Home About Network of subjects Linked subjects heatmap Book indices included Search by subject Search by reference Browse subjects Browse texts

Tiresias: The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Source Database

validated results only / all results

and or

Filtering options: (leave empty for all results)
By author:     
By work:        
By subject:
By additional keyword:       

Results for
Please note: the results are produced through a computerized process which may frequently lead to errors, both in incorrect tagging and in other issues. Please use with caution.
Due to load times, full text fetching is currently attempted for validated results only.
Full texts for Hebrew Bible and rabbinic texts is kindly supplied by Sefaria; for Greek and Latin texts, by Perseus Scaife, for the Quran, by Tanzil.net

For a list of book indices included, see here.

53 results for "augustine"
1. Polybius, Histories, 2.56 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, st, on rhetoric Found in books: Van Nuffelen (2012), Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, 11
2.56. 1.  Since, among those authors who were contemporaries of Aratus, Phylarchus, who on many points is at variance and in contradiction with him, is by some received as trustworthy,,2.  it will be useful or rather necessary for me, as I have chosen to rely on Aratus' narrative for the history of the Cleomenic war, not to leave the question of their relative credibility undiscussed, so that truth and falsehood in their writings may no longer be of equal authority.,3.  In general Phylarchus through his whole work makes many random and careless statements;,4.  but while perhaps it is not necessary for me at present to criticize in detail the rest of these, I must minutely examine such as relate to events occurring in the period with which I am now dealing, that of the Cleomenic war.,5.  This partial examination will however be quite sufficient to convey an idea of the general purpose and character of his work.,6.  Wishing, for instance, to insist on the cruelty of Antigonus and the Macedonians and also on that of Aratus and the Achaeans, he tells us that the Mantineans, when they surrendered, were exposed to terrible sufferings and that such were the misfortunes that overtook this, the most ancient and greatest city in Arcadia, as to impress deeply and move to tears all the Greeks.,7.  In his eagerness to arouse the pity and attention of his readers he treats us to a picture of clinging women with their hair dishevelled and their breasts bare, or again of crowds of both sexes together with their children and aged parents weeping and lamenting as they are led away to slavery.,8.  This sort of thing he keeps up throughout his history, always trying to bring horrors vividly before our eyes.,9.  Leaving aside the ignoble and womanish character of such a treatment of his subject, let us consider how far it is proper or serviceable to history.,10.  A historical author should not try to thrill his readers by such exaggerated pictures, nor should he, like a tragic poet, try to imagine the probable utterances of his characters or reckon up all the consequences probably incidental to the occurrences with which he deals, but simply record what really happened and what really was said, however commonplace.,11.  For the object of tragedy is not the same as that of history but quite the opposite. The tragic poet should thrill and charm his audience for the moment by the verisimilitude of the words he puts into his characters' mouths, but it is the task of the historian to instruct and convince for all time serious students by the truth of the facts and the speeches he narrates,,12.  since in the one case it is the probable that takes precedence, even if it be untrue, in the other it is the truth, the purpose being to confer benefit on learners.,13.  Apart from this, Phylarchus simply narrates most of such catastrophes and does not even suggest their causes or the nature of these causes, without which it is impossible in any case to feel either legitimate pity or proper anger.,14.  Who, for instance, does not think it an outrage for a free man to be beaten? but if this happen to one who was the first to resort to violence, we consider that he got only his desert, while where it is done for the purpose of correction or discipline, those who strike free men are not only excused but deemed worthy of thanks and praise.,15.  Again, to kill a citizen is considered the greatest of crimes and that deserving the highest penalty, but obviously he who kills a thief or adulterer is left untouched, and the slayer of a traitor or tyrant everywhere meets with honour and distinction.,16.  So in every such case the final criterion of good and evil lies not in what is done, but in the different reasons and different purposes of the doer.
2. Cicero, Pro Archia, 14 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, st, on rhetoric Found in books: Van Nuffelen (2012), Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, 89
14. nam nisi multorum praeceptis multisque litteris mihi ab adulescentia suasissem nihil esse in vita magno opere expetendum nisi laudem atque honestatem, in ea autem persequenda omnis cruciatus corporis, omnia pericula mortis atque exsili exilia GEe parvi esse ducenda, numquam me pro salute vestra in tot ac tantas dimicationes atque in hos profligatorum hominum cotidianos impetus obiecissem coniecissem Halm . sed pleni omnes sunt sunt omnes Ee χ sapientium Gep : sapientum cett. libri, plenae sapientium voces, plena exemplorum vetustas; quae iacerent in tenebris omnia, nisi litterarum lumen accederet accenderet Ee χς . quam multas nobis imagines non solum ad intuendum verum etiam ad imitandum fortissimorum virorum expressas scriptores et Graeci et Latini reliquerunt! quas ego mihi semper in administranda re publica proponens animum et mentem meam ipsa cogitatione hominum excellentium conformabam.
3. Cicero, In Catilinam, 4.11 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, st, on rhetoric Found in books: Van Nuffelen (2012), Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, 11
4. Cicero, Letters To His Friends, 5.12.4, 6.6 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, st, on rhetoric Found in books: Van Nuffelen (2012), Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, 11, 89
5. Cicero, De Oratore, 1.167, 2.335, 3.55 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Humfress (2007), Oppian's Halieutica: Charting a Didactic Epic, 144; Pollmann and Vessey (2007), Augustine and the Disciplines: From Cassiciacum to Confessions, 149; Van Nuffelen (2012), Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, 89
1.167. 'Ego vero istos,' inquit—'memini enim mihi narrare Mucium—non modo oratoris nomine sed ne foro quidem dignos vix putarim.' 'Atqui non defuit illis patronis' inquit Crassus 'eloquentia neque dicendi ratio aut copia, sed iuris civilis scientia: quod alter plus lege agendo petebat, quam quantum lex in xii tabulis permiserat, quod cum impetrasset, causa caderet; alter iniquum putabat plus secum agi, quam quod erat in actione; neque intellegebat, si ita esset actum, litem adversarium perditurum. 2.335. Controversia autem est inter hominum sententias aut in illo, utrum sit utilius; aut etiam, cum id convenit, certatur, utrum honestati potius an utilitati consulendum sit; quae quia pugnare inter se saepe videntur, qui utilitatem defendet, enumerabit commoda pacis, opum, potentiae, vectigalium, praesidi militum, ceterarum rerum, quarum fructum utilitate metimur, itemque incommoda contrariorum; qui ad dignitatem impellit, maiorum exempla, quae erant vel cum periculo gloriosa, conliget, posteritatis immortalem memoriam augebit, utilitatem ex laude nasci defendet semperque eam cum dignitate esse coniunctam. 3.55. Est enim eloquentia una quaedam de summis virtutibus; quamquam sunt omnes virtutes aequales et pares, sed tamen est specie alia magis alia formosa et inlustris, sicut haec vis, quae scientiam complexa rerum sensa mentis et consilia sic verbis explicat, ut eos, qui audiant, quocumque incubuerit, possit impellere; quae quo maior est vis, hoc est magis probitate iungenda summaque prudentia; quarum virtutum expertibus si dicendi copiam tradiderimus, non eos quidem oratores effecerimus, sed furentibus quaedam arma dederimus.
6. Cicero, On Laws, 2.62 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, st, on rhetoric Found in books: Van Nuffelen (2012), Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, 89
7. Cicero, On Invention, 1.1, 1.5 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, st, on rhetoric in service of church •augustine, on rhetoric Found in books: Humfress (2007), Oppian's Halieutica: Charting a Didactic Epic, 144; Pollmann and Vessey (2007), Augustine and the Disciplines: From Cassiciacum to Confessions, 149
1.1. Saepe et multum hoc mecum cogitavi, bonine an mali plus attulerit hominibus et civitatibus copia di- cendi ac summum eloquentiae studium. nam cum et nostrae rei publicae detrimenta considero et maxi- marum civitatum veteres animo calamitates colligo, non minimam video per disertissimos homines in- vectam partem incommodorum; cum autem res ab nostra memoria propter vetustatem remotas ex litte- rarum monumentis repetere instituo, multas urbes constitutas, plurima bella restincta, firmissimas socie- tates, sanctissimas amicitias intellego cum animi ra- tione tum facilius eloquentia comparatas. ac me quidem diu cogitantem ratio ipsa in hanc potissimum sententiam ducit, ut existimem sapientiam sine elo- quentia parum prodesse civitatibus, eloquentiam vero sine sapientia nimium obesse plerumque, prodesse numquam. quare si quis omissis rectissimis atque honestissimis studiis rationis et officii consumit omnem operam in exercitatione dicendi, is inutilis sibi, per- niciosus patriae civis alitur; qui vero ita sese armat eloquentia, ut non oppugnare commoda patriae, sed pro his propugnare possit, is mihi vir et suis et pu- blicis rationibus utilissimus atque amicissimus civis fore videtur. 1.5. nam quo indignius rem honestissimam et rectissimam violabat stultorum et improborum temeritas et audacia summo cum rei publicae detrimento, eo studiosius et illis re- sistendum fuit et rei publicae consulendum. quod no- strum illum non fugit Catonem neque Laelium neque eorum, ut vere dicam, discipulum Africanum neque Gracchos Africani nepotes: quibus in hominibus erat summa virtus et summa virtute amplificata auctoritas et, quae et his rebus ornamento et rei publicae prae- sidio esset, eloquentia. quare meo quidem animo nihilo minus eloquentiae studendum est, etsi ea quidam et privatim et publice abutuntur; sed eo quidem vehemen- tius, ne mali magno cum detrimento bonorum et com- muni omnium pernicie plurimum possint, cum prae- sertim hoc sit unum, quod ad omnes res et privatas et publicas maxime pertineat, hoc tuta, hoc honesta, hoc inlustris, hoc eodem vita iucunda fiat. nam hinc ad rem publicam plurima commoda veniunt, si mo- deratrix omnium rerum praesto est sapientia; hinc ad ipsos, qui eam adepti sunt, laus, honos, dignitas con- fluit; hinc amicis quoque eorum certissimum et tu- tissimum praesidium comparatur. ac mihi quidem vi- dentur homines, cum multis rebus humiliores et in- firmiores sint, hac re maxime bestiis praestare, quod loqui possunt. quare praeclarum mihi quiddam videtur adeptus is, qui, qua re homines bestiis praestent, ea in re hominibus ipsis antecellat. hoc si forte non natura modo neque exercitatione conficitur, verum etiam arti- ficio quodam comparatur, non alienum est videre, quae dicant ii, qui quaedam eius rei praecepta nobis reliquerunt. Sed antequam de praeceptis oratoriis dicimus, videtur dicendum de genere ipsius artis, de officio, de fine, de materia, de partibus. nam his rebus cognitis facilius et expeditius animus unius cuiusque ipsam ra- tionem ac viam artis considerare poterit.
8. Diodorus Siculus, Historical Library, 17.13, 19.6-19.8, 20.71 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Van Nuffelen (2012), Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, 11
17.13. 1.  So while the city was being taken, many and varied were the scenes of destruction within the walls. Enraged by the arrogance of the Theban proclamation, the Macedonians pressed upon them more furiously than is usual in war, and shrieking curses flung themselves on the wretched people, slaying all whom they met without sparing any.,2.  The Thebans, for their part, clinging desperately to their forlorn hope of victory, counted their lives as nothing and when they met a foeman, grappled with him and drew his blows upon themselves. In the capture of the city, no Theban was seen begging the Macedonians to spare his life, nor did they in ignoble fashion fall and cling to the knees of their conquerors.,3.  But neither did the agony of courage elicit pity from the foe nor did the day's length suffice for the cruelty of their vengeance. All the city was pillaged. Everywhere boys and girls were dragged into captivity as they wailed piteously the names of their mothers. In sum, households were seized with all their members, and the city's enslavement was complete.,4.  of the men who remained, some, wounded and dying, grappled with the foe and were slain themselves as they destroyed their enemy; others, supported only by a shattered spear, went to meet their assailants and, in their supreme struggle, held freedom dearer than life.,5.  As the slaughter mounted and every corner of the city was piled high with corpses, no one could have failed to pity the plight of the unfortunates. For even Greeks — Thespians, Plataeans and Orchomenians and some others hostile to the Thebans who had joined the king in the campaign — invaded the city along with him and now demonstrated their own hatred amid the calamities of the unfortunate victims.,6.  So it was that many terrible things befell the city. Greeks were mercilessly slain by Greeks, relatives were butchered by their own relatives, and even a common dialect induced no pity. In the end, when night finally intervened, the houses had been plundered and children and women and aged persons who had fled into the temples were torn from sanctuary and subjected to outrage without limit. 19.6. 1.  Agathocles, who was greedy for power, had many advantages for the accomplishment of his design. Not only as general was he in command of the army, but moreover, when news came that some rebels were assembling an army in the interior near Erbita, without rousing suspicion he obtained authority to enrol as soldiers what men he chose.,2.  Thus by feigning a campaign against Erbita he enrolled in the army the men of Morgantina and the other cities of the interior who had previously served with him against the Carthaginians.,3.  All these were very firmly attached to Agathocles, having received many benefits from him during the campaigns, but they were unceasingly hostile to the Six Hundred, who had been magistrates of the oligarchy in Syracuse, and hated the populace in general because they were forced to carry out its orders. These soldiers numbered about three thousand, being both by inclination and by deliberate choice most suitable tools for the overthrow of the democracy. To them he added those of the citizens who because of poverty and envy were hostile to the pretensions of the powerful.,4.  As soon as he had everything ready, he ordered the soldiers to report at daybreak at the Timoleontium; and he himself summoned Peisarchus and Diocles, who were regarded as the leaders of the society of the Six Hundred, as if he wished to consult them on some matter of common interest. When they had come bringing with them some forty of their friends, Agathocles, pretending that he himself was being plotted against, arrested all of them, accused them before the soldiers, saying that he was being seized by the Six Hundred because of his sympathy for the common people, and bewailed his fate.,5.  When, however, the mob was aroused and with a shout urged him not to delay but to inflict the just penalty on the wrongdoers out of hand, he gave orders to the trumpeters to give the signal for battle and to the soldiers to kill the guilty persons and to plunder the property of the Six Hundred and their supporters.,6.  All rushed out to take part in the plunder, and the city was filled with confusion and great calamity; for the members of the aristocratic class, not knowing the destruction that had been ordained for them, were dashing out of their homes into the streets in their eagerness to learn the cause of the tumult, and the soldiers, made savage both by greed and by anger, kept killing these men who, in their ignorance of the situation, were presenting their bodies bare of any arms that would protect them. 19.7. 1.  The narrow passages were severally occupied by soldiers, and the victims were murdered, some in the streets, some in their houses. Many, too, against whom there had been no charge whatever, were slain when they sought to learn the cause of the massacre. For the armed mob having seized power did not distinguish between friend and foe, but the man from whom it had concluded most profit was to be gained, him it regarded as an enemy.,2.  Therefore one could see the whole city filled with outrage, slaughter, and all manner of lawlessness. For some men because of long-existing hatred abstained from no form of insult against the objects of their enmity now that they had the opportunity to accomplish whatever seemed to gratify their rage; others, thinking by the slaughter of the wealthy to redress their own poverty, left no means untried for their destruction.,3.  Some broke down the doors of houses, others mounted to the housetops on ladders, still others struggled against men who were defending themselves from the roofs; not even to those who fled into the temples did their prayers to the gods bring safety, but reverence due the gods was overthrown by men.,4.  In time of peace and in their own city Greeks dared commit these crimes against Greeks, relatives against kinsfolk, respecting neither common humanity nor solemn compacts nor gods, crimes such that there is no one — I do not say no friend but not even any deadly enemy if he but have a spark of compassion in his soul — who would not pity the fate of the victims. 19.8. 1.  All the gates of the city were closed, and more than four thousand persons were slain on that day whose only crime was to be of gentler birth than the others. of those who fled, some who rushed for the gates were arrested, while others who cast themselves from the walls escaped to the neighbouring cities; some, however, who in panic cast themselves down before they looked, crashed headlong to their doom.,2.  The number of those who were driven from their native city was more than six thousand, most of whom fled to the people of Acragas where they were accorded proper care.,3.  The party of Agathocles spent the day in the murder of their fellow citizens, nor did they abstain from outrage and crime against women, but they thought that those who had escaped death would be sufficiently punished by the violation of their kindred. For it was reasonable to suppose that the husbands and fathers would suffer something worse than death when they thought of the violence done their wives and the shame inflicted upon their unmarried daughters.,4.  We must keep our accounts of these events free from the artificially tragic tone that is habitual with historians, chiefly because of our pity for the victims, but also because no one of our readers has a desire to hear all the details when his own understanding can readily supply them.,5.  For men who by day in the streets and throughout the market place were bold to butcher those who had done no harm need no writer to set forth what they did at night when by themselves in the homes, and how they conducted themselves toward orphaned maidens and toward women who were bereft of any to defend them and had fallen into the absolute power of their direst enemies.,6.  As for Agathocles, when two days had passed, since he was now sated with the slaughter of his fellow citizens, after gathering together the prisoners, he let Deinocrates go because of their former friendship, but of the others he killed those who were most bitterly hostile and exiled the rest. 20.71. 1.  When with all speed Agathocles had crossed from Libya into Sicily, he summoned a part of his army and went to the city of Segesta, which was an ally. Because he was in need of money, he forced the well-to‑do to deliver to him the greater part of their property, the city at that time having a population of about ten thousand.,2.  Since many were angry at this and were holding meetings, he charged the people of Segesta with conspiring against him and visited the city with terrible disasters. For instance, the poorest of the people he brought to a place outside the city beside the river Scamander and slaughtered them; but those who were believed to have more property he examined under torture and compelled each to tell him how much wealth he had; and some of them he broke on the wheel, others he placed bound in the catapults and shot forth, and by applying knucklebones with violence to some, he caused them severe pain.,3.  He also invented another torture similar to the bull of Phalaris: that is, he prepared a brazen bed that had the form of a human body and was surrounded on every side by bars; on this he fixed those who were being tortured and roasted them alive, the contrivance being superior to the bull in this respect, that those who perishing in anguish were visible.,4.  As for the wealthy women, he tortured some of them by crushing their ankles with iron pincers, he cut off the breasts of others, and by placing bricks on the lower part of the backs of those who were pregt, he forced the expulsion of the foetus by the pressure. While the tyrant in this way was seeking all the wealth, great panic prevailed throughout the city, some burning themselves up along with their houses, and others gaining release from life by hanging.,5.  Thus Segesta, encountering a single day of disaster, suffered the loss of all her men from youth upward. Agathocles then took the maidens and children across to Italy and sold them to the Bruttians, leaving not even the name of the city; but he changed the name to Dicaeopolis and gave it as dwelling to the deserters.
9. Sallust, Catiline, 3 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, st, on rhetoric Found in books: Van Nuffelen (2012), Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, 11
10. Sallust, Iugurtha, 30.4 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, on rhetoric Found in books: Pollmann and Vessey (2007), Augustine and the Disciplines: From Cassiciacum to Confessions, 151
11. Ovid, Tristia, 2.273 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, on rhetoric Found in books: Pollmann and Vessey (2007), Augustine and the Disciplines: From Cassiciacum to Confessions, 151
2.273. discitur innocuas ut agat facundia causas;
12. Horace, Odes, 3.29 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, st, on rhetoric Found in books: Van Nuffelen (2012), Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, 11
13. Petronius Arbiter, Satyricon, 88 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, on rhetoric Found in books: Pollmann and Vessey (2007), Augustine and the Disciplines: From Cassiciacum to Confessions, 149, 150
14. Petronius Arbiter, Satyricon, 88 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, on rhetoric Found in books: Pollmann and Vessey (2007), Augustine and the Disciplines: From Cassiciacum to Confessions, 149, 150
15. New Testament, Matthew, 3.14-3.17 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, st, use of forensic rhetoric in sermons Found in books: Humfress (2007), Oppian's Halieutica: Charting a Didactic Epic, 191
3.14. ὁ δὲ διεκώλυεν αὐτὸν λέγων Ἐγὼ χρείαν ἔχω ὑπὸ σοῦ βαπτισθῆναι, καὶ σὺ ἔρχῃ πρός με; 3.15. ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ Ἄφες ἄρτι, οὕτω γὰρ πρέπον ἐστὶν ἡμῖν πληρῶσαι πᾶσαν δικαιοσύνην. τότε ἀφίησιν αὐτόν. 3.16. βαπτισθεὶς δὲ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εὐθὺς ἀνέβη ἀπὸ τοῦ ὕδατος· 3.17. καὶ ἰδοὺ ἠνεῴχθησαν οἱ οὐρανοί, καὶ εἶδεν πνεῦμα θεοῦ καταβαῖνον ὡσεὶ περιστερὰν ἐρχόμενον ἐπʼ αὐτόν· καὶ ἰδοὺ φωνὴ ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν λέγουσα Οὗτός ἐστιν ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν ᾧ εὐδόκησα. 3.14. But John would have hindered him, saying, "I need to be baptized by you, and you come to me?" 3.15. But Jesus, answering, said to him, "Allow it now, for this is the fitting way for us to fulfill all righteousness." Then he allowed him. 3.16. Jesus, when he was baptized, went up directly from the water: and behold, the heavens were opened to him. He saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming on him. 3.17. Behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased."
16. New Testament, Mark, 1.11 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, st, use of forensic rhetoric in sermons Found in books: Humfress (2007), Oppian's Halieutica: Charting a Didactic Epic, 191
1.11. καὶ φωνὴ [ἐγένετο] ἐκ τῶν οὐρανῶν Σὺ εἶ ὁ υἱός μου ὁ ἀγαπητός, ἐν σοὶ εὐδόκησα. 1.11. A voice came out of the sky, "You are my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased."
17. Quintilian, Institutes of Oratory, 2.16.2, 8.3.67-8.3.69 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, on rhetoric •augustine, st, on rhetoric Found in books: Pollmann and Vessey (2007), Augustine and the Disciplines: From Cassiciacum to Confessions, 149; Van Nuffelen (2012), Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, 11
2.16.2.  "It is eloquence" they say "that snatches criminals from the penalties of the law, eloquence that from time to time secures the condemnation of the innocent and leads deliberation astray, eloquence that stirs up not merely sedition and popular tumult, but wars beyond all expiation, and that is most effective when it makes falsehood prevail over the truth." 8.3.67.  What more would any man have seen who had actually entered the room? So, too, we may move our hearers to tears by the picture of a captured town. For the mere statement that the town was stormed, while no doubt it embraces all that such a calamity involves, has all the curtness of a dispatch, and fails to penetrate to the emotions of the hearer. 8.3.68.  But if we expand all that the one word "stormed" includes, we shall see the flames pouring from house and temple, and hear the crash of falling roofs and one confused clamour blent of many cries: we shall behold some in doubt whither to fly, others clinging to their nearest and dearest in one last embrace, while the wailing of women and children and the laments of old men that the cruelty of fate should have spared them to see that day will strike upon our ears. 8.3.69.  Then will come the pillage of treasure sacred and profane, the hurrying to and fro of the plunderers as they carry off their booty or return to seek for more, the prisoners driven each before his own inhuman captor, the mother struggling to keep her child, and the victors fighting over the richest of the spoil. For though, as I have already said, the sack of a city includes all these things, it is less effective to tell the whole news at once than to recount it detail by detail.
18. Quintilian, Institutio Oratoria, 2.16.2 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, on rhetoric Found in books: Pollmann and Vessey (2007), Augustine and the Disciplines: From Cassiciacum to Confessions, 149
2.16.2.  "It is eloquence" they say "that snatches criminals from the penalties of the law, eloquence that from time to time secures the condemnation of the innocent and leads deliberation astray, eloquence that stirs up not merely sedition and popular tumult, but wars beyond all expiation, and that is most effective when it makes falsehood prevail over the truth."
19. Seneca The Younger, On Leisure, 1.12 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, st, on rhetoric Found in books: Van Nuffelen (2012), Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, 89
20. Seneca The Younger, Letters, 24.11 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, st, on rhetoric Found in books: Van Nuffelen (2012), Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, 89
21. Seneca The Younger, Hercules Furens, 657, 656 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Van Nuffelen (2012), Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, 11
22. Clement of Alexandria, Christ The Educator, 1.2, 1.89 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, on rhetoric Found in books: Dilley (2019), Monasteries and the Care of Souls in Late Antique Christianity: Cognition and Discipline, 125
23. Lactantius, Divine Institutes, 5.13.23 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, st, on rhetoric Found in books: Van Nuffelen (2012), Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, 89
24. Augustine, Sermons, 52 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, st, use of forensic rhetoric in sermons Found in books: Humfress (2007), Oppian's Halieutica: Charting a Didactic Epic, 191, 192, 193
25. Paulinus of Nola, Carmina, 25.9-25.10 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, st, on rhetoric Found in books: Van Nuffelen (2012), Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, 89
26. Orosius Paulus, Historiae Adversum Paganos, 1.2.4-1.2.5, 4.10.1, 4.16.5, 5.19.7, 6.14.1 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, st, on rhetoric Found in books: Van Nuffelen (2012), Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, 11
27. Symmachus, Relationes, 1.5 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, st, on rhetoric Found in books: Van Nuffelen (2012), Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, 11
28. Macrobius, Saturnalia, 7.2.9 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, st, on rhetoric Found in books: Van Nuffelen (2012), Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, 11
29. Macrobius, Saturnalia, 7.2.9 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, st, on rhetoric Found in books: Van Nuffelen (2012), Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, 11
30. Augustine, Retractiones, 1.4.4 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, on rhetoric Found in books: Pollmann and Vessey (2007), Augustine and the Disciplines: From Cassiciacum to Confessions, 108
31. Augustine, Confessions, a b c d\n0 1.(13)22 1.(13)22 1 (13)22\n1 1.(17)27 1.(17)27 1 (17)27\n2 1.(18)28 1.(18)28 1 (18)28\n3 6.(4)6 6.(4)6 6 (4)6 \n4 9.(10)23 9.(10)23 9 (10)23\n5 5.(8)14 5.(8)14 5 (8)14 \n6 4.7 4.7 4 7 \n7 4.2.2 4.2.2 4 2 \n8 9.2.4 9.2.4 9 2 \n9 9.2.3 9.2.3 9 2 \n10 10.21.30 10.21.30 10 21 \n11 5.12.22 5.12.22 5 12 \n12 4.14.21 4.14.21 4 14 \n13 3.4.7 3.4.7 3 4 \n14 4.16.30 4.16.30 4 16 \n15 10.33.50 10.33.50 10 33 \n16 12.26.36 12.26.36 12 26 \n17 5.23.13 5.23.13 5 23 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Van Nuffelen (2012), Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, 89
32. Prudentius, Contra Symmachum, 2.429 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, st, on rhetoric Found in books: Van Nuffelen (2012), Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, 11
33. Augustine, The City of God, 1.15, 1.24, 2.29, 3.7-3.8, 3.20, 5.12, 5.16-5.18 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, st, on rhetoric Found in books: Van Nuffelen (2012), Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, 11, 89
1.15. But among their own famous men they have a very noble example of the voluntary endurance of captivity in obedience to a religious scruple. Marcus Attilius Regulus, a Roman general, was a prisoner in the hands of the Carthaginians. But they, being more anxious to exchange their prisoners with the Romans than to keep them, sent Regulus as a special envoy with their own ambassadors to negotiate this exchange, but bound him first with an oath, that if he failed to accomplish their wish, he would return to Carthage. He went and persuaded the senate to the opposite course, because he believed it was not for the advantage of the Roman republic to make an exchange of prisoners. After he had thus exerted his influence, the Romans did not compel him to return to the enemy; but what he had sworn he voluntarily performed. But the Carthaginians put him to death with refined, elaborate, and horrible tortures. They shut him up in a narrow box, in which he was compelled to stand, and in which finely sharpened nails were fixed all round about him, so that he could not lean upon any part of it without intense pain; and so they killed him by depriving him of sleep. With justice, indeed, do they applaud the virtue which rose superior to so frightful a fate. However, the gods he swore by were those who are now supposed to avenge the prohibition of their worship, by inflicting these present calamities on the human race. But if these gods, who were worshipped specially in this behalf, that they might confer happiness in this life, either willed or permitted these punishments to be inflicted on one who kept his oath to them, what more cruel punishment could they in their anger have inflicted on a perjured person? But why may I not draw from my reasoning a double inference? Regulus certainly had such reverence for the gods, that for his oath's sake he would neither remain in his own land nor go elsewhere, but without hesitation returned to his bitterest enemies. If he thought that this course would be advantageous with respect to this present life, he was certainly much deceived, for it brought his life to a frightful termination. By his own example, in fact, he taught that the gods do not secure the temporal happiness of their worshippers; since he himself, who was devoted to their worship, as both conquered in battle and taken prisoner, and then, because he refused to act in violation of the oath he had sworn by them, was tortured and put to death by a new, and hitherto unheard of, and all too horrible kind of punishment. And on the supposition that the worshippers of the gods are rewarded by felicity in the life to come, why, then, do they calumniate the influence of Christianity? Why do they assert that this disaster has overtaken the city because it has ceased to worship its gods, since, worship them as assiduously as it may, it may yet be as unfortunate as Regulus was? Or will some one carry so wonderful a blindness to the extent of wildly attempting, in the face of the evident truth, to contend that though one man might be unfortunate, though a worshipper of the gods, yet a whole city could not be so? That is to say, the power of their gods is better adapted to preserve multitudes than individuals, - as if a multitude were not composed of individuals. But if they say that M. Regulus, even while a prisoner and enduring these bodily torments, might yet enjoy the blessedness of a virtuous soul, then let them recognize that true virtue by which a city also may be blessed. For the blessedness of a community and of an individual flow from the same source; for a community is nothing else than a harmonious collection of individuals. So that I am not concerned meantime to discuss what kind of virtue Regulus possessed; enough, that by his very noble example they are forced to own that the gods are to be worshipped not for the sake of bodily comforts or external advantages; for he preferred to lose all such things rather than offend the gods by whom he had sworn. But what can we make of men who glory in having such a citizen, but dread having a city like him? If they do not dread this, then let them acknowledge that some such calamity as befell Regulus may also befall a community, though they be worshipping their gods as diligently as he; and let them no longer throw the blame of their misfortunes on Christianity. But as our present concern is with those Christians who were taken prisoners, let those who take occasion from this calamity to revile our most wholesome religion in a fashion not less imprudent than impudent, consider this and hold their peace; for if it was no reproach to their gods that a most punctilious worshipper of theirs should, for the sake of keeping his oath to them, be deprived of his native land without hope of finding another, and fall into the hands of his enemies, and be put to death by a long-drawn and exquisite torture, much less ought the Christian name to be charged with the captivity of those who believe in its power, since they, in confident expectation of a heavenly country, know that they are pilgrims even in their own homes. 1.24. Our opponents are offended at our preferring to Cato the saintly Job, who endured dreadful evils in his body rather than deliver himself from all torment by self-inflicted death; or other saints, of whom it is recorded in our authoritative and trustworthy books that they bore captivity and the oppression of their enemies rather than commit suicide. But their own books authorize us to prefer to Marcus Cato, Marcus Regulus. For Cato had never conquered C sar; and when conquered by him, disdained to submit himself to him, and that he might escape this submission put himself to death. Regulus, on the contrary, had formerly conquered the Carthaginians, and in command of the army of Rome had won for the Roman republic a victory which no citizen could bewail, and which the enemy himself was constrained to admire; yet afterwards, when he in his turn was defeated by them, he preferred to be their captive rather than to put himself beyond their reach by suicide. Patient under the domination of the Carthaginians, and constant in his love of the Romans, he neither deprived the one of his conquered body, nor the other of his unconquered spirit. Neither was it love of life that prevented him from killing himself. This was plainly enough indicated by his unhesitatingly returning, on account of his promise and oath, to the same enemies whom he had more grievously provoked by his words in the senate than even by his arms in battle. Having such a contempt of life, and preferring to end it by whatever torments excited enemies might contrive, rather than terminate it by his own hand, he could not more distinctly have declared how great a crime he judged suicide to be. Among all their famous and remarkable citizens, the Romans have no better man to boast of than this, who was neither corrupted by prosperity, for he remained a very poor man after winning such victories; nor broken by adversity, for he returned intrepidly to the most miserable end. But if the bravest and most renowned heroes, who had but an earthly country to defend, and who, though they had but false gods, yet rendered them a true worship, and carefully kept their oath to them; if these men, who by the custom and right of war put conquered enemies to the sword, yet shrank from putting an end to their own lives even when conquered by their enemies; if, though they had no fear at all of death, they would yet rather suffer slavery than commit suicide, how much rather must Christians, the worshippers of the true God, the aspirants to a heavenly citizenship, shrink from this act, if in God's providence they have been for a season delivered into the hands of their enemies to prove or to correct them! And certainly, Christians subjected to this humiliating condition will not be deserted by the Most High, who for their sakes humbled Himself. Neither should they forget that they are bound by no laws of war, nor military orders, to put even a conquered enemy to the sword; and if a man may not put to death the enemy who has sinned, or may yet sin against him, who is so infatuated as to maintain that he may kill himself because an enemy has sinned, or is going to sin, against him? 2.29. This, rather, is the religion worthy of your desires, O admirable Roman race - the progeny of your Sc volas and Scipios, of Regulus, and of Fabricius. This rather covet, this distinguish from that foul vanity and crafty malice of the devils. If there is in your nature any eminent virtue, only by true piety is it purged and perfected, while by impiety it is wrecked and punished. Choose now what you will pursue, that your praise may be not in yourself, but in the true God, in whom is no error. For of popular glory you have had your share; but by the secret providence of God, the true religion was not offered to your choice. Awake, it is now day; as you have already awaked in the persons of some in whose perfect virtue and sufferings for the true faith we glory: for they, contending on all sides with hostile powers, and conquering them all by bravely dying, have purchased for us this country of ours with their blood; to which country we invite you, and exhort you to add yourselves to the number of the citizens of this city, which also has a sanctuary of its own in the true remission of sins. Do not listen to those degenerate sons of yours who slander Christ and Christians, and impute to them these disastrous times, though they desire times in which they may enjoy rather impunity for their wickedness than a peaceful life. Such has never been Rome's ambition even in regard to her earthly country. Lay hold now on the celestial country, which is easily won, and in which you will reign truly and forever. For there shall you find no vestal fire, no Capitoline stone, but the one true God. No date, no goal will here ordain: But grant an endless, boundless reign. No longer, then, follow after false and deceitful gods; abjure them rather, and despise them, bursting forth into true liberty. Gods they are not, but maligt spirits, to whom your eternal happiness will be a sore punishment. Juno, from whom you deduce your origin according to the flesh, did not so bitterly grudge Rome's citadels to the Trojans, as these devils whom yet you repute gods, grudge an everlasting seat to the race of mankind. And you yourself hast in no wavering voice passed judgment on them, when you pacified them with games, and yet accounted as infamous the men by whom the plays were acted. Suffer us, then, to assert your freedom against the unclean spirits who had imposed on your neck the yoke of celebrating their own shame and filthiness. The actors of these divine crimes you have removed from offices of honor; supplicate the true God, that He may remove from you those gods who delight in their crimes - a most disgraceful thing if the crimes are really theirs, and a most malicious invention if the crimes are feigned. Well done, in that you have spontaneously banished from the number of your citizens all actors and players. Awake more fully: the majesty of God cannot be propitiated by that which defiles the dignity of man. How, then, can you believe that gods who take pleasure in such lewd plays, belong to the number of the holy powers of heaven, when the men by whom these plays are acted are by yourselves refused admission into the number of Roman citizens even of the lowest grade? Incomparably more glorious than Rome, is that heavenly city in which for victory you have truth; for dignity, holiness; for peace, felicity; for life, eternity. Much less does it admit into its society such gods, if you blush to admit such men into yours. Wherefore, if you would attain to the blessed city, shun the society of devils. They who are propitiated by deeds of shame, are unworthy of the worship of right-hearted men. Let these, then, be obliterated from your worship by the cleansing of the Christian religion, as those men were blotted from your citizenship by the censor's mark. But, so far as regards carnal benefits, which are the only blessings the wicked desire to enjoy, and carnal miseries, which alone they shrink from enduring, we will show in the following book that the demons have not the power they are supposed to have; and although they had it, we ought rather on that account to despise these blessings, than for the sake of them to worship those gods, and by worshipping them to miss the attainment of these blessings they grudge us. But that they have not even this power which is ascribed to them by those who worship them for the sake of temporal advantages, this, I say, I will prove in the following book; so let us here close the present argument. 3.7. And surely we may ask what wrong poor Ilium had done, that, in the first heat of the civil wars of Rome, it should suffer at the hand of Fimbria, the veriest villain among Marius' partisans, a more fierce and cruel destruction than the Grecian sack. For when the Greeks took it many escaped, and many who did not escape were suffered to live, though in captivity. But Fimbria from the first gave orders that not a life should be spared, and burnt up together the city and all its inhabitants. Thus was Ilium requited, not by the Greeks, whom she had provoked by wrong-doing; but by the Romans, who had been built out of her ruins; while the gods, adored alike of both sides, did simply nothing, or, to speak more correctly, could do nothing. Is it then true, that at this time also, after Troy had repaired the damage done by the Grecian fire, all the gods by whose help the kingdom stood, forsook each fane, each sacred shrine? But if so, I ask the reason; for in my judgment, the conduct of the gods was as much to be reprobated as that of the townsmen to be applauded. For these closed their gates against Fimbria, that they might preserve the city for Sylla, and were therefore burnt and consumed by the enraged general. Now, up to this time, Sylla's cause was the more worthy of the two; for till now he used arms to restore the republic, and as yet his good intentions had met with no reverses. What better thing, then, could the Trojans have done? What more honorable, what more faithful to Rome, or more worthy of her relationship, than to preserve their city for the better part of the Romans, and to shut their gates against a parricide of his country? It is for the defenders of the gods to consider the ruin which this conduct brought on Troy. The gods deserted an adulterous people, and abandoned Troy to the fires of the Greeks, that out of her ashes a chaster Rome might arise. But why did they a second time abandon this same town, allied now to Rome, and not making war upon her noble daughter, but preserving a most steadfast and pious fidelity to Rome's most justifiable faction? Why did they give her up to be destroyed, not by the Greek heroes, but by the basest of the Romans? Or, if the gods did not favor Sylla's cause, for which the unhappy Trojans maintained their city, why did they themselves predict and promise Sylla such successes? Must we call them flatterers of the fortunate, rather than helpers of the wretched? Troy was not destroyed, then, because the gods deserted it. For the demons, always watchful to deceive, did what they could. For, when all the statues were overthrown and burnt together with the town, Livy tells us that only the image of Minerva is said to have been found standing uninjured amidst the ruins of her temple; not that it might be said in their praise, The gods who made this realm divine, but that it might not be said in their defense, They are gone from each fane, each sacred shrine: for that marvel was permitted to them, not that they might be proved to be powerful, but that they might be convicted of being present. 3.8. Where, then, was the wisdom of entrusting Rome to the Trojan gods, who had demonstrated their weakness in the loss of Troy? Will some one say that, when Fimbria stormed Troy, the gods were already resident in Rome? How, then, did the image of Minerva remain standing? Besides, if they were at Rome when Fimbria destroyed Troy, perhaps they were at Troy when Rome itself was taken and set on fire by the Gauls. But as they are very acute in hearing, and very swift in their movements, they came quickly at the cackling of the goose to defend at least the Capitol, though to defend the rest of the city they were too long in being warned. 3.20. But among all the disasters of the second Punic war, there occurred none more lamentable, or calculated to excite deeper complaint, than the fate of the Saguntines. This city of Spain, eminently friendly to Rome, was destroyed by its fidelity to the Roman people. For when Hannibal had broken treaty with the Romans, he sought occasion for provoking them to war, and accordingly made a fierce assault upon Saguntum. When this was reported at Rome, ambassadors were sent to Hannibal, urging him to raise the siege; and when this remonstrance was neglected, they proceeded to Carthage, lodged complaint against the breaking of the treaty, and returned to Rome without accomplishing their object. Meanwhile the siege went on; and in the eighth or ninth month, this opulent but ill-fated city, dear as it was to its own state and to Rome, was taken, and subjected to treatment which one cannot read, much less narrate, without horror. And yet, because it bears directly on the matter in hand, I will briefly touch upon it. First, then, famine wasted the Saguntines, so that even human corpses were eaten by some: so at least it is recorded. Subsequently, when thoroughly worn out, that they might at least escape the ignominy of falling into the hands of Hannibal, they publicly erected a huge funeral pile, and cast themselves into its flames, while at the same time they slew their children and themselves with the sword. Could these gods, these debauchees and gourmands, whose mouths water for fat sacrifices, and whose lips utter lying divinations, - could they not do anything in a case like this? Could they not interfere for the preservation of a city closely allied to the Roman people, or prevent it perishing for its fidelity to that alliance of which they themselves had been the mediators? Saguntum, faithfully keeping the treaty it had entered into before these gods, and to which it had firmly bound itself by an oath, was besieged, taken, and destroyed by a perjured person. If afterwards, when Hannibal was close to the walls of Rome, it was the gods who terrified him with lightning and tempest, and drove him to a distance, why, I ask, did they not thus interfere before? For I make bold to say, that this demonstration with the tempest would have been more honorably made in defense of the allies of Rome - who were in danger on account of their reluctance to break faith with the Romans, and had no resources of their own - than in defense of the Romans themselves, who were fighting in their own cause, and had abundant resources to oppose Hannibal. If, then, they had been the guardians of Roman prosperity and glory, they would have preserved that glory from the stain of this Saguntine disaster; and how silly it is to believe that Rome was preserved from destruction at the hands of Hannibal by the guardian care of those gods who were unable to rescue the city of Saguntum from perishing through its fidelity to the alliance of Rome. If the population of Saguntum had been Christian, and had suffered as it did for the Christian faith (though, of course, Christians would not have used fire and sword against their own persons), they would have suffered with that hope which springs from faith in Christ - the hope not of a brief temporal reward, but of unending and eternal bliss. What, then, will the advocates and apologists of these gods say in their defense, when charged with the blood of these Saguntines; for they are professedly worshipped and invoked for this very purpose of securing prosperity in this fleeting and transitory life? Can anything be said but what was alleged in the case of Regulus' death? For though there is a difference between the two cases, the one being an individual, the other a whole community, yet the cause of destruction was in both cases the keeping of their plighted troth. For it was this which made Regulus willing to return to his enemies, and this which made the Saguntines unwilling to revolt to their enemies. Does, then, the keeping of faith provoke the gods to anger? Or is it possible that not only individuals, but even entire communities, perish while the gods are propitious to them? Let our adversaries choose which alternative they will. If, on the one hand, those gods are enraged at the keeping of faith, let them enlist perjured persons as their worshippers. If, on the other hand, men and states can suffer great and terrible calamities, and at last perish while favored by the gods, then does their worship not produce happiness as its fruit. Let those, therefore, who suppose that they have fallen into distress because their religious worship has been abolished, lay aside their anger; for it were quite possible that did the gods not only remain with them, but regard them with favor, they might yet be left to mourn an unhappy lot, or might, even like Regulus and the Saguntines, be horribly tormented, and at last perish miserably. 5.12. Wherefore let us go on to consider what virtues of the Romans they were which the true God, in whose power are also the kingdoms of the earth, condescended to help in order to raise the empire, and also for what reason He did so. And, in order to discuss this question on clearer ground, we have written the former books, to show that the power of those gods, who, they thought, were to be worshipped with such trifling and silly rites, had nothing to do in this matter; and also what we have already accomplished of the present volume, to refute the doctrine of fate, lest any one who might have been already persuaded that the Roman empire was not extended and preserved by the worship of these gods, might still be attributing its extension and preservation to some kind of fate, rather than to the most powerful will of God most high. The ancient and primitive Ro mans, therefore, though their history shows us that, like all the other nations, with the sole exception of the Hebrews, they worshipped false gods, and sacrificed victims, not to God, but to demons, have nevertheless this commendation bestowed on them by their historian, that they were greedy of praise, prodigal of wealth, desirous of great glory, and content with a moderate fortune. Glory they most ardently loved: for it they wished to live, for it they did not hesitate to die. Every other desire was repressed by the strength of their passion for that one thing. At length their country itself, because it seemed inglorious to serve, but glorious to rule and to command, they first earnestly desired to be free, and then to be mistress. Hence it was that, not enduring the domination of kings, they put the government into the hands of two chiefs, holding office for a year, who were called consuls, not kings or lords. But royal pomp seemed inconsistent with the administration of a ruler (regentis), or the benevolence of one who consults (that is, for the public good) (consulentis), but rather with the haughtiness of a lord (domitis). King Tarquin, therefore, having been banished, and the consular government having been instituted, it followed, as the same author already alluded to says in his praises of the Romans, that the state grew with amazing rapidity after it had obtained liberty, so great a desire of glory had taken possession of it. That eagerness for praise and desire of glory, then, was that which accomplished those many wonderful things, laudable, doubtless, and glorious according to human judgment. The same Sallust praises the great men of his own time, Marcus Cato, and Caius C sar, saying that for a long time the republic had no one great in virtue, but that within his memory there had been these two men of eminent virtue, and very different pursuits. Now, among the praises which he pronounces on C sar he put this, that he wished for a great empire, an army, and a new war, that he might have a sphere where his genius and virtue might shine forth. Thus it was ever the prayer of men of heroic character that Bellona would excite miserable nations to war, and lash them into agitation with her bloody scourge, so that there might be occasion for the display of their valor. This, forsooth, is what that desire of praise and thirst for glory did. Wherefore, by the love of liberty in the first place, afterwards also by that of domination and through the desire of praise and glory, they achieved many great things; and their most eminent poet testifies to their having been prompted by all these motives: Porsenna there, with pride elate, Bids Rome to Tarquin ope her gate; With arms he hems the city in, Æneas' sons stand firm to win. At that time it was their greatest ambition either to die bravely or to live free; but when liberty was obtained, so great a desire of glory took possession of them, that liberty alone was not enough unless domination also should be sought, their great ambition being that which the same poet puts into the mouth of Jupiter: Nay, Juno's self, whose wild alarms Set ocean, earth, and heaven in arms, Shall change for smiles her moody frown, And vie with me in zeal to crown Rome's sons, the nation of the gown. So stands my will. There comes a day, While Rome's great ages hold their way, When old Assaracus's sons Shall quit them on the myrmidons, O'er Phthia and Mycen reign, And humble Argos to their chain. Which things, indeed, Virgil makes Jupiter predict as future, while, in reality, he was only himself passing in review in his own mind, things which were already done, and which were beheld by him as present realities. But I have mentioned them with the intention of showing that, next to liberty, the Romans so highly esteemed domination, that it received a place among those things on which they bestowed the greatest praise. Hence also it is that that poet, preferring to the arts of other nations those arts which peculiarly belong to the Romans, namely, the arts of ruling and commanding, and of subjugating and vanquishing nations, says, Others, belike, with happier grace, From bronze or stone shall call the face, Plead doubtful causes, map the skies, And tell when planets set or rise; But Roman thou, do thou control The nations far and wide; Be this your genius, to impose The rule of peace on vanquished foes, Show pity to the humble soul, And crush the sons of pride. These arts they exercised with the more skill the less they gave themselves up to pleasures, and to enervation of body and mind in coveting and amassing riches, and through these corrupting morals, by extorting them from the miserable citizens and lavishing them on base stage-players. Hence these men of base character, who abounded when Sallust wrote and Virgil sang these things, did not seek after honors and glory by these arts, but by treachery and deceit. Wherefore the same says, But at first it was rather ambition than avarice that stirred the minds of men, which vice, however, is nearer to virtue. For glory, honor, and power are desired alike by the good man and by the ignoble; but the former, he says, strives onward to them by the true way, while the other, knowing nothing of the good arts, seeks them by fraud and deceit. And what is meant by seeking the attainment of glory, honor, and power by good arts, is to seek them by virtue, and not by deceitful intrigue; for the good and the ignoble man alike desire these things, but the good man strives to overtake them by the true way. The way is virtue, along which he presses as to the goal of possession - namely, to glory, honor, and power. Now that this was a sentiment engrained in the Roman mind, is indicated even by the temples of their gods; for they built in very close proximity the temples of Virtue and Honor, worshipping as gods the gifts of God. Hence we can understand what they who were good thought to be the end of virtue, and to what they ultimately referred it, namely, to honor; for, as to the bad, they had no virtue though they desired honor, and strove to possess it by fraud and deceit. Praise of a higher kind is bestowed upon Cato, for he says of him The less he sought glory, the more it followed him. We say praise of a higher kind; for the glory with the desire of which the Romans burned is the judgment of men thinking well of men. And therefore virtue is better, which is content with no human judgment save that of one's own conscience. Whence the apostle says, For this is our glory, the testimony of our conscience. 2 Corinthians 1:12 And in another place he says, But let every one prove his own work, and then he shall have glory in himself, and not in another. Galatians 6:4 That glory, honor, and power, therefore, which they desired for themselves, and to which the good sought to attain by good arts, should not be sought after by virtue, but virtue by them. For there is no true virtue except that which is directed towards that end in which is the highest and ultimate good of man. Wherefore even the honors which Cato sought he ought not to have sought, but the state ought to have conferred them on him unsolicited, on account of his virtues. But, of the two great Romans of that time, Cato was he whose virtue was by far the nearest to the true idea of virtue. Wherefore, let us refer to the opinion of Cato himself, to discover what was the judgment he had formed concerning the condition of the state both then and in former times. I do not think, he says, that it was by arms that our ancestors made the republic great from being small. Had that been the case, the republic of our day would have been by far more flourishing than that of their times, for the number of our allies and citizens is far greater; and, besides, we possess a far greater abundance of armor and of horses than they did. But it was other things than these that made them great, and we have none of them: industry at home, just government without, a mind free in deliberation, addicted neither to crime nor to lust. Instead of these, we have luxury and avarice, poverty in the state, opulence among citizens; we laud riches, we follow laziness; there is no difference made between the good and the bad; all the rewards of virtue are got possession of by intrigue. And no wonder, when every individual consults only for his own good, when you are the slaves of pleasure at home, and, in public affairs, of money and favor, no wonder that an onslaught is made upon the unprotected republic. He who hears these words of Cato or of Sallust probably thinks that such praise bestowed on the ancient Romans was applicable to all of them, or, at least, to very many of them. It is not so; otherwise the things which Cato himself writes, and which I have quoted in the second book of this work, would not be true. In that passage he says, that even from the very beginning of the state wrongs were committed by the more powerful, which led to the separation of the people from the fathers, besides which there were other internal dissensions; and the only time at which there existed a just and moderate administration was after the banishment of the kings, and that no longer than while they had cause to be afraid of Tarquin, and were carrying on the grievous war which had been undertaken on his account against Etruria; but afterwards the fathers oppressed the people as slaves, flogged them as the kings had done, drove them from their land, and, to the exclusion of all others, held the government in their own hands alone. And to these discords, while the fathers were wishing to rule, and the people were unwilling to serve, the second Punic war put an end; for again great fear began to press upon their disquieted minds, holding them back from those distractions by another and greater anxiety, and bringing them back to civil concord. But the great things which were then achieved were accomplished through the administration of a few men, who were good in their own way. And by the wisdom and forethought of these few good men, which first enabled the republic to endure these evils and mitigated them, it waxed greater and greater. And this the same historian affirms, when he says that, reading and hearing of the many illustrious achievements of the Roman people in peace and in war, by land and by sea, he wished to understand what it was by which these great things were specially sustained. For he knew that very often the Romans had with a small company contended with great legions of the enemy; and he knew also that with small resources they had carried on wars with opulent kings. And he says that, after having given the matter much consideration, it seemed evident to him that the pre-eminent virtue of a few citizens had achieved the whole, and that that explained how poverty overcame wealth, and small numbers great multitudes. But, he adds, after that the state had been corrupted by luxury and indolence, again the republic, by its own greatness, was able to bear the vices of its magistrates and generals. Wherefore even the praises of Cato are only applicable to a few; for only a few were possessed of that virtue which leads men to pursue after glory, honor, and power by the true way - that is, by virtue itself. This industry at home, of which Cato speaks, was the consequence of a desire to enrich the public treasury, even though the result should be poverty at home; and therefore, when he speaks of the evil arising out of the corruption of morals, he reverses the expression, and says, Poverty in the state, riches at home. 5.16. But the reward of the saints is far different, who even here endured reproaches for that city of God which is hateful to the lovers of this world. That city is eternal. There none are born, for none die. There is true and full felicity - not a goddess, but a gift of God. Thence we receive the pledge of faith while on our pilgrimage we sigh for its beauty. There rises not the sun on the good and the evil, but the Sun of Righteousness protects the good alone. There no great industry shall be expended to enrich the public treasury by suffering privations at home, for there is the common treasury of truth. And, therefore, it was not only for the sake of recompensing the citizens of Rome that her empire and glory had been so signally extended, but also that the citizens of that eternal city, during their pilgrimage here, might diligently and soberly contemplate these examples, and see what a love they owe to the supernal country on account of life eternal, if the terrestrial country was so much beloved by its citizens on account of human glory. 5.17. For, as far as this life of mortals is concerned, which is spent and ended in a few days, what does it matter under whose government a dying man lives, if they who govern do not force him to impiety and iniquity? Did the Romans at all harm those nations, on whom, when subjugated, they imposed their laws, except in as far as that was accomplished with great slaughter in war? Now, had it been done with consent of the nations, it would have been done with greater success, but there would have been no glory of conquest, for neither did the Romans themselves live exempt from those laws which they imposed on others. Had this been done without Mars and Bellona, so that there should have been no place for victory, no one conquering where no one had fought, would not the condition of the Romans and of the other nations have been one and the same, especially if that had been done at once which afterwards was done most humanely and most acceptably, namely, the admission of all to the rights of Roman citizens who belonged to the Roman empire, and if that had been made the privilege of all which was formerly the privilege of a few, with this one condition, that the humbler class who had no lands of their own should live at the public expense - an alimentary impost, which would have been paid with a much better grace by them into the hands of good administrators of the republic, of which they were members, by their own hearty consent, than it would have been paid with had it to be extorted from them as conquered men? For I do not see what it makes for the safety, good morals, and certainly not for the dignity, of men, that some have conquered and others have been conquered, except that it yields them that most insane pomp of human glory, in which they have received their reward, who burned with excessive desire of it, and carried on most eager wars. For do not their lands pay tribute? Have they any privilege of learning what the others are not privileged to learn? Are there not many senators in the other countries who do not even know Rome by sight? Take away outward show, and what are all men after all but men? But even though the perversity of the age should permit that all the better men should be more highly honored than others, neither thus should human honor be held at a great price, for it is smoke which has no weight. But let us avail ourselves even in these things of the kindness of God. Let us consider how great things they despised, how great things they endured, what lusts they subdued for the sake of human glory, who merited that glory, as it were, in reward for such virtues; and let this be useful to us even in suppressing pride, so that, as that city in which it has been promised us to reign as far surpasses this one as heaven is distant from the earth, as eternal life surpasses temporal joy, solid glory empty praise, or the society of angels the society of mortals, or the glory of Him who made the sun and moon the light of the sun and moon, the citizens of so great a country may not seem to themselves to have done anything very great, if, in order to obtain it, they have done some good works or endured some evils, when those men for this terrestrial country already obtained, did such great things, suffered such great things. And especially are all these things to be considered, because the remission of sins which collects citizens to the celestial country has something in it to which a shadowy resemblance is found in that asylum of Romulus, whither escape from the punishment of all manner of crimes congregated that multitude with which the state was to be founded. 5.18. What great thing, therefore, is it for that eternal and celestial city to despise all the charms of this world, however pleasant, if for the sake of this terrestrial city Brutus could even put to death his son - a sacrifice which the heavenly city compels no one to make? But certainly it is more difficult to put to death one's sons, than to do what is required to be done for the heavenly country, even to distribute to the poor those things which were looked upon as things to be massed and laid up for one's children, or to let them go, if there arise any temptation which compels us to do so, for the sake of faith and righteousness. For it is not earthly riches which make us or our sons happy; for they must either be lost by us in our lifetime, or be possessed when we are dead, by whom we know not, or perhaps by whom we would not. But it is God who makes us happy, who is the true riches of minds. But of Brutus, even the poet who celebrates his praises testifies that it was the occasion of unhappiness to him that he slew his son, for he says, And call his own rebellious seed For menaced liberty to bleed. Unhappy father! howsoe'er The deed be judged by after days. But in the following verse he consoles him in his unhappiness, saying, His country's love shall all o'erbear. There are those two things, namely, liberty and the desire of human praise, which compelled the Romans to admirable deeds. If, therefore, for the liberty of dying men, and for the desire of human praise which is sought after by mortals, sons could be put to death by a father, what great thing is it, if, for the true liberty which has made us free from the dominion of sin, and death, and the devil - not through the desire of human praise, but through the earnest desire of fleeing men, not from King Tarquin, but from demons and the prince of the demons - we should, I do not say put to death our sons, but reckon among our sons Christ's poor ones? If, also, another Roman chief, surnamed Torquatus, slew his son, not because he fought against his country, but because, being challenged by an enemy, he through youthful impetuosity fought, though for his country, yet contrary to orders which he his father had given as general; and this he did, notwithstanding that his son was victorious, lest there should be more evil in the example of authority despised, than good in the glory of slaying an enemy - if, I say, Torquatus acted thus, wherefore should they boast themselves, who, for the laws of a celestial country, despise all earthly good things, which are loved far less than sons? If Furius Camillus, who was condemned by those who envied him, notwithstanding that he had thrown off from the necks of his countrymen the yoke of their most bitter enemies, the Veientes, again delivered his ungrateful country from the Gauls, because he had no other in which he could have better opportunities for living a life of glory - if Camillus did thus, why should he be extolled as having done some great thing, who, having, it may be, suffered in the church at the hands of carnal enemies most grievous and dishonoring injury, has not betaken himself to heretical enemies, or himself raised some heresy against her, but has rather defended her, as far as he was able, from the most pernicious perversity of heretics, since there is not another church, I say not in which one can live a life of glory, but in which eternal life can be obtained? If Mucius, in order that peace might be made with King Porsenna, who was pressing the Romans with a most grievous war, when he did not succeed in slaying Porsenna, but slew another by mistake for him, reached forth his right hand and laid it on a red-hot altar, saying that many such as he saw him to be had conspired for his destruction, so that Porsenna, terrified at his daring, and at the thought of a conspiracy of such as he, without any delay recalled all his warlike purposes, and made peace - if, I say, Mucius did this, who shall speak of his meritorious claims to the kingdom of heaven, if for it he may have given to the flames not one hand, but even his whole body, and that not by his own spontaneous act, but because he was persecuted by another? If Curtius, spurring on his steed, threw himself all armed into a precipitous gulf, obeying the oracles of their gods, which had commanded that the Romans should throw into that gulf the best thing which they possessed, and they could only understand thereby that, since they excelled in men and arms, the gods had commanded that an armed man should be cast headlong into that destruction - if he did this, shall we say that that man has done a great thing for the eternal city who may have died by a like death, not, however, precipitating himself spontaneously into a gulf, but having suffered this death at the hands of some enemy of his faith, more especially when he has received from his Lord, who is also King of his country, a more certain oracle, Fear not them who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul? Matthew 10:28 If the Decii dedicated themselves to death, consecrating themselves in a form of words, as it were, that falling, and pacifying by their blood the wrath of the gods, they might be the means of delivering the Roman army - if they did this, let not the holy martyrs carry themselves proudly, as though they had done some meritorious thing for a share in that country where are eternal life and felicity, if even to the shedding of their blood, loving not only the brethren for whom it was shed, but, according as had been commanded them, even their enemies by whom it was being shed, they have vied with one another in faith of love and love of faith. If Marcus Pulvillus, when engaged in dedicating a temple to Jupiter, Juno, and Minerva, received with such indifference the false intelligence which was brought to him of the death of his son, with the intention of so agitating him that he should go away, and thus the glory of dedicating the temple should fall to his colleague;- if he received that intelligence with such indifference that he even ordered that his son should be cast out unburied, the love of glory having overcome in his heart the grief of bereavement, how shall any one affirm that he had done a great thing for the preaching of the gospel, by which the citizens of the heavenly city are delivered from various errors and gathered together from various wanderings, to whom his Lord has said, when anxious about the burial of his father, Follow me, and let the dead bury their dead? Matthew 8:22 Regulus, in order not to break his oath, even with his most cruel enemies, returned to them from Rome itself, because (as he is said to have replied to the Romans when they wished to retain him) he could not have the dignity of an honorable citizen at Rome after having been a slave to the Africans, and the Carthaginians put him to death with the utmost tortures, because he had spoken against them in the senate. If Regulus acted thus, what tortures are not to be despised for the sake of good faith toward that country to whose beatitude faith itself leads? Or what will a man have rendered to the Lord for all He has bestowed upon him, if, for the faithfulness he owes to Him, he shall have suffered such things as Regulus suffered at the hands of his most ruthless enemies for the good faith which he owed to them? And how shall a Christian dare vaunt himself of his voluntary poverty, which he has chosen in order that during the pilgrimage of this life he may walk the more disencumbered on the way which leads to the country where the true riches are, even God Himself - how, I say, shall he vaunt himself for this, when he hears or reads that Lucius Valerius, who died when he was holding the office of consul, was so poor that his funeral expenses were paid with money collected by the people?- or when he hears that Quintius Cincinnatus, who, possessing only four acres of land, and cultivating them with his own hands, was taken from the plough to be made dictator, - an office more honorable even than that of consul - and that, after having won great glory by conquering the enemy, he preferred notwithstanding to continue in his poverty? Or how shall he boast of having done a great thing, who has not been prevailed upon by the offer of any reward of this world to renounce his connection with that heavenly and eternal country, when he hears that Fabricius could not be prevailed on to forsake the Roman city by the great gifts offered to him by Pyrrhus king of the Epirots, who promised him the fourth part of his kingdom, but preferred to abide there in his poverty as a private individual? For if, when their republic - that is, the interest of the people, the interest of the country, the common interest, - was most prosperous and wealthy, they themselves were so poor in their own houses, that one of them, who had already been twice a consul, was expelled from that senate of poor men by the censor, because he was discovered to possess ten pounds weight of silverplate - since, I say, those very men by whose triumphs the public treasury was enriched were so poor, ought not all Christians, who make common property of their riches with a far nobler purpose, even that (according to what is written in the Acts of the Apostles) they may distribute to each one according to his need, and that no one may say that anything is his own, but that all things may be their common possession, Acts 2:45 - ought they not to understand that they should not vaunt themselves, because they do that to obtain the society of angels, when those men did nearly the same thing to preserve the glory of the Romans? How could these, and whatever like things are found in the Roman history, have become so widely known, and have been proclaimed by so great a fame, had not the Roman empire, extending far and wide, been raised to its greatness by magnificent successes? Wherefore, through that empire, so extensive and of so long continuance, so illustrious and glorious also through the virtues of such great men, the reward which they sought was rendered to their earnest aspirations, and also examples are set before us, containing necessary admonition, in order that we may be stung with shame if we shall see that we have not held fast those virtues for the sake of the most glorious city of God, which are, in whatever way, resembled by those virtues which they held fast for the sake of the glory of a terrestrial city, and that, too, if we shall feel conscious that we have held them fast, we may not be lifted up with pride, because, as the apostle says, The sufferings of the present time are not worthy to be compared to the glory which shall be revealed in us. Romans 8:18 But so far as regards human and temporal glory, the lives of these ancient Romans were reckoned sufficiently worthy. Therefore, also, we see, in the light of that truth which, veiled in the Old Testament, is revealed in the New, namely, that it is not in view of terrestrial and temporal benefits, which divine providence grants promiscuously to good and evil, that God is to be worshipped, but in view of eternal life, everlasting gifts, and of the society of the heavenly city itself - in the light of this truth we see that the Jews were most righteously given as a trophy to the glory of the Romans; for we see that these Romans, who rested on earthly glory, and sought to obtain it by virtues, such as they were, conquered those who, in their great depravity, slew and rejected the giver of true glory, and of the eternal city.
34. Augustine, De Ordine Libri Duo, 2.15.42, 2.16.45 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, on rhetoric Found in books: Pollmann and Vessey (2007), Augustine and the Disciplines: From Cassiciacum to Confessions, 108
35. Augustine, De Gratia Christi Et De Peccato Originali Contra Pelagium Et Coelestinum, 30.32 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, st, use of forensic rhetoric in sermons Found in books: Humfress (2007), Oppian's Halieutica: Charting a Didactic Epic, 193
36. Augustine, On Christian Doctrine, 1.1.1, 2.31.48, 2.32.50, 2.37.55, 2.38.56-2.38.57, 2.39.58-2.39.59, 2.42.63, 4.2.3, 4.60 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Pollmann and Vessey (2007), Augustine and the Disciplines: From Cassiciacum to Confessions, 135
37. Prudentius, On The Crown of Martyrdom, 2.14, 2.413-2.484 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, st, on rhetoric Found in books: Van Nuffelen (2012), Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, 89
38. Augustine, Contra Academicos, 3.18.37 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, on rhetoric Found in books: Pollmann and Vessey (2007), Augustine and the Disciplines: From Cassiciacum to Confessions, 151
39. Claudianus, De Bello Getico, 207 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, st, on rhetoric Found in books: Van Nuffelen (2012), Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, 11
40. Augustine, Letters, 24*, 28*, 29*, 69, 2* (7th cent. CE - 7th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Humfress (2007), Oppian's Halieutica: Charting a Didactic Epic, 144
41. Anon., Regula Magistri, None  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Dilley (2019), Monasteries and the Care of Souls in Late Antique Christianity: Cognition and Discipline, 125
42. Papyri, P.Oxy., 50.3758  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, st, use of forensic rhetoric in sermons Found in books: Humfress (2007), Oppian's Halieutica: Charting a Didactic Epic, 192
43. Censorinus, Institutiones, 10.3  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, on rhetoric Found in books: Pollmann and Vessey (2007), Augustine and the Disciplines: From Cassiciacum to Confessions, 150
44. Augustine, Sol., 1.9.3, 2.11.19-2.11.20, 2.32.8, 2.35.1  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, on rhetoric Found in books: Pollmann and Vessey (2007), Augustine and the Disciplines: From Cassiciacum to Confessions, 108
45. Vergil, Aeneis, 12.438-12.440  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, st, on rhetoric Found in books: Van Nuffelen (2012), Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, 89
12.438. do lawful battle here. So let me forth, 12.439. and tremble not. My own hand shall confirm 12.440. the solemn treaty. For these rites consign
46. Georgius Choeroboscus, In Theod., 33  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, on rhetoric Found in books: Dilley (2019), Monasteries and the Care of Souls in Late Antique Christianity: Cognition and Discipline, 125
47. Horace, Satyra, 1.4  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, st, on rhetoric Found in books: Van Nuffelen (2012), Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, 89
48. Demetrius, De Viris Illustribus Urbis Romae, 76.4  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Van Nuffelen (2012), Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, 11
49. Thucydides, Valerius Maximus, None  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Van Nuffelen (2012), Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, 11
50. Homeric Hymns, Homeric Hymn To Dionysus, 4.17.4, 4.19.38, 4.24.53  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, on rhetoric •omologia, on christian doctrine (augustine), rhetoric Found in books: Dilley (2019), Monasteries and the Care of Souls in Late Antique Christianity: Cognition and Discipline, 125, 127
51. Quintilian, Rhetorica Ad Herrenium, 4.11-4.13, 4.51  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, st, on rhetoric Found in books: Van Nuffelen (2012), Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, 11
52. Eutropius, Breviarium Historiae Romanae, 3.11  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, st, on rhetoric Found in books: Van Nuffelen (2012), Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, 11
53. Paulinus of Nola, Periochae, 77.6  Tagged with subjects: •augustine, st, on rhetoric Found in books: Van Nuffelen (2012), Orosius and the Rhetoric of History, 11