Why Did Augustine Revisit His Earlier Books?

A teacher who could still be corrected

Augustine once warned an admirer against defending the claim that he had never made a mistake. Such a defense, he said, would protect an imaginary person bearing his name. Friendship should help a writer recognize error, rather than make the writer’s reputation more important than the truth. His own books could be challenged. ¹

The warning belongs to Letter 143, written in 412, years before his final review of his writings. It anticipates a difficulty familiar to anyone whose words have traveled beyond the original conversation. Copies remain in circulation, people build arguments upon them, and affection can make readers reluctant to acknowledge their teacher’s limits. ¹

James gives teachers reason to take that difficulty seriously. Chapter 3 begins with the stricter judgment associated with teaching and immediately acknowledges how widely people stumble in speech. The chapter then asks what kind of life demonstrates wisdom. Responsibility for words and the character of the speaker belong within the same examination. ²

In the prologue to his Retractations, also called Reconsiderations or Revisions, Augustine places himself under such scrutiny. He proposes to examine his writings and mark what displeases him. Growing older has not made all his speech perfect. Readers should be able to see the progress of someone who continued learning while he wrote. ³

The title can mislead if we expect a succession of complete withdrawals. John Burnaby’s analysis distinguishes criticism from the defense of earlier statements. Augustine corrects, qualifies, explains and sometimes argues that a reader has misunderstood him. The book’s intellectual honesty must be assessed through these particular actions, rather than presumed from its title. ⁴

A review written for continuing readers

The work is also a guide to a large body of writing. As James O’Donnell explains, its information about books and their beginnings helps readers identify what Augustine wrote. An author’s responsibility includes making his work intelligible to people who encounter it elsewhere, after the immediate occasion of its composition has passed. ⁵

Johannes Brachtendorf’s study of Augustine’s reception of himself shows that the final review belongs to a longer practice. Augustine had already looked back upon earlier statements while answering readers or addressing new controversies. The final review gathers and extends this activity; it does not establish that he first became capable of reconsideration only at the end of his life. ⁶

This literary undertaking has a spiritual dimension. Fabio Gasti reads Augustine’s return to earlier texts as a relationship among the author, God and readers. Reviewing a sentence is therefore more than polishing a style. It can expose the distance between what a person once claimed, what he now understands, and the judgment before which he stands. ⁷

Historians nevertheless approach that self presentation differently. Joseph de Ghellinck emphasized an author’s examination of conscience; Kai Preuß gives greater attention to the management of reception and continuity. These perspectives raise a useful question: a writer may acknowledge fallibility while also shaping the terms on which later readers assess him. Corrections deserve both attention and scrutiny. ^{8, 9}

Augustine did not invent every form of literary self cataloging. Long before him, the physician Galen wrote about his own books and the order of reading them. Hankinson’s account explains that distinguishing authentic works from texts circulating under a famous name was already a practical problem. Augustine’s particular religious purpose belongs within this wider literary world. ¹⁰

His friend Possidius describes the review in his Life of Augustine and also mentions works left unfinished. This is valuable testimony from someone who knew him. It is also a devotional biography intended to present an exemplary Christian life. Its praise should be read with awareness of that purpose, alongside the writings it describes. ¹¹

Mark Vessey’s introduction to Augustine makes a related historical point: the person readers encounter depends partly upon the kind of portrait being offered. Considering the people, institutions and literary circumstances around him helps us hear something an isolated picture of a great mind can obscure. His decisions arose within relationships, obligations and disputes. ¹²

Even Augustine’s memory has visible limits. In Confessions 4, he recalls writing an early work about beauty and fittingness, but cannot confidently remember whether it comprised two or three books. He no longer possesses it. A retrospective account may preserve precious information while openly displaying gaps that no reader should silently fill. ¹³

The actual condition of texts also matters. Houghton’s study of Augustine’s biblical citations distinguishes manuscripts, acquired familiarity with Scripture and quotation from memory. Differences in wording need careful explanation. A textual slip, an unfamiliar passage and a deliberate change of teaching are different possibilities; reading responsibly requires more than noticing that two sentences differ. ¹⁴

Compare the earlier book with its review

Genre matters in that comparison. Daniel Burns’s discussion of the early dialogues stresses their dramatic character: questions, interlocutors and imperfect arguments participate in the work’s meaning. A sentence spoken during a developing conversation is not automatically a final declaration by the author. Reading the dialogue as a string of doctrinal slogans can manufacture contradictions. ¹⁵

Therese Fuhrer’s study of On Order shows why this matters for its discussion of evil. The conversation can reject an explanation while leaving a problem unresolved. Her interpretation also attends to the surrounding scenes as part of the argument. We need not accept every proposed symbolism to recognize that the dialogue communicates through more than isolated conclusions. ¹⁶

One scene makes the moral danger of argument explicit. In On Order 1.10, Trygetius wants a troubling remark removed from the record, while Licentius wants it retained. Augustine rebukes the delight in scoring a victory. The early work already presents the wish to appear superior as an obstacle to learning about God and truth. ¹⁷

On the Happy Life offers another instructive comparison. Its closing discussion admits that the participants have not yet attained wisdom and happiness, although God is helping them. Teng He argues that this qualification must be read alongside its more confident descriptions of the wise person. The whole conversation is less simple than a promise of immediately achieved perfection. ^{18, 19}

The later review still makes a real correction. Augustine regrets presenting the happy life as residing in the wise person’s soul regardless of bodily condition. He points instead to future life with an incorruptible body. The earlier qualification does not cancel this revision; it helps us identify more exactly what has changed and what was already qualified. ³

Other changes require a wider comparison of writings. Lydia Schumacher’s study of illumination argues for reading statements about knowledge within their theological setting, including later reflection on the Trinity. An attractive early formulation cannot simply be detached from the developing account of God and human dependence in which the author eventually places it. ²⁰

A chronological story can also become too tidy. Kantzer Komline explains the difficulties of treating everything written in one period as a single position, or arranging themes without regard to development. Several concerns can coexist in the same author. Attention to both time and subject gives a more demanding account than a neat division into two Augustines. ²¹

Specific subjects can follow different paths. Stuart Squires’s study of the possibility of a sinless life argues for recurring changes and qualifications, rather than one simple movement from youthful optimism to later severity. His reconstruction is an interpretation to examine, but it usefully warns us against making one broad account of development answer every particular question. ²²

Bart van Egmond likewise argues for gradual development when tracing the redemptive function of divine judgment. Earlier concerns are reworked as Christ’s saving work becomes more central to the account. Recognizing development need not mean imagining that every later conviction arrived at once or that every earlier concern disappeared. The evidence has to establish the scale of change. ²³

Vocabulary needs the same care. Tomoki Ishikawa’s close reading of an early expression about will and free decision attends to its immediate argument and legal associations. A familiar modern phrase can conceal an ancient distinction. Before declaring that a thinker has contradicted himself, we should ask whether we have understood what his words were doing in each setting. ²⁴

Humility can name a limit without abandoning truth

Some questions remain unresolved. Answering the younger layman Vincentius Victor, Augustine says that a less learned person may know something an older bishop does not. He welcomes justified criticism while defending his uncertainty about the origin of individual souls. Humility, in this exchange, requires acknowledging a particular limit rather than pretending every proposed answer is equally sound. ²⁵

The preface to Book 3 of On the Trinity similarly invites correction while distinguishing his writings from canonical Scripture. A critic must give reasons, rather than replace one assertion with another. The invitation is meaningful because Augustine thinks truth can be sought and errors identified. He does not need to deny conviction in order to admit fallibility. ²⁶

His unfinished literal commentary on Genesis begins by distinguishing questions from rash assertions. It also states the faith within which its inquiry proceeds. Both features matter. The text does not authorize confident claims about matters the interpreter does not understand, and it does not present the suspension of every Christian belief as the condition of learning. ²⁷

Augustine later considered destroying this unfinished attempt, then decided to retain it as evidence of his first efforts at the task. Angus Morrison’s account brings out the significance of reading it alongside the later commentary. Keeping an inadequate beginning can serve readers when its limitations are honestly identified. Removing every sign of development would tell a less truthful story. ^{28, 3}

On Christian Doctrine supplies a further safeguard. An interpretation that fails to build love of God and neighbor has missed Scripture’s purpose. Yet even a mistaken reading that encourages love should be corrected toward the author’s intended meaning. A good intention does not make every interpretation accurate; concern for truth and concern for people should work together. ²⁹

Peter Sanlon’s theological reading draws attention to that connection between intellectual posture and moral formation. A reader can acquire interpretive skill while becoming attached to learning or reputation as an end in itself. Dependence on God should change the purpose for which knowledge is sought and shared, as well as the amount a person can confidently explain. ³⁰

Changing a judgment does not settle its rightness

There is a difficult reason to resist making reconsideration itself a virtue sufficient for every case. In Letter 93, Augustine explicitly describes moving away from his earlier opposition to coercing people into church unity. Reports from colleagues and his own town persuaded him that imperial pressure could produce beneficial results. This was a changed judgment in favor of coercion. ¹

Muñiz Pérez’s historical analysis traces the growing place of fear within Augustine’s theological justification of that change. Understanding the argument does not require endorsing it. Augustine’s reports of successful outcomes give us his assessment of coercion; they do not independently establish the freedom or inner convictions of everyone subjected to the measures he defended. ³¹

Jennifer Ebbeler’s account of his correspondence adds another difficulty. What Augustine understood as charitable correction could be resisted by the people receiving it. An author’s account of his own intentions does not tell us everything about a relationship. The recipients’ responses matter when we ask how correction actually functioned and whose voice shaped the surviving account. ³²

James’s description of wisdom therefore remains a judgment upon the process as well as its outcome. Wisdom is peaceable, gentle, receptive to appeal, merciful and fruitful. A teacher cannot demonstrate these qualities merely by announcing that he has reconsidered. The reasons offered, the treatment of other people and the conduct that follows still require examination. ²

Learning without an imaginary perfect teacher

One change Augustine explicitly acknowledged concerned the beginning of faith. In On the Predestination of the Saints, he says that he once treated our initial believing as our own contribution, after which God supplied further gifts. He later judged that the beginning itself also belonged to God’s gift. Here the author names an error instead of merely correcting an unfortunate expression. ³³

In the companion discussion of perseverance, he also asks admirers to follow his views only where they judge him free from error. He presents his writing as progress rather than perfection. Readers can take that request seriously without resolving every later dispute about grace before learning from the practice of making a particular correction visible. ³³

Hill, Dunnington and Hall describe Christian intellectual humility through dependence on God rather than the need to protect intellectual status. Their account is a theological proposal, not proof that Augustine always embodied it. It helps distinguish admitting our limits from treating belief as worthless. Confidence can rest in God while our explanations remain open to correction. ³⁴

Gary McCloskey’s modern appropriation also treats honest doubt as a possible beginning of learning. Recognizing that a claim needs examination can express a desire to know, rather than a refusal to believe anything. We need not reproduce his educational setting to see the practical difference between asking a serious question and using uncertainty to evade every responsibility. ³⁵

Augustine’s review leaves us with a teacher who can be read, questioned and sometimes corrected. James directs our attention to the wisdom shown in a person’s conduct. Faithfulness includes giving reasons, listening to a justified objection and making a correction plain enough to help those who trusted the earlier words. An appearance of perfection cannot do that work for us. ²