De libero arbitrio, begun after conversion, argues free choice against Manichaean dualism as a public dialogue

The instrument is that early book. Later books of the same work and later anti-Pelagian writings qualify freedom under grace; those qualifications are named, not used to delete 388. Augustine of Hippo's documented role is: He wrote a dialogue later used both for free choice and, in later books, for a harder grace. He did not pass a voting statute. High on the early text.

Context

Evodius is a named interlocutor in the dialogue as transmitted. Sharing the argument with him is required. Manichaean years are the dualism being answered. Ad Simplicianum 396 is the turn toward a harder election-file, stored as cost. The setting of De libero arbitrio, begun after conversion, argues free choice against Manichaean dualism as a public dialogue is the public file around 0388-01-01. Driver democratic-resilience is attached because the significance names a mechanism from this act, not because a standing list needed coverage.

That reading is an impact-path choice, not a property stored on the Fact itself.

Why it matters

Improving path from De libero arbitrio, begun after conversion, argues free choice against Manichaean dualism as a public dialogue on 0388-01-01. The welfare reading on this path is improving.

Shared responsibility is part of De libero arbitrio, begun after conversion, argues free choice against Manichaean dualism as a public dialogue. Naming Augustine of Hippo does not delete co-authors, institutions, or later transmitters. The lag from 0388-01-01 to any measured indicator is not treated as zero. Alternative explanations — weather, other armies, later statutes, or independent cultural change — remain live where the sources do not close them.