[In the following essay, Martin examines Augustine's writings in praise of the monastic way of life.]

What is it therefore to speak not only eloquently but also wisely, unless to apply sufficient words in the subdued style, elegant words in the moderate style, powerful words in the grand style, all the while speaking only true things which ought to be heard. But if someone is not able to do both [speak eloquently and wisely], let him say wisely what he does not say eloquently, rather than say eloquently what he says foolishly. If, however, he cannot do even this, let him so live as to provide not only reward for himself but also offer example for others. Thus his way of living may provide the equivalent of an abundant supply of discourse.¹

Augustine composed the De doctrina christiana with a twofold task in mind: first, to provide rules (praecepta) for finding the truth of Scripture, what he calls modus inueniendi, then, to offer rules for effectively communicating this same truth to others, what he calls modus proferendi.² The final book of the work is dedicated to this latter task, Augustine boldly pressing the classical rhetorical tradition into service of the gospel. In the course of bringing his presentation of a Christian rhetoric to its conclusion, he notes that not all are capable of the challenging modus proferendi he has just explored. To such as these, however, he hastens to offer a reassuring word not to lose heart. He then volunteers what would seem to be an alternative modus proferendi: ‘one's way of living’, he states, ‘can be the equivalent of an abundant supply of discourse—quasi copia dicendi forma uiuendi.’³ In a brief but bold affirmation that itself is a masterpiece of rhetorical understatement, Augustine proposes that the way one lives (forma uiuendi) can have the same discursive potential as the very heights of rhetorical mastery (copia dicendi). Eloquent discourse on behalf of the gospel can be supplied by eloquent living.

The almost jarring couplet that forms the heart of this affirmation—copia dicendi forma uiuendi—links two worlds that in Augustine's own day often stood before each other in tension-filled conflict. Late Antiquity witnessed a confrontation of cultures: the classical world-view found itself challenged for legitimacy by Christianity.⁴ Nonetheless, Augustine brings these two worlds together. Copia dicendi is, in fact, a thoroughly classical expression. It is abundantly present in Cicero's rhetorical works to denote both the range and depth of persuasive oratory. It refers to having at hand in any given situation an abundance of necessary and useful resources in order to persuade effectively—a full supply of discourse.⁵ On the other hand, forma uiuendi highlights a foundational Christian and Augustinian theme—the lived gospel.⁶ For Augustine, the exemplum Christi is its normative expression,⁷ the Word did indeed become flesh and lived among us—Christ is the eloquium Dei.⁸ This linking of copia dicendi and forma uiuendi must have been both intriguing and disconcerting for Augustine's intended audience. On the one hand, he expresses the imperative to live the gospel in terms that were traditionally used to denote the classical world's understanding of the rhetorical ideal. Cicero is made to supply Christians with categories to appreciate better the richness of their own living. That living is a veritable copia dicendi. Augustine provocatively suggests that the highest ideals of classical culture now find fulfilment in Christian living. On the other hand, the exclusive world of a select and highly trained elite, the rhetorical world of Augustine's day,⁹ has abruptly been thrown open to all. Ciceronian ideals, the preserve of the privileged few of traditional Roman aristocracy¹⁰—these values suddenly find themselves supplanted if not shattered by the radical universality of gospel living: all are capable of forma uiuendi.¹¹ This kind of ‘discourse’ excludes no one!

Such unexpected, sometimes disconcerting, pairings are found throughout Augustine, and have likewise been noted in his unique contributions to monasticism. Philosophical community,¹² Ciceronian friendship,¹³ Neo-Platonic notions of the body and asceticism¹⁴—these are some of the spolia gentium¹⁵ that commentators have suggested Augustine carried with him into the monastery. Thus the classical heritage was allowed to support and nourish even the very life of the servants of God who, according to the opening lines of Augustine's Rule or Praeceptum, strive to be ‘anima una et cor unum in Deum—one mind and one heart on the way to God’.¹⁶ As long as this shared and dynamic pursuit of God remained the guiding principle of monasticism—in Deum, it is then possible, perhaps even imperative, to draw upon such resources as are offered by classical culture in order to enhance and clarify the monastic propositum.

Remarkably, Augustine's comments in the De doctrina christiana concerning the unique eloquence and persuasive possibilities of forma uiuendi as a copia dicendi have received little attention from commentators. They have not, for example, served as an impetus to explore the potential impact that such a rhetorically based vision may have had on his view of monasticism. If a way of life has its own eloquence, what might that insight mean for the Bishop of Hippo's particular understanding of the monastic way of life? One is hard pressed to find in the literature concerning Augustine's monasticism any serious exploration of such a question as ‘the rhetoric of monasticism’. Perhaps the principal reason for such a lack is that most studies of ‘rhetoric and Augustine’ lead immediately into structural and technical discussions. Because rhetoric is traditionally viewed in these studies as ars—eloquence as instrument, technique, and tool of persuasion,¹⁷ attention immediately shifts to questions of how: the manner in which persuasive ‘devices’ are employed.¹⁸ From this perspective any consideration of the rhetorical dimensions in Augustine's monasticism would be limited to textual-literary and structural-compositional questions, precluding any possible rhetorical dimension to the actual life of the servants of God.¹⁹ Augustine's own challenging assertion, however, that forma uiuendi can be viewed as a veritable copia dicendi suggests that he was willing to push rhetorical categories boldly, far beyond obvious questions of technique and device—and the same may be argued for the rhetorical culture he left behind.²⁰ Among the extensive recent effort directed towards a reappraisal of prevailing understandings of traditional rhetoric, some have emphasized the need to move beyond the stress placed upon surface technique and device in order to uncover and explore what has been called ‘primary rhetoric’.²¹ This term suggests that on a deeper and more fundamental level rhetoric operates to ‘persuade a way of life’.²² Thus a primary rhetoric functions beyond and beneath both word and its devices, in support of a philosophical vision, an implied anthropology, and ideals of human community.²³ All the tools and techniques, devices and structures, mechanisms and apparatus of the surface or explicit rhetoric ought to be viewed as directed toward the pleading and arguing, affirming and supporting, preservation and maintenance of these deeper and most often unspoken notions of truth, ideals of human formation, and goals for human society—for good or for bane! This understanding clearly seems to be operative in Augustine's own eloquent deconstruction of the equally eloquent but nonetheless false glory of Rome that he carries out in the De civitate Dei. It clearly underlies his arguments for taking up rhetoric to serve gospel truth in the De doctrina christiana.²⁴ Most especially his affirmation that forma uiuendi can be understood to be a kind of copia dicendi points to a rhetorical domain that is deeper and beyond words, and yet has its own particular eloquence and persuasive possibilities. It is precisely on this account that fresh avenues of exploration may prove fruitful for better appreciating Augustine's unique monastic vision and project. Would a sampling of Augustine's monastic texts suggest that he did indeed view its way of life as having rhetorical potential and possibility?

Possible indications of a persuasive intent behind his monastic vision seem to surface in the Praeceptum or Rule. Chapter Four of this work is all predicated upon the public character of the monastic community—and the clear awareness that their witness is not without persuasive impact upon the wider community. While the focus of the three preceding chapters has been internal to the community—in domo²⁵ and in monasterio,²⁶ Chapter Four suddenly shifts the attention of the community to concerns regarding what is observed by others outside the monastic community (notabilis)²⁷ and awareness of and attention to ‘public’ issues such as good example (placere moribus), avoidance of offensive behavior (offendere aspectum), and a general appreciation of social presence (ab aliis uideri).²⁸ It is also in this section that Augustine makes his single reference in the Praeceptum to the uir sanctus, the ‘holy man’,²⁹ with its accompanying admonition to the conversion of the desires in order to measure up to the demands of this title. Uir sanctus occurs often in Augustine's writings to describe the servants of God, both biblical and ecclesial.³⁰ It may be suggested that the expression would have struck Augustine's own monastic community as deliberately challenging the notion of the uir optimus that was the epitome of Roman culture and, it could be argued, one clear intention of its ‘primary rhetoric’.³¹ Chapter Four of the Praeceptum makes clear that this is not only not an isolated community but one that is, or ought to be, preeminently aware of its persuasive impact beyond domus and monasterium.³²

After these admonitions concerning the monastic community's ‘audience’, the Praeceptum returns once again to intra-community concerns. At its conclusion, however, both inner and outer dimensions are explicitly joined together. Augustine links the caritative notions of ‘love’ (dilectio) and ‘lovers of spiritual beauty’ (spiritalis pulchritudinis amatores) with ‘way of life’ (conuersatio). This way of life, Augustine clarifies, is to be understood as ‘exuding the pleasant fragrance of Christ’ (bono Christi odore flagrantes), with obvious implications that this ‘evangelical aroma’ cannot be confined to the monastery. Augustine is making a clear reference here to 2 Cor. 2:15, and it serves as an equally clear affirmation of the Christ-centered nature of this community.³³ This notion of conuersatio can be linked to all that is included in Augustine's forma uiuendi expression,³⁴ with an added emphasis on its grounding in Christology.³⁵ In another context Augustine notes that conuersatio can even serve as ‘proof’ or ‘evidence’, since it is what others are able to note and behold and thus be convinced.³⁶ Augustine seems to suggest thereby that if the monastic community remains faithful to its vocation of Christ-informed living, they themselves can be a vigorous proclamation, vindication and persuasive argument on behalf of Christ and the gospel.

While the Praeceptum apparently remained an internal document, probably intended for the guidance of the monastic community in Hippo Regius,³⁷ Augustine clearly used public occasions to articulate forcefully his understanding of the life of the servants of God who lived in the monasteries. A sermon on Psalm 132, preached in April of 407,³⁸ provided just such an opportunity,³⁹ allowing him to offer to the gathered Christian community a developed explanation of his own unique vision of monasticism.⁴⁰ Augustine's comments here clearly suggest that he saw the forma uiuendi of his own monastic community as a copia dicendi—the life they lived for all to behold had much to say about the true intent of the gospel message. In this regard, Augustine's own explanations can be seen under two lights. On the one hand his words are an instruction offered to the local ecclesial community, enabling them to perceive and interpret correctly the specific signa that is monastic community: they are given a modus inueniendi. On the other hand, the monastic community present with the faithful in church is being reminded of their own persuasive responsibility and accountability, they are reminded that their very life is a modus proferendi.⁴¹

Augustine accents ‘orality’ and ‘reception’ from the outset of the psalm commentary as his vocabulary deliberately highlights the communicative and persuasive potential of the monastic community. If this brief (brevis) psalm is both well known and well spoken of, ualde notus et nominatus (en. ps. 132.1), so too, it may be argued, is the seemingly insignificant monastic community. They are understood to make a kind of ‘holy noise’ that captures the ear and attention of others as Augustine draws upon ‘acoustic’ language to describe their pleasing and ‘received’ witness. Words and expressions like sound (sonus), melody (melodia), song (canticum), cry (clamor), open ears (apertae aures), trumpet (tuba), and listening (audire, 2) are employed to describe both the living of the monastic community and its reception by others. This is, indeed, the voice of this psalm (uox huius psalmi, 3). Such exterior reception, however, always has an interior intent, leading in the direction of the heart.⁴² It is precisely this interior dimension that moves such imagery toward salvific implications. Thus ‘deafness’ (surdus) connotes an unwillingness to receive the message (2). The copia dicendi that is the monastic living of this community meets another important criterion for effective discourse. It is readily intelligible.⁴³ This contrasts sharply with strained Donatist discourse that vainly (and, for Augustine, deceptively) labours to justify the Circumcellions' witness (3).⁴⁴

What does the monastic community communicate? Augustine explains that they strive to be a living proclamation of Acts 4:32-35, Augustine's key monastic text. The author of Acts notes the deep impression that this community made upon all Jerusalem (Acts 2:43; 4:33), this first Christian community that was ‘anima una et cor unum’ with Augustine's notable addition to this phrase of ‘in Deum’.⁴⁵ This is the res, the deep inner truth of their copia dicendi.⁴⁶ Acts portrays the early Christian community as giving expression to a comprehensive vision of Christian life: theirs is Resurrection witness, visible Christian community, and a living faith and love—this is a true copia dicendi. Now all of this has become the content of the monastic community's ‘abundant supply of discourse’. Augustine specifies by enumerating some of the most significant aspects of this abundance: there is love (caritas), movement towards unity (in unum), one spirit and one heart on the way to God (anima una et cor unum in Deum), brotherhood (dilectio et unitas fratrum), even love's exuberance (caritatis exsultatio, 2). All of this overflows into a copious assortment of essential monastic components: the vowing of oneself to God (uotum Deo, 2), flight from disturbance (amare quietem, 4), dedication to God (seruire Deo), a re-aligning of values heavenward (in desideriis caelestibus vitam gerens, 5), thankfulness (Deo gratias agere), Christ-dwelling (habitare in Christo), Christ-unity in all its richness (multa corpora sed non multae animae non multa corda, unitatem ecclesiae figurare, nomen unitatis, 6), Christ-based fraternity (per concordiam fraternam Christi, 9), and even the grace of God (gratia Dei, 10). This is indeed a copia dicendi that Augustine lays out, a rich supply of theological, spiritual, moral, and ascetic discourse, and all with a persuasive intent—to model unity on behalf of the Catholic community, to strengthen and support the living of this unity, and to bring the Donatists to return and partake of that same unity.⁴⁷

If the res of all Scripture is caritas,⁴⁸ the signa, the communicative signs of that caritas, are here the monastic servants of God. Their life together in Deum is both an eloquent and persuasive modus proferendi of the very caritas that is at the heart of the Christ event. It is precisely this forma uiuendi that the monastic community shares with the first Christian community in Jerusalem. They are a present embodiment of an on-going tradition of Christ-centered witness (praecedente tali exemplo, 7). This Christ-focus likewise ensures that the monastic witness emerges in the context of grace, since it is the saving power of the exemplum Christi that grounds the persuasive power of all Christian witness.⁴⁹

As Augustine continues to deepen this notion of the community's witness, he links it with another uir sanctus, Stephen, the first martyr. ‘Look at the example of Stephen (attende Stephanum, 8)’, he tells the faithful.⁵⁰ Stephen's eloquent witness forms part of that unbroken chain of exempla leading back to Christ.⁵¹ Never losing his rhetorical sensitivity, Augustine notes that Stephen was a persuader who ‘stoned with words’ even before real stones fell upon him (sicut antea Stephani uerba lapidabunt illos, sic postea lapides eorum Stephanum, 8). The intent of Stephen's verbal stoning was persuasion: ‘he wished to change his hearers’ (quia mutare uolebat eos a quibus audiebatur). Yet his ‘stoning’ was motivated solely by love: ‘while his words raged his heart loved, and so love remained undiminished’ (saeuiebat ore, corde diligebat, et non est uicta caritas ipsa in eo). This attention to Stephen is neither aside nor digression, for his link with the present monastic community is critical. As they now suffer the lapides of Donatist accusations,⁵² their response is the copia dicendi of a Christ-sourced caritas, long ago embodied in the still-echoing witness of Stephen. ‘Despite the stoning, love is not crushed; because [here he returns to the opening anointing images of the psalm] the oil has descended from the head [Christ] to the beard [symbol of the community], and the beard has heard from that same head: “Love your enemies and pray for your persecutors” (Matt. 5:44).’⁵³ Learning from and continuing the witness of Stephen, this monastic community proclaims Christ's own love, the res of all Scripture—and it would almost appear that at this point Augustine turned his eyes towards his own monastic community, for the remainder of the commentary is an amplification of that notion of love in all its implications.⁵⁴

It has been suggested that the Donatist controversy led Augustine to rethink the ‘epistemic role of Christian community’,⁵⁵ with a resulting de-emphasis upon the ‘empirical’ support a Christian community can offer regarding the Church's truth claims. According to this reading of Augustine, community ceased to be viewed ‘apologetically’, precisely because this was the approach taken by the Donatists against the Catholic community. As a result, Augustine began to devalue the visible and definitive in favour of the invisible and the ambiguous (permixtio): ‘the way of life of the members of the empirical Church cannot be directly used as evidence of the truth of their faith.’⁵⁶ The application of a rhetorical lens to the notion of community, however, suggests a more nuanced assessment. While Augustine's understanding of the intention of community may have shifted away from the dialectics of apologetics, ‘community as proof’, there is more to convincing than proof. Both the Praeceptum and this brief look at his commentary on Psalm 132 suggest a clear grasp of the ‘communicative’ and ‘persuasive’ role of the monastic community.⁵⁷ His own deliberate and energetic effort here to explain, justify and affirm the life of this very visible community is evident testimony to his own sense of this ‘rhetorical’ potential.

This brief exploration began by taking note of Augustine's striking affirmation: quasi copia dicendi forma uiuendi. This analysis has argued that, although Augustine's conversion to Christianity led to his abandonment of the rhetor's chair,⁵⁸ the rhetor in him never lost a deep appreciation for eloquence's power of persuasion, with its potential for serving both good or evil.⁵⁹ With such sensibility, it is not at all surprising that he would see the need for specifically Christian persuasive models, new and effective models, that would now serve the cause of salvation.⁶⁰ This awareness was itself fundamentally shaped by the enfleshed and lived Truth that was the Christ-event: uerbum caro factum est. If the Incarnation and the lived events of redemption (facta) can thus be considered God's own copia dicendi, the link between living and persuasion is ultimately grounded in Christ. The Christian community carries on this tradition of persuasive and eloquent living, and so both monastic community and the wider ecclesial community are invited and challenged by Augustine to attend to the link between forma uiuendi and copia dicendi. In particular, the Christian community can look to the monastic community's witness of love for clear teaching, visible encouragement and explicit direction. For its part, the monastic community, the inserted, urban⁶¹ and deliberately conspicuous community implied in Augustine's Praeceptum and imaginatively expressed in his commentary on Psalm 132, must take seriously its own communicative responsibility. Augustine, it may be suggested, took to heart his own insight from the De doctrina christiana that forma uiuendi can provide an abundant supply of discourse—copia dicendi. The monastic community ought eloquently and persuasively to express the fundamental Christian message: the gemina caritas Dei et proximi,⁶² and thereby teach, encourage and convince the entire Christian community that this, after all, is none other than the mission of the entire Church. Rhetoric, it may be proposed, enabled Augustine to appreciate this persuasive potential of the monastic community. Such an appreciation helps to explain the insertion of Augustine's monastic community ever more deeply into the daily perceivable life of the local ecclesial community. In so doing, the ascetic ideal integral to the life of the servants of God has been taken up into an explicit pastoral and ecclesial intent, a clearly persuasive intent at that. This community is now aware that their life has its own ‘rhetoric’ and this rhetoric has an evangelical task. Their forma uiuendi, monasticism, is a veritable copia dicendi that not only teaches and persuades the wider ecclesial community, but also echoes back upon the monastic community itself, calling them and exhorting them to ever-greater faithfulness.

Notes

1. ‘Quid est ergo non solum eloquenter, uerum etiam sapienter dicere, nisi uerba in summisso genere sufficientia, in temperato splendentia, in grandi uehementia, ueris tamen rebus, quas audiri oporteat, adhibere? Sed qui utrumque non potest, dicat sapienter quid non dicit eloquenter, potius quam dicat eloquenter quod dicit insipienter. Si autem ne hoc quidem potest, ita conuersetur ut non solum sibi praemium comparet, sed etiam praebeat aliis exemplum et sit eius quasi copia dicendi forma uiuendi.’ Doctr. chr. IV.28.61-29.61.

2. See Doctr. chr. pr. 1; I.1.1; IV.1.1.

3. Doctr. chr. IV.29.61. The literature on the De doctrina christiana is vast. For a representative bibliography see Lewis Ayres, ‘Bibliography of De doctrina christiana’, in De doctrina christiana: A Classic of Western Culture, eds. D. W. H. Arnold and P. Bright (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995), 247-260. See also David Foster, O.S.B., ‘Eloquentia nostra (DDC IV,VI,10): A Study of the Place of Classical Rhetoric in Augustine's De doctrina christiana Book Four’, Augustinianum XXXVI/II (1996): 459-494.

4. See C. Jan Swearingen, Rhetoric and Irony: Western Literacy and Western Lies (New York: Oxford University Press, 1991), 175-180; Robert Dodaro, ‘Language and Justice: Political Anthropology in Augustine's De Ciuitate Dei’, D.Phil. diss. (Oxford University, 1992), 15-28; Nello Cipriani, ‘La morale pelagiana e la retorica’, Augustinianum 31/2 (1991): 309-327; James J. Murphy, ‘St. Augustine and the Debate about a Christian Rhetoric’, Quarterly Journal of Speech 46/4 (1960): 400-410.

5. The expression copia dicendi occurs 22 times in Cicero's rhetorical works (De oratore, 12 times; De inuentione, 2 times; Brutus, 5 times; Orator, once; Topica, once) or works associated with him in the rhetorical tradition (Ad Herennium, once). Typical would be the opening lines of his De Inuentione: ‘Saepe et multum hoc mecum cogitaui, bonine an mali plus attulerit hominibus et ciuitatibus copia dicendi ac summum eloquentiae studium’ (I have often seriously debated with myself whether men and communities have received more good or evil from oratory and a consuming devotion to eloquence.) Cicero, De Inuentione I.1. It is interesting to note that throughout the Loeb translations copia dicendi is variously expressed to mean: ‘a complete supply of (rhetorical) matter’, ‘copiousness in expressive oratory’, ‘the power of eloquence’, etc. In the just-cited example, H. M. Hubbell, the translator (Loeb Classical Library, vol. 386, 3), identifies copia dicendi with oratory itself. It seems to include in its meaning both the theoretical substance of discourse as well as its actualized expression. The precise phrase forma uiuendi does not occur in his rhetorical writings, though Cicero does not neglect the importance of ‘uiuendi’. ‘Nam uetus quidem illa doctrina eadem uidetur et recte faciendi et bene dicendi magistra, neque disiuncti doctores sed eidem erant uiuendi praeceptores atque dicendi’, De oratore III.xv, see also II.xxxvi. Quintilian devotes Book X.1 of his Institutio Oratoria to the question of copia rerum ac uerborum. See, George Kennedy, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World: 300 B.C.-A.D. 300 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1972), 500; idem, Classical Rhetoric and Its Christian and Secular Tradition from Ancient to Modern Times (Chapel Hill, North Carolina: The University of North Carolina Press, 1980), 100, 119.

6. See below, note 51.

7. See the remarks of Averil Cameron regarding ‘Christianity and Communication,’ in Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991), 29-46.

8. See Gn. litt. II.6.13; the notion of ‘eloquia diuina’ is further explored by Dodaro, ‘Language and Justice: Political Anthropology in Augustine's De Ciuitate Dei’, 82-117.

9. This has been the subject of Peter Brown's analysis in Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire (Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press, 1992).

10. Adolph Primmer has carefully explored how Augustine creates ‘a counterpart to Cicero's triumphant Orator’ in his study ‘The Function of the genera dicendi in De doctrina christiana 4’, in De doctrina christiana: A Classic of Western Culture, eds. D. W. H. Arnold and P. Bright (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995), 76.

11. In fact, the classical rhetorical tradition also showed a concern for the uir bonus, see note 5 above. Quintilian's affirmation of the rhetorical ideal as uir bonus dicendi peritus (Inst. XII.1), himself citing Cato, reflects this concern, see George Kennedy, The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World, 55-57, 509. This tradition is reflected in Cicero's exploration of the perfect orator, clearly a wise man (sapiens, De oratore I, xviii), and is taken up by Quintilian: ‘Oratorem autem instituimus illum perfectum, qui esse nisi uir bonus non potest; ideoque non dicendi modo eximiam in eo facultatem sed omnes animi uirtutes exigimus’ (Inst. I.pr.9), see also II.xv.34-35. For the relationship and difference between Cicero and Quintilian's notion of the uir bonus see the classic study by Michael Winterbottom, ‘Quintilian and the Vir Bonus’, Journal of Roman Studies 54 (1964): 90-97; also Prentice A. Meador, Jr., ‘Quintilian's ‘Vir Bonus'‘, Western Speech 34 (1970): 162-169. See also Dodaro, ‘Language and Justice: Political Anthropology in Augustine's De Ciuitate Dei’, 16. Achard notes this ‘moral quality’ underlying bonus and its link with the notion of copia, Guy Achard, Pratique rhétorique et idélogie politique dans les discours ‘Optimates: de Cicéron (Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1981), 70, 127, 344,363. On Augustine's ‘christianization’ of the notion of uir bonus see, e.g., en. ps. 39.26.

12. See the comments of Peter Brown, ‘The Philosopher and Society in Late Antiquity,’ The Center for Hermeneutical Studies in Hellenistic and Modern Culture, Colloquy 34 (Berkeley: The Center for Hermeneutical Studies, 1980), 12-17.

13. The classic study is by Marie Aquinas McNamara, O.P., Friends and Friendship for Saint Augustine (Staten Island, N.Y.: Alba House, 1964).

14. The literature is vast. See for example, Georges Folliet, A.A., ‘Aux origines de l'ascetisme et du cénobitisme africain’, in Saint Martin et son Temps: Mémorial du XVI Centenaire des débuts du monachisme en Gaule, Studia Anselmiana XLVI (Rome: Herder, 1961), 25-44; Peter Brown, The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988).

15. Augustine uses the notion of the Hebrews despoiling the Egyptians (Ex. 12:35-36) as a theological support for Christian ‘plundering’ of the classical tradition, Doctr. chr. II.40.60. Augustine is simply drawing upon a traditional patristic topos; see ‘Les dépouilles des Égyptiens’, in Le magistère Chrétien: De catechizandis rudibus, De doctrina christiana, texte de l'Édition Bénédictine, traduction, introduction et notes de M. le chan. G. Combès et de M. l'abbé Farges, BA 11 (Paris: Desclée de Brouwer, 1949), 582-584.

16. Praeceptum I.1. I am accepting the designation of Luc Verheijen, O.S.A. for what has been traditionally called The Rule of Saint Augustine. His study represents the most thorough exploration of the manuscript tradition of the Praeceptum and what may be philologically concluded from that tradition. La Règle de saint Augustin, I, Tradition manuscrite; II. Recherches historiques (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1967), supplemented by ‘La Règle de saint Augustin: L'état actuel des questions (début 1975)’, Augustiniana 35 (1985): 193-263. The study of George Lawless, O.S.A. is the most complete English resource for this question, Augustine of Hippo and His Monastic Rule (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1987), see also his ‘Select Bibliography’, 172-180, on the literature pertaining to Augustine's monasticism.

17. Cicero's discussion of the nature of rhetoric is to be found in De orat. I.22.102,ff.; see also Quintilian, Inst. II.14.5. It is precisely the perceived emphasis on technique and method over deeper questions of truth and goodness that generated centuries-long debate in the ancient world regarding the value—and danger—of rhetoric. Brian Vickers traces the history of this debate in his In Defence of Rhetoric (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988).

18. See G. Lawless, ‘Psalm 132 and Augustine's Monastic Ideal’, Angelicum 59 (1982): 526-539, where ‘rhetorical features’ refer to parallelism, antithesis, vocabulary, etc.

19. In fact, the Ciceronian rhetorical tradition was carefully attuned to the importance of ‘actual life’. This was often expressed by the technical term decorum or aptum, which not only touched upon obvious oratorical techniques but equally the ‘life’ of the orator. Cicero's De officiis devotes much attention to this question, e.g., ‘Talis est igitur ordo actionum adhibendus, ut, quem ad modum in oratione constanti, sic in uita omnia sint apta inter se et conuenientia’, I.144. ‘Decorum is a moral concept of great importance for a life lived in the public eye. It embodies the notions of both fittingness and visibility. By observing decorum one will be seen to do the appropriate thing, taking into account the specific context and one's own status.’ Cicero: On Duties, edited by M. T. Griffin and E. M. Atkins (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), xlvi. Augustine's concern with ‘way of life’, however, moves in a very different direction. While the Ciceronian notion is clearly tied in with aristocratic behaviour and ‘etiquette’, the Augustinian notion is interior and evangelical. The remarks of Cicero just noted refer to behaviour at dinner parties and the like, though Cicero is clearly concerned with the broader Stoic notion of ‘passion control’. See Robert Dodaro, ‘The Aptum in Augustine's Ethics’, Unpublished Paper delivered at the Twelfth International Conference on Patristic Studies, Oxford, 21-26 August 1995, who shows the intimate linkage in Cicero between the rhetorical and the ethical as expressed by decorum theory. Alain Michel has explored in depth the linkage between political life and rhetoric in his Rhétorique et philosophie chez Cicéron: Essai sur les fondements philosophiques de l'art de persuader (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1960), esp. Ch. VII, ‘Role de la rhétorique dans las philosophie de Cicéron’, 537-651. Michel likewise notes that Cicero's notion of copiae involves both ‘form’ (forme) and ‘content’ (fond), 242.

20. See Note 11 above.

21. Robert Dodaro, ‘Language and Justice: Political Anthropology in Augustine's De Ciuitate Dei’, 16. Robbins notes present-day concern on the part of sociolinguists and literary interpreters to analyze ‘the nature of society and culture as text.’ ‘[S]ociety, culture and texts are environments in which meanings and meanings' effects interact with one another’ creating ‘networks of meanings and meanings' effects …’ Vernon K. Robbins, The Tapestry of Early Christian Discourse: Rhetoric, Society, and Ideology (London: Routledge, 1996), 9. The notion of forma uiuendi as copia dicendi seems to suggest that the monastic community can be considered part of a ‘network of meanings and meanings' effects.’ Augustine seems to have such in mind when he invites his listeners to ‘uitam interroga’, offering them the interpretative key of caritas, see Ep. Io. tr. III.8. Life can be heard or read as if discourse or text, thus requiring an interpretative key. Where Augustine would disagree with some contemporary analyses of a community's ‘rhetoric’ is in his insistence that the res transcends that community, has divine grounding, and itself serves as the true foundation and reference-point for the community's own particular lived signa.

22. Pierre Hadot argues for ancient philosophy as a ‘way of living’ in his study Philosophy as a Way of Life, Edited with an Introduction by Arnold I. Davidson, trans. Michael Chase (Oxford: Blackwell, 1996). Ch. Perelman and L. Olbrechts-Tyteca have insightfully explored the relationship between rhetoric and living in their analysis of ‘education and propaganda’ and ‘argumentation and commitment’ in The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation, trans. John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1969), 51-54, and 59-62. See also the comments of David Cunningham regarding the theologian and rhetoric in Faithful Persuasion (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1991), e.g., 133-147. It is precisely this awareness of deeper stakes and rhetoric's potential for truthful as well as deceptive persuasion that made it a topic of much debate and communal moral concern in antiquity.

23. See Brown, Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity, esp. 30-70, as well as Cameron, Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire, 57-73 and 120-154.

24. Doct. chr. IV.2.3.

25. Praeceptum I.2.

26. Ibid, I.5.

27. Ibid, IV.1.

28. Ibid, IV.1, 3, 5.

29. Ibid, IV.5.

30. John the Baptist is a uir sanctus (ss. 307.2, 308.1), as is Paul (e.g., Ep. 147,14), Ambrose (ibid., 11, 19), Joshua (e.g., ciu. 21.8), Cyprian (Bap. 4.5.7). Augustine also notes the mulier sancta: e.g. Esther in en. ps. 53.3, Sarah in Ep. 262.7, the women at the tomb, s. 229F.3.

31. For Paul described as uir optimus et fortissimus, see Ciu. 14.9.2. Since optimus was essentially aristocratic, tied to Roman political conceptions involving gloria, its classical understanding would stand in marked contrast with the Christian understanding of sanctus with accompanying humilitas, see Ciu. I.30, 31; II.5 XIV.9.2; see Robert Dodaro, ‘Language and Justice: Political Anthropology in Augustine's De Ciuitate Dei’, 20-23, idem., ‘Sacramentum caritatis: Foundation of Augustine's Spirituality’, The Asbury Theological Journal 50/51:1-2 (Fall 1995, Spring 1996): 45-55.

32. The contrast with Pachomian monasticism with the symbolic importance of the gate and the gate keeper for maintaining separation is striking. See Vita copta di S. Pacomio, traduzione, introduzione e note di Francesca Moscatelli (Padova: Edizioni Messaggero, 1981), 72; Philip Rousseau, Pachomius: The Making of a Community in Fourth-Century Egypt (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 70, 149-173.

33. ‘Donet dominus, ut obseruetis haec omnia cum dilectione, tamquam spiritalis pulchritudinis amatores et bono Christi odore de bona conuersatione flagrantes …’, Praeceptum VIII.1.

34. ‘… ita conuersetur ut non solum sibi praemium comparet, sed etiam praebeat aliis exemplum et sit eius quasi copia dicendi forma uiuendi,’ Doctr. chr. IV.29.61. Regarding Augustine's understanding of the term ‘conuersatio’, see H.W.F.M. Hoppenbrouwers and C. Mayer, ‘Conuersatio’, Augustinus Lexicon, ed. C. Mayer (Basel/Stuttgart, 1986ff), 1276-1279.

35. For Augustine Christian conversatio always finds its foundation in Christ. Typical is ‘exemplum domini accipite conuersantis in terra’ (Io. eu. tr. 50,11). The reference to 2 Cor. 2:15 reminds Augustine's own community of the essential link between their monastic living and Christology. For the centralilty of Christ in Augustine's thought see Goulven Madec, La patrie et la voie. Le Christ dans la vie et la pensée de Saint Augustin (Paris: Desclée, 1989). See also B. Studer, ‘Sacramentum et exemplum chez saint Augustin’, Recherches Augustiniennes 10 (1975): 87-141.

36. E.g., ‘proderat ergo illis confirmari in fide per conuersationem eius secum quadraginta diebus’, s.264.2.

37. This is the perennial issue of why it is not in Possidius' Indiculus and why Augustine himself makes no mention of his writing a Rule.

38. See Anne-Marie La Bonnardière, Recherches de Chronologie Augustinienne (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1965), 50-53.

39. Regarding Augustine's commentary on Psalm 132, see Luc Verheijen, ‘L'Enarratio in Psalmum 132 de saint Augustin et sa conception du monachisme’, in Forma Futuri. Studi in onore del Cardinale Michele Pellegrino (Turin, 1975), 806-817; Aimé Solignac, SJ, ‘Le monachisme et son rôle dans l'Eglise d'après l'Enarratio in Psalmum 132,’ in Homo Spiritalis: Festgabe für Luc Verheijen, O.S.A. zu seinem 70. Geburtstag, ed. C. Mayer and K. H. Chelius (Würzburg: Augustinus-Verlag, 1987), 327-339; George Lawless, ‘Psalm 132 and Augustine's Monastic Ideal’, Angelicum 59 (1982): 59-78; idem, ‘A Breach of Monastic Poverty in the Fifth Century: Augustine's Sermon 356,’ in Studia Abbati Caroli Egger a Confratribus Oblata (Rome, 1984), 47-60. For a general perspective on early Christian psalm commentaries, see Marie-Josèphe Rondeau, ‘Les Commentaires Patristiques du Psautier, I. Les travaux des Pères grecs et latins sur le Psautier. Recherches et bilan, II. Exégèse Prosopologique et Théologie (Rome: Pont. Institutum Studiorum Orientalium, 1985), for Augustine, I, 167-175 and II, 366-388.

40. We have no extant commentary on Psalm 132 from Ambrose. In Hilary's commentary there are no monastic references (see S. Hilarii episcopi Pictauiensis, Tractatus super psalmos cxxxii, CSEL XXII, 684ff.). Jerome merely devotes a few lines to monasticism: ‘Proprie psalmus iste coenobiis et monasteriis conuenit. Licet enim et de ecclesiis intellegatur, sed ibi propositi diuersitate uidetur non esse tanta concordia. Quae est enim ibi fraternitas? Utique alius ad domum ire festinat, alius ad circum, alius in ecclesia de usuris cogitat. In monasterio autem sicut unum propositum, unus et animus est.’ S. Hieronoymi Presbyteri Opera, Tractatus de psalmo cxxxii, 1, CCSL LXXXVIII, 276. What is distinctive about Augustine's commentary is that monasticism becomes the sole theme of his remarks.

41. It is clear from Augustine's own comments that the monastic community joined the larger Christian community for prayer and worship, Praeceptum, IV.6.

42. That Augustine has in mind a ‘deeper’ faith hearing is clear: clamor Dei, clamor Spiritus Sancti, clamor propheticus, (2).

43. He tells his community that they do not need to explain what is apparent: ‘si uerbis uestris opus est, iam laboratis. Non opus est, nisi ut admoneatis unumquemque ut attendat; solum attendat et comparet. Quis opus est uerbis uestris’ (3).

44. It is obvious from remarks in sections 3 and 6 of the psalm commentary that Augustine is publicly responding to Donatist slanders against Augustine's monastic project.

45. See Luc Verheijen, Saint Augustine's Monasticism in the Light of Acts 4.32-35, The Saint Augustine Lecture 1975 (Villanova: Augustinian Institute, Villanova University, 1979), 15-16.

46. For the interpretative history of this text in early Christianity see Pier Cesare Bori, Chiesa Primitiva: L'immagine della comunità delle origini—Atti 2,42-47; 4,32-37—nella storia della chiesa antica (Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 1974), in particular, 125-143; Verheijen, Saint Augustine's Monasticism in the light of Acts 4.32-35; Marie-François Berrouard, OP, ‘Le première communauté de Jérusalem comme image de l'unité de la Trinité: Une des exégèses augustiniennes d'Act 4,32a’, in Homo Spiritalis: Festgabe für Luc Verheijen, O.S.A. zu seinem 70. Geburtstag, ed. C. Mayer and K. H. Chelius (Würzburg: Augustinus-Verlag, 1987), 207-224.

47. The entire commentary is marked by this persuasive agenda, to convince the Donatists to return to the Catholic community.

48. See Doctr. chr. I.36.40.

49. See for example Io. eu. tr. 3.15.

50. He had just referred to Daniel as a ‘uir sanctus’(5). Regarding Augustine's treatment of Stephen see, C. Mayer, O.S.A., ‘Attende Stephanum conservum tuum (Serm. 317,2,3): Sinn und Wert der Märtyrerverehrung nach den Stephanuspredigten Augustins’, in Fructus Centesimus. Mélanges offerts à Geraard J. M. Bartelink à l'occasion de son soixante-cinquième anniversaire, publiés par A. A. R. Bastiaensen, A. Hilhorst, C. H. Kneepkens, Instrumenta patristica XIX, Steenbrugis, in Abbatia S. Petri (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 1989), 217-237.

51. Christ's eloquence is precisely that he united uerba and facta, thus the facta require as much careful attention as the uerba: ‘ipsa quae a Domino facta sunt, aliquid significantia erant, quasi uerba, si dici potest, uisibilia’ (s. 77.5.7). Thus it could be most eminently said of Christ, without the quasi: copia dicendi forma uiuendi. The following comment is typical: ‘Et quod nobis in gratia uel adiutorio Dei dicunt Dominum Christum bene uiuendi propositum exemplum, ad eamdem doctrinam reuocant; quia scilicet in eius exemplo discimus quemadmodum uiuere debeamus …’ (Ep. 188.III.11). ‘O magna mysteria! operabantur, et opera loquebantur. Facta illa si intellegas, uerba sunt’ (s. 95.3). Dodaro notes how, for Augustine, ‘the image of the crucified Christ’ functions ‘as a text’. Robert Dodaro, OSA,’Sacramentum Christi: Augustine on the Christology of Pelagius’, Studia Patristica XXVII (1991): 277. See Pío de Luis Vizcaíno, Los hechos de Jesús en la predicacíon de San Agustín: la retórica clásica al servicio de la exégesis patrística (Valladolid: Estudio Agustiniano, 1983). Thus Jesus Christ is the perfect harmony between uerba and facta and Stephen (and the monastic community) enter into this tradition. As Jesus's facta need exegesis, so do those of the monastic community—this is the precise intention of the psalm commentary.

52. The Donatists accused Augustine of non-scriptural innovation in his monastic project. See en. ps. 132.6.

53. ‘… uenientibus in se lapidibus non uicta est caritas: quia unguentum a capite in barbam descenderat, et audierat ab ipso capite, “Diligite inimicos uestros, et orate pro eis qui uos persequuntur”’, En. ps. 132.8.

54. Not surprisingly, Augustine highlights the ‘grace’ of community: ‘Hoc uoluit intelligi, fratres mei, gratiam Dei esse quod fratres habitant in unum; non ex suis uiribus, non ex suis meritis, sed ex illius dono, sed ex illius gratia, sicut ros de caelo’, (9); he likewise concludes with a call to attend to the heart, for it is here where true community begins: ‘… in discordia non benedicis Dominum. Sine causa dicis quia lingua tua sonat benedictionem Domini, si corde non sones … corde praecede, quo sequaris corpore. Noli surdus audire, Sursum corda …’, 13.

55. William J. Collinge, ‘Developments in Augustine's Theology of Christian Community Life After a.d. 395’, Augustinian Studies 16 (1985): 50. That the later Augustine never lost sight of the perceptible importance of community finds perhaps clearest expression in his late 425 or early 426 ss. 355-356: ‘propter uos uiuimus’ (s. 355.1); ‘ante oculos uestros esse conuersationem nostram’, (ibid.); ‘quia forte aliqui uestrum non sunt tam diligentes uitae nostrae scrutatores, ut hoc sic nouerint, quomodo uos uolo nosse’ (2); ‘quomodo autem uiuere uelimus, et quomodo Deo propitio iam uiuimus, quamuis de Scriptura sancta multi noueritis’(s. 356.1). Brockwell has noted the relationship between Augustine's monastic theology and his ecclesiology, but has not noted the ‘rhetorical’ component to this relationship, Charles W. Brockwell, Jr., ‘Augustine's Ideal of Monastic Community: A Paradigm for His Doctrine of the Church’, Augustinian Studies 8 (1977): 91-109.

56. Collinge, 55.

57. Augustine's ‘training homilies’ to the ‘Catholics’, coaching them on the practical ways of welcoming back the ‘Donatists’, is a case in point (see s. 357.4). Their behaviour and treatment of their Donatist brothers and sisters serves as a form of evangelical persuasion.

58. Doct. chr. IV.2.3.

59. ‘Nam cum eloquentiae sit uniuersale officium … dicere apte ad persuasionem finis autem …’, Doctr. chr. IV.25.55. While Augustine clearly appreciates the importance of persuasion, it is always in the light of truth, with primacy accordingly awarded to docere, see Ernest L. Fortin, ‘Augustine and the Problem of Christian Rhetoric’, Augustinian Studies 5 (1974): 85-100.

60. See John Cavadini, ‘The Sweetness of the Word: Salvation and Rhetoric in Augustine's De doctrina christiana’, in De doctrina christiana: A Classic of Western Culture, eds. D. W. H. Arnold and P. Bright (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995), 164-181.

61. In this regard see Robert Markus, ‘City or Desert? Two models of community,’ in The End of Ancient Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 157-177.

62. See Doctr. chr. I.36.40.