Josephine Quinn’s “Insider and Outsider” (NYRB November 6, 2025; archived) is a favorable review of Augustine the African, by Catherine Conybeare; here are some bits of Hattic interest:
He was baptized by the militant bishop Ambrose of Milan in 387, seven years after the Edict of Thessalonica attempted to enforce Christianity on all Rome’s subjects and five years after the emperor Theodosius launched a new campaign of persecution against Manichaeans. In another change of heart, Augustine gave up his imperial sinecure to return to North Africa, though not to his former companion: now he was committed to chastity. Monnica died on the way back, but Augustine finally arrived home after five years overseas in 388. After that he never left Africa again.
At first he settled in his hometown of Thagaste, where more grief awaited him with the loss of his beloved son at the age of sixteen around the year 390. The following year he was seized by the local congregation on a visit to the port of Hippo and ordained a presbyter, or priest. […] In 395 he was promoted to the unusual position of coadjutant bishop with the incumbent Valerius, a native Greek speaker who needed the support, and finally became sole bishop on Valerius’s death in 396. This prompted him to write his Confessions, an autobiographical account of his spiritual journey and his first work of real brilliance. […]
Conybeare focuses throughout on the ways in which Augustine’s developing theology and theological self-positioning were “inflected by his view from Africa.” One example is his interest in Punic, a western form of the Phoenician language originally introduced to African coastal areas by Iron Age Levantine settlers. It had been adopted by local communities and even kings by the third century BCE, seems by the third century CE to have entirely obliterated the “Libyan” languages previously used in the area, and was still widely spoken across northwest Africa in the early fifth century, alongside Latin. Punic was the first language of many African Christians, and though Augustine wasn’t fluent he seems to have had a functional understanding of it and a good sense of its importance to the Christian mission in the region. Much of our evidence for its continuing popularity comes from Augustine himself, as he renders words and phrases into Punic and back for his own congregation and finds translators, interpreters, and even a Punic-speaking bishop for others.
Conybeare argues that working in a bilingual environment and confronting the fact that words in different languages can have only an approximate correspondence affected Augustine’s attitude toward scripture. This is illustrated by an argument he had with the Bethlehem-based theologian Jerome over the latter’s translation of the Hebrew Bible into Latin. The specific point at issue may seem trivial: Jerome had translated a Hebrew word in the book of Jonah as “ivy” rather than, as had been traditional in earlier Latin versions, “gourd vine.” Augustine wrote to protest, explaining that when local Christians reacted badly to this unfamiliar new version, another African bishop had to change the wording back. Jerome was offended by the implication that he was wrong and by the idea that more than one translation could be authoritative. But Augustine’s experience in Africa of the limitations of translation convinced him that the specific wording of a biblical text was less important than its communicative power—that “different human words could still serve the single truth of God’s word.” […]
In one early exchange, he tells Maximinus, a contemporary from Madauros, that as “an African writing to Africans, and given the fact that we’re both here in Africa,” he shouldn’t mock the Punic names of Christian martyrs. This highlights the complex relationship between the concepts of “Punic” and “African” in antiquity and might suggest an alternative form of regional identification. In Latin, punicus or poenus was simply an unaspirated transliteration of the Greek label phoenix, or Phoenician, but the term was associated in particular with the great imperial city of Carthage, of more immediate concern to Romans than the ports of the Levant. From there its meaning extended to the entire region, no doubt helped along by the widespread adoption of the Punic language there, along with Carthaginian cultural practices and political institutions like the “sufetes” who served as chief magistrates in more than forty North African cities in the Roman period. By the imperial period the terms “African” and “Punic” could be used interchangeably by Roman authors, something like the modern use as synonyms, in some contexts at least, of “British” and “English,” although the latter term refers to foreign migrants who introduced their language and culture to a large region of Britain beginning around 1,500 years ago—more or less the same distance in time as that between Augustine and Dido, founder of Carthage.
Augustine certainly had Punic sympathies, from his youthful sorrow for Dido, who was abandoned by Aeneas on his way to found the Roman people, to his guarded admiration for the Carthaginian general Hannibal in his last great work, The City of God. It’s hard to put too much meaningful weight on them, however—isn’t everyone Team Dido? When he directly identified himself as Punic in the 420s, it was in response to the Italian heretic Julian of Aeclanum hurling the term at him as an insult. He responded by forcefully reclaiming it: “Do not despise this Punic man…puffed up by your geographical origins. Just because Puglia produced you, don’t think that you can conquer Punics with your stock, when you cannot do so with your mind.” Strong stuff, but more of a comment on Julian’s notions of identity than his own.
One problem here is that our own understandings of identity are difficult to align with those of the ancients. Conybeare describes Augustine as having “Amazigh—Berber—heritage,” inferring the likely Berber origins of his mother from her name, derived from that of the local god Mon, who was worshiped near Thagaste. But as Ramzi Rouighi explained in Inventing the Berbers: History and Ideology in the Maghrib (2019), “Berber” is a category constructed by Arabic soldiers and scholars more than two hundred years after Augustine’s death, and the local populations they collected under this label had no shared culture or common identity. Before modern nations and communications, collective identification tended to coalesce at a more local or cultural level than a regional or ethnic one: the city and the sanctuary. […]
Another of Augustine’s inventions was the West: he explains in The City of God that although most people divide the world into three unequal parts—Asia, Europe, and Africa—it can also be divided into two halves: the Oriens (the East, or Asia) and the Occidens (the West, comprising Europe and Africa). This new binary geography made sense in relation to the division of the Roman Empire. And it makes some sense of Augustine, too, who struggled with the Greek language of the Eastern Empire and attracted little attention there. He lived an entirely western life between Italy and Africa in an era when journeys to Constantinople and pilgrimages to the Holy Land were not at all uncommon: in the early 390s his close friend and fellow Thagastan Alypius visited Jerome, who was originally from the Adriatic coast, at his monastery in Bethlehem.
I’m pretty sure Augustine didn’t actually invent the West, but one has to forgive a certain amount of hype in favorable reviews. (We discussed Latino-Punic back in 2007 and Augustine’s reference to a Punic proverb last year; not directly related, but I will take any chance I can get to point people to the Circumcellions.)
Looking at the name Conybeare, WAry says, “Perhaps a habitational surname from a lost or unidentified place in Devonshire, from either cony or Old English cyning (‘king’) + Old English bearu (‘grove, wood’).” WPedia lists quite a few illustrious scholars of that family, including John Josias C. (who published a translation of Beowulf in English and Latin verse) and his brother William Daniel C., “best known for his ground-breaking work on fossils and excavation in the 1820s.” I’m supposed to read that with a straight face?
Augustine was baptized by Ambrose in A.D. 387, almost exactly 1200 years after the traditional date of the founding of Carthage by Dido in 814 B.C. Opinions might vary as to whether 1200 years is “more or less the same” as 1500 years.
Once upon a time in the 1980’s I was skimming a discarded review copy of a then-new academic monograph which, as best as I can recall, argued not that Augustine had invented the West but that he had invented Post-Modernism, somehow anticipating (by around 1500 years …) Nietzsche and then the French Theory Dudes. I alas don’t remember the author or any details of what supposedly supported the argument, but this seems like a specific-enough thesis that I’m hoping I haven’t just conjured up a false memory of it out of nothing?
seems by the third century CE to have entirely obliterated the “Libyan” languages previously used in the area
I wonder if there’s any attestations of those. (Is anything known about them at all?)
the West, comprising Europe and Africa
…probably not Egypt, though; the inclusion of Egypt as part of “Africa” is AFAIK much later. In the 5th century it was clearly part of the (Greek-speaking) east.
>more or less
Maybe she follows the traditional dating of the Trojan War to the 12th century before Caesarian era and believes Dido must have lived then. There are alternate foundation myths for Carthage that go back that far or further. And archaeological evidence against the idea, but she is talking about myth here after all.
seems by the third century CE to have entirely obliterated the “Libyan” languages previously used in the area
Only if “area” is defined rather narrowly. (It might be true of the province of Africa and even of the area Augustine grew up in – though the latter was not far from the largest single concentration of Libyco-Berber inscriptions; it certainly was not true of North Africa as a whole.)
But as Ramzi Rouighi explained in Inventing the Berbers: History and Ideology in the Maghrib (2019), “Berber” is a category constructed by Arabic soldiers and scholars more than two hundred years after Augustine’s death, and the local populations they collected under this label had no shared culture or common identity.
No common identity – probably not. No shared culture? That goes well beyond anything Rouighi’s sources can possibly support. (I reviewed the work in question some time ago on my blog.)
the West, comprising Europe and Africa
In medieval Arabic, the Maghrib (West) included Spain as well as North Africa – but of course excluded Egypt as well as Greece.
I can’t see how that 814 date for the founding of Carthage could be consistent with 753 for the founding of Rome. I imagine the number of mythological generations in the royal house of Alba Longa between Aeneas and Romulus was probably not very consistent, but it cannot possibly have been less than four. Wikipedia has a family tree with sixteen generations. Most of the kings on it were presumably dreamed up precisely to push the date of Aeneas’s arrival in Italy back to the time of the Trojan War.
And why shared Berber language is misleading and unimportant and shared Latin or Greek is important and not misleading?
The 814 B.C. date for Carthage (expressed as “38 years before the first Olympiad”) may trace back to at least Timaeus, who was a few centuries closer to the events than Vergil. It may also match modern archeology better but that may well be a coincidence …
I have a feeling of double absurdity when Morocco is referred to as “East”.
It’s the country a European should visit if what she needs is fairy tales from 1001 nights or imagery from the Muslim Arab east – and I can’t dismiss the label.
Perhaps some “Oriental” things can be found in Muslim Spain as well. Umayyads, for one thing:)
@drasvi: Indeed, the wiki article on the hippie-era standard “Marrakesh Express” describes its music as having an “Eastern vibe.” From an actual longitude perspective, of course, Marrakesh is 8 degrees west of Greenwich, and 5 degrees west of Blackpool in Lancashire, where Graham Nash (who wrote the song) was born.
Some inferences about the appeal of mystic Marrakesh to the hippies may be drawn from the title of a recent article: “In Search of Morocco’s Hashish Heritage.”
“Aladdin and the Wonderful Lamp” has the hero travel forty days from his home in China (the farthest East known to the Arabian world) to the shores of Morocco (correspondingly the ultimate West).
Chinese princesses are daughters of party leaders and Morocco is believed to be full of sorcerers. (Surely, these daughters deserve their fairy tales too…)
@JWB, Morocco is known for its marijuana (and speaking of linguistics, as Lameen noted, Gutova did the fieldwork for her Senhaja grammar in a place known for its marijuana in Morocco). But it’s an oriental dream even if you don’t smoke it. Also music and magic, for those particularly interested in those.
I note that the bolded word looks a lot like shofet, Hebrew for “judge” (the book of Judges is Shoftim, for example).
It occurred to me that her name might be a variant of “David”, which is also mentioned as a possibility in her WikiP article. The article also mentions a different suggestion; that her name derives from “wanderer” (which in Hebrew has a root of ndd) (and I think it unlikely because of the absence of the initial nun, although I admit I don’t know how Punic modifies the Semitic roots).
IIRC, in early Islamic times “Urufa” (=Europe) meant Western Europe and the Maghrib, i.e. basically the Latin-speaking half of the Roman Empire.
I note that the bolded word looks a lot like shofet, Hebrew for “judge”
And indeed they are related; Wiktionary:
And under the 𐤔𐤐𐤈 link:
I think it’s a completely regular Punic version of the West Semitic word, which is probably better glossed as “magistrate,” even in Hebrew. “Chieftain” is also used as a translation, when referring to the relevant period in the Deuteronomic history. The association of the Hebrew word with judges comes from its appearance in a Torah passage that outlines the judicial functions of local leaders.
Not really. Collective identity was always based on objective ethnolinguistic differences. Identities based on culture or religion or political ideas have always been anemic at best.
Besides the local identity there was always a supra-local or national identity. The French nation didn’t magically appear in 1789, it already existed. The idea that national identity and the strong feelings surrounding it are a modern invention is one of the goofiest ideas of modernity.
Eww.
>The French nation didn’t magically appear in 1789, it already existed,
My understanding is that the title and some of the appeal of the Marseillaise comes from the surprise of locals that a group of southerners who showed up in Paris to help the revolution actually spoke/sang French. A French patrie may have existed, but it wasn’t the one that we know. Per wiki, an Alsatian version of the anthem was written to rally those “French” who didn’t even speak a Romance dialect.
I suspect language/dialect has always been a part of identity, though not with the strength suggested above. What was new in the 18th century was the hegemonic power of a dominant dialect.
Notably, given the topic we’re posting under, there is nothing read as evidence of strong differentiation of dialects within Punic or Phoenician, and yet there is little evidence that in the last few centuries BC Punic or Phoenician was a powerful identity. It’s not just a matter of absence of evidence, but of the evidence present for a different sort of identity – civic. Merchants in other cities don’t seem to have formed Punic associations. Instead, they formed Tyrean, Sidonian or Carthaginian societies, and made monuments to them which survive today.
Even Greeks fought more wars for their city against other Greeks than against “Persians”.
>Identities based on… religion… anemic at best
You have to be pretty much history-illiterate to think that religion wasn’t an extraordinarily powerful organizer of identity in Europe prior to the “Age of Reason”.
Ryan, please don’t.
Yeah maybe I shouldn’t have. Sorry.
Eww.
My understanding …
Ryan, please don’t.
Sorry.
Took me a moment to figure out what that was about. Such delicate adumbration ! Almost the sweet bliss of connubial reciprocity !
[Another ignorant, bigoted rant deleted — I asked you once to go away, and I’m asking you again. –LH]
In some times & places yes, in others not remotely; we’ve had a striking counterexample here before.
LH
I have never insulted anyone in my comments here. Deleting them while saying that I am posting rants or even that I am bullying people is not only uncivil and insulting but also very childish. And as if that were not enough, you had to excuse yourself with the rationale ‘I have talked with all kinds of people but I am drawing the line with you’. Pathetic, really.
@cj
Different people have different objectives (and capabilities) for engagement in discussions. Much of what you post suggests that you derive satisfaction from irritating people, including especially the admin. You also give the impression of having a low desire or ability to engage with primarily reasoned arguments, but also social cues, from others that do not share your overall point of view. If this is not your intention, then you need to try to improve both style and content in your posts, based on feedback from other posters.
PP
The style of expression is a character trait, the content is likewise a reflection of someone’s views. If someone says, you should try to improve your style and content, he’s simply saying ‘I don’t like your character, change it’. How would you react if someone told you that? I think it would be naive to imagine that you would react positively.
At any rate I find the accusation of bullying or vile behavior completely baseless and unacceptable. If, for example, I voice the opinion that the supporters of so-called Palestine are the useful idiots of terrorists, that’s not meant as a personal insult towards a particular person. It’s simply my reading of the situation.
If an argument doesn’t contain name-calling there is no objective moral ground for removing it or asking the poster to ‘beat it’. Since they lack moral grounding, these acts are dishonorable, unjust and arbitrary. Exactly what you would expect from a self-professed ‘anarchist’.
If you really haven’t noticed you’re doing that, you’re too stupid to comment anywhere this side of YouTube. Many of your rants seem carefully packed with insults to as many people as possible.
Appeals to Klingon honor are not going to work.
On his own personal blog?
See? You did it again: extremely broad brush + insult.
I wonder, what is the origin of the name Tagaste (Tagasta?), mentioned above. The shape of the word looks vaguely Berber (T-… -t…). The English Wikipedia offers an etymology here, but I don’t know whether to trust that or not. There is also a note on the name here from a long-defunct site.
If an argument doesn’t contain name-calling there is no objective moral ground for removing it or asking the poster to ‘beat it’. Since they lack moral grounding, these acts are dishonorable, unjust and arbitrary.
Fine, I’m immoral, dishonorable, unjust, and arbitrary. Why exactly do you want to hang around here and be subject to this brutal oppression? I’m sure there are plenty of master-race sites where you will find your powerful intellect and home truths more than welcome.
The shape of the word looks vaguely Berber (T-… -t…)
Indeed; a number of Classical-era North African place names have the same shape, matching the usual Berber feminine singular circumfix. but WP’s
The old name of the Numidian city of Thagaste derives from the Berber Thagoust, which means the bag, given that the site of the town is located at the foot of…
is obvious folk etymology.
While we’re at it, ahras is singular, not plural, and there’s no word *ahra.
@CJ
I think others have made good points regarding excessive use of emotive and denunciatory language (I think the word for this in German is hetzen). Regarding the general point of self-expression, you seem to be saying you feel that any accommodation to your audience when communicating would represent an attempt to “change your character”. I am surprised; if I understand this correctly, then you must speak (or at least advocate speaking) in the same way to dogs, children, parents, colleagues, neighbours, strangers. I would find such an approach non-optimal for my own needs and objectives. Many spiritual warriors have had more tactical approaches; as an example, take Odysseus, who disguised himself as a slave in order to gain access to his household and overcome a number of enemies at the proper moment.
@PP
Nobody could provide a quote showing me personally insulting someone here. It’s as simple as that. In my latest comment I tried to respond to someone criticizing my view on national identities in the pre-nation state era and LH removed it just because he doesn’t want to allow what he sees as far-right views. This is not the first time he’s rudely prevented me from discussing with people. Just let him come out and say I don’t want you here because I think you’re a damn Nazi. Accusing me of misbehavior or bullying is not only slanderous but hypocritical on his part.
@PP:
This specimen dropped in the motto over the gate of Belsen into a thread about national slogans, for the LULZ. (Hat deleted that comment, and quite right too.)
He is not interested in actual discussion. Don’t be taken in. He gets his kicks entirely from provocation. This current “poor little me” shtick is merely yet another well-worn troll technique.
Personally? You mean one-by-one? You’re much more efficient than that!
you seem to be saying you feel that any accommodation to your audience when communicating would represent an attempt to “change your character”.
This is kind of a fun hypothesis to pursue, in that taking it to its logical conclusion would require one to reject all attempts to learn foreign languages in the first place. Strictly speaking, it might even rule out learning one’s first language, a process which after all involves considerable concessions to adult demands for comprehensibility and politeness; the only truly authentic way to communicate is by crying loudly when one’s needs are unmet.
Just let him come out and say I don’t want you here because I think you’re a damn Nazi.
Fine, I don’t want you here because I think you’re a damn Nazi. Happy now? And I’m still not clear on why you want to participate in a venue where nobody wants you.
To be clear, I haven’t banned you with extreme prejudice; you notice I haven’t deleted innocuous or whiny comments. If you can manage to restrict yourself to carrying on a civil conversation about topics that don’t engage your racial/nationalist views, you can hang around and chat. This is, after all, primarily a site about language and literature, and politics is just an occasional distraction. But I will delete all bigoted rants, and I will decide what’s a bigoted rant. It’s up to you to decide how to play it.
Right wing trolls are always so desperate for approval from more liberal thinkers. When I really think people are idiots, I usually just don’t engage with them. I have better things to do like go read The Podlipnayans which DM helpfully reminded us of.
The subject and tone sounds a bit like the works of our recent Hungarian Nobel laureate. Fun.
Do read it, and let us know what you think!