lrb.co.

uk
Watering the Dust · LRB 30 September 1999
James Wood
23-29 minutes

When I was 16 or so, my parents moved to Weardale, a farming area where little
villages and farms flock between Durham on the east and Northumberland on the west.
The church in the village we lived in was Late Victorian, devoutly ugly, its
furnishings as decent and sparse as its congregation, who regularly comprised an
ancient churchwarden (the only man) and five or six elderly ladies. I often played
the organ, which was a tinny wheezer. It was not a rich village; there were people
in it who had never left County Durham, and one set of brothers who had never been
on a train. One of the women in the congregation was so tone-deaf that she seemed
to speak the hymns rather than sing them; another always mispronounced the word
‘apostolic’ during the recitation of the Creed (‘Holy, catholic and apostolic
church’), landing heavily on the second rather than the third syllable. Since there
were so few congregants, her stumble tended to put everyone else out, like a lame
pall-bearer.

You could laugh at these people, if you wanted, but you could not condemn them.
They were guilty ... of what? Of small flickerings of envy or petty snobbery,
perhaps, or the occasional visitation of the ghost of a younger lust. Emphatically,
I felt, these were not wicked people and yet every Sunday, during communion, I
watched them grovel on their dry knees, condemn themselves and ask for forgiveness
from God in their strong Durham accents: ‘we have sinned through ignorance, through
weakness, through our own deliberate fault ... we are not worthy so much as to
gather up the crumbs under thy table.’ I can write these words, and much more of
the liturgy, from memory, because they are branded in me. Long before I read
Nietzsche, I was offended by the slavishness of this self-abasement. The belittling
of the human, the superstitious fear and the blackmail, seemed almost pagan to me.

Augustine, the great early theologian, the North African bishop heavily influenced
by Neoplatonism, is in many ways the patron saint of this pagan Christianity.
Majestically, Augustine spent much of his life as a Christian applying his superbly
lucid and restless mind to the hazard of human sinfulness, the release of
redemption and the agency of God. Crudely put, his massive attempt, derived from
the certainty that God is only good and cannot create anything evil, was to
reconcile how we are the source of our own evil and how at the same time God is the
source of us. Since God cannot be the source of evil, it is we who have gone
astray. Augustine decided that Adam was good when created by God, but had used his
God-given free will to sin. Adam’s sin is physically transmitted to all his
descendants through sex, so that we are all guilty: this is the doctrine of
original sin. In his treatise De Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione, written in 411,
he argued that unbaptised babies die in original sin and thus incur some kind of
divine condemnation in the afterlife. ‘For in thy sight no man is free from sin,’
he writes in the first book of the Confessions,‘not even a child who has lived only
one day on the earth ... what sins, then, did I commit when I was a baby myself?
Was it a sin to cry when I wanted to feed at the breast?’

Augustine is easy to attack, and paradoxically easy to defend. Since popular

reputation dirties him as a sex-consumed, life-denying fatalist, it has not been
hard for most responsible scholars to wash that reputation of its accretions.
Recent accounts have stressed that he was not obsessed with sex; that he was
lenient in the matter of his own priests’ sexual misdemeanours; that, unlike, say,
Thomas More, he was a powerful combatant but a tolerant prosecutor of heretics
(such as the Donatists); that his strong sense of the evil humans can do was more
than balanced by his love-flooded sense of God’s grace and beneficence; that his
apparent rigidity in thought was often only the terminus of an immense cognitive
flexibility, a searching and modest rationalism of enquiry that can be felt, by all
readers, in the very prose of the Confessions and the City of God. It is thrilling
to read Augustine’s chapter on the faculty of memory in the Confessions and watch
him patiently angle his way towards the discovery that there is an unconscious,
that we forget nothing.

Garry Wills’s defence of Augustine – for that is what his short biography amounts
to – is finely original and often brilliantly convincing. Anyone interested in
Augustine, even those who thought they knew a fair amount, will learn from Wills.
He not only admires Augustine, but is clearly moved by his combination of lucidity
and hesitancy. Augustine’s texts, Wills writes, ‘draw us into a process’. He is
sensible about the apparent obsession with sex, without his narrative becoming
hostage to this defence; instead, in a rich rereading of the Confessions, he
suggests that certain scenes which seem unusually sex-tinged are rhetorical
allusions to, and re-enactments of, Adam’s loss of innocence in Eden. This does not
quite absolve Augustine of his obsession, of course, but at least it dignifies it
in formal drapes.

Wills is most illuminating when discussing Augustine’s pastoral work as Bishop of

Hippo, and when analysing the literary strategies of his many sermons. He argues
that Augustine used puns, aphorisms and jingles rather as the Rev. Jesse Jackson
does. As examples, he provides his own springy translations from Augustine’s Latin.
Augustine flourishes in Wills’s hands and, dappled in a flickering, modern light,
takes on a benign bloom. We see him as a busy priest and correspondent in a country
whose bishops were mostly unimpressive, and in several cases illiterate; above all,
we see him both as a man of his time and as a philosopher whose hospitality towards
free ratiocination makes him seem timeless – both pre-religious and post-religious;
or religiously pagan, perhaps. Nevertheless, Wills’s defence is got at a price,
inasmuch as he makes only brief mention of Augustine’s struggles with Pelagius and
barely discusses his late position on predestination and grace. Reading Wills, one
would not guess that Augustine formulated a position so unpalatable that the Church
would effectively condemn it in the 17th century.

Augustine was born in 354, in Thagaste, now Souk Ahras, in Algeria. His father, who
died when his son was 18, was not a Christian; his mother Monica, a devout
Catholic, was clearly an influence on her son and prayed for his rectitude and
conversion. As a child, he was indifferent, as a young man he was frankly hostile
to the Bible stories. In his Confessions, Augustine offers a portrait of his
childhood so saturated in sin and so marked by the eventual triumph over sin that
it is sometimes difficult to retrieve its innocent normality: the schoolboy who was
brilliant and restless, and who idled at his Greek, who was often punished, who
kicked around the streets with his friends, who stole pears from a man’s garden for
the hell of it, and who robustly explored his developing sexuality. Augustine did
not consider these habits innocent, of course, when he came to write his
autobiography at the age of 43, two years after his appointment as bishop. Like
most conversion narratives, the Confessions is a tribute paid to an invisible
gestation. The book is an account of predestination and free will, as it manifested
itself in Augustine’s conversion to Christianity. On the one hand, given the free
will to sin, Augustine sinned plentifully as a young man – indeed, his every
thought and deed was an edition of sin. On the other, he had been chosen by God’s
grace to be saved, and so even as he sinned, God was plotting his salvation; it is
as if the air was heavy with divine immanence, which he breathed in ignorance.

Despite Wills’s distinguished efforts, it is still difficult to admire many parts

of the Confessions, and difficult to warm to Augustine’s asceticism, which rises to
a hysteria of self-mortification. He tells us that he was ‘in a ferment of sin’: he
was sinful as a baby, sinful when he shirked school, sinful when he enjoyed the
theatre, sinful when his body asserted itself at puberty, sinful when he enjoyed
music. Even for liturgical use, Augustine has his doubts about music: ‘For
sometimes I feel that I treat it with more honour than it deserves ... when I find
the singing itself more moving than the truth it conveys, I confess that this is a
grievous sin, and at those times I would prefer not to hear the singer.’

Wills offers a persuasive analysis of two celebrated early incidents in the

Confessions. In one, Augustine tells us how he and his friends stole the pears:
‘Our real pleasure consisted in doing something that was forbidden.’ Wills notes
the parallel with Adam’s plucking of the forbidden fruit and astutely observes that
Augustine’s point may be that, like Adam, he was tempted by company. In another
incident, Augustine describes his father’s pleasure at the baths when he sees his
son naked, realises that he has emerged into manhood, and will himself be a father
one day. Eager to counter imputations of sex-obsession, Wills argues, with
brilliance, that Augustine’s use of the word ‘clothed’ – ‘I was clothed in unstable
manhood’ – is a reference to Adam’s first nakedness and to the moment when, having
lost his innocence, he found it shameful. ‘So the odd word “clothed”, in this sense
of nakedness, is the key to the whole passage. Augustine in the public baths is a
fallen Adam, not yet clothed in Christ’s grace.’ This is entirely convincing and
deepens one’s sense of Augustine’s formal ingenuity: his autobiography is a carpet
of inevitability, each thread carefully woven so as to suggest the very pattern of
predestination.

Wills does not go on to quote Augustine’s own gloss on this scene. His father,
Augustine writes, was happy to tell his mother that they would have grandchildren,
‘for his happiness was due to the intoxication which causes the world to forget
you, its creator, and to love the things you have created, instead of loving you,
because the world is drunk with the invisible wine of its own perverted, earthbound
will’. This is typically eloquent, but also typically dismaying: a dour, religious
poisoning of ordinary, healthy pleasure, an always unfinished subtraction from
life, so that even Augustine’s father must be rebuked for his exultant, aspiring
grand-paternity. Such moments remind one of Mill’s correctively secular comment in
On Liberty: ‘It may be better to be a John Knox than an Alcibiades, but it is
better to be a Pericles than either.’

The young Augustine was more inclined to the Periclean than to the religious-
ascetic life. He first travelled to Carthage in 371, to study rhetoric, and there
he fell in with a group of young, high-spirited Manichaeans. Once a Christian, he
would become their fiercest opponent, but for at least ten years, until he visited
Rome, he called himself a Manichaean. The Manichaeans, followers of Mani, a third-
century Persian thinker, had effectively found a way around the dilemma which
dominated Augustine’s life: how to reconcile the existence of evil and the
existence of God. Evil and pain seem either to limit God’s power or to qualify his
goodness. Either God cannot control this evil (in which case he is impotent), or he
will not (in which case he is cruel). The question is unanswerable, and the
Manichaeans circumvented it by denying that God had anything to do with evil in the
world. God is good, they said, and all that he creates is good. Thus evil must come
from elsewhere, and the Manichaeans found it in a dark force that was not created
by God, but is somewhat God-like, for it originated itself. The Manichaean vision
raises as many problems as it solves because a God opposed by a force of darkness
may be good, but is not obviously very powerful. Still, one might say that the
Manichaeans managed to suspend the acuteness of the dilemma by converting it into a
problem of origin rather than practice: as we do not know how God came about,
neither do we know how evil came about.

Augustine was what Wills calls ‘a star’ in Manichaean circles. But when he finally
turned against them, he formulated a position that is still the most convincing,
indeed the only convincing Christian explanation of why God lets evil prosper. It
is typical of Augustine that he will not endorse the Manichaean evasion and assert
that evil is simply ‘there’. Instead, he reasons that if God did not create evil,
then we did. Evil flows from the human. But the fact that God created humans seems
only to reprise the dilemma and so, in De Libero Arbitrio, he argues that God must
have given us free will, and hence the freedom to do evil, in order for our
devotion to him to have any meaning at all. Without free will, we would be like
animals or trees, just obeying our natures. A tree’s relationship with God is a
meaningless one.

Augustine developed these ideas in his great book City of God, written between 413
and 427, and in De Naturaet Gratia, written in 413-15. The angels were created
good, as was man. But Satan, like Adam, chose to stray from righteousness, and
Adam’s fateful choice had repercussions for the rest of mankind, who inherit his
taint. Evil issues from man’s rational will. This is the only intellectually decent
theodicy in Christian theology (others propose monstrous cruelties, such as the
idea that our suffering is good for us, or that a few years of hell on earth are
but as yesterday to God’s eternal peace in heaven). Putting aside for a moment the
question of original sin, Augustine’s notion of free will still seems vulnerable on
two counts. The first is that God’s gift to us of free will fails to absolve him of
cruelty. For, as the 17th-century French sceptic Pierre Bayle devastatingly remarks
in his Historical and Critical Dictionary, why would God bestow a gift that he
knows in advance will be abused in such a manner as to bring about the ruin of the
person to whom it is given? (Our freedom to do evil does not merely cause us or
others temporary pain, but may also condemn us to eternal damnation.) Bayle’s
example is that of a mother who allows her daughter to go to the ball, knowing in
advance that she will be seduced and raped. Augustine never successfully answered
this obvious objection (though he acknowledged a form of it), and indeed responded
only by making God crueller still, coming to believe that God predestines some to
be saved and some to be condemned.

The second count of vulnerability is even greater. Augustine assumes, like every
defender of free will after him, that free will is a greater good than freedom from
human suffering. In other words, he assumes that to live in a world without free
will – a robotic world – would be more terrible than to live in the world as we
know it, which is free, but full of pain and evil. Augustine might say in his
defence that he cannot know whether a robotic, unfree world would be a painless
one, but he can know that it would be religiously meaningless, and therefore not
worth having. But how can he know this? If we were all automata, and had always
been automata, incapable of doing harm to one another because absolutely unfree,
how would that mean our world was meaningless? The question is not what is
meaningful for us, since we did not ask to be created, but what is meaningful for
God. A world in which we can do no harm and commit no evil supposedly exists, of
course – it is called heaven; and why could God not have created heaven on earth?
In other words, free will is obviously important for humans as we are currently
constituted. But it is not clear that the relationship with God that we currently
suffer (or enjoy) is essential for him. Why could God not have created a world in
which humans were somewhat less free but also somewhat less evil and somewhat less
in pain? Such a question opens onto the larger question, which is why God created
us at all and, as such, is barely discussable, let alone answerable, by a
theologian.

And what of Augustine’s idea of original sin, in which the world is primally
baptised in black water? Garry Wills, who rushes the reader a little when
discussing abstractly theological matters, is disappointing at only one moment in
his book, when, uncharacteristically, he attempts to bluster his way around
Augustine:

Augustine based his concept of original sin not on one Bible verse but on a
reading of large problems in Scripture, on the saving role of Christ, and on the
common-sense observation that there is something kinky or askew in ordinary human
nature. Though Augustine is called a pessimist and G.K. Chesterton an optimist, it
was Chesterton who said the reality of original sin can be observed at that point
in a lovely summer afternoon when bored children start torturing the cat. A Jewish
scholar tells me he thinks original sin the most self-evident concept in the whole
world of thought. And Cardinal Newman said that the present mess of human society
suggests it underwent ‘some primordial shipwreck’.

Perhaps Wills thinks that the presence of the Jewish scholar adds an ecumenical
flame to the Catholic firebreathers, Newman and Chesterton? The tremor in his tone
is interesting, suggesting as it does an anxiety. For surely he sees that one can
have a theory of evil without a theory of original sin. (This may be what his
Jewish friend means.) No one doubts that humans, most humans, commit sins: this is
‘self-evident’, indeed. But that all humans are sinners at birth because of
something Adam did in Eden is not only far from self-evident, but a wicked idea. To
say that humans have a propensity to sinfulness is to judge each of them on the
evidence of his or her propensity; to say that humans are predestined to sinfulness
is to deny them mercy. Those old ladies on the floor of my childhood church were
innocent, not guilty.

The doctrine of original sin has bullied the Church into an obsession with sin
that, ironically, outstrips Augustine’s own (considerable) involvement in the
matter. Cardinal Newman, alas, is no witness for the defence, and only undermines
Wills. I doubt that there is a more cruel and inhumane Christian book than Newman’s
Apologia, in which, devoured by his apprehension of hereditary evil, he defines the
Church’s mission in the most drained terms, as ‘a great remedy for a great evil ...
a supereminent prodigious power sent upon earth to encounter and master a giant
evil’. The emphasis on predestination was bound to force Augustine into further
expansions of the idea of inevitability, so that in the end God must seem our
jailer rather than our saviour, as one of the interlocutors phrases it in More’s A
Dialogue of Comfort against Tribulation, ‘the chief jailer over this whole broad
prison the world is (as I take it) God ... ere ever they come quick into the world
out of the mother’s womb, God condemneth them unto death by His own sentence and
judgment for the original sin that they bring with them, contracted in the
corrupted stock of our forefather Adam.’

Once we are condemned to sinfulness (though Augustine stresses that we choose to

sin, and are never compelled by God), we are condemned to be saved from sinfulness.
Augustine began to move most decisively towards this position around 410, when he
felt the need to distinguish his teaching from that of Pelagius, who believed that
since we sin out of an act of free will, we can turn to God and righteousness out
of a counterbalancing act of free will: we do not need God’s help to turn to him.
Augustine strongly disagreed. In a succession of tracts between 412 and 425 – De
Peccatorum Meritis et Remissione (411-12), Contra Duas Epistolas Pelagianorum
(420), and the Enchiridion of 423 – he argued that only when God pours his grace on
us are we enabled to free ourselves from sin. In the Enchiridion, he suggests that
not all humans will find God’s eternal blessing. Only those who are chosen are
saved. In her brilliant book Augustine on Evil (1982), G.R. Evans comments sadly:
‘Augustine’s developing conception of how God helps us to know him gradually
blotted out any notion that man might contribute to his own salvation by trying
hard.’

This cruel ‘double predestination’ became 17th-century Jansenism, which was

condemned by the Pope. Its vision of our relationship with God is aptly caught by
the philosopher Leszek Kolakowski, in the title of his book about Jansenism: God
Owes Us Nothing. During his lifetime the implications of such thinking troubled
some of Augustine’s followers. Even if we were able to ignore the pious cruelty, an
illogicality stands out: we are apparently compelled by grace to turn to God (and
Augustine became sure that this was how he himself found God), but we are free to
sin (God merely foresees sin). This is only resolved, like much in Augustine, by
the saving assertion that God is good, and cannot create anything bad. There again,
since, by original sin, we are effectively condemned to sinfulness, if not forced
to commit sin, it could be said that Augustine’s mature theology stoppers both
ends, salvation and sin, and encircles us in the inevitable.

Camus’s The Myth of Sisyphus offers a systematic inversion of Augustine’s thought.

(Like Augustine an Algerian, Camus wrote his thesis on Augustine.) Against the grey
asceticism, Camus asserts a fat paganism, the demanding pleasures of the here and
now. Against Augustine’s fervent belief that life exists only so that it can be
extended in heaven, Camus asserts that life must be extended on earth – in life
itself. He finds this idea eventually in the image of Sisyphus, rolling his rock
back up the hill. Against Augustine’s purity of withdrawal from life, Camus argues
that the ‘absurd’ secularist best extends life by adding to the quantity of worldly
experiences, not their quality. This is really a figurative or metaphorical
extension, something like the idea of repeated curtain calls, or of adding extra
songs to a concert. Augustine says, in effect: ‘condemned to death, let us prepare
for it, religiously.’ Camus says, in effect: ‘condemned to death (but condemned by
biology not theology), let us keep it entertained.’ Against the endless repetition
of heaven, Camus proposes secular repetition: ‘the present and the succession of
presents before a constantly conscious soul is the ideal of the absurd man.’ And
most important, against Augustine’s idea of original sin and predestination, Camus
argues that to be ‘absurd’ is to be living in a state of ‘sin without God’. The
absurd is like living sinfully because, like Augustine’s sin, we cannot escape it:
it is a kind of original sin but without the origin, which would be God. It is the
sentence passed on us by life.

Augustine fathered a considerable cruelty. But his thought tends to seem cruel only
when it is abstracted. Wills is right to emphasise its travelling hesitancies, the
process of thought itself. In many ways, Augustine was not hard on others, but too
hard on himself; he extrapolated from his self-mortification, he turned his own
hair shirt inside out, and called it universal. In particular, his notion of evil
and the challenge to God that it represents was weighted far too heavily towards
the sin we commit rather than the pain we suffer. Convinced of his own sinfulness,
Augustine saw sin as the great theological threat, the one that most deserved to be
combated. Yet the pain that humans suffer is surely as great an indictment of God’s
providence. Practically, however, if not in theory, Augustine was alert to the pain
of others. As a bishop, he intervened with the secular authorities to save
murderers from execution, and on one occasion used the Church coffers to emancipate
some slaves from their owners. Wills quotes a striking passage from his Commentary
on Paul’s Letter to the Galatians, in which Augustine warns against censoriousness:
‘it were best, while watering the dust with your tears, to remember that we have no
right to crow over another’s sin, since we sin in the very reproach of sin if anger
is better at making us sinners than mercy is at making us kind.’ Here, Augustine
uses his own acute sense of his sinfulness to warn against judging the sinfulness
of others; how rarely such a gentle awareness is exercised by the Church.

Wills ends his book beautifully. Dying, Augustine asked that oversize
transcriptions of the penitential psalms be fixed to the walls of his cell, so that
he might lament his sins. A monk who brought him his food found him weeping. ‘It is
appropriate,’ Wills writes, ‘that he died surrounded by the laboriously traced
words of Scripture.’ It is a fitting image for one who built so large and complex a
theological edifice. But, more mournfully, it is also an image of a man who had
imprisoned himself in cruel grace, surrendering himself to what Thomas More called
‘the chief jailer over this whole broad prison the world’.