Notes on Augustine’s De pulchro at apto and its Manichaean Context

Johannes van Oort (University of Pretoria)

Introduction

The content of Augustine’s youth work De pulchro et apto is largely shrouded in

mysteries. Everything we know for sure Augustine relates some twenty years later
in conf. 4,20-27. The passage is too long to be brought up in its entirety and
analyzed in all details. I do, however, briefly mention the most important opinions
that have been put forward about the work. In 1966 Takeshi Katô published the (in
our context) most cited study ‘Melodia interior. Sur le traité De pulchro et apto’.1 He
refers to Manichaean sources from Egyptian Medinet Madi for Augustine’s
speaking of ‘beauty’ and some other aspects, but—although the evidence in his
article is evocative rather than conclusive—one cannot agree with later criticism
that none of the texts he puts forward proves direct or indirect influence from
Manichaean sources.2 In the course of my essay I will return to some of the texts
put forward by him, though often in a different way. Ten years after Katô, Donald
A. Cress again reviewed several possible sources, but his article does not designate
any of them as decisive.3 Cress’ main conclusion is that Augustine’s work does not
actually have ‘beauty’ as its main theme, but ‘love’.4 The already cited article by
Jean-Michel Fontanier delved deeper in a number of possible philosophical and
rhetorical influences (Plato’s [?] Hippias Maior; more likely Stoic coloured texts from
Cicero).5 However, he comes—quite rightly—to no firm conclusion and winds up
by pointing to parallels in Augustine’s later works.6 Virtually the same goes for
Fontanier’s recent lemma ‘Pulchro et apto (De –)’ in the Augustinus-Lexikon, which
mainly repeats his 1989 article.7 Meantime Kyung Burchill-Limb offered some
reflections from antique philosophy and rhetoric;8 her main conclusion is that—in
Augustine’s whole oeuvre—‘the idea of amare pulchrum itself never changed’.9 Apart
from the just mentioned lexicon article by Fontanier, the most recent discussion of

1
Takeshi Katô, ‘Melodia interior. Sur le traité De pulchro et apto’, REA 12 (1966) 229-240.
2
J.-M. Fontanier, ‘Sur le traité d’Augustin De pulchro et apto: conuenance, beauté et adaptation’,
RSPT 73 (1989) 413-421: ‘T. Katô affirme l’influence, directe ou indirecte, des écrits manichéens
sur le traité du jeune Augustin. Malheureusement aucun élément textuel précis dans les fragments
de Médinêt Mâdî mis en auant par l’auteur, ne uient corroborer une telle hypothèse’ (413).
3
D.A. Cress, ‘Hierius & St. Augustine’s Account of the lost ‘De Pulchro et Apto’: Confessions
IV,13-15’, AS 7 (1976) 153-163.
4
Cress, ‘Augustine’s Account’, 162: ‘Augustine’s first treatise dwelt only incidentally on beauty, in
spite of its title. Primarily, it must have been a treatise on love’.
5
Fontanier, ‘Sur le traité d’Augustin’, 414-418.
6
Fontanier, ‘Sur le traité d’Augustin’, 418-421.
7
J.-M. Fontanier, ‘Pulchro et apto (De –)’, AL IV, Fasc. 7-8, Basel: Schwabe 2018, 1004-1007.
8
K.-Y. Burchill-Limb, ‘“Philokalia” in Augustine’s De pulchro et apto’, Aug(L) 53 (2003) 69-75.
9
Burchill-Limb, ‘“Philokalia”’, 74.
De pulchro et apto of which I am aware is by Jason David BeDuhn.10 Some relevant
comments in the more general works about Augustine and his Confessiones will be
mentioned later.
In addition to the scholarly observations made so far, I would like to
contribute a number of notes which emphasize the Manichaean context of the
work. In my view, it will become evident that both its title and many facets of its
content are first and foremost understandable from within Manichaean texts and
Manichaean patterns of thought.

1. The Manichaean Work’s Literary Form and Dedication to Hierius

First of all, I remark that the writing dates from Augustine’s Manichaean period.
He says this more or less emphatically at the start of his memoir about De pulchro et
apto in conf. 4,20:

Haec tunc non noueram et amabam pulchra inferiora et ibam in profundum et dicebam
amicis meis: ‘Num amamus aliquid nisi pulchrum? Quid est ergo pulchrum? Et quid est
pulchritudo? Quid est quod nos allicit et conciliat rebus, quas amamus? Nisi enim esset in
eis decus et species, nullo modo nos ad se mouerent.’11

At that time12 I did not know13 this.14 And I loved beautiful things of lower degree and I
was going down into the depth;15 and I said to my friends: ‘Do we love anything but the
beautiful? What, then, is a beautiful object? And what is beauty? What is it that attracts us
and wins over to the things we love? For unless there were decus and species in them, they
would in no way move us towards them.’

Later I will return to the words decus and species; here I emphasize that his discussion
is being held with Manichaean friends.
On the basis of the just quoted questions it is also worth noting that in all
probability Augustine’s first work—just like his early works from Cassiciacum, the
Soliloquia16 and several of his later writings—has been written in the form of a
dialogue, a well-known literary form not only in rhetorical-philosophical circles but
10
J.D. BeDuhn, Augustine’s Manichaean Dilemma, 1: Conversion and Apostasy, 373-388 C.E.,
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press 2010, 98-102.
11
Conf. 4,20 (CCL 27,50).
12
I.e. about 380-381, still during his Manichaean years.
13
Also this ‘non noueram’ (in opposition to Mani’s and the Manichaeans’ claim of possessing and
proclaiming the ‘truth’) is very typical of Augustine’s critical view of his Manichaean period; cf.
e.g. conf. 3,12: ‘... quia non noueram malum non esse nisi priuationem boni ...; ibidem: ‘Et non
noueram deum esse spiritum ...’; 3,13: ‘Et non noueram iustitiam ueram interiorem ...’; 4,3: ‘Non
enim amare te noueram, qui nisi fulgores corporeos cogitare non noueram’; 5,8: ‘... ista uero quia
non nouerat [sc. Manichaeus]’; 5,19: ‘Et quoniam cum de deo meo cogitare uellem, cogitare nisi
moles corporum non noueram ...’; etc.
14
Sc. all that has been said in the preceding paragraphs about the true love of things in God.
15
Cf. ‘ima’ in conf. 4,27; with regard to the Manichaeans and their opinions also e.g. conf. 3,11: ‘...
quibus gradibus deductus in profunda inferi ...’.
16
Some researchers consider this work as belonging to the Cassiciacum dialogues as well.
certainly also among the Manichaeans.17 One may see confirmation of this
dialogical character in Augustine’s words towards the end of conf. 4,23: ‘... and that
“beautiful and harmonious” ... was a topic my mind enjoyed turning over and
reflecting upon’.
The last quoted words are part of the following full sentence:

Et tamen pulchrum illud atque aptum, unde ad eum scripseram, libenter animo uersabam
ob os contemplationis meae et nullo conlaudatore mirabar.18

And yet that ‘beautiful and harmonious’ about which I had written to him, I gladly let it
turn over in my mind before the mouth of my contemplation, and I admired it without
anyone praising it with me.

The (fairly literal translated) full sentence raises a number of interesting issues. The
phrase ‘unde ad eum scripseram’ refers to a certain Hierius. Apart from his mention in
two subscriptions in manuscripts of Ps.-Quintilian,19 we know nothing about this
Hierius except what Augustine reports here and in conf. 4,21: he was an orator in
Rome (Romanae urbis oratorem), originally a Syrian who first learned good Greek and
then in Latin had become an admirable orator (... Syro, docto prius graecae facundiae, post
in latina etiam dictor mirabilis ...), a man also well versed in philosophical issues (...
scientissimus rerum ad studium sapientiae pertinentium ...). Considering that he was so
much praised by Augustine’s friends and also admired by the Manichaean
Augustine himself, one might wonder: was he a Manichaean, too? His great
language knowledge (so characteristic of the Manichaeans) could further indicate
this; as perhaps his familiarity with philosophical issues.20 Moreover, he was a
Syrian: it is not only a known fact that Mani came from the Syro-Mesopotamian
world and composed nearly all his works in Syriac, but also that his message (like
that of other ‘gnostic’ movements) was first and very successfully spread in the
Syriac speaking areas.
The words ‘nullo conlaudatore mirabar’ have given rise to curious translations
and similar reflections. A well known rendering such as ‘Although no one else
admired the book, I thought very well of it myself’21 gives the impression that
Augustine would have been spiritually isolated and not understood by anyone.
However, this seems to be contradicted by his initially reported and rather strong
emphasis on his circle of friends. In my view, ‘nullo conlaudatore’ (conlaudator, sg.) will

17
See e.g. several psalms in A Manichaean Psalm-Book, Part II, edited [and translated] by C.R.C.
Allberry, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1938 and also various Parthian hymns.
18
Conf. 4,23 (CCL 27,52).
19
Cf. e.g. PLRE 1,431 and also J.J. O’Donnell, Augustine, Confessions, II: Commentary on Books 1-
7, Oxford: Clarendon Press 1992, 250-251.
20
As was already the case with Mani himself. Cf. e.g. conf. 5,8. One may also compare, for
instance, the Manichaeans in the school of Alexander of Lycopolis. See also below, p. * and n.
145.*
21
H. Chadwick, Saint Augustine, Confessions. Translated with an Introduction and Notes, Oxford:
Oxford University Press 1991 (several reprints), 67.
specifically refer to the aforementioned Hierius, of which Augustine just told in
conf. 4,23 that he did not know whether the highly acclaimed rhetor would approve
of his writing. I therefore propose the following paraphrased rendering of this part
of the last full sentence of conf. 4,23, which does not accidentally start with ‘et tamen’:

And yet [despite the fact that Hierius’ judgement about my book was unknown to me] ...
I admired it, even without co-praiser.

There may have been a special reason for Augustine’s concern that his
writing would please Hierius. In conf. 4,23 he also reveals: ‘It mattered a great deal
to me to make my discourse (sermo) and my studies (studia) known to that man. If
he approved of them, I would have been vastly enflamed; but if he disapproved,
my heart, vain (uanum) and lacking your solidity (soliditas), would be wounded’.
Sermo can mean ‘discourse’ and indicate the subject of a discussion. But (again with
e.g. Cicero’s use) it can also mean ‘manner of speaking’, ‘style’. Could it be that
Augustine had a distinct style in mind, i.e. not only a dialogical manner of speaking,
but a dialogical monologue such as we firstly know from his Soliloquia? The just
quoted ‘animo uersabam ob os contemplationis meae’ do not only seem to indicate the
work’s dialogical character, but especially its being a monologue.22 Its additional
qualifications as being ‘vain’23 and ‘lacking your solidity’24 without a doubt refer to
its Manichaean character.
The words ‘os contemplationis meae’ are also noticeable. I literally translated as
‘the mouth of my contemplation’. The imagery may have classical roots, although
James O’Donnell in his well-known commentary does not provide a better example
than ‘ante os’ in Cicero’s Rep. 3,15.25 He also mentions John Gibb’s and William
Montgomery’s comment in their widespread edition of the Confessiones: ‘An
elaborate variation, in the manner of the late rhetoric, on the phrase “ob oculos
mentis”’.26 It might be for that reason that most English translations render as ‘the
eye of my mind’, or rather similar expressions such as ‘a contemplative eye’, or even
‘surveyed’.27

22
One may also compare ‘Et ista consideratio scaturriuit in animo meo ex intimo corde meo’ in
conf. 4,20 (CCL 27,51). See further below.
23
Cf. e.g. conf. 4,12: ‘uanum phantasma’.
24
Cf. e.g. the just in conf. 4,23 mentioned ‘solidity of [God’s] truth’ (soliditas ueritatis) in contrast to
the repeated Manichaean claim (see e.g. conf. 3,10) of heralding ‘the truth’.
25
O’Donnell, Augustine, Confessions, II: Commentary on Books 1-7, 254.
26
The Confessions of Augustine. Edited by J. Gibb and W. Montgomery, Cambridge: At the
University Press 1927, 100.
27
Cf. e.g. E.B. Pusey’s translation (1838), printed for instance as a volume of Everyman’s Library:
The Confessions of St. Augustine, London-New York: J.M. Dent-E.P. Dutton 1907 (repr. 1949), 66:
‘surveyed’; M. Boulding, transl. The Confessions (WSA I/1), Hyde Park, NY: New City Press 1997,
107: ‘a contemplative eye’; C.J.-B. Hammond, ed. and transl., Augustine, Confessions, Books 1-8
(LCL), Cambridge, Mass. & London: Harvard University Press 2014, 171: ‘my mind’s eye’. Cf.
e.g. the still leading French translation by E. Tréhorel and G. Bouissou in BA 13, 449: ‘le regard
de ma contemplation’.
 One may wonder whether this is all one can reasonably say of the curious
expression. Notable in Augustine’s Confessiones are the metaphors that appear in the
grammatical form of the appositional genitive.28 These include turns of phrase such
as ‘aures cordis’29 (conf. 1,5); ‘aure cordis’30 (conf. 4,10); ‘in aure cordis’ (conf. 4,16); ‘de manu
linguae meae’ (conf. 5,1); ‘foribus oculorum’ (conf. 6,13), etc.; and also ‘os contemplationis’.
These expressions are not found in the Scriptures, not even in the so abundantly
metaphorical Psalms which deeply influenced Augustine’s masterpiece.31 As regards
the mouth (os), we find metaphorical speech in the Confessiones such as ‘oris intus
animae meae’ (conf. 1,21); ‘ore cordis’ (conf. 9,23); ‘in ore cogitationis’ (conf. 10,22); ‘manus
oris mei’ (conf. 11,12). The phrase ‘os contemplationis meae’ in our passage most closely
matches ‘in ore cogitationis’ in conf. 10,22. There it runs (in context):

Forte ergo sicut de uentre cibus ruminando, sic ista de memoria recordando proferuntur.
Cur igitur in ore cogitationis non sentitur a disputante, hoc est a reminiscente, laetitiae
dulcedo uel amaritudo maestitiae?32

Perhaps then, even as food is in ruminating brought up from the stomach, so by

recollection these (sc. the perturbationes animi) are brought up from the memory. But then,
why does not the person speaking, that is recollecting, perceive in the mouth of his
contemplation the sweetness of joy or the bitterness of sorrow?

Quite the same phrase is also found in Contra Faustum:

quod enim utile audieris, uelut ab intestino memoriae tamquam ad os cogitationis recordandi
dulcedine reuocare quid est aliud quam spiritaliter quodam modo ruminare?33

For what else is it to recall something useful (i.e. some word of wisdom) you have
heard—as if from the stomach of memory so to say to the mouth of contemplation, because of
the sweetness of recalling—but somehow to spiritually ruminate?

The figure of speech with ‘mouth’ is closely linked here with alimentary language.
As we will see in the case of De pulchro et apto, this would not be coincidental given
the likely ‘alimentary’ content of (part of) this work. Anyway, ‘os contemplationis’, just
as the closely related ‘os cogitationis’, seems to be best translated as ‘the mouth of my
contemplation’.
There might be another reason for the literal rendering of ‘os’ with ‘mouth’. I
mention this reason for the sake of completeness and also from the awareness that
Augustine in the Confessiones quite often converses ingeniously with his Manichaean

28
M.R. Arts, The Syntax of the Confessions of Saint Augustine, Washington, D.C.: The Catholic
University of America 1927, 16-17.
29
Not mentioned by Arts.
30
Idem.
31
Cf. e.g. G.N. Knauer, Psalmenzitate in Augustins Konfessionen, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht 1955.
32
Conf. 10,22 (CCL 27,166).
33
C. Faust. 6,7 (CSEL 25,295).
(or ex-Manichaean) readers.34 In De moribus Manichaeorum we read in his discussion
of the three Manichaean seals (tria signacula) that, according to the Manichaeans, the
seal of the mouth (signaculum oris) relates to much more than just nutrients:

Sed cum os, inquit, nomino, omnes sensus qui sunt in capite intelligi uolo ... .35

But, he [the Manichaean] says,36 when I mention the mouth, I want (you) to understand
all the senses that are found in the head ...

It could also be that Augustine in our passage from conf. 4,23, when reflecting on
his Manichaean treatise, deliberately uses this metaphor of the ‘mouth’ in such a
broad Manichaean sense.

2. The Manichaean Work’s Speaking of ‘Beauty and ‘Harmony’ and Focus on the ‘Corporeal’

There are other and even more important elements in Augustine’s report which
seem to refer to typical Manichaean traits. No doubt the young rhetorician made
use of his knowledge of main philosophical themes from the Platonic and Stoic
tradition such as acquired through his studying of e.g. Cicero. But we appear to
encounter a typical Manichaean basic principle in his exposition on De pulchro et apto
when he writes that he focused on the forms of material things (per formas corporeas,
conf. 4,24), in which search he (typical of a rhetor in his dialectic activity and—as we
have seen—typical of his later works in dialogue form) ‘determined and
distinguished’ (definiebam et distinguedam). According to him, the beauty (pulchrum) is
‘that which is so in itself’ (quod per se ipsum) and the harmonious or fitting (aptum)
‘that which is graceful because it corresponds to some other thing’ (quod ad aliquid
adcommodatum deceret). All this does not just remind of ‘Stoic-Ciceronian
vocabulary’,37 but particularly parallels a discussion of Augustine in his book against

34
Cf. e.g. J. van Oort, ‘Augustine’s Criticism of Manichaeism: The Case of Confessions 3,10 and Its
Implications’ (1995), revised and updated in idem, Mani and Augustine: Collected Essays on Mani,
Manichaeism and Augustine, Leiden-Boston: Brill 2020, 245-262; and various other chapters in this
collection. See also several studies by A.M. Kotzé, e.g. ‘A Protreptic to a Liminal Manichaean at
the Centre of Augustine’s Confessiones 4’, in J. van Oort (ed.), Augustine and Manichaean Christianity.
Selected Papers from the First South African Conference on Augustine of Hippo, University of Pretoria, 24-26
April 2012, Leiden-Boston: Brill 2013, 107-135 and, for two other early works of Augustine, Th.
Fuhrer, ‘Re-coding Manichaean Imagery: the Dramatic Setting of Augustine’s De ordine’, ibidem,
51-71 and J. Lössl, ‘Augustine on “True Religion”: Reflections on Manichaeism in De vera
religione’, ibid. 137-153.
35
Mor. 2,19 (CSEL 90,104-105).
36
‘It is replied’; ‘you say’.
37
Thus Fontanier, ‘Pulchro et apto (De –)’, 1005: ‘le caractère stoïco-cicéronien du vocabulaire’.
Cf. Fontanier, ‘Sur le traité d’Augustin’, 416f., in both instances with reference to M. Testard,
Saint Augustin et Cicéron, I: Cicéron dans la formation et dans l’ɶuvre de saint Augustin, Paris: Études
Augustiniennes 1958, e.g. 60ff.
Mani’s Epistula fundamenti about the border between the land of light and the land
of darkness.38 The starting point there is a passage in Mani’s Epistula stating that

iuxta unam uero partem ac latus illius inlustris ac sanctae terrae erat
tenebrarum terra profunda et inmensa magnitudine.39

near to one section and side of that bright and holy land there was the
land of darkness with its deep and immense size.

In his polemical discussion of this word of Mani’s with the directly addressed
Manichaeans, Augustine repeatedly points to a generally accepted principle, namely
that when a straight side is touched by a straight side, there is harmony (concordia)
and that such a circumstance is most beautiful (speciosius) and most fit
(conuenientius).40 In the continuation of his argument, this discourse about ‘beauty’
(pulchra; pulchritudinem; pulchrius; pulchritudinem; pulchritudinem; pulchritudinem; speciem;
pulchrum; decus) and ‘harmony’ (congruerent; concordius; concordabat; congruebat) constantly
returns.41 Also, Augustine’s remark in conf. 4,24 that he focused his mind on ‘lines
and colours and swollen magnitudes’ will only be understood in the context of his
Manichaean thinking and concrete representations: without a doubt the ‘swollen
magnitudes’ (tumentes magnitudines) are the corporeal depictions of both the kingdom
or land of the light and its counterpart, the kingdom or land of darkness.42
Yet it may be even more interesting to see how the—according to the work’s
title—apparently main theme of De pulchro et apto seems to return in what Augustine
reports in De moribus Manichaeorum. In that work he explains in detail which criteria
the Manichaeans say their food must meet, namely good colour, pleasant smell and
sweet taste.43 But, so he wonders in the continuation of his strict-logical (and often
sarcastic) reasoning, are the sensual indices of eyes, nose and palate sufficient to
determine the presence of a part of God?44 He then remarks:

38
C. ep. Man. 26,28-27,29 (CSEL 25, 225-227).
39
C. ep. Man. 25,28 (CSEL 25,224).
40
C. ep. Man. 26,28 (CSEL 25,226).
41
C. ep. Man. 26,28-27,29 (CSEL 25, 226-227).
42
Cf. e.g. conf. 4,26: ‘... et imaginabar formas corporeas ...’ and ‘... a mea uanitate fingebantur ex
corpore ...’ (CCL 27,53) and, moreover, his introductory words to the just referenced discussion
in c. ep. Man. 26,28-27,29, immediately after the just given quotation from Mani’s Epistula
fundamenti: ‘Quid expectamus amplius? tenemus enim, quod iuxta latus erat. quomodo libet iam
fingite figuras et qualialibet liniamenta describite, moles certe inmensa terrae tenebrarum aut recto latere
adiungenatur terrae lucis aut curuo aut tortuoso ...’ (c. ep. Man. 26,28; CSEL 25,225).
43
E.g. mor. 2,39 (CSEL 90,123): ‘Primo enim quaero, unde doceatis in frumentis et legumine et
oleribus et floribus et pomis inesse istam nescio quam partem dei. Ex ipso coloris nitore,
inquiunt, et odoris iucunditate et saporis suauitate manifestum est ...’.
44
Mor. 2,43 (CSEL 90,127): ‘Quid igitur restat, nisi ut dicere desinatis habere uos idoneos indices
oculos, nares, palatum, quibus diuinae partis praesentiam in corporibus approbetis?’ I note that
seueral mss. instead of ‘indices’ read ‘iudices’; the best reading, however, seems to be ‘indices’: cf.
‘indicia’ later in the same chapter.
 His autem remotis, unde docebitis non modo maiorem dei partem in stirpibus esse quam
in carnibus, sed omnino esse aliquid eius in stirpibus? An pulchritudo uos mouet, non
quae in suauitate coloris est, sed quae in partium congruentia? Utinam hoc esset. Quando
enim corporibus animantium, in quorum forma paria paribus membra respondeant,
auderetis distorta ligna conferre? Sed si corporalium sensuum testimoniis delectamini,
quod necesse est his qui uim essentiae mente uidere non possunt, quomodo probatis per
moram temporis et per obtritiones quasdam fugere de corporibus substantiam boni, nisi
quia inde discedit deus, ut asseritis, et de loco in locum migrat? Plenum est dementiae.45

But, without these (indices), how can you teach not only that there is a greater part of
God in plants than in flesh, but even that there is anything of God in plants at all? Does
their beauty move you, not that which is in the sweetness of colour but in the harmony of
their parts? Would that this were so! For then you will be so bold as to compare distorted
wood with the bodies of living beings in whose shape equal members correspond to each
other! But since you take delight in the testimony of the bodily senses, which is necessary
for those who cannot see the power of being46 with their mind, how do you prove that
the substance of the good escapes from bodies in the course of time, and by some kind of
attrition, except because God goes out from there, as you claim, and migrates from place
to place? This is complete madness.

In the preceding paragraphs Augustine has extentively argued that the sensual
manner in which the Manichaeans determine how much light element, i.e. how
much of God will be present in the diffent kinds of food, leads to many
illogicalities and even absurdities. But would it not be better to use one’s mind
(mens) to determine God’s presence in food, i.e. by observing its beauty (pulchritudo)
and harmony (harmony)? ‘Utinam hoc esset: Would that be the case!’ However, the
Manichaeans in their complete madness47 do not use their mind, but stick to the
bodily senses of their eyes, nose and palate, which by no means do lead to true
knowledge of God’s real nature.
It seems that Augustine here again reminds both himself and his (directly
addressed Manichaean and also other) readers of his former writing De pulcho et apto.
If so, this is yet another possible indication of the alimentary content of (part of)
his youth writing. One could imagine that the auditor Augustine—both in thinking
about his own food and in collecting suitable nutriments for the electi entrusted to
him—has come to his considerations. And that he himself, when discussing the
indicators of God’s presence in the food with his friends, laid stress on its beauty
which is in the harmony of its parts. In De moribus however he also indicates a
possible absurdity even of this way of selecting food: ‘For then you will be so bold
as to compare distorted wood with the bodies of living beings in whose shape equal
members correspond to each other!’ Without a doubt ‘wood’ is synonymous with
‘tree’ here,48 whereas the Manichaeans’ high esteem for trees is indicated by
45
Ibidem.
46
I.e. the nature or essence, i.e. substance of God. Note Augustine’s interesting remark on
terminology in mor. 2,2: ‘essence’ (derived from esse) is a new term for ‘substance’; the ancients did
not have these terms but used ‘nature’ instead of ‘essence’ and ‘substance’.
47
Dementia: the usual wordplay on Mani and his teachings.
48
See e.g. mor. 2,59 (CSEL 90,141): ‘... arboribus ... in ligno ...’.
Augustine in, for instance, mor. 2,55: trees have a rational soul.49 Such a high
esteem, even in the case of distorted wood, easily leads to the said absurdity. Either
way, the Manichaeans in Augustine’s mor. 2 act and think ‘in complete madness’.
Apparently Manichaean issues on ‘beauty’ and ‘harmony’ such as these are
already c. 380-381 discussed with Manichaean friends50 and they are explained with
(only) corporeal, i.e., physical examples.

3. ‘Not Able to See My Spirit’: Not Able to Attain the True Gnosis

It is in this context that Augustine then remarks:

et, quia non poteram ea uidere in animo, putabam me non posse uidere animum. Et
cum in uirtute pacem amarem, in uitiositate autem odissem discordiam, in illa unitatem, in
ista quandam diuisionem notabam, inque illa unitate mens rationalis et natura ueritatis ac
summi boni mihi esse uidebatur, in ista uero diuisione inrationalis uitae nescio quam
substantiam, et naturam summi mali, quae non solum esset substantia, sed omnino uita
esset et tamen abs te non esset, deus meus, ex quo sunt omnia, miser opinabar. Et illam
monadem appellabam tamquam sine ullo sexu mentem, hanc uero dyadem, iram in
facinoribus, libidinem in flagitiis, nesciens quid loquerer. Non enim noueram neque
didiceram nec ullam substantiam malum esse nec ipsam mentem nostram summum atque
incommutabile bonum.51

And, not being able to see these in my spirit, I thought I could not see my spirit. And
whereas in virtue I loved the peace, and in viciousness I hated the discord, in the former I
distinguished unity, but in the latter a kind of division. And in that unity I conceived
the rational soul and the nature of truth and of the highest good to consist. But in this
division there was I know not what substance of irrational life and the nature of the
supreme evil, which—I, miserable, opined—was not only a substance, but full life, and
yet it was not from You, my God, from whom are all things. And the one I called
‘monad’, as a mind without sex, the other ‘dyad’, anger in criminal acts, lust in shameful
deeds, not knowing what I was talking about. For I did not know nor had I learnt that
evil is not a substance, nor that our mind is not the supreme and unchangeable good.

‘These’ (ea) in the beginning of the text refers to the aforementioned ‘lines and
colours and swollen magnitudes’. Elsewhere, I have argued that these terms are
most likely an additional proof that Augustine seems to have been familiar with
Mani’s Icon or Ārdahang.52 Here he states that—in his search for the nature of the
spirit (natura animi)—he could not see his spirit, i.e. in real Manichaean parlance,
most likely based upon Mani’s Epistula fundamenti: that he could not obtain the true

49
Mor. 2,55 (CSEL 90,138): ‘Anima namque illa quam rationalem inesse arboribus arbitramini ...’.
50
As perhaps later, in their company, with Faustus; cf. e.g. conf. 5,12 (CCL 27,63): ‘Et eum in
omnibus difficilioribus et subtilioribus quaestionibus [i.e., apart from the astronomical /
astrological questions mentioned earlier] talem inueniebam’.
51
Conf. 4,24 (CCL 27,52-53).
52
See ‘What Did Augustine See? Augustine and Mani’s Picture Book’, Aug(L) 70 (2020) *-*.
gnosis,53 simply because he could not see ‘lines, colours and swollen magnitudes’ in
his spirit (in animo). As argued in the just mentioned essay, these ‘lines, colours and
swollen magnitudes’ probably refer to the lines, colours and vast quantities of the
Manichaean two kingdoms as depicted in Mani’s Icon. In other words, as a
Manichaean, Augustine was only able to think corporeal, physical (i.e. light or
darkness) substance, but no incorporeal reality, no spiritual entities.

4. Virtue and Vice, Unity and Division

The subsequent words of the long quote conf. 4,24 seem to demonstrate the
Manichaean orientation of his De pulchro et apto as well. Augustine relates that he
argued that in ‘virtue’ he loved the peace but in ‘viciousness’ hated the ‘discord’;
also, that in virtue he noted its ‘unity’ but in vice ‘a kind of division’. What he
further says about the division (diuisio) of the vice (uitiositas) without a doubt refers
to Manichaean ideas: the said division was seen as being caused by some
‘substance’ (substantia) of ‘irrational life’ (uita inrationalis) and the ‘nature’ (natura) of
‘the supreme evil’ (summum malum). This evil he also considered not only a
substance (substantia), but full life (omnino uita), even life not stemming from God.
All of this is entirely in accordance with the Manichaean descriptions of the
kingdom of darkness, its internal division and irrational life as it is so often
mentioned by Augustine in his works.54 Completely consistent with Neoplatonic
thinking, Augustine would later claim that evil is not a substance, but the lack of
good (privatio boni; cf. Plotinus’ stérēsis tou agathou); in accordance with the
Manichaean way of thinking, he here says that evil is not only a ‘substance’ but also
‘life’. In the Manichaean texts one finds repeatedly stated that this life of evil is
‘irrational’ and therefore divisive; also, that it is independent of the Good.55
Augustine, in his first writing, is still entirely a Manichaean dualist.

5. Monad and Dyad

‘And the one I called “monad”, as a mind without sex, the other “dyad”, anger in
criminal acts, lust in shameful deeds’. The distinction of ‘monad’ and ‘dyad’ was
especially well known from Pythagoreanism and also Platonism. However, here the
distinction is fully interpreted within a Manichaean framework.
53
In the prooemium of his Epistula fundamenti, Mani stated (c. Fel. 1,16; CSEL 25,819): ‘pietas
uero spiritus sancti intima pectoris uestri adaperiat, ut ipsis oculis uideatis uestras animas: Indeed, may
the grace of the Holy Spirit open up the depths of your heart so that you may see your souls with your
own eyes’. Seeing the soul with one’s own eyes is a typical Manichaean expression for having
received the gnosis. It is already reported in the Cologne Mani Codex: Mani recognised in his
Syzygos or Double his soul, i.e. his real Self: ‘I recognised him, and understood that I am he from
whom I was separated’ (CMC 24,10-12).
54
Such as, e.g., in many passages in c. Faust., haer. 46 and mor. 2,14ff.
55
E.g. Coptic Manichaean Psalm-Book (ed. Allberry), 9ff.; Kephalaia (ed. and transl. by H.J.
Polotsky-A. Böhlig-W.-P. Funk, Stuttgart: Kohlhammer 1940-2018), 3ff.; specifically on its inner
division and divisiveness e.g. Kephalaia 128,5-8.
 In regard to the Monad, it is emphasized that it is a mind without sex. In his
Commentary on the Dream of Scipio, Augustine’s contemporary (and possibly African
compatriot) Macrobius reports that the Monad is ‘both male and female’;56
however, this is not the same as ‘without sex’. Rather, the concept of a ‘mens sine ullo
sexu’ is consistent with the Manichaeans’ speaking of the highest Deity as being
sexless: the (traditionally so called) ‘Father’ of Greatness lives surrounded by ‘his’
countless aeons, which aeons he does not generate but ‘calls forth’.57
Most interesting is what is said in regard to the Dyad. It is the other entity,
not a unit (unitas) such as the Monad, but a division (divisio). A few sentences earlier
in conf. 4,24, Augustine has remarked that in virtue (uirtus) he loved the peace and
noted the unity (unitas), but in vice (uitiositas) hated the discord and noticed a kind
of division (diuisio). Here he tells in more detail what this uitiositas causing diuisio
meant to him: it is ‘anger in criminal acts, lust in shameful deeds’. In Augustine’s
defining understanding, criminal acts (facinores; facinora) are acts against the life or
property of other people; shameful deeds (flagitia) the acts against the nature and
morals of men. For example, the famous pear theft is described in conf. 6,12 as
being a crime (facinus);58 flagitia are indicated, for example, in the well-known
opening sentence of conf. 3: ‘Veni Carthaginem, et circumstrepebat me undique
sartago flagitiosorum amorum’.59 About the same time as he wrote his Confessiones,
Augustine makes the distinction between the two kinds of acts very clear in De
doctrina christiana: ‘Quod autem agit indomita cupiditas ad corrumpendum animum
et corpus suum, flagitium vocatur; quod autem agit ut alteri noceat, facinus dicitur:
But what unsubdued lust does towards corrupting one’s own soul and body, is
called vice; but what it does to injure another is called crime’.60 As in several of
Augustine’s other works, in classical Latin the two terms are also often linked, for
instance in his favourite authors such as Cicero and Sallustius.61

6. Augustine’s Manichaean Dyad: Anger and Lust

56
Macrobius, Somnium Scipionis 1,6,7 (ed. & transl. W.H. Stahl, New York: Columbia University
Press 1990): ‘unum autem, quod Monas, id est unitas, dicitur, et mas idem et femina est’. Cf. e.g.
the Greek arsenothēlon in other sources on Pythagorean opinions.
57
Cf. e.g. Theodore bar Kōnai’s Syriac quotes from Mani’s own writings in his Liber scholiorum XI
(ed. Scher, CSCO 66, 313-314), in the translation of J.C. Reeves (Prolegomena to a History of
Islamicate Manichaeism, Sheffield-Bristol: Equinox 2011, 147): ‘He says that the Father of Greatness
evoked the Mother of Life, and the Mother of Life evoked the Primal Man, and the Primal Man
evoked his five sons ...’. Etc.
58
Cf. conf. 6,11.
59
Elsewhere in his immense oeuvre, Augustine sometimes distinguishes these flagitia in acts contra
naturam and acts contra mores hominum. Rather recently I have argued that the flagitia of conf. 3,1 are
likely to have been of a homoerotic character; cf. ‘Sin and Concupiscence’ in T. Toom (ed.), The
Cambridge Companion to Augustine’s ‘Confessions’, Cambridge: CUP 2020, 92-106 (*).
60
Doctr. chr. 3,16 (CCL 32,*).
61
See e.g. O’Donnell, Augustine, Confessions, II: Commentary on Books 1-7, 191.
But what about the statement of Augustine that he sees the Dyad in anger or wrath
(ira) and in lust (libido)? Anger is leading to crimes of violence, lust to sins of
passion. I have not been able to find this combination as emphatically stated like
some sort of technical terms in the classical sources; nor in the biblical ones.
However, one finds the distinctive combination of ‘anger’/‘wrath’ and ‘lust’ in
several Manichaean sources, always as typical features of the kingdom of darkness
and the behaviour of the persons under its influence. Concerning the self-divided
realm of darkness, it reads in the Coptic Kephalaia that from this kingdom through
the ‘conduits’ (lihme), the demonic waste is poured down and exerts its influence on
human behaviour:

The waste too, and the lust (epithymía) and the evil-doing and the anger (blke) that will be
greater in the powers of heaven, shall be poured to the ground through their various
conduits (lihme). They shall be discharged upon mankind and the other remaining animals.
When what is heavenly will wash the waste and the stench and the poison down on the
creations of the flesh below, in their turn the creations shall be greater in lust (epithymía)
and anger (blke) and evil-doing against each other through the action of their fathers (i.e.
the evil archons) who are on high’.62

This passage speaks of all ‘creatures’ (thus including humankind), but in many other
places the ‘anger’ and ‘lust’ (whether or not associated with a just mentioned vice
such as kakía, evil-doing) only refer to the behaviour of humans. Elsewhere in the
Kephalaia, for example, it reads in a sort of self-reflection of the Manichaean
believer on his inner struggle between good and bad:

There are also times when I shall be troubled. My doctrines are confused. Gloom
increases with them, and grief and anger (blke) and envy and lust (epithymía). I am
troubled, struggling with all my might that I would subdue them ...
Understand this: The soul that assumes the body when the Light Mind will come to it,
shall be purified by the power of wisdom and obedience, and it is cleansed and made a
new man.63 There is no trouble in (the soul), nor confusion nor disturbance. However,
when a disturbance will rise for him and he will be troubled, this disturbance shall go in to
him in ..., first through his birth-signs and his difficult stars that ... they turn over him and
stir him and trouble him with lust (epithymía) and anger (blke) and depression and grief, as
he wills. Also, as he wills, the powers of heaven shall trouble him through their roots,64 to
which he is attached. (...) Again, trouble and confusion and anger (blke) will increase in
him, and lust (epithymía) multiplies upon him together with depression and grief; because
of the nourishment of the bread he has eaten and the water he has drunk, which are
full of bothersome parts, a vengeful counsel (enthymèsis). They shall enter his body, mixed
in with these foods, and they even become joined in with the wicked parts of the body

62
Kephalaia 121,30-31.
63
Cf. Paul and Pauline theology in e.g. Rom. 6–7; Eph. 4,22–23; cf. 2 Cor. 4,16; Col. 3,9.
64
In all likelihood, the ‘roots’ are closely related to the ‘conduits’ (lihme) in the previous quotation.
Cf. e.g. A. Böhlig, Die Gnosis, III, Der Manichäismus, Zürich-München: Artemis Verlag 1980, 332 n.
72.
 and the sin that is in him; transferring the anger (blke) and the lust (epithymía) and the
depression and the grief, these wicked thoughts of the body.65

I will come back to some interesting expressions in this long passage shortly. First,
however, I mention a few other passages in which anger/wrath and lust/(sexual)
desire form a remarkable pair. In the Coptic Manichaean Psalms it runs:

He whom grief has killed, he on whom anger (blke) has leapt:

He for whom lust (hèdoné) has soiled the whiteness of his clothes:66

Elsewhere in the same Psalms of the Bêma:

He that is angry (boolk), sins; he that causes wrath (blke) is a murderer67

The wanton (or wantonness: dzrdzir) ... of wickedness, do thou rule over them: the ....
and that of foul lust (hèdoné);
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . and do thou
. . . . . . wrath (blke) and envy and sadness; . . . . . . . . 68

In the Psalmoi Sarakōtōn (‘Psalms of the Wanderers’), Jesus is speaking to the soul:

Give not room to wrath (blke). My soul, and [thou shalt live].
Subdue desire (epithymía). My soul, and [thou shalt live].69

Lust (often with a sexual connotation) and desire (idem) are time and again
mentioned in other texts. I quote only a few. In a ‘Psalm to Jesus’ it runs:

Come, my Saviour Jesus, do not forsake me.

Jesus, thee have I loved, I have given my soul ...
armour; I have not given it rather to the foul lusts (hèdoné)
of the world. Jesus, do not forsake me.70

In some other psalms of the same collection:

The lust (hèdoné) of the sweetness that is bitter I have not tasted. .
... the fire (sete) of eating and drinking, I have not suffered them to [lord it
over me.
The gifts of Matter (hylè) I have cast away: thy sweet
yoke I have received in purity.71

The bitter darts of lust (hèdoné), the murderers of souls,

65
Kephalaia 214,4-5 and 215,1-22.
66
Psalm-Book 45,17-18.
67
Psalm-Book 39,25
68
Psalm-Book 7,26-28.
69
Psalm-Book 183,5-6.
70
Psalm-Book 51,4-7.
71
Psalm-Book 55,27-31.
 thou hast not tasted, thou, o holy Son
undefiled.72

They pass their whole life, given over to eating and drinking
and lust (hèdoné). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .73

Elsewhere in the Psalmoi Sarakōtōn, the lust (hèdoné) and desire (epithymía) are
reported to be related to or even identical with the ‘fire’ (sete) of the body:

Its (i.e., the body’s) fire (sete), its lust (hèdoné), they trick me daily.74
He that conquers the fire (sete) shall be the sun by day; he that conquers
desire (epithymía) shall be the moon by night.
The sun and the moon in the sky, they conquer these two, the heat
and the cold, the summer and the winter.
The holy Church will conquer them also, the fire (sete) and
the lust (hèdoné), the lion-faced dragon.75

7. Anger, Lust and the Nourishment

I notice that in these texts anger and lust are not only connected with the body
(which according to the Manichaeans consists of evil substance), but that some
texts also explicitly associate these vices with the nourishment that enters the body.
A just quoted Psalm to Jesus speaks of ‘the fire of eating and drinking’ in direct
combination with lust; another Psalm also links ‘eating and drinking’ to ‘lust’; the
long quotation from the Kephalaia tells that anger and lust in the believer are caused
because of ‘the bread he has eaten and the water he has drunk, which are full of
bothersome parts, a vengeful counsel (enthymēsis)’.76 Anger and lust, so this
Kephalaion 86 continues, ‘even become joined in with the wicked parts of the body
and the sin (nabe77) that is in him, which sin transfers78 the anger (blke) and the lust
(epithymía) ...’. Lust is also often associated with fire (tsete mn thèdoné): both are
elements of darkness; both can rule in the body when it is not ruled by the Light
Mind.
Reading Augustine’s report on De pulchro et apto in light of these texts, one gets
the impression that its part dealing with the Dyad has been a kind of philosophical-
72
Psalm-Book 64,25-27.
73
Psalm-Book 81,31-82,1.
74
Psalm-Book 152,17.
75
Psalm-Book 156,9-22.
76
In many Coptic and other Manichaean texts, this enthymèsis is specifically mentioned as ‘the
enthymèsis of death’ and closely associated with Āz, the female demon preeminent representative of
(and often identical with) evil matter.
77
More or less equivalent to Āz and reminiscent of the Jewish rabbinical concept of ‫( יצר הרע‬yeṣer
hara’). Cf. e.g. my ‘Was Julian Right? A Re-Evaluation of Augustine’s and Mani’s Doctrines of
Sexual Concupiscence and the Transmission of Sin’, now in idem, Mani and Augustine (n. 34), 384-
410.
78
Or: ‘exceeds’.
ethical treatise on human behaviour: ‘anger in criminal acts, lust in shameful deeds’.
These ‘anger’/‘wrath’ (ira) and ‘lust’ (libido) seem to find their striking equivalents in
the ‘anger’/‘wrath’ (blke) and ‘lust’ (epithymía) of the Coptic Manichaean texts.
It is quite possible that Augustine has also addressed the deeper causes of
anger and lust in De pulchro et apto; thus he may also have discussed the importance
of nourishment.

8. Once Again: A Fully Manichaean Treatise

In addition to the indications mentioned above, I would like to point out a number
of other Manichaean characteristics for De pulchro et apto.
At the end of conf. 4,24, Augustine reports: ‘For I did not know nor had I
learnt that evil is not a substance, nor that our mind is not the supreme and
unchangeable good’. Both notions (evil a substance; our mens part of the supreme
and unchangeable Good, i.e. God) are fully Manichaean.
In conf. 4,25 Augustine tells that once he did not know that his ‘reasoning
mind’ (mens rationalis) ‘needs to be enlightened (inlustrandam esse) by light from
outside itself, in order to participate in the truth, because it is not itself the nature
of truth’.79 Apart from the obviously Manichaean principle of the consubstantiality
of God and the soul or mind, Augustine as a Manichaean also certainly knew about
the principle of the illuminatio or illustratio: in innumerable texts Mani is described as
the phōstèr, the one who brings the illumination, i.e. the gnosis.80 Augustine himself
relates that those who heard the readings from Mani’s Epistula fundamenti were
called ‘inluminati’;81 also, that in Mani’s (?) epistle to his ‘daugther’ Menoch he
wishes that ‘God may enlighten (illustret)’ her mind.82
The same Manichaean principle of the consubstantiality of God and the soul
or mind is rejected in conf. 4,26; here Augustine also repeats that, in his Manichaean
arrogance, he imagined corporeal shapes (formas corporeas) of the divine spiritual
world.83
All this indicates that his thinking frame in De pulchro et apto still was entirely
Manichaean, as is also confirmed in the statement that in his wandering he
‘wandered on and on into things which have no existence either in You or in me or
in the body’ because they were ‘corporeal fictions’.84
79
Conf. 4,25 (CCL 27,53): ‘... nesciente alio lumine illam inlustrandam esse, ut sit particeps
ueritatis, quia non est ipsa natura ueritatis ...’.
80
For instance, time and again it runs in the Kephalaia: ‘Once again the enlightener (phōstèr)
speaks: ...’.
81
C. ep. Man. 5,6 (CSEL 25,197): ‘ipa [sc. epistula] enim nobis illo tempore miseris quando lecta
est, inluminati dicebamur a uobis’.
82
C. Iul. op. imp. 3,172 (CSEL 85,473): ‘... ipseque [sc. uerus deus] tuam mentem illustret ...’.
83
Conf. 4,26 (CCL 27,53): ‘Sed ego conabar ad te et repellebar abs te, ut saperem mortem,
quoniam superbis resistis. Quid autem superbius, quam ut assererem mira dementia me id esse
naturaliter, quod tu es? (...) et resistebas uentosae ceruici meae et imaginabar formas corporeas ...’.
84
Ibidem: ‘... et ambulando ambulabam in ea, quae non sunt neque in te neque in me neque in
corpore neque mihi creabantur a ueritate tua, sed a mea uanitate fingebantur ex corpore ...’.
 In conf. 4,27 it sounds again that he was concerned with ‘corporeal85 fictions’
(corporalia figmenta) in his youth work when he was reflecting on ‘pulchrum’ and
‘aptum’.86

9. A Strikingly ‘Manichaean’ Finale?

The last part of the separate section Augustine devotes to De pulchro et apto deserves
some special attention. One gets the impression that, in conf. 4,27, the meantime
Nicene-Catholic bishop once again opens the registers of his language virtuosity in
striking images and expressions particularly intended for his (ex-)Manichaean
readers.87 Let us first look at the passage in its entirety:
Et eram aetate annorum fortasse uiginti sex aut septem, cum illa uolumina scripsi, uoluens
apud me corporalia figmenta obstrepentia cordis mei auribus, quas intendebam, dulcis
ueritas, in interiorem melodiam tuam, cogitans de pulchro et apto et stare cupiens et
audire te et gaudio gaudere propter uocem sponsi, et non poteram, quia uocibus erroris
mei rapiebar foras et pondere superbiae meae in ima decidebam. Non enim dabas auditui
meo gaudium et laetitiam, aut exultabant ossa, quae humiliata non erant.88

And I was perhaps twenty-six or twenty-seven years of age when I wrote those
volumes, turning over in myself corporeal fictions that clamoured to the ears of my heart.
These I directed, o sweet Truth, to your interior melody, reflecting on the beautiful and
the harmonious and longing to stay and hear You and to rejoice with joy at the voice of
the Bridegroom (John 3:29), and I could not; for by the voices of my own errors I was
snatched away to external things, and by the weight of my own pride I tumbled into the
depths. For You did not grant joy and gladness to my hearing, nor did my bones exult
which were not humbled (Ps. 50:10).

The (two or three) libri from the beginning (conf. 3,20) are here referred to as
uolumina: they may have been (fairly) extensive works. The words ‘uoluens apud me’
are closely related to ‘animo uersabam’ in conf. 3,23: they reinforce the impression that
the literary form of the work was a dialogical monologue. The question whether
‘uoluens’ subtly indicates that the books were written on scrolls and did not have the
‘modern’ form of a codex may remain open here.89 As noted earlier, the expression
‘corporalia figmenta’ refers to the Manichaean ‘phantasmata’ and the adjective ‘corporalia’
indicates its absolute imperfectness in comparison to ‘spiritualia’. But why does
Augustine speak of ‘the ears of my heart’? The phrase ‘aures cordis mei’ also occurs in
conf. 1,5 and reminds of Manichaeans’ parlance: they liked it to mention parts of the

85
I.e., once again: material, physical as opposed to spiritual.
86
Conf. 4,27 (CCL 27,53-54): ‘... cum illa uolumina scripsi, uoluens apud me corporalia figmenta
...’.
87
As this is the case in my opinion in e.g. conf. 3,10; cf. ‘Augustine’s Criticism of Manichaeism:
The Case of Confessions 3,10’ (above, n. 34).
88
Conf. 4,27 (CCL 27,53-54).
89
Cf. e.g. both Faustus and Ambrose still reading ‘uolumina’ (conf. 5,11 and 6,3), but ‘codices’ for
the younger Alypius (conf. 6,16) and Augustine (e.g. conf. 6,18; 8,13.29.30).
body90 while texts such as their Coptic Psalmbook are full of metaphors like ‘the eyes
of my heart’;91 ‘the eyes of my soul’;92 the ‘eye of my soul’;93 ‘the eye of plenty’;94
‘the eye of malice’;95 or ‘these hands of pity’96 and ‘the ears of the (unhearing)
soul’.97 I already mentioned the special occurrence of metaphors in the grammatical
form of the appositional genivite;98 now I add that many of them pertain to body
parts. One may wonder whether Augustine in many such telling metaphors in his
Confessiones99 has not been influenced by Manichaean poetry. In any case, the
striking idiom ‘the ears of my heart’ here in conf. 4,27 makes this impression.
Yet there seems to be more to be noted in our passage. God is addressed as ‘o
sweet Truth’. As Augustine specifically reports in conf. 3,10 and as many
Manichaean texts confirm, the Manichaeans claimed to make known ‘the truth’;100
moreover, they described God as ‘the Father of Truth’ and also Christ as, for
instance, ‘the Right Hand of Truth’.101 Of course, many biblical texts for such
speaking of ‘(the) truth’ may be invoked, but perhaps nowhere else in Augustine’s
world it was more common than among the Manichaeans. The same seems to
apply to ‘sweet’: it is well known from a biblical text such as Ps. 33 (34):9 which
resounds in 1 Pet. 2:3, but conceivably nowhere else in religious speech in
Augustine’s environment it will have been heard as often and as articulated as
among the Manichaeans. From the almost innumerable examples in their texts
which have come down to us so far, I quote only three instances, i.e. two from
‘Psalms to Jesus’ and also the refrain of one of the Psalmoi Sarakōtōn:

In a sweet voice he [my Saviour] answered me saying, O blessed and righteous (díkaios)
man, come forth, be not afraid,
I am thy guide in every place.102

The joy, my Lord, of thy sweet cry has made me forget

life (bíos); the sweetness of thy voice has made me remember my city (pólis).103

90
Cf. e.g. T. Säve-Söderbergh, Studies in the Coptic Manichaean Psalm-Book, Uppsala etc.: Almquist &
Wiksells 1949, 98-105 on ‘the enumerations of the senses and limbs’; Säve-Söderbergh draws
particular attention to Mandaean parallels.
91
Psalm-Book 89,6.
92
Psalm-Book 86,24.
93
Psalm-Book 101,23.
94
Psalm-Book 163,10.
95
Psalm-Book 171,20.
96
Psalm-Book 16,31-32.
97
Psalm-Book 194,26.
98
Above, p. and nn. *
99
See, apart from the instances mentioned on pp. 4-5*, e.g. ‘oculus carnis mei’ in conf. 3,11; ‘manus
linguae meae’ in conf. 5,1; ‘manus cordis’ and ‘facies recordationis meae’ in conf. 10,12.
100
Cf. e.g. Psalm-Book 14,14; 43,8; etc.; Kephalaia 5,31.32; 7,5; etc.
101
Cf. ‘Manichaean Imagery of Christ as God’s Hand’ (2018), now in Mani and Augustine (n. 34),
89-110.
102 Psalm-Book 50, 18-20.

103 Psalm-Book 53,27-28.

 Taste and know that the Lord is sweet (halc).
Christ is the word or Truth (mèe): he that hears it shall live.104

As a next case in point I may mention Augustine’s speaking of

... et stare cupiens et audire te et gaudio gaudere propter vocem sponsi, et non
poteram, quia vocibus erroris mei rapiebar foras et pondere superbiae meae in ima
decidebam.

Here (with some modification105) a large part of Joh. 3:29 is quoted: ‘Qui habet
sponsam, sponsus est: amicus autem sponsi, qui stat, et audit eum, gaudio gaudet propter vocem
sponsi. Hoc ergo gaudium meum impletum est’. The same Bible text plays a role in conf.
11,10106 and conf. 13,14.107 In all these cases, a strong mystical feature in Augustine’s
Confessiones becomes apparent. But why is here—and in fact quite unexpected—the
image of the Bridegroom evoked and is the emphasis on his voice? The
Manichaean sources are full of statements about the Bridegroom, his calling voice,
and the believer who waits to hear this voice and to rejoice. I quote only a very few
of these texts:

Light your lamps (lampás) and . . . . . . . . . . . .

and keep watch on the day of the Bêma for the Bridegroom
of joy (...)108

Let me be worthy of thy bridechambers [that are full

of] Light.
Jesus Christ, receive me into thy bridechambers, [thou my]
Saviour. (...)
Purify me, my bridegroom, o Saviour, with thy waters
. . . . . . that are full of grace (cháris). (...)
. . . . . . . . shines like the sun, I have lighted it, o
bridegroom, with the excellent oil of purity . .
. . . maiden, I making music (psállein) unto thee, my Saviour . . . (...)

104
Psalm-Book 158,18-19. Cf. e.g. the commentary by A. Villey, Psaumes des errants. Écrits
manichéennes du Fayyūm, Paris: Cerf 1994, 327-329.
105
Cf. L. Verheijen’s note ‘*et gaudio ... sponsi Ioh. 3, 29’ in CCL 27,54, his asterisk meaning that
‘Les scribes n’ont pas commis ici une fausse transcription de leur modèle, mais adapté le texte des
Confessions à leur propre Psautier’ (CCL 27, LXXXI). In my quote here (and in the two next
notes) I follow as closely as possible M. Skutella in the latest edition by H. Jürgens and W.
Schaub: S. Avrelii Avgvstini Confessionvm libri XIII, Stuttgart-Leipzig: Teubner 1996, 73, although in
my view also ‘stare’ and ‘audire’ are reminiscent of Joh. 3:29.
106
Conf. 11,10: ‘quia et per creaturam mutabilem cum admonemur, ad veritatem stabilem
ducimur, ubi vere discimus, cum stamus et audimus eum et gaudio gaudemus propter
vocem sponsi, reddentes nos, unde sumus’.
107
Conf. 13,14: ‘illi enim suspirat sponsi amicus, habens iam spiritus primitias penes eum, sed
adhuc in semet ipso ingemescens, adoptionem expectans, redemptionem corporis sui. illi
suspirat—membrum est enim sponsae—et illi zelat—amicus est enim sponsi—illi zelat, non
sibi ...’.
108
Psalm-Book 37,30-33 (= Psalm of the Bêma 237).
 . . . . . . Christ, take me into thy bridechambers.
. . . . . . . . grace (cháris) and the garlands of victory. Lo,
. . . . . joy, as they make music (psállein) with them; let me rejoice
in all the bridechambers, and do thou give me the crown of
the holy ones.109

O first-born [take me in unto thee.]

I have become a holy bride in the bridechambers
of Light that are at rest, I have received the gifts of the victory.110

Take me in to thy bridechambers that I may chant with

them that sing to thee. Christ [guide me: my Saviour, do not forget me.]111

Lo, the] wise virgins, they do put oil into their

lamps. We weave [a royal garland and give it to all the holy ones.]
Lo, the Bridegroom has come: where is the Bride who is like
him? We weave.
The Bride is the Church, the Bridegroom is the Mind (nous)
of Light. We weave.
The Bride is the soul, the Bridegroom is Jesus.
My brethren, let us purify ourselves from all pollutions,
for (gár) [we know not] the hour when the Bridegroom shall summon us.112

The image of the Bridegroom is often inspired by Mt. 25 and so it appears

countless times in Manichaean texts.113 But not always influence of a passage such
as Mt. 25:1-13 (perhaps via Tatian’s Diatessaron?) is evident and it is also often the
Father (and not Jesus or Christ) who is invoked as the Bridegroom.114 What may be
underlined is that—in addition to the ‘Psalms to Jesus’ and the ‘Psalms of the
Wanderers’—the image is also prominent in the ‘Psalms of the Bêma’. Was it
perhaps during the annual Bêma festival—attended and celebrated by all ‘Hearers’
and thus also by auditor Augustine115—that he was introduced to these and similar

109
Psalm-Book 79,17-80,22 (= Psalm to Jesus 263).
110
Psalm-Book 81,12-14 (= Psalm to Jesus 264).
111
Psalm-Book 117,29-30 (= Psalm to Christ).
112
Psalm-Book 154,1-9 (= Psalmoi Sarakōtōn).
113
It is also present in the newly edited Dublin Kephalaia: see The Chapters of the Wisdom of My Lord
Mani, Part III: Pages 343-442 (Chapters 321-347). Edited and translated by I. Gardner, J. BeDuhn
and P.C. Dilley (NHMS 92), Leiden-Boston: Brill 2018, 438, with right reference not only to Mt.
25:1ff. but also to Ev.Thom. log. 75.
114
E.g. Psalms of Heracleides, Psalm-Book (ed. Allberry) 199,1-2.14-15.23-24:
‘The Land of] Light, the house of the Father, the bridechamber (numphōn)
of all the Aeons. Tell the news.’
‘I [the presbeutés] was sent, the Father rejoicing, he being in the bridechamber (numphōn) of
the Land of Light, that I might tell the news.’
‘I was sent, the bridechamber (numphōn) rejoicing, the Land of Light,
the house of the Father. Lo, this is the new of the skies.’
115
E.g. c. ep. Man. 8,9 (CSEL 25,203): ‘hoc enim nobis erat in illa bematis celebritate gratissimum,
quod pro pascha frequentabatur, quoniam uehementius desiderabamus illum diem festum
subtracto alio, qui solebat esse dulcissimus’.
songs about the Bridegroom? It will be no coincidence that now, in the description
of his Manichaean De pulchro et apto, he uses—for the first time in the Confessiones
and quite unexpectedly—the orthodox-Christian (and solely biblical) image of the
Bridegroom as an essential reminiscence of his first writing. In all likelihood, it
contained mystical tones: in actual fact it was ‘a first attempt at an intellectual
ascent to God’,116 as particularly expressed at the beginning of conf. 4,26:

Sed ego conabar ad te et repellebar abs te, ut saperem mortem, quoniam superbis
resistis.117

But I tried to reach You and was pushed back by You to taste death, for You resist the
proud.

Finally, Augustine once again emphasizes in conf. 4,27 that his work was
thoroughly Manichaean: ‘by the voices of my own errors I was snatched away to
external (i.e. corporeal, physical) things, and by the weight of my own pride
(superbia) I tumbled into the depths (ima)’. ‘Pride’, ‘being pride’ and ‘the proud’ are
often keywords in the Confessiones that indicate the Manichaeans and their
behaviour;118 ima (pl., the depths) here resounds ‘in profundum’ of conf. 4,20 and
seems to indicate also here the Manichaeans and their teachings.

10. One again: ‘Pulchrum’ and ‘Aptum’; ‘Decus’ and ‘Species’; ‘Monad’ and ‘Dyad’

In my Notes so far I deliberately left a number of issues open. After the

Manichaean content, purpose and some characteristics of Augustine’s De pulchro et
apto have been delineated, some remaining subjects may receive a proper discussion
from within the meantime more clearly established Manichaean frame of reference.
As regards ‘aptum’, most has been said already in § 2. Although in the first
writing of a young rhetor one certainly should not exclude other parallels and
influences,119 I hold that in young Augustine’s case the most essential impetus came
from Manichaean sources. Based on this finding, I conclude the best translation of
‘aptum’ is ‘harmony’.
Essentially, the same can be said about ‘pulchrum’. Undoubtedly it has been
a designation of God and the divine world since Plato, and without a doubt this
designation had an essential place in Neoplatonism120 and many popular
philosophical currents. And albeit that in Augustine’s reflection on his first writing

116
O’Donnell, Augustine, Confessions, II: Commentary on Books 1-7, 247. Cf. e.g. conf. 4,26 (quoted
above, n. 83).
117
Conf. 4,26 (CCL 27,53-54).
118
Cf. apart from the just given quote from conf. 4,26 (based on 1 Pet. 5:5 and Jas. 4:6), e.g. conf.
3,10.
119
Such as especially those from rhetorical-philosophical works; cf. e.g. Fontanier, ‘Sur le traité
d’Augustin’ (n. 2).
120
Of course I think above all of Plotinus’ treatise ‘On Beauty’ (Enn. I,6) which—as is generally
assumed—was well known to Augustine.
Neoplatonic views resound,121 the work was written long before his Milanese
discovery of Plotinus and (in all likelihood) Porphyry. Thus, for his speaking of
God and the divine world as being ‘Beauty’ and ‘beautiful’, the parallels from the
Manichaean sources are most compelling. In his aforementioned article, Katô has
reproduced a whole range of passages from the (then known) Manichaean writings
from Medinet Madi. Perhaps the nearly complete lack of clarifying context in his
article caused his quotations not to convince everyone. They need not all be
repeated here, nor supplemented from countless other Manichaean sources. I only
mention a few texts, principally from the Manichaean Psalmbook and especially from
the psalms genres most quoted before:

Let us not hide our sickness from him [the great Physician, i.e. Mani] and leave the cancer
in our members (mélos),
the fair (saiè) and mighty image (eikōn) of the New Man, so that it destroys it.122

Draw now the veil (ouèlon) of thy secrets until I see

the beauty (saïe) of the joyous Image (eikōn) of my Mother, the holy
Maiden, who will ferry me until she brings me to my city (pólis).123

Who has changed for thee

thy fair (houten) beauty (mntsaïe)?124

‘I will [give] my body (sōma) to death for thy body (sōma) and give my fair (houten)
beauty (saïe) for thy beauty (saïe).’125

Fair (nece-) is the ship, the sailor being aboard it: fair (nece-) is the
Church (ekklèsía), the Mind (nous) steering it.
Fair (nece-) is the dove that has found a holy pool: Jesus is
. . . . in the heart of his faithful (pistós).126

Play with thy lute (kithára), play with thy lute (kithára); that we may
play to these pious ones.
God, God, God, fair (nece-) is God, God, God,
God, my God, God.
Jesus, the Maiden (parthénos), the Mind (nous),—fair (necō≈) are they to love
within: the Father, the Son, the holy Spirit,—fair (necō≈) are they
to look at without.
My brethren, let us make festival and sing to our Saviour
that has rescued us from the deceit (apátè).
Let us therefore get ourselves a heart that tires not of singing (...)127

121
E.g. conf. 4,24 (CCL 27,53): ‘Non enim noueram neque didiceram nec ullam substantiam
malum esse nec ipsam mentem nostram summum atque incommutabile bonum’.
122
Psalm-Book 46,16-17 (= Psalm of the Bema 241)
123
Psalm-Book 84,30-32 (= Psalm to Jesus 267).
124
Psalm-Book 146,45-46 (= Psalmoi Sarakōtōn).
125
Psalm-Book 148,29.30 (= Psalmoi Sarakōtōn).
126
Psalm-Book 161,5-8 (= Psalmoi Sarakōtōn).
127
Psalm-Book 164,9-18 (= Psalmoi Sarakōtōn).
 Thou art a mighty Light: Jesus, enlighten me.
First-born of the Father. Beauty (saïe) of the fair (houten) One.128

Fair (nece-) . . . . . . . God, he singing hymns (hymneúein).

Fair (nece-) is an Intelligence (nous) collected if it has received the
love (agápè) of God. Fair (nece-).
Fair (nece-) is a Reason of Light which Faith has reached.
Fair (nece-) is a perfect Thought which Perfection. . .
Fair (nece-) is a good Counsel that has given place to endurance (hypomoné).
Fair (nece-) is a blessed Intention that has been flavoured with
Wisdom (sophía). Fair (nece-).
Fair (nece-) is a holy soul that has taken unto her the holy Spirit.
Fair (nece-) are the five virgins in whose lamps (lampás) oil was
found. Fair (nece-).
Fair (nece-) is the ship laden with treasure (chrèma), the sailor being
aboard it. Fair (nece-) .
Fair (nece-) are the birds ascending . . . . . . . .
before them. [Fair (nece-).]
Fair (nece-) are the sheep gathered, their . . . . . . .
Fair (nece-) are we also together . . . . . . . .
Though we see not the Saviour (Sōtèr) let us worship his . . . .
May he abide with us and we abide with him
from everlasting to everlasting.
Glory and honour to Jesus, the King of the holy ones. (...)129

These quotations from the ‘Psalms to Jesus’, the ‘Bèma Psalms’ and—in
particular— the ‘Psalms of the Wanderers’ may suffice to demonstrate how often
Manichaean texts spoke about God and the divine world in terms of ‘beauty’ and
‘beautiful’. Besides, not only in these texts which Augustine may have known in
some Latin form,130 but also in a writing by Mani himself such as the Thesaurus we
find these terms in abundance.131

128
Psalm-Book 166,23-24.32 (= Psalmoi Sarakōtōn). It may be remarked that, in the last case, E.B.
Smagina (‘Some Word with Unknown Meaning in Coptic Manichaean Texts’, Enchoria 17 (1990)
111-122 [120-121]) reads mñthouten (‘of the image’) instead of ṁpihouten (‘of the fair one’).
129
Psalm-Book 174,11-31 (= Psalmoi Sarakōtōn).
130
Cf. e.g. conf. 3,14 (CCL 27,34): ‘... et cantabam carmina ...’, sc. Manichaean songs in Latin; conf.
5,11 (CCL 27,62) on Faustus: ‘Et quia legerat aliquas Tullianas orationes et paucissimos Senecae
libros et nonnulla poetarum et suae sectae si qua uolumina latine atque composite conscripta erant ...’; conf.
5,12 (CCL 27,63): ‘Libri quippe eorum [sc. of the Manichaeans] pleni sunt longissimis fabulis de
caelo et de sideribus et sole et luna: quae mihi eum, quod utique cupiebam, conlatis numerorum
rationibus, quas alibi ego legeram, utrum potius ita essent, ut Manichaei libris continebantur ...);
5,13 (ibidem): ‘Refracto itaque studio, quod intenderam in Manichaei litteras ...’; etc. One may also
compare, for instance, c. Sec. 3 (CSEL 25,909): ‘... innumerabilis locis de libris Manichaei recitabo
...’ and mor. 2, 25 (CSEL 90,110): ‘Non hoc sonant libri Manichaei ...’. All these sources must have
been available to Augustine and others in Latin translation.
131
Cf. the long quotation from its seventh book in Augustine’s nat. b. 44 (CSEL 25,881-884):
‘tunc beatus ille pater, qui lucidas naues habet diuersoria (...) itaque inuisibili suo nutu illas suas
uirtutes, quae in clarissima hac naui habentur ...’ ; etc.
 Does this mean, then, that Augustine’s De pulchro et apto was ‘a treatise of
aesthetics’? Peter Brown calls it that in his famous biography132 and—as far as I can
see—this is a still prevailing general opinion, another one being that it is a
‘philosophical’ writing.133 I venture to challenge this scholarly consensus, however;
or at least to make some modifying comments. Indeed, Augustine starts the
account of his first writing with the questions: ‘Do we love anything but the
beautiful? What, then, is a beautiful object? And what is beauty?’ However, this is
in a context where is first said: ‘I loved these beautiful things of lower degree and I
was going down into the depth’; and immediately afterwards: ‘And I took notice
(litt.: I turned my mind [to it]: adimaduertebam) and saw that in bodies (i.e. in material
objects) there was ...’ (conf. 3,20). In other words, the emphasis here is on the fact
that Augustine (being a Manichaean and so descending ‘into the depth’) focuses
only on ‘corporeal’ objects. This is not about ‘high’ aesthetics, but about a
Manichaean who considers with his friends that they ‘love nothing but the
beautiful’, i.e. ‘those things’ (rebus) in which the Light element (sc. God) ‘attracts’
(allicit) them and ‘wins over’ (conciliat) to love them (amamus; cf. the previous
amabam). Earlier I spoke of the likely ‘alimentary’ background of De pulchro et apto;
here one may see another confirmation of this conjecture in the essential motive
for his writing, namely the reflection on the observation of Light elements (i.e., in
essence: God) in ‘corporeal’ objects.
In regard to these objects, it then reads: ‘For unless there were decus and
species in them, they would in no way move us towards them.’ ‘Decus’ has a whole
range of meanings in the Confessiones (and also elsewhere in Augustine’s works); to
name just a few: it may denote ‘glory’, ‘splendour’ or ‘grace’;134 but also translations
such as ‘beautiful’ and ‘fair’ seem appropiate.135 In all of these instances there is a
certain overlap with ‘species’ and when both words occur together, synonyms in
the translation will be appropriate. The very first meaning of ‘species’ (cf. specere: to
look at, behold, see) is: a ‘view’, a ‘look’; hence it also denotes: ‘form’, ‘appearance’,
‘beautiful form’, ‘beauty’. In Augustine’s Confessiones (and elsewhere) the word is
quite common and entails this whole spectrum of meanings.136 Also, in some cases
it seems best translated as ‘beautiful to see’, even as ‘attractiveness’.137 But what do

132
P. Brown, Augustine of Hippo. A Biography. A New Edition with an Epilogue, Berkeley and Los
Angeles: University of California Press 2000, 41 and 56.
133
Cf. e.g. P. Courcelle, Recherches sur les Confessions de saint Augustin, Paris: De Boccard 19501, 60:
‘... son premier essai philosophique’.
134
Conf. 10,8 (CCL 27,159): ‘Quid autem amo, cum te amo? Non speciem corporis nec decus
temporis ...’.
135
E.g. in conf. 12,31 (CCL 27,232): ‘Non enim adhuc informes sunt [sc. aquae] et inuisae, quas ita
decora specie fluere cernimus’.
136
Cf. e..g. conf. 2,1 (CCL 27,18): ‘... et contabuit species mea ...’; conf. 2,12 (CCL 27,23): ‘non
saltem ut est quaedam defectiua species et umbratica uitiis fallentibus’; conf. 3,17 (CCL 27,37): ‘...
cum saepe se aliter habet species facti ...’; etc.
137
E.g. conf. 2,10 (CCL 27,22): ‘Etenim species est pulchris corporibus ...’. Cf. e.g. BA 13,346:
‘C’est un fait qu’il y a un aspect attrayant dans les beaux objects ...’.
‘decus’ and ‘species’ mean in Augustine’s De pulchro et apto (or, in any case, in the
retrospective report on the content of his work)?
The sequel of his report provides a first answer:

Et animaduertebam et uidebam in ipsis corporibus aliud esse quasi totum et ideo

pulchrum, aliud autem, quod ideo deceret, quoniam apte accommodaretur alicui, sicut pars
corporis ad uniuersum suum aut calciamentum ad pedem et similia. Et ista consideratio
scaturriuit in animo meo ex intimo corde meo, et scripsi libros ‘De Pulchro et Apto’ ... .138

And I observed and perceived that in bodies themselves there is one thing as a kind of a
whole and for that reason beautiful, and another which for that reason is beautiful because it
is harmoniously fitting to some other thing, such as a part of the (human) body to its whole,
or a shoe to a foot139 and like instances. And this consideration gushed up into my mind
from my inmost heart, and I wrote books ‘On the beautiful and the harmonious’ ... .

This further explanation clarifies a bit more about the true meaning of ‘decus’ and
‘species’, although I think the best translation is ‘beautiful’ in both cases.
Fortunately, a completely different passage in Augustine’s oeuvre not only
sheds a surprising light on our whole passage conf. 4,20, but also clearly indicates in
which way its keywords ‘pulchrum’, ‘aptum’, ‘decus’ and ‘species’ may (or even
should) be interpreted from within a Manichaean context. In his anti-Manichaean
work De natura boni it runs in a polemical passage on the kingdom of darkness and
its rulers (principes):

nisi autem etiam qualiscumque pulchritudo ibi fuisset, nec amarent coniugia sua, nec
partium congruentia corpora eorum constarent: quod ubi non fuerit, non possunt ea fieri
quae ibi facta esse delirant. et nisi pax aliqua ibi esset, principi suo non obedirent. nisi
modus ibi esset, nihil aliud agerent, quam comederent, aut biberent, aut saeuirent, aut
quodlibet aliud sine aliqua satietate:140 quamquam nec ipsi qui hoc agebant, formis suis
determinati essent, nisi modus ibi esset: nunc uero talia dicunt eos egisse, ut in omnibus
actionibus suis modos sibi congruos habuisse negare non possint. si autem species ibi non
fuisset, nulla ibi qualitas naturalis subsisteret. si nullus ordo ibi fuisset, non alii
dominarentur, alii subderentur, non in suis elementis congruenter uiuerent, non denique
suis locis haberent membra disposita, ut illa omnia, quae uana isti fabulantur, agere
possint.141

But unless there had been some sort of beauty there, they (sc. the rulers of the kingdom of
darkness) would not have loved their spouses, nor would their bodies have been steady
by the suitability of their parts. If this suitability did not exist there, the things could not
have been happened there which in their madness they say happened there done. And
unless some peace had been there, they would not have obeyed their Prince. Unless
measure had been there, they would have done nothing else than eat or drink, or rage, or

138
Conf. 4,20 (CCL 27,51).
139 These two examples seem to be topoi in rhetorical-philosophical literature; see for instance for
the second one Cicero, fin. 3,46.
140
I suppose the best reading—with codex S(angallensis)—is societate and translate accordingly.
On the meaning of societas as ‘(ordered) society’ one may compare e.g. ciu. 15,8.
141
Nat. b. 41 (CSEL 25,875-876).
 whatever they might have done, without any society: although not even those who did
these things would have had determinate forms, unless measure had been there. But now
they (the Manichaeans) say that they (the rulers of darkness) did such things, they cannot
deny that in all their actions they have had measures suitable to themselves. But if
attractiveness of form had not been there, no natural quality would have there subsisted.
If there had been no order there, some would not have ruled, others been ruled; they
would not have lived harmoniously in their elements; and, finally, they would not have
members arranged in their places, so that they could do al those things that they (sc. the
Manichaeans) vainly fable.

These sentences constitute a digression in Augustine’s account of the Manichaeans’

opinions on the nature of good and evil. The digression is, as it were, a separate
entity that can be extracted ‘en bloc’ from an argument in which a number of
Manichaean views are discussed, all these opinions being introduced in a striking
manner by ‘dicunt’ (‘they say’), which seems to refer to direct Manichaean sources.
In between, Augustine unexpectedly gives his comment, as just indicated. He
points out various inconsistencies in the Manichaean teaching about the kingdom
of darkness: ‘Nisi autem etiam ...’. It is as if in this digression we hear a correcting
view Augustine once already expressed in De pulchro et apto. In any case, that
supposed love, steadiness, obeisance, society, forms etc. in the kingdom of
darkness would not have been there without some sort of pulchritudo, congruentia,
pax, modus, species and ordo. The most appropriate translation of species here seems to
be ‘attractiveness of form’ or ‘attractive/beautiful appearance’.
I also propose this last mentioned rendering on the basis of the noteworthy
fact that Mani, in his Thesaurus, speaks emphatically about species. Augustine
transmits a long passage from its Book 7 in which ‘the blessed Father’ (...)
‘transforms his powers (uirtutes)’ and ‘makes them to show themselves to the hostile
powers (potestates)’ in the ‘attractive appearance’ (species) of naked boys or bright
virgins. By means of these ‘most beautiful appearances’ (speciebus pulcherrimis) they
seduce the opposite sex.142 Besides, species also occurs in Mani’s (?) Epistula ad
Menoch, here also in the sense of ‘appearance’.143

142
Nat. b. 44 (CSEL 25,881-884), e.g. ‘tunc beatus ille pater, qui lucidas naues habet diuersoria et
habitacula secundum magnitudines, pro insita sibi clementia fert opem, qua exuitur et liberatur ab
inpiis retinaculis et angustiis atque angoribus suae uitalis substantiae. (...) quae [sc. potestates]
quoniam ex utroque sexu masculorum ac feminarum consistunt, ideo praedictas uirtutes partim
specie puerorum inuestium parere iubet generi aduerso feminarum, partim uirginum lucidarum
forma generi contrario masculorum, sciens eas omnes hostiles potestates propter ingenitam sibi
letalem et spurcissimam concupiscentiam facillime capi atque iisdem speciebus pulcherrimis, quae
adparent, mancipari hocque modo dissolui. (...) Itaque cum ratio poposcerit, ut masculis
adpareant eaedem sanctae uirtutes, illico etiam suam effigiem uirginum pulcherrimarum habitu
demonstrant. rursus cum ad feminas uentum fuerit, postponentes species uirginum puerorum
inuestium speciem ostendunt.’
143
C. Iul. imp. 3,172.187 (CSEL 85,473.487): ‘... ex quo genere animarum emanaueris, quod est
confusum omnibus corporibus et saporibus et speciebus variis cohaeret’; ‘... et post factum
memoria sola eius operis, non ipsa species manet’.
 Based on the above, it may be concluded that in Augustine’s account of De
pulchro at apto, ‘pulchrum’ is best translated as ‘beautiful’, ‘aptum’ as ‘harmonious’,
‘decus’ as ‘splendour’ and ‘species’ as ‘attractiveness of form’. It may also have become
evident that close synonyms of these words can be used as well, provided that the
(anti-) Manichaean context of the words is considered.
Finally, some additional remarks on ‘Monad’ and ‘Dyad’. Earlier, I have
pointed to their likely origin as philosophical terms and tried to establish their
meaning in De pulchro et apto. Here, after having indicated how some key terms in
the work seem to have their true and full significance in Manichaean sources and
even in Mani’s own writings, I add that also the terms ‘Monad’ and ‘Dyad’ may
have been used by Mani himself. The self-styled ‘apostle of the true God, in the
land of Babylon’144 appears to have been aware of several Hellenistic philosophical
views.145 A key concept such as ‘Hylè’ seems to have been derived directly from
Greek sources and even occurs untranslated and countless times in his own
writings and those of his followers. In the Manichaean texts available so far, neither
the word ‘Monad’ nor ‘Dyad’ appear (although of course the concepts do!);
however, Hegemonius’ Acta Archelai146 and, in its wake, Epiphanius in his Panarion
mention Pythagoras as one of Mani’s authorities.147 It may very well be that young
Augustine knew the terms (and its associated dualism) not only from his early
rhetorical-philosophical studies,148 but also directly from one or more Manichaean
sources, perhaps even from one of Mani’s own writings. Using these terms, he
presented himself not only as a philosophically trained young rhetor, but also as a
true Manichaean.

Conclusions and Final Remarks

At the end of this rather long exposition, my main conclusions are as follows:
(1) Augustine’s first writing was a thoroughly Manichaean work and
therefore the reason for writing and what we know about its content deserve to be
understood first and foremost in this context;

144
Thus in his Shābuhragān according to the Muslim writer Al-Bīrūnī; cf. e.g. A. Adam, Texte zum
Manichäismus, Berlin: Walter de Gruyter 19692, 6: ‘... meiner selbst, des Mani, des Gesandten des
wahren Gottes, in das Land Babel’ and Reeves, Prolegomena (n. 56*), 103: ‘... by me, Mānī, the
apostle of the God of truth to Babylonia’.
145
Cf. e.g. A. Böhlig, ‘Denkformen hellenistischer Philosophie im Manichäismus’, Perspektiven der
Philosophie. Neues Jahrbuch 1986, 12 (1986) 11-39.
146
Hegemonius, Acta Archelai 62,3 (ed. C.H. Beeson, Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs 1906, 90): ‘Hic ergo
Scythianus dualitatem istam introducit contrariam sibi, quod ipse a Pythagora suscepit sicut et alli
omnes huius dogmatis sectatores, qui omnes dualitatem defendunt ...’. As is well known, in
Hegemonius’ story Scythianus is presented as the direct forerunner (and even alias) of Mani.
147
Epiphanius, Panarion haer. 66,2,9 (ed. K. Holl, Epiphanius, III, Panarion haer. 65-80, De fide. 2.
bearbeitete Auflage herausgegeben von J. Dummer, Berlin: Akademie Verlag 1985, 18).
148
Cf. e.g. A. Solignac, ‘Doxographies et manuels dans la formation philosophique de saint
Augustin’, RA 1 (1958) 113-148.
 (2) the likely ‘title’ of the (two or three) books ‘de pulchro et apto’ (conf. 4,20.26)
is best translated as ‘On the beautiful and the harmonious’;
(3) the work was not so much a treatise on beauty (i.e. ‘de pulchritudine’) and
so a purely theoretical ‘work of aesthetics’, but rather a philosophical and
theological149 work with a practical focus initially inspired by Augustine’s auditor-
ship;
(4) what Augustine reports about the content of his work is strikingly in line
with passages from Mani’s and other Manichaean writings as well as with passages
in Augustine’s own works in which he addresses the Manichaeans either directly or
indirectly;
(5) in all likelihood, Augustine’s work was written in the literary form of a
dialogue, more specifically as a dialogical monologue;
(6) its dedication to a certain Hierius and what Augustine reports about this
person gives rise to the assumption that this (otherwise virtually unknown) Hierius
was also a Manichaean;
(7) the work’s focus on the ‘corporeal’ as well as its speaking of ‘virtue’ and
‘vice’, ‘unity’ and ‘division’ and ‘Monad’ and ‘Dyad’ are best understood from
within Manichaean texts;
(8) Augustine will have learned the terms and concepts ‘Monad’ and ‘Dyad’
not only through his rhetorical training and philosophical studies, but almost
certainly also from the philosophically inspired writings of either Mani himself or
his followers. In his first writing, these concepts are fully interpreted within a
Manichaean framework;
(9) Augustine’s illustrative speaking of the Dyad as being manifest in ‘anger’
and ‘lust’ is not only confirmed by many Manichaean texts, but also leads to the
likely fact that (part of) his work was a practically oriented treatise on human
behaviour;
(10) the fact that several Manichaean texts link the causes of ‘anger’ and ‘lust’
to nourishment may suggest that this aspect also had a place in Augustine’s first
writing, as seems to be confirmed by a passage from mor. 2,43 as well as the impetus
to the work being the questions of Manichaean auditores;
(11) a comparison of the reported content of De pulchro et apto with some
passages in Augustine’s anti-Manichaean works most likely indicates that 26- or 27-
year-old Augustine reasoned not only on the basis of Manichaean beliefs, but also
that he approached them critically and may have tried to rationally improve them;
(12) De pulchro et apto seems to proof that Augustine’s equation of God and
the divine world with the beautiful is a notion which he—even before his discovery
of (Neo-)Platonism—learned and intimated among the Manichaeans.150

149
Cf. e.g. P. Alfaric, L’Évolution intellectuelle de saint Augustin, I: Du Manichéisme au Néoplatonisme,
Paris: Émile Nourry 1918, 222: ‘une expression publique de sa foi religieuse’. The same in J.J.
O’Meara, The Young Augustine: An Introduction to the Confessions of St. Augustine (1954), London-
New York: Longman 1980, 97: ‘a public expression of his Manichean faith’.
150
Cf. BeDuhn, ‘Augustine’s Manichaean Dilemma, I’ (n. 10), 99, with reference (327 n. 111) to K.E.
Lee, Augustine, Manichaeism, and the Good, New York: Peter Lang 1999.
In this essay, of course, the last word about De pulchro et apto has not been said and
for good reason I have called it ‘Notes’. In all likelihood, much more could have
been said of its place in Augustine’s philosophical, literary and spiritual
development. For instance, did his speaking of ‘pulchrum, pulchritudo, aptum, species,
decus’, etc. in De pulchro et apto influence his later views and how? Was its literary
form possibly a precursor to his later dialogical-monological works, even
influencing his perhaps most famous masterpiece, the Confessiones? What about the
fact that the work is described by its author as an attempt to ascent to God (‘Sed ego
conabar ad te ...’)? What about its likely mystical aspects? Is there a link between this
work and Augustine’s possible vegetarian behaviour?151 Why did he divide his work
in two or three books?152 Books, moreover, of which he states: ‘We no longer
posses them; they went astray from us, I do not know how’153?
These and other questions may remain for future research. Given the rapid
development of Manichaeology and also in light of the growing interest in the anti-
Manichaean works of Augustine,154 one may even wish that—sometime in the
foreseeable future—a full monograph will be dedicated to De pulchro et apto and its
importance in the personal development of—and likely influence on—the church
father Augustine .

151 Cf. e.g. Possidius, uita 22 and also conf. 10,46.

152
The most plausible theories in this regard so far come from Alfaric and Solignac: see Alfaric,
Évolution (n. 149), 223 n. 2 and Solignac, ‘Le « De pulchro et apto »’, BA 13, 670-673. But see also
e.g. Cress, ‘Augustine’s Account’ (n. 3), 155.
153
Conf. 4,20 (CCL 27,51): ‘Nisi enim habemus eos, sed aberrauerunt a nobis nescio quo modo’.
154
Among the recent projects I especially mention: Contre Fauste le manichéen / Contra Favstvm
Manichaevm, Livres I-XII (BA 18A). Sous la direction de M. Dulaey, Paris: Institut d’Études
Augustiniennes 2018; Contre Fauste le manichéen / Contra Favstvm Manichaevm, Livres XIII-XXI (BA
18B). Sous la direction de M. Dulaey, Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes 2020.