls paete mM) factmm., sted ips ost ex 
Wee Ort OSC fF edi dit . 

Dec CiewAcad: PHO. 2) 2711s. pos t elus aud i= 
BG h Soka xstne nes! infinitum aera: ised 
Ceqquycien ee xiero olrjierenturdefinitas cent 
aye Crm y Vee Et ag | ard ua my | Were mins, ct usm) / eax 
bis po me neijary Noy D:. tlre. 26, Lact. Div: Inst:\ 14/5!) 190- 

g22227. ) lea ea Oras Vie ro: etin's’ saad i= 
Gore iva him we rythm) soum nium), .qiaiass’ iv ide: 
Musee. fevc tor em) div in um) a ned mM o.m) sen 
Siete xi tex im kin ita ima teria. qin.are 
CO mMsita wet. esiim i Miibonis) inter sie, partic u- 
isi pe tim Omni tung ui b ais suis \et pr o- 
Probes sinegwla fieri, sed animo faciente 
driv neo: 

Bee Cicyencadss2. i37.00rd, “An axa o.0,tays | iia 
Pena my ntinitam. sad 6x ¢ a, .p ant ic.u 
ase spim tbe Stn t.e ts € mim. Ww t.a/sis, ease, pic t= 
Met My EO Nek W.SjavSs, prersitie a Mien ordeal mcm, ad 
dure tas me mute deiv wna... N.1D, to 00:26, 

322. 32. Diogenes quoque Anaximenis al- 
Be@ pa widition.) aerem iq und eum) dia xiite rerum 
cos Cw mtalte faa de) /quia oO mani al fa erie niti, 
Sje-de yeh my, Heys s.e)// /e.0.m pot em) diva nm ae car 
Huon isimie qulahmihil ex eo. fier i p ose 

pee Cic NY y.9b2.. 20.1) aier |) q ulo) Di oe e.n.e1s 
Ape Mon ia tes wthitwur dieo quem isens um 
Peete pete st 1.0 te qu am, folrmaim d-e i? 


823.2.) Arn a Xia; © Oi rae is Ure e7e/S Sime Garaidrdatron, 
ends, Airicwh e dais), Et iam aipisces (cree piaateten= 
Cullis: sinter. ise \s tome ob -aSe) ig uae Deus e esviane 
Soul a, raed eng we fise re nts ita putavit 
Gomst are Lom nia uit Jiinvesis/e sreuc diam emreray 
tern GM Crertmse t- 

This Archelaus is mentioned only once in the extant 
writings of Cicero, Tusc. 5. 4. 10. Very little is known 
either of his life or of his teachings. No doubt he was dis- 
cussed in the schools in the days of Augustine along with the 
other philosophers. 

2235 725 2S OC tua tes huius disic-inp mls 
HOES Sie wp Cor uhiabre ti Wee 

See Ciew usc. 5.04.) Tow aad!) VStowe trait emia eau 
Ast chyel anim 5. pAuna xia oom aie: didusie a) panhlcanmage 
ANGI te) Eaaaty: 

223-011. SOlc a ties) (er C0) prt ds este 
Wen Siam/<p hil ors orp hua ms ads %co.b rilere maser 
Compo n en dos que mio 6s) here S\Sie miners 
mom aytauer, 6c am) Vane se icl Ind an opin i ess) ean oes 
pi yost-cacs Mid vevsvtl) nla tora ie ais 4. i ve prt 
PLewS GeGsu ta ned as Oper arm), )iax 1am)a me ne 
PRE TanevesEce ite. 

see Cicer Acad), prior) 1/44 05,)19)0/C ta tes) mia 
Vid-elt ar (pr mW SanmiesDi Ss: OrcyC Gul tis. entemam 
ipsa na tur a inv Oulart Si. in quibus 
onmvnves, ante) eum “p hilors opia) ore cu prac 
fue rimt), saw oe av ils se) ‘p hijo. s-o pihya amemelt 
Adi val tam .C,O mem uniem: -<adidiuixsisie. pee sae 
W Air peat ie DuisH | yeuty |v do tals Oo mma no @ Arie de 
bonis Hebi as ext malis Gala je nehmeree 
MUSCH 3. AevOeySe 14. (8.95. ATO. 19 O CM antieiS. art it ie idea 
mus philosophiam dew ocavyvit © co edie 

LserE yy 4C Ore ot (dee vii tay ee )imiern i brassiere. 
bius q we.tb omiis .et ima dais? @ ulaeinieine 1. Delnnn: 
Be 20.968. Wuact. Div.’ Instsg./135 ©, 73. (20: 32,1 3. (2idare 


Z2eeSumvieliiec Ol ie SSia om Orr am tal ys ua 
Welds siimmilbat dese hem tia le prot és miata - 
Dwi disseren di cet “a.cutis Si mial urbiant- 
tiascreyeacul tats Sey) rat qi uuvey Vv eln, S$ aS S\e'. 

Cicero .seems to be the source. See Acad. 2. 5. 15. 
eee Cub yeas iad) aduiicext estat.) Wie. (Se DE tM f-€ t/, 
IPSRCuNt cin (Matyi u as .Ovldeiats| (e.S56 (feral. hdl S}Si tym) t= 
pape norm, eo.) .qeuca my) Gita e Ci) “<eipoveay, Vv.o cain ti; 
disevibidac 25-74. De. Div j2.i720 150, De Offs 15.30; 103; 
We Orats2..07. 270.. brut. 292. De Inv. 12) 37. 53. 

Paro ese d eum postea lla trpsa, quae 
Pate ballicte diam, ave fa th, At hye nel € n.S am 
Cmuet ays) (pau bildnc ev Lu ed tid my vd U-OsS) a. Cle USA 
fom cs: Meds: as que (ade.o “popwuli indigna- 
PLOMecGOnmw er Sia, lt Wn us, or am opp res - 
Sse iit t Udi MiGs tite rite te x1 Lio 
Hore volwntharLoo at qwe perp epuo, po e- 
ata senile tn alkter %6v- ad ene t,. 

It is difficult to discover Augustine’s literary source here. 
We know of no extant account from which Augustine might 
have taken this. Compare Diodorus 14 37 (ad fin.): ddckov 
8& THs KaTyyopias yeyevnwevyns 5 Shyos peteweAyOn THALKODTOV avdpa 
Gewpav avnpnpevov: did7ep Tos Katyyopynoavras Oi dpyns Etxe Kal TEAOS 
dxptrous amréxrewev, which account differs considerably from that 
given by Augustine. Compare also Diog. Laert. 2. 43: 
"AOnvaio 8 eiOis peréyvorov date Keira Kal TahaloTpas Kal yupvacva 
Kat Tovs pev epuyddevoav, MeXérov dé Oavarov Karéyvooav which still 
differs from Augustine. It is probable that Cicero in one of 
his now lost works related this story, and that Augustine got 
it from him. Cicero probably treated of Socrates and 
and the Socratic philosophy in the Hortensius, where it would 
be natural for him to record the death of Socrates. 

S24 22. quidam: Ss\uim mum, bon um) le ssc 
digcre me nite) vo lt phat ©mi,)) sa icuit A rt st dspy- 


pee Cich wNeddsij2n1 42. mary la lay vilovl aug etyayereum 
fine mi) e's'siecvi of wie Tint, |qhwoe UMN iprrdaac eps 
Ayn ws tippy hiquiir)) Siovcirjact em (fasurd tien are 
ide De Pinny 1. 85.265 2:64 18) 2397: 20, “5.07220. Muactan Dive 
Dnstaea jag a5. 0. 

304.24. Gq sueidiam) “Virst m tie omy) YSie sue teen 
tisithiemre Ss). 

See Tusc. 5. 9. 26. No doubt Cicero was the literary 
source—probably in the Hortensius, 

B25) Glatims) wAve.oy pitio « dadiinc tt. \@bilastaom) 
qiuave.c Upnva) ue.) gma oma. il lite. hlasbeipia meatnied 
abiquuve dvo;crexb arm: tit t . 

see Cics Del Finn: '5.,29:67. (Cu foe lia COmAReonya ni 
tut pie aga vit. uta sa cierdiot 1 bis) ban 
basis enum e TO.s: € clo © lle Sit dan) asc: apre ta 
et?) Apul. De dog. Plat. 1. 3 (Hildebrand's edition) Wve 
alSuoto eG etiam)» vad 1S qi é). Ale ote) bul inenvedaet 
piestene Usman ts Stony de \\prer o4puhsentea clipes ntae teas 
estaiaumieaedaas cre re t. act. Div.oinst,) aeeeueAs 

B2c 7 Vue topien Gye ivien)) €%2 Sl tavlai ave up a ie eneEs 
Vienne e. 0jS)) ubi Py tihtarg Om, e.0nr tema fama 
Crewe DervayDuant Whos. 

See Cics De Minn 5520797, Gur plo St) lea teem—pt mem 
Ald e ANT Chu vitrainihe) (eC Wer), ad re di .qiuco;s: ae avetene ce 
CMe OS USC, 1. 17,3095 Plea tro msepmy ah exh sung taaartan 
Peyat hia Ome OVS .C0.2 M0/S'C ebr et im, litvaaleieagm 
Memuss ec. et didicis sie Pry ttheaigro nies Ome 
nia. Apul. De dog. Plat. 1. 3 (Hildebrand’s edition): Et 
and Siete, ivan 2 ister uum Ve met (eyte Eay at heasosome 
eClois) Eiun y tant ums ?)) Ml ant eam meu ane ems Siem 
ionrem~ Ariehiy tam. Sec tatu s., ) Augustimes may 
here be following either Cicero or Apuleius. 

225.15. lita ime! cum: Situ daivusm),) S/a pase 
tia eC. Ue a me ae too mue et ¢:o mn) tyejm pi lsart skosnne 
Versi tun. unl Ces Unia wpa rs Seumis jarelenivear 
algeria. Crom term) plait iwiayeidit Cu proltserseer 


This two fold division of sapientia Augustine probably 
found in Cicero’s Hortensius. Compare De Trin. 14. 19. 26. 
Ham eye om tiem ip lati vam) S'aypil/e nti am; 
Ciicre. won 2c.o mumrepny di ans inns.) hime) prdiitia log 
ELOst (e115) 1), 

925. 22.) Pinorndre, Pil a tou tr mim q wet un— 
senmdo philosophiam pertecisse lau da- 
ire eG anny tT) et fe evSnat pid tite) 5. Cus rt boukivt. ts 
Mim Mot a leu) quvae Maxime, in) activone 

Vern S,al tour: alteram Dia Ge alien gq aave 
Clormptrerm p lraytt omi dee pwitaita, e's t)>. (t e'r ttaym 
Paeco nm ayliesme) Sr ag Vy erm du Site fim n ast Wer 

Bi jt el WS Oye 

It is impossible in the extant works of Plato to find this 
three-fold stoic Civision into ethics, physics and logic. Such 
a division was developed by some later interpretors of or com- 
mentators on Plato such as we find in Cic. Acad. 1. 5. 19, 
Bitter eo iam BsGiGre picid wide oe eantromne 
Maevoeripie <. wna die vi ta et mo rr busy, 
Mlnbiedcas sdlevunMattutt a (et  rie'bus. Yo Cc atin 
Herta de »dursse ren do et “quid \verum 
uuiscdurita stu m yqiuid’ rect am ino rat tone 
Pea unin veew cermicd: CO m.SrernitirelnS gy uti dy. Toe 
puomans| esset, 1udicando. _ his may shave 
been the source from which Augustine derived the above 
statement, but it is more likely that this three-fold divis- 
ion was an established one in the philosophy of Plato as taught 
in the schools of Augustine’s day. Lactantius Div. Inst. 3. 4. 
12, mentions duo philosophiae genera, but he also 
gives the three divisions of philosophy, viz: moralis and 
physica (Div. Inst. 3. 7. 1) the former of which seems 
to correspond to ethica (Inst. Epit. 28. 13), and third 
Loy  Superest) pars illa philosophiae 
est dee Qica, My Vv OyG a nyt)! Aoyrcyy,), a. dq wa, itioitia 
diical Get ica at so mntis:  Loqguwenid it atio 
comtimetwr (Div. Inst. 3. 13. 4,Inst.» Epit. .30.. 5). 


This three-fold division of Lactantius into moralis or 
ethica, physica and Aoy«y corresponds to Augus- 
tine’s “im oralem), (‘natura lem Vand? 1 atwomer 
lem.  Weshould note here also the passage in Apuleius, 
De dog. Platonis, which (in Hildebrand’s edition book 1, 
chapter 3)reads ut primus tripartitam philo- 
SOP iam Cuompiad at et, | Si bdsqiure wa tnpveirexecamm 
Meces sa ntas. plat tie S ve Quul.e: {pra penva tres aienk 
termes el taint wim odo (sed Ye itiia,m) . myuntsuaiEs 
AVGa Ut VrayKie ss) VAN xotlolliSy. 0) S) tie umn@lemeuke Nam 
qauivamiuvinis) dev id igve m5 15) oO £ fica mrs) in avencanert 
essen t (philoso p hiare miem bras usec e pita 
Mane tal wsy any Obe vit nas OO) Gers «i daa Merc rbunleEa 
artiquu em, ota lins/>ab 1p 0) S/07C fa kl'se to metees 
iinwimn Mtamen! rex Solm ni bis et) qruiasd (por 
Pisi Al (pray Wes .Ciom puns; ‘ed feet 

B27) 25. Alexander Macedo scribit ad 
Meat rem. Sib ca mya ge Nv a Dts tite) “Ss ane Oe 
r dump wATe ey pit tor um, qi uloid, am) Lie omen p aie 
francitiay apse Mle dime nes) Veuiidumu Coby delyleewmaplnauset 
Hewve lata Poy (Ss bemikay pietie ms) \acd momenta aan 
exe mid rid, ma) ti) Cu a) Seva naa tl || CO my Siento 
ins nua vied t,0.f la my mais) dia) bveva ¢) acromnve mien 
fone ipl 

There are several notices of letters of Alexander the 
Great to his mother, Olympias, but we cannot decide which 
one of these, if any, is the one referred to here by Augustine. 
I examine the evidence somewhat in detail, because this is 
professedly one of Augustine’s sources. 

Compare DED WWE i274 sa cuits tenon es sia cre 
dortenprodente ad (Olympiad em mM atrem 
SVeen ba ty Aull e xan dier.’ SDEDUMIT rr..i7l came ypc 
tou lea) WANlvelixdarpnid! 607) Miva! oat, avd) Onny im paiva cake mn 
miactr erm: |) Suayme  <qila cm ) sierigpisit ava eas 
tidoomee ml: | Cau Aiunsid am Ae vet pp tiie sane €ln diostanus 
in sinulan si.) iq wad sp roti la € erm | lbtrttermins 


Cemarewns arcima,e | apoad) a lies. (hia beremt ur, 
Gonmtenet | et tam  ireien a) iquae)| Graeea 
quoque novit historia. Such is the informa- 
tion which Augustine gives us in reference to this epistle of 
Alexander the Great to his mother. Plutarch, Vitae. Alex. 
27, Says: avrds dé "AXcLavdpos ev émiatoAy mpos THY pnTépa pyat 
yeyovevan Tivas ait® pavreias amoppytous as aitos éraveAPov pace 
mpos povynv exeivyv. That this epistle is the one to which Augus- 
tine refers we cannot say. Zumetikos (De Alexandri Olympia- 
disque epistularum fontibus et reliquiis. Berlin 1894. p. 44) 
thinks that it is not. Arrian 6. 1. 4 speaks of a letter of 
Alexander to his mother : kat 37) kai tpos tiv "OAvpridda ypadovra 
brép tov "Ivdav tHS yns GAXa Te ypaar kat Ort Sokoin atto eLevpyKéevat 
tov Neidov tas myyas.... which cannot be the one referred to 
by Augustine. Aulus Gellius, 13.4. rsays In plerisque 
Mom t men tis rer wa, ab “Alex an‘dirio, ges’ 
Pant elt Pidstlo «an te mn livbro Me.) Var - 
Dic Gud mscripttws est Orestes, viel 
drewinestania. Olympiadem Philip pt uxo- 
mem tes tl vis Sime res cri psisse: leg tim ws 

polterxammdir io. 9 filo. Noam. ) cam iis; Laid 
Mawel ti ta Senipsis set: Rvex Alexander 
10 Vers Hammons filius Olympiadi 
iMmatri, salute m dict)» Orley imp tas et 
Bese hipsit..i- . lertullian) seems (to, réfer;to the 

same letter as Augustine (De Pallio 3): quod Aegyp- 
timers amty et. Ale x ander: Gigenit)) et 
Minter: legit dé tempest a tre) Os iradis 
Giukawy aides illum, er, Tilbiyia, Aan im. on) fiavca.€ 
OV tem (inves). See also id. De Corona 7. Compare 
also Cyprian, De idolorum vanitate 2 (works BE vol. 2. 588) 
Eljoce tte. Ale xia mde.) Miaio'm wjsi\\\/1in sign 4 
MOLuLMdeMe, 2d mat mem Slam) S.C 16 ib rt) metu 
Saves pO ters tata S. pro, dit; a) my,)S tb, diel, dais 
hominibus a Shai clei donee Sie.Ct erty AF 
Minucius Felix, Octavius, 21, 


That this epistle was well-known we gather from the 
words of Augustine DCD XII. 11 illa epistola (p. 
527,20) and quae miaximie) immo tudt, /(peszc-ns): 
Augustine seems to have been familiar with the contents of 
this letter. 

He speaks of the same Leon De Consensu Evang. 1. 23. 32: 
Naim caaivd et (Leeom, slide) msiaesexed ons pac oiyape 
pass spvone rtiay, viel" anc avd eum) deCiuS. = inure mame cided 
Myayclerdvo mil jeAule x.amad toy di wier Slang unuarenn 
aiG Gavecore wim) (oO pi nt Orne) a)Stlo fim), vd fenognmigm 
Ore neenm)iviexriuam) ta mi e/mm,  isteay) yp, mOlChtemmantat 
erorsi i nvolm anes,” fats sper die cilva mettre eNEnobids 
(Adv. nationes 4. 29) speaks of him as Pellaeo Leonte 
and as one of those who could prove omnis istos, 
nm OM Sag mors) tnd Uiei tis at que yap pre leleagtas 
deos, homines fuisse-vwhich may have been 
the same work as that referred to above by Augustine. 

831.7 20.0 tm. aS)S/ eh ye animum 
Coun GC isple re. Vn0 taloMme ls quas ap pe liannre 

See Cicsy user sean 7 nhOuts iO Keys amuGutInags évvotas 
Worceant . We inna 3.) 61-200 Acad 257. 22) 025 Onn sO nmeR 
Gutbws eificioanmtunr Mott tiae/mexr um) liquids 
Graeci tum eéwolastum mpordywes vOoCant. 

392-95) quai diveuwn tut jad da dursistes siren 
tilda) ee. ntu's.. b onvo rum quvold” “alpiprel) arta 
eS xnter ny Sie: GUS: 

Seer Gic Muse." 5) S885 sot. f iia Poe neta: bromcor. 
Pum). mila al) anndin i) Stevc un diay sco plontaicy 
enxetie mina thenie batrad iin which ie sc-t elkmnuan mts 
equivalent‘to. ex tri n's ec ws; + see*also’ De Pins gir: 
43, and Apuleius De dog. Plat. 2. 2 (Hildebrand’s edition) 
where afterthe bonum primum and secundum 
withird isi given acc d ens) ia ute m) bo nnmsest 
et putatur Giuco-d COT prone re bwsig we 
Venue nti b Ws. ext. rumesie;c.urs) c.0,p ular tein 


Bog erSae Nun e,  Sidk tiles Silt) VE ION MEE OVrialnie 
Pilvat Opavemen Get € rmiiin.asis.€ fin eum Donna 
Cciseesec UN Gilim vi Mt wither y Lye nen ert sen 
Sroniore, v Ei fe; p os!sie) i qnualt ) motel t)t amy, Dyer 
hbraibre ait Se beim ta tone mune, iersisie)) ail ram 
Onde Gaul. S acim yr bsesay toured e Ogun ie; ea osm); dart i- 
tralt hoc Eusisie pro delors'o: prhvalr amare 
Dye wane: 

23302640 pis amy “autem! (ye) roa amy aes) 'S) Gm 
meting (DLoum uni ha to) td ven t Die wim). 

Augustine of course did not read Plato in the original, 
and he has not in mind here any particular passages of that 
author. What Augustine gives above is found in substance in 
the writings of Plato, but is not explicitly stated. | No doubt 
he is giving rather a Neo-platonist inference from Platonism. 

83720 nS Wp pul baa: Ke Mp O.r Um Gia e10 
quae Goh FO; md Gia DeiSee OL ria: Chopne ty nike taut 
PAlsantroulee Meg nud Crdat) sa £6 mi p.O wre 4 lquuyOn priO> 
pihbevtaiv 1 ft Eipicerr re iets an Se Ce cit ml fier me 

Sei MeO Se prOs «esd nat wim, 4h uds se. ug a1 “ew m 
Ore Ost aes e.ty UNM Im. Wy 1 XS S. e'b “vay (a.m) 0/0 
MRO Seer S las give. ad. id!) tie my pas) » qrio 
EAOUvOnmvaseVlrS.. Se rerxels We Iooy pat iy) IS YC.E it petcu tars 

DuPOMpAbvest eras fo em t/1's Eve bir ave © tam de 
TvGrareay ep oO plo Steal ty) pet. prem Visie pt aerim tia 
MeEnONSe eH e br aterors! 4.) ile ia ter pir et. ain’ dats 
iavpvem Ghar siaqniver  Culbeany tt. anon ts) Be venty nen 

Palate home) Se) Xo ay oem boas} 

Jerome Chron. of Euseb. (BAGG VOW 28.) Elsi 26'7) 
Mveremidas prophetare ors ais imtheyean 1386 
of Abraham or in the third year of the thirty-seventh Olympi- 
ad; andin the year of Abraham 1592, or in first year of the 
eighty-ninth Olympiad) Plato nascitur Atsheéeni's 
which statements make a much longer period than the cen- 
tum fveviaiive annos of Augustine. Plato 
moritur_ inthe year of Abraham 1672, or first of the one 


hundred and ninth Olympiad; and Ptolomaeus 
Phi Warde ipehta's) . ai a (a Wi ehaS? Ser ip timeaes 
im, (Gir aleie’a mi voce im) \erx, ) Hive bm ave aralennyencme 
prem, Wee xs tonite r pir et es th amis ft em erie crea 
vit inthe year of Abraham 1736, or first year of the one 
hundred and twenty-fifth Olympiad. 

Neither of these statements agrees with those of Augus- 
tine, as the first of Jerome (1592-1386) gives 206 years for 
centum ferme annos of Augustine, and the sec- 
ond 64\(1736-1672) for ferme sexaginmta.) lfisim: 
possible to say on what authority Augustine has based his 
calculations. Another place where he has recorded the cor- 
rection here given on the statement carn qu anidio 
Penne xt. in Aveloyp tum. / Hive ne miulaanesage 
disse: «vel sera pit ujnas.) aprosprhe tisctarcuin 
eadem peresrinativomne Veo iss eis toundum 
Retract;2,4.2: Et in.) eo, qimod pdx ty eaten 
porum historia sanctum Ambrosium  solvisse quaestionem, 
tia mi guuvaym) ~ ‘c.ocae tram el) shave nyt) ey baommere 
Mere m,l/as).. (me) fete l hit mje mo cies. 

298. 12; \¢ a qiaa ec, (muita bila of aie favs uanne 
neon, Sint. vevhve mem tier “hroic) Pola to ate manmer 
ent di lijgve ncti/s Si me ) cio mm ened) ai veto. 

Here we have an inference from Plato rather than a refer- 
ence to any specific statement. Augustine no doubt made 
this statement from his knowledge of Neo-Platonism. It is 
found implicitly in Plato. Compare Philebus 22 and 60 B-C. 

339; 5. 1cUm Aristote les. Pilla tom ismidaic 
Cry PA VAIS V5.) ehieou 1S) Cat acme Pe hip at €.ta.craya 
Gondidisset: qwod dead bul ans) id icp oe 
tid Ee: (ClO MIS ULE VE nia it. : 

See Cie Acad: 144.'17'> | Pie ra p ate /t tien) wd wets 
Sumit quia disp uta biamt) 1 mambo banter 
ion As ye exon. 


S4041G. op Os t) Laon tem (vier o uP latow is 
SypLe UySuepupia Ss." {SO TOr is ied a's filius eve 

Soe CicwmACAdy i AWE 7 boas DeiOrat, 35 18:, 67. 

239-3008 Scend = habe /mW/So Ss ern tf en: tia mo) Pla = 
MOMS ud ele nits, Olmm e's “deo Ss: born’ o's’ ves sce 
NeeiGuers sie Oumuna mine: smal ain die o roam uemla lum), 

Augustine here is not referring to any specific passage in 
Plato, but is giving an inference from his teachings. What 
Hewivesiasitne Sen temtiam Plat omnis is not ex- 
pressly stated in Plato, but is implied—compare Theaetetus 
176C, and Republic X 378-380 especially 379 A-B. See note 
Det Et. 

S40: ite Oude nm die i laid iss Ss ca emiiens 
Panto sen Seeiru G. DONA Ve St. Gm ipo tas 
MISS Haske emrs'et, Cty tative: ? pve len dios: 

see note p. 69. Io. 

S40-,192) prois Cie Eels) (CUT Pia \etiam ma - 
ibeamaaye CIS Sie miuin tain Tato Waa t dai ol; -aiaife ris 
ChicreSempietal Lali 44/4 

See note p. 67S: 17: 

B4ne ro. Om mM ium. in Gat tim t a numa: | i'w my. 
Pian tse eisity aM mal ea til Ona tS it £40 
preivitsieta, | GhikvairSel Ov Velsit) im ide o:S)- 9h Oumbicn e%s 
deave m0! 1€:S 

This three-fold division is assumed in Plato and Apuleius. 
Compare Plato, Symposium 202 kat yap wav TO datpoviov péraéd 
éott Geod te kai Ovnrot. De Legg, 8. 848D, ibid. 10. 906 A. 
Evppaxor bé jutv Geol Te Gua Kal daipoves, ypets 8° ad Ktypata Gedy Kal 
daovwv. But Augustine had in mind Apuleius when he wrote 
thewabove (words, |) (quac “licet apud’ alies 
Greeqwie Te pemiant ur, A pulep,urs tam en 
Piatonmecas: (Mad au rem sts deme ohvavCe serve 
Sota aim Semis tt) 1a br omy). 1 ze) Apu- 
leius in the De deo Socratis begins (Hildebrand’s edition, 


chap. 1. vol.'2. p: 111.) Plato omnem nmaturam 
rerum quod eius ad animalia praecipue 
penmeineat.. brit anda my mdiivisat, He then 
begins with the gods whom he first discusses (to chap. 3 p. 120 
in Hildebrand’s edition); then he passes on to discuss men 
(tandemque orationem die ‘Gael o,am ser 
ram devocabo in qa) prac ci puis 
animal homines sumus),_ and in chap. 6 he 
takes up demons, Crest er am Sunt) -q uae dam 
divanae mediae potest atv S mite 1) shay 
aim. ave tive rave t [i mot mars, oh esrin- alsin ocmeennoEs 
Graeci nominee déathovss nuncupant. 

341. 33. 6X GUO gen eae) wn wm na eS oe 
Crates) habe bat adiune bum Yet /amauentisa 
quadam ).c ome ili at wana! Piquurol spre: linbEcr 
fuiresiodatiu Ss: ad monte ri yult id ersd)sitieqmere maa 
agendo, quandoid quod agere volebat, 
Heo) M (pi OS pred e) \feul.e tay tye west ye at mae 

Compare Apul. De deo Socratis, chap. 19 (Hildebrand’s 
edition, vol. 2, p. 154): Quod autem) wncepita 
Soorati) quae piam (dae miro nin lepine amge 
prohibitum ibat, nunquam adhortatum 
Giuodamm odo ratio pit aedict a est.) hn 
Sigioma ties. 0 t'p.o) tie ivel tla Deper 1) Mme) a pec mie tere 
tus ex Siese, ad oOmmia comer We Wilaystau 
of fiveda’ ) prompts a ullso. sa dhe mn traelorie 
Wim ananmn | an diavgelbi at, at ever On) par oO. nud beter 
OTe) 1-0, Mi neg) ua mM). SI qld Deu Ss) horn tee c onnee 
atibws erWws peric uw) ulm su bem at.) Ww peenwo me 
(eeUaSe ma pulidverGra vue Ter ty, OFM) i) tt 6 rie t « SC lOre. putea 
impracsentiarum quae tutiws, vel pestea 
Ca pie ss etic t mvne ll pauliy aa otva, a) GO) id srae tugs 

342.4. dicit enim ap er ttsisamive et cor 
pilosisstme asserit, nom 1) lim sdeu me iiese 
sie d) (Gace mo ne mr 


See Apul. De deo Socratis, chap. 19, quoted in last note 
(po, s4g3)t ct al: 

S420. preg tt a Cit a 1.5) 4 Siti im, Plato nis ‘die 
dverong.u mis ulbli mii talte et) hominum, ‘hunmils- 
favtccu welt: Garey oineaim (nerd. ie tate, \ Se nutie n= 
Galva mis. 

See De deo Socratis, chap. 3 (Hildebrand’s edition, vol. 
2p eEuS) es EOIsy | nam gq Wie (Cum Cit.oOys ) <d'e,0/S. aan 
Suupsliumelacace thlerd sv 7 bic €) doc. t-o's 5 again 
chapeac, die OS, ta by ih ol Mmidayiibyurs, » pl tr t mum 
agin eure ns es 4 lore ie siaicbilim) ditraite:).chapas sisi 
Onmameiio. howmanesija idats.) imumvor tia i beucs 
Pamonestly ties prety tan, Ciucr a tiqvare: im) Shoalerc: ‘tie r= 
Gedee wera rita ria, me e.evamitiucn ; chap: 6; for the dem- 
Gds 1G) @ ageidramn id) inva mares mierdi aie) yp) o tiesita tes 
Wenge Siu MMU ae thveirsat et) (i nf im aise -t er 
Has. sandthetalso speaks Ofithem as), Conp ore 4a éF Ka 

(chap. 13). 

S426) Plato .etiamsi)non diis @qwois’ ab 
Diihierntiht dma “CON ta ol One Sem Ov it. 

Compare De deo Socratis, chap. 3 (Hildebrand’s edition, 
Vol 2p. 118)c, ab him ama -¢ On tia gi ome. pro = 
cul discretos, though here not avowedly on the au- 
thority of Plato; compare the rest of the chapter, also chap. 
Ovon- relatos, authority (Tes pond erit € nim. 2 la tio 
Bias ere i tdi) mera. iy. 00 e:)), Ne q ive 
Piiiiee hos Wa Newena Ler um htm a nari seid 
COME eet ab lO nm e€-'s olla vr em ov 1.’ Compare: Plato; 
Symposium 203. A, eds d€ avOpurw od petyvuTa, 

3424 '25..00,e.0.5. atdaicmom bus , tam: id mila 
Weiter Mc Oxp! W/O.sve, q use diiisic er nit 't?: 
See chap. 6 (De deo Socratis). 

342.0342 9 Nea made: “mor bus) (e-0 rum, , 7 eo m 
Mem OmMnitbtys Keener aliitier Slo quiere tut; 


yO eSvOnlu mn pn hia ly blown adel xadkee es enc entgh clem 
pulley mem mala. 

This seems to be a rather unfair criticism on the part of 
Augustine of the statements of Apuleius in the De deo So- 
cratis. We cannot see how Augustine could say nihil 
boni dixit. Surely chap. 6 (Hildebrand’s edition, vol. 
2, py 125) is against this; inter) h ominve sy (cove 
Cromacsiqiuyes | we crt.o rye/s, bitin’ ¢) ipa eve wm) pemedre 
dvomnoun wan) .quai, wil tro e 1 tr 0. (pro mitia new he 
preiti tomes im de, (Supp et is) ce m) uqruidiagm 
inatrers pare ties sect salu tive ein itae ie hese sand 
other like offices of the daemons mentioned by Apuleius make 
Augustine’s criticism (nihil boni dixit) untrue. Of 
course Apuleius has also very unfavorable things to say against 
the demons, for which compare chaps. 12 and 13. In chap. 
16 Apuleius speaks of the better kind of demons: sunt 
Nise e meno nm | poster Lome) mime Ow pierre 
Sktravm taro mi: io-nve e: | dijo ietiavtieyA) Sus ui preunaaues 
alltivud  auoustius “en us id ave mom ulm) eqiid 
Semper 2 COrporis com peda pias Mabre rm 
Cremtis pLOomtre Sit.a t 1 DAS, (eam renee 

243, 18.) S.€T pie Mt i bas | quay 6 ti amendreipo- 
Sita, tun ¢ a seme ct ute m | depo nie re saseqiuye 
len eeallavee) tram we te Ghilt em. pee riniuD eamut dun 

See. Pliny Hi. IN; 8-127. 00, 4 neg iss) heb e aan on siete 
Mve MoD ama! ClO ports) oO bidiuic ta, jhe nm ies 
S acon i mip ed tamer tu) mm). usd) Neexaunite en iat 
daupsrqnwe ven ny ait, tbid.8 315 10n) leh elonpahitanseceus 
Hue Fox est aneues! mo dior et (stella omeeas 
sSemectutem ex uere. “As Augustine has elsewhere 
in the DCD XV. 9 XV. 12, mentioned Pliny and quoted from, 
though without naming, the Historia Naturalis, it is likely 
that here also Pliny is his authority, if indeed a literary source 
is required. 

SAA. Ot. At ne nim, v0 1a. t iol tea Cat ms Gavion apne 
do faticantuc vel refic 71 6 midia mi faslaiimyem: 


Cc NeLOMaprtius! yhhablernot. |) ten ram * reup et.un t 
Veet dmemelG Wine Muu vVerin, and) up a Se Wim paar od 
diareim OMmPets UNG Ui Uriee 9.0m! fae l Wom ts 

Compare De deo Socratis, chap. 8 (Hildebrand’s edition, 
VOM pens) so emipeet semnim, ills | iviiect ws 
OMpn eset Vite rial, vu diem, pa bru twa!) ibis 
Cem. seit Diinber- ie awnnty i, in qyiso dij a.éxr ay pw O x A= 
Mpls Cieuria eo vy ol iitia.n d.0n tra msv er b era nit: 
Cciwe um es m Willis Lessa 1S un t ore mica a 
PReMenicdet HAmiy “Re r hae sSi€,Uy (promt 0S) 6S (.) (hat 
the demons do not come to earth for rest or food, as the birds 
do, is rather implied than stated by Apuleius. Compare De 
deo Socratis, chap. 9. 

SAAS EO. |e Noavi Gest \riiliay rath.) Pilato mis, 
Wit e he men ta © (Qt att wor, - 1p FO pot tvone 
Commence <ile, Sat qtve (‘or diniat> ata $d wo bars 
Carrie mis) tend wimroub ds Iis''s mio, ¢€ 0) “t.dafra.e 
PipMso baila im e dura id. wos, wave x em \ et aquiasm 
Hem geen TS Care) MyS) 4 

Compare Plato, Timaeus 31 B, 60ev ék updos Kai ys TO Tod 
TavtTos apxopevos Evvictavar copa 6 Geds erote.... 32 B, otrw 31) 
Tupos TE Kal ys Vowp aépa Te 6 Oeds ev péow Geis, Kai mpds GAAnAG Kal’ 
dcov WV duvaTov ava Tov aitov AOyov arEepyacdpeEVoS, 6 TL TEP Top TpOS 
dépa, TodTO dépa TpOS Vdwp, Kat O TL dip Tpos VOwp TOUTO Vowp Tpds viv, 
évvédnoe Kai Evvertycato oipavov déparov Kai amrov. Id. De Legg. 
to. 889 B, wip kai tdwp Kat yqv Kal dépa pice Tavta civar Kal TUX 
gact. Augustine found this in Cicero’s translation of the Ti- 
maeus. See DCD XIII. 16. Compare Apul. De dog. Plat. 1, 
chap. 7 and chap. 11. 

SAA 22 Ft Ups € oq uip.p eA pu let us, c uum 
Cet mds ste hime s tie anim all hom hmem divert, 
See Apul. De deo Socratis, chap. 3 (Hildebrand’s edition). 

Sapa cit Nard. Je Ors) pre nr tume re) da.v ina = 
ti Omes. awe ru mi , an us p ic wu) ms Vat um 
AGG Ure eS OM i 1 O Fi Ms) a + 


See Apul. De deo Socratis, chap. 14 (Hildebrand’s edition 
VOL 2.0). P.1Az)e 

S460 ag.) Pet tur Dist Wo. i mest) emi mG mine 
Gira eicte wiravos 3d! cu tur = unde sol leaenv soul adnate 
VW, On Giant xe animo pyaysSus divin, qua Owes 
biuim) .die viet bo mé80s =p assio dicere® 
CU Rew O) tous amok mi co; niterial wrayt iio mie ma, 

See (Cie. Muse.) 3.94.75 mum, feed ig) ware) anual 
que (pert uybati one's, anim, fo mmiid im 6 se 
Ta ibuind asniess ¢ ra cu in diaiey narerc enim 
fere eius modi quae’ Graeci my ap pel- 
[rata ts ibid! "4.0 52) no, (iqatta len AG ua aceic mao, 
Vocanmt) nobis “peritum bia ti omels, agp pres 
Pa ama o1)s pil accét)) qhua aim or byo Sees ii caea 
6.11, De Pimn. 3.\1To. 35.) Pa sisivo) isiaplater Latin word 
and belongs especially to ecclesiastical Latinity. 

848.3: des t+ ( diave miome's)) ard! (dre ofsee pre m= 
fem amt“ \p Te.ce Ss) “ho miaiinyusm| mente a nedres leard 
hyOpMMENTe NS wine piett ra va Quay CRP ORS Camm tar 

See Apul. De deo Socratis 1. 6 (Hildebrand’s edition): 
Gre tern! S win t) (quava e dvarm edithv in asequmierdimare 
Pro te sitiaties), in tes) \s uimimiaim) vavetahetr aumert 
icn) f Ama 's tueat preys DAal dSutso in tees actrase 
Ae TiS. Spiatio., ) \plerly q\uaes is ie ty) dieisa -aeeamea 
MsO Sita et imverd tia, ard) \idieloiss, comm mre amt 
hos Graeci nomine daovas nuncupant, 
imjber “homanes, (7) coclicolas@uue veetores: 
ine prequm sound €) \d'on oq ui -esqaii yulteme 

CLino (portant, bi mc spleti ta ones, aammudee 
Suppetias Céeu quidam wWtrims que a mten- 
De erties erty Sualuit leo. enr.ile The original of this is 
found in Plato’s Symposium 202 E. Compare also Apul. De 
dog Plata chap. 12; /(Diaemon a's vieror | oomumiis)s 

PLO s yu dveoym tom) har Dive reat wr) ei Situord elcuquuve = 

349.55 f Buvert ues) allie mals im, vadlabais) Ueeicmals 
tha mus tiem te pie f habe overs Hyon ye in 


duo dee chim than pruve te Sutnaws os INC 6)T.O com- 
MPremmaOMnaast 16.5 Sen) COMMS C.Liip t tm) Jet eis quid 
NvOre ee Cre oh ltt /S) Uy Pepwl ie 1 Wim). nS tii tou). tu, mie 

We cannot say in which of Cicero’s works this reference 
was found, and this fragment of Cicero seems to have remained 
unnoticed by the editors of his works. Augustine’s words ap- 
pear to be the only authority for ascribing such a statement to 
Cicero. It would be most natural to assign it to the De Legi- 

Compare Pliny, Ne wi 28) 2.07 2) gq. Uiodyr (no. n gert 

Lecim Sips aram, tn diajodecimy, taib.wilis 
Nery Danes dlony tus. Clint) «fir vel Sie © Ca. Nita SiS Tit fs, 
also Apuleius Apologia 47: Magia ista.... res 
Cisse wherein Syudue Ine Orart a.) liam) inde: am ta= 
qMuniues, dao deecim “ta b.u lis sprfop ter 1n- 
crhedundas, frug um iPle.c:e:bemias), dunieer 
Gives tye: ; 

e4g 192 Asp uve dus) ti ps en mquid! sap uid 
Cir aitst amass tu dices: \(dve. Mmiasgiiveu's: <arsttie 
DMS) YagexCUSia, LU, S: Ee. St .? 

This was the case which was brought by Pontianus, 
Sicinus Aemilianus and Sicinus Pudens, at the instigation of 
Herennius Rufinus, against Apuleius on the charge of having 
used magic arts and spells to win the love of Prudentilla a 
widow and mother of his friend Pontianus. See Apuleius’, 
Apologia or De Magia, which was the defence of the author 
on this occasion. Has Augustiue any authority for writing 
avpauedss Cohicas tain) oS: tude és?) Sofar asl know 
there is no authority for it and it is probably a misstatement. 
See note given in Oudendorp’s edition of Apuleius vol. 3. p. 
Jot htier ea; wh lid Jestoeh. monet coum me's Cl iMea x1 

Mptiacn (As iivG ace sip rrov.c.oms ule toca lity quid 
Pap MeO SMul tO} extant.) Oom.o d “(mt alia! te si 
Piemonte tid C.e-am) in hac ipsa, Ora throne 
elea tists im e€ avdepra Fe) ty, Diteaersseuk bien eo 

fore o ub VA pubet us. Meer curt? ¢st gal lwm 
ii oa was: Maximi tradit. 


BA01 027.5 Elis. autre: mm yp) hetel OyStogpabyi ar as. 
tuOvn det  CLONDil ONS) 1.SeS amas || e/tie Adgipsvrem ets cme 
ex tia ti to.n ato. 

For the question as to the unity of the Apologia see 
Hildebrand’s edition, vol. 1, proleg. p. 40; and Oudendorp’s 
edition vol. 3, p. 485. It must be said that a careful reading 
of the Apologia gives one the impression of its being an 
Opa choy pandsnota dit oO, lab rae 

S54 19. Naim!) diil)y en sia dre mil iis Ele rammens 
Ave ory pit vides, qr ue mm | iter sme es A istt omy iyioreramipi 
Svemnusmiut ce it esrC Lal! p Syl” bi, 

Under the name of ‘Eppns Tpicpéyeotos very numerous 
works were in circulation in the early Christian centuries. 
These works professing to be from Hermes were of a Neo- 
Platonizing tendency in the struggle against Christianity. 
The work of Hermes referred to above by Augustine is the 
Adyos TeAevos translated into Latin by Apuleius under the title 
of Asclepius, sive Dialogus Hermetis Trismegisti, a dialogue 
between Hermes and his pupil Ascelepius (Huius Aegyp- 
titeawernba sicut in smoStradm) dainpe wmaem 
inerye hip rr ext alta) vs unt”): SceevLact), Dive Inst) 1 Oa: 

ut Gui pmo Leas jum Ties a ma et artiwm 
SiGitepiutiray.) Der 1 Ss mie ers) t/a C0. gn osm es yet 
pro mnern: t/a)... Deira, Det) 114 w2y50) eames | aqnusesm 
Croernos ait) dn) mumve poe \delom my migsaypand 
Arewery pitio So hyacbie' ral,» «eum. Ssrem Ince Ee anum 
ob Wit petit em multar uimyq ue artium 

Senye mutta, Teor mea xekom ays Wilco pnayd Nyant a Saleysiies 
His teachings are mentioned often in the works of Lactan- 

355- 6. sq. For the quotations on this page see As- 
clepius, chaps. 23, 24 (Hildebrand’s edition, vol. 2, p. 305-7.) 

358. 5. sq. See Apul. Asclepius chap. 37 (Hildebrand’s 
edition, vol.° 2; p. 320). 

303 ;nit. oO auc adverten d wm €:S\t )) qyuid 
MVOMGKOy (4S 1G. CAGE Cay ipa an tise. Gum /.doemet 


Hemmgpenns Felsrs.e; vee a far Um quo)! Ulla va wif er - 
ie ColMcalinin We Xe! ASC C7 yp sO) 0% 
See Apul. Asclepius chap. 24. 

364. 13. sq. See Apul. Asclepius chap. 37 (Hilde- 
brand’s edition, vol. 2, p. 327 sq.) 

BOT Ia Sil CG hte akeLO mre Stale rn (Ort. spr Or- 
emucven sad, Oily mpi advem) miat rem | sicr ib 1st 
Awitee ram die n. 

Scemote p. 327. 25. 



268.14. dia eun orm e's.) (qt org ,uve a prpre dl iaevacs. 
Lusi cone staiomues eve. Octet in: 
pee act. Div. Inst..2.14.;6.2) hos" 36 nit im put eae 

Giesors! HEXS/ Sie). Mid! 4.2%. 145 Det Sa Sqa o da adiesm 
San td areymuormve sq uO Si Vv uel or uss, Vdie;O Si sercusre 
OUP Avast W Peek wae elk SO, 1-dl erm! isi nit. "diave mmo miess 

quo Se waa stvemntwli Ia eX ec ta ndso Ss ers Siem en uelemmn 
dit ‘quibus (supplicant. Compare Plotinus)Enn: 
3. 5. 63; Kai ef woAXakts Kai datpovas Heovs A€yomev eitvat, Lactan- 
tius is evidently Augustine’s authority. 

S08. 15s. Gg aa m.qvuvaim: 3,/e tideorSinihs eds aap 
MWS. TneO mt d ne vindiase miro newsm. 

In Lactantius we find Juppiter, Apollo, Neptune and Vul- 
can, who are elsewhere acknowledged as gods, called demons. 
SeeuDiva lasts ts 7-09.04. 2475 ino Sq 

308. 165 (ita: at apis u im, “lo Vv e,mi er) @q7yuveam 
VO lum t Hessisie. anre @ enmi 1anc. "pitt nc Wepre ml iG emer 
Or Um. «ab Jo mew oO. ia vtec asm) tau i) PGs ay eum ommincral 
Num e€ u plat wm . 

So far as I know Zeus is not called datumv anywhere in the 
works of Homer as we have them, except perhaps by implica- 
tion in) Dhiad. 1, 222: 

daépar’ és aiytoyoro Atos peta daipovas adXous. 

Augustine probably got this, not directly from Homer, 
but trom, lactantius)/ Div. Inst. 4.27050 Cred amet sheen 
Mec OL (Qat, (Susm. mw ms 4 loi yao vy erm) dearer 
mMionibus  adere gavit, as we cannot infer trom 
Augustine’s language ab Homero fateantur that 
he referred to direct Homeric authority, or even to indirect 
Homeric authority of a Latin version. 


269,20, Spud pleros@gue (enim, usita- 
Cumiemerssts edst-Cue a luco s, sbyoynvo Ss, a 1 10.s.- m-aliovs 

Seessact,. Dive Inst. 2.04. 055 tia d wio, « ge.n:€ Ta 

Gease 0 'n,u my, unum ClONEAesS te alt eons 
Herre muim: ib (sume aimimundi’ spiritus 
malorum quae Seren tr a tie: t10 ne 1S +, 

Gfmoruim “idem diabolws est princeps- 
For good demons see Porphyry De Abst. 2. 38, 39, 41, 53, 
Ad Marcellam 21; for bad demons Id. De Abst. 2. 38 (ad 
fin.) 58. 

a70, 15. Ex hoc ferme daemonum numero, 
i iG ait, 

See De deo Socratis chap. 12 (Hildebrand’s edition, vol. 
2, P. 139-) 

a7teoe Cle tis. Vea mt Mm ti DU Sy. qua € 
Gerace won Mostri autem quidam),(stcwt 
Civeeto. petrturbationes, quidam aftec- 
eicOsners.. Vv 6.) dob tere pbetlas =, Quaeied acm! | ) Wie a Oj, 
Mice us tie. Wee Grave CoO E€xpTressi Us, pas- 
SeivOr ners. V OL ants 

See note p. 346. 10. By the words sicut iste de 
Gmiaeco. expressius, passiones Augustine 
means that Cicero by a more literal translation agrees with 
others (quidam) in calling the ma#) passiones. 
This, however, is not so. Cicero himself says that for a more 
literal translation he would make wa6y—m or bi. Compare 
Miscusw4n 7m Or Dos, et id ver bum esse t 
Siveerb o; De Kinny >. no. 35,' quias Graect maby 
Pppeliait, kpoteram ego ver bum) dps um 
ii Getp rt nis meoinbeo7S) | Sa papre late. ~ “sre-d 
hone ic ony eminet sad ~omnia. Moreover the 
word passio does not occur at all in Cicero or in any 
classical writer, but belongs to the latter period of Latin. 

a7 164) Tas jen fo “perturbations sive 
aviaiee-C tt One's) “)S.lve pas Sd O;n.e's quidam 


philosopha dicunt et1 arm. im “sas emetem 
ca dneure., Ssend moderatas rationigwe 
Sir Die-C! tras 5 

See “Buses os 4a741Sq.,. 3. 0. 12,3210. 08 G) 4 TOU eeu ase 
Sim. 9 Otmi-d.asm <-> -Hvo-e “qui” Siem tian toe War eome 
Lew -shu net Si voe. “Acris to ted tea erlinesap 

B7 IOs. A isis say t-em), | (Sue ats oat Ommceiace 
Grader Cun usllba se). 0: monn so hii aw See | amr onder 
Passio n.€S im “Sa pivem tiem “m0 n, prlarccert. 

see Cic, De Finn: 3. 10, 355 ta, que. “bills Siaipmvesnes 
Semper va cabit, Musc: 4.07, 35>. a hance .Gcum 
ita “acorn em) aon | Omen Ss) pramtat dS. ase toesi matenns 
fem dat. uit sS.ejmip- er “ww ifdrera t. esiendne my esee 
ac. locum sane amo Lest ta at guise sa noconme 
Vivendi, Wut. quemic u mq ue. (cays tem om 
title ao Gin We eo t) e hrc, sage ep emeestet eQuuaimeatre 
herat > .quuco das t facie t Mom wa e.crr tememee 
Solum, Vacabit, sed “etiam —pre tuner 
tuisO mM bets. shied Mquaa Ss. sOsm navn se 

375. 11. Cicero wn, Caesar sald uidvemsinor 
© MovgdCS® 1e°S Ex. 

In the quotation which Augustine proceeds to give from 
pro Q. Ligario 12. 37, he omits the word plurimis. 

377. 0: quos poetaec guor unid 2m ho mine 
NUM), OSSOr es 64 AimatowmeS= dies, woos 
P.O Cul a vVeribate Cont i nesumet. 

See Apul. De deo Socratis 12. (Hildebrand’s edition, vol. 
2, Pp. 139)< 

377, 24. Deéemigmwe himc esse” diet se om, 
ericam illam Minerva my -q wae -~mredsins 
Coetibus iGradum -co-haibiemidios SAvc dailies 
inetieyi.v eons st. 

See Apul. De deo Socratis 11, (Hildebrand’s edition vol. 
2, p.-138), 


Soo sie et our homnromres. imquit, ratione 
OeacudnGyenneree 'S. 5) 57d ', 

This is quoted as Hildebrand says non ita magna 
Saad. @Mtrrilsq me sori pt oris  dissiensione 
from De deo Socratis, 4 (Hildebrand’s edition vol. 2. p. 


sole 2aee esi oCeulnn edie. " i's ~ anim 1s 
apger tert 7: Pater, re oT c Fa bm A Cae mui S.¢ Five Ors 
MeOuer tau lis vic la tac e bat. 

This reads in the original (Enn. 4. 3.12) Zetds d€ warnp 
eAXenoas Tovoupevas OvyTa airav 7a deopa modv. The reference is 
here given by Dombart. 

902. 15 sbeeecrc ‘quidem -¢t anratas ho mi- 
mim “daemomes €sse er ex Rrenmtinibus 
fi-€ EA flares, si mer? tt boni stat; 
Pemiiime S “sie sma ld “sew  Larvacs s “ma imes 
Bite de Os CiCh Si Loacertum est’ bon+ 
Ootum cos ser nralerwm esse meErktarum. 

We should suppose that as no new subject has been men- 
tioned, that of dicit is the same as the subject in the 
preceding chapter, viz. Plotinus. We see, however, from 
the lines following dicit, which are condensed from 
Apuleius, that the latter is the subject. See Apul. De deo 
Socratis, 15 (Hildebrand’s edition vol. 2, pp. 146-7). 

g62-2272. Unude attem “per hia bet ap pe) 
cari Graece beatios evoagovas, quod bon 
SheGrtg sa We Miss. 5 2s 

See Apul. De deo Socratis 15 (Hildebrand’s edition, vol. 
aepeesa) a0 on dre om.o nen ull li aba tira mb wr . 2.8 
eddaiuovas dici beatos quorum daemon 
pommeas hd" Sst - a Nim us. “vir tute perfec 
Lius “eS t. 

gu3.0. tl abetis in quit) interim) bana 
italia dees abi hominibms “pluri= 
Meine tet ete mite s-, 10/61, S u-D-ld int Cal esos 4 


See Apul. De deo Socratis 4. (Hildebrand’s edition vol. 2. 
De 23): 

389. 25.5 Deum quidem summum omnium 
Cir 6 ator emma, sgh aes 1 mi OjS IM 7-y errata Deum 
Gdierm ws.) sivc. ay (Pile tro mer spr.a-elduine auniieatar 
Severat, quod ipse sit “sol ws” (qui eno 
pOoSsSit Sermonis h umiamt ont VtS 20s. 
tiome! wells “meodiic e > ico mop reine mid ic. eae 
at tem "sia pi ent Duis svi Ta S),. 6C Wm Sie) ito Orme 
and md pq uiiain tat mip Sie Wat ae CiO tap nO tice aa eiems 
moverunt, Ante lilec t tm. (hyaihurs Seu nee 
Gwoguwe imterdum, veut. im altos sa aise 
tae es das Ea pid 1-s's ism o Corus 6 2 nae 
lumen. cia ud 1 denen mute © im tle ar en, 

See Apul. De deo Socratis 3 (Hildebrand’s edition vol. 2. 
p. 119): Compare Id. De dog. Platonis 1. 5 (Hildebrand’s 
edition vol-¢2,0p:.4183)) Lert.-Apol..46--P lattotvamiatniepmaent 
fiact1 tact ox ens univ .e 1S traytt S,. nee) Gerandene 
Vie nie, fac il-esm) set \inoy Guid Wiese masta aaa 
in; You-n-es, ‘dritwemlem 2. Wact. last: tb plea. 
Su bilimiOon (emi ms vavC Mea dojr; Ee Sob Grae 
PO. S81) a Ut. Coe4 tavbt, o.0e,) “horn nats Reeder 
Sermo nme (co mep te hire nod. = id. Dives Inst ares oeae 
Cuiws (Dei). sms “Mane is.t.a team) da cue raumee 
tam’ ‘esse. decit.. om | Pimrace o- Pala om mame 
Cam |e tier save um te C/O NCL p eof eo. Tre cuige 
VetrDiS, Cn at ram e. Jqii4ts gq ua in 3p.0S.s it tamous 
nimiam €t thaestimabi lem pote stacemr 
Compare also*Cicero N.;- Dea. F2- 30.-. eam od-e 2b ate: 
Nis Anco ns tian tia cone wm. Gest sdusevemuer 
Q Ud si m” SE mae on: p:a.tcrem:,~ howiisuss” Smiurordan 
NiO Mii Tash 1 Mrese4e bp O\SiSte.S oi mie Ge cone 
fie me) Alc ber. 16s quid Soigt omnino Grenies 
a. QUE 1.) OLpIO Fete: MN OFM Cee NeSaevarh.. 7p Minmenag 
Felix, Octav. 19. 


S002 12, St mon Comtaminamrtur’ sidera, 
Cite wid en) tit f).1 Gu OS sd-e70 Ss, Om ne Ss | Vv i.s)i.- 
tiie S. aCeiceIrt 

Apul. De deo Socratis 2 (Hildebrand’s edition, vol. 2, p. 
is) ene Od cm, Viils pa ium ©d- eo r um ni Um 
een REe epic lean eu Oughue | Sil Gewh a, ui” ¢ wm)” Pla 
Gove sie Nb fs lorcsa to (2) 

Aglare onriacers ti dhhold HP Vert innit abi ane: 
Bake md um Sty ie itur “ads Cariss imam 
Poetamien bet ib i “pater cet 1 bi oO mM nia. 
Orie iit tniGgutt. chassis aut. fuga 

The original reads (Enn. 1. 6. 8), hevywpev dy pirdnv és 
AGT POO. 3... a Tis otv 6 otoAdos Kal 7 pvyn;...- matpis dé Hiv 
Obevrep NAOopev Kal TaTHp exer, Tis ov 6 aTOAOS Kai y Pvyy; Dom- 

bart gives this reference. 

son i7, INOS Gaute nih, Sicut “serivptura 
hOGuuGtttt. 5 2 nan Se los quidem <partim 
Pomo Ss pra ttt mes mail OS nh tm e@ ia mM ver 6. 
beormors) dia € miormne Ss" le oi m us. 

The passages of Scripture bearing on this point are num- 
Prous see (Vie \iGen, 16.7, 24. 7, 20. 12, © Rég: 20. 9; 1 Par: 
Mewes! GOmwEE. O02 7, £02. 4° Malir3. ns) Mate 4, 115 "1 3. 
Bo, on 27-02 COL 2E. 145 0 Dim: 5. 21, where good angels:are 
spoken of. For the bad angels see. Mat. 25. 41; 1 Cor. 6. 3; 
Iud. 6. 

295.6. Daecmones enim dicuntur (quao- 
iain ov OCa puitwm Graecum est) ab scien - 
hia nO Man ati. 

See Lact. Div. Inst. 2. 14.6, daemones autem 
Pai matic, Cie toS aunt “quasi “daypovas, 
POmRerste Spx Pa tiO\SacanG rer Um oS: Clos , whichis 
also the derivation given in Plato Cratylus 398. B. ére Ppdvipor 

\ , > la > \ Oey 
kal danpoves Hoav Saiwovas avtovs mvopacev. 

goes. Os Sh oF la tom ci) mal umt, cde os 
poeta Grae mre Tes -d.1C Ernie. er siq ue: aid n um = 


€Lale quos ‘a.summo Deo “con diitos sdeos 
SG fr ivb ity CO GU ma We tor 1c amaestie ae anor 
Cicero did not get this reference: (Tim: ar A) directly 
from Plato, but from Cicero’s Latin version of the Timaeus, 
as we learn from DCD XIII. 16, where Augustine quotes ver- 
batim Cicero’s Latin version of the passage to which he refers 
here: Piha t omnis hale ce ver, Dias S Unit) eS) 1 Callacmera 
Cicer.) im eat num ver tat (p57 5. a7). 



4o2. 8. Aarpecov quippe nostri, ubicum- 
Ge. sametarum Secripturarum -positum 
Sse in fen pret ati Sumt Séervaitu tem. 

See Hatch and{Redpath’s Concordance to the Septuagint, 
Dutripon’s Concordance to the Vulgate, and Moulton and 
Geden’s Concordance to the Greek New Testament, on Aarpeta 
ands e fav tt us. 

Z02019.) Sie d sea, SOnvitus quae  “debetuy 
fominibils:, Secumnd um Guam praeccip it 
Ppostolus servos dominis suis su bdi-= 
@orsmaersis.e: «ke be wen pa livo Mnhoumimie G1 ae ee 
Dine U phat 6S,Od le it). 

That is dovdcia, The distinction between dovAea and 
Narpeia is often mentioned by Augustine. Compare Quaest. in 
Ex. 94 SovAea debetur Deo tamquam Domi- 
Wo, Aarpeae Vero nonnisi Deo tamquam 
Deo, etal; and between the verbs Aarpevew and dovAcvew in 
Quaest. in Lev. 66. 

403-25 SU ade ia Seri pturarium™ locisy, 
ime ddhes tlc oO. Cer thor ap pat en Cts non 
eioéBeav, quod ex bono cultu, sed GeoceBeav 
Guod ye x Del (Cult ad co m posi ttm Te'sio:- 
Madecrmee Ge Cie te. Miva lee cr Wie 

See under these words Moulton and Geden’s Concordance 
to the Greek Testament, and Hatch and Redpath’s Concord- 
ance to the Septuagint. 

AO4..18... S.a.e pie mye, ly Gtumg ie PB lhost1 mouis 
assent Ss emsuem  P la tomis, exp ania ns, 
Messiucasmic ude i.) quam - cre dunt ie sis.e 
Miia nisiet ati Ss \anthm am. aliun de, beatam 
SSS duiam nosttam, idquée ‘esse lumen 


quod ips, Mon, <e'sit, “seid) tang on meaievaites 
est @t a» qu. intel lest baleen 
nante 1m telle eit bilrtves dia cete Dia tec nie 
Saimadast ucdiine mm “atds aJilarc came om prom ie aaee 
hats; (GaeLeisst ¢ on spire adits sam, pasg, age 
COEp O61 DUS. -tiamq uam ylises 4S mt 2 S.0ulmese 
INDIES 1a Stn ane iu na my qed pspte. | sOnletes 
O Dec hur ind wm in ari Sprut ants, spire rem ee 
ile magnus Platonic u's -animam,  ratioma- 
Lem, Sivepotius in te lle ctw-a tics. d teemades 
Sit. .€x. quo @ene re ¢tiiam immo ta lieu 
beatoxe uim-qulee vam dm as “le sSisie slemitie linc amie 
qiuvo's) fin!) cae ers ti biuis! sedi bis: htaibi tax concom 
dtu -bust.ast3.) mom -hanberre Ssiuipiaas “Sem scart 
nasi. Dre. quit. f-arbign Cactus fe sit.) smpuim dang 
Aqedauio.7 eit. sip Siadaekiarcet ar Kersite. 

Compare Plotinus Enn. 2. 9. 2, pever te drpaypovws aity, ovK 
ek duavoias duoikodaa, ovdé TL dvopHovpevy, GAA TH Eis TO TPO airhs Bea 
Kataxoopovca dvvape Gavpacty: ooov yap mpos aity ott, TdTw 
kadXiwv kat duvatwrépa, KaxeiGev €xovoa, didwot TO pet’ aiTHv, Kal @omTeEp 
€AAdprovea det éA\Adurerar; also ibid. 2. 9. 3, 3. 9. I, 4. 3- II, 
nv 6€ vous exetvos 6 exet HALOS * OvTOS yap ypiv yryvecOw Tapddeypa TOD 
Adyou: epeens d€ rovTw Woy7 eEnpTHpEVy, PEVOVTOS VO, mevovTa, didwor 
d€ aii) TA Tépata aitys TA mpos ToOToV Tov HALOV, TOUTH TO HAtw, and 
ibid. 5.6. 4. These references have not been given by Dom- 

406, 16: ‘Treli-gen tes.” umd'e et. “re liao 
davesta, presr ba pret un 

Augustine follows Cicero. See N. D: 2. 28.472, gq wi 
autem (omnia “quae ad? ca lit ulm “decom 
Pertinene nt dil to enter, te bianet asmewiEt 
ertittia. m*qrsaim “te liek, erie nit. Sumit ad ie, ten emeer= 
ligrvosi ex relies endo] Compare Lact, .oivesaise 
A 2853, shrorey Vien Cw ho Mp ieee tise Botbesetarsiertes 
dre io! ets relhiig ati. swine uis.s) swindse® apse ere 
ligvo momen 2cce pit, n oneut Cicer oman 


Pc Wiper .e tia btSee Srtaiaa med dove mid: o' ibid: 6,10. 2 
Inst. Epit. 64. 5. 


ALO fAe- 3S aeC htt Chime eS. oA i ha E Sit, 1 ta 
Gee ROLC. Gat. OL GQ e.-V0 Crasbottso: | iid Meaty mi. vie t= 
epimense dep Ore lacy eon nate 

NecLCiCw We Dive. tone Sin eu hm = Dish tft 
Cetra tact Meine, Ml Nid  Al-esy ack iy ore. Vdd wit nia 
pecan Sot. Ne. 1-30 ro 47) ans both: of, which. cases: feus 
divina evidently stands for sacrificium. See Plautus 
MP pidst5534,(405), ha Ctr um dixit rem esse idi- 
Man cm) (dou), and Amph. 3. 3.413 (968), q ai re idi- 
Vea ina Cita, Mee MM. p ram d.e.a.t... erence sun. 

Bs 2 7 53) Elec yraun. 2) Lo, (184). 

4ES. 13. “a lios di-anmnca bites; Gi W.08S. - Text 
Medel eterOrsy aVallel, & iS) ap pre bl at, 

These words seem to be from Lact. Div. Inst. 2. 16. 4: 
cee “os verte —maleticos vuleuas ap - 
pre inat. 

ALS iS. Nias ve t! oPolrp hy riws: quand am 
Gites Wip im sraitt on em an pmiad oper “th ear 

iain ts Gas Pp mia tome i prem tt tits rev er- 
sionem vero zi Gl Deum hea nc abit enna 
BebRaVeHS) Endl eh TC hUst Gta nyelo at) 4.3) 2. UN saeaie 

visits wih env = taAlr tem) tam quam: fa'lba‘ceim 
Gitesiel! 1 prsial aC titone pier iculo'sam) et le'gi- 
buts apr oO habit am ic-aven dam ‘monet > nunc 
Pipe ms es Witihbem dicitiesse «m undanave 
Piavintsiaee tAsMs eM are Leh. ame: tenia di eit 
pe neeulais dam 1C.On Se erat tones: there i cas 
eupaise Ate he tiais Vor ant. =itidomearm \) £1 er4 
ee Ghee Laem Sues Cee pi tii<oin “Ss pair itu am et 
doe hOMmmm © esti vad) vid en dos \ do's. Ex 
CGtnb ws pha mecnwtheure i cis. teletis fat e- 
Mie tte! hee tua lt. vamtnan ae) m1 ha) ip wre a= 
prom Mon aac clievdiere, ( faciat 4 don- 

214 - 

eam ad widendum! Die um isimuamre & epee 
Sapetsee nidca sea Gila €° «Ve yRiew seSauanat ae 

Deeolitg Wes aneimeaym= or ast Jo pmeanlsesm) ES iivee mee 
Pmtel evet ua lem in) Sua) possey diet esa 
dew. © “cert asm.) yp -O da esl ws: WSapyiir tut ane eresee 
Nata ae it beMiteeC.a fh Ue hit art er ipmiae orate: 
POL oO auitiem “a thewr go spirit allem sp wr 

oar i Sheaietremsuise,, ut “noon \erx ~hsoNc 7 and signe 
MO Git a let ateum ae tie Fmt taa tieum,quive tpre Gavier 
nia te “Oa miqiam: Wha que, duivs.cie wn ates 

dfa;e om (om) i bows. “a piaell'os.,. va erica; Velorced = aersisee 
djaverm) Oo) neti) are thle tava “viele “eimip ya era diese 
Semmens. .a mse oT um: et) aid mvome iat ult eu 
dgurme saylivcaminass %diare:mro)nais; a marco t har eaeune 
Sou bioverct.a mitie viel pau lwlum, a) tenia opios 
Sui tee lie: Vea ri) (G) Udi _Siq) We? Sp OySst my Om te mi .amanlenarmn 
Veet 0) avila Jesse.) plier bib eat) avd. Pacneoneria- 
OLimM Suspler na ~Cco nS oT tiva* = (ca vem diaam 
tranmye ned) aesm-on) am) SOc dertia tie me x pre sisi 
qulordaim™= modo ~Comhesisaionie ® tesnt atin 
Ubi (dic. “a mi maim, ~piors:.t « mow team. \lhuvermidro 
P oenvas vou Ntiaeim dia,€ morn yum “al, (qyupiebeus 
Cit -C um) v-elneie bia tiwr “hl Ot ft esc 6-1 ie p S aymr- 
qulley theureiian quaim  vwelust) c otnieu tia 
Prikcem anise )ojria me deo ruym que > 10 memem 
dra ty-acpudy sta lkecs, = aiete ne) Oe Srtca tie spmneer= 
fare; MO ne. pot wat “qi ae; viele Ww prsiased maven 
Ciao t) prin oat orm | ayn ave ay ey ele. ast aun 
Suen Vi ant) i nmeyidor gan,» sq me 4 ella m- deer shave 
rie: (Chea | idjarest nyevsec io, <coumcuis, sex pir io miemnisE: 
1 OD Gpuve Galt) Sime @) as tS OAV ta i lene Cea 
daea bonus, purgandaée ani mare imavemnio 
im -mrorlimyrnye frais € ra toS. Si bay (esse Ss ulcer 
Cse1SiS US, 6 Um vis, ad, e€adiem op oftiems) tae 
Eis 1m Va digtan <asdvipwiray tans) gsca Gaigs: gpin-e Gasbius 
pO ten, ti ais ail Thivohasisvett ne Pp ois: tpl aytia 
con ce de remt.,, Hine o yest’) esa ie ial ee in 


diibintrseotp ieShtee NEO Mors Oliv to. = Olu oO.) Kn die 10 
Gicgtte sd.p pra te hes — t Miclteh a an, | -6:S.iS.e), tiaim 
Omnia Gon ihc emda aquiam malir .et jaip/ud 
diets = e.t,  a-p wud. Thyoum nes, “disci plinyam ; 
fede eve Diam, de ows -eterad ii kas “p erie u rb a.- 
CLONES; Passtomes que deduct quas:e¢om- 
ma nite rn  da.e mo ni bus ene hominibus 
PEPEUMee! US. ta Ot ht dd ero.s) }t amen ab 
eeusmavetsiwerina 6 Se G iS) ay ti tipdtion €) Sel pad = 
Peneceeeutesealoa ct Ones! Tass see rie i Sy i,m © i islvar  diies)- 
Gel crrmlbOp0rG a Sue-Mat ie Det tannic. 

AV Lr Oe Pohay Eu us: pet cave SiC io.” quisaaH 
Piet me iiea nm. 2d)is ip linsam, 6 t tam -~.d°e7o's 
OMSe le tos. pasSi oniwbiws ef spert ur bas 
tion ib Ss) id 1c, 1, . 

We are led by the nature of the subject of these extracts, 
which is chiefly the purification of the soul, to assign them to 
Porphyry’s lost work zepi dvddou yoxns (De Regressu Animae). 

ANG. 2900 Past i) -e-f1 am) die.os, vet ad... lila 
Preimtitebrd tom es, pass lo, me sig ue. dieduca 
kas CO Mm Unite r id-ae moo ni bus ‘et hom/i- 
DeMDetes. A path ew Sadat rib) wit. 

Compare Apul. De Deo Socratis 12-13 (Hildebrand’s 

edition, vol, 2, \p; .140sq-):: Ontap +t opter— die bert 
CeemiESe ote aie pet pest” av.e.l up's ved 
am Oor1 Ss wenmap Orr a. l>e:m Perk wn eC tio neem-:, 
Studer ¢ oO 1 eC in di ona tio me. m1 S-e fi 
Com ran Sc onset iim @ 1 “nat lo a me-o me. Co ni- 
Pace nt hla a lac ti taté- oes tine, seid 
a De -Oom-n 1b u's Dass Loneb us lib iear HL 

drosPewe ung tam nec Ta liquan do laetancis 
nye a. irq’ a ard ECspie Meta) mi) Wom vacr lke waew 
Teo lier SP evd Cite Dyareycy (ac tn.Cita 3 te. i-G 
Semuss cetera daemonum, mediog¢ri tiat1 
Con acrwu nt. ite em tm in teu anos)» seut 

dheoswuwt. loco "region is, ita in «emi o 


Mmeenitis imtersptt, “habentes Cum smpenmis 
coOmmunem immortalita tem, ne um inte nis 
passtonem. Nam. p roi mide wt) nos mpage 
possunt Omnia animorum (placa men ta 
Vee) }imuctieamme nm tac Cf) dra wnee tatyandetaten 
et mse ri cor dia. f be-<ctinn tin © eut = dd omgius 
imviiita neve wr et. op re Cab US) el eat jue tee eae 
COmohumelTis ex aspera n tir “et ho nom 
Dus sm Clemens alii s q ule “orm Neinbgl) Ss eemasG 

sem 1 esm mG Du.s modum Vodor dra abeetes 
Gea p Poem eats! cov olor sen e COM pr emen Ga mt, 
Gacmomes sunt ole ne Te © aid iata sl (ay oe sede 
See MeOs er avtwiO med bel ict a. al maw m0 Pp axsSiS- vide 
CORMota, aera. “tiem p One a cite ra eee 

hiss qQoimquwe iq ware com mem olay ( Stam 
Af =prenecppio-  (eracd'em gq. are. “Mog Wis.crusine 
quart tm tpropriu na, pos tre mum ‘ero 
mune “Cum “dirts aimm ortalib us oheagbremrt, 
sed sdusta-er unt sab ch is ip arses 1) omer: Oumae 
propter ca’ ey pias Siva Mon Va bist nd eres suse 
ambit fom, 1 Oman avi... ~qrucond! Sdemete tiks dees 
Qu. Wbius: Mo's “per tu. b a tio tap dss, —mMlesiiemes 
obnoxii. The first words of this quotation of Apuleius 
are the direct opposite of the words pati etiam deos 
which latter, however, are not the words of Apuleius but of 
Porphyry. Compare the words beginning chap. 10, Ecce 
Dune altus Pilatonive us (qe mdoetioc mem 
f-erun-t.) Pop hy ri sye ple © iene sS:C 110 - ag uunagmn 
thieuroe team “dais cigpl imi. “et iam —s pisos 
O Dstt tac 4°05.) (pa SS rote Ss 2 et Pre 6 onde 
tionibus dicit. ~ Compare the words of Porphyny 
(Epistula ad Anebontem 5. Partheny’s edition p. XXXI) wove 
ody of daipoves povov cial eurraeis, dXAG Kal ot Geot Kata TOV “Opnpor - 
otpemtol O€ Te kal Geoi adroit. Here Porphyry disagrees with his 
teacher Plotinus (Enn. 3. 5. 6.) in regard to the dra6eo of the 
gods 70 peév dy Oedv arabes Aéyomev, Kat vouilomev yévos; datpoor de 

mpootiOenev ay. 


AIG tGra Wices lie San Sad pati ty s1.s tie! Por :p h-y r= 
Vas cum ad Anebontem SiGe i pyswl t 
PCO MAeEt Uetmy- .ibil 6,0.n Sie ati. similis et 
PprOnchtet east C75 Svat eurm eo ass: ie te vier tat. 

By these words Augustine seems to be passing to another 
work of Porphyry from which he had not been quoting prev- 
iously. The letter of Porphyry to Anebo, the Egytian, has 
not been preserved entire, but only in fragmentary form. All 
the extant fragments of it have been put together by Thomas 
Gale in his edition of Iamblichus De Mysteriis (London 1670), 
and by Partheny in his edition of the same (Berlin 1875). It 
was printed before these only in the Poemander at Venice in 


Alea20e cbt, sb  G.ttde.m 70m 0.e.S  diae.- 
mode Se eke PF Oba to. GW Orsi €1cGitt- jo bs ism-= 
Pie codke a tiva my <trayhe re Daim id am .vaporem 
cat, el Ove MO = tay sa.evtchoe res “sieid (1 m ale rie 
es stere Sse it nay asatiquwe in) ipso Lu na.e 
PaleGLb ON ara.) Outs; S) Ga Im. ina im) que -~b’e nave. mols 
_daemones more aepap el Wart. sa liow uim:s, Cum 
Mims Cen eral titer oni prwidie n ties. f a-tyeas 
Ee fF: 

Augustine has preserved for us this information in regard 
to.Porphyry’s opinions of demons as expressed in the letter 
above named. But the original is lost. 

Aver 2700 MaAttat ii q-uO.d “non so. lum ~od'it 
Bete t tit ik. VIG tim is 7S.e.d><ett.a mm ¢.o m= 
Peta newt ahewde COC amiur facere quod 
inoun tne Ss? vio tu int; 

See Ep. ad Anebontem 28 (Partheny’s edition p. XX XVIII.) 
mavu d€ pe Oparter mas ws KpeiTTOVS TapaKxadovpevor ériTATTOVTAL Ws 
Xelpous, Kal dikaov elvar agiodvtes Tov Oepdrovta, Ta adiKa adrot 
kehevobertes dpav iropevovar, Kal kabape@ pev pr) OvTe e& Adpodiolwr ovdK 
dv xaXdotvre timaxovcoaev, aitol d€ aye cis Tapavoua adpodiora Tovs 
TvxovTas ovK dxvotow. This fragment of Porphyry is preserved 
by Eusebius, Praep. Eyang., book 5, chap. 7, (191 D) and 


bid. chap. 10 (197. D). But Augustine’s knowledge of Por- 
phyry’s letter was not derived indirectly through Eusebius, for 
two reasons: (1) Augustine shows a larger acquaintance with 
the letter to Anebo than could possibly be gained from the 
disconnected fragments given by Eusebius. (2) Augustine 
seems to have had the actual book of Eusebius (in a Latin 
version) before him, so that he knew exactly from what part 
of the epistle he was quoting. Compare DCD X. 11 (p. 419. 33 
SiC tr | ett “co unm ‘e' imo rast): s (Pp: 425s 0) 
Pasioupse acd Veypust udia te Cfankeemie Such words of 
location he could not use if he had known only the fragments 
given by Eusebius. 

AIO. 0), (OU aer ie (e/t arm ive leer rdyu once amas 
titram. ~ ain). divin ant itb ues Ext quaedam 
miuiiay. fa Cen tib uss. (am. em ave Sain, tt @prars 
So ne S@ vane a Pq spi rites!” ea teens eres 
Vem ant. per” “qiwors: 9 tale €? “vadreamitr wes 
Popius venire “e xitr ins ¢ cis Ic ome mtyaeG 
quod iva pidabiws (et her bars! a dcha bist iese sere 
a lLigie mt? “q wo sidralm » et “apres ita mit se slvadnse 
OStia. wel ealiqaurird  eius- mod mira- 
Diente cOrpre Le Mebane 

For this fragment of the letter to Anebo compare para- 
graph 24, (Partheny’s edition, p. XXXVI) preserved in lam- 
blichus, De Mysteriis 3. 27, from which it is given by Partheny 
thus: tovrov dé detypata a0 tév epywv évapyn TO AiHovs Kai Boravas 
pepe Tors kaXovpevors, Secpety TE tepov's Tas Seo povs Kal AVELY TOVTOUS 
Ta TE KekNecpeva avolyev Kal Tas mpoaipeoers petaBartrev Tov 

brodexopevwv WoTe ek havrwv oravoaias amrepyaler bar. 

A1g.' 12.) Wendie vive wt ta diseis opi m aaie veusacre 
qinod (dau toe mss ¢ U4 ex a dire. Ss ite igor 
patt-wamy, natura frcvallvaex om ni forme, 
mil tam jo.dsum\,. si miu/lvacn, Ss: sd/éyo'si~ est aydemere 
mio nies) et) anum aise det wn ctorwim, set chow 
esse quod ‘efitcrvat hatéc “Oona a ssqeueae 
videntur bona esse vel’ priava .tcetenum 


Cuetec rawcrde Tquiinares mvgenues DO na rrS uh t, nihil 
Onpulbints baer ts em OP vee to) iesitiay mec? n<o"s4s'€); 
Syentdommestemeavice “Cromewshiwame: et 1nsiamulare 
Miodsiee s Iaaple ddr eo Sn.Onnen. UamMeg U.aem  Wwilritsuti-s 
SrescetleOuS,. Serbia tilt ersia et) ple nyu m = wes Sie 
Pemmedt ita tts et fas thus, ¢ audere: nid ore 
mores ahaa) | ta thibo: nei D les! Ca pt. ce f. ¢ 6.t €na: 
Compare Partheny’s edition 26 (p. XXXVII): ot dé civa 
pev eLwlev rievrar TO irHKoov yevos aratyANsS Hicews iravTOpopHov TE 
kat moAvTpomov, vmoKkpiopevov Kat OBeovs Kat daipovas Kal wWuyas 
TOvynKkoTwV, Kal dia TovTwv Tavta O’vacba TdV. doKovvTwV ayabdv 7 
Kak@v elvar, emee eis TA ye OVTWS Ayala, amep eivar KaTA WuxXIV, wydeV 
kaGarag ovpParrcobar SvvacGar, wyde cidevar Tatta, GAA KaKocxo- 
NeverOar kai tTwbalew Kai eumodilev moddAaKis Tots eis apeTyHv 

> , , > , \ , 3 A ‘ , 
adixvoupevots, tANpets Te Elvar TUPOV Kal Yaipey aTpmots Kal Pvoiats. 

AIG. 95. Ostia Pet €nim Cur tam quam 
Meio tb ws. tiv OCcatis- Quast peiori biws 
Mimpicrene tilt. Ut IniUsita praecep tah om- 
Gites exis e.c-ila nl tithes Cur and tar 6 CGatiant) Wm 
Pee weme ria dl oOn €xaudiant in pre ca ni- 

Bemne Cttm: = “prs sad sinc es t0.s gq wogiuce 
Sone bitas Guosltp bet ducere non mor. 
Siti Cur anima ntibius <s uoOS amt ics - 

Bees Opole tere abStinere denun trent, 
Meesea pO tips pit Oe Gt OG O rT po res: p onl 
iMeametmn nd psd wero et) a lis vapor bus 
mausineriaa A talk pest 1-1 d ort bus. “hos tila fam, 
Caimedul es ae Gada vy -ernuls) tea ¢ tu, pr och ibe 
Hotn ims pec to rae plhertwm que alli C adiay- 
ereion Ss) ce esp re 1) tur. 
See the passage quoted p. 418. 27. 

Mois Vici t etiam scripsisse Ghaere=- 
momem, quendam ¢ 4. ea quae apud 
Mermy pros Sunt celebrata orum.oribu's 
wen ede hside yeh die Os tri-d-e  nmrarrto 
Sts,  Maxtmanm vim “habere -cogand 


dicvorssea t? favca amit? im pieorvar tae) Gano mminiginers 
Gala ea nimi ant b west NCLOrs It jh erage snes mt pare, uesnee 
viel heme rstre mye) 1G om: man arti at bel rsvesme xt trauma 
Ossie iid i's) m-e m binary dit sist plait en Metre ie tae 
Dmleistee-® midwives its wshic - fa cree: Iu scSaare anne: cal ene 
er init. 

The passage of the Epistula ad Anebontem to which Au- 
gustine here refers is preserved by Eusebius Praep. Evang. 5. 
to (198 A), and by Iamblichus De Mysteriis 6. 5. Partheny, 
in his edition of Iamblichus De Mysteriis, p. XX XIX, par. 3:, 
gives it thus: 70 yap A€yew ore Tov otpavov mpocapake Kal TA KpUTTA 
THs "Iovdos exfavel kal ro ev “ABvdw aroppytov dele Kai THv Bapw 

oTnoe Kal TA péeAy TOV ‘Ociptdos diacKkedace TO Tupaort. 
2 ol 

Aoi. 165 p Toypiev ia da-é'p iys>tew la Coal im emmy epreseine 
seo a beo doce ri’ quae Sit aidisb ¢ ataet ida 
Mem, vid ex Ave ey pitta S.aep te mt ide esemee 
erum., (ios qe bus. con Ve nS-ast 20.8 Canam 
dais. aid “huosc. es sec. “ust, Ob Aon Wc onmne mediate 
fugcitivyvum wel praedium:¢ om pa pan dame, 
alto prop ter mu p tia ss, .Vvie men Galt tae 
wel quad) hewi us.) mode “mpesn team dia smacem 
IP qdubretare nit, fa Wwis.tir a. vesors! yl dherhn onceinc may 
Colwiss.e€ Sapien ta am > la € tiajna aioe 
num na, Cum Guibas “Comey 6S aie mee uae, 
etsitcde Ceteris. Te burs) ver ae p ta cri ererie 
en t,; “tam ene <q wom tam, wide) “bievaet itd teoe 
Dhl (Gra wt Ui “ner.” “Sea toss) pet, deOrtve. lime in Onme 
€xrent, mec deos, mitvos “esse mec blemivsmors 
daemones; «sed awt ‘livoim qu <dytcieoes 
fallax a ult bh usm a n-tom" go) men vee 2c1O mm. ImPes nat eens 

. E P Ses ) 
Partheny, p. 46 sq., gives this as follows: 6€A@ otv zap 
c cal ‘\ > > , eQn 3 A \ >. a lal c 3 Lad 
bpov THv eis evdatpoviay dddv émideral por, Kat év Ti KEtTaL y aiTAS 
3 by / > a c , oie , \ 6 4 ¢ / ED) 
ovola . . . . patnv airots 7 copia eEjoxyntar rept dpamérou eipérews 7) 
4, lal , , al a 
Xwplov avns 7) yapov «i TUXOL 7) euToptas TOV Fetov votv évoxAnTacW: Ei 
} > ~ , c , \ \ an ” ry “7 , 
8? od wapetrae peév, ol ovvovres Tept pev TOV GAAwY TAANOeTTaTA A€youTt, 

‘ SS > 4 3QX > ‘ 39) Se: ” ‘ \ 
mept b€ evdapovias ovdey dadares ovd’ exeyyvov ExovoL, Xa hema jLeV 


Stapederavres Axpyora dé trois avOpwrrois, ok oav apa ovTE Geoi ovr’ 
dyaOot Saipoves, GAN’ i éxetvos 6 Aeyopevos wAdvOS 7 TaV avOpwTwv 
evpnpa Kai Ovytns picews avaTAacpa. 

42324. Gem ad “modum, suo Lycur go 
bacedcacmonit, quod @ love seu Apol- 
Mimgceehe ses ques Cconmdidit, acceéepisset. 

See note p. 72. 3. 

4o4. 13. OW ka — -qrat pp e quae Deiare 
Seaase: oman baes) vel aangeti vel hoomine:s 
Possum bi sew mus) seS\s.e © nin 1 porte m.t.1s 
pomestate quis@quis diffi tet wry 1m sia nit. 

Loesche (De Augustino Plotinizante in doctrina de Deo 
p. 61) cites the words of Plotinus (Enn. 3. 2. 1) as containing 
a similar view: 70 pev To aitopatw Kal TUyy dddvaL TOddE TOD TaVTOS 
Ti ovalav Kat cvotacw ws Gdoyov Kai avdpos ore vovv ote alc Onow 
KexTnevov, SHAY ov Kai mpd Adyov Kal TOAADL ikavol KaraBEBAHVTAL 

/ ~ z 

goa. 16. Die provaden tia @éerte. Plotinws 
Piatonnmeus Gdisputat, eamque da sum mo 
Dictop ee Camis, (ersut. tnet eae cg mbriliis. <a-tiqiuke 
fnewe ff asbiilt's paglicahnr cto dor, WS gq use ad 
Mmaccater rena €t ima _pertin ge re- flo s- 
Smlomum: atquwe foliorum pulehritudprne 
COMM LAOIbaavt | wa 6.0m mia (gua s i abieé.cta 
M WeLoOcis slime. pierre umn tia de cen ta s.- 
Simmvose fox mar im Ssuarum New mee=r- Ors 
be berne non, posse confirmat nisi inde 
DOormeniur, whi forma, in-tellegibalaiss 
Siteinec OM mmntabilis simul habe us omnia 
Pies € Veta. t). 

See Plotinus Enn. 3. 2. 13 (given by Dombart). 

There are other references, not given by Dombart. Thus 
in Enn. 2. 9. 16 Plotinus speaks of the working of divine 
Providence of the world. Compare also Enn. 3. 3, 5. I. 

Compare the passage in Cic. N. D. 2. 45. 116 Sq., 2. 47. 
Peo Ae ut) a? ede Vesti b's ” se Dsus, ard 


tier e;S°t 1esS) Vie a'mous),, iqnunid zs Versite sionaandes 
in. GU ONO n | Natur aie ta C10 miemitredulierogemnecnis 
A pepia tf Ect ¢ Ber in Cat pais C70 au; ma quae 
Cio munud € ) tert a, Sitar pyesextessacc melee 
ta teams dearth .2 1S). ‘qu ase» esas: Falenvesnye pe awe stam 
terra, SWweurm tr ahi mt. qiuco 1} alla mptunteeers 
Gupaie tia ‘diiv¢ ib urs i¢ on, t 1 nye a teat (On ane tan 
burg tice Ini: boneau€, Cour tiCre- tir Wn ie ecient 
Siete 1a uh ft 1ceront ibauis: ef) aul Ost deb ust shal Copreese 
elt, ea way es eh ta eV E-10O. © Perr Paekt Mats Domo ueniee a 
e-SSye1G. Or mrattas.) = malo nay »aedohsigptivteas saeemumtgees 
est amp fow idem tia. -d €.0 rime.) mite astermemaem: 
es Semute re t: | DLevSeE dant Um, Aor emer asic tec OnOneee 
Cin om mii um quuve "re um, = equ ave Slane ema 
Set tpt brass! COM. thin egrvesmotiuar ) Ont ares qo 
dem) Om naa “eam: ) vt Se murals = “hearse mnt 
in sé. out Texan Of pel turn a ove ne rem oer 

426. 23. Til ay nam que vy isivo, .Drem) favour 
pul chr Ctemed a nsis: © “visio CISue et tanto 
aim) Ore « de Medes is 1 omy. esd) te Sle. nae mrcntiEs 
boas ibe € wa lasts: bro nays: “pr a erd: atin aseaq uum 
2 Det nn d'a'n tem inom daw bot ielt: » Pl ontien ay smened 
Freche iS iSaena at ms SO tacleNn iG. 


See Plotinus Enn, 1. 6. 7, 7s 6 pev tvxdv, paxdpios, dpw 
paxapiayv Teeapevos* atvxijs d€ ovTOS 6 py) TUyov. For this visio 
Dei — compare also Abid: a, 6.48" 1.7 0) 1g,. alSousa ana 
OUTw TOL Kal Wuxy aduwtictos aBéaTos exeivov puticbeioa de Eyer O eLyre 
Kal Totto TO TéAos TaAnWdv Wyn, ebaPacba pwrds exeivov Kai ad’Ta 
aito Gedcacba, otk dAAw hurti, GAN’ air@ di ob Kai dpa: ibid 5. 5. 7, 
5.5. 6, 6) 7..34)8q. 6.0. 7, 6. 9. 5. Wombart has piven the 
first of these references. 

A27..20.. UN WS iit ata ~ part li.s- sa nein a laeapae 
Compare, Mivyi 2295) oto. bs: bos ec ulesiga 
Pio Petit. . 27.24. 01. Russ Ca 1 2 aio satin ene man 
Wb. te.. sla cht en fy yethast (moe. oe on ete one 
di giay, bios t14:5) Mea io.t 1206S 5) tO Wis tea eer 


Seton pomemiocume et supp licatio diem 
Rome ad omnmhacpulyinaria, ét al. Com- 

pare also Jul. Obseq. 1 (55), 5 (60), 14 (73), 15 (74); 2° (79), 
25 (84), 26 (85) et passim. 

427, 20. caeclo tienraqgue rerum “i nso li- 
Prauesina Ci. eeSe o'r at. 

Compare ivy <i. 31 1.2; 1 mi eran dine m 
Veet ovo ce inatam in .herras ag unt. 
Cepcinh te ele.e Lde te~  C arerhoe  Wayprid’es 3) oo. % 

RyOM amas: -dalo.d.ue. ab eo dem prodig io 
OMe d lc. -S.acc rum pu bilice suscep tum 

esi. POO CuOne a honor Crane lum arden e 
MiccWeliwes tek hae thse En bl Mm: O-f uy 6 Ome WS sa 
eS tee. ele Dat peor Goll Uma Vel, b.O°S: GS arG <0" usm 

SeCieteh se) lSOre4te Sho tOg Bik AO\ir2a ts 62.4), 220 Tu8.-SG., 
BAL SO. (0% 252 72 8,-et-al.) . Compare also Jul. Obseq. x (55); 
EE (70), £2 ,(7%)5.203(79), 21 (80), et passim. 

Aor oo ee See Cy ed. COG ave, Vil vac pote s)- 

Pateoe Om UM Te ri Satis. eyiden tier 2 p= 
Petes mtenest quad -etfigies:. deo rum 
Pew ait 1, am, quas die Df Oa Ae Maerdas 
Mio eS.) ade xi t. 3. deel l-o.c O | -in.7 lo. ¢ 4m 

MMecor asks Cy met 6r Unt. u fr. 
Sompare Virol Ach. U.-6, 1,68, 1. 376, 2. 71075 4-599, 5. 
632 et passim ; also Servius on Virgil Aen. 1. 378: Varro 

deos pemates quacdam  sigilla lignea 
vel Mearkemvort eae Sabu “Aten ear iin Int: avian 
GeMerone said vWaerentta. sar, 7). dtemn? “Vearro ! hiots 
deos Dra dana m ex Sai. theta Ca in 

Pie igi a: mi, dike Pihry oa Aeneam in 
Pia Mian - mem or at! p'o'r t av is se: 

4o7 toy. quod cotem. Tarquinius mova- 
eatleayiSiece uit 

Decslivy «.'36. 47) at Gg ut bo ¢ a hiimo ag i- 
Pave en aed), it oo tec 1 0, Vi acu la-~c ot ém; d 1 s)= 


CISSUTUM ...s tum i1litm hawed Cume tame 
Cem, dasicindeits.sve ~C1OMt eum nine sunnier icy. we 
Dive To 17.)32), Larquiniws /auvem Se roorn. 
tas's-e) C10 tem: a0 via Cu. la, po. Sse) sp ae eae 
tomy Be Asbat leu) ml) 9 dels Sains Sienna exe ental aueiee ite 
COrem In “Com 1 tiuom Jal ata me” sieniscomerer 
tra nv tree te riergves et, (p.O0p wil Oy moO weavcsUnlea ge sissies 
dit sica.sisia m:./ (Compare Plorus Eptt. 115. acts Dive 
Inst.2. 10. 0rs. abo aug wre Ma pis. © 11 Ovv-a chum 
imcisus est. If Augustine got this not from Varro 
but from another source, it is impossible to say whether that 
source would be Livy, Cicero or Florus as all three give sub- 
stantially the same account, and Augustine’s notice is too 
brief to give us sufficient evidence to decide. 

427. 275. (q wo) di “ap dia ur iS sie hp e nse ese 

Cul apie) nav Pea neni) ORO ma mm. 56onl 6S aagde 
ane ssvinbes 

see Livy Epit: 11> massi leat? wt Avesvem: 
lapi signum Romam ab Epidauro 

tran sPerhent, oan o Ue m agit is-e< dnyen aon 
COLUM COMME hat. in “qo J1pisw ms eaten 
esse constabat, deporta wer Ge t .9) Com- 
pare Val. Max. 1. 8. 2, where a more detailed account is 
given..- Lact. Div. Inst. 2; 16, 11> quod “sien prem 
urbem | Romam “pestilentia “11 bieisaaeiee 
BE pivdaur.0 sac cer Si tase 

427. 28: quod navem;, qua, simulacrum 
Mid tr is Phiriy.eae yvehéebatur, . ta mtis 
h 0M inum’ b.ow im q-ue, Co nati bin s:-1m moib te 
bém Tedditam una (muliercwlazonagare 
ligatam ad-stae pudicitiae te stimome 
(im! Smoot, et. t hawt: 

The name of “the (muliércuwlae was -semudim 
Quinta, “See Livy 29. 14: 12, Cic: De Harusp: Respy tae 7. 
Lact. Div. inst. 2.16, 11: gud Claud ta & sma nom 
avis “se euta est. 


A271 32 1. apw Od virgo Weeds. tah iys., de 
ChimmUES CIO hr ip tome: 1 ia est io vette bai; 
Minera dwar ha plieto. .enisbiro | d.e o Tiberi 
ne que perfiluce nite & bps. tla it 6.0 Lotro 

Wersiam . 
The story is found fully related in Val. Max. 8.1. 5 ; 

Eke CAl-a.€ Vaden soe ites a | NIG: Sutyaall 1s imees ti 
PMnSh Tice melas titas imfamiae, nw bie 
Gorse Ut aka emer s. ht. Oniave “Co nvsi¢ ier tia 

Sera Sime eritatis suae spem salutis 
Mmrciiti areumento ausa petere est: 
Emme por entm “cri bro.“ Vesta” mngquit, 
TMs ac ise tis, CaS tas Semper adm ov 
Mawes errice wt hoc hauriam e Fiber 
aitam et tim aedem tuam- perferam 
wdacrter et temerée tactis votis sacer- 
Poles Cerwin iMpsa natura cessit. * Phrs 
was probably found in the twentieth book of Livy which is no 
longer extant, but the Epitome of which gives Tuccia 
wiecow Nest alis “ti cest? dam nata “est, 
though damnata_ here might imply she suffered the 
usual death penalty, which is the opposite of what we learn 
from Augustine and Valerius Maximus. Compare Pliny H.N. 
pa geie sextat —Lwcerae Vestalis imcestt 
freprecatio Gia USa aquam in ‘cri bro 
foie anno wnmbis DPX VITIY. But: Augustine's 
source here was Varro, as we learn from DCD XXII. 11 (vol. 
be 9s6 82), qGuad _Varnre commemorat., 
Mestalem virgim~mem, cum. periclitare-: 
iii mdse: Patel pio. Rahs a. “Ssuusipica One ~~ ger 1. ba 
Dummy timep hesse: aqua ide: Tiber’ et ad 
Smeasi i udrees nulla -eiuws tperstilbante 
parte portasse.  Francken, Fragmenta Varronis, p. 
121 sq. has assigned this whole passage, p. 427. 16-34. to 

Ace eae NeOmee emi: ire. y) We Ta, |) Wwiti., ait 
Berphyrius et monnwillji) putant, cada: 


Vita nds neicd ori buss se @ «daiwa ness sheormro nm 
Daas, oa mudesnt 

The reference is here to one one of the lost works of 
Porphyry, but we have not sufficient data on which to assign 
it to its particular source. (For an opinion the opposite of 
what Augustine here attributes to Porphyry compare Por- 
phyry De Abstinentia 2. 34.) . 

435. 0:2 xs, Guia’ Yo, piinsicoune: SP se-r pak yorunucoe 
Qiilca mv VS! Myo. 46x09 Sia. “Sieln-t €npiilase eouend 
SN Oot My dict) oun usm) -Sdle Wem,» vse mokeme 
iim 1 Om vem ire: in hom in eum ns 7 smasleurs 
fHIMesiaime aetle Chere epi l a Clastatys . 

The language here used would lead us on conjecture 
to assign the passage to the zepi dvddov Wvy7s and such a senti- 
ment may have been found in that lost work. But the same 
sentiment is found in a fragment of another work of Porphyry 
meat THS Ek Aoytwv diogodias preserved for us by Eusebius Praep. 
Evang. book 4, chap. 23 (174 C): o6ev kat map’ ’Atyurrios Kai 
Tapa Poivge Kat dAws Tapa Ta Geia codots ipavres ev Tots tepots 
émippyaovrat, Kal CHa mposovdtcerar mpo THs OpnoKkeias Tav Dear, 
e€ehavvovtwv TOV iepewv TovTovs O14. TOU dotva TVEdpa 7 aiwa Cowv, Kat 
dua THs TOU dépos TANYHS, va TovTwY arehOdvTWY Tapovaia Tod Heot 
yevytat. This seems beyond doubt to be the passage to which 
Augustine refers, and we know that he was acquainted with 
the éx Aoyiwy gitocogias of Porphyry, for in DCD XIX, 23 he 
mentions that work and gives large quotations from it. 

A396) 19. YDU.c Ht etiam P ommprhty ra aes adie 
OnraculisS -fuisee or espo ns am. nos. snrom 
Persia 1a tena es sted eit iuseea tue esol iacee 
Dene Gq uve e.o die m Adu Cat, Sor arc seor gepxeprtiee sie 
Sm. Sp reine Isp tay Ypr0rSrs¢e) aprucr ss ar er. Wea ieee 
emnaiem: Dar ma Pia trie mai) et. GD ea tat Sil ee 
quem) Gra eiciejsaipip e liiva-t uv Uprartije rn siete 
tellectum vel .patenrnmam, mem teu aacre 
Spa tatily a wit e7m) <s arn ertio; aru Mic bailar 
poem” Sa pe® te. tad tigress Sdhivcmte quamvis 


Guise aie ain mCi a te her em mie di wm “non 

Augustine does not make any statement as to the work of 
Porphyry from which he has given this extract. He is prob- 
ably quoting from the zepi dvddov Yuyns (De regressu animae) 
On p. 446. 27 he refers to the same passage, and also on p. 
447. 25, and in the same chapter he says he has quoted much 
from the same work of Porphyry. 

A20.099.- one (6 Nei Mm) atae £it.lam, “sieu t” Plo tix 
DtoeeUnbntead ce) att DUS \ pyr nictpra Ii, brew sy ‘su “bi- 

stantiis dats! put tia: t., 2. hin ae. Aba tty ram 
euunigcmilie dus: ter iy et beitt tm tel bie i, non. tw &i- 
CpuucamG 4c eunte tush Oasis. jm Edd Wome. - > 4.5 -P ONS tye 

PeOpinint en i prpse. |) PRO .t mus, anima e.) natu 1 = 
Sune acre nto NOt Tn Ene ele: £10, 
The first book of the 5th Ennead is devoted to a discus- 

sion Tepl ToV TpLOV apyLKOV UToTTATEwY. 

AST e205 einer 2 dare am U's (armen quod 
MeaLesrert 1G Shae enlel ain’, euen dem exstsue 
Ravan) dwt esst et Hilt ws., ~et seun diem 
Mme uemime es dic tum qwrt €s.t “Ct Pia t er "et 
a Wd: Sy 

Compare Augustine De Haeresibus 41 (BE. 8. 32): 
Sraeoren etait Dh eieh ko! INGO eti0. 3 6 ond hen burrs 
ieee dis Cc pul um elws “q'am “per- 

Deorernves fb Wtis.s C= S a be blihwm-. .. ©’ aon o dio 
Gees beet tran is: “intelliei potest ium 
Mim Onewve tt Netw wd i Cre re Brave emesis pr arsis) win, 
iden Prat riopiatss ami: 1 q wam iS a belli and 
meer vuss ae pre n-tane rl ess V el) q-uvol- 
MirOncdrOnapeOusisi Moto tre dio 1 sqm ic) beert> o'r wm 
Pat, en” “pass um Puniiss eo mos die ete es; 

erin. cet Cravnt ) em n-dre m INDSMUpMee eLSiSve’ Unekt 
Pore m ef sb rim set S prritum sian c'- 
tum? Ad Orosium contra Prisc. et Origen. 1. 4. 4, (BE 8. 
G7n)ce eer sie a) lisa na s> ASta-bel la an aim: » sain tas 


quum doema restitwit., abteo.psie | Leave, 
Guu, Ei iews. = quad et) (Spuiget ainsi Stas ncataties 
prewiy bvi bie tuesr.. Also Contra Sermonem Arianorum 34. 
32.)Contta, Maximinum, yo. 03):)7¢, A: lyibw me yesh Os wersisze 
Paditiy © ill mali tet = Le, Sustc Ea lim... oq uso aranmd 
NOMA ecset.§ se ate t= 451.5, er, oT th = VE Secs ewe 
WO, DE1iS) 1.C10, tt cide ny ab) © Illia nyOlSy Sie ;Set AG. On canting 
COmmiuneées Sermo 71. 3..5 (BE. 5, 448). Compare also 
Jerome Comm. in Ep. ad Eph. chap. 4., vv.’5. 6. (BE. vol. 

TaCOla Sori ore autem de-€2O+ et) Optics 
Sa bre initin sq ute un die a Dre ow m9 (2a toeeam 
ar Dit tart ur Et Falieum >) con fam axdsitara@e 
pier sora s 4 aim ~e ain dé im. | dt vinta ej 
Wee TiOngrunes » W/E perieih Cunedi tet. Eusebius H. E 72 6 

speaks of the heresy of Sabellius : ovros dveBots kat BAacdypiav 
mov EXoVTOS TEpl TOU TavTOKpaTopos Oeod, TaTpOS TOD KUpLoV MOV 
"Inootd Xpiorod, amiotiav te ToANV TEpt TOD povoyevors 7aLdds aiTov Kal 
TpwTOTOKOV TAaTNS KTicEws, TOD evar OpwrnoavTos Adyov, avacOyolav dE 

Tov aylov mvevmaros, and Epiphanius, Haer. 62. 

442.14. EB toan eel ois goaliipimp escalimos) jessisre 
di xt; quilt, <diexo.r sam! sdiersicie mn deem te:sa naon mie 
inh buss) —t hie ure re iS “divi ned. pao manimetiecrnmes 
alanis) aut em) quis ins ter rds. ea og taes sb ant amis 
Sint. @t -altitudi mem iis  p po tw nicmaaae 
t eam que. - dverc are mit 2 ck ee ee) nndae sO; peataianiog 
adam iounre t. “eta atmy i pisses Peleart onic. 1S. seme 
tandos €OS petius , quan “ny 0 cand ome 

It is impossible to say with certainty to which work of 
Porphyry this fragment belongs—probably to the zepi dvddov 
yox7s (De regressu animae), from which he quotes largely. 
Compare DCD X. 9 (p..416. 9); Quamquam, 1 tadqme 
disicéernat a, dajem oni bus) ange los 5 which 
is evidently from the De regressu animae. Wolff (Por- 
phyrii de philosophia ex oraculis haurienda librorum reliquiae. 
Berlin, 1856. p. ¢46) thinks this fragment may belong to the 
Tepi THS ek Aoylwy didocodias. 


A444. 91.. Noon enyivm te dverc Je; nis See it 
(Gnmirstus) quem ywestra,  ut.tu ipse 
Scmibms |) -Ordacada | stam ct am vm morta l- 
enneG tice On f e€'s*s av Stunt). 

It is likely that Augustine’s statement here refers to the 
work of Porphyry, entitled xara Xporavov. Our knowledge 
of this work is so small that we cannot assign Augustine’s 
reference, even if it comes from that work, to its place among 
the fifteen books composing the xara Xpiotiavav. We may 
say, however, that it probably was not found in the first book 
which treated of the contradictions of Scripture, or in the 
third, which contained a discussion on the various 
modes of interpreting Scriptures, or in the fourth, which 
comprised the early Mosaic period and Jewish antiqui- 
ties, or in the twelfth or thirteenth, in which were his criti- 
cisms of the book of Daniel. If the above statement oc- 
curred in the xara Xpiorvavdv how did Augustine become in- 
formed of it? Did he read that work in the original? We 
think this isimprobable, and that itis likely Augustine read the 
kata XpuotiavGv in a Latin version. Even this it is not neces- 
sary to suppose, because the attack of Porphyry on Chris- 
tianity became so fanious and widely known, and called forth 
so many replies from the Christians, it is very easy to see how 
Augustine may have got hold, from what was popularly known 
of Porphyry’s views, of such an interesting admission as that 
the enemies of Christianity acknowledged Christ to be divine. 
Compare Augustine, De consensu evang. 1. 15. 23: Quid 
Mics ti vant. Christi Laudatores et 
Crust ian aes cli giomi Ss etbyhigqui obtre¢;> 
PMtOres) DhoOptenea cnon audent  blas- 
pmemare Christum, quia quidam phila- 
SOM, Sie utcin Libris ;sui1s. Pio,r’- 
PApneis Sicwlus prodidit, consulerunt 
dcos Sues guid’de Christo tesponder- 
emt mila awtemaanaculis -sit#is, Chri gstum 
laudare compulsi sunt. May the statement of 


Augustine, on which we are commenting, have been taken 
from Porphyry’s zepi trys &k Aoyiwy dirocodia ? 

446. 13. Coniiteris. tame noe ta ams pu 
tolem a2nimam “Sine th eu tele is) ase moms 
Ct ws imle je elie tsh. Uc bi So cbt US t fad aes creme 

dines. fe lear) © er aeStiline « \p.05S Sve CO Metin ea tage 
Welitetet e Pouiieca ta. Aliquando etiam 
davciys agin ord.) ate Mertiace 7 i.’ “pioySph. a ronn tse smn 
eMiew- avn to e-ainsikm aum:, = ut ast ea exc.» @ leu acmentaa 

ips is eqn aim. sup icraetual-eom™ sole ais. sa daceaud 
prowsit hia iws= vata er of an e3m p rTiord eis sie. @ vataceer- 
am. tires; 6 tin st aomce mn {er Sash hga se sce) mn lets 
Mond ws  yeest. Weer p26 44 Sas \<in ao -e1G eae nae see eumONe 
mee tue nd aim. id i-¢i Ss. cia 1 te mi eavse even 
Picstaoci te 14s) wyerls dyp.Sid) WS ia) Cob Om sibs 2, 

_ Here again we have a fragment, no doubt from the zepi 
dvddov Yux7js (De regressu animae) to which we should also add 
line 26:below: Liem ot an ti asm: (Cie -r,tie Meo sp tospises: 
6a.m,. smraltias -vastivea,) (pe) moat dears ot, elbeniaaes 
purgari dicis, sed- p-er -s.o1 um Gruzpucosrvoi, 
inde ve"Sutt Wpcavt ie nia mM. Som: Esn tie. mS eis bee 
hevc:ttum , (qawis pat er ia eb cis -Ciomn Ssiciis arog 
Gienatia Cis 3 

446, 29; wn cau tem) Cir as tae roecec 
non Creadis 2 "Conte ln 1's enim (uma pe 
ter cor pis. ex)” Memmi mias” Gatccie wp teem eee 
propter of U cis lo pp Lo Draiam-: 

The connection of these words with the foregoing would 
perhaps suggest that they came from the same work of Por- 
phyry, namely zepi dvddov wuxjs (De regressu animae). The 
first part, however, Hun¢ autem Chris t um-esse 
non credis, is probably only an inference drawn by 
Augustine from the words of Porphyry. We know from the 
opening words of chap. 29 that Porphyry did treat of tres 
deos:  Praeditas’ Patrice met ern oe haliran 
quem vocas pra er aaa i nt et ltere tt uem 


Sven eth te lin se ty HeOCk tinny ame'd:1 i m').-+q te m 
Palen es er il © emeais putt t Gm os an tusm', 
Sst On Cay eC St Lo, wap pre-bivas, tr-e.s. “d 0's". 
Here Porphyry may have paused and said such things against 
Chricsteas!  Aueustine sxives: UCprop ter “corpus ¢x 
PewmMrun a. -avcrc.eip bum), “Ere pirio pt er (‘cru cis 
opprobrium), but it is more likely that this state- 
ment comes from Augustine’s general knowledge of the sub- 
ject matter of Porphyry’s xara Xprotiavar, 

AAS ero. VUetet 1S -¢ tia i. AiO ¢ Ver b;0 a pe r= 
Pwnese SU weld O Meise Gre mt en tt am ¢S.e que ns 
Mee wesc Outi mits pin hea‘cl vita blo m ine m 
ii Wow inOrd-O.' wad) p er fe.c fi Oo Merl “Sa. p ise-n = 
Mime por wen trier Se CG umd wm intel le ctu m 
fae 1 VoGvS nti b WS. O-m ne quod: deers t 
Peo widemina “Det “et gratia. post hance 
Watpeccui "prOls'S er, COM plea 1. 

A493 165) Vcous- 6 “C.e rte toa Mts beh kDa teal S 
Mewgiheive tat elec tua lik Gua e-anmi ma utique 
Mmm iva EStiut Gam Cons ubstan-tia hem 
fuente hit ment: quem en Ft lium 
Cormennte ihe. af ike fl -p.O\S.S-ex 1d i-C.a ti. S: 

These seem to be also taken in substance from the zepi 
dvddov pvxjs (De regressu animae). 

“ag. 25s EP orp hy rru min his ip sis’ lis 
Dies ee = Ghik ibe ss’ mat itia-\p-o ssid "sq uo s*) die 
ei te sisi wai dt meates (S.¢ rips) it): 

In these words Augustine states the source from which he 
has quoted so much above (beginning DCD X. 9). 

WAG. 20. tsa ee Dt Oo Sp rae Ci pe re om n € 
Ek ptus es Se ene en Guim, (“at anim ap ois'= 
Siu Oecraitid «pe bimane re cum’ Deo. 

These words are mentioned directly in connection with 
the De regressu animae. 


4aQ) Si... Pela to nie. @ Ui p prep a Wi Ct ojmen wanes 
mia one ssa. diet ts. (mM us ndsuimay est. va means 
bea kiss mim <quod “yu litis |e sise" te tia 
6) Ml paveen now: 

Another fragment, no doubt, of the zepi avddov Yyxjs. This 
reference from Plato is Timaeus 30 B (as given by Dombart). 
To this fragment of Porphyry we should add as evidently a 
a continuation: 

450..2. So Liem (quoquce istum) et jee terme 

Siiedeerhal SiOme SO.luy m=. on: |) lasbiruies” veeisutynutEs 
COLpPOLra esse Latemini quod vo bisteumm 
Onmenves | ho maene:s et COM Sip imcereinic non 
Cournre tran) taulre sext e e dace snie o) ) Vlerrimie menteinasin 
SuletuvOsmes: Hunt (OUsbiact lS, peer t tia) ihbasesc wesSpore 
animalia Db Ca tus sim a ple flat be tues eat 
Cami ehylSs sCiOMlAD OG 1 Das" *s'e Mpa te mmyar. 

AGT.© 2. Gute tktoea S)acnc tro; Ste mre (Samp nine 
CuvakneOwen SOU epyousst-ca, MM €.datvoul ame musi eee 
GalerSulay ee prance SJesd iit) Ae 90 11S.C © pt se. 

This Simplicianus is mentioned in the appendix of Genna- 
dius to the De viris illustribus of Jerome, 37: Simpli- 
Cian wsr, “mst 1 s)) sesprirsvtow Is hy Osntea. feu Se easet 
Ag espt im ulm. a dheuc pres bystce % Wan: a oaiieeaniee 
hn CeIn Wm (et) esop Osi tom 1 | SiC Ll pause steuers 
Vidi Cea be, Ut. set ljacmy §enyOunatls @ Gruigd acm eeeG 
be iOyS 1 abs Origenis  <epyocarnms videretur. 
Compare: Aueustine, Conf: 8.1, a. 8.22.3) Rerract gears We 
Sam pelivc ayaen Wem. (eicicMe isu aves Meesd nrg laa mem satis 
antes tite m. 6G wi. byera tases m0" —Solec G.e.seSmur 
Ambrosio. Augustine addressed also two books De 
diversis quaestionibus ad Simplicianum. Simplicianus was ac- 
quainted with Ambrose, by whom he was regarded with deep 
respect. We have four letters which Ambrose addressed to 
him: Epp: 39. 38. 01. 67. 

451. 16: Nam Phatonem animas homi- 
Num post Mortem. rev olay ses euure sare 


Ei oOrda bestia wm SCrUpP Sis Se ce Tr ti-s:- 
STM wie €:S't.. 

Compare Plato, Phaedo 81 E, Phaedrus 246 B, 249. B, 
Laws 903 D, 904 E, Timaeus 41 E-42 D.. But Augustine did 
not get this from Plato, but from the Latin version of Ploti- 
nus. Compare Enn. 3. 4. 2. 

Apt eloa) SO iO. tamee nm —iowre ~dois.- 
Pal@ehes (i> Ger. anima Ss: hve min um) ~p ost 
MOM tie Mm) 9 re vol v 1 Wsq ue ad CO hprOnua 
Igegss taht nell m).)\. 

400292. Wie Sai erm tn <s.0-l-o/S. h-o-mon mess 

humanas animas Dot ae copii 6a rt DLOuS! 5.e 
Sie Mt ©. €.t. peer tm vors apn £ eo Cider ve Tes 
Civccon tocar e Myint me Cw. b it aynext, Ducat 

Coadeacmos ards beolcy) Dre it, ayn imam. am, wu ned oO 
emit Sis.e 4Ut “Mant enia-e€), Coie no Sucjie ns: mearlia 
PGianrwastin Cul), shies Utaner €f .ne Cc, sa ji qtianod o 
ham taliun pollwta ¢contagiome tenere- 
Cou Tt 

A528 quod mundatam ab ommibws 
males Jan imam (“€t “cum “Patrie cons tit a 
Sam. mim quam am arala muadir fLwirus 
Macs rad Wes sver eo nies Sus) es tt 

A5s.ct. Vdd t hoe fF Or p bhiy fi WS, ip wre a= 
Pamegnie Anta Op “hoc revwenti dixtt 
Adee atrem me aliqguand©® iam malorum 
Patina CO nite oLone t.ene at ur. 

See Culm saitem, dicwt Pomp hy rus 
im epMEiemTO. islX ta af imeem: ive Pore ore ss \u 
animae isbaron mn om.d am: fe.Gre pit mi | in 
Una quandam sectam quod universa- 
imecomtinedat Viam <anivmaeé liberan dave 
Wew sae piilesophia Werrssima aligqua 
Weta ienidomiim, mo fib. ws \7a¢) “dis C1 pr 
Dama: 5 aut ind we tio me C hald-ae o rum 


asut) acla-a.. -qonia lich et. > v- ica). no nd Miami pe ihe einen 
Stam wotitia m, anid em \- viva: me ahs tio cia 
C1O1.e tl tet dO me — peor lia zt ayn 

These all seem to be taken in substance from Porphyry’s 
mepi avooov Wuyns. The last fragment, on Augustine’s own 
statement, is taken from the first book of Porphyry’s work. 

451. 16.-Hoanc. <Senten tivam "Pompe yeni 
Gone O tie mimiaitt ert. Palost in ties. 

Compare (with Dombart) Plotinus Enn. 3. 4. 2. kairo Wyn 
Taoa eémyedcitar Tov aivxov, emt TavTns padtota: ai 6 GAAa aAXos. 
mavrTa b€ oipavov wepiToNet GAoTE év GAXots Eider, 7 ev GtTOyTLKG ELdeL, 
} &v NoytKO 7 &v aita Te PuTiKO.... “Ooo. pev ovv Tov avOpwrov 
ernpnoav, tad avOpwrot: dco dé aiaOyoe povov eCnaav, Coa, arr’ 
pev aicOynoe peta Ovod, Ta dypia Kai 7 dtapopa H ev TovTOLs TO didhopov 
Ta. axoAaoTa Tov Céwv Kal yaotpipapya: €i d€ pndé aicOyoe peta TOVTOY, 
GAA vobeia aicOnoews per aitav, Kal puTd. jovov yap TovTo 7 
padiota evyipye TO putikov, Kal Av avrois pederyn SevdpwOHvar. Tors de 
diropovaovs pev, Kabaplovs b€ ra adAa cis TA WdiKAa, Tods dé dAoyws 
Baoiréas, detovs, ei py GAAN KaKia apetn. jreTewpoAdyous b€ dvev 
ppovnwews, €is TOV Ovpavoy del aipopevous, Eis OpvELs pETEWpOUS Tats 
mince: 6 O€ Ti ToALTUKiV apeTnV, avOpwros: 6 b€ ArTOV aperys 
TOALTUKHS peTEeXwV, ToALTLKOV CHov, 7) péeALTTA Ta TOLAITa. Bouillet in 
a foot note on the above cited passage of Augustine says, 
‘*Plotin n’ affirme pas que les ames humaines passent dans le 
corps des bétes” (Les Ennéades de Plotin. French transla- 
tion. Paris 1859, vol. 2. p. 534). Bouillet, however, seems 
to refer only to Enn. 1. 1. 12, but the same can hardly be 
said of Enn. 3. 4. 2. cited above. 

an a ft ‘ 7 
rye ah “fo a 
oc a 
4 a qt fu ; 




The question as to the extent of Augustine’s acquaint- 
ance with Greek necessarily projects itself into any investiga- 
tion of his sources. Was his knowledge of Greek so rudi- 
mentary and limited as to be of no practical use to him? 
Or was he so thoroughly versed in Greek literature as to be 
able to consult at pleasure any writer in that language whom 
he pleased? Or, while not so rudimentary as to be of no ser- 
vice, and not so comprehensive as to give freedom, was it 
such that in case of necessity he could consult a Greek 
author? Each of these views has had advocates. The one 
extreme view has been adopted by Gibbon (Decline and Fall, 
chap. 33, vol. 3, p. 407 in Bury’s edition): ‘‘ According to the 
judgment of the most impartial critics the superficial learning 
of Augustine was confined to the Latin language.” For the 
opposite view we may cite the words of Augustine’s Benedic- 
tine panegyrists (Vita Augustini 1. 2. 5, works BH, vol. 1. 69): 
Bea tamee nm quant lac wmiquie Gira ecisen— 
Mm ons 01 6 tata: Guam) sabi, -¢ oa) p auganveeemace 
wsiqu¢ ade or fe lisct-e5 urs ues) esse aan tesa 
ips€- pro inniatac. modiestia eibucs: Stee 
dem profess us €sset, Litters) Grae cus 
ad prime. eruditus vided Spo tum iisisreine 
Nam Jesit  Epiphania icioamy\e n ta cuoms 
de haeresibws “auwt? Certe. biré vy tami 
610s nondum Latinict ate donatum. 
Dein, deo Cail io ru im patrum Grace orum 
libros pervolvit € “qguibus Pestim omnia 
non pauwca déeprompsit adwersus thacre- 
tie os : “deni que. crebira Graecan wim io 
CUM interpretatio quae passim anycemms 
Ooppsculis Occureie, ac complurium 
Sie Ed pt-uit ae lorco rium CX e011 adtayomre 


epidgica mi iGrTracciorim, cum), Latinis res - 
Edtniti-oudioe wim én to iesis’e possunt Au gus- 
Emam | hyaund {titan puediocriter ,Graece 
Ss civiss e—though it will appear later that this view is not 
so extreme as some consider it. To decide between such op- 
posite views, to accept one or the other or to reject both, we 
propose to ask and answer two questions: (1) What does Au- 
gustine himself say as to his knowledge of Greek? and (2) 
to what extent do Augustine’s works show a use of Greek ? 



Compare’ Conk t13, 20, Quid autem erat 
Sausace “ont  Graecas litteras od¢eram 
Gia bwso spe mulms. aim bite bya fF; me) manic 

Gangadsews mah Satis. ex pl Of at wm.’ sess t. 
an Ngeuta tm enim atin as, mom’. [q fais 
Preah Ln atenser isis ed .qu.ais. doieemt iq att 

Sida i wo Camitur. <Navm ddilas pri- 
Messe uabel beigvemrie |) €t esiewiib erie ejt) maim ei - 
a ints desea tin, on on minus onerosa:s 
poem atkesqnue habe biavm quam omnes 

Grrmrei@aS 5) asain 1.24, 23, Cur ergo Gyr ajecam 
Cian i igi mimva tiie am o.dieram .ta)liacan- 
te nsem2- Nam ict Homers -preritus cex- 
eare traskuensy of acbved liais eit dulcissime 
Wid .eSit Je, miishi \ tamien amarius ‘em ast 
puero. Here Augustine is speaking solely of his early 
boyhood and schoolboy days. Many who afterwards became 
proficient in Greek have felt just as Augustine felt on their 
first introduction to the elements of Greek. And Augustine 
does not here speak as one who so hated Greek that he never 
learned it. He looks back with surprise to his early days and 
wonders why it was he did not like Greek (ne nunc qui- 
dem mahi Satis exploratum est); Besides 
he seems to have been disgusted with the methods employed 
bywhisteacher’ (nulla enim verba illa nowv- 


emia =e Ss aie v is 2 te ro ma bowls) gascun pLOKe mes 
Ut: 0.0 S'S em) ins ta bart f sm pha Sviehe memt ere 
Conf. 1. 14. 23). We know, however, from the above cita- 
tion that he read Homer at school, however distasteful the 
task was. . 

In De Trin. prooemium 3. 1, we read, Quod-+si ea 
@riurave-sie7eviom ins dee! hyi Ge rie bess eSauLiaiic ave mee 
Doers <6, dugtan aon. “ia tyisn-oncS ctr oe Caran tintin 
Suse tanuete Iso) Me enh Ve nA cat ne ate A ee eeneere 
duit faeny Viens a nobis en Vaewsl lent Guu esunty. 
Grave Cave | autem, hin ¢-4 acon oul @Siist: aneoromes 
tametus: hia bi tis: ut. “ta lasumi nr ein wim aebrees 
iseroe mid ass) Vest Sin tel bio en ox emgerdan 
esp Cnet. aim ur aedsO Net + VqEuNO SOE neon nlaitatceeiae 
ah um xX is. iqultave- no base par wicia inst emaapemer 
tpavica =. JS nt. mcnso mn de ba -t-0) Ci meat a eens 
titi let er Gq uae mer € -p 0.S's um use © omnst imniee rate 
In these words Augustine means that his knowledge of Greek 
was not sufficient for him to read the Greek fathers who had 
written on subjects connected with the Trinity. The passage 
certainly implies some acquaintance with Greek, and that 
rather limited. We may well suppose that in such an import- 
ant work as the De Trinitate, on which the author spent so 
many years, he would have read the Greek fathers, who ex- 
celled in this very subject, if his knowledge of Greek had 
been by any means sufficient to the task. Augustine evidently 
did not find himself at home in the vast field of Greek theo- 
logical writings. It is only fair to state, however, that a 
piece of Greek on such an abstract and difficult subject as 
the Trinity would not be the easiest kind of reading for one 
like Augustine, with his limited knowledge of that language. 

Contra, Litteras: Petiliani 32:38: of, » et? -e-oeR ane 
die im." (Girave cale: initiate “ope Topaa Gn Papsaswe 
Ci tus Ss wmPce t pr oper snd hicl <\ no ny tea men 
im pudenteri di¢o- "me pn osiste ) Aor. inom 
esse unum sed totum, -é€t «a? ddov secun- 
dum totum. Augustine uses these words in a contro- 


versy, and no doubt there is some modesty in them. He 
frankly confesses he knows very little about Greek, just enough 
for his present purpose. So much for what Augustine says 
himself about his knowledge of Greek, from which we would 
conclude that while he was not a master of that tongue, and 
while he did not claim to know much about Greek, he could 
use it somewhat when necessary. If we can prove that his 
knowledge of Greek was neither exact nor extensive, his own 
words also prove that he has made no such pretension. 

These three are the only passages where Augustine com- 
ments directly on his own knowledge of Greek. 


We turn now to ask to what extent do Augustine's works 
show a knowledge of Greek? What use did he make of what 
amount of Greek he knew? Does an investigation in this mat- 
ter prove that Augustine knew more or knew less Greek than 
he himself has stated, as*’we have seen above? 

1. First, let us examine Augustine’s use of Latin trans- 
lations from Greek authors. In Conf. 8. 2. 3 he says com- 

Mew OMaaVele WCCO 1 S.Sves me) <q. 0 s.dia my- hi bi r.ofs 
EebateOiic OF um >, qiuos. VIC torn us.:q u.o.ns 
Gramm kine toot: ir Dats: Roum @e v2.46) im 2 Liat 

nam linguam transtulisset, which books he had 
mentioned previously as having in his possession: quos-~ 
‘ams bela & 0) n-1 OO tam Jivb ft 0 \S:< 6x5 (Gale .c.a 
Pimec tay i mM: yay CAs. MV (iE SiO Sx (7-92 1:3). 

Here we may pause to ask who are the Platonici, or 
Neoplatonists, to whom Augustine refers in these words? In 
DCD, VIII. 12 he gives the chief Greek Platonists as Plotinus 
Iamblichus and Porphyrius. Of an acquaintance with the 
works of lamblichus we find no trace whatever in the writings 
of Augustine. Loesche (De Augustino Plotinizante in doc- 
trina de Deo, p. 26) says Tum ITamblichum semel 
fiat, a i nominatum vix degustasse 
videtur. So also Grandgeorge (Saint Augustin et le Néo- 


platonisme, p. 41). The other important Neoplatonist whom Au- 
gustine mentions is Apuleius, whose works are in Latin. From 
the above statements, and from the fact that Augustine so 
frequently mentions, and cites from the writings of Plotinus 
and Porphyry, we may safely decide that these are the Neo- 
platonist writers whose works he read through the Latin 
version of Victorinus. We should expect that if Augustine 
had had an easy reading knowledge of Greek he could not have 
failed to read or at least occasionally consult in the original the 
writings in which was embodied the system of philosophy to 
which he himself was so much attached, and from the in- 
fluence of which he never escaped ; and specially is this so 
when we consider that the original Greek of Porphyry and 
Plotinus was far better suited to express philosophic ideas and 
abstract subtilties than was the Latin of his version. We 
should thus expect Augustine to have used Plotinus and Por- 
phyry in the original (had his knowledge of Greek been suffi- 
cient) as a modern English-speaking scholar reads French and 
German treatises. 

We ask next whether Augustine read Plato and did he 
read him in the original? The writings of Plato cannot be in- 

cluded inthe quosdam libros Platonicor um 
quoS OVictorinws > os. tn line uam ati 
nvasim J terainrs-t walasis:et = Nor have we the slightest 

suggestion from any source that the same Victorinus trans- 
‘ lated the works of Plato. In fact we can find no trace what- 
ever of any complete Latin version of Plato in the days of Au- 
gustine. We know that Cicero translated and paraphrased 
portions of Plato. Did Augustine then read Plato for himself 
and in the original? There is one passage from which we 
might feel tempted to infer that he did so, namely De beata 
Vitat. 4: Sed ne in philosophiae sfrem- 
ium eeleriter adv.olaT em, fart. o©r 
uxoris Hhonorisque ilecebra. detine- 
Dar> ut Cum haec! €s stim. is 
tim demim me, quod -pawcis felircuse 
Simi-s lienit; ‘*totis veLlis Som nb us que 


remiS in ‘*tllhim simum rapeéerem ibique 
con guiesc ere ur. imecieiss 5a.u) tiem: “Psitat= 
tonis paucissimis Paber tis: Gwiws: te 
esse Studicsrsstmium pi, co lars 
taqguwe Cuin eis, quantum potwi, etiam 
ChoOrtm “awetortitate qui “divin'a: my si- 
teria tradideéerunt. We cannot, however, build 
an argument for Augustine’s direct knowledge of Plato (or 
portions of Plato) on this passage when we take into account 
the fact that five manuscripts read PJlotini for Platonis. Even 
apart from this, and taking the passage as it stands, this single 
statement may not count for much, being unsupported by any 
other direct or indirect references, and other considerations 
must be given due weight. Augustine’s knowledge of Plato is 
more general than specific, nor is it so great as is generally 
supposed. His knowledge of the doctrines and philosophy of 
Plato is such as he could well derive from an intimate acquain- 
tance (such as he had) with the Neo-platonist philosophers. 
These latter who revived Plato and sought to re-establish his 
influence in the form of Neo-platonism had of necessity to bring 
forward again the fundamental teachings of their master. 
From this source Augustine could derive a very considerable 
second-hand knowledge of Plato: and many of the doctrines of 
Plato which he mentions and discusses are common to Plato 
and to the Neo-platonists, and he found them chiefly in Plotinus. 
This has been well stated by Grandgeorge (Saint Augustin et 
le Néo-platonisme, Paris 1896, chap. 1, p. 53) ‘‘les doctrines 
dont ils’ agit étaient pour la plupart communes a Platon et 
aux néo-platoniciens, et les ressemblances que |’ on signale 
avec Platon se retrouvent pour Plotin. Que reste-t-il done du 
Platonisme de Saint Augustin ? Peu de choses si |’ on recherche 
ce qui, en lui, a été exclusivement inspiré par Platon et son 
école proprement dite ; des ressemblances assez grandes, une 
impulsion assez considérable si |’ on considére ce que ses 
théories offrent de commun avec le platonisme et le néo-pla- 
tonisme.” In addition to the knowledge of Plato derived from 
Neo-platonism, no doubt Platonism itself as a system was dis- 


cussed in the schools in the days of Augustine, and thus 
he would have the opportunity of learning the teachings 
of Plato from the lectures of his professors. Even if Platon- 
ism or the system of Plato was not discussed in and for itself, 
it must of necessity have been studied, at least in its elements, 
as an introduction to Neo-platonism. We may conclude 
then that Augustine derived his knowledge of .Plato, not from 
the original Greek, and also not from any complete 
Latin version, but from versions of some portions of Plato such 
as those made by Cicero, (as for example the Timaeus, which 
Augustine tells us he quotes: Nivea pres ePilartro-niies 
hearevcr Viele beaySs Wun tS ishise ute ia = Care a son maenn 
ina timium, “wertit. DCD. 0nIl 16, pes 7 5on7)-eomanne 
writings of Cicero in general, who often discusses 
Pilato; and’ 1nforms~ us: (of; his’), doctrimes;, jas sinestne 
now lost Hortensius (which must be regarded as a 
chief source of Augustine’s knowledge of philosophy ; see 
Literary Sources, p. 23), from such of the fathers as Lactantius, 
from his intimate acquaintance with the translated writings and 
theories of the Neo-Platonists, especially of Plotinus, and from 
the discussions on Plato and Platonism in the schools of his 
day. From Apuleius also he derived some knowledge of Plato, 
and probably also from the De philosophia of Varro, with 
which Augustine was familiar, as we learn from DCD XIX. 1-3. 

Returning to our subject—Augustine’s use of translations—- 
from de Haeresibus 83, we learn that Augustine read the 
Church history of Eusebius in the Latin translation of Rufi- 
aus: SC im. Bors ebai1. hos thot) amy sc fa fatades 
elsisreim 5) (Cua, ( “Sve. tone Sle sact Aenea 
linguam tiiasnrs leabace SU bse q U enti um 
etiam tem po-niu my duos: lab ros saididugdiace 
In a letter to Jerome (Ep. 28. 2) he requests the latter to send 
to North Africa a translation of the Greek commentators in 
order that he may be able to consult them in a Latin version: 
Pié tim a Ser gion elt nm osbyi-S.c um pie ee osname 
Avi iC aunvacru min e-e1c lesa alr aim, (Sutpordsi.0; Sia ones 
Créetas, wt aniterp£e tan d is. -¢o7u mil bees 


CeahignGerareve eGo pe ba pyteh ais, | W-O.S.t- Fas 1) quam 
O:p: time raed Ver wart. curam ast q) We 
Ome Lam (tn pe nm dre rie non Citta ve Tiss... Liotres 
Saimin eek fi leclenr. 6) | upt.. (yO Ss) osq uo7g we’, hia bea: - 
itty Se trance S) gall iOUSt)iWaieG OsSii ete U TY im “ p.o.t1's « 
Saaimmey qe ft cin tars. litters sonas. 
In this case a translation was not at hand, yet Augustine pre- 
ferred to send to Jerome for such rather than to attempt the 
Greek commentators himself. 

When he quotes Homer, it is in a Latin version, as in 
DEW Veo ielsis sq Ord.u-e . vie S us. ~Ho meric 4 

PAGpULOUSML GC Eos) tin efaaty. ow my we Best-ts 

From the above citations we see that Augustine on all 
ordinary occasions preferred a Latin version when he could 
get it. The fact that Augustine shows this propensity for 
using translations, taken by itself, would lead us to think he 
knew very little about Greek, but we cannot draw a complete 
conclusion from this single feature alone. 

2. Second. In regard to Augustine’s use of Greek 
words and phrases. There are many such _ scattered 
throughs his. works:,) Compare DCD ,IV.. 21, -quod 
Cima e Ge per) Giinerist a. Vi tide tu sSy Ve Zr, 
Se tay iti t em Tie: birort. Om ius quam Narpetav 
Camere, wao,cjammte. Vive. podos (Grae ce, d-arbralea 
dicitur; VII.1, deitate m—@edryra; VII. 6, mun- 
dt .QivenmeG. raee 1 WO Can t-xcopoy + -VII...3,) <p a.- 
ast won Gar a-enc. 15 | oupavoy.a:prpse llamt: VIL. 35. 
vexuiopavretay (Or vexpomavreiav). So also VIII. 7, évvofas; VITII. 
17, 7dOos; X. 1, Opyokela, cioéBerav, Geore Bear, Narpeta. i 2Ge 
matpuxov vov id est paternam mentem sive 
intellectum. XI. 13, drdcywa; XIII. 24, wvedpa, rvo7. 
In De Haeres. 4, he gives the numerical equivalents of the 
letters composing the cabbalistic word @Bpacaé; in 17 he ex- 
plains Ophitae from dédis; 51, ductovorov; 52, Tvevpa- 
Toudxous; 57, eyxiran ab orando sic appellati; 
in 63 he explains Passalorynchitae by zdaaados 
enim Graece dicitur palus. et pryyosnasus, 


cum Graece et dicatur digitus d8dxrvdAos— 
Dactylosynchitaeé. . De Try 4. to, 133 iretercs: 
ibid. 14. 1. 1, GeooeBaa ; ibid. 4. 21. 31, ad hibito spir- 
Et ecteica ml) fact io neaglti »-ved intel iece: tanaelgi 
=hocienim quibusdam placuit appellare 
quod-Graeci dicunt: voepov, Enarrjin Psy 18; 
sérmo 17.2.) disci phim am) quam Giraeeciiape 
pellant zadeay; ibid. sermo 11. 6, rAeov enim Lat - 
1oNwe x pil WSs EuSct <) reels; Sav IniUksikepS (teen tae ulus 
habendo appellata est mcovekia; ibid. frrapyupia 
Gwe verbo sienificatun amor precuntae; 
NERMLO. 4.5654 evaneeéelium enim i fact ionve 
po nus) niu n ti tus) 6 sits) Sermo 2075.14 | Enlvemeor- 
Sin auiiGnul p pres G ra ie.c-@ mpi sve nite nd awe sae 
De, Genyiad litteram: 26472535; (€ x p Crime n ta “qusare 
illi dmorekéopara vocant: Enarr. in Ps. 77.1, Propo- 
Sittones autem qiae Graece ap pelt am 
tur mpoBdrjpara. In DCD XVIII. 23 Augustine translates 
‘Incots Xpictos @eod vids coryp (uOd est Latine lIesus 
Ghristus Det filtus salv @toxn, and imthe 
same chapter he explains the mystic monogram ix@vs. Such 
are examples of Augustine’s knowledge of Greek words and 
their derivations. 

He was also able to distinguish between the Greek syno- 
nyms, e.g: Enarr. in Ps. 118, sermo 4. 1, he says ayav is 
equivalent to nimis, and ofddpa to valde. In 
Quaest. in Hept. 1. 65 (Gen. 24. 41) opxos enim dici- 
tur ‘iuratio ;” dpa ‘maledretum.”— inDeED 
X. 1 he distinguishes Aartpeia, Opyoxeia edo eBera and GeooeBera. In 
Ep. 197. 2 he distinguishes xpdvovs from xkapots: Nostri 
autem wtrumdquée hoc vwerbiwn tempoma 
appellant sive  xpovos Sive kaipos, Cum 
habeant haec duo inter se non negle- 
géendam differentiam: «eipois quippe ap- 
pellant. Graeci tempora quaedam, non 
famen Guae in’ Spatiorum volaiminibus 
transeunt, sed quae if rebws) ad satic 


qurd-opportunits: "vel rm pioir tunis se n- 
PRUE ws -S iC ult) mes Sits, Vin Gd: mia) calor 
fpeguvccubs) op ax - bre bia Yet sil iq ua: Sim t) ia‘ 
xpovous autem ipsa Spatia temporum 
yocant. This cannot be said to be a superficial distinction 
on the part of Augustine; he thoroughly understood how to 
discriminate these two words. He also knew the difference 
between fo7 and Bios: quam vitam Graeci non 

“we sed. Biv Viocant, De Trin. razr. 
DeDOGi= sa, O-uroid: ttaqwe Graece ave, dcr 
Pim most rn salltg wan do Siylraceusimd, » ali- 
(iad. Orns put ationem sive lost ais pirat 
Phoneme “aqueamd oo etiam “Der dicrtur, 
interpretati sunt;-mvedjya vero numquam 
Mise sip tiem Iie | Oho Tis Gos Ss tv 
pe cotn ts .:. SRS Ve! UN sitUm,| CO ripo Tr eum) -q wi 
etiam) -yee mbt msm diver tur; In: Quaestjim Levy 55 

he distinguishes between oxetos (hoc enim nomen 
Semerale (est ‘omnium uwtensiliwm) and 
ayyao. (nam “et- hoc Latina lingua ‘vas’ 
diehtur, siéd “aGycav ilbud magis intelli- 
Sune ownas quod (liquorem “crap att)y sen 
Quaest. in Num. 3, between dddAoyevys and ddAdddvdXos. 
In Quaest. in Deut. 23 he says ‘parere’ quip pe 

ct aires que d “est tex Hem imas-.-. » “sg 
nere’ autem est yevav. In Locut. in Gen. 48. 1 
Sjuos—=plebs, déxyros—turba. In Locut. in Gen. 50. 

2 he distinguishes between évragudca: and Odyar. These in- 
stances are only a small part of what might be cited—all of 
like tenor. All such instances show is that Augustine knew 
many Greek words with their Latin equivalents, and was fair- 
ly well able to distinguish between synonyms. His etymo- 
logies are, of course, crude, even when they are correct, as 
is usually the case. 

3. Third. We now pass toa more interesting topic, namely, 
Augustine’s use of Greek in his exegetical works. We begin 
with the Quaestiones in Heptateuchum. From the opening 


words of the prooemium we learn that Augustine consulted the 
Septuagint : Cam SiC-riyp tyd ieaas Siavi Cit aussy 
qaivaie> va ipspre lila n tur oO moileiare Saltese mudga 
eat cum pa liiss ciomd1¢1 bas, fsjecsu'n dd mumay eSaern= 
ta Senta inter pre tat 1oniem ¢<on ft ermem-dro 
PetCcuT re rem ws: a. 2.4.10 Ouaest, nin tient ames 
(Gen. 7. 24) he mentions the versions of Aquila and Sym- 
machus, but we cannot find evidence for his having consulted 
them in Greek : nam Acq d lead ety Obata anes 

Symmachus Pi prt ave we at cenr aan wees ibid 1. 43 
(Gen. 19. 11) CiarerCulntyait jerr Giare Cia gh asbremne 
aopacia! »*rd-Od « maga sil si @n i fieatl) ) si) edagcn 
po sisi 5 o “aw 1idie- metal 25.0% kW EL Ore “aopncrce meat 
le ible hr ie AlgS sia. sunt Gynt @.tjage let byaaiee 
Balsiesp aves ms Here Augustine not only consulted the 

LXX on the passage in question, and showed that the Greek 
word expressed more than the word representing it in the 
Latin version, but he also found the word éopacia occurred in 
another place in the LXX (4 Reg. 6. 18) of a similar kind of 
blindness. Ibid. 1:65 (Gen: 24-41) Latini codices jaa 

il tame mM tro meow 1s Sinai) nen ampere 
Git.are e-1) ha- bse nets i a, oma ‘edits tio. myeroraiopias 
enim sd 1ett Ura ratio) ~ apa) Amal ed ite mignaes 
Here he examined the LXX amo rijs dpas pou; ibid. 1. 69 (Gen. 
242303) 26 X Cree Lik) iq Ut, vier b um sd eanheare mie 
Grae 1 mi NAe.Sped unyene ex e€rcitati omem 
C(O: Ep Ot di Ssp tian 2, 4 S7C28 1ap.taGems se\Stt <a aera 
Graece _  ddortkecxjoa: ddokecxeiv Vero ad animi 
exe ir. Gitta; 4 opnsesm prea Eon eat ent pyS avejpre 
Velktiso.) despa tact ars, ibid :1.e74.(Gen.o25.127) hao mie 
sam pilieixic 1:Ou-o7d)) (Gi gavercre.) die 1-1 aa Neos 
hres - Lea timiiny ) SavmopWsie aus. Bionit earpiece, eres 

Supt 44D TO par tien almtem d@rAacros on oOn) A ics, 
len ase aliqui Lea. bi mat) i tern pareve San smione 
dodo; An t.€ rp tretiatds sia ings pibid/2.8eGenrser. 
33) SO;word ha bie O ti yale bdonniysic ordi cess) fee 
pavit auat-ebm,. spils.ajase pia Wore magno 


valde, Graeci habent  é&éarn d& "Ioadk &koracw 
peyaryv ofpddpa, ibid. 1. 82 (Gen. 28.2) Latini codices 
- Peace at tae ee OmbLateqcat i CrOudi Cue) Sy) sn, Onn 
heamonertat. a. eved C-cees eG) teu ae. 9 shia-e | €:sit’: 
ansopade. 1OIG-T. Or. (Gen 30..11) %.bre'a.t/’a..v el “fe li x 
Mauentyd Set mee Gia Ce CMean hea bi elnit |. eoruyn: "qu ocd 
Mraoi Ss) Doll ammahomt Un aim ssi-o nif ica t-..-+In 

this same place, however, Augustine falls into the mistake of 
deriving raya from riyy. Ibid. 1. 93 (Gen. 37. 42) he also 

eousmiteGrthie hocks Squiso dy tam t.o. i: o7b.s 6 urs ws:, 
GieagtoO (Hit-eaviw Sass e pt wacinta, dict um 
eatur es pid an 2 Lose: (Gens 33. _¥oO) maxim) eq ua 

Suter aie he urlvon ein “Grae (o. diie tum ~ eS) ty: 
GeO) hate tue wll O} jeviitide mit iss m.é- sioil € five x1 

Drei Amis, fer i So nie a tieo.: non 
enim dixit zpdcwrov tov deov, sed dixit zpdcwrov 
Geov. Baca ke aot tem hice “anne lla ounet 
Musee hathaettt at die actu'r qui ~@ fae-¢ or um 
Eno @, Get 1% mh 2 6 Oa a = atque ite. oligo eae 
so le wm t:. This distinction mentioned shows some critical 

observation on the part of Augustine in the use of the LXX. 
In ibid. 1. 117. 1 (Gen. 35. 26) he says that some would read 
facti sunt insteadof nati sunt accordingtothe 
LXX éyévovro, In ibid 1. 132 (Gen. 41. 1) he compares the 
éri TAS myyns Of Gen. 24. 13 with the émi rot worapod of the pas- 
sage on which he is commenting. ibid. 1. 152 (Gen. 46, 
26-27)—on this disputed passage he again consults the LXX. 

Less important passages in the first book of Quaest. in 
Hep, are sp. 70-108. P27. 131. 136. 

From this examination of the Quaest. in Gen. we would 
infer that Augustine throughout consulted the LXX. 

We find the same phenomena in the Quaestiones in Exo- 
dum. Compare Quaest. in Ex. 47 (Ex. 12. 37), where Au- 
gustine consulted the LXX. awAjy tijs arockevijs, aver tecr 
dish ue fim vy edie “Gens ‘nim.’ Hie remarks: ‘that 
the same word is used in Gen. 43. 8, where it is rendered by 
substantia. In Quaest. 66 (Ex. 18. 12) he quotes the 


LXX. évavriov rot Geov. Again Quaest. in Ex. 78 (Ex. 21. 8), 
@O°uco ds ites) Cor alereo dictum esset 
Grolurpocenae ‘SLOT ip tulm = ‘ers set) Sic ul se rip 
fi maverstt; SOR t apse riedicamie tS lusima eles sna 
@t “erolvapaceray (SCcriptwm est) Mn hoc, “au 
tem loco arotuzpoce leg itur: Quaest. tin Hix ex 
(Exh 2390) ie Grae ews “dovdetoys head ext, nom 
Xarpevons. In Quaest. in Ex. 114 (Ex. 28. 3) he would correct 
the Latin version which gave intellectus instead of 
sensus_ for aio@joews. In Quaest. 116 (Ex. 28. 22) he 
notices rationale is the usual translation of Aoyxov, 
not of Acywv which the LXX here gives. Quaest. 131 (Ex. 
Jo, 4), Gn! )duro sla tema? fateueis amt diamosbiurs 
ar trerrsi bon sos Gq) uo mn tam 9G rate cust, sea tones tasters 
7a, Ovo KAitn ToLnoeEs ev Tots Oval TAevpois, Nam xdjirn latera 
Smt ert aNeupe latena Sunt... Unde “iit 
dam “Latini Side “I mitrer pipet ats sunt, 
Tin <diuras: pranrstiets, fae 6s iat -daiotbiuse Wate 

enibuas.'o “Nom saweiem sat. tGra-erenu sy Mwepn 
quaord! “est. Yprar tres. esred* Vern iq uyo.di alear 
tera.’ Hethen says that the same word «Airy is found in 

Ps. 127. 3 (év KAirecu THs oikias Gov). Quaest. 151, Graecus 
habet ywores, hee quidam natin interme 

Pretatis wnt “man ies tie... Cu mS erp 
tua. mio udixen it -davepds: © Port wit) sem.o1e 
fOrt tia. S16 9 aspetiieues, ~diikedar 2.“ stom emontaenaeas 

In Quaest. 154 (Ex. 33. 19) he comments on the Latin ren- 
dering of the two words éAejow and oiktepyow of the LXX. 
Qugest. 157 (Ex. 34. re); ‘Nion ‘enitm habe t Grae 
eust “aveiq*iam d’o: \plomias. -—sre-dh ?onre “q=u ataedyo 
ponat.’ Quaest, 168,- ‘Demptionem’” Sane 
imterpretati sunt eatin? qmod Grace us 
habet ddaipeua. 

For the other instances of the employment of the Sep- 
tuagint in the Quaest. in Ex. not noticed above see Quaes- 
tiones' 11, 42, 43, 50, 80, 86, 98, 104, 109, 115, E17, 118, 120, 
132, 133, P50, 177: T. 2: g. 17 (On the tabernacie:) 


Thus we find in the Quaestiones in Exodum a more fre- 
quent comparison of the Latin version with the Septuagint 

In the Quaestiones in Leviticum (Quaest. in Hept., book 
3) we do not find the LXX used to the same extent, but we do 
find it used often enough to lead us to infer that Augustine 
had that version before him throughout. Compare Quaest. in 
ewes (ev. 6. 20), epost meri diem” quod 
Gama ec ts hia bet, beAwor.... fresia si tamen 
MOlce eC fem iimte rp re tat uim~ es 't+ ex. Lilo 
qumowe"G ra ereus: ha bret pura. Quaest.29 (Lev. 9: 

24)\pen wa MG nes frare.t,0"s eS te Ged alii 
inte tT p re-t-eS diove mim te <e€.xapraivose | <cxOm- 
Aphicteeus: 9, t Fah s f.e.r re de Gira ec 0 = qrirlord 

Gubctism est) ercomp wmode icoraos dicitur .; 
@uaest. 36. (Lev, fr..47)) Qiuvace (Gara ecus: hia bet 
fooyovov7a MOStri) ‘qguidam “‘vivitican tia’ 
(meer pretanrt malnerunt!.. Quaest: go (Lev; 22. 
Swine: Gol. et/s Ov qui dia my “no Sir“ donckye r= 
pager atay “Souengty as. Go UNE Hl Oom dG fea tes uy 
Dicwae ailivo) Fasuet Sup ef citilia =.= Ehamc enim 
Vint wiistiS praepositionmis esse  1nited- 
Pexaruitt.< hoc /Ko.cjo,. abi -<Graecus, vit 
éq’ vid 7 émi Ovyatpi. Quaest. 41 (Lev. 13. 20), sed po- 
fBibttiest: Gta eC ms on -daiseerie: ad. id est 
aarctmm Sed. papyov, “id eS t —“miacul am, 
@uaest. 50.(Lev, £3.48) Sed) Nom vate. Gr a.ecws 
épyacpevw Séeppart, ait autem épyacivw. He then goes on 
to note that the latter word is also used in the book of 
Kings (t Reg. 20.19) in die operaria (7p npepa 
TH épyaoipy). ; 

Quaest. go (Lev. 25. 23) is a fair example of textual 
Griticism on the part of Augustine: “in profana- 
Pio mem: Aldi @odces “ha bent. “in con - 
frrmiationiem . gqtam memidositartem  1n 
ate cre t T1S. = pert wis ion Gipa.e cid ovale cae 
disse a rbittior iproptier wieiribi si madieim 


S00 Gm: BeByAwcis: sen ims pT.of am aitivo.7 dire 
tors "GeGamos autem: “eso net trea bore 

For the other instances of Augustine’s use of Greek in 
the Quaestiones in Leviticum not mentioned above see Quaest. 
2, II, 17, 20, 25, 34, 35, 43, 51, 53, 54, 55, 66. 

In the Quaestiones in Numeros (Quaest. in Hept. 4) it is 
evident that he consulted the Septuagint there also, though 
the instances are not so numerous as in the Quaestiones on 
Genesis and on Exodus and on Leviticus. In Quaest. 1 (Num. 
t. 16) he wonders why the tribal officers are called yAcapyxor in 
the Greek, his difficulty seeming to be the derivation of the 
word according to which such officers should be over only a 
thousands) ‘Quaest..3,  Mirum est. aw tem quo 
MeOnd: Ora brass es alae ns ove nya, id dsesrt ene 
d\doyernvss et non magis <d4ddAgOpvdos, quod sig- 
Metal Cuat iaalstce Pa Ues titeip bea Si-O) tame ali secede 
Meo Mm imle wma ods nt ietouer SiC Faup. cuore: in 
aliarom centium homirnd basis, HeresAgsns- 
tine shows that he was indeed aware of the different 
meanings of these two Greek words -in the LXX 
@Quaest: | ies (Numys 5. 352) Garage cours iia beat 
evopKxtov. -1G' UO). Noed bo, “adie tir, “sic hieecetumes 
‘Wane Nite, prec» 6<u1S EXC ha tal OM Gols wail 
have another example of textual criticism in Quaest. 28 (Num. 
MO. .20)f-0 ln ev 3S tO 6) OSatne my Ceelt aa 1D jer tS i. mie aie 
Quidam ~“1mwter pre tate ssa ite fsicner i ieccees 
Gus te-n-d-.e t. D oimyi ny) ais. S16 f.e-dto: ypu tau te scniner 
tum xaopor, quod Graece positum  daguan, 
@Quaest: 39, . Ou aime sd iit ss pee rita Ss” ace eae 
Comtradiicti on is), dp sam da c1t, rise enor 
edict Onis”, no Ny Ke mim) att arrmAoyins as cege 
Aodopias. In Quaest. 41 (Num. 26. 3) he gives the derivation 

of avabepa—aro Tod avw tiOévar, 

The other instances of the use of Greek in this book will 
be: found “in Ouaest.. -4,. 245 Ao, (52255. > (We sees thar. 
although Augustine had the LXX version before his eyes all 


through, he mentions its readings only twelve times in the 
Quaest. in Numeros. 

~ Still less frequently does he mention it in the Quaest. in 
Dent. (Ousaest. in, Mept. @5)a) Ouaest.: 23 (Deut. 15.‘ 19), 
mpwrdtoxov, Quaest. 39 (Deut. 24. 7), where he would correct 
Autiwe tte umra, bum se xijvo bits. 1 pss. by showing 
that the Greek reads rov rovnpov not 16 movypor, as the latter was 
represented in Latin by hoc malignum andthe former 
ipa emcee im allio nama.) 1, Ouaest. 52) (Deut.29: 49) 
suapoprynov. 9, Ouaest. “55 (Deut. 32.5) Quod est’ in 
Graeco texva pwuynta. ‘Thus there are four references to 
the Septuagint in the Quaestiones in Deut. 

There are the same number (four) of references to the 
Septuagint in the Quaestiones in Iesum Nave (Quaest. in Hept. 
6), Compare Quaest. 4 (Ios. 4. 7) €ws tov aiwvos. In Quaest. 
12 (Ios. 9. 4) an instance occurs worth citing: Nonnulli 
PORarere S.Cabe Gib eves ct Liakivmd> hyaubie mtn. 
PStiepresh NM Ch Orse SO Sig ad is ty euro, iq a4 
Wmeeteasc TeOln.e Syn wetdue no tiwr iinyO a ha ibe mst) <ssw- 

Pictn Ome miMOIs« Se d Sup ier fas in-oss) 4? Same 
Memeo! Benim voetob 1: int 'Grae ca lin gyura 
ime nadvousctra teum shacilem of Crit. . wh anew 

Oemiipepre: vest) ovay> 2 om jmiul tum > abi nv i¢€ e€ m 
dissonant. In Quaest. 19 (Ios. 16. 10) he thinks the 
latter half of the verse has been added by the Septuagint in- 
terpreters after the event, as indeed it is found in the LXX, 
but not in the Hebrew or in Jerome’s version. In Quaest. 24 
(los. 23. 14) he would correct the: recurro viam of 
the ltalaste. pier Curro. or ‘ex curto from the LXX 

In the Quaestiones in Iudices (Quaest. in Hept. 7) we 
find a similar employment of the LXX version. InQuaest. 41 
he gives the Greek words for Epud or Ephud though they do 
not occur in the verses on which he is writing. Compare also 
Quaest. 45 (lud 9. 23) where he notes that the Greek word 
which occurs in that verse occurs also in Ps. 42. 3, where it is 
translated emitte as in the Itala of Iud. 9. 23. 


From the above investigation in the Quaestiones in Hept. we 
see that Augustine used the Septuagint, more or less, through- 
out; that he could consult it intelligently, give the different 
shades of meaning of different Greek words, that he at- 
tempted elementary textual criticism on it, that he could 
amend or justify the Latin versions by comparing them with it. 

We next take up the seven books of the Locutiones in 
Heptateuchum in which we find similar phenomena with the 
above in the Quaestiones in Heptateuchum. Compare Locut 
ine (Gen 35.0, / sion Graeco SiC isp) € Won. wersse 
dpovpwotaros nNOn  Gcodwtatos, which shows that he must 
have looked up the LXxX., Agam Locut in) Genny 35 a5 
Gwsaveve 1) ohvanbue nit: |) “ines cmuerd (ton) taal Mest ata 
medio mulieris,’ where he had consulted the Greek 
(ava pérov cov Kai ava péecov THs yuvatkos). ‘The other instances in 
this) book are Wocnht. im iGen. 3. 17 316. 0, ain) (G rae ero 
imvemitwr dvevorly, guod mags,» “recom 
tiavel t.2 =giiiam: ~ ‘pole niLt. wet; | sive muisie ame 
perhibetur. Note that here Augustine does not posi- 
tively and on his own authority make this statement but falls 
back-ona perhibre tur: ~6..04, Giraverc 1) mec am 
aca. mec, “in. area. (hea bem ty = siecde renee 
d OS ;fiaici €jsi_a Ficmsm "> 16; 16, Mex tram sivemsrom 
sh 2ogsuo dt iGariajetie; dined tir ck ala wove ee 
Foal bO.o 14. 22 “Lefeliit interpre inemaqmod 
Grae us habet o7raptiov quod La tate 
‘filum’ initiellagatue,. ascut as) itranslatedaim 
jierome's version. 16. 43 a7. 8:3 24. 65" 265 23 - = ae-me 
ba brem t. Weiatwind > weve da Cress SoRti ~ okv emsi eens 
boves fetantur, Graecci habent “Steeane 
tur super me,’ as indeed the LXX has én tue; 34 
29, GraeCi cwndta Servos appellant usita- 
tissima locutione, sed quia non ocwpdtia sed 
cdpora dictum est; 43. 18, where onthe Itala: ut 
accipias nos im siervco's et asim os mes. 
trios he comments non  uitique “subanuditur 
CSESE VOL Ses nam quod Latini cod- 


Ges SEM Vv O;S*: hal b-eonet;, in Gtiave cuiks 
maidas Ke onigtsuen. quod nullo modo 
aSfenal pos sunt ersten AAN ORS  ASs) srs AS. 
To isO.eze. pom) pnivee neat alin owa dati ma 
quemadodum asp pre dle: e.t evrapiactas : 
HOwdin fe Ney Mm PpiSie eeSLeID Cl LU nyt: —. tds) .e7sit., 
teem ace mua nnd amtesC Or plot da ~moO Fritwo0)/rum 

g@uod non ést Graece éradidon sed Odipa. 
Ih -se;% 8.0. Sezagieorat id. agunt .quod ex- 
bi betur Gorporibus hwimanis. 

In the Locutiones de Exodo (Locut. in Hept. 2) we find a 
similar and frequent use of the LXX version. Compare 
octts tn I<. am, 22 (3. oe ony 5 Gina eres non 

mute oh t dixie. Dlii2  se:d “cont ia 0:9 
MiMi ivet “Ut ere dant. ‘asthe? Exex- of the 
verse does thus begin (va motevowoi co), 4.6 Graecus 
mom. rhea bet “le pmosa. séd tantum  °facta 
ese tamqmam) nix” (eéyanty...2.00e xov). 5. 21% 
O05 One) (tet arm AG) wie mei me C.0 La eran ES sin 
MUndiacit Anco lne runt. tin., ea, hesays, sac 
Smeg abet) (Ca 6.6 1S. Lgl, ond. 5 Ute gu en sect 
ii Gata e Cad lingua DiS te die. | Voidee tier 

SyORn teen Kerb. ft a Mine ny Sep tai tn ta iat en - 
Piper thine a ee tO ti\trass. sta my ta, Je.s)G: <quilo4s intva 
omit Mon.  piecuit. Here he had. before hint ‘the 
Greek tiv yqv Hv tapwxyKacw ev 7 Kal TapwKynoay ex’ aitys. 6. 12; 
(ee A PES Ore 8 Oc RO” Ax Si Ores Cv t Cis, ty AG a: a) oats 
poiyerensms. LO.23, Ouod Liatina haben t, “Hit 

nemo Vai Gat ff. a team suum ip se |) ws 
dbiern ese ee Gaia eC ts ach aubue b) -obat. non: “vii doit 
nemo fratrem suum.’ This shows us that in Au- 

gustine’s LXX the words zpets jyépas were not found, as they 
are wanting in the Alexandrine MS. and in some others. 12. 
gets ro St Coe e ni im. heal.bve t) iG rave Guys, o kar jetmav 
Aéyerv, 20. 24; 21.6. In 28. 24 (LXX 28. 29) he falls into 
a mistake joining 7a dAvo.dwra with the preceding words rovs 


kpwooous, instead of joining them with the succeding words 
er” auorepwv. 

In the Locutiones de Levitico (Locut. in Hept. 3) there 
is a less frequent use of the Septuagint, though it has still been 
used.) (Compate Locut::de Levis: 10 (quo d “ijbii Shape 
GUTGs 04. PTE Oss a 15 eG a cleus enim hear plese 
kal €peis mpos avtovs A€ywr. Do 20 US. ee Ome cae enim 
Graecus 4ékabapros ov axafaptros cota, Quasi dicer- 
ext “emery artis 6.5015 teense mia nidaliiseme aeniaeen 

So also in the Locutiones de Numeris (Locut. in Hept. 4). 
14./35 ©0 ua ere ndowim<e-s t) ystayn-en iq. wid, siistyquurord 
Guta €2c7e p 0rs-1 team) Sessst) sayy” NOS. b tee ey ene 
inte. Pp fe bes: ~ ho’ Cp. ae Nive), sl bag Ulver. ikmecie tee 
Prieatat tl (sitimet. “nisin gy 280) Et aid recto =e aaior 
Vita “pO. Wtu mM. est.) quia ast iuvew inter 
PoOtwit <x piri mpc. quod, “Gyr aveicves) dei ere uae 
est dxovocbeions, NON enim potuit dici no- 
lentata; 18.6 ddua dedopevor. 20. 30; 29. 1. 

In the Locutiones de Deuteronomio (Locut. in Hept 5) 
we find the LXX used to about the same extent. Compare 
Locut: de Dentin. 35819. 145152 659201148. 26a-54) wiherenne 
refers to the LX xX of) Prov. 23. 6; ‘Grae curs’ “ho aabiet 
dvépt Backdvw; Bacxavos autem fascinus dicitur. 
28; 63". (35, 20° sU nO! Ve teb..O — Ta titer mG aerere 
dicitun “ini quitat em 9 facile tis saq mbar 
est dvounoete. 32. 14. 

In the Locutiones de Iesu Nave there is only one recorded 
instance of the employment of the Septuagint, viz: 8. 18 on 

Pete nud é€ mand mt amen. oe avers o- bg Gxonce 
(nite tp rT é's)..5 7 mm ac bias 4s cust tim. sae eee 
Kass'Sve: i pre tih i bwe tu me 4 SS .e"prtrpale: inst a aetsenam 
interpretes, secundum quos 1stea 

tacit a/m:as:; “= qu i* Sp' 6 Pun ti <ecaceomnee 
Miroer Si vet mm Graccecia lingua (obec ane 
Weel) *latnrc eras. eeGrael ela ceva eam in te bined 
voluerunt. This is an important passage, though the 
only one in the book in which the Septuagint is mentioned. 


We learn from it that the Septuagint was the norm of authority 
for Augustine. Moreover, he informs us that here at least he 
was not acquainted first-hand with the version of Symmachus 
(Sy mia c hus. pier hrbet wr). 

Similarly in the Locutiones de Iudicibus (Locut. in Hept. 
A eReOMpare: 320.4) 90, 4.1 Fo) Se: en aim’) ch aibe:t 
Graecus évrT7q déppa airs. 7. 12. 

Thus both in the Quaestiones and Locutiones in Hept. 
Augustine would seem to have had a copy of the LXX before 
him, and to have made frequent reference to it. He evidently 
consulted it throughout in these seven books ; and has only 
mentioned its readings where he thought them noteworthy. 

We shall observe the same use of the Septuagint version 
in Augustine’s other and much larger exegetical work—the 
Enarrationes in Psalmos. Compare Ennar, in Ps. 3.5 éyw de 
exoumnPynv Kat vrvwca, 4. 6; 6. 3; 9. 7; 67. 19; 67. 41; 71. 8; 
Ae ew 7 to. guontam in Gir aects C-od\i/e1\- 
Drs] 1h O ti everouce iG) uord Ee Sto" im pe dpy it.” 
Scud auwercoe .legimus quod est. potius 
woroummen end vel t 9 /S75°7 <Q: uoid, én im) SG er arercie 
mosweUlm: 65 ¢  OGutes divierse interpre tat 
Sanbesen o:Sotrol < yNvam,| ubi -G-rape-eir. Sc:ordi-eers 
ieaOnesnet Ss opyye Dein Jn rea my” => 1 at mare 2 dave ere 
He elaice: fearee: dou Dd tal vit 1 m tern pir ess si) ub 
AME mM OUnOS Ip OS ition est ) pdllieriqme 2 nom 
Pauetera Vie Liu mt "ram, es se: dice mid-aum. ss)... 

iene pay iioe) pystacl m0 «(41-48) folie tes! ct wt 
SMUprerG meek uk Greer eiSsS. 1 SMe wae osc Ute 
unica nn | mei US) tr am Stal emu ft s-ucp-e-r 
Mee transiter nn ts’  éyGorv: enim ers tcc abn 

Gimave ClO vu) iG 0 peiayACov.. (92, 63 v9S..93 -105.. 25° 105. 215 
BUGrSEEMO An to) LS. TL.cOs TLS. 4. 45 118. 15. 5; ibid. 25: 3; 
Beet ee LO 2042 LiSe 26.4) TES. 20.35 atig. it; 123:) 6% 
EAS “1; 

Augustine, according to the above citations and references, 
seems to have had the Septuagint at hand in writing his great 
commentary on the Psalms, and though he did not mention it 


so frequently as we should suppose he would, still he does 
mention it enough to give us to know he could use it. 

When we turn from the three works of Augustine which 
we have been considering above to his commentary on the 
book of Job we are rather disappointed to find no reference to 
the Septuagint, and evidently no use made of that version in 
this work. This concludes our investigation of Augustine’s 
use of Greek, especially of the Septuagint, in his writings on 
the Old Testament books. Though he does not seem to have 
employed it for Job, yet from the Quaestiones in Hept. and 
the Locutiones in Hept. andthe Enarrationes in Psalmos we 
know he employed the Septuagint version. In fact he seems 
to have had it before him and to have consulted it often in the 
course of those writings. He was not only able to read it, 
but, to some extent, to use it critically and to verify or emend 
his Latin version from its text. In face of all this we cannot 
understand how Dr. Philip Schaff wrote: ‘‘But in his exe- 
getical and other works he very rarely consults the Septuagint 
or Greek Testament, and was content with the very imperfect 
Itala or the improved version of Jerome.” (Church History, 
vol. 2, p. 1001, footnote, and repeated in The Nicene and 
Post-Nicene Fathers, vol. 1, prolegomena p. 9, footnote). 

Next we ask did Augustine make use of the New Testa- 
ment in the original Greek ? We do not find any trace of the 
use of the original in the two books Quaestiones Evange- 
liorum nor in the Quaestiones septemdecim in evangelium secun- 
dum Matthaeum. Still more strange is it that the lengthy work 
In Iohannis evangelium tractatus seems to have been executed 
with very little reference to the Greek. In it (Tract. 10. 12) 
occurs the fanciful formation of the word Adam from the 
initial letters of dvaroAyH quod est Oriens, dvars 
quusordy.e1s tO: c'e 1 die.n's j-dpnos -q Ww Od) vegeta esperar 
tentrio, perypBpia quod test Meridieés); salso 
the numerical value of the different letters found in “Addu 
as 46, the number of years which was occupied in the build- 
ing sof the temple.. “Inv Tract, <g8571 on, Prien pee 
of Loh. 8:25, he says. Prin ca pirw m jmeer eaperdeint ies 


im Gisae€ co nameue  boquio diseerniturt 
quod non Piorwes tie. tn) sib a tine, UA pou'd 
Cieaec OS lenny We miming isle ne ris!) est 
principium. This cannot be said to bea good instance 
of his consulting the Greek text. A better one is found in 
iracts 115: 4. where On the in hoe m-atus *s um of 
Jeni 16. 97,he Says Wad) hoc “naitus sum’... : 5 In 
Simeon kia g me. evane elivo! mihal ie sit 
Miius locwtionis am bigwum, where he had 
evidently referred to the Greek text éis totro yeyéevvnuar. In 
Tract too. 1 he does comment on the different renderings of 
the word dogéca of Ioh. 19. 14, and again in Tract. 105. 3 
on ddgacov in the Greek text of John 17. 1. Lastly, in Tract. 
117. 2, on the wapacxevy) of John 19. 14. With such trifling 
exceptions this work on John appears to have been written 
without reference to the Greek text. It is true Augustine 
may have consulted the Greek text without having thought it 
necessary to make any more remarks than those given above. 
But. this is by no means probable, as surely he would have 
found, had he consulted the Greek text, some things better 
worth a remark than those which he has chosen; for example 
he did not remark upon the d@yarav and ¢iAcv of John 21. 15 sq. 

In addition to this we have evidence that he neglected 
the Greek text outside of the gospel of John while writing the 
Wractacus, in. “Nract. -7o:. 1 he wgivess “vas: St 
ace fides SS peran ti ua, Sie bistam £ ia ; 
thus by sperantium, which is the best attested read- 
ing here, and occurs again in Tract. 95. 2, Augustine trans- 
lates, or acquiesces in the translation of, ray éAmGonevwr of the 
Greek text—an obviously incorrect rendering which he could not 
have omitted to notice if he had consulted the Greek. The 
vulgate more correctly renders it sperandarum 
menu. in Pract. 97:4 hé gives “prokanas ver-= 
Merwin Nie vyitates evita, for 2/Tim, 12, 16, mis- 
translating Kevopwrias as Kkawvodwrias, and kawodwvias was read 
here but on very inferior manuscript authority. more 
likely that Augustine has not carefully examined the Greek 


as he repeats the same error in Sermo 299. 12; the vulgate 
renders it correctly vaniloquia. In Tract. 104. 3 he 
gives another instance of his not having examined the Greek 
text, ashe writes in gloria for eis défov of Phil. 2. rz. 
If he had consulted the Greek text he would easily have es- 
caped the difficulty which he foundin adducunt ergo 
Tres ani wea dri avtea pha m+) jin) paase tro mae 
the Ttalaof Moh. 18.28; Hesays Sed (si aida Clanae 
pham cur in praetorium? The Greek text dréd 
tov Kaiada eis ro zpartwpiov would have removed all difficulty and 
saved him the trouble of finding an explanation to suit the Latin 
words. In regard to this verse he has shown the same un- 
necessary perplexity in De consensu evangelistarum 3. 7. 28. 
ihe vyulsate correctly senders) ja; “Cia ja pyar. 

In the rest of Augustine’s works on the New Testament 
books there is the same lack of evidence of his employment 
of the Greek text. These works are the Expositio quarun- 
dam propositionum ex epistola ad Romanus, the incomplete 
work Epistolae ad Romanos expositio and the Expositio epis- 
tolae ad Galatas. We should have looked for evidences of an 
acquaintance with the original specially in the two last named 
works, and the absence of such is all the more striking if we 
read, for example, Jerome’s Commentary on Matthew or the 
Epistle to the Galatians, in both of which he was fully convers- 
ant with the original language. 

The same neglect to use the text of the Greek New Tes- 
tament may be seen in the work De consensu evangelistarum. 
For example in 2: 30.7200 I[nvicem onera) Vestuwa 
POP tatrew andi im iss Qutidus, Gua er) evn iui proc 
Priam onus. poritabit (Galat. 6.2, 6.5) he says. 
Niisi Ome ris nomen Su bi) divie fst Sis Goma 
fri Cha ELOsn ba S~ aie -¢ €ip,e fil $4 .psrso-c al i daagbaike 
pi ta bas vequinjd-em, sw.b)i! in) lo’ qmivemydomersycre 
contrarium. If he had known the Greek it would not 
have been necessary for him to assume the words onera 
and onus here are to be taken in different senses. He 
would have found two distinct words in the Greek text: 


ta Bapyn (verse 2) and 76 idvov hopriov (verse 5). In his Expos- 
itio epistulae ad Galatas, 58 and 59, he does not notice. any 
difference or contradiction at all. In De consensu evange- 
listarum 3 7. 27 we have noticed his difficulty about ad 
Gated p ham inl Ph a e.t Orr im. 7 See also: 3.24, 65 
for his difficulty about Mat. 28. 1. 

But though Augustine in all the above named works 
shows little or no acquaintance with the Greek text, we know 
from other facts that he could and did consult it. This we 
should naturally expect him to do in the New Testament text 
when we know, as shown above, that he had a considerable 
knowledge of the Septuagint Greek, and could with a certain 
amount of facility consult that text. Augustine in a letter to 
Jerome in which he tries to dissuade him from translating 
from the Hebrew, and asks him to be satisfied with correcting 
the Septuagint text, also expresses his appreciation of Jerome’s 
new version of the gospels, thus: Proinde non par- 
Wacestek) CuOnro Iwagt has: sa om WS dee] Osp.e fie st u-0 
CenOniecsveawl Cella um ex: Gir ae ¢ 0: (bmi er pire = 
Pam Se eiS Gina pa enue: in Omi naib Ss; ana Pha 
Wete WS LO, SSt1 Cum Scriptura m iG rave.c am 
C Opeth e ttm ws: «(Ep 71..4.°6. BE vol. 2243), Mom 
these words of Augustine himself we infer that he compared 
Jerome’s version of the gospels with the Greek original, or he 
compared at least enough of that version to pass judgment, 
He also seems while so doing to have had a judgment of his 
own in the matter. He would agree that Jerome was correct 
in most points ,(paene in omnibus nulla of- 
fensio est), but not absolutely all. The above cited 
words in themselves would seem to be evidence enough for 
Augustine’s ability to read, and for his actual reading of, the 
Greek of the New Testament. 

But there is more evidence yet from actual examples of 
his having used or known the Greek text. In DCD XIII. 24 
he discusses the difference between zvedua and zvo7 with refer- 
ence to the Greek text of Gen. 2. 7 and of Ioh. 20. 22 to prove 
tt lan Spd ma Wt bs Dr es. Sone hiacd em et 10s 


spiritum (voy) vitae _ was a different act from 
AGCeipilte's pir itum (xvetpa) sea nceh win and 
for the same discussion he cites 1 Cor. 2. 11, Matt. 28. 19, 
John 4. 24 evidently with the knowledge of the Greek text in 
these places. In Ep. 149. 28 he notices the omission in Col. 
2. 18 of the negative in some MSS, evidently meaning Greek 
MSS. Compare also Ep. 193. 10 on different readings of 1 
Gor 15.4360, iqiu-old “in! plé'ri sq we Jc odiite mb as 

reveiw rs Oo mrns est) Vr eis Mit oO Jena tu Sey Rae ee ee 
g@aod nonmudld 1/ve.o'dices “hralibienty Semmes 
dormiemus.’ In DCD XxX. 19 he approves of the ren- 

dering in’ templum. Deéi ratherthan in tempilo 
Dies) an ei hess. /2.4, seu t) dno-iGnaverco. sester 
Here he had consulted the Greek text eis rov vaov rod Oeot. In 
Quaest. in Ex. 51 he shows a familiarity with the words of the 
Greek text of the New Testament: has autem od ment 

Mp Orcemni es Lea tins | tin the rip ives = gaeusags 
yevens Grae Gi, voc ait, q.uae in) €-v an eceleine 
ScuG hve wea) CecOunnerS.7 6 fa Ap. Pre uel aumutruy fe. Again in 

Quaest. in Ex. 114 when commenting on the rendering of 
aicOnoeas inv isx. 28.03 he Says’ ivba— (i. ‘6 Hebr ssa) 
e€mlim, qq Word pro Si wt © io ste mes uis% * “Girtasecemas 
habet aic@nous, the Greek word in Heb. 5. 14 being 
aicOyrypia. In Quaest. in Levit. 20 he writes apostolus 
a ttiem) sub. A41Gi.6 2° S\1) (por'ae-oro Cap anes 
fae it homo in al ig uo deliiceoy 
mapantopat. Graecus habet, which is the word in 
the Greek text of Galat. 6. 1. He was acquainted with the 
Greek text of Eph. 5. 27 as we learn from Quaest. in Levit. 
Ain VE OG se ver g.0) quod <a d.-"s o.) uamb cranlpore 
Hem vattinet-| order dicerieé’ +quc = yelmape 
US Us Cist apostolu's ubi ait dhe Geckesua- 
YN © a hea bien tiem, maculam awt ro eame 
In Quaest. in Deut. 39 while commenting on the tov rovypov 
of Deut. 24. 7 he recalls the similar expression in 1 Cor. 5. 13 
a Ui estitye; smal tim: eke! | WiOeb LS * AiGpy sei SuetemeNie eta 
Graecus habet,rov wove’... WN bie Samp eare 



moyypov, JsiGdeoest ioc malign um,’ sg d roy 
movypoy |G UOod _est:,Shune Malignum.’ \ In 
Ennar. in Ps, 118 sermo 15. 8 (verse 56) on iustitias 
tuas exquisivi he quotes from Rom. 10.3 igno- 
rantes Dei iustitiam and then draws a distinc- 
tion between ducavoovvas and duxcatdpara, which latter word 
occurs in the verse (56) on which he is commenting, the 
former in the Greek text of Rom. to. 3. He must therefore 
have been familiar with the Greek of Rom. to. 3. 

Compare also Contra Faustum Manichaeum 11.4 qui 
MMChTUnSEre Sts ie;x. Selmin e David) secu nd am 
Syd riveio as oe) a miu Tila Ain .e4o) WV a Pat 
Gord 1c. uh m wu et ori tars. Etsi enailm in 
Gpasebrurs diam: sat inis (ex em p hari bins: inom 
Reshemrm ince us,) (ste di “Wat ws. ex tse m1 ne 
Prawendn sewn iG ©rae cd io*" -htatb eam’. 
Wenndwer | nh Oni aud. “Vier bum iis 6d. ad -s ea tie m= 
tinmatransierre voluit dicen d otnatwm? 
Latinus interpres. _ Here again he has consulted 
the Greek text (Rom. 1. 3) Tod yevouévou éx orépparos AaBid xara 
oapKa. . 
In an epistle to Paulinus he criticises the translation of the 
Greekief2: lim. 20n wSecundum “Graeeum enim 
Chou Mm Ciecermenda s Waits ham’ nos > 
TEM Moen py Vix Wieme ri wnt gu 
Camo ocumienr  €t 'Se¢ilenter tramisiiem re 

Gimawie tf Pitus ss *. “S$ étdl* pro Veo Yqiiledy 1a 
cinta Me Git Cob is oor Oo lle’ Gra eicie>dixit 
Tmapakak®; pro eo ¥-€. 510 quod atria ws 

Vester habet “Oobsecrationes’ 11lé pos uit 

denoes (Ep. 149. 2. 17; Compare also ibid. 13. 14). 
in‘Sermo re, 5) 5 0n Guotidie moriter per 

Mes tram  @lb rtam of a Cor. 15..3r he comments: 

intiieaeino. Ves tJ) wmrom! “qairaS aos iG odi'tis “pet 
Wiewssubai: il Oritam mM-Orvor,; A. @wasts vestrad 
Delomicd im es facit mM OF i, 2+. ).05 Atm bis u mt-as 

tem Graecus sermo GhieSeSronlevidets i Ds 3 a 

Sp citar? im ipe.p is toilla «Gira e Gia meds grange nie 
tur ibisitratio qua € Mn Oj}n Se sit jee bajcams 
vi) THV vperépav Kavynow. Ny tov deov ubi Graecus dix- 
érit, iurat. \-Owotidie awddticeGraceos 
et: qut Graiec€ .n'0.S tsp) yao Veovs t..g tia meceo 
dicit. mroviGeov- 1utatéa oO) es Pip en) pre ume 

In Sermo 169. 1 he shows that he was familiar with the 
different readings @eo0 and 6es in the Greek text of Phil. 3. 3 
and gave his preference to the former reading: qui spiri- 

tains Drei Spear wt /ma us = SC HLO phe f-01s que 
Crowdsicere.s hjasbre ne ‘qaa Spiirau Dieso 
Siempayels Mites ss O° ta init Gem a te am, A sap cremie 

proitutim us plures:) Gira ecw ¥ fio-c, yyhgabeee 
CQiidier sp ir ital eS (Drea csie ev) ma isiey 

In De sermone Domini in monte 1. g. 22 he gives qui 
irmasicd tur ftacterd .'s a0 ) S im e.. Cadi shamekencgy. 
but in Retract. 1. 19. he has changed his mind and writes 
GQ uri Mincasee Nita,» tar act re suo. Clodpieqess 
Gaavevc i sen omy hea brent | ‘isainjem © amismiy 

He was familiar with the question as to év to gavepw in the 
Greek text of Matt. 6. 4, for in De sermone Domini in monte 
2.25.9 hevsays ;imultas, L ati mias sexe mi plawaiean 
sic; habemt: “Et (Pater, -Cucuis.. quai gavedsere 
in» a bis co mid ict.o'} -rrerdud-e\t ta bil, aupia dae 
sed quia in, GraeCi/s sqitiace =p. Tdiomrayisiumee 
non - i nvvendi mu s.; pla Waim 5) Mio me Bp ite 
mus himnc ess ey, a liquid dicssiememediams: 

But Augustine did not always consult the original text. 
Had he done so he would not have fallen into some errors of 
which he is guilty, nor would he have laid undue stress on the 
Latin versions of different texts. | For example on John 1g. 
34 (in. Ioh. evang. tract 120; 2), anus nvidia 
lam ceva. dliat as) 6-1urs apne: kets to he says 
Va-cilanti vier bio €vianmveias tay a siisecasne, 
Ut non diceret) Latuis etuspo perc us cimee 
aut ov ulnméea av (£2 .a with sq uid aia dy yeasiesa 
‘aperuit.’ Augustine would not have thus emphasized 


‘aperuit’ if he had only consulted the original where he 
would have found avéev, for which ‘percussit’ would 
have been a more correct rendering, though it would not fully 
express the original. It is not at all probable that here Augus- 
tine examined the Greek text and found yvogev which is indeed 
given by one MS. 

From Augustine’s own statement cited above, and from 
the examples of his familiarity with the Greek text here given, 
we conclude that he was to a certain extent conversant with 
the original text of the New Testament ; or at least he could 
evidently without much difficulty consult a text where he 
thought it necessary, and could thereby correct or confirm his 
Itala version. Had we no examples whatever for his having 
gone to the original in the New Testament, still we should 
conclude from his ability to examine the Septuagint that he could 
make use of the Greek text of the New Testament, and in ad- 
dition to this presumption we have the positive evidence just 

4. Fourth, we turn next to Augustine’s use of Greek in 
his controversial writings. In these, too, we shall find that he 
has a limited, but fairly accurate, working knowledge of that 
language which serves him in time of need. 

Compare Contra Cresconium Donatistam 1, 13. 16 sq., 
where he discusses the meaning of diadextixyn. In ibid 14. 17 
he says Nomen quippe Graecum est dia- 
Leert:t ea Quaie- «Sit usus ad mitte ret * 
fortasse Latinme “dis piu ta t.or ian vw 0.c a tie- 
Stee SiC. t. ora mM ma ttc¢am Vitter a m 
Matinee. limewae cwtriasque «docetis si m1 
aap pretmledavoe Uf t) J. Seu) enigma. betters 
Gen om pimata St. fam Moat) ¢ a. quwon ham 
Gracee ypappern ~bittierdae) .dicuntwr,, Sic 
aed S pructaciouc sat alec tt Cia | mo me f,) acs 
Ges prints, quoniam disputatio Gi aeee 
Siadoy) vel ddrdkefis appellatur. In ibid 14. 18, hoc ‘odem tes timonto, quod 
Hicker bis apos toler m. ¢o mm en ora vi, 


(Acts 17. 17) where deAéyero occurs. He also cites Acts 20, 
g (duaAeyouévov), Ps. 103. 34 (dadoyy) and Is. 1. 18 (dveAeyxPdpev) 
and adds este moult i's aliis divinarum 
S@nip tiuracum | lo cis “eee Wbt ine menses 
hoe vier b wim et ims pice. crovdatcleys Gr areciors 

in eis dem te"Sib imo) mites sanctarum 
Scriptuirarumicet vide bis qntdes sat payor 
pellata drakectica. Augustine had evidently ex- 

amined all such passages himself in the original in order to re- 
fute his adversary; and he relied on his knowledge of Greek, 
whether extensive or inconsiderable, in doing so. 

Contra Gaudentium Donatistam 1. 5. ~6, Quod 
enim quidam iene Cr Perieitiast al Su nete 
Sid pices. tas sitimum ‘omni ium’) bles fiat e mee 
(Onudemtts Simtuim Vpotias Graect codices 
iasbremniit,, )  Wan-d-e- ica La ti nam linguam 
Sormptura Mila translata est: Having here 
(Gen. 3. 1) examined the LXX he found ¢povipwraros and thus 
spoke with authority. 

Compare Contra litteras Petiliani 2. 38. 91, where he states. 
his contention without hesitation, Et ego quidem 
Gaave cae limugcuca e. pre © plank Um {ais(S/e ve mi scaes 
Sane ef pre pre sn hale nid me tal ems kane 
pudenter diclo “me nio'sS ¢€ oXcy “nvom Wesicre 
‘unum’ sed) ‘totum / 6’) kab? Nor “osverccm- 
dum totum.’  Sucha statement as this, it is true, en- 
tailed only a very limited knowledge. 

In Ad Orosium contra Priscillianistas et Origenistas 5. 5 
Omitte ‘in’ ignmieim Pact ern am, ‘he says! Neve 
mowvwereée debet at’ hoc Loco’ i alet erica 
pro! “diut urn ola eeiipi amas J quod aps 
Sori pom este elon) stetier nm Gm cet. en Sa er 

Cu lhupm Ss a-erea 14 22) ee ti ne Seq. aa p pre, entre ne 
pres mo luit= idhiicetrice” ln) ae te 1m meer 
im -aeternum Saeterni.a “Sed “qaio mia 

rd iq mod “cio JG rae Ce (di Caetim © Wet)” Siac Cat 
lam’? set “aeter nim interpreter potest 


Coy Memon thSy ca iio ent ea pre tiers. tf a nes € wl) = 

Client ln Sa Geru kuim, (et) An saeculum 
Save Gl 2, Sie.d@ inom hore: are tu m -esit uwihii 
dpike fun eset) 9 ute ined. enre sm) ae tern wim,’ 

Non enim dictum . est aisva sed _ aiwnov 
Gul Orde aS star Sraere uo. (dee lin a tam. ‘essiext 
SS ave etic eS Ep ack, ne dieceretur non 
SENT e Ea eN Ve UTA ess : 

But the best examples of Augustine’s controversial em- 
ployment of Greek occur in the work Contra Iulianum Pela- 
gianum 1. 6, 22. Here Augustine is discussing the question 
of infant baptism against Julian, who had cited the words of 
John Chrysostom, and by his own interpretation had tried to 
make them teach his view. Augustine consulted the words of 
Chrysostom and pointed out the incorrectness of Julian’s 
translation. ByoO- pi pes ay ve mbeat Grease eval qiurate 
a Lohanne dicta sunt piomam ~Ace/tovro cat 
Ta Tavdla BarriCopev Kaito. duaptypara ovy éxyovTra, Quod est 
Hatame  “iediero set. <ineianm tes. (bap tic aaiais 
GiiisanMeVv 1S. ci 6/Grc.a: fay nom) shabengiess 4) xViwdies 
Gxe eb icy eNbOnMl, Adon On “C1 iC fh lism. | ekS/Sye) So pyayrawias= 
LOWss veto DE tC Oia Guin ato sq leysisie) pre €/c,a 0 
SoVcCumPeesCrCaa tise oS ie ad) nO mysrhydibyeder, yoplerct- 
Grantee oat e) Li ees 3S pp r.62p © iia’ etc. mulla 
contentio est. And again against the same oppon- 
ent ibid. t..6, 20, he says. Oowd-d) en i Imicdipre me 10's 
Geraci td quwond) (iaba fs doi x at. Vee nuit. «sveumneyl 
ieee is, seit) pat 6 Pics) 1 O;S> (6a, Wi Gso,.ob, Peas 
iMeyRe Deiite: SaeSot tT ise>t Os quas CRON Sy Can prs, int 
adres In be inact isa,m eo bla sa tao ai wisy 1.0%S)- 
icone tie plevexela tis. n-O.s-t oils, -feim-S: 4.a..0 C5 &- 
Rone eae el Sebt ae tho) mii nem) “ine hiidve iC ait hee 

mvc Cee find ttm, jet) ven taduceim-te.m,, “di tis.- 
Pen oe ee nitermu ss dhe, b iutith am pia tern. + char oi- 
PaGeday Hite oq Words hae terdi- tia higum, Sa ofb iis. +t m= 
Hares tte ta sb) Mesias die: bitet.acs quorum pen 

eons de ]) C.C.C Atal ft emus, a.© Cir é.yate <A wdiss 


Guid iparyuldis in. bia'p tas mior tres aera 
qui cn-on dum) propria de busta icomiti a xe 
Pon) be ae c.  ptraAzme ms <a Pp: a test icon” Ses bAioe 
grapho immunes E'S Sie PsOcti fe ewan, 

Nerba quip p € 261s “no 1 imate rpm eitsartes 
sic leguntur fin Graec os) Epveraanae 0 Xpromes, 
e ce lal , nr 7 ” ec 2 ba ) cal X 
EvpEev ULOV xXELPOypahov TaTpwMov oO TL eypadev 0 Adam’ Exetvos THV 

dpxnv eionyayey Tod xpetovs, Hnuets Tov Savecpov nienoapev Tats 

petayeveotépas Guaptias, (Juae verbum e verbo 
inet em pire tautiar "Sis: 2S ex ay pieiate: eWre mit 
Siem) er! Ciher a sub wis 4 iN Vee ad, € nostrum 
chiro ot ap hwm) pa tem nm qiio ds s'cun ep sane 
Adam. Pide> in taam: ~ tnd xaiete dike sites 
nos fen us saluximws postertiortbius pec 
Gata Seco Nam qouatd: \c-omr t-en it Gis) “ate diene mae 

(‘patie t Mum) cc hi roma plum ~~ musi adder ex 
“105 tan aL me? 

Though Augustine was able in these two passages to ex- 
amine the original for the purposes of controversy, we should 
not assume that therefore he could read any or all of the 
Greek fathers. Some considerations mentioned above forbid 
us to think he could do so; besides the Greek in both of 
these passages happens to be plain and easy, so as to cause no 
difficulty to one who possessed only a very limited reading 

5. Fifth, a few other facts remain to be considered. In 
Conf. 4. 16. 28 Augustine writes Et quid mihi 
pitio.die rat) sq-uloJd annos natus fer m € 
Vie inti) Sear Sin). manus melas: vem tics 
Srecnsts < AUT 1S tote) tic Tvqnulave-d iam" G Wars. meager 
p eailiarnt die cea categorias — quarum 
nou ne, Cum eas) rh eto-r "Cart haveamuasesn 
SiS, Macs ter “meus: biwmee1 se tiy-110, ere 
pantibus ©oO Mm mre m-ora 't [ots | em eheli quis 
docti habebantur, tam quam im niestenw 
quid “magnum et “divin um ists prencs ims 
iavhia bia m= lhe gi. eas s.0olu's* et, Gnteilenmrer 


Of course’ these Ae Sek Orties lt Cra quaedam 
were neither Aristotle’s work nor written in Greek. 
Decem categoriae isnot the name of any genuine 
work of Aristotle. This pseudo-Aristotelian production was 
not written in Greek, else Augustine would hardly have read 
it, andit was, infact, a Latin book. Moreover, he saysit came 
into his hands when he was almost twenty years of age—at 
which age, so far as we can make out, his knowledge of Greek 
was altogether inadequate to read such a philosophical treatise; 
or indeed a treatise of any kind, and it may be doubted 
whether his knowledge of Greek in later years would have 
been sufficient to ensure his reading Greek philosophical works. 

In regard to Augustine’s use of Epiphanius, we cannot be 
quite certain whether he read him in Greek or through a 
version. Epiphanius was styled zevrayAwooos from his knowl- 
edge of Hebrew, Greek, Latin, Syriac and Egyptian ; but his 
Panarion on heresies and his anakephalaiosis of the same were 
both written in Greek. Augustine describes his work in the 
introduction to De Haeresibus. (BE. VII. 23.) Noster 
Vecmaoee hn pt pia nid S*) Cy p rieaes. =e prs cso. p. u-s', 
Aapeietn cr en orn | Om o.e, “hit ma teiss.-r eb UIs Ae x:- 
et prt wt S*, de octoginta hea ‘er € Sa brus 
Foquineums: sicx libros etiam apse co nsic rip- 
SatieoiubseeOusiscia  Niarratti ome. memo ra nis 
Olmmnstay Sn tel ba-> drs pita tronie. adviers u's 
Rasta tem: pro Wier Ihteast en = Le Greene aim-S:. 
Pee vie sunsamie. sun thi pip be iii) et sin 
ieee sioe, due aint wn, 'n eC (Pp sien e rit: nis: 
Himasquayee | aio ram Sq a wb usidia my) ohisb ais 
hom oitiwd 1 nve comparandus. Augustine 
mentions him in several places in the De Haeresibus, (ro, 22. 
32. 41. 42. 43. 45. 49. 50. 51. 57. 81). From this we would 
infer that Augustine consulted Epiphanius, either in the origi- 
nal or in a version, in his composition of the De Haeresibus. 
He speaks of him again ina letter to Quodvultdeus (Ep. 222) 
Seen pst oi neo teen a or Griaeee leip4-s € opus 
Cy pr i wis Bim ipa miitisa kee. Me te oT US: @. We 


temporis haere ses col lveemis O1c tes 
elt nitia 6.0 mp: le x*us: (ets ts 5 pe we mie ep elape beaweg 
jum —Philastrio doct1o7,em-imywem cages 

a Wilde. erig:o; ne. f ot ey Mir bi sim ss amie 
Fipiphanii, tabi, mittere de beam ipsam 
emim “arbitror Phila stiri er doe tamis, sine 
locutum, qui possit apud Cartha sanem 

tne, Wastinnaym lien gala m Vie Pit = if acca Iinues 
at .quure? i Gm) mio d 1 Ws. wt >t We pert G Ss spmiaresiters 
nobis quod quaeris.  Fromthese words it seems 

natural to infer that there did not exist a Latin version of the 
Panarion or the epitome of the Panarion which Augustine 
might consult. Yet he seems to be familiar with the contents 
of Epiphanius’ work on heresies. It seems probable then that 
Augustine read the epitome of the Panarion in Greek ; but of 
this we cannot be certain. 

In regard to Plotinus and Porphyry there can hardly be 
any question that he did not read them in the original. He 
was familiar with both these authors and quotes from them. 
In DCD XIX. 23 he gives a quotation from the é« Aoytwy 

girdocofias of Porphyry, ut iepeSiar © Wiewabwa e7tuas 
que m Paid pmo dum: ex" Grace a - \inn) eeukaeeee 
I;Attiimya-my Lnstsea pre tata, “sii nt.  )proenyamiuse 

In these words Augustine is not referring to his own transla- 
tion of the passage, but gives it from some version of Por- 
phyry which he had before him. He does not, it is true, 
mention the name of any author of a version either of Por- 
phyry or of Plotinus, though so thoroughly conversant with 
the writings of these two Platonists. Dr. Philip Schaff (Saint 
Augustin, Melanchthon, Neander, N. Y., 1886, p. 88) says: 
‘He probably read Plotinus and Porphyry in the original.” 
But from the extent of Augustine’s knowledge of Greek, 
which we have shown above, and from the limited use he made 
of Greek, it is unlikely that he should have read either Por- 
phyry or Plotinus in the original. His knowledge of both was 
entirely through Latin versions. While there is absolute lack 
of evidence that Augustine read Plato in the original, while he 


made so comparatively limited use of the LXX, while he seems 
to have preferred translations on all occasions, while he did 
not consider himself equal to the task of reading the Greek 
fathers on the subject of the Trinity, would he, in all proba- 
bility, be able to read the philosophic writings of Porphyry 
and Plotinus? We do not think so, but believe, as stated 
above (p. 239), that both Porphyry and Plotinus must be re- 
ferred tothe quosdam libros Platonicorum 
(moc VlChOriams qiuiomdam «he tor Urbis 
Reouenre.. . ln Latinam lin @uam ‘tr ans - 
Exuabupsrsve t< Of ‘Cont. 3.2.3. 

What does Augustine mean by the words of sermo 225. 3. 
peecdeimantes: Laven te batin am jo lat1- 
Mtns tiie opr Of er en dium erSet verbum. 
pwede mo Ger ae Cus ses ses 1G tia ecse. ti D1 
MeKMibtend ec be term ete proherre aidit'e vier 
bum Graecum? Does this mean that Augustine here 
implies that he could speak Greek to the children if they were 
Greek? Hes referring simply to the propriety of speaking 
Latin to Latin children, telling them that in the same way if 
tneyeawenes Greeks, he-‘ought (de bier -e:m )/- ‘tos~speak 
Greek to them, without hinting whether he himself understood 
Greek enough to speak it. 

Having thus completed our examination of the works of 
Augustine with a view to discover the extent of his knowledge of 
Greek, we have seen that he himself claims to have known 
very little about Greek, that on all occasions he seems to have 
preferred a Latin version of a Greek author, that he did not 
consider his knowledge of Greek extensive enough to make a 
large reading acquaintance with original writings of the Greek 
fathers, that he did not read even his favorite Platon- 
ists in the original, that he sometimes made mistakes in 
his use of Greek. On the other hand we have found 
that there is a large number of single Greek words and 
Greek phrases in his works, that he could with a con- 
siderable amount of precision distinguish between Greek 
synonyms—nearly all of them technical terms, that he was 


by no means ignorant of the derivation of Greek words, that 
he was conversant with and could consult for the simpler and 
primary critical and exegetical purposes the Septuagint ver- 
sion, or at least portions of it-—the Heptateuch and Psalms, 
that from the LXX he could confirm or correct the Itala; that 
he knew something of the original language of the New Tes- 
tament—though apparently not to the same extent as that of the 
Septuagint; that from the New Testament Greek text he occas- 
ionally ventured to correct his Latin version; that for contro- 
- versial purposes he regarded his knowledge of Greek as sufficient 
to presume upon it in order to confute his opponent; that he 
perhaps read the epitome of the Greek work of Epiphanius 
on heresies in the original. 

In his commentary on Job he seems not to have consulted 
the LXX, and in his works on the New Testament we are disap- 
pointed to find so little use made of the Greek text. 

After all the evidence given above, it would be very far 
from the truth to assert Augustine knew little or nothing about 
Greek. In his early days this may have been so. But Augus- 
tine later on applied himself to the study, and no doubta 
man of his earnest temperament would spare no efforts to 
master that language for practical purposes. We may say 
then that Augustine’s knowledge of Greek was different at 
different times, or rather that it increased with his years and 
his use of it. That he was not ignorant of the advantages 
and value of such a study we may see from De doctrina Chris- 
tiana\2. 13. 16: DO Map pa tiet..(S.c nt e nit ita) eomtom 
in. ea bin eua-inspiciatur -qusasm: inten. 
pretantur: €t ple 1a mpg ule: a ese msn) vase 
Hons, die vals, ja brea rab mt e ® por cis. sSeleunnoms 
Sit, G0.6 £18 Siam us: aa t dha ns ura une oie leo 
“wim 6%) guibas: -ine, Latimam (S eriup tues 
pervenit petenda cognitio, est. so alse 
ibid, 2.04; 20cando2> 15.220 (ad fin. ), bia ti nagie ga 
wee eo ad rees: Veteras-. lresit.4 men bese 
necesse  fuerit, Graeccorum  2uctor- 
tate. emendandi stunt... Libros saimue m 


NMowtlobestamentis si Iqurtd rm Latins 
Wane tia tb ese atti bia te es Gok €-CelS) (Cie dere 
Sportere non dwbaum est, | et, maxim e 
qin apd .cciehestas Goetionres., et dili,- 
Seat Wom cess st ep eri! My fost se 

We cannot, therefore, limit Augustine throughout his 
after life to the little acquaintance with Greek of his school 
days. The disgust for the study of Greek arising out of the 
bad method employed by his teacher evidently did not con- 

Clausen’s examination of Augustine’s writings with a view 
to determine his knowledge of Greek was not sufficiently com- 
prehensive, and some important passages he has failed to note. 

He concludes his investigation thus: In his ob- 
SenmwaacnadsS COT. revel duis GQ Ue. Sil jan pial cis 
adi imo: dim dis¢.eS9s €fis, Augustinum 

Wer, felwciter assSeecutum €Sse nema - 
medi . fu. oct; Guare jkamtum,) ssi vq wid 
Video, a Duesst ut ignarus limo sae 
Guaceae dict debieat,. wt © eS, ¢ ram ma-- 
Hie ais pene.edoctus et swbtilrs verbo- 

Mayme qin Galea tio 64) 6X, s.t lim ayn. d us) Sats Ast 
PActre tamem patet cognitiomem hance, 
quae Waster a ele m enita lim 9 nace non 

pacordeat. nial lo. modo Sof. f ieceor..€ ad 
inbiGors), Gira ecos ned um” 4eos. squat  diiva- 
Vesetow Hel bemistie¢d . ons crapitis -sunt, 
intelligendos. (Aurelius Augustinus Hipp. Sacrae 
scripturae Interpres p. 39). The latter part of this conclusion 
is too strong, even against Augustine’s limited knowledge of 
Greek. Such an opinion as that of Clausen is at variance 
with the facts which have been given above. Augustine’s 
knowledge of Greek ad certainly extend ultra ele- 
menta  lineutaé and Clausen’s . other statement 
nmulto, modo switicere ad libros Graecos 
Heemonim: seo 5 1 qui dia lector mellenis tia 


Conscripti, sunit’ - itn te dolieemidse sm sisenise 
equally erroneous. 

Reuter (Augustinische Studien. Gotha 1887. pp. 170-182) 
has given the question of the extent of Augustine’s knowledge 
of Greek a fuller and better treatment than Clausen, though 
he has not exhausted the material. He has taken different 
passages from those given by Clausen and collected other evi- 
dence as he says: ‘‘ Die Stellen, welche er zu diesem Behufe 
gesammelt hat, sind andere als diejenigen, welche ich gefun- 
den habe. Beide Sammlungen kénnen einander ergdnzen.” 
(p. 171, footnote 2). His conclusions are fairer and more 
liberal to Augustine’s knowledge of Greek: ‘‘Er war jeden- 
falls imstande, nicht bloss Worter, sondern atch ganze Satze 
zu verstehen, wenn auch nicht ohne Anstrengung, nicht ohne 
in Irrungen zu geraten, nicht ohne Aufwand von Zeit. Um 
diesen sich zu ersparen, griff er offenbar fiir gew6éhnlich zu 
einer lateinischen Version, wenn diese vorhanden, ein Exemp- ~ 
lar derselben ihm zuganglich war. In Fallen aber, wo er in 
dieser Unverstandliches oder Anstéssiges fand, verglich er 
den griechischen Urtext. Ich bezweifle somit durchaus 
nicht, dass er fahig gewesen wdre, wenn auch mit Miihe, ein 
vollstindiges griechisches Buch auszulegen, falls damit ein 
dringendes personliches Bediirfnis zu stillen ware” (p. 178- 
179). The facts given above bear out these statements of 
Reuter. He has arrived at a conclusion which I consider cor- 
rect and well supported, though he has not exhausted all the 
evidence and has omitted to mention some important notices 
in the writings of Augustine relevant to the subject. 

In finding the extent of Augustine’s acquaintance with 
Greek I have attempted to collect every important statement 
of his own in regard to Greek and every use of Greek—the 
most important of which have been given above—to be found in 
the Confessions, in the City of God, in all his exegetical and 
controversial worksand inthe De Trinitate, De doctrina Christi- 
ana, De sermone Dominiin monte, De haeresibus, De consensu 
evangelistarum, Retractationes, Sermones and Epistulae. 


In conclusion, this investigation into the data, from which 
a true estimate of Augustine’s knowledge of Greek may be 
gained, does not by any means warrant us in concluding that 
the great North African father had a mere elementary knowl- 
edge of Greek, confined only to the school rudiments and to 
an acquaintance with a few words and derivations and pas- 
sages. His knowledge of Greek was imperfect, limited and 
incomplete, but cannot be described as merely elementary: it 
was altogether less than his ability to use it; his method of 
employing it was more perfect than his knowledge of it was 
extensive. Besides we have reason to believe that he 
could have made more use of his Greek than he did. The 
fact that he used the Septuagint in the Quaestiones in Hepta- 
teuchum and also in the Locutiones and more or less in the 
Enarrationes in Psalmos proves that he could also have con- 
sulted it throughout on the book of Job if he had cared to do 
so. And we may gather from the few examples of his em- 
ployment of the Greek text of the New Testament that he 
could have used it more extensively if he had felt so inclined. 
The fact that Augustine could have done so, but has not done 
so, leads to conclude that his knowledge of Greek was not 
so extensive that he could use it with ease; but he 
has given us abundant examples of having called his knowl- 
edge of Greek into frequent service, so that we cannot say it 
amounted to little. 

On the other hand we may not exaggerate his knowledge 
of Greek. While we learn from his exegetical and contro- 
versial works that he had a considerable knowledge, the fact 
that he did not employ Greek more, especially in the former 
class of works, shows that his Greek was not very exten- 

This is further borne out by the consideration that Au- 
gustine’s serviceable Greek knowledge appears to have been 
limited entirely to Biblical and Patristic Greek. His largest 
field in Greek learning was the Greek of the Septuagint, next in 
order comes his knowledge of the Greek of the New Testament, 
and finally, but a very small amount of Patristic Greek. Of 
the Greek classics he was almost entirely ignorant: and did 
not consult any of them in the original. 


I. New or hitherto unnoticed fragments :— 

a. Add to the fragments of Cicero (De Fato) :— 

(1) DEDWe2(ps 193.42), mo bake 1 Lud” crogmee 
men tum: de. fipali ©o ta. quod emer 
Sspremmidas sie) fer amt Nie stadia tind. eae 

Gelizanersot sO me, tou cba bum Wind es eens 
Riswlas.appellatus ¢€'st. Dum sem 
hOtam tie ulivn yi. “quran tia “prorteuuian 
ish; tO Salesesre nt © CM mrem tre ila bse 

numero “d'e atramento tamivqiaiam 
Wino. e1 u6s loco Sumima ce le mite ase 

percuss tt. “deuinidie: “in ven t ab esummame 
Siomia, Guae fixetat, ides t emmmime 
Motu. MOR parvo dn tery al hose 

ro tae, 11 bau sex tr eemii tate) idsisiteane 
CHa SiC, Mita t.. ten) tia miperayy mee 
Cattwaite cra -e€ 1a. et ams i), allt eave prascee 
alter um stam ta celle ri t ajoe;neansrerae 
tilt “q.aom tia or Ont aim... b> ics psc saprentee 
GS Sit., tim) 1c aie Li, Stpract 10) plasm 

esrtiss -hpiuce Ssuyh ty. “yioaigid ts. "qi mare 
cunquec dissimitlhima per hi ben tae 
in moribus Cra. Si bows qvare gemi- 

n Or Um. 

(2): DED: W..5.(p. tg 7. 13), Ld usd: a “no mintawtaleigs 
praeditcat ur, “qiwod! -quidam sa spe 
ie ies) hoe alm. see ol te. G) tae eCauempente er 
Gite, {Chom Go Umib ew ect...  ninide) shel ruse 
Mist aa Dae mien Outen me, Test 


B. Editors of Cicero’s works have overlooked the frag- 
ment expressly attributed to Cicero by Augustine in 
DED VIE 169 (pag4on 5) qwed “hac pestitf - 
Grass cell cima tage dO Cl hina, f ruc - 
Stse e Mmhawhe aeibas tern das tra ns- 
fherreiperiibe moun, nomneé in duo- 
dretcnnimy May OnllhS yw slv@eare.Sot RO Ma n.o0) r= 
Meats Si mS be ribDus, Cicero 
CyOumMe mem oO; Ta) t Es:S eu (6 O 1 SiC hip © dam 
Smee moc. recCerit Suppl tectum 
CeOunS bab. Ue tum 

c. Add to the hitherto acknowledged fragments of Varro, 
De Rebus Divinis (book 16 De diis selectis): 
DED IV. ro (p. 159. 20), Cut (Vestae) Phoen- 
ere Scorn mw myn diab avtiat eden pire stn tu = 
tio-n-e foinli tae Wem. amniee qiuyaim “eas 
inten ON etre ae be avis 11S 

II. So far as the testimony of Augustine’s writings is con- 
cerned, his attitude to the fall of Rome and the state 
of the Roman empire of his day was one neither of 
intense and deeply patriotic feeling, nor of heartless 
indifference, though nearer to the latter than 
to the former. To say the least he appears 
surprisingly calm in the face of so terrible a 
calamity. Augustine’s pride in Rome was centered 
in her achievements of the fast, not in her present. 
He was more of a Christian than a Roman. 

III. Augustine sometimes has a way of disguising or referring 
to particular authorities by general or indefinite plural 
expressions, e. g., DCDII. 22(p. 83. 22) secun- 
dim "corum “auctores doctissi- 
mos for Sallust.. DCD II. 23 (p. 86. 28) eos 
qui Seripserunt >) PCDI 31 °(p.'144. 30), 
api deco. ss (ps r44: 34)! sie ripis er wnt ;~(p: 
Mens litte ons man davier um tj vfor Livy. 


DED: IL, a5. (p. -116. 14), 4q tlideasmerns Crepe 
t-o:t-e\s 3;-DCD V.. 45:(p:, 1672013) al OMe oe 
livs = DCD. V.. 20 (p., 235.°6),= phalliossyo pla] tor 
Cicero. DCDiIIT. 19. (p, 128.407) es eG no matine 
fa ten t1ibu's for Florus, DED AIVE 10.sbVaee4- 
inquiunt: DCDIV. 26.7 a idiojen s (sa ileitce. 
DCD VIL‘, 1 2°q:u 1u nt, fer Varro. DCD Waa: 
14, inqguiunt for Apuleius. MCD 1X. 1 (p: 368: 
17) fateantur for Lactantius;” ae should be 
noticed, however, that in such instances Augustine 
uses these plurals also in a kind of generic sense. 
He means the particular writers whom he has in 
mind to stand as representatives of the pagans gen- 

IV. On the testimony of Augustine’s works he had a limited 
working knowledge of biblical Greek, a very slight 
working knowledge of patristic Greek and apparently 
no working knowledge of classical Greek. 

V. The lost Hortensius of Cicero must be regarded as one of 
Augustine’s chief literary authorities for the history 
of philosophy. 

VI. Augustine alone has preserved for us the information of 
the sack of Nola by the Goths after that of Rome in 

VII. Note the following mistakes in facts in the first ten 

books of the City of God: 

A. Proved mistakes. 

inOCiOrl 2elnevora met. wert =p tot eauaunit 
aliqeine m. due eam, “bat bia.r-o rumen ee 
C e.piss.e, (uf .in tr upto yop paldioummmle 
bus) sfleraret ur). ‘¢.uis -icn . wiboumayeen 
ilo). t-eim/pl-o; fis set. incvelnit msn maser 
note p. 5. 30.) 



DCD wane Omehowuisme ui seri byt) Sa t-= 

Piesvtt ws... (See notep.. 94,38.) 





DCL ef! Romulus 7 et Remus asy - 
liam? SG One S-tiict wPss ec Per hipbentur. 
(See note p. 50. 31.) 

PDCDa tess aon tam en | perhibet ur 

easdem leges a numinibus accep- 
isse. (See note p. 72. 9.) 

Hep ther, de cemy 2 am thib us aeris 
Gam mar et ur. “(See note. p. 73. 21.) 

Benlies aM ctelius .. 1: Quilyba bart 
G*einquwe,, filios eonsularés. -(See 
note p. 86. 11.) 

DCR Ill. 5, 2culteras,-amtem-feminas, 
Gua meyers oalid wa da nina tio ne, nm wl 
fan tamena morte ~phectebant.- (See 
MOLE P: 102) FL.) 

PHCD Eins ipso in herte.e tO Wt me oir 

deus esset réegnum soluws obtin- 
Hite. (see note p, 112. 17.) 

WE MEER ozo; nam —€.t1a mM - Sd o f um>  ¢ a- 
davcmebus. a nonn ad llis, spas ta. per- 
henbrertewr .-- (See note. p. 130:)13.) 

DEDWe Teo2 be Vi a.e Fi me quot Ain ./S wo 
defunctus est consulatu (after Eu- 
tropius.—See note p. 227. 2.) 

DEM Vos2,, Quin tus) ‘ei ‘annmns fin ¢m 
dedit (after Eutropius. See note p. 234. 13.) 
DEDAVE ne tthe ~bDonmte dixit. (See 
note p. 342. 34.) 

DeiUberwnudye . ae. wt cham ver 0 Ss t= 
mess tte (G1 ce ro jade Graeco. ¢ x: 
Pressius- piasslomese vocant. (See 
note p. 371, 9.) 


B. Possible but unproved mistakes. 

tr DCD IL 6, Fugatia. (See/notep. 5¢:/257) 

2° DGD IT. 23, Mia ri nisi, S28 ppestats wea ataas 
tia tis.) (Sée notep.s5. 27.) 

2. in .ipsius -auwtiem sp Miagin 7 ocounas 
continuo FeTire bamt ur, quibus 
salutantibus dexter am porrise ece 
nolwisset? \(Se€ note p.130. 27.) 

4. DCD Jit, 31; qua’ Ca lam1 t-adse, per mieea 
In Aswert Corgi ter euiusdem anni 
ttibutum:, €i> redaxaw ere oR Oma oe 
Octeginta” ho mi name am ita pen 
isse referantur. (See notes p: 1445 20: 
145. 3.) 


First Part: LITERARY SouRcEs oF DCD, I-X. Pages 9-59. 
I. Sources mentioned by Augustine. 
II. Sources not mentioned by Augustine. 
[Conspectus of Literary Sources. | 
[Note on Composition of DCD by A. F. West. ] 

Book I. ps.64: 
Book II. p. 87. 
Book Hi, <p. res: 
Book. 1V_. p.153- 
Book V.- p: 163. 
Book VI. p. 179. 
Book VII. p. 182. 
Book VIII. p. 183. 
Book IX. _ p. 204. 
Book X. p. 211. 

I. What does he say of his knowledge of Greek ? 237 

II. Use of Greek in his writings. 239 
1. Use of Latin versions. 239 

2. Scattered Greek words and phrases. 243 

3. Exegetical use of Greek— 245 

a. In the LXX. 245 

b. In the New Testament. 256 

4. Controversial use of Greek. 263 

5. Other considerations. 266 
Summary and conclusions. 269 

Some THESEs: 274 







[The page numbers mean pages of this dissertation. ] 

Line from Top. 

19. 27. 31 




omit period after odorem 

insert in after evidently 

for supra read super (correcting Kuhl- 

(omelet is exead ti b-é Fis 

insert Plotinus Jefore Cicero 

Voce hho SiS yrraene f fo Sis is 

Sallust, and not Florus, is Augustine’s author- 
ity for the Servile war, as may be argued 
from other passages inthe DCD. See also 
Jiirges, De Sallustii historiarum reliquiis, 
p> tS. 

jor akin OS ead ann o's 

insert to after put 

omit only and add Sallust 

omit Florus or Eutropius (?) and add Sallust 

for XVII. read XVIII. 

jor Praetier unt rod practerive runt 
aad probably after was 

for Liviy read Livy 

for 625 read 125 

yer © uve tum x2ed © wie tiem 

for Epitone read Epitome 

insert BOOK VIII 

My misunderstanding of Augustine’s words. 
He does not mean that Apuleius was tried 
before Christian judges. 

jor Ascelepius read Asclepius 

yer Ona te tt. read. “Omae x 1 t 

for 026 read bdw 

Jor muliereutae xeae mulie rou la 

for tereras read tederas 

for xivapxo. read xiXiapyxou 

for 70° read TO 

7 ras ig P ete ake b 
ete a aia 

x5 PN PBA ye sin 

3 i i ie 
ee é 

{ ’ has Te SV Noe a by 
: y 7 ? fs Car. 
. Rare Nad ty, 
| | TN ba ae, ‘- Bry 
toy ; me Na: 
| ' AY Vice oie | ha Uc 
| } Be ny 4 
| s t 
y j in 
i] i | | 
A Py 
Ar ae Vieni th 
j* } . im’. . he ‘ a . 
‘aie j fae ] 1: Peel aie had 
i 7 ra } 

hie re 
} 4 

: i is 
iss as Al 

Wn a 


ty A 

ie fi - fl 
es " iy 
i if ab i) 

hs Peak 

fwd) iu . 

Date Due 



ft A 






Angus, Sam 

The sour 







aah rey 
Py evetitaie by 

Lior eacian Me nara a cit 



Nhe i 

ee aluleehed 

a eeiel Bb 


if fo 



‘ 7 

H * vy ny 
if cae fibula daeas a 
: 7 teh f OED: 
iy y } 
ALM ue abt GN ogi a et detail te twice 
Fast etd oh ‘ We iat ft 
i eh ney 
ay ie 

h § 
Ot ese 

Sespahigtint n 
beste i 

we he 
4 ti 



rave 6) 

rn a, 

abidt 2 

Mey Tyimen fe 


Ne ay 
ba of 4 


hegt i + 
y roe Pbipst wa | Me uM 
} Mptecpags abe! $i Hees a 
pie sa ed bt eb rine We bel Lie father ny \ 
ais oi 
iat lh i 

ie ’ 

4G bem 



Feber, lee 

es i 




eat by ke 
Baia HC ny