In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

C h a p t e r 4 Fortunatus Two days in the late summer of 392 changed Augustine forever, although at the time he scarcely recognized it. Augustine had served as a priest in Hippo for little more than a year when he was approached by an unusual joint delegation of Catholics and Donatists, asking him to take on in debate the local Manichaean leader Fortunatus. Augustine reports that Fortunatus, who held the rank of a Manichaean presbyter,1 had lived in Hippo a long time and had won over so many to his religion that it was “most pleasant for him to live there” (Retr 1.15.1). Augustine’s biographer, Possidius, set the scene in greater detail: In the city of Hippo the Manichaean plague had at that time deeply infected many, both citizens and foreigners. They were attracted to it and being led astray by one Fortunatus, a priest of that heresy who was residing there and carrying on his activities. Meanwhile, the Christian citizens and foreigners of Hippo, Catholics and Donatists alike, went to their priest Augustine and asked him to meet the Manichaean priest, whom they regarded as a learned man, and to discuss the Law of God with him. . . . He did not refuse the request . . . but asked whether the other was also ready. The petitioners went straight to Fortunatus with the message, and requested and urged and demanded that he also not refuse. But Fortunatus had already known Saint Augustine in Carthage when the latter was still caught in the same error, and he now feared such a meeting. Compelled however by the insistence of his own followers and by shame as well, he promised to meet Augustine in Fortunatus 123 person and engage him in debate. They met therefore at the appointed time and place in the presence of a great many interested people and a throng of the curious. (Possidius 6.1–6) The motives of the Donatists, who dominated the city religiously, in turning to the new Catholic priest for this purpose invite speculation. W. H. C. Frend has suggested that their action “showed clearly that they feared the Manichee more than they did the new Catholic presbyter.”2 Malcolm Alflatt points to the advantage to the Donatists in pitching the other two major religious camps in the city against each other. If Augustine prevailed, then the Manichaean threat would be mitigated.3 If he lost, then the new darling of the Catholic community would be taken down a few pegs. Best of all, the two might sufficiently bloody each other that both sides would come out looking bad; and it was likely that Augustine’s own Manichaean past would be exposed and advertised in the process, as indeed it was.4 Another practical factor behind the recruitment of Augustine was his familiarity with Manichaeism, which was starting to become known through the gradual dissemination of his anti-Manichaean works. Possidius’s claim that Augustine had a passing acquaintance with Fortunatus from his time in the sect finds no clear support in the exchange itself.5 The two met in debate on August 28 and 29, 392 at the Baths of Sossius, a typical venue for such public events. Although stenographers recorded the debate verbatim (Possidius 6.6), Augustine admitted that he “compressed” the record for the purposes of publication (Retr 1.15.1).6 With Augustine controlling every detail, we should not delude ourselves into imagining that we are in possession of a full and balanced account.7 Yet even Augustine’s version of events permits us to witness the famous rhetorician put on the defensive and bested on nearly every point by Fortunatus—to the degree, that is, that the two even entered into actual communication in the course of the debate. Dialogue and persuasion can take place only on the basis of some common ground, premises on which both sides agree. Few if any such shared premises grounded the exchange between Fortunatus and Augustine, and for this reason the two talked past each other most of the time. For two successive days, they stood together placing two rival ideologies on display for popular consideration and consumption, rooted in dramatically different views of the world, value systems, and manners of thought. Their words were judged not only for intellectual cogency, but also—and perhaps more—for appeal as an 24-04-25 09:44 GMT) 124 chapter 4 expression of an ethos and meaningfulness toward which members of...

Share