Augustine's Confessions Book 6 Ch. I

[praepositus]

Greetings,

I have a grammatical question about the following sentence, where Augustine is addressing God and describing his mother's prayer that he become Christian. Specifically, there are two infinitives that don't seem to make sense:

Tibi autem, fons misericordiarum, preces et lacrimas densiores, ut accelerares adiutorium tuum et inluminares tenebras meas, et studiosius ad ecclesiam currere et in Ambrosi ora suspendi, ad fontem salientis aquae in vitam aeternam.

I'm using the Teubner edition, and in the editorial margin there is a variant where the infinitives are replaced by imperfect subjunctives, which is what I would have expected: currerem, suspenderer. This is the variant I'm going with, since it makes sense to me, but my question is: Is there a way to read this sentence with the infinitives, as in the main body of the text? Is this some kind of vulgarism or a case of corruption?

Many thanks!

[bedwere]

Maybe because St. Augustine meant that currere and suspendi should be a consequence of ut accelerares adiutorium tuum et inluminares tenebras meas,, rather than being at the same syntactical order.

[tico]

The subject of the infinitives is Augustine's mother, not Augustine himself.

[tico]

I could find the following English translation:
"Yea, rather, for that she was fully confident that Thou, who had promised the whole, would give the rest, most calmly, and with a breast full of confidence, she replied to me, "She believed in Christ, that before she departed this life, she would see me a Catholic believer." And thus much said she to me; but to You, O Fountain of mercies, poured she out more frequent prayers and tears, that You would hasten Your aid, and enlighten my darkness; and she hurried all the more assiduously to the church, and hung upon the words of Ambrose, praying for the fountain of water that springs up into everlasting life."

[praepositus]

The subject of the infinitives is Augustine's mother, not Augustine himself.

Thank you. That makes sense. I never considered it.

[praepositus]

Maybe because St. Augustine meant that currere and suspendi should be a consequence of ut accelerares adiutorium tuum et inluminares tenebras meas,, rather than being at the same syntactical order.

Could you elaborate? Do you mean that ut accelerares, etc., should be a consequence of currere, etc.? I think that makes sense.

[bedwere]

Now that I read the the text I understand that it is indeed the mother who runs to church and to hear St. Ambrose, but the accelerares etc. depends on tibi preces etc.

[praepositus]

Now that I read the the text I understand that it is indeed the mother who runs to church and to hear St. Ambrose, but the accelerares etc. depends on tibi preces etc.

Yes, that seems right. I was indeed reading the ut clause as depending on preces and found the infinitives confusing; but it certainly makes sense now to read the infinitives as being in some sense parallel with preces and describing the actions of the mother.

[RandyGibbons]

The more I look at the sentence, the less sure I am that we're getting it grammatically. Is there an implied verb, perhaps from the previous sentence(s), taking preces et lacrimas densiores as direct object? If not, what governs preces et lacrimas densiores. And Roberto (bedwere), I'm not convinced by your explanation of the infinitives currere and suspendi, or perhaps I don't understand it. (I agree with tico that their subject is Monica, and I've confirmed that looking at Maria Boulding's translation.) Is it possible they are historical infinitives, conveying a sense of urgency, perhaps also mirrored in the previous sentence(s)?

Too lazy to check the previous sentences myself,

Randy

[bedwere]

Randy, if you start reading from immo vero, the sense should be clear.

[RandyGibbons]

Thanks, Roberto. I entirely get the sense of the passage, but I'm still not so sure about the grammar of the sentence praepositus asked about. Here is the passage:

immo vero quia certa erat et quod restabat te daturum, qui totum promiseras, placidissime et pectore pleno fiduciae respondit mihi credere se in Christo quod priusquam de hac vita emigraret me visura esset fidelem catholicum. et hoc quidem mihi. tibi autem, fons misericordiarum, preces et lacrimas densiores, ut accelerares adiutorium tuum et inluminares tenebras meas, et studiosius ad ecclesiam currere et in Ambrosii ora suspendi, ad fontem salientis aquae in vitam aeternam. diligebat autem illum virum sicut angelum dei, quod per illum cognoverat me interim ad illam ancipitem fluctuationem iam esse perductum per quam transiturum me ab aegritudine ad sanitatem, intercurrente artiore periculo quasi per accessionem quam criticam medici vocant, certa praesumebat.

This is what I think:

This is historical narrative. Augustine is recounting to God Monica's efforts directed both to himself and to God, to get Augustine converted before she dies. In the narrative he contrasts the emotional equanimity with which his mother greeted his half-way status (freed from his Manichean beliefs but not yet Catholic)- after all, this was what she had prayed to you for and was to be expected. hoc quidem mihi. - 'This much she was saying to me', but also 'in this way she behaved toward me', with some sort of verb understood that combines saying and behaving (it needn't be a particular verb). That was Monica to me. tibi autem, - 'but to you', and here Augustine proceeds to contrast her more urgent imprecations to God himself. The style of narrative is clipped. Just as a verb needed to be supplied in hoc quidem mihi, a verb is to be supplied (with his mother as subject) - again, it needn't be a particular verb - that governs preces et lacrimas densiores, 'but to you she was laying on prayers and more dense tears', and, in a nice bit of stylistic variation that retains the clipped feeling, resorts to historical infinitives with currere and suspendi.

Omitting verbs and using historical infinitives gives the narration a clipped and urgent sense.

That's my sense. It's an inadequate explanation to praepositus in terms of grammatical labels, but do you think I'm getting it right?

Randy

[rothbard]

I agree. To me they look like historical infinitives as well.