Rhetoric and Homiletics in Fourth-Centijry Christian Literature

RHETORIC AND HOMILETICS
IN FOURTH-CENTIJRY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

AMERICAN PHILOLOGICAL AssoCIATION
American Classical Studies
Series Editor
Matthew S. Santirocco
Number26
Rhetoric and Homiletics

in Fourth-Century Christian Literature
by
Steven M. Oberhelman

IN FOURTH-CENTURY
CHRISTIAN LITERATURE
Prose Rhythm, Oratorical Style,

and Preaching in the Works
of Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine
Scholars Press
Atlanta, Georgia
IN FOURTH-CENTURY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE
e 1991
The American Philological Association
Libraryof CongressCataloglngIn Publkatlon Data
Oberhelman, Steven M.
Rhetoric and homiletics in fourth--centmyChristian literatme /
Steven M. Oberhelman.
p. cm. - (American classical studies ; no. 26)
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 1-S5540-617-3 (alk. paper). - ISBN 1-S5S40-618-1 (pbk. :
alk. paper)
1. Latin language, Postclassical-Metrics and rhythmics.
2. Christian literature, Early-Latin authors-History and
criticism. 3. Sermons, Early Christian-History and criticism.
4. Latin prose literature-History and criticism. S. Rhetoric,
Ancient. I. Title. II. Series.
P A2307 .024 1991
878'.00809'382-dc20 91-23937
CIP
Printed in the United States of America

on acid-free paper
§
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 1
Chapter I: Methodology 5
Chapter II: Prose Rhythm in the Ambrosian Corpus 21
Chapter III: Prose Rhythm in Selected Works of Jerome 63
Chapter IV: Prose Rhythm in Selected Works of Augustine 89
Chapter V: Homiletic Preaching and Rhetoric 101
Chapter VI: Conclusion 121
Bibliography of Works Cited 127
Index 151
Table I: Prose Rhythm in Control Texts 159
Table II: Prose Rhythm in the Ambrosian Corpus 181
Table III: Prose Rhythm in Selected Works of Jerome 190
Table IV: Prose Rhythm in Selected Works of Augustine 196

INTRODUCTION
In a recent series of articles, I have investigated the prose rhythms of

Latin texts of the later Roman empire, namely, from the mid-second through
mid-fifth century. 1 I offered firm conclusions concerning the rhythmical
1 See the nine articles listed under Oberhelman in the bibliography; the method
of their citation in the text and notes will conform to the abbreviations given there. Five
of those papers were co-authored with Ralph G. Hall, to whom I remain indebted, as I
hope I make clear below.
I will not discuss here ancient and modem theories on Latin prose rhythm; I have
forthcoming a lengthy study in Aufstiegund Niedtrgangder rDmisdzmWelt,Teilband Il, 35,
in which I examine the ancient evidence and critique the many methods proffered by
nineteenth- and twentieth-century scholars. Let me state here the important bibliography.
Ancient testimoniain Bomecque (1907)and Oark (1909).Surveys of modem scholarship
in Novotny (1929);Wilkinson (1963)135.88,237-42;and Aili (1979)chapters 1-2. The best
works on classical Latin prose rhythm are, in my opinion, De Groot (1921) and (1926);
Primmer (1968); and Aili (1979).Dangel (1984, 387-90)gives excellent bibliography and
review of the history of the problem.
Throughout this book I will examine only the clausulae, that is, sentence-closings,
since no one has worked out to my satisfaction a solid working model for proving a
relationship between prose rhythm and colometry. Good discussions of the problem of
cola and commata are Volkmann (1885)505-19;Z.ander (1910)1.186-219;Fraenkel (1965);
and Habinek (1985)1-41.Efforts in the area of colometry are, to name but a few, Laurand
(1907);Zielinski (1914);Broadhead (1922);Novotny (1929);Fraenkel (1932)197-213,(1933)
319-54,(1965),(1968);Schmid (1959);Primmer (1968),whose exceedingly complex theories
are nicely explained by Aili (1979)chapter 1; and Habinek (1985),who amplifies, corrects,
and builds on Fraenkel.
Regarding sentence rhythm, all we can say with complete confidence is that the
ancient audiences and rhetors knew that the closure of the sentence attracted rhythm and
that it was there that rhythmical patterns-if they were used consciously by the
author-appeared. Too great a concern by modem scholars for discovering rhythm in cola
and commata may well obscure the simple issue of whether an author sought accentual
and/or metrical rhythms in his work; not all ancient authors, as I see it from my reading
of primary and secondary sources, were so careful with internal rhythms. Cf.
Oberhelman/Hall CQ (1986) for an analysis of the often considerable differences in
rhythmical levels between internal and final-stop positions in the works of third- and
fourth-century authors.
1
2 Rhetoricand Homiletics
practices of twenty-six authors. No observations on the writings of the
Christian authors Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine were made, however,
since no discernible pattern of usage was evidenced at that time by the data:
the type of rhythm in some texts-accentual schemes or a combination of
metrical and accentual patterns-and the absence of rhythm in other texts
varied considerably among the dozen or so works that I had sampled. 2 It
seemed best, therefore, to defer any judgment until I could make a much
larger sampling of these writers• corpora and relate the prose rhythms to
critical factors like audience, authorial purpose, chronology, method of
composition, and theme. 3
In this book, I will examine the prose rhythms in all works-genuine,
disputed, and spurious-of the Ambrosian corpus and then in selected works
of Jerome and Augustine. I will be concerned with the following issues: Does
the content of a text-say, scriptural commentary, preached sermon,
panegyric sermon, or polemic-require a certain rhythmical style unique to
that genre? Does the audience of a text-pagans, the Christian intelligentsia,
clergy, or friends and family-affect the presence and use of rhythm? What
effect do stenography and dictation exert on rhythmical style? Most
importantly, how does rhythm relate to the Christians' attitudes toward
rhetoric? After all, it is well known that Western Christian writers, beginning
with Tertullian, were not consistent in their views toward classical learning
and rhetoric: even as they railed against pagan culture, they gave full rein
to the stylistic flourishes and rhetorical trappings taught by that very culture.
Of course, this is a broad generalization of a most complex issue, as I will
demonstrate below.• But it cannot be questioned that while these Christian
authors were continually claiming "res, non verba,"that is, the primacy of
expressing Christian truth in clear, simple language without rhetorical
embellishments, a major feature of their works is an exquisite prose style that
is reminiscent of classical pagan authors and reflective of contemporary
pagan schools of rhetoric. 5
2
See the tables in Oberhelman/Hall CPh (1984 and 1985) and Oberhelman CPh
(1988); Oberhelman/Hall CQ (1985 and 1986) and Oberhelman CQ (1988); and
Oberhelman/Hall Augustiniana.
3
For discussion on these church Fathers, see Oberhelman/Hall CPh (1984) 129.30
and (1985) 225-26; Oberhelman CPh (1988) 147-48; Oberhelman CQ (1988) 238-41.
4
See Chapters V and VI of this book. The best and most recent work on this
subject is Kaster (1988) 70.95, who gives extensive and important bibliography and who
should now be supplemented by Spence (1988) and by Roberts (1989), especially pp.
122-47.
5
See, for example, Oberhelman/Hall CQ (1986)519-26, where the rhythmical styles
of Minucius, Cyprian, and Arnobius are contrasted in detail to those of Symmachus and
Palladius (tabular data on pp. 509-18). In that article, Hall and I show that these
Introduction 3
Another issue that will be addressed was raised in my earlier studies

of Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine: because the data there seemed to imply
that these authors' prose rhythms, although definitely present, were not so
effusive as what may be observed in the writings of Cyprian, Minucius, and
Arnobius, 6 does this imply that later Christians revised their thinking on the
priority of stylistic ornaments in their compositions, that is, that they began
to take more seriously the dictum "res,non verba"instead of the "res verbaque"
so obvious in earlier fathers? Or should we consider that this more reserved,
moderate use of rhythm was a restoration of the clausular practices of
Cicero, the Christians' model of excellence, who advocated and employed
a rich variety of rhythms? Or does this newer style reflect the adoption of
a style-referred to by Eastern and Westem Christian writers but not
developed until Augustine in his De dnctrinachristiana-which imitates the
scriptures in expression and language?
I will address these issues, first, as they pertain to the prose rhythms
in Ambrose's corpus. Ambrose's rhythmical practices will then serve as a
model for evaluating the rhythms in representative works of Jerome and
Augustine. The results, it is hoped, will help us to reach a better
understanding of the intricate, and all too often puzzling, relations between
rhetoric, style, and Christianity in the works of the church fathers of the late
Roman Empire.
This book is the culmination of nine years of work on prose rhythm
in late imperial Latin literature. The first four years involved collaboration
with Ralph G. Hall, and produced five articles and the incipient statistical
methodologies. Although I have since progressed far beyond those
preliminary efforts, as this book and recent articles demonstrate clearly, I
must acknowledge what was a most delightful, fruitful, and satisfying
collaboration. Hall's patience restrained my at times impetuous exuberance;
his infallible and meticulous eye for detail corrected errors, thereby setting
me again on the proper track; and his sensitive and adroit handling of the
written text proved an excellent counterbalance to my fascination of the
statistical formula.
Other debts must be paid, even if only in words. Robert Kaster has
been mentor and friend since 1983, when as editor of ClassicalPhilologyhe
received a rather amateurish manuscript that dealt with inductive statistics
Christians' prose rhythms are just as pedantic and excessive as the rhythms in the
speeches and letters of Symmachus, the pagan party's spokesperson in the fight to retain
the Altar of Victory, an episode that is far too exaggerated in importance by modem
scholars: see Cameron (1976)1 n. 1 and Matthews (1975)210..11.Cameron's article throws
into complete doubt the formulation of pagan versus Christian and the stereoptype "circle
of Symmachus." Cf. Fontaine (1976a), especially p. 465, and Chapter VI below.
6
Cf. the tables in Oberhelman/Hall CPh (1984 and 1985) and Oberhelman CPh
(1988) and CQ (1988).
and late Latin prose rhythm. Ever since and without hesitation he has been
willing to grant advice, criticism, and encouragement; my gratitude is
surpassed only by my admiration for his own work. Tore Janson and
Laurence Stephens have offered invaluable assistance on technical problems,
and helped to redefine and reconceptualize my statistical models at critical
junctures of my studies. I owe much of Chapter ID and all of Chapter V to
a splendid summer I spent in 1990 with Alan Cameron at Columbia
University; I still marvel at his wondrous blend of kindness, humanity,
intellect, and knowledge. Both he and Jacques Fontaine have revealed to me
through their superb and ground-breaking work a whole new perspective
on late Latin literary style and genres and on the relations between pagans
and Christians in the fourth century. The anonymous referees have vastly
improved the manuscript by their constructive and insightful comments; any
publishing scholar should have the good fortune to receive referees such as
these. Matthew Santirocco has attended to this book with the best care and
supervision over the past eighteen months, and I am obliged to his ever
reliable editorial advice. Daniel Fallon, Dean of Liberal Arts at Texas A&M
University, provided monies for the summer months of 1988, at which time
I was able to write the first two chapters, while funds from the National
Endowment for the Humanities permitted a massive and thorough revision
of the book. The staffs at the Library of Congress and at the libraries at
Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University, University of Texas at Austin,
Columbia University, and Union Theological Seminary, as well as the
interlibrary loan department at Texas A&M University, deserve plaudits for
tolerating my work habits and incessant requests. When asked on what is an
almost daily basis, Janet Ray and Lori Lieder have helped with computer
hardware and software matters with kindness and forbearance. Finally, my
warmest thanks of appreciation and love to my spouse Laurie and my
children Jessica and Matthew for unceasing support during the three years
of the writing of this book, and for understanding that my word processor
often claimed my time and attention, but never my priorities.
CHAPTER I
METHODOWGY
In the first two centuries A.O., the Asiatic rhythms of Cicero evolved
into a narrowly defined canon. 1 Although Cicero himself employed a rich
diversity of metrical patterns, subsequent writers imitated, to the point of
slavishness, his cretic and trochaic combinations, in particular, the
cretic-trochee, dicretic, ditrochee, paean-trochee, and trochee-cretic.
Resolutions of these patterns were permitted: for example, the paeon-cretic
was a resolution of the dicretic, while the cretic-tribrach equalled the
cretic-trochee.
During the first half of the third century, the clausula no longer was
constructed solely from metrical considerations, but began to accommodate
word-accent. North African authors, beginning with Minucius Felix and
Cyprian, both of whom were products of the rhetorical schools,2 now used
a system of prose rhythms in which the coincidence of word-accent and the
ictus of Asiatic metrical patterns was sought. The cretic-trochee was
reformulated as a cluster of words comprised of a paroxytone followed by
a paroxytone trisyllable: nwvb-eiussfsti and s6rte versdri. Other clusters were
allowed, provided that the ictus of the cretic and trochaic units coincided
with the accents: a proparoxytone before a paroxytone disyllable (tfrbori
vftae); a paroxytone followed by a monosyllable and paroxytone disyllable
(tdntus est mundus); or, if something like a secondary accent may be assumed,
3
a paroxytone pentasyllable (sentieb4.tur). In Cicero's prose, by contrast, the
1
Although some of the following material may be found in the six papers
published in CPh and CQ, this is my fullest discussion yet on the subject. Moreover, I
offer here much new material, especially regarding the mechanisms of change from
metrical prose to accentuaVmetrical prose to accent-only prose.
2
For Minucius Felix, see De Labriolle (1940) 1.6--7.Jerome tells us (Commentariain
lonamprophetam3.6) that Cyprian taught rhetoric at Carthage; cf. De Labriolle (1940)
1.196-98 and Monceaux (1901) 2.203.
3
A few other word<lusters are possible (for example, n6n volunMte and /fibulae n6n
sunt), but these are quite rare. The accentual scheme of 60060, regardless of caesura, is
called cursus planus: Lindholm (1963) 15 and 17 and Valois (1881) 193. The fullest, though
5
cretic-trochee occurred irrespective of accent: nullo mt,do p6ssum; civit4ti
videretur;Rom4ni redem.ptisunt.
The same procedure of realigning the ictus in order to achieve
coincidence with word-accents obtained for the other standard metrical
farms. The dicretic became not only a metrical sequence of long and short
syllables, but also a word-phrase of two unaccented syllables after each of
two accents: defensi6nenotfssimi;habb'equam dicere;facult4tibusdifleat;alien4re
compulsusest.• The (cretic-)ditrochee5 fell under two accentual schemes. The
first comprised four unaccented syllables after a word-accent and one after
a second accent: sp4tium deput4tur;ftngimus et put4mus; 6mnes intellegendi. 6
The second scheme contained two paroxytones, the last being a disyllable:
esse p6ssit.7 The paeon-trochee shifted to a position under a word-cluster
wherein three unaccented syllables occurred after one word-accent and one
syllable after a second: essevideatur;v6lumus adscr{ptis;moventur et habentur.8
Finally, the trochee-cretic was moved to coincide with a sequence of one
unaccented syllable after a word-accent and two unaccented syllables after
a second: am6redicere;depeculio;consecutusest (with secondary accent). 9 This
metrical form could also be used with the cursus planus (6mnibus/&at), since
coincidence was still achieved.
This system of coincidences of meter and word-accent is called by
modem scholars cursus mixtus. During the initial stages of its development
often dated, accounts of the forms of the cursusremain Meyer (1905) and Nicolau (1930);
now see Janson's superb study (1976). For secondary accent, see Lindholm (1963) 27-28.
4
The accentual scheme of 600600, regardless of caesura, is called cursus tardus:
Lindholm (1963) 15 and 17-18.
5
Scholars often assume that in Cicero's prose a cretic precedes the ditrochee; the
sole evidence, however, is the arbitrary views, supported by no firm statistical data, of De
Groot (1921, 106-07) and (1926, 9) and of Zielinski (1914, passim). The fact is that Cicero
was quite indifferent to the metrical configuration preceding the ditrochee. See the end
tables in Aili (1979).
6
This pattern of 6oooo6o, regardless of caesura, is labelled cursus velox:Lindholm
(1%3) 15-17.
7
This pattern of 6060, regardless of caesura, is the cursus dispondaicus:Carroll
(1940) 42.
8
The term for the accentual cadence of 600060, regardless of caesura, is cursus
trispondaicus.This term is not found in any medieval handbook, but owes its invention
to Vacandard (1905): Lindholm (1%3) 49-52.
9
This pattern of 60600, regardless of caesura, is the cursus medius:Meyer (1905)
2.249.
Methodology 7
and use by North African authors like Minucius and Cyprian, 10 exact
coincidence of accent and ictus occurred in 70 to 80 percent of clausulae.
Even when perfect coincidence was not achieved, authors still preferred to
seek a metrical form under some type of accentual pattern. Thus, the
cretic-trochee fell at times under accentual patterns like the cursus velox
(pdbulum refrenAbar,generum sit attendo) and the ditrochee under the cursus
planus (successi6nemv6centur) or under the cursus trispondaicus (lictntiam
negamus).
Throughout the third century, this rich and complex system of rhythm
was used by writers in the West, especially North Africa and Gaul. Its origin
may be traced to a compromise reached by teachers of rhetoric. The Asiatic
meters, which were standard in the literary prose of the early empire, were
a Greek import and alien to Latin accentuation. 11 Provincial teachers must
have encountered frequent frustration in attempting to educate their
students, who were much more sensitive to stress patterns, in the nuances
of clausular meters, especially since these meters did not depend on accent
for formulation. Rhetorical teachers must have realized that Ciceronian
metrical patterns could be better comprehended and used, if word-accents
were made to coincide as consistently as possible with the ictus. Instruction
would have been facilitated by dictating metrical patterns while tapping on
the desk or by giving exaggerated stress to the accents. Thus, the
paean-trochee would have been a far more vivid concept to a student•s ear
and mind when formulated (with the accents emphasized) as fuisse voluisti
or esse superari, as opposed to Cicero's nonaccentual patterns of C4esa.rem
generebellum and temporereferretur.Likewise the dicretic: schemes of pr6mpta
defensioand cfmorattingerewould have been a better classroom instructional
tool than p6pulo probtirivelim and iudic4ris6let.
By the end of the third century, the cursus mixtus had evolved into two
distinct systems. One system was the cursus mixtus as originally conceived,
that is, five major metrical patterns (and their resolutions) falling under
seven accentual cadences. 12 Some authors preferred this rich diversity of
10
The cursus mixtus is not evident in the writings of Tertullian, Pronto, Aulus
Gellius, Apuleius, or Lucius Ampelius (Oberhelman/Iiall CPh [1984]12.2.23),all of whom
date to the second half of the second century. There is, of course, a dearth of authors
from this period other than a few from Rome and North Africa. Nevertheless, the date
(first half of the third century) and origin (North Africa) for the cursusmixtusseem solid.
11
The use of Asiatic prose rhythms extended even to technical treatises by
Vitruvius and Celsus: De Groot (1926) 12 and 52-55. Exceptions to this style are rare; the
most notable example is Tacitus: see the excellent monograph by Aili (1979);cf. De Groot
(1921) 109-110. In my l.Jztomusarticle (383, 386-88), I expressed doubt about Aili's
"historical tradition" of prose rhythms (for which see chapter 4 of Aili's book); I have
now come to accept his views (QUCC 86-87).
12
For details see Oberhelman CQ (1988) 232-38.
forms for such reasons as personal inclination, the system's similarity to
Cicero's own practice, and the flexibility afforded by the wide spectrum of
forms.
The second system was nothing more than a narrow canon of the
former system of the cursus mixtus. It comprised four metrical patterns
(cretic-trochee, dicretic, cretic-tribrach, and ditrochee) and the three accentual
cadences under which they fell (cursusplanus,cursustardus,and cursusvelox).
There were fewer variations in word clusters, that is, by-forms; accentual
patterns like the cursus medius,cursus trispondaicus,and cursus dispondaicus
were much less frequent; and meters like the paean-trochee, dispondee, and
spondee-cretic all but disappeared. The few standard forms of this strict
system were so favored by certain authors that they typically account for 90
to 95 percent of the clausulae in any one text. This difference in value is
startling when compared to the 70 to 80 percent frequency of coincidence
that typifies the cursus mixtus as originally conceived in around A.D. 22.5.
Both systems coexisted throughout the fourth century: Amobius,
Ausonius, Firmicus Matemus, Macrobius, Symmachus, and Vegetius
employed the strict system of the cursusmixtus, while Lactantius, the Latin
panegyricists, and Hilary continued the original system of Minucius and
Cyprian. The reason for the choice of one or the other system must have
been personal preference: chronology, geography, ideology, religion, even
teacher-student relation (Lactantius and Amobius) played no role in the
selection of a rhythmical style. 13
With Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine we reach the final stage of the
evolution of imperial Latin prose rhythm. These writers, as will be shown
below, could, as the occasion demanded, write excellent cursus mixtus
clausulae. But in certain other works-typically, scriptural commentaries-a
new rhythmical style appeared: the metrical forms of the cursusmixtus were
discarded-or, perhaps more accurately, neglected-leaving behind the
accentual cadences as the sole vehicle of rhythm. This system of accent-only
clausulae, called the cursusby medieval theorists, had been used by Greek
writers, especially exegetes, since the opening decades of the fourth century.
We may reasonably conjecture, therefore, that the Latin exegetes borrowed
this practice from their Greek counterparts. 14
The methodologies for determining the cursus and cursusmixtus were
established in two early articles in ClassicalPhilology (1984 and 1985) and
then refined in two subsequent papers (CPh [1988J and CQ [1988)). In the
first CPh article, the comparative method was combined with inductive
statistics to fix a range of values wherein the frequencies of the three
13
Oberhelman CQ (1988) 238.
14
Oberhelman CQ (1988) 238-41, where, unfortunately, the impetus for the
borrowing was ascribed to Jerome, not to Ambrose. This will be discussed at greater
length in Chapter II.
Methodnlogy 9
standard forms of the cursus (planus,tardus,and velox) may be expected to

fall if an author did not consciously accommodate accentual rhythms. Three
texts, assumed to be void of the cursus,were sampled: the De philosophiaof
Rene Descartes, the CommentariaSenecae"De clementia"of John Calvin, and
PhilippicaeI-II of Cicero. One thousand clausulae were drawn at random
from each of these works. According to this sample, the De philosophia
contained 577 instances of the cursus planus, cursus tardus, or cursus velox
(577/1000= .577); the Commentaria,561 instances (561/1000= .561); and the
Philippicae,579 instances (579/l(X)()= .579). Now, a simple glance at these
proportions would lead one to conclude immediately that any large sample
taken from a nonaccentual text should render a proportion of similar
numerical value. But such a conclusion may be wrong for one or more of the
following reasons: the 3000 clausulae sampled may not be representative of
the whole population of nonaccentual prose; the three control texts may not
be the best representative of the whole population of nonrhythmical authors;
and despite the fact that error was reduced by the large sample size (3000),
one can never avoid chance error simply because of the process of random
sampling. To fix, therefore, by means of a single or several proportional
values any authoritative standard for the absence or deliberate use of
accent-only rhythms could be dangerous.
Accordingly, I established through statistical laws the 99 percent
confidence interval of the proportion .572 ( = 1716/3000),which is calculated
as from .549 to .5%. This range of values means that we can be 99 percent
confident that if we were to sample every clausula in these nonaccentual
texts, the actual proportion of the forms cursus planus, cursus tardus, and
cursus velox will fall somewhere between the limits of .549 and .5%. To
phrase it differently, there is but one in 100 chance that this confidence
interval does not contain the true proportion of the frequency of the three
accentual forms of the cursusin the control texts and, by extension, in any
nonaccentual text. 15
Because the true proportion falls somewhere within the above
demarcated limits (.549-.596),the sample proportion of .572 cannot be used
as the testing norm in a comparative test. Therefore, I decided to use as my
norm the value .596, which is the upper limit of the 99 percent confidence
interval for the proportion .571. I then sampled seventy texts of the first
through fifth century A.D., and determined the proportional values for the
frequency of the three standard cursusforms; each proportion was compared
to the upper limit by means of chi-square tests, in order to determine
whether a statistically significant difference existed between the two
15 To be more precise from a statistical point of view, if we repeatedly drew an

infinite number of samples of 3000 clausulae from these three works (and my sampling
is to be considered as one of these samples), computed the proportion of cursusforms in
each sampling.. and calculated the 99 percent confidence interval of each proportion, 99
out of every 100 intervals would contain the true proportion.
proportions.
The chi-square hypothesis test permits us to answer at a high degree
of probability the question of what constitutes a significant difference. At a
95 percent confidence level (chosen as a good trade-off between Type A and
Type B errors) and at a degree of freedom equal to 1 (because we are
comparing two proportions), the critical value of a chi-square test is 3.84.
This means that the probability is 95 in 100 that the result of a chi-square test
for the presence of accentual rhythms will be less than or equal to 3.84, if the
sample proportion has been taken from a nonaccentual text.
How this test works can be illustrated as fallows. A random sample of
199 clausulae was taken from Panegyricuslatinus IX. Of that number, 135
clausulae ( = .678) contained a cursus planus, cursus tardus, or cursus velox.
Now we must ask ourselves whether the difference in value between this
proportion of .678 and the upper confidence limit for nonaccentual prose
(.5%) may be attributed to chance variation between samples from the same
populations---that is, both proportions reflect nonaccentual pro~r
whether the difference is great enough to suggest that the sampled
populations are themselves somehow distinct, the one from the other. In
other words, does the difference of .082 (.678-.5% = .082) suggest two
different populations (accentual and nonaccentual prose), or can we expect
this variation when samples are drawn from the same population of
nonaccentual prose? In this case, the value of the chi-square test is 11.05;
given these sample sizes, the chance of observing such a difference in value
between two proportions of nonaccentual prose is less than one in 1,000.
When we turn to Tertullian, a different situation occurs. Tertullian,
who used Ciceronian metrical clausulae (for which see Oberhelman/Hall CPh
[1984] 123), does not show any tendency to accentual patterns according to
chi-square tests. For example, I sampled the Apologeticusand found that '12,7
of 500 clausulae contained one of the three standard forms of the cursus;this
yields a proportion of .574 and a chi-square test value of 0.55. This means
that there is only one in twenty chance that the proportion of .574 for the
Apologeticusand the upper confidence limit for nonaccentual prose (.596)
does not reflect the same population.
This method, however, failed to take into account the cursus
trispondaicusand less common cadences like the cursus medius, cursus
dispondaicus,and cursus dactylicus dispondaicus. 16
Moreover, the method
lacked sensitivity: the single statistical count not only neglected the critical
issue of typology (that is, to what extent an author used the individual
patterns cursus planus,cursus tardus, or cursus velox),but it could not render
16
In CQ (1986),Hall and I coined the term cursusmisallnneias a convenient rubric
for describing the cursus medius, cursus dispondaicus,cursus dactylicus dispondaicus
(6000600), and those irregular cadences lacking a term of classification. Throughout this
paper I will use this term when I speak of all these accentual patterns in common; I will
refer to the cadences by their proper names when they are discussed individually.
Methodology 11
a firm decision in some tests. Values slightly below or above the critical
value of 3.84 could have been influenced by factors other than rhythm. For
example, syntax, grammar, and vocabulary do affect the word-components
of a clausula, while an author may have had a personal preference for one
of the three standard forms or for some other accentual cadence, for
example, the cursustrispondaicus. This testing procedure, in other words, gave
only a yes-or-no answer to the question of whether a text is accentual; it
could not determine any one work's particular rhythmical properties or an
author's preferences in typologies.
To remedy these and other weaknesses, I revised the methodology in
order to examine and test individual typologies. In a third CPh paper (1988),
I demonstrated that an accentual text displays a significantly high number
of the proparoxytone cursus tardus and a significantly low number of the
paroxytone cursus trispondaicusand cursus miscellanei. 17
I returned to the
three control texts used in CPh (1984),and established normative values for
each typology in nonaccentual prose. I used these values in a series of
chi-square tests to test all works from the first two CPh papers whose sample
proportion was not at least 15 percent above the upper limit of .5% for
nonaccentual prose, or in cases where I desired a more precise picture of the
accentual rhythms of a particular text.
A good example of where the new methodology proved a great
advance is Lactantius. The proportions for the three standard forms of cursus
planus,cursus tardus,and cursusveloxin Lactantius' works are low, from .607
to .711. To account for these values, Hall and I had indulged in speculation
on the basis of misidentification. For example, we were led by the data to
consider the lnstitutiones divinaeas metrical prose and, accordingly, offered
some rather (in hindsight) specious reasons for the uniqueness of that
rhythm in the treatise. As for Lactantius• other works, we conjectured that
Lactantius practiced moderation in the use of prose rhythms, perhaps
because of Christian aversion to pagan sophism. But when I tested all
accentual typologies-not just the three standard forms-in these works, it
became clear that Lactantius had a great predilection for the cursus
trispondaicus;for example, in the lnstitutionesdivinaeabout 20 percent of all
clausulae conform to this pattern. Lactantius, therefore, did not use a
three-form cursus system, but rather a rich and complex system that also
favored the cursus trispondaicusand certain forms of the cursus miscellanei.
The lnstitutionesdivinae,in other words, does contain accentual rhythms.
At this point I may summarize the methodology for determining the
absence or presence of accentual clausulae. If the proportion of the three
main cursus typologies (planus,tardus,and velox)is above the value of .750,
one may confidently use the chi-square test for comparing the sample
proportion to the value of .596. If, however, the sample proportion is lower
17
Oberhelman CPh (1988) 138-41.
than .750,18 then the cursus tardus,cursus trisponda.icus, and cursus miscellanei
typologies must be tested against their normative counterparts. 19
The methodology for determining the cursus mixtus, as developed in
CPh (1985), involves a two-stage procedure of scanning clausulae for both
accentual and metrical patterns. The presence of accentual rhythms is
determined by the methodology outlined above. If the text is accentual,"'
then the metrical patterns that fall under these accentual clausulae are tested
against normative values, in order to ascertain whether their presence is
fortuitous or intentional. This second stage required careful formulation. As
demonstrated in CPh (1985) 217 and 219-20, accentual clausulae produce a
high percentage of fortuitous metrical forms, simply because the law of Latin
penultimate accentuation causes many of these clausulae, especially the
cursusplanusand cursusvelox,to yield metrical patterns (specifically, trochaic
feet), even though the author may have given no consideration to them. The
control texts for fixing comparative norms, therefore, needed to be not only
accentual but also free of metrical intentions. Accordingly, I selected as
control texts the Epistolaeof Dante, the Scriptabrevioraof Boccaccio, and the
Epistolaeof John of Salisbury, all of which have been shown by previous
researchers to be examples of the cursus-only style of the Middle Ages. A
total of 1320 clausulae were drawn randomly from these works; 770 (= .583)
contained a cretic-trochee, dicretic, cretic-tribrach, or ditrochee. 21 This
proportion has a 99 percent confidence interval of from .548 to .618; this
interval implies that the true proportion of the frequency of the four metrical
forms in a purely accentual text lies somewhere within these limits. The
upper limit (.618) was used as the normative value in chi-square tests.
Two examples of this procedure may be adduced here. First, let us test
the Panegyricuslatinus IX which, as shown above, is accentual. Of the 199
clausulae examined, 144 ( = .724) contain a cretic-trochee, dicretic, ditrochee,
or cretic-tribrach. This proportion, tested against the normative value of .618
at the 95 percent confidence level at a degree of freedom of 1 (critical value
= 3.84), yields a test value of 10.45; accordingly, this work may be identifed
11
If at all possible, one should examine at least 150 clausulae. To give an idea of
how misleading a small sample size can be, the reliability of a sample of 50 is plus or
minus 18 percent; that of 100, plus or minus 13 percent. See Oberhelman/Hall CPh (1984)
119 n. 29.
19
This is the argument of Oberhelman CPh (1988).
J> If the text should prove nonaccentual, then it should be tested for the presence
of metrical clausulae. This test will be discussed below in the text.
21
This proportion is very high-in fact, it is only 10 percent lower than what we
observe in Cicero's highly rhetorical speeches, but about 30 percent higher than the
frequency gleaned from nonrhythmical prose. These values demonstrate the effect that
accentual cadences exert on fortuitous metrical configurations.
Methodnlogy 13
as cursus mixtus. Jerome's Commentariain lsaiampresents a different picture.
The work is accentual: 338 of 449 randomly sampled clausulae contain one
of the three main forms of the cursus( = .753), which yields a chi-square test
value of 61.94. But when the same clausulae are examined for the four
standard metrical forms, only 266 such forms occur ( = .593). As the
chi-square test value of this proportion is 0.65, we may conclude that this
work contains accentual clausulae.
This method, however, did not accommodate other metrical patterns
like the paeon-trochee, trochee-cretic, paeon-cretic, and paeon-tribrach, which
are resolutions of the standard metrical forms and which were used by
Cicero and other practitioners of Asiatic meters. This shortcoming needed to
be remedied; for just as accentual rhythms in late imperial Latin permitted
not only the three standard accentual forms but also other cadences like the
cursus trispondaicusand cursus miscellanei,it seemed quite likely that the
cursusmixtus system allowed beyond the four standard metrical forms other
meters under the accentual patterns. Accordingly, the methodology was
revised in CQ (1988) to test the presence and use of these following clausular
typologies: the paean-trochee under the cursus trispondaicus; the
trochee-cretic under the cursus medius; the ditrochee under the cursus
dispondaicus;and the paeon-cretic/tribrach under the cursus dispondeus
dactylicus.Normative values for metrical frequencies under each accentual
typology were extracted from medieval cursus texts and then used in
comparative tests. The test data did indeed reveal that some authors (for
example, Lactantius and the Latin panegyricists) sought this wider system of
the cursusmixtus, as opposed to Symmachus and Arnobius who followed the
very rigid system of three accentual cadences and four standard metrical
forms.
The methodologies for determining the cursus and cursus mixtus now
seemed sufficiently developed for a comprehensive study of the corpora of
Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine. First, however, I decided to check the
validity of the methodologies at the most critical level, namely, the normative
values. I resolved to reevaluate not only my former control texts, but also
several new ones. Moreover, I chose much more conservative guidelines in
methods of sampling and classification. First, only sentence-closings on every
second or third page of the most modern critical editions were examined. For
inclusion in the survey, every sentence had to comprise at least six words,
on the rather arbitrary grounds that such a sentence length was needed to
permit a proper manipulation of syntax and vocabulary for effecting rhythm.
No clausula was sampled if there was an issue of hiatus and elision, except
in the case of final est, which was always assumed to be elided. Most
importantly, very strict adherence to accent and to cursus typological
classification was now observed. Previously, I had followed earlier scholars
of prose rhythm in allowing liberal interpretations of the standard accentual
cadences and combinations of word-clusters. For example, I had previously
interpreted the sequence 60/60/60 as a cursus trispondaicus,6oo/6o/6o as a
cursus velox, and 6/60/60 as a cursusplanus. Now, however, I took all these
combinations simply as a cadence of two disyllables, that is, the cursus
dispondaicus.All words of more than five syllables were now relegated to the
cursus miscellaneirubric; in my fonner studies, I had considered 000060 a
cursus trispondaicus;000600, a cursus tardus;and 0000060, a cursus velox.22
This conservative bent was extended even to strings of monosyllables: for
example, 600/6/6/60, previously assumed to be a cursus velox, was now
classified as a subtype of the cursusdispondaicus.I decided to adhere to these
rigid guidelines of classification in order to establish the most objective set
of values for the occurrence of accentual patterns in nonaccentual prose.
While more liberal guidelines may be permissible in determining a single
statistical count, they are not reliable in fixing frequencies of individual
typologies.
I chose as control texts for nonaccentual prose Descartes' Latin
philosophical works, Cicero's De oratoreI-III, and Polydore Vergil's Historia
anglica(date: 1555). Descartes' and Polydore's writings also served as control
texts for norunetrical prose. The control texts for the cursus mixtus were
Dante's Epistolae,John of Salisbury's Polycraticus,and Gilbert Foliot's
Expositioin CanticaCanticorum.One thousand random clausulae were taken
from each of the nonaccentual texts, while a toal of 1260 clausulae were
drawn from Dante, John of Salisbury, and Gilbert. Every clausula was
classified according to a cursustypology; in addition, the metrical quantities
of all syllables under the accentual patterns were noted and relegated to one
of the twenty-two possible combinations of long and short syllables listed in
Table I.
Let us tum first to the norms for nonaccentual prose. The data in Table
I show that the new and stricter guidelines have yielded lower proportional
values: 1596 of the 3000 sampled clausulae ( = .532) contained a cursusplanus,
cursus tardus,or cursus velox. This proportion, although about four percent
lower than the previously determined normative value of .571, is comfortably
close to it. The 99 percent confidence interval of the proportion .532 is from
.508 to .555. The upper limit (.555) should replace the old value of .596 in
chi-square tests for the presence of the cursus, since the proportion from
which it derives has been based on better sampling methods.
The basic principles of CPh {1988) are verified by the data. In that
article, I stated that a nonaccentual text displays a low number of cursus
tardus but a high number of cursus planus, cursus trispondaicus,and cursus
22
Five-syllable words were treated differently. Paroxytone five-syllable words
preceded by a paroxytone word were considered cursus velox (fpsos commovelmtur);
otherwise, they were listed under the cursus planus rubric. As for proparoxytone
five-syllable words, the whole clausula was considered a cursus tardusif preceded or
followed by a monosyllable (~stintell~gimusor suspici6nesunt); otherwise I assigned it to
the cursusmediuscategory (for example, consulibustxproMntibus).
Methodology 15
miscellanei.Indeed, the values of these proportions in Descartes, Polydore,

and Cicero are, respectively, as follows: cursus tardus:.117, .119, .136; cursus
trispondaicus:.213, .203, .236; and cursus miscellanei:.247, .286, .219. The
fluctuations in value of the various proportions are not overly significant and
may easily be explained by factors like subject matter and vocabulary. The
proportions, therefore, support the rule that a nonaccentual text contains a
high number of paroxytone patterns and few proparoxytone forms.
Hall and I observed (CPh (1984] 120) that even if a text is metrical, it
should contain no more accentual schemes than a nonrhythmical text, since
meter appears not to influence the frequency of cursus cadences. As Table I
shows, Cicero's De oratoreis saturated with Asiatic meters: 597 of the 1000
clausulae have a cretic-trochee, dicretic, or ditrochee. If we add the
resolutions of these patterns (paeon-trochee, cretic-tribrach, and
paeon-cretic/tribrach) and the trochee-cretic, we achieve a total of 837
clausulae ( = .837). The number of cursusforms, however, is no greater than
what occurs in the nonrhythmical texts of Descartes and Polydore.
The metrical clausulae in Cicero's De oratorealso illustrate how the
cursus mixtus was originally conceptualized and then developed. In purely
metrical prose, clausular patterns are independent of accent. In Cicero's text,
for example, of the 185 cursustrispondaicusof the typology 60/0060, there are
75 paeon-trochees, 60 ditrochees, and 39 cretic-trochees. In cursusmixtus texts,
on the other hand, about 85 to 90 percent of this accentual typology contain
a paeon-trochee (Oberhelman CQ (1988] 233-35). This would indicate that
whenever cursusmixtus authors used the cursustrispondaicus,they desired a
coincidence of accent and ictus. Likewise, when we tum to the cursusplanus
typology of 600/60 in the De oratore,we notice various metrical patterns:
cretic-trochee (11), first paean-trochee (6), ditrochee (5), fourth paean-trochee
(3), and first paean-trochee (2), among others. Authors of the cursusmixtus,
on the other hand, preferred to have only two metrical patterns under this
accentual typology--cretic-trochee and trochee-cretic-in order to obtain a
coincidence of accent and ictus (Oberhelmarv'Hall CQ (1986] 509). It is clear
that the consistent striving for coincidence separates meter-only clausulae
from the cursus mixtus; although metrical schemes do often fall under the
word-accents in Cicero's prose, the frequency is nowhere close to what is
observed in the cursus mixtus works of the third and fourth centuries.
Finally, the data verify the proportional value of .364 (339/931)for the
occurrence of the four standard metrical forms (cretic-trochee, dicretic,
cretic-tribrach, and ditrochee) in a nonrhythmical text (CPh [1985}219). The
657 occurrences of these forms in the 2000 clausulae in Descartes and
Polydore yield a proportion of .329 (99 percent confidence interval:
.302-.356),23 and if the other metrical forms of the cursus mixtus are added,
D The reason for the differences in proportional values is the larger sample size
from Descartes and Polydore (2000clausulae); in Oberhelman/Hall CPh (1985),the sample
the proportional value rises to .418 ( = 835/2000; 99 percent confidence
interval: .390-.446).
The following observations may be made on the basis of the above
data: if a sample of clausulae (at least 150 in number, so as to ensure
statistical reliability) is taken from a text void of metrical and accentual
tendencies, the proportion of accentual forms should be in the .500s (slightly
more or less, depending on sample size), while the proportion of the four
standard metrical forms of the cursus mixtus should be in the .300s and the
proportion of all cursus mixtus metrical patterns in the low to mid-.400s.
Turning to the control samples for the cursus mixtus, we find that the
proportions of the four standard metrical fonns of the cursus mixtus
(hereafter, m•) in an accent-only text are about six percent lower in value
than those given in CPh (1985). Of the 1260 clausulae sampled here, 659 (=
.523) contained one of the four metrical forms; the 99 percent confidence
interval of this proportion is from .487 to .559. The proportion of all cursus
mixtus metrical fonns (hereafter, m~ is .583 ( = 735/1260), with a 99 percent
confidence interval of from .548 to .619. The lower proportional values may
be explained by the different systems of the cursus used by the authors. In
CPh (1985), all three authors sampled favored only a few accentual forms,
namely, the cursusplanus and cursus velox. Here, however, Gilbert's system
of accentual rhythms follows the tradition of France and Germany in the
Middle Ages,2'' where the cursus trispondaicuswas not avoided and the
clausula often comprised three or even more words (for example, 6oo/6o/6o
for the cursus velor5). As I will eh-1boratebelow, both the cursus planus and
cursus velox patterns lend themselves easily to fortutious meters (especially
the cretic-trochee and ditrochee), while the cursus tardus and cursus
trispondaicusdo not. Thus, the control texts in CPh (1985) offered a slightly
distorted frequency for the occurrence of the four standard metrical forms
of the cursus mixtus. The present control texts, on the other hand, evenly
reflect the two different systems of the cursus:the Italian, which preferred
the cursusplanusand cursusvelox,and the Northern European, which sought
a good distribution of the three standard forms along with the cursus
trispondaicus.Thus, the confidence intervals of .487-.559 and .548-.619 are
more reflective of the possible range of metrical frequencies of m• and mt
that an accentual text may contain.
When dealing with imperial Latin prose, however, we must be
cautious. First of all, the period of from c. A.D. 200 to 450 was a time of
transition for prose rhythm. Meter was not discarded, as is clear from the
size was only 951.
x Janson (1975) 50-59 and 104.

25
In accordance with my strict rules for classification, in this monograph I
categorize this cadence as a cursusdispondaicus.
Methodology 17
syllabic quantities apparent in the Christian fathers' hymns.u, We do not

have, in other words, an "either-or'' situation: that is, did the author use the
cursus mixtus or did he not? Rather, the rhythmical system of many authors
will have gravitated toward one or the other end of the spectrum of cursus
and cursusmixtus:very few authors copied the redundant accent-only system
of Amrnianus or the equally pedantic cursus mixtus system of Symmachus,
Firmicus Matemus, Amobius, Vegetius, and Palladius. The tables in my
series of articles in CPh and CQ prove that writers in the late empire
employed meter to varying degrees.
In a transitional period, moreover, we should expect the retention of
certain metrical forms of the cursus mixtus, even in the midst of an ever
growing loss of quantity. For example, the paeon-trochee/cursus trispondaicus
clausula, which symbolized (to later writers) Cicero's rhythmical style in
encapsulated form (esse videatur), was probably too ingrained to be
abandoned completely by Roman rhetoricians. 27 Moreover, a shorter and
simpler fonn of the cursus mixtus like the cursus planus typology 60/060
would have been more likely to retain metrical properties, especially as the
brevity of this clause affords easy coincidence of accent and ictus and since
the last two syllables are already a trochee. The collolary to this observation
is that the loss of quantity should be noticed first in lengthier clausulae,
since the arrangement of metrical forms under longer accentual patterns (say,
those with six or seven syllables) is more difficult to achieve.
As Table I makes clear, certain variants of the three standard cursus
typologies-the cursusplanus 600/60, the cursustardus60/0000 and 600/600,
and the cursus velox 6oo/oo6o--contain only a few standard meters. Now,
because these variants have one or more proparoxytone components, it
appears that Asiatic metrical forms are less likely to fall under such variants.
This may be explained by the causal relationship between rules of Latin
accentuation and the language's natural tendency for long syllables rather
than short. 28 Paroxytone variants like 60/060 and 60/0060, on the other
26
See, for example, the discussion of Ambrose's hymns in Bardenhewer (1923)
543-47; cf. 546: "Alie diese Lieder sind ohne Ausnahme metrisch, nach dem Prinzip der
Quantitat der Silben, nicht rhythmisch, nach Massgabe der Betonung der Silben, gebaut,
wenngleich Wortakzent und Versictus haufiger zusammentreffen, als dies bei den
klassischen Dichtern der Fall zu sein pflegt." For the language and style of the hymns
confidently assigned to Ambrose, see Norberg (1933); Wilbrand (1950) col. 365; Trompeo
(1903) 35-40; Ghedini (1940) 160-70 and 275-85; Simonetti (1952) 339ft. and (1953/4)45-48;
Cunningham (1953)509-14;Angeloni (1974)401-34;Fontaine (1974)318-55and (1976a)445-
52; Dreves (1968); Delaporte (1914) 81-91; Bas (1928) 217-24; Cantu (1931) 21-26.
71
See Oberhelman CQ (1988) 236, with references there.
211
Oberhelman/Hall CPh (1985) 219 and Oberhelman CQ (1988) 138.
hand, contain a fairly high number of fortuitous ditrochees and
cretic-trochees. 29 From this we may formulate two rules: first, accentual
clausulae that are proparoxytone contain a large number of standard metrical
forms only if such forms have been intended by the author, and second,
those that are paroxytone are not a reliable indicator of deliberate metrical
accommodation because these rhythms of ten yield fortuitous Asiatic metrical
patterns. These are important rules to remember, since one may draw false
and misleading conclusions while working with a text containing many
paroxytone clausulae. Since these clausulae naturally yield a high frequency
of trochaic and cretic patterns, a scholar may well suppose that a text is
cursusmixtus,when, in fact, it is only accentual. Here, then, is another reason
why single statistical counts, such as those used in CPh (1984) and {1985),
must be used with prudent caution.
The methodology for determining the presence of the cursus mixtus
requires the following refinement. Besides testing typologies, one must also
examine certain subgroups or typological variants: the cursusplanus600/60;
the cursus tardus 60/0600 and 6oo/6oo; and the cursus velox 600/0060. All
these variants, containing one or more proparoxytone words, do not
consistently accommodate Asiatic meters without deliberate effort. Other
subgroups cannot be used in this type of testing procedure, as they are not
accurate indicators of the occurrence or absence of the cursus mixtus. For
example, as both the nonrhythmical and accent-only texts in Table I show,
the cursusplanusvariant 60/060 contains many fortuitous standard metrical
forms: up to .711 in some cases, but never lower than .600. Moreover, in the
case of late Latin texts, we should expect this frequency to be even higher,
since quantity had not yet been forgotten and since the cursus planus lends
itself easily, by its brief length and constituent parts, to coincidence of accent
and ictus. The cursus trispondaicusand cursus miscellaneialso should not be
used for this testing method. For although the control texts in Table I do
show a variety of metrical farms-both Asiatic and nonAsiatic-falling under
the cursus trispondaicus,in late Latin prose this accentual form occurred
infrequently, 30 and when it did occur, authors preferred to use the
paean-trochee in order to replicate the Cicero's signatory phrase esse
videatur.As for the cursus miscellanei,their occurrence in the medieval cursus
is too slight to afford firm conclusions about the metrical tendencies of these
accentual patterns.
The methodology for identifying the presence of the cursusmixtus may
be formulated in its final form as follows. If a proportion of m•, drawn from
a large sample of a demonstrably accentual text, is very high, say, 75 percent,
and if the proportion of mt is at least 80 percent, then one can label
29 Cf. Oberhelman/Hall CQ (1985) 219.

30
See the tables in Oberhelman CPh (1988) 140 and CQ (1988) 233-35.
Methodology 19
confidently the text as cursusmixtus. If the proportional values of m• and mt

are lower than 75 percent and 80 percent, respectively, then several methods
must be employed. First, one should compare the sample proportions of m•
and m 1 to the upper limits of their normative counterparts (.559 and .619,
respectively). However, because late antiquity was, from the perspective of
rhythm, a period of transition and gradual, not sudden and complete, loss
of quantity, we must add an additional .100 or so to these values for a
margin of safety; at the least, the upper limit of m• in a testing procedure
should be .630, and that of mt, .700. A supplementary test is to examine the
metrical patterns falling under the four key accentual typological subgroups
discussed above: 600/60, 6o/o6oo, 600/600, and 6oo/oo6o. A high coincidence
here of standard metrical patterns and accentual forms will indicate an
author's deliberate attention to quantity; a low coincidence, little or no
attention to it.
CHAPTER 2
PROSE RHYTHM IN THE AMBROSIAN CORPUS
Ambrose's works are traditionally classified as exegetical,

moraVesthetic, dogmatic, rhetorical (panegyric), and epistolary. 1 Thirty-seven
treatises are confidently attributed to Ambrose,2 thirty-one of which have
been published in the series Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. 3
Only one detailed study of Ambrose's prose rhythms has been
published: M. Rosella Delaney's 1934 Ph.D. dissertation, A Study of the
Clausulaein the Worksof St. Ambrose.'Problems abound, however. The most
serious weakness is Delaney's assumption from the onset that all of the
works she was sampling (eleven treatises plus the Epistulae)contained prose
rhythms. Instead of determining whether any oneof the works is rhythmical,
Delaney had as her working premise what should have been the conclusion
of careful study, namely, that Ambrose used prose rhythms in this or that
work. Delaney even went so far as to assume that Ambrose's system of
prose rhythms was, as a matter of course, the cursus mixtus, simply because
Ambrose was writing in a period when the cursus mixtus was in vogue
among many authors; she did not consider the possibility that certain works
may have contained another forrn of rhythm or were not rhythmical. Related
to this is her treatment of the Epistulae.Delaney sampled the letters as
though they were a unified whole: she did not attempt to investigate
1
Faller (1948) 995-%; cf. Bardenhewer (1923) 508ff.; Palanque (1933) 437; Schanz
(1914) 319.
2This includes the ApologiaalteraDavid,Explanatiosymboliad initiandos,and De
sacramentis,all of which I accept as genuine. See below in the text.
3
The exceptions are Senno contraAuxentiumde basicilistradendis(PL 16:1049--62);
Exhortatiovirginitatis(PL 16:3JS.64); De institutionevirginis (PL 16: 305-34); De officiis
ministrorum(PL 16:25-194), now in Testard (1984) and Banterle (1977); De viduis (PL
16:233-62);De virginibus,now in Faller, Florilegium
patristicum,fasc. 31, and in Cazzaniga
(1948a); De virginitate(PL 16:270-316),now in Cazzaniga (1954).
• Catholic University of America Patristic Studies, 40 (Washington D.C. 1934).
21
whether the rhythmical style of a letter may have varied according to
addressee (his or her status and education) and content (exegetical, doctrinal,
or personal). 5 Furthermore, no distinction was made between genres. Her
own Tables clearly show that certain works exhibit individual rhythmical
tendencies that can be traced to content and audience; such data, however,
are ignored.
Errors in both accentual classification and metrical scansion also appear
throughout Delaney's study. For example, Delaney counted 21 instances of
nonmetrical clausulae of the type "flere quasi vulnera," when, in fact, this
scheme is a first paeon-cretic, a common metrical unit in Cicero's prose and
a resolution of his dicretic. Examples of faulty scansion include nomen
scriptum est being considered a trochee-cretic and una persona est a
spondee-cretic (when the text shows that both una and personaare in the
nominative case). Also, as these two latter examples demonstrate, Delaney
refused to accept final elision of est; on this basis, she classified omne servatum
est and terracompletaest as dicretics and singulorumest as a trochee-cretic. She
also did not admit certain syllabic quantities that had changed in later Latin.
For example, we know that final -o in third declension nouns was short, but
final -o in -io nouns was long (Oberhelman/Hall CQ [1985] 208, with
bibliography there); thus, Delaney took imago communis est as a
spondee-cretic, when in fact the clausula is a dicretic under a cursus tardus.
These weaknesses in methodology and procedure often produced less than
trustworthy results. 6
In the present survey, I have sampled the prose rhythms in all
thirty-seven authenticated works of Ambrose; the De bello Iudaic.o,whose
5
In all fairness, I too was guilty of this same procedure in the early CPh and CQ
articles. However, my interest there was only in determining in various works the
presence and type of prose rhythm; I did not attempt to offer detailed analyses of
individual treatises.
6
There have been shorter discussions of Ambrose"s rhythms. Kelly (1940, 129-78)
corrects many of Delaney's observations and offers a sophisticated treatment of the
clausulae in the De obitu Valentiniani.Cazzaniga (1948,54-80) deals with the clausulae in
the De lapsu virginis, De institutionevirgi.nis,and book 3 of De virgi.nibus;but as R.
Browning has shown in his review in CR 1 (1951)55-56,little profit may be derived from
Cazzaniga's work. Cazzaniga reproduces his findings in his edition of De virgi.nibus
(1984a, 84-94). Mamone (1924a, 143-64) discusses the style of Ambrose's letters; he
conjectures that Ambrose used metrical clausulae (163-64),but provides no methodological
framework to support his hypothesis; he states only that he examined 96 sentence-closings
and 238 endings of clauses, but does not tell us from which letters his sample was taken.
Mamone also does not mention the role of accent. Di Capua (1931, 610) mentions in a
footnote the presence of prose rhythm in several of Ambrose's works, but dismisses
Ambrose's style as "mediocre.n Finally, Testard (1985, 208 n. 57) refers to metrical
clausulae in Ambrose's Senno contraAuxentium;see note 94 below for discussion. I have
found no other study of Ambrose's prose rhythms.
Rhythm in Ambrose'sCorpus 23
authorship is greatly debated; the De lapsu virginis,of doubtful authorship;

and three spurious works that have come down under Ambrose's name:
three Sermones,the Commentariain xii epistolasbeatiPauli (now attributed to
"Ambrosiaster''), and the ExpositiosuperseptemvisioneslibriApocalypsis.The
Epistulae were examined individually or, in certain situations, in small
clusters by recipient. A majority of letters therefore were left unsampled; but
because most are actually short notes, the number of clausulae would be too
small to permit conclusions about rhythm.
Specific methods of sampling were followed rigidly. Only
sentence-closings were studied, except in the case of short treatises in the
CSEL, where complete stops before semicolons were included. Whenever
possible, a random sample was taken: in the case of long treatises (for
example, Exaemeronand De spiritusancto),I examined every third page in the
CSEL; in the case of short works, every other paragraph. Only occasionally
was I forced to sample all clausulae in order to obtain a sufficiently large
sample (for example, SermocontraAuxentium de basicilistradendisand certain
letters). To be sampled, each sentence needed to comprise at least six words,
and no clausula containing proper names of either people or places was
induded. 7 Moreover, no sentence based on scripture, even by oblique
reference, was sampled. As Jerome later discovered, even the slightest
changes in a scriptural passage could be met with hostility, 8 and it is not
unlikely that when Ambrose referred to the scriptures, his sentence structure
was mandated to some degree by the biblical text. Metrical quantity was
assumed to be classical in scansion. There were two exceptions. First, final
-o in the ablative gerund, first-person singulars, adverbs, and the nominative
singular of third declension nouns were counted as short; final -o in third
declension -io nouns and in the first-person singulars of third conjugation -io
verbs was considered long. Second, penultimate -i- was scanned as long in
the first-person and second-person plurals of the perfect active subjunctive
and future perfect active indicative (-erimusand -eritis).9 No clausula was
sampled if there was a question of elision or hiatus, the exception being est
in the final position, which was taken as elided in every situation. 1°Finally,
any clausula containing textual problems was omitted from the survey.
The data are given in Table II. The texts are listed alphabetically, with
the Epistulaeand doubtful and spurious works at the end. Considerations of
space have required a simplification of the presentation of data: to give all
7
Exceptions were made for very common and unambiguous names like Roma,
Italia,Africa,and JesusChristus.
• See Kelly (1975) 89-90 and 158.
9
See, in greater detail, Oberhelman/Hall CQ (1985) 208 and Augustininna269-70.
10
Oberhelman/I-fall CQ (1985) 209 and Augustininna271.
metrical patterns under each accentual typology and typological variant in
every single work would have presented an oppressive number of pages.
Certain data can be isolated however, because they are sufficient to afford
1
a decision on a text's rhythm. Thus I include the frequencies, with their

proportions listed in the line below, of all cursus typologies (cursusplanus,
cursus tardus, cursus velox, cursus trispondaicus,cursus medius, cursus
dispondaicus,cursus dactylicusdispondaicus,and irregular cadences); these are
followed by the proportion of the total number of cursusplanus,cursustardus,
and cursus velox (abbreviated as pc in the tabular headings). The final two
columns give the proportions of the four standard metrical patterns of the
cursusmixtus (m•) and of all Asiatic metrical forms of the cursus mixtus (mt).
The third line contains the frequencies of m• and mt under the key accentual
typologies, which 1 as noted in Chapter I, are very often a reliable indication
of the intentional presence of meter. Each of the works in the Table will be
discussed in the order in which they are listed; afterwards, observations and
conclusions will be drawn concerning Ambrose's rhythmical system; finally,
the relationship of rhythmical style to audience, content, method of
composition, and rhetorical purposes will be addressed. 11
The De Abraham (CSEL 32.1, 501-638), an exegetical treatise dated
variously from 375 to 387,12 contains two books; scholars agree that book 1
comprises two sermons (cc. 1-31 and 32-94),but are divided over the nature,
written or homiletic 1 of book 2.13 Palanque and Lazzati, however, have
argued convincingly that the entire work was based on sermons that later
were thoroughly edited by Ambrose for publication. 14 We find here little
11
In the following notes, I have attempted to be rather comprehensive in adducing
relevant scholarship for each work, so that subsequent researchers, with my statistical
data in hand, may relate them to the literary and theological character of Ambrose's
corpus in far more exact details than the broad pictures painted in this monograph. Good
introductions to Ambrose's treatises may be found in the recent series Tutte le operedi
Sant'Ambrogio,17 vols. (Milano).
After the title of each work I have placed within parentheses the edition used for
my clausular sample.
12
Bardenhewer (1923,512) dates the work to 387; Dudden (1935,2.683)to after 375;
Ihm (1890, 79) to 387; Kellner (1893, 98) to 387; the Maurists to around 387; Palanque
(1933, 509-10) to 382/3, followed by Gori {1984) 10; Paredi (1%0, 530) to around 378;
Schanz (1914, 326-27) to 387.
13
Palanque (1933,440), Dudden (1935,2.682),Gori (1984, 12-15),and Schanz (1914,
326-27)consider the second book written; Bardenhewer (1923,512) thinks both books to
comprise sermons.
u Palanque (1933) 440 and Lazzati (1955) 47, who observes that book 1 contains
more traces of oral delivery. Discussion in Mara (1986) 156. According to Lucchesi (1977)
42-48 and 64-66, Ambrose is indebted to Philo in book 2, but not in book 1; cf. Volker
(1931) 199-207.
attention to rhythm. Although some tendency to accentual rhythm appears

in the high number of cursus tardus and the infrequent use of the cursus
trispondaicus,the value of pc is quite low (.582) and the occurrence of cursus
miscellanei,specifically the cursusmedius,is far too high to denote dehl>erate
concern. Meter is not sought under the accentual typologies, especially the
cursus tardus.The impression one gets from this treatise is that Ambrose did
not trouble himself with rhythm, and what traces of it do appear were due
to clausular habits that may have surfaced during his preaching or to
editorial revision.
Ambrose composed two exegetical ApologiaeprophetaeDavid(CSEL 32.2,
299-355). The first, whose MS title suggests an imperial audience, 15 dates
from the second half of the 380s; 16 the treatise consists of sermon material
edited for publication. 17 The rhythmical style is the cursus mixtus: the pc
clearly indicates accentual forms, while the values of m• and mt, as well as
the high frequencies of meter under the key accentual typologies, prove the
accommodation of metrical forms. If, as scholars believe, this treatise was
addressed to the emperor Theodosius, then this would account for
Ambrose's use of the cursus mixtus.
The Ambrosian authorship of the ApologiaalteraprophetaeDavid had
been rejected from the Renaissance down to the middle of this century;
recent scholars, however, have established its authenticity on solid
grounds. 18 The Apologiaalteracomprises a number of sermons delivered in
15 The phrase *ad TheodosiumAugustum" is in the oldest and best manuscript:

Bardenhewer (1923) 517. Dudden (1935, 2.688) states that the phrase was added by a
copyist who thought it appropriate that this work, concerned with the fall and penance
of David, should have been directed to an emperor who had suffered a similar fate. Claus
(1976, 186-88)gives solid reasons for the treatise being addressed to Theodosius.
16
Bardenhewer (1923, 517) dates the work between 383 and 389; Campenhausen
(1929, Appendix VII) to around 384; Gaus (1976, 192) to the second half of 390; Dudden
{1935,2.688) between 383 and 390; Hadot (1977,33-43) to 390; Ihm (1890,79) between 383
and 38.5;Lucidi (1981,22-28)to 390; the Maurists to 384; Palanque (1933,520-22)to 15 June
387; Paredi (1960,530) to summer 387; Rauschen (189'7,184-86)to 384; Schenk! (CSEL,32.2,
v and xiii) after 382 but before 386.
17 Sermons:Bardenhewer (1923)517; Claus (1976) 186-91;Dudden (1935) 2.687-88;
Hadot (1977) 15-16,who calls it a .,hom~lie recrite"; Lazzati (1955)47; Palanque (1933)446,
who divides the work into two sermons (cc. 1-40, on the sins of David, and cc. 41-85,
exegesis on Psalm 50); Schanz (1914) 334; Schenkl, CSEL, 32.2, v. Palanque (446 n. 34)
adduces as evidence of material added for publication the phrase "Apologiam prophetae
David praesenti arripuimus stylo scribere."
11
Claus (1976) 168-93,who follows Connolly (1947)7-20 and 121-30;bibliography
and review of scholarship in Claus 196 nn. 5-6. Lucidi (1981, 9-22) gives an exhaustive
review of Oaus' arguments, which he accepts except for the date of 390 (for which see
Claus 177-86and Lucidi 29-33). Earlier scholars against authorship include Bardenhewer
September 390.19 Regarding rhythm, the values of pc, m•, and mt and the
frequencies of metrical forms under the accentual typologies show no
significant differences from their counterparts in the other Apologia.Prose
rhythms, therefore, support authorship by Ambrose and are an important
proof when taken in conjunction with Claus' detailed historical arguments.
If, as Claus has argued, this Apologia also had an imperial audience, the
reason for Ambrose's choice of the cursus mixtus is clear.
The De bonomortis (CSEL 32.1, 703-53) is an exegetical work dating to
the late 380s or early 390s,20 and is composed of two sermons (cc. 1-29 and
30-57) that seem to have been delivered to catechumens during their baptism
at Easter. 21 The data in the Table show that Ambrose was not greatly
concerned with rhythm. The proportion of cursus tardus is lower here than
in Ambrose's other rhythmical works, while the frequency of the cursus
trispondaicusis greater than what appears elsewhere; moreover, the cursus
miscellaneiare very common. These data lead to the conclusion that Ambrose
was not very concerned with accentual forms. As for meter, Ambrose's
indifference to it is clear from the proportions of m• and mt.
The De Cain et Abel (CSEL 321, 339-409), an early exegetical work, 22
is considered by many scholars a series of sermons because of the
(1923) 517; Dudden (1935) 2.707; Ihm (1890) 72-73; Palanque (1933) 405; Paredi (1960) 536;
Schanz (1914) 334-35; Schenkl, CSEL, 32.2, ix-x.
19
Sermons: Dudden (1935) 2.707 and Schenkl, CSEL, 322, vii-xi. Claus (1976, 176-77
n. 16) gives a detailed analysis. Claus concludes (176): HL'Apol.alt. n'est pas une oeuvre
'ecrite', mais au contraire une oeuvre dite 'orale': elle est A considerer comme le
compte-rendu 'tachygraphie' d'une serie de sermons tenus par Ambroise. Le style
'oral' et les allusions au deroulement de l'expose, sont Jes temoignages directs."
:a>Bardenhewer (1923, 513) dates to 388; Dudden (1935, 2.682) after 390; Ihm (1890,
16--17)after 387; the Maurists to 387; Moreschini (1982, 10) to 386; Palanque (1933, 540-41)
to around 391; Paredi (1960, 530) to 391; Schanz (1914, 328) to either 387 or 388; Wilbrand
(1921, 12-13) between 387 and 389.
21
Two sermons: Bardenhewer (1923) 513; Lazzati (1955) 47; Moreschini (1982) 14;
Palanque (1933) 441; Paredi (1960) 524 (note to 518-20); Schanz (1914) 328; Schenkl, CSEL,
32.1, iv, and 32.3, iii. Huhn (1923) offers useful discussions of Ambrose's sources,
although he should be supplemented by Moreschini (1982, 15-25), Hadot (1956, 202-20),
and Lucchesi (1977, 79-80, especially on Neoplatonism and Plotinus). Scuzzoso (1968,
297-307) asserts that the Neoplatonism here is not important, but Theiler (1970, 502-18)
refutes his opinion.
22
Bardenhewer (1923, 511) dates to 375; Dudden (1935, 2.680) to 377; Ihm (1890,
14-15) between 380 and 383; Malden (1915) between 376 and 379; Palanque (1933, 493) to
around 377; Paredi (1960, 530) to around 377 or 378; Schenkl (CSEL, 32.1, viii) to 381.
dominating oratorical and hortatory tone, 23 but by Dudden, Thro, and

Palanque a written work. 24 The work's division into two books is clumsy
and doubtlessly due to an early copyist.~ Accentually structured clausulae
are evident here: pc is significantly high, with a great number of the
proparoxytone cursus tardus (.200). The low incidence of standard metrical
forms under the key accentual typologies (66/97 = .680) and the low
proportional values of m• and mt speak to Ambrose's preference for the
accentual properties of the clausulae.
The Enarrationesin xii Psalmos Davidicos(CSEL 64) is a series of
scriptural commentaries, each of whose date and method of composition are
not recoverable. Some scholars conjecture that the twelve commentaries were
written; others, that they comprise sermons; and others, that they are an
intricate collage of sermon material and written sections."' The dates of
composition have been the subject of extensive debate. 27 The exception is
the Enarratioin Psalmum 43, which, according to Ambrose's biographer
Paulinus (Vita 42), was dictated a few days before Ambrose fell to a fatal
illness in March 397.28 The system of prose rhythm in all these
:e Bardenhewer (1923) 511; Forster (1884) 87; Kellner (1893) 93-95; Mara (1986) 155;
Schanz (1914)325. Schenk.I (CSEL, 32.1, v-vi) is not certain, but suggests sermons; Schenk!
also discusses the heavy influence of Philo in this work, for which now see Lucchesi
(1977) 31-39.
x Dudden (1935) 2.680; Ihm (1890) 14; Palanque (1933)439. This identification may
be due to the fact that Ambrose seems to have removed all traces of oral delivery: Lazzati
(1955) 47.
25
Schanz (1914) 325.
36
Bardenhewer (1923) 517-18; Dudden (1935) 2.688-89; Ihm (1890) 22-24; Kellner
(1893) 136-39; Lazzati (1955) 47; Palanque (1933) 446-48; Rauschen (1897) 457; Schanz
(1914) 335.36.
17
For the dates of each of the Enarrationesin Psalmos,the best discussion is
Pizzolato (1965), who summarizes his arguments in (1980) 9-15. The following are his
dates: In Psalm.1: 390; ln Psalm.35: 388/9; In Psalm.36: 396; In Psalm.37: 38&'9;In Psalm.
38: 388-90;In Psalm.39: 388-90;In Psalm.40: 388-90;In Psalm.43: 397; In Psalm.45: 388-90;
In Psalm.47: 388-90; In Psalm.48: 390; In Psalm.61: 387/88. See also Bardenhewer (1923)
517-18; Dudden (1935) 2.688-89; Ihm (1890) 22-23; Madec (1974a) 85; Malden (1915) 514;
Palanque (1933) 518-19, 524-26, 550-53; Paredi (1960) 531; Rauschen (1897) 310 and 457;
Wilbrand (1921) 19.
. See Pizzolato (1965) and (1980, 15-16) for Ambrose's extensive borrowings from
Ongen as well as from Athanasius, Basil (for In Psalm. 1 only), Didymus, Eusebius
Caesarensis, and Hilary.
21
Dassmann (1978) 372.
I have used Pellegrino's 1961 edition of the Vita. Lamirande (1981, 44-55) fixes
412/3 as the date of the Vita.
comrnentaries--excepting, for the moment, the Enarratioin Psalmum43-is
the cursus mixtus. This is evidenced by the frequencies of accentual and
metrical patterns and the proportion of metrical forms that fall under the
accentual typologies (.832).
Because the last commentary was dictated by Ambrose shortly before
his death, there may have been little or no time to subject it to revision and
editing. Indeed, the rhythms are progressively less polished as one reads
through the work. Beginning around section 34, the clausulae display greater
diversity of accentual forms and less regard for meter. The proportions of the
accentual and metrical patterns of the cursusmixtus in cc. 1.33 are as high as
anywhere in Ambrose's corpus: the proportional value of mt is .905, that of
m 1 under the accentual typologies .900. In the remainder of the treatise,
however, the rhythms are more accentual in nature: the number of cursus
miscellaneiincrease (up to .195), the values of m• and m1 become lower (.617
and .733, respectively), and the occurrence of meter under the typologies,
especially the cursus tardus, is less marked. 29 We may conjecture that
Ambrose had time to revise the first part of his work, but that much of it
remained just as dictated. Now I have stated elsewhere (CQ [1988]240-41,in
reference to Janson) that accentual rhythms were the ideal stylistic tool in
cases of dictation: an author needed only to string together and align into
proper placement two or three word-accents, and this could be aided by the
simple rhythmic tapping of the finger. It is difficult to imagine how the
cursus mixtus, with its of ten unnatural coincidence of accents and Greek
meters, could easily be achieved in situations of dictation, except in the case
of short clausulae like the cursus planus and well-known phrases like esse
videatur or unless the author took special time and care to construct his
rhythmical phrases while speaking. Subsequent editing, therefore, would best
explain the presence of the cursus mixtus in situations of dictated material.
The cursus mixtus in the Exaemeron(CSEL 32.1, 3-261) is clearly shown
by the tabular data, and may be attributed to Ambrose's extensive editing
and revision of sermon material. Comprised of a series of nine sermons that
were delivered during Holy Week and subsequently drawn up into six books
Out of curiosity, I sampled the clausulae in the Vita and found them structured on
word-accent: pc = .701; m• = .515; and m• = .582. Quantity is not sought under the key
accentual typologies: of 13 6oo/6o, three are m• and nine are rn1; of 30 6o/ooo, 19 and 19,
respectively; of 58 6oo/oo6o, 28 and 29, respectively.
29
The sample size of 137 clausulae from cc. 1-33 is large enough to provide
confident decisions. The greatest margin for error, statistics tells us, is plus or minus 9
percent; even if we account for the highest amount of error, the frequency values still
demonstrate the presence of the cursusmixtus.
Rhythm in Ambrose's Corpus 29
in the second half of the 380s, 30 the treatise is heavily indebted to Basil, who
wrote a similar work. Ambrose was no slavish copyist, however, as he freely
adapted and added much original material. 31
The De excessusui fratris Satyri(CSEL 73, 207-32.5)is composed of two
sermon orations: the first was delivered at the funeral of Ambrose's brother
Satyrus, the second a week later. 32 The most probable date of both sermons
is February 378.33 The works were subsequently augmented and edited by
Ambrose and then published as libri;34 Ambrose himself called the published
sermons his Libri consolationiset resurrectionis(Enarratioin Psa.lmum1 51).35
I sampled the prose rhythms in each book to determine whether any
differences in rhythmical style exist; for as Ambrose delivered the first speech
at the obsequies of his brother and the second before his congregation,
perhaps the style may have varied because of genre, that is, funeral
30For discussions concerning presentation (sermons) and dates, see Banterle (1979)
13-14; Bardenhewer (1923) SOS.10;Dudden (1935) 2.680; Ihm (1890) 13-14; Kellner (1893)
78; Lazzati (1955) 47; Madec (1974a) 71-72; Malden (1915) 514; Nazzaro (1974) 559-90;
Palanque (1933) 437-38 and 519-20; Paredi (1960) 531; Rauschen (1897) 491; Schanz (1914)
321-24; Schenk.I, CSEL, 32.1, i-ii and vi-vii; Wilbrand (1921) 7-9.
31
For Basil and Ambrose, see Banterle (1979) 14-19; Cesare (1929) 53-123; Courcelle
(1956) 220-39; Lucchesi (1977) 66; Madec (1974a) 72-80; Pepin (1976) 427-82; Swift (1981)
317-28. On the antimanichean elements, see Capitani {1982)74.593-610and 75.3-29. On the
possible use of Cyprian, see Duval (1970) 25-34.
32
Bardenhewer (1923) 537-39; Duval {1974) 239-40, with bibliography at 240 n. 2;
Ihm (1890) 31; Dudden (1935) 2.700; Lazzati (1955) 47; Palanque (1933) 462-63; Rauschen
(1897) 476; Schanz (1914) 349-50.
For the "lyrisme pa,en" in book 1, see Saven (1980) and Palestra (1974); for book
2 in general, Fenger {1982).Duval (1974, 239-60) analyzes both books in the context of the
consolatiogenre; Favez (1930, 82-91) goes so far as to assert that Ambrose here created the
consolatioChristiana,but this is claiming too much. For the language and periodic prose
style in this work, see Riposti {1940)261-305.
Courcelle (1961, 15-28) posits Ambrose's use of Apuleius' De Platone,but the
parallels are weak; see Madec (1974a, 27-36) for Ambrose's philosophical sources, and
Albers (1922) for his pagan sources.
33
Faller, CSEL, 73, 81• -88•, with good bibliography at 81• n. 124, and (1924/5).
Bardenhewer (1923, 538) dates the work to 17 September 377; Dudden (1935, 2.700) to
February 375; Ihm (1890, 36-38) to 379; Madec (1974a, 27) to 378; the Maurists to the end
of 378 or sometime in 379; Palanque (1933, 48S.93) to February 375; Paredi (1%0, 531) to
February 378; Rauschen (1897, 475-76) to 375.
36
Faller, CSEL, 73, ss•-59•.
:11 This is verified by Augustine (De pecaztorum

originibus47) who calls book 2 the
De resu"ectione.
36
panegyric (epitaphium)as opposed to a homily of cnnsolatio. The tabular
data show, however, that the rhythmical practices are identical, with
variances in individual proportions statistically insignificant. The similarity
in rhythmical style in both works is best explained by Ambrose's editing of
the original sermons; we need not (and, as we shall soon see, should not)
suppose that the presence of a good cursus mixtus implies that Ambrose
regularly used rhetorical embellishments like the cursus mixtus when he
preached and delivered homilies.
The Exhortatiovirginitatis (PL 16:351-80),dated to 393 or 394,37 is a
sermon on the dedication of the basilica of S. Agriolca in Florence (Paulinus,
Vita 27).38 The prose rhythms cannot be established with certainty. The text
does contain accentually-structured clausulae. The four standard metrical
forms, however, do not occur here as frequently as in the cursus mixtus
works discussed above (m• = .620); however, the value of m 1 is high (.769),
and there is sensitivity to meter under the key accentual typologies. One
cannot, therefore, label this work's rhythms as either cursusmixtus or cursus:
the metrical patterns are too few to denote a cursusmixtus system and yet too
frequent not to have been intentional. It now becomes clear that the term
cursus" does not describe adequately those situations where word-accents
ll
are the primary determinant of rhythm and, simultaneously, where some

attention has been paid to metrical quantity, especially in short clausulae like
the cursusplanus. In other words, the terms cursus" and "'cursusmixtus" are
O
too restrictive, as they are incapable of describing or explaining various

degrees of the occurrence of meter. Thus, it is wholly appropriate to coin as
a third classification "accent-dominated clausulae. This term will denote
0
clausulae which are constructed in accordance with the word-accents and

which display sensitivity to quantity, especially under the shorter accentual
cadences but less so under the longer. Henceforth, I will reserve the term
"accent-only clausulae" exclusively for those cases where meter has not been
accommodated by the author.
In accepting as genuine the Erplanatiosymboliad initiandos(Batte (1961]
36
Duval (1976) 236-37 for the epitaphic genre and 239-60 for this treatise in general.
Cf. Madec (1974a) 27 and Carpaneto (1930) 53-113 and 154, where he comments on
Ambrose's independence from the pagan literary consolatioand his infusion into it of
Christian ideas and thoughts; cf. Favez (1937) lS.20 and 40-44; Schenk! (1894); and Duval
2.58-60.
31
Bardenhewer (1923, 532) dates to 393; so too Madec (1974a, 37), the Maurists, and
Rauschen (1897, 401). Dudden (1935, 2.696-97),Palanque (1933, 548), and Paredi (1960, 531)
date to Lent of 394. Ihm (1890, 30) and Schanz (1914, 344) accept the possibility of either
date.
38
Bardenhewer (1923) 532; Dudden (1935) 2.696-96; Ihm (1890) 3(}, Lazzati (1955)
47; Palanque (1933) 458; Rauschen (1897) 401; Schanz (1914) 344. For Ambrose's ideas in
the Exhortatio,
see Consolino (1982) 399-415.
46-59), I have followed recent scholarship. Botte has made a strong case for
its authenticity on the basis of manuscript tradition and parallels to
Ambrose's style and thought. 39 Botte asserts that the Erplanatiois not a
sermon but "la stenographie d'une seance de traditiosymboli" with a marked
"element de catechese." 40 The nature and type of prose rhythm in this text
cannot be recovered. There are many standard metrical forms, although this
may be explained by the presence of many multisyllabic words which,
ending in the suffixes -tat- and -tation-,yield fortuitous trochaic feet. As for
the accentual patterns, the proportion of the three forms is not high (.593),
and examination of the individual typologies offers the observation that
accentual rhythms are not actively sought, since only four cursus tardus
appear and there are numerous irregular forms. Finally, because the chance
of error for this sample size (54 clausulae) is approximately plus or minus 18
percent, it would seem prudent to defer any judgment on the rhythms in
this work. As for work's oral nature and style, I will discuss them in Chapter
V.
The ErpositioevangeliisecundumLucam(CSEL 324) is, according to most
scholars, a collage of written sections and sermons. Palanque represents the
extreme of this tendency, as he has devised an overwrought scheme of
twenty-five sermons and five written parts.-41 Ambrose published the final
edited form of this work in the late 380s. ' 2 The text contains a good system
39
Batte (1961, 21-25, especially 23-24) reviews the issue of authorship; he himself
assigns a date of somewhere between 380 and 390. Banterle (1982,11) gives a tmninus post
quernof 387. Cf. Faller, CSEL, 73, 8•-16•, who asserts authenticity on the basis of parallels
between this work and Ambrose's corpus, and Connolly (1946), with the introduction
and notes in his 1952 edition. Two dissenters are Hitchcock (1946)58-69,who would have
Maxi.mus as author, and Gamber, who in a long series of articles and books would assign
the work to Nicetas of Remesiana, mostly on the grounds that the author may have
consulted the Cmnmmtariusin symbolumapostoloru.m by Rufinus of Aquileia; their
arguments pale, however, when confronted by those of Batte, Faller, and Morin (1894)
339-45 and (1895) 385-96.
t0 Banterle (1982, 10-11) points to the Nstileparalato" of the wor~ and, like Batte,
calls it a .,tratta di un testo raccolto da un tachigrafo, mentre venira pronunciato"; cf.
Lazzati (1955) 33. See Chapter V below for a discussion of the work's oral style.
1
Palanque (1933)449-52, especially 451; cf. Coppa (1978) 18-20; Lazzati (1955)47;
'-
and Tissot (1955) 11-14. See, however, Bardenhewer (1923) 519-20; Ihm (1890) 24-26;
Schanz (1914) 337-38; Schenk.I, CSEL, 32.4, i and v.
u Bardenhewer (1923,510) dates to 388; Dudden (1935, 2.692-94)between autumn

388 and Easter 392; Ihm (1890, 24-26 and 79) to 386(7; Malden (1915, 514) to 38617;
Palanque (1933,529-36,with a summary table on p. 535) between 377 and late 389; Paredi
(1960,533) to around 390; Rauschen (1897,293) to 388; Schanz (1914,337) to the beginning
of 387; Schenk.I (CSEL, 32.2, xiii) to 386 (cf. CSEL, 32.t, xi); Tissot (1955, 11) between 377
and 389; Wilbrand (1921, 9-11) to 387. Coppa (1978, 21-25) gives a good review of the
of the cursusmixtus.This may be attributed to careful revision of the original
sermon material and to Ambrose's attention to style in this very lengthy
treatise.
The Expositiopsalmi cwiii (CSEL 62) consists of an indeterminate
number of sermons-perhaps as many as twenty-two in accordance with the
twenty-two sections of the Psalm43-which were delivered in the final years
of the 380s.44 The cursus mixtus is clearly present, although the occurrence
of meter and its coincidence under the key accentual typologies are not as
high as in Ambrose's other cursusmixtus works; this may be due to either
the predominance of scriptural exegesis or remnants of the work's oral
provenance.
The De fide libri v ad GratianumAugustum (CSEL 78) comprises two
parts. Books 1 and 2 are written texts that Ambrose composed at the request
of the emperor Gratian in the spring or summer of 378;.s books 3-5 consist
of sermons that Ambrose delivered against Arianism in 379 or 380 and then
edited for publication. 46 The five books were published as a treatise shortly
scholarship; cf. Mara (1986) 164.

For the sources, both pagan (especially Vergil) and Christian (Eusebius, Origen,
Hilary), see Tissot's introduction and Puech-Hadot (1959) 204-34; cf. Mara (1986) 164-65.
Pizzolato (1965, 25-52) demonstrates Ambrose's use of Origen's homilies on Luke; he
asserts that Ambrose often rendered much of them word-for-word. Engelbrecht (1903)
discusses the style and Ambrose's method of biblical exegesis.
For the work's considerable influence on Augustine, see Rollero (1958); for its
theology, see Lamirande (1982) 103-16.
u Bardenhewer (1923) 518; Dudden (1935) 2.691; Ihm (1890) 24; Lazzati (1955) 47;
Palanque (1933) 448-49; Petschenig, CSEL, 62, v-vi; Schanz (1914) 336.
"Bardenhewer (1923, 518) dates to 387/8; Dudden (1935, 2.691-92) to 389/9(►, Ihm
(1890, 24 and 79) after 387; Malden (1915, 514) to 378/8; the Maurists to 386/l; Palanque
(1933, 524-25) from 13 May 389 to 3 February 390; Paredi (1960, 531) to around 389;
Petschenig (CSEL, 62, vi) between 388 and 397; Schanz (1914, 336) to 387/8; Schenkl
(CSEL, 321, xi) to '387/8; Wilbrand (1921, 11-12) to 388.
For Ambrose's use of Origen in this work, see the monograph by Muller (1911).
e Bardenhewer (1923, 533-34) dates to 377/8; Faller (CSEL, 78, 5,.-8,.) to September
378; Ihm (1890, 31) to 378; Madec (1974a, 95) to 378; Moreschini (1984, 25-26) to 378;
Palanque (1933, 498) to summer 378; Paredi (1960, 531) to 378; Rauschen {1897, 33) to
spring 378; Schanz (1914, 345) to late 377.
"Date of books 3-5: Bardenhewer (1923, 533-34) in 379/80; Dudden (1935, 2.698-99)
in late 380; Ihm (1890, 32) in 379/80; the Maurists in 379; Moreschini (1984, 25-26) before
381; Palanque (1933, 502-03) in late 380; Paredi (1960, 531) in 380; Rauschen (1897, 33) in
late 380; Schanz (1914, 345) between 379 and 381. See the overall discussion in Faller,
CSEL, 78, 8•-10 .., who opts for a date of 380, and the detailed arguments of Nautin (1976)
229ff.
Palanque (1933, 459-60) considers the first two books written, with books 3-5 a
thereafter. The cursus mixtus rhythms of this dogmatic work befit the
imperial audience.
The De juga saeculi (CSEL 32.2, 1~1.D7) is an exegetical sermon 47
variously dated from 386 to 394.48 Prose rhythms are hardly in evidence. As
in the case of the De Abraham, there is a high frequency of cursusmiscellanei
(.336) but few cursus trispondaicus(.083). The values of m• and m 1, as well as
the very infrequent occurrence of standard metrical forms under the
accentual typologies (37/69 = .536),are too low to denote the accommodation
of meter. It is clear that Ambrose was not much concerned with rhythmical
ornamentation in the published version of this sermon; perhaps no extensive
revision was done beyond what was necessary for publication.
The De Helia et ieiunio (CSEL 322, 411-65), De Nabuthe (32.2, 469-516),
and De Tobia (32.2, 519-73) may be discussed as a unit because of their
similarity in style, content, theme, and purpose. Although these works are
traditionally classified as exegetical, they are in fact moraVdogmatic on
account of their emphasis on attacking wealth. Each is composed of sermon
material, reworked into published form 49 and datable to the period
series of homilies. Lazzati, Ihm, Bardenhewer, and Dudden give similar arguments.
Rauschen and Schanz argue for a written nature for the entire treatise, but Lazzati is
decisive in arguing for heavily revised sermons for books 1-3. Faller is uncertain about
the nature of books 1-2, but assumes a written origin for books 3-5.
Gottlieb (1973, 26-50) reviews the evidence '"'ilber die Enststehung von Defide und
De spiritu sancto und iiber sein Verhaltnis zu Kaiser Gratien." For the sources and
theology of Ambrose, see Hermann (1958) 197-218;Madec (1974a) 46-51; Moreschini (1984)
9-25 and 39-47; and Ramatschi (1923) chapters 2-3.
0
All scholars agree on the homiletic origin of this work: Banterle (1980) 10-11;
Bardenhewer (1923) 513-14; Dudden (1935) 2.684; Lazzati (1955) 47; Palanque (1933) 441;
Paredi (1960) 524 (note to 518-20); Schanz (1914) 328; Schenkl, CSEL, 32.2, iii.
"Banterle (1980, lbl3) dates between 391 and 394; Bardenhewer (1923, 514) after
391; Dudden (1935, 2.684-84) after 394; Ihm (1890, 79) after 388; the Maurists to 387;
Palanque (1933, 549-50) to autumn 394; Paredi (1960, 531) to around 394; Savon (1970) to
394. For Ambrose's use of Philo, see Savon (1977a) 1.329-76 and Lucchesi (1977) 48-52,
although he is more cautious than Savon about the extent of usage.
9
' Vasey (1982) 24 and 31; Giacchero (1965) 7; and Lazzati (1955) 47, who points to
more revision in the De Nabuthe. Earlier discussions of each work's composition include:
De Helia: Bardenhewer (1923) 515; Dudden (1935) 2.685; Giacchero (1965) 7; Ihm
(1890) 19; Palanque (1933) 444; Rauschen (1897) 273; Schanz (1914) 331; Schenk], CSEL,
32.2, vi.
De Nabuthe:Bardenhewer (1923) 515-16; Dudden (1935) 2.685-86; Giacchero (1965)
8; Kellner (1893) 122-23; Palanque (1933) 445; Schenkl, CSEL, 32.2, v.
De Tobia:Bardenhewer (1923) 516; Dudden (1935)2.686; Giacchero (1965) 10-16; Ihm
(1890) 19-20; Palanque (1933) 445; Rauschen (1897) 423; Schanz (1914) 332-33; Schenk],
CSEL, 32.2, v.
386-89.50 The system of prose rhythms is virtually identical in each treatise:
a good distnbution of cursusforms with some attention to meter-in other
words, accent-dominated clausulae. This type of rhythm falls at mid-point on
the stylistic scale between the extremes of the De Abraham and the
Enarrationesin Psalmos:in the former case, little or no concern is shown for
rhythm, but in the latter, great pains. In situations of accent-dominated
clausulae, it becomes clear that the value of pcis high (in the .700s), with the
number of forms distributed fairly equally under the three standard
accentual cadences; the occurrence of cursus trispondaicusis low, that of
cursusmiscellaneibelow .200; finally, the proportions of m• and mt fall in the
range of from .580 to .620 and from .670 to .750, respectively. The differences,
therefore, between the accent-dominated system and the other systems are
obvious: concerning accent, the number of the three standard cursus forms
are about 10 to 15 percent greater in both the accent-dominated system and
the cursusmixtus than in works like the Dejuga saeculi;concerning meter, the
frequencies of m• and mt are, in the case of accent-dominated clausulae,
about 10 to 15 percent higher than in the De Juga saeculitype, but 10 to 15
percent less than in good cursusmixtus treatises. It is apparent, therefore, that
Ambrose's rhythmical style varied from sermons with no purposeful rhythm,
to revised sermons with accent-dominated clausulae, to highly ornate
reworked sermons imbued with the cursusmixtus.The variety of rhythmical
styles must be intentional, attnbutable to the extent that Ambrose edited and
revised his original sermons. The reasons for this diversity must be delayed
until the rest of Ambrose's corpus has been discussed.
50
Vasey (1982, 2.5) gives detailed arguments; cf. the following suggested dates:
De Helia:Buck (1929, 4) between 387 and 390; Dudden (1935, 2.685}before Lent 389;
Giacchero (1965, 7) after 386; Malden (1915, 514) after 386; the Maurists in 390; Palanque
(1933, 527-28) in around 389; Paredi (1960, 532) in around 389; Rauschen (1897, 273-74) in
387; Schanz {1914, 331) after 386; Schenk! (CSEL, 32.2, xiii) after 386 but before 392;
Wilbrand (1921, 19) after 388. Bardenhewer (1923, 515) gives no date, but reviews the
evidence.
De Nalntthe:Ihm (1890, 20) after 396; Giacchero (1956, 8) in 389; Kellner (1893, 122)
in 395; McGuire (1927) in 389; Malden (1915, 514} after 386; the Maurists in 395; Palanque
(1933, 528-29} in around 389; Paredi (1960, 533} in around 389; Rauschen (1897, 422-23) in
394 or 395; Simonetti (1968, 1.%5-77) possibly in 394; Wilbrand (1921, 19), who agrees with
Rauschen. Schanz (1914, 332) states that no date is possible.
De Tobia:Bardenhewer (1923, 516) before 380; Dudden (1935, 2.686) in around 385;
Dunphy (1984, 27-36) between 375/6 and 385/6; Forster (1884, 45) in 377; Giacchero (1956,
10-12), who gives no date but reviews the evidence; Ihm (1890, 20) after 375; Kellner (1893,
123) before 380; Malden (1915, 514) in around 377; the Maurists in 377; Palanque {1933,
528) in around 389; Paredi (1960, 5l5} in around 389; Wilbrand (1921, 17-19) after 385.
For the importance of the themes of avarice, usury, and abuse of wealth in
Ambrose's homiletic and literary works, see Vasey (1982) 143-225, especially 176-81;
Rosadoni (1971); Portolano (1973); Frattini (1962); Christophe (1964) 164-81; Barbieri (1968)
81-87; Gamberoni (1969) 68-72 For Basil's homilies as a main source for Ambrose in this
treatise, see Lucchesi (1977) 87 n. 2.
The De Iamb et vita betzta(CSEL 32.2, 3-70) is an exegetical treatise
composed of two, ~ibly four, sennons, 51 and was published in the latter
part of the 380s.52 The rhythm here is accent-dominated clausulae.
The De incarnationisdominicaesacramento (CSEL 79, 223-81)is a dogmatic
work from 381 or 382. The origin of cc. 1-78 is a sermon that Ambrose
53
preached at the Portian Basicila after waiting in vain to debate two Arians
from the imperial court, the sermon was copied down by notarii and the
transcript later revised. Ambrose then added a written appendix (cc. 79-116),
which was a formal response to the question that the Arian bishop Palladius
of Ratiara had posed on the nature and substance of Jesus. The treatise was
sent in its final form to the emperor Gratian. S& The rhythmical style is a very
good cursus mixtus, which may be expected of a work addressed to an
imperial audience.
The De institutione virginis (PL 16:319-48)dates from 391 or 392~ and
comprises a written preface and a sermon. 56 This work is part of a series on
virginity, all of whose rhythms can be treated here as a unit: De viduis (PL
51
Bardenhewer (1923)514; Dudden (1935)2.683; Lazzati (1955)47; Palanque (1933)
442; Schanz (1914) 329; Schenkl, CSEL, 32.2, ii-iii. Nauroy (1974, 210-36) suggests four
sermons.
52
Bardenhewer (1923, 514) dates to 387/8; Dudden (1935, 2.683) to early 386; Ihm
(1890, 16) after 387; Malden (1915,514) between 387 and 390; the Maurists to around 387;
Palanque (1933, 514-15) to early 386; Pared.i (1960, 532) to around 386; Schanz (1914, 329)
to 387. For the sources, see Schenkl, CSEL 32.2, xiv-xv, and Solignac (1956) 148-56.
53
Bardenhewer (1923, 535) dates to the end of 381 or early 382; Bellini (1979, 360)
between 381 and 383; Dudden (1935, 2.699-700) to 381; Faller (CSEL, 79, 44•-46•) after
Easter 381 for the sermon, and early 382 for the final draft; Ihm (1890, 33) between 380
and 383; Madec (1984a, 45) to early 382; the Maurists to 382; Palanque (1933, 506--07)to
late 381 or early 382; Paredi (1960, 532) to 382; Rauschen (1897, 111) to early 381; Schanz
(1914, 345) between 379 and 383.
54
The fullest discussions are Bellini (1979) 359-66 and Faller, CSEL, 79, 44•-46•; cf.
Bardenhewer (1923) 535; Dudden (1935) 2.699; Ihm (1890) 33-34; Lazzati (1955) 47;
Palanque (1933) 461; Schanz (1914) 345. See Bellini (1974) for Apollinaris of Laodicea as
an important source, and Madec (1974) for Ambrose's use of Athanasius' Epistulaad
Epicteturn.
55
Bardenhewer (1923, 532) dates to 391; Dudden (1935, 2.696) to Easter 392; Ihm
(1890, 30) to 391/2; the Maurists to 392; Palanque (1933,542) to 28 March 392; Paredi (1960,
532) to 392; Rauschen (1897, 344-45) to 391/2. The MSS bear the title Senno de sandnt
Marinevirginitateperpetua.
56
So Bardenhewer (1923) 532; Dudden (1935) 2.696; Lazzati (1955) 47; Palanque
(1933)457-58; Schanz (1914)343-44.Ihm (1890,29) considers the whole work written, while
Rauschen (1897, 344-34) claims that the work is written except for cc. 104-14, the prayer
about Ambrosia.
16:247-76), a sermon 57 from 376 or 377;58 De virginibus (Cazzaniga 1948a),
a treatise of three edited sermons 59 datable to the same period; 60 and De
virginitate (Cazzaniga 1954), a sermon 61 from 377 or 378.62 All these works
contain an excellent cursus mixtus; as we will see, virginity was always a
topic of special concern to Ambrose in his sermons, and so the care he took
in adorning with prose rhythms the published versions of these sermons
should occasion little surprise.
The· De interpellationelob et David (CSEL 32.2, 211-96) is an exegetical
discussion on evil in Job and in Psalms 41, 42, and 72; it also contains an
anti-Arian polemic and references to the fall of the emperor Gratian.
Composed of two or four sermons, 63 it dates to the 380s.64 Erasmus denied
51 Bardenhewer (1923) 531; Dudden (1935)2.695; Lazzati (1955)47; Palanque (1933)

456; Schanz (1914) 342. Rauschen (1897, 565) thinks the work written.
58 Bardenhewer (1923, 531) dates to 377 or 378; Dudden (1935, 2.695) to early 376;
Ihm (1890, 28) to 377; Madec (1974a, 36-37) to 377; the Maurists to 377; Palanque (1933,
493) in early 376; Paredi (1960, 535) to 377; Schanz (1914, 342) to 377. Full review of
evidence in Nazzaro (1984) 274-98.
59
Dudden (1935) 2.695 n. 6. Cf. Bardenhewer (1923) 530-31; Ihm (1890) 27-28;
Lazzati (1955) 47; Palanque (1933) 455-56; Schanz (1914) 341. Rauschen (1897, 564) thinks
it written. For Athanasius• treatise on virginity serving as Ambrose's model, see Paredi
(1960) 214-15 (note to 205) and Duval (1974) 9-66, who also discusses the possible use of
Cyprian.
~ Bardenhewer (1923) 530; Dudden (1935) 2.695; Ihm (1890) 27; the Maurists;
Palanque (1933) 493; Paredi (1960) 535; Rauschen (1897) 564; Schanz (1914) 341.
61
Bardenhewer (1923)531; Ihm (1890)28; Lazzati (1955)47; Palanque (1933)456-57;
Rauschen (1897) 565; Schanz (1914) 342-43. Dudden (1935, 2.696) would have the work
comprised of two sermons.
62 Date of 377: Dudden (1935) 2.696; Ihm (1890) 29; Palanque (1933) 494-95; Paredi
(1960) 535; Schanz (1914) 342. Date of 378: Bardenhewer (1923) 531-32; the Maurists;
Rauschen (1897) 565. Dassmann (1965, 137 n. 6) and Wilbrand (1921, 1-7) both place the
work in the period 388--90.Madec (1974a, 37-38) calls the work undatable.
Courcelle (1956, 220ff.) conjectures that the De virginibussupposes a reading of
Plato's Phaedrus.
63
Palanque (1933, 446) has two sermons, one for books 1 and 3, the other for books
2 and 4; Banterle (1980, 13-14) and Dudden (1935, 2.687) would have a sermon for each
book. Cf. Bardenhewer (1923) 516; Lazzati (1955)47; and Schanz (1914) 333. On the order
of books, see Schenkl, CSEL, 32.2, iii-v.
For the role here of the book of Job in Ambrose's ideas of salvation, see Baskin
(1981) 222-31; for Ambrose's use of Origen's homilies on Job, Klostermann (1897) 57.
6lBanterle (1980, 14-15)dates to 388/9; Dudden (1935,2.687) to late 388 or early 389;
Ihm (1890, 21) to 388 or 394; Malden (1915, 514) to 383/4; the Maurists to around 383;
authenticity on the basis of style, but his arguments have been rejected by
all subsequent scholars. 65 The prose rhythms are accent-dominated
clausulae, and are consistent with not only Ambrose's other exegetical works
discussed above, but also the following works: the sermon De Ioseph
patriarcha(CSEL 32.2, 73-122)66 and the De Isaac vel anima (CSEL 32.1,
641-700), either a sermon or a written treatise, 61 both of which date to the
end of the 380s.68
The De mysteriis(Batte [1%1] 156-92),a series of discussions on the rites
and meanings of the sacraments of baptism, configuration, and eucharist,
was once rejected as spurious. Now it is universally accepted: 69 the style is
Ambrosian 10 and numerous parallels exist between this work and
Palanque (1933, 520-22) to 15 June 387; Paredi (1960, 532) to 38819;Rauschen (1897, 293 and
310) to end of 388 or early 389; Schanz (1914, 333) to 383; Schenk.I (CSEL, 32.2, xii-xiii)after
387 or 388.
15 Schenk.I, CSEL, 32.2, iii.
66
Bardenhewer (1923) 514; Dudden (1935) 2.683; Lazzati (1955) 47; Palanque {1933)
442; Schanz (1914) 329-30; Schenk.J, CSEL, 32.1, iii, and 32.2, ii.
67 Bardenhewer (1923) 512-13; Dudden (1935) 2.682; Kellner {1893) 105-07;
Moreschini (1982) 12-13; Palanque (1933) 441. Again, the controversy on the nature of
composition has been resolved, in my opinion, by Lazzati, who points to the removal of
all traces of oral delivery from the original sermon material.
For the heavy influence of Plotinus in this work, see Courcelle (1961) 29-56 and
(1973) 106-38 and 154-55, and Hadot (1956) 202-20;see Hadot (1965/6, 150-52)and Lucchesi
(1977, 78--79)on the use of Philo and Origen.
61
Date of the De loseph:Bardenhewer (1923, 514) in 389; Dudden (1935, 2.683-84)
in autumn 388; Ihm (1890, 16) after 386; Malden (1915, 514) between 387 and 390; the
Maurists in around 387; Palanque (1933, 522) in autumn 388; Schanz (1914, 330) in 387;
Schenk.J (CSEL, 32.1, xi) in 388 or 390. Schenkl (CSEL, 32.2, xvii) has pointed to the heavy
influence of Vergil here.
Date of the De Isaac:Bardenhewer (1923, 512) in 388; Dudden (1935, 2.682) after
390; Ihm (1890, 16) after 388; Malden (1915, 514) between 387 and 390; the Maurists in 387;
Moreschini (1982, 10) to 386; Palanque (1933, 540) in around 391; Paredi (1960, 533) in
around 391; Wilbrand (1921, 12-13) between 398 and 389. Sagot (1981, 3-57), the fullest and
best account, dates the work to 391. Sagot (1974) gives text, translation, and full
commentary on sections 4.20-30. See Nauroy (1985, 210-36) for a useful discussion of
Ambrose's exegetical style and creativity; Nauroy claims that the De Isaacis not a collage
("mosaique") of translations or redactions taken from Greek sources, but a cohesive and
tightly argued work of great genius. For Porphyry as a source, see Doerrie (1969) 79-92;
for Plotinus, see the bibliography cited above in note 67.
69
Cf. Bardenhewer (1923) 536; Palanque (1933) 462; Schanz (1914) 348; Scrawley
(1943) 199.200.
,., Ihm (1890) 30.

Ambrose's corpus. 71 Palanque argued that the De mysteriis is a written
treatise, 72 but Mohrmann has made a convincing case for a series of
sermons that Ambrose subsequently edited and from which he removed
traces of oral delivery. 73 No firm date is afforded by internal or external
evidence, although a reasonable date would be between 387 and 391.7' The
prose rhythms are, in some respects, very similar to those apparent in
Ambrose's cursus mixtus works: the values of pc and mt are high, and there
is excellent coincidence of standard metrical forms under the key accentual
typologies. However, the value of m• is much lower than what is observed
in Ambrose's cursus mixtus style. The rhythms, therefore, are nearly
equivalent to those in the Exhortatiovirginis,which, as we saw, were a good
system of accent-dominated clausulae.
The Noe et area (CSEL 32.1, 413-97) is an exegetical sermon or written
treatise75 dating from the late 370s or mid-380s.76 The rhythms are
accent-dominated clausulae.
Delivered in February 395 and then in summer or early fall 392 were
the funeral orations De obitu Theodosii(CSEL 73, 369-401)77 and the De obitu
71
Dudden (1935) 2698 n. 3. For Ambrose's reliance here on Didymus, see
Schermann {1902a) 232-42
72
Palanque (1933) 462, who had been anticipated by Ihm (1890) 30.
73
Mohrmann (1976) 103-23, where she shows the important differences between
this treatise and the De sacramentis:
for her, the latter typifies Ambrose's sermons, while
the De mysteriisis more oratorical and poetic and is composed of heavily redacted
sermons; cf. Lazzati (1955) 25-32. Chapter V will be devoted to the differences in style
between the two works.
1
~Banterle (1982) 18. Palanque (1933, 540-41) and Paredi (1960, 533) date the work
to around 391; the Maurists to 387; Wilbrand (1921, 15-17) after 389. Dudden (1935, 2.698)
and Ihm (1890, 30) state that no date is possible.
,s Sermon: Bardenhewer (1923) 511-12; Ferster (1884) 88; Kellner (1893) 95-101;
Rauschen (1897) 492-94. Written treatise: Dudden (1935) 2.681; Ihm (1890) 15; Palanque
(1933) 439. Lazzati (1955, 47) points to the work as a sermon with marks of oral delivery
removed.
76
Bardenhewer (1923, 511) dates to 378 or 379; Dudden (1935, 2.681}to autumn 378;
Ihm (1890, 15) sometime before De officiisand De Abrahamand after De paradisoand De
C.Oinet Abel; Kellner (1893, 96) to end of 386; Malden (1915, 514) to 380; the Maurists to
379; Palanque (1933, 499-500) to autumn 378; Paredi (1960, 533) to around 377 or 378;
Rauschen (1897, 492) to 378; Schenkl (CSEL, 32.1, ix and xii) to 383 or 384. Savon (1970,
156-60) rejects Palanque's date, but offers no date himself. For the corrupt state of the
text, see Schenkl, CSEL, 32.1, Ix. For Philo as a major source, see Lucchesi (1977) 39-42
77
Bardenhewer (1923) 540; Dudden (1935) 2.700; Faller, CSEL, 73, 11s•-11•; Favez
(1937) 21~22,42; Ihm (1890) 38; Mannix (1925) 1-4; Palanque (1933) 463-64, 551-52; Paredi
Valentiniani (73, 3Zl-67).711 The prose rhythms of both orations are cursus
mixtus, predictably so given their genre and purpose. The De obilu
Valentiniam displays higher proportional values for ~. nt, and mt. Such
differences may be accounted for by the process of random sampling,
although audience may be a more likely explanation for this greater
attention to rhythmical style. The De obitu Valentinianiwas preached in Milan
in the presence of the emperor's sisters, after his body had been brought to
Milan for burial The De obitu Theodosii,on the other hand, was a sermon
preached on the fortieth day after the emperor's death; accordingly, this
speech may not have had the rhetorical immediacy of the De obitu
Valentiniani.19
The De officiis (Banterle 1977), written to christianize Roman moral
(1960) 533; Schanz (1914) 351-52. Laurand (1921, 349-50) conjectures that cc. 36-56 were
added when Ambrose published the sermon, but Palanque (464) attacks this idea. For the
background, see Dudden (423-41); Palanque (277-305); Rauschen (409-15, 430-33); Ruiz
(1970), with bibliography on pp. xv-xxxi. For the political elements in this and the ~ obitu
Valentininni, see Bettini (1935) 614-24; for ancient rhetorical theory and Ambrose•s
Christianization of it in the orations, see the superb discussion in Duval (1977) 274-86,
who calls the work •un discours politique dans le cadre de la liturgie funeraire.• Duval
states (286) that Ambrose casts Theodosius as a new David:
ThMose, nouveau David par ses fautes, s'est montre egalement un

nouveau David par son humilite. On comprend que l'orateur ait mis dans
la bouche de l"Empereur chretien un poeme d'un roi selon le coeur de
Dieu, et qu 1il ait fait de cette priere de l'Eglise l'essentiel de son Oraison
funebre. La •forme• chretienne exclut tout recours a une •forme• profane,
paienne, de m~me qu"il n"y a pas de compromis possible entre l"ideal de
l'empereur chretien et celui d 1un ou des empereurs paiens.
" Bardenhewer {1923) 539; Dudden (1935) 2700; Faller, CSEL, 73, 1os•; Favez (1937)
22-23 and 42-43; Ihm (1890) 38; Palanque (1933) 544; Paredi (1960) 534; Rauschen (1897)
364-65; Schanz (1914) 351. Palanque (463) believes that Ambrose added material at the
beginning of the published version, while Rauschen (381), referring to •scr,oere" and
"scribendo" in the text, is of the opinion that the whole text has a written origin. (Such
words surely refer, however, to the process of editing and revising the sermons.) For
background to the speech, see Campenhausen (1929} 243-56; Dudden 1.412-33; and
Palanque 264-72. For the prose rhythms in this speech, see Kelly (1940) 129-78, whose
findings agree with mine; for the overall style, Duval (1977}260-74, who discusses the
double use of pagan consolatio and biblical themes and forms.
79
Duval (1977, 275) notes the disjointed nature of the De obitu Theodosii:•on ne
peut pas s'empkher de noter la caractere decousu qu'elles donnent a cette oraison
funebre." He posits that this speech is more Christian than the other De obitu, with its
organization and coherence based not on rhetorical precepts, but on liturgy and scripture.
In this regard, Duval was anticipated by Favez (1937) 42-43. The more scriptural and
homiletic nature may be a further reason for the different statistical values.
values, is a Christian revision of Cicero's treatise of the same name. 80 The
introduction, consisting of a sermon delivered early in Ambrose's episcopate,
is followed by a series of short addresses to the Milanese clergy. 81 All the
sermons were edited and published as a treatise sometime between 386 and
391.82 The work displays only a slight tendency to accentual rhythms. The
frequency of pc: is quite low (.617), although high enough to warrant
consideration as a cursustext according to chi-square tests (Oberhelman CPh
(1988] 143). The number of cursus miscellanei,especially cursus medius,are
very high (nearly 20 per cent for the cursus mediusalone), making this form.
the second most common in this treatise. This rhythmical style is replicated
in the De poenitentia{CSEL73, 117-206),a polemic of the late 380s against the
followers of Novatian. 83 The cursus planus and cursus medius so dominate
80
For a bibliography on the work, see Vasey (1982)64 n. 64 and Mara (1986) 16!Ki7.
See also Banterle (1977), especially 9-11; Deman (1953) 409-24; Hiltbrunner (1964) 174-89;
Muckle (1939); Probst (1936); Riggi (1967) 623-68; Steidle (1984) 18-66; Testard (1984,
introduction) and {1984a)103-06;Thamin (1895) 189-309;and Zelzer (1977)168-91.Testard
(1974, 155-97)offers an analysis of the composition of the treatise; see also Banterle (1977)
12-15. Hagendahl (1958, 347-72)offers an exceedingly harsh and often unfair criticism of
Ambrose's use of sources.
•1 Bardenhewer (1923)528-30;Dudden (1935)2.694; Ihm (1890)26-27; Lazzati (1955)

47; Palanque (1933} 452-55; Schmidt (1897) 12. Palanque here accepts the use of
second-person singular verbs as indicative of oral delivery, yet elsewhere he considers
them a stylistic falsehood that Ambrose employed in his written works (cf. his comments
on the De Isaac).Palanque's criteria for determining sermon versus written treatise are
very arbitrary; for example, he often claims a sermon on the basis of a doxology,
second-person plural verbs, references to scriptural readings, or key words like "audivisti
herin (cf. 448-50)-in fact, he may do so only on the basis of a final doxology. Lazzati
(1955,34-37)criticizes these criteria and points out their fundamental weaknesses. Lazzati
and Mohrmann (1952, 168-77) must now be consulted for Arnbrose's oral style; see
Chapter V for details.
12
Bardenhewer (1923, 529) dates to 391; Barterle (1977, 16-17) to 389/90; Dassmann
(1965, 137 n. 6) to 388 or 390; Dudden (1935, 2.694-96)to spring 386; Ihm (1890, 27) to 396;
the Maurists to around 391; Palanque (1933, 526-27) to the second half of 389; Paredi
(1960, 534) to 389/90; Schenkl (CSEL, 32.1, ix) after 396. Madec (1974a, 80-81) gives
bibliography.
13
Date: Bardenhewer (1923, 537) between 380 and 390; Dudden (1935, 2.697)
between 386 and 390; Faller (CSEL,73, 63•-73•) in 390; Gryson (1971, 17) between 387 and
390; Ihm (1890, 31) before 394; the Maurists in around 384; Palanque (1933,529) in around
389; Paredi (1960, 534) in 388/9; Schanz (1914, 348) in 384.
Scholars consider the work written on the basis of Arnbrose's testimony at
Enarratioin Psalmum37 1: "De poenitentia duos iam dudum scripsi libellos." Cf.
Bardenhewer (1923)537; Dudden (1935)2.697; Faller, CSEL, 73, 63•; Ihm (1890)31; Lazzati
(1955) 47; Palanque (1933) 462; Rauschen (1897) 331; Schanz (1914}347.
For background to the treatise, see Gryson (1971) 1g..s1; for the theological ideas,
see the monographs by Odoardi (1941) and Romer (1968); for the sources, including
both texts that they account for over half of all clausulae. The cursus
dispondaicusand irregular forms are also very common, and if their
frequencies are added to those of the cursusplanusand cursusmedius,nearly
two-thirds of the clausulae in each treatise are accounted for. Now because
the cursus planus and cursus miscellaneiare the two most common forms in
nonrhythmical prose (Oberhelman CPh [1988] 138-45), their high rates of
occurrence here, coupled with the fairly low value of pc, would seem to
indicate that both texts have little tendency to rhythm. Scholars like De
Labriolle have noted the loose, rambling structure of the De officiisand have
related such a style to Ambrose's usual method of preaching. If this is so,
then the lack of any real rhythm in the De officiiswould speak, once again,
to an intentional avoidance of prose rhythms in Ambrose's sermons in their
original form. 84
The De paradiso(CSEL 32.1, 265-336) was one of Ambrose's earliest
productions, as early as 375,85 and contains a very good system of
accent-dominated clausulae. The differences with the rhythms of the De
officiisare obvious. Not only are the values of pc, m•, and mt higher, but the
accentual patterns are, percentage-wise, better distributed, especially among
the three standard cadences; also apparent is a marked decrease in the use
possibly Cyprian and Tertullian, see Faller, CSEL, 73, 61•-so•.
" The "cursus"that I asserted for the De officiisin CPh (1988)needs to be qualified.
The decision I reached there was simply that accentual rhythms were present in the work,
not to the extent that they occurred. I also had not determined at that time the system of
0
accent-dominated clausulae." My discussion was limited to the rubrics of meter-only
clausulae, cursus, and cursus mixtus. It is now obvious that closer inspection of the
individual typologies and a more detailed comparison of the rhythms in the De officiis
with those in the rest of Ambrose's corpus indicate that Ambrose was not greatly
concerned with rhythm here; those accentual rhythms that are present were probably due
to Ambrose's usual modusdicendior to the slight revisions he made in the sermons for
publication.
Steidle (1985, 280-98) would insist that the treatise is not so disorganized as
commonly thought; he presents arguments for an internal unity for, at least, book 2.
15
Date: Bardenhewer (1923, 510) in 375; Dudden (1935,2.680) in around 377; Ihm
(1890, 78) between 377 and 385; the Maurists in 375; Mara (1986, 154) between 375 and
378; Palanque (1933,493) in around 377; Paredi (1960,534) 377/8.
Bardenhewer (510-11)and Mara (155)think the work a sermon; Palanque (438-39),
a written work ("acune preuve de parl~"); cf. Dudden (2.680);Ihm (14); Schanz (324-25);
and Schenk.I (CSEL, 32.1, vi). Lazzati (1955, 47) refutes Palanque's opinion.
Ambrose refers to this work in derogatory terms in a letter to Sabinus (Ep. 43) as
something he wrote before he had gained experience in his episcopate. For the
considerable influence of Philo here, see Schenkl's parallels in CSEL, 32.1, 3-261 and
339-409; Lucchesi (1977, 77), however, opines that Origen is Ambrose's primary source.
For Augustine's praise of this work, see Contra Iulianum 2.5.13, 2.6.16, 2.7.20.
of cursusmiscellaneiand the occurrence of standard metrical patterns: that is,
the more frequent the cursusmiscellanei,the less frequent the metrical forms.
Ambrose's sensitivity to meter, in other words, is much greater if the
clausula is either one of the three standard forms or a cursus trispondaicus.
Second, the occurrence of the cursus miscellaneiis relational to Ambrose's
tendency to accentual rhythm: the greater the number of cursus miscellanei,
the less the accentual properties of the work.
The De patriarchis,or De benedidionibuspatriarcharum(CSEL 32.2,
125-60), is either a sermon or written exegesis,86 and dates to around 390.87
The test data show the presence of accent-dominated clausulae. Although the
value of m' is higher than in Ambrose's usual accent-dominated system, the
reason is the very high number of cursus planus, which account for nearly
forty percent of the clausulae. Because Ambrose was very sensitive to
quantity under this short accentual cadence, the occurrence of m' is,
accordingly, higher. Certainly the rhythms do not resemble Ambrose's usual
cursus mixtus, where Ambrose displays care for meter under all accentual
typologies and typological subgroups, not just under the cursus planus as
here.
I follow more recent research in considering genuine the De sacramentis
(CSEL 73, 13-116). Until the mid-twentieth century, scholars were quick to
reject the treatise, mainly on the grounds that it pales against the De
mysteriis,which it replicates often. 88 Authenticity has been restored mainly
through the efforts of Faller, who has pointed to the philological and
theological similarities of this work to the rest of Ambrose's corpus and who
has prevailed over Camber's persistent but futile efforts to attribute
86
Sermon: Bardenhewer(1923) 515; Kellner (1893)118-20;Schenk!, CSEL, 32.1, iii-iv,
and 32.2, ii-iii. Written commentary: Banterle (1980) 10; Dudden (1935) 2.684; Palanque
(1933) 442-44; Schanz (1914) 514; but now see Lazzati (1955) 47.
a Banterle (1980, 10) dates to 391; Bardenhewer (1923, 515) to 389; Dudden (1935,
2.683) after 390; Ihm (1890, 79) after 387; Kellner (1893, 118-20) to late 387 or early 388;
Malden (1915, 514) between 387 and 390; the Maurists to 387; Moricca (1928, 2.1, 380 n.
372) to 389; Palanque (1933, 540) to around 391; Schanz (1914, 514) to 387.
For the background to this work and the influence of Hippolytus and Philo, see
Simonetti (1960); Bonwetsch (1904); and Moretres (1909) 403-04.
18
For a review of the scholarship, see Faller, CSEL, 73, 20• n. 6, and Mohrmann
(1952) 168-70.Important discussions denying authorship include: Bardenhewer (1923)536;
Baumstark (1904) 158-63; Dudden (1935) 2.704-07; Gamber (1964, 1965, 1966, 1966a, 1967,
1967a, 1%7b, 1969, 1969a, 1970), who would have as author Nicetas of Remesiana;
Hitchcock (1947) 22-38 and (1948) 19-35, who is refuted by Botte (1950) 373; Ihm (1890)
70-72; Rivi~re (1934) 550-53; Schanz (1914) 347.
authorship to Nicetas of Remesiana. 89 Regarding the method of

composition, Faller, Paredi, and Mohrmann have elaborated on Probst's
theory that the De sacramentisis a stenographic report. 90 Faller, in fact,
thinks that the work consists of sermons taken down in shorthand and then
transcribed and published only after Arnbrose's death; thus, they were not
revised by Ambrose himself, as was the case for his other sermons. Paredi,
agreeing with Faller, adds that the work renders a stenographic reproduction
of Ambrose's very words "cosl come furono pronunciati." As will be shown
in detail in Chapter V, Mohrmann has argued convincingly for an oral
provenance for the work on the basis of style: she points to the repetitions,
omissions, loose syntax, use of questions and dialogue-form, and the high
19 Faller (1940), who summarizes some of his arguments (chronology, biblical

citations, parallels with authentic works) in CSEL, 73, 20"'-30"';for Gamber, see note 88
above. In agreement on authenticity are Mohrmann (1952) 168-77 and (1976) 335-62;
Schmitz (1969) 59-69 and (1969a) 589; Frank (1940) 67-85, who compares the work to the
De Cain and De institutionevirginis;Lazzati (1955) 17-22; Batte (1961) 7-21, who gives a
thorough examination of the statusquaestionis; Quasten (1948) 117-25;Paredi (1964}59-72;
Borella (1968) 98.99; Beumer (1973) 311-24. For a good bibliography through 1950, see
Faller, CSEL, 73, 20"' n. 6; after 1950, Banterle (1982) 12-14. Ramos-Liss6n (1976, 337)
comments: "Respecto a la obra que nos ocupa, el De Sacramentis,ha quedado
suficientemente probada-a nuestro entender-su autenticidad ambrosiana; y tal vez este
hecho se pueda considerar como uno de los acontecimientos mAs seti.alados de la ciencia
patrfstica de los ultimos anos.H Cf. Dassmann (1978) 383 n. 3: "Die Entscheidung in dem
jahrzehntelangen Streit um die Authentizitat von De sacramentis neigt sich z. Z. wieder
Ambrosius als dem Verfasser dieser filr die Kenntnis der Liturgiegeschichte des 4. Jh. so
wichtigen Schrift zu."
llO Probst (1893), whose ideas were attacked by Schermann (1903) 237-55; in
agreement with Probst are Faller, CSEL, 73, 23"' and 27"'-28"';Ghedini (1931) 76-80; Paredi
(1960) 383, with note on pp. 387-88; Mohrmann (1976) 103--08;Botte (1961) 7-16.
Mohrmann (1976, 108) states that the Desacramentis is "un rapport stenographique
d'une serie de catecheses prononcees par Ambroise et non corrige par lui. ... " Schmitz
(1969, 59-69) considers this work a stenographic report of the sermons that form the basis
of the De mysteriis.Cf. Hagendahl (1971) 37: "[De sacramentis] steht hinsichtlich des
Themas und der AusfO.hrung in einem engen Verhaltnis zum Traktat De mysteriis. Nach
der lebhaften Diskussion der letzten Jahrzehnte uber ihr gegenseitiges Verhaltnis sind
wohl die meisten darin einig, dass in De sacramentis echte Homilien des Ambrosius, aber
in der Fassung der Stenographen, vorliegen, wlihrend De mysteriis den von ihm fur die
Veroffentlichung redigierten Text darstellt. Wenn mann die stilistische Verschiedenheit
der beiden Schriften gegen die Echtheit der ersten ins Feld fuhrt, iibersieht man den
verschiedenen Charakter der extemporierten, vom Stenographen nachgeschriebenen
Homme und des literarisch ausgearbeiteten Traktats.H Banterle (1982) 13: "Senza dubbio
net De sacramentisabbiamo un esempio di stile orate o parlato."
For the date (between 390 and 392), see Batte (1961) 16-21; Faller, CSEL, 73, 27"';
Palanque (1933) 540-41; Paredi (1960) 383 and 534.
Ferrari (1976,76-100),supplementing Faller (CSEL, 73, 30"'-60"'),provides important
information on the manuscript tradition of the De sacramentis.
frequency of parataxis, all of which yield an ° expressionniste et plastique"
style filled with vivacity and spontaneity.
In this context, prose rhythms may help in distinguishing the
differences between the stenographic De sacramentisand the reworked
edition of De mysteriis,that is, to use Lazzati's words, the differences tra la 0
redazione tachigrafica dei discorsi e la loro rielaborazione per la riduzione

a trattato scritto." The values of pc and mt in De sacramentisare 10 to 12
percent lower than their equivalents in De mysteriis.While the five percent
difference in the value of m• is not significant in a statistical sense, the other
differences are. As is also clear from Table II, in De sacramentisthere is much
less concern for meter under the key accentual typologies. The conclusions
that we may draw from these data are two. First, attention for prose rhythms
in De mysteriisshows that Ambrose carefully edited the sermons on which
the text is based. Second, Ambrose never avoided prose rhythm entirely in
his sermons: the tabular data show in De sacramentisa slight presence of
accentual and metrical patterns, specifically the cursus planus and the
cretic-trochee. Apparently Ambrose could not resist rhetorical phrasing even
while preaching. This may be explained by his training in, and fondness for,
rhetoric and by the fact that he preached in the Milanese basilica, which
often functioned, because of Ambrose's status and influence over emperors,
as the voice of the Western church. As we will see in the subsequent
chapters, both Jerome and Augustine willingly eschewed all pretenses to
rhetoric in their sermons; this is a very important distinction between these
two fathers and Ambrose.
The De spiritu sancto (CSEL 79, 15-222), a treatise of three written
books, 91 is a sequel to the Defide and was composed in the spring of 381 in
order to fulfil a promise made to the emperor Gratian. 92 The rhythms of the
work are a very good cursus mixtus, surpassing even that in the De fide.
Ambrose's contemporaries held various opinions on the work's style, and
the diversity of their judgments should serve to caution us in accepting on
face value the statements of any church father regarding his style and the
style of others. Jerome, for example, bitterly attacked the De spiritusanctoas
91
Bardenhewer (1923)534-35;Dudden (1935)2.699;Ihm (1890)32-33; Lazzati (1955)
47; Moreschini (1979) 9-10, 32-33; Palanque (1933)460; Rauschen (1897) 110; Schanz (1914)
345-47.Faller (CSEL, 79, 17•) thinks that the work is a written version of sermons, with
traces of oral delivery removed.
For Basil, Didymus, Athanasius, and other sources used by Ambrose, see Faller
17•.21 •; Moreschini (1979) 12-32; Pruche (1948)207-21; Schermann (1902); and Simonetti
(1951) 239-48.
On the general theological issues raised by Ambrose, see Habyarimana (1983)47-58
and Moreschini's introduction.
92
All scholars date to early 381: Bardenhewer (1923) 534; Dudden (1935) 2.699;
Faller, CSEL, 79, 15•-11•; Ihm (1890) 32-33; Palanque (1933) 503-04; Paredi (1960) 534;
Rauschen (1897) 110; Schanz (1914) 346.
being too pretty and sleek (Rufinus, ApologiaadversusHieronymum2.23-25);

Augustine, on the other hand, speaks in the De doctrinachristiana(4.21) of
how Ambrose used here a simple style that was unadorned and void of
embellishments of speech. From a rhythmical perspective, Jerome was
certainly the better critic.
The Sermo contra Auxentium de basicilis tradendis (PL 16:1049-53),
positioned between Epp.21 and 22 in the Benedictine edition, was delivered
in February or March 386 against the Arian bishop Auxentius. 93 Given the
polemical nature of the sermon, the presence of the cursusmixtus may seem
incongruous, but we should consider the historical context. The sermon was
given at the height of the crisis of the blockade of the Milanese church:
Ambrose and his congregation were, in effeet, under siege by government
forces who were waiting to seize the bishop, send him off into exile, and
hand over the church to the Arian party. It is hard to imagine that Ambrose,
at this moment of tension and fear in the basilica, would have paused to
deliver a sermon filled with ornate cursus mixtus clausulae. Rather, the case
must be that Ambrose later stylized the sermon and used this particular
rhythmical system to underscore the gravity and importance of the
situation. 94
Ambrose's correspondence of 91 letters, which was classified by the
Maurists on the basis of date, will be discussed by recipient-emperor,
bishop, priest, or layperson. 95
Epp. 10-12 are addressed to the emperor Gratian and the bishops of
Gaul, and are commonly thought to have been written by Ambrose in the
93Bardenhewer (1923) 540; Caglio (1956) 278-90; Dudden (1935) 2.700; Ihm (1890)
34-36; Palanque (1933) 464 and 511-13; Paredi (1960) 530; Rauschen (1897) 246; Schanz
(1914)352--53.For the historical circumstances, see Dudden 2.270.97;Gottlieb (1985);Paredi
(1960) 2.57-59and 339-63; Carpaneto (1930) 114-17;Testard (1985) 194-95.
9' Testard has shown in an excellent article (1985, 193-209)that Ambrose foJlowed
here all the precepts of ancient, especially Ciceronian, rhetoric. Testard remarks (208 n.
57) that Ambrose used Ciceronian metrical dausulae in the sermon's conclusion; this, he
claims, supports his contention that Ambrose was attempting to imitate Cicero's In
CatilinamJV. His sample size is less than twenty, however, and so the comparison to
Cicero's practice is hardly reliable, as Testard himself admits. No reference is made to the
role of accent in the clausu]ae. Carpaneto (1930, 117-39)also gives a good analysis of the
rhetorical elements in the Senno, but neglects prose rhythm.
18
Ambrose tells us (Ep. 48.7) that he did collect his own letters: Nhaec tecum
prolusimus, quae in libros nostrarum epistolarum referam, si placet, atque in numerum
reponamH; see Klein (1970) 335-71 on this passage. For a bibliography on Ambrose's
letters, see Mara (1986) 177.
I have used the CSEL editions of Faller and Zetzer in sampling. For citation
purposes, however, I have followed the numbering system of the Maurists (which is
different from that in the CSEL volumes), since Ambrose's letters are referenced in nearly
all secondary scholarship according to the older system.
name of the Council of Aquileia, held in 381, concerning the Arians Palladius
and Secundianus. 96 Although the rhythmical style is cursusmixtus, it is quite
unlike Ambrose's usual practice ..,,,Here the cursus planus and cursus velox
account for over 70 percent of the clausulae; the occurrence of the cursus
tardusis low (.085), that of the cursustri.spondaicus
very high. The number of
typological variants are restricted: 19 of the 24 cursus planus are the form
6o/o6o; four of the five cursus tardus,the form 6o/o6oo; 17 of the 18 cursus
velox,the form 6oo/oo6o; and all eight cursustrispondaicus,the form 6o/oo6o.
The very rigid typologies, the very low number of cursus tardus in a cursus
mixtus text, and the great preference for the cursustrispondaicusdo not reflect
Ambrose's usual practice; perhaps the letters were the product of an
editorial committee or, as Menis would insist, an anonymous author acting
in the name of the council. 98
In Ep. 21, written to Valentinian II, Ambrose declines the challenge to
debate the Arian Auxentius before lay judges. 99 The values of pc, m•, and
m 1 are extremely high, and the rate of occurrence of meter under the key
accentual typologies is over 92 percent. As opposed to Epp. 10-12, we find
here more cursus tardus and fewer cursus trispondaicus,all of which typify
Ambrose's usual cursusmixtus writings. This would offer additional support
for the contention above that Epp. 10-12 did not come from the hand of
Ambrose.
The letters to Theodosius also contain the cursus mixtus. Epp. 13-14
concern the Meletian schism at Antioch, 100 while Epp. 17-18 deal with the
famous controversy over the Altar of Victory. 101 The cursus mixtus in these
96
See the discussion and bibliography in Paredi (1960) 279 (note to 250-51) and
Schwartz (1960) 8ff.. For dates of the letters, see Dudden (1935) 1.201 n. 2, 1.207, and 2.701,
and Ihm (1890) 44 and 58.
.,, Granted, the size of the sample is small; however, it is sufficiently large to
conduct both statistical chi-square tests and typological comparisons.
• Menis (1964) 243-53.
99
See Mamone (1924) 27-30; Palanque (1933) 141-48; Paredi (1960) 338-44, especially
341-43. For the date, see Dudden (1935) 1.283-84and 2701; Ihm (1890) 45; Palanque (1933)
511.
100
Dudden (1935) 1.212-14and 2.701; Ihm (1890) 42 and 58; Mamone (1924) 141-42;
Palanque (1933)468. Paredi (1982, 17-49)discusses the political relations between Ambrose
and the emperors Gratian and Theodosius; cf. Mamone (1924) 36-59.
101
Bardenhewer (1923) 542; Dudden (1935) 1.261 n. 2, 1.264ff., 2701; Ihm (1890)
43-44; Mamone (1924) 16-27; Palanque (1933) 467-68 and 510. For discussion on Ambrose,
Symmachus, and the Altar of Victory, see Palanque (1933) 130-37 and Paredi (1960) 318-27;
fuller treatments: Wytzes (1936) and (1977) on Epp.17, 18, and 57; Canfora (1970), who in
his appendix gives the Latin textc; with translation and commentary; Dihle (1973) 81-97;
Rhythm in Ambrose•sCorpus 47
letters rivals even that used by Syrnmachus and later by Macrobius. 102
Clearly, Ambrose could shift, when the occasion seemed appropriate, to the
very plane of sophistic style that the Christian fathers derided as pagan.
Content may have varied and the Christians' purposes more spiritual (or so
it seemed to them), but style was one area where pagan and Christian often
found common ground. 103
The other letters that I sampled do not display much concern for prose
rhythm. Ambrose himself stated on several occasions that he used a familiar
style when writing to friends, 104 and this is supported by the prose
rhythms. Ep. 2, written to the bishop Constantius 105 and dealing with
episcopal duties, dates to early 379.106 The letter contains only four cursus
velox, while nearly 41 percent of all clausulae conform to the cursus
miscellaneiforms. The proportion of m• is very low, as is the occurrence of
meter under the key accentual typologies. Although the frequency of mt is
fairly high (.663), it should not be unexpected in the case of someone who
was writing in a transitional period in prose rhythm and who was sensitive
by training to quantity. In other words, Ambrose•s ear and rhetorical
training often may have affected his construction of phrase.
Epp. 5 and 6 are addressed to Syagrius, a friend and the bishop of
and Klein (19n) on Epp.17 and 18 and (1970) 335-71.See also Hochreiter (1951); Wilbrand
(1950) cols. 369-70; Casini (1957) 501-17; and Berkhof (1947) 171-90.
Lo Menzo Rapisarda, in an uneven, often speculative monograph (1973),offers an
analysis of Ambrose's psychological state of mind on the basis of these letters; in
particular, he sees Ambrose's mind as racked by a conflict that arose from an inner
tension between his pagan cultural heritage and his Christianity-a conclusion that in the
case of Western Christian fathers is hardly remarkable in originality.
102
On the prose rhythms of Symmachus and Macrobius, see Oberhelman/Hall CQ
(1986) 523-25 and Oberhelman CQ (1988) 236-39.
103 At Ep. 18.2, Ambrose states in a hyperbolic and heavily rhetorical passage that
he refrained from using rhetoric in this letter: "itaque non fidei tuae ambiguus sed
providus cautionis et pH certus examinis hoe sermone relationis assertioni respondeo, hoe
unum petens ut non verborum elegantiam sed vim rerum exspectandam putes. aurea
enim, sicut scriptura divina docet, est lingua sapientium litteratorum, quae faleratis dotata
sermonibus et quodam resultans capit animorum oculos specie formosa visuque
perstringit. sed aurum, si diligentius manu tractes, foris pretium, intus metallum est."
161
Ep. 47.2: "nobis autem quibus curae est senilem sermonem familiaris usu ad
unguem distinguere, et lento quodam figere gradu, aptius videtur proprium manu nostro
affigere stylo.H Cf. Ep. 48.7: "placet iam, quod senibus usu facilius est, cottidiano et
familiari sermone epistolas texere.H
tlli Paredi (1960) 71 (with note on 92).

106
Dudden (1935) 1.127, 1.190 n. 2, 2.702; Ihm (1890) 39; Mamone (1924) 65-67;
Palanque (1933) 469-70 and 501.
Verona; 107 dated to the first years of Ambrose's episcopate, 1118 the letters
deal with false charges lodged against the virgin Indicia. The rhythms
replicate those in Ep. 2: low values of pc and m•, low number of cursustardus,
very high frequency of cursusmiscellanei,and few metrical forms under the
critical accentual typologies. The same observations can be made about the
rhythms in Epp. 7 and 8, exegetical notes written to Justus, bishop of
Lyons; 109 Ep. 19, addressed to Vigilius, bishop of Trent, in around 385;110
Epp.27-33, a series of letters on various matters, dating from 387 to 393 and
addressed to lrenaeus, a layperson; 111 the exegetical Epp. 34-36,112 written
in around 386 to the cleric Orontianus; 113 Epp. 37-38, dogmatic letters from
386 to Simplicianus, an elder who succeeded Ambrose in the see of
Milan; 114 Epp. 47-49, of uncertain date, 115 which discuss private matters
with Sabinus, a deacon of the church in Milan and later bishop of
Placentia; 116 and Ep. 63, sent in 396 to the church at Vercellae.m
tw Paredi (1960) 454 and Mamone (1924) 70-73.

111
=- Ihm (1890) 40; Mamone (1924) 142; Palanque (1933) 473.
109
Justus: Lazzati (1%0) 43 and Ihm (1890} 41. Cf. Mamone (1924) 73-76 and
Palanque (1933) 474.
110
Vigilius: Paredi (1960} 454 and Ihm (1890) 44. For the date and audience,
Mamone (1924) 77-79; Palanque (1933) 473 and 511; Rauschen (1897) 221-22.
111
The Maurists date these letters to around 387; Ihm (1890, 46-47), although he
gives no date of his own, casts doubt on the Maurists'. Palanque (1933, 546-47) dates Ep.
29 to 393; Dudden (1935, 2.702) dates Epp.27 and 29 to 387. For the letters in general, see
Mamone {1924) 84-98; Lazzati (1960) 43; Palanque (1933a) 153-63; and Mazieres (1979)
103-14.
112
On the exegetical nature of these letters (and of Ep. 72), see Wilbrand (1910)
26-32.
113
Ihm (1890) 47 and 58; Mamone (1924) 98-108; Palanque (1933) 474 and (1933a)
153-63. See Mazi~res (1973) 49-57 for the dates. On Ep. 36 specifically, see Lazzati (1960)
45 and Dudden (1935) 2.702.
114
Simplicianus: Paredi (1960) 185 (note to 167). In general, Lazzati (1960)46-49 and
Mamone (1924) 108-14;cf. Dudden (1935)2.702; Ihm (1890)47-48; Palanque (1933)475 and
514-15.
m Bardenhewer (1923) 542; Ihm (1890) 50-51; Mamone (1924) 115-20; Palanque
(1933) 471-72 and 553.
116
Paredi (1%0) 183 (bibliographical note to 157).
117
Dudden {1935)2702; Ihm (1890)56 and 58; Palanque (1933) 555; Mamone (1924)
136-37.
Ep. 40 is interesting from the point of view of rhythm. All of

Ambrose's works addressed to emperors-treatises and letters alike-<ontain
a highly developed cursusmixtus-,this letter does not, however. The reason
may well lie in the circumstances of the letter's composition. 118 In 388 the
Jewish synagogue at Callinicum was burned down by Christians, and
Theodosius demanded the punishment of the monks and ordered the town's
bishop to pay for the reconstruction of the synagogue. Ambrose was
incensed at these orders and hastily returned from Aquileia to Milan. When
it became apparent that Theodosius had no intention of granting an
interview, Ambrose dashed off a letter of reproach to the emperor (Ep. 40).
The letter's speed of composition 119 and Ambrose's bitter emotions left the
bishop in no mood, of course, to adorn this particular message with prose
rhythms. The letter, when published, was probably left in its original state
as a testimonial to the crisis as well as to Ambrose's anger, which was never
fully assuaged.
Before I discuss the spurious and doubtful works of Ambrose, it seems
best to give a quick overview of Ambrose's systems of prose rhythm. In
some works, Ambrose uses a good cursusmixtus. Here the cursusplanusis the
most common cadence, followed in frequency by the cursusvelox and cursus
tardus-,the value of pc, as a rule, falls in the range of from the mid~.700sto
mid-.800s. Meter is actively sought: the frequencies of m• and m1 are in the
.700s and .800s, respectively, and the occurrence of standard metrical forms
under the key accentual typologies is very high, usually at rates of 80 to 95
percent. In other works, Ambrose preferred clausulae structured along
accentual lines; the rates of occurrence of accentual forms, as well as the
incidence of quantitative patterns under those forms, vary to the extent that
Ambrose revised his sermon material. Ambrose's usual, and better, system
is what I call accent-dominated clausulae. Here, the value of pc is from the
upper .600s to the mid-.700s; the cursusplsnus is the most common cadence,
followed in frequency by the cursus tardus and cursus velox;the number of
cursustrispondaicusis low; and the occurrence of cursusmiscellaneiis less than
.200. Rates of frequency for m• and mt are in the upper .SOOs/low.600s and
the low .700s, respectively. Greater sensitivity to quantity is shown under the
shorter cursus planus, especially the variant 6o/o6o, and under the cursus
trispondaicus(the uciceronian" essevideatursignature), but less so under the
111
For background to the letter, see Bardenhewer (1923) 542; Dudden (1935)
1.372-76; Ihm (1890) 48-49; Allier (1899) 200-12 and 268-80; De Labriolle (1907/Bb) 78-86;
Seaver (1952) 41-44; Wilbrand (1950) col. 370; Barth (1889) 65-86.
Date: Dudden (1935) 1.371 n. 1 and 2.701; Ihm (1890) 48-49; Palanque (1933) 523;
Rauschen (1897) 532-34.
119
Palanque (1933, 468) calls the letter "spontanemeant adressee."
cursustardusand cursusvelox.In a few works (for example, De Abraham, De
fuga saeculi,De officiis,and De sacramentis),
Ambrose displays little concern for
rhythm, although it is never entirely absent: proportional values of pc and
m• are low; the cursusmiscellaneiare very common, up to .400 in their rates
of occurrence; the frequency of mt is fairly high (in the .600s in value),
although this may be explained by Ambrose's sensitivity to certain
rhythmical patterns that occasionally surfaced when he spoke; and finally,
the value of m• is low (from .480 to .560)-too low, in fact, to warrant
consideration of the presence of meter-only clausulae on the part of an
author who had been well trained in the rhetorical schools of the Roman
Empire.
Now the spurious and doubtful works of Ambrose. The Hegesippussive
De bello ludaico is a Latin translation of Josephus' De bello ludaico and was
assigned in several manuscripts of the eight and ninth centuries to Ambrose.
Early proponents of Ambrosian authorship, in particular Ihm and
Bardenhewer, pointed out that Hegesippus is not the name of the translator,
but a corruption of Josippus, a Latin version of Josephus; 170 they would
insist that this work is genuine, a product of Ambrose's youthful days. 121
Other scholars have cast doubt on authenticity for historical and linguistic
reasons. 122 Prose rhythms may offer some aid in solving the issue of
authorship. 123 First, we may note that the cursus planus occurs at a higher
rate of frequency (.411) than anywhere else in the Ambrosian corpus.
Moreover, given a text containing such a high frequency of cursus planus
farms, the low values of m• and mt are unparalleled in Ambrose's works: as
we have seen repeatedly, Ambrose is very sensitive to metrical patterns
under this short accentual cadence. Also alien to Ambrose's practice is the
131
Bardenhewer (1923) 505-06. {\ardenhewer's confidence in the authenticity is
evident in his conclusion: "Die ganze Eigenart der Arbeit aber, der Ausdruck sowohl wie
der Gedankengehalt, zeigt frappante Uebereinstimmungen mit den unbezweifelt echten
Schriften des Ambrosius."
The text used in sampling was Ussani, CSEL, 66.1.
121
Besides Bardenhewer, see Dudden (1935)2.703-04,with nn. 3-7 there; Ihm (1890)
61-68, who criticizes Vogel's work (next note); Landgraf (1902) 469-72, who refers to
literary and lexical arguments; Lumpe (1968) 165-67;Palanque (1933) 406; Schanz (1914)
109-11; Ussani (1906),especially 304-06; Weyman (1905/6).
122
Vogel (1881; 1883,241-49)remains the locusdassicus,with additional arguments
in Scholz (1909) 149-95and Stiglmayr (1914) 102-12.Paredi (1960,126 [with discussion on
p. 1301)is doubtful. Mras (CSEL, 66.2, xxv-xxxi) is highly recommended; he shows that
the grammar, sentence-structure, and rhetorical style is unlike anything in Ambrose's
corpus. See also Zelzer (1970) 196-213,who demonstrates that the author's native tongue
was not Latin.
123
Delaney (1934, 143-45)is here a useful source; she also rejects authorship.
extremely low occurrence of standard metrical forms under the key accentual
typologies (9m = .119). Likewise unique is the occurrence of five-syllable
words: in my sample of 394 clausulae, 125 (= .317) contained a word of such
a length. This frequency may be compared to what occurs in these randomly
selected works of Ambrose: De sacramentis,16/451 (= .035); De Isaacet anima,
23/400 ( = .058); ApologiaprophetaeDavid,15/299 ( = .050); De Tobia.,15/283 ( =
.053); Expositioin psalmicrviii, 22/588(= .037). In other words, the occurrence
of five-syllable words is from six to ten times greater in the Debello Iudaico
than in Ambrose's authenticated works. Finally, Delaney found eight
syncopated third-person plural perfect active forms (-b'e) in her sample of 662
clausulae; she found only one such form in the eleven genuine works of
Ambrose she studied, and this occurred in Ambrose's highly formal reply to
Symmachus in Ep. 18. All these data permit the conclusion that the rhythms
in the Debello Iudaicoare alien to Ambrose's usual practice, and so verify
Mras' linguistic and Vogel's historical arguments.
The De lapsuvirginis is now considered by most scholars to have been
penned by Nicetas of Remesiana. 124 It is a sermon of severe rebuke directed
against a lapsed virgin named Susanna and her lover. The rhythmical system
is a textbook example of accent-only clausulae. The value of pc is high (.748),
while the number of accentual typological variants are few: 74 of the 123
clausulae sampled ( = .602) conform just to the four forms 60/060, 60/0600,
6oo/oo6o, and 60/0060. In Ambrose's usual accent-dominated works the rate
of frequency is at least ten percent lower: for example, De interpellatione Job
et David, .500 (203/406); De Jacob,.484 (193/399); De Noe, .510 (171/335); De
paradiso,.524 (277/529).The proportional values of m• and mt conform exactly
to the norms for cursus-only prose, while we may note that in works of
Ambrose with comparable values of pc, the values of m• and mt are much
higher. Although the rhythms of the De lapsu are not so singularly foreign
to Ambrose's systems of prose rhythm, as was the case for the De bello
Iudaico,the differences, nevertheless, strengthen the more reliable arguments
1
2& Those who advocate authorship by Nicetas include Burn (1905) cxxxi-cxliii (with
text on pp. 112-36); Schanz (1914) 345; and Bardenhewer (1960) 533, who comments: "Der
letztere Name diirfte, wie spater auszufiihren sein wird, der richtige sein." Cazzaniga
(1948b, lxii) leaves the question of authorship undecided. Gamber (1969) concludes: "Die
Annahme, dass dieser selbst eine zweite Auflage seiner kleinen Schrift vorgenommen hat,
scheidet mit grosser Wahrscheinlichkeit aus, da sich in den zusatzlichen Partien nichts
findet, das auf Nicetas als Autor hinweisen kOnnte.n
Bardenhewer (533) dismisses the work as Ambrosian on the basis of style: "Der Stil
hebt sich merklich von dem Ausdruck des Bischofs von Mialand ab"; cf. Dudden (1935):
2.7W. Other discussions include Ihm (1890) 73-74; Paredi (1960) 213 (note to 198) and 461
(note to 455); and Morin (cited at Dudden, 2.708), who suggests that Ambrose delivered
a sermon on this subject, but that someone took it down and used the notes to compose
his own work. Cazzaniga (1948, 54-80) discusses the rhythms in this work and in the De
virginibusand De institutionevirginis;his own data show different clausular practices, but
he ignores the evidence; see note 6 above.
against authorship.
The Commentariain xii epistulas beati Pauli is now assigned to an
unknown author of the late fourth century, named by modem scholars
"Ambrosiaster. "US In a series of articles Morin suggested various candidates
for this author: Isaac, Hilary, Evagrius, and Dexter. 126 Vogels, however,
who is p05.5ibly the best authority on "Ambrosiaster,U has declined to
conjecture on the author's identity. 127 The prose rhythms of the
Commentariaare not similar to those in any of Ambrose"s genuine works.
The values of pe, m•, and mt are very low, approaching, in fact, the norms for
nonrhythmical prose. Regarding typologies, the cursus tardus is rare, while
the rates of occurrence of the cursus trispondaicusand cursus miscellaneiare
elevated. Even those works of Ambrose that show little concern for rhythm
(for example, De Abrahamand Dejuga saeculi)show some awareness of meter
and the cursustardus.All things considered, I see little evidence for this work
possessing any rhythmical tendency.
Three sermons, based on Luke 12:35, have come down under
Ambrose's name. uB Ihm has made a convincing case for their spuriousness
on the basis of style and vocabulary; 129 to his arguments we may add prose
rhythm. The system used in these sermons is a very rigid cursus-,except for
Ammianus' Historiae,130 I can find no text before the sixth century showing
such adherence to accent-only clausulae, especially the three standard forms
of the cursus. Also in opposition to Ambrose's practice are the complete
disregard for meter, the domination of the cursus velox, and the very few
number of cursus miscellanei.
The data for the rhythms of the Expositiosuper septemvisiones libri
Apocalypsis, which some scholars now assign to Bergengoz, the
1
z Bardenhewer (1923) 520-25; cf. Schanz (1914) 354-58.
1l6 Morin (1899) 97-121, (1903) 113-31, (1914-19) 83-91, and (1928) 251-59.
127
Vogels (1955) 60-68, (1957), (1959); cf. his (1956) 14-19, where he identifies
"Arnbrosiaster"' as one of the critics who attacked Jerome's revision of the Old Latin
Version of the Gospels. In CSEL, 81, ix-xvii, Vogels dates, albeit with great caution, the
work to after 378. Stuiber (1978, 362) and Mara (1986, 180-84) give the latest bibliography
on the author and the text.
121
The titles of the sermons are: De airitateex lectioneapostolicontramalosqui bonis
invident;De perfecto-,Adversuseos qui dicunt possessionemnon distrahendam,sed fructibus
misericordiam
fadendam.
129
Ihm (1890) 74-75. Vogels (1955, 60-68) has shown that the biblical text quoted in
these sermons proves a North African origin. Carpaneto (1930, 39-53} adduces
spuriousness on the basis of language, style, and citations of proper names.
130 See Oberhelman QUCC 79-89.
twelfth-century abbott of St. Maximin's at Trier, 131 clearly demonstrate the
lack of rhythm. They do serve, however, to underscore an important aspect
of Ambrose's style in his own works: even when Ambrose made no
concerted effort to accommodate prose rhythm, he was still influenced
enough by both his rhetorical training and his customary rhythmical
practices that the rates of occurrence of fortuitous accentual and metrical
farms in works like the De bono mortis are higher than what we should
observe in purely nonrhythmical prose. In other words, even when Ambrose
did not seek a rhythmical style, his sentence-closings still bore the occasional
imprint of rhythm.
The tabular data and the above discussions permit conclusions
concerning Ambrose's rhythms and their relation to audience, genre,
purpose, and theme. In all treatises and letters addressed to emperors (save
Ep. 40), Ambrose used a highly rhetorical cursusmixtus. Regarding his funeral
orations for his brother and emperors, ornate rhythms occur because of both
audience and genre (panegyric and epitaphic sermons). 132 But does such a
rhythmical system, reflective of the sophistic schools, conflict with Ambrose's
repeated attacks against rhetoric, attacks wherein he contrasts sophism with
his own lack of style and rhetorical embellishments? 133
Conflict exists, but only if disavowals of literary accomplishment by
church fathers are taken as literal truth. Ambrose could not completely
discard rhetoric, even if he had such an ambition. 134 Rhetoric played such
an integral role in the literature and training of Ambrose and other Christian
intellectuals that it could not be uprooted without destroying the educational
framework of the empire-something that the Christians had no intention
of doing, despite their claims of rejecting worldly ambitions. Granted, the
Western fathers were uncomfortable with the pagan rhetorical education, as
it placed, so they claimed, emphasis on style, not on content; on sophism, not
on correct thinking; in short, on pagan lies, not on Christian truth. Hence
the inner conflict that Hagendahl has called "Aneignung und
Abneigung.'' 135 But a compromise of sorts was worked out: rhetoric may be
131 Dudden (1935) 2.709.

132 Panegyric sermons had long been in fashion in the East: Kennedy (1980) 141-46.
Duval (1977, 239, 288-89) is convincing in arguing that these three sermons are too
different to be treated as a single example of the consolation genre, even though they rest
on the same doctrinal, esthetic, religious, and literary principles, that is, on the richness
of the Bible, which supercedes all pagan philosophy and rhetoric.
iD For example, ExpositioevangeliisecundumLucam7.218 and 8.13 and Enarratioin

Psalmum36 28.
™Cf. Marrou (1950) 268,.82 and 380-86.
•~ Hagendahl (1983) 83-93. Cf. De Labriolle (1940) 1.16--17and Chapter V below.
dangerous, but only in the hands of nonChristians; in fact, rhetoric can
become an indispensable tool for Christians in combating heresy and
paganism and in leading believers to the truth of scripture. The compromise
stated that simple piety often is not enough: sometimes rhetoric can and
must help. 136
That Ambrose accepted this compromise is clear. His writings are filled
with exemplafrom the Latin classics, especially Vergil; 137 his rhetorical skills
were praised by his contemporaries and have led modem scholars to label
him the Christian Cicero. 138 Ambrose often cited a concern for style and,
accordingly, submitted his work to Sabinus, who acted qua literary critic139
and whose suggestions and critiques he incorporated before final
publication. 140 Ambrose also established stylistic canons for preachers and
teachers. Ambrose taught that when delivering a sermon, one must strive for
clarity above all else and should even adapt the language of the sermon to
the audience's level of education. 141 The preacher, moreover, should seek
a "middle" style, that is, a sermon that is simple and clear, yet not inelegant:
(tractatus) neque nimium prolixus neque cito interruptus neque vel

fastidium derelinquat vel desidiam prodat atque incuriam; oratio pura,
simplex, dilucida atque manifesta, plena gravitatis et ponderis, non adfectata
elegantia sed non intermissa gratia. (Deofficiis1.22.101)
136
Cf. Laistner (1931) 26-33, 80-81, 95-96, and (1951) 10-17, 50-51, 65-66.
137
Beyond all the prefaces, notes ad Joe.,and indices in the CSEL volumes, see
Charles (1968) 186-97; Consolo (1955) 66-77; Courcelle (1956) 220-39, (1969) 204-10, (1972)
223-31; Diederich (1931); Nazzaro (1976) 312-24; Opelt (1976) 288; Ricci (1971) 222-45;
Trisoglio (1972) 363-410; Wilbrand {1909).
131 Paulinus,
Vita 5; Augustine, Confessiones5.13 and 5.14 and Contra Iulianum 1.11.
For the term "Christian Cicero," see Schilling (1908) 133.
139 See, in full, Epp.47 and 48.
uo Ep.48.3: "adsume igitur benivolenti animo aurem versutiae et pertracta omnia,

sermones vellica, si in his non forenses blanditiae et 'suasoria verba', sed fidei sinceritas
est et confessionis sobrietas. notam adpone ad verbum dubii ponderis et fallacis staterae,
ne quod pro se esse adversarius interpraetetur. esto ut revincatur, si congredi coeperit;
male habet liber, qui sine adsertore non defenditur. ipse igitur pro se loquatur, qui
procedit sine interpraete. noster hie tamen non egredietur a nobis, nisi a te acceperit
auctoritatern. itaque cum eum fide tua prodire iusseris, committetur sibi."
141
De Isaac 7.57: "condescendat (doctor) tamen ad eorum inscitiam qui non
intellegant et simplici et planiore atque usitato sermone utatur, ut possit intelligi. quisquis
igitur inter audientes vivacior sensu sit, qui facile sequi possit, elevat eum atque excutit.
hunc videns doctor revocat, ut patiatur magis doctorem humilioribus et planioribus
immorari, quo et ceteri sequi possint."
These guidelines pertain to homiletic preaching, however; they do not

apply to style beyond the pulpit. We should not, therefore, assert that
Ambrose•s often slavish use of the heavily rhetorical cursus mixtus, even as
he attacked rhetoric, was a hypocritical pose. Ambrose simply realized that
a sermon to a church audience demanded one style, a treatise to an emperor
or on a topic of great importance another style. Even Augustine stated that
he spoke at Carthage in a much different way than when he preached at
Hippo; 142 and we should read his De doctrina christiana with the
understanding that the precepts of this treatise were directed to preachers
and Christian teachers and did not proscribe using the flairs of rhetoric in
certain but different situations. 10
Now was Ambrose consistent to his principles of style in his own
preaching? It must first be stated that all of Ambrose•s works either are
published sermons or are based on material drawn from sermons he did
preach. 144 The issue, however, of which works are written in origin, which
are sermons delivered but not revised, and which are edited sermons is moot
from the perspective of prose rhythm. Ambrose always had ample
opportunity to revise any text-whether stenographic or personal draft-and
to remove, if he so wished, none, some, or all traces of oral delivery.
Extensive revision by Ambrose, therefore, could render a sermon
indistinguishable in form and style from a treatise he wrote at night in his
study. 145 The only fact we can be certain of is that the presence or the
tu Van der Meer (1961)406.

143
See below, Chapters IV and V. Augustine, like Ambrose and Jerome, would
never have excluded rhetoric in all situations.
1
" Bardenhewer (1923) 502: "Doch ist die Mehrzahl seinen Schriften aus seiner
amtlichen Wirksamkeit gewissermassen als Festige Frucht hervorgewachsen .... Aber
auch die meisten seiner 'Bucher' setzen sich aus leicht uberarbeiteten und in der Regel
noch ganz deutlich erkennbaren Predigten zusammen." Cf. Lazzati. (1955)37 and Schanz
(1914) 318-19, who comments: "Es muss scharf im Auge behalten werden dass die
Schriftstellerei des Ambrosius im engsten Zusammenhang mit seiner praktischen
Wirksamkeit steht und gleichsam ihren Niederschlag bildet. . . . Seine prosaischen
Schriften sind zu einen sehr grossen Teil aus Predigten erwachsen; sie haben die
Bestimmung, das gesprochene Wort in weitere Kreise zu bringen.n Ambrose himself says
at De virginibus2.1.5 that he edited his sermons for publication: "et quoniam pleraeque
absentes nostri desiderabant sermonis usum, volumen hoe condidi: quo profectae ad se
vocis meae munus tenentes deesse non crederent, quern tenerent.N Paredi (1940, 69-157)
discusses Ambrose's sermons in the context of his liturgical practices.
145
Paulinus (Vita 38) states that Ambrose wrote his letters and other manuscripts
in his own hand. Ambrose (Ep. 47) says that he preferred writing for three reasons: he
enjoyed working late at night, he did not wish to burden others with the task of
dictation, and he disliked the effect of stenography on his style, since dictated words roll
out with too much impetuosity and rapidity. For stenography and Ambrose's sermons,
neglect of rhythm in any one work is purposeful and reflects Ambrose's
stylistic intentions.
Ambrose's pattern of usage of prose rhythms is not difficult to recover.
The cursusmixtus works may be divided into three groups. One category is
treatises addressed to, or dealing with, emperors: ApologiaprophetaeDavid,
Apologia altera prophetae David,146 De fide, De incarnationis dominicae
sacramento,DeobituTheodosii,De obituValentiniani,and Despiritusancto;here,
audience dictates the rhythm.
Another group concerns one of Ambrose's favorite themes, virginity:
Exhortatiovirginis, De institutionevirginis, De viduis, De virginibus,and De
virginitate.The importance Ambrose continually ~igned to this practice
relates directly to the rhythms that these works exlubit. 141
A third cluster is the Enarrationesin xii psalmosDavidicos,E:memeron,
ExpositioevangeliisecundumLuazm,and Expositiopsalmicxviii.These are the
longest works in the Ambrosian corpus, and are composed of either sermons
and formal written sections (ExpositioevangeliisecundumLuc.am)or sermons
delivered over a period of time and then revised by Ambrose (Exaemeron and
Erpositiopsalmicroiii ~. These works show a careful editing that involved,
1
among other things, the addition of connecting links, the rearrangment of

subject matter, the removal of marks of oral presentation, and stylistic
touches like rhythm. This method of superimposing ornate rhythms on
original drafts is observable in the Enarratioin Psalmum43. Here, cursus
mixtus clausulae do not appear in the last part of this dictated treatise and
would indicate that Ambrose had no opportunity to polish stylistically this
portion of the stenographic record.
The other two cursusmixtus works are the De excessusui fratris and the
Semw rontraAuxentium:the reasons for their rhythms-genre and historical
see Mohrmann (1952) 170-71 and (1976) 107-15;cf. Hagendahl (1971) 36-38.
146 It cannot be established with absolute certainty that Ambrose sent the two
Apologiaeto Theodosius or that the words "ad Theodosium
Augustum"in the MS title (cod.
Paris. 1732, which is, according to Schenk.I, the most reliable of the MSS) are from
Ambrose's hand. However, it is more than probable that Ambrose wrote the second
Apologiain response to the massacre at Thessalonica or perhaps in compliance with a
request from Theodosius on the subject of penance.
147 For Ambrose's attitudes on virignity, see Riggi (1980) 789-806; Danieli (1974);
D'lzamy (1952); Dudden (1935) 1.144-59.
The absence of the cursusmixtus in the De lapsuvirginisseparates this work from
Ambrose's other treatises on virginity. Regarding the Exhortatiovirginitatis,this work's
rhythms, as pointed out above, are a good system of accent-dominated clausulae; the
metrical patterns are not so frequent in this work, but this may be explained by a more
oral nature of the work itself.
141
Dudden (1935) 2.680.
circumstances, respectively-have been discussed above.
We may conclude that Ambrose's use of the cursus mixtus was
predicated by such factors as imperial audience, panegyrical or epitaphic
genre, weighty themes (virginity and conflicts with heresy), and careful
revision of sermons and written drafts in lengthy projects.
The choice of the cursusmixtus in certain treatises may also have been
dictated by Ambrose's social and educational background and by his strong
sense of status. 149 Ambrose's family was very distinguished, connected as
it was with the Aurelii, and claimed past consuls and prefects; the orator Q.
Aurelius Symmachus, it has been conjectured, was related to Ambrose•s
immediate family. uioAmbrose•s father had achieved the highest rank in the
civil administration and at the time of Ambrose's birth was holding the
office of Praetorian Prefect of the Gauls, thus governing nearly the whole
Western half of the empire except for Italy and North Africa As a youth of
the upper nobility, Ambrose was educated in the Greco-Roman liberal
education: 151 after elementary school, he attended grammar school and
then rhetorical school. 152 His grammarian professors must have instilled
into Ambrose his extensive knowledge and appreciation of the Greek and
Roman classics153 that are so evident in his writings. 154 But the rhetorical
school, the culmination of a noble youth's education, would have attracted
Ambrose, for rhetoric was the path to fame and fortune in the late Roman
empire. Renowned rhetoricians assumed chairs at the most prestigious
schools at places like Rome, Constantinople, and Carthage, 155 and orators
rose through the ranks of the civil service and beyond: for example,
Palladius became Master of the Offices; Ausonius, Praetorian Prefect of the
t'9 I am indebted to one of the referees for pointing out this line of thought to me.
1!IODudden (1935) 1.2 n. 3 for references and discussion; cf. Vassey (1982)59 n. 21.
For Arnbrose's father, Uranius, who was the Praetorian Prefect under Constantius II, see
Mazzarino (1973/4) 111-17and Dassmann (1978) cols. 362-63.
151
Paulinus, Vita 5: edoctus liberalibusdisciplinis;cf. Vassey (1982) 29 n. 86 and
Thamin (1895) 3-96.
152
Marrou (1958) 4-5: "On peut la dHinir en quelques mots: c'etait une culture
essentiellement litt~raire, fond~e sur la grammaire et la rh~torique et tendant A realiser
le type id~al de l'orateur ... celle-ci convient pas seulement A la culture d'Augustin et
des contemporains; elle convient aussi bien A ses aints---saint Ambroise, Lactance ou
Marius Victorinus •... H
153
See note 137 above and Castiglioni (1942).For grammarians in the later Roman
Empire, see Kaster (1988) 11-134.
154
Ihm (1890) 83-94; Dudden (1935) 1.7-9 with notes there; Wilbrand (1909).
1511
Kaster (1988) 105 on the school at Bordeaux; cf. Dudden (1935) 1.10.
Gauls and later consul; and Eugenius, emperor. The rhetorical school taught
all the stylistic flairs and omatus of the age and, perhaps more importantly,
the importance of eloquence in influencing, persuading, and pleasing an
audience. It was here that Ambrose would have immersed himself in the
theory of rhetoric, especially as expounded by Cicero and Quintilian, and in
oratorical composition, with special emphasis on style. 156
Ambrose•s graduation from rhetorical school was followed by study
at a legal school, no doubt the one at Rome. 151 We do know that in 365
Ambrose and his brother Satyrus were practicing law at the court of the
Prefect of Italy at Sirmium, 158 hoping, to be sure, that this experience would
be a springboard to higher ranks in the civil service. On the assumption of
the office of Italian prefecture by S. Petronius Probus, Ambrose was
promoted to the governorship of Aemilia-Liguria. This was followed in
October 373 by his appointment to the bishopric of Milan. 159 The status that
ultimately resulted from the episcopate outdistanced the power of any
secular office that Ambrose could have held.
In the fourth century, the bishop of Milan exercised jurisdiction over
all of northern Italy, and when the imperial court was transferred to Milan
in 381, the bishop's prestige was even further enhanced. But Ambrose took
this status to heights never before enjoyed by an ecclesiastic. 160 Ambrose
became the theological mentor to the young emperor Gratian (the De fide
and De spiritu sanctowere addressed to him), and later influenced Gratian to
revoke his edict of toleration and to adopt an attitude of hostility toward
paganism and nonorthodox beliefs, especially Arianism. Valentinian Il, when
presented with the senate's petition to restore the Altar of Victory in the
Curia, felt the force of Ambrose's oratorical indignation (Ep. 17) and
Christian apologetic (Ep. 18), and acquiesced in the recommendations
Ambrose outlined in the first letter. Theodosius was so exposed to the anger,
156 Dudden {193.5)1.9.

151
For the legal school at Rome, see Augustine, Confessiones6.8, and Cassiod.orus,
Variae 10.7. Equally famous were the schools at Constantinople and Berytus; for
bibliography see Vassey (1982) 59-60 nn. 24-25.
w Paulinus, Vita 5, and Palanque (1933) 13.

159
For this episode, see Dudden (19l.5) 1.66ff.; Duval (1976}243-83; Simonetti (1976)
266-70; Corbellini (19'75)181--89;Lucchesi (1977) 1-2; Schuster (1938) 3-15; Lamirande (1983)
78,.79 and 149-56; Sordi (1976) 203-04; Paredi (1973) 9-55. Faller (1942, 97-112) places the
election in 384, but this has been rejected by Nautin (1974, 283-84).
1
'° For Arnbrose's political activity, see Campenhausen (1929); Diesner (1971)
415-54; Dassmann (1978) 364-69; Seeck (1913) 5.158-67, 198-209, 221-59, 515-18; Van
Haeringen (1937) 152-58 and 229-40; Biondi (1940) 337-420; Saba (1940) 533-69; Lietzmann
(1944) 4.47-88; Ensslin (1953) 51-77; Canegallo (1961); Paredi (1974); De Labriolle (1907/Sa)
706-16 and (1907/8b) 78-86; Stratmann (1950) 63-129; Fortina (1953) 75-81, 171-2.51,2.53-66.
demands, and unrelenting pressure of Ambrose that he was compelled to
revise his policy on the religious strife at Callinicum, 161 to reject the petition
of the pagan party that urged the repeal of Gratian's antipagan legislation,
and to submit to readmission into the church after being excommunicated
by Ambrose for the order to massacre the citizens of Thessalonica. Indeed,
Arnbrose's status reached such heights that he, not a secular official or
military officer, was chosen in 383 to act as mediator between Maximus and
Valentinian Il,162 and later, in 392, he was selected as ambassador by the
prefect and citizens of Milan in order to convince Theodosius to march from
Gaul and so tum back a feared invasion of Italy by barbarians.
Ambrose's sense of social and family status and especially his
unprecedented position of authority, therefore, would have been further
factors in his choice of the highly rhetorical cursusmixtus. Many of his most
ornate treatises were destined for the emperor and the imperial court, and
it is very probable that the rhythmical style of the cursusmixtus was selected
purposefully to bestow additional gravitasand suavitason works intended to
be, as it were, the position papers of the see of Milan. A well trained
rhetorician, Ambrose knew that victory was accomplished not only by what
one said, but by who said it and by how it was said.
Regarding the other works of Ambrose, the majority contain
accent-dominated clausulae: De Cain et Abel, De Helia, De Jacob, De
interpellationelob et David, De Ioseph,De Isaac,De mysteriis,De Nabuthe,De
Noe, De paradiso,De patriarchis, 163 and De Tobia. Works displaying little
tendency to rhythm are DeAbraham,De bononwrtis,Defuga saeculi,De officiis,

De poenitentia,and De sacram.entis. All eighteen of these works are sermons
or are based on sermons. Now because Ambrose revised and edited his
homilies and addresses to congregations, the differences in rhythmical
ornamentation among the published versions must be attributed to the
extent that Ambrose subjected each sermon to revision. 164 Genre does not
161
Dudden (1935) 2.371-79.
162
Grumet (1951) 154-60.
163
As we saw above, it is difficult to attach a precise label to the prose rhythm of
this work, although the rhythms seem accent-dominated clausulae. If we assume a written
nature for this work, as has been conjectured, then this may account for the greater
sensitivity to meter.
t6' Lazzati (1955, 47-48) discusses "prediche pubblicate dopo la revisione di

Ambrogio, revisione che, sebbene non possa mai ridursi a leggeri ritochhi, importa diversi
gradi secondo il tempo e disposizione dell'Autore e l'importanza data all'opera. Questa
categoria comprendera dunque opere con tracce del momenta parlato ... (opere] senza
traccia del momenta parlato ... [opere) con aggiunta di notevoli parti nuove." Lazzati
proceeds to state that at the time of revision Ambrose added scriptural exegesis, references
to Greek writers, and theological excursuses. Hagendahl (1971, 37-38) makes the same
account for the presence or absence of rhythm, since all the above works are
either exegetical or dogmatic. Likewise, the audience is clergy and laity in all
cases, while chronology provides no discernible pattern. Instead, greater
attention to rhythm in some treatises than in others is best explained by such
simple considerations as time constraints, mood, and inclination. 165
The corollary to this conclusion-that the extent to which prose
rhythms are present is relational to Ambrose's revisions-is that Ambrose
did not purposefully seek prose rhythms in his sermons and thus must have
considered prose rhythms inappropriate for homiletic preaching. As will be
noted in Chapter V, Ambrose 1s oral style is marked not by formal rhetorical
elements, but by such characteristics as spontaneity, vivid language, loose
structure, rhyme, paratactic phrasing, and the like. Thus, colorful stylistic
turns like parallelism, word-play, assonance, and figurative language
belonged to the basilica, because these impressed the ear of the laity. Prose
rhythms, on the other hand, was a mark of formal prose and oratory outside
of the basilica. 166
The provenance of this emphasis on accentual schemes requires
explanation. Before Ambrose, we have no surviving Latin text containing
accent-dominated clausulae; all writers after Tertullian, who is the last
representative as far as I can determine of meter-only rhythms, either used
the cursus mixtus or simply avoided prose rhythm. In the East, however,
accentual rhythms had been widely used by both pagans and Christians
since the early decades of the fourth century. Because Ambrose, as is well
known, neglected Western Christian writers, this, I think, accounts for
Ambrose's favoring of accent over meter. Except for Hippolytus of Rome,
Ambrose consulted only the Eastern Greeks: in exegesis, Philo and Origen,
the former until 386, when Ambrose entered a Neoplatonic phase; 167 in
points. Cf. Faller (1966)995; Vasey (1982)31 and 44; Schanz (1914)319; Nauroy (1976);and
Emeneau (1930).
1M We may adduce here O'Donnell's remarks (1979, 187) on Cassiodorus' Variae:
"With the Variaethere are many different styles, adapted chiefly to the subject of the
letter and the occasion of composition .... [I)t is difficult to see a direct relationship
between a recipient's level of education or social status and the level of style of the letter
addressed to him; nevertheless 1 there is doubtless substantial tailoring of the more
important letters to the individual recepients in a way that is inaccessible to us, since the
private details of the relationships between these people (particularly the high potentates
of the court) and their king are lost to history."
166
Lazzati (1960) has described the rhetorical qualities of Ambrose's exegetical
style. On Ambrose's use of colloquial speech in his sermons, see Bartelink {1979)192-94,
with bibliography there.
167 SoDassmann (1965) cols. 5-6 and Lucchesi (1977) 63. For general discussions
with bibliography, see Bardy (1948) 251-57; Lucchesi (1977) 2-3, 74-75, 86; Vasey (1982)
chapter 2; Courcelle (1968) chapter 3 ("Aux sermons d' Ambroise: la decouvert du
moral and dogmatic instruction, Athanasius, Basil, Cyril of Jerusalem,
Didymus, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzen, and Hippolytus. 168 Ambrose,
neoplatonisme chretienn), (1965) 423--26,and (1966} 101-22; Madec (1974a) 99-175.

For Philo and Ambrose, see Courcelle (1974) 144-54 and (1975) 179-88; Ffirster (1884)
102-12; Ihm (1890a) 282-88; Lucchesi (1977), who gives a handy table of parallels on pp.
135-38; Lewy (1932) 23-84 for the De Abraham,De Nol, De paradiso,and De Cain;Dassmann
(1978) cols. 373-74; Nazzaro (1970) 189-91; Wilbrand (1950) cols. 368-79; Nikiprowetsky
{1981) 193-99; Savon (1975) 82-96, (1977a) 203-21, and (1984) 731-59; Sodano (1975) 65.82;
Studer (1974) 245-66; Szab6 (1968) 5-39 and 325-60. Courcelle (1968) has a number of
appendices relevant to this topic: 311-82 (Ambrose"s Neoplatonism); 312-19 (Ambrose and
Plato's Phaedrus); 319-36 (Ambrose and Apuleius' De Platone); 336-44 (Ambrose as a
reader of Plotinus and Porphyry); 345-54 (Ambrose as a reader of Macrobius); d.
Courcelle (1974a) 265-32.5.
For Origen and Ambrose, see Baus (1954) 21-55; Consolino (1984) 399-415;Courcelle
(1975) 179-88; Forster (1884) 112-17; Hadot (1976) 205-25; Puech and Hadot (1959) 204-34;
Ricci (1977) 291-99; Pizzolato (1965) 25-52; Wilbrand (1910) 26-32 and (1950) col. 369; Studer
(1966) 270-87; Millier (1911); Klostermann (1897) 57-62; Simon (1951) 1.84-92.
For Plotinus and Ambrose, see Courcelle (1968) 106-38 and 154-55, (1956) 220-39,
and (1975) 179-88; Hadot (1956) 202-20, who also discusses the influence of Plato and
Porphyry, for which see also Wilbrand (1911) 42,.-49"';Courcelle (1973/4) 291-96 and (1970)
2~305; Solignac (1956) 148-56; Taormina (1954) 41-85 and (1959) 423-37.
161
In his 1978 book, Pizzolato shows how Ambrose used Philo and Origen
artistically and put his own stamp on them. Lucchesi {1977,24-30) describes in detail how
Ambrose continuously changed, paraphrased, rearranged, adapted, emended, and even
contradicted Philo's text; cf. 2.5-26:N ••• les passages strictement paralll}ls ou l'on peut
v~ritablement parler de traduction sont relativement rares. . . . Ambroise manipule
habilement et magistralement [Philo], avec une tr~s grande libert~ et invention, sans
jamais s'y asservir passivement.n Lazzati (1960, 67-71) demonstrates that Ambrose was so
proficient at handling the subtleties of Basil's Greek text that he improved on it This, of
course, destroys the opinion that Ambrose possessed a poor knowledge of Greek (so Giet
(1948] 64-65); for Ambrose's proficiency in Greek, see Bardy (1948) 208--11and Lucchesi
(1977) 2.
Hippolytus: Dassmann (1966) 121-44; Melani (1981) 865-90; Lucchesi (1977) 74-75
and 84; Bonwetsch (1903).
Epiphanius: Jouassard (1961) 5-36.
Cyril of Jerusalem: Yamold (1975) 184-89.
Basil: Alfonsi (1966) 83-85; Beranger (1962) 47-74; Forster (1884) 117-23; Giet (1944)
95-128; Swift (1981) 317-28; Wilbrand (1950) col. 369; Gamberoni (1969) 68-72.
Athanasius: Dossi (1951) 241-62; Duval (1974) 9-66; Madec (1974) 365-76 and (1974a)
passim.
Porphyry: Doerrie (1964) 79-92
Didymus: Hadot (1976) 205-25.
Certain scholars have argued for the influence of Latin patristic writers, but their
evidence often is speculative: Courcelle (1973, 45-53) for Calcidius (provided, of course,
that Calcidius was Christian); Doignon (1973, 208-19) for Lactantius; Duval (1970, 2.5-34)
for Cyprian; Pepin (1923, 427-82) for Tertullian.
For the influence of Cicero and other pagan authors, see Courcelle (1968a) 529-34
and Wilbrand (1950) cols. 365-67.
the originator of exegesis as a literary form in the West, 169 very likely
borrowed from the fourth-century Greek exegetes the application of
accentual clausulae and used them in the published versions of his own
exegetical, dogmatic, and moral sermons. It must be noted, however, that
Ambrose's accentual system is not a replication of either the Greek or the
later medieval cursus, since he remained sensitive to quantity in some
situations, for example, in the main typological variants of the cursusplanus
and the cursus trispondaicus. This is why "cursus"is an imprecise term to
describe Ambrose's clausulae.
Finally, Ambrose's correspondence. Those letters addressed to the
emperors contain the cursusmixtus;the exception is Ep. 40, where the lack
of rhythm relates to the original draft's harsh rebuke, which Ambrose
wished to preserve. The other letters in my sample show no great concern
for rhythm. Ambrose himself says that he wrote his letters in a simple style
and by his own hand, avoiding the use of stenographers because of the
adverse effect that dictation exerted on his compositions. 1'° The absence of
formal prose rhythm, therefore, was a deliberate act on his part.
169
Ambrose, admittedly, did not introduce exegesis into the West; preceding
Ambrose in this area were Hilary and Tertullian (d. his De cibisludaicis).Still, Ambrose
must be considered the perfecter of the genre in the West and was the model that
subsequent writers followed. For Ambrose as exegete, see Savon (1977)and (1977a)203-21;
De Labriolle (1907/8) 591-603; Lazzati (1959) 75-91 and (1960); Vecchi (1967) 6.55-64;
Pizzolato (1965)4-24, (1976)393-426,and (1978);Lucchesi (1977).Opinions have varied on
Ambrose•s exegetical skills-from slavish plagiarism to brilliant, highly original thought.
Lucchesi (1977,3-4) is more correct, in my opinion, when he points out that Ambrose was
not, like Jerome, a trained scholar or theologian and so a certain dependency is to be
expected, especially during the first several years of his episcopate. Besides, Ambrose was
ignorant of the scriptures and theology when elected bishop (see Ambrose•s own remarks
at De officiis1.4). Lazzati (1960,99) strikes a middle ground: "11valore dell'opera esegetica
del vescovo milanese non sta nella novitA ed originalit~ del suo contenuto, per il quale
~ debitore ai suoi maestri, ma nel suo modo espressivo." Nauroy (1985,210-36)offers an
excellent and sensitive analysis of Ambrose's literary and exegetical abilities.
'°The only work of Ambrose-treatise, sermon, or letter-that we can be certain

1
of having a dictated origin is the final commentary on the Psalms (Ena"atioin Psalmum
43).
CHAPTER III
PROSE RHYTHM IN SELECTEDWORKS OF JEROME
Ambrose commenced his writing career at about the same time as

Jerome, but a decade or so before Augustine. ff Ambrose reflected
contemporary patristic writing and if, to use Rollero's phrase, Ambrose
introduced Augustine "all'esegi e all'oratoria sacrat 1 then perhaps the
prose rhythmical practices apparent in Ambrose's works may also be found
in Jerome's and Augustine's. Accordingly, I have examined a selected
number of treatises by these two fathers for the presence, type, and
application of prose rhythms, and as in Chapter II have related these
rhythms to audience, genre, purpose, and theme. Although it is not possible
to offer here a survey of the entire corpora of both writers, a representative
sampling of texts should yield a good idea of their use of rhythm as a
literary and rhetorical tool.
Jerome was inconsistent throughout his life regarding pagan learning,

the classics, and rhetoric. 2 Trained in the best pagan schools of grammar and
oratory} Jerome was never able to cast off his rhetorical mantle, even while
he railed on so many occasions against the classics and oratory. Caught in
this dichotomy so typical of the Latin writers in the West, Jerome was beset
1 Rollero (1958) 137.

2 The classic work in this regard is Hagendahl (1958). Also important are Pease
(1919) 150-67; Tibiletti (1949) 97-117; Jannaccone (1963) 326ff.; Basabe (1951) 161-92;
Trisoglio (1973) 343-83 (bibliography on pp. 348-51 n. 39); Hagendahl (1974) 216-27, which
supplements his 1958 book, and (1989) 134-36; Burzacchini (1975) 50-72; Eiswirth (1955),
especially 30-49; Godel (1964) 65-7(},Opelt (1972) 76-81.
3
De Labriolle (1940) 2.501: "Sauf peut-etre saint Augustine, aucun auteur chretien
n'aura eteplus fortement nourri que J~r()me de la moelle des classiques." See also Antin
(1951) 20-34 and (1968) 33-45; Kelly (1975) 7-24; Steinmann (1958) 10-14 and 20-25; Lammert
(1912) 4-75; Brugnoli (1%5) 139-49; Monceaux (1930) 138-45; Griitzmacher (1901) 1.113-36;
Testard (1969) 14-19; Courcelle (1948) 37-39; Jay (1985) 20-28; Cavallera (1922) 1.6-17.
63
by the one polar extreme of the rhetoric of the pagan educational system
and the other of the acquired Christian notion that the same system was
evil.4 Throughout his life Jerome attempted to find a mediated position.
The famous dream in Ep.22 typifies the oscillations in Jerome's mind.
Jerome recounts that in this dream, which he says he had received a number
of years before in the desert, he was accused by the divine judge of being
a Ciceronian, not a Christian; overcome by guilt, Jerome swore in the dream
that he would never again possess pagan books. Even if we grant here
rhetorical excess, the dream is real enough in having an understandable
cause-the conflict between his renunciation of the world and his devotion
to, and love of, classical culture:
We are not, of course, obliged to believe in the objective reality of the
persons and events that figured in the dream. What seems evident is that,
surging up from his uneasy subconscious, they accurately reflected the deep
psychological tensions by which he was racked. There was, after all, an
irreconcilable conflict, of which he himself was all too painfully aware,
between his enthusiastic world-renouncing aspirations on the one hand,
and his wholehearted delight in the classical, humanist culture, to which
everything he wrote at the time bears witness, on the other.'
'Comparetti (1937)1.202;Jannaccone (1964) 329-41;Antin (1968)49-56; Meershoek

(1966) 5-41; Fontaine (1960) 65. Cf. Kaster (1988) 74 on Tertullian: •To an educated
Christian of the East, the stringent puritanism of Tertullian would have seemed strangely
backward. It was at best an unsophisticated notion that classical culture in all its forms
was a poison, or that education in the traditional schools, though perhaps necessary for
want of an alternative, was nevertheless a regrettable and evil necessity; at worst, the idea
revealed a disquieting lack of confidence in Christian intelligence and judgment. ..
5 Kelly (1975)43. The date and place of the dream are matters of debate: Monceaux
(1930, 155-56) puts the dream at Antioch in 375; Rapisarda (1953, 1-18) in the Calchis
desert in 376; Grisart (1962, 248-49)at Antioch in 375; Thierry (1963, 28-40) in the desert
in 375/7; Booth (1981,258) at Antioch in 369; McDermott (1980,22 n. 7) at Antioch in 374;
Penna (1949, 26-28) at Antioch in 375; Hagendahl (1958, 120 n. 3) at Antioch in 374/5;
Cavallera (1922, 1.29 n. 3) at Antioch in 374; Kelly (1975, 41) at Antioch in 374; Eiswirth
(1955, 10) at Antioch in 374; Gn1tzmacher (1901, 1.152) at Antioch during Jerome's
exegetical studies.
The reality of the dream has been questioned for nearly a century: useful summary
in Burzacchini (1975) 69-71. Schone (1900, 240) considers the dream a piece of deceitful
rhetoric: •oaran schliesst sich die ausfuhrliche schilderung jenes Traumes, ubrigens eines
der argerlichsten Musterstikken verlogener Rhetorik, milhsam ausgesonnener
Begeisterung und unechter FrOmmigkeit"';so too De Labriolle (1920); Steinmann {1958)
51-54;Mohrmann (1961) 1.356-57;Bickel (1915)456. Accepting the reality of the dream are
Eiswirth (1955) 12-29, especially 28-29; Cavallera (1922) 1.31 and 277-78 (Note D: "Le
songe de saint J~r0me..); Monceaux (1930) 155-56;Antin (1968)71-100;Jannaccone (1964)
329;Hagendahl (1958)91-99and 318-19.Gn1tzmacher (1901,1.153-54}allows some rhetoric
but claims that reality lies behind the description: " ... etwas wirklich Erlebtes seiner
Schilderung zu Grunde liegt." Adkin (1984a, 120-26)shows that when Jerome wrote the
Rhythm in Jerome'sCorpus 65
Pease and Hagendahl have analyzed Jerome's letters and writings and
have determined that Jerome did, in fact, hold true to his vow for twelve
years after the dream (from c. 374 to 386): the frequency at which pagan
authors are cited falls dramatically, and what citations do occur may be
accounted for by memory. 6 But beginning with the Commentariain Galatas
(c. 387), Jerome returned to the classics. His justifications were threefold (Vita
Malchi 1 and Commentariain Galatas3.praef.): a deterioration of his style
because of his Hebrew studies; various illnesses that forced him to resort to
dictation instead of writing by hand; and the loss of good stylistic models in
the form of 'classical literature. From this time on, Jerome threw himself
wholeheartedly into the classics and kept before him pagan authors like
Cicero, Lucan, Pliny, and Terence. The compromise that Jerome reached is
stated in Ep. 70, dated to c. 400. Jerome points to a long tradition of
exploitation of pagan learning by divine people-from Moses to the prophets
to Paul. Jerome then proves-by employing the analogy of the nonJewish
slave woman who is made acceptable when foreign traits like long hair and
uncut nails are removed (Deut. 21:12-13)-that pagan literature can be
embraced by the Christian, provided that dangerous elements are purged
first. 7
Jerome's solution was not new: Minucius Felix, Cyprian, Amobius,
Lactantius, and Hilary had each reached a somewhat similar compromise on
their own terms. How comfortable Jerome was with his own compromise
entire episode, he used the vocabulary and imagery of martyrdom.

6
Pease (1919)150-67and Hagendahl (1958)part II. Eiswirth (1955,11-29)insists that
Jerome never again read the classics, but merely relied on his memory for any subsequent
quotation from pagan authors. Lubeck (1872, 9) asserts that after the dream Jerome did
not consult in his exegetical studies any classical author except Greek historians. Geffcken
(1912,593-611)argues for the other extreme, that Jerome resumed his reading shortly after
the dream. Griltzmacher (1901, 1.154)and Cavallera (1922, 1.31) would allow for a longer
period of time before Jerome's return to the classics. Adkin (1984a, 120) astutely remarks
that Jerome did not say in Ep. 22 that he would abandon the classics, but only that he
would have a new enthusiasm for sacred texts; supportive of this is Jerome's Ep.21.13.6
(which dates to the same time as Ep. 22), in which Jerome freely admits that he has been
reading pagan philosophers and Rbooks of wordly wisdom."
This change of attitude exposed Jerome to Rufinus' charge (Apologia in

7
Hieronymum2.6-7) that Jerome had violated his sacred oath; Jerome countered, however,
that it was only a dream, and one cannot be made accountable for an oath sworn in a
dream (AdversusRufinum 1.30-31).
In Ep. 70, Jerome seems to have accepted comfortably the fact that if one is to
receive an education and to have the means to attack paganism on its own ground, the
classics cannot be discarded~ Griitzmacher (1901) 1.131 and 134. The compromise stated
that all literature has some value and can be used by the Christian profitably. On Ep. 70
and the issues it raises, see Eiswirth (1955) 37-49 and Bartelink (1980), who gives text,
introduction, and lengthy commentary.
will never be recovered; but Ep. 70 certainly rings of a postfacto justification
for his unconquerable love of rhetoric and the classics, and a biblical analogy
may not have resolved so easily an inner conflict that had assailed him for
over twenty-five years.
Jerome gives us clear statements about his own methods of composition
and views on style. He preferred stenographic dictation because of ailments
(especially his recurring poor eyesight) and his customary rapidity of
composition. For example, besides dictating lOCXllines per day (Commentaria
in Ephesios2.praef.), Jerome dictated the complete text of lengthy letters in
one night (Ep. 117.12.1-2), the commentary on Philemon in only two days,
the commentary on Obadiah in two nights, and the commentary on
Matthew in two weeks. 8 He grew accustomed to dictating so rapidly
("praesertim cum et notario, ut scitis, velocissime dictaverim" [In librum II
ChronicaEusebiipraef.]) that stenographers displayed impatience when he
paused for his thoughts. 9 Moreover, Jerome constantly complained that he
was not afforded the time to correct and revise what he had dictated. 10
However, we must not assume that Jerome's works are on the whole hasty
compositions, dictated at breakneck speed and published without
emendation. Jerome himself drew a distinction between subitadictandiauda.cia
and lucubratascribendidiligentia.11 One purpose of the fallowing discussion
1 On Jerome's use of stenography, see Arns (1953) passim; Wikenhauser (1910)

50-87; Antin (1968) 358-60; Griltzmacher (1901) 1.21-2.5.For stenography in the fourth-
century church, see Wikenhauser (1908) 4-38; Preuschen (1905) 6--14and 49-55; and
Hagendahl (1971) 24-38.
9
Comment.in Galatas 3.praef. Another example of Jerome's prodigious activity
through stenography is his four Pauline commentaries, all of which he dictated within
the span of two months: Bardenhewer (1923)625; Schanz (1914)469; Lietzmann (1913)col.
1575;Cavallera (1922)227. For the date of these commentaries (late 386),see Nautin (1979)
5-12 and (1983) 248 and 259. Later dates are offered by Altaner-Stuiber (1978) 400; Jay
(1985) 49 n. 152; and Antin (1956) 8.
10
Comment. in Ezechielem7.praef.; Comment. in ZAchariam2.praef. and 3.praef.;
Comment.in Isaiam5.praef. and 13.praef.; Ep. 49.2; Ep. 85.1.2. Discussion in Arns (1953)
43-44 and Hagendahl (1971) 32.
11
Comment. in Matthaeum praef.5-6. Jerome's statement forms the basis of
Hagendahl's criticism (1939) of the prose rhythm studies by Knook and Herron (see
below, note 16). Cf. Hagendahl (1971) 31: nob der Autor diktiert oder mit der Hand
schreibt, macht einen grossen Unterschied in stilistischer Hinsicht." Jerome twice refers
to Horace's Senn. 1.10.72-73in the context of dictation and style: Comment. in Abdiam
(CCL 76, p. 374.775-79):nneque enim ea lenitate, et compositione verborum dictamus, ut
scribimus. Aliud est ... saepe stilum vertere, et quae memoria digna sunt scribere, aliud
notariorum articulis praeparatis, pudore reticendi, dictare quodcumque in buccam
0
venerit"; Ep.74.6.2: non enim eodem lepore dictamus, quo scribimus, quia in altero saepe
stilum vertimus, iterum quae digna legi sunt, scripturi, in altero, quidquid in buccam
venerit, celeri sermone convolvimus.,,
is to address this very issue of the difference between rapid dictation and
careful composition as each relates to rhythm.
Jerome also offered his views on the rhetorical style proper to certain
genres. First, he repeatedly expressed his disapproval of rhetoric in sermons:
simplicity and clear language, not tricks of oratory, were to be the goal of
the preacher. 12 Likewise regarding scriptural exegesis and commentaries,
where Jerome insisted that a rhetorical style had no place: "in explanatione
sanctarum scripturarum non verba composita et oratoriis floribus adomata,
sed eruditio et simplicitas quaeritur veritatis" (Commentariain Amos
3.praef.).13 Translations of Greek texts should be done by paraphrase, for the
translator should not reproduce the original word-for-word, but rather its
sense and spirit. 14 Finally, Jerome recognized the role that oratory could
play in polemical assaults on heresies. 15
12See the copious quotations in Hagendahl (1958) 313-14n. 8. To these add Hom.
in Ps. 78 (CCL 78, p. 74.29-31):"ego vero simpliciter rusticana simplicitate et ecclesiastica
ita tibi respondeo: ita enim apostoli responderunt, sic sunt locuti, non verbis rhetoricis et
diabolicisH; and Hom. in Ps. 77 (CCL 78, p. 70.200-01):Necclesiasticienim rustici sunt et
simplices: omnes vero haeretici Aristotelici et Platonici sunt" (cf. Hom. in Ps. 143 [CCL 78,
p. 319.183-84)).
The reason why Christian speakers should use such a simple and unadorned style,
according to Jerome, is the need to replicate early Christian rusticitasand simplicitas,
whereby Jesus, Paul, and the sacred writers reached the ears, hearts, and minds of their
audience. So Hom. in Ps. 86 {CCL 78, p. 116.119-21):"sic scripserunt apostoli, sic et ipse
Dominus in evangelia sua locutus est, non ut pauci intellegerent, sed ut omnes." Cf. Hom.
in Ps. 131 (CCL 78, p. 275.60ff.);Ep. 57.12.4; Ep. 52.9.3; Ep. 14.1-2; Ep. 48.4.3; Comment.in
Ephesios2.praef.; Comment.in Galatas1.3. See Chapter V for further discussion,
For Christianasimplicitasand Jerome, the classic works are Eiswirth (1955) 12-51;
Antin (1968) and (1971) 708-09;Lammert (1918) 395-413;Bouvy (1902) 151-59;Meershoek
{1976).Cf. Kaster (1988)82-84; Bartelink (1979a) 193-222and (1980)46-63; Mazzini (1976)
132..-47.
13See the quotations in Hagendahl (1958) 314 nn. 1-2; Jerome says in Comment.in
Euc:h. (CCL 75, p. 185.12-14}:"in [hoe volumine) nihil ex arte rhetorica, nihil ex
compositione reperies et venustate verborum, sed curam simplicis et solertis diligentiae
... "; cf. Comment. in Euchielem(CCL 75, p. 333.2-3); Comment. in Hose.am(CCL 76, p.
29.428-31and p. 117.441-44);and Comment.in Isaiam(CCL 73, p. 160.47-51and p. 315.9-16).
14
Ep. 57 and Ep.97.3. This rule of "sensus e sensu, non verbum e verbo" does not
apply to biblical texts, since in the latter the words themselves are sacraments: "singula
verba scripturarum singula sacramenta sunt ista rustica verba quae putantur saeculi
hominibus, plena sunt sacramentis .... thesaurum sensum divinum habemus in verbis
vilissimisn: Hom. in Ps. 90 (CCL 78, p. 130.117-21};cf. Hom.in Ps. 77 (CCL, p. 69.152-60).
15AdversusHelvidium22; cf. Adversuslovinianum1.13. Jerome remarks on several
occasions that in his early writing career he indulged excessively in rhetoric. For example,
he says at Ep. 52.1.1-2:"dum essem adulescens, ... scripsi ad avunculum tuum, sanctum
Heliodorum ... sed in illo opere pro aetate tune lusimus et calentibus adhuc rhetorum
studiis atque doctrinis quaedam scolastico flare depinximus" {the verb "ludere"also
To determine whether Jerome did in fact use different styles for various
genres, I sampled the prose rhythms in selected representative works in
Jerome's corpus: commentaries, polemics, sermons, and translations, as well
as a large number of letters, since these cover a wide range of topics-from
exegesis to doctrinal matters to personal notes-and were addressed to
popes, fellow clerics, and friends. The rhythms will be discussed as they
relate to audience, chronology, methods of composition, purpose, and theme.
The data are given in Table ill. 16
The Commentaria in Matthaeumwas dashed off by Jerome in two weeks
during March 398, so that Eusebius of Cremona could have the manuscript
in hand before the departure of his ship. 17 Jerome himself acknowledged
appears in this sense in the passage from Adv. Helv.). Jerome wrote an earlier commentary
on Obadiah, but later was so ashamed of its contents and style that he discarded it:
Cavallera (1922)1.31-32and 2.17-18.Booth (1979,350-51)dates this commentary to as early
as 366, which would have been Jerome's final year of rhetorical training, although most
scholars assign a later date of rnid-370s.
16 Jerome•s prose rhythms have been studied by Knook (1932), who sampled only
Epp. 1-18 and 60-69 and the De viris illustn'bus,and by Herron (1937), who examined the
Epistulae,De viris illustnous,AdversusRufinum,AdversusPelagianos,the Vitaeof the monks,
and Comment.in Jsaiam.Herron's study displays the same weaknesses as Delaney's (see
Chapter II above), the most important of which is that no account was made for stylistic
variations, especially among the letters, and for differences in methods of composition.
Like Delaney, Herron assumed from the onset that all of Jerome's works contained the
prose rhythms of the cursus mixtus. The same error of considering all of Jerome's letters
as a unity informs Hritzu's monograph (1939).
Errors and dubious methods abound in these monographs, especially in Herron's.
For example, Herron cites 48 examples of the cursusplanus of the form non anuztChristo,
but gives 21 instances of the cursusvelox of the form eum non aulat sexus;l fail to see any
distinction whatever between these types and would query why they all do not reflect
the cursusdispondaicus;likewise the 100 examples of strings of three disyllabic words (for
example, deus super tmam) which Herron classifies as cursus trispondaicus.Furthermore,
if 41 examples of habitain saltu and tuum est in Dei are admitted as cursus tardus (bizzare
examples of hiatus), obviously this would affect the statistical findings of her small sample
sizes.
Knook's monograph is more scientific as he improves on De Groot's
methodologies. However, Knaak studied too few works of Jerome to reach any overall
conclusions about Jerome's systems of prose rhythms, and, as we shall see below, his
conclusion that the De viris illustribusis both metrical and accentual is quite in error:
"Hieronymus zoowel in zijn Epistulat als in De viris illustribusmetrisch schrijft ... Uit
deze vergelijking blijkt, dat Hieronymus, in zijn Epistulaealthans, rythmisch schrijft.
Anders staat het met De viris illustribus"(16-17).
17
Comment. in Matthaeum praef.: .,at tu [EusebiusJ in duabus hebdomadibus,
imrninente iam pascha et spirantibus ventis, dictare me cogis, ut quando notarii excipiant,
quando scribantur schedulae, quando emendentur, quo spatio digerantur ad
purum .... ., Cf. Bardenhewer (1923) 385; Schanz (1914) 398; Bonnard (1977) 11-13. The
passage just quoted is important for recovering Jerome"s method of composition: notarii
defects in the comrnentarys style, 18 while scholars have pointed to
Jerome•s slipshod treatment of the material. 19 The prose rhythms in this
work are nearly a textbook example of accent-only clausulae. The values of
m• and mt equal the norms derived from the medieval control texts in Table
I, and the occurrence of quantity under the key accentual typologies is very
low. The lack of attention to meter would indicate both the speed at which
it was composed and the absence of concern for any rhythm beyond
accentual cadences.
The rhythms in this commentary are important, for they show that
rhythm is possible in even the most hastily composed treatises. Accent-only
clausulae were perfect for someone like Jerome who was interested in
rhythmical ornamentation, but had no time for careful structure of phrase.
If meter is not an issue, one can, while dictating, string together two or three
word-accents to effect rhythm; speed of composition, in other words, is not
an impediment to rhythmical style.
A different picture emerges from the Commentariain Ecclesiasten, which
was a published revision of the notes Jerome had made in Rome when he
discussed the biblical text with his disciple Blesilla.,n Dated to the late
380s, 21 the commentary is both exegesis and translation, as Jerome often
points to discrepancies between the Septuagint and the Hebrew text.22
Scholars have long recognized the great care with which Jerome worked on
this commentary. 23 Regarding rhythms, the work shows accent-dominated
took down dictation in rough drafts (schedulae),which Jerome then emended and polished
as time permitted or in accordance with his authorial purposes. A monograph I am
completing on Jerome will deal extensively with this procedure.
18
Comment.in Matthaeumpraef.: "obsecro, ut si incomptior serrno est et non solito
lapsu fertur oratio, festinationi hoe tribuas, non imperitiae.n
19
Steinmann (1958) 278-79; Altaner-Stuiber (1978) 400, who call the work
superficially composed ("oberflachlichn); Kelly (1975) 222-23. Jerome's speed and haste
were made possible only by a wholesale plagiarism of Origen (Griltzmacher (1906]
2.245--53); Klostermann (1935) places in parallel columns Jerome's and Origen's texts.
Hagendahl (1958, 212) notes that this commentary, unlike Jerome's other exegetical
works, is almost completely void of quotations and borrowings from the classics.
31
Gn1tzmacher (1901) 1.62 and Cavallera (1922) 1.103-04.
21
Bardenhewer (1923)621; Schanz (1914) 464-65; Nautin (1983) 251-52; Antin (1956)
8; Jay (1985) 49 n. 152.
22
Cavallera (1922) 1.136. For the Hebrew and Greek sources, see Rueger (1977);
Cavallera (1922) 1.136-37 n. 3; Hagendahl (1958) 126.
ZJ Steinmann (1958) 181-85. Kelly (1975, 151) comments: "On every page we come
across . . . stylistically breath-taking transformations of the plain meaning of the
Preacher's musings, all set out in colourful and rhythmic prose. Stylistically as in
clausulae, with a nearly equal distnoution of the three standard accentual
forms. The values of m• and mt approximate those in Ambrose's
accent-dominated rhythms, and some concern for coincidence of meter
appears under the key accentual typologies of the cursus tardus and cursus
velox. Composed at a greater leisure, the rhythms in the Commentariain
Ecclesiasten demonstrate how quantity is more likely to occur when an author
has more time to devote attention to a work; they may also reflect Jerome's
attention to clausulae because of audience, namely, his very dear friends
Paula and Eustochium.
A pair of similarly contrastive works are the Commentariaon the minor
prophets and the Commentarioli,which is a series of brief comments on 125
Psalms.:u Early opinion had placed the Commentarioliafter 392/3, since
Jerome does not refer to it in his catalogue of personal works in the De viris
illustribus;
25 however, because Jerome here slavishly and blatantly
plagiarizes Origen, this would indicate a date of composition before the
outbreak of the Origenist controversy in the mid-390s.26 As for the
commentaries on Nahum, Micah, Zephaniah, Haggai, and Habbakuk, these
were all dicatated in great haste27as a unit at some point between 389 and
393.28 Turning to the prose rhythms in both works, the values of pc are
identical, thus demonstrating that Jerome sought accentual patterns. A
imaginative virtuosity, this commentary surpasses those on the Pauline letters."
>ri Cavallera (1922, 1.69) calls the work "'courtes gloses expliquant les passages
obsurs" (cf. 1.149 and Griltzmacher [1908] 3.22-25). Antin (1951, 155 n. 1) labels it "une
~tude scienti.fique de quelques psaumes."
21
Griltzmacher (1901, 1.89) gives as the terminusantt qutm the year 402, that is, the
date of the AdversusRufinum 1.19,where Jerome refers to the Commtntarioli.Schanz (1914,
467) agrees.
>riKelly (1975) 157-58;Altaner-Stuiber (1978) 399; Gribomont (1986) 233, who points
out that the work must also predate Jerome"s translation of the Psalms; Hagendahl (1989)
127; Cavallera (1922}2.30.
71
Steinmann (1958, 271) calls the commentaries Ndictl!sa la hite"; cf. Gribomont
(1986) 234.
:a Bardenhewer (1923, 621}dates to 391, as do Schanz (1914) 459 and Antin (1956)
8 and (1968) 63 and 67; Cavallera (1922, 2.29-30) to 389/92; Hagendahl (1989, 127) and
Nautin (1986, 306) to 393; Jay (1985, 49 n. 152) to 39213;Griitzmacher (1901, 1.64) to 392.
Jerome gives different chronological lists for these commentaries in his commentary
on Amos and in the De viris illustribus;Griltzmacher (1901, 1.64) and Bardenhewer (1923,
621-22) accept the chronology offered in the former.
On the methods of exegesis and sources, see Cavallera (1922) t.148 and
Griitzmacher (1906) 2.112-27, who describes (112) the work as a "double commentary":
.,Die Kommentare sind eigentlich Doppelkommentare, da Hieronymus sowohl seine
Uebersetzung der Propheten aus dem Hebraischen wie den Text der LXX kommentierte."
significant difference appears, however, in the accommodation of meter. The

Commentariolihas higher proportional values of m• and m1, while in the
commentaries on the prophets there is a noticeable lack of coincidence of
meter under the accentual typologies. The data, therefore, clearly support
hasty dictation for the one work, and a more dehberate composition for the
other.
Jerome's TranslatiohomiliarumOrigenis in Lucam, a translation of
Origen's thirty-nine homilies on Luke's gospel, was composed in Bethlehem
in around 390, and was deliberately planned as an attack on Ambrose.29 The
translation is not entirely word-for-word, but in quite readable and good
Latin; 30 in many places, in fact, Jerome improved on the Greek text.31 The
prose rhythms here, which replicate the accent-only clausulae we observed
:z, Bardenhewer (1923, 612) dates the translation to 390; Nautin (1983, 252-53) to 392;
Cavallera (1922, 2.27-28) between 389 and 392; Griiztmacher (1901, 1.63) between 388 and
391; Hagendahl (1989, 133) to 390; Altaner-Stuiber (1978, 399) to 390.
For the attack on Ambrose, see Paredi (1964a) 188; Cavallera (1922) 1.142 n. 4;
Schanz (1914) 458; Hagendahl (1958) 117 and (1989) 126; Griitzmacher (1906) 2.75 (cf. 2.79);
Rauer (1959) xvi; Nautin (1986) 306; Lucchesi (1977) 32; Kelly (1975) 143; Penna (1949)
136-37; Antin (1951) 154.
For the evolution of Jerorne's increasingly bitter feelings to Ambrose, Paredi
(1964a) gives full testimonia.For the reason, namely that Jerome felt that Ambrose did not
come to his aid when he was expelled from Rome by a council of clerics because of
possible sexual charges, see Paredi (1964a), although he dropped a hint in his earlier book
on Ambrose (1960, 338). See also Nautin (1973/4) 8, (1983a) 342-43, and (1986) 305). In the
latter article, Nautin gives a very brief summary as follows: • Auf einer Kurz danach in
Rom stattfindenden k.irchlichen Versammlung, an der auch die italienischen BischOfe
teilnahrnen, wurder H. van den Anwesenden offen angefeindet, und Ambrosius, der
ebenfalls dort war, untemahm nichts zu seiner Verteidigung, wodurch er sich den
bitteren Hass von H. zugog." Also important are Cavallera (1922) 2.86-88, Note G: "Les
drconstances du depart de Rome"; Kelly (1975) 112-15; and Oberhelman (1991).
30
The important treatment of this subject is Peri (1962) 157-63. Nautin (1976a, 33-43)
states that Jerome made certain minimal changes in the Greek text: R plus frequentes
•••
sont des retouches destinees A expliciter la pensee dans des passages que JerOme a juges
elliptiques, ou A embellir le style. 11s'agit le plus souvent d'additions, mais quelquefois
aussi de suppressions ou de changements." Crouzel et al. (1962, 85-87) also agree, and
criticize De Faye (1923, 59), who complained that "Jer6me n'a pas le respect de son texte:
il en use avec une absolute liberte." Cf. Cavallera (1922) 1.443-44 and Griitzmacher (1906)
2.81-82, who calls the translation "ausfilhrlicher." It seems obvious to me that Jerome here
would have deviated from his usual rule of translating Origen "sensus e sensu, non
verbum e verbo," simply because he wished his reading audience to realize the extent of
Ambrose's reliance on Origen. For Jerome's usual method of translating Origen, see Blatt
(1938) 217-42; Cuendet (1933) 380-400; Courcelle (1948) 42-46; Koetschau (1913) lxxxviii-xcv;
Lomineto (1973) 243-62; Klostermann (1897) 19-31.
31
Text in Rauer (1959) 1-222. In the preface (p. 1.4- p. 2.6 Rauer), Jerome claims that
the impetus for the translation came from Paula and Eustochium; but I would rather
credit as inspiration Jerorne's spite and malice toward Ambrose.
in the Commentariain Matthaeum, would lead us to conclude that the
translation, like the Commentaria, was dictated rather hastily. Indeed, Jerome
recalls in the preface that Blesilla, Paula's eldest daughter, had asked him
to translate Origen's work on the synoptic gospels, which would have
involved the translation of twenty-five volumes on Matthew, five on Mark,
and thirty-five on Luke. Blesilla clearly considered Jerome capable of
producing, even beyond his duties and other literary activities, such a
plethora of translations within a short period of time; one does not request
something unless there is a reasonable expectation that it will be granted. It
seems justifiable, therefore, to suppose that the work was composed quickly.
That accent-only clausulae are present in Jerome's translation is important,
for it proves that Jerome himself has added this stylistic touch. Origen wrote
long before the cursus had been formulated in either the East or the West,
and so Jerome was consistent in fallowing his rule that a translation should
not be tediously literal, but rather free, seeking the spirit and sense of the
original. Indeed, Jerome's use of rhythm shows that he felt at liberty to add
a stylistic feature that was not present in the Origen text.
For comparative purposes two other translations of Origen's homilies
were sampled. The TranslatiohomiliarumOrigenis in Isaiam seems to have
been Jerome's first attempt at translating Origen. Once considered spurious
because Jerome did not mention it in the De viris illustn"busin 392/3 and
because Jerome would not have translated Origen's sermons at a later date
due to the church's hostility to Origenism, the work is now accepted as
genuine. 32 While some scholars would place the Homiliaeshortly after 392/3,
that is, after the De viris illustn"busand before the Origenist controversy, 33
Griitzmacher has made a convincing case for assigning a very early date
because of style, which, being defective and clumsy, would constitute
Jerome's feeble, first experiment at rendering Origen's Greek into Latin.
Griitzmacher, who favors a date between 379 and 382, conjectures that
Jerome did not mention the work in the De viris illustribus because of
embarassment. 34 On the basis of rhythm, this translation is certainly without
32
Griltzmahcer (1901, 1.56) says Nechtheit sicher steht." In support of authenticity
is Rufinus, who points out that the translation was a good example of how Jerome had
once corrected Origen by adding glosses of orthodox theology: Gribomont (1986) 229.
33
So Bardenhewer (1923) 612; Schanz (1914) 458; Altaner-Stuiber (1978) 399; cf.
Hagendahl (1989) 132.
3' Griltzmacher (1901) 1.56: " . . . scheinen sie wegen der stilistischen
Ungewandtheit zu seinen iiltesten Uebersetzungsarbeiten zu geh0ren und noch vor den
Jeremia- und Ezechielhomilien abgefasst zu sein." Cavallera (1922,2.20-21and 81) agrees:
NLestyle est en effet moine brilliant. ... La comparaison avec les versions de Jeremie et
d"Ezechiel laisse l'impression que celle d'lsaie est la mains satisfaisante. Peut~tre est ce
la raison pour Iaquelle Jerome n'a jamais fait allusion A ce travail." Kelly (1975, 76-77)
accepts Griltzmacher's opinions on the date and style.
rhetorical flourish: the presence of accentual patterns cannot be

demonstrated, and standard metrical forms are so rare as to be unintentional.
If Griitzmacher is correct about this being Jerome's initial efforts at
translating Greek homilies, then the lack of rhythm and the awkward style
in general would indicate that Jerome was concerned only with content, not
content and style.M
Sometime between 382 and 384, Jerome translated Origen's homilies
on the Song of Songs and dedicated the translation to Pope Damas us.36
Jerome tells us in the preface that he faithfully translated Origen's colloquial
language and did not seek rhetorical ornaments. 'SI Modem scholars,
however, have pointed to the translation's smoothness and grace of style,38
while Rufinus, Jerome's close friend until the mid-390s, informs us 0erome,
Ep. 80.1.2) that Jerome took liberties with the Greek text and used his
vigorous eloquence (eloquentiaeviribus) to adorn (onuzre)his translation.
Indeed, the stylistic level of this work is excellent, and we can point to the
presence of prose rhythms, namely, an excellent system of accent-dominated
clausulae, with careful attention to meter under the key accentual
typologies. 39 Griitzmacher considers the more brilliant style as indicative of
Jerome's great progress as translator, 40 and he may well be correct;
however, an equally valid reason, in my opinion, is the audience, that is, the
pope whom Jerome hoped to succeed.
Of the four polemical works sampled here, the earliest is the Adversus
Helvidium de Mariae virginitate perpetua. Written in late 383, it attacks
Helvidius who had composed a pamphlet stating that Mary, after the birth
of Jesus, enjoyed a normal sex life with Joseph and gave birth to other
3S Baehems (1925, xlviii-1) asserts that Jerome used metrical clausulae in this
translation, but he offers no statistics or data of any sort to support his contention.
» Date: Bardenhewer (1923) 612; Courcelle (1948) 88-89; Altaner-Stuiber (1978) 399;
Hagendahl (1989) 133; Cavallera (1922) 226; Griitzmacher (1901) 1.59-60.
w .,hos duos tractatus, quos in morem quotidiani eloquii parvulis adhuc lactentibus
composuit, fideliter magis quam ornate interpretatus sum."
31
Griltzmacher (1901) 1.213:"Im Vergleich mit seiner iltesten Uebersetzungsarbeit,
den Jesaiahomilien, lesen sich diese Homilien des 0rigenes viel glatter und sind freier von
Gricisms." Kelly (1975) 86: "Uerome's] Latin in these homilies is particularly graceful, and
he has constructed his sentence rhythms with exceptional care."
39
Baeherns (1925, xx) points to metrical rhythms in Jerome's clausulae: .,Schon ein
flilchtiger Blick in diese Homilien genilgt, um die sorgfiltige Verwendung der Oauselen
zu erkennen"; but, again, he does not offer any supporting proof .
.o Griltzmacher (1901) 1.213: "Hieronymus hatte bereits als Uebersetzer grosse

Forstschritte gemacht."
children. 41 Jerome's assault is relentless, extending even to attacks on
Helvidius' style (cc. 1 and 6),42 while as Jerome freely admits (c. 22), he
himself used all the tricks of the orator's trade. 43 Supportive of the latter are
the cursusmixtus prose rhythms. This cursusmixtus system, however, is not
as rigid or brilliant as Ambrose's: the m- and mt are not as high in value,
and many dispondees (21) fall under the cursusvelox,an accentual scheme
where Jerome, as will become clear, typically shows little sensitivity to
quantity. An overall care for meter is evident, however, in the cursustardus
typologies (30 of 32 clausulae with a standard metrical form) and in the main
variant of the cursus planus (6o/o6o: 24 of 25 clausulae with metrical
patterns). The presence of the cursusmixtus may be explained by Jerome's
unabashed indulgence in rhetoric in a treatise containing a theme that he
considered of stately importance {Mary's perpetual virginity). It suggests,
furthermore, that traditional attitudes to the adaptation of stylistic level to
subject matter, as well as the use of rhetorical ornamentation, held good
even when the subject was Christian-an example of what one scholar has
called "luxe pour dieu." 44
The Adversus Iovinianum,dated to 393, is the longest of Jerome's
polemical treatises. 45 Critics point to this work as Jerome's most
41 Schanz (1914)474; Bardenhewer (1923)631; Lietzmann (1913)col. 1578;Cavallera

(1922) 2.24; Griltzmacher (1901) 1.59. For Jerome's sources, Frassinetti (1955}151-88 and
Jannaccone (1963) 337. Jouassard (1944) gives a sympathetic treatment of Helvidius.
42 Cavallera (1922) 1.95-96.
'-' Steimann (1958) 130-31. Griltzmacher underscores the ruthlessness and
viciousness of Jerome's attack on Helvidius, as opposed to the earlier, more benign
polemic against the Luciferians: "Leidenschaftlich und gereizt antwortete ihm (Helvidius)
Hieronymus. Hatte er irn Dialog gegen die Luciferianer sich Milhe gegeben, dem Gegner
gerecht zu werden, hier Zeigte er sich ri.icksichtslos und hochmiltig" (1901, 1.271).
Cavallera's Catholic defense of Jerome is quite annoying (1.96-100);for example: "Avec
cela circule partout un scuffle de v~ritable piete, elevee et eclairee, qui a compris
qu'attaquer la virginite pe~tuelle de Marie, c'est deflorer le christianisme, dissiper
quelque chose du parfum de saintete qu'il repand A travers le monde, enerver l'un de
ses principes les plus feconds de santification" (99).
"Fontaine (1976) 1.165; I owe this reference and the phrasing of the sentence to
one of the referees. Cf. Kelly (1975)105-07,who calls the work a "dialectical masterpiece."
Hagendahl (1958, 111) comments: "The worst habits of the rhetor school present
themselves in the polemical pamphlet where Jerome attacks Helvidius .... "
46 Jovinian,a heretic monk, insisted that virginity and matrimony were equal states;
that the devil could not induce the baptized to commit sin; that fasting was not rewarded
by God; and that all baptized people who have kept the faith will be able to enjoy the
same rewards in heaven. For Jovinian's views, see Haller (1897),who offers a sympathetic
approach; Nolan (1956);Valli (1954)75-121;Duchesne (1910)2.560-62;Griltzmacher (1906)
2.151-64;and Opelt (1973) 37-63, who gives a thorough analysis of the treatise.
accomplished polemic, with a careful structure and brilliancy of style; the

work also marks Jerome's full return to pagan classics and rhetoric after the
hiatus caused by the dream. 46 The rhythm is accent-only clausulae.
Although the value of m1 is somewhat elevated, the value of m• and the
occurrence of quantity under the key accentual typologies show little
concern for meter. If the work was not hastily composed (always a definite
possibility with Jerome);17 then the rhythms imply that in the 390s Jerome
had fixed on accentual clausulae as his rhythmical style for polemical and
exegetical writings, with accommodation of meter dependent on speed of
composition. Supportive of this is the similarity of prose rhythms in the
ApologiaadversusRufinum, written in 401 and 402 in response to Rufinus's
Apologiain Hieronymumand one of the most relentlessly mordant satires in
Roman literature, 48 and in the DialogiadversusPelagianns,written in late 415
Date of Adversuslovinianum:Jannaccone (1963) 334 and (1964) 335; De Labriolle

(1940) 2.540; Bardenhewer (1923) 631; Antin (1951) 174 and (1968) 63 and 158; Valli (1954)
30-35; Testard (1969) 57-59; Lietzmann (1913) col. 1578; Nautin (1973) 224; Cavallera (1922)
2.43; Griitzmacher (1901) 1.65-66.
Sources (Neoplatonic, pagan, Christian): Bickel (1915), who is the classic source;
Frassinetti (1955) 151-88; Jannaccone {1963) 334-38; Schanz (1914) 476; Trillitzch (1965)
43-46; Schultzen (1894) 485-502; Hagendahl (1958) 144-57.
"' Cavallera (1922) 1.157: "C'est, A n'en pas doubter, l'oeuvre la plus brilliante et
l'une des plus soignees de saint Jerome. II profite largement de l'occasion qui s'offre A
lui d'utiliser son erudition sacree et profane. Le rheteur et l'exegMe collaborent avec
entrain pour terrasser l'ennemi commun." Gril.tzmacher (1906)2100: "Seine Bucher gegen
Jovinian sind stilistisch wie inhaltlich mit Sorgfalt geschrieben. Wollte er doch gegenilber
dem schwerfalligen und schwiilstigen Stil des Jovinian seine Ueberlegenheit schon
ausserlich beweisen." Kelly (1975) 182: u[Jerome] poured all his dialectical and rhetorical
art, all his learning and formidable powers of invective and satire, into the composition
of Against]ovinian. ... [I]t is also the most accomplished [of his polemics], and marks the
full revival of his unrestrained use of the pagan classics and of 'rhetoric.'" Griitzmacher,
with his usual antiCatholic fervor, remarks (2.150) that Jerome was moved at any time,
as he was here, when "das Evangelium der Verginitat, sein Evangelium, bedroht war. 11
47
Kelly (1975, 181-83) notes, however, that this work lacks the typical stylistic
defects that occurred whenever Jerome hastily composed.
"Date: Jannaccone (1964) 335; Gribomont (1986) 240; Bardenhewer (1923) 634;
Nautin (1979) 7; Booth (1981) 241-43; Clark (1987) 154-55; Lardet (1983) 67•-72•; Antin
(1951) 170-71; Testard (1969) 59-74; Lietzmann (1913) col. 1579; Altaner-Stuiber (1978) 401;
Cavallera (1922) 2.41-42; Griitzmacher (1901) 1.68 and 70.
On the history of the conflict, Opelt (1973) 83-118;Clark (1987) 157-71; Lardet (1983)
1 •-n•; Antin (1951) 164-71; Cavallera (1922) 1.229-73. Brochet (1905) is heavily biased
toward Jerome, as even Cavallera (1922,2.97) notes: "J'estime que le livre de M. Brochet
est, pour une large part, gravement partial et inexact et totalement erron~ dans son essai
de reconstitution psychologique." Steinmann (1958, 289-93) is equally biased in favor of
Jerome.
Rufinus is very careful in his treatise to stress his own lack of prose artistic ski11s
after Jerome learned that Pelagius had been acquitted at the Council of
Diospolis.•9 Except for the lesser value of pc in the Dialogi than in the
Apologia,the frequencies of m•, mt, and meter under the accentual typologies
are identical in all these works.
The De viris illustn1,us was Jerome's attempt to do for Christian
literature what had been accomplished for pagan in around A.D. 100, when
Suetonius published a collection, similarly titled, of short vitae of important
writers. 50 The 135 entries of Jerome's work begin with the apostle Peter and
close with Jerome himself. The material is highly derivative: Jerome
depended heavily on Eusebius for chapters 1-78, while chapters 79-135 are
extremely brief, being merely summaries of information of what Jerome had
read or heard. 51 Prose rhythms are not in evidence here. 52 This fits neatly
(see, for example, 1.2 and 1.3), but this pleading did not prevent Jerome from savagely
attacking Rufinus' vitia sennonis(1.17, 2.6, 2.9, 2.11, 3.6, 3.10) and celebrating his own
rhetorical achievements (1.16 and 1.30).
Lardet (1983, 87•-88•) offers a brief treatment of Jerome's prose rhythms in the
Apologia,but he relies on Herron's inadequate data and conclusions.
"Date: Gribomont (1986) 241; De Labriolle (1940) 2.546; Bardenhewer {1923)635;
Schanz (1914)482; Antin (1951) 176-77;Testard (1977) 75-77; Nautin (1986) 308; Cavallera
(1922) 2.55; Grutzmacher (1901) 1.91-92.
On Pelagius, see Ferguson {1956),especially 77-81; Griltzmacher (1908) 3.'157-77;
Brown (1968) 93-114 and (1970) 56-72; Moreschini {1982a)61-71.
Modem opinions on the literary quality of the Dialogiare typically favorable:
Forget (1924) 415: .,La dart~ et une ~l~gante vivacit~ y vont de pair, et cette oeuvre est
sans doute c\ ranger, avec la correspondance, parmi les productions c\ la fois les plus
attrayantes et les plus litt~raires de )'auteur." Altaner-Stuiber (1978, 401) calls the work
the jewel of Jerome's polemics rseine umfangreichste und best polemische Schrift").
For the treatise in general, see Opelt (1973) 128-54 and Schmidt (1976) 109-14.
Schmidt's article offers a splendid history of the dialogue in early Christian literature
(bibliography at p. 102 n. 1), to which add Hagendahl (1983) 63-66.
50
The date of the work is unclear. Nautin (1961, 33-35) would have it published in
393; cf. Nautin (1986) 306. He has been followed by Duval {1970a)370 (although he gives
a date of 392 at (1985] 11); Schatkin (1970) 52-53; Bodin (1966) 20; and Testard (1969) 55.
Barnes {1971,Appendix A, 233-35)challenges Nautin's date and prefers 392; for Nautin's
reply see his (1974) 280-81. Booth (1981, 241) agrees with Barnes. Earlier scholars had
simply waffled between 392 and 393: Cavallera (1922)2.31 and Griltzmacher (1901)1.8 and
64; Hagendahl (1958) 138. I follow Hagendahl (1989, 127) in accepting the work's
publication in late 392 or early 393.
51
Sychowski (1894) 19: "Der erste Teil, wekher mit Ausnahme weniger Kapitel fast
ganz aus Eusebius' Kirchengeschichte ausgeschrieben ist, aber dazu noch mit vielen
Fehlem, Enstellungen, Abkiirzungen und willkurlichen Erweiterungen, sowie auch
stellenweise in einer fehlerhaften Uebersetzung reproduziert, wihrend selbstandige
Zusatze van Wert nur ganz selten vorkommen, hat nur den relativen historischen Wert,
den eine mangelhafte Uebertragung fiir die des griechischen unkundigen Jahrhunderte
leistete. Absolut betrachtet ist er sachlich wertlos. Denn fast alle Nachrichten, die
Rhythmin Jerome'sCorpus 77
with the now standard view that the work's style has little to be
commended. Kelly has stated that in the Eusebian sections Jerome composed
too quickly, translated incorrectly, and never revised his material, while in
the second half of the work, Jerome progressively worked so quickly and
carelessly that style became of no concern. Other scholars do not refute this
evaluation. 53
The Vita Hilarionisis the longest of Jerome's biographies of monks.
Written at Bethlehem between 389 and 392, the work describes the wondrous
acts and sayings of this famous Palestinian monk. 54 As in the case of the De
viris illustribus,prose rhythms cannot be determined here; the reason may be
the style. Kelly has stated that this Vita is told in colorful and popular prose,
with emphasis on vignettes of Hilarion's cures, exorcisms of demons, and
life of poverty. The style recalls that of hagiographic literature and of
homiletic preaching; this would explain, in my opinion, the absence of
formal prose rhythms. 55
Hieronymus hat, sind uns besser und viel zuverl!ssiger in der von ihrn benutzten Quelle
erhalten." Sychowski and Bernoulli (1895) have proved beyond a doubt Jerome's ruthless
furta in the De viris illustribus;cf. Courcelle (1948) 78ff.; Barnes (1971) 3-12 and 236-38;
Opelt (1980) 52-75; Nautin (1984) 319-34; Griitzmacher (1906) 2.136-42 (cf. 2.129: "Der
Schriftstellerkatalog ist ... in der Tat vielleicht das krasseste Denkmal der mannigfachen
und argen Schaden seiner Arbeitsweise"). Ceresa-Gastadlo (1984, 55-68) plots an original
course on the seas of modern scholarship by defending Jerome.
" Needless to say, I cannot agree with I<nook's conclusions about the rhythmical
nature of this work. Granted, both I<nook's study and my sample reveal metrical patterns
higher than the nonmetrical norms (fifteen to twenty percent higher for m'); but there are
many trochee-cretics falling under the cursusmedius(6o6oo), which account for a fifth of
all the clausulae (typical example is lnterhnptus est). We also cannot exclude Jerome's
careful attention to those passages that involve ecclesiastics he liked; Jerome was perhaps
the most partisan of all church fathers and made it a habit to shower praise on his friends
and to rain vicious, vituperative slanders on his enemies and former friends.
53
Kelly (1975) 176-77 and Barnes (1971) 236-38. Feder (1927, 103-07) demonstrates
the work's dictation on the basis of its hurried and generally defective style; Hagendahl
(1958, 141) gives a similar opinion.
56
Date: Gribomont (1986) 237; De Labriolle (1940) 2.507; Bardenhewer (1923) 638;
Antin (1951) 127-31 (cf. (1968] 64 and 96); Lietzmann (1913) col. 1580; Cavallera (1922) 2.30;
Griitzmacher (1901) 1.63-64.
Good discussions of the Vita are Bastiaensen (1975), who gives text, translation, and
commentary; Cameron (1968) 55-56 (supplemented by Fuhrmann (1976] 74 n. 1); Opelt
(1979) 145-77; Fuhrmann (1976) 41-58; Plesch (1910); Coleiro (1957) 161-78.
For monaticism and Jerome, see Antin (1947) 71-118 and (1968) 138-45; Kech (1977);
Fuhrmann (1976) 82-99; Lorenz (1966) 1-61; Brown (1988) 366-86.
~ Schiwietz (1913) 2.95-120. Cf. De Labriolle (1940) 2.507: "Jl!rOme se contenta de

les (Vitae) reprendre, en leur p~tant le charme d'un style tr~s simple A dessein et en
Jerome's first attempt at hagiography, the Vita Pauli, shows clear
differences in rhythm. Perhaps the earliest of all his works,M this Vita
reflects the strong survival of Jerome's recent school training in rhetoric. 57
Jerome himself admits that despite his efforts to achieve a simple and lowly
style, he doubted whether he had accomplished this. 58 Modern scholars
point to the work's affected rhetorical style, pagan allusions and borrowings,
and consummate art, and so echo Jerome's suspicions that he had failed to
cast out what Antin calls the "demon de la rhetorique." 59 Indeed, according
to my sample of 97 clausulae in the Vita, Jerome used accent-dominated
clausulae.
I sampled the third in this series of Vitae, the Vita Malchi, which is
dated between 386 and 391.60 This Vita, written in a simple, popular style61
recomposant fort habilement l'atmosphere de merveilleux dont l'imagination des foules

enveloppait les anachoretes." Fuhrmann (1976) 50: "Unter den Wundererzahlungen der
Vita Hilarionis findet sich neben Fillle •gewohnlicher' Heilungen und Exorzismen
manches Ausserordentliche."'
!16Schanz (1914, 436) considers this Vita Jerome's first work. Bardenhewer (1923,
636) dates it to 376; Antin (1951, 124-26) to 375/9 and (1968, 172) to 378; Cavallera (1922,
216-17) between 377 and 379. Translation by Antin (1958, 163-75),commentary by Hoelle
(1953), and discussion in Fuhrmann (1976) 69-82, especially 74-77 on the relationship to
VitaAntonii.
51 Griitzmacher (1901) 1.160: "Auch dieses Werk zeigt noch einen recht
jugendlichen Charakter. Es ist der christliche Rhetor, der ilber das Thema der
Weltentsagung deklamiert." Cf. Cavallera (1922) 1.44: NDans cet opuscule le brilliant el~ve
des rh~teurs romains se retrouve tout entier."'
!18Ep. 10.3.3:R propter simpliciores quosque multum in deiciendo sermone

•••
laboravimus. sed nescio quomodo, etiam si aqua plena sit, tamen eundem odorem lagoena
servat, quo, dum rudis esset, inbuta est.n
59
Antin (1951) 12.5-26.Cf. Hagendahl (1958) 105 and (1974}217; Bauer (1961) 130-37;
Kelly (1975) 61; Bardenhewer (1923) 636.
60
Discussion in Fuhrmann (1976) 58-68. Cf. Griitzmacher (1901) 1.63-64; Cavallera
(1922) 2.27; Lietzmann (1913) col. 1580; Antin (1951) 126-27; Bardenhewer (1923) 637; De
Labriolle (1940) 2507; Schanz (1914) 436.
61
Steinmann (1958) 93: "Jerome trouvera quelques heurs de loisirs pour le narrer
d'une plume legere, emue, dans un style naif, tendre et frais.n Fuhrmann (1976, 64-68)
shows that the Vita is obligated on the whole to the Greek and Roman romance in
narrative technique, structure, plot motivations, and portrait of the hero. He refuses to call
11 11
the work a biography, but rather an 1-report" clothed in historical garb: Die Vita Malchi
gibt in der Tat keine Lebensbeschreibung .... Hieronymus hat diese Geschichte in die
Form einer kh-Erzahlung gekleidet" (59).
with few classical echoes, 62 does not contain prose rhythms. The style, in
other words, replicates that of the Vita Hilarionis.It is obvious, therefore, that
the Vita Pauli exemplified Jerome's exercises in the rhetorical school, but the
other two Vitaebetter represent Jerome's hagiographical technique and his
more mature views on the proper style for purely Christian topics.
In 383/4, Jerome undertook a revision of the Old Latin Version of the
Bible at the request of Pope Damasus, whom he was then serving as
secretary. The Version at this time was in dire need of restoration, as it was
riddled with corrupt readings, poor translations, and interpolations.6.3
Damasus asked Jerome not to produce a new translation-that was never the
intent of his request-but to revise and restore the existing Version to its
original form. 64 Jerome turned to the gospels and produced a very
conservative revision. He made few changes and generally followed a good
Greek text that resembled the Codex Sinaiticus. 65 Jerome did not revise the
remainder of the New Testament, despite his grandiose claims to the
contrary. 66 For my sample, I examined only the clausulae in the narrative
portions of the four gospels; I passed over the spoken passages, since Jerome
very likely would have refused, from his conservative bent, to tamper with
what were assumed to be the words of Jesus. Jerome•s preface to Damasus,
wherein Jerome defended his methods of revision, was also sampled.
The number of clausulae in the preface is very small (33), but an
unequivocal pattern is discernible. Thirty-one of the 33 clausulae conform to
the three standard accentual cadences-the other two being cursus
trispondaicus--thusrendering an astonishing occurrence of 100 percent of the
four main accentual forms. The frequencies of m• and mt are perfect under
the key accentual typologies; the exceptions are two dispondees under the
cursusveloxand a double dactyl under the cursusplanus.The latter, however,
may be a trochee-cretic (or even cretic•trochee), if we assume that the stress
of the word-accent causes the antepenult(s) to become long in quantity (fieri
iubes).In any case, the presence of the cursus mixtus is clear.
The data from the gospels, however, present a much different picture,
as no prose rhythms of any sort are present. All proportional values are very
low and coincide with expected frequencies for nonrhythmical prose. We
may conclude that Jerome did not stylize his revision with prose rhythms,
62
Hagendahl (1958) 117. The allusions to Seneca and Vergil, adduced by Trillitzch
(1965, 46) and Duckworth (1947/8, 20-30), are weak.
'-' Griitzrnacher (1901) 1.215.
M Schanz (1914) 451-52 and Cottineau (1920) 46-47.

65
Fischer (1972) 1-92; Kelly (1975) 86-88; Sparks (1970) 1.510-26; Mazzini (1976)
132-47; Steinmann (1958) 147-48.
66
Cavallera (1920) 269-92.
but practiced the very conservative textual criticism surmised by recent
scholars.
My sample of Jerome 1s translations of the Hebrew scriptures proves
that Jerome did indeed refuse to adorn the biblical texts with formal
rhetorical omaments. 67 Off and on between c. 390 and 404/5, Jerome
translated the Hebrew scriptures to varying degrees of speed, care, and
accuracy. 68 The translations are generally good, although Jerome did not
hesitate to gloss or paraphrase the difficult passage and to take some liberties
with the text because of time constraints or theological considerations. 69
According to my sample of selected passages of the Hebrew Bible,
Jerome did not use prose rhythms when translating: the statistical values
mirror the expected frequencies for nonrhythmical texts and, just as
importantly, the proportions taken from Jerome's revision of the gospels.
These numerical data contrast with the prefaces which Jerome wrote to
friends or critics to defend his method of translations, to answer charges that
he was undermining the authority of the Septuagint, and to allay fears that
the church was on the verge of acquiring a Jewish character. 70 My sample
of the prefaces show the presence of accent-dominated clausulae, and proves
how Jerome used different stylistic levels for his literary apologiae
and for his
translations of scriptures.
Jerome's letters, although addressed to specific individuals, were
intended for the wider audience of Rome or for his circle of friends.71 For
67
Jerome attempted a mediated position in the task of translation by reproducing
each text with fidelity and accuracy, but not with servility: the traditional language of the
Bible was to be preserved, but not by violating canons of good taste. Steinmann (1958)
147-48: nSon but l!tait de rendre la traduction latine des Evangiles plus exacte et plus
l!ll!gante. . . . 11a done enterpris de revoir les quatre l!vangiles mat a mat Lorsque
l'erreur est criante, ii a corrigl! le latin, l'a compll!tl! ou a suppriml! une glosse. 11a osl!
faire tomber dans saint Luc une demande du Pater,introduite a tort. Partout, ii a chiti~
le style." Useful discussions of Jerome's translations are Gn1tzmacher (1906) 2.91-100;
Mazzini (1976) 132-47, with bibliography on pp. 132-33; Bartelink (1979a) 193-222 and
(1980); Meershoek (1966).
61
The chronology and order of translations are not recoverable. See the different
lists and dates in Bardenhewer (1923) 617; Jay (1982) ~12; Steinmann (1958) 205-14;
Nautin (1986) 309; Cavallera (1906) 2.28-29 and 44-46; Gribomont (1986) 225; Cottineau
(1920) 55-56 and 67-68.
fll Kelly (1975) 161-62. Altaner-Stuiber (1978) 397: noie Uebersetzungen sind im
allgemeinen treu und sorgfaltig, aber nicht sklavisch wortlich. Verstandlichkeit des Textes
und Ril.cksichtnahme auf das Stilgefiihl des Lesers waren fur Hieronymus leitende
Grundsatze; in Riicksicht auf den hergebrachten Texte folgte er oft den LXX."
'°Gribomont (1986) 225.

71
Antin (1968) 326 and Altaner-Stuiber (1978) 400.
Rhythm in ]erome'sCorpus 81
convenience of study, we may classify the correspondence into six

categories. 72 First, a number of letters are what Jerome himself called libelli
("pamphlets,,): for example, Epp.14, 22, 52, 53, 57, 58, and 130. Certain letters
deal with moral and ethical issues like widowhood, virginity, monastic life,
and education of children: for example, Epp.54, 107, 117, 122, 123, 128, 145,
and 147. Others are concerned with scriptural exegesis (Epp.18A and 18B,20,
21, 25, 26, 29, 30, 36, 55, 65, 140) or with doctrinal matters and heterodoxy
(Epp. 15, 16, 41, 42, 48, 61, 84, 85, 109, 126, 133). Ten letters are consolatory
epitaphia:Epp. 23, 39, 60, 66, 75, 77, 79, 108, 118, 127. Most of the remaining
letters are personal notes: for example, Epp. 8, 9, 11, 12, 13, 31, 34, 45, 71. I
sampled several letters in each category for rhythm; again, the reader is
ref erred to the data in Table ill.
The libellus Ep. 14, written between 374 and 379, is Jerome's reproach
of Heliodorus, a presbyter and boyhood friend, for having given up the
perfection of the ascetic life.73 The letter is highly rhetorical; Jerome himself
says at Ep. 52.1.1-2 that he deplored the letter as a schoolboy exercise in
rhetoric. Indeed, here we again encounter the cursus mixtus.u The same
rhythmical system also appears in Ep. 22, the most famous of Jerome's
letters. A treatise on the motives of those who devote themselves to a life of
virginity and on the rules of their conduct, the letter was addressed to
Eustochium and written at Rome in 384.75 It is here that Jerome recounts his
famous dream and cautions Eustochium not to indulge in rhetoric because
of the incompatibility of paganism and Christianity. Jerome also disclaims in
this letter (22.2.2) any pretense to style and rhetoric, but this is a sham: the
prose rhythms are among the best cursus mixtus I have determined in
Jerome's writings, beyond the short preface to his revision of the Vulgate.
The truth is that in the very work Jerome bitterly attacks pagan learning and
culture, he indulges to the greatest extent his rhetorical training in prose
rhythms.76
n Altaner-Stuiber (1978)401: "Es sind Briefe persOnlich-familiaren Charakters,aber

auch viele Briefe, die sich mit aszetischen, polemischen, apologetischen, exegetischen und
didaktischen Fragen beschaftigen."
73
Griltzmacher (1901) 1.54; Cavallera (1922) 2.16; Bodin (1966) 17.
74
De Labriolle (1940, 2.516) states that this letter "avait vivement frappe les esprits
par son eloquence, tr~ artificielle .\ notre gre, mais tout .\ fait dans le gout du temps."
75 Jeromecalls this letter a "libellus"at Epp. 31.2.2 and 51.17.1. For Eustochium, see
Antin (1968) 321-2.5.For the date, Bodin (1966) 17; Bardenhewer (1923) 645; Adkin (1984);
Cavallera (1922) 2.24; Griltzmacher (1901) 1.58. The letter contains exceedingly vicious
attacks on women and the clergy: Wiesen (1964) 70-73 and 119-28.
76
Griitzmacher (1901, 1.251)points out that the letter is "mit der feurigsten Rhetorik
geschrieben und in formeller Beziehung bis ins Einzelne durch gefeilt." Kelly (1975) 101:
The prose rhythms in two other libelliare not so carefully constructed.
Ep. 125, dated to c. 412 and addressed to Rusticus, a young monk who had
been educated in the Gallic rhetorical schools, deals with rules for the
monastic life.77 Although the rhythmical style is cursusmixtus, the feel for
meter is less marked under the cursustardusand the cursusvelox.Concern for
meter is even less evident in Ep. 130, written in 414 to Demetrias, a noble
woman who had recently dedicated herself to Christian virginity. 78
Although critics have praised the letter's rhetorical extravagance, the
rhythms are similar to the accent-dominated clausulae of Jerome's polemical
works. Why such lower frequencies of accentual and metrical forms occur
in this libellus is not clear to me, although dictation and lack of careful
editing are always possible answers in the case of Jerome.
Epp.18A and B, 20, 21, and 36 are exegetical letters written between 381
and 384 to Pope Damasus, who had requested information on certain
scriptural passages and on individual Hebrew words like osanna.19 I sampled
" ... the letter is brilliant in style and packed with subtle persuasion; one reads with a
smile his promise to keep it free from all flattery, all rhetorical displa~; cf. Hagendahl
(1958) 110-11. Adkin (1984, 2,88.90)analyzes the style and language of the letter, while
Memoli (1969, 126-31) offers a discussion of the letter's rhetorical style and classical
echoes, including a short excursus on the accentual and metrical rhythms. Memoli
discusses only a few clausular patterns; he does not offer a comprehensive study in any
sense of the word.
71 Bodin (1966) 19; Cavallera (1922)2.54; Griitzmacher (1901) 1.88-89.For discussion
of the letter, Wiesen (1964) 86-89 and 228-29.
71Demetrias' mother had asked for advice from the four leading ecclesiastics of
the day, including Augustine, for advice about the proper conduct of the young girl:
Griitzmacher (1908) 3.252 and Gonsette (1933). For the date of Jerome's response, see
Bodin (1966) 19; Cavallera (1922) 2.54; Grutzmacher (1901) 1.93.
79
On Ep. 18A and B, Bodin (1966) 19; Lawler (1970); Cavallera (1922) 1.71 and
2.21-22; Grutzmacher (1901) 1.55 (date) and 188-89 (sources).
On Epp.20 and 21, Schanz (1914) 465; Wiesen (1964) 69-70; Cavallera (1922) 2.26;
Griitzmacher (1901) 157-58 (date) and 205-12 (discussion).
Regarding Ep.35, Nautin has demonstrated (1983a) that Jerome created a fictitious
series of letters (Epp. 35 and 36) between him and Damasus, with the sole purpose of
obfuscating his attack on Ambrose in his translation of Didyrnus' treatise on the holy
spirit. In this "exchangeN of letters, ostensibly from 382-84but, in fact, contemporaneous
with the translation (dated to 387: Nautin [1983) 2.57-58),Jeromes declares that he has
begun the translation and wishes to dedicate it to the pope. With this false chronology
in place, Jerome could claim to any opponent that he had already begun the work before
both Ambrose's De spiritu sanctoand the whole episode in Rome in 385. Thus, this
translation, Jerome could state, was not an attack on Ambrose; so Nautin (343):
Il savait que cette attaque centre l'~v~que de Milan [sc. the translation] ne
manquerait pas de passer pour une basse vengeance qui d~plairait a ses
the letters as a group because of common theme and audience. The data
yield a good cursus mixtus: all values of pc, m•, and mt are high, and the
occurrence of meter under the key accentual typologies show sensitivity to
quantity, except in the case of the cursusvelox,where Jerome typically admits
the dispondee. Jerome tells us in Epp. 18A and 21 that his eyesight was so
poor at the time of composition that he was unable to correct his
stenographer's drafts; instead, he could rely only on his ears and tongue. If
Jerome is speaking the truth, the presence of the cursusmixtus need not be
too surprising: it was not dictation per se that precluded ornate rhythms, but
the speed of dictation and the care of the speaker as he mentally constructed
his phrases or to the extent that he revised his dictated drafts. In this case,
Jerome simply must have weighed very consciously the structure of his
sentences, so as to adorn with rhythmical flourish his letters to the pope.
Epp. 25, 26, and 29, dated to Jerome's stay in Rome in 382-84, are
exegetical discu$ions on certain Hebrew words and are addressed to
Marcella, Jerome's sister.SJ The rhythms may be defined, within the
limitations of the small sample, as a cursusmixtus,but one not so carefully
composed as what appears in the letters to Damasus. For example, the values
of m• and mt are about seven percent lower in these letters, and there clearly
is less concern for meter under the accentual typologies: in the papal letters,
the coincidence of standard metrical forms under the typologies is 87 percent,
but in the letters to Marcella 69 percent. The reason for the better cursus
mixtusin the papal letters may be explained by the greater importance of the
audience.
Audience-Pope Damasus--also accounts for the cursusmixtus in Epp.
15 and 16 (both dated to 376), Jerome's first excursions into theological
controversy: the question of whether God has one or three hypostases. 81
Jerome here complains of bad eyesight and his dependence on dictated
amis romains et foumirait de nouvelles armes A ses adversaires: il a voulu

se couvrir par un alibi en affirmant que cette traduction Hait antl!rieure A
la mort de Damase et au candle romain. Mais il ne suffisait pas de
l1affirmer, ii fallait le prouver, et comment le prouver si ce n 1l!tait en
produisant une correspondance qui attesterait que Jer6me etait en relations
etroites avec Damase et qu'il avail effectivement commencl! sous son
pontifical l'ouvrage publie maintenant?
Nautin promises at the conclusion of his article that he will demonstrate in subsequent
papers the fraud of certain other letters of Jerome, but I have not been able to locate any
further work, although deceit in Jerome's corpus is a mother lode awaiting mining.
90
De Labriolle (1940) 2.517; Steinmann (1958) 152-54; Hagendahl (1958) 112-13;
Cavallera (1922) 2.24-25; Griitzmacher (1901) 1.57.
11
Cavallera (1922)2.16 (date) and 50-55(discussion); Gn1tzmacher (1901)1.54 (date)
and 171-73 (discussion).
84 Rhetoricand Homildics
drafts, but the letters' cursus mixtus, along with the nearly perfect
coincidence of meter under the accentual typologies, points to Jerome's
careful attention to clausular rhythms.
Two epitaphiaare included in the survey: Ep. 77, written in 399 or 400
to Oceanus on the loss of his spouse, 82 and Ep. 108, addressed. to
Eustochium in 404 on the death of Paula. 83 The rhythms in both letters are
somewhat difficult to define precisely. In the first letter, the cursus planus
dominates (.358) and the coincidence of standard metrical foffl\S under all
variants of the cursus planus is very high (40 of 43); also, all eleven cursus
trispondaicusclausulae have perfect coincidence of meter and accent. Thus,
despite the rather low incidence of meter under the cursusvelox, the letter's
rhythmical style may be labelled cursusmixtus. Ep. 108 is different from Ep.
77 in style and rhythm. Jerome claims in the text that he worked on the letter
for two nights only and so apologizes profusely for its lack of style, elegance,
and good diction. It is difficult to imagine, however, that Jerome, after
months of delay in writing an epitaphiumfor a person he so dearly loved,
would dash off in the late hours of two successive nights a nonartistic draft.
In fact, the letter is a model of rhetorical beauty. 84 Concerning prose
rhythms, Jerome here uses the cursus velox to an unparalleled degree: over
35 percent of all clausulae conform to this cadence, with 67 sentence-closings
comprising the variant form 6oo/oo6o; as the data in Table ill show, Jerome
typically prefers the cursus velox in his more elegant works. Typological
variants here are few overall, with nearly 64 percent conforming to the main
forms of the standard accentual schemes. Meter, however, is less common in
the longer clausulae, as per Jerome's usual practice: many of the cursusvelox
contain a dispondee or dactyl-spondee, while seven of the twelve cursus
trispondaicushave a dactyl-spondee, choriamb-spondee, or dispondee. To the
latter statistic we may compare the perfect coincidence of paean-trochee
under the cursus trispondaicusin Ep. 77. We may conclude, therefore, that
12
Griitzmacher (1901) 1.80; Schanz (1914) 441; Cavallera (1922) 2.46; Bardenhewer
(1923) 640.
13
Jannaccone (1963) 331; Bodin (1966) 18; Schanz (1914) 439-40; Bardenhewer (1923)
639; Favez (1937) 29-31; Cavallera (1922) 2.51; Grutzmacher (1901) 1.76.
For Jerome's use of the consolatiogenre and his sources, see Trillitzch (1965) 52-53;
Jannaccone (1963) 326-38; Diederich (1953/4) 369-72; Smit (1975) li-lxi; Hagendahl (1958)
248-53; Guttillia (1980/1) 87-152; Favez (1937) 23-32, 51-59 (for Jerome specifically), and
79-168 (for Christian writers in general).
" Griitzmacher (1908, 3.96) says that the letter was written "mit grosser
Ausfilhrlichkeit und glanzendem rhetorischem Pathos." Jannaccone (1963) 331: " .•. la
piu bella e commossa sia certo la consolazione a Eustochio per la morte di Paola .... "
Kelly (1975, 279) calls the letter "a work of consummate art .... Sentence after sentence
dazzles the reader with its careful construction, its euphonious cadences. All the devices
of rhetoric are deployed with studied effect. ... "
Jerome did construct his clausulae in Ep. 108 along rhythmical lines. The
emphasis, however, was on the longer and more euphonious accentual
cadences, where Jerome is always less sensitive to meter. Accordingly, the
proportional values for the occurrence of standard metrical forms are here
not as high as we have seen in Jerome's other cursusmixtus works, although
they are very high in the case of the shorter accentual clausulae.
The personal notes (Epp.4-6, 8-10, 12, 13, 31, 32, 44, 45, and 47) were
sampled as a unit. 85 This method may be susceptible to error, as some letters
may have been written in extreme haste (Ep.45, for example, was written on
board ship at Ostia in August 385), while others may have been composed
at more leisure (for example, Jerome's desert letters). Nevertheless, some
general observations may be drawn from the data. Accentual schemes are
unquestionably sought. Quantity is also present to some extent, as evidenced
by the value of mt and by the occurrence of meter under certain accentual
typologies. The value of m•, however, is quite low, and the attention to meter
falls in direct proportion to the length of the clausula. In other words, we
, have here accent-dominated clausulae, with care for meter exhibited in the
cursus planus and the cursus tardus.86
Finally, Jerome•s letters to Augustine, which may be grouped by the
tenor of the two correspondents• relations. Epp. 102, 103, and 105 date
between 397/9 and 403, when Jerome was seething with resentment over
what he perceived to be Augustine's high-handedness. 87 Ep. 112 (404)
marks the mending of the dispute, while Epp. 115 (404/5), 134 (416), and
141-43 (418-19) were written in a spirit of cooperation, as the two channeled
their energies against Pelagianism, not each other. The sample sizes of each
group are quite small, and although caution must be exercised, a pattern
does seem to emerge. The first group of letters show accent-only clausulae;
even the cursusplanus contains standard metrical forms in only three of ten
cases (all variants included). Ep. 112 has a similar system of rhythm. In the
· last group, however, meter occurs more frequently, giving the appearance
of greater care to construction of clausulae. Perhaps (and this is speculative)
as his relations with Augustine improved, Jerome gave more thought not
111
Dates: Epp.4, 6, S.10, 12-13, between 375 and 376; Epp.31-32, in 384; Epp.44-45,
in 385; Ep.47, in 392/3. I have followed the chronology in Griltzmacher (1901) 1.54, 57, 99,
and Cavallera (1922) 215, 22-26, 43.
16
Hagendahl (1958, 100-05) discusses how Jerome indulged in his literary and
rhetorical training even in these letters, most of which were written in the desert at
Calchis.
~ Chronology: Cavallera (1922) 247-50 (chart on p. 48) and Griitzmacher (1901)

1.82-&5and 96. Critical edition of the letters by Schmid (1930).General discussion: Simard
(1942) 15--38;MaHatti (1921) 321-38and 402-26; Wiesen (1964) 235-40; Bruyne (1932) 223-48;
Testard (1969) 93-105; Cavallera (1922) 1.297•306;Griltzmacher (1908) 3.114-37; Hellenga
(1989) 177-82; Mandouze (1968) lOS.11.
only to what he said, but to how he said it.
Jerome 1s sermons have been recovered through the singular efforts of
Morin. 88 These sermons, dated to the 390s in Bethlehem, 89 are entirely
unlike any of Jerome's literary works. 90 It is now accepted that these
homilies are unrevised stenographic notes that reflect Jerome's actual
method of preaching. 91 The complete lack of literary and rhetorical style
relates to improvised delivery and to a very familiar and colloquial tone that
Jerome adopted for his audience of fellow monks, many of whom were
barely acquainted with the Latin language. 92 Although the peculiar
characteristics of Jerome's sermons will be made more clear in Chapter V,
we may note here that without a doubt prose rhythms-accentual or
metrical---do not appear in them. I sampled both the sermons on the
Psalms93 and those on the gospel of Mark. 'H The statistical data in Table
111Morin (1896) 393-434 and (1913) in full, with his methodology outlined on pp.
242-49; d. Courcelle (1948)4042.
• Morin (1913) 233-34;Steinmann (1958) 339; Cavallera (1922) 2.157; Griitzmacher
(1901) 1.88-90;Penna (1949) 439.
90
Courcelle {1948)47.
91 Cavallera (1922) 1.185 n. 2: "Les homelies ont ete prises par des auditeurs et
publiees telles quelles, avec les incorrections et Jes erreurs ou distractions inevitables, de
la part soit du conferencier, soit du tachygraphie." Arns (1953)52: .,Dans les sermons, les
tachygraphes suivent l'orateur et reproduisent plus ou mains parfaitement le sens et le
style caracteristique du discours.n Altaner-Stuiber (1978) 400: "Die Homilien ... von
zuhorem nachgeschreiben wurden.N Cf. Wiesen (1964) 93 and Kelly (1975) 136-37.
91
Schanz (1914)484: "Die uns vorliegenden Predigten sind Improvisationen, welche
sich an einen bestimmten Kreis, an I<losterbriider, richten. Dadurch werden Form und
Inhalt bestimmt. Die Sprache ist eine familiii.reund gestattet sich die Freiheiten, wie sie
irn Umgang iiblich sind; die Homilien haben daher vielfach ein anderes stilistisches
Geprage als die ausgearbeiteten Schriften des Hieronymus."
Bardenhewer (1923)642: H der iiberlieferte Text der Homilien eine wortgetreue
•••
Nachschrift ist Hieronymus hat seinen Vortrag in der Regel wenigstens extemporiert;
besonders eifrige ZuhOrer haben ihn aufgefangen und weiter verbreitet, ohne dass er
noch einmal der Zensur des Redners unterstellt worden ware. Daher der Abstand dieser
Homilien von dem sprachlichen und stilistischen Geprage der sonstigen Schriften."
Griitzmacher (1908) 3.147 and 149: "Hieronymus bindet sich auch in den
wahrscheinlich extemporierten Ansprachen an keine Regel. ... Im allgemeinen vermeidet
Hieronymus in diesen seinen Monchspredigten die Rhetorik."
Kelly (1975)136-37:"What immediately strikes any reader accustomed to Uerome's]
normal literary eloquence is [the sermons'] unadorned colloquialism, their crudities of
style, the errors in assigning Biblical texts in which they abound."
93Text in Morin (1958)3-352.I sampled the homilies on Psalms 1, 5, 7, 9, 13, 66, 67,
71-77. Peri (1980) asserts that these sermons are nothing more than translations of
Origen's homilies on the Psalms, but Jay (1985,48 n. 146) criticizes this. Gribomont (1986,
Rhythm in ]erome'sCorpus 87
ill show that Jerome avoided prose rhythms in every respect: the
proportional values in all categories replicate the frequencies of accentual
and metrical norms for nonrhythmical prose and the frequencies taken from
Jerome's translations of the Hebrew scriptures and the gospels.
To sum up Jerome 1s prose rhythms. In works of the hagiographic
genre (Vita Pauli being the exception for reasons noted above), in certain
translations of Origen's homilies, in sermons, and in revisions and
translations of the scriptures, Jerome did not seek prose rhythms. All other
works surveyed contain accentually-structured clausulae, with meter
accommodated in relation to speed of composition, the extent of Jerome's
revision of dictated material, the importance of theme and audience, and,
most especially, the length of the accentual cadence. The cursus mixtus was
reserved for much of Jerome's correspondence and for very weighty treatises
like the AdversusHelvidium,a work in which Jerome, because of purpose and
theme, gave full rein to oratorical devices. Jerome stated repeatedly that style
must vary according to subject-matter and method of composition; this study
of Jerome's prose rhythms confirms that he practiced what he theorized.
236) notes that most of Jerome's sermons touch on the Origenist controversy, which
would hardly be likely if Jerome were merely offering Latin versions of Origen. Pease
(1907) offers a very good analysis of these sermons' style and contents.
"Text in Morin (1958) 451-500;discussion in Morin (1913) 223-36.

CHAPTER N
PROSE RHYI'HM IN SELECTED WORKS OF AUGUSTINE
The prose rhythms in Augustine's corpus have not been subjected to

an overall systematic analysis. 1 Individual works like the Conjessiones,De
civitatedei, and Serrnoneshave been studied, but scholars have yet to examine
the corpus as a whole and to relate their rhythms to audience, content,
genre, and theme. I cannot accomplish this either, simply because of the size
of Augustine's corpus and because of the limited scope of this book;
however, representative samples of Augustine's dogmatic, exegetical, formal,
homiletic, pastoral, and philosophical works can be ·studied to see whether
some pattern of clausular usage may emerge. I refer the reader to Table IV.
Scholars have long noted the peculiar nature of Augustine's sermons. 2
Never dictations, but simple improvisations on the meaning of biblical
passages read to the laity in church, these sermons are deliberately informal.
Indeed, for homiletic speaking Augustine emphasized the necessity for
clarity, and thus advocated colloquial (though not crude) language and
diction. The stylistic features of his own sermons include oxymora,
antitheses, balanced cola, parataxis, dialogue, vignettes, assonance,
alliteration, and rhyme. Augustine's sermons were spontaneous creations
that entered unplanned territory as the bishop extemporized: creations
imbued not with prose rhythms, but with the rhythm of phrase:
1
For a bibliography on prose rhythms in Augustine's writings, see
Oberhelman/Hall Augustiniana260-61n. 12. As in the case of my discussion of Jerome in
Chapter m,I have not tackled all of the secondary scholarship on Augustine, a feat that
probably lies outside the possibilities of any one human; instead, I have consulted only
a few of the more important texts pertaining to each work sampled, and have attempted
to draw conclusions more from the data and Augustine's own words than from modem
opinions.
2
For the following paragraphs I am greatly indebted to Auerbach (1%5) 27-66(but
see the criticisms of Brandenberg [1981) 76-77); Deferrari (1922) 97-123 and 193-219;
Mohrmann (1961) 1.323-49,351-70, 391-402,2.247-75,277-323,(1965) 3.147-70; Schuchter
(1934) 115-38; Van der Meer (1961).
89
Cicerone ed Agostino distinguono, nella prosa, la numerositase it numerus.
II numerus~ i1 fluire del discorso, che sorge dal ritmico altemarsi delle
sillabe lunghe e brevi, specialmente alla fine delle frasi; la numerositas~ la
simmetrica o antitetica disposizione dei membri degl"incisi, con assonanze,
paronomasie e tutte le altre figure di suono. Nei sermoni agostiniani la
numerositas~ applicata metodicamente. 3
Augustine's homiletic style will be discussed later in this chapter and in

Chapter V; for now let us look at the rhythms in certain works that embrace
this sort of style.
The Confessiones(c. 397) is nothing less than a prayer of praise to God
for both his power and grace, and this is how we should read the treatise.
Studded with the language of the Bible, especially the Psalms, its style,
although enriched with philosophical and poetic elements, is first and last
scriptural.• Prose rhythms do not appear in this work. The reason for the
lack of rhythm must lie in the work's scriptural style, which was the
inspiration of Augustine's method of preaching. 5
The Ioannis evangeliumtractatuscxxiv, a series of 124 sermons on the
fourth gospel, is not only exegetical but also magisterial, as Arianism,
Pelagianism, and Donatism are always in the foreground. 6 As in the case of
the Confessiones,no prose rhythms are detectable here. Because the work is
comprised of sermons, this would explain the lack of rhythm.
The Enarrationesin Psalmos, a lifetime work of Augustine, is part
sermons improvised and delivered at Hippo and Carthage and part dictated
material never preached. If Augustine did not use prose rhythms in oral
delivery but did so in his written texts, then theoretically differences should
be noted between the preached and written sections of the treatise.
Accordingly, I have sampled sermons 25, 26, and 29-35 and the dictated
commentaries 67, 71, 77, 78, and 81.
3
Di Capua (1931) 761-62.Cf. Mohrmann (1%1) 1.396-97:u ••• on comprend mieux
comment saint Augustin a consciemment cree un style homiletique qui devait repondre
aux besoins de la predication populaire .... Le trait le plus caracteristique et j'oserais dire
le plus essentiel de son style homilHique est le parallelisme antithetique qui revient a
chaque instant et qui resulte d'une mani~re de penser qui lui est propre. C'est ... un
rythme fondamental qui domine non seulement les mots, mais la pensee elle-m~me... .
On percoit aussi dans ce retour perpetuel du parallelisme antithetique une influence
biblique, surtout du style et du rythme des psaumes."
• See Brown (1967) 158-81. For the style, see the excellent remarks of Mohrmann
(1961) 2.277-323, especially 308-23.
5
Mohrmann (1965) 3.364-65and 369.
6
Controversy used to exist on the nature-oral or written-of the treatise, but the
work of Landais (1953) has resolved the issue in favor of oral delivery. For the
chronology, see the extensive treatment in Bonnardiere's book (1965).
Rhythm in Augustine's Corpus 91
The proportional values of pc, m•, and mt in the sampled sermons

conform to the normative frequencies for nonrhythmical prose. The dictated
sections, on the other hand, contain accent.only clausulae: the lack of meter
is demonstrated by the low frequencies of m• and mt and by the rare
occurrence of quantity under the key accentual typologies. It would appear,
therefore, that Augustine's style in exegesis varied in accordance with his
audience: he avoided prose rhythms when preaching before a congregation,
but he used them for a reading public.
Augustine at one point does discuss the composition of his sermons:
haec opera nonaginta et tria in libris ducentis trignita et duobus me dictasse

recolui, quando haec retractavi, utrum adhuc essem aliquos dictaturus
ignorans, atque ipsam eorum retractationem in libris duobus edidi
urgentibus fratribus, antequam epistolas et sermones in populum, alias
dictatas, alios a me dictos, retractare coepissem. (Retradationes2.93.2)
This passage implies that Augustine, when drafting letters, dictated to

stenographers but, when preaching, spoke without notes or written text.7
Augustine's biographer Possidius verifies this:
tanta autem ab eodem dictata et edita sunt, tantaque in eccelsia disputata,

excepta atque emendata, vel adversus diversos haereticos, vel ex canonicis
libris exposita ad aedificationem sanctorum Ecclesiae filiorum, ut ea omnia
vix quisquam studiosorum perlegere et nosse sufficiat. (Vita 18)
Possidius here distinguishes between Augustine's dictated and published

works (didata . . . edita) and the disputations in the church, which were
taken down by stenographers and later emended for publication (excepta
... emendata).8 Elsewhere, Possidius discusses Augustine's written or
composed works as opposed to extemporaneous sermons ("libris confectis et
repentinis sermonibus," c. 7).
The testimony of both Augustine and Possidius is clear: Augustine
dictated his treatises and letters, but whenever he spoke, he had notariicopy
down his words. Moreover, the sermons were not revised, but were
published after transcription. If this is so, then the statistical data presented
7
This has been substantiated at great length by Deferrari (1922)97.123 and 193.219.
• For Augustine's dictation, see Deferrari (1922) passim, especially 98-106 and
110.19, and Augustine, Epp. 33.4, 41.2, 141.2.Cf. Possidius, Vita 28: "ante proximum vero
diem obitus sui a se dictatos et editos recensuit libros, sive eos quos primo tempore suae
conversionis adhuc laicus, sive quos presbyter, sive quos episcopus dictaverat, et
quaecunque in his recognovit aliter quam sese habet ecdesiastica regula a se fuisse dictata
et scripta, cum adhuc ecclesiasticum usum minus sciret minusque sapuisset, a semetipso
et reprehensa et correcta sunt." I have used Herbert Weiskotlen"s edition of Possidius'
Vita Augustini (Princeton 1989).
above proves that Augustine neglected. prose rhythms when he preached.;
and if the dictated sections of the Enarrationesin Psalmos are a reliable
indicator, then Augustine, like Jerome, sought rhythmical clausulae even
while dictating. 9
The one Augustine sermon I have found containing prose rhythm is
the De excidiourbis Romae senno.10 Preached shortly after Alaric's sack of
Rome, this is Augustine's only extant sermon devoted to the topic, his
purpose being to deflect the complaints of Christians over the seemingly
senseless destruction of Rome and the deaths of the pious. 11 Accent-only
clausulae are evident in the present text. The sample size, though not large,
demonstrates a preference for the three standard forms of the cursus and a
neglect of meter in terms both general (values of m• and ml) and specific
(quantity under accentual typologies). The presence of prose rhythm may be
explained. by Augustine's revision of the original sermon for publication.
Granted, Augustine does say at the end of his Retradationesthat he did not
edit his letters and sermons, but this must not be considered a categorical
statement applicable to all works. In the case of the De excidio,its theme and
purpose must have been so important to both Augustine and his audience
that he would have wished to revise, stylize, and then publish the work for
wide dissemination.
The Contraacademicos was Augustine's first work after his conversion
in autumn 386. As recently demonstrated, the work is a revision of a
stenographer's report. 12 The prose rhythms are accent-only: the value of m'
is low and the occurrence of meter under the accentual typologies is slight.
Although the value of m' is fairly high (.732), this is explained by the
extensive coincidence of meter under the cursus planus and by the many
paean-trochees. The large number of the latter would reflect the Ciceronian
9
More properly speaking, ..in dictation or written work," as it is never certain
when an author has written in his own hand or has revised what he has dictated. It
should be noted, however, that Jerome and Augustine, as opposed to Ambrose, relied
almost exclusively on dictation.
Jo The De acidio is not mentioned by Augustine in his Retractationesor by Possidius

in his lndiculum, but these are not decisive proofs against authorship by Augustine; Morin
(1914-19a,117-55) has given irrefutable arguments in favor of authenticity.
11
Augustine refers to the invasion and sack of Rome in portions of other sermons,
for example, 81.9, 105.12-13,and 296.6-9, but this sermon is his definitive word on the
subject (excepting, of course, the Dt dvitate da). See Courcelle (1948) 19-55 and 215-21;
Fischer (1948) 52-70; and Hagendahl (1967)415-16 and 717-21.
12
Matthews (1980, 10-13)discusses how Augustine made changes and revisions in
the stenographic reports.
Rhythm in Augustines Corpus 93
dialogue-form that this work imitates. 13

The De catechiz.andis rudibus,a manual for both the catechist and the
catechumen, was composed in around 400 at the urging of Deogratias, the
deacon of Carthage. The style, simple and straightforward, does show
carelessness and haste in composition. 14 The rhythms, being accent-only
clausulae, would reflect this rapid dictation.
The Defide et symbolois a simple dogmatic explanation of the Apostles'
Creed that Augustine delivered at the Council of Hippo in 393 when he was
still a priest. 15 After repeated requests, Augustine published a version of this
address. The prose rhythms recoverable here are accentual, as is clear from
the values of pc, m•, mt, and the quantity under the accentual typologies.
The cursus mixtus appears in the De haeresibus,a list of 88 Christian
heresies from Simon Magus to Pelagius. 16 The work was composed at the
request of Quodvultdeus, deacon of Carthage, who desired a manual that
would list the errors of all heresies Nbreviter perstricte atque summatim."
Augustine used as his primary source Epiphanius, along with Fiastrius and
his own memory; the audience is both clergy and laity. The cursusmixtus is
proved by the great care for meter: the values of m• and mt are about ten
percent higher than in the accentual worb of Augustine discussed above,
and quantity is given much more attention under the accentual typologies.
As heresy was ever at the very fore of Augustine's thoughts, such would
account for the adornment of this well-constructed work with cursusmixtus
rhythms.
The cursusmixtus also appears in two of Augustine's most important
works, the De doctrinachristianaand De civitatedei. Boob 1-3 of the De
civitatedei, which I have sampled here, discuss the sufferings of Rome and
the weakness of its gods. This theme of the refutation of the pagan faith is
part of the work's overall purpose of exploring divine providence over both
the Roman empire and all the nations of the world, and so imbues the work
with a cosmic theme. Marrou has called the De civitate dei the most
13
Needless to say, I cannot support Meulenbroek's thesis (1942) that the prose
rhythms are not typical of Augustine's usual practice and therefore prove that the work
came directly from the hand of stenographers, with the dictated drafts never revised by
Augustine.
For the dialogue-form as a model for Augustine and for the overall influence of
Cicero on Augustine, see Hagendahl (1967)489 and 498-508; Cameron (1976)25; Schmidt
(1976) 114-15.
1• Christopher (1926) 12.
15 See the extensive introduction in Meijering (1987).
16
For a valuable discussion, see the introductory chapter in Muller (1956), with
bibliography on pp. xiii-xix.
self-conscious and most erudite work that Augustine wrote, 17 with
Augustine's style in the vein of the highest rhetorical tradition of the secular
schools. 18 In consideration of a1I this, little wonder that the prose rhythms
are cursus mixtus.19 Augustine does not show, however, much attention to
meter under the cursusvelox:only 57 of 89 clausulae of the 6oo/oo6o variant
have any standard metrical form. The same may be said of the cursusmixtus
in book 4 of the De doctrinachristiana,a work that will be discussed in
Chapter V,,., Both Jerome and Augustine, it would seem, were Jess
concerned with metrical quantity in longer clausulae (cursusveloxand cursus
trispondaicus), 21 but did favor coincidence of accent and meter in the shorter
cursus planus and cursus tardus. The next century or so will see a1I
coincidence neglected, so that we arrive at last to the pure cursus of the
medieval period. Jerome seems first to have anticipated this trend, as he
ignored in some works a1I pretense to meter in the formulation of his
clausulae.
The Retractationes(42617)is Augustine's critical self-examination of his
own writings. Each of his works from 386 to 426 are discussed
chronologicaJly, with their purpose, occasion of writing, and theme
explained; passages that had been misunderstood or were now in need of
defense, correction, or repudiation are periodically examined. Augustine tells
us (Ep. 224.2) that he dictated the Retractationes in the course of one day, and
then proceeded to dictate well into that same night his refutation of Julian
of Eclanum. While we are at liberty to accept or disbelieve this prodigious
feat, rapid dictation is always likely in the case of this father. Both Augustine
(Ep. 139.3) and Possidius mention Augustine's love of dictating all through
the night as a form of relaxation; as Possidius states,
17
See Marrou (1958) 37-76 and Hagendahl (1%7) 558-69; d. Hagendahl (572 and
632ff.) on Augustine's careful preparation for this work by thoroughly reading and
excerpting pagan authors, and Cameron (1976) 11-12.
11
Mohrmann (1%1) 2.254-57and 315.
19
Both Marrou (1958, 81) and Reynolds (1924) approach clausulae in this treatise
from a meter-only perspective; it should be clear that this method is incomplete.
Di Capua (1931) has discussed the rhythms in the De civitate dei and other
Augustinian texts, but his work has never impressed scholars of prose rhythm; Di Capua
simply lacked a methodology, and his treatments of cola, membra, and clausulae are so
confusing that I must admit that I cannot understand them completely.
» The definitive work on this work remains Marrou (1958) 351-540; a brief but
useful discussion may be found in Brown (1967) 251.69. I will deal with the rhythms of
books 1-3 in note 26 below.
21
The usual exception is the main form of the cursustrispondaicus
(6o/oo6o), where
most authors, out of preference for the Ciceronian paeon-trochee, seemed to have paid
close attention to the meter.
quibus ille dispositi.s et ordinatis, tamquam a rebus mordacibus ac molestis,
animi recursum ad interiora mentis et superiora faciebat quo vel de
inveniendis divinis cogitaret, vel de iam inventis aliquid dictaret, aut certe
ex iam dictatis atque transcriptis aliquid emendaret. et id agebat in die
laborans, et in nocte lucubrans. (Vita 24)
The rhythms in the Retractationes are accent-dominated clausulae. There is

great attention to coincidence of meter under the cursusplanus:of the 101
6o/o6o fonns, 92 contain a standard metrical form; overall, 140 of the 164
cursus planus clausulae are simultaneously quantitative. As we have seen
above, this preference for coincidence of meter and accent in the shorter
clausulae is typical of both Augustine and Jerome.
Augustine's correspondence was examined by Ralph Hall and myself
in a recent article (Augustiniana1987). The letters were there sampled
according to the three chronological groups formulated by the Maurists:
Group I, which covers the period from Augustine's conversion to his
elevation to the episcopate (386-395);Group Il, which contains letters from
the early episcopate (396-410);and Group m, whose letters date from 410 to
430, when Augustine exerted his energies against the Donatists and
Pelagians. We concluded from the data that Augustine strived for greater
rhythmical style in Groups Il and m, an observation that was not
unexpected, given that a large number of these letters were treatises on
heresy and, therefore, were intended for dissemination within the church. In
this present study, I will examine the letters in a different way, on the
assumption that the style of a letter may vary because of its content
(exegetical, ecclesiastical, theological, or polemical) or, as Mohrmann has
suggested, because of the education of the addressee. 22 Thus, Augustine•s
letters will be reexamined here not on the basis of chronology, but in
relation to audience, purpose, and theme.
Epp.34 and 35 (dated to 396) are addressed to a youth named Eusebius,
who had beaten his mother and was now threatening to kill her. Despite the
limitations of the small sample size, we may label the rhythm
accent-dominated clausulae: although the value of m• is low (.581), there is
sensitivity to meter under the accentual typologies. Ep.36 (also from 396) was
written to Casulanus, a fellow presbyter, on the question of whether one
should fast on the seventh day of the week. The rhythms are accentual. Ep.
87 (written before 411) is a polemical attack against Emeritus, a follower of
Donatus; the clausulae, though few in number, are clearly accentual. Ep.141
is the letter of invitation sent by the Council of Zerta (412) to the Donatist
laity to join the orthodox church. This letter has an excellent accent-only
system, with attention to quantity under the shorter cadences, but little if
any under the longer clausulae, as so often is observed in Augustine's
22 Mohrmann (1961) 2.273-75. For a discussion of the letters' overall style, see
Pellegrino (1963) 240-50.
works. This same system of accentually structured clausulae appears in these
letters: Ep. 147 (dated to 413), a book on the vision of God and written to the
nun Paulina; Ep.157 (424),addressed to Hilarius, a Sicilian layperson, on the
question of the possibility of attaining perfect goodness and sinlessness; Ep.
185 (417), addressed to Boniface and giving Augustine's summary thoughts
on the Donatists; 23 Ep. 199 (c. 419), sent to Hesychius, bishop of Salena,
concerning the end of the world; and Ep. 211 (c. 423), commonly known as
the uRule" of Augustine, wherein the bishop addresses a convent of nuns
who had created a disturbance against their superior.
The correspondence to Jerome (Epp.56, 57, 101, 104, 110, 116, 131, and
132 in the Benedictine edition of Jerome's letters) may be treated as a unit,
in that Augustine, unlike Jerome with his fits of temper followed by
rapprochement, consistently displayed a tone of "studied courtesy ... [which
was] singularly rancorous." 24 The rhythms are typical of Augustine's
epistolary style just discussed: accent-dominated clausulae with a feel for
meter that is relational to the length of the clausula. The key accentual
typologies of the cursusplanusand cursustardushave rates of coincidence of
76 percent and 86 percent, respectively; 25 the cursus velox and cursus
trispondaicus,on the other hand, have rates of 53 percent and 67 percent,
respectively. It is clear that in his correspondence of all sorts, Augustine
sought accentually structured rhythms and accommodated metrical patterns
under the shorter accentual cadences (cursusplanus and cursus tardus).That
is, Augustine permitted in longer clausulae the word-accents to govern the
rhythmical pattern at the expense of the metrical configuration. This may be
explained by Augustine's habitual practice of dictation, in that while
speaking to the nntariushe found it far easier to seek coincidence in shorter
sentence-closings and to neglect quantity in lengthy clausulae.
On the basis of the above survey, we may conclude that Augustine
used three systems of prose rhythm. The cursusmixtus is in full evidence in
the De civitate dei, De doctrinachristiana(book 4), and De haeresibus.The
accentual forms are as frequent here as in any late imperial Latin work,
Z3 Augustine, Retractationes2.48, calls this letter his "liber de correctione

Donatistorum."'
JA Brown (1967) 274. Cf. Hagendahl (1967)524:., •.. Augustine takes the threats of
his irritated correspondant with equanimity. . . . In this quarrel Augustine had the
advantage of an indisputable moral superiority: For the intellectual, literary, and cultural
differences between Jerome and Augustine, see Hagendahl (1967)433, ~59, 695,728. See
Chapter III above, note fr!, for a bibliography on the quarrel.
25 Thevalue for the cursusplanuswould be even higher, if not for three occurrences
of the phrase "dominumnostrum."Perhaps the first syllable of dominumwas lengthened
because of word-stress, which would then yield a perfect coincidence of accent and the
metrical form (cretic-trochee). The main form of the cursus planus (6o/o6o) has a
conformity of 93 percent
pagan or Christian; meter is actively sought under the cursus planus and
cursus tardus,but less so under the cursus velox.Accent-dominated clausulae
are present in all other works, treatises and letters alike, except in the case
of sermons, where prose rhythms are neglected. The rhythms in the
Enarrationes in Psalnws demonstrate that Augustine used accentually
structured clausulae in dictation but avoided formal prose rhythms in
homiletic preaching. 7.6
At this point it may be profitable to relate the above conclusions and
data to Augustine's attitudes to the pagan classics and pagan literary style.
Here the starting point is Hagendahl's Augustine and the Latin Classics.
According to this scholar, Augustine"s very first works, those before his
baptism, are so heavily saturated with the secular tradition that it is often
difficult to determine whether a Christian or a pagan is their author.
Between his baptism in 387 and his ordination in 391, Augustine continued
to indulge in the classics. But after his new and personal contact with the
church and as a result of his study of the scriptures, Augustine severed
himself from the pagan learning he had acquired in his youth and had
become a professor of. This abrupt, radical change is manifested both in the
almost complete lack of quotations from the classics in works after 391 and
in a pronounced aversion and hostility to secular culture. 27 The culmination
of this process is the Confessiones:
Hardly any work by a Christian writer since Tertullian breathes such a

deep--seated hostility to the old cultural tradition as this manifesto of
fanatical religiosity. The bishop turns violently against the reading of the
classics in the schools .... He condemns outright rhetoric .... It would be
a severe mistake to minimize the hostile attitude in the Confessiones or to
consider it as emanating from a fortuitous state of mind. 29
The exception, Hagendahl notes, is the De civitate dei. Because

Augustine wrote this work in order to rebut the criticism of the pagans and
to exonerate Christianity, he critically examined and scrutinized pagan
216
The differences between the rhythms in books 1-3 and in book 4 of the De
doctrinaoffer additional support for this point. The first three books discuss the scriptures,
and here we find accent-dominated clausulae, which are the clausular rhythms that
Augustine typically used in his dictated exegetical works. But book 4, dealing with
rhetorical theory, contains some of Augustine's finest cursus mi:rtus dausulae. The reason
for this brilliant rhythmical style would be Augustine"s desire either to imitate Cicero's
example of using prose rhythms in a rhetorical treatise (cf. the De oratorein Table I) or,
perhaps, to display oratorical ornatusin a book devoted to rhetoric.
ZJ See especially Hagendahl (1967) 703-22.

28
Hagendahl (1967) 715; cf. 726-27: "The C.Onfessionesrepresent the climax of an
attitude of unconcern, aversion, even hostility that subsisted, though occasionally less
austerely, to the end of his life."
authors. This return to the classics, along with a plethora of quotations from
classical literature, separates the De civitate dei from Augustine's previous
twenty years of practice and literary output, although Augustine's hostility
to pagan culture had not abated in the least.29
Hagendahl's assessment seems overly harsh, as it implies that
Augustine accommodated no compromise between his pagan rhetorical
training and his Christianity, but only sought to Nremove Christianity from
the spirit of Antiquity.N30 It would be more accurate, in my opinion, to say
that Augustine remained too much the grammaticusand the professor of
rhetoric to abandon the pagan educational system in all its forms.31 His goal
was to eliminate not education, but its fonnalism and rigidity, especially as
manifested in sophistic rhetoric. Augustine was interested in retaining what
he considered useful for Christian purposes and in discarding what was
superfluous or dangerous. And yet it cannot be contested that Augustine
transformed pagan rhetoric by infusing into it biblical style and language
and by reformulating the generadicendi and purposes of oratory. 32 This
• Hagendahl (1967, 703-05) would make exceptions also for parts of works of a
highly specialized nature (for example, the Dedivinationedaemonum),the section on school
education in the Confessiones, and letters to educated pagans.
30 Hagendahl (1967)729: Nit is usually held ... that Augustine aimed at bringing
about a reconciliation, a compromise, or even a synthesis, between Christianity and
Antiquity .... [But] the positive appreciation of profane culture is in reality so limited that
it is surely absurd to talk of a synthesis. Nor can I see that there is more reason for
characterizing his attitude as aiming at a reconciliation or compromise; it implies, on the
contrary, a strong subordination of what is borrowed property. . . . [VJery few have
contributed so much to remove Christianity from the spirit of Antiquity:"'
31 Marrou (1958) 16: "Dans l'auteur du de Trinitate ou de Citl de Dieu survit
soujours le grammaticusde Madaure"; cf. 55: "Dans l'~v~que d'Hippone, dans le grand
docteur chretien, quoi qu'il fosse, le rh~teur de Carthage survit et transparait toujours."
Hagendahl (1967, 724-25) admits as much: "The influence of [rhetorical] training can
hardly be overstated. It accounts for his mastery of language, as well as for his fertility
of invention, his deductive power, his self.confidence in debating and the extraordinary
ease and swiftness in writing, dictating and extemporizing that underlie his enormous
production. Even though his style in ecclesiastical writings loses its earlier juvenile
redundancy and becomes influenced by the language of the Bible, it never disclaims the
rhetorical devices and ornaments which were the pride of secular oratory .... However
much the mature man may look down on his former profession [of rhetoric] as 'vanity
fair', he finds oratorical training, even if not necessarily acquired in the school of
rhetoric, indispensable to the Christian preacher.»
32 Mohrmann (1961) 2.308-09: "Analizzando l'evoluzione linguistica e stilistica
quale si rivela nella sua opera, bisogna rendersi conto del fatto che Agostino-gic\ retore
e professore di retorica-ha riflettuto molto sui problemi di lingua e di stile. L'uso
linguistico e stilistico di Agostino~ molto phi meditato di quello della maggior parte degli
altri autori cristiani del suo tempo. Nella sua opera immensa si disegnano forme stilistiche
Rhythm in Augustine's Corpus 99
transformation appears in the ideas of book 4 of the De doctrinachristiana,

which will be discussed in Chapter V, and in the different levels of style that
Augustine used in each of his literary productions.
molto diverse1 ma dappertutto si possono trovare le tracce delle sue meditazioni sul
c6mpito dello scrittore cristiano. n
CHAPTER V
HOMILETIC PREACHING AND RHETORIC
I noted in Chapter II that the homiletic provenance of nearly all of

Ambrose's corpus is accepted by modem scholars. 1 Ambrose's literary
productions are, in essence, redacted and revised ,,,sorties" of delivered
sermons. Only two works are untouched sermons, being stenographic reports
of actual homiletic addresses by Ambrose: De sacramentisand Erplanatio
symboli.2We can, accordingly, derive insights into Ambrose's preaching
method from an examination of the style of these two works. 3 And since De
mysteriis is a literary revision of Ambrose's catechistic sermons, while De
sacramentisis a stenographic record of sermons on the same topics;' we are
also afforded the opportunity to determine the nature and manner of
Ambrose's revisions of sermon material. These observations, in tum, will
clarify better the Christian fathers' ideas on resand verba(content and style)
in literary genres.
The style of De sacramentisand Erplanatiosymbolireplicates the style of
Jerome's and Augustine's sermons in all broad particulars. Intended to
1 Lazzati (1955) 34; Bardenhewer (1912) 502; Schanz (1914) 318-19; De Labriolle
(1947) 1.389.
2
See the bibliography and discussion of these two works in Chapter II. Cf. Botte
(1959) 14: "Qu'il y ait une difference entre le De sacramentis
et le De mysteriis,ce n'est pas
niable, et personne ne songe a le nier. Mais quand on compare plusieurs oeuvres d'un
m@me auteur, ii faut tenir compte de la distinction des genres litteraires. Or nous ne
possedons rien qui puisse nous foumir un juste point de comparaison avec le De
sacramentis:nous n'avons, en somme, rien de la predication d'Ambroise. Ses traites
exegetiques sont sorties de sa predication, mais ce ne sont pas des sermons. Au contraire,
le De sacramentis est constitue par une ~rie de veritables sermons."
3
In this chapter, I have relied very heavily on Mohrmann (1952) 168-77 and (1976)
335-62; Lazzati (1955) 17-48; Botte (1959) introduction; and Fontaine.
' Mohrmann (1952) 169: Le De Mysteriis ... est une publication litteraire et
0
officielle sortie de la predication catechetique d' Arnbroise, tandis que le De Sacramentis

nous donne un compte rendu, pris directement ou bien par un auditeur quelconque, ou
bien par un tachygraphe attitre."
101
engage the audience in a dialogue with the speaker,5 these sermons breathe
with spontaneity and improvisation and contain a very free, loose structure. 6
The tone is paternal and familiar. The vocabulary, though simple, does not
approximate vulgar spoken Latin; as Mohrmann has noted, the impression
afforded by the diction is of a cultivated man speaking frankly and clearly.7
Formal rules of rhetoric are avoided, and certain elements of an oral
homiletic style present to the audience the essential truths under discussion. 8
These elements may be summarized as follows, with all examples from De
sacramentis:
1. The stringing of paratactic cola, without conjunction or

subordination: 9
Ndeinde accessisti proprius, vidisti fontem, vidisti sacerdotem. ingressus es, vidisti
aquam, vidisti sacerdotem, vidisti levitam" (1.3).
"isti, lavisti, venisti ad altare, videre coepistiN (3.2).
"iussit dominus factum est caelum, iussit dominus facta est terra, iussit dominus
facta sunt maria, iussit dominus omnis creatura generata est" (4.4).
2. Parenthetic phrases that shatter the syntactic unity of a sentence: 10
,.caeterum qui hunc fontem transit, hoe est a terrenis ad caelestia-hic est enim
transitus, ideo pascha, hoe est transitus eius, transitus a peccato ad vitam, a culpa ad
gratiam, ab inquinamento ad sanctificationem-qui per hunc fontem transit, non moritur
sed resurgit" (1.4).
5 Mohrmann (1952) 171.-73.

'Mohrmann (1952, 173ff.) calls the style "plastique"; Lazzati (1955, 28-29, 33) points
to the "anarchia sintattica"; Batte (1959, 8) considers the style "neglig~."
7
Mohrmann (1952) 171-72 and (1976) 114-15. For the familiar tone, see the remarks
by Mohrmann (1976) 112-13.
• Mohrmann (1952) 175: "'Le style du De Sacramentis est un style tres

expressionniste, qui supprime les liaisons et tout ce qui est d'une importance secondaire,
pour ne garder de l"enonce que l'essentiel." Lazzati (1955) 27: "Quello che si dice per
l'ordine del contenuto, put, dirsi per la forma che, piu che mai, ha qui l'andamento del
discorso parlato sottratto a talune norme delta retorica meno adatte allo scope e
mantenuto nel tono di un parlare familiare."
9
Mohrmann (1952) 174 and Lazzati (1955) 27.
10
Mohrmann (1952) 175 (illustrating how "I'unit€!syntaxique est interrompue") and
Lazzati (1955) 28.
HomileticPreachingand Rhetoric 103
"'succinctus sacerdos-licet enim et presbyteri fecerint, tamen exordium ministerii
a summo est sacerdote-succinctus, inquam, sacerdos pedes tibi lavit" (3.1).
3. Frontal position of verbs for stress:11

nvenimus ad fontem, ingressus es, unctus es. considera quos videris, quid locutus
sis considera, repete diligenter. occurrit tibi levita, occurrit presbyter. unctus es quasi
athleta Christi, quasi luctam huius saeculi luctaturus, professus es luctaminis tui
certamina"' (1.2).
"vidisti fontem, vidisti et sacerdotem"' (1.3).
"ingressus es, vidisti aquam, vidisti sacerdotem, vidisti levitam" (1.3).
"tangit ergo sacerdos calicem, redundat aqua in callee, salit in vitam aeternam, et
bi bit populus dei qui dei gratiam consecutus est" (5.1).
"venisti ergo ad altare, accepistis gratiam Christi" (5.3).
4. The stress of the "element nominal" by omission of verb: 12
"'ubi certamen, ibi corona" (1.2).
"vere totum ubi tota innocentia, tota pietas, tota gratia, tota sanctificatio" (1.3).
"omnes quidem sancti evangelistae, omnes apostoli praeter proditorem omnes

sancti" (3.2).
"bonae aquilae circa altare: ubi enim corpus ibi et aquilae" (5.2).
"bona praesumptio sed moderata" (5.4).
"accipe aliud, quia quemadmodum spiritus in corde, ita etiam Christus in corde"
(6.2).
5. Placement of a relative pronoun clause or of a nominative phrase in

anacoluthon at the beginning of a sentence: 13
"qui luctatur habet quod speret: ubi certamen, ibi corona" (1.2).
"sanctus apostolus Petrus, posteaquam in passione domini Iapsus videretur

infirmitate conditionis humanae, qui ante negaverat, postea ut illum lapsum aboleret et
solveret tertio interrogatur a Christo si Christum amaret" (2.7).
11 Mohrmann (1952) 175 and La.zzati (1955) 28.

12
Mohrmann (1952) 176-77 and Lazzati (1955) 28.
13
Mohrmann (1952) 175-76and Lazzati (1955) 28.
"qui manducaverit hoe corpus, fiet ei remissio peccatorum et non morietur in
aetemum" (4.5).
6. The repeated use of short questions for didactic purposes: 14
"ergo quid egimus sabbato7 ... quid significat? ... quare hoe dico?" (1.2).
"quare? dicam, accipe" (1.9).
"quid ergo significat?" (1.15).
"quid lectum est heri?" (2.3).
"quare angelus?" (2.4).
7. The very frequent use of ergo before and after a verb at the
beginning of a sentence, 15 and preference for the popular quia over the
more formal quoniamin causal clauses. 16
This style, as scholars have noted, is very elastic ("plastique"), with

loose syntax, high frequency of questions, paratactic clauses, simple diction,
placement of verb or nouns in relief, and an air of extemporization. 17 The
same style informs Explanatiosymboli, as is apparent in the following
paragraph:
illud sane monitos vos volo esse quoniam symbolum non debet scribi; quia
reddere illud habetis, sed nemo scribat. qua ratione? sic accepimus ut non
debeat scribi. sed quid? teneri. sed dicis mihi: quomodo potest teneri si non
scribitur? Magis potest teneri si non scribatur. qua ratione? accipite. quad
enim scribis, securus quasi relegas, non quotidiana meditatione incipis
recensere. quod autem non scribis, times ne amittas, quotidie incipis
recensere. magnum autem tutamentum est. nascuntur stupores animi et
corporis, temptatio adversarii, qui numquam quiescit, tremor aliqui corporis,
infirmitas stomachi: symbolum recense, et sanare. intra teipsum maxime
recense, intra te. quare? ne consuetudinem facias ut, cum solus fortius
14Faller (1940) 83-85; Mohrmann (1976, 117-18) states that these questions "sont
constituees de deux ou trois mots qui, dans le cadre de phrases paratactiques, servent a
faire avancer le discours, elles ont une fonction didactique, mais sont pratiquement
denuees de sens concret."
15
Mohrmann (1976) 118.
16
Mohrmann (1952) 173-74 and (1976) llS.17. For other traits of this oral style (for
example, infinitive clauses), consult Mohrmann's and Lazzati's articles.
17 Mohrmann (1952) 177.
recenses ubi sunt fideles, incipias inter catechumenos vel haereticos
recensere. (c. 9)
Batte, an avowed supporter of the authenticity of Explanatiosymboli,admits

that the work is uni une piece d 1eloquence ni une brilliante dissertation
theologique. C'est une humble le~on de catechisme. 11s'agit de faire entrer
le contenu du symbole dans !'esprit et le coeur des catechumenes, et d'en
graver le texte dans leur memoire." 18 Little wonder, therefore, that earlier
scholars rejected authenticity solely on the basis of style.
As stated above, De mysteriis and De sacramentis,though similar in
content and in provenance (sermons to catechumens), are dissimilar in form:
the one being a stenographic text, the other a published revision of
sermons. 19 If this relationship is correct, then significant stylistic differences
should exist between the two works. Indeed, Lazzati and Mohrmann have
shown that these differences prove the purely homiletic nature of De
sacramentisas well as of Explanatiosymboli.On the basis of their important
research and the additional proofs of prose rhythms discussed in Chapter II,
a working model is possible for determining Ambrose's method of redaction
and for appreciating his method of preaching.
Beyond obvious signs of oral provenance such as instructions to priests,
long citations from the Bible and the mass, and a commentary on the Lord's
Prayer, 20 De sacramentiscontains elements of syntax and style that are so
unique that, as Mohrmann insists, they must constitute the uvrais ties" of
Ambrose the preacher, especially since they do not appear in De mysteriis.21
Predominant in De sacramentisbut absent in De mysteriisis the short,
one- to three-word question. 22 Lazzati has assembled a list of forty-nine
occurrences in De sacramentisof quid signijicatnisi, quid est nisi, quid significat,
quid est, quare,and quomodo,none of which occur in De mysteriis.These types
of questions would be repetitious and monotonous in a written text, but
when presented to a listening audience, would engage it in dialogue and
instruction.
11
Batte (1959) 24.
19
Lazzati (1955, 22) calls the differences in the two works to be those "tra la
redazione tachigrafica dei discorsi e la loro rielaborazione per la riduzione a trattato
scritto."
21
Botte (1959) 8.
21
Mohrmann (1976) 116-17:Nee qui distingue le style de [De sacramentis) et de [Dt
mysteriis], ce sont surtout les constructions et toumures qui rev~lent une certaine
negligence: vrais ties, qui semblent avoir ete consciemment elimines ou evites dans [De
mysteriis].,..
n Lazzati (1955) 32 and Mohrmann (1976) 117•18.
Certain syntactic constructions in De sacramentisare either minimized
or avoided in De mysteriis: for example, the use of infinitive clauses, causal
ergo,and quodand quia clauses.
The vocabulary of De sacramentis, though never vulgar and popular, is
one of great simplicity; its phrasing throughout is void of oratorical
ornament. In De mysteriis,on the other hand, one finds what Mohrmann has
called "un certain elan oratoire." 23 This "elan,, includes not only a more
colorful and flowery vocabulary, but a marked use of hypotaxis within such
more ornate and complex sentences as "accepisti post haec vestimenta
candida, ut esset indicio quod exueris involucrum peccatorum, indueris
innocentiae casta velamina" (De mysteriis3.4).
Parallel passages from De sacramentisand De mysteriison the episode
of Naaman underscore other significant stylistic differences between the two
works. At De sa.cramentis 1.5.13-14,the episode is related in direct discourse,
with dramatic dialogue, paratactic constructions, and oral elements. But at
Demysteriis3.16-17,the entire episode is in indirect speech, with subordinate
clauses and without dialogue. 24
Another difference, other than style, is the arrangement of material.
Whereas in De sacramentisAmbrose moves from topic to topic and adduces
arguments as they must have occurred to him as he preached, in De mysteriis
he has taken pains to give coherence and continuity.~ Thus, the various
baptismal images which were scattered throughout De sacramentisare listed
in historically chronological order in the De mysteriis:the creation, the flood,
the crossing of the Red Sea, the episode of Naaman, the pool at Bethesda.
This is, in Lazzati's words, Nun vero e proprio lavoro di revisione che lo
scrittore compie sullo stenogramma del suo discorso togliendo ii 'troppo e
ii vano', riordinando tutto, talvolta anche aggiungendo. " 26
Related to this rearrangement of material is the elaboration of sermon
material. For example, regarding the passage on the movement of the
neophytes to the altar, in De sacramentis this episode consumes but two brief
paragraphs (4.2.5-6); but in De mysteriis,Ambrose has a lengthy chapter
(7.34-41)that is imbued with "intense afflato lirico.. and poetic inspiration.'D
ZJ Mohrmann (1976) 118-19.
» Lazzati (1955)31. Mohrmann (1976,111) shows how Ambrose•s discussion of the

Naaman episode is chaotic and dispersed throughout the De sacramentis.
25
Cf. Lazzati (1955) 29: "U dove l'oratore aveva proceduto senza ordine,
esponendo gli argomenti come gli venivano alla mente, lo scrittore evidentemente si
preoccupa di riordinare in modo da evitare ritomi su materia trattata."'
216
Lazzati (1955) 29.
'Z1 Lazzati (1955) 29 and Mohrmann (1976) 121-22.

Revision also afforded Ambrose the opportunity to insert biblical
citations and discussions from Greek exegetes. Mohrmann has demonstrated,
for example, that Ambrose inserted numerous references to the Song of
28
Songs into De mysteriis,beyond those common to it and De sacramentis.
When Ambrose sat down to edit the sermons, he also tended to
eliminate the superfluous and to compress the essentials, in order to achieve
a more educated tone, more precise language, and a more periodic style. Th.is
is clear from a comparison of related passages from each work:
post haec reserata tibi sunt sancta sanctorum, ingressus es regenerationis

sacrarium. repete quid interrogatus sis, recognosce quid responderis.
renuntiasti diabolo et operibus eius, mundo et luxuriae eius ac voluptatibus.
tenetur vox tua non in tumulo mortuorum, sed in libro viventium. vidisti
illic levitam, vidisti sacerdotem, vidisti summum sacerdotem. noli
considerare corporum figuras, sed ministeriorum gratiam. praesentibus
angelis locutus es, sieut scriptum est quia labiasacerdotiscustodiuntscientiam
et legemexquiruntex ore ipsius,quoniamangelusest dominiomnipotentis.non
est fallere, non est negare, angelus est qui regnum Christi et vitam aetemam
adnuntiat. non specie tibi aestimandus sit sed munere. quid tradiderit
considera, usum eius expende et statum eius agnosce. (De mysteriis2.s.6)
venimus ad fontem, ingressus es, unctus es. considera quos videris, quid
locutus sis considera, repete diligenter. occurrit tibi levita, occurrit presbyter.
unctus es quasi athleta Christi, quasi luctam huius saeculi luctaturus,
professus es luctaminis tui certamina. qui luctatur habet quad speret: ubi
certamen, ibi corona. luctaris in saeculo sed coronaris a Christo et pro
certaminibus saeculi coronaris. nam etsi in caelo praemium, hie tamen
meritum praemii conlocatur. quando te interrogavit: abrenuntias diabolo et
operibus eius, quid respondisti? abrenuntio. abrenuntias saeculo et
voluptatibus eius? quid respondisti? abrenuntio. memor esto sermonis tui
et nunquam tibi excidat tuae series cautionis. si chirographum homini
dederis, teneris obnoxius ut pecuniam eius accipias, teneris adstrictus et
reluctantem te faenerator adstringit. si recusas vadis ad iudieem atque illic
tua cautione convinceris. ubi promiseris considera vet quibus promiseris.
Levitam vidisti sed minister est Christi. vidisti ilium ante altaria ministrare.
ergo chirographum hmm tenetur non in terra sed in caelo. considera ubi
capias sacramenta caelestia. si hie corpus est Christi, hie et angeli constituti
sunt: ubi corpusibi et aquilaelegisti in evangelio. ubi corpus Christi ibi et
aquilae quare volare consuerunt ut terrena fugiant, caelestia petant. quare
hoe dico? quia et homines angeli quicumque adnuntiant Christum et in
angelorum adscisci videntur locum. quomodo? accipe. baptista erat Joannes
natus ex viro et muliere. attamen audi quia angelus est et ipse: eccemitto
angelummeumantefaciamtuam et parabitviam tuam ante te. accipe aliud.
Malachiel ait propheta quia labia sacerdotiscustodiuntscientiamet Iegem
exquiruntex oreipsius,angelusest enimdeiomni'potentis. haec idea dieuntur ut
sacerdotii gloriam praedicemus, non ut aliquid personalibus meritis
adrogetur. (De sacramentis 1.2.4-7)
211
The passage from De sacramentisexemplifies very well Mohnnann's
assessment of Ambrose's oral style:
Dans Ja haute frequence des questions, dans le relAchement ~n~ra] du
syst~me de la phrase, dans la technique du recit avec sa succession de
phrases paratactiques et son style direct, dans Ja mise en relief tantOt du
verbe, tantOt de d'l!]l!ment nominaJ, dans tout cet assemblage d'~ll!ments
libres et rudimentaires se manifeste Je caract~re spontanl! de ces discours
improvis~s et saisis sur la bouche m@mede J'l!v@quede Milan. 29
In the parallel passage from De mysteriis,on the other hand, the text is much
more precise and compressed: the sentences are longer and syntactically
more complex, and flow from beginning to end without interruption by the
30
short question-and-answer technique so frequent in De sacramentis. Prose
rhythms, which are not discerruble in De sacramentis,now appear in the
clausulae. Also noteworthy is the absence of certain marks of oral style that
inform De sacramentis: second-person singular verbs, the frontal position of
verbs, and the rather simplistic grammar and syntax. It would seem that
Ambrose has revised the stenographic records with an eye to removing, or
polishing, certain elements of his spoken style. We have in De sacramentis
and De mysteriis,therefore, a text preserved exactly as delivered to a church
audience, on the one hand, and sermons revised and redacted by Ambrose
for publication, on the other.
To summarize: the difference between De sacramentisand De mysteriis
is that between stenographic records of sermons and the redaction of such
records into literary form. Whenever Ambrose sat down to edit his sermons
into tractates, he eliminated the superfluity and imperfections of his oral
style. He reorganized the contents into a coherent account and added
classical and exegetical proofs. Style now became an object of concern: for
example, parataxis yielded to hypotaxis, direct speech to indirect discourse,
simple syntactic constructions to more complex forms, and absence of rhythm
to clausular prose rhythms. 31 Each sermon was revised in accordance with
time-contraints, considerations of theme and audience, and personal
inclination. The degree of redaction can be recovered by determining to
211
:1> Lazzati (1955) 29-31.

31
Lazzati (1955)33: "Si~, dunque, detto che al confronto con il De Sacr.il De Myst.
sua rielaborazione in vista della pubblicazione, si fa notare per: 1) diversitA, in quakhe
parte, di materia: viene Jasciata que11a che non ~ ritenuta adatta ad essere pubblicata
(scripta manentl) e viene aggiunta quella che si presenta alla mente dello scrittore e non
era salita a] labbro dell'oratore; 2) diversitA neUa distribuzione della materia che viene
riordinata secondo uno schema piu preciso; 3) diversitA di forma che nella revisione viene
ricondotta piu oratore scrivendo (mi sia pennessa l'espressione) che parlando."
what extent a tractate preserves the sort of oral elements found in De
sacramentisand Explanatiosymboliand, conversely, to what extent it contains
an ornate and oratorical style. Prose rhythms are an especially good criterion;
since they are a purely conscious artifice, we may form this general rule
regarding tractates based on sermons: the greater the frequency of rhythm,
the greater the amount of revision.
When we turn to the sermons of Jerome and Augustine, we find a
similar homiletic style. I have discussed in Chapter ill Jerome's sermons and
his views on Christian style, but it is appropriate here to show how
unadorned and simple these sermons actually are and how much they
approximate in style Ambrose's sermons. Indeed, nothing in Jerome's
corpus, from exegetical and hagiographic works to letters to translations,
approximates the utter simplicity of these sermons. 32 The following passage,
randomly chosen, is from Jerome's excursus on the figtree in Mark 11.11-14:
rem dico novam. ignoscit dominus rogatus: quod fecisset etiam si rogatus
non fuissel dimitte, inquit, adhuc unum annum. statim enirn ut passus est
Salvator, non est subversa Iudaea: quadraginta enim et duo anni dati sunt
ad paenitentiam. iste est unus annus, hoe est, breve tempus; id est, datus est
ei locus paenitentiae. agricola circumfoclit, misit stercus. qui sunt isti
agricolae7 apostoli, qui circumfodiunt, et miserunt stercus. ficus autem
fructus non attulit. sed videte quid dicat ipse agricola. et si quidem fecerit
fructum. nihil intulit. neque enim dixit: aut dimitte earn, aut non dimittes:
aut habebis in vinea tua, aut deseres illam. nihil tale dixit et si quidem
fecerit fructus. nescio qui sit futurum, tuo arbitrio derelinquo. non enim
dixit, perrnanebit in vinea ficus ista. et si fecerit fructum, non perrnanet in
Iudaea Israhel, sed transfertur in ecclesiam gentium. si vero non fecerit
fructum. succisam ficum oculis nostris aspicimus: ruinas istas lapidum quas
cernirnus, radices sunt ficus succisae. hoe totum quare diximus7 voluimus
ostendere de illa parabola, quae sit ista ficus, de qua Dominus fructum
desiderat. vidit, inquit, ficum habentemfolia: secus viam, non in via: in Iege,
non in evangelic. propterea fructus non habebat, quia in via non erat, sed
iuxta viam. venit ergo Iesus, fructus quaerit. quoniam ipsa ire non poterat,
venit ad ficum. (Homiliae in Marci evangelium 11.11-14 [CCL 78,
489.74-490.961)
Augustine's first sermons were testimony to the lingering legacy of his

classical training, as he declaimed in the long periodic prose style typical of
his Cassiciacum dialogues. An audience, grown accustomed to the simplicity
and clarity of a homily delivered by Ambrose or Jerome, would have been
baffled by the following hypotactic sentence of Augustine: "pro modulo
aetatis rudimentorumque nostrorum, pro tirocinio suscepti muneris atque in
vos dilectionis affectu, qui iam ministrantes altari quo accessuri estis
32 Cf. Morin (1913) 248-49:"Les discours de JerOme diff~rent des autres ecrits que
nous possedons de lui, comme le language simplet et negli~ de la conversation s'ecarte
du style elegant et poli d'ecrits retouches avec un soin jaloux."
assistimus, nee ministerio sermonis vos fraudare debemus." 33 These sermons
are saturated with numerous obscure biblical references which would have
escaped the audience's comprehension, but which had as their purpose the
ostentatious display of Augustine's biblical learning:
Babylonicae captivitatis vos aliquando iam taedeat. ecce Jerusalem mater illa
caelestis, in viis hilariter invitans occurrit et obsecrat ut velitis vitam, et
diligatis dies videre bonos quos numquam habuistis, nee unquam in hoe
saeculo habebitis. ibi enim deficiebant sicut fumus, dies vestri; quibus
augeri, minui et quibus crescere, deficere et quibus ascendere, vanescere
fuit. qui vixistis peccato annos multos et malos, desiderate vivere Deo: non
multos annos quandoque finiendos et ad intereundum in umbra mortis
currentes, se bonos et in veritate vivacis vitae propinquos, ubi nulla fame,
nulla siti lassabitis, quia cibus vester fides, potus sapientia erit. nunc enim
in Ecclesia in fide benedictis Dominum: tune autem in specie affluentissime
rigabimini de fontibus Israel. (Sermones216.4.4)
In the above four-sentence discussion of Jeremiah 50.46, Augustine refers no

less than to Ecclesiastes, Psalm 33, Psalm 67, Psalm 101, and Psalm 103. This
is, as Mohrmann calls it, the "tour de force du rheteur."M
Augustine abandoned this style after he had reevaluated the role of
rhetoric in Christian teaching and had fixed upon the most effective methods
of preaching. 35 Soon the typical Augustine sermon emerged with its
hallmarks of great simplicity, clarity, vivacity, and infusion of elements
drawn from the Bible, popular comedy, and the Stoic-Cynic diatribe. 36 We
now see the same stylistic qualities so evident in Ambrose's and Jerome's
sermons: a direct, simple, and familiar tone; very straightforward, though
33 Mohrmann (1%1, 3.265) comments: "Les tongues phrases complexes qui ont du
derouter ses auditeurs, sont d'allure savante et on a l'impression qu'il n'a pas encore
ete etabli un vrai contact avec son auditoire."
The sentence just quoted in the text contains four clausular endings, each of which
is a perfect cursusmixtus form: rudimentorumque nostrorum(cretic.trochee under a cursus
planus);dilectionisaffectu(cretic-trochee under a cursusplanus);estis assistimus(dicretic
under a cursustardus);fraudaredebemus(cretic•trochee under a cursusplanus).
31
Mohrmann (1961) 2.265-66,with references.
:I§Mohrmann (1961,2.266)explains:" Augustin semble avoir compris tres vite quelle

est la vraie t!che du predicateur chretien. 11a eu conscience de la glorie et de la misere
de cette lourde t!che de la predication. II a compris que pr@cher est dispenser la parole
de Dieu et non pas faire etalage de connaissances bibliques. BientOt aussi il comprendra
que la dispensation de la parole de Dieu rev~t un caractere charismatique. Cette notion,
une fois acquisee, i1 trouvera rapidement le style de la predication auquel ii restera fid~le
au cours de sa longue vie d'ev@que et de pasteur d'Ames." In detail, Mohrmann (1%1)
1.323-39,351-70,391-402.
31> Mohrmann (1961) 2.266-69and her other articles referenced in note 35 above.
often fragmented syntax; parataxis, parallelism, and antithesis; questions;

short clauses; and elements of oral speech. 37 That this style is so very
different from the style in Augustine's first sermons is clear from these
examples:
ipse timendus est in publico, ipse in secreto. procedis? videris. intras?

videris. lucema ardet? videt te. lucema extincta est? videt te. ipsum time,
illum cui cura est ut videat te. in cubiculum intras? videt te. in corde
versaris? videt te. et vel timendo castus esto. aut si peccare vis, quaere ubi
tenon videat, et fac quod vis. (Sermones132.2.2)
hoe fit, si credamus, si fidem excitemus. nam vane conturbamur. quare vane
conturbamur? quia dorminente Christo in navi, paene naufragaverunt
discipuli. dormiebat Jesus, et turbabantur discipuli. venti saeviebant, fluctus
excitabantur, navis mergebatur. quare? quia Iesus dormiebat. sic et tu,
quando tempestates tentationum saeviunt in isto saeculo, turbatur cor tuum,
tamquam navis tua. quare, nisi quia dormit fides iua? sic enim Paulus
apostolus dicit, quia habitat Christus per fidem in cordibus nostris. excita
ergo Christum in core tuo, vigilet fides tua, tranquilletur conscientia tua, et
liberatur navis tua. (Sermones38.10)
omnes pacem quaerite. quaerepaccn,et sequereeam.ubi est? quo sequor? qua

transiit? qua transiit, ut sequar. per te transiit, sed non in te remansit. cui
dico? generi humane, non unicuique vestrum, sed generi humano. per
genus humanum transiit ipsa pax. ipsa transeunte damavit caecus in estema
lectione. et quo iit7 primo vide quae sit pax, et vide quo ierit, et sequere
earn. quae est pax? apostolum audi. de Christo dicebat: ipseest fJllX nostra,
quifecit utraqueunum. pax est ergo Christus. qua iit? crucifixusest, et sepultus,
resu"exit a mortuis, ascenditin caelum.ecce quo iit pax. quomodo earn
sequor? sursumcor.audi quomodo sequaris. quotidie quidem audis breviter,
quando tibi dicitur: sursumcor.altius inde cogita, et sequeris. (Sermones 25.7)
A final issue is the provenance of this simple homiletic style, for it was
not taught, of course, in the rhetorical schools, nor does it appear in the
literary productions of Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine (just compare, for
example, Ambrose•s De sacramentisand his Epp. 17 and 18). Rather, the
inspiration was the style that Christian writers discovered in the Bible.
-g Mohrmann (1961) 2.267: "Le ton des sermons ... est, en general, simple et direct.
L'exigence de la clarte lui fait adopter comrne moyen d'expression la langue courante
avec un vocabulaire fonci~rement chretien et une syntaxe tr~s simple. Sans s'abaisser au
niveau du peuple, ii parle une langue qui reste accessible a son auditoire. La phrase y
devient d'une bri~vete surprenante, la parataxe y regne et le parallelisme, antithetique
ou non, sch~matise l'~nonce."
Ambrose asserted that sim.plicitasand vilitas typify the style of the
scriptures. 38 Sim.plidtasrepresents the general language one finds in the
scriptures: "in scripturis divinis frequens huiusmodi consuetudo advertitur,
eo quod simplex sit elocutio" (De poenitentia2.31).39 Vilitas is the area of
expression from which this language comes.40 Although the scriptures'
senno is vilis, there is an underlying res that is a mysterium:"vilis sermo, sed
non vile mysterium" (De poenitentia2.42). Ambrose makes the following
connection between the vilitas sennonisof the scriptures and mysteria:
nihil enim aput me distat in verbo, quod non distat in sensu. nam si orator
illorum qui faleras sermonum sequuntur negat in hoe fortunas positas esse
Graeciae, hoe an illo verbo usus sit, sed rem spectandam putat, si ipsi
philosophi eorum qui totos dies in disputatione consummunt minus Latinis
et receptis usi sermonibus sunt, ut propriis uterentur, quanto magis nos
neglegere verba debemus, spectare mysteria, quibus vincit sermonis vilitas,
quod operum miracula divinorum nullis venustata sermonibus veritatis suae
lumine refulserunt? (ExpositioevangtliisecundumLucam2.42)
The scriptures are not void of beauty; they only lack the glitter that comes
from artificial rhetoric.' 1 The beauty they contain is the result of grace,
which is, in Pizzolato's words, "la bellezza intrinseca di res-mysterium."
42
To
31Pizzolato (1978) 23: .,Le caratteristiche fondamentali dello stile della Scrittura
sembrano ad Ambrogio essere sostanzialmente due: la simplictase la vilitas;categorie che
hanno senz'altro aspetti in comune, ma che non sembrano essere per Ambrogio
coincidenti."
39 Discussion in Pizzolato (1978) 23-24, who defines simplicitasas follows: "La
simplicitassembra essere categoria, per cosl dire, ad intra dello stile della Scrittura. Essa
indicherebbe la costanza di certi usi linguistici, che la Scrittura conserva fedelmente net
suo corso, senza creare inutili dissonanze al suo intemo .... La simplicitasquindi, nel suo
piu profondo significato, si rapporta al concetto di unitA della Scrittura, dove tutto ~ in
tutto e dove tutto si muove in direzione convergente .... "
'°Pizzolato (1978) 24: "L'altra categoria stilistica generale, la vilitas,investe la scelta

dell"area espressiva (vulgus; senno humilis)da cui vengono mutuati i moduli linguistici."
1
' Pizzolato (1978) 26: "Non si tratta ovviamente di voluta rinuncia della Scrittura
alla bellezza, ma di rinuncia alla bellezza retorica che ~ frutto di ars, ci~ di tecnicismo;
rinuncia allo strapotere del linguaggio-segno e vestito, per privilegiare la gratia,ci~ la
bellezza intrinseca di res-mysttrium.H So too Duval (1976) 294.
0
Ambrose points out at Ep.8.1 that the biblical writers wrote according to divinely
inspired grace, not rules of rhetoric: .,non enim secundum artem scripserunt, sed
secundum gratiam, quae super omnem artem est; scripserunt enim quae Spiritus iis loqui
dabat." Pizzolato comments (1978, 26-27} on the superiority of the biblical style over
rhetorical style: "Cosl lo stile della Scrittura viene esentato dall'obbligo del guidizio su
di esso condotto in base a categorie retoriche, perch~ la sua grati.anon~ n~ storicamente
n~ geneticamente agganciabile ad esse. Si puo parlare, secondo Ambrogio, di una bellezza
make these mysteriaaccessible to all, onets style must be "duttile" (Pizzolato)
or "plastique" (Mohrmann):
tractatus (ac senno] quoque de doctrina fidei, de magisterio continentiae, de

disceptatione iustitiae, adhortatione diligentiae, non unus semper, sed ut se
dederit lectio, nobis et arripiendus est, et prout possumus, prosequendus.
(De officiis1.101)
The everyday familiar style so obvious in Ambrose's letters 43 becomes even

more marked in Desa.cramentis and Explanatiosymboli,and appears in varying
degrees in his exegetical writings, which, as shown earlier, were based on his
sermons. 44
These two principles-the scriptures are mysteria,and these mysteria
must be explained by simplicitasso that they may be understood-were dear
to Jerome as well. 45 Jerome repeatedly stressed that the words of the
scriptures are informed by simplicitasand rusticitasand are sacraments or
mysteries:
singula verba scripturarum, singula sacramenta sunt. ista rustica verba quae
putantur saeculi hominibus, plena sunt sacramentis .... thesaurum sensum
divinum habemus in verbis vilissimis. (Hom. in Ps. 90 (CCL 78,
130.117-131.121])
nee rusticus et tantum simplex frater adeo se sanctum putet, si nihil noverit,
nee peritus et eloquens in lingua aestimet sanctitatem. multoque melius est
e duobus inperfectis rusticitatem sanctam habere quam eloquentiam
peccatricem. (Ep. 52.9.3)
nisi forte rusticum Petrum, rusticum dicemus et lohannem .... Iohannes

rusticis, piscator, indoctus7 . . . hoe Plato nescivit, hoe Demosthenes
eloquens nescivit .... vera sapientia perdit falsam sapientiarn. (Ep. 14.1-2)
primordialedello stile della Scrittura, in cui parla lo spirito; stile che anticipa,
cronologicamente oltre che assiologicamente, ogni concettualizzazione e precettistica
retorica."
'3 See Chapter II for discussion of the style of Ambrose's letters (excepting, of
course, letters to emperors). Cf. Ambrose, Ep.48.7: "placet iam, quod sensibus usu facilius
est, cottidiano et familiari sermone epistulas texere et, si quid de scripturis divinis obvium
inciderit, adtexere."
" Full discussion in Pizzolato (1978) 308-13. Cf. Ambrose, De Abraham 2.1.1:
"moralem quidem locum persecuti sumus qua potuimus intellectus simplicitate, ut qui
legunt morum sibi possint haurire magisteria."'
"Antin (1968) 149ff.; Eiswirth (1955); Van Der Nat (1976), especially 195-202.For
a bibliography on this subject, see Chapter III, note 12, and Van Der Nat 200 n. land 201
n. 1. For references to simplicitasin writers before Jerome, see Roberts (1989) 125 n. 9.
These truths must be expressed simply, without artifice and rhetoric, for thus
did Jesus and the apostles preach:
ego vero simpliciter rustieana simplicitate et eeclesiastiea ita tibi respondeo:

ita enim apostoli responderunt, sic sunt locuti, non verbis rhetoricis et
diabolicis. (Hom. in Ps. 78 [CCL 78, 74.29-31))
sed et simpliciter et intellegere possumus ut [Dominus] non invenit locum,

non invenit in Platone, non in Aristotele; sed in praesepe, inter ... simpliees
quosque et innoeentes. (Hom in Ps. 131 [CCL 78, 275.60--63])
sic scripserunt apostoli, sic et ipse Dominus in evangelia sua locutus est,
non ut pauci intellegerent, sed ut omnes. (Hom. in Ps. 86 [CCL 78,
116.119-21])
... venerationi mihi semper fuit non verbosa rusticitas, sed sancta
simplicitas: qui in sermone imitari se dicit apostolos, prius imitetur in vita.
(Ep. 57.12.4)
ecclesiastica interpretatio, etiam si habet eloquii venustatem, dissimulare

earn debet et fugere, ut non otiosis philosophorum scholis paueisque
discipulis, sed universo loquatur hominum generi. (Ep. 48.4.3)
o quanta mysteria, o quanti flares. non dico dies, sed totus mensis ad
intellegentiam istius psalmi non potest sufficere. in singulis verbis sensus
sunl habemus et thesaurum in vasis istis fietilibus. multi hoe interpretantur
de corpore et spiritu sancto: hoe est, habemus thesaurum in vasis fictilibus.
est quidem et ista intellegentia. sed ista multo melior est, quoniam habemus
thesaurum pretiosissimum in vasis fictilibus, hoe est in vemis rusticis
scripturarum. (Hom. in Ps. 77 [CCL 78, 69.152-601)
oro te ut, philosophorum argumentatione deposita, Christiana mecum

simplieitate loquaris, si tamen non dialeetieos sequaris, sed piscatores. (Dial.
Luci/. 14)
... sufficiat ... nosse me cubitum et cubita neutrali appellari genere sed,
pro simplicitate [•et facilitate] intellegentiae vulgique consuetudine, ponere
et genere masculino-non enim eurae nobis est vitare sermonum vitia, sed
scripturae sanctae obscuritatem quibuscumque verbis edissere. (In Euch.
[CCL 75, 561.394-562.399])
quod 'cubitos' genere masculino et non maseulino et non neutrali

'cubita' dicimus iuxta regulam grammaticorum, et in superioribus docui
non nos ignorantia hoe facere, sed consuetudine, propter simplices quoque
et indoctos quorum in eongregatione ecclesiae maior est numerus. (In Euch.
[CCL 75, 712.1047-51))
That Augustine agreed with these same principles with respect to

Christian preaching is clear from his discussions in book 4 of the De doctrina
christiana.About the De doctrinait must be stressed that Augustine was

addressing Christian preachers on the subject of preaching, a fact often
overlooked by those who would make the work his last word on rhetoric. 46
In book 4, Augustine lays down general rules for expres.sing, and delivering,
the truths that can be discovered in the scriptures (a topic to which books
1-3 are devoted). Augustine revolutionizes rhetoric in the final book, for
while he may seem to restore the classical ideal of nreset verba,"he does so
in a functionalist and Christian theoretical framework. 47
Augustine was faced first and foremost with the problem of pagan
style as it related to biblical style. On the one hand, Latin Christian writers
in the West were trained in the precepts of ancient rhetoric, which they used
despite their avowed dislike of pagan oratory and sophism. 48 On the other
hand, there remained, supreme as a locus of truth and perfection, the Bible,
which, unfortunately, existed in Latin versions of such clumsy, illiterate, even
incomprehensible grammar and syntax that some Christian intellectuals
cringed when approaching the text.49 Thus, to follow only the rules and
46
Augustine himself says in his prologue that his rules were meant for teachers.
Cf. Hagendahl (1967) 556: NThe prevailing opinion that the fourth book was to all intents
and purposes written for the instruction of the clergy remains unquestionable." Kennedy
(1980) 157: NThe work is addressed to Christian teachers, chiefly the clergy, and explains
how to discover Christian knowledge and how to expound it to a converted, but ignorant
or lethargic, audience." As Kennedy notes (153), this work is a fully mature production
and represents N Augustine's views at the end of a lifetime of Christian study and
preaching. What Augustine says about Christian rhetoric here is generally in accord with
his practice as seen, for example, in his sermons on the gospel of John."
0
See Mohrmann (1%1) 2.251-53, with bibliography at n. 10. Cf. Roberts (1989) 127:
"In the De Doc:trina Christianaand the Confessiones, Augustine consistently assesses the
value of secular learning against the principle of utilitas... ; such learning must serve
as a means to an end, to tum the mind to God."
41
Mohrmann (1961) 2.311-12: "La forma letteraria curata, determinata dalle regale
generali formulate e insegnate dalla retorica, era stata durante tutta l'antichitA un
fenomeno indispensabile di ogni testo letterario .... [I]n Occidente la letteratura cristiana
piu antica ~, parlando in generale, caratterizzata dalla tradizione stilistica profana."
Roberts (1989, 125) comments: "Prior to Augustine, writers had spoken of the simplicity
(simplicitas)and straightforwardness (sinceritas)of Christian style and of its dignity and
weight (gravitas,pondus),but in practice they were not averse to the 'flowers of rhetoric,'
even in the act of disavowing them. It was this contradiction between the theoretical
preference for simplicity and the irresistible charm of stylistic ornamentation that formed
one of the subjects of the last book of Augustine's De DoctrinaChristiana."
"See, for example, Augustine, Confessiones 3.5.9. See Mohrmann (1961) 2.313, who
sums up: " ... da una parte gli autori cristiani praticavano uno stile molto tradizionale
... e d'altra parte le versioni della Bibbia, in quanta trascuravano le regale della retorica
(in generate), costituivano un elemento isolato dal punto di vista letterario." Jerome was
continually confronted with the problem of the literalism of the Bible: when does one
theories of pagan literary style and rhetoric would constitute a refusal of
Christian simplidtas and veritas.But to use in all situations a style imitative
of the scriptures would be counterproductive: it would, without a doubt,
offend the sensibilities of a literary reading audience (as opposed to a church
audience in the basilica), and the benefits of rhetoric, especially insofar as it
persuaded and affected the emotions and mind of the listener, would be
eliminated. Augustine's achievement is that he founded a synthesis, in
which "la tradizione della retorica e quella della lingua biblica si incontrano
e nello stabilire questa sintesi egli crea cioche e stato chiamato uno stile
nuovo." 50
In book 4, Augustine argues that eloquence cannot be separated from
Christian truth. Truth may stand by itself, without eloquence, but never can
eloquence be alone if truth is the desideratum: eloquence without truth is
empty, false rhetoric. 51 Paul is the outstanding example of how eloquence
and truth are to be conjoined. His eloquence was produced naturally,
without any training in, or knowledge of, the rules of the rhetorical schools;
his own thoughts, sincerity, and the truth led him to his heights of oratory.
The Christian preacher, too, may become an orator like Paul: his own
eloquence will come when his thoughts govern the verba,not vice versa
(4.61). This eloquence should be gained not in school (although such training
is fine for youths), but simply from reading the scriptures and the works of
good Christian writers and from listening to accomplished preachers. The
primary purpose of the Christian orator/preacher/teacher, however, must
always be the clear and, at the same time, not inelegant presentation of
Christian truth. It is in this respect that Augustine has recast the function
and role of rhetoric. 52
translate verbuma vtrbo and when sensus e sensu?If the words of the Bible contain
mysteries and truth, does a translation that contradicts the old Versions but restores Latin
grammatical sense destroy or obscure them? Jerome agonzied much over this problem,
but, of course, could never solve it. See Chapter III for discussion and bibliography.
50
Mohrmann (1965) 147-70, who also believes that Augustine's ideas on this
subject were a Christian adaptation of Ps.-Longinus, De sublime.
51
For these paragraphs I owe much to the works cited in Chapter IV, note 2, and
to Kaster (1988) 70-95 and Roberts (1989) 122-47.
52Mohrmann (1961) 2.313-14: "Per Agostino l'utilita della eloquentiae indiscutibile,
ma essa non e, per lui, che uno strumento e non bisogna ricercarla per lei stessa. Anzi
essa non e neanche indispensabiJe per l'oratore cristiano. Quante alla retorica, essa pm)
essere utile per giungere all'eloquenza, ma essa non e piu indispensabile dell'altra.
Agostino concepisce un'altra maniera per ottenere il pregio dell"eloquenza. Baster!,
purche si abbia la disposizione necessaria, uno studio attento, una conversazione
quotidiana coi modelli e i maestri dell'eloquenza sacra: in primissimo luogo la Sacra
Scrittura e subito dopo i migliori autori cristiani. Noi scorgiamo qui, nel quadro della
tradizione letteraria dei cristiani, due elementi nuovi: anzitutto lo stile biblico, che prima
Resorting to a colorful analogy, Augustine states (4.12-14)that teaching
and preaching must unlock the meanings of scriptural truth; a wooden key
will open the lock, but all the better if the key is made of gold. The
important point-and this is the utilitarian aspect of Augustine 1s theory-is
simply that the key must fit. But because some suavitaswill aid the preac~er
in winning the audience and bringing it closer to the truth, some rhetoncal
ability is good. Augustine thus reformulates Cicero•s precepts on the role of
rhetoric: for Augustine, eloquence must show truth, make truth pleasing, and
make truth move the audience. 53
In the De doctrina christiana,Augustine states that the model of
Christian homiletic style should be the scriptures. As Auerbach has shown,
the style of the scriptures is humilis, lowly or humble, but at the same time,
in the eyes of Augustine and other Christians, pervaded with a deep
sublimity. Scriptural truth is not cast in a learned, florid manner, but so
written that anyone of humility can find his or her way to the truth. The
scriptures are the patterns of style that the Christian preacher should imitate,
if one is to lead the audience to that truth. The stylistic features Augustine
found so appealing in the scriptures were clearness and simplicity, parallel
and paratactic cola, antithesis, anastrophe, interrogative cola, rhyme, puns,
and word-play. As we have already seen, these are the very stylistic elements
that recur throughout Augustine's sermons and Confessiones. 54
Regarding
era criticato, ~ attualmente accettato e, cosa anche piu importante, ~ raccomandato come
modello per l'autore cristiano. In secondo luogo la 'tecnica' della retorica ~ considerata
come utile, ma non indispensabile, potendo essere sostituita dai doni naturali sviluppati
dalla imitazione dei grandi esempi cristiani." Cf. Mohrmann (1961)2.251-53.Spence (1988)
demonstrates how Augustine performed a radical restructuring of ancient rhetorical
theory by changing the way in which the speaker and audience interrelate: instead of the
ancient model of orator dominating the audience by his rhetoric, Augustine instituted a
participatory model in which the teacher is a member of the audience in a dialogue.
53 Schuchter (1934) 131: "Die Alten haben die Aufgabe des Redners schlechthin, die
sie als eine dreifache erkannten, in die klassische Formel gefasst: ut doc.eat,ut delectet,ut
fledat und sie setzten hinzu: docerenecessitatisest, delectaresuavitatis,flectere vidoriae.
Augustinus hat es so formuliert: ut veritaspateat,veritasplaceat,veritasmoveat.Kurzer kann
man auch die Funktion und Bedeutung der Kunstmittel, die sich ja der allgemeinen
Aufgabe des Redners unterordnen mO.ssen, nicht charakterisieren, als dadurch: sie
dienen-mutatis mutandis-dem delectareoder placere,dem docereoder patere,dem flectere
oder movere."
M Mohrmann (1961) 1.395-401 for details. Cf. Di Capua (1931) 758: "Agostino,
dovendo parlare al popolo, scelse, tra i mezzi stilistici ed espressivi che i retori avevano
studiato e catalogato, quelli caratteristici della prosa popolare, ci~ ii parallelismo,
l'antitesi, la rima, l'allitterazione, la paronomasia. Tali figure sono l"espressione d'un
ritmo che ~, nello stesso tempo, ritmo di pensiero e ritmo di suono, ritmo d"idee e ritmo
di parole, anteriore ad ogni distinzione scolastica di prosa e di poesia, di lirica e di
eloquenza; ritmo che ~ proprio dei proverbi, delle ninne-nanne, delle cantilene popolari,
prose rhythms, Augustine was quite aware that the scriptures and their
translations are devoid of them:
sane hunc elorutionis omatum, qui numerosis fit clausulis, deesse fatendum
est auctoribus nostris. quod utrurn per interpretes factum sit, an-quod
magis arbitror---consulto illi haec plausibilia devitaverint, affinnare non
audeo, quoniam me fateor ignorare.!6
The lack of prose rhythms in the sermons of Augustine (and, by extension,

Ambrose and Jerome) may thus be explained by the knowledge that this
rhetorical device was absent in the supreme homiletic model, the scriptures.
It is speculative, but perhaps Augustine's ideas on this Christian
rhetorical preaching derived, at least partly, from his personal experience
with Ambrose. Augustine repeatedly stated his pleasure at the eloquence of
Ambrose's homiletic style. In the Confessiones,for example, Augustine
describes how he, as a teacher of rhetoric, listened to the Milan bishop out
of curiosity, 56 but as Augustine heard the words (which, he admitted, were
less charming in form), the truth of the words entered him (note in the
following passage the parallelism of disertediceret. .. vere diceret):
cum enim non satagerem discere quae (Ambrosius) dicebat, sed tantum
quemadmodum dicebat audire-ea mihi quippe iam desperanti ad te viam
patere homini inanis cura remanserat-veniebant in animum meum simul
cum verbis, quae diligebam, res etiam, quas negligebam ... et dum cor
aperirem ad excipiendum, quam diserte diceret, pariter intrabat et quam
vere diceret, gradatim quidem. (Omfessiones5.14.24)
At Contralulianum 2.11, Augustine praises Ambrose's ability to set out

the truth so clearly and yet so eloquently that anyone can understand it:
Neecefundit eloquentiae lucidum ac perspicuum flumen Ambrosius: non est
ubi haereat lector, ubi caliget auditor."' The emphatic phrase Nmanifestissime
dicit,"' which occurs four times in the subsequent sentences in direct
reference to Ambrose's preaching, underscores how Augustine considered.
eloquence, clarity, and truth a unity in Ambrose's sermons. It is not
improbable, therefore, that the seeds of Augustine's thoughts on Christian
rhetoric, the
delle fonnole rituali e magiche, delle litanie e degli scongiuri .... N
!15 De doctrinachristiana4.41. Augustine's waffling on the question of whether

rhythm was used by the writers of the scriptures (so I translate auctoresnostn) may be due
to his rather imperfect knowledge of the original languages. See Brown (1967, 271, with
bibliography inn. 2) and Hagendahl (1967, 586-88) for Augustine's knowledge of Greek
and Hebrew.
56
Briefly, Brown (1967) 83-84; in detail, Pincherle (1974) 385-405.
"diserteverequedicere"that informs book 4 of the De doctrinachristiana,were

planted during Augustine's years at Milan.57
Homiletic rhetoric, however, formed only part of Augustine's solution
to the problem of literary form and Christian content. Augustine realized
that the homiletic style was not always appropriate, and so he, like Ambrose
and Jerome before him, developed a variety of styles from which he selected
in accordance with the content, theme, purpose, and audience of each
individual work. 58 In the De civitate dei one finds hypotaxis with long
developed periods. 59 This grand style appears also in some of Augustinets
letters, especially those addressed to pagans, 60 and, as we have seen, in
book 4 of the De doctrinachristiana.The careful attention to style, rhythm,
0
diction, and syntax reflects the pagan schools and the tour de force du
rheteur." 61 At the opposite end of the spectrum are the sermons. The
11
vocabulary, phrasing, syntax, structure, imagery, all the tics" of the oral
style, especially parataxis and parallelism, derive from the scriptures and
popular literature. 62 The Confessiones,
albeit similar in these respects to the
sermons, differs in being a synthesis of traditional Asiatic style, shorn of
popular characteristics, and of biblical elements. 63 Between the elevated,
SJ On Ambrose's influence on Augustine, see Mayer (1969) 104-27and (1969a)5-13;

Pizzolato (1969) 61~88; Paredi (1974a) 35--64;Trap~ (1974) 5-24; Dassmann (1978) 379;
Bemaregsi (1930)225-39;FemAndez (1941)133-57;Courcelle (194l'4) 155-74;Peretti (1951);
Glorie (1965) 203-55.
51
Mohrmann (1961) 2.250 and 273-75; cf. 253: N Augustin ... pratique une
•••
pluralite de styles. On trouve chez lui aussi bien la prose hypotactique avec ses grandes
periodes developpees, qu•une prose paratactique et antithetique, un style figure qui
remonte a Gorgias et qui s'inspire de l'Asianisme. Dans le cadre de ces deux grands
courants stylistiques se joune une grande variete de tonalite: tant6t le style a Ja majeste
du style psalmique, tantOt il est familier et simple, tout proche de la conversation
famili~re. Augustin peut s'elever a un lyrisme inspire, comme on le voit dans les sermons
des jours de grande f~te ou dans certains passages des Confessions. Mais il sait aussi ecrire
une prose theologique claire et equilibree, sans omements, sobre et parfois assez teme,
comme le sera plus tard le latin scolastique. Plus souvent son style est sature d'elements
bibliques."
!l'.I Mohrmann (1961) 2.254; Balmus (1930) 130ff.; Marrou (1958) 665ff.
60
Mohrmann (1961) 2.273-74.
61
The careful paratactic and antithetic style extends even to the work's cola and
commata: Mohrmann (1961) 2.258-59.
62
Mohrmann is the classic source on this: see her (1961) 1.323-49,351-70,391-402;
(1961) 2.265-72,277-323.
63
Mohrmann (1961) 2.316 and 318: "Quanto alle Confessioni, noi constatiamo che
in generate questo stile antitetico e paratattico vi costituisce il punto di partenza d'una
majestic style of the Decivitatedei and the simple but popularly entertaining
persuasion of the Augustine sermon is the moderated style of the majority
of Augustine's theological works. Although these writings are instructional
and exegetical and typically were dictated in haste, Augustine did not
neglect style. It is safe to conclude, therefore, that Augustine, like Jerome and
Ambrose, recognized that a Christian writer need not lay aside oratorical
prose style. Augustine, to be sure, was no Arnobius or Cyprian or Lactantius,
all of whom indulged in an excessively polished rhetorical style, even while
attacking that same style as pagan and evil (for this, see Chapter VI). With
prudence and common sense, Augustine theorized and practiced what
should have been obvious to his third- and early fourth-century Christian
predecessors: that the sophistic style of the pagan schools of rhetoric could
in certain situations be used with caution, studiously avoided elsewhere
(especially in the pulpit), but always susceptible, by an infusion of biblical
and Christian elements, to being radically transformed into an effective
medium of communication.M
evoluzione nuova: net quadro di questo stile tradizionale Agostino s"accinge a creare
nelle Confessioniuno letterario nuovissimo che combina una forte impronta biblica con
elementi della prosa asianica. Nel quadro generate dell'opera agostiniana, lo stile delle
Confessionicostituisce un elemento isolato. Osserviamolo piu da vicino e vediamo di
definire quale e in realtA quell'elemento nuovo. . . . Ma cic) che e essenziale e che
distingue lo stile delle Confessionida quello di tutte le altre opere agostiniane, e
l'elemento biblico e soprattutto psalmico che e sempre presente sotto tonne diversissime,
come un elemento costruttivo, e determina ii carattere di quasi tutte le frasi."
Pellegrino (1963,250-51)distinguishes the style of Augustine"s letters from the style
of the Confessioneson the basis of the Bible"s influence on the latter: • ... aspetti stilistici
dell'epistolario, ci sembra degna di rilievo una differenza fra questo e un"opera che
giustamente si puc) considerare espressione tipica e saliente di Agostino scrittore: le
O,nfessioni.Vogliamo dire dell'influs.so letterario della Bibbia, soprattutto per le immagini
che se ne desumono. Tale influsso ~ evidente e diffuso in quest'opera, sl da segname
molte pagine di un'impronta caratteristica .... [C'e delle] Confessioni,ove ii vigore
dell'ispirazione religiosa dA luogo non di rado a passi carichi d'un lirismo che
spontaneamente attinge i suoi mezzi espressivi alla Bibbia, in primo luogo ai Salmi." See
his bibliography at p. 251 n. 27.
"Roberts (1989) 130: "The value of the De DoctrinaChristianais that it suggests the
ways in which Christianity is likely to modify prevailing canons of style-by toning down
the more eye-catching ostentatious verbal effects and by reasserting moral instruction as
the primary function of poetry." Roberts proceeds to summarize his 1985 book in which
he showed how Christian poets followed Augustine in attempting to subordinate dulado
to utilitasfor instructive purposes.
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION
The Latin Christian writers in the West, beginning with Tertullian,

were uncomfortable with pagan rhetoric and pagan style, and yet they did
not refrain from using them. The contents of their works may have been
Christian, but the style was no less rhetorical than what informed pagan
secular literature. In other words, content and style should have been
different, but they were not. During the third and most of the fourth century
we do not find Western writers attempting to establish a Christian style.
What we do see, instead, are attacks on rhetorical devices, cries of n content,
not eloquence," and demands for an unadorned style-all of which was
stated in the verbose and pedantic style of the period.
Rhetoric was never far from the mind and pen of the Christian fathers.
Tertullian, Minucius, Cyprian, Arnobius, Lactantius, and Hilary, all either
professors of rhetoric or former students of the schools, were unwilling to
surrender that rhetorical learning, even for the Christian cause. The rigid
isolationist Tertullian produced works saturated with rhetorical
embellishments: his metrical prose rhythms are more pervasive and
redundant than what we observe in classical authors, even Cicero.1
Minucius Felix blasted rhetoric and claimed that because truth can be
defended without eloquence, he would rely on content, not on style {15.2,
16.6); however, Minudus is, as far as I can determine, the first extant
1
Tertullian's famous question "What, therefore, has Athens to do with Jerusalemr
("quid ergo Athenis et Hierosolymis?") is not relevant here. Scholars usually read this
question out of context and so take it as a reflection of a conflict between the classics and
Christianity. On the contrary, Tertullian was specifically addressing the issue of heresy,
here Gnosticism; this is made clear by the sentences immediately following the above
question: "quid Academicae et Ecclesiae? quid hereticis et Christianis? viderint, qui
stoicum et platonicum et dialecticum Christianismum protulerunt nobis curiositate opus
non est, post Christum Iesum; nee inquisitione, post Evangelium. cum credimus, nihil
desideramus ultra credere" (Praescr.7).
For Tertullian's rhetoric and his use and adaptation of Cicero, see Fredouille (1m)
29-178, especially 29-35 and 170-78, and Fontaine (1976a) 455. For the dilemma in
Tertullian"s mind, see De Labriolle (1940) 1.5-33; cf. Hagendahl (1983) 11-24.
Prose rhythms, of course, do not qualify as the only determinant of a rhetorical
style, but they are the most obvious and the most easy to document and recover.
121
practitioner of the cursusmirtus.2 Cyprian, who insisted that Christian and
scriptural truths need to be expressed in pure simplicity, not through
eloquence,3 composed in such an excessively florid style that Augustine was
forced to make a limp apology for his predecessor in the De doctrina
christiana.Amobius also attacked a polished and rhetorical style as being
unnecessary in aiding Christian truth;• for rhetoric belongs only to the law
courts and assemblies. 5 Yet Amobius' work ranks among the most
excessively rhetorical pieces in Roman literature; he certainly used what is
perhaps the most restrictive, narrow system of the cursusmixtus among all
Christian and pagan texts I have sampled.
Lactantius and Hilary took a different approach to the dilemma of the
proper relationship between res and verba. While their predecessors
indignantly denounced the very rhetoric they immersed themselves in,
Lactantius and Hilary pointed the way to assimilation with honor. They, like
the Christians in the East,6 insisted that rhetoric could be accommodated,
provided that rhetoric and pagan education were prioritized by their
subjection to Christian truth. There was, therefore, a functionalist purpose
to education: falsehoods and heresies had to be refuted, and how better to
fight these pagans and heretics than with their favorite weapon, rhetoric?
Moreover, although truth has power, it becomes much more persuasive
when adorned with eloquence. 7 In this spirit, Lactantius and Hilary desired
2
For a bibliography on Minucius and his style, see Van Der Nat (1976)202 nn. 2-3,
to which add Hagendahl (1983) 25-28; Van Der Nat himself gives (202-12) a masterly
analysis.
3
Ad Donatum 2: "in iudiciis, contione pro rostris opulenta facundia volubili
ambitione iactetur: cum de Domino et Deo vox est, vocis pura sinceritas non eloquentiae
viribus nititur ad fidei argumenta sed rebus."
• Adversusnationes2.6: "unde quaeso est vobis tantum sapientiae traditum, unde

acuminis et vivacitatis tantum vel ex quibus scientiae disciplinis tantum cordis adsumere.
divinationis tantum potuistis haurire? quia per casus et tempora declinare verba scitis et
nomina, quia voces barbaros soloecismosque vitare, quia numerosum et structum
compositumque sermonem aut ipsi vos nostis ecferre aut incomptus cum fuerit scire ...
idcirco vos arbitramini scire, quid sit falsum, quid verum? ... numquamne illud vulgatum
perstrinxit aures vestras, sapientiam hominis stultitiam esse apud deum primum?" Cf. 2.12
and 2.2.5.
5
Adversusnationes159.
6
See Kaster (1988) 74-80 for the most recent discussion.
7
lnstitutionesdivinae1.1.10: "licet (veritas) possit sine eloquentia defendi, ut est a
multis saepe defensa, tamen claritate ac nitore sermonis inlustranda, et quodammodo
adserenda est, ut potentius in animos influat et vi sua instructa, et luce orationis omata."
Cf. 5.2.1. Van der Nat (1977,215-25)has analyzed this passage in the context of Christians
who justified their use of pagan rhetoric for Christian purposes.
Conclusion 123
the best style: Lactantius repeatedly stated his wish that his style be similar
to Cicero•s, while Hilary even went so far as to pray to God for a pleasing
style.8
Lactantius and Hilary-the one a former professor of rhetoric, the
other a student of it-made these claims for a Christian's potential use of
rhetoric from personal inclination and background. We have no extended
discussion from either author, however, on rhetoric's general applicability
to preaching or on the formulation of the proper style for Christians, except
as all this pertained to themselves. 9 Ambrose, as far as I can determine, is the
first Western Christian writer not only to find rhetoric and style in the
scriptures, but also to offer models for Christian preachers. Indeed,
Lactantius is typical of contemporary Christians in their assessment of the
literary qualities of the scriptures. While explaining why the educated and
wise despise the Bible, he says:
adeo nihil verum putant nisi quod auditu suave est, nihil credibile nisi quod
potest incutere voluptatem; nemo rem veritate ponderat, sed omatu. non
credunt ergo divinis, quia fuco carent ... (lnstitutionesdivinae5.1.17-18)
Even biblical commentators refuse eloquence, Lactantius continues, because

"eloquentia saeculo servit, populo se iactare et in rebus malis placere gestit"
(lnstitutionesdivinae5.1.19).Ambrose, on the other hand, while praising the
• Lactantius, lnstitutionesdivinae2.3.4; 3.13.13;3.14.7; De opificiodei20; Van Der Nat

(1976) 212-25. Hilary, De trinitate 1.38: "tribue ergo nobis verborum significationem,
intelligentiae lumen, dictorum honorem, veritatis fidem." See Fontaine (1969, 287-305)and
Van Der Nat (1976) 212 n. 1 for Hilary's style.
9
Lactantius does have a short section at lnstitutionesdivinae5.1, wherein he gives
a summary of the stylistic efforts of Minucius Felix, Tertullian, and Cyprian. Lactantius
was not favorable in his opinions, as he attacked the style of both Tertullian and Cyprian
and found fault with Minucius' content It is precisely at this juncture in the text that
Lactantius envisioned the Christian apologist's use of rhetoric.
Minucius and Lactantius both defended the simplicity of the Bible, but stated that
there was a need for good style and a well-groomed form: Van Der Nat (1976) 210:
Minucius Felix nahert sich hiennit der positiven Haltung, die Laktanz der
eloquentillgeguniiber einnimmt. Dieser verteidigt, wie andere christliche
Schriftsteller, die simplicitasder Bibel, doch zugleich glaubt er, dass seine
Ausbildung zum Rhetor von grossem Nutzen fur die Verteidigung der
Wahrheit sei. Bin guter Stil und eine gepflegte Form sind erforderlich, damit
die Wahrheit mit grosserer Macht in den Geist eindringen kann, ausgerilstet
mit der ihr eigenen Kraft und umglanzt vom Licht der Beredsamkeit (vi sua
instructaet lua orationisornata).
absence of the grand style of the philosophers in the scriptures, 10 discovered
in Luke's gospel the marks of style that pagans admired:
scripturi in evangelii librum, quern Lucas sanctus pleniore quodam modo

rerum dominicarum distinctione digessit, stilum ipsum prius exponendum
putamus; est enim historicus. nam licet scriptura divina mundanae evacuet
sapientiae disciplinam, quod maiore fucata verborum ambitu quam rerum
ratione subnixa sit, tamen si quis in scripturis divinis etiam ilia quae
miranda illi putant quaerit, inveniet. (Erpositiotvangtlii s«undum Lu.cam
praef.1)
Augustine, in the De doctrinachristiana,also recommended for his preachers

the simplicity, clarity, dignity, and weight of the scriptures' style. Although
Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine did not use prose rhythms in their sermons,
they did not make the homilies completely void of elegance; the difference
in style between the oratory of the sermons and the oratory of set
compositions was the incorporation, in the former, of popular elements of
style that were designed to please a church audience and to lead it to
Christian truth, and, in the latter, of formal rhetorical ornaments.
Jerome and Augustine did not add stylistic touches to their sermons for
publication, 11 but Ambrose almost always did. After his sermons were
copied down by stenographers at the time of delivery, Ambrose took the
transcripts and revised them, removing marks of colloquial style and oral
delivery and adorning the contents with formal stylistic elements like prose
rhythm. Ambrose defends the use of rhetorical embellishments (rolor
disputationis)in the following passage:
si quis contra licitum putat colorem disputationis eiusmodi a poeticis fabulis
derivatum, et cum in fide nihil quod vituperare possit invenerit, aliquid in
sennone reprehend.it; agnoscat non solum sententias, sed etiam versiculos
poetarum scripturis insertos esse divinis. (De fitk 3.1.3)12
This two-stage process of colloquial sermon in serrnohumilis and then

a revised version in good stylistic prose permitted Ambrose to satisfy the
10
Dt Abraham 2.10.70.
11
Cf. however the rhythms in Augustine•s Dt acidio urbis Romatsmno.
12
Granted, the passage deals with Ambrose's use of poetic ornaments, but his
argument can be extended to rhetoric as well. Ambrose was quite emphatic that good
style without a Christian utilitarian function is vain dialectic, nothing more than .,inanium
hominum sermonumque iactantia, qui nihil prodesse possunt, inani quadam philosophiae
seductione et quodam sonorum facundiae plausu pompam magis quam utilitatem aliquam
demonstrantes" (Expositioevangeliis«undum Lucam7.218).In other words, unadorned res
was not sufficient, while verbaalone must be avoided; resverbaqueshould be the Christian
speaker's rhetorical goal.
Conclusion 125
purposes of Christian truth and preaching and, at the same time, to retain
the traditional rhetoric he had been trained in and loved. The sermon
explained in simple yet colorful language the mysteries of the scriptures; the
style was constructed to guide the audience to an understanding of, and
belief in, the truths of Christianity. The formal characteristics of rhetoric
were minimized; instead, vivid imagination, sound-play, parenthesis and
antithesis, vignettes, rhyme, paratactic cola, and all the other elements typical
of colloquial speech and popular novel were used to make that truth
accessible to all. 13
Similar patterns of rhythmical style become apparent, on the basis of
the works I have surveyed in this monograph, in the corpora of Jerome and
Augustine. Both writers avoided prose rhythms in sermons and hagiographic
texts, but used various rhythmical systems in other works.
One may conclude that Ambrose, as well as Jerome and Augustine,
accommodated the stylistic ornatus of traditional pagan rhetoric and also
followed the new homiletic oratory that was being developed by Christians
in the late fourth century. On the one hand, the generadicendi-the three
levels of style identified by Cicero that were made to correspond to the
importance and nature of the subject-could more or less be used by the
Christian writer on those occasions that he deemed appropriate. Certainly
the data offered in this monograph have shown that different stylistic levels
existed within Christian prose works of the late fourth century-levels
which, although not identical with these genera dicendi,did overlap with
them. 14 On the other hand, each of these writers devised for the basilica a
13 Mohrmann (1961, 1.395) comments as follows on Augustine 1s style: NOn ne

saurait analyser ce style--comme on l'a fait-selon les r~gles et les preceptes de la
rhetorique antique: cette predication toute nourrie de la Bible appartient, malgre
beaucoup d'elements traditionnels, A un tout autre monde que celui de la rhetorique
antique." See Chapter V above for specifics.
1
' Fontaine has demonstrated in a brilliant series of works that there was a
multiplicity of Christian esthetic and literary styles and forms; see, for example, his
remarks (pp. 181 and 189) in the "Discussion" that follows Schmidt's paper in the 1976
Entretiens volume. Fontaine's own contribution in the volume supplements his 1968book
and 1974and 1976articles on Ambrose. Fontaine insists, very correctly, that there was no
duality of Christian and pagan authors, but a broad unity of styles and techniques and
forms between all authors:
Il s'agit d'evaluer la rfalite et le degre de l'osmose... entre les techniques

et les valeurs formelles d'oeuvres ecrites ou plute,t, d'abord, prononctespar
des auteurs appartenant sensiblement a la m~me generation. It parait non
seulement opportun, mais necessaire de refuser methodiquement Acette fin,
et dans ce domaine des techniques litteraires, le prfalable d 1une dualite
traditionnelle entre Nauteurs parens" et "auteurs chr~tiens". Par rapport A cet
ordre de probl~mes-et sans nier le clivage ulttrieurqu'introduisent, parfois
jusque dans la forme, les finalites ideologiques et le Sitz im Lebenconcret et
15
style that would reach an audience mostly comprised of the uneducated.
As Kaster has written, this humble style is the
style of the Christian message-humble in its descent from the shimmering,

timeless standards of classical correctness and adornment down to a
language intent on making the Truth plain and immediate to a
heterogeneous congregation. Turning away from the canons that matched
levels of style to importance of subject (for "everything we say is of great
importance"), the speaker feels free to range spontaneously over the various
styles according to the didactic needs and emotional pitch of the moment 16
For the moment, a compromise was reached in attempting to find a

mediated position between certain poles that the Christians had thought
irreconcilable: in general terms, the poles of pagan learning and Christian
truth; in specific terms, the poles of pagan rhetorical style and the exposition
of the Christian message. The compromise, however, did not consist of a
fixed spatial coordinate. Rather, the nature of any one individual work's
audience, purpose, and theme dictated the author's choice of one of the
many types of Christian style available to him as he moved in the various
realms of formal rhetoric and homiletic preaching. 17
originel d'une oeuvre donn~e appartenant A un genre litteraire precis-, ii

faut d'abordconsiderer ces oeuvres et leurs auteurs dans l'unite de ce que
nous appelons avec Peter Brown "le monde de l'Antiquite tardive". (432;
d. 427-28).
15
See the literature in Kaster (1988) 84 n. 237.
16
Kaster (1988) 83-84.
17
Fontaine (1976a) 478 (in the "Discussion" to his article):
Mais outre ce genushumile,qui repond au style de vie des asc~tes, ii faudrait

faire sa place a une grandiloquentia christiana,que n'est pas en contradiction
avec un ideal le simplicte. 11y a pluralite de styles chretiens. En ce domaine
situe au-dessous du niveau des genres, on constate que les auteurs de la fin
du IVe si~cle manifestent une grande diversite d'options. Mais rares sent
ceux qui se sont vrairnent approches d'un id~al de mimetisme
bib~que--celui-ci etant d'ailleurs A concevoir t:reslargement par rapport a
la diversite non seulement des genres, mais aussi des styles, des textes si
divers inclus dans la bibliotheca.sacra.
On p. 481 Fontaine expands on these remarks. I agree with him completely, but would
point out that there were indeed times when Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine achieved
the "ideal of biblical mimesis"-namely, when they preached in the pulpit.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
OF WORKS CITED
Adkin (1984) = N. Adkin, "Some Notes on the Style of Jerome's Twenty•Second Letter,"
RFIC 112 287•91.
=
Adkin (1984a) __..J "Some Notes on the Dream of Saint Jerome,,. Philologus128 119·26.
Alli (1979) = H. Aili, The ProseRhythm of Sallustand Livy, Studia Latina Stockholmiensia,
24 (Stockholm).
Albers (1922) = B. Albers, HUeber die erste Trauerrede des hi. Ambrosius zum Tode seines
Bruders Satyrus," in BtitrlJgezur Geschichtedes christlichenAltertums und der
by:zantinischenLiteratur.FestgabeAlbert Ehrhard,ed. A. M. Koniger (Bonn) 24.52.
Alfonsi (1966) = L. Alfonsi, "Arnbrogia Ciceronianus/ VChr 20 83.85.
Allier (1899) = R. Allier, NSaint Ambroise et l'intolerance clericale," Revue Chritienne9
200-12 and 268-80.
Altaner-Stuiber (1978) = B. Altaner and A. Stuiber, Patrologie. Leben,Schriftenund Lehreder
Kirchenvater,8., durchgesehene und erweiterte Auflage (Freiburg-Basel-Wien).
Angeloni (1974) = G. Angeloni, "S. Ambrogio maestro e caposcuola della innografia
cristiana," Ambrosius50 401-34.
Antin (1947) = P. Antin, "Le monachisme selon s. JerOme," in Mtlangesbtntdictinespublits
ll l"occ.asion
du XIVe centenairede la mart de S. Benoitpar les moines de /'Abbade S.
Jtrtnnede Rome(Abbaye de S. Wandrille) 71-118.
Antin (1951) = __..J Essaisur saint Jtrtnne(Paris).
Antin (1956) = __..J SaintJtrbme,Commentairesur Jonas,Sources Chretiennes, 43 (Paris).
Antin (1958) = __..J "S. Paul ermite," La Vie Spirituelk 99 163.75.
Antin (1968) = __..J Recueilsur saint Jtrtnne,Collection Latomus, 95 (Bruxelles).
Antin (1971) = __..J NMots 'vulgaires' chez saint Jerome," l.Atomus30 708-09.
Arns (1953) = R. P. E. Arns, La techniquedu livre d'aprlssaint Jtrbme(Paris).
Auerbach (1965) = E. Auerbach, LiteraryLanguageand its Publicin LateAntiquity and in the
Middle Ages, trans. R. Manheim (New York).
Baehrens (1925) = W. A. Baehrens, OrigenesWerke,8. Homilienzu SamuelI, zum Hohelied
und zu den Propheten. Kommentar zum Hohelied in Rufins und Hieronymus'
Uebersetzungen,Die griechischen christlichen Schrif tsteller der ersten drei
Jahrhunderte, 33 (Leipzig).
Banterle (1977) :s G. Banterle, Sant'Ambrogio.Operemorali,I (Milano).
Banterle (1980) = __, Sant'Ambrogio.Opereesegetiche,IV (Milano).
Banterle (1982) = ___, Sant'Ambrogio.Operedogmatiche,III (Milano).
Barbieri (1968) = G. Barbieri, ll pensierosocialedel Medioevo(Verona).
Bardenhewer (1923) = 0. Bardenhewer, Geschichte deraltkirchlichenLiteratur,111:Dasvierte
Jahrhundertmit Ausschlussder SchriftstellersyrischerZunge (Freiburg).
Bardy (1948) = G. Bardy, La questiondes languesdans l'Egliseancienne,I (Paris).
Barnes (1971) = T. D. Barnes, Tertullian.A Historicaland LiteraryStudy (Oxford).
127
Bartelink (1979) = G. Bartelink, •sprachliche und stilistische Bemerkungen in Ambrosius'
Schriften," WS 92 175-202.
Bartelink (1979a) = __, "Les observations de J~rtlme sur des terms de la language
courante et parl~e," Latomus38 193-222.
Bartelink (1980) =__,Hieronymus. Liberde optimogmere interpretandi(Epistula57). Ein
Kommentar,Mnemosyne Supplement, 61 (Leiden).
Barth (1889) = F. Barth, "'Ambrosius und die Synagoge zu Callinicum,"' Theologische
Zeitschriftaus der Schwiz 6 6>86.
Bas (1928) = G. Bas, NSull'esecuzione misurata degli inni giambici ambrosiani,"' Ambrosius
4 217~24.
Basabe (1951) = E. Basabe, .,San Jeronimo y los clbicos," Helmantica2 161-92.
Baskin (1981) = J. R. Baskin, '"'Job as Moral Exemplar in Ambrose," VChr 35 222-31.
Bastiaensen (1975) = A. A. R. Bastiaensen, Vita di llarione,in Vite dei Santi dal Ill al VI
seoolo,4 (Milano).
Bauer (1961) =J.B. Bauer, "Novellistisches bei Hieronymus, Vita Pauli 3," WS 74 130-37.
Baumstark (1904) -= A. Baumstark, Liturgiaromanae liturgia dell'esarcato.ll rito detto in
stqUitopatriarchinoe le originidel *CanonMissae"romano.Ricerchestoridte (Roma).
Baus (1954) • I<. Baus, "Das Nachwirken des Origenes in der Christusfrommigskeit des
heiligen Ambrosius," RQA 49 21-55.
Bellini (1974) = E. Bellini, "Per una lettura globale del De incamationis dominicae
sacramento," La Scu.olaCattolica102 389-402.
Bellini (1979) = __, Sant'Ambrogio.II misteriodell'incarnazione del signore(Milano).
Bfranger (1962) = J. ™ranger, •£tude sur saint Ambroise. L'image de l'~tat dans les
soci~t~ animates, Exam~ron v,15,51-52; 21,~72," EL 5 47-74.
Berkhof (1947) = H. Berkhof, Kirche und Kaiser.Eine Untersuchungder Entstehung der
hy7.antinisdtenund der theokratisdtenStaatsauffassungin vierten]ahrhundert(Zurich).
Bemaregsi (1930) -. A. Bemaregsi, "Sant'Ambrogio e sant'Agostino," Ambrosius6 ~39.
Bemouilli (1895) = C. A. Bemouilli, Der Schriftstellerkatalog des Hieronymus.Ein Beitragzur
Gnchichteder altchristlichenLiteratur(Freiburg und Leipzig).
Bettini (193.5) = G. Bettini, "11contenuto politico dei panegirici ambrosiani, .. Convivium7
614-24.
Beumer (1973) = J. Beumer, "Die iltesten Zeugnisse filr die romische Eucharistiefeier bei
Ambrosius von Mailand,'"' ZK.Th95 311-24.
Bickel (1915) = E. Bickel,Diatribein Senecaephilosophifragmenta,I: Fragmmtade matrimonio
(Leipzig).
Biondi (1940) = B. Biondi, "Influenza di Sant'Ambrogio sulla legislazione religiosa del
suo tempo," in Sant'Ambrogionel XVI centenariode/la nascita(Milano) 337-420.
Blatt (1938) = F. Blatt, .,Remarques sur l'histoire des traductions latines,• C & M 1 217-42.
Bodin (1966) = Y. Bodin, Saint /a&ne et l'F.glise,Thrologie Historique, 6 (Paris).
Bonnard (1977) and (1979) = E. Bonnard, Saint ]atJme,O:,mmentaire sur s. Matthi.eu,2 vols.,
Sources Chretiennes, 242 and 2.59 (Paris).
Bonnardi~re (1965) = A.-M. La Bonnardi~re, Rt:chnchesde chronologieaugustinienne (Paris).
Bonwetsch (1903) 2 G. N. Bonwetsch, HippolytsKommentarzum Hohenliedau/ Grund von
N. MarrsAusgubedesgru.sinisdtenTextes,Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte
der altchristlichen Literatur, 23, 2 (Leipzig).
Bonwetsch (1904) = __, Dreigeorgisch erhalteneSchriftenvon Hippolytus.Der segenJakobs,
dersegenMoses,die Erzl1hlungvonDavidund Goliath,Texte und Untersuchungen zur
Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 11 (Leipzig).
Booth (1979) = A. D. Booth, "The Date of Jerome's Birth," Phoenix23 346-53.
Booth (1981) = __, "'The Chronology of Jerome's Early Years," Phoenix2.5237-59.
Bibliography 129
Borella (1968) = P. Borella, ..Evoluzione storica e struttura letteraria del canone della
Messa romana,"' in Ii Canone(Studio biblico-teologico-storico liturgia>),Liturigica,
Nuova Serie, 5 (Patova) ~113.
Bomecque (1907) = H. Bomecque, us clausulesmltriques latines(Paris).
Botte (1950) = B. Botte, review of Hitchcock (1947 and 1948) in BTh 6 373.
Botte (1959) - ___, Des sacrements,Des mysttres, nouv. ed., rev. et augm. de
L'Erpliclltiondu symbolt,Sources Chretiennes, 253 (Paris).
Bouvy (1902) - E. Bouvy, •Le style de saint JerOme,* RevueAugustinitnne1 151-59.
Brandenberg (1981) ... H. Brandenberg, ..Ars humili.s.Zur Frage eines christlichen Stils in
der Kunst des 4. Jahrhunderts nach Christus," /bAC 24 71-84.
Broadhead (1922) = H. D. Broadhead, Latin Prose Rhythm. A Ntw Methodof Investigation
(Cambridge MA).
Brochet (1905) ... J. Brochet, Saint Jtrtnntet sestnnemies(Th~ Paris).
Brown (1967) = P. Brown, AugustineofHippo:A Biography(Berkeley and Los Angeles).
Brown (1968) ... ___, ..Pelagius and His Supporters. Aims and Environment," ]ThS 19
93-114.
Brown (1970) =-___, "'The Patrons of Pelagius. The Roman Aristocracy between East
and West," ]ThS 21 56-72.
Brown (1988) "" ___, Tht Bodyand Sodny (New York).
Brugnoli (1965) = G. Brugnoli, ..Donato e Girolamo," VetChr2 139-49.
Bruyne (1932) = D. de Bruyne, "'La correspondance echangee entre Augustin et JerOme,"
ZN1W 31 233-48.
Buck (1929) • M. J. Buck, AmbrosiiDt Heliaet i.eiunio,Catholic University of America
Patristic Series, 19 (Washington D.C.).
Bum (1905) ,_ A. E. Bum, Nic.etaofRemesilma.His Lifeand Works(Cambridge).
Burzacchini (19'75) ... G. Burzacchini, "'Note sulla presenza di Persia in Girolamo,"' GIF27
50-72.
Caglio (1956) =E.T. Moneta Caglio, "Dettagli cronologici su S. Ambrogio," Ambrosius32
278-90.
Cameron (1968) = A. Cameron, ..Echoes of Vergil in Saint Jerome's LifeofHilarion,"CPh
63 55-56.
Cameron (1976) = _____,J •Paganism and Literature in Late Fourth Century Rome," in
Christianismt:et formes litthaires de l'antiquitt tardivetn Occident, Entretiens sur
l'Antiqui~ classique, 23 (Vandoeuvres-Geneve) 1-30.
Campenhausen (1929) -=H. von Campenhausen,Ambrosius von Mailand als Kirchenpolitiker,
Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte, 12 (Berlin und Leipzig).
Canegallo (1961) • F. Canegallo, I rapportitra Statoe Chiesanellaltgislazionedi Costatino
t Costanm11.La tfflria di S. Ambrogiot le ripercussioninellalegislazionedi Graziano,
Valentiniano11t Teodosio(Diss. Genova).
Canfora (1970) = F. Canfora, Simmacoe Ambrogioo di unaanticacontruoersia sulla tolleranz.a
t sull'intolleranm(Bari).
Canhl (1931) = D. Cantu, .,L'andemento tipico giambico degli inni ambrosiani,"
Ambrosius8 21-26.
Capitani(1982) • F. de Capitani, "'Studi su Sant'Ambrogio e i Manichei, I: Occasioni di
un incontro; II: Spunti antimanichei nell'Exameron ambrosiano," RRN 74 593-610
and 75 3-29.
Capraneto (1930) = G. M. Capraneto, .,Le opere oratorie di s. Ambrogio,... Didaskaltion8
35-156.
Carroll (1940) =-M. B. Carroll, The Clausulaein the Confessionsof St. Augustine,Catholic
University of America Patristic Series, 62 (Washington D.C.).
Casini (1957) = N. Casini, .,Le discussioni sull'Ara Vittoria nella Curia romana," Stud-Rom
5 501-17.
Castiglioni (1942) = L. Castiglioni, .,Spigolature ambrosiane," in Ambrosiana.Scritti di
storia,archeologiaed arte pubblicatinel XVI centenariodella nascitadi sant'Ambrogio
(Milano) 113-24.
Cavallera (1920) = F. Cavallera, uSaint JerOme et la Vulgate des Actes, des Epitres, et de
l'Apocalypse," BLE 44 269-92.
Cavallera (1922) = ____J Saint Jbbme, sa vie et son oeuvre,2 vols. {Paris).
Cazzaniga (1948) = I. Cazzaniga, Note Ambrosiane.Appunti intornoallo stile delle omelie
virginali(Milano).
Cazzaniga (1948a) = ____J De virginibuslibri trts (forino).
Cazzaniga (1948b) = ____J De IapsuSusannae(De Iapsuvirginisconsecratae incerti audoris)
(forino).
Cazzaniga (1954) = ____J De virginitateliber unus (forino).
Ceresa-Gastaldo (1984) • A. Ceresa-Gastaldo, "'The Biographical Method of Jerome's De
viris illustribus,"Studia Patristica, 15, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte
der altchristlichen Literatur, 128 (Berlin) 5>68.
Cesaro (1929) - M. Cesaro, uNatura e Cristianesimo negli •Exameron' di San Basilio e
di Sant'Ambrogio,'" Didaskaleion7 53-123.
Charles (1968) = (Sister) Charles, uThe Classical Latin Quotations in the Letters of St.
Jerome," G & R 15 186-97.
Christophe (1964) = P. Christophe, L'usagechrltien du droit de propriltl dans rtcriture et
la traditionpatristique,Theologie, Pastorale et Spiritualite, 14 (Paris).
Christopher (1926) = J. P. Christopher, A. Aureli Augustini Hipponiensisepisc.opiDe
catechiz.andis rudibus liber unus, Catholic University of America Patristic Series, 8
(Washington D.C.).
Clark (1909) = A. C. Clark, Fontesprosaenumerosae(Oxford).
Clark (1987) = E. Clark, "The Place of Jerome's Commentary on Ephesians in the
0rigenist Controversy. The Apokatastasis and Ascetic Ideals," VChr 41 154-71.
Oaus (1976) = F. Claus, "'La datation de Apologia prophetae David et l'Apologia David
altera. Deux oeuvres authentiques de Saint Ambroise," in AmbrosiusEpiscopus.Atti
del C.Ongresso
internazionaledi studi ambrosianinel XVI centenariodtlla elevazionedi
sant'Ambrogioallacattedraepiscopale.Milano2-7 dic.embre
1974,ed. G. Lazzati, 2 vols.
(Milano) 2.168-93.
Coleiro (1957) = J. Coleiro, HSt Jerome's Lives of the Hermits," VetChr9 161-78.
Comparetti (1937) = D. Comparetti, Virgilio nel rnedioaevo, I: Virgilio nella tradizione
letterariafino a Dantt, nuova ed. G. Pasquali (Firenza).
Connolly (1946) = R H. Connolly, "St. Ambrose and the Explanatio Symboli," ]ThS 47
185-96.
Connolly (1947) =----/ "Some Disputed Works of Saint Ambrose," DownsideReview65
7-20 and 121-30.
Connolly (1952) = ____J The Explanatiosymboli ad initiandos,Texts and Studies, 10
(Cambridge).
Consolino (1982) = F. E. Consolino, "Dagli exempla ad un esempio di comportamento
cristiano; ii De exhortatione virginitatis di Ambrogio,n RSI 94 455-77.
Consolino (1984) = ____J "Veni hue a Libano. La sponsa del Cantico dei Cantici come
modello per le vergini negli scritti esortatori di Ambrogio," Athenaeum62 399-415.
Consolo (1955) = G. Consolo, urusonanze virgiliane nell'Exameron di S. Ambrogio,"
MSLC5~77.
Coppa (1978) = G. Coppa, Sant'Ambrogio.Opereesegetiche,IX/1. Esposizionedel tvangelo
secondoLuca (Milano).
Bibliography 131
Corbellini (1975) = C. Corbellini, "Sesto Petronio Probo e l'elezione episcopale di
Ambrogio," RJL 209 181-89.
Cottineau (1920) = L. H. Cottineau, "Chronologie des versions bibliques de saint JerOme,"
in MiscellaneaGeronimiana.Scritti varii pubblic.atinel XV centenariodallamortedi San
Girolamo(Roma) 43.68.
Courcelle (1943/4) = P. Courcelle, "Les premieres Confessionsde saint Augustin," REL 11
155-74.
Courcelle (1948) = __, Leslettrtsgrecquesen Occidentde Macrobe~ Cassiodore, nouv. ed.,
rev. et augm. (Paris).
Courcelle (1956) = __, uNouveaux aspects du platonisme chez saint Ambroise," REL
34 220-39.
Courcelle (1961) = __, "De Platon a saint Ambroise par Apulee. Paralleles textuels
entre le De excessu fratris et le De Platone," RPh 35 15-28.
Courcelle (1965) = __ _,, uTradition platonicienne et traditions chretiennes du
corps-prison (Phedon 62b, Cratyle 400a),WREL 43 406-443.
Courcelle (1966) = __ __,, NLecorps-tombeau. Platon, Gorgias 493a, Crayle 400c, Phedre
250c," REA 68 101-22.
Courcelle (1968) = __, Recherchtssur les Confessionsde saint Augustin, nouv. ed., augm.
et ill. (Paris).
Courcelle (1968a) = __, "'Le hennissement de concupiscence,N La Ciudadde Dios181
529-34.
Courcelle (1969) -= __, NLes sources de saint Arnbroise sur Denys le tyran," RPh 43
204-10.
Courcelle (1972) = __, "Ambroise de Milan face aux comiques latins,H REL 50 223-31.
Courcelle (1973) = ___, N Ambroise de Milan et Calcidius," in Romanitaset Christianitas.
Studia I. H. Waszinka.d. VI Kal. Nov. a. MCMLXXIJIXlll lustracomplentioblata,ed.
W. den Boer et al. (Amsterdam) 45-53.
Courcelle (1973/4) = __ _,"Litterature latine d'epoque chretienne," AEHE Wt Sect. 81
291-96.
Courcelle (1974) = ___, "Ambroise de Milan devot de la Monade," REG 87144-54.
Courcelle (1974a) = __, HTradition n~o-platonicienne et tradition chretienne des ailes
de l"Ame," in Atti del Convegnointernazionalesul tema:Plotinoe il Neoplatonismoin
Orientee in Occidente(Roma,5-9 ottobre1970), Problemi attuali di scienza e cultura,
198 (Roma) 265-325.
Courcelle (1975) = ___ "Saint Ambroise devant le precept delphique," in Formafuturi.
Studi in onort di MichelePellegrino(Torino) 179-88.
Crouzel et al. (1962) = H. Crouzel et al., Origene.
Homiliessur s. Luc,Sources Chretiennes,
87 (Paris).
Cuendet (1933) = G. Cuendet, "Ciceron et saint J~rOme traducteurs," REL 11 380-400.
Cunningham (1955) = M. P. Cunningham, "The Place of the Hymns of St. Ambrose in
the Latin Poetic Tradition," Studies in Philology52 509-14.
Dangel (1984) = J. Dangel, NLe mot, support de lecture des clausules cic~roniennes et
liviennes," REL 62 386-415.
Daniell (1974) = M. L. Danieli, S. Ambrogio.LAverginitd,le vergini,le vedovt.Paginesclete
sulla verginiti)(Roma).
Dassmann (1965) = E. Dassmann, DieFriJmmigkeit desKirchenvatersAmbrosiusvon Mailand.
Quellen und Entfaltung(Munster).
Dassmann (1966) = ___, "Ecclesia vel anima. Die Kirche und ihre Glieder in der
Hoheliederklarung bei Hippolyt, Origenes und Ambrosius van Mailand,U RQA 61
121-44.
Dassmann (1978) = ----J., Ambrosius, ...in Theologischt Realenzyklopadie(Berlin und New
York) 2.362,.86.
De Faye (192.3) = E. De Faye, Origtne, sa w, son oeuvre,sa ptnsh, I: Sa biographieet ses
krits (Paris).
Deferrari (1922) = R. J. Deferrari, .,St Augustine's Method of Composing and Delivering
Sennons," A]Ph 43 97-123 and 193-219.
De Groot (1921} = A. W. De Groot, Der antike Prosarhythmus,I (Groningen).
De Groot (1926} ""'----J IA prosemlb'upll desanciens(Paris).
De Labriolle (1907/8) • P. De Labriolle, "Saint Ambroise et l'ex~g~ all~gorique,• Annales
phil. chrtt. 155 591-603.
De Labriolle (1907/Sa) = __J "Le massacre de Thessalonique et la ~nitence de
Th~odose," Revue desCours et des Confhenas 16.2 706-16.
De Labriolle (1907/Sb) = __J •Saint Ambroise et l'affaire de Callinicum," R.evrudes
Cours tk des Confhenas 16.2 78-86.
De Labriolle (1920}=- __J "Le songe de saint J~rOme," in Miscellanea Saitti
GeronimiD.na.
varii pubblicatinel XV centenariodalla mortedi San Girolamo(Roma) 227-3.5.
De Labriolle (1940) = __J Histoire de la litthature latine chrttienne, ~me &!., rev.et
augm. par G. Bardy, 2 vols. (Paris).
Delaney (1934) = M. R. Delaney, A Study ofthe Clausulaein the Works of St. Ambrose,
Catholic University of America Patristic Series, 40 (Washington D.C.).
Delaporte (1914) • Y. Delaporte, "Etude rythmique sur les hymnes iambiques, ... R.evru
Grlgorienne4 81-91.
Deman (1953) = Th. Deman, •Le De officiis de saint Ambroise dans l'histoire de la
th~logie morale," RSPh 37 409-24.
Di Capua (1931} • F. Di Capua, "'D ribno prosaico in S. Agostino,"' in Misallanea .
AgostiniD.na:Ttsti e studi pubblicatia cura tkll'Ordine nemitano di S. Agostino nel XV
centenariodalla mortedel santo dottore,2 vols. (Roma} 2.607-764.
Diederich (1931} - M. D. Diederich, Vngil in the Works of Saint Ambrose,Catholic
Diederich (195:\'4) = ___,J "'The Epitaphium S. Paulae. An Index to St. Jerome's
Classicism,• CJ 49 369-72.
Diesner (1971) = H.J. Diesner, "'Kirche und Staat irn ausgehenden vierten Jahrhundert:
Ambrosius von Mailand,• in idem, Das frllhe Christentum im rlJmischenStaat
{Darmstadt) 415-54.
Dihle (1973) - A. Dihle, .,Zurn Streit um den Altar der Viktoria," in Romanitas et
ChristiD.nitas.StudiD.I. H. Waszink a.d. VI Kill. Nm,. a. MCMLXXIII Xlll lustra
cmnplentioblata,ed. W. den Boer et al. (Amsterdam) 81-97.
D'lzamy (1952) = R. D'lzamy, La verginitdselon saintAmbroist (Lyons).
Doerrie (1964) = H. Doerrie, "Das fiinffach gestufte Mysterium. Der Aufstieg der Seele
bei Porphyrios und Ambrosius,"' in Mullus. Ftstschrift Th. Klauser(Munster} 79-92.
Doignon (1973) = J. Doignon, •1..actance intenn&Jiaire entre Ambroise de Milan et la
Consolation de Cictron7", REL 51 Z.OS.19.
Dossi (1951) = L. Dossi, •s.Ambrogio e S. Atanasio nel De virginibus," Acme 4 241-62.
Dreves (1893) = G.-M. Dreves, Aurelius Ambrosius, "dn Vatn dts Kirchmgesangts." Eine
hymnologische Studie (Freiburg).
Duchesne (1910} = L. Duchesne, Histoireanciennede l'Eglist, ~me M., 3 vols. (Paris).
Duckworth (1947/8) = G. Duckworth, "Classical Echoes in Saint Jerome's Life of
Malchus," CB 24 29-30.
Dudden (193.5)= J. H. Dudden, The Lifeand TimesofSt. Ambrose,2 vols. (Oxford).
Dunphy (1984) = W. Dunphy, "On the Date of St Ambrose's De Tobia," SacrisErudiri.
/aarbod:ooorGodsdienstwetmschnppen 27 27-36.
Bibliography 133
Duval (1970) = Y. M. Duval, "Sur une page de saint Cyprien chez saint Ambroise.
Hexameron 6,8,47 et De habitu virginum 15-17,RREAug 16 25-34.
Duval (1970a) = ___, "Sur les insinuations de JerOme contre Jean de Jerusalem: de
l'arianisme A l'origenisme," RHE 65 353-74.
Duval (1974) = ___, "L'originali~ du De virginibus dans le mouvement ascetique
occidental. Ambroise, Cyprien, Athanase," in Ambroisede Milan.XVle centenairede
son &dion tpiscopale.Dix ttudes, ed. Y. M. Duval (Paris) 9-66.
Duval (1976) = ._.1 "Ambroise, de son election a sa consecration,R in Ambrosius
Episcopus.Atti del C,ongresso
internazionale
di studi ambrosianinel XVI centenariodel'/JJ
elevazionedi sant'AmbrogioallAcattedraepiscopale. Milano2-7 dicembre1974, ed. G.
Lazzati, 2 vols. (Milano) 2.243-83.
Duval (1'"1) = ._.1 "'Formes profanes et tonnes bibliques dans les orasions fun~bres
de Saint Ambroiset in Christianismeet Jonnes littbaires de l'antiquiMtardivt en
Occident,Entretiens sur l'Antiquitl! classique, 23 (Vandoeuvres-Gen~ve) 235-301.
Duval (1985) -=__J 5'lint]trrmte, Commentaire surJonas,Sources Chretiennes, 323 (Paris).
Eiswirth (1955) = R. Eiswirth, Hieronymus' Stellung zur Literatur und Kunst,
Klassisch-Philologische Studien, 16 (Wiesbaden).
Emeneau (1930) = M. B. Emeneau, "'Ambrose and Cicero," CW 24 49-53.
Engelbrecht (1903) = A. Engelbrecht, StudienUberden Lukaskommentar desAmbrosius,mit
einem Anhang abn tine bisher verschollene Handschrift des Philostratus,
Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, 146, 8
(Wien).
Ensslin (1953) = W. Ensslin, Die Religionspolitikdes Kaisers Theodosiusdes Grasst,
Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften in Milnchen,
Philos.-Philolog. und Histor. Klasse, Milnchen, 1953, 2 (Milnchen).
Faller (1924/5) = 0. Faller, "Situation und Abfassungszeit der Reden des heiligen
Ambrosius auf den Tod seines Bruders Satyrus," WS 44 86-102.
Faller (1929) =___,"'Ambrosius der Verfasser von De sacramentis," ZKTh 641-14 and
81-101.
Faller (1942) ""' ___, "La data della consacrazione vescovile di Sant'Ambrogio," in
Ambrosiana.Scrittidi storia,archeologia edartepubblicatinelXVI centenariodeltanascita
di sant'Ambrogio(Milano} 97-112.
Faller (1948) - ___, "Arnbrogio," in Encielopedia Cattolica(Firenze} 1.984-1000.
Faller, CSEL 73 = ___, 5'lnctiAmbrosiioperaomnia.Pars septima, Corpus Scriptorum
Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, 73 (Wien 1955).
Faller, CSEL 78 = ___, 5'lncti Ambrosiioperaomnia. Pars octava,Corpus Scriptorum
Faller, CSEL 79 ::z ___, Sancti Ambrosiioperaomnia. Pars nona, Corpus Scriptorum
Faller and Zelzer, CSEL 82 = __ and M. Zelzer, Sandi Ambrosiioperaomnia. Pars
decima,Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, 82, 1-3 (Wien 1968-82).
Favez (1930) = Ch. Favez, "L'inspiration chretienne dans les Consolations de saint
Ambroise,,, REL 8 82-91.
Favez (1937) ,.. __, La consolAtion IAtinechrltienne(Paris).
Feder (1927) ""' A. Feder, Studienzum Schriftstellerkatalog des hi. Hieronymus(Freidburg).
Fenger (1982) = A. L. Fenger, "Tod und Auferstehung des Menschen nach Ambrosius•
De excessu fratris Il,,. in Jen.seitsvorstellungrn
in Antike und Orristtntum.Gedenkschrift
far Alfred Stum (Munster} 127-39.
Ferguson (1956) = J. Ferguson, Pelagius.A Historicaland Theological Study (Cambridge).
FemAndez (1941) = S. Fernandez, "Influence de San Ambrosio en la conversi6n de San
Augustin," La Ciudadde Dios 153 133-57.
Ferrari (1976) = M. Ferrari, .,'Recensiones' milanesi tardo--antiche, carolinge,
basso--medioevali di opere di sant' Ambrogio,H in Ambrosius Episropus.Atti del
Congressointernazionaledi studi ambrosiJminel XVI rentenariodella elevazionedi
sant"Ambrogio
allacnttedraepiscopale.
Milano2,..7dicembre1974, ed. G. Lazzati, 2 vols.
(Milano) 1.76-100.
Ferretti (1951) = G. Ferretti, L'influssodi Sant'Ambrogioin Sant'Agostino(Diss. Faenza).
Fischer (1948) = J. Fischer, Die ViJlkerwanderung im Urteil der zeitgeoossischenldrchlichm
SchriftstellerGalliensunter Einbeziehungdes heiligenAugustinus (Diss. Wilrzburg).
Fischer (1972) = B. Fischer, NDas Neue Testament in lateinischer Sprache," in Die alten
Uebersetzungendes Neuen Testaments, die Kirchenvaterzitateund Lektionare.Der
gengenwitrtigeStand ihrer Erforschung und ihre Bedeutung far die griechische
Textgeschichte,ed. R. Aland (Berlin) 1-92.
Forster (1884) = Th. Forster, Ambrosius,Bischofvon Mailand.Eine DarstellungseinesLebens
und Wirkens (Halle).
Fontaine (1960) = J. Fontaine, "'Theorie et pratique du style chez Isidore de S~ille," VChr
14 65-101.
Fontaine (1968) =__,Aspects et problhnesde la prosed'art latineau Ille siede. LAgenbe
des styles latins chrhi.ens(Torino).
Fontaine (1969) = _, NL'apport d'Hilaire de Poitiers a une theorie chretienne de
l'esthetique du style (remarques sur In psalm. 13, l)," in Hilaireet son temps.XV/e
centenairede la mort de saint Hilaire.Actesdu colloquede Poitiers,29 septembre.Joctobre
1968, ed. E. R. Labande (Paris) 287-305.
Fontaine (1974) = __, NL'apport de la tradition poetique romaine a la formation de
l'hymnodie latine chretienne," REL 52 31S-55.
Fontaine (1976) = __, NProse et ~sie. L'interference des genres et des styles dans la
creation litteraire d'Ambroise de Milan," in AmbrosiusEpiscopus.Atti del Congresso
internazionaledi studi ambrosianinel XVI centenariodellaelevazionedi sant'Ambrogio
a/la cnttedraepiscopale.Milano 2,..7dicembre1974, ed. G. Lazzati, 2 vols. (Milano)
1.124-70.
Fontaine {1976a) = _, "Unite et diversite du melange des genres et des tons chez
quelques ecrivains latins de la fin du IVe si~cle: Ausone, Ambroise, Ammien," in
Christianismeet formes littbaires de l'antiquitl tardive en Occident,Entretiens sur
l'Antiquite classique, 23 (Vandoeuvres-Genbte) 425-72.
Forget (1924) = J.Forget, "Jerome/ in Dictionnairede ThtologieCatholique(Paris) 8.894-983.
Fortina (1953) = M. Fortina, L'imperatoreGraziano(Torino).
Fraenkel (1932) = E. Fraenkel, "Kolon und Satz: Beobachtung zur Gliederung des antiken
Satzes," Nachrichtender GiJttingerGesellschaftder Wissenschaft,Phil.-hist. Klasse
197-213.
Fraenkel (1933) = _, "Kolon und Satz: Beobachtung zur Gliederung des antiken
Satzes, II," Nachrichtender GiJttinger Gesellschnftder Wissensdr.aft,Phil.-hist.K/.asse
319-54.
Fraenkel (1965) = __, Noch einmal Kolon und Satz, Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen
Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philos.-Hist. Klasse, 1965, 2 (Milnchen).
Fraenkel (I 968) = __ _, Leseprobenaus Reden Cicerosund Catos, Sussidi Eruditi, 22
(Roma).
Frank (1940) = H. Frank, "Ein Beitrag zur ambrosianischen Herkunft der Predigten De
sacramentis," ThQ 67-85.
Frassinetti (1955) = P. Frassinetti, "Gli scritti matrimoniali di Seneca e Tertulliano," RIL
88 151-88.
Frattini (1%2) = E. Frattini, "ProprietA e ricchezza nel pensiero di sant'Ambrogio," RIFD
39 745-66.
Bibliography 135
Fredouille (1972) = J.-C. Fredouille, Tertulli.an et la conversionde la cultureantique(Paris).
Fuhrmann (1976) = M. Fuhrmann, .,Die MOnchsgeschichte des Hieronymus. Form-
experimente in erzahlender Literatur," in Christi.anisme et formes litthaires de
l'antiquitl tardive en Occident, Entretiens sur I'Antiquit~ dassique, 23
(Vandoeuvres-Gen~ve) 41-99.
Gamber (1964) = K. Gamber, Nicda von Remesi.ana,.,lnstructio ad competentes,"
FraJu:hristlicheKatechesenaus Dacien,Textus Patristici et Liturgici, 1 (Regensburg).
Gamber (1965} = __J "Ist der Canon-Text von De sacramentis in Mailand gebraucht
warden?", Ephemerides Liturgicae79 109-16.
Gamber (1966) =___,.,Die Autorschaft von De sacramentis/ RQA 61 94-104.
Gamber (1966a) = ..,...----,-- "Das Eucharistiegebet in der frilhen nordafrikanischen
Liturgie," in Liturgica,III, Scripta et Documenta, 17 (In Abbatia Montisserrati) 51-65.
Gamber (1967) =___,"Gehl die sog. Explanatio symboli ad initiandos tats:ichlich auf
Ambrosius zurilck?", ByzF 2 184-203.
Gamber (1967a) = __J Die Autorschaftvon "De sacramentis."Zugleichein Beitragzur
LiturgieschichtederriJmischen ProvinzDaciamediterranea, Studia Patristica et Liturgica,
1 (Regensburg).
Gamber (1967b) = __J "Fragen zu Person und Werk des Bischofs Niceta von
Remesiana," RQA 62 222-31.
Gamber (1969) = __ . Niatas von Remesi.anaDe lapsu Susannae,Textus Patristici et
Liturgici, 7 (Regensburg).
Gamber (1969a) = _, "Nochmals zur Frage der Autorschaft von De sacramentis,"
ZKTh 91 586-89.
Gamber (1970) = ___, Missa Romensis.BeitrlJge zur frahen r{j,nischenLiturgieund zu den
AnfiJngmdes Missa.kRomanum,Studia Patristica et Liturgica, 3 (Regensburg).
Gamberoni (1969) = J. Gamberoni, Die Auslegung des Buches Tobias in der
griechisch-lateinisc.hen
KirchederAntike und der Christenheitdes Westensbis um 1600,
Studien zum Alten and Neuen Testament, 21 (Miinchen).
Geffcken (1912) = J. Geffcken, "Antike Kulturampfe," NJA 29 593-611.
Ghedini (1931) = G. Ghedini, "L'autenticiU. del De sacramentis," Ambrosius8 76-80.
Ghedini (1940) = _, "L'opera di Biraghi e l'innologia ambrosiana," SC 68 1~70 and
275-85.
Giacchero (1965) = M. Giacchero, Ambrosii De Tobi.a,Pubblicazioni dell'lstituto di
Filofosia Oassica e Medioevale, 19 (Genova).
Giet (1944) = S. Giet, ..De S. Basile a saint Ambroise. La condamnation du p~t A int~~t
au IVe si~cle," R«SR 33 95-128.
Giet (1948) = ____J "'La doctrine de !'appropriation des biens chez quelques-uns des
P~res. Peut-on parter de communisme?", RecSR37 55-91.
Glaesener (1957) = H. Glaesener, "L'empereur Gratien et Saint Ambroise," RHE 52 466-88.
Glorie (196.5)= Fr. Glorie,., Augustin us, De Trinitate. Fontes-Chronologia," SEJG16 203-55.
Godel (1964) = R. Godel, "R~miniscences de poMes profanes dans les lettres de saint
J~rOme," MH 21 65-70.
Gonsette (1933) ""' M. Gonsette, ..Les directeurs spirituels de ™metriade," NRTh 60
783-aOt.
Gotoff (1979) = H. C. Gotoff, Cicero'sElegantStyle. An Analysisof the Pro Ardiia (Urbana
IL).
Gottlieb (1973) -= G. Gottlieb, Ambrosiusvon Mailandund KaiserGratian,Hypomnemata,
Untersuchungen zur Antike und zu ihrem Nachleben, 40 (Gottingen).
Gottlieb (19&5)= ____J "Der Mail:inder Kirchenstreit von 385-386. Datierung, Verlauf,
Deutung," MH 42 37-55.
Gribomont {1986) = J. Gribomont, .,Jerome," in Patrology,W: The GoldenAge of Latin
PatristicLiteraturefrom the Councilof Nicea to the Councilof Chaladon, ed. A. Di
Berardino, trans. P. Solari (Westminster MD) 212-46.
Grisart (1962) = A. Grisart, "La chronique de saint J~rOme. Le lieu et la date de sa
composition," Helikon2 ~52.
Griitzrnacher {1901-08) = G. Griltzmacher, Hieronymus.Einebiographische Studie zur alten
Kirchmgeschichte, 3 vols., Studien zur Geschichte der Theologie und der Kirche: 6,
3 {= vol. 1): Sein Lebenund seine Schriftenbis zum Jahre385 {Leipzig 1901); 10, 1
(= vol. 2): Sein Lebenun seineSchriftm von 385 bis 400 {Berlin 1906); 10, 2 {= vol. 3):
Sein Lebenund seine Schriftenvon 400 bis 420 (Berlin 1908).
Grumel (1951) - V. Grumet, "La deuxi~me mission de saint Ambroise aupres de Maxime,"
REByz4 154-60.
Gryson (1971) = R. Gryson, Ambroi.sede Milan. La pblitma, Sources ~tiennes, 179
(Paris).
Guttilla {1980/1) = G. Guttilla, "Tematica cristiana e pagana nell'evoluzione finale della
consolatio di San Girolamo," ALGP 17/18 87-152.
Habinek {1985) = T. Habinek, The Colomdry of Latin Prose, University of California
Classical Studies, 2.5(Berkeley-Los Angeles-London).
Habyarimana (1983) = S. Habyarimana, "La dottrina pneumatologica nel ·De spiritu
Sancto di S. Ambrogio," Spirito Sancto e catechesir,atristica.Convtgno di studio,
Pontificiumlnstitutum Altioris Latinitatis(Fae.Letterecristianee classiche),Roma,6-7
ma17.0 1982, ed. S. Felici {Roma) 47-58.
Hadot {1956) = P. Hadot, "Platon et Plotin dans trois sermons de saint Ambroise," REL
34 202-20.
Hadot (1965/6) = ____,J "Explications du 'De Isaac' d'Ambroise,"' AEHE We Sect. 73
150-52.
Hadot {1976) = ____,J "'Une source de l'Apologia David d'Ambroise, les commentaires
de Didyme et d'Ori~ne sur le psaume 50," RSPh 60 205-2.5.
Hadot (1977) = ____,J Ambroi.sede Milan. Apologie de David, Sources Chretiennes, 239
(Paris).
Hagendahl (1939) = H. Hagendahl, review of Knook (1932) and Herron (1937) in Gnomon
15 84-89.
Hagendahl (1958) = __J Latin Fathersand the Classics.
A Study on theApologists,Jerome
and otherChristianWriters,Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia, 6 {GOteborg).
Hagendahl (1967) = ____,J Augustine and the Latin Classics,2 vols.; vol. 2: Augustine's
Attitude, Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia, 20, 2 {Stockholm).
Hagendahl (1971) = ____,J "Die Bedeutung der Stenographie fur die spitlateinische
christliche Literatur,n ]bAC 14 24-38.
Hagendahl {1974) = ____,J "Jerome and the Latin Classics," VOir 28 216-27.
Hagendahl {1983) = ____,J Von Tertullianzu Cassiodor.Ott profaneliterarischeTraditionin
dem lateinischenchristlichenSchrifttum,Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia, 44
(GOteborg).
Hagendahl (1989) = __ and J. H. Waszink, ''Hieronymus," in Reallaikon Jar Antike und
Christentum(Stuttgart) 113.117-39.
Haller (1897) = W. Haller, lovinianus.Die Fragmniteseiner Schriften,die Quellenzu seiner
Geschichte,seinLebenund seineLehre,Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der
altchristlichen Literatur, 2, 2 (Leipzig).
Hellenga (1989) = V. Hellenga, "The Exchange of Letters between Saint Augustine and
Saint Jerome," Daidalikon:Studiesin Memory of RaymondV. Shoder,ed. RF. Sutton
(Wauconda IL) 177-82.
Herrmann (1958) = L. Herrmann,., Ambrosius von Mailand als Trinitatstheologe,"' ZKG
Bibliography 137
69197-218.
Herron (1937) = M. C. Herron, A Study of the Clausulaein the Writings of St. Jerome,
Hiltbrunner (1964) = O. Hiltbnmner, "Die Schrift "De officiis ministrorum' des hi.
Ambrosius und ihr ciceronisches Vorbild," Gymnasium71174-89.
Hitchcock (1946) = F. R. M. Hitchcock, "The Explanatio symboli ad initiandos Compared
with Rufinus and Maximus of Turin," ]ThS 47 58-69.
Hitchcock (1947) = __, "Venerius, Bishop of Milan, Probable Author of the De
sacramentis,*Hermathena70 22-38.
Hitchcock (1948) = __, "'Venerius, Bishop of Milan, Probable Author of the De
sacramentis,II," Hermathena71 19-35.
Hochreiter (1951) = F. P. V. Hochreiter, DieRelatiodes SymmachusJar die Wi.edererrichtung
des Altares der Vilctoriaund die Gegmschriftendes A~ius und Prudentius.Eine
Untersuchungaber das Verhaltnisvan Antike und Christentum(Diss. Innsbruck).
Hoelle (1953) = Ph. Hoelle, Commentaryon the Vita Pauli (Diss. Ohio State University).
Hritzu (1939) = J. N. Hritzu, The Style ofthe LettersofSt. Jerome,Catholic University of
America Patristic Series, 60 (Washington D.C.).
Huhn (1923) = J. Huhn, De S. Ambrosiilibroqui inscribiturDe bona mortis commentatio
philologica(Diss. Munster).
Ihm (1890) -= M. Ihm, "Studia ambrosiana," Jahrbacher far klassischePhilologie,Suppl. Bd.
17 1-124.
Ihm (1890a) -= --' "Philo und Ambrosius,* Neue Jahrbacher Jar Philologieund Paedagogik
282-88.
Jannaccone (1963) = S. Jannaccone, "Girolamo e Seneca," GJF 16 326-38.
Jannaccone (1964) = ,_, "Sull'uso degli scritti filosofici di Cicerone da parte di S.
Girolamo," GIF 17 329-41.
Janson (1975) = T. Janson, ProseRhythm in MedievalLatinfrom the 9th to the 13th Century,
Studia Latina Stockholmiensia, 20 (Stockholm).
Jay (1982) = P. Jay, "La datation des premi~res traductions de l'Ancien Testament sur
l"hebreu par saint Je~me,"' REAug 28 208-12.
Jay (1985) = _, L'exl~ de saint Jb'Dmtd"aprhson Commentairesur Jsaie(Paris).
Jouassard (1944) = G. Jouassard, "La personnalite d'Helvidius," M~langtsJ. Saunier(Lyon)
139-56.
Jouassard (1961) = __, "Deux chefs de file en thoologie mariale dans la seconde moitie
du IVe si~cle, saint Epiphane et saint Ambroise,"' Gregorianum42 5-36.
Kaster (1988) = R. Kaster, Guardiansof Language.The Grammarianand Society in Late
Antiquity, The Transformation of the Classical Heritage, 7 (Berkeley and Los
Angeles).
Kech (1977) = H. Kech, Hagiographieals christlicheUnterhaltungsliteratur. Studien zum
Phifnomendes Erbaulichenanhandder MiJnchsvitendes hi. Hieronymus(Goppingen).
Kellner (1893) = J. B. Kellner, Die heiligeAmbrosius,Bischofvon Mailand,als ErkliJrer des
alten Testaments.Ein Beitragzur Geschichteder biblischenExegese(Regensburg).
Kelly (1940) = T. Kelly, SanctiAmbrosiiliberDeconsolatione Valentiniani,Catholic University
of America Patristic Series, 58 (Washington D.C.).
Kelly (1975) = J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome.His Life,Writingsand Controversies (London).
Kennedy (1980) = G. A. Kennedy, ClassicalRhetoricand its Christianand SecularTradition
from Ancient to ModernTimes (Chapel Hill Nq.
Klein (1970) = R. Klein, "Die Kaiserbriefe des Ambrosius. Zur Problematik ihrer
Veroffentlichung," Athenaeum48 335-71.
Klein (1972) =__,Der Streit um den Victoria-altar.Die dritteRelatiodes Symmachusund
die Briefe17, 18 und 57 des Maill1nderBischafsAmbrosius(Darmstadt).
Klostermann (1897) = E. Klostermann, Die Ueberliejerung der Ieremiahomilil'n
des Origenes,
Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 1, 3
(Leipzig).
Klostermann (1935) = __, OrigenesWerke, 10. Origenes MattiJuserkliJrung, I. Die
gri.echisch erhaltenen Tomei, Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der
ersten drei Jahrhunderte, 40, 1 (Leipzig).
Knook (1932) = P. C. Knook, De overgangvan metrischtot rythmischprom bij Cyprianusen
Hieronymus(Diss. Purmerend).
Koch (1928) = H. Koch, NDer Ambrosiaster und zeitgenossische Schriftsteller, ZKG 45
0
1.10.
Koetschau (1913) = K. Koetschau, Origenes Werkt, 5. De principiis, Die griechischen
christlichen Schrift:steller der ersten drei Jahrunderte, 22 (Leipzig).
Laistner (1931) = M. L. W. Laistner, Thoughtand Letters in Western Europe,A.D. 500•900
(London).
Laistner (1951) = __, Christianityand PaganCulture in the LaterRoman Empire(Ithaca
and London).
Lamirande (1981) = E. Lamirande, "'La datation de la Vita Ambrosii de Paulin de Milan,"
REAug 27 44-55.
Lamirande (1982) = __, "Enface et dheloppement spirituel. Le comrnentaire de saint
Ambroise sur saint Luc," Science& espirit 34 103.16.
Lamirande (1983) = ___, Paulinde Milan et La Vita Ambrosii.Aspectsde la religionsous le
Bas.Empire(Paris).
Lammert (1912) ,.. F. Lammert, De HieronymoDonatidiscipulo(Leipzig).
Lammert (1918) = ___, "Die Angaben des Kirchvaters Hieronymus iiber vulgires
Latein, nebst Bemerkungen uber Hieronymus und die Glossen," Philologus75
395413.
Landais (1953) = M. Le Landais, "Dictee ou prtdicationr, in EtudesAugustinil'nnes,ed. H.
Rondet et al. (Paris) 38-48.
Landgraf (1902) = G. Landgraf, "Die Hegesippus•Frage," Archivfur lateinischtLtxicographit
und Grammatik12 465.72.
Lardet (1983) = P. Lardet, Saint ]ertJme,ApologiecontreRufin, Sources Chr~tiennes, 303
(Paris).
Laurand (1907) = L. Laurand, ttudes sur le style des disc.oursde Cichon (Paris).
Laurand (1921) = ___, "L'orasion funebre de Throdose par saint Ambroise; discours
prononc~e et discours ~crit,"' RHE 16 349-50.
Lawler (1970) = Th. Lawler, Jerome's First Letter to Damasus," in Kyriakon.Festschrift].
0
Quasten,ed. P. von Granfield and J. A. Jungmann, 2 vols. (Munster) 2.548--52.

Lazzati (1955) = G. Lazzati, "L'autenticita del De sacramentis e la valutazione letteraria
delle opere di S. Ambrogio," Aevum 29 17-48.
Lazzati (1959) = __, NEsegesi e poesia in Sant'Ambrogio," Annuario Universithc.attolic.a
SacroCuore75-91.
Lazzati (1960) = ___, II valoreletterariodellaesegesiAmbrosiana(Milano).
Leo (1921) = F. Leo, Die griechisch.rlJmische Biographil'nachihrerLiterarischenForm(Leipzig).
Lewy (1932) = H. Lewy, "'Neue Philontexte in der Ueberarbeitung des Ambrosius mit
einem Anhang: Neu gefundene griechische Philonfragmente," Sitzungsberichte der
Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Berlin) 23-84.
Lietzmann (1913) = H. Lietzmann, "Hieronymus," RE 8.2 cols. 1565-81.
Lietzmann (1944) = ___, GeschichtederiJltenKirche,W: Die Zeit der Kirchenvater(Berlin).
Lindholm (1963) = G. Lindhom, Studien zum mittellateinischenProsarhythmus.Seine
Entwicklung und sein Abklingen in der Briefliteratur ltaliens, Studia Latina
Stockholmiensia, 10 (Stockholm).
Bibliography 139
Lo Menzo Rapisarda (1973) = G. Lo Menzo Rapisarda, lA personaliMdi Ambrogionelle
£pistoleXVII e XVlll (Catania).
Lomiento (1973) = G. Lomiento, NNote sulla traduzione geronimiana delle omelie su
Geremia di Origene," VetChr 10 243-62.
Lorenz (1966) = R. Lorenz, "Die Anfange des abendlandischen Monchtums im 4.
Jahrhundert," ZKG 77 1-61.
Lucchesi (1977) = E. Lucchesi, L'usagede Philon dansl'oeuvreerlgMiquede saint Ambroise
(Leiden).
Lubeck (1872) = A. Lubeck, Hieronymusquosnoveritscriptore.s et ex quibushauserit(Lipsiae).
Lu.rope (1968) = A. Lumpe, "Zum Hegesipp-Problem,R ByzF 3 165-67.
Madec (1974) = G. Madec, Ambroise, Athanse et l'Apollinarisme," in Politiqueet thtologie
N
cha. Athanse d'Alexandrie.Actes du Colloquede Chantilly, 23-25 septembre1973, ed.

Ch. Kannengiesser (Paris) 365-76.
Madec (1974a) = _, Saint Ambroiseet la philosophie(Paris).
Malden (1915) = M. R. P. Malden, "St Ambrose as an Interpreter of Holy Scripture," ]ThS
16 509-22.
Malfatti (1921) = E. Malfatti, "Una controversia fra S. Agostoino e S. Girolamo: Il conflitto
di Antiocha," lA Scuola Cattolica49 321-38 and 402-26.
Mamone (1924) = G. Mamone, "Le epistole di S. Ambrogio," Didaskaleion2.1 13-143.
Mamone (1924a) =_,"La forma delle lettere di S. Ambrogio," Didaskaleion2.1145-64.
Mandouze (1968) = A. Mandouze, Saint Augustin. L'aventurede la raison et de la grace
(Paris).
Mannix (1924) = M. D. Mannix, Sandi Ambrosii oratio De obitu Theodosii,Catholic
Mara (1986) = M. Mara, "Ambrosiaster," in Patrology,W: The GoldenA.groflAtin Patristic
Literaturefrom the CouncilofNiceato the Councilof Cha.lcedon, ed. A. Di Berardino,
trans. P. Solari (Westminster MD) 180-90.
Marrou (1950) = H. I. Marrou, Storia dell'educazionenelrantichiM,trad. ital. di U. Massi
(Roma).
Marrou (1958) = _, Saint Augustin et lafin de la cultureantique,~me ed. (Paris).
Matthews (1975) = J. Matthews, WesternAristocraciesand the ImperialCourt A.D. 364-425
(Oxford).
Matthews (1980) = A. W. Matthews, The Developmentof Saint Augustine.FromNeoplatonism
to Christianity, 386-391 A.D. (Washington D.C.).
Mayer (1%9) = C. P. Mayer, Dre Zeichenin der geistigrnEntwicklungund in der Theologi.e
desjungen Augustinus Cassiciacum,2, 4, 1 (Wilrzburg).
Mayer (1969a) =_,"Die Zeichen und die Bekehrung Augustins in den Confessiones,"
Augustiniana 19 5-13.
Mazieres (1973) = J. P. Mazieres, HLes lettres d'Ambroise de Milan A Orontien.
Remarques sur leur chronologie et leur destinatairet Pallas20 49-57.
Mazieres (1979) = _, "Les lettres d'Ambroise de Milan A Irenaeus," Pallas26103-14.
Mazzarino (1973/4) = S. Mazzarino, "II padre di Ambrogio," Helilcon13/14 111-17.
Mazzini (1976}= I. Mazzini, "Tendenze letterarie della Vulgata di Girolamo," A & R 21
132-47.
McDermott (1980) = W. C. McDermott, "Saint Jerome and Domitius Afer," VChr 34 19-23.
McGuire (1927) = M. R. P. McGuire, SanctiAmbrosiiDe NabutluJe,Catholic University of
Meershoek (1966) = G. Q. A. Meershoek, Le latin bibliqued'aprts saint Jtrtnne.Aspects
linguistiquesde la rencontreentrele Bibleet la mondeclassique,Latinitas Christianorum
Primaeva, 20 (Nijmegen).
Meijering {1987)= L. Meijering, Augustine, Defide et symbolo(Amsterdam).
Meloni (1981) = P. Meloni, "L'influsso del Commento al Cantico di Ippolito
sull'Expositio psalmi cxviii di Ambrogio," in Letterature comparate. Problemie metodo.
Studi in onoredi E. Paratore(Bologna) 865-90.
Memoli (1%9) = A. F. Memoli, "Diversita di posizioni e apparenti incoerenze degli
scrittori latini cristiani di fronte alla eloquentia classica," Aevum 43 114-43.
Menis (1964) = G. C. Menis, "La lettera XII attribuita a Sant'Ambrogio e la questione
marciana aquileiese,U RSCI 18 243--53.
Meulenbroek (1942)= B. L. Meulenbroek, Metrieken Rhythmiekin Augustinus'Cnssiciacum-
Dialogen(Utrecht).
Meyer (1905) = W. Meyer, Gesammelte Abhandlungenzur mittellateinischen Rhythmik,2 vols.
(Berlin).
Mohrmann (1952) = C. Mohrmann, "Le style oral du De Sacramentis de saint Ambroise,"
VChr 6 168-77.
Mohrmann (1961-65) = ___, ttudes sur le l.Atindes Chrttiens,3 vols. (Roma). vol. 1: Le
lAtin desChrttiens(1%1): "Das Wortspiel in den augustinischen Sermones" (323--49);
"Saint Augustine and the 'Eloquentia'" (351-70); "Saint Augustin predicateur"
(391-402).vol. 2: l.Atinchrttienet mtditval(1961): "Saint Augustin krivain" (247-75);
"Considerazioni sulle 'Confessioni' di sant' Agostino" (277-323). vol. 3: Latin
chrttien et liturgique (1%5): "Probl~mes stylistiques dans la litt~rature latine
chr~tienne" (147-70).
Mohrmann (1976) = ___, "Observations sur le De Sacramentis et le De Mysteriis de
saint Ambroise," in AmbrosiusEpisropus.Atti del Congressointernazionale di studi
ambrosianinel XVI centenariodellaelevazionedi sant'Ambrogio alla cattedraepisccpale.
Milano2-7 dicembre1974, ed. G. Lazzati, 2 vols. (Milano) 1.335-62.
Monceaux (1901-23) = P. Monceaux, Histoirelitttrairede l'Afriquechrttiennedepuis les
originesjusqu"ll/'invasionarabe,7 vols. (Paris).
Monceaux (1930) = ___, "Saint J~rOme au dkert de Syrie," RDM 58 136-57.
Moreschini (1979) = C. M. Moreschini, SanrAmbrogio.Operedogmatiche, II (Milano).
Moreschini (1982) = _, Sant'Ambrogio. Opereesegetiche,Ill (Milano).
Moreschini (1982a) =___,"II contribute di Gerolamo alla polemica antipelagiana," CrSt
3 61-71.
Moreschini (1984) = ___, Sant'Ambrogio. Operedogmatiche,I (Milano).
Moretres (1909) = H. Moretres, ..Les b~n~ictions des patriarches dans la li~rature du
IVe au VIiie si~cle," BLE 10 39S-411.
Moricca (1928-34) = U. Moricca, Storiadellaletteraturalatinacristiana,3 vols. (Torino).
Morin (1894) = G. Morin, "Que les six livres De sacramentiset l'Explanatiosymboliad
initiandosattribues cl saint Ambroise appartiennent cl un m~me auteur," RB 11
339-45.
Morin (1895) = _, "Un essai d'autocritique," RB 12 385-96.
Morin (18%) =_,"Les monuments de la predication de St. Jerome," RHLR 1393--434.
Morin (1899) = ___, "L'Ambrosiaster et le juif converti Isaac, contemporain du pape
Damase," RHLR 4 97-121.
Morin (1903) = ___, "Hilarius l'Ambrosiaster," RB 20 113--31.
Morin (1913) = ___, ttudes, textes,dkouvertes.Contributionsll la litttratureet ll l'histoire
des douu premierssilcles,Anecdota Maredsolana, 2.1 (Paris) 220-93.
Morin (1914-19) = ___, "L'Opuscule perdu du soi-disant Hegesippe sur les
Machabees," RB 31 83-91.
Morin (1914-19a) = ___, "Les TradatusS. Augustini du ms. 4006 de Wolfenbiittel," RB
31117-55.
Morin (1928) = __ ,"La critique dans une impasse: cl propos du cas de l'Amhrosiaster,"
RB 40 251-59.
Bibliography 141
Morin (1958) = ----J S. HieronymipresbyteriTractatussive Homiliaein Psalmos,in Marci
evangeliumaliaquevaria argummta,2a ed., Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina, 78
(fumhout).
Mras, CSEL 66, 2 = K. Mras, Hegtsippiqui dicitur Historiaelibri v, Corpus Scriptorum
Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, 66, 2 (Wien 1932).
Muckle (1939) = J. T. Muckle, The De officiisministrorumofSt. Ambrose,Medieval Studies
Publications for the Pontifical Institute of Medieval Studies, 1 (New York).
Muller (1911) = D. H. Millier, Die Deutungender hebrllischenBuchstabenbei Ambrosius,
Sitzungsberichte der Kaiserliche Akademie der Wissenschaften in Wien, Phil.-Hist.
Klasse, 167, 2 (Wien).
Millier (1956) = L. G. Millier, The De haeresibus ofSaintAugustine,Catholic University of
Nauroy (1974) = G. Nauroy, "'La m~thode de composition d'Ambroise de Milan et la
structure du De Iacob et vita beata,"' in Ambroisede Milan. XVle c.entenaire de son
llectionfyiscopale.Dix Hudes, ed. Y. M. Duval (Paris) 115-53.
Nauroy (1985) = ___,J "La structure du De Isaac vel anima et la coherence de
l'allegorese d'Ambroise de Milan," REL 63 210-36.
Nautin (1961) = P. Nautin, "La date du De viris illustribusde JerOme, de la mort de Cyrille
de Jerusalem et de celle de Gregoire de Nazianze," RHE 56 33-35.
Nautin (1973) =-__, "Etudes de chronologie hieronymienne (393-397)(Suite)," REAug
19 213-39.
Nautin (1973/4) = ___,J .,L'excommunication de saint Jert.ime,"'AEHE We Sect. 80/81.2
7-37.
Nautin (1974) = __, .,Etudes de chronologie hieronymienne (393-397) (Suite et fin),R
REAug 20 251-84.
Nautin (1976) =__,"Les premieres relations d'Ambroise avec l'empereur Gratien. Le
Defide (livres I et II),"'in Ambroisede Milan. XVle centenaire de sonllectionfyiscopale.
Dix ltudes, ed. Y. M. Duval (Paris) 229-44.
Nautin (1976a) = __, Origme. Homiliessur Jbhnie, Sources Chretiennes, 232 (Paris).
11
Nautin (1979) ., ___,J La date des Commentaires de Jert.ime sur les ~pitres
pauliniennes,"' RHE 74 5-12.
Nautin (1983) = ___, .,L'activite li~raire de Jert.ime de 387 i 392/ RThPh 115 247-59.
Nautin (1983a) = _, "'Le premier echange ~pistolaire entre J~rt.ime et Damase: lettres
reelles ou fictives?'\ FZPhTh 30 331-44.
Nautin (1984) = _, "La liste des oeuvres de Jert.ime dans le De viris illustribus,"
Orpheus5 319-34.
Nautin (1986) = ___, .,Hieronymus,"' in TheologischeRealenzykloplldie (Berlin und New
York) 15.304-15.
Nazzaro (1970) • A. V. Nazzaro, "Nota a Filone De migrationeAbrahami8," RFIC 98
188-93.
Nazzaro (1974) = ___, "Esordio e chiusa delle omelie esameronali,"' Augustinianum14
559-90.
Nazzaro (1976) = ___,J "'La I Ecloga virgiliana nella lettura di Ambrogio," in Ambrosius
Episcopus.Atti del Congressointernazionale
di studi ambrosianinelXVI c.entenario
della
eleuazionedi sant'Ambrogioalla azttedraepiscopale.Milano2-7 dicembre1974, ed. G.
Lazzati, 2 vols. (Milano) 2.312-24.
Nazzaro (1984) = ___, •n De viduis di Ambrogio," Vichiana13 274-98.
Nicolau (1930) = M. G. Nicolau, L'originedu •cursus"rythmiqueet les dibuts de l'accent
d'intensiMen Latin (Paris).
Nikiprowetsky (1981) = V. Nikiprowetsky, "Saint Ambroise et Philon," REG 94 193-99.
Nolan (1956) = J. G. Nolan, JeromeandJovinian,Catholic University of America Studies in
Sacred Theology, 97 (Washington D.C.).
Norberg (1953) = D. Norberg, L'hymneaml1rosien (Uppsala).
Novotny (1929) = F. Novotny, ttat actueldes recherchessur le rythmede la proselatine,Eus
Supplementa, 5 (Lw6w).
Oberhelman/Hall CPh (1984) = S. M. Oberhelman and R. G. Hall, ,,A New Statistical
Analysis of Accentual Prose Rhythms in Imperial Latin Prose," CPh 79114-30.
Oberhelman/Hall CPh (1985) = Oberhelman and Hall, .,Meter in Accentual Clausulae of
Late Empire Latin," CPh 80 214-27.
Oberhelman/Hall CQ (1985) = Hall and Oberhelman, "Rhythmical Clausulae in the Codex
Theodosianusand the Legesnovellaead Theodosianum pertinentes,"CQ 35 201-14.
Oberhelman/Hall CQ (1986) = Hall and Oberhelman, "Internal Oausulae in Late Latin
Prose as Evidence for the Displacement of Meter by Word-Stress," CQ 36 208-24.
Oberhelman lAtomus = Oberhelman, "Clausular Rhythms and the Authenticity of the
Pseudo-Sallustiana,H lAtomus45 (1986) 383-91.
Oberhelman/Hall Augustiniana= Hall and Oberhelman, NRhythmical Oausulae in the
Letters of Augustine as a Reflection of Rhetorical and Cultural Goals," Augustiniana
37 (1986) 258-78.
Oberhelman QUCC = _, "The Provenance of the Prose Style of Ammianus
Marcellinus,* QUCC 27.3 (1987) 79-89.
Oberhelman CQ (1988) = .._,.j "The History and Development of the Cursus Mixtus in
Latin Literature," CQ 38 228-42.
Oberhelman CPh (1988) • _, ~e Cursus in Late Imperial Latin Prose: A
Reconsideration of Methodology," CPh 83 136-49.
Oberhelman (1991) = _, "Jerome's Earliest Attack on Ambrose: On Ephesians,
Prologue (ML 26:469D-70A),"' TAPhA, forthcoming.
O'Donnell (1979) - J. J. O'Donnell, Cassiodorus(Berkeley-Los Angeles-London).
0doardi (1941) = G. Odoardi, La dottrinadellapenitenzJZ in S. Ambrogio(Roma).
Opelt (1972} = I. Opelt, NLukrez bei Hieronymus," Hermes100 7~1.
Opelt (1973} = _, Hieronymus'Streitschriften(Heildelberg).
Opelt (1976) = _, NZwei weitere Elemente klassischer Literatur in Ambrosius' Schrift
De fidt," RhM 119 288.
Opelt (1979) =___,"Des Hieronymus Heiligenbiographien als Quellen der historischen
Topographie des Ostlichen Mittelmeerraumes," RQA 74 145-77.
Opelt (1980) = _, HHieronymus' Leistung als Literaturhistoriker in der Schrift De
viris illustribus/ Orpheus 1 52-75.
Palanque (1933) = J.-R. Palanque, SaintAmbroiseet l'empireromain.Contribution4 l'histoire
des rapportsde Nglise et de l'itat 4 la fin du quatritmesi«Je (Paris).
Palanque (1933a) = ___,J "Deux correspondants de saint A.mbroise: Orontien et Irentt,"
REL 11 153-63.
Palestra (1974) = A. Palestra, "Note al libro I del 'De excessu fratris' di S. Ambrogio,"
ArchivoAmbrosiano27 2.5-52.
Paredi (1940) = A. Paredi, "'La liturgia di Sant'Ambrogio," in Sant'Ambrogionel XVI
centenariodella nascita,Pubblicazioni dell'UniversitA Cattolica del Sacro Cuore,
Serie quinta, Scienze storiche, 18 (Milano) 69-157.
Paredi (1960) = ___, Ambrogioe la sua Ma,2a. ed. ampl. (Milano).
Paredi (1964) = ___, "La liturgia del De sacramentis," in MiscellaneaCarlo Figini,
Hildephonsiana, 6 (Venegono Inferiore) 59-72.
Paredi (1964a) = _, "Gerolamo e S. Ambrogio," in Mtlanges E. Tisserant,V: Archives
Vatiamesd'histoireeccltsiastique,deuxihnepartie,Studi e Testi, 135 (Vaticana) 153-98.
Bi"bliography 143
Paredi (1973) = ____J "Ambrogio vescovo,n in Sant"Ambrogionell"artedel Duomo di
Milano,ed. A. Paredi and A. M. Brizio (Milano) 9-55.
Paredi (1974) = __, Politicadi S. Ambrogio(Milano).
Paredi (1974a) =--.J ,,L'incontro tra Ambrogio ed Agostino," in /1battisteroambrosiano
di S. Giovanniallefonti (Milano) 35-64.
Paredi (1982) = ____J "Ambrogio, Graziano, Teodosio," AAAd 22 17-49.
Pease (1907) = A. S. Pease, "Notes on St. Jerome"s Tractates on the Psalms," JBL26107-11.
Pease (1919) = ____J "The Attitude of Jerome towards Pagan Literature," TAPhA 50
1~7.
Pellegrino (1961) = M. Pellegrino, Paolinodi Milano,Vita di S. Ambrogio(Roma).
Pellegrino (1963) = ____J ,,Osservazioni sullo stile delle Lettere di S. Agostino, in
MilangesoffertsIJ mademoiselle ChristineMohrmann(Utrecht) 240-51.
Penna (1949) = A. Penna, S. Girolamo(Torino).
Pepin (1973) = J. Pepin, NEchos de throries gnostqiues de la matitte au debut de
l'Exameron de saint Ambroise," in Romanitaset Christianitas.Studia I. H. Waszink
a.d. VI Kal.Nov. a. MCMLXXIII XIII lustracomplentioblata,ed. W. den Boer et al.
(Amsterdam) 2.59-73.
Pepin (1976) = __, "Exeg~se de 'in Principio' et th~orie des principes dans
l'Exaemeron (I, 4, 12-16)," in AmbrosiusEpiscopus.Atti del Congressointernazionale
di studi ambrosianinel XVI c:entenario
della elevazionedi sant"Ambrogio alla catttdra
episcopale.
Peri (1962) = V. Peri, "I passi sulla TrinitA nelle omelie origeniane tradotte in latino da
San Gerolamo," Studia Patristica, 6, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der
altchristlichen Literatur, 81 (Berlin) 155-80.
Peri (1980) = __, Omelieorigenianesui Salmi,Contnvutoall'identificazione del textolatino,
Studi e Testi, 289 (Vaticana).
Petschenig, CSEL 62 = M. Petschenig, SanctiAmbrosiiomniaopera.Pars quinta, Corpus
Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, 62 (Vindobonae 1913).
Petschenig, CSEL 64,.., ____J Sandi Ambrosiiomniaopera.Parssexta,Corpus Scriptorum
Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, 64 (Vindobonae 1919).
Pincherle (1974) = A. Pincherle, "Ambrogio ed Agostino," Augustinianum14 385-407.
Pizzolato (1965) = L. F. Pizzolato, LA S. Ambrosiiexplanatiopsalmorumxii. Studio letterario
sulla esegidi sant'Aml7rogio (Milano).
Pizzolato (1969) = ---.J NL'incontro con Ambrogio," in Atti dellaSdtimana Agostiniana
Pavese,Pavia17-24 aprile1969, I: L'itinerariodellafede in S. Agostino(Pavia) 61-88.
Pizzolato (1976) = ____J NLa Sacra Scrittura fondamento del metodo esegetico di
sant'Ambrogio," in AmbrosiusEpisc.opus. Atti del Congressointernazionaledi studi
ambrosianinel XVI c:entenario dellaelevazionedi sant'Ambrogioallacattedratpiscopale.
Pizzolato (1978) = ---.J La dottrinaesegeticadi sant'Ambrogio(Milano).
Plesch (1910) = J. Plesch, Die Originalitatund literarische
Fonn der Mi:Jnchsbiographien
deshi.
Hieronymus(Miinchen).
Portolano (1973) = A Portolano, La dimensionespiritualedellaproprieltl nel "De Nabu.thae
Jn.raelita"di Ambrogio(Napoli).
Preuschen (1905) = E. Preuschen, "Die Stenographie im Leben des Ori.genes," ArchivJar
Stenographie 56 6-14 and 49-55.
Primmer (1968) = A. Primmer, Ciceronumerosus.Studien zum antiken Prosarhythmus,
Sitzungsberichte der Oesterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philol.-Hist.
Klasse, 2.57 (Wien).
Probst {1893) = F. Probst, Die Liturgiedes 4. Jahrhundertsund derenReform(Munster).
Probst (1936) = __, I..esll~ents ddroniens dans le De officiisde S. Ambroise(Paris).
Pruche (1948) = B. Pruche, •L'originali~ du trai~ de saint Basile sur le Saint-F.spirit,"
RSPH 32 207-21.
Puech and Hadot (1959) = H. Ch. Puech and P. Hadot, .,L'Entretien d'Origme avec
H&aclide et le Conunentaire de saint Ambroise sur l'Evangile de saint Luc,"' VChr
13 204-34.
Quasten (1948) • J. Quasten, •Sobria ebrietas in Ambrosius De sacramentis. Ein Beitrag
zur Echtheitsfrage; in Miscellanealiturgicain lumortm L C. Mohlberg,Bibliotheca
•Ephemerides Liturgicae,"' 22, 2 vols. (Roma) 1.117-25.
Ramatschi (1923) = P. Ramatschi, Die Q,ullen dts AmbrosiusWerus "Defadead Gratianum
Augustum libri quinqiu• (Diss. Breslau).
Ramos-Lissl>n (19'76)= D. Ramos--Liss6n, •La tipologia de Jn 9,6-7 en el De Sacramentis,"
in Ambrosius Episcopus.Atti del CongrtsSOintmuzzionalt di studi ambrosianinel XVI
untmario dellaeleva.zione di sant'Ambrogioalla aitttdra tpiscopalt.Milano 2-7 diambre
1974, ed. G. Lazuli, 2 vols. (Milano) 2.336-44.
Rapisarda (1954) • C. A. Rapisarda, •ciceronianus es, non christianus. Dove e quando
avvenne il sogno di S. Girolamo,"' MSLC 4 1-18.
Rauer (1959) - M. Rauer, Origenes Werkt, 9. Die Homilienzu Lukas in dtr Utbersttzung dts
Hieronymusund die gritchischmR.tsteder Homilienund des Lukaskommentars,2. Aufl.,
Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte, 49
(Leipzig).
Rauschen (189'7) • G. Rauschen, Jahrbat:herda christlichtn Kirdtt unter dtm l(Qiser
Thmdosiusdan Grossen.Versucheiner ErneuerungderAnnalts tcdesiasticidts Baronius
far die Jahre378-395 (Freiburg).
Reynolds (1924) • G. Reynolds, The Clausulae in the •0e Civitatt Dei" of St. Augustine,
Ricci (1971) -= M. L. Ricci, "'Fortuna di una formula ciceroniana presso Sant'Ambrogio.
A proposito di iustitia,• SlFC 43 222-45.
Ricci (1971) = ____J "'Precisazioni intomo alla fonte di Sant'Ambrogio, De virg. 18, ns,·
VttChr 14 291-99.
Riggi (1967) - C. Riggi, •vauxesis del Salmo xxxviii nel De officiis di S. Ambrogio,"'
Salesianum29 623-68.
Riggi (1980) • ---J "'La verginiti nel pensiero di S. Ambrogio,• Salesianum42 789-806.
Riposati (1940) = M. Riposati, •ungua e stile nelle opere oratorie di s. Ambrogio,• in
Sant'Ambrogion.tl XVI antenario dtlla nascita(Milano) 261-305.
Rivi~re (1934) "" J. Rivi~re, "Operatorius sermo,"' RSR 14 550-53.
Roberts (1985) • M. Roberts, BibliallEpicand RhetoricalParaphrasein LateAntiquity, ARCA
Oassical and Medieval Texts, Paper, and Monographs, 16 (Liverpool).
Roberts (1989) • __,J The Jtwtltd Style: Poetry and Poeticsin uitt Antiquity (Ithaca and
London).
Rollero (1958) = P. Rollero, u,. ErpositiomJngtlii secundum Luc.andi Ambrogio~ Jonte
della tstgtsiagostiniana(Torino).
Romer (1968) = J. Romer, Die Tluologit der Sandt und der Busse bri hi. Ambrosius (St
Gallen).
Rosadoni (1971) = L. Rosadoni, Oemente di Altssandria, Basilio di c.tsartt1,Giomnni
Crisostomo,Ambrogiodi Milano:II buon uso dtl denaro{Torino).
Rueger (1971) = H. P. Rueger, "'Hieronymus, die Rabbinen und Paulus. Zur
Vorgeschichte des Begriffspaares 'inner und iusserer' Mensch," ZN7W 68132-37.
Ruiz (1971) = S. Ruiz, lnvestigationes historiait d litttrariat in Sancti Amorosii Dt obitu
Valentinianiet Dt obitu Thtodosii imperatorumorationesfunebrts (Diss. Miinchen).
Saba (1940) = L. Saba, •vopera politica di Sant'Ambrogio," in Sant'AmbrogioMl XW
centmariodella nascita(Milan) 533-69.
Bibliography 145
Sagot (1974) = S. Sagot, .,La triple sagesse dans le De Isaac vel anima. Essai sur l~s
prodd~ de composition de saint Ambroise," in Ambroisedt Milan.XVle c:entenaire
de son llectiontpiscopale.Dix ltudes, ed. Y. M. Duval (Paris) 67-114.
Sagot (1981) =_,.,Le Cantique des cantiques dans le De Isaac d'Ambroise de Milan.
Etude textuelle et recherche sur les anciennes versions latines," Recherches
Augustiniennes16 (1981) 3-57.
Savon (1970) = H. Savon, "Quelques remarques sur la chronologie des oeuvres de saint
Ambroise," Studia Patristica, 10, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der
altchristlichen Literatur, 107 (Berlin) 156-60.
Savon (1975) = _, "Saint Ambroise critique de Philen dans le De Cain et Abel,"
Studia Patristica, 13, Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen
Literatur, 116 (Berlin) 82-96.
Savon (1977) = _, Saint Ambroisedevantl'exlp de Philonle Juit, 2 vols. (Paris).
Savon (1977a) = _, "Mani~risme et all~gorie dans l'oeuvre d'Ambroise de Milan,"
REL 55 203-21.
Saven (1980) = _, .,La premi~re oraison fun~bre de saint Ambroise (De excessu fratris
I) et les deux sources de la consolation chr~tienne," REL 58 370-402.
Saven (1984) = _, •saint Ambroise et saint J~rOme,lecteurs de Philen," Aufstiegund
Niedergangder rDmischen Welt II, 21.1 731-59.
Schanz (1914) • M. Schanz, Geschichte der rDmischen Litteratur.W: Die rlJmischen
Litteratur
oon Constantinbis zum Gesetzgebungwerk ]ustinians. 1: Die Litteraturdes vierten
JahrhundertsZweite,2. Aufl., Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, 8,
4 {Milnchen).
Schatkin (1970) = M. A. Schatkin, "The Influence of Origen upon St. Jerome's
Commentary on Galatians," VChr 24 49-58.
Schenkl (1894) = K. Schenkl, "Zu Ciceros Consolatio,H WS 16 38-46.
Schenk.I, CSEL 32.1 = __, Sancti Ambrosiiomniaopera.Parsprima,Corpus Scriptorum
Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, 32.1 (Vindobonae 1896).
Schenkl, CSEL 32.2 = _, SanctiAmbrosiiomniaopera.Parsaltera,Corpus Scriptorum
Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, 32.2 (Vindobonae 1897).
Schenkl, CSEL 32.4 ,.. H. Schenk!, Sandi Ambrosiiomnia opera. Pars quarta,Corpus
Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, 32.4 (Vindobonae 1902).
Schermann (1902) = Th. Schermann, Diegri«hischen Quellendes hi. Ambrosiusin Ubri111
de spiritu sancto, Veroffentlichungen aus dem kirchenhistorischen Seminar,
Milnchen, 10 (Milnchen).
Schermann (1902a) = _, "Lateinische Parallelen zu Oidymus,""RQA 16 232-42.
Schermann (1903) = _, "Die pseudambrosianische Schrift De sacramentis. Ihre
Ueberlieferung und Quellen," RQA 17 237-55.
Schilling (1908) -= 0. Schilling, Reichtumund Eigmtum in der altkirchlichenLiteratur.Ein
Beitragzur sozialenFrage{Freiburg).
Schiwietz (1913) = S. Schiwietz, DasmorgmlJJndischt MlJnchtum,JI: DasMi.Snchtum au/ Sinar
und in Palastinaim IV. ]ahrhundert,2 vols. (Mainz).
Schmid (1930) = J. Schmid, SS. EusebiiHieronymiet Aurelii Augustini Epistulatmutuae,
Aorilegium Patristicum, 22 (Bonn).
Schmid (1959) = W. Schmid, Ueber die klassischeTheorie und Praxis des antiken
Prosa-rhythmus,Hermes Einzelschriften, 12 (Wiesbaden).
Schmidt (1897) = Th. Schmidt, Ambrosius:sein Werk De offidis libri Ill und die Stoa (Diss.
Augsburg).
Schmidt (1976) = P. L. Schmidt, "Zur Typologie und Literarisierung des frilhchristlichen
Lateinischen Dialogs,"" in Christianismeet fonnes littbaires de l'antiquitt tardiveen
Occident,Entretiens sur l'Antiquit~ classique, 23 (Vandoeuvres-Geneve) 101-80.
Schmitz (1%9) = J. Schmitz, nzum Autor der Schrift De Sacramentis," ZKTh 91 59-69.
Schmitz (1%9a) = ____J uNachwort," ZKTh 91 589.
Schone (1900) = A. Schone, Die Weltchronikdes Eusbebiusin ihrer Be:arbeitung durch
Hieronymus(Berlin).
Scholz (1909) = O. Scholz, uDie Hegesippus-Ambrosius Frage. Eine literarhistorische
Besprechung,"' in Ambrosiaster-Studien, Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen, 8
(Breslau) 149-95.
Schuchter (1934) = E. Schuchter, "Zurn Predigstil des hi. Augustinus," WS 52 115-38.
Schultzen (1894) = F. Schultzen, "Die Benutzung der Schriften Tertullians de monogamie
und de ieiunio bei Hieronymus adversus Iovinianum," Neue]ahrbflcher ftJ,rdeutische
Theologie3 485-502.
Schuster (1938) = I. Schuster, La liturgiadeltasettimanasanta nel rito della CJr.iesamilanese
(Milano).
Schwartz (1960) = E. Schwartz, uzur Kirchengeschichte des 4. Jahrhundert/ in idem,
GesammelteSchriften,4 vols. (Berlin), vol. 4: Zur Geschichtederalten Kircheund ihres
Rechts 1-110.
Scrawley (1943) = J. H. Scrawley, "The De Sacramentis.A Work of St. Ambrose/ ]ThS 44
199-200.
Scuzzoso (1968) = P. Scuzzoso, "Osservazioni intorno al •De bono mortis' di S.
Ambrogio," Divus Thomas71 297-3,07.
Seaver (1952) =J.E. Seaver, Persecutionof theJewsin the RomanEmpire,300-438, University
of Kansas Publications, Humanistic Studies, 30 (Lawrence KS).
Seeck (1913) = 0. Seeck, Geschichtedes Untergangsder antiken Welt, 5 vols. (Berlin).
Simard (1942) = G. Simard, "La querelle de deux saints. Saint JerOme et Saint Augustin,"
Revue de l'Universited'Ottawa 12 15-38.
Simon (1951) = P. Simon, Sponsa Ozntici. Die Deutung der Braut des Hohenliedesin der
vornil'Anischen
griechischenTheologieund in lateinischenTheologiedesdrittenund vierten
Jahrhunderts(Diss. Bonn).
Simonetti (1951) = M. Simonetti, "Sulle fonti del De Spiritu sancto di S. Ambrogio," Maia
4 239-48.
Simonetti (1952) = ____J NStudi sull'innologia popolare cristiana dei primi secoli," MAL,
ser. 8, 4.6 339-485.
Simonetti (1953/4) ""'____J uosservazioni critiche sul testo di alcuni inni ambrosiani," ND
7 45-48.
Simonetti (1957) = _, Rufinus Aquileiensis,Apologia(Alba).
Simonetti (1960) = ____J Note sull'antichicommentialle Benedizionidei Patrinrchi,Annali
delle Facolta di Lettere, Filosofia e Magistero, 28 (Cagliari).
Simonetti (1968) = _, Rufin d'AquiUe, Les B~ntdictions des patriarches,Sources
Chretiennes, 140 (Paris).
Simonetti (1976) = ____J "La politica antiariana di Ambrogio/ in AmbrosiusEpiscapus.
Atti del Congressointernazionaledi studi ambrosinninel XVI centenariodellaelevazione
di sant'Ambrogioalla cattedraepiscopale.Milano 2-7 dicembre1974, ed. G. Lazzati, 2
vols. (Milano) 1.266-70.
Smit (1975) = J. W. Smit, HieronymiEpitaphiumsanctaePaulae,in Vite dei Santi dal 111al VJ
secolo,4 (Milano).
Sodano (1975) = A. R. Sodano," Ambrogio e Filone. Leggendo ii De paradiso," AFLM 8
65-82.
Solignac (1956) = A. Solignac, "Nouveaux paralleles entre saint Ambroise et Plotin,"
ArchPhil 19.3 148-56.
Sordi (1976) = M. Sardi, uL'atteggiamento di Ambrogio di fronte a Roma e al
paganesimo," in Ambrosius Episa,pus. Atti del Congressointernazionaledi studi
Bibliography 147
ambrosianinel XVI centenariodellaelevazionedi sant'Ambrogioalla cattedraepisropale.
Milano 2,-7dicembre1974, ed. G.Lazzati, 2 vols. (Milano) 1.203-29.
Sparks (1970) - H. Sparks, "Jerome as Biblical Scholar," in The 01.mbridgeHistory of the
Bible,2 vols. (Cambridge) 1510-26.
Spence (1988) = S. Spence, Rhetoricsof Reason and Desire: Vergil, Augustine, and the
Troubadours(Ithaca and London).
Steidle (1984) = W. Steidle, "Beobachtungen zu des Ambrosius Schrift De officiis," VChr
3818-66.
Steidle (1985) = _, .,Beobachtungen zum Gedankengang im 2. buch von Ambrosius,
De officiis," VChr 39 280-98.
Steinmann (1958) = J. Steinmann, Saint JtrDme(Paris).
Stiglmayr (1914) = J. Stiglmayr, "Ambrosius und Pseudo-Hegesippus," ZK.Th 38 102-12.
Stratmann (1950) = F. M. Stratmann, Die Heiligenund der Staat, lll. Athanasius,Ambrosius,
Chrysostomus,Augustinus (Frankfurt am Main).
Studer (1966) = B. Studer, "Zur Frage des westlichen Origenismus," Studia Patristica, 9,
Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 94 (Berlin)
270-87.
Studer (1974) =_,"Die anti-arianische Auslegung von Psalm 23,7-10 in Defide IV,
1-2 des Ambrosius von Mailand," in Ambroisede Milan.XVJecentenairede son tlection
tpiscopale.Dix Hudes,ed. Y. M. Duval (Paris) 245-66.
Stuiber (1978) = A. Stuiber, "Ambrosiaster," in TheologischeRealenzyklaplldie (Berlin und
New York) 2.356-62.
Swift (1981) = L. J. Swift, "Basil and Ambrose on the Six Days of Creation,"
Augustinianum 21 317-28.
Sychowski (1894) = S. von Sychowski, Hieronymusals Litterarhistorik.er. Einequellenkritische
Untersuchung der Schrift des hl. Hieronymus "De viris illustribus,"
Kirchengeschichtliche Studien, 2, 2 (Munster).
Szab6 (1968) = F. Szab6, "Le Christ et les deux creations, le Christ et le monde selon saint
Ambroise," Augustinianum8 5-39 and 325-60.
Taormina (1954) = L. Taormina, "Sant'Ambrogio e Plotino," MSLC 8 41-85.
Taormina (1959) = _, NNote Ambrosiane," Convivium Dominicum.Studi sull'eucarestia
nei Padri dellaChiesaanticne Miscellaneapatristica(Catania) 423-37.
Testard (1%9) = M. Testard, Saint Jb&ne. L'apDtresavant et pauvre du patriciat romain
(Paris).
Testard (1974) """_, "Etude sur la composition dans le De officiis ministrorum de saint
Ambroise," in Ambroisede Milan. XVJecentenairede son llectionlpiscopale.Dix Hudes,
ed. Y. M. Duval (Paris) 155-97.
Testard (1984) = _, Ambroise.Les devoirs(Paris).
Testard (1984a) = _, "Saint Ambroise et son modele cic~ronien dans le De officiis,"
Caesarodunum19 103-06.
Testard (1985) =_,"Observations sur le rh~torique d'une harangue au peuple dans
le Sermo contra Auxentium de saint Ambroise," REL63 193-209.
Thamin (1895) = R. Thamin, Saint Ambroiseet la moralechrHienneau /Ve srecle.l:tude
ccnnparh des traitls Des dtvoirs de Cichon et de saint Ambroise, Annales de
l'Universit~ de Lyon, 8 (Paris).
Theiler (1970) = W. Theiler, "Diotima neoplatonisch," in idem, Untersuchungenzur antiken
Literatur(Berlin) 502--18.
Thierry (1%3) = J.J. Thierry, "The Date of the Dream of Jerome," VChr 17 28-40.
Tibiletti (1949) = C. Tibiletti, "Cultura classica e cristiana in S. Girolamo," Salesianum11
97-117.
Tissot (1956) • G. Tissot, Ambr~ de Milan, Traitl sur l'Evangilede S. Luc, I, Sources
Chretiennes, 45 (Paris).
Tra~ (197314) • A. Tra~, "'La chiesa milanese e la conversione di Sant'Agostino,"' in
Richnche storiche sulla china ambrosiana.Nel XVI centnrario dell'episcopatodi
Sant"Ambrogio,
N (1973-1974), Archivo Ambrosiano, 27 (Milano) ~24.
Trillitzch (1965) = W. Trillitzch, .,Hieronymus und Seneca," MittellateinisdtaJahrbuch2
42-54.
Trisoglio (1972) = F. Trisolgio, "'Sant'Ambrogio conobbe Plinio ii Giovane?", RSC 20
363-410.
Trisoglio (1973) = _, "San Girolamo e Plinio ii Giovane,• RSC 21 343-83.
Trompeo (1903) = P. P. Trompeo, "lntomo alla composizione degli inni di Ambrogio," A
& R 16 35-40.
Ussani (1906) = V. Ussani, "La questione e la critica del cosi detto Egesippo," SFC 14
24~361.
Ussani, CSEL 76, 2 = _, Htgesippi qui dicitur Historiaelibri v, Corpus Scriptorum
Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, 76, 2 (Wien 1960).
Vacandard (1905) * E. Vacandard, "'Le cursus: son origine, son histoire, son emploi dans
la liturgie," RQH 78 59-102.
Valli (1954) - F. Valli, Gioviniano.Esamedellefonti e dei frammmti (Urbino).
Valois (19881) = N. Valois, "Etude sur le rythme des bulles pontificates,• BECh42 161-98
and 157-72.
Van der Meer (1961) = F. Van der Meer, Augustine tM Bishop.The Life and Workof a Father
of the Church,trans. B. Battershaw and G. R. Lamb (London and New York).
Van der Nat (1977) * P. G. Van der Nat, "Zu den Voraussetzungen der christlichen
lateinischen Literatur. Die 2.eugnisse von Minucius Felix und Laktanz,"' in
Christianismeet fonnes littlraires de l'antiquitl tardive en accident,Entretiens sur
PAntiquit~ classique, 23 (Vandoeuvres-Gen~ve) 191-234.
Van Haeringen (1937) = J. H. Van Haeringen, "De Valentiniano Il et Ambrosio.
Illustrantur et digeruntur res anno 386 gestae,• Mnemosyne5 152-58 and 229-40.
Vasey (1982) = V. R. Vassey, The Socialldms in tM Worksof St. Ambrose.A Study on the De
NabutM,Studia Ephem. Augustiniana, 17 (Roma).
Vecchi (1967) =A.Vecchi," Appunti sulla terminologia esegetica dis. Ambrogio,• SMSR
24 655-64.
VOiker (1931) - W. VOiker, "Das Abraham-Bild bei Philo, Origenes und Ambrosius,• ThS
103 199-207.
Vogel (1881) = F. Vogel, De Hegesippo, qui dicitur, Iosephiinterprete(Diss. Erlangen).
Vogel (1883) ""'_, "Ambrosius und der Uebersetzer des Josephus,"' ZOG 34 241-49.
Vogels (1955) = H.J. Vogels, "Der Bibeltext in drei pseudo-ambrosianischen Predigten,"
ZN1W 46 60-68.
Vogels (1956) = _J "'Ambrosiaster und Hieronymus,"' RB 66 14-19.
Vogels (1957) =_,Das C.orpusPaulinumtin Ambrosiaster(Bonn).
Vogels (1959) = _, D~ Ueberlieferung des Ambrosiasterktnnmmtares zu den Paulinisdrni
Briefen(GOttingen).
Vogels, CSEL 81, 1 = _, Ambrosiastriqui dicitur Commentariusin EpistulasPaulinas,
Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, 81, 1 (Wien 1966).
Volkmann (1885) = R. Volkmann, Die Rhdorik tier Griechenund ROmtrin systematischer
Uebersicht,2 Aufl. (Leipzig).
Weyman (19<&'6)= C. Weyman, "Sprachliches und Stilistiches zu F1orus und Ambrosius:
Archivfar uiteinisc.MLexicograph~und Grammatik14 41-61.
Wickenhauser (1908) =A.Wickenhauser, "Beitrige zur Geschichte der Stenographie auf
den Synod.en des 4. Jh. nC.," Archiv far Stenograph~59 4-38.
Bibliography 149
Wickenhauser (1910) - ___, "Der hl. Hieronymus und die Kurzschrift," ThQ 92 50-87.
Wiesen (1964) = D. S. Wiesen, St. Jeromeas a Satirist.A Study in ChristianThoughtand
Letters,Cornell Studies in Oassical Philology, 34 (Ithaca and London).
Wilbrand (1909) = W. Wilbrand, S. AmbrosiusquosauctoresquaequeexemplariJl in epistulis
componendissecutussit (Diss. Munster).
Wilbrand (1910) = -J "Ambrosius und der Komrnentar des Origenes zum
ROmerbriefe,• BZ 8 ~32.
Wilbrand (1911) =___,"'Ambrosius und Plato," RQ 25 42•-49•_
Wilbrand (1921) = ----J "Zur Chronologie einiger Schriften des hi. Ambrosius,6
HistorischesJahrbuch41 1-19.
Wilbrand (1950) = ___, "Ambrosius," in Reallexicon far Antike und Christentum(Stuttgart)
1.365.73.
Wilkinson (1963) = L. P. Wilkinson, Goldenl.JltinArtistry (Cambridge).
Wytzes (1936) = J. Wytzes, Der Streit und den altarder Vilctoria.Die Tate der betreffenden
Schriftendes Symmachusund Ambrosius(Amsterdam-Paris).
Wytzes (1977) = -J Der letzte Kampfdes Heidentumsin Rom (Leiden).
Yamold (1975) = E. J. Yamold, "Did St. Ambrose know the Mystagogic Catecheses of St.
Cyril of Jerusalem?", in Studia Patristica, 12, Texte und Untersuchungen zur
Geschichte der altchristlichen Literatur, 115 (Berlin) 184-89.
Zander (1910) = C. Zander, Eurythmiavel compositiorythmicaprosaeantiquae,3 vols.
(Leipzig).
Zelzer (1970) = M. Zelzer, ,.Zur Sprache des Arnbrosiaster," WS 4 196-213.
Zelzer (1977) = ___, "Zur Beurteilung der Cicero-Imitation bei Ambrosius, De officiis,•
ws 11 168-91.
Zielinski (1914) = Th. Zielinski, Der con.,tructive
Rhythmusin CicerosReden.Der oratorischen
Rhythmik,Philologus Supplement, 13 (Leipzig).
INDEX
accent-dominated clausulae, definition 44, 45n94, 46-51, 53, 56-57,

of, 30; Ambrose•s use of, 59-62; 59-62, 108-09, 118, 124-25
Jerome's use of, 69-71, 78, 80, 81- - use of Greek uses, 26n21,
82, 85, 87; Augustine's use of, 95, 27n23, 27n27,29,29n32,
%,97. 32n42,32n44,35n54,36n-
Ambrose 59,36n63,37n68,38n71,
- classification of works, 21 41n85, 42n87, 44n91, 60-62,
- corpus, 22-23 107
- education, 57-58 - use of pagan sources, 29n32,
- election to episcopate, 58 32n42,36n62,37n68,40n80
- emperors and, 44, 45-46, - views on Christian style,
46n101,49,53,56,58-59; 53-55, 111-13, 123-26
seealsoGratian, Theo- - De Abraham,24-25, 38n76, 50,
dosius, Valentinian II. 52,59, 113n44, 124n10
- family, 57 - ApologiaprophetaeDavid, 25,
- influence as bishop, 58-59 51, 56
- influence on Augustine, - ApologiaalteraprophetaeDavid,
32n42, 118-19 21n2, 25-26, 56
- knowledge of Greek, 6ln168 - De helloludaic.o,22, 50-51
- Neoplatonism and, 26n21, - De bonomortis,26, 53, 59
37n67, 37n68, 38n76,60-61 - De Cainet Abel,26-27, 38n76,
- revisions of sermons, 25, 43n89, 59
25nl7, 26nl9, 27, 28, 30, - Commentariain xii epistul.as
31-32, 32-33, 33, 34, 35-36, Pauli,23, 52
38, 38n73, 39n78, 40, 43, 44, - Ena"ationesin xii Psalmos,
55-56, 59-60, 101, 105-09, 27-28, 29, 53n133, 56, 62-
124-25 n170
- rhetoric and simplicity, 112-13 - Epistulile,21-22, 23, 45, 45n95,
- sermons, 24, 25, 25-26, 26-27, 62
28-29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 35, 36- - Ep. 2, 47-48
38, 40-41, 42-44, 45, 55, - Epp.5-6, 47
55n145, 59-60, 101-09, 118- - Epp.7-8, 48, 112n42
19, 124-26 - Epp.10-12, 45-46
- skill as exegete, 61-62 - Epp. 13-14, 46-47
- style, oral, 34, 37n67, 38n73, -Ep. 17,46-47,58, 111
40n81, 41, 43-44, 54-55, 60, - Ep. 18, 46-47, 47n103, 51, 58,
101-09 111
- styles, rhythmical, 34, 41-42, - Ep. 19, 48
151
- Ep.21, 46 59
- Epp.27-33, 48 - De patriarchibus,42, 59
- Epp.34-36, 48 - De poenitentia,40-41, 59, 112
- Epp.37-38, 48 - De sacramentis, 21n2, 38n73,
- Ep.40,49,53,62 42-44, 50, 51, 59, 101-09,
- Ep.43, 41n85 111, 113
-Ep. 47,47n104,48,54n139 - SennocontraAurentium,21n3,
- Ep.48, 45n95, 47n104, 48, 22n6, 23, 45, 56
54n139,54n140, 113n43 - Sermones,23, 52
- Ep.49, 48 - De spiritu sancto,23, 44-45, 56,
- Ep.63, 48 58,82n79
- Exaemeron, 23, 28-29, 56 - De Tobia, 33-34, 51, 59
- De exassu fratris sui Satyri, - De viduis,21n3, 35-36, 56
29-30 - De virginibus,21n3, 22n6, 36,
- Exhortatiovirginitatis,21n3, 51n124,55n144,56
30, 38, 56 - De virginitate,21n3, 36, 56
- E:rplanatiosymboli, 21n2, 30-31, Ambrosiaster, 52
101, 104-05, 109,113 Ammianus, 17, 52
- ErpositioApocalysis,23, 52-53 Ampellius, Lucius, 7n10
- ErpositioetJangel.sec.Lucam, Apollinaris of Laodicea, 3.5n54
31-32, 53n133, 56, 112, 124, Apuleius, 7n10
124n12 Arianism, 35, 36, 45, 46, 58, 90
- E:rpositioPsalmicxviii,32, 51, Amobius, 2n5, 3, 8, 13, 17, 120, 121-22
56 - Adversusnationes,122n4, 122n5
- Defide, 32-33, 44, 56, 58, 124 Asiatic rhythms, 5, 12-13, 15, 17-18, 24
- De fuga saeculi,33, 50, 52, 59 Athanasius, 27n27, 35n54, 36n59, 44n91,
- De Heliaet ieiunio,33-34, 59 61
- De Jacobet vita beata,35, 51, 59 Augustine
- De inc.arnationis
domini - dictation, use of, 90-92, 91n8,
sacramento,35, 56 92, 94-95,96, 96-97, 97n26
- De institutionevirginis, 21n3, - exegesis, 91, 97n26
22n6, 35-36, 43n89, 51n124, - hastiness in composition, 93
56 - knowledge of Greek, 118n55
- De interpellationelob et David, - Neoplatonism and, 90
36-37, 51, 59 - oral style, 89-90, 90n3, 97, 109-
- De Josephpatriarcha, 37, 59 11, 117-18, 119-20
- De Isaacet anima,37, 51, - pagan classics, attitudes
54n141, 59 toward, 94n17, 97-99
- De lapsuvirginis,22n6, 23, 51- - rhetoric, transformation of, 97-
52, 56n147 99, 114-20, 125-26
- De mysteriis,37-38, 43n90, 44, - sermons, 89-92, 97, 109. 11, 117-
59, 101, 105-09 18, 119-20, 124-26
- De Nabuthe,33-34, 59 - stenographic records, 91-92,
- De Nol et area,38, 51, 59 93n 13; revision of, 92-93
- De obituTheodosii,37-38, 56 - style, levels of, 96-99, 119-20
- De obituValentiniani,22n6, - styles, rhythmical, 89-90, 91-92,
37-38, 56 93, 94, 95-96, 110n33, 118,
- De offidisministrorum,21n3, 119, 125
38n76, 39-41, 54, 59, - De aztechizandis rud11'us,93
62n169, 113 - De dvitate dei, 89, 93-94, 96, 97-
- De paradiso,38n76, 41-42, 51, 98, 119
Index 153
,/
- Omfessiones,54n138, 58n157, 98n31, 105, 106, 107, 110, 111, 112-

89,90,9'7,98n29, 115n47, 20, 123-24
115n49, 117, 118-19, 119n63 Bible, Hebrew, 69, 80, 87
- Contraacademicos, 92-93 Blesilla, 69
- C.Ontra Iulianum,41n85, Boccaccio, Scriptal1reviora, 12
54n138, 94, 118 Cakidius, 61n168
- De diviniationedaemonum, Calvin, John, CommentariaSenecae"De
98n29 dementia",9
- De doctrinachristiana,45, 55, Cassiodorus, Variae,58n157, 60n165
93--94,96, 114-20, 122, 124 Celsus, 7nl 1
- E~ationes in Psalmos,~92, chi-square tests, definition of, 9-10;
9'7 examples of, 10, 11-13; critical
- Epistulae,95 value in, 10-11; control texts used
- Ep. 33, 91n8 in, 8-9, 12, 14
- Ep. 34, 95 Christianity and rhetoric, 63--67,112-26
- Ep. 35, 95 Christianity and paganism, 63-66, 81,
- Ep. 36, 95 97-99, 112-20
- Ep. 41, 91n8 Cicero, 3, 5, 6n5, 8, 9, 12n21, 13, 17, 18,
- Ep. 56, 96 22,40,45n94,49,54,58,60n168,
- Ep. 57, 96 90, 92,94n21,97n26, 117, 121nl,
- Ep. 87, 95 12.5
- Ep. 101, 96 - ln CatilinamW, 45n94
-Ep. 104, 96 - De oratore,14-15, 9'7n26
- Ep. 110, 96 - Philippicae, 9
- Ep. 116, 96 clausulae, definition of, lnl. Seealso
- Ep. 131, 96 accent-dominated clausulae;
- Ep. 132, 96 cursus;cursusmixtus;metrical
- Ep. 139, 94 clausulae; nonrhythmical
- Ep.141, 91n8, 95 clausulae.
- Ep.147, 96 cola, lnl, 94n19, 119n61
- Ep. 157, 96 colometry, lnl
- Ep. 185, 96 commata, lnl, 94nl9, 119n61
- Ep.199, 96 confidence interval, 9, 12
- Ep.211, 96 ronsolatiogenre, 29n32, 30, 30n36, 38-39,
- Ep.224, 94 39n78, 53, 56-57, 81, 84n83
- De excidiourbisRomaesermo, Constantius II, 57n150
92, 124nll cursus (accent-only dausulae),
- Defide, 93 definition of, 8, 30, 94; test for, 8-
- De haere.sibus,
93, 96 12, 14-19; in works ascribed to
- loannisevangeliumtractatus Ambrose, 50, 51, 52; medieval, 16,
cxxiv, 90, 115n46 62, 94; Greek, 8, 60, 62, 65, 72;
- De pecaztorum originibus,29n35 use of in dictation, 69; Jerome's
- Retractationes,91, 92, 92n10, use of, 69, 70.71, 81-82, 87;
94-95, 96n23 Augustine's use of, 90, 92, 93,
- Sennones,89, 109-11 95-96, 9'7
Ausonius, 8, 57 cursusdactylicusdispondaicus, 10n16
Auxentius, 45 cursusdispondaicus, 6, 13-14
Basil, 27n27, 29, 34n50, 44n91, 61 cursusmedius,6, 14n22
Bergengoz, 52-53 cursusmiscellanei,10n16, 14
Bible, 23, 39n79, 52n129, 53n132, 65, 67, cursusmixtus,definition of, 5-6;
69, 70, 72, 79-80, 86n92, 87, 89, 90, evolution of, 5-7, 15; systems of,
7-8; test for, 12-13, 14-19; Jerome
Ambrose's use of, 53, ~59; - attack on Ambrose, 71, 82n79
Jerome's use of, 74, 79, 82-84, 87; - conflict with pagan classics
Augustine's use of, 93, 93-94, 96 and rhetoric, 63-66, 81
cursusplanus,5-6 - consolatory works, 81, 84-85,
cursustardus,6, 14n22 84n83
cursustrispondaicus,
6 - dream in desert, 64-65, 75
cursusvelox,6, 14n22 - education, 78
Cyprian, 2n.5, 3, 5, 5n2, 7nl0, 8, 36n59, - exegesis, 65n6, 67, 68-71,
41n83, 61n168, 65, 120, 121, 122, 70n28, 81, 82-84
123n9 - fictitious correspondence,
- Ad [)onatum,122n3 82n79
Cyril of Jerusalem, 61 - hagiography, 77-79, 87
Damasus, Pope, 73, 79, 82-83 - hastiness in composition, 66,
Dante, Epi.stulae, 12, 14 68-69, 70-71, 72, 75, 77, 84,
Demetrias, 82 85, 87
Descartes, 9, 14-15 - monasticism and, 77n54, 81,
Dexter, 52 82, 86
dialogue, 76n49, 92-93 - Neoplatonism and, 75n45
dictation. See stenography. - oral style, 86-87, 109, 124-26
Didymus the Blind, 27n27, 38n71, 44n91, - Origenism and, 70, 72
61, 82n79 - plagiarism by, 69n19, 70, 76-77
Donatism, 90, 95, 96 - polemics, 73-76
elison, 13,22,23,68n16 - Rufinus and, 72n32, 75-76
Epiphanius,61, 93 - simplicity, Christian, 67nl2,
errors, Type A and Type B, 10 113-14
Eugenius, 58 - stenography and dictation,
Eusebius of Caesarea, 27n27, 32n42, 76- use of, 66-67, 68n17, 70-71,
77 83, 86; revision of, 66-67,
Eustochium, 70, 71n31, 81, 81n75, 84 68n17,83
Evagrius, 52 - style, rhythmical, 66n11,
Fiastrius, 93 68n16, 69--71,72-73, 74, 75,
Firmicus Matemus, 8, 17 76n48, 79-80, 81, 83, 84-85,
Fronto, 7n10 87, 118, 125
Gellius, Aulus, 7n10 - style, views on, 66-68, 73, 87,
Gilbert Foliot, Expositioin Cantic.a 109
Cantiwrum,14, 16 - translation, views on, 67,
Gorgias, 119n58 71n30, 72-73, 80n67
grammarians, 57, 63, 98 - translation of Greek exegetes,
Gratian, 32, 33n46, 35, 36, 44, 45, 46n100, 71-72, 72-73, 72n34
58, 59 - translation of scriptures, 69,
Gregory of Nazianzen, 61 70n26,79-80,87, t15n49
Helvidius, 73-74 - use of Greek sources, 69n19,
Hilary, 8, 27n27, 32n42, 52, 62n169, 65, 9n22, 70, 70n28, 74n41,
121, 122-23 75n45. Seealso plagiarism.
- De Trinitate,123n8 - use of Hebrew sources, 69n22,
Hippo, Council of, 93 70n28
Hippolytus of Rome, 42n87, 60-61 -Adversus Helvidium,67n15, 73-
homiletics. See homiletic style. 74, 87
Horace, Sermones, 66nll - Adversuslovinianum,67n15,
Isaac the Jew, 52 74-75
Index 155
- Adversus Rufinum, 65n7, 68n16, - Ep. 29, 81, 83

70n25, 75-76 - Ep. 30, 81
- In chronicaEusebii,66 - Ep. 31, 81, 81n75, 85
- Commentariain Abdiam,66, - Ep. 32, 85
66n11 - Ep. 34, 81
- Commentariain Amos, 70n28 - Ep. 35, 81
- Commentarioli,70-71 - Ep. 36, 81, 82-83
- Commentariain Ecclesiasten,
69- - Ep. 39, 81
70 - Ep. 41, 81
- Commentariain Ephesios,66, - Ep. 42, 81
67n12 - Ep. 44, 85
- Commentariain Ez.echielem, - Ep. 45, 81, 85
66n10, 67n13, 114 - Ep. 47, 85
- Commentariain Galatas,65, - Ep. 48, 67n12, 81, 114
67n12 - Ep. 49, 66n10
- Commentariain Hosaeam,67n13 - Ep. 51, 81n75
- OJmmentariain Isaiam,13, - Ep. 52, 67n12, 67n15, 81, 113
66n10,67n13,68n16 - Ep. 53, 81
- Commentariain Matthaeum,66, - Ep. 54, 81
66n11, 68-69, 72 - Ep. 55, 81
- Commentariain Nahum, - Ep. 57, 67n12, 67n14, 81, 114
Michaeam,Sophoniam, - Ep. 58, 81
Aggaeum,Habacuc,70-71 - Ep. 60, 81
- Commentariain Philemonem,66 - Ep. 61, 81
- Commentariain Z-achariam, - Ep. 65, 81
66n10 - Ep. 66, 81
- DialogiadversusPelngianos, - Ep. 70, 65, 66
68n16, 75-76 - Ep. 71, 81
- Dialogusin Luciferianos,74n43, - Ep. 74, 66ntl
114 - Ep. 75, 81
- Epistulae,68n16, 80-81, 87 - Ep. 77, 81, 84
- Ep. 4, 85 - Ep. 79, 81
- Ep. 5, 85 - Ep. 80, 73
- Ep. 6, 85 - Ep. 84, 81
- Ep. 8, 81 - Ep. 85, 66n10, 81
- Ep. 9, 81 - Ep. 97, 67n14
- Ep. 10, 78n58 - Ep. 102, 85
- Ep. 11, 81 - Ep. 103, 85
- Ep. 12, 81, 85 - Ep. 105, 85
- Ep. 13,81, 85 - Ep. 107, 81
- Ep. 14,67n12, 81, 113 - Ep. 108, 81,84-85
- Ep. 15,81, 83-84 - Ep. 109, 81
- Ep. 16,81, 83-84 - Ep. 112, 85
- Ep. 18A, 81, 82-83 - Ep. 115, 85
- Ep. 18B, 81, 82-83 - Ep. 117, 66
- Ep. 20, 81 - Ep. 118, 81
-Ep.21,65n6,81,82-83 - Ep. 122, 81
-Ep. 22,64-65, 65n6,81 - Ep. 123, 81
- Ep. 23, 81 - Ep. 125, 82
- Ep. 25, 81, 83 - Ep. 126, 81
- Ep. 26, 81, 83 - Ep. 127, 81
- Ep. 128, 81 metrical clausulae, 5ff. Stt also Asiatic
- Ep. 130, 81, 82 rhythms.
- Ep. 133, 81 Minucius, 2n5, 3, 5, 5n2, 7n10, 8, 65, 121,
- Ep. 140, 81 123n9
- Ep. 141, 85 mystery, Bible as, 112-14
- Ep. 142, 85 Nicetas of Remesiana, 31n39, 43, 51
- Ep.143, 85 nonrhythmical clausulae, 15-16; in
- Ep. 145, 81 Ambrose's works, 46-48; in
- Ep. 147, 81 works ascribed to Ambrose, 51,
- Homiliain Psalmum77, 67n12, 52; in Jerome's works, 72-73, 76-
67n14, 86n93, 114 77, 79-80, 86-87; in Augustine 1s
- Homiliain Psalmum78, 67n12, works, 90-91, '17
114 opinions, of Jerome about Ambrose, 44-
- Homiliain Psalmum86, 67n12, 45, 71, 96
114 opinions, of Jerome about Augustine, 85
- Homiliain Psalmum90, 67n14, opinions, of Augustine about Ambrose,
114 45, 96, 118r19
- Homiliain Psalmum131, 67n12, opinions, of Augustine about Jerome, 96
114 Origen, 27n27, 321142,32n44, 36n63,
- Homiliain Psalmum143, 67n12 37n67, 60-61, 69n19, 70, 71-73,
- Homiliatin Psalmos,86n93 86n93
- Homiliatin Mard tvangrlium, Palladius, 2n5, 117
86-87, 109 Palladius of Ratiara, 35, 46
- Translatiolwmil. Origenisin panegyricists, Latin, 8, 10, 13
Canticain Cantic:orum, 73 Panegyricuslatinus IX, 10, 12-13
- Translatiolwmil. Origmisin Paula, 70, 71n31, 84
ltrtmiam tt Eudtieltm, Paulinus, Vita, 27, 54n138, 55n145,
72n34 57n151,58n158
- Translatiolwmil. Origenisin Pelagianism, 85, 90, 93, 95
Isaiam,72-73 Pelagius, 75--76
- Translatiolwmil. Origmisin Philo, 27n23, 37n67, 38n76, 41n8.5,
Lucam,71-72 42n87, 60-61
- lN viris illustribus,68n16, 70, Pliny, 65
70n28, 72, 76-77 Plotinus, 26n21, 37n67, 37n68
- Vita Hilarionis,77, 79 Polydore Vergil, Historiaanglica,14-15
- Vita Malchi,65, 68n16, 7Pr79 Porphyry,37n68,61n168
- Vita Pauli,78-79, 87 Possidius
- Vulgate. Stt Translations of - Vita Augustini,91, 94-95
scriptures. - lndiculum, 92n10
John of Salisbury, Ps.-Longinus, 116n50
- Epistulae,12 Quintilian, 58
- Polycraticus,14 rhetoric, 7, 7, 46-47, 53-55, 57-59, 63-67,
Lactantius, 8, 13, 57n152, 61n168, 65, 67n15, 73-74, 75n46, 78r79, 81-82,
120, 121, 122-23 85n87, 93-94, 97-99, 102, 106, 110-
- Institutionesdivinat, 11, 122n7, 12, 114-20, 121-26
123, 123n8, 123n9 Rome, sack of, 92, 93
- Dt opificiodei, 123n8 Rufinus of Aquileia, 31n39, 45, 72n32,
Lucan, 65 75-76
Macrobius,8,47n102 - Apologiain Hitronymum,65n7,
Marcella, 83 76n48
Maximus, 31n39 rusticity, Christian, 67n12, 112, 113
Index 157
Sabinus, 48, 54 style, types of (generadicend1),98-99,
sample size, reliability of, 12n18, 28n29 119-20, 125-26
sampling, random, 9; methods of, 13-14, Suetonius, 76
23 Symmachus, 2n5, 3n5, 8, 13, 17, 46n101,
Seneca, 79n62 47, 51, 57racitus, 7n11
Septuagint 69,80 Terence, 65
sermon. Stt style, homiletic. Tertullian, 2, 7n10, 10, 41n83, 60, 61nl68,
simplicity, Christian, 67n12, 1lZ.16, 62n169,64n4,97, 121, 123n9
123n9, 125-26 - Apologeticus, 10
stenography and dictation, 27-28, 31, 35, - De praescriptionibus hereticorum,
43,51n124,55n145,56, 62,62n170, 121nl
66-67, 68nl7, 70-71, 83, 86, 90-92, Theodosius, 25, 25n15, 38-39, 46-47, 49,
94-97; revision of, 25, 28, 66-67, 58-59
68n17, 83, 92-93 translation. See Jerome, Translation.
style, homiletic, 101-20; elements of, 54, Valentinian TI,38-39, 46, 58, 59
86, 89, 102-04, 117-18, 125; pro- Vegetius, 8, 17
venance of, 111-20, 124-25; Am- Vercellae, church of, 48
brose's use of, 24-33, 35-38, 40- Vergil, 32n42, 37n68, 54, 79n62
45, 54-55, 59-60, 101-09, 118-19, Victorinus, Marius, 57n152
124-26; Jerome's use of, 67, 77, VitaAntonii,78n56
86-87, 109, 124-26; Augustine's Vitruvius, 7nll
use of, 89-92, 97, 109-11, 117-18, Zert:a, Council of, 95
119-20, 124-26
style, Christian, 2, 29n32, 46-47, 53-55,
59-60, 65-67, 67n12, 74, 77, 78-79,
98-99, 101-26
TABLE I. Prose Rhythm in Control Texts
u u u
u u u u u u u u u
u u u u u u u u u u u u u
u u u u u u u u u u u
u u u u u u u u u
u u u u u u u u u u u u u u
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X
DESCARTES:
p/anus:
60/060 15 38 35 82
600/00 5 4 7 2 11 2 10 20
00/0/60 1 1 2 5 7
60060 1 4 13 5 2 4
6/0060 3 5 1 7
Total planus = 293

tardus:
60/0600 9 11 17 3 5 2 10 4 16
600/600 6 1 2 3 4 4
60/0/600 1 2 1 1 1 5
60/060/0 1 1 2
6/00600 1
600/60/0 1 1
Total tardus = 117

TABLE I. Prose Rhythm In Control Texts
u u u
u u u u u u u u u
u u u u u u u u u
DESCARTES (cont.)
velox:
6oo/oo6o 6 6 28 3 20
6o/oo6oo 5 7 16 17 3 4 5
6oo/o/o6o
60/0/0060 1 2
2
,
4
Total velox • 130
trispondalcus:
60/0060 4 24 42 1 6 7 47
6oo/o6o 1 3 10 3 8 35
6ololo6o 1 6 1 10
6oo/o/6o 4
Total trispondaicus = 213
medius:
00/600 3 13 5 1 1 9 7
6o/6o/o 1 1 1 1 1
oo6o/o 2 1 2 1
II u u
u u u u u u u u u
II u u u u u u u u u u u u
u u u u u u u u u
DESCARTES (cont.)
medlus:
6/0000 5 1 1 3
6o/oo6oo 1 2
6oo/oo6oo 3
6/000/0 1
6/o/6oo 1
Total medius = 87
dispondaicus:
6o/6o 2 7 4 1 3 4 1 5 13 18 1 3 28 3 5 45
6o/6/o 1
Total dispondaicus = 144

dact. disp. 3 1 3 1 5 3 1
Total dacr. disp. = 17

u u u
u u u u u u u u u
u u u u u u u u u u u II u
u u u u u u u II u u II
u u u u u u u u u
DESCARTES (cont. I
all other forms: 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 1 2 2
Total = 18
Total 28 4 1 21 47 2 0 12 33 19 7 21 30 54 15 21 95 184 9 32 88 277
p• = .540 m• = .314 m' = .388

u u u
u u u u u u u u u
u u u u u u u u u
POLYDORE
planus:
6o/o6o 2 17 45 1 2 36 80
600/60 5 3 16 2 1 4 3 9 19
60/0/60 2 1 3 1 4 6
6oo6o 5 9 3 5 5
6/0060 1 1 1
600/6/0 1 1
Total planus = 296
tardus:
00/0600 5 6 11 1 7 1 6 4 12
600/600 5 2 2 9 2 2 2 17
6o/o/6oo 2 3 2 3
00/060/0 2 3 1 3
6/00000 1
600/60/0 2 2
Total tardus = 119

u u u
u u u u u u u u u
u u u u u u u u u
POLYOORE lcont.}
ve/ox:
600/0000 2 10 27 7 20
oo/oo6oo 1 2 7 2 8 2
000/0/000 2
00/0/0060 1 1 1 3
Total velox = 96
trispondaicus:
00/0060 2 23 35 1 2 12 30
6oo/o6o 2 4 21 5 5 40
00/0/000 5 8
600/0/60 3 5
Total trispondaicus • 203
medius:
00/600 7 1 1 2 35 13 2 4 12 10
oo/00/0 1 1 3
0060/0 4 1 1
u u u
u u u u u u u u u
u u u u V u u u u
POLVDORE (cont.)
medius:
6/0000
00/00000
4
1 3
2
1 , 2
4
2
000/00600 2 1 3 3
6/000/0
6/o/6oo 2
1
,
Total medius = 132
dlspondaicus:
60/00 1 5 2 2 1 1 7 4 11 20 4 40
oo/6/o 1 1
Total dlspondaicus = 100
dact. disp.: 2 1 5 5 4 1 9
Total dact. disp. = 27

u u u
u u u u u u u u u
u u u u u V u u u u u u u
u u u u u u u u u
POLYDORE (cont.)
all other forms: 2 3 5 1 3 8 1 1
Total = 27
Total 33 4 4 28 64 2 1 10 66 10 7 40 36 43 8 16 72 171 10 22 104 249
p• .511 m" .343 m' = .447

u u u
u u u u u u u u u
u u u u u u u u u
CICERO
p/anus:
60/000 1 1 36 1 135 8
6oo/6o 2 3 5 6 3 1 11
60/0/60 5 22
60060 1 7 1 7 7
6loo6o 12
Total planus = 276

tardus:
60/0600 2 a 3 9 40 1 17
600/600 7 1 18
60/0/600 2 1 9 1 3
60/060/0 1 3 1
6/00600 3 1 2
6oo/6o/o 1 2
u u u
u u u u u u u u u
u u u u u u u u u
CICERO lcont.1
Total tardus "" 136
velox:
600/0000 11 56 6 6 7
60/00600 7 1 5 10
6oo/o/o6o 7 4
00/0/0000 1 10 2
Total velox "" 133
trispondsicus:
00/0000 75 60 1. 1 39 9
600/060 6 13 18
oo/o/o6o 7 3
600/0/60 2 2
Total trispondalcus = 236

u u u
u u u u u u u u u
u u u u u u u u u
CICERO (cont./
medius:
60/600
6o/6o/o
9 1 2 27 1 1 8 3 11
1 1 ,
0000/0 2 1 1 4
6/0000 2 1 2 4
6o/oo6oo 1 1 6 1 2 1 1
600/00600 1 1
Totalmedius = 99
dispondaicus:
60/60 2 1 1 3 9 4 14 1 42 1 4 1
6/0/60 1 1
dact. disp. 2 1 1 5 9
Total dact. disp. = 19

u u u
u u u u u u u u u
u II u V u u u V V u u u V
V V u u u u u u u u u
u u u u u u u u u
II II u II u u II u II u II u u u
CICERO (cont.)
all other forms: 2 3 3 1 3 3
Total ,.. 16
Total 15 3 1 21 5 0 3 5 65 4 13 92 14 61 12 105 4 257 30 5 248 37
pv = .545 m• = .618 m' = .837

u II II
u u II u u u u u u
II u u u II u u u u u u u u
IJ IJ u IJ u u u u u u u
IJ u u u u u u u u
u u u u u IJ II u II u u IJ u u
DANTE
planus:
60/000 1 12 7 37 15
6oo/6o 1 2 1 2
60/0/60 5 1 2 4 1
60060 1 1
Total planus = 93
tardus:
60/0600 8 6 3 1 9 5
6oo/6oo 1
60/0/600 2 6 2 1 1
600/60/0 1 1
60/0/00/0 1 1
Total tardus = 50
u u u
u u IJ u u IJ u u u
u u u u u u u u u
u u u u u u u u u u u IJ u u
DANTE (cont.I
ve/ox:
6oo/oo6o 5 11 36 7 21
6o/oo6oo 2
6oolo/o6o 5 1 4
6o/o/oo6o 1
Total ve/ox -= 93
medius:
6/0600 1 1
Total medius =2
dispondsicus:
60/60 1 4 2 ,,
60/60
6/060 1
u u u
u u u u u u u u u
u u u u u u u u u II II
u u u u II u u u u
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X )( X X
DANTE {cont.)
Total 3 0 6 11 9 , 0 4 8 0 , 10 6 1 5 1 26 55 0 2 53 46
p• ... 952 m• = .520 m1 • .560

TABLE I. ProseRhythm in Control Texts
u u u
u u u u u u u u u
u u u u u u u u u
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X )( X X X X X
GILBERT
planus:
6o/o6o 11 7 2 95 36
6oo/6o 2 2 3 1 2 7
6o/o/6o 1 2 1 2 9
6oo6o 3 4 5 1
6/oo6o 2 2 2 6
6oo/6/o 1 1
Total planus • 210
tardus:
00/0000 2 31 13 3 1 1 34 4 13
000/600 1 3
6olo/6oo 1 1 6 1 3 12 1
6o/o6olo 1 3
6/oo6oo 1 2 1
6oo/6o/o 1 1
Total tardus "' 14 1

u u u
u u u u u u u u u
u IJ u u u u u u u u u IJ u
u u u u u u u u u
u u u fJ u u u u u u u u u u
GILBERT (cont.I
velox:
600/0060 4 6 44 5 11 32
oo/oo6oo 7 6 1 3 2
600/0/000 3 3 1 8
6o/o/oo6o 1 5
Total velox = 142
trispondaicus:
00/0000 5 3 38 1 3 13 35
000/000 1 3 2 4 2
00/0/060
000/0/60 ,
5 1 4 3
,
8
Total trispondaicus "" 133

u u u
u u u u u u u u u
u u u u u u u u u
X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X )C X X
GILBERT (cont.}
ITHHl/us:
6o/6oo 2 3 3 1 1
6o/6o/o 1 1 1
0060/0 1
6/o6oo 1 3 1 1
6o/oo6oo 5 1 1
6oo/oo6oo 1 2
6/odO/O 1
Totalmed/us • 31
dlspondaicus:
6o/6o 1 2 1 1 2 3 5 3 5
60/6/o 2
6/0/60 2
Total dispondaicus • 27
u u u
u u u u u u u u u
u u u u u u u u u
GILBERT (cont.)
dsct. disp. 1 2
Total dact. disp. ""3
all other forms: 1 4 1 2 1 1 7 1
Total ,.. 20
Total 12 0 32 22 12 1 0 10 23 0 2 55 B 21 4 8 36 128 13 17 146 157
p• = .697 m' = .496 m' = .562

u u u
u u u u u u u u u
u u CJ u u CJ u u u
JOHN OF SALISBURY
planus:
60/060 4 3 38 6
600/60 2 1 4 1 9
60/0/60 1 6
60060 1 1 3 1
6/0060 1 1
600/6/0
Total planus = 84
tardus:
60/0600 2 1 14 8 2 1 20
600/600 2 1
60/0/600 3 1 7
60/060/0 1
6/00600 1
600/60/0 1 1
Total tardus = 68
u u u
u u u u u u IJ u u
u u u u u u u u u
X X X X X X X X X )( X X X X X X X X X X X X
JOHN OF SALISBURY (cont.I
velox:
6oo/oo6o 3 9 43 2 10 34
6o/oo6oo 1 2 2
600/0/000 1 8 2
60/0/0060 1 1 2
Total velox = 121

trispondaicus:
00/0060 2 2 4 1 1 4
6oo/o6o 1 1 3
6o/o/o6o 1
Total trispondalcus = 20
TABLE I. Prose Rhvthm in Control Texts
u u u
u u u u u u u u u
u u u u u u u u u
JOHN OF SALISBURY (cont.}
medius:
60/600 2 1
6o/6o/o 1 1
oo6olo
6/o6oo 1
1
, 1
6o/oo6oo 1
6oo/oo6oo 1 1
Total rrMdius • 12
Total 6 0 3 18 9 0 0 5 12 0 2 29 1 2 5 4 21 65 2 2 67 52
p• = .895 m• = .587 m' = .652

TABLEII. Prose Rhythm in the Ambrosian Corpus
WORK Total pi t V tr me d dd irr p" m• m'
AUTHENTICATED
WORKS:
De Abraham 526 154 101 51 44 93 47 13 23 306 230 307

.293 .192 .097 .084 ,177 .089 .025 .044 .582 .437 .584
6oo/6o 20/3/10 6o/o6oo 74/24/34 6oo/6oo 19/1/10 6oo/oo0o 27/21/21
Apologia prophetae David 299 105 62 59 24 26 13 1 9 226 201 236

.351 .207 .197 .080 .087 .043 .003 .030 .756 .672 .789
6oo/6o 11 /4/6 6o/o6oo 39/32/32 doo/loo 7/0/6 6oo/oo0o 43/35/38
Apologia alters prophetae David 295 88 60 66 35 22 15 3 6 214 207 249

.298 .203 .224 .119 .075 .051 .010 .020 .725 .702 .844
De bono mortis 320 110 52 40 38 42 28 5 5 202 161 200

.344 .163 .125 .119 .131 .088 .016 .016 .631 .503 .625
6oo/6o 14/5/9 6o/o6oo 37/24/27 6oo/6oo 6/1 /3 6oo!oo6o 32/23/24
De Cain et Abel 290 93 58 41 29 39 18 2 10 192 160 195

.321 .200 .141 .100 .134 .062 .007 .034 .662 .552 .672
6oo/6o 17 /5/1 2 6o!o6oo 37/22/23 6oo/6oo 8/0/5 6oo/oo0o 35/26/26
Enallstiones in xii Psalmos 479 183 89 106 37 36 15 3 10 378 351 397

.382 .186 .221 .077 .075 .031 .006 .021 .789 . 733 .829
6ool6o 11n/9 6olo6oo 56/51/153 6oo/6oo 6/2/4 6ooloo6o 84/72/76
TABLE II. Prose Rhythm in the Ambrosian Corpus
WORK Total pi t V tr me d dd irr
Ensrratio in Ps. 43
cc. 1-33 137 ~ ~ % 8 8 7 0 1 113 111 124

.285 .212 .328 .058 .058 .051 .000 .007 .825 .810 .905
6oo/6o 4/2/4 60/0000 16/16/16 600/600 010/0 600/0060 38/32/32
cc. 34-94 345 103 62 84 29 33 20 1 13 249 213 253

.299 .180 .243 .084 .096 .058 .003 .038 .722 .617 .733
6oo/6o 13/3/7 6o/o6oo 36/33/33 600/600 4/0/4 600/0000 69/51 /53
Exaemeron 551 196 127 103 39 48 22 8 8 426 385 459

.356 .230 .187 .071 .087 .040 .015 .015 . 773 .699 .833
600/60 16/5/10 6o/o6oo 99/81/87 6oo/6oo 10/0/9 600/0060 86/71 /74
De excessu frstris sui Satyri
book 1 272 82 50 77 19 29 11 1 3 209 199 236

.301 .184 .283 .070 . 107 .040 .004 .011 .768 . 732 .868
600/60 11/2/10 6o/o6oo 35/31/34 600/600 0/0/0 600/0000 62/57/59
book 2 305 95 51 70 28 31 19 2 9 216 212 258

.311 .167 .230 .092 .102 .062 .007 .030 . 708 .695 .846
600/60 9/4/7 6o/o6oo 33/28/30 600/600 4/2/3 600/0000 33/28/30
Exhortatio virginitatis 321 117 53 56 21 44 18 4 8 226 199 247

.364 . 165 .174 .065 .137 .056 .012 .025 .704 .620 .769
600/60 15/8/11 60/0600 35/23/28 600/600 5/0/5 6oo/oo6o 37/33/33
WORK Total pi t V tr me d dd irr p" m• m'
Explanatla symbol/ 54 18 4 10 7 3 4 1 7 32 36 40
.333 .074 .185 .130 .056 .074 .019 .130 .592 .667 .741
6oo/60 8/7/7 60/0000 3/1 /2 600/600 1/1/1 600/0000 9/7 /7
Expasitio evangel. sec. Lucam 373 134 58 105 20 32 16 3 5 297 283 314
.359 . 155 .282 .054 .086 .043 .008 .013 .796 . 759 .842
6oo/6o 15/12/12 6o/o6oo 39/35/37 600/600 3/0/2 6ooloo6o 77 /59/61
Expositio Psalmi cxviii 588 222 80 103 56 56 51 4 16 405 411 490

.378 . 136 . 175 .095 .095 .087 .007 .027 .689 . 700 .833
6oo/6o 14/8/9 6o/o6oo 56/44/46 600/600 8/1/1 600/0060 78/64/66
Defide 391 133 70 89 27 37 28 1 6 291 290 338

.340 .179 .228 .069 .095 .072 .003 .015 .744 .742 .864
600/60 16/6/12 6o/o6oo 35/33/33 600/600 5/0/3 600/0060 68/59/62
De fuga saeculi 241 64 45 31 20 32 34 7 8 140 116 166

.266 . 187 . 129 .083 . 133 .141 .029 .033 .581 .481 .689
doo/60 17/3/12 60/0600 31/17/21 6oo/6oo 3/1/1 600/0060 18/16/16
De He/ia et ieiunio 292 106 62 48 18 35 15 5 3 216 174 211

.363 .212 .164 .062 .120 .051 .017 .010 . 740 .596 . 723
600/60 15/6/10 6o/o6oo 44/27/30 6oo/6oo 2/1 /1 600/0060 27/18/20
De lacob et vita beata 399 130 89 68 34 47 19 2 10 287 243 293

.326 .223 . 170 .085 .118 .048 .005 .025 .719 .609 .734
6oo/6o 14/5/8 6o/o6oo 51/36/38 600/600 7/3/4 600/0060 43/30/33
TABLE II. Prose Rhythm In the Ambrosian Corpus
WORK Total pt t V tr me d dd Irr p• rrf m'
De lncamationis dominl sacramento 272 101 50 68 12 19 16 0 6 219 193 220

.371 .184 .250 .044 .070 .059 .000 .022 .805 .710 .809
6oo/6o 8/6/7 6olo6oo 30/26/27 6oo/6oo 2/0/2 6oo/oo6o 52/37/42
De institutione virginis 225 69 42 52 17 13 16 5 11 164 155 176

.307 .187 .231 .076 .058 .071 .022 .049 .729 .689 .782
De lnterpellatione lob et David 406 136 74 74 27 56 24 3 12 284 236 280

.335 .182 .182 .067 . 138 .059 .007 .030 .700 .581 .690
6oo/6o 17 /3/6 00/0000 47/32/33 6oo/6oo 4/1/3 6oo/oo6o 55137/39
De Joseph patriarchs 384 114 77 74 26 43 36 9 5 265 230 284

.297 .201 .193 .068 .112 .094 .023 .013 .690 .599 .740
6oo/6o 9/3/3 6o/o6oo 47/33/37 6oo/6oo 5/1/2 6oofoo6o 60/4 7/48
De Isaac et an/ma 400 112 77 78 34 42 44 4 9 267 221 272

.280 .193 .195 .085 .105 .110 .010 .023 .668 .553 .680
De mysteriis 170 67 33 29 16 12 11 1 1 129 106 133

.394 .194 .171 .094 .071 .065 .006 .006 .759 .624 .782
6oo/6o 6/3/4 6o/o6oo 20/17 /19 6oo/6oo 1/0/0 6oo/oo6o 20/18/19
De Nabuthe 252 78 48 41 24 34 19 2 6 167 144 184

.310 .190 .163 .095 . 135 .075 .008 .024 .663 .571 .730
TABLE II. Prose Rhythm In the Ambroslan Corpus
WORK Total pi t V tr me d dd irr p• m• m'
De Nol et area 335 108 66 57 37 22 29 2 14 231 197 248

.322 .197 .170 .110 .066 .087 .006 .042 .690 .588 . 740
6oo/6o 17/8/11 6o!o6oo 46/29/32 6oo/6oo 16/5/14 6oo/oo6o 40/32/32
De obltu Theodosii 216 69 43 48 11 20 16 2 7 160 149 171

.319 .199 .222 .051 .093 .074 .009 .032 .741 .690 .792
6oo/6o 12/4/8 6olo6oo 28/26/26 6oo/6oo 3/1 /2 6oo/oo6o 39/33/34
De obitu Valentiniani 257 86 54 59 22 22 12 1 1 199 198 227

.335 .210 .230 .086 .086 .047 .004 .004 .774 .770 .883
6oo/6o 7 /2/4 6olo6oo 40/33/34 6oo/6oo 4/0/3 6oo/oo6o 50/44/49
De a/Hells minlstrorom 665 237 100 73 43 132 55 6 20 410 328 475

.356 .150 .110 .065 . 198 .083 .009 .030 .617 .493 .714
6oo/6o 35/6/20 6o/o6oo 59/23/38 6ool6oo 18/3/15 600/0000 26/17/19
Deparadiso 529 185 103 96 44 44 37 13 7 384 335 413

.350 .195 .181 .083 .083 .070 .025 .013 .726 .633 .781
6oo/6o 28/10/24 6o/o6oo 58/50/51 6oo/6oo 11 /3/9 6oo/oo6o 74/53/56
De patriarch/bus 194 77 32 32 9 22 19 3 0 141 131 148

.397 . 165 .165 .046 .113 .098 .015 .000 .727 .675 . 763
De poenltentia 343 112 59 46 24 66 24 3 9 217 185 242

.327 . 172 . 134 .070 . 192 .070 .009 .026 .633 .539 .706
6oo/6o 14/4/7 6o/o6oo 35/19/22 6oo/6oo 7/1/6 6oo/oo6o 31 /24/25
WORK Total pi t V tr me d dd irr p• m• mt
De sacramentls 359 121 60 55 33 33 47 2 8 236 206 237

.337 .167 .153 .092 .092 .131 .006 .022 .657 .574 .660
6oo/6o 24/16/19 60/0000 3 l /22/25 6oo/6oo 4/3/3 Ooo/oo6o 40/29/29
De spiritu sancto 355 118 72 100 19 26 16 2 2 290 276 309

.332 .203 .282 .054 .073 .045 .006 .006 .817 .777 .870
6oo/6o 19/16/18 Oo/o6oo 32/28/30 6oo/6oo 1/0/1 Ooo/oo6o 85/68/74
De Tobia 283 103 53 51 18 26 25 5 2 207 165 202

.364 .187 .180 .064 .092 .088 .018 .007 .731 .583 .714
6oo/6o 14/7/11 6o/o6oo 34/20/24 6oo/6oo 5/1 /2 6oo/oo6o 36/27 /28
De vlduis 260 88 48 76 11 17 15 3 2 212 205 224

.338 .185 .292 .042 .065 .058 .012 .008 .815 .788 .862
6oo/6o 9/3/5 6o/o6oo 28/26/26 6oo/6oo 1/0/0 6oo/oo6o 71 /57 /63
De vlrginibus 281 104 47 58 23 26 19 2 2 209 206 245

.370 .167 .206 .082 .093 .068 .007 .007 .744 .733 .872
600/60 17/9/14 6oto6oo 24/23/24 6oo/6oo 7/1 /5 Ooo/oo6o 40/38/39
De virglnitate 306 123 47 62 15 30 22 2 5 232 225 255

.402 .154 .203 .049 .098 .072 .007 .016 . 758 . 735 .833
6oo/6o 13/8/11 6o/o6oo 53/50/51 6oo/Ooo 3/0/2 Ooo/oo6o 53/50/51
Sermo contra Auxentium 140 52 24 23 8 19 12 1 1 99 95 113

.371 .171 .164 .057 .136 .086 .007 .007 .707 .679 .807
6oo/6o 7 /4/4 60/0600 1 5/11 /14 6oo/6oo 1/0/0 Ooo/oo6o 11/10/10
WORK Total pi t V tr me d dd irr po m• m'
EP/STULAE:
Epp. 10-12 59 24 5 18 8 2 0 2 0 47 44 52
.407 .085 .305 . 136 .034 .000 .034 .000 .797 .746 .881
6oo/6o 1/0/0 60/0000 4/4/4 6oo/6oo 0/0/0 000/0000 17/15/15
Ep. 21 56 17 11 20 2 5 , 0 0 48 45 51
.304 .196 .357 .036 .089 .018 .000 .000 .857 .804 .911
6oo/6o 3/1 /3 60/0000 6/6/6 6oo/6oo 1/0/1 600/0000 16/14/14
Epp. 13-14 39 9 10 12 4 3 0 1 0 31 29 36
.231 .256 .308 .103 .077 .000 .026 .000 .795 .744 .923
6oo/6o 0/0/0 60/0000 8/7 /7 600/600 0/0/0 6oo/oo6o 10/9/9
Epp. 17-18 184 70 37 45 8 13 8 , 2 152 147 171

.380 .201 .245 .043 .071 .043 .005 .011 .826 .799 .929
6oo/6o 5/0/3 60/0000 24/21/22 600/600 3/1/3 6oo/oo6o 41 /34/39
Ep. 2 98 35 12 4 7 24 11 1 4 51 38 65
.357 .122 .041 .071 .245 .112 .010 .041 .520 .388 .663
6oo/6o 10/2/7 60/0600 10/2/7 600/600 1/0/0 6oo/oo6o 0/0/0
Epp. 5-6 141 40 18 18 13 35 4 0 13 76 57 81

.284 . 128 . 128 .092 . 248 .028 .000 .092 .539 .404 .574
6oo/6o 3/0/1 6o/o6oo 11/1/1 600/0oo 5/1/2 600/0000 2/1 /1
TABLEIt. Prose Rhythm In the Ambrosian Corpus
WORK Total pl t V tr me d dd Irr p• rrr m•
Epp. 1-8 91 21 19 6 10 16 14 2 3 48 36 48
.231 .209 .066 . 110 . 176 . 154 .022 .033 .505 .396 .527
6oo/6o 7 /2/5 6o/o6oo 10/415 6ool6oo 4/0/1 6oo/oo6o 2/2/2
Ep. 19 93 32 6 10 11 22 7 1 4 48 33 43
.344 .065 .108 . 118 .237 .075 .011 .043 .516 .355 .482
6oo/6o 6/1/2 6o/o6oo 3/1 /1 6oo/6oo 7/2/5 6oo/oo6o 0/0/0
Epp. 27-33 195 51 30 20 17 40 22 9 6 101 84 130

.262 .154 .103 .087 .205 .113 .046 .031 .518 .431 .667
6oo/6o 11/1 /7 6o/o6oo 22/1 /12 6oo/6oo 6/3/4 6oo/oo6o 7 /6/6
Epp. 34-36 74 22 8 6 7 18 4 1 8 36 30 39
.297 .108 .081 .095 .243 .054 .014 .108 .486 .405 .527
6oo/6o 10/1 /3 6o/o6oo 5/0/2 6oo/6oo 1/0/0 6oo/oo6o 2/2/2
Epp. 37-38 160 44 17 15 18 30 16 5 15 76 60 95

.275 .106 .094 .113 .188 .010 .031 .094 .475 .375 .594
6oo/6o 8/4/5 6o/o6oo 9/1 /5 6oo/6oo 6/1 /5 6oo/oo6o 2/2/2
Epp. 47-49 41 10 6 5 3 9 5 1 2 21 16 20
.244 .146 .122 .073 .220 . 122 .024 .049 .512 .390 .488
6oo/Oo 0/0/0 60/0000 4/1 /1 6oo/6oo 2/0/2 6ooloo6o 0/0/0
Ep. 63 275 92 37 22 19 66 21 4 14 151 127 166

.335 .135 .080 .069 .240 .076 .015 .051 .549 .462 .604
600/0o 11 /3/6 6o/o6oo 25/3/9 6oo/6oo 6/2/6 6ooloo6o 3/2/3
TABLE II. Prose Rhythm In the Ambroslan Corpus
WORK Total pi t V tr me d dd Irr p' m" m'
Ep.40 114 36 20 6 9 23 13 1 6 62 60 74
.316 .175 .053 .079 .202 .114 .009 .053 .544 .526 .649
DOUBTFUL AND SPURIOUS WORKS:
De beHo ludalco 394 162 43 68 41 42 17 9 12 273 171 221

.411 .109 .173 .104 .107 .043 .023 .030 .693 .434 .561
De lapsu vlrglnis 123 34 29 29 12 12 4 2 1 92 65 78

.278 .236 .236 .098 .098 .033 .016 .008 .748 .528 .818
Commentaria in xii epistulas Paull 507 172 61 73 58 55 54 4 30 306 192 248

.339 .120 .144 .114 .108 .107 .008 .059 .604 .379 .489
Sermones 328 97 78 106 21 12 9 3 2 281 199 218

.296 .238 .323 .064 .037 .027 .009 .006 .857 .607 .665
600/60 8/2/4 6o/o6oo 58/50/51 6oo/6oo 6/4/5 6oo/oo6o 89/44/45
Expositio Apocalypsis 288 64 41 34 77 37 18 10 7 139 95 127

.222 .142 .118 .267 .128 .063 .035 .024 .483 .330 .441
600/60 14/3/10 60/0000 15/7 /8 6oo/6oo 19/2/4 6oo/oo6o 26/11 /13
TABLE Ill. Prose Rhythm in Selected Works of Jerome
WORK Total pi t V tr me d dd Irr p• m' m•
Commentarla In Ecchlsiasten 394 94 89 110 35 34 20 6 6 293 237 287

.239 .226 .279 .089 .086 .051 .015 .015 .744 .602 .728
6oo/6o 1 7/0/9 60/0600 43/37 /39 6oo/6oo 10/717 6oo/oo6o 91 /64/68
Commentaria in Matthaeum 544 126 110 146 38 63 38 13 10 382 295 350

.232 .202 .268 .070 .116 .070 .024 .018 .702 .542 .643
6oof6o 24/5/13 6o/o6oo 46/32/32 6oo/6oo 27/16/19 6oo/oo6o 114/79/80
Commentarloli 214 48 51 48 22 20 17 7 1 147 121 153

.224 .238 .224 .103 .093 .079 .033 .005 .687 .565 .715
6oo/6o 6/0/5 6o/o6oo 25/20/21 600/000 4/3/3 6oo/oo0o 37/26/27
Commentarla In Nahum, Michaeam,

Sophonlam, Aggaeum, Habacuc 326 81 72 70 24 40 26 7 6 223 156 202
.248 .221 .215 .074 .123 .080 .021 .018 .684 .479 .620
Trans/at/a homll. Origenls in Lucsm 421 109 93 89 36 48 32 6 8 291 200 263

.259 .221 .211 .086 .114 .076 .014 .019 .691 .475 .625
Ooo/6o 24/4117 00/0000 50/40/44 600/600 14/6/8 600/ooOo 69/33/35
Translatio homil. Origenis In lsaiam 285 80 49 32 38 33 43 4 6 161 120 146

.281 .172 .112 .133 .116 .151 .014 .021 .565 .421 .512
6oo/6o 23/6/15 6o/o6oo 1 5/ 10/ 10 6oo/6oo 8/3/3 6oo/oo0o 17/13/13
TABLE Ill, Prose Rhythm in Selected Works of Jerome
WORK Total pi t V tr me d dd irr p• m• m'
Trans/at/a homifiarum Origenis

In Cant/ea in Cantlcorum 221 73 34 42 20 17 24 6 5 149 138 163
.330 .154 .190 .090 .077 .109 .027 .023 .674 .624 . 738
6oo/6o 14/6/10 00/0000 13/12/12 6oo/6oo 4/4/4 000/0000 34/28/28
Adversus Helvidium 215 49 55 67 18 12 9 3 2 171 141 163

.228 .256 .312 .084 .056 .042 .014 .009 . 795 .656 . 758
6oo/6o 7/3/4 00/0600 25/24/24 600/600 7/5/6 000/0000 51 /33/33
Adversus lovinianum 340 81 77 78 29 38 19 5 13 236 187 239

.238 .226 .229 .085 .112 .056 .015 .038 .694 .550 . 703
600/60 7/2/3 6o/o6oo 43/36/36 600/600 8/4/5 000/0000 58/42/44
Apologia sdversus Rufinum 369 95 102 84 29 33 12 7 7 281 223 268

.257 .276 .228 .079 .089 .033 .019 .019 .762 .604 .726
600/60 16/2/12 60/0000 48/36/39 600/600 18/12/13 6oo/oo6o 69/48/50
Dialogi adversus Pelagianos 317 78 78 57 18 46 15 8 17 213 184 222

.246 .246 .180 .057 .145 .047 .025 .054 .672 .580 . 700
600/60 12/3/9 00/0600 39/31 /33 600/600 10/5/6 6oo/oo6o 48/37/37
De viris illustribus 236 35 51 33 22 51 20 12 12 119 102 153

.148 .216 .140 .093 .216 .085 .051 .051 .504 .432 .648
600/60 11 /2/8 00/0000 26/9/13 600/600 13/8/10 000/0000 26/19/19
TABLE Ill. Prose Rhvthm in Selected Works of Jerome
WORK Total pi t V tr me d dd irr m• m1
Vita Hllarlonls 361 74 82 56 44 62 26 10 7 212 156 215

.205 .227 .155 .122 ,172 .072 .028 .019 .587 .432 .596
Vita Paull 97 24 28 11 19 6 6 2 1 63 61 72
.247 .289 .113 .196 .062 .062 .021 .010 .649 .629 .742
Vita Ma/chi 92 16 20 17 8 17 6 8 0 53 36 49
.174 .217 .185 .987 .185 .065 .087 .000 .576 .391 .533
6oo/6o 4/3/3 6o/o6oo 10/5/6 6oo/6oo 6/5/6 6ooloo6o 10/4/6
Revision of Gospels:
Narrative Portions 747 229 70 49 87 91 173 13 35 348 229 312

.307 .094 .066 .116 .122 .232 .017 .047 .466 .307 ,418
6oo/6o 89/27/51 6o/o6oo 23/4/5 6oo/6oo 14/8/8 6ooloo6o 18/10/11
praefatio to pope Damasus 33 8 12 11 2 0 0 0 0 31 25 28

.242 .364 .333 .061 ,()()0 .000 .000 .000 .939 .758 .848
6oo/6o 2/ 1/ 1 6o/o6oo 6/6/6 6oo/6oo 2/2/2 600/0000 10/7 /8
Translations of Hebrew Bible:
Genesis, Kings, Chronicles 302 71 46 12 32 39 93 4 5 131 81 123

.235 .152 .040 , 106 .129 .308 .013 .017 .434 .268 .407
6oo/6o 37/2/13 0010000 141en 6oo/6oo 13/4/6 6oo/oo6o 1 1/7 /8
TABLE Ill. Prose Rhythm In Selected Works of Jerome
WORK Total pi t V tr me d dd Irr p• m• m'
Translations of Hebrew Bible:
praefatlones 125 26 44 29 8 9 2 4 3 99 73 88
.208 .352 .232 .064 .072 .016 .032 .024 . 792 .584 . 704
6oo/60 6/1 /5 60/o6oo 21/17/17 6oo/6oo 10/8/8 6oo/oo6o 24/14/15
Homlliae In Pu/mos 263 73 52 16 28 44 37 4 9 141 86 118

.278 .198 .061 . 106 . 167 . 141 .015 .034 .536 .327 .449
6oo/60 32/8/18 60/o6oo 21 /6/6 6oo/6oo 1011n 6ooloo6o 6/3/3
Hom/liae in Marci evangellum 294 60 49 35 37 59 36 8 10 144 93 125

.204 .167 .119 .126 .201 .122 .027 .034 .490 .316 .425
6oo/60 15/4/9 60/o6oo 14/9/1 O 600/600 9/3/3 6oo/oo6o 23/10/1 1
EPISTULAE:
Ep. 14 109 28 36 18 8 5 12 0 2 82 76 85
.257 .330 .165 .073 .046 .110 .000 .018 . 752 .697 . 780
6oo/60 4/1 /3 60/o6oo 16/15/15 600/600 4/3/3 6ooloo6o 16/12/12
Ep. 22 244 52 84 57 20 13 13 3 2 193 175 198

.213 .344 .234 .082 .053 .053 .012 .008 .791 .717 .811
600/60 11/1/6 60/0600 41 /39/39 600/600 10/8/8 6oo/oo6o 45/35/35
Ep. 125 147 34 48 32 6 18 7 2 0 114 95 112

.231 .327 .218 .041 .122 .048 .014 .000 .776 .646 .762
600/60 3/1 /2 60/0600 21 /15/17 600/600 14/8/9 6oo/oo6o 0/0/0
WORK Total pi t V tr me d dd irr p• rn" m'
Ep. 130 190 49 38 47 15 30 4 4 3 134 107 128

.258 .200 .247 .079 . 158 .021 .021 .016 .705 .563 .674
6oo/6o 6/0/1 6o/o6oo 22/11 /11 6oo/6oo 9/6/8 6oo/oooo 42/31 /35
Epp. 18A-B, 20-21, 36 303 85 82 74 24 22 11 0 5 241 209 242

.281 .271 .244 .079 .073 .036 .000 .017 .795 .690 .799
600/60 1 1/4/10 60/0000 43/39/39 6oo/6oo 12111 /11 6oo/oo6o 58/43/46
Epp. 25-26, 29 77 20 20 17 7 6 1 2 4 57 48 57
.260 .260 .221 .091 .078 .013 .026 .052 .740 .623 . 740
600/60 2/1 /1 00/0000 12/8/8 6oo/6oo 4/2/3 000/0000 17/12/12
Epp, 15-16 78 14 37 8 5 2 9 1 2 59 52 63
.179 .474 .103 .064 .026 .115 .013 .026 .756 .667 .808
6oo/6o 4/0/4 60/0600 27/24/24 6oo/6oo 4/2/2 600/0000 6/6/6
Ep. 77 120 43 23 27 11 12 3 1 0 93 80 95
.358 .192 .225 .092 .100 .025 .008 .000 .775 .667 .792
6oo/6o 5/1 /3 60/0000 13/10/11 6oo/6oo 4/4/4 6oo/oo6o 25/18/18
Ep. 108 215 62 31 76 15 20 5 3 3 169 134 155

.288 .144 .353 .070 .093 .023 .014 .014 .786 .623 .721
600/60 8/1 /7 60/0600 19/16/16 000/600 8/6/6 6ooloo6o 67 /49/54
Epp. 4-6, 8-9, 11-13,

31-32, 44-45, 47 161 37 47 28 15 19 9 6 0 112 101 124
.230 .292 .174 .093 .118 .056 .037 .000 .696 .627 . 770
600/60 8/2/7 00/0600 22/19/19 600/600 4/3/3 6oo/oo6o 22/18/1 B
WORK Total pi t V tr me d dd irr po m• m'
Epp. 102-03, 105 71 11 17 21 5 12 4 1 0 49 34 42

.155 .239 .296 .070 . 169 .056 .014 .000 .690 .479 .592
6oo/6o 1/0/1 6o/o6oo 6/5/5 600/000 3/1 /1 6oo/oo6o 19/12/12
Ep. 112 137 34 30 32 12 14 12 1 2 96 72 83

.248 .219 .234 .088 . 102 .088 .007 .015 .701 .526 .606
6oo/6o 2/0/0 60/0600 16/9/10 6oo/6oo 4/2/3 600/0060 25/13/13
Epp. 115, 134, 141-43 64 17 11 21 3 6 5 1 0 49 40 46

.266 .172 .328 .047 .094 .078 .016 .000 .766 .625 .719
600/60 2/1 /2 60/0600 1/4/5 6oo/6oo 1/0/1 600/0060 15/11 /11
TABLE IV. Prose Rhythm in Selected Works of Augustine
WORK Total pi t V tr me d dd irr m" m'
Confesslane& 541 133 76 31 49 109 116 6 21 240 202 275

.246 .140 .057 .091 .201 .214 .011 .039 .444 .373 .508
0oo16o 31n124 6olo6oo 3&111118 0oo10oo 1919113 0oo1oo6o 16/10112
loannis evangeHum tractatus 378 115 41 51 57 45 58 6 5 207 153 198

.304 .108 .135 .151 .119 .153 .016 .013 .548 .405 .524
Enaffatlones In Pu/mos
Sermones 25-26, 29-35 426 157 43 43 49 53 61 8 12 243 135 190

.369 .101 .101 . 115 . 124 . 143 .019 .028 .570 .317 .448
Enam,t/ones 61, 71, 77-78, 81 338 111 69 57 29 25 36 3 8 237 173 219

.328 .204 .169 .086 .074 .107 .009 .024 .701 .512 .648
De excidlo urbls Romae sermo 140 50 19 34 11 6 15 1 4 103 75 84

.357 .136 .243 .079 .043 .107 .007 .029 . 736 .536 .800
6oo/6o 11 /2/5 6olo6oo 6/2/2 6oo/6oo 7/5/5 6oo/oo6o 27/21/21
Contra academicos 515 151 120 77 63 55 39 3 7 348 297 377

.293 .233 .150 .122 .107 .076 .006 .014 .676 .577 .732
TABLE IV. Prose Rhythm In Selected Works of Augustine
WORK Total pi t V tr me d dd irr m• m1
De carechlzandls rudlbus 344 96 90 58 33 35 21 1 10 244 184 238

.279 .262 .169 .096 .102 .061 .003 .029 .709 .535 .692
000100 20n 115 0010000 42129132 0001000 22110113 00010000 43/25/28
De fide et symbolo 175 58 47 21 16 16 15 1 1 126 91 116

.331 .269 .120 .091 .091 .086 .006 .006 . 720 .520 .663
6oo/6o 12/5/9 Oo/o6oo 22/11/12 6oo/6oo 8/3/6 Ooo/0000 21/ 12/ 12
De haeresibus 295 117 46 66 24 16 23 1 2 229 208 239

.397 .156 .224 .081 .054 .078 .003 .007 .776 .705 .810
6oo/6o 28/15/22 6olo6oo 24/21/22 Ooo/6oo 13/7/9 Ooo/ooOo 53/38/42
De civirate de/ 410 123 95 114 38 20 14 3 3 332 284 328

.300 .232 .278 .093 .049 .034 .007 .007 .810 .693 .800
6oo/6o 11 /4ll 6o/o6oo 55/50/52 6oo/6oo 10/6/6 Ooo/oo6o 89/50/5 7
De doctrlna chrfsriana
books 1-3 319 94 68 49 32 37 29 6 4 211 165 209

.295 .213 .131 .154 .116 .091 .019 .013 .661 .517 .655
6oo/6o 22/1/12 Oo/o6oo 38/18/21 6oo/6oo 15/8/9 Ooo/oo6o 38/23/23
book 4 246 97 58 46 17 8 18 0 2 201 183 202

.394 .236 .187 .069 .033 .073 .000 .008 .817 .744 .821
6oo/6o 25/17/25 6o/o6oo 25/20/20 6oo/6oo 8/6/6 Ooo/oo6o 36/28/28
WORK Total pi t V tr me d dd irr p• m' m1
Retractatlones 266 89 50 51 23 17 30 3 3 190 147 177

.335 .188 .192 .086 .080 .064 .011 .011 .714 .553 .665
6oo/6o 19/5/13 00/0000 19/11 /13 6oo/6oo 11/7 /8 6oo/oo6o 39/23/24
EPISTULAE:
Epp. 34-35 75 26 20 12 6 8 2 1 0 58 43 52
.347 .267 .160 .080 . 107 .026 .013 .000 .773 .573 .693
6oo/6o 6/3/6 00/0000 13/9/1 o 600/600 2/2/2 6oo/oo6o 11 /7 /8
Ep. 36 166 39 35 64 12 10 5 1 0 138 95 110

.235 .211 .386 .072 .060 .030 .006 .000 .831 .572 .663
6oo/6o 5/1/4 00/0000 21 I 16/ 17 6oo/6oo 3/3/3 6oo/oo6o 49/20/22
Ep. 87 66 15 13 20 2 6 7 2 1 48 30 37
.227 .197 .303 .030 .091 .106 .030 .015 .727 .455 .561
6oo/6o 5/4/4 00/0000 7/4/4 6oo/6oo 3/1 /1 6oo/oo6o 15/7 /7
Ep. 141 106 32 22 34 11 4 2 , 0 88 59 63

.302 .208 .321 .104 .038 .019 .009 .000 .830 .557 .594
Ep. 147 225 83 48 25 20 23 25 0 1 156 139 161

.369 .213 .111 .089 .102 .111 .000 .004 .693 .618 .716
6oo/6o 10/3/10 6o/o6oo 21/16/17 6oo/6oo 14/10/10 600/006020/10/11
WORK Total pi t V tr me d dd irr p" m' m'
Ep. 157 161 66 22 24 11 12 17 1 8 112 95 111

.410 .137 .149 .068 .075 .106 .006 .050 .696 .590 .689
000/00 14/7 /1 2 6o/o6oo 10/7 /8 000/000 6/5/5 600/0060 16/5/5
Ep. 185 248 84 34 85 20 15 7 1 2 203 150 175

.339 . 137 .343 .081 .060 .028 .004 .008 .819 .605 .706
000/00 14n /13 60/0600 16112113 000/600 115n 600/0060 67/35/35
Ep. 199 178 64 32 42 13 16 9 2 0 138 94 110

.360 .180 .236 .073 .090 .051 .011 .000 .775 .528 .618
600/00 7 /2/4 60/0000 1 1/6/6 600/000 11/6/7 600/0060 29/13/13
Ep. 211 149 50 20 43 15 7 10 4 0 113 96 104

.336 .134 .289 .101 .047 .067 .027 .000 .758 .644 .698
6oo/60 8/4/6 60/0000 9/8/8 600/600 4/3/3 600/0060 31 /22/22
Epp. 56, 67, 101, 104,

110, 116, 131-32 304 92 71 58 36 26 20 0 1 221 175 225
.303 .234 .191 .118 .086 .066 .000 .003 .727 .576 .740
600/60 21 /6/16 60/0600 38/32/32 600/600 11/10/10 600/0060 39/18/18

Rhetoric and Homiletics in Fourth-Centijry Christian Literature

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Rhetoric and Homiletics in Fourth-Centijry Christian Literature

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rhetoric and Homiletics in Fourth-Centijry Christian Literature

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

RHETORIC AND HOMILETICS

IN FOURTH-CENTIJRY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE

Rhetoric and Homiletics

RHETORIC AND HOMILETICS

Prose Rhythm, Oratorical Style,

Libraryof CongressCataloglngIn Publkatlon Data

Printed in the United States of America

Chapter II: Prose Rhythm in the Ambrosian Corpus 21

Chapter III: Prose Rhythm in Selected Works of Jerome 63

Chapter IV: Prose Rhythm in Selected Works of Augustine 89

Chapter V: Homiletic Preaching and Rhetoric 101

Chapter VI: Conclusion 121

Bibliography of Works Cited 127

Table I: Prose Rhythm in Control Texts 159

Table II: Prose Rhythm in the Ambrosian Corpus 181

Table III: Prose Rhythm in Selected Works of Jerome 190

Table IV: Prose Rhythm in Selected Works of Augustine 196

In a recent series of articles, I have investigated the prose rhythms of

Another issue that will be addressed was raised in my earlier studies

standard forms of the cursus (planus,tardus,and velox) may be expected to

15 To be more precise from a statistical point of view, if we repeatedly drew an

miscellanei.Indeed, the values of these proportions in Descartes, Polydore,

size was only 951.

x Janson (1975) 50-59 and 104.

syllabic quantities apparent in the Christian fathers' hymns.u, We do not

29 Cf. Oberhelman/Hall CQ (1985) 219.

confidently the text as cursusmixtus. If the proportional values of m• and mt

Ambrose's works are traditionally classified as exegetical,

• Catholic University of America Patristic Studies, 40 (Washington D.C. 1934).

authorship is greatly debated; the De lapsu virginis,of doubtful authorship;

a decision on a text's rhythm. Thus I include the frequencies, with their

attention to rhythm. Although some tendency to accentual rhythm appears

15 The phrase *ad TheodosiumAugustum" is in the oldest and best manuscript:

dominating oratorical and hortatory tone, 23 but by Dudden, Thro, and

:11 This is verified by Augustine (De pecaztorum

are the primary determinant of rhythm and, simultaneously, where some

too restrictive, as they are incapable of describing or explaining various

clausulae which are constructed in accordance with the word-accents and

u Bardenhewer (1923,510) dates to 388; Dudden (1935, 2.692-94)between autumn

scholarship; cf. Mara (1986) 164.

51 Bardenhewer (1923) 531; Dudden (1935)2.695; Lazzati (1955)47; Palanque (1933)

,., Ihm (1890) 30.

ThMose, nouveau David par ses fautes, s'est montre egalement un

•1 Bardenhewer (1923)528-30;Dudden (1935)2.694; Ihm (1890)26-27; Lazzati (1955)

possibly Cyprian and Tertullian, see Faller, CSEL, 73, 61•-so•.

authorship to Nicetas of Remesiana. 89 Regarding the method of

19 Faller (1940), who summarizes some of his arguments (chronology, biblical

redazione tachigrafica dei discorsi e la loro rielaborazione per la riduzione

being too pretty and sleek (Rufinus, ApologiaadversusHieronymum2.23-25);

tlli Paredi (1960) 71 (with note on 92).

tw Paredi (1960) 454 and Mamone (1924) 70-73.

Ep. 40 is interesting from the point of view of rhythm. All of

131 Dudden (1935) 2.709.

iD For example, ExpositioevangeliisecundumLucam7.218 and 8.13 and Enarratioin

(tractatus) neque nimium prolixus neque cito interruptus neque vel

uo Ep.48.3: "adsume igitur benivolenti animo aurem versutiae et pertracta omnia,

These guidelines pertain to homiletic preaching, however; they do not

tu Van der Meer (1961)406.