1

AUGUSTIE’S CRITICISM OF MAICHAEISM: THE CASE OF

COFESSIOS 3,10 AD ITS IMPLICATIOS*

Introduction

In his still highly-valued Recherches sur les Confessions de saint Augustin, Pierre Courcelle
raises the question of the reception of Augustine’s Confessions by his
contemporaries.1 In this context, he first mentions the Roman Secundinus.2 From
this Manichaean auditor we have an undated letter in which he tries to recall
Augustine back to his sect.3 According to Courcelle, this Epistula Secundini reflects
Secundinus’ reading of the Confessions. Partly because he had been aroused by its
anti-Manichaean contents, Secundinus would have reacted against Augustine’s
work.
Although one may question the correctness of some details of Courcelle’s
analysis,4 one point in his argument seems of special importance. Reading and
rereading Augustine’s most famous work, one is increasingly impressed by its anti-
Manichaean polemic. In a first and provisional attempt to elucidate this anti-
Manichaean background (and even orientation), I discuss some essential parts of
the first three books in particular. It goes without saying that, in this context, I can
enumerate only the main points. Nevertheless, these few points seem to reveal
pivotal details about the orientation of the whole work.

An analysis of conf. 3,10

* First publication in: P.W. van der Horst (ed.), Aspects of Religious Contact and Conflict in the
Ancient World, Utrecht: Faculteit der Godgeleerdheid, Universiteit Utrecht 1995, 57-68,
revised and updated.
1 P. Courcelle, Recherches sur les Confessions de saint Augustin, Paris 19682, 235ff.; cf. idem, Les
Confessions de saint Augustin dans la tradition littéraire. Antécédents et postérité, Paris 1963, 201.
2 Courcelle, Recherches, 236-238.
3 CSEL 25, 893-901; cf. BA 17,510-525 (= MPL 42,571-578, with some corrections, a French
translation, and notes).
4 For instance, when he pointed out (237 n. 2 and n. 4) certain allusions of Secundinus to the conf.
Similar and even better allusions are detectable in other early works of A. such as in his mor., in
his disputations with the Manichaeans Fortunatus and Felix, and in his works against Adimantus,
Faustus and Mani’s Epistula fundamenti. In this context, it may suffice to remark that the question
of which works Secundinus could have meant when he claims to have read ‘aliquanta scripta’ of A.
(Ep. Sec. 3) deserves a fresh treatment, and pari passu this unique letter of a Roman Manichaean as
it is. Up to now, the best treatment of the Epistula Secundini and A.’s answer can be found in F.
Decret, LAfrique manichéenne (IVe - Ve siècles), Paris 1978, I, 141-157 and II, 99-108. [See now also
‘Secundini Manichaei Epistula: Roman Manichaean Biblical Argument in the Age of Augustine’, in: J.
van Oort a.o. (eds.), Augustine and Manichaeism in the Latin West, Leiden–Boston 2001 [repr. 2012],
161-173; this collection, ch. 20].
 2
An appropriate starting point is conf. 3,10. Here Augustine describes how he ‘fell in’
with the Manichaeans. In retrospect, but still providing essential details about the
events of the year 373,5 he tells:

Itaque incidi in homines superbe delirantes, carnales nimis et loquaces, in quorum ore
laquei diaboli et uiscum confectum commixtione syllabarum nominis tui et domini Iesu
Christi et paracleti consolatoris nostri spiritus sancti. Haec nomina non recedebant de ore
eorum, sed tenus sono et strepitu linguae; ceterum cor inane ueri. Et dicebant: ‘Veritas et
ueritas’ et multum eam dicebant mihi ...6

Therefore I fell among men proudly raving, very carnal and loquacious, in whose mouths
were the snares of the devil and a birdlime composed of a mixture of the syllables of Your
name, and of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of the Paraclete, our Comforter, the Holy Spirit.
These names departed not out of their mouth, but it was no more than sound and clatter
of the tongue; otherwise their heart was empty of truth. And they constantly said: ‘Truth,
truth’, and they spoke much about it to me ...

Here and in the rest of the chapter, Augustine says that he stumbled across the
Manichaeans—as we will see more specifically, ‘delirantes’ is an obvious wordplay
on the name of Mani;7 elsewhere Augustine speaks about Mani’s disciples in
equally disparaging terms such as ‘phrenetici’8 and ‘insani’.9 About these ‘raving’
Manichaeans he tells (1) that they professed a kind of trinitarian doctrine; (2) that
he heard the name of Jesus Christ among them; (3) that they stated to proclaim the
truth (ueritas).

The Manichaean Trinity

5 Consistent with the explanations of E. Feldmann in his Der Einfluss des Hortensius und des
Manichäismus auf das Denken des jungen Augustinus von 373, Diss. Münster 1975, 529ff. and, most
recently, in ‘Der Übertritt Augustins zu den Manichäern’, in: A. Van Tongerloo & J. van Oort
(eds.), The Manichaean ΝΟΥΣ [...], Lovanii 1995, 103-128, one should distinguish in A.’s narrative
between his description of the nude facts of 373 and his reflections when writing the conf.; in this
context, however, it does not seem necessary to work out this rather self-evident distinction
between a ‘narrative Schicht’ and a ‘Reflexionsschicht’.
6 Text as in CCL 27, ed. L. Verheijen, Turnholti 1981, 31; virtually the same text, but without an
apparatus criticus, is in the latest edition of the conf. by J.J. ODonnell, Augustine, Confessions, I,
Introduction and text, Oxford 1992, 26. [Virtually the same text as in O’Donnell, but with very brief
apparatus criticus, now also in Augustine. Confessions, Book 1-8. Edited and translated by Carolyn J.-
B. Hammond, Cambridge, Mass. & London 2014].
7 Mani’s name in Greek resembles the word for a madman; see for this pun S.N.C. Lieu, ‘Some
Themes in Later Roman anti-Manichaean Polemics’, I, Bulletin of the John Rylands University Library
of Manchester 68 (1986) 440 [now in idem, Manichaeism in Mesopotamia and the Roman East, Leiden-
New York-Köln 1994, 161] and S.N.C. Lieu, Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire and Medieval
China, Tübingen 19922, 136.
8 E.g. De util. cred. 36 (CSEL 25, 46).
9 See below.
 3
Each of these elements requires further comment. The fact that the Manichaeans
held some sort of trinitarian doctrine is stated, for instance, by bishop Faustus in
Augustine’s Contra Faustum:

Igitur nos patris quidem dei omnipotentis et Christi filii eius et spiritus sancti unum
idemque sub triplici appellatione colimus numen ...10

We worship, then, indeed one and the same deity under the threefold appellation of the
Almighty God the Father, and His son Christ, and the Holy Spirit ...

Besides, we find the Manichaean trinitarian concept rather frequently in the Coptic
Manichaean Psalmbook and in other Manichaean sources.11

The Manichaeans on Christ

The fact that the Manichaeans mentioned the name of Jesus Christ is not only
evidenced by Augustine.12 It is also found in many texts discovered in Egypt,
Turfan and Tun-huang.13 The newly unearthed manuscripts from the Dakhleh-
Oasis in Egypt strongly confirm this Christian feature.14 Moreover, thanks to the
discovery of the Cologne Mani Codex15 we know that this Christian element was

10 C. Faustum 20,2 (CSEL 25,536).

11 C.R.C. Allberry (ed.), A Manichaean Psalm-Book, Part II, Stuttgart 1934, 49,29-31; cf. e.g. 82,30-
31; 113,18-19; 164,14, and 190,25 : ‘... the Father, the Son, the holy Spirit ...’. For other
Manichaean texts, see E. Rose, Die manichäische Christologie, Wiesbaden 1979,158-161.
12 So, for instance, in his disputations c. Fort. and c. Fel., but in fact in nearly all his anti-
Manichaica. The same Christian element is clearly present in the Latin Manichaean works we have
thus far: Faustus’ Capitula, the Epistula Secundini, the fragments of Mani’s Epistula fundamenti, and
the Fragmenta Tabestina. [From Felix’ answer in c. Fel. 1,14 (CSEL 25,817 l. 25 and 27) it seems that
also Mani’s Thesaurus displays this Christian element, because here, too, Mani seems to have titled
himself ‘apostolus Christi Iesu’.]
13 See e.g. E. Waldschmidt & W. Lentz, Die Stellung Jesu im Manichäismus, Berlin 1926 (= APAW
4), and the studies by E. Rose, Die manichäische Christologie (above, n. 11; cf. his ‘Die manichäische
Christologie’, ZRGG 32, 1980, 219-231), N.A. Pedersen, ‘Early Manichaean Christology, primarily
in Western Sources’, in: P. Bryder (ed.), Manichaean Studies [...], Lund 1988, 157-190, and I.
Gardner, ‘The Manichaean Account of Jesus and the Passion of the Living Soul’, in: A. Van
Tongerloo & S. Giversen, Manichaica Selecta ..., Lovanii 1991, 71-86.
14 See e.g. I. Gardner, ‘A Manichaean Liturgical Codex Found at Kellis’, Orientalia 62 (1993) 30-
59, and idem, ‘An Abbreviated Version of Medinet Madi Psalm LXVIII Found at Kellis: T. Kellis
14: A/5/53 B (Folio 4, Text A 2)’, in: Van Tongerloo & van Oort (eds.), The Manichaean ΝΟΥΣ
(above, n. 5), 129-138; cf. lines 33-55 of the Prayer of the Emanations in R.G. Jenkins, ‘The
Prayer of the Emanations in Greek from Kellis (T.Kellis 22)’, Le Muséon 108 (1995) 250-251
[Later editions of all these texts and fragments in I. Gardner, Kellis Litterary Texts, 1-2, Oxford
1996-2007].
15 See e.g. A. Henrichs & L. Koenen, ‘Ein griechischer Mani-Codex (P. Colon. inv. nr. 4780)’,
ZPE 5 (1970) 97-216 [= ‘Vorbericht’] and their edition of CMC 1 - 72,7 in ZPE 19 (1975) 1-85,
CMC 72,8 - 99,9 in ZPE 32 (1978) 87-199, CMC 99,10 - 120 in ZPE 44 (1981) 201-318, and
CMC 121-192 in ZPE 48 (1982) 1-59; cf. L. Koenen & C. Römer, Der Kölner Mani-Kodex. Über das
Werden seines Leibes. Kritische Edition aufgrund der von A. Henrichs und L. Koenen besorgten Erstedition,
 4
fundamental in Manichaeism even from its inception.16 Therefore, when Augustine
explicitly mentions this element, he is quite right. Likewise, his testimony that they
spoke of ‘ueritas et ueritas’ can be substantiated from many Manichaean sources such
as the Coptic Kephalaia,17 the Coptic Psalm-Book,18 the Coptic Homilies,19 and—not
least—the Cologne Mani Codex.20 When communicating these facts in his first
explicit mention of the Manichaeans in the Confessions, Augustine turns out to be a
reliable witness.

The Manichaeans as ‘delirantes’, ‘carnales’ and ‘loquaces’

At the same time, however, we see that in his narrative he fulminates against his
former fellow-believers. In the passage under discussion, he begins by calling them

homines superbe delirantes, carnales nimis et loquaces, in quorum ore laquei diaboli et
uiscum ...

Opladen 1988. From the many studies relating to the gnostic-Christian element in the CMC, I
only refer to some of the most specific ones: L. Koenen, ‘Augustine and Manichaeism in Light of
the Cologne Mani Codex’, ICS 3 (1978) 154-195; H.D. Betz, ‘Paul in the Mani Biography (Codex
Manichaicus Coloniensis)’, in: L. Cirillo & A. Roselli (eds.), Codex Manichaicus Coloniensis. Atti del
Simposio Internazionale, Cosenza 1986, 215-234; J.-M. Rosenstiehl, ‘C.M.C. 60,13 -62,9: contribution
à l’étude de l’Apocalypse apocryphe de Paul’, ibidem, 345-353; J. Ries, ‘Aux origines de la doctrine
de Mani’, Le Muséon 100 (1987) 283-295; R. Merkelbach, ‘Die Täufer bei denen Mani aufwuchs’,
in Bryder (ed.), Manichaean Studies (above, n.13), 105-133; J. Ries, ‘Saint Paul dans la formation de
Mani’, in: J. Ries et al., Il epistole paoline nei manichei, i donatisti e il primo Agostino, Roma 1989,7-27; G.
Strecker, ‘Der Kölner Mani Kodex, Elkesai und das Neue Testament’, in: D. Papandreou et al.
(eds.), Oecumenica et Patristica [FS W. Schneemelcher], Stuttgart 1989, 123-134.
16 Thus it is valued in the general descriptions of Manichaeism such as those of G. Quispel,
‘Manicheans’, Man, Myth and Magic 61 (1971) 1721-1724; F. Decret, Mani et la tradition manichéenne,
Paris 1974; J. Ries, ‘Mani et manichéisme’, DSp 10 (1977) 198-215; A. Böhlig, Die Gnosis, III, Der
Manichäismus, Zürich-München 1980; R. Merkelbach, Mani und sein Religionssystem, Opladen 1986;
A. Böhlig, ‘Manichäismus’, TRE 22 (1992) 25-45; Lieu, Manichaeism (above, n. 7).
17 Cf. H.J. Polotsky & A. Böhlig (eds.), Kephalaia, Band I,1, Stuttgart 1940, e.g. 101,24-25 (Mani
who proclaimed the Truth everywhere); 151,20-22 (God the Father of Truth); 186,22-23 (Manis
religion as the Truth); 188,23-24 (Manis disciples have found the Truth more than all people in
the world). [English transl. by I. Gardner, The Kephalaia of the Teacher. The Edited Coptic Manichaean
Texts in Translation with Commentary, Leiden-New York-Köln 1995; repr. Leiden-Boston 2016].
18 Psalm-Book (above, n. 11), e.g. 3,12 (‘Glory and victory to the Spirit of Truth, [our God, our
Lord] Mani’); 6,23 (the knowledge of the Truth); 9, 4-5 (‘Let us bless our Lord Jesus who has sent
to us the Spirit of Truth’); 9,8-9 (the Holy Spirit revealed the way of Truth); 11,29-30 (‘Mani, the
Spirit of Truth, that comes from the Father’).
19 H.J. Polotsky (ed.), Manichäische Homilien, Stuttgart 1934, e.g. 5,5 (the way of Manis Truth); 29,7
(Manis kritērion of Truth); 48,1 (Mani wishes to say the Truth to King Shapur); 75,21 (praise to
Manis Truth).
20 In the CMC the word alētheia occurs no less than 22 times, most characteristically in CMC 64,8
(the beginning of a quotation from Mani’s letter to Edessa; cf. the passage from this same letter in
CMC 65,6 ) and in 66,6 (a quotation of the prologue of Mani’s Gospel: ‘I, Mani, Apostle of Jesus
Christ through the will of God, the Father of Truth’). The notion of alētheia is also salient in the
newly discovered Prayer from Kellis; cf. Jenkins, Prayer of the Emanations [above, n. 14], 262
(list of key terms).
 5

men proudly raving, very carnal and loquacious, in whose mouths were the snares of the
devil and a birdlime ...

When we look for these very same qualifications of ‘delirantes’, ‘carnales’ and ‘loquaces’
elsewhere in the Confessions, we find the first and the last one applied to the
Manichaeans in particular.
In conf. 5,6 Mani himself is depicted as ‘copiosissime delirans’,21 just as, for
instance, in De civitate Dei 1,20 his followers are characterized as teaching
‘deliramenta’.22 In the Confessions Augustine uses similar terms such as ‘insani’, ‘insania’
and the verb ‘insanire’ when denouncing the Manichaeans. In conf. 9,8 it runs that
they are ‘the insani who were hostile to the antidote which could have cured them’,23
and in conf. 13,45 the label ‘insani’ is certainly referring to the Manichaeans.24
The less specific designation ‘carnales’ is found several times in the
Confessions25 and, in most cases, seems to have a Pauline ring.26 Although elsewhere
in Augustine’s book this well-known term does not necessarily refer to the
Manichaeans, here it is employed to criticize them in a mordant way. For
Augustine, these persons who boast of their spiritual life style27 and, more than
anything else, abhor the flesh,28 are themselves carnales.
As ‘loquaces’ they are not only decried here, but surely also in a number of
other instances. In conf. 5,12 it runs:

Non erat (sc. Faustus) de talibus, quales multos loquaces passus eram ...29

He (Faustus) was not one of those laquacious people, many of whom I have had to
endure ...

21 Conf. 5,6 (CCL 27,59-60): ‘... et conferebam cum dictis Manichaei, quae de his rebus multa
scripsit copiosissime delirans ...’.
22 Ciu. 1,20 (CCL 47,22): ‘Num igitur ob hoc, cum audimus: Non occides, virgultum vellere nefas
ducimus et Manichaeorum errori insanissime adquiescimus? His igitur deliramentis remotis cum
legimus: Non occides ...’. It is noteworthy that, in this text from 412, we also read the adverb
‘insanissime’! Cf. e.g. De natura boni 42 (CSEL 25,877): ‘... sicut Manichaeus apertissime in epistula
ruinosi sui Fundamenti delirat’.
23 Conf. 9,8 (CCL 27,137): ‘Quam uehementi et acri dolore indignabar manichaeis et miserabar
eos rursus, quod illa sacramenta, illa medicamenta nescirent et insani essent aduersus antidotum,
quo sani esse potuissent!’.
24 Conf. 13,45 (CCL 27,269): ‘Insani dicunt haec, quoniam non per spiritum tuum uident opera tua
nec te cognoscunt in eis’.
25 E.g. conf. 13,13 (CCL 27,248); 13,33 (CCL 27,261).
26 Cf. e.g. 1 Cor. 3:1 in conf. 12,24; 12,41; 13,14; 13,23.
27 See e.g. mor. Man., passim.
28 It may suffice to give only some quotations from the Manichaean Psalm-Book (above, n. 11),
e.g. 45,11 (‘the pollution of the flesh’); 52,19 (‘... for a deadly lure is the sweetness of this flesh’);
63,29 (‘the things of the flesh I have forsaken’); 64,10 (‘You have been released from the grievous
bonds of the flesh’); etc.
29 CCL 27,63.
 6

In conf. 7,3 Augustine says:

Sat erat mihi, domine, aduersus illos deceptos deceptores et loquaces mutos ...30

It was enough for me, Lord, against those deceived deceivers who, though so
loquacious, were dumb ...

Given these applications of the term and the context of the passage in which the
right concept of God is discussed, the Manichaeans are probably already meant in
conf. 1,4:

Et uae tacentibus de te, quoniam loquaces muti sunt.31

And woe to those who are silent about You, because loquacious they are dumb.

The Manichaeans as the ‘superbi’ par excellence

When Augustine characterizes the Manichaeans as ‘superbe delirantes’, the adverb

‘superbe’ can be valued as a meaningful word as well. As early as the very first
sentences of the Confessions, the biblical text is quoted that ‘God resists the proud’32
and in the course of the work this text recurs over and over again. We find a very
significant allusion to it in book 3 when Augustine recalls his failed reading of the
Bible that finally paved the way to the Manichaeans.33 After that, a full quotation
of the text is found at the beginning of book 4,34 and then a quote occurs near the
end of the same book.35 Although in subsequent books ‘superbi’ can be used to
designate the Neoplatonists,36 in the first books of the Confessions it is preeminently
applied to designate the Manichaeans.
Thus it clearly turns out in conf. 4,26. After Augustine has given an
impression of his very first writing De pulchro et apto, the work ‘in two or three
books’ (4,20) he authored during the time he was a Manichaean, he remarks:

30 CCL 27,93.
31 CCL 27,3. An interesting parallel is De dono pers. 20,53 (MPL 45,1026): ‘Deo me convertente ad
eam fidem, quam miserrima et furiosissima loquacitate vastabam’.
32 Conf. 1,1 (CCL 27,1): ‘quia superbis resistis’ (cf. l Peter 5:5; also James 4:6).
33 Conf. 3,9 (CCL 27,31): ‘Et ecce uideo rem non compertam superbis neque nudatam pueris ...’.
34 Conf. 4,5 (CCL 27,42).
35 Conf. 4,26 (CCL 27,53).
36 For instance in conf. 7,13 (CCL 27,101); cf. ‘superbus’ in 7,11 (CCL 27,100).
 7
Sed ego conabar ad te et repellebar abs te, ut saperem mortem, quoniam superbis resistis.
Quid autem superbius, quam ut adsererem mira dementia me id esse naturaliter, quod tu
es?37

But I tried to reach You and was repelled by You, so that I should taste death, for You
‘resists the proud’. But what [could be] prouder than to assert in amazing madness that by
nature I was what You are?

Provisional conclusion

On the basis of the foregoing discussion the following provisional conclusion may
be drawn. In view of the fact that Augustine employs the terms ‘delirantes’, ‘loquaces’
and ‘superbi’ in conf. 3,10 to designate Mani and—in particular—the Manichaeans,
we have a clue to other passages of the work. More than once we can now see that
they are directed against the Manichaeans. This polemic turns out to be present not
only in those sections of the Confessions in which Augustine recalls his Manichaean
years, but also in some other passages.

The Manichaean ‘laqueus’ and ‘uiscum’

But there is more. Specific terms in the following sentences of conf. 3,10 contain
important data which allow us to see Augustine’s polemics from a new perspective.
Moreover, they also provide material to discern Augustine’s anti-Manichaean
purpose in writing his Confessions.
With regard to the Manichaeans, Augustine states:

... in quorum ore laquei diaboli et uiscum ...

... in their mouths (were) the snares of the devil and a birdlime ...

The word ‘laqueus’ turns out to be a typical term to designate (and denounce) the
Manichaean Faustus. In conf. 5,3 this Manichaean bishop is introduced as follows:

Iam uenerat Carthaginem quidam manichaeorum episcopus, Faustus nomine, magnus

laqueus diaboli ...38

A certain bishop of the Manichaeans, Faustus by name, a great snare of the devil, had
already arrived in Carthage ...

In order to indicate the possible origin of the particular turn of phrase ‘laqueus
diaboli’, one obviously can—as has been done frequently—give some biblical

37 Conf. 4,26 (CCL 27,53); it goes without saying that, in this context, the word ‘dementia’ is not
used by chance.
38 Conf. 5,3 (CCL 27,58). Here the rather strange ‘quidam’ expresses a tone of disregard and
detachment, comparable to the even more strange ‘cuiusdam Ciceronis’ in conf. 3,7; but see conf. 12,20
(CCL 27,226) for another application of the term: the apostle Paul as ‘quidam seruus tuus’.
 8
references.39 However, it is remarkable that in a characteristic way Bishop Faustus
receives the same ‘epitheton’ in Book 5,13:

... ille Faustus, qui multis laqueus mortis extitit ...40

... the (celebrated) Faustus, who had been for many a snare of the death ...

Here, too, one can look for biblical references.41 But in this case, like in the
preceding one, it seems no less appropriate to refer to Manichaean sources such as
the Coptic Psalm-Book where Jesus is venerated as the ‘Snare of the Snarer’42 and
the Coptic Kephalaia where Wisdom is said to be the net of the snarer Jesus the
Splendour.43 Moreover, the negative connotation of the word ‘laqueus’ was very
well known to both Augustine and the Manichaeans because of its prominent
occurrence in Mani’s Fundamental Epistle:

Sed et dextera luminis tueatur et eripiat uos ab omni incursione maligna et a laqueis
mundi.44

But may also the Right Hand of the Light protect and rescue you from every evil
incursion and from the snares of the world.

To summarize: ‘laqueus’, a central word of Manichaean parlance both in its positive

and negative sense, is taken up by Augustine and used to denounce the
Manichaeans.
The next word in our quote from conf. 3,10, sc. ‘uiscum’, can be appreciated as
a confirmation of my view that Augustine certainly did not chose his words at
random, but deliberately directed himself against the Manichaeans. ‘Viscum’, too,
turns out to be a clear allusion to the Manichaean missionary practice as Augustine
saw it. In his writing On the Profit of Believing, addressed at the Manichaean
Honoratus who was a friend of his youth, he states:

Itaque nobis faciebant [sc. Manichaei], quod insidiosi aucupes solent, qui uiscatos surcolos
propter aquam defigunt, ut sitientes aues decipiant.45

39 E.g. 1 Tim. 3:7; 2 Tim. 2:26.

40 Conf. 5,13 (CCL 27,64).
41 Ps. 17: 6 (Hebr. 18:5); Ps. 114:3 (Hebr. 116:3); Prov. 21:6.
42 Psalm-Book 166,27. In the Psalm-Book the Coptic word for snare recurs rather frequently and
usually in a negative sense; see Psalm-Book 53,10; 70,10; 84,28; 89,25; 103,32; 192,21; 204,19;
205,3.
43 Kephalaia (ed. Polotsky & Böhlig) 28,26ff. Here the images seem to be intermingled; the Coptic
word now construed as a hunter (‘Jäger’) actually means a snarer (‘Fallensteller’); cf. C. Schmidt &
H.J. Polotsky, ‘Ein Mani-Fund in Ägypten’, SPAW 1 (1933) 78. [Gardner, Kephalaia [n. 17], 32,
translates with ‘hunter’].
44 See A.’s c. ep. fund. 11 (CSEL 25,207); cf. c. Fel. 1,16 (CSEL 25,819) where it reads: ‘a laqueo
mundi’.
45 Util. cred. 2 (CSEL 25, 5).
 9

So they [the Manichaeans] did in our case what treacherous bird catchers are used to do,
who set twigs smeared with birdlime near water to deceive thirsty birds.

The Manichaean ‘phantasmata splendida’

Can we say then that, in his Confessions, Augustine was engaged in a controversy
with his former coreligionists and, at the same time, played on words by making
use of their own vocabulary?
More and more I cannot avoid the conclusion that both instances do occur.
To give another example of this, I refer to the phrase ‘phantasmata splendida’ in the
following lines of conf. 3,10:

Et apponebantur adhuc mihi in illis ferculis phantasmata splendida ...46

Yet they still placed for me in those dishes splendid hallucinations ...

Augustine tells that the dishes (i.e., the books) the Manichaeans placed before him
contained ‘splendid hallucinations’.47 This expression is a deliberate pun, while its
components (phantasmata and splendida) are not culled at random. In the Confessions
and elsewhere in Augustine’s writings, the noun phantasma occurs more than once
to indicate the imaginative doctrine of the Manichaeans.48 When Augustine adds
the adjective splendida here, we may hear an allusion to Mani’s Epistula fundamenti.
There it runs:

Ita autem fundata sunt eiusdem splendidissima regna super lucidam et beatam terram ...49

But His most splendid kingdoms are so founded above the bright and blessed land ...

46 Conf. 3,10 (CCL 27,31).

47 One may also translate: ‘glittering fantasies’ or ‘brilliant apparitions’. When indeed the last
translation is the best, already this strongly points in the direction of a conscious allusion to the
Manichaean myth of the ‘Seduction of the Archons’!—The identification of these fercula (cf. ciu.
2,4 for another negative application of this word) with the Manichaean books is given by the
preceding sentences: ‘O ueritas, ueritas, quam intime etiam tum medullae animi mei suspirabant
tibi, cum te illi sonarent mihi frequenter et multipliciter uoce sola et libris multis et ingentibus! Et illa
erant fercula, in quibus mihi esurienti te inferebatur pro te sol et luna ...’.
48 E.g. conf. 4,9 (CCL 27,44): ‘... phantasma, in quod sperare iubebatur’; conf. 4,12 (CCL 27,46):
‘Non enim tu eras, sed uanum phantasma et error meus erat deus meus’; conf. 5,16 (CCL 27,66):
‘Quomodo enim eas solueret [sc. Christus] in cruce phantasmatis, quod in illo credideram?’; conf. 9,9
(CCL 27,138): ‘In fallaciis enim, quas pro ueritate tenueram, uanitas erat et mendacium’
[Verheijens emendation fallaciis, however, seems to be wrong; as far as I can see all manuscripts
and all other editors have: phantasmatis / phantasmatibus ... quas / quae, which reading is strongly
supported by the anti-Manichaean context; see below]. Cf. e.g. c. ep. fund. 18 (CSEL 25,215): ‘... in
quibus Manichaei phantasmata ueritatis sibi nomen ausa sunt usurpare ...’; c. ep. fund. 19 (CSEL
25,216); ‘... ut Manichaeorum phantasmata perstrepunt ...’.
49 C. ep. fund. 13 (CSEL 25,209). Cf. the same quotation in c. Fel. 1,17 (CSEL 25,820) and nat. b.
42 (CSEL 25,877); cf. also Euodius, de fide c. Man. 11 (CSEL 25,955).
 10

There seems to be an extra indication that, in the passage under discussion, one
may hear another reference to the contents of Mani’s own writings. A few lines
earlier in conf. 3,10 Augustine has stated:

Et illa erant fercula, in quibus mihi esurienti te inferebatur pro te sol et luna ...50

And these (sc. the many huge books) were the platters on which to me, who hungered
for You, instead of You, they served up the sun and the moon ...

Sun and moon are the godly ‘bright ships’ (lucidas naues) which characteristically
occur in the seventh book of Mani’s Thesaurus. In the long quote Augustine
provides in On the Nature of the Good, Mani tells his version of the gnostic myth of
the ‘Seduction of the Archons’:

... hoc in libro septimo Thesauri eorum ... ita positum est: tunc beatus ille pater, qui
lucidas naues habet ... Itaque inuisibili suo nutu illas suas uirtutes, quae in
clarissima hac naui habentur, transfigurat ... Harum uirtutum diuinarum ...
plenae sunt lucidae naues ... ubi penitus ablutae animae ascendunt ad lucidas
naues ... 51

... in the seventh book of their Thesaurus ... it is put as follows: ‘Then that blessed Father,
who has bright ships ... And so by His own invisible nod He transforms His powers, which
are held in this most brilliant ship ... The bright ships are full of these divine powers ... when
the souls are thoroughly cleansed, they ascend to the bright ships ...

When discovering these hints at Manichaean terms and concepts in conf. 3,10, one
is inevitably led to the conclusion that its author directs himself at readers who are
familiar with these terms and concepts. They may still be Manichaeans, or were
adherents of Mani’s religion formerly.
Moreover, the context in which the phrase phantasmata splendida is found
seems to imply that—at a very early date—Augustine will have become acquainted
with the splendidly decorated, finely written and exquisitely bound books of the
Manichaeans.52 That he not only saw these books, but even read them during the
time he was a Manichaean auditor, he dares to say in less guarded terms elsewhere in

50 Conf. 3,10 (CCL 27,31).

51 Nat. boni 44 (CSEL 25, 881-883).
52 Cf. e.g. c. Faust. 13,18 (CSEL 25,400): ‘Incendite omnes illas membranas elegantesque tecturas
decoris pellibus exquisitas ...’: ‘Burn all those (very thin) parchments and neat covers exquisitely
made from beautiful leather ...’. A. here also speaks of their books being codices, containing reed
pen (calamus) written texts, colour illustrations (colores) and bright wite pages (paginae candidae). All
this strongly suggests that A. saw such Manichaean codices. On the Manichaean books in general,
see e.g. H.J. Klimkeit, Manichaean Art and Calligraphy, Leiden 1982. [In the past decades,
Zsuzsanna Gulácsi wrote a number of leading studies on Manichaean book art, culminating in her
most recent book Mani’s Pictures. The Didactic Images of the Manichaeans from Sasanian Mesopotamia to
Uygur Central Asia and Tang-Ming China, Leiden-Boston 2015.]
 11
the Confessions.53 The cutting edge of the polemics underlying the phrase
phantasmata splendida will be felt especially by the real insiders, i.e. the Manichaeans.

Main conclusions from conf. 3,10

No doubt there are many other things to be said of conf. 3,10, but here my remarks
as given above may suffice. It may be clear from them (1) that in conf. 3,10
Augustine employed certain terms to designate the Manichaeans and that—on the
basis of this typical usage—we have the right to interpret other passages in the
Confessions as explicitly directed against the Manichaeans. (2) It may also be clear
that, while doing this, Augustine sometimes made a deliberate use of Manichaean
words and terminology.

Other testimonies in conf. 1-3

With these facts in mind, its appears fascinating to construe several important
sections of the Confessions again. In this context, only some examples can be
considered, i.e. some specimens taken from the first three books in particular.
Augustine opens his work with the famous and well-known confessio laudis:

Magnus es, domine, et laudabilis ualde: magna uirtus tua et sapientiae tuae non est
numerus.

Great are You, Lord, and highly to be praised:54 great is Your power, and Your wisdom is
beyond measure.55

One can guess why, among the many hundreds of psalmtexts, he chose precisely
the indicated ones. However, it becomes increasingly clear that he did this
consciously, namely as a polemic against the Manichaeans. Once he was a
Manichaean auditor and for good reasons one may suppose that in those years he
venerated the Father of Greatnes.56 In the work in which he adressess, among
others, his former coreligionists, he says: ‘You (i.e., the God venerated by the
Catholic Christians) are great, Lord, and highly to be praised’. In the immediately
following words one can hear an allusion to and a rejection of the Manichaean idea

53 Cf. e.g. conf. 5,6 (CCL 27,59-60): ‘... et conferebam cum dictis Manichaei, quae de his rebus
multa scripsit copiossisime delirans ...’; conf. 5,12 (CCL 27,63): ‘... ut Manichaei libri continebantur
...’; conf. 5,13 (CCL 27,63): ‘Refracto itaque studio, quod intenderam in Manichaei litteras ...’. Cf. in
the shortly after his conversion written work mor. Man. 12,25 (CSEL 90,110): ‘Non hoc sonant
libri Manichaei; cauisse deum ne inuaderetur ab hostibus, saepissime ibi significatur, saepissime
dicitur’.
54 Ps. 47:1; 95:4; 144:3.
55 Ps. 146 (147):5.
56 E.g. Psalm-Book 133,2-3: ‘The Father of Greatness is worthy of all glory, the King, the God of
Truth’; 191,13: ‘Glory and honour to Amen, the Father of Greatness’; etc.
 12
that Christ is God’s power and wisdom and that his uirtus is supposed to be present
in the sun and his sapientia in the moon. Augustine knew about this doctrine, as is
clearly demonstrated by his work against the Manichaean bishop Faustus.57
Besides, it will not be by chance that elsewhere in his anti-Manichaean works he
explicitly refers to the text 1 Cor. 1:24 by which the Manichaeans sought to
substantiate their doctrine.58 Moreover, when he says that this wisdom is
immeasurable—‘non est numerus’—, this seems to have its antithetical parallel in
expressions such as can be found in the Kephalaia: ‘Denn es gibt kein Maß für die
Höhe des Vaters’.59
Furthermore, in these very first sentences of the Confessions the emphasis
upon God’s creative activity is prominent. Twice it is stated that man, even mortal
man, that is: man with his mortal and sinful body, is ‘a part of Your creation’.60
Besides, one can note that here Augustine already quotes the Manichaeans’
favourite scriptural passage Mt. 7:7b (cf. v. 8) in an antithetical context: ‘For those
who seek shall find Him’.61 This is the very same scriptural passage which
resounds at the close of the whole work: ‘Let it be asked of You, sought in You,
knocked for at You; so, even so shall it be received, so shall it be found, so shall it
be opened’.62 Moreover, in the very first paragraph of the Confessions the first attack
on the Manichaean concept of God can be heard: ‘But who calls upon You when
he does not know You? In his ignorance he may invoke something else for You’.63
It is in the immediately following paragraphs that Augustine argues against the
materialistic conception of God of the Manichaeans in particular.

57 C. Faust. 20,2 (CSEL 25, 536): [Faustus dixit:] ‘Qui quoniam sit et ipse geminus, ut eum
apostolus nouit Christum dicens esse dei uirtutem et dei sapientiam, uirtutem quidem eius in sole
habitare credimus, sapientiam vero in luna’.
58 See c. Fort. 9 (CSEL 25,88) and c. ep. fund. 6 (CSEL 25,200); cf. c. Faustum 20,8 (CSEL 25,543).
59 Keph. (cf. n. 17) 71,24. Cf. e.g. Keph. 34,21-22: ‘Der erste Vater ist der Vater der Größe, der
Herrliche, der Gepriesene, für dessen Größe es kein Maß gibt...’. [Gardner, Kephalaia (n. 17) translates:
‘[Fo]r there is no measure nor rule to the heights of the Father’ and ‘The first Father is the Father
of Grea/tness, the blessed one of glory, the [on]e who has no measure to his gr[ea]/tness’.]
During his years as a Manichaean, A. seems to have supported this view; cf. conf. 4,31 (CCL
27,55): ‘Sed quid mihi hoc proderat putanti, quod tu, domine deus ueritas, corpus esses lucidum
et immensum et ego frustum de illo corpore?’: ‘But what profit was that to me who supposed that
You, Lord God and Truth (!), were a luminous and immense body and I a piece of that body?’.
60 Conf. 1,1 (CCL 27,1): ‘Et laudare te uult homo, aliqua portio creaturae tuae ...; et tamen laudare te
uult homo, aliqua portio creaturae tuae’.
61 Conf. 1,1 (CCL 27,1): ‘Quaerentes enim inueniunt eum et inuenientes laudabunt eum’; cf. e.g.
mor. eccl. cath. 31 (CSEL 90,36): ‘Hinc est illud, quod in ore habere etiam uos soletis, quod ait: Petite
et accipietis, quaerite et inuenietis, pulsate et aperietur uobis...’ and util. cred. 30 (CSEL 25,37-38).
62 Conf. 13,53 (CCL 27,273): ‘sic, sic accipietur, sic inuenietur, sic aperietur’; cf. conf. 12,1 and, for
instance, 11,3; 11,4; 11,5.
63 Conf. 1,1 (CCL 27,1): ‘Sed quis te inuocat nesciens te? Aliud enim pro alio potest inuocare
nesciens’. Cf. e.g. conf. 7,20!
 13
Looking up the other occurrences of the just quoted nesciens and nescire, one
perceives that the verb is employed in an anti-Manichaean context several times.64
Besides, Augustine’s arguments against the Manichaeans’ view of God, against their
denouncement of the Creator of the universe and His creation, can be found in
many passages in the Confessions, not least in those of the first three books and the
three final ones. Phrases such as ‘domine deus, ordinator et creator rerum omnium
naturalium’,65 expressions like ‘creator omnium’, ‘creator universae creaturae’, ‘creator noster’
can be found nearly everywhere.
In conf. 1,12 God is addressed as:

... tu, une, a quo est omnis modus, formossisime, qui formas omnia et lege tua ordinas
omnia.66

... You, the One, from whom is all manner of being, supreme Beauty, who form all things
and by Your law order everything.

This choice of words is careful, precise and deliberate: the triad modus (manner of
being), forma or species (the principle of individuation or differentiation) and ordo can
be found throughout the Confessions and seems to be directed against the
Manichaeans in particular.67 In any case, it is this triad (or a variation of that
particular theme) which we find in Augustine’s early work De Genesi contra
Manichaeos;68 in his De Genesi ad litteram;69 in his Contra epistulam fundamenti70 and,
particularly, as a Leitmotif in the anti-Manichaean work De natura boni:

Nos enim catholici christiani deum colimus, a quo omnia bona sunt ...; a quo est omnis
modus ... a quo omnis species ... a quo omnis ordo ...71

For we, Catholic Christians, worship God, from whom are all good things ...; from whom
is all manner of being ... from whom is all form ... from whom is all order ...

64 E.g. conf. 3,18 (CCL 27,37): ‘Haec ergo nesciens inridebam illos sanctos seruos et prophetas
tuos’; 4,26 (CCL 27,53): ‘... et dicebam paruulis fidelibus tuis, ciuibus meis, a quibus nesciens
exulabam, dicebam illis garrulus et ineptus ...’; 9,8 (CCL 27,137): ‘Quam uehementi et acri dolore
indignabar manichaeis et miserabar eos rursus, quod illa sacramenta, illa medicamenta nescirent ...’;
9,9 (CCL 27,138): ‘... sed ego nesciebam ...’; ‘... et ego tandiu nesciens uanitatem dilexi et mendacium
quaesiui ...’.
65 Conf. 1,16 (CCL 27,9): ‘Lord God, ruler and creator of all things in nature’.
66 Conf. 1,12 (CCL 27,7): ‘You are the unique One from whom is every kind of being derived, the
supreme Beauty, who forms all things and by Your law orders everything’.
67 See also its variation in the parallel triad from Sap. 11:21 in e.g. conf. 5,7 (CCL 27,60): ‘... et
neglegens tui, qui omnia in mensura et numero et pondere disposuisti’.
68 E.g. Gen. c. Man. 1,32 (MPL 34,188-189).
69 E.g. Gen. litt. 4,7 (MPL 34,299).
70 E.g. c. ep. fund. 29; 30; 31; 33; 41 (CSEL 25,229 ff.).
71 De nat. boni 3 (CSEL 25, 856); see for further parallels and discussion O’Donnell, Augustine,
Confessions II & III, Commentary, Oxford 1992, esp. II, 46-51.
 14
It does not seem necessary to interpret from an exclusively Manichaean
point of view the famous pear-theft in conf. 2; nor the highly interesting things
Augustine tells us about the book De pulchro et apto he wrote during the time he was
a Manichaean; nor the notable place occupied by terms such as ‘uox’ and ‘uocare’,
‘cibus uerus’, ‘lac’, ‘suauitas’, ‘dulcedo non fallax’, and so on—although in all these
instances a Manichaean background seems to be important.
Space does not permit further elaboration here.72 On the basis of so many
telling facts, such as the ones previously mentioned, it should already have become
apparent that several times in his Confessions Augustine renounces his former
coreligionists.

A final example from conf. 9

A final example to indicate this anti-Manichaean tendency may be taken from the
ninth book of Augustine’s Confessions. Here the author tells about his sojourn in
Cassiciacum and the impression the biblical psalms made upon him:

Quas tibi, deus meus, uoces dedi, cum legerem psalmos Dauid, cantica fidelia, sonos
pietatis excludentes turgidum spiritum ... Quam uehementi et acri dolore indignabar
manichaeis et miserabar eos rursus, quod illa sacramenta, illa medicamenta nescirent et insani
essent aduersus antidotum, quo sani esse potuissent!

Dilexeram enim uanitatem et quaesieram mendacium. Et tu, domine, iam magnificaueras

sanctum tuum, suscitans eum a mortuis et conlocans ad dexteram tuam, unde mitteret ex
alto promissionem suam, paracletum, spiritum ueritatis. Et miserat eum iam, sed ego
nesciebam. Miserat eum, quia iam magnificatus erat resurgens a mortuis et ascendens in
caelum. ... et ego tandiu nesciens uanitatem dilexi et mendacium quaesiui ... In fallaciis (mss.
phantasmatis / phantasmatibus) enim, quas pro ueritate tenueram, uanitas erat et mendacium.73

What cries I uttered to you, my God, when I read the Psalms of David, songs of faith,
sounds of devotion which shut out the arrogant spirit ... What vehement and bitter regret
I felt against the Manichaeans. On the other hand I pitied them because they knew not
those sacraments, those medicines and were mad against the antidote which could have
made them sound.

For I had loved vanity and sought after falsehood. And You, Lord, had already ‘magnified
Your Holy One’ [Ps. 4:4], ‘raising him from the dead and setting him at Your right hand’
[Eph. 1:20], from where he could send forth from on high his promise, the Paraclete, the
Spirit of Truth. Now he had sent him already, but I knew it not. He had sent him because
he was already magnified, rising from the dead and ascending into heaven. ... and I, so

72 A more extensive study of these and other specific terms and passages in the conf. is in
preparation. [Until now, I most extensively dealt with the subject in my Nijmegen inaugural
lecture, published as: Augustinus’ Confessiones. Gnostische en christelijke spiritualiteit in een diepzinnig
document, Turnhout: Brepols 2002. Later on, Annemaré Kotze dealt with the issue from a similar
point of view, for instance in her Augustine’s ‘Confessions’. Communicative Purpose and Audience (SVC
71), Leiden-Boston: Brill 2004. My CFM-volume on the theme is still in preparation.]
73 Conf. 9,8 (CCL 27,137-138).
 15
long ignorant, ‘loved vanity and sought after falsehood’ [cf. Ps. 4:3] .... For in those phantoms
which I once held for truth, there was vanity and falsehood.

In these sentences, significant words such as uanitas, ueritas, mendacium, nesciens,

phantasmata arrest our attention.74 Further on in his report about his sojourn in
Cassiciacum, Augustine even addresses the Manichaeans directly:

Quae utinam audissent qui adhuc usque diligunt uanitatem et quaerunt mendacium ...75

If only those who up to this time constantly love vanity and pursue falsehood had heard me ...

Here, his former fellow-believers are directly addressed: as is confirmed by the

change of tense from past to present. The Manichaeans are Augustine’s putative
readers. And, so I may add, they alone would have heard the polemic wordplay
when Augustine says that the true, i.e. the biblical psalms are an antidote. It is this
highly-loaded word antidote which occurs in the Confessions only here in Book 9 and,
as far as I can now see, also occurs characteristically only in one passage of the
Manichaean Psalter. In the Coptic Psalm of the Bema 241 Mani is praised as: the great
physician with his medicamenta, the physician who ‘has the antidote that is good for
every affection’; his antidote is his Great Gospel.76
There is reason to suppose that, in this pivotal passage, Augustine discloses
again his first-hand knowledge of Manichaean texts in a polemical way.

74 Note also A.’s anti-Manichaean polemic in his speaking about the Paraclete.
75 Conf. 9,9 (CCL 27,138).
76 Manichaean Psalm-Book, ed. Allberry (above, n. 11), 46.