Some observations on the exegesis of Augustine’s “Song of Ascension”: on the question of the peculiarities of Augustine’s interpretative method

As is known, Aurelius Augustine was the author of the first systematic textbook of Christian hermeneutics in the Latin West - the treatise “On Christian Doctrine” 1. The method of interpretation of Holy Scripture, which he described mainly in the second and third books of this work, is, on the one hand, a complex synthesis of ancient and early Christian hermeneutical ideas, and on the other, a reflection of the preaching practice of Augustine himself. Even using the example of only the interpretations of 406–407, which we had to deal with most specifically, 2 especially the interpretations on the “Song of Ascension,” it could be shown that Augustine’s theory as a whole corresponds to his practice. Almost all the interpretation procedures described in the second and third books of the treatise “On Christian Doctrine” are applied in the interpretation of one or another “Song of Ascension”, the First Epistle or the Gospel of John. At the same time, the strong and weak (from the point of view of the modern historical-critical method) sides of this method appear. Thus, Augustine takes into account the discrepancies that have arisen in different translations into Latin. An example of this is that he gives both versions of the translation of the Greek ἐρημικοῖς in Ps. 119:4, namely: uastatoribus and desolatoriis; and although these options do not make a difference in meaning (as the preacher himself shows - En. ps. 119.5, CSEL 95/3, p. 46), he still considers it necessary to bring them. It is interesting to note that both Latin equivalents correspond to the same Greek word, which itself does not correspond to the word now read in the Hebrew (Masoretic) text, which refers to gorse coals. It happens that the interpreter not only takes into account discrepancies, but also uses them to construct an interpretation. This can be seen in the case of the variants 1 John 3:4 peccatum/peccata and λύει–soluit / μὴ ὁμολογεῖ–non confitetur, which we examined in another study 3 . Concern for clarifying “unknown signs” is manifested in etymological references about the meaning of Hebrew proper names - references, as we know, gleaned second-hand (from Jerome or in onomasticons unknown to us). In addition to the frequent etymologization of the names of Jerusalem and Zion, the interpretations of the “Song of Ascension” also give the etymologies of the words “Kedar” (Ps. 119 – En. ps. 119.7, CSEL 95/3, p. 51) and “Ermon” ( Ps. 132 – En. ps. 132.11, CSEL 95/3, p. 333). Augustine turns to the Greek language several times in order to overcome the difficulties of understanding “obscure signs.” The meaning of the Latin word graduum in the inscription of the psalms does not satisfy him in that it lacks an indication of the ascent (and not the descent), so he cites the word of the Greek inscription ἀναβαθμῶν, in which the prefix makes the meaning needed by the interpreter more noticeable (En. ps. 119.1, CSEL, 95/3, p. 37). The desire to more accurately understand the modality of the statement is visible, for example, in the discussion of the exact meaning and possibility of translation of the Greek ἄρα in Ps. 123:5 (En. ps. 123.6, CSEL, 95/3, pp. 138–139). Several times the interpreter found it necessary to explain on whose behalf he was speaking if he saw a dialogue in certain verses of the psalms (En. ps. 119.5, CSEL, 95/3, p. 46; En. ps. 120.5, CSEL 95/3, p. 63). In the first “Discourse on the Gospel of John,” the question of the correct punctuation of John 1:3–4 is resolved: “Quod factum est, in illo uita est” or “Quod factum est in illo, uita est” (Io. Eu. tr. 1.16, BA 71, p. 160–162). Particularly rich material is provided by interpretations of the “Songs of Ascension” to illustrate the search for “figurative” meaning, that is, to resolve the issue of an “obscure figurative sign.” Augustine several times emphasizes the unsatisfactoryness of the literal understanding of this or that verse, an unsatisfactoriness that forces one to look for a different, “figurative” meaning and is, thus, a negative driver of interpretation. Let us point out a few of the most striking examples. Wherever Jerusalem is mentioned (for the first time in the series of “Songs of Ascension” - in Ps. 122:2), earthly Jerusalem is rejected as a signified. Only Heavenly Jerusalem is worthy in the eyes of the interpreter of everything that is said about it in the psalms (see more about this below). The material sky does not satisfy the interpreter as the signified word “heaven” in Ps. 123:1 (“I have lifted up my eyes to You, Who dwells in heaven”). In his words one can even hear, perhaps, a mockery of the possibility of considering proximity to the bodily sky to be a good thing (En. ps. 122.3, CSEL 95/3, p. 110). Augustine interprets the mountains from Ps. 120:1, based on the symbolism of height, as a symbol of people who have access to the understanding of high divine truths (En. ps. 120.4, CSEL 95/3, p. 60–61). Ps.127, which paints a picture of the prosperous life of a righteous man whose table is surrounded by numerous sons, Augustine, following other Latin interpreters (Hilary and Jerome), resolutely refuses to take it literally. Such a picture, firstly, contradicts the high manifestation of Christian righteousness, which Augustine sees in the feat of virgins and virgins, and secondly, the very state of affairs in the fallen world, where abundance and large families do not always fall to the lot of the worthy (En. ps. 127.1–3, CSEL. 95/3, p. 206–210). The negative driver of interpretation is not always shown by the interpreter and is not always obvious, but, as a rule, it can be assumed with great confidence. So, for example, “the sharp arrows of the mighty with the coals of devastation” from Ps. 119:4, symbolizing the punishments prepared for “the mouth of the unrighteous and the tongue of the evil one,” are allegorically explained as words of Scripture and examples of saints with which a Christian needs to address opponents of spiritual ascent (En. ps. 119.5, CSEL, 95/3, p. 46). Such a response to the machinations of enemies, of course, is more consistent with the criterion of caritas than if arrows and coals were interpreted as a symbol of punishment threatening opponents. Finally, it is convenient to observe in the interpretations of the “Song of Ascension” such methods of finding meaning as turning to a parallel passage of Scripture or restoring the direct meaning from a trope. As an example that combines both techniques, we can cite verses that talk about the construction of Jerusalem or a house and which Augustine considers allegorical about the creation of the Church. In interpreting Ps. 121:3 (“Jerusalem being built as a city, the communion of which is in Himself,” according to the Old Latin text – Hierusalem quae aedificatur ut ciuitas cuius participation eius in id ipsum), Augustine resorts to a quotation from 1 Peter 2:5, which also uses the image of building (En. ps. 121.4, CSEL 95/5, p. 87). For the same purpose, the interpretation of Ps. 127:1 (“If the Lord does not build the house, the builders labored in vain”) is drawn from 1 Cor. 3:17: “The holy church of God, which is you” (En. ps. 126, CSEL 95/5, p. 187–188). In the interpretations of the “Song of Ascension” we will find other striking examples of deciphering tropes (“my sanctuary will flourish” in the Old Latin translation of Ps. 131:18 – En. ps. 131.28, CSEL 95/3, p. 318; “the courts of the house of the Lord”, “night” from Ps. 133 – En. ps. 133.1–2, CSEL 95/3, pp. 336–338). There are cases here of multi-valued interpretation of the image (mountains as evangelists and mountains as heresiarchs - En. ps. 124.5, CSEL. 95/3, p. 152–153) and interpretation of different signs in the same sense (the Church as the moon in Ps. 120 and as a wife in Ps. 127 - En. ps. 120.12, CSEL. 95/3, p. 76 and En. ps. 127.11, CSEL, 95/3, p. 221). So, the rules and techniques described in the books “On Christian Doctrine” are actually applied by Augustine in practice. But do they determine the originality of Augustinian exegetical style? Aren't they also characteristic of other interpreters of the same era? It is perhaps fair to admit that the interpretative techniques set forth in Augustine's theoretical writings reflect the practice of a number of Latin interpreters of the 4th and 5th centuries, belonging to a well-defined tradition, which reveals some definite inclination towards the allegorical method, although with many reservations 4 . The largest representatives of this tradition - Hilary of Pictavia and Ambrose of Milan - had the greatest influence on Augustine's exegesis, moreover, they were its most important sources. To some extent, Augustine’s other source, Jerome of Stridon, is not alien to this tradition (with him Augustine is also related by that element of his theory that can be called historical and philological and which is most concerned with some chapters of the second book “On Christian Doctrine,” starting with the 11th, as well as the first chapters of the third book). What is essentially new in the treatise “On Christian Doctrine” is precisely the theoretical justification of interpretation (the theory of the sign) and the identification of criteria for correct interpretation, while the methods of interpretation are fully consistent with established norms and traditions. Therefore, in order to get an idea of ​​the uniqueness of Augustine’s interpretations, one needs to take a closer look not so much at this theory, but at the interpretations themselves in comparison with the theory. It is quite natural that the theory of one or another type of literature lags behind literature itself in some way: besides the fact that this seems to correspond to the nature of things, such a lag has already been noted more than once in various literatures. Likewise, Augustine’s theory does not take into account some aspects that are essential for interpretative preaching as a type of literature and, in particular, for his own sermons. Next, we will try to get closer to understanding some of the questions to which the treatise “On Christian Doctrine” does not provide an answer, or rather, to see what answers to these questions are given by Augustine’s preaching practice in 406–407, in particular, some passages of interpretation on the “Song of the Ascension”. In search of the reasons that make Augustine's interpretations unique, we decided to take a closer look at one of the most interesting features of Augustine's exegetical practice. It is interesting because, firstly, here Augustine does not act entirely according to the rules he himself prescribed, and secondly, because the internal forces of the interpreter’s creative thought and the reasons that set these forces in motion are especially noticeable here. We are talking about those cases when the text of the Holy Scripture at the disposal of the Hippo interpreter contained passages that obviously could not be interpreted in accordance with the original meaning due to misunderstandings that arose due to partial damage to the text or an unsuccessful translation. Theoretically, of course, Augustine's interpretive thought provides for such cases and gives quite sensible instructions about the need to cope with different manuscripts, with different translations and with the text in the original language (De doc. chr. 2.11.16–2.15.22). But what to do if all the Latin manuscripts contain identical or similar text, which is an exact translation from the Greek text of the Septuagint, and in the latter this passage does not appear more meaningful? It would be logical to take the next step: look into the Hebrew text. Two circumstances prevented Augustine from taking this step. Firstly, as is known, he did not know the Hebrew language. Secondly, apparently, until the end of his preaching activity, he did not have complete confidence in the Hebrew text of the psalms: the translation of the Seventy retained indisputable authority for him (see, for example, his first letter to Jerome - Er. 29). In addition, it also happens that the Latin text itself, resulting from the translation, and the Greek intermediary translation does not show any signs that it arose as a result of a misunderstanding, because in itself it allows for a meaningful (albeit not corresponding to the protograph) interpretation. In this case, can anything force the interpreter to turn to the Hebrew text? Moreover, sometimes the Hebrew text that we have, from the point of view of modern historical and philological criticism, cannot by itself give a satisfactory answer to some questions. To understand how the preacher behaves in such cases, how he extracts meaning from a phrase that is obviously not amenable to correct interpretation, and what are the driving forces of his exegesis, let us delve into his interpretative tactics when explaining similar phrases that can be found in interpretations of the “Song of Ascension.” Ps.121:3 (Hierusalem quae aedificatur ut ciuitas cuius participation eius in id ipsum) The third verse of Ps.121 is an enthusiastic appeal to Jerusalem, built tightly, like a real big city. The expression found here in the Hebrew text can be literally translated as follows: “Jerusalem, built like a city that is connected to itself together,” that is, “built tightly, compactly.” However, in the Septuagint (due to the same consonantal spelling of the verb form hubrā “united” and the noun hebrā “community”) it took the following form: Ἱερουσαλημ οἰκοδομουμένη ὡς πόλις ἧς ἡ μετοχὴ αὐτῆς ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό, and the Old Latin translation accurately copies the Greek: Hierusalem quae aedificatur ut ciuitas cuius participation eius in id ipsum (“Jerusalem, which is built as a city, at whose involvement is in the same thing"). The original meaning of the second hemistich of this verse is almost not readable in such a translation. What does the interpreter do in this case? On what will his interpretation of this rather awkward expression be based? First of all, the direction of understanding this verse is set by the fact that the interpreter refuses to understand the “Jerusalem” mentioned in Ps. 122:3 in a historical sense. For him, earthly Jerusalem is only a prototype of the eternal, heavenly Jerusalem. This is how, in § 3 of the interpretation of Ps. 121, Augustine poses the question of which Jerusalem is being discussed in the psalm: Which Jerusalem? And earthly Jerusalem is called that, but it is a shadow of that (heavenly) Jerusalem. And what is so great about standing in this earthly Jerusalem, since this Jerusalem could not stand and was turned into ruins? 5 From Augustine’s point of view, earthly Jerusalem does not fit the content of this psalm due to its non-eternity and temporality. (In the 5th century, there really was little left of the former Old Testament glory of earthly Jerusalem.) It is pointless to direct efforts of spiritual ascent towards earthly Jerusalem; standing with your feet “in the courts” of earthly Jerusalem is an empty goal in the eyes of the interpreter, who expects from the psalm instructions for spiritual ascent: “This, then, is what an inflamed heart speaks of as a great deed!” (Hoc ergo pro magno ex inflammato corde eloquitur) - Augustine says ironically about the possibility of attributing verse 3 to earthly Jerusalem. He also remembers the words of Christ (Matthew 23:37) - the prediction of the fall of earthly Jerusalem due to its unworthiness and inability to accept the words of the prophets: Isn’t this the same Jerusalem to which the Lord said: “Jerusalem, Jerusalem, killing the prophets and stoning those who are sent to you!” What great thing is it to want to stand among those who killed the prophets and stoned those sent to them? 6 There can be only one conclusion for Augustine: It is in no way possible that someone who loves so much, who is so passionate, who so wants to reach that Jerusalem, “our mother” (Gal. 4:26), which the Apostle calls “eternal in heaven” (2 Cor. 5:1) 7, would think this way about earthly Jerusalem. Since the earthly, historical Jerusalem is completely rejected as the subject of the psalm, the only possible signified to Avustin seems to be the heavenly Jerusalem, the City of God. The difference between earthly and heavenly Jerusalem is clearly defined in those paragraphs of the interpretation of Psalm 121, where Augustine consistently proves that the subject of the psalm is not a historical, but an ideal city. He has three more arguments. First argument: in the text of the psalm Jerusalem is called Hierusalem quae aedificatur ut ciutas. But historical Jerusalem is not created now, at the moment of pronouncing the interpretation (says Augustine). It lies in ruins. This means that the main difference between the earthly and heavenly Jerusalem in this context is the temporality of the earthly. (Augustine, of course, does not include the specific transmission of Jewish times in the Septuagint.) But Augustine foresees a counter-argument: perhaps David (he was the author of the psalms for Augustine) sang about the time of the creation of Jerusalem after returning from Babylonian captivity, prophetically foreseeing this time? Then Augustine turns to the next member of the sentence: ut ciuitas. We are talking about an ideal community, which can only be conditionally compared with an earthly city. Therefore, according to Augustine’s explanation, the author of the psalm says: Jerusalem, which is being built as a city, although it is not an earthly city. In other words, the interpreter considers the conjunction ut as comparative, and not as identifying 8. He also points to the source of the comparison - the words of the Apostle Paul: “And of you, as living stones, a spiritual house is built; for no one can lay any other foundation than that which is laid, and this is Jesus Christ” (et uos tamquam lapides uiui coaedificamini in domum spiritalem; fundamentum enim aliud nemo potest ponere praetor id quod positum est, quod est Christus lesus – 1 Cor. 3:17 and 11). Augustine insists that the city (ut ciuitas) here is a conventional subject of comparison for the Heavenly Jerusalem; The tertium comparationis here is only a unity composed of many parts. Jerusalem, mentioned in the psalm, in contrast to Jerusalem the city in Judea, is a spiritual unification of people. Augustine testified to this idea in the last sentence of § 4: “And since the spiritual building has a certain resemblance to the physical building, then Jerusalem is built as a city” (Et quia aedificium spiritale similitudinem quamdam habet aedificii corporalis ideo aedificatur ut ciuitas)? 9 . But, according to Augustine, all doubts about the spiritual character of Jerusalem should be completely dispelled by the exegesis of the following definition of Jerusalem in the psalm: cuius participation eius in id ipsum. The phrase id ipsum, a tracing of the Greek ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτό, meaning “together”, in Augustine’s exegesis acquired a stable philosophical and theological understanding associated with the use of similar terms in the Neoplatonic tradition, close to one of the epithets of God in the Areopagistic corpus - ταὐτόν 10. Id ipsum, according to Augustine, is one of the designations of the eternity and immutability of God, the absoluteness, sovereignty and self-identity of his being 11. The verse Ps.122:3, in the original Hebrew text of which, apparently, keʽȋr šeĥubrā-lāh yaĥdāw meant approximately “like a city built tightly, compactly” (like a real big city, as opposed to small rural towns with scattered houses) 12, Augustine interprets this way: “Heavenly Jerusalem, participating in Himself, absolute being, Self-identical." The further text of the interpretation on Psalm 121 (§ 5) affirms the high existential dignity of the Heavenly Jerusalem: life in it is “high” insofar as it is connected, participates, participates in the “high” existence of the Divine. This participation is ensured by the mediation of Christ, the Word made man - Augustine also clearly points out this in § 5. Answering the question of what id ipsum means, he once again shows the dependence of the “height” of existence on its eternity and immutability: What is It Itself? That which always exists in the highest way, that is not one thing or another. For what can be of itself, except what is? What is there? That which is eternal. For that which always exists, now one way, now another, is not, because it does not abid; it does not exist at all, but it does not exist in the highest way 13 . To exist in the highest way means to exist unchangeably. A person cannot become a participant in this constancy on his own, and he has nowhere to get this constancy in the world around him and in himself. Proving this, Augustine once again lists things of different levels of existence, on none of which can one find constancy and immutability - id ipsum: No one has an id ipsum by itself... What is in the body is not an id ipsum, because the body does not remain in permanence. It changes with age, changes with changes in places, changes with illnesses and bodily defects: this means that in itself it does not remain constant. Celestial bodies do not remain constant: they have their own changes, albeit imperceptible; they change position from one place to another, ascend from east to west and return back to the east - which means they are not standing, they are not id ipsum. The human soul is not worth it either: how many changes and thoughts change it, how many pleasures attract it to change! How many lusts scourge and torment her! The human mind itself, what is called the rational part of the soul (mens quae rationalis dicitur), is changeable, it is not id ipsum. Sometimes he wants, sometimes he doesn’t want, sometimes he knows, sometimes he doesn’t know, sometimes he remembers, sometimes he forgets. This means that no one by itself has id ipsum 14 . The soteriological scheme, which Augustine deduces a little higher in the same 5th paragraph, is as follows: Christ becomes a participant in humanity, and thereby man gains the opportunity to participate in id ipsum (ut autem effeceris tu particeps in id ipsum, factus est ipse prior particeps tui: et Verbum caro factum est, ut caro participet Verbum). This participation makes a person capable of being constant (stare) like id ipsum, and it is precisely this constancy, stability, stability that Augustine is ready to hear in the word stantes of the 2nd verse of the psalm being interpreted: “So, it is not for nothing that he who runs there says: Our feet stood in the courts of Jerusalem, for he becomes a participant in that stability” (Merito ergo, quia illius stabilitatis fit particeps, dicit iste qui illue currit: Stantes errant pedes nostril in atriis Hierusalem). Thus, the proposed meaning of id ipsum is confirmed for Augustine by the image of standing and is all the more reliably connected with the psalm as a whole. Thus, thanks to the philosophical interpretation of the term id ipsum and giving special meaning to the comparative particle (“like a city”), the interpreter presents the subject of the psalm as heavenly Jerusalem as the “place” in which man achieves the fullness of his existence: And after such languor, after such illnesses, hardships, labors, let the pacified soul return to Himself and be in the city that has a share in id ipsum 15. Let us pay attention to the fact that at this point Augustine does not reveal any dependence on his main source in the interpretations of the “Songs of Ascension” - Hilary, who understands in id ipsum in the sense of “together”. For Augustine, the main active force of interpretation is not so much a pro-educational understanding of Jerusalem (quite traditional and explainable by the rules set forth in the treatise “On Christian Doctrine”), but rather the concept of a higher, immovable divine being, the expression of which he finds in the combination id ipsum. Ps.123:5: Fickle water The next case of encountering a text, the possibilities of understanding which have changed somewhat in translation from Hebrew to Greek and from Greek to Latin, we can observe in the interpretation of Ps.123. In the fifth verse of Psalm 123, figuratively describing the dangers that the Lord helped Israel to avoid, the psalmist says: “The stormy waters would pass over our soul” (ἀzay ʽābar ʽal-napšēnû hammayîm hazzēydonîm), and this verse is a synonymous parallel to verse 4: “The stream would pass over our soul.” In the translation of the Seventy, the subject and object have changed places: διῆλθεν ἡ ψυχὴ ἡμῶν τὸ ὕδωρ τὸ ἀνυπόστατον. The word ἀνυπόστατος can well be understood as a verbal adjective from ὑϕίσταμαι with a negative prefix in the sense of “one that is impossible to resist.” However, the Latin translator (in the Old Latin translation) rendered this definition as if it were a philosophical term here - sine substantia. It seems that Augustine was the first writer of the Latin West to interpret such a translation. (In the text interpreted by his predecessor Hilary, in particular, ὕδωρ τὸ ἀνυπόστατον is rendered as aqua immensa.) His interpretation is based on τὸ negative symbolic understanding of “water” as sin, combined with the idea of ​​the insubstantiality of sin and evil in general, which he sees behind the words sine substantia The negative symbolism of water in this case is based, firstly, on the symbolic understanding of the “waters” that swallowed up the Egyptians in Exodus 14: “He calls the sinful nations water... For whoever agreed with them, the water would cover him. For he would have died the death of the Egyptians, and would not have passed in the image of the Israelites,” this is how Augustine interprets the first hemistich of the fourth verse: forsitan aqua demersisset nos (En.ps. 123, 6. R. 137). Secondly, water, as in many other cases, is seen as a symbol of reality, transient, fleeting, and, moreover, involving in destruction: “What kind of water is this? This is a stormy stream, it runs with pressure, but it will pass. Rivers rising from sudden rains are called torrents; they have a strong pressure: anyone who falls into them will be captured and carried away by the water, but if the Lord is not in him” 16 (En.ps. 123:7. P. 137. Cf. En.ps. 136). The interpretation of the words sine substantia is as follows: “What does water without essence mean, if not the water of sins without essence? For sins have no essence; they are a defect, not an essence” 17 (En.ps 123, 9. R. 139). A similar understanding of the second hemistich of the fourth verse can already be observed on the pages of the “Confession” (Conf. 13.7.8), written several years before the interpretation of Ps. 123. However, in the interpretation, the theme of the insubstantiality of sin is not developed in a purely philosophical, speculative direction: here it appears in a complicated and, at the same time, concretized form: Augustine speaks not so much about the insubstantiality of evil and sin, but about their unprofitability, about their unprofitability, ultimately. He gives this direction with his reasoning, drawing on the parable of the prodigal son, in the Latin text of which the property (share of the inheritance), which the younger son asks to allocate for himself and squanders, is called precisely the word substantia: In ista aqua sine substantia perdidit ille minor filius totam substantiam suam (En.ps. 123.9. R. 139). From this moment on, in the word substantia one must hear not only the meaning of “essence”, but also a connotation of the meaning of “that which enriches a person”, “profit”, “wealth”, and the further reasoning of the preacher is aimed at showing: the gain of earthly riches and pleasures does not truly enrich, because it provides only temporary benefits: “So let them consider their sins, let them see whether these sins have substantia (whether there is wealth in these sins). Why did the sinner irritate the Lord? (Ps.9:34). But you do not see your sin until you create it - at least consider what has already been created: the sweetness of this age delights the larynx for the time being. Then it will turn into great bitterness” 18 (En.ps. 123.9. R. 140). On the contrary: by receiving temporary and insignificant benefits through sin (ecce peccasti et lucrum fecisti - “here you sinned and received a profit”), a person loses essential wealth that could lead him to eternity - faith: “You think about your profits, but don’t think about your losses? Do you rejoice over your chest, but don’t cry about your heart? Your chest is full of unknown things, but look at the decrease in your heart. Opening the chest, you will find coins there that were not there; good, you are glad that there is something there that was not there. Look into the casket of the heart: there was faith there, and there is none. If you rejoice from one, why don’t you cry from another? You have lost more than you have gained. Do you want to know what you've lost? Something that even a shipwreck would not take away from you” (ibid) 19. This is followed by an argument about the importance of losing faith and the unimportance of acquiring wealth. It is represented by three points: 1) In response to the objection of his imaginary interlocutor that faith is an imperceptible wealth because it is invisible, Augustine replies that, although faith is invisible, the loss of faith is, in any case, tangible: a deceived person feels the violation of trust (here the preacher is helped by the fact that the Latin word fides means both faith and trust); 2) Augustine reminds us that earthly wealth will not follow a person after death (but an unrighteous acquisition will prove that a person lacks fides, which would prepare for him a posthumous crown); 3) Augustine points out that even on earth, wealth is fragile, and, in addition, doomed to danger: the richer a person is, the more attractive he is for other hunters of wealth. As already mentioned, such an exegesis of Ps. 123:4 is first found in the Latin West in Augustine. However, in the East we can see a similar understanding of this verse, for example, in Didymus the Blind. In the fragment of Didymus's interpretation of Ps. 123, we find both versions of the understanding of the adjective ἀνυπόστατοϛ: one is based on the meaning of “one who cannot be resisted,” the other is based on the philosophical meaning of “having no substance”: “Water is called ἀνυπόστατον due to the fact that it is impossible to resist it without Christ. If by water someone understands vice, then we can say that water is called ἀνυπόστατον because vice has no essence and is devoid of substance. For it arises accidentally from real things, without having its own existence” 20. However, we do not know the channels through which the second understanding could have come from Didymus to Augustine by the time of the first reminiscence of Ps. 123:4 in the Confession. We dare to assume that in this case Augustine independently solves the difficulty in interpreting this verse, giving the term sine substantia the philosophical meaning that is so memorably expressed in the Confessions, and presenting it to the listeners rather from the “everyday” side - in the form of a discussion about the futility (ultimately) of enrichment by violating the truth. Ps.125:2: Repletum est gaudio os nostrum et lingua nostra exultatione Perhaps, when interpreting this verse (Ps. 125:2), the originality of the Augustinian style of interpretation is manifested to the greatest extent, although the entire passage associated with the explanation of this verse is more likely a beautiful digression than another episode of an interpretative sermon. Unlike the two cases discussed above, this text is not actually incomprehensible; it contains a jarring literal rendering of the Hebrew idiom. The awkward form that the second verse took in the Old Latin translation (and before that in the Septuagint) could not but require additional clarification for such an attentive interpreter to the language as Augustine. Indeed, how can such an expression be perceived by an unprepared Latin-speaking reader or listener simply as a metaphor for joy and jubilation? It is all the more surprising that before Augustine no one, or almost no one, took advantage of the strangeness of this verse to construct an allegorical interpretation and did not even try to explain this strangeness even by simply referring to the “biblical mode of expression.” However, the point is probably that even in such a strange form the content of the verse is expressed quite clearly. And it took Augustine's linguistic sensitivity for the unusualness of this form to become a subject of discussion. As far as I have been able to discover, there are only two places in Latin literature before Augustine that briefly discuss the use of the verb replere in Ps. 125:2. This is the interpretation of Hilary of Pictavia on Ps.125 and one passage of the interpretation of Ambrose on Ps.118. Although both interpretations are far from Augustine’s in meaning, we nevertheless present these passages here so that against their background the special attention that Augustine pays to the explanation of this verse becomes clear. Here are the words of Hilary in his interpretation of the same verse: “Moreover, our lips will be filled with joy and our tongue with joy; for the service of our lips and tongue is not sufficient to bring praise to God.” The joy that, according to Hilary, is discussed in the psalm is the joy of turning from crime to innocence, from vices to virtues, from ignorance to knowledge, and it is so great that, like rejoicing, it cannot simply come from the lips, but, as it were, overwhelms them - such, it seems, is the meaning of “filling” in this commentary. Ambrose puts this verse on a par with the passages of Scripture that speak of being filled with the Holy Spirit. In this context, the use of the verb replere also seems meaningful and appropriate: The saint offers himself daily, shows himself daily (before the face of God) and does not show himself empty; for he who has received of His fullness is not empty. David was not empty when he said: Our lips are filled with joy, for joy is the fruit of the Holy Spirit. And just as we received everything from the fullness of the Word, according to John (John 1:16), so the Holy Spirit filled the universe with its fullness. Zechariah was not empty, he was filled with the Holy Spirit and began to prophesy about the coming of the Lord Christ (Luke 1:67). Paul was not empty (Rom. 15:29), who preached the gospel out of fulness and was filled, receiving a sweet aroma from the Ephesians, an acceptable sacrifice to God (Eph. 5:2). The Corinthians, in whom Divine grace abounded, were not empty, according to the testimony of the same Apostle (1 Cor. 1:7) 21. This observation can be called very apt, but it says that a person is filled by the action of the Spirit, and does not say how exactly the lips are filled. This filling of the mouth becomes the subject of Augustine's discussion in § 6–8 of the interpretation on Ps. 125. Let us consider this part of the interpretation in more detail. At the beginning of the fifth paragraph, Augustine remarks in a joking tone that the bodily mouth cannot be filled with joy. Then he asserts that there are certain inner lips, “mouths in the heart” (os in corde), and that from these lips what comes out defiles a person if it is bad, or cleanses him if it is good. He confirms this statement by quoting Matthew 23:26: “Cleanse what is inside, and what is outside will be clean,” and then moves on to discuss internal cleanliness in general. First, Luke 2:41 is quoted: “But give alms, and behold, all is clean with you,” after which it is indicated that true alms comes from the heart, that is, its truth is determined by the inner disposition of the person giving alms. (This mention of alms is the first in this sermon; the topic of good deeds will be discussed more fully in § 11-13.) And finally, as an example of the difference in internal purity, the episode with the harlot woman who came to the house of the Pharisee is given (Luke 7:36, 50). In the sixth paragraph, Augustine again turns to what he read on the same day when he delivered his interpretation, to the beginning of the Gospel and clarifies, also relying on 1 Tim. 4:4 and Titus 1:15, that “that which enters the mouth” is food, which in itself cannot defile a person; however, “what comes from the mouth” is nothing more than thoughts 22. Here, at the end of the sixth paragraph, the reasoning finally returns to the interpretation of Psalm 125. The heartfelt lips of the listeners, according to Augustine, are filled with pure and legitimate joy if the reason for their joy is redemption, an appeal to God, which is expressed in the words “when the Lord returned the captivity of Zion.” These are pure food and drink taken through the mouth of the heart: However, look why you rejoice. If your joy is about worldly things, then out of unclean joy you cry out to God; and if you rejoice over redemption, according to the words of this Psalm: When the Lord returned the captivity of Zion, we became overjoyed, it means that your lips are filled with true joy, and your tongue with joy. It is clear that you rejoice in hope, and your joy is accepted by God. With this joy, or with these inner lips, we eat and drink: both with the visible mouth to strengthen the body, and with the inner lips to strengthen the heart. And therefore, blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they will be satisfied (Matthew 5:6). However, as can be seen, the explanation so far concerned only what enters the mouth of the heart. Only in the seventh paragraph does the preacher approach the discussion of what defiles a person based on the mouth. In this reasoning, which recalls and partly repeats the fourth paragraph of the second chapter of the treatise De continentia, Augustine first shows that it is not bodily food that is meant (for food spewed out of the mouth does not defile a person), and then even insists that we are not talking about the lips of the body at all, even if we think that words are meant by what comes from the mouth (which, it seems, is meant in the Gospel teaching). Augustine believes that what comes from the mouth and defiles a person can only be understood as the inner word of the inner lips, that is, again, thoughts, intentions, dispositions of the soul. To confirm this idea, an example is given: a thief who planned a crime, but has not yet committed it and has not even said a word about it, is still already defiled by his unclean intention. The eighth paragraph sums up everything that has been said about the inner lips in the form of a moral reasoning. Here the preacher leaves aside consideration of the difference between what comes in and what comes out of the mouth and speaks only of what is inside, in the mouth of the heart: Therefore, brothers, think what is in your inner mouth. Be careful that you don’t say anything bad inside, and you don’t do anything bad outwardly, because only what a person does outwardly is what he says inwardly. Keep the mouth of your heart from evil, and you will be guiltless, your bodily tongue will be guiltless, your hands will be guiltless, your eyes will be guiltless, your ears will be guiltless, all your members will fight in the ranks of righteousness, because there will be a righteous leader in your head. The interpretation of this verse is one example of the interiorization of the images proposed by the psalm, that is, attributing them to the inner life of the human soul. External joy on the lips does not suit the interpreter even as a symbol of internal joy: it is not at all included in his consideration. He is inclined to understand this joy only as the joy of the heart, inner lips. This interpretation of the meaning of the word “mouth” can be compared with other metaphors describing the life of the “inner man”, and this interpretation is fully consistent with previous and subsequent images: “ears of the heart” (the power of the soul that perceives the divine voice) and “the hand of the heart” (the power of the soul, capable of “taking unnecessary objects away from the face of memory”), which were discussed in the “Confession”, vision and the sky of the heart, which will be discussed in the “Discourse on the Epistle” John to the Parthians" 23. To understand the interpreted image of the mouth of the heart, the interpreter includes it in the context of developed figurative systems, his own (the anthropomorphic heart and its organs as symbols of spiritual forces) and the Gospel, and spiritual meaning is attributed even to those elements of the Gospel text that, in our opinion, did not have it. The meaning obtained in this way is then presented in the form of direct moral instruction. Let's try to summarize the three cases considered. Each of them interprets a verse that has lost its original meaning in translation or has retained the expression of the Hebrew original in such a literal translation as to make the phrase strange from the point of view of the Latin mode of expression. In none of these cases did Augustine choose the path of, so to speak, purely philological research. He did not look into the Hebrew protograph, which could be interpreted differently than the text of the Seventy allows (in the first and second cases), and did not begin to clarify the peculiarities of Hebrew phraseology that would negate doubts about the meaning of the Latin literal translation (in the third case). It cannot even be said that the incomprehensibility of the first two texts was for him an indicator of the need to look for a hidden meaning that does not lie on the surface, as described in the famous work of Pepin 24 . This is the case rather with the absurdity of the third text, but in the first two cases we are not talking about incomprehensibility: obviously, the presence in the psalm of philosophically colored uses of id ipsum and substantia does not contradict its expectations, and therefore the actual philosophical interpretation lies on the surface for it. In such cases one of the not entirely obvious differences between what we call the philological method and Augustine's method is revealed. It is that Augustine's interpretive theory is too closely connected with the concept of difficult passages of Scripture and too little with the original language, too focused on the acceptable interpretation and to a lesser extent on the one corresponding to the thought of the sacred writer. In other words, according to this theory, it is necessary to turn to the original only when it can help in understanding a difficult part of the translated text, and a difficult part is one that is either not understandable in the literal sense or is not in the literal sense consistent with the rule of faith and good morals. But there are difficulties of a different kind. Firstly, some concepts in a certain verbal expression may be alien to one or another circle of texts (for example, the concepts of “non-substantiality of sin” or “self-identical being” are not expressed, in our opinion, in the corresponding terms in the Hebrew psalms). Secondly, a translation that is too literal can create a text that creates difficulties of understanding that did not exist in the original (for example, the literal correspondence of the expression “mouths were filled with joy” in Hebrew is normal and understandable, but in Latin it is a very bold metaphor). Thirdly, as already mentioned, some vicissitudes in translation may lead to the emergence of a Latin text that allows for an acceptable interpretation and does not contradict the context, but still does not convey the same meaning as the original. This is not a speculative possibility. This seems to be exactly what happened with Ps. 119:5a. The Latin translation of this hemistich (Hey mihi, quia incolatus meus longinquus factus est) exactly corresponds to the Septuagint (οἴμμοι, ὅτι ἡ παροικία μου ἐμακρύνθη), fits into the context Ps.119 (and even sounds like a parallel verse to Ps.119:6a - multum peregrinata est anima mea) and is quite consistently interpreted by Augustine in the same sense as the whole of Ps.119 (the soul grieves in a fallen world, as in a foreign land). However, the Masoretic text indicates that there was the possibility of another reading of this hemistich: “Woe is me that I dwell with Mosoch.” The difference between the phrases “my stay has become long” and “I dwell with Mosoch” consists mainly in the vowel, mainly in the vowel of the last word mšk. We cannot speculate here about which reading is better and according to what criteria. The important thing is that Augustine could not suspect any textual difficulty in this passage, and if the reading of the Masoretic text is correct, then nothing in the translation indicates that his alternative is incorrect. In general, it would be the historical-philological method that would help to cope with such difficulties, which involves not simply turning to the original in the event of one or another perplexity when reading a translation, but a comprehensive and complete study of the original itself, its text, its language, its method of expression, its range of concepts. But Augustine's method, as we have seen, is not quite like that. It seems that it gives the interpreter more freedom and (we dare say) makes him less dependent on the original meaning of this or that biblical statement, on what exactly this or that sacred author wanted to say. The dogmatic teaching of the Church and the moral principles accepted within it quite clearly outline the field of meanings, outside of which the interpretation of this or that “dark place” ceases to be acceptable. Of course, being expressed in such an extremely acute manner, this rule cannot but give rise to doubts. If these doubts are expressed in such an acute form, then they will come down to the question of why Scripture is needed at all if its meaning is derived from the teaching of the Church? This question would not have bothered Augustine. He could give at least two answers to it, which anyone who is already familiar with Augustine’s early dialogue “On the Teacher” can easily deduce. First, in practical terms, Scripture relates many events that cannot be understood by man from his own experience, but which the Church must remember as the history of salvation (the reporting of these is the main function of the narrative parts of the Old Testament and the Gospels). Secondly, the words of Scripture should remind a person of those truths that are accessible to his understanding, but are not fully realized by him, and show his mind the way to them 25. However, criticism of these provisions and the method itself that stems from them is not our task. It was only important for us to point out that this method really opens up the possibility of original interpretation. Using the example of the texts analyzed above, we saw: the originality of Augustine’s interpretation can be explained by the fact that he connects the interpreted texts with philosophical and theological concepts that are important to him (higher being, the non-substantiality of evil) or ideological-figurative (symbolic) systems (“heart” as a symbol of the inner life of a person). Comprehension of such and similar driving forces of Augustinian interpretation is, it seems to us, the immediate task of studying the exegetical practice of the Hippo Teacher. For a brief introduction to this work and the method outlined in it, we suggest turning to the recent translation of the third book: Aurelius Augustine. About Christian Science. Book 3 / Per. from lat. Yu.V. Ivanova and S.A. Stepantsova. Preface by S.A. Stepantsova. Notes Yu.V. Ivanova // World tree. No. 11/2004. pp. 149–198. Here the reader will find the main bibliography (pp. 153–154). This period includes sermons-interpretations on a group of psalms bearing the inscription “Song of Ascension” (Ps. 119–133), on Ps. 21 and 95, ten homilies on the First Epistle of John and the first thirteen homilies on the Gospel of John. Stepantsov S.A. Anti-Donatist tendency as an exegetical factor in “Discourses on the Epistle of John to the Parthians” by Aurelius Augustine // Bulletin of Ancient History. 2005. No. 1. P. 164. This tradition is described well by M. Simonetti in the book: Simonetti M. Lettera e/o allegoria. Un contributo alla storia dell’esegesi patristica. Roma, 1985, pp. 254–289. Cuius Hierusalem? Solet enim diei et ista Hierusalem. Sed ista Hierusalem umbra est illius. Et quid magnum est stare in ista Hierusalem, quia ista Hierusalem stare non potuit, quae in ruinam conuersa est. (Vmbra is a translation of the Greek σχιαᾳ, from Col. 2:17. In patristic writing this was the name given to the foreshadowing of the New Testament event in the Old Testament. See: Wolfson II.A. The Philosophy of Church Fathers. Cambridge (MA), 1970. P. 40). Nonna illa est Hierusalem, cui dixit Dominus: Hierusalem, Hierusalem, quae interficis porphetas et lapidas missos ad te? Quid magnum ergo iste concupiscebat, stare inter illos qui interficiebantur prophetas et lapidabant misos ad te? Absit ut de ista Hierusalem sic cogitet qui sic amat, qui sic ardet, qui sic uult peruenire ad illam Hierusalem matrem nostrum de qua dieit aposyolus, aeternam in caelis. He also distinguishes these two meanings in Aug, En. ps. 125.4, proposing to understand the expression “were as if consoled” not in a comparative, but in an identifying meaning: they were consoled. A similar sensitivity to the meanings of comparative conjunctions (ut, sicut) is visible even in Aug. In Ioan. ep. tr. 4.9. Augustine even specifically draws attention to the fact that the word ciuitas, which usually means a civil community, in this case should be understood as a city as a complex of buildings (to which the name urbs would be more suitable). This expression is understood by Augustine primarily in connection with the words of Ps. 101:28: tu autem idem ipse es. See: Knauer G. Psalmenzitate in Augustins Confessionen. Göttingen. P. 108–110. The first known case of such an explanation in id ipsum was found in Aig. En. ps. 4.9 (394 year). It is echoed in the Confessions, where Augustine quotes the same psalm (Aug. Conf. 10.4). See also: Madec G. Ego sum qui sum // Augustinus-Lexikon. Vol. 2. Col. 738–741. Μπρατσώτης Π.Ι. Αἱ ῷδαί τών ἀναβαθμών τοῦ Ψαλτηρίου. Ἀθῆναι, 1928. Σ. 35–36. An understanding of “in which everyone comes together” is also possible. Quid est id ipsum? Quod semper eodem modo est, quod non modo aliud et modo aliud est. Quid est ergo id ipsum, nisi quod est? Quid est quod est? Quod aeternum est. Nam quod semper aliter atque aliter est, non est, quia non manet: non omnino non est, sed non summe est. Id ipsum nemo habet ex se... Quod corpus habet non est id ipsum, quia non in se stat. Mutatur per actates, mutatur per mutationes locorum, mutatur per morbos et defectus carnales: non ergo in se stat. Corpora caelestia non in se stant: habent quasdem mutationes suas, etsi occultas; certe de locis in loca mutantur, ascendunt ab oricnte ad occidentem, et rursus circumeunt ad orientem; non ergo stant, non sunt id ipsum. Anima humana nec ipsa stat. Quantis enim mutationibus et cogitationibus uariatur, quantis uoluptatibus immutatur! quantis cupiditatibus deuerberatur et descinditur! Mens ipsa hominis, quae dicitur rationalis, mutabilis est, non est id ipsum. Modo uult, modo non uult; modo scit, modo nescit; modo meminit, modo obliuiscitur; ergo id ipsum nemo alphabet ex se. The order of the levels is: corpus, sidera, anima, mens. Compare: Poque S. L’expression de l’anabase plotinienne dans la prédication de saint Augustin et ses sources // Recherches augistiniennes. Paris, 1975. P. 10. Iam ergo post tantum languorem, post tantos morbos, difficultates, labores, redeat anima humiliata ad id ipsum et sit in illa ciuitate, cuius participatio eius in id ipsum. Qualis est ista aqua? Torrens est? fluit cum impetu, sed transitura est. Torrentes autem dicuntur fluuii qui repentinis imbribus crescunt; magnum habent impetum; Quisquis incurrerit trachitur, sed in quo dominus non est. Quae est aqua sine substantia, nisi aqua peccatorum sine substantia? Peccata enim non habent substantiam; egestatem habent, non substantiam. Considerent ergo omnes peccata sua, uideant si habeant substantiam ipsa peccata. Propter quid irritauit ominum peccator? Sed non uides peccatum tuum antequam facias, uel iam fecisti considera: duleedo hujus saeculi ad tempus fauces indulcat. In magnam amaritudinem postea conuertitur... Lucra tua cogitas, damna tua non cogitas? De arca gaudes, de corde non plangis? Abundas nescio quid in arca tua, sed uide quid eminutum sit in corde tuo. Cun aperucris arcam, inuenics solidos qui non erant; bene, quia gaudes esse ibi quod ibi non crat. Attende arcam cordis; erat ibi fides, et non est. Si hac gaudes, quare hac non plangis? Plus perdidisti quam acquisisti. Vis uidere quid perdideris? Nec naufragio tibi posset auferri. ἀνυπόστατον δὲ ὕδωρ τῷ μὴ ἄν τινα ὑποστῆναι αὐτὸ χωρὶς τοῦ Χριστοῦ δύνασβαι. εἰ δὲ τὴν χαχίαν σηµαίνοι τις ἀνυπόστατον ὕδωρ, ῥητέον ἀνυπόστατον εἰρῆσναι τὴν χαχίαν τῷ μὴ εἶναι οὐσίαν καὶ ἰδίαν ὑπόστασινό συμβεβηκὸς γὰρ οὖσα ἐν τοῖς ἐνεργοῦσιν ὑφίσταται, καν ἑαυτὴν ὕπαρξιν οὐκ ἔχουσα. (Muhlenberg Ε. Psalmekommentare aus der Katenuberlieferung. Bd. II. Berlin, 77. Frg. 1160.) Cotidie se sanctus offert, cotidie apparet et non uacuus apparet; non est enim uacuus qui de plenitudine cius accepit. Non erat uacuus Dauid, qui ait: Repletum est gaudio os nostrum (Psalm 125:2), quia gaudium fructus est Spiritus sancti. Et sicut de plenitudine Verbi nos omnes accepimus, quemadmodum dixit Ioannes (John 1:16): ita etiam Spiritus sanctus de plenitudine sua repleuit orbem terrarum. Non crat uacuus Zacharias, qui repletus est Spiritu sancto, et prophetabat aduentum Domini Iesu (Luke 1:67). Non crat Paulus uacuus (cf. Rom. 15:29), qui cuangelizabat in abundantia et repletus erat, accipiens odorem bonae suauitatis ab Ephesiis, placentem Deo hostiam (Ephes 5:2). Non erant Corinthii uacui, in quibus abundabat Dei gratia, iuxta eiusdem Apostoli testimonium (I Cor. 1:7). – Ambr. Exp. ps. 118.20.54 (CSEL 62, 471, AO 10, 364). Pepin J. À propos de l'histoire de l'exégèse allégorique: l'absurdité, signe de l'allégorie // Studia patristica 1 (=Texte und Untersuchungen zur Gescichte der Altchristlichen Literatur. 63. Reihe 5. Bd. 8. Berlin, 1957). P.394–413. For a witty description of these two purposes of Scripture, see Williams Th. Biblical Interpretation // The Cambridge companion to Augustine. Cambridge, 2001, pp. 65–66.