Praedicatio Patrum: Studies on Preaching in Late Antique North Africa (Instrumenta Patristica Et Mediaevalia) (English, French and German Edition) (Instrumenta Patristica Et Mediaevalia, 75) 9782503570174, 2503570178

Citation preview

PRAEDICATIO PATRVM

I N S T R V M E N TA PAT R I S T I C A E T M E D I A E VA L I A

Research on the Inheritance of Early and Medieval Christianity

75

PRAEDICATIO PATRVM STUDIES ON PREACHING IN LATE ANTIQUE NORTH AFRICA

Collected and Edited by Gert P artoens , Anthony D upont , Shari B oodts

MINISTERIVM SERMONIS VOLUME III

2017

I N S T R V M E N TA PAT R I S T I C A E T M E D I A E VA L I A

Research on the Inheritance of Early and Medieval Christianity

Founded by Dom Eligius Dekkers (†1998)

Rita Beyers Alexander Andrée Emanuela Colombi Georges Declercq Jeroen Deploige Paul-Augustin Deproost Anthony Dupont Jacques Elfassi Guy Guldentops Johan Leemans Paul Mattei Gert Partoens Marco Petoletti Dominique Poirel Paul Tombeur Marc Van Uytfanghe Wim Verbaal

D/2017/0095/140 ISBN 978-2-503-57017-4 e-ISBN 978-2-503-57018-1 DOI 10.1484/M.IPM-EB.5.111908 © 2017, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher.

Table of Contents Foreword

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 7

François Dolbeau, Sermons « africains » : critères de localisation et exemple des sermons pour l’Ascension . . . . . 9 Gert Partoens, A Medieval French Homiliary? A New Look at the Collectio Colbertina (Paris, BN lat. 3798) . . . 37 Shari Boodts – Nicolas De Maeyer, The Collectio Armamentarii (Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal 175). Status Quaestionis and New Avenues of Research . . . . . 95 Clemens Weidmann, Zur Grauzone zwischen authentischen und inauthentischen Predigten des Augustinus . . . . 135 Brian Møller Jensen, Unidentified Sermons Attributed to Augustine in the Lectionarium Placentinum: Reception and Liturgical Use of Augustine in a Twelfth-Century Lectionary for the Divine Office . . . . . . . . . . 169 Luc De Coninck, Le sermo 93 d’Augustin : date et circonstances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183 Carol Harrison, Worship as the Beginning and End of Preaching 201 Isabelle Bochet, Le commentaire augustinien des Psaumes pour Idithun : les Enarrationes in Psalmos 38, 61 et 76 . 219 Kevin G. Grove, C.S.C., Christology, Ascent, and Augustine’s Idithun Enarrationes . . . . . . . . . . . . 269 Augustine Marie Reisenauer, O.P., Christ Examining, Excommunicating, and Exorcising the Antichrist in Augustine’s Homilies on the First Epistle of John . . . . 315 Paul R. Kolbet, Rhetoric, Redemption, and the Practices of the Self. A Neglected Mode of Augustine’s Thinking . .

351

Matthew  W. Knotts & Anthony Dupont, Augustine’s Doctrine of Predestination in his Tractatus in Iohannis Euangelium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 379

6

table of contents

Alden Lee Bass, Dissident Preaching in Africa: Inherently Violent? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397 Roberto Spataro, The Pseudo-Fulgentius Homilies on Easter: Theology, Rhetoric, Church Life . . . . . . . . . 415 Naoki Kamimura, Augustine’s Sermones ad Populum and the Relationship Between Identity/ies and Spirituality in North African Christianity . . . . . . . . . . 429 Indices .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

. 461

Foreword The present volume of Instrumenta Patristica et Mediaevalia contains a series of contributions focussing on Latin preaching in late antique North Africa. The foundation for this compilation was laid during the conference “Ministerium Sermonis. An International Colloquium on North African Patristic Sermons” (Malta, 8–10 April 2015), which was organized by the research units History of Church and Theology and Literary Studies : Latin Literature of KU Leuven in close collaboration with the Augustinian Historical Institute of Malta and the Series Latina of the Corpus Christianorum (Brepols Publishers, Turnhout). It was attended by an international group of scholars who had recently made important contributions to the study of patristic homiletics. The contributions collected in this volume hope to give a new impetus to the study of late antique African preaching. Several of them challenge accepted views regarding the corpus of North African homilies as well as common assumptions concerning supposedly North African sermon collections. Other contributions offer detailed philological, theological and rhetorical text analyses, and focus on the sermons of Augustine as well as on Donatist preaching and the corpus of Pseudo-Fulgentius. The present volume may be considered a sequel to the proceedings of the first two Ministerium Sermonis conferences (LeuvenTurnhout, 2008 and Rome, 2011), that have been published as volumes 53 and 65 of the same series (2009 and 2012). We would like to express our deepest gratitude to Rev. Fr. Prof. Dr. Salvino Caruana. Father Caruana’s pioneering contribution to the study and communication of Augustine’s thinking, both through publications and the organization of well-attended lecture series, has made the North-African preacher known to many of his Maltese compatriots. In recognition of his unfailing dedication to the study of Augustine and his invaluable support in the organization of the third Ministerium Sermonis conference, we gratefully dedicate the present volume to him. Gert Partoens Anthony Dupont Shari Boodts

Sermons « africains » : critères de localisation et exemple des sermons pour l’Ascension François Dolbeau (Antony) En contexte tardo-antique, les sermons pseudépigraphes ou anonymes sont innombrables. Leur contenu est sous-exploité en général, parce qu’ils sont difficiles à dater et à localiser. Ils pourraient cependant offrir beaucoup d’informations aux chercheurs, qu’ils soient historiens, biblistes, liturgistes ou lexicographes, si l’on parvenait à s’orienter parmi eux. À l’intérieur de ce matériel surabondant, les répertoires actuels isolent une catégorie de sermons dits « africains », qui retiennent davantage l’attention du fait de leur ancrage géographique1. Certains sont pseudo-augustiniens ou pseudo-chrysostomiens  ; d’autres sont anonymes ou imputés fautivement à Optat ou à Fulgence. Comment et d’après quels critères cette catégorie s’est-elle constituée ? Quelle est sa valeur sur le plan critique ? Telles sont les questions auxquelles mon exposé voudrait répondre. Celles-ci me préoccupent depuis longtemps2 , et la découverte d’un ouvrage du IVe siècle, le commentaire sur les évangiles de Fortunatianus d’Aquilée, vient d’augmenter encore mon inquiétude. Cette 1  Voir, par exemple, les livres de L. Dossey, Peasant and Empire in Christian North Africa, Berkeley-Los Angeles, 2010, et de B. D. Shaw, Sacred Violence. African Christians and Sectarian Hatred in the Age of Augustine, Cambridge, 2011, qui s’appuient largement sur des sources homilétiques. 2  J’ai déjà tenté d’y apporter une réponse : cf. « Un sermon anonyme pour l’Ascension reflétant la pastorale anti-donatiste d’Augustin », in Consuetudinis amor. Fragments d’histoire romaine (IIe –VIe siècles) offerts à Jean-Pierre Callu, éd. F. Chausson, É. Wolff, Rome, 2003, p. 231-250 (reproduit dans F. Dolbeau, Augustin et la prédication en Afrique, Paris, 2005, p. 317-336).

Praedicatio Patrum. Studies on Preaching in late Antique North Africa, edited by Gert Partoens, Anthony Dupont, Shari Boodts, Turnhout, 2017 (Instrumenta Patristica et Mediaeualia, 75), p. 9-35 ©



10.1484/M.IPM-EB.5.114048

10

françois dolbeau

œuvre, en effet, dont la circulation antique fut limitée à l’Italie, a inspiré plusieurs prédicateurs contemporains, dont l’auteur du sermon pseudo-augus­tinien Caillau II. 80, actuellement considéré comme africain3. Le découvreur du commentaire en a conclu, à juste titre, que l’étiquette africaine du sermon était sans fondement4. En philologie, la possibilité de contrôler une hypothèse a posteriori est un phénomène rare, dont il faut tenir le plus grand compte : une confirmation montre la justesse d’une démarche critique ; un rejet, comme dans le cas présent, en révèle le caractère hasardeux. Une erreur a ici été commise : est-elle liée à la méthode suivie ou est-elle accidentelle et dépourvue de conséquence ? En d’autres termes, d’où viennent et que valent les précisions : « africain », « Afrique », que les répertoires associent fréquemment à des sermons anonymes ou pseudépigraphes ? Après avoir esquissé un historique de la question et rappelé sur quels critères était fondée cette localisation, j’évoquerai plus en détail un cas particulier : celui des sermons pour la fête de l’Ascension. 1. La contribution de dom Germain Morin Dans nombre de cas, la réponse à la question posée est facile : la précision « africain » vient de Germain Morin (1861-1946), dont l’autorité, en matière de prédication tardo-antique, fut, de son vivant, et demeure aujourd’hui presque incontestée5. Dès 1886, 3  Autre édition du même texte en s. Casinensis II. 142. Sur le label africain, J.  Machielsen, Clavis patristica pseudepigraphorum medii aevi, t. 1A, Turnhout, 1990, p. 334 (CPPM 1, 1386) ; R. Gryson, Répertoire général des auteurs ecclésiastiques latins de l’Antiquité et du haut moyen âge, t. 1, Freiburg, 20075, p. 294 (beaucoup de notices, en langue allemande, remontent à l’édition précédente, parue en 1995 et due à H. J. Frede, d’où l’abréviation FredeGryson). 4  L. J. Dorfbauer, « Neue Zeugnisse für die Überlieferung und Rezeption des Evangelien­kommentars des Bischofs Fortunatian von Aquileia », in Edition und Erforschung lateinischer patristischer Texte, éd. V. Zimmerl-Panagl, L. J. Dorfbauer, C. Weidmann, Berlin-Boston, 2014, p. 17-40, spéc. p. 35, n. 43. L’origine africaine doit aussi être rejetée pour le s. Caillau II. 79, dont le sort est lié dans les répertoires au sermon qui le suit. 5  Cf. G. Ghysens, P.-P. Verbraken, La carrière scientifique de dom Germain Morin (1861-1946), Steenbrugge-La Haye, 1986 (Instrumenta patristica, 15) : biographie suivie d’une bibliographie indexée (p. 139-245).

sermons « africains »

11

Morin commença à préparer une édition des sermons de Césaire d’Arles, qui parut à Maredsous en 1937. Dans l’intervalle, il avait visité beaucoup de bibliothèques européennes, feuilleté quantité d’homéliaires, restitué l’œuvre prêchée de Jérôme et enrichi considérablement celle d’Augustin. Les sermons de Césaire, Jérôme et Augustin étaient transmis parmi beaucoup d’autres pièces, qu’il avait lues et rejetées. Une partie de ces expertises fut publiée en 1930 en annexe à son édition d’Augustin, sous le titre : Initia et censura sermonum singulorum qui post Maurinos editi sunt 6 ; une autre partie en 1937, en annexe à celle de Césaire, sous le titre : Initia et censura sermonum de quibus in hac editione quoquo modo agitur 7. Pour mon propos, la seconde censura est presque négligeable : Morin s’y contente le plus souvent d’un jugement lapidaire et binaire : césairien, non-césairien, et n’y emploie l’adjectif Africanus qu’une fois, à propos d’un groupe de sermons pseudo-augustiniens 8. La première liste, en revanche, est beaucoup plus riche et renferme une quarantaine de fois Afer ou un terme équivalent, accompagné ou non de justifications. Parmi les matériaux augustiniens imprimés postérieurement aux Mauristes, l’objectif de Morin était d’effectuer un tri entre sermons authentiques et pseudépigraphes9. Sa démarche critique comportait plusieurs étapes. La première consistait à évacuer les textes médiévaux, qui sont, dans l’incipitaire de 1930, précédés d’un obèle. Les textes sans obèle sont réputés antiques, souvent en raison de leur recours à des traductions bibliques autres que la Vulgate. Et c’est à l’intérieur de cette catégorie que figure une quarantaine de fois la précision Afer. Celle-ci ne correspond pas à une vraie démonstration, mais à Miscellanea Agostiniana, t. 1, Roma, 1930, p. 721-769. Sancti Caesarii Arelatensis Opera omnia, 1, t.  2, Maredsous, 1937, p.  907938 (reproduit dans CCSL 104, Turnhout, 1953, p. 955-990). Dans la Clavis Patrum Latinorum, éd. E. Dekkers, Steenbrugge, 1995 3, les utilisateurs sont renvoyés, pour un supplément d’information, aux deux censurae de Morin, p. 143 et 146. 8  Aujourd’hui étiqueté « s Can(ellis) 1-11 », chez Frede-Gryson, t. 1 [n. 3], p. 164-165. 9  Les textes rejetés étaient spécialement nombreux parmi les s. Caillau (éd. A. B. Caillau, B. Saint-Yves, S. Augustini operum supplementum, 2 vol. en 4 fasc., Paris, 1836-1842) et les s.  Mai (éd. A.  Mai, Nova Patrum Bibliotheca, t. 1, Roma, 1852). 6  7 

12

françois dolbeau

un constat d’abord négatif : « non augustinien », et secondairement positif : « issu d’un milieu compatible avec celui d’Augustin ». Morin se montre parfois plus affirmatif sur le caractère antique d’un texte que sur son origine africaine : Auctoris antiqui, fortasse Afri (p. 728, 750) ; Auctoris est antiqui, forte Afri (p. 750), etc. Au total, l’origine n’est garantie que deux fois par un adverbe affirmatif : certo, profecto, tandis qu’elle est associée dix-neuf fois à un doute exprimé par forte, fortasse, le verbe uidetur, ou des formulations comme nisi fallor, esse putauerim. Les justifications les plus développées révèlent des critères diversifiés : –– Auctoris est Afri et antiqui, qui Orosium imitatus limites describit Africae, contra Donatistas argumentatur, Scripturas sacras ex uersione uetere commemorat. Vocabulis insuper barbaris utitur, v. gr. Astrosis (n. 2), archipiratae (n. 3), martyrialis (n. 4), etc. (p. 753 : s.  Caillau II. 38) –– Auctoris est profecto antiqui, forte Afri, qui in Manichaeos inuehitur, uetere utitur Bibliorum translatione ; sermo turgidus, uerbis insolitis scatens. (p. 754 : s.  Mai 118) Le critère de beaucoup le plus fréquent est celui du vocabulaire, qui, dans ces deux cas, apparaît en dernier : uocabula barbara, uerba insolita. Il est invoqué en tout seize fois, et souvent seul. Un second critère est le style affecté et boursouflé (cinq exemples : sermo inflatus ou turgidus, tumida eloquentia, grandiloquentia), d’où l’emploi à propos de sept sermons des termes declamator et declamatio. Les autres critères sont plus sporadiques : mention de l’Afrique, usages propres à l’église africaine (par exemple l’annonce à Noël de la date de Pâques), évocation d’hérésies locales (Donatistes) ou de faits historiques (domination des vandales ariens) ; variantes bibliques ; détails liturgiques (comme le Symbole utilisé), parenté lexicale ou doctrinale avec des auteurs africains (Apulée, Tertullien, Cyprien). Un critère rarement explicité, mais sous-jacent, est la transmission du texte par une collection précise, le codex Casinensis 12, nommé comme source de très nombreux sermons, dont huit fois parmi la quarantaine en discussion. Morin déclare même au sujet du s.  Caillau I. 39 : Eiusdem declamatoris Afri ac profecto antiqui, cuius sunt multi alii sermones quos cod. Casin. 12 complectitur (p.  746). Mais comme son relevé n’a rien de systématique, il lui arrive d’oublier de citer ce manuscrit, ou de le citer sans l’associer au qualificatif d’Afer.

sermons « africains »

13

Ces critères n’ont pas tous la même valeur, et parfois justifient plutôt l’adjectif antiquus que le terme Afer – ainsi la teneur des citations bibliques en vieille-latine. Les plus contestables sont ceux qui regardent la langue et le style. Morin était un homme de son temps. Souvenons-nous qu’il débuta son enquête en 1886. À cette époque, personne ne remettait en cause les notions de tumor Africus ou d’Africitas (africanité), une obscurité affectée qu’on croyait propre aux auteurs africains. Ces notions, apparues au XVIe siècle, trouvaient alors une seconde jeunesse, et leur influence atteignait même un sommet. Car ce fut en 1882 que Karl Sittl soutint sa thèse fameuse sur les variations régionales du latin, qui accordait une place majeure au latin dit africain10. Les premières critiques à son égard remontent seulement aux années 1897-189811, c’est-àdire à un moment où Morin avait déjà rôdé ses méthodes. Après le bilan très équilibré de Serge Lancel12 , il est inutile de revenir en détail sur les péripéties d’une discussion qui vit la victoire des adversaires de l’africanité. Le style affecté des auteurs tardo-antiques, dérivé de l’Asianisme, est un choix rhétorique dont rien ne permet de dire qu’il ait été propre aux Africains. Les questions lexicales sont plus complexes : l’abondance de termes rares et de néologismes est un trait de langue, souvent lié à ce style artificiel ; malgré tout, il semble bien qu’au moins quelques mots aient une spécificité africaine13 ; mais, comme il s’agit pour la plupart de termes non littéraires, désignant des réalités locales (plantes, animaux, etc.), cela ne peut servir, en règle générale, à localiser des textes de type homilétique.

10  Die lokalen Verschiedenheiten der lateinischen Sprache mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des afrikanischen Lateins, Erlangen, 1882. 11  W. Kroll, « Das afrikanische Latein », Rheinisches Museum für Philologie, 52 (1897), p. 569-590 ; E. Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa, Leipzig, 1918 3 (1898, 1909 2), t. 2, p. 588-631 ; La Prosa d’arte antica, con una nota di aggiornamento, Roma, 1986, t. 1, p. 595-636. Ces attaques radicales furent relayées par M.  D. Brock, Studies in Fronto and his Age, Cambridge, 1911, p. 161-261 (« African Latinity »). 12  « Y a-t-il une Africitas ? », Revue des Études latines, 63 (1985), p. 161-182. 13  G. Nencioni, « Innovazioni africane nel lessico latino », Studi italiani di filologia classica, n. s., 16 (1939), p. 3-50 ; J. N. Adams, The Regional Diversification of Latin 200BC-AD600, Cambridge, 2007, p. 259-270 et 516-576.

14

françois dolbeau

En 1930, la thèse d’un latin africain et d’un style propre aux écrivains d’Afrique était à peu près ruinée14. Mais Morin restait fidèle aux idées de sa jeunesse. Sa conviction qu’il était possible de prouver l’origine africaine d’un écrivain semble même s’être renforcée avec l’âge. Ainsi une longue étude sur Arnobe le Jeune, parue en 1913, s’étendait longuement sur le vocabulaire et les habitudes stylistiques de cet auteur, sans que soit évoquée la question de sa patrie15. Or un article de 1936 est intitulé « L’origine africaine d’Arnobe le Jeune16 » : la démonstration, d’ailleurs acceptée en général, repose sur un faisceau d’arguments (liturgiques, prosopographiques, scripturaires, etc.), auxquels Morin ne s’est pas abstenu de joindre un indice tiré du vocabulaire. 2. Les évolutions postérieures Le talent de dom Morin pour la critique interne était indiscutable17, et son autorité scientifique s’imposa à tous ceux qui, après lui, s’occupèrent d’homilétique. Ses critères furent repris sans discussion, y compris ceux qui dépendaient du concept vieilli d’Africitas. Son approche elle-même, qui consistait en un jugement concis

14  En 1928, le bilan dressé par Sister Wilfrid, « Is there an Africitas ? », Classical Weekly, 22, 10 (1928), p. 73-78, reconnaissait la force des arguments négatifs, tout en cherchant à maintenir une forme très atténuée d’Africitas. Comparable est actuellement la position de S.  Mattiacci, « Apuleius and Africitas », in Apuleius and Africa, éd. B. T. Lee, E. Finkelpearl, L. Graverini, New York-London, 2014, p.  87-111 (qui reprend le concept pour des aspects de la langue parlée et des traditions scolaires mal définies). Voir aussi C. Conybeare, « Augustini Hipponensis Africitas », The Journal of Medieval Latin, 25 (2015), p. 111-130, qui, à propos du s. 46 d’Augustin, infléchit le concept, au-delà des questions de langue et de style, vers une forme d’identité plus complexe. 15  G. Morin, Études, textes, découvertes, t. 1, Maredsous-Paris, 1913, p. 309439, spéc. p. 375-382. 16  Revue des sciences religieuses, 16 (1936), p. 177-184. 17  Ses travaux sur Augustin, Jérome et Césaire continuent de faire autorité. En revanche, son regroupement des œuvres d’Arnobe le Jeune, jusqu’ici indiscuté, vient d’être sérieusement attaqué par L. J. Dorfbauer, « Neues zu den Expositiunculae in euangelium Iohannis euangelistae, Matthaei et Lucae (CPL 240) und ihrem vermeintlichen Autor Arnobius Iunior », Revue Bénédictine, 124 (2014), p. 261-297.

sermons « africains »

15

sans preuves détaillées, fut aussi imitée par des auteurs moins talentueux. En matière d’homilétique africaine, le seul chercheur à reprendre la question sur grande échelle fut dom Jean Leclercq, dans quatre études parues entre 1947 et 194918, avant d’être absorbé par la réédition des œuvres de saint Bernard. Les autres attributions de sermons à l’Afrique se firent de façon dispersée, le plus souvent en marge d’une édition critique ou de la présentation d’un recueil manuscrit19. La publication par Raymond Étaix d’un sermon inconnu sur l’Épiphanie est ainsi complétée par un relevé de parallèles avec la prédication d’Augustin et d’autres sermons réputés africains : « Le style », conclut l’auteur, « avec ses nombreuses rimes et antithèses, permet de penser que nous avons là l’œuvre mineure d’un Africain20 ». La consultation d’un répertoire faisant autorité en 2015 révèle qu’une masse considérable de sermons est aujourd’hui localisée dans l’Afrique tardo-antique21, disproportionnée par rapport à la production des autres provinces d’Occident. Cela tient en partie à l’évolution de la recherche, mais l’inflation porte aussi sur le matériel pseudo-augustinien examiné en 1930 par Morin. Tous les sermons alors qualifiés d’Afer, à trois exceptions près22 , restent localisés en Afrique. Mais deux phénomènes sont à souligner. D’abord, le passage est fréquent du doute à la certitude : là où Morin marquait une certaine hésitation, désormais l’Afrique est en général indiquée sans restriction. L’adverbe « vielleicht »/« peut-être » reste 18  «  Deux sermons inédits de S. Fulgence », Revue Bénédictine, 56 (19451946), p. 93-107 ; « Prédication et rhétorique au temps de saint Augustin », ibid., 57 (1947), p. 117-131 ; « Les inédits africains de l’homiliaire de Fleury », ibid., 58 (1948), p. 53-72 ; « Sermons de l’école de saint Augustin », ibid., 59 (1949), p. 100-113. L’argument stylistique est partout important, sinon prépondérant. Dans une rétractation finale (p. 113), J. Leclercq a reconnu avoir édité comme africaine une recension du s. 216 de Césaire d’Arles. 19  Sans prétendre à l’exhaustivité, j’en ai cité un certain nombre dans l’étude citée à la n. 2. 20  R. Étaix, « Sermon pour l’Épiphanie tiré d’un homiliaire en écriture de Luxeuil », Revue Bénédictine, 81 (1971), p. 7-13, spéc. p. 13. 21  Frede-Gryson [n. 3], surtout sous les sigles AN h, AN s, PS-AU s, PS-FU s, OPT, QU. 22  Les s. Caillau I. 26 (« Gallien »), I. 39 (« Spanien oder Gallien ») et Mai 179 (« alter Cento », sans localisation).

16

françois dolbeau

associé aux s. Mai 53 et 107, mais partout ailleurs les formulations dubitatives ont disparu. En second lieu, l’attribution à l’Afrique s’est étendue à beaucoup de textes non localisés en 1930, mais à propos desquels Morin avait fait état de termes rares, de rapprochements avec des auteurs africains ou du codex Casinensis 12. En voici quelques exemples, sans souci d’exhaustivité : Morin, Censura sermonum singulorum, 1930

Frede-Gryson

• (727) Caillau I, 64, ex cod. Casin. 12. Insunt n. 2 nonnulla quae Augustini dicendi genus plane sapiunt […] uersionem […] Sabatiero incognitam […] uocabulum afflictamentum […] incassum quaesiui • (730) Mai 47. […] nouum exemplum uocabuli lasciuitas ab afro quoque Caelio Aureliano et a Firmico Materno usurpati • (733) Caillau I, 27. Auctor, quiquis ille est, Tertullianum fere in omnibus imitatur […] Alia tamen Bibliorum translatione passim utitur • (736) Caillau I, 32. Auctor profecto antiquus, ut loca e sacris Bibliis adducta ostendunt […] articuli recitantur, quales in symbolo exstant quo Augustinus, Quoduultdeus et Fulgentius utebantur • (739) Caillau II, 1, ex cod. Casin. 12 […] Idem hic genus dicendi ac in plerisque, tumidum et insolitum ; versio scripturae antiqua […] Aduerte uerbum splendicat ab Apuleio quoque usurpatum • (741) † Caillau I, 44, ex cod. Casin. 12. Eiusdem forte declamatoris nugae, cuius est sermo Caillau I, 43 […] Aduerte […] participium amoenatum […] quod in breui quoque sermone Mai 72 ter occurrit ; utriusque auctorem unum eundemque esse mihi suspicio est • (749) Caillau I, app. 5 […] eiusdem auctoris est cuius et plerique sermones codicis Casin. 12 […] Hic quoque, praeter noua et insolita uocabula, nonnulla inuenies ueteris Bibliorum translationis exempla

• Afrika

• vielleicht Afrika • wohl Afrika

• wohl Afrika

• Afrika

• Afrika (Caill. I, 43) (Caill. I, 44) (Mai 72)

• Afrika

17

sermons « africains » • (750) Caillau I, 48, ex cod. Casin. 12. Auctoris fortasse antiqui, sed turgido dicendi generi nimium indulgentis • (753) Caillau II, 42, ex cod. Casin. 12 […] declamator in occisione infantium tumidis uerbis describenda • (757) Caillau I, app. 8, ex cod. Casin. 12. Idem dicendi genus inflatum, insolitum, ut in plerisque nouis sermonibus, qui ex hoc codice eruti sunt. Auctor in fine contra Arrianos inuehitur • Caillau II, app. 17, ex cod. Casin. 12 […] auctor multorum aliorum ex iis qui in codice sermones continentur • (761) Caillau  I, 66. Magnam similitudinem habet dicendi genere et uersione Bibliorum cum s. Caillau I, 20, quem in cod. Casin. 12 proxime antecedit

• Afrika • Afrika • vielleicht von afrikanischen Autor • Afrika • afrikanisch (Caill. I, 66) (Caill. I, 20)

À ce groupe appartient le s. Caillau II. 80, point de départ de notre enquête. Morin se contentait d’en souligner le caractère fabuleux, d’en relever quelques particularités lexicales et de l’attribuer au même auteur que le s. Caillau II. 79, qui le précédait dans les deux recueils cassiniens (cotés 104 et 123) sur lesquels reposait l’édition23. Le répertoire Frede-Gryson a donc donné un caractère systématique aux jugements de Morin, y compris dans une notice (s.  Caillau I. 44) que ce dernier avait marquée d’un obèle. Ses rédacteurs ont estimé, à tort ou à raison, que l’emploi du terme Afer avait été aléatoire et l’ont sciemment étendu à toutes les entrées jugées de style affecté, notamment celles qui avaient été extraites du Casinensis 12. Parmi les sermons Caillau, cinquante-six sont désormais localisés en Afrique, dont trente-cinq tirés de ce manuscrit de la fin du XIe siècle24. Or il s’agit d’un homéliaire composite qui comporte trois parties : une collection numérotée de I à CLXXXI ; 23  Miscellanea Agostiniana, t. 1 [n. 6], p. 748 (s.  Caillau II. 80) et 752 (s. Caillau II. 79). 24  Beaucoup furent réimprimés dans le Florilegium de la Bibliotheca Casinensis, t.  1-4, Monte Cassino, 1873-1880, dont les responsables connaissaient le premier fascicule des Sermones inediti d’A. B. Caillau et B. SaintYves (s.  Caillau I et I app.), mais pas les deux suivants (s.  Caillau II et II app.).

18

françois dolbeau

une série augustinienne très rare, relative aux miracles d’Étienne ; enfin un appendice plus mêlé. L’insertion dans le Casinensis 12 a été considérée par Morin et ses épigones comme un critère secondaire d’africanité, venant renforcer le critère majeur d’ordre stylistique ; et cela, alors même que la série en CLXXXI chapitres renfermait aussi des textes de Léon le Grand, de Maxime de Turin et de Pierre Chrysologue. Une telle approche n’aboutit pas forcément à un résultat erroné, mais, pour être défendable, elle aurait dû être précédée d’une enquête visant à démontrer l’unité d’auteur de ces trente-cinq sermons, en partant de ceux qui avaient des indices réels d’africanité – historiques, liturgiques, etc., c’està-dire autres que stylistiques ou lexicaux. Sinon, cela revient à soutenir qu’aucun prédicateur de style ampoulé ne peut être italien et compatriote de Léon, Maxime ou Pierre Chrysologue. Or un consensus s’est établi pour dire que l’obscurité affectée et le vocabulaire recherché étaient des choix rhétoriques, non la spécificité d’une région. La seule affirmation légitime consiste à dire que nul sermon ampoulé n’est de Césaire ou d’Augustin, ce qui était la visée première de dom Morin. Dans le tableau précédent, affleurent aussi d’autres critères : d’une part la présence d’emprunts à des auteurs africains ou de parallèles avec leurs œuvres, d’autre part le recours à un texte africain des Écritures ou du Symbole. La fragilité du premier est presque aussi grande que celle de l’Africitas. Dès le second tiers du Ve siècle, l’invasion vandale en Afrique provoqua un exil massif du clergé catholique et un important transfert de livres, de sorte que les œuvres de Pères africains ont circulé dans tout l’Occident. Parmi les florilèges augustiniens, certains des plus anciens sont dus à des lettrés installés l’un en Provence, Vincent de Lérins, l’autre près de Naples, Eugippe. Le second critère est un indice sûr d’ancienneté, mais pas vraiment de localisation. Car il est téméraire, au vu de quelques variantes, de garantir absolument l’origine africaine de citations bibliques ou d’articles du Symbole, sans compter que les livres circulaient avec leurs possesseurs : Augustin a souvent cité les psaumes selon une teneur attestée aussi en Italie du Nord, et la fixation des Symboles n’était pas telle, aux Ve et VIe siècles, qu’on puisse aujourd’hui en proposer une carto­g raphie précise. Parmi les arguments qu’exploitait Morin et rappelés plus haut, les meilleurs sont ceux qui reposent sur des mentions explicites, des faits historiques ou des polémiques internes à l’Afrique.

sermons « africains »

19

L’exemple du Casinensis 12 laisse percevoir aussi l’importance des collections dans les enquêtes de localisation. Ce qui, depuis Morin, a le plus gonflé le nombre de sermons dits « africains » est l’attribution à cette région de recueils entiers ou presque, sans qu’on se soit toujours assuré au préalable qu’il s’agissait de collections homogènes ou du moins nettement stratifiées25 : –– AN h Arm, Collectio Armamentarii, pseudo-chrysostomienne : 15 textes groupés dans un recueil du XIIe siècle (Paris, Arsenal 175), dispersés dans l’homéliaire dit de Jouffroy de la fin du IXe siècle (Vatican, Vat. lat. 3828) ; « eine schon im 5. Jh. wohl in Kampanien entstandene Sammlung von 15 anonymen afrikanischen Homilien aus der ersten Hälfte des 5. Jh für die Kar- und Ostertage » (Frede-Gryson). –– AN h Esc, Collectio Escurialensis, pseudo-chrysostomienne : (forme brève) 28 pièces réunies dans un manuscrit du XIVe siècle (El Escorial R. III. 5) ; (forme longue, englobant la précédente) 60 pièces copiées dans un recueil de 1435 (Wien, ÖNB 4147) ; « die Sammlung entstand wohl im 5. Jh in Kampanien […] vielleicht mit wenigen Ausnahmen stammen die Homilien vom selben Autor, einem donatistischen Bischof in den ersten Jahrzehnten des 5. Jh, Afrika » (Frede-Gryson). –– AN h Vind, Cummentarium de singulas lectiones orthodoxorum atque catholicorum [sic] : 46 textes, dont certains de Maxime, Césaire et Grégoire, transmis par un homéliaire de la fin du VIIIe siècle (Wien, ÖNB 1616) ; « der ursprüngliche Teil Afrika, 5. oder 6. Jh » (Frede-Gryson). –– AN Ver s, Section de la Collectio Arriana Veronensis : 15 sermons festifs, préservés par un témoin de la fin du Ve ou du début du VIe siècle (Verona, Bibl. Capitolare LI [49]) ; « von demselben arianischen Autor wie Jud (Contra Iudaeos) und pag (Contra paganos) ; 5. Jh, Afrika » (Frede-Gryson) ; –– PS-FU s, Sermonnaire dit du «  Pseudo-Fulgence26 » : 80 textes connus, selon deux classements différents, par un 25  Les sigles utilisés sont ceux du Répertoire de Frede-Gryson [n. 3]. Sur la première des collections citées, consulter aussi l’étude, publiée ci–dessous, de Sh. Boodts et N. De Maeyer, qui doutent de son origine antique. 26  Attribution sans attestation médiévale, découlant d’une conjecture du XVIe siècle.

20

françois dolbeau

recueil anonyme des IXe –Xe siècles (Saint-Mihiel, Bibl. mun. 20), un inventaire de bibliothèque carolingienne et une édition du XVIIe ; « eine afrikanische Predigtsammlung, 5./6. Jh » (Frede-Gryson). Mon objectif n’est pas de rejeter des localisations unanimement reçues27, et sans doute valables en partie, mais d’attirer l’attention sur un problème sous-jacent : est-il licite d’étendre à l’ensemble d’un recueil une conclusion avérée seulement pour certains de ses articles et, au mieux, plausible pour les autres ? ou encore, quand tel ou tel texte, après examen, ne peut être appelé « africain », de tailler au plus juste afin d’isoler les éléments étrangers à l’Afrique ? S’agit-il, du reste, de collections formées en Afrique, ou plutôt, comme on l’a supposé pour certaines, en Campanie à partir de matériaux divers, dont certains venus d’outre-mer avec des évêques exilés ? Chacune des séries nommées plus haut représente un cas particulier. Les deux recueils qui offrent, au moins en apparence, les meilleures garanties d’homogénéité sont AN h arm28 et AN Ver s – ce dernier transmis de plus par un manuscrit des environs de 500 –, car leur module de 15 sermons correspond assez bien aux habitudes de l’édition antique29. Les trois autres doivent être abordés avec plus de circonspection. AN h vind et PS-FU s sont en fait des homéliaires composites qui renferment le premier, des pièces de Césaire d’Arles (1, 17, 18) et de Grégoire le Grand (5,  16,  34-35,  44-46), de Didyme l’Aveugle (12) et de Maxime (15, 38) ; le second, des morceaux de Pierre Chrysologue et de 27  On pourrait ajouter à cette liste les 31 homélies de JO-N, publiées jadis avec les œuvres de Chrysostome : leur auteur, en effet, est souvent identifié, à tort ou à raison, avec un africain exilé par les Vandales. 28  L’attribution de cette série à Sévérien de Céramussa, un évêque africain, repose sur un argument très fragile : voir F. J. Leroy, « Compléments et retouches à la 3e édition de la Clavis Patrum Latinorum. L’homilétique africaine masquée sous le Chrysostomus Latinus. Sévérien de Céramussa et la catéchèse donatiste de Vienne », Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, 99 (2004), p. 425-434. Le nom Seuerianus, fréquent dans les homéliaires, renvoie, selon les cas, à Pierre Chrysologue ou, de façon indirecte, à Sévérien de Gabala. 29  Cf. F. Dolbeau, « Naissance des homéliaires et des passionnaires. Une tentative d’étude comparative  », in L’Antiquité tardive dans les collections médiévales : textes et représentations, VIe –XIVe siècle, éd. St.  Gioanni, B.  Grévin, Rome, 2008 (Collection de l’École française de Rome, 405), p. 13-35. Noter cependant que Sh.  Boodts et N. De Maeyer [n. 25], avec de bons arguments, voient dans AN h arm une compilation médiévale.

sermons « africains »

21

Rufin (praef. 3 et 11), d’Eusèbe Gallican et de Jérôme (31, 33). L’attribution à ces recueils du qualificatif d’africain suggère l’existence, dans l’un et l’autre cas, d’un noyau primitif, où finissent par être versés tous les textes mal identifiés, tous ceux pour lesquels il n’existe aucune preuve de non-africanité. Que ces collections transmettent des sermons africains est indéniable 30, mais aucune n’a circulé telle quelle en Afrique. Chaque pièce est donc à localiser individuellement et d’après des indices factuels (c’està-dire autres que lexicaux ou stylistiques), dans la mesure où la structure des recueils ne permet pas de distinguer les strates de leur composition. Le problème se pose encore de façon plus aiguë à propos de AN h Esc (60 textes), dont le seul manuscrit complet est du XVe siècle, et le second témoin majeur des XIIIe –XIVe : l’origine donatiste d’un des textes suffit-elle à faire attribuer les 59 autres à un prédicateur donatiste, ou au moins africain31 ? une seule mention de l’hérésie pélagienne et le silence observé à l’égard des Ariens suffisent-ils pour étayer une datation de l’ensemble entre 411 et 429 ? En postulant l’unité absolue du corpus, au lieu d’examiner chaque pièce en elle-même et par rapport aux autres, le découvreur peut avoir raison32 , mais risque aussi de fourvoyer durablement la recherche. Dans les enquêtes relatives à des sermons jusque-là inconnus, un dernier facteur de risque est la recherche des parallèles, quand celle-ci est effectuée sans les précautions voulues. Si, dans un texte donné, l’on soupçonne la main d’Augustin ou de Fulgence, légitime est la confrontation avec le corpus bien établi des œuvres de ces auteurs. Mais que signifie cette démarche pour des textes 30  Par exemple, d’après son exorde, PS-FU s 56, pour la fête de Jean-Baptiste, fut prêché à Carthage, dans la Mensa Cypriani. 31  Cf. F. J. Leroy, « L’homélie donatiste ignorée du Corpus Escorial (Chrysostomus Latinus, PLS IV, sermon 18) », Revue Bénédictine, 107 (1997), p. 250262 ; « Les 22 inédits de la catéchèse donatiste de Vienne. Une édition provisoire », Recherches Augustiniennes, 31 (1999), p. 149-234 ; à la p. 150, l’éditeur introduit malgré tout une certaine réserve : « Nous avons bien affaire à un corpus unifié […] tout au plus conviendra-t-il peut-être d’en éliminer l’un ou l’autre élément qui se révélerait hétérogène ». 32  Si le corpus remontait vraiment au ve s., l’unité rédactionnelle aurait une forte probabilité, car le concept d’homéliaire mixte, c’est-à-dire mêlant les œuvres de plusieurs auteurs, n’est apparu que plus tard (voir l’étude citée à la n. 29).

22

françois dolbeau

anonymes ou pseudépigraphes ? Pas grand-chose, surtout si le corpus de comparaison est un ensemble vague de sermons étiquetés comme africains à la suite d’enquêtes analogues. Il conviendrait au moins de se limiter à ceux, beaucoup plus rares, dont l’origine est fondée sur des preuves tangibles, en complétant éventuelle­ment ce premier corpus par des œuvres d’auteurs sûrement africains. Dans l’état actuel de la recherche, il serait donc utile de réexaminer tous les sermons anonymes ou pseudépigraphes tenus pour africains, afin de vérifier, au cas par cas, la pertinence des critères utilisés, mais pas ou peu explicités. Le seul critère absolument sûr est celui des renvois à des réalités africaines 33 : polémique antidonatiste, comme dans les ss. Caillau II. 38 ou Caillau II. app. 13 (= [FU] s Frai 10), ou notation anti-catholique, comme dans l’une des homélies de l’Escurial34 ; allusion à la persécution vandale, comme dans le s.  Mai 42 (=  AN  h Arm 15) ; mention d’une martyre de Tébessa, comme dans un texte du sermonnaire de Beaune (= AN h Bel 102) ; évocation – à l’imitation d’Augustin, s.  174, 3 – d’un arbre tenu pour inconnu des fidèles parce qu’étranger à l’Afrique, comme dans le s. Caillau I. 46 35, etc. Un second critère : la conformité des citations bibliques au texte africain des Écritures, n’est pas toujours exploitable, mais serait parfois décisif, si l’édition de la Vetus Latina était achevée 36. D’autres critères (contexte de transmission, sources) ne fournissent que des indices ayant valeur de probabilité et tirant leur force de leur convergence. Les choix stylistiques et lexicaux des prédicateurs, jusqu’à plus ample informé, sont à mettre entre parenthèses. Un tel réexamen, si souhaitable qu’il soit, ne peut se faire dans le cadre d’une communication. Cependant, à titre d’échantillon, je traiterai ici un cas particulier, celui des sermons anonymes ou pseudépigraphes pour l’Ascension. 33  À condition de ne pas se laisser piéger par des faussaires médiévaux, qui évoquent complaisamment l’Afrique, par exemple l’auteur du s.  Caillau II. app. 81 (CPPM 1, 1489) = s. Mai 196 (CPPM 1, 1804). 34  Cf. F. J. Leroy, « L’homélie donatiste » [n. 31]. 35  Sur ce texte, dépendant d’AN h Esc. 40 [19], voir F. J. Leroy, « Les sermons africains pseudo-augustiniens Caillau S.  Y. I, 46 et Scorialensis 19 (Chrysostomus latinus) sur l’épisode de Zacchée (Luc 19) », Wiener Studien, 106 (1993), p. 215-222. 36  L’adverbe «  parfois » reste, malgré tout, nécessaire, car il existe des recensions mixtes, qui mêlent des leçons africaines et européennes.

sermons « africains »

23

3. L’exemple des sermons pour l’Ascension Les répertoires modernes en signalent trente-six, classés et numérotés en annexe selon leur incipit : nombre modeste, si on le rapporte à la douzaine de sermons authentiques d’Augustin pour la même fête 37. Cela pourrait s’expliquer par le succès exceptionnel des Tractatus 73-74 de Léon le Grand, seuls retenus chez Paul Diacre, avec une homélie sur l’évangile de Grégoire le Grand38. Peuvent être écartés d’emblée dix numéros, déjà localisés ou restitués à un auteur : no 

sigle

3

PS-AU s 178

6 9 10 12 13 24 28 34 35

justification

abrégé de AU s Liv = 265A, rendu à Augustin PS-MAX s 7 restitué à Ambroise  = AM sy [MAX] s 47 faux fabriqué à partir du no 24 milieu de Faust de Riez, en Gaule du Sud PS-FAU asc PS-LEO (s.  n.) restitué à Augustin : AU s Cas 2, 76 = 265B PS-AU s Cai II, traduction d’un sermon authentique de Jean Chrysostome : CHRY 3,  865 (CPG 4342) app. 56 = s Cas 2, 98 = IVO Carnotensis, s 19 (PL 162, col. 591PS-LEO s 11 592) = EUS-G h 28, Gaule du Sud (CPPM PS-AU s 176 1, 4645) PS-FAU (s. n.) = EUS-G h 27, Gaule du Sud (CPPM 1, 4644) restitué à Chromace d’Aquilée : CHRO s 8 PS-HI (s. n.)

Cinq sermons ont le statut d’abrégés (1, 33) ou de centons (7, 11, 21), dont la totalité ou la majorité des sources est identi37  Commentés par moi, sous le titre : « La prédication d’Augustin pour l’Ascension : quelques problèmes philologiques », dans Studium in libris. Mélanges en l’honneur de Jean-Louis Charlet, éd. G. Herbert de la Portbarré-Viard – A. Stoehr-Monjou (Collection des Études Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité, 201), Paris, 2016, p. 225-244. 38  Éd. A. Chavasse, Turnhout, 1973 (CCSL, 138A), p. 450-461 ; cf. R. Grégoire, Homéliaires liturgiques médiévaux, Spolète, 1980 (Biblioteca degli “Studi medievali”, 12), p. 458. La diffusion des tractatus authentiques de Léon pour l’Ascension explique pourquoi, dans les manuscrits, huit sermons anonymes ou pseudépigraphes ont été aussi imputés à ce pape (voir en annexe les nos 3-4, 7, 12-13, 26, 28, 33).

24

françois dolbeau

fiée. Les centons sont un procédé tardif, sans attestation connue en Afrique. L’abrégé no 1, dont l’éditeur n’avait pas reconnu le statut, est tenu pour africain comme l’ensemble du recueil auquel il appartient ; cela n’est pas tout à fait exclu, car la traduction du grec dont il dépend (no 13 du tableau précédent) pourrait avoir été effectuée en Afrique ; cela dit, en tout état de cause, cet abrégé comme son modèle reproduit la pensée de Jean Chrysostome, non celle d’un prédicateur africain. no 

sigle

Justification

1

AN Ver s 6

7

PS-AU s Cas 2, 145

11

PS-AU s Mai 157

21

PS-AU s Mai 44

33

PS-AU s 177

paraphrase (§ 1) et extraits (§ 2-4) du no  13 (CHRY 3,  865) extraits d’Isidore et Maxime, analysés par Grégoire (n. 38) 171 extraits des nos 7, 28, 33 ; de Léon, tr 74, et de Jérôme sur Mt recension d’AU s Gue 21, interpolée à l’aide d’extraits de Maxime découpé dans CAE s 210 (réduit de 1056 à 484 mots)

D’autres centons commémorant l’Ascension n’ont pas encore été répertoriés, par exemple celui qui réunit AU s 263, 1-2 ; CAE s 210 ; et une conclusion tirée de Grégoire le Grand (GR-M, Ev 29, 5 et 939). Enfin, six autres sermons, formant deux triades, peuvent être exclus de la discussion, du fait de leur tradition : les uns, parce qu’ils sont tirés d’un même recueil du XIIIe siècle (Firenze, Biblioteca Laurenziana, Aedil. X) et datent au mieux du Moyen Âge central ; les autres, parce qu’ils ont circulé ensemble sous le nom de Maxime de Turin (Milano, Bibl. Ambrosiana, C 98 inf., VIIIe siècle = Mi), puis sous celui d’Ambroise de Milan (Melk, Bibliothek des Benediktinerstifts 432 [218], XVe siècle = Me), une circonstance qui, contrairement aux attributions à Augustin ou même à Léon, n’est guère compatible avec une origine africaine40. 39  Cf. R. Étaix, Homéliaires patristiques latins, Paris, 1994, p. 484, d’après un homéliaire catalan de la fin du xIIe siècle (inc. Glorificatio d. n. I. C.). 40  Voir R. Étaix, «  Trois nouveaux sermons à restituer à la collection du Pseudo-Maxime », Revue Bénédictine, 97 (1987), p. 28-41, spéc. p. 29-30. À titre d’hypothèse, ces pièces sont désormais traitées comme l’œuvre d’un évêque d’Italie du Nord du Ve s., peut-être Maxime  II de Turin, attesté en 451 et 465 (ibid., p. 38).

25

sermons « africains » no 

Sigle

transmission

no 

sigle

Transmission

18

PS-AU s Cai II, app. 55 PS-AU s Cai II, app. 53 PS-AU s Cai II, app. 54

Aedil. X, fol. 34v

25

[MAX] s 45

Mi no 13 – Me no 206

Aedil. X, fol. 33

31

[MAX] s 46

Mi no 14 – Me no 208

Aedil. X, fol. 34

32

[MAX] s 44

Mi no 12 – Me no 207

22 23

Du texte 17, traduit du grec et aujourd’hui introuvable, il est difficile d’affirmer quoi que ce soit : cependant, le fait que sa seule attestation se lise chez Facundus d’Hermiane rendrait plausible une origine africaine. Après ces tris éliminatoires, nous sommes confrontés à un reliquat de quatorze sermons ou bien mal localisés ou tenus pour africains chez Frede-Gryson et précédés alors d’un astérisque : no 

Sigles

CPPM 1

no 

Sigles

CPPM 1

2 5

PS-AU s Mor 9 *AN s Dol 2

1982 ––

4 8

964 966.4841

14

PS-AU s Cai I, 41 *AN s Le 2

1271

15

PS-AU s 179 *PS-AU s 181/ PS-FU s 49 *AN Ver s 4

––

19

PS-AU s Cai I, app. 6 ––

1304

26

PS-AU s Cai I, 40 *PS-AU s 180/ PS-FU s 48

1270 965.4840

16 20

27 30

–– 1649

29

*PS-AU s Mai 43 *PS-AU s Cai II, app. 57 + PS-AU s Cai I, app. 5 *AN Ver s 5

36

AN Casp tr 9

––

––

1465 + 1303=1931 ––

Examinons ce reliquat en fonction des critères définis plus haut, en les regroupant de la façon suivante : a. circonstances renvoyant à l’Afrique  ; b. teneur des citations bibliques  ; c. contextes de transmission. L’approche langagière, comme on l’a vu plus haut,

26

françois dolbeau

n’est pas un critère valide. Là où l’origine africaine est admise, il convient de vérifier que cette localisation ne repose pas exclusivement sur une analyse formelle. a. En ce qui concerne le premier critère, le choix de la fête est un facteur favorable, car le récit de l’Ascension permettait des développements anti-donatistes sur l’universalité de l’envoi en mission. Deux sermons (2, 5) en ont tiré parti : –– PS-AU  s Mor 9,  5 : Verba d. n. I.  C. audiuimus ecclesiam catholicam commendantis : Eritis mihi testes in Ierusalem, et in totam Iudaeam et Samariam. Sileant fluctus haeretico­rum : non sibi faciant per angulos partes. –– AN s Dol 2, 4 : At uero quia futuri erant nefariorum schismatum principes et imperitarum plebium seductores qui ecclesiam dicerent regionum suarum finibus terminatam, accipietis, inquit, uirtutem Spiritus sancti, et eritis mihi testes in Hierusalem et in tota Iudaea et Samaria, et usque in fines terrae. Ni d’un côté ni de l’autre, les Donatistes ne sont nommés, mais ce qui est dit en 2 des hérétiques, et en 5 des fauteurs de schisme ne peut s’appliquer qu’à eux. À vrai dire, PS-AU s Mor 9 représente un cas spécial, puisqu’après hésitation Morin l’avait retenu comme authentique. Son jugement n’a pas été suivi, mais reste, à mon avis, défendable41. Si ce texte n’est pas d’Augustin, il en reproduit la doctrine et provient au moins d’un milieu très proche : on pourrait le ranger parmi les sermons douteux plutôt que parmi les pseudépigraphes 42 . Ajoutons que les deux pièces satisfont aussi au second critère, car leurs citations bibliques renvoient à des traductions préhiéronymiennes attestées chez des auteurs africains 43. Leur origine ne fait donc pas de doute. 41  La finale devient plus claire si l’on rectifie nos en uos : Gratias illi agamus, quia in illa ecclesia uos uidemus, quam cum uerbis commendasset, ascendit in caelum (§ 5). Cette retouche, si elle devait être acceptée, impliquerait une datation postérieure à la Conférence de 411. 42  Cf. Augustin d’Hippone, Vingt-six sermons au peuple d’Afrique, éd. F.  Dolbeau, Paris, 1996, p. 470. 43  Voir les apparats bibliques des éditions de référence, notamment à propos d’Act. 1, 6 (praesentaberis ou repraesentaretur, en style indirect : leçon exclusivement africaine) et Is. 26, 10 (claritatem).

sermons « africains »

27

Dans le no  20, une violente attaque contre les Manichéens, accusés de communier sous des espèces obscènes, fait, très probablement, écho à un scandale retentissant, survenu à Carthage vers 42144 : –– PS-AU s Cai  I, app. 6,  1 : Merito sacra tua turpi, latebrosissime Manichaee, impudicitiae tradidisti, quia fidem sacris uirginalibus denegasti. Denique carnem tuam inter ipsa tua flagitiosa mysteria polluis, ac uenenum tibi, quod sumas, ex tuis sordibus conficis et conspergis 45 […] O Manichaea obscaenitas. Là encore, la localisation proposée est renforcée par la teneur de certaines citations bibliques 46. Aucun des autres sermons ne procure de données comparables. Certains détails, cependant, impliquent une datation tardo-antique, par exemple la description de l’Ascension avec un cérémonial apparenté aux entrées solennelles et aux triomphes impériaux47 : noter en particulier l’emploi du terme triumphus (nos 4 et 26), l’évocation de l’aduentus imperato­ris (no 8),

44  Des rumeurs circulaient déjà auparavant (cf. Aug., mor. 2, 19, 70 ; c. Fort. 3 ; nat. b. 44-47), mais le scandale carthaginois, confirmé par des témoins directs, leur donna un regain d’actualité : cf. Id., haer. 46 ; Possidius, Vita Augustini 16 ; F. Dolbeau, « Un témoignage inconnu contre des Manichéens d’Afrique », Zeitschrift für Papyrologie und Epigraphik, 150 (2004), p. 225-232. Hors d’Afrique, la seule référence à cet événement (Arnobe le Jeune, Praedestinatus 1, 46) provient d’un africain. 45  Les verbes conficere et conspergere figurent dans les relations du scandale survenu vers 421 : cf. F. Dolbeau, « Un témoignage inconnu » [n. 44], p. 228 et 231. 46  Notamment Act. 1, 4 (conuersaretur : leçon vieille-latine commune aux recensions européenne et africaine) ; Luc. 1, 35 (propterea : leçon africaine passée dans la liturgie) ; IV Reg. 2, 13-14 (meloten : leçon vieille-latine connue en Afrique [AN Hel]). Notons au passage que les manuscrits ayant servi à l’édition ne sont pas les Casinenses 2 et 3, contrairement à ce qui se lit dans PLS 2, 1022, mais les Casinenses 11 et 111. 47  Cf. P. Dufraigne, Aduentus Augusti, Aduentus Christi. Recherche sur l’exploitation idéologique et littéraire d’un cérémonial dans l’Antiquité tardive, Paris, 1994 (Collection des Études Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité, 141), p. 402411 et 433-439. L’auteur analyse, de ce point de vue, cinq sermons, à savoir PS-AU s 179-181, s Mai 43 et s Cai II, app. 57 + Cai 1, app. 5 (c’est-à-dire les numéros 4, 8, 19, 26 et 30 de l’annexe).

28

françois dolbeau

les désignations de Dieu comme consul aeternus (no 30) et du Christ comme imperator angelorum (no 19). b. Le critère des variantes bibliques réserve encore de multiples trouvailles, mais son exploitation vraiment critique est subordonnée à l’achèvement de l’entreprise de la Vetus Latina. Car s’il est facile, dans la situation actuelle, de repérer des variantes non-hiéronymiennes, il est plus malaisé d’isoler parmi elles les leçons exclusivement ou très majoritairement africaines. Dans notre reliquat de quatorze sermons, trois ont déjà été commentés (2, 5 et 20), en tant que représentants de traductions préhiéronymiennes ; un autre (19) cite clairement Matth. 23,  37 dans une version vieille-latine48 ; deux (14 et 27), tirés du Casinensis 12, utilisent apparemment la Vulgate ; un dernier enfin (16) n’offre pas de citations textuelles de sorte que l’expertise est impossible. Pour les sept sermons restants, le meilleur observatoire est le récit de l’Ascension, d’après le premier chapitre des Actes des apôtres 49. L’édition de ce livre, dans le cadre de la Vetus latina, a été entreprise par Wilhelm Blümer50. Elle n’est pas encore parue, mais l’on dispose déjà sur la toile des collations de tous les manuscrits en vieille-latine 51. Hélas, les témoins directs du texte africain ne transmettent pas le chapitre 1, parce qu’ils sont lacunaires52 , si bien qu’on dépend, pour la restitution de cette famille, des citations patristiques53. Trois recensions africaines ont été distinguées, siglées K (surtout Cyprien), C 48  La leçon colligere de PS-AU s Mai 43 (Vulgate congregare) est ancienne (Cyprien, Zénon de Vérone, traducteur d’Irénée) et attestée chez Augustin (ench. 24 ; en Ps. 88, 2, 14 ; 90, 1, 5 ; 108, 6 ; s.  105, 11 ; 265, 11 ; ench. 24) et Quodvultdeus. 49  Les différentes recensions ont été classées par J. H. Petzer, « Texts and text types in the latin version of Acts », in Philologia sacra. Biblische und patristiche Studien für Hermann J. Frede und Walter Thiele, éd. R. Gryson, Freiburg, 1993 (Vetus Latina. Aus der Geschichte der lateinischen Bibel, 24), t. 1, p. 259-284. 50  Cf. Vetus Latina. 57. Bericht der Stiftung, Beuron, 2013, p. 41-43. 51  Sur le site de l’Université de Mayence (nttf.klassphil.uni-mainz.de/179. php). 52  C’est-à-dire les manuscrits 55 (palimpseste de Fleury) et 74 (épistolier du Sinaï) : cf. R. Gryson, Altlateinische Handschriften/Manuscrits vieux latins. Répertoire descriptif, Freiburg, 1999 (Vetus Latina, 1/2A), p. 85 et 115. 53  Réunies dans Vetus Latina database, en ligne (sur le site de Brepolis).

sermons « africains »

29

(Donatistes), A (Augustin en général). L’enquête est compliquée du fait qu’Augustin cite aussi d’autres versions des Actes des apôtres : notamment en Contra Felicem 1, 4 et Contra epistolam Manichaei quam uocant Fundamenti 10 (= K), et dans l’Epistola ad Catholicos de unitate ecclesiae 27-29 (= C). Ces textes africains se distinguent souvent, mais pas toujours, des recensions européennes, siglées I (ms. 50, auteurs italiens, gaulois et espagnols), D (ms. 51,  52,  60, auteurs italiens), M (Ambroise, région de Milan), B (ms.  5 ou codex Bezae) et V (Vulgate)54. Voici, dans ces sept sermons, comment se répartissent les variantes majeures (les leçons de B, souvent déviantes, ne sont pas notées systématiquement ; celles de  M sont omises ; les numéros entre crochets renvoient aux manuscrits des recensions européennes) : no 

Act.

variantes par rapport à V

recensions apparentées

4 –

1,11 ″″

iste ita

8 15

1,11 1,3

aspicitis Iesum euntem docerent (V loquens)

–

1,4

–

1,11

commoratus (V conuescens) receptus

–

″″

(est) hodie

–

″″

(ueniet) iterum

26

1,11

– 29

″″ 1,3

(quid) miramini Christum dominum (euntem…) docens (V loquens)

= KCA(s Mor 17)B ≠ A(s 265)IDV (hic) pas de témoins directs ≠ KCAIDBV (sic) citation non textuelle cf. KD[51, 56] (docens) ≠ C (disputans) I (dicens) pas de témoins directs ; cf. AU Jo 32,6 = I[50]D[51] ≠ KCA(s Mor 17)BV (adsumptus) pas de témoins directs ≠ KCIDBV (–) pas de témoins directs ≠ KCIDBV (–) citation non textuelle

– – –

1,4 1,11 ″″

commoratus receptus in caelum2 om.

54 

″″ = KD[51, 56] ≠ C (disputans) I (dicens) B (narrans) version identique à celle du no 15 ″″ = A(s Mor 17)D[51]B ≠ KCIV (in caelum)

Je résume ici, à grands traits, la classification de Petzer [n. 49].

30

françois dolbeau

– 30

″″ 1,11

–

″″

36

1,9

– –

″″ ″″

–

1,10

–

″″

–

″″

–

″″

–

″″

–

1,11

–

″″

version identique à celle du no 15 cf.  KC (r. in c.) ≠ A(s 265) IDBV (aspicientes in c.) citation non textuelle ; cf. AU Ps (Iesus) quem uidetis 49,5 (sic…) cf.  B ≠ K (sublatus) CIDV leuatus (eleuatus) = I[50]D[56) ≠ KCABV (nubes) nubs/nubes pas de témoins directs ≠ illum/eum KCAIDBV (eum) D[51], cf.  I (tenderent) ≠ K (quoet cum intenderent modo contemplantes erant) C (et c. intuerentur) V ––– (cumque intuerentur) = CID[54] ≠ K (cum iret in caeeuntem illum lum) V (eunte illo) = CD[51] cf.  K ≠ IB (a. eis) V (adsteterunt) illis (a. iuxta illos) in ueste alba (V -tibus = KI[50]D[51] ≠ CB (in ueste candida) -bis) = I[50]D[51] ≠ KCA(s Mor 17)BV receptus (adsumptus) = A(s Mor 17)D[51]B ≠ KCIV in caelum2 om. (in caelum) (ueniet) iterum respicientes caelum

Dans une enquête exhaustive, il faudrait naturellement poursuivre la recherche sur chacune des citations repérées. Mais ce relevé permet déjà de constater que le matériel exploitable est souvent insuffisant (8, 26) et que les variantes exclusivement africaines sont rarissimes55. Au vu de ce tableau, les seules conclusions à peu près sûres sont le caractère européen de 36, l’origine africaine de 30 et la relation très étroite entre 15 et 29. c. Les contextes de transmission servent surtout à lier des sermons entre eux. Les nos 15 et 29, dont on vient de voir qu’ils ont le même texte biblique, ont aussi la même thématique et se succèdent dans la Collectio Arriana Veronensis : il est certain qu’ils remontent à un seul auteur, qui affectionnait les doxolo55  Une erreur, trop souvent commise, consiste à comparer le matériel du sermon étudié avec les usages des auteurs africains, sans effectuer la contreépreuve sur les recensions européennes des textes bibliques.

sermons « africains »

31

gies non trinitaires56. Mais on a déjà noté que le no 1, qui les suit dans cette collection, est un abrégé d’une traduction du grec et donc un élément adventice. Les nos 30 et 8, qui se succèdent dans le recueil du Pseudo-Fulgence (PS-FU s 48-49), ont la même transmission et probablement même rédacteur, ce que confirme l’étude de la langue, mais leur appartenance à ce recueil hétérogène suffit-elle à en garantir la localisation en Afrique ? Quant à l’unité d’auteur postulée par les Mauristes avec le no 4, elle repose seulement sur une parenté générale de genre et de style (une paraphrase ampoulée du récit néo-testamentaire). Ce dernier texte a été recueilli, tout comme les nos 13, 14, 19, 20, 21 et 27, dans l’homéliaire d’Agimond du début du VIIIe siècle57, mais la chose est peu significative, car ce recueil procède d’une collecte assidue à partir de séries antérieures. Le fait que les nos 27 et 14 sont copiés dans le Codex Casinensis 12 est-il plus pertinent ? Dans les deux cas, le système d’adresses à l’auditoire est différent, mais comme on a vu que les citations bibliques étaient conformes à la Vulgate, une origine africaine paraît exclue58. Dans mon reliquat de 14 sermons, huit étaient précédés d’un astérisque et considérés comme africains (5, 8, 15, 16, 19, 26, 29, 30). Les numéros 5 et 30 satisfont à l’un au moins des critères. En faveur du no 8, jouent une certaine parenté formelle et sa transmission avec le no 30 ; en faveur du no 19, la présence d’une variante biblique majoritairement africaine59. Pour les nos 15 et 29, on pourrait, à la rigueur, invoquer leur insertion dans la Collectio Arriana Veronensis60, bien que leur texte biblique, au moins pour les Actes des apôtres, n’ait pas de caractère africain. Les critères de langue et de style, dont on a rappelé l’extrême faiblesse, sont, pour les Semper Deo patri per Christum eius gratias referamus, cui est gloria in saecula (AN Ver s 4) ; semper Deo patri per filium eius gratias agentes, cui est gloria in saecula (AN Ver s 5). 57  Vatican, Vat. lat. 3835-3836. 58  À moins de supposer, ce qui arrive parfois, un alignement postérieur des citations sur la Vulgate. 59  Cf. n. 48. 60  Plusieurs sermons du recueil, dont notre numéro 29, font des emprunts à des traités de Cyprien. 56 

32

françois dolbeau

numéros 16 et 26, les seuls fondements d’une localisation qu’il faudra désormais regarder avec grande suspicion. En revanche, la présente analyse confère une certaine probabilité à l’origine africaine du no 20 (s Cai I, app. 6) qui n’a, semble-t-il, été proposée par aucun répertoire. Par cet exemple des sermons pour l’Ascension, l’on voit quels résultats seraient à attendre d’une étude plus systématique, étude qui ne portera tous ses fruits qu’après l’achèvement de l’édition en cours de la Vetus latina.

sermons « africains »

33

Annexe Sermons anonymes ou pseudépigraphes pour l’Ascension Les sigles des sermons sont ceux du Répertoire de Frede-Gryson [n. 3]. Autres abréviations utilisées : AOS = A. B. Caillau, B. Saint-Yves, S. Augustini operum supplementum, fasc. 2/3 ; Bibl. Cas. = Bibliotheca Casinensis ; CCSL = Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina ; CPG = Clavis Patrum Graecorum ; CPPM  = J.  Machielsen, Clavis patristica pseudepimedii aevi [n. 3] ; NPB  = A.  Mai, Nova Patrum Bibliotheca ; PL = Patrologia latina ; PLS = Patrologia latina, Supplementum – d. = dominus uel domini, fr. = fratres, car. (char., kar.) = carissimi, dil. = dilectissimi. 1. Adhuc de quadragesima dicendum. Ascendens d. in caelum primitias obtulit corpus suum […] AN Ver s 6 ; éd. R.  Gryson, CCSL 87, p. 64-66. 2. Ascensionem d. celebramus, fr. car. : celebratio nostra tunc uera est, si ascen­damus corde ad illum […] PS-AU s Mor 9 (CPPM 1, 1982) ; éd. PLS 2, col. 1353-1356. 3. Ascensionis domini n. I. C. sanctus et solemnis dies hodie illuxit : exsultemus et iucundemur in eo […] PS-AU s 178 (CPPM 1, 963.5576 [PS-LEO]), éd. PL 39, col. 2083-2084. 4. Ascensionis ergo dominicae inclytum et regale mysterium, quod Christus terram leuauit ad caelum […] PS-AU s 179 (CPPM 1, 964.5548 [PS-LEO]), éd. PL 39, col. 2084-2085. 5. Ascensus in caelum d. et saluatoris n. I. C. sollempniter hodie celebratur […] AN s Dol 2 ; éd. F.  Dolbeau, in Consuetudinis amor. Fragments d’histoire romaine (IIe –VIe siècles) offerts à Jean-Pierre Callu, Rome, 2003, p. 244-250 (reproduit dans Id., Augustin et la prédication en Afrique [n. 2], p. 330-336). 6. Celebratis hactenus mysteriis scrutaminum inquisitum est ne immunditia in alicuius corpore […] PS-MAX s 7 (CPPM 1, 5939) ; éd. PL 57, col. 853-858. 7. Cum enim Christus ascendit ad caelum et nostris aufertur obtu­tibus […] PS-AU s Cas 2, 145 = s Cas 3, 6 (CPPM 1,  2322.5580 [PS-LEO s Liv]) ; éd. PLS 3, col. 337-340. 8. Delectat aspicere Christum dominum portatoriis nubibus ascendentem […] PS-AU s 181 = PS-FU s 49 (CPPM 1, 966.4841) ; éd. PL 39, col. 2086-2087 ; 65, col. 915-916. 9. Discessurus e regione ista umbrae mortis d. n. I. C. ut suos, quos antea in fide dilectissimos erudierat apostolos […] [MAX] s 47 ; éd. PL 57, col. 627-630. 10. Domini n. I. C. aduentus ac discensio multas, fr. car., nobis praestitit festiuitates […] PS-FAU asc. ; éd. PLS 3, col. 710-712.

34

françois dolbeau

–– Dominus deus n. et saluator I. C., voir Ascensionem d. celebramus […]. 11. Dominus n. I. C., fr. kar., post redemptionem nostram et post triumphum diaboli […] PS-AU s Mai 157 (CPPM 1, 1766), éd. PLS 2, col. 1255-1257. 12. Dominus n. I. C. postquam a mortuis resurrexit, uolens certissima […] PS-LEO sine numero (CPPM 1, 5546), éd. Bibl. Cas. 2, Florilegium, p. 76-77. –– Dum enim Christus ascendit, voir Cum enim Christus ascendit […]. 13. Et quando de cruce nostra processit oratio, foris […] PS-AU s Cai II, app. 56 = PS-AU s Cas 2, 98 (CPPM 1, 1464.5508 [PS-LEO]) ; éd. AOS, p. 193-196 ; Bibl. Cas. 2, Florile­gium, p. 98-102. 14. Etsi ad demonstrandam dei ascensionem apostolorum actuum ‹lectio› satis sufficiat […] PS-AU s Cai II, 41 (CPPM 1, 1271) ; éd. PLS 2, col. 994-995. 15. Exoptatus uotis omnium christianorum dies aduenit : saluator saeculi […] AN Ver s 4 ; éd. R.  Gryson, CCSL 87, p. 59-61. 16. Festiuitas ascensionis dominicae uenerabiliter ueneranda est […] AN s Le 2 ; éd. PLS 3, col. 1413-1414. 17. Festiuitatem hodie celebramus mirabilem […] Traduction perdue d’un sermon grec inédit (CPG 4908), citée par FAC def (CCSL 90A, p. 348). 18. Festum hodiernae festiuitatis, fr. char., festum ascensionis […] PS-AU, s Cai II, app. 55 (CPPM 1, 1463) ; éd. AOS, p. 192-193. –– Fratres char., continua hodie iubila per aera, variante du suivant, citée chez Barthélemy d’Urbino, D. Aurelii Augustini Milleloquium ueritatis. 19. Fratres dil., cortinae hodie nubium per aethera tenduntur […] PS-AU s Mai 43 (CPPM 1, 1649) ; éd. PLS 2, col. 1143-1144. 20. Fratres dil., dies isti caelestes, quibus mortales in Christo resurgunt […] PS-AU s Cai I, app. 6 (CPPM 1, 1304) ; éd. PLS 2, col. 10211024. 21. Glorificatio d. n. I. C. resurgendo et in caelos hodie ascendendo completa est […] PS-AU s Mai 44 (CPPM 1, 1650) ; éd. NPB 1, p. 88-90. 22. Hodie, fr. char., ascensionis d. iucunda festiuitas, hodie destructa […] PS-AU s Cai II, app. 53 (CPPM 1, 1461) ; éd. AOS, p. 189-190 (dépend de PL 171, col. 580-583). 23. Hodie, fr. char., Christus ascendit super omnes caelos […] PS-AU s Cai II, app. 54 (CPPM 1, 1462) ; éd. AOS, p. 190-192. 24. Hodie, fr., uictoria Christi completa est, hodie triumphalia uexilla […] PS-LEO s 11 (CPPM 1, 5488) ; éd. PL 54, col. 499-500.

sermons « africains »

35

25. Hodierni diei festiuitatem, fr. car., mysterium nobis dominicae ascensionis instituit […] [MAX] s.  45 (CPPM 1,  5851.180 [PS-AM]) ; éd. PL 57, col. 625-626. –– Libentius fr. clariusque […] PS-AU s Cai I, app. 5 (CPPM 1, 1303), voir Magnum hodie […]. 26. Magnum hodie, fr., suscepimus diem festum quando dominus n. I. C. quadragesima post diem resurrectionis aereo uolatu […] PS-AU s Cai II, app. 57 (CPPM 1,  1465.5570 [PS-LEO]) : exorde d’un sermon dont le corps est PS-AU s Cai I, app. 5 (CPPM 1, 1303 ; inc. Libentius […]) ; texte reconstitué par J.  Leclercq, Revue Bénédictine, 57 (1947), p. 121-125 (= PLS 2, col. 1357-1360 ; CPPM 1, 1931). 27. Miror interdum, fr. dil., unde istud fiat, ut hic magnae celebritatis dies […] PS-AU s Cai I, 40 (CPPM 1, 1270) ; éd. PLS 2, col. 991-993. 28. Omnia, char., quae d. in hoc mundo sub fragilitate nostra miracula edidit, nobis proficiunt […] PS-AU s 176 (CPPM 1, 961.5558 [PS-LEO]) ; éd. PL 39, col. 2081-2082. 29. Praesentis diei festi, donante domino, sollemnia celebrantes, fr. dil., exulte­mus et laetemur […] AN Ver s 5 ; éd. R.  Gryson, CCSL 87, p. 61-64. 30. Quantis ornatibus gaudiorum refulsit hodie aula caelorum […] PS-AU s 180 (CPPM 1, 965) = PS-FU s 48 (CPPM 1, 4840) ; éd. PL 39, col. 2085-2086 ; 65, col. 914-915. 31. Quantus et quam inuestigabilis sit in operibus suis unigenitus omnipotens dei […] [MAX] s 46 (CPPM 1,  5852.182 [PS-AM]) ; éd. PL 57, col. 625-628. 32. Religiosis admodum gaudiis deuotaque laetitia, fr. car., hodierni mysterii nobis est celebranda festiuitas […] [MAX] s 44 (CPPM 1,  5850.181 [PS-AM]) ; PL 57, col. 623-626. 33. Saluator noster, dil. fr., ascendit in caelum ; non ergo turbemur in terra […] PS-AU s 177 (CPPM 1,  962.5559 [PS-LEO]) ; éd. PL 39, col. 2082-2083. 34. Scire debemus, car., quod hodierna festiuitas non minor est ab illa […] PS-FAU sine numero (CPPM 1,  4761) ; éd. Mai, Spicilegium romanum 5, p. 75. 35. Sollemnitas diei praesentis non paruam habet gratiam festiuitatis. Hoc enim die quadragesimo post resurrectionem […] PS-HI sine numero (CPPM 1, 5052). 36. Summa praeteritae sollemnitatis festis praesentibus continetur […] AN Casp tr 9 ; éd. PLS 4, col. 955-958.

A Medieval French Homiliary? A  New Look at the Collectio Colbertina (Paris, BN lat. 3798) Gert Partoens (Leuven) The present article focuses on the so-called Collectio Colbertina, a compilation of sermons by Augustine of Hippo, that is ordered according to the liturgical calendar, from Advent to the feast of Saint Cyprian in the middle of September. Although the Colbertina was listed among the medieval collections of the Church Father’s homilies in the Études critiques of Pierre-Patrick Verbraken,1 it has often been counted among the oldest collections of Augustinian sermons. Some researchers have even situated its compilation in fifth-century Africa.2 It is my aim, however, to prove that the collection was produced at a much later date in France, possibly in a Cistercian environment. 1. A lacunar manuscript of Cistercian origin The Collectio Colbertina owes its name to the fact that its only preserved witness – the twelfth-century manuscript Paris, BN lat. 3798 (P) – once belonged to the famous library of Jean-Baptiste Colbert (1619–1683). The collection’s name is somewhat unfortunate, since it threatens to blur the distinction between the compilation as an abstract entity, which in principle can have had 1  See P.-P.  Verbraken, Études critiques sur les sermons authentiques de saint Augustin, Steenbrugge-Den Haag, 1976 (Instrumenta Patristica, 12), pp. 225–26. 2  See J.-P.  Bouhot, n° 67 of “Bulletin augustinien pour 1980”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 27 (1981), pp. 352–53 (esp. p. 353).

Praedicatio Patrum. Studies on Preaching in late Antique North Africa, edited by Gert Partoens, Anthony Dupont, Shari Boodts, Turnhout, 2017 (Instrumenta Patristica et Mediaeualia, 75), p. 37-94 ©



10.1484/M.IPM-EB.5.114049

38

gert partoens

several representatives, and the sole manuscript witness that has actually been preserved. In what follows, I use the name Colbertina (or the siglum c) to refer to the collection as an abstract entity; the siglum P indicates the manuscript itself. Before entering the library of Colbert, the Paris manuscript belonged to the library of Jacques-Auguste de Thou. 3 Earlier owners are unknown, but both Cyrille Lambot and Pierre-Patrick Verbraken suggested that the manuscript was produced in a Cistercian scriptorium.4 This suggestion was based – I suppose – on the fact that a thirteenth-century hand has added a text of Cistercian origin on the recto side of the manuscript’s last folium, viz. the Institutio sancti Bernardi quomodo cantare et psallere debeamus (fol. 100r).5 In its present state, the manuscript starts with a passage from John’s account of the Last Supper (Ioh. 13, 1–16, 18; Ad collationem in cȩna domini). This passage covers fol. 1r–3v and was written by the same twelfth-century hand as the sermons of the c collection, which are found on fol. 5r–100r. Both parts are separated by a table of capitula for the latter collection, which was added at a slightly later date (fol. 4r–4v). On fol.  100v one finds a table of contents that can be dated to the fourteenth century and proves that the 100 folia of the present manuscript were preceded at that time by four other texts: Libri contenti in hoc uolumine: Primo Jheronimus de uiris illustribus. 2° Genadius de eisdem.

-

A detailed description of the manuscript by R.  Étaix and M.-P.  Laffitte is offered on http://archivesetmanuscrits.bnf.fr/ead.html?id=FRBNFEAD000061759. See also Catalogue général des manuscrits latins, v. 7: (Nos 3776 à 3835). Homéliaires, Paris, 1988, pp. 175–79. 4  See C. Lambot, “La tradition manuscrite des sermons de saint Augustin pour la Noël et l’Épiphanie”, Revue Bénédictine, 77 (1967), pp. 217–45 (esp. p. 222); P.-P. Verbraken, “La liturgie de l’Épiphanie. Sermon 204”, in Saint Augustin et la Bible, ed. by A.-M.  La Bonnardière, Paris, 1986 (Bible de tous les temps, 3), pp. 75–86 (esp. p. 75). See also C. Lambot’s handwritten notes preserved at Maredsous (fol. 137a). 5  For this text, see C.  Waddell, “A Plea for the Institutio sancti Bernardi quomodo cantare et psallere debeamus”, in Saint Bernard of Clairvaux. Studies Commemorating the Eighth Centenary of his Canonization, ed.  by M.  B. Pennington, Kalamazoo (Mich.), 1977 (Cistercian Studies Series, 28), pp.  180– 207. 3 

39

a medieval french homiliary? 3° Concilium generale et qualiter sit in eo procedendum. 4° Benedictio crismatis. 5° Collatio in Cena Domini.6 6° Sermones beati Augustini de diuersis sollemnitatibus anni.

fol. 1r–3v fol. 5r–100r

The separation of the parts containing the units 1–4 and 5–6 must have happened somewhere between the fourteenth century and the manuscript’s entrance in the library of Jacques-Auguste de Thou (1553–1617), whose signature is read at the bottom of what is now fol. 1r. So far, I have not been able to find a manuscript containing the first four items. 2. Description of the collection’s contents a. A  collection of Augustinian sermons The table in Appendix 1 describes the liturgical collection as it appears in P.  The manuscript contains 54 homilies under the title Liber sermonum sancti Augustini episcopi de diuersis sollemnitatibus anni. Of these texts, 48 belong to what today are called the Sermones ad populum, while three other items are also genuine Augustinian texts (items 1–3). Only three items have not been produced by the bishop of Hippo,7 two of them being the work of the Arlesian bishop Caesarius (items 10 and 34) and one of pope Leo the Great (item 52). One of the two Caesarian items is explicitly ascribed to Augustine (item 10), while the author of the second Caesarian item is not identified. Leo’s sermon is explicitly ascribed to the pope himself. The position of the latter sermon is somewhat problematic, since it follows, together with two Augustinian sermons, subsequent to the formula Explicit liber sermonum sancti augustini episcopi on fol. 96r of the Paris manuscript. Eminent scholars such as Cyrille Lambot, Antoine Chavasse and Jean-Paul Bouhot have suggested that c consists of an original Notice the link between items 4 and 5, for the benediction of the Chrism normally takes place on Maundy Thursday. 7  Item 11 was considered inauthentic by the Maurists (s. app. 131 = CPPM 1, 916), but has recently been attributed to Augustine himself (s.  204B). See Augustinus, Sermones selecti, ed. by C.  Weidmann, Berlin-Boston, 2015 (CSEL, 101), pp. 63–73. 6 

40

gert partoens

nucleus of mainly Augustinian Sermones ad populum and a series of later additions, such as the first three items for the Advent period (which do not belong to the modern category of the Sermones ad populum),8 the two sermons written by Caesarius of Arles,9 the sermon by Leo the Great and the last two items that together with Leo’s sermon follow after the Explicit formula on fol. 96r.10 Against this claim,11 I will argue in this article that c is not the result of a cumulative process, but the product of one simple act of selection from a much larger homiliary. In other words, it is not necessary to distinguish between an original nucleus and a series of later additions within the 54 items that make up c as preserved in P.  The items which modern scholars might be inclined to consider Fremdkörper within c, too, were – as I hope to demonstrate – already present in the larger homiliary that served as a source for the compilation of c.  That the compiler selected them together with an extensive series of texts that belong to the modern category of the Sermones ad populum, is probably explained by the fact 8  Compare  C. Lambot, “La tradition manuscrite” [n. 4], p. 223: “Prévus pour le Temps de l’Avent, les trois premiers articles sont évidemment une adjonction. La suite, au contraire, bien que non exempte de sermons apocryphes, appartient au recueil original.” 9  Compare J.-P.  Bouhot, n° 67 of “Bulletin augustinien pour 1980” [n. 2], pp. 352–53: “Le Liber sermonum contient plusieurs pièces qui ne se retrouvent pas dans les homéliaires dérivés et qui d’ailleurs tranchent avec l’ensemble du recueil: n° 1, Aug., Aduersus Iudaeos; n° 2, Aug., Enarr. in Psalm. 36, 1, 1–3; n° 3, Aug., Quaest. Euang. 2, 44; n° 10, Césaire, Serm. 192; n° 34, Césaire, Serm. 33. Ces pièces, et peut-être une ou deux autres, sont entrées dans le Liber sermonum après qu’il a servi de source aux homéliaires dérivés.” 10  Compare  A. Chavasse, “Un homiliaire liturgique romain du VIe siècle. L’homiliaire « augustinien » du « Parisinus » 3798”, Revue Bénédictine, 90 (1980), pp. 194–233 (esp. p. 197): “Telle qu’elle est conservée dans P [= Paris, BN lat. 3798], cette source présente, à la fin, trois pièces (P.52–54) qui sont hors cadre et qui font en outre double emploi avec les pièces P.43 et 48. C’est une addition, que rien n’autorise, à croire bien moins ancienne”; J.-P.  Bouhot, n° 67 of “Bulletin augustinien pour 1980” [n. 2], p. 352: “[…] le sermon 84 bis de saint Léon n’appartient sûrement pas au Liber sermonum, après l’explicit duquel il a été ajouté à une époque indéterminée et peut-être tardive.” 11  Compare C. Lambot’s handwritten notes preserved in the Abbey of Maredsous (fol.  225):  “Nous croyons avoir prouvé que, une fois débarassé de cinq ou six pièces adventices, cet homéliaire représente un modèle italien […].”

a medieval french homiliary?

41

that he simply did not see an essential difference between most of these supposed Fremdkörper and the Sermones ad populum. This is quite probable for the sermons by Caesarius, since other sources, that are independent from c, transmit these texts as Augustinian homilies too.12 With regard to the first three items, which form the section for the Advent period, it can be said that both the Aduersus Iudaeos and the fragment from the Enarrationes are sermons too, even if they do not belong to the present day Sermones ad populum.13 Moreover, the fragment from the Enarratio on Psalm 36 can already be found in the ancient sermon collection De paenitentia, which consists mainly of Sermones ad populum14 (collations by Clemens Weidmann have even proven that for this fragment the collection De paenitentia has served as an intermediary source between the Enarrationes as a whole and c).15 Finally, the text from the Quaestiones euangeliorum appears already in the Advent section of the eighth-century homiliary of Paul the Deacon.16 In other words: these five items, which might seem to be Fremdkörper to a modern scholar equipped with tools such as the Clavis Patrum Latinorum or the Études critiques of Verbraken, probably did not give this impression to the medieval compiler, who – as I will try to demonstrate – selected them together with a series of Sermones ad populum from a larger homiliary, in order to compile c.

For Caes., s. 33 (item 34) as attributed to Augustine, see CPPM 1, 1062; for s. 192 (item 10), see CPPM, 1, 914. 13  For the adu. Iud. as a sermon, see J. van Oort, “Iudaeos (Aduersus –)”, in Augustinus-Lexikon, v. 3, Basel, 2004–2010, col. 792–96 (esp. col. 792–93). En. Ps. 36, 1 and adu. Iud. were preached during, respectively, the early 400s and the last decades of Augustine’s life. See H. Müller, “Enarrationes in Psalmos. A. Philologische Aspekte”, in Augustinus-Lexikon, v. 2, Basel, 1996– 2002, col. 804–38 (esp. col. 811–12); J. van Oort, “Iudaeos (Aduersus –)”, col. 792. 14  See P.-P. Verbraken, Études critiques [n. 1], p. 201 (n° 34). 15  E-mail of 7 November 2014. 16  See  R. Grégoire, Homéliaires liturgiques médiévaux. Analyse de manuscrits, Spoleto, 1980 (Biblioteca degli « Studi medievali », 12), p. 431 (item 1.7). Paul the Deacon probably borrowed the text from Eugippius’ Excerpta ex operibus sancti Augustini (frgm. 177 = CSEL 9/1, pp. 598–600). This work does not indicate the text’s original context, but only quotes it under the title De duobus in lecto et duabus molentibus et duobus in agris. 12 

42

gert partoens

b. A liturgical collection The items 1 to 48 are arranged according to the order of the ecclesiastical year. Comprising both temporale and sanctorale, they range from Advent (item 1) to the feast of Saint Cyprian in the middle of September (item 48). The temporale contains sermons for Advent, Christmas, Epiphany, Lent, the Easter week (from the Paschal Vigil until Easter Saturday), Ascension and Pentecost; the sanctorale offers homilies for the feasts of major saints, viz. Stephen, Vincent, Gervasius and Protasius, John the Baptist, Peter and Paul, the Maccabees, Lawrence and Cyprian. An additional sermon deals with the pagan festivities for the Calends of January, viz. s.  192 of Caesarius (item 10). The commune is limited to three sermons: one for feasts celebrating one martyr (item 49) and two for common celebrations of several martyrs (items 50–51). As has been indicated by Clemens Weidmann,17 this arrangement is comparable to that of at least two other liturgical collections that mainly consist of Augustinian sermons, viz. the collections of Wolfenbüttel and Erfurt. The items 52 to 54 of c (as preserved in P) constitute three further sermons on the Maccabees and Cyprian. They were written by the same hand as the preceding items, but are separated from them by the formula Explicit liber sermonum sancti augustini episcopi. Moreover, item 52 is the only text in P that is explicitly attributed to another author than Augustine. As said before, some scholars have thought for these reasons that the Parisian manuscript descends from an ancestor in which a “purer” version of c had been enlarged through the addition of items 52 to 54. However, a look at the numbering of the sermons at the end of c as preserved in P suggests that something else has happened. The initial numbering of the sermons in the Paris manuscript is completely regular up to and including number XLIII. It then 17  See  C. Weidmann, “The Corpus of Augustinian Sermons Recently Discovered at Erfurt: With a New Edition of Sermo 207”, in Ministerium sermonis. Philological, Historical, and Theological Studies on Augustine’s Sermones ad populum, ed. by G.  Partoens, A.  Dupont, M.  Lamberigts, Turnhout, 2009 (Instrumenta Patristica et Mediaevalia, 53), pp.  11–37 (esp. pp.  17 and 19). Compare also the calendar in I.  Schiller, D.  Weber, C.  Weidmann, “Sechs neue Augustinuspredigten. Teil 1 mit Edition dreier Sermones”, Wiener Studien, 121 (2008), pp. 227–84 (esp. p. 247).

a medieval french homiliary?

43

skips number XLIV and immediately proceeds to XLV. From that point onwards it runs one number ahead of what is the real situation. However, when it has arrived at XLVIIII, it immediately proceeds to number LII, thus skipping another two numbers. In view of the regularity of the numbering from I to XLIII, one thus gets the impression that one text was eliminated on the transition from the Maccabees to Stephen (number XLIV) and two other texts on the transition from Cyprian to the commune (numbers L and LI). Could it be a mere coincidence, then, that the three sermons following the explicit formula are precisely one sermon on the Maccabees and two on Cyprian? I  would suggest that Leo’s sermon on the Maccabees – the present item 52 – and the two following ones on Cyprian occupied, respectively, the positions XLIV, L and LI in a predecessor of P. A relict of this older situation is the initial numbering of the sermons preceding the explicit formula on fol. 96r of the Parisian manuscript. In a second phase the three sermons were removed from their original position and put into a kind of appendix. Reason for the removal of Leo’s sermon might have been the fact that it was the only item in c that was attributed to another author than Augustine. A comparable explanation cannot be given, however, for the two items on Cyprian, which are genuine Augustinian sermons, although it should be said that their titles in the Parisian manuscript do not identify their author and that the later compiler of the capitula even explicitly denied that they had been preached by the bishop of Hippo.18 c.  The position of the individual sermons within the global organization For the large majority of the sermons, their position within c (as preserved in P) simply coincides with the feast on which they were

18  This is also suggested by C. Lambot in his personal notes kept at the Abbey of Maredsous (fol.  228): “On a […] l’impression que le copiste du ms. de Paris a laissé tomber plusieurs des sermons que lui offrait son modèle, quand on le voit transcrire d’abord, à la fête de S. Cyprien, un seul sermon [= s. 311], puis en ajouter deux autres en appendice [= ss. 312–13] […], comme si entretemps il avait regretté de les avoir sautés.”

44

gert partoens

originally pronounced or for which they had been written.19 In a few cases, however, other factors seem to have determined the position of the sermons concerned. Before presenting these factors, I would like to stress that most of them have also played a role in the composition of two other homiletic compilations that have close links with c, viz. the so-called Sancti Catholici Patres (s) and the third part of the Collectio Tripartita (t3). The former is a mixed homiliary containing 345 sermons that was produced during the first decades of the twelfth century in a Cistercian scriptorium of Eastern France and afterwards mainly circulated within Cistercian and Carthusian circles.20 The Tripartita, on the other hand, is a collection of 263 Augustinian and pseudo-Augustinian sermons that – as its name suggests – consists of three parts, the third of which coincides almost entirely with the Augustinian and pseudo-Augustinian material of s and probably depends on a representative of the latter homiliary.21 But let us return to c itself: 19  The following sermons explicitly state their being pronounced at – or having been composed for – the feast they have been ascribed to in c: Aug., ss. 184, 190, 370, 185, 193; Caes., s. 192; Aug., ss. 204B, 373, 204, 275, 274, 205, 207–10, 220, 226, 235, 265, 268, 269, 286, 293, 380, 289, 291, 297, 295, 381, 298, 301, 302, 305, 304, 311; Leo M., s. 84bis; Aug., ss. 312, 313. The following sermons have been convincingly situated at these feasts on the basis of other criteria: Aug., ss. 147, 378 (see M.  Margoni-Kögler, Die Perikopen im Gottesdienst bei Augustinus. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der liturgischen Schriftlesung in der frühen Kirche, Wien, 2010 (Veröffentlichungen der Kommission zur Herausgabe des Corpus der Lateinischen Kirchenväter, 29; Sitzungsberichte/Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, 810), pp. 321–22, n. 839 and pp. 135–36). The remaining sermons (except those belonging to the commune [items 49–51: ss. 327, 65, 329]) are discussed above. 20  See J.-P.  Bouhot, “L’homéliaire des Sancti Catholici Patres. Recon­ stitution de sa forme originale”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 21 (1975), pp. 145–96; “L’homéliaire des Sancti Catholici Patres. Tradition manuscrite”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 22 (1976), pp. 143–85; “L’homéliaire des Sancti Catholici Patres. Sources et composition”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 24 (1978), pp. 103–58; A.  G. Martimort, Les lectures liturgiques et leurs livres, Turnhout, 1992 (Typologie des sources du Moyen Âge occidental, 64), pp. 92–93. 21  For the dependence of t3 on s, see A.  Wilmart, “La collection Tripartite des sermons de saint Augustin”, in Miscellanea Augustiniana. Gedenkboek samengesteld uit verhandelingen over s. Augustinus bij de viering van zijn zalig overlijden vóór 15 eeuwen. CDXXX–MCMXXX, Rotterdam, 1930, pp. 418–49

a medieval french homiliary?

45

(item 1) With regard to the Aduersus Iudaeos it should be said that influential early homiliaries, such as that of Saint Peter’s at the Vatican and that of Paul the Deacon, also contain anti-Jewish material for the Advent period.22 The use of this kind of text in the liturgy during Advent has been dealt with extensively in secondary literature and is easily explained by the Christian conviction that the Incarnation – or Christ’s first aduentus – meant the end as well as the fulfilment of the Old Covenant.23 Hence the title of the first item of c: De incarnatione domini contra iudeos. The work also figures in the Advent sections of both s (n° 6) and t3 (n° 3.101: De incarnatione Domini contra Iudeos). (items 2–3) The short text from the Quaestiones euangeliorum (2, 44; item 3) appears already as a separate text in the Excerpta ex operibus sancti Augustini by the fifth/sixth-century compiler Eugippius of Lucullanum (item 177). It was subsequently included as a sermo for the Advent period in the homiliary of Paul the Deacon (item 7).24 It is a quaestio on Luc. 17, 34–35, a passage relating to Christ’s second coming – or aduentus – at the end of times.25 (esp. pp. 444–45); R.  Étaix, n° 87 of “Bulletin augustinien pour 1978”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 25 (1979), pp. 327–29. J.-P.  Bouhot argued that t3 was a major source for the compilation of s.  See “L’homéliaire des Sancti Catholici Patres. Sources et composition” [n. 20]. I follow Wilmart and Étaix. 22  Anti-Jewish items are Ps.-Aug. (Quodvultdeus), s.  4 (Contra Iudaeos, paganos et Arrianos), 11–17 and s.  app. 245 (author unknown). See R. Grégoire, Homéliaires liturgiques médiévaux [n. 16], p. 227 (homiliary of Saint Peter’s at the Vatican: items 7 and 11) and 431 (homiliary of Paul the Deacon: items 9–10). For the presence of these pseudo-Augustinian items in other homiliaries, see also D.  F. Glass, “Pseudo-Augustine, Prophets, and Pulpits in Campania”, Dumbarton Oaks Papers, 41 (1987), pp. 215–26 (esp. pp. 217–18 + n. 28–29; on Quodu., s.  4); CPPM 1, 1205 (Quodu., s.  4) and 1030 (s.  app. 245). 23  For an analysis of both s. app. 245 and Quodu., s. 4, and their relevance for the Advent/Christmas period, see R.  C. Lagueux, “Sermons, Exegesis, and Performance: The Laon Ordo Prophetarum and the Meaning of Advent”, Comparative Drama, 43 (2009), pp. 197–220 (esp. pp. 199–205; with further literature). The presence and position of adu. Iud. in c is explained in the same way by A.  Chavasse, “Un homiliaire liturgique” [n. 10], pp. 209–10. 24  See n. 16. 25  For the reading of the Lukan pericope during Advent (in line with the homiliary of Paul the Deacon), see also R.  C. Lagueux, “Sermons, Exegesis and Performance” [n. 23], pp. 207–08.

46

gert partoens

Item 2 – the fragment from the Enarrationes – deals with the equivalent verses Matth. 24,  40–41 and focuses on the coming of Christ on the Last Day.26 Both texts appear in the same order in s (items 2 and 3), whereas t3 only contains the fragment from the Enarrationes (item 3.100). (item 23) S. 230 is a short sermon that was probably preached on Easter Sunday.27 It is associated with this major feast in some very ancient manuscripts and homiliaries,28 but c presents it as a sermon for any day of the Easter Octave: qua uolueris die. Other homiliaries, too, offer the sermon for the Easter Octave, a.o. s and t3.29 It should be added, however, that the capitula on fol. 4r of P

26  For the link between item 3 (and item 2) of c and item 7 in the homiliary of Paul the Deacon, see also A.  Chavasse, “Un homiliaire liturgique” [n. 10], pp. 208–09. Chavasse’s speculations presuppose, however, that c was compiled in Italy during the early Middle Ages. I will demonstrate below that this is a mistake. 27  See P.-P. Verbraken, Études critiques [n. 1], p. 112; R. Gryson, Répertoire général des auteurs ecclésiastiques latins de l’Antiquité et du haut moyen âge, v. 1, Freiburg, 2007 (Vetus Latina, 1/15), p. 245. The sermon’s brevity and its insistence on Ps. 117, 24 might be an indication for this. See M. Margoni-Kögler, Die Perikopen [n. 19], p. 115, n. 332. 28  London, BL Add. 29972 (VIII in.; handwriting of Luxeuil), fol. 30v– 31r: De die Paschae; Vat. lat. 3835 (VIII in.; homiliary of Agimundus), fol. 106v–107r (item 2.37): de Pascha (eighth in a series of nine sermons for Easter); Wolfenbüttel, HAB Weiss. 12 (4096) (IX/X; “collection of Wolfenbüttel”), fol. 44v–45v (item 26): De Dominica sancti Pasche (first in a series of nine sermons for Easter Sunday). 29  Homiliary s (item 188): Feria .V. (J.-P. Bouhot, “L’homéliaire des Sancti Catholici Patres. Reconstitution de sa forme originale” [n. 20], p. 169); t3 (item 3.185): Feria quinta (A.  Wilmart, “La collection Tripartite” [n. 21], p. 433, n° 185). Compare Wien, ÖNB 1616 (VIII ex.; homiliary of Vienna), fol. 112r–113r (item 30): in eodem diem [sic] [= De Pascha] (situated between s.  235 [Easter Monday; item 28] and s.  Mai 41 [Low Sunday; item 32]); Vat. lat. 3828 (IX/X; homiliary of Jouffroy), fol. 163r–163v (item 49): De Pascha (situated between Tuesday [s.  236: De tertia feria; item 48] and Low Sunday [s.  Arm. 14: De octabas Paschae; item 52]); Napoli, BN Vienn. lat. 14 (XI; Collectio Campana; item 18): Item alius in eodem die (= sabbati die; A.  Wilmart, “Remarques sur plusieurs collections des sermons de s. Augustin”, in Casinensia, 1 [1929], pp. 217–41 [esp. p. 223]). Less clear are Vat. lat. 4951 (XII; homiliary of Rochester; fol. 122v–123r; part of a long series of sermons for Eastertide; A.  Wilmart, “Easter sermons of St Augustine”, The Journal of Theological Studies, 28 [1927], pp. 113–44 [esp. p. 130]) and the version of

a medieval french homiliary?

47

link the sermon with Easter itself: Item eiusdem de eodem (= de die sancto Paschę). (items 24–25) Of the two sermons for Easter Monday – ss. 235 and 236 – the former was certainly preached on that very day. 30 The latter was delivered during an Easter Octave, but modern scholars do not agree on the exact day. 31 In any case, the sermon immediately follows s. 235 in several other homiliaries, which present it for either the feria II or the feria III. 32 The homiliary s and its derivative t3 offer it for the feria secunda, thus corresponding – again – with c. (item 26) S. 256 is one of Augustine’s sermons that can be attributed a very specific date, viz. 5 May 418, which in that year was the fourth Sunday after Easter. 33 However, being a sermon s.  230 preserved in the second part of the Tripartita (item 2.84: De pascha; A.  Wilmart, “La collection Tripartite” [n. 21], p. 428). 30  See C. Lambot, “Le sermon CCXXXV de saint Augustin pour un lundi de Pâques”, Revue Bénédictine, 67 (1957), pp. 129–40. 31  According to P.-P. Verbraken, Études critiques [n. 1], p. 114, s. 236 was preached on a Monday, a Tuesday or even a Wednesday after Easter; R. Gryson, Répertoire général [n. 27], p. 245 situates it on “Ostermontag, um 410/12”. 32  Vat. lat. 3828 (IX/X; homiliary of Jouffroy), fol. 162r–163r (item 48): De tertia feria; Vat. lat. 3835 (VIII in.; homiliary of Agimundus), fol. 113v–116r (item 2.41): De III. feria Paschae; Monte Cassino 12 (XI), pp.  185–86 (item 111): De feria II.; s (item 176): part of a series for the Feria .II. (items 172– 76; J.-P.  Bouhot, “L’homéliaire des Sancti Catholici Patres. Reconstitution de sa forme originale” [n. 20], p. 167); t3 (item 3.178): part of a series for the Feria IIa (items 3.174–78; A.  Wilmart, “La collection Tripartite” [n. 21], pp. 432–33). Bede borrowed a fragment of s.  236 – frgm. 27 of his Collectio ex opusculis sancti Augustini in epistulas Pauli apostoli – from a homiliary in which the situation was comparable to that in Vat. lat. 3828 and 3835: Ex sermone de lectione euangelii feria tertia Paschae (I.  Fransen, “Description de la collection de Bède le Vénérable sur l’Apôtre”, Revue Bénédictine, 71 [1961], pp. 22–70 [esp. p. 27]). The version of s.  236 preserved in the second part of the Tripartita (A.  Wilmart, “La collection Tripartite” [n. 21], p. 429, item 2.87) is entitled De pascha. Compare Wien, ÖNB 1616 (VIII ex.; homiliary of Vienna), fol. 109r–112r (item 29): In eodem d[ie] [= De Pascha]. In the Carolingian homiliary of Beaune, s.  236, 1 has been used to produce a Sermo in die sancto Paschae (Paris, BN lat. 3794 [XII], fol. 111v–113r [item 67]; R. Étaix, “Le sermonnaire carolingien de Beaune”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 25 [1979], pp. 106–49 [esp. p. 115]). 33  See  O. Perler, Les voyages de saint Augustin, Paris, 1969, pp. 340–41; P.-P.  Verbraken, Études critiques [n. 1], p. 120; R.  Gryson, Répertoire général [n. 27], p. 246.

48

gert partoens

on the Alleluia, which in the African Church was sung every day from Easter until Pentecost, 34 the text could easily be included in a section for the week after Easter. Here too, the collection c corresponds with other homiliaries, such as s and t3. 35 (item 30) Whether this sermon – s. 272 – was preached on Easter Sunday or Pentecost, is still under discussion. 36 The collection c and several other homiliaries (including s), use it for Pentecost. 37 (item 34) Item 34 is s.  33 in Morin’s edition of the homilies of Caesarius of Arles. The title – De reddendis decimis – corresponds with the content of the sermon’s first three paragraphs, which offer an exhortation to the payment of tenths. Its position within the collection is determined, however, by the fourth and last para34  See Augustine, Sermons pour la Pâque, ed. by S.  Poque, Paris, 1966 (SC, 116), pp. 50–51; M.  Klöckener, “Alleluia”, in Augustinus-Lexikon, v. 1, Basel, 1986–1994, col. 239–41 (esp. col. 240). 35  Vat. lat. 3835 (VIII in.; homiliary of Agimundus), fol. 116r–120r (item 2.42): De alleluia Paschae (situated between Easter Tuesday [s.  236: De III. feria Paschae; item 41] and Low Sunday [s.  259: in die octauarum Paschae; item 45]); Vat. lat. 3828 (IX/X; homiliary of Jouffroy), fol. 163v–165r (item 50): De alleluia Pasche (situated between Easter Tuesday [s.  236: De tertia feria; item 48] and Low Sunday [s.  Arm. 14: De octabas Paschae; item 52]); Monte Cassino 12 (XI), pp.  180–82 (item 109): De alleluia Paschae; Vat. lat. 4951 (XII; homiliary of Rochester; fol. 133r–134r; part of a long series of sermons for Eastertide; A.  Wilmart, “Easter sermons of St Augustine” [n. 29], p. 130); s (item 189): De alleluia (belonging to a series of sermons for the Thursday after Easter: Feria .V. [items 187–90]; J.-P.  Bouhot, “L’homéliaire des Sancti Catholici Patres. Reconstitution de sa forme originale” [n. 20], p. 169); t3 (item 3.186): Feria Va de alleluia (A.  Wilmart, “La collection Tripartite” [n. 21], p. 433). 36  See P.-P.  Verbraken, Études critiques [n. 1], pp. 124–25; R.  Gryson, Répertoire général [n. 27], p. 248; M. Margoni-Kögler, Die Perikopen [n. 19], p. 135, n. 397. 37  The sermon is linked with Pentecost in Vat. lat. 3835 (VIII in.; homiliary of Agimundus), fol. 190v–192r (item 2.65): De sacramentis in Penteco­ sten; Vat. lat. 3828 (IX/X; homiliary of Jouffroy), fol. 177v–178r (item 62): De sacramentis (situated within a series of sermons for Pentecost [items 59–65]); s (item 213): De sacramentis (situated within a series of sermons for Pentecost [items 206–16]). The sermon is linked with (the week after) Easter in Napoli, BN Vienn. lat. 14 (XI; Collectio Campana), which offers the sermon for a Thursday after Easter (item 16: Item eiusdem de eodem die [= de quinta feria] ad sacramenta altaris; A. Wilmart, “Remarques” [n. 29], p. 223) as well as in the second part of the Tripartita (item 2.89: De pascha; A.  Wilmart, “La collection Tripartite” [n. 21], p. 429).

a medieval french homiliary?

49

graph, which offers a series of instructions for the upcoming feast of John the Baptist. That is why the sermon precedes the homilies for the saint’s dies natalis in our collection as well as in several of the oldest homiliaries that have been preserved, viz. the Collectiones Germanica and Gallicana – both compiled by Caesarius himself – as well as the homiliary of Toledo, 38 which was strongly influenced by Caesarius’ compilations. 39 Moreover, in several sources – including Morin’s critical edition – the sermon bears a longer title than is the case in c (as preserved in P), viz. De reddendis decimis: ante natale sancti Iohannis Baptistae.40 It can be added that the sermon is found neither in s nor in t3. (items 9 and 44) These items are both dedicated to Saint Stephen. According to tradition,41 the relics of the first martyr were discovered in December 415 at a site called Caphar Gamala near Jerusalem, and solemnly transferred to the city on the twenty-sixth of the same month. The Eastern Church had been celebrating this date as the saint’s feast since the late fourth century at the latest and it soon became generally accepted as the first Collectio Germanica: CCSL 103, p. LXV (item 53 [Caes., s. 33] + item 54 [s.  216; on the nativity of John the Baptist]); Collectio Gallicana: R.  Étaix, “Nouvelle collection de sermons rassemblée par saint Césaire”, Revue Bénédictine, 87 (1977), pp. 7–33 (esp. p. 19: item 98 [Caes., s. 33] + items 99–100 [on the nativity John the Baptist]); homiliary of Toledo: R.  Grégoire, Homéliaires liturgiques médiévaux [n. 16], p. 303 (item 45 [Caes., s. 33] + items 46–47 [on John the baptist]). 39  See  R. Grégoire, Homéliaires liturgiques médiévaux [n. 16], p. 293. 40  See CCSL 103, pp. 142–43; R.  Grégoire, Homéliaires liturgiques médiévaux [n. 16], p. 303 (item 45) and 318 (item add. 19). A.  Chavasse, “Un ho­miliaire liturgique” [n. 10], p. 218 explains the position of Caes., s.  33 in c by referring to the sermon’s fourth paragraph. He seems to have missed the parallel with the Caesarian homiliaries. 41  See G. D. Gordini, “Stefano, protomartire, santo”, in Bibliotheca sanctorum, v. 11, Rome, 1968, col. 1376–1387; V. Saxer, Morts, martyrs, reliques en Afrique chrétienne aux premiers siècles. Les témoignages de Tertullien, Cyprien, et Augustin à la lumière de l’archéologie africaine, Paris, 1980 (Théologie historique, 55), pp. 171–72; 179–81, 210–12, 245–78; Y.  Duval, Loca sanctorum Africae. Le culte des martyrs en Afrique du IVe au VIIe siècle, Rome, 1982 (Collection de l’École française de Rome, 58), pp. 624–32; M.  Klöckener, “Festa sanctorum et martyrum”, in Augustinus-Lexikon, v. 2, Basel, 1996– 2002, col. 1281–1305 (esp. col. 1298–1299); F.  Bovon, “The Dossier on Stephen, the First Martyr”, The Harvard Theological Review, 96 (2003), pp. 279– 315 (esp. pp. 285–87). 38 

50

gert partoens

martyr’s dies natalis, also in Africa.42 However, during the Middle Ages a second feast in honor of Saint Stephen came into use, viz. at the beginning of August. This feast may have originated through an association of the protomartyr with Pope Stephen I, whose martyr’s death in 257 was commemorated on the second of August. This association can be found for the first time in the so-called Leonine Sacramentary,43 which dates from the late sixth century and offers several prayers relating to the natalis of the first martyr for the feast of Pope Stephen.44 The commemoration at the beginning of August eventually became a celebration of the inuentio of the latter’s relics and was celebrated on the third of that month. Its earliest attestation is found in the three oldest manuscript witnesses of the Martyrologium Hieronymianum.45 Although this does not mean that the feast was already referred to in the original version of the Martyrologium, which has to be situated in the middle of the fifth century,46 it does prove that the feast came

See  G.  D. Gordini, “Stefano” [n. 41], col. 1381–1383; F.  Bovon, “The Dossier on Stephen” [n. 41], pp. 285–86; V. Saxer, “Aux origines du culte de saint Étienne protomartyr. La préhistoire de la révélation de ses reliques”, in Les miracles de saint Étienne. Recherches sur le recueil pseudo-augustinien (BHL 7860–7861) avec édition critique, traduction et commentaire, ed. by J.  Meyers, Turnhout, 2006 (Hagiologia, 5), pp. 37–46 (esp. pp. 41–45). 43  Verona, BC LXXXV (olim 80) (VII in.) orig. Verona, fol. 66r–70r. 44  See Sacramentarium Veronense (Cod. Bibl. Capit. Veron. LXXXV [80]), ed. by L.  C. Mohlberg, v. 2, Rome, 1955 (Rerum Ecclesiasticarum Documenta, Series Maior, Fontes), pp.  85–89; E.  Bourque, Étude sur les sacramentaires romains, v. 1: Les textes primitifs, Rome, 1948 (Studi di Antichità Cristiana, 20), pp. 118–22; D.  M. Hope, The Leonine Sacramentary. A Reassessment of its Nature and Purpose, Oxford, 1971 (Oxford Theological Monographs), p. 30. 45  Paris, BN lat. 10837 (VIII in.) prov. Echternach, fol. 22v (III Nonas Agustas […] Inuentio corporis beati Stefani diaconi apostolorum et aliorum Gamalielis Nicodimi); Bern, BB 289 (VIII–IX), written for the monastery at Saint-Avold, near Metz, fol.  109v–110r ([exact date unclear on microfilm] in Hierusolimis inuentio corporis beatissimi Stephani primi [primi om. a.c.] martyris et sanctorum Gamalielis Nicomedi [Nicodemi e corr.] et Abibon); Wolfenbüttel, HAB Weiss. 81 (VIII 2), fol. 69v–70r (III Nonas Agustas […] Hierusolimis inuentio corporis beatissimi Stephani primi martyris et sanctorum Gamelielis Nicomedi [sic] et Abibon). 46  For the original (Northern Italy [region of Aquileia?], middle of the fifth century) and later redactions of the Martyrologium Hieronymianum, see 42 

a medieval french homiliary?

51

into use at quite an early date, since the three oldest manuscripts form two families and all date from the eighth century – the earliest one even predates the year 720.47 The feast is not attested to in Bede’s Martyrologium, but it is mentioned in the anonymous one of Lyon and those of Florus,48 Ado49 and Usuardus – which all date from the ninth century.50 Therefore we can say that at least from the late seventh century onwards there existed two feasts in honor of the first martyr: the twenty-sixth of December commemorating his dies natalis, and the third of August celebrating the inuentio of his relics. The composition of collection c clearly postdates this evolution:51 s.  317, which is entitled de sancto stephano, is placed between Christmas and the Calends of January, while s.  318 de inuentione sancti stephani is presented between the feast of the Maccabees on the first of August and that of saint Lawrence on the tenth of the same month. Moreover, to each feast has been attributed a sermon with a content that fits very well with the event that is being commemorated. S. 317, which Augustine

J.  Dubois, Les martyrologes du Moyen Âge latin, Turnhout, 1978 (Typologie des sources du Moyen Âge occidental, 26), pp. 29–30 and 33–37. 47  See  J. Dubois, Les martyrologes du Moyen Âge latin [n. 46], pp. 30–31. 48  For the texts of the martyrology of Bede, the anonymous one of Lyon and that of Florus, see J.  Dubois, G.  Renaud, Édition pratique des martyro­ loges de Bède, de l’anonyme Lyonnais et de Florus, Paris, 1976 (IRHT. Bibliographies-Colloques-Travaux préparatoires), p. 142. See also J.  Dubois, Les martyrologes du Moyen Âge latin [n. 46], pp. 38–42. 49  For the text of the martyrology of Ado, see J.  Dubois, G.  Renaud, Le martyrologe d’Adon. Ses deux familles. Ses trois recensions. Texte et commentaire, Paris, 1984 (Sources d’histoire médiévale publiées par l’IRHT), pp. 245–47. See also J.  Dubois, Les martyrologes du Moyen Âge latin [n. 46], pp. 42–45. 50  For the text of the martyrology of Usuardus, see J.  Dubois, Le martyrologe d’Usuard. Texte et commentaire, Paris, 1965 (Subsidia Hagiographica, 40), p. 278. See also J.  Dubois, Les martyrologes du Moyen Âge latin [n. 46], pp. 45–56. 51  For the evolution sketched above (confusion with the feast of Pope Stephen I and first attestation of the feast of the inuentio in the Martyrologium Hieronymianum), see also L.  Duchesne, Origines du culte chrétien. Étude sur la liturgie latine avant Charlemagne, Paris, 1909, p. 273, n. 3; G.  D. Gordini, “Stefano” [n. 41], col. 1383–1384; P. Jounel, Le culte des saints dans les basiliques du Latran et du Vatican au douzième siècle, Rome, 1977 (Collection de l’École française de Rome, 26), p. 267; F.  Bovon, “The Dossier on Stephen” [n. 41], p. 286.

52

gert partoens

delivered during the winter of 424–25, 52 remains silent about the invention of the relics, but gives ample attention to Stephen’s martyrdom, while its peroratio encourages the brethren to celebrate the martyr’s dies natalis. It has been scheduled, by consequence, for 26 December. S. 318, which Augustine pronounced in late June or early July 425,53 also deals with the protomartyr’s death, but its first paragraph mainly focuses on the discovery of relics – Stephen’s as well as those of Protasius and Gervasius. That is why the collection c presents the sermon at the beginning of August. It can be added here that the same situation is found in s and t3.54 3. Chavasse/Bouhot: the Colbertina as a “source majeure” of other homiliaries It has often been noticed that c shares a large amount of sermons with other homiliaries of Italian and French origin. These concurrencies are visualized in Appendix 2. All sermons of c (as preserved in P) are listed in the fourth column. The first column compares c with Vat. lat. 3828 (fol. 122r–236v), which is the so-called homiliary of Jouffroy (J). This mixed homiliary, that once belonged to the library of cardinal Jean Jouffroy (fifteenth century), was written around the year 900 in France – maybe at Flavigny – but is commonly believed to depend on Italian models. 55 Of the three 52  S. 317 was preached on the occasion of the deposition of the relics in the Cathedral of Hippo (winter 424–25). See V. Saxer, Morts, martyrs, reliques [n. 41], pp. 255 and 259. Compare P.-P.  Verbraken, Études critiques [n. 1], p. 138. R.  Gryson, Répertoire général [n. 27], p. 251 proposes, however, 26 December 425. 53  S. 318 was preached at the dedication of Stephen’s memoria (early summer 425), which the deacon Eraclius had constructed in Hippo. See V. Saxer, Morts, martyrs, reliques [n. 41], pp. 255 and 259–60. Compare P.-P.  Verbraken, Études critiques [n. 1], p. 138. R.  Gryson, Répertoire général [n. 27], p. 251 proposes, however, as date for s. 318 the arrival in Hippo of Stephen’s relics. 54  For s, see items 37–45 (natalis), including s.  317 (item 41), and items 277–79 (inuentio), including s.  318 (item 277). For t3, see items 3.118–23 (natalis), including s.  317 (3.120), and items 3.227–28 (inuentio), including s. 318 (item 227). 55  See  C. Lambot, “Les sermons de saint Augustin pour les fêtes de Pâques”, Revue Bénédictine, 79 (1969), pp. 148–72 (esp. p. 160); J.-P. Bouhot,

a medieval french homiliary?

53

homiliaries on the left, this one has the largest amount of sermons in common with c – an amount that originally might have been even higher, since the manuscript has lost a large portion at its beginning and an indeterminate one at its end.56 The second column compares c with Vat. lat. 3835 and 3836, which constitute the second and third volumes of the famous homiliary of Agimundus (A). This mixed homiliary is commonly believed to partly depend on a source that must have strongly resembled J.57 It was used in the Roman church of Santi Filippo e Giacomo, but its origin probably lies at the church of San Pietro in Vincoli, for it was copied at the beginning of the eighth century by a certain Agimundus, who seems to have been a priest linked with the latter church.58 The absence of coincidences at the beginning is due to the fact that the first volume of the homiliary, which covered the period from Advent until Lent (the second volume starts with Easter), is missing.59 Closely related to A is the codex Monte “L’homéliaire des Sancti Catholici Patres. Sources et composition” [n. 20], pp. 130–32 + n. 33; A.  Chavasse, “Un homiliaire liturgique” [n. 10], passim; R.  Grégoire, Homéliaires liturgiques médiévaux [n. 16], pp. 245–61 (detailed description). 56  Grégoire’s description [see n. 55] numbers the items of J without taking into account the loss and inversion of quires. For a reconstruction of the original order of the items in this manuscript, see Appendix 2, n. 1. 57  See J.-P.  Bouhot, “L’homéliaire des Sancti Catholici Patres. Sources et composition” [n. 20], pp. 134–35; A.  Chavasse, “Un homiliaire liturgique” [n. 10], passim. 58  See J.-P.  Bouhot, “L’homéliaire des Sancti Catholici Patres. Sources et composition” [n. 20], p. 132. 59  For other studies on the homiliary of Agimundus (apart from the ones quoted in n. 57–58), see J.  Löw, “Ein stadtrömisches Lektionar des VIII. Jahrhunderts (Cod. Vatic. lat. No. 3835 und 3836)”, Römische Quartalschrift, 37 (1929), pp. 15–39; A.  Chavasse, “Le sermonaire des Saints-Philippe-etJacques et le sermonaire de Saint-Pierre”, Ephemerides liturgicae, 69 (1955), pp. 17–24; R.  Grégoire, “Les homéliaires du Moyen Âge.  Inventaire et analyse des manuscrits”, Rome, 1966 (Rerum Ecclesiasticarum Documenta, Series Maior, Fontes, 6), p.  7; Homéliaires liturgiques médiévaux [n. 16], pp. 343–92; A.  Chavasse, “Le sermonnaire d’Agimond. Ses sources immédiates”, in Kyriakon. Festschrift Johannes Quasten, ed. by P.  Granfield, J.  A. Jungmann, v. 2, Münster, 1970, pp.  800–10; J.-P.  Bouhot, “L’homéliaire de Saint-Pierre du Vatican au milieu du VIIe siècle et sa postérité”, Recherches Augustiniennes, 20 (1985), pp. 87–115 (passim); A.  G. Martimort, Les lectures liturgiques [n. 20], p. 84.

54

gert partoens

Cassino 12 (M), written towards the end of the eleventh century,60 which is compared with c in the third column. The fifth and sixth columns compare c with the two French homiletic collections I have referred to earlier, viz. the Sancti Catholici Patres (s) and the third part of the Tripartita (t3). The close relationship between these two compilations and c is undeniable: of the 54 sermons belonging to c, 52 are also present in s, while t3 – which to all probability depends on s – contains 50 of them. The coincidences between c and the three homiliaries on the left have been interpreted by Antoine Chavasse in an extremely complicated article in Revue Bénédictine of 1980. According to the French liturgist, the Paris manuscript has preserved an old homiliary that was compiled in early medieval Rome, more precisely at San Lorenzo fuori le mura.61 This relatively small homiliary subsequently became, Chavasse believed, a “source majeure” of a more extensive homiliary on which depend J A M.  Since A was written at the beginning of the eighth century, Chavasse situated the compilation of that extensive homiliary in the early seventh century62 See  Bibliotheca Casinensis seu codicum manuscriptorum qui in tabulario Casinensi asservantur series, v. 1, Monte Cassino, 1873, pp.  164–78; Codicum Casinensium manuscriptorum catalogus. Cura et studio monachorum S. Benedicti archicoenobii Montis Casini, v. 1.1: (codd. 1–100), Monte Cassino, 1915, pp. 17–22; A.  Wilmart, “Remarques” [n. 29], pp. 236–38 (with a list of concordances between this manuscript and the homiliary of Agimundus); C.  Lambot, “La tradition manuscrite” [n. 4], pp. 227–28; A.  Chavasse, “Le sermonnaire d’Agimond” [n. 59], pp. 804–10 (also with a list of concordances between this manuscript and the homiliary of Agimundus); J.-P.  Bouhot, “L’homéliaire des Sancti Catholici Patres. Sources et composition” [n. 20], pp. 133–34; A. G. Martimort, Les lectures liturgiques [n. 20], p. 84. 61  See  A. Chavasse, “Un homiliaire liturgique” [n. 10], pp. 216–19. 62  See  A. Chavasse, “Un homiliaire liturgique” [n. 10], pp. 196–216, esp. p. 197 (“Sauvée de l’oubli par cette copie du XIIe siècle qu’est P [= Paris, BN lat. 3798], cette source est dite majeure, parce qu’elle a fourni à ses dérivés le cadre général de l’organisation (de Noël à la Saint-Laurent) et qu’elle leur a transmis quarante-six pièces sur les cinquante-quatre qu’elle utilisait pour meubler ce cadre.”) and 216 (“Le dernier en date des dérivés de la source majeure, l’homiliaire d’Agimond, fut écrit au début du VIIIe siècle, […]. // L’archétype d’où dérive la partie la plus importante des homiliaires J [= our ms. J] et V [our ms. A] […] a été confectionnée [sic] au VIIe siècle, peut-être dans la première moitié du siècle, mais certainement sans pouvoir remonter jusqu’au pontificat de Grégoire (590–604). // Par ces deux dérivés, la Source 60 

a medieval french homiliary?

55

and that of the “source majeure” preserved in P at an even earlier date. Since the “source majeure” presupposes the instauration of a feast for Saint Stephen at the beginning of August and the liturgical sources mention such a feast only from the late sixth century onwards, Chavasse was inclined to situate its compilation in the sixth century at the earliest.63 As a consequence of these hypotheses, Aimé Georges Martimort presents c in his Les lectures liturgiques et leurs livres as one of the oldest and most important sources of later homiliaries that were produced in medieval Rome, another major source being the homiliary of Saint Peter’s.64 The claims of Chavasse were contested, however, by Jean-Paul Bouhot in “Bulletin augustinien pour 1980”. He believed that the Paris manuscript had preserved a late antique sermonary that was used in an African town where a depositio of some of Stephen’s remains was celebrated at the beginning of August.65 Bouhot spoke of a depositio, not of the inuentio of Stephen’s relics: he thus majeure est mise en relation avec Rome et il faut remonter au VIe siècle pour en chercher la date de confection”). 63  See A. Chavasse, “Un homiliaire liturgique” [n. 10], p. 216: “[…] il faut remonter au VIe siècle pour en chercher la date de confection. // […] La source majeure (P.44) place la deuxième fête du diacre Étienne entre le 1er et le 10 août. Son témoignage n’est pas insolite dans la mesure où, avant la fin du VIe siècle, le recueil dit léonien conserve quelque souvenir d’une célébration relative au protomartyr placée au début du mois d’août. Dans la mesure également où, en cette même fin de siècle, le Martyrologue Romain se fait l’écho de l’Inuentio, le 3 août, et le 2 août, du Natale reliquiarum protomartyris Stephani, à Antioche (!).” Compare, in addition, pp. 211–12: “Placée par P entre la fête du 1er août (Macchabées) et celle du 10 août (Laurent), cette fête De inuentione sancti Stephani […] est proprement inconnue de tous les anciens livres liturgiques romains, sauf la curieuse et anormale exception du recueil dit léonien (copié fin VIe siècle ou début VIIe).” 64  See A. G. Martimort, Les lectures liturgiques [n. 20], p. 83 (with n. 28). For the homiliary of Saint Peter’s, see A.  G. Martimort, Les lectures liturgiques [n. 20], p. 84; R.  Grégoire, Homéliaires liturgiques médiévaux [n. 16], pp. 223–44. 65  See J.-P.  Bouhot, n° 67 of “Bulletin augustinien pour 1980” [n. 2], p. 353: “Le Liber sermonum […] n’est pas une « collection antique » des sermons de saint Augustin, mais sans aucun doute un sermonnaire africain, en usage dans une des villes où l’anniversaire de la déposition des reliques de saint Étienne se célébrait au début d’août : on a placé à cette date le sermon qu’Augustin avait prononcé dans la même occasion, mais peu après le 29 juin, à Hippone.”

56

gert partoens

seemed to believe that the position of s.  318 at the beginning of August was originally determined by the existence of an African feast in commemoration of a depositio and that the title of the sermon in the Paris manuscript – de inuentione sancti stephani – was due to a later evolution within the transmission of c.  In any case, in spite of these divergences, Bouhot subscribed to Chavasse’s basic intuition, viz. that the Paris manuscript has preserved a “major source” of the homiliaries J A M.  This means that he also subscribed to its consequence, viz. that the second section for Stephen was eliminated somewhere between the compilation of c and J A M, since the latter do not dedicate a second feast to the protomartyr. The observation that one of these homiliaries (J) presents s. 318 at the end of its section for the celebration of Stephen’s natalis in December (items 16–22) was explained by Chavasse as the result of a “regroupement”.66 The same explanation is implied in Bouhot’s view on the relation between c and J A M. A mark of the high age of c was, Bouhot believed, the fact that its title for s.  286 (item 33) refers to the place where the sermon was preached: habitus argentarii – “held in Argentarium”,67 an obscure locality that probably has to be situated in the immediate neighborhood of Hippo Regius.68 References to the place where sermons were delivered, are often encountered in titles of sermon collections stemming from Late Antiquity.69 Bouhot could have

66  See  A. Chavasse, “Un homiliaire liturgique” [n. 10], p. 228. A and M do not contain s. 318. 67  See J.-P.  Bouhot, n° 67 of “Bulletin augustinien pour 1980” [n. 2], p. 353: “Ce liber sermonum a encore conservé l’indication du lieu où le sermon 286 d’Aug. a été prêché : « Habitus argentarii de natali sanctorum geruasii et protasii », mais plusieurs textes ont déjà été retouchés ou mutilés (Aug., Serm. 370 dub., 373 dub., 235, 378 dub., 272, 380 dub., etc.) et un apocryphe (Ps.Aug., Serm. 131) a été introduit : ces détériorations peuvent être celles d’un sermonnaire augustinien vers la fin du Ve siècle en Afrique et appartiennent certainement à l’exemplaire qui, passé en Italie, s’est trouvé au point de départ d’une série de recueils de plus en plus importants.” Bouhot describes the series to which belong J A M in detail on the same page. 68  See  C. Lambot, “Collection antique de sermons de saint Augustin”, Revue Bénédictine, 57 (1947), pp. 89–108 (esp. p. 107); O. Perler, Les voyages de saint Augustin [n. 33], p. 377, n. 7. 69  See  F. Dolbeau, “Les titres des sermons d’Augustin”, in Augustin et la prédication en Afrique. Recherches sur divers sermons authentiques, apocryphes

a medieval french homiliary?

57

added here that c contains a comparable element in the title of s. 305 (item 46): habitus ad mensam sancti cypriani. Elements such as these – together with the collection’s “Augustinian purity”70 – probably contributed to the general acceptance of the presuppositions shared by Chavasse and Bouhot. The conviction that c is a late antique or early medieval collection that has been the source of important later homiliaries, is encountered in the work of eminent scholars such as Pierre-Patrick Verbraken,71 François Dolbeau,72 Luc De Coninck,73 and Clemens Weidmann74 – and I humbly add my own name to this prestigious list.75 However, in what follows, I will challenge this assumption and argue that c is not an antique or early medieval homiliary, but a later creation that probably originated in twelfth-century France, possibly in a Cistercian milieu. 4. The Colbertina as a derivative collection I will try to prove, more precisely, that c s t3 depend on a homiliary that must have had a composition that resembled to a certain ou anonymes, Paris, 2005 (Collection des Études Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité, 179), pp. 89–110 (esp. pp. 93–94 and 100–01). 70  According to C.  Lambot, “La tradition manuscrite” [n. 4], p. 223, the use of the word tractatus instead of sermo in the title of s. 184 (fol. 14r) could be another indication of the Colbertina’s high age. For tractatus as indicative of high age, compare F.  Dolbeau, “Les titres des sermons d’Augustin” [n. 69], p. 98. 71  See P.-P.  Verbraken, Études critiques [n. 1], p. 225: “Ses textes sont, en général, d’excellente qualité; ils ont fait la fortune des compilateurs postérieurs.” 72  See  F. Dolbeau, “Naissance des homéliaires et des passionnaires. Une tentative d’étude comparative”, in L’antiquité tardive dans les collections médiévales. Textes et représentations, VIe –XIVe siècle, ed. by S.  Gioanni, B.  Grévin, Rome, 2008 (Collection de l’École française de Rome, 405), pp. 13–35 (esp. p. 25). 73  See the introduction by L.  De Coninck to Sancti Aurelii Augustini Sermones in Matthaeum, v. 1, ed. by P.-P. Verbraken, L. De Coninck, B. Coppieters ’t Wallant, R.  Demeulenaere, F.  Dolbeau, Turnhout, 2008 (CCSL, 41 Aa), p. XLIV. 74  See C. Weidmann, “The Corpus of Augustinian Sermons” [n. 17], pp. 19 and 23–24. 75  See G. Partoens, T. Swaenepoel, “Pariator. La présence d’un mot rare dans les sermons de saint Augustin”, Sacris Erudiri, 39 (2000), pp. 55–66 (esp. pp. 60–66).

58

gert partoens

extent that of s.  This homiliary was itself compiled from various sources that comprise at least the ancient sermon collection De paenitentia and a homiliary comparable to J A M.  By arguing in favor of this stemma, I will contradict another popular hypothesis concerning c, viz. that it was also used as a source for the compilation of s.  The latter hypothesis was formulated by Cyrille Lambot76 and can also be encountered in later studies on the transmission of Augustine’s Sermones ad populum.77 a. Homiliary α – a confrontation with the homiliary of Vienna A first argument stems from a comparison of the composition of J A M c s t3 with that of another homiliary of Italian origin, viz. Wien, ÖNB 1616 (V). This homiliary, containing 46 items, was written at the end of the eighth century in Northern Italy (Novalesa and Novara, both in the Piedmont region, have been proposed as places of origin).78 The following table presents two sequences of sermons that V shares with J A – one for the Easter period, the other for the feast of Peter and Paul (coincidences 76  See  C. Lambot, “La tradition manuscrite” [n. 4], p. 240; “Les sermons de saint Augustin pour les fêtes de Pâques” [n. 55], p. 161. 77  See  R. Étaix, n° 87 of “Bulletin augustinien pour 1978” [n. 21], p. 328; Sancti Aurelii Augustini Sermones in Matthaeum [n. 73], p. XLIV. I simply add here that according to R. Étaix, c has also been one of the sources of the Carolingian homiliary of Beaune: “Le sermonnaire carolingien de Beaune” [n. 32], pp. 123–25 + n. 26. 78  For a detailed description of this homiliary, see R.  Grégoire, Homéliaires liturgiques médiévaux [n. 16], pp. 281–91. Compare C. Lambot, “Sermon inédit de saint Augustin pour une fête de martyrs dans un homiliaire de type ancien”, Revue Bénédictine, 68 (1958), pp. 187–99 (esp. pp. 187–95). For a discussion of its date and place of origin, see E.  Cau, “Osservazioni sul cod. lat. 1616 (sec. VIII ex.) della Biblioteca Nazionale di Vienna”, in Palaeographica diplomatica et archivistica. Studi in onore di G. Battelli, v. 1, Rome, 1979 (Storia e letteratura, 139), pp. 85–94; B.  Bischoff, “Italienische Handschriften des neunten bis elften Jahrhunderts in frühmittelalter­ lichen Bibliotheken außerhalb Italiens”, in Il libro e il testo, ed. by C. Questa, R.  Raffaelli, Urbino, 1982 (Pubblicazioni dell’Università di Urbino. Scienze Umane. Atti di congressi, 1), pp.  169–94 (esp. p.  173: “westliches Ober­ italien, ca s. VIIIex.”); Katalog der festländischen Handschriften des neunten Jahrhunderts (mit Ausnahme der wisigotischen), v. 3, Wiesbaden, 2014 (Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für die Herausgabe der mittelalterlichen Bibliothekskataloge Deutschlands und der Schweiz), p. 490.

59

a medieval french homiliary?

outside these sequences have been left aside).79 The homiliaries c s t3 only contain the five Augustinian sermons present in these sequences (viz. ss. 235, 236, 230, 381 and 295), the manuscript M only two of them (ss. 236 and 295): V J A Easter period 26 45 2.30

M

c in P s

t3

-

-

-

-

27b 42

2.34

-

-

-

-

28

47

2.40

-

24

Aug., s.  236

29

48

2.41

111 25

Aug., s.  230

30

49

2.37

-

23

Chrys. Lat., s. Arm. 13 = CPPM 1, 2321 Chrys. Lat., s. Arm. 14 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Mai 41 = CPPM 1, 1646 Chrys. Lat., s. Arm. 15 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Mai 42 = CPPM 1, 1648

31

51

2.38

-

-

175 3.177 (also 2.86) 176 3.178 (also 2.87) 188 3.185 (also 2.84) -

32

52

2.46

-

-

-

-

33

53

2.47

-

-

-

-

Sermons Chrys. Lat., s. Arm. 11 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Caillau II. 55 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Mai 152 = CPPM 1, 1361 Chrys. Lat., s. Arm. 9 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Mai 37 = CPPM 1, 1642 Aug., s.  235

Max.  Taur., s.  1 Aug., s.  381 Aug., s.  295

Peter and 38 39 75 40 74

Paul 2.89 2.93 41 2.116 142 40

253 259 3.223 258 3.222

79  For the link between V and J A M, see also A. Chavasse, “Un homiliaire liturgique” [n. 10], pp. 202 and 227; J.-P. Bouhot, n° 67 of “Bulletin augustinien pour 1980” [n. 2], p. 353; R. Grégoire, Homéliaires liturgiques médiévaux [n. 16], pp. 281–82.

60

gert partoens

Turning to the text of the five Augustinian sermons in this table,80 one observes that in spite of the relative shortness of these texts, the Vienna homiliary contains several sentences that are certainly authentic, but lacking in J A M c s t3. Some of the lacunae in question are the result of a “saut du même au même”, but they remain a decisive mark of kinship because of their being combined within a rather restricted amount of text. S. 230 ( PL 38, col. 1104, l. 9–11 = maur): Quam multi per hos dies inebriantur? Quam multi per hos dies, parum est quia inebriantur, insuper etiam turpiter crudeliterque rixantur? || inebriantur-dies] ita V maur (codice V non utentes), 81 om. J A c s t3, def. M S. 235, 2 (Rev. Bén., 67 [1957], p. 138, l. 29–32 = Lambot): quorum oculis apparuit et non apparuit. Et uidebatur et abscondebatur. Nam si non uidebatur, quomodo illum interro-

80  V: fol. 112r–113r (s. 230), 106r–109r (s. 235), 109r–112r (s. 236), 154v–161r (s.  295), 151r–154v (s.  381); J: fol. 163r–163v (s.  230), 161r–162r (s.  235), 162r–163r (s.  236), 201r–203r (s.  295), 203v–204r (s.  381); A: fol. 106v–107r (s. 230), 111v–113v (s. 235), 113v–116r (s. 236), 324r–329r (s. 295), 269r–270v (s.  381); M: pp. 185–86 (s.  236), 235–38 (s.  295); P (sole representative of c): cf. Appendix 1; Troyes, BM 219 (representative of s): fol. 184v–185r (s.  230), 169v–170r (s.  235), 170r–171r (s.  236) + Troyes, BM 188 (representative of s): fol. 93r–95v (s.  295), 95v–96r (s.  381); Oxford, Bodl. 204 (representative of t3): fol. 224v (s.  230), 217r–217v (s.  235), 217v–218r (s. 236), 261v–262v (s. 295), 262v–263r (s. 381). 81  The sentence is also absent from the Louvanian edition of Augustine’s sermons (Tomus X. operum D. Aurelii Augustini, Antwerp, 1576, p. 560 [De diuersis 89]). The Maurists probably knew the sentence through Paris, BArs. 506 (XV) prov. Paris, Saint-Victor, fol. 141v. This representative of the Collectorium of Robert de’ Bardi (see A.  Wilmart, “La collection Tripartite” [n. 21], pp. 418–49 [esp. p. 422]) offers a second version of s.  230 on fol. 228r–228v, in which the sentence is omitted. The situation in Paris, BArs. 506 thus reflects that in the Collectio Tripartita, which also offers two versions of s.  230: a first in its second part (item 2.84), which contains the sentence (Oxford, Bodl. 204, fol. 144r), and a second in its third part (t3; item 3.185), from which the sentence is absent (Oxford, Bodl. 204, fol.  224v). For Paris, BArs. 506 and its use by the Maurists, see C.  Lambot, “Les manuscrits des sermons de saint Augustin utilisés par les Mauristes”, Revue Bénédictine, 79 (1969), pp. 98–114 (esp. pp. 103–04 and 110). I thank Dr Jérémy Delmulle for having checked all readings of this manuscript that are referred to in the present article.

a medieval french homiliary?

61

gantem audiebant, interroganti respondebant? || nam-uidebatur] ita V Lambot (codice V non utens), om. J A c s t3,82 def. M S. 235, 4 ( Rev. Bén., 67 [1957], p. 140, l. 66–67 = Lambot): Vae qui non crediderunt, et magnum gaudium eis qui crediderunt. Gaudebunt fideles, confundentur infideles. || et-crediderunt] ita V J Lambot (codice V non utens), om. A c s t3, 83 def. M S. 236, 1 ( PL 38, col. 1120, l. 14–15 = maur): Etenim morte ipsius significatur mors uitae nostrae et resurrectio ipsius significat natiuitatem uitae nostrae. De hac re audi Apostolum: […]. || et-nostrae] ita V (haec sententia etiam adest in homiliariis Roffensi (cf. infra), Wigorniensi (cf. infra) et Belnensi (cf. R. Étaix, REAug 25 [1979], p. 115) necnon in Bedae commentario in epistulas Paulinas collecto ex operibus Augustini (cf. fragmentum XXVII; I. Fransen, Revue Bénédictine, 71 [1961], p. 27), om. J A M c s t384 maur S. 236, 3 ( PL 38, col. 1122, l. 1–4 = maur): […] et illud amabimus, quod uidebimus? Verum enim uidebimus, et ipsum uerum Deus erit, quem laudabimus. Ibi inueniemus quod hodie cantauimus, Amen, Verum est: Alleluia, Laudate Dominum. || uerum-laudabimus] ita V maur (codice V non utentes),85 om. J A M c s t386 According to the critical apparatus of C.  Lambot (“Le sermon CCXXXV” [n. 30], pp. 137–40), the version of s.  235 in the Collectio Tripartita is independent from the youngest common source of c and s. This is only partially correct, since the Tripartita contains two versions of s.  235: a first in the collection’s second part (item 2.86; Oxford, Bodl. 204, fol. 144v–145r), which Lambot used for his edition and which is indeed independent from the youngest common source of c and s, and a second version in the third part (item 3.177; fol. 217r–217v), which contains the errors that characterize c s in the apparatus of Lambot and, by consequence, also depends on the youngest common source of c s. Lambot did not use the latter of both versions offered by the Tripartita. 83  See the previous note. 84  The sentence is lacking in t3 (item 3.178; Oxford, Bodl. 204, fol. 217v–218r), but present in another version of s. 236 in the second part of the Tripartita (item 2.87; Oxford, Bodl. 204, fol. 145r–145v). 85  The sentence is also absent from the Louvanian edition of Augustine’s sermons (Tomus X [n. 81], p. 560 [De diuersis 88]). The Maurists certainly knew this sentence through Paris, BArs. 506 (XV) prov. Paris, Saint-Victor, fol. 143v–144v (PL 38, col. 1122, n. 1: Quo etiam ex codice [scil. ex codice Victorino] restituitur haec sententia, Verum enim uidebimus, etc., quae in editis desideratur). For this representative of the Collectorium of Robert de’ Bardi and its use by the Maurists, see n. 81. 86  The sentence is lacking in t3 (item 3.178; Oxford, Bodl. 204, fol. 217v–218r), but present in another version of s. 236 in the second part of the Tripartita (item 2.87; Oxford, Bodl. 204, fol. 145r–145v). 82 

62

gert partoens S. 295, 6 (CSEL 101, pp. 147–49, l. 5–21 = Weidmann/ Partoens): 87 Ibat enim, sicut scriptum est, spirans caedem et propinquabat Damasco. Tunc dominus de coelo: Saule, Saule, quid me persequeris? Si potuit Saulus Christum persequi cum penderet in ligno, numquid et cum sederet in caelo? Sed quid est: Quid me persequeris? Ego sum hic, ego sum ibi: hic caput, ibi corpus. Quando quisque in turba coartatus sentit in pede alicuius plantam calcantis, numquid non caput pro pedibus clamat – silentium in pede, uox in capite pro pede, quia unitas in corpore – nec dicat: “Calcas pedem meum”, sed: “Calcas me” lingua quam nemo tetigit? Non ergo miremur, fratres, ad corpus Christi pertinemus cum illo toto capite nostro. Totum quod sumus cum illo Christus sumus. Non solum christi sumus, sed Christus sumus cum illo, non sine illo. Videte si non probo quod dixi. Non ait: “Et seminibus” tamquam in multis – apostolus loquitur de semine Abrahae – non “in seminibus” tamquam in multis, sed tamquam in uno “et semini tuo”, quod est Christus. Ergo semen Abrahae Christus. Et alio loco de nobis: Si uos inquit Christi, ergo Abrahae semen estis. Certe intellexistis: Si semen Abrahae Christus et semen Abrahae nos, id est membra Christi, sine dubio totus Christus ille et nos, caput et corpus. Saule, Saule, quid me persequeris? Durum est tibi aduersus stimulum calcitrare. Te laedis, non me. Ecclesia mea persecutionibus crescit. || si-persequeris + quando-tetigit + cumcorpus] ita V Weidmann/Partoens (codice V utentes), om. J A M c s t3 S. 381 ( PL 39, col. 1683, l. 19–21 = maur): Sicut traditione patrum cognitum memoria retinetur, non uno die passi sunt per coeli spatia decurrente, sed eodem die per anni spatia recurrente. Natalitio ergo Petri passus est Paulus, […]. || sedrecurrente] ita V, om. J A c s t3 maur, def. M

The distribution of the above lacunae allows us to establish the following stemma for ss. 235, 236, 230, 381 and 295:

87  See the edition by C.  Weidmann and G.  Partoens in Augustinus, Sermones selecti [n. 7], pp. 137–50; for a supplementary argumentation in favor of the authenticity of the sentences preserved only in V, see G.  Partoens, C.  Weidmann, “La version augmentée du sermon 295 de saint Augustin: critique d’authenticité et conséquences”, in Nihil veritas erubescit. Mélanges offerts à Paul Mattei par ses élèves, collègues et amis, ed. by C.  Bernard-Valette, J.  Delmulle, C.  Gerzaguet, Turnhout, 2016 (Instrumenta Patri­ stica et Mediaevalia) (forthcoming).

a medieval french homiliary?

63

ω

V         α

   J A M c s t3 If one combines this stemma with what has been observed with regard to the clusters of sermons shared by V J A, one can safely presume that both the archetype ω and the hyparchetype α must have contained all – or to remain careful: at least most – of the sermons belonging to these clusters. Since c also depends on α, but does not contain several items of these clusters, it seems reasonable to conclude that at least with regard to these clusters the composition of J A is prior to that of c.  It thus becomes highly improbable that J A M have borrowed ss. 235, 236, 230, 381 and 295 from a collection comparable to that preserved in manuscript P. It is rather the other way round: the collection c, of which P is the sole representative, probably depends on an ancestor that presented the five Augustinian sermons in a context it shared with J A. b.  Homiliary α – a confrontation with the homiliaries of Rochester and Worcester A second argument has the same formal structure as the first, but starts from a comparison of J A M c s t3 with some English homiliaries that according to Cyrille Lambot and other scholars must have a remote Italian origin.88 A well-known example of these homiliaries is the twelfth-century homiliary of Rochester Cathedral, presently Vat. lat. 4951 (R). According to Mary  P. Richards, this manuscript contains several sermons – especially in the hom88  For these homiliaries, see C.  Lambot, “La tradition manuscrite anglosaxonne des sermons de saint Augustin”, Revue Bénédictine, 64 (1954), pp. 3–8 (esp. pp. 7–8); “Le sermon CCXXXV” [n. 30], p. 131; “Les sermons de saint Augustin pour les fêtes de Pâques” [n. 55], pp. 160–61.

64

gert partoens

iliary’s section for Easter and the Easter Octave – that must have been derived from a source with a composition comparable to that of A.89 To this it can be added that almost all of these sermons are also present in J and that most of them are present in c s t3 too. This is shown in the following table: Sermons s.  230

J R 90 E.21 49

A 2.37

s.  235

E.22 47

2.40

s.  236

E.23 48

2.41

s.  272

E.25 62

2.65

s.  226 s.  256 Chrys. Lat., s. Arm. 13 = CPPM 1, 2321 s.  147

E.30 43 E.36 50 E.38 51

2.35 2.42 2.38

c in P s t 23 188 3.185 (also 2.84) 24 175 3.177 (also 2.86) 111 25 176 3.178 (also 2.87) 30 213 absent from t3 (but 2.89) 22 162 3.169 109 26 189 3.186 -

E.40 81

2.80

-

27

E.45 52

2.46

-

-

E.48 -

2.45

118 -

Chrys. Lat., s. Arm. 14 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Mai 41 = CPPM 1, 1646 s.  259

M -

194 3.190 238 (also 3.219) -

-

2.90

89  See M. P. Richards, Texts and Their Traditions in the Medieval Library of Rochester Cathedral Priory, Philadelphia, 1988 (Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 78), pp. 111 and 114–16. 90  The numbering in this column has been borrowed from the description of the Easter section of R (fol. 101v–148v) in A. Wilmart, “Easter sermons of St Augustine” [n. 29], p. 130. The last four items in this column can be found at the beginning of the manuscript’s section for Pentecost (fol. 160v–163r).

65

a medieval french homiliary? Chrys. Lat., s. Arm. 15 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Mai 42 = CPPM 1, 1648 s.  378 s.  272C (olim s. app. 183)91 s.  268 s.  269

E.50 53

2.47

-

-

-

-

P.1 P.2

59 63

2.62 2.60

29 127 -

212 3.200 230 3.198

P.3 64 P.4 61 (only § 1)

2.61 2.64

128 31 32

214 3.201 215 3.202

If we now turn to the text of the items that are present in c, we observe – again – that J A M c s t3 share a series of lacunae for what is – again – a rather restricted amount of text. As one can see below, these lacunae characterize neither the text of R nor that of another twelfth-century English homiliary, this time from Worcester Cathedral: Worcester, CL F. 93 (W).92 For s.  268, J c s t3 share four (!) lacunae that do not characterize the text of R W and A M.93 S. 230 ( PL 38, col. 1104, l. 9–11 = maur): Quam multi per hos dies inebriantur? Quam multi per hos dies, parum est

See  C. Weidmann in Augustinus, Sermones selecti [n. 7], pp. 121–33. For a description of this manuscript, see R.  M. Thomson, M.  Gullick, A  Descriptive Catalogue of the Medieval Manuscripts in Worcester Cathedral Library, Cambridge, 2001, pp. 62–65. Another English homiliary I could have taken into account is London, BL Harley 652 (XII) from Canterbury. 93  V: fol. 112r–113r (s.  230), 106r–109r (s.  235), 109r–112r (s.  236); R : fol. 122v–123r (s.  230), 123r–123v (s.  235), 123v–124v (s.  236), 133r–134r (s. 256), 161v–163r (s. 268), 125r–125v (s. 272); W: fol. 47r–47v (s. 230), 54v– 55v (s.  235), 55v–56v (s.  236), 88v–90r (s.  256), 127v–128v (s.  268), 12r–12v (s.  272); J: fol. 163r–163v (s.  230), 161r–162r (s.  235), 162r–163r (s.  236), 163v–165r (s.  256), 179r–180v (s.  268), 177v–178r (s.  272); A: fol. 106v–107r (s. 230), 111v–113v (s. 235), 113v–116r (s. 236), 116r–120r (s. 256), 179v–183r (s.  268), 190v–192r (s.  272); M: pp. 185–86 (s.  236), 180–82 (s.  256), 209–11 (s.  268); P (sole representative of c): cf. Appendix 1; Troyes, BM 219 (representative of s): fol. 184v–185r (s.  230), 169v–170r (s.  235), 170r–171r (s.  236), 185r–186r (s.  256) + Troyes, BM 188 (representative of s): fol. 37r–38v (s.  268), 36v–37r (s.  272); Oxford, Bodl. 204 (representative of t3): fol. 224v (s.  230), 217r–217v (s.  235), 217v–218r (s.  236), 224v–225v (s. 256), 238v–239v (s. 268). 91 

92 

66

gert partoens quia inebriantur, insuper etiam turpiter crudeliterque rixantur? || inebriantur-dies] ita V R W maur (codicibus V R W non utentes),94 om. J A c s t3, def. M S. 235, 2 (Rev. Bén., 67 [1957], p. 138, l. 29–32 = Lambot): quorum oculis apparuit et non apparuit. Et uidebatur et abscondebatur. Nam si non uidebatur, quomodo illum interrogantem audiebant, interroganti respondebant? || nam-uidebatur] ita V R W Lambot (codice V non utens), om. J A c s t3,95 def. M S. 235, 4 ( Rev. Bén., 67 [1957], p. 140, l. 66–67 = Lambot): Vae qui non crediderunt, et magnum gaudium eis qui crediderunt. Gaudebunt fideles, confundentur infideles. || et-crediderunt] ita V R W J Lambot (codice V non utens), om. A c s t3,96 def. M S. 236, 1 (PL 38, col. 1120, l. 14–15 = maur): Etenim morte ipsius significatur mors uitae nostrae et resurrectio ipsius significat natiuitatem uitae nostrae. De hac re audi Apostolum: […]. || et-nostrae] ita V R W (haec sententia etiam adest in homiliario Belnensi (cf. R. Étaix, REAug 25 [1979], p. 115) necnon in Bedae commentario in epistulas Paulinas collecto ex operibus Augustini (cf. fragmentum XXVII; I. Fransen, Revue Bénédictine, 71 [1961], p. 27), om. J A M c s t397 maur S. 236, 3 (PL 38, col. 1122, l. 1–4 = maur): […] et illud amabimus, quod uidebimus? Verum enim uidebimus, et ipsum uerum Deus erit, quem laudabimus. Ibi inueniemus quod hodie cantauimus, Amen, Verum est: Alleluia, Laudate Dominum. || uerum-laudabimus] ita V R W maur (codicibus V R W non utentes),98 om. J A M c s t399 S. 256, 2 (PL 38, col. 1192, l. 33–37 = maur): Non, inquit, pono corpus terrenum, et accipio corpus aereum, aut accipio corpus aethereum. Ipsum accipio, sed non iam mortis huius. Qualitas mutatur, natura permanet: ipsum, sed iam non mortis huius. Quia oportet corruptibile, non aliud, sed hoc, induere incorruptionem; […]. || qualitas-huius] ita R W, om. J A M c s t3 maur, def. V S. 256, post sermonem (MiAg 1, p. 719, l. 19–22 = Morin) || ita W Morin, om. R J A M c s t3 maur, def. V

94  95  96  97  98  99 

See See See See See See

n. 81. n. 82. n. 83. n. 84. n. 85. n. 86.

a medieval french homiliary?

67

S. 268, 2 ( PL 38, col. 1232, l. 20–24 = maur): Qui ergo habet Spiritum sanctum, in Ecclesia est, quae loquitur omnium linguis. Quicumque praeter hanc Ecclesiam est, non habet Spiritum sanctum. Ideo enim Spiritus sanctus in omnium linguis gentium se demonstrare dignatus est, […]. || in-sanctum] ita R W A M maur (codice A utentes),100 om. J c s t3, def. V S. 268, 2 ( PL 38, col. 1232, l. 32–34 = maur): […] aures ad audiendum, linguam ad loquendum, manus ad operandum, pedes ad ambulandum. || manus-operandum] ita R W A M maur (codice A utentes),101 om. J c s t3, def. V S. 268, 2 ( PL 38, col. 1232, l. 49–53 = maur): Iam uero si membrum praecidatur de corpore, numquid sequitur spiritus? Et tamen membrum agnoscitur quid est; digitus est, manus est, brachium est, auris est: […]. || spiritus-agnoscitur] ita R W A M maur (codice A utentes),102 om. J c s t3, def. V S. 268, 4 ( PL 38, col. 1234, l. 1–5 = maur): […] non ut amet aliquem ipsorum; sed ipsum tanquam sponsum, illos tanquam amicos sponsi, neminem eorum tanquam sponsum. Hoc zelant amici sponsi, et non eam admittunt lasciuo amore corrumpi. || neminem-sponsi] ita R W A M maur (codice A utentes),103 om. J c s t3, def. V S. 272 ( PL 38, col. 1246, l. 37–40 = maur): Infans lactatus est, nutritus est, creuit, ad iuuenilem aetatem perductus est, a Iudaeis persecutionem passus est, ligno suspensus est, in ligno interfectus est, […]. || a Iudaeis-suspensus est] ita R W maur (codicibus R W non utentes),104 om. J A c s, def. V M t3105

100  Compare PL 38, col. 1232, n. 1: Hoc et alio quodam infra loco uerba a Sirmondo praetermissa restituit codex Vaticanus. For their knowledge of A, see C.  Lambot, “Les manuscrits” [n. 81], p. 103 (n° XII); G.  Spinelli, “Contributi dall’Italia all’edizione maurina delle opere di sant’Agostino”, in Troisième centenaire de l’édition mauriste de saint Augustin, Paris, 1990 (Collection des Études Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité, 127), pp. 103–21 (esp. pp. 111–12). 101  See n. 100. 102  See n. 100. 103  See n. 100. 104  The Maurists knew this sentence uniquely through letter 12 of Fulgentius (see PL 38, col. 1246, n. 1: Hoc, a Iudaeis persecutionem passus est, ligno suspensus est, non ex Augustini Mss., sed tantum ex epistola Fulgentii [= ep. 12 ad Ferrandum, 25 = CCSL 91, p. 379, l. 573–74]). 105  S. 272 is absent from t3, but does figure in the second part of the Tripartita (Oxford, Bodl. 204, fol.  146r–146v). As could be expected (compare notes 82, 84 and 86), the latter version of s. 272 contains the words a Iudaeis […] suspensus est.

68

gert partoens

The lacunae confirm my earlier hypothesis of the existence of a hyparchetype α on which depend J A M c s t3. Since the homiliary of Rochester (R) is independent from this hyparchetype, but shows structural resemblances with J A, we may – again – presuppose that α contained all – or to be prudent: at least most – items shared by R J A, while c s t3 have retained only part of them. Manuscript P can thus impossibly have preserved a major source of J A (and M). Again, it is rather the other way round: the collection c seems to go back to a source that contained a series of sermons that has been better preserved in J A. c.  Homiliary β – a confrontation with the collection De paenitentia Until now, I have argued that the compilation c depends on a hyparchetype α that must have contained clusters of sermons that are still present in J A, but have been only partially preserved in c.  This conclusion challenges the views of Chavasse and Bouhot concerning the relation between c on the one hand and J A (M) on the other. I would now like to go a step further and strengthen the previous conclusions by proving that c is a selection of texts taken from a source (β) that must have contained a rather large amount of Augustinian and pseudo-Augustinian texts that have been preserved in J s t3. In other words: I would like to show that c depends on a hyparchetype β, the composition of which must have resembled much more that of s and t3 than that of c.  This claim challenges not only the views of Chavasse and Bouhot, but also that of Lambot, according to whom c was also a major source of s t3.106 I start my argumentation by pointing out a remarkable coincidence between the composition of J on the one hand and s t3 on the other. This coincidence is so striking that one hardly understands how it could have escaped the attention of scholars until today. Appendix 3, which presents all 98 sermons that make up the homiliary J in its present (i. e. mutilated)107 form, shows that all but one (s. 272B = item 65) of its genuine Augustinian items, as well as many of its pseudo-Augustinian homilies are also present

106  107 

See n. 76. See n. 56.

a medieval french homiliary?

69

in s t3. The coincidences are so striking that they allow us to posit a common source from which J s t3 have inherited at least most of the Augustinian and pseudo-Augustinian sermons they have in common. I intentionally use the word “most” instead of “all”, since it can never be excluded that in some cases these homiletic compilations have borrowed the sermons they share from different sources.108 What the table also shows, is that all items shared by J c figure also in s t3, except one, viz. Leo’s s.  84bis. I will come back to this at the end of this article. With regard to the textual variants for the sermons shared by J c s t3, I have limited myself to the Augustinian sermons that have been critically edited in recent times or that have been at least the object of a modern stemmatic study: ss. 204, 204B, 235, 256, 295 auct., 302, 317 auct. and 380. The distribution of the textual variants in question – they can be found in the publications listed below109 – proves that c s t3 go back to a hyparchetype β, from which the text of J is independent: This is probably the case for s.  65. See n. 110. S . 204: P.-P.  Verbraken, “La liturgie de l’Épiphanie” [n. 4] in combination with J.-P.  Bouhot, n° 82 of “Bulletin augustinien pour 1986/87”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 33 (1987), p. 338; s.  204B: C.  Weidmann in Augustinus, Sermones selecti [n. 7], pp. 63–73; s.  207: C. Weidmann, “The Corpus of Augustinian Sermons” [n. 17], pp. 26–32; s.  235: C.  Lambot, “Le sermon CCXXXV” [n. 30], pp. 129–40 in combination with n. 82 of this article; s.  256: G.  Partoens, T.  Swaenepoel, “Pariator” [n. 75], pp. 62–64 (these pages – published in 2000 – discuss a series of variant readings that constitute an argument in favour of our present hypothesis, although we tried to interpret them on the basis of Bouhot’s view on the relations between J A M c s t3); s.  295 auct.: edition by C.  Weidmann and G.  Partoens in Augustinus, Sermones selecti [n. 7], pp. 137–50; s.  302: edition by C.  Lambot in Sancti Aurelii Augustini Sermones selecti duodeviginti, Utrecht-Brussels, 1950 (SPM, 1), pp. 100–11 in combination with my own collations and F. Dolbeau, “Le sermonnaire augustinien de Mayence (Mainz, Stadtbibliothek I 9): analyse et histoire”, in Augustin et la prédication en Afrique. Recherches sur divers sermons authentiques, apocryphes ou anonymes, Paris, 2005 (Collection des Études Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité, 179), pp. 23–70 (esp. pp. 48–49, n° 37) as well as Aurelii Augustini Sermo CCCII, testo, traduzione e commento a cura di B. Pieri, Bologna, 1998, pp. 35–42; s.  317 auct.: A. Wilmart, “Le morceau final du sermon 317 de saint Augustin pour la fête de S. Étienne”, Revue Bénédictine, 44 (1932), pp. 201–06 in combination with A.  Chavasse, “Un homiliaire liturgique” [n. 10], p. 228; s.  380: e-mail of F. Dolbeau (19 November 2014); the edition has appeared by now in F.  Dolbeau, 108  109 

70

gert partoens

ω                J          β

         c s t3110 Combining the above observations regarding composition and variant readings, we can safely assume that (1) s t3 depend on a hyparchetype β, which must have contained (at least most of) the many Augustinian and pseudo-Augustinian items they share with J, and (2) that c depends on the same hyparchetype β, but has retained only a selection of the sermons in question. This means that c cannot have been a source for the compilation of s, as Lambot believed, and it indirectly also constitutes a further argument against its having been a “source majeure” of J, as was believed by Chavasse and Bouhot. I just add here that a comparison of c s t3 with A/M would yield comparable results. The sermons 204, 204B, 235, 256, 295, 302 and 317 auct. (not s.  380) are also present in A/M.  According to the stemmatic studies used above, these homiliaries, which are closely related to J, are independent from the β hyparchetype too. Moreover, for other sermons that are absent from J, but present in A/M and c s t3 (ss. 207 and 298), the manuscripts A/M have turned out to be independent from the hyparchetype of c s t3 too.111 “Le sermon 380 d’Augustin sur la relation entre Jean-Baptiste et le Christ”, Revue d’Études Augustiniennes et Patristiques, 61.2 (2015), pp. 239-271. I simply add here that J A M have transmitted a version of s.  305 with a probably authentic closing formula that can also be read in the version of s.  305 transmitted by the collection of Wolfenbüttel, but is lacking in c s t3. See Appendix 2, n. 16. 110  In the case of s.  65, the collections s t3 have preserved another version of the sermon than J A M and c (see L.  De Coninck in Sancti Aurelii Augu­ stini Sermones in Matthaeum [n. 73], pp. 371–72). If the hypothesis of two branches dependent on β – c vs. s t3 – is correct, we can posit that c inherited its version of s.  65 from β (for it is the same version as that preserved in J A M), while it was replaced by another version between β and the preserved representatives of s t3. 111  S . 207: C.  Weidmann, “The Corpus of Augustinian Sermons” [n. 17], pp. 26–32; s.  298: C.  Lambot, Sancti Aurelii Augustini sermones selecti duo-

71

a medieval french homiliary?

The hypothesis that c depends on a much larger homiliary β, the composition of which must have resembled to some extent that of s t3, is strengthened by another phenomenon, viz. the presence in these three compilations of material stemming from the sermon collection De paenitentia. This ancient collection containing 37 items circulated especially – although not exclusively – in the East of France. Its oldest witness, a famous papyrus codex that was possibly written at Luxeuil around 700, is generally considered an ancestor not only of the preserved direct witnesses of the collection, but also of many of its indirect representatives.112 Collations by François Dolbeau, Clemens Weidmann, Cyrille Lambot and myself have proven that four items in s t3 depend on the De paenitentia collection – in these cases too, the papyrus codex may have been their ancestor (as suggested by Dolbeau with regard to s.  374):113 Sermons s.  292 s.  296

De paenitentia 7 8

s 243 256

t3 3.206114 3.220115

deviginti [n. 109], pp. 95–99 in combination with my own collations and C.  Weidmann, “The Corpus of Augustinian Sermons” [n. 17], pp. 23–24. 112  For a description of De paenitentia, see P.-P.  Verbraken, Études critiques [n. 1], pp. 200–01. For recent information concerning the collection’s transmission, see G.  Partoens, “Une version augmentée de la collection médiévale de sermons augustiniens De uerbis Domini et Apostoli. Son importance pour la transmission de l’œuvre homilétique de l’évêque d’Hippone”, Recherches Augustiniennes et Patristiques, 35 (2007), pp. 189–237 (esp. pp. 217–20; with further bibliography); the introduction by L.  De Coninck in Sancti Aurelii Augustini Sermones in Matthaeum [n. 73], pp. XXI–XXIII (with further bibliography). 113  See  F. Dolbeau, “Le sermon 374 de saint Augustin sur l’Épiphanie. Édition du texte original”, in Augustin d’Hippone. Vingt-six sermons au peuple d’Afrique, Paris, 1996 (Collection des Études Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité, 147), pp. 579–615 (esp. p. 592, n. 41). 114  This is proven by our collations in view of an edition of s. 292 (S. Boodts, G.  Partoens). 115  The Maurist version of s.  296, which was based on s and the Collectorium of Robert de’ Bardi (see C.  Lambot, “Les manuscrits” [n. 81], pp. 104 and 111), is characterized by large omissions (for the complete version, see MA 1, pp. 401–12). This lacunar version of s.  296 ultimately goes back to the De paenitentia collection. See L. De Coninck in Sancti Aurelii Augustini Sermones in Matthaeum [n. 73], p. XXII.

72

gert partoens Sermons s.  374 en. Ps. 36, 1, 1–3

De paenitentia 32 34

s 59 2

t3 3.131116 3.100117

Seven other items that s t3 may have borrowed from De paenitentia (still to be proven by detailed collations), are the following ones:118 Sermons s.  351

De paenitentia 1

s 123

s.  392 s.  270 s.  300 s.  279

2 11 14 20/21 (post sermonem) 22 31

124 211 275 86 (without p.s.)

t3 3.154 also 2.81 3.155 3.199 3.225 3.137 (without p.s.)

242 23

3.205 3.112

s.  288 s.  194

Turning to c (as preserved in P), one observes that it shares only one item with De paenitentia, viz. the fragment from en. Ps. 36 (item 2), which is also present in s t3. According to Clemens Weidmann, the four collections relate as follows:119 De paenitentia

β

       c as preserved in P        s t3 See  F. Dolbeau, “Le sermon 374” [n. 113], pp. 580–81. See the observations of C. Weidmann mentioned in n. 119. 118  These items are also listed in C. Lambot’s handwritten notes preserved at the Abbey of Maredsous (fol. 227). 119  Cf. e-mail (9 November 2014): “es scheint schon so, dass Colbertina, scp und trip von De paenitentia abhängen. Sicher ist, dass die drei Textzeugen durch gemeinsame Fehler von De paenitentia abweichen und scp und trip sich durch gemeinsame Fehler von der Colbertina unterscheiden.” 116  117 

a medieval french homiliary?

73

If we combine this stemma with what has been said concerning the presence of De paenitentia items in s t3, it seems quite probable that, with regard to material from De paenitentia, the composition of c is – again – secondary to that of s t3. The most economical interpretation of the situation is that the youngest common source of c s t3 – viz. hyparchetype β – contained all De paenitentia items present in s t3, and that only one of these items was passed on to c. d.  Conclusion: the homiliary β as a mediator between different collections On the basis of the previous observations, I  am inclined to conclude that c s t3 depend on a homiliary β that must have contained at least the following items: (1) a large part of the sermons that s t3 share with the homiliaries J A M; (2) the sermons that are common to s t3 and the ancient sermon collection De paenitentia; (3) the sermons that do not belong to the previous two categories, but figure in both c and s t3. Only two of the 54 sermons of c fall outside these three categories. In a way, my conclusion is not entirely new, since Cyrille Lambot himself suggested that the version of the Colbertina that he believed to have been a major source for s must have been more extensive than the version of c that has been preserved in the collection’s sole witness (P).120 My point is, however, that this source must have been much larger – even to the extent that it would be confusing to continue calling it a version of the Colbertina. In fact, the composition of this source, which I have called homiliary β, must have resembled more closely that of s t3. It should be added, however, that c has also retained some features of β one does not find any more in s t3, e.g. the ancient elements in the titles of ss. 286 (habitus argentarii) and 305 (habitus ad mensam sancti Cypriani),121 as well as the first sentence of 120  See  C. Lambot, “La tradition manuscrite” [n. 4], p. 240 (on s: “En ce qui regarde saint Augustin, l’auteur avait à sa disposition une collection liturgique augustinienne, semblable à la Collection Colbertine, mais plus richement fournie. Ce recueil n’était cependant pas son unique source”); “Les sermons de saint Augustin pour les fêtes de Pâques” [n. 55], p. 161. Compare also C. Lambot’s handwritten notes preserved at the Abbey of Maredsous (fol. 225 and 228), as well as L.  De Coninck in Sancti Aurelii Augustini Sermones in Matthaeum [n. 73], p. XLIV. 121  See above, pp. 56-57.

74

gert partoens

s.  370.122 These phenomena allow us to represent the genealogical relations of β c s t3 in the same way as they have been represented by others on the basis of the distribution of variant readings.123 The reflections above can thus be synthesized in the following stemma: A homiliary comparable to                             J and A(M)                        De paenitentia                                                              (?)

                                  β

c

s t3

e. Two additional working hypotheses To end my stemmatic reflections, I would like to propose two last hypotheses, which concern items 34 and 52 of c (as preserved in P), viz. Caesarius’ s.  33 and Leo’s s.  84bis. Although these items are absent from s t3, there are good reasons for believing that c borrowed them from β too: (1) Although the transmission of Leo’s sermon 84bis is rather restricted, it is found in J A M and c. Moreover, these four sources constitute a well-defined subgroup within the stemma that has been established for this sermon by Antoine Chavasse.124 (2) As I pointed out earlier, Caesarius’ s. 33 occupies a place within c that corresponds with its position in the Caesarian Collectiones Gallicana and Germanica, as well as in the homiliary of Toledo, which was strongly influenced by Caesarian sources.125 Moreover, c s t3 share a few other items with the Collectio Gallicana that are present neither in J A M nor in the De paenitentia See Appendix 2, n. 3. See above, pp. 69-70. 124  See  A. Chavasse, “Le sermon prononcé par Léon le Grand pour l’anniversaire d’une dédicace”, Revue Bénédictine, 91 (1981), pp. 46–104 (esp. pp. 46–48). 125  See above p. 49. 122 

123 

a medieval french homiliary?

75

collection, viz. Augustine’s ss. 209 and 210 as well as Caesarius’ s.  192.126 Combining these observations with a suggestion that was made long ago by Raymond Étaix, according to which the Collectio Gallicana must have been a source of many items in s,127 I would like to suggest as a working hypothesis that the hyparchetype β has functioned as an intermediary between the Collectio Gallicana on the one hand and c s t3 on the other. In this scenario, the compilation c has retained only a few of the Gallicana sermons present in β – a.o. Caesarius’ s.  33 – whereas s t3 have preserved much more of them, although they did not retain the latter Caesarian item. If these two working hypotheses concerning the sermons of Leo and Caesarius are correct, the composition of c can be considered the effect of one simple act of selection of sermons from hyparchetype β. In other words: it would not be necessary to distinguish an original nucleus and some later additions within c as it has been preserved in P. 5. A Cistercian homiliary of French origin? We are now well equipped to give a tentative answer to the question as to where and when the collection c came into being. To answer this question, we first have to determine the place and date of origin of the hyparchetype β – or better: of the compilation of the sermon collection this hyparchetype contained. With regard to the place, I think we may safely presume that the collection transmitted by β originated in France, for it was partly compiled from De paenitentia – a sermon collection that circulated almost exclusively in Eastern France. For the date we can only propose a very early terminus post quem, viz. the introduction of the celebra-

126  ss. 209–10 = c 19–20 = s 121–22 = t3.152–53 = Gall. 59/Gall. 77 + 78; Caesar., s.  192 = c 10 = s 50 = t3.124 = Gall. 33. For a description of the Collectio Gallicana, see R. Étaix, “Nouvelle collection” [n. 38], pp. 9–22. 127  See R. Étaix, n° 87 of “Bulletin augustinien pour 1978” [n. 21], p. 329: “Il faudrait aussi étudier les rapports avec la collection « gallicane » de Césaire […] dont une vingtaine de pièces se retrouvent dans les S.C.P., parfois sous la même forme remaniée.”

76

gert partoens

tion of the Inuentio sancti Stephani on the third of August, which is presupposed by c s t3.128 These conclusions concerning β subsequently have to be combined with the following observations regarding the collections that depend on this hyparchetype: (1) the only manuscript witness of c (the codex P) was written in twelfth-century France – presumably in a Cistercian scriptorium; (2) the homiliary s is commonly believed to have originated at the beginning of the twelfth century in Cistercian circles of Eastern France. The most economic interpretation of this combination of observations is that

128  According to A. Chavasse, the Inuentio sancti Stephani was already celebrated at the beginning of August in the supposedly sixth-century collection c, which he believed to be a major source of J A M.  This position had two consequences: (1) Chavasse had to consider c as one of the oldest witnesses of a celebration of Stephen at the beginning of August (compare “Un homiliaire liturgique” [n. 10], pp. 213–14, esp. p. 213: “La plus grande originalité de P [= the collection c as preserved in manuscript P] est la commemoration du Protomartyr au début d’août”); (2) the fact that J A M do not commemorate the Inuentio sancti Stephani at the beginning of August, and that J has transmitted both ss. 317 and 318 in its section for the saint’s natalis at the end of December, had to be interpreted as the annulment of a liturgical development of which their major source was an early witness (compare “Un homiliaire liturgique” [n. 10], p. 228: “Regroupement donc […]”). A phenomenon that further complicated matters, was that J and M offer a full version of s.  317 (including s. Wilmart 21; hence s. 317 auct.), whereas manuscript P, the only representative of c, has transmitted a truncated version of the homily (for the different versions of s.  317, see Appendix 2, n. 4). According to J.-P.  Bouhot (see quotation in n. 65), the evolution was even more complex: the – in his view – African collection c was believed to commemorate the first martyr’s natalis at the end of December (s. 317) and an African deposition at the beginning of August (s.  318). The latter celebration was subsequently either changed into the commemoration of the saint’s inuentio (which corresponds with the situation in c as preserved in P) or abolished (which is the situation in J A M). If one accepts my reconstruction of the transmission, the evolution can be explained with much less complexity: the youngest common ancestor of J A M c s t3 (hyparchetype α), which has to be situated in early medieval Italy, knew only one feast for Saint Stephen, viz. that of his natalis in December. This situation was preserved in J A M. A second commemoration – that of the saint’s inuentio at the beginning of August – was introduced at a later moment and characterized the composition of hyparchetype β, which transmitted the saint’s double commemoration to c s t3.

a medieval french homiliary?

77

hyparchetype β contained a homiliary that was used in Cistercian circles for the compilation of both c and s.129 The implication of this hypothesis – viz. that the compilation c was extracted from a larger homiliary by someone who intended to produce a “purely Augustinian” homiliary (P contains 51 authentic Augustinian items on a total of 54) – suits a Cistercian context very well. For it has long been common knowledge that the Cistercians of Eastern France had a predilection for the bishop of Hippo, whose works they assembled in collections of manuscripts that were as pure and complete as possible.130 In a way, the compilation c testifies to the same spirit as the Cistercian sermon collection De diuersis rebus, which has been preserved in the twelfth-century manuscript Troyes, BM 40.10 from Clairvaux (fol. 121r–230r). This collection contains 50 items (almost all authentic Sermones ad populum) that were selected from several older sermon collections and rearranged according to a new, double logic (items 1–33: sermons on the Old Testament ordered according to the Biblical passages commented upon; items 34–50: sermons praising Christian virtues).131 In any case, if it is correct that both c and s were composed in Cistercian scriptoria, their respective compilers saw no problem in preserving a section for the commemoration of Stephen at the beginning of August, since the Inuentio sancti Stephani on the third of that month had become a common feast by the eleventh/ twelfth century and was to figure also in the Cistercian martyrology of 1173–1174.132

129  Within this scenario, the hyparchetype β itself and/or the collection it contains were not necessarily themselves Cistercian products. 130  See  T. Falmagne, “Le réseau des bibliothèques cisterciennes aux XIIe et XIIIe siècles. Perspectives de recherche”, in Unanimité et diversité cisterciennes. Filiations – Réseaux – Relectures du XIIe au XVIIe siècle, SaintÉtienne, 2000 (C.E.R.C.O.R.  Travaux et Recherches, 12), pp.  195–222 (esp. pp. 207–14; with further literature). 131  For a description of this collection, see P.-P.  Verbraken, Études critiques [n. 1], pp. 228–30. 132  See H. Rochais, Le martyrologe cistercien de 1173–1174 d’après le manuscrit Dijon 114(82), Rochefort, 1976 (Documentation cistercienne, 19.1–2), p. 136: .III. NON. AUG. Ierosolima, inuentio corporis beatissimi prothomartyris Stephani et sanctorum Nicodemi, Gamalielis et Abibon.

Natiuitas

Aduentus

feasts

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

titles (fol. 5r–100r)

Incipit liber sermonum sancti augustini episcopi de diuersis sollemnitatibus anni I adu. Iud. Sermo I de incarnatione domini contra iudeos (fol. 5r–12r) II De aduentu Domini et en. Ps. de eo quod scriptum 36, 1, 1–3 est: erunt duo in agro, unus assumetur et alter relinquetur (Matth. 24, 40; fol. 12v–13v) III Item eiusdem de eodem qu. eu. (fol. 13v–14r) 2, 44 IIII s.  184 Incipit tractatus beati augustini episcopi de die natali domini (fol. 14r– 15v) V s.  190 Item eiusdem de eodem (fol. 15v–17r) VI s.  370 Item eiusdem de eodem (fol. 17r–18v) VII s.  185 Item eiusdem de eodem (fol. 18v–19r)

items sermons

Item eiusdem de natale domini Item eiusdem de eodem Item eiusdem de eodem Item sermo eiusdem de eodem

V VI VII

Item eiusdem de eadem re

III IIII

De aduentu domini et de eo quod scriptum est: erunt duo in agro, unus assumetur et alter relinquetur et cetera

II

Incipiunt capitula sermonum beati augustini episcopi qui continentur in hoc libro I De incarnatione domini contra iudeos

capitula of later date (fol. 4r–4v)

Appendix 1: the Collectio Colbertina as preserved in Paris, BN lat. 3798

78 gert partoens

s.  317

Caesar., s.  192

s.  204B (before s.  app. 131 [art., n. 7]) s.  373

s.  204

s.  275

s.  274

s.  205

s.  207

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

Quadragesima 16

17

Vincentius (22/1)

Epiphania

Stephanus (natalis; 26/12) Kalendae Ianuariae

s.  193

8

XVII

XVI

XV

XIIII

XIII

XII

XI

X

VIIII

VIII

Item eiusdem de eodem (fol. 24v–26r) Item eiusdem de eodem (fol. 26r–27v) Sermo beati augustini episcopi de natali sancti uincentii (fol. 27v–28v) Item eiusdem de eodem (fol. 28v–29v) Sermo beati augustini episcopi in initio quadragesime (fol. 29v– 30v) Item eiusdem de eodem (fol. 30v–31v)

Sermo beati augustini episcopi de kalendis ianurii [sic] (fol. 21v– 23r) Sermo beati augustini episcopi de apparicione domini (fol. 23r–24v)

Item eiusdem de eodem (fol. 19r–20r) Item eiusdem de sancto stephano (fol. 20r–21v)

Item eiusdem de quadragesima Item eiusdem de quadragesima

XVI

XVII

Item eiusdem de eodem

XV

Item eiusdem de eodem

XIII

Item eiusdem de natali sancti uincentii

Item eiusdem de eodem

XII

XIIII

Item eiusdem de apparitione domini

Item eiusdem de kalendis ianuarii

Item sermo bea [sic] de natale domini Item eiusdem de sancto stephano

XI

X

VIIII

VIII

a medieval french homiliary?

79

s.  209

s.  210

s.  220

s.  226

s.  230

s.  235

s.  236

s.  256

s.  147

s.  265

s.  378

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

De alleluia

Sabbatum Paschae

Ascensio Domini

Pentecoste

Qua uolueris die Feria II

Vigiliae Paschae Pascha

s.  208

18

XXIX

XXVIII

XXVII

XXVI

XXV

XXIIII

XXIII

XXII

XXI

XX

XVIIII

XVIII Item eiusdem de eodem (fol. 31v–32v) Item eiusdem de eodem (fol. 32v–33v) Item eiusdem de eodem (fol. 33v–37v) Item de uigiliis paschę (fol. 37v–38r) Item eiusdem in die pachę [sic] (fol. 38r) Item eiusdem qua uolueris die (fol. 38v) Item eiusdem feria II (fol. 38v–39v) Item eiusdem de eadem feria II (fol. 39v–41r) Sermo beati augustini episcopi de alleluia (fol. 41r–42v) Item eiusdem sermo habitus sabbato pasche (fol. 42v–43v) Item eiusdem de ascensione domini (fol. 43v–47r) Sermo beati augustini episcopi de die sancto pentecostes (fol. 47r–47v) Item eiusdem de eodem Item eiusdem de nocte uigiliarum paschę Item eiusdem de die sancto Paschę Item eiusdem de eodem De secunda feria paschę Item de eadem die

XX XXI

XXIII XXIIII XXV

XXVIIII

XXVIII

XXVII

XXVI

De die sancto pentecostes

De ascensione domini

Item eiusdem in sabbato septimanę paschę

Item eiusdem de Alleluia

Item eiusdem de eodem

XVIIII

XXII

Item eiusdem de eodem

XVIII

80 gert partoens

s.  269

s.  286

Caesar., s.  33 s.  293

s.  380

s.  289

s.  291

s.  297

32

33

34

36

37

38

39

Geruasius et Protasius (19/6)

Shortly before 24/6 Iohannes Baptista (natiuitas; 24/6)

Petrus et Paulus (29/6)

s.  268

31

35

s.  272

30

XXXVIIII

XXXVIII

XXXVII

XXXVI

XXXV

XXXIIII

XXXIII

XXXII

XXXI

XXX Item sermo eiusdem de sacramentis habitus die pentecostes (fol. 47v–48r) Item eiusdem de die pentecostes (fol. 48r–49v) Item eiusdem de eodem (fol. 49v–51v) Sermo beati augustini episcopi habitus argentarii de natali sanctorum geruasii et protasii (fol. 51v–53v) Sermo de reddendis decimis (fol. 53v–55r) Sermo beati augustini episcopi de natiuitate sancti iohannis baptistae (fol. 55r–60r) Item eiusdem de eodem (fol. 60r–65v) Item eiusdem de eodem (fol. 65v–68v) Item eiusdem de eodem (fol. 68v–70v) Sermo beati augustini episcopi de natali apostolorum petri et pauli (fol. 70v–73v) Item de die sancto pentecostes Item de eadem die

XXXI

Item eiusdem de eodem Item eiusdem de eodem Item eiusdem de eodem

XXXVI XXXVII XXXVIII XXXVIIII

Item eiusdem de natali apostolorum petri et pauli

De reddendis decimis. Non est sancti augustini Sermo beati augustini episcopi de natali sancti iohannis baptistę

XXXIIII XXXV

Sermo de natali sanctorum geruasii et protasii

XXXIII

XXXII

Sermo de sacramentis eadem die habitus

XXX

a medieval french homiliary?

81

s.  381

s.  298

s.  301

s.  318

s.  302

s.  305

s.  304

s.  311

41

42

43

44 Stephanus (inuentio; 3/8)

45

46

47

48

Cyprianus (14/9)

Laurentius (10/8)

Machabaei (1/8)

s.  295

40

XLVIII> XLVII XLVIIII> XLVIII

XLVII> XLVI

XLVI> XLV

XLV [sic]

XLIII

XLII

XLI

XL Item eiusdem de eodem (fol. 73v–76r) Item eiusdem de eodem (fol. 76r–77r) Item eiusdem de eodem (fol. 77r–77v) Sermo beati augustini episcopi de natali sanctorum Machabeorum (fol. 77v–80v) Sermo beati augustini episcopi de inuentione sancti stephani (fol. 80v– 82r) Sermo beati augustini de natali sancti laurentii (fol. 82r–86v) Item semo [sic] eiusdem de eodem habitus ad mensam sancti Cypriani (fol. 86v–88r) Item eiusdem de eodem (fol. 88r–89r) Sermo beati augustini episcopi de natali sancti cypriani (fol. 89r–93r) Item eiusdem de eodem

XLII

XLVIII

XLVII

XLVI

XLV

XLIIII

Item eiusdem de natali sancti cypriani

Item eiusdem de eodem

Item eiusdem de eodem

Item eiusdem de natali sancti laurentii

Sermo beati augustini episcopi de inuentione beati stephani

Item eiusdem de natali sanctorum machabeorum

Item eiusdem de eodem

XLI

XLIII

Item eiusdem de eodem

XL

82 gert partoens

s.  327

s.  65

s.  329

Leo M., s.  84bis

s.  312

s.  313

49

50

51

52

53

54

Vnus martyr

Plurimi martyres

Machabaei

Cyprianus LVII> LII

LVI> LIII

L***> LII

L***> LI

LIII> L

LII> LI

Item de festo sancti cypriani (fol. 98v–100r)

In natali unius martyris sermo beati augustini episcopi (fol. 93r–93v) Item eiusdem in natali plurimorum martyrum (fol. 93v–95r) Item eiusdem de eodem (fol. 95r–96r) Explicit liber sermonum sancti augustini episcopi (fol. 96r) Sermo utilis qui uidetur esse beati leonis papę (fol. 96r–97r) Sermo in natali sancti cypriani (fol. 97r–98v) LIIII

LIII

LII

LI

L

XLVIIII

Item sermo qui non est beati augustini de festo sancti cypriani Item sermo qui non est eiudem [sic] de eodem festo

Sermo qui uidetur esse beati leonis papę

Item eiusdem in natali martyrum

Item sermo beati augustini in natali unius martyris Item eiusdem in natali martyrum

a medieval french homiliary?

83

84

gert partoens

Appendix 2: a comparison of the Collectio Colbertina (as preserved in Paris, BN lat. 3798) with other homiliaries J

homiliary of Jouffroy (Vat. lat. 3828; R.  Grégoire, Ho­méliaires liturgiques médiévaux [art., n. 16], pp. 245–61)

A

homiliary of Agimundus (Vat. lat. 3835–3836; R.  Grégoire, Homéliaires liturgiques médiévaux [art., n. 16], pp. 343–92)

M

Monte Cassino 12 (Codicum Casinensium manuscriptorum catalogus [art., n. 60], pp. 17–22)

c in P Collectio Colbertina as preserved in Paris, BN lat. 3798 (Appendix 1)

J

s

Sancti Catholici Patres (J.-P.  Bouhot, “L’homéliaire des Sancti Catholici Patres. Reconstitution de sa forme originale” [art., n. 20])

t

Collectio Tripartita (A.  Wilmart, “La collection Tripartite” [art., n. 21]) A

M

c in P

-

-

-

1

-

-

-

2

-

-

-

3

-

-

-

4

91 (only §§ 3–4)

-

5

adu. Iud. en. Ps. 36, 1, 1–3 qu. eu. 2, 44 s.  184 s.  190

s

t

6

3.101

2

3.100

3

-

24

3.113

25

3.114

1  Grégoire’s description of J, which I am following here, numbers the items without taking into account the loss and inversion of quires. According to A.  Chavasse (“Un homiliaire liturgique” [art., n. 10], p. 195, n. 2), the manuscript’s original composition was as follows: lost material, present items 9–34, lost material, present items 1–8, lost material, present items 35–98, lost material. This means that the following texts have lost their beginning or end due to a simple material accident: Aug. s.  208, beginning (item 1); Chrys. Lat., s. Arm. 3, end (item 8); Aug., s. 190, beginning (item 9); s. 202, end (item 34); Chrys. Lat., s.  Arm. 4, beginning (item 35); Aug., s.  65, end (item 98).

85

a medieval french homiliary? J

A

M

c in P

12 2

-

-

6

-

-

-

7

10

-

-

8

17 (including s.  Wilm. 21)

-

27 (including s.  Wilm. 21)

9

-

-

-

10

s

t

s.  370 Maur

18 (without first sentence) 3

3.108 (without first sentence)

s.  185 s.  193 s.  317 Maur (without s.  Wilmart 21) 4 Caes., s.  192

26

3.115

27

3.116

41 (without s.  Wilmart 21)

3.120 (without s.  Wilmart 21)

50

3.124

2  Fol. 129v–131r contain version C of s. 370 [see Appendix 2, n. 3], extended with the additional phrase De quo ioannes euangelista [iohannes in euangelio p. c.] dicit: hic est agnus dei qui tollit peccata mundi. R.  Grégoire mistakenly considers it an Augustinian cento (Homéliaires liturgiques [art., n. 16], p. 248). 3  Only §§  2–4 of s.  370 Maur are authentic (see CPPM 1, 737). The collections c s t3 also contain the inauthentic first paragraph of the sermon’s Maurist edition, but c offers this paragraph in full, whereas s t3 do not offer its first sentence (see CPPM 1, 1725). Compare C. Lambot’s handwritten notes preserved at Maredsous (regarding the transmission of s.  370): “Ce sermon existe sous trois formes, dont la première paraît bien être authentique. A (= 370, n. 2–4), Inc. Exultent uirgines. […] La tradition paraît dépendre toute entière de Paul Diacre: [follows a long list of manuscripts]. B (= Mai 116  = CPPM 1, 1725), Inc. Primus homo quo cadente […]. Cette forme se trouve dans l’homiliaire des Catholici Patres. [follows a short list of manuscripts]. C (= Maur. 370), Inc.  Hodiernus dies ad habendam spem. Cette forme est ancienne. On la retrouve notamment dans l’homiliaire de Fleury [Orléans, BM 154, pp.  93–97] et celui d’Ottobeuren [Rome, BN 1190, fol.  91v–94r]. [follows a long list of manuscripts including our codex P].” The older version C is also present in J (n° 12), Caesarius’ Collectio Gallicana (n° 11) and the Carolingian homiliary of Beaune (n° 7). The youngest common ancestor of c s t3 seems to have contained the older version C. 4  S. 317 auct. consists of s.  317 Maur enlarged with s.  Wilmart 21 (see P.-P.  Verbraken, Études critiques [art., n. 1], p. 138; R.  Gryson, Répertoire général [art., n. 27], p. 251). For a description of the different versions of s.  317, see A.  Wilmart, “Le morceau final” [art., n. 109], pp. 201–02 (s.  317 Maur ~ c s t3) and 203–04 (s. 317 auct. ~ J M).

86

gert partoens

J

A

M

c in P

s

t

27

-

42

11

Aug., s. 204B (olim s.  app. 131) 5

53

3.125

28 (“interpolated” version)

-

43 (“interpolated” version)

12

s.  373 (“interpolated” version) 6

54 (“interpolated” version)

3.126 (“interpolated” version)

s.  204 s.  275

55

3.127

84

3.136

s.  274 s.  205 s.  207 s.  208

82

3.135

100

3.145

119

3.150

120

3.151

s.  209 s.  210 s.  220 s.  226 s.  230

121

3.152

122

3.153

158

3.165

162

3.169

188

3.185 (also 2.84)

29

-

44

13

-

3.81 (without first sentences)7

-

14

-

3.82

-

15

3

-

64

16

-

-

62

17

1 (without first sentences) 8

-

61 (inauth. exord. added)9

18

-

-

-

19

-

-

-

20

39

2.28

-

21

43

2.35

-

22

-

23

49

2.37

For the attribution of this sermon to Augustine, see art., n. 7. See PL 39, col. 1663, n. c; P.-P. Verbraken, Études critiques [art., n. 1], p. 152; R. Gryson, Répertoire général [art., n. 27], p. 254; CPPM 1, 739. 7  The absence of the sermon’s opening sentences is due to a loss of folia in A (between the present fol. 231v and 232r). See R. Grégoire, Homéliaires liturgiques [art., n. 16], p. 388. 8  The absence of the sermon’s opening sentences in J is due to a loss of folia (see Appendix 2, n. 1). Maybe s. 208 originally had the same alternative beginning in this manuscript as it has in M (item 61; see Appendix 2, n. 9). Compare A. Chavasse, “Un homiliaire liturgique” [art., n. 10], p. 227, n. 5. 9  The sermon’s normal incipit is preceded by a few introductory sentences (see PL 47, col. 1176–1177; Bibliotheca Casinensis [art., n. 60], p. 168) that have been borrowed from Rufinus of Aquileia’s translation of Orig., hom. in num. 6, 1, 1 (SC 415, p. 142). 5  6 

87

a medieval french homiliary? J

A

M

c in P

47

2.40

-

24

48

2.41

111

25

26 109 2.42 50 (without post (without post (without post sermo- sermonem) sermonem) nem) 8111 2.80 (only §§ 2–3)

-

27

s

t

s.  235

175

3.177 (also 2.86)

s.  236

176

3.178 (also 2.87)

s.  256 Maur (without post sermonem)10

3.186 189 (without post (without post sermosermonem) nem)

s.  147

194 238

3.190 also 3.219

54

2.52

-

28

3.195

2.62

-

29

212

3.200

62

2.65

-

s.  265 s.  378 30 s.  272

203

59

213

absent part 3 (but 2.89)

64

2.61

128

31

214

3.201

61

2.64

-

32

215

3.202

-

-

132

33

220

-

-

-

-

34

67

2.75

133

35

72 (interpol. from s.  126)

-

-

36

69

-

-

37

68

-

138

38

77

-

-

39

s.  268 s.  269 s.  286 Caes., s. 33 s.  293 s.  380 (interpol. from s.  126)12 s.  289 s.  291 s.  297

-

-

244

3.207

245 (interpol. from s.  126)

3.208 (interpol. from s.  126)

246

3.209

247

3.210

257

3.221

10  The post sermonem to s.  256 was first published in A.  Wilmart, “Allocutions de saint Augustin pour la vigile pascale et compléments des sermons sur l’alleluia”, Revue Bénédictine, 42 (1930), pp. 136–42 (esp. p. 142) on the basis of Worcester, CL F. 93, fol. 90r. See also MiAg 1, p. 719, l. 18–22 and PLS 2, col. 742. 11  The loss of the first and the beginning of the second paragraph is due to a material accident. See R. Grégoire, Homéliaires liturgiques [art., n. 16], p. 258 (regarding fol. 212r and 212v of J). 12  For this interpolation, see C.  Lambot, “Le sermon CXXVI de saint Augustin sur le thème foi et intelligence et sur la vision du verbe”, Revue Bénédictine, 69 (1959), pp. 177–90 (esp. pp. 181–82); F. Dolbeau, “Le sermon 380 d’Augustin” [art., n. 109].

88

gert partoens

J

A

M

c in P

s

t

74

2.116

142

40

3.222

2.93

-

41

259

3.223

-

2.101

-

85

3.3 (only §§ 4–9)14

145

s.  295 s.  381 42 s.  298 (without last 2 sentences) 13 43 s.  301

258

75

22

-

s.  318 s.  302 (without post sermonem)15 46 s.  305 148 Maur 16 (s.  305 auct.: (without the extra auth. auth. closing closing forformula) mula) -

44

45 147 3.14 90 (without post (without post (without post sermo- sermonem) sermonem) nem) 87 (s.  305 auct.: extra auth. closing formula)

3.15 (s.  305 auct.: extra auth. closing formula)

3.224 260 (without last (without 2 sentences) last 2 sentences) 276

3.226

277

3.227

3.229 282 (without post (without post sermosermonem) nem) 283 (without auth. closing formula)

3.230 (without auth. closing formula)

13  S. 298 breaks off after quia dona ipsius sunt merita tua in c s t3 (SPM 1, p. 99, l. 6). This version of s.  298 seems to have been used also by the compiler of the Carolingian homiliary of Beaune (Paris Bibl. Nat. lat. 3794, fol. 151v–152v [l. 14]). See R. Étaix, “Le sermonnaire carolingien de Beaune” [art., n. 32], pp. 119 (n° 94) and 123 (+ n. 26). 14  The absence of the sermon’s first paragraphs is due to an accidental loss of folia in A (between fol. 4v and 5r). See R. Grégoire, Homéliaires liturgiques [art., n. 16], p. 372. 15  The post sermonem to s.  302 was first published by G.  Morin (s.  Morin Guelf. 25) on the basis of Wolfenbüttel, HAB Weiss. 12 (4096), fol. 131v. It is also present in Mainz, SB I, 9. See MiAg 1, p. 528 (edition by G. Morin of the post sermonem); SPM 1, p. 111 (edition by C.  Lambot of the whole sermon); F.  Dolbeau, Augustin et la prédication [art., n. 109], pp. 48–49; B.  Pieri, Aurelii Augustini sermo CCCII [art., n. 109], pp. 78–81. 16  The extra closing formula Hoc uocibus […] gloriam aeternitatis (edited in PL 47, c. 1188C [on the basis of M]; R.  Grégoire, Homéliaires liturgiques [art., n. 16], p. 259 [on the basis of J] and 375 [on the basis of A]) is not only present in J A M, but also in Wolfenbüttel, HAB Weiss. 12 (4096), fol. 133r (basis of edition in MiAg 1, pp. 431–32; see also CPPM 1, 672). Extrapolating the stemmatical relations of the manuscript witnesses for ss. 298 and 302 (see Appendix 2, n. 13 and 15), the combination of these witnesses can be considered a guarantee for the phrase’s authenticity (hence s. 305 auct.).

89

a medieval french homiliary? J

A

M

c in P

s

t

89

3.13

-

47

3.231

3.77

164–165

48

298

3.239

21 (extra closing formula)

-

25 (extra closing formula)

329 (without extra closing formula)

3.250 (without extra closing formula)

9818 (incomplete)

3.5

150

s.  304 s.  311 49 s.  327 Maur 17 (without extra closing formula) 50 s.  65

284

-

323

3.247

-

-

-

51

3.248

3.1

143

52

-

-

-

3.73

160

300

3.241

-

3.74

161

s.  329 Leo M., s.  84bis 53 s.  312 54 s.  313

324

83

299

3.240

The extra closing formula Sanctus ammirabilis martir Stephanus cuius sollemnitas celebratur […] coronam in capite a Christo accipere meruit (edited in R.  Grégoire, Homéliaires liturgiques [art., n. 16], p. 249 [on the basis of J]; PL 47, col. 1191A [on the basis of M]) is considered as inauthentic (CPPM 1, 695). Since s.  327 Maur does not mention St  Stephen and praises the martyrs in general, it has been suggested that the extra closing formula was added, in order to create a homily that could be inserted in a series of sermons for the feast of the protomartyr (e.g. J, nos 16–22). Compare  A. Chavasse, “Un homiliaire liturgique” [art., n. 10], p. 228: “Quant à J.21, il s’accorde avec C.25, pour ajouter à Aug. 327 (= P.49) les mêmes cinq lignes finales […] destinées à adapter nommément à Étienne ce sermon qui était consacré au martyre en général.” 18  The absence of the sermon’s end in J is due to a loss of folia (see Appendix 2, n. 1). 17 

90

gert partoens

Appendix 3: Vat. lat. 3828 (the homiliary of Jouffroy; J) compared with the Sancti Catholici Patres (s), the third part of the Tripartita (t3) and the Collectio Colbertina as preserved in Paris, BN lat. 3798 (c in P) J items 1 2 3 4

s items

Sermons

ascriptions

t3 items

c in P items

Aug., s.  208

120

Augustinus

3.151

18

Aug., s.  206

113

Augustinus

3.146

-

Aug., s.  205

100

Augustinus

3.145

16

Ps.-Aug., s.  Caillau I. 66 = CPPM 1, 1296

-

-

-

-

5

Ps.-Aug., s.  Caillau I. 67 = CPPM 1, 1297

-

-

-

-

6

Chrys. Lat., s. Arm. 1 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Caillau II. 51 = CPPM 1, 1357

-

-

-

-

7

Chrys. Lat., s. Arm. 2 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Mai 27 = CPPM 1, 1632

-

-

-

-

8

Chrys. Lat., s. Arm. 3 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Mai 28 = CPPM 1, 1633

-

-

-

-

9

Aug., s.  190

25

Augustinus

3.114

5

10

Aug., s.  193

27

Augustinus

3.116

8

11

Aug., s.  186

21

Augustinus

3.110

-

12

Aug., s.  370

13

Aug., s.  369

1

18

Augustinus

3.108

6

22

Augustinus

3.111

-

14

Aug., s.  187

14

Augustinus

3.104

-

15

Aug., s.  194

23

Augustinus

3.112

-

16

40 Aug., s.  319B (olim Ps.-Aug., s.  app. 215)2 = CPPM 1,  1000

Augustinus

3.119

-

17

Aug., s.  317

41

Augustinus

3.120

9

18

Ps.-Max., s.  app. 29 = CPPM 1, 5963 (2340)

70

Maximus

-

-

1  The sermon on fol. 129v–131r of J is version C of s.  370 [see Appendix 2, n. 2]. 2  See C. Weidmann in Augustinus, Sermones selecti [art., n. 7], pp. 165–85.

91

a medieval french homiliary? J 19 20

t3

c in P

Ps.-Aug., s.  Mai 147 = CPPM 1, 1756

-

s -

-

-

Ps.-Aug., s.  Mai 47 = CPPM 1, 1653

-

-

-

-

21

Aug., s.  327

329

Augustinus

3.250

49

22

Aug., s.  318

277

Augustinus

3.227

44

23

Ps.-Aug., s.  Mai 124 = CPPM 1, 1733

-

-

-

-

24

Ps.-Aug., s.  Caillau II. app. 77 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Mai 149 = CPPM 1, 1485

-

-

-

-

25

Petr. Chrys., s.  152

-

-

-

-

26

Ps.-Aug., s.  Caillau II. app. 78 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Mai 151 = CPPM 1, 1486

-

-

-

-

27

Aug., s. 204B (olim s.  app. 131 = CPPM 1, 916) 3

53

Augustinus

3.125

11

28

Aug., s.  373

54

Augustinus

3.126

12

29

Aug., s.  204

55

Augustinus

3.127

13

30

Ps.-Aug., s.  Caillau II. 40 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Mai 60 = CPPM 1, 1346

-

-

-

-

31

Ps.-Aug., s.  Caillau II. 41 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Mai 148 = CPPM 1, 1347

-

-

-

-

32

Ps.-Aug., s.  Caillau II. 42 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Mai 150 = CPPM 1, 1348

-

-

-

-

33

Aug., s.  199

52

Augustinus

-

-

34

Aug., s.  202

57

Augustinus

3.129

-

35

Chrys. Lat., s. Arm. 4 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Mai 29 = CPPM 1, 1634

-

-

-

-

36

Chrys. Lat., s. Arm. 5 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Mai 30 = CPPM 1, 1635

-

-

-

-

3 

See C. Weidmann in Augustinus, Sermones selecti [art., n. 7], pp. 63–73.

92 J 37 38

gert partoens t3

c in P

Chrys. Lat., s. Arm. 6 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Mai 31 = CPPM 1, 1636

-

s -

-

-

Chrys. Lat., s. Arm. 7 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Mai 32 = CPPM 1, 1637

-

-

-

-

39

Aug., s.  220

158

Augustinus

3.165

21

40

Ps.-Fulg., s.  30 = CPPM 1, 4823

-

-

-

-

41

Chrys. Lat., s. Arm. 8 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Mai 36 = CPPM 1, 1641

-

-

-

-

42

Chrys. Lat., s. Arm. 9 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Mai 37 = CPPM 1, 1642

-

-

-

-

162

43

Aug., s.  226

Augustinus

3.169

22

44

Chrys. Lat., s. Arm. 10 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Caillau II. 56 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Mai 38 = CPPM 1, 1362

-

-

-

45

Chrys. Lat., s. Arm. 11 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Caillau II. 55 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Mai 152 = CPPM 1, 1361

-

-

-

46

Chrys. Lat., s. Arm. 12 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Mai 35 = CPPM 1, 1640

-

-

-

-

47

Aug., s.  235

175

Augustinus

3.177

24

48

Aug., s.  236

176

Augustinus

3.178

25

49

Aug., s.  230

188

Augustinus

3.185

23

50

Aug., s.  256

189

Augustinus

3.186

26

51

Chrys. Lat., s. Arm. 13 = CPPM 1, 2321

-

-

-

-

52

Chrys. Lat., s. Arm. 14 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Mai 41 = CPPM 1, 1646

-

-

-

-

53

Chrys. Lat., s. Arm. 15 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Mai 42 = CPPM 1, 1648

-

-

-

-

54

Aug., s.  265

203

Augustinus

3.195

28

55

Ps.-Aug., s.  Caillau I. 40 CPPM 1, 1270

-

-

-

-

93

a medieval french homiliary? t3

c in P

Ps.-Aug., s.  Caillau I. 41 CPPM 1, 1271

-

-

-

-

57

Ps.-Aug., s.  Mai 44 = CPPM 1, 1650

-

-

-

-

58

Ps.-Aug., s.  app. 179 = CPPM 1, 964

228

Augustinus

-

59

Aug., s.  378

212

Augustinus

3.200

29

60

Ps.-Aug., s.  Caillau I. app. 8 = CPPM 1, 1306

229

Augustinus

-

-

32

J 56

s

61

Aug., s.  269

215

Augustinus

3.202

62

Aug., s.  272

213

Augustinus

Absent 30 in part 3 2.89

63

Ps.-Aug., s.  app. 183 = CPPM 1, 968

230

Augustinus

3.198

-

64

Aug., s.  268

214

Augustinus

3.201

31

65

Aug., s.  272B = s.  Mai 158

-

-

-

-

66

Ps.-Aug., s.  Caillau II. 69 = CPPM 1, 1375

231

Augustinus

3.213

-

67

Aug., s.  293

244

Augustinus

3.207

35

68

Aug., s.  291

247

Augustinus

3.210

38

69

Aug., s.  289

246

Augustinus

3.209

37

70

Ps.-Aug., s.  Flor. Cas. 3, 370–72 = CPPM 1, 1599

232

Augustinus

-

-

71

Ps.-Aug., s.  Caillau II. 68 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Caillau II. app. 63 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Mai 48 = CPPM 1, 1374

233

Augustinus

3.215

-

72

Aug., s.  380

245

Augustinus

3.208

36

73

Ps.-Aug., s.  Caillau II. 70 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Mai 49 = CPPM 1, 1376

234

Augustinus

3.216

-

74

Aug., s.  295

258

Augustinus

3.222

40

75

Aug., s.  381

259

Augustinus

3.223

41

94 J 76

gert partoens t3

c in P

Ps.-Aug., s.  Caillau II. app. 65 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Mai 55 = CPPM 1, 1473

235

s Augustinus

-

-

77

Aug., s.  297

257

Augustinus

3.221

39

78

Ps.-Aug., s.  app. 205 CPPM 1, 990

236

Augustinus

3.217

-

79

Ps.-Aug., s.  Caillau II. 72 = CPPM 1, 1378

237

Augustinus

3.218

-

80

Leo M., s.  82

-

-

-

-

81

Aug., s.  147

194 238

Augustinus Augustinus

3.190 3.219

27

82

Ps.-Aug., s.  Caillau I. 62 = CPPM 1, 1292

-

-

-

-

83

Leo, s.  84bis

-

-

-

52

84

Ps.-Aug., s.  Caillau I. 61 = CPPM 1, 1291

-

-

-

-

85

Aug., s.  301

276

Augustinus

3.226

43

86

Aug., s.  334

330

Augustinus

3.251

-

87

Aug., s.  305

283

Augustinus

3.230

46

88

Ps.-Aug., s.  Caillau II. 77 = Ps.-Aug., s.  Mai 56 = CPPM 1, 1383

239

Augustinus

3.232

-

89

Aug., s.  304

284

Augustinus

3.231

47

90

Aug., s.  302

282

Augustinus

3.229

45

91

Leo M., s.  85

-

-

-

-

92

Ps.-Ild., s.  4 = CPPM 1, 5260

-

-

-

-

93

Ps.-Ild., s.  12 = CPPM 1, 5268

-

-

-

-

94

Ps.-Aug., s.  app. 194 CPPM 1, 979

293

Augustinus

-

-

95

Ps.-Ild., s.  7 = CPPM 1, 5263

-

-

-

-

96

Ps.-Ild., s.  11 = CPPM 1, 5267

-

-

-

-

97

Aug., s.  330

322

Augustinus

3.246

-

98

Aug., s.  65

323

Augustinus

3.247

50

The Collectio Armamentarii (Paris, Bibliothèque de l’Arsenal 175) Status Quaestionis and New Avenues of Research Shari Boodts – Nicolas De Maeyer (Leuven) 1. Introduction The Collectio Armamentarii is a collection of fifteen Latin sermons on the liturgy of the Holy Week, traditionally considered to be written and compiled in fifth-century North Africa. The collection was named after manuscript Paris, BArs. 175 (s. XII, Fontenay),1 which is the only extant witness that presents these fifteen sermons as a collection in itself and formed the basis for JeanPaul Bouhot’s claim that its contents reflect in fact a coherent, late antique collection – a claim which influenced all subsequent research on the collection.2 Contrary to Bouhot’s hypothesis, this contribution aims to demonstrate that the Collectio Armamentarii – just like the Collectio Colbertina, discussed by Gert Partoens in the previous article in this volume – is not a late antique, but a medieval collection, compiled from (clusters of) texts transmitted in the Italian homiliary tradition. Our contribution takes its departure from the work of François Leroy, professor at the university of Lubumbashi (1925–2004), and his doctoral student Albert Tshiji Bampendi Mukole, curFor bibliography on the manuscript, cf. infra p. 120. J.-P.  Bouhot, “Version inédite du sermon ‘Ad neophytos’ de S. Jean Chrysostome, utilisée par S. Augustin”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 17 (1971), pp. 27–41 (esp. pp. 29–30). Cf. also n. 5. 1  2 

Praedicatio Patrum. Studies on Preaching in late Antique North Africa, edited by Gert Partoens, Anthony Dupont, Shari Boodts, Turnhout, 2017 (Instrumenta Patris­ tica et Mediaeualia, 75), p. 95-134 ©



10.1484/M.IPM-EB.5.114050

96

shari boodts – nicolas de maeyer

rently professor at the same university. Based on Tshiji’s unpublished doctoral dissertation, 3 Leroy prepared an introduction to and critical edition of the Collectio Armamentarii for the Series Latina of the Corpus Christianorum, which was left unfinished upon his death in 2004. Brepols Publishers has kindly made the dossier available to us. Our contribution represents the first thorough evaluation of this unpublished dossier, with the aim of critically assessing Leroy and Tshiji’s work, offering new insights, and sketching avenues that require further exploration. In a first part, we will demonstrate that modern arguments deduced from the individual sermons’ structure, content, and historical context do not suffice for viewing the Collectio Armamanterii as a homogeneous late antique collection. The second part of our contribution will offer a detailed overview of the manuscript transmission of its fifteen sermons, in support of the thesis that the Collectio Armamentarii is not a late antique collection, but rather a medieval compilation depending on a homiletic collection similar to the famous homiliaries of Agimundus and Jouffroy.4 2. Status quaestionis Bouhot concluded that the Armamentarii sermons formed a homogeneous late antique collection, since they are preserved as one group in Paris, BArs. 175; he allotted them to the Chrysostomus Latinus corpus.5 This corpus unites materials of diverse origins A. Tshiji, XV Sermons Pascaux de l’Afrique du Nord au Ve siècle. La collection “Arsenal” du Chrysostome latin: édition critique et traduction (unpublished doctoral dissertation), Lubumbashi, 1994. 4  Since a modern critical edition of the entire collection is not available, we refer to the edition in PLS 2 (CA ss. 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 15), PLS 4 (CA ss. 1, 5, 6, 12, 14), and PL 54 (CA s. 13) throughout this article. 5  J.-P. Bouhot, “Version inédite” [n. 2], pp. 29–30; F. J. Leroy, “Compléments et retouches à la 3e édition de la Clavis Patrum Latinorum. L’homilétique africaine masquée sous le Chrysostomus Latinus, Sévérien de Céramussa et la catéchèse donatiste de Vienne”, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, 99 (2004), pp. 425–34 (esp. p. 427); R. Gryson, Répertoire général des auteurs ecclésiastiques latins de l’antiquité et du haut moyen âge. 5e édition mise à jour du Verzeichnis der Sigel für Kirchenschriftsteller commencé par Bonifatius Fischer continué par Hermann Josef Frede, v. 1, Freiburg, 2007 (Vetus Latina, die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel, 1/15), pp. 138–39. 3 

the

collectio a rma menta rii

97

and nature, both Latin translations of authentic and inauthentic works of Chrysostom, as well as original Latin compositions wrongly attributed to him. In addition to the Collectio Armamentarii, several other sermon collections reside under the Chrysostomus Latinus-umbrella:6 (1) The Morin collection, some 30 sermons which had previously been edited as part of Chrysostom’s Opera omnia, but were composed – according to dom Germain Morin (who initially identified the collection) and Bouhot – by an author living probably in fifth/sixth-century South Italy or North Africa.7 (2) The Escorial collection, 28 sermons considered by Bouhot to form an original late antique collection, transmitted together in Escorial R. III. 5 (s.  XIV).8 (3) The Vienna collection, a significantly expanded version of the Escorial collection, consisting of 60 sermons preserved in Vienna, ÖNB, lat. 4147 (1435, origin unknown).9 Based on the Donatist character of one of its sermons (s.  39), the entire col6  For a general introduction to the Chrysostomus Latinus corpus and its transmission, see J.-P. Bouhot, “Les traductions latines de Jean Chrysostome du Ve au XVIe siècle”, in Traduction et traducteurs au moyen âge. Actes du colloque international du CNRS organisé à Paris, Institut de recherche et d’histoire des textes, les 26–28 mai 1986, ed. by G.  Contamine, Paris, 1989, pp. 31–39; G. Bady, “Les traductions latines anciennes de Jean Chrysostome. Motifs et paradoxes”, in L’antiquité tardive dans les collections médiévales. Textes et représentations, VIe –XIVe siècle, ed. by S. Gioanni, B. Grévin, Rome, 2008 (Collection de l’École française de Rome, 405), pp. 305–18. Cf. PLS 4, col. 651–56. 7  G.  Morin, “Étude sur une série de discours d’un évêque [de Naples?] du VIe siècle”, Revue Bénédictine, 11 (1894), pp. 385–402; “Un essai d’autocritique”, Revue Bénédictine, 12 (1895), pp. 385–96 (esp. p. 390); J.-P. Bouhot, “La collection homilétique pseudo-chrysostomienne découverte par Dom Morin”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 16 (1970), pp. 139–46; F. J. Leroy, “Compléments et retouches” [n. 5], p. 426. 8  PLS 4, col. 652–53; F. J. Leroy, “Compléments et retouches” [n. 5], pp. 427–29; “Les 22 inédits de la catéchèse donatiste de Vienne. Une édition provisoire”, Recherches Augustiniennes, 31 (1999), pp. 149–234; R. Gryson, Répertoire général [n. 5], pp. 141–46. 9  F. J. Leroy, “Vingt-deux homélies africaines nouvelles attribuables à l’un des anonymes du Chrysostome latin (PLS 4)”, Revue Bénédictine, 104 (1994), pp. 123–47; “Les 22 inédits” [n. 8]; J.-P. Bouhot, “Adaptations latines de l’Homélie de Jean Chrysostome sur Pierre et Élie (CPG 4513)”, Revue Bénédictine, 112 (2002), pp. 36–71 and pp. 201–35 (esp. pp. 46–47); R. Gryson, Répertoire général [n. 5], pp. 141–46.

98

shari boodts – nicolas de maeyer

lection has sometimes been considered a Donatist homiliary. This assumption, however, is highly improbable,10 since the collection’s homogeneity has been questioned.11 The Vienna collection likely is a medieval compilation rather than an originally late antique collection. (4) The Wilmart collection, 38 homilies, among which are translations of authentic, as well as inauthentic sermons by Chrysostom in addition to original Latin compositions.12 Augustine seems to have known several of the texts belonging to this collection.13 Bouhot places special emphasis on the 38 sermons from the Wilmart collection as the nucleus of the Chrysostomus Latinus corpus to which all other collections are somehow linked.14 In the Collectio Armamentarii this is evident from the fact that some of 10  For the arguments to place the entire collection in a Donatist context, see F. J. Leroy, “L’homélie donatiste ignorée du Corpus Escorial (Chrysostomus Latinus, PLS IV, sermon 18)”, Revue Bénédictine, 107 (1997), pp. 250–62; “Compléments et retouches” [n. 5], p. 428; “Les 22 inédits” [n. 8], p. 152. Leroy’s arguments have been repeated several times, for instance in L. Dossey, Peasant and Empire in Christian North Africa, Berkeley, 2010 (The Transformation of the Classical Heritage, 47), p. 165; J. S. Alexander, “Criteria for Discerning Donatist Sermons”, in Studia Patristica, ed. by M.  F. Wiles, E. J. Yarnold, v. 38, Leuven, 2001, pp. 3–7 (esp. p. 3); and in the contribution by A. Bass in the present volume (p. 397-414), but have been questioned by, among others, F. Dolbeau, “À propos d’un agraphon: réflexions sur la transmission de l’homilétique latine antique, avec édition du sermon ‘Sermo sacerdotis Dei’”, Classical Philology, 98 (2003), pp. 160–74 (esp. p. 172, n. 79); J.-P. Bouhot, “Adaptations latines” [n. 9], p. 47: “On ne saurait accepter l’attribution de ces 60 homélies à un prédicateur donatiste”. 11  F. Dolbeau, “À propos d’un agraphon ” [n. 10], p. 167, n. 44. 12  A.  Wilmart, “La collection des 38 homélies latines de saint Jean Chrysostome”, Journal of Theological Studies, 19 (1918), pp. 305–27; W. Wenk, Zur Sammlung der 38 Homilien des Chrysostomus Latinus (mit Edition der Nr. 6, 8, 27, 32 und 33), Vienna, 1988 (Wiener Studien, Beiheft, 10); F. J. Leroy, “Compléments et retouches” [n. 5], pp. 426–27. 13  F. J. Leroy, “Compléments et retouches” [n. 5], p. 426; W. Wenk, Zur Sammlung [n. 12], pp. 13, 30; J.-P. Bouhot, “Wolfgang Wenk: Zur Sammlung der 38 Homilien des Chrysostomus Latinus [Review]”, Gnomon, 64 (1992), pp. 63–64. 14  J.-P. Bouhot, “Adaptations latines” [n. 9], pp. 223–29; “Les traductions latines” [n. 6], pp. 32–33; “Version inédite” [n. 2], p. 30; “La collection homi­ létique” [n. 7], p. 145; cf. F. J. Leroy, “Compléments et retouches” [n. 5], p. 427.

the

collectio a rma menta rii

99

its sermons contain passages which bear remarkable similarities to certain passages in some of the Wilmart sermons.15 The Armamentarii sermons were not unedited or completely unstudied prior to the work of Leroy and Tshiji. The Collectio Armamentarii is mentioned sporadically in studies of the historical context of Early Christian North Africa,16 the formation and transmission of late antique collections,17 and the Chrysostomus Latinus collection of 38 homilies discovered by André Wilmart.18 Its contents have been edited several times. a. Editions The editio princeps of all fifteen sermons appeared in 1536 in Paris, as part of John Chrysostom’s Opera omnia (v. 3, fol. 113va-129va), edited by Chevallon.19 In this edition, the Armamentarii sermons are divided into two blocks: CA ss. 1–7 (fol. 113va-119rb),20 and CA ss. 8–15 (fol. 126vb-129va).21 CA s. 13 was edited twice (in 1751 and 1753) as a sermon by Leo Magnus, though the editors, Giovanni Crisostomo Trombelli, 15  J.-P. Bouhot, “Version inédite” [n. 2], p. 30. The Wilmart collection is transmitted also in Paris, BArs. 175 (fol. 2r–27v, 33v–75v). To give just two examples of connections between the two collections: in both CA s. 7 and Wilmart s. 11 the example of the good thief to stress the importance of repentance can be observed, as well as several verbal reminiscences (interestingly, in the homiliary of Agimundus, the two immediately follow one another); CA ss. 3, 4, 9 share a similar description of the chaos following Christ’s resurrection, which they may have sourced from Wilmart s. 12. 16  L.  Dossey, Peasant and Empire [n. 10]; A. Isola, I  Cristiani dell’Africa vandalica nei Sermones del tempo (429–534), Milan, 1990. 17  F. Dolbeau, “Naissance des homéliaires et des passionnaires: une tentative d’étude comparative”, in L’antiquité tardive dans les collections médiévales. Textes et représentations, VIe –XIVe siècle, ed. by S. Gioanni, B. Grévin, Rome, 2008 (Collection de l’École française de Rome, 405), pp. 13–35. 18  W. Wenk, Zur Sammlung [n. 12]. 19  F. J. Leroy, “Comment travaille un éditeur patristique parisien du XVIe siècle? Le P. G. Tilmann, chartreux, et les Chrysostomi Opera de Chevallon en 1536. Sondage dans la collection Arsenal du Chrysostome Latin”, Sacris Erudiri, 35 (1995), pp. 45–53; J.-P. Bouhot, “Version inédite” [n. 2], p. 30; “Les traductions latines” [n. 6], p. 38; W. Wenk, Zur Sammlung [n. 12], p. 85. 20  Between CA ss. 6 and 7 another sermon is printed, which contains the following incipit: Paucis hodie necessarium est (fol. 116va-118vb; CPG 4336, 1). 21  We would like to thank Dr. Jérémy Delmulle for providing us with this information.

100

shari boodts – nicolas de maeyer

and Pietro and Girolamo Ballerini, questioned this attribution (cf. infra).22 CA s. 13 occurs twice in the Patrologia Latina: in v. 54 (col. 495–97) it was published among the Sermones S. Leoni Magno attributi, with the Ballerini’s arguments to ascribe CA s. 13 to an African author printed above the text of the sermon. In PL 56 (col. 1136–1138), which appeared in the same year (1846), CA s. 13 was again printed among sermons attributed to Leo the Great.23 In the nineteenth century, two editions of selected Armamentarii sermons appeared: Caillau and Saint-Yves edited CA ss. 1, 10, 11, and 13 (partly)24 in 1836–1839, and attributed them to Augustine (CA ss. 1, 11, 13).25 In 1852 Angelo Mai published CA ss. 2–12 and 14–15, equally attributing them to the African Church Father.26 In his monumental study of Augustinian and pseudo-Augustinian sermons (1930), Morin analyzed fourteen Armamentarii sermons – all except CA s. 13.27 For some of the sermons he simply rejected the Augustinian authorship, to some he ascribed an African origin and for others he stated that he had read them among Chrysostom’s works (cf. infra). In a 1952 study, dom Alejandro Olivar attributed CA ss. 5 and 6 to the Ravennese bishop Peter Chrysologus. He edited both sermons under Chrysologus’ authorship in 1962. In 1981, Olivar edited both texts again, in the CCSL edition of Chrysologus’ sermons (CCSL 24A, pp. 435–44).28 22  G.  C. Trombelli, Cypriani, Hilarii, aliorumque ueterum patrum latinorum opuscula, Bologna, 1751, p. 328 [= 238]-243; P. and G. Ballerini, Sancti Leonis magni Romani pontificis opera […] curantibus Petro et Hieronymo fratribus Balleriniis, v. 1, Venice, 1753, col. 417–21 (henceforward referred to via PL 54, col. 495–97). 23  Cf. PL 56, col. 1131–1132. 24  Caillau and Saint-Yves only edited the last part of CA s. 13, from laetemur ergo to omnia saecula saeculorum. Amen (PL 54, col. 496–97, l. 28–17). 25  A.  B. Caillau, B.  Saint-Yves, S. Augustini operum supplementum, v. 1–2, Paris, 1836–1839; PLS 2, col. 872–73; R. Gryson, Répertoire général [n. 5], pp. 138–39, 293. 26  A.  Mai, Nouae patrum bibliothecae tomus primus continens Sancti Augustini nouos ex codicibus Vaticanis sermones […], Rome, 1852. Cf. J.-P. Bouhot, “Version inédite” [n. 2], p. 30, n. 15. 27  G.  Morin, Sancti Augustini sermones post Maurinos reperti, Rome, 1930 (MA, 1). 28  A.  Olivar, “Der hl. Petrus Chrysologus als Verfasser der PseudoAugustinischen Predigten Mai 30,  31 und 99 (§  2–3)”, in Colligere Fragmenta.

the

collectio a rma menta rii

101

In 1960 and 1968, Adalbert Hamman reprinted all Armamentarii sermons – except CA s. 13 – in PLS 2 and 4, based on the editions of Caillau – Saint-Yves and Mai.29 Victor Saxer analyzed and edited CA s. 12 on two occasions. In his 1956 study, he considered it to be a medieval homily dating probably to the eleventh century, and specifically intended for liturgical use in the cult of Mary Magdalen. 30 Later, Saxer recognized that he was deceived by the fact that in the medieval version of CA s. 12 a new incipit and explicit had been added to the original, late antique sermon. In a retractatio, published in 1970 he offered a new edition and an extensive content analysis of CA s.  12, the only detailed study of an Armamentarii sermon up to that point. 31 Jean Leroy (not to be confused with François Leroy) and François Glorie edited CA s. 9 in 1969. 32 They marked close parallels between this text and the sermons of the so-called Eusebius Gallicanus collection. 33 The Armamentarii sermons received different numbers in their respective collective and individual editions. The following table offers a survey of the location of the fifteen sermons in the most important editions:34

Festschrift Alban Dold, zum 70. Geburtstag am. 7.7.1952, ed. by B.  Fischer, V.  Fiala, Beuron, 1952, pp. 113–23; Los sermones de san Pedro Crisologo: Estudio critico, Montserrat, 1962 (Scripta et Documenta, 13), pp.  357–65 and 481–89. 29  Cf. A. Tshiji, XV Sermons [n. 3], pp. 13–14. 30  V.  Saxer, “Sermo in sollemnitate sancte Marie Magdalene. Introduction à l’étude et édition d’un texte inédit et anonyme du XIe siècle”, in Mélanges en l’honneur de Monseigneur Michel Andrieu, Strasbourg, 1956, pp. 385–401 (esp. p. 393). 31  V. Saxer, “Un sermon médiéval sur la Madeleine. Reprise d’une homélie antique pour Pâques attribuable à Optat de Milève († 392)”, Revue Bénédictine, 80 (1970), pp. 17–50. 32  J.  Leroy, F.  Glorie, “‘Eusèbe d’Alexandrie’ source d’‘Eusèbe de Gaule’”, Sacris Erudiri, 19 (1969), pp. 33–76 (esp. pp. 49–50). 33  For this collection, see esp. L.  K. Bailey, Christianity’s Quiet Success. The Eusebius Gallicanus Sermon Collection and the Power of the Church in Late Antique Gaul, Notre Dame, 2010. Cf. R. Gryson, Répertoire général [n. 5], pp. 139, 468, 471. 34  Cf. R. Gryson, Répertoire général [n. 5], pp. 138–39.

102

shari boodts – nicolas de maeyer

CA (CPL + CPPM 1)

Mai editio princeps Caill. & St.-Yv.

Morin

PLS

Olivar

s.  1 937 1, 1357; 5555

fol. 113va114ra

II, 51

-

p. 746

-

s.  2 1, 1632

fol. 114ra-rb

-

27

p. 737

s.  3 1, 1633

fol. 114rb115ra

-

28

p. 737

s.  4 1, 1634

fol. 115ra-rb

-

29

p. 766

s.  5 938 1, 1635

fol. 115rb-vb

-

30

p. 757

s.  6 939 1, 1636

fol. 115vb116va

-

31

p. 759

s.  7 1, 1637

fol. 118vb119rb

-

32

p. 748

-

36

p. 731

-

37

p. 756

4, col. 656– 59 (Caill. & St.Yves) 2, col. 1124– 1125 (Mai) 2, col. 1126– 1128 (Mai) 2, col. 1129– 1130 (Mai) 4, col. 659– 61 (Mai) (cf. PLS 3, col. 157) 4, col. 662– 65 (Mai) (cf. PLS 3, col. 157) 2, col. 1130– 1132 (Mai) 2, col. 1135– 1137 (Mai) 2, col. 1137– 1139 (Mai) 2, col. 1139 (Mai)

fol. 126vbs.  8 1, 1641; 1961; 127ra 5568 fol. 127ra-va s.  9 1, 1642; 5569 s.  10 1, 1362; 1643

fol. 127va

II, 56

38

p. 734

s.  11 1, 1361; 1761

fol. 127vb128ra

II, 55

152

p. 740

-

35

p. 750

II, 58 (last part)

-

-

fol. 128vb129ra

-

41

p. 755

fol. 129ra-va

-

42

pp. 756– 57

fol. 128ra-rb s.  12 940 1, 1640 fol. 128rb-vb s.  13 1, 2321; 5485; 5502 s.  14 941 1, 1646; 5575 s.  15 1, 1648

2, col. 1249– 1251 (Mai) 4, col. 665– 67 (Mai) (PL 54, col. 495–97; PL 56, col. 1136– 1138) 4, col. 667– 68 (Mai) 2, col. 1141– 1143 (Mai)

s.  LXXII bis (extrau. XII), CCSL 24A, pp. 435–39 s.  LXXII ter (extrau. XIII), CCSL 24A, pp. 440–44 -

-

the

collectio a rma menta rii

103

b. Content and themes of the collection The fifteen Armamentarii sermons share a thematic link: they all treat the liturgy of the Holy Week. The sermons can be divided into two groups: CA ss. 1–7, which center around Christ’s passion, and CA ss. 8–15, which focus on the resurrection. 35 A further division can be made into four liturgical units:36 –  CA ss. 1–2: Maundy Thursday – CA ss. 3–7: Good Friday – CA ss. 8–13: Easter Vigil or Easter Sunday – CA ss. 14–15: Easter Octave, more specifically the first Sunday after Easter The collection evokes a number of themes related to Easter, such as Christ’s resurrection and victory over death, spiritual birth through baptism as a necessary step towards salvation, light conquering darkness, etc. 37 The two main themes which interconnect the sermons in the collection are the importance of grace and repentance in the process of salvation, and baptism. The necessity of divine grace for man’s salvation is emphasized throughout the collection, especially in CA ss. 1, 2, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. 38 Christ is seen as the divine doctor, who has come in the flesh to heal humanity from its sins. 39 In order to be healed, man should A. Tshiji, XV Sermons [n. 3], pp. 31–32. Cf. R. Gryson, Répertoire général [n. 5], pp. 138–39. 37  A.  Tshiji, XV Sermons [n. 3], p. 32; cf. M.  Margoni-Kögler, Die Perikopen im Gottesdienst bei Augustinus. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der liturgischen Schriftlesung in der frühen Kirche, Vienna, 2010 (Veröffentlichungen der Kommission zur Herausgabe des Corpus der lateinischen Kirchenväter, 29; Sitzungsberichte/Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, 810), pp. 100–18, 125. 38  A. Tshiji, XV Sermons [n. 3], pp. 32–33. 39  When describing man’s need for divine grace, the sermons frequently evoke the image of Christ as the divine doctor. See, for instance, CA s. 1, where Peter the patient is opposed to Christ the doctor: Coeperunt altercari duo, medicus et aegrotus; hic [Peter] sine aegritudine se esse putabat; ille [Christ] sed iam futuram accensionem illi annuntiabat (PLS 4, col. 658, l. 7–9). When Peter prays to the doctor (ad medicum), he receives the divine medicine, i.e., grace: Dirigit preces ad medicum per nuntios lacrymarum et diuinum confestim recipit antidotum (PLS 4, col. 658, l. 54–56). 35 

36 

104

shari boodts – nicolas de maeyer

earn Christ’s healing through an act of humiliation and repentance for his proper sins. This is exemplified on several occasions in the person of Peter, who denied Christ (e.g. CA ss. 1, 2, 10), the apostle Thomas, who did not believe in Christ’s resurrection until he could see it with his own eyes (e.g. CA ss. 8, 15), and the good thief, who was granted Paradise by Christ (e.g. CA ss. 7, 9, 10).40 All three confessed their sins before Christ and received his grace. The insistence on repentance occurs notably in CA ss. 2, 7, and 8.41 The sermons discussing the theme of grace are mostly concerned with the individual’s sin and need for grace, rather than with the character of grace itself and its exact relation to man’s works. A second recurring theme is that of baptism, which is especially present in CA ss. 11, 12, and 13.42 Just as Easter celebrates Christ’s resurrection, baptism celebrates the spiritual resurrection of the baptized.43 The three sermons apply different similes to the theme of baptism, such as the brilliance of the sun as a symbol for the spiritual resurrection of the baptized in CA s. 11, the baptized as plants in Christ’s garden in CA s. 12, and the splendor and pureness of the baptismal habit as a symbol for the spiritual birth

40  Peter, the good thief, and Thomas are explicitly evoked as an example to follow, cf. CA s. 7: Lectio euangelii docet nos quemadmodum multis peccata sua Domino confitentibus, cito possit uenia promereri. Vnde exemplum accipiamus, fratres karissimi, latronis illius qui cum Domino fuerat crucifixus (PLS 2, col. 1130, l. 25–30); CA s. 10: Inter traditorem mercatoremque sanguinis Christi [Judas], et negatorem magistri [Peter], et confessionem latronis, signa­ culum meruimus redemptoris. Sufficiant caritati uestrae quae pro eruditionibus animarum dedit dominus Deus (PLS 2, col. 1139, l. 49–54). 41  Cf.  CA s. 2: Pretiosus est, fratres karissimi, paenitentiae fructus, quia quod defendi non potest, ablui potest. Lauant lacrimae congeriem peccatorum. Quam pretiosae lacrimae, quae extergunt culpam et exigunt ueniam! Profuit illi uere ista amaritudo, quoniam quidquid in eo delicti tabidum fuit, ferramento paenitentiae resecauit (PLS 2, col. 1125, l. 41–48); CA s. 7: Nisi confessione peccati sarcinam dimisisset, indulgentiam non meruisset. Denique audire meruit: hodie mecum eris in paradiso. Ecce quantum praestitit confessio, ut sine dilatione introduci latro mereretur in paradisum (PLS 2, col. 1132, l. 29–34); CA s.  8: Bona est paenitentia, fratres, si tarda non fuerit: et si fuerit sera, in opere uideatur esse perfecta. Facile agnoscimus ueniam creatoris, quam paenitentiam peccatoris (PLS 2, col. 1136–1137, l. 55–2). 42  Cf. V. Saxer, “Sermo in sollemnitate” [n. 30], p. 396. 43  V. Saxer, “Un sermon médiéval” [n. 31], p. 29.

the

collectio a rma menta rii

105

of the newly baptized in the Catholic Church in CA s. 13.44 The last two sermons (CA ss. 14–15) belong to the Sunday after Easter, when the newly baptized took off the white clothes they wore as neophytes and were officially welcomed in the community.45 Both sermons exhort the audience to maintain a pure state of heart, to abstain from lascivious behavior, and to beware of heresies.46 From a thematic perspective, the Armamentarii sermons thus form a relatively coherent whole. There are clear thematic lines, not only with regard to abstract themes (grace, repentance, and baptism), but also on a more concrete level: the exempla of Thomas, Peter, and the good thief, and the emphasis on the pureness of the habit of the neophytes recur throughout the collection. c. Location and date of the collection The communis opinio is that the Collectio Armamentarii was formed in fifth-century North Africa.47 Based on stylistic, lexicological, liturgical, scriptural, and historical evidence, a considerable amount of arguments has been developed to corroborate this hypothesis. We will briefly touch upon the more prominent arguments. Several Armamentarii sermons demonstrate a vocabulary and syntax attested also in the works of late antique African authors. Morin remarked upon a specific African color in CA ss. 3, 4, and 44  CA s. 11: Enituit Hierusalem, in qua uisi sunt resurgentes: enitescit ecclesia in qua praefulgent renascentes. Et illi testes, et isti testes: illi testes solis resurgentis, isti testes solis in aqua et spiritu baptizantis (PLS 2, col. 1249–1250, l. 51–3); CA s. 12: Ecce de Domino et infantibus tamquam de uite et palmitibus hodie laetatur nostra mater catholica ecclesia (PLS 4, col. 667, l. 4–6); CA s. 13: Vnde obsecro, dilectissimi, cum uniuersa ecclesia praecipue uos qui in nouam salutem regenerati candida indumenta sumpsistis, ut munus quod accepistis purum immaculatumque teneatis, ut nitorem uestri habitus etiam in conuersatione seruetis, et tam candida sint corda uestra quam uestimenta uestra (PL 54, col. 496–97, l. 51–3). 45  A. Tshiji, XV Sermons [n. 3], p. 42, n. 37. 46  CA s. 14: Paschalis sollemnitas, dilectissimi, hodierna diei festiuitate concluditur; et ideo hodie etiam neophytorum habitus commutatur, ita tamen ut candor qui de habitu deponitur, semper in corde teneatur (PLS 4, col. 667, l. 11–15). 47  J.-P. Bouhot, “Version inédite” [n. 2], p. 30; PLS 4, col. 651; W. Wenk, Zur Sammlung [n. 12], p. 8; F. J. Leroy, “Compléments et retouches” [n. 5], p. 427; G. Bady, “Les traductions latines anciennes” [n. 6], p. 307; R. Gryson, Répertoire général [n. 5], p. 138; V. Saxer, “Un sermon médiéval” [n. 31], pp. 23–37.

106

shari boodts – nicolas de maeyer

12, for instance in expressions as dies discluditur, incubatricem noctem, plantaria renatorum, or de scrobe sepulchri.48 Saxer analysed the Africitas of CA s. 12 in detail,49 and highlighted some typical word meanings which he traced back to North African Bible versions, such as the specific use of the word infans to designate the newly baptized (CA s. 12; PLS 4, col. 665, l. 17; 44, col. 667, l. 4; cf. CA s. 13; PL 54, col. 497, l. 12)50 – a use attested also in Augustine’s ss. 260, 1; 376A, 1–2. Tshiji listed several words, which – in his opinion – all date from the fifth century and mostly occur for the first time in Augustine’s works. 51 For some of these words, he is incorrect: they do occur prior to the fifth century, though they are rare.52 Although this evidence might point to an African background of some of the Armamentarii sermons, it does not follow that our collection as a whole is distinctively African (cf. infra). 48  G.  Morin, Sancti Augustini sermones post Maurinos reperti [n. 27]: Et si saeculo V uix inferior, sermo tamen Augustini non est. Insolitis uocabulis scatet: v. gr. costa (uxor), crucis ad capum (= feretrum?), dies discluditur, incubatricem noctem, fragore sonigero, etc.; quae omnia Afri auctoris uidentur esse indicium (p. 737; s.  3); Est declamatoris Afri et antiqui. Aduerte uerba: udant dominicos uultus […], panibus angelicis annonauit (p. 766; s.  4); Videtur esse declamatoris Afri, qui insolita uerba libenter repetit: infantum plantaria […] plantaria renatorum […] leuauit plantaria; de scrobe sepulchri […] ad sepulchri n. scrobem, etc. (p. 750; s.  12). For CA s. 11, Morin draws attention to the occurrence of several unusual words, but contrary to the three previous sermons, this sermon he does not ascribe to a particular African context: Fetus est garruli sed antiqui declamatoris […] qui nouis et insolitis uocabulis delectatur, ut sunt crystallica, panificabatur [...], contriumphant” (p. 740; CA s. 11). 49  V. Saxer, “Un sermon médiéval” [n. 31], pp. 24–27. 50  V. Saxer, “Un sermon médiéval” [n. 31], p. 25. 51  E.g. annonare, benefactor, cinnama, contriumphare, crystallicus, prosapies, propinator, incubatrix, fluctuabundus. A. Tshiji, XV Sermons [n. 3], pp. 95–96. Furthermore, Tshiji listed eight hapax in the Armamentarii sermons: mangonicium (CA s. 1; PLS 4, col. 658, l. 28, the PLS-edition reads tuum ingenium instead of tuo mangonicio, which can be found in Paris, BArs. 175), prosapies (CA s. 3; PLS 2, col. 1127, l. 38), foratura (CA s. 3; PLS 2, col. 1128, l. 13–14), incubatrix (CA s. 3; PLS 2, col. 1128, l. 29), fluctuabundus (CA s. 3; PLS 2, col. 1128, l. 46), soniger (CA s. 3; PLS 2, col. 1128, l. 48), panificare (CA s. 11; PLS 2, col. 1250, l. 53), contriumphare (CA s. 11; PLS 2, col. 1251, l. 13–14). It should be noted that Tshiji’s hapax are limited to only three sermons: CA ss. 1, 11, and especially 3, which contains five of the eight hapax listed. 52  The word fluctuabundus, for example, can be found already in Cyprian (third century); cinnama is already attested in Classical times.

the

collectio a rma menta rii

107

In addition to linguistic evidence, prior scholars pointed to liturgical and scriptural arguments to locate the sermons in North Africa. The Ballerini brothers stated that the reading of Ioh. 1 during the Easter Vigil and/or on Easter Sunday is a typical feature of North African liturgy, as is evinced in Augustine’s ss. 119– 120.53 In addition, they remarked upon similarities between CA s.  13 and the Vetus Latina text used by Augustine in quotations from Ps. 117 and 125.54 Leroy and Thsiji simply copied these arguments. Tshiji further observed that some of the liturgical readings in the Armamentarii sermons (e.g. Ps. 117, 24; Ioh. 20, 1–18, and Ioh. 20, 24–31) were also used by Augustine during the Easter period.55 Based on the fact that CA s. 12 uses Cant. 3, 1–4 to explain Ioh. 20, 11–18, Saxer tried to link CA s. 12 to a liturgical tradition known to Optatus of Milevis and Augustine.56 In general, however, the argument of African scriptural readings – as well as the argument for language and syntax attested in African authors for that matter – is a dangerous one. As François Dolbeau already cautioned,57 many scholars fall into the trap of searching 53  Auctor certe Latinus est, et alicuius quidem occidentalis ecclesiae episcopus, in qua ritus uigebat legendi capitulum Euangelii S. Joannis, In principio erat Verbum, ipso Paschatis die, seu in uigiliis Paschae […]. Cum uero nulla Romanae ecclesiae documenta a Cassandro, Hitorpio, Mabillonio, Frontone, cardinali Thomasio atque Martene edita hunc ritum praeferant, licet Leonis aeuo posteriora sint, impediunt tamen ne quis Leonem huius sermonis acutorem affirmet. Hic autem ritus erat in Africa celebris, uti discimus ex Augustini serm. 119 et 120, in quibus idem Euangelii capitulum explicatur […]. Hinc alicui Africano hic sermo adiudicandus uidetur (PL 54, col. 495–96). F. J. Leroy, “Chapitre premier: le Chrysostome Latin, la collection Arsenal” (introduction to unfinished and unpublished CCSL volume of the Armamentarii sermons), p. 3; A. Tshiji, XV Sermons [n. 3], p. 99. G. C. Trombelli noticed that the references to Ioh. 1 in CA s. 13 are rather uncommon, but did not ascribe this reading to African liturgical practices (Cypriani, Hilarii [n.  22], pp.  240–41). Cf.  M. MargoniKögler, Die Perikopen im Gottesdienst [n. 37], pp. 116–18. 54  […] duo lectionaria […] eum [sermonem XIII] Augustino inscribunt; cui pariter eumdem conuenire confirmat interpretatio antiqua uersiculorum psal. 117 et 125, quam apud Augustinum iisdem uerbis expressam reperimus (PL 54, col. 495–96). F. J. Leroy, “Chapitre premier ” [n. 53], p. 3; A. Tshiji, XV Sermons [n. 3], p. 99. 55  A. Tshiji, XV Sermons [n. 3], p. 35. Cf. M. Margoni-Kögler, Die Perikopen im Gottesdienst [n. 37], pp. 95–126. 56  V. Saxer, “Un sermon médiéval” [n. 31], p. 30. 57  Cf. his contribution in this volume, p. 22.

108

shari boodts – nicolas de maeyer

for African parallels for the texts under observation, without comparing their finds with the European traditions. While the arguments formulated above may indicate that some of our sermons are linked to African liturgical and/or scriptural traditions, again they do not sufficiently demonstrate that the collection as a whole can be attributed an African origin. A further line of argumentation is contained in allusions to socio-political and religious events or schismatic and heretical groups of the (first half of the) fifth century.58 According to Tshiji, CA s. 5 alludes to Arianism: the preacher of this sermon interprets Christ’s resurrection on the third day as a reference to the Trinity, and emphasizes that the whole Trinity works united in Christ’s Passion (in passione Filii totius una est uoluntas trinitatis, CA s. 5; PLS 4, col. 661, l. 25–26).59 Thsiji considers this sermon a rebuttal of the Arian thesis of Trinitarian subordinationism, but this is a rather feeble argument. Furthermore, Saxer and Tshiji refer to the typically African use of the word catholica in CA ss. 12 and 15 to denote the one, true and universal Church in contrast to schismatic groups, in particular the Donatists.60 CA s. 12 also refers to the Catholic Church as nostra mater catholica ecclesia (PLS 4, col. 667, l. 6), a formula adopted already in the fourth century by Optatus of Milevis in a specific anti-Donatist context.61 In CA s.  15, the theme of Church unity against schismatics is developed at some length via the story of the miraculous fish catch in Ioh. 21. The preacher equals the nets, which did not break despite the huge quantities of fish they held, with the doctrina fortissima ueritatis (CA s. 15; PLS 2, col. 1142, l. 34–35), which cannot be violated by the mendacii scissura.62 The opposition is continued in F. J. Leroy, “Compléments et retouches” [n. 5], p. 427. A. Tshiji, XV Sermons [n. 3], p. 33. 60  A.  Tshiji, XV Sermons [n. 3], pp. 45, 96; V. Saxer, “Un sermon médiéval” [n. 31], p. 27. 61  V. Saxer, “Un sermon médiéval” [n. 31], p. 31. 62  Quae ergo istis hominum piscatoribus retia, nisi doctrina fortissima ueritatis, quam mendacii scissura non uiolet? (CA s. 15; PLS 2, col. 1142, l. 33–36). The apostles’ unbroken nets stand for the apostolic doctrine (doctrina apostolica, quae in his apostolorum retibus figuratur, CA s. 15; PLS 2, col. 1142, l. 41–42), just as Christ’s tunic, which the Romans did not tear apart, stands for the “pure, holy, catholic Church” (ecclesia pura, sancta, catholica, CA s. 15; PLS 2, col. 1142, l. 43). The opposition between the one, true Church (Christ’s 58  59 

the

collectio a rma menta rii

109

the contrast between the “shabby clothes of schisms” (schismatum pannos, CA s. 15; PLS 2, col. 1142, l. 54) and the unity of the Church as represented by Christ’s tunic (uestis integritate, CA s. 15; PLS 2, col. 1142, l. 55), which the Roman soldiers did not tear apart when they cast lots for his clothes. This theme also occurs in Augustine’s works.63 In the entire collection, this is the longest reference to religious controversy. CA s. 15 seems to refer to the Vandal occupation of North Africa, as several researchers have pointed out:64 Multi fidelium in captiuitatem deueniunt: multi haereticos dominos sustinere coguntur. Sed si non coguntur ad sacrificia, quid refert, si coguntur ad sacrilegia? Sit ergo fidelibus etiam in captiuitate corporis, fidei libera priuata confessio. Haec singulis, et quod peius est, frequens ac familiaris est captiuitatis persecutio. (CA s. 15; PLS 2, col. 1142–1143, l. 55–6)

According to Leroy, the words haereticos dominos refer to the Arian Vandals. Leroy further observed that this passage describes the Vandal invasion and the oppression of the African people in the present tense (deueniunt, coguntur), indicating that at the time of CA s. 15’s creation, it was a current event.65 From these elements, he concluded that at least CA s. 15 should be situated around the 430–440s. It is clear that the arguments summarized above are useful to varying degrees. Furthermore, several of the sermons’ features and historical references can be placed within the broader context of the late antique Latin West: the Vandal occupation, for instance, was not limited to Africa alone. Overall, one point is tunic) and the teachings of the heretics (doctrinae scissura, CA s. 15; PLS 2, col. 1142, l. 45) is obvious: Nec simpliciter in passione Domini refertur, tunicam ipsius ab his, qui sibi uestimenta eius diuidebant, non fuisse scissam: ergo nec doctrina apostolica, quae in his apostolorum retibus figuratur; nec uestis dominica, quae ecclesia pura, sancta, catholica, pati umquam potest scissurae ullius foeda dispendia (CA s. 15; PLS 2, col. 1142, l. 38–44). Cf. Augustine, ss. 250–51. 63  E.g. Io. eu. tr. 13 and 118; en. Ps. 21, 2. 64  Cf. G. Morin, Sancti Augustini sermones post Maurinos reperti [n. 27], pp. 756–57. 65  F. J. Leroy, “Compléments et retouches” [n. 5], p. 427; “Chapitre premier” [n. 53], p. 7.

110

shari boodts – nicolas de maeyer

crucial: the various arguments concerning the location and dating of the Armamentarii sermons formulated above only refer to isolated sermons. Bouhot, Tshiji, and Leroy, however, considered the sermons to form a unified collection. As a consequence, arguments to locate or date one of the sermons were easily imposed on the collection as a whole. As will be argued further on, however, the assumption that the Armamentarii sermons constitute a unified collection, is problematic. Therefore, evidence advanced for a single sermon cannot prompt general remarks on the collection as a whole. This does not exclude the possibility or probability that some (or even all) of the Armamentarii sermons stem from a late antique African background, but it impedes us to view all fifteen sermons, without further question, in light of this setting. d. The question of the author(s) The most discussed aspect of the Armamentarii sermons is the question of their authorship. This is, in fact, a twofold question: first, should we suppose one or more author(s), and, second, is it possible to identify this author or these authors? The Ballerini brothers, Mai, Morin, Saxer, and Olivar each attributed individual sermons to one or more different authors. Bouhot, Leroy, and Tshiji, on the other hand, analyzed the corpus in its totality, and used arguments from one sermon to determine the author/authors of other homilies in the collection. Paris, BArs. 175 ascribes all of the Armamentarii sermons to a certain “holy bishop John”,66 who has been often identified as John Chrysostom, but there is sufficient proof that he cannot be the author of the entire corpus. Although some of the homilies contain adaptations of Latin Chrysostom-translations preserved in the Wilmart collection, other Armamentarii sermons allude to Vergil, and possibly to Seneca and Ovid,67 or contain phrases 66  Paris, BArs. 175, fol. 95v: Incipiunt sermones sancti Iohannis episcopi. J.-P. Bouhot, “Version inédite” [n. 2], pp. 30–31; G. Bady, “Les traductions latines anciennes” [n. 6], p. 307. According to Saxer, the attribution of CA s.  12 to Augustine is older than the attribution to Chrysostom (“Un sermon médiéval” [n. 31], pp. 23–24). 67  Mai, Morin, and Leroy remarked upon several Vergilian reminiscences in CA s. 9, and Leroy pointed to possible allusions to Seneca and Ovid in CA s.  3. Cf. A. Mai, Nouae patrum bibliothecae tomus primus [n. 26], p. 78,

the

collectio a rma menta rii

111

that imitate classical Latin hexameters,68 thus proving that they are original Latin compositions.69 Furthermore, as noted above, some Armamentarii sermons might refer to liturgical readings or religious and political controversies typical of the Latin West. Bouhot suggested that the material present in the Wilmart collection influenced other preachers’ homiletic works (cf. supra).70 As these original Latin sermons resembled the Wilmart sermons that were their inspiration, they could easily have been added as an appendix to their models and thus transmitted under the same name, that of Chrysostom.71 Bouhot based this hypothesis on the fact that the Wilmart and Armamentarii collections are transmitted together in Paris, BArs. 175.72 Therefore, it seems probable that the attribution of our texts to Chrysostom can be explained as a consequence of their transmission together with the Wilmart collection (as is the case in Paris, BArs. 175).73 As with Chrysostom, the attribution to Augustine is largely founded in the manuscript tradition. This attribution is generally rejected, however, in secondary literature.74 n. 1; G. Morin, Sancti Augustini sermones post Maurinos reperti [n. 27], p. 756; F. J. Leroy, “Chapitre premier” [n. 53], pp. 9, 49. 68  G. Morin, Sancti Augustini sermones post Maurinos reperti [n. 27], p. 756. 69  Based on liturgical, scriptural, lexicological, and stylistic arguments, Saxer located CA s. 12 in an occidental Latin context. The Ballerini brothers, using similar arguments, posited the same conclusion for CA s. 13, stating: Auctor certe Latinus est, et alicuius quidem occidentalis ecclesiae episcopus (PL 54, col. 495–96) (cf. supra). 70  J.-P. Bouhot, “Adaptations latines” [n. 9], pp. 223–25; “Les traductions latines” [n. 6], p. 33; “La collection homilétique” [n. 7], p. 145. 71  J.-P. Bouhot, “Version inédite” [n. 2], p. 30; “La collection homilétique” [n. 7], p. 145. 72  J.-P.  Bouhot, “Version inédite” [n. 2], p. 30; “La collection homilétique” [n. 7], p. 145. 73  Cf. F. J. Leroy, “Compléments et retouches” [n. 5], p. 427. 74  Morin explicitly rejected Augustine as the author of CA ss. 2, 3, 5, 6, 15. Tshiji rejected Augustine as the author of the entire corpus, based on incongruencies between our sermons and the liturgy at Hippo, for example the fact that Augustine read Ioh. 1 on Easter Day, whereas, according to Tshiji, the Armamentarii sermons read especially Ioh. 20 on that day (A. Tshiji, XV Sermons [n. 3], pp. 35–36; S. Poque, “Les lectures liturgiques de l’octave pascale à Hippone d’après les traités de S. Augustin sur la première Épître de S. Jean”, Revue Bénédictine, 74 (1964), pp. 217–41 (esp. pp. 218, 222, 239);

112

shari boodts – nicolas de maeyer

As mentioned earlier, CA s. 13 was published twice in the eighteenth century under the authorship of Leo Magnus, but both Trombelli and the Ballerini brothers considered this attribution wrong. They attributed the sermon instead to an author living in fourth/fifth-century Africa or Italy.75 Olivar attributed CA ss. 5 and 6 to Peter Chrysologus († 450), the famous Ravennese bishop known for his eloquence. Olivar based this hypothesis principally on stylistic and lexicological arguments,76 drawing attention to several syntactic constructions, phrases, rhetorical figures, and word combinations which, in his opinion, clearly bear the mark of Chrysologus’ style.77 Furthermore, Olivar remarked that, just as in Chrysologus’ works, there is an abundant use of maxims and sententiae in CA ss. 5–6.78 Olivar’s attribution was contested by Bouhot.79 Nevertheless, his hypothesis is interesting, as it highlights the fact that CA ss. 5–6

M.  Margoni-Kögler, Die Perikopen im Gottesdienst [n. 37], p. 116). This argument, however, is only applicable to some of the Armamentarii sermons (CA ss. 8,  12). Moreover, as already mentioned above, the Ballerini brothers even ascribed CA s. 13 to a North-African preacher based on the fact that its reading is Ioh. 1, which corresponds to the liturgical practice in Hippo, as evidenced from Augustine’s sermons. Tshiji further observed that no reference is made to Acts in the collection, whereas in Hippo this text was read from Easter onwards (A. Tshiji, XV Sermons [n.  3], p.  36, n.  39; M.  Margoni-Kögler, Die Perikopen im Gottesdienst [n. 37], pp. 114–15). The same argument was already made by Saxer for CA s. 12 (“Un sermon médiéval” [n. 31], pp. 28–29). 75  For their arguments to question the Leonine attribution and propose a late antique African or Italian preacher, see G. C. Trombelli, Cypriani, Hilarii [n. 22], p. 328 [= 238]; PL 54, col. 495–96 (Ballerini). 76  A.  Olivar, “Der hl. Petrus Chrysologus” [n. 28], pp. 115–20; Los sermones [n. 28], pp. 359–64. 77  Expressions or word combinations frequently used by Chrysologus that equally appear in CA ss. 5–6, are, according to Olivar, e.g. hinc est quod, sed dicit aliquis, orate fratres, uirgineus partus, dominica natiuitas. Olivar further points to the fact that our sermons use the term auctor to refer to God, a use also attested in Chrysologus’ works. The phrase hodie differamus, used by the preacher of CA ss. 5–6 to postpone the treatment of a specific subject to a later moment, also regularly occurs in Chrysologus’ homilies. 78  A.  Olivar, “Der hl. Petrus Chrysologus” [n. 28], p. 118; Los sermones [n. 28], p. 361. 79  J.-P. Bouhot, “Version inédite” [n. 2], p. 30, n. 15.

the

collectio a rma menta rii

113

were most likely written by the same author, a point which will be discussed further on. Saxer attributed CA s. 12 to Optatus of Milevis (fourth century). He developed an elaborate argumentation to corroborate his hypothesis, referring to different types of similarities between CA s.  12 and Optatus’ habitual style and thematic focuses.80 First of all, Saxer noticed similar wording between CA s. 12 and a passage in Optatus’ De schismate donatistarum in a description of chrismation after baptism (though Saxer himself admitted that this is not sufficient proof):81 ut chrismate perfunderet capita renatorum (CA s. 12; PLS 4, col. 665, l. 30–31)

spiritale oleum […] insedit capiti eius, et perfundit oleo (Opt., De schismate donatistarum 4, 7; PL 11, col. 1040, l. 11–13) 82

Second, Saxer pointed to the already mentioned phrase nostra mater catholica ecclesia in CA s. 12 (PLS 4, col. 667, l. 6), which is used by Optatus in several forms (mater catholica, ecclesia catholica, ecclesia sancta catholica, sancta mater ecclesia, una mater ecclesia),83 and is considered by Saxer as a typical feature of Optatus’ work. The expression occurs, however, also under different forms in the work of other African preachers, such as Cyprian, Quoduultdeus, and Augustine, and is certainly not enough to attribute the sermon to Optatus. CA s. 12 evokes the image of Mary Magdalene looking after Christ in the garden. Both Mary and the garden, Saxer stated, represent the Church, with Christ as, respectively, the groom and gardiner. The use of the image of the garden and Mary to symbolize the one, true Church is, according to Saxer, typical of Optatus.84 Finally, Saxer pointed to the agricultural terms scrobs and plantaria, which Optatus and the preacher of

V. Saxer, “Un sermon médiéval” [n. 31], pp. 30–37. V. Saxer, “Un sermon médiéval” [n. 31], p. 31. 82  Saxer quotes the text via PL 11. In the Sources Chrétiennes edition, the passage reads as follows: Spiritale oleum statim in imagine columbae descendit et insedit capiti eius et perfudit eum (Optat de Milève. Traité contre les donatistes, v. 2: Livres III à VII, ed. by M.  Labrousse, Paris, 1996 (SC, 413), p. 102, l. 33–34). 83  V. Saxer, “Un sermon médiéval” [n. 31], p. 31, n. 1. 84  V. Saxer, “Un sermon médiéval” [n. 31], p. 32. 80  81 

114

shari boodts – nicolas de maeyer

CA s. 12 use specifically in the context of baptism.85 In the end, Saxer’s arguments were judged unconvincing by, among others, Bouhot, Leroy, and Francesco Scorza Barcellona.86 Tshiji supposed the collection to be a composition of sermons from four different African authors, one of whom might have been Quoduultdeus (cf. infra).87 Based on stylistic, lexicological, content-related, scriptural, and liturgical arguments, he established the following fourfold division: –  First group: CA ss. 5–6 –  Second group: CA ss. 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12 –  Third group: CA ss. 2, 7, 8 –  Fourth group: CA ss. 13, 14, 15 The first group (CA ss. 5–6) can be delineated with confidence. Both Morin and Olivar noticed that CA s. 6 is a continuation of CA s. 5.88 At the end of CA s. 5, the preacher announces that his treatment of the question why Christ chose to die for mankind, will be postponed to a later time. At the beginning of CA s. 6, the preacher repeats this question, stating that he will discuss this theme in the present sermon. Furthermore, in both texts, the preacher incor-

V. Saxer, “Un sermon médiéval” [n. 31], pp. 32–33. J.-P.  Bouhot, “Version inédite” [n. 2], p. 30, n. 15; F. J. Leroy, “Chapitre premier” [n. 53], p. 46 (“Saxer formulait, de manière dubitative, il est vrai, l’hypothèse Optat de Milève comme auteur du s.  XII”); F.  Scorza Barcellona, “Optat”, in Dictionnaire encyclopédique du christianisme ancien (French adaptation of the Dizionario patristico e di antichità cristiane, Genova, 1983), ed. by A. di Berardino, F.  Vial, v. 2, Paris, 1990, pp. 1808–1810 (esp. p.  1809). Cf.  J. Machielsen, Clavis patristica pseudepigraphorum medii aevi, t. 1A, Turnhout, 1990, p. 391; R. Gryson, Répertoire général [n. 5], p. 674; A. Tshiji, XV Sermons [n. 3], p. 74. Saxer himself too formulated some reservations concerning his hypothetical attribution to Optatus at the end of his argumentation (“Un sermon médiéval” [n. 31], pp. 36–37). 87  A. Tshiji, XV Sermons [n. 3], pp. 75–85. 88  G. Morin, Sancti Augustini sermones post Maurinos reperti [n. 27], p. 759; A. Olivar, “Der hl. Petrus Chrysologus [n. 28]”, p. 114; Los sermones [n. 28], pp.  357–58. Olivar also stated that all manuscript witnesses transmit these two sermons together, and always in the same order (“Der hl. Petrus Chrysologus” [n. 28], p. 114; Los sermones [n. 28], p. 358). 85 

86 

the

collectio a rma menta rii

115

porates a digression, after which he explicitly states that he will return to his central point;89 both contain an allegory of Christ as a glorious king in battle,90 and both have similar endings.91 CA ss. 1, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, 12 constitute a second group. Thsiji pointed to the abundant use of the interjection ecce in these sermons, as opposed to the rest of the collection, where this word only rarely occurs. He further observed that CA ss. 3, 4, and 9 consider the Jews’ responsibility in Christ’s crucifixion by apostrophizing Judea in similar terms, and that all three offer a description of hell and the universal chaos following Christ’s death. It should be noted, however, that these stylistic “tics” and thematic links are by no means exclusive to our sermons. CA ss. 2, 7, 8 can – according to Tshiji – be distinguished on the basis of a similar theme: repentance, exemplified by Peter (CA s.  2), the good thief (CA s. 7), and Thomas (CA s. 8) (cf. supra). All three sermons conclude with similar wording, emphasizing the necessity of repentance in the personal life. These three are also the only ones to address the audience as fratres carissimi.92 CA ss. 13, 14, 15 constitute Tshiji’s final group. These three sermons have in common the formula dilectissimi to address the audience, which is used nowhere else in the collection. CA ss. 13, 14, 15 exhort the neophytes to faithfully preserve the pure state of heart they received at baptism and to stay loyal to the Catholic Church. Tshiji proposes as a possible author for this group the fifth-century Carthaginian bishop Quoduultdeus. He points to a parallel in CA s. 15 and Quoduultdeus’ sermon De tempore barbarico 1, 8, 7, where Christ’s tunic is compared with the unity of the Church.93 Both 89  Sed ad coepta redeamus (CA s. 5; PLS 4, col. 660, l. 5); sed iam quae promissa sunt, inchoemus (CA s. 6; PLS 4, col. 663, l. 12). 90  CA s. 5; PLS 4, col. 660, l. 45–51; CA s. 6; PLS 4, col. 663, l. 21–33. 91  CA s. 5; PLS 4, col. 661, l. 44–46; CA s. 6; PLS 4, col. 665, l. 6–10. 92  A. Tshiji, XV Sermons [n. 3], p. 81. 93  Nec simpliciter in passione Domini refertur, tunicam ipsius ab his, qui sibi uestimenta eius diuidebant, non fuisse scissam: ergo nec doctrina apostolica, quae in his apostolorum retibus figuratur; nec uestis dominica, quae ecclesia pura, sancta, catholica, pati umquam potest scissurae ullius foeda dispendia. Vbicumque igitur aliqua doctrinae scissura conspicitur, ibi non potest dominica uestis, nec magnorum, ut ait, piscium captura cognosci. Cauete itaque, dilectissimi, scissa illa ab integritate catholicae fidei haereticorum dogmata (CA s. 15; PLS 2, col. 1142, l. 38–50); Cauete, dilectissimi, arrianam pestem; non uos separent

116

shari boodts – nicolas de maeyer

passages also use the expression cauete dilectissimi. Tshiji remarks that the formula dilectissimi, which appears repeatedly in CA ss. 13–15, is a typical feature of Quoduultdeus’ works in general. Furthermore, he draws attention to a link between the phrase ecclesia pura, sancta, catholica in CA s. 15 (PLS 2, col. 1142, l. 43) and una et uera sancta, quam uoluisti matrem ecclesiam catholicam in Quoduultdeus’ sermon De accedentibus ad gratiam 1, 8, 13 (CCSL 60, p. 447, l. 31–32). All these arguments can, however, easily be dismissed. The comparison of Christ’s tunic with the unity of the Church is not unique to Quoduultdeus’s works, but is also present in, for instance, Augustine’s Io. eu. tr. 13 and 118, and en. Ps. 21, 2 (cf. supra). The term dilectissimi indeed abundantly occurs in Quoduultdeus’ oeuvre, but is not a distinctive feature of his preaching, as it is also frequently used by, among others, Augustine, Fulgentius of Ruspe, Leo Magnus, and the author(s) of the sermons in the Eusebius Gallicanus collection. Using the LLT-A database, we found the expression cauete dilectissimi on three occasions: two passages in Quoduultdeus’ works (the passage referred to by Tshiji and De ultima quarta feria 7, 1; CCSL 60, p. 405, l. 1), and one in Augustine (s.  215, 8).94 In all three passages, the formula is used in a context where the author warns of the dangers of heresy. Although Tshiji remarked upon parallel expressions to refer to the Catholic Church in CA s. 15 and Quoduultdeus’ works, a similar parallel can be drawn between CA s. 15 and Augustine’s s.  215, 9, where the Church Father speaks of unam, ueram et sanctam ecclesiam catholicam.95 Moreover, as stated above, reference to catholica was even used by Saxer to attribute CA s. 12 to Optatus. This argument too can therefore be dismissed out of hand. In the end, Quoduultdeus is only one possible hypothesis for a Christo terrena promittendo, propter tunicam non uos exspolient fide. Membra Christi, seruate unitatem atque integritatem unius tunicae, quam nec persecutores Christi ausi sunt scindere (Quodu., De tempore barbarico 1, 8, 7; CCSL 60, p. 436, l. 20–24). 94  P.-P.  Verbraken, “Les sermons CCXV et LVI de saint Augustin De symbolo et De oratione dominica”, Revue Bénédictine, 68 (1958), pp. 21–40 (p. 25, l. 157). 95  P.-P.  Verbraken, “Les sermons CCXV et LVI” [n. 94], p. 25, l. 171. Similar expressions abundantly occur in the works of, among others, Augustine, Fulgentius of Ruspe, and Optatus of Milevis (cf. supra).

the

collectio a rma menta rii

117

the authorship of CA ss. 13–15 (assuming that these three sermons are the work of one and the same author). The stylistic “tics” Tshiji described as distinctive features – the frequent use of the word ecce or specific formulas to address the audience, such as dilectissimi or fratres carissimi – are, of course, not restricted to a single author and can be included or omitted by authors relatively arbitrarily.96 Tshiji pointed to the similarity between CA s. 9’s sufficiant exactae poenae (PLS 2, col. 1139, l. 22) and CA s. 10’s sufficiant caritati uestrae (PLS 2, col. 1139, l. 52), but did not note that the latter phrase occurs exactly in Augustine, s.  260E, 2 and en. Ps. 98,  15. Many of the themes developed in our sermons, such as the use of the exempla of Peter, Thomas, and the good thief to illustrate the importance of repentance, are common topoi in sermons on the Holy Week. Although Leroy took up most of Tshiji’s conclusions in the introduction to his unfinished critical edition, he took a different route when it came to the question of the collection’s authorship. One of the manuscripts which contains a selection of Armamentarii sermons, Vat. lat. 1270 (s. XI–XII, Roman milieu), attributes CA s. 9 to a certain Seuerianus. According to Leroy, this is probably the fifth-century bishop Severianus of Ceramussa, who was present at the council of Carthage in 411 and was expelled from Africa as a consequence of the Vandal invasion.97 Leroy ultimately points to Severianus of Ceramussa as a possible author for the entire collection.98 Dolbeau, however, rightly observed that Leroy’s argumentation is extremely weak. He pointed to the fact that the name Seuerianus frequently occurs in manuscripts from the homiliary tradition, and could equally refer to Peter Chrysologus or – be it indirectly – to Severianus of Gabala.99 Prior research on AugusThis is evident from a search in Brepols’ online databases. F. J. Leroy, “Compléments et retouches” [n. 5], p. 427. 98  Cf. F. J. Leroy, “Les 22 inédits” [n. 8], p. 149, n. 1; “Compléments et retouches” [n. 5], p. 431. 99  Cf. his contribution in this volume, p. 20, n. 28. Leroy himself also adds a caueat regarding the obscure name Seuerianus by pointing to Olivar’s extensive analysis of the fact that a large amount of sermons of Peter Chrysologus are attributed in the manuscript transmission to a Seuerianus. It is therefore not impossible that the attribution of s.  9 to Seuerianus is a result of this same phenomenon. A. Olivar, Los sermones [n. 28], pp. 105–23. 96  97 

118

shari boodts – nicolas de maeyer

tine’s s. 292 has revealed Vat. lat. 1270 to contain for this sermon a text which appears to be more original than the one found in the De paenitentia, Sessoriana, and Wolfenbüttel collections, which are all highly esteemed collections.100 Due to the quality of the manuscript in which the attribution to Severianus occurs, this can be considered one of the more promising hypotheses so far, though only for CA s. 9 and without any certainty as to whom this Seuerianus equals here. In conclusion, it remains highly difficult to assign one of the Armamentarii sermons to a known late antique preacher. The fact that there is a flurry of hypotheses – some more valid than others – on the question of the authorship reveals the problems one encounters when regarding the Armamentarii sermons as a homogeneous collection. Attempts to claim one author for the entire collection are fruitless. Bouhot and Leroy considered the fifteen sermons in Paris, BArs. 175 as one entity and thus supposed the same origin for all of them: North Africa shortly after the Vandal invasion in the first half of the fifth century. While it remains probable that the location and timeframe are essentially correct, it seems necessary to expand the location and widen the frame significantly, and view the fifteen sermons as diverse materials, possibly a mix of texts traveling in isolation and clusters written by different authors, such as CA ss. 5–6. The fifteen Armamentarii sermons might be thematically linked to each other, and form a coherent unity, but this only reflects the status of the collection as a final product, a compilation of texts on the Holy Week, and does not necessarily say anything about the original composition of the individual sermons, or the organization of the sermons into one collection. 3. Transmission and stemma At the very start of this article, we formulated the hypothesis that the collection of fifteen Armamentarii sermons in Paris, BArs. 100  Cf. Sancti Aurelii Augustini Sermones in epistolas apostolicas, v. 2: Sermones CLVII–CLXXXIII secundum ordinem uulgatum insertis etiam sermonibus post Maurinos repertis, recensuit S. Boodts, cuius seriei undecim sermones ediderunt F. Dolbeau, G. Partoens et al., Turnhout, 2016 (CCSL, 41Bb), passim.

the

collectio a rma menta rii

119

175 is not a relic of the late antique period, but was in fact put together at a later date. We will prove this hypothesis on the basis of the sermons’ transmission and specifically their presence in the Italian homiliary tradition. a. Leroy’s stemmatical analysis Caueat: the critical text of the sermons was submitted by François Leroy to Brepols Publishers and going through a peer-review process when the project was halted, so we can be reasonably certain that as far as Leroy was concerned, the text is finalized. However, as we will see, there is evidence that Leroy changed his mind near the end of his stemmatical research, but did not alter the earlier descriptions of stemmatical relations in light of his new discoveries, so we must take into account the possibility that the material we have, is still a work in progress. For his edition, Leroy used the following manuscripts: J

Città del Vaticano, Vat. Lat., 3828 (s. IXex., France) J transmits the homiliary of cardinal Jouffroy (1412–1473), which contains all fifteen Armamentarii sermons, distributed in the manuscript as follows: CA ss. 1–3: fol. 125v–127v; CA ss. 4–7: fol. 152r–155v; CA ss. 8–9: fol. 157r–158v; CA ss. 10–12: fol. 159r–161r; CA ss. 13–15: fol. 165r–167v. Used by Leroy for the edition of CA ss. 1–15. Bibliography: R.  Grégoire, Homéliaires liturgiques médiévaux. Analyse de manuscrits, Spoleto, 1980 (Biblioteca degli “Studi medievali”, 12), pp. 245–61; see also Gert Partoens’ article in this volume, esp. p. 52, n. 55.

P

Paris, BArs. 175 (s. XII, Fontenay) P mainly consists of homilies and sermons attributed to Chrysostom (some of which are translations of his works). The manuscript transmits the entire Wilmart collection (except for ss. 1–2 and ss. 14–15), as well as the fifteen sermons of the Collectio Armamentarii. P is the only witness to present the Armamentarii sermons as one unit, which is the reason why the collection was named after this witness (fol. 95v–108r). The Armamentarii sermons are introduced under the title Incipiunt sermones sancti Iohannis episcopi (fol. 95v). Used by Leroy for the edition of CA ss. 1–15.

120

shari boodts – nicolas de maeyer

Bibliography: J.-P. Bouhot, “Version inédite” [n. 2], pp. 29–30; W. Wenk, Zur Sammlung [n. 12], pp. 50–51; H. Martin, Catalogue des manuscrits de la bibliothèque de l’Arsenal, v. 1, Paris, 1885, pp. 90–91.

A

Città del Vaticano, Vat. Lat., 3835 (s. VIIIinc., Rome) This manuscript contains the second volume of the homiliary of Agimundus, which contains all fifteen Armamentarii sermons in the following order: CA s. 1: fol. 32v–35v; CA s. 2: fol. 38r–39v; CA ss. 3–7: fol. 51v–63v; CA ss. 11–12: fol. 95r–99r; CA ss. 8–9: fol. 100v–105r; CA s. 10: fol. 105v–106r; CA s. 13: fol. 107r–108v; CA ss. 14–15: fol. 132r–136r. The Armamentarii sermons are all attributed to Augustine in this homiliary. Used by Leroy for the edition of CA ss. 1–15. Bibliograpy: R. Grégoire, Homéliaires liturgiques médiévaux [p. 119], pp. 343–71; see also Gert Partoens’ article in this volume, esp. p. 53, n. 57–59.

M

Montecassino, Bibl. Abb., 12 (s.  XI for its first part) M transmits eight Armamentarii sermons: CA s. 1: pp. 309–10; CA s.  2: pp. 125–26; CA s. 3: pp. 127–29; CA ss. 4–7: pp. 131–39; CA s. 12: pp. 188–89. Used by Leroy for the edition of CA ss. 1–7, 12. Bibliography: Bibliotheca Casinensis seu codicum manuscriptorum qui in tabulario Casinensi asseruantur series, v. 1, Monte Cassino, 1873, pp.  164–78; M.  Inguanez, Codicum Casinensium manuscriptorum catalogus, Montecassino, 1915–1941, pp.  17–22; R.  Étaix, “L’ancienne collection de sermons attribués à saint Augustin ‘De quattuor uirtutibus caritatis’”, Revue Bénédictine, 95 (1985), pp. 44–59 (esp. p. 53); see also Gert Partoens’ article in this volume, esp. p. 54, n. 60.

W

Wien, Österr. Nationalbibl., Lat. 1616 (s. VIII–IX, North Italy) W contains a homiliary that consists mainly of Augustinian as well as pseudo-Augustinian material. W anonymously transmits five Armamentarii sermons: CA s. 11: fol. 99r–101v; a part of CA s.  9: fol. 105r–106v; CA ss. 13–15: fol. 113r–118v. Used by Leroy for the edition of CA ss. [9,101] 11, 13–15.

101  Leroy lists the manuscript in the traditio textus, but has in fact not included it in his apparatus as we know it. This fact is one of the reasons we believe that the dossier as submitted by Leroy to Brepols Publishers was to some extent still a work in progress.

the

collectio a rma menta rii

121

Bibliography: R. Grégoire, Homéliaires liturgiques médiévaux [p. 119], pp. 281–91; see also Gert Partoens’ article in this volume, esp. p. 58, n. 78.

L

Città del Vaticano, Vat. Lat. 1270 (s. XI, Italy) L is a liturgical manuscript which transmits homilies from various authors, including Augustine, Leo Magnus, and the Venerable Bede. L contains four Armamentarii sermons: CA s. 9: fol. 17v–18v; CA s. 11: fol. 4v–5r; CA s. 12: fol. 22rv; CA s. 13: fol. 5rv. Used by Leroy for the edition of CA ss. 9, [11,] 12[, 13].102 Bibliography: H. Ehrensberger, Libri liturgici Bibliothecae Apostolicae Vaticanae manuscripti, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1897, pp. 136–39.

Q

Paris, BArs., 474 (s. XII) This manuscript transmits the Collectio de quattuor uirtutibus caritatis, and contains three Armamentarii sermons: CA s. 1: inc. fol. 191r; CA s. 3: inc. fol. 193r; CA s. 7: inc. fol. 195r (?). Used by Leroy for the edition of CA ss. 1, 3, 7. Bibliography: R. Étaix, “L’ancienne collection” [p. 120]; H. Martin, Catalogue des manuscrits [p. 120], pp. 324–28.

R

Città del Vaticano, Vat. Lat., 4951 (s. XII) R contains the so-called homiliary of Rochester, in which three Armamentarii sermons can be identified: CA s. 13: fol. 135rv; CA s. 14: fol. 140v–141v; CA s. 15: fol. 146v–147v. Used by Leroy only for the edition of CA s. 15. Bibliography: H. Ehrensberger, Libri liturgici [p. 121], p. 150; see also Gert Partoens’ article in this volume, esp. p. 63–64, n. 88–89.

The first three witnesses contain all fifteen sermons – a fact that is not widely known, as generally the homiliary of Jouffroy (J) is mentioned in addition to P as the only other complete source for the collection – the other manuscripts contain a selection. This overview shows a first deficiency of Leroy’s edition: R, the homiliary of Rochester, also contains CA ss. 13 and 14. Leroy appears to have been unaware of this. In the documentation left by Leroy to Brepols Publishers, there is no stemma for these witnesses, but Leroy does arrange them 102 

See the previous note.

122

shari boodts – nicolas de maeyer

into groups in his introduction. He places P together with the homiliary of Jouffroy (J) in a group that would also have contained two lost witnesses attested in the library catalogues of Clairvaux and Pontigny from, respectively, the fifteenth and twelfth century,103 as well as the editio princeps of 1536. The kinship between J and P is based on a list of errors the two have in common, among which are two stronger indicators of kinship, in the form of longer omissions, sauts du même au même (both of which occur in CA s.  12): CA s. 12, PLS 4, col. 665, l. 20/21 ecce lilia noua de fonte plantata, gratia nutrita, et sanguine candidata] ecce lilia noua de fonte plantata J P 42/43 filii tui sicut nouellae oliuarum in circuitu mensae tuae? Qui sunt nouellae oliuarum?] filii tui sicut nouellae oliuarum J P. A second family for Leroy is comprised of the homiliary of Agimundus (A), that of Montecassino (M), and the homiliary of Vienna (W). Common errors of A W listed by Leroy are: CA s. 13, PL 56, col. 1137, l. 5 laetitiam] laetitia 15 domino] dominum 23 nocte] morte CA s. 14, PLS 4, col. 667, l. 46 flagitiosos] flagitiosus col. 668, l. 46 loquentes] loquentis CA s. 15, PLS 2, col. 1141, l. 13 die] diem.

All the variants listed here are insignificant and/or easily made independently, as in the majority of cases there is an external trigger for the error.104 Leroy does offer sufficient material to establish a close kinship between A M.  While not all the variants he lists, can be considered significant, combined with the stronger readings they form a convincing corpus. CA s. 2, PLS 2, col. 1125, l. 21 serui seruum] seruum serum CA s. 3, PLS 2, col. 1127, l. 34 ex te ratio] excaecatio CA s. 5, PLS 4, col. 659, l. 36 uolens] dolens col. 661, l. 25/26 passione] passionem CA s. 6, PLS 4, col. 663, l. 54 dei] deus col. 664, l. 20 diliges] diligis CA s. 12, PLS 4, col. 665, l. 19 turbis] turribus.

Attached to the model of A M is Q, according to Leroy. This manuscript is a witness to a collection of twenty-four texts, titled De Cf. n. 116. The only exception to this is CA s. 13, PL 56, col. 1137, l. 23 nocte] morte but here too the two variants are so similar in writing that copyists could easily have made the same mistake independently. 103 

104 

the

collectio a rma menta rii

123

quattuor uirtutibus caritatis. The collection was perhaps composed in Italy, and is dated to no later than the end of the eighth century.105 In positions 19, 20, and 21 the collection contains CA ss. 1, 3, and 7. Leroy attached Q to a model of A M, but the evidence for this is weak.106 The collection De quattuor uirtutibus caritatis is preserved in a significant number of manuscript witnesses.107 Étaix based a critical edition of one of the items in the collection, a Tractatus de carne superba, on two witnesses, Paris, Bibl. Nat., Lat. 13440 (s. IX, Corbie) and Wolfenbüttel, Herz.-Aug.-Bibl., Helmst. 281 (314) (s. XII, Hildesheim). Both manuscripts contain, according to Étaix, the entire collection (including therefore CA ss. 1, 3, 7), and because Paris, Bibl. Nat., Lat. 13440 is an older witness to the collection than Q, and Wolfenbüttel, Herz.-Aug.Bibl., Helmst. 281 (314) shows traces of the primitive order of the collection (a statement offered by Étaix without further evidence and thus to be treated with caution), at least these two manuscripts should be consulted for the edition of CA ss. 1, 3, 7 in addition to Q. Leroy places the homiliary of Rochester (R) close to W.  It appears that R was a late addition to Leroy’s investigation, as at this point in his introduction he alters his earlier statements regarding A W M and now favours W R as a separate third branch of the tradition. Evidence for this connection he finds in a (correct!) phrase the two have in common, and which is lost from the rest of the transmission: CA s. 15, PLS 2, col. 1141, l. 7 intus] thomas cum eis add. W R. The quality of R is illustrated by a substantial omission in the entire tradition, which is preserved solely in R: col. 1141, l. 30/32 sicut clausis et incorruptis uirginis matris eductum est uisceribus genitalibusque credimus R, om. alii. This phrase is preserved in the edition of CA s. 15 in PLS 2 (s. Mai 42) with a few minor variations.

105  R.  Étaix, “L’ancienne collection” [p. 120] (list of witnesses to the collection on pp. 47–50). 106  Some of the stronger readings exclusively by A M Q: CA s. 3, PLS 2, col. 1126, l. 50 non perficias] perficis CA s. 7, PLS 2, col. 1131, l. 38 ualuit] potuit. 107  R. Étaix, “L’ancienne collection” [p. 120], p. 47-50.

124

shari boodts – nicolas de maeyer

The final manuscript that is part of Leroy’s analysis is Città del Vaticano, Vat. Lat. 1270 (L). Leroy had only indirect access to this manuscript and tentatively attaches it to A M (W) Q. Leroy concludes – correctly – that the superiority ascribed to P in the past cannot be upheld based on this stemmatical organization. The principle governing his edition is that the agreement of the eldest witnesses of the two families, J and A (or W if that one is available), guarantees the accuracy of the text. Where there is no agreement and no other criteria available to determine which is the original reading, Leroy gives preference most often to the reading of J P, in order to – in his own words – “garder une certaine plus-value au seul témoin non liturgique.”108 b. Evaluation and stemma There are several problems with the editorial principles, and by consequence, with the critical text of the Armamentarii sermons as bequeathed by Leroy. We find several instances of a fundamental error: claiming kinship of witnesses based on original elements they have in common, such as using the undoubtedly original phrase Thomas cum eis to place W R together. While Leroy has correctly taken up the original fragment found in R and lost in the rest of the transmission, he explained it by introducing R as a third branch in the stemma, even though there is no pressing reason to suppose that the omission would have happened independently in two other branches. And despite his correct understanding of P’s humble position in the stemma, Leroy still gives the manuscript precedence when the branches of his stemma disagree. Although these deficiencies clutter the overall image, all the material necessary to construct a stemma is offered. The evidence at our disposal in terms of variant readings in the CA sermons is not overwhelmingly abundant, but corroborating proof is available through the conclusions reached by Gert Partoens in his contribution in this volume. He reached essentially the same stemmatical organization of the Italian homiliary tradition – in his case in relation to the Collectio Colbertina – using evidence based on the composition of the collections involved.109 We can position the manuscripts discussed by Leroy in the following stemma: 108  109 

F. J. Leroy, “Chapitre premier” [n. 53], p. 26. Cf. Gert Partoens’ contribution in this volume, p. 37-94.

the

collectio a rma menta rii

125

                            α                    (β)                               γ        ε         δ

         R                           (W)                             A (Q) M                           (W)          P                             J          L?

There are a few connections in Leroy’s stemma that we can confirm. He convincingly posited a hyparchetype for P and J based on two omissions the two have exclusively in common, and also offered sufficient common errors to assume a common model for A M.  Though we cannot position it exactly, Q indeed appears to be related to this subgroup. The original sentence found in R means that the witness is independent from the rest of the witnesses in our stemma. The position of W remains uncertain. Although it has also preserved an original element lost to all other manuscripts apart from R, the original fragment is part of a Bible quotation and thus is less trustworthy as evidence.110 There are, therefore, two options: either W is superior to γ and attaches to the second branch above γ, or, alternatively, it derives from γ. In this second case, it can either form a separate third twig going back to γ directly, or it can attach to one of the other two twigs.111 We

110  In CA ss. 13–15 only the following possibly correct readings are exclusive to W R and could thus point toward W transcending γ: CA s. 13, PL 56, col. 1137, l. 36 quadragesimam J P A] quadragesima W R 37 quia W R] qua J P A CA s.  14, PLS 4, col. 668, l. 5/6 colere dei J P A] dei colere W R.  The large amount of individual variants in W, several of which point to intentional manipulation of the text, complicate its stemmatical position. 111  Given the conclusions reached in the study of Gert Partoens in this volume (p. 37-94) regarding the superiority of W’s text, the first option seems the most likely, but as our sermons do not offer conclusive evidence, we prefer to present both options as viable alternatives for now.

126

shari boodts – nicolas de maeyer

have augmented Leroy’s collations of CA s. 13 with R and L in an attempt to position L, but apart from the fact that it probably transcends the common model of J P,112 no definitive position has emerged. This means we also do not yet have corroboration from within our own corpus of texts regarding how valuable the Severianus attribution in L really is from a stemmatical point of view. The editorial principles outlined by Leroy still apply to a large extent. The text of CA ss. 1–8, 10, 12 must be based on a comparison of A (M) and J P.  Any reading shared by either J A (M) or P A (M) is guaranteed to have been present in γ, which is the highest point we are able to reach for these sermons.113 For CA ss. 9, 11 any agreement between W and either A or J P confidently reconstructs β or γ. For CA ss. 13–15, R is available as a witness. Agreement between W R or J P A (M) R reconstructs α. c. The Collectio Armamentarii: a medieval creation In the previous article in this volume, Gert Partoens offered a detailed analysis of the structural similarities in the Easter sections in the same homiliaria which we have arranged in our stemma. His conclusions regarding the relations between the homiliaria are corroborated by our stemmatical analysis of the witnesses to the Armamentarii sermons as presented above. The combination of these lines of inquiry has some important repercussions for the Collectio Armamentarii’s position within the general transmission of its contents: given the number of hyparchetypes we must posit between P and the archetype α – each of which transmits the sermons integrated in a larger context which shows undisputable similarities114 and must therefore perforce be based on a common corpus larger than the CA sermons – it is impossible that

112  CA s. 13, PL 56, col. 1137, l. 14 quia A W L] om. J P 15 inferorum J P L] infernorum A W 23 nocte J P L] morte A W 31 sacrae A W L] sanctae J P, sacram R 34 quia W L R] qua A J P 50 eis inquit] inquit A J P, inquit eis W L R. 113  This hyparchetype could potentially be transcended through the incorporation of the testimony of other witnesses for individual sermons, should these be available (cf. infra). 114  For a comprehensive overview of these structural similarities, see the study of Gert Partoens in this volume (p. 37-94).

the

collectio a rma menta rii

127

the Armamentarii sermons traveled down from Late Antiquity as a well-defined body of texts, as a collection. Like the Collectio Colbertina,115 the fifteen sermons were part of a larger compendium of texts at least the size of the common elements of J A W R, and were distilled from the whole no earlier than at the hyparchetype δ. Effectively, the stemma as it stands now eliminates the possibility of a late antique Collectio Armamentarii, in favor of a medieval construction. This medieval collection of fifteen sermons may have been assembled in a Cistercian milieu, given P’s provenance in Fontenay and the possible existence of two similar manuscripts in Pontigny and Clairvaux.116 We cannot be certain about what exactly motivated the compiler to extract precisely these fifteen texts from a larger compendium. Only two facts show a hint of his motivation: (1) all the texts have a connection to the Feast of Easter; (2) the compiler attributed them all to a single author. It is not illogical to presume that the compiler wanted to add another collection of sermons he believed to be by Chrysostom to a manuscript, P or one of its direct ancestors, which already contained material by this same author. Though our thoughts on the Cf. Gert Partoens’ article in this volume, p. 37-94. F. J. Leroy, “Chapitre premier” [n. 53], p. 18 offers the following description of these two lost witnesses: “Deux témoins complets aujourd’hui disparus, sont très vraisemblablement attestés dans les abbayes de Clairvaux et de Pontigny. […] or, une particularité du catalogue de Pontigny au XIIe s. (note: Catalogue Général des mss des bibl. publiques des départements, S. 4°, t. 1, Paris 1849, pp. 697–717) fait penser que cette maison disposait d’un codex exactement parallèle à celui de Fontenay, l’actuel Arsenal 175: sa notice parle en effet de 15 sermons pour la Semaine Sainte et Pâques. De plus, une description du catalogue de Clairvaux de 1472 (note: Notice F 32 du catalogue de 1472: “ung autre beau volume contenant les sermons Saint Jehan Crisostome, son Epistre ad Olimpiam, les sermons Petri Ravennatis de cena domini et de die paschae [...]” dans La Bibliothèque de l’abbaye de Clairvaux du XIIe au XVIIIe siècle, t. 1, Catalogues et Répertoires publiés par A. Vernet et J.-F. Genest, Paris 1979, pp. 65–345, et 125) incline à penser que cette abbaye, du moins au XVe siècle, possédait un autre exemplaire du Chrysostome latin proche des deux précédents: en effet, le seul autre témoin actuellement connu de la version de l’Espistre ad Olimpiam est notre Arsenal 175. Toutefois, difficulté mineure contre l’identification, pour ce manuscrit, le rédacteur de la notice a pensé que les sermones de cena domini et de die Paschae ne pouvaient être de Chrysostome et les a mis sous le nom de Petri Ravennatis (Pierre Chrysologue).” 115  116 

128

shari boodts – nicolas de maeyer

compiler’s general intention remain speculative, in some cases, his choices are obvious. In both Agimundus’ and Jouffroy’s homiliary CA ss. 9 and 10 are separated by Augustine’s s.  226. CA ss. 9 and 10 fit together very well, so much so that it has been suggested that the latter is a summary of the former, so the elimination of s.  226 from in between them is logical. The stemma also implies that the original order in which (clusters of) the fifteen sermons – interspersed and surrounded by other material – occurred in the homiliary tradition was not that of Paris, BArs. 175. Both A and W, which are located above J P (in which the order of the sermons is CA ss. 1–15), present CA ss. 9 and 11 in reverse order: 11, 9. Both texts are sermons on Easter Sunday, so there is no reason why they could not have been organized initially as 11, 9(, 10) instead of 9(, 10), 11, and in fact there is a stemmatical argument in favor of the former as the original organization. This observation is an additional argument against Paris, BArs. 175 transmitting an original late antique collection.117 There are further discrepancies in the order of the texts when comparing A and P,118 but we do not have the corroboration of W in these cases, so we do not want to drift too far into the realm of speculation. The case of the transmission of the Armamentarii sermons also offers a new insight regarding the relations between the Italian homiliaries in which it figures. Bouhot’s study on the sources and composition of the medieval sermon collection, entitled Sancti Catholici Patres119 supposes a common source for the homiliaries of Jouffroy (J) and Agimundus (A).

117  Wenk reached a similar conclusion regarding P: “Bouhots Hypothese, die Anordnung und Zusammenstellung in Arsenal 175 sei älter als die von der Hauptmasse der Hss. gebotene, kann ich nicht teilen; gerade die Hss. des 12. Jh.s zeigen die Tendenz, das Material anders zu organisieren und zu erweitern” (W. Wenk, Zur Sammlung [n. 12], p. 51 with a response in Bouhot, “Adaptations latines” [n. 9], p. 225, n. 44). 118  Cf. the description of manuscript A on p. 120. 119  J.-P. Bouhot, “L’homéliaire des Sancti Catholici Patres. Sources et composition”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 24 (1978), pp. 134–35 (source of the image below). Cf. also the article of Gert Partoens in this volume, p. 44, n. 20.

the

collectio a rma menta rii

129

              Sermonnaire africain (vie s.)   556

Premier Hom. St P. aux L.

                         (Hom. romain                         Sts C. et D.)                                   Second Homél.                                   St. P. aux L.   700         Agimond   800                              Vatic. lat. 3828   900 1000                 Mont-Cassin 12.

Bouhot views the composition of the homiliary of Jouffory as more original compared to that of Agimundus. One of the arguments he proposes for this hierarchy is the fact that Jouffroy (J) preserved the order of the Collectio Armamentarii as it appears in P (which Bouhot considered the original one). Our stemma proposes a different arrangement, where the order of the CA sermons in J is a further derivation of the situation as present in A.  Thus, the order of the CA sermons can no longer be used as an argument in support of Bouhot’s thesis. d. Further witnesses to one or more Armamentarii sermons Albert Tshiji presents in his dissertation a list of twenty witnesses to one or more of the Armamentarii sermons, which he has not used for his edition: Charleville, Bibl. Mun., 258 (s.  XII) [CA ss. 3, 7, fol. 146v–147r]120 Città del Vaticano, Vat. Lat. 6451 (s. XII) [CA s. 9, fol. 6v–7r] Città del Vaticano, Vat. Lat. 13012 (s. XI–XII) [CA s. 8, fol. 90r] Città del Vaticano, Ottobon. Lat. 977 (s.  XVI) [CA s. 14, inc. fol. 260v] Città del Vaticano, S. Maria Magg. 122 (s. XI) [CA s. 8, fol. 149rv] Madrid, Bibl. Nac., 78 (s.  XII) [CA s. 9, fol. 132r–133r] Montecassino, Bibl. Abb., 11 (s.  XI) [CA ss. 11, 10, 15, pp. 220– 21, 221, 224–26] 120 

Witness to De quattuor uirtutibus caritatis.

130

shari boodts – nicolas de maeyer Montecassino, Bibl. Abb., 100 (s.  XI inc.) [CA s. 9, pp. 110–112] Montecassino, Bibl. Abb., 102 (s.  XIinc.) [CA s. 9, pp. 32–33] Montecassino, Bibl. Abb., 104 (s.  XI) [CA s. 9, pp. 46–49] Montecassino, Bibl. Abb., 123 (s. XI–XII) [CA s. 11, 10, pp. 274–75] Montecassino, Bibl. Abb., 305 (s.  XI) [CA s. 8, 9, pp. 16–20] Padova, Bibl. Ant., 72 (s. XIII) [CA s. 8, fol. 305v–306v] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Lat. 1788 (s. XIII) [CA s. 8, 9, fol. 12v–14v] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Lat. 1974 (s. XIV) [CA s. 1, 3, fol. 353r–354r]121 Paris, Bibl. Nat., Lat. 2028 (s. XIII) [CA s. 15, fol. 61r–62r] Roma, Bibl. Vallic., Tomus XXV (s. XI) [CA s. 15, fol. 20r] Roma, Bibl. Vallic., A 3 (s. XI) [CA s. 15, fol. 26v–27v] Roma, Bibl. Vallic., A 9 (s. XI) [CA s. 11, 12, fol. 6v–8r] Rouen, Bibl. Mun., 1382 (U 109) (s.  XI) [CA s. 14, fol. 70r–71r]122 Toledo, Bibl. Cap., 48, 9 (s. XI–XII) [CA s. 15, fol. 16r–17r] Worcester, Cath. Libr., 71–72 (s. XII) [CA ss. 14, 15, fol. 93r]

We have been able to expand this list with a further twenty manuscripts.123 This is just a first step en route to the critical edition of the Armamentarii sermons. Often it is not possible to determine with certainty on the basis of the information in library catalogues whether a text is one of the Armamentarii sermons. This is the case in particular for CA s. 14 of which the incipit coincides with that of Augustine’s s.  224, recensio C (CPPM 1 603), and for CA s. 11 which is very similar to Wilmart s. 7 (CPG 2 4354). If there is reason to doubt the identification, we have put a question mark after the manuscript, but because research on the transmission of the Armamentarii sermons is still in its early stages, we have opted to make this list as extensive as possible, with the explicit caueat that some manuscripts might turn out not to be relevant for this corpus of sermons. Admont, Stiftsbibl., 104 (s. XI–XII) [CA ss. 14, 11, fol. 34r–38v, 96r–100v]?124 Witness to De quattuor uirtutibus caritatis. Possibly fol. 71r–73v. We have not been able to check the foliation ourselves. 123  See also the reference to further witnesses of the collection De quattuor uirtutibus caritatis on p. 123. 124  CA s. 11 has a slightly different incipit. 121 

122 

the

collectio a rma menta rii

131

Città del Vaticano, Vat. Lat. 6452 (s. XII) [CA s. 13]? Einsiedeln, Stiftsbibl., 143 (s. X) [CA s. 14, pp. 254–57]? Erfurt, Wissenschaftl. Allgemeinbibl., Ampl. 4° 146 (12) (s. XIV– XV) [CA s. 11, fol. 159v–163r]? Genova, Bibl. Univ., A.IV.17 (s. XVI) [CA s. 11, fol. 1r]? Heiligenkreuz, Stiftsbibl., cod. 23 (s. XII) [CA s. 11, fol. 122v–123r] London, Brit. Libr., Harley 652 (s. XI–XII) [CA ss. 13, 14, fol. 35v–36r, 40v–41r]?125 München, Bay.  Staatsbibl., Clm 28617 (s.  XV) [CA s. 1, 3, 7, fol. 107r–108v, 108v–110v, 115r–116v] Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Laud. Misc. 350 (s.  XI–XII) [CA s. 1, fol. 75r–83v] Oxford, Bodl. Libr., Merton Coll. 14 (s.  XIV) [CA s. 13, fol. 124v–126v] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Lat. 814 (s. XV) [CA s. 13, fol. 26r–27r] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Lat. 2045 (s. XIV) [CA s. 1, inc. fol. 84v] Paris, Bibl. Nat., Lat. 3548 (1529–1532) [CA s. 11, inc. fol. 24v]? Paris, Bibl. Nat., Lat. 3783 (s. XI) [CA s. 9, fol. 196rv]?126 Paris, Bibl. Nat., Lat. 3806 (s. XII) [CA s. 14, fol. 25v]? Paris, Bibl. Nat., Lat. 3835 (s. XI) [CA s. 1, fol. 32v] Roma, Bibl. Vallic., Tomus XXVI (s. XIex.) [CA s. 5, fol. 98rv]? Rouen, Bibl. Mun., 1382 (U 109) (s. XI1/2) [CA s. 13, fol. 30v–31r]127 Worcester, Cath. Libr., F. 92 (s. XII1) [CA s. 1, fol. 252r–253v]128 Worcester, Cath. Libr., F. 93 (s. XII1) [CA ss. 13, 14, fol. 7v–8r, 85v–86v]

4. Conclusion This article attempted firstly to give a comprehensive overview of the research done on the Armamentarii sermons, their content, structure, date, location, and possible author(s). Though the scien125  C.  Lambot, “Le sermon CCXXIV de saint Augustin et ses recensions interpolées”, Revue Bénédictine, 79 (1969), pp. 195–205 (esp. p. 200) uses this manuscript as a witness to Augustine’s s. 224, recensio D (siglum “h3”). 126  Possibly also CA s. 14 on fol. 193r–195v. 127  With a different ending. 128  With a different ending.

132

shari boodts – nicolas de maeyer

tific community largely agrees on the sermons’ late antique African origin, widely different hypotheses have been formulated as to the sermons’ actual context and very little has been accepted universally. A second purpose of this contribution was to evaluate the critical edition and transmission study offered by François Leroy to Brepols Publishers. Bouhot’s image of the Armamentarii sermons as a unified late antique collection, of which Paris, BArs. 175 is the only preserved witness, has dominated the way the group of fifteen sermons has been viewed, ever since he first suggested it. The general conclusion that emerged from our study, is that the Collectio Armamentarii as found in Paris, BArs. 175 is not a late antique collection, but instead a medieval creation. It is a thematically homogeneous group of which several individual items show signs of an African couleur. However, the sermons display a number of heterogeneous characteristics that speak against the claim of a single author. We find these characteristics on the level of language and content. While they do not negate the possibility of this group being a late antique collection, they also offer no arguments in favour of it. The definitive argument against the Collectio Armamentarii being a compilation formed already in Antiquity is stemmatical. Our study of the Armamentarii sermons’ transmission has shown that the fifteen sermons traveled as part of a larger whole in an Italian homiliary tradition that goes back to the seventh or eighth century at the latest (i. e. since all fifteen were already present in the youngest common source of the homiliaries of Agimundus and Jouffroy), until the moment they were gathered together and selected from the items that surrounded and interspersed them – which happened no earlier than in a derivation of the common ancestor of the homiliary of Jouffroy and Paris, BArs. 175. Beyond this innovative conclusion, which obviously has serious repercussions for the edition of the texts, many interesting questions remain, which we could not treat in-depth in this introductory article. We would like to list just a few as suggestions for further research: is it significant that in all but our three complete witnesses, J P A, whenever a combination of sermons is transmitted, it is almost always restricted to a selection of either 1–7 or 8–15, but never crosses the line between these two groups? Can we

the

collectio a rma menta rii

133

divine more about the compiler’s motivation to select these fifteen while eliminating the texts that occur in between or surrounding them in J (as it is this compilation which could reasonably have been expected to also have been present in the common ancestor of J P)? Was the Collectio Armamentarii formed specifically to be transmitted as a complement to the Wilmart collection? Is there some truth to Bouhot’s idea that the Wilmart collection forms the center around which all other Chrysostomus Latinus corpora revolve? Can we better define the influence from Wilmart homilies on Armamentarii sermons? We have been able to cluster a few Armamentarii sermons and indicate a few links with other Chrysostomus Latinus texts, but like the Collectio Armamentarii, this name is in essence an arbitrary title. Further links between our texts and others must exist. As illustrated by the tenor of some of the questions listed in the previous paragraph, the Armamentarii sermons’ network holds possibilities both for new results as regards their transmission and as regards their context. We have offered already a few additional witnesses, not taken into account by Leroy for his critical edition. These provide some further – as of yet very incomplete – insights into the networks of texts inside which the sermons functioned. A second track to follow in this context is to look at what we might call the sermons’ reception network, their connections with other texts, whether they functioned as the source or the destination. To offer a first example, the incipit of CA s.  14 is also the incipit of Augustine’s s.  224 (in its recension C), not in the entire transmission, but in a particular branch of the transmission, that which consists of Caesarius of Arles’ Collectio Germanica. This means that CA s. 14 must have in some way been present in the South of France in the first half of the sixth century. A particular avenue to explore in this context are the connections with the Wilmart collection of thirty-eight Chrysostomus Latinus sermons. There is one final important question we want to address. If our theory on the collection’s genesis is accepted, is it even worth editing the Collectio Armamentarii in its current state, as it is not a relic of the patristic period, but a medieval creation? There are several arguments to offer toward an affirmative answer, such as the fact that the work of Leroy and Tshiji should not go to waste, but we want to emphasize especially a methodological argument.

134

shari boodts – nicolas de maeyer

It is important for our understanding of the medieval transmission of patristic sermons (and other texts) that modern researchers look at them as they were received/presented in the Middle Ages. We are guided by the work of early modern editors and scholars, the Maurists and their imposed system for the edition of the sermons of Augustine first among them, but much can be gleaned from looking beyond this system to the sermons in the context of the bodies in which they were transmitted.129 While the Collectio Armamentarii is perhaps not a priority, it forms a useful starting point to help develop a feasible and efficient way of presenting medieval collections to a modern readership, or a way of grasping and retracing the homiliary traditions, its links and interdependences, which is in fact a quintessential example of the way texts traveled and were used in the Middle Ages.

129  For an excellent recent example of the re-establishment of sermons deemed inauthentic by the Maurists, see Augustinus, Sermones selecti, ed. by C.  Weidmann, Berlin-Boston, 2015 (CSEL, 101).

Zur Grauzone zwischen authentischen und inauthentischen Predigten des Augustinus Clemens Weidmann (Salzburg) Vor drei Jahren beendete ich meinen Beitrag zu Ministerium Sermonis II mit einer Präsentation von Kriterien, die zum Beweis der Authentizität einer Augustinus zugeschriebenen Predigt herangezogen werden können, und äußerte die Hoffnung, dass neue Entdeckungen gemacht und weitere Predigten als echt erwiesen werden können.1 In der Tat gelang es, durch kritische Untersuchung von Sprache und Stil, theologischem Gedankengut, Argumentationsgang und handschriftlicher Überlieferung nicht weniger als zehn Predigten aus der schier unüberblickbaren Masse pseudoaugustinischer oder anonym überlieferter Predigten herauszuheben und sie als echte Predigten des Bischofs von Hippo zu erweisen. Sie sind mittlerweile in Band 101 des CSEL unter dem Titel Augustinus, Sermones selecti ediert.2 Die Grenzlinie zwischen authentisch und nicht authentisch ist oft verschwommen. Bei manchen Texten ist die Echtheitsfrage in 1  C.  Weidmann, „Discovering Augustine’s Words in Pseudo-Augustinian Sermons“, in Tractatio Scripturarum. Philological, Exegetical, Rhetorical and Theological Studies on Augustine’s Sermons, hrsg. von A. Dupont, G. Partoens, M.  Lamberigts, Turnhout, 2012 (Instrumenta Patristica et Mediaevalia, 65; Ministerium sermonis, 2), pp. 41–58 (pp.  57–58 mit Anm. 40 und 41). 2  Augustinus, Sermones selecti, hrsg. von C. Weidmann, Berlin, 2015 (CSEL, 101) (im folgenden zitiert als CSEL 101). – Folgende Errata sind zu korrigieren: S. 20: Lies 370sq. für 366sq. – S. 27: Ergänze ein Fragezeichen am Ende von §6. – S. 40 Z. 3: lies quidem de für qui de (Fußnote 32 auf S. 67 ist zu streichen). – S. 158: lies coaequata für coaequales. – S. 166: 1. Tabelle: Der Text von AU s 316, 5 lautet: orationibus suis commendent nos. – S. 174 und 184–85: Tr überliefert auch l. 9–11 (coepimus-suis).

Praedicatio Patrum. Studies on Preaching in late Antique North Africa, edited by Gert Partoens, Anthony Dupont, Shari Boodts, Turnhout, 2017 (Instrumenta Patristica et Mediaeualia, 75), p. 135-167 ©



10.1484/M.IPM-EB.5.114051

136

clemens weidmann

die eine oder andere Richtung leicht zu lösen, manche Texte befinden sich in einer Grauzone zwischen sicherlich echten und sicherlich unechten Predigten. Im Mittelpunkt dieses Beitrags sollen einige Phänomene und Probleme stehen, die gravierende Auswirkungen auf die Gültigkeit der für die Klärung von Echtheit und Unechtheit angewandten Kriterien und somit auf die Beurteilung der Authentizität von Predigten haben. Wann ist eine Predigt authentisch? wann nicht? Um mit den klarsten Beispielen zu beginnen: Auf der einen Seite sind diejenigen Predigten echt, die in alten Sammlungen überliefert sind, die dieselben Titel tragen wie sie der Indiculus – vorzugsweise noch in derselben Reihenfolge – bietet, die einer konkret zu bestimmenden Phase von Augustins Wirken zugeordnet werden können. Sucht man nach Predigten, die diesem leuchtend weißen Bereich zuzuordnen sind, wären die von Dolbeau in den Sammlungen von Mainz-Lorsch und Mainz-Karthäuser entdeckten Predigten hervorragende Kandidaten. 3 Auf der anderen, dunklen Seite der sicherlich unechten Texte sind beispielsweise die meisten jener Predigten einzuordnen, die durch die Sammlung der Sermones ad fratres in eremo oder durch die Predigtsammlung des fälschlich so genannten Augustinus Belgicus bekannt sind. Die meisten von ihnen wurden mit Absicht unter Augustins Namen als Fälschung in Umlauf gebracht und sollen nach dem Willen ihrer Verfasser die Priorität der Augustinereremiten gegenüber den mit ihnen konkurrierenden Regularkanonikern beweisen. Die Fiktion, Augustinus selbst habe in diesen Predigten an die von ihm gegründeten Eremitenklöster das Wort ergriffen, ist leicht als Fälschung zu entlarven. In Parenthese sei gesagt, dass die übliche Lokalisierung und Datierung des Augustinus Belgicus, dessen Predigten von Caillau aus dem Codex Firenze, Biblioteca Medicea Laurenziana Aedil. 10 ediert wurden4 und in der Library of Latin Texts (LLT)5 in das Belgien des 12. Jahrhunderts datiert werden, einer Revision bedarf. F.  Dolbeau, Augustin d’Hippone. Vingt-six sermons au peuple d’Afrique, Paris, 1996 (Collection des Études Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité, 147). 4  A.  M. Bandinius, Bibliotheca Leopoldina Laurentiana seu catalogus manuscriptorum qui iussu Petri Leopoldi […] edita supplentur et emendantur, Tomus I, Florentiae, 1791, pp. 25–36; A. B. Caillau, B. Saint-Yves, Sancti Aurelii Augustini Hipponensis episcopi operum supplementum, Paris, 1836. 5  Library of Latin texts: LLT-A. Series A, Turnhout, 2005-. 3 

      zur grauzone zwischen (in)authentischen predigten

137

Zwar spricht in einer Predigt der Verfasser von Augustinus als seinem Gewährsmann und bezeichnet sich selbst als Landsmann des Sigebert von Gembloux.6 Aber in vielen anderen Predigten bemüht sich ihr Verfasser, durch zahlreiche biographische Details die Fiktion, er sei der Bischof von Hippo, aufrechtzuerhalten.7 In der Tat erweisen sich viele dieser Predigten als Centones, die aus Texten verschiedener Kirchenväter zusammengesetzt sind. Quelle vieler Predigten ist der Manipulus florum, ein nach thematischen Gesichtspunkten geordnetes Florileg, das zu Beginn des 14. Jahrhunderts von Thomas Hibernicus zusammengestellt wurde.8 Der anonyme Prediger benutzt die im Manipulus Florum unter bestimmten Sachtiteln zusammengetragenen Exzerpte und stellt aus ihnen seine Predigten zusammen. Beispielsweise basiert die Predigt zur Assumptio Mariae (PS-AU s Cai II, app. 71) auf Texten, die der Manipulus florum unter den Rubriken Maria und mulier auflistet. Der fiktive Augustinus verweist darin auf sein angeblich vor kurzem verfasstes Werk De natura et gratia und übt harsche Kritik am schamlosen Treiben eines Ambrosius oder Hieronymus, dies wohl wegen deren regelmäßigen Umgangs mit Frauen.9 Die Versatzstücke stammen nicht nur von Augustinus, sondern auch von seinen Zeitgenossen Ambrosius und Hieronymus, aber auch von viel späteren Autoritäten wie Cassiodor oder sogar Bernhard.10 Es ist offensichtlich, dass diese und viele andere PS-AU s Cai II, app. 31, 5: ut ait Sigibertus compatriota meus. – Ich zitiere patristische Texte nach R. Gryson, Répertoire général des auteurs ecclésiastiques latins de l’Antiquité et du haut moyen âge, 2 vol., Freiburg, 2007. 7  Z.B.: PS-AU s Cai II, app. 27, 5: quod tempore nostro Hipponiae adolescens quidam fecit; PS-AU s Cai II, app. 71, 2: de qua supra diximus in libello quem nuper edidimus de natura et gratia. 8  R.  Rouse, M.  Rouse, Preachers, florilegia and sermons: Studies on the Manipulus Florum of Thomas of Ireland, Toronto, 1979. Zur Analyse der Texte wurde The Electronic Manipulus Florum Project von C. Nighman (http://www. manipulusflorum.com) verwendet (letzter Zugriff 27.6.2017). 9  PS-AU s Cai II, app. 71, 6: episcopus loquor coram deo et noui quia non mentior longas cedros Libani magnos duces gregum famosissimosque omni sanctitate ornatos sub hac peste cecidisse conspexi de quorum casu non magis suspicabar quam de Ambrosii uel Hieronymi impudica turpitudine. 10  PS-AU s Cai II, app. 71. – Unter anderem sind für diese Predigt folgende Exzerpte des Manipulus Florum verwendet: s.v. „Maria“, a, e, g, k, ak, ap; „mulier“, p, f, a, b, c, d, h, o, t. 6 

138

clemens weidmann

Predigten, die vom Manipulus Florum abhängen, vom 12. auf das 14. Jahrhundert umzudatieren sind.11 Predigten wie diese sind selbstverständlich Fälschungen, die mit einer bestimmten Absicht unter Augustins Namen in Umlauf gebracht wurden. In unserer Farbpalette sind sie schwarz wie der Habit der Augustinereremiten. Zwischen diesen zwei Extremen in der Farbpalette befindet sich eine große Menge von mehr oder weniger grauen Predigten. Dazu gehören nicht nur die meisten der von den Maurinern unter die Dubii gereihten Predigten, d.h. Sermones 364–96, über deren Echtheit die Mauriner Zweifel anmeldeten, sondern viele andere Predigten, die unter Augustins Namen außerhalb der alten Predigtsammlungen überliefert sind. Die Autorschaft einiger Sermones dubii ist heute geklärt: Die in Zweifel gezogene Epiphaniepredigt Sermo 374 erweist sich als eine auf ca. ein Sechstel reduzierte Kurzfassung von Sermo Dolbeau 23, aus dem nur die konkret von der Huldigung durch die Magier handelnden Abschnitte verwertet wurden. Sermo 380 gilt spätestens seit seiner Entdeckung in der Sammlung von Mainz-Lorsch als sicherlich echt.12 Sermo 371, der einige wörtliche Übereinstimmungen mit Sermo 380 aufweist und deshalb von den Maurinern gemeinsam mit diesem unter die Dubii gereiht wurde, konnte wegen der Identifikation eines damit über11  Eine detaillierte Quellenanalyse dieser Predigten, die allesamt in der Handschrift Firenze, Bibl. Med.  Laur. Aedil. 10 sowie zum größten Teil in Praha, Knihovna Národního Muzea, Ms.  Dušek 4 überliefert sind, ist ein dringendes Desiderat. – Neben anderen Quellen wie den Predigten des Hildebert oder des Galfredus Babio dürfte der Manipulus florum die wichtigste Quelle sein. Als Beispiele sei auf folgende Predigten hingewiesen: PS-AU s Cai II, app. 80 benutzt Manipulus Florum, s.v. „apostoli“, c, d, b, y, e, i, k, l, m, n, x (die Predigt weist darüber hinaus einige Berührungen mit Ps. Aug. ep. spur. 22 auf); PS-AU s Cai II, app. 81 benutzt u.a. Manipulus florum, s.v. „fraternitas“, a, b, c; „martyrium“, d, e, f, g; PS-AU s Cai II, app. 82 benutzt u.a. Manipulus florum, s.v. „abstinentia“, h, a, n, y, l, ao; „paenitentia“, ad, o, k, m 2 , t, bd, ai; „martyrium“, m, i; „mors“, ax, bf, ar; PS-AU s Cai II, app. 87 benutzt Manipulus Florum, s.v. „odium“, a; „sacerdos“, b, i, l, m, c, n, e, u, t, e, ag, ah, ai, ak, ao, ap; PS-AU s Cai II, app. 89, 4 benutzt Manipulus Florum, s.v. „quaerere deum“, a, b, d, e. 12  F.  Dolbeau, „Le Sermonnaire Augustinien de Mayence“, Revue Bénédictine, 106, 1996, pp. 5–52 (pp. 15–16) ; idem, Le sermo 380 d’Augustin sur la relation entre Jean-Baptise et le Christ. Édition critique, Revue d’études augustiniennes et patristiques, 61, 2015, pp. 239–271

      zur grauzone zwischen (in)authentischen predigten

139

einstimmenden Exzerpts bei Claudianus Mamertus als Predigt des Eucherius von Lyon erwiesen werden.13 Abgesehen von einigen Sermones dubii ist das Urteil der Mauriner – mit nur wenigen Ausnahmen – im Wesentlichen auch heute noch gültig: Was sie unter den echten edierten, gilt auch heute als echt; was sie in die Appendix der unechten stellten, gilt als unecht. Ebenso verhält es sich mit den nach den Maurinern unter Augustins Namen edierten Predigten (Frangipane, Denis, Caillau, Mai, Florilegium Casinense, Liverani, Wilmart), die von G.  Morin einer kritischen Sichtung unterzogen wurden. Die von Morin gezogene Linie zwischen echten und unechten Predigten wurde nie in Frage gestellt. Predigten, die erstmals nach Morin gedruckt wurden, waren nie Gegenstand einer kritischen Überprüfung hinsichtlich der Autorenfrage.14 1. Wörtliche Übereinstimmungen mit echten Texten des Augustinus Besonders augenfällig ist die Unzulänglichkeit der Argumente, mit denen man zwei erst nach Morin publizierte Predigten dem Augustinus abgesprochen hat. Es handelt sich um eine anonym überlieferte Predigt auf Abraham und Isaak (CAE s Et 10; jetzt AU s 2A) und um eine unter Augustins Namen überlieferte Predigt zur Perikope Matth. 7,  7–11 (CAE s Vi; jetzt AU s 61B). Beide sind in je einer von Caesarius erstellten Predigtsammlung überliefert, die neben Predigten des Caesarius auch Texte anderer Kirchenväter enthält. Obwohl die zwei Predigten keine für Caesarius typischen Wendungen wie z.B. Einleitungs- und Schlussformeln enthalten und bereits von den ersten Editoren ihre enge Verwandtschaft mit Augustinus erkannt wurde, wagte man nicht, sie dem Bischof von Hippo zuzuschreiben, sondern gab sich mit 13  C. Weidmann, „Zwei Weihnachtspredigten des Eucherius von Lyon“, in Edition und Erforschung lateinischer patristischer Texte. 150 Jahre CSEL, hrsg. Von V. Zimmerl-Panagl, L. J. Dorfbauer, C. Weidmann, Berlin-Boston, 2014, pp. 111–38. – Bei der zweiten Predigt handelt es sich um einen weiteren Sermo dubius, nämlich Augustinus Sermo 372; die Zuweisung an Eucherius ist weniger sicher, sie stützt sich vor allem auf sprachlich-stilistische Kriterien. 14  Eine knappe Zusammenstellung verschiedener Sermones dubii bietet F. Dolbeau, Augustin d’Hippone. Vingt-six sermons [o. Anm. 3], pp. 469–70: „Prédication augustinienne et critique d’authenticité“.

140

clemens weidmann

einer Zuschreibung an Caesarius zufrieden. Paradoxerweise sah man in den unzähligen Parallelen zu Augustinuspredigten eher ein Argument für die Zuschreibung an einen Nachahmer Augustins als an Augustinus selbst. So kommt es, dass konstatiert wurde, der Sermo CAE s Et 10 stamme „vielleicht von einem Afrikaner, der unter Einfluß von AU steht“,15 und CAE s Vi gerade wegen der „utilisation assez massive de saint Augustin“16 dem Caesarius zugeschrieben wurde. Solche Verdikte verstellten den Blick auf die Autorenfrage. Eine kritische Untersuchung beider Predigten führt zum Ergebnis, dass es sich mit Sicherheit um echte Predigten des Augustinus handelt.17 Auch bei zahlreichen anderen längst bekannten Predigten haben Abschnitte, die sich wörtlich oder nur mit geringfügigen Unterschieden in als echt anerkannten Predigten wiederfinden, die Klärung der Echtheitsfrage behindert. Da nämlich Augustinus seine Predigten aus dem Stegreif vortrug und seine Worte nicht im Vorhinein schriftlich fixiert hatte, scheint es ausgeschlossen, dass zwei Predigten längere wörtlich übereinstimmende Abschnitte miteinander teilen. a. Die Pfingstpredigt AU s 272C (PS-AU s 183/FU s 8/PS-FU s 50) Gerade dieser Umstand, dass in der Pfingstpredigt PS-AU s 183 eine wörtlich identische Passage einer sicherlich echten Augustinuspredigt entdeckt wurde, verhinderte die richtige Beurteilung der Autorenfrage. Bereits die Theologi Louanienses hatten erkannt, dass einige Zeilen dieser Predigt mit einem Umfang von ca. 50 Wörtern wörtlich mit der Pfingstpredigt AU s 271 übereinstimmen, und sahen daher in ihr einen Cento. Doch abgesehen von diesem Zusatz, in dem aus Sermo 271 ein Zitat von Act. 2, 2–4 und einige kommentierende Bemerkungen übernommen werden,18 15  R.  Gryson, Répertoire général [o. Anm. 6], p. 359 über CAE s Et 10 (= AU s 2A). 16  J.  Lemarié, „L’homéliaire 48.12 de la Bibliothèque Capitulaire de Tolède. Témoin de deux sermons anciens inédits et du sermon «  Quod nos hortatus est dominus noster  »“, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 27, 1981, pp. 278–300 (p. 295) über CAE s Vi (= AU s 61B). 17  Siehe CSEL 101, pp. 17–28 und pp. 47–58. 18  Der identische Textabschnitt lautet: scriptum est enim: subito de caelo sonus factus est quasi ferretur flatus uehemens et uisae sunt illis linguae diuisae sicut ignis qui et insedit super unumquemque illorum et coeperunt linguis

      zur grauzone zwischen (in)authentischen predigten

141

lassen sich keine weiteren Quellen ermitteln. Zahlreiche kürzere Anklänge an das augustinische Predigtcorpus, deren Umfang sich auf eine Folge von maximal fünf identischen Wörtern beschränkt, können nicht als Versatzstücke aus anderen Predigten beurteilt werden, sondern sprechen im Gegenteil für die Echtheit der Predigt. Den Louanienses war noch nicht bekannt, dass die Predigt ohne diese Interpolation und mit einem wesentlich besseren Text im Corpus des so genannten Pseudo-Fulgentius (PS-FU s 50/FU s 8) überliefert ist. Diese Textfassung hat offensichtlich den genuinen Text einer bisher nicht als echt anerkannten Augustinuspredigt bewahrt (AU s 272C) bewahrt. In diesem Beispiel ist es gerade die Übernahme eines Abschnitts aus einer echten Augustinuspredigt, eine Art „Eigenblutdoping“, die den Blick auf die Originalität der Predigt verstellt hat und sie somit auf der Farbpalette als grau erschienen ließ. b. Die Predigt auf Stephanus AU s 319B (PS-AU s 215) Als nächstes Beispiel sei AU s 319B, eine Predigt auf Stephanus, genannt, die von den Maurinern wegen ihres angeblich niedrigen Genus dicendi dem Augustinus abgesprochen wurde und daher als Sermo app. 215 (PS-AU s 215) unter die unechten Predigten gereiht wurde. Tatsächlich aber erweisen besonders auf sprachlicher und inhaltlicher Ebene viele Indizien ihre Echtheit. Auffällig ist vor allem das augustinische Schlüsselmotiv, demzufolge Saulus, indem er die Gewänder der Steiniger verwahrte, gleichsam mit deren Händen Stephanus steinigte (AU s 319B, 4, 3): qui cum sanctus Stephanus lapidaretur et ab ipso omnium lapidantium uestimenta seruarentur, ut tamquam in manibus omnium ipse lapidare uideretur; dieses Interpretament ist auf Augustinus beschränkt und kehrt in vielen seiner Werke in sehr ähnlichem, aber niemals identischem Wortlaut wieder.19 Während derartige Variationen im Wortlaut ein Indiz für Augustins Autorschaft bilden, könnten einige Sätze, die omnibus loqui quomodo spiritus sanctus dabat eis pronuntiare. Flatus ille a carnali palea corda mundabat, ignis ille fenum ueteris concupiscentiae consumebat. – S. CSEL 101, p. 128; C. Weidmann, „Unitas Omnibus Linguis Loquitur. An Unidentified Augustinian Sermon on Pentecost“, in Preaching after Easter. Mid-Pentecost, Ascension and Pentecost in Late Antiquity, hrsg. von R. W. Bishop, J. Leemans, H. Tamas, Leiden – Boston, 2016 (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 136), pp. 304–322 (p. 306. 313–316) 19  Vgl. CSEL 101, pp. 168–69 und 181–82 mit Angabe der Similien.

142

clemens weidmann

sich in anderen Predigten in (fast) identischem Wortlaut finden, Anlass dazu geben, der Predigt die Authentizität abzusprechen. So findet sich beispielsweise der im Eingangsabschnitt formulierte Satz filius dei factus est filius hominis, ut filios hominum faceret filios dei (AU s 319B, 1, 7) wörtlich im Anfangskapitel von Sermo Dolbeau 6 (AU s Dol 6, 1). Allerdings ist das Thema des Tauschs von göttlicher und menschlicher Natur bei Augustinus sehr geläufig und die Sentenzenhaftigkeit dieses Satzes lässt sich kaum als Argument gegen die Echtheit einer der beiden Predigten heranziehen, weil gerade seine leichte Memorierbarkeit zu einer wörtlichen Wiederholung in zwei verschiedenen oralen Texten führen kann. Dazu kommt, dass Augustinus in Sermo Dolbeau 6 unmittelbar nach dem genannten Text auf eine zuvor gehaltene Predigt verweist: filius dei factus est filius hominis, ut filios hominum faceret filios dei. Hoc plane tenete, quod iam locutos nos esse caritati uestrae credo quod memineritis, quia ille nec de suo mortalis, nec nos de nostro immortales – non de suo, nec de natura sua, non de substantia qua est ipse deus […].20 Auch wenn es unwahrscheinlich ist, dass sich Augustinus mit seinem Verweis direkt auf die Stephanuspredigt AU s 319B bezieht – in AU s 319B, 1, 3 findet sich zwar die in AU s Dol 6 genannte Oppositon mortalis/immortalis, es fehlt aber das Paar de suo/de nostro –, ist nicht auszuschließen, dass beide Predigten in enger zeitlicher Folge gehalten wurden und dem Prediger die Formulierung aus der wenige Tage zuvor gehaltenen Stephanuspredigt noch im Gedächtnis war.21 Ähnlich verhält es sich mit zwei weiteren Sätzen, die in Augustins Predigten wörtliche Entsprechungen haben: AU s 319B, 3, 18: hoc dicto obdormiuit. O somnum pacis!

AU s 317 (s Wil 21, 4): et hoc dicto obdormiuit. O somnum pacis!

AU s 319B, 5, 6: discat pati quae faciebat, sentiat et ipse quod aliis inferebat.

AU s 279, 4: discat et pati quod faciebat, sentiat et ipse quod aliis inferebat.

F. Dolbeau, Augustin d’Hippone. Vingt-six sermons [o. Anm. 3], p. 459. AU s Dol 6 wird allgemein auf den Winter 403/04 datiert; zu Datierung und zur Diskussion des Verweiszieles s. F. Dolbeau, Augustin d’Hippone. Vingt-six sermons [o. Anm. 3], pp. 453–54 – Die Stephanuspredigt wurde am 26. Dezember eines unbekannten Jahres gehalten. Gegen eine Datierung auf das Jahr 403 gäbe es keine Einwände. 20  21 

      zur grauzone zwischen (in)authentischen predigten

143

Derartige wörtliche Entsprechungen sind so knapp, dass man Augustinus zutrauen darf, dass er sie spontan zweimal im selben Wortlaut vorgebracht hat. Vor allem ist darauf hinzuweisen, dass sich in der Stephanuspredigt unzählige andere, wörtlich nicht exakt mit anderen Predigten übereinstimmende Passagen finden.22 Ein Blick in den Similienapparat moderner Editionen zeigt, dass derartige Wiederholungen im Predigtcorpus des Augustinus nicht ungewöhnlich sind und bei ähnlich rigoroser Anwendung dieses Kriteriums zahlreiche sicherlich echte Predigten für unecht erklärt werden müssten.23 c. Ein wörtliches Zitat in De ciuitate dei 22, 5 Ein drittes Beispiel führt uns zu einem bisher noch nie beachteten Problem: Die Pfingstpredigt AU s 272A (= Sermo Verbraken 38), von der nur ein Exzerpt durch Florus bekannt ist, weist zahlreiche wörtliche und gedankliche Parallelen zu einem sicherlich authentischen Text auf: dem fünften Kapitel des letzten Buchs von De ciuitate dei. In der folgenden Gegenüberstellung sind die wichtigsten Übereinstimmungen durch gleiche Hervorhebungen markiert. AU s 272A (= s Ver 38; Revue Bénédictine, 84 [1974], pp. 264–65) […] humiliatus est dominus Christus, ut esse humiles nosceremus: conceptus est continens omnia, natus est gignens omnia, mortuus est uiuificans omnia; sed post triduum resurrexit et ascendit in caelum et humanam quam susceperat carnem ad pa-

AU ci 22, 5 (CCSL 48, pp. 810–11) Sed hoc incredibile fuerit aliquando: ecce iam credidit mundus sublatum terrenum Christi corpus in caelum; resurrectionem carnis et ascensionem in supernas sedes, paucissimis remanentibus atque stupentibus uel doctis uel indoctis, iam crediderunt et docti et indocti. Si rem credibilem crediderunt, uideant quam sint stolidi, qui non credunt; si autem res incredibilis credita est, etiam hoc utique incredibile est,

Siehe den Apparatus similium in CSEL 101, pp. 176–85. Ich verweise aus der unüberblickbaren Masse an Similien auf die wörtliche Übereinstimmung zweier Stellen in den sicher echten Predigten AU s 49 und AU s 317: AU s 49, 10, l. 235 (CCSL 41, p. 621): o homo, multum est ad te imitari dominum tuum, attende Stephanum conseruum tuum ≈ AU s 317, 3 (PL 38, col. 1436, l. 24): si multum ad te putas imitari dominum tuum, attende Stephanum conseruum tuum. 22 

23 

144

clemens weidmann

tris dexteram collocauit. Mirabile est, fratres – et hoc est quod credere impii nolunt – mirabile est hominem resurrexisse in carne, et in caelum ascendisse cum carne; sed multo est mirabi­ lius, totum mundum rem tam incredibilem credidisse. Quid est incredibilius, deum talia fecisse an mundum credere potuisse? Quid, si et ipse modus consideretur a nobis, quo credidit mundus? etiam ipse uere diuinus aduertitur, et ualde mirabilis inuenitur. Ineruditos liberalibus disciplinis, et omnino quantum ad saeculi doctrinas pertinet impolitos, non peritos grammatica, non armatos dialectica, piscatores Christus cum retibus fidei ad mare saeculi paucissimos misit. Quid dico “paucissimos”? duodecim misit. et tamen per eos sic omni genere piscium impleuit ecclesias, ut plurimi etiam ex ipsis sapientibus saeculi, quibus uidebatur ignominiosa crux Christi, ea in fronte signentur, et de qua erubescendum putabant nobisque insultabant, eam in pudoris arce constituant […]

sic creditum esse, quod incredibile est. Haec igitur duo incredibilia, resurrectionem scilicet nostri corporis in aeternum et rem tam incredibilem mundum esse crediturum, idem Deus, antequam uel unum eorum fieret, ambo futura esse praedixit. Unum duorum incredibilium iam factum uidemus, ut, quod erat incredibile, crederet mundus; cur id quod reliquum est desperatur, ut etiam hoc ueniat, quod incredibile credidit mundus, sicut iam uenit, quod similiter incredibile fuit, ut rem tam incredibilem crederet mundus, quando quidem hoc utrumque incredibile, quorum uidemus unum, alterum credimus, in eisdem litteris praedictum sit, per quas credidit mundus? Et ipse modus, quo mundus credidit, si consideretur, incredibilior inuenitur. Ineruditos liberalibus disciplinis et omnino, quantum ad istorum doctrinas attinet, impolitos, non peritos grammatica, non armatos dialectica, non rhetorica inflatos, piscatores Christus cum retibus fidei ad mare huius saeculi paucissimos misit atque ita et ex omni genere tam multos pisces et tanto mirabiliores, quanto rariores, etiam ipsos philosophos cepit. Duobus illis incredibilibus, si placet, immo quia placere debet, addamus hoc tertium. Iam ergo tria sunt incredibilia, quae tamen facta sunt. Incredibile est resurrexisse in carne et in caelum ascendisse cum carne; incredibile est mundum rem tam incredibilem credidisse; incredibile est homines ignobiles, infimos, paucissimos, imperitos rem tam incredibilem tam efficaciter mundo et in illo etiam doctis persuadere potuisse […]

Beide Texte sprechen von zwei Wundern: Erstens, dass mit Christus ein Mensch leiblich auferstanden und in den Himmel aufgestiegen ist, und zweitens, dass einfache Fischer die ganze Welt

      zur grauzone zwischen (in)authentischen predigten

145

durch ihre Predigten zum Glauben an etwas derart Unglaubliches bringen konnten. Die Überschneidungen beider Texte sind zu umfangreich und teils auch wörtlich zu eng, als dass man dies auf einen Zufall zurückführen könnte. Niemand wird an der Authentizität von De ciuitate dei, Buch 22 zweifeln. Hat also Florus für die Stelle I Cor. 1, 26–28 einen nicht authentischen Text exzerpiert und ist der als Quelle genannte Sermo de quinquagesima resurrectionis24 nichts anderes als eine auf De ciuitate dei basierende Kompilation? Auch das scheint unmöglich. Dagegen spricht erstens, dass Florus sonst hinsichtlich der Angaben von Autor und Quelle zuverlässig ist,25 und zweitens, dass zahlreiche Elemente, die im Abschnitt aus De ciuitate dei nicht vorhanden sind, den oralen Stil des Bischofs von Hippo aufweisen.26 Die einzige Lösung zur Erklärung dieser wörtlichen Übereinstimmung sehe ich darin, dass Augustinus bei der Abfassung des letzten Buches von De ciuitate dei auf verschriftlichte Fassungen seiner Predigten zurückgegriffen hat und für diesen Abschnitt seine nur durch das Exzerpt bei Florus fragmentarisch erhaltene Pfingstpredigt benutzt hat; dies ist insofern wenig verwunderlich, als Selbstzitate aus früheren Werken beim späten Augustinus bekanntlich sehr häufig anzutreffen sind. Da das Predigtexzerpt nur sehr kurz ist, ist davon auszugehen, dass auch in den umliegenden Partien von De ciuitate dei die verlorene Predigt als Quelle herangezogen wurde. Eine exakte Bestimmung des Umfangs der Selbstplagiate wird sich allerdings kaum anstellen lassen.27

24  P.-P. Verbraken, „Les fragments conservés de sermons perdus de saint Augustin“, Revue Bénédictine, 84, 1974, pp. 245–70 (pp. 264–65). 25  Außerdem wurde, soweit ich sehe, – anders als zahlreiche andere Passagen aus dem letzten Buch von De ciuitate dei – dieser Abschnitt für keine Predigtkompilation verwendet. Allerdings wird im Manipulus Florum [o. Anm. 8], wo s.v. „apostoli“, e der Abschnitt aus De ciuitate dei zitiert wird, als Quelle ein „Sermo de apostolis“ des Augustinus genannt. 26  Neben der Übereinstimmung AU s 272A: humanam quam susceperat carnem ad patris dexteram collocauit  ≈ AU s 53A, 6, l.  152 (CCSL 41Aa, p. 117): incorruptibilem carnem ad patris dexteram collocauit verweise ich auf folgende für Augustinus typische Junkturen: multo est mirabilius; quid si et ips*; quid dico; de qua erub(escere); crux […] in fronte. 27  Das Florusexzerpt flicht Guillelmus de Sancto Theoderico, Aenigma fidei 11–12 (CCCM 89A, p. 135) zwischen Exzerpten aus AU tr 4, 1 und AU

146

clemens weidmann

2. Kürzungen Die Editionsgeschichte der Augustinuspredigten ist voll von Beispielen dafür, dass von einigen lange Zeit nur verkürzte Fassungen bekannt waren. Gründe für Textverlust können in einem mechanischen Ereignis (wie z.B. Blattverlust in einer Handschrift) oder in einem redaktionellen Eingriff (wie z.B. der Tilgung eines als zu umfangreich, zu schwierig oder unpassend empfundenen Abschnitts) liegen. In vielen Fällen bestätigten erst Neufunde, dass die bisher bekannte Fassung lückenhaft war. Für beide Phänomene können Beispiele, die erst in den vergangenen Jahren entdeckt wurden, herangezogen werden. a. Kürzung durch Blattverlust (AU s 2) Blattverlust im einzigen Exemplar der Collectio Lugdunensis, einer Handschrift aus dem 7. Jh.,28 ist dafür verantwortlich, dass Sermo 2, eine Predigt auf Abraham, mit dem folgenden Sermo 9 zu einem hybriden Predigttext verbunden wurde. Spätestens im 12. Jh., bei der Erstellung der Sammlung Sancti Catholici Patres, wurde der Text um einige Zeilen ergänzt, die in einem Exzerpt bei Beda (Beda, Collectanea in apostolum 20) enthalten sind. Dass aber auch diese längere, in Lambots Edition als vollständig angesehene Fassung nicht komplett ist, geht daraus hervor, dass das Predigtende keinerlei Elemente eines Predigschlusses enthält und auf den verlorenen Blättern der Handschrift mehr Text als der heute bekannte vorhanden gewesen sein muss.29 b. Elimination von längeren Textabschnitten Eine bewusste Kürzung liegt beispielsweise in Sermo Erfurt 4 (= AU s 350F De eleemosynis quae fiunt in omnes) vor, von dem nur eine verkürzte Fassung (= AU s 164A De generalitate eleemosynarum) tr 4, 19 auf der einen und AU cf 6, 4, AU tr 4, 18 und AU rel 24, 8 auf der anderen Seite ein. 28  Zur Collectio Lugdunensis s. P.-P. Verbraken, Études critiques sur les sermons authentiques de saint Augustin, Steenbrugis, 1976 (Instrumenta patristica, 12), p. 215f.; CCSL 41Aa, p. XXXIIf. 29  Siehe CSEL 101, pp. 20–21 – Die von C. Lambot (CCSL 41, p. 7) postulierte italienische Provenienz für den Text der Sammlung Sancti Catholici Patres ist wohl unrichtig.

      zur grauzone zwischen (in)authentischen predigten

147

bekannt war, bevor in der Handschrift Erfurt, Univ. Bibl. CA. 12°11 die vollständige Fassung (mit dem Mittelteil capp. 5–7) entdeckt wurde. 30 Obwohl das Schlusskapitel (cap. 8) nicht nahtlos an den vorderen Teil (capp. 1–4) anschließt, hatte niemand zuvor den Verlust eines dazwischen liegenden Texts postuliert. Eine ähnliche Kürzung eines längeren Mittelteils findet sich auch in der Predigt auf Perpetua und Felicitas, Sermo Erfurt 1, dessen Mittelteil (capp. 3–5) in der bis dahin bekannten Kurzfassung (AU s 282) eliminiert wurde;31 wegen der Kürze dieser Predigt hatte Dolbeau bereits vor Entdeckung der Erfurter Handschrift den Verdacht geäußert, dass sie unvollständig überliefert ist. 32 Beiden Beispielen ist gemeinsam, dass ein längerer zusammenhängender Mittelteil ausgelassen wurde, der offensichtlich als zu lang oder zu schwierig und daher als entbehrlich empfunden wurde. Der verbleibende Rest zeigt keine Spuren einer Bearbeitung. Noch gravierender war die Kürzung der Epiphaniepredigt AU s Dol 23 zu [AU] s 374, bei der alles außer den Abschnitten, die von den Magiern handeln, radikal entfernt wurde. Die auf ein Sechstel des ursprünglichen Umfangs reduzierte Predigt unterscheidet sich in ihrer Intention deutlich vom ursprünglichen Text: Die gegen die Heiden gerichtete Predigt wurde ihrer antipaganen Stoßrichtung beraubt, und es blieb eine für die Verwendung in mittelalterlichen Homiliarien geeignete Epiphaniepredigt übrig. 33 Mitunter war zwar längst bekannt, dass eine Predigt in einer umfangreicheren Fassung überliefert ist, aber der überschießende 30  Zu Sermo Erfurt 4 (= AU s 350F) s. I. Schiller, D. Weber, C. Weidmann, „Sechs neue Augustinuspredigten. Teil 2 mit Edition dreier Sermones zum Thema Almosen“, Wiener Studien, 122, 2009, pp. 171–213 (pp. 201–13). Zu Sermo Erfurt 4 wurde 2015 von Brian Møller Jensen in Piacenza, Bibl. cap. Ms. 60, s. XII 2 , fol. 239r1–241v1 ein zweiter vollständiger Textzeuge entdeckt, der zwar wie Erfurt, Univ. Bibl. CA 12°11 (= A) den vollständigen Text enthält, aber öfter mit der gekürzten Fassung (β) übereinstimmt als A. Einige Textentscheidungen dürften zu revidieren sein. 31  Zu Sermo Erfurt 1 (= AU s 282 auct.) s. I. Schiller, D. Weber, C.  Weidmann, „Sechs neue Augustinuspredigten. Teil 1 mit Edition dreier Sermones“, Wiener Studien, 121, 2008, pp. 227–84 (pp. 251–64). 32  F.  Dolbeau in einer Rezension in Revue d’Études Augustiniennes et Patristiques, 51, 2005, p. 380. 33  F.  Dolbeau, Augustin d’Hippone. Vingt-six sermons au peuple d’Afrique (o. Anm. 3), pp. 579–615.

148

clemens weidmann

Text wurde nicht als authentisch erkannt, sondern als Interpolation angesehen. In diesem Zusammenhang ist auf Sermo 295, eine Predigt auf Petrus und Paulus, hinzuweisen. 34 Dass es sich bei dem im Homiliar von Wien über die bisher bekannte Fassung hinausgehenden Text nicht um eine Interpolation handeln kann, geht daraus hervor, dass dieser bisher unbeachtete Abschnitt ein augustinisches Schlüsselmotiv enthält (die Verknüpfung der Exegese von Act. 9, 4 mit dem Christus totus-Motiv), das, wie eine Textanalyse zeigt, integrativer Bestandteil der ursprünglichen Predigt ist. Die Frage, warum der ursprüngliche Text gekürzt wurde, ist im Fall dieser Predigt wohl damit zu beantworten, dass einem frühmittelalterlichen Bearbeiter der betreffende Abschnitt theologisch zu komplex und daher für eine Festpredigt auf Peter und Paul entbehrlich schien. Nur durch den Zufall der handschriftlichen Überlieferung setzte sich die kürzere Fassung durch. Das Gegenteil davon geschah im selben Homiliar von Wien mit Sermo 65, einer Predigt auf Märtyrer. Nur in diesem Homiliar liegt sie um einen moralisierenden Zusatz erweitert vor. Sprachlich-stilistische sowie stemmatische Gründe verbieten es, ihn für echt zu halten. 35 Weniger gravierend, aber umso mehr symptomatisch sind die Eingriffe, die originale Predigten zwar in bei weitem nicht so großem Ausmaß kürzten, aber zahlreiche zeitgebundene Hinweise eliminierten. Dieses Vorgehen zeigt sich in geradezu typischer Weise in der bereits genannten Pfingstpredigt AU s 272C, aus der durch Überarbeitung die häufig überlieferte Predigt PS-AU s 183 entstand. Sie wurde nicht nur, wie oben gezeigt, um einen Textabschnitt aus einer anderen Predigt erweitert, sondern wurde auch um einige Zeilen gekürzt. Dabei handelt es sich aber nicht um einen zufälligen Textverlust, sondern um die bewusste Streichung eines gegen die Donatisten gerichteten Abschnitts (Ende von cap. 3), der in der konkreten Predigtsituation im spätantiken Afrika verständlich, außerhalb Afrikas aber für die Verwendung in Homiliarien im mittelalterlichen Europa überflüssig geworden war. CSEL 101, pp. 135–50; G. Partoens, C. Weidmann, „La version augmentée du sermon 295 de saint Augustin : critique d’authenticité et conséquences“, in Nihil veritas erubescit. Mélanges offerts à Paul Mattei par ses élèves, collègues et amis, hrsg. von C.  Bernard-Valette, J.  Delmulle, C.  Gerzaguet, Turnhout, 2016 (Instrumenta Patristica et Mediaevalia) (im Druck). 35  Vgl. CSEL 101, p. 9. 34 

      zur grauzone zwischen (in)authentischen predigten

149

c. Elimination zeitgebundener Hinweise Besonders oft wurden Hinweise, in denen Augustinus auf liturgische und historische Details eingeht, gestrichen. Ein Beispiel dafür ist AU s 225, eine an einem Ostersonntag gehaltene Erklärung des Johannesprologs vor neu Getauften. 36 Obwohl die Predigt in der von den Maurinern edierten Fassung mehrere platte Wiederholungen aufweist, nahm niemand an ihrer Echtheit Anstoß. Tatsächlich handelt es sich aber bei diesem Text um eine Adaptierung einer bisher nicht beachteten längeren Fassung, die den Maurinern unbekannt war. 37 Diese vollständige Fassung findet sich nur in den Homiliarien von Rochester und Worcester, aus denen Mai und Wilmart mehrere bis dahin unbekannte Augustinuspredigten ediert hatten. Die Predigt wurde grundlegend umgearbeitet: Einige der durch Elimination von Text entstandenen Lücken wurden durch Wiederholung einzelner Sätze aufgefüllt. Besonders deutlich zeigt sich die Arbeitsweise des Bearbeiters an den Anfangsworten der Predigt. Alle Hinweise auf die vorangegangenen liturgischen Lesungen sowie das vom Prediger fingierte Gespräch zwischen den biblischen Texten und der anwesenden Gemeinde wurden systematisch eliminiert. In welcher Weise die verbleibenden Satzteile syntaktisch anders arrangiert wurden, zeigt eine Gegenüberstellung der zwei Fassungen (die bisher unbekannten Textteile sind markiert): AU s 225 ( PL 38, col. 1095): Commendat nobis diuinae circa nos altitudinem gratiae filius dei sine tempore natus ex patre. Quid enim erat antequam esset in homine? Putate uos quaesisse atque dixisse.

AU s 225 auct. (CSEL 101, p. 111): Quod lectum est de sancto euangelio, commendat nobis diuinae circa nos altitudinem gratiae. Filius enim dei, sine tempore natus ex patre, quid erat antequam esset in homine cum hominibus? Sanctum locutum est euangelium quod audistis. Facite itaque uos quaesisse atque dixisse: […].

36  Vgl. CSEL 101, pp. 101–18; C. Weidmann, „Original – Neuschöpfung – Plagiat. Zur Augustinusrezeption in spätantiken Predigten“, in Das Eigene und das Fremde. Akten der 4. Tagung des Zentrums Archäologie und Altertumswissenschaften an der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. 26.-27. März 2012, hrsg. von A. Pülz, E. Trinkl, Wien, 2015, pp. 141–50 (pp. 143–49). 37  Sie kannten den Text nur aus Vaticano, bibl. apost. lat. 4222 und der Edition der Louanienses.

150

clemens weidmann

Durch die Umarbeitung gingen etwa 10% des ursprünglichen Texts verloren, und aus einer oralen Osterpredigt entstand eine schriftliche Predigt, die in den Homiliarien in den Weihnachtsfestkreis eingeordnet wurde. Ein ähnliches Beispiel für die Adaptierung einer Predigt liegt in AU s 276 vor, einer Predigt auf Vincentius, die unter Augustins Namen nur in einer adaptierten Fassung Verbreitung fand; wie im Fall von AU s 272C ist die originale Fassung nur im Corpus des Pseudo-Fulgentius, das für die Überlieferung von Augustinuspredigten nicht ausreichend gewürdigt wurde, überliefert. Ein Vergleich beider Versionen ergibt, dass der anonyme Bearbeiter sämtliche Hinweise auf liturgische Lesungen eliminiert hat. Das zeigt sich besonders in den Anfangsworten, in denen eine detaillierte Anspielung auf die konkrete liturgische Situation vorlag; der anonyme Bearbeiter hat dies getilgt und die Predigt auf eine allgemeinere Ebene gehoben. 38 AU s 276, 1: In passione, quae nobis hodie recitata est, fratres mei, euidenter ostenditur iudex ferox, tortor cruentus, martyr inuictus […].

PS-FU s 73, 1 (= AU s 276 auct.): Miror, fratres, si adhuc aliquid uultis audire. Post tantam quippe quae nobis lecta est modo martyrii passionem, et superfluus est dictor et fastidiosus auditor. Legebatur etenim modo nobis iudex ferus, tortor cruentus, et martyr inuictus […].

Drei weitere Hinweise auf liturgische Lesungen, einer auf die Evangelienperikope um Matth. 10,  20, zwei auf die Passio Vincentii, werden konsequent eliminiert:39 AU s 276, 2: Promisit enim et hoc testibus suis Christus in euangelio, quos ad huiusmodi certamina praeparabat. Sic enim ait: Nolite cogitare […] [Matth. 10,  19–20].

PS-FU s 73, 3 (= AU s 276 auct., 3): Promisit enim et hoc testibus suis Christus. Audistis modo. In euangelio loquebatur, et dicebat suis, quos ad huiuscemodi certamina praeparabat: Nolite cogitare […] [Matth. 10,  19–20]. 39

38  Wie F. Dolbeau, Augustin d’Hippone. Vingt-six sermons [o. Anm. 3], p. 523, richtig gezeigt hat, ist auszuschließen, dass ein späterer Bearbeiter in eine Predigt solche Hinweise auf die Lesungen eingearbeitet hat. 39  Damit wäre Matth. 10,  19–20 als Tagesevangelium ausdrücklich auch für diese Predigt erwiesen. Dies hatte schon M.  Margoni-Kögler, Die Periko-

      zur grauzone zwischen (in)authentischen predigten AU s 276, 3: […] per furiosas enim Datiani uoces […]. AU s 276, 4: […] tanta cura seruauit dominus martyris corpus […].

151

PS-FU s 73, 3: per furiosas enim quas audistis Datiani uoces […]. PS-FU s 73, 4: […] tanta cura seruauit dominus, sicut audistis, martyris corpus […].

3. Kompilationen Eine ergiebige Quelle für die Entdeckung bisher unbekannter Predigtteile sind Predigtkompilationen, die aus verschiedenen Quellen zusammengesetzt sind. Besonders bei Centonen, deren identifizierbare Teile vorwiegend oder ausschließlich aus authentischen Predigten des Augustinus übernommen sind, besteht eine hohe Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass auch die anderen Teile aus unbekannten Predigten desselben Autors stammen. Das gilt nicht nur für jene Fälle, wo unidentifizierte Textabschnitte demselben Autor wie die bekannten Textteile zugeschrieben werden können,40 sondern auch pen im Gottesdienst bei Augustinus. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der liturgischen Schriftlesung in der frühen Kirche, Wien, 2010 (Veröffentlichungen der Kommission zur Herausgabe des Corpus der Lateinischen Kirchenväter, 29; Sitzungsberichte/Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, 810), p.  151, Anm. 429 vermutet: „Mt 10,20 wird als zentrales Schriftwort zur Untermauerung des eben genannten Grundthemas – der Märtyrer erlangt einzig durch Christus die Kraft zum Sieg – in [...] 276, 2 [...] zwar zitiert, jedoch ausschließlich in s. 277A = Caill. I. 47 als Teil des Tagesevangeliums indiziert: […]. Dies könnte eventuell auch für die anderen Gottesdienste, in denen die genannten Predigten gehalten wurden, diese Stelle als Evangelium nahelegen, […].“ 40  Ein Beispiel dafür ist der pseudoaugustinische Sermo Mai 66 zur Feier der Märtyrerin Victoria (PS-AU s Mai 66), der ausschließlich aus Teilen der authentischen Predigten auf Perpetua und Felicitas (AU s 280–82) zusammengesetzt ist. Die bis dahin unidentifizierten Teile stammen aus der vollständigen Fassung von AU s 282 auct. Vgl. C. Weidmann, „Discovering Augustine’s Words in Pseudo-Augustinian Sermons“ [o. Anm. 1], p. 56; C.  Weidmann, „Der Augustinuscento Sermo Mai 66. Mit einem textkritischen Anhang zu Predigten auf Perpetua und Felicitas“, in Sermo doctorum: Compilers, Preachers, and their Audiences in the Early Medieval West, hrsg. von M.  Diesenberger, Y.  Hen, M.  Pollheimer, Turnhout, 2013 (Sermo: Studies on patristic, medieval, and reformation sermons and preaching, 9), pp. 59–79 (pp. 60–61).

152

clemens weidmann

für die, wo sich der einzige bisher für unecht gehaltene Quelltext als echt erweist. a. PS-AU s Bou 1 Dies trifft beispielsweise auf die Predigtkompilation PS-AU s Bou 1 (auf Stephanus) zu, für die Bouhot folgende Quellen nachweisen konnte:41 Die echten Sermones AU s 90 und 317, AU Ps 33 und 85 (dazu kommt noch eine von Bouhot nicht nachgewiesene Übereinstimmung mit AU s 284 42) sowie die von ihm als unecht angesehene Predigt auf Stephanus Sermo PS-AU s 215. Allein dieser Überlieferungskontext macht das wahrscheinlich, was eine kritische Untersuchung des Quelltexts bestätigt: Es handelt sich um eine authentische Predigt Augustins (= AU s 319B).43 Außerdem hat der anonyme Kompilator mit Sicherheit mindestens eine weitere, verlorene Predigt benutzt. Denn einige „augustinische“ Passagen finden kein Äquivalent in einer überlieferten Predigt.44 41  J.-P. Bouhot, „Le sermo « Dominus et salvator » première forme dérivée d’un sermon perdu de Saint Césaire“, Revue Bénédictine, 80, 1970, pp. 201–12 (pp. 207–09). 42  PS-AU s Bou 1, 2, 30–36: et in asperis clauis pendebat, sed lenitatem non amittebat. Illi saeuiebant, illi circumlatrabant, illi caput agitabant, quod sanum non habebant, et quasi in uno summo medico in medio constituto frenetici circumquaque saeuiebant. Pendebat ille et sanabat. Pendebat et tamen impendebat. Non descendebat, quia de sanguine suo medicamenta freneticis conficiebat. Denique post resurrectionem sanauit quos pendens insanissimos tolerauit ≈ AU s 284,  6 (PL 38, col. 1292, l. 16): et quomodo docuit, fratres? pendebat in cruce, Iudaei saeuiebant: In asperis clauis pendebat, sed lenitatem non amittebat. Illi saeuiebant, illi circumlatrabant, illi pendenti insultabant; quasi uno summo medico in medio constituto, phrenetici, circumquaque saeuiebant. Pendebat ille et sanabat. Pater, inquit, ignosce illis, quia nesciunt quid faciunt. petebat, et tamen pendebat: Non descendebat, quia de sanguine suo medicamentum phreneticis faciebat. Denique quia uerba petentis domini, eiusdemque misericordiam exaudientis, quia patrem petiit, et cum patre exaudiuit; quia illa uerba non potuerunt inaniter fundi, post resurrectionem suam sanauit quos pendens insanissimos tolerauit. 43  Vgl. CSEL 101, pp. 163–185; s. oben S. 141-143. 44  Folgende Übereinstimmungen mit eher entlegenen Predigten machen wahrscheinlich, dass eine verlorene Quelle benutzt wurde: PS-AU s Bou 1, 9–11: Sed tu forte tardus es ut mercedem acceperis a labore. Qua fronte petis quod promittit deus et non facis quod iubet deus? ≈ AU s 229H (MiAg 1, p. 483, l. 16): si autem recusas opus, qua fronte mercedem quaeris?; PS-AU s

      zur grauzone zwischen (in)authentischen predigten

153

Auffällig ist aber, dass sogar Stellen, für die eine konkrete Quelle zu ermitteln ist, in augustinischer Diktion modifiziert wurden.45 Daher ist es nicht abwegig anzunehmen, dass die Abschnitte, die Bouhot wegen vager Ähnlichkeit den Enarrationes in Psalmos zuweist, in Wahrheit aus einer anderen (verlorenen) Quelle stammen. Da der Autor dieses Textes mit Augustins Predigtstil bestens vertraut war und mit den Quellen frei umging, ist es aber kaum möglich, den konkreten Wortlaut einer verlorenen Quelle zu ermitteln. b. PS-AU s 79 Ähnlich verhält es sich mit PS-AU s 79, einer in nur wenigen Handschriften überlieferten Predigt auf die Negatio Petri. Nach Morin, der sie als das Produkt eines schlechten Redners (rabulae fetura) 46 abqualifiziert, hat die Predigt in der Forschung keine Beachtung gefunden. Morins Urteil ist aber insofern unbegründet, als die Predigt aus Texten der zwei größten Prediger der Spätantike zusammengesetzt ist, Augustinus und Johannes Chrysostomus. Der größte Teil (capp. 2–4) stammt aus einer im 5. Jh. in Karthago entstandenen lateinischen Bearbeitung einer Predigt des Johannes Chrysostomus auf Petrus und Elias (= AN s Bou 2).47 Da der für PS-AU s 79 verantwortliche Kompilator seiner Quelle

Bou 1, 11–12: Prius, inquam, audi iubentem et tunc exige pollicentem ≈ AU s Dol 14, 5 (p. 110, l. 92): Prius audi iubentem, et tunc exige pollicentem; die Paraphrase von Act. 9, 2–3 in PS-AU s Bou 1, 53–56: postea accepit epistolas a principibus sacerdotum, ut quoscumque inueniret Christianae uiae sectatores uiros ac mulieres uinctos adduceret in Hierusalem, torquendos et puniendos hat eine enge Entsprechung in AU s 297, 10 (PL 38, col. 1364, l. 15): habens litteras a principibus sacerdotum, ut apud Damascum quoscumque inueniret Christianae uiae sectatores, uinctos adduceret puniendos. 45  Dies trifft z.B. auf die Worte Audistis opus, exspecta mercedem; et uide quid addat (AU s 317, 1) zu, die in der Bearbeitung durch Et ne expauesceres laborem, continuo subiecit mercedem (PS-AU s Bou 1, 17–18) ersetzt werden; sowohl die Junkturen ne expauesc* als auch continuo subiecit sind fast ausschließlich auf Augustinus beschränkt. 46  G. Morin, CCSL 104, p. 971: Initium quidem sapit Caesarium; quod autem sequitur, nescio cuius rabulae fetura est. 47  J.-P. Bouhot, „Adaptations latines de l’Homélie de Jean Chrysostome sur Pierre et Élie (CPG 4513)“, Revue Bénédictine, 112, 2002, pp. 36–71.

154

clemens weidmann

in diesem Abschnitt treu folgt48 – Kronzeuge dafür ist die Übernahme eines funktionslos gewordenen Querverweises 49 –, ist anzunehmen, dass auch im Anfangsteil eine Quelle ohne größere Modifikationen benutzt wurde. Es handelt sich dabei um eine verlorene Predigt des Augustinus. Aus diesem Grund soll das erste Kapitel mit den Varianten der wichtigsten Textzeugen präsentiert werden: tit.

5

10

15

20

25

  De negatione Petri 1. In lectione euangelica quae nobis hesterno die recitata est, fratres carissimi, audiuimus dominum dixisse discipulis suis: Omnes uos scandalum patiemini in hac nocte propter me. Cui beatus Petrus ait: Etiamsi omnes scandalizati fuerint, ego numquam scandalizabor. Sed dominus inspector cordis respondit et dixit: Amen, dico tibi, antequam gallus cantet, ter me negabis. Ille autem dixit: Etiamsi me mori oportuerit pro te, non te negabo. Videte, fratres carissimi, uerus et caelestis medicus uenam cordis inspexerat, et qua hora tentationis pondus uel infidelitatis frigus uenturum esset, praedixerat. Medicus praedicabat et aegrotus negabat: sed ubi ad horam uentum est, falsum fuit quod promiserat homo, et uerum apparuit quod praedixerat deus. Quid enim homo sine dei gratia possit, timor beati Petri apostoli euidenter ostendit. Per solum enim liberum arbitrium, non addito etiam dei adiutorio, promiserat se pro domino moriturum. Sed quid est homo sine gratia dei, nisi quod fuit Petrus cum negaret Christum et nisi quod ait propheta: Omnis caro fenum? Et ideo beatum Petrum paululum dominus subdeseruit, ut in illo totum humanum genus posset agnoscere nihil se sine dei gratia praeualere et ut ecclesiae rectori futuro ignoscendi peccantibus quaedam regula poneretur.

Matth. 26, 31 Matth. 26, 33-35

Is. 40, 6

48  PS-AU s 79, 2–3 (PL 39, col. 1899, l. 52–col. 1900, l. 26: credendae […]  tormenta) ≈ AN s Bou 2,  4, 116–5,  150 (Revue Bénédictine, 112, 2002, pp. 57–59); PS-AU s 79, 3 (col. 1900, l. 26–47: quis porro […] procuratum est) ≈ AN s Bou 2, 5, 153–70 (p. 59); PS-AU s 79, 4 (col. 1900, l. 48–70: uidete […] exemplum) ≈ AN s Bou 2, 12, 485–502 (pp. 70–71; mit Ersetzung von ne dum ipsi a culpis ac uitiis essent alieni, erga peccatores diri existerent et crudeles sed [l. 492–93] durch sicut dicit apostolus Paulus: Considerans te, ne et tu tenteris [col. 1900, l. 59–60; Gal. 6, 1]). 49  Die Worte ut supra iam memini/ut supra memorauimus (Revue Bénédic­ tine, 112, 2002, pp. 498–99/PL 39, col. 1900, l. 66) verweisen auf den in PS-AU s 79 fehlenden Bereich AN s Bou 2, 6, 177–80 (Revue Bénédictine, 112, 2002, 59–60).

      zur grauzone zwischen (in)authentischen predigten

155

O  = Roma, bibl. naz. centr. Cod. 1190, s. IX in., fol. 208v–210v (Homiliar von Ottobeuren)50 Ol = Olomouc, SVK Ms. M II 120 (252), s.  XV1, fol. 128v–129r Me = Melk, Stiftsbibl. 210  (217), s.  XV, fol.  94v–95v Nu = Nürnberg, Stadtbibl. Cent. I 85, s. XVI in., fol. 68r2–69r1 am = Amerbach, Sermo de tempore 124, fol. q2v1-q3r1 (Editio princeps) ma = Maurini, Sermo appendicis 79 (PL 39, col. 1899–1900) tit. item alia omelia de parasceven O; feria Va sermo Augustini de passione domini Ol; feria secunda sermo sancti Augustini de passione domini Me; sermo beati Augustini episcopi de passione domini Nu; feria quarta post dominicam palmarum de passione domini sermo I am 1  externo O   3  dixisse iter. Me (ac.) vos om. O   4 ait om. ma   7  et dixit om. Nu; et dicit O   8-9  oportuerit me mori tr. Nu   10  caelestis om. O   11  infidelitate O   12  venturus O esse O Nu   praedicabat] *praedicebat Ol Me   et om. Nu   13  horam] ora O   14  apparuit] fuit Me   15  gratia dei tr. Nu   17  enim liberum iter. Me (ac.)   non om. O   18  etiam om. Me; del. Ol; dei addito etiam add. Ol (ac.)   adiutorium O   promiserat se om. Ol Me   domino] deum O   moriturum] Petrus promisit se add. Me   19  dei gratia tr. O   20 ait propheta] per prophetam O   22 subdeseruit] subdiruit O; deseruit Nu Ol (pc.) Me   illum O   23 genus humanum possit O   se nihil tr. Ol; se non Me   24 ecclesia lectori O   futuro om. Ol   ignoscendo O   25 quidam O

Morin hat bereits zu Recht darauf hingewiesen, dass die Anfangsworte an Caesarius anklingen. Man vergleiche etwa das fast identische Initium von CAE s 155: in lectione, quae nobis recitata est, fratres dilectissimi, audiuimus dominum dixisse: Simile est regnum caelorum decem uirginibus, sowie die Ähnlichkeit des gesamten Abschnitts mit CAE s 202, 3: Et si omnes inquit scandalizati fue­ rint in te, ego numquam scandalizabor […] amen, inquit, dico tibi, quod in hac nocte, antequam gallus cantet, ter me negabis. Dicit ei beatus Petrus: Etiamsi me mori oportuerit tecum, non te negabo. Videte, fratres, responsionem discipuli, et intellegite dilectionis esse quod dixit; sed quia per solum sui amoris studium, non addito etiam adiutorio domini (cf. l. 12) […]. Dass alles weitere auf Augustinus zurückgeht, entging ihm genauso wie den Maurinern, die keine stilistische Ähnlichkeit erkennen konnten: stilus reuera non sapit Augustinum. Als Kronzeuge für den augustinischen Charakter ist zunächst auf das Christus-Medicus-Motiv hinzuweisen, 50  R.  Grégoire, Homéliaires liturgiques médiévaux. Analyse de manuscrits, Spoleto, 1980, pp. 321–42.

156

clemens weidmann

das für die Exegese dieser Perikope in einer für Augustinus spezifischen Weise gestaltet wird. Auf Basis von Prou. 24, 12 wird Christus als inspector cordis bezeichnet.51 Christus untersucht als wahrer Arzt (uerus medicus)52 die Ader des Herzens. Die dafür verwendete Junktur uenam cordis inspicere ist, wie Martine Dulaey richtig feststellt, augustinisch;53 sie findet sich nur bei ihm und ist auf die Deutung der Petrus-Perikope beschränkt.54 Ebenfalls typisch augustinisch ist die antithetische Präsentation, in der der Arzt dem Kranken und Gott dem Menschen, die Wahrheit der Falschheit und göttliches Vorauswissen der menschlichen Selbstüberschätzung gegenübergestellt wird. Nicht was der kranke Mensch übereilt versprochen hat, sondern was der wahre Arzt vorausgesagt hat, geschieht in der Stunde der Versuchung: falsum fuit quod promiserat homo, et uerum apparuit quod praedixerat deus.55 51  Die LLT nennt 16 augustinische Belegstellen für inspector cordis; im Zusammenhang mit dem Bekenntnis des Petrus, das als Sühne für die Verleugnung verstanden wird, findet es sich in AU s 352, 5 (PL 39, col. 1555, l. 20): Petre, amas me? cordis inspector, cordis cognitor interrogat. 52  Zur Wendung uerus medicus in vergleichbarem Kontext s. AU s 4, 2, 24 (CCSL 41, p. 20): plus de se aegrotus praesumserat, sed uerus medicus uidebat; AU s 229P (PLS 2, col. 757, l. 24): in intimis inueniebat aegrum et tamquam uerus et uerax medicus quod futurum fuerat praedicabat; AU s Dol 25, 18 (p. 260, l. 359). In der zitierten Stelle aus AU s 229P wird in gleicher Weise wie in Zeile 12 die ungewöhnliche Form praedicabat anstelle von zu erwartendem praedicebat verwendet. 53  M.  Dulaey, „Les larmes de Pierre chez Augustin (Mt 26,  69–75 et parallèles)“, in Augustin philosophe et prédicateur. Hommage à Goulven Madec. Actes du colloque international organisé à Paris les 8 et 9 septembre 2011, hrsg. von I. Bochet, Paris, 2012, pp. 465–86 (p. 484, Anm. 145). 54  AU s 253, 3, 60 (SC 116, p. 332): ego uenam cordis inspicio, et quod uerum est aegroto renuntio; AU s 286, 2 (PL 38, col. 1298, l. 18): sed medicus qui nouerat uenam cordis inspicere, praenuntiauit accessionis periculum; AU s 340A, 8 (MiAg 1, p. 570, l. 15): et ille medicus uenam cordis inspiciens: Animam tuam, inquit, pro me ponis? – Vgl. auch AU Ps 36, 1, 1, 30 (CCSL 38, p. 337): dominus autem qui nouerat eum, praedixit ubi deficeret, praenuntians illi infirmitatem eius, tamquam tacta uena cordis eius; AU Ps 43, 20, 20 (CCSL 38, p. 490): medicus nouerat, uena inspecta, quid intus ageretur in aegroto; aegrotus non nouerat; AU Ps 140, 24, 13 (CSEL 95/4, p. 223): febriens enim sanum se dixerat; cordis uenam ille tangebat; AU s 137, 3 (PL 38, col. 755, l. 54); AU s 229O, 1 (MiAg 1, p. 495, l. 17): medicus uenam inspicit, et quid in aegroto agatur ipse aegroto renuntiat. 55  Die Übereinstimmung der drei hier genannten Parallelen, alle in gleichem Kontext, ist evident: AU s 137, 3 (PL 38, col. 755, l. 55): et ita factum est

      zur grauzone zwischen (in)authentischen predigten

157

Dass das im Folgenden angesprochene Thema von Gnade und freiem Willen (gratia […] liberum arbitrium) augustinisches Gedankengut in sich trägt, bedarf keiner weiteren Erklärung. Darüber hinaus finden sich zahlreiche kleinere Übereinstimmungen im Sprachgebrauch56 und im Wortlaut der Bibelzitate.57 Besondere Beachtung verdient der Satz beatum Petrum paululum dominus subdeseruit (22). Augustinus äußert hier, wie in einigen seiner Predigten, den Gedanken, dass Christus, als Petrus ihn verleugnet, diesen im Stich lässt, um ihm seine Grenzen aufzuzeigen und ihn zur Buße und zur Umkehr zu bewegen;58 aufschlussreiche Parallelen dafür finden sich in der Predigt AU s 229O (MiAg 1, p. 496, l. 8): dominus ergo Petrum, ut salubriter humilem faceret, ad tempus deseruit, wo mit argumentativer Illustrierung durch Ps. 29, 7–8 betont wird, dass die Abwendung Christi von Petrus nur von zeitlich beschränkter Dauer (ad tempus/paululum) ist, sowie in drei späteren Werken, in denen Augustinus auf einer allgemeineren Ebene, ohne direkten Bezug auf Petrus, dasselbe Psalmzitat und – wie in der vorliegenden Predigt – dasselbe Wort paululum neben deserere verwendet.59 Bei dem Dekompositum subdeserere handelt quomodo praedixit medicus, non quomodo praesumpsit aegrotus; AU s 295 auct., 3, 7 (CSEL 101, p. 144): factum est quod praedixerat medicus; fieri non potuit quod praesumpsit aegrotus; AU s 229O, 1 (MiAg 1, p. 495, l. 16): ecce factum est quod praedixit medicus, et falsum inuentum est quod praesumpsit aegrotus. – Bezeichnenderweise kommen dem Satz in sprachlicher Hinsicht zwei Stellen aus völlig anderem Zusammenhang am nächsten: AU Ps 47, 9, 15 (CCSL 38, p. 546): crediderunt serpenti, inuenerunt uerum esse quod minatus est deus, falsum quod promiserat diabolus; AU s 278, 2 (PL 38, col. 1269, l. 40): ideoque inuenit uerum esse quod praedixerat deus, falsum quod promiserat diabolus. 56  Zu ad horam uentum est (13) vgl. etwa AU s 147, 1 (PL 38, col. 797, l. 49): uentum est ad horam (im selben Kontext). Der Satz promiserat se pro domino moriturum (8) findet sich wörtlich in AU s 147, 1 (PL 38, col. 797, 43). Zum Erklärungsschema quid est homo […] nisi quod ait (+ Schriftzitat; 19) vgl. etwa AU s 32, 4, 68 (CCSL 41, p. 399): sed quid est homo, nisi quod in isto psalmo cecinit (+ Ps. 143, 4); AU s 232, 3, 80 (SC 116, p. 266): nam ipse homo quid erat, nisi quod ait psalmus (+ Ps. 115, 11). 57  Derselbe Wortlaut von Matth. 26,  34, mit der Auslassung von quod in hac nocte, findet sich nur in zwei Predigten Augustins: AU s 295 auct., 3; AU s 299, 7. 58  Vgl. z.B. AU s 147, 3 (PL 38, col. 798, l. 35): quando autem uoluit dominus Iesus Christus, deseruit Petrum, et inuentus est homo Petrus. 59  AU cont 14, 32 (CSEL 41, p. 183, l. 13): per medicinalem prouidentiam paululum desertus est a rectore, ne per exitialem superbiam ipse desereret rectorem

158

clemens weidmann

es sich offensichtlich um ein Hapax legomenon,60 das trotz seiner handschriftlich schlechten Bezeugung – der älteste Textzeuge O liest unpassendes und sonst nie bezeugtes subdiruit; die Form subdeseruit bieten nur Ol ante correcturam und die Editio princeps; die beiden anderen Handschriften vereinfachen zum geläufigen Kompositum deseruit – zu halten ist, weil es mit Augustins Stil kompatibel ist. Das Präfix sub- dient zur Abschwächung der Bedeutung des Grundverbs; schon Cicero bildet ein Hapax legomenon subdiffidere (Cic., Att. 15, 20, 1; „ein wenig misstrauen“), Curtius Rufus verwendet erstmals das adjektivische Partizip subdeficiens (Curt. 7, 7, 15: Haec quassa adhuc uoce subdeficiens uix proximis exaudientibus dixerat). Dieses Verb subdeficere verwendet auch Augustinus, um damit im Sinn von „ein wenig versagen“, ein leichtes Fehlverhalten von Menschen zu beschreiben.61 Unter den insgesamt sechs Belegen von subdeficere/subdefectio findet sich einer, in dem auch die Verleugnung des Petrus genannt wird. Im 22. Buch von Contra Faustum vergleicht Augustinus die von manchen als solche verstandene Glaubensschwäche Abrams, wenn er aus Furcht seine Frau als seine Schwester ausgibt (Gen. 12), mit der des Petrus, wenn er Christus verleugnet (AU Fau 22, 34; CSEL 25, p. 628, l. 1): nonnulli quidem […] cum hoc Abrahae factum considerarent, uisum est eis, quod a firmitate fidei subdefecerit atque titubauerit et timore mortis sicut dominum Petrus, ita iste negauerit uxorem.62 Das Verb subdeficere erweist sich somit als intransitives Pendant zu transitivem subdeserere. Sucht man einen Autor, dem man dieses Hapax zuschreiben soll, bietet sich also in erster Linie Augustinus an.63 Der vorgestellte Abschnitt aus PS-AU s 79, ins(+ Ps. 29, 7–8); AU gr 13 (PL 44, col. 889, l. 51): paululum gratia deserente (+ Ps. 29, 7–8); AU corr 24, 24 (CSEL 92, p. 248) deo paululum deserente (+ Ps. 29, 7–8). 60  Ich danke Herrn Manfred Flieger vom Thesaurus Linguae Latinae für die freundliche Auskunft, dass im Material des ThLL keine weiteren Belege vorhanden sind. 61  Vgl. AU s 343, 10, 272 (Revue Bénédictine, 66, 1956, p. 37): ut imitemur, laboremus; et si in labore subdeficimus, adiutorium imploremus. 62  Darauf bezieht sich Augustinus in AU Gn q 26, 324–25 (CCSL 33, p. 11): utrum hoc conuenerit tam sancto uiro an subdefectio fidei eius intellegatur? 63  Zur leicht abundanten Verbindung des abschwächenden Präfix sub mit paululum vgl. auch die auf Augustinus beschränkte Junktur aliquantum subobscurus (AU s 166A [= AU Ps 25 en 2], 12; AU s 380, 5).

      zur grauzone zwischen (in)authentischen predigten

159

besondere die Bedeutung von subdeserere, erfuhr im Jansenistenstreit um Antoine Arnauld rege Diskussion,64 die auch in Mignes Theologiae cursus completus einging.65 Als Ergebnis ist festzuhalten, dass das erste Kapitel dieser Predigt mit Sicherheit auf eine authentische Predigt Augustins zurückgeht, die mit einigen Adaptationen am Anfang (und vielleicht auch am Ende 66) an den Beginn der neu geschaffenen Predigtkompilation PS-AU s 79 gestellt wurde. Als ihr Verfasser kommt nur Caesarius in Frage, wofür nicht nur die oben genannten caesarianischen Charakteristika des Initiums sprechen, sondern auch der Umstand, dass der wichtigste Überlieferungsträger der Predigt, das Homiliar von Ottobeuren, zahlreiche Predigten des Caesarius enthält.67 c.  AN s Bar 6 Wie die vorige Predigt ist auch die von Barré edierte Predigt AN s Bar 6 aus zwei Teilen zusammengesetzt:68 der erste Teil ist aus PS-AU s Bou 2 übernommen,69 für den zweiten Teil (AN s Bar 6, ll. 39–71) konnte bisher keine Quelle ermittelt werden. Er stammt 64  H.  Dumas, Histoire des cinq propositions de Jansenius, Liège, 1700, pp. 284–85: „la proposition sub sert trés-souvent à diminuer la signification du verbe [...] subdeseruit ne signifie pas, que le Sauveur eût abandonné absolument St.Pierre, mais qu’il l’avoit abandonné en quelque sorte ou tant soit peu“; Ph.  Sellier, Pascal et saint Augustin, Paris, 1970, p. 279. 65  Vnde auctor citati sermonis, qui non est Augustinus, dicit tantum Petrum a Christo subdesertum esse id est aliquatenus desertum; J.-P. Migne, Theologiae cursus completus, Tomus Decimus. De gratia, Parisiis, 1839, p. 962. 66  Für eine Adaptation der letzten Zeilen könnte sprechen, dass sich nach subdeseruit keine weiteren signifikanten Augustinusparallelen nachweisen lassen. – Die zweimalige Verwendung von fratres carissimi am Anfang (1, 6) dürfte ebenfalls auf den Bearbeiter zurückgehen. 67  Vgl. G. Morin, CCSL 103, p. LXXXVII–LXXXIX; R. Grégoire, Homéliaires liturgiques médiévaux. Analyse de manuscrits (o. Anm. 50), pp. 321– 342 68  H.  Barré, „Sermons marials inédits“, Marianum, 25, 1963, pp. 39–93 (pp.  79–81) ; PLS 4, Paris, 1968, pp. 1925–1927 Die Predigt wird auf das 7. Jh. datiert. 69  J.-P. Bouhot, „Une source du sermon « Caelebritas » (Pseudo-Ildefonse, serm. 7)“, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 15, 1969, pp. 247–53 (die Edition auf pp. 251–53). Bouhot vermutet, dass die Predigt Ende 5./Anfang 6. Jh. in Afrika entstand.

160

clemens weidmann

wohl, wie im Folgenden gezeigt werden soll, aus einer verlorenen Predigt des Augustinus. Ich zitiere ihn in vollem Umfang aus der Edition von Barré (einschließlich der Zeilenzählung), verzichte aber auf die Angabe der handschriftlich bezeugten Varianten. Die Predigt ist wie PS-AU s 79 im Homiliar von Ottobeuren (Roma, Bibl. naz. centr. Cod. 1190, s. IX in., fol. 70r–72r) überliefert; als zweiter Textzeuge kommt hinzu Montpellier, Académie de Médecine 59, s. X, fol. 82v–83v. ut et Christus et de femina et tamen 40 sine masculo nasceretur, ut neque ab humana origine recederetur neque peccatum originale traheretur ac sic in nobis per illum in quo non fuerat solueretur, quos inquinauit prima natiuitas, ut nos per eum mundaret secunda natiuitas; qui morte patienda esset indignus, ut mortem patiendo uitam praestaret indignis; qui nullo debi45 to obnoxius sanguinem funderet, quo debita nostra deleret; qui pro suo corpore quod est ecclesia ductus est immolandus, ut eidem corpori caput fieret immolatus. Christus enim, sicut nouit optime fides uestra, ut nos membra faceret sua, peccata portauit aliena; ac per hoc, ut breuiter dicam, deus id quod non erat creauit, media50 tor id quod perierat recreauit. Non immerito hanc redemptoris nostri natiuitatem talis etiam temporum figura commendat. Ab hodierno enim die, sicut nostis, minuitur nox et crescit dies; deficiunt tenebrae, lumen augetur. Et in lucra lucis nocturna dispendia transferuntur, ut etiam ipsi dies 55 quodammodo clamare uideantur cum apostolo: Quoniam eruit nos Col. 1, 13 deus de potestate tenebrarum et transtulit in regnum filii caritatis suae. Ergo, fratres karissimi, quoniam, sicut alibi scriptum est, I Thess. 5, 5 omnes nos filii lucis sumus et filii diei, non sumus noctis neque tenebrarum, sicut in die honeste ambulemus. Vt enim in isto Rom. 13, 13 60 die, hoc est in Christo, ambulare possimus, ipse dies nobis factus est uia. Substrauit humilitatem suam in qua ambularemus; superfudit lucem suam ne erremus. Quid enim prodest, fratres, splendor diei homini ambulare cupienti et uiam quam teneat nescienti? Aut quid rursus prodest uiam nosse et eam tenebris obcaecantibus 65 non uidere? Vtrumque nobis unus est Christus. Dies erat, uia factus est. Illud mansit, hoc factum est. Cum enim esset dies ex die, sempiternus ex sempiterno, sempiterni patris filius, hodiernum nobis sanctificauit diem ipse uirginis filius. Si ergo ab hac humilitate eius, qua quaesiuit nos, non recesserimus, ad splendorem illius in 70 quo non incongrue dies dictus est, die ipso perueniemus, et cum eo sine fine regnabimus, cui est honor et imperium in saecula saeculorum.

Der Abschnitt enthält zahlreiche Junkturen, die auf Augustinus beschränkt oder vorwiegend bei ihm bezeugt sind: de femina nasci (39–40); sine masculo (40); passives receditur (40); peccatum originale trahere (41); corpus (+ suum/eius) quod est ecclesia (46); aliena

      zur grauzone zwischen (in)authentischen predigten

161

peccata portare (48); ut breuiter dicam (49); sicut nostis (52); sicut alibi scriptum est (57); factus est uia (60–61); utrumque unus Christus (65); dies ex die (66); non incongrue (70). Mehrere Similien beweisen den augustinischen Charakter des Texts, z.B.  Zeile 44 ≈ AU s 142, 9 (MiAg 1, p. 701, l. 29): praestitit indignis mortem suam, seruat dignis uitam suam; Zeile 48 ≈ AU Ps 26 en 2,  2, 13 (CSEL 93/1B, p. 93) faciens nos membra sua; Zeile 49–50f ≈ Sed.  Scott. coll. in apost. I Tim. 2, 5 (663, 1 Frede/Stanjek): ideo omnes uult saluare, quia unus deus omnes creauit et unus mediator recreauit (aus einer verlorenen Augustinuspredigt?). Alle Bibelzitate sind bei Augustinus oft und meist im selben Wortlaut zitiert; im Zitat Col. 1, 13 (55–57) findet sich das für Augustinus typische eruit (anstelle von liberauit, eripuit), die Einleitung mit quoniam […] deus ist ungewöhnlich, entspringt aber wohl einem ungenauen Gedächtniszitat.70 Unmittelbar danach wird ein aus I Thess. 5, 5 und Rom. 13, 13 geklittertes Schriftzitat angefügt, das sich in dieser Form zweimal bei Augustinus findet.71 Das augustinische Schlüsselmotiv dieses Abschnitts findet sich jedoch in den Zeilen 52–54, wo der Prediger die astronomischen Implikationen der Geburt Christi herausstreicht: Die Tage werden länger, die Nächte kürzer. Barré erkennt darin ein bei Augustinus geläufiges Thema und verweist auf die Weihnachtspredigten AU s 186, 3; 190, 1; 192, 3; 194, 2 sowie die Predigt auf Johannes 287, 4. Die engste Parallele findet sich jedoch in einer Predigt auf Johannes, in der Augustinus im Zusammenhang mit Sommersonnenwende von der gegenläufigen Änderung von Tag und Nacht spricht:

70  Augustinus verwendet sonst meist quia anstelle von quoniam und ipse anstelle von deus. 71  AU s 49, 3, 72 (CCSL 41, p. 616; nach Zitat von Eph. 5, 8): item in alio loco: omnes enim uos filii lucis estis, et filii diei; non sumus noctis, neque tenebrarum. Sicut in die honeste ambulemus; AU s 230 (PL 38, col. 1103, l. 47): audiamus apostolum dicentem, filii enim lucis sumus, et filii diei: non sumus noctis, neque tenebrarum. Sicut in die honeste ambulemus: non in comessationibus et ebrietatibus, non in cubilibus et impudicitiis, non in contentione et aemulatione; sed induite dominum Iesum Christum, et carnis prouidentiam ne feceritis in concupiscentiis; alle drei Bibelzitate finden sich in PS-LEO s 9,  4 (= PS-AU s Cai I, 22, 4).

162

clemens weidmann

AN s Bar 6, l. 52–54 (Marianum, 25, 1963, p. 81) ab hodierno enim die, sicut nostis, minuitur nox et crescit dies; deficiunt tenebrae, lumen augetur. Et in lucra lucis nocturna dispendia transferuntur.

AU s 293B, 3 (MiAg 1, p. 229, l. 18–20) hodie tamen natus est (sc. Iohannes), fratres, quando nox crescit, et minui incipit dies; Christus uero hiemali solstitio, sicut nostis, quando in lucrum lucis noctis incipiunt damna transferri: […].72

Die gedankliche Ähnlichkeit beider Stellen und die dabei doch nicht wörtliche Entsprechung machen es sehr wahrscheinlich, dass beide vom selben Autor, aber nicht aus derselben Predigt stammen. Im Gegensatz dazu findet sich derselbe Satz fast wörtlich im Antiphonar von Bangor (ANT-I 98; CPL 1938): ab hodierno die nox minuitur dies crescit concutiuntur tenebrae lumen augetur in lucro lucis nocturna dispendia transferuntur,73 und die Unterschiede sind so gering, dass hier offensichtlich ist, dass beide aus derselben Quelle schöpfen. Daraus folgt mit einiger Sicherheit, dass das Antiphonar von Bangor auf dieselbe verlorene Augustinuspredigt zurückgreift wie die von Barré edierte Predigt.74 Vgl. H. Förster, Die Anfänge von Weihnachten und Epiphanias: eine Anfrage an die Entstehungshypothesen, Tübingen, 2007 (Studien und Texte zu Antike und Christentum, 46), pp. 277–78; A. A. R. Bastiaensen, „“He must Grow, I must Diminish” (John 3:30): Augustine of Hippo Preaching on John the Baptist“, in Jerusalem, Alexandria, Rome: Studies in Ancient Cultural Interaction in Honour of A. Hilhorst, hrsg. von F. García Martínez, G. P. Luttikhuizen, Leiden, 2003 (Supplements to the Journal for the Study of Judaism, 82), pp. 13–26 (p. 24): die Verknüpfung von Jo. 3,30 (illum oportet crescere, me autem minui) mit der Winter- bzw. Sommersonnenwende sowie mit der Todesart Christi und des Johannes wird als typisch für Augustinus bezeichnet. – Zur Opposition lucrum diei/dispendium noctis vgl. PS-AU s 119, 2 (PL 38, col. 1983, l. 29): O dies dierum omnium nouitas lucrum lucis et dispendium caecitatis in quo aeternus sol de summa altitudine claritatis paternae descendens; EUS-G h 2, 2, 13 (CCSL 101, p. 23): hodie enim noctis damna in diei transeunt lucra; B. Maurmann, Die Himmelsrichtungen im Weltbild des Mittelalters: Hildegard von Bingen, Honorius Augustodunensis und andere Autoren, München, 1976 (Münstersche Mittelalter-Schriften, 33), pp.  140–41. – Zur Junktur dispendium noctis vgl. Claud., carm. 17, 120: noctis reparant dispendia Chelae. 73  F. E. Warren, The Antiphonary of Bangor. An early Irish manuscript in the Ambrosian library at Milan, London, 1895 (The Henry Bradshaw Society, 10), p. 29. 74  Zur Verwendung von Augustinuspredigten in liturgischen Texten vergleiche man etwa die Übernahme eines kurzen Abschnitt aus AU s 298A, 2 72 

      zur grauzone zwischen (in)authentischen predigten

163

Für die anschließende plastische Erklärung von Christus, der sich zum Weg und zum Licht für die Menschen gemacht hat (60–65), lassen sich zwar keine exakten augustinischen Parallelen vorbringen; der Abschnitt atmet jedoch spürbar den Geist Augustins.75 Deutlich augustinisch ist die Conclusio: utrumque nobis unus est Christus (65)76 und die anschließende Antithese dies erat, uia factus est, die als Variation der augustinischen Formel deus erat, homo factus est 77 anzusehen ist. Deutlich ist auch wieder die Parallele von hodiernum nobis sanctificauit diem ipse uirginis filius (67f.) mit dem Beginn der Weihnachtspredigt AU s 189: sanctificauit nobis istum diem dies, qui fecit omnem diem. Da das Thema von Licht und Weg von seinem ersten Auftreten bis zum Schlusswort beibehalten wird, ist wohl anzunehmen, dass der Text einer einzigen Quelle, nämlich einer verlorenen Weihnachtspredigt des Augustinus, entnommen ist. Zwei Umstände haben mich aber davon abgehalten, den Text als ein authentisches Predigtfragment in CSEL 101 aufzunehmen: Erstens scheint mir die Syntax der ersten Zeilen mit der Aneinanderreihung von ut- und Relativsätzen in dieser Form kaum wörtlich einer Augustinuspredigt entnommen zu sein, auch wenn viele Einzelheiten in Vokabular, Satzbau und theologischem Gedankengut eindeutig auf Herkunft aus Augustinus zu sprechen scheinen. Und zweitens ist die einzige Quelle des ersten Teils der Predigt (PS-AU s Bou 2), ihrerseits eine Kompilation, die zumindest drei echte Predigten (AU s 186. 215. 369) verarbeitet, aber mit einiger Wahrscheinlichkeit, wie einige Augustinismen in nicht identifizierten Abschnitten zeigen, auch mindestens eine heute unbekannte in das Missale Romanum zur Feier von Petrus und Paulus (CSEL 101, p. 158) oder die große Wirkung des augustinischen uirgo ante partum, uirgo in partu, uirgo post partum (CSEL 101, pp. 189–90). 75  Man vergleiche etwa das Bild von den verschiedenen Steuermännern aus AU Ps 31 en 2, 4, 22 (CSEL 93/1B, p. 214): optimus ergo ille qui et uiam tenet, et bene ibi ambulat; sequentis autem spei, qui etsi aliquantum claudicat, non omnino ut erret, aut remaneat, sed progreditur etsi paulatim. Die Begriffe humilitas und lux bilden gewissermaßen das Gegenstück zu lubricum (= luxuria) und tenebrae (= ignorantia), wofür Augustinus in AU Ps 34, 1, 9 (CCSL 38, p. 306) eine anschauliche Darstellung dessen bietet, was das Ans-Ziel-Kommen gefährdet. 76  Vgl. AU Ps 42, 4, 6 (CCSL 38, p. 476): quid enim aliud lux dei, nisi ueritas dei? aut quid ueritas dei, nisi lux dei? et hoc utrumque unus Christus. 77  Z.B. AU s 189, 4 (MiAg 1, p. 211, l. 19).

164

clemens weidmann

Predigt benutzt hat. Bei einer derartigen Quellenlage wäre es höchst unsicher anzunehmen, dass der Schlussteil keine Veränderungen (Kürzungen, Umstellungen, Adaptationen, etc.) gegenüber dem augustinischen Original erfahren hat. d.  AU s 59A Die letzten Beispiele haben gezeigt, wie schwierig es ist, Predigtfragmente aus Sermones zu isolieren, weil die Übergänge zwischen den einzelnen Texten oft fließend sind und Spuren von Überarbeitung zeigen.78 Dennoch scheint es in Einzelfällen möglich, ein umfangreiches Predigtfragment einer Kompilation zu entnehmen. Ein Beispiel dafür ist AU s 59A, eine Predigt zur Oratio dominica, die Teil einer bisher unbekannten Predigtkompilation ist, die Brian Møller Jensen im Lektionar Piacenza, Bibl. cap. Ms. 60, s. XII, fol. 282r2–284v1 entdeckte.79 Der Fall ist insofern von den vorigen Beispielen zu unterscheiden, als die Predigt eine zusammenhängende Erklärung des Vater Unser bietet, die in Stil und Aufbau den bisher bekannten Predigten AU s 56–59 auct. entspricht, sodass die Wahrscheinlichkeit, dass am originalen Wortlaut geändert wurde, eher gering ist. Es fehlt offensichtlich nur der Anfangsteil mit der üblichen Ansprache an die Taufwerber. Dieser wurde durch eine Zusammenstellung einschlägiger Aussagen Augustins zur Oratio dominica in AU ench 2, 7 und AU ep 130 ersetzt. Dieser Eingriff ist wohl dem Umstand geschuldet, dass die Funktion einer derartigen Predigt im Mittelalter eine andere war als zu Zeiten Augustins. Die Predigt selbst ist von Anfang an so reich an sprachlichen und thematischen Parallelen zum Corpus des Augustinus, dass an ihrer Echtheit kein Zweifel bestehen kann.

78  Zum Problem P.-P.  Verbraken, „Les fragments conservés de sermons perdus de saint Augustin“ [o. Anm. 24], pp. 248–49 – Es werden daher nur wenige solcher Predigtfragmente als echt anerkannt; ein Beispiel für einen solchen Grenzfall bildet AU s 236A, der in den ersten vier Kapiteln von PS-AU s Cai II, 60 enthalten ist; das genaue Ende des augustinischen Abschnitts ist unsicher. Eine Quelle für PS-AU s Cai II, 60, 5 kann nicht ermittelt werden. Die Kapitel 6f. stammen aus PS-AU s Mai 80. Am Ende (capp. 7–8) finden sich einige Entlehnungen aus AU s 285, 2–3. 79  CSEL 101, pp. 29–44.

      zur grauzone zwischen (in)authentischen predigten

165

4. Ganze Predigten (PS-AU s Cai I, 19) Abschließend sei noch das Beispiel einer Predigt angeführt, bei der ich lange im Zweifel war, ob man sie Augustinus zuschreiben darf. Morin hatte in seiner Editio princeps einer im Homiliar von Wien überlieferten Epiphaniepredigt (PS-AU s Mor) bemerkt, dass sie eng mit dem von Caillau edierten Sermo PS-AU s Cai I, 19 (PLS 3, col. 177–179) verwandt ist.80 Nun ist aber Morins Predigt, wie Dolbeau und ich gezeigt haben, eine echte Predigt des Augustinus (AU s 204D).81 Was folgt daraus für die damit verwandte Predigt? Auch PS-AU s Cai I, 19 weist zahlreiche sprachliche und motivische Übereinstimmungen mit den Predigten Augustins auf. Es finden sich dieselben Schlüsselmotive wie in den echten Epiphaniepredigten: die Magier werden als primitiae gentium (1, 4) bezeichnet, Christus bringt als Eckstein Juden und Heiden zusammen (1, 18); dies wird wie z.B. in AU s 199. 200. 202. 204B mit Eph. 2, 14 und 17 illustriert.82 Wie in vielen anderen Predigten wird Ps. 18, 2 (caeli enarrauerunt gloriam dei) zitiert (1, 16), um die vom Himmel kommende Offenbarung der Geburt Christi an jüdische Hirten und heidnische Sterndeuter zu unterstreichen.83 Wie in AU s 204,  2. 204B, 5. 375 werden in §2 Ochs und Esel

80  G. Morin, „Deux sermons africains du Ve/VIe siècle avec un texte inédit du symbole“, Revue Bénédictine, 35, 1923, pp. 233–45; G. Morin, MiAg 1, p. 727: auctor certo antiquus, saeculi V ut uidetur et licet ignotus tamen minime ineruditus; dicendi genus ad eloquentiam Petri Chrysologi mihi uidetur accedere. – Die Beziehung zu Petrus Chrysologus wird von A. Olivar, CCSL 24B, p. 985 in Abrede gestellt, weil der mit dieser Predigt verwandte Sermo [PETC] s 159 nicht von Petrus Chrysologus stammt. – Morin selbst sprach die drei unter dem Namen Augustins überlieferten Epiphaniepredigten (PS-AU s 131, PS-AU s 132, PS-AU s Mor) dem Bischof von Hippo nur aus dem Grund ab, weil sie ein sonst bei Augustinus nicht bezeugtes Motiv aufweisen (der Stern von Bethlehem erschien bereits zwei Jahre vor der Geburt Christi) und wagte ohne triftige Argumente als Ersatz dafür eine Zuschreibung der drei Predigten an Optatus von Mileve. Tatsächlich aber sind alle drei Predigten authentische Predigten Augustins (AU s 204B-D); s. CSEL 101, pp. 59–100. 81  F.  Dolbeau, in einer Rezension in Revue d’Études Augustiniennes et Patristiques, 56, 2010, pp. 352–57 (p. 354, Anm. 1); CSEL 101, pp. 89–100. 82  Belege in CSEL 101, pp. 63–65. 83  Vgl. CSEL 101, p. 91.

166

clemens weidmann

aus Is. 1, 3 als Symbole für Juden und Heiden gedeutet.84 Ebenso augustinisch ist die Deutung der providentiellen Rolle, die den Juden zukommt: Sie weisen den Weg zu Christus, finden aber nicht den Weg zu ihm (3, 2–3: Iudaei ostenderunt, et ipsi qui ostenderunt remanserunt).85 Dazu kommen noch zahlreiche Wortspiele (z.B. 5, 4: creator […] creatus), Junkturen86 und Aussagen, die eine deutliche Parallele in Augustins Predigtcorpus aufweisen, z.B.: 1,  2: diem quo natus est dies  ≈ AU s 196,  1 (PL 38, col. 1019, l. 13): natalis dies, quo natus est dies; 4, 1–3: dominus noster adhuc manibus portatur, et res iam mirabiles operatur ≈ AU s 369,  1, 2 (Revue Bénédictine, 79, 1969, p. 125): adhuc portabaris in manibus matris, et iam dominus orbis agnoscebaris; 4, 22–25: et qui non possunt per suam aetatem fateri Christum, iam incipiant per eius gratiam confiteri ≈ AU s 199,  2 (PL 38, col. 1027, l. 44): illi pro Christo potuerunt pati, quem nondum poterant confiteri; 5, 1–3: nos itaque, dilectissimi, propter quos omnia facta sunt, propter quos excelsus se humiliauit, propter quos […] ≈ AU s 202, 4 (PL 38, col. 1035, l. 5): nos ergo carissimi, quorum erant illi magi primitiae, nos hereditas Christi usque ad terminos terrae, propter quos caecitas ex parte in Israel facta est [...] annuntiemus.

Trotz dieser starken Argumente, die für eine Zuschreibung auch dieser Predigt an Augustinus sprechen, gibt es einige gewichtige Gründe, die mich davon Abstand nehmen ließen, sie unter die echten Predigten in CSEL 101 aufzunehmen. Es finden sich einige Formulierungen, die sich nicht bei Augustinus parallelisieren lassen, z.B. die Einkleidung eines Bibelzitats mit pandit, die an zahlreiche Predigten des Petrus Chrysologus erinnert.87 Vor allem sind es aber einige gedanklich und syntaktisch inkonzinne StruktuVgl. CSEL 101, p. 65. Vgl. CSEL 101, p. 92. 86  Z.B.: magos perducere (1, 12–13), quando dicebat (2, 2), unum deum colere (2, 7), per fidem mundare (2, 9–10), tamquam […] diceret (2, 18); propter quem/ quos deus factus est homo (5, 3–4); esurit panis (5, 5); praetermissis omnibus (5, 6). 87  Die wörtlich gleichlautende Junktur sicut euangelica pandit historia (1, 6) findet sich bei LEO tr 73, 1, l. 12 (CCSL 138A, p. 450). 84  85 

      zur grauzone zwischen (in)authentischen predigten

167

ren, die gegen Augustins Autorschaft sprechen. Unmotiviert bzw. ungeschickt erscheint beispielsweise der Hinweis auf die Ascensio Christi am Ende von §1 oder die Aussage, dass die Kirche von den prophetischen Büchern vorgelesen, aber von den Heiden angebetet wird (3, 5–7: eius ecclesia ab omnibus prophetarum uoluminibus recitatur nec tamen ab ipsis, sed a gentibus adoratur).88 Auch die Rhetorik bleibt an manchen Stellen hinter Augustins Stil zurück.89 Dazu kommt, dass die Predigt nur in späteren italienischen Homiliarien überliefert ist und die eine oder andere Unregelmäßigkeit auf die prekäre handschriftliche Überlieferung zurückgeführt werden kann. Der Text geht also mit Sicherheit auf eine verlorene Predigt Augustins zurück, wurde aber wohl von einem späteren Bearbeiter gekürzt und modifiziert.90 Diese Eingriffe haben eine ursprünglich echte Predigt in den grauen Bereich geschoben, sodass sie nicht mehr als echt anerkannt werden kann. 88  Unmotiviert erscheint auch der nachklappende Satzteil et ipsi per tot terrarum spatia uenientes in 1, 20–23: admoniti angelorum uocibus pastores crediderunt, magi adorauerunt et ipsi per tot terrarum spatia uenientes. – Syntaktisch holprig ist 2, 4–8: per bouem significans Israelitas iugo legis astrictos; per asinum uero gentes significans, quod animal dicitur immundum ab Israelitis unum deum colentibus immunditia idololatriae separatas. 89  Z.B. das platte Ende eines dreigliedrigen mit non […] ut durchgeführten Vergleichs am Ende von §4: non ut hic fulgido diadematis decoretur ornatu, sed ut spinis coronetur illusus (4, 31–33). – Die mit N.E. (= noui editores) signierenden Herausgeber der Sermonesedition der Gebrüder Gaume (Paris 1837) unterziehen im Vorwort die von Caillau im ersten Band edierten Sermones einer kritischen Prüfung. Zur vorliegenden Predigt (PS-AU s Cai I, 19) sagen sie, das zweite Kapitel sei eine Paraphrase vom Anfang von AU s 375, das dritte und vierte Kapitel seien QU sy 2 entnommen. Die zahlreichen Anreden in Kap. 4 seien aus dem altum spuriorum sermonum mare genommen, ihr Verfasser sei aus einer Rhetorenschule hervorgegangen, an der man die ars desinendi nicht gelehrt habe; Sancti Aurelii Augustini Hipponensis episcopi opera omnia […], Tomus Quintus, Pars Prior, Parisiis apud Gaume fratres, 1837, pp. LIV–LV; G. Folliet, „Deux grandes éditions de Saint Augustin au 19e s.: Gaume (1836–1839) – Migne (1841–1842)“, Augustiniana, 45, 1995, pp. 5–44 (p. 7). 90  Ein ähnliches Phänomen liegt in PS-AU s Cas II 158, bei dem es sich um eine freie Bearbeitung von AU s 114 handelt, und in PS-AU s Mai 10 vor; vgl. P.-P. Verbraken, „Le sermo CXIV de Saint Augustin sur le pardon des offenses et le pastiche du « Florilegium Casinense »“, Revue Bénédictine, 73, 1963, pp. 17–32; C. Weidmann, „Sermo Mai 10. Eine authentische Predigt des Augustinus?“, Augustiniana, 60, 2010, pp. 173–92.

Unidentified Sermons Attributed to Augustine in the Lectionarium Placentinum: Reception and Liturgical Use of Augustine in a Twelfth-Century Lectionary for the Divine Office Brian Møller Jensen (Stockholm) In the medieval mass some kind of exegesis of the gospel reading by the pope, a bishop or a priest played a significant pastoral role, whether these texts were called sermons, homilies or tractatus. The great number of manuscripts transmitting this type of texts alone is a sign of their importance, and various types of rubrics might give us information about the subject of the exegesis (like Sermo de oratione dominica), the audience to which it is given (as in Sermo de eucharistia ad neophytos), and sometimes even the church where this pastoral care took place (such as Homilia habita ad populum in basilica sancti Nerei). Similar facts have already been demonstrated and discussed in some of the contributions to the previous conferences in the Ministerium sermonis series as well as in many other publications. On the other hand, we do not find a similar number of studies on the occurrence of the same type of texts in the divine office. In addition to other reasons for an edition of a specific lectionary from a specific period and place, there seem to be at least two relevant questions for an editor of this particular part of the Christian liturgy: Which ritual function do sermons, homilies and tractatus have in the celebration of Matins in the divine office? And should such lectionaries be used as text witnesses in editions of single texts and/or even of larger works like Gregory the Great’s Homiliae in euangelia or Augustine’s Tractatus in Iohannis euangelium?

Praedicatio Patrum. Studies on Preaching in late Antique North Africa, edited by Gert Partoens, Anthony Dupont, Shari Boodts, Turnhout, 2017 (Instrumenta Patris­ tica et Mediaeualia, 75), p. 169-182 ©



10.1484/M.IPM-EB.5.114052

170

brian møller jensen

In the first part of this article I want to present the large Lectionarium Placentinum from the second half of the twelfth century and the selection of texts it contains. The second part of my contribution will be somewhat more specific with its focus on the texts attributed to Augustine in the c. 1300 folios of the four manuscripts that constitute this liturgical book made for the celebration of Matins secundum consuetudinem ecclesiae Placentinae. 1. Why edit a lectionary for the divine office? Before we rush into a more detailed presentation of the Lectiona­ rium Placentinum, some words on the liturgical context of the lectionary and its contents might seem appropriate as well as a few reflections concerning the editing of an entire lectionary from a specific diocese and a specific period. In the Latin Church we find detailed descriptions of the structure of the divine office in both the Regula Magistri and the Regula Benedicti from the first half of the sixth century, especially concerning the distribution of the 150 psalms throughout the week. In the liturgical section of the Regula Benedicti (chapters 8–20), the psalms as well as the antiphons, versicles and responsories belonging to each of the hours are assigned to the eight hours of the daily office. In addition to the performance of the various kinds of chants, chapter 9 in the Regula Benedicti indicates that lessons from the Bible as well as biblical expositions and exegesis written by the “recognized and orthodox Church Fathers” were to be included in the celebration of the divine office.1 In accordance with this prescriptive comment and the one in the final chapter (73), sermons, homilies and biblical commentaries were to be selected, modified and divided into lectiones to serve as lessons in the three nocturns of Matins, usually three lessons in each nocturn for the episcopal and four for the monastic celebration of the office, and with the reading of the gospel as the introduction to the lessons of the last nocturn. According to tradition these lectiones were collected and transmitted in a specific book called lectionarium de officio, which appropriately should be classified as a liturgical 1  Regula Benedicti 9, 8 (CSEL 75, p. 55): Codices autem legantur in uigiliis diuinae auctoritatis tam Veteris Testamenti quam Noui; sed et expositiones earum, quae a nominatis et orthodoxis catholicis patribus factae sunt.

unidentified sermons attributed to augustine

171

book, since it contains the lectiones to be read in the celebration of offices in the liturgical year, whether they were texts written by known authors like Augustine, Ambrose and John Chrysostom or anonymous texts such as saints’ vitae, passions or accounts of translations of relics. However, only a limited number of medieval lectionaries assigned to the office has been transmitted, and mostly in local versions and often just partially, whilst antiphonaries including the antiphons, versicles and responsories to be sung in each nocturn have been preserved in greater quantities. Based on the repertories of office chants contained in seven old antiphonaries from different regions of the Latin Church, René-Jean Hesbert collected and edited a corpus of antiphons, versicles and responsories in four volumes entitled Corpus Antiphonalium Officii.2 In addition to this fundamental edition, the last decades have seen the development of the project CAO-ECE, 3 with both publications and a database as a complement to Hesbert’s CAO with repertories of the office chants in Latin sources from Eastern Europe, the publication of individual antiphonary inventories,4 as well as the creation and development of the database CANTUS, which offers access to the inventories of the office chants in around 140 medieval and early renaissance antiphonaries.5 Although a counterpart edition of the lessons of the office to Hesbert’s corpus might seem natural and logic, no such edition has been published, and for various reasons it will probably never appear in print. Whereas the chants are relatively short and seem to form a stable repertoire during the Middle Ages, the length of the lessons varies quite a lot, not only from lectionary to lectionary, but also within a single manuscript. Furthermore, they do not form a stable corpus, but instead show much variation from R.-J.  Hesbert, Corpus Antiphonalium Officii, 4 v., Roma, 1963–70. Corpus Antiphonalium Officii – Ecclesiarum Centralis Europae, initiated by the late László Dobszay and based at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Institute of Musicology in Budapest. Further information can be found on the website earlymusic.zti.hu/cao-ece/cao-ece.html. 4  E.g. K.  Glaeske, K.  Falconer, L.  Collamore, R.  Rice, Piacenza, Biblioteca Capitolare 65: A CANTUS index. Introduction by P. Merkley, Ottawa, 1993. 5  For further information on sources and inventories, see the website cantusdatabase.org. 2  3 

172

brian møller jensen

lectionary to lectionary. This fact alone would make the editing of such a counterpart to Hesbert’s CAO not only time-consuming, but it could also be argued that such an edition cannot really offer any useful presentation of the repertories of lessons comparable to Hesbert’s CAO. Instead inventories of the various lectionaries might be more important when it comes to investigating, comparing and analysing such repertories in various dioceses and periods. Based on these and similar reflections and arguments and the fact that neither a facsimile nor a critical edition of an entire lectionary has been published so far,6 the aim of my project within the Ars edendi programme at Stockholm University is to offer a modified diplomatic edition of the Lectionarium Placentinum.7 My edition might be considered a viable scholarly alternative as well as some kind of counterpart to Hesbert’s CAO, since it is going to give scholars access to a complete collection of lectiones in a single source from a specific diocese and a particular period. Such an edition might not only provide information about the reception and liturgical use of the texts of the patristic and early medieval Church Fathers, but also offer an instrument of study to scholars in various fields of research, not only liturgists investigating the contents and structure of the medieval divine office, but also scholars interested in the Latin language, liturgical literature, biblical exegesis, theology, hagiography, philosophy, history of ideas and mentality, and Latin translations of Greek texts. 2. Description of the Lectionarium Placentinum The Lectionarium Placentinum is made up of four parchment manuscripts from the second half of the twelfth century, Piacenza, 6  A.-E.  Urfels-Capot, Le sanctoral du lectionnaire de l’Office Dominicain (1254–1256): Édition et étude d’après le ms. Rome, Sainte-Sabine XIV L1: Ecclesiasticum officium secundum ordinem fratrum praedicatorum, Paris, 2007 (Mémoires et documents de l’École des Chartes, 84), includes only the sanctorale part of the thirteenth-century Dominican Office in Roma, Santa Sabina XIV L1. 7  This method is described in detail in B.  M. Jensen, “A Modified Diplomatic Edition of Lectionarium Placentinum” in The Arts of Editing Medieval Greek and Latin: A Casebook, edited by E. Göransson, G. Iversen et alii, Toronto 2016, pp. 198-217.

unidentified sermons attributed to augustine

173

Bibl. Cap. codices 60–63 (henceforth = Pia 60–63).8 None of the four manuscripts are mentioned in Manfred Oberleitner’s survey of witnesses of Augustine’s texts in Italian libraries in the series Die handschriftliche Überlieferung der Werke des Heiligen Augustinus.9 The other parts of the Piacentine office celebration, i. e. the psalms and the hymns, antiphones, versicles and responsories, are contained in Pia 65, also known as Liber Magistri.10 These five manuscripts, together with the combined ordinary and sacramentary in codex 42, the evangeliary in codex 30 and the epistolary in codex 39, form the major part of the new set of liturgical books that were compiled and produced thanks to the last will and testament of the local cathedral canon Ribaldus. The latter was appointed presbyter cardinal by Pope Innocent II in 1141 and bequeathed one of his land-estates as the means for the cathedral chapter to fabricate new books (ad libros faciendos ad opus ecclesiae Placentinae Iustinae). As I discussed and argued in my thesis Tropes and Sequences in the Liturgy of the Church of Piacenza in the Twelfth Century (2002), this set of manuscripts reflects the revision of the local liturgy which was made in the wake of the Gregorian reform in the late 1070s.11 Having placed the lectionary in its historical and ritual contexts, we can now move on to a description of the four manuscripts. Following medieval conventions the lectionary has been divided into two major parts, each consisting of two manuscripts: the temporale contained in Pia 61–60, and the sanctorale in Pia 62–63: 1. Pia 61 with 363 folios contains the lessons for the Christological feasts and Sundays from the First Sunday of Advent to 8  Cf.  A.  C. Quintavalle, Miniatura a Piacenza. I codici dell’Archivio Capitolare, Venezia, 1963, pp. 115–19 (Pia 63), 121–27 (Pia 62), 127–32 (Pia 60), 134–36 (Pia 61). 9  M.  Oberleitner, Die handschriftliche Überlieferung der Werke des Heiligen Augustinus, v. 1/1: Italien, Wien, 1969–70. 10  See the description of the structure, contents and date of the manuscript in B. M. Jensen, Liber Magistri: Piacenza, Biblioteca Capitolare c. 65. Commentario esplicativo/Explicatory commentary, Piacenza, 1997. 11  B.  M. Jensen, Tropes and Sequences in the Liturgy of the Church in Piacenza in the Twelfth Century. An Analysis and an Edition of the Texts, Lewiston-Queenston-Lampeter, 2002, pp. 47–54.

174

brian møller jensen

Sabbatum sanctum (as it is indicated on the wooden cover of the codex). 2. Pia 60 with 297 folios contains the lessons for Easter Sunday, Ascension and Pentecost and the remaining 26 Sundays of the liturgical year as well as the lessons for the office of the Dead. A late fourteenth-century addition contains the lessons to the Corpus Christi feast, which will not be included in the edition. 3. Pia 62 with 306 folios includes the lessons to the saints’ feasts – chronologically in an unusual order beginning with Stephen the proto-martyr on December 26 to Bishop Germanus on July 31 – and a commune sanctorum section. 4. Pia 63 with 347 folios includes the lessons to the saints’ feasts from Peter in Chains on August 1 and the rest of the liturgical year, ending with the Roman virgin Victoria on December 23, plus an adequate commune sanctorum section. Together the four manuscripts contain c.  300 Gospel incipits and more than 700 texts. The rubrics present the names of more than 30 authors such as Origen, Cyprian of Carthage, Ambrose, Augustine, John Chrysostom, Jerome, Gregory the Great and Bede the Venerable as well as less familiar names like Fulbert of Chartres, Claudius of Turin and the local John the Archdeacon. Compared to some Italian lectionaries from the same period in e.g. Vercelli, Bobbio, Vigevano, and Brescia,12 the contents of the temporale compilation appear to be a more traditional collection than the selected texts in its sanctorale counterpart, which includes a large number of North-Italian saints’ vitae and passion stories as well as some local texts assigned to specific Piacentine saints (such as the old patron Antoninus and the first two bishops Victor and Savinus), as well as a description of the translation of the relics of the new patron Justina from Rome to Piacenza in August 1001. 12  E.g. G.  Brusa, “Gli omeliari della Biblioteca Capitolare di Vercelli”, Scrineum Rivista, 10 (2013), pp. 49–190; L.  Scappaticci, Codici e liturgia a Bobbio: Testi, musica e scrittura (secoli X ex.–XII), Città del Vaticano, 2008, pp. 228–48, 252–70, 295–310; L.  Angelotto, “Frammenti di omeliari medievali su ligature cinquecentesche nel fondo Roncalli di Vigevano”, Aevum, 79 (2005), pp. 513–29; S.  Gavinelli, “L’omeliario del monastero di S. Salvatore – S. Giulia di Brescia”, Aevum, 78 (2004), pp. 345–77.

unidentified sermons attributed to augustine

175

The cathedral of Piacenza, dedicated to Sancta Maria Assumpta and the younger patrona Justina, appears to be the origin of the Lectionarium Placentinum, according to two medieval inventories of the books belonging to the cathedral chapter. Although not registering the four manuscripts under the specific term lectiona­ rium de officio,13 both inventories seem to regard them as a unit. The older one, dated September 3, 1266, labels the temporale volumes as duo uolumina homeliarum and the sanctorale manuscripts as duo uolumina passionum sanctorum, whereas the younger, dated December 8, 1358, registers the units as duo passionaria and duo omeliaria.14 Another indication of the local origin of the four manuscripts may be seen in the opening rubric in Pia 62, fol. 1r: Incipiunt sermones, homiliae, uitae, passiones sanctorum apostolorum, martyrum, confessorum atque uirginum, qualiter leguntur in hac ecclesia per anni circulum, that is, hac ecclesia understood as the cathedral of Piacenza. Moreover, some rubrics in Pia 63 manifest that the sanctorale clearly was planned as two volumes: The rubric on fol. 19r, Cetera require in alio uolumine infra passionem Marcelli papae, refers to the readings in Pia 62, fol. 36v–39v, and the rubric added in the margin on fol. 167v, Quaere in nataliciis euangelistarum, non in isto sed in alio uolumine refers to Pia 62, fol. 246r. 3. Contents of the Lectionarium Placentinum Let us then have a look at the contents of the Lectionarium Placentinum. As mentioned above, more than 700 texts are included in the four manuscripts with the majority of the texts written by the Big Four, Ambrose, Augustine, Leo the Great and Gregory the Great. Among the texts by Ambrose are the vitae of a number of Milanese martyrs in the sanctorale and parts of his expositions on the Gospel of Luke and some sermons. Pope Leo’s contribu-

Applying this term I follow the definition in G.  Philippart, Les légendiers latins et autres manuscrits hagiographiques, Turnhout, 1977, p. 24: “Lectionnaire de l’office: tout manuscrit contenant les lectures (bibliques, patristiques ou homilétiques, hagiographiques) de l’office liturgique, pourvu que celles-ci aient été dès l’origine divisées en lectiones par les copistes.” 14  Cf. A.  C. Quintavalle, Miniatura a Piacenza [n. 8], pp. 38–40. 13 

176

brian møller jensen

tion is mainly his sermons, whilst Gregory comes in second after Augustine, as all forty of his Homiliae in euangelia are included, mostly in the temporale, as well as certain homilies on Ezechiel and passages from Moralia in Iob.15  Less frequently we find sermons of Maximus of Turin, Caesarius of Arles, Petrus Chrysologus and Chromatius of Aquileia – mostly attributed to other authors like Ambrose and Augustine – homilies of Bede the Venerable, excerpts from Jerome’s letters and his commentary on the Gospel of Matthew, Latin translations of sermons of Origen, Basil and John Chrysostom, and homilies from the Opus imperfectum in Mattheum, usually attributed to John Chrysostom. The majority of the aforementioned texts are transmitted in versions more or less comparable to the ones we find in modern editions and in the Patrologia Latina, and as such they have been easy to identify in the editing process. However, in addition to the usual difficulty concerning the attribution of texts to known authors, the aspects of which François Dolbeau described in an informative study in Filologia mediolatina some 15 years ago,16 the compilers of the Lectionarium Placentinum did not always include what we now know to be the original version of a text, and sometimes included sermons consisting of passages by different authors. Three examples of this phenomenon may suffice: The first is a sermon for feria VI in Lent (Pia 61, fol. 176v–178v), where the rubric says: Sermo sancti Leonis papae. This text opens with a longer passage from Isidore of Sevilla’s De ecclesiasticis officiis (1, 37–40), in which the four periods of Lent are described in detail and explained on a biblical basis (CPPM 1, 185 and 5554), and ends with Leo’s sermon 48, in which pastoral aspects of Lent are explained. The second example is the text assigned to the day after Ascension (Pia 60, fol. 85r–86v), where the rubric states: Sermo beati Augustini episcopi. This ser15  Regarding the texts of Gregory the Great in the Lectionarium Placentinum see further B.  M. Jensen, ”Gregory the Great in Medieval Manuscripts in Piacenza”, in Felici curiositati. Studies in Latin Literature and Textual Criticism from Antiquity to the Twentieth Century. In Honour of Rita Beyers, Edited by G. Guldentops, C. Laes and G. Partoens (Instrvmenta Patristica et Mediaevalia, 72), Turnhout, 2017, pp. 473-494. 16  F.  Dolbeau, “Critique d’attribution, critique d’authenticité. Réflexions préliminaires”, Filologia mediolatina, 6–7 (1999–2000), pp. 35–61.

unidentified sermons attributed to augustine

177

mon, which is usually listed as s.  Cas. 2, 145 (CPPM 1, 2322),17 is a compilation of excerpts from Maximus of Turin and Isidore of Sevilla, as the first four lessons consist of Maximus of Turin’s s.  44, 2–3, lessons 5–7 of a part from Isidore’s De fide catholica (1,  56–57), and the last two lessons of Maximus’ s.  40, 2–3. The third example is found in Pia 63 and included in my edition of the 48 lessons in the Justina octave (September 26 – October 3). In the vigils to Justina’s Natalis, the three lessons focus on the concept of virginity as a kind of preamble and introduction to the two versions of her vita in Antioch and her passion together with Cyprian in Nicomedia, both included in the lessons for the octave.18 The first two texts are excerpts from Ambrose’s writings on virgins and virginity, whilst the third is titled: Sermo beati Augustini episcopi. This sermon is, however, a combination of two Augustinian texts, that is, his comments on the advice to virgins in Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians (I Cor. 7, 25) in s.  161, 11–12 and chapter two of his Epistula 188.19 4. Augustine in the Lectionarium Placentinum Since the sanctorale, as I mentioned above, consists mainly of saints’ vitae, passion stories and only a minor number of sermons, I will limit this section of my paper, focussing on the presence of Augustine, to the temporale, which consists almost entirely of sermons and homilies. Moreover, the contents of the latter part PLS 3, col. 337–40. The second version, which is read in the lessons for the last two days of the octave, was translated from Greek to Latin by a monk named Johannes and brought from Constantinople to Piacenza by Bishop Aldo in 1104. The text is unique to Pia 63 (fol. 126v–133v), and the translator’s prologue enabled Walter Berschin to identify him as Johannes of Amalfi, who was active as a translator in Constantinople in the last decades of the eleventh and early twelfth century: W.  Berschin, “Der Kreuzfahrer Aldo von Piacenza bringt aus Konstantinopel eine Vita der hl. Justina mit. Ein weiteres Werk des Griechisch-Übersetzers Johannes von Amalfi (A. 1001)”, in Estudios de filología e historia en honor del profesor Vitalino Valcárel, ed. by I. Ruiz Arzalluz, v. 1, Vitoria-Gasteiz, 2014, pp. 129–36. 19  B.  M. Jensen, The Story of Justina and Cyprian of Antioch as told in a Medieval Lectionary from Piacenza: Edition with Introduction and Translation, Stockholm, 2012 (Studia Latina Stockholmiensia, 57), pp. 58–62. 17 

18 

178

brian møller jensen

appear to be more traditional compared to the lectionaries mentioned above, which might give us a better impression of the North-Italian repertories and reception of Augustine and the other Church Fathers. Among the 335 texts included in the temporale the various rubrics attribute around 140 to Augustine, usually in the form Sermo beati/sancti Augustini episcopi, but the sermon found on fol. 249r of Pia 60 is more informative as both his full name and his bishopric are indicated in this form: Sermo Aurelii Augustini Ypponensis episcopi (s.  391). When it comes to his various works, 51 of his Tractatus in Iohannis euangelium are selected and assigned to the feasts included in this part of the lectionary. The Piacentine versions of his commentary to the Gospel of John are almost all comparable to the text in Radbodus Willems’ edition in CCSL 36, but in some cases the compiler (or the tradition) has made his (or its) own combination, as in the lessons to be read on the Feast of the Holy Cross in Pia 60, fol. 123v–128v, the text of which consists of passages from Io. eu. tr. 11, 3–12; 12, 2; 12, 4–6 and 12, 7–8. The number of authentic sermons (Io. eu. tr. excluded) is around 50, including traditional sermons as well as passages from other authentic works by Augustine, e.g. from De ciuitate Dei, De Trinitate and Quaestiones euangeliorum. Moreover, there are ten pseudo-Augustinian sermons by anonymous authors, around twenty-five texts attributed to Augustine but known to have been written by authors such as Maximus of Turin and Caesarius of Arles, and around ten homilies written by Augustine, but attributed to other authors. This brings us to the ten texts attributed to Augustine, which still remained to be identified when I was trying to finish my edition of the temporale volumes. The first example is the Sermo beati Augustini for Dominica XX in Pia 60, fol. 239r–241v, with the incipit: Sunt qui existimant elemosinas iustis tantum modo esse prebendas, peccatoribus autem nichil eiusmodi dari oportere. Having first identified this text with the Sermo de generalitate eleemosynarum in PL 40, col. 1227–30, I subsequently discovered that these folia of the Piacentine manuscript in fact contain s.  Erfurt 4 (s.  350F).20

20  This discovery, which brought me in contact with Clemens Weidmann, started a process that resulted in my participation in the third Ministerium sermonis conference.

unidentified sermons attributed to augustine

179

The editio princeps of this and five other authentic Augustinian sermons was published in 2008/2009 by Isabella Schiller, Dorothea Weber and Clemens Weidmann on the basis of a sole witness, Erfurt, Univ. bibl. Dep. Erf. CA. 12°11.21 My discovery also became the start of the collaboration between Weidmann and myself concerning unidentified sermons attributed to Augustine in the temporale. The first outcome of Weidmann’s investigations is the Sermo sancti Augustini de oratione dominica in Pia 60, fol. 282r–284v, part of which was included as s. 59A in his edition of selected sermons of Augustine, based on arguments concerning language, style, parallel formulas and reception in later authors.22 The item in Pia 60 appears to be a patchwork similar to the ones mentioned above, as it opens with excerpts from Augustine’s Enchiridion (2, 7, 3–9) and his Epistula 130, before the newly discovered s.  59A opens in the following way: Laudemus ergo deum nostrum, fratres, quod filium unicum misit propter nos, et quem habuit unicum, noluit habere unum. Fecit ei bonos fratres de malis seruis, non merito nostro, sed gratia sua. Magna eius misericordia! Antequam promitteret nobis aliquid, nihil debebat, immo periremus, si redderet, quod debebat. Parum est promittendo se facere debitorem: ne non crederemus, chirographum fecit. Chirographum dei sanctum euangelium est, in quo orationem suo ore prolatam per discipulos suos, nostros autem apostolos, ad nos pro salute nostra transmisit. Hanc traditam, quantum ipse donare dignatur, exponamus sanctitati uestrae.

The third unidentified case I would like to mention appears in the third nocturn for Dominica IV after Pentecost in Pia 60, fol. 155v–157r, in which the rubric says Omelia sancti Augustini episcopi. This homily is assigned as lessons 7–8 to the gospel reading Luc. 6, 36–42, whereas the last lesson of the nocturn is Omelia beati Iohannis episcopi. The former title is one of the few rubrics in the entire lectionary that combines Omelia and Augustine, and the text opens in the following manner: I. Schiller, D. Weber, C. Weidmann, “Sechs neue Augustinuspredigten. Teil 1 mit Edition dreier Sermones”, Wiener Studien, 121 (2008), pp. 227– 84, and “Sechs neue Augustinuspredigten. Teil 2 mit Edition dreier Sermones zum Thema Almosen”, Wiener Studien, 122 (2009), pp. 171–213. 22  Augustinus, Sermones selecti, ed. by C.  Weidmann, Berlin-Boston, 2015 (CSEL, 101), pp. 31–44. 21 

180

brian møller jensen Misericors et miserator dominus, qui nos sua semper misericordia preuenire dignatus est, inter cetera benignitatis suae documenta misericordes nos esse docuit, et precepit, ut in presenti lectione audiuit dilectio uestra.

Since the homily attributed to Bishop John, most probably John Chrysostom, in lesson nine can be identified as Tractatus 33 of Chromatius of Aquileia’s commentary on Matthew,23 it might seem tempting to regard the lessons attributed to Augustine as a text by Chromatius, especially as the Brepolis database reveals that the three word formula in the last sentence, audiuit dilectio uestra, is a most specific formula of Chromatius, appearing no less than 17 times in his texts, some of which include the phrase in presenti lectione as well. However, I have not been able to find this formula in any context comparable to the one in Pia 60, nor could this homily be identified as a text by Chromatius according to Brepolis or Lukas Dorfbauer, who has been analysing the entire oeuvre of this North-Italian author. Thus, unless we find a new text by Chromatius similar to the one in Pia 60 or another author imitating the language and style of Chromatius, the Augustinian attribution and other unsolved questions remain, until we find a solution to all unidentified texts in the lectionary. 5. Concluding remarks As mentioned above I am still left with a certain number of unidentified sermons attributed to Augustine and some other authors, a problem that will occupy the final period of my efforts to finish the edition of the temporale volumes of the Lectionarium Placentinum for publication by SISMEL in Florence.24 However, I am convinced that my collaboration with Weidmann will make this edition even better, and hopefully it may produce some new information to scholars studying the works of Augustine. If we return to the point raised above concerning Oberleitner’s survey of Augustine manuscripts in Italian libraries and the 23  Chromatius Aquileiensis, Opera, ed. by R.  Étaix, J.  Lemarié, Turnhout, 1974 (CCSL, 9A), pp. 358–63. 24  Lectionarium Placentinum. Edition of a Twelfth Century Lectionary for the Divine Office I-IV. Edited by B. M. Jensen, Firenze 2016-17.

unidentified sermons attributed to augustine

181

absence of the Piacentine lectionary therein, I feel convinced that a more detailed investigation of all the various manuscripts – and especially of the lectionaries, homiliaries and passionaries, the description of which is often restricted to formulas such as sermones sanctorum Ambrosii, Augustini, Leonis, Gregorii, etc. – would yield new insights in the liturgical use and reception of the African Church Father. Unfortunately, I have so far not had the opportunity or time to investigate the preserved parts of the lectionaries from Vercelli, Bobbio, Brescia and Vigevano mentioned above. In these concluding remarks I would also like to return to my opening question: Could or should lectionaries for the divine office be used as text witnesses in editions of single texts or individual authors? My immediate answer would be neither a definite yes nor a definite no. As my paper has hopefully indicated, single texts by Augustine and other patristic and early medieval authors might appear in unusual contexts like a lectionary for the divine office, and in such cases the lectionary appears as the only text witness on which to base an edition. But as a general rule, I do not feel convinced that lectionaries or other liturgical books could be used as the most reliable text witnesses in critical editions, because the versions found in such sources might have been modified compared to text versions that have been preserved in the collections or clusters which served as the direct or indirect sources for the lectionaries. However, regarding the liturgical use and function of this type of texts the Lectionarium Placentinum appears as an important source, especially since we do not have that many complete lectionaries for the divine office from the twelfth century. Although my presentation may not have fulfilled the promise of my title concerning the unidentified sermons attributed to Augustine, I hope that I at least have been able to indicate some interesting aspects of the reception and liturgical use of Augustine’s texts in a medieval lectionary for the divine office.25

25  I want to thank Clemens Weidmann for his help in identifying some of the texts in the Lectionarium Placentinum and for his reading of and comments on this paper.

Le sermo 93 d’Augustin : date et circonstances* Luc De Coninck (Bruges) Le sermo ad populum 93 explique la parabole des vierges prévoyantes et des vierges insensées1. Selon l’interprétation qui en est donnée dans ce sermon2 , les vierges dans leur ensemble symbolisent les fidèles qui s’abstiennent de ce qui est défendu et pratiquent les bonnes œuvres 3. Mais parmi ces chrétiens apparemment méritants, une partie sera réprouvée lors du Jugement dernier : l’absence de l’authentique charité – absence représentée par l’huile manquant dans les vases des stultae – les distingue des autres 4. Si l’on en croit les prétendus signes avant-coureurs et les calculs des chiliastes, le Jugement adviendrait à une date rapprochée ; mais il vaut mieux s’en tenir à Act. 1, 7 : la connaissance des temps fixés est hors de notre portée5. La charité est un don de Dieu, elle ne cherche que la gloire de Dieu, et c’est le témoignage intérieur Je remercie Bertrand Coppieters ’t Wallant de ses conseils et suggestions avisés concernant la formulation de cet article. 1  Mt. 25, 1-13. 2  L’étude fondamentale sur l’exégèse augustinienne de cette parabole dans diu. qu. 59, en. Ps. 147, ep.  140 et s.  93 est due à M.  Marin, Ricerche sull’esegesi agostiniana della parabola delle dieci vergini (Mt 25, 1-13), Bari, 1981 (Quaderni di Vetera Christianorum, 16) : une refonte considérablement augmentée de la série d’articles intitulée « Le vergini prudenti e le vergini stolte (Mt. 25, 1-13) nell’esegesi di S. Agostino », Vetera Christianorum, 10 (1973), p. 263289 ; 11 (1974), p. 31-63 ; 12 (1975), p. 61-100. 3  S.  93, 1-5 (début) : PL 38, col. 573, 47-575, 32. 4  S.  93, 5 (suite et fin)-6 : col. 575, 32-576, 26. 5  S.  93, 7-8 : col. 576, 27-577, 4. * 

Praedicatio Patrum. Studies on Preaching in late Antique North Africa, edited by Gert Partoens, Anthony Dupont, Shari Boodts, Turnhout, 2017 (Instrumenta Patris­ tica et Mediaeualia, 75), p. 183-199 ©



10.1484/M.IPM-EB.5.114053

184

luc de coninck

de la conscience qui en atteste la sincérité 6. Les vierges insensées symbolisent les chrétiens qui font le bien par ostentation7 : ce que les prévoyantes, en leur conseillant ironiquement d’aller acheter de l’huile, leur reprochent au nom de la Sapientia8. Les prudentes restent néanmoins conscientes de leurs propres insuffisances9. Exclues, les stultae veulent encore faire pénitence, mais le temps est révolu10 ; et le sermon se termine par un appel aux auditeurs d’imiter à temps le bon exemple11. Le s.  93 fera partie du second volume de notre édition critique des sermons augustiniens sur l’évangile de Matthieu, qui paraîtra dans le Corpus Christianorum en 2018 ou en 201912 . La datation de ce sermon pose des problèmes trop ardus pour être traités dans une notice en tête du texte : ils concernent le contexte liturgique, la polémique éventuelle contre le donatisme et/ou le pélagianisme, les correspondances avec la section finale de l’ep.  140 (De gratia Noui Testamenti), les calamités évoquées dans le paragraphe 713. 1. Le contexte liturgique La veille, en présence d’un auditoire plus restreint, on avait déjà donné lecture de la même parabole matthéenne, et Augustin avait promis S.  93, 9 et 10 (en partie) : col. 577, 5-25 et 41-43 : cf. P.-M.  Hombert, Gloria gratiae. Se glorifier en Dieu, principe et fin de la théologie augustinienne de la grâce, Paris, 1996 (Collection des Études Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité, 148), p. 531-550. 7  S.  93, 10 et 14 (fin)-15 : col. 577, 26-578, 3 et 579, 5-34. 8  S.  93, 11-12 : col. 578, 4-28 ; cf. A.-M.  La Bonnardière, Biblia Augustiniana. A. T. Le livre des Proverbes, Paris, 1975 (Collection des Études Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité, 67), p. 40-41. 9  S.  93, 13-14 (début)  : col. 578, 29-579, 4 ; cf. A.-M.  La Bonnardière, Biblia Augustiniana [n. 8], p. 70-74. 10  S.  93, 16 : col. 579, 35-54. 11  S.  93, 17 : col. 579, 55-580, 19. 12  Le premier volume comprenait les sermones ad populum 51 à 70A : Aurelius Augustinus, Sermones in Matthaeum, I, éd. P.-P.  Verbraken, L.  De Coninck, B.  Coppieters ’t Wallant, R.  Demeulenaere, F.  Dolbeau, Turnhout, 2008 (CCSL, 41Aa). 13  Ces questions furent l’objet de la première partie de notre communication au colloque maltais. La seconde moitié de la communication concernait l’établissement du texte du s.  93 ; elle sera publiée dans un autre recueil collectif de la série Instrumenta Patristica et Mediaevalia. 6 

le

sermo  93

d’augustin : date et circonstances

185

de la traiter le lendemain14. Il avait prononcé une homélie concernant ceux qui détiennent des charges ecclésiastiques, les praepositi : Intellegamus ergo, carissimi, ad omnes nos [...] istam parabolam pertinere : non ad solos praepositos, de quibus hesterno die locuti sumus, nec ad solas plebes, sed prorsus ad omnes15.

L’homélie avait-elle eu, elle aussi, la parabole des vierges comme point de départ ? C’est l’interprétation proposée par Michael  Margoni-Kögler16 ; toutefois, si Augustin évoque ici les praepositi, il évoque aussi les plebes, soulignant que les uirgines symbolisent l’Église à tous ses échelons. Selon Marcello Marin17 Augustin avait plutôt traité les derniers versets du chapitre précédent de l’évangile de Matthieu, les logia concernant le serviteur avisé et le serviteur négligent18, et l’explication d’une partie du texte récité par le lector avait été réservée pour le lendemain19. La parabole des vierges est commentée plusieurs fois au cours de l’œuvre conservée d’Augustin, mais elle n’est jamais interprétée comme un avertissement aux pasteurs ; pour eux, les logia sur les serviteurs fournissent un appui bien meilleur, un appui qui a été utilisé effectivement, dans le s.  37, au sujet de ceux qui y sont qualifiés de ministrorum et praepositorum corpus20. 14  S.  93, 1 : col. 573, 47-574, 5 : Hesterno die qui affuistis, promissionem nostram tenetis ; quae hodie non solum uobis, sed pluribus etiam qui conuenerunt [...] reddenda est. [...] Verumtamen secundum ea, quae continet ipsa lectio, quam caritati uestrae etiam hodie uolui recitari [...] non mihi uidetur ista parabola uel similitudo ad eas solas pertinere, quae propria et excellentiore sanctitate uirgines in ecclesia nominantur. 15  S.  93, 2 : col. 574, 18-22. 16  M.  Margoni-Kögler, Die Perikopen im Gottesdienst bei Augustinus. Ein Beitrag zur Erforschung der liturgischen Schriftlesung in der frühen Kirche, Wien, 2010 (Veröffentlichungen der Kommission zur Herausgabe des Corpus der Lateinischen Kirchenväter, 29 ; Österreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Philosophisch-Historische Klasse, Sitzungsberichte, 810), p. 280. 17  M. Marin, Ricerche [n. 2], p. 42-44. 18  Mt.  24, 45-51. 19  M.  Marin, Ricerche [n. 2], p. 44, émet encore l’hypothèse que le sermon de la veille aurait expliqué aussi Mt.  24, 40-41 ; et aux pages 44-45, il dresse une liste d’autres homélies augustiniennes sur des passages contigus de l’évangile de Matthieu prononcées au cours de deux journées consécutives. 20  S. 37,  15 : “Veniet dominus eius in die qua nescit et hora qua ignorat et diuidet eum” [= Mt.  24, 50-51] : ministrorum enim et praepositorum corpus est quod dat in tempore conseruis cibaria. Cf. M. Marin, Ricerche [n. 2], p. 43.

186

luc de coninck

S’achevant sur un appel à faire pénitence, le s.  93 pourrait se situer pendant le carême21. 2. Des passages polémiques ? a. Le donatisme Signalons tout d’abord quelques passages touchant le donatisme : une polémique toujours vivante, ou bien des réminiscences d’une polémique antérieure. Au cours du paragraphe 622 , Augustin rappelle la façon dont il faut interpréter la prophétie Quoniam abundat iniquitas, refrigescet caritas multorum23 : non comme constatation d’une décadence quasi générale de la chrétienté de son temps (c’était l’interprétation donatiste24, et le refus du prédicateur de la suivre est explicite : Siccine intellecturi sumus istum somnum ? Non mihi placet) ; en revanche, il interprète ces versets comme une exhortation à la persévérance dans la charité, adressée à chaque chrétien individuellement. Le paragraphe 8 de notre sermon, de même que le début de l’e­ narratio du sixième psaume, évoque des calculs de millénaristes, pour les rejeter ensuite25. La question de l’identité de ces chiliastes est posée dans le premier volume de la traduction commentée des enarrationes sous la direction de Martine Dulaey, et on y répond que de telles spéculations étaient courantes dans les milieux donatistes26.

M. Marin, Ricerche [n. 2], p. 271. S.  93, 6 : col. 576, 2-18. 23  Mt.  24, 12. 24  Ep. 76, 2 et 93, 9, 33  ; c. Gaud. 2, 6. Cf.  M. Marin, Ricerche [n. 2], p. 182-183 et 270, avec référence à M.  Aubineau, « Exégèse patristique de Mt.  24,  12 : Quoniam abundavit iniquitas, refrigescet charitas multorum », dans Studia Patristica, 4, éd. F. L. Cross, Berlin, 1961 (Texte und Untersuchungen, 79), p. 3-19 (en particulier p. 10-12). 25  S.  93, 8 : col. 576, 48-56 : Aliquis quasi computet sibi : “Ecce ab Adam tot anni transierunt, et ecce complentur sex milia annorum, et continuo, quomodo quidam tractatores computauerunt, continuo ueniet dies iudicii”. Et ueniunt et transeunt computationes, et adhuc remoratur sponsi aduentus. 26  Les commentaires des Psaumes. Enarrationes in psalmos. Ps 1-16, éd. M.  Dulaey, I.  Bochet, A.-I.  Bouton-Touboulic, P.-M.  Hombert, É.  Rebillard, Paris, 2009 (BA, 57/A), p. 586-587. 21 

22 

le

sermo  93

d’augustin : date et circonstances

187

Vers la fin du paragraphe 12 27, Augustin présente son interprétation du verset psalmique Oleum peccatoris non impinguet caput meum28. Il dit en effet : « Qu’est-ce que cette huile du pécheur, sinon les flatteries de l’adulateur ? » Cette explication dans un cadre de morale individuelle s’oppose à l’interprétation des donatistes, de nature ecclésiologique29. b. Célestius ? Pélage ? Concluant le paragraphe 930, Augustin souligne au moyen d’un petit dialogue que la caritas est un don de Dieu. Le symbolisme de l’huile lui en fournit l’occasion. Je cite la traduction de l’abbé Raulx : « Les hommes peuvent bien mettre de l’huile dans un vase, mais ils ne sauraient créer une olive. – ‘J’ai de l’huile’, dis-tu. – [...] Elle est due à la bonté de Dieu. Tu as de l’huile ? Emporte-la avec toi. Qu’est-ce à dire ? Garde-la dans ton âme ; applique ton âme à plaire à Dieu »31. Plus loin, à la fin du paragraphe 14 32 , il revient sur l’huile comme symbole de la caritas : il cite Mt. 5,  16, Luceant opera uestra coram hominibus, ut uideant bona facta uestra et glorificent Patrem uestrum qui est in caelis, et il continue ainsi : « Le Seigneur dit : ‘votre Père’, et non pas ‘vous’. L’huile en effet

27  S.  93, 12 : col. 578, 25-28 : “Melius”, inquit, “emendet me iustus, arguat me iustus, corrigat me iustus, colaphizet me iustus, quam impinguet caput meum oleum peccatoris”. Quid est oleum peccatoris, nisi blandimenta adulatoris ? 28  Ps.  140, 5. 29  Cf.  M. Marin, Ricerche [n.  2], p.  161-163 ; P.-M.  Hombert, Nouvelles recherches de chronologie augustinienne, Paris, 2000 (Collection des Études Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité, 163), p. 291-294. 30  S.  93, 9  : col. 577, 22-25 : Denique homines oleum mittere intro possunt, oliuam creare non possunt. “Ecce habeo oleum” : de Dei dono habes oleum, porta tecum. Quid est “porta tecum” ? Intus habe, ibi Deo place. Nous avons éliminé la phrase Numquid tu creasti oleum ?, qui repose sur une tradition textuelle de valeur douteuse. 31  Œuvres complètes de saint Augustin, traduites pour la première fois en français sous la direction de M. l’abbé Raulx, t.  6 : Sermons. Première série : Sermons détachés sur l’Ancien Testament, les Évangiles & les Actes des Apôtres, Bar-le-Duc, 1866, p. 417 ; réédition récente : Saint Augustin : Sermons sur l’Écriture, Paris, 2014, p. 839. 32  S. 93, 14 : col. 579, 20-21 : [...] Non ait “uos”. Non enim de tuo habes oleum. Iacta te, et dic : “Habeo, sed ab eo” [...].

188

luc de coninck

ne vient pas de toi. Vante-toi et dis : ‘J’en ai, mais elle vient de lui.’ Quid enim habes quod non accepisti ? »33 Adalbero Kunzelmann34, ne s’arrêtant qu’à ce paragraphe 14, l’interprète comme s’il contenait une polémique « antipélagienne » manifeste : Augustin y interpellerait des individus, et il s’agirait de sympathisants de Célestius ou de Pélage. Mais devait-on être partisan des « pélagiens » pour faire son profit en étant appelé à être humble devant Dieu ? L’idée que la caritas est un don divin et qu’on ne peut s’en glorifier qu’en Dieu était présente dans l’œuvre augustinienne avant 410/1135. D’autre part, Augustin s’adresse-t-il à des personnes concrètes ou à des personnages fictifs ? Le petit dialogue du paragraphe 9, dont le sujet est très proche de celui du paragraphe 14, est en tout cas un fruit de l’imagination : « j’ai de l’huile » n’est pas une remarque provenant de l’auditoire. Il est donc très probable que le uos et le te du paragraphe 14 sont également imaginaires, correspondant à uestra, uestrum et habes dans les citations bibliques qui encadrent le passage. 3. Les correspondances avec l’ep. 140 (De gratia Noui Testamenti) et avec diu. qu. 59 Il y a de brèves allusions à la parabole des dix vierges dans en. Ps.  49, 9 (412/13 36 ?) ; 69, 5 (411/12 37 ?) et 140, 13 (404 ou peu après 38) et dans les ss.  149, 12 (400/05 39 ?) et 163B, 6 (date incertaine40). Dans tous ces textes, l’absence d’huile symbolise la dépen33  Œuvres complètes de saint Augustin [n. 31], 1866, p. 418 ; réédition, 2014, p. 842-843. 34  A.  Kunzelmann, «  Die Chronologie der Sermones des hl. Augustinus », dans Miscellanea Agostiniana, t. 2, Rome, 1931, p. 417-520, en particulier p. 464, n. 1. 35  Voir, entre autres, P.-M. Hombert, Gloria gratiae [n. 6], p. 67-70, 86-89 ; D. Dideberg, « Dilectio », dans Augustinus-Lexikon, t. 2, fasc. 3/4, Bâle, 1999, col. 435-453, en particulier col. 449-450. 36  P.-M. Hombert, Nouvelles recherches [n. 29], p. 603-609. 37  Th. G. Ring, « Römer 7 in den ‘Enarrationes in Psalmos’ », dans Signum pietatis. Festgabe für C. P. Mayer OSA zum 60. Geburtstag, éd. A. Zumkeller, Wurtzbourg, 1989 (Cassiciacum, 40), p. 383-407, en part. p. 397, n. 35. 38  P.-M. Hombert, Nouvelles recherches [n. 29], p. 344, n. 8 : avec référence à F. Dolbeau, « Nouveaux sermons de saint Augustin pour la conversion des païens et des donatistes, ‹I› », Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 37 (1991),

le

sermo  93

d’augustin : date et circonstances

189

dance des louanges d’autrui ; en faisant le bien on doit se glorifier dans sa propre conscience, c’est-à-dire en Dieu : c’est l’attitude incarnée par les vierges prévoyantes 41. Ce lien entre l’huile et la joie intérieure de plaire à Dieu fut une idée originale d’Augustin42 . À part une digression dans en. Ps. 147, 10-12 (403 43), le s.  93 est la seule homélie venue jusqu’à nous où le thème soit pleinement développé et argumenté. Ajoutons toutefois qu’Augustin a encore présenté deux analyses détaillées de la parabole par voie écrite : diu. qu. 59 (395 au plus tard), et l’ep. 140, chapitres 31-35 (= paragraphes 74-81 ; hiver 411/12). Cherchant à confirmer sa thèse d’une tendance « antipélagienne », Adalbero Kunzelmann44 a souligné les correspondances de notre sermon avec la lettre de 411/12. Il distingue trois domaines où les deux textes se rejoignent : une dizaine de citations bibliques, quelques expressions communes, l’exégèse. Considérons ces affinités de plus près, et d’abord les textes cités à l’appui de l’exégèse et les concordances verbales. Dans les chapitres concernés de l’ep.  140, je compte vingt-huit références bibliques (sans les références à Mt. 25,  1-13) ; il y a vingt-cinq citations de textes sacrés dans le s.  93. Onze passages de la Bible s’avèrent être cités dans les deux ouvrages à la fois ; parmi elles Ps. 140, 5 et Mt. 24, 12-13 45, ainsi que d’autres textes dont la présence dans des commentaires d’une portée eschatologique n’est pas évidente, comme Prov.  1,  26 et 20,  8-9 et Mt.  5, 16. Les expres-

p. 37-77, en part. p. 56 (Vingt-six sermons au peuple d’Afrique, Paris, 1996 [Collection des Études Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité, 147], p. 246). 39  P.-M. Hombert, Nouvelles recherches [n. 29], p. 297-298, n. 18. 40  Peut-être 410 selon O.  Perler, Les voyages de saint Augustin, Paris, 1969 (Collection des Études Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité, 36), p. 278, n. 4 et p. 397. 41  Voir P.-M. Hombert, Gloria gratiae [n. 6], p. 539-541. 42  M.  Marin, Ricerche [n. 2], p. 156-157, 260-263. 43  P.-M. Hombert, Nouvelles recherches [n. 29], p. 563-583. 44  A.  Kunzelmann, Die Chronologie [n. 34], p. 463-464. Ces pages ont convaincu la plupart des chercheurs, et la date « 411/12 » est devenue monnaie courante pour le s. 93 ; mais M. Marin, Ricerche [n. 2], p. 269-271 a démontré la faiblesse de certains arguments. 45  Nous avons déjà fait mention de ces textes, parce qu’ils ont joué un rôle dans la polémique avec les donatistes : voir ci–dessus, p.   .

190

luc de coninck

sions communes, bien que peu nombreuses 46, mettent en évidence les concordances du contenu exégétique, qui ressortent aussi de la table comparative que nous joignons à notre article (Table I). Cette table invite encore à établir la comparaison avec diu. qu.  59. Le nombre de textes à l’appui y est plus réduit (dix-sept au total), mais six d’entre eux réapparaîtront dans ep.  140 et/ou dans s. 93. Quant au contenu, il est clair que bien des éléments de l’exégèse du sermon étaient déjà présents quinze années avant la rédaction de l’ep. 140 : la continence, les bonnes œuvres, l’opposition entre la voix de la conscience et l’opinion des autres, le sommeil comme image de la mort, l’impossibilité de prévoir l’époque du Jugement dernier, l’imploration de la miséricorde divine, le reproche sous la forme du conseil d’acheter de l’huile, voire l’appel fait à l’ars Dei.  Ce que le sermon et la lettre ont en commun, absent cependant de la quaestio, c’est l’importance accordée à la grâce : la caritas qui vient de Dieu dans l’un, la participation au Bien immuable dans l’autre. Que penser de cette constatation, que la grâce joue un rôle important, tant dans le sermon que dans la lettre ? Vers la fin de son étude récente, Anthony Dupont écrit ceci : « We conclude that the use of grace for dating sermons of Augustine should be kept to a minimum, unless the framework for the grace-content of the sermon in question can be established according to our observation of manifest differences : existential/eschatological/soteriological  ; or ecclesiological/martyrological/sacramentological » 47.

Selon ce critère, il est probable que le sermon se situe plutôt après qu’avant le début de la controverse avec Célestius et Pélage ; toujours est-il qu’une homélie sur Mt.  25 ne peut se passer d’une per­ spective eschatologique. 46  Il s’agit des termes irridentium […] responsio et non desperatione sed […] humilitate/non desperanter sed humiliter dans s. 93, 11/13 et ep. 140, 75. On doit éliminer de la liste de Kunzelmann tardante sponso, une formule inspirée de la Vetus Latina et employée par Augustin au lieu de moram faciente sponso (Vg) dans s. 93, 6, ep. 140, 76, en. Ps. 147, 11 et diu. qu. 59, 2 et 3. 47  A.  Dupont, Preacher of Grace. A Critical Reappraisal of Augustine’s Doctrine of Grace in his Sermones ad Populum on Liturgical Feasts and During the Donatist Controversy, Leyde, 2014 (Studies in the History of Christian Traditions, 177), p. 202.

le

sermo  93

d’augustin : date et circonstances

191

4. Une allusion aux calamités contemporaines Voici encore un dernier argument d’Adalbero Kunzelmann. Il s’agit d’un passage du s. 93 qu’il interpréta comme ayant été occasionné par la prise de Rome : Sed ecce bellum super bellum, tribulatio super tribulationem, terrae motus super terrae motum, fames super famem, gens super gentem, et nondum uenit sponsus48.

Augustin y fait allusion à Mt.  24, 6-9, où sont énumérés, parmi d’autres signes annonçant la seconde venue du Christ, des bella et des contritiones, des fames et des terrae motus, et encore des conflits de gens super gentem et de regnum super regnum : car c’est dans ces termes qu’Augustin cite la Vetus Latina, non seulement dans le passage qui nous occupe maintenant, mais ailleurs aussi49. Précisons la signification du mot super. Dans la prophétie synoptique gens super gentem et regnum super regnum, il a le même sens que les prépositions in (Mt.  24, 7 Vg), contra (Mc.  13, 8 Vg), aduersus (Lc.  21, 10 Vg) ; il traduit ἐπí suivi de l’accusatif. Mais en combinaison avec les termes bellum, tribulatio, terrae motus et fames de notre sermon, il est synonyme de praeter et indique la recrudescence des bella,  etc 50. La traduction du passage entier par l’abbé Raulx tire parti des diverses acceptions du mot français « sur » : « Mais nous voyons guerre sur guerre, désolation sur désolation, mouvement de terre sur mouvement de terre, famine sur famine S.  93, 7 : col. 576, 33-36. Ep. 199, 10, 35 : Duae quippe gentes sunt et duo regna, unum scilicet Christi, alterum diaboli, de quibus dici potuit : ‘exsurget gens super gentem et regnum super regnum’ ; adn. Iob 4 : [...] quia ‹principes ciuitatis superbiae› se inuicem uastauerunt ; inde est : ‘exsurget gens contra gentem’ ; s.  105, 7, 9 : Quid expauescis quia pereunt regna terrena ? [...] Dominus tuus, quem exspectas, dixit tibi : ‘exsurget gens super gentem et regnum super regnum’. Habent mutationes terrena regna ; voir encore s. 38, 8, 10 : Bella sunt, fames sunt, contritiones sunt ; regnum super regnum est, terrae motus sunt [...]. Haec omnia lege, praedicta sunt. 50  E.  Forcellini, «  Super », dans Lexicon totius latinitatis, t. 4, p. 596c, l.  31 : i. q. ‘praeter’, et accessionem significat. Le paradigme classique est l’expression uulnus super uulnus (Livius, ab Vrbe condita 22, 54, 9) : « eine Wunde nach der anderen » selon l’Handwörterbuch de K.-E. et H. Georges (1913), t. 2, col. 2929. 48  49 

192

luc de coninck et les peuples tombant sur les peuples, sans que l’Époux arrive encore »51.

De même, dans la traduction anglaise du père Edmund Hill, on lit successivement « after » (ou « upon ») et « against »52 . Ces traducteurs estiment que, dans le sermon, la signification de super en combinaison avec gentem reste celle du contexte biblique : que super gentem désigne des conflits entre les gentes, et non – ce qui est le cas si super a un seul et même sens dans la phrase entière – les vagues successives de gentes envahissant le territoire romain. Ils ont peut-être raison. Toutefois, super est interprété dans un sens temporel dans une autre allusion d’Augustin à ce passage biblique53. D’autre part, l’interprétation, par les traducteurs, du mot gens (ἔθνος) comme « peuple », « nation », ne doit pas être mise en doute. C’est dans ce sens-ci, non dans celui d’ethnici/pagani, que le terme figure dans la prophétie synoptique 54 ; et en tant que populus/natio, ou spécifiquement comme natio extera55, il est resté en usage chez les auteurs ecclésiastiques et chez Augustin lui-même, étant appliqué parfois à des peuples convertis au christianisme56. Dans un passé peu éloigné du moment où le sermon a été prononcé (d’où l’interjection ecce), il y eut donc plusieurs tremblements de terre et crises de famine, des guerres et d’autres épreuves, ainsi que des conflits impliquant des gentes : selon l’interprétation courante de gens super gentem, il s’agit de conflits entre gentes ; selon une autre, qu’on ne doit pas exclure, d’invasions barbares en territoire romain. Or, à certaines époques de l’activité pasto51  Œuvres complètes de saint Augustin [n. 31], 1866, p. 416 ; réédition, 2014, p. 838. 52  WSA III/3, p. 472. 53  Parmi les citations de gens super gentem que nous avons énumérées dans la n. 49, celles de l’ep.  199, 10, 35 et d’adn. Iob 4 respectent scrupuleusement le sens biblique. Dans le s. 105, 7, 9 ce qui est exprimé par super n’est pas tant l’antagonisme de regna et de gentes que leur succession, car Augustin arrive à la conclusion suivante : habent mutationes terrena regna. 54  A.  Schmoller, Handkonkordanz zum griechischen Neuen Testament, Stuttgart, 196012 , p. 142. 55  G.  Meyer, « gens », dans Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, t. 6/2, Leipzig, 1927-1934, col. 1849-1850. 56  Voir p. ex. ciu. 20, 11 (passage cité dans ThLL, t. 6/2, col. 1850, 38-40).

le

sermo  93

d’augustin : date et circonstances

193

rale d’Augustin il y eut une forte densité de calamités, qu’on peut cataloguer selon les catégories énumérées dans le passage qui nous occupe ; on trouve la liste chronologique des principaux fléaux dans la table II57. Il faut que les conflits entre gentes, ou les invasions, aient eu une importance suffisante pour contribuer à l’attente du retour du Christ. Deux séries d’évènements entrent en ligne de compte : premièrement Radagaise envahissant l’Italie en 405, les Alains, Suèves et Vandales traversant le Rhin pendant l’hiver 406/07, les expéditions d’Alaric en Italie de 408 et 409 et la prise de Rome en 410 ; ensuite les combats entre gentes en Espagne, où les Wisigoths combattaient les Silings et les Alains depuis 416 et remportèrent en 418 une victoire importante, sans pouvoir empêcher les Hasdings et les Suèves d’accroître leur territoire par les armes durant les années suivantes. Peu après le sac de Rome, dans le sermon 105, Augustin a cité une partie de la prédiction du Christ 58 : à savoir les mots exsurget gens super gentem et regnum super regnum. En citant gens super gentem, il y fait probablement allusion aux invasions qui avaient culminé en 410, mais il n’y insiste guère ; tenant compte d’une fin prochaine de l’Empire romain, il met l’accent sur l’instabilité des regna terrena. Dans le sermon 93, les gentes en combinaison avec certains « signes » qui les précèdent dans le texte, pourraient confirmer la date (ou plutôt l’époque, car il n’est pas possible de donner une date précise) proposée par Adalbero Kunzelmann  ; mais on peut envisager aussi une époque plus tardive, contemporaine aux combats en Espagne. En effet, à en juger d’après les 57  Nos rubriques bellum super bellum, gentes contra gentes certant et gentes post gentes imperium Romanum deuastant se basent sur les articles de R.  C. Blockley, « The Dynasty of Theodosius » et de N.  Wood, « The Barbarian Invasions and First Settlements », dans The Late Empire AD 337-425, éd. A. Cameron, P.  Garnsey, Cambridge, 1997 (Cambridge Ancient History, 13), p. 111137 et 516-537, et sur A.  Demandt,  Römische Geschichte von Diocletian bis Justinian 284 bis 565 n. Chr., Munich, 20072 (Handbuch der Altertumswissenschaft, 3/6), p. 137-151. Les rubriques terraemotus et fames reposent sur E. Guidoboni, A. Comastri, G. Traina, Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes in the Mediterranean Area up to the 10th Century, Rome, 1994 et D. C. Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence in the Late Roman and Early Byzantine Empire. A Systematic Survey of Subsistence Crises and Epidemics, Aldershot, 2004. 58  Voir ci–dessus, n. 49 et 53.

194

luc de coninck

listes fournies par Emanuela Guidoboni et Dionysios Stathakopoulos, les tremblements de terre et les pénuries de denrées s’accumulent dans l’ensemble de nos sources historiques à partir de 407 jusqu’à 410 59 et de 417 à 42360. Je suis donc porté à situer le sermon vers la fin de l’une ou l’autre de ces deux périodes (407-410 ou 417-423) : car c’est en regardant en arrière qu’Augustin constate la succession de calamités.

59  E. Guidoboni, Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes [n. 57], nos 165-168 et D. C. Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence [n. 57], nos 42-46. 60  E. Guidoboni, Catalogue of Ancient Earthquakes [n. 57], nos 169-174 ; D. C. Stathakopoulos, Famine and Pestilence [n. 57], nos 47-50.

Ps. 140, 5

d’augustin : date et circonstances

il signifie la mort, passage entre la vie terrestre et le Jugement dernier

Mt. 24,  12-13

la participation au Bien souverain Ps. 4, 6-7

la caritas 1 Cor. 12, 31-13, 1 ; 2 Cor. 1, 12

il ne signifie pas le refroidissement de la charité

la joie intérieure de plaire à Dieu Ps. 44, 8 ; Gal. 6, 4

signification de l’huile (Mt. 25,  4)

Cor. 1, 31 ; 2 Cor. 10, 17

Mt.5,  16 ; 6, 1 ; Ps. 33, 3 ; 1

Mt.5,  16 ; Lc.12, 35

des vierges (Mt. 25,  5)

Mt.5,  16

(Mt. 25,  3)

les bonnes œuvres, dont il faut faire remonter la gloire à Dieu

signification du sommeil

opera secundum istam continentiam facta

2 Cor. 11, 2-3

pour symboliser ceux et celles qui pratiquent la continence des sens

signification des lampes

(Mt. 25,  1-2)

pourquoi deux fois cinq ?

Ps. 140, 5

elles font le bien en vue de louanges humaines

2 Cor. 1, 12

elles se conduisent selon leur conscience où elles ont Dieu comme témoin

leur continentia se montre aux regards

in interiore gaudio conscientiae

elles agissent par caritas (amour de Dieu)

les stultae

ep. 140, 74-81

leur continentia veut plaire à Dieu

s. 93

les prudentes

diu. qu. 59

sermo  93

thèse fondamentale :

aspects de la parabole

Table  I : Comparaison entre les principaux commentaires augustiniens de Mt. 25,  1-13 : contenu de l’exégèse et textes à l’appui (soulignés : textes cités dans deux ou trois de ces commentaires)

le

195

Jn. 5, 28-29 ; 1 Cor. 15, 52 ; 1 Thess.5, 2 ; e.a.

Jn. 5, 28-29 ; 1 Cor. 15, 52 ; 1 Thess. 4, 16

ars Dei, hoc est Sapientia Dei, non habet ut intrent in gaudium eius

cette interprétation est conforme à la foi 1 Cor. 13, 12 ; 2 Cor. 5, 5

« nescio uos »

Conclusion

Cor. 2, 11 ; 4, 3

Prov. 20, 8-9 ; Is. 3, 12 ; 1

(Mt. 25,  12)

Prov. 1, 26

les auditeurs doivent faire pénitence

ars nescit uitia

Ps. 42, 2 ; Prov. 20, 8-9 ; Is. 58, 7-8 ; 1 Cor. 4, 7 ; e.a.

Dieu seul est le Bien souverain Ps. 21, 32 ; Ps. 99, 3 ; Eph. 2, 10

« vous avez agi comme si je ne m’étais pas fait connaître » – Gal. 4, 9

Ps. 3, 4 ; Prov. 20, 8-9 ; 1 Cor. 4, 7 ; Gal. 6, 3-4 ; e.a.

les prudentes sont conscientes d’avoir besoin elles-mêmes de la miséricorde divine

nobis et uobis (Mt. 25,  9)

ne forte non sufficiat

Mt. 6,  1 au nom de la Sagesse, les prudentes se moquent de la détresse des stultae

c’est un reproche indirect Is. 3, 12

le conseil d’acheter de l’huile (Mt. 25,  9)

lors du Jugement, on ne pourra pas se justifier sur base de l’opinion des autres

Mt. 24,  36 ; 1 Cor. 15, 52 ; 1 Thess. 5, 2 ; e.a.

personne ne sait quand le Jugement se produira, et il arrivera quand on ne l’attendra pas

1 Thess. 4, 13 ; 1 Cor. 15, 6

s’éteignent (Mt. 25,  8)

les lampes des stultae

(Mt. 25,  6)

l’Époux arrive media nocte

Mt. 25,  21 ; 1 Thess. 4, 13 ; Ps. 40, 9

196 luc de coninck

397

407

406

405

404

403

L’usurpateur Constantin III se sert des tribus germaniques limitrophes du Rhin

Radagaise vaincu par Stilicon disposant d’une cavalerie de Huns et d’Alains

Alains, Suèves et Vandales traversent le Rhin et parcourent la Gaule

Radagaise en Italie

Alaric en Italie

Vaincu par Stilicon, Alaric quitte l’Italie

401

402

Invasions en Brittania

400

399

Les Ostrogoths saccagent la Phrygie

Alaric en Grèce et en Épire Les Huns en Arménie

gentes post gentes imp. Rom. deuastant

Constantinople

Constantinople

Constantinople

Constantinople (?)

terraemotus

Famine à Rome

fames

sermo  93

398

Révolte et défaite de Gildon en Afrique

Campagne contre Alaric Dans cette campagne Stilicon est assisté par des troupes germaniques rhénanes

396

Campagne contre Eugénius

395

gentes contra gentes certant

394

bellum super bellum

Table II : Le cadre événementiel du sermon

le d’augustin : date et circonstances

197

419

418

417

416

Conflit entre Suèves et Vandales Hasdings en Espagne

Victoire de Wallia sur les Vandales Silings

Les Wisigoths sous Athaulf, ensuite sous Wallia, se battent en Espagne comme foederati contre les Alains et les Germains

414

415

Révolte et défaite d’Héraclien en Afrique

413

412

Sac de Rome Augustin emploie la formule biblique ‘gens super gentem’ dans son serm.105, 9

Plusieurs usurpateurs se disputent le pouvoir en Gaule

Alains, Suèves et Vandales en Espagne Alaric devant Rome de nouveau

Alaric en Italie et devant Rome

410

Francs, Alamans et Burgondes rivalisent entre eux en agrandissant leur territoire

411

409

408

Sitifis et Jérusalem (Aug., s.  19,6)

Constantinople

Constantinople

Rome ?

Famine passim

Famine à Rome et en Espagne

Pénurie à Constantinople

Famine à Rome

198 luc de coninck

Campagne en Espagne par Castinus et des foederati Wisigoths contre les Vandales

422

429

428

427

426

425

Reconquête de la Pannonie En Afrique : révolte de Boniface Les Vandales traversent la Méditerranée, début de leurs conquêtes en Afrique

Les Vandales occupent les Baléares et se livrent à une piraterie féroce en Méditerranée occidentale Ravenne

Plusieurs localités

Constantinople

Pénurie à Nicée

Famine en Asie Mineure, pénurie à Constantinople

sermo  93

424

423

Campagne contre l’usurpateur Jean

Campagne contre les Hasdings en Espagne Campagne contre l’Empire Sassanide

421

420

le d’augustin : date et circonstances

199

Worship as the Beginning and End of Preaching Carol Harrison (Oxford) There is a very striking self-portrait of Picasso, which I was fortunate enough to see recently, in the Philadelphia Art Institute. It has an air of both physical and inner strength: in one hand the muscular artist is holding his palette, but in the other the brush is absent and the intense gaze of his eyes seem to be focused not on a painting, but within or beyond. Apparently, in preparatory drawings the brush was there, but Picasso removed it in the final version, as if to encourage the viewer to follow the staring eyes: inward and beyond rather than simply to the surface of the painted canvas.1 I’d like to hold this image in mind in order to think about preaching in North Africa in Late Antiquity. What I have to say would probably apply to any preacher, but it is inspired geniuses – like Picasso, and like Augustine – who seem to be gifted with the ability to address us so that we focus not on their work but on what lies within and beyond it: in other words they have the ability to mediate what, in a theological context, we would call (for want of a better expression) spiritual reality. At least, that’s my excuse for remaining with Augustine, despite the best efforts of the organisers of the colloquium at which this paper was first presented, to encourage participants to look to other African preachers! In this paper I’ll take my examples from the extensive series 1  The notes accompanying the painting in the museum suggest that “Its absence attests to the notion that creative genius is not simply manual dexterity but the expression of an inner vision, here symbolized by the artist’s intense, staring eyes.”

Praedicatio Patrum. Studies on Preaching in late Antique North Africa, edited by Gert Partoens, Anthony Dupont, Shari Boodts, Turnhout, 2017 (Instrumenta Patristica et Mediaeualia, 75), p. 201-217 ©



10.1484/M.IPM-EB.5.114054

202

carol harrison

of homilies he composed on the whole of the Psalter, the Enarrationes in Psalmos. Apart from the first 30 or so (which are short commentaries) they were delivered as sermons in various North African locations, throughout the course of Augustine’s ministry, and frequently during Augustine’s visits to Carthage, so at least in that sense they are indicative of North African preaching.2 What I would first like to draw your attention to is the physical setting – the painted canvas, as it were – in which sermons were delivered. Like the modern tendency to hang the paintings of great artists in splendid isolation on the wall of a gallery, we tend all too readily to separate sermons out from their liturgical context and treat them as free-standing texts. As a result, we can easily overlook the fact that they were always, by definition, part of an act of worship: they were delivered in a physical building; from a particular position; at a specific point in the service; framed by set readings from Scripture; by prayers and appointed psalms; and were part of a multi-sensory encounter with God which involved sight, smell, taste and touch as well as hearing. The preacher’s voice and message would resonate, not only with the Scriptures, singing and liturgical prayers that the congregation heard or performed, but also with the architecture, furniture, frescos and mosaics that surrounded them; the incense and burning oil that pervaded the air; and perhaps the taste and touch of the baptismal or Eucharistic elements. So we should not forget the sheer sensuousness of sermons, their embeddedness, and the rich resonances which preachers could and did exploit in bringing what they had to say to their listeners. 3 2  For a comparative table which takes account of scholarly attempts to date the sermons, see M.  Fiedrowicz, Psalmus vox totius Christi. Studien zu Augustins Enarrationes in Psalmos, Freiburg, 1997. 3  On the context of Augustine’s preaching, see F.  Van der Meer, Augustine the Bishop; the Life and Work of a Father of the Church, London, 1962; J.  Patout Burns, R.  M. Jensen, Christianity in North Africa: The Development of Its Practices and Beliefs, Grand Rapids, 2014; S. Lancel Saint Augustine, London, 2002. For the contextual factors which need to be taken account of in reading Patristic sermons see W.  Meyer, “John Chrysostom: Extraordinary Preacher, Ordinary Audience”, in Preacher and Audience: Studies in Early Christian and Byzantine Homiletics, ed.  by M.  Cunningham, P.  Allen, Leiden-Boston-Cologne, 1998, pp. 105–37.

Pablo Picasso, Self-portrait with Palette, 1906, Oil on Canvas, Philadelphia, Philadelphia Museum of Art © Succession Picasso/DACS, London 2017

worship as the beginning and end of preaching

203

Indeed, many asides in Augustine’s sermons, and much of his treatise giving advice on Instructing Beginners in the Faith (De catechizandis rudibus), reveal that Augustine was acutely aware of the temporal, physical setting of his preaching, and even of such mundanely practical matters as not going on too long while his listeners had to stand, or the necessity of offering them a chair to sit on. His sermons themselves are also very much embedded in their temporal, physical setting: they are always extemporary – live performances, responsive to an audience who were accustomed to participating and to making their reactions known; concerned to address their particular needs, failings and foibles; to impress the faith on their minds in a way that was memorable for them, in terms of their own culture and context and which prompted a devout way of life.4 But more importantly, like the Picasso painting, Augustine stood before his congregation, with the Scriptures in (or at least, at) hand, but without a brush: always, he aims to ensure that their gaze should follow his gaze – in and through the physical realities of worship; the liturgy, its chants, incense, images and material elements; in and through the text of Scripture and the psalms – towards their eternal, immutable, spiritual source. It is well known that Augustine interprets the whole of the Psalter – its different voices and events – in relation to Christ: the guiding principle of his exegesis is to link the Church, the body of Christ on earth, to its Head, the risen Lord.5 Likewise, he presents the prayers of the psalmist, as well as those of his own congregation, as continuous with, and ultimately finding their consummation in, the heavenly worship of the angels in the courts of heaven.6 The Scriptures are similarly read as an account of God’s 4  C.  Harrison, The Art of Listening in the Early Church, Oxford, 2013, chapter 5. 5  M.  Fiedrowicz, Psalmus vox totius Christi [n.  2]; M.  Cameron, Christ Meets Me Everywhere: Augustine’s Early Figurative Exegesis, Oxford, 2012. 6  M. Fiedrowicz (WSA III/15, p. 63) notes that Augustine repeatedly cites “Blessed are they who dwell in your house; they will praise you for ever and ever” (Ps. 83, 5): e.g. en. Ps. 26, 1, 4; 26, 2, 6–8; 83, 8. Cf. also en. Ps. 41, 7; 57, 7; 58, 6; 121, 3; 123, 3; 137, 3–7; 141, 19; 144, 2–3. See C. Page, “Music and Beyond in the Later Middle Ages”, in Music and Transcendence, ed. by F. Stone-Davis, Farnham, 2015, pp. 13–22.

204

carol harrison

providential and gracious action stretching from creation, through the prophets, apostles and the Church towards a fulfillment in the age to come. At every turn, in other words, Augustine’s sermons both take full account of the temporal, physical realities of the various aspects of the worship of which they are a part, whilst always shifting the worshippers’ gaze to the eternal, incorporeal, spiritual realities they both reveal and point towards. This is often summed up in scholarly work by the observation that Augustine’s sermons are predominantly spiritualizing and eschatological. But Augustine is not just preoccupied with shifting the gaze of his congregation beyond the temporal, physical aspects of worship, but also with enabling them to respond to what they encounter as they look beyond it, which should result in a corresponding movement inwards, to gaze upon the image of God in which they are created; to what he calls the “inner word”, or “word in the heart” which illuminates and inspires within. So, I would like to suggest that Augustine primarily understands the job of the preacher and his/her listeners as one that is Janusfaced: like Picasso’s self-portrait, their gaze faces in two directions – outwards, towards the temporal aspects of preaching and the liturgy, and inwards, towards the eternal, spiritual reality which they communicate. The preacher therefore has a palette in hand, but no brush: his job is to direct his congregation’s gaze in and through the sensuous to the spiritual; the temporal to the eternal and to ensure that the temporal is never taken as an end in itself. To this end Augustine observes that the preacher must first turn his own gaze inwards, towards the eternal and spiritual, in prayer. As he puts it in a work which really amounts to a handbook for preachers, the De Doctrina Christiana, the preacher must first be someone who prays, an orator, before he can be someone who speaks, a dictor.7 The source, content and end of his words is not himself, but God. Reflecting on how difficult he finds it to articulate the fruit of this prayer – to bring forth the direct, wordless, intuitive grasp of divine truth; the “inner word” or “voice of the heart”8 which Doct. chr. 4, 15, 32. E.g. en. Ps. 3, 4; 4, 5–6.8; 32, 8.20; 53, 10; 55, 7.10; 98, 5; 102, 2; 137, 2; 141, 2. The heart not only speaks and hears; Augustine attributes all the 7  8 

worship as the beginning and end of preaching

205

he hears within, in prayer, and to find words in which he might express it to his congregation – in De catechizandis rudibus, Augustine puts preaching very much in its place: it may well be the fruit of prayer and even of divine inspiration, but the preacher’s dependence on language (rather like the artist’s on paint?) is all too human. It is a mark of human fallen-ness that we are now dependent on words – those frail and faltering vehicles on which we must rely to convey what is in our mind to the mind of another; risking a “shipwreck of misrepresentation”9 so that one unfathomable deep might call to another unfathomable deep.10 Whereas the truth had welled up as a fountain in the minds of Adam and Eve, so that they did not need words to communicate with each other or with God, fallen human beings are now dependent on what he describes as the “rain which falls from the dark clouds of human doctrine and preaching”.11 The preacher, then, is now a necessary mediator, whose words, while admittedly cloudy and obscure – indeed, precisely because they are cloudy and obscure – serve to shift the gaze of his congregation towards spiritual truth, to the “inner word” or “voice” in their own hearts. Indeed, Augustine often observes that it is the necessary movement from a figure to its reality which strengthens the soul and enkindles its love: “How is it that these truths are all the sweeter to us for being more obscure? With marvelous skill he mixes a love-potion for us. He has made his own words so wonderful that when we tell you things you already know, the fact that we draw them forth from what seem to be obscure passages makes them like a fresh discovery for you.”12 senses to it (e.g. the “ear of the heart”: en. Ps. 42, 7; “palate of the heart”: en. Ps. 30, 3, 6; “eye of the heart”: en. Ps. 26, 2, 15; 32, 6); in other words, it is the place where inward, spiritual discernment (what we will call “affective cognition” below) takes place. 9  Acad. 1, 5. 10  En. Ps. 41, 13. 11  Gn. adu. Man. 2, 4, 5–5, 6. 12  Cf.  en. Ps. 138, 31 (CSEL 95/4, p. 165, l. 3–7; WSA III/20, p. 281): Quid est hoc […] unde dulciora, quo obscuriora? Conficit nobis potionem ad amorem suum, quibusdam modis miris. Mirificat ipsa dicta sua, ut cum ea diceremus quae iam noueratis, tamen quia ex illis locis eruebantur quae obscura uidebantur, tamquam noua fieret ipsa cognitio. Cf. en. Ps. 140, 1; 146, 12; 149, 14; doct. chr. 2, 6, 7; 3, 24, 34; ep. 55, 13.

206

carol harrison

I referred to the Janus-type nature of preaching, for as well as turning inwards, towards God, in prayer, the preacher also faced outwards, into the physical building of the church and towards his listening congregation, in order to address them in words. As I suggested in describing the physical context of preaching, however, the preacher’s words were never free-standing, but resonated with and were informed by the many different facets of the worship of which his sermon was a part. As well as using faltering, temporal, mutable human words to shift the gaze of his congregation towards the word dwelling in their own hearts, then, the sermon could also act as a sort of prism in which the various facets of worship – the readings from Scripture; the chanting of the psalms; the burning of incense; the ritual actions; the sacraments… – could be focused, reflected upon and the congregation’s gaze directed towards their spiritual reality. How did the preacher do this? I would like to suggest that what the sermon did – at least, what Augustine’s sermons aim to do – is not so much to impart information; to present and explain spiritual truth as something which can be understood or grasped with the intellect, but rather, to enable his congregation to encounter this truth in and through his preaching on Scripture, which, as an integral part of the liturgy, often served to focus and refract the various aspects of worship. His preaching would therefore serve to direct their gaze – or in more theological language, inspire their faith, hope and love – to look within and beyond his words and the liturgy, in order to encounter their spiritual inspiration and source. This, in turn, would lead them back to worship, to prayer, praise and longing in response to what they have encountered but cannot yet fully grasp. What the preacher did, then, was to direct his congregation’s gaze inward, to encounter spiritual truth in their hearts, and outward, to encounter the spiritual grace and inspiration of the various aspects of worship. Augustine’s favorite images for the preacher – a mountain, a cloud, an arrow – all express this mediating, refracting, redirecting role – the mountain catching divine light in order to reflect it into the valley of the world;13 the cloud imparting rain to parched human minds so that

13 

En. Ps. 35, 9; 75, 7; 124, 4.

worship as the beginning and end of preaching

207

the seeds God has planted can grow;14 the arrow, fired by God and directed by the preacher to pierce the human heart.15 Augustine is not usually considered an “apophatic” theologian but as much as those who are (I’m thinking of his near contemporary in Cappadocia, Gregory Nazianzen), he has a profound sense of God’s ineffable, ungraspable, uncontainable transcendence and of the impossibility of ever encompassing, comprehending or grasping this in human thought and reason.16 When examined in this context, his sermons are clearly not so much intended to communicate intellectual cognition of God as what we might call “affective cognition”: we cannot know God, we can only encounter Him through his revelation of Himself; within, in the voice of the heart, but more often, for fallen human beings who are now deaf to this voice, through his outward, temporal revelation. Like Gregory or even Basil of Caesarea, countering the Eunomians’ claim that the divine nature can be grasped by the intellect, Augustine stresses the importance of God’s temporal actions and activities – his revelation and inspiration in creation, Scripture, sacred history, the incarnation, the Church and sacraments, preaching – in order to impress spiritual truth upon human minds and hearts – so that, remembering and representing it inwardly (creating what Gregory calls a “mental image”), they can begin to believe in, hope for and love it, and be moved to worship – to prayer, praise and loving longing for its ineffable source.17 In this context, also, En. Ps. 35, 8; 56, 17; 64, 14. En. Ps. 16, 15; 76, 20; 127, 10. 16  E.g. en. Ps. 17, 11; 76, 8; 85, 12; 95, 4–6; 99, 6; 145, 20 (and see below, on jubilation as our response to God’s ineffability). There is little secondary literature on this subject, though P.  van Geest, The Incomprehensibility of God: Augustine as Negative Theologian, Leuven, 2011, is a notable exception, and there is an important article by V. Lossky, “Théologie negative dans la pensée de Saint Augustin”, in Augustinus Magister, v. 1 (supplement of L’année théologique augustinienne), Paris, 1954, pp. 575–81. 17  E.g. en. Ps. 99, 5; 103, 8; 104, 3, 20; 138, 8 (in the latter Augustine, like Gregory Nazianzen, interprets God speaking to Moses in a cloud on Mount Sinai, as His speaking through his works, rather than in his own substance). For the movement from sense perception, to mental image, to affective cognition through recollection see trin. 11; M.  Carruthers, “Stylistic Effects and Bodily Health in Medieval Aesthetics” – unpublished paper; G. De Nie “Introduction”, in Envisioning Experience in Late Antiquity and the 14 

15 

208

carol harrison

Augustine’s sermons are best understood, not as free-standing attempts to communicate information – the word from the pulpit, as it were – but as an integral part of the liturgy. Key to this is the fact that when the preacher speaks of God, God is, in fact, speaking of Himself through him. As Augustine observes, “Whatever instrument God’s voice employs, God’s voice it is still. Nothing but his own voice sounds sweetly in his ears. When we speak we delight him, as long as he speaks through us.”18 Oddly, therefore, preaching might well be categorized in St Basil’s terms more as a “dogma” (a tacit, traditional action expressing the ineffable mysteries of the faith) than as “kerygma” (the public, outward proclamation of the faith in an agreed form of words).19 In the second part of this paper I would like to examine some of the methods Augustine employs in his preaching in order to effect what we have just called an “affective cognition”: an encounter with the ineffable God through preaching, in the context of the liturgy, so that He might be believed and worshipped. The common feature of these various methods might be summed up as “abstraction”.20 It is as if, in order to direct the gaze of his congregation from the sensuous to the spiritual, from the signs of Scripture and preaching and from the actions and sacraments of the liturgy, to their spiritual reality, he needs to simultaneously point to and through them; a bit like pointing to the glass in a

Middle Ages: Dynamic Patterns in Texts and Images, ed. by G. De Nie, T. F. X. Noble, Farnham, 2012, pp. 1–8; C. Harrison, The Art of Listening [n. 4], chapter 7. 18  En. Ps. 99, 1 (CCSL 39, p. 1393, l. 5–8; WSA III/19, p. 13): Vox dei quolibet organo sonans, tamen uox dei; neque enim delectat aures eius, nisi uox eius; nam et nos cum loquimur, tunc eum delectamus, cum ipse de nobis loquitur. Cf.  en. Ps. 103, 1, 8; 145, 1. The same is true of the praise which preaching evokes: when we praise God, the source of our praise is God; thus God praises Himself through us. So, praise, like preaching, initiates us into the mysteries of the faith – e.g. en. Ps. 102, 4; 141, 1; 144, 1. 19  Basil of Caesarea, De spiritu sancto 27, 66. 20  Just as abstract art can express a spiritual reality by abstracting physical form, so, music, arguably the least physical of the arts, might be said to be most suited to do this.

worship as the beginning and end of preaching

209

window but also to what lies through and beyond it.21 The way he does this is by a process of abstraction: like glass, preaching and worship are shown to be a useful frame; a translucent veil; something that both obscures and reveals; a fragile, mutable vehicle which, when looked through, leads to more solid and immutable reality. Its very substance invites the onlooker not to rest on it, but to look through it. The absent brush in Picasso’s self-portrait is an even better illustration of this: its very absence prompts us to look beyond the canvas to seek out its inner meaning. This is a roundabout way of saying that Augustine’s sermons, which are always on Scripture, are painfully aware of both the gap that exists between words and the realities they attempt to convey, and also of the need for fallen human beings – the preacher and his congregation – to use signs in order to convey anything at all. So words – Scripture and sermon – are necessary but necessarily limited. By dwelling on the limitations of words – or at least, on their capacity to refer beyond themselves, through figurative language – Augustine abstracts from the literal, surface meaning of Scripture in his sermons, in order to reveal its spiritual meaning and inspiration. This is by no means an innovation on his part, but simply an indication of how far these methods were inherent in the text of Scripture itself and the extent to which he followed them. Because it is divinely inspired and communicates divine truth, Scripture is a text which rarely presents what it intends to communicate literally – in other words, its meaning is rarely the obvious, surface one (how could it be, given that its subject is the ineffable God?) – but rather alludes to or illustrates it through a story, a parable, metaphors, images, types, figures. Following its prompt, Augustine fashions a whole, inter-related, parallel world of spiritual realities in the Enarrationes in Psalmos, which correspond to the images and figures of the psalms, so that his congregation would no doubt build up a sort of tacit shorthand, whereby every detail of the psalms could become part of an imaginative inner world/topography of inter-woven images related to 21  Augustine’s early distinction between what delights the senses and what delights through the senses (per sensum) in ord. 2, 11, 34 is one that structures his understanding of theology and is set out most systematically in the first book of doct. chr. in terms of signs and things; use and enjoyment.

210

carol harrison

their Christian lives: the mountains become preachers; the valley is fallen humanity; the sky is the authority of the Scriptures; the moon is carnal humankind; the sun is spiritual humankind; the sea is this world; the rain is the word of God; the sheep are the faithful; the King is Christ; the servants are His apostles; the city is Jerusalem; the Bride is the Church; the Bridegroom is Christ … This in turn gave the preacher a tremendous freedom to improvise on these details, confident that he had already built up a complicit understanding with his congregation which did not require explanations each time a particular image or figure was used.22 Perhaps more interestingly, Augustine often abstracts the sound of words from their literal context in Scripture and uses rhythm, parallelism, assonance, rhyme and repetition to enable his listening congregation to both apprehend the words and simultaneously look beyond them to the spiritual truth they convey.23 It should not surprise us that, consummate rhetor that he was, we often find him deploying carefully crafted patterns of sound to nudge his audience to grasp what he wishes to communicate (I’ll come back to this).24 Similarly, he creates patterns of events as well as sound, as when he traces the psalmist’s narratio or summary of divine action and providence in sacred history, so that it can be grasped as a meaningful whole, shaped by God’s judgment or grace in response to human sinfulness or righteousness.25 The patterns that emerge are ones that extend into the present, so that recollecting the past, attending to what is happening in their own age and anticipating the age to come in his preaching, the congregation are invited to participate in these patterns of sacred history and be formed and

C. Harrison, The Art of Listening [n. 4], chapter 5. Examples are not necessary as these features structure Augustine’s preaching. For an excellent account of them, see W. Harmless, Augustine and the Catechumenate, Collegeville (MN), 1995; “A Love Supreme: Augustine’s Jazz of Theology”, Augustinian Studies, 43 (2012), pp. 149–77. For sound patterns in Augustine, see C. Conybeare, “Beyond Word and Image: Aural Patterning in Augustine’s Confessions”, in Envisioning Experience [n. 17], pp. 143–64. 24  En. Ps. 71, 2; 104, 26 on parallelism. 25  E.g. en. Ps. 32,  2, 1.8; 94,  9; 149,  1. Obviously this is most clearly set forth throughout ciu. 22 

23 

worship as the beginning and end of preaching

211

transformed by them.26 In a similar manner, Augustine composes a complicated, extended counterpoint of Old Testament prophecy and types with New Testament fulfillment, and of New Testament types which inform the life and practice of the Church, so that his congregation can understand and experience their Christian lives as both continuous with Scripture and as anticipating the age to come. The totus Christus motif, which provides the overall frame for his interpretation of the psalms, is clearly the unifying theme which emerges from these complicated counterpoints, and the one which allows his preaching to unify the often bewildering multiplicity of voices and material in the psalms into a coherent whole.27 At other times Augustine seems to make a virtue of fragmentation and dissonance, as when he works his way through a psalm, verse by verse, building up a multiplicity of diverse observations whose only unity is that they are the voices which belong to the same body – but which are otherwise left to sound their different themes and to be open to a diverse range of interpretations, depending on the individual reader.28 So, non-literal, non-verbal patterns of reference and meaning; tacit frameworks of complicit meaning; open-ended and unfinished narratives; endlessly resonating counterpoints; fragmentary and lapidary episodes ensured that humanity’s fallen need for words did not obscure or make spiritual truth inaccessible, but rather that this need or limitation was exploited, as an effective means to convey that truth. As we have already noted, Augustine often observes that the more obscure something is, and the more ardu-

26  E.g. en. Ps. 38, 7. See esp. conf. 11. See D. van Dusen, The Space of Time: A Sensualist Interpretation of Time in Augustine’s, Confessions X to XII, Leiden-Boston, 2014. Augustine often likens this process to listening to a poem being read, e.g. in en. Ps. 9, 7. It is also, I would argue, the structuring principle of his trin.: we recall, encounter and desire the Trinity through memory, understanding and love directed towards its sensuous revelation in time. 27  See  M. Fiedrowicz’s general introduction to WSA III/15, pp. 13–66; M. Cameron, Christ Meets Me Everywhere [n. 5]. 28  En. Ps. 74, 12; 126, 1. For a more detailed examination of this approach to exegesis, see conf. 12.

212

carol harrison

ous the search, the more delight is occasioned when it is discovered.29 I think that perhaps the most revealing instance of the process of abstraction, and of making a virtue of necessity, is when Augustine actually abandons speech altogether and urges his congregation to express what is in their hearts by singing or simply by wordless jubilation. This marks, I think, the point at which the abstractions of preaching break through to what lies beyond them; when preaching becomes an integral part of the worship to which it belongs: the point at which the preacher had said enough to refocus the gaze of his congregation in and beyond his words and the words of Scripture towards their divine inspiration and source; the point at which he turns them back to participate in the liturgy and forwards to join the unending prayer and praise of the angelic host. It is the point at which the congregation, confirmed in faith, hope and love by the preacher, could leave human speech behind to worship and praise the ineffable God in song. So, having examined worship as the context for preaching, and the way in which preaching was integrated into it, I would now like to examine worship as that which preaching returns us to: worship as the true end and goal of preaching. In order to do this I need to return to my comments on Augustine’s apophaticism and the necessity of language as a result of the Fall. In this context, preaching, like the words in which it is expressed, is very much an interim measure; a necessary means to mediate divine truth to fallen human beings who have lost the inward, direct and intuitive encounter with God which Adam and Eve enjoyed before the Fall. Of course, even Adam and Eve could never fully comprehend God, but one assumes that their privileged encounter with Him led to the expression of love and praise, such as the angels continue to sing, and such as human beings will eternally offer in the life to come. As Augustine puts it in his homily on Ps. 83, 5 (“Blessed are they who dwell in your house. They shall praise your name for ever and ever”) in reference to the resurrected life: “But tell me what they [those in heaven] are to do, because I cannot see any kind of necessity there which could impel me to 29 

See note 12 above.

worship as the beginning and end of preaching

213

action. Even what I am doing now as I talk and discuss with you is the child of necessity. Will there be any such discussion then, in which someone instructs the ignorant or reminds the forgetful? Or will the gospel be proclaimed there in our homeland, where we shall contemplate the very Word of God? The psalmist has given voice to our desire and our longings, telling us what we are to have in that homeland for which we long, by his words: Blessed are they who dwell in your house; let him also tell us what we are to do. They will praise you for ever and ever. This will be the work that occupies us totally, an ‘Alleluia’ that never fades away. […] Let us have no anxiety, then, brothers and sisters. Praising God, loving God, will not be boring. If you weary of love, you will weary of praise; but if love is everlasting, because that beauty can never cloy, have no fear that you will find yourself unable to praise for ever him whom you will have strength to love for ever. Blessed, then, are they who dwell in your house; they will praise you for ever and ever. Let us yearn for that life.”30

At a number of points in his sermons on the psalms Augustine anticipates this love and praise: commenting on the psalms of ascent he identifies the songs which the pilgrims sing as they journey towards the heavenly Jerusalem as the expression of their longing love, stretching out towards the courts of heaven; they sing as they ascend and ascend by singing. 31 It appears that singing is able to lift up the worshipper and enable them to ascend into the presence of God because, unlike spoken words, in song there is no gap between the “inner word” or “word in the heart” and its outward expression; rather Augustine understands singing as the immediate, spontaneous, overflowing En. Ps. 83, 8 (CCSL 39, p. 1153, l. 49-p. 1154, l. 80; WSA III/18, p. 194): Dic etiam quid acturi sunt, quia non ibi uideo aliquas necessitates quae me impellant ad agendum. Ecce modo quod loquor et disputo, necessitas parit. Numquid enim ibi talis disputatio erit, quasi quae doceat ignaros, quasi quae commemoret obliuiosos? aut uero in illa patria euangelium recitabitur, ubi ipsum Dei Verbum contemplabitur? Ergo quia dixit iste desiderans et suspirans ex uoce nostra, quid habituri sumus in illa patria cui suspiratur, et ait: Beati qui habitant in domo tua; dicat et quid acturi sumus. In saecula saeculorum laudabunt te. Hoc erit totum negotium nostrum, sine defectu Alleluia. […] Securi ergo simus, fratres; non nos satiabit laus Dei, amor Dei. Si deficies ab amore, deficies a laude; si autem amor sempiternus erit, quia illa insatiabilis pulchritudo erit; noli timere ne non possis semper laudare, quem semper poteris amare. Ergo: Beati qui habitant in domo tua; in saecula saeculorum laudabunt te. Huic uitae suspiremus. 31  En. Ps. 119–33. 30 

214

carol harrison

or outpouring, as it were, of the love, joy and praise which wells up within the heart of the worshipper in response to God’s revelation – a response which cannot be contained, but must burst forth – and the form it takes is song. Reflecting on Ps. 44, 2 (“My heart overflows with a good word”, eructauit cor meum uerbum bonum) Augustine first of all suggests that the psalmist is describing the begetting of the Word by God; his bringing forth of his Word from his heart, his innermost being (ex intimo suo), and he contrasts this with our words, which do indeed come from our heart, but unlike the eternal begetting of the Word, which has no beginning or end, are temporal and mutable: we must break silence to speak, to produce a word which did not previously exist, and which, when spoken, “letter after letter, syllable after syllable, word after word” will pass away. 32 But then Augustine does something we might not quite anticipate: he contrasts earth-bound speech with singing and seems to suggest that the latter is, in fact, a much better analogy for the overflowing of the divine Word from God’s innermost being. So he offers an alternative interpretation of this verse as words spoken by the psalmist, rather than God: “Thus the line My heart overflows with a good word would be the prophet’s way of announcing his hymn (for when anyone sings a hymn to God, his or her heart is blurting out a good word, just as when anyone blasphemes God, that person’s heart is belching out a bad word). On this showing the next line, I  tell my works to the king would signify that the highest duty of every human being is to praise God. It is proper to God to delight you by his beauty, and your business to praise him with thanksgiving. […] Let your work be praise offered to God; let your heart overflow with this good word. Tell your works to the king, because the king has created you for this purpose, and himself given you what you are to offer him. Give back to him his own gifts.”33 En. Ps. 44, 6. En. Ps. 44, 9 (CCSL 38, p. 500, l. 2-p. 501, l. 16; WSA III/16, pp. 289–90): […] et hoc quod dictum est: Eructauit cor meum uerbum bonum, ex propheta uoluerint intelligi, ueluti dicente hymnum. (Quisquis enim dicit hymnum Deo, eructat cor eius uerbum bonum, quomodo qui blasphemat in Deum, eructat cor eius uerbum malum.) Vt et illud quod adiunctum est: Dico ego opera mea regi, significare uoluerit summum hominis opus non esse, nisi Deum laudare. Illius est specie sua placere tibi, ad te pertinet eum in gratiarum actione laudare. […] Opus ergo tuum sit laus Dei, eructet cor tuum uerbum bonum. Dic ergo opera tua regi, quia ut diceres, rex fecit, et ipse donauit quod offerres. Redde illi de suo […]. 32 

33 

worship as the beginning and end of preaching

215

This interpretation of singing as the spontaneous, unmediated expression of what is in the heart, in response to God’s revelation; as able to articulate what words fail to express, is confirmed by a number of passages in the Enarrationes in Psalmos where Augustine describes the way in which individuals express the joy or love that wells up within them to bursting point, in songs of wordless praise or jubilation: “God made all things exceedingly good [Gen. 1, 31]. But what else can we say? Words fail us, but love does not. Our consideration of another psalm occurs to us: when we cannot articulate our thoughts, we must shout for joy. God is good, but what kind of good he is, who can tell? We cannot put it into words, but we are not allowed to remain silent. This is our problem: we cannot find words, but our sheer joy does not permit us to be silent; so let us neither speak nor hold our tongues. […] Let us shout for joy. Let us shout for joy to God, our salvation; shout with joy to God, all the earth [Ps. 94, 1]. What does that mean: Shout for joy? Give vent to inarticulate expressions of your joys, belch out all your happiness to him. What kind of belching will there be after the final feasting, if even now after a modest meal our souls are so deeply affected? When we have been redeemed from every form of corruption, when the psalm’s prediction has come true, that he satisfies your longing with good things [Ps. 102, 5], what will our joy be then?”34

In these inarticulate cries, the abstractions which we began to trace in his preaching reach their full extent: words are left 34  En. Ps. 102, 8 (CSEL 95/1, p. 82, l. 35–48; WSA III/19, p. 87): Fecit Deus omnia bona ualde. Quid ergo dicturi sumus? Deficimus in uoce, sed non in affectu. Veniat in mentem recens illa tractatio psalmi. Explicare non possumus? Iubilemus. Bonum est Deus. Quale bonum quis dicat? Ecce non possumus dicere, et non permittimur tacere. Ergo si non possumus dicere, et prae gaudio non permittimur tacere, nec loquamur, nec taceamus. […] Iubilemus, Iubilate, Deo salutari nostro, Iubilate Deo, omnis terra! Quid est Iubilate? Efferte uocem ineffabilem gaudiorum uestrorum, et eructate in eum laetitias uestras. Et quid erit illa ructatio post saginam, si modo post modicas istas refectiones tantum afficitur anima nostra? Quid erit, quando fiet post redemptionem ab omni corruptione quod dictum est in isto psalmo: Qui satiat in bonis desiderium tuum? – In en. Ps. 137, 4 he likens the heart to a pregnant woman, on the point of giving birth, searching for somewhere to bring forth what it contains; in en. Ps. 99, 5–6 we see the beauty of creation but cannot articulate it; rather than fall silent we express our love, praise, and say thanks in shouts of joy. Cf. en. Ps. 94, 3; 32, 2, 8.

216

carol harrison

behind, intellectual cognition gives way to what we described as affective cognition, and in this way the heart finds a voice with which to express the ineffable. 35 As he comments in relation to Ps. 88, 16 (“Blessed the people that understands how to shout for joy”), the shout comes from the heart, from the understanding, and only then from the voice: “What would be the use of shouting for joy and obeying the injunction of the psalm, Shout with joy to God, all the earth [Ps. 94, 1], if we did not understand? What would be the point of our voice shouting on its own if our heart did not? The heart’s cry of joy is its understanding.”36

That these cries are spontaneous, involuntary and unconstrained is an indication, for Augustine, of the free operation of the will. Quite extraordinarily, when he asks: “Can we find any occupation that we engage in of our own free will?”, he unhesitatingly responds: “Yes, we certainly can. We find it when we praise God out of love for him. You act freely when you love what you praise, giving him glory not under compulsion but because you delight to praise him.”37 Augustine often urges his congregation to praise God with their “voices, minds and good works”: “Let us praise the Lord with 35  It is worth noting that whereas in his preaching the sound was rhythmical, highly structured sound, shaped by the conventions of classical rhetoric and metre, here it is raw, unstructured, instinctive sound – shouts of joy or groaning which cannot be contained but which express longing, love, and inexpressible wonder (en. Ps. 131, 10). It seems that the more unstructured the sound, the more apt it is for expressing the inexpressible. This is confirmed, in a way, by Augustine’s constant reminders that the “word in the heart” is not linguistic; it is not in any language; it is not verbal – it is a direct, intuitive understanding or “feeling” (he talks about the “affections of the heart” in en. Ps. 141, 4) which does not require words but is heard directly by God and sometimes overflows in non-verbal, inarticulate sighs, groans or jubilation (en. Ps. 141, 4) (just as these sounds express our feelings in normal life). On groaning for sin as a counterpart to cries of joy, see en. Ps. 129, 1–2; 131, 10. 36  En. Ps. 99, 3 (CCSL 39, p. 1393, l. 18-p. 1394, l. 22; WSA III/19, p. 140): Quid opus est iubilare et obtemperare huic psalmo dicenti: Iubilate Deo, omnis terra, et non intellegere iubilationem, ut uox nostra sola iubilet et cor non iubilet? Sonus enim cordis intellectus est. 37  En. Ps. 134, 11.

worship as the beginning and end of preaching

217

our voices, our minds and our good works and let us sing a new song.”38 In a sense, this is the real end goal of his preaching and its many abstractions: to turn his listeners away from his words and to return them to worship: to song, prayer and action.

38  En. Ps. 149, 1. Cf. also paragraph 16: the saints are glorified, worship God, rejoice, exult, are lifted up to salvation, sing a new song and shout alleluia, “with their hearts, their mouths, and their lives” (CSEL 95/5, p. 293, l. 9; WSA III/20, p. 507): sic dicunt Alleluia, corde, ore, uita. Augustine often observes to his congregation that what we sing about should be reflected in how we live – e.g. en. Ps. 38, 4–5; 119, 9; 126, 1; 132, 5; 136, 2.11–14.22; 146, 1–2; 149, 2.8.

Le commentaire augustinien des Psaumes pour Idithun : les Enarrationes in Psalmos 38, 61 et 76 Isabelle Bochet (Paris) Les Enarrationes in Psalmos 38, 61 et 76 d’Augustin relatives à Idithun ont déjà attiré l’attention des chercheurs : Luc Brésard leur a consacré un article, « Le thème du dépassement chez saint Augustin. Les “Enarrationes” sur “Idithun” », dans la revue Collectanea Cisterciensia1, en 1977 ; Pierre-Marie  Hombert a cherché à en déterminer la date dans ses Nouvelles recherches de chronologie augustinienne 2 , en tirant parti des indications antérieures de Seraphinus  M. Zarb3, Henri Rondet4, Othmar  Perler et JeanLouis  Maier5 ; Adolf Primmer 6 a étudié, pour sa part, l’Enarratio in Psalmum 61, en s’intéressant plus particulièrement au post tractatum ; Jaime García7 a présenté une étude de l’Enarratio in Psalmum  76, dans Saint Augustin et la Bible, en 2005. Collectanea Cisterciensia, 39 (1977), p. 222-230. Paris, 2000, p. 599-602. 3  Chronologia Enarrationum S. Augustini in Psalmos, Valetta-Malta, 1948, p. 85-89, 172-173 et 176. 4  « Essais sur la chronologie des Enarrationes in Psalmos de saint Augustin », Bulletin de Littérature Écclésiastique, 65 (1964), p. 110-136 (pour en. Ps.  38, voir p. 127-131) ; 71 (1970), p. 174-200 (pour en. Ps. 61, voir p. 184186) ; 75 (1974), p. 161-188 (pour en. Ps. 76, voir p. 169-170). 5  Les voyages de saint Augustin, Paris, 1969, p. 333-334. 6  «  Augustinus und der Astrologe. Zu Enarratio in Psalmum 61 », dans Chartulae. Festschrift für Wolfgang Speyer, éd. E.  Dassmann, K.  Thraede, J. Engemann, Münster, 1998 (Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum. Ergänzungsbände, 28), p. 253-262. 7  « Le dépassement de l’intériorité vers la communauté dans l’Enarratio in Psalmum 76 », dans Saint Augustin et la Bible. Actes du colloque de l’université 1  2 

Praedicatio Patrum. Studies on Preaching in late Antique North Africa, edited by Gert Partoens, Anthony Dupont, Shari Boodts, Turnhout, 2017 (Instrumenta Patris­ tica et Mediaeualia, 75), p. 219-268 ©



10.1484/M.IPM-EB.5.114055

220

isabelle bochet

Les trois commentaires développent une thématique similaire à partir de l’interprétation spirituelle du nom « Idithun ». Augustin n’exclut pas que l’on puisse chercher qui était historiquement, « selon la naissance du vieil homme 8 », le personnage appelé Idithun, mais il opte pour une interprétation spirituelle fondée sur la traduction latine du nom hébreu « Idithun » qu’il a trouvée dans un onomasticon : transiliens eos. Cette traduction correspond à l’une de celles que donne Jérôme dans son Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum : « Idithun qui les dépasse ou qui les franchit en sautant » (Idithun transiliens eos siue saliens eos9). La manière dont Augustin interprète les Psaumes 38, 61 et 76 à partir de cette signification d’Idithun paraît tout à fait originale. De fait, si Origène, Ambroise ou Jérôme mentionnent Idithun, ils se contentent d’indiquer le rôle de chantre confié à Idithun10 selon I  Chron.  16,  42. Origène, dans sa première Homélie sur le Psaume  38 (dans la traduction de Rufin), précise que David qui a composé ce Psaume « l’a donné à Idithun à qui l’on avait confié la charge de chanter des hymnes à Dieu11 ». Ambroise note de même, dans son Commentaire du Psaume 38, que ce n’est pas Idithun qui a composé le Psaume, mais David, et que ce dernier l’a donné à chanter à Idithun en raison de sa compétence dans l’art du chant12 . Jérôme précise brièvement, à propos du Psaume 76, que ce n’est Paul Verlaine-Metz (7-8 avril 2005), éd. G. Nauroy, M.-A.  Vannier, Berne, 2008, p. 153-168. 8  Cf. en. Ps. 38, 1 (CCSL 38, p. 401) : Videris enim quis uocatus fuerit Idithun secundum hominum priscam natiuitatem ; nos autem audiamus quid interpretetur hoc nomen, et in ipsa interpretatione nominis quaeramus intellegentiam ueritatis. 9  Liber interpr. hebr. nom., Psalm. (CCSL  72, p.  119). On trouve une traduction similaire dans un onomasticon syriaque, comme l’indique F. Wutz (Onomastica sacra, TU 41/  2, Leipzig, 1915, p.  797 : Ἰδιθουμ˙ transiliens eos). Augustin emploie à la fois transilire et salire dans le § 2 : […] non quaerat leuitate corporis transilire fossas aut aliqua altiuscula praeuolare saliendo. 10  Hilaire le mentionne comme l’un des auteurs des Psaumes (Tract. super Ps., pr., 2 [CCSL 61, p. 4]). 11  In Ps. 38, 1, 2 (SC 411, p. 334-335). Voir, de façon similaire, In Ps. 76, ho. 1, 1 – Die neuen Psalmenhomilien, Eine kritische Edition des Codex Monacensis Graecus 314, éd. L. Perrone, M.  M. Pradel, E. Prinzivalli, A. Cacciari, Berlin-München-Boston, 2015 (GCS, 19), p. 294. 12  Expl. Ps. 38, 1 (CSEL 64, p. 183)  : Ergo quia non Idithun scripsit hunc psalmum, sed propheta Dauid et Idithun uiro canendi perito psallendum dedit, ideo sic inscriptus est titulus. 

    le commentaire augustinien des psaumes pour idithun 221

pas pour Idithun que ce Psaume fut composé mais qu’il fut chanté par lui13. Dans le corpus augustinien, ces enarrationes fortement centrées sur la thématique du dépassement ont également une tonalité spécifique. Le schème d’anabase qu’Augustin utilise souvent suppose certes, lui aussi, un dépassement de tout le créé : des réalités visibles vers l’esprit, puis vers un au-delà de soi-même. Ce schème est d’origine plotinienne, comme l’a montré Suzanne Poque14 : on le trouve notamment dans les livres VII et IX des Confessions, mais aussi dans l’Enarratio in Psalmum 41 ou encore le Tractatus in Iohannis Euangelium 20. Mais la spécificité des enarrationes consacrées aux Psaumes pour Idithun est de ne pas s’en tenir seulement à l’application de ce schème d’origine plotinienne ; elles témoignent plus encore de l’expérience du pasteur en butte à la contradiction. Mon but est précisément de mettre en lumière la spécificité de ces enarrationes, en les éclairant par le contexte dans lequel Augustin les a prêchées. Je m’interrogerai d’abord sur l’ordre dans lequel elles ont été prêchées et je rappellerai les hypothèses de datation qui ont été proposées. J’examinerai ensuite chacune de ces enarrationes, en cherchant à caractériser le dépassement qu’Augustin y décrit. Les accents autobio­ g raphiques et l’inscrip­ tion dans un contexte historique déterminé, que l’on peut déceler dans ces enarrationes, s’y allient à une vision universelle de l’histoire du salut. 1. Les Enarrationes in Psalmos 38, 61 et 76 a. L’ordre des trois prédications Le renvoi explicite du Commentaire du Psaume 6115 à une explication précédente du terme « Idithun » a donné lieu à des interprétations différentes : Zarb pense qu’Augustin renvoie au Commentaire du Psaume 38, dans lequel on trouve l’explication la plus développée de la signification à donner au nom « Idithun ». Primmer récuse cette hypothèse, car elle supposerait que l’Enar13  Comm. in Ps. 76 (CCSL 72, p. 218) : In hebraeo « per Idithun » habet : ut significet, non pro eo, sed per eum psalmum fuisse cantatum. 14  «  L’expression de l’anabase plotinienne dans la prédication de saint Augustin et ses sources », Recherches Augustiniennes, 10 (1975), p. 187-215. 15  Cf. en. Ps. 61, 1 (CCSL, 39, p. 772), cité infra, n. 27.

222

isabelle bochet

ratio in Psalmum 61 ait été prêchée à Carthage, puisque l’Enarratio in Psalmum 38 a été elle-même prêchée à Carthage, comme l’indique son titre : Habitus Carthagine ad mensam sancti Cypriani quarta feria16 ; selon Primmer17, le post tractatum du Commentaire du Psaume  61, qui traite de la réintégration d’un astrologue pénitent dans la communauté, implique qu’Augustin est à Hippone, et non à Carthage, et qu’il a depuis longtemps des contacts personnels avec cet astrologue18. Hombert19 estime, pour sa part, qu’Augustin ferait allusion à la brève explication que l’on trouve dans l’Enarratio in Psalmum 7620 qu’il faudrait en ce cas situer aussi à Hippone ; mais la brièveté de cette explication rend problématique son affirmation. Primmer21 suggère plutôt qu’Augustin aurait pu donner précédemment à Hippone une explication plus longue du nom « Idithun » dans une prédication que nous n’avons pas. On peut se demander néanmoins si les arguments invoqués par Primmer pour situer à Hippone l’Enarratio in Psalmum 61 sont vraiment décisifs : il faut d’abord rappeler qu’Augustin était pour ainsi dire « chez lui » à Carthage, comme me l’a suggéré François Dolbeau ; en outre, l’emploi de formules passives dilatus est, admissus est, s’explique parfaitement si Augustin n’a pas lui-même différé d’admettre l’astrologue : « Sachez mes frères qu’il a frappé, il y a longtemps, à la porte de l’Église, avant Pâques : avant Pâques, en effet, il a commencé à demander à l’Église sa guérison. Mais, parce que la profession qu’il avait exercée est telle qu’elle est suspecte de mensonge et de 16  CCSL 38, p. 401. Sur la localisation  : mensa Cypriani, voir N.  Duval, « L’état actuel des recherches archéologiques sur Carthage chrétienne », Antiquité Tardive, 5 (1997), p. 309-350 (compte rendu critique de L. Ennabli, Carthage. Une métropole chrétienne du IVe à la fin du VIIe s., Paris, 1997), en part. p. 315 : il y avait probablement deux basiliques dédiées à Cyprien, la memoria, érigée au lieu de la sépulture, la mensa, au lieu du martyre (= le no 9 de L. Ennabli, p. 24-26). 17  Cf. « Augustinus und der Astrologe » [n. 6], p. 253, avec n. 5. 18  Cf. en. Ps. 61, 23 (CCSL 39, p. 792-793). 19  Cf. Nouvelles recherches de chronologie augustinienne [n. 2], p. 599. 20  Cf. en. Ps. 76, 1 (CCSL 39, p. 1052), cité infra, n. 28. 21  Cf. « Augustinus und der Astrologe » [n. 6], p. 257 : « Jetzt sehen wir, daß die Hypothese auf einem Argumentum ex silentio beruhte und daß Augustinus offenbar vor der Enarratio 61 auch in Hippo einmal eine längere Erklärung des Namens vorgetragen haben muß ».

    le commentaire augustinien des psaumes pour idithun 223 tromperie, on a différé [dilatus est] de l’admettre, de peur qu’il ne soit source de tentation ; et pourtant, enfin, on l’a admis [admissus est], de peur qu’il ne soit lui-même tenté trop dangereusement22 . »

Primmer voit dans ces tournures passives l’expression de la « discrétion » d’Augustin, qui éviterait de se nommer en tant qu’évêque détenant le pouvoir des clés23, mais cette explication est faible. Il estime en outre qu’en demandant au peuple de confirmer par son témoignage la vérité de la conversion de l’astrologue, Augustin ne peut s’adresser qu’à la communauté d’Hippone24, mais l’emploi de nobis peut très bien correspondre ici à un pluriel, englobant à la fois Augustin lui-même et l’évêque de Carthage. L’argument n’a donc rien de décisif. On ne peut alors exclure que l’Enarratio in Psalmum 61 ait été prêchée à Carthage, tout comme l’Enarratio in Psalmum  38 à laquelle elle semble renvoyer. La longue explication qu’Augustin donne du nom « Idithun » dans le Commentaire du Psaume 38 conviendrait de fait parfaitement au rappel que l’on trouve au début du Commentaire du Psaume 61 : « Selon ce que nous avons pu trouver en consultant la liste des noms que nous ont traduits de l’hébreu en latin des hommes versés dans les saintes Écritures, la traduction d’Idithun est : ‘Celui qui les dépasse’. Qui est donc celui qui dépasse, et qui dépasset-il ? Car il n’est pas dit ‘celui qui dépasse’ dans l’absolu, mais ‘celui qui les dépasse’ 25. »

22  En. Ps. 61, 23 (CCSL 39, p. 793)  : Sciatis eum tamen, fratres, olim pulsare ad ecclesiam ante pascha ; ante pascha enim coepit petere de ecclesia Christi medicinam. Sed quia talis est ars in qua exercitatus erat, quae suspecta esset de mendacio atque fallacia, dilatus est ne tentaret ; et aliquando tamen admissus est, ne periculosius tentaretur. 23  Cf. « Augustinus und der Astrologe » [n. 6], p. 253, n. 5. 24  Cf.  en. Ps. 61, 23 (CCSL  39, p. 792) : Non uos lateat conuersatio eius, uia eius, ut testimonio uestro nobis confirmetur uere illum ad Dominum esse conuersum. 25  En. Ps. 38, 1 (CCSL 38, p. 401-402 ; trad. M.  Dulaey [à paraître dans BA 59/A, p. 113-191]) : Sicut ergo inquirentes reperire potuimus in eis nominibus, quae nobis a studiosis litterarum diuinarum ex Hebraeo eloquio in Latinum interpretata sunt, Idithun interpretatur : transiliens eos. Quis est ergo iste transiliens ? Vel quos transiliuit ? Quia transiliens, non nude positum est ; sed : transiliens eos. J’utilise par la suite, pour l’en. Ps. 38, la traduction de M. Dulaey.

224

isabelle bochet

Augustin mentionne explicitement le recours à un onomasticon, qui pourrait être celui de Jérôme26 ; il note la présence du complément eos et s’interroge sur l’identité de ceux qui sont ici désignés. L’explication qu’il donne dans l’Enarratio in Psalmum 61 est déjà beaucoup plus rapide, même si elle fait encore allusion à la signification du mot en hébreu : « Je me rappelle que je vous ai déjà expliqué ce que signifie Idithun. D’après une interprétation de la langue hébraïque, telle qu’elle est parvenue jusqu’à nous, Idithun veut dire en latin ‘Celui qui les dépasse’ 27. »

Dans l’Enarratio in Psalmum 76, Augustin ne fait plus que mentionner la signification du mot Idithun, comme si elle allait de soi : « Idithun se traduit ‘Celui qui les dépasse’, Asaph se traduit ‘assemblée’28 ». Dans la suite de son commentaire, il ne retient pas l’expression précise : eos transiliens, qui invite à situer Idithun dans son rapport aux autres hommes ; il explique, de façon beaucoup plus générale, qu’Idithun est « celui qui dépasse tout ce qui est en-dessous29 », ou encore qu’il « se dépasse lui-même 30 », ou même qu’il est tout simplement « celui qui dépasse 31 ». La comparaison de ces explications du nom Idithun suggère avec une forte probabilité qu’Augustin a commenté les Psaumes pour Idithun dans l’ordre suivant : 38, 61 et 76. L’hypothèse d’une prédication manquante dans laquelle Augustin aurait expliqué longuement le nom Idithun manque de plausibilité : une telle explication supposerait qu’Augustin ait commenté une autre fois l’un des Psaumes pour Idithun, Cf. supra, n. 9. En. Ps. 61, 1 (CCSL  39, p. 772) : Iam uobis insinuatum esse quid sit Idithun, recolo. Ex interpretatione enim Hebraeae linguae ut ad nos peruenit, Latine dicitur Idithun transiliens eos. 28  Cf.  en. Ps. 76, 1 (CCSL  39, p. 1052) : Idithun interpretatur transiliens eos ; Asaph interpretatur congregatio. 29  Cf.  en. Ps. 76, 2 (CCSL 39, p. 1053) : Qui transilierat quidquid infra est ; 1 (p. 1052) : Transilire debemus quidquid nos impedit quidquid irretit, quidquid uisco quodam illigat. 30  Cf.  en. Ps. 76, 12 (CCSL 39, p. 1060)  : Iam seipsum transiliens  ; 16 (p.  1062) : Vt transiliret et ipsum spiritum suum. 31  Cf.  en. Ps. 76, 1 (CCSL 39, p. 1052) : Quid nobis ergo indicat iste transiliens ? ; 2 (p. 1053) : Quisquis ergo pro alia re qualibet clamat ad dominum, nondum est transiliens. Hic uero transiliens quid dicit ? ; etc. 26  27 

    le commentaire augustinien des psaumes pour idithun 225

car elle ne s’imposait nullement dans le cas d’une simple allusion à l’un de ces psaumes, comme le montrent les rares allusions à Idithun que l’on trouve ailleurs dans l’œuvre augustinienne 32 . b. Hypothèses de datation Le renvoi de l’Enarratio in Psalmum 61 à l’Enarratio in Psalmum 38 suppose un lien temporel étroit des deux prédications. On ne peut l’affirmer avec la même certitude dans le cas de l’Enarratio in Psalmum 76, même si sa proximité thématique avec les deux autres enarrationes33 invite à ne pas supposer un écart temporel trop important avec celles-ci. Rappelons brièvement les datations proposées pour ces enarrationes consacrées à Idithun. Zarb34 estime que les trois enarrationes ont été prêchées à Carthage en 412, plus précisément même, entre septembre et novembre 412. Son argumentation repose sur les indications contenues dans le titulus de l’Enarratio in Psalmum 38, sur les liens qu’il estime très étroits entre les trois prédications et sur quelques autres remarques : notamment, les allusions au pélagianisme naissant (en. Ps. 38, 18 et 61, 13) et au thème des deux cités (en. Ps. 61, 6). Il établit en outre un lien de ces trois enarrationes avec les Enarrationes in Psalmos 85 et 86 prêchées la veille et le jour de la fête de saint Cyprien, les 13 et 14 septembre 35. Puisque Augustin n’est plus revenu à Carthage entre la mort de Marcellinus (le 13 septembre  413) et l’année 416, Zarb juge qu’il

32  Comme le montre la consultation du Corpus Augustinianum Gissense 3, on ne trouve que deux autres textes dans lesquels Augustin mentionne allusivement Idithun : en. Ps. 80, 2 (CCSL 39, p. 1122) ; s.  Morin  16, 5.7.8 (MA 1, p. 656 et 658). 33  Voici quelques-uns des points de contact de l’en. Ps. 76 avec les en. Ps. 38 et 61 : la tentation du repli dans le silence (en. Ps. 76, 7 ; 38, 3-4) ; la méditation sur les années éternelles et sur la fuite du temps (en. Ps. 76,  8 ; 38, 7) ; l’opposition entre les delecta­tiones terrestres et célestes (en. Ps. 76,  14 ; 38, 2) ; la citation du Ps. 4, 3 (en. Ps. 76, 15 ; 61, 23) ; la figure de Joseph (en. Ps. 76, 17 ; 61, 5) ; les petits poissons dévorés par les gros (en. Ps. 76,  20 ; 38, 11). 34  Cf. Chronologia Enarrationum S. Augustini in Psalmos [n. 3], p. 85-89, 172173 et 176. 35  Ibid., p. 99-101 et 172.

226

isabelle bochet

faut situer toutes ces prédications à Carthage en 411 ou 412 36 ; il opte finalement pour l’année 412 37. Rondet, Perler et Primmer envisagent des dates plus tardives : Rondet 38 reste prudent sur la date à retenir pour ces trois enarrationes ; Perler39 suppose pour sa part que les trois enarrationes sont à dater de septembre 416, dans la mesure où Augustin a délibérément choisi de ne plus revenir à Carthage pendant plusieurs années après la mort de Marcellinus le 13 septembre 413. Primmer40, sans recherche approfondie sur la datation, estime que l’Enarratio in Psalmum 61 a pu être prêchée aux environs de 415 ou après 415, en raison du thème de la commixtio ciuitatum. Hombert41 revient pour sa part à la date de 412 que proposait Zarb, en prenant appui essentiellement sur les parallèles scripturaires qu’il décèle entre ces trois enarrationes et les textes du début de la controverse antipélagienne. Il admet le lien établi entre les trois prédications. Estimant que l’Enarratio in Psalmum 61 est à situer à Hippone, en raison du post tractatum consacré à la conversion de l’astrologue, il est conduit à supposer qu’elle renvoie à l’Enarratio in Psalmum 76 et que, seule, l’Enarratio in Psalmum 38 aurait été prêchée à Carthage. Il propose le calendrier suivant : l’Enarratio in Psalmum 61 aurait été prêchée à Hippone, au printemps 42 412, peu après l’Enarratio in Psalmum 76 ; l’Enarratio in Psalmum  38 pourrait avoir été prêchée « quelques mois après les En. in Ps. 76 et 61, au cours du séjour que l’évêque effectua dans la capitale africaine à partir de septembre43 ».

Ibid., p. 89. Ibid., p. 172-176. 38  Cf. «  Essais sur la chronologie des Enarrationes in Psalmos de saint Augustin », Bulletin de Littérature Écclésiastique, 65 (1964), p. 131 ; 71 (1970), p. 186 ; 75 (1974), p. 184-185. 39  Cf. ep. 151, 3 et 12-13 (CSEL 44, p. 384 et 391) ; O. Perler, Les voyages de saint Augustin [n. 5], p. 322-324 et 333-334. 40  Cf. « Augustinus und der Astrologe » [n. 6], p. 257. 41  Cf. Nouvelles recherches de chronologie augustinienne [n. 2], p. 599-602. 42  Rien ne permet d’affirmer que la réintégration de l’astrologue pénitent dans la communauté ait eu lieu à Pâques ou peu après Pâques ; l’insistance d’Augustin sur le fait qu’on ait différé de l’admettre plaide même plutôt en sens contraire (cf. en. Ps. 61, 23 [CCSL 39, p. 793], cité supra, n. 22). 43  Ibid., p. 602. 36  37 

    le commentaire augustinien des psaumes pour idithun 227

Ces datations reposent inévitablement sur des constructions plus ou moins vraisemblables. On peut du moins affirmer, avec une quasi-certitude, que ces trois enarrationes datent du début de la controverse antipélagienne et ont été prêchées alors qu’Augustin commençait à rédiger la Cité de Dieu. Puisqu’on doit exclure pour l’Enarratio in Psalmum 38, prêchée à Carthage, la période qui va du 14 septembre 413 à l’été 416, il reste à se demander si les trois enarrationes sont antérieures au 14 septembre 413 ou s’il faut les dater au plus tôt de 416. La première hypothèse est plus probable, comme le montreront les rapprochements que nous pourrons établir avec les œuvres du tout-début de la controverse antipélagienne : il faut donc retenir une datation antérieure au 14 septembre 413 ; la date de 412 paraît la plus probable. J’étudierai les Enarrationes in Psalmos 38, 61 et 76 selon leur ordre chrono­logique. Augustin semble avoir choisi d’expliquer la série des Psaumes pour Idithun : l’unité d’interprétation, qui se fonde sur la signification du nom « Idithun », n’exclut pas des variations significatives, appelées par le texte du psaume expliqué. Je privilégierai deux questions dans l’approche de ces enarrationes : qui est Idithun ? quel dépassement vit-il ? Le Commentaire du Psaume 38 présente Idithun comme le type de l’homme spirituel qui, à l’instar de Paul, sait qu’il « ne peut être parfait autrement qu’en sachant qu’[il] ne peut être parfait44 » et qui est tendu entre « les vieux jours dus à Adam » dont il doit se dépouiller et « l’homme nouveau, le jour nouveau, le cantique nouveau, le Testament nouveau45 » qui doivent les remplacer ; le Commentaire du Psaume 61 élargit la méditation à l’échelle des relations entre Jérusalem et Babylone dans toute l’histoire humaine : l’Église, c’est-à-dire le corps du Christ qu’Idithun représente46,

44  En. Ps. 38, 14 (CCSL 38, p. 416) : Aliter ergo hic non potes esse perfectus, nisi scias, hoc te non esse posse perfectum. 45  En. Ps. 38, 9 (CCSL 38, p. 411) : Veteres dies ex Adam ; (p. 410) : Hominem nouum, diem nouum, canticum nouum, testamentum nouum. 46  En Ps. 61, 4 (CCSL  39, p. 773-774)  : Sed debemus intellegere personam nostram, personam ecclesiae nostrae, personam corporis Christi. Vnus enim homo cum capite et corpore suo Iesus Christus, saluator corporis et membra corporis, duo in carne una, et in uoce una, et in passione una ; et cum transierit iniquitas, in requie una.

228

isabelle bochet

aspire à s’incorporer les païens 47 ; le Commentaire du Psaume 76 décrit les étapes de l’ascension vers Dieu dans une méditation de caractère plutôt personnel. Ainsi, tantôt Idithun paraît être un individu unique, tantôt le corps du Christ lui-même, c’est-à-dire l’Église : l’interprétation oscille entre une application à l’homme spirituel et à l’Église. Le dépassement décrit dans ces différents commentaires revêt des nuances diverses : il est d’abord le dépassement des contradictions multiples que rencontre Idithun, mais il est aussi le dépassement de toutes les créatures pour s’élever vers le Verbe luimême, selon un schème qui s’apparente plus ou moins au schéma d’anabase plotinienne souvent exploité par Augustin. 2. L’Enarratio in Psalmum 38 Les lectures contemporaines du Psaume 38 (39) soulignent souvent l’étrangeté du verset sur lequel il s’achève : « Dégage-moi, pour que je me rafraîchisse avant que je m’en aille et ne sois plus 48 ». Le Psaume qui décrit un juste souffrant, en butte à la calomnie, s’articule en deux temps : l’évocation du passé (v. 2-7), la situation présente (v.  8-14). On y trouve trois thématiques dominantes : se taire ou parler (v. 2-4) ; la connaissance de la fin (v. 5-7) ; le châtiment divin (v. 8-12) 49. Augustin voit d’abord, dans le Psaume 38, en raison de son titre, l’expression du dépassement continuel dans la quête de Dieu, ce qui ôte à la lecture du psaume son caractère tragique, voire énigmatique. Il introduit son commentaire par un long développeEn. Ps. 61, 9-10 (CCSL 39, p. 780-781). Ce dernier verset est ainsi traduit dans la Bible de Jérusalem : « Détourne ton regard que je respire, avant que je m’en aille et ne sois plus ». Voir par exemple J. Clinton McCann, « Get Lost, God ! A Sermon on Psalm 39 », Journal for Preachers, Pentecost 2008, p. 21-23 ; G. W. Charles, « Preaching the Psalms. Psalm 39 », Journal for Preachers, Pentecost 2008, p. 17-20. Ce dernier note : « The last words of Psalm 39 are perhaps the most provocative and disturbing in all the Psalter, asking not for God’s presence, but imploring God’s absence : ‘Turn your gaze from me, that I may smile again, before I depart and am no more’ (v. 13) » (p. 17). 49  Cf. J.-N. Aletti, J. Trublet, Approche poétique et théologique des Psaumes. Analyses et méthodes, Paris, 1983, p. 49-50. 47 

48 

    le commentaire augustinien des psaumes pour idithun 229

ment sur Idithun (§ 1-2) ; il décrit ensuite l’itinéraire qui mène Idithun de la résolution de se taire au milieu des calomniateurs à la décision de parler (§ 3-5). Il expose alors la tension d’Idithun vers « la fin », vers « le jour qui demeure, qui n’est pas précédé par un hier ni chassé par un demain » : la connaissance de sa fin lui fait mesurer ce qui lui manque et comprendre l’écart entre « les vieux jours dus à Adam » dont il doit se dépouiller et « l’homme nouveau, le jour nouveau » qui doit les remplacer ; en comparaison de cette fin qui n’a pas de fin et qui est l’objet de son désir, la vie sur terre est pour lui « vanité » (§ 6-10). Le verset 7 du Psaume qui évoque l’homme qui « thésaurise et ne sait pour qui il amassera » est l’occasion pour Augustin de revenir sur ce qu’Idithun a dépassé : il met en garde ses auditeurs attachés aux richesses – à quoi sert d’amasser même pour ses enfants, alors qu’ils passeront ? – et les invite à donner leurs biens aux pauvres, car c’est ainsi qu’on les retrouve au ciel (§ 11-12). Le verset 8 : « Et maintenant […] », qui ouvre la seconde partie du psaume, est interprété par Augustin comme une manière pour Idithun de mesurer le point où il est arrivé : il a dépassé bien des choses et pourtant, il n’est pas encore parfait, il attend que le Seigneur se donne lui-même à lui et il implore encore le pardon de ses péchés ; sa perfection est de savoir qu’il ne peut être parfait et de continuer à dépasser d’autres degrés (§ 13-14). Le combat qu’il doit encore vivre en étant « livré en opprobre à l’insensé » (v. 9) prend sens dans ce contexte : c’est la manière dont Dieu corrige son iniquité et l’amène à confesser sa faiblesse et à reconnaître que tout le bien qu’il peut faire est don de Dieu (§ 16-18). Dans l’incertitude qui est le lot de toute vie humaine – « seule est certaine la mort » –, il ne peut que gémir au milieu des scandales, dans l’attente de la venue du Seigneur ; locataire ici-bas, il aspire à partir vers la maison éternelle et, dans l’attente de ce départ, il demande à être délivré de ses péchés, afin de pouvoir connaître le repos, c’est-à-dire la plénitude d’être, et non le néant ou plutôt la souffrance éternelle (§ 19-22). a. Qui est Idithun ? Dans l’Enarratio in Psal­mum  38, Augustin présente Idithun comme le type même de l’homme spirituel en quête de sa fin ; il exhorte ceux qui ont déjà ce désir des réalités d’en-haut à croire qu’ils ne sont pas seuls à éprouver un tel désir et à laisser Idithun « dire en

230

isabelle bochet

eux : ‘Fais-moi connaître ma fin’50 ». Autrement dit, il les invite à se recon­naître dans l’expérience d’Idithun : « Qu’Idithun dépasse donc tout ce qui pourrait le retenir sur la terre, qu’il dresse son échelle, qu’il déploie ses ailes. À chacun de voir s’il se reconnaît ici. En vérité, par la grâce du Seigneur, beaucoup se reconnaissent : ceux qui peut-être déjà font peu de cas du monde et de tout ce qui plaît dans le monde, qui choisissent une vie droite, en vivant ici-bas dans des joies spirituelles 51. »

Augustin se reconnaît lui-même, semble-t-il, dans l’expérience d’Idithun. Il paraît en tout cas faire allusion à une expérience personnelle, lorsqu’il évoque à l’occasion des versets 2-3 la tentation de se taire qui guette le prédicateur en butte à la calomnie : « ‘Celui qui dépasse’ connaît cette difficulté. Qu’on ne me juge pas si l’on n’est pas encore ‘celui qui dépasse’ ; qu’il dépasse et fasse l’expérience de ce dont je parle ; alors il sera témoin et fils de la vérité 52 . »

La suite du paragraphe insiste sur la difficulté qu’il y a à parler à des hommes charnels qui ne cherchent qu’à calomnier et qui prennent prétexte de ce qu’ils n’ont pas compris pour le faire53. Est-il possible de préciser l’expérience de la calomnie à laquelle Augustin peut faire allusion, ne serait-ce qu’indirectement ? 50  Cf. en. Ps. 38, 6 (CCSL 38, p. 408) : Sed qui hoc agit, credat esse et in alio ; non solum se putet accepisse quod Dei est. Dicat ergo in his Idithun : ‘Notum fac mihi, Domine, finem meum’ [Ps. 38, 5]. 51  En. Ps. 38, 2 (CCSL 38, p. 402-403)  : Transiliat ergo iste omnia quibus teneri posset in terra ; erigat scalas suas, exserat pennas suas, uideat utrum quisquam agnoscat hic se ; immo uero in domini gratia multi se agnoscunt, qui forte iam uilem habentes mundum, et omnia quae delectant in mundo, eligunt recte uiuere, dum hic uiuunt in gaudiis quibusdam spiritalibus. À  comparer à la remarque d’Origène dans In Ps. 38, 1, 3 (SC 411, p. 334-336) : Et uidentes tamquam in speculo nosmetipsos intueamur si possumus tales esse aut si multum nobis deest aut certe iam proximi sumus, licet nondum plene assecuti sumus. 52  En. Ps. 38, 3 (CCSL 38, p. 403) : Non me iudicet, qui nondum est transiliens ; transiliat, et experiatur quod loquor ; tunc enim erit et testis et filius ueritatis. 53  Cf.  en. Ps. 38, 3 (CCSL 38, p. 403) : Quid mihi opus est captanda loqui, et dare aditum calumniantibus ? ; Quid enim dicas turgidis, turbidis, calumniosis, litigiosis, uerbosis ? ; (p. 404) : Quid autem uel tale dicam peccatori adstanti aduersus me, idoneum se putanti aut fingenti, ad ea quae non capit ; ut cum ei dixero, et ille non ceperit, non se putet non cepisse, sed me defecisse ?

    le commentaire augustinien des psaumes pour idithun 231

Si l’on date l’enarratio de 412, on peut penser à l’expérience faite par Augustin lors de l’hiver 410-411 : il avait dû s’absenter d’Hippone en raison de son mauvais état de santé, comme en témoigne la Lettre 118 à Dioscorus54 et comme le mentionnent les Lettres 122 et 124. Or ces deux dernières lettres font allusion au scandale suscité à Hippone par l’absence d’Augustin ; certains ont profité de son absence pour soulever une partie du peuple contre lui, comme Augustin l’explique à Albina, Pinianus et Mélanie : «  Naguère, lorsque je suis rentré, j’ai trouvé ‹le peuple d’Hippone› scandalisé de la manière la plus dangereuse à cause de mon absence. […] Surtout parce qu’il y en a ici beaucoup qui, en détournant de nous les esprits de ceux qui paraissent nous aimer, s’efforcent de les soulever contre nous, de sorte qu’ils font place en eux au diable 55. »

Le Sermon  357, qui fut prêché à Carthage le 17 mai 41156, fait en outre allusion aux calomnies des donatistes contre l’Église et contre l’évêque : Augustin demande au peuple de ne pas entrer en débat avec eux57. b. Quel dépassement ? 1) Dépasser la convoitise et la crainte Idithun, « celui qui les dépasse », est caractérisé ici comme celui qui dépasse « les hommes attachés au sol, courbés vers la terre, qui pensent à ce qui est en bas, qui mettent leur espoir dans les

54  Cf.  ep. 118, 5, 34 (CSEL  34/2, p. 698) : Haec autem omnia non facerem, nisi me post aegritudinem, in qua eram, cum homo tuus uenisset, aliquantum ab Hippone remouerem. Quibus item diebus perturbatione ualitudinis febribusque repetitus sum. Cf. O. Perler, Les voyages de saint Augustin [n. 5], p. 284. 55  Ep. 124, 2 (CSEL 44, p. 2) : Eum autem, cum modo regressus sum, periculosissime scandalizatum comperi de absentia mea. […] Praesertim quoniam multi sunt hic, qui detrahendo nobis ceterorum animas, a quibus diligi uidemur, aduersus nos perturbare conantur, ut locum in eis diabolo faciant. Voir aussi ep. 122, 1 (CSEL 34/2, p. 742-743). 56  Cf. O. Perler, Les voyages de saint Augustin [n. 5], p. 287-288. 57  Cf.  s. 357, 4 (PL 39, col. 1584) : Fertote, obsecro, fratres mei. Sed non fero, inquit, quia blasphemat ecclesiam. Hoc te rogat ecclesia, ut feras, quia blasphematur ecclesia. Detrahit, inquit, episcopo meo ; crimen dicit in episcopum meum, et taceo ? Crimen dicat, et tace ; non agnoscendo, sed ferendo.

232

isabelle bochet

choses qui passent », autrement dit « ceux qui restent sur place58 ». Il dépasse tout d’abord, l’amour des plaisirs terrestres (§ 2), puis la crainte de parler, une crainte née des calomnies dont il a été victime (§ 3-5). Le début du Psaume 38 ne justifie pas apparemment le premier développement ; il appelle en revanche le second. Comme le remarque Augustin, « tous les péchés proviennent de là : de la convoitise ou de la crainte59 ». Ce qui permet de surmonter l’attrait des plaisirs terrestres, c’est l’expérience des joies spirituelles : Augustin oppose donc aux plaisirs pris aux festins, au luxe, à la chasse et à la pêche, au jeu et à la plaisanterie, au théâtre ou encore à la quête des honneurs, « les vraies joies » que l’on trouve dans la parole de Dieu, dans l’Écriture « scrutée et explorée 60 ». D’une façon analogue, l’Enarratio in Psalmum 76 oppose les plaisirs pris à un tableau, au théâtre, à la chasse aux bêtes et aux oiseaux, à la pêche, d’une part, et les affections suscitées par les œuvres de Dieu et par la contemplation de Dieu, d’autre part61. Si le prédicateur a dépassé ces convoitises terrestres, il risque en revanche de pécher par la langue : non certes en jurant ou en mentant62 , mais plutôt en prononçant des paroles qu’il voudrait ne pas avoir prononcées, parce qu’elles suscitent la critique et

58  En. Ps. 38, 1 (CCSL 38, p. 402) : Quosdam enim inhaerentes humo curuatos in terram, ea quae ima sunt cogitantes, in rebus transeuntibus spem ponentes, transiliuit iste qui uocatur transiliens eos. Quos enim transiliuit, nisi remanentes ? 59  En. Ps. 38, 2 (CCSL  38, p. 402) : Hinc enim peccata omnia : aut cupiendo aut timendo. 60  Cf.  en. Ps. 38, 2 (CCSL 38, p. 403) : Et haec unde erunt adhuc ambulantibus super terram, nisi ex diuinis eloquiis, ex uerbo Dei, ex parabola aliqua scripturarum scrutata et inuestigata, ex dulcedine inuentionis, quam praecessit labor inquisitionis ? Sunt quaedam deliciae sanctae et bonae in libris. Neque enim sunt in auro et argento, in epulis atque luxuria, in uenatibus et piscatibus, in ludo et ioco, in theatricis nugis, in affectandis et adprehendendis ruinosis honoribus ; neque enim uera sunt gaudia in his omnibus, in his omnibus, et in his libris nulla sunt […]. 61  Cf.  en. Ps. 76, 14 (CCSL 39, p. 1061) : Vere, hoc putabis, et putare audebis, quod affectiones habeat tabula, theatrum, uenatio, aucupium, piscatus, et non habeant opera Dei ? Et non habeat meditatio Dei interiores affectiones quasdam suas, cum inspicitur mundus, et ponitur ante oculos spectaculum naturae rerum, et in his quaeritur artifex, et inuenitur nusquam displicens et super omnia placens ? 62  Cf. s. Denis  20, 2-3 (CCSL 41, p. 219-220).

    le commentaire augustinien des psaumes pour idithun 233

la calomnie de la part du pécheur qui les entend63. La tentation est alors de se taire 64. Mais c’est là une tentation à surmonter 65. Augustin introduit, à cette occasion, une mention qui est propre à l’Enarratio in Psalmum 38 : en dépassant cette tentation, le prédicateur devient « un intermédiaire entre Dieu qui est riche et le pauvre qui demande à entendre 66 », car s’il choisit de ne pas parler, il se condamne à ne plus entendre, comme l’explique aussi le De doctrina christiana67.

63  Cf.  en. Ps. 38, 3 (CCSL 38, p. 403) : Videns ergo quam esset difficile, ut necessitatem loquendi haberet homo, et in loquendo non aliquid diceret ; quod se dixisse nollet ; et taedio affectus ex his peccatis, quaesiuit euitare talia ; (p. 404) : Stat enim peccator, propria quadam nota peccator, superbus quisquam et inuidus ; audit loquentem transilientem, captat uerba, proponit laqueos ; difficile est ut non inueniat aliquid non ita dictum, ut dici debuisset ; nec audiendo ignoscit, sed calumniatur inuidendo. À comparer à en. Ps. 76, 7 (CCSL 39, p. 1057 ; cité infra, n. 194) et à Io. eu. tr. 27, 8 (BA 72, p. 552) : Hoc forte factum est ad consolationem, quoniam aliquando contingit ut dicat homo uerum, et quod dicit, non capiatur, atque illi qui audiunt, scandalizentur et discedant. Paenitet autem hominem dixisse quod uerum est ; dicit enim apud se homo : non debui sic dicere, non hoc dicere debui. 64  Cf.  en. Ps. 38, 3 (CCSL 38, p. 403) : Cum ergo haec ei contigissent, statuerat non loqui, ne aliquid diceret quod locutum se esse paeniteret. À comparer à en. Ps. 76, 7 (CCSL 39, p. 1057-1058) : Conturbatus ergo, ne in eius garrulitate inimici anticipantes uigilias, calumnias quaererent et inuenirent, non est locutus. 65  Même remarque en en. Ps. 76, 10 (CCSL 39, p. 1059), cité infra, n. 196. 66  Cf. en. Ps. 38, 4 (CCSL 38, p. 405) : Timendo enim nimis, ut dixi, ne diceret aliqua non bona, statuit sibi nulla dicere uel bona ; et quoniam statuit tacere, coepit non audire. Stas enim si transiliens es, exspectas a Deo audire quid dicas hominibus ; inter diuitem Deum, et inopem quaerentem quid audiat, intercurris transiliens, qui possis et hinc audire, et hac dicere ; si eligis hac non dicere, non mereberis hinc audire : contemnis pauperem, contemneris a diuite. 67  Cf.  doctr. chr. 1, 1, 1 (BA 11/2, p. 76) : Omnis enim res quae dando non deficit, dum habetur et non datur, nondum habetur quomodo habenda est. Ille autem ait : ‘qui habet, dabitur ei’ [Matth. 13,  12]. Dabit ergo habentibus, id est, cum benignitate utentibus eo quod acceperunt adimplebit atque cumulabit quod dedit. La référence à la parabole des talents (Matth.  25,  26-27) est utilisée dans l’en. Ps. 38, 5 (CCSL 38, p. 405) et en doctr. chr., pr., 8 (BA 11/2, p. 72) pour confirmer la nécessité de faire fructifier la parole reçue de Dieu en la transmettant à d’autres : l’argent symbolise en effet la parole de Dieu (cf. en. Ps. 11, 7 [BA 57/A, p. 480]).

234

isabelle bochet

2) Dépasser ce qui passe, « ce qui n’est pas » La suite de l’enarratio comporte, de façon surprenante au premier abord, un long développement sur le temps qui, à la fois, « est et n’est pas 68 ». La mention de la « fin » pouvait certes appeler un tel développement, mais il s’explique surtout par le texte latin qu’Augustin commente : Notum fac mihi, Domine, finem meum et numerum dierum meorum qui est [Ps. 38, 5]. « Le nombre de mes jours qui est » : l’expression est étrange ; elle ne correspond pas au texte grec de la Septante : τὸν ἀριθμὸν τῶν ἡμερῶν μου, τίς ἐστιν. Rufin, dans sa traduction latine de la Première Homélie sur le Psaume 38 d’Origène, écrit simplement : numerum dierum meorum ; mais le commentaire d’Origène précise qu’il ne s’agit pas « d’un temps corporel et des années de cette vie » : le psalmiste « veut savoir tout le nombre des jours, celui qu’on a eu dans une première vie, celui qu’on aura dans un second séjour, dans un troisième 69 ». Origène fait de la sorte allusion aux séjours de l’âme après sa mort dans les différentes sphères planétaires70. Ambroise a le même texte latin qu’Augustin : numerum dierum meorum qui est 71 ; il le commente en opposant qui est à qui transeat et en proposant ensuite une explication similaire à celle d’Origène : le nombre des jours dont parle le psalmiste est analogue au nombre des demeures dans la maison du Père (Ioh. 14, 2), par lesquelles les hommes passeront après leur mort avant de parvenir aux hauteurs des cieux72 . 68  Cf.  en. Ps. 38, 7 (CCSL 38, p. 409) : ‘Numerum’ ergo ‘dierum meorum qui est’ [Ps. 38, 5] : non istum qui non est, et quod me difficilius et periculosius perturbat, et est et non est ; nec esse possumus dicere quod non stat, nec non esse quod uenit et transit. 69  Origène, In Ps. 38, 1, 8 (SC 411, p. 356-357) : In quo non est putandum quod de corporali tempore et annis huius uitae loquatur, sed omnem numerum dierum scire uult, qui fuerit in prima uita, qui fuerit in secundo incolatu, qui in tertio. 70  Comme le précisent H. Crouzel et L. Brésard, SC 411, p. 356-357, n. 1. 71  Cf. Ambroise, Expl. Ps. 38, 16 (SAEMO 7, p. 346). 72  Cf. Ambroise, Expl. Ps. 38, 17 (SAEMO 7, p. 348-350) : ‘Qui est’, inquit, non ‘qui transeat’, ‘caelum’ enim ‘et terra praeteribunt’ [Matth.  24,  35], fides autem permaneat et dies Christi, quia heri et hodie ipse est et in saecula. Quem autem numerum quaerat, accipe : ‘In domo’, inquit, ‘patris mei mansiones mul-

    le commentaire augustinien des psaumes pour idithun 235

La mention qui est suscite chez Augustin un développement sur le temps et l’éternité. « Le nombre des jours qui est » correspond, explique-t-il, à « un nombre sans nombre, comme on peut parler d’années sans années73 ». Par ce recours au paradoxe, il veut faire saisir à ses auditeurs que l’éternité « qui est » est incommensurable avec le temps « qui passe », c’est-à-dire qui tend à n’être plus ; l’éternité exclut toute succession, donc tout nombre (car « un » n’est pas un nombre) ; on ne peut pas davantage parler d’« années » en Dieu sinon en un sens métaphorique74, car Dieu « est toujours le même et [ses] années ne s’évanouiront pas75 ». La contemplation de l’éternité est nécessaire pour comprendre que nos jours « ne sont pas vraiment » : seul, celui qui les « dépasse » dans sa tension vers les réalités d’en-haut le saisit ; celui qui au contraire « s’y arrête » a l’illusion que ses jours « sont »76. L’opposition si haeram/si transiliam est ici déterminante : l’apparente consistance de la vie temporelle s’évanouit si on la compare à ce qui est vraiment, c’est-à-dire à l’éternité. C’est bien le vertige qu’Augustin veut susciter chez son auditeur en envisageant successivement une année, une heure, un moment, une syllabe, pour lui faire comprendre qu’il ne peut « tenir » ne serait-ce qu’une seule syllabe, a fortiori, moins encore un jour77. tae sunt’ [Ioh. 14, 2]. […] Si ergo numerus uiarum est et numerus mansionum, utique numerus dierum est per quos ad caeli altitudinem peruenitur. 73  En. Ps. 38, 7 (CCSL 38, p. 408) : ‘Numerum dierum’ quaero ‘qui est’. Sic possum dicere, sic possum intellegere numerum sine numero, quomodo possunt dici anni sine annis. 74  Cf.  conf. 11, 13, 16 (BA 14, p. 298-299) : ‘Anni’ tui ‘dies unus’ [II Petr. 3, 8], et dies tuus non cotidie, sed hodie, quia hodiernus tuus non cedit crastino ; neque enim succedit hesterno. Hodiernus tuus aeternitas. 75  Cf. Ps. 101, 28, cité en en. Ps. 38, 7 (CCSL  38, p. 408) ; Augustin cite et commente le même verset en conf. 11, 13, 16 (BA 14, p. 296-299) : ‘Tu autem idem ipse es, et anni tui non deficiunt’ [Ps. 101, 28]. Anni tui nec eunt nec ueniunt : isti enim nostri eunt et ueniunt, ut omnes ueniant. Anni tui omnes simul stant, quoniam stant, nec euntes a uenientibus excluduntur, quia non transeunt : isti autem nostri omnes erunt, cum omnes non erunt. 76  Cf.  en. Ps. 38, 7 (CCSL 38, p. 408) : Iste numerus in quo tu es, non est ? Plane, si adtendam bene, non est ; si haeream, quasi est ; si transiliam, non est ; si ab istis me excutiens superna contempler, si transeuntia manentibus comparem, uideo quid uerum sit. 77  Cf.  en. Ps. 38, 7 (CCSL 38, p. 408)  : In his autem diebus dicam aliquid esse, si teneo de quo die me interrogas utrum sit ; ut uel interroges me, tene unde

236

isabelle bochet

Cette comparaison entre le temps et l’éternité est aussitôt comparaison entre l’homme et Dieu. L’explication de l’expression : qui est appelle, en effet, la mention du nom de Dieu en Ex. 3, 14 : Ego sum qui sum78. Ce que cherche Idithun, c’est « ce qui est simplement, ce qui est vraiment, ce qui est purement79 ». Les expressions choisies par Augustin : Est illud simplex, Est uerum, Est germanum, Est quod est, sont comparables à celles que l’on trouve dans le Sermon  7, qui commente Ex. 3, 14 : « L’Être est [esse est]. L’Être véritable [uerum esse], l’Être pur [sincerum esse], l’Être authentique [germanum esse], nul ne le possède sinon celui qui ne change pas 80 ». En comparaison de Dieu, l’homme n’est quasi rien : « Moi qui suis défaillant, suis-je si près de n’être pas que m’ait fait défaut celui qui a dit : ‘Je suis celui qui suis’81 ? » Cette phrase, d’interprétation difficile, s’éclaire si l’on se souvient que, pour Augustin, l’homme est, dans la mesure où il participe de l’Être lui-même. Comme l’explique déjà le De musica, « l’âme n’est rien par elle-même, sinon elle ne serait pas sujette au changement ni exposée à déchoir de son essence. Puisqu’elle n’est rien par elle-même, tout l’être qu’elle possède doit lui venir de Dieu : lorsqu’elle demeure en son ordre propre, elle vit de la présence même de Dieu dans l’esprit et dans la conscience 82 . » me interrogas. Tenes diem istum ? ; (p. 409) : Cum dicis ipsum est, certe una syllaba est, et momentum unum est, et tres litteras syllaba habet ; in ipso ictu ad secundam huius uerbi litteram non peruenis, nisi prima finita fuerit ; tertia non sonabit, nisi cum et secunda transierit. Et tenes dies, qui unam syllabam non tenes ? À comparer à en. Ps. 76, 8 (CCSL 39, p. 1058), qui cite aussi Ps. 101, 28. 78  Cf. en. Ps. 38, 7 (CCSL 38, p. 409), cité infra, n. 81 ; 22 (p. 422). 79  Cf.  en. Ps. 38, 7 (CCSL 38, p. 409) : Est illud simplex quaero, est uerum quaero, est germanum quaero, est quod est in illa Ierusalem sponsa Domini mei, ubi non erit mors, non erit defectus, non erit dies transiens, sed manens, qui nec hesterno praeceditur, nec crastino impellitur. 80  S. 7, 7 (CCSL 41, p. 75) : Esse est. Verum esse, sincerum esse, germanum esse non habet nisi qui non mutatur. Voir É. Zum Brunn, « L’exégèse augustinienne de “Ego sum qui sum” et la “métaphysique de l’Exode” », dans Dieu et l’Être. Exégèses d’Exode 3, 14 et de Coran 20, 11-24, Paris, 1978, p. 141-163. 81  En. Ps. 38, 7 (CCSL 38, p. 409) : Ita ergo ipse deficiens paene non sum, ut exciderit mihi qui dixit : ‘Ego sum qui sum’ [Ex. 3, 14] ? 82  Mus. 6, 13, 40 (BA 7, p. 446) : Cum enim anima per se ipsam nihil sit – non enim aliter esset commutabilis et pateretur defectum ab essentia – cum ergo ipsa per se nihil sit et quidquid illi esse est a Deo sit, in ordine suo manens ipsius Dei praesentia uegetatur in mente atque conscientia.

    le commentaire augustinien des psaumes pour idithun 237

C’est pourquoi, si l’âme se tourne vers l’Être, elle « est davantage 83 » ; si au contraire elle s’en détourne, elle « défaille », elle s’approche du néant, sans toutefois parvenir à n’être plus rien84. Dans son commentaire du verset 6 du psaume : « Et ma substance est comme rien devant toi », Augustin revient sur la comparaison entre l’homme et Dieu : non pas de façon théorique, en soulignant l’écart entre la créature et le Créateur, comme le fait Origène lorsqu’il commente le même verset 85, mais à partir d’une expérience intérieure : « Devant toi, Seigneur, ma substance est comme rien, devant toi qui vois cela ; et quand moi je le vois, c’est devant toi que je le vois, pas devant les hommes. Que puis-je dire en effet ? Par quelles paroles montrer que ce que je suis n’est rien en comparaison de ce qui est ? C’est intérieurement qu’on le dit, intérieurement qu’on le perçoit en quelque façon, ‘devant toi’, Seigneur, où sont tes yeux et non les yeux des hommes ; que voit-on, là où sont tes yeux ? Que ‘ma substance est comme rien’86. »

Augustin explique, de même, dans le Sermon  7 : « Celui qui a convenablement compris ce que c’est que d’‘être’ et d’‘être vraiment’, et qui, par une lumière, si petite soit-elle, 83  Cf. lib. arb. 3, 7, 21 (BA 6, p. 420) : Si enim magis magisque esse uolueris, ei quod summe est propinquabis. 84  Cf.  lib. arb. 3, 16, 45 (BA 6, p. 468) : Quando si nolles ad eum conuerti nihil ei deesset, tibi autem ipse, sine quo nihil esses et ex quo ita es aliquid, ut, nisi conuertendo te ad illum reddideris ei quod ab ipso es, non quidem nihil, sed miser tamen eris ; c. Sec. 15 (CSEL 25/2, p. 927) : Deficit quippe, cum consentit malo, minusque iam esse ac propterea minus ualere incipit quam ualebat, dum nulli consentiens in uirtute consisteret ; tanto utique deterior, quanto ab eo, quod summe est, ad id, quod minus est. Cf. É. Zum Brunn, « Le dilemme de l’être et du néant chez saint Augustin. Des premiers dialogues aux “Confes­sions” », Recherches Augustiniennes, 6 (1969), p. 3-102 (voir ici p. 9-10, 50-54 et 61-66). 85  Cf.  Origène, In Ps. 38, 1, 10 (SC 411, p. 362-363) : Nihil enim est omne, quamuis magnum sit, quidquid ex nihilo est, solus enim est ille qui est, et qui semper est. Nostra autem substantia tamquam nihil est ante eum : quippe quia ab eo ex nihilo procreata est. 86  En. Ps. 38, 9 (CCSL 38, p. 411) : Ante te, Domine, tamquam nihil substantia mea, ante te qui uides hoc ; et ego cum hoc uideo, ante te uideo, ante homines non uideo. Quid enim dicam ? Quibus uerbis ostendam, nihil esse quod sum in comparatione eius quod est ? Sed intus dicitur, intus utcumque sentitur. ‘Ante te’ [Ps. 38, 6], Domine, ubi oculi tui sunt, non ubi oculi humani sunt ; quid ubi oculi tui sunt ? ‘Substantia mea tamquam nihil’ [Ps. 38, 6].

238

isabelle bochet venant de l’essence véritable, a été touché du souffle divin, même rapidement comme par un éclair, celui-là se voit lui-même loin au-dessous, loin très à l’écart, loin comme un être très dissemblable 87. »

Connaître « le nombre des jours qui est », c’est aussi comprendre ce que sont les jours présents : des jours qui « vieillissent », comme le suggère aussi le verset 6 : « Voici que tu as fait vieillir mes jours ». L’opposition entre temps et éternité devient alors pour Augustin l’opposition entre le vieil homme et l’homme nouveau, entre Adam et le Christ 88. De fait, l’attachement aux réalités temporelles est indissociable du péché par lequel l’homme s’est détourné de Dieu : l’expérience de la temporalité est alors indissociablement celle de la mortalité 89. Tendre vers l’éternité, c’est au contraire tendre vers « des jours nouveaux sans jamais de vieillissement [nouos numquam ueterascentes] », c’est-à-dire tendre vers la résurrection90. Comme le dit Augustin, de façon imagée, Idithun « traîne encore Adam et se hâte vers le Christ91 ». Le désir de la fin, c’est-à-dire des réalités éternelles, va de pair avec la conscience aiguë de la vanité des réalités terrestres ; ce désir est en même temps ce qui permet à

87  S. 7, 7 (CCSL 41, p. 76) : Qui enim hoc quod est et uere est digne intellexerit, et qualicumque lumine ueracissimae essentiae, uel strictim sicut coruscatione afflatus fuerit, longe se infra uidet, longe remotissimum, longe dissimillimum […]. 88  Cf. en. Ps. 38, 9 (CCSL 38, p. 411) : Non enim sic Christo induti sumus, ut ex Adam iam nihil portemus. Videte ueterascentem Adam, et innouari Christum in nobis : ‘et si exterior’, inquit, ‘homo noster corrumpitur, sed interior renouatur de die in diem’ [II Cor. 4, 16]. 89  Cf.  en. Ps. 38, 9 (CCSL 38, p. 410) : Ergo ad peccatum, ad mortalitatem, ad praeteruolantia tempora, ad gemitum et laborem et sudorem, ad aetates succedentes, non manentes, ab infantia usque ad senectutem sine sensu transeuntes, ad haec adtendentes, uideamus hic ueterem hominem, ueterem diem, uetus canticum, uetus testamentum. Sur la temporalité comme cursus in mortem, voir L. Boros, « Les catégories de la temporalité chez saint Augustin », Archives de Philosophie, 21 (1958), p. 323-385 ; voir ici p. 339-354. 90  Cf.  en. Ps. 38, 9 (CCSL 38, p. 410) : Conuersi autem ad interiorem, ad ea quae innouanda sunt, pro his quae immutabuntur, inueniamus hominem nouum, diem nouum, canticum nouum, testamentum nouum ; et sic amemus istam nouitatem, ut non ibi timeamus uetustatem. 91  En. Ps. 38, 9 (CCSL 38, p. 410) : Ecce trahit adhuc Adam, et sic festinat ad Christum.

    le commentaire augustinien des psaumes pour idithun 239

Idithun de dépasser « la vie sous le soleil », car, déjà, par son désir, « il vit au-delà du soleil92 ». Le verset 7 du psaume, qui évoque le trouble vain de l’homme qui thésaurise, sans savoir pour qui il amassera, conduit Augustin à prendre à parti ses auditeurs dont le souci est d’amasser des biens et de les mettre en lieu sûr. Il dénonce l’inconséquence d’une telle attitude : « Tu passes et tu conserves pour ton fils qui passe93 ! » La méditation sur la condition temporelle a des incidences pratiques immédiates : au lieu d’amasser en vain des biens que l’on ne possèdera plus soi-même et que ses enfants eux-mêmes ne possèderont peut-être jamais, mieux vaut les donner aux pauvres, car c’est le moyen d’avoir un trésor au ciel94 ! 3) La perfection comme dépassement continuel Idithun, dans sa quête de « ce qui est », c’est-à-dire de l’éternel, dépasse donc toutes les réalités temporelles, il dépasse « la vie sous le soleil », il dépasse ce qui n’est que « vanité ». Le voilà, de ce fait, comme entre-deux : « placé au milieu, avec quelque chose sous lui et quelque chose au-dessus de lui ; il a sous lui ce qu’il a dépassé, il 92  Cf.  en. Ps. 38, 10 (CCSL 38, p. 411)  : Sub sole habet euigilare, dormire, manducare, bibere, esurire, sitire, uigere, fatigari, puerascere, iuuenescere, senescere, incerta habere quae optat et timet ; haec omnia sub sole habet et ipse Idithun, etiam ipse transiliens eos. Vnde ergo transiliens ? Ex illo desiderio : ‘Notum fac mihi, Domine, finem meum’ [Ps. 38, 5] ; (p. 411-412) : In his omnibus dulcedinem habens consolationemque Idithun, et ultra solem conuersans, quia conuersatio eius in caelis est, ex his quae adhuc habet sub sole, gemit ; et ista contemnit et dolet, in illa inardescit quae desiderat. 93  En. Ps. 38, 12 (CCSL 38, p. 413) : Transis tu, et seruas transeunti filio tuo. 94  Cf.  en. Ps. 38, 11-12 (CCSL 38, p. 412-415). Pour convaincre ses auditeurs que donner aux pauvres revient à stocker sa production au ciel, Augustin prend une analogie : si un petit producteur de vin ou d’huile n’a pas des cuves assez grandes pour stocker sa production, il peut faire appel à un ami qui lui propose de conserver sa production dans ses propres réservoirs en le versant dans des tuyaux qui y conduisent de façon cachée. Comme me l’a indiqué M.  Dulaey, « on a fouillé des installations de ce type en Afrique proconsulaire ou en Numidie : cf. J.-P. Brun, Archéologie du vin et de l’huile dans l’Empire romain, Paris, 2004, p. 199-229 (en particulier p. 210-211 et 227) et p. 234-235. Une entreprise des environs de Sphax comportait des cuves enterrées pouvant contenir 250 hl, et des rigoles allant du pressoir aux cuves qui font penser aux canales dont parle ici Augustin ».

240

isabelle bochet

a au-dessus de lui ce vers quoi il tend95 ». Cette situation intermédiaire est indissociable du dépassement continuel que vit Idithun ; il n’y aurait plus dépassement si Idithun pensait être parvenu au terme, s’il se croyait déjà parfait. Le modèle d’Idithun est Paul en Phil. 3, 12-14. L’exemple de Paul, mentionné dès les paragraphes 6 et 896, est repris par Augustin dans les paragraphes 13 et 14, lorsqu’il explique la fin du psaume qui mentionne la correction du psalmiste par Dieu en raison de ses iniquités. La fin du commentaire insiste donc sur l’imperfection constitutive de l’homme en cette vie. Le verset 8a : « Et maintenant, quelle est mon attente ? N’est-ce pas le Seigneur ? » est l’occasion de le souligner d’emblée : si Idithun, alors qu’il a déjà dépassé bien des choses, laisse entendre qu’il n’est pas encore parfait et qu’il attend encore, combien n’en serait-il pas de même pour tous ? Augustin met donc en garde ses auditeurs contre l’illusion de prétendre à la perfection dès cette vie : « Que nul ici-bas ne se dise parfait : qui le fait s’abuse, il se trompe, il s’égare, il ne peut avoir ici la perfection. Que gagne-t-il à perdre l’humilité97 ? » La condition de l’homme en cette vie ne peut être que celle d’un proficiens : tout au plus commence-t-il à « être quelque peu98 ! » Le paradoxe des affirmations de Paul, en Phil. 3, 12-15, qui dit qu’il n’est pas parvenu au terme et n’est pas encore parfait, tout en se rangeant aussitôt parmi les parfaits, oblige à nuancer le propos initial ; il y a bien une perfection en cette vie, mais elle réside dans la conscience de son imperfection et de l’inachève­ment de sa course : « Ici-bas, tu ne peux être parfait autrement qu’en sachant que tu ne peux être parfait. Ta perfection, ce sera donc d’avoir dépassé certains degrés en te hâtant vers d’autres, d’avoir dépassé certains degrés en sachant qu’une fois qu’ils ont tous été franchis, il en reste toujours un à dépasser. C’est là une foi certaine. Quiconque En. Ps. 38, 13 (CCSL 38, p. 415) : In medio positus quiddam sub se habens, quiddam supra se – sub se habet unde transiliuit, supra se habet quo se extendi. 96  Cf. en. Ps. 38, 6 (CCSL 38, p. 407) ; 8 (p. 409). 97  En. Ps. 38, 13 (CCSL 38, p. 415) : Nemo ergo se dicat perfectum hic ; decipit se, fallit se, seducit se, non potest hic habere perfectionem. Et quid prodest, quia perdit humilitatem ? 98  Cf. en. Ps. 38, 13 (CCSL 38, p. 415) : Iam proficiens, iam ad ipsum tendens, et esse aliquantum incipiens. 95 

    le commentaire augustinien des psaumes pour idithun 241 en effet s’imagine être déjà arrivé s’installe sur une hauteur d’où il tombera99. »

Comme Augustin le précise dans le Sermon  169, qui est consacré à un commentaire de Phil. 3, 3-16, nous sommes à la fois : perfecti, et non perfecti : perfecti uiatores, nondum perfecti possessores100. La perfection de cette vie consiste à se savoir en chemin et à ne jamais dire : « cela suffit » ; « il s’arrête, celui qui ne progresse pas101 ». L’insistance de l’Enarratio in Psalmum 38 sur l’imperfection constitutive de l’homme ici-bas et sur le péché dont nul ne peut se dire indemne, si parfait soit-il, semble faire écho aux premiers traités antipélagiens. Dès le livre 2 du De peccatorum meritis et remissione, en 411, Augustin s’interroge longuement sur la possibilité d’un homme sans péché en cette vie. Il reprend la question en 412 dans le De spiritu et littera à la suite d’une question de Marcellinus. La réponse d’Augustin est claire : il serait, de soi, possible qu’un homme soit sans péché avec la grâce de Dieu et le bon usage de son libre arbitre102 ; il faut néanmoins affirmer que, de fait, aucun homme ne peut se dire sans péché103. Augustin invoque déjà, dans ce contexte, l’exemple de Paul qui affirme qu’il n’est pas encore parfait (Phil. 3, 12), tout en se rangeant peu après parmi les parfaits (Phil. 3, 15), et il conclut : « Quand, dans les Écritures, on parle de perfection pour un homme, il faut examiner soigneusement en quel sens on en parle, car si un

99  En. Ps. 38, 14 (CCSL 38, p. 416) : Aliter ergo hic non potes esse perfectus, nisi scias, hoc te non esse posse perfectum. Haec ergo erit perfectio tua, sic te quaedam transilisse, ut ad quaedam properes ; sic quaedam te transilisse, ut restet aliud ad quod omnibus transactis transiliendum est. Haec tuta fides est. Nam quisquis se iam peruenisse putat, in alto se ponit, ut cadat. 100  S.  169, 16, 18 (PL 38, col. 926). 101  Cf.  s.  169, 16, 18 (PL 38, col. 926)  : Si autem dixeris, sufficit ; et peristi : semper adde, semper ambula, semper profice : noli in uia remanere, noli retro redire, noli deuiare. Remanet, qui non proficit. 102  Cf. pecc. mer. 2, 6, 7 (BA 20/A, p. 240-242) : Nam qui dicunt esse posse in hac uita hominem sine peccato, non est eis continuo incauta temeritate obsistendum. Si enim esse posse negauerimus, et hominis libero arbitrio, qui hoc uolendo appetit, et Dei uirtuti uel misericordiae, qui hoc adiuuando efficit, derogabimus. 103  Cf. pecc. mer. 2, 7, 8-16, 25 (BA 20/A, p. 224-289).

242

isabelle bochet homme est dit parfait en un sens, cela ne signifie pas pour autant qu’il soit absolument sans péché104. »

Augustin argumente également, dans le De peccatorum meritis et remissione comme dans l’Enarratio in Psalmum 38, en associant Matth.  6,  12 : « Remets-nous nos dettes comme nous les remettons à nos débiteurs » et I Ioh. 1, 8 : « Si nous disons que nous n’avons pas de péché, nous nous trompons nous-mêmes et la vérité n’est pas en nous105 ». Comme l’a montré A.-M.  La Bonnardière, l’association de ces deux versets est très caractéristique de la polémique antipélagienne, même si l’on trouve deux textes antérieurs à 411 qui offrent simultanément ces deux versets106. Cette correspondance entre l’Enarratio in Psalmum 38 et le De peccatorum meritis et remissione invite à se demander si Augustin n’aurait pas choisi d’expliquer précisément le Psaume 38 pour souligner l’imperfection de l’homme en cette vie : quelle antidote plus efficace à la prétention pélagienne que la description d’Idithun dont toute l’existence n’est que dépassement dans l’attente de la patrie céleste ? La fin de l’enarratio développe une perspective eschatologique, qui est tout à fait accordée aux derniers versets du psaume. La correction divine conduit l’homme à confesser sa faiblesse et à reconnaître que tout le bien qu’il peut faire vient de Dieu107. Elle le conduit aussi à implorer sa miséricorde. C’est ainsi qu’Augustin comprend le verset si énigmatique sur lequel s’achève le psaume : « Dégage-moi, pour que je me rafraîchisse avant que je m’en aille et ne sois plus ». Ce dont Idithun demande à être dégagé, c’est de ses péchés. Le « rafraîchissement » dont il est question, est associé par Augustin à la demande du riche de la parabole, qui, dans 104  Cf. pecc. mer. 2, 15, 22 (BA 20/A, p. 280-281) : Cum ergo legitur in scripturis cuiusque perfectio, qua in re dicatur, non neglegenter intuendum est, quoniam non ideo quisque prorsus sine peccato esse intellegitur, quia in aliqua re dicitur esse perfectus. 105  Cf.  en. Ps. 38, 14 (CCSL 38, p. 416) et pecc. mer. 3, 13, 23 (BA  20/A, p. 412-413) ; voir aussi spir. et litt. 36, 65 (CSEL 60, p. 227). 106  Cf.  « Les commentaires simultanés de Mt  6,  12 et de 1  Jn  1,  8 dans l’œuvre de saint Augustin », Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 1 (1955), p. 129147 ; voir en particulier p. 131-132 et 135-136. 107  Cf.  en. Ps. 38, 18 (CCSL  38, p. 419)  : Ipsa est ergo gratia beneficii Dei prima, redigere nos ad confessionem infirmitatis, ut quidquid boni possumus, quidquid potentes sumus, in illo simus ; ut qui gloriatur, in Domino glorietur.

    le commentaire augustinien des psaumes pour idithun 243

la torture, demande que Lazare fasse couler sur sa langue une goutte d’eau afin de le rafraîchir (Luc.  16,  24). Mais comment comprendre l’énigmatique « avant que je ne sois plus » ? L’hypothèse d’un tel anéantissement fait problème : même s’il va de soi qu’Idithun échappera à un tel anéantissement, comment admettre que l’homme injuste et orgueilleux ne sera plus108 ? Augustin avait cherché à résoudre la difficulté dès le De immortalitate animae, en distinguant «  deux niveaux de réalité dans 109 l’âme  » : le fait d’être et la participation à la sagesse ; l’âme peut perdre la sagesse en se détournant de « ce dont elle tient l’être », « mais l’être qu’elle tient de celui auquel rien n’est contraire, elle ne peut être amenée à le perdre ; elle ne peut donc périr »110. La distinction devient plus claire encore dans le De libero arbitrio : une chose est le fait d’être, qui se caractérise par un « vouloir-être111 », par une volonté de bonheur, une autre le fait d’ajouter « à ce vouloir-être initial de plus en plus d’être », de s’élever ainsi « vers ce qui est suprêmement112 » et de connaître « le repos », qui consiste à « être davantage113 ». Augustin tire les conséquences de cette dis108  Cf.  en. Ps. 38, 22 (CCSL 38, p. 422) : Est quaestio oborta, quomodo iam non erit. Ecce iam non iit ad requiem ? Quod auertat Deus ab Idithun. Ibit enim plane Idithun, ad requiem ibit. Sed fac aliquem iniquum, non Idithun, non transilientem, hic thesaurizantem, incubatorem, iniquum, superbum, iactantem, elatum, pauperis ante ianuam iacentis contemtorem ; nonne et ipse erit ? 109  Cf. É. Zum Brunn, «  Le dilemme de l’être et du néant chez saint Augustin » [n.  84], p.  36-37 et 50-54. Origène fait une distinction analogue : « Ce n’est donc pas la mort de l’âme qui est signifiée par là, mais on dit que l’homme n’est pas lorsqu’il ne demeure pas en Celui qui est vraiment et toujours, celui de qui lui-même a son être » (In Ps. 38, 2, 12 [SC 411, p. 402-405]). 110  Cf.  imm. an. 12, 19 (CSEL 89, p. 121) : Sapientiam uero quia conuersione habet ad id, ex quo est, auersione illam potest amittere. Conuersioni namque auersio contraria est. Illud uero, quod ex eo habet, cui nulla res est contraria, non est, unde possit amittere. Non igitur potest interire. 111  Cf.  lib. arb. 3, 7, 21 (BA 6, p. 420-421) : Si uis itaque miseriam fugere, ama in te hoc ipsum quia esse uis. Si enim magis magisque esse uolueris, ei quod summe est propinquabis ; et gratias age nunc quia es. 112  Cf.  lib. arb. 3, 7, 21 (BA 6, p. 422-423) : Huic enim exordio quo esse uis si adicias magis magisque esse, consurgis atque exstrueris in id quod summe est, atque ita te ab omni labe cohibebis, qua transit ut non sit quod infime est et secum amantis uires subruit. 113  Cf.  lib. arb. 3, 8, 23 (BA 6, p. 426-427) : Quod autem quietum est non est nihil, immo etiam magis est quam id quod inquietum est.

244

isabelle bochet

tinction dans l’Enarratio in Psalmum 38114, mais en prenant appui sur un argument scripturaire (Luc. 16, 24) : la mention « avant que je ne sois plus » est interprétée comme la menace de ne pas connaître le repos115, c’est-à-dire la plénitude d’être. C’est précisément le châtiment qui attend « celui qui n’est pas Idithun », c’està-dire l’homme orgueilleux qui thésaurise ici-bas : il connaîtra « la souffrance éternelle, grosse de corruption », qui « ne finit pas pour finir indéfiniment116 ». Dans le De moribus Manichaeorum, Augustin remarque, de façon analogue, que « la corruption, qui est le souverain mal, ne peut pas se corrompre, mais qu’elle n’est pas une substance » : « c’est par la corruption que les choses déchoient de ce qu’elles étaient, qu’elles sont contraintes à ne pas demeurer, qu’elles sont contraintes à ne plus être117 ». À la lumière de ce texte, on comprend ce que veut dire Augustin dans l’Enarratio in Psalmum  38 : il décrit la souffrance éternelle comme « une sorte de néantisation sans fin118 ». Cette interprétation est la conséquence, au plan eschatologique, de la définition du péché comme choix du néant. Tout comme il était entre Adam et le Christ, entre imperfection et perfection, Idithun se trouve donc entre non-être et être : « il a craint […] d’aller là où l’être véritable n’est pas, désirant être là où est la plénitude de l’être119 ». Placé dans un état intermédiaire (inter utrumque constitutus), il est engagé dans une dynamique de dépassement continuel vers « ce qui est vraiment », sans laquelle il ne pourrait que retourner en arrière et tendre au contraire vers le Cf. É. Zum Brunn, « L’exégèse augustinienne » [n. 80], p. 160-161. Ambroise comprend également non ero au sens où il n’y aura ni repos ni vie éternelle : Nisi remissum peccatum hic fuerit, non habebimus requiem, si requies non fuerit, non erit uita aeterna, si uitat aeterna non fuerit, non erimus (Expl. Ps. 38, 38 [SAEMO 7, p. 374-375]). 116  Cf.  en. Ps. 38, 22 (CCSL 38, p. 422) : Et dolor ipse aeternus, plenus corruptionis, ad hoc non finitur, ut sine fine finiatur. À comparer à s. 362, 20, 23 (PL 39, col. 1627). 117  Cf. mor. 2, 6, 8 (BA 1, p. 264-267) : […] et ipsam corruptionem, quae summum malum est non posse corrumpi, sed hanc non esse substantiam. […] Deficiunt autem omnia per corruptionem ab eo quod erant et non permanere coguntur, non esse coguntur. 118  Cf. É. Zum Brunn, « L’exégèse augustinienne » [n. 80], p. 161. 119  En. Ps. 38, 22 (CCSL 38, p. 422) : […] et timuit extra ire, ubi non est esse ; ibi desiderans esse, ubi est summum esse. 114 

115 

    le commentaire augustinien des psaumes pour idithun 245

non-être. Une telle présentation du dépassement que vit Idithun confère à l’Enarratio in Psal­mum 38 une dimension ontologique et cosmique. L’Enarratio in Psalmum 61 apporte une autre note : une perspective ecclésiale, car Idithun y est identifié au corps du Christ. 3. L’Enarratio in Psalmum 61 Le Psaume 61 (62) se présente d’abord comme un psaume de confiance dans une situation de crise (v. 2-8) : le psalmiste cherche en Dieu un refuge afin de tenir ferme, alors qu’il est poursuivi par ses ennemis et menacé de mort ; puis comme une instruction de type sapientiel adressée aux autres (v. 9-13)120. On remarque quelques modifications notables dans la traduction de la Septante. Les métaphores qui risquaient d’être mal comprises dans une culture hellénistique sont transformées : ainsi la mention du « rocher » (v.  3,  7, 8) est remplacée par le mot « Dieu » (ὁ θεός) et celle de la « citadelle » (v. 3, 7) est remplacée par l’expression « mon aide » (ἀντιλήμπτωρ μου). Dans les versets  2 et 6, l’âme n’est pas dite « en repos », mais « soumise à Dieu »121. La traduction latine du Psaume qu’Augustin commente – il en est de même dans le Psautier romain122 – comporte en outre au verset 5 l’expression : cucurri in siti, qui correspond à une variante du texte grec : ἔδραμον ἐν δίψει, au lieu de ἐν ψεύδει. Augustin remarque que la fin du psaume correspond à une instruction adressée par le psalmiste à ses ennemis123. Dans la pre-

120  Cf. E. Zenger, « Psalm 62 », dans Psalms 2 : a commentary on Psalms 51-100. Translated and interpreted by F.-L. Hossfeld and E. Zenger, éd. K.  Baltzer, trad. angl. L.  M. Maloney, Minneapolis, 2005, p.  110-118 ; voir ici p. 112. Sur l’explication patristique de ce psaume, voir B. Villegas Mathieu, « Cuatro Padres ante un salmo. El Salmo 61 comentado por Hilario, Ambrosio, Jeronimo y Agustin », Teologia y Vida, 20 (1979), p. 63-75. 121  Cf. E. Zenger, « Psalm 62 » [n. 120], p. 117. 122  Cf. Le Psautier romain et les autres anciens psautiers latins, éd. R. Weber, Rome, 1953, p. 136-138 ; voir ici p. 137. 123  Cf. en. Ps. 61, 15 (CCSL 39, p. 784) : Si transiliuistis, si diligitis inimicos uestros, si destruere cupitis ut aedificetis, si eum amatis qui iudicat in gentibus, et replet ruinas ; ita his ista dicite, non odio habentes, non malum pro malo reddentes. ‘Mendaces filii hominum in stateris, ut decipiant ipsi de uanitate in

246

isabelle bochet

mière partie de l’enar­ratio (§ 2-8), il décrit l’attitude spirituelle d’Idithun (§ 2-3), puis il s’inter­roge longuement sur l’identité de celui qui fait l’objet des attaques de tous – comment pourrait-il être un individu unique ? – ce qui le conduit à un long développement sur l’Église, corps du Christ, et sur les deux cités (§ 4-8). Dans la seconde partie de l’enarratio (§ 9-16), l’expression du verset  5 : cucurri in siti suscite un long commentaire, qui se justifie particulièrement par la présence de l’astrologue pénitent au fond de l’église (§ 9-10). Après avoir souligné que la patience du psalmiste lui vient de Dieu en qui il a mis son espérance (§ 11-14), Augustin commente les paroles d’Idithun qui exhorte ses ennemis à la conversion (§ 15-16). La longue explication des deux derniers versets du psaume constitue la troisième partie de l’enarratio (§ 17-22) : en disant que « Dieu a parlé une fois », Idithun montre qu’il s’est élevé au-dessus de toute créature, jusqu’au Verbe luimême (§ 17-18) ; le commentaire des deux attributs divins mentionnés par le verset 12, la puissance et la miséricorde (§ 19-20), conduit à une esquisse de théodicée pour répondre à celui qui est tenté d’accuser Dieu d’injustice (§ 21-22). Le post tractatum (§ 23) tire parti de l’explication du psaume pour l’appliquer au cas de l’astrologue pénitent124. a. Qui est Idithun ? Idithun est clairement identifié au corps du Christ dans le paragraphe 11 : « Qu’en est-il de toi, Idithun, corps du Christ, toi qui les dépasses125 ? ». Il faut donc reconnaître en lui un sujet collectif. Cette interprétation se fonde d’abord sur le verset 4 : Quousque apponitis super hominem ? Interficite omnes, qui ne peut s’appliquer à un seul individu, car le corps d’un seul homme ne peut être frappé à mort par tous. Augustin identifie alors celui qui est ainsi

unum’ [Ps. 61, 10] ; 16 (p. 784) : Conuertit ergo se ad illos, sitiens eos : ‘Nolite sperare super iniquitatem’ [Ps. 61, 11]. 124  Il me semble discutable d’affirmer avec A. Primmer (« Augustinus und der Astrologe » [n. 6], p. 253) que le choix du Psaume 61 aurait été motivé par la présence de l’astrologue pénitent ; il est en revanche probable que sa présence oriente la manière dont Augustin commente le psaume. A. Primmer propose un plan un peu différent de l’enarratio (p. 254-255). 125  En. Ps. 61, 11 (CCSL 39, p. 781) : Quid tu, o Idithun, corpus Christi, transiliens eos ?

    le commentaire augustinien des psaumes pour idithun 247

frappé à « la personne de notre Église », à « la personne du corps du Christ126 ». « Car Jésus-Christ est un seul homme, avec sa tête et son corps : Jésus-Christ, le sauveur du corps et les membres de ce corps, ‘deux en une seule chair’ [Gen. 2, 24], en une seule voix, en une seule souffrance et, quand l’iniquité aura passé, en un seul repos127. »

À ce corps du Christ qui souffre, appartiennent aussi les prophètes persécutés de l’Ancien Testament, depuis Abel le juste jusqu’à Zacharie : ils font partie des membres du Christ, même s’ils ont été envoyés avant son avènement128, car ils font partie de la Jérusalem céleste, de la cité sainte dont le Christ est le roi129 ; ils ont été envoyés par lui, avant son incarnation, afin de l’annoncer, mais lui-même est étroitement lié à eux130. Dans la voix du Christ souffrant, il faut encore reconnaître la voix qui s’élève « depuis le sang de Jean-Baptiste, par le sang des apôtres, par le sang des martyrs, 126  Cf.  en. Ps. 61, 4 (CCSL 39, p. 773) : ‘Interficite omnes’ [Ps. 61, 4]. Quod tantum spatium corporis in uno homine, ubi possit interfici ab omnibus ? Sed debemus intellegere personam nostram, personam ecclesiae nostrae, personam corporis Christi. L’interprétation d’Ambroise est autre : […] et ait : ‘Quo usque irruitis in hominem, interficientes uniuersos ?’, hoc est : ‘Quid delere genus festinatis humanum ? Nescitis me pro omnium redemptione uenisse ? Obtuli me pro cunctis, ut omnes mea oblatione protegerem’ (Expl. Ps. 61, 11 [SAEMO 8, p. 290]). 127  En. Ps. 61, 4 (CCSL  39, p. 773-774) : Vnus enim homo cum capite et corpore suo Iesus Christus, saluator corporis et membra corporis, duo in carne una, et in uoce una, et in passione una ; et cum transierit iniquitas, in requie una. 128  Cf.  en. Ps. 61, 4 (CCSL  39, p.  774 ; avec allusion à Matth.  23,  35 et Gen. 38, 27-30) : Quidquid passi sunt prophetae a sanguine Abel iusti usque ad sanguinem Zachariae, appositum est super hominem, quia praecesserunt aduentum incarnationis Christi quaedam membra Christi ; sicut in nascente quodam, nondum quidem procedente capite, processit manus, sed tamen capiti connectebatur et manus. Sur ce thème, voir Y.  M.-J.  Congar, « Ecclesia ab Abel », dans Abhandlungen über Theologie und Kirche. Festschrift K. Adam, Düsseldorf, 1952, p.  79-108 ; voir ici  p.  83-85. Y.  M.-J.  Congar remarque qu’Augustin semble avoir été le premier à parler de l’Ecclesia ab Abel et qu’il ne l’a fait que dans les vingt dernières années de sa vie (p. 84). 129  Cf.  en. Ps. 61, 4 (CCSL 39, p. 774)  : Absit ut non pertineat ad membra Christi, qui pertinet ad ciuitatem quae regem habet Christum. Illa una est Ierusalem caelestis, ciuitas sancta ; haec una ciuitas unum habet regem. Rex huius ciuitatis Christus est. 130  Cf.  en. Ps. 61, 4 (CCSL 39, p. 774-775) : Ipse ergo ante aduentum incarnationis suae praemisit quaedam membra sua, post quae praenuntiantia se uenturum uenit et ipse, connexus eis.

248

isabelle bochet

par le sang des fidèles du Christ131 ». L’introduction du thème de la cité de Dieu après la mention d’Abel n’est pas fortuite, comme l’a remarqué Yves Marie-Joseph  Congar : il était naturel qu’Augustin « fût porté à chercher une sorte de figuration ou de typification » des deux cités, et cela « dès les origines de l’humanité » ; le choix de Caïn et Abel s’est pour ainsi dire imposé à lui pour symboliser la coexistence et la lutte des deux cités dès les origines132 . La mention des deux cités suscite une digression133, qui manifeste sans aucun doute que le De ciuitate Dei est alors en gestation ou en cours de rédaction. La mention du verset 10 du psaume : ipsi de uanitate in unum, dans la version qui est celle d’Augustin134, vient en quelque sorte confirmer l’interprétation du Psaume 61 à partir de la thématique des deux cités : à cet homme unique qu’est Jésus-Christ, tête et corps (unus homo cum capite et corpore suo Iesus Christus), vient s’opposer cet homme unique exclu de la foule des convives (unus ille qui proiectus est de turba conuiuantium), qui symbolise la multitude des hommes attachés aux biens charnels, dans la parabole des invités au festin ; ils ne font qu’un par la vanité de leur volonté, quelle que soit la variété de leurs erreurs135. Ainsi, de part 131  En. Ps. 61, 4 (CCSL 39, p. 775) : Inde et deinceps a sanguine Iohannis, per sanguinem apostolorum, per sanguinem martyrum, per sanguinem fidelium Christi, una ciuitas loquitur, unus homo dicit : ‘Quousque apponitis super hominem ? Interficite omnes’ [Ps. 61, 4]. 132  Cf.  Y.  M.-J.  Congar, «  Ecclesia ab Abel » [n. 128], p. 85, avec citation d’en. Ps.  61, 6 (CCSL 39, p. 777) : Ciuitas illa prior nata ; ciuitas ista posterior nata. Illa enim incoepit a Cain ; haec ab Abel. Haec duo corpora sub duobus regibus agentia, ad singulas ciuitates pertinentia, aduersantur sibi usque in finem saeculi, donec fiat ex commixtione separatio […]. 133  Cf.  en. Ps. 61, 7 (CCSL 39, p. 777) : Intendite, fratres, intendite, rogo uos. Delectat enim me pauca adhuc loqui uobis de ciuitate hac dulci. La digression s’achève à la fin du § 8, avec le retour à la citation de Ps. 61, 4-5. 134  La version du Psautier romain est la suivante : ipsi de uanitate in idipsum (éd. R. Weber, p. 137). 135  Cf. en. Ps. 61, 15 (CCSL 39, p. 784) : ‘Mendaces filii hominum in stateris, ut decipiant ipsi de uanitate in unum’ [Ps. 61, 10]. Certe multi sunt : ecce est ille unus, unus ille qui proiectus est de turba conuiuantium. Conspirant, omnes temporalia quaerunt, quique carnales carnalia, et in futurum sperant quicumque sperant ; etsi de opinionum uarietate in diuersum, de uanitate tamen in unum sunt. Diuersi quidem errores et multiformes, et regnum aduersum se diuisum non stabit ; sed similis omnibus uoluntas uana et mendax, pertinens ad unum

    le commentaire augustinien des psaumes pour idithun 249

et d’autre, qu’il s’agisse de Jérusalem ou de Babylone, Augustin joue sur le couple « un/tous » qu’il applique au jeu du singulier et du pluriel dans le psaume : on peut tout aussi bien dire qu’ils sont « tous contre un » (omnes contra unum), « un contre tous » (unus contra omnes) ou encore « tous contre tous » (omnes contra omnes) et « un contre un » (unus contra unum)136. En comprenant ainsi le psaume, Augustin en élargit l’interprétation aux dimensions de toute l’histoire humaine. L’expression du verset 5 : Cucurri in siti explicite le sens de cette histoire : « le corps du Christ [corpus Christi] » a soif137 de faire passer en lui « le corps des impies [corpus impiorum] » ; autrement dit, l’Église aspire à s’incorporer les hommes pécheurs qu’elle appelle à entrer en elle par le baptême ou à se convertir comme l’astrologue pénitent présent ce jour-là dans l’assemblée138. Pour l’expliquer, Augustin recourt à une interprétation allégorique de la scène de l’Exode dans laquelle Moïse donne le veau d’or réduit en poussière à boire au peuple d’Israël (Ex. 32, 20) :

regem, cum quo in ignem aeternum praecipitanda est : ‘ipsi de uanitate in unum’ [Ps. 61, 10]. Augustin utilise déjà en ce sens la parabole des invités au festin (Matth. 22,  12) en en. Ps. 61, 6 (p. 776). 136  Cf.  en. Ps. 61, 6 (CCSL  39, p. 776) : ‘Verumtamen cogitauerunt honorem meum repellere’ [Ps. 61, 5]. Omnes contra unum, an unus contra omnes, an omnes contra omnes, an unus contra unum ? Interim cum dicit : ‘Apponitis super hominem’ [Ps. 61, 4], tamquam super unum ; et cum dicit : ‘Interficite omnes’ [Ps. 61, 4], quasi omnes contra unum ; sed tamen et omnes contra omnes, quia et christiani omnes, sed in uno. 137  Cf.  en. Ps. 61, 10 (CCSL 39, p. 780) : Sic et corpus capitis huius usque in finem ab initio currit in siti. Et quasi ei diceretur : quid in siti ? quid tibi deest, o corpus Christi, o ecclesia Christi ? Ambroise propose une double interpréta­ tion de ce verset, mystique tout d’abord : […] diximus autem quid exprimat ‘cucurri’, hoc est festinaui sitim omnium suscipere, ut uniuersos perpetui fontis ubertate satiarem ; cui enim dedero aquam, non sitiet nec hic nec in futurum, sicut dictum est ad Samaritanam […] (Expl. Ps. 61, 14 [SAEMO  8, p.  294]) ; puis morale : Vnde et ait : ‘Cucurri in siti’, eo quod fidem quaereret et inuenire non posset, destitutus a sociis, a propriis derelictus. Sic dominum Iesum legimus in euangelio et esurisse et sitisse, cum esuriret fidem nostram, sitiret opera nostra, quaerere uideretur aliena (Expl. Ps. 61, 22 [p. 302-304]). 138  Cf. en. Ps. 61, 23 (CCSL 39, p. 792) : Illa ecclesiae sitis etiam istum, quem uidetis, bibere uult. Simul etiam ut noueritis quam multi in commixtione christianorum ore suo benedicant, et in corde suo maledicant, iste ex christiano et fideli paenitens redit, et territus potestate domini conuertitur ad misericordiam domini.

250

isabelle bochet « Cette tête de veau est un grand mystère. La tête de veau représentait en effet le corps des impies, qui est à l’image d’un veau mangeur de foin [cf. Ps. 105, 20], car ils sont en quête de biens terrestres, et ‘toute chair est du foin’ [Is. 40, 6] […]. Le corps des impies est jeté dans le feu des tribulations et pulvérisé par la parole de Dieu. En effet, peu à peu, les impies se séparent de l’unité de ce corps ; il se désagrège avec le temps, comme un vêtement. Quiconque devient chrétien se sépare de ce peuple ; il est comme une poussière détachée de la masse. Réunis en masse, ils n’ont que haine ; pulvérisés, ils croient. Quoi de plus évident ? Les hommes devaient entrer par le baptême dans le corps de cette cité de Jérusalem dont le peuple d’Israël était la figure ; c’est pourquoi la poussière du veau d’or a été jetée dans l’eau, pour être donnée à boire139. »

Dans le Contra Faustum manichaeum, Augustin donne une explication plus approfondie de la scène : il faut reconnaître dans le veau une figure du corpus diaboli140 – l’image est empruntée à la septième Règle de Tyconius141, « Du diable et son corps » – et mettre en relation l’ordre que Moïse donne au peuple de boire cette eau où se trouve dissous le veau d’or, avec celui que Pierre reçoit, dans la vision d’Act. 10, 13, d’immoler et de manger les animaux impurs, 139  En. Ps. 61, 9 (CCSL 39, p. 780 ; trad. M. Dulaey) : Caput uituli, magnum sacramentum. Caput enim uituli corpus erat impiorum, in similitudine uituli manducantis fenum, terrena quaerentium ; quia ‘omnis caro fenum’ [Is. 40, 6]. […] Corpus enim illud in ignem mittitur tribulationum, et uerbo Dei comminuitur. Paulatim enim desistunt ab unitate corporis eius. Sicut enim uestimentum, ita per tempus absumitur. Et unusquisque qui fit christianus, separatur ab illo populo, et quasi a massa comminuitur. Conspirati oderunt ; comminuti credunt. Et quid iam euidentius, quam quod in corpus illud ciuitatis Ierusalem, cuius imago erat populus Israel, per baptismum traiciendi erant homines ? Ideo in aqua sparsum est, ut in potum daretur. Selon  M. Dulaey, la mention de la tête du veau, au lieu du veau en pied, s’explique parfaitement par la remarque de Lactance (Inst. diu. 4, 10, 12 [SC 377, p. 88-89]) : « […] ils fabriquèrent la tête d’or du bœuf appelé Apis, pour qu’elle les précédât comme une enseigne » (cf.  « La geste de Moïse dans l’œuvre d’Augustin. 2. La présence de Dieu au désert et la figure de Moïse », Revue d’Études Augustiniennes et Patristiques, 57 [2011], p. 189-237 ; sur le veau d’or, p. 197-210 ; voir ici p. 209-210). 140  Cf.  c. Faust. 22, 93 (CSEL 25/1, p. 699) : Occurrat ergo iam intentis mentibus tamquam diaboli corpus in uitulo, id est homines in omnibus gentibus, quibus ad haec sacrilegia caput, hoc est auctor, est diabolus, aureum propterea, quia uidentur idolatriae ritus uelut a sapientibus instituti. 141  Cf. Reg. 7, 1 (SC 377, p. 324-325) ; M. Dulaey, « La geste de Moïse dans l’œuvre d’Augustin. 2 » [n. 139], p. 210.

    le commentaire augustinien des psaumes pour idithun 251

ce qui le prépare à baptiser le païen Corneille142 . Dans les deux cas, il s’agit d’une figure annonçant l’incorporation des nations à l’Église. Dans cette enarratio, Idithun est donc clairement identifié au corps du Christ qui aspire à s’incorporer les pécheurs, qu’ils soient hors de l’Église « comme les épines au milieu des haies ou comme des arbres stériles dans les forêts », ou à l’intérieur de l’Église, « comme de l’ivraie ou comme de la paille143 ». b. Quel dépassement ? Le terme transilire est très inégalement présent dans l’enarratio : récurrent au tout début du commentaire dans les paragraphes 1 à 3, lorsqu’Augustin explique le titre du psaume et le verset 2, il est totalement absent des paragraphes 4 à 10 ; le terme ponctue à nouveau régulièrement l’enarratio dans les paragraphes 11 à 19. Le dévelop­pement sur l’Église corps du Christ et sur les deux cités ne l’appelait guère, mais il est encadré par la mention du dépassement que vit Idithun : Augustin présente les versets 4 et 5 du psaume – Quousque apponitis super hominem ? […] – comme ce que dit Idithun, quand, « du haut du lieu où il est protégé et en sécurité », il « jette les yeux sur ceux qu’il a dépassés144 » ; il introduit à nouveau le verset 6 : uerumtamen Deo subiicietur anima mea, quoniam ab ipso est patientia mea, en rappelant tout ce qu’Idithun a déjà dépassé145. La soif d’Idithun, c’est-à-dire le désir que l’Église a de s’incorporer les pécheurs qui la maudissent et veulent 142  Cf.  c. Faust. 22, 93 (CSEL 25/1, p. 700) : Quorum Israhelitarum Petro de ipsis gentibus dictum est : ‘macta et manduca’ [Act. 10, 13]. Si macta et manduca, quare non etiam : concide et bibe ? Ita ille uitulus per ignem zeli et aciem uerbi et aquam baptismi ab eis potius, quos absorbere conabatur, absorptus est. 143  Cf. en. Ps. 61, 8 (CCSL 39, p. 779-780) : Et qui foris estis tamquam spinae in sepibus, aut tamquam ligna infructuosa in siluis, quique intus estis tamquam zizania, uel tamquam palea […]. 144  Cf.  en. Ps. 61, 3 (CCSL 39, p. 779-780)  : Ergo de superiore loco munitus et tutus, cui factus est dominus refugium, cui est ipse Deus in locum munitum, respicit ad eos quos transiliuit, et despiciens eos loquitur, tamquam de turri excelsa ; […] adtendit ergo ad eos, et dicit : ‘quousque apponitis super hominem ?’ [Ps. 61, 4] insultando, opprobria iaciendo, insidiando, persequendo […]. 145  Cf.  en. Ps. 61, 11 (CCSL  39, p. 781)  : Non sic transiliui ut extollar et cadam : ‘Deo subicietur anima mea ; quoniam ab ipso est patientia mea’ [Ps. 61, 6].

252

isabelle bochet

la détruire, est donc comprise par Augustin comme une manière de vivre ce dépassement. 1) L’espérance mise en Dieu et le dépassement des ennemis Dans son interprétation du nom d’Idithun, transiliens eos, Augustin a le souci de déterminer quels sont ceux qu’Idithun dépasse : ce sont des « paresseux146 », « des envieux qui le menaçaient de ruine, parce qu’ils avaient été affligés de qu’il les avait dépassés147 » ; ce sont également des hommes qui « sont attachés aux choses terrestres, comme des fils de la terre ont du goût pour la terre et sont eux-mêmes la terre dont le serpent se nourrit148 » ; ils sont encore « des ennemis qui s’opposent à [Idithun], qui entravent [sa] route, qui [l’]ont en haine149 ». En bref, leur attitude est celle des ennemis que décrit le psaume : « ils le poussent, ils cherchent à [le] renverser comme un mur qui penche, […], ils ont le dessein de détruire [sa] gloire, ils [le] bénissent de bouche et [le] maudissent de cœur, ils [lui] tendent des pièges quand ils le peuvent, ils [le] calomnient quand ils le peuvent150 ». Que signifie alors « les dépasser » ? Cela signifie d’abord « ne pas être orgueilleux du fait de ceux qui sont au-dessous de lui, mais être humble du fait de celui qui est au-dessus de lui », comme l’indique le verset  2 du psaume : « Mon âme ne sera-t-elle pas soumise à Dieu151 ? ». Idithun se caractérise donc par une conscience vive de Cf. en. Ps. 61, 1 (CCSL 39, p. 772) : Transilit ergo iste qui cantat quosdam, quos desuper despicit. Videamus quousque transilierit, et quos transilierit, et ubi quamuis quosdam transilierit positus sit ; de quo spiritali quodam et securo loco intueatur ima ; non ita respiciens ut cadat, sed ut moueat qui transiliuit pigros ut sequantur, et laudet locum quo transiliendo peruenit. 147  En. Ps. 61, 2 (CCSL 39, p. 772) : Tamquam minantibus ei ruinam inuidis qui eum transiliuisse doluerant. 148  En. Ps. 61, 11 (CCSL 39, p. 781) : Illi autem inhaerent terrenis ; tamquam terrigenae sapiunt terram, et sunt terra, serpentis cibus. 149  En. Ps. 61, 14 (CCSL  39, p. 783) : Imitamini Idithun ; transilite inimicos uestros ; repugnantes uobis, resistentes itineri uestro, odio uos habentes transilite. 150  En. Ps. 61, 11 (CCSL 39, p. 781) : […] quamuis impellant, quamuis quasi inclinato instent, quamuis iam erectum sentiant, et honorem meum repellere cogitent ; quamuis ore suo benedicant et corde suo maledicant ; quamuis insidientur ubi possunt, calumnientur ubi possunt : ‘uerumtamen Deo subicietur anima mea’ [Ps. 61, 6]. 151  En. Ps. 61, 2 (CCSL 39, p. 772)  : Et trepidus ne transiliendo superbiret, non elatus ex his quae infra essent sed humilis ex eo qui supra esset, tamquam 146 

    le commentaire augustinien des psaumes pour idithun 253

sa dépendance à l’égard de Dieu dont il attend miséricorde et protection152 . S’il se sait en sécurité, c’est parce que Dieu le protège153. S’il peut supporter tant de souffrances, c’est parce qu’il ne les supporte pas par ses seules forces d’homme, car sa patience lui vient de Dieu154 et parce qu’il garde l’espérance du salut : il se sait en exil, comme un étranger de passage sur la terre, selon l’expression du Psaume 38 qu’Augustin paraphrase ici : « Je suis un locataire chez toi sur la terre, comme tous mes pères155 ». C’est parce qu’il se sait ainsi en sécurité en Dieu qu’Idithun peut dépasser ses ennemis, c’est-à-dire les aimer : leur souhaiter du bien alors qu’ils lui souhaitent du mal156, à l’instar de Joseph, qui après avoir été vendu par ses frères, leur distribue du blé157. C’est en les aimant qu’Idithun peut mettre en garde ses ennemis,

minantibus ei ruinam inuidis qui eum transiliuisse doluerant, respondit : ‘nonne Deo subicietur anima mea ?’ [Ps. 61, 2]. 152  Cf. en. Ps. 61, 2 (CCSL 39, p. 773) : Scio quis supra me sit, scio quis praetendat misericordiam suam scientibus se, scio sub cuius alarum tegmine sperem : ‘non mouebor amplius’ [Ps. 61, 3]. 153  Cf.  en. Ps. 61, 3 (CCSL 39, p. 773) : Ergo homines potestis apponere onera super hominem ; numquid super deum qui tuetur hominem ? 154  Cf.  en. Ps. 61, 11 (CCSL 39, p. 781) : Quis tanta toleret ? Numquid homo ? Et si homo, numquid a seipso homo ? Non sic transiliui ut extollar et cadam : ‘Deo subicietur anima mea ; quoniam ab ipso est patientia mea’ [Ps. 61, 6]. 155  Cf.  en. Ps. 61, 12 (CCSL 39, p. 781) : Nam inquilinus ego sum apud te in terra, sicut omnes patres mei. À comparer à en. Ps. 38, 21 (CCSL 38, p. 420421) qui cite Ps. 38, 13 : Quia inquilinus ego sum apud te et peregrinus et qui le commente ainsi : Si domus haec aeterna est in caelis, cum ad eam uenerimus, inquilini non erimus. Quomodo enim eris inquilinus in aeterna domo ? Hic autem ubi dicturus est dominus domus : migra, et quando dicturus est nescis, paratus esto. 156  Cf.  en. Ps. 61, 5 (CCSL 39, p. 776)  : Optemus illis bona, etiamsi optant mala. 157  Cf.  en. Ps. 61, 5 (CCSL  39, p. 775) : Iam Ioseph ille spiritalis post uenditionem a fratribus, post translationem de patria sua ad gentes tamquam in Aegyptum, post humilationem carceris, post factionem falsae testis, postquam factum est quod de illo dictum est : ‘ferrum pertransiuit animam eius’ [Ps. 104, 18], iam honorificatus est, iam non est subditus fratribus uendentibus, sed frumenta erogat esurientibus. Joseph est aussi la figure du Christ en en. Ps. 76, 17 (CCSL 39, p.  1063). Voir  M. Dulaey, « Joseph le patriarche figure du Christ », dans Figures de l’Ancien Testament chez les Pères, 1989, p. 83-105 ; voir ici p. 94-102.

254

isabelle bochet

« sans haine contre eux, sans leur rendre le mal pour le mal158 » ; les reproches du psaume (Ps. 61, 10-11) sont alors l’expression de la soif d’Idithun, c’est-à-dire du corps du Christ, de l’Église du Christ, qui veut incorporer à elle les pécheurs159, y compris l’astrologue pénitent160, même s’il a séduit et trompé bien des chrétiens et s’il leur a dérobé de l’argent ! Augustin le recommande très concrètement aux fidèles : « Celui que vous voyez, aimez-le de cœur, gardez-le par vos yeux161 ». 2) Le dépassement de toute créature et la contemplation du Verbe Le dépassement que vit Idithun prend une autre forme à la fin de l’enarratio, quand Augustin commente les versets 12-13 : « Dieu a parlé une fois, j’ai entendu deux choses : que la puissance est à Dieu et que la miséricorde t’appartient Seigneur, car tu rendras à chacun selon ses œuvres ». Augustin comprend, en effet, Semel locutus est Deus, comme une allusion à la génération du Verbe par Dieu, par contraste avec la multitude des paroles entendues par les hommes tout au long de l’histoire du salut. Entrevoir quelque chose de la génération du Verbe suppose à l’évidence un bien grand dépassement162 . « Cet Idithun, ‘Celui qui les dépasse’, avait tout dépassé par le regard pénétrant de son esprit courageux, fort et en avant des autres ; il avait dépassé la terre et ce qui est sur la terre ; il avait dépassé l’air, toutes ces nuées d’où Dieu a bien des fois parlé souCf. en. Ps. 61, 15 (CCSL 39, p. 784) : Si transiliuistis, si diligitis inimicos uestros, si destruere cupitis ut aedificetis, si eum amatis qui iudicat in gentibus, et replet ruinas ; ita his ista dicite, non odio habentes, non malum pro malo reddentes. ‘Mendaces filii hominum in stateris, ut decipiant ipsi de uanitate in unum’ [Ps. 61, 10]. Transilire est ici indissociable de l’amour des ennemis, qui a pour effet de détruire Jébus pour construire Jérusalem (cf. § 7, p. 778). 159  Cf.  en. Ps. 61, 15 (CCSL 39, p. 784) : Et illos uidete quia sitit ; uidete quia currit in siti. Conuertit ergo se ad illos, sitiens eos : ‘Nolite sperare super iniquitatem’ [Ps. 61, 11] ; voir aussi 9-10, p. 780-781. 160  Cf. en. Ps. 61, 23 (CCSL 39, p. 792) : Illa ecclesiae sitis etiam istum, quem uidetis, bibere uult. 161  Ibid. : Eum quem uidetis cordibus amate, oculis custodite. 162  Cf.  en. Ps. 61, 18 (CCSL 39, p. 786) : Multum transiliuerat iste, ut perueniret illuc, ubi semel locutus est Deus. Ecce breuiter dixi caritati uestrae. Hic inter homines, hominibus saepe, multis modis, multis partibus, per multiformem creaturam locutus est Deus ; apud se semel Deus locutus est, quia unum uerbum genuit Deus. 158 

    le commentaire augustinien des psaumes pour idithun 255 vent à bien des hommes ; il avait même dépassé tous les anges par le regard pénétrant de sa foi. Car ‘Celui qui dépasse’ ne s’arrêtait pas aux choses de la terre, mais, comme un aigle en plein vol, il s’était avancé au-delà de toute la nuée qui couvre toute la terre […]. Il parvient à quelque chose de limpide ; dépassant toute créature, cherchant Dieu et répandant son âme au-dessus de lui, il parvient au Principe et au Verbe, Dieu auprès de Dieu ; il trouve le Verbe unique du Père unique ; et il voit que Dieu n’a parlé qu’une fois ; il voit le Verbe par qui tout a été fait, en qui toutes choses existent à la fois, sans différence, sans séparation, sans inégalité163. »

On retrouve ici un schème d’anabase analogue à celui de l’Enarratio in Psalmum 41 : Idithun s’élève de la terre au ciel, puis de là aux anges ; puis, au-delà de soi-même « en répandant son âme au-dessus de lui », pour atteindre enfin, « par le regard pénétrant de la foi [acie fidei] », le Verbe ; l’expression effundens super se animam suam est d’ailleurs une réminiscence de Ps. 41, 5 : effudi super me animam meam, qu’Augustin avait cité précédemment, en écho à Ps. 61, 9 : Effundite coram illo corda uestra164, en invitant à la confiance radicale en Dieu pour surmonter toute crainte. C’est dans cette contemplation du Verbe que s’éclairent la puissance et la miséricorde de Dieu et qu’Idithun peut répondre à ceux qui contestent la justice de Dieu165 ; c’était de même, après avoir entrevu quelque chose de l’être divin à Milan à la suite de 163  En. Ps. 61, 18 (CCSL 39, p. 786-787) : Iste ergo Idithun transiliens eos, transiliuerat acie mentis forti, et ualida, et praefidenti, transiliuerat terram, et quidquid in terra est, aerem, nubes omnes ex quibus locutus est deus multa, et saepe, et multis ; transiliuerat etiam omnes angelos acie fidei. Erat enim iste transiliens non contentus terrenis, sed uelut aquila uolans praeteruectus omnem nebulam qua tegitur omnis terra. […] Peruenit ad aliquid liquidum, uniuersam transiliens creaturam, et quaerens Deum, et effundens super se animam suam ; peruenit ad Principium, et Verbum Deum apud Deum ; et inuenit unius Patris unum Verbum ; et uidit quia semel locutus est Deus ; uidit Verbum per quod facta sunt omnia, et in quo simul sunt omnia, non diuersa, non separata, non inaequalia. 164  Cf. en. Ps. 61, 14 (CCSL 39, p. 783) : Memoratus sum haec, ‘et effudi super me animam meam’ [Ps. 41, 5]. Quaerens Deum meum, effudi super me animam meam, ut illum adtingerem ; non in me remansi. Ergo : ‘sperate in eum, omne concilium plebis. Effundite coram illo corda uestra’ [Ps. 61, 9], deprecando, confitendo, sperando. Nolite corda uestra retinere intra corda uestra : ‘Effundite coram illo corda uestra’ [Ps. 61, 9]. 165  Cf. en. Ps. 61, 20-22 (CCSL 39, p. 788-791).

256

isabelle bochet

la lecture des libri platonicorum, que les difficultés d’Augustin à propos du mal s’évanouirent166. Pour pouvoir dépasser l’obstacle que constitue l’expérience du mal, il faut en effet s’élever jusqu’au Verbe. Il est bien différent, toutefois, de trouver une réponse théorique à la question de l’origine du mal, comme Augustin à Milan, et de surmonter l’expérience de la haine et du mal infligé par des ennemis, comme Augustin l’évoque dans l’Enarratio in Psalmum 61. Dans ce cas, en effet, il est difficile de ne pas reprocher à Dieu d’être injuste167 ; on n’y résiste que si l’on comprend que Dieu lui-même est la source de toute justice et que l’homme injuste ne peut savoir ce qui est juste qu’en se tournant vers lui168. C’est donc en s’élevant jusqu’à Dieu, source de toute vie et de toute justice, qu’il devient possible de reconnaître sa propre ignorance et de croire que ce que Dieu a fait est juste, alors même que cela semble injuste169. Il y a donc un lien étroit entre le dépassement des ennemis, c’est-à-dire l’amour des ennemis et le désir de leur conversion, que décrit le début de l’enarratio, et le dépassement de toute créature pour atteindre Dieu, qui est évoqué dans la fin du commentaire. Le Commentaire du Psaume 61 utilise donc ponctuellement le schème d’anabase d’origine plotinienne, si souvent utilisé dans d’autres textes par Augustin ; il en est autrement de l’Enarratio in Psalmum 76, dans laquelle Augustin structure fortement l’itinéraire d’Idithun à partir de la distinction : foris/intus/supra me. Cette structuration de l’itinéraire va de pair avec une note plus personnelle, qui se distingue de la dimension ecclésiale très nette de l’Enarratio in Psalmum 61.

Cf. conf. 7, 10, 16-16, 22 (BA 13, p. 614-627). Cf. en Ps. 61, 21 (CCSL  39, p. 789) : Nam ecce reprehendis Deum quasi de iniquitate […]. 168  Cf.  en. Ps. 61, 21 (CCSL 39, p. 789) : Vnde hoc iustum ? Itane non habet fontem suum ? A te tibi est quod iustum est, et tu tibi potes dare iustitiam ? Nemo sibi dat quod non habet. Ergo cum sis iniustus, esse non potes iustus, nisi conuertendo te ad quamdam iustitiam manentem ; a qua si recedis, iniustus es ; ad quam si accedis, iustus es. 169  Cf. en. Ps. 61, 21 (CCSL 39, p. 789) : Habet ergo fontem iustitiae Deus. Noli ibi quaerere iniquitatem, ubi lux sine umbra est. Sed plane latere te potest causa. Si latet te causa, respice ignorantiam tuam, uide qui sis ; (p. 790) : Putabamus iniustum esse nescio quid : ex hoc quia fecit Deus, crede iustum esse. 166  167 

    le commentaire augustinien des psaumes pour idithun 257

4. L’Enarratio in Psalmum 76 Selon les exégètes contemporains, le Psaume 76 (77) est clairement divisé en deux parties juxtaposées : une lamentation individuelle qui décrit une crise personnelle, dans les versets 2 à 11 et un hymne qui rappelle l’histoire du salut, dans les versets 12 à 21170. La Septante, en traduisant par des aoristes les verbes des versets 2, 4, 7 et 12a, déplace la situation évoquée par le Psaume dans le passé : la prière apparaît déjà exaucée et la rupture entre les deux parties du psaume qui est sensible dans la version hébraïque est, de ce fait, fortement atténuée171. On remarque aussi la triple répétition aux versets 4,  6-7 et 12-13, des verbes μιμνήσκω (se souvenir) et ἀδολεσχέω (bavarder) qui structure le Psaume. Elle se trouve également dans le Psautier latin utilisé par Augustin : au triple memor fui (v. 4, 6 et 12), fait écho la triple mention de garrire172 (v. 4 : garriui ; v. 7 : garriebam ; v. 13 : garriam). Il n’est guère étonnant qu’Augustin s’appuie sur cette répétition pour distinguer les différentes étapes de l’itinéraire d’Idithun. Après avoir commenté brièvement le titre du Psaume (§ 1), Augustin expose le cri d’Idithun et sa recherche de Dieu (§ 2-4, commentant les v. 2-3c) ; il décrit alors trois étapes de l’itinéraire d’Idithun (§ 5-14, commentant les v. 3d-13) ; le commentaire de la fin du Psaume (v. 14-21) explique quelles sont les merveilles de Dieu, autrement dit l’œuvre du salut (§ 15-22). a. Qui est Idithun ? Augustin invite « quiconque veut sentir, imiter, posséder l’esprit de ce psaume » à dépasser comme Idithun tous les désirs de la chair pour tendre vers la fin, c’est-à-dire vers le Christ173. Idithun est 170  Cf. F.-L. Hossfeld, «  Psalm 77 », dans Psalms 2 : a Commentary on Psalms 51-100, p. 273-281 ; voir ici p. 274 et 276. 171  Ibid., p. 280-281. 172  Cette traduction n’est pas celle du Psautier romain qui traduit ἀδολεσχεῖν par exercitari ou par se exerceri (v.  4 : exercitatus sum ; v. 7 : exercitabar ; v. 13 : me exercebor). 173  Cf. en. Ps. 76, 1 (CCSL 39, p. 1052) : Quisquis ergo Psalmi huius animum sentire, imitari, tenere uult, omnia desideria carnalia transiliat, saeculique huius pompam et illecebram calcet, nihilque sibi aliud proponat ubi consistat, nisi ex quo sunt omnia ; in quibus omnibus etiam ipse laborat donec ad finem perueniat.

258

isabelle bochet

transiliens, parce qu’il ne cherche rien d’autre que Dieu174. Tout véritable chercheur de Dieu peut donc s’identifier à Idithun et Augustin exhorte expressément ses auditeurs à faire comme Idithun, c’est-à-dire à rentrer en eux-mêmes, pour y agir dans le silence, sonder leur propre esprit, méditer sur les années éternelles et se réjouir des œuvres de Dieu ; et cela, non seulement, quand ils écoutent le psaume à l’église, mais aussi une fois au-dehors175. On ne s’étonne pas, de ce fait, de découvrir dans le commentaire des notes qui portent la marque d’une expérience personnelle d’Augustin. Ainsi, lorsqu’il mentionne la joie trouvée par Idithun en « quelque homme de Dieu » et la déception éprouvée peu après, il semble faire écho à sa propre expérience : « Déjà peut-être avait-il éprouvé un grand tourment au sujet de beaucoup de ces hommes et cela d’autant plus qu’il avait présumé trouver en eux quelque joie. Car quelquefois, des hommes paraissent justes et on se réjouit à leur sujet ; il est nécessaire de se réjouir, puisque la charité ne peut être telle sans joie ; mais, parmi ces hommes au sujet desquels on s’est réjoui, si par hasard l’un d’eux est venu à tomber en quelque faute, comme cela arrive souvent, autant on avait éprouvé de joie, autant on est frappé de tristesse ; de sorte que plus tard on craindra désormais de lâcher la bride à ses joies, on craindra de laisser libre cours à son allégresse, de peur d’être d’autant plus anéanti, si quelque chose arrive, que l’on s’était davantage réjoui176. »

Cf. en. Ps. 76, 3 (CCSL 39, p. 1054) : Vis esse transiliens ? In die tribulationis tuae Deum exquire : non per Deum aliud, sed ex tribulatione Deum. 175  Cf.  en. Ps. 76, 13 (CCSL 39, p. 1061) : Habemus enim et nos cubile nostrum. Quare non illuc intramus ? Quare non in silentio agimus ? Quare non spiritum nostrum perscrutamur ? Quare annos aeternos non cogitamus ? Quare in operibus Dei non laetamur ? Sic nunc audiamus, et ipso dicente delectemur, ut etiam cum hinc abierimus, faciamus quod ipso loquente faciebamus. 176  En. Ps. 76, 6 (CCSL 39, p. 1056) : In multis iam forte iste expertus erat magnam tribulationem, quo magis de illorum aliqua delectatione praesumserat. Videntur enim aliquando iusti homines, et gaudetur ad eos ; et necesse est ut gaudeatur, quoniam caritas sine gaudio talis esse non potest ; in his autem in quibus gauisus est homo, si forte aliquid prauum contigerit, quomodo saepe contingit, quanta laetitia ibi erat, tantus maeror accedit ; ita ut postea iam timeat homo laxare habenas gaudiorum, timeat se laetitiae committere, ne quanto magis laetatus fuerat, tanto amplius si aliquid contigerit, contabescat. 174 

    le commentaire augustinien des psaumes pour idithun 259

Le texte pourrait faire écho à l’affaire Pinianus177. On se souvient que Pinianus et son épouse Mélanie, qui avaient choisi de vivre la vie des serviteurs de Dieu, séjournaient à Thagaste au cours de l’hiver 410-411 : ils avaient fait don à l’église de Thagaste des sommes importantes résultant de la vente de leurs biens. Ils rendirent visite à Augustin à Hippone au printemps 411. On sait comment la foule réclama alors à grands cris Pinianus comme prêtre, en espérant sans aucun doute bénéficier aussi de ses richesses ! La Lettre 126 relate très précisément tous les détails de la scène qui eut lieu dans la cathédrale d’Hippone, en présence d’Alypius : comme Pinianus ne voulait pas être ordonné, la foule ne revint au calme que lorsqu’elle eut obtenu de lui le serment de s’installer à Hippone et, au cas où il se déciderait finalement à devenir prêtre, de recevoir la cléricature au sein de l’église d’Hippone178. Mais Pinianus ne s’installa pas à Hippone179… Dans sa lettre à Albina, la mère de Mélanie, Augustin s’efforce de répondre aux soupçons qu’elle entretient à l’encontre du peuple d’Hippone et à son encontre : elle les soupçonne d’avoir fait pression sur Pinianus par attachement à l’argent180. Il explique également à Albina que Pinianus, n’ayant pas fait ce serment sous la contrainte, serait parjure s’il ne décidait pas de revenir à Hippone181. On a de bonnes raisons de penser que Pinianus est pour Augustin un exemple de ces hommes dont l’attitude attriste d’autant plus qu’on avait éprouvé plus de joie devant le bien qu’ils avaient fait182 .

177  Pour un résumé de l’affaire, voir S. Lancel, Saint Augustin, Paris, 1999, p. 440-442 ; A. Mandouze, Saint Augustin. L’aventure de la raison et de la grâce, Paris, 1968, p. 629-634. 178  Cf. ep. 126, 1-5 (CSEL 44, p. 7-11).  179  Cf. ep. 126, 6 (CSEL 44, p. 11-12). 180  Cf. ep. 126, 7-8 (CSEL 44, p. 12-14). 181  Cf.  ep. 126, 13 (CSEL 44, p. 18)  : Expectationem autem eorum, quibus iuratur, quisquis deceperit, non potest esse non periurus. 182  Cf.  ep. 124, 1 (CSEL 44, p. 1) : Quid enim graue ac molestum uel etiam periculosum habent imbres isti, quod non mihi subeundum ac ferendum fuit, ut ad uos uenirem, tanta in tantis malis nostris solatia, in hac generatione tortuosa ac peruersa tam ardenter accensa de summo lumine lumina suscepta humilitate sublimia et contempta claritate clariora ?

260

isabelle bochet

La seconde partie du commentaire considère Asaph183, c’est-àdire l’assemblée comme étant elle-même transiliens184, mais sans expliciter davantage cette dimension ecclésiale185, comme le fait l’Enarratio in Psalmum 61. b. Quel dépassement ? Les trois étapes de l’itinéraire d’Idithun sont très clairement distinguées186 à l’occasion de la troisième mention de garrire au verset 13 du Psaume : « ‘Et je méditerai sur toutes tes œuvres, et je parlerai sans mesure selon tes affections’ [Ps. 76, 13]. Voici pour la troisième fois : ‘parler sans mesure’. Il a parlé sans mesure au-dehors, quand il est tombé ; il a parlé sans mesure à l’intérieur, en son propre esprit, quand il a progressé ; il a parlé sans mesure dans les œuvres de Dieu quand il est parvenu au lieu vers lequel il a progressé. ‘Et je parlerai sans mesure selon tes affections’ [Ps. 76, 13], non selon mes propres affections187. » 183  Sur l’interprétation du nom d’Asaph par Augustin, voir I. Bochet, « Augustin et les Psaumes d’Asaph », dans Judaïsme et christianisme dans les commentaires patristiques des Psaumes, éd. M.-A.  Vannier, Bern, 2015, p. 93-125 ; voir ici p. 99-102. 184  Cf. en. Ps. 76, 16 (CCSL 39, p. 1062) : Inde congregatio ista, Asaph transiliens, quia notam fecit in populis uirtutem suam. L’affirmation fait écho à celle du § 1 (p. 1052) : Asaph interpretatur congregatio. Loquitur hic ergo congregatio transiliens, ut perueniat ad finem qui est Christus Iesus. 185  Vouloir découvrir un « dépassement de l’intériorité vers la communauté dans l’Enarratio in Psalmum 76 », comme le fait J. Garcia, n’est donc pas très satisfaisant : de fait, l’auteur utilise d’autres textes que l’en. Ps. 76 pour décrire la dimension ecclésiale (cf. « Le dépassement de l’intériorité vers la communauté » [n. 7], p. 155-159). 186  La distinction est déjà annoncée en en. Ps. 76, 9 (CCSL 39, p. 1059) : il est différent de parler sans mesure quasi foris et de le faire intus ; mais il faut encore dépasser cette étape et « ne pas demeurer en son propre esprit ». Elle est plus explicite encore en en. Ps. 76, 13 (p. 1060) : Garriebat enim foris, et contristatus inde defecit spiritus eius ; garriuit intus cum corde suo, et cum spiritu suo, et perscrutatus eumdem spiritum suum, memor fuit annorum aeternorum, memor fuit misericordiae domini, quia non repellet dominus in aeternum ; et coepit iam in eius operibus securus gaudere, securus exsultare. 187  En. Ps. 76, 14 (CCSL 39, p. 1061) : ‘Et meditabor in omnibus operibus tuis, et in affectionibus tuis garriam’ [Ps. 76, 13]. Ecce tertium garrire. Garriuit foris, quando defecit ; garriuit in spiritu suo intus, quando profecit ; garriuit in operibus Dei, quando peruenit quo profecit. ‘Et in affectionibus tuis garriam’ [Ps. 76, 13], non in affectionibus meis.

    le commentaire augustinien des psaumes pour idithun 261

Garriuit foris, quando defecit ; garriuit in spiritu suo intus, quando profecit ; garriuit in operibus Dei, quando peruenit quo profecit. Il est difficile de rendre la force du latin dans la traduction française. Foris, intus, in operibus Dei : à ces trois manières bien distinctes de « parler sans mesure », correspondent trois effets bien différents, defecit, profecit, peruenit, c’est-à-dire la chute, le progrès, l’arrivée au but. Le texte même du Psaume suggérait une telle distinction. Le verset 4 associe garriui à defecit spiritus meus ; les versets 6 et 7 évoquent le retour sur soi du psalmiste qui scrute son propre esprit (garriebam et scrutabar spiritum meum) ; dans les versets 12 et 13, le psalmiste considère désormais les merveilles de Dieu et ses œuvres (et meditabor in omnibus operibus tuis et in affectionibus tuis garriam). Les trois étapes distinguées par Augustin dans l’enarratio ont une certaine analogie avec la dialectique des degrés, que l’on trouve dans les expériences de Milan et d’Ostie que relatent les Confessions188 ou encore dans l’Enarratio in Psalmum 41189 et la 20e Homélie sur l’Évangile de Jean190. Dans ces différents textes, en effet, la quête de Dieu part des réalités visibles et corporelles, elle se poursuit dans l’âme, puis au-delà de l’âme afin de « toucher » Dieu en quelque façon191. Mais, à la différence de l’Enarratio in Psalmum 76, ces récits d’expérience vive de Dieu mentionnent souvent plusieurs tentatives pour l’atteindre et sont habituellement suivies d’une retombée qui fait gémir l’âme192 . La particularité de l’Enarratio in Psalmum 76 est de décrire un autre type d’expérience de Dieu : celle du chrétien, ou plus spécifiquement du pasteur, qui est confronté à la tribulation dans sa relation aux autres, mais qui fait l’expérience d’une consolation, d’une joie telle qu’il ne peut ni ne veut se taire. C’est là proprement ce que désigne le verbe garrire, comme l’explique Augustin : « Que signifie : ‘j’ai parlé sans mesure’ [Ps. 76, 4] ? Je me suis réjoui, j’ai donné libre cours à ma joie en parlant. On appelle en Cf. conf. 7, 17, 23 (BA 13, p. 628-631) ; 9, 10, 24-25 (BA 14, p. 116-121). Cf. en. Ps. 41, 7-8 (CCSL 38, p. 464-466). 190  Cf. Io. eu. tr. 20, 11-13 (BA 72, p. 254-261). 191  Voir l’analyse des textes dans S. Poque, « L’expression de l’anabase plotinienne » [n. 14], p. 189-195. 192  Ibid., p. 196. 188  189 

262

isabelle bochet effet au sens propre volubiles [garruli], ceux qui sont vulgairement appelés bavards [uerbosi], car dans un accès de joie, ils ne peuvent ni ne veulent se taire193. »

Le progrès se fait donc ici d’une consolation qui pousse à parler sans mesure à une autre ; la consolation vient toujours de Dieu, mais, à la première étape, elle conduit à laisser libre cours à sa parole face aux autres, ce qui donne prise aux accusations de ses ennemis194 et à la tentation de chercher à plaire aux hommes195 ; à la seconde étape, la joie est intérieure et déborde en paroles au-dedans, ce qui paraît plus sûr, mais il y a un danger aussi à se taire, car cela est un mal de taire le bien196 ; à la troisième étape, enfin, Idithun commence à se réjouir en toute sécurité dans les œuvres de Dieu et à se livrer sans aucune crainte à l’allégresse197, car « [se] réjouir dans les œuvres de Dieu, c’est [s’]oublier [soi] aussi, si [l’on] peut trouver [sa] joie en lui seul198 ». Précisons davantage ces trois étapes, telles qu’Augustin les découvre dans le psaume. 1) « Garriuit foris, quando defecit » Pourquoi donc Idithun dit-il : « Mon âme a refusé d’être consolée  » (Ps. 76, 3)  ? Augustin explique le dégoût d’Idithun, non par quelque souci temporel, mais par une cause spirituelle qu’il découvre dans un autre psaume : « Le dégoût m’a saisi en voyant les pécheurs abandonner ta Loi199 » (Ps. 118, 53). Le refus d’être 193  En. Ps. 76, 6 (CCSL 39, p. 1057) : Quid est : ‘garriui’ [Ps. 76, 4] ? Laetatus sum, exsultaui loquendo. Garruli enim proprie dicuntur, qui a uulgo uerbosi appellantur, accedente laetitia nec ualentes nec uolentes tacere. 194  Cf.  en. Ps. 76, 7 (CCSL  39, p. 1057)  : Denique in ipsa garrulitate, dum loqueris, et securus loqueris, quanta plerumque inueniuntur quae uelint tenere inimici et reprehendere, unde uelint etiam criminari et calumniari : hoc dixit, illud sensit, hoc locutus est ? 195  Cf. en. Ps. 76, 7 (CCSL 39, p. 1058) : A garrulitate […], qua subrepserat ei de ipsa locutione placere hominibus. 196  Cf.  en. Ps. 76, 10 (CCSL 39, p. 1059) : Nusquam ergo securus. Tacere illi malum erat, ne sileret a bonis […]. 197  Cf.  en. Ps. 76, 13 (CCSL 39, p. 1060)  : Et coepit iam in eius operibus securus gaudere, securus exsultare. 198  Cf. en. Ps. 76, 13 (CCSL 39, p. 1061) : Gaudere in operibus Dei, est obliuisci et te, si potes illo solo delectari. 199  Cf.  en. Ps. 76, 5 (CCSL  39, p. 1056) : ‘Negauit consolari anima mea’ [Ps. 76, 3]. Tantum taedium hic me occupauit, ut contra omnem consolationem clau-

    le commentaire augustinien des psaumes pour idithun 263

consolé suppose, toutefois, qu’Idithun a fait préalablement l’expérience de la consolation, mais d’une consolation qui s’est révélée vaine : Augustin donne ici l’exemple de la joie éprouvée devant la justice de quelqu’un, qui vient ensuite à tomber en quelque faute200. Idithun, explique Augustin, s’est donc refusé à une consolation humaine comme celle-là ; sa consolation lui est venue du « grand consolateur », c’est-à-dire de Dieu, comme le précise le verset 4 : « Je me suis souvenu de Dieu et j’ai été rempli de joie201 ». C’est cette consolation qui le conduit à « parler sans mesure », mais c’est pour connaître aussitôt l’abattement (garriui et defecit spiritus meus). Cet abattement, Augustin l’explique par les pièges tendus par les ennemis, en s’inspirant du verset 5 – « Tous mes ennemis m’ont prévenu par leurs veilles » : qu’il s’agisse des pièges du démon ou des calomnies des hommes, qui prennent prétexte des paroles d’Idithun pour l’accuser202 . 2) « Garriuit in spiritu suo intus, quando profecit » Idithun ne cesse pas d’être « celui qui dépasse » : il s’efforce donc de franchir ce premier obstacle203. Comment ? En rentrant en luimême et en méditant « dans un grand silence » les années éternelles, comme le précise le verset suivant du psaume : « J’ai pensé aux anciens jours et je me suis souvenu des années éternelles204 ». deret se anima mea. Huic tali unde taedium ? Fortasse quia uinea grandinata est, aut quia olea non prouenit, aut quia uindemia a pluuia intercepta est. Vnde huic taedium ? Audi hoc ex alio Psalmo. Ipsius enim et ibi uox est : ‘Taedium detinuit me, a peccatoribus relinquentibus legem tuam’ [Ps. 118, 53]. 200  Cf. en. Ps. 76, 6 (CCSL 39, p. 1056), cité supra, n. 176. 201  Cf. en. Ps. 76, 6 (CCSL 39, p. 1056) : Non frustra manus operatae fuerant ; inuenerant magnum consolatorem. Non quiescendo ‘memor fui Dei et delectatus sum’ [Ps. 76, 4]. Praedicandus igitur est Deus, cuius iste memor factus delectatus est, et consolatus in quadam tristitia, et quodammodo salute desperata recreatus ». Jérôme remarque que le texte hébreu dit autre chose : In hebraico aliter habet : ‘Memor fui Dei et conturbatus sum’ » (Tract. Ps. 76 [CCSL 78, p. 56]). 202  Cf. en. Ps. 76, 7 (CCSL 39, p. 1057), cité supra, n. 194 et 64. 203  Cf.  en. Ps. 76, 7 (CCSL 39, p. 1058)  : Numquam tamen iste transiliens cessaret in se ; […] non tamen destitit, non cessauit ut conaretur et hoc ipsum transcendere. 204  Cf.  en. Ps. 76, 8 (CCSL 39, p. 1058) : Ita sit ei bene secum, adiuuet Deus : cogitet dies antiquos, et dicat nobis in ipso interiore cubiculo suo quid egerit, quo peruenerit, quid transilierit, ubi manserit : ‘cogitaui dies antiquos, et annorum

264

isabelle bochet

Pour faire comprendre que ces années éternelles sont « des années stables, des années qui ne sont pas accomplies par des jours qui viennent et qui s’en vont », Augustin explique, par contraste, que le propre du temps est de passer : qu’il s’agisse d’une année, d’un jour, d’une heure, ou même d’un moment205. Cette méditation intérieure des années éternelles conduit à nouveau Idithun à « parler sans mesure », non au-dehors (foris), comme précédemment, mais au-dedans (intus206), dans une sorte de dialogue avec lui-même. Comme l’explique Augustin, « il scrutait son esprit, il s’entretenait avec son propre esprit et, dans cet entretien, il parlait sans mesure. Il s’interrogeait lui-même, il s’examinait lui-même, il était son juge au-dedans de lui-même207 ». Augustin indique toutefois aussitôt que ce second garrire n’est pas sans risque. Idithun, certes, n’est plus sujet à la critique de ses ennemis : « personne ne lui dit : ‘tu as mal parlé’ ; personne ne lui dit : ‘tu as beaucoup parlé’ ; personne ne lui dit : ‘tu as eu des sentiments coupables’208 » ; mais il risque de rester en lui-même au lieu de continuer à chercher Dieu. « ‘Je scrutais mon esprit’. Il faut craindre qu’il ne demeure en son propre esprit ; il a parlé sans mesure au-dehors [foris] ; et parce que tous ses ennemis l’ont prévenu par leurs veilles, il a trouvé là la tristesse et son esprit a défailli. Celui qui parlait sans mesure au-dehors [foris], voici qu’il commence à parler sans mesure au-dedans [intus] avec sécurité, là où, seul dans le silence, il médite les années éternelles : ‘Et je scrutais profondément’, dit-il, ‘mon esprit’. Ici il faut craindre qu’il ne demeure en son propre esprit et qu’il ne soit pas celui qui dépasse [transiliens]. Cependant il fait déjà mieux qu’il ne faisait au-dehors. Il a franchi quelque chose : aeternorum memor fui’ [Ps. 76, 6]. Qui sunt anni aeterni ? Magna cogitatio. Videte si uult ista cogitatio, nisi magnum silentium. 205  Cf.  en. Ps. 76, 8 (CCSL 39, p. 1058)  : Anni isti mutabiles sunt ; anni aeterni cogitandi sunt, anni qui stant, qui non uenientibus et abeuntibus diebus peraguntur ; anni de quibus alio loco scriptura dicit Deo : ‘tu autem idem ipse es, et anni tui non deficient’ [Ps. 101, 28]. 206  Sur ce couple dans l’œuvre d’Augustin, voir N. Fischer, «  Foris – intus », Augustinus-Lexikon, éd. C. Mayer, t. 3, Basel, 2004, col. 37-45. 207  En. Ps. 76, 9 (CCSL 39, p. 1059) : Scrutabatur iste spiritum suum, et cum ipso spiritu suo loquebatur, et in ipsa locutione garriebat. Seipsum interrogabat, seipsum examinabat, in se iudex erat. 208  En. Ps. 76, 8 (CCSL  39, p. 1058) : Nemo illi dicit : male dixisti ; nemo illi dicit : multum locutus es ; nemo illi dicit : peruerse sensisti.

    le commentaire augustinien des psaumes pour idithun 265 voyons de là où il est arrivé. Qu’il ne cesse pas d’être celui qui dépasse, jusqu’à ce qu’il arrive ‘à la fin’, d’où le psaume tire son titre. ‘Je parlais sans mesure’, dit-il, ‘et je scrutais mon esprit’ 209. »

3) « Garriuit in operibus Dei, quando peruenit quo profecit » Ce qui rend possible ce nouveau dépassement, c’est la considération de la miséricorde de Dieu210, comme Augustin le déduit des versets 8 à 10 du psaume qui opposent la colère de Dieu à sa miséricorde. Il les lit à la lumière d’Is. 57, 16-18 : un texte qu’il cite rarement par ailleurs211 et qui lui permet ici de souligner que la colère de Dieu ne dure qu’un temps et que le Seigneur guérit celui qu’il a frappé et attristé à cause de son péché. « Quand Idithun a su cela, il s’est élancé aussi au-dessus de luimême et s’est réjoui en Dieu, afin d’être en lui et de donner davantage libre cours à sa parole au sujet de ses œuvres : non en son propre esprit, non en ce qu’il était, mais en celui par qui il avait été fait. De là, donc, ‘celui qui dépasse’ monte [transiliens transcendit]. Voyez-le qui dépasse, voyez s’il s’arrête quelque part jusqu’à ce qu’il parvienne à Dieu 212 . »

209  En. Ps. 76, 9 (CCSL 39, p. 1059) : Timendum ne in ipso spiritu suo remaneat ; garriuit enim foris ; et quia anticipauerunt uigilias omnes inimici eius, inuenit ibi tristitiam, et defecit spiritus eius. Qui garriebat foris, ecce coepit intus garrire securus, ubi solus in silentio cogitat annos aeternos : ‘et perscrutabar, inquit, spiritum meum’ [Ps. 76, 7]. Et hic timendum ne in spiritu suo remaneat, et non sit transiliens. Iam tamen melius agit quam foris agebat. Transcendit aliquid : et hinc uideamus quo. Non enim cessat iste transiliens, donec ueniat in finem [Ps. 76, 1], unde habet titulum Psalmus : ‘Garriebam, inquit, et scrutabar spiritum meum’ [Ps. 76, 7]. 210  En. Ps. 76, 11 (CCSL 39, p. 1060) : ‘Aut in finem misericordiam abscidet a generatione in generationem ? Aut obliuiscetur misereri Deus ?’ [Ps. 76, 9] In te, a te, in alterum nulla est misericordia, nisi eam tibi Deus donet ; et ipse Deus obliuiscetur misericordiam ? Riuus currit ; fons ipse siccabitur ? ; 15 (p. 1061) : Inspicit iam opera misericordiae Dei circa nos, ex his garrit, et in his affectionibus exsultat. 211  Augustin cite souvent Is. 57, 16a : Spiritus enim a me procedet et omnem flatum ego feci, mais non la suite. Les versets 16-17 sont cités en en. Ps. 42, 3 (CCSL 38, p. 476) et en. Ps. 101, 1, 5 (CCSL 40, p. 1429). 212  Cf. en. Ps. 76, 11 (CCSL 39, p. 1060) : Hoc ubi cognouit iste, transcendit et se delectatus in Deo, ut ubi esset, et in eius operibus magis garriret ; non in spiritu suo, non in eo quod erat, sed in eo a quo factus erat. Et hinc ergo transiliens transcendit. Videte transilientem, uidete si remaneat alicubi quousque perueniat ad Deum.

266

isabelle bochet

C’est là l’étape décisive, comme l’indique le verset 11 du psaume : « Maintenant je commence : ce changement vient de la droite du Très-Haut ». Idithun est désormais vraiment en sécurité, puisqu’il n’est plus en lui-même mais en Dieu, et il peut se réjouir sans mesure des œuvres divines213. Augustin commente alors la suite du psaume, qui célèbre les œuvres de Dieu qui font la joie d’Idithun : le dessein de Dieu qui a envoyé le Christ pour sauver les nations, alors qu’Israël n’a pas su le reconnaître214. La « voie » mentionnée au verset 14 ne peut être en effet que le Christ lui-même, comme le confirme la citation de Ioh. 14, 6 : « Moi, je suis la voie, la vérité et la vie215 ». Les merveilles opérées par Dieu (Ps. 76, 15) sont certes les miracles corporels (la guérison des sourds, des aveugles, des malades ; la résurrection des morts), mais aussi la conversion des âmes (le passage de l’ivrognerie à la sobriété ou de l’idolâtrie à la foi ; la décision de donner ses biens

213  Cf.  en. Ps. 76, 12 (CCSL 39, p. 1060) : Modo me coepit mutare excelsus ; modo coepi aliquid, ubi securus sim, modo intraui aliquam aulam gaudiorum, ubi nullus timeatur inimicus, modo coepi esse in ea regione, ubi non anticipent uigilias omnes inimici mei : ‘Nunc coepi ; haec est immutatio dexterae excelsi’ [Ps. 76, 11]. Augustin comprend que le changement mentionné par le psaume est le changement d’Idithun qui est l’œuvre de Dieu ; Jérôme voit dans cette mutatio dexterae excelsi une référence à l’Incarnation : ‘Et dixi, nunc coepi : haec mutatio dexterae excelsi’. ‘Qui cum in forma Dei esset constitutus, non rapinam arbitratus est esse se aequalem Deo, sed exinaniuit semetipsum, formam serui accipiens’ [Phil. 2, 6-7] (Tract. Ps. 76 [CCSL  78, p. 58]). Il en est de même d’Origène dans l’Homélie  II sur le Psaume 76, 2 2 (GCS 19, p. 315) : « Je ne connais pas d’autre ‘droite du Très Haut’ que mon Seigneur et Sauveur Jésus Christ ; c’est la main droite de Dieu, Jésus Christ, lui qui, quand il était ‘dans la forme de Dieu’, ne changeait pas, mais était ce qu’il était ; mais quand, n’ayant pas considéré ‘comme sa proie l’égalité avec Dieu, il se vida lui-même’ [Phil. 2, 6-7], il changea, afin que par ce changement de la droite et, si je puis dire, cette transformation et cet abaissement vers les réalités humaines, nous recevions un bienfait et un profit, nous les hommes » (trad. A.  Le Boulluec, dans « La polémique contre les hérésies dans les Homélies sur les Psaumes d’Origène (Codex Monacensis Graecus 314) », Adamantius, 20 [2014], p. 256-274 ; voir ici p. 265). 214  Cf. en. Ps. 76, 15-22 (CCSL 39, p. 1060-1066). 215  Cf.  en. Ps. 76, 15 (CCSL 39, p. 1061) : Primo inde coepit : ‘In sancto uia tua’ [Ps. 76, 14]. Quae uia tua in sancto ? ‘Ego sum’, inquit, ‘uia, ueritas et uita’ [Ioh. 14, 6]. […] Ad ipsum ergo adtendamus, Christum adtendamus ; ibi uia eius : ‘Deus, in sancto uia tua’ [Ps. 76, 14].

    le commentaire augustinien des psaumes pour idithun 267

aux pauvres, etc.)216 ; la transformation d’Idithun en est aussi un exemple217. La « force » que Dieu a fait connaître parmi les peuples (selon le verset 15) est encore identifiée par Augustin au Christ, grâce à l’association avec I Cor. 1, 23-24 218. La distinction opérée par le psaume entre « les enfants d’Israël et les enfants de Joseph » (Ps. 76, 16) conduit le prédicateur à distinguer, dans la fin du psaume, le peuple des Gentils figuré par Joseph et le peuple des Hébreux figuré par Israël 219 : les Gentils ont été convertis par la prédication des apôtres220 ; les Juifs, en revanche, « n’ont pas voulu que le Christ soit leur sauveur221 » et n’ont pas su reconnaître ce que Dieu avait fait pour eux. Foris, intus, in operibus Dei : les trois étapes distinguées par Augustin s’apparentent certes aux trois temps caractéristiques de la dialectique des degrés (foris, intus, supra me) ; mais le contenu même de ces trois étapes est bien différent, car il ne s’agit plus ici d’un moment privilégié d’élévation vers Dieu, mais de tout un itinéraire vécu par celui dont le souci est de faire connaître le Christ.

216  Cf.  en. Ps. 76, 16 (CCSL  39, p. 1062)  : ‘Tu es Deus qui facis mirabilia solus’ [Ps. 76, 15]. Tu uere magnus Deus, faciens mirabilia in corpore, in anima, solus faciens. Audierunt surdi, uiderunt caeci, conualuerunt languidi, surrexerunt mortui, constricti sunt paralytici. Sed miracula ista tunc in corporibus : uideamus in anima. Sobrii sunt, paulo ante ebriosi ; fideles sunt, paulo ante adoratores simulacrorum ; res suas donant pauperibus, qui alienas ante rapiebant. 217  Ibid. : Nam ut etiam transiliret, et ad ista perueniret, miraculum Dei fuit ; quando intus garriuit cum spiritu suo, ut transiliret et ipsum spiritum suum, et in Dei operibus delectaretur, ipse ibi fecit mirabilia. 218  Ibid. :  ‘Notam fecisti in populis uirtutem tuam’ [Ps. 76, 15]. […] Quam uirtutem suam notam fecit in populis ? ‘Nos autem praedicamus Christum crucifixum : Iudaeis quidem scandalum, gentibus autem stultitiam ; ipsis autem uocatis Iudaeis, et Graecis, Christum Dei uirtutem, et Dei sapientiam’ [I Cor. 1, 23-24]. Si ergo uirtus Dei Christus, notum fecit Christum in populis. 219  Cf.  en. Ps. 76, 17 (CCSL  39, p. 1063) : Ergo Ioseph populus ex gentibus ; Israel uero populus ex gente Hebraeorum. Jérôme fait la même distinction : ‘Filios Jacob et Joseph.’ Vtrumque populum, et Iudaeorum, et Christianorum : Iacob, in populo Iudaeorum, et Ioseph, in populo gentium (Tract. Ps. 76 [CCSL 78, p. 59]). 220  Cf. en. Ps. 76, 18-21 (CCSL 39, p. 1063-1065). 221  Cf.  en. Ps. 76, 22 (CCSL 39, p. 1065)  : Vnde ‘in mari est uia tua’ [Ps. 76, 20], nisi quia exclusa est a terra tua ? Expulerunt Christum, noluerunt esse suum saluatorem aegri ; ille autem coepit esse in gentibus, et in omnibus gentibus, in multis populis.

268

isabelle bochet

5. Conclusion Les Enarrationes in Psalmos 38, 61 et 76 ont une indéniable parenté thématique et constituent sans aucun doute un ensemble de prédications peu distantes dans le temps. Le Commentaire du Psaume  61 a certainement suivi d’assez près le Commentaire du Psaume  38 : sinon Augustin ne pourrait guère renvoyer ses auditeurs à son explication antérieure du nom d’Idithun. Il se peut que le Commentaire du Psaume 76 soit un peu plus distant des deux autres : Augustin n’y a plus le souci de s’en tenir à la signification précise du nom Idithun, transiliens eos. Le point commun de ces trois enarrationes est d’associer au thème classique de l’ascension vers Dieu celui du dépassement des ennemis ou des obstacles qui entravent la tâche du prédicateur et du pasteur. Celui-ci est « entre-deux » : entre le pauvre et Dieu, entre le non-être et l’être, entre l’imperfection et la perfection, comme le montre l’Enarratio in Psalmum 38. L’Enarratio in Psalmum  61 le décrit participant aux souffrances du Christ pour son corps qui est l’Église et partageant sa soif face aux pécheurs. L’Enarratio in Psalmum 76 enfin évoque l’alternance des moments de consolation et de tristesse qu’il traverse, jusqu’à ce qu’il trouve sa joie dans la contemplation des œuvres de Dieu. Le schème d’anabase d’origine plotinienne est absent de l’Enarratio in Psalmum 38 ; il surgit ponctuellement à la fin de l’Enarratio in Psalmum 61, quand Augustin évoque la contemplation du Verbe ; il semble en revanche structurer l’itinéraire d’Idithun que décrit l’Enarratio in Psalmum 76, mais la perspective adoptée en modifie profondément la portée. Quoi qu’il en soit de ces variations, on ne peut que constater la forte unité thématique de ces trois commentaires augustiniens ; la place donnée au nom « Idithun » comme clé d’interprétation des Psaumes 38, 61 et 76, en fait un ensemble très original dans la tradition patristique.

Christology, Ascent, and Augustine’s Idithun Enarrationes Kevin G. Grove, CSC (University of Notre Dame) 1. Introduction: interiority, ascent, and Christology Augustine is commonly credited with bequeathing to Western intellectual thought a rich understanding of interiority, forged in his conviction of the superiority of the goodness of the soul (interior) over the goodness of the body (exterior).1 While that claim is broadly accepted, scholarly articulations of it often produce onesided treatments of self-as-interiority which neglect the manner in which Augustine’s Christology reorders exteriority, not only of the physical body but also of one’s relation to others and creation.2 Augustine is clear in his Enarrationes in Psalmos, hereafter en. Ps., that both the soul and the body are good, a position that emerged as his thinking became – in the broadest sense – more scriptural and less Platonic. John Rist attributes Augustine’s eventual position on the goodness of the body to texts like Eph. 5, 29, “No one hates his own flesh,” which appears in the first book of De Doctrina Christiana, hereafter doctr. chr. (1, 24, 25). See below (section 3) for Augustine’s treatment of the topic in the context of Psalm 145. J. Rist, Augustine: Ancient Thought Baptized, Cambridge, 1994, p. 109. 2  Augustine’s treatment of interiority has made him an appealing thinker for research on subjectivity. Secondary scholarship concerning Augustine’s conception of selfhood often describes the turn inward as the way of moving from “lower” to “higher” (Charles Taylor’s formulation) and as evidence of an interior or subjective space. A similar line is followed by Phillip Cary and Brian Stock. Such an interiorized understanding of Augustine’s sense of selfhood, however, has been increasingly critiqued. At the forefront of that critique is John Cavadini’s “The Darkest Enigma: Reconsidering the Self in Augustine’s Thought,” which has become a helpful corrective to freighting the Latin ipse (translated to “self” in English) with a stability Augustine would not have assigned to it. Augustine’s inner man was not a stable refuge, 1 

Praedicatio Patrum. Studies on Preaching in late Antique North Africa, edited by Gert Partoens, Anthony Dupont, Shari Boodts, Turnhout, 2017 (Instrumenta Patris­ tica et Mediaeualia, 75), p. 269-314 ©



10.1484/M.IPM-EB.5.114056

270

kevin g. grove

Such interiorizing treatments, I argue, mischaracterize Augustine in a way that at times has attributed to the preacher of the “whole Christ” a different patrimony: the isolation of the individual spiritual journey such that ascent to God becomes a matter articulated only in terms of one’s most intimate interior. 3 In a move I consider complementary to recent scholarship on Augustine’s political and Trinitarian theology, I will argue that the exterior is not a secondary but a primary consideration for Augustine.4 Nowhere is this but a darkest enigma created and being recreated by God. Continuing this sort of thinking is Matthew Drever, who has, in both his doctoral dissertation and subsequent book, begun the work of showing the links between Augustine’s understanding of the self and his ideas of the imago Dei and creatio ex nihilo. In philosophy, the interior and exterior dynamic has been reintroduced to contemporary debates by Gerard P. O’Daly. C. Taylor, Sources of the Self: The Making of the Modern Identity, Cambridge, 1989, p. 140; P.  Cary, Augustine’s Invention of the Inner Self: The Legacy of a Christian Platonist Oxford, 2000, pp. 125–45; B. Stock, Augustine the Reader, Cambridge, 1996, pp. 243– 78; J.  Cavadini, “The Darkest Enigma: Reconsidering the Self in Augustine’s Thought”, Augustinian Studies, 38:1  (2007), pp.  119–32; M.  Drever, Image, Identity, and the Formation of the Augustinian Soul, New York, 2013; G.  O’Daly, “Two Kinds of Subjectivity in Augustine’s ‘Confessions’”, in Ancient Philosophy of the Self, ed. by P.  Remes, J.  Sihvola, London, 2008, pp. 195–203. 3  Jean-Luc Marion’s conclusion based on Augustine provides an example. He writes, “If I succeed in loving nothing of myself but God, God will appear to the ‘ego’ the self’s place.” In such a configuration, one’s love is referred to God without need, mention, or consideration of neighbor: “Therefore, my place in God that I love will be accomplished ‘unto the image’ (ad imaginem) endlessly referred to the infinite, endlessly liberated from all ties so as to freely advance in the infinite that nothing binds.” On the contrary, in Augustine’s whole Christ, being liberated from the human ties that bind would also be a simultaneous cutting oneself off from God. J.-L. Marion, In the Self’s Place, Stanford, 2008, p. 311. 4  Concerning Augustine and politics, Jean Bethke Elshtain answers the question “Why Augustine, Why Now?” by describing basic, Augustinian sociality: “Human beings are […] social all the way down. Created in the image of God, human relationality defines us. The self is not and cannot be freestanding.” Elshtain had earlier argued in her Augustine and the Limits of Politics that the Augustinian “self” is a “transformed self” along with others. Robert Dodaro also holds for the exteriorizing movement of Augustine’s love of God and neighbor in his Christ and the Just Society. In ethics, Charles Mathewes agrees: Augustine’s interior-exterior dynamic remains a useful epistemological frame for challenging theological ethics in the present. In Trinitarian thinking, these three scholars’ works draw forth the exterior

christology, ascent, and augustine’s idithun

271

more evident than in his preached Expositions of the Psalms. Other members of Christ’s body are not secondary concerns but constitutive of the most interior aspects of relating to God. Indeed, in the conceptuality of the “whole Christ,” through which Augustine preached on the Psalms, his hearers were being transfigured into Christ as they allowed their head to speak in them, his members.5 As we will see, this is a very challenging notion, not to be idealized. Augustine caused discernable consternation, for instance, when he suggested to his congregants that they store their monetary riches in Christ, by which he meant literally in the poor in their midst. The underlying presupposition is that in the whole Christ the journey to God is undertaken together – interior self and exterior other. I will investigate Augustine’s treatment of interior and exterior through two classically interiorizing terms he employs: “ascent,” the exercise of union with God attained by letting go of temporal consequences of Augustine’s interior thinking concerning the nature of God: Lewis Ayres, John Cavadini, and Carol Harrison. J. Elshtain, “Why Augustine, Why Now?”, in Augustine and Postmodernism: Confessions and Circumfession, ed. by J. Caputo, M. Scanlon, Bloomington, 2005, pp. 244–56 (esp. p. 249); J. Elshtain, Augustine and the Limits of Politics, Notre Dame, 1995, p. 15; R. Dodaro, Christ and the Just Society in the Thought of Saint Augustine, Cambridge, 2008, pp. 152–55; C. Mathewes, “Augustinian Anthropology: Interior intimo meo”, Journal of Religious Ethics, 27:2 (1999), pp. 195–221 (esp. pp. 201–02); L. Ayres, “The Christological Context of Augustine’s ‘de Trinitate’ XIII: Toward Relocating Books VIII–XV”, in Christology, ed. by T. Finan, V. Twomey, Dublin, 1998, pp. 95–121; J. Cavadini, “The Structure and Intention of Augustine’s ‘de Trinitate’”, Augustinian Studies, 23 (1992), pp. 103–23 (esp. pp. 107–10); C.  Harrison, Augustine: Christian Truth and Fractured Humanity, Oxford, 2000, pp. 117–57. 5  For Augustine’s Christology of the Psalms, I follow: T.  Van Bavel, “The ‘Christus Totus’ Idea: A Forgotten Aspect of Augustine’s Spirituality”, in Christology, ed. by T.  Finan, V.  Twomey, Dublin, 1998, pp. 84–94; M.  Cameron, Christ Meets Me Everywhere: Augustine’s Early Figurative Exegesis, New York, 2012; E.  Franz, Totus Christus: Studien über Christus und die Kirche bei Augustin, Diss., Rheinischen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität, 1956; M.  Fiedrowicz, Psalmus Vox Totius Christi: Studien Zu Augustins Enarrationes in Psalmos, Freiburg, 1997; K.  Grove, Memory and the Whole Christ: Augustine and the Psalms, PhD diss., University of Cambridge, 2015; M.  McCarthy, The Revelatory Psalm: A Fundamental Theology of Augustine’s Enarrationes in Psalmos, PhD diss., University of Notre Dame, 2003; D.  Meconi, The One Christ: Augustine’s Theology of Deification, Washington, D.C., 2013; E.  Mersch, Le Corps mystique du Christ, Paris, 1936.

272

kevin g. grove

preoccupation; and “interior sensation,” Augustine’s own figurative language for describing interaction with God.6 These terms are inherently related to each other as the language of interior sensation is frequently used to describe ascent. I will examine both “ascent” and “interior senses” from the lens of the whole Christ. I justify this method because in Augustine’s preaching on the Psalms, he approached the texts through Christ. For Augustine, Christ is both the object of spiritual sensation and the body in which such sensation is possible. This reflects a slight difference in approach from the majority of scholarship on Augustine’s concept of the spiritual senses which tends to address the issue from one of two methodologies, either showing Augustine’s debts to ancient philosophies before him or comparing spiritual sensation as a quasi-faculty with corporeal sensation.7 I am not repudiat6  For the definition of “ascent,” I follow Frederick Van Fleteren who, after his own doctoral work on ascent, produced a series of articles in the 1970s describing the term. Van Fleteren holds that Augustine’s early Neo-Platonic ascents of the soul move by method of progressive interiority from external things to the interior man to God. Van Fleteren notes, however, shifts in Augustine’s thinking about ascent after his ordination to the priesthood. Thereafter, ascents, enacted by divine grace, could inspire some vision while on earth. He cites the early en. Ps. as evidence (en. Ps. 8, 41). For a definition of “interior” (in other literature called “spiritual”) senses, I use the definition Augustine develops in the en. Ps. The other definitional source for Augustine on inner sensation is Sermo 159. F.  Van Fleteren, “A Reply to Robert O’Connell”, Augustinian Studies, 21 (1990), pp. 127–37 (esp. pp. 128–29); “Augustine’s Ascent of the Soul in Book VII of the ‘Confessions’: A Reconsideration”, Augustinian Studies, 5 (1974), pp. 29–71; “Authority and Reason, Faith and Understanding in the Thought of Augustine”, Augustinian Studies, 4 (1973), pp. 33–71; “The Early Works of Augustine and His Ascents at Milan”, Studies in Medieval Culture, 10 (1977), pp. 19–23; “Augustine and the Possibility of the Vision of God in this Life”, Studies in Medieval Culture, 11 (1977), 9–16; “The Cassiciacum Dialogues and Augustine’s Ascents at Milan”, Mediaevalia, 4 (1978), pp. 59–82. 7  The scholars linking Augustine’s interior senses to earlier sources (e.g. Origen) include Karl Rahner, Martin Sastri, and Jean Pépin. Those who look more broadly at bodily sensation, language, and mind for Augustine include David Chidester, Paul Landsberg, Matthew Lootens, Margaret Miles, and Eugene Vance. There is a third and promising body of scholarship that has begun examining patristic epistemologies in terms of non-visual sensation. Susan Ashbrook Harvey began this by studying the olfactory; Carol Harrison has looked at the aural. M. B. Pranger treats the importance of the senses generally in Augustine’s thought. K. Rahner, “The ‘Spiritual Senses’ According

christology, ascent, and augustine’s idithun

273

ing these analyses of inner sensation and mind, but building from them to focus my examination on Christ. I will argue that Augustine’s leading his congregants from the exterior to the interior within the whole Christ is also his proposing a radical reimagining of their relationships to the exterior other. This argument will unfold in three stages. First, I will set up the interior and exterior binary in Augustine’s thought by describing how he, late in life, regretted separating the two realms too starkly in his early thinking. To do this I look to Augustine’s Revisions, tracing how he corrects what he discerns to have been an overwrought dualism in his early exegesis. I will show that his clarification uses Christ’s incarnation to reaffirm the importance of exterior, corporeal reality for salvation. Secondly, I will investigate the archetypical pattern of movement toward the interior for Augustine: the ascent. Augustine found this pattern, which is widely cited in Augustinian scholarship, through preaching on Psalm 145. Ascent is a movement from exterior to interior and inferior to superior. My analysis of Augustine’s exposition of Psalm 145 will show how he frames the ascent pattern in terms of his Christology.

to Origen”, in Theological Investigations, v. 16, transl. by D.  Moreland, New York, 1979, pp.  81–103 (esp. p.  102); M.  Sastri, “The Influence of Plotinian Metaphysics in St Augustine’s Conception of the Spiritual Senses”, Dionysius, 24 (2006), pp. 99–124; J. Pépin, “Augustin et Origène sur les ‘sensus interiores’”, in Sensus-Sensatio: VIII Colloquio Internazionale del Lessico Intellettuale Europeo, ed. by M.  Bianchi, Florence, 1996, pp. 11–23; D. Chidester, Word and Light: Seeing, Hearing, and Religious Discourse, Urbana, 1992, pp. 53–145; P. L. Landsberg, “Les sens spirituels chez saint Augustin”, transl. by P.  Klossowski, Dieu vivant, 11 (1948), pp. 83–105; M.  Lootens, “Augustine”, in The Spiritual Senses: Perceiving God in Western Christianity, ed. by P. Gavrilyuk, S. Coakley, Cambridge, 2012, pp. 56–70; M. Miles, “Vision: The Eye of the Body and the Eye of the Mind in St Augustine’s ‘De Trinitate’ and ‘Confessions’”, The Journal of Religion, 63:2 (1983), pp. 125–42; E. Vance, “Seeing God: Augustine, Sensation, and the Mind’s Eye”, in Rethinking the Medieval Senses, ed. by S.  Nichols, A.  Kablitz, A.  Calhoun, Baltimore, 2008, pp. 13–29; S.  Harvey, Scenting Salvation: Ancient Christianity and the Olfactory Imagination, London, 2006; C. Harrison, The Art of Listening in the Early Church, Oxford, 2013; M.  B. Pranger, “Augustine and the Return of the Senses”, in Seeing the Invisible in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages, ed. by G. De Nie, K. Morrison, M. Mostert, Turnhout, 2005, pp. 53–67.

274

kevin g. grove

Third, I will examine a set of three ascents (Psalms 38, 61, and 76). Two of these psalms are laments and one is a song of trust. I have chosen them rather than the subset of ascent psalms written for a community walking together up the hills toward Jerusalem because these three psalms inarguably represent interiorizing examples of prayer, which Augustine describes as leaping to God. All three psalms reference the biblical character “Idithun,” whom Augustine will treat as an individual who is also a figure for the whole body of Christ. While these psalms follow the ascent pattern described in the exposition of Psalm 145, the action of ascent and language of inner sensation take place within the whole Christ. Interior senses and ascents are indeed for perceiving Christ, but they leave Idithun in a heightened awareness of relationship with the other members of Christ’s body who might be naked, hungry, and homeless as well as enemies to be loved and sinners who need to be looked after. The ascent pattern proves to be an interior journey that is simultaneously lived in the most demanding exterior manner. 2. Augustine’s regret: the problem of “not of this world” (Ioh. 18, 36) Augustine had not always been convinced of the goodness of the exterior world as compared to the interior. Late in his life he regretted (displicet mihi) this.8 Augustine wrote in his Revisions (427) that he regretted the imprecision of his language in his early works (386–87) concerning the senses of the corporeal body and the senses of the mind.9 My concern here is not to rehearse Augustine’s already well-studied early theories of either sensation or mind.10 Rather, what is important to this argument is how Augustine, Retractationes, hereafter retr., 1, 3, 2. Augustine’s regret is that he was imprecise about delineating the senses of the body. He identifies this problem in his early works Contra Academicos (Acad.), De Ordine (ord.), and Soliloquia (sol.). All of these works were written between late 386 and 387, meaning they were likely written in Italy before Augustine returned to Africa, was ordained a priest, and commenced his regular preaching, including his en. Ps. 10  The classic text in this regard is Gerard O’Daly’s Augustine’s Philosophy of Mind, though as O’Daly readily admits, his concerns are those of the philosopher and not Christology. Bruce Bubacz also follows a philosophical 8  9 

christology, ascent, and augustine’s idithun

275

Augustine characterizes his regret in terms of misunderstanding Christ.11 Augustine claims that his mistake was exegetical. He used his mature understanding of scripture to correct what he identified as an error in his earlier exegesis of Ioh. 18,  36: “My kingdom is not of this world.” That verse gave too easily the appearance of having two entirely different worlds, one “sensible” and one “intelligible.”12 Augustine owns his imprecision; he does not blame Plato or the Platonists, for he wishes to maintain that for Plato there was some harmony between the concept of the intelligible world and the eternal reason by which Christians understand God to have created and to continue to sustain the world in being.13 Augustine describes his own mistake as that of suggesting a too sharply dualistic epistemology. Twice he corrects this by saying that “not of this world” points to a “new heaven and a new earth” (Apoc. 21, 20) which is the one prayed for by the words “thy kingdom come” (Matth. 6,  10).14 This is a highly significant exegetical correction. The new heaven and the new earth, as well as the kingdom which is to come, do not appear as something from outside, as if a new exterior replaces the forsaken old one. Rather, the new heaven and the new earth are recreated by God precisely from the fallen first creation that God made “rationally” and purposefully at the outset.15 Augustine’s correction allows him to maintain a consistent theology of creation as well as incarnation. approach. Hochschild traces sense perception and memory through Plato, Aristotle, and Plotinus, before working systematically through Augustine’s early and early middle works. G.  O’Daly, Augustine’s Philosophy of Mind, Berkeley, 1987, p. ix-6; B. Bubacz, St Augustine’s Theory of Knowledge: A Contemporary Analysis, New York, 1981; P.  Hochschild, Memory in Augustine’s Theological Anthropology, Oxford, 2012, pp. 9–135. 11  Though scholars like Lootens have noticed Augustine’s regret, they do not explore its Christological character. Lootens, “Augustine” [n. 7], p. 57. 12  Retr. 1, 3, 2, WSA I/2, p. 31; CCSL 57, p. 12, l. 16–17: Duos mundos, unum sensibilem alterum intellegibilem. 13  Retr. 1, 3, 2. 14  In retr., concerning ord. (retr. 1, 3, 2) and sol. (retr. 1, 4, 2), Augustine corrects what he first wrote in ord. (1, 11, 32), where he explored whether Christ might have been making distinctions between “the world,” “this world,” and another far removed from it. 15  Retr. 1, 3, 2.

276

kevin g. grove

The kingdom “not of this world” in Augustine’s early, incautious formulation, suggests that a human could make a mental advance from the senses of the body to an intellectual realm, a position held by Plotinus and his student Porphyry.16 “A new heaven and a new earth” means that after Christ had taken up human flesh, humanity itself would be remade with newness coming out of the old, with resurrection coming out of death. The body is not abandoned but transfigured. In this scheme the person who wishes to be happy will not be so when living in accordance solely with the mind or reason (which are nevertheless the highest and most admirable parts of the person), but when living in accordance with God who had taken up human flesh. What happened to Augustine, as he claims, between his early apparent dualism and his Revisions was precisely an awareness that eternal, unchanging happiness did exist and could be gained.17 The process of doing so involved neither a feat of interior mental strength nor the liberal arts nor any other occupation, but an incarnational exchange in which the flesh of Christ becomes the vehicle and promise of its realization. And, as we have established, the flesh of Christ includes also his members. Unlike in Augustine’s early understanding of senses of the mind reaching for an intelligible realm beyond the body, his later “interior senses” are precisely those that serve as an exercise in Christological transfiguration from within the body – both the body of the individual and the whole body of Christ with all its members.18 I will take this up in earnest in the next two sections. 16  Plotinian ascent, as Van Fleteren points out, brings together many ancient sources but follows Plato’s Symposium. It is likely that Augustine’s libri Platonicorum of 386 (conf. 7, 9, 14; 7, 20, 26) included Plotinus’ Enneads 1, 6 as well as Porphyry’s De regressu Animae. Augustine mentions Porphyry specifically in retr. 1, 4, 3 as a “false philosopher” on account of Porphyry’s suggesting that sensory things should be fled. As Van Fleteren points out, Augustine’s “ascents,” even by the time of conf. book 7, cannot be considered strictly Plotinian because of Christian elements already fused in them. See  F. Van Fleteren, “A Reply to Robert O’Connell” [n.  6], pp.  128–29; and F.  Van Fleteren, “Spiritual Ascent”, in Augustine Through the Ages, ed. by A. Fitzgerald, Grand Rapids, 1999, pp. 64–66. 17  In bodily existence, the fullness of happiness is known in hope. There is a resonance here of Augustine’s regular construction in en. Ps.: in hope now, in reality in the future (in spe […] in re). Retr. 1, 4, 3. 18  This is starkly different from Augustine’s discussion of moving to the interior in ord. There he writes: “In order to know oneself it is most necessary

christology, ascent, and augustine’s idithun

277

But in terms of his Revisions, Augustine’s “regret,” in his most succinct formulation, is that he implied there could be another way “apart from Christ who said ‘I am the way.’”19 3. Enfleshing ascent: exterior, interior, inferior, and superior in Christ (Ps. 145) Scholars of Augustine’s work and others who have adapted it are in agreement on the importance of Augustine’s ascent pattern: from exterior to interior and from inferior to superior (the inferior to superior movement happens within the interior, and thus the basic relation remains between exterior and interior).20 The difficulty is that such an ascent can easily be caricatured as an ascent out of or to get out of the life of the senses into one’s interior, and there to recollect oneself. Some cauterize the wound of disordered opinion inflicted on them in day-to-day life by retreating into solitude. Others do the same by cultivating the liberal arts.” Ord. 1, 1, 3; CCSL 29, p. 90, l. 51–55: Qui tamen ut se noscat, magna opus habet consuetudine recedendi a sensibus, et animum in seipsum colligendi atque in seipso retinendi. Quod hi tantum adsecuntur, qui plagas quasdam opinionum, quas uitae quotidianae cursus infligit, aut solitudine inurunt, aut liberalibus medicant disciplinis. 19  Retr. 1, 4, 3; WSA I/2, p. 34; CCSL 57, p. 14, l. 31–32: Item quod dixi ad sapientiae coniunctionem non una uia perueniri, non bene sonat, quasi alia uia sit praeter Christum qui dixit: Ego sum uia. 20  It seems that Gilson is the one to credit, or blame, for the creation and alteration of the Augustinian trope in the current era. In his Christian Philosophy of St Augustine, Gilson describes Augustine’s method as exterior to interior and interior to superior, acknowledging in his footnote that Augustine’s precise formulation is different (Gilson drops “inferior”). It does seem that this formulation – though accurate in terms of movement – articulates three realms (exterior, interior, and superior) rather than two (exterior and interior with a distinction within the interior). The three-realm division suggests a method of linear progression rather than the movement back and forth which interior-exterior implies. Further, the three-realm articulation makes the superior two steps removed from the exterior. Gilson’s formulation has been widely either noted or adopted. Frederick Scott considers it a mistake and traces its effects through philosophers like Blondel. Charles Taylor repeats Gilson’s formulation as his source. Phillip Cary goes further, adapting and mono-directionalizing the language as “inward” and “upward.” E. Gilson, Christian Philosophy of St Augustine, London, 1961, p. 20 and 256, n. 38; F.  Scott, “The Odyssey of an Augustinian Text”, The Modern Schoolman, 36:3 (1959), pp. 209–11; C. Taylor, Sources of the Self [n. 2], p. 136; and P.  Cary, Augustine’s Invention of the Inner Self [n. 2], p. 65.

278

kevin g. grove

away from the body, inward and upward toward God while leaving behind all earthly concerns. This proves to be too simplistic a rendering of Augustine’s understanding of ascent as it accounts neither for the duration of the ascent nor for how one continues to relate to that from which one has ascended. An ascent is not an achievement, but an ongoing exercise.21 Augustine thinks through these issues in terms of his Christology of the whole Christ. In order to show this, I will examine Augustine’s own articulation of what subsequently has become the ascent trope and re-establish it in its Christological context in his exposition of Psalm 145. The goal is to show that Christ is both the end of the ascent as well as the means to attain that end. Augustine describes and develops the ascent sequence in the Expositions of the Psalms and the Trinity.22 As aforementioned, the ascent pattern was first modeled for Augustine by Plotinus (and likely Porphyry), and there are natural connections to the movement from dark to light as modeled by Plato (e.g. “Allegory of the Cave”).23 But as Bernard McGinn explains, Augustine’s writings on the Psalms explain just how different from Plotinus Augustine had grown.24 Some of the Psalms, such as 119–133 (120–134), provided patterns of ascent because of their titles as songs of ascent.25 21  Michael McCarthy explains this well: “In the ‘En. Ps.,’ Augustine seems far less interested in stages of ascent than in the performative force of biblical locutions expressing a longing for God and communicating the pain of alienation. In a way, discovering oneself in the very verses of the psalms becomes the ascent through and with the Word that came down to us and took us as his body.” M.  McCarthy, “The Psalms of Ascent as Word of God in Augustine’s ‘Enarrationes in Psalmos’”, Augustinian Studies, 41:1 (2010), pp. 109–20 (esp. p. 113). 22  En. Ps. 145, 5; Trin. 14, 3, 5; R.  Teske cites both of these places in his “Augustine’s Philosophy of Memory”, in The Cambridge Companion to Augustine, ed. By E. Stump, N.  Kretzmann, Cambridge, 2001, pp. 148–58 (esp. p. 158, n. 11). 23  On the influence of Plotinus and Porphyry, see n.  6 and 16. Plato, Republic, 514a-517c. 24  McGinn is in agreement with Van Fleteren here. B.  McGinn, The Presence of God: A History of Western Christian Mysticism, v. 1: The Foundations of Mysticism: Origins to the Fifth Century, New York, 2002, p. 233. 25  Long before Augustine, both Jewish and Christian Platonizing exegetes had noticed a certain harmony between Platonic ascent and ascent to God.  On the one hand, it is easy to point out similarities in those ascents,

christology, ascent, and augustine’s idithun

279

Augustine knew they were written for the upward climb of pilgrims toward the city of Jerusalem – which in Augustine’s figurative exegesis was toward the heavenly Jerusalem.26 These are not the psalms, however, in which he most theorizes ascent. Augustine articulates the exterior to interior and inferior to superior pattern in his commentary on Psalm 145, a song of praise. The portion of Augustine’s exposition of Psalm 145 in which we find the ascent trope seems to sound a chorus of Neoplatonic tones when it is read in isolation from the rest of the sermon – raising suspicion that Augustine was again committing the error he regretted in his Revisions. Augustine visualizes for his congregation the soul in a certain suspended relation between God and the body. His characterization of embodied life is one of dissipation – desires spread broadly and unhappily for things that are not the end of the soul. In light of this dissipation comes the language of what has become known as Augustinian ascent: “The soul then recalls itself from exterior to interior, from lower things to as noted above. On the other hand, in both the Platonizing, Second Temple Judaism of Philo of Alexandria and Christian exegetes like Augustine who had encountered Platonic sources, the differences between these exegetes’ “ascents” and any Platonic sourcing is quickly apparent. The Christian exegete – or Jewish exegete for that matter – was not structuring a biblical ascent around a Platonic ideal. Rather the biblical ascent provided the structure and therein limited the extent to which Platonic language could be appropriated. Philo analyzes Moses on Sinai as an introduction to considering the law for the people. Gregory of Nyssa’s Moses climbs Mount Sinai to discover that God is light and (comparatively) Moses himself is in darkness; further, Moses descends from the mount. These are profoundly different from ascent in Plato’s Symposium and its descendants in Plotinus and Porphyry. The differences result from two fundamental features: the nature of the God toward whom the Jew or Christian ascends is not the same as the Platonic good or the Plotinian one. Second, the community (whether the people Israel, the congregation praying a psalm, or the disciples of Christ) is neither an accidental nor contextual aspect of ascent, but part of its very structure. I am grateful to Janet Soskice for this insight. Philo, Life of Moses, 1, 12–14; Philo, The Decalogue, 1, 1–11; Gregory of Nyssa, Life of Moses, 1, 46–49, 2, 152–201; and Plato, Symposium, 210a-212c. 26  Augustine gives a general introduction to songs of ascent at en. Ps. 119, 1–2 and treats the matter also at en. Ps. 120, 1–3; 121, 1–2; 122, 1–4; 123, 1–4; 124, 1–2; 125, 1; 126, 1; and 131, 1. See also: G. McLarney, St Augustine’s Interpretation of the Psalms of Ascent, Washington D.C., 2014, pp. 123–218.

280

kevin g. grove

higher, and admonishes itself, ‘Praise the Lord, my soul.’”27 The results of this act of recollection draw the rational soul away from a focus on corporeal things in themselves to God who made and sustains corporeal things. Having ascended, one is able to “cling to him who is above” and “tread underfoot what is beneath.”28 In so doing, the rational mind seems to have access to some sort of divine illumination: “Illuminated by God, the soul gives itself counsel through the medium of its rational mind. Through reason it is open to truth established in the eternity of its maker. There, in its rational mind, the soul can communicate with an awe-inspiring reality, a reality it is drawn to praise, to love, to desire, and to seek. It does not yet grasp this reality or possess it, but a gleam of that light has brushed against it, though the soul is not yet strong enough to stay there. This is why it recalls itself to some kind of sanity, saying, ‘Praise the Lord, my soul.’” 29

Though the text sounds Neoplatonic in terms of illumination and the rational soul, it also reveals the Christian bounds of anything Augustine may have borrowed from Platonism. 30 As McGinn 27  En. Ps. 145, 5, WSA III/20, p. 404; CCSL 40, p. 2108, l. 17–19: Reuocat se ab exterioribus ad interiora, ab inferioribus ad superiora, et dicit: Lauda, anima mea, Dominum. 28  En. Ps. 145, 5, WSA III/20, p. 404; CCSL 40, p. 2108, l. 37–38: Si haerebis superiori, calcabis inferiora; si autem recedas a superiori, ista tibi in supplicium conuertentur. 29  En. Ps. 145, 5, WSA III/20, p. 404; CCSL 40, p. 2109, l. 46–53: Consilium sibi ex luce Dei dat ipsa anima per rationalem mentem, unde concipit consilium fixum in aeternitate auctoris sui. Legit ibi quiddam tremendum, laudandum, amandum, desiderandum et appetendum: nondum tenet, nondum capit; coruscatione quadam perstringitur, non est tam ualida ut maneat ibi. Itaque colligit se ad sanitatem quamdam, et dicit: Lauda, anima mea, Dominum. Gareth Matthews provides a helpful introduction to the issue of divine illumination and rightly points out that the illumination need not be read simply in terms of the a priori. G.  Matthews, “Knowledge and Illumination”, in The Cambridge Companion to Augustine, ed. by E.  Stump, Cambridge, 2001, pp. 171–85 (esp. pp. 180–81). 30  On Augustine’s use of the language of Platonism for interior ascent, John Milbank suggests Augustine “subverted” Platonism, though that term implies intent on Augustine’s part that may have been rather more benign, especially considering the little he actually had read of Plotinus and Porphyry. Andrew Louth uses the term “transcended.” Rist suggests, and I think this the best analysis, that whereas Augustine was tempted to think

christology, ascent, and augustine’s idithun

281

notes, the inability of the soul to enact this experience on its own, without grace, is an Augustinian feature; the Plotinian mind, for instance, had the power to lift itself up repeatedly to interaction with the one. 31 There is more to Augustine’s ascent than a reproduction of Platonism in the act of scriptural reading. When one reads the ascent motif in terms of the complete sermon on Psalm 145, one sees that the entire effort at ascent is enfleshed in Christ. Augustine opens the exposition with the memory of Jerusalem – longing for the future which is yet unattained means remembering that future together in Christ. Augustine is quick to point out that the Psalms were inspired by God for the purpose of delight and joy – even if they bring weeping, pains, and sighs on account of that which is yet fully unattained. 32 The purpose of singing such a song is twofold. First, the exercise of hearing the words of God might redirect and focus their hearts: “Allow the words of God to seize your heart, and let him who owns you claim your minds as his rightful possession, so that they may not turn aside to any other end.”33 Scripture itself reorients desire from earthly dissipation to God. The second purpose of singing is where what might otherwise be considered a two-worlds metaphysics meets the incarnation: “Each one of you should be wholly present here, yet in such a way that you are also not here. What I mean is this: we must be so entirely present to the word of God which sounds here on earth that we are exalted by it, and are no longer held by the earth. of ascent to higher and eternal realities right after his conversion, his developing understanding of the acratic, or weakness of the will, caused him to reconsider such thinking of ascent in terms of inspiration, grace, and being inflamed by love. J. Milbank, “Sacred Triads: Augustine and the Indo-European Soul”, Modern Theology, 13:4 (1997), pp. 451–74 (esp. p. 465); A. Louth, The Origins of the Christian Mystical Tradition, Oxford, 1981, p.  144; J.  Rist, Ancient Thought Baptized [n. 1], pp. 184–85. 31  B. McGinn, Foundations of Mysticism [n. 24], p. 233. 32  The theme of use and enjoy (utor and fruor), which Augustine describes in doctr. chr. (1, 3), is present throughout en. Ps. Augustine and his congregants are learning to enjoy God through the scriptures. Activities of local enjoyment, culture, or even rival events (stadium and theatre) serve as examples of incomplete enjoyment. 33  En. Ps. 145, 1, WSA III/20, p. 400; CCSL 40, p. 2105, l. 6–8: Rapiant cor uestrum uerba Dei, et possessor uester uindicet sibi possessionem suam, id est mentes uestras, ne auertantur in aliud.

282

kevin g. grove God is with us in order that we may be with him; he who came down to us in order to be with us is at work now to draw us up to himself, so that we may be in his company. Until this should be finally accomplished he did not disdain to share our exile, though he who created all things is nowhere an exile himself.”34

Not being “held by the earth” is figurative speech for not being held in earthly concerns but being oriented to one’s end in Jerusalem. What enables this orientation is not the power of the mind of the human in exile, but Christ who has deigned to share in that exile and draw up into himself those whom he came to be with in his flesh. Augustine’s proposed ascent here is only possible on account of Christological descent. As Augustine explains, the Son of Man was able to bring salvation because he brought the divine nature to the human state. Augustine does not deny the goodness of the body but affirms it, suggesting that God will bring about a new creation. 35 God created both the human soul and the human body exceedingly good (bona ualde). 36 Augustine says to his congregants, “If God took the trouble to create you, will he not take the trouble to recreate you?”37 He adds, “Your soul is God’s concern and your body is God’s concern, because God made both your soul and your body.”38 Both the soul and the body have their 34  En. Ps. 145, 1, WSA III/20, p. 400; CCSL 40, p. 2105, l. 8–15: Vnusquisque uestrum totus hic sit, ut hic non sit: id est, totus sit in uerbo Dei, quod sonat in terra ut ab eo exaltetur, et non sit in terra. Ideo enim Deus nobiscum, ut et nos cum illo. Qui enim ut nobiscum esset, descendit ad nos, facit, ut cum illo simus, ascendere ad se. Interim ipse peregrinationem nostram non fastidiuit; quia nusquam est peregrinus, qui condidit omnia. 35  Pauline Allen, Bronwen Neil, and Margaret Miles have noted what they consider an increased appreciation for the human body as Augustine became less Platonic and more aware of the physical weakness and humility of the incarnate Christ. P.  Allen, B.  Neil, “Discourses on the Poor in the Psalms: Augustine’s ‘Enarrationes in Psalmos’”, in Meditations of the Heart: The Psalms in Early Christian Thought and Practice, ed. by A.  Andreopoulos, A.  Cassiday, C.  Harrison, Turnhout, 2011, pp. 181–204 (esp. p. 189); M. Miles, Augustine on the Body, Missoula, 1979, pp. 95–97. 36  En. Ps. 145, 3. 37  En. Ps. 145, 13, WSA III/20, p. 411; CCSL 40, p. 2114, l. 16–17: Qui curauit facere te, non curat reficere te? 38  En. Ps. 145, 14, WSA III/20, p. 413; CCSL 40, pp. 2115–2116, l. 22–24: Pertinet ad Deum anima tua, pertinet ad Deum corpus tuum; quia Deus fecit et animam tuam et corpus tuum.

christology, ascent, and augustine’s idithun

283

end in Christ. At the level of the individual, movement from the exterior to the interior does not neglect the exterior. The image of God which Augustine preaches, corroborates this: God is not a far-off deity who cares for the soul at the expense of the body. Augustine compares God to a farmer who continually cultivates – feeds and tends – his charges in order that they might bear fruit. 39 This Christological frame allows Augustine to consider the ascent pattern that he has set up. The pattern – exterior to interior and inferior to superior – is the recollection of the soul which yields its self-admonishment: “Praise the Lord, my soul.” The ascent is into praise. Yet, as Augustine points out to his congregation, they had just been praising and did so every day. But even as they sing, their thoughts are scattered and the act of their praising does not attain to the fullness of its intended object. The trouble for the soul is that perfect praise is impossible in this life. Augustine suggests a false image of perfect praise: “Relieve me of this body that weighs down the soul, and then I will praise the Lord. Dismantle this earthly dwelling that clogs the mind as it considers many things, and then I will withdraw from the many and flow with all my being toward the one. Then I will praise the Lord.”40 Augustine sets up this image only to cast it off as an excuse used by those who are not in a perfect state to relieve themselves from the work of praising. These people choose to remain silent. Augustine holds up the counter-model from the psalm: “I will praise the Lord throughout my life.”41 Of course, “throughout my life” means on earth, in exile, and going to die while nevertheless living in the “place where [one] is truly alive.”42 The soul that praises the Lord does so not as one who escapes corporeality but as one who praises from bodily existence.

En. Ps. 145, 11. En. Ps. 145, 6, WSA III/20, p. 405; CCSL 40, p. 2109, l. 25–28: Tolle mihi corpus quod aggrauat animam, et laudo Dominum; tolle mihi terrenam habitationem deprimentem sensum multa cogitantem, ut a multis in unum confluam, et laudo Dominum. 41  En. Ps. 145, 6, WSA III/20, p. 405; CCSL 40, p. 2110, l. 30–31: Laudabo Dominum in uita mea. 42  En. Ps. 145, 7, WSA III/20, pp. 405–06; CCSL 40, p. 2110, l. 26: Vnde mors tua est non cantes; unde uiuis, canta. 39 

40 

284

kevin g. grove

Movement from exterior to interior and inferior to superior, Augustine claims, is not for the perfect, but is for any who on account of their fallen nature do not see, do not grasp, and are spiritual widows and orphans.43 This exercise of imperfect praise is not of ascent out of the world to disembodied perfection, but of embodied people learning to see with what Augustine calls the “eyes of faith.”44 The language that Augustine uses – but does not explain – is a set of interior senses which only exist within Christ and can be exercised within Christ: “But if you cannot see far enough to glimpse the end, believe one who does see it. What mere human can? None, perhaps; but your Lord came to you that you might believe God.”45 Augustine explains interior senses more, as we will see, in his exposition of Psalm 38. At this point it is sufficient to say that the common trope of interiorizing ascent which disregards or disparages the physical body oversimplifies Augustine’s position. His ascent is at once a yearning for immortality as well as being profoundly bound by the corporeal body. The interior, sensory language Augustine employs is only possible because of the relation of God to corporeality – God who both created flesh and assumed it in order to renew it. Ascending away from the fleeting, toward the eternal, and remaining there is utterly impossible, yet the words of scripture and Christ’s ongoing mediation to his members make just such an exercise transfigurative. To investigate the interior and exterior dynamics of this ascent, we turn to Idithun, the leaping psalmist. En. Ps. 145, 17–19. En. Ps. 145, 19, WSA III/20, p. 418; CCSL 40, p. 2120, l. 13–14: Habet oculos fides. As Lootens suggests, this inner language for Augustine is “flexible and unsystematic,” such as interior eyes, ears of the heart, smell of the heart, palate of the heart, and interior touch. Luca Obertello considers Augustine’s inner eye philosophically as the mind’s consciousness of the self, yet this limitedly philosophical approach lacks the ability to account for how principles of the mind come to be as well as how inner language is oriented toward Christ. M. Lootens, “Augustine” [n. 7], p. 61; and L. Obertello, “Augustine on Original Perception”, Medieval Philosophy and Theology, 1 (1991), pp. 1–17 (esp. p. 17). 45  En. Ps. 145, 19, WSA III/20, p. 419; CCSL 40, p. 2120, l. 20–23: Sed extendere oculos non potes, ut uideas ipsum finem: crede ei qui uidet. Et quis est homo qui uidet? Forte nemo homo; sed Dominus tuus ad te uenit, ut crederes Deo. 43 

44 

christology, ascent, and augustine’s idithun

285

4. Ascent and the whole Christ: Idithun the leaper (Psalms 38, 76, and 61) Augustine employs the character Idithun, who appears in the title of three psalms, to model the journey to God.46 Augustine readily admits that he and his congregation do not know who the original Idithun was.47 The only access they have to “Idithun” is the meaning of the name, which, Augustine reports to his congregants, students of sacred scripture who translated Hebrew names to Latin have rendered “one who leaps across.”48 Idithun serves as a leaping guide whose ascents model for Augustine and his congregants the way in which the psalm relates them to Christ. Augustine uses phrases like “if anyone among us is able to be an Idithun” and “you, Idithun, body of Christ” in order that the journey of the body of Christ – both individual and collective – might be figu-

46  Augustine understood the titles of psalms to be important for understanding the rest of the verses. 47  En. Ps. 38, 1. Idithun (Jeduthun) may have been a Levite involved in leading music who is mentioned in Chronicles (I Chron. 9, 16; 16, 38.41– 42; 25, 1.3.6; II Chron. 5, 12; 29, 14; 35, 15). Augustine’s admission supports Michael Cameron’s claim that allegorical, or figurative, exegesis does not neglect but rather respects history: “[Augustine’s] sermons are replete with expositions of the external, historical sense of a text as propaedeutic to spiritual ascent.” M. Cameron, Christ Meets Me Everywhere [n. 5], p. 285. 48  The Hebrew word “Jeduthun” translates “praising.” Origen does not mention Idithun as a leaper in his extant commentaries on Psalm 38. We have one commentary of Ambrose on Psalm 38 in which he mentions Idithun as a Levite and singer, but not as a leaper. Modern biblical scholarship is divided over the name. Hermann Gunkel writes that no one can say what the expression ‘al yedūtūn means, but says it is certainly about musical performance and not linked to Jeduthun in Chronicles. S.  Mowinckel takes a similar position that the name is simply a liturgical term. Amos Ḥakham’s more recent approach suggests that Jeduthun is indeed a name referenced in I Chronicles but also possibly a musical instrument named after the family who played it. See  M. Heintz, The Pedagogy of the Soul: Origen’s Homilies on the Psalms, PhD diss., University of Notre Dame, 2008, pp. 266–99; Ambrose, Commentary on Twelve Psalms, transl. by Í. Riain, Dublin, 2010, p. 142; H. Gunkel, Introduction to Psalms: The Genres of the Religious Lyric of Israel, Macon, 1998, p. 351; S.  Mowinckel, The Psalms in Israel’s Worship, Oxford, 1962, p.  295; A  Ḥakham, Psalms with the Jerusalem Commentary, Jerusalem, 2003, p. 306.

286

kevin g. grove

ratively imaged through one leaping psalmist.49 Idithun is a helpful example because his leaping ascent is not tied to a particular genre of psalm. He leaps in a song of trust as well as in laments.50 Yet, all these leaping sequences have structural similarities. The figurative exegesis which Augustine undertakes through the character of Idithun allows him to work through two areas important for our argument. First, Augustine treats ascent – which in each case he articulates in terms of memory – as an interior, sensory activity of the whole Christ. Secondly, ascent within the whole Christ is not a limitedly interior exercise of an individual subject, but that of the whole Christ in whom are contained dynamic relations with others, especially the poor, the widow, the orphan, the enemy, and even the repentant astrologer. a. Preparing to leap: sensing interiorly In preparing his congregation for the leap, Augustine makes the connection for his people between leaping and ascending, as they would have been used to hearing about “Songs of Ascent” in other sermons. Augustine and his congregation who had just finished singing the psalm are to determine whether they also might be leapers. Augustine explains to those before him in Carthage: “You know that certain psalms are called ‘Songs of Ascents.’ In Greek, this is quite plain, for they are called ἀναβαθμῶν. This means songs about steps, but steps up, not down […]. So just as in one type of psalm the singer was going up, in this one the singer is leaping across. But the leaping across is also an ascent, though not on foot or by using scaling-ladders or wings.”51 49  The one scholarly treatment of Idithun in the en. Ps. neglects Christology almost entirely in order to draw together in a Neoplatonic synthesis Augustine’s Idithun and Gregory of Nyssa’s ascents as complementary examples of the French term “dépassement,” or “du progrès infini.” See L. Brésard, “Le thème du dépassement chez saint Augustin”, Collecteana Cisterciensia, 39:2 (1977), pp. 222–30. En. Ps. 38, 1, WSA III/17, p. 168; CCSL 38, p. 401, l. 4–5: Si esse unusquisque nostrum potuerit Idithun; en. Ps. 61, 11, WSA III/17, p. 213; CCSL 39, p. 781, l. 1: Tu, o Idithun, corpus Christi. 50  Psalm 38 is an individual lament. Psalm 61 is a song of trust or praise. Psalm 76 is a communal lament. 51  En. Ps. 38, 2, WSA III/17, pp. 168–69; CCSL 38, p. 402, l. 1–4, 9–12: Nostis quosdam psalmos inscribi canticum graduum; et ibi quidem in graeca lingua satis euidens est, quid dicat ἀναβαθμῶν. Anabathmi enim gradus sunt, sed ascendentium, non descendentium […]. Quomodo ergo ibi ascendens quidam can-

christology, ascent, and augustine’s idithun

287

Having just finished singing the psalm together, Augustine and his congregants are following the steps of Idithun, “the one who leaps across.” They, too, will be ones who leap across and thereby also ascenders. The questions immediately relevant, however, are how it is that one makes such a spiritual movement and toward what that leap might be directed. Augustine is quick to point out that the “leaping across” that his congregants are going to do is not a corporeal activity but a way of describing the interior in terms of the exterior: “If you refer it to our inner life, feet and scaling-ladders and wings are available.”52 The justification for these interior modes of ascent comes from other scriptural images. Augustine says to his congregants that if there were no feet in an inward sense, how could the psalmist ask that the foot of the proud not come against me (35, 12)? If there were no spiritual ladders, upon what were the angels ascending and descending in Jacob’s dream (Gen. 28, 12)? If there were not spiritual wings, how could the psalmist ask for wings like a dove (54, 7)?53 In the inner life, feet, ladders, and wings are something different from the exterior. Augustine makes a very important clarification. They are the “loving impulses of a good will.”54 This phrase is most helpful for coming to grips with Augustine’s understanding of “interior senses.” They represent an entire language for describing the impulses (affectus) of the will that are “loving” and “good.” For Augustine, as James Wetzel explains, we do not lose love (or Christ) like we lose our keys; we lose love by willfully rejecting it and regain it by willfully embracing it again.55 Once Augustine clarifies that the language he is using is that of the will, he also opens up the possibility that interiorizing language is exteriorly, or corporeally, relevant

tat, sic et hic transiliens. Est autem haec ascensio et ista transilitio, non pedibus, non scalis, non pennis. 52  En. Ps. 38, 2, WSA III/16, p. 169; CCSL 38, p. 402, l. 12–13: Si interiorem hominem attendas, et pedibus, et scalis, et pennis. 53  En. Ps. 38, 2. 54  En. Ps. 38, 2, WSA III/16, p. 169; CCSL 38, p. 402, l. 19–20: Affectus sunt bonae uoluntatis. 55  J.  Wetzel, “Will and Interiority in Augustine”, Augustinian Studies, 33:2 (2002), pp. 139–60.

288

kevin g. grove

because the interior will is always acting upon the exterior body. Augustine writes: “By means of these [loving impulses of a good will] we walk and climb and fly. When any of you hear about this man who is leaping across, and you aspire to imitate him, you must not think to leap across ditches in a bodily sense by leaping lightly into the air, or to fly over some highish obstacle by jumping. But I am talking now in bodily terms because there is a sense in which a spiritual person does leap even across ditches […]. Anything that has been set alight by disordered greed is burnt up by fire, and whatever is dictated by supine fear is like a ditch dug out. All sins spring from one or other of these two, greed or fear. Spiritual persons must therefore leap across all the things that could trap them on earth. Let all of us erect our ladders and spread our wings, and see whether we recognize ourselves there.”56

Augustine seems to contradict himself. At once his congregants are to understand that their leaping is not a corporeal action. Yet, inasmuch as sins of greed and fear involve the corporeal body, the action of their leaping does involve spiritual leaping over – not getting trapped by – impulses of the will that might lead to actions neither loving nor good. Leaping across one’s own greed and fear, however, is only prolegomenon to the more difficult leap that Augustine and his congregation are going to make with Idithun. Their initial leap, over the sins that result from fear and greed, predisposes them to enjoy the scriptures – to study, ponder, and enjoy the fruit of finding at the end of their search.57 This will be a sweeter joy, Augustine explains, than “gold and silver, feasting and luxury, hunting and fishing, games and jesting, frivolous theatrical entertainments, or 56  En. Ps. 38, 2, WSA III/16, p. 169; CCSL 38, p. 402, l. 20–24, 27–31: His ambulemus, his ascendamus, his uolemus. Cum ergo audit quisque transilientem hunc, et imitari eligit, non quaerat leuitate corporis transilire fossas, aut aliqua altiuscula praeuolare saliendo; sed quod ad corpora attinet dico; nam fossas etiam transilit […]. Succensa igni sunt, quae facit male ardens cupiditas; et effossa sunt, quae facit male iacens timiditas. Hinc enim peccata omnia: aut cupiendo, aut timendo. Transiliat ergo iste omnia quibus teneri posset in terra; erigat scalas suas, exserat pennas suas, uideat utrum quisquam agnoscat hic se. 57  Augustine’s description of praying the Psalms with his congregation sounds similar tones about searching and finding as the opening and closing of conf. (1, 1, 1; 13, 38, 53).

christology, ascent, and augustine’s idithun

289

the high offices which people try to seize.”58 Having set up his congregation to leap over all of those things and leap along with the word of the Lord, Augustine begins the heart of his exposition of the psalm. He and his congregation are going to be “Idithun.” Having plucked up the good impulses of their wills, they are going leaping. How they do this and toward whom are the next subjects of our investigation in three different psalms. 5. Ascent 1: leaping across together (Psalm 38) Psalm 38 is the lament of an individual in mortal illness who can bear silence no longer and cries out for healing to God. This is the first instance in the Psalms where Idithun appears. Augustine works through this lament in terms of Idithun and leaping. I will argue that Idithun’s leaps by means of interior feet, ladders, and wings always involve other people – those whom he goes over, to whom he speaks, and for whom he continues to leap. In other words, I will argue that his leaping is not a spiritual ascent taken alone, as is characteristic of ascents toward the Plotinian one.59 Rather, it is an ongoing dialectic of interior and exterior, of leaping over things that distract from God and then further leaping toward God – all while being with others. This leap is a dynamic spiritual exercise that is played out within the body of Christ. For this psalm and each of the subsequent ones, I break down the leaping exercise in terms of exterior and interior, and then movement from inferior to superior within the interior. En. Ps. 38, 2, WSA III/16, p. 169; CCSL 38, p. 403, l. 39–43: Neque enim sunt in auro et argento, in epulis atque luxuria, in uenatibus et piscatibus, in ludo et ioco, in theatricis nugis, in affectandis et apprehendendis ruinosis honoribus. 59  This is helpfully drawn out by Dowler, amongst others, who describes Plotinian ascent as passing from the alone to the alone. McGinn characterizes the Christian ascent in terms of community, using the ascent at Ostia as evidence (conf. 9,  10,  23–26): “The Ostia vision was the shared experience of Augustine and his mother Monica […]. It is difficult to conceive of Plotinus, or any other pagan mystic, describing a mystical vision that is at once communal and accessible to a soul not trained in philosophy, especially that of a woman.” R.  Dowler, Songs of Love: A Pastoral Reading of St Augustine of Hippo’s Enarrationes in Psalmos, PhD diss., University of Durham, 2007, p. 123; and B. McGinn, Foundations of Mysticism [n. 24], 234. 58 

290

kevin g. grove

a. Exterior In Psalm 38, Idithun first leaps over those things that might render him stuck to the earth, including greed and fear. But, once Idithun has leapt over those things and people in order to take “delight in the higher things and find joy in the word of the Lord,” there is yet a further leap that he must make.60 Augustine asks his congregation: “But is there more to say? Must we make yet another leap, from here to somewhere else again?”61 Augustine uses the interaction of the psalmist with those around him – “I will keep guard over my conduct, so that I do not offend with my tongue” – in order to describe Idithun’s leap in relation to other people.62 The leaping psalmist has not leapt in order to cease interacting with others. The opposite is the case; he leaps into situations where he is surrounded by others. This presents a great difficulty. Idithun, for instance, finds that materialists are unwilling to speak of matters of the spirit, and others of ill will try to trap him in speech. The leaping psalmist discovers that he has two desires: his soul “wishes both to hear and to speak – to hear within and speak outside – it is troubled by the effort that speaking demands and fails through insufficient attention and inadvertence, and says something that should not be said.”63 Significant here is Augustine’s continued insistence on Idithun’s desire to speak externally what he hears interiorly from God. b. Exterior to interior Not knowing how to negotiate the internal-external dynamic of hearing and speaking, Idithun enters into a self-imposed silence on matters of the experience of God. Augustine acknowledges the

60  En. Ps. 38, 2, WSA III/16, p. 170; CCSL 38, p. 403, l. 47–48: Et delectetur in his, et gaudeat in uerbo Domini. 61  En. Ps. 38, 2, WSA III/16, p. 170; CCSL 38, p. 403, l. 48–50: Sed quid dicimus? Et hinc transiliendum est in aliud? An huc usque habet quo transiliat qui transilire desiderat? 62  En. Ps. 38, 3, WSA III/16, p. 170; CCSL 38, p. 403, l. 1–2: Custodiam uias meas, ut non delinquam in lingua mea. 63  En. Ps. 38, 3, WSA III/16, p. 171; CCSL 38, p. 404, l. 25–27: Et audire uult et dicere, audire intus, dicere foris; aliquando perturbata studio dicendi, deficit indiligentia agnoscendi; et in his dicit aliquid quod forte non esset dicendum.

christology, ascent, and augustine’s idithun

291

difficulty of speaking to others about one’s own spiritual experiences: “What can you say to the inflated, the turbulent, the vexatious, the litigious, the chatterboxes? What can you say that is holy and edifying, what can you say to them concerning religious truth that leaps beyond them, when the Lord himself said even to willing hearers, people who longed to learn, who hungered for the food of truth and received it avidly, ‘I have many things to tell you, but at present you are unable to bear them’?”64

After his first leap over those things that might render him stuck to the earth, Idithun has experienced remarkable things that are also potential topics of conversation which he can (or cannot) take up with those around him. Idithun chooses to impose silence on himself, however, because he notices that not everyone understands his intentions or is interested in his concerns with the inner life. Augustine is developing two matters. There is a contrast between Idithun, concerned with matters of interior truths in his leap, and others – like the staunch materialist – who are not interested in matters of the spirit. The more important point for my argument is that Idithun is in conversation with the materialist at all. Idithun’s leap to the interior using his inner scaling ladder, feet, and wings does not remove or separate him from those around him. Rather, he continues in conversation with them; it is a painful and difficult conversation as Idithun has come to experience something which he struggles to articulate and his enemies seem unwilling to understand. The leap which Idithun makes in an ostensibly inward direction is nevertheless lived in contact with everyone around him, even with the enemies who ridicule his God. This means that Idithun’s self-imposed rule of silence seems on the one hand the cultivation of virtue (i. e. he will not say anything so as to sin with his tongue), but on the other it means he neglects the speech that, as we will see, is fundamental to being a leaper. En. Ps. 38, 3, WSA III/16, p. 172; CCSL 38, p. 404, l. 59–64: Quid enim dicas turgidis, turbidis, calumniosis, litigiosis, uerbosis? Quid dicas sanctum et pium, et de religione transiliens eos; quando ipsis libenter audientibus, discere cupientibus, ueritatis cibo inhiantibus, auide accipientibus, et Dominus ait: Adhuc multa habeo uobis dicere, sed non potestis illa portare modo. 64 

292

kevin g. grove

Second, Augustine explains that Idithun’s fate is a “sad and irksome” one which his hearers are to avoid rather than to imitate.65 Idithun was too afraid of saying something wrongly, and thus in his self-imposed silence he said nothing at all. The psalm reads, “I have become deaf, and have been humbled, and have fallen silent even from good words.”66 Augustine parses the moral implications of this silence: “because [Idithun] resolved to keep quiet, he began to lose his hearing.”67 Those who hear have an obligation to speak, or they lose the ability to hear. This sort of thinking would be completely illogical if Idithun were merely an individual making an ascent to God on his own. But, when the whole Christ is considered, then the demand of speech for all who hear makes more sense. Augustine continues: “If you are a leaper, you stand and wait to hear from God what you are to say to your fellow men and women. You leap between our rich God and the needy people who look to you so that you may hear in one quarter and speak in the other. But if you choose not to speak on the one side, you will not deserve to hear on the other: you are scorning the poor, so you will be scorned yourself by God who is rich.”68

The action of the leap into God is not only for the benefit of Idithun but for the benefit of others as well. God is rich, but one cannot simply hear of God’s richness on one’s own and expect the enjoyment of it to endure. Augustine says, “Why do you seek to receive anything if you are unwilling to dole it out? Give what you have, that you may deserve what you have not.”69 It is very 65  Inasmuch as Idithun is the body of Christ, the sad and irksome condition is that of the body and not the head. En. Ps. 38, 4, WSA III/16, p. 173; CCSL 38, p. 405, l. 15: Triste et molestum. 66  En. Ps. 38, 4, WSA III/16, p. 172; CCSL 38, p. 405, l. 7–8: Obsurdui, et humilatus sum, et silui a bonis. 67  En. Ps. 38, 4, WSA III/16, p. 173; CCSL 38, p. 405, l. 18–19: Et quoniam statuit tacere, coepit non audire. 68  En. Ps. 38, 4, WSA III/16, p. 173; CCSL 38, p. 405, l. 19–24: Stas enim si transiliens es, exspectas a Deo audire quid dicas hominibus; inter diuitem Deum, et inopem quaerentem quid audiat, intercurris transiliens, qui possis et hinc audire, et hac dicere; si eligis hac non dicere, non mereberis hinc audire: contemnis pauperem, contemneris a diuite. 69  En. Ps. 38, 4, WSA III/16, p. 173; CCSL 38, p. 405, l. 25–29: Quid ergo quaeris accipere, quod piger es erogare? Merito ergo quoniam quod acceperas dicere

christology, ascent, and augustine’s idithun

293

likely that there is some level of self-disclosure by Augustine here on his work as a bishop and a preacher. I do not think, as some scholars suggest, that he is speaking of the role of the preacher at this point in the exposition.70 He is describing Idithun who is taking the leaping journey that all of Augustine’s congregants, as the body of Christ, are to make. What is to result from one’s listening to God is further speaking with those around them. Keeping silence after hearing God’s word would bring spiritual deafness to any of God’s members. c. Inferior to superior Idithun shows that if members of the body of Christ hope to learn anything of God, it will be through what they share with both those who agree and disagree with them. Concerning the leap and the speech it entails, Augustine preaches: “Though this is a process that goes on inside ourselves, and cannot be expressed in words, anyone who engages in it must believe that it goes on in others too. None of us must think ourselves to be the sole recipients of this gift from God.  Let Idithun say on their behalf, ‘Make known to me my end, O Lord.’”71 Idithun’s self-imposed silence was problematic because it meant he was no longer communicating with others in the body. Through Idithun, Augustine is able to unfold a binary tension between interior and exterior in Christ. The interior senses, as well as the ascent to one’s end in God, are things which presumably would happen within. But, Augustine reminds his assembly that there is a danger in thinking about noluisti, impediris ne accipias quod accipere cupiebas. Aliquid enim uolebas, aliquid habebas: da quod habes, ut merearis accipere quod non habes. 70  The section heading as provided by Maria Boulding is “Woe betide a preacher who falls silent.” Boulding notes later that Augustine’s remarks come from his own heart and experience (WSA III/17, p. 173, n. 17). While I do not doubt this to be true, R. Dowler extends Boulding further to suggest an imperative to preach (“Songs of Love” [n. 59], p. 17). The text of the section itself, while perhaps also a good description of Augustine as preacher, is about the body of Christ and thus also the congregation. The English section heading in Boulding’s otherwise marvelous translation is unfortunately misleading. 71  En. Ps. 38, 6, WSA III/16, p. 176; CCSL 38, p. 408, l. 55–59: Negotium enim hoc agit, credit esse et in alio; non solum se putet accepisse quod Dei est. Dicat ergo in his Idithun: Notum fac mihi, Domine, finem meum.

294

kevin g. grove

God’s grace being conferred on them only as isolated individuals. In fact, Idithun’s leaping emerges out of a desire to relate to others in love: “Though [Idithun] had leapt beyond some things, he prayed not to halt on the way, but to be carried on by desire to the things of heaven, until after leaping over some things he might at last leap over all. Droplets of divine dew were falling on him from the scriptures, arousing his thirst to run like a hart to the fountain of life, and in that light to see light, and to be sheltered in the recess of Gods’ face, far from human disturbance. There he would be able to say, ‘At last! I want nothing else. Here I love everyone and fear no one.’”72

The journey that Augustine describes is predictable until the very last line. Idithun’s leaping is inspired by scripture, transacted within himself and therein far from human disturbance. The account could at first seem to be one of leaving the world. However, being in God would enable Idithun not merely to be alone with God, but also to love everyone and fear no one. In this way, ascent to God is in the hope of fixing broken human relationships characterized not by love but by fear (examples of Idithun’s fear included his enemies, those who did not understand him, etc.). This hints at a difficult and paradoxical point that runs through Augustine’s discussion of ascent in the Expositions of the Psalms. Tasting, touching, jumping toward, or even ruminating on Christ or his words are not activities that one does alone. One does them in the body of Christ, which means growing more aware of the wholeness of that body. Idithun, as an individual, is being renewed by Christ in his leaping. By leaping into Christ as his end (HIM WHO IS), Idithun is putting on Christ.73 He wears less and less of the old man (Adam)

72  En. Ps. 38, 6, WSA III/16, p. 175; CCSL 38, pp. 407–08, l. 31–38: Et quibusdam iam transilitis, non remaneret in uia, sed desiderio raperetur in superna; usque quo ille qui quaedam transilierat, omnia transiliret, et ab irroratione quadam guttarum dominicarum de Scripturarum nube uenientium, ueniret sicut ceruus ad fontem uitae, et in illo lumine uideret lumen, et absconderetur in uultu Dei a conturbatione hominum: ubi diceret: Bene est, ultra nihil uolo, omnes hic amo, neminem hic timeo. 73  En. Ps. 38, 9. Augustine is claiming that the leap into Christ is a leap into the God of Exodus 3, 16 (I AM WHO AM).

christology, ascent, and augustine’s idithun

295

such that Augustine says to his congregation: “Look at Adam growing old, and Christ being made new in us: ‘Though our outer self is decaying,’ says scripture, ‘our inner self is being renewed daily’” (II Cor. 4, 16).74 The newness into which Augustine and his congregants are being drawn is that which is provided by Christ. It increases even though their individual bodies are comporting towards death and decay.75 Despite feeling the emptiness of all earthly preoccupations, Idithun is drawn forward in faith, hope, and love toward the newness for which he yearns. That yearned for newness changes Idithun’s attitude to his own wealth and to the poor. d. The leap and the poor The external effects of Idithun’s increasing internal newness are nowhere more evident than the seemingly radical consequences for his relations to money and with the poor. Augustine begins his commentary on 38, 7, preaching: “Although each human being walks as an image, nonetheless his perturbation is vain. He heaps up treasure, but does not know for whom he will be gathering it.”76 Augustine arranges his rhetorical exposition around a single question he wishes to put to the hearts of his congregants: for whom are you keeping your wealth?77 Augustine works to focus his audience’s attention only on the question at hand. He is not talking about the just acquisition of wealth; nor is he speaking of the hardships of those who have wealth. He confesses that his congregants will think him a simpleton (insipientem) for carrying on about one single question.78 Augustine replies to his congregants: “I see what you intend to say (did you not think it would have occurred to me)? You will say, ‘I am keeping [my money] for

En. Ps. 38, 9, WSA III/16, p. 179; CCSL 38, p. 410, l. 13–15: Videte uete­ rascentem Adam, et innouari Christum in nobis: Et si exterior, inquit, homo noster corrumpitur, sed interior renouatur de die in diem. 75  En. Ps. 38, 9. 76  En. Ps. 38, 11, WSA III/16, p. 181; CCSL 38, p. 412, l. 8–9, 12–13: Quam­ quam ergo in imagine ambulat homo, tamen uane conturbatur […] Thesaurizat, et non cognoscit cui congregabit ea. 77  En. Ps. 38, 11–12. 78  En. Ps. 38, 11. 74 

296

kevin g. grove

my children.’”79 Augustine is sharp at this point, suggesting that what looks like family loyalty is an excuse for injustice.80 Augustine calls upon Idithun as one who knows about this very thing, one who has left behind the old to leap into the new. Augustine at first seems to be setting up a simple parallel between the exterior riches one might have and store and the interior riches which one gains in Christ. Just as exteriorly one might be entrusted with a great sum of money, interiorly Christ intends to give them the great riches of himself. The issue is first one of storage. Storing one’s money at home might be unwise because of dishonest stewards; thus one would go to a banker or financier. But, Augustine introduces Matthew’s Gospel: “Lay up for yourselves treasure in heaven” (6, 20).81 The only safe place to put one’s riches is in Christ. Augustine deliberately tries to provoke anxiety about worldly riches. As he says, people often return to their homes to find their things stolen. They rightfully worry a great deal about their exterior riches. Augustine explains that it would be common enough for people to pray to Christ in order that their exterior things might not be stolen.82 Thus they take interior recourse in order to produce exterior security. But rather than trust in Christ interiorly to secure their exterior goods, Augustine simply suggests that they believe in Christ and as a result put their money where Christ advised them to put it. How does one put treasure into heaven? “Put it into the hands of the poor, give it to the needy.”83 Augustine justifies himself with Matthew 25, 40, “When you did it for even the least of those who are mine, you did it for me.”84 With just a few short lines, Augustine 79  En. Ps. 38, 11, WSA III/16, p. 182; CCSL 38, p. 413, l. 44–46: Video quid uelis dicere, quasi quod uis dicere huic non occurrerit; dicturus es, Filiis meis seruo. 80  En. Ps. 38, 11, WSA III/16, p. 182; CCSL 38, p. 413, l. 46–47: Haec est uox pietatis, excusatio iniquitatis: Filiis meis, inquis, seruo. Etiam seruas filiis tuis. 81  En. Ps. 38, 12, WSA III/16, p. 183; CCSL 38, p. 414, l. 29–30: Thesaurizate uobis thesaurum in coelo. 82  En. Ps. 38, 12. 83  En. Ps. 38, 12, WSA III/16, p. 184; CCSL 38, p. 414, l. 68: Pone in manibus pauperum, da egentibus. 84  En. Ps. 38, 12, WSA III/16, p. 184; CCSL 38, p. 414, l. 70–71: Cum uni ex minimis meis fecistis, mihi fecistis.

christology, ascent, and augustine’s idithun

297

provokes great anxiety about exterior wealth, but then uses interior wealth not to provide solace but to overhaul completely the exterior. Storing up treasure in heaven means trusting in Christ as the secure hold of one’s riches and giving one’s riches to the poor as a way of giving to Christ.85 In a way parallel to ascent in which interior ascent means exterior care for others, interior riches necessitate largesse with one’s exterior riches. Augustine’s hearers must have reacted visibly or audibly to his preaching about their wealth and their homes because he comments, “Ah, some covetous people felt a clutch at their hearts when I said that.”86 But if Idithun is leaping to Christ as his end, he cannot be held captive by any temporal good.87 Augustine does not say that Idithun ceases to exist in the world, merely that he is not held captive. In this way Idithun is able to leap as St Paul ran: “Forgetting what lies behind and straining to what lies ahead, 85  Scholars who look for concrete images of poverty in patristic texts have expressed frustration with the general and amorphous descriptions of the poor in patristic preaching, going so far as to suggest that preachers cared more about salvation of the rich than the reality of the poor, and that the poor get subsumed into Christ. The scholars who raise these questions, however, categorically miss – as Allan Fitzgerald explains – the centrality of participation in the life of Christ for both rich and the poor alike. As Fitzgerald says, “Identity with Christ is not a loss of dignity” for Augustine, “but the very basis for all Christian dignity.” Allen and Neil have again suggested the importance of the question of whether or not patristic preaching subsumed the poor, though they acknowledge the persuasiveness of Fitzgerald. Those who claim Augustine’s interest in the salvation of the individual over the good of the poor – and, I would argue, miss the interior-exterior aspect of ascent – include Boniface Ramsey, John Burnaby, and Raymond Canning. A.  Fitzgerald, “Almsgiving in the works of Saint Augustine”, in Signum Pietatis: Festgabe für Cornelius Petrus Mayer, OSA zum 60. Geburtstag, Würzburg, 1989, pp. 445–59 (esp. p. 446); B. Ramsey, “Almsgiving in the Latin Church: The Late Fourth and Early Fifth Centuries”, Theological Studies, 43:2 (1982), pp. 226–59; P.  Allen, B.  Neil, “Discourses on the Poor in the Psalms” [n. 35], p. 193; J.  Burnaby, Amor Dei: A Study of the Religion of St Augustine: The Hulsean Lectures for 1938, London, 1938, pp. 132–35; R.  Canning, The Unity of Love for God and Neighbor in St Augustine, Leuven, 1993, pp. 394–96. 86  En. Ps. 38, 12, WSA III/16, p. 184; CCSL 38, p. 414, l. 55–56: Hinc fortasse expauerunt corda cupidorum. 87  Augustine’s argument is that people who will pass away are storing up money for children who will pass away. One cannot hold onto things of the earth (en. Ps. 38, 12).

298

kevin g. grove

I bend my whole effort to follow after the prize of God’s heavenly call in Christ Jesus.”88 The end of Idithun’s effort is Christ and rest, but his leaping into that rest means caring for “the pauper lying at the gate.”89 This is a pattern case for Augustine. Once Augustine has established the wholeness of Christ as the end of ascent and the location of one’s leaping, then ascent into Christ means not only becoming aware of, but physically caring for his body on earth.90 In an analysis of the poor in Augustine’s Expositions of the Psalms, Richard Finn convincingly argues that Augustine deliberately “foreshorten[s]” the distance between rich and poor; both stand together before God.91 I am suggesting that the way in which Augustine accomplishes this foreshortening is in the whole Christ.92 The action of interior ascent into Christ with their scaling ladders and wings led Augustine’s congregants right to Christ’s body: the naked, hungry, and homeless Christ in their midst.

88  En. Ps. 38, 14, WSA III/16, p. 186; CCSL 38, p. 416, l. 17–19: Quae retro oblitus, in ea quae ante sunt extentus, secundum intentionem sequor, ad palmam supernae uocationis Dei in Christo Iesu. 89  En. Ps. 38, 22, WSA III/16, p. 192; CCSL 38, p. 422, l. 20–21: Pauperis ante ianuam iacentis. 90  This is further support of Hofer’s thesis of the importance of Matth. 25, 21–46 for en. Ps. 91  R.  Finn, “Portraying the Poor: Descriptions of Poverty in Christian Texts from the Late Roman Empire”, in Poverty in the Roman World, ed. by M. Atkins, R. Osborne, Cambridge, 2006, pp. 130–44 (esp. p. 131 and 140). 92  Finn writes, “The identification of Christ with the poor was of course commonly used by promoters of almsgiving, and to observe this is to make a point made many times before. But it may be worth noting that in Augustine it has a theological value beyond its moral worth as a stimulus to generosity.” Finn is perhaps more convincing than Peter Brown here, whose Through the Eye of a Needle attributes “spiritual communism” (a term of Goulven Madec) to Augustine on account of a synthesis of Cicero and Plotinus. In Augustine’s preaching, the giving of money to the poor more properly emerges from his theology of the whole Christ. R.  Finn, “Portraying the Poor” [n. 91], p. 139; P. Brown, Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350–550 AD, Princeton, 2012, pp. 173–84; G.  Madec, “Le communisme spirituel”, in Homo Spiritalis: Festgabe für Luc Verheijen, ed. by C. Mayer, Würzburg, 1987, pp. 225–39.

christology, ascent, and augustine’s idithun

299

6. Ascent 2: leaping and babbling (Psalm 76) Psalm 76 is the second instance where Augustine reads a lament text as an ascent with the help of Idithun the leaper. On its own, Psalm 76 is a communal lament in which the speaker considers the silence of God, expresses the feeling of being abandoned by God, and undertakes the work of remembering the wonders and works of the Lord on behalf of the people Israel. In both Psalms 38 and 76, it is striking that Augustine takes up the topic of ascent through the lament. Laments, by genre, are about feelings of abandonment in present conditions as well as memories of past trials; they were not written for the purpose of ascending to Jerusalem.93 But, because Idithun’s name appears at the door of a psalm of lament, Augustine considers “leaping across” from the starting point of abandonment, rejection, and disappointment. In so doing, Idithun yet again provides Augustine the opportunity to describe interior dispositions in an exterior forum. Augustine’s exegesis of the psalm is characteristically Christological. Idithun, who represents Augustine’s leaping congregation, is leaping toward his end. The end is Jesus Christ.94 The action of leaping toward Christ means overleaping obstacles – things that clog with sticky toils or make the person too heavy for flight – which might get in the way of attaining to the fullness of that reality.95 This immediately sounds notes of leaving the corporeality of the world. Augustine tempers this language, however, by considering Christ’s relationship to the Father. When Philip begged Jesus, “Show us the Father and that is enough for us” (Ioh. 14, 8), Philip was exhibiting desire for God as his end and nothing less. Augustine points out, however, that though Philip’s 93  Claus Westermann helpfully explains the importance of the lament as a call of distress, which is an “inevitable part of what happens between God and man.” Various laments look backward (especially in anticipation of death) and forward (in times of affliction). The lament represents a way of speaking of God not as object, but as a partner in an ongoing dialogue. C.  Westermann, Praise and Lament in the Psalms, transl. by K.  Crim, R.  Soulen, Edinburgh, 1981, p. 261. 94  En. Ps. 76, 1, WSA III/18, p. 73; CCSL 39, p. 1052, l. 5–6: Loquitur hic ergo congregatio transiliens, ut perueniat ad finem qui est Christus Iesus. 95  En. Ps. 76, 1.

300

kevin g. grove

desire might have been rightly directed to its end in the Father, he missed the fact that the same end was right in front of him. Philip was ready to go leaping over all other realities in order to stand in the presence of all that is and say “that is enough for us” (Ioh. 14, 8). Jesus chides Philip and reminds him, “I and the Father are one.”96 Augustine writes that in responding to Philip in that manner, Jesus “taught everyone who wished to understand him that they should look for their end in him as well because he and the Father are one.”97 Thus when Idithun, the body of Christ, goes leaping into “him who is the source of all else,” Augustine is very keen to show that that leap is into Christ who comprises the way in which the Father might be known.98 Later in the psalm, Augustine will add that God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – is the single God who is working wonders in the leaping psalmist. Having explained that the leap they are going to make is into Christ, Augustine then uses the verses of the psalm to describe why that exercise is valuable. After the title, the first verse of Augustine’s psalm read, “I lifted up my voice and cried to the Lord.”99 He muses with his congregation: it is possible to cry to the Lord for any number of things like riches one hopes to gain, losses one wishes to avoid, safety of one’s nearest and dearest, security of the household, temporal happiness, worldly advancement, or even bodily fitness.100 Augustine’s point is that it is quite easy in prayer to seek things from the Lord without doing the work of seeking the Lord himself, “as though anything he gives could be more

96  En. Ps. 76, 1, WSA III/18, p. 73; CCSL 39, p. 1052, l. 14–15, 18–19: Ostende nobis Patrem, et sufficit nobis and Ego et Pater unum sumus. 97  En. Ps. 76, 1, WSA III/18, p. 73; CCSL 39, p. 1052, l. 19–21: Docuitque omnem hominem qui Christum intellegeret, etiam in eo habere finem, quia ipse et Pater unum sunt. 98  En. Ps. 76, 1, WSA III/18, p. 73; CCSL 39, p. 1052, l. 11–13: Ad id quod sufficit, ultra quod nihil est, infra quod sunt omnia, et ex quo sunt omnia. 99  En. Ps. 76, 2, WSA III/18, p. 74; CCSL 39, p. 1052, l. 1: Voce mea, inquit, ad Dominum clamaui. 100  En. Ps. 76, 2, WSA III/18, p. 74; CCSL 39, pp. 1052–1053, l. 1–5: Sed multi clamant ad Dominum pro diuitiis acquirendis damnisque deuitandis, pro suorum salute, pro stabilitate domus suae, pro felicitate temporali, pro dignitate saeculari; postremo pro ipsa etiam salute corporis, quae patrimonium est pauperis.

christology, ascent, and augustine’s idithun

301

delightful than the giver.”101 One’s voice – the instrument of the human body for prayer – can be directed toward whatever object evokes it. The psalmist, however, says “my voice was directed to God.”102 In other words, Idithun the leaper learned how to direct his voice to Christ alone and not to Christ through some third thing. This is the purpose of the leaping ascent, and Augustine says to his congregants, “Now let him teach us how to do it.”103 a. Exterior One might reasonably categorize Idithun’s actions in the psalm as dealing first with the exterior, then the interior as well as the superior. In tracing this ascent, I again will draw particular attention to the way in which Idithun interacts with others of like mind as well as those who trouble him at each stage. Idithun begins his ascent as one in trouble, “On the day of my trouble I searched for God.”104 The day of his trouble is temporal existence itself and he searches for God as one with “hands outstretched in the night,” or one not able to see what he is seeking.105 This search is not hopeless or ineffectual, however, because it takes place “before” God, or “in his presence.”106 Thus the whole search for God happens in God.  One’s “hands outstretched in the night” are the actions of searching in this world, but there is precedent for that, too. Thomas the apostle sought the Lord with his physical hands when he touched the wounds of the resurrected Christ’s hands and side (Ioh. 20, 28–29). Though Thomas was rebuked for it, Augustine suggests to his congregants that they who believe without having seen still rightly seek the Lord by means of their hands, that is,

101  En. Ps. 76, 2, WSA III/18, p. 74; CCSL 39, p. 1053, l. 9–10: Quasi uero suauius esse possit quod dat, quam ipse qui dat. 102  En. Ps. 76, 2, WSA III/18, p. 75; CCSL 39, p. 1053, l. 22: Vox mea ad Dominum. 103  En. Ps. 76, 2, WSA III/18, p. 75; CCSL 39, p. 1053, l. 38–39: Doceat nos quomodo id fiat. 104  En. Ps. 76, 3, WSA III/18, p. 75; CCSL 39, p. 1053, l. 1: In die tribulationis meae Deum exquisiui. 105  En. Ps. 76, 3, WSA III/18, p. 75; CCSL 39, p. 1054, l. 13: Manibus meis nocte. 106  En. Ps. 76, 3–4, WSA III/18, pp. 75, 77; CCSL 39, p. 1054, l. 17, p. 1055, l. 67–68: coram eo and coram ipso, respectively.

302

kevin g. grove

by means of their actions.107 He assures them, in this instance, that their leap and therein their search will be successful because they are conducted before God, in his presence. Idithun makes his first progress in spiritual action when he remembers God. He could find no consolation in life because of frequent scandals (inside and outside of the Church), multiple wounds, and failed human comforts. Then, however, he remembers God and that memory fills him with delight.108 Augustine presents the real joy of Idithun remembering God: “It is God who is to be proclaimed as glorious, therefore, since this man remembered him and was delighted with the memory, was consoled in sadness as though made new after almost despairing of salvation; it is God who is to be extolled.”109 Idithun, searching in God, remembers God in such a way that he is “as though made new.” What Augustine here adds is what happens to Idithun upon accomplishing this remembering: he babbles. Babbling, at first, is the external expression of profound interior consolation: “As consolation flooded me, I remembered God and babbled with delight.”110 Augustine compares the jubilant Idithun to a chatterbox who has “neither the power nor the wish” to be silent.111 Augustine does not laud Idithun for his chattering euphoria because it quickly fades away, a consequence of his speaking exteriorly and indiscriminately. The psalm says, “My enemies outdid me in watchfulness,” and Idithun realized that exteriorly his babbling would be misinterpreted and misunderstood.112 As Augustine reminds his congregation, the human spirit can be dissipated by chatter; in unceasing light banter one might En. Ps. 76, 4. En. Ps. 76, 5–6. 109  En. Ps. 76, 6, WSA III/18, p. 78; CCSL 39, pp. 1056–1057, l. 20–23: Praedicandus igitur est Deus, cuius iste memor factus delectatus est, et consolatus in quadam tristitia, et quodammodo salute desperata recreatus: praedicandus est Deus. 110  En. Ps. 76, 6, WSA III/18, p. 78; CCSL 39, p. 1057, l. 24–25: In ipsa consolatione memor factus Dei, delectatus garriui. 111  En. Ps. 76, 6, WSA III/18, p. 78; CCSL 39, p. 1057, l. 27–28: Nec ualentes nec uolentes tacere. 112  En. Ps. 76, 7, WSA III/18, p. 79; CCSL 39, p. 1057, l. 2–3: Anticipauerunt uigilias omnes inimici mei. 107 

108 

christology, ascent, and augustine’s idithun

303

be partially understood or misjudged by one’s enemies.113 Idithun’s babbling was not done in isolation. His remembering the works of the Lord had consequences for those around him, in this case the negative effect of his babbling being misinterpreted. So, in response to those around him, Idithun turns within. He moves from exterior to interior. b. Exterior to interior Idithun thinks of bygone days, “like someone who has been thrashed outside, and so has taken refuge indoors, and now transacts his business in the private retreat of his own mind.”114 This move to the interior is a tremendously productive one for Idithun. Once he is in the inner retreat of his own mind, he is under no threat of external critique. As Augustine says, once he is within, no one can say: “You have said the wrong thing,” “You have talked too much,” or “Your opinions are perverse.”115 Instead, within himself Idithun is able to do the work of the psalm: “I thought about bygone days and called to mind the years of eternity.”116 Idithun’s consideration of eternity requires tremendous effort, profound silence, and being free from external affairs and concerns. Yet, after two sets of leaping – prompted from within and without – Idithun manages to remember the years of eternity. Idithun has not finished his leaping. Once he is within himself and has pondered the works of eternity, he again begins to babble – interiorly, not exteriorly. He babbles and searches his spirit, a phrase which Augustine uses with regularity to describe an examination process akin to confession.117 But, the psalm does not leave Idithun within himself: En. Ps. 76, 7. En. Ps. 76, 8, WSA III/18, p. 79; CCSL 39, p. 1058, l. 1–2: Iam iste uelut qui uapulauerat foris, tulit se intro, in secretario suae mentis agit. 115  En. Ps. 76, 8, WSA III/18, p. 80; CCSL 39, p. 1058, l. 5–6: Male dixisti, Multum locutus es, and Peruerse sensisti. 116  En. Ps. 76, 8, WSA III/18, p. 80; CCSL 39, p. 1058, l. 9–10: Cogitaui dies antiquos, et annorum aeternorum memor fui. 117  En. Ps. 76, 9, WSA III/18, p. 80. Augustine frequently uses searching one’s spirit as a phrase to describe introspection. This phrase, along with pouring oneself out and turning back to oneself, form a set of expressions describing the interior aspect of spiritual exercise and occur often in the en. Ps. 113  114 

304

kevin g. grove “There is a danger, though, that [Idithun] may remain in his spirit; for when he babbled outside himself, all his enemies outdid him in watchfulness, and so he found only sadness there, and his spirit fainted away. Whereupon this man who had been babbling outwardly took to babbling inwardly instead where he was safe, where in silence and alone he called to mind the years of eternity. ‘And I probed my spirit,’ he says. There is a danger, therefore that he may become stuck within his spirit, and be a leaper no more.”118

Augustine establishes a limit to the helpfulness of the “interior” in terms of ascent. Certainly, Idithun was able to exercise his action of leaping interiorly in a profound way having turned from those who misunderstood him, calling to mind the years of eternity, and beginning another bout of holy babbling in which he probes his own spirit. Augustine presents the danger, however, as “becom[ing] stuck” (remaneat) in his own spirit.119 Idithun runs the risk of turning to the interior and getting stuck in himself, rather than reaching his end in Christ, which also includes his exterior. c. Inferior to superior The reason for the need to move beyond the interior is Idithun’s need for mercy. He wonders with the words of the psalm: “Will [God] persist in cutting off his mercy from one generation to the next? Will God forget to be merciful?”120 Idithun is aware of his own need for the mercy and healing that only God can provide. Once the psalmist realizes this, the final leap ensues: “When the psalmist realized this he was so delighted with God that he left even himself behind in order to be with God and babble all the more about God’s works, not in his own spirit, nor as

118  Emphasis added. En. Ps. 76, 9, WSA III/18, p. 81; CCSL 39, p. 1059, l. 13–19: Timendum ne in ipso spiritu suo remaneat; garriuit enim foris; et quia anticipauerunt uigilias omnes inimici eius, inuenit ibi tristitiam, et defecit spiritus eius. Qui garriebat foris, ecce coepit intus garrire securus, ubi solus in silentio cogitat annos aeternos: Et perscrutabar, inquit, spiritum meum. Et hic timendum ne in spiritu suo remaneat, et non sit transiliens. 119  Augustine’s term for Idithun’s getting stuck inside himself is the same one he uses for Lot’s wife looking back and getting stuck in the past (en. Ps. 69, 9). 120  En. Ps. 76, 11, WSA III/18, p. 82; CCSL 39, p. 1060, l. 1–3: Aut in finem misericordiam abscindet a generatione in generationem? aut obliuiscetur misereri Deus?

christology, ascent, and augustine’s idithun

305

the person he was, but in God, by whom he had been created. So he leapt, and left this place behind. Look at this leaper, and see whether he pauses anywhere short of God.”121

Augustine has accomplished with this leaping ascent what he had earlier done with memory. The leaper is only able to leap or babble at this most profound level when he does so “in God.” This is different from babbling outside himself as well as babbling within himself. Augustine’s skill as an orator emerges here as he leads his congregation into the final leap: “‘And  I said’ […] Yes? What did he say, as he made this leap beyond himself? ‘Now I have begun!’ For I have found my way even out of myself. ‘Now I have begun!’ There is no more danger here; it was remaining in myself that was dangerous.”122 “Having begun” is the state of letting the “Most High” begin to change him.123 This precipitates a third bout of babbling by Idithun, though this time babbling in a positive sense. The third bout of babbling is the spiritual state – exterior, outside oneself – in which, with a certain amount of self-forgetfulness, one begins to enjoy God.124 Augustine reviews for his congregation that they have made this journey with Idithun. They have their own inner retreat from the world; they know they can meditate on the years of eternity in silence. But, Idithun began a third bout of babbling – the meditation on the works of the Lord and the enjoyment of God – characterized by merry making without anxiety. Augustine addresses his congregation about their enjoyment of God: “Does anyone live without enjoyment? And do you suppose, my brothers and sisters, that people who fear God, worship God, love God, get no enjoyment out of it? Do you really think, will you 121  En. Ps. 76, 11, WSA III/18, p. 82; CCSL 39, p. 1060, l. 12–16: Hoc ubi cognouit iste, transcendit et se delectatus in Deo, ut ubi esset, et in eius operibus magis garriret; non in spiritu suo, non in eo quod erat, sed in eo a quo factus erat. Et hinc ergo transiliens transcendit. Videte transilientem, uidete si remaneat alicubi quousque perueniat ad Deum. 122  En. Ps. 76, 12, WSA III/18, p. 82; CCSL 39, p. 1060, l. 1–4: Et dixi. Iam seipsum transiliens, quid dixit? Nunc coepi: cum excessissem et me. Nunc coepi. Hic iam nullum periculum est; nam et in meipso remanere, periculum fuit. 123  En. Ps. 76, 12. 124  En. Ps. 76, 13, WSA III/18, p. 83; CCSL 39, p. 1061, l. 16–17: Gaudere in operibus Dei, est obliuisci et te, si potes illo solo delectari.

306

kevin g. grove dare to think, that while gaming-board, theatre, hunting, fowling and fishing yield enjoyment, the works of God yield none? Can you doubt that meditation on God affords enjoyment of its own?”125

A psalm of lament ends in a markedly joyful tone. Idithun makes a stop-and-start journey of babbling, silence, babbling within, leaping, and finally babbling in God. Augustine uses this journey of the individual Idithun as the journey of his congregation writ small. Their meditation begins and ends in Christ, but that meditation unfolds both without and within – with enemies, in their owns spirits, and when forgetful of themselves yet among each other they enjoy God. Augustine further connects his Christology to the Trinity. It is God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit – who works miracles in the leaping psalmist: “His very leap to the place he has reached was a miracle of God.”126 Both the action of leaping and the end of the leap are contained within the Trinity.127 Idithun, as a model for Augustine and his congregation, did not teach them any spiritual activity apart from Christ. Their “senses” are only employed inasmuch as they are used to relate themselves to Christ who is making them new. Further, the stop-and-start ascent toward enjoyment of God is something that Augustine’s entire congregation does together. Ascent is an exciting journey to which Augustine exhorts his congregants: “Where are you going? Where would you run? Whither flee, as you shy away not only from God, but even from yourselves? Come back, you rebels, to your heart, probe your own spirit, remember the years of eternity, discover God’s mercy around you and pay heed to the deeds his mercy has wrought. In the Holy One his way is to be found.”128 125  En. Ps. 76, 14, WSA III/18, p. 83; CCSL 39, p. 1061, l. 6–11: Quis uiuit sine affectionibus? Et putatis, fratres, quia qui Deum timent, Deum colunt, Deum diligunt, nullas habent affectiones? Vere, hoc putabis, et putare audebis, quod affectiones habeat tabula, theatrum, uenatio, aucupium, piscatus, et non habeant opera Dei? et non habeat meditatio Dei interiores affectiones quasdam suas […]? 126  En. Ps. 76, 16, WSA III/18, p. 85; CCSL 39, p. 1062, l. 18–19: Nam ut etiam transiliret, et ad ista perueniret, miraculum Dei fuit. 127  Though Augustine’s use of the totus Christus is the dominant lens for his preaching, the Trinity is part and parcel of his presentation of Christ. 128  En. Ps. 76, 15, WSA III/18, pp. 83–84; CCSL 39, p. 1061, l. 5–9: Quo itis? quo curritis? quo non solum a Deo, sed etiam a uobis fugitis? Redite, praeuaricatores, ad cor, scrutamini spiritum uestrum, recolite annos aeternos, inu-

christology, ascent, and augustine’s idithun

307

Ascent brings them to a realization of the dispensation of God’s mercy all around them in Christ who is both way and goal. One moves from exterior to interior, away from distractions of the world, and from inferior to superior, away from the predilections of the self. These movements are both into Christ and not at the expense of either the exterior or the interior. Rather, one discovers that in Christ’s body both the interior and the exterior other have begun to be made new. Exterior and interior are not radically separated, but rooted together in ongoing transfiguration in Christ. 7. Ascent 3: leaping as one body (Psalm 61) Augustine’s third use of Idithun is found in Psalm 61 which as a song of trust differs in genre from the laments of Psalms 38 and 76. Nevertheless, Augustine reveals his own consistency through his presentation of Idithun who, true to his name, continues to leap. In this psalm, Idithun leaps over others and sees them from above. He looks back down from his leaping in order to encourage other people to follow him. As a leaper, he is in no way superior to those below or prideful of his accomplishment. He is the body of Christ, and Augustine uses this singular character to construct the stop-and-go pattern of ascent which we have seen before: leaping into God while growing ever closer to other people. a. Exterior to interior In this psalm Idithun leaps, according to Augustine, to the tower of Psalm 60, 4, the tower of Christ which one enters by means of memory. But once he is there, Idithun does not turn away from those below him, but addresses them with the words of the psalm: “How long will you pile your loads on one man?”129 Augustine responds by explaining that the one man is “ourselves,” “the person of our Church,” “the one person that is Christ’s body.”130 This enite misericordiam Dei circa uos, attendite opera misericordiae eius: In sancto uia eius. 129  En. Ps. 61, 3, WSA III/17, p. 203; CCSL 39, p. 773, l. 6: Quousque apponitis super hominem? 130  En. Ps. 61, 4, WSA III/17, p. 204; CCSL 39, p. 773, l. 2–4: Sed debemus intellegere personam nostram, personam ecclesiae nostrae, personam corporis Christi.

308

kevin g. grove

body of Christ that is having loads piled upon it includes members from the beginning of time: “The entire city is speaking, therefore: all of it from the murdered, righteous Abel to the slaughtered Zechariah, and then further still, from the blood of John, through the blood of the apostles, on through the blood of the martyrs, to the blood-shedding of all Christ’s faithful.”131 Augustine is concerned that the whole Christ includes not merely the Christians of the present, but all righteous people throughout time past and future.132 In this way Idithun challenges Augustine’s congregation not only to see themselves in Christ, but also to connect themselves to Christ who is always and everywhere present to his members. b. Inferior to superior Because the one leaping is Idithun, the body of Christ, Augustine reacts very strongly to the possibility that those who are leaping might be “confined within” or “shut up inside their hearts.”133 Augustine reads 61, 9–10 – “Hope in him, you whole assembly of the people. Pour out your hearts in his presence” – and uses the opportunity to stress the relational nature of the leap.134 First, Idithun is to be their model, which means leaping over anyone who might block the path by means of resistance, hatred, or the mocking question: “Where is your God?” But upon remembering the mockery that one hears at the mouths of others, one does not remain silent or stuck in one’s heart. Rather, imitating Idithun, that person is to pour out his or her heart in God’s presence.135 Augustine’s logic is straightforward enough: if the person who is 131  En. Ps. 61, 4, WSA III/17, p. 205; CCSL 39, p. 775, l. 57–61: Tota ergo illa ciuitas loquitur, a sanguine Abel iusti usque ad sanguinem Zachariae. Inde et deinceps a sanguine Ioannis, per sanguinem Apostolorum, per sanguinem martyrum, per sanguinem fidelium Christi, una ciuitas loquitur. 132  This reflects Augustine’s understanding not only of time, but also of the unbreakable union of the New and Old Testaments. The righteous people of the Old Testament are just as much a part of the city of God as those of the New. 133  En. Ps. 61, 14, WSA III/17, p. 216; CCSL 39, p. 783, l. 12, 14–15: Non in me remansi, and Nolite corda uestra retinere intra corda uestra. 134  En. Ps. 61, 14, WSA III/17, p. 216; CCSL 39, p. 783, l. 12–14: Sperate in eum, omne concilium plebis. Effundite coram illo corda uestra. 135  En. Ps. 61, 14.

christology, ascent, and augustine’s idithun

309

pouring out his or her heart is in God, then what is poured out is not lost. The leap is “over to [God]” (transilientes ad eum) and neither critique from without nor fear from within should stifle the God-ward motion of the leap and the ongoing pouring out of the heart.136 Up to this point, Augustine has described Idithun’s leap as a humble approach to God which is how he can jump over those who disagree, misunderstand, or even hate his position. Augustine does not allow the leap to be a way of either ignoring or returning hate toward one’s enemies. He revisits the image of Christ as the impregnable tower (Ps. 60).137 Though one might be secure in Christ as the tower, one does not look with contempt or fear on those outside. Once one is within Christ, one’s perspective on those who are outside changes. Instead of looking upon one’s enemies and being terrified, Augustine exhorts his hearers to look upon those outsiders with genuine pity. The ones who have leapt across admonish their enemies with love even if that should require stern words.138 Even the occasionally harsh words found in scripture are not for fostering enmity, but through proper utterance provide a program for loving one’s enemies. Augustine carries on: “Say this with real compassion, meaning what you say. If you have truly leapt across, if you love your enemies, if your ambition is to destroy only in order to build anew, if you love him who executes judgment among the nations and rebuilds their ruins, this must be your attitude. Do not hate them, do not repay evil for evil.”139 Those who have leapt across have leapt into Christ who reshapes their relationships not merely with other members of the body but with those who had been their enemies. Augustine suggests that Idithun, the body of Christ, will continue to speak to his enemies with compassion, for if he truly has leapt across into Christ, he En. Ps. 61, 14, WSA III/17, p. 217; CCSL 39, p. 784, l. 26. En. Ps. 61, 15. 138  Augustine explains that sometimes the words of scripture, even the Psalms, sound very harsh and must be uttered with love in Christ. En. Ps. 61, 15; WSA III/17, p. 217. 139  En. Ps. 61, 15, WSA III/17, p. 217; CCSL 39, p. 784, l. 7–11: Cum miseratione ista dicite, atque sapite. Si transiliuistis, si diligitis inimicos uestros, si destruere cupitis ut aedificetis, si eum amatis qui iudicat in gentibus, et replet ruinas; ita his ista dicite, non odio habentes, non malum pro malo reddentes. 136  137 

310

kevin g. grove

will love his enemies. The language of old and new is Christological in nature – Christ builds the new out of the old, tears down not to decimate but to recreate.140 Idithun does not flee to the tower of Christ in order to hurl counter measures at his enemies. Rather, Idithun’s refuge in Christ proves to be a classroom for an ongoing and challenging lesson in learning to love. Idithun’s exterior concern is illustrated concretely at the close of the sermon when Augustine describes Christ’s body longing for a repentant sinner in their midst.141 Into the assembly that day had come an astrologer (mathematicus). Augustine tells his congregation, “This man was once a Christian and a believer, now he returns to us as a penitent.”142 Augustine describes some of the man’s sins: he beguiled others, tricked people, told lies against God, made money off of Christians, and blamed the gods for the evil actions of his own will. But after all of this, Augustine repeats to his congregants, “This man, however, is a penitent; he is seeking nothing but mercy.”143 Augustine closes his psalm exposition about Idithun with an exhortation of how the congregation is to treat this man as one of their own: “We must therefore commend him to your eyes and your hearts. With your hearts, love the person you see; with your eyes, take care of him. Look at him, make sure you will know him again, and wherever he goes, point him out to our brothers and sisters who are not here today. This watchfulness is a mercy, for without

140  I am deliberately sidestepping Augustine and coercion here. One could allege modern questions of Augustine and religious coercion at this juncture, but there is nuance to Augustine’s position in his own time, as Peter Brown describes it. Augustine’s words focus around correptio and correctio (set aright) rather than coercitio (punishment), implying a focus not on punitive measures but on positive pastoral care. For as many times as Augustine might sound harsh or cold, he equally sounds the tender notes of a bishop invested in salvation of his people. P. Brown, “St Augustine’s Attitude to Religious Coercion”, Journal of Roman Studies, 54:1–2 (1964), pp. 107–16 (esp. pp. 114–16). 141  Augustine uses the figurative term “thirsting” (sitis) for desiring God (en. Ps. 61, 9–10, 23). 142  En. Ps. 61, 23, WSA III/17, p. 227; CCSL 39, p. 792, l. 3–4: Iste ex christiano et fideli paenitens redit. 143  En. Ps. 61, 23, WSA III/17, p. 227; CCSL 39, p. 792, l. 23: Paenitens est; non quaerit nisi solam misericordiam.

christology, ascent, and augustine’s idithun

311

it the old seducer might drag his heart back again and assault him. Make yourselves his guardians.”144

The journey to their end in God included the various leaps of Idithun, considerations of the Word who created all things, and other people along the way. The closing image, like the opening one, is that of the heart, but of the heart which is extended out in merciful guardianship over the repentant sinner.145 The astrologer’s sins had caused harm to the whole community; now the whole community would benefit him – as well as their own hearts – by participating in the mercy of his healing. This is not to happen only within the walls of the church. Augustine charges that they are to be mindful of him on the street and in the marketplace. In mercy, the body of Christ comes to recognize again one of its members. One could say that the instance of the astrologer at the close of the exposition is simply the practical treatment of a community matter, adjudicated in the manner in which bishops were wont.146 But, the imagery which Augustine uses of eyes and hearts is set up all the way through the psalm by the leaping psalmist. Idithun, as the image of the body of Christ, taught the congregation how to leap over their enemies, as well as how to continue to see them and to learn to love them. Though the leap of Idithun is into God, such a leap is not in any way away from those around 144  En. Ps. 61, 23, WSA III/17, p. 227; CCSL 39, p. 792, l. 24–29: Commendandus est ergo et oculis et cordibus uestris. Eum quem uidetis cordibus amate, oculis custodite. Videte illum, scitote illum, et quacumque ille transierit, fratribus caeteris qui modo hic non sunt, ostendite illum; et ista diligentia misericordia est, ne ille seductor retrahat cor, et oppugnet. Custodite uos. 145  At the beginning of en. Ps. 61, Augustine commended the discerning “palates” of their hearts that seized upon the things that were good for them. En. Ps. 61, 1, WSA III/17, p. 202; CCSL 39, p. 772, l. 4–5: Palato cordis. See M. Lootens, “Augustine” [n. 7], pp. 59–63. 146  As Peter Brown explains, the work of episcopal arbitration after Constantine, called episcopalis audientia, took up a great deal of Augustine’s time and warranted his complaining on more than one occasion (ep. 24 and 247, 2; en. Ps. 46, 5). Episcopal arbitration cut across the social spectrum: peasants and landlords, even whether the poor might or might not sell their children. P.  Brown, Poverty and Leadership in the Late Roman Empire, London, 2002, pp. 67–68; J.  Lamoreaux, “Episcopal Courts in Late Antiquity”, Journal of Early Christian Studies, 3:2 (1995), pp. 143–67.

312

kevin g. grove

them. In fact, being in Christ obliges the congregation to care for others, the astrologer being only one example. Augustine closes the sermon with the words, “Pray for him through Christ. Begin at once.”147 The use of the preposition per plus the accusative Christum (“through Christ”) rather than the grammatically-expected ad Christum (“to Christ”) is reflective of Augustine’s whole Christ theology. Praying for him through Christ means exactly the sort of care that Augustine had described above. In addition to the body calling upon the mercy of the head, the prayer of the body will require it to love the individual member in need as one of its own.148 8. Conclusion: re-membering ascent Augustine preached about the Christian life in terms of the whole Christ. He understood the whole Christ to include those before him, thus radically restructuring expected philosophical patterns of spiritual ascent. Looking back on Augustine’s Expositions of the Psalms, we cannot view them as Augustine leading a basilica of individuals out of their bodily distraction, into memory, and into awareness of Christ. Whether described in terms of interior senses or spiritual ascent, Augustine does not ignore the exterior world in favor of an inner space. Rather, the interior (and what is superior within the interior) and exterior are in a constant relation. By the interior being made new in Christ, one’s relationship to the exterior is also reconfigured. Interior and exterior are both essential parts of a binary through which Christ’s mediation is made evident to his members. The language of the interior proves to be self-subverting.149 The Psalms show that the journey inward and upward is also outward toward others. At a practical level, this is hardly mystical in the usage of the word that suggests escape 147  Emphasis added. En. Ps. 61, 23, WSA III/17, p. 228; CCSL 39, p. 793, l. 47–49: Orate pro illo per Christum. Prorsus hodiernam precem pro illo fundite Domino Deo nostro. 148  M.  Boulding notes that variants have “to” Christ, which would be an understandable change by later editors. “Through”, however, makes more sense in light of Augustine’s Christology. WSA III/17, p. 228, n. 81. 149  I am using the term “self-subverting” here after Denys Turner. D.  Turner, The Darkness of God, Cambridge, 1998, pp. 68–69.

christology, ascent, and augustine’s idithun

313

from the material; Augustine gives clear comments on wealth, resources, and the poor. But, this practice is grounded in Christ; one stores up real treasure in heaven by giving one’s treasure to Christ on earth. The relation between internal and external reflects the daily consequences of Augustine’s ongoing thinking concerning the wholeness of Christ. One could rightly raise two objections at Augustine’s bringing together exterior and interior within the whole Christ. The first is that of singularity. If the spiritual journey necessarily involves the whole Christ and all of his members, then it seems an argument against the solitary heroism of desert hermits and even some monastic foundations. In short, does the whole Christ bring together interior and exterior in such a manner that it eliminates the possibility of a solitary journey to God? Augustine’s answer would be “yes.” Even in his writings on monasticism, Augustine revised Jerome’s etymology of monachus to mean not “one alone” but “one-with-others.”150 Augustine writes in his exposition of Psalm 132 that monks get their name from the psalm: “how good and how pleasant it is for brothers to dwell in unity.”151 The unity of which Psalm 132 speaks, of course, is that of Christ. Augustine’s presentation of the rich dynamics of the human interior life came to be contextualized and exteriorized not only in relation to one’s own body but also to other members of Christ’s body. The second objection against Augustine’s theology would be that of universality. The wholeness of Christ really seems false when so many exterior others are not included: Arians, Circumcellions, Donatists, Manichaeans, and many other individuals and groups.152 This objection is that the “whole Christ” is in actuality an exclusive or dividing construct by which one can identify who is within and who is without – that Christ’s body has an interior 150  Finn claims this aspect of monastic life as a pre-eminent expression of ecclesial life. He notes, in this regard, a shift in emphasis from the virtue of austerity to hospitality. R. Finn, Asceticism in the Graeco-Roman World, Cambridge, 2009, pp. 143–49. 151  R.  Finn, Asceticism [n. 150], p. 148. 152  I do not raise here the question that begs to be raised of the Jews. Though Augustine remains a fourth-century thinker in this regard, more contemporary lines of Christian thought – like that of the Jews being a continued remembrance of God’s faithfulness to Israel – may well harmonize with Augustine’s whole Christ.

314

kevin g. grove

and an exterior. In Augustine’s mind, Christ had an incarnational claim to wholeness, and “all of the earth will be reminded and will turn to the Lord” (Ps. 21).153 Augustine was unapologetically direct with those whom he considered to have willed something less than the unity of the body of Christ. The Donatists, for instance, he described as a self-amputating limb of Christ’s body; their perfectionism denied the possibility of Christ’s universality. Nevertheless, one cannot help but see that Augustine argued against these groups from the starting point of Christ’s unity. It was less Christ’s fault than their own that they were not united; Christ’s body, after all, extended throughout time to all of the just in salvation history and to those who might follow after.154 In this way, though Augustine was constantly addressing the divisions which were local and pressing, he was operating from an understanding of Christ who was indeed universal. The inability to reconcile completely the interior and exterior of the self and the rest of the body of Christ was part of the frustration of living with the ongoing effects of human sin. Ultimately, Idithun provides a pattern for how the human will might be trained, engaged, and reshaped by Christ. Just as the memory is broken, so too is the will. But while in the longing, groaning, and seeking of the temporally embedded life, there are exercises by which one might allow Christ’s transfigurative work to take root. These are exercises by interior wings, feet, and ladders. They are not limitedly interior as Idithun proves at each stage of his leaping. Rather they are steps taken with others – with those who agree and disagree, friend and enemy – that result in direct care for all. They are exercises in Christ in order that Augustine’s congregants might realize all the more they are becoming Christ. How do members of Christ’s body realize these fruits? Augustine’s simple yet purposeful answer to his people is: “Go with Idithun and see.”155 153  En. Ps. 21, 2, 29. Inasmuch as all the ends of the earth will be reminded, some have certainly forgotten. The forgetful include not only Augustine’s congregants during the sermon, but also the Donatists, etc. 154  Augustine is very clear to his congregants that the whole Christ includes both men and women, poor and rich, lay and ordained, from Adam and Eve until the eschaton. 155  En. Ps. 61, 18, WSA III/17, p. 221; CCSL 39, p. 787, l. 47–48: Ite cum Idithun, et uidete.

Christ Examining, Excommunicating, and Exorcising the Antichrist in Augustine’s Homilies on the First Epistle of John Augustine Marie Reisenauer, O.P. (Providence) Preached mostly during the Easter octave around the year 407,1 Augustine’s ten extant Homilies on the First Epistle of John 2 focus on the charity that the epistle especially commends. 3 A constitutive ingredient of this charity is its opposition to charity’s antagonist,

1  See A.-M. La Bonnardière, Recherches de chronologie Augustinienne, Paris, 1965 (Collection des Études Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité, 23), pp.  19–62; M.-F. Berrouard, Introduction aux homélies de saint Augustin sur l’évangile de saint Jean, Paris, 2004 (Collection des Études Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité, 170), pp. 22–27; S. Poque, “Introduction”, in Augustin d’Hippone, Sermons pour la pâque, Paris, 2003 (SC, 116), pp. 82–106, 356–63. 2  Augustine, In epistolam Ioannis ad Parthos tractatus decem, PL 35, col. 1977–2062. Henceforth, ep. Io. tr. The translations of the Latin text in this article have been made in consultation with the texts and translations of the following: Homélies sur la première épître de saint Jean. In Iohannis epistulam ad Parthos tractatus decem, crit. text by J. W. Mountain, transl. by J. Lemouzy, intr. and notes by D. Dideberg, Paris, 2008 (BA, 76); Homilies on the First Epistle of John, intr., transl. and notes by B. Ramsey, Hyde Park, 2008 (WSA, III/14); Tractates on the First Epistle of John, transl. by J. W. Rettig, Washington, 1995 (FC, 92), pp. 95–277; Commentaire de la première épître de saint Jean, intr., transl. and notes by P. Agaësse, Paris, 1961 (SC, 75). 3  See ep. Io. tr. prologue (col. 1977, l. 17–19); 1, 5 (col. 1981, l. 17–19); 5, 4 (col. 2014, l. 10–11); 5, 7 (col. 2015, l. 54–58); 5, 13 (col. 2019, l. 9–11); 7, 1 (col. 2029, l. 51–54); 7, 4 (col. 2031, l. 25–35); 7, 5 (col. 2031, l. 45–51); 8, 4 (col. 2037, l. 48-col. 2038, l. 1); 8, 14 (col. 2044, l. 15–17 and l. 50–54); 9, 1 (col. 1045, l. 10–13.37–45); 10, 7 (col. 2059, l. 6–15).

Praedicatio Patrum. Studies on Preaching in late Antique North Africa, edited by Gert Partoens, Anthony Dupont, Shari Boodts, Turnhout, 2017 (Instrumenta Patris­ tica et Mediaeualia, 75), p. 315-350 ©



10.1484/M.IPM-EB.5.114057

316

augustine marie reisenauer

the antichrist.4 While not explicitly identified in these homilies as a single historical or eschatological figure, Augustine recognizes that the spirit of the antichrist incarnates itself historically, with eschatological implications, within the hearts of persons devoid of charity, such as the Donatists, the devil and the demons, and even certain members of his audience who, whether overtly or covertly, deny Christ by disobeying his commandment of love. In preaching against the antichrist, Augustine relies more on Christ who speaks to the heart than on his own genius to bring its presence and activity to light and to cast it out from the human person and community. With such a reliance on Christ and his anointing Spirit, Augustine’s preaching avoids the problematic tendencies of both moralism and permissiveness. This article investigates how precisely Augustine draws his audience’s attention inward and upward to Christ who examines the hearts of all, including their own, in order not only to expose and expel the spirit of the antichrist, but also to impart and increase his own Spirit. In its investigation, it focuses on four Augustinian considerations: (1) the contrast between Christ and the antichrist; (2) the container and contents of the human heart; (3) the intrinsic and forensic dynamics of speaking; and (4) the distinction of charity. With focuses on such considerations, it endeavors to highlight how Augustine’s preaching serves as a persuasive invitation for his audience to enter their own hearts and become more attentive to Christ examining them for the antichrist within and, if resident or residual, rooted or repressive, then evicting and evacuating, eradicating and eliminating it in order to fill them instead with charity.

4  For studies on various biblical and patristic antichristologies, see W. Bousset, The Antichrist Legend: A Chapter in Christian and Jewish Folklore, transl. by A. H. Keane, London, 1896 – Atlanta, 1999 (American Academy of Religion, Texts and Translation Series, 24); B. McGinn, Antichrist: Two Thousand Years of the Human Fascination with Evil, San Francisco, 1994, pp. 1–78; K. L. Hughes, Constructing Antichrist: Paul, Biblical Commentary, and the Development of Doctrine in the Early Middle Ages, Washington, 2005, pp. 1–108; C. Badilita, Métamorphoses de l’antichrist chez les pères de l’église, Paris, 2005, esp. pp. 411–62.

christ examining, excommunicating, and exorcising 317

1. The Christ-antichrist contrast In these homilies, Augustine sees the contrast between Christ and the antichrist fundamentally in terms of contrariety.5 Whoever is “contrary to Christ”6 is an antichrist. Such an adversary opposes not only Christ himself, but also those who are in fact the members of Christ’s body, among whom there is neither antipathy nor discord, but instead sympathy and concord. Whatever controverts the truth of Jesus,7 whatever contravenes the teaching of Christ, whatever contradicts the Word of God, is “in the antichrist.”8 For Augustine here, the antichrist isn’t so much a single eschatological figure who comes “before” (ante) Christ and antecedes his coming;9 rather, the antichrist is anyone who comes “against” (anti-; contrarius; contra) Christ and denies his coming.10 The antichrist denies that Jesus is the Christ who has already come in the flesh.11 Jesus Christ, as Augustine believes and confesses, is the Word of God, the Son of God, who, in his incarnation, has come in the flesh out of charity. Jesus Christ is the incarnate and crucified God who is love (I Ioh. 4, 8),12 from whom is love (I Ioh. 4, 7),13 5  See C. Badilita, Métamorphoses de l’antichrist chez les pères de l’église [n. 4], pp. 448–62; D. Dideberg, “Note complémentaire 13”, in Homélies sur la première épître de saint Jean [n. 2], pp. 460–62. 6  Ep. Io. tr. 3, 4 (col. 1999, l. 13–14.17–18); 3, 5 (col. 1999, l. 57–59); 3, 9 (col. 2002, l. 29–30). 7  See ep. Io. tr. 3, 6 (col. 2000, l. 21–23). 8  Ep. Io. tr. 3, 9 (col. 2002, l. 26–29). 9  For later Augustinian treatments of eschatology and the antichrist, see epp. 197 (418) and 199 (419) to Hesychius and ciu. 20 (ca. 417/8–426/7). See C. Badilita, Métamorphoses de l’antichrist chez les pères de l’église [n. 4], pp. 420–48; K. L. Hughes, “Augustine and the Adversary: Strategies of Synthesis in Early Medieval Exegesis”, in Augustine and Apocalyptic, ed. by J. Doody, K. Kloos, K. Paffenroth, Lanham, 2014, pp. 83–94. 10  See ep. Io. tr. 3, 4 (col. 1999, l. 13–18); 3, 9 (col. 2002, l. 29–30.58–59); 6, 14 (col. 2029, l. 1). 11  See ep. Io. tr. 3, 6 (col. 2000, l. 29–38); 3, 7 (col. 2001, l. 6–11); 3, 8 (col. 2001, l. 43–54); 6, 12 (col. 2027, l. 24–27); 6, 13 (col. 2027, l. 52–54 and col. 2028, l. 2–3); 6, 14 (col. 2028, l. 50-col. 2029, l. 4); 7, 2 (col. 2030, l. 5–10.17–20); 7, 3 (col. 2030, l. 32.50–52). 12  Ep. Io. tr. 7, 4 (col. 2031, l. 30.34); 7, 5 (col. 2031, l. 41–42.44.46.50); 7, 6 (col. 2031, l. 53.57–58; col. 2032, l. 2).

318

augustine marie reisenauer

and whose love has been poured out through the Holy Spirit in the hearts (Rom. 5, 5)14 of those who were once his enemies in their blinding hatred, their dark wickedness, and their deadly sins, but now through his charity have become his friends, his brethren, his children. Although it is the “heart alone”15 that is able to see the Word, the Word has become visibly manifest in the flesh in order to heal and purify the human heart that has been wounded and contaminated by wickedness, to absolve its sins, and to restore its abilities to see and to love. As he argues against the antichrist’s denial of Christ, Augustine identifies the motive and manner at the heart of God’s incarnation and crucifixion as charity. Since the immortal God could not die, but mortal flesh could, God has come in the flesh to pour forth his blood unto death on the cross out of that charity greater than which no one has, than to lay down his life for his friends (Ioh. 15, 13).16 Such love is “perfect charity”17 and, as Augustine indicates, it was such “charity, then, that led ‹God› to the flesh.”18 With the love of a bridegroom, the Word of God has wed himself to human flesh and unites to his own flesh the Church so that, in the conjugal union of this one flesh, “Christ becomes the whole, head and body.”19 Those “in the Church who attend”20 this marriage well actually become the bride and the body of Christ. To attend well means to love well. As Augustine says, “If it pleases ‹God›, we are in ‹the Church of God›, and we who abide in it through love should persevere in it if we want to show the love

13  Ep. Io. tr. 7, 4 (col. 2031, l. 25–28); 7, 5 (col. 2031, l. 45–46); 7, 6 (col. 2031, l. 52; col. 2032, l. 1). 14  Ep. Io. tr. 6, 8 (col. 2024, l. 42–44); 6, 9 (col. 2025, l. 10–11); 6, 10 (col. 2026, l. 5–6); 7, 6 (col. 2032, l. 5–7); 8, 12 (col. 2043, l. 46–47). See ep. Io. tr. 7, 11 (col. 2035, l. 9–11). 15  Ep. Io. tr. 1, 1 (col. 1979, l. 3–4). See ep. Io. tr. 7, 10 (col. 2033, l. 55-col. 2034, l. 5). 16  Ep. Io. tr. 5, 12 (col. 2018, l. 24–26); 6, 1 (col. 2019, l. 36–38); 6, 13 (col. 2028, l. 22–23.33–34); 7, 2 (col. 2030, l. 13–15). 17  Ep. Io. tr. 5, 4 (col. 2014, l. 33); 5, 5 (col. 2014, l. 57); 5, 6 (col. 2015, l. 38); 5, 12 (col. 2018, l. 26–29). 18  Ep. Io. tr. 6, 13 (col. 2028, l. 24). 19  Ep. Io. tr. 1, 2 (col. 1979, l. 50). 20  Ep. Io. tr. 2, 2 (col. 1990, l. 12).

christ examining, excommunicating, and exorcising 319

that we have.”21 It is love that incorporates the children of God into the one body of Christ as: “members of the Son of God. And he himself also becomes a member by loving, and through love a person comes to be in the structure of Christ’s body, and there will be one Christ loving himself. For when the members love each other, the body loves itself.” 22

Christ intends the corporate union and unity of the Church in himself and, furthermore, extends this union universally to all peoples in all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem (Luc. 24, 47).23 Jesus Christ has come in the flesh with the intention of a redemptive love whose mountainous extension reaches to the entire earth (Act. 1, 8)24 and with a charity that unites and unifies humanity together with God in Christ himself, “the man-God.”25 The love of God incarnate in Jesus Christ is both completely intensive – reaching the deepest corners of the human heart – and completely extensive – reaching the farthest corners of the human world.26 Such universal inclusivity of Christ’s charitable embrace excludes all forms of restrictive partiality, adversarial particularity, and local partisanship. Augustine contrasts Christ’s fusion of Ep. Io. tr. 6, 6 (col. 2022, l. 56–58). Ep. Io. tr. 10, 3 (col. 2055, l. 48–51). 23  Ep. Io. tr. 2, 2 (col. 1990, l. 34.36–37.40.49); 2, 3 (col. 1991, l. 12); 3, 7 (col. 2001, l. 37–38); 10, 8 (col. 2060, l. 10–11); 10, 10 (col. 2062, l. 34–35). 24  Ep. Io. tr. 10, 9 (col. 2061, l. 11). 25  Ep. Io. tr. 4, 11 (col. 2011, l. 32). 26  For Augustine’s theology of love in the text and context of these homilies, see D. Dideberg, Saint Augustin et la première épître de saint Jean. Une théologie de l’agapè, Paris, 1975 (Théologie Historique, 34); L.  O. Ayres, “Augustine, Christology, and God as Love: An Introduction to the Homilies on 1 John”, in Nothing Greater, Nothing Better: Theological Essays on the Love of God, ed. by K. J. Vanhoozer, Grand Rapids, 2001, pp. 67–93; E. G. Cassidy, “Augustine’s Exegesis of the First Epistle of John”, in Scriptural Interpretation in the Fathers: Letter and Spirit, ed. by T. Finan, V. Twomey, Dublin – Portland, 1995, pp. 201–20; D. Dideberg, “Introduction”, in Homélies sur la première épître de saint Jean [n. 2], pp. 7–51; B. Ramsey, “Introduction”, in Homilies on the First Epistle of John [n. 2], pp. 9–17; J. W. Rettig, “Introduction”, in Tractates on the First Epistle of John [n. 2], pp. 97–118; P. Agaësse, “Introduction”, in Commentaire de la première épître de saint Jean [n.  2], pp.  7–102; M. Comeau, “Le commentaire augustinien de la « Prima Joannis »”, in Augustinus Magister, v. 1, Paris, 1954, pp. 161–64. 21 

22 

320

augustine marie reisenauer

many “Catholic Christians”27 throughout the world into the one “Church of God”28 by the fire of love, 29 and the antichrist’s dissolution of Jesus Christ and his Church by hatred. Whereas Christ has come in the flesh to dissolve the works of the devil (I Ioh. 3, 8), 30 the antichrist comes to dissolve (I Ioh. 4, 3) 31 the flesh of Christ. Whereas the Spirit of Christ integrates and harmonizes many members in the unity of one body, the spirit of the antichrist disintegrates and disharmonizes human persons in the disunity of many disparate factions, but ultimately with injury only to them. As Augustine remarks about someone who dissociates him- or herself from the ecclesial body: “For, he ‹or she› who abandons the Church, how is he ‹or she› in Christ who is not among the members of Christ? How is he ‹or she› in Christ, who is not in the body of Christ? Therefore, those who abandon either Christ or the Church are the ones who suffer scandal.”32

This antichristian dissolving includes the divisions and separations of various heretical and schismatic groups among which – and of Augustine’s particular concern in these homilies – are the Donatists. 33 As he argues, the members of the Donatist party dissociate themselves from Christ, from Christ’s charity, and from Christ’s Church, “because they hate their brothers, because when they are offended by Africans, they separate themselves from

Ep. Io. tr. 2, 3 (col. 1990, l. 53). Ep. Io. tr. 1, 8 (col. 1984, l. 20); 6, 6 (col. 2022, l. 55); 6, 14 (col. 2028, l. 56); 10, 3 (col. 2058, l. 47–48). 29  See ep. Io. tr. 10, 3 (col. 2056, l. 28–33). 30  Ep. Io. tr. 4, 11 (col. 2011, l. 38); 5, 2 (col. 2013, l. 14). 31  Ep. Io. tr. 6,14 (col. 2028, l. 51–54); 7, 2 (col. 2030, l. 7). See D. Dideberg, “Note complémentaire 26”, in Homélies sur la première épître de saint Jean [n. 2], pp. 485–86. 32  Ep. Io. tr. 1, 12 (col. 1986, l. 45–49). 33  See ep. Io. tr. 1, 13 (col. 1988, l. 44); 2, 3 (col. 1991, l. 45); 2, 4 (col. 1992, l. 13–14); 3, 7 (col. 2001, l. 13). For Augustine’s anti-Donatist preaching on grace, see A. Dupont, Preacher of Grace: A Critical Reappraisal of Augustine’s Doctrine of Grace in his Sermones ad Populum on Liturgical Feasts and During the Donatist Controversy, Leiden – Boston, 2014 (Studies in the History of Christian traditions, 177). 27 

28 

christ examining, excommunicating, and exorcising 321

the whole world.”34 Such separatist hatred of the brethren and of their universal unity in Christ shows that, as the Donatists “hate charity itself, so they also hate the dove,”35 whom Augustine here identifies as well with the Holy Spirit who descended upon Christ at his baptism. When the Holy Spirit descended upon Christ’s Church at Pentecost, he empowered the disciples to speak in the tongues of “absolutely all the nations” that were to come to believe, and not just “Latin and Punic, that is, African,” the “only two tongues in the party of Donatus.”36 Against such Donatist restrictions and attempts to confine Christ to speaking exclusively within their African faction, Augustine questions whether “Christ speaks only two tongues”37 and not, rather, all the languages of the world. Their persistence in remaining apart and their resistance to rejoining the worldwide communion manifests the members of the Donatist party as instances of the antichrist who, in their fratricidal hatred, “kill Christ in other people!”38 Augustine interlaces these implications tightly: by living in denial of communion with the universal Church, the Donatists “violate charity;”39 and by violating charity, they deny that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh; and by not confessing Christ, but rather contradicting him, they have become antichrists. As he insists, “Certainly all who leave the Church and are cut off from the unity of the Church are antichrists.”40 Augustine sees that such antichrists who “went out from us” were neither “from us”41 nor from God (I Ioh. 4, 3).42 To be among those who are from God (I Ioh. 4, 6) 43 means to be in love for love is from God (I Ioh. 4, 7) 44 and whoever remains in love Ep. Io. tr. 1, 13 (col. 1988, l. 41–43). Ep. Io. tr. 7, 11 (col. 2035, l. 26–27). 36  Ep. Io. tr. 2, 3 (col. 1991, l. 37.43–45). 37  Ep. Io. tr. 2, 3 (col. 1991, l. 43–44). 38  Ep. Io. tr. 2, 3 (col. 1991, l. 10). 39  Ep. Io. tr. 7, 2 (col. 2030, l. 10.17–18); 7, 11 (col. 2035, l. 25). 40  Ep. Io. tr. 3, 7 (col. 2000, l. 58-col. 2001, l. 2). 41  Ep. Io. tr. 6, 12 (col. 2027, l. 48). 42  Ep. Io. tr. 6, 12 (col. 2027, l. 26); 6, 14 (col. 2028, l. 52; col. 2029, l. 4); 7, 2 (col. 2030, l. 8). 43  Ep. Io. tr. 7, 4 (col. 2031, l. 8–9.17). 44  Ep. Io. tr. 7, 4 (col. 2031, l. 25–28); 7, 5 (col. 2031, l. 45–46); 7, 6 (col. 2031, l. 52; col. 2032, l. 1). 34  35 

322

augustine marie reisenauer

and commits no sinful violation of love has been born from God (I Ioh. 2, 29; 3, 9; 4, 7),45 has become a spirit from God (spiritus […] ex Deo) 46 and, in fact, manifests the Spirit of God (Spiritus Dei) (I Ioh. 4, 2).47 In Augustine’s mind, fraternal love and filial love not only are inseparably connected, but also mutually indwell each other. Whereas the children of God are spiritually reborn in Christ “from water and the Spirit,”48 the children of the devil are “born from the devil” (ex diabolo) 49 insofar as they sin, and are of the devil (de diabolo) (I Ioh. 3, 8)50 insofar as they imitate the devil in his wicked pride. And yet, as the seed of God, that is, the word of God, abides “in” the child of God,51 so the sin of the devil is “in” whomever doesn’t love.52 Augustine counts the devil and his children among the antichrists whose sole distinction is their lack of love. He notes, “Love alone then distinguishes between the children of God and the children of the devil.”53 But in reality there are “two loves, that of the world and that of God.”54 As Augustine frequently comments, the “world,” when used in a pejorative sense, refers to “lovers of the world” who dwell “in” the world through their disordered love for its things, just as lovers of God dwell “in” heaven “whose hearts are above” even though they “walk on the earth in their flesh.”55 However, when used in a

45  Ep. Io. tr. 4, 3 (col. 2006, l. 26; col. 2007, l. 18–20); 4, 12 (col. 2011, l. 48.51.55); 5, 1 (col. 2012, l. 13.20.37.43.45); 5, 3 (col. 2013, l. 43; col. 2014, l. 2); 5, 6 (col. 2015, l. 39.46–47); 5, 7 (col. 2015, l. 59-col. 2016, l. 1.12.16.26– 27); 7, 4 (col. 2031, l. 16.28). 46  Ep. Io. tr. 6, 12 (col. 2027, l. 16.23–24.30–31); 6, 13 (col. 2028, l. 3–4.36). 47  Ep. Io. tr. 6, 12 (col. 2017, l. 20.22–23); 6, 3 (col. 2028, l. 42). 48  Ep. Io. tr. 2, 9 (col. 1994, l. 13–14). 49  Ep. Io. tr. 4, 11 (col. 2011, l. 24). 50  Ep. Io. tr. 4, 10 (col. 2011, l. 5–6). 51  See ep. Io. tr. 5, 7 (col. 2016, l. 13–14). 52  See ep. Io. tr. 5, 8 (col. 2017, l. 1). 53  Ep. Io. tr. 5, 7 (col. 2016, l. 21–22). 54  Ep. Io. tr. 2, 8 (col. 1993, l. 45). 55  Ep. Io. tr. 2, 12 (col. 1996, l. 1–5). See ep. Io. tr. 2, 9 (col. 1994, l. 4–11.28–29); 3, 10 (col. 2003, l. 9–10); 4, 4 (col. 2007, l. 31–52); 4, 6 (col. 2009, l. 19–21); 5, 9 (col. 2017, l. 25–33.40–41); 6, 3 (col. 2021, l. 4–9); 7, 3 (col. 2030, l. 36–41.51–56); 7, 4 (col. 2031, l. 15–16).

christ examining, excommunicating, and exorcising 323

praiseworthy sense, the “world” refers to God’s good creation56 or to the worldwide Church.57 Those who love the world in a perverse way cannot truly love either God or the brethren. In some way, they affectionately inhabit and have themselves become a “whole wicked world”58 through the concupiscence and cupidity that are not from the Father but are from the world (I Ioh. 2, 16), the entirety of which Augustine identifies in the devil’s three temptations of Christ and of Christians, namely, the desire of the flesh, the desire of the eyes, and the ambition of the world (I Ioh. 2, 16).59 In this sense, those who are of the world (I Ioh. 4, 5),60 those in whom “the cupidity of the world reigns,”61 are antichrists. The devil and the world instantiate the antichrist and, in their common rivalry, inveigh against Christ and contradict him. The Christian and the antichristian confessions of faith are in fact contradictory. Even though the words may sound the same, what distinguishes for Augustine the Christian confession of Christ from the antichristian denial of Christ is charity. Its presence in confession and its absence in denial radically differentiate what otherwise may appear to be indistinguishable on an ostensible hearing. Such groups as the Arians, the Eunomians, the Macedonians, the Cataphyrgians, the Novatians, and the Donatists all

56  See ep. Io. tr. 2, 10 (col. 1994, l. 35–38); 2, 11 (col. 1995, l. 9–47); 2, 12 (col. 1995, l. 48–50); 2, 14 (col. 1997, l. 45–46); 3, 9 (col. 2002, l. 45–52); 5, 9 (col. 2017, l. 33–36); 5, 12 (col. 2018, l. 50–51). 57  See ep. Io. tr. 1, 8 (col. 1984, l. 26–36); 1, 12 (col. 1987, l. 27–29); 1, 13 (col. 1988, l. 1–43); 2, 3 (col. 1990, l. 53–55); 3, 7 (col. 2001, l. 29–32); 4, 4 (col. 2007, l. 33–35); 5, 9 (col. 2017, l. 36–39); 6, 13 (col. 2028, l. 39–40); 7, 5 (col. 2031, l. 47–49); 10, 8 (col. 2060, l. 14–15). 58  Ep. Io. tr. 4, 4 (col. 2007, l. 33). 59  Ep. Io. tr. 2, 10 (col. 1994, l. 30–31); 2, 11 (col. 1995, l. 7–8); 2, 12 (col. 1996, l. 5–7.20–23); 2, 13 (col. 1996, l. 24–31.45–47); 2, 14 (col. 1996, l. 48-col. 1997, l. 48). See W. François, “Non habent nisi ista tria. The Threefold Concupiscence According to Augustine’s Second Homily on the First Epistle of John, and its Reception in the Early Modern Commentaries of Hessels, Cajetan, and Estius”, in Tractatio Scripturarum: Philological, Exegetical, Rhetorical and Theological Studies on Augustine’s Sermons, ed. by A. Dupont, G. Partoens, M. Lamberigts, Turnhout, 2012 (Instrumenta Patristica et Mediaevalia, 65), pp. 153–76. 60  Ep. Io. tr. 7, 3 (col. 2030, l. 36.38). 61  Ep. Io. tr. 8, 11 (col. 2043, l. 14).

324

augustine marie reisenauer

alike verbally confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.62 However, as Augustine repeats again and again, the words and names that the tongue pronounces do not make so much difference as the works that a person performs and the way of life he or she practices.63 For true confession, it is not enough for words alone to be spoken; the reality that those words signify must also be lived with love. Without love, confession becomes empty “clatter” (strepitum).64 As he explains: “All those who violate charity deny that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh. For it was not necessary for Jesus to come, except for the sake of charity. […] Whoever violates charity, then, let the tongue say what it will, denies by his ‹or her› life that Christ has come in the flesh; and he ‹or she› is an antichrist, wherever he ‹or she› may be, wherever he ‹or she› may enter.”65

True confession of Christ is done with integrity, false confession with some tearing. Christian confession involves the integration of life-giving words and living witness, the bond of faith and love; antichristian denial involves their disintegration. Augustine encourages Christians to integrate the designation “martyrs” which “daily dwells”66 in their mouths with the desire to imitate the martyrs that is to dwell in their hearts. Where there is integrity, there also is charity. Just as charity distinguishes the children of God from the children of the devil, so also it differentiates the ways Christians believe and confess their belief from the ways of the antichrists. On Augustine’s reading, John “has joined love directly to faith, because faith is empty without love. With love it is the faith of a Christian; without love it is the faith of a demon.”67 The Christian believes with Peter that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of the living God (Matth. 16, 16),68 with a See ep. Io. tr. 6, 12 (col. 2027, l. 38–44). See ep. Io. tr. 3, 8 (col. 2001, l. 53-col. 2002, l. 19); 3, 9 (col. 2002, l. 20–30); 6, 13 (col. 2027, l. 53-col. 2028, l. 47); 6, 14 (col. 2028, l. 50-col. 2029, l. 18); 7, 2 (col. 2030, l. 17–19); 8, 14 (col. 2044, l. 9–13); 10, 1 (col. 2054, l. 26-col. 2055, l. 7). 64  Ep. Io. tr. 6, 13 (col. 2028, l. 7). 65  Ep. Io. tr. 7, 2 (col. 2030, l. 9–12.17–20). 66  Ep. Io. tr. 1, 2 (col. 1979, l. 13–15). 67  Ep. Io. tr. 10, 2 (col. 2055, l. 12–15). See ep. Io. tr. 10, 1 (col. 2054, l. 2–7). 68  Ep. Io. tr. 10, 1 (col. 2054, l. 38.45–46). 62 

63 

christ examining, excommunicating, and exorcising 325

faith that works through and is filled with love, the perfection of which casts out fear of punishment, but yet remains forever with that chaste fear of being left by God.69 The Christian confesses this faith with love in order to “embrace”70 Christ. On the contrary, the demons and the depraved believe and confess that Jesus is the Son of God (Matth. 8, 29; Marc. 1, 24),71 but they tremble (Iac. 2, 19)72 because of their wicked lack of love and their fear of being cast into Gehenna.73 An antichrist confesses this faith without love in order to “drive Christ away” (repellas),74 but the antichristian end is that of the demons who, after confessing, are “driven out” (repellebantur).75 Augustine shows a certain sensitivity to the fact that among the antichrists belong not only those, such as the Donatists, who have manifestly gone out from the ecclesial community of unity and charity, but also those who have gone out clandestinely, even if, at least for now, they seemingly remain within. Borrowing from the biblical hermeneutics, ecclesiology, eschatology, apocalypticism, and antichristology of the unconventional Donatist Tyconius, Augustine internalizes his investigation.76 Besides the heretics and schismatics who have already left the Church, there are “many within [intus] who are allegedly within [quasi intus];”77 “there are many within [intus] who have not gone out [exierunt], 69  See ep. Io. tr. 9, 4–8 (col. 2047, l. 41-col. 2051, l. 9); 9, 9 (col. 2052, l. 18–21). 70  Ep. Io. tr. 2, 8 (col. 1993, l. 41); 10, 1 (col. 2054, l. 54). 71  Ep. Io. tr. 2, 8 (col. 1993, l. 39); 10, 1 (col. 2054, l. 32.56). 72  Ep. Io. tr. 10, 1 (col. 2054, l. 29–30). 73  See ep. Io. tr. 2, 8 (col. 1993, l. 37–42); 9, 2–5 (col. 2046, l. 4-col. 2049, l. 31); 10, 1 (col. 2054, l. 28–32.48–58); 10, 2 (col. 2055, l. 14–21). 74  Ep. Io. tr. 10, 1 (col. 2055, l. 1). 75  Ep. Io. tr. 2, 8 (col. 1993, l. 40). 76  See P. Fredricksen, “Tyconius and Augustine on the Apocalypse”, in The Apocalypse in the Middle Ages, ed. by R. K. Emmerson, B. McGinn, Ithaca, 1992, pp. 20–37; B. McGinn, Antichrist: Two Thousand Years of the Human Fascination with Evil [n. 4], pp. 4–5, 74–78; K. L. Hughes, Constructing Antichrist: Paul, Biblical Commentary, and the Development of Doctrine in the Early Middle Ages [n.  4], pp.  24,  84–108; M. Dulaey, “La sixième Règle de Tyconius et son résumé dans le De doctrina christiana”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 35 (1989), pp. 83–103. 77  Ep. Io. tr. 6, 13 (col. 2028, l. 48).

326

augustine marie reisenauer

but nevertheless are antichrists.”78 The antichrist can in appearance be “within” (intus) the Church, but yet cannot in reality be intrinsically within its very flesh, its corporate structure, with any integrity and security. Augustine warns that the antichrist can go along with the Christian into the churches and basilicas, be baptized, receive the sacrament of the body and blood of the Lord, respond “Amen” and sing “Alleluia,” make the sign of Christ’s cross, and even have the name of Christ.79 But what the antichrist cannot have is the reality of Christ, that is, the love of God incarnate. Augustine realizes that the antichrist may even be in the midst of his own Catholic congregation to whom he preaches, and so he anonymously calls such a person out: “You have come against Christ, therefore; you are an antichrist. You may be within [intus], you may be outside [foris]; you are an antichrist. But when you are within [intus], you are hidden; when you are outside [foris], you are manifested.”80 The Christian who is not contrary to Christ remains intrinsically and integrally incorporated in his body as his member with such security that he or she can in no way exit. Such a Christian is “already on the right side”81 of the eschatological divide between the good and the bad, even if such glory remains hidden in history. The antichrist, however, who is contrary to Christ, even if he or she seems to be with Christ and within Christ, must either exit or be expelled. Such antichrists “within” (intus) are “in” (in) the body of Christ, not so much as evil members, but rather more as “evil humors.”82 There, as viral infections and vile afflictions, they perniciously persist perhaps even so long as Christ’s body continues to convalesce along its historical course of healing until the final resurrection. Then, at least at the last, Christ “vomits them out and ejects”83 all such nauseous toxins from his body. Christ’s vomiting out and expulsion of the antichrist from within may seem violent, but “love rages, charity rages; it rages in a certain way without Ep. Io. tr. 3, 4 (col. 1999, l. 7–8). See ep. Io. tr. 4, 4 (col. 2007, l. 26–28); 5, 7 (col. 2016, l. 22–25); 7, 6 (col. 2032, l. 12–27). 80  Ep. Io. tr. 6, 14 (col. 2029, l. 1–3). 81  Ep. Io. tr. 5, 10 (col. 2017, l. 47). 82  Ep. Io. tr. 3, 4 (col. 1999, l. 31.34–35); 3, 5 (col. 2000, l. 2–7). 83  Ep. Io. tr. 3, 4 (col. 1999, l. 37–38). 78 

79 

christ examining, excommunicating, and exorcising 327

bitterness.”84 For Augustine, charity and the Holy Spirit – like the dove that signifies the both of them – have no bile and no virulent humors; thus, the one in whose heart the love of God and the Spirit of God abide castigates and casts the antichrist out without bitterness or bile.85 Acutely attentive to the prospect of the antichrist’s presence and activity within the members of his own Church, Augustine endeavors to draw his audience’s attention inward toward their own inner persons “where God himself sees in the heart”86 in order for them to examine their consciences “before the eyes of God”87 for the presence or the absence of Christ and his charity, on the one hand, or of the antichrist and its animosity, on the other. As Augustine encourages his listeners, “Each one ought to question [interrogare] his own conscience as to whether he ‹or she› is the antichrist.”88 He repeatedly recommends that they, along with him, “be called back” (reuocemur) 89 to the intuitive testimony of conscience which is “from God.”90 There within the heart “before God, where he alone sees,” each person can examine his or her own conscience and question his or her own heart about love, and God’s “eye that penetrates the heart, where a human being cannot gaze [adtendere], testifies to him ‹or her›.”91 No one should turn to question another person; each should rather turn within, return to his or her own heart, interrogate it, and investigate its inventory.92 Ep. Io. tr. 7, 11 (col. 2035, l. 22–23). See ep. Io. tr. 8, 9 (col. 2041, l. 27). See ep. Io. tr. 7, 11 (col. 2035, l. 6–16). 86  Ep. Io. tr. 6, 4 (col. 2021, l. 45). 87  Ep. Io. tr. 6, 10 (col. 2025, l. 42). 88  Ep. Io. tr. 3, 4 (col. 1999, l. 11–13). B. McGinn highlights this distinctive and decisive Augustinian point when he comments in Antichrist: Two Thousand Years of the Human Fascination with Evil [n. 4], p. 5: “Augustine’s question, I would argue, constitutes the real meaning of the Antichrist. It explains why the Antichrist legend is not merely a fascinating historical artifact but also a legend that continues to provoke modern reflection.” 89  Ep. Io. tr. 6, 2 (col. 2019, l. 59; col. 2020, l. 40–43). 90  Ep. Io. tr. 6, 3 (col. 2021, l. 31–32). 91  Ep. Io. tr. 6, 2 (col. 2020, l. 18–22). See ep. Io. tr. 8, 9 (col. 2041, l. 18–22.30–38). 92  See ep. Io. tr. 1, 11 (col. 1986, l. 2); 3, 4 (col. 1999, l. 11–13); 5, 6 (col. 2015, l. 44–46); 5, 10 (col. 2017, l. 44–47); 5, 12 (col. 2018, l. 50–55); 6, 2 (col. 2019, l. 58-col. 2020, l. 52); 6, 3 (col. 2020, l. 53-col. 2021, l. 36); 6, 4 (col. 2021, 84  85 

328

augustine marie reisenauer

This examination of the heart should focus on the fundamental and decisive question of love, for it is love alone that distinguishes between Christ and the antichrist. Augustine advises: “Each person should examine his ‹or her› conscience and, if he ‹or she› is a lover of the world, should be changed. Let him ‹or her› become a lover of Christ so that he ‹or she› may not be an antichrist. If someone tells him ‹or her› that he ‹or she› is an antichrist, he ‹or she› is angry; he ‹or she› considers that he ‹or she› has been insulted. Perhaps he ‹or she› threatens a lawsuit if he ‹or she› hears from the person with whom he ‹or she› is quarreling that he ‹or she› is an antichrist. Christ tells him ‹or her›, ‘Be patient. If you heard something false, rejoice with me, because I too hear false things from antichrists. But if you heard something true, convene your conscience, and, if you are afraid of hearing something, be more afraid of being it.’”93

Augustine encourages each person to examine his or her own heart not only about charity’s presence, but also about charity’s progress, or rather, about his or her progress in charity.94 Love has its inception, its progression, and its perfection. Whether and the extent to which someone is a Christian or an antichrist are matters determined and discerned by the heart in the sight of God.95 2. The container and contents of the human heart In drawing attention to the heart throughout these homilies, Augustine often describes it in terms of a container that has contents. The human heart has a capability and a capacity either for the good love of Christ or for the bad love of the antichrist. The contents of these loves – like the persons themselves – are radically contrary to each other and, as such, mutually exclusive. The container of the heart cannot simultaneously contain the contents of both loves. The heart has either Christian charity or antichrisl. 51–57); 6, 9 (col. 2025, l. 11–15); 6, 10 (col. 2025, l. 40-col. 2026, l. 6); 8, 9 (col. 2041, l. 18–38); 8, 12 (col. 2043, l. 42–44). 93  Ep. Io. tr. 3, 10 (col. 2003, l. 8–16). 94  See ep. Io. tr. 9, 2 (col. 2045, l. 52–59). 95  See J. Gallay, “La conscience de la charité fraternelle d’après les Tractatus in Primam Joannis de saint Augustin”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 1 (1955), pp. 1–20.

christ examining, excommunicating, and exorcising 329

tian animosity. Either it is filled to fullness with the love of God and of the brethren or it is emptied to emptiness of such love. Conversely, either it is replete with love of the world or it has been depleted of such love. For Augustine, the quality of a heart’s love decides in a fundamental way the character of a person’s identity as to whether one is a Christian or an antichrist. He perceives that the contents of the heart qualify and disqualify a person such that “if the love of the world is there, the love of God will not be there.”96 Whereas the lover of the world becomes earth, the lover of God becomes one of the gods and sons of the Most High (Ps. 82, 6)97 “since each person is such as his ‹or her› love is.”98 However, even though a particular heart contains only one of the two contrary loves which determines its quality, the quantity of its content can be more or less depending on how large or how small the container has become. According to Augustine, the capacity of the heart increases or decreases through both intention and extension of love. This dynamic comes across more clearly in these homilies in the case of the Christian than in that of the antichrist. So, for example, the more intensely and benevolently a Christian intends to love his or her enemy, even so that the enemy may become a brother or sister, the greater the love that Christian heart contains.99 The greatest love “directs ‹its› entire attention [intentionem] on ‹Christ›.”100 Since Christ embraces both God and humanity, the heart’s love of Christ can extend to all. Intensity and extensity coalesce in Christ. Augustine draws out the inseparable implications: when a person loves Christ’s members, he or she loves Christ the head; and in loving the whole Christ, loves the Son of God; and in loving the Son of God, loves God the Father.101 The heart has the capability of extending its capacity to love not only neighbors and friends, but also foreigners and enemies. As Augustine encourages:

Ep. Io. tr. 2, 14 (col. 1997, l. 33–34). Ep. Io. tr. 2, 14 (col. 1997, l. 39–41). 98  Ep. Io. tr. 2, 14 (col. 1997, l. 36–37). 99  See ep. Io. tr. 1, 9 (col. 1984, l. 41-col. 1985, l. 30); 8, 10–11 (col. 2041, l. 50-col. 2043, l. 29); 10, 7 (col. 2059, l. 6–54). 100  Ep. Io. tr. 9, 9 (col. 2052, l. 18–19). 101  See ep. Io. tr. 10, 3 (col. 2055, l. 31-col. 2056, l. 34). 96  97 

330

augustine marie reisenauer “Extend [Extende] your love to those who are closest, but you should not call that an extension [extensionem]. For when you love those who are closely attached to you, you are close to loving yourself. Extend [Extende] your love to those who are unknown to you, who have done nothing evil to you. Go even beyond them; reach the point where you love your enemies.”102

The heart, through the extensiveness of its fraternal love, can contain the whole world and embrace “Catholic unity.”103 To extend the capacity of the heart involves extending one’s attention so as to be “attentive [attendat] not only to loving the brother before him ‹or her› upon whom he ‹or she› is intent [attendit],” but also to loving the entire “Church spread throughout the whole earth.”104 Augustine appreciates that such expansion happens not so much by external human agency, but rather by the internal divine agency of the same Holy Spirit who “produces this ‹love and charity› in a person,”105 through whom the charity of God has been poured out in the human heart (Rom. 5, 5),106 and “without ‹whom› there can be no love.”107 For “in love there is the Holy Spirit. For the Holy Spirit is he whom the wicked cannot receive.”108 As Augustine admits, “There is no need, therefore, brethren, for your heart to be enlarged [distendatur] by us; ask and receive from God that you may love one another.”109 This expansive love of the other not only imitates, but also participates in the very love of God. As such, it is neither partial nor partisan. Christian “charity should be poured out” where Christ through his Holy Spirit pours out his charity, that is, throughout all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem (Luc. 24, 47).110 Against the antichristian Ep. Io. tr. 8, 4 (col. 2038, l. 15–19). Ep. Io. tr. 10, 7 (col. 2059, l. 43–44). 104  Ep. Io. tr. 6, 10 (col. 2025, l. 43–45). 105  Ep. Io. tr. 6, 9 (col. 2025, l. 7–9). 106  Ep. Io. tr. 6, 8 (col. 2024, l. 42–44); 6, 9 (col. 2025, l. 10–11); 6, 10 (col. 2026, l. 5–6); 7, 6 (col. 2032, l. 5–7); 8, 12 (col. 2043, l. 46–47). See ep. Io. tr. 7, 11 (col. 2035, l. 9–11). 107  Ep. Io. tr. 6, 10 (col. 2026, l. 3–4). 108  Ep. Io. tr. 7, 6 (col. 2032, l. 7–9). 109  Ep. Io. tr. 10, 7 (col. 2059, l. 37–38). 110  Ep. Io. tr. 2, 2 (col. 1990, l. 34.36–37.40.48–49); 2, 3 (col. 1991, l. 12); 3, 7 (col. 2001, l. 37–38); 10, 8 (col. 2060, l. 10–11); 10, 10 (col. 2062, l. 34–35). 102 

103 

christ examining, excommunicating, and exorcising 331

temptation of the Donatist tendency and restrictions, Augustine complains: “And someone is placing the boundaries of charity in Africa! Extend [Extende] your charity throughout the whole world, if you want to love Christ; because the members of Christ lie throughout the world. If you love a section [partem], you have been cut off”111

from Christ and his worldwide community. Thus, through more intensive and more extensive contents of love, the container of the heart – which either the Spirit of Christ or the spirit of the antichrist fills – increases in its capacity either for the love of God or for the love of the world. To flesh out his notion of the human heart as a container full of affectionate contents, Augustine presents four sets of images, each of which has scriptural bases: (a) a habitation full of inhabitants; (b) a vessel or pocket full of an amount of fluid; (c) a field full of plants; and (d) a contender full of skill and expertise. Corresponding to these four images, Augustine sees that Christ comes within to expel and exorcize the antichrist within by four ways: (a) eviction; (b) evacuation; (c) eradication; and (d) elimination. a. Heart as habitation With respect to the first image, the habitation of the heart has enough room for only one kind of love to inhabit. There can be no cohabitation of Christ and the antichrist in the residence of the human heart. “If love of the world dwells in us,” Augustine says, “there is no way for the love of God to enter in. Let the love of the world withdraw and the love of God dwell in us; what is better should take its place.”112 The heart of the antichrist provides hospitality and a hearing not only to the dark world, but also even to the devil. Once the spirit of the antichrist has been evicted, however, the heart of the Christian now welcomes God and so becomes his dwelling and speaking place. As Augustine notes: “‹God› speaks within [intus] to those who furnish a place for him. Those who furnish a place for God, however, do not furnish a place for the devil. For the devil wants to dwell in the hearts of people and to speak there all the things that are conducive to leading us 111  112 

Ep. Io. tr. 10, 8 (col. 2060, l. 13–16). Ep. Io. tr. 2, 8 (col. 1993, l. 45–47).

332

augustine marie reisenauer astray. But what does the Lord Jesus say? The prince of this world has been thrown out [foras] [Ioh. 12, 31]. To where has he been thrown? Beyond heaven and earth? Beyond the structure of the world? No; beyond the hearts of believers. Once the intruder has been thrown out [foras], the redeemer may dwell there, because the very one who has created has redeemed. And the devil now assails from without [forinsecus]; he does not conquer the one who possesses within [intus]. He assails from without [forinsecus] by introducing various temptations. But the person to whom God speaks within [intus], and the anointing of which you have heard, does not consent.”113

The eviction of the antichrist from the human heart casts the devil out to the external forum where he can only speak forensically and thus furnishes Christ an internal home where he speaks intrinsically. For Augustine, when either the love of the world or the love of God dwells in the habitation of the heart, the human lover dwells in that which he or she loves so as to become one with it. Love brings about a mutual indwelling that transforms the human person. With a view to the antichrist, Augustine pejoratively identifies “the world” as “those who dwell in the world; it is their house, so to speak, and they dwell in it […] through love.”114 Likewise, with a view to the Christian, he comments on the verse: “God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him [I Ioh. 4, 16]. The one who contains and the one who is contained dwell mutually in each other. You dwell in God, but in such a way that you are contained; God dwells in you, but in such a way that he contains you, lest you fall.”115

So long as the love of the antichrist resides in the heart’s residence, the person not only remains in the antichristian world, but also remains an antichrist. But when Christ evicts the antichrist from the heart and makes of it his own dwelling place, the fullness of God and the whole of the Christian world now dwell therein.

Ep. Io. tr. 4, 1 (col. 2005, l. 28–41). Ep. Io. tr. 4, 4 (col. 2007, l. 45–51). 115  Ep. Io. tr. 8, 14 (col. 2044, l. 18–23). See ep. Io. tr. 9, 1 (col. 2045, l. 37–49). 113  114 

christ examining, excommunicating, and exorcising 333

b. Heart as vessel or pocket With respect to the second image, the vessel or pocket of the heart can be filled only with the good or only with the bad. It admits no concoctions or contaminations. In order for God to fill the heart’s vessel with the “honey” of his love, it must be emptied of the “vinegar” of worldly love.116 Augustine recommends, “Shut out the evil love of the world so that you may be filled with the love of God. You are a vessel, but you are still full. Pour out what you have so that you may receive what you do not have.”117 And yet, this process of evacuation isn’t complete with the pouring out of the antichrist; the vessel must also be purified of any antichristian residue. “What the vessel was carrying must be poured out; the vessel itself must be cleaned; it must be cleaned, even strenuously, by rubbing, so that it may become suitable for a particular reality,”118 namely, God. The vessel of the heart not only needs to be scrubbed and scoured, but also stretched. The stretching of the heart’s capacity happens through the exercise of desiring God, for “the entire life of a good Christian is a holy desire.”119 The pocket of the heart, although perhaps small, does not have to be so rigid; rather, like some cloth or leather pouch, it can have enough pliability to be stretched by the yet unseen “God who extends [extendit] our desire through delay, extends [extendit] our soul through desire, and makes it capacious by extending [exten­ dendo] it.”120 The Christian heart exercises that same lifelong desire of Paul who “extends his pocket” (extendentem sinum) by having stretched out (extentus) to what is ahead; in accord with the intention (intentionem) of God’s plan, he pursues the victory of his lofty calling (Phil. 3, 13–14).121 The heart’s focused intention on God stretches its extension so as to be filled completely with God whose face is then, in the end, seen with the eyes of the purified heart.

116  117  118  119  120  121 

Ep. Io. tr. 4, 6 (col. 2009, l. 23–24). Ep. Io. tr. 2, 9 (col. 1994, l. 10–12). See ep. Io. tr. 2, 8 (col. 1993, l. 47–51). Ep. Io. tr. 4, 6 (col. 2009, l. 24–27). Ep. Io. tr. 4, 6 (col. 2008, l. 57–58). Ep. Io. tr. 4, 6 (col. 2009, l. 6–7). Ep. Io. tr. 4, 6 (col. 2009, l. 9.13–16).

334

augustine marie reisenauer

c. Heart as field With respect to the third image, the “field” of the heart can contain either a “forest” of worldly love or the “tree of charity.”122 If the one who purges hearts finds the shrubs, thistles, and thorns of the world growing in the field, he not only extirpates them, plucking them off by the stem, but also eradicates them, pulling them out by the root.123 God digs deeply and clears the field so as to plant the seed of his charitable Word, “our Lord Jesus Christ who is like a tree,” clinging onto whose wood extracts humans from the rushing river of temporality and grafts them into eternity.124 “By holding onto charity,” the Christian is “rooted” and planted as a “great seed” in the love of Christ so as not to be “eradicated,” “smothered,” or “cut off.”125 For Augustine, the person in the field of whose heart the tree of Christ grows recognizes the “field where the vine ‹of the Church› was planted” beginning from Jerusalem (Luc. 24, 47), and sees that the vine has “filled all the nations” and “occupies ‹the field› completely.”126 The Christian who recognizes and remains on the plant of Christ sends forth, not the “useless branches” of heretics and schismatics that are cut off,127 but rather the “branches of good works that spring from the root of love”128 and produce “good fruits” from the secure and “genuine root of charity.”129 Therefore, Augustine encourages: “Open your heart to the good seeds; root out the thorns, so that what is being sown may not be smothered in you, but rather the crop may grow; and the farmer may rejoice and prepare a storehouse for you as for grain and not a fire as for chaff.”130 Ep. Io. tr. 2, 8 (col. 1993, l. 51–55). See ep. Io. tr. 2, 8 (col. 1993, l. 53-col. 1994, l. 3); 2, 9 (col. 1994, l. 24–29); 3, 8 (col. 2002, l. 12–17); 5, 13 (col. 2019, l. 14–18). 124  Ep. Io. tr. 2, 10 (col. 1994, l. 38–50). 125  Ep. Io. tr. 2, 9 (col. 1994, l. 17–27). See ep. Io. tr. 3, 12 (col. 2004, l. 14–17); 5, 10 (col. 2017, l. 49–52); 5, 12 (col. 2018, l. 31); 6, 11 (col. 2026, l. 42–47). 126  Ep. Io. tr. 2, 2 (col. 1990, l. 35–40.47–49). 127  Ep. Io. tr. 2, 2 (col. 1990, l. 42–45). 128  Ep. Io. tr. 6, 2 (col. 2020, l. 47–48). 129  Ep. Io. tr. 6, 4 (col. 2021, l. 54–55). See ep. Io. tr. 7, 8 (col. 2033, l. 29–33.39–41); 8, 9 (col. 2041, l. 22–26). 130  Ep. Io. tr. 5, 13 (col. 2019, l. 14–18). 122 

123 

christ examining, excommunicating, and exorcising 335

d. Heart as contender With respect to the fourth image, the contender of the heart can, through exercise, become skillful and full of expertise in the ways of love. Augustine warns that, among the antichrists, the devil is a most “exercised enemy” who has victoriously “cast down” Adam and his descendants through envy.131 Adam inexpertly fell away from God’s dwelling within him and was conquered in paradise by the devil and pride,132 “for the devil conquers whomever he has made proud.”133 However, another “exercised man,” namely Job, conquered the devil in dung by the power of God and humility;134 but Job was not alone. The man most experienced in contending against and conquering the antichrist is Christ himself. In the contention against the evil adversary, Augustine observes that Christ who was “weak in the hands of his persecutors” and “crucified out of weakness [see II Cor. 13, 4]” “is strong in us”135 and that Christ, through those in whom the word of God abides, has conquered the evil one (I Ioh. 2, 14).136 Augustine acknowledges both the weakness and ineptitude of the human contender and the strength and aptitude of the divine conqueror: “He ‹or she› conquers, however, who, even when winning, presumes not on his ‹or her› own strength but on God, his ‹or her› encourager. The devil alone fights against us. We, if we are with God, conquer the devil, for, if you fight alone with the devil, you will be conquered. […] The Almighty must be invoked against the skillful devil. Let him dwell in you who cannot be conquered, and you will securely conquer him who is accustomed to conquer.”137

Attention to Christ fighting expertly within empowers the Christian to contend well against the antichrist. Along with the exercise of patience in labors and trials, and the practice of frater-

Ep. Io. tr. 4, 3 (col. 2006, l. 48–55); 5, 8 (col. 2016, l. 56-col. 2017, l. 5). See ep. Io. tr. 4, 3 (col. 2006, l. 56-col. 2007, l. 4.8–10). 133  Ep. Io. tr. 7, 2 (col. 2030, l. 25). 134  Ep. Io. tr. 4, 3 (col. 2007, l. 4–8.10–14). 135  Ep. Io. tr. 2, 6 (col. 1993, l. 17–21). 136  Ep. Io. tr. 2, 7 (col. 1993, l. 30–31). 137  Ep. Io. tr. 4, 3 (col. 2006, l. 46–51.54–57). See ep. Io. tr. 7, 2 (col. 2030, l. 21–31). 131 

132 

336

augustine marie reisenauer

nal charity,138 the Christian contender is not only strengthened through struggle, but also “exercised through desire. But,” as Augustine says, “to the degree that a holy desire exercises us, we have cut off our desires from the love of the world.”139 By cutting off worldly love and casting out devilish pride, Christ eliminates and has conquered (I Ioh. 4, 4) “the antichrist”140 in the Christian whose heart exercises the desire for God. 3. Intrinsic-forensic dynamics of speaking The contours of the human heart are such that Augustine draws attention to a certain line between the kinds of speaking and listening that happen intrinsically in the heart’s interior and those that happen forensically in the exterior forum. Unless a member of the audience intentionally takes the external words to heart, the sounds of these words remain just “empty clatter” (inanis […] strepitus).141 Words that are spoken and heard affectively are those that work effectively in the heart. Love mediates between explicit discourse and implicit discourse, and excavates a certain conduit through which the external speaker may draw the attention and intention of the hearer’s heart. And yet, because of the non-coercive and non-compulsive character of love, Augustine respects the free will and consent of the human person, for “it is of his ‹or her› own will that a person is either an antichrist or in Christ.”142 So vital and so critical is the kind of love within one’s heart that “no one is born of water and the Spirit unless he ‹or she› wills it.”143 Nothing from the outside can do much without the heart’s compliance. These dynamics both in and between intrinsic and forensic colloquies apply both to the camp of the antichrist and its members – notably the world, the devil, and the unfaithful – and to the camp of Christ and his members – notably the apos138  See ep. Io. tr. 4, 7 (col. 2009, l. 41); 5, 7 (col. 2016, l. 41); 6, 6 (col. 2023, l. 5–18); 7, 1 (col. 2029, l. 30–46). 139  Ep. Io. tr. 4, 6 (col. 2009, l. 19–21). 140  Ep. Io. tr. 7, 2 (col. 2030, l. 5–6.21–22.26–27). 141  Ep. Io. tr. 3, 13 (col. 2004, l. 34). 142  Ep. Io. tr. 3, 5 (col. 2000, l. 2–3). 143  Ep. Io. tr. 3, 1 (col. 1997, l. 58-col. 1998, l. 1).

christ examining, excommunicating, and exorcising 337

tle John and the other inspired human authors of Scripture, along with those who proclaim and preach the word of God, including Augustine himself. As Augustine observes, the heart of the antichrist is a heart of darkness. But God is light, and there is no darkness in him (I Ioh. 1, 5).144 What is not of God regiments and even dominates the life of the antichrist such that “the cupidity of the world reigns in him ‹or her›”145 and even “the devil and his angels” rule over the person as “princes of this darkness, [see Eph. 6, 12] […] princes of sinners, and lords of the wicked.”146 For “the devil” – as the Lord’s exorcism of the demons into the herd of swine signifies – “lords it over those who lead the life of swine”147 and “holds a bond of slavery against”148 those whom he detains. Under such dark and deaf oppression, the antichrist cannot, without some divine illumination and insinuation, even recognize that he or she is an antichrist. Augustine acknowledges, “If you are not ‹an antichrist›, you know them; but whoever is one does not know it.”149 Such a person lacks lucid self-knowledge, remains quite inattentive to his or her deepest identity, and engages in rather dim conversations. Being not of God, but of the world, the antichrist thus speaks of the world, not of God, and the world listens to him or her (I Ioh. 4, 5)150 and he or she to the world, not to God. Augustine comments that the Christian “who knows God is the very one who is listening” to the scriptural word of God that teaches him or her how to know the spirit of truth and of error (I Ioh. 4, 6), “whereas he ‹or she› who does not know him is not listening, and this is the distinction between the spirits of truth and of error.”151 When a person comes to know God, listens to his Word, and attends to his Spirit, Christ casts out the darkness of the antichrist from that heart and casts in his divine light from on high. 144  Ep. Io. tr. 1, 4 (col. 1980, l. 43–44.47–48.51); 1, 5 (col. 1981, l. 19–20.22– 23.31–32.36–37.43–44.48–49). 145  Ep. Io. tr. 8, 11 (col. 2043, l. 14). 146  Ep. Io. tr. 1, 5 (col. 1981, l. 37–41). 147  Ep. Io. tr. 6, 7 (col. 2024, l. 3–6). 148  Ep. Io. tr. 1, 5 (col. 1982, l. 10–11). 149  Ep. Io. tr. 7, 3 (col. 2030, l. 37–38). 150  Ep. Io. tr. 7, 3 (col. 2030, l. 36.38–40.48–49.51–52). 151  Ep. Io. tr. 7, 4 (col. 2031, l. 21–22).

338

augustine marie reisenauer

Since Christ has ascended into heaven and no longer presents himself or preaches manifestly in the flesh, humanity now has contact with him through the spiritual “touch” of faith from a pure heart.152 Christ as the “one head in heaven”153 contacts and touches the hearts of those who are members of his body, but not from within the confines of this world. As Augustine says, “No longer do you find Christ speaking on earth; you find him speaking, but from heaven.”154 In fact, in order to find Christ present and “preaching,”155 the Christian enters not only the heart, but also heaven. For Augustine, the heart that has become the secure dwelling and speaking place of Christ has already ascended in Christ and has itself become heaven. As already mentioned, Augustine perceives that “they inhabit heaven whose hearts are above” even though they still “walk on the earth in their flesh.”156 Along these lines, he further encourages those suffering constrictions and constraints from their enemies on earth even now to “migrate to heaven above” where their hearts can be in a “spacious place” free of hardships “in hope of eternal life.”157 By the inward and upward ascent of the heart, the Christian attends to Christ in heaven and even attains Christ in heaven, containing and retaining him within, maintained and sustained by him above.158 From this perspective, Augustine refuses to call anyone on earth the teacher; for one is the teacher, the Christ (Matth. 23, 8–10) and “he who teaches hearts has his chair in heaven.”159 Since no one learns anything from another human person simply speaking, and since teachings, admonitions, and sermons spoken forensically are, in and of themselves, quite empty and only of Ep. Io. tr. 1, 3 (col. 1980, l. 7–18); 3, 1 (col. 1998, l. 14–15); 3, 2 (col. 1998, l. 16–43). 153  Ep. Io. tr. 6, 10 (col. 2025, l. 48). 154  Ep. Io. tr. 10, 9 (col. 2060, l. 53–54). 155  Ep. Io. tr. 10, 10 (col. 2062, l. 39). 156  Ep. Io. tr. 2, 12 (col. 1996, l. 3–4). 157  Ep. Io. tr. 8, 11 (col. 2043, l. 20–23). 158  D. Dideberg appreciates this double dynamic movement in Saint Augustin et la première épître de saint Jean [n. 26], p. 98: “Dans cette exégèse de I Io. 3, 17, nous retrouvons une démarche familière à la réflexion augustinienne: aller ab exterioribus ad interiora, ab interioribus ad superiora.” 159  Ep. Io. tr. 3, 13 (col. 2004, l. 41–44). 152 

christ examining, excommunicating, and exorcising 339

marginal help, unless Christ the “inner teacher” (magister intus)160 is in the heart, the listener remains untaught. But when “Lord Jesus Christ begins to dwell in our inner person (interiore homine), that is, in the mind through faith [see Eph. 3, 17],”161 it is he who teaches on his chair within as the one chief teacher and he who commands on his seat within as the commander-in-chief of an exercised army of virtues.162 Christ functions as the prime factor and vital agent in Augustine’s performance of preaching no less than in its description. As Augustine indicates to his audience: “Let ‹Christ›, then, speak to you within [intus], when there are no human beings there, because, even if there is someone at your side, there is no one in your heart. And there should be no one in your heart; Christ should be in your heart; his anointing should be in your heart, so that your heart may not be thirsting in solitude, because it does not have the springs by which it may be watered. The interior teacher, then, [Interior ergo magister] is the one who teaches: Christ teaches, his inspiration teaches. Where his inspiration and his anointing do not exist, words clatter forensically to no avail [forinsecus inaniter perstrepunt uerba].”163

Furthermore, Christ instructs the heart with his Holy Spirit, the “invisible” and “spiritual anointing,” “whose sacrament is in the visible anointing.”164 Augustine appreciates that the invisible anointing which Christians have received from God and which abides in them (I Ioh. 2, 27) is not only the Holy Spirit, but also his “charity.”165 This anointing of Christ truly teaches the person about everything (I Ioh. 2, 27): to recognize the good and the bad, to distinguish between that which belongs to Christ and that which belongs to the antichrist, to discern the presence or the absence of charity, its progress or regress. Augustine emphasizes the necessity of the Spirit in the examination of the Christian heart: “If you have found that you have charity, you have the Spirit of God Ep. Io. tr. 3, 13 (col. 2004, l. 31). Ep. Io. tr. 8, 1 (col. 2036, l. 11–13). 162  See ep. Io. tr. 8, 1 (col. 2036, l. 8–14). 163  Ep. Io. tr. 3, 13 (col. 2004, l. 44–52). 164  Ep. Io. tr. 3, 5 (col. 2000, l. 12–18). See ep. Io. tr. 3,12 (col. 2004, l. 12–14); 8, 1 (col. 2036, l. 21–27). 165  Ep. Io. tr. 3, 12 (col. 2004, l. 11–14). See ep. Io. tr. 6, 12 (col. 2027, l. 14–16). 160  161 

340

augustine marie reisenauer

in order to understand, for this is something that is absolutely necessary.”166 With an appreciation that the anointing of the Spirit is of such importance that he even “teaches within [intus] what we are unable to speak,”167 Augustine admits that neither he himself nor any other forensic speaker – whether in the camp of Christ or in that of the antichrist – are “anything, but he who gives the growth, God [see I Cor. 3, 7], that is, his anointing which teaches you about everything.”168 Augustine elaborates this Pauline agricultural image in distinguishing between how his preaching cultivates and waters the field of his hearer’s heart from without and how God germinates and imbues it from within.169 He associates himself as a “farmer”170 with that other “farmer-apostle”171 Paul whose words take root and grow, flourish and fructify, only when Christ and his Spirit are present and active within the soil of the soul. In his preaching, Augustine shows his radical dependence on God: “When we speak to your ears from without [forinsecus], it is as though we are laborers who are cultivating a tree from without [forinsecus], but we are unable to give the growth or to form the fruit. Unless he speaks to you within [intus] – he who created and redeemed and called you, who dwells in you through faith and his Spirit – we shout [perstrepimus] to no purpose.”172

What qualifies a person to listen well is charity; but charity also qualifies a person to speak well. In fact, the degree to which a person has charity gives him or her the corresponding credentials to teach forensically. For instance, the charity that “dwells in the heart” of such speakers as the apostles John and Paul labors, through their words, as a “childbearing mother” and “rends her womb with her words” in her “maternal concern” for those who

Ep. Io. tr. 6, 9 (col. 2025, l. 20–22). Ep. Io. tr. 4, 6 (col. 2008, l. 55–56). 168  Ep. Io. tr. 3, 13 (col. 2005, l. 8–9). 169  See ep. Io. tr. 3, 13 (col. 2004, l. 52-col. 2005, l. 9); 4, 1 (col. 2005, l. 15–28). 170  Ep. Io. tr. 3, 13 (col. 2004, l. 53). 171  Ep. Io. tr. 3, 13 (col. 2005, l. 2). 172  Ep. Io. tr. 4, 1 (col. 2005, l. 19–25). 166  167 

christ examining, excommunicating, and exorcising 341

hear them.173 Augustine even imagines that, if he were to locate “in this people […] in this church building […] on this earth” some soul full of perfect love, holy desire, and chaste fear of God, then “she would not offer her ears to ‹him› but ‹Augustine› would offer ‹his› ears to her! She would teach ‹him› something rather than learn from ‹him›.”174 Although it belongs to Christ and his Spirit to instruct, indoctrinate, and inspire within the heart in heaven, nevertheless a member of Christ’s body can have certain qualifications of love to indicate Christ and his truth on earth. For example, Christ’s tongue – in advocating, out of its fraternal charity, for the welfare of Christ’s foot that is being trampled on by antichristian persecutors – sounds the same message as Christ’s head, since all members are joined harmoniously and inseparably together in the one Christ.175 As a labor of love, Augustine’s forensic preaching serves to cultivate the field of the heart and, to a certain degree, facilitates the eradication of the antichrist by Christ and, in its stead, the radical insemination of Christ’s own seed of love, the deep-rooted planting of his own tree of charity. Among the rhetorical tools that Augustine employs in this work of preaching these tractates, there are two that are of particular significance with regard to these intrinsic-forensic dynamics: (a) the attraction of attention; and (b) impersonation. a. Attraction of attention With respect to the first forensic tool, Augustine, acutely aware of the distractions and distention of the human mind, works to attract the attention and intention of his audience towards that which is worthy of consideration and away from that which is not so worthy. The ultimate criterion for such a distinction is the attention of God himself, what God regards or disregards.176 The methods Augustine most frequently uses for such explicit attraction include his indicative and imperative exhortations to

173  Ep. Io. tr. 1, 11 (col. 1986, l. 19–23); 2, 4 (col. 1992, l. 17–19). See 6, 5 (col. 2022, l. 7–12); 8, 8 (col. 2040, l. 44–45). 174  Ep. Io. tr. 9, 8 (col. 2050, l. 40–41.44–46). 175  See ep. Io. tr. 10, 8 (col. 2020, l. 14–42). 176  See ep. Io. tr. 5, 8 (col. 2017, l. 11–22); 6, 5 (col. 2022, l. 14–15).

342

augustine marie reisenauer

be attentive,177 his invocations of the more momentous words of Scripture,178 and his elaborate questions and delays of the answers to them which are meant to excite his audience’s deliberate desire for these answers.179 In these ways, Augustine endeavors to draw attention to God and away from mere humans,180 to the teaching and example of Christ and away from those of the antichrist,181 to the lovable nature of each human person, including one’s enemy, and away from his or her detestable enmity,182 to Christian forgiveness of one’s persecutors and away from worldly self-vindi-

177  See ep. Io. tr. prologue (col. 1978, l. 1–3); 1, 11 (col. 1986, l. 8–9); 1, 12 (col. 1986, l. 31–36.52); 1, 13 (col. 1987, l. 49–50); 2, 1 (col. 1988, l. 51–53); 2, 11 (col. 1995, l. 18–19); 3, 7 (col. 2000, l. 58; col. 2001, l. 11–13); 4, 4 (col. 2007, l. 21.36–37); 5, 1 (col. 2012, l. 9–12); 5, 2 (col. 2012, l. 52–58; col. 2013, l. 28); 5, 3 (col. 2013, l. 32–36); 5, 6 (col. 2015, l. 39–40); 5, 8 (col. 2016, l. 57); 5, 12 (col. 2018, l. 22–23.32–33); 5, 13 (col. 2019, l. 11–14); 6, 13 (col. 2027, l. 49–50); 7, 5 (col. 2031, l. 38); 7, 10 (col. 2034, l. 34–36); 8, 7 (col. 2039, l. 45); 9, 1 (col. 2045, l. 37); 9, 5 (col. 2049, l. 16.25); 10, 5 (col. 2057, l. 50). 178  See ep. Io. tr. 1, 3 (col. 1979, l. 55–56); 1, 7 (col. 1983, l. 36); 1, 8 (col. 1984, l. 13–14); 1, 12 (col. 1987, l. 18.31.38.44–45); 1, 13 (col. 1988, l. 21–23); 2, 1 (col. 1989, l. 6.13–14.28.31–52); 2, 2 (col. 1989, l. 53-col. 1990, l. 2.18–20); 2, 8 (col. 1993, l. 51.55-col. 1994, l. 1); 2, 14 (col. 1997, l. 6–7); 3, 6 (col. 2000, l. 27–28); 3, 8 (col. 2001, l. 53.58-col. 2002, l. 5); 3, 13 (col. 2005, l. 2–3); 4, 5 (col. 2008, l. 7.11–12); 5, 4 (col. 2014, l. 42–43); 5, 6 (col. 2015, l. 50); 5, 7 (col. 2015, l. 54–59); 5, 10 (col. 2017, l. 54–56); 6, 11 (col. 2026, l. 9–10.14–16.35–36; col. 2027, l. 1–3); 6, 12 (col. 2027, l. 12–16.20–22.28– 30); 7, 4 (col. 2031, l. 12–16.20–27.30–35); 7, 5 (col. 2031, l. 41–50); 7, 10 (col. 2034, l. 4); 8, 2 (col. 2036, l. 28–30); 8, 8 (col. 2040, l. 44–45); 8, 9 (col. 2041, l. 10–11.15–16.18–21); 9, 5 (col. 2048, l. 51-col. 2049, l. 11); 10, 6 (col. 2058, l. 27). 179  See ep. Io. tr. 1, 4 (col. 1980, l. 28-col. 1981, l. 15); 2, 2 (col. 1989, l. 53-col. 1990, l. 34); 2, 4 (col. 1992, l. 10–27); 6, 12 (col. 2027, l. 31–48); 6, 13 (col. 2028, l. 2–26). 180  See ep. Io. tr. 1, 8 (col. 1983, l. 48-col. 1984, l. 4); 2, 1 (col. 1988, l. 51-col. 1989, l. 5.31–39); 4, 6 (col. 2008, l. 49–54; col. 2009, l. 27–34); 5, 2 (col. 2012, l. 52–58); 7, 4 (col. 2031, l. 22–35); 7, 5 (col. 2031, l. 37–50); 9, 9 (col. 2051, l. 57-col. 2052, l. 5). 181  See ep. Io. tr. 2, 11 (col. 1995, l. 6–47); 3, 8 (col. 2001, l. 41-col. 2002, l. 19); 4, 4 (col. 2007, l. 21-col. 2008, l. 1); 5, 8 (col. 2016, l. 47-col. 2017, l. 24); 6, 13 (col. 2027, l. 49-col. 2028, l. 49); 7, 4 (col. 2031, l. 8–22); 8, 10 (col. 2042, l. 8–20.33–50). 182  See ep. Io. tr. 8, 10 (col. 2041, l. 50-col. 2042, l. 7.20–32).

christ examining, excommunicating, and exorcising 343

cation,183 to the inner root of love hidden within the heart and away from the outer appearances of decorous words and actions.184 Augustine’s forensic preaching thus serves to attract the attention not only of the hearer, but also of the heart towards Christ and whatever belongs to him, and away from the antichrist and whatever belongs to it. b. Impersonation With respect to the second forensic tool, Augustine often and explicitly assumes the voice of other speakers, whether from the camp of Christ or from that of the antichrist or even from an ambiguous camp. He not only impersonates God,185 Christ,186 the Church,187 and the Christian,188 but he also impersonates the world,189 the devil,190 the Donatist,191 and the sinner.192 He even impersonates the baptized member of his audience whose actual status remains undisclosed and veiled in a certain ambiguity.193 By means of these impersonations, Augustine seeks to acquaint and familiarize his audience with the varieties of voices that they may hear speaking to or within their hearts. With such training, they can then more spontaneously consent to the words of Christ See ep. Io. tr. 7, 3 (col. 2030, l. 36-col. 2031, l. 7). See ep. Io. tr. 5, 6 (col. 2015, l. 40–53); 5, 7 (col. 2016, l. 21–46); 5, 10 (col. 2017, l. 44–52); 7, 10 (col. 2033, l. 55-col. 2034, l. 49). 185  See ep. Io. tr. 6, 7 (col. 2023, l. 26–31); 8, 6 (col. 2039, l. 37–39); 9, 8 (col. 2050, l. 47–54); 10, 4 (col. 2056, l. 47-col. 2057, l. 2). 186  See ep. Io. tr. 3, 8 (col. 2002, l. 10–16); 3, 9 (col. 2002, l. 42–46); 3, 10 (col. 2003, l. 13–16); 5, 5 (col. 2015, l. 34–37); 10, 8 (col. 2060, l. 21–22.29– 31.34–35); 10, 9 (col. 2060, l. 56-col. 2061, l. 2.12–15). 187  See ep. Io. tr. 3, 4 (col. 1999, l. 37–41). 188  See ep. Io. tr. 2, 4 (col. 1992, l. 24–26); 5, 12 (col. 2018, l. 28–29.31–32); 8, 10 (col. 2042, l. 27–29); 10, 8 (col. 2060, l. 37–42). 189  See ep. Io. tr. 2, 11 (col. 1995, l. 9–14); 5, 12 (col. 2018, l. 51–53); 7, 3 (col. 2030, l. 48–54). 190  See ep. Io. tr. 2, 11 (col. 1995, l. 19–21). 191  See ep. Io. tr. 1, 8 (col. 1984, l. 6–9.11–13); 6, 12 (col. 2027, l. 33–38); 10, 8 (col. 2060, l. 31–32). 192  See ep. Io. tr. 1, 5 (col. 1981, l. 33–35); 1, 6 (col. 1983, l. 2–7.18); 1, 7 (col. 1983, l. 26–29); 3, 9 (col. 2002, l. 39); 3, 10 (col. 2003, l. 4); 7, 5 (col. 2031, l. 37–39.43–45). 193  See ep. Io. tr. 5, 6 (col. 2015, l. 46–47.49–50). 183 

184 

344

augustine marie reisenauer

and contend against those of the antichrist. He thus provides a forensic discernment of spirits. So, for example, Augustine plays the devil’s advocate in order to alert his audience to the tone of Satan’s seductions and to help them recognize and resist such temptations when they come. As Augustine preaches, “Let Your Charity be attentive. […] Do not let Satan creep up on you, saying what he customarily says, ‘Enjoy yourself in God’s creation. Why did he make those things if not for you to enjoy them?’ And they get drunk, and they ruin themselves, and they forget their Creator.”194 Furthermore, beyond simply improving their listening skills, Augustine’s impersonations seek to enhance his audience’s speaking skills. So, for example, he attends to the three temptations of Christ by Satan in order not only to acquaint them with the voices of Christ and the antichrist, but also to give them the words of Christ that they can use to contradict the antichrist themselves. As he elaborates on the tempting desire of the eyes to see the performance of a miracle: “Listen to what ‹Christ› responded, and when such a temptation comes upon you, you too say that: Get behind me, Satan; for it is written, You shall not tempt the Lord your God [Matth. 4,  7], that is, ‘If I do this, I shall be tempting God.’ He said this because he wanted you to say it. Suppose the enemy puts this thought in your mind, ‘What sort of man are you? What sort of Christian are you? Have you performed at least even one miracle, or have the dead arisen because of your prayers, or have you healed the sick? If you were really someone important, you would perform some miracle.’ Then you should respond and say, ‘It is written, You shall not tempt the Lord your God [Matth. 4,  7]. I  will not tempt God, therefore, as though I would belong to God if I performed a miracle and would not belong to him if I did not. And where are his words, Rejoice because your names are written in heaven [Luc. 10, 20]?’”195

With these two forensic tools of his preaching, Augustine cultivates the soul, calls out whatever spirit of the antichrist still needs to be cast out by the Spirit of Christ, and draws attention to Christ whose voice speaking within charitable hearts in heaven finds a marginal echo on earth in the mouth of Augustine and 194  195 

Ep. Io. tr. 2, 11 (col. 1995, l. 18–22). Ep. Io. tr. 2, 14 (col. 1997, l. 6–20).

christ examining, excommunicating, and exorcising 345

in the ears of his audience. The intention of these intrinsic-forensic dynamics is the pouring out of antichristian love from the heart and the pouring in, unto perfection, of Christian love; for, as Augustine appreciates, it is charity that makes all the difference. 4. The distinction of charity Such is the distinction of charity that, for Augustine, it alone already distinguishes and separates the members of Christ from the antichrists, the words of faith and love which Christians speak and hear from those of their adversaries, and even Christian actions and conduct from antichristian exploits and demeanors, whether these realities are manifest or hidden. From a superficial perspective, they can seem no different and rather quite the same. Both charity and pride feed the hungry, clothe the naked, fast, bury the dead, welcome the stranger, intercede for the poor, confess the name of Christ, and even undergo martyrdom.196 But, as Augustine observes, their intentions are radically different, for “charity does it so that God may be praised, pride so that it itself may be praised.”197 The difference of these intentions – rooted in the antithesis between the love of God and the love of the world – separate these works, although similar in “appearance forensically” (faciei forinsecus),198 as belonging in reality either to Christ or to the antichrist. As Augustine realizes, “A different intention, therefore, creates different acts. […] So much is charity worth. See that it alone distinguishes, see that it alone differentiates the acts of people.”199 So determinative are the intentions of these two loves for Augustine that charity is what distinguishes the Father’s handing his Son over to death and even the Son’s handing himself over, on the one hand, from Judas’s handing him over, on the other.200 Charity distinguishes Abel’s offering from that of Cain;201 Christian faith and confession from those of the demons, here196  197  198  199  200  201 

See ep. Io. tr. 8, 9 (col. 2040, l. 52-col. 2041, l. 15). Ep. Io. tr. 8, 9 (col. 2040, l. 54–55). Ep. Io. tr. 8, 9 (col. 2041, l. 19–20). Ep. Io. tr. 7, 7 (col. 2033, l. 16–17.20–22). See ep. Io. tr. 7, 7 (col. 2032, l. 41-col. 2033, l. 22). See ep. Io. tr. 5, 8 (col. 2017, l. 7–22).

346

augustine marie reisenauer

tics, and schismatics;202 and the death of a martyr from that of a Donatist.203 The prayers of Paul afflicted by an angel of Satan are marked by the distinction of charity, unlike the prayers of the devil tempting Job, of the demons exorcised into the swine, and of worldly persons entertaining the desires of cupidity or curiosity.204 The two kinds of love not only qualify differently actions that seem to be similar or even the same. They also qualify differently actions that seem to be and, in fact, are dissimilar, even when a charitable action may appear to be less attractive on the surface than an uncharitable one. Augustine provides such examples in contrasting a father who disciplines and corrects his son out of charity and a slave dealer who flatters and seduces a boy out of cupidity.205 The former action may seem rather unpleasant, but is actually good, whereas the latter may seem pleasant, but is actually rather bad. For Augustine, the fundamental moral question concerns the root of love within the person’s conscience: “Return to your conscience; question it. Do not attend [attendere] to what flowers outside [foris], but to what root is in the ground. Is cupidity rooted there? There can be the appearance of good deeds, but good works cannot be there. Is charity rooted there? Be secure; nothing wicked can grow. The proud person flatters; love rages. The one clothes; the other beats. For the one clothes in order to please people; the other beats so that discipline may correct. The blow of charity is more acceptable than the alms of pride. Return within [intro], then, brethren, and in all things whichever you do, look upon God as your witness. See, if he sees, with what mind you act. If your heart does not accuse you of acting for the sake of boasting, it is well; be secure.” 206

Charity provides the examined heart the true security of being rooted in Christ. From the heart of charity nothing bad can be 202  See ep. Io. tr. 2, 8 (col. 1993, l. 37–43); 3, 7–8 (col. 2000, l. 58-col. 2002, l. 19); 6, 12–13 (col. 2027, l. 12-col. 2028, l. 49); 8, 9 (col. 2041, l. 11–15); 10, 1–2 (col. 2054, l. 1-col. 2055, l. 30); 10, 7 (col. 2059, l. 45–47). 203  See ep. Io. tr. 1, 2 (col. 1979, l. 10–50); 5, 5 (col. 2014, l. 57-col. 2015, l. 1.33–37); 6, 2 (col. 2019, l. 58-col. 2020, l. 52); 8, 9 (col. 2041, l. 11–15). 204  See ep. Io. tr. 2, 13 (col. 1996, l. 24–31); 6, 5–8 (col. 2021, l. 58-col. 2024, l. 54). 205  See ep. Io. tr. 7, 8 (col. 2033, l. 23–35); 7, 11 (col. 2034, l. 50-col. 2035, l. 7); 10, 7 (col. 2059, l. 18–37). 206  Ep. Io. tr. 8, 9 (col. 2041, l. 21–34).

christ examining, excommunicating, and exorcising 347

produced, “nothing but good can come forth from this root,”207 “nothing can happen apart from doing good.”208 The love of God in Christ is so secure for Augustine that he freely encourages the Christian with the “precept” to do in charity whatever he or she desires: “Love, and do what you want.”209 Whether a person cries out or stays silent, chastises or spares, corrects or soothes, whatsoever a person does, so long as he or she acts out of charity, he or she not only acts well and does good, but also cannot act wickedly and do bad.210 Along these lines, Augustine declares, “Have whatever you will, ‹but› if you do not have this ‹charity› alone, it profits you nothing. If you have nothing else, have this and you have fulfilled the law.”211 Charity fulfills the entire moral law. By encouraging his audience to examine their hearts and cling tenaciously to nothing else besides the love of God in Jesus Christ poured forth through the Holy Spirit, Augustine resists the twin moral temptations that are contrary to Christ’s law of twofold love. His dovish preaching avoids both rigorist moralism with its concomitant scrupulosity and “bitterness,” on the one hand, and licentious libertinism with its concomitant “laxity” and “indifference,” on the other.212 Augustine implies that it is an antichristian tendency to focus excessively and exclusively on legalistic rules and principles of extrinsic morality without examining the heart for love within. Such a rigid and externalized ethic inspires the schismatic Donatists.213 However, it is no less in the spirit of the antichrist to stay presumptuously in an “evil security” and say, “Let us sin; let us do in security what we want to do. Christ cleanses us, he is faithful and righteous; he cleanses us from all iniquity.”214 Augustine denies that charitable loving and doing whatever one wills

Ep. Io. tr. 7, 8 (col. 2033, l. 40–41). Ep. Io. tr. 10, 7 (col. 2059, l. 17–18). 209  Ep. Io. tr. 7,  8 (col.  2033, l.  36). See M.-F. Berrouard, “Dilige et quod uis fac”, in Augustinus-Lexikon, v. 2, ed. by C. P. Mayer, K. H. Chelius, A. E. J. Grote, Basel, 1996–2002, col. 453–55. 210  See ep. Io. tr. 7, 8 (col. 2033, l. 37–41). 211  Ep. Io. tr. 5, 7 (col. 2016, l. 28–30). See ep. Io. tr. 5, 7 (col. 2016, l. 36–38). 212  Ep. Io. tr. 7, 11 (col. 2054, l. 53.58; col. 2055, l. 12–13). 213  See ep. Io. tr. 7, 11 (col. 2055, l. 24–39). 214  Ep. Io. tr. 1, 7 (col. 1983, l. 26–29). 207 

208 

348

augustine marie reisenauer

means loving sin and doing whatever is wicked.215 By attending to Christ and relying more on Christ’s teaching than his own, Augustine avoids both casuistic and casual approaches to morality and moral instruction. As he sees it, the Spirit of Christ and his charity are the authorities that discern, decide, and divulge whatever genuinely belongs to the Christian heart and way of life and also counteract and cast out whatever does not. 5. Concluding remarks If they have attended well to his preaching on the First Epistle of John, the members of Augustine’s audience can be touched within their hearts by Christ in heaven, attracted by his profound and profuse love, and even consent to his extraction and expulsion of his adversary, the antichrist. Augustine hopes that his preaching on this epistle provides at least some marginal encouragement towards the inception and the increase of charity. As he initiates his series of homilies, 216 so Augustine returns at the end of the Easter octave to the image of igniting and fueling the fire of love: “I have said these things, brethren, and done so at some length, yet, because this charity has to be commended quite emphatically to Your Charity, this, then was how it had to be commended. For if there is no charity in you, we have said nothing. But, if it is in you, it is as though we have added oil to the flame. And, in the person in whom it was not, perhaps it has been set ablaze by these words. In one person what was there has grown; in another what was not there has begun.” 217

The charity that Augustine commends through his forensic preaching inevitably involves the casting out of the spirit of the antichrist from the heart of the person and the people, from the member and the body of Christ. His treatment of the antichrist serves as an invitation for his audience to become attentive to Christ and P. Agaësse correctly resists a morally permissive reading of Augustine’s precept in “Introduction”, in Commentaire de la première épître de saint Jean [n. 2], p. 80: “Néanmoins l’aphorisme « Dilige, et quod vis fac », loin de favoriser le laxisme, met plutôt l’accent sur les rigueurs et les exigences de la charité.” 216  See ep. Io. tr. prologue (col. 1977, l. 13–27). 217  Ep. Io. tr. 8, 11 (col. 2042, l. 51–57). 215 

christ examining, excommunicating, and exorcising 349

to “believe Christ preaching” 218 intrinsically within their hearts. Beyond his own ingenuity, Augustine appreciates that it is Christ and his anointing Spirit who affirm and confirm Christians in their love of God and of each other, and criticize and exorcize the antichrists in their worldly and twisted love of themselves.

218 

Ep. Io. tr. 10, 10 (col. 2062, l. 38–39).

Rhetoric, Redemption, and the Practices of the Self. A Neglected Mode of Augustine’s Thinking Paul R. Kolbet (Yale) “All-powerful father, let my weapon wipe out our army’s shame.” Virgil, Aen. 11, 789–90 1. Finding the most fruitful method The remarkable renaissance of Augustinian studies in the last half-century has led most recently to extended studies of Augustine’s great many preserved sermons. We are still closer to the beginning than the end of what there is to say about this incredibly rich, but long neglected, body of materials.1 Although we assume that we know some things about the great figures of antiquity such as Socrates or Jesus, it is far harder to identify their living voice than most people realize. It is not commonly known that we have more of Augustine’s writing preserved than any The neglect of Augustine’s sermons was only one aspect of a general lack of attention to early Christian homiletic materials as a whole. W. Mayer states, “Undervalued and largely ignored until the last decade of the twentieth century, the topics of early Christian preaching and the early Christian homily have only recently begun to receive the attention they deserve” (“Homiletics”, in The Oxford Handbook of Early Christian Studies, ed. by S. Ashbrook Harvey, D.  G. Hunter, Oxford, 2008, pp.  565–83 [esp. p.  565]). For what reading there was in earlier centuries, see K.  Ettenhuber, E.  L. Saak, “Sermons”, in The Oxford Guide to the Historical Reception of Augustine, ed. by K.  Pollmann, Oxford, 2013, v. 3, pp. 1717–1726. 1 

Praedicatio Patrum. Studies on Preaching in late Antique North Africa, edited by Gert Partoens, Anthony Dupont, Shari Boodts, Turnhout, 2017 (Instrumenta Patris­ tica et Mediaeualia, 75), p. 351-378 ©



10.1484/M.IPM-EB.5.114058

352

paul r. kolbet

other ancient person.2 In his sermons we are very close to hearing him speaking, a rare living voice from an ancient world, whose words were, by and large, taken down by scribes as he spoke. 3 But the very abundance and accessibility of the source material creates its own problems. It tempts us to fit Augustine’s preserved sermons too readily into our own modern categories. This is what must be avoided most of all since it results in domesticating them, making them into pedestrian past examples of present realities we already know. What is needed here is historical rigor, with all the disciplinary methods that that entails, to let the past be strange and foreign, even when it appears to be in the familiar form of a Christian sermon. The fruits of recent scholarship on Augustine’s sermons are already apparent. First of all, in addition to the necessary effort to distinguish the authentic from the inauthentic sermons, the many critical editions and translations into modern languages, a great deal of research has gone into comparing Augustine’s discussion of topics across the entire corpus, scrutinizing with exceptional thoroughness the full range of treatises, letters, and sermons. These studies have already yielded an unprecedented charting of the unfolding of Augustine’s thought and a surprising consistency in certain core Augustinian notions across genres, audiences, and decades.4 Hildegund Müller has observed that Augustine’s sermons have proven to be frustrating for historians because they do not contain as many facts about daily life in Roman North Africa as many 2  According to J. J. O’Donnell, we have five million Latin words from Augustine “all written in the last forty-three of his nearly seventy-six years of life […]. The average is approximately that of a three hundred-page printed book every year for almost forty years” (Augustine: A New Biography, New York, 2005, pp. 135–36). 3  R.  J. Deferrari, “Verbatim Reports of Augustine’s Unwritten Sermons”, Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association, 46  (1915), pp.  35–45; “St  Augustine’s Method of Composing and Delivering Sermons”, American Journal of Philology, 43 (1922), pp. 97–123, 193–219; G.  W. Doyle, “Augustine’s Sermonic Method”, Westminster Theological Journal, 39 (1977), pp. 213–38. 4  See  A. Dupont, Gratia in Augustine’s Sermones ad populum During the Pelagian Controversy: Do Different Contexts Furnish Different Insights?, Leiden, 2013, pp. 3–35.

rhetoric, redemption, and the practices of the self 353

assume and this lack is so pronounced that it cannot simply be attributed to the narrow interests of ancient editors. This could not be more different than another prominent Patristic preacher for instance, John Chrysostom, whose sermons are a goldmine of data on everyday life in ancient Antioch and Constantinople.5 Müller suggests that this has much more to do with what sort of preacher Augustine was: a preacher who she says appears to be so concerned with a certain kind of interiority that “the external world is mostly blanked out.”6 She explains, “We learn next to nothing about the social structures of North African cities, about the presence of ethnic and religious minorities there, or about the role of women, slaves, or any other social group. If we had no other works by Augustine than his sermons, we would never suspect him to be the politically and socially active figure that he actually was.”7 What we have, therefore, in the sermons is a peculiar, highly calculated, rhetoric that exposes some things to hearers, but hides others, that values some things, but others not at all. To identify what precisely gives them the shape and content they have requires according to her “a serious re-thinking of the whole genre” of the sermon.8 What has become unmistakably clear in recent years in Augustinian studies is just how highly rhetorical Augustine’s writings are. Ever the highly trained, professional orator, Augustine was 5  See, for example, the social data available in Chrysostom’s sermons discussed by P.  Allen, W.  Mayer, “Computer and Homily: Accessing the Everyday Life of Early Christians”, Vigiliae Christianae, 47 (1993), pp. 260– 80; B.  Leyerle, “John Chrysostom: Sermons on City Life”, in Religions of Late Antiquity in Practice, ed. by R.  Valantasis, Princeton (NJ), 2000, pp. 247–60. 6  H.  Müller, “Preacher: Augustine and His Congregation”, in A Companion to Augustine, ed. by M.  Vessey, Malden (MA), 2012, pp.  297–309 (esp. pp. 307–08). 7  H.  Müller, “Preacher” [n. 6], p. 301. Compare, for example, P. Garnsey’s study of slavery in Augustine’s sermons. Looking at the same evidence as Müller, he concludes that the “use of slavery as a metaphor is a more fertile area of enquiry than the search for information about institutional or legal slavery.” See “Slavery as Institution and Metaphor in the New Sermons (with special reference to Dolbeau 2 and 21)”, in Augustin prédicateur (395– 411): Actes du Colloque International de Chantilly (5–7 septembre 1996), ed. by G.  Madec, Paris, 1998, pp. 471–79 (esp. p. 478). 8  H. Müller, “Preacher” [n. 6], p. 308.

354

paul r. kolbet

always altering his own presentation as an author, preacher, or spiritual director, to whatever form he believed would have the desired effect upon his audience. We never catch Augustine not engaged in some form of rhetoric (and if we think we do, then that is when we are most likely the most thoroughly bewitched by his art). This is even true of the Confessions which we have come to see more as a rather seductive enchantment aiming to captivate the reader than the earnest, penitential, autobiography it has often been taken to be.9 Readers of Augustine, however, even in the centuries immediately following his own, have largely been interested in codifying his authoritative opinions on topics of interest to them.10 This resulted early on in a non-rhetorical, dogmatic Augustine where what is most central is the objective status of theological propositions rather than the transformation of the subjective experience of the reader or hearer. This is a difficult legacy to overcome. Recent scholarly achievements have made it possible to understand Augustine’s sermons for what they were in their own time when they were first delivered. Near the end of his life, Pierre Hadot explained that his “main preoccupation has been precisely to show that what was considered to be pure theory, abstraction, was practice in both its mode of exposition and its finality.” He proceeds to explain that the sort of practice he was looking for was never to be something “added to philosophical theory” as a “practice that merely compliments theory and abstract discourse.” Instead, all ancient philosophy, according to Hadot, is only understood when it is seen itself to be an “exercise.”11 In this way, he

9  As Ch.  T. Matthewes explains, “It has become a scholarly commonplace to state that the work is not an autobiography in any exegetically useful sense” (“Book One: The Presumptuousness of Autobiography and the Paradoxes of Beginning”, in A Reader’s Companion to Augustine’s Confessions, ed. by K.  Paffenroth, R.  P. Kennedy, Louisville, 2003, p. 8). This has been true at least since the publication of P.  Courcelle’s Recherches sur les “Confessions” de saint Augustin, Paris, 1950. 10  See The Reception of the Church Fathers in the West: From the Carolingians to the Maurists, ed. by I. Backus, 2 v., Leiden, 1997. 11  P.  Hadot, The Present Alone is Our Happiness: Conversations with Jeannie Carlier and Arnold I. Davidson, transl. by M. Djaballah, Stanford, 2009, p. 88.

rhetoric, redemption, and the practices of the self 355

asserts, “Every work [of antiquity] should be resituated in the praxis from which it emanates.”12 According to Hadot, the historical challenge before us requires closing the gap between idea or proposition on the one hand and the particular human context in which we find it on the other, so that the full dimensions of the sermon can be taken in as a living whole (rather than the dead objects, as it were, that await dissection in a modern scientific lab). It requires disciplined effort to understand Augustine’s sermons on their own terms as evidence of an ancient discrete activity. After all, the sermons we read come from a particular context that is knowable in its broad outlines and it is that historical context that is the most weighty factor in determining what they mean. That context involved a specific set of intentions shared by preacher and congregation. It is insufficient only to focus on what the preacher says and not how he says it, and, in addition, how what he says is to be responded to. This is the case because it is the presence of the hearer that is shaping both the form and the content of the sermon. Augustine the orator is adapting what he says and does to have his desired effect upon those listening.13 It is this repeated exchange between preacher and congregation that is, in Hadot’s words, “the praxis from which” the sermons emanate. How leads to that reality more readily than what. I have argued at length in my Augustine and the Cure of Souls that Augustine here, as in so many other things, is putting his own mark on what was otherwise a common highly regarded classical practice.14 The therapeutic training of the heart and mind with well-crafted words was a central preoccupation of both the ancient Greeks and Romans. There are many instances in his sermons where we find Augustine giving direct instructions to the congregation he is addressing at the time about how they should best participate in his sermon (and the liturgy in which it is usually embedded). Augustine instructs his hearers to commit to hearing his sermons as a self-implicating practice that is to be repeated P. Hadot, The Present Alone is Our Happiness [n. 11], p. 68. C. Harrison makes this point forcefully throughout her monograph The Art of Listening in the Early Church, Oxford, 2013. 14  P. R. Kolbet, Augustine and the Cure of Souls, Notre Dame, 2010. 12  13 

356

paul r. kolbet

often, if not daily.15 That practice is best understood by us not by isolating propositions that we judge to be typical but rather by following a certain itinerary of the mind and heart rhetorically constructed by the preacher. We should resist, nonetheless, forcing that itinerary into too simplistic a map. There are, no doubt, universal themes (such as the primacy of love), but that should not prevent us from tracking the movement of the sermon on any number of subjects where the hearer is brought along a certain path. In this way, topics in the sermons are best approached the way one would describe a human social activity rather than simply assessing the coherence of freestanding verbal arguments. 2. Illustrating the method: the violent contortions of shame Almost any emotion richly repays study in Augustine’s sermons.16 Choosing nearly at random among the various trajectories in the sermons, let us briefly follow Augustine’s attention to the social dynamics of shame and see how that is integrated into the practice to which the sermons testify. By shame I refer to the constellation of vocabulary around Roman pudor (which has to do with how one perceives oneself being seen by others).17 Although in our day there is a massive amount of attention being paid to whatever links there may be between religion and violence, especially in 15  For many texts, see P. R. Kolbet, Augustine and the Cure of Souls [n. 14], pp. 189–97. 16  There is a substantive body of contemporary literature debating the nature of human emotions. To locate the historical Augustine within it requires seeing how, in common with the leading philosophical schools of his day, he did not consider emotions to be blind surges of affect, but instead understood them to be modes of appraisal entwined with beliefs. See S.  C. Byers, Perception, Sensibility, and Moral Motivation in Augustine: A Stoic-Platonic Synthesis, New York, 2013; P. R. Kolbet, “Augustine among the Ancient Therapists”, in Augustine and Psychology, ed. by S.  Dixon, J.  Doody, K.  Paffenroth, Lanham (Md.), 2013, pp. 91–114; and, more broadly, M. C. Nussbaum, Upheavals of Thought: The Intelligence of Emotions, Cambridge, 2001. 17  As defined by R.  A. Kaster in his masterful Emotion, Restraint, and Community in Ancient Rome, Oxford, 2005, p. 33: “After all, pudor is first and foremost about perceptions – about seeing myself being seen as devalued.” The vocabulary of pudor also includes confusio, erubesco, ignominia, pudicitia, uerecundia, etc.

rhetoric, redemption, and the practices of the self 357

the countries surrounding the Mediterranean Sea that formed the core of Augustine’s Roman Empire, my analysis is limited to the discourse of pudor while conceding that envy, jealousy, fear, and various pleasures deserve a place at the table and that in reality any number of adverse combinations obtain.18 Recent scholarship has documented in great detail incidents of religious violence in Augustine’s North Africa and has explored how they arose within the broader system of the late Roman Empire. Reading through Brent Shaw’s monumental Sacred Violence confirms any impression one may have that Augustine lived in a thoroughly violent time (although North Africa was not any more violent than other regions of the Empire). Early in Augustine’s episcopate (399 CE), a mob of Christian zealots toppled and destroyed a statue of Hercules at Sufes. The local townspeople responded by massacring sixty Christians. Augustine wrote the leaders of that community offering to rebuild their statue with whatever metal or marble was necessary if only they would restore the human lives they took.19 Augustine’s eventual biographer and friend, Possidius, when he was bishop of Calama, was dragged out of a house and beaten with clubs.20 That same Possidius writes of Bishop Augustine narrowly averting a similar attempt on his life.21 There is no need to recount further incidents because Shaw’s marshaling of an extraordinary mass of evidence speaks for itself. Despite the abundance of evidence of violent episodes in late antique North Africa, Shaw opens his magisterial account acknowledging that “violence is rarely seen as a thing in its own right and is radically under-theorized.”22 Our thinking about violence 18  As Augustine himself explains in an extended passage cataloguing the diverse motivations for crimes and their possible combinations (conf. 3, 8, 16 [CCSL 27, p. 35, l. 25-p. 36, l. 34]). 19  Augustine, ep. 50 (CSEL 34/2, p. 143); discussed in B.  D. Shaw, Sacred Violence: African Christians and Sectarian Hatred in the Age of Augustine, Cambridge, 2011, pp. 249–51. 20  Possidius, Vita Augustini 12, 3–5 and Augustine, Cresc. 3, 46, 50–47, 51 (CSEL 52, p. 456, l. 27-p. 459, l. 27), both discussed by B. D. Shaw, Sacred Violence [n. 19], pp. 525–27. For a fuller account of the incident and Possidius, see E.  T. Hermanowicz, Possidius of Calama: A Study of the North African Episcopate at the Time of Augustine, Oxford, 2008, pp. 92, 113–16, 133. 21  Possidius, Vita Augustini 12. 22  B. D. Shaw, Sacred Violence [n. 19], p. 4.

358

paul r. kolbet

may be cloudier than we realize and we are not always helped by the point of view of our ancient sources. What Shaw laments is that ancient secular and ecclesiastical sources were largely interested in the sectarian violence between religious groups and the deaths inflicted by imperial military force, but neither of these were the primary experience of violence suffered by most people. Ordinary individual homicides, fistfights, brawls, beatings, rapes, and robberies were more pervasive. Shaw claims that they “happened everywhere and all the time.”23 Because our historical sources take these things for granted, they have made it difficult for scholars to find material to illumine the dynamics of the most pervasive forms of violence in Roman North Africa. For this reason, Shaw characterizes his own evidence and subject matter as addressing “a minuscule proportion of all incidents of attacks on property and persons, including homicides, in the African provinces of the empire of the period.” He explains that “the paradox” of his nearly nine hundred page chronicle “is that by far most of these other everyday acts of damage and harm have been entirely forgotten.”24 Anyone committed to reading Shaw’s lengthy account hoping to find a particular religious driver generating acts of violence will be disappointed. There is not even a hint of a change in a single theological position that would have lessened the violence, if only they formulated the religious ideology correctly. Shaw never bothers to refute the longstanding popular prejudice that monotheists are particularly intolerant because they reject the existence of a multiplicity of gods. He in no way suggests that religion itself is the cause of violence. This is because, according to Shaw, violence just is not the sort of thing that is reducible to any identifiable theological or philosophical conceptuality. As he explains, “Acts of violence are not uniform and transcendental universals, but rather variable elements of normal human behavior that are informed by culture and conditioned by human ecology.”25 Not all the North African actors were particularly religious, as if every dockworker with a club was particularly versed in say, competing theories of 23  24  25 

B. D. Shaw, Sacred Violence [n. 19], p. 30. B. D. Shaw, Sacred Violence [n. 19], p. 779. B. D. Shaw, Sacred Violence [n. 19], p. 31.

rhetoric, redemption, and the practices of the self 359

sacramental efficacy. Shaw directs our attention instead to more ordinary unhappiness finding religious channels with no clear religious driver such as the intolerance fostered by monotheism. This, itself “may well be his book’s most important contribution.”26 The reason why everyday realities of violence are so stubborn is that their roots are far more grounded and primitive than even the religious thinking of collectives. This is highly frustrating for all of us who insist upon our too often over-neat rational analysis. Despite the obstacles, it remains a worthy goal for historians to find means at least to better identify the forgotten violent acts that never entered the official histories, but deserve their place in our histories. Augustine’s sermons with their noted preoccupation with the shaping of interior dispositions may not seem like a promising place to find those forgotten to history, but, in fact, they do supply something of value here because a great many of the sermons supply spiritual exercises to promote nonviolent resolution to escalating conflicts of the most ordinary sort, that is, the ordinary homicides, fistfights, brawls, beatings, rapes, and robberies that historians have found to be so elusive. Notice, for example, sermon 63, a very short sermon of Augustine’s that is so unremarkable that it supplies no clues to its dating or location. Wherever it was preached, it gives the impression of a rather ordinary day in Hippo (or nearby) with Augustine not departing from his usual routine. Augustine, no doubt, has flashier more learned sermons, but this one may well supply a view into the push and pull of ordinary lives that were forgotten by history, but mattered a lot to Augustine. Augustine states, “You have heard an insult – it’s a high wind; you have become angry – it is a wave. […] Your heart is in peril, your heart is tossed about. When you hear the insult, you are eager to avenge it.”27 Notice what a quick jump it is in the sermon between insult and revenge (in fact, in Augustine’s Latin sentence conuicio and uindicari are

H.  A. Drake, “Monotheism and Violence”, Journal of Late Antiquity, 6 (2014), pp. 251–63 (esp. p. 251). 27  Augustine, s.  63, 2 (CCSL 41Aa, p. 328, l. 17–20): Audisti conuicium: uentus est; iratus es: fluctus est. […] periclitatur cor tuum, fluctuat cor tuum. Audito conuicio, uindicari desideras. Translations of Augustine’s works are from WSA III, but have been modified wherever necessary. 26 

360

paul r. kolbet

juxtaposed side by side not even separated by the distance of a single word). It is worth taking a small detour from sermon 63 to notice what else Augustine may tell us about the movement between the feeling of being insulted, that is, experiencing oneself as being disrespected by another, and the recourse to revenge as a remedy. In another sermon, Augustine quarries, “What is an insult?” Without answering the first question, he asks, “What is shame?” Augustine continues, “An insult is what an enemy flings at you […]. Shame is something that brings a blush to an honorable brow even at a false imputation of guilt; it is no crime, or at any rate no crime on the part of the person accused; yet such is the weakness of our minds that we are often ashamed even when falsely charged, not because the accusation was made, but because such a thing could be believed of us.”28 In his study of ancient Roman emotions, Robert Kaster names his chapter on shame, “Fifty Ways to Feel your Pudor.” Kaster confirms Augustine’s appraisal that there were a multitude of occasions to incur shame whether or not one erred in any way at all. Late Romans, especially in their relatively small towns and villages, frequently felt the eyes of others looking at them, and experienced the vision of others as profoundly threatening when what was reflected back at them was a judgment that they were lacking or falling short of norms. It contained within it a threatening severing of relations, or, at least, a renegotiation of social status that was profoundly alarming. This is perhaps not at all surprising, since a premise that runs through Shadi Bartsch’s extensive examination of the self in the Early Roman Empire is that the typical self was, as it were, visually constituted. She explains, “In general […] it is clear that the notion of the self as seen by others was thought to provide the ‘truest’ idea of who one

28  Augustine, en. Ps. 68, 2, 4 (CCSL 39, p. 919, l. 2–9): Quid est, opprobrium? […] quid uerecundia? Opprobrium est quod obicit inimicus. […] Verecundia est quae facit ingenuam frontem etiam de falsi criminis obiectione erubescere. Non est crimen; aut etsi crimen est, non est illius cui obicitur; sed tamen infirmitas humani animi plerumque uerecundatur, etiam cum falsum obicitur; non quia obiectum est, sed quia creditum.

rhetoric, redemption, and the practices of the self 361

is.”29 Philosophic, or we could add religious, interventions sought to supply what Bartsch terms other “mirrors for the self” but, in general, the everyday gaze of others was charged with a moment by moment negotiating of what self there was at all. 30 The experience of shame was most acute when the negative judgment of others conflicted with a prior self-assessment that one had more worth than one was being accorded. The collision between competing self-assessments could be and was explosive. There were traditional remedies to reverse the experience of public shame, namely agreed upon means to restore one’s reputation, and these often involved violence either directed toward others or toward oneself. There is a memorable scene in Virgil’s Aeneid, where Aeneas’s Trojan army was being routed and that shame was only made worse by the fact that the other army was being led by an exceptionally fierce woman, the warrior Camilla. The Trojan fortunes were only changed by a desperate spear throw accompanied by the prayer, “All-powerful father, let my weapon wipe out our army’s shame.”31 The valor and worth of the Trojans was restored when Camilla suffered a mortal blow, a shame-defeating blow. In another celebrated story enshrining Roman values that is familiar to all readers of Augustine’s City of God, the historian Livy recounts the rape of the heroine Lucretia. 32 That baleful eve29  Sh.  Bartsch, The Mirror of the Self: Sexuality, Self-Knowledge, and the Gaze in the Early Roman Empire, Chicago, 2006, p.  3. Compare  M.  W. Gleason’s discussion of the “forest of eyes that made up what we lightly call today ‘the face-to-face society’ of the ancient Mediterranean city. This was a world in which the scrutiny of faces was not an idle pastime but an essential survival skill” (Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome, Princeton, 1994, p. 55). 30  For Bartsch’s treatment of philosophical mirrors (chiefly as used by Seneca), see esp. pp. 183–229. Others have addressed the self-forming aspects of Hellenistic philosophy, see especially P.  Hadot, What is Ancient Philosophy?, transl. by M.  Chase, Cambridge (Mass.), 2002; The Inner Citadel: The Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, transl. by M.  Chase, Cambridge (Mass.), 1998; M.  C. Nussbaum, The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics, Princeton, 1994. 31  Virgil, Aen. 11, 789–90 (transl. by S.  Ruden, The Aeneid: Vergil, New Haven, 2008, p. 264). 32  For further studies and additional bibliography, see D. Trout, “Re-Textualizing Lucretia: Cultural Subversion in the City of God”, Journal of Early

362

paul r. kolbet

ning began with a drinking party where the gathered men took to praising the virtues of their own wives. When it was Collatinus’s turn, instead of giving a speech in praise of his Lucretia, he suggested that the best proof of virtue would be for them at that drunken moment to mount horses and drop in on each of their wives unexpectedly to see what they occupied themselves with when their husbands were absent. Riding off into the darkness they generally found their wives also feasting and drinking with friends. But not so with Lucretia, whom they found late at night still at work with her wool. It was then that Collatinus’s friend, the royal prince, Sextus Tarquinius resolved to dishonor Lucritia by forcefully raping her (mala libido Lucretiae per uim stuprandae). Only days later, he was in her bedroom with sword in hand threatening her with death if she did not immediately consent. When she was unmoved and showed no fear of death, he threatened her with something worse than death, public shame. He would kill not only her but also a male slave and place the slave’s naked body on hers so that it would forever be known that she died in the act of adultery. With that, Tarquinius had found a threat that was sufficiently horrifying. Lucretia would be shamed either way. There was no escape for her from shame. The only path left for her was to undo the shame after the horrific act. She promptly summoned her father and her husband, who returned with their male friends. She told them of her lost honor (her lost pudicitia), named Sextus Tarquinius, and swore them to avenge her. She then plunged a knife she had concealed into her own heart and died. The men pulled the knife out of her dead body and knew what they had to do. Sextus Tarquinius was soon slain, having according to Livy, brought this upon himself. This act of revenge, not insignificantly, also marked the beginning of the Roman Republic. As one of the founding stories of the Roman Republic, core values of the Roman self are on display in it. Shame figures prominently and is resolved by either directing it inwardly via suicide or directing it outwardly through killing (the gender lines here are

Christian Studies, 2 (1994), pp. 53–70; M.  Webb, “‘On Lucretia Who Slew Herself’: Rape and Consolation in Augustine’s De ciuitate dei”, Augustinian Studies, 44 (2013), pp. 37–58.

rhetoric, redemption, and the practices of the self 363

also unmistakable). 33 One published study attributes one-third of documented Roman suicides, where motives can be established, to pudor. 34 Whatever the precise numbers were, it was a substantive social reality. We know that Augustine famously (or notoriously) found fault with Lucretia because he claimed that she was guilty of the crime of killing an innocent woman. According to Augustine, Lucretia was no heroine and her example was not one to be followed, especially by the many Christian women who were raped in Rome in 410 when it was sacked by Alaric. 35 This incredibly powerful story surfaces early in the City of God because the tight knit knot of shame and revenge was one that Augustine found everywhere he went, and it was one that he believed admitted a very different resolution than conventionally thought. 36 Take for example, how shame is an essential ingredient in several of the most remembered acts of sectarian religious violence in late antique North Africa. In Victoriana, a settlement about thirty 33  M. Gaddis asserts, “it seems that the only violence women were allowed to inflict was upon themselves” by “committing suicide in order to protect their chastity” (There is No Crime for Those who have Christ: Religious Violence in the Christian Roman Empire, Berkeley, 2005, p. 168). 34  A.  J.  L. van Hooff, From Autothanasia to Suicide: Self-Killing in Classical Antiquity, New York, 1990, p.  120; the cases are listed in an appendix (pp. 198–232). See, however, the important qualifications about “the operative force of pudor” in male wartime suicides expressed by S. H. Rauh, “The Tradition of Suicide in Rome’s Foreign Wars”, Transactions of the American Philological Association, 145 (2015), pp. 383–410. 35  Other prominent Christian leaders of the time appear to have agreed with the cultural norm and approved of female suicide to preserve bodily integrity, see Ambrose of Milan, De uirginibus 3, 7, 33–35 (PL 16, col. 229– 31); Jerome, In Jonam 1, 12 (SC 323, p. 210); John Chrysostom, De Bernice et Prosdoce (PG 50, col. 629–40; transl. by W.  Mayer and B.  Neil, The Cult of the Saints: Select Homilies and Letters, Crestwood [N.Y.], 2006, pp.  155–76); De Pelagia (PG 50, col. 579–84; transl. by W.  Mayer, in Let Us Die that We May Live: Greek Homilies on Christian Martyrs from Asia Minor, Palestine, and Syria, ed. by J.  Leemans et  al., New York, 2003, pp.  148–61). Similarly, Eusebius extols a mother in ancient Antioch who drowned herself and her two unmarried daughters to preserve their sexual purity (Historia ecclesiastica 8, 12, 3–5). 36  As D. Trout concludes, “Augustine struck not only at perceived misconceptions about sexual purity, but at the most basic forces behind Roman social relations, the prickly goads of honor and shame” (“Re-Textualizing Lucretia” [n. 32], p. 70).

364

paul r. kolbet

miles from Hippo, a former Donatist priest named Restitutus was attacked in his home. What is not to be overlooked is how essential it is to the story that the attack on the traitor priest took place in the full light of day, and according to Augustine’s account, he “was dragged from his home […] and with a large crowd of people looking on […] he was beaten with bloody wooden clubs […] [and then] dragged through a muddy swamp, and humiliated by being clothed in a reed jacket.”37 The Donatists never intended to murder Restitutus, they wanted to hurt him badly, and, more to the point, to make an example of him by humiliating him even as he saw his shame reflected back at him in the eyes of onlookers. Shame and violence appear repeatedly arm in arm. Where does one end and the other begin, especially when the shame of being violently shamed seems to call for a reciprocal act of violence to undo the shame? Even justice itself appears to call for revenge. Augustine was particularly attuned to the dynamics informing traditional Roman remedies to redeem shameful experiences ranging from revenge to suicide. Recall where he began his Confessions, with the unhappy baby of the first book. That baby Augustine (and the reader who is to identify with him) is said to be angry because the adults were not his subjects, they were not in his words, “free people willing to be my slaves.” Therefore, he confesses, “I would take revenge [uindicabam] on them” with the most forceful weapon he had at his disposal, baby tears. 38 Augustine remarks there that everyone has seen infants strike their own mothers with their little baby arms with all the force they can muster to do as much injury as possible. He concludes famously, “The only innocent feature in babies is the weakness of their infant limbs, not their minds.”39 Could Augustine’s baby in the Confessions be having its first infantile experiences of pudor? Is it for the first time negotiating the primal human experience of seeing and being seen, and liking or not liking what one sees reflected back in the eyes of others? Is that baby having its first most primitive experience of 37  Augustine, Cresc. 3, 48, 53 (CSEL 52, pp. 460–61), discussed by B. D. Shaw, Sacred Violence [n. 19], pp. 530–31, 704. 38  Augustine, conf. 1, 6, 8 (CCSL 27, p. 4, l. 21–33). 39  Augustine, conf. 1, 7, 11 (CCSL 27, p. 6, l. 19–20).

rhetoric, redemption, and the practices of the self 365

shame? Why is the baby angry? Is it because the baby realizes that it needs others and, by that very need, is made vulnerable to shame? The baby lies there thinking how to escape the human predicament, “I would not have this shame if only they would be my slaves. If only I had a powerful enough weapon, then I would have my revenge.” As Augustine says in a statement charged with irony, “everyone knows” that this behavior “will fade away as the baby grows up.”40 We know that, right? That baby could not possibly grow up, become stronger, and find more powerful weapons than tears? What that baby would really like is a sword! For a man who built his early secular career giving speeches that were lies (conf. 6, 6, 9; 9, 2, 2), and never forgot even as a bishop how valuable it was to give an entertaining talk, it is most surprising that any extended time with Augustine leads readers to value a certain kind of truthfulness, one that is especially frank about who we are as human beings.41 Augustine was ever the political realist.42 When it comes to violence, its causes, and remedies, Augustine’s religious language is shockingly non-evasive. Brent Shaw’s criticism of the “under-theorized” thinking of fellow academics when it comes to violence is not one that can be rightly leveled at Augustine himself who, at least as a bishop, spent decades working on the problem as he encountered it in Roman North Africa whether it was through sermons, his own small claims court for ordinary people, or in ecclesial councils. When one reads the record left by his thirty-nine years of public preaching, one finds that Augustine is as candid about these matters as he was in describing infantile emotions in book one of the Confessions. Revenge is a topic that appears frequently and is taken very seriously as a problem in Augustine’s own congregation. Augustine admits at the conclusion of a sermon, “I know that people come every day, kneel down, bang their foreheads Augustine, conf. 1, 7, 11 (CCSL 27, p. 6, l. 26–27). See P. J. Griffiths, Lying: An Augustinian Theology of Duplicity, Grand Rapids (Mich.), 2004. 42  See the classic essay by R.  Niebuhr, “Augustine’s Political Realism”, in Christian Realism and Political Problems, Fairfield (CT), 1977 and important revisions to it by P. R. Kolbet, “Rethinking the Christological Foundations of Reinhold Niebuhr’s Christian Realism”, Modern Theology, 26 (2010), pp. 437–65. 40  41 

366

paul r. kolbet

on the ground, sometimes wash their faces with tears, and in all this humility and distress of soul, say: ‘Lord, avenge me, kill my enemy.’”43 Augustine’s language on this subject is disturbing in its frankness. He readily speaks of a “lust” or “craving” for “revenge” (uindicandi libido or ulciscendi libidinem).44 In a sermon he says forthrightly, “Do not imagine that anger does not matter very much. […] What is anger [Quid est ira]? It is lust for revenge [Libido uindictae].”45 This language of revenge as a basic human drive, as we have seen, would have been frank, but not unanticipated since revenge had a known place in conventional society. What needs to be seen, and what is most relevant to understanding the hearing of Augustine’s sermons as a spiritual practice, is what Augustine does with that language. He explains in a letter that “The libido for revenge [uindicandi libido] often, as it were, imitates justice [solet […] quasi imitari iustitiam], but it is a vice [uitium].”46 That libido, according to Augustine, offers no solution especially to the injured party who is struggling to discern the difference between justice and revenge. Returning now to sermon 63 and recalling where it began, Augustine states, “You have heard an insult – it’s a high wind; you have become angry – it is a wave. […] Your heart is in peril, your heart is tossed about. When you hear the insult, you are eager to avenge it.” The congregation is expected to answer, “Of course we want revenge. We have been insulted! We have been shamed!” Depending on when and where this sermon was preached, we may even think of priests and bishops being beaten with clubs in public, but more likely, we are thinking of affronts much more pedestrian and even closer to home, such as those suffered by the angry baby in the first book of the Confessions. Insult, shame, revenge. It feels like a wind, a wave. Augustine recontextualizes this trial within the experience of the disciples Augustine, s. 211.6 (PL 38: 1057-58). Augustine, ep. 167, 6; 133, 2; en. Ps. 108, 4; 111, 4; s. 58, 8. 45  Augustine, s.  58, 8 (CCSL 41Aa, p. 206, l. 163). A definition found in Aristotle, Rhetorica 2,  2, 1: ἔστω δὴ ὀργὴ ὄρεξις μετὰ λύπης τιμωρίας, but surely known by Augustine from Cicero, Tusculanae disputationes 3, 11; 4, 21.44.79. 46  Augustine, ep. 167, 6 (CSEL 44, p. 594, l. 4–5). 43 

44 

rhetoric, redemption, and the practices of the self 367

on the Sea of Galilee with threatening winds (Matth. 8,  23–27). Augustine explains, “Every one of us is sailing a boat in his heart.” The problem for the disciples in the boat is not the storm on the sea (although it is understandable that they could think that). The problem for them is not the wind. It is that Christ in their boat is asleep. Battered by the wind, what they need is to awaken Christ in the boat of the heart. Augustine explains, “So wake Christ up, remember Christ; let Christ stay awake in you, think about him!”47 Augustine continues, “What were you wanting? Revenge [Vindicari]. It has escaped your memory that he, when he was being crucified, said: ‘Father, forgive them, because they do not know what they are doing’ [Luc. 23, 34]. The one who was asleep there in your heart did not want revenge [noluit uindicari]. Wake him up, call him to mind. The memory of him is his word; the memory of him is his command. And if Christ is awake in you, you will say to yourself: ‘What sort of person am I, wanting revenge [Qualis ego homo, qui uolo uindicari]? Who am I, brandishing [weapons] against another human being? I may well die before I am vindicated [uindicer]. And when I depart from the body, inflamed with rage [ira inflammatus], thirsting for revenge [ut sitiens uindictam], that one who did not wish to be avenged will not receive me […]. So I will restrain my anger, and return to calmness of heart.’” With that admonition, Augustine largely ends his brief sermon. He concludes by explaining that whenever they feel the wind blowing on the little boat of their hearts, they should follow this same procedure “as a rule.”48 So what to make of this sermon? In truth, it is not much of an argument. There is nothing in it that is particularly helpful in analytically discerning the difference between revenge and justice with little evidence of the legal reasoning that would be useful to judges and lawyers (Augustine was capable of that, but deliberately did not offer that here; he offered something he considered to be more helpful for the people present). What we have, instead, is a spiritual practice constructed by Augustine for people to follow, a sort of training for the heart and mind to follow as a kind of 47  48 

Augustine, s. 63, 1–2 (CCSL 41Aa, p. 328, l. 15.23–24). Augustine, s. 63, 2–3 (CCSL 41Aa, p. 328, l. 24-p. 329, l. 38).

368

paul r. kolbet

itinerary. We have versions of this exercise in fuller form in any number of sermons. For example, listen for the spiritual exercise in sermon 49: “Look at yourself, observe yourself [Obserua te, attende te]. You are shortly going to pray; forgive with all your heart. If you want to quarrel with your enemy [Litigare uis cum inimico tuo], quarrel first with your own heart [prius litiga cum corde tuo]. Quarrel, I tell you, quarrel with your own heart. Tell your heart, “Don’t hate” [Dic cordi tuo: Noli odisse]. But that heart of yours, those feelings of yours – are still hating. Tell your soul, “Stop hating. How will I pray, how will I be able to say ‘Forgive us our debts?’ Well, I can say this, of course, but how can I say what follows? ‘Just as we too.’ We too what? ‘Just as we too forgive.’” Where is your faith? Do what you say: “Just as we too.” But your soul does not want to forgive, and is made miserable by your saying to it, “Stop hating.” Answer it, “‘Why are you miserable, my soul, and why do you upset me?’ [Ps. 42, 6]. Truly ‘Why are you miserable?’ Stop hating, or you will destroy me. ‘Why do you upset me? Hope in God.’” You are very ill, you are gasping, you are crippled with disease. You are unable to rid yourself of hatred.”

It is here, with the failure of the preceding moral exhortations that were true but ineffective, that Augustine brings in the key moment in the exercise: “‘Hope in God’, he is the doctor. For your sake he hung on the cross, and he has not yet avenged himself. Why do you want to avenge yourself [Quid uis uidicari]? That is what your hating means, you see, a desire for revenge [ut uindiceris]. Look at your Lord hanging, look at him hanging, and giving you a directive from that kind of judicial bench which is the cross. Look at him hanging there, and concocting a medicine for you in your illness from his own blood. Look at him hanging there. You want revenge [Vindicari uis]? You want vindication [Vindicari uis]? Look at him hanging there, and listen to him praying, ‘Father, forgive them, because they do not know what they are doing’ [Luc. 23, 34].”49

We often worry about moral reasoning in the classroom or the lecture hall but the key moment is in the crisis itself. The crucial thing in a crisis is not how well one thinks on one’s feet, but what training one had in advance to develop reflexes that are useful in the crisis. If our crisis is bad enough, is intense enough, the only 49 

Augustine, s. 49, 8–9 (CCSL 41, p. 620, l. 210-p. 621, l. 231).

rhetoric, redemption, and the practices of the self 369

thing we have is the training we had in advance and, for better or worse, we are reduced to reflex. Augustine’s sermons consist of a massive number of training exercises designed not just to be convincing in the classroom, but effective in the moment of decision because they have been formative of the selves who have willingly given themselves over to them as a discipline. We also must never forget that Augustine incorporated every aspect of his liturgical setting into this spiritual practice. The sermons never stood alone, but were embedded in a larger exercise. Here is Augustine on the same subject of insult, shame, revenge, but this time digging deeper. Augustine is instructing his congregation about how to respond to the insults they receive from their pagan critics, such as “You worship a crucified God!” Augustine explains, “That cross is a sign of humility [crux illa signum est humilitatis] […]. If I recognize it, I am walking in the way. So far am I from being ashamed of the cross that I carry it not in a hidden place but on my forehead. We receive various sacraments in different places: some, as you know, in our mouths, some over our whole body. But it is on our foreheads that we blush. This is why […] [Christ] placed that sign of public disgrace which the pagans mock in the very place where we manifest our shame [in loco pudoris nostri constituit].”50 In other similar passages Augustine asserts, “Christ willed to place his sign on our foreheads, as the seat of shame [tamquam in sede pudoris].”51 What becomes evident here is a most surprising resolution to the classical problem of shame’s redemption. It is what Augustine freely calls “healing shame.” He explains, “for none of us can live without being shamed, unless we have first been shamed and then risen to a new life.” In this way, God’s grace creates the possiAugustine, en. Ps. 141, 9 (CCSL 40, p. 2052, l. 28–45). Augustine, en. Ps. 30, 2, 3, 7 (CSEL 93/1B, p. 196, l. 23–24). See also s.  160, 5 (PL 38, col. 876): “Do not be ashamed [Noli erubescere] of the cross of Christ; that is why you received the sign of it on your forehead, as on the seat of shame [tanquam in sede pudoris]. Remember what you have on your forehead, and do not be terrified by someone else’s tongue [Recole frontem tuam, ne linguam, expauescas alienam]”; s.  302, 3 (PL 38, col. 1386–1387): “You carry the cross of Christ on your forehead. This mark stamped on you teaches you what it is that you confess. When he was hanging on the cross – the cross you carry on your forehead […], he was looking at the violent people around him, putting up with their insults, praying for his enemies […].” 50  51 

370

paul r. kolbet

bility of “salutary shame” (confusionem salubrem), a shame that heals rather than diminishes.52 To be immune to shame, that is, to be shameless is an ideal of which Augustine is highly critical in many texts insofar as it leads to efforts to become the sort of people who do not care about what is reflected back at them in the eyes of others.53 However attractive that sort of invulnerability to the negative perception of others may be, especially when achieved by philosophical means, Augustine warns his hearers, “What does it mean, to be without respect? To be without shame. But this almost seems to be a vicious trait. We say: ‘He is lacking respect.’ He is so lacking respect that he is incapable of feeling shame. Lack of respect is therefore a kind of shamelessness.”54 Augustine associates shamelessness so closely with pride that he can refer to the “shamelessness” (inpudens) that is synonymous with the “pride” (superbia) of those confident in a righteousness that is their own.55 The pride Augustine opposed, regardless of whether it was expressed by his Christian or non-Christian opponents, was one that, in its efforts to be self-grounded, resented having to negotiate the dynamics of pudor at all. Shamelessness is a kind of self-containment that appears to have freed itself of the 52  Augustine, en. Ps. 85, 23 (CCSL 39, p. 1195); cf. ep. 102, 19 (CSEL 34/2, p. 560, l. 16) where Augustine writes boldly of a “salutary shame” (salubrem pudorem). On this theme more generally, particularly as it is already present in Early Christian martyrology, see V.  Burrus, Saving Shame: Martyrs, Saints, and Other Abject Subjects, Philadelphia, 2008. 53  Questioning the very wisdom exemplified by the Stoic Stertinius who in Horace’s words warns against being too concerned about how one is perceived by other people: “Beware of doing anything unworthy of yourself. What tortures you is a false sense of shame (pudor), for you fear to be thought mad among madmen” (Horace, Satires 2.3 [LCL 194, pp. 156-157]). 54  Augustine, en. Ps. 68, 1, 12 (CCSL 39, p. 912, l. 26–29): Irreuerentia quid est? Non confundi. Denique quasi uitium uidetur, cum dicitur: Irreuerens homo est. Magna irreuerentia hominis, non illum erubescere. Ergo irreuerentia quasi impudentia est. Compare en. Ps. 141, 9 (CCSL 40, p. 2052, l. 45–47): “When you hear someone denouncing a person who is thoroughly shameless [impudenti], he says: ‘That person has no forehead [Frontem non habet].’ What does it mean to say that a person ‘has no forehead’? That he is shameless (impudens est).” 55  Augustine, c. ep. Pel. 3, 18 (CSEL 60, p. 507, l. 8–11). See also gr. et pecc. or. 1, 26, 27 (CSEL 42, p. 147, l. 10): “a most shameless shame” (inpudentissimo pudore).

rhetoric, redemption, and the practices of the self 371

painful demands of attending to the assessment of others and the willingness to revise oneself in light of their judgments. Pride may be our word for proper self-love, but it is Augustine’s word for the very withdrawal into the self that results in a failure of agency to participate in one’s own redemption.56 Any exercise of liberty that amounts to a choice against divine love’s redemptive capacity is no freedom at all. In commenting on the early chapters of Genesis, Augustine drew attention to how shame only appears once human beings willed to be proudly self-determining. According to Augustine, the human will’s inflated claims, in fact, so enervated it that it continues to fail even to direct its own bodily members reliably. For example, that which was created for the purpose of procreation may not respond to the will’s conscious volition when prompted or it may act on its own against the will. The body’s disobeying of the will is an antidote to pride’s pretension of self-sufficiency. Augustine questions, “Must not this bring shame [erubesceret] upon the freedom of the human will?”57 It undermines one’s self regard, indeed, but it also does not set aside the norms of classical pudor. Failures of bodily mastery do not necessarily happen only when one is alone, but may well be when one sees oneself being seen to be unable to will what one wills even in regard to the most personal aspects of one’s own body. That pudor, to be sure, is a punishment for sin, but for chastened pride it is also a path to redemption if embraced.58 Shame, therefore, is a far more desirable quality of soul than pride See Augustine, spir. et litt. 7, 11 (CSEL 60, p. 163, l. 3–5) where pride is defined as “a vice which arises when we rely on ourselves and make ourselves our own source of life. Through that stirring of pride one withdraws [receditur] from the fountain of life from which alone one can draw and drink righteousness, namely, the good life.” 57  Augustine, nupt. et conc. 1, 6, 7 (CSEL 42, p. 219, l. 4–5). See also ciu. 14, 16.21.24 and Gn. litt. 11, 1, 3 (CSEL 28/1, p. 337, l. 3–10). Note that Augustine explains that the common euphemism for bodily reproductive parts is pudenda because “sexual desire has more power to move them than reason” (c. Iul. 4, 5, 35 [PL 44, col. 756]). 58  Note  W. Otten’s admonition, “[I]t is important to regard Augustine’s reflections on sexuality and sexual sin not as separate from his theological and doctrinal reflections, but rather as preceding them or perhaps even underlying them”. See “Augustine on Marriage, Monasticism, and the Community of the Church”, Theological Studies, 59 (1998), pp. 385–405 (esp. p. 388). 56 

372

paul r. kolbet

because it supplies far more material to be redeemed. In one sermon, Augustine personifies “human pride” (humana superbia) and addresses it directly guiding it to its path of redemption, “Be shamed before God [Erubesce deo] […], reduce yourself to the humble Christ […]. Look for the wood of humility.”59 Augustine, moreover, goes so far as to present the most famous doctrine associated with him, his doctrine of grace, as an experience of being seen favorably by God, that is, as an experience of seeing oneself being seen that, unlike revenge, is truly shame defeating. He explains, “Our common idiom associates the favorable glance with love, does it not? We say of God in the first place: ‘He has looked favorably upon me.’ How can you say: ‘He has looked upon me’ [Respexit me]? Did he not see you before now? Or was he waiting up there, until he was alerted by your prayers to turn his eyes in your direction? Of course he was looking upon you before this; yet you say: ‘He has looked upon me. He has loved me [Respexit me […]. Dilexit me].’”60 Even in the extreme case of the raped Christian women in the wake of the sack of Rome, their shame is not one defined by the gaze of rapists, but by the God who has looked upon them favorably in Jesus Christ. Augustine extols how “they did not avenge another’s crime” by murdering themselves “out of shame” (erubescendo), but as an alternative, found their identity and value “in the eyes of God” (coram oculis dei).61 In Augustine’s sermons, the cross of Jesus is not the stigmatization, the severing of relations, that the Romans authorities intended it to be. Instead, the public stripping of clothes, the repeated whipping, the public mocking and insults that were 59  Augustine, s.  70A, 1–2 (CCSL 41Aa, p. 481, l. 37–41 and p. 482, l. 60). Compare Io. eu. tr. 2, 4; 360B, 26; en. Ps. 109, 13. 60  Augustine, en. Ps. 65, 22 (CCSL 39, p. 855, l. 20–24). See also Augustine, s. 70A, 2 (CCSL 41Aa, p. 482, l. 54–56): “What could be more unfortunate than you, if he does not observe [non respicit] you, but ignores [despicit] you. Observing indicates compassion [Respectio miserationem habet], ignoring indicates contempt [despectio contemptum].” 61  Augustine, ciu. 1, 19 (CCSL 47, p. 21, l. 78-p. 22, l. 86). I am grateful to M.  Webb for drawing my attention to this passage in her 2014 paper at the American Academy of Religion’s Augustine and Augustinianisms Group: “Tamen Pudorem Incutit: Rape and the Dynamics of Shame in Augustine’s City of God”. There are numerous references in Augustine’s corpus to the oculi dei as the only point of view that is true in regard to the self.

rhetoric, redemption, and the practices of the self 373

meant to shame Jesus and his followers became something else entirely. Augustine’s call to see Jesus on the cross, and to see him looking at them in love, became one where their shared shame demanded no violent response in order to be redeemed. The shame of Jesus’ death that they came to identify with and make their own was experienced not as isolating withdrawal, but as the basis of connections within a new form of community, one founded on that deep experience of life-giving forgiveness reflected back in the eyes of another.62 3. Spiritual practices re-orienting the finite self Augustine invented neither shame nor violence. Human emotions and all other pressures brought about by our social nature long preceded him, and Christianity for that matter. What his many sermons show is how intent he was upon redeeming or repurposing the human inheritance through daily exercises of the spirit. The re-orientation of emotions effected by the sermons was not necessarily from emotion x to emotion y, but rather to a new unforeseen experience of emotion x.63 Smothering, socially destabilizing shame, in this case, was not replaced by pride, but by a redeemed experience of shame that was life-giving and fostered further human connections. Shame’s redemption thus follows a similar itinerary to that of human love, which, in the sermons, remains love even as it is vivified and reordered under the sway of an object it had not previously found desirable. In this way, Augustine’s sermons lend themselves to analyses that exhibit the full density of the practice from which they first emanated. Pierre 62  See the complementary analysis of M.  C. McCarthy, who describes how the hermeneutical exercise of discerning the varied voices of the Psalter was for Augustine a constitutive force in forming selves and communities: “An Ecclesiology of Groaning: Augustine, the Psalms, and the Making of Church”, Theological Studies, 66 (2005), pp. 23–48; reprinted in The Harp of Prophecy: Early Christian Interpretation of the Psalms, ed. by B.  E. Daley, P. R. Kolbet, Notre Dame, 2015, pp. 227–56. 63  Concurring with D.  Meconi, who finds “a consistent Augustinian principle” in the sermons, “namely that God longs to amend rather than end that which is imperfect”: “Recapitulative Tropes in Augustine’s Sermons”, New Blackfriars, 95 (2014), pp. 1–9 (esp. p. 4).

374

paul r. kolbet

Hadot explained, “I have discovered that when one wishes to interpret a philosophical work of antiquity, one must first of all endeavor to follow the movement, the meanders of the author’s thought – in short, the series of dialectical or spiritual exercises that are not necessarily rigorously coherent but that the philosopher has his disciples practice.”64 Augustine’s sermons were just that sort of spiritual practice where the interpreter is intended to understand by following the movement, repetitions, and inner logic, that is, by making the exercise his or her own. Augustine, quite commonly, sets up a path in a sermon where his hearers, through their own participation in the sermon, transform perceived humiliation into humility. Primary themes in Augustine’s theology come into service here as Augustine promoted a God who endured shame non-violently and an experience of divine grace that was the means whereby one’s attention turned to how one is seen favorably by God.  Overlooking the means of struggle that were so formative of people’s experience while recognizing only the conclusion of events obscures what often matters most in history. Hannah Arendt observed that in the worst of human conflicts violent means vie with ends, and means frequently overwhelm ends. The legacy for human history of any particular conflict time and again has more to do with the means than with whatever ends were in mind at the time.65 Arendt concludes, “The practice of violence, like all action, changes the world, but the most probable change is to a more violent world.”66 When it comes to battles great and small, it is attention to the means employed that is often the most revelatory. In the day-to-day conflicts that were commonplace in Augustine’s North Africa, permanent solutions were elusive, but Augustine promoted a practice that was not only Christian but also entirely classical in its assumption that the antithesis of violence

P. Hadot, The Present Alone is Our Happiness [n. 11], p. 90. H.  Arendt contends that for any “violent action” its “end is in danger of being overwhelmed by the means which it justified and which are needed to reach it […]. [T]he means used to achieve political goals are more often than not of greater relevance to the future world than the intended goals” (On Violence, New York, 1970, p. 4). 66  H. Arendt, On Violence [n. 63], p. 80. 64  65 

rhetoric, redemption, and the practices of the self 375

is speech.67 Violence is the crudest form of negotiation because it lacks the sophistication and imagination of speech’s conversational practices. Ancient Greeks and Romans thought of civilization not so much as the absence of conflict, but rather as the result of numerous exercises where words bring order to instinct both within individuals and groups. Whatever the particular ends were informing any of these ancient largely forgotten feuds, it is the means Augustine used to counter the conflicts that is the more lasting legacy. Augustine addressed everyday violence not just in specific moral admonitions, but also by “re-rooting,” as it were, the Roman self. Roman pudor, therefore, was repurposed for Christian ends. Augustine never believed as a preacher that he had the power to eliminate violence by rhetorical skill alone, but he was convinced that daily spiritual exercises had the power to drain some of the primal energy from ordinary conflicts, and, in this way, introduce the possibility of smarter, legal, accommodations even in difficult circumstances.68 Augustine’s use of rhetoric in the service of practices stabilizing and defining the self, had much to contribute to the welfare of the fallible human city, especially when the political order so central to the identity of most people was breaking down. These exercises represent a mode of Augustine’s own thinking that richly deserves the continued attention it is currently receiving. Despite the evident classicism of his enterprise, it remains necessary to spell out the implications of the fact that for Augustine, it was Jesus Christ who was the divine speech that brought order to unsteady human hearts even as Christians made that speech their own through repetition, rehearsal, and internalization. Unlike naked, unadorned, reason, this Word made itself known through a series of descending mediations and this had decisive, practical, consequences for how one would come to internalize therapeutic 67  For examples and further explanation of how Augustine intentionally used speech in his sermons to promote a less violent social order, see R.  Dodaro, “Augustine’s Use of Parallel Dialogues in His Preaching on Nonviolence”, in Ministerium sermonis: Philological, Historical, and Theological Studies on Augustine’s Sermones ad populum, ed. by G. Partoens, A. Dupont, M.  Lamberigts, Turnhout, 2009, pp. 327–44. For classical antecedents, see P. R. Kolbet, Augustine and the Cure of Souls [n. 14], pp. 19–61, 198–201. 68  Paraphrasing what Augustine explains to his own people in s. 302, 19.

376

paul r. kolbet

speech.69 Without such mediations or enfleshments, there would be no possibility of seeing oneself being seen favorably by the transcendent source of the universe. Augustine’s philosophical and theological realism barred any naïve sentimentality that imagined such an experience of love to be a simple possibility in this world. As he explained, “Do not ask what truth is; for immediately a fog of bodily images and a cloud of imaginings will get in your way and disturb the clear weather that shone on you the first instant when I said ‘truth.’ Look, stay, if you can, in that first moment when so to speak you caught a flash from the corner of your eye when the word ‘truth’ was spoken. Stay there if you can. But you are not able to stay; you will slide back into those familiar and earthly things of yours. And what weight, I ask, will drag you back if not the pull of desire for the filth you have acquired amid your wayward wanderings?”70 Embedded in Augustine’s commitment to divine transcendence is a concomitant high valuation of the social or ecclesial order whereby what would otherwise be unknowable makes itself known. In a book supplying rules governing the use of words and other forms of signification, Augustine insists that although St Paul had been “struck down and instructed by the divine and heavenly voice” itself, he was still “sent to a man to receive the sacraments and be joined to the church.” Although the centurion Cornelius had spoken directly to an angel, that very angelic voice sent him to Peter for instruction.71 The eunuch, perplexed at a passage in Isaiah, was not sent an angel; instead, Philip was prompted by God to be his exegetical guide and “in human words and human language opened up to him what was hidden in that passage of scripture.”72 Augustine concedes that God surely could instruct every person directly, but explains that God, by responding to human beings through “human temples,” dignifies the human See  G. Madec, Le Christ de saint Augustin: La Patrie et la Voie, rev. ed., Paris, 2001, pp. 37–40, 225–26, 239–59; M. Cameron, Christ Meets Me Everywhere: Augustine’s Early Figurative Exegesis, Oxford, 2012, pp. 12–13, 283–92. 70  Augustine, trin. 8, 2, 3 (CCSL 50, p. 271, l. 32–40). 71  Augustine, doctr. chr. pro. 6 (CCSL 32, p. 4, l. 83–91); appealing to Act. 9–10. 72  Augustine, doctr. chr. pro. 7 (CCSL 32, p. 4, l. 102–08); appealing to Act. 8, 27–35. 69 

rhetoric, redemption, and the practices of the self 377

condition by having “his word administered to human beings by other human beings.”73 The experience of divine grace is no more opposed to the human eye by Augustine than the divine Word is to the human tongue. Seeing oneself being seen favorably by God involved the same mediations and embodiments as the rest of the divine economy of grace where divine omnipotence never competed with human agency but perfected it. As with other spiritual practices, this one involved cultivating an openness to what lies beyond one’s self-regard and receiving grace even when it meant seeing oneself only as one was in the eyes of another. It was amid the general disorientation of human life that Augustine exhorted people gathered for this very purpose, “Be what you see and receive who you are.”74 Augustine’s common mode of thinking was, thus, a theological style that prioritized the means and process of growth of reasoning and not just its ends, whether that be a dogmatic proposition or a social desideratum. The mind’s perception remained bound to matter itself and thereby continued to suffer the indignities of ignorance, overly narrow self-interest, and finally death. God’s enfleshment brought no resolution to the tragedy and comedy of our materialism, but made possible practices of attention, that if they ever transcended the moment in an Ostia like experience (conf. 9, 10, 23–26), just as quickly fell back into the atomizing distention of time and an experience of selfhood held together by a longing that would mean nothing at all without the notion of being longed for as seen in the eyes of another, in other words, in the experience of embodied grace.

73  Augustine, doctr. chr. pro. 6 (CCSL 32, p. 4, l. 91–97): sed abiecta esset humana condicio, si per homines hominibus deus uerum suum ministrare nolle uideretur […]. See also his similar comment that “while nothing really worthy of God can be said about him, he has accepted the homage of human voices, and has wished us to rejoice in praising him with our words” (doctr. chr. 1, 6, 6 [CCSL 32, p. 10, l. 10–13]). 74  Augustine, s. 272 (PL 38, col. 1247–48): Estote quod uidetis, et accipe quod estis.

Augustine’s Doctrine of Predestination in his Tractatus in Iohannis Euangelium Matthew  W. Knotts & Anthony Dupont (Leuven) 1. The genre and the significance of the ‘Tractatus’.1 The meaning of the term tractatus is notoriously difficult to determine. Scholars such as Maurice Pontet,2 Christine Mohrmann, 3 and Douglas Milewski4 can agree that the genre of tractatus in a Christian context involves preaching on a biblical passage. Mohrmann holds that there is no sharp difference between sermones and tractatus. However, Pontet and Milewski would want to emphasise more the uniqueness of the genre of a tractate, insofar as it represents more than a “mere” sermon, that is, an extended and specially focused engagement with a particular biblical text, usually presented as a running commentary. These latter two scholars would be inclined to see tractatus as a specialised form of preaching Aurelius Augustinus, In Iohannis euangelium tractatus CXXIV, ed. by R. Willems, Turnhout, 1954 (CCSL, 36). English translations are taken from the following: St Augustine, Tractates on the Gospel of John, transl. by J. Gibb, ed. by P. Schaff, Buffalo (N.Y.), 1888 (Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 7). This translation was revised and edited for New Advent by Kevin Knight: http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/1701045.htm. 2  M.  Pontet, L’exégèse de saint Augustin prédicateur, Paris, 1946, pp. 217– 18. 3  Ch.  Mohrmann, “Praedicare – Tractare – Sermo”, in Études sur le latin des chrétiens, v. 2: Latin chrétien et médiéval, Rome, 1961, pp. 63–72. 4  D.  Milewski, “Augustine’s 124 Tractates on the Gospel of John: The status quaestionis and the state of neglect”, Augustinian Studies, 33.1 (2002), pp. 61–77, here pp. 62–5. 1 

Praedicatio Patrum. Studies on Preaching in late Antique North Africa, edited by Gert Partoens, Anthony Dupont, Shari Boodts, Turnhout, 2017 (Instrumenta Patris­ tica et Mediaeualia, 75), p. 379-396 ©



10.1484/M.IPM-EB.5.114059

380

matthew w. knotts

&

anthony dupont

irreducible to a sermon.5 As evidence for this assertion, Milewski points to a passage from the fourth book of De doctrina christiana, in which Augustine describes the tractator as someone who inculcates truth in people and disabuses them of error, reconciling enemies, and such like.6 Augustine’s words suggest for Milewski that in some way more was expected of a tractate than a homily. Regardless, there is a fairly stable consensus in the literature that as it pertains to Augustine’s oeuvre, tractatus are a form of preaching, more or less specialised, and so as a genre they should be situated within a pastoral-exegetical context. What is less controversial is the distinctiveness of the tractate in terms of Augustine’s access to the text after the factual delivery. Whilst most of his sermones ad populum were transcribed by amanuenses and preserved unedited, Augustine did have access to the texts of the tractatus after he preached them, and it is more than likely that many of them were composed without any intention of actually preaching them.7 Furthermore, as he did in his sermones, Augustine did not shy away from difficult theological topics in his tractatus. Augustine brooked no opposition between the theoretical and the practical, and one perceives this in his preaching. “Il donne,” writes Mohrmann, “dans ses sermons la plénitude de ses connaissances théologiques et de ses expériences spirituelles.”8 This leads us to our question, that is, whether the 5  D.  Milewski, “Tractates” [n.  4], pp.  62–5; M.  Pontet, L’exégèse [n. 2], pp. 217–18. 6  See doct. chr. 4, 4, 6 (CCSL 32, p. 119): Debet igitur diuinarum Scripturarum tractator et doctor, defensor rectae fidei ac debellator erroris, et bona docere et mala dedocere atque in hoc opere sermonis conciliare auersos, remissos erigere, nescientibus quid agatur quid exspectare debeant intimare. See D. Milewski, “Tractates” [n. 4], p. 63. 7  A.  Dupont, Gratia in Augustine’s Sermones ad populum during the Pelagian Controversy: Do Different Contexts Furnish Different Insights?, Leiden, 2013 (Brill’s Series in Church History, 59), pp. 6–7. 8  “[…] si nous posons la question de savoir quel est le contenu concret de ses sermons, quels sont les sujets qu’il traite, il faut répondre que sa prédication est inspirée et nourrie par toute son activité littéraire: tout ce que saint Augustin a traité dans ses travaux revient pratiquement dans sa prédication. Même les questions théologiques les plus difficiles et les plus abstraites, comme sa théologie trinitaire, sont discutées dans ses sermons. Pendant toute sa vie sa prédication reflète son activité de théologien et d’écrivain. Il est totalement dépourvu de cet orgueil du savant qui considère sa science comme

augustine’s doctrine of predestination

381

foregoing claim also holds true for the strict Augustinian doctrine of predestination. Prima facie, it does not seem very prudent from a pastoral perspective to preach on predestination, as it would discourage and possibly even disincentivise pious and upright living by implying that all human choices and actions, not to mention salvation, are predetermined from eternity. 2. Preaching predestination Predestination – a fundamental theme of the (Semi-)Pelagian controversy – does at first sight not appear frequently or explicitly in Augustine’s sermons. Sometimes it is assumed that Augustine deliberately opts to avoid some topics of his doctrine of grace in his sermons because their content seems not “proper” for a pastoral setting. The bishop of Hippo himself seems to substantiate this hypothesis. For example, in De dono perseuerantiae, completed just a few years before his death, Augustine states that one should only very carefully and pastorally-tactically preach on this topic. Similarly, in De praedestinatione sanctorum, he says that one ought si difficile et si profonde qu’il ne veut pas en parler aux gens simples. C’est un fait remarquable que ce prédicateur qui s’efforce de parler une langue simple et compréhensible, qui fait des concessions à ses auditeurs en ce qui concerne la forme extérieure de sa prédication, ne leur relâche rien quand il s’agit de la doctrine. La prédication augustinienne revêt un caractère nettement théologique et spéculatif. Il donne dans ses sermons la plénitude de ses connaissances théologiques et de ses expériences spirituelles.” Ch. Mohrmann, “Saint Augustin prédicateur”, in Études sur le latin des chrétiens, v. 1: Le latin des chrétiens, Roma 1958, pp. 391–402, here p. 402. Pellegrino lists theological themes discussed in Augustine’s sermons: Trinity, Christology, Pneumatology, Ecclesiology, Sacramentology, Eucharist, Harmatology, Eschatology. See  M. Pellegrino, General Introduction, in Sermons I (1–19), On the Old Testament, ed. by J. E. Rotelle, New York, 1990 (WSA, III/1), pp. 13–163, 56–73. Cf. also G. Brocard, “Prêcher, c’est instruire, plaire et toucher”. La parole de la prédication dans le sermon 137 de saint Augustin. Les enjeux théologiques de l’acte homilétique dans la liturgie eucharistique (Mémoire de maîtrise en théologie), Paris, 1993; E. Hendrickx, Augustinus en de re-integratie van theologie en geloofsverkondiging, Nijmegen-Utrecht, 1952; A. Olivar, La Predicación Cristiana Antigua, Barcelona, 1991 (Biblioteca Herder, Sección de Teología y Filosofía, 189), pp. 383–85; H. Rondet, “La théologie de saint Augustin prédicateur”, Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique, 72 (1971), pp. 81–105.

382

matthew w. knotts

&

anthony dupont

not worry about why saving predestination is not granted to all, but instead just attempt to lead a good life. Several scholars have consequently claimed that the doctrine of gratuitous election developed in Ad Simplicianum does not play an important role in Augustine’s preaching. According to Pierre-Marie Hombert, this doctrine is not really echoed in Augustine’s preaching on divine grace up to 411 AD, i. e., before the beginning of the Pelagian controversy,9 while Henri Rondet stated that it does not even occupy “une place prépondérante” in the anti-Pelagian homilies.10 Recently, however, scholars such as Donato Ogliari tend to accept that Augustine did not recoil from dealing with all aspects of his doctrine of grace in his sermons, such as predestination, but did this perhaps not as often and in-depth as in his systematic writings.11 A famous example that Augustine does not remain 9  P.-M. Hombert, “Augustin prédicateur de la grâce au début de son épiscopat”, in Augustin Prédicateur (395–411). Actes du Colloque International de Chantilly, 5–7 septembre 1996, ed. by G. Madec, Paris, 1996, pp. 217–45. 10  “Nous sommes surpris en effet de voir que le problème de la prédestination ne tient pas une place préponderante dans les discours expressément dirigés contre les Pélagiens.” See H. Rondet, “La prédestination augustinienne. Genèse d’une doctrine”, Sciences Ecclésiastiques, 18 (1966), pp. 229–51, here p. 246 (n. 125). 11  “There are also those who believe that Augustine made a distinction between the speculative/theoretical level and the level of (ortho)praxis, and that this distinction would correspond to the distinction that should be made between his dogmatic treatises, on one side, and his speeches and sermons to the people, on the other. Although we must acknowledge that speculative and practical theology are situated on different levels, we do not believe that so sharp a distinction can be made between the two realms. We should rather emphasize their fruitful interplay, and the evidence is there to prove that Augustine did not confine himself to discussing predestination in the field of theological speculation alone. Traces of the importance he attached to translating his theological thought into a pastoral language for the benefit of the faithful can be found in speeches and homilies. This shows clearly that the bishop of Hippo did not recoil from preaching openly to his people on issues such as the exclusion of unbaptized children from the kingdom of heaven, God’s gratuitous deliverance through baptism from the massa perditionis and the numerus certus of the elect [ss. 26, 13–15; 27, 7; 47, 15; 158; 294, 7, 7–8; en. Ps. 64, 2; 134, 8–9; 150, 3; Io. eu. tr. 12, 12; 45, 12; 53, 5–10; 68, 1; 86, 2; 87, 3]. We might perhaps agree that, in comparison with his theological treatises, Augustine would soften the tone of his sermons and speeches, but even then it does not seem that that was always the case [Io. eu. tr. 53, 6].” See D. Ogliari, Gratia et Certamen. The Relationship between Grace and Free Will in

augustine’s doctrine of predestination

383

silent about “hard” theological issues in his preaching is sermo 294 (27.vi.413), in which Augustine baldly states for a broad audience that if infants die without being baptised, eternal fire is their fate. In the passage of De dono perseuerantiae just mentioned, Augustine acknowledges that predestination is a proper homiletic topic; however it should be the object of very careful consideration. Close analysis indicates that the issue of predestination has been dealt with in some of his sermons, such as certain sermones ad populum situated within the Pelagian controversy, such as ss. 26 (417), 158 (after 411), 165 (417), and 174 (411–13). With this in mind we now turn our attention to certain tractatus from Augustine’s In Iohannis euangelium tractatus CXXIV. Augustine mentions predestination – whether a form of the word, related themes, or both – in several tractates, namely numbers 8, 26, 42,  45, 49, 68, 69, 105, 110, 121, and 124. We have decided to focus on three particular tractates, two from the traditionally recognised “first part” of the Tractatus (26 and 45) and one from the second (105). Besides the fact that each of these tractates includes a clear and sustained discussion of predestination, they are written based on different passages of John, and so provide a broader spectrum of comparison. Furthermore, each of them includes a decidedly Christological element, such that we can see predestination in its Christological dimension, or put otherwise, we can see predestination as a particular facet of Augustine’s broader theological programme. They also represent the diversity inherent in the tractatus themselves. According to Marie-François Berrouard, tractates 26 and 45 were preached c.  414,12 whilst tractate 105 belongs to a series of dictated tractates, a project begun in 419.13 Moreover, the the Discussion of Augustine with the so-called Semipelagians, Leuven, 2003 (Bibliotheca Ephemeridum Theologicarum Lovaniensium, 169), pp. 329– 30, 329 (n. 137). 12  I.  Bochet, “L’exégèse de Jn 6, 44 et la théologie augustinienne de la grâce : la 26­ème Homélie sur l’Évangile de Jean et le Sermon 131”, in Tractatio scripturarum. Philological, Exegetical, Rhetorical and Theological Studies on Augustine’s Sermons, ed. by A. Dupont, G. Partoens, M.  Lamberigts, Turnhout, 2012 (Instrumenta Patristica et mediaevalia, 65), pp. 117–52, here p. 118. 13  See M.-F.  Berrouard, Introduction aux homélies de saint Augustin sur l’évangile de saint Jean, Paris, 2004 (Collection des Études Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité, 170), pp. 99, 177; cf. 79–102, 177–200.

384

matthew w. knotts

&

anthony dupont

clear mention and sustained discussion of predestination is common to all three of these tractates, allowing for a helpful sample of sources for evaluating Augustine’s rhetorical strategy in his sermons vis-à-vis other works, such as De dono perseuerantiae. 3. Three case studies from the Tractatus a. Io. eu. tr. 26 In the 26th tractate, Augustine discusses some of the fundamental aspects of his predestination doctrine, such as the necessity of authentic belief and external confession; the election and foreknowledge of God; and the place of the will in believing. He says that one must pray in order to be drawn to God, and that this is done according to a bond of love effected through the manifestation of God by Christ. There is also a sacramental component, as one is incorporated into the Body of Christ through the Eucharist, to which one is led by a divine attraction. Augustine’s focus in this tractate is on Ioh. 6, 44 in which Christ says that no one can approach Him unless the Father causes such a movement in the person by drawing one (nemo uenit nisi tractus),14 which leads Augustine to call this passage a Magna gratiae commendatio.15 According to Augustine, God draws some and not others, and we should not try to know why.16 Shortly thereafter in the same tractate he writes that this attraction to Christ results from a revelation in the heart from God; this divine revelation constitutes the attractive call (ista reuelatio, ipsa est attractatio).17 This takes place by a bond of the heart (cordis uinculo),18 and leads one to desire truth and to imbibe wisdom within one’s heart.19 According to Isabelle Bochet, one of Augustine’s major concerns in this particular tractate is the apparent conflict that Ioh. 6, 44 suggests between free will and God’s action. God does indeed draw the soul to himself, but this attraction is neither compelled nor 14  15  16  17  18  19 

Io. Io. Io. Io. Io. Io.

eu. eu. eu. eu. eu. eu.

tr. tr. tr. tr. tr. tr.

26, 2 26, 2 26, 2 26, 5 26, 5 26, 5

(CCSL (CCSL (CCSL (CCSL (CCSL (CCSL

36, 36, 36, 36, 36, 36,

pp. 260–1). pp. 260–1). pp. 260–1). p. 262). p. 262). p. 262).

augustine’s doctrine of predestination

385

violent, even if Augustine does speak of a certain violence done to the heart by God. Such language is meant to evoke the intensity of interior pleasure that the soul experiences when confronted with God.  One’s confession of Christ is a free act, one which is sourced in the delight of one’s heart.20 To be drawn to God is to be compelled by one’s inner pleasure, the love for what completes one as a human person.21 As Bochet writes, “la révélation du Christ est indissociable de l’expérience d’une delectatio.”22 To conceive of divine attraction in terms of a conflict or a tension between free will and divine activity is to misconstrue the attraction in the first place; one is freely attracted to what one loves, and freely chooses to deepen one’s enjoyment of it.23 In light of the renewed emphasis on human freedom and action within this economy of God’s predestined attraction, Augustine includes a nugget of encouragement for his audience. He exhorts his listeners to pray that they may be drawn to God if they do not already feel that attraction: Nondum traheris? Ora ut traharis.24 He makes clear that the will is central to believing in God, and that one must perform actions in order to be drawn by God. For Augustine the will is essential to believing in God (credere non potest nisi uolens), 25 for it is by the will of the heart (uoluntate cordis) that we come to Christ, and indeed, Christ comes to us.26 Furthermore, Augustine emphasises the inseparability of the spiritual and the bodily aspect of the human person. Though an inner belief in the heart is necessary, it must be completed by outward action, mainly confession. However, this must be authentic; if one utters the words appropriate to confessio without really endorsing or believing them, one is not confessing, but merely speaking, or perhaps even bloviating.27

20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27 

I. Bochet, “L’exégèse” [n. 12], p. 120. I. Bochet, “L’exégèse” [n. 12], p. 121. I. Bochet, “L’exégèse” [n. 12], p. 122. I. Bochet, “L’exégèse” [n. 12], p. 119. Io. eu. tr. 26, 2 (CCSL 36, pp. 260–1). Io. eu. tr. 26, 2 (CCSL 36, pp. 260–1). Io. eu. tr. 26, 3 (CCSL 36, p. 261). Io. eu. tr. 26, 2 (CCSL 36, pp. 260–1).

386

matthew w. knotts

&

anthony dupont

In order to illustrate his understanding of this pre-ordained call by God, Augustine appeals to a passage in which Christ is moving through a crowd of people and is touched by a woman with a haemorrhage (Luc. 8, 45–46). Christ pauses and asks who touched Him, to which His disciples respond with surprise, as the crowd is pressing on Him from all sides. Yet it was the woman who deliberately touched Him, who reached for Him because she believed in Him. The woman touched (tetigit) Christ, and Augustine equates this act with believing in Him.28 The woman in the crowd which was pressing upon Christ touched Him more than the crowd.29 Augustine says that this is because Christ is touched by those by Whom He wishes to be touched, 30 as they are drawn to Him by love (amore). 31 God the Father draws those to Himself who believe in the Son, and that Christ has God as His Father, and that Christ is the eternal Son of God. 32 As Bochet explains of this same passage, the activity of the Father and the Son are integrally connected in the attraction of the soul. Belief in Christ, according to Augustine, “c’est le reconnaître comme le Fils, égal au Père et engendré par le Père, ce qui n’est possible que par une révélation du Père.”33 Thus those who believe in the Son are drawn by God the Father so that the Son may bring them to the Father, 34 and the elect are chosen by predestination. Later in tractate 26, Augustine develops a further aspect to his Christological understanding of predestination, by unravelling its implications in ecclesiological, sacramental, and soteriological terms. Usually predestination is discussed vis-à-vis the sacrament of baptism, but here, Augustine opts for developing his doctrine of predestination by appeal to the Eucharist. He employs an analogy which begins from a consideration of the human person as composed essentially of body and soul, with the latter vivifying the former. Therefore, in order to live in Christ and to be vivified

28  29  30  31  32  33  34 

Io. eu. tr. 26, 3 (CCSL 36, p. 261). Io. eu. tr. 26, 3 (CCSL 36, p. 261). Io. eu. tr. 26, 3 (CCSL 36, p. 261). Io. eu. tr. 26, 4 (CCSL 36, pp. 261–2). Io. eu. tr. 26, 5 (CCSL 36, p. 262). I. Bochet, “L’exégèse” [n. 12], p. 121. Io. eu. tr. 26, 5 (CCSL 36, p. 262).

augustine’s doctrine of predestination

387

by His spirit, one must enter into His body. 35 The means of being incorporated into Christ’s body is precisely through His body. One is incorporated into the ecclesia, the totus Christus, by partaking of the Eucharist. 36 The Eucharist is necessary for eternal life as it provides the means for entering more deeply into a relationship with Christ, and it anticipates the heavenly banquet towards which the Christian strives. 37 “For both he that does not take it has no life, and he that does take it has life, and that indeed eternal life. And thus He would have this meat and drink to be understood as meaning the fellowship of His own body and members, which is the holy Church in His predestined, and called, and justified, and glorified saints and believers.”38

Christ’s Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity in the Eucharist provide the bond which unites and unifies, that is, it unites the elect to Christ by incorporating them into His body and thus providing them access to His spirit, as well as effecting the unity of the ecclesia, the Church, the Body of Christ on earth. 39 b. Io. eu. tr. 45 According to Georges de Plinval, Augustine’s early encounter with the Pauline corpus first provided him with the material for a doctrine of predestination. However, at this time, the issue was “merely” academic, whereas about a decade later, this problem took on a new urgency for the preacher and pastor. The Donatist question in particular provided the occasion for Augustine to discuss this highly abstract theological topic with respect to a contingent pastoral and ecclesial matter in tractate 45.40 Io. eu. tr. 26, 13 (CCSL 36, pp. 266–7). Io. eu. tr. 26, 13 (CCSL 36, pp. 266–7). 37  Io. eu. tr. 26, 15 (CCSL 36, pp. 267–8). 38  Io. eu. tr. 26, 15 (CCSL 36, pp. 267–8): Nam et qui eam non sumit, non habet uitam: et qui eam sumit, habet uitam, et hanc utique aeternam. Hunc itaque cibum et potum societatem uult intellegi corporis et membrorum suorum, quod est sancta Ecclesia in praedestinatis et uocatis, et iustificatis, et glorificatis sanctis, et fidelibus eius. 39  Io. eu. tr. 26, 15 (CCSL 36, pp. 267–8). 40  G. De Plinval, “Aspects du déterminisme de la liberté dans la doctrine de saint Augustin”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 1 (1955), pp. 345–78, here p. 362. 35 

36 

388

matthew w. knotts

&

anthony dupont

Tractate 45, on Ioh. 10, 1–10, deals with the image of the good shepherd (Ioh. 10, 11). Augustine discusses the sheepfold in terms analogous to the Church. There are sheep within the fold, yet there are also hidden wolves, the latter of which are the schismatics and the heretics. Likewise, outside of the fold, there are both sheep and wolves. In the eschaton, this situation will be resolved, such that all the sheep will be with the shepherd, and the wolves will be cast out. The way in which this will be determined is according to God’s foreknowledge and predestination, which one ought not try to understand. Though from a human perspective, predestination may seem to imply a capricious God, Augustine holds that the election or non-election of particular persons answers to a higher justice, the logic of which exceeds our capacity to comprehend.41 Such a treatment of the Gospel text would serve to make even the most pious believer ambivalent about their status, and Augustine’s rhetoric here is in tension with what he proposes in De dono perseuerantiae, as well as the strategy he employs in some of his sermones. In other words, Augustine seems to undermine his own tactical position elaborated in De dono perseuerantiae, namely to avoid speaking too much about predestination in a pastoral setting, so as not to engender doubt or fear in the congregation, or other adverse effects, such as apathy or profligacy. However, as we shall see, he also counters such worries by suggesting that he and his listeners are among the elect. Augustine employs the Johannine image of the good shepherd in order to present a framework for thinking about the elect and the damned in terms of the sheep and the wolves. He proceeds to substantiate and further argue for this claim by appealing to various Pauline passages. For instance, he connects the image of the sheep with Paul’s statement that God knows his own: “Therefore the Lord knows them that are His; they are the sheep. Such sometimes do not know themselves, but the Shepherd knows them, according to this predestination, this foreknowledge of God, according to the election of the sheep before the foundation of the world: for so says also the apostle, ‘According as He has chosen us in Him before the foundation of the world.’”

41 

G. De Plinval, “Aspects” [n. 40], p. 363.

augustine’s doctrine of predestination

389

Nouit ergo Dominus qui sunt eius [II Tim. 2, 19]; ipsae sunt oues. Aliquando se ipsae nesciunt, sed pastor nouit eas, secundum istam praedestinationem, secundum istam Dei praescientiam, secundum electionem ouium, ante constitutionem mundi.42

We also see that this demarcation has been pre-ordained by God’s fore-knowledge (praescientiam). Augustine appeals to the language of Rom. 8, 29–33 in order to describe the elect (praescitis, praedestinatis, iustificatis, glorificatis), with whom he suggests the identification of himself and his listeners (nobis).43 Augustine’s understanding of predestination, however, does not dispense one from the need to perform one’s duties and to participate in the life of faith voluntarily, which is to say, not only by free will, but also by the will itself, even if predestination is a gratia gratis data, that is, a free, unmerited gift.44 In this current earthly state, there are sheep within the fold of the shepherd, but there are also wolves in disguise who attempt to harm the sheep. Likewise, outside of the fold there are wolves who prowl and seek to devour their victims, but there are also sheep who have gone astray or who have not yet been claimed by the shepherd. But in the final reckoning, the sides will be set right, with the wolves banished and all of the sheep safely held within the care of their pastor:45 “According, then, to this divine foreknowledge and predestination, how many sheep are outside, how many wolves within! And how many sheep are inside, how many wolves without! How many are now living in wantonness who will yet be chaste! How many are blaspheming Christ who will yet believe in Him! How many are giving themselves to drunkenness who will yet be sober! How many are preying on other people’s property who will yet freely give of their own! Nevertheless at present they are hearing the voice of another, they are following strangers. In like manner, how many are praising within who will yet blaspheme; are chaste who will yet be fornicators; are sober who will wallow hereafter in drink; are standing who will by and by fall! These are not the sheep. (For we speak of those who were predestined – of those

42  43  44  45 

Io. eu. tr. 45, 12 (CCSL 36, pp. 394–5). Io. eu. tr. 45, 12 (CCSL 36, pp. 394–5). G. De Plinval, “Aspects” [n. 40], p. 363. Io. eu. tr. 45, 12 (CCSL 36, pp. 394–5).

390

matthew w. knotts

&

anthony dupont

whom the Lord knows that they are His.) And yet these, so long as they keep right, listen to the voice of Christ. Yea, these hear, the others do not; and yet, according to predestination, these are not sheep, while the others are.”46

As Augustine makes clear, this schema proceeds according to a logic of predestination. God has already called and chosen each of the sheep by name.47 Their names are inscribed in heaven, and so when they are called by name, they know the pastor, hear his voice, and come to him.48 Augustine states in this tractate that prior to the creation of the world, God chose (elegit) and predestined the elect.49 Hence we see a notion of predestination which is not only connected with eschatology, but also with God’s primordial eternity.50 This dimension to Augustine’s doctrine of predestination is elaborated further in a later tractate, in which Augustine treats of Christ’s prayer to His Father, to the consideration of which we now turn. c. Io. eu. tr. 105 Augustine’s exegesis of Ioh. 17, 1–5 gives us a telling glimpse, according to Hombert, of Augustine’s understanding of God’s

46  Io. eu. tr. 45, 12 (CCSL 36, pp. 394–5): Secundum istam ergo praescientiam Dei et praedestinationem, quam multae oues foris, quam multi lupi intus; et quem [sic] multae oues intus, et quam multi lupi foris ! Quid est quod dixi, quam multae oues foris ? Quam multi modo luxuriantur, casti futuri; quam multi blasphemant Christum, credituri in Christum; quam multi se inebriant, futuri sobrii; quam multi rapiunt res alienas, donaturi suas ! Verumtamen modo uocem alienam audiunt, alienos sequuntur. Item quam multi intus laudant, blasphematuri; stant, casuri ! Non sunt oues. (De praedestinatis enim loquimur; de his loquimur quos nouit Dominus, qui sunt eius.) Et tamen ipsi quamdiu recte sapiunt, Christi uocem audiunt. Ecce audiunt ipsi, non audiunt illi; et tamen secundum praedestinationem non oues isti, oues illi. 47  Io. eu. tr. 45, 12 (CCSL 36, pp. 394–5). 48  Io. eu. tr. 45, 14 (CCSL 36, p. 396). 49  Io. eu. tr. 45, 12 (CCSL 36, pp. 394–5). Divine foreknowledge, for instance, can also be found in tr. 7, 14; 8, 9; 10, 8; 12, 12; 14, 8. Could it be that specifically John triggers Augustine to reflect upon this theme? 50  G. De Plinval, “Aspects” [n. 40], p. 362: “l’idée de prédestination qui, scellant dans l’esprit d’Augustin les convictions précédemment acquises, tend à les unifier en forçant toutes les contingences et les volitions de l’homme à s’insérer dans l’éternité même de Dieu.”

augustine’s doctrine of predestination

391

eternal plan of predestination.51 Here he discusses Christ’s prayer that the Father may glorify Him, just as He was glorified with the Father before the foundation of the world. He seeks to elaborate his doctrine of predestination by appeal to his Christology. Augustine suggests that the eternal glory which the Son enjoyed with the Father in a sense is a predestination of the glory which He would reveal on earth. That is, there is a predestination of the revelation and glorification of God in Christ, ordained from eternity. This is done for the sake of the salvation of men. Those who are chosen to be saved are already implicitly present in Christ in virtue of being joined to Him in the Incarnation, in which God the Son assumes a human nature and effects its transformation into something divine. In the fifth paragraph of this tractate, Augustine treats of the apparent contradiction between Ioh. 17, 4–5 and Ioh. 17, 1: is Christ’s glorification the consequence or, on the contrary, the cause of the Father’s glorification? Augustine resolves this problem by stating that Christ’s assertion of Ioh. 17, 4 (I glorified you), is not a statement about the past, but about the future: Christ will glorify God through the preaching of his resurrection, hence the verses Ioh. 17, 1 and 4 are brought to consensus. Now the theme of predestination is introduced: Christ can talk about the future in the past tense, since all what will happen already exists in the divine plan: in praedestinatione iam factum. Christ was predestined to glorify God on earth, from all eternity in His glory with the Father. As Augustine explains this prayer, “as then, by predestination; so also now, by consummation: do Thou in the world what had already been done with You before the world: do in its own time what You have determined before all times.”52

51  P.-M.  Hombert, Gloria gratiae. Se glorifier en Dieu, principe et fin de la théologie augustinienne de la grâce, Paris, 1996 (Collection des Études Augustiniennes, Série Antiquité, 148), pp. 474–78. See also M.-F. Berrouard, “La prédestination de la nature humaine du Christ à la gloire (Tr. CV, 6–8)”, in Homélies sur l’Évangile de saint Jean CIV–CXXIV, ed.  by M.-F.  Berrouard, Paris, 2003 (BA, 75), pp. 467–69. 52  Io. eu. tr. 105, 6 (CCSL 36, p. 606): Sicut tunc praedestinatione, ita et nunc perfectione: fac in mundo, quod apud te iam fuerat ante mundum; fac in suo tempore, quod ante omnia tempora statuisti.

392

matthew w. knotts

&

anthony dupont

Augustine acknowledges the infelicitous implication that predestination occurred beyond or outside of time, but he explains his reading of this text by writing that this predestination of the glorification of the Son pertains to the Incarnation and salvation history, and the revelation of God within time. Augustine links this notion of predestination directly to the Incarnation when he writes, “Accordingly, whoever denies predestination of the Son of God, denies that He was also Himself the Son of man.”53

Augustine further unfolds this Christological dimension of predestination in order to show its fundamental connection with the understanding of predestination as applied to salvation. Because it precisely pertains to Christ in his humanity, it also pertains to us as members of Christ’s body. The elect are implicitly present with Christ, predestined to be incorporated into his body, and therefore glorified with him in heaven. Augustine’s discussion of the Word made flesh, writes Hombert, “elle nous concerne. C’est toujours le point de vue sotériologique qui commande la réflexion d’Augustin. Le Christ homme, glorifié selon les décrets de la prédestination, n’existe que comme Tête d’un corps qui doit être glorifié par lui et en lui.”54 Quoting Rom. 8, 28–30, Augustine writes that the predestined ones whom Christ calls are present in him from all eternity, and that this predestination involves their being conformed to the divine image and sharing in Christ’s sonship: “All those who from the first were known to him, he has destined from the first to be moulded into the image of his Son, who is thus to become the eldest-born among many brethren. Quos enim praesciuit, et praedestinauit conformes fieri imaginis Filii eius, ut sit ipse primogenitus in multis fratribus.”55

Augustine uses the term exemplum to designate the significance of Christ’s resurrection for the members of his body. Rather than as a pattern to be imitated, the term exemplum is possessed of an ontological import. “« Exemple » doit s’entendre,” writes Hom53  Io. eu. tr. 105, 8 (CCSL 36, p. 607): Quisquis igitur Dei Filium praedestinatum negat, hunc eumdem filium hominis negat. 54  P.-M.  Hombert, Gloria gratiae [n. 51], p. 476. 55  Io. eu. tr. 105, 7 (CCSL 36, p.  607). See also P.-M.  Hombert, Gloria gratiae [n. 51], p. 476: “C’est donc toute l’humanité rachetée qui est envisagée comme éternellement intégrée au Christ, et par lui à la Trinité.”

augustine’s doctrine of predestination

393

bert, “de la manifestation exemplaire de ce que nous serons, du modèle absolu, prévu depuis toujours, de ce qui adviendra pour le croyant.”56 Christ’s resurrection anticipates our own glorification, and in this sense is better described, according to Hombert, as the “firstfruits” (prémices) of salvation. A further striking feature of this tractate is the way in which Augustine blends the terminology and thematic imagery of deification and predestination. When the Father glorifies Christ before all time, states Augustine, before the foundation of the world, He is also glorifying those whom He would choose and predestine.57 The elect, those whom God has chosen (elegit nos) are members of Christ’s body.58 The Son of God is also present within His many brethren, and these latter are the predestined.59 That is, they are predestined to be incorporated into the Body of Christ, not only on earth, but even and especially in eternity. Such an action is accomplished by Christ, Who assumes human nature, unites His divine nature to it, and raises and deifies fallen human nature,60 which was of course created in the image of God. Christ effects the salvation and healing of the human person by conforming or re-conforming human nature to that divine image towards which it was made.61 The thematic tenor of this passage is one of deification. Augustine reconciles theiosis and predestination: God ordains and calls those who are to be deified. The general line taken in scholarship presents a rift between Western and Eastern understandings of salvation. The Latin West, notably exemplified by Augustine’s thought, is preoccupied with issues of justification, whereas the Greek East gravitates towards a theology of deification or theiosis. Recently, scholars have begun to react against this reading, identifying elements of a theology of deification in Western sources. But of course, with Augustine himself, one still must address his notable theology of predestination, which, following Paul’s letter 56  57  58  59  60  61 

P.-M.  Hombert, Gloria gratiae [n. 51], pp. 477–8. Io. eu. tr. 105, 7 (CCSL 36, p. 607). Io. eu. tr. 105, 7 (CCSL 36, p. 607); cf. 26, 15 (CCSL 36, pp. 267–8). Io. eu. tr. 105, 7 (CCSL 36, p. 607). Io. eu. tr. 105, 6 (CCSL 36, pp. 606–7). Io. eu. tr. 105, 7 (CCSL 36, p. 607).

394

matthew w. knotts

&

anthony dupont

to the Romans, is linked with justification. In light of these new readings of Augustine as a proponent of deification, the tractates offer an interesting case in point, as Augustine suggests a view according to which these positions are actually combined. Augustine speaks herein of predestination in language which evokes that of deification; in a word, one is predestined to be deified. 4. Conclusion So much for the consideration of predestination in the tractates; what are we to make of this brief treatment of the tractates, both in terms of rhetorical strategy and content? Let us close with the following observations, beginning with rhetoric. In De dono perseuerantiae (c.  428), Augustine writes that he does not object to preaching about predestination, but objects to doing this in purely descriptive terms. An audience consisting of ordinary believers should be addressed as having been predestined, even if some of them are still living in sin. They have to be encouraged to pray with confidence for themselves as well as for unbelievers outside the audience, since both faith and perseverance are divine gifts. Although it should be admitted that some Christians will not persevere, the preacher has to avoid presenting them as belonging to the community he is addressing. The audience has to be addressed as a unity that is being borne by hope and confidence in God’s grace. It is of no use from a pastoral-rhetorical point of view to suggest that in the end the audience will be divided into those who will persevere and those who will not. Our tractates provide instances of these homiletic rules, such as in tractate 26 when Augustine encourages his listeners to pray that they be drawn to God. However, his 45th tractate could have a negative effect on a listener, causing them to wonder whether they are among the oues or the lupi. These tractates were composed well before 428, so it is quite possible that Augustine’s later rules reflect lessons learned from past experience. However, within this same tractate, he uses the first-person plural pronoun to discuss those who are predestined. In terms of theological content, the tractates present some novel material concerning the themes which Augustine associates with predestination. In his treatment of the fourth gospel Augus-

augustine’s doctrine of predestination

395

tine’s thought is clearly Christologically grounded. Furthermore, it begins in Christ and then unfolds into human salvation. Moreover, as we have seen, Augustine combines predestination with deification. Despite the obvious particularities of the tractates, there is plenty of overlap with other discussions of predestination. For example, in his anti-Pelagian sermons, such as s.  158, Augustine discusses the Pauline passage which enumerates a framework for understanding predestination. This same passage is also found in certain tractates which deal with predestination. Yet what one sees in these tractates is a creative exegesis of the text of John, with support for Augustine’s interpretation coming from Paul, especially Rom. 8, 30.62 Augustine quotes liberally from Paul in these passages to support his theology of predestination, which he grounds in the text of John, or perhaps a rather creative allegorical reading of John. Perhaps that’s why he quotes from Paul. In any case, John and Paul are deeply interwoven in the following way: Discussing the Gospel text, Augustine proposes a certain theological position based on his exegesis of a particular passage, which he then substantiates by appeal to Paul.

62 

Io. eu. tr. 45, 12; 105, 7 (CCSL 36, pp. 394–5, 607).

Dissident Preaching in Africa: Inherently Violent? Alden Lee Bass (St. Louis) Late ancient Roman North Africa was rife with preachers. Augustine is best known, since hundreds of his sermons were preserved and preached in Europe throughout the Middle Ages. Yet Augustine was only one bishop out of around 700 who delivered a homily each Sunday (and often through the week) in Africa at the beginning of the fifth century.1 The myriad of preachers did not speak with one voice, however. The African church of the fourth and fifth century was famously divided in its allegiance to the Emperor. Half or more of the sermons preached each year in North Africa during this period were delivered by dissident bishops. In the mid-fourth century, Donatists constituted a majority of the Christians in Africa; they remained a powerful faction even after they were officially condemned at the Council of Carthage in 411. Yet of the thousands of homilies given by dissident bishops in the century and a half of their dominance, a mere handful survive. As Alexandre Olivar lamented in his magisterial work on patristic preaching: “It is a shame that there are not more witnesses to Donatist preaching, which must have been abundant.”2 1  J.  Leclerq, “Prédication et rhétorique au temps de saint Augustin”, Revue Bénédictine, 57 (1947), pp. 117–31 (esp. p. 117). B. Shaw provides some estimates for the number of bishops at the turn of the fifth century, based on the roles of the councils. He also provides a list of non-Augustinian African sermons. See Sacred Violence: African Christians and Sectarian Hatred in the Age of Augustine, Cambridge, 2011, p. 809 and pp. 843–49. Compounding the figures, priests also preached in certain circumstances. See L. Dossey, Peasant and Empire in Christian North Africa, Berkeley, 2010, p. 160. 2  A. Olivar, La predicación cristiana antigua, Barcelona, 1991, p. 404.

Praedicatio Patrum. Studies on Preaching in late Antique North Africa, edited by Gert Partoens, Anthony Dupont, Shari Boodts, Turnhout, 2017 (Instrumenta Patris­ tica et Mediaeualia, 75), p. 397-414 ©



10.1484/M.IPM-EB.5.114060

398

alden lee bass

The evidence which remains for dissident preaching is mainly testimonial, drawn from the writings of the Donatists’ chief Catholic opponents Optatus of Milevis in the mid-fourth century and Augustine of Hippo in the early fifth. Both bishops stridently opposed the dissidents, attempting to sway public opinion through letters and battling their rivals in court when possible. In their efforts to persuade the authorities to take legal action against the dissidents, they exaggerated the danger posed by the Donatists, whose bishops were depicted as demagogues inciting the people to violence through their preaching. 3 Optatus reported that Donatist preachers “pour hatred into the souls of hearers” and “persuade them to feel enmity by [their] teachings.”4 Decades later, Possidius of Calama, Augustine’s collaborator and biographer, wrote that Donatist bishops “in anger spoke furiously,” inciting terrorist mobs to attack and murder Caecilianist priests, government officials, and other persons of note. They “preached that the wolf must be killed in defense of the flock […] and that whoever should be able to do this would undoubtedly have all his sins forgiven by God.”5 Assessments of Donatist preaching have been based on hostile testimony such as this, resulting in a caricature of Donatist bishops as irrational, incorrigible, and violent. Though scholars in the past century have largely corrected this view of dissident Christians – particularly William Frend and Maureen Tilley – the most extensive analysis of Donatist oratory is based on an uncritical repetition of the Caecilianist position.6 In the sixth volume of his Histoire littéraire de l’Afrique chrétienne, Paul Monceaux devoted a 3  So argues P. I. Kaufman, “Donatism Revisited: Moderates and Militants in Late Antique North Africa”, Journal of Late Antiquity, 2 (2009), pp. 131– 42. Also B. Shaw, Sacred Violence [n. 1], p. 144: “Violent gangs of circumcellions became a constructed threat that was a necessary part of the power struggle in Africa in the late fourth century.” 4  Optatus, Against the Donatists 4,  5, transl. by M.  Edwards, Liverpool, 1997, p. 87. 5  Possidius, Vita Augustini 9, transl. by H. T. Weiskotten, Princeton, 1919, p. 59. 6  As this article was going to press, I came across two recent articles by E. Zocca on Donatist preaching. Regrettably, I was not able to engage her conclusions in this piece. See “La voce della dissidenza: omiletica donatista fra testo, contesto e metatesto”, Auctores Nostri 14 (2014), pp. 337-54; also, “L’identità cristiana nell’omiletica donatista”, in I conflitti religiosi nella scena

dissident preaching in africa

399

chapter to “Donatist Oratory” in which he characterizes Donatist preaching as polemical and vitriolic. Echoing Optatus, Monceaux concluded: “By the voice of their preachers, the dissident church preached about hate.”7 To the patristic assessment Monceaux added his own colonialist spin: African preachers were descendants of the ancient Phoenicians, whose “hot” Semitic blood filled their veins and rendered their preaching “ardent and vigorous, brutal and emphatic.” “In sum,” he wrote, “the true African orator remains barbaric, more barbaric in the school of Donatus, with the pretentions of apostles or prophets.”8 In a more recent (and less racist) critical appraisal of Donatist preaching, Brent Shaw arrives at a similar conclusion: “If violence and hatred were as ordinary and as old as Africa itself, they were now urged along in new modes by the novel figure of the Christian preacher.”9 To be fair, Shaw believed both Donatist and Catholic preaching promoted violence and hatred. Donatist preaching is not redeemed, Catholic preaching is simply brought down to its level. If Monceaux stressed violence as the distinctive mark of Donatist preaching, Shaw emphasizes the banality of violence in ancient Africa. There was little difference between Catholic and Donatist preaching, he argues, because there was little difference between the Catholics and Donatists. Distinctions were exaggerated by party leaders to enhance their own positions – Freud’s “narcissism of small differences.” Optatus and Augustine both downplayed substantial theological and liturgical differences between the sects in order to focus attention on the pure obstinacy of their crosstown rivals.10 Nevertheless, there are substantial hints that by pubblica, v. 1: Agostino a confront con manichei e donatisti, ed. by L. Alici, Roma, 2015, pp. 275-96. 7  P. Monceaux, Histoire littéraire de l’Afrique chrétienne depuis les origines jusqu’à l’invasion arabe, v. 6: Littérature donatiste au temps de Saint Augustin, Paris, 1922, p. 337. 8  P. Monceaux, Littérature donatiste [n. 6], p. 358. 9  B. Shaw, Sacred Violence [n. 1], p. 409. 10  Augustine, De unico baptismo 1, 4. Optatus wrote: “[I]f the minds of men are at loggerheads, the sacraments are not at loggerheads. […] We read the divine testament as you do, we petition one God as you do, the Lord’s Prayer is one among us and among you” (Optatus, Against the Donatists [n. 4], p. 78). On the similarity of the baptisms, see p. 84. On the similarity of the chrismation, see pp. 142–44. See also J. L. Gutiérrez-Martín, Iglesia y liturgia en

400

alden lee bass

Augustine’s day the Donatists had developed a distinctive liturgical culture, combining ancient liturgical traditions with contemporary innovations. The most intriguing example is Donatist worship music, which adapted popular tunes to convey sectarian theological concepts.11 Given their criticism of Catholic music as puritanical, one can only imagine that their service had a more charismatic flavor.12 As with their music, Donatist preaching may also have been more charismatic than their Catholic rivals. The presence of the Holy Spirit as the decisive force behind their preaching and exegesis was certainly what Donatist theologians would claim was distinctive about their proclamation. Whether this “charisma” affected the delivery (“ecstatic preaching”) or merely the theology remains to be seen. Here I will survey the surviving Donatist homiletic evidence in order to reconsider Monceaux’s charge of Donatist demagoguery, particularly in light of the newly discovered Vienna homilies. The extant sermons present quite a different picture than that painted by Monceaux and the Catholic fathers. As noted by Olivar, little has survived of Donatist homilies. Most of what we do have has been recovered from Catholic sources such as medieval homiliaries, which immediately puts the evidence under suspicion. Was it so generic to begin with as to be indistinguishable from Catholic material? Or has it been edited by Catholic redactors of any distinctively Donatist claims? Some material has survived in its original form, notably the Donatist Dossier13 el Africa romana del siglo IV: Bautismo y eucaristía en los libros de Optato, obispo de Milevi, Roma, 2001. See also W. C. Bishop, “The African Rite”, Journal of Theological Studies, 13 (1911), pp. 250–77. Bishop suggests that the primary difference between the churches was that the Donatists included the martyrs in the reading of the diptychs. For a more recent perspective, see F. Senn, Christian Liturgy, Philadelphia, 1997, pp. 136–44. 11  Praedestinatus, Praedestinatorum haeresis 1, 44 (PL 53, col. 601A). See also G. Van Reyn, “Hippo’s Got Talent: Augustine’s Psalmus Contra Partem Donati as a Pop(ular) Song”, in The Uniquely African Controversy: Studies in Donatist Christianity, ed. by A. Dupont, M.  A. Gaumer, M.  Lamberigts, Leuven, 2015, pp. 251–68. B. Shaw also speaks about African singing: Sacred Violence [n. 3], pp. 441–89. 12  Augustine, Ep. 18, 34 (CSEL 34/2, p. 208). 13  R.  Reitzenstein, “Ein donatistisches Corpus cyprianischer Schriften”, in Nachrichten von der königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göttingen,

dissident preaching in africa

401

and the Donatist Compendium, though nothing which informs directly about preaching.14 The oldest Donatist sermon survives in two versions, a Catholic and a Donatist, the latter being the older of the two.15 The sermon is titled A Sermon on the Passion of Saints Donatus and Advocatus, Given on the Fourth Day before the Ides of March and was probably written between 318 and 320, perhaps by Donatus himself.16 The title is misleading, as the sermon does not contain an account of saints named Donatus and Advocatus. Rather, it records the passion of an unnamed bishop from Avioccala, which may have been distorted to Advocatus.17 The name Donatus may have been included because of his supposed authorship. The sermon commemorates the resistance to the commission Constantine sent to Africa in 317 to unite the churches, and was Göttingen, 1914, pp. 85–92. Also K. Mengis, Ein donatistisches Corpus cyprianischer Briefe, Freiburg, 1916. See also J.-L. Maier, Le Dossier du Donatisme, v. 1, Berlin, 1987, p. 122. 14  The Dossier does contain a third century pseudo-Cyprianic homily entitled “The Hundred-fold, the Sixty-fold, and the Thirty-fold” which served as a theological source and a homiletic model for later preachers. Cyprian was the exemplar par excellence of the bishop, the preacher, and the martyr, certainly for Donatists, and to some extent for all African Christians, despite Augustine’s efforts to tamp down Cyprianic enthusiasm. See P. F. Beatrice, “Il sermone De centesima, sexagesima, tricesima dello Ps. Cipriano e la teologia del martirio”, Augustinianum, 19 (1979), pp. 215–43; and more recently, P. Sellew, “The Hundredfold Reward for Martyrs and Ascetics: Ps.-Cyprian, De centesima, sexagesima, tricesima”, Studia Patristica, 36 (2001), pp. 94–98. 15  F.  Dolbeau, “La Passion des saints Lucius et Montanus: Histoire et édition du texte”, Revue des études anciennes, 29 (1983), pp. 64–65. 16  Sermo de passione sanctorum Donati et Aduocati (PL 8, col. 752–58). F. Dolbeau, “La Passio sancti Donati (BHL 2303 b): une tentative d’édition critique”, in Memoriam sanctorum venerantes: Miscellanea in onore di Monsignor Victor Saxer, Rome, 1992, pp. 251–67. A lightly edited version was published by J.-L. Maier, Le dossier du Donatisme [n. 12], pp. 201–11. M. Tilley included an English translation in Donatist Martyr Stories, Liverpool, 1996, pp. 52–60. J.-P. Brisson believed the sermon to have been preached by Donatus in 318 or 319 (cf. Autonomisme et Christianisme dans l’Afrique romaine de Septime Sévère à l’invasion vandale, Paris, 1958, p. 310). W. H. C. Frend does not speculate on the authorship, but dates the sermon to 320 (The Donatist Church: A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa, Oxford, 2000, p. 321). 17  For more on the identification of Avioccala, see A. Audollent, “Avioccala”, in Dictionnaire d’histoire et de géographie ecclésiastiques, Paris, 1931, v. 5, col. 1197–1198.

402

alden lee bass

originally delivered on the solemnity of the martyr’s feast.18 The sermon contrasts the holiness and bravery of the true Christian martyr with the deviousness of the persecutors, who falsely wear the name of Christ even though by their deeds they prove themselves to be children of Satan. The Catholic bishop Caecilian is held responsible for the “madness” of persecution, and the hearers are exhorted to win the victory through laying down their lives. This motif of spiritual battle will be a constant in Donatist rhetoric. Despite Monceaux’s characterization as “a little incoherent and at times obscure,” the sermon fits well with other Donatist sources.19 A Sermon on the Feast of Holy Innocents can also be counted among the surviving Donatist material.20 Written around 350 by an anonymous bishop, the sermon depicts the congregation as a fraternitas always in battle with the devil, always suffering persecution just like the righteous since the time of Abel.21 Herod the King is cast as the persecuting Satan. Listeners are exhorted to repent, live in solidarity with the poor, and pray for rebirth through martyrdom. The themes point to a Donatist origin, but the authorship of the sermon has been debated. Morin originally attributed it to Quodvultdeus, but later a manuscript was discovered in Orléans which named Optatus as author. Given the strong Donatist features, however, Pincherle wondered if it should be attributed to Optatus of Thamagudi, the Donatist bishop, rather than the Catholic apologist Optatus of Milevis. Without identifying a specific figure, Romero Pose has made a strong case for a Donatist origin on the basis of exegetical parallels with the work of Tyconius.22 18  For the historical background to the edict of union, see E. Grasmück, Coercitio: Staat und Kirche im Donatistenstreit, Bonn, 1964, p. 84ff. Also, F.  Martroye, “La répression du Donatisme et la politique religieuse de Constantin et de ses successeurs en Afrique”, in Mémoires de la société nationale des antiquaires de France 1913, Paris, 1914, pp. 24–60. 19  P. Monceaux, Histoire littéraire de l’Afrique chrétienne depuis les origines jusqu’à l’invasion arabe, v. 5: Saint Optat et les premiers écrivains donatistes, Paris, 1920, p. 62. 20  Pseudo-Optatus, Sermo in natali sanctorum innocentium (PLS 1, col. 288–95). 21  W. H. C. Frend, The Donatist Church [n. 15], p. 320. 22  E.  Romero Pose, “Ticonio y el sermón ‘in natali sanctorum innocentium’”, Gregorianum, 60 (1979), pp. 513–44. The text was edited by A. Wil-

dissident preaching in africa

403

The single greatest source for Donatist homiletic material is the Vienna Collection, discovered in the 1980s by Jean-Paul Bouhot in the Austrian National Library in Vienna.23 In the course of research on Latin translations of John Chrysostom’s homilies for the Supplementum to the PL, he stumbled onto a homogenous collection of sixty sermons in a fifteenth-century manuscript.24 The collection was identified as African, and dated to the early fifth century by François Leroy, who also recognized the sermons to be Donatist, primarily on the grounds of the use of the unusual term traditor in Sermon 39. The bishop or bishops who composed the homilies remain anonymous, but the dominant themes of separatism, suffering, and spiritual struggle support the Donatist identification.25 The sermons are believed to be catechetical, since most focus on Old Testament themes; over half of them treat Old Testament texts, which is unusual in collections from this period. The sermons are arranged canonically in the style of lectio continua, mart, “Un Sermon de saint Optat pour la fête de Noël”, Revue de sciences religieuses, 2  (1922), pp.  270–302. Other literature includes: A.  Pincherle, “Un sermone donatista attribuito a Ottato di Milevi”, Bilychnis, 22 (1923), pp. 134–48 and F. Scorza Barcellona, “L’interpretazione dei doni dei magi nel sermone natalizio de [Pseudo] Ottato di Milevi”, Studi Storico-religiosi, 2 (1978), pp. 129–49. 23  F.  Leroy, “Les 22 inédits de la catéchèse donatiste de Vienne: Une édition provisoire”, Recherches Augustiniennes, 31 (1999), pp. 149–234. See also: “Compléments et retouches à la 3e édition de la Clavis patrum latinorum: L’Homilétique africaine masquée sous le Chrysostomus Latinus. Sévérien de Céramussa et la catéchèse donatiste de Vienne”, Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique, 99.2 (2004), pp. 425–34. 24  Vienna, ÖNB ms. lat. 4147. 25  J. Alexander provides further contextual support for Leroy’s Donatist identification. See “Criteria for Discerning Donatist Sermons”, Studia Patristica, 38 (2001), pp. 3–7. See also A. Schindler, “Du nouveau sur les donatistes au temps de Saint Augustin?”, in Augustinus Afer: saint Augustin, africanité et universalité. Actes du colloque international, Alger-Annaba, 1–7 avril 2001, ed.  by P.  Y. Fux, J.-M.  Roessli, O.  Wermelinger, v. 1, Fribourg, 2003, pp. 149–52. Dolbeau rightly points out that sufficient work has not been done to verify beyond reasonable doubt Leroy’s claims concerning the homogeneity of the collection and its Donatist provenance. See, “Sermons ‘africains’: critères de localisation et exemple des sermons pour l’Ascension” [p. 20 in this volume]. Zocca believes the collection is promising, but is hesi­ tant to accept the collection until further textual work is complete; “L’identità cristiana nell’omiletica donatista”, p.282.

404

alden lee bass

beginning with Genesis 1, an order which may reflect the original liturgical ordering. Though other anonymous African collections from this period are known, no other collection is so explicitly biblical; other collections, such as the Pseudo-Fulgentian, consist of occasional sermons for Easter, Pentecost, and other feasts.26 By contrast, only one sermon in the Vienna collection mentions a festival (Easter, sermon 18). The sermons are relatively short – usually no more than two or three columns in the PLS – though like many of Augustine’s sermons they may have been reduced through redaction. Most of the sermons are simple narrative retellings of biblical stories, some with little or no comment. When there is exposition, it is generally moral rather than theological. Absent are the philosophical asides and linguistic digressions of Augustine’s work. Whereas Augustine was concerned with the difficulties of the text, the Vienna sermons assume the perspicacity of scripture.27 There is never a pause to ponder a mystery of scripture. Everything is read in a common sense manner. Doubtless many other Donatist sermons which survive under false names have yet to be recovered.28 Besides the Vienna Collection and the other two homilies mentioned a few other works remain which resemble homilies, and thus may provide further insight into Donatist preaching. Examples include the pastoral letter of Petilian, 29 the second letter of Gaudentius to Dulcitius, 30 and a short discourse by a convert to Catholicism preserved in Augustine’s sermon 360. 31 Since they survive in treatise form, they may contribute more to the understanding of homiletic themes than to rhetorical style. PL 65, col. 855–954. For examples of Augustine’s care, see M.  Pellegrino, “General Introduction to the Sermons”, in WSA III/1, p. 34. For all his speculative powers, Augustine was still concerned primarily with practice, s. 163B, 6 (WSA III/5, p. 186): “What seemed to be obscure in the reading from the apostle, I have explained as the Lord has enabled me to. The rest is plain enough; it doesn’t look for someone to explain it, but for people to do it.” 28  For instance, B. Shaw (briefly) argues that Augustine’s s. 64 is Donatist: Sacred Violence [n. 3], p. 470, n. 100. For the full text of that sermon see CCSL 41 Aa, pp. 347–60. 29  Augustine, c. litt. Pet. 2, 1ff; retr. 2, 51. 30  Augustine, c. Gaud. 1, 9, 10ff. 31  Augustine, s. 360. 26  27 

dissident preaching in africa

405

These few texts fail to convey the power of Donatist rhetoric. By reputation at least, their leaders were persuasive speakers. In Against Heresies, Augustine attributed the foundation of the pars Donati to the “eloquence of Donatus.”32 Elsewhere, he accused those early dissenting bishops of trying to sway the imperial judges who originally took up the case of the schism in 315 through sheer rhetorical power – “turbulent clamor” in his words – rather than by documentary evidence. 33 Augustine grudgingly conceded the rhetorical abilities of his opponents: “Many among them are eloquent; great tongues, streams of tongues.” He went on to compare their speech to that of angels. 34 Tellingly, Augustine used the same word (eloquentia) to describe the preaching of his mentor, Ambrose. 35 Donatist leaders were renowned for speaking well. Of course, these men had no choice; the movement’s survival depended on persuasion. Catholics enjoyed imperial patronage, a privilege which enabled them to lean on coercion or the threat of coercion. The case should not be overstated: Leslie Dossey rightly observes that “even Catholic bishops found it difficult to get the 32  Augustine, haer. 69. Augustine also spoke of Donatus’ abilities in s. 37, 3; en. Ps. 124, 5; Io. eu. tr. 6, 20. 33  Augustine, ep. 43, 5, 14–15 (CSEL 34/2, pp. 96–97): Quali enim turbae illi consenserant, ut aduersus innocentes non interrogatos proferrent sententias, a tali turba etiam rursus accusari Caecilianum uolebant. Sed plane tales inuenerant iudices, quibus illam dementiam persuaderent. Potestis enim pro uestra prudentia et illorum peruersitatem illic adtendere et iudicum grauitatem, quem ad modum ad extremum persuadere non possent, ut a plebe partis Maiorini, quae certam personam non habebat, argueretur Caecilianus et requisiti ab eis essent uel accusatores uel testes uel quoquo modo causae necessarii, qui simul cum eis ex Africa uenerant, et eos praesentes fuisse atque a Donato subtractos esse diceretur. 34  Augustine, Io. eu. tr. 13, 15. It should also be noted, however, that Augustine frequently cut down opponents by accusing them of using “rhetoric” to obscure the plain truth of the gospel. 35  Augustine, conf. 5, 13, 23. He defines the term in s.  188, 2 (PL 38, col. 1004) as: Qui nos ita dilexit, ut propter nos fieret in tempore, per quem facta sunt tempora; et multis seruis suis in mundo minor esset aetate, ipso mundo antiquior aeternitate; homo fieret qui hominem fecit, crearetur ex matre quam creauit, portaretur manibus quas formauit, sugeret ubera quae impleuit, in praesepi muta uagiret infantia uerbum, sine quo muta est humana eloquentia. See C. Mohrmann, “Saint Augustine and the ‘Eloquentia’”, in Études sur le latin des chrétiens, ed. by C. Mohrmann, v. 1, Rome, 1961, pp. 351–70.

406

alden lee bass

governors and senators to enforce their wishes in what was still only a partially Christian world.”36 And in some places Donatists had the tacit support of local magistrates. Still, however weak the Catholics’ tie to the imperial government, it was always stronger than the Donatists’, who lacked any access to the coercive power of the state. Like the Catholics, the Donatists desired the unity of the church, but they refused to accept it on imperial terms, as the Passion of Donatus indicates. Rather, they hoped to “set free” those deceived by Catholic propaganda. The instrument of delivery, according to the Passion’s author, was Christian preaching: liberabuntur instructi qui imperitia fallebantur. 37 Preaching was crucial in convincing Catholics to join the Donatist ranks – entire congregations might switch allegiance if persuaded. Preaching was also necessary to strengthen Donatist conviction against imperial coercion, whether violent or otherwise. Constantine in 317 and Constans in 347 attempted to win over the Donatists through imperial favors. Resistance to both attempts was led by preaching bishops, who roundly rejected their gifts as polluted. 38 So how did Donatist preachers persuade? The limited sample of surviving sermons indicates that the sermons relied more heavily on pathos than logos. The earliest sermons deal with the emotionally-charged subject of torture and martyrdom. The later Vienna Sermons, while concentrated on biblical topics, maintain a high rhetorical pitch characterized by alliteration, assonance, and rising tricolons. The biblical sermons are generally dramatic retellings of biblical stories spoken in plain Latin rather than florid, exegetical arguments. Unsurprisingly, this sounds a lot like Cyprian. No sermons remain of Cyprian’s, yet several of his surviving writings resemble homilies. 39 Olivar calls Cyprian a “decisive figure” in the evolution of African preaching.40 Cyprian utilized his rhetorical train36  L.  Dossey, Peasant and Empire [n. 1], p. 148. For a more general view of episcopal power in this period, see P. Brown, Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire, Madison, 1992. 37  J.-L. Maier, Le Dossier du Donatisme [n. 12], p. 202. 38  See L. Dossey, Peasant and Empire [n. 1], pp. 183–84. 39  Examples of works which likely originated as homilies include De mortalitate, De bono patientiae, and De zelo et liuore. 40  A. Olivar, La predicación cristiana antigua [n. 2], p. 268.

dissident preaching in africa

407

ing in his preaching, developing the term mediocritas to describe his own style, which was based largely on the style of scripture itself. The expression (also used by Tertullian) probably had a double meaning: first, as an expression of humility, referring to the speaker’s personal modesty; secondly, as a rhetorical style, similar to Cicero’s epistolary simplicitas.41 The “candid” style is most closely related to everyday speech, and such an unaffected style was thought to reveal the integrity of the speaker’s character. His style was driven more by narrative than by doctrine. There is also a strong moralistic tone, which he doubtless inherited from his own master, Tertullian; throughout his sermons he stressed the importance of obedience.42 Donatist preaching was likewise characterized by mediocritas. That said, there is a danger in looking for a discrete “Donatist” or “African” rhetorical style. In his description of the style of Donatist orators, Monceaux draws on the theory of africitas. Monceaux, like other scholars of his generation, had no trouble attributing the eccentricities of an African author’s prose to his “hotblooded” temperament or alleged “Semitic” background.43 African “exuberance” supposedly caused writers to favor superlatives over positives, use pairs of synonyms rather than single terms, double pronouns, blur the distinction between poetry and prose, and other such verbal eccentricities. The idea that such speech was the result of “oriental blood flowing in the veins of Africans” was roundly criticized even in its own day, and has since been thoroughly debunked.44 Besides the racist implications, the theory runs aground on the lack of contemporary non-African Latin with which to compare it. As in Latin literature more generally, Roman Africans dominated the field of Latin homiletics in the fourth and Fam. 9, 21. P.  Sanlon, Augustine’s Theology of Preaching, Minneapolis, 2014, pp. 10–11. 43  P.  Monceaux, Les Africains. Études sur la littérature latine d’Afrique, Paris, 1894, pp. 44–45. 44  K. Sittl, Die lokalen Verschiedenheiten der lateinischen Sprache mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des afrikanischen Lateins, Erlangen, 1882. His theory was demolished by W. Kroll, “Das Afrikanische Latein”, Rheinisches Museum, 52 (1897), pp. 569–90. Sittl himself later recanted and abandoned his original thesis. 41 

42 

408

alden lee bass

fifth centuries.45 Similarly, when real differences are identified, it is difficult to tell whether the Latin of the Vienna sermons is the product of regional dialect and rhetorical style or whether it is simply the product of the epoch, when classical Latin was waning and vulgar Latin was growing in prominence. Thus, the sample size is simply too small to say much about the rhetorical distinctiveness of Donatist homilies; however, nothing in what survives suggests anything unusual. Most Donatist preaching was probably ordinary and indistinguishable from other contemporary Latin preaching. Leroy suggested that the style of the Vienna sermons resembles most closely the work of the fifth-century bishop Quodvultdeus of Carthage. Morin saw similarities with the fourth-century apologist Arnobius the Younger. Comparison can also be made with the European homilies of Chromatius of Aquileia and Zeno of Verona.46 Still, there was the Holy Spirit. Donatist bishops considered themselves to be special vessels of the Spirit by virtue of their forbearers’ fortitude during the great persecution. Not only bishops, but also Donatist priests and even lectors were credited with prophetic gifts. The relationship between the New Prophecy movement of the third century and the Donatist movement of the fourth and fifth centuries is not clear, but continuity has been suggested.47 Optatus claimed that Donatus was considered a prophet48 and Augustine reported that the bishop’s words were received “like the gospel.”49 Likewise, the name “Paraclete” was 45  M.  D. Brock, Studies in Fronto and His Age: With an Appendix on African Latinity Illustrated by Selections from the Correspondence of Fronto, Cambridge, 1911, p. 163. 46  Each of these suggestions can be found in F. Leroy, “Les 22 inédits” [n. 22], pp. 152–55. Similarities between Chromatius and an African writer can be explained in part by the former’s reliance on Cyprian. See Chromatius of Aquileia, Sermones 1–17, ed. by J. Lemarié, v. 1, Paris, 1969 (SC, 154), pp. 54–61, n. 62. 47  See C. Trevett, Montanism: Gender, Authority, and the New Prophecy, Cambridge, 1996, p. 220. For a more thorough treatment of prophecy in the African church, see C. Robeck, Prophecy in Carthage: Perpetua, Tertullian, and Cyprian, Cleveland, 1992. 48  Optatus, Against the Donatists [n. 4], p. 65. 49  Augustine, Cresc. 2, 1, 2 (CSEL 52, p. 361): Ita donatistae a Donato ut euangelistae ab euangelio nominentur.

dissident preaching in africa

409

given to the Donatist primate Petilian.50 This was true not only of bishops and priests, but also of lectors, who were highly valued in North Africa. Frend noted that the inscriptions at both Henchir Taghfaght in central Algeria and at Ain Ghorab identify the lector Emeritus, one of the famed Abitinian martyrs, as the gloriosus consultus and associated him with the inspired apostles Peter and Paul.51 In Cyprian’s day, even illiterate men could be ordained as lectors provided that they “talked by the Spirit.”52 All Christians agreed that the Holy Spirit was especially present in the reading of scripture and the proclamation which followed, but Donatist clergy understood themselves to be uniquely inspired because of the purity of their clerical pedigree. The exclusive nature of this Spirit possession is confirmed by a canon of the Donatist Council of Zertei held in 414 which prohibits Catholic clergy from celebrating Eucharist and preaching.53 The Donatists retained many of the old African customs, among them an emphasis on the sermon and the public reading of scripture. In his description of Christian worship in the early third century, Tertullian had spoken of prayer, scripture reading, and exhortation, but not of Eucharist. Undoubtedly, African Christians were celebrating Eucharist in this period, but it may not have had the same exalted status it came to have in Augustine’s day. As in Tertullian’s writings, the Christians awaiting martyrdom in the Passion of Saints Donatus and Advocatus “grazed on the sacred readings, and prescribed fasts fed them with contin-

50  Augustine, c. litt. Pet. 3, 16, 19 (CSEL 52, p. 177): Paracleti nomen imponat. Incidentally, Petilian was one of the few men Augustine refused to debate publicly. Petilian complained (CSEL 53, p. 201): quod numquam mecum comminus disputauerit. 51  W. H. C. Frend, The Donatist Church [n. 15], p. 320. W. Tabbernee suggests that consultus could simply be a reference to Emeritus’s role as legal representative of the martyrs. See Montanist Inscriptions and Testimonia, Macon, 1997, p. 542. 52  Cyprian, ep. 27, 1. Here the lector is Aurelius. See also ep. 16, 4 and 33. Augustine also mentions a Donatist priest who received angelic communication (ep. 53, 1). 53  Augustine, c. Gaud. 1, 37, 48 (BA 32, p. 622): Quos nobis communicasse cognoueritis inuitos, si sacrificium non obtulerint neque sermonem in populo fecerint.

410

alden lee bass

ual prayers.”54 Nourishment comes from the Holy Spirit through prayer and readings. Indeed, the word seems to have been the primary channel of the Spirit for Donatists. How this may have manifested itself in the assembly is not evident. What is abundantly clear about Donatist preaching – more than any particular rhetorical style or manifestation of the Spirit – is the pervasive exhortation to spiritual combat. Martyrdom, of course, figures prominently in Donatist literature, as well as the struggle against the Catholic church. Dossey notes: “What we find in Donatist sources are preachers encouraging Christians – whether urban or rural – to become confessors and contest seekers (agonistici) through martyrdom and asceticism.”55 This theme can be traced back to the earliest African witnesses, Tertullian, Cyprian, as well as a host of early anonymous sources. In the late fourth and early fifth century, however, this theme continued to inspire Donatists, even as it faded among Catholics. In one of the only references to preaching in The Donatist Church, Frend observed: “In his daily life the Donatist Christian was continually reminded in sermons that nothing essential had changed now that the Roman Empire had accepted Christianity.”56 A contest presupposes opponents, and the Donatists were never short of them. Nevertheless, Donatist preaching was not always overtly polemical, as Monceaux asserted. In the Vienna homilies, dogmatic issues are rarely broached, and the Catholics are only mentioned obliquely in one sermon, as traditores (sermon 39). As has been observed, this may have been the result of Catholic redaction. But it is also a reminder that the issues which divided North Africans in the fifth century were not particular doctrinal positions, but whole worldviews. Donatist preachers were always drawing their audience into their imaginative world, a world of dramatic apocalyptic battle between Good and Evil rooted in the New Testament.57 The Donatists were a spiritual brotherhood waging war against the Devil and his forces. The righteous sons of God had always engaged in battle, from the time of Abel for54  55  56  57 

M. Tilley, Donatist Martyr Stories [n. 15], p. 56. L. Dossey, Peasant and Empire [n. 1], p. 176. W. H. C. Frend, The Donatist Church [n. 15], pp. 320–21. M. Tilley, Bible in Christian North Africa, Minneapolis, 1997, passim.

dissident preaching in africa

411

ward, and they had always suffered persecution and death. In the Vienna homilies the theme of spiritual warfare is treated more than any other moral or doctrinal issue. Because of their antagonistic relationship with the empire, the Donatists continued to use the battle motif long after it had fallen out of favor with Catholics.58 “They were always in ‘battle’ against the Devil,” wrote Frend, “they would always suffer persecution, as the righteous had suffered from the time of Abel to that of Herod.”59 The devil is the embodiment of rebellion against the divine law, and he works through those humans who also reject God’s will. Among the first generation of Donatists, the devil most often worked through the agents of the Roman empire, as the martyr stories demonstrate. In the Acts of the Abitinian Martyrs, the Diocletianic persecution is described as a time when “the devil waged war against the Christians.”60 The entire narrative is cast as a spiritual battle: “I begin an account of celestial battles and struggles undertaken anew by the bravest soldiers of Christ, the unconquered warriors, the glorious martyrs.” The Passion of Maximian and Isaac follows a similar formula: during Maximian’s torture, “a war was waged […] between a soldier of Christ and the soldiers of the devil.”61 The “struggle” was rarely a direct engagement with the devil or his servants. Most frequently in the sermons the image of spiritual warfare is used to describe the internal struggle to endure persecution and the temptation to cultural assimilation: “the righteous are those who struggle with living up to their profession.”62 The profane world, as Zocca explains, was soaked with “fallibilità e peccaminosità.”63 As opportunities for martyrdom decreased over 58  The image was not exclusively Donatist however; Optatus called persecution “the Christians’ war” and spoke of it in the apocalyptic terms of Daniel and Revelation (Optatus, Against the Donatists [n. 4], p. 75). 59  W. H. C. Frend, The Donatist Church [n. 15], p. 321. 60  M. Tilley, Donatist Martyr Stories [n. 15], pp. 27–28. 61  M. Tilley, Donatist Martyr Stories [n. 15], pp. 66–67. 62  F. Lo Bue, The Turin Fragments of Tyconius’ Commentary on Revelation, Cambridge, 1963, p. 62. Transl. by D. Robinson, The Mystic Rules of Scripture: Tyconius of Carthage’s Keys and Windows to the Apocalypse, Toronto, 2010, p. 157. 63  E.  Zocca, “L’identità cristiana nel dibattito tra Cattolici e Donatisti”, Annali di Storia dell’Esegesi, 21.1 (2004), pp. 116–18.

412

alden lee bass

the course of the fourth century, Donatists redefined the spiritual battle in terms of moral action, particularly penance. According to Tyconius, “there are two types of martyrdom, one by the sword and one hidden in penance.”64 In the Vienna sermons, spiritual combat was an essential part of moral education: “virtue grows slothful when it lacks struggle.”65 Christians are called constantly to choose the good over the wrong, and the regular exercise of the will in the moral battle strengthens and confirms their faith; with “imminent struggles [God] prepares them for coming temptations.”66 After all, “no athlete is made stronger without struggle […] no soldier subjugates the enemy without fighting.”67 Thus the language of spiritual warfare was not primarily exorcistic, as in Augustine, but concerned with practical morality. The sermons affirm that the human struggle against evil was ordained by God to force a decision of allegiance.68 Humans must choose God willingly, and the physical pressures of evil test the genuineness of their commitment. Nevertheless, and contrary to the opinions of both Optatus and Monceaux, Donatist sermons did not encourage actual violence against the enemy. Spiritual warfare is explicitly contrasted with physical violence, so that sermon after sermon emphasizes the importance of non-retaliation. Moses “contends without war”,69 Gideon’s troops were “not fighters, but witnesses who did not wage war on their enemies.”70 Elisha the prophet was a “victor 64  Duo […] sunt genera martyrum, unum aperte per gladium, aliud in oculto per poenitentiam. Cited by T. Hahn, in Tyconius-Studien: Ein Beitrag zur Kirchen und Dogmengeschichte des 4. Jahrhunderts, Leipzig, 1900, p. 48, n. 1. 65  S. 3 (PLS 4, col. 669–71). Similarly s. 18 (PLS 2, col. 1200): Tolle certamen, et uirtus non habet nomen. Nisi enim contraria operentur, prospera operari non possunt. 66  S. 28 (F. Leroy, “Les 22 inédits” [n. 22], p. 188). This sermon is wholly structured around the spiritual battle motif. 67  S. 46 (= Escorial 24) (PLS 4, col. 726). 68  S. 16 (PL 39, col. 1851–1853): Gaudeat christianus in aduersis; quia aut probatur, si iustus est; aut si peccator est, emendatur. Contristetur sane, quem flagella corrigere diuina non possunt: timeat futuri iudicii supplicium, qui in saeculo praesenti iudicis contempsit remedium. Gaudeat peccator, si cum iusto in saeculo contristetur, ut post saeculum cum eodem muneretur. 69  S. 12 (= Escorial 8) (PLS 4, col. 684). 70  S. 13 (F. Leroy, “Les 22 inédits” [n. 22], p. 169).

dissident preaching in africa

413

without blood” who encouraged the righteous to “spare the enemy.”71 Though this emphasis on nonviolence may seem at odds with the usual caricature of club-wielding Donatist agonistici, it resonates with the earliest Donatist homily, the Passion of Donatus and Advocatus: “If you have to resist, you resist with the power of the soul, not with arms; if you fight, it is with faith not force.”72 Far from inciting hatred, Donatist preaching, at least in the documented sermons, actually promoted peace and nonviolence.73 Augustine himself tacitly acknowledged this at one point, while still managing to accuse the Donatists of inciting violence. He tells the story of the dissident bishop of Hippo Regius, Macrobius, who preached a sermon condemning the violence of the agonistici. According to Augustine, who must have known him well, Macrobius was a man of talent and eloquence.74 Nevertheless, it seems that his style did not match his content. He preached in Latin to a mainly Punic-speaking audience. According to Augustine, the audience was “struck and stirred up by the goads of your words, which you hurled at them through a Punic interpreter with an honest and genuine indignation filled with frankness, and you were angered by their actions rather than delighted by their services. They tore themselves from the midst of the congregation, as we were able to hear from those who were present and recounted it, with the gesture of madmen.”75

His attempt to persuade was so clumsy that his words had the opposite of their intended effect – the mob stormed out of the basilica ready to spill more blood. Macrobius must have hit his mark at least some of the time, however, because Augustine comS. 24 (= Escorial 12) (PLS 4, col. 696). M. Tilley, Donatist Martyr Stories [n. 15], p. 60. 73  One of the Vienna Homilies is entitled De Pace (s. 59: P.-P. Verbraken, “Le sermon ancien sur la paix du manuscrit R.ii.18 de l’Escurial”, in La Ciudad de Dios: Homenaje al P. Angel C. Vega, Madrid, 1968, pp.  142–48). Pax was a much-disputed term in fifth-century Africa, used often by Augustine, particularly in City of God. Of course, one could argue that at a deeper level, the Donatists still preached hatred by keeping alive the sectarian rivalries. This is more or less Shaw’s argument in Sacred Violence. 74  Augustine, ep. 108, 6, 16. 75  Augustine, ep. 108, 5, 14 (WSA II/2, p. 78). 71 

72 

414

alden lee bass

plained that some of his own clergy in Hippo had joined the pars Donati.76 Until more Donatist homilies surface, we will not be able to say much about the form and style of dissident sermons. They almost certainly did not follow the Augustinian model, as did later African preachers such as Quodvultdeus and Fulgentius of Ruspe. Perhaps one day we will be able to state with more precision in what ways they differed. It is clear from the evidence at hand, however, that Donatist preachers understood preaching differently from their Catholic fellows. For them, preaching retained a link to prophecy. Direct communication with the Spirit through the clergy was the primary Christian activity, one which armed them in their struggle against Satan. Thus, preaching empowered Christians to resist violence, not perpetrate it. Donatist preaching was not only abundant, as Olivar speculated, but also a dominant social force in Christian North Africa.

76 

Augustine, ep. 106.

The Pseudo-Fulgentius Homilies on Easter: Theology, Rhetoric, Church Life Roberto Spataro (Rome) Volume 65 of the Patrologia Latina (col. 858–954) contains 80 sermons ascribed to Fulgentius of Ruspe. Modern scholarship credits the cycle to a fifth/sixth-century anonymous bishop from North Africa.1 For reasons addressed later in this article, we can date the sermons to the Vandal Kingdoms’ period before Justinian restored Roman authority.2 We cannot make authoritative claims on the anonymous bishop’s identity nor on his historical and geographical situation, except for some vague hypotheses. Despite this impasse, I will present four of these homilies, in which the preacher comments on the Paschal Gospel readings during the days following Easter Sunday. The liturgical framework gives a certain unity to them. They are s. 38 De die tertio Paschae, ss. 42 and 43 De ianuis

1  Cf. A. Isola, I  Cristiani dell’Africa vandalica nei Sermones del tempo (429–534), Milano, 1990, p.  16: “Essi riproducono il sermonario pseudo-fulgenziano contenuto nel ms. 20 della Biblioteca municipale di S.  Mihiel, sec. IX–X, foll. 1–119, che il padre gesuita T. Raynaud ha pubblicato a Lione nel 1633 insieme con testi di Leone Magno, Massimo di Torino, Pietro Crisologo e altri. Non pare che ci siano argomenti decisivi per attribuire la collezione, o parte di essa, al vescovo di Ruspe. È comunque sicura, scrive R. Grégoire, la sua origine africana; e G.  Morin precisa che questo sermonario sarebbe stato messo insieme nel V–VI secolo da qualche vescovo africano.” 2  Cf.  Y. Modéran, “L’Afrique et la persécution vandale”, in Histoire du Christianisme des origines à nos jours, v. 3: Les Eglises d’Orient et d’Occident, ed.  by J.  M. Mayeur,  C. and L. Pietri, A. Vauchez, M.  Venard, Paris, 1998, pp. 246–78.

Praedicatio Patrum. Studies on Preaching in late Antique North Africa, edited by Gert Partoens, Anthony Dupont, Shari Boodts, Turnhout, 2017 (Instrumenta Patris­ tica et Mediaeualia, 75), p. 415-428 ©



10.1484/M.IPM-EB.5.114061

416

roberto spataro

clausis, and s.  44 Vbi post resurrectionem Christus in horto Mariae apparuit Magdalenae. When perusing these sermons, it is possible to draw three conclusions. 1) The rhetorical quality of the sermons is noteworthy. 2) The anonymous bishop’s theological exposition is strongly shaped by Chalcedonian tenets. 3) Some features of the local Christian community are evident. 1. Rhetorical quality According to Henri Marrou, the great French historian of Late Antiquity, the standards of higher education dropped by the beginning of the fifth century in the former Western Roman Empire, due to the settlement of Germanic tribes. Meanwhile, scholars in Vandal North Africa, or at least some regions around Carthage, had no knowledge of this cultural calamity, and teachers maintained their intellectual activities according to traditional cultural learning processes. 3 Because of this, rhetorical schools not only survived, but flourished. In my opinion our homilies are witnesses to this phenomenon. The anonymous preacher, no matter how marginal or remote his diocese was (and perhaps it was not), supposedly attended classes in rhetoric. Even a quick reading of his sermons is sufficient to prove how much he depended on rhetorical scholastic training.4 I would like to justify my statement with three telling examples. Firstly, the anonymous bishop repeatedly rewrites or retells the Gospel story through an amplifying paraphrase. In the Greek and Roman rhetorical schools, the so-called metaphrases or periphrases were typical exercises. The exercises consisted of compositions in which the students, after reading through a text, had to construct such paraphrases through permutation, addition, subtraction, and substitution of elements. In the Christian cultural milieu this kind of scholastic practice generated a variety of literary genres, such H. Marrou, Storia dell’educazione nell’antichità, Roma, 1978, p. 451. Cf. A. Isola, I Cristiani dell’Africa vandalica [n. 1], p. 6: “La prosa d’arte che sanno esprimere i nostri oratori ci rafferma nella convinzione che anche in piena età vandalica in Africa si potesse acquisire una formazione scolastica di grado superiore.” 3  4 

the pseudo-fulgentius homilies on easter

417

as biblical and hagiographical metaphrases and paraphrases, which blossomed in the fourth and fifth centuries.5 The homilies present quite a number of examples of these rhetorical forms. I quote a passage from s.  44 about the meeting between the angels and Mary Magdalene. The words of the angels (Mulier, quid ploras?) are formatted into a dialogue between the characters: Dicunt autem ei: ‘Mulier, quid ploras? [Ioh. 20, 13] De coelo descendentes stolatos angelos cernis, et adhuc femineis lacrimis occuparis? Statue, mulier, statue uacuis limitem fletibus. Iam deletae sunt lacrimae ab oculis miserorum, quia solutis gemitibus uinculorum, triumphator ascendit in altum Dominus angelorum: Ascendit enim in altum, captiuam duxit captiuitatem, dedit dona hominibus [Eph. 4, 8].’ ‘Dicite mihi, o beati, quos cerno, et qui esse possitis ignoro. Dicite, inquam, mihi, consolatores boni, quomodo plorare non potero tanto mihi ablato magistro, cuius aspectum uidere desidero, et nec cadauer sepultum inuenio? [cf. Ioh. 20, 13]’6

The preacher seems to have been so pleased with this way of addressing the congregation that throughout the remainder of the sermon he repeatedly paraphrases the Gospel story in comparable ways. The Risen Lord himself not only speaks to Mary with the words reported by Ioh. 20, 17 – Noli me tangere, nondum enim ascendi ad Patrem meum. Vade autem ad fratres meos, et dic eis: Ascendo ad Patrem meum et Patrem uestrum, ad Deum meum et Deum uestrum – but also delivers an obvious anti-Arian speech on the Trinitarian relationship between Him and the Father!7 Secondly, these paraphrase homilies utilize several different figures of speech.8 One of the devices which the preacher favors is undoubtedly the simile. One sermon compares the Paschal Mystery to the buying and selling that goes on at a harbor dock. This 5  Cf. V. Nazzaro, “Parafrasi”, in Nuovo Dizionario Patristico e di Antichità Cristiane, ed. by A. Di Berardino, Genova-Milano, 2008, col. 3909–3916. 6  Cf. PL 65, col. 909A. 7  Cf. PL 65, col. 910A-B. 8  Cf. A. Isola, I  Cristiani dell’Africa vandalica [n. 1], pp. 116–17: “Molti dei nostri sermones testimoniano grande familiarità con la retorica formale; e non solo quelli che vanno sotto il nome di Quodvultdeus, testimone di una formazione scolastica risalente al periodo prevandalico […] ma anche quelli ‘minori’ dalla paternità più che mai problematica. Essi esprimono con semplicità e rapidità stati d’animo e immagini attraverso tropi e schemata: essi affidano alla prosa d’arte messaggi di fede e di speranza […].”

418

roberto spataro

simile turns into a long allegory that paints a scene – the harbor dock – with which the bishop’s congregation was allegedly familiar. Through this simile, the preacher insists on the redeeming result of Jesus’ death, descent to hell, and resurrection (that is to say, the salvation of the anguished imprisoned souls from the underworld) in the artistically drafted introduction to s.  38: Quam pulchrum apparet littus, dum repletur mercibus, et trepidat mercatoribus! Exponuntur de nauibus sarcinae uestium diuersarum, laetantur innumeri cantantium in iucunditate nautarum, et diues sinus tripudiat arenarum. Quid est illud? Et quantum delectat attendere littus dominicae resurrectionis, et portum Domini resurgentis micare mercibus pretiosis! Qui sunt baiuli? Angeli et Archangeli, qui sarcinas animarum de inferni uinculis solutarum deducunt laetitiae palmis ad portum: et gerulis ceruicibus ad littus perducunt terrae uiuorum. Sic Domino resurgente ripa fulgebat, quando naufragium gehennae lugebat. In illa carina corporis Christi ab inferis redeuntis imponuntur merces piratica nuper usurpatione sublatae, omnium gementium animae apud inferos captiuorum […].9

The simile efficaciously develops the metaphors so that the Risen Jesus is the negotiator, the angels are the baiuli, and the precious merces laid down on the seashore by the dockworkers represents redeemed mankind. While the New Testament shows Christ as the victor triumphing over his enemies who are reduced to captivity, the bishop creates a new and original allegory, which was confidently inserted into the sermon, refined by the use of other figures of speech. In any case, the rhetorical framework was not pointless. It was a means by which the preacher encouraged his listeners, who were probably shipping merchants and mercantile businessmen, to accept the gift of Christ’s salvation, and to raise their liturgical anthem of praise which unites heaven and the heart. Nisi dederit uocis dulce responsum, nemo potest eius retractare commercium, uel possidere negotium, aut comparare mysterium, aut obtinere gaudium, cum soluit naufragium, et redit ad portum. […] Ecce enim mortui tripudiant ab inferno, et angeli laetantur in coelo: ut et nos in isto templo gaudeamus.10

9  10 

Cf. PL 65, col. 901B-C. Cf. PL 65, col. 902A-B.

the pseudo-fulgentius homilies on easter

419

Our homilies contain other such similes. The following passage offers an example: a chiasm combined with a succession of a double parallelism, a hammering anaphora-epiphora, and an assonance which uses the metaphorical language of the physician and the sick. Such an ornate passage should not be regarded as academic mischief. Rather it emphasizes the aim of the anonymous bishop: to urge his faithful to safeguard their integrity – to appreciate and practice faith, to stay pure and without any heretical stain. Chiasm

Thomas dubitat, et a1) Christus b1) intrabat. b2) Introiuit a2) pax, et recessit incredulitas.

Parallelism

a1) Thomas b1) dubitat, et a2) Christus b2) intrabat a1) Introiuit b1) pax, et a2) recessit b2) incredulitas. Thoma, quid desideras?

Anaphora Palpa si palpas. Palpa uulnera mea, ut non palpites in fide tua. Assonance

Manum uis in latus meum mittere, utinam uelis totus intrare ! Patent foramina mea, ut ad coelos tibi pateat ianua mea. Audiuit dulcissimam uocem, et recepit integram fidem.

Metaphor De uulneribus medici accepit auditum, et aegrotus bibit antidotum. […] Intrauit in foramina Christi, et aperta est ianua regni coelestis. Semper ipsa nos curent, et reficiant uulnera nostra, quae tribuerunt saeculo medicinam […].11

Finally, further proof of the rhetorical quality of these sermons is the conciseness and brevity of the sentences, which resembles Seneca’s style and rhythmical prose. This is irrefutable evidence that the preacher has attended a rhetorical school to learn how to address the public. A few examples may suffice. When commenting on the meeting between the Risen Lord and Mary Magdalene, the bishop uses an apostrophe, a figure of speech that the ancient rhetoricians regarded as fitting for the “high” genus dicendi. The clauses are short and vivified by the simultaneous use of an initial 11 

Cf. s. 43 (PL 65, col. 908B-C).

420

roberto spataro

climax: Bene petis, Maria, bene quaeris, bene pulsas. The following sentences are characterized by the same brevity and, in the final section, emphasized by the repetition of the simple coordinating conjunction et: Nullus tibi abstulit quem quaeris, ipse se potestate propria suscitauit. Dum nobiscum loqueris, cito tuis conspectibus apparebit: erit enim tecum Dominus semper, et satiaberis secundum quae concupiuit anima tua, et ossa tua pinguia fiant, et erit cor tuum sicut hortus ebrius, et sicut fons cuius non deficit aqua […].12

When uttering the final sentences of his homilies, I believe that the preacher, keeping in mind the rules he had learned at school, made use of the so-called dichoreus, one of the ways to rhythmically conclude: _ ˇ _ _. or _ ˇ _ ˇ. For instance, at the end of s.  38 De die tertio Paschae: […] in isto templo gaūdĕāmŭs; at the end of s.  42 De ianuis clausis: […] de sui corporis uērĭtātē. This type of ending evokes stability and gravity and is helpful for speeches that are supposed to promote meditation. 2. Theological content The anonymous bishop’s sermons are significant from a theological viewpoint. Early church theology was very often polemical and dogmatic. Therefore, the bishops did not miss the opportunity, when preaching, to instruct the faithful in the orthodox faith and condemn heresies. North Africa in the sixth century was particularly concerned with manifold theological disputes, clearly leaving a mark on the here considered homilies. It is well known that the Vandals, who ruled North Africa during the time when these homilies were delivered, professed Arian Christianity. Their confrontation with Nicene Catholics was harsh.13 The anonymous preacher places a patently anti-Arian Trinitarian sentence in the mouth of the Risen Lord in s.  44:

Cf. s. 44 (PL 65, 909C). On the Vandals, their religious tenets and policy, cf.  A.  Marchetta, “Vandali”, in Nuovo Dizionario Patristico [n. 5], col. 5536–5542. 12  13 

the pseudo-fulgentius homilies on easter

421

[Pater meus] dixit: Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te [Ps. 2, 7]. Hodie Dei sempiternum est. Non habet initium, non habet terminum, non ortum, non occasum. Nec spectatur apud Deum aliquando crastinus, ubi nunquam fuit hesternus.14

The weight of the statement is increased by having the explanation originate from Jesus. Incidentally, in this expression a figure of speech is used, a perfect parallelism that underlines the co-eternity shared by the Father and the Son: Non habet a1) initium, non habet b1) terminum, a2) non ortum, b2) non occasum. Note how the argument flows: an initial biblical reference (Filius meus es tu, ego hodie genui te), followed by a philosophical axiom (Hodie Dei sempiternum est), and finally a logical and a cogent conclusion (Non habet initium, non habet terminum, non ortum, non occasum). The bishop was a capable theologian and a good catechist. As a matter of fact, in the same sermon, he summarizes the Trinitarian and Christological doctrine of the Catholic Church in a short formula, so that the possibility of any Arian and Nestorian interpretation is excluded: Pater meus est origine, non adoptione, natura, non gratia.15 The Manicheans were also a target of the bishop’s condemnation and refutation. Their role in Africa is often not sufficiently highlighted in historical studies. In s.  44, our preacher reports Christ stating about himself: Non quia a Patris consortio aliquando separatus sum, aut Pater ab unici indiuidua caritate potuit ullo modo discedere, qui ego in Patre, et Pater in me [Ioh. 14, 10]; sed ut in ueri hominis carne pro expiatione peccati mortem subiciens supplicii, hac uice possem dubiis uel infirmis, et praecipue manichaeis incredulis apertius demonstrari.16

These words challenged the essentially dualistic and gnostic understanding of Christ. Some Manicheans believed that Jesus was a disguised devil, who had a material body and was nailed on the cross. Human flesh was considered essentially evil because it originated through procreation, a noxious and polluted act. The real Jesus, according to the Manicheans, could neither be born from

14  15  16 

Cf. PL 65, col. 910A. Cf. PL 65, col. 910A. Cf. PL 65, col. 910A-B.

422

roberto spataro

Mary nor die.17 In light of these beliefs, the bishop’s statement is perfectly understandable: the same divine and eternal Son of God, who was not separated from the Father, became flesh, suffered, and died. The flock entrusted to the anonymous pastor’s care was surrounded not only by heretical Arian Vandals and dangerous Manicheans, but also by the Donatist movement, though the latter was already weakening in the sixth century.18 I have found a reference to this tenet in s.  44. The Catholic Church, which stressed its universality and motherhood of all believers, was implicitly set against the sectarian limitations of the local North African Donatist Church. Indeed, a characteristic feature of the Donatist Church was their African regionalistic sentiments.19 The following passage also contains a reference to baptism, a sacrament which triggered arguments between Catholics and Donatists:20 Ecce flos campi suauiter redolet in pratis. Vbique ibi diffusa gratia catholicae matris, liliumque conuallium circa montem sancti candescit altaris, dum fidelibus uniuersis indumento iustitiae candidatis, conuiuium praeparatur angelicae passionis. 21

The most developed theological subject of these Easter Sermons is undoubtedly Christology. During the fifth and sixth centuries, North African Christianity was deeply involved in the post-Chalcedonian controversies, assuming the role of an orthodox stronghold and absolutely refusing minimalist interpretations of the twonature Christology. North Africa became a beacon for the Catholic Church to better understand the Chalcedonian Creed.22 The names 17  Cf. J. K. Coyle, “Mani. Manichei. Manicheismo”, in Nuovo Dizionario Patristico [n. 5], col. 2992–3000. 18  Cf. W. H. C. Frend, “Donatismo”, in Nuovo Dizionario Patristico [n. 5], col. 1482–1493. 19  Cf. A. Musoni, Ecclesia mater chez Cyprien de Carthage: signification et portée théologique, Roma, 2013. 20  S. 45, which does not belong to the cycle I am examining here, is entitled De unico baptismo and polemically affirms: quae creatura non monetur nisi haeretici, qui aquarum uiolant sacramentum, dum repetunt mysterium post Spiritum sanctum? (PL 65, col. 910B). 21  Cf. s. 44 (PL 65, 908C-D). 22  Already at the end of the fifth century an African theologian emerges as a strong defender of the Chalcedonian Christology: Vigilius of Thapsus,

the pseudo-fulgentius homilies on easter

423

of the pro-Three-Chapters theologians are universally known.23 In this context, the bishop frequently referred to Christ’s twofold nature. He did not systematically teach Chalcedonian Christology because he was preaching and commenting on Gospel pericopes. Nevertheless his approach to the Incarnation was clearly Chalcedonian, Pre-Chalcedonian or Antiochian. The following passage from s.  42 sheds additional light on the bishop’s Christology: Ipse ergo intrat modo ad apostolos ianuis obseratis. [...] ‘Quomodo’, inquit haereticus, ‘uerum (ut dicitis) corpus per ligni tabulas clausas intrauit?’ Recte hoc diceret, si ante passionem causaretur: quando adhuc mortale corpus gerebat passioni subdendum, inimicis tenendum, clauis figendum, lancea compungendum, sepulturae mandandum. Iam enim omnis crassitudo illa assumpti corporis in diuinitate fuerat absorpta et immutata, nec tamen exinanita.24

The bishop is answering an objection (inquit haereticus) from a heretic who does not understand how a body that was thought to be real (uerum (ut dicitis) corpus) could pass through the walls of the Cenacle. The bishop replies that the Risen Lord’s material body was relieved and lightened (omnis crassitudo […] absorpta et immutata). Equally fascinating is the bishop’s description of Jesus’ ontological condition before his Resurrection. It is vital to pay attention to his Christological lexicon: assumpti corporis. These words are reminiscent of the Antiochian Incarnation expression which could sound somewhat heretical after Chalcedon. We can guess that the bishop was not educated to the extent that he was aware of the seriousness of that expression. The language he employed does show, however, his strong anti-monophysite theology. Also worth considering is the emphasis on the events of Jesus’ Passion in the above-mentioned passage: mortale corpus gerebat author of the Contra Eutychetem libri quinque. Cf.  M. Simonetti, “Vigilio di Tapso”, in Nuovo Dizionario Patristico [n. 5], col. 5624–5625: “Presenta la dottrina cattolica in materia cristologica intermedia fra gli opposti errori di Nestorio e di Eutiche e difende la dottrina calcedonese che ravvisa in Cristo due nature, umana e divina, coesistenti, senza confusione e senza separazione, in un’unica persona.” 23  It is sufficient to mention Facundus of Hermiana, author of the Ad Iustinianum uel Pro defensione Trium Capitulorum. Cf. P. Mattei, “Africa Cristiana”, in Letteratura Patristica, ed. by A. Di Berardino, G. Fedalto, M. Simonetti, Cinisello Balsamo, 2007, pp. 22–24. 24  Cf. PL 65, col. 907B.

424

roberto spataro

passioni subdendum, inimicis tenendum, clauis figendum, lancea compungendum, sepulturae mandandum. The inclusion of these details was not a mere coincidence. It was an implicit stance on the Theopaschite controversy that erupted after the Council of Chalcedon. The Theopaschite controversy centered around an attempt to reconcile pro- and anti-Chalcedonians by using different sentences such as Vnus de Trinitate passus est, or the addition to the Trisagion chant Qui crucifixus est pro nobis.25 The African Catholic bishops, who had been banished to Sardinia by the Vandal kings, were required to express their opinion on these tenets. Because the tenets seemed to have a Monophysite and possibly Cyrillian content, the African bishops generally opposed them. The anonymous bishop was allegedly conscious of the implications at stake in the Theopaschite formula and preferred speaking of the Passion by attributing sorrows and death to Jesus’ human body without any link to the divinity of the Second Person of the Trinity. It was the same concern for the reality of Christ’s humanity that pushed the preacher to repeat the ueritas corporis, even after the Resurrection. For this reason, we find expressions such as: Aperuit ianuas diuinitatis, qui ingressus est ianuis clausis, et donauit omnibus pacem de sui corporis ueritate.26 […] qui nostram soluit catenam, qui coelos aperuit, et descendit, et cum corpore iterum coelos ascendit […]27 […] quia caro Christi corruptionis ignara immarcescibilis ab inferis resurrexit.28

Before completing this analysis of the theological themes contained in these sermons, I  would like to mention a Mariological statement. The bishop, filled with wonder, is speaking about the episode of the walls of the Upper Room through which the Risen Lord passed to meet the Apostles. He establishes an enchanting comparison: Ingressus est uterum uirginis, Spiritus sanctus superuenit in illam, et uirtus Altissimi obumbrauit eam [cf. Luc. 1, 35]. Generatur, et 25  Cf. B. Studer, col. 5291–5292. 26  Cf. s. 42 (PL 65, 27  Cf. s. 43 (PL 65, 28  Cf. s. 44 (PL 65,

“Teopaschiti”, in Nuovo Dizionario Patristico [n. 5], col. 907D). col. 908A). col. 908C).

the pseudo-fulgentius homilies on easter

425

porta illa clausa est, quam nemo ingreditur, nisi princeps solus, et clausa, inquit, erit in sempiternum [cf. Ez. 44, 2].29

This utterance, though short, deserves attention because it demonstrates the high theological profile of the preacher. Like the Church Fathers, he used Mariology to shed light on the Mystery of Christ. Secondly, in a few words he was able to link together the Old and New Testaments, the prophecy of Ezekiel regarding the temple door and the Annunciation to Mary, according to the Patristic hermeneutic principle Scriptura illustrat Scripturam. Finally, he witnessed to the Early Church’s belief in Mary’s perpetual Virginity: clausa erit in sempiternum. The theological argumentation was construed on the basis of analogy (just as the Son of God entered the closed door of Mary’s womb, so he passed through the walls of the Cenacle) and the nexus ueritatum, the articles of faith lending support to each other. 3. Churches featured in the homilies Thus far we have illustrated the bishop’s identity as a trained rhetorician and theologian. What about his flock? Truthfully, the homilies we have looked at do not provide many clues regarding the Christian community the preacher addressed. There are only a few allusions in the sermons to churches and communities. Consequently, the development of this point is necessarily shorter than that of the previous ones. As I have already mentioned, s.  38 lingers on the description of trading near the sea. Presumably, quite a number of the believers in this community were wealthy businessmen whose faith and charity the bishop intended to rouse. The bishop exhorted them by saying: Paremus illi mercimonia nostra. Quae? Non aurum, non argentum, non gemmarum fila lucentia, sed fidem, spem, caritatem […]. 30 The abundance of refined and valuable wares coming from Cf. s. 42 (PL 65, col. 907A). Cf.  s.  38 (PL 65, col. 902A). See also A. Isola, I  Cristiani dell’Africa vandalica [n. 1], pp. 5–6: “Contro l’ipotesi di un’Africa drammaticamente in crisi anche sul piano commerciale, durante il periodo della dominazione vandalica, ecco il disegno di un movimento convulso di mercanti e di merci sulle banchine di un porto, con navi all’àncora e nautae festanti. La testimonianza 29  30 

426

roberto spataro

distant places that the bishop carefully describes could be allusions to the Carthage harbor. Consequently, another – very tentative – hypothesis is that the community was that of the capital of the former Roman province of Africa Proconsularis. 31 This community was likely confronted with one of the several Jewish congregations present in Roman North African cities. At least twice the bishop preached on the Jews’ wicked role in the Lord’s Passion and Death. These statements are consistent with the Early Church’s anti-Jewish theological attitude. The tenor of the bishop’s expressions is soft. In s. 43, he says: Non angelos direxit ad apostolos metuentes, qui timebant Iudaeos Domini Crucifixores, […]. 32 Another statement from s.  44 sounds sharper; the Jews are included in the list of those responsible for Jesus’ death: Non sufficit quod Iudas uendidit, Iudaeus emit, Pilatus damnauit, miles in ligno trabalibus perforauit, mortuum aspexit, et acuto mucrone transfixit? 33 However, the most important element that allows us to identify the community to which the bishop preached is found in a comparison at the very beginning of s.  43, which runs as follows: Imperator terrenus non uisitat in timore constitutos alumnos, quomodo Dominus Christus metuentes uisitauit apostolos. Nam si propter salutem terreni regis comites concluduntur obsidionibus tyrannorum, non dignatur imperator ipse uenire ad conclusionem timentium famulorum: potest exercitum mittere ad subueniendum, proprium autem non humiliat principatum. Dominus autem noster est Rex coelorum, Dominus angelorum, suscitator mortuorum, salus desperatorum. 34

In this careful and discrete way, the bishop lamented the plight of the Roman Catholics under the powerful Vandal domination. 35 è purtroppo nel sermo 38 pseudo-fulgenziano, che abbiamo accolto con particolare cautela perchè sembra sfuggire a una precisa collocazione cronologica. Tra le merci messe in evidenza ci sono sarcinae uestium diuersarum. Si tratta di articoli raffinati – si deduce dal contesto –, in grado di assecondare le esigenze di un pubblico certo affrancato dalle prime necessità, come poteva trovarsi durante gli ultimi regni vandalici in Africa, […].” 31  Cf. A. Isola, I Cristiani dell’Africa vandalica [n. 1], pp. 110–11. 32  Cf. PL 65, col. 907D. 33  Cf. PL 65, col. 909B. 34  Cf. PL 65, col. 907D. 35  Actually the Catholic bishops of Vandal North-Africa seem to have been reluctant to speak about the political disarray and more inclined to deal with

the pseudo-fulgentius homilies on easter

427

According to some contemporary historians 36, the Catholics were Romans and they opposed the invaders and their greedy land confiscation policy. The local authorities – the comites of the abovequoted passage – tried to stop the first attacks in vain. They succumbed to the Vandals and their only hope of salvation was the intervention of the powerful Emperor of Constantinople. Their hopes were disappointed by the ineffective reaction of the Basileus. Nevertheless, the preacher’s message is hopeful. He encourages the Catholics to wait for the Lord’s intervention: He is the salus desperatorum. 37

theological issues. In our homily we find the same disproportion: on the one hand, as we have already examined, the effects of the theological controversies are very present; on the other hand, there is only a soft allusion to the political situation. Cf. A. Olivar, La predicación cristiana antigua, Barcelona, 1991, p. 407: “En medio de las tribulaciones y de la inestabilidad provocadas por la invasión de los vándalos arrianos, las comunidades cristianas del África latina continuaron como pudieron su vida y su actividad pastoral, sin hacer demasiadas alusiones a la situación político-religiosa, por lo que sabemos. Este silencio relativo llega a sorprender. Según parece, conmovió más los ánimos la polémica teológica que la difícil y peligrosa situación social y política. Los obispos y presbíteros de los siglos V y VI se ocuparon con mayor solicitud de la conservación de la fe, de la sana ortodoxia y de la fidelidad al nombre cristiano, que de lamentarse y de reaccionar políticamente contra el bárbaro invasor hereje.” 36  Cf. n. 2. 37  For the frequently recurring theme of hope in African preaching of this time, cf. A. Isola, I Cristiani dell’Africa vandalica [n. 1], pp. 95–96.

Augustine’s Sermones ad Populum and the Relationship Between Identity/ies and Spirituality in North African Christianity* Naoki Kamimura (Tokyo) In the current scholarly discourse concerning change and continuity in Late Antique society, some scholars assert that the distinctions between two religious groups, pagans and Christians, were blurred and that it is difficult to use indications of belief, observance and practice to accurately identify Christians in Late Antique society. Some recent surveys and findings agree that the distinction between pagans and Christians cannot be seen as a mutually exclusive opposition.1 While evidence regarding North African Christianity does allow us to examine the question of what it meant to be a Christian in Late Antiquity, it is apparent that the comprehensive approach to spiritual training remained within the Greco-Roman, rather than the emerging specific Christian tradition. Pierre Hadot emphasises the complexity of this

*  I am grateful to the readers of an earlier version of this article for their helpful comments. This work was supported by the Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Kakenhi (Grant-in-Aid for Scientific Research (C) 26370077, on the theme “Christian Identities and Their Relationship with Monasticism in Augustine”). 1  R.  Markus, The End of Ancient Christianity, Cambridge, 1990; M.  Kahlos, Debate and Dialogue: Christian and Pagan Cultures c. 360–430, Aldershot, 2007 (Ashgate New Critical Thinking in Religion, Theology, and Biblical Studies); É. Rebillard, Christians and Their Many Identities in Late Antiquity, North Africa, 200–450 CE, Ithaca, 2012; Group Identity and Religious Individuality in Late Antiquity, ed. by É. Rebillard, J. Rüpke, Washington D.C., 2015 (CUA Studies in Early Christianity).

Praedicatio Patrum. Studies on Preaching in late Antique North Africa, edited by Gert Partoens, Anthony Dupont, Shari Boodts, Turnhout, 2017 (Instrumenta Patris­ tica et Mediaeualia, 75), p. 429-460 ©



10.1484/M.IPM-EB.5.114062

430

naoki kamimura

type of spiritual discipline in Late Antiquity. Hadot explains it as a “metamorphosis of our personality”.2 Rather than looking at spiritual exercises from a purely intellectual perspective, Hadot investigates them in their more holistic manifestation: the purgation of the soul by training all facets of human thought and behaviour. It is interesting to note that even for Christian writers the idea of spiritual training apparently varied according to the circumstances of the Greco-Roman tradition they lived in. The second-century apologist Justin Martyr, for instance, maintained that philosophical introspection could guide Christians to the understanding of divine truth. 3 In the closing decade of the second century, Tertullian, however, opposed philosophical ethics to the Christian religion, declaring that divine truth was to be found in Jerusalem rather than in Athens.4 Tertullian understood Christian martyrdom as an indispensable vehicle for the articulation of Christian identity and as a tool to shape contemporary perceptions of the Christian lifestyle, claiming that the seed of the Church was the blood of Christian martyrs.5 In the mid-fourth century then, Christianity experienced crucial modifications and developments with regard to its understanding and appreciation of spiritual training. This evolution renders it requisite for modern scholars to revisit the topic of spiritual training in Augustine’s works.6 The objective of this contribution is, therefore, to examine P. Hadot, Philosophy as a Way of Life: Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault, trans. by M.  Chase, Oxford, 1995, p.  82 and 127. See also Philosophy as a Way of life: Ancient and Moderns, Essays in Honor of Pierre Hadot, ed.  by M.  Chase, S. R. L. Clark, M.  McGhee, Chichester (West Sussex), 2013. 3  Just., Dial. 3, 4 (Dialogus cum Tryphone, ed.  by M.  Marcovich, Berlin, 1997 (Patristische Texte und Studien, 47), p.  75): Φιλοσοφία μέν, ἦν δ᾿ἐγώ, ἐπιστήμη ἐστὶ τοῦ ὄντος, καὶ τοῦ ἀληθοῦς ἐπίγνωσις· εὐδαιμονία δὲ, ταῦτης τῆς ἐπιστήμης καὶ τῆς σοφίας γἐρας. See  L.  W. Barnard, Justin Martyr: His Life and Thought, Cambridge, 1967, p. 27; E. F. Osborn, Justin Martyr, Tübingen, 1973 (Beiträge zur Historischen Theologie, 47), p. 99. 4  Tert., Praescr. 7, 9 (CCSL 1, p. 193). 5  Tert., Apol. 50, 13 (CCSL 1, p. 171). 6  For the secondary literature on spiritual training in the works of Augustine, see J. Leclerq, “Exercises spirituels”, in Dictionnaire de spiritualité, ascétique et mystique, 4/2, Paris, 1961, col. 1903–1908; P. Agaësse, “Exercitatio animi”, in Oeuvres de Saint Augustin, Bibliothèque Augustinienne, 2 

augustine’s

sermones a d populum

431

the evidence for the multiplicity of Christian and/or pagan identities in Augustine’s Sermones ad populum, and more, in particular, to shed light on the occasions in which he made use of these multiple religious identities when speaking of spiritual training. I will first examine instances where Augustine referred to the Christian code of behaviour in his preaching, after which I will analyse how he understood the concept of spiritual training within a Christian perspective. Finally, I will consider spiritual training from the viewpoint of its significance and its limitations in constructing the Christian identity that Augustine hoped to foster in his NorthAfrican community.

16, 19912 , pp. 612–14; L. Ayres, “The Christological Context of Augustine’s De Trinitate XIII: Toward Relocating Books VIII–XV”, Augustinian Studies, 29 (1998), pp. 111–39; G. Madec, “Exercitatio animi”, in Augustinus-Lexikon, 2, Basel, 1996–2002, col. 1182–1183; N. Kamimura, “Augustine’s First Exegesis and the Divisions of Spiritual Life”, Augustinian Studies, 36 (2005), pp. 421–32; K. Pollmann, “Augustine’s Hermeneutics as a Universal Discipline?”, in Augustine and the Disciplines: From Cassiciacum to Confessions, ed. by K. Pollmann, M.  Vessey, Oxford, 2005, pp.  206–31; M.  Claes, “Limitations to Exercitatio mentis: Changes in Rhetorical Style in Augustine’s Dialogues”, Augustiniana, 57 (2007), pp. 387–98; W. Otten, “Religion as Exercitatio Mentis: A  Case for Theology as a Humanist Discipline”, in Christian Humanism: Essays in Honour of Arjo Vanderjagt, ed. by A. A. McDonald, Z. R. W. M. von Martels, J. R. Veenstra, Leiden, 2009 (Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions, 142), pp.  59–74; P.  Kolbet, Augustine and the Cure of Souls: Revising a Classical Ideal, Notre Dame, 2010 (Christianity and Judaism in Antiquity Series, 17); B. Stock, Augustine’s Inner Dialogue: The Philosophical Soliloquy in Late Antiquity, Cambridge, 2010; B. Stock, “Self, Soliloquy, and Spiritual Exercises in Augustine and Some Later Authors”, Journal of Religion, 91.1 (2011), pp. 5–23; X. Pavie, Exercices spirituels: leçons de la philosophie antique, Paris, 2012; D. A. Napier, En Route to the Confessions: The Roots and Development of Augustine’s Philosophical Anthropology, Leuven, 2013 (Late Antique History and Religion, 6); N. Kamimura, “Spiritual Narratives and Divine Providence: Spiritual Training in Augustine’s City of God”, Patristica, supplementary vol. 4 (2014), pp.  43–58; M.  Claes, “St Augustine’s Exercitatio mentis and its Function in Mystagogy: Opening up the Individual for Exercises in Communal Thinking and Living”, in Seeing through the Eyes of Faith: New Approaches to the Mystagogy of the Church Fathers, ed. by P. van Geest, Leuven, 2016 (Late Antique History and Religion, 11).

432

naoki kamimura

1. Problems with the Christian identity a. Inclusion of identities My account of the Christian identity begins with an examination of Augustine’s claim made in two sermons preached around the same period, that there should be no division within the community of the faithful. He advocated the constitution of a unified Christian identity. In sermo 352A (= Dolbeau 14; 397 AD; Carthage7 ) Augustine dealt with Marc. 1,  15: “Repent and believe in the gospel.” Augustine regarded this as a twofold call. After explaining that the second imperative, “believe in the gospel,” was addressed to pagans, he turned his attention to the first command in the passage. He stated that, although “there is no one, I take it, listening to me in this congregation, who does not yet believe in the gospel,”8 there were two groups present in the congregation who were called upon to repent: catechumens and the faithful who lived in a negligent way. Augustine then proceeded to refer to the 7  Dolbeau: after 396, Gryson: probably 413/14, Hill: 397, Hombert: around 413–14?, Rebillard: 397. For a chronological survey of Augustine’s sermons, see A. Kunzelmann, “Die Chronologie der Sermones des Hl. Augustinus”, in Miscellanea Agosti­ niana, t.  2, Rome, 1931, pp.  417–520; O.  Perler, J.-L. Maier, Les voyages de saint Augustin, Paris, 1969 (Collection des Études Augustiniennes. Série Antiquité, 36); P.-P. Verbraken, Études critiques sur les sermons authentiques de saint Augustin, Steenbrugis-Hagae Comitis, 1976 (Instrumenta Patristica et Mediaevalia, 12), pp.  53–196; The Works of Saint Augustine, A translation for the 21st Century, Sermons, III/1–11, ed. by J. E. Rotelle, trans. by E.  Hill, Brooklyn (New York), 1990–1997; É.  Rebillard, “Sermones”, in Augustine through the Ages, ed. by A. D. Fitzgerald, Grand Rapids (Michigan), 1999, pp.  773–92; P.-M.  Hombert, Nouvelles recherches de chronologie augustinienne, Paris, 2000 (Collection des Études Augustiniennes. Série Antiquité, 163); R. Gryson, Répertoire général des auteurs ecclésiastiques latins de l’antiquité et du haut Moyen Âge, mise à jour du Verzeichnis der Sigel für Kirchenschriftsteller commencé par B. Fischer, continué par H. J. Frede, t. I: Introduction: Répertoire des auteurs: A-H, Freiburg, 20075 (Vetus Latina, Die Reste der altlateinischen Bibel, 1/15), pp. 231–69; F. Dolbeau, Augustin d’Hippone: Vingt-six sermons au peuple d’Afrique, Paris, 2009 2 (Collection des Études Augustiniennes. Série Antiquité, 147). 8  s. 352A (= Dolbeau 14), 3 (F. Dolbeau, Vingt-six sermons [n. 7], p. 108): Nemo me, ut opinor, audit in hac multitudine, qui in euangelium nondum credit. For the English translation of Augustine’s sermons, see E. Hill, WSA III/1–11.

augustine’s

sermones a d populum

433

possible objection of a complaining catechumen: “A catechumen can answer me, ‘Why say Repent to us? First, let me become one of the faithful, and perhaps I will live a good life, and I will not have to be a penitent.’”9 Quoting Acts 2, 37–38 as an exhortation to lead a life of repentance (“Repent, and be baptized, each one of you, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ”), Augustine encouraged the audience to respond to the gospel’s call for repentance: “I will say to both sorts [scil. the catechumens and those leading a lascivious life]: ‘Change your way of life, in case you lose your life. Condemn past sins, fear the evil things that are going to come, hope for the good things.’”10 In his moral preaching, Augustine includes both the catechumeni and the neglegentes fideles in his treatment of all Christians.11 His emphasis on a common identity for his congregation can also be observed in sermo 301A (= Denis 17; c.  401 AD;12 Bulla Regia, an inland town in Numidia about 130 miles west of Carthage,13 where Augustine may have stopped on his way back from

9  s. 352A (= Dolbeau 14), 4 (F. Dolbeau, Vingt-six sermons [n. 7], p. 109): Catechumenus respondet mihi: ‘Quare nobis dicis: Paenitemini? Prius sim fidelis, et forte bene uiuam, et paenitens non ero’. 10  s. 352A (= Dolbeau 14), 5 (F. Dolbeau, Vingt-six sermons [n. 7], p. 110): Iam ergo ad utrosque loquar: Mutate uitam, ne perdatis uitam. Praeterita peccata damnate, futura mala metuite et bona sperate. 11  For the fact that the audience included various kinds of people from various categories of North-African society, see e.g. W. Harmless, Augustine and the Catechumenate, Collegeville (Minnesota), 20152 , pp. 188–89. Another point to note is that the statistical analysis of the addressees of his sermons and letters shows that Augustine did not make catechumens the prime target of his preaching: W. Harmless, Augustine and the Catechumenate, pp. 227– 29, 229–32 for Chart 4, “Sermons (and Letters) Addressed to Catechumens”. 12  Gryson: 1 Aug. 399, Hill: 399, Kunzelmann: 1 Aug. before 400, Perler: 1 Aug. 399, Rebillard: 1 Aug. before 400 [n. 7]. For the dating of s. 301A, see also É. Rebillard, “Late Antique Limits of Christianness; North Africa in the Age of Augustine”, in Group Identity and Religious Individuality in Late Antiquity [n. 1], pp. 293–318, p. 298 n. 2. 13  For Bulla Regia (Hammam Daradji, in Tunisia), see C. Lepelley, Les cités de l’Afrique Romaine au Bas-Empire, 1: La permanence d’une civilisation municipale, Paris, 1979, pp. 377–78; C. Lepelley, Les cités de l’Afrique Romaine au Bas-Empire, 2: Notices d’histoire municipale, Paris, 1981, p. 87. See also S. Lancel, “Bulla Regia”, in Augustinus-Lexikon, 1, Basel, 1992, col. 684–86.

434

naoki kamimura

Carthage).14 Augustine reminded his audience in this sermon that Bulla Regia is a small town and culturally different from the great city of Carthage, with a large pagan presence still, where Christians thus could easily find an excuse for participating in certain pagan sins. However, he pointed out that the Christians of Bulla Regia were sensitive about their municipal status. Augustine compared this sensitivity with that of other North-African Christian communities, particularly that of Carthage. He bore in mind a possible objection: “Perhaps you will say, ‘We are like Carthage.’ Just as there is a holy and religious community in Carthage, so also there is such a vast population in a great metropolis, that they all use others to excuse themselves. In Carthage, you can say: ‘The pagans do it, the Jews do it;’ here, whoever is doing it, Christians are doing it.”15 In fact, Bulla Regia was not Christianised to such a high degree as the neighbouring town of Simittu,16 where, at the request of the local bishop, Augustine engaged with the problem of Christians’ active participation in civic festivities. It is interesting to note that, in his criticism of their enthusiastic attendance of theatre performances,17 Augustine condemned the false division between clergy and laity. He claimed that Christians should not encourage behaviour that was thought to be acceptable for the layperson if it was not acceptable for the clergy:

14  O.  Perler, J.-L. Maier, Les voyages de saint Augustin [n. 7], p. 227 and n. 6. 15  s.  301A (= Denis 17), 7 (Miscellanea Agostiniana, t. 1, p. 88): forte dicitis: Nos Carthagini similes sumus. Quomodo apud Carthaginem est plebs sancta et religiosa, sic tanta turba est in magna ciuitate, ut se excusent omnes de aliis. Pagani faciunt, Iudaei faciunt, potest dici Carthagine; hic, quicumque faciunt, Christiani faciunt. 16  See É. Rebillard, “Late Antique Limits of Christianness” [n. 12], p. 299 and n. 24. For the christianisation of Bulla Regia, see also J. van Oort, “Jews and Judaism in Augustine’s Sermones”, in Ministerium Sermonis: Philological, Historical, and Theological Studies on Augustine’s Sermones ad Populum, ed. by G. Partoens, A. Dupont, M. Lamberigts, Turnhout, 2009 (Instrumenta Patristica et Mediaevalia, 53), pp. 243–65, p. 261. 17  On the aspect of pagan spectacles and theatrical performances, see e.g. R. Lim, “Augustine and Roman Public Spectacles”, in A Companion to Augustine, ed.  by M.  Vessey, Chichester (West Sussex)-Malden (Massachusetts), 2012 (Blackwell Companions to the Ancient World), pp. 138–50, pp. 146–47.

augustine’s

sermones a d populum

435

And this is done by Christians; I’d rather not say, ‘and by the faithful.’ A catechumen, perhaps, has a low opinion of his worth. “I’m just a catechumen,” he says. You’re a catechumen? “Yes, a catechumen.” Do you have one forehead on which you received the sign of Christ, and another which you carry along to the theatre? Do you want to go? Change your forehead, and get along there. So, as you can’t change your forehead, don’t ruin it.18

Augustine’s insistence on the inclusion of both catechumens and the faithful into the same membership is clearly formulated: “I’m exhorting you all, addressing you all; you will see how much more honourable you will be in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ.”19 In sum, Augustine upholds a holistic and unifying vision of the Christian identity, both in a descriptive and normative way: there are no internal distinctions, and all Christians should act accordingly. b. Relation to social obligations Despite his confident assertion of a common identity for the community of the faithful, some Christians applied principles of Christian behaviour only optionally and selectively, thus making the choice of their affiliation arbitrary. In sermo 62 (c.  399 AD; preached to the Christians of Carthage20) Augustine responded to the objection that less devout Christians took part in a local feast for the tutelary genius of Carthage. Many Carthaginian citizens embraced the view that festivals served to maintain the social fab18  s. 301A (= Denis 17), 8 (Miscellanea Agostiniana, t. 1, pp. 88–89): Et hoc a christianis fit: nolo dicere, et a fidelibus. Catechuminus forte contemnit se. Catechuminus, inquit, sum. Catechuminus es? Catechuminus. Alia frons tua accepit Christi signum, et aliam tollis ad theatrum? Ire uis? Muta frontem, et uade. Ergo frontem, quam non potes mutare, noli perdere. 19  s.  301A (= Denis 17), 8 (Miscellanea Agostiniana, t. 1, p. 89): Omnes exhortor, omnes alloquor: uidebitis quam honestiores eritis in nomine domini nostri Iesu Christi. 20  Gryson: 403/04, Hill: 399 or 407/8, Kunzelmann: no later than 399, Perler: 399, Rebillard: 399 [n. 7]. For the chronological range of s.  62, see É.  Rebillard, “Augustin et le culte des statues”, in Ministerium Sermonis [n. 16], pp. 299–325, p. 317 n. 80. See also L. Dossey, Peasant and Empire in Christian North Africa, Berkeley, 2010 (Transformation of the Classical Heritage, 47), p. 287, n. 83; L.  De Coninck, B.  Coppieters’t Wallant, R.  Demeulenaere, “À propos de la datation des sermones ad populum: s. 51–70A”, in Ministerium Sermonis [n. 16], pp. 49–67, p. 61 and n. 58.

436

naoki kamimura

ric of the city. Christian defenders of festival participation argued that they were able to attend pagan rituals without undermining their own faith. However, fanatic Christians opposed any participation in festivals. As a result, conflicts arose between those who opposed and those who defended the participation of Christians in pagan festivities. Augustine had to take a stand on the issue,21 and he did so with an exposition on I Cor. 8, 10–12, the pericope about consuming meat offered to idols. In this Pauline passage, Christians are rebuked for attending banquets at pagan temples. Augustine examined how Paul settled the moral issue of eating meat sacrificed to idols and concluded that the “strong” who claimed that their conscience was not troubled by eating food offered to idols nonetheless caused difficulty for the “weak”, who would be led astray by idol worship: Do you ever wonder how people may be led astray by images, which they imagine are being honoured by Christians? “God knows my mind,” he says. But your brother doesn’t know your mind. If you are weak yourself, beware of catching a worse illness still; if you are strong, be careful of your brother’s weakness.22

Along with dismissing the possibility that all Christians could be “strong”, Augustine enjoined those who were “strong” not to make a display of the strength of their faith. He seized the opportunity to draw attention to the internal attitude of the “strong” Chris21  For a detailed discussion of Christians’ participation in banquets and s.  62, see É. Rebillard, “Augustin et le culte des statues” [n. 20], pp. 313– 17. See further D. Riggs, “The Continuity of Paganism between the Cities and Countryside of Late Roman Africa”, in Urban Centers and Rural Contexts in Late Antiquity, ed. by T. S. Burns, J. W. Eadie, East Lansing (Michigan), 2001, pp. 285–300; É. Rebillard, “‘Vivre avec les païens, mais non mourir avec eux’: le problème de la commensalité des chrétiens et des non-chrétiens (Ier-Ve siècles)”, in Les frontières du profane dans l’antiquité tardive, ed. by É.  Rebillard, C.  Sotinel, Rome, 2010 (Collection de l’École française de Rome, 428), pp.  151–76, pp.  174–76; M.  Kahlos, “Pacifiers and Instigators: Bishops and Interreligious Conflicts in Late Antiquity”, in The Role of the Bishop in Late Antiquity: Conflict and Compromise, ed. by J. Fernández Ubiña, A. Dounton-Fear, M. Marcos, London, 2013, pp. 63–82. 22  s. 62, IV, 7 (CCSL 41Aa, p. 302): Quomodo putatis decipi posse simulacris homines, quae a christianis honorari putant? “Nouit”, inquit, “Deus cor meum.” Sed frater tuus non nouit cor tuum! Si infirmus es, caue maiorem aegritudinem; si firmus es, cura fratris infirmitatem.

augustine’s

sermones a d populum

437

tians towards their fellow Christians. Augustine emphasised that Christians should strive for and maintain the internal unity of their community. In the latter part of the sermon, Augustine developed a fictitious dialogue with a member of his congregation in which the congregant offered a plausible excuse for his attendance of sacrificial banquets. He justified his involvement as satisfying a patron’s demands, stating he had to fulfil the social obligation of the relationship between patron and client: “‘But I’m afraid,’ you will say, ‘lest I offend a superior.’”23 However, since it was a religious event, 24 Augustine maintained that there was no legitimate excuse for a Christian’s participation. The sermon offers two points of interest. On the one hand, after interpreting the invitation from patrons as a test to see if the faithful will worship idols, 25 Augustine drew attention to another aspect: without disregarding the pagan authorities in the social sphere, he stressed the need for a higher authority in the Christians’ devotional lives.26 On the other hand, Augustine asserted that refusing a patron’s invitation did not pose a serious threat to the Christians.27 He compared the patron with the persecutor in pagan times: “The martyrs endured the butchery of their limbs, and are Christians going to dread the wrongs of a Christian age? The one who does you wrong now does it timidly.”28 In reality, when the patron invited the Christian to attend a feast, whether public or private, those involved in the patronage relationship did not face the difficulty of choosing between two conflicting options. They expressed less concern about the religious principle of behaviour than implied by Augustine. Thus, because of the unnecessary emphasis placed on pres23  s.  62, 5, 8 (CCSL 41Aa, p. 302): “Sed timeo”, inquies, “ne offendam maiorem.” Slightly adapted from Hill’s translation. 24  For the difference of opinion between Augustine and his congregation, see É. Rebillard, “Late Antique Limits of Christianness” [n. 12], pp. 297– 98. 25  s. 62, 12 (CCSL 41Aa, p. 307). 26  s. 62, 13 (CCSL 41Aa, p. 308). 27  s. 62, 14 (CCSL 41Aa, p. 309). 28  s.  62, 10, 15 (CCSL 41Aa, p. 310): Laniatus membrorum martyres pertu­ lerunt, et timent christiani iniurias temporum christianorum! Qui tibi facit iniuriam, modo timens facit.

438

naoki kamimura

sure from patrons, it appears that Augustine recognised the vitality of the pagan cult within society and encouraged Christians to distance themselves from paganism. Due to cultural demands, however, some Christians preferred to continue to fulfil their civic obligations, as the occasion required. In addition to unity, coherence thus is the second characteristic of the Christian identity: as there is no internal division amongst Christians, Christians should not make an external distinction between their Christian identity and possible other commitments. The Christian identity is all encompassing, colours and determines all aspects of one’s life. The next paragraph will exemplify this even more. c. Christians on their deathbed Christian behaviour in North Africa was heavily influenced by specific contexts.29 In the situations Augustine described in his sermons, the influence of immediate, small social networks significantly determined the actions of community members. 30 Regardless of religious affiliation, North Africans were more concerned about the intersection of family, friends and neighbourhood. The primary attention of Christians appeared to be devoted to these direct community relationships. Augustine’s encounter with them, therefore, prompted him to consider how Christians should associate their Christian identity with the principles of behaviour and practices determined by their immediate surroundings. It is interesting to note that, when he reminded the congregation of the impor-

For a comprehensive survey of North African Christianity and its various environments, see e.g. C. Lepelley, Les cités de l’Afrique Romaine au Bas-Empire [n. 13]; F. Decret, Le christianisme en Afrique du Nord ancienne, Paris, 1996; L. Dossey, Peasant and Empire in Christian North Africa [n. 20]; C. P. Jones, Between Pagan and Christian, Cambridge (Massachusetts), 2014; J. P. Burns, R. M. Jensen, in collaboration with G. W. Clarke et al., Christianity in Roman Africa: The Development of its Practices and Beliefs, Grand Rapids (Michigan), 2014. 30  For the direct and indirect influence on the mode of behaviour and thought, see n. 1. See also L. R. Rambo, Understanding Religious Conversion, New Haven, 1993; L. R. Rambo, “Psychology of Conversion and Spiritual Transformation”, Pastoral Psychology, 61.5  (2012), pp.  879–94; D.  Y. Kim, Understanding Religious Conversion: The Case of Saint Augustine, Eugene (Oregon), 2012. 29 

augustine’s

sermones a d populum

439

tance of the determination of practices by their Christian identity, he referred to the example of a Christian on his deathbed who refused to be treated by charms and magical remedies for illness. 31 In Sermo 286 (428 AD; near Hippo Regius at a memoria dedicated to two Milanese martyrs, Protasius and Gervasius 32) Augustine related a story to the congregation:33 A believer is lying in bed, wracked with pain […]; along comes trial and temptation by tongue; either some female, or a man […] approaches the sickbed, and says to the sick man, “Tie on that amulet, and you will get better; let them apply that charm, and you will get better. So-and-so, and So-and-so and So-and-so; ask, they all got better by using it.” He doesn’t yield, he doesn’t agree, he doesn’t give his consent; he has to struggle, all the same. 34

Augustine repeatedly employed the theme of the martyr in his sermons because he delivered many of his sermons on the feast days of martyrs. 35 One of the key messages of sermo 286 is that 31  See R. B. Eno, Saint Augustine and the Saints, Villanova, 1989 (The Saint Augustine Lecture 1985), pp. 62–63; É. Rebillard, Christians and Their Many Identities [n. 1], pp. 74–75. 32  Gryson: 19 June, not before 425, Hill: 428, Kunzelmann: 19 June, 425 at the earliest, Perler: 19 June, 426/30, Rebillard: 19 June after 425 [n. 7]. For the dating and place, see also WSA III/8, p. 105, n. 1. 33  For Augustine’s story of those who resisted superstitious remedies on their deathbed, see also ss. 4, 36 (CCSL 41, pp. 47–48); 306E (= Dolbeau 18), 7–8 (F. Dolbeau, Vingt-six sermons [n. 7], pp. 215–16); 318, 3 (PL 38, col. 1439–1440); 328 (= Lambot 13), 8 (Revue Bénédictine, 51, p. 19). 34  s. 286, 7 (PL 38, col. 1300–1301): Iacet fidelis in lecto, torquetur doloribus, […] uenit linguae tentatio, accedit ad lectum aut muliercula aliqua, aut uir, […] et dicit aegroto, Fac illam ligaturam, et sanus eris: adhibeatur illa praecantatio, et sanus eris. Ille et ille et ille, interroga, sani inde facti sunt. Non cedit, non obtemperat, non cor inclinat; certat tamen. For Augustine’s criticism of the superstitious practices and ligatura, see further doctr. chr. 2, 20, 30; en. Ps. 33, s.  2, 18; en. Ps. 50, 8; en. Ps. 93, 20; en. Ps. 70, s.  1, 17; en. Ps. 136, 21; ep. 254, 2; Io. eu. tr. 7, 12; s. 260D (= Guelf. 18), 2; s. 318, 3; s. 328 (= Lambot 13), 8. See F. van der Meer, Saint Augustin: pasteur d’âmes, v. 1, Paris, 1959, pp. 108–14; R. Markus, “Augustine on Magic: A  Neglected Semiotic Theory”, in Signs and Meaning: World and Text in Ancient Christianity, Liverpool, 1996, pp. 125–46, for the limited meaning of the conventional superstitions; W. E. Klingshirn, “Divination and the Disciplines of Knowledge according to Augustine”, in Augustine and the Disciplines [n. 6], pp. 113–40, pp. 130–34. 35  For Augustine’s views on martyrdom and its theological aspects, see e.g. C.  Lambot, “Les sermons de saint Augustine pour les fêtes des martyrs,”

440

naoki kamimura

the interior imitation of the martyrs’ virtues is a worthy celebration of the martyrs. He encouraged the congregation to follow the exemplary figures of the martyrs in their suffering, though he affirmed that there is no physical persecution anymore. 36 Thus, the focus of this sermon is not on the physical threat of persecution but rather on the internal aspect of suffering, death and the divine promise of eternal life. Detailing the martyr’s fight against sin and allurement, Augustine described the narrative of a Christian on his sickbed: “He has no strength, and he conquers the devil. He becomes a martyr on his sickbed, and he is crowned by the one who hung for him on the tree.”37 The people surrounding the dying man may have been pagans, because Augustine compared them to the devil, against whose hidden and powerful forces the man struggled inwardly. However, Augustine did not explicitly explain their religious affiliation. It is likely that the dying man was surrounded by a group of people whose actions were principally influenced by their local and traditional rituals. In sermo 335D (= Lambot 6; c.  424–25 AD; Hippo Regius, perhaps a suburban parish38) Augustine instructs his congregation on how they could share the benefits of martyrdom. Here too, the appeal to imitate the martyrs is vividly illustrated by a critically Analecta Bollandiana, 67 (1949), pp. 249–66; G. Lapointe, La célébration des martyrs en Afrique d’après les sermons de saint Augustin, Montréal, 1972 (Cahiers de Communauté Chrétienne, 8); J. den Boeft, “‘Martyres sunt, sed homines fuerunt’: Augustine on Martyrdom”, in Fructus Centesimus, Mélanges offerts à G. J. M. Bartelink à l’occasion de son soixante-cinquième anniversaire, ed. by A. A. R. Bastiaensen, A.  Hilhorst, C.  H. Kneepkens, Steenbrugge-Dordrecht, 1989, pp. 115–24; A. Dupont, “Imitatio Christi, Imitatio Stephani. Augustine’s Thinking on Martyrdom based on his Sermones on the Protomartyr Stephen”, Augustiniana, 56/1–2 (2006), pp. 29–61; A. Dupont, Preacher of Grace: A Critical Reappraisal of Augustine’s Doctrine of Grace in his Sermones ad populum on Liturgical Feasts and during the Donatist Controversy, Leiden, 2014 (Studies in the History of Christian Traditions, 177), pp. 137–59. 36  s.  306B (= Denis 18), 6 (Miscellanea Agostiniana, t. 1, p. 96): Et certe tempus est pacis; s. 305A (= Denis 13), 2 (Miscellanea Agostiniana, t. 1, p. 57): Verumtamen, quamuis alio sit tempore pax, alio persecutio, deest alicui tempori occulta? 37  s. 286, 7 (PL 38, col. 1301): Vires non habet, et diabolum uincit. Fit martyr in lecto, coronante illo qui pro illo pependit in ligno. 38  Gryson: feast of martyrs, Hill: in or after 424 or 425?, Verbraken: feast of martyrs [n. 7].

augustine’s

sermones a d populum

441

ill patient, lying on his sickbed. When those who had gathered at the bedside learned that the patient’s health had deteriorated even further, they asked diviners and astrologers for help and the latter suggested healing charms: But the one who says, “I won’t do it” – when a friend suggests it, a neighbour mutters something about it, or a neighbour’s maid, sometimes even his own old nurse – who says, “I won’t do it; I’m a Christian. God prohibits this sort of thing. These are the sacraments of demons. Listen to the apostle: I do not wish you to become the associates of demons (I Cor. 10, 20)” – well, he gets this answer from the one who is suggesting it: “Do it, and you’ll get well. So-and-so and such-and-such did it. What? Aren’t they Christians? Aren’t they believers? Don’t they hurry off to church? And yet they did it and got well. 39

In the final part of the sermon, Augustine again recounted the superstitious behaviour of the old nurse: “[...] a neighbour at your bedside, and a friend and a maid, even perhaps, as I said, your old nurse, bringing wax and an egg in her hand and saying, ‘Do this and get better. Why prolong your illness? Tie on this amulet. I heard someone invoke the name of God and the angels over it and you will get better’.”40 It was not specified whether or not the old nurse was a Christian, nor if she was aware that some Christians refused to tie amulets on their bodies. All the same, this example makes clear that old, pagan, customs were not easy to eradicate, certainly in a situation when one’s life was at stake. Being Christian meant embracing a way of life that excluded certain traditions, traditions that were perhaps cherished for generations. The Christian identity equals a total commitment, in all circumstance of life, also in the most extreme or difficult ones.

39  s. 335D (= Lambot 6), 3 (PLS 2, p. 778): Qui autem dicit: non facio – suggerente amico, et mussitante uicino aut uicina ancilla, aliquando et de matricula ei‹us› – qui dicit: non facio: christianus sum; deus prohibet hoc; sacramenta sunt daemonum; audi apostolum: nolo uos socios fieri daemoniorum, respondetur illi ab illo qui suggerit: fac et sanus eris; ille et ille fecerunt. quid? non christiani? non sunt fideles? non ad ecclesiam currunt? et tamen fecerunt et sani sunt. 40  s.  335D (= Lambot 6), 5 (PLS 2, p. 780): adstat uicinus et amicus et ancilla, etiam dixi, forte de matricula, ceram uel ouum manibus ferens et dicit: fac hoc et saluus eris. quid prologas tuam aegritudinem? fac hanc ligaturam. ego audiui qui nomen dei et angelorum ibi inuocat et eris sanus.

442

naoki kamimura

2. Spiritual training In addition to the negative examples and warnings listed above, Augustine referred to positive examples, Christians whose religious identity produced no conflict with their social and communal obligations, Christians who “activate different allegiances, depending on the different contexts of interaction.”41 There seems to have been minimal conscious tension between religious and secular activities in the community of the faithful, aside from Augustine’s own continued tension regarding how to foster a Christian way of living. As a bishop who confronted the vicissitudes of his congregation, Augustine was eager to relate a Christian identity with fully formed and unique principles of action. But how did he show his congregation the significance and necessity of spiritual training? While in the first part I sketched Augustine’s negative demarcation of the Christian identity – i. e. which practices Christians should avoid –, now I will explore how he gives a positive and active content to it, i. e. his understanding of Christian spiritual exercises. a. Ascetic aspects The Indiculum of Possidius lists five sermons delivered by Augustine under the subheading “Tractatus aduersus memoratos” within the group entitled “Contra Manicheos”.42 Three of these homilies have been identified by scholars, as sermones 1, 50, and 12, and two remain to be discovered.43 Sermo 50 (c.  394–95 AD; location unknown) is the second anti-Manichaean sermon in Possidius’

41  É.  Rebillard, “Religious Sociology: Being Christian in the Time of Augustine”, in A Companion to Augustine [n. 17], p. 52. 42  A.  Wilmart, “Operum  S. Augustini elenchus a Possidio eiusdem discipulo Calamensi episcopo digestus”, in Miscellanea Agostiniana, t. 2, p. 167. 43  J. BeDuhn, Augustine’s Manichaean Dilemma, vol. 2: Making a “Catholic” Self, 388–401 C.E., Philadelphia, 2013 (Divinations: Rereading Late Ancient Religion), p. 456, n. 7. For the relationship between s.  50 and c. Adim., see A. C. De Veer, “La date des sermons I, XII et L de saint Augustin”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 15 (1969), pp. 241–46; N. Baker-Brian, Manichaeism in the Later Roman Empire: A Study of Augustine’s Contra Adimantum, Lewiston (New York), 2009, pp. 211–18.

augustine’s

sermones a d populum

443

list.44 In this sermon, Augustine interpreted Agg. 2,  9: “Mine is the gold and mine is the silver.” Augustine began by criticising the reductionist Manichaean exegesis of the outwardly contradicting verses. Manichaeans regarded the mammon of iniquity in Luc. 16, 9 as the root of avarice, and drew a parallel between it and the gold and silver in Agg. 2, 9. Augustine replied to their critique of the prophet by indicating another way to view worldly possessions: Mine, he says, is the gold and mine is the silver, not yours, you wealthy ones of the earth. […] As the divine justice distributes its property, good deeds are thereby publicized and sins are thereby punished. Gold and silver, you see, and every kind of earthly possession are both a means of exercising humanity (humanitas) and of punishing greed. When God bestows things on good people, he shows by their example how many things are thought lightly of by the mind whose real wealth is the one who bestowed them.45

Property, according to Augustine, was bestowed by God upon those who loved God more than the mammon. Augustine’s solution emphasised the possibility that all humans (humanitas) could exercise their faith by sharing their “earthly” property. This solution could be reached without Augustine imposing severe constraints or compelling his congregation to renounce property. He did not direct attention to their physical possessions but rather towards the inward disposition of the soul.46 In the face of Manichaean asceticism, which advocated an extreme and impractical view of Gryson: 394/95, Hill: before 396, Kunzelmann: 394–95, Rebillard: 394– 95 [n. 7]. For the dating of s.  50, see also H. R. Drobner, Augustinus von Hippo, Predigten zu den alttestamentlichen Propheten (Sermones 42–50), Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung und Anmerkungen, Frankfurt, 2013 (Patrologia, 29), pp. 500–02. 45  s. 50, 2–3 (CCSL 41, pp. 625–26): Meum est, inquit, aurum, et meum est argentum, non uestrum, o diuites terrae. […] Rem suam diuina distribuente iustitia, et recte facta inde manifestantur, et peccata inde puniuntur. Namque aurum et argentum atque omnis terrena possessio et exercitatio humanitatis est et supplicium cupiditatis. Cum talia deus nobis hominibus tribuit, ostendit in eis quanta contempnat animus, cuius diuitiae sunt ipse qui tribuit. 46  P.  Allen, E.  Morgan, “Augustine on Poverty”, in Preaching Poverty in Late Antiquity: Perceptions and Realities, ed. by P. Allen, B.  Neil, W.  Mayer, Leipzig, 2009 (Arbeiten zur Kirchen- und Theologiegeschichte, 28), p. 146 (total renunciation) and pp. 132–33 (inner disposition). 44 

444

naoki kamimura

money,47 he focused on the necessity of spiritual exercises (exercitatio humanitatis) as the proper means of purging the humanitas of daily sins. Augustine’s exhortation was not only addressed to the wealthy, or the educated, or the catechumens, for example, but to the whole of his congregation. The congregants came from diverse backgrounds and Augustine did not wish to divide them into smaller subgroups, a strategy which could be explained through the pastoral intention of his preaching.48 In contrast to his theoretical and speculative writings, it is clear that Augustine’s sermons underscored the unity of the congregation and heightened awareness of common membership. Exhortation to spiritual discipline served to reinforce the solidarity of the congregation. In sermo 70 (c.  394–400 AD;49 Carthage), Augustine exposited Matth. 11, 28–30, following sermo 69 sequentially on the same passage.50 In this short sermon, after revealing profound insights into how the Apostle had to go through terrible and terrifying experiences, taken from two passages from II Cor. (6, 4; 11, 24–25), Augustine contemplated the manifold works of the Holy Spirit: “That just shows you how comfortable was the yoke of Christ he

47  For the difference between Manichaean asceticism and Augustine’s monasticism, see J. BeDuhn, Augustine’s Manichaean Dilemma, vol. 2 [n. 44], pp. 73–87. 48  For the pastoral intention of Augustine’s sermons, see H. Müller, “Preacher: Augustine and his Congregation”, in A Companion to Augustine [n. 17], pp. 297–309, p. 308; A. Dupont, “Augustine’s Homiletic Definition of Martyrdom: the Centrality of the Martyr’s Grace in his Anti-Donatist and Anti-Pelagian Sermones ad Populum”, in Christian Martyrdom in Late Antiquity (300–450 AD): History and Discourse, Tradition and Religious Identity, ed. by P. Gemeinhardt, J.  Leemans, Berlin, 2012 (Arbeiten zur Kirchengeschichte, 116), pp. 155–78, 161–62 for the pastoral intention in his anti-Donatist sermons. 49  Gryson: 395/400, Hill: 398, Perler: 2 Feb. 413, Rebillard: 2 Feb. 413 [n. 7]. For the dating of s.  70, see O.  Perler, J.-L. Maier, Les voyages de saint Augustin [n. 7], p. 312 and n. 4; L. De Coninck, B. Coppieters’t Wallant, R. Demeulenaere, “À propos de la datation des sermones ad populum: s. 51–70A” [n. 20], p. 66 and n. 83. 50  For the rhetorical strategies expressed in these sermons, see C. Bisson, “Lecture de Matthieu 11, 28–30 dans les sermons 69 et 70 de saint Augustin: de la rhétorique classique à l’éloquence chrétienne”, Québec, 2000 (Diss. Université Laval), pp. 64–155.

augustine’s

sermones a d populum

445

[scil. the Apostle Paul] bore, and how light the load.”51 Then, he stirred his congregants’ minds by showing them the burdensome requirements imposed by their vocations: the laborious yoke of the soldier, merchant and hunter. Here Augustine adds another noteworthy example of the burden that does not belong to the same vocational category: To what torments of almost daily bearings are the tender years of children subjected! Again, how they are kept at work in schools, and harried with long hours and short rations – not to learn wisdom but to learn the use of numbers and letters and clever tricks of argument for the sake of accumulating empty riches and honours!52

This example serves to remind us not only of the harsh realities of Late Antique society but also of Augustine’s personal educational experiences.53 Although he may have been critical of the object as well as of the strenuous form of his education, his statement does not necessarily imply that he invalidated the useful function of these exercises. However, more details cannot be gleaned from this sermon. Sermo 9 (c.  420 AD; Chusa54) provides an interpretation of the Decalogue by reference to the ten strings of the harp of a psal-

51  s.  70, 2 (CCSL 41Aa, p. 472): Ecce quam suaue iugum Christi portabat et quam leuem sarcinam. 52  s.  70, 2 (CCSL 41Aa, p. 473): Quantis cruciatibus prope cotidianarum plagarum tenera puerorum aetas subditur? Quantis etiam grandiusculi uigiliarum et abstinentiae molestiis exercentur, non propter discendam sapientiam sed propter opes honoresque uanitatis, ut numeros et litteras et disertas fallacias eloqui discant? 53  For his similar reminiscences on rhetorical exercises in his youth, see ep. 2*, one of the Divjak letters, addressed to Firmus. See also R. Braun, “Note complémentaire, Lettre 2*”, Oeuvres de Saint Augustin, Bibliothèque Augustinienne, 46B, 1987, pp. 427–29. 54  Gryson: Winter 403/04, Hill: 420 [n. 7]. For the dating and place of s.  9, see also C. Lambot, “Le Sermon IX de saint Augustin De decem chordis”, Revue Bénédictine, 79  (1969), pp.  129–33; O.  Perler, J.-L. Maier, Les voyages de saint Augustin [n. 7], p. 409; H. R. Drobner, Augustinus von Hippo: Predigten zu den Büchern Exodus, Könige und Job (Sermones 6–12), Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung und Anmerkungen, Frankfurt, 2003 (Patrologia, 10), pp. 155–56.

446

naoki kamimura

tery, as sermo 8 does with the ten plagues of Egypt.55 Augustine draws more extensively on the fifth and ninth commandments and proceeds to the numerological treatment of the number ten and the ten strings of the psaltery: “O God, I  will sing you a new song, on a harp of ten strings I will play to you.”56 Augustine continues with an exposition of the Decalogue: “So the decalogue relates to two commandments, that is, to love of God and neighbour. Three strings relate to the first, because God is three. But to the other commandment, that is, the love of neighbour, seven strings refer, how people should live together.”57 Then he turns his attention to Matth. 5,  25: “Come to an agreement with your adversary quickly” and to the means of coming to an agreement that is, sermo dei, with the aduersarius: But in order to keep that agreement, keep yourselves from detestable and corrupting practices, […] If any pleasure of the world creeps into your thoughts, school yourselves in works of mercy, school yourselves in almsgiving, in fasting, in prayer. These are the means of purging ourselves of the daily sins which we cannot help creeping into our thoughts because of our human weakness. 58

Augustine indicated that the means of purifying the soul are almsgiving, fasting and prayer, thus urging his congregants to 55  See T. Raveaux, “Augustinus über den jüdischen Sabbat seiner Zeit”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 28 (1982), pp. 213–24; W. Geerlings, “The decalogue in Augustine’s theology”, in The decalogue in Jewish and Christian tradition, ed. by H. G. Reventlow, Y. Hoffman, London, 2011, pp. 106–17. For the numerological interpretation in Augustine’s works, see M.  Comeau, Saint Augustin exégète du quatrième évangile, Paris, 1930, pp. 127–42, esp. p. 135 (number ten); G. Bonner, “Augustine as Biblical Scholar”, in The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1: From the Beginnings to Jerome, ed. by P. R. Ackroyd, C. F. Evans, Cambridge, 1970, pp. 541–63, pp. 559–60. 56  s. 9, 6 (CCSL 41, p. 117): Deus canticum nouum cantabo tibi, in psalterio decem chordarum psallam tibi. 57  s. 9, 7 (CCSL 41, p. 120): Ad duo itaque praecepta, id est, ad dilectionem dei et proximi pertinet decalogus. Ad primum praeceptum tres chordae pertinent, quia deus trinitas. Ad alterum uero praeceptum, id est, ad dilectionem proximi, septem chordae: quomodo uiuatur inter homines. 58  s. 9, 17 (CCSL 41, p. 141): Vt autem concordetis, abstinete uos a detestabilibus corruptelis, a detestabilibus inquisitionibus, […] Si quae delectationes saeculi subrepunt in anima, exercete uos in misericordia, exercete uos in elemosinis, in ieiuniis, in orationibus. His enim purgantur quotidiana peccata, quae non possunt nisi subrepere in anima, propter fragilitatem humanam.

augustine’s

sermones a d populum

447

spiritual discipline.59 It is inevitable that his interpretation of the divine commandment was shaped by his concern for caring for others. Here Augustine again established the correlation between spiritual discipline and solidarity amongst his congregation. Despite objections from Christians whose way of life depended upon a compromise between their religious affiliation and secular activity, Augustine claimed that the Christian identity necessitated a conversion of lifestyle. In sermo 335D (= Lambot 6), a sermon inviting the audience to imitate the martyrs, Augustine returned to the theme of the Christian on his deathbed. Augustine compared those gathered at the Christian’s deathbed to “flesh and blood […] raging against the holy martyrs”. This accusation is based on his interpretation of Eph. 6,  12: “Your conflict is not against flesh and blood.”60 According to Augustine, the “flesh” and “blood” motifs represented mortal human beings who adhered to syncretistic religious practices. Augustine urged them to harmonise their principles and concrete actions: Why is it, brother, that you are raging, why are you so churned up? It’s against me, indeed, that you’re raging, but yourself that you’re losing. Oh, if only you would change your frame of mind! Oh, if only you would change your way of life! Because we are all going to die and rise again. I, indeed, place my hope in God, for whose sake I am suffering these things.61

Similarly, in sermo 352A (= Dolbeau 14) Augustine emphasised that the congregants’ common identity enhanced the security of their future repose: Change your way of life, in case you lose your life. Condemn past sins, fear the evil things that are going to come, hope for the good 59  For this tripartite model of the ascetic exercises, see P. Allen, E. Morgan, “Augustine on Poverty” [n. 47], pp. 131–32 and n. 84; H. R. Drobner, Augustinus von Hippo [n. 55], pp. 217–18. 60  s.  335D (= Lambot 6), 3 (PLS 2, p. 779): non est uobis conluctatio aduersus carnem et sanguinem. caro enim et sanguis saeuiebat in martyribus sanctis. See A.-M.  La Bonnardière, “Le combat chrétien: Exégèse augustinienne d’Ephes. 6,12”, Revue des Études Augustiniennes, 11 (1965), pp. 235–38. 61  s.  335D (= Lambot 6), 3 (PLS 2, p. 779): quid est quod saeuis, frater, quid exagitaris? mihi quidem saeuis sed tibi peris. o si mutes mentem. o si mutes uitam! quia omnes morituri et resurrecturi sumus. ego quidem spem in deo habeo pro quo ista patior.

448

naoki kamimura things. The bad man should begin by not contradicting himself in hoping for good things, while not being good himself. You’re hoping for the good; be hope what you hope for.62

He related present disciplines for the eradication of sin to divine repose in the future. He confirmed that those who hoped for and believed in the eternal repose should also consider the current way to obtain it. Augustine referred to pagans attending his church service in sermo 360B (= Dolbeau 25; c. 404 AD63). The mass was performed after the end of the sermon after the catechumens and pagans had been dismissed. It is noteworthy that Augustine’s exhortation to “lead good lives” (bene uiuendo) 64 was repeated after the dismissal, but uttered for the first time in the middle of his discourse when the pagans and catechumens were still present. Augustine stressed the need for “the eye of the mind and heart” (oculus cordis) to be inwardly purified:65 …[M]en ought […] to behave humbly before God, to entreat their creator, to confess their sins and groan over them, to tell their doctor of their sickness so that they may be inwardly cured, and have that inner eye cleansed, with which alone that light may be seen that never can be seen as long as a man’s inner eye is still that of “man.”66

To have the “inner eye cleansed” equalled Augustine’s expectation of the audience, including pagans and catechumens, to “all live in

62  s. 352A (= Dolbeau 14), 5 (F. Dolbeau, Vingt-six sermons [n. 7], p. 110): Mutate uitam, ne perdatis uitam. Praeterita peccata damnate, futura mala metuite et bona sperate. Homo malus primo ipse sibi non contradicit ut bona speret, qui bonus non est. Bonum speras: esto quod speras. 63  Dolbeau: after 1 Jan. 404, Gryson: after the visit of Honorius, in Rome, early December 403, Hill: 404 [n. 7]. 64  s. 360B (= Dolbeau 25), 28 (F. Dolbeau, Vingt-six sermons [n. 7], p. 267). 65  s. 360B (= Dolbeau 25), 3 (F. Dolbeau, Vingt-six sermons [n. 7], p. 249). 66  s. 360B (= Dolbeau 25), 6 (F. Dolbeau, Vingt-six sermons [n. 7], p. 251): deberent homines […] humiliari deo, supplicare creatori, confiteri, gemere in peccatis, adlegare medico aegritudinem, ut sanarentur intrinsecus et oculum illum mundarent*, unde lux illa uideri potest, quae tamdiu non uidetur, quamdiu oculus interior hominis adhuc est hominis.

augustine’s

sermones a d populum

449

a manner worthy of God.”67 He insisted that being treated by the “doctor” [scil. Christ] enabled them “to be numbered among the sons of God”.68 The crucial element in the message is that the care for souls is possible only by “purifying their hearts by faith” (Act. 15, 9),69 and this begins with the effort to lead a good life. With the hope of future purification, the congregation should actively engage in and practice spiritual disciplines. To conclude, according to the preacher of Hippo, the Christian identity is not only a matter of being, but is at the same time also a matter of acting/living, and, moreover, emphasising that the latter is the result of training and discipline. In general terms, or with practical prescriptions the sermons discussed above made clear that Augustine perceives the Christian way of living as (the result of) continuous spiritual exercise. b. Exegetical aspects Augustine described cases in which Christians provided a scriptural rationale to legitimise their erroneous behaviour. In sermo 361 (c.  410–11 AD70), for instance, Augustine criticised the status quo: Christians made advantageous use of scriptural texts in order to support their participation in the parentalia festival in honour of the dead.71 They quoted the passage from Tob. 4, 17 as proof: “Break your bread and pour out your wine on the tombs 67  s.  360B (= Dolbeau 25), 28 (F. Dolbeau, Vingt-six sermons [n. 7], p. 267): uos digni deo uixeritis. 68  s.  360B (= Dolbeau 25), 15 (F. Dolbeau, Vingt-six sermons [n. 7], p. 257): ex homine fiat inter filios dei. 69  For the repetition of this passage in s.  360B and Its relation to Augustine’s focus on divine initiative to the purification of the soul, see A. Dupont, Gratia in Augustine’s Sermones ad populum during the Pelagian Controversy: Do Different Contexts Furnish Different Insights?, Leiden, 2013 (Brill’s Series in Church History, 59), pp. 155–56. See also n. 105. 70  Gryson: December 403, Hill: 411, Kunzelmann: Winter 410–11, Rebillard: winter 410–11 [n. 7]. 71  See also s.  172 and 173, 1; J. P. Burns, R.  M. Jensen, Christianity in Roman Africa [n. 29], pp. 505–06. For the parentalia and its relationship with the church, see É. Rebillard, The Care of the Dead in Late Antiquity, trans. by E. T. Rawlings, J.  Routier-Pucci, Ithaca, 2009 (Cornell Studies in Classical Philology, 59), pp. 142–53, esp. 151–52; É. Rebillard, “Commemorating the Dead in North Africa: Continuity and Change from the Second to the Fifth Century CE”, in Death and Changing Rituals: Function and Meaning

450

naoki kamimura

of the just, but do not hand it over to the unjust.”72 After objecting to the parentalia custom – “this doesn’t benefit the dead, […] it’s a custom of the pagans, […] it doesn’t flow from the channel of justice derived from our fathers the patriarchs”73 – Augustine opposed the syncretistic Christians’ allegorical interpretation. He posited that the ritual depicted in Tobit should be understood as a mass for the dead. In addition to his rejection of their effort to find parallel examples in the Bible, Augustine’s concern over the complexity and difficulty of scriptural interpretation is evident: “So nobody should try to turn a remedy into a hurt, and attempt to twist a rope from the scriptures, and with it lob a deadly noose over his own soul. It’s as plain as a pikestaff how that text should be understood, and this celebration of Christians is open and above board and entirely salutary.”74 It is noteworthy that Augustine repeatedly spoke of two aspects of studying the Scripture: first, the difficulty of scriptural interpretation, and second, the necessity of scriptural study for spiritual training. In sermo 71 (c.  419–20 AD75) he dealt with Matth. 12, 32: “Whoever speaks a word against the holy spirit will not be forgiven, neither in this age nor in the age to come.” Augustine explains the specific purpose of complex texts: Obviously, what he [scil. God] wanted to do was to exercise our minds with a difficult problem, not to deceive us with a false statement.76

in Ancient Funerary Practices, ed. by J. R. Brandt, M. Prusac, H. Roland, Oxford, 2015 (Studies in Funerary Archaeology, 7), pp. 269–86. 72  s. 361, 6 (PL 39, col. 1602): Frange panem tuum, et effunde uinum tuum super sepulcra iustorum, et ne tradas eum iniustis. 73  s.  361, 6 (PL 39, col. 1601): ad mortuos non pertinere, et consuetudinem hanc esse Paganorum, non uenire de propagine illa et uena iustitiae patrum nostrorum Patriarcharum. 74  s.  361, 6 (PL 39, col. 1602): Nemo ergo quaerat de medicina uulnus, et de Scripturis conetur torquere uinculum, unde laqueum mortis iniiciat animae suae. Manifestum est quemadmodum illud intelligatur, et aperta atque salubris est haec celebratio Christianorum. 75  Gryson: 419/20, Hill: 417–20, Hombert 419–20, Kunzelmann: 417, Rebillard: 417?, Verbraken: 417? [n. 7]. 76  s. 71, 10 (Revue Bénédictine, 75, p. 73): exercere quippe nos uoluit difficultate quaestionis, non decipere sententiae falsitate.

augustine’s

sermones a d populum

451

Actually in the whole wide field of the holy scriptures we are nourished by the passages that are clear, exercised by those that are obscure; the first kind relieve us from hunger, the second save us from boredom.77

A similar reference to dealing with difficult texts is found in sermo 363 (c.  414 AD; likely delivered in Hippo Regius around the Easter Vigil78). At the very beginning of this short sermon, Augustine once again showed the double purpose of Scriptural studies: “Our thoughts, […] in reflecting on and discussing the holy Scriptures must be guided by the indisputable authority of the same Scriptures, so that we may deal faithfully both with what is said clearly for the purpose of giving us spiritual nourishment, and what is said obscurely in order to give us spiritual exercise.”79 Here Augustine reiterated his opinion that an easily interpreted Scriptural fragment is given for nourishment while difficult passages from Scripture function as spiritual challenges. It is noteworthy that, in conjunction with this interpretative difficulty, Augustine links the literal and spiritual senses of the Scriptures.80 In sermo 4 (c.  410–19 AD81) Augustine gave a consid-

77  s. 71, 11 (Revue Bénédictine, 75, p. 75): in omni quippe copia scripturarum sanctarum pascimur apertis, exercemur obscuris; illic fames pellitur, hic fastidium. 78  Gryson: 414, probably Easter Vigil, Hill: 414, Kunzelmann: 412–16, Rebillard: Easter vigil (?) 412–16 [n. 7]. 79  s.  363, 1 (PL 39, col. 1634): Sensum nostrum, […] in Scripturis sanctis considerandis atque tractandis regere debet earumdem Scripturarum manifestissima auctoritas; ut ex eis quae aperte dicta sunt ad nutriendos nos, ea quae obscurius dicta sunt ad exercendos nos, fideliter disserantur. 80  For the secondary literature on Augustine’s literal/spiritual interpretation, see e.g. M.  Dulaey, “Sur quelques points d’exégèse figurée de l’Ancien Testament dans les sermons de Mayence”, in Augustin Prédicateur (395– 411): actes du Colloque International de Chantilly (5–7 septembre 1996), ed. by G.  Madec, Paris, 1998 (Collection des Études Augustiniennes. Série Antiquité, 159), pp.  247–66; M.  Cameron, “The Christological Substructure of Augustine’s Figurative Exegesis”, in Augustine and the Bible, ed. by P. Bright, Notre Dame, 1999 (Bible through the Ages, 2), pp. 74–103; I. Bochet, “Le firmament de l’Écriture”: l’herméneutique augustinienne, Paris, 2004 (Collection des Études Augustiniennes. Série Antiquité, 172); M.  Cameron, Christ Meets Me Everywhere: Augustine’s Early Figural Exegesis, Oxford, 2012 (Oxford Studies in Historical Theology), pp. 3–19; T. Williams, “Hermeneutics and

452

naoki kamimura

erably long commentary on the account of Jacob and Esau from Gen. 27, 1–40, the significance of which Augustine expressed at the end of the sermon.82 At the beginning of the sermon, before discussing the passage proper, Augustine contrasted two methods of interpreting Scripture: “Taken literally, of course, the reading sounds rather materialist. But anyone who has received the Spirit of God will understand it spiritually.”83 The distinction between materialistic – carnaliter – and spiritual – spiritualiter – interpretation arises consistently in Augustine’s exposition of the Scriptures.84 Here Augustine described the exercitatio animae as that which gives adequate training, enabling the exegete’s mind to make sense of what he or she does not yet understand: “The exercise of our minds in faith, hope and love makes them fit to grasp what is yet to come.”85 In sermo 23 (January 413 AD; Faustus Basilica in Carthage 86), followed by sermo 53, Augustine explored the theme of the vision of God. With regard to the significance of the spiritual discipline, Reading Scripture”, in The Cambridge Companion to Augustine, ed. by D. V. Meconi, E. Stump, Cambridge, 2014 2 , pp. 311–27. 81  Gryson: 22 Jan. 403, Hill: before 420, Kunzelmann: 22 Jan. 410–19, Rebillard: 22 Jan. 410–19 [n. 7]. For the dating of s. 4, see also H. R. Drobner, Augustinus von Hippo, Predigten zum Buch Genesis (Sermones 1–5), Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung und Anmerkungen, Frankfurt, 2000 (Patrologia, 7), pp. 93–95. 82  s. 4, 36 (CCSL 41, p. 46). See G. Nauroy, “Formes de l’exégèse pastorale chez Ambroise et Augustin: deux lectures de la rivalité entre Jacob et Ésaü”, in Saint Augustin et la Bible: actes du colloque de l’Université Paul Verlaine-Metz (7–8 avril 2005), ed. by G. Nauroy, M.-A. Vannier, Bern, 2008 (Recherches en littérature et spiritualité, 15), pp. 83–104. 83  s.  4, 1 (CCSL 41, p. 20): Et lectio quidem illa carnaliter sonat. Qui autem spiritum dei accepit spiritaliter sapit. 84  H. R. Drobner, Augustinus von Hippo [n. 82], p. 79. 85  s.  4, 1 (CCSL 41, p. 20): Exercitatio autem animae in fide, in spe et caritate, facit eum idoneum capere quod uenturum est. 86  Gryson: 20 Jan. 413, Hill: 413, Kunzelmann: 20 Jan. 413, Perler: 20 Jan. 413, Rebillard: 413 or just after 415, Verbraken: 413 [n. 7]. See also, A.  Dupont, Gratia in Augustine’s Sermones ad populum [n. 70], p. 238; J.  Yates, “Preaching a Good and Immutable God: Augustine on James 1, 17”, in Tractatio Scripturarum: Philological, Exegetical, Rhetorical, and Theological Studies on Augustine’s Sermons. Ministerium Sermonis, vol. II, ed. by A.  Dupont, G.  Partoens, M.  Lamberigts, Turnhout, 2013 (Instrumenta Patristica et Mediaevalia, 65), pp. 177–92,  188.

augustine’s

sermones a d populum

453

he starts with a reference to II Tim. 3, 16: “Every divinely inspired Scripture is useful for teaching, for reproving, for exhortation, for doctrine.”87 Here Augustine claims that the interpreters have no grounds for blaming the Scriptures, “if we happen to deviate in any way, it is because we haven’t understood it.”88 He regards the “mental exercises” as a preliminary means of spiritually interpreting the Scriptural text that “appears to speak in a crude, materialistic way in many places, though the law is always spiritual”.89 Thus, he appeals to Rom. 7, 14: “For the law, as the apostle says, is spiritual, but I am carnal.”90 In light of the difficulties Augustine saw in interpreting the text carnaliter, he emphasised the necessity and efficacy of spiritual exercises. Once again, in sermo 32 (403 AD; preached at the shrine of Saint Cyprian in Carthage91), Augustine spoke of the different kinds of Scriptural texts: easily interpreted Scripture is given for nourishment while difficult Scripture is given as a spiritual challenge. He exhorts to train spiritually through Scriptural exegesis: “[...] some things are hidden more thoroughly in the Scriptures in order to stretch and test the students, while others are set there openly and ready to hand for the immediate treatment of the patients.”92 Although Psalm 144 includes many hidden meanings in it, which Augustine addressed later in this sermon, he initially encouraged the congregation to overcome the difficulties to understand this complicated Psalm at face value. The same exhortation is given in sermones 4 and 23.

87  s. 23, 3 (CCSL 41, p.  310): Omnis Scriptura diuinitus inspirata utilis est ad docendum, ad arguendum, ad exhortationem, ad doctrinam. 88  s.  23, 3 (CCSL 41, p. 310): si nos forte, illa non intellecta, in aliquo deuiemus. 89  s. 23, 3 (CCSL 41, p. 310): in multis locis uelut carnaliter loquitur, cum lex semper spiritalis sit. 90  s.  23, 3 (CCSL 41, p. 310): Lex enim, ut ait apostolus, spiritalis est, ego autem carnalis sum. 91  Gryson: 17 Sept. 403, Hill: 403, Kunzelmann: end of Sept. 403, Perler: 17 Sept. 403, Rebillard: 403 [n. 7]. 92  s.  32, 1 (CCSL 41, p. 398): alia secretius in scripturis absconduntur ut quaerentes exerceant, alia uero in promptu et in manifestatione ponuntur ut desiderantes curent.

454

naoki kamimura

Sermo 140 (c.  427–28 AD; preached on Christmas day93) shows the correlation between exercising the mind and Scriptural hermeneutics. At the close of the sermon, Augustine concluded that the gospel “puts our minds through their paces, planes them smooth and defleshes them, to make sure we think about God in a spiritual, not a fleshly, material way”.94 Here again, the spiritual interpretation is contrasted with the interpretation of the term carnaliter. In some sermons, Augustine explained spiritual training from a perspective that did not directly correspond to a literal or spiritual understanding of the Scriptures. In sermo 80 (c.  410 AD95) before delving into Matth. 17,  18–20, Augustine alluded twice to Matth. 7,  7, “Ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, knock, and it will be opened.”96 He used this verse to justify his expectation that his congregation would grasp what is said in the Scriptures and that they would be humbled when they encountered difficult passages of Scripture. “See how they were carrying their hearts, so to say, to the wellhead, and knocking to get it opened up, so that they may fill them up there. He wants to make them knock at his door in order to exercise them in desiring, not to rebuff them in their knocking.”97 Humble submission to the Scriptures and commitment to true interpretation, according 93  Gryson: 427/28, Hill: 428, Kunzelmann: Christmas 427–28, Rebillard: 427–28 [n. 7]. For Augustine’s sermons delivered on 25 December, see A. Dupont, “Augustine’s Preaching on December 25: Gratia in Augustine’s Sermones ad Populum on Christmas”, in Tractatio Scripturarum [n. 87], pp. 355–71. 94  s. 140, 6 (PL 38, col. 775): Exercet mentes […] limat et excarnat, ut de Deo non carnaliter, sed spiritualiter sapiamus. 95  Gryson: near 410, Hill: 410, Kunzelmann: near 410, Rebillard: near 410 [n. 7]. 96  s.  80, 1 (PL 38, col. 494) and 80, 2 (PL 38, col. 494). For the crucial function of Matth. 7,  7 in Augustine’s search for the truth and God, see e.g., N. G. Knauer, “Peregrinatio animae: Zur Frage der Einheit der augustinischen Konfessionen”, Hermes, 85 (1957), pp. 216–48; K. Kienzler, “Der Aufbau der ‘Confessiones’ des Augustinus im Spiegel der Bibelzitate”, Recherches Augustiniennes, 24 (1989), pp. 123–64; L. C. Ferrari, “Doorways of Discovery, in Augustine’s ‘Confessions’”, Augustinus, 39 (1994), pp. 149–64. 97  s.  80, 1 (PL 38, col. 494): Videte si non corda sua quasi ad fontem portabant, et ut eis unde implerent, aperiretur, pulsabant. Pulsari ad se uoluit, non ut repelleret pulsantes, sed ut exerceret desiderantes.

augustine’s

sermones a d populum

455

to Augustine, enabled the exegete to exercise spiritually. In the conclusion of sermo 71, he spoke of these exercises for pious and devoted exegetes, then assigned two different tasks to them: first, “to see what needed to be understood”, and second, “to explain it if I did understand”.98 The start of the sermo 156, preached two days after sermo 155 (419 AD99), is concerned with these exercises in general and explains their effects. Once again, Augustine alluded to Matth. 7, 7, as in sermo 81: The depths of meaning in the word of God are there to excite our eagerness to study, not to prevent us from understanding. If everything was locked up in riddles, there would be no clue to the opening up of obscure passages. Again, if everything was hidden, there would be nothing for the soul to derive nourishment from, and so gain the strength which would enable it to knock at the closed doors.100

The endeavours an exegete has to undertake to understand the Bible thus represent the efforts of Christians to live according to their Christian identity. The parallel even goes further: exegetes should look for the spiritual interpretation of Scriptures just as Christians should avoid a carnal way of living, the latter being the result of training one’s mind to have a spiritual disposition. By comparing the attempt to live in a Christian way – the spiritual exercises that constitute the core of the Christian identity – with reading a difficult passage from Scripture, Augustine explains to his flock that the said Christian way of life and training are all but easy. The fact that they are quite difficult and hard precisely guarantee the fact that they at the same time are a good training and demand a lot of training. Again, as noticed before, being a Christian demands complete commitment. 98  s.  71, 38 (Revue Bénédictine, 75, p. 108): uel intelligenda conspicere, uel intellecta explicare. 99  Hill: 419, Kunzelmann: Thu. 17 Oct. 418, Perler: 17 Oct. 419, Rebillard: Oct. 417, Partoens/Lössl: 17 Oct. 417 or May 418 [n. 7]. See J. Lössl, “Introduction”, in CCSL 41Ba, 2008, pp. 9–172, 44–46. 100  s.  156, 1 (CCSL 41Ba, p. 135): Verbi dei altitudo exercet studium, non denegat intellectum. Si enim omnia clausa essent, nihil esset unde reuelarentur obscura. Rursus si omnia tecta essent, non esset unde alimentum perciperet anima et haberet uires quibus posset ad clausa pulsare.

456

naoki kamimura

c. Comprehensive aspects Providing further insight into the inner dynamics of spiritual life, Augustine addresses a more comprehensive frame of the Christian life, the deepening of the spiritual discernment through the transformation of the self, and the role of divine grace. With reference to his view on spiritual discipline, Augustine’s attitude towards the depth of the soul’s awareness was influenced by the Christian tradition of the ascending stages of spiritual maturity.101 This tradition depicted the ascent of the soul to God through seven distinctive stages. It is interesting to note that, in its Christian context, the imagery of growth in the spiritual life encourages reflection on the role of the Holy Spirit and is thus closely linked with problems of pneumatology.102 In sermo 347 (uncertain date103) on Ps. 111, 10, 101  For the tradition of the ascending pattern of the spiritual life, see e.g. K. Rahner, “Reflections on the Problem of the Gradual Ascent to Christian Perfection”, in Theological Investigations, vol. 3: The Theology of the Spiritual Life, trans. by K.-H. Kruger, B.  Kruger, London, 1967, pp. 3–23. For variants of the septenary ascent of soul in the corpus of Augustine, see an. quant. 33.70–76; conf. 11, 1, 1; diu. qu. 44; 53, 1–2; 58; 64; doctr. chr. 2, 7, 9–11; en. Ps. 11; 119; 150.1; Gn. adu. Man. 1, 25, 43; ord. 2, 18, 47–48; s. dom. m. 1.3.10–4.12; uera rel. 26, 48–49; s.  8; 249; 347. For the secondary literature on this scheme, see C. van Lierde, “The Teaching of St Augustine on the Gifts of the Holy Spirit from the Text of Isaiah 11:2–3”, in Collectanea Augustiniana. Augustine, Mystic and Mystagogue, ed. by F. Van Fleteren, J. C. Schnaubelt, J. Reino, New York, 1994, pp. 5–110; G. Madec, “Ascensio, Ascensus”, in Petites Études Augustiniennes, Paris, 1994 (Collection des Études Augustiniennes. Série Antiquité, 142), pp. 137–49; N. Kamimura, “Augustine’s First Exegesis and the Divisions of Spiritual Life” [n. 6], pp. 425–29; K. Pollmann, “Augustine’s Hermeneutics as a Universal Discipline?” [n. 6], pp. 225–31; P. Bright, “The Spirit in the Sevenfold Pattern of the Spiritual Life in the Thought of St Augustine”, in Studia Patristica, 43, ed. by F. Young, M.  Edwards, P.  Parvis, Leuven, 2006, pp. 25–31; B.  Dobell, Augustine’s Intellectual Conversion: The Journey from Platonism to Christianity, Cambridge, 2009; J. P. Kenney, Contemplation and Classical Christianity: A Study in Augustine, Oxford, 2013 (Oxford Early Christian Studies). 102  See P. Bright, “The Spirit in the Sevenfold Pattern of the Spiritual Life” [n. 102], p. 26. For the problem of Augustine’s pneumatology in general, see W. A. Schumacher, Spiritus and spiritualis: A Study in the Sermons of Saint Augustine, Mundelein (Illinois), 1057 (Saint Mary of the Lake Seminary, Diss. ad Lauream, 28); L. Ayers, “Spiritus amborum: Augustine and Pro-Nicene Pneumatology”, Augustinian Studies, 39.2 (2008), pp. 207–21;

augustine’s

sermones a d populum

457

“The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom,”104 Augustine entered into a discourse on the sevenfold gradus of the maturing of the soul. gradus 1: fear of the Lord, humbled heart a sacrifice to God (Matth. 5,  3). gradus 2: piety, belief in the authority of the scriptures (Matth. 5, 4). gradus 3: knowledge, “not only of the evil of their past sins, […] but also of the evil condition of this mortality and this exile from the Lord”,105 leading to grief (Matth. 5,  5). gradus 4: courage, hunger and thirst for justice (Matth. 5,  6). gradus 5: counsel, in conflict with all adversaries, to exercise love of neighbour (Matth. 5,  7). gradus 6: understanding, “hearts are to be cleansed of all the false values of the carnal vanity, so that their purified gaze may be directed toward their true end”106 (Matth. 5,  8). gradus 7: wisdom, enjoyment of the triumph of security and peace: “the stage from which he [scil. Isaiah] started to come down by way of teaching us”107 (Matth. 5,  9).

The Scriptural evidence for the soul’s maturation originates in Is. 11, 2–3, where the Prophet Isaiah, descending from his contemplation of God, enumerated the seven gifts of the Holy Spirit and offered them as guidance for the soul’s ascent. It is accepted that Augustine’s convergence of the gospel beatitudes and Isaiah’s gifts is the first instance in the tradition of an ascending plan

M.  R. Barnes, “Augustine’s Last Pneumatology”, Augustinian Studies, 39.2 (2008), pp. 223–34; C. T. Gerber, The Spirit of Augustine’s Early Theology: Contextualizing Augustine’s Pneumatology, Farnham, 2012 (Ashgate Studies in Philosophy & Theology in Late Antiquity). See further A. Dupont, Preacher of Grace [n. 35], p. 90, n. 1/3 (p. 92). 103  Hill: about 420, Gryson: around 420? [n. 7]. 104  s. 347, 2 (PL 39, col. 1524): initium sapientiae timor domini. 105  s.  347, 3 (PL 39, col. 1525): non solum mala praeteritorum peccatorum suorum, […] sed etiam in quo malo sint huius mortalitatis et peregrinationis a domino. 106  s.  347, 3 (PL 39, col. 1526): ab omni falsitate carnalis uanitatis corda mundantur, ut pura intentio dirigatur in finem. For the purification of hearts, see n. 70; K. Pollmann, “Augustine’s Hermeneutics as a Universal Discipline?” [n. 6], p. 226, n. 50. 107  s. 347, 3 (PL 39, col. 1526): unde coepit ipse ad nos docendo descendere.

458

naoki kamimura

for Christian maturity.108 Augustine integrated the messianic view of the spiritual life with the moral progress of the individual, thereby confirming the necessity of the Holy Spirit’s aid for the soul’s ascent and placing the ascent in its eschatological framework. Augustine asked the congregation: “Where do we have to climb to?”109 What can this place be, but the place of rest and peace? There, you see, is to be found that bright and never fading wisdom. So it was to exercise us in successive steps of doctrine that Isaiah came down from wisdom to fear, from the place, that is, of everlasting peace to the valley of time-bound tears […]110

This ascent is not made physically by the body, but by the affections of the heart. In his meditations on the ascending steps towards God, Augustine depicted the laborious tasks of penetrating spiritual realities as training for the soul, thus offering the possibility of inner transformation and self-renewal with the help of the Holy Spirit. Humbled in the fear of God, the soul finally approaches transformation and holds fast to “full and everlasting peace” (pax plena atque perpetua).111 Augustine did not consider this transformation to be a “cumulative enumeration” of the spiritual life, but rather “a progressive sequence in which every step must follow the one before”.112 It is the spiritual progress of every individual that is crucial. Augustine thus emphasised the decisive effects of divine initiative on the spiritual discipline of the soul.

108  For Augustine’s possible indebtedness to Gregory of Nyssa’s interpretation of the beatitudes, see K. Pollmann, “Augustine’s Hermeneutics as a Universal Discipline?” [n. 6], p. 227, n. 54; N. Kamimura, “Augustine’s Scriptural Exegesis in De sermone Domini in monte and the Shaping of Christian Perfection”, in Christians Shaping Identity from the Roman Empire to Byzantium: Studies inspired by Pauline Allen, ed. by G. D. Dunn, W.  Mayer, Leiden, 2015 (Supplements to Vigiliae Christianae, 132), pp. 225–47, 240–42. 109  s. 347, 2 (PL 39, col. 1525): Et quo ascendendum est? 110  s.  347, 2 (PL 39, col. 1525): Quis iste est locus, nisi quietis et pacis? Ibi enim est illa clara, et quae nunquam marcescit sapientia. Vnde ad nos exercitandos quibusdam doctrinae gradibus descendit Isaias a sapientia usque ad timorem, a loco scilicet sempiternae pacis usque ad conuallem temporalis plorationis. 111  s. 347, 3 (PL 39, col. 1526). 112  K.  Pollmann, “Augustine’s Hermeneutics as a Universal Discipline?” [n. 6], p. 228.

augustine’s

sermones a d populum

459

In a cumulative overview, we reached the final and most fundamental characteristic of the Christian identity: an utter and inner transformation, which is the result of taking distance from old practices and a “carnal” lifestyle, of a spiritual purging and training of the mind, and finally of divine assistance. 3. Conclusion One would naturally expect Augustine’s view of spiritual training – the convergence of spiritual progress transformed by the role of the Holy Spirit – to change because of his pastoral experience and his increasing consciousness of the vicissitudes of the community of the faithful. However, chronologically there is little difference in content between the earlier and later sermons. The fact that not only no substantial development of his view of spiritual training is present, but also that this training itself was not a major subject in his sermons, does not necessarily mean that his consistent exhortation had only limited congregational significance. Some Christians, in particular found Scriptural justification for their secular behaviour. Other Christians behaved as though their religious identity was not in serious conflict with their secular social activities. They assumed different kinds of identity under different circumstances. It is important to note that, despite Augustine’s central claim that the Christian identity should be the basis for a Christian way of life, it could not compete with the social realities of the North-African Christian community. People in the community thought and acted within the parameters of their religious consciousness, often bound by their proximate social contexts, rather than adhering to Christian identity. Confronted with multiple possibilities for Christian identity, Augustine had no intention of changing the existing circumstances prevailing in the community of the faithful, but all the same, he could not afford an unalterable status quo. Augustine attempted to find a way of coping with these factors. He directed the attention of the Christian community to both the interaction between exegesis and the exegete and the reinforcement of the unity and solidarity of the congregation, asserting that the mental exercise of exegesis enabled insight into the spiritual life and disciplines. This spiritual life and these

460

naoki kamimura

disciplines result in an ethically unified principle of behaviour: love of God and neighbour. His focus lies not on the pragmatic, immediate techniques of control, but on the transformation of the self with the aid of divine grace. It is not a worldly discipline, imposing restrictions on the social mode of everyday life – his focus is not on the current state of affairs – but a graced spirituality, proposing the alternative Christian way of life.

Indices Index locorum Sacrae Scripturae Index sermonum Index aliorum operum Index codicum

curantibus

Shari Boodts Nicolas De Maeyer Aäron Vanspauwen

Index locorum Sacrae Scripturae Genesis 1 : 404 1, 31 : 215 2, 24 : 247 12 : 158 27, 1-40 : 452 28, 12 : 287 38, 27-30 : 247n. Exodus 3, 14 : 236 3, 16 : 294n. 32, 20 : 249 IV Regum 2, 13-14 : 27n. I Paralipomenon (Chronicorum I) 9, 16 : 285n. 16, 38 : 285n. 16, 41-42 : 285n. 16, 42 : 220 25, 1.3.6 : 285n. II Paralipomenon (Chronicorum II) 5, 12 : 285n. 29, 14 : 285n. 35, 15 : 285n. Tobias 4, 17 : 449 Psalmi 2, 7 : 421 3, 4 : 196 4, 3 : 225n. 4, 6-7 : 195 18, 2 : 165 21 : 314 21, 32 : 196 29, 7-8 : 157, 158n.

33, 3 : 195 35, 12 : 287 38 : 220, 224, 228, 232, 242, 253, 268, 274, 285, 286n., 289-290, 299, 307 38, 2-14 : 228 38, 5 : 230n., 234, 239n. 38, 6 : 237, 238 38, 7-9 : 229 38, 8 : 240 38, 13 : 253n. 40, 9 : 196 41, 5 : 255 41 (42), 6 : 368 42, 2 : 196 44, 2 : 214 44, 8 : 195 54, 7 : 287 60 : 309 60, 4 : 307 61 : 220, 224, 245, 246n., 248, 268, 274, 285, 286n., 307 61, 2 : 251-252, 253n. 61, 2-13 : 245 61, 3 : 253n. 61, 4 : 247n., 248n., 249n., 251 61, 5 : 248n., 249, 251 61, 6 : 251, 252n., 253n. 61, 9  : 255, 308 61, 10 : 246n., 248, 249n., 254, 308 61, 11 : 246n., 254 61, 12 : 246 61, 12-13 : 254 76  : 220, 224, 257, 268, 274, 285, 286n., 299, 307 76, 1 : 265n. 76, 2-21 : 257 76, 3 : 262 76, 4 : 257n., 261, 263 76, 5 : 263 76, 6 : 261, 264n. 76, 7 : 257n., 261, 265n.

464 76, 8-10 : 265 76, 9 : 265n. 76, 11 : 266 76, 12 : 261 76, 13 : 257n., 260, 261 76, 14 : 266 76, 15 : 266-267 76, 16 : 267 81 (82), 6 : 329 83, 5 : 203n., 212 88, 16 : 216 94, 1 : 215-216 99, 3 : 196 101, 28 : 235n., 236n., 264n. 102, 5 : 215 104, 18 : 253n. 105, 20 : 250 110 (111), 10 : 456 115, 11 : 157n. 117 : 107 117, 24 : 46n., 107 118, 53 : 262, 263n. 119-133 : 278 125 : 107 132 : 313 140, 5 : 187n., 189, 195 143 (144) : 453 143, 4 : 157n. 145 : 269n., 273-274, 277-279, 281 Proverbia 1, 26 : 189, 196 20, 8-9 : 189, 196 24, 12 : 156 Canticum Canticorum 3, 1-4 : 107 Isaias 1, 3 : 166 3, 12 : 196 11, 2-3 : 457 26, 10 : 26n. 40, 6 : 154, 250 57, 16-17 : 265n. 57, 16-18 : 265 58, 7-8 : 196

indices Ezechiel 44, 2 : 425 Haggai (Aggaeus) 2, 9 : 443 Matthaeus 4, 7 : 344 5, 3-9 : 457 5, 16 : 187, 189, 195 5, 25 : 446 6, 1 : 195-196 6, 10 : 275 6, 12 : 242 6, 20 : 296 7, 7 : 454-455 7, 7-11 : 139 8, 23-27 : 367 8, 29 : 325 10, 19-20 : 150n. 10, 20 : 150, 151n. 11, 28-30 : 444 12, 32 : 450 13, 12 : 233n. 16, 16 : 324 17, 18-20 : 454 22, 12 : 249n. 23, 8-10 : 338 23, 35 : 247n. 23, 37 : 28 24, 6-9 : 191 24, 7 : 191 24, 12 : 186n. 24, 12-13 : 189, 195 24, 35 : 234n. 24, 36 : 196 24, 40 : 78 24, 40-41 : 46, 185n. 24, 50-51 : 185n. 25 : 190 25, 1-2 : 195 25, 1-13 : 183n., 189, 195 25, 3-4 : 195 25, 5-6 : 195-196 25, 8-9 : 196 25, 12 : 196 25, 21 : 196

index locorvm sacrae scriptvrae 25, 25, 25, 26, 26, 26, 26,

21-46 : 298n. 26-27 : 233n. 40 : 296 31 : 154 33 : 154 34 : 154, 157n. 35 : 154

Marcus 1, 15 : 432 1, 24 : 325 13, 8 : 191 Lucas 1, 35 : 27n., 424 6, 36-42 : 179 8, 45-46 : 386 10, 20 : 344 12, 35 : 195 16, 9 : 443 16, 24 : 243-244 17, 34-35 : 45 21, 10 : 191 23, 34 : 367, 368 24, 47 : 319, 330, 334 Iohannes 1 : 107, 111n., 112n. 3, 30 : 162n. 5, 28-29 : 196 6, 44 : 384 10, 1-10 : 388 10, 11 : 388 12, 31 : 332 13, 1-16 : 38 13, 18 : 38 14, 2 : 234, 235n. 14, 6 : 266 14, 8 : 299-300 14, 10 : 421 15, 13 : 318 17, 1 : 391 17, 1-5 : 390 17, 4-5 : 391 18, 36 : 274-275 20 : 111n. 20, 1-18 : 107

20, 11-18 : 107 20, 13 : 417 20, 17 : 417 20, 24-31 : 107 20, 28-29 : 301 21 : 108 Actus Apostolorum 1 : 28 1, 3 : 29 1, 4 : 27n., 29 1, 6 : 26n. 1, 7 : 183 1, 8 : 319 1, 9-10 : 30 1, 11 : 29-30 2, 2-4 : 140 2, 37-38 : 433 8, 27-35 : 376n. 9-10 : 376n. 9, 2-3 : 153n. 9, 4 : 148 10, 13 : 250, 251n. 15, 9 : 449 Ad Romanos 5, 5 : 318, 330 7, 14 : 453 8, 28-30 : 392 8, 29-33 : 389 8, 30 : 395 13, 13 : 160-161 I ad Corinthos 1, 23-24 : 267 1, 26-28 : 145 1, 31 : 195 2, 11 : 196 3, 7 : 340 4, 3 : 196 4, 7 : 196 7, 25 : 177 8, 10-12 : 436 10, 20 : 441 12, 31-13, 1 : 195 13, 12 : 196 15, 6 : 196 15, 52 : 196

465

466 II ad Corinthos 1, 12 : 195 4, 16 : 238n., 295 5, 5 : 196 6, 4 : 444 10, 17 : 195 11, 2-3 : 195 11, 24-25 : 444 13, 4 : 335 Ad Galatas 4, 9  : 196 6, 3-4 : 196 6, 4 : 195 Ad Ephesios 2, 10 : 196 2, 14 : 165 2, 17 : 165 3, 17 : 339 4, 8 : 417 5, 8 : 161n. 5, 29 : 269n. 6, 12 : 337, 447

indices 4, 16 : 196 5, 2 : 196 5, 5 : 160-161 I ad Timotheum 2, 5 : 161 II ad Timotheum 2, 19 : 389 3, 16 : 453 Epistula Iacobi 2, 19 : 325 II Petri 3, 8 : 235n.

Ad Colossenses 1, 13 : 160-161

I Iohannis 1, 5 : 337 1, 8 : 242 2, 14 : 335 2, 16 : 323 2, 27 : 339 2, 29 : 322 3, 8 : 320, 322 3, 9 : 322 3, 17 : 338n. 4, 2 : 322 4, 3 : 320-321 4, 4 : 336 4, 5 : 323, 337 4, 6 : 321, 337 4, 7 : 317, 321-322 4, 8 : 317 4, 16 : 332

I ad Thessalonicenses 4, 13 : 196

Apocalypsis 21, 20 : 275

Ad Philippenses 2, 6-7 : 266n. 3, 3-16 : 241 3, 12 : 241 3, 12-15 : 240 3, 13-14 : 333 3, 15 : 241

Index sermonum To avoid ambiguity in the identification of the numerous sermons mentioned in this volume, this index follows the abbreviation system used in R. Gryson, Répertoire général des auteurs ecclésiastiques latins de l’antiquité et du haut moyen âge, 2 vols., Freiburg, 20075 (Vetus Latina 1/15). The texts mentioned between brackets are either identical or closely related to the sermons indicated by the lemmata. Ambrosivs Mediolanensis AM Ps 38 : 220, 234, 244n., 285n. AM Ps 61 : 247n., 249n. AM sy (PS-MAX s 7) : 23, 33​ Anonymi AN Casp tr 9 : 25, 35 AN h Arm 1-15 : 19-20, 95-134 (passim) AN h Arm 1 (PS-AU s Cai II, 51) : 90 AN h Arm 2 (PS-AU s Mai 27) : 90 AN h Arm 3 (PS-AU s Mai 28) : 84n., 90 AN h Arm 4 (PS-AU s Mai 29) : 84n., 91 AN h Arm 5 (PS-AU s Mai 30, PET-C s 72B, PET-C s Ol 12) : 91 AN h Arm 6 (PS-AU s Mai 31, PET-C s 72C, PET-C s Ol 13) : 92 AN h Arm 7 (PS-AU s Mai 32) : 92 AN h Arm 8 (PS-AU s Mai 36) : 92 AN h Arm 9 (PS-AU s Mai 37) : 59, 92 AN h Arm 10 (PS-AU s Cai II, 56, PS-AU s Mai 38) : 92 AN h Arm 11 (PS-AU s Cai II, 55, PS-AU s Mai 152) : 59, 92 AN h Arm 12 (PS-AU s Mai 35) : 92 AN h Arm 13 (PS-AU s Cai II, 58) : 59, 64, 92 AN h Arm 14 (PS-AU s Mai 41) : 46n., 48n., 59, 64, 92

AN h Arm 15 (PS-AU s Mai 42) : 22, 59, 65, 92 AN h Bel 102 : 22 AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN AN

h h h h h h h h h h h h

Esc : 19-21 Esc 3 : 412n. Esc 12 [8] : 412n. Esc 13 : 412n. Esc 16 : 412n. Esc 18 : 404, 412n. Esc 24 [12] : 413n. Esc 28 : 412n. Esc 39 : 97, 403, 410 Esc 40 [19] : 22n. Esc 46 [24] : 412n. Esc 59 : 413n.

AN h Vind : 19-20 AN h Vind 11 (PS-AU s Mor, nunc 204D) : 165 AN s Bar 6 (PS-AU s Bou 2) : 159164 AN s Bou 2 : 153, 154n. AN s Can 1-11 : 11n. AN s Dol 2 : 25-26, 33 AN s Le 2 : 25, 34 AN AN AN AN

Ver Ver Ver Ver

s : 19-20 s 4 : 25, 31n., 34 s 5 : 25, 31n., 35 s 6 (CHRY 3, 865) : 24, 33

468

indices

AN De passione sanctorum Donati et Aduocati (PL 8, 752-758) : 401, 406, 409, 413 (Ps.-)Avgvstinvs Hipponensis AU 1 Jo : 315-350 (passim) AU Jo : 169 AU Jo 2 : 372n. AU Jo 6 : 405n. AU Jo 7 : 390n., 439n. AU Jo 8 : 383, 390n. AU Jo 10 : 390n. AU Jo 11 : 178 AU Jo 12 : 178, 382n., 390n. AU Jo 13 : 109n., 116, 405n. AU Jo 14 : 390n. AU Jo 20 : 221, 261 AU Jo 26 : 383-387 (passim), 393n., 394 AU Jo 27 : 233n. AU Jo 32 : 29 AU Jo 42 : 383 AU Jo 45 : 382-394 (passim) AU Jo 49 : 383 AU Jo 53 : 382n. AU Jo 68 : 382n., 383 AU Jo 69 : 383 AU Jo 86 : 382n. AU Jo 87 : 382n. AU Jo 105 : 383, 390-394 (passim) AU Jo 110 : 383 AU Jo 118 : 109n., 116 AU Jo 121 : 383 AU Jo 124 : 383 AU Ps 3 : 204n. AU Ps 4 : 204n. AU Ps 6 : 186 AU Ps 8 : 272n. AU Ps 9 : 211n. AU Ps 11 : 233n., 456n. AU Ps 16 : 207n. AU Ps 17 : 207n. AU Ps 21 en 2 : 109n., 116, 314n. AU Ps 25 en 2 (nunc AU s 166A) : 158n. AU Ps 26 en 1 : 203n.

AU Ps 26 en 2 : 161, 203n., 205n. AU Ps 30 en 2, 3 : 205n., 369n. AU Ps 31 en 2 : 163n. AU Ps 33, 2 : 439n. AU Ps 34, 1 : 163n. AU Ps 35 : 206n., 207n. AU Ps 36, 1 : 40n., 41n., 72, 78, 84, 156n. AU Ps 38 : 211n., 217n., 219-268 (passim), 284-298 (passim) AU Ps 41 : 203n., 205n., 221, 255, 261 AU Ps 42 : 163n., 205n., 265n. AU Ps 43 : 156n. AU Ps 44 : 214n. AU Ps 46 : 311n. AU Ps 47 : 157n. AU Ps 49 : 30, 188 AU Ps 50 : 439n. AU Ps 53 : 204n. AU Ps 55 : 204n. AU Ps 56 : 207n. AU Ps 57 : 203n. AU Ps 58, 1 : 203n. AU Ps 61 : 219-268 (passim), 307-314 (passim) AU Ps 64 : 207n., 382n. AU Ps 65 : 372n. AU Ps 68, 1 : 370n. AU Ps 68, 2 : 360n. AU Ps 69 : 188, 304n. AU Ps 70, 1 : 439n. AU Ps 71 : 210n. AU Ps 74 : 211n. AU Ps 75 : 206n. AU Ps 76 : 207n., 219-268 (passim), 299-306 (passim) AU Ps 80 : 225n. AU Ps 83 : 203n., 212-213 AU Ps 85 : 152, 207n., 225, 370n. AU Ps 86 : 225 AU Ps 88, 2 : 28n. AU Ps 90, 1 : 28n. AU Ps 93 : 439n. AU Ps 94 : 210n., 215n. AU Ps 95 : 207n. AU Ps 98 : 117, 204n. AU Ps 99 : 207n., 208n., 215n., 216

index sermonvm AU Ps 101, 1 : 265n. AU Ps 102 : 204n., 208n., 215n. AU Ps 103, 1 : 207n., 208n. AU Ps 104 : 207n., 210n. AU Ps 108 : 28n., 366n. AU Ps 109 : 372n. AU Ps 111 : 366n. AU Ps 119-133 : 213n. AU Ps 119 : 217n., 279n., 456n. AU Ps 120 : 279n. AU Ps 121 : 203n., 279n. AU Ps 122 : 279n. AU Ps 123 : 203n., 279n. AU Ps 124 : 206n., 279n, 405n. AU Ps 125 : 279n. AU Ps 126 : 211n., 217n., 279n. AU Ps 127 : 207n. AU Ps 129 : 216n. AU Ps 131 : 216n., 279n. AU Ps 132 : 217n., 313 AU Ps 134 : 216n., 382n. AU Ps 136 : 217n., 439n. AU Ps 137 : 203n., 204n., 215n. AU Ps 138 : 205n., 207n. AU Ps 140 : 156n., 188, 195, 205n. AU Ps 141  : 203n., 204n., 208n., 216n., 369n., 370n. AU Ps 144 : 203n., 208n. AU Ps 145  : 207n., 208n., 269-314 (passim) AU Ps 146 : 205n., 217n. AU Ps 147 : 183n., 189, 190n. AU Ps 149 : 205n., 210n., 217n. AU Ps 150 : 382n., 456n. AU s 1 : 442 AU s 2 : 146 AU s 2A (olim CAES s Et 10) : 139140 AU s 4 : 156n., 439n., 451, 452n., 453 AU s 7 : 236, 237, 238n. AU s 8 : 446, 456n. AU s 9 : 146, 445, 446 AU s 12 : 442 AU s 16A (AU s Den 20) : 232n. AU s 19 : 198 AU s 23 : 452, 453 AU s 23B (AU s Dol 6) : 142

469

AU s 26 : 382n., 383 AU s 27 : 382n. AU s 32 : 157n., 453 AU s 37 : 185, 405n. AU s 38 : 191n. AU s 46 : 14n. AU s 47 : 382n. AU s 49 : 143n., 161n., 368 AU s 50 : 442, 443 AU s 53 : 452 AU s 53A : 145n. AU s 56-59 : 164 AU s 58 : 366n. AU s 59A (sermo nuper repertus) : 164, 179 AU s 61B (olim CAES s Vi) : 139-140 AU s 62 : 435-437 AU s 63 : 359, 360, 366, 367n. AU s 64 : 404n. AU s 65 : 44n., 69n., 70n., 83, 84n., 89, 94, 148 AU s 69 : 444 AU s 70 : 444, 445 AU s 70A : 372n. AU s 71 : 450, 451, 455 AU s 77B (AU s Mor 16) : 225n. AU s 80 : 454 AU s 81 : 455 AU s 90 : 152 AU s 93 : 183-200 (passim) AU s 105 : 28n., 191n., 192n., 193, 198 AU s 114 : 167n. AU s 119-120 : 107 AU s 126 : 87 AU s 137 : 156n. AU s 140 : 454 AU s 142 : 161 AU s 147 : 44n., 64, 80, 87, 94, 157n. AU s 149 : 188 AU s 155-156 : 455 AU s 158 : 382n., 383, 394 AU s 159 : 272n. AU s 160 : 369n. AU s 161 : 177 AU s 163B : 188, 404n. AU s 164A : 146

470

indices

AU s 165 : 383 AU s 166A (olim AU Ps 25 en 2) : 158n. AU s 169 : 241, 241n. AU s 172-173 : 449n. AU s 174 : 22, 383 AU s 184 : 44n., 57n., 78, 84 AU s 185 : 44n., 78, 85 AU s 186 : 90, 161, 163 AU s 187 : 90 AU s 188 : 405n. AU s 189 : 163 AU s 190 : 44n., 78, 84, 90, 161 AU s 192 : 161 AU s 193 : 44n., 79, 85, 90 AU s 194 : 72, 90, 161 AU s 196 : 166 AU s 199 : 91, 165, 166 AU s 200 : 165 AU s 202 : 84n., 91, 165-166 AU s 204 : 44n., 69, 70, 79, 86, 91, 165 AU s 204B (olim PS-AU s 131) : 39n., 44n., 56n., 69-70, 79, 86, 91, 165 AU s 204C (olim PS-AU s 132) : 165n. AU s 204D (olim PS-AU s Mor, AN h Vind 11) : 165 AU s 205 : 44n., 79, 86, 90 AU s 206 : 90 AU s 207 : 44n., 69n., 70, 79, 86 AU s 208 : 44n., 80, 84n., 86, 90 AU s 209-210 : 44n., 75, 80, 86 AU s 211 : 366 AU s 215 : 116, 163 AU s 216 : 49n. AU s 220 : 44n., 80, 86, 92 AU s 224 : 130, 131n., 133 AU s 225 : 149 AU s 226 : 44n., 64, 80, 86, 92, 128 AU s 229H : 152n. AU s 229O : 156n., 157 AU s 229P : 156n. AU s 230 : 46, 47n., 59, 60, 62-66, 80, 86, 92, 161n. AU s 232 : 157n. AU s 235 : 44n., 46n., 47, 56n., 59-64, 66, 69, 70, 80, 87, 92

AU s 236 : 46n., 47, 48n., 59, 61-64, 66, 80, 87, 92 AU s 236A (PS-AU s Cai II, 60)  : 164n. AU s 249 : 456n. AU s 250-251 : 109n. AU s 253 : 156n. AU s 256 : 47, 64, 66, 69, 70, 80, 87, 92 AU s 259 : 48n., 64 AU s 260 : 106 AU s 260D (AU s Gue 18) : 439n. AU s 260E : 117 AU s 263 (AU s Gue 21, PS-AU s Mai 44) : 24, 34, 93 AU s 265 : 28n., 29-30, 44n., 80, 87, 92 AU s 265A (AU s Liv, PS-AU s 178) : 23, 33 AU s 265B (AU s Cas II, 76, PS-LEO s.n.) : 23, 34 AU s 265D (AU s Mor 17) : 29-30 AU s 268 : 44n., 65, 67, 81, 87, 93 AU s 269 : 44n., 65, 81, 87, 93 AU s 270 : 72 AU s 271 : 140 AU s 272 : 48, 56n., 64, 67, 81, 87, 93, 377n. AU s 272A (AU s Ver 38) : 143-144, 145n. AU s 272B (AU s Mai 158) : 68, 93 AU s 272C (olim PS-AU s 183, FU s 8, PS-FU s 50) : 65, 93, 140-141, 148, 150 AU s 274-275 : 44n., 79, 86 AU s 276 (PS-FU s 73) : 150-151 AU s 277A (AU s Cai I, 47) : 151n. AU s 278 : 157 AU s 279 : 72, 142 AU s 280-282 (PS-AU s Mai 66) : 151n. AU s 282 (AU s Erf 1) : 147 AU s 284 : 152 AU s 285 : 164n. AU s 286 : 44n., 56, 73, 81, 87, 156n., 439 AU s 287 : 161

index sermonvm AU s 288 : 72 AU s 289 : 44n., 81, 87, 93 AU s 291 : 44n., 81, 87, 93 AU s 292 : 71, 118 AU s 293 : 44n., 81, 87, 93 AU s 293B : 162 AU s 294 : 382n., 383 AU s 295 : 44n., 59, 62-63, 69, 70, 82, 88, 93, 148, 156n., 157n. AU s 296 : 71 AU s 297 : 44n., 81, 87, 94, 153n. AU s 298 : 44n., 70, 82, 88 AU s 298A (olim PS-AU s Mai 54, PS-AU s Cai II, 71) : 162n. AU s 299 : 157n. AU s 300 : 72 AU s 301 : 44n., 82, 88, 94 AU s 301A (AU s Den 17) : 433-435 AU s 302 : 44n., 69-70, 82, 88, 94, 369n., 375n. AU s 304 : 44n., 82, 89, 94 AU s 305 : 44n., 57, 70n., 73, 82, 88, 94 AU s 305A (AU s Den 13) : 440n. AU s 306B (AU s Den 18) : 440n. AU s 306E (AU s Dol 18) : 439n. AU s 311 : 43n., 44n., 82, 89 AU s 312-313 : 43n., 44n., 83, 89 AU s 316 : 135n. AU s 317 : 51, 52n., 69-70, 76n., 79, 85, 90, 142, 143n., 152, 153n. AU s 318 : 51-52, 56, 76n., 82, 88, 91, 439n. AU s 319B (olim Ps-AU s 215, PS-FU s 2) : 90, 141-142, 152 AU s 327 : 44n., 83, 89, 91 AU s 328 (AU s Lam 13) : 439n. AU s 329 : 44n., 83, 89 AU s 330 : 94 AU s 334 : 94 AU s 335D (AU s Lam 6) : 440, 441, 447 AU s 340A : 156n. AU s 343 : 158n. AU s 347 : 456-458 AU s 350F (AU s Erf 4) : 146, 147n., 178

471

AU s 351 : 72 AU s 352 : 156n. AU s 352A (AU s Dol 14) : 153n., 432433, 447-448 AU s 357 : 231 AU s 360 : 404 AU s 360B (AU s Dol 25) : 156n., 372n., 448-449 AU s 361 : 449-450 AU s 362 : 244n. AU s 363 : 451 AU s 364-396 : 138 AU s 369 : 90, 163, 166 AU s 370 (PS-AU s Mai 116) : 44n., 56n., 74, 78, 85, 90 AU s 371 : 138 AU s 372 : 139n. AU s 373 : 44n., 56n., 79, 86, 91 AU s 374 (AU s Dol 23) : 71-72, 138, 147 AU s 375 : 167n. AU s 376A : 106 AU s 378 : 44n., 56n., 65, 80, 87, 93 AU s 380 : 44n., 56n., 69, 70, 81, 87, 93, 138, 158n. AU s 381 : 44n., 59, 62-63, 82, 88, 93 AU s 391 : 178 AU s 392 : 72 AU s Cai I, 47 (AU s 277A) : 151n. AU s Cas II, 76 (AU s 265B, PS-LEO s.n.) : 23, 34 AU s Den 13 (AU s 305A) : 440n. AU s Den 17 (AU s 301A) : 433-435 AU s Den 18 (AU s 306B) : 440n. AU s Den 20 (AU s 16A) : 232n. AU s Dol 6 (AU s 23B) : 142 AU s Dol 14 (AU s 352A) : 153n., 432433, 447-448 AU s Dol 18 (AU s 306E) : 439n. AU s Dol 23 (AU s 374) : 71-72, 138, 147 AU s Dol 25 (AU s 360B) : 156n., 372n., 448-449 AU s Erf 1 (AU s 282) : 147 AU s Erf 4 (AU s 350F) : 146, 147n., 178 AU s Gue 18 (AU s 260D) : 439n.

472

indices

AU s Gue 21 (AU s 263, PS-AU s Mai 44) : 24, 34, 93 AU s Lam 6 (AU s 335D) : 440, 441, 447 AU s Lam 13 (AU s 328) : 439n. AU s Liv (AU s 265A, PS-AU s 178) : 23, 33 AU s Mai 158 (AU s 272B) : 93 AU s Mor 16 (AU s 77B) : 225n. AU s Mor 17 (AU s 265D) : 29-30 AU s Ver 38 (AU s 272A) : 143-144, 145n. PS-AU s 79 : 153, 154n., 158-160 PS-AU s 119 : 162n. PS-AU s 131 (nunc AU s 204B) : 39n., 44n., 56n., 69-70, 79, 86, 91, 165 PS-AU s 132 (nunc AU s 204C) : 165n. PS-AU s 176 (EUS-G h 28) : 23, 35 PS-AU s 177 (CAE s 210) : 24, 35 PS-AU s 178 (AU s Liv, AU s 265A) : 23, 33 PS-AU s 179 : 25, 27n., 33, 93 PS-AU s 180 (PS-FU s 48) : 25, 27n., 31, 35 PS-AU s 181 (PS-FU s 49) : 25, 27n., 31, 33 PS-AU s 183 (FU s 8, PS-FU s 50, nunc AU s 272C) : 65, 93, 140-141, 148, 150 PS-AU s 194 : 94 PS-AU s 205 : 94 Ps-AU s 215 (PS-FU s 2, nunc AU s 319B) : 90, 141-142, 152 PS-AU s 245 : 45n. PS-AU s Bou 1 : 152-153 PS-AU s Bou 2 (AN s Bar 6) : 159-164 PS-AU s Cai I, 19 : 165-167 PS-AU s Cai I, 20 : 17 PS-AU s Cai I, 22 (PS-LEO s 9) : 161n. PS-AU s Cai I, 26 : 15n. PS-AU s Cai I, 27 : 16 PS-AU s Cai I, 32 : 16 PS-AU s Cai I, 39 : 12, 15n.

PS-AU PS-AU PS-AU PS-AU PS-AU PS-AU PS-AU PS-AU PS-AU PS-AU PS-AU

s s s s s s s s s s s

Cai Cai Cai Cai Cai Cai Cai Cai Cai Cai Cai

I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I, I,

40 : 41 : 43 : 44 : 46 : 48 : 61 : 62 : 64 : 66 : 67 :

25, 35, 92 25, 93 16 16-17 22 17 94 94 16 17, 90 90

PS-AU s Cai I, App. 5 : 16, 25, 27n., 35 PS-AU s Cai I, App. 6 : 25, 27, 32, 34 PS-AU s Cai I, App. 8 : 17, 93 PS-AU s Cai II, 1 : 16 PS-AU s Cai II, 38 : 12, 22 PS-AU s Cai II, 40 (PS-AU s Mai 60) : 91 PS-AU s Cai II, 41 (PS-AU s Mai 148) : 34, 91 PS-AU s Cai II, 42 (PS-AU s Mai 150) : 17, 91 PS-AU s Cai II, 51 (AN h Arm 1) : 90, 95-134 (passim) PS-AU s Cai II, 55 (AN h Arm 11, PS-AU s Mai 152) : 59, 92, 95-134 (passim) PS-AU s Cai II, 56 (AN h Arm 10, PS-AU s Mai 38) : 92, 95-134 (passim) PS-AU s Cai II, 58 (AN h Arm 13) : 59, 64, 92, 95-134 (passim) PS-AU s Cai II, 60 (AU s 236A)  : 164n. PS-AU s Cai II, 68 (PS-AU s Cai II, App. 63, PS-AU s Mai 48) : 93 PS-AU s Cai II, 69 : 93 PS-AU s Cai II, 70 (PS-AU s Mai 49) : 93 PS-AU s Cai II, 71 (PS-AU s Mai 54, nunc AU s 298A) : 162n. PS-AU s Cai II, 72 : 94 PS-AU s Cai II, 77 (PS-AU s Mai 56) : 94 PS-AU s Cai II, 79 : 10n., 17

index sermonvm PS-AU s Cai II, 80 : 10, 17 PS-AU s Cai II, App. 13 ([FU] s Frai 10) : 22 PS-AU s Cai II, App. 17 : 17 PS-AU s Cai II, App. 27 : 137n. PS-AU s Cai II, App. 31 : 137n. PS-AU s Cai II, App. 53 : 25, 34 PS-AU s Cai II, App. 54 : 25, 34 PS-AU s Cai II, App. 55 : 25, 34 PS-AU s Cai II, App. 56 (AU s Cas II, 98, CHRY 3, 865) : 23, 34 PS-AU s Cai II, App. 57 : 25, 27n., 35 PS-AU s Cai II, App. 63 (PS-AU s Cai II, 68, PS-AU s Mai 48) : 93 PS-AU s Cai II, App. 65 (PS-AU s Mai 55) : 94 PS-AU s Cai II, App. 71 : 137 PS-AU s Cai II, App. 77 (PS-AU s Mai 149) : 91 PS-AU s Cai II, App. 78 (PS-AU s Mai 151) : 91 PS-AU s Cai II, App. 80 : 138n. PS-AU s Cai II, App. 81 (PS-AU s Mai 196) : 22n., 138n. PS-AU s Cai II, App. 82 : 138n. PS-AU s Cai II, App. 87 : 138n. PS-AU s Cai II, App. 89 : 138n. PS-AU s Cas II, 98 (PS-AU s Cai II, App. 56, CHRY 3, 865) : 23, 34 PS-AU s Cas II, 142 : 10n. PS-AU s Cas II, 145 (PS-AU s Cas III, 6, PS-LEO s Liv) : 24, 33, 177 PS-AU s Cas II, 158 : 167n. PS-AU s Cas III, 6 (PS-AU s Cas II, 145, PS-LEO s Liv) : 24, 33, 177 PS-AU s Cas III, 370-372 : 93 PS-AU s Mai 10 : 167n. PS-AU s Mai 27 (AN h Arm 2) : 90, 95-134 (passim) PS-AU s Mai 28 (AN h Arm 3) : 84n., 90, 95-134 (passim) PS-AU s Mai 29 (AN h Arm 4) : 84n., 91, 95-134 (passim) PS-AU s Mai 30 (AN h Arm 5, PET-C s 72B, PET-C s Ol 12) : 91, 95-134 (passim)

473

PS-AU s Mai 31 (AN h Arm 6, PET-C s 72C, PET-C s Ol 13) : 92, 95-134 (passim) PS-AU s Mai 32 (AN h Arm 7) : 92, 95-134 (passim) PS-AU s Mai 35 (AN h Arm 12) : 92, 95-134 (passim) PS-AU s Mai 36 (AN h Arm 8) : 92, 95-134 (passim) PS-AU s Mai 37 (AN h Arm 9) : 59, 92, 95-134 (passim) PS-AU s Mai 38 (PS-AU s Cai II, 56, AN h Arm 10) : 92, 95-134 (passim) PS-AU s Mai 41 (AN h Arm 14) : 46n., 48n., 59, 64, 92, 95-134 (passim) PS-AU s Mai 42 (AN h Arm 15) : 22, 59, 65, 92, 95-134 (passim) PS-AU s Mai 43 : 25, 27n., 28n., 34 PS-AU s Mai 44 (AU s 263, AU s Gue 21) : 24, 34, 93 PS-AU s Mai 47 : 16, 91 PS-AU s Mai 48 (PS-AU s Cai II, 68, PS-AU s Cai II, App. 63) : 93 PS-AU s Mai 49 (PS-AU s Cai II, 70) : 93 PS-AU s Mai 53 : 16 PS-AU s Mai 54 (PS-AU s Cai II, 71, nunc AU s 298A) : 162n. PS-AU s Mai 55 (PS-AU s Cai II, App. 65) : 94 PS-AU s Mai 56 (PS-AU s Cai II, 77) : 94 PS-AU s Mai 60 (PS-AU s Cai II, 40) : 91 PS-AU s Mai 66 (AU s 280-282) : 151n. PS-AU s Mai 72 : 16 PS-AU s Mai 80 (PS-AU s Cai II, 60) : 164n. PS-AU s Mai 107 : 16 PS-AU s Mai 116 (AU s 370) : 85n. PS-AU s Mai 118 : 12 PS-AU s Mai 124 : 91 PS-AU s Mai 147 : 91 PS-AU s Mai 148 (PS-AU s Cai II, 41) : 34, 91

474

indices

PS-AU s Mai 149 (PS-AU s Cai II, App. 77) : 91 PS-AU s Mai 150 (PS-AU s Cai II, 42) : 17, 91 PS-AU s Mai 151 (PS-AU s Cai II, App. 78) : 91 PS-AU s Mai 152 (PS-AU s Cai II, 55, AN h Arm 11) : 59, 92, 95-134 (passim) PS-AU s Mai 157 (LEO s 74) : 23-24, 34 PS-AU s Mai 179 : 15n. PS-AU s Mai 196 (PS-AU s Cai II, App. 81) : 22n., 138n. PS-AU s Mor (An h Vind 11, nunc AU s 204D) : 165 PS-AU s Mor 9 : 25, 26, 33 Caesarivs Arelatensis CAES s 33  : 40n., 41n., 48, 49n., 74-75, 81, 87 CAES s 155 : 155 CAES s 192 : 40n., 41n., 42, 44n., 75, 79, 85 CAES s 202 : 155 CAES s 210 (PS-AU s 177) : 24, 35 CAES s 216 : 15n. CAES s Et 10 (nunc AU s 2A) : 139140 CAES s Vi (nunc AU s 61B) : 139-140 Chromativs Aqvileiensis CHRO s 8 (PS-HI s.n.) : 23, 35 CHRO s 33 : 180 Chrysostomvs Iohannes De sanctis Bernice et Prosdoce : 363n. De sancta Pelagia uirgine et martyre : 363n.​ Chrysostomvs Latinvs CHRY 3, 865 (AU s Cas II, 98, PS-AU s Cai II, App. 56, AN Ver s 6) : 23-24, 33-34

CHRY CHRY CHRY CHRY CHRY

(Wilmart) (Wilmart) (Wilmart) (Wilmart) (Wilmart)

1-2 : 119 7 : 130 11 : 99n. 12 : 99n. 14-15 : 119

Evcherivs Lvgdvnensis EUCH h : 139 Evsebivs Gallicanvs EUS-G h 2 : 162n. EUS-G h 27 (PS-FAU s.n.) : 23, 35 EUS-G h 28 (PS-AU s 176) : 23, 35 Ps-Favstvs Reiensis PS-FAV asc : 23, 33 PS-FAV s.n. (EUS-G s 27) : 23, 35 Ps.-Fvlgentivs Rvspensis FU s 8 (PS-AU s 183, PS-FU s 50, nunc AU s 272C) : 65, 93, 140-141, 148, 150 [FU] s Frai 10 (PS-AU s Cai II, App. 13) : 22 PS-FU s : 19-20 PS-FU s 1-80 : 415-428 (passim) PS-FU s 2 (Ps-AU s 215, nunc AU s 319B) : 90, 141-142, 152 PS-FU s 30 : 92 PS-FU s 48 (PS-AU s 180) : 25, 27n., 31, 35 PS-FU s 49 (PS-AU s 181) : 25, 27n., 31, 33 PS-FU s 50 (PS-AU s 183, FU s 8, nunc AU s 272C) : 65, 93, 140-141, 148, 150 PS-FU s 56 : 21n. PS-FU s 73 (AU s 276) : 150-151 Gregorivs Magnvs GR-M Ev : 169, 176 GR-M Ev 29 : 24 GR-M Ez : 176

475

index sermonvm Hieronymvs Stridonensis HI Ps h 76 : 263n., 266n., 267n. (Ps.-)Hilarivs Pictaviensis HIL Ps, instr. : 220n. PS-HI s.n. (CHRO s 8) : 23, 35 Ps.-Ildefonsvs Toletanvs PS-ILD PS-ILD PS-ILD PS-ILD

s s s s

4 : 94 7 : 94 11 : 94 12 : 94

Iohannes Neapolitanvs JO-N : 20n. Ivo carnotensis IVO Carnotensis s 19 (PS-LEO s 11, [MAX] s 47) : 23, 34 (Ps.-)Leo magnvs LEO LEO LEO 34 LEO LEO 94 LEO

s 48 : 176 s 73 : 23, 166n. s 74 (PS-AU s Mai 157) : 23-24, s 82 : 94 s 84bis : 40n., 44n., 74, 83, 89, s 85 : 94

PS-LEO s.n. (AU s 265B, AU s Cas II, 76) : 23, 34 PS-LEO s 9 (PS-AU s Cai I, 22) : 161n. PS-LEO s 11 (IVO Carnotensis s 19, [MAX] s 47) : 23, 34 PS-LEO s Liv (PS-AU s Cas II, 145, PS-AU s Cas III, 6) : 24, 33, 177 Ps.-Maximvs Tavrinensis [MAX] s 1 : 59

[MAX] s 40 : 177 [MAX] s 44 : 25, 35, 177 [MAX] s 45 : 25, 35 [MAX] s 46 : 25, 35 [MAX] s 47 (IVO Carnotensis s 19, PS-LEO s 11) : 23, 33 PS-MAX s 7 (AM sy) : 23, 33 PS-MAX s 29 : 90 Optatvs Milevitanvs OPT s : 402 Origenes Homiliae in Psalmos nuper repertae in codice Monacensi Graeco CCCXIV 76, 1 : 220n. 76, 2 : 266n. Petrvs Chrysologvs PET-C s 72B (PS-AU PET-C s Ol 12, AN h 95-134 (passim) PET-C s 72C (PS-AU PET-C s Ol 13, AN h 95-134 (passim) PET-C s 152 : 91 PET-C s 159 : 165n.

s Mai 30, Arm 5) : 91, s Mai 31, Arm 6) : 92,

Qvodvvltdevs QU QU QU QU

bar 1 : 115, 116n. fer : 116 gr 1 : 116 Jud : 45n.

Rvfinvs Aqvileiensis RUF Nm 6 : 86n. RUF Ps 38 : 220, 230n., 234, 237n., 243n., 285n.

Index aliorum operum Ambrosivs Mediolanensis De uirginibus 3, 7, 33-35 : 363n. Antiphonarium Benchorense 98 : 162 Aristoteles Ars rhetorica 2, 2, 1 : 366n. Arnobivs Ivnior Praedestinatorum haeresis 1, 44 : 400n. 1, 46 : 27n. Avgvstinvs Hipponensis Acta seu disputatio contra Fortunatum Manichaeum 3 : 27n. Adnotationes in Iob 4 : 191n., 192n. Aduersus Iudaeos : 40n., 41, 45, 78, 84 Confessiones 1 : 366. 1, 1, 1 : 288n. 1, 6, 8 : 364 1, 7, 11 : 364-365 3, 8, 16 : 357n. 5, 13, 23 : 405n. 6, 4 : 146n. 6, 6, 9 : 365 7 : 221, 276n. 7, 9, 14 : 276n. 7, 10, 16-16, 22 : 256n. 7, 17, 23 : 261 7, 20, 26 : 276n. 9 : 221 9, 2, 2 : 365

9, 10, 23-26 : 289n., 377 9, 10, 24-25 : 261 11 : 211n. 11, 1, 1 : 456n. 11, 13, 16 : 235n. 12 : 211n. 13, 38, 53 : 288n. Contra Academicos 1, 5 : 205n. Contra Adimantum : 442n. Contra Cresconium 2, 1, 2 : 408n. 3, 46, 50-47, 51 : 357n. 3, 48, 53 : 364n. Contra duas epistulas Pelagianorum 3, 18 : 370n. Contra epistulam Manichaei quam uocant Fundamenti 10 : 29 Contra Faustum 22, 34 : 158 22, 93 : 250, 251n. Contra Felicem 1, 4 : 29 Contra Gaudentium 1, 9, 10ff : 404 1, 37, 48 : 409n. 2, 6 : 186n. Contra Iulianum 4, 5, 35 : 371n. Contra litteras Petiliani 2, 1ff : 404 3, 16, 19 : 409n. Contra Secundinum 15 : 237n. De ciuitate Dei : 178 1, 19 : 372n. 14, 16  : 371n. 14, 21 : 371n.

index aliorvm opervm 14, 24 : 371n. 20 : 317n. 20, 11 : 192n. 22 : 145 22, 5 : 143-144 De continentia 14, 32 : 157n. De correptione et gratia 24, 24 : 158n. De diuersis quaestionibus LXXXIII 44 : 456n. 53, 1-2 : 456n. 58 : 456n. 59 : 183n., 188-190, 195 59, 2-3 : 190n. 64 : 456n. De doctrina christiana Prol., 6 : 376n., 377n. Prol., 7 : 376n. Prol., 8 : 233n. 1 : 209n. 1, 1, 1 : 233 1, 3, 3 : 281n. 1, 6, 6 : 377n. 1, 24, 25 : 269n. 2, 6, 7 : 205n. 2, 7, 9-11 : 456n. 2, 20, 30 : 439n. 3, 24, 34 : 205n. 4, 4, 6 : 380 4, 15, 32 : 204 De dono perseuerantiae : 381, 383384, 388, 394 De Genesi ad litteram 11, 1, 3 : 371n. De Genesi aduersus Manichaeos 1, 25, 43 : 456n. 2, 4, 5-5, 6 : 205n.

477

69 : 405 De immortalitate animae 12, 19 : 243 De libero arbitrio 3, 7, 21 : 237n., 243 3, 8, 23 : 243 3, 16, 45 : 237n. De moribus ecclesiae catholicae et de moribus Manichaeorum 2, 6, 8 : 244 2, 19, 70 : 27n. De musica 6, 13, 40 : 236 De natura boni 44-47 : 27n. De nuptiis et concupiscentia 1, 6, 7 : 371n. De ordine 1, 1, 3 : 277n. 1, 11, 32 : 275n. 2, 11, 34 : 209n. 2, 18, 47-48 : 456n. De peccatorum meritis et remissione 2, 6, 7 : 241 2, 7, 8-16, 25 : 241 2, 15, 22 : 241-242 3, 13, 23 : 242 De praedestinatione sanctorum : 381 De quantitate animae 33, 70-76 : 456n. De sermone Domini in monte 1, 3, 10-4, 12 : 456n. De spiritu et littera 7, 11 : 371n. 36, 65 : 242n.

De gratia Christi et de peccato origi­ nali 1, 26, 27 : 370n.

De Trinitate : 178 4 : 145n., 146n. 8, 2, 3 : 376n. 11 : 207n. 14, 3, 5 : 278

De gratia et libero arbitrio 13 : 158n.

De unico baptismo 1, 4 : 399n.

De haeresibus 46 : 27n.

De uera religione 24, 8 : 146n.

478

indices

26, 48-49 : 456n. Enchiridion 2, 7 : 164 2, 7, 3-9 : 179 24 : 28n. Epistula ad catholicos de secta Do­natistarum 27-29 : 29 Epistulae ep Div 2 : 445n. 18, 34 : 400n. 24 : 311n. 43, 5, 14-15 : 405n. 50 : 357n. 53, 1 : 409n. 55, 13 : 205n. 76, 2 : 186n. 93, 9, 33 : 186n. 102, 19 : 370n. 106 : 414n. 108, 5, 14 : 413n. 108, 6, 16 : 413n. 118, 5, 34 : 231 122, 1 : 231 124, 1 : 259n. 124, 2 : 231 126, 1-8 : 259 126, 13 : 259n. 130 : 164, 179 133, 2 : 366n. 140 : 183n., 184, 188-190 140, 74-81 : 189, 195 140, 75-76 : 190n. 151, 3 : 226n. 151, 12-13 : 226n. 167, 6 : 366n. 188, 2 : 177 197 : 317n. 199 : 317n. 199, 35 : 191n., 192n. 247, 2 : 311n. 254, 2 : 439n. Quaestiones euangeliorum 178 2, 44 : 40n., 45, 78, 84 Quaestiones in Heptateuchum 1, 26 : 158n.

Retractationes 1, 3, 2 : 274, 275n. 1, 4, 2 : 275n. 1, 4, 3 : 276n., 277 2, 51 : 404n. Bartholomaevs Vrbinas Sancti Aurelii Augustini milleloquium ueritatis : 34 Basilivs Caesariensis De spiritu sancto 27, 66 : 208n. Beda Venerabilis Collectio ex opusculis sancti Augus­ tini in epistulas Pauli apostoli fr. 20 : 146 fr. 27 : 47n., 61, 66 Martyrologium : 51 Chrysostomvs Latinvs Epistula ad Olimpiam : 127n. Cicero Epistulae Att. 15, 20, 1 : 158 Fam. 9, 21 : 407n. Tusculanae disputationes 3, 11 : 366n. 4, 21 : 366n. 4, 44 : 366n. 4, 79 : 366n. Clavdivs Clavdianvs Carmina 17, 120 : 162n. Contra Iudaeos : 19 Contra paganos : 19 Cvrtivs Rvfvs Historiae Alexandri Magni 7, 7, 15 : 158 Cyprianvs De bono patientiae : 406n.

index aliorvm opervm De mortalitate : 406n. De zelo et liuore : 406n. Epistulae 16, 4 : 409n. 27, 1 : 409n. 33 : 409n. Evgippivs lvcvllanensis Excerpta ex operibus sancti Augustini : 45 fr. 177 : 41n. Evsebivs Caesariensis Historia ecclesiastica 8, 12, 3-5 : 363n. Facvndvs Hermianensis Pro defensione trium capitulorum : 34, 423n. Florvs Lvgdvnensis Martyrologium : 51 Fortvnatianvs Aqvileiensis Commentarii in Euangelia : 9 Fvlgentivs Rvspensis Epistulae 12, 25 : 67n. Gregorivs Magnvs Moralia in Iob : 176

479

Liber interpretationis hebraicorum nominum Psalm : 220 Horativs Sermones 2, 3 : 370n. Institutio sancti Bernardi quomodo cantare et psallere debeamus : 38 Isidorvs Hispalensis De ecclesiasticis officiis 1, 37-40 : 176 De fide catholica 1, 56-57 : 177 Ivstinvs Martyr Dialogus cum Tryphone 3, 4 : 430n. Lactantivs Diuinae institutiones 4, 10, 12 : 250n. Livivs Ab Urbe condita 22, 54, 9 : 191n. Martyrologium Adonis : 51 Martyrologium Bedae Venerabilis : 51

Gregorivs Nyssenvs De uita Mosis 1, 46-49 : 279n. 2, 152-201 : 279n.

Martyrologium Flori Lugdunensis : 51

Gvillelmvs a Sancto Theodorico Aenigma fidei 11-12 : 145n.

Optatvs Milevitanvs Contra Donatistas 4, 5 : 398n., 399n., 408n., 411n. 4, 7 : 113 Opus imperfectum in Matthaeum : 176

Hieronymvs Stridonensis Commentarioli in Psalmos 76 : 220-221 Commentariorum in Ionam prophetam liber 1, 12 : 363n.

Martyrologium Lugdunensis : 51 Martyrologium Usuardi : 51

Passio Isaac et Maximiani : 411 Passio sanctorum Saturnini, Datiui, Felicis, Ampelii et sociorum : 411

480 Passio Vincentii : 150 Philo Alexandrinvs De Decalogo 1, 1-11 : 279n. De uita Mosis 1, 12-14 : 279n. Plato Politeia 7, 514a-517c : 278n. Symposium 210a-212c : 279n. Plotinvs Enneadae 1, 6 : 276n. Porphyrivs De regressu animae : 276n. Possidivs Calamensis Vita Augustini 9 : 398n. 12 : 357n. 12, 3-5 : 357n. 16 : 27n. Regula Benedicti 8-20 : 170

indices 9, 8 : 170n. Regula Magistri : 170 Sedvlivs Scottvs Collectaneum in Apostolum I Tim. 2, 5 : 161 Tertvllianvs Apologeticum 50, 13 : 430n. De praescriptione haereticorum 7, 9 : 430n. Thomas Hibernicvs Manipulus florum : 137-138, 145n. Tyconivs : 412 Liber Regularum 7, 1 : 250 Vergilivs Aeneis 11, 789-790 : 351, 361 Vigilivs Thapsensis Contra Eutychetem : 422n., 423n. Virtutes Heliae et Helisaei : 27n.

Index codicum Admont Stiftsbibl. 104 : 130

Firenze Bibl. Medicea Laurenziana Aedil. 10 : 24-25, 136, 138n.

Bern Burgerbibl. 289 : 50n.

Genova Bibl. universitaria A. IV. 17 : 131

Cambridge University libr. Nn. II. 41 (Vet. lat. 5) : 29-30

Heiligenkreuz Stiftsbibl. 23 : 131

Cassino Bibl. dell’abbazia 2 : 27n. 3 : 27n. 11 : 27n., 129 12 : 12, 16-19, 28, 31, 47n., 48n., 53-54, 56, 58-70, 73-74, 76n., 84-89, 120, 122-126, 129 100 : 130 102 : 130 104 : 17, 130 111 : 27n. 123 : 17, 130 305 : 130 Charleville Bibl. municipale 258 : 129 Einsiedeln Stiftsbibl. 143 : 131 Erfurt Universitätsbibl. CA. 12° 11 : 147, 179 Wissenschaftl. Allgemeinbibl. Ampl. 4° 146 (12) : 131

London British libr. Harley 652 : 65n., 131 Add. 29972 : 46n. Madrid Bibl. nacional 78 : 129 Mainz Stadtbibl. I, 9 : 88n. Melk Stiftsbibl. 210 (217) : 155 432 (218) : 24-25 Milano Bibl. Ambrosiana B. 168 sup. (Vet. lat. 52) : 29-30 C. 98 inf. : 24-25 Montpellier Faculté de médecine 59 : 160 München Bayerische Staatsbibl. Clm 28617 : 131

482

indices

Napoli Bibl. nazionale Vienn. lat. 14 : 46n., 48n. Nürnberg Stadtbibl. Cent. I 85 : 155 Olomouc Státní vědecká knihovna M II 120 (252) : 155, 158 Orléans Médiathèque 154 : 85n. Oxford Bodleian libr. Bodl. 204 : 60n., 61n., 65n., 67n. Laud. gr. 35 (1119) (Vet. lat. 50) : 29-30 Laud. misc. 350 : 131 Merton Coll. 14 : 131 Padova Bibl. Antoniana 72 : 130 Paris Bibl. de l’Arsenal 175 : 19, 95-134 (passim) 474 : 121-125 506 : 60n., 61n. Bibl. nationale de France lat. 321 (Vet. lat. 54) : 30 lat. 814 : 131 lat. 1788 : 130 lat. 1974 : 130 lat. 2028 : 130 lat. 2045 : 131 lat. 3548 : 131 lat. 3783 : 131 lat. 3794 : 47n., 88n. lat. 3798 : 37-94 (passim) lat. 3806 : 131 lat. 3835 : 131

lat. 6400 G (Vet. lat. 55) : 28n. lat. 10837 : 50n. lat. 13440 : 123 nouv. acq. lat. 2171 (Vet. lat. 56) : 29-30 Piacenza Bibl. capitolare 30 : 173 39 : 173 42 : 173 60 : 169-181 (passim) 61 : 169-181 (passim) 62 : 169-181 (passim) 63 : 169-181 (passim) 65 : 173 Praha Knihovna národního muzea Dušek 2 : 138n. Roma Bibl. nazionale centrale Vitt. Ema­ nuele II 1190 : 85n., 155, 158, 160 Bibl. Vallicelliana Tomus XXV : 130 Tomus XXVI : 131 A 3 : 130 A 9 : 130 Rouen Bibl. municipale 1382 (U 109) : 130-131 Saint-Mihiel Bibl. municipale 20 : 20, 415n. San Lorenzo del Escorial Real Bibl. R. III. 5 : 19, 97 Sarriá (Barcelona) Colegio Máximo s. n. (Vet. lat. 60) : 29-30

index codicvm Sinai St. Katharina Arab. 455 (Vet. lat. 74) : 28n. Stockholm Kungliga bibl. A. 148 (Vet. lat. 51) : 29-30 Toledo Bibl. capitular 48, 9 : 130 Troyes Médiathèque 40.10 : 77 188 : 60n., 65n. 219 : 60n., 65n. Vaticano Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana Vat. lat. 1270 : 117-118, 121, 124126 Vat. lat. 3828 : 19, 46n., 47n., 48n., 52, 53n., 54, 56, 58-70, 73-74, 76n., 84-94, 119, 121-122, 124129, 132-133 Vat. lat. 3835-3836  : 31n., 46n., 47n., 48n., 53-54, 56, 58-70, 73-74, 76n., 84-89, 120, 122-129, 132 Vat. lat. 4222 : 149n.

483

Vat. lat. 4951 : 46n., 48n., 63-68, 121, 123-127 Vat. lat. 6451 : 129 Vat. lat. 6452 : 131 Vat. lat. 13012 : 129 Ottobon. lat. 977 : 129 S. Maria Magg. 122 : 129 Verona Bibl. capitolare LI (49) : 19 LXXXV (80) : 50n. Wien Österreichische Nationalbibl. 1616 : 19, 46n., 47n., 58-63, 65n., 66-67, 120, 122-128 4147 : 19, 97, 403n. Wolfenbüttel Herzog August Bibl. Helmst. 281 (314) : 123 Weiss. 12 (4096) : 46n., 88n. Weiss. 81 (4165) : 50n. Worcester Cathedral libr. 71-72 : 130 F. 92 : 131 F. 93 : 65-67, 87n., 131