Possidius informs us that the Speculum had a preface prefixed to it. I will give his words at length, as I may have occasion to refer to them more than once. MS 13174 (9th Century) Samuel Berger, Histoire de la Vulgate pendant les premiers siècles du moyen âge, 1893 pp. 103–105 >>books.google.com/books?id=HYQXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA103#v=onepage&q&f=false
Eugippius (circa 460 – circa 535, Castellum Lucullanum) was a disciple and the biographer of Saint Severinus of Noricum. After the latter's death in 482, he took the remains to Naples and founded a monastery on the site of a 1st-century Roman villa, the Castellum Lucullanum (on the site of the later Castel dell'Ovo). Its scriptorium was famous, and Cassiodorus praised Eugippius' Biblical scholarship, although he did not approve of Eugippius' neglect of secular learning. In 511 Eugippius wrote to Paschasius and asked his venerated and dear friend, who had great literary skill, to write a biography of St. Severinus from the accounts of the saint which he (Eugippius) had put together in crude and inartistic form. Paschasius, however, replied that the acts and miracles of the saint could not be described better than he had done by Eugippius. While at Naples, Eugippius compiled a 1000-page anthology of the works of St. Augustine and produced other scholarly works of high quality. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugippius
Thesis PhD on Eugippius works and manuscripts http://etheses.whiterose.ac.uk/654/1/uk_bl_ethos_491749.pdf
Quique prodesse omnibus volens, et valentibus multa librorum legere et non valentibus, ex utroque divino Testamento, Vetere et Novo, praemissa praefatione, praecepta divina seu vetita ad vitae regulam pertinentia excerpsit, atque ex his unum codicem fecit; ut qui vellet legeret, et in eo vel quam obediens Deo inobediensve esset agnosceret, et hoc opus voluit Speculum appellari. (Vita Aug ubi sup. p. 277) Caput XXVIII - Quae proxime ante mortem ab Augustino edita. Rectrationum libri. Barbarorum irruptio. Hipponis obsidio. Migne Latina, PL 32.58 Essays on Various subjects By WISEMAN https://books.google.com/books?id=jmJ_9IKZlmIC&pg=PA16#v=onepage&q&f=false
(PL 32 0057) CAPUT XXVIII. - Quae proxime ante mortem ab Augustino edita. Retractationum libri. Barbarorum irruptio. Hipponis obsidio. CHAPTER XXVIII. The books published by Augustine just before his death Shortly before the time of his death he revised the books which he had dictated and edited, whether those which he had dictated in the time immediately following his conversion when he was still a layman, or while he was a presbyter or a bishop. And in those works which he had dictated or written while he was as yet not so well acquainted with ecclesiastical usage and had less understanding, whatsoever he found not agreeing with the ecclesiastical rule, this he himself censured and corrected. Thus he wrote two volumes whose title is On the Revision of Books. And he sometimes complained that certain books had been carried off by some of his brethren before his careful revision, although he revised them later. Some of his books, however, he left uncompleted at the time of his death. Furthermore, in his desire to be of help to all, both those who could read many books and those who could not, he made excerpts from both the sacred Testaments, the Old and the New, of the divine commandments and prohibitions relating to the conduct of life, and with the addition of a preface, made one volume of them. He who wishes may read it and learn therefrom how obedient or disobedient he is to God. This work he desired to have called "The Mirror" (Latin: Speculum). (<www.tertullian.org/fathers/possidius_life_of_augustine_02_text.htm
>) CAPUT XXVIII. - Quae proxime ante mortem ab Augustino edita. Retractationum libri. Barbarorum irruptio. Hipponis obsidio. Ante proximum vero diem obitus sui a se dictatos et editos recensuit libros, sive eos quos primo tempore conversionis suae adhuc laicus, sive quos presbyter, sive quos episcopus dictaverat: et quaecumque in his recognovit aliter quam sese habet ecclesiastica regula a se fuisse dictata et scripta, cum adhuc ecclesiasticum usum minus sciret, minusque sapuisset, a semetipso et reprehensa et correcta sunt. Unde etiam duo conscripsit volumina, quorum est titulus, De recensione librorum . Praereptos etiam sibi quosdam libros ante diligentiorem emendationem a nonnullis fratribus conquerebatur, licet eos postmodum emendasset. Imperfecta etiam quaedam suorum librorum praeventus morte dereliquit. Quique prodesse omnibus volens, et valentibus multa librorum legere, et non valentibus, ex utroque divino Testamento, Vetere et Novo, praemissa praefatione praecepta divina seu vetita ad vitae regulam pertinentia excerpsit, atque ex his unum codicem fecit; ut qui vellet legeret, atque in eo vel quam obediens Deo inobediensve esset, agnosceret: et hoc opus voluit Speculum appellari. (0058)
Here is the Sanday Quote. Sanday, W. (1890). The Vienna Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. IV [Review of S. Augustini Opera; Priscilliani quae supersunt]. The Classical Review, 4(9), 414–417. http://www.jstor.org/stable/692384
W. Sanday, The Vienna Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. IV, The Classical Review, Vol. 4, No. 9 (Nov., 1890), pp. 414-417
You can see the first page of this paper, and in it is what I was referring to.
I will get this in PBF first
Now, the question is which Speculum was Possidius referring to. Of course the critics reject the Comma Speculum. So, Sanday does as well. But the Comma Speculum is missing the first few pages (has no introduction paragraphs) because the manuscript is damaged.
So, who is to say which is which? Or that Augustine did or did not write an introduction to this Comma Speculum...
The Critics assume that the non-comma speculum is the one that Possidius was referring to because of the usual bias.
But Wiseman points out that there is no reason to assume this nor is there any reason to assume that this comma speculum was written by someone else posing as Augustine.
Anyway, the whole thing is so complicated and full of nit picking, I just left it out of the paper. It seems like the critics have picked a fight where there was none before simply to find a reason to exclude the work as Augustine's. No need to write a defense concerning the lack of introduction in the comma speculum. The History speaks much louder and clearer that it was always accepted as Augustine's work.
I wonder if there is much overlap between the two. The idea that two people wrote very similar Speculums is not an easy theory.
- And this acceptance and attribute also lends weight to Wiseman's statements concerning Augustine's knowledge of the comma, Augustine's allusions to the comma, and finally, Augustines objection to it's use in Jerome's Vulgate as the 9 - The Comma Calmly Considered - The Letter of Egilbert of Trier (circa 1085 AD) indicates.
- Sanday tries to answer the question of overlap and likeness between the two.
- Yes, Grantley has it as Sanday, W. Rev. of CSEL 12. The Classical Review 4 (1890): 414-417.
I would like to find Weihrich’s introduction to CSEL 12 Might be in English
Also Delisle may defend Augustine authorship, but no one has that paper yet.
- Might need someone at the Library of Congress!
That Weihrich CSEL is online, it is Latin
So, concerning the comma-speculum, I would say that we have historical support for the work being attributed to Augustine. The critics have only their current flavor-of-the-month judgements against it. No other fathers saw the issues as significant in determining the authorship of the comma-speculum. And I would even propose that no one saw the problem with Augustine being the author of both works.
Sanday does admit that the works are written differently (i.e., in different styles to serve different ends for the church refutation of heresies). Strange that critics would admit this difference, then deem the difference as a reason to exclude the work as Augustine's. It is just another ad hoc argument based on the presence of the comma in the one work. Wiseman calls them out on this.
- Steven Avery Spencer sent the following messages at 4:21 PM
View Steven Avery’s
I think the Benedictine monks were the first to raise an issue.
- View Steven Av
What is amazing about the comma-speculum is that Wiseman's suggestion happened many decades before the Letter of Egilbert of Trier (circa 1085 AD) was discovered. But the letter affirmed Wiseman's suggestion about the "comma-speculum version". Augustine's reluctance about the verse(s) would be a very good reason why he composed two different versions.
In any case, all the evidence supports our view of the case. The critics have only a supposition based on the presence of the introduction in the complete manuscript. The comma-speculum is missing those pages, so the critics case is weak and desperate: special pleading.
- Steven Avery Spencer sent the following message at 6:30 PM
- Mike Ferrando sent the following messages at 6:45 PM
And the critics try to create a facade with the "we don't agree with so-in-so's opinion of the letter". But the "opinion" has nothing to do with the question or the evidence. The Letter is real and just another "unexpected" "should have never happened" "will never happen" piece of evidence refuting the pathetic weak critics theory that never had any evidence to support it in the first place.
- This just keeps happening. But all we get is more "confirmation bias" from these people who live in denial.
That is why writing these papers and revealing this evidence is so important. The facade is evaporating and soon the only thing left will be their credentials and continued insistence that they are have an opinion and their cabal has rendered judgement, blah blah blah.
Just look at the discoveries of the 19th century (my paper). The trend is always going against these critics. The evidence is always fightingg against their fantastical theories. How many times does it need to happen?