6 books about music (abridged version)

The essay “Six Books about Music” was written by Bl. Aurelius Augustine in 387 in Cassiciac (probably the current city of Cassago Brianza in Italy). The author examines complex issues of metrics, prosody, rhythm, and says that music and poetry elevate the human spirit to God. The treatise contains the famous definition of music: “Musica est scientia bene modulandi” (“Music is the science of good proportion” (or “singing,” “measured reading,” “rhythm,” “melody,” etc.)). In Book 1 (chap. 2-4) Bl. Augustine explains each part of this definition in detail. Books 1-5 contain the fundamental theory of rhythm (mainly poetic), which became the culminating point of the development of ancient metrics. Blzh. Augustine completely reworks the teachings of Latin grammars and connects the traditional rules of metrics with numerical patterns. This makes its rhythmology unique for the ancient era. Book 6 contains the famous doctrine of perception, which has influenced Western aesthetic thought. Blzh. Augustine writes about how from the changeable numbers in lower things the soul ascends through contemplation to the unchangeable numbers that are in the most unchangeable truth. In the late Middle Ages, this book was often copied separately from the 5 books as an independent work. This publication presents an abridged version of the treatise "Six Books of Music", which contains selected chapters from Books 1 and 6. *The title of the work in Latin is De musica libri sex. See also: 6 books about music (full version) Book one, which defines music and explains what belongs to this discipline - the types and proportions of numerical movements. Chapter 1. Observance of certain durations of sounds is a subject related not to grammar, but to music 1. N 1. Modus (measure) – which foot? W. Pyrrhichius. N. How many tenses does it consist of? U. Of the two. N. Bonus (kind) – which foot? U. Same as modus. H. Does this mean that modus is the same as bonus? U. No. N. Why, therefore, is she the same? U. Because it is the same in sound, although different in meaning. N. Do you therefore admit that the sound is the same when we say modus and bonus? U. I see that they differ in the sound of the letters, but everything else is the same. N. Well, when we pronounce the verb pone (put) and the adverb pone (behind), in addition to the fact that the meaning is different, doesn’t it seem to you that there is a difference in the sound? U. The difference is that the emphasis (acumen) is in different places. N. What kind of art is capable of recognizing this? U. I usually hear about this from grammarians and learned it from them; However, I don’t know whether what was said relates to the said art or was drawn from somewhere else. N. We will see this later, but now I ask you this: if I strike a drum or a string twice, as quickly and as quickly as when we pronounce modus or bonus, will you recognize that your times are the same or not? U. I admit it. N. So, will you call the foot a pyrrhic? U. I’ll name it. N. Did you learn the name of this foot from whom if not from the grammarian? U. From him exactly. N. Consequently, the grammarian will judge all such sounds. Or perhaps you yourself learned about these strokes, but only heard the name given to them from a grammarian? W. That's true. N. And you dared to transfer the name that you learned from grammar to a subject that, by your own admission, does not relate to grammar? W. I see that the name "foot" was not given on the basis of anything other than the duration of time; if I am convinced that the same duration exists everywhere, why should I not dare to transfer this word to other objects? But even if other words should be used, even if the duration of the sounds is the same, this does not mean that they are not related to grammars; Why should I care about names if the subject matter is beyond doubt? N. And I don’t want that; nevertheless, since you see that there is an innumerable number of sounds in which definite meters can be observed and which, in our clear recognition, should not be attributed to grammar, do you not recognize that there is some other discipline embracing all that can be counted and artful in such sounds? W. It seems probable to me. N. What do you think is its name? After all, I suppose it is not new for you that a certain omnipotence of singing is usually attributed to the muses and, if I am not mistaken, it is what is called music. W. And I think so. Chapter 2. What is music. What is modulation 2. N. However, let’s not worry about the name; Let us, if possible, diligently explore the essence and concept of this discipline, whatever it may be. U. Let's explore. After all, I really want to know what it is in general. N. Define, therefore, music. U. I don’t dare. N. But, of course, you can approve my definition? U. I’ll try if you give it to me. N. Music is the science of modulating well. Isn't it? U. Maybe so, if it becomes clear to me what modulation is. N. Have you never heard the word “modulate” or, if you have heard it, it has only been applied to singing and dancing? W. Exactly, but since I see that “modulate” comes from modus (measure), for in everything well done, measure must be observed, and much in singing and dancing, although it gives pleasure, can be very bad, I would like to fully find out what modulation is after all - a word that almost alone contains the definition of such a great discipline. After all, what you should learn here is not something that any singer or actor knows. N. Do not be confused by what was said above, that not only in music, but in everything, measure (modus) must be preserved, although modulation is spoken of only in relation to music. Don't you know that speech (dictio) is spoken of in the proper sense only in relation to the speaker? W. I know this, but what is it for? N. That's what. Even if your boy were completely uneducated and simple, wouldn’t you admit that he said something when he answered your question with even one word? U. I admit it. N. Therefore, he is also a speaker? U. No. N. So he did not make a speech when he said something, although we recognize that speech (dictio) comes from the verb “to speak” (dicere)? U. Let's say. But even in this case I ask: what is this for? N. So that you understand: modulation can refer to music alone, although the measure (modus), from which the word “modulation” is derived, can exist in other things: just as speech (dictio) in the proper sense is associated with orators, although everyone who speaks something uses speech, and although the word dictio comes from dicere. U. Now I understand. 3. N. Therefore, what you said next, namely, that there is a lot of bad things in singing and dancing, and therefore, if you attach the word “modulation” to them, then almost divine discipline itself becomes bad - you said this very carefully. So, let’s first examine what “modulate” means, and then what “modulate well” means, for the word “well” was not in vain added to the definition. Finally, one cannot help but pay attention to the fact that the word “science” (scientia) was introduced into the definition, because thanks to these three words, if I am not mistaken, the definition turned out to be exhaustive. U. I agree. N. So, since we recognize that modulation gets its name from modus (measure), don't you think that only in relation to things that are in some kind of motion, one can worry that the measure will be exceeded or not achieved? In other words, if nothing moves, is there any fear that something will happen out of proportion? U. No way. N. Therefore, modulation is correctly called a certain experience (peritia) in movement, or, in any case, experience, thanks to which something moves well. After all, one cannot say that something moves well if it does not observe the measure. U. Of course not. But it will be necessary to understand in turn what this modulation is in everything that happens well. Of course, I see that nothing happens well except when it moves well. N. What if all this happens thanks to music, although the term “modulation” is applied more widely, not without reason, to any kind of instrument? After all, I think you see that one thing is a processed object made of wood, silver or any other substance, and the other is the movement of the master when this object is processed. U. I agree that the difference is big. N. So are we really going to conclude that the master strives for movement for its own sake, and not for the sake of what he wants to process? U. Obviously not. N. Yes. Well, if he began to move his members not for the sake of anything else, but only for the sake of their beautiful and appropriate movement, would we not say that his only business is dancing? U. Apparently so. N. When, do you think, does a thing stand out from others and seem to dominate—either when one strives for it for its own sake, or when one strives for it for the sake of something else? U. Who will deny that when they strive for it for its own sake? N. Now repeat what we said above about modulation: after all, we assumed that it is a kind of experience in movement, and then look where such a name is more appropriate: whether where the movement is, as it were, free, that is, where it is an object of aspiration in itself and pleases itself, or where it serves something; after all, we can say that everything that does not exist for its own sake, but is related to something else, serves. U. Where it is an object of aspiration in itself. N. Therefore, it is plausible that the science of modulation is the science of good movement, one in which it is an object of desire in itself, and therefore in itself pleasing. W. Of course, that's probably true. Chapter 3. What is “well modulated” and why is this concept included in the definition of music 4. N. Why is the word “good” added, if modulation itself cannot exist otherwise than under the condition of good movement? U. I don’t know. And I don’t understand how it escaped me. After all, I was meaning to ask about this all along. N. In general, no dispute could arise about this if we defined music as simply the science of modulation, discarding the word “good.” U. Who will agree with this if you want to explain it this way? N. Music is the science of moving well. But “to move well” applies to everything that moves in accordance with the number, observing the values ​​of times and intervals (after all, this already gives pleasure and is therefore called, not without reason, modulation); however, it may happen that such size and correspondence to the number pleases when it is not necessary; for example, if someone who sings in the most pleasant way or if someone who dances gracefully wants to frolic, whereas, in essence, strictness is required of him, in this case he does not use modulation well, even if it in itself corresponds to the number, i.e. he uses poorly, or incongruously, that movement, which in itself is good, corresponding to the number. That's why one thing is to modulate and the other is to modulate well. After all, we must assume that modulation is relevant to any singer, as long as he does not make mistakes in the duration of words and sounds, while good modulation is related to the indicated free discipline, i.e., music. And if the indicated movement does not seem good to you for the reason that it is absurd, even if you recognize it as skillfully composed in accordance with the number, we will still remain with our opinion, and it should be followed everywhere, namely: a dispute about words should not bother us if the subject itself is clear enough; in the end we should not care whether we define music as a science to modulate or as a science to modulate well. W. I also prefer to avoid and neglect verbal strife, but I like the distinction you made. Chapter 4. Why the concept of science is included in the definition of music 5. N. We just have to figure out why the word “science” is included in the definition. W. I agree, because I remember that this is required in order. N. Answer: does the nightingale’s voice in the spring season seem to you to be well modulated? After all, his singing corresponds to the number, and is very pleasant, and, if I am not mistaken, corresponds to the time. U. Quite. N. Does this mean that the nightingale has experience in the said liberal art? U. No. N. You see, the word “science” is absolutely necessary. U. I see. N. Tell me, therefore, I ask you: don’t all those who sing well by instinct seem to you like this nightingale, that is, they do it in accordance with the number and pleasantly, although they cannot answer the question about the numbers or intervals of high and low voices? W. I consider them completely similar. N. So what? Those who willingly listen to them without this science should not be likened to cattle, since we see that elephants, bears and some other species of animals are moved by singing, and birds rejoice at their voices (after all, without any external benefit for themselves, they would not be so wasteful and would not sing if they did not experience lust)? U. I agree. But then this insult extends to almost the entire human race. N. No, it's not what you think. After all, great men, although they do not know music, either want to merge with the crowd, not far removed from the beasts - and there are a huge number of them - and they do this very modestly and prudently (however, this is not the place to discuss this here), or they taste some very moderate pleasure after great worries, for the sake of relief and refreshment of the soul. Although it is something very modest to taste such pleasure from time to time, being even sometimes in its power is shameful and obscene. 6. But what is your opinion? Can those who play flutes, citharas and similar instruments be compared to nightingales? U. No. N. How do they differ? U. The fact is that there I see some kind of art, but here I see only nature. N. Your opinion is plausible. But you think that in the first case it is necessary to talk about art, even if the performers did this through only some kind of imitation. U. Why not? After all, I see that in the arts, imitation is so important that without it they all almost completely disappear. Indeed: teachers make themselves role models - and this is what is called “teaching”. N. But don’t you think that art is a kind of reason and that those who practice art use reason? Or do you think differently? U. Apparently so. N. So, anyone who cannot use reason does not engage in art? W. And I agree with this. N. Don’t you think that dumb animals, also called irrational, can use reason? U. Not at all. N. So, either you call magpies, parrots and ravens intelligent animals, or you are in vain calling imitation art. After all, we see that these birds can sing and pronounce a lot in a human way, and at the same time they do this only by imitation. Or do you think differently? W. How you deduced all this and how much force you said against my answer, I still don’t quite understand. N. I asked you: in your opinion, do cithara players, flutists and similar people master the art, at least what they do when playing, they achieve by imitation? You answered that yes, and that, in your opinion, then, it would seem that almost all arts are in danger of being supplanted by imitation. From this we can conclude that everyone who achieves something through imitation uses art, although perhaps not everyone who uses art has learned it through imitation. But if all imitation is art, and all art is reason, then all imitation is reason; meanwhile, an irrational animal does not use reason, therefore, it does not have art; and yet it is capable of imitation; therefore, art is not imitation. W. I said that many arts come down to imitation, but without calling imitation itself an art. N. So, those arts that come down to imitation, in your opinion, are not reducible to reason? W. No, I believe that they come down to both. N. I don’t argue, but where do you believe science lies – in reason or in imitation? W. And I also believe it in both. N. So, you will attribute science to those birds that you do not refuse to imitate? U. No. After all, science consists of both, and therefore it cannot consist of imitation alone. N. But in the mind alone, in your opinion, maybe? U. Apparently, yes. N. Therefore, you consider one thing to be art, the other – science, since science can consist in reason alone, while art combines imitation with reason. U. I don't see that it should. After all, I said that not all, but many arts come down to both reason and imitation. N. So will you really call science even that which comes down to both at the same time, or will you attribute to it only the destiny of reason? W. What prevents me from calling the case when imitation is combined with reason science? 7. N. Since we are now talking about the harp player and the flutist, that is, objects related to music, I want you to tell me: is it necessary to attribute to the body, that is, some kind of submission to the body, which these people accomplish by imitation? U. I believe that imitation should be applied to both the soul and the body, despite the expression that you appropriately used, that is, the expression “submission of the body,” for the body can only submit to the soul. N. I see that you very carefully wished to attribute imitation not only to the body. But will you deny that science has nothing to do with the soul alone? U. Who will deny this? So, you will by no means allow the science of the sound of strings and flutes to be attributed both to reason and to imitation. After all, you admitted that there is no imitation without a body, and science, in your words, is connected with only the soul. I must admit, this follows from what I agreed with you on. But so what? After all, a flutist will have science in his soul. After all, even when he imitates - and this, I believe, cannot happen without a body - what he embraces with his soul is not abolished. N. It is not abolished, and I also do not claim that everyone who plays these instruments is devoid of science. But I argue that not everyone has it. After all, this question of ours is aimed at understanding, if possible, how correctly the concept of science is introduced into the definition of music we have given. If it is mastered by all those who play the flute, the lyre, and any other performers of this kind, then there is nothing baser, nothing more contemptible, than this discipline. 8. However, take a very careful look so that it finally becomes clear what we have been struggling with for a long time. You, of course, have already admitted that science resides in only one soul. W. Did I admit it? N. Do you attribute the sensations of the ears to the soul, the body, or both? U. Both of them. N. And remember? W. I think it should be attributed to the soul. After all, on the basis that we sense something that is then entrusted to memory, we should not assume that memory is in the body. N. This is, perhaps, a big, special question, and this is not the place to dwell on it here. It is enough if I say that you cannot deny the existence of memory in animals. After all, after a year, swallows again visit their nests, and it was quite rightly said about goats: They come home themselves, remembering everything, and bring the younger ones. (Virgil, Georgics, III, 316); And the story is told about the dog (“Odyssey”, XVII, 291–319). that he recognized his master, who had already been forgotten by his people. You can give, if you like, countless examples that confirm what I have said. W. And I don’t deny this, and I’m looking forward to what speaks in your favor. N. What do you say about the one who ascribes science to the soul alone and denies it to all irrational animals, not positing it either in sensation or memory (for sensation does not exist without a body, and at the same time animals also have sensation and memory)? Does he posit it in the intellect alone? U. And in this regard, I’m waiting to see what speaks in your favor. H. And this is this: everyone who follows sensation and entrusts to memory what pleases in it, setting their body in motion accordingly, brings a certain ability of imitation; and all these people do not have science, although they clearly do a lot on the basis of their experience and training, when they express the object itself in words or actions, without, however, cognizing it through the intellect. And if reason shows that these are precisely these theatrical masters, I think you will have no doubts why you should deny them science, and therefore not attribute to them the possession of music, which is the science of modulation. W. Explain this to me, let's see what its essence is. 9. N. I think you associate greater or lesser mobility of the fingers not with science, but with habit? U. Why is that? N. Because earlier you attributed science to the soul alone, and what was said is connected with the body, although the soul commands. U. But since the knowing soul commands this to the body, I believe that it is rather necessary to connect this with the knowing soul than with the bodily members that obey it. N. Don’t you agree: it can happen that one person is superior to another in science and yet this second one, less experienced in it, moves his fingers much more easily and quickly? U. I agree. N. If faster and more agile movement is to be associated with science, then a person will be the more knowledgeable the more he succeeds in such movement. U. Yes. N. Now think about the following. You have probably sometimes noticed that carpenters and similar craftsmen repeatedly hit with a saw or an ax in the very place where the soul intends to direct the blow, but we, trying to achieve the same thing, are not able to do this, for which they often ridicule us. U. Yes, it is as you say. N. But even though we are not able to do this, don’t we know exactly where we should have struck or how much we should have taken? U. We often don’t know, but often we do know. N. Suppose, therefore, that someone knows everything that carpenters should do, and knows it perfectly, but in fact is less capable of it; despite this, he is able to advise much more resourcefully to those who work with the greatest ease, although they themselves are not able to judge. Doesn't that happen? U. It happens. N. Consequently, not only the speed and ease of movement, but also the very measure of movement in the limbs should be attributed more to habit than to science. For otherwise the one who uses his hands better would also be more experienced in science; If we apply this to flutes and citharas, then what is done with the fingers and members, since it is difficult for us, we would recognize as being accomplished rather thanks to science than thanks to habit and diligent imitation and reflection. U. I have nothing to object to; after all, I am used to hearing that doctors, the most learned men, when cutting or any kind of bandaging of members, done with hand and iron, are often inferior to people less experienced in science; this type of treatment is called surgery, and the word itself quite clearly indicates the existence in the hands of a certain working skill of healing. Move on to the next, having exhausted Chapter 5. The Feeling of Music; Is it present by nature? 10. N. It remains, it seems to me, to find, if only this is possible for us, arts that give pleasure thanks to the hands and which do not follow entirely science, but sensation and memory, mastering proper practice. However, perhaps you will tell me that it is possible for science to exist without practice and that then it is often greater than that of those people who are distinguished by practical skills, but that these people could not achieve such skill without any science. U. Let's get down to business. It's obvious what's needed. N. Have you ever listened to this kind of actors with special attention? W. Perhaps even more than I wanted. N. Why, do you think, does an uneducated crowd often boo a flutist performing trivial things, and, on the contrary, applaud someone who sings well, and the more pleasantly he sings, the more and more deeply they are moved? Should we assume that this happens among the common people thanks to the art of music? U. No. N. Thanks to what? W. I think this happens thanks to nature, which has given everyone the sense of hearing, through which they judge this. N. You're right. But now see if the flutist himself is endowed with this feeling. If so, then his judgment is capable of moving his fingers when he takes up the flute; and what has sounded successfully enough, as he wanted, he can notice and imprint in memory, training his fingers through repetition to fall into the proper places without hesitation and without error - it makes no difference whether he receives from another what he performs, or invents it himself, guided and approved by the nature in question. So, since memory follows sensation, and the limbs follow memory, being trained and prepared by practice, he performs when he wants, the better and the more pleasant, the more he reveals in everything that, as is known from the previous discussion, we have in common with animals, namely: the desire to imitate, sensation and memory. Do you have anything to argue against this? U. No, nothing. And I am impatient to find out what this discipline is, the knowledge of which is obviously very thinly protected from the coarsest souls. Chapter 6. Theater singers do not know music 11. N. Not much has been said, and I do not consider it possible to move on to an explanation of this discipline until we find out that actors are capable of bringing pleasure to the ears of the common people without this science, and that actors are by no means able to study and know music. W. It's amazing if you do. N. No, it’s easy, but you need to be more careful. W. As far as I am aware, my attention since this conversation began has never been as intense as it is now, but I must admit that you have alerted me much more. N. Thank you, although you help yourself more. So, please answer: does it seem to you that he knows what a gold solidus is, such a person who, wanting to sell it for a fair price, will value it at ten small coins? U. Who will say this? H. Now answer, what should be valued more: what our understanding comprehends, or what is given to us by the random judgment of inexperienced people? W. There is no doubt that the first is incomparably higher than everything else, which cannot even be recognized as something that belongs to us. N. So, therefore, you will not deny that all science is contained in understanding. U. Who can deny this? N. Consequently, music is in the same place. U. I see that this follows from its definition. H. Now tell me: don’t the applause of the crowd and all these theatrical awards seem to you like something that is in the power of fortune and depends on the judgment of inexperienced people? W. I believe that there is nothing more changeable and more dependent on chance, on the power of the crowd and its approval. N. So, would the actors, if they knew music, sell their performance for such a price? W. This conclusion worries me a lot, although I can object to something. After all, the solid seller we were talking about cannot be compared with an actor. In fact: an actor, having received applause or some kind of monetary reward, does not lose the science through which he gave pleasure to the people, if only he has it; on the contrary, enriched with money and joyful from the praise of people, he returns home with science, the same as before, remaining safe and sound. Therefore, he would be stupid if he neglected these benefits; having rejected them, he would have become much more despicable and poorer, but having accepted them, he does not become any less learned for this. 12. N. Look, we have achieved at least in this respect what we wanted. After all, I am sure that you consider it much more significant for why we do something, and not for what we do. W. Undoubtedly. N. Therefore, the one who performs or learns to perform only in order to receive praise from the people or in general from any person, does not he value such praise higher than performance? W. I can’t deny it. N. Well, and the one who judges something badly, do you think he knows it? W. Not at all, unless it’s some kind of libertine. N. Therefore, he who considers the worst to be the best undoubtedly has no knowledge of it. U. Yes, N. So, if you convince me or show me that any actor does not show his abilities if he has them only to please the people, for the sake of profit and fame, then I will agree that every actor can master the science of music while remaining an actor. But if, as is very likely, there is no actor who does not believe and does not set money or fame as the goal of his profession, it will be necessary to admit either that actors do not know music, or that one needs to seek fame or any other random benefits from others more than one needs to seek understanding in oneself. W. I see that since I agreed with what was said earlier, I now have to agree with this. For it seems to me that it is impossible to find a person on the stage who would love his art for its own sake, and not for the sake of external benefits; after all, you’ll hardly find something like this in a gymnasium. However, even if such a person exists or could be found, musicians should not be despised on this basis, but actors should be respected as an exception. That is why now, please, explain to me the essence of such a significant discipline, which can no longer be despised in my eyes. Chapter 13. About the beauty of proportioned movements to the extent that it is judged by sensations 27. N. It’s time to return now to the consideration and discussion of those movements that, in fact, belong to our discipline and for the sake of which we considered what seemed necessary to us from the field of numbers, that is, from another discipline. So, now I ask you why, to clarify, we took those movements within an hour, which, as reason showed, stand to each other in some kind of numerical ratio. If someone runs for an hour, and another for two, can you, without looking at the clock or at Clepsydra or in any other way marking the time, feel that one of these movements is simple, and the other is twice as large? And even if you couldn’t say it, such correspondence still pleases you and gives you some pleasure. U. I just can’t feel that one is twice the size of the other. N. And if someone rhythmically claps his hands, then one sound takes one simple time, and another sound takes twice as long (such feet are called iambs), and if this person continues to combine similar sounds in the same way, while someone else dances with the same sounds, that is, moves his limbs in accordance with these times, wouldn’t you say: the measure of these times, that is, the alternation of simple and double intervals at movements, is contained either in the clapping of hands itself, which we hear, or in the dancing, which we see? And don’t you enjoy the perceived numerical correspondence, even though you are not able to recognize the numbers of this proportionality? W. It is as you say: after all, even those who know such numbers feel them in the clapping of their hands and in dancing, recognizing them without difficulty, and those who do not know these numbers and cannot name them, still do not deny that they receive some kind of pleasure from them. 28. N. Since, therefore, it cannot be denied that to the very essence of our discipline, i.e. science is good to modulate, all well-modulated movements belong, especially those that do not correlate with anything else, but in themselves conceal the goal of beauty and pleasure, while the mentioned movements - you answered my question correctly and correctly - cannot come into harmony with our sensations if they occur over a long time, maintaining graceful proportionality between periods of time equal to an hour or more - since this is so, would it not be correct to say that music, as if emerging from the innermost hiding places, imprinted its traces in our sensations or in the things we sense, and therefore wouldn’t it be right to first study these traces, so that then it would be more convenient, without any error, to reach what I called hiding places, if only this is possible for us? W. That's right, and I insist that we do it. N. Let us leave these milestones placed outside our sensory ability and let us talk only about those short intervals that amuse us in singing and dancing, as far as our minds allow us. Or do you think that it is possible to explore differently the traces that this discipline, as has been said, left in our sensations and in the things accessible to our sensation? U. I believe that this cannot be done otherwise. Book six, in which from the changeable numbers in lower things the soul ascends through contemplation to the unchangeable numbers that are in the most unchangeable truth. Chapter 2. About the numbers of sounds, how many types there are, and whether one type can exist without the other. The first type of numbers is in the sound itself, the second is in the feeling of the hearer 2. N. So, my friend and interlocutor, if you wish, answer me now, so that we can move from the corporeal to the incorporeal: when we pronounce the verse “Deus creator omnium” l - those four iambs of which it consists, and its twelve feet - where, in your opinion, are these numbers located - whether only in the audible sound, or in the auditory sensation of the hearer, or also in the act of the utterer, or, finally, since this is a well-known verse, is it also in our memory? U. In all of them, I think. N. And nowhere else? W. I don’t see what else would remain, except some kind of internal and higher power from which they stem. N. I am not asking about what is the subject of fortune-telling judgments. Therefore, if these four species appear to you in such a way that you do not see any other species that is equally obvious, let us distinguish them from each other and see whether each of them separately can exist without the others. After all, I think, you will not deny that in some place there can be a sound that vibrates the air with similar delays and durations - whether due to the fall of a drop or some other impact of bodies - where there is no one to hear it. If this is so, since the sound itself has these numbers, is there any other of the four kinds of numbers there than the first? W. I don’t see that there was any other one there. 3. N. And what is the second type of numbers that is felt by the hearer? Can it exist if nothing sounds? I am not asking whether the ears have the ability to perceive when something sounds - they are not deprived of it even when there is no sound; after all, even in the absence of sound they differ from the deaf. I ask: do the ears sense numbers when nothing sounds? After all, one thing is to have 1 The opening words of the spiritual hymn of Ambrose of Milan .. numbers, another is to be able to feel the sound expressed by the number. Indeed: if you touch a sensitive place of the body with your finger, then with each touch, thanks to the sense of touch, a number will be felt, and as soon as it is felt, the one who feels it is not deprived of it; However, if there is no touch, whether the sensory person has not the ability to sense, but number, the question is raised about this. U. It is not easy for me to admit that the sensing faculty is devoid of such numbers located in it, even when something has not yet sounded. After all, otherwise she would not have rejoiced at their agreement and would not have been unpleasantly surprised by their incoherence. In other words, the very thing by which we, based not on reason, but on nature, approve or dislike when something sounds, I call the number of that sentient faculty. After all, this ability of approval and disapproval does not arise in my ears when I hear a sound, since the ears are equally affected by both good and bad sounds. N. Try to distinguish both these things well. If the same verse is pronounced sometimes faster, sometimes longer, it necessarily takes more than the same period of time, although the ratio of the feet remains the same. If he, as such, delights our ears, then this is done by the named faculty, thanks to which we accept the consonant and reject the absurd. The difference between a verse spoken slowly over a shorter period of time only exists while the sound is affecting the ears. Consequently, when sound affects the ears, their state cannot in any way be the same as what happens when sound does not affect the ears. After all, “hearing” and “not hearing” differ in the same way as “hearing this voice and hearing another” differs. So, this state does not extend beyond the limits of a given sound and does not contract within these limits, for it is a measure of the very sound that causes it. The measure, therefore, is different in iambic, and different in tribrachy; more drawn-out - in a more drawn-out iambic, shorter - in a shorter one, and none at all - with silence. And since this state is generated by a numerically proportionate voice, it itself must be numerically proportionate. And it cannot exist without the presence of the sound that produces it, since it is like a trace imprinted in water - such a trace is not formed before you apply a given body, and it is not preserved if you take away this body. On the contrary, that natural - so to speak, judging - ability present in the ears does not cease to exist in silence, and it is not sound that instills it in us, but rather it is perceived by it, approved or disapproved. That is why, if I am not mistaken, it is necessary to distinguish between these two things, recognizing that the numbers located in the indicated faculty of the ears come in during any hearing due to sound and leave due to silence. Hence the conclusion is that the numbers that are in the sound itself can exist without those that are in the hearing faculty, while these latter cannot exist without the former. Chapter 3. The third type of numbers is in the act of the utterer. The fourth type of numbers is in memory 4. U. I agree. N. Now pay attention to the third type of numbers, which is in the aspiration and activity of the utterer, and see whether such numbers can exist without those that exist in memory. After all, silently, to ourselves, we can generate certain numbers in our thoughts during the same period of time in which they are generated by voice. These numbers are evidently involved in some action of the soul; Since this third type of numbers does not produce any sound externally and does not affect the ears, it is clear that this type of numbers can exist without the first two, one of which is in the sound, and the other in the hearer when he hears it. But whether this type of numbers exists without the assistance of memory, we pose the question about this. However, if the numbers that we find in the beats of the pulse are generated by the soul, the question has already been resolved; after all, it is clear that they exist in action, and memory has nothing to do with it. If in this case there is doubt whether the indicated numbers are really the creation of the active soul, then, of course, there is no longer any doubt about those that we generate with sighs - they are numbers for intervals of time, and the soul produces them in such a way that they are capable of varying in a variety of ways depending on our will, and at the same time, for their implementation, they do not require the assistance of memory. U. It seems to me that this type of numbers can exist without these other three. Although I have no doubt that, depending on the constitution, various pulse beats and also breathing intervals can be obtained, nevertheless, who will dare to deny that they occur as a result of the action of the soul? Even though, depending on the difference in bodies, the movement was faster for some and slower for others, it is nothing without the presence of an active soul. N. Consider, therefore, the fourth type, that is, those numbers that are in memory: after all, if we bring them to light through memory, and having indulged in other thoughts, we again leave them, as it were, in their innermost hiding places, it seems to me that it is no secret that they can exist without others. U. I have no doubt that they exist without others; however, if they were not heard, they could not be transmitted to memory, and therefore, although they are preserved when they disappear, they are imprinted in memory due to the fact that they precede them. Chapter 4. The fifth type of numbers is in the natural judgment of the sensory ability. Which of the five listed types of numbers ranks higher 5. N. I have no objection to you and would be ready to ask you which of these four types you consider the most excellent, if I had not noticed that during our conversation, I don’t know where we got another fifth type of numbers, which consists in the natural judgment of the sensory ability - when we are pleased by the equality of numbers and offended by its violation. For I approve of what seemed to you to be correct: without some numbers hidden in it, our sensory faculty would in no way be able to act. Or do you think that such great power belongs to one of these four types? U. I believe that this fifth type must be distinguished from all others. Thus, one is sound, which is attributed to the body, the other is hearing (what the soul experiences in the body under the influence of sounds), the third is the generation of numbers, longer or shorter, the fourth is the memory of them, the fifth is a judgment according to some kind of natural law about all of them. 6. N. Now tell me: which of the five species takes first place? U. I think it’s the fifth one. N. You think correctly: after all, this species could not judge others if it did not occupy first place. But then I ask further, which of the other four do you approve of most? U. Of course, the one that lies in memory, for I see that numbers there are more durable than those that sound, are heard, are created in action. N. You place, therefore, the created numbers above the creating ones, for recently you said that the numbers in memory are imprinted in it by other numbers. W. I would not like to rank them higher on this very basis. But at the same time, I don’t see how one can not rank the more durable over the less durable. N. Don’t let this bother you. After all, what is not destroyed for a longer time should not be preferred to what is destroyed in a shorter time, as is done in relation to the eternal and temporary. Indeed: health lasting one day is, of course, better than illness lasting many days. And if we compare what is desirable, then one day of reading is better than many days of writing, when the same thing is read in a day, but written over many days. Likewise, the numbers that are in memory, although they remain longer than those through which they are imprinted, should not be placed higher than those that we ourselves generate - not in the body, but in the soul. Both pass: some by stopping, others by being forgotten. Those that we ourselves create, even when we have not yet ceased our activity, are abolished by the sequence of those that follow them: the first, disappearing, give way to the second, the second to the third, and so on, the preceding to the subsequent, until, finally, the cessation of the activity itself destroys the latter. When forgotten, many numbers are erased from memory immediately, albeit gradually; for they do not remain unharmed for long. For example, to say that what does not remain in memory after a year is already diminished after a year, although such diminishment is not felt. And it is not without reason that they conclude from this: since no earlier than a year later the whole disappears, this serves as an indication that the disappearance begins from the very moment when this whole is imprinted in memory. Hence the often repeated expression “tenuite memini” (“vaguely remember”), when we repeat something after a certain time, remembering it before the whole has completely slipped out of our memory. That is why both types of numbers are mortal. Nevertheless, the creative numbers are rightfully placed above the created ones. U. I agree and approve. 7. N. It now remains to consider the other three types of numbers and find out which one is the best, which should be preferred to the others. U. It’s not easy. After all, if we adhere to the rule that creating numbers should be placed before those being created, I am forced to give the palm to the sounding numbers, for we feel them by hearing them, and by feeling them, we experience their influence. Therefore, they create those numbers that are in the faculty of hearing when we hear them, and, in turn, the numbers that we have in sensation create others that are in memory; in comparison with these created by them, they are rightly given preference. But here, since both sensation and memory belong to the soul, it does not bother me that one, which is in the soul, can be preferred to the other, which is in the soul. Another thing that confuses me is how can sound numbers, which are obviously corporeal or somehow exist in the body, be valued higher than those that are in the soul when we sense. And further it is difficult for me why they should not be valued higher, since they create, and are not created by them. N. Be amazed more at the one whose body is able to produce something in the soul. Perhaps it would not have been able to produce this if, under the influence of original sin, the body, which the soul animated and directed without any labor and with the greatest ease, had not changed for the worse, falling into decay and death, although it has the beauty of its kind and thereby significantly elevates the dignity of the soul, where both sorrow and illness deserve the honor of some kind of beauty. Therefore, it is not surprising if the soul, acting in a mortal body, experiences influences from bodies. And one should not think that because it is better than the body, everything that happens in it is better than what happens in the body. After all, I think, in your opinion, truth should be preferred to lies? U. Who doubts this? N. And is it really necessary to prefer the tree visible in a dream? U. Not at all. H. Meanwhile, its form is in the soul, while the form of the tree that we see here originated in the body. That is why, even though the truth was better than a lie, and the soul was better than the body, nevertheless, the truth in the body was better than a lie in the soul. But it is better because it is truth, and not because it is in the body. So, perhaps, the body is worse because it is a lie, and not because it is in the soul. Do you have anything to say against this? U. Nothing. N. Listen to something else that is even closer to the point. You will not deny that what is proper is better than what is not. W. I am convinced of this. N. But clothing that is appropriate for a woman may not be appropriate for a man. Who will hesitate about this? W. This is also obvious. H. What if this form of numbers is proper in the sounds that reach the ears, and is improper in the soul when it senses them and is affected by them? Wouldn't that be quite surprising? U. I don’t think so. N. Why us? Do we hesitate to prefer sounding and bodily numbers to those that are obtained from them, although they arise in the soul, which is better than the body? After all, we prefer some numbers over others, the creator over the created, and not the body over the soul. After all, bodies are better the more they are permeated with these numbers. The soul, being deprived of the numbers that it receives from the body, becomes better, since it turns away from bodily sensations and is transformed by the divine numbers of wisdom. So the Holy Scripture says: “I turned my heart to know, to search, and to seek wisdom and number” (Ecclesiastes 7:26). These words cannot at all be attributed to the numbers with which the disgrace of theaters is announced; they, as I am sure, must be attributed to those numbers that the soul does not receive from the body, but rather imprints on the body itself, having received from the Most High God. Chapter 6. The order of types of numbers and their names 16. N. Return with me to the subject of our study and answer me about the three types of numbers, of which one is in memory, the other in the sense, and the third in sound. Which one do you think is superior? U. I place sound lower than the other two, which are located and seem to live in the soul. But regarding these last two types, which of them (above, I am not sure. Unless we admit that the numbers that are contained in the activity [of the soul] must be preferred to those that, as we said, are in the memory, for some are creators, and others are created by them; on the same basis, the numbers that are in the soul while we hear the sound should be placed higher than those that are obtained from them in memory, as has long seemed to me. N. I consider your answer reasonable, but since it was we are talking about the fact that those numbers that are in the sentient are the actions of the soul, I ask you, how do you distinguish them from those numbers that we notice in the activity [of the soul], even when in silence, without being aware of what happened before, the soul generates something consistent with numbers at certain intervals of time? Isn’t it true that the first are the numbers of the soul moving with the movement of its body, and the second are the numbers of the soul moving despite the suffering states of its body? U: I accept this distinction. N. How? Do you think it is possible to remain of the opinion that those numbers that are associated with the body are considered more excellent than those that move contrary to the passive states of the body? U. Those that exist in silence seem to me more noble than those that arise not only in connection with the body, but also in connection with the suffering states of the body. N. I see that we have distinguished five types of numbers and ordered them according to their degrees of dignity. Now, if you like, let’s give each one a suitable name, so that in the future we won’t have to use more words than the number of things. U. Let's give it. N. Let the first numbers be called judgmental (judiciales), the second - moving forward (progressores), the third - responsive (occursores), the fourth - contents in memory (recordabiles), the fifth - sounding (sonantes). Chapter 7. Are judging numbers immortal? 17. N. Now be careful and tell me which of these numbers seem immortal to you. Or do you think that they all disappear and die in their own time? U. I recognize only those who judge as immortal; the rest, as I see, either pass away as they arise, or are destroyed by oblivion in memory. N. Are you sure of the immortality of the first, as well as of the frailty of the others? Or maybe we should try harder to find out if they really are immortal? U. Of course, we need to find out. N. So, tell me: when I pronounce a verse a little faster or longer, observing, however, the law of correspondence between simple and double feet, do I not offend the judgment of your sensation by some kind of irregularity? W. Not at all. N. Does this mean that the sound produced by faster and fluent syllables can take longer than it sounds? U. How is this possible! N. Therefore, if 1 In what follows, the term progressores is left without translation, and the term occursores is rendered “ah “perceptible numbers.” these judging numbers were held by the bridle of time within the same limits within which the sounding numbers were contained; could they lay claim to a judgment about those sounding numbers, which, despite their greater duration, are nevertheless based on the same iambic law? U. Not at all. N. Therefore, those numbers that play a primary role in judgment are not subject to the duration of time? W. It is quite clear that no. 18. N. You're right. But if they do not obey, then, no matter how long the iambic sounds may be at the proper intervals, these numbers would still be applicable to them when judging them; meanwhile, if I uttered a syllable that lasted (I won’t take a larger value!) the same amount of time as it takes to take three steps, and then another syllable that lasted twice as long, and so on I built equally extended iambs, the law of simple and double foot would still be observed, but the natural judgment that was discussed would no longer be able to apply when estimating such quantities. Isn't it? W. I can’t deny that it is so; because my point of view is clear. N. Are these judging numbers, therefore, covered by some kind of time boundaries beyond which they cannot go, and they are not capable of judging everything that goes beyond these boundaries? And if they are covered, then I don’t see how they can be immortal. U. And I don’t see what to answer. But although I am no longer so sure of their immortality, I still do not understand how their mortality is deduced from this. For it may happen that they are always able to judge any periods of time about which they can judge, since, unlike other numbers, I cannot say that they are erased by oblivion, or exist as long as sound exists, or extend as far as those numbers that are called occursores extend, or while they act, or as far as those numbers that we called progressores extend; after all, both of them disappear along with the time of their action, and these judging numbers, although I do not know whether they remain in the soul, however, probably reside in the very nature of man, ready to judge what is proposed, even if they change, starting from a certain brevity to a certain length, approving what is in accordance with the number and condemning what is inconsistent. 19. N. You, of course, admit that some people are more quickly offended by unstable numbers, others more slowly, and the majority can judge the bad only by comparing them with the perfect, hearing both those who agree and those who disagree. U. Yes. N. Where do you think this difference comes from, if not from nature or exercise or both? W. You're right. N. I ask, therefore, can it happen that one person is able to judge large periods of time, approving of them, and another is not? W. I think this can happen. N. Well, if someone who is not capable begins to practice and succeeds, then will he be able to? U. Will be able to. H. Can such people go so far as to evaluate even longer periods of time, hours, days, or even months or years, related to each other as 1:2, unless, of course, sleep interferes with them, that is, they comprehend them with the indicated judging ability and count them like iambs, beating time? U. No, they can’t. N. Why can't they, if not because every animate being in its own kind, in accordance with the universal proportion, is endowed with its own sense of place and time, so that if its body in comparison with the universe has such and such a size and forms such a part of it, then its durability in comparison with the world age is the same and forms the same part of it? Likewise the sentient faculty corresponds to its action, and the motion of the universe of which it is a part acts in corresponding proportion. So the world, containing everything, is great - in the divine scriptures it is often called heaven and earth; if all its parts decrease proportionally from such and such a value, or if they increase proportionally, it will nevertheless remain the same size, for not a single segment of space and time is large in itself, but is large in comparison with something smaller; and, conversely, nothing is small in itself, but in comparison with something greater. That is why, if human nature for actions in carnal life is endowed with such a sensing ability, which is not able to judge periods of time greater than that required for practical life, then since such a human nature is mortal, I believe that the sensing ability is mortal. It is not for nothing that habit is called a kind of second or artificially created nature. And when we judge things of this kind, we see as if some new sensory abilities acquired through habit and disappearing when another habit appears. Chapter 8. Other numbers are examined from the point of view of the numbers of judges 20. But whatever properties these judging numbers may have, they are, of course, the reason why we doubt or have difficulty finding out whether they are mortal. About the other four species there is not even a question that they are mortal; even if the judging numbers do not cover some numbers that go beyond their jurisdiction, yet the very types of these numbers are subject to their investigation. After all, the numbers called progressores, when they strive for some numerically expressible action in the body, are modified under the hidden influence of the numbers of the judges. Indeed: that which restrains us when walking from unequal steps, or when hammering from unequal intervals between blows, or when eating and drinking from uneven movements of the jaws, or, finally, when sculpting from unequal movements of the nails - not to list numerous other actions - is what restrains us, forcing us, when intending to accomplish something through bodily members, to avoid unequal movements and silently instilling in us a kind of equality - this is something judgmental, inspiring the thought of the creator of a living being, God, who should be considered the cause of all correspondence and agreement. 21. And the numbers, called occurrenceores, which, of course, do not act by themselves, but depending on the passive states of the body, they appear before the court of the judging numbers and are judged by them to the extent that the memory is capable of preserving their intervals. After all, the number that is contained in time intervals cannot be judged by us in any way unless memory helps us in this. Indeed: in any short syllable, since it both begins and ends, its beginning sounds at one time, and its end at another. Consequently, the syllable itself stretches over some small period of time and from its beginning through its middle goes to the end. Thus the mind discovers that both spatial and temporal intervals are capable of infinite division, and therefore in not a single syllable is the end heard along with its beginning. When hearing, therefore, even the shortest syllable, if memory did not come to our aid and if at that moment when not the beginning, but the end of the syllable sounds, this movement that arose when the very beginning sounded did not remain in the soul, we would not be able to say that we heard it. That is why, when very often we are busy with other thoughts, it seems to us that we did not hear those talking in our presence - not because the soul did not then generate numbers called occurrenceores, but because, as a result of attention to another, the impulse of movement immediately fades away. When, over a longer period of time, a sound strikes that is not subdivided by any divisions, and another is combined with it, twice as large or of the same duration, then attention to the continuously following sound suppresses the movement of the soul that was obtained from attention to the past and disappearing sound when it stopped, that is, it does not remain in memory. That is why these judging numbers (with the exception of the numbers called progressores) cannot judge numbers contained in certain periods of time except if memory brings them up like a maidservant. But is it really necessary to believe that the judging numbers themselves extend over a certain period of time? However, there is a difference in what periods of time we forget or keep in memory what these numbers judge. After all, even in the physical forms themselves, visible to the eye, we cannot judge the round and the quadrangular, or any other definite volume, and generally cannot feel them without rotating them before our eyes; but if what is seen on one side is forgotten when they look at the other, then the intention of the buzzer does not achieve the goal at all, for here too there is a certain duration of time, the change of which the memory must vigilantly monitor. 22. As for the numbers stored in memory, it is much more obvious that we judge them through the numbers of the judges, when memory itself brings them to judgment. After all, if numbers, called occurrenceores, are judged when they are proposed by memory, much more do those numbers turn out to be living in memory itself, to which, as if at rest, we return by memory after considering other objects. After all, what else do we do when we remember, if not in some way look for what we have put aside? Regarding something similar, a movement of the soul returns to consciousness, which has not completely died out, and this is what is called recollection. Thus we generate numbers either in thought alone, or in those movements of the members that we once generated. And we know that they did not come for the first time, but returned to thoughts, because when they are entrusted to memory, they are found with difficulty, and we need some kind of pre-instruction that we could follow: when this difficulty is overcome, the numbers themselves are properly revealed to the will, in accordance with their times and order - and with such ease that even when we think about something else, those more strongly imprinted are realized, as if of their own initiative, and we don't feel them as new. There is also something else why, it seems to me, we feel that the current movement of the soul has already happened once, that is, a memory is taking place: when we remember the recent movements of the action that we have now, they are, of course, more vivid if we compare them with more distant ones, recalled in the inner light, and such recognition is recognition and recollection. Consequently, these numbers, stored in memory, are judged by the same judging numbers, but never alone, but with the participation of the active ones, or those that are called occursores, or both, bringing them to light as if from their hiding places and remembering them again, as if restoring what had already been destroyed. Thus, if numbers called occursores are the subject of judgment to the extent that memory has brought them closer to judging numbers, then numbers stored in memory can be the subject of judgment through numbers called occurrenceores and revealing them, with the difference that for sensible numbers (occursores) it is necessary for memory to represent, as it were, fresh traces of these elusive numbers, and numbers stored in memory, when we judge them, hearing them, they restore, as if in their freshness, the same traces when numbers disappear, called occurrenceores. Why talk further about sounding numbers, since they are judged by means of felt numbers (occursores)? Who hears them? And if they sound where they are not heard, who will doubt that we cannot judge them? Of course, with the assistance of the same memory, on the basis of judging numbers, we judge both the sounds that reach us through the ears and the visible movements in dances. The letters N and U stand for mentor (magister) and student (discipulus). In many manuscripts the interlocutors appear under their own names - Augustine and Licentius.