Augustine and Fortunatus

Eodem tempore presbyteri mei, contra Fortunatum, quemdam Manichaeorum presbyterum disputavi.^[100]

On 28 and 29 August 392, a young presbyter of the catholic church of Hippo Regius debated in public with the presbyter of a different ecclesia , the Manichaean Fortunatus.^[101] Like Pseudo-Mark's Julia, Fortunatus was singled out for attention by the local catholic Christians because of his success in attracting support within the local Community.^[102] According to Possidius' Vita Augustini , a body of cives and peregrini of Hippo, comprising both catholics and Donatists, turned to the young Augustine for aid and comfort.^[103] Their choice was a natural one, for Augustine was trained in dialectic and familiar with Manichaean teachings. Troubled by the influence Fortunatus had gained among the cives and peregrini of Hippo and its environs,^[104] Augustine responded, like Pseudo-Mark's Porphyry, by challenging the Manichaean leader to a high-profile contest aimed at the edification of the community. The strategy was intended to ensure that Manichaeans, who relied for their success On the intimacy of teacher-disciple relationships,^[105] could no longer present their arguments unchallenged before Christians who, in Augustine's. view, were

[100] Retractationes 1.15 (CSEL 36:82). See A. Mandouze, ed., Prosopographie de l'Afrique chrétienne , vol. 1 of Prosopographie chrétienne du Bas-Empire (Paris, 1982), s.v. "Fortunatus 2," 490-93.

[101] See C.Fortunatum , preface (CSEL 25:83): "Sexto et quinto Kalendas Septembris Arcadio Augusto bis et Quinto Rufino uiris clarissmis consulibus actis habita disputatio aduersum Fortunatum Manichaeorum presbyterum in urbe Hipponensium regionum in balneis Sossii sub praesentia populi."

[102] Retractationes 1.15 (CSEL 36:82). Fortunatus had been successful as a teacher and community organizer in Hippo, a fact Augustine admits: "Qui [Fortunatus] plurimum temporis apud Hipponem uixerat, seduxeratque tam multos ut propter illos ibi eum delectaret habitare." Note here the recurrence of the language condemning seduction. This fear of seduction on the part of anti-Manichaean polemicists on the one hand reflects the Manichaean propensity to attract the young (see above discussion), who were seen as lacking in discrimination, and on the other hand reveals the paternal ideology at work: those in authority were seen as responsible for the imperiti under their care, and any threat to that relationship was construed as seduction. Agency and initiative were not granted to the imperiti under this scheme.

[103] Possidius, Vita Augustini 6 (PL 32:38).

[104] See Decret, Aspects du manichéisme , 40. Were the peregrini merchants, negotiatores like Firmus who were responsible for much of the spread of the Manichaean movement outside of the main towns, or were they displaced Roman aristocrats? In any case, they were an important group over which a local Christian leader had little direct social control; they therefore needed to be impressed by other means.

[105] See the importance of the teacher-disciple relationship in the Fragmenta Tebestina ; P. Alfaric, "Un manuscrit manichéen," RHLR n.s. 6 (1920): 62-94.

inexperienced and unable to judge for themselves ("diu multumque de inperitorum erroribus latissime ac uehementissime disputabant").^[106]

Though Augustine chose to view his response as protecting the imperiti , it can also be seen as a reaction against the seemingly uncheck-able movement of community members—particularly the intelligentsia—across sectarian boundaries. The influence of charismatic teachers like Fortunatus threatened the tolerable modus vivendi of mutual boycott.^[107] Yet lest we think that the Manichaeans were taking over the Christian community in great numbers, we should remember that Augustine later joked about Fortunatus' small base of support compared with his own much stronger catholic Christian community: "your very small number" ( tanta vestra paucitate ).^[108]

Augustine's staged disputatio with Fortunatus was held in the Baths of Sossius in Hippo Regius, sub praesentia populi.^[109] The audience of the debate, at least on the second day, was made up mostly of catholic Christians, according to Augustine himself in Contra Fortunatum.^[110] It was a solemn affair. Stenographers, most likely notarii affiliated with the catholic church, recorded the event. The contest itself was preceded by a series of preliminary negotiations concerning the topic of the debate and the mode of demonstration to be used.^[111]

It is almost certain that Augustine and the catholic Christians of Hippo applied tremendous pressure to force the Manichaeans to make an appearance at this debate by spreading rumors, perhaps even libelli famiosi , which echoed charges of immorality not infrequently brought against Manichaeans.^[112] The Manichaeans were put on the spot: if they forfeited the chance to dear their name, they tacitly confessed to the accusations leveled at them; otherwise, they had to descend for battle onto a field carefully selected and prepared by their opponents.

The proceedings resembled a trial by judge and jury rather than a fair debate.^[113] The Manichaean argued that both he and Augustine

[106] De utilitate credendi 2 (CSEL 25:5).

[107] See Augustine, Sermones 182.2, 302.19; Brown, "Religious Coercion in the Later Roman Empire: The Case of North Africa," History 48 (1963): 283-305.

[108] See Decret, Aspects du manichéisme , 40n. 1; idem, L'Afrique manichéenne , 1: 189-90.

[109] C. Fortunatum , prologue (CSEL 25:83).

[110] C. Fortunatum 37 (CSEL 25:112): "fideles sunt."

[111] See C. Fortunatum 1-3 (CSEL 25:83-86).

[112] On such traditional charges, see A. Henrichs, "Pagan Ritual and the Alleged Crimes of the Early Christians: A Reconsideration," in P. Granfield and J. A. Jungmann, eds., Kyriakon: Festschrift Johannes Quasten (Munster, 1970), 1:18-35.

[113] See Decret, Aspects du manichéisme , 45: " Avec . . . la déférence d'un accusé devant un jury."

should confine themselves to discussing the morals of the Manichaeans, his primary concern:

The issue to be considered is our way of life, concerning the false criminal accusations by which we have been assaulted. Therefore let the respectable men present hear from you whether the charges upon which we are accused and sought out are true, or false.^[114]

Like earlier Christian apologists faced with charges of gruesome crimes and misdeeds, Fortunatus wanted to make his defense by appealing to the moral and ascetic virtues of the elect. Augustine quickly responded that faith and morals were separate matters and ought to be discussed independently of each other. For the moment, he wanted to limit the discussion to doctrine alone, and he justified this choice by shrewdly claiming that only the electi alone could know their mode of life.^[115]

Fortunatus complied with Augustine's restriction; he probably had no choice in the matter. He made a declaration of his professio by pronouncing the attributes of God: incorruptible, perspicuous, unapproachable, ungraspable, impassible, and so on. Augustine, trained in dialectical disputation and particularly versed in Aristotle's predicate logic, could now methodically dismantle the proposed theses using well-tried tools.

Augustine moved gingerly, reluctant to let Fortunatus raise counter-questions^[116] or to shift to different lines of argument that were probably part of Manichaean training. When Fortunatus tried to turn the debate back to scriptures, Augustine's reference to the "men of note" present (who presumably were able to follow rational arguments) was enough to bring the discussion back to the latter's proposed topic.

[114] C. Fortunatum 1 (CSEL 25:84). See, for example, the charges Augustine assembled circa 405 in his De natura boni contra Manichaeos 47 (CSEL 25:886-87).

[115] C. Fortunatum 3 (CSEL 25:84-85): "Ad aliud uocas, cure ego de fide proposuerim, de moribus autem uestris plene scire possunt, qui electi uestri sunt. nostis autem me non electum uestrum, sed auditorem fuisse . . . quaestionem de moribus, ut inter electos uestros discutiatis, si discuti potest. mihi fides data est a uobis, quam hodie inprobo. de ipse proposui. ad propositum meum mihi respondeatur."

[116] See Augustine's reply to Fortunatus' request for a dialectical premiss from him (whether the Word of God "anima dei est, an non?") in C. Fortunatum 10 (CSEL 25:89): "Si iustum est, ut non interrogatis meis respondeatur et ego interroger, respondeo." Though Augustine finally granted Fortunatus' request, he was careful to score a tactical point by noting that Fortunatus was not willing to respond to his questions in C. Fortunatum 11 (CSEL 25:89): "Tantum illud memineris te noluisse respondere interrogatis meis, me autem tui respondere." Later in C. Fortunatum 13 (CSEL 25:90), he stated for the record that though he was willing to entertain Fortunatus' questions, the latter was not willing to answer some of his. This kind of argument was only possible because the debate was being recorded by stenographers.

Later in the debate, Augustine again appealed to the nature of the audience when Fortunatus resorted to the proven Manichaean tactic of appealing to accepted scriptural texts for dialectical premisses.^[117] The audience itself responded:

At this point an uproar came from the audience who wished the debate to be held rather with rational arguments (rationibus ) because they saw that Fortunatus was not willing to accept the things written in the apostolic book. Then here and there a discussion began to be held by everyone. . . .^[118]

On the following day, Fortunatus, handicapped by many constraints, found himself in extremis after a series of exchanges. He helplessly exclaimed, "What then am I to say?"^[119] Augustine, sensing his opponent's despair, did not press on; he had reduced his adversary to silence and had therefore won the debate. He concluded the proceedings by expounding the catholic faith to all present.^[120] Though Fortunatus went away ignominiously to confer with his superiors (meis maioribus ),^[121] there was no actual capitulation, nor did Augustine try to bring one about. That the closure of this debate was not as dramatic or as firm as, for example, the end of the encounter between Augustine and Felix suggests that in 392 the goals of the young priest were limited. It sufficed to humble Fortunatus, a man of established reputation for whom Augustine no doubt had some regard. But this gentility of the early 390s would succumb to the requirements of maintaining episcopal authority once Augustine succeeded Valerius to the see of Hippo in 395.