Augustine’s Sermonic Method

By G. Wright Doyle

Taichung, Taiwan, Republic of China.

I. Augustine’s sermonic corpus

Augustine preached different kinds of sermons. The Migne compilation (which often follows the Maurist text) divides the body of sermons into a group of 83 on the Old Testament, 88 on the great feasts of the year, 69 on festivals for the saints, 23 on miscellaneous subjects, and 31 of doubtful authenticity.[1] The homilies on the Psalms,[2] on the Gospel[3] and on the First Epistle of John[4] plus the large group designated as spurious,[5] complete this collection. Since the Migne collection, over 600 other sermons have been attributed to Augustine with varying degrees of certainty.[6] The spurious sermons “are so numerous because Augustine’s fame as a preacher motivated others to copy his style in their own sermons, and because forty years of preaching twice weekly would entail more than 4000 sermons—a huge number to keep track of and analyze with certainty. Possidius (Aurelii Augustini Vita 5) writes that Augustine readily preached outside Hippo, especially in Carthage, but often in towns throughout Africa.”[7]

Our remarks will concentrate upon selected sermons from the collection known as Tractatus in Iohannem or In Iohannis Euangelium Tractatus CXXIV, the title used by Willems in his revision of the Maurist text.[8] As Augustine himself notes in the preface to Enarratio in Psalmum CXVIII, “tractatus” signifies what the Greek word ὁμίλια does: “sermones … qui proferantur in populis, quas Graeci ὁμίλια uocant …”[9]

We may ask, Do sermo and tractatus mean the same thing? Augustine himself seems to answer this question with various phrases in De doctrina christiana: Book Four deals with “tractatio scripturarum”(1). The Christian preacher is a “tractator et doctor diuinarum scripturarum” (6). His speaking differs from conversation (collocutio); it is a “sermo in populis,” when no questions can be asked from the floor (25). Augustine quotes Paul as he exhorts Timothy to study hard to become “uerbum ueritatis recte tractentem” (2 Tim. 2:15) ; De doctrina christiana 4.33). The young man is urged, “Praedica uerbum … argue, obsecra, increpa in owne longanimitate et doctrine” (2 Tim. 4:2; ibid.). Elsewhere, Paul instructs Titus “ut potens sit in doctrina sana et contradicentes redarguere” (Tit. 2:8; ibid.). In another description of the preacher’s task, we find the words, “doctor in ecclesia facit inde sermonem …” (inde here refers to a biblical text; 37). Various categories of Christian teaching are mentioned in section 126: “sine ad populum siue priuatim, siue ad unum siue ad plures … siue in tractatibus siue in libris,” the important thing for us being that tractatus is opposed not to any other oral communication, but to books. The same distinction between speaking for the people and dictating for readers is found at the end of Book Four: “Siue autem apud populum uel apud quoslibet iam-iamque dicturus, sine quod apud populum dicendum uel ab eis qui uoluerint aut potuerint legendurn est dictaturus, oret ut Deus congruum sermonem daret in os eius” (63). Here we see the use of sermo to cover both preaching before the people and dictation. I conclude that Augustine’s terminology is not technical and consistent; that sermo and tractatus are often synonomous; and that they can refer to public preaching or to speaking before a very small audience.[10]

Regardless of what we label them, Augustine’s sermons take many forms.[11] Those on John belong to the large group known as exegetical. Many were preached for festivals and feast days, including saints’ days. Others are topical and deal with one subject without attempting to expound any particular passage of the Bible. Finally, there are the textual sermons, which concentrate upon a verse or short passage of Scripture, but do not form part of an extended exegesis of a longer section of the Bible.

The last seventy homilies on John raise questions about the meaning of the word tractatus, however, for several scholars have found evidence of more careful construction in them than in the earlier sermons on John, and less evidence of delivery before a large, mixed congregation.[12] La Bonnardire thinks that the critical remarks on the text, the formulaic conclusions, and an absence of such terms as carissimi, indicate presentation before a small audience of educated clergy who would then preach the same sermons to the public.[13] Support for this view is found in a remark in De trinitate 15.27.48 to the effect that “in sermone quodam proferendo ad aures populi christiani diximus, dictumque conscripsimus,” and that these were spoken “fidelibus, non infidelibus.” La Bonnardire concludes that proferendo carries its full final and purposive force, and that these sermons were preached for the purpose of being delivered later to the large congregation.[14] Le Landais adduced evidence to the contrary, which we shall have to consider.[15]

M. Le Landais sees no essential difference between Tractatus 1–54 and the last 70 in the collection on John. For him, these last homilies were spoken, not dictated. In 112, for example, Augustine makes it clear that he is delivering a sermo to people who are standing in order to listen, not sitting to read ( 112.1.1820) as they would in the case of “aliis laboriosis litteris.”[16] In the same homily, he describes his task as “narrationem … tractandam”(1.27). 69.4.3–9 clearly indicates an audience to whom Augustine is speaking directly.[17] Similar evidence is found in 57.6 and 71.1.11 (“pristino sermone iam diximus”), as well as in other passages.

To the argument that Augustine was dictating sermons for memorization by simple priests for later delivery, he opposes the later prominence of the group of priests around Augustine: would these men have needed Augustine’s help in composing sermons?”[18] (We might also observe that simple priests would not know shorthand; likewise, they would not need to be present if Augustine were merely dictating for their later memorization.)

Le Landais attributes the relative brevity of the later homilies to Augustine’s maturity as a preacher and the congregation’s weariness with the long exposition of John. By this time, the anti-Donatist conflict was over, and Augustine could forego the over-long sermons of earlier years.[19] He had refined his technique; fewer words prepared more carefully would allow the congregation more time to meditate upon what he had said.

Le Landais’ argument has force. He does prove that all 124 Tractatus were spoken to some kind of audience, not merely dictated. He does not prove what kind of audience those in the last group were addressed to. Whether these homilies belong to a different genre of exegetical sermons Le Landais does not prove, nor does La Bonnardire. Our definition of tractatus necessarily arises from the works by that title in the Augustinian corpus, and here the evidence favors the basic homogeneity of the homilies on John, since they are all called tractatus.

It may be, however, that the last seventy Tractatus in Iohannem were preached to Augustine’s clerical friends and not to his large congregation. The genre would be the same, with the exigencies of different situations producing slightly different results within the same literary category.[20]

Here La Bonnardire’s arguments need weighing. If these homilies were preached in order that simple priests might memorize them and later deliver publicly what Augustine had taught them, ought they not to have been composed by Augustine with a view towards popular presentation? Augustine had allowed such a help for those who could not “think of anything to say” in De doctrina christiana. 4.62; the beneficiaries of such labor were to memorize these sermons and later preach them verbatim. If the differences between popular preaching and Tractatus 55–124 are so great, then these homilies would not be suitable for memorization by unimaginative clergy.

On the other hand, La Bonnardire thinks that these homilies were preached not to ignorant but to educated men who would then preach them publicly; in this case, they could embellish the short homilies to make them resemble the earlier homilies on John. This argument makes sense, and provides us with one distinct possibility for the provenance of the later homilies. That would leave us with two kinds of tractatus, each an exposition of Scripture conforming to the principles enunciated in De doctrina christiana, but one preached to a large, mixed audience, the other to a smaller congregation of relatively well-educated clergy.

Le Landais and Van der Meer[21] present us with another possibility: the later homilies belong to the same genre as the earlier ones, but they are more refined, concentrated, and effective. In them, Augustine adhered more faithfully to his own counsel to aim at clarity and biblical content rather than at rhetorical charm. He improved his ability to speak clearly and simply to such a degree that the repetitions and digressions of earlier years were no longer needed.

II. Preparation and delivery

In 1922, Roy Deferrari published the results of his research into “Augustine’s method of composing and delivering sermons.”[22] Later literature has accepted his findings, which overturned earlier opinions. Previously, Augustine was thought to have written out his sermons carefully before delivering them to the people. The last sentence of the Retractations, which mentions Augustine’s failure to revise his letters and sermons, “alios dictatos, alios a me dictos,” seemed to support that position. Deferrari, however, rejected the above reading and replaced it with “alias dictatas, alios a me dictos,” which would then mean that the letters were dictated, the sermons spoken only (99).

He proceeds to demonstrate that other fourth century preachers spoke mostly ex tempore, preparing mentally but not in writing (pp. 104-106). Notarii were on hand to take down everything in shorthand, which would then be transcribed into longhand (pp. 107, 109, 119). Augustine himself provides ample proof that he thought in terms of extemporaneous delivery. In De doctrina christiana, he warns that concentration upon the rules of rhetoric makes impossible attention to what one is saying at the time (4.6.8). His precepts for attending to the mood of the people while preaching, so that their questions may be cleared up, their opposition met, and their weariness relieved, preclude written preparation for memorized delivery (4.25).

Deferrari gives examples from the sermons of such indications that Augustine is watching his audience carefully. The preacher reviews constantly (p. 195); ask for patience (p. 196); repeatedly attempts to explain some difficulty (p. 197); refers to the expiration of his time allotment and their tiredness (p. 198); begs for silence (p. 199); acknowledges the size or disposition of the group (p. 202); digresses frequently (p. 205); stops sentences to clarify a point (p. 205); begs for attention or notes their expressions of approval or disapproval (p. 207). These occasional remarks, along with irregularities and weak spots, convinced Deferrari that the sermons were, as the Retractations admit, unrevised; we have them just as they were transcribed from the shorthand records of the notarii (pp. 216f.). It is almost certain that portions of Augustine’s discourses are omitted because of the imperfection of the shorthand technique, for the sermons are often shorter than the prescribed hora (which would be from 45 minutes to 1 hour, 2 minutes) despite Augustine’s reference to the exhaustion of time (p. 212).

Further proof is afforded by Possidius’ reference in the Vita to “finished books and extemporaneous sermons (repentinis sermonibus)” (116). Finally, we have Augustine’s statement in Sermon 225.5 that he considered beforehand what he would say to the people that day (118). Occasionally, Augustine spoke entirely without preparation, as he admits in his sermon on John 7:2–12 (208), but his usual practice called for study and prayer before delivery (De doctrina christiana 4.32).

1 have so extensively referred to Deferrari’s article because his conclusions have been accepted by the majority of later scholars.[23]

Can we believe that the eloquence found in the Tractatus in Iohannem resulted from nothing more than prayer, study, and thought, without the aid of a written manuscript either to memorize or to read? I think so. Baldwin[24] points out that improvisation as a technique was mastered in the Roman Empire well before Augustine’s time, with prodigious feats on record. We shall see that Augustine’s composition follows the biblical text he is expounding, thus eliminating the need to memorize a complex outline. If he knew what passage he would be preaching on, days or even weeks beforehand; if he meditated on it constantly during his daily round of activities; if he prayed about it and its application to his congregation; if he thought about parallel biblical texts in advance, then we can believe that his years of rhetorical training, coupled with a consciously simple composition and a striving for clarity, would lead to note-free preaching. In our own day, preaching without notes and without a fully-written manuscript has been vigorously advocated by many teachers of homiletics. Charles W. Koller has devoted an entire book to this method, entitled Expository Preaching without notes.[25]

The sheer power and beauty of Augustine’s eloquence cannot be explained by either his training or his careful preparation, however; in him, we are dealing with an outstanding literary and oratorical genius. Lesser men with the same training and method have not been able to match him.

III. Chronology of “Tractatus in Iohannem”

The date of Augustine’s sermons on John has been intensively studied. Zarb[26] and Le Landais[27] thought that all the sermons were preached after 412. The two most recent investigations, however, by La Bonnardire and Berrouard, both place the first sixteen Tractates in the winter of 406–407. Their complete results will be clear from the following table:

La Bonnardire[28]		Berrouard[29]
1-16	406-407	1-16	406-407
17-23	after 418	17-19, 23-54	414
24-54	after 418	20-22	418-419
55-124	after 422	55-124	422 or later.

Without presuming to judge between these two proposals, each of which can muster persuasive arguments in its defence, I shall merely accept the division into three major groups of sermons which both of them discern (with the addition of the group 2022 in Berrouard’s scheme). The significance of the dating is twofold: the early sermons, coming before the official defeat of Donatism in 411, are primarily anti-Donatist; the latter ones deal with questions raised by Pelagius, who came to Africa after the fall of Rome in 410.

IV. Setting of the Sermons

For a proper understanding of Augustine’s preaching, something needs to be said about the setting of the sermons. The congregation at Hippo was a mixed one. Most were illiterate, but some would be highly educated.[30] Some would be rich, but more would suffer from poverty and a tendency to envy the wealthy.[31] Some would know the Bible practically by heart; others would have only the vaguest comprehension of the doctrines of Christianity.[32] The men and women stood on either side; the bishop, clergy, virgins, widows, neophytes, and penitents all occupied different places.[33] On the fringes, especially on feast days, would throng the nominal believers, more interested in the social than the religious aspects of the service; their constant commotion taxed Augustine’s weak voice to its limits.[34] The simple people were highly superstitious, and Augustine had to warn them constantly against the dangers of idolatry.[35] Astrology and wild parties at shrines of the martyrs exercised his eloquence to the full.[36] judging by the exhortations and warnings in the sermons, the people were given to anger, coarseness, stealing, swearing, cheating, quarrelling, heavy drinking, and sexual immorality.[37]

They were vocal in responding to their preacher: facial expressions, tears, groans, cheers, beating the breast-all indicated to Augustine what kind of impact his words were making.[38]

Van der Meer gives details about the usual order of service: A typical eucharist began with the reading of the Epistle by an acolyte; the lector would lead the congregation in the antiphonal chanting of a Psalm, and a deacon would read the Gospel portion for the day. The bishop, seated while the crowd stood, spoke for up to an hour before the catechumens were dismissed, the doors were closed, and the eucharist began. Everyone moved to the sanctuary area. There they stood and listened to prayers of thanks, petitions, intercessions, choir singing, the words of consecration and distribution, the benediction following the communion, and the long prayer that followed the partaking of the elements. Beginning early in the morning, a service could last well into the middle of the morning. The bright light of an African midday sun would contrast powerfully with the darkness of the church, windowless and lighted only by candles.[39] A daily eucharist and vespers attracted earnest Christians; ordinarily, except during Faster week, Augustine would preach only on Saturdays and Sundays.[40]

On feast days, the readings from the Bible were established by tradition, but the bishop was free to choose his own readings throughout the year.[41] Scripture lessons, psalms, liturgy—all co-ordinated to impress Christian truth upon the congregation.

Augustine warned that the preacher’s life must be as eloquent as his words (De doctrina christiana 4.61). His own example set the pace. Poorer than anyone else in his congregation, he sympathized little with the grumblings of the poor against the rich.[42] Government officials might complain that their occupation allowed neither the time nor the seclusion from temptation that the Christian life demanded, but Augustine proved them wrong by serving as a city judge and working longer hours than they did.[43] He opened his door and his heart to all who needed his company or counsel.[44] Although this constant activity wearied him and interfered with his prayer life, it also afforded him intimate knowledge of his flock, whom he knew by name.[45] Augustine seems to have been weak and in poor health; references abound to his weak voice, which may have been caused by general fatigue.[46] This weakness, however, merely underlined one of his favorite themes: he and his congregation were all weak before Almighty God. Always remaining “a small man before God,” Augustine tried to avoid standing out above his people as if he were spiritually superior.[47]

Important for our inquiry into the provenance of the later sermons on John is the existence of a small college of priests whom Augustine had chosen and whom he taught.[48] They assisted him in his pastoral duties and constantly supported him as he fought for purity of life and doctrine within the Church. They lived with him near the cathedral and shared in the daily vespers and eucharist.

No discussion of the setting of Augustine’s preaching would be adequate without some mention of the heresies he combatted, since they figure largely in the sermons themselves. Arianism[49] was a threat to the doctrine of the Church in Africa because of Arian soldiers in the army and Arian Vandals attacking the borders. The other two most important opponents were Donatism and Pelagianism. Sabellianism presented a less dangerous threat.

Finally condemned by the Church at the Council of Constantinople in 381 after more than fifty years of controversy, Arianism denied the eternity and full equality of the Son with the Father. Consequently, we see Augustine constantly affirming the full deity and equality of the Son in his sermons on John, convinced that there were Arians in attendance: “Quidem enim fortasse sunt in ista multitudine” (Tract. 40.7).

Donatism had vexed the Catholic Church for almost a hundred years when Augustine became Bishop of Hippo.[50] Its history is almost as complex as that of Arianism. Beginning with a protest against those who had handed over sacred books during the Diocletian persecution, it blossomed into a complete church with a requirement that all who had any contact with other Christian bodies or who had failed under persecution must be re-baptized before admittance into communion. Donatists “insisted on the holiness of the minister in the confection of sacramental rites; it gradually became an ethnic and social problem that emphasized the enmity between the native Berber population and the Romans by origin or culture and the hatred of the laboring classes for the landowners.”[51] Augustine combatted the separatism of Donatism by insisting that the true Church would always contain both good and evil, wheat and tares.[52] At the Conference at Carthage, Donatists were ordered by an imperial tribune to hand over their buildings to the Catholics and to join Catholic congregations. We shall see Augustine repeatedly defending the unity of the Church in his sermons on John, at least until 411 A.D.

Pelagianism[53] emphasized the moral responsibility of men to such an extent that it seemed to make the grace of God superfluous. Objecting to Augustine’s “Da quod iubes et iube quod uis” (Conf. 10.40), Pelagius insisted upon the inherent goodness of man from birth and his ability to please God without the need for grace on the basis of the sacrifice of Christ. Augustine opposed this teaching in many polemical works,[54] maintaining that man could come to God only if God should have mercy upon him and draw him to Christ by the Holy Spirit’s inner working. Since John contains many sayings to this effect, we find in Augustine’s sermons much that seems to attack Pelagianism. After the sack of Rome in 410, Pelagius made his way to Carthage, introducing his teachings into Africa. Although he soon left for Palestine, Augustine vigorously opposed his system.

In Tractatus 29.7, Augustine gives us his definition of Sabellianism: “Sabelliani enim dicere ausi sunt ipsum esse Filium qui est et Pater; duo esse nomine, sed unam rem.” They are also called Patripassiani, for “dicunt ipsurn Patrem passum fuisse” (Tract. 36.8). Classified as a form of Monarchianism, Sabellianism had been popular in the early third century; Tertullian and Origen had attacked it, and the Church finally had rejected it.[55]

Since orthodoxy had officially triumphed at successive councils, why did Augustine preach against heretical teachings ? He must have thought that his people were in danger of misinterpreting the Bible as heretics had; he warned them against errors in advance, and he dealt with questions currently troubling them. La Bonnardire is right: “If Augustine insists upon the refutation of trinitarian errors, it is because he is not unaware that they had troubled the faithful.”[56]

V. De doctrina christiana

Augustine composed the Fourth Book of De doctrina christiana in 427.[57] The first three books had dealt with exegesis (which may be taken to correspond to inventio); this last book treats exposition (elocutio in the older terminology) : “There are two things necessary to the treatment of the Scriptures (tractatio scripturarum) : a way of discovering (viodits inveniendi) those things which are to be understood, and a way of teaching (modus docendi) what we have learned” (1.1, quoted in IV.1; all other citations are from Book Four only). The Christian orator’s task, then, is the treatment of Scripture; specifically, in this book, the exposition of Scripture. Here Augustine immediately limits himself in his rhetorical practice to the teaching of the Bible; he will not be giving directions for the composition of ordinary speeches.

For this task, rules of rhetoric, central to pagan education are adjudged useful, if learned at an early age, but unnecessary: for “those with acute and eager minds more readily learn eloquence by reading and hearing the eloquent than by following the rules of eloquence. There is no lack of ecclesiastical eloquence … which, if read …. will imbue (the student) with that eloquence while he is studying. And he will learn eloquence especially if he gains practice by writing, dictating, or speaking what he has learned …” (4).[58] Earlier, Augustine had mentioned in passing a few of the rules helpful to the Christian speaker: tile exordium should render the audience “benevolent, or attentive, or docile”; he should speak “briefly, clearly, and plausibly”; legitimate argumentation should be employed to defend the truth and refute error; exhortations will seek to “terrify, sadden, and exhilarate” the hearers (3).

Augustine then outlines the tasks facing the Christian orator in order to demonstrate the need for eloquence as each challenge is faced:

The expositor and the teacher of the Divine Scripture, the defender of right faith and the enemy of error, should both teach the good and extirpate the evil …. He should conciliate those who are opposed, arouse those who are remiss, and teach those ignorant …. If those who hear are to be taught, exposition must be composed … that they may become acquainted with the subject at hand. In order that those things which are doubtful may be made certain, they must be reasoned out with the use of evidence. But if (those who hear) are to be moved rather than taught, so that they may not be sluggish in putting what they know into practice, and so that they may fully accept those things which they acknowledge to be true ... (there is need for) entreaties and reproofs, exhortations and rebukes ... (6).[59]

Here Augustine introduces the major element of his preaching theory: the accommodation of different styles to meet different needs in the congregation.

The preacher will rely not on his own words for powerful proof, but upon the words of the Scriptures, “so that what he says in his own words he may support with the words of Scripture. In this way he who is inferior in his own words may grow in a certain sense through the testimony of the great” (8).

The Scriptures are not only wise, but eloquent (9), as Augustine seeks to prove in the following paragraphs (11–21). He finds many ornaments pleasing to the pagan rhetoricians in selections from Paul and Amos. Among them: “membra et caesa,” “gradatio,” “circuitus” (11), variety, questions-and-answers, brief narrative (13), reproof, invective, proper names used as ornaments (16). Augustine commends the style of Scripture for imitation, except when the biblical passage is obscure, for the expositor does not have the same authority as the writers of the Bible, and clarity is his first aim (22).

Preachers “in all their utterances … should first of all seek to speak so that they may be understood, speaking in so far as they are able with clarity …” (22). To that end, the preacher should avoid certain topics in public preaching (23), occasionally sacrifice correctness of speech (24), and continue explaining a difficult matter until the congregation shows by its gestures that the matter is understood, and then “aut sermo finiendus, aut in alia transeundus est” (25). Augustine makes the transition from teaching to the other two functions—pleasing and moving—by noting that teaching is fruitless unless the audience listens willingly (26).

Therefore a certain eloquent man said, and said truly, that he who is eloquent should speak in such a way that he teaches, delights, and moves. Then he added, ‘To teach is a necessity, to please is a sweetness, to persuade is a victory.’ Of the three, that which is given first place, that is, the necessity of teaching, resides in the things which we have to say, the other two in the manner in which we say it …. If he desires also to delight or to move the person to whom he speaks he will not do it simply by speaking in any way at all …. just as the listener is to be delighted if he is to be retained as a listener, so also he is to be persuaded if he is to be moved to act. And just as he is delighted if you speak sweetly, so is he persuaded if he loves what you promise, fears what you threaten, hates what ‘ you condemn, embraces what you commend, sorrows at what you maintain to be sorrowful, rejoices when you announce something delightful, takes pity on those whom you place before him in speaking as being pitiful, flees those whom you … warn are to be avoided, and is moved by whatever else may be done through grand eloquence toward moving the minds of listeners, not that they may know what is to be done, but that they may do what they already know should be done (27).

The “eloquent man” is, of course, Cicero, and the words quoted from him are found in Orator 21.69.[60]

Prayer alone will aid the preacher in finding out what exactly to say to any congregation, for “who knows better how we should say them or how they should be heard through us at the present time than He who sees ‘the hearts of all men’? And who shall bring it about that we say what should be said through us and in the manner in which it should be said except Him, in whose ‘hand are both we, and our words’?” (32). Prayer also persuades, since “no one rightly learns those things which pertain to life with God unless he is made by God to docile to God” (33).

Augustine had taken the three ends of preaching from Cicero, whom he refuses to name; the three styles of classical eloquence are also brought in from Cicero (Orator 29.101) and put to Christian use:

To these three things—that he should teach, delight, and persuade—the author of Roman eloquence himself seems to have wished to relate three other things when he said, ‘he therefore will be eloquent who can speak of small things in a subdued manner, of moderate things in a temperate manner, and of grand things in a grand manner.’ It is as though he had added these to the three mentioned previously and said, ‘He is therefore eloquent who in order to teach, can speak of small things in a subdued manner, and in order to please, can speak of moderate things in a temperate manner, and in order to persuade, can speak of great things in a grand manner’ (34).[61]

It happens that everything the Christian has to say is a great matter (35), but he “should not always speak about them in the grand manner, but in a subdued manner when he teaches something, in a moderate manner when he condemns or praises something; but when something is to be done and he is speaking to those who ought to do it but do not wish to do it, then those great things should be spoken in the grand manner …” (38). For example, the mysteries of God would be presented in the subdued style; the praise of God, in the middle style; the worship of God and the overthrow of idols in the grand style.

The teacher will not only “explain those things that are hidden and solve the difficulties of questions, but also, while these things are being done ... introduce other questions which might by chance occur …. But they should be introduced in such a way that they are answered at the same time” (39). The examples of the dictio submissa given by Augustine indicate that close reasoning, often with questions and answers, joins informal conversation as the outstanding feature of that style.[62] Words such as disputatio, disputare, disserere, show how important dialectical argument (ratiocinatio) is in Augustine’s teaching style.

The middle style (dictio temperata) characterizes Paul’s exhortation to the Romans (Rom: 12:1-13:14), whose circuitus, membra, and caesa delight Augustine (40). Sullivan aptly describes this style: “Parallelism, particularly antithetical, and often emphasized by similar ending in clauses ... is a most important feature in the middle style, which differs from the grand style in its use of figurae verborum … rather than of figurae sententiarum … and in the importance which it attaches to sound and rhythm rather than to vehemence of feeling and emotion.”[63] The middle style will use rhythmical endings (numerosae clausulae) moderately.[64]

“The grand style (dictio grandis) differs from the moderate style not so much in that it is adorned with verbal ornaments but in that it is forceful with emotions of the spirit. Although it uses almost all of the ornaments, it does not seek them if it does not need them” (42). Examples from Paul follow (2 Cor. 6:2–11, Rom. 8:28–39, Gal. 4:10–20); the first two combine charm and fervor; the last moves by the power of its emotions alone.

To avoid boredom, the styles should be mixed and combined (51). The plain style by itself can be tolerated longer than the other two, but should nevertheless be alternated with them for the sake of pleasing variety. When the grand style is to be used, the discourse should begin with the moderate style. Whenever there is need for careful, intricate reasoning and “acumen,” the subdued style is appropriate. Praise and blame call for the middle style (52). The value of the subdued (plain) style lies in its powe’r to gain the sympathy of the audience by stating truth pleasingly, and thus more persuasively than if no ornaments were used (55). In short, “what ... is it to speak not only wisely but eloquently except to employ sufficient words in the subdued style, splendid words in the moderate style, and vehement words in the grand style ... ?” (61).

Lest anyone should rigidly join the three styles to the three ends, Augustine warns that these ends “are not to be taken so that one of the three styles is attributed to each one so that the subdued style pertains to understanding, the moderate style to willingness, and the grand style to obedience; rather, in such a way that the orator always attends to all three and fulfills them all as much as he can, even when he is using a single style” (56). When we label a speech as in the plain style, we mean that that style predominates, not that other styles are not used or that the speech only seeks to teach (51).

As he had earlier stressed the power of the very words of Scripture to lend both charm and proof-power to a sermon, so now Augustine teaches that biblical words also serve to persuade (56). Two other means of persuasion conclude the discourse: The life of the preacher and the God about whom he speaks. “The life of the speaker has greater weight in determining whether he is obediently heard than any grandness of eloquence” (59). “For the profitable result of their speech preachers should give thanks to Him from whom they should not doubt they have received it, so that he who glories may glory in Him in whose ‘hand are both we and our words”’ (63, citing Wisd. 7:16 and referring to 1 Cor. 1:31).

Are Augustine’s categories sufficient for analyzing his sermons? In our opinion, they are, at least in the case of the Tractatus in Iohannem. Other types of sermon, such as those for feast days, need study to determine whether Augustine applies his rules to them as he does to these exegetical sermons. He defines the preacher’s task as the exposition of the Bible; he names the major obstacles (we may call them “rhetorical chaIlenges”) facing the preacher; he stresses the importance of the exordium, of rational proof, pleasant speech, and emotional appeals. He seems to divide proof into argument and evidence, of which the Scriptures provide the most compelling. His three styles are nowhere rigidly defined, probably because they cannot be, although the examples he gives and the running commentary upon them offer us parameters for analysis. Just as the purpose of each style extends beyond any one officium, so the boundaries between the styles are flexible; the general outline, however, seems obvious enough. Augustine’s genius in rhetorical theory lies precisely in this area: he refused to reduce living speech to a set of tight-knit rules.

Although Augustine does not explicitly mention logos, ethos, and pathos (Aristotle’s and Cicero’s three means of persuasion), we find the concepts embedded in De doctrina christiana. He is speaking of logos—rational persuasion—when he dwells upon teaching with the help of arguments and evidence (the latter mostly from Scripture); of ethos, when he mentions praise and blame as the function of the middle style; of pathos, when he admits the need for emotional appeals when the audience are stubborn. His emphasis upon prayer and the sovereignty of God over every sermon adds new and characteristically Christian dimensions to “pathetic” persuasion. So too, the Bible as the most informative, pleasing, and convincing collection of words available to the preacher replaces, to a degree, the topoi and rhetorical devices of classical rhetoric.[65]

VI. Influences upon Augustine

Modern scholars have detected a number of influences upon Augustine’s rhetorical practice.

First of all, there was the popular African speech of the day. Comeau remarks that the dialogue heard from the stage of Roman comedy resembled the popular public speaking of the day and reflected the speech habits of ordinary Roman people.[66] Christine Mohrmann[67] agreed, confirming an observation made before by Norden,[68] that African speech of the time was characterized by parallelism and rhyme.

Closely akin to popular everyday speech was the popular preaching of Stoic and Cynic philosophers using the so-called “diatribe” style.[69] According to Comeau, the popular preachers aimed to please a restless, turbulent audience with word-plays, informal composition, and dramatic techniques such as the fictitious interlocutor.[70] Such popular speaking requires close attention to the responses of the crowd and adaptation of one’s remarks to the hearer’s reaction.[71] Marrou thinks that Augustine only used the topoi and dialogue style of Stoic and Cynic philosopher-preachers when he left biblical exposition and began to exhort and encourage the people to do what the Bible commands.[72] Augustine had both learned and taught in the pagan rhetorical schools; several scholars attribute his verse-by-verse commenting upon the Bible to the method used by the grammaticus.[73] Comeau notes the fundamental difference in aim: the Christian speaker intends to change lives as well as to inform minds;[74] Marrou traces Augustine’s love of unravelling nodi to the insatiable curiosity of the classical scholastic tradition.[75] All agree that the allegorical method employed by Christians had long been useful to pagan scholars desirous of demythologizing Homer and the other classics.[76]

What influence did the Second Sophistic have upon Augustine’s practice? He had denounced those who aimed at charm rather than at truth, and who had made excessive use of Gorgianic devices;[77] did he escape the vice of his time? Barry and Comeau think not.[78] The parallel phrases and clauses and the short sentences (or long sentences composed of parallel phrases and clauses succeeding one another as idea is added to idea) savor more of the Second Sophistic than of Cicero. Although parallelism, with its antithesis, homoioteleuton, and isocolon, was an effective teaching device, Augustine’s fondness for it comes from his being imbued with the sophistic style of the age. Marrou disagrees, considering Augustine restrained in his use of Gorgianic devices and essentially indebted to the Bible for the parallelism which Comeau considers sophistic.[79] Mohrmann traces the rhyming, parallelistic style to Augustine’s concern that his hearers learn and understand what he is teaching them.[80] She, too, considers Augustine primarily an imitator of the Bible stylistically.[81]

We have already referred to the Bible as the source of Augustine’s style. Comeau, despite her insistence upon the role of current pagan speech in Augustine’s sermons, agrees that his content comes entirely from the Bible.[82] In her discussion of the ecclesiastical tradition, she notes that the Jewish tradition of commenting upon Scripture became the regular Christian practice.[83] The Christian sermon becomes a new genre, similar to the lectures of the grammaticus but aiming, as we have seen, to convert as well as to cultivate the mind.[84] The Bible supplies a new technical language (diction) for the plain style, new ornaments for the middle style, and a new “pathetic” element (the interior life of the soul faced by promises and threats from God).[85] Van der Meer lists the Bible as one of three major influences upon Augustine’s preaching (along with the allegorical method and “the reasoning of Antiquity … classical intellectualism”).[86]

Augustine read the Bible within the ecclesiastical tradition of which he became a part when he was ordained as a presbyter.

Space does not allow a discussion of the history of the Christian homily.[87] The Christian preacher followed his Jewish predecessor in expounding the Bible. Indeed, the verse-by-verse exegesis which some consider a legacy of the pagan schools may also have been inherited from the Jewish habit of discussing each portion of the Bible separately in turn. Even the allegorical method had long been favored by Christian preachers eager to remove the stumbling blocks of the Old Testament. Ever since Origen, many preachers had found that they could make a difficult passage meaningful or a distasteful one palatable through the use of allegory. Antithetical parallelism also had already become something of a Christian tradition by Augustine’s time, canonized by the practice of both Tertullian and Cyprian.[88] Ambrose was Augustine’s greatest model in most areas of preaching, being the first preacher really admired by him.[89]

No speaker can ignore his audience. Augustine, more than most, sought to conform his sermons to the needs and capacities of his hearers. De doctrina christiana (4.23-25) makes the audience the determining factor in choice of theme and language, and in the length of the exposition itself, for the preacher must persist until his people show that they have comprehended his teaching. Several modern students consider the audience facing Augustine one of the prime shaping forces of his preaching. The popular style he used in common with pagan “preachers” was chosen precisely for its suitability to a restless crowd eager to be entertained.[90] Such an audience demanded a style involving their active participation, and would not be held by oratorical set-pieces; used to comedies on the stage, they would expect similar rapid dialogue from the pulpit.[91] The mixed character of the congregation, containing illiterates and scholars mature saints and curious unbelievers, necessitated the simple, didactic, and repetitious style for which Augustine is famous.[92] Heresies of all kinds, new and old, threatened his people; even the Arian heresy became an issue, as we have seen.[93] Augustine could not help discussing the questions of the day, including the principal objections to the Christian faith.[94] They would, however, be familiar with the Bible from years of hearing it read and sung, and would recognize Augustine’s innumerable citations and allusions.[95] Form and content, then, were largely influenced by the audience.

Two other circumstances merit attention: Augustine’s weak voice, and his posture. Finaert acutely observes that Augustine had chosen the dialogue form of teaching as an accommodation to his weak vocal apparatus (Contra Academicos 111.15), and assumes that the pervasive presence of dialogue in the sermons also allowed Augustine to rest his voice between question and answer or statement and rejoinder.[96] Finally, we should mention Pontet’s conjecture that Augustine’s very posture muted the stronger emotions and matched the plain style of the teacher, for he would preach sitting on his Cathedra in front of a standing congregation.[97]

To sum up, Augustine’s preaching theory, contained in De doctrina christiana, was influenced by pagan and Christian theory and practice. He disliked the sophistry of those who spoke only to please and not to instruct in the truth, and he committed himself not only to please, but to teach and to persuade, as Cicero had taught before him; accordingly, he valued Cicero’s three styles. Although he respected the usefulness of rules of rhetoric taught in the schools, his loyalty to a new tradition caused him to de-emphasize these rules in his theory. We can see the influence of pagans and Christians also in his practice, according to modern scholars. These factors are numerous and complex; their interrelation is not always clear; a precise evaluation of the relative importance of influences upon Augustine would require an extensive study.

Augustine was a master of pithy phrases.[98] We have already seen that he used constant dialogue, with question-and-answer, much the same as popular pagan preachers and dramatists did. This style involved him in constant contact and interaction with the congregation, even though he himself was the only speaker in the dialogue.[99] His desire to teach even the simple led to repetition and rephrasing until they comprehended his message, and then he would move on.[100] Repetition of thought for clarification often takes the form of antithetical parallelism with consequent rhyming, an outstanding feature of Augustine’s charm, especially in the middle style.[101] Some critics fault Augustine for an excessive use of figures of repetition, considering him all too close to the Sophists whom he repudiates;[102] others defend him for his judicious use of ornaments abused by pagans.[103] The most common criticism is that Augustine’s composition shows little sign of care; its sloppiness proves that he considered composition and arrangement unimportant and that he delivered his sermons largely ex tempore.[104] Van der Meer deserves quotation: “He never gives a comprehensive view over a whole book of the Bible, nor does he even treat a single reading as a whole or lay bare its connecting thread .... The whole planning of his sermons … concerns itself with a single verse and sometimes with a single word .... It is only when he encounters some difficulty that he traces the connection between one word, or one verse, and another.”[105]

Augustine’s choice of words reflects his intention to instruct all classes of hearers: “His Latinity bears the stamp of his time; his diction is choice and noble although often descending to the daily language of the people.”[106] The pervasive presence of the Bible—its words and its antithetical parallelism—has already been pointed out.

Augustine has also been faulted for a paucity of illustrations,[107] lengthy etymologies, excessive verbiage, and wild allegories based on neo-pythagorean number theory.[108]

Outstanding features of Augustine’s style are thus parallelism and repetition of various types; reasoning and argumentation by question-and-answer, including debate with the imaginary interlocutor; interaction with the audience; clarity and simplicity; biblical language and thought; pithy phrases; wordplays; popular speech when necessary; liveliness; and a freedom in composition unknown to classical rhetoricians. Although I agree that Augustine avoids the tight divisions of a speech insisted upon in the schools, I disagree that his composition is usually careless or sloppy. Analysis indicates the presence of internal coherence and continuity. Observing the outlines and noting the transitions within the sermons reveals that Augustine’s composition displays order and effective arrangement.

Notes

1. E. Dekkers, Clovis Patrum Latinorum (Brugges, 1961), no. 284 (Maurist text followed here), 285; G. Bardy, Saint Augustin, L’Homme et l’oeuvre (Paris, 1940), p. 210.
2. Dekkers, no. 283.
3. Ibid., no. 278.
4. Ibid., no. 279 (Maurist text).
5. Ibid., no. 368 (Maurist text).
6. Ibid., nos. 287, 288, 370.
7. M. Muldowney (introduction and translation), Saint Augustine: Sermons on the liturgical seasons (New York, 1959), pp. ix-xi: Bardy, p. 214; M. Pontet, L’exégse de S. Augustin prédicateur (Marseille, 1944), p. 72.
8. Cf. D. Willems (ed.), Aurelii Augustini in Iohannis Euangelum tractatus CXXIV (Turnhout, 1954), p. xii, for other titles which have been given to the series.
9. Enarratio in Ps. CXVIII, Prooemium, lines 23–25.
10. Cf. Pontet, pp. 51-52.
11. Cf. the classification of Y. Brilioth (textual; seasonal, including those for saints’ days and those that deal with diverse subjects; exegetical; and “a series of essays which are in reality re-worked addresses”), A Brief History of Preaching (Philadelphia, 1965), p. 48. The categories given by J. Finaert, L’évolution littéraire de Saint Augustin (Paris, 1939), p. 154, are similar.
12. Pontet, p. 2; A.-M. La Bonnardire, Recherches de chronologie augustinienne (Paris, 1953), p. 64; D. Wright, “The manuscripts of St. Augustine’s Tractatus in Euangelium Iohannis: A preliminary survey and checklist,” Recherches Augustiniennes 8 (1972), 55–143.
13. La Bonnardire, p. 121.
14. Ibid.; others before her had concluded that 55–124 were dictated, not preached to a large congregation. Cf. J. Huyben, “De sermonen over het Evangelie van Johannes: Bijdrage tot de chronologie van Augustinus’ Werken” ‘Miscellanea Augustiniana (1930), 265–267; S. Zarb, “Chronologia Tractatuum in Ev. Primamque Ep. Joannis Apostoli,” Angelicum 10 (1933), 29–34; Bardy, p. 223.
15. M. Le Landais, “Des années de prédication de saint Augustin: Introduction à la lecture de l’In Iohannem,” Etudes Augustiniennes (Paris, 1953), pp. 38-47.
16. Ibid., p. 38.
17. Ibid., p. 39.
18. Ibid., p. 45; Bardy (p. 214) states that Augustine had his presbyters preach just as he had while still a presbyter; did they compose their own sermons?
19. Ibid., p. 46.
20. Bardy (p. 246) writes that Augustine loved to preach to a small group of his friends.
21. F. Van der Meer, Augustine the Bishop (London, 1962), p. 451: “The older he became, the shorter and more powerful and the better became his sermons.”
22. R. Deferrari, “St. Augustine’s method of composing and delivering sermons”, American Journal of Philology 43 (1922), 97–123, 193–220.
23. M. Comeau, La rhétorique de St. Augustin d’aprs les Tractatus in Johannem (Paris, 1931), pp. 32-38; J. Finaert, Saint Augustin rhéteur (Paris, 1939), p. 17; Bardy, pp. 223-225; Pontet, p. 2; M. Brennan, A Study ill the Clausulae in the Sermons of St. Augustine (Washington, 1947), pp. 2-6; Van der Meer, p. 414; Muldowney, pp. xiii, xvi-xix; Brilioth, p. 54.
24. C. Baldwin, Mediaeval Rhetoric and Poetic (New York, 1928), pp. 13-16.
25. C. Koller, Expository Preaching without Notes (Grand Rapids, 1962), pp. 35-38.
26. Zarb, 29-34.
27. Le Landais, p. 11.
28. La Bonnardire, pp. 46, 104, 117, 141.
29. M.-F. Berrouard, “La date des Tractatus I-LIV in Iohannis Euangelium de saint Augustin”, Recherches Augustiniennes 7 (1971), 119, 164, 166.
30. Pontet, pp. 55-56; Van der Meer, p. 132.
31. Van der Meer, p. 135.
32. Pontet, pp. 56, 63; Van der Meer, p. 133.
33. Pontet, p. 59.
34. Pontet, p. 61; Bardy, pp. 246, 253; Van der Meer, pp. 169-170.
35. Pontet, pp. 63-65; Van der Meer, p. 160.
36. Pontem pp. 95-96; Van der Meer, p. 487.
37. Pontet, p. 71; Van der Meer, pp. 130-131.
38. Pontet, pp. 40-41; Van der Meer, pp. 140-141.
39. Van der Meer, pp. 397-398.
40. Ibid.
41. Van der Meer, p. 344; K. Gamber, Codices Liturgici Latini Antiquiores (Freiburg, 1968, 2nd edn.), p. 52; Bardy, pp. 226-227.
42. Van der Meer, p. 136.
43. Ibid., pp. 237, 259, 262.
44. Ibid., pp. 239, 267.
45. Ibid., pp. 268, 258.
46. Ibid., p. 236.
47. Ibid., p. 258.
48. Ibid., pp. 200ff.; Bardy, p. 246.
49. La Bonnardire, p. 94; see article on Arianism by De Clerq in the New Catholic Encyclopedia; also the article in the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Full histories are in H.M. Gwatkin, Studies of Arianisin (Cambridge, 1882, 2nd edn., 1900); Gwatkin, The Arian. Controversy (Cambridge, 1889); J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Doctrines (New York, 1958). See also the standard histories of Christian doctrine.
50. For brief accounts, see articles on Donatism and Augustine in the New Catholic Encyclopedia. Complete histories in Monceaux, Histoire littéraire de l’Afrique chrétienne, iv (1912) -vi (1922); and W.H.C. Frend, The Donatist Church (Oxford, 1952).
51. “Donatism,” D. Faul; New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, p. 1001.
52. Ibid., p. 1002.
53. See reference works referred to in note 50 for short histories. Full treatment by G. de Plinval, Pélage (Lausanne, 1943). See also the standard histories of doctrine.
54. For example, De peccatorum meritis, De spiritu et littera (both 412) De natura et gratia, 415.
55. J. Davies, The Early Christian Church (New York, 1965), pp. 138-142.
56. La Bonnardire, p. 93.
57. T. Sullivan (introduction, translation and commentary), Aurelii Augustini, De Doctrina Christiana liber quartus (Washington, 1930), p. 8; P, Brown, Augustine of Hippo (London, 1967), p. 264.
58. For the relationship between Augustine’s rhetorical theory and Cicero’s, see J. B. Eskridge, The Influence of Cicero upon Augustine in the development of his oratorical theory for the training of the ecclesiastical orator (Menasha, Wisconsin, 1912); Baldwin, pp. 51-55; Sullivan; Comeau; H. Marrou, Saint Augustin et la fin de la culture antique (Paris, 1938); M. Tesiard, Saint Angustin et Ciéiron (Paris, 1958).
59. Quotations are from Robertson’s translation.
60. Augustine follows Cicero in his idea of the three officia arising (1) out of Aristotle’s proof from the thing itself and (2) from a. the speaker’s character and b. the emotions of the hearers (logos, ethos, pathos); Sullivan, p. 102.
61. Aristotle (Rhet. 1, 2, 1355b) distinguishes three styles and three ends; in joining styles and ends Augustine goes beyond both Aristotle and Cicero; Sullivan, p. 120.
62. Dialectic, with narrative, allegory, and close reasoning, is a central feature of the plain style (Sullivan, pp. 129-132); Augustine’s estimation of the usefulness of the rules of argumentation is found in 2.48-53.
63. Sullivan, p. 136.
64. Augustine’s clausulae in the City of God were based upon classical and not fourth-century standards, but show the influence of accent as well as quantity (Sullivan, p. 143; G. Reynolds, The clausulae in the De Civitate Dei of St. Augustine, Washington, 1824). Brennan concluded that both accentual and metrical principles determine the use of clausulae in Augustine’s Sermones ad populum, but that “Augustine in his Sermons showed a marked fondness for accentual clausulae” (p. 119). She found that the most common forms were the double spondee, dichoree, cretic spondee, spondee cretic, double cretic, and trochee cretic (p. 116). Augustine’s prose is “not metrical to the same degree as is that of Cicero, Cyprian, Ambrose, or Jerome” (p. 117). Other scholars, such as Comeau (p. 14), do not think that the evidence suffices for a study of Augustine’s clausulae, since we have unrevised transcripts taken down by notarii, who certainly left portions of the sermons unrecorded (cf. also Deferrari, pp. 100, 212). Brennan herself admits that the notarii missed many things, but still attempts the analysis (p. 9). That she found Augustine’s prose to be metrical to some real degree, without any appreciable change throughout his preaching career (p. 7), lends credence to the method she employed.
65. Comeau, op. cit., pp. 75-77.
66. Comeau, pp. 39, 43; Finaert, p. 156; C. Mohrmann, “Saint Augustine and the eloquentia,” Etudes sur le latin des chriéiens, I (Rome, 1958), p. 368.
67. Deferrari, p. 194; Mohrmann, op. cit., p. 367; also “Saint Augustin prédicateur”, Etudes sur le latin des chrétiens, I (Rome, 1958), p. 397.
68. E. Norden, Die antike Kunstprosa vom VI Jahrhundert vor Christus bis in der Zeit der Renaissance (Leipzig, 1909), p. 626.
69. Cf. Kennedy, ARRW, 469-470, 573, 586, 590, for the earlier history of the “diatribe style”; also “Diatribe” in the OCD, 338; Bardy, p. 235.
70. Comeau, pp. 25, 29; Mohrmann, “Eloquentia,” p. 368; Mohrmann, “Prédicateur,” p. 400.
71. Comeau, p. 33; Bardy, p. 233.
72. Marrou, p. 529.
73. Comeau, p. 76; Finaert, p. 92; Marrou, p. 469; Mohrmann, “Prédicateur,” p. 400; Van der Meer, pp. 440ff.
74. Comeau, p. 76.
75. Marrou, p. 587; cf. also Brown, pp. 259-261.
76. M. Comeau, Saint Augustin, Exégte de quatrime évangile (Paris, 1930), p. 106; Marrou, p. 492; Van der Meer, PP. 442-445.
77. De doctrina christiana, 4.30; Comeau, op. cit., p. 59.
78. Comeau, op. cit., pp. 21, 29, 59, 60; Bardy, pp. 255-256.
79. Marrou, p. 470.
80. Mohrmarm, “Eloquentia,” p. 367.
81. Mohrmann, “Prédicateur,” p. 397.
82. Comeau, op. cit., p. 45; Brilioth, p. 55.
83. Comeau, op. cit., p. 73; J. Murphy, Rhetoric in the Middle Ages (Berkeley, 1974), pp. 269ff., traces the Jewish roots of Christian preaching; cf. also H. Dressler, “Preaching Theory,” New Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. 11 (New York, 1967).
84. Comeau, op. cit., p. 76.
85. Ibid.
86. Van der Meer, p. 439.
87. Cf. the histories by E. Dargan (A History of Preaching, 2 Vols., New York, 1905), J. Broadus (Lectures on the History of Preaching, New York, 1893), H. Kerr (Preaching in the Early Church, New York, 1942), and J. Murphy (ut supra); see also Kennedy, ARRW, 607-613, and C. Mohrmann, “Problmes stylistiques dans la littérature latine chrétienne,” Vigiliae Christianae 9 (1955), 222-246.
88. Broadus, p. 82; Comeau, Exégte, p. 39; Pontet, pp. 210ff.; Van der Meer, pp. 442-445.
89. Comeau, Rhétorique, p. 73; Comeau, Exégte, p. 35; Pontet, p. 208, however, sees Augustine turning more often to Jerome than to Ambrose for answers to difficult questions; Ambrose’s influence may be summed up this way: he introduced Augustine to the allegorical method; he introduced Augustine to the learning of the Eastern Fathers (Pontet, loc. cit.; Teselle, Augustine the Theologian, London, 1970, p. 199.; etc.); he showed Augustine, by his own example, that the Christian preacher was first and foremost an expositor of the Bible: Augustine was in Milan when Ambrose preached his series on Luke and his (considerably more scriptural) adaptation of Basil’s Hexaemeron.
90. Mohrmann, “Prédicateur,” p. 399.
91. Comeau, op. cit., p. 25
92. Finaert, Pivolution, pp. 156, 166, 167; Rhéteur, p. 13; Pontet, p. 91; Bardy, p. 255.
93. Pontet, p. 81; Van der Meer, pp. 131, 132, 169, 170; Brilioth, p. 26.
94. Pontet, pp. 99, 556; Bardy, p. 246.
95. Finaert, Rhéteur, p. 10; Van der Meer, p. 436.
96. Finaert, p. 44.
97. Van der Meer, p. 436.
98. Pontet, p. 37.
99. Broadus, p. 83; Van der Meer, p. 412; Mohrmann, “Prédicateur,” p. 392.
100. Broadus, p. 83; Deferrari, “St. Augustine’s method,” 194; Barry, 255, 256; Comeau, La rhétorique, 29, 39; Finaert, Rhéteur, 41; Mohrmann, “Prédicateur,” 392; Ibid., 396-400; Van der Meer, 432–34.
101. Broadus, 83; Deferrari, “Method,” 205; Finaert, Rhéteur, pp. 13–17; Pontet, p. 87.
102. Barry, pp. 254-56; Comeau, La rhétorique, 15, 49; Finaert, Rhéteur, 41; Mohrmann, “Prédicateur,” 396400.
103. Broadus, 81; Barry, 256; Comeau, La rhétorique, p. 60.
104. Finaert, Rhéteur, p. 25; Mohrmann, “Eloquentia,” pp. 363-364.
105. Dargan, p. 104; Deferrari, “Method,” pp. 194-205, 212; Baldwin, p. 20; Comeau, La rhétorique, p. 107; Van der Meer, p. 419.
106. Van der Meer, pp. 438-440.
107. Bardy, p. 258.
108. Dargan, p. 104