XXVIII-XXXI Last days and death.
In this arrangement the Vita closely resembles the literary form which had become traditional in the Alexandrian |21 biography and which is best illustrated in the Lives of Suetonius. Possidius's acquaintance with this literary form evidently came not directly from classical sources but through his knowledge of the Lives of former Christian biographers. Chief among these was undoubtedly Jerome, who acknowledges his indebtedness to Suetonius. This form of biography lays principal stress on personal traits. Hence while Augustine's own writings are indispensable in forming an estimate of his far-reaching powers as a theologian, philosopher and preacher, were it not for the intimate revelations of every-day life presented by Possidius, our picture of his personality would be incomplete.
Date of composition of the Vita .
The date generally given for the composition of the Vita is 432. From Possidius's words it is clear that it must have been written after July 431, when the siege of Hippo was abandoned by the Vandals, for he says he was in Hippo during the whole time of the siege. Furthermore, his use of quondam in the same chapter ( quondam Bonifacius ) seems to presuppose the death of Boniface, which occurred about 432. The terminus ad quem is the destruction of Carthage in 439, for Possidius states that when he wrote Carthage still remained uncaptured. While the probabilities favor 432 or soon after as the date of the composition of the Vita, the evidence for this is not complete and the nearest certain approximation attainable is 432-439. No evidence derived from the date of the burning of Hippo, which is unknown, or from the presumed escape of the church library from the conflagration can be deduced to help in fixing the date of the Vita more closely. The Indiculus must, of course, have been made up from the books in the library at Hippo and might very |22 probably have been compiled during the siege in 431 and later affixed to the Vita.
Style.
The Vita, as already suggested, is a plain recital of facts and incidents which give a clear insight into Augustine's daily life in public and private, based on the writer's personal and intimate knowledge. That Possidius was a man of moderate education appears readily. His style is wholly unadorned. It is the work of a plain man and untrained writer. This appears immediately in the striking contrast between the style of Possidius and that of the letter of Augustine, wonderful both in thought and style, which he embodies in Chapter XXX. The letter reads so smoothly and the argument is so clearly expressed that the scribes found little trouble in understanding it. This contrast with the diction of Possidius is further brought out by the very noticeable decrease in the variations and difficulties which this letter presents in all the MSS. The style of Possidius also differs radically from that of Augustine in that it lacks vivacity, versatility and copiousness. The form is somewhat stiff and the expression, while always marked by candor and often by naive beauty, frequently lacks fluency. The sentences are frequently abrupt and loosely connected. They are bald, unrhetorical and often wanting in animation. While his style in some degree resembles that of Suetonius this is evidently due to the example of Christian biography and not to the direct influence of Suetonius, as there appears to be no evidence that Possidius had any acquaintance with his writings. Possidius is both naive and commonplace in his manner. His sentences show neither balance nor finish and are sometimes marred by awkward parenthetical statements or curious doubling of expression. Except in the Preface, no serious attempt at literary finish is made. There is no philosophizing or play of the imagination; neither is there any padding or moralizing. Though the sentences are not long and involved, yet they are frequently awkward and the thought is not always clearly expressed. It is a simple matter-of-fact |23 account without embellishment, and is not weighed down with a mass of fable and fiction. Possidius shows self-restraint and modesty, with a touching sincerity and devotion to his leader. The work abounds in biblical references and quotations which are apt and reveal a considerable acquaintance with the Scriptures. Outside the Scriptures he quotes only three books, the Vita Ambrosii of Paulinus, the De Mortalitate of Cyprian and the Confessiones of Augustine—a very limited circle—and two or three unidentified commonplaces. With the Confessiones he was quite familiar. He quotes no secular writer. His one aim was to reveal Augustine as man and bishop in his daily life, work and character. Of this he has given a faithful, if incomplete picture, one of absorbing interest and at times of unaffected beauty.
His Latinity is that of his own time, as used by a man of only fair ability and education. His vocabulary, arrangement and style are thus restricted by his own limitations. It is unrhetorical narrative Latin of the fifth century. Characteristics of still later Latin also begin to appear.
Manuscripts.
The text of this edition of the Vita is based on a collation of ten of the earlier MSS., five from France and five from Italy, in photostatic copy. Of these, four of the latter and at least one of the former have been examined for previous editions. A description of each of these ten MSS. follows:
A Bibliothèque de Chartres 112. Membraneus. 125ff. 220 x 170 millim., saec. IX-X. 1. S. Augustini Vita scripta a Possidio episcopo. |24
As one of the earliest copies giving the complete text with fewer and less serious errors than any other, it is clearly the best of the ten MSS. It is carefully written in an excellent hand and presents only occasional errors. The observable errors in A are confined to 35 instances of haplography, its characteristic fault, 25 erroneous substitution of single letters, perhaps 5 impossible readings, and some easily detected and insignificant other slips here and there. They are all noted in the apparatus criticus. This MS. seems to be quoted once, but inaccurately, by the Benedictine editors under |25 the name Carnotensis, yet it nowhere appears in the list of MSS. which they have consulted.
B Vatican, Codex Reginae Sueciae 1025. Membraneus, foliorum 211 (o,273 x 0,222), paginis bipartitis exaratus saec. XI. 8. (Fol. 137-156) Vita S. Augustini ep. conscripta a Possidio ep. = BHL. 785, 786. This MS. is complete and in general agrees with A, though it contains numerous errors and occasional readings taken from the second or variant group of MSS. Omissions and corrections are frequent. It is one of the MSS. used by Salinas.
C Vatican, Codex Reginae Sueciae 541. Membraneus, foliorum 179, signata olim I—XX/IX—I (o,378 x 0,274), paginis, bipartitis exaratus variis manibus saec. XII. 63. (Fol. 158-166) Vita S. Augustini ep. = BHL. 785. The main representative of the second or variant group. It is neatly written and errors are rather less numerous than in B. However it substitutes not a few readings of its own which are not found in the other MSS. The text is complete. Also used by Salinas. D Bibliothèque Nationale, Codex signatus num. 2076. Olim coenobii Dervensis, deinde Petri Pithoei, deinde Thuaneus, deinde Colbertinus 1237, postea Regius C. 3775.3.3. Foliorum 144, med. (o,285 x 0,23), columnis binis exaratus saec. X. 3. (Fol. 1o6-130) Vita beati Augustini a beatissimo Possidio edita Calamensi episcopo. In close agreement with C. There are many corrections, usually to the readings peculiar to C. It is complete.
E Bibliothèque Nationale, Codex signatus num. 13220. Olim Francisci de Harlay archiepiscopi Rotomagensis, deinde coenobii sancti Martialis Lemovicensis, postea SanGerm., Harlay 369. Foliorum 211, min. (fere o,175 x 0,44), lineis plenis, exaratus diversis manibus saec. X. |26 9. (Fol. 96-134) Vita Sancti Augustini episcopi Hipponensis, a beato Possidio edita Calamensi episcopo. Very carefully written. The few errors are generally corrected. It contains many interlinear explanatory words entered in a later hand above the corresponding word in the text. The conclusion of the Vita is missing. Though this MS. was once at St. Germain, it cannot be the MS. quoted by the Benedictine editors as Germanensis, for the readings do not agree. F Bibliothèque Nationale, Codex signatus num. 11748. Olim sancti Mauri Fossatensis 38, deinde San-Germ., prius 1060, recentius 487. Foliorum 155, med. (o,36 x 0,27), columnis binis, exaratus saec. X. 9. (Fol. 20-35) Vita beati Augustini.
Very inaccurate in case endings. The text is complete. It is quoted in the Benedictine edition under the name Fossatensis and is called vetustissimus .
G Bibliothèque Nationale, Codex signatus num. 10863. Olim coenobii "Luxovinensis" (fol. 1), deinde Suppl. lat. 1445. Foliorum 99, min. (0,21 x 0,14), lineis plenis, exaratus saec. IX. 1. (Fol. 24-52) Vita sancti Augustini auctore Possidio.
Likewise inaccurate in case endings. The first nine and a half chapters are missing and a portion of Augustine's letter is omitted.
H Vatican, Codex 1190 (olim 2171). Membraneus, foliorum A et sign. 1-179, 181-264 (o,38o x 0,282), paginis bipartitis exaratus variis manibus saec. XII. 36. (Fol. 88-97) Acta S. Augustini ep. = BHL. 785. Fragmentary. Used by Salinas.
J Vatican, Codex 1191. Membraneus, foliorum 205 (o,430 x 0,308), paginis bipartitis exaratus saec. XII extr. |27 70. (Fol. 198-203) Vita S. Augustini ep. edita a Possidio ep. — BHL. 785. Still more fragmentary. Used by Salinas. K Bibliotheca Vallicellana, Tomus I. Membraneus, foliorum A et sign. 1-336 (o,565 x 0,360), paginis bipartitis exaratus saec. XI/XII. 92. (Fol. 250-254) Natale S. Augustini ep. — BHL. 785.
Closely related to H. Fragmentary. It also breaks off abruptly in Chapter XXIV.
LMNOP Five MSS. used by the Benedictine editors: duo Floriacenses, Germanensis, Vedastinus, Cisterciensis. Q Brussels, Bollandist Museum, P.MS 5.
Belongs to the AB group, being related very closely to B. The order of the MSS. E-K represents no particular classification, except that G-K are more or less fragmentary. The readings from the MSS. L-Q, as given in the Benedictine edition and the Acta Sanctorum, are indicated in the apparatus criticus, though the former are very few and generally unimportant. However, when the Benedictine editors quote their MSS. as codex unus or codex alter, as they usually do, thereby making it impossible to identify the MS. from which the variant is taken, the reading has been omitted. The variants given from Q are important.
In addition to the manuscripts enumerated and described above, readings in crucial places from seventeen manuscripts in the Bibliothèque Nationale were obtained through the courtesy of M. Omont, Conservateur des Manuscrits. The readings thus obtained closely confirm the consensus of the other manuscripts used as against the readings introduced by previous editors. They do not, however, aid in determining more clearly the relative value of the body of manuscripts used as the basis for this edition. These seventeen manuscripts are marked in the general list of manuscripts on page 30 by the letters abcdefghijklmnopqr.
In determining the relative value of the various MSS. one fact must be kept in mind, namely that the texts of the lives |28 of saints did not receive the same consideration as those of classical writers. Lives of saints were very common and were freely multiplied. Scribes were less careful with them than with either the Scriptures or classical writings for which a greater amount of regard was felt; for the former because of their inspired nature and for the latter because of their rarity and antiquity. Hence there was less restraint in copying the texts of these Lives. Accordingly there are more individual differences in such MSS., and the family groups are not as clearly defined. Moreover since the MSS. of any one Life are so much more numerous than for most classical texts—in the present case probably two hundred or more— definite relationship is clearly more difficult to establish on the basis of only a part of the extant MSS. of a given Life.
Thus in the case of the ten MSS. of the Vita Augustini examined for this edition, each MS. is in some degree independent of the others. Under such conditions, therefore, the choice of the best MS. or group of MSS., may be made by a process of elimination. In a comparison of the ten MSS. with a view to this choice GHJK may be omitted as they are quite fragmentary. Of the other six MSS. the crucial readings of A and B frequently agree in opposition to all the others, thus showing a certain relationship between these two. For instance in the Praefatio AB read videar fraudare, whereas CDFHK read fraudare videar; AB autem, CDEFHK enim. In Chapter I A and B both read carthaginensi which is, of course, an error for tagastensi. In this same chapter AB read assistens as against astans in CDEFHJK. Other instances of this agreement between A and B may easily be found in the apparatus criticus.