The Confessions of St. Benjamin

So, I haven't yet finished the whole thing, but I thought I'd post on the first few books - I've gotten through the first 4. In other words, I'm moving slowly, but, since no one but Jessica seems to be posting, I think I've got plenty of time to catch up.

Overall Impressions:

I don't know about you guys, but I expected Confessions to be pretty difficult reading - I guess because the author was writing about 1600 years ago. This actually hasn't been the case (though it's not exactly easy either - just easier than I expected). As a word of warning, I think the translation you have matters quite a bit on this. Augustine was well-known as a Latin rhetorician (something he wasn't so happy about, as you'll find) and his language skills don't always translate easily, or at least people have different ideas about how they do. There is a classic edition that was done sometime in the 40s that has been the model ever since - don't read this one. I started on it, and it was all Thee's and Thou's. With all the biblical allusions, it already feels somewhat like it was pulled straight out of the King James Bible - the older style translation doesn't help. So I picked up the Everyman's Library translation by Philip Burton at the library done in 2001, and I like it much better.

Also, though it is really a kind of attack on other Augustine scholars, I would read the introduction. It helps to have some context for Augustine's life and times - especially what he was dealing with when he wrote it. I tend to side with the introducer in saying that Augustine was likely writing with a specific purpose - to counter some attacks that he wasn't Christian enough. He was serving as the Bishop of Hippo at the time, and there were all kinds of schisms and controversies flying around that I can't even begin to understand. But it does seem that there was some opposition to him being Bishop, and people were attacking his faith. Things don't really change - even the Apostle Paul had to deal with splits in the Church. We Christians are good at flinging shit around.

So, beyond actual heartfelt belief, I think that some of his denunciations of his previous literary life have as much to do with his tenuous position as Bishop as they do with his conviction that it was sinful (more on that as I go).

Other general impressions: I expected the book to be hard, not only in terms of language, but in terms of religious philosophy, but, again, it both is hard and not nearly as hard as I expected. You may see it differently, of course (and some of this will only make sense once you've read it). He spends a lot of time attacking his younger self for a variety of reasons, some that at first glance may seem trivial. For example: he condemns his boyhood love of Latin verse and drama, even though they sparked his imagination. He describes them as "vain" pursuits - basically a waste of his time and effort when he should have been focusing on God. But I wonder how much he really believes this - he talks about them so much, and often in such glowing terms that I think he doesn't really regret that time at all, and only feels like he should. As the chapters unfold, he even puts these pursuits higher than his time spent with the Manichean cult (worth looking up for context) and their illusionary beliefs, crediting them with pointing him in the direction of God. His true criticism (I think) is one that I, as a christian, find very compelling - that good things like stories, or beauty, or even sex are good in so much as they are of God as all good things are. But if they are enjoyed without acknowledging them as a part of God and as gifts from God they ultimately come to nothing, and can even be harmful.

Anyway, I guess what I'm saying is that I have found Augustine not to be so hard as actually pretty wise.

It is hard to take so much wisdom at once though - and it is a book that requires a certain time commitment. On the one hand, it really needs longer reading stretches - say an hour minimum at a time. It's hard to pick much up from it, or even to pick it up again, with only 20 minutes here and there. On the other though, you can't read too much of it at once, because it really needs some digestion. It's the kind of book that while you are reading ideas will just suddenly jump into your mind and you'll think "Yes! that makes sense!" - sometimes even about things Augustine wasn't addressing at all. It's worth reading just for this, I think. I've only reliably found that kind of effect when reading Dostoevsky - really only with books that take a little effort to read.

Some notes:

Some of the book is hilarious, though I'm sure he didn't intend it to be so. There's a part where he runs around with a gang of fellow Rhetorician students who call themselves The Destroyers. Really. And they go around harassing people and stealing stuff, just like any gang of 16 year olds. He doesn't participate in everything they do, but just because he's too shy. It's very...modern. In fact, I find myself able to relate quite a bit, despite the 1600 years separating us. His growing up is remarkably similar to anyone who grows up in an educated environment.

Speaking of his fellow Rhetoricians - he spends a lot of these early chapters talking about Grammarians. It really was an interesting period of history, where speaking well could bring a great deal of success. He makes an excellent distinction in criticising himself and his fellow grammarians at the time - that they were in it only for their ambitions. It didn't matter what they said, so long as they said it well. They could happily expound on their own adulteries so long as they did it skillfully. Again, much of his criticism seems to be about the importance of motive - good things or bad, it matters why you are doing them.

Another point I like - he tackles the Manichees for dismissing the Patriarchs (the Jewish Fathers - Abraham, Moses, etc.) because they did things that in his time would be considered sinful (like having multiple wives). He points out that there are cultural laws and taboos that should be obeyed but that don't speak to one's basic righteousness. Times change, but God is bigger than time. We are called to treat one another justly, and with love - how that is done might be different depending on time and place. Human laws should be followed until they conflict with God's law, and then they should be resisted at all costs. Petty issues of theology, or matters of taste (religious calls to stop drinking, or eat a certain kind of food, or secular laws for public good, etc) matter only in so much as their relation to other human beings. He would argue, I think, that it didn't matter so much that the Patriarch's were permitted multiple wives at the time - though it would matter now - but how they interacted with their wives. He is articulating what I see as one of the main ideas that sets Christianity apart from many (but certainly not all) religions - the idea that there is more to following God than following any set of rules. There is some higher purpose and calling that may change with time and place that has to do with our relationship to one another.

Anyway, didn't meant to preach, I just like that point he was making. And it's one of the things that makes me feel that his theology isn't as hard as many seem to think - even if he is very hard on himself for actions that don't seem all that bad. He's examining why he did them, and that makes a difference.

And that's about all I've got at the moment. More later, as soon as I read a little more.

Hope all is well with your lives - literary and otherwise.