Tragedy after hope; Everything you need to know about Heracles by Euripides and why you'll want to add it to your Self Education

Changes

What's new? 

I've made some changes to the blog. First I've changed up the formating which I hope will make it easier to read. Second I've added some new sections. I hope these changes can increase clarity and interest value. 

Why might you read Heracles?

This book is one of the main sources for this part of the Herculean mythos. Heracles is a name variation on Hercules. This book details his madness and the killing of his first family. He did go on to have a second wife but that ends in tragedy as well. For more information on this see the Comparisons with other texts section below. Heracles is one of the most well known Greek Mythologies today. It is always worth going back to the original sources to read them for yourself. Rather than relying on just the scholarship of others.

For me going more in-depth into the Herculean myth was an eye-opener. I had only seen the Disney version before and the storybook version. The truth is more brutal than I had expected. 

I have gained a better appreciation of the fickleness of fate in the Greek understanding. As well as the pettiness and vindictiveness of the Greek gods. This has been reinforced by the rest of my reading too.

The Greek authors hold a prime place in my project. This is because the Greeks are the civilization that the western world stands on. There have been many things that have come after that have also shaped the western world. Much of it though starts with the Greeks.

Don't have time to read it? Want to get more of an idea about it before you choose to read it for your own Self Education? My next section will give you a brief summary.

The story of Heracles

As the play starts meet Amphitryon, known as the father of Heracles the one who raised him on earth. With him, we meet Megara, Heracles wife, and his three sons clinging to the altar of Zeus. They cling to the alter because they have been thrown out of their home by a usurper to the throne.  

Amphitryon and Megara are lamenting that Heracles has not arrived home. He is returning from the underworld which is his last labour. They also lament that the new ruler, killed Megara's father to take the throne. And is now planning on killing both them and Heracles sons. He includes the sons because he is afraid they will grow up and avenge their grandfather.

Lycus, the current ruler, enters and taunts them about being at the altar as if it will extend their lives. Both Megara and Amphityon plead with him to let the sons live in exile. Lycus orders that they are to be killed by the fire where they stand.

Megara relents and says if they must die they will do it honourably. She asks to first, go and get into burial clothes to fit the occasion. Lycus relents and opens the palace for them to do so and leaves. Megara and the boys enter the house getting ready. The chorus recounts Heracles' labours. Then they start also lamenting their old age and inability to stop this killing.

The family returns to the Alter in their funeral clothes weeping. 

Low and behold Heracles arrives and questions them on their state of dress and their tears. They fill Hercules in on what has been happening. Hearing this he pledges to kill the new ruler as well as the friends that have deserted the family in this time. Amphityon calls for a softer hand towards the friends. Heracles agrees and takes the family inside.

Lycus arrives with Amphityon to carry out the killings and finds them still inside. Amphityon will not go and get them so Lycus enters the house and is quickly killed by Heracles. 

Iris and madness arrive and quickly layout the plan for Heracles downfall. Iris leaves and madness enters the house, much commotion is heard. A messenger comes to the chorus on stage and retells that nights events. He tells of how Heracles in a fit of madness killed his sons and his wife. Heracles is now sleeping and is tied to the altar.

Heracles wakes up with no memory of the gory events and is confused and a little dazed. Amphityon has to inform him that there was no enemy but that he has done these awful things. Heracles hides his face under his cloak. Theseus arrives with an army from Thebes. He heard the news that a tyrant had taken over Thebes and has come to help Heracles reclaim it. 

Finding the gruesome scene he enquirers what happened and Amphityon fills him in. He comes to
Heracles as a friend and finds Heracles ready to kill himself. He eventually convinces him to live and come to Athens with him. Heracles pleads with this father to bury his sons as by law as their killer he cannot. Then satisfied about that he bid his father farewell.

Reflections on Heracles

 What cruel fate to have saved your sons from death only to have a god put you under madness to kill them yourself. It is no wonder he is suicidal to start with when he hears. Theseus is a good quality friend here. He is not worried by defilement or by Heracles' talk but rather there to help him move through it.

What I found odd with Heracles' madness that the chorus fills in time. Well OK, they are lamenting the madness. It feels a bit like filling time. While filling time the chorus mentions Enceladus who we have not seen anywhere in the play. He also doesn't get another mention in the play either. So, I have a bit of a search and found the Enceladus is one of the giants. The sons of earth and Saturn, and was mentioned by Hesiod. It is also, as a side note, the sixth-largest moon of Saturn's. So the passage that uses his name is saying he will destroy it all the same way Athene destroyed one of the giants.

We know little about Lycus other than that he is a foreigner. He also becomes the tyrant. As a non-
Theban who did not conquer by the war, he is a usurper to the throne he is currently holding. It is interesting that he is painted in such a light and it colours all the interactions we see with him. He is ready to put his predecessors family to the sword. And if they will not come away from the altar he will burn them alive there where they sit begging for a reprieve. As such he is portrayed as the villain of the piece and gets his comeuppance. You almost expect the play to be a comedy, in the old sense of the word. It leaves you hoping to have a happy ending but no such luck the play is only half done.

What others have to say about Heracles

Kathleen Riley writes, that the play is “violently broken into two apparently discrete dramatic entities or movements”. Yet they complement each other in a way only Euripides does in Greek.

Greekmythology.com says "One would expect from a traditional Greek play of the fifth century to end with Heracles killing Lycus, an act that simultaneously attests to Heracles’ heroism and validates the benevolence of the gods." As well as making the point that "this grand narrative is primarily one of friendship, something only humans seem to appreciate"

Ancient-literature.com says about Heracles' madness "that Heracles' madness follows anyway from his inherently unstable character." which is something I didn't pick up from the text but is evidently true.

Comparisons with other texts

In Medea we see a woman take bloody revenge for her husband taking another woman as his wife.
Here, by contrast in Heracles, we see a very laid back Amphitryon. Amphitryon seems at peace with Zeus having slept with his wife. He even raises the son as his own. It is that it is hard to take revenge on a god but he still could have taken revenge on his wife or the son that was born. I am unsure whether this is an unusual reaction of whether it is different between men and women. It may give us insight into how the Greeks saw these differences.

Woman of Trachis has a small reference to the story we see here in Heracles. There we see it mentioned offhand that Heracles had killed his first wife, it makes no mention of his sons. Woman of Trachis is a continuation of Heracles story after the events we see here in Heracles. This is interesting in that it suggests that the story of Heracles was well known earlier than I have it dated. Woman of Trachis in my chronology of authors it comes before Heracles. They may be closer in time than it seems by my list as I have not dated the individual works but rather the author.

Ion shows a very different treatment of the child of a god, where Apollo does everything in his power for Ion. By contrast, we do not see Zeus taking even the slightest hand in the event of Heracles. Zeus allows, by negligence, his wife Hera to cause such suffering.

Conclusion

Heracles by Euripides is the story of Heracles madness and his killing of his family. The themes are around family and friendship. These are shown in the interactions that deal with the time before and the aftermath of the madness. The fickleness of fate and the vindictiveness of Hera are on full display in this play. I have explored how Heracles fits into the landscape of Greek plays. We have also looked into how others see the play. There I found that other writers resonate with the idea that the play could have ended with the death of Lycus. Finally, I explained Heracles' importance to Greek mythology. As well as why it has a place in my Self Education.

Have you read Heracles? If so what did you think of it? 
 
Want to read  Heracles but haven't? Please leave me a comment and let me know why you want to read it.

Hopefully, this post inspires you to take the time to look into it on your own journey of Self Education.

Get a copy of  Heracles.

Euripides, Electra; A different story

 

So this weekend we have a friend staying from about an hour away, she doesn't drive so I went and picked her up and we had a fun but short road trip back. Its been really nice having her here even if both my husband and I are tired from the week. We went driving both to the south out to Kinloch and out north to Lichfield just for some time in the countryside.

The Story
The play opens with Electra outside a peasant's home, who she has been married off to by her stepfather Aegisthus. Aegisthus has married Electra's mother after the two of them conspired and killed her father Agamemnon. Aegisthus has married Electra off to a peasant because he is scared that if her sons were to be of noble birth they would grow up and avenge their grandfather. The peasant reveals that he has not slept with Electra because he does not believe himself worthy of her. Electra also has an exiled brother who the king and queen are also scared of returning for vengeance. Electra leaves the home to go and fetch water.
Orestes, Electra's brother, and his friend arrive and discuss how they may find Electra to plot with her for revenge against their mother and her new husband. They choose to hide and observe the peasant women who are approaching carrying water. This peasant turns out to be Electra and she is openly lamenting the situation. Orestes chooses to approach but not to reveal himself. Electra is frightened and assumes they are there to do no good but Orestes quickly explains that they are friends of Orestes looking to find his sister and report how she is fairing. The peasant returns and invites them into his home, Electra sends him to an old friends house, the very one who smuggled out Orestes, to return with the old man and something to feed to their guests. 
The old man arrives and greets Electra and gives her a young lamb to prepare for the guests. When he is introduced to Orestes he observes him closely and then declares him to be Orestes. Electra does not initially believe him but he points out a childhood scar.
The siblings then plot to kill Aegisthus and their mother, which develops into two separate plots. One where Orestes kills the king at a feast he is preparing in a field and two that Electra will kill their mother after summoning her to meet her newly born son.
A commotion is heard off stage and Electra assumes the worst, that Orestes has failed, but before she can kill herself a messenger arrives telling of Oreste's victory. Orestes arrives with the body and head of Aegisthus in tow and regales Electra with the tale of how they were invited to the feast. And how while processing the bull for the feast he turned on Aegisthus and stuck him down in one blow. They also quickly convinced the servants not to attack them as it was a vengeance killing.
Electra instructs them to hide the body as she does not want her mother seeing it. Orestes gets cold feet and does not want to also kill their mother but Electra steels him to the task. Their mother arrives in all her finery and asks why she has been summoned. Electra informs her she needs help with the offerings to the gods for a birth as she had no one to help her deliver the baby. This entices her mother inside to give the offering, but Orestes is there laying in wait. The two siblings emerge in horror at what they have done together.
The spirits of Castor and Polydeuces arrive and speak of the two and predict their exile from Argos and that they will never see each other again. Orestes gives Electra to his friend as a bride and the spirits send them to Pallas, whereas, Orestes is sent to the Temple at Athens to seek the god's judgement and escape the furies. 

Reflections
It is interesting at the end of this version that Electra is part of the deed of killing her mother and also that she is not to be punished to the same extreme as her brother. You would think that they were equally guilty from their description of the death and yet they are not treated as equals by the furies, was it that Orestes was the one that fate had destined to do the killing and that is all that mattered or is it simply that exile is a new punishment for Electra but Orestes is already exiled, so is heaped with more punishment. Or is the crime a bigger affront to a man's honour in that culture than a woman's?

It is a little fantastical that the old friend can recognise Orestes not having seen him since he was a baby, but there is nothing in these works to suggest that they are seen as historical fact but rather for the entertainment of the masses, so maybe it's meant to be fantastical. That being said they were also a way of passing down common lore and, while exaggerated in places, the history of the peoples. 
The actions of the peasant show the strength of the class structure in the time of both the setting and the writing. It even shows with the fact he is never named in dialogue or even in the script. He sees himself as below his supposed wife, though it later comes out that he doesn't believe that the one who gave her to him, Aegisthus, had the right to do so. This calls into question whether he is truly married to her, which may also, at least in part, help to explain how he treats her.
The spirits of Castor and Polydeuces introduction, at the end, offer a great way to bridge the ending of the story and keep it from feeling like it ends quite so abruptly as some plays do. It is also a way to bridge this version of Electra with the continuing Orestes saga that we have already seen.

Comparisons
Let's start with the most obvious. Like Electra, by Sophocles, this tells the story of the death of Clytemnestra, Electra and Orestes's mother, from Electra's side of the coin. That being said it is a very different story with Electra not still being in the palace but rather being married off to a peasant. The inciting incident is the same and, due to the spirits at the end, the end result is much the same. You could probably even use the two versions interchangeably, even if you were doing the full Orestes saga.
The Libation Bearers has more in common with Sophocles' Electra than Euripides version, as it again has Electra still in the Palace and events all being based around the Palace.
The differences here, considering I am reading them in a rough chronology of the authors, can be seen as a development and embellishment of the same story and further research would probably show if these differences in version are due to time or a shift in location.
Like Medea, we are predominantly dealing with a revenge story. You could see a space for a play much like Electra after Medea, though as the revenge in Electra comes about as, from Clytemnestra's point of view, the revenge to the revenge that she reaped on her husband. In Electra, we are given extra information though: Clytemnestra was not faithful to either husband and that rather she killed her husband so she could be with another.

Have you read Electra by Euripides? If so what did you think of it?

Want to read  Electra by Euripides but haven't? Hopefully, this inspires you to take the time to do so.
Get a copy of  Electra by Euripides.

Euripides, Hecabe; A mothers sorrow

 

Well what a week, things have been crazy for my hubby at work so he has been pulling 12 hour days most days this week, so I haven't really seen much of him. I also ran myself out of energy Friday and had a lazier day, which was a nice change but at the same time I'm trying not to be annoyed at myself for taking a week day off. Other than that there hasn't been too much new, we did have some stunning days at the start of the week so I spent sometime outside in tee shirt and shorts, it was almost like summer. The rest of the week was cooler to remind me its only spring.

The Story
Hecabe starts with her son, Polydorus' ghost telling of the suffering to come. He tells of his death at the hand of Polymestor the king of Thrace where he had been sent for protection while Troy was under attack by the army of Agamemnon. Polymestor killed him for the gold he was sent with as a possible ransom for buying back his brothers in case the Trojans lost, his body was then thrown in the ocean. He also tells that his sister will be killed at the hands of the Achaeans as a sacrifice to the tomb of Achilles. And that his mother would see them both laid out dead the same day.
Hecabe enters with her daughter and is lamenting being taken into slavery. the chorus informs her that he has just come from the Achaean assembly and they have decided to sacrifice her daughter to Achilles, just as her brother ghost had predicted. Hacabe laments but her daughter laments only for Hacabe as she welcomes death as a princess to life as a slave.
Odysseus arrives to take her daughter to the tomb of Achilles. Hacabe pleads with him to go back and argue against this as repayment of her saving his life when he was spying on Troy. He argues that to do so would to be to not give Achilles his friendship in death and that is something he will not do. Hacabe then suggests her daughter pleads with him also but she replies that she is ready for death and will not oppose him and plead with her mother not to physically oppose him taking her away.
A messenger, Talthybius arrives and informs Hacabe that he daughter is dead and tells he of her noble death, and how she refused to be taken by force but gave herself to the priest, Achilles son, to be sacrificed. He also tells her how the Achaeans are preparing a tomb for her. Hacabe tells hims to go back and see that none of them touch her but leave her for her mother to prepare for burial. She also instructs her attendant to go and collect sea water for washing her daughters body and then head inside herself.
Hacabe's attendant returns with a body and calls Hacabe back outside. Initially Hacabe is confused as to why they have bought her daughters body to her but its is not long before they show her the body and she identifies her son.
Agamemnon comes looking for her as she has not arrived to bury her daughter and finds her distraught on the ground. she begs him to seek vengeance for her, at first he is hesitant because he will not avenge her daughter but once it transpires that her son has also been killed by the king of Thrace, he is much more sympathetic but will not raise a hand least his own Achaeans, who are also allies of Thrace be angered. Hacabe answer that with the help of the women she will take vengeance, all Agamemnon has to do is call Polymestor and his sons to come and see her at once.
Polymestor and his sons arrive and are quickly invited inside under the pretense of giving them hidden gold. Once inside the sons are killed and Polymestors eyes gouged out. He escapes the tent and calls for help from the Acheaens. Agamemnon arrives and wants to hear both  side to judge them. Polymestor confesses to killing Polydorus, but tries to argue that it was to please the Acheaen allies. Hacabe argues that he did it for the gold, Agamemnon agrees with her. Polymestor lists of some prophecies he has been given about Hacabes death and the death of her one surviving daughter Cassandra. Agamemnon has him taken away.

Reflections
It is interesting to me that Euripides found the need to have the Ghost of Polydorus at the start of the play as we do see the same information unfold as the play goes on, a modern writer would probably have let you find out those details as they came to light. that being said it does set the scene very clearly for what is about to transpire.
Agamemnon's slight about whether the woman/women could indeed reap vengeance upon a man in his prime is rather misguided but it is also a relic of his time, when woman were mainly seen in the softer side of the ledger. We wouldn't think too much about the idea that a woman might seek vengeance herself, but both the seeking vengeance and the feebleness of women has been put aside in this day and age. That being said Hacabes does give examples where a group of women have overcome in violence a group of men by sheer numbers, so it is not that woman is the more docile but rather the physically less capable without training to change that. I mean its why we still gender segregate most sports.
At first this seemed like it would be your average revenge story and then it would end abruptly after the violence, Euripides surprised me a little with continuing to have Agamemnon judge between the two and therefore show Hacabe's position as in the right and to condemn Polymestor to his fate without retribution. The play still ends abruptly with Agamemnon sending Polymestor away.
There is a tidbit about the battle of Troy that we have not yet seen in the texts to date, that is that Odysseus entered Troy as a spy, and not only that but was found out by a couple of the women. It would be very interesting to find out what he said, or is supposed to have said, to the women to get them to let him go free, hopefully we can see this in later texts.

Comparison
Unlike Medea we do have some context going into this story of revenge rather than the abrupt start of Medea. We know the outline of the Trojan war and that Troy lost so to find the queen of Troy as a slave of the Acheaens is a logical next step in the overarching story. That being said like Medea that play starts with an explanation of new wrongs committed against the mother figure Hacabe. Both stories are that of a woman in a compromised position reaching out and dealing vengeance to those who wronged her. the big difference being that Hacabe was judged as just following her violence where as the Medea just ends with Medea escaping. I wonder if this is because there is no taboo at the time against revenge killing, as we see in Hacabe, but there is a big taboo about killings ones own offspring, as we see in Meade.
In a way this story follows on from The Trojan Women though if it was a true sequel in the modern sense we would have expected some mention of Polydorus in the Trojan Women. In both plays Hacabe is lamenting being taken into slavery although The Trojan women is set before it has truly happened while the Medea is after they have been taken away by sea, if not very far. Both plays though deal with the death of children of the defeated faction, In Hacabe it is Hacabe's daughter and therefore the sister of Hector and in The Trojan women it is his son.

Have you read Hacabe? If so what did you think of it?

Want to read Hacabe but haven't? Hopefully this inspires you to take the time to do so.
Get a copy of Hacabe.

Augustine, City of God 2A; The nature of creation and story's up to the Promised Land

Today feels a little bit like summer is coming, the sun is out the birds are chirping and it's warm. That is one thing I have found since we have moved winter has felt a lot longer because its colder down/ up here. I should explain that Tokoroa is higher in altitude compared to Hamilton but it is south so in some senses it is both up and down. I do wonder if summer is going to be hotter though but I definitely expect it to be drier (Hamilton is in a swamp).

I continue to be glad that I split this book into four parts, even so it is continuing to be a mammoth task to get through although it is easier in writing style and content than The Histories, it is actually a larger book. 

The Story

Book XI

The main discussion of this book is around fallen angels. Augustine's conclusions are that they were created at the same time as the angels who have keep their focus on God rather than on their themselves. Their pride is the reason they turned away from God and were separated from God and the light and are now synonymous with darkness. He also proposes that the angels were created when light and darkness were created and refutes the idea that the angels were created with the separation of the water as some others have said. He also proposes that when the angels were created that God had foreknowledge of those that would turn away and as such he created both those that would be light and those that in time would be darkness. It is also posited that the "Good" and "Bad" angels are not the same but that although they both have the same knowledge, and eternal existence, that the "Bad" angels because they fell to their pride, they did not have the felicity of the eternal existence being with God who had created them.

Book XII
This book starts with continued discussion of the nature of the angels, both good and bad, and whether they are co-eternal with the father. Augustine counters this with the fact that the bible records them as being created beings even though they are not mentioned directly in the creation account as he discussed in the previous book. He then moves on to man and his place in creation as the greatest of the mortal beings. He wanders away from this point for a while to discuss whether God choose all of a sudden to create the world, or rather whether is had always been a part of his plan and being. Augustine chooses the latter as it is the only way God could be eternally unchanging. From this he launches off into a discussion about the foreknowledge God had about how humanity would fall to sin and that his saving move in the coming, dying and resurrection of Christ was all part of the original plan not a reaction to what happened. He comes back around to angels with a proof that they are not creators of the lesser beings in body, but not in soul, as the Platonist posit but rather that it is God the father who is creator of all including man body and soul.

Book XIII
We move on with this book to a discussion on the nature of mans souls and on the breath that God used to breath life into Adam. Augustine discusses both at length and concludes that mans soul is immortal and that the first death, that is the separation of the soul from the body, comes to all men through the fall to sin of Adam. That is to say that Adam before he sinned and walked away from God was immortal in both his body and his soul and that in the process of God punishing him for that sin his physical nature was changed and that all born through him, i.e. all humanity, now come to this first death. The second death he speaks of then is the judgment that is when the soul and the spiritual body are sent to their eternal punishment. That is to say that they are then separated permanently from God.
As part of his discussion the topic the breath given to Adam is much discussed raising ideas such as whether it was the Holy Spirit that was breathed out or whether it was just, as you and I would, a breath of air and whether it was the breathing into man a soul or whether he was already living having been formed by God. He also spends a little time discussing the differences in the method of creation between the animals and the personal focus we see in the creation of man.

Book XIV
This book deals mainly with lust and sex, mainly around the idea of whether there was the possibility of sex without lust before man first sinned. Augustine's position is that there would have still been sex for reproduction but that man would have had no lust towards eve and would have had full control of his reproductive parts rather than them "having a mind of their own" so to speak.

Book XV
This book starts with a quick out of sequence aside into the time of Abraham and Sarah and contrasts the child of promise, that is Sarah's child  Issac with, the natural child of Hagar, Ishmael. This is used as an example of the differences between the City of God and the City of Man.
We then jump back to the sons of Adam and Eve and their sacrifices to God. Cain, the elder, presents a sacrifice that is deemed unworthy and Able, the younger, presents a sacrifice that is worthy. Augustine spends a while discussing how the sacrifice was unworthy and how God had warned Cain not to step into sin. For those who don't know the story he then kills Able and is exiled by God. Adam and Eve have another son, Seth, who becomes the son through which their descendants are named  He follows from this into how the sons of Cain became the first city of man and how the sons of Seth became the first City of God on earth.
Augustine continues with exposition around the generations that are listed in Genesis and comes to the conclusion that they are not named for the first son but rather the sons named are the ones that lead in genealogy to Noah much like Matthews genealogy of Christ.
He finishes this book  by spending a little time on Noah and the Ark and defending their accuracy as historical fact as well as allegory.

Book XVI
This book covers from Noah to the promised land. Though it covers such a wide time span Augustine spends most of his time on the generations to Egypt with a tighter focus on the generations to Abraham. Augustine extrapolates the City of God in pilgrimage, as he calls the earthly City of God with those who are righteous through faith, to the two sons of Noah who covered his nakedness, that is Shem and Japheth. To these Noah pronounces blessings but to his middle son Ham he prophesy his offspring's conquest by those of his brother. Augustine sees Ham as the father of the city of man in this time period, with a belief that until the return of Christ there will be a city of man on the earth.
Augustine goes on to discuss the sons of Abraham first Ishmael, the son of the slave, then Issac, the son of the promise, and then the unnamed children that Abraham had with his new wife, which Augustine assumes to be younger, after Sarah's death. Again he spends sometime showing how they show the City of God and the city of man, he also spends sometime working through some of the allegory of the sons and how Issac can represent the church, that is Christians, as sons of the promise and of faith and how Ishmael can be seen as the Jews who are Abraham's descendants by blood. He also likens those who are heretics or otherwise mislead to the other children of Abraham in his late age, as they are a shadow of the promise without substance.

Reflections

Book XI

This book explores something I really hadn't thought much about. Did God know that the Devil and some other angels would break communion with him and fall to darkness? Well we know that God is omnipotent so he must have but Augustine hashes out the small details that go along with it. The other thing I had never noticed is that there is no mention of the angels in the Genesis account. We see them through the old testament and some even give their names so they clearly exist. Because of this Augustine spends some time on when they might have been created to show that they may not have been left out and that they could still have not been created before the creation story, and to in turn prove the completeness of the Genesis account.

Also rather surprisingly Augustine doesn't get around to declaring that the fallen angels are the demons of which he speaks of in earlier books though this seems self evident from the way he describes the fallen angels as darkness.

Book XII
This book, once you get past the meandering back and forward through topics, ends with a great discussion on God and his part in creating the world and how he chose to do it. Augustine points out that he created humanity from one man, but when he was creating other "beasts" the text suggests he created enough to fill the world all at once. What he doesn't point out but I think is worthy of note is the parallel between creating humanity through one man who sinned and therefore all die through one man, that Christ as one man defeats sin and death and brings life to all humanity.
Again I feel that having read the Platonists would give me more insight into some of his arguments against both the idea that the world is cyclic in that those who are born will be born again in physical bodies, that is to come back to struggle from felicity. Augustine refutes this with an argument again of how could man have eternal life in felicity if he must again come back to the struggle of life. It just means I have to trust Augustine's interpretations of the Platonist view. There is no remedy for that as I just haven't progressed far enough through the BC list to cover it and this was always the negative side of deciding to start one of my AD lists along side it.

Book XIII
I found the discussion on the breath given to Adam to be quite interesting, I had not put any thought previously into whether the breath of life given to Adam was indeed the Holy Spirit or just the breath of God. Augustine concludes that it is just the breath of God and that is also what I had automatically thought but it has been interesting to consider.
I also found the discussion on whether Adam was immortal in body before the fall interesting and another thing I had not thought about in my reading of the bible text. Augustine's conclusion that he must have been is both easy to accept and yet rather unnecessary to the general understanding of the text. Actually a lot of these later arguments are starting to fall into that category, but I guess without these answers there is many a way to fall into heresy.

Book XIV
Maybe it was just the subject matter but this book seemed to go over the same concept repeatedly without adding much. Augustine is clearly of the opinion that before that before the fall was without lust of the sexual variety but that sex for procreation was still possible even if all we know is that Adam and Eve didn't bear children before they first sinned. I think that sex was clearly designed for pleasure and as such there must still have been a depth of feeling and love involved with it before sin entered the human race. I think Augustine's idea of without lust is correct but I feel he takes it to far into the realm of lack of feeling.

Book XV
Augustine spends a fair bit of his time in this book discussing and then throwing out the idea that the years of the ages in the genealogies, and the heresy of the time, that the years in that ancient time were equal to 10 of our years. One of the problem with this is that it would make the fathers to young to be sexually mature when they are said to have had their son. This is a heresy that I had not previously heard of, but I am unsure whether this is because Augustine disputed it so well and the modern church has not returned to the heresy or rather if it is just because it was a little known heresy to start with.
Dovetailing with this is Augustine's point that the genealogy is of select people so that it comes to Noah rather than first sons. This again is something I had not really put any thought into but it does help to answer why they were so old when they had the listed sons and surely they were sexually mature before 100.
The other thing that came up that I was not aware of was that there were discrepancies between the Septuagint and the Vulgate translations. Augustine discusses the particular discrepancies between the ages when the sons were born between the texts and generally refers to the Vulgate as having come from the Jewish texts and the translated Greek Septuagint that he had previously been working from. I knew about both translations but had not realised that in writing the Vulgate there had been a return of fidelity in the text for the Latin reader.

Book XVI
I feel like I'm saying I hadn't considered an idea before a lot at this point. That being said when Augustine puts together the Allegory of Abraham's sons and the Jews, the Church and the Heretics it made me stop and think, I'm used to seeing prophecies of Christ and foreshadowing of his first(and second) coming through out the Old Testament, but I had never put any thought into the Allegory surrounding the Church as Christ's bride but also as a descendant of the promise through Issac. As it is in the Epistles I had considered that the Church were descendants of Abraham through faith but the idea that you could ascribe as allegory the Jews to Abraham's son Ishmael, his son by natural means, was something I had not considered. 

The fact that Augustine put so much into Noah's sons and their reaction to his nakedness really surprised me I had not spent much time considering the implications or even just seeing it as just this odd piece of the text. Augustine takes the sons reactions and points out that the one who is cursed is the one who's reaction was to go and tell the others, that is to point out the nakedness rather than the two who are blessed who show their father the proper respect and cover him without looking. Though I wonder how they could have done so if they had not been told about it by their brother. Some more pondering needed on this one.

Comparisons

As I have said before there is not much external I can compare this to at this point, so instead I will compare it to itself. This section of City of God moves away from external threats and deals more with heresy within the church, it does this so far by stepping through the text of the bible itself, though it still tries to only concern itself with the two cities.
It has been refreshing to move onto text that is based on something (or things) that I have read in detail, though this does not stop Augustine referencing a philosopher or two in the process.
Augustine continues to show a snapshot into the heresies (and apologetics) of the past, both those we still have some people falling for today, and some I have never heard of before.

Have you read The City of God? If so what did you think of it?

Want to read The City of God but haven't? Hopefully this inspires you to take the time to do so.
Get a copy of The City of God.