Augustine’s
narration of the time he stole pears as a young boy brings about a discussion
of beauty and its connection to sin. Although it is established early on that
humans are, “attracted to beautiful objects”, it is initially unclear what this
means (49). In this narration, beauty connects humans with both the material
world and with God. Thus, beauty catalyzes movement both toward and away from God.
Based on this, I argue that beauty takes two distinct forms in this narration:
physical beauty and what I will call divine beauty.
Physical
beauty refers to beauty that is apparent in an object’s secular value. This is the
kind of beauty is held “by silver and gold and all such things” (48). These
things have artificial value constructed by human society, so these objects are
appealing in the way that they benefit a person on earth. This type of beauty
is not restricted to physical appearance or objects, but it also extends to
abstract ideas such as friendship. Friendship, while a “delightful bond”, has
the capacity to tempt people to “abandon those greater and higher things, [God’s]
truth, [God’s] law and [God himself]” (48). Although it is good, friendship
does not always relate to one’s relationship with God, resulting in its ability
to distract people from their devotion to God. This capacity to direct people’s attention
away from God and toward more earthly concerns means that physical beauty is
not as good as divine beauty.
Divine
beauty derives from direct connection to God. For example, the pears that
Augustine stole possess divine beauty because God created them (49). In this sense, all things have the capacity
for divine beauty, but there must be acknowledgment of their connection to God
in order for this type of beauty to exist. The pears, even though they were
involved in sin, are still beautiful because Augustine recognizes that God
created them (49). God’s truth “shines
in beauty above all else”’ therefore, association with God creates the most
esteemed type of beauty because of the implied connection to God’s truth.
I definitely agree with Kyra that Augustine makes the distinction between physical beauty and divine beauty. I think another point that helps her argument that the pears are still beautiful even though they are stolen is that Augustine says that from God "nothing can be snatched away or stolen by any man at any time or place or by any means" (49). Augustine here is saying that divine beauty can not be made ugly even by sin because God will always possess it, and, as Kyra says, God only creates beautiful things.
ReplyDeleteKyra's distinction between physical and divine beauty is certainly evident in Augustine's narrative. To contribute to the pear example, I find it interesting that Augustine calls the pears beautiful yet unattractive. He described the fruit "attractive neither to look at nor to taste," (47). However, as Kyra points out, he calls them beautiful because they were created by God on the next page. While attractive and beautiful appear synonymous, Augustine uses them to convey different meanings when discussing the pears. The attraction is equivalent to the physical beauty that makes things appear desirable, while true beauty is derived from God. The pears are unattractive because they don't appeal to the physical senses, but they are beautiful as they relate to God.
ReplyDeleteParalleling the story and message of pear, is human's own relationship with God. Emma says, "...divine beauty cannot be made ugly even by sin..." as applied to the beauty of the pear, but this holds true for humans as well. Even though humans are involved in sin, their relationship with God is still beautiful as long as humans recognize that God created them. Augustine demonstrates this in his reference to the story of the Prodigal Son. He says "You loved him when he set out and you loved him still more when he came home without a penny" (38). This quote shows that even though humans may sin, their relationship with God is that of divine beauty, and cannot be effected by sin. When the son recognizes his creator and returns to him, the divine beauty is as strong as ever.
ReplyDeleteIn Augustine's analysis of his pear anecdote the correlation with his development of the concept of original sin is clear. The use of fruit makes this more than apparent but more so the actual act of theft has no explicit purpose besides its implicit "wrong[ness]"(49). Likewise in Genesis the fruit is consumed without any explicitly stated purpose, though many can be interpreted, besides the fact that Eve is drawn to the act of consuming by the snake's intervention. I see the implied evil of the act of thievery which attracted Augustine to be analogous to the snake's intervention in Eve's relationship with God. I think this is correlative to the beauty that kyra is describing. The fruit in question is God's fruit, thus it is beautiful the divine beauty which kyra described and then there is the implicit wrongness which prompted the thievery, for augustine, which is representative of the snake's intervention.
ReplyDelete