To Florus 5.23
Let us now pursue what the passage requires. It is clear, most subtle debater, that you have exalted one and the same thing—human nature—with great praises, but stained it with still greater accusations. Just as these cannot occur together at one time, in one work, and under one intention, so natural reason cannot admit them even as alternating opposites. Nature always possesses one full valuation, namely goodness. It is never attacked for evil—which its institutions, because of its maker’s dignity, do not admit—except by the utterly filthy teeth of the Manichaeans.
Having completed this point, I ask what wisps of marriage you think you should pursue. If you confess that the cause of a human being is not marriage but nature, and the cause of sin too is not marriage but nature, then the marriage you were praising has entirely vanished. To what effect is it assigned if it is the cause of neither your evil nor my good? You remove the human being from marriage’s honorable activity lest you be compelled to attribute him to fornication too. You remove sin from marriage’s necessary activity lest you appear to condemn marriage. What remains worthy of praise in marriage’s possession? Why fear to violate with a word what you have utterly demolished by argument? Of what will it be called the cause if it shares in neither natural evil nor natural good? Do the name and honor of marriage now accomplish nothing in human affairs?
But you are choking, and painfully. We must therefore help the panting old man. Something remains you can give marriage, without which nothing else is found: say that marriage stands guard at the door, allowing no report of obscenity to burst in upon the partners’ pleasure, but claiming honor and modesty for that activity under its own title. Your attempt to corrupt marriage’s integrity with deceitful praise was therefore pointless. It is more hostile to no one than to you. It drives you utterly away and does not allow Manichaean tongues to creep in and lacerate the union entrusted to its protection. ‘They have brothels worthy of their doctrine,’ it says, ‘where they may satisfy themselves at night.’ Marriage’s watch guards the pleasure of modest people; crimes are barred and the honor of decency admitted. The privileges the apostle granted defend honorable marriage and undefiled beds; ‘but God will judge fornicators and adulterers’ (Hebrews 13:4). Where, then, is the criminal union, if the authority of the marriage you praised serves its activity and privacy?
Latin
Verum nunc, quod locus exigit, insequamur. Apparet te, subtilissime disputator, unam eamdemque rem, naturam scilicet humanam magnis extulisse laudibus, sed maioribus maculasse criminibus; quod sicut uno tempore, uno opere, unoque consilio evenire simul non potest; ita ratio naturalis nequaquam capit haec, vel sub alternatione contraria, sed uno semper plena, id est, taxatione boni, numquam propter malum, quod eius instituta per actoris sui non capiunt dignitatem, nisi a pollutissimo Manichaeorum dente mordetur. Sed hoc expleto, illud inquiro, quos putes connubii fumos sequendos. Nam si connubium fateris non esse causam hominis, sed naturam; peccati quoque causam non esse connubium, sed naturam; hoc connubium, cui laudem dabas, totum prorsus evanuit. Cui ergo rei adscribitur, si nec mali tui, nec boni mei causa est? Si ab honestate connubii hominem submoves, ne eum etiam fornicationi cogaris adscribere; a necessitate connubii peccatum removes, ne nuptias damnare videaris; quid remansit laude dignum in possessione coniugii? Cur illud times violare sermone, quod admota disputatione funditus subruisti? Cuius ergo rei causa esse dicetur, si nec malo nec bono participat naturali? Nihil ergo iam agit in rebus humanis nomen honestasque coniugii? Sed angeris, et dure quidem; subveniendum est igitur anhelo seni. Remansit quod ei dare possis, sine quo tamen nihil aliud invenitur; videlicet ut dicas hoc connubium stare pro foribus, ut ad voluptatem coeuntium nullam obscenitatis famam permittat irruere, sed suo titulo illi negotio honestatem vindicet et pudorem. Sine causa ergo connubii fidem subdola corrumpere laude voluisti; nulli est infestius, quam tibi. Vos omnino proturbat, nec ad lacerationem commixtionis tutelae suae creditae, Manichaeorum linguas permittit irrepere. Habent, inquit, suo dogmate digna meritoria, in quibus nocturnis horis expleantur; illam verecundantium voluptatem connubii tuentur excubiae, arcentur crimina, et honor honestatis admittitur; privilegia sibi ab Apostolo concessa defendunt honorabiles nuptias et thoros immaculatos; fornicatores autem et adulteros iudicabit Deus [n56] . Ubi est ergo criminosa commixtio, si negotio eius atque secreto auctoritas connubii, quod laudabas, obsequitur?
About this text
Julian’s six preserved books to Florus, quoted section by section in Augustine’s unfinished reply. Augustine’s refutations are omitted. Latin of Julian’s words is on each section.
Julian’s own books do not survive as a separate manuscript. English follows his words as Augustine quotes them in the Unfinished Work Against Julian. Augustine’s replies are omitted. We do not restore a Julian text independent of Augustine.
Witnesses
- Copy-text Augustine, Unfinished Work Against Julian (Latin · Julian’s words as quoted, Books 1–6)
- Checked print Augustinus.it Latin of the Unfinished Work (Latin · Same work)
- Checked print Migne PL 45 (Latin · Hard cases)
This is an AI-assisted study translation. Source fidelity and completeness have not been independently certified. Open Latin on each section (or the Latin source witness link) for the source text. This is not a complete critical edition.