A Model for the Christian Life: Hilary of Poitier’s Commentary on the Psalms 978-0813219875

Table of contents :
Acknowledgments ix
List of Abbreviations xi
Introduction 1
1. Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms 17
Text, Genre, and Audience 19
Recent Scholarship on the Tractatus and
Models of the Christian Life 31
Use of the Psalms in Fourth-Century Gaul 52
2. Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis 60
Use of Origen 65
Exegetical and Theological Perspectives 77
The Influence of Latin Public Culture 87
3. The First Transformation: Baptismum 101
“A City in Plague” 102
Confessio and Ethics 114
Confessio of the Godhead 127
4. The Christological Foundation for
Transformation 136
Divinity of Christ: Continuities and Innovation 140
Forma Dei and Forma Servi: Consequences for
His Humanity 149
Corpus Christi: The Extended Sense 164
5. The Last Transformation: Demutatio 173
Shifts in Perspective and “Heavenly City” 179
Transformation of the Resurrected Body 198
Innovative Approaches to the Resurrected Body 214
Conclusion 225
Bibliography 233
Index of Selected Scriptural Passages 245
Index of Classical and Patristic Authors 247
Index of Modern Scholars 253

Citation preview

A Model for tHe Christian Life

A Model for tHe Christian Life Hilary of Poitiers’ Commentary on the Psalms Paul C. Burns

The Catholic University of America Press Washington, D.C.

Copyright © 2012 The Catholic University of America Press All rights reserved The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standards for Information Science—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. ∞ Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Burns, Paul C. A model for the Christian life : Hilary of Poitiers' Commentary on the Psalms / Paul C. Burns. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references (p. ) and indexes. ISBN 978-0-8132-1987-5 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Hilary, Saint, Bishop of Poitiers, d. 367? Tractatus super Psalmos.  2. Bible. O.T. Psalms—Commentaries.  I. Title. BS1430.53.B87 2012 223'.207—dc23 2012003187

In Memory of Leonard Boyle O.P., Jean Doignon, Anthony Kelly C.S.B., Walter Principe C.S.B., and Maurice Wiles

Contents Acknowledgments ix List of Abbreviations  xi

Introduction 1 1. Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms  17 Text, Genre, and Audience  19 Recent Scholarship on the Tractatus and Models of the Christian Life  31 Use of the Psalms in Fourth-Century Gaul  52

2. Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis  60 Use of Origen  65 Exegetical and Theological Perspectives  77 The Influence of Latin Public Culture  87

3. The First Transformation: Baptismum  101 “A City in Plague”  102 Confessio and Ethics  114 Confessio of the Godhead  127

4. The Christological Foundation for Transformation 136 Divinity of Christ: Continuities and Innovation  140 Forma Dei and Forma Servi: Consequences for His Humanity  149 Corpus Christi: The Extended Sense  164

viii  ³  contents

5. The Last Transformation: Demutatio  173 Shifts in Perspective and “Heavenly City”  179 Transformation of the Resurrected Body  198 Innovative Approaches to the Resurrected Body  214

Conclusion 225 Bibliography  233 Index of Selected Scriptural Passages  245 Index of Classical and Patristic Authors  247 Index of Modern Scholars  253

Acknowledgments For this work I am very indebted to the works of many scholars upon whom I have relied for textual, literary, cultural, historical, and theological perspectives. The most prominent have been Jean Doignon and Marc Milhau. I have also benefited from exchanges of correspondence with Marc Milhau. I have also been greatly aided by advice and assistance from a variety of colleagues. From Robert B. Todd I have received suggestions about current studies on Roman Stoicism; from Brian E. Daley I have received some leads about the use of Psalms in Late Antique Christianity; from Daniel H. Williams I received specific recommendations about current studies in this period. The late J. Kevin Coyle offered me extensive, detailed, practical suggestions about my text. Unfortunately he did not live to see the publication of this project to which he contributed so much. I regret that Kevin is no longer available to continue his knowledgeable and generous support of his colleagues. I am very grateful to my colleague and friend professor emerita Elizabeth A. Bongie for her painstaking review of my translations from Greek and Latin originals. I have received considerable advice from my friend and colleague Mark Vessey on Hilary’s interest in Latin rhetoric and current patterns in the scholarship on the fourth century. From the two assessors for the Catholic University of America Press I received detailed recommendations on organization, style, and scholarship for which I am very grateful. I presented earlier versions of three sections of this monoix

x  ³  Acknowledgments

graph at colloquia or conferences and I am grateful for the recommendations I received on each occasion. I presented papers on the metaphor of “city” at a conference at the Augustinianum in 1999; on the threestage model of the Christian life in a colloquium in my department in 2005; and on Augustine ’s use of the Tractatus at the International Patristics Conference at Oxford in 2007. I am very grateful to the members of the Congregation of St. Basil who first taught me the daily use of the Psalms as a Christian perspective for prayerful reflection upon one ’s own life. I would like to thank members of the Department of Classical, Near Eastern, and Religious Studies at the University of British Columbia for their encouragement throughout this project. For financial support, I am grateful to the Office of the Dean of Arts at the same university and especially to some timely interventions by associate dean Evan Kreider. The shortcomings in this work, of course, remain my own. On a very personal level, I would like to thank my wife, Maureen, who consistently encourages me to identify challenges and to pursue them to their conclusion.

Abbreviations

AJP American Journal of Philology



ALMA Archivum latinitatis medii aevi



CCSL Corpus Christianorum: Series latina



CQ Classical Quarterly CSEL Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum latinorum

De Trin. Hilary’s De Trinitate GCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte

HSCP Harvard Studies in Classical Philology

In Matt. Hilary’s Commentarius in Evangelium Matthaei Instr. Hilary’s Instructio in Tractatus super Psalmos

JECS Journal of Early Christian Studies



JEH Journal of Ecclesiastical History



JRS Journal of Roman Studies

PG Patrologiae cursus completus: Series graeca. Edited by J.-P. Migne. PL Patrologiae cursus completus: Series latina. Edited by J.-P. Migne.

RBén Revue bénédictine

REAug Revue des études augustiniennes

RSR Recherches des science religieuse

xi

xii  ³  abbreviations



RTAM Recherches de théologie ancienne et médiévale



RSPT Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques



SC Sources chrétiennes



SR Studies in Religion



Tr. Ps. Hilary’s Tractatus super Psalmos VC Vigiliae christianae

A Model for tHe Christian Life

Introduct ion

I

n his Tractatus super Psalmos, composed between AD 364 and 367, during the last three years of his life, Hilary of Poitiers designed a commentary on the Psalms into which he inserted a specific theme. From the time of its original publication, his text was read and understood as a commentary on a book of Scripture. For in the fourth century commentaries on Scripture were becoming very popular. In addition to Christian exegetical practices, some comment on Donatus’s commentaries on Vergil and Terence written about twenty years earlier will also illustrate some ways in which Hilary and members of his immediate audience approached the study of a major literary text. The objective of the first chapter of this study will be to study the contents and methods of Hilary’s commentary. Then in the second chapter I will examine his relation to his principal source. Although he never mentioned Origen by name, Hilary’s earliest readers recognized that he was making considerable use of Origen’s commentaries on the Psalms. A careful examination of the ways in which Hilary selected and adapted material from the Greek exegete will illustrate the range of his indebtedness to Origen and at the same time demonstrate his own creative independence from the Greek master. From Origen, for example, it can be shown that Hilary took the triadic structure of the book of the Psalms with each cluster numbering fifty Psalms. Into this structure Hilary proposed his original theme on three stages of the Christian life. One schol1

2  ³  i ntroduction

ar, who produced an extended study of the Tractatus in English, claimed that Hilary never developed and applied that proposal. It is my intention to challenge that claim and, in the third, fourth, and fifth chapters, to demonstrate that Hilary did develop his theme. In three passages within his commentary Hilary proposes to use the Psalms to explore three stages in the Christian life. In these three key passages Hilary states his objective and describes it with appeals to scriptural passages in Paul’s Epistles and the Gospels. I will argue that Hilary applied this theme to his examination of the text of fifty-eight Psalms and that he discusses it throughout his commentary. In applying his plan, Hilary presents a complex, integrated model of the Christian life, which makes use of cultural and theological resources he acquired throughout his education and from his encounters as a Christian bishop in the mid-fourth century. Those encounters are particularly interesting for this study for Hilary was formed in the Latin cultural context of western Gaul but during a critical period from AD 356 to 360 he was exiled to Phrygia where he came into productive contact with a circle of Greek Christians and their perspectives. The Tractatus was not the first time Hilary had dealt with elements of the Christian life. Almost a decade earlier he had composed an autobiography. This text is found in the first half of book 1 of De Trinitate. The objectives of this “Life” have puzzled scholars. Some have interpreted it as Hilary’s account of his personal journey towards the Christian faith; others have seen it as a conventional rhetorical introduction to a major text; more recently scholars have recognized it as contribution to an important theological or methodological theme.1 In his work on the Psalms, Hilary, as we shall see, retains some of the major features 1. For an informative presentation of the scholarly approaches to this “autobiographical” introduction, consult Carl L. Beckwith, “Book One of De Trinitate,” in Hilary of Poitiers: On the Trinity: From De Fide to De Trinitate, esp. 153–57 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), Beckwith identifies Smulders, Borchardt, and Simonetti as scholars who are interested in the theme of conversion but are puzzled by lack of much personal detail. He acknowledges that E. P. Meijering has followed Jerome’s suggestion that Hilary had taken Quintilian’s advice about rhetorical organization. Then among those who have recognized a theological purpose for this “life,” Beckwith has identified an earlier article of mine. See Paul C. Burns, “Hilary of Poitier’s Confrontation with Arianism in 356 and 357,” in Arianism: Historical and Theological Reassessments, edited by Robert C. Gregg, 287–302 (Cambridge, Mass.: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1985). There I argued for a soteriological objective and I will identify a similar purpose in the Tractatus. But, as we shall see in our chapters 1 and 3, Beckwith has explored a more narrowly methodological focus on the relative merits of faith and reason.

i ntroduction  ³  3

of his pro-Nicene defense of the Trinity, which he developed during the various stages of his De Trinitate.2 In the later work, the full divinity of the Son continues to be the foundation of the Christian life and makes the hope for resurrection and eternal life realizable. From his strategy in the later stages of De Trinitate, Hilary continues to employ the Christological hymn in Philippians (2.6–11) as the lens through which to interpret other biblical passages and key issues in the divinity and humanity of Christ. In his work on the Psalms there is much less recourse to anxiety and polemical argument.3 Hilary used that autobiographical introduction both as a conventional opening and as a theological strategy. A comparison with other examples of “life-writing” in the fourth century will highlight some of the distinctive features of Hilary’s two contributions to the genre. The construction of a Life becomes a prominent feature of Christian literature in the second half of the fourth century. Most of these Lives deal with a notable individual with the hope that others will admire or emulate the model. Earlier in the same century, there are extant two different instances of life-writing in Christian and in Latin secular literature. In the second and third decades of the century, Eusebius of Caesarea focuses enthusiastic attention on Constantine, his hero. Although Hilary has some interest in the role of the emperor, he has a much more qualified view than that of Eusebius.4 Moreover Hilary, even in his autobiography, keeps the attention off of himself in a way that is in sharp contrast with all the other Lives of this period. Then about ten years later in the 340s the grammarian Donatus composed a Life of Vergil to open his extensive commentary on the Latin poet’s Eclogues, Georgics, and Aeneid.5 It is useful to note a thematic difference and two parallels 2. For a recent assessment of Hilary’s role within the Latin pro-Nicene community, see Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitatarian Theology, 179–86 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004). 3. At Tr. Ps. 67.15, in his only expressed reference to his earlier work, Hilary names three challenges to the full divinity of Christ but then says he treated them more fully elsewhere. 4. For a critical assessment of the Eusebius’s presentation of Constantine, see Timothy D. Barnes, Constantine and Eusebius (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981). 5. C. Hardie, Vitae Vergilianae Antiquae, Oxford Classical Texts (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957). For the influence of Latin conventions on the composition of the introductory section of De Trin., E. P. Meijering should have included the practice of authorial lives employed by Suetonius, Donatus, and Servius. See his Hilary of Poitiers: On the Trinity: De Trinitate 1.1–19, 2, 3 (Leiden: Brill, 1982).

4  ³  i ntroduction

between the Vita attributed to Donatus and Hilary’s two examples of life-writing, composed about ten and twenty years after Donatus. Fanciful elements such as the marvelous phenomena associated with the birth of Vergil, have no parallels in Hilary’s treatment of the Christian life. Then Donatus emphasizes Vergil’s care with his own text going over and refining his composition, which has some affinities with the care exercised by Hilary as he reads and interprets the scriptural text. Moreover, both Donatus and Hilary use a Life to introduce a commentary on a major text. In 358, Hilary composed his stylized autobiography to serve as his introduction to his De Trinitate.6 Although composed in the first person singular, Hilary designed his Life as a pattern for others who shared his background to help them understand their own experiences. I shall be arguing that the principles in the construction of Hilary’s earlier life-text are repeated and expanded in his Tractatus super Psalmos in the 360s. During the rest of the fourth century there appeared a number of Lives about members of the emerging Christian ascetical tradition. These Lives help to illustrate the cultural and religious context of the period and they provide constructions of “the self ” shared by different expressions of the Christian ascetical movement. In 357 Athanasius composed the Life of Antony which quickly set a standard for other Christian Lives for the rest of the century.7 The Life of Antony was quickly translated into Latin in two versions and became very popular.8 Then around 377, to rival the popularity of the Life of Antony, Jerome composed his Life of Paul of Thebes. Near the beginning of the 380s, Gregory of Nyssa wrote his Life of Macrina. Jerome returned to this genre about a decade later with his Life of Hilarion and his Life of Malchus. Around 396 Sulpicius Severus 6. There is a persuasive analysis of the internal evidence on the revisions and additions to De Fide (De Trin. books 2 and 3) in the production of the 12 books of De Trin. Consult Beckwith, “Book One of De Trinitate.” 7. Although there is some dispute about the Athanasian authorship, it is still conventional to attribute it to him. Evagrius of Antioch made one Latin translation and another Latin version was anonymous. The latter was edited by G. Garritte, Un témoin important du texte de la vie de s. Antoine . . . , Études de philologie, d’archéologie et d’histoire anciennes (Rome: l’Institut Historique Belge, 1939), and reedited by H. W. F. M. Hoppenbrowers, La plus ancienne version latine de la Vie de s. Antoine (Nijmegen: 1960). 8. See references to this Life in Gregory of Nazianzus, Oratio 20.5; Palladius, Lausiac History, 8; John Chrysostom, Homily on Matthew 8; Jerome, On Famous Men 88; Rufinus, Ecclesiastical History, 1.8; and Augustine, Confessions, 8.6.15.

  i ntroduction  ³  5

composed his popular Life of Saint Martin. Then in 397 Augustine began his Confessions. Until recently no one has proposed Hilary’s work as a source for any of these writers who came after him but this study may make the possibility of such influence worth examining. These ascetical lives tend to emphasize three important themes in order to attract their audience to emulate an emerging heroic Christian life style. They generally include these features: 1) a response to a dramatic divine call; 2) some renunciation of conventional social values and acquisition of heroic virtue; and 3) amazing events to inspire wonder or awe. Sometimes there is a clear sense of competitive virtue and wonderworking among figures in this ascetical literary genre. The objective of these Lives is to attract support for different expressions of the ascetical movement. They seem to have contributed to the popularity of Christian asceticism, which was to have increasing influence over the whole Christian community. There was a development in Gaul about a dozen years after Hilary’s death that demonstrates a polarization of this ascetical movement from another, more traditional Christian form of life and leadership. In Gaul and in Iberia, severe tensions erupted between a number of bishops and the ascetics associated with Priscillian.9 This culminated in a highly controversial execution of some of the ascetics. Both Clare Stancliffe and, more recently, David Hunter have examined this clash between the ascetical movement and other Christians reflected in Jerome’s reaction to Vigilantius and in Sulpicius Severus’s depiction of the bishops who opposed Martin of Tours.10 In subsequent generations, much of the episcopal leadership in Gaul would come from members of Christian ascetical communities.11 Hilary represented a somewhat different background for episcopal leadership. 9. Henry Chadwick, Priscillian of Avila (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976) and Virginia Burrus, The Making of a Heretic: Gender, Authority and the Priscillianist Controversy (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995). 10. For these tensions in the Latin West, see the 6th canon of the Council of Saragossa of 380. See the interpretations of the relations between Sulpicius Severus and Vigilantius in the 390s to 406 by David G. Hunter, “Vigilantius of Calagurris and Vitricius of Rouen: Ascetics, Relics, and Clerics in Late Roman Gaul,” JECS 7 (1999): 401–30. See, also, Clare Stancliffe, St. Martin and His Hagiographer: History and Miracle in Sulpicius Severus (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983), chapters 20 and 21. 11. William E. Klingshirn, Caesarius of Arles: The Making of Christian Community in Late Antique Gaul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993).

6  ³  i ntroduction

Hilary had some exposure to certain manifestations of the ascetical movement. He had tried to recruit Martin for ministry in his church at Poitiers. During his exile, Hilary had contacts with Basil of Ancyra who was involved with a Greek-speaking form of this movement. Hilary also collaborated with Eusebius of Vercelli who is reputed to have brought back from his eastern exile a form of communal asceticism. So did Hilary, as most of the other Christian life-writers of this period, demonstrate a preference for some form of the ascetical life? Or did Hilary’s view of the Christian life reflect quite a different perspective shaped by identifiable theological and educational resources? If the latter is true, as I believe to be the case, this increases the significance of Hilary’s treatments of the Christian life. The potential for a distinctive model of the Christian life with differences from the models of the emerging ascetical movement makes a compelling case for this examination of Hilary’s contributions to life-writing. Another feature of some of these Christian Lives was the creative applications of Neoplatonism from Late Antique culture. Augustine, in his Confessions, and Gregory of Nyssa, in his Life of Moses and in his Life of Macrina, both appeal to Platonic or Neoplatonic structures of the human person with its potential for mystical experience. Augustine first encountered Neoplatonism during his time in Milan during the 380s. Since Hilary spent time in Milan in the early 360s campaigning with Eusebius of Vercelli against Auxentius, it will be important to identify the features of Late Antique culture, which he chose to employ in his construction of the Christian life. The beginning of renewed modern academic inquiry into the culture of this period can perhaps be identified with Peter Brown’s analysis of the “developing and struggling self ” in Augustine. His biography of Augustine of Hippo in 1967 encouraged new studies of Augustine’s sources, social structures and values as well as the motives for his construction of his “developing self,” which he applied in his Confessions.12 This research focus reached a major plateau in 1992 with the publication of James O’Donnell’s three-volume text and commentary on the 12. Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967), and the new edition prompted, in part, by recently identified sermons and letters (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000).

i ntroduction  ³  7

Confessions.13 Consequently the scholarly activity on Augustine’s autobiography, as well as Peter Brown’s magisterial article on “The Holy Man in the Late Antiquity” in 1971, attracted considerable attention.14 This, in part, stimulated new critical biographical revisions of a number of other fourth-century Christians such as Constantine, Jerome, John Chrysostom, Ambrose, and Paulinus of Nola. The latter four constructed interpretations of their own lives and values employing resources of fourth-century philosophical and rhetorical culture. This continuing focus of current scholarship on constructions of biographies and autobiographies was demonstrated in a collection of articles on “Biographical Portraits.”15 During this same period of research activity, scholars have advanced our understanding of the fourth-century Latin grammatical and, more particularly, Latin rhetorical and philosophical culture that informed many of these Lives. One of the products of that fourth-century grammatical culture was Donatus’s Commentary on Vergil, which Servius employed early in his fifth-century treatment of Vergil’s poetry. Our understanding of the composition of the complexities of Servius’s Commentary on Vergil owes a considerable debt to the scholars of the Harvard edition of Servius, with their explorations of this complex text and its transmission in both its standard and expanded forms.16 To appreciate the objectives of Servius, they researched his patterns of selection and compilation from his now lost source. They have demonstrated the characteristics of the extensive portfolios of quotations with a pronounced predilection for Republican authors such as Cicero and Sallust.17 These scholars have illustrated the debt of Servius to his source, which is unacknowledged for the most part or disguised with in the indefinite expressions 13. James J. O’Donnell, Augustine’s Confessions, 3 vols. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992). 14. Peter Brown, “The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity,” JRS 61 (1971): 80–101. 15. Mark Edwards and Simon Swain, Portraits: Biographical Representation in the Greek and Latin Literature of the Roman Empire (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997). For a study of fourth-century Greek biographies, consult Tomas Hägg and Philip Rousseau with Christian Høgel, Greek Biography and Panegyric in Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000). 16. E. K. Rand, J. J. Savage, H. T. Smith, G. B. Waldrop, J. P. Elder, B. M. Peebles, A. F. Stocker, Serviorum in Vergilii Carmina Commentariorum volumen II (Lancaster, Pa.: Societatis Philologicae Americanae cura et impensis, 1946), and A. F. Stocker, A. H. Travis, H. T. Smith, G. B. Waldrop, and R. T. Bruère, Serviorum in Vergilii Carmina Commentariorum volumen III (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967). 17. For a comprehensive study of Servius’s patterns of quotations, consult R. B. Lloyd, “Republican Authors in Servius and the Scholia Danielis,” HSCP 65 (1961): 291–341.

8  ³  i ntroduction

such as “some say.” The shape and design of this large diverse commentary presents challenges for interpretation not unlike the issues facing our analysis of Hilary’s Tractatus. Scholars like George P. Goold have demonstrated the ways in which Servius and the scholiasts have adapted the lost Commentary by Donatus.18 So we, too, will look at Hilary’s relation to his two sources by Origen, which are extant but only in fragmented and contaminated versions. This will demonstrate that Hilary uses extensive factual material from his Greek source but that he also pursues his original theme throughout his text. In a similar way scholars have demonstrated that even in the expansive and diffuse line-by-line Commentary on Vergil, there emerges a consistent pattern of interpretations and assessments of Roman history, language, literature, and traditional religion.19 Hilary likewise explores a diverse range of topics in his expansive commentary. My objective is to identify Hilary’s principles and patterns of coherence expressed in passages throughout the extensive Tractatus super Psalmos. As stated above, I will appeal to his cultural context to help illuminate and interpret his methods. For our approach to Hilary’s practice, it is important to note that Donatus, and then Servius, opened their respective commentaries with a life of the author under discussion. Extant evidence of fourth-century Latin rhetorical culture has received renewed critical attention. These resources include an edition of the Relationes of Symmachus,20 the corpus of Ausonius,21 a major study of Claudian,22 an examination of themes and methods in the Gallic rhetoricians,23 and the cultural, social, and political roles of grammarians and 18. For an authoritative examination of the ways, in which Servius and scholiasts have adapted Donatus’s lost commentary on Vergil, consult George P. Goold, “Servius and the Helen Episode,” HSCP 74 (1970): 101–68. 19. See, for example, Philippe Bruggisser, Romulus Servianus: La légende de Romulus dans les Commentaires à Virgile de Servius: Mythographie et idéologie à l’époque de la dynastie théodosienne (Bonn: Habelt, 1987). Bruggisser argues that in fifty passages on Romulus, Servius provides a consistent pattern of interpretations that reflect cultural developments in the latter part of the fourth century under Theodosius and his sons, Arcadius and Honorius. 20. R. H. Barrow, Prefect and Emperor: The Relationes of Symmachus A.D. 384 with Translation and Notes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973). For a recent account of his career, see Cristiana Sogno, Q. Aurelius Symmachus: A Political Biography (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2006). 21. R. P. H. Green, The Works of Ausonius (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991). 22. Alan Cameron, Claudian: Poetry and Propaganda in the Court of Honorius (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970). 23. Sabine MacCormack, “Latin Prose Panegyrics,” in Empire and Aftermath: Silver Latin II, edited by

i ntroduction  ³  9

rhetoricians of the Late Antique period of the Roman Empire.24 Moreover Ammianus Marcellinus, a primary source for the history of this period, has received new critical attention.25 All of these resources will help explain how Hilary employs his educational background and his Latin theological and exegetical resources. We will need to examine carefully whether his contacts with Greek-speaking Christians during his exile to Phrygia motivated Hilary to replace or, at least, modify the influence of his Latin background. In his Tractatus Hilary focuses on the text and themes of the Psalms and he acknowledges a tradition of discussions both written and oral.26 In so doing he combines the exegetical methods he had demonstrated in his earlier Commentary on Matthew with a source or sources he had encountered during his exile in the East. To two commentaries on the Psalms by Origen, as we shall see, Hilary is indebted for his discussion of Greek and Hebrew terms, for much of the technical information about the Psalms, for some of his themes, and for portfolios of scriptural quotations. The examination of Hilary’s uses of his source is not quite as difficult as the case of Servius whose source is no longer extant. Although parts of the works of Origen on the Psalms exist, they do so only in a fragmented and contaminated state. For the reconstruction of the contaminated fragments of Origen’s treatments of the Psalms I am indebted to the painstaking research of Pierre Nautin.27 He lays out the evidence for two of Origen’s Commentaries on the Psalms, which were used by Hilary. This detailed examination of the ways in which Hilary selects and modifies material from Origen will demonstrate both the Gallic bishop’s dependence and his originality. This identification of Hilary’s use of a Greek source or sources raises the most important contribution to the study of Hilary’s texts in the T. A. Dorey, 143–205 (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975), and her “Continuity and Change in Late Antiquity: The Ceremony of Adventus,” Historia 21 (1972): 721–52. 24. Robert A. Kaster, Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity (Berkeley: The University of California Press, 1988). 25. John Matthews, The Roman Empire of Ammianus Marcellinus (London: Duckworth, 1989), and 2nd ed. (Ann Arbor: Michigan Classical Press, 2007). See also Timothy D. Barnes, Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1998). 26. Multos vel praesenti sermone vel ex litteris ac scriptis eorum comperi ita sensisse de psalmo hoc (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 1.2). 27. Pierre Nautin, Origène: Sa Vie et son Oeuvre (Paris: Beauchesne, 1977).

10  ³  i ntroduction

last fifty years. In 1971 Jean Doignon published his authoritative study of Hilary’s cultural context before his exile.28 This sets up the challenge to investigate the range of new influences, which Hilary experienced during his exile in Phrygia. It is now possible to identify patterns of development in Hilary’s thought. Recently Mark Weedman and Carl  L. Beckwith have applied this historical perspective to their studies of Hilary’s development reflected in different stages in the composition of the De Trinitate.29 They each restrict their awareness of Tractatus super Psalmos to a footnote or two. Weedman has nothing to say about the “autobiographical” introduction so important for our comparison with the theme of the Tractatus. They both expand on earlier studies of the rhetorical, theological and exegetical perspectives of Basil of Ancyra and his circle.30 I have already noted Beckwith’s valuable contribution to our understanding of the date and purpose of the autobiographical introduction to De Trinitate. Beckwith also discusses Hilary’s exegetical practice of interpreting a series of controversial biblical passages through the lens of a specific text. He selects Colossians 2.9 and demonstrates how, in De Trinitate, Hilary invokes it repeatedly in his interpretations of a number of passages from the Gospel of John. This exegetical practice also shows up in the Tractatus but the critical interpretative lens is not the verse in Colossians but rather Philippians 2.6–11. Weedman, as we shall see in chapter 4, devotes considerable attention to the use of this same passage by Basil and his circle and by Hilary in De Trinitate. Our study will build on the contributions of these scholars to explore both Hilary’s creative uses of the Greek Christian resources in the circle around Ancyra and also the ways in which he adapts them to the western perspectives of himself and his immediate audience. Although these resources from Greek-speaking Christians make critical contributions to many levels of the Tractatus, I will examine how 28. Jean Doignon, Hilaire de Poitiers avant l’exil: Recherches sur la naissance, l’enseignement et l’épreuve d’une foi épiscopale en Gaule au milieu du IV siècle (Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1971). 29. For stages in Hilary’s accommodation of homoiousion Trinitarian thought and exegesis, consult Mark Weedman, The Trinitarian Theology of Hilary of Poitiers, Supplements to VC 39 (Leiden: Brill, 2007). For the thorough examination of internal evidence for the revision and expansion from De Fide to De Trin., see Carl L. Beckwith, n. 1. 30. For an authoritative study of the evidence for the homoiousion, see Jeffrey N. Steenson, Basil of Ancyra and the Course of Nicene Orthodoxy (Oxford: Oxford University, unpublished Ph.D. diss., 1983).

i ntroduction  ³  11

Hilary integrates this material with the fundamental perspectives of Latin exegesis and theology as well as the patterns in Latin grammatical and rhetorical traditions. In the Tractatus, Hilary demonstrates his creative use of his own Latin exegetical and theological background. This will be most evident in his treatment of the ultimate transformation of the resurrected Christian in chapter 5. Unlike the occasional comment on “becoming like the angels” in his earlier Commentary on Matthew, in his works on the Psalms Hilary will consistently subordinate the Christian’s relation to the angels to “conformity to the body of Christ.” The complex interactions of these diverse resources will emerge in the main themes of our study: principles of exegesis; treatments of the divine and providence; ethical transformations; fundamental role of the body of Christ; ultimate transformation of the Christian after the resurrection; and the recurring metaphor of the city. I will indicate how these central themes illustrate a degree of continuity with his earlier work within the Latin exegetical, theological, and cultural traditions as well as his adaptation of new resources from the circle around Basil of Ancyra. The relations between Christians and traditional Romans in the third-century persecutions experienced by Origen differ markedly from the conditions of the mid-fourth century familiar to Hilary. There is also a significant shift in the latter stages of the fourth century after the death of Hilary in the ways Christians and Roman senatorial practitioners of traditional Roman religious culture regarded each other. Later in this century during the time of Theodosius and then his sons, Christians renewed their application of the pejorative term “paganus” to designate practitioners of traditional Roman religion.31 There has been a tendency by scholars to read this polarization back into earlier generations. During the middle years of the fourth century there seems to have been a degree of acceptance of social and cultural values between Christians and traditional Romans.32 Social and cultural histori31. For a recent review of the evidence for Christian uses of this term, see Harold Remus, “The End of ‘Paganism’?” SR 33 (2004): 191–208. 32. For a succinct contrast of the assimilation of public culture by Christians in the 350s from the later polarization of public culture and Christianity, see R. A. Markus, The End of Ancient Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 27–30. He discusses anachronism in Augustine’s account of the conversion of Marius Victorinus. See also the important distinction on this point between Basil of Caesarea and Augustine in Kaster, Guardians of Language, 87–88. On this issue Hilary is closer to Basil.

12  ³  i ntroduction

ans such as Peter Brown, John Matthews, and James O’Donnell, whom we have already noted, as well as Michele R. Salzman,33 and Raymond Van Dam,34 have explored this shift of perspective. They have all interpreted the evidence in a nuanced fashion, which reflects the subtle interaction of many factors in the experience of mid-fourth-century Roman citizens. Hanns Christof Brennecke,35 Timothy D. Barnes,36 Daniel Williams,37 and Patricia Just38 have made valuable contributions to our understanding of the evolving political and Christian patterns in the period affecting Hilary’s career in the 350s and 360s. Our understanding of the grammatical culture of Bordeaux during this period has been expanded by the work of Robert A. Kaster. Even more important for our task has been the work of R. P. H. Green on Ausonius, and the studies of Sabine MacCormack on the rhetorical activity in Gaul, all noted above. Also noted above have been the studies by John Matthews and Timothy D. Barnes on the evidence and methods of Ammianus Marcellinus, a major primary source for the history of Hilary’s period. Hilary of Poitiers has left an impressive body of writing spanning the years roughly 353 to 367 and many of his texts are now available in new critical editions. Jean Doignon, who has dedicated much of his life to the 33. For another example of this openness of Christians to the public culture during the 350s, consider the calendar of 354. See Michele R. Salzman, On Roman Time: The Codex-Calendar of 354 and the Rhythms of Urban Life in Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991). 34. Raymond Van Dam, Leadership and Community in Late Antique Gaul (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985). 35. Hanns Christof Brennecke, Hilarius von Poitiers und die Bischofsopposition gegen Konstantius II (Berlin: de Guyter, 1984). 36. Timothy D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993 and 2001). 37. Daniel H. Williams, “A Reassessment of the Early Career and Exile of Hilary of Poitiers,” JEH 42 (1991): 202–17, and his Ambrose of Milan and the End of the Arian-Nicene Conflicts (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995), esp. chapter 2: “Early Pro-Nicene Campaigns: Hilary of Poitiers and Eusebius of Vercelli.” Among other things Williams is able to show plausible relationships between the career of Hilary, including his journey east to confront Constantius, and the career of Julian first as Caesar in Gaul and then as acclaimed emperor. Williams uses these political developments to provide suggestive explanations for Hilary’s trial and exile in 356, his abrupt return to Gaul in 360, and his campaign against Arians in Northern Italy until Julian’s death in 363. For a comprehensive review of Hilary’s own assessments of the reasons for his exile, see Carl L. Beckwith, “The Condemnation and Exile of Hilary of Poitiers at the Synod of Béziers (356 C.E.),” JECS 13 (2005): 21–38. 38. Patricia Just, Imperator et Episcopus: Zum Verhältnis von Staatsgewalt und christlicher Kirche zwischen dem 1. Konzil von Nicaea (325) und dem 1. Konzil von Konstantiopel, Potsdamer Altertumswissenschaftlichen Beiträge 8 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2003).

  i ntroduction  ³  13

study of Hilary’s work, has provided the important new critical edition of Hilary’s Commentarii in Evangelium Matthaei (In Matt.).39 He has also published the first two volumes of the projected three-volume edition of the Tractatus.40 The critical apparatus in each of these editions all reflect Doignon’s prodigious investigations into the literary and cultural contexts of Hilary. Marc Milhau has also published an important critical edition of Hilary on Psalm 118.41 His important article on the threefold division of the Psalter provides the starting point for my study.42 Doignon has also produced important monographs and numerous articles demonstrating parallels between Hilary’s text and the texts of Latin theological, exegetical, grammatical, and rhetorical culture. His death on June 8, 1997, left a significant void among contemporary scholars on Hilary of Poitiers to which he had contributed so substantially over a long and productive career. It is time to employ these critical resources in order to address a lacuna in modern scholarship on Hilary, first noted by Charles Kannengiesser back in 1969.43 There is both a need and an opportunity for a study of the principles, themes, metaphors, and sources for Hilary’s Tractatus super Psalmos. These developments in modern scholarship have provided the tools to explore how Hilary presents the Psalms to his audience. In a sense I will borrow Hilary’s own metaphor of “keys to open a text for our understanding.”44 Just as he has applied the metaphor to the Psalms, I am extending the same comparison to his own text. Unlike many of the other authors of fourth-century Lives, Hilary has left no authentic personal correspondence from which to reconstruct the events, chronology, and motivations that shaped his life. Even Hil39. Jean Doignon, Hilaire de Poitiers sur Matthieu: Introduction, Texte Critique, Traduction et Notes, SC 254 and 258 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1978 and 1979). 40. Jean Doignon, Sancti Hilarii Pictaviensis Episcopi Tractatus super Psalmos, vol. 1, CCSL 61 (Turnholt: Brepols, 1997), and Jean Doignon and R. Demeulenaere, Sancti Hilarii Pictaviensis Episcopi Tractatus super Psalmos in Psalmum CXVIII, vol. 2, CCSL 61A (Turnholt: Brepols, 2002). 41. Marc Milhau, Hilaire de Poitiers Commentaire sur le Psaume 118, tomes 1–2, SC 344, 347 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1988). 42. Marc Milhau, “Sur la division tripartite du Psautier (Hilaire de Poitiers, Tr. Ps. Inst. 11),” in Le Psautier chez les Pères, edited by P. Maraval, 55–72, Cahiers de Biblia Patristica 4 (Strasbourg: Centre d’analyse et de documentation patristique, 1993). 43. For Charles Kannengiesser’s call for a comparative study between Hilary’s Treatise on the Psalms and two other Latin commentaries in the next generation, consult his “Hilaire de Poitiers, saint,” Dictionnaire de Spiritualité VI (Paris: Beauchesne, 1969), 482. 44. For this Hilary’s use of this metaphor, see Instr. 24.

14  ³  i ntroduction

ary’s autobiographical section of book 1 in his De Trinitate made very few explicit assertions about his own personal background and career. From the hints in the writings of Hilary, we can draw inferences about a person who was a product of education in the Latin grammatical and rhetorical culture of the Late Antique Roman period. He seems to have become a convert to Christianity as an adult. Then he was consecrated bishop of Poitiers around 353.45 He became embroiled in the ecclesiatical, political, and ultimately theological issues from 356 to around 364. As a consequence he was exiled to Phrygia in 356 for four years.46 His dogged defense of what he regarded as orthodoxy did not blind Hilary to the value of the alternative approaches to the theological issues developed by Christian leaders in that part of the Greek-speaking East. In Phrygia Hilary apparently learned, or significantly improved, his command of the Greek language and also the particular theological perspectives of an important circle around Basil of Ancyra. He translated47 and interpreted their synodal traditions sympathetically and sent his version of these texts back to his episcopal colleagues in Gaul.48 He also was introduced to the exegetical traditions of Origen and certainly made use of them in his Tractatus. During his involvement with the theological issues of this period Hilary attempted, unsuccessfully, to engage the emperor Constantius.49 His appeals to the emperor demonstrated his familiarity with the protocols and procedures of Latin rhetorical culture. 45. At De Trin. 1.14, Hilary clearly refers to his responsibility as a bishop to teach the truth for the salvation of all people. For a description of Hilary’s first-person progress and the scriptural texts to construct that journey, see Paul C. Burns, “Hilary’s Use of Communally Sanctioned Texts to Construct His Autobiography,” Zeitschrift Für Antikes Christentum/Journal of Ancient Christianity 2 (1998): 65–83. 46. See his references in his De Synodis to his place of exile. At 1 he mentions that he has been in several cities of the Roman world and that his actual place of exile is secret. Then at 63 he refers to the ten provinces of Asia in which he is currently staying. In that same passage and then again at 90, he mentions, with respect, Greek bishops of the region: Eleusis, Basil, and Eustathius. 47. In a comment at De Synodis 9 about the obligation of the translator from Greek to Latin, Hilary maintains that being too literal is to be obscure and somewhat unintelligible. 48. For a report on Hilary’s sources and methods in this text, see Paul C. Burns, “West Meets East in the De Synodis of Hilary of Poitiers,” Studia Patristica 28 (1993): 24–28. For an informative study of Hilary’s advice to both his Latin colleagues and also to his Greek hosts in De Synodis, consult Weedman, Trinitarian Theology, especially chapter 4 “Hilary, Basil of Ancyra and Sirmium 357.” 49. See André Rocher, Hilaire de Poitiers: Contre Constance: Introduction, Texte Critique, Traduction, Notes et Index, SC 334 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1987), and Lionel R. Wickham, Hilary of Poitiers: Conflicts of Conscience and Law in the Fourth-Century Church (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1997), and Williams, “A Reassessment of the Early Career.”

i ntroduction   ³  15

For my focus in this study, I am grateful for that seminal article by Marc Milhau, which first drew my attention to Hilary’s declaration that he would interpret the Psalms as a blueprint for constructing a threestage model for the Christian life. Hilary describes his proposal at Instr. 11, and at Tr. Ps. 51.2 and 150.1.50 I intend to proceed in three steps. In chapter 1, I will describe the contents and intended audience of Hilary’s text for which he designed his proposal in those three passages. The fragmentary evidence for the actual use of the Psalms by Christians in the fourth century suggests that they are an appropriate context for a reflection on the principles for a Christian life. Then in chapter 2, I will examine the fragments for Origen’s works on the Psalms to show what Hilary uses, without any acknowledgment, and how he diverges from his source. His independent choices reflect his creative adaptation to his own Latin Christian and cultural backgrounds. Then for the rest of this study I propose to examine the case for Hilary’s application of his proposal throughout the Treatise. At least one scholar, as we shall see, has maintained that Hilary never did follow up his proposal with an extended application of his thesis throughout the Tractatus. To emphasize the progressive nature of Hilary’s model, I have chosen to focus on the transformative elements in the change from his stage one to stage two in chapter 3 and then on the change from this second stage to the final stage in chapter 5. In Hilary’s terminology at Tr. Ps. 150.1 that first change begins with conversion from vir saecularis to baptismum and the final change entails the demutatio of the risen body. Between these two transformations, I will devote chapter 4 to Hilary’s Christology, which provides the dynamic foundation for this model of the Christian life from its inception to its completion. In his consistent emphasis on corpus Christi, Hilary differs from Origen. The extensive textual evidence in Hilary’s diffuse commentary presents a challenge to provide a coherent exposition. Since the Tractatus is a line-by-line or phrase-by-phrase discussion of the Psalms, I will select representative passages relevant to aspects of his declared theme and supplement them with references to other passages of his commentary. 50. Citations from Hilary’s Tractatus super Psalmos will be identified simply by the Instr. and paragraph number or by Psalm and paragraph numbers as provided by the critical editions.

16  ³  i ntroduction

Where helpful I will identify the actual text of the Psalms, which has prompted Hilary’s comment. I will standardize the format of all Latin citations from the three editions of the Tractatus, which I am using. I will defer to the most recent critical edition by Doignon but this is available only for two of the proposed three volumes, that is up to the conclusion of Psalm 118. For the rest I will use the nineteenth-century edition of Zingerle but I will standardize the use of quotations in italics and the use of the upper case in order to conform to the practices of the most recent edition. For its useful introduction, apparatus and notes, I will also be using Milhau’s edition of Hilary on Psalm 118. I ask the reader’s indulgence for the amount of textual evidence in the original language, to which I appeal in order to make my case about the existence and influence of Hilary’s sources and themes scattered throughout his expansive commentary. I have retained the main evidence in the body of my text and consigned other examples to the notes. For quotations in the body of the text, I have provided English translations. Since there is no published English translation for much of this material, I offer my own version. In this I have attempted to follow Hilary’s constructions and extended sentences for the most part; occasionally I have used shorter English sentences rather than the lengthy periodic style of Hilary’s Latin constructions.51 51. I am very grateful to my friend and colleague Professor Emerita Elizabeth A. Bongie, who meticulously checked my translations. She has saved me from many an error or awkward expression. The limitations that remain are my own responsibility.

1

Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms

I

n the Tractatus super Psalmos Hilary has produced an exten sive commentary on a selection of fifty-eight Psalms. In three passages, Hil­ary states that each cluster of fifty Psalms deals with a stage in his model of the Christian life. How Hilary announces he intends to interpret this text, and what he actually does, may be two different things. Has he, as he claims, used the Psalms to work out principles for a three-stage model of the Christian life or has he simply offered a generic commentary on the biblical text? If he is actually addressing both objectives, then is Hilary’s choice of the Psalms the most appropriate biblical text to provide a model for the lives of all Christians? If we are able to supply an answer to that question, even if only hypothetically, then can we identify Hilary’s motives for such a complex project? We will return to these questions at the end of this chapter. We may have to wait for our discussion in these five chapters to confirm Hilary’s full range of objectives for this undertaking. Throughout this study, most of the textual evidence will be provided in the notes, however, I cite key passages in the body of my text and provide English translations. In the first section on “Text, Genre, and Audience,” I include a passage in which Hilary discusses the relative merits of Greek and Latin versions 17

18  ³  Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms

of a term which he connects to his major theme of “inclusion within Christ.” I also include two passages on audiences. One deals with the “uninitiated” and the other with “believers.” Then for the second section on Hilary’s three-stage model of the Christian life, I cite key texts from Instructio 11 and 150.1, plus a succinct summary from another passage. For the final section on the people ’s use of Psalms, I provide evidence from Athanasius. I intend to employ this selective approach to textual evidence in each of the subsequent chapters. Before dealing with Hilary’s proposed agenda for this text, I will identify the critical editions, and then describe some of the distinctive characteristics of authorship, title, extent, content, date, codices of the Psalms and cultural influences that inform his composition of the Treatise. Some of those cultural resources are Latin traditions, which he had employed in his writing before his exile while some are new to him as a result of his contacts during his exile in Phrygia. The Tractatus super Psalmos is now available, in whole or in part, in three critical editions. Two recent editions have already been identified in the introduction. The 1988 edition by Milhau deals only with the commentary on Psalm 118. The 1997/2002 edition by Doignon is designed to be completed in three volumes but only the first two have been published and they include the whole commentary from the Instructio through Hilary’s selection of Psalms up to the end of 118. Therefore for the rest of the Treatise, I will rely on the late nineteenth-century edition by Zingerle.1 In the Tractatus, as we have it, the contents, scale, and sequences of the Psalms, all point to a commentary on the biblical text. There is considerable scholarly consensus about the date of the Treatise and its relation to his other works. After I describe the basic features of the commentary on the Psalms, I will return to the three passages in which Hilary announces his theme of a model for the Christian life. This then invites a consideration of Hilary’s choice of the Psalms as the most appropriate scriptural text for such a topic.

1. Antonius Zingerle, S. Hilarii Episcopi Pictaviensis Tractatus super Psalmos, CSEL 22 (Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1891).

Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms  ³  19

Text, Genre, and Audience

About the identity of Hilary as author of the Treatise there is no dispute. Within a couple of years after its composition, Jerome, in Epistula Ad Florentinum 5.2, composed around 375, refers to this text. He names its author with the modifier sanctus.2 About the basis for the title for the Treatise, there is less certainty. The term, Tractatus, is assigned to the text by the ninth-century Carolingian manuscript R (Vaticanus Reginensis Lat. 95) and retained by the Renaissance editions right up to the modern critical editions.3 In the letter mentioned above, Jerome designates Hilary’s text simply as “interpretationem psalmorum Daviticorum.” In other places Jerome refers to the text with a convenient short form: In Psalmo and the appropriate number. Sometimes he adds another noun to that prepositional phrase such as In Commentariis, Interpretatione, or Expositione.4 Later Cassiodorus refers several times to Hilary’s treatment of certain Psalms but without any attempt at a title.5 So these early 2. interpretationem quoque psalmorum Daviticorum et prolixum valde de synodis librum sancti Hilarii, quae ei apud Treveris manu mea ipse descripseram, aeque ut mihi transferas peto (Jerome, Epistola 5.2.3). 3. For an identification and description of this manuscript, consult Jean Doignon, Sancti Hilarii Pictaviensis Episcopi Tractatus super Psalmos, vol. 1, CCSL 61 (Turnholt: Brepols, 1997), xxxv–xxxvii. The text of the Tractatus is contained in 229 folios. On the last folio there is a colophon that states it was copied at the Abbey of Micy during the time of Abbot Peter. The abbey was in the diocese of Orléans and Peter was abbot in the middle of the ninth century. 4. In addition to his early reference to Hilary’s Tractatus in Epistula 5, noted above, Jerome acknowledges the text as a commentary on the Psalms throughout his career. In Epistula 34 almost a decade later in 384, Jerome expresses surprise that Marcella has not read Hilary’s work but then corrects Hilary’s interpretation of a phrase in Psalm 126 and one in Psalm 128. For a discussion of this appeal to Hilary’s Tractatus, consult Jean Doignon, “Peut-on considérer avec Jérôme (Epist. 34, 5) qu’Hilaire s’est fourvoyé au sujet du verset 2 du Psaume 127?” in Jérôme entre l’Occident et l’Orient, edited by Yves-Marie Duval, 165–171 (Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1988). In 393 in De Viris Illustribus 100, Jerome provides a sketch of Hilary’s twelve literary productions and another title whose existence he questions. In that list, the Commentary on the Psalms is mentioned immediately after De Trin. and De Synodis. Moreover, for this particular item, Jerome adds two pieces of pertinent information about Hilary’s relation to his source and about his selection of specific Psalms for discussion. In 396 or early 397 in Epistula 82, Jerome defends his own decision to translate works of Origen by appealing to the practice of Hilary who, he claimed, retained from Origen what was useful and rejected what was not. In 399 he again defends his own use of Origen in Epistula 84 where he claims that Hilary had translated Origen’s Homilies, presumably on the Psalms, in his own selective fashion. Then in 404 in Epistula 112 to Augustine, Jerome appeals to the precedents of translating commentaries on the Psalms from Origen by Hilary and from Eusebius of Caesarea by Eusebius of Vercelli. 5. For his appeals to Hilary’s exegesis of certain Psalms, see Cassiodorus, Institutiones Divinarum et Saecularium Litterarum 1.4.1 and Expositio Psalmorum, Praefatio 6.8, 9.645, 12.8–11, 110.17–21, 138.11–2, and unidentified possible parallels at Praefatio 4.8–11, 123.11–12, 135.245–46.

20  ³  Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms

references all consider Hilary’s text to be a commentary on the Psalms. Within his own text, Hilary refers at Tr. Ps. 135.12 and 14 to his own comment on an individual Psalm as a Tractatus. There is at least that partial justification for this title of the whole Treatise in the Carolingian manuscript’s use of that term. The content, organization, and limits of the text itself can be determined with a fair degree of certainty although it is not absolutely established that we now have everything which Hilary originally composed for his commentary on the Psalms.6 Within each Psalm selected for comment, Hilary moves in an orderly sequence and selects verses, phrases, or even individual terms to discuss. In this selection he often chooses elements of the superscription and then key passages within the text of the Psalms.7 His text covers 888 pages in Zingerle’s complete edition. This combination of the method of a sequential line-by-line commentary and its voluminous length, as we noted in the introduction, certainly presents a challenge to track coherent themes throughout the Treatise. Hilary organizes his lengthy commentary in a conventional fashion. He opens the Tractatus with an Instructio, now divided into twenty-four paragraphs, to introduce a number of technical matters about the text of the Psalms as well as the theme he intends to develop. In the last paragraph of this introduction Hilary employs his metaphor to point out the need for a variety of keys to buildings in a large city (urbs) in order to open the meaning of the various Psalms. After our summary of the contents of the Tractatus in this chapter, we will return to this passage at Instructio 24 in order to begin the next chapter on Hilary’s actual exegetical methods. This metaphorical passage sets up his discussion of his selection of the 150 Psalms in numerical sequence. Whether Hilary had intended to comment on all the Psalms or whether he employed some principle for the selection of certain Psalms 6. See Jean Doignon’s critique, Sancti Hilarii Pictaviensis, vol.1, xxi–xxii, for A. Casamassa’s argument for supposed cross references to lost elements of the Tractatus. Doignon argues, plausibly, that these are all references to the actual verses of the Psalms and not to passages in his commentary. For Casamassa’s case, consult his “Appunti per lo studio dei “Tractatus super Psalmos” di Ilario di Poitiers,” Studia Anselmiana 27/28 (1951): 231–33. 7. These notes of uncertain origin are retained by the Septuagint and deal with either the historical context of the theme of a Psalm or with musical instructions. For another fourth-century exploration of the deeper level of these notes, consult Ronald E. Heine, Gregory of Nyssa’s Treatise on the Inscriptions of the Psalms: Introduction, Translation, and Notes (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995).

Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms  ³  21

or whether the vagaries of textual transmission have governed the current number is difficult to determine definitively. There is extant commentary on Psalms 1, 2, 9, 13, 14, 51 to 69, 91, 118 to 150 for a total of fifty-eight Psalms. The numbering system follows the Septuagint with conflation of the Hebrew text 9 and 10 as well as 114 and 115, and then dividing both the Hebrew text 116 and 147. We shall see that Hilary is convinced of providential guidance in both the Septuagint translation and in its ordering of the Psalms. This catalogue of fifty-eight Psalms treated by Hilary is at variance with the notice Jerome provided in his De Viris Illustribus 100, composed in 393, where he claimed that Hilary had commented on Psalms 1 and 2, 51 to 62, and then 100 to 150. Does this mean that Jerome had access to a version which contained material such as comment on Psalms 100 to 117 which is no longer extant? Although it may be easy to challenge Jerome ’s accuracy due to the carelessness of his compilation, it is clear from other observations by Jerome that he had a special interest in this particular text.8 For in Epistula 5, quoted above, Jerome asked specifically for this text along with Hilary’s De Synodis, which he said he had copied out during a visit to Trier, sometime between 367 and 372.9 Additional passages of commentary on specific Psalms appear in an appendix in Zingerle ’s edition. He observes that they are either fragments from a fuller version or they have been falsely attributed to Hilary. In that appendix Zingerle presents material on Psalm 63 in a Verona manuscript, on Psalm 132 in manuscripts from Verona and the Vatican, on Psalm 67 in a Paris manuscript, and on Psalms 6, 7, and 15 in a Douai manuscript.10 Even so, these selections do not correspond to comment on Psalms 100 to 117 mentioned in Jerome ’s notice. Internal evidence of cross-references within Hilary’s text does not provide any clear indication about the possibility of a fuller version than that which we currently possess. The length of Hilary’s comment on individual Psalms does vary. 8. For Jerome’s interest in Hilary’s treatment of the Psalms, consult his Epistulae 5.2.3, 20.1, 34.3–4, 49.13, and 19, 55.3, 57.6, 58.10, 60, 7, 61,3, 70.5, 82,7, 84.6, 107.12, 112.20. 9. For this date, consult, J. N. D. Kelly, Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies (London: Duckworth, 1975), 25. 10. For a fuller report on the contents of this twelfth-century manuscript, see Doignon, Sancti Hilarii Pictaviensis, xlii.

22  ³  Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms

His treatment of Psalm 9 is relatively short consisting of only four paragraphs. Prior to that, he had dealt with Psalms 1 and 2 at considerable length. Psalm 1 has twenty-four paragraphs and Psalm 2 has fifty. In a sense Hilary uses his comment on these first two Psalms to provide a thematic introduction to his whole commentary. Because he had employed much of his Instructio to identify a range of technical matters, Hilary uses the verses in the first two Psalms to set up some of his basic themes. So he employs verses on “the happy man” from Psalm 1 and “those who mutter and plot against God” in Psalm 2 in order to explore themes about the human condition which appear throughout his treatment of the Psalms. Then Hilary’s treatment of the lengthy Psalm 118 is far longer than his comment on any other. In fact the two most recent editors, Marc Milhau and Jean Doignon, have given it a status somewhat independent from the rest of the Tractatus. That same Carolingian manuscript R (Vaticanus Regin. Lat. 95), noted above for its use of Tractatus in its title, preserved this Psalm linked with the comment on Psalm 142 separately from the rest of the Treatise.11 Some scholars treat Hilary’s commentary on Psalm 118 as a summary of his treatment of all the Psalms. It certainly is a comprehensive exploration of Hilary’s themes. But since, as we shall see, Hilary treats features such as the creation of humans more fully than the treatments provided elsewhere in the Tractatus, Psalm 118 should be regarded as more than just a summary of themes which he discussed throughout the whole Psalter. For the dating of the Tractatus there is a general consensus that Hilary composed it during the last three years of his life, between 364 and 367. The most recent editor supplies some probable references between this text and other texts, which Hilary composed during the 360s as well as back to earlier writings, especially the De Trinitate. On the date of the composition and its relation to other works by Hilary, Kannengiesser, and Doignon have provided a clear presentation of evidence and scholarly consensus to which I add Hilary’s use of two passages from Philippians. There is a relatively clear reference at Psalm 67.15 back to an extended discussion of Christological issues in De Trinitate 7.12 Doignon 11. Consult Jean Doignon and R. Demeulenaere, Sancti Hilarii Pictaviensis Episcopi Tractatus super Psalmos: In Psalmum CXVIII, CCSL 61A (Turnhout: Brepols, 2002), vii–viii. 12. . . . quibus, ut spero, aliis locis uberius copiosiusque responsum est (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 67.15). See Doig-­

Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms  ³  23

goes on to identify other possible references from the Tractatus back to concluding books of the De Trinitate. For our discussion of the status of Christ, an important element in the Tractatus will be Hilary’s extensive use, particularly at Tr. Ps. 122.7 and 138.17, of Philippians 2.6–11, to which he had devoted considerable attention back in De Trinitate 9.38 and 11.48. On Hilary’s approaches to the “sufferings of Christ” particularly at Tr. Ps. 2.23 and 2.29, Doignon refers back to De Trinitate 10.23, 10.30, 10.47–48. For the theme of “glorification of the Son” (2.14 and 2.27), Doignon sees parallels at De Trinitate 11.19 and 9.4, respectively. For Hilary’s frequent application of Philippians 3.21 to the ultimate destiny of the believer in the Tractatus, I point to the use of the same passage back in De Trinitate 9.8 and 11.35. Doignon, in his review of the suggestive evidence for the composition of the Tractatus late in Hilary’s career, comments about similar cultural perspectives in the autobiographical section of De Trinitate and the more expansive use of the same ideas in his treatment of the Psalms.13 In both places Hilary demonstrates some features of Roman culture such as Stoic interest in divine Providence which lies behind his critique of Epicureans in his autobiography in the earlier text and then expanded in his construction of the three-stage progress of the Christian in this Treatise on the Psalms. There are also a number of parallel treatments, noted by the most recent editor, on a variety of topics between the commentary on the Psalms and Hilary’s In Constantium, Contra Auxentium, and Tractatus Mysteriorum. Doignon infers that all these texts predate the Tractatus super Psalmos or, at least in the case of the third text, that section of the commentary for which he adduces parallels. For the relation of this Treatise to the Tractatus Mysteriorum, Doignon follows the suggestions of Feder14 and Brisson,15 who see in the fuller passages at Psalms non, Sancti Hilarii Pictaviensis, vii, and Charles Kannengiesser, “Hilaire de Poitiers, saint,” Dictionnaire de Spiritualité VI (1968), 482. Both scholars follow Coustant at PL 9, 221D, and claim that this is a reference back to Hilary’s critique of the heresies of Arius, Sabellius, and Photinus that occurs in De Trin. 7. Doignon in his testimonia to the passage in question also refers back to De Trin. 1.16–17. 13. Doignon, Sancti Hilarii Pictaviensis, vii–viii. 14. longum est passiones ceterorum patriarcharum, prophetarum, apostolorum . . . memorare . . . sed haec oportunius et plenius suis locis tractari oportet . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 138.4). For the recommendation that this refers back to the other Treatise, consult Antonius Feder, S. Hilarii Episcopi Pictaviensis Opera IV: Tractatus Mysteriorum, CSEL 65 (Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1916), xiv. 15. Corvum in formam peccatoris constitutum esse tum, cum ex arca emissus non redit, meminimus

24  ³  Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms

138.4 and 146.12, which deal with “sufferings of the patriarchs and Moses” and “the flight of the raven,” references back to the other commentary. The summary statement in Tractatus Mysteriorum on the “earthly Adam” as the “image of the future” will receive considerable development and application in Tr. Ps. 118.10 and elsewhere. Doignon establishes plausible parallels between Hilary’s treatments of Roman imperial power in his work on the Psalms which reflect similar themes in his In Constantium16 and his Contra Auxentium.17 We need to consider, as well, Hilary’s damning criticism of Constantius in his Contra Constantium. In these documents Hilary takes quite different positions on the motives and role of the emperor Constantius. In the first text Hilary displays the traditional forms of respect towards the emperor and argues that his mistaken religious policy is due to the intervention of bishops who are influential at court. In the Contra Constantium and Contra Auxentium Hilary denounces the emperor and his religious policies and asserts that he is ready to fight and to endure persecutions, even martyrdom against the anti-Christ.18 The ferocity of this criticism will be considerably moderated in the Tractatus begun perhaps two years later. Throughout his critical apparatus for the Tractatus, Doignon provides useful resources for our consideration of Hilary’s familiarity with Latin rhetorical models. (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 146.12). For the suggestion that this refers back to a fuller discussion on Noah at what is now a lacuna in the manuscript, consult Jean-Paul Brisson, Hilaire de Poitiers, Traité des Mystères, SC 19, 2nd ed. (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1967), 13, n. 2;100, n. 4. 16. Et plerumque nos tamquam pro debita officii religione pie adulari regibus existimamus, quia in corpus nostrum sit his aliquid potestatis (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 52.14); Fuit ergo formidinis, ne persecutionibus principum aut indigne subderetur aut cederet (Tr. Ps. 118.21.2). For his observation about parallels with his In Constantium on critiques of the imperial attempts to dominate the Church, consult Doignon, Sancti Hilarii Pictaviensis, ix. 17. . . . cum iudicium [D]ei expectamus, offenduntur saeculi reges . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 122.10); . . . [P]erpessi namque hominum insectationes, regum impias constitutiones, consiliatorum inlecebrosas adhortationes cum in fide maneamus . . . (123.3). For his suggestion that there are parallels on the plight of the Christian faithful with Contra Auxentium, consult Doignon, Sancti Hilarii Pictaviensis, ix. Consult also the introduction to André Rocher, Hilaire de Poitiers: Contre Constance: Introduction, Texte Critique, Traduction et Notes, SC 334 (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1987). 18. See In Constantium 5 and the discussion of Daniel H. Williams, “The Anti-Arian Campaigns of Hilary of Poitiers and the Liber contra Auxentium,” Church History 61 (1992): 7–22, esp. 7–14. For a more recent study of the contrasting treatments of Constantius in Hilary’s Ad Constantium and Contra Constantium, see Patricia Just, Imperator et Episcopus: Zum Verhältnis von Staatsgewalt und christlicher Kirche zwischen dem 1. Konzil von Nicaea (325) und dem 1. Konzil von Konstantinopel (381), Potsdamer Altertumswissenschaftlichen Beiträge 8 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2003), 112–18.

Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms  ³  25

For the actual text of the Psalms, Hilary makes numerous references to different codices in Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. This practice reflects the complexity of Hilary’s methods of using his sources to be discussed in the next chapter. The references to Greek and Hebrew codices almost certainly come from his Greek source(s). The references to Latin manuscripts or readings come from his personal evaluations of the respective merits of the Latin versions in comparison with the originals.19 Hilary, for example, comments on the evidence of Latin codices for the specific term, Iubilate and its cognate iubilum in the opening verse of Psalm 65.20 He goes on to point out that, in contrast to the pastoral tone of the Latin version, the Greek and the Hebrew texts sound a more military note.21 In another instance in his comments on Psalm 118, Hilary states his preference for the Greek version but here it is not just an issue of the correct interpretation of a term. For it also prompts an appeal to an element in his governing metaphor of “city” and to his theme of “inclusion within Christ.” Here he is commenting on the passage from Proverbs 1.20, “Sapientia in exitibus canitur, in plateis cum libertate agit.” In his extended discussion of the merits of Latin and Greek diction for “way” or “street,” Hilary prefers the Greek ἐξόδους. He argues that it designates a wide street or avenue, along which many people may walk as well as live, in contrast to narrow paths or “lanes,” (viae), which feed into these broad avenues. Verbi utriusque huius latinitas nostra vel obscuritatem nobis adfert vel alterius intellegentiae opinionem praebet. Nam quod nos in exitibus dicimus, graecitas ex hebraeo ἐξόδους; transtulit. Et exodum proprie est, ubi ex multis angustis viis in unam patentem viam coitur. Quod vero nos plateas nuncupamus, eodem nomine graecitas nuncupavit. Sed plateas latitudines esse graecus sermo designat, et nos putamus has esse urbium vias. Ergo sapientia, quae Christus est, in via 19. For Hilary’s selective use of various Latin texts (Tr. Ps. 54.1; 118.10.3; 138.37); his appeals to both the Septuagint (51.5, 56.4, 58.10, 60.5); and to the version of Aquila (64.4), consult Jean Doignon, “Notes critiques pour une édition améliorée des citations du Psautier dans les Tractatus super Psalmos 51 à 69 d’ Hilaire de Poitiers,” in Mémorial Dom Jean Gribomont (1920–1986), Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 27 (1988), 181–94. 20. In latinis codicibus ita legimus: Iubilate Deo omnis terra. Et quantum ad eloquii nostri consuetudinem pertinet, iubilum pastoralis agrestisque vocis sonum nuncupamus, cum in solitudinibus aut respondens aut requirens per significantiam ductae in longum et expressae in nisum vocis auditor (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 65.3). 21. For a translation of this passage, consult James McKinnon, Music in Early Christian Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 124–25.

26  ³  Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms

illa, in quam nobis ex multis egressus est, canitur; in latitudinibus autem cum libertate agit, in quibus non solum habitare, sed etiam deambulaturam se esse promisit. (Tr. Ps. 118.4.12) (Our Latin for each of these two terms either obscures the meaning for us or offers the idea of a second meaning. For what we express by “in exitibus,” Greek translates from Hebrew as “ἐξόδους.” Yet “exodum” is appropriate where there is a coming together of many narrow paths into one open avenue. Certainly what we call “plateae,” Greek calls by the same name. But the Greek word designates “wide spaces” and we think that these are the streets of cities. Therefore Wisdom, which is Christ, is praised on that street on which he has issued forth for us out of many paths. Moreover Wisdom acts with freedom in the wide spaces in which she has promised not only to dwell but also has promised that she will continue to circulate.)

Hilary applies his preferred “urban street” or “avenue” to Christ as the “way” which is open to many people. This comprehensive inclusiveness certainly is the function Hilary assigns to Christ throughout the Tractatus, as we shall see in subsequent chapters. Moreover diversity within unity is one of the recurring functions of the polyvalent metaphor of a city throughout this Treatise.22 When he is dealing with David in the superscription to Psalm 143, Hilary complains as well about Latin’s lack of the articles with proper names.23 In addition to better interpretations in Greek versions he points out that some of these textual traditions also preserve a better order for the text of the Psalms. On Tr. Ps. 118, verse 33, Hilary complains that the Latin versions, along with several Greek versions, place a verse of the Psalms 22. In another passage he faults the Latin version of verba praecipitationis for not expressing the full meaning of the divine Word expressed in the Greek that is more graphic about “being plunged into the depths of the sea”: Verbi virtutem latinus sermo non tenuit (Tr. Ps. 51.12). He reiterates the frequency of instances of the weakness of the Latin version in comparison to Greek and Hebrew: Proprietatem verbi sive hebraici sive graeci latinitas, uti in multis, non elocuta est (54.11). He does so again where he claims the Greek expresses the sense of the Hebrew but the Latin version does not: . . . ad eiusdem sensus intellegentiam latinitas explicare non potuit (118.5.1). Later he complains that the Latin sense rendered by saeculum is inadequate: Latini quidem interpretes ambigua id significatione et minus propria transtulerunt (118.12.3). He then complains that ignitum in verse 140 does not express the meaning of the Greek, “tested by fire.” Non explicat proprietatem verbi huius latina translatio (118.18.5). He complains about the inadequacy of diction in the Latin version of “if I forget you, may my right hand wither:” obliviscatur dextera mea, obscurum est per condicionem latinitatis (136.10). 23. Adfert autem plerumque nobis difficultatem intellegentiae ratio latinitatis, quae nominibus pronomina non est solita praeponere, ut in David nomine accidit (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 143.2).

Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms  ³  27

within the wrong cluster of the organizational pattern established according to the letters of the Hebrew alphabet.24 Among the Greek versions Hilary expresses a clear preference for the authority of the Septuagint, which is the view he almost certainly discovered in his Greek source.25 He announces this respect very early in his Treatise.26 He restates his confidence in the privileged status of the Septuagint in his comments on Psalm 59.27 Here he values this translation as legitima et spiritalis. Hilary accounts for this special status by arguing it was completed before Christ and his passion and thus can prophetically anticipate that critical event. The translation of Aquila, which he also names in this passage, is of weaker merit for he claims that it comes after the passion of Christ. On Psalm 118, he again affirms his respect for the authority of this text with the advice that “it is not safe to go beyond the translation of the Septuagint.”28 Throughout this section Hilary is discussing the merits of three different verbs in various Greek translations and concludes by this appeal to the authority of the Septuagint. In an important reference in the previous paragraph, Hilary invokes a passage at Hebrews 10.1, which summarizes his view of the relation of terms, names and events in the whole of Hebrew Scriptures as “shadows” prefiguring their ultimate fulfillment.29 Hilary’s discussion 24. Plures psalmorum codices legentes et nos ita opinabamur versum qui octavae litterae primus est, id est hunc: Portio mea Dominus, in superioribus septimae litterae octo versibus contineri, quia ita in latinis codicibus atque etiam in nonnullis graecis scriptum continebatur; et sane absolutior sensus videbatur; sed secundum Hebraeos emendatum apud Graecos psalmorum librum legentes invenimus hunc versum non septimae litterae novissimum esse sed octavae primum. Itaque secundum hanc cognitionem nos quoque tractare de eo adgressi sumus (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.8.1). 25. For an analysis of Hilary’s views on the background to the composition of the Septuagint, the respect these translators had for the spiritual or deeper level of the text, and the authority of their text, consult Marc Milhau, “Un texte d’Hilaire de Poitiers sur les Septante, leur traduction et ‘les autres traducteurs’ (In  ps. 2.2–3),” Augustinianum 21 (1981): 365–72. 26. Sed translatores septuaginta in principio ediderunt, ceteris diverse transferentibus; et secundum hanc ambiguitatem haec ab illis in omni translatione est facta confusio. Sed perfecta horum septuaginta interpretum auctoritas manet, . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 2.2–3). 27. Nam secundum Aquilam, qui translator legis Iudaeis post passionem Domini fuit, ita scribitur: cum percussit valles. Sed hic secundum litteram scribens et extra spiritalem intellegentiam manens belli locum edidit. Translatio autem illa seniorum septuaginta et legitima et spiritalis ante passionem Domini gestorumque ordinem suscepta, per nominum naturarumque species nunc quoque, ut in omnibus psalmis, causam sensumque manifestat, . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 59.1). 28. Sed nobis neque tutum est translationem septuaginta interpretum transgredi, et sane ratio et sensus dictorum ita admonet, ut recte ac probabiliter versum translatum intellegamus (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.4.6). 29. Meminit etenim omnes iustificationes legis umbram in se sanctarum iustificationum continere . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.4.5).

28  ³  Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms

here is linked to his view of the character of the Septuagint as spiritalis. The implications of this assessment will be explored more fully in the next chapter on Hilary’s exegesis. In these passages when Hilary is explicitly discussing Greek texts and versions and their relation to Hebrew, he is almost certainly following his Greek source(s) but when he comments on the Latin version or compares them with Greek versions, he is displaying his own judgment. There is also evidence that suggests that Hilary is aware of different Latin versions of the Psalms. In a useful note, Doignon cites twenty-three variations for individual words or phrases for the Latin text of the Psalms.30 The two longest examples are from Psalm 60.2 and Psalm 103.25–26. In the title of Psalm 60 Hilary quotes the opening verse as follows: Exaudi, Domine, deprecationem meam, intende oratione meae et reliqua. He restates the same passage at verse 2 but changes the title of God who is being addressed and reverses the two objects. Exaudi, Deus, orationem meam, intende praecationi meae. The quotations from Psalm 103 vary even more considerably. Hilary quotes a fuller version on Tr. Ps. 51.31 Then on Psalm 64 he quotes a briefer version with a different adjective for “mare,” a verb added for “draco,” and a synonym to replace “formasti.”32 Doignon cites an opinion, which suggests that Hilary could be using his own “liturgical memory” in addition to different Latin codices.33 Hilary employs three specific passages from his Latin text of the Bible to formulate his basic principles for exegesis, Christology, and soteriology. He uses some terms from Hebrews 10.1 on “shadows of realities to come” in order to summarize and to justify his mode of interpreting 30. Doignon, Sancti Hilarii Pictaviensis, ciii, n. 2. He has seven examples from Psalm 88 at verses 20, (2 terms), 21, (2 terms), 27, (2 terms), and 28 and three from Psalm 64 at 2, 5, and 7 where Hilary quotes the text in different forms. He then has single instances from the text of Psalms 1.3, 50.19, 52.23, 54.2, 17, 65.2, 66.3, 118.34, 131.12, 138.20, 144, 7, and 148.5. 31. Hoc mare magnum et spatiosum, illic serpentes, quorum non est numerus, animalia pusilla et magna; illic naves pertransibunt, draco iste, quem formasti ad inludendum ei [Psalm 103.25] . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 51.13). 32. Hoc mare magnum et latum; ibi requiescet draco, quem figurasti ad inludendum illum . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 64.10). 33. See Doignon, Sancti Hilarii Pictaviensis, ciii, n. 2, where he refers to F. Schellauf, Rationem afferendi locos litterarum divinarum quam in Tractatibus super Psalmos sequi videtur S. Hilarius episcopus Pictaviensis (Graz, 1898), 22–47.

Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms  ³  29

texts from Hebrew Scriptures.34 The distinctive expression for his understanding of the status and mission of Christ, to be discussed in chapter 4, is based on Philippians (2.6–11). Hilary quotes this passage in full at Tr. Ps. 2.33 and at 118.14.10, but he employs the terms, forma Dei and forma servi, frequently throughout the Treatise. For his terminology on the final transformation of the Christian to be discussed in chapter 5, Hilary makes frequent use his distinctive version of Philippians 3.21: Et transformavit corpus humilitatis nostrae conforme corpori gloriae suae. In this passage to which he returns throughout the Tractatus at Psalms 1.15, 14.5, 91,9, 124.3–4, and elsewhere, Hilary employs the text with the perfect tense rather than the future of the Greek and most Latin versions including the Vulgate.35 In some ways, for Hilary, that future condition has already begun. In his use of these biblical passages to interpret his text, Hilary also keeps his audience in mind. Both the genre and the intended audience for the Tractatus have been the subject of some scholarly discussion. Many have argued that the Treatise was composed for clergy as sermons or as background for their preaching.36 In the introduction to his critical edition, however, Doignon argues that the numerous references to the act of “reading” in the commentary are not necessarily limited to a liturgical setting.37 Moreover, he rightly observes that the doxologies at the end of some treatments of individual Psalms need not be evidence for actual preaching. In fact within Hilary’s discussion of the first two stages of his model there is very little application of the Psalms to a liturgical context; there is little preoccupation with the exclusive interests of clergy and their responsibilities.38 Those, which do occur, tend to appear in the last fifty Psalms 34. Quid ergo est lex? Vmbra scilicet, ut apostolus ait, futurorum; quod de ceteris scriptum nusquam est, ut futurorum umbra sit aut iustificatio, aut testimonia, aut mandata; sed tantum id legi proprium est, ut apostolus in plurimis docet, non secundum litterae intellegentiam legem tractandam, sed secundum spiritalem doctrinam futurorum in ea umbram esse noscendam (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.1.5). 35. For a lexical and theological evaluation of Hilary’s version of Philippians 3.21, consult Jean Doignon, “Comment Hilaire de Poitiers a-t-il lu et interprété le verset Philippiens 3, 21,” VC 43 (1989): 128–37, and Alfredo Fierro, Sobre La Gloria en San Hilario: una Sintesis Doctrinal sobre la Nocio Biblica de “Doxa,” Analecta Gregoriana 144 (Rome, 1964), 219–23. 36. See, for example, Pierre Coustant, “Admonitio” 22, PL 9 (Paris, 1844), 232, and Gustav Bardy, “Tractare,” “Tractatus,” RSR 33 (1946): 219, and more recently Marie-Josèphe Rondeau, Les commentaires patristiques du Psautier (III –Ve siècles), 2 vols., Orientalia Christiana Analecta 219–20 (Rome, 1982), 147. 37. Doignon, Sancti Hilarii Pictaviensis, x–xv. 38. In the examples noted by Doignon there is a general moral observation about the problem of dis-

30  ³  Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms

and we will discuss them in chapter 5 among Hilary’s several shifts of perspective in this last cluster. Hilary does remark that there should be bewilderment even terror in the “profane listener” when he hears the spoken word, hymns, rituals and profession of belief. Terrendus ergo est confessionis nostrae sermone omnis profanus auditor, . . . Audiat orantis populi consistens quis extra ecclesiam vocem, spectet celebres hymnorum sonitus et inter divinorum quoque sacramentorum officia responsionem devotae confessionis accipiat: . . . (Tr. Ps. 65.4) (Therefore every uninitiated listener ought to be terrified by the language of our praise. . . . Let him who stands outside the church listen to the voice of people at prayer, let him observe the solemn sounds of the hymns, and also within the ceremonies of the divine rites let him hear the responses of devout praise.)

This is a comprehensive summary of the Church at prayer but it is presented from the perspective of the impact on the “uninitiated listener” rather than from the exclusive preoccupation of a clerical celebrant or monastic participant. For Hilary, the ultimate cause for the consternation of such a listener will be Christ operating in and through his body. This focus on “the body of Christ” will be a major theme of our chapter 4. Doignon goes on to associate this “reading” with the activity of “discussing” standard texts in the tradition of the Latin grammarians.39 He says that kind of “consideration” of a text should be preserved within the heart of the reader and the listener.40 It is apparent from some of the passages in the third cluster of Psalms that Hilary is referring to them as sung in Church rather than to an academic discussion in a classroom or learned conversation enjoyed by the Roman educated elite during leisure (otium). Exemplo suo docet suscepta semel in aures psalmorum cantica in corde esse retinenda et semper ea officio oris iteranda. Non neglegenter, ut ipse praedicat, legit atque audivit neque inreligiositatis nostrae modo divina eloquia aut occupatis in aliud aut mox obliviosis auribus except . . . (Tr. Ps. 118.7.5) traction and inattention during the reading of a text in church: [S]ed plerumque, immo semper, vitio nostro accidit, ut, quae legi in ecclesia audiamus, auribus atque animis nostris longe ab his peregrinantibus neglegamus . . . (Tr. Ps. 135.1). See also . . . et ea quae occulta sunt vitia in nobis, admiscere se fidei sacramentis et inserere pertemptant, ut inter divinos hymnos et sacras lectiones harum inimicarum captivantium nos cupiditatum cogitatio subrepat (Tr. Ps. 136.8). 39. See Jean Doignon’s appeal (Sancti Hilarii Pictaviensis, xi, n. 40) to Aulus Gellius . . . memini audisse me ex Valerii Probi discipulis, docti hominis et in legendis pensitandisque veteribus scriptis bene callidi . . . (Noctes Atticae 9.9.12). 40. See Doignon, Sancti Hilarii Pictaviensis, xi, n. 42.

Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms  ³  31

(By his own example he teaches that once the Psalms are perceived by the ears they ought to be retained in the heart and always be repeated by the service of the mouth. He did not read or listen without attention so that he might preach nor did he receive divine words with our lack of piety or with ears either distracted by something else or soon forgetful . . . .)

There are a number of references to the experience of learning and of practicing Roman grammar and rhetoric, to which we shall return in more detail in the next chapter. In the Exordium to Psalm 118 Hilary appeals to the role of mastering the alphabet as the preliminary stage in the progressive acquisition of learning.41 At Tr. Ps. 13.1 there is also an extended comparison between the conventions of Christian discourse and imperial rhetoric, which we shall use in the next chapter to introduce our discussion of the Latin rhetorical culture of Hilary and his audience.42 Doignon concludes his own analysis of Hilary’s intended audience with the suggestion that Hilary composed the Tractatus for his own clergy. That is certainly plausible but Hilary does recognize members of his audience to be products of the Latin grammatical and rhetorical schools who would include his clergy but also, I suggest, extend beyond members of the clergy and ascetics.43 We will continue to explore internal suggestions on these questions of genre, audience, and method in the next chapter.

Recent Scholarship on the Tractatus and Models of the Christian Life

Hilary’s announced theme has stimulated one of the most productive lines of research for our understanding of the Tractatus super Psalmos. Hilary introduces his theme at Instructio 11 and summarizes it at 51.2 and 41. Qui ad doctrinam rationabilis et perfectae prudentiae praeparantur, ab ipsis statim elementis litterarum docendi sunt, ut perfectam veramque rationem tamquam ab exordio primae institutionis consequantur (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118, Exordium 1). 42. I am indebted to my colleague Mark Vessey for drawing my attention to the significance of this passage. 43. For discussions of the historical evidence for the patterns of asceticism and church authority and leadership in the fourth and fifth centuries, consult Philip Rousseau, Ascetics, Authority, and the Church in the Age of Jerome and Cassian (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978); William E. Klingshirn, Caesarius of Arles: The Making of Christian Communities in Late Antique Gaul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); Andrea Sterk, Renouncing the World Yet Leading the Church: The Monk-Bishop in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004); and Claudia Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition, The Transformation of the Classical Heritage 37 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005).

32  ³  Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms

then expands his discussion of it at 150.1. Hilary proposes to examine three stages with two critical turning points for his model of the Christian life. The first critical stage, which he designates “baptism,” deals with issues before conversion and life afterwards. The second stage of life after baptism is completed, for Hilary, in resurrection. The third and final stage is initiated by the resurrection and completed by a final transformation of the risen Christian. Within this discussion, inferences about Hilary’s own life and career as well as the identity of his intended audience will be relevant. To highlight some of the distinctive features of Hilary’s proposal, I will consider an incomplete parallel with an extant text of Origen, his Greek source, and also review Cyprian’s account of his own baptism, and, finally, identify some suggestive parallel themes within the Latin rhetorical culture of Gaul. The first feature from Origen is probably new to Hilary’s Gallic audience; Hilary and his audience share the latter two resources. The passage from Origen will be our introduction to the complexities of this relationship to his Greek source(s), which will be the focus of our analysis of other parallels in our discussion of Hilary’s exegetical methods in chapter 2. The document from Cyprian on his own conversion will provide a dramatic contrast to the ways in which Hilary himself understands this critical stage in his own model for entrance into the Christian life. Moreover this passage from Cyprian employs a version of Hilary’s governing metaphor of the “city” but he develops it in a way that is very different from its various applications in Hilary’s Treatise. Moreover Cyprian does refer, in passing, to a use of the Psalms, which will set up the concluding section of this chapter where I will deal with the appropriateness of the Psalms for a reflection on the Christian life. Finally the appeal to the shared grammatical and rhetorical culture of Gaul will help to account for choices Hilary makes in the formulation of his model. Those cultural resources will also be relevant in subsequent chapters when I demonstrate how he does develop and apply that model of Christian life throughout his Tractatus super Psalmos. Although there has been confidence about the identity of the author, the dates of composition and the condition of the text, scholars have only begun to focus on the Tractatus super Psalmos and its theme in recent years. In modern scholarship this Treatise has usually received only

Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms  ³  33

cursory attention in studies of themes within all of Hilary’s writings until a survey article by Charles Kannengiesser in 1969. In 1944 Pierre Smulders had made reference to only a few passages from the Tractatus in his major investigation of Hilary’s Trinitarian thought.44 As an exception to this earlier tendency, Philip Wild, in 1950, included a much broader selection of passages in his examination of Hilary’s soteriology.45 Although he acknowledges Hilary’s announcement of his theme, Wild claims, as we shall see, that he never developed it. In 1966 C. F. A. Borchardt included a very brief discussion of the Tractatus in his survey of Hilary’s role in the anti-Arian controversy.46 Then Kannengiesser did dedicate some attention to the Tractatus in his article on Hilary for the Dictionnaire de Spiritualité.47 About this time, too, there appeared four specialized studies about exegetical methods within the Tractatus. These will be helpful in the examination of Hilary’s exegesis and two, in particular, make useful contributions to the discussion of Hilary’s proposed theme. In what is one of the most fruitful studies of Hilary’s exegetical and theological methods, in 1964 Alfredo Fierro analyzed the various treatments of “glory” as a divine attribute communicated through the Son and extended to the Christian believer.48 He deals with the “progress (profectus) of the Christian” and his analysis will be particularly useful in our treatment of the final transformation of the Christian after the resurrection in chapter 5. To explore the complex relation between Hilary’s text and the extant fragments from Origen’s exegesis on the Psalms, in 1965 Émile Goffinet published a comparative study.49 His study has been sharply criticized 44. Pierre Smulders, La doctrine trinitaire de Saint Hilaire de Poitiers, Analecta Gregoriana 32 (Rome: Università Gregoriana, 1944). 45. Philip T. Wild, The Divinization of Man according to Saint Hilary (Mundelein: St. Mary of the Lake Seminary, 1950). 46. C. F. A. Borchardt, Hilary of Poitiers’ Role in the Arian Struggle (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1966). 47. Kannengiesser, “Hilaire de Poitiers, saint,” 466–99. 48. Fierro, Sobre La Gloria. 49. Émile Goffinet, L’Utilisation d’ Origène dans le Commentaire des Psaumes de saint Hilaire de Poitiers, Studia Hellenistica 14 (Louvain: Publications Universitaires de Louvain, 1965). Important as his contribution is, it is flawed by a failure to fully appreciate that Origen wrote at least three commentaries on the Psalms at different stages of his career. Goffinet did not give sufficient attention to the fragmentary character of the evidence from Origen nor to the early editorial emendation of some of his distinctive theological views.

34  ³  Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms

for his failure to acknowledge, sufficiently, the severely contaminated and fragmented transmission of Origen’s various treatments of the Psalms. The nature of Hilary’s dependence on Origen will be an aspect of our inquiry as we deal with specific texts in the following chapters. To help identify principles of Hilary’s continuities with his earlier exegetical work within the Latin tradition, in 1969 Néstor Gastaldi provided a valuable service in his examination of the hermeneutical principles and terminology from Hilary’s work in his Commentary on Matthew through to his Tractatus super Psalmos.50 This will be particularly helpful in our considerations of Hilary’s exegesis in chapter 2. In the same year 1969, J. P. Pettorelli published a seminal article which contributes significantly to some important applications of the master metaphor of the city. He explores the eschatological role of Sion and the heavenly city in the exegetical works of Hilary of Poitiers.51 With the exception of the ongoing work of Jean Doignon, Pettorelli is the only scholar in the 1960s to deal to some degree with the context of Roman literary culture in Hilary’s texts. In my study I will be extending Hilary’s use of the city metaphor to each stage of his model, not just to the eschatological one. Then in the 1980s a succession of important studies focused on extensive selections from the Tractatus to explore specifically Christological,52 soteriological,53 or eschatological themes.54 These studies by Antonio 50. Néstor J. Gastaldi, Hilario de Poitiers Exegeta del Salterio: Un Estudio de su Exegesis en los Comentarios sobre los Salmos (Paris: Beauchesne, 1969). 51. J. P. Pettorelli, “Le thème de Sion, expression de la théologie de la rédemption dans l’oeuvre de saint Hilaire de Poitiers,” in Hilare et son temps: actes du colloque de Poitiers, 29 septembre–3 octobre 1968, à l’occasion du XVIe centenaire de la morte de saint Hilaire, 213–33 (Paris: Études Augustiniennes 35, 1969). 52. Consult, for example, Antonio Orazzo, “Ilario di Poitiers e la ‘universa caro’ assunta del Verbo nei Tractatus super Psalmos,” Augustinianum 3 (1983): 399–419, and Luis F. Ladaria, La Christologia de Hilario de Poitiers, Analecta Gregoriana 255 (Rome: Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1989). 53. Antonio Orazzo, La salvezza in Ilario di Poitiers: Cristo salvatore dell’uomo nei “Tractatus super Psalmos” (Napoli: M. of Auria, 1986). 54. Michael Durst, Die Eschatologie des Hilarius von Poitiers: Ein Beitrag zur Dogmengeschichte des IV. Jahrhunderts, Hereditas 1 (Bonn: Borengasser, 1987). This is a very useful study organized systematically around Hilary’s treatments of “death,” “after-life,” and “final consummation.” Durst provides a comprehensive review of Hilary’s language and symbols for “the end time” but this focus tends to overlook the dynamic character of Hilary’s terminology and symbols to deal with the progress of the believer through conversion to death and to resurrection and ultimate transformation. For a brief overview of these eschatological themes in patristic thought, see Brian E. Daley, The Hope of the Early Christian Church: A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), esp. 94–96.

Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms  ³  35

Orazzo, Luis Ladaria, and Michael Durst provide exhaustive surveys of these themes within the Tractatus and have proved most useful in this inquiry. But there is still a tendency in these comprehensive studies to proceed with systematic classifications of various themes without sufficient engagement either with Hilary’s announced theme or with his historical and cultural context. Although they do not deal specifically with the Tractatus, two monographs and two articles have been published recently, which have marked an important stage in modern scholarship on the works of Hilary. Ever since Jean Doignon’s groundbreaking work on Hilary’s writings before his exile, scholars have become more sensitive to Hilary’s historical context and his developments when he moved from his Latin context to the Greek-speaking Christians around Ancyra during his period of exile.55 In recent years two scholars have made important contributions to the developments in Hilary’s thought and method in his De Synodis and his De Trinitate. In 2007, Mark Weedman published his monograph on the development of Hilary’s Trinitarian thought from his beginnings within Gaul and then tracked stages of development through the De Synodis and the complex stages of the composition of the De Trinitate.56 In 2010 he added a valuable article on treatment of divine infinity in Gregory of Nyssa, Hilary, and Basil of Caesarea.57 In 2008 Carl L. Beckwith produced a careful and convincing examination of the internal evidence for the successive stages of the composition of De Trinitate.58 As indicated in our introduction, Beckwith’s discussion of the date and the motive of the autobiographical section will be invaluable for our purposes. Also in the same year, he added an insightful article on the complexities of Hilary’s treatment of the suffering of Christ.59 It should, however, be point55. Jean Doignon, Hilaire de Poitiers avant l’exil: Recherches sur la naissance, l’enseignement et l’épreuve d’une foi épiscopale en Gaule au milieu du IVe siècle, Études augustiniennes 45 (Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1971). 56. Mark Weedman, The Trinitarian Theology of Hilary of Poitiers, Supplements to VC 39 (Leiden: Brill, 2007). 57. Mark Weedman, “The Polemical Context of Gregory of Nyssa’s Doctrine of Divine Infinity,” JECS 18 (2010): 81–104, with a discussion of Hilary’s De Trin. 12 on 92–96. 58. Carl L. Beckwith, Hilary of Poitiers: On the Trinity: From De Fide to De Trinitate (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008). 59. Carl L. Beckwith, “ Suffering without Pain: The Scandal of Hilary of Poitiers’ Christology,” in In the Shadows of the Incarnation: Essays on Jesus Christ in the Early Church in Honor of Brian E. Daly, S.J., edited by Peter W. Martens, 71–96 (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008).

36  ³  Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms

ed out that neither scholar dealt with the Tractatus. They only mention its existence in a couple of footnotes. So a thorough examination of not only the Latin but also the Greek influences on Hilary’s Treatise remains to be done. In their discussions of De Trinitate, Weedman and Beckwith have highlighted at least six themes or strategies, which Hilary learned and adapted from Basil and his circle. Those features will be identified at the beginning of our section on Hilary’s treatment of the divinity of Christ in chapter 4. Not all of these elements appear in the Tractatus. In 2008 Michael C. McCarthy produced a short but informative article, which focuses on Hilary’s Tractatus super Psalmos. He identifies some devotional uses of the Psalms in the early Church and he provides a clear overview of Hilary’s distinctive eschatological theme.60 We will return to this article and his appeal to the earlier study by Wild in our chapter 5. Hilary’s treatment of the Psalms has not yet received the comprehensive study that have opened other commentaries on this biblical text in the fourth and fifth centuries to a fuller understanding and appreciation of pastoral, social, and cultural contexts. Some of those such as the commentaries by Chrysostom have been explored as a valuable source for the social historian.61 Nor has Hilary’s commentary been thoroughly examined, like Augustine ’s Enarrationes, for principles of Christocentric spirituality.62 The reason for this apparent omission cannot simply be the length of Hilary’s text. Rather, if I may be permitted to extend Hilary’s metaphor “of keys to unlock the Psalms” to his own text, there would seem to be a lack of an obvious interpretive key to open up Hilary’s purpose in this major undertaking on the Psalms. For a comprehensive overview of Christian issues of the fourth century into which the studies of Hilary’s works have been integrated and interpreted, there are three important contributions. In 1975 Manlio Sim60. Michael C. McCarthy, “Expectatio Beatitudinis: The Eschatological Frame of Hilary of Poitiers’ Tractatus super Psalmos,” in In the Shadow of the Incarnation: . . . , ed. Martens, 50–70. 61. See, for example, Robert L. Wilken, John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late Fourth Century (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983). 62. Michael Cameron, “Totus Christus as Hermeneutical Centre in Augustine’s Enarrationes in Psalmos,” in The Harp of Prophecy: Psalms in Early Christian Exegesis, edited by Brian E. Daley (Notre Dame, Ind.: Notre Dame University Press, forthcoming), and his “Enarrationes in Psalmos,” in Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, edited by Allan D. Fitzgerald, 290–96 (Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999).

Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms  ³  37

onetti published an invaluable study on the textual evidence and interpretative perspective for all the participants in the successive Arian struggles of the fourth century.63 Then in 1988 Richard Hanson published in English a chronological analysis that is comprehensive but not entirely reliable.64 Finally in 2004 Lewis Ayres published a comprehensive examination and integrative interpretation of the pro-Nicene contributors in the fourth century.65 Ayres sets up an expansive agenda for these thinkers and his perspective will allow us to speculate on Hilary’s motive for this Treatise. Ayres’ work makes it possible to situate, within the larger agenda of later pro-Nicenes, some of Hilary’s themes, in our last two chapters, on inclusion in the body of Christ and the glorification of the body.66 Moreover critical overviews of fourth-century Roman culture have helped to establish and, in many respects, to clarify Hilary’s historical67 and theological68 context. A number of studies of the specific features of Hilary’s exegesis remain invaluable for this study.69 In addition, as we have seen, the publication of new critical editions of the Tractatus or parts of it in 1988, 1997, and 2002 by Milhau and by Doignon have provided the critical resources for this exploration of the Tractatus super Psalmos within its historical and cultural context. 63. Manlio Simonetti, La Crisi Ariana nel IV secolo, Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 11 (Rome: Augustinianum, 1975). He discusses sources and background on 211–49, and doctrinal perspectives on 251–312, with a focus on Hilary and especially his De Trin. at 298–312. 64. Richard P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318–381 AD, (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988). 65. Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), esp. 179–186, devoted to Hilary’s De Synodis and De Trin. Ayres constructs a comprehensive synthesis of patterns in pro-Nicene thought. For the 380s and 390s, he identifies themes in Gregory of Nyssa and in Augustine about the goal of the Christian life that Hilary has anticipated in significant ways (see chapters 4 and 5). 66. I am very grateful to Mark Weedman for drawing this possibility to my attention in his detailed assessment of my monograph, which he provided to CUAP. 67. See H. C. Brennecke, Hilarius von Poitiers und die Bischofopposition gegen Konstantius II (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984), and Timothy D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993 and 2001). 68. See Simonetti, La Crisi Ariana, and Basil Studer, Trinity and Incarnation: The Faith of the Early Church (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993), esp. chap. 10. 69. See, in particular, Fierro, Sobre La Gloria, and Paul Galtier, “La ‘Forma Dei’ et la ‘Forma Servi’ selon saint Hilaire de Poitiers,” RSR 48 (1960): 101–18, and J. P. Pettorelli, “La thème de Sion, expression de la théologie et de la rédemption dans l’oevre de saint Hilaire de Poitiers,” in Hilaire et son temps: actes du colloque de Poitiers, 29 septembre–3 octobre 1968, à l’occasion du XVIe centenaire de la morte de saint Hilaire (Paris: Études Augustiniennes 35, 1969), 213–33.

38  ³  Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms

Clearly, though, the most useful starting point or key for this study has been Marc Milhau’s article on Hilary’s application of “tripartite division of the Psalter” to the three-stage model of the Christian life.70 He describes the somewhat novel threefold division of the Psalter into groups of fifty Psalms and the equation of a stage of Hilary’s model for the life of the Christian with each of those groupings of Psalms. He shows how Hilary identifies his theme in his Instructio 11, which, according to Hilary, informs all 150 Psalms. Hilary then returns to the theme briefly at Tr. Ps. 51.2 and then at 150.1 where he provides a more expanded statement of his theme. Hilary begins his presentation of his theme at Instructio 11 with his claim that the order of the Psalms in three clusters of fifty is an “expression of our hope” and “consistent with the providential order of our salvation.” Tribus vero quinquagesimis psalmorum liber continetur; et hoc ex ratione ac numero beatae illius nostrae expectationis existit. Namque qui et primae quinquagesimae et secundae deinde quinquagesimae et tertiae rursum quinquagesimae, in qua finis est libri, consummationem diligenter advertat, providentiam dispositorum in hunc ordinem psalmorum cum dispensatione salutis nostrae intelleget convenire. (Instr. 11) (For the book of Psalms is composed of three clusters of fifty Psalms each; and this arrangement proceeds from the rational categories of that blessed hope of ours. For he who would carefully attend to the first fifty and then to the second fifty and again to the third fifty will understand that the wisdom of the Psalms organized in this sequence is consistent with the plan of our salvation.)

He then identifies corresponding stages of each group of fifty Psalms by marking each division clearly with “the first fifty,” “then to the second 70. For a very informative discussion of the threefold theme in the Tractatus, consult Marc Milhau, “Sur la division tripartite du Psautier (Hilaire de Poitiers, Tr. Ps. Intr. 11),” in Le Psautier chez les Pères, edited by P. Maraval, 55–72, Cahiers de Biblia Patristica 4 (Strasbourg, Centre d’analyse et de documentation patristique, 1993). Among the issues discussed, Milhau shows that Hilary attributes the ordering of the Psalms to the seventy elders of the LXX and he provides biblical sources for many of the themes in these passages. On the theme of “forgiveness” which characterizes the first stage at Instr. 11, 51.2, and 150.1, Milhau supplies Ephesians 4.24 for “new person,” Luke 3.3 for “baptism of repentance,” John 3.5 for “rebirth.” For the second stage he associates the “kingdom” with I Corinthians 15.24, and “Heavenly City” and “Jerusalem” with Apocalypse 21.2 and Hebrews 12.22. He also explores several passages on different transformations of the body to correspond to each stage. Milhau finds similar threefold stages in Rufinus’ translation of Origen’s Commentary on Romans and in Augustine’s Enarrationes 150.1–3. Augustine identifies the characteristic state at each of the three stages at Enarrationes 150.3: Tria vero reliqua in nobis fiunt, vocatio, iustificatio, glorificatio.

Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms  ³  39

fifty,” “again to the third fifty,” and finally “with the plan of our salvation.” Cum enim primus gradus sit ad salutem, in novum hominem post peccatorum remissionem renasci, sitque post paenitentiae confessionem regnum illud Domini in sanctae illius civitatis et caelestis Hierusalem tempora servatum, et postea, consummata in nos caelesti gloria in Dei Patris regnum per regnum Filii proficiamus, . . . (Instr.11) (Since the first stage towards salvation is to be reborn into a new person after the forgiveness of sins and since after the profession of remorse, that Kingdom of the Lord has been established in the era of that holy and heavenly city of Jerusalem and since afterwards, with heavenly glory perfected in us, we are making progress into the Kingdom of God the Father through the Kingdom of the Son, . . .)

The important feature of this passage is the emphasis on “stages” (gradus), and the observation that “we are making progress” (proficiamus) towards our ultimate goal. In this passage he identifies each stage with primus gradus, post paenitentiae confessionem, and postea.71 In the somewhat more extended discussion at Tr. Ps. 150.1, Hilary again describes his organization into groups of fifty Psalms: [P]rimum enim in eum est numerum distributus, qui ex tripartito quinquagesimo numero esset explendus, . . . (First the book of the Psalms is apportioned into that numerical division which was to be completed from a threefold collection of fifty Psalms each, . . .) He goes on to claim that this pattern of organization does not occur in the Hebrew version. He specifically attributes this order to the “spiritual understanding of the translators,” namely, the authors of the Septuagint, claiming they took the disorganized collection of Psalms and designed “a continuous series” “in three groups of fifty.” Hilary learned about this principle for the ordering of the Psalms from his Greek source(s). It remains to be seen whether he also learned about the application of the threefold sequence to the Christian life from that same source. 71. Hilary returns to his theme in his comment on the numerical ordering of this and the previous Psalm and presents the first transition in very similar terms to Instructio 11 but adds the capacity to be understood by the complete and perfect kinds of mysteries (sacramenta): Et necessario post quinquagesimum psalmum, in quo peccatorum remissio secundum sanctificati huius, ut in exordio psalmorum docuimus, numeri virtutem continetur, psalmus iste tempore anterior, ordine posterior collocatur, ut id quod “in fine intellectus” praescribitur, perfectis undique et absolutis sacramentorum generibus, possit intellegi (51.2).

40  ³  Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms

[F]uit ergo in translatoribus hoc intellegentiae spiritalis, ut congestam hanc in plurimis continuatamque seriem partirentur in numerum, ut psalmorum omnium hic et ordo et numerus, qui in his tribus quinquagesimis est, possit expleri, totiusque libri idem hic quasi status existeret, qui fidei, ut in quinquagesimo psalmo centesimoque tractavimus. (Tr. Ps. 150.1) (There was, therefore, among the translators this influence of spiritual understanding so that they might divide this series, compiled and unbroken, into clusters so that the sequence and the grouping into three clusters of fifty might be fulfilled and the structure of the whole book might become the same as the structure of the faith, as we have discussed in the 150th Psalm.)

After this passage Hilary continues to provide several parallel summaries of the contents of each of the three stages. The first passage continues to employ confessio to mark the first transition just as he had done back at Instructio 11. In this summary he uses the “city of God” to represent the third stage of the Christian life.72 He also clearly reinforces the threefold structure of his proposal: unus, alius, post quae.73 He concludes by repeating the role of successive stages (gradatim) “to come into the company of God.” . . . quorum unus secundum praescripta legis post sabbatorum sabbata confessionem peccati remissionemque conplexus est, alius sub eiusdem numeri plenitudine non indulgentiam peccati, sed fructum officiumque iustitiae conprehendit. [P]ost quae rursum aedificata iam in aeternum [D]ei civitate et omnibus ad gratulationem eius laudemque . . . ut gradatim per hoc ad [D]ei consortium veniretur . . . (Tr. Ps. 150.1) ( . . . one of these themes, according to the precepts of the Law after “the Sabbaoths of Sabbaoths,” embraced the confession and forgiveness of sin, another under the fullness of the same numbering includes not the remission of sin but the consequence and function of justification. After this, with the city of God already established for eternity and all singing gratitude and praise of God, through this means, one would be welcomed into the company of God . . .)

The final summary emphasizes “rebirth to innocence,” “the judgment by the resurrection of innocence,” and in words which anticipate the issue for our chapter 5, “being established in the nature of spirit.” Once again the triadic structure is clear: cum prima, sequens, tertia. But here 72. A little earlier Hilary uses primus, secundus, tertius to designate triadic aspects of the ultimate stage at 148.1. For the full text see n. 77. 73. See Doignon, Sancti Hilarii Pictaviensis, vol. 1, xxv where he prints Instructio 11 and the fuller 150.1 in parallel columns.

Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms  ³  41

Hilary identifies a single word for each stage: baptismum, resurrectio, demutatio. The relation between the last two terms in this list and the meaning of demutatio will be central issues in our chapter 5 on the final transformation of the Christian. [A]c sic omnia, baptismum, resurrectio, demutatio continentur, cum prima nos libri huius quinquagesima regeneret ad innocentiam, sequens ad iudicium innocentiae resurrectione perducat, tertia in naturam spiritus et laudem constituat. (Tr. Ps. 150.1) (And so all topics are comprised by “baptism, resurrection, and transformation” since the first fifty of this book regenerates to innocence, the following one leads us to the justification by resurrection of innocence and the third establishes us into the nature of spirit and into praise.)

So Hilary announces his theme and its relation to the organization of the Psalms in his Instructio and returns to it in a consistent but more extended form at the end of his Treatise. He also begins his commentary at the first transition in 51.2 with a reference to his proposal.74 Since there is no commentary for Psalm 101 at the next transition, it is unclear whether he had intended to return to his proposed threefold division at this juncture of his text. When he does begin the third cluster at 118, there is no clear reference to his three stages of the human profectus coinciding with each group of fifty Psalms. But as we have seen he does return to his proposal with an expanded version in his discussion of the final Psalm. The language and biblical references, which Hilary uses to characterize each stage, are readily recognizable. In dealing with his governing theme he provides succinct characterizations of each stage or gradus. In the passage at Instr. 11 and later at 51.2 and 150.1 to express both the significant elements of the transitions and the dynamic causes, Hilary employs a variety of terms. For the first transition or conversion, he uses biblical terms of “new person” (in novum hominem at Instr. 11) and “rebirth” (renasci at Instr. 11 and regenere at Tr. Ps. 150.1) with the distinctive activity of the “remission of sins.” To illustrate this first trans74. Et necessario post quinquagesimum psalmum, in quo peccatorum remissio secundum sanctificati huius, ut in exordio psalmorum docuimus, numeri virtutem continetur, psalmus iste tempore anterior, ordine posterior, collacatur, ut id quod “in fine intellectus” praescribitur, perfectis undique et absolutis sacramentorum generibus, possit intellegi (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 51.2).

42  ³  Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms

formation there may be also a reference at Tr. Ps. 14.14 to the baptismal inquiry to which the candidate responds with disavowal of the “devil, the world, and sins.”75 The second stage is characterized by “confession of repentance” and participation in the kingdom of the Holy City, noted above in Instr. 11. Both the symbol of civitas and the activity of confessio will be expanded extensively throughout Hilary’s commentary and applied, with variations, in each of the three stages of Christian progress. At Tr. Ps. 13.3, he returns to the metaphor of the city, this time “in plague” in order to set up the context for the first transformation. The metaphor of the city and appeals to Jerusalem and the heavenly city dominate the last cluster of Psalms but he gives it an extended treatment in his discussion of Psalm 121. The term, confessio, will be used at Tr. Ps. 66.6, 118.8.15, and 137.3–4 with the double meaning of “acknowledgment of sin” and “profession of faith in or praise of God.”76 The third stage is characterized as “completed in us by the heavenly glory of the kingdom of the Father through the kingdom of the Son.” At Tr. Ps. 148.1, he is commenting on the inspired sequence of the previous three Psalms. In reviewing their themes, he also appears to be providing a summary of the third stage of his model beginning with “hope for eternity and expectation of the heavenly kingdom” and alluding again in the next two stages to different phases of the symbol of the city.77 For the theme itself, he occasionally uses synonyms, gradus, and iter for profectus. The following passage illustrates the synonyms with a suc75. Et quia in regenerationis nostrae nativitate in haec sacramenta iuramus renuntiantes diabolo, saeculo, peccatis, cum interrogantibus respondemus, retinendam usque in finem confessionis huius fidem statuit . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 14.14). 76. Invenimus enim confessionem duplici ratione esse tractandam: esse unam confessorum peccatorum, ubi in deserto Iordanis confitebantur peccata sua; esse aliam laudationis Dei, ubi Dominus loquitur ad Patrem: Confitebor tibi, Domine Pater [Mt 11.25] (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 66.6). See also: Confessio vero non semper ad peccata referenda est, verum etiam in Dei laudibus intellegenda est (118.8.15). See also: [D]uplex intellegentiae huius, ut superius iam diximus, sensus est. [N]am sive laudem [D]eo confitetur, quia verba oris eius audita sunt, sive per misericordiam [D]ei, cum diu orasset, aditus iam omnibus peccatis desinentibus confitetur. [F]idei nostrae utrumque conveniens, ut et [D]ominum laudemus et confiteamur intellecta peccata (137.4). 77. [P]rimus enim eorum ob spem aeternitatis et caelestis regni expectationem cantatus est. [S]ecundus ob aedificationem sanctae civitatis et congregationem sanctorum, qui ad plenitudinem sanctae huius civitatis convenient, subsecutus est. [T]ertius ille iam ob gratulationem exaedificatae civitatis et aeterna pace fundatae et post saeculi urens arensque frigus caelesti spiritu temperatae in hunc hymnum est comparatus (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 148.1).

Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms  ³  43

cinct statement of two critical features of his model: universal openness and soteriological goal: . . . et iter omnibus ac profectus dirigitur in salutem ( . . . and the way forward for all people is directed towards salvation) (Tr. Ps. 67.20). Hilary’s basic theme of profectus characterizes his model for the Christian life. Rather than describing three separate static plateaus, Hilary emphasizes progress (profectus) from one stage to the next. Thus this interest in advancement through the stages results in a model which can be characterized as “progressive.” Once we examine, in more detail, his treatment of the transition from stage one to two, Hilary’s model will acquire another sense of “progressive” in contrast to the discussions of conversion by Cyprian and others. Hilary’s consistent appeal to specific conditions related to each of the three clusters of fifty Psalms will, in fact, present a challenge to examine his actual application of the model to the texts of the Psalms he has selected for commentary. Let us pause to consider an extant fragment from Origen’s treatment of the Psalms, which also acknowledges this rather unconventional grouping into clusters of fifty. To anticipate the discussion of Hilary’s use of Origen in the next chapter, it should be noted that in his own treatment of the Psalms, Origen had announced this same threefold division.78 A surviving passage in a Catena, derived ultimately from Origen, presents the purpose of the Psalms as “cleansing of enemies” and “thanksgiving for blessings” and then assigns each of the three sections of fifty not to stages in the Christian life but to the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.79 That is all that this Catena says on this issue.80 It is not 78. For his analysis of Hilary’s access to materials in two of Origen’s commentaries on the Psalms, consult Pierre Nautin, Origène: Sa vie et son Oeuvre, Christianism Antique 1 (Paris: Beauchesne, 1977). He provides the evidence for Origen’s acknowledgment of a fivefold division of the Psalter on 277, and for his consideration of a threefold division on 279. 79. Οὕτως οὖν καὶ τοὺς ὓμνους τοὺς εἰς θεὸν ἐπὶ καθαιρέσει ἐχθρὼν καὶ εὐχαριστίᾳ τῇ κατὰ τὰς τοῦ θεοῦ εὐεργεσίας ἐχρῆν περιέχειν οὐ μίαν πεντηκοντάδα, ἀλλὰ τρεῖς, εἰς ὄνομα πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἁγίου πνεύματος (Tr. Ps., GCS 1.138.21– 39.3). For Milhau’s discussion of this issue, consult his article, “Sur la division tripartite,” esp. n. 55. 80. From the extant works of Origen it is clear that he, too, was interested in the Christian life. But with his Platonic background, Origen tends to give it a cognitive and affective focus, which is more abstract. In the preface to his Commentary on the Song of Songs, for example, Origen deals with a progression from knowledge of morality to an understanding of the natural order to contemplation supported by the sequence of three scriptural texts: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, and Song of Songs. In using the Song of Songs as a basis for his discussion of contemplation, Origen is able to enlist a strong affective component for this level of experience. Origen presents the journey from vice to virtue in his Homily 27 on Numbers as an inner battle or

44  ³  Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms

at all clear that Origen developed this triadic theme in his treatments of the Psalms. Hilary does not apply a Trinitarian principle to organize his Tractatus. Instead he consistently maintains that each section deals with a stage in the progress of the Christian believer. Hilary moves from the initial condition defined by features of Roman literary culture, to the Christian life inaugurated by baptism, continued in the resurrection of all believers and completed in the final transformation in glory.81 So Hilary may have been prompted by Origen to work with a threefold division for the collection of Psalms. But the theme of the human profectus may very well be Hilary’s own idea. One contemporary scholar has clarified some distinctive features of his use of this term. For Hilary’s use of profectus, Fierro identifies two prominent features: orientation towards the ultimate future; and potential for human perfectibility. Fierro reports that Hilary emphasizes a distinctively eschatological focus in the works In Matthaeum, De Trinitate, and in this Tractatus.82 He finds the word frequently used in conjunction with the objective genitives: claritatis, gloriae, honoris, aeternitatis. Fierro also demonstrates that this progress to glory is presented as “an improvement for the human.”83 Fierro cites De Trinitate to illustrate the inherpsychomachia. In distinction from these perspectives of Origen, Hilary is going to enlist the approaches to morality from Latin literary culture. His treatment of the cognitive dimension of the human progress will not have the mystical dimensions of Origen’s approach. There is, however, a closer parallel to Hilary’s approach in Origen’s Commentary on Romans, noted by Milhau, as preserved in the Latin translation by Rufinus. In one passage, in particular, this version presents an “ascent through an order of progressions” and there is an acknowledgment of “being freed from sin” and “stages of virtue” which all reflect the emphasis we will see in Hilary’s treatment of the first transition in the next chapter. Consult Rufinus’s translation of Origen’s Com. In Rom. 6.5: Per hoc enim hoc ostenditur quod posteaquam quis liberatus a peccato fuerit, servire debet primo iustitiae et omnibus virtutibus simul, ut inde per profectum ascendat ad hoc, ut servus fiat Deo . . . Est tamen ordo profectuum, et sunt in virtutibus gradus: et idcirco dicitur Christus regnare, profecto secundum hoc quod iustitia est, donec in unoquoque compleatur plenitudo virtutum, ubi vero mensura fuerit perfectionis expleta, tunc dicitur tradere “regnum Deo et Patri” ut iam sit “Deus omnis in omnibus” (PG 11, col. 603). But even here this passage deals with vice and virtue more abstractly than in the rhetorically constructed examples which often characterize Hilary’s treatments. Aside from Tr. Ps. 9.4, Hilary does not use Origen’s frequent references to “God as all in all” from 1 Cor 15.28 as a feature of his third and final stage. In fact distinctive features of Origen’s theory of apocatastasis are not to be found in the Tractatus. 81. For Cicero’s critique of the equality of all vices and his assumption of the value of making progress toward virtue see: . . . eosque qui natura doctrinaque longe ad virtutem processissent, nisi eam plane consecuti essent, summe eos miseros . . . (De Finibus 4.9.21). 82. See Fierro, Sobre La Gloria, 205–8. 83. “La economía de la salvación es progreso y mejora de la humanidad. En la naturaleza del hombre, existe una especie de horror ontológico a la destrucción” (Fierro, Sobre La Gloria, 206). He cites Hilary, De Trin. 1.9, and Origen, De Principiis 3.6.5.

Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms  ³  45

ent nature of human capacity to grow or expand in order to illustrate what he characterizes as Hilary’s optimistic view of human perfectibility. “The requirement of our nature, by the law of the world, is always carried towards increase, and knowingly expects progress of a more potent nature.”84 Fierro concludes his discussion of Hilary’s use of profectus by noting both the radical optimism of the vision for human perfectibility and the insufficiency of the human to accomplish this goal without divine intervention.85 This dual assessment for profectus is consistently reflected in Hilary’s appeals to the dual sense of confessio, which I will develop in chapter 3. In the Tractatus, as in the first book of his De Trinitate a decade earlier, Hilary employs a progressive model for the Christian life in which the earlier stage becomes a contributor for the move to the next and higher stage. It is true that, in that earlier passage, Hilary finds propositions about the goals of human life, the acquisition of virtue and especially the conflicting treatments of the divine to be inadequate but they do serve to frame his search and lead to the next stage. He presented subsequent stages of that journey as a progression guided by a sequence of biblical texts with a strong concern to resolve anxiety over mortality and its consequences for the body as well as for the soul.86 Here in the Tractatus the progress will be broadened to include ethical as well as cognitive and emotional components. Scriptural texts and textual interpretation will continue to play critical roles. Hilary’s interpretations continue to be responsive to themes in texts of his Latin literary culture. In our exploration of Hilary’s progressive three stages in his Tractatus super Psalmos, it will become clear that his treatments of conversion are in marked contrast to the abrupt rupture from the past life reflected 84. Semper proficit augmento, numquam vero deminutione contrahitur. . . . Naturae ergo nostrae necessitas in augmentum semper mundi lege provecta, non imprudenter profectum naturae potioris exspectat: et incrementum secundum naturam est (Hilary, De Trin. 9.4). 85. “Un radical optimismo late en esta visión que abraza naturaleza y economía bajo el imperativo teleológico de la prosperidad y de la perfección. Por otro lado, se reconoce la insuficiencia del hombre para encontrar en sí mismo el proprio acabamiento y madurez” (Fierro, Sobre La Gloria, 207). 86. See, for example, Hilary, De Trin. 1.10, 13, and 14. For a discussion of themes and structure of Hilary’s progress in this text, see Paul C. Burns, “Hilary’s Use of Communally Sanctioned Texts to Construct His Autobiography,” Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum/Journal of Ancient Christianity 2 (1998): 65–83. It is clear that Hilary put together his De Trin. in stages. In his clear account of the complexities of composition, Beckwith includes a discussion of the progression from natural reason to faith in the autobiographical section of book 1. Consult Carl L. Beckwith, Hilary of Poitiers On the Trinity, esp. chap. 7: “Book One of De Trinitate.”

46  ³  Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms

in his predecessor Cyprian’s Ad Donatum.87 Cyprian along with Tertullian is the only nonbiblical source actually named by Hilary in his earlier Commentary on Matthew.88 There is no such explicit acknowledgment of any nonbiblical sources throughout the whole of the Tractatus but Cyprian continues to be part of his Latin Christian heritage. In this letter to Donatus Cyprian provides his account and analysis of his own adult conversion to Christianity about a hundred years earlier than the presumed time of Hilary’s conversion. Cyprian’s letter presents a specific model of the conversion experience. Cyprian identifies the activity and setting of his conversion as a discussion about sacred texts in a peaceful garden. In his own account in the De Trinitate, Hilary does not invoke such a natural setting but at the heart of his account is a series of specific sacred texts encountered in a progressive sequence. Hilary also describes his deep anxiety over mortality, which he harnesses to constructive purpose as he advances by stages to the resolution. Cyprian recalls his wavering and hesitant steps as he ponders how one is to put off so many features of our nature and ingrained habits.89 He rehearses the attractions of banquets, wealth, ambition for public office as well as the vices of “wine-drinking” (vinolentia), “arrogance” (superbia), “rage” (iracundia), “greediness” (rapacitas), “cruelty” (crudelitas), “ambition” (ambitio) and “lust” (libido). Hilary will deal with similar vices in trenchant rhetorical formulations to demonstrate how they disrupt the human agent. The role of water and a new birth are central in Cyprian’s account, as they are for Hilary’s analysis in his Tractatus. Then in paragraphs 6 through 12 of his Ad Donatum, Cyprian draws a sharp contrast between his new condition as Christian and the experiences and values of the past. He proposes an extended metaphor of looking down from a high mountain to view the world and its affairs. He reviews, at length, the evils of life in the Roman Empire with roads blocked 87. Guilelmus Hartel, “Ad Donatum,” in S. Thasci Caecili Cypriani Opera Omnia, CSEL 3.1, 1–16 (Vienna: C. Gernoldi Filium Bibliopolam Academia, 1868). 88. De orationis autem sacramento necessitate nos commentandi Cyprianus vir sanctae memoriae liberavit. Quamquam et Tetullianus hinc volumen aptissimum scripserit, sed consequens error hominis detraxit scriptis probabilibus auctoritatem (Hilary, In Matt. 5.1). 89. Ego cum in tenebris atque in nocte caeca iacerem cumque in salo iactantis saeculi nutabundus ac dubius vestigiis oberrantibus fluctuarem vitae meae nescius . . . qui possibilis, aiebam, tanta conversio, ut repente ac perniciter exuatur, quod vel genuinum situ materiae naturalis obduruit vel usurpatum diu senio vestustatis inolevit? (Cyprian, Ad Donatum 3).

Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms  ³  47

by robbers, the seas full of pirates and all places beset by military camps and wars. He then focuses his sustained criticism on various aspects of Roman urban life. From paragraphs 7 to 10 he catalogues the rampant immorality of their gladiatorial games, their theaters, their private dwellings and bedrooms, their forums and law courts. In paragraphs 11 to 13 he outlines the corrupting influences of power and wealth. For Cyprian, conversion is a repudiation of that past. He sums up the comprehensive catalogue surveyed within his metaphorical vision from the mountain with the judgment on “the disorders of this troubling world” as distinct from “the peaceful and trustworthy tranquility.”90 Cyprian concludes his account with an appeal for his companion to remain firmly committed in this “spiritual warfare,” with “constant prayer and reading.”91 Cyrpian concludes with an invitation to leave the garden at sunset and to join in a modest meal accompanied by the singing of Psalms.92 Although there are parallels between Cyprian’s text and Hilary’s treatment of conversion including discussions, sacred texts, anxiety, moral problems, perhaps even the role of the Psalms, the two authors differ sharply on the relation between the initial stage and the conversion to Christian life. Cyprian presents conversion as a repudiation of the past. Hilary presents conversion as a progression, profectus, in which the earlier stage contributes something positive to the change. Hilary does have criticisms of Roman practices such as theaters and disreputable activities of the gods but his objections are very similar to the evaluations to be found within the Roman literary traditions reflected in Cicero and in Varro. There are other models in Latin Christian literature which might have been known to Hilary and a brief consideration of possible re90. Una igitur placida et fida tranquillitas, una solida et firma securitas, si qui ab his inquietantis saeculi turbinibus extractus salutaris portus statione fundetur: ad caelum oculos tollit a terris et ad Domini munus admissus ac Deo suo mente iam proximus, quidquid apud ceteros in rebus humanis sublime ac magnum videtur, intra suam iacere conscientiam gloriatur. nihil adpetere iam, nihil desiderare de saeculo potest, qui saeculo maior est (Cyprian, Ad Donatum 14). 91. Tu tantum, quem iam spiritalibus castris caelestis militia signavit, tene incorruptam, tene sobriam religiosis virtutibus disciplinam. Sit tibi vel oratio asidua vel lectio (Cyrpian, Ad Donatum 15). 92. . . . quidquid inclinante iam sole in vesperam dies superest, ducamus hunc diem laeti nec sit vel hora convivii gratiae caelestis inmunis. sonet psalmos convivium sobrium: ut tibi tenax memoria est, vox canora, adgredere hoc munus ex more. magis carissimos pascis, si sit nobis spiritalis auditio, prolectet aures religiosa mulcedo (Cyprian, Ad Donatum 16).

48  ³  Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms

sources will further demonstrate the distinctiveness of Hilary’s progressive model in his Tractatus. In Lactantius’s De Ira Dei, composed about 314, there is a progressive model throughout paragraph 2 in which the human mind ascends upwards through an understanding of false religious claims, to a rational perception of the oneness of God and finally to the recognition of Christ as God’s messenger.93 It is true that Hilary also charts his progress through three stages but without the allusions to ascent and tumbling back to the beginning, which is a persistent pattern throughout Lactantius’ passage. In the Tractatus the progress of the human mind through stages of the knowledge about God and the role of Christ is more akin to the model developed by Hilary in De Trinitate 1.94 There he emphasizes a cognitive development about the nature of God and a far more sophisticated understanding of the fundamental contribution of Christ to the resolution of his anxiety for assurance of immortality. In that autobiographical introduction to his De Trinitate the progress to conversion is ultimately directed by specific scriptural texts from Exodus 3.14, Psalm 138 (7–10), and the prologue to the Gospel of John (1.1–14). But even at the outset of his quest, Hilary finds within common human wisdom some starting points for considering an objective and values of human life which together provide “somewhat worthy progress” and “in common opinion” seem to be “useful” and “desirable.”95 He goes on to 93. Nam cum sint gradus multi per quos ad domicilium veritatis ascenditur, non est facile cuilibet evehi ad summum. caligantes enim veritatis fulgore luminibus qui stabilem gressum tenere non possunt, revolvuntur in planum. primus autem gradus est intellegere falsas religiones et abicere inpios cultus humana manu fabricatorum, secundus vero, perspicere animo quod unus sit deus summus, cuius potestas ac providentia effecerit a principio mundum et gubernet in posterum, tertius, cognoscere ministrum eius ac nuntium quem legavit in terram . . . (Lactantius, De Ira Dei 2.1). In his note on this very passage from Lactantius, Doignon suggests two parallels, one with Hilary’s De Trin. and the other with Cicero’s De Finibus. Sed quia nullus per praerupta conscensus est, nisi substratis paulatim gradibus feratur gressus ad summa, nos quoque quaedam gradiendi initia ordinantes arduum hoc intelligentiae iter clivo quasi molliore lenivimus . . . (Hilary, De Trin. 1.20). Animus multis gradibus ascendi, ut ad summum perveniret . . . (Cicero, De Finibus 5.14.40). 94. For his valuable treatment of the date of composition and the motive for this autobiographical section, consult Beckwith, Hilary of Poitiers: On the Trinity, 151–70, chap. 7: “Book One of De Trinitate.” He argues that the whole autobiographical quest is based on a true respect for faith and is directed against the abuse of reason by the opponents criticized in De Trin. 1.15–19. Beckwith argues that this section is a demonstration of Hilary’s theological method. I do not disagree but I am arguing that Hilary is focusing on his soteriological agenda in this account. The journey into faith with its promise of immorality depends on unity with Christ. So the fulfillment of the quest would be negated by the claims of his opponents, which he addresses immediately after the autobiographical section. 95. . . . quod vel a natura manans vel a prudentum studiis profectum dignum aliquid . . . obtineret, multa

Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms  ³  49

acknowledge that people have striven to acquire virtues.96 The resolution of Hilary’s quest is immortality and so he searches for God. Here he finds serious problems within the traditional culture. He says that they postulate many gods, with many sexual activities, or idols or even atheism. Within this critique he provides a summary of Epicureans who believe in the existence of gods but not in providence.97 The surprising feature of this catalogue is Hilary’s omission of any explicit mention of the Stoics. This is the tradition that will influence not only his treatment of virtue but also shape some of his language about the omnipresence and providence of the divine as well as the relation of body and soul in the greatly expanded Tractatus. In the Tractatus there is also a cognitive dimension to the progressive stages in which elements of Roman conceptions of the divine lead to a specifically Christian confessio of the providence of God and the divinity of his Son. Moreover in the Tractatus there is added a clear ethical dimension to each stage as well as the role of the body of Christ at each stage of the threefold model. People are incorporated into his body, the Church, which I will explore in chapter 4 and then they are ultimately “conformed to his glorified body” with frequent invocations of the vocabulary of Philippians 3.21. This final conformation to the glorified body of Christ will be the topic of chapter 5. Hilary’s model seems designed for a more diverse audience than for the inquisitive philosopher implied in Lactantius’s text. In Roman literary culture there are no exact parallels to Hilary’s model of progress in the Christian life but there are some patterns which might make this proposal a little more familiar to him and his intended audience. In this culture there is an expectation that grammatical and rhetorical exercise will bring a kind of progress in virtue and even in wisdom. In his Protrepticus ad Nepotem, Ausonius, a grammarian and quidem aderant quae opinione communi efficere utilem adque optandam vitam videbantur . . . (Hilary, De Trin. 1.1). 96. . . . et idcirco ad aliquas se patientiae et continentiae et placabilitatis virutes et doctrina et opere transtulisse, quod bene agere adque intellegere id demum bene vivere esse opinabantur . . . (Hilary, De Trin. 1.2). 97. Plerique vero Deum quidem esse opinione publica loquebantur, sed hunc eundem incuriosum rerum humanarum et neglentem pronuntiabant (Hilary, De Trin. 1.4). Hilary doubtless derived his knowledge of the Epicureans from Lucretius from whom Hilary derived his description of “a city in plague” (see discussion in chapter 3).

50  ³  Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms

rhetorician at Bordeaux, outlines his pedagogical contributions to infants, through childhood to youth which bring skills and opportunities for a public career.98 Cicero provides perspectives on the nature of personal and ethical progress and the reciprocal contribution of reason and virtue as one proceeds by stages.99 In his handbook of rhetorical exempla, Valerius Maximus had recognized the ethical function of his moral paradigms. In his opening appeal to Tiberius he acknowledges that virtue is to be encouraged and vice is to be eradicated.100 A little later Seneca, himself schooled in the Latin rhetorical tradition, presented the relation between progress in development of character with the acquisition of appropriate speech.101 In another letter to Lucilius he advocates progress based not simply on speech but on strengthening of the soul and decline of desire as well as consistency between speech and conduct.102 In a Panegyric of fourth-century Gaul, the language of progress is associated with the journey of the imperial court to visit a city with rejoicing in renewed stability after the campaigns of Julian in the latter 350s. Although there are no signs of a coherent model for the development and growth of the human person in the Latin rhetorical traditions there are the suggestions noted above which might have reinforced Hilary’s characterization of his progressive model for the Christian life. The evidence in Jerome and in Cassiodorus indicates that they both 98. See Ausonius, Ad Nepotem, 66–76. For a useful account of the mobility of Ausonius’s career and patronage to relatives, consult John Matthews, Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court A.D. 364–425 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1975), 81–87. For an informative prosopographical catalogue of twenty fourth-century figures in this general region, consult Catherine Balmelle, Les Demeures Aristocratiques d’Aquitaine: Société et Culture de l’Antiquité tardive dans le Sud-Ouest de la Gaule (Bordeaux-Paris: Institut de Recherche sur l’Anitquité et le Moyen Age, 2001), 38–42. 99. . . . quod autem est istuc gradatim? nam a beatis ad virtutem, a virtute ad rationem video te venisse gradibus . . . (Cicero, De Natura Deorum 1.32.89). 100. Caesar invoco; cuius caelesti providentia virtutes, de quibus dicturus sum, begnissime foventur, vitia servissime vindicantur (Valerius Maximus, Facta et Dicta Memorabilia, Praefatio). For a fuller discussion of the ethical import of Valerius’s expansive collection, consult Clive Skidmore, Practical Ethics for Roman Gentlemen (Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1996), esp. chap. 7: “Valerius’ Moral Purpose.” 101. Locutus est mecum amicus tuus bonam indolis, in quo quantum esset animi, quantum ingenii, quantum iam etiam profectus, sermo primus ostendit (Seneca, Epistula 11.1). 102. Illud autem te, mi Lucili, rogo atque hortor, ut philosophiam in praecordia ima demittas et experimentum profectus tui capias non oratione nec scripto, sed animi firmitate, cupiditatum deminutione: verba rebus proba . . . facere docet philosophia, non dicere, ut et hoc exigit, ut ad legem suam quisque vivat, ne orationi vita dissentiat vel ipsa intra se vita; unus sit omnium actio [dissentio] num color [sit]. Maximum hoc est et officium sapientiae et iudicium, ut verbis opera concordent, ut ipse ubique par sibi idemque sit (Seneca, Epistula 20.1–2).

Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms  ³  51

read Hilary’s Treatise as a commentary on the Psalms. That the Tractatus was read for this theme of “progress in the Christian life” there is only very scant evidence. There is a possible hint in a marginal note in one of the oldest manuscripts that Hilary’s text may have been used as a guide to the Christian life. The fifth-century Italian uncial manuscript, Verona, Biblioteca capitolare XIII(II) = V, contains Hilary’s text in 558 folios.103 On folio 327 in small Rustic capitals the scribe is identified as Eulalius. On folio 376 at the end of the commentary on Psalm 118 there is a colophon in Rustic capitals with a Christogram: “Scriptori vita legenti doctrina.”104 Hilary’s progressive model of the Christian life may be implied in the letters of Alpha and Omega. The Christogram may represent Hilary’s Christological emphasis.105 Although it may be tempting to stretch this enigmatic expression to apply to Hilary’s writing on a life which is grounded in Christ, the colophon is most likely a simple conventional scribal observation about his work.106 There is suggestive evidence that Augustine did recognize Hilary’s theme. In his Contra Julianum, Augustine quoted a number of passages from Hilary’s text to support his position on the theological issue of the universal fall. The way he described the original setting of the quoted passages seems to identify Hilary’s specific theme. Both at the beginning and conclusion of this passage Augustine acknowledged Hilary’s “hope for the perfection of man” and he asserted the role of “cleansing” and “resurrection” as the requirement for “hope for a more perfect human nature.”107 In his own comment on Psalm 150 near the conclusion of his 103. For a description of this manuscript and this marginal note, consult Doignon, Sanctii Hilarii Pictaviensis, vol. 1, xxxii–xxxiii. 104. See E. A. Lowe, Codices Latinorum Antiquorum, pt. 4 (Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1947), 23, #484. Lowe transcribes the first word as “Scribtori.” 105. These letters from the beginning and end of the Greek alphabet are applied to Christ in Rv 1.8, 21.6, and 22.13. 106. A search of other manuscripts of the Tractatus might contain marginalia to demonstrate that Hilary’s declared theme was taken seriously in the medieval monasteries, which collected and preserved this text. For the use of the Tractatus super Psalmos by Bede and its presence in a medieval booklist, see Paul C. Burns, “The Writings of Hilary of Poitiers in Medieval Britain from c. 700 to c. 1330,” in From Arabye to Engelond: Medieval Studies in Honour of Mahmoud Manzaloui on his 75th Birthday, edited by A. E. Christa Canitz and Gernot R. Wieland, 201–16 (Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 1999). 107. Audi et beatissimum Hilarium, ubi speret hominis perfectionem. . . . Vides quemadmodum venerabilis catholicus disputator, nec in hac vita mundationem nostram neget; et tamen humanam perfectiorem speret, id est perfectioris mundationis, in ultima resurrectione naturam (Augustine, Contra Julianum 2.8.26).

52  ³  Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms

Enarrationes in Psalmos, Augustine also appealed to the divine contribution to three stages in the progress of the Christian life.108 Augustine’s recognition of Hilary’s theme in his own work on the Psalms enhances the significance of Hilary’s choice of the Psalms to work out his model of the Christian life.

Use of the Psalms in Fourth-Century Gaul

To return to the issue posed at the beginning of this chapter, I will now discuss the choice of the Psalms as the most appropriate biblical text upon which to base his three-stage model of the Christian life. In his previous writings, Hilary had displayed little interest in the Psalms.109 108. Non enim frustra mihi videtur quinquagesimus esse de paenitentia, centesimus de misericordia et iudicio, centesimus quinquagesimus de laude Dei in sanctis eius. Sic enim ad aeternam beatamque tendimus vitam, primitus nostra peccata damnando, deinde bene vivendo, ut post condemnatam vitam malam gestamque bonam, mereamur aeternam. Secundum propositum enim occultissimae iustitiae bonitatisque suae Deus, quos praedestinavit, illos et vocavit; et quos vocavit, ipsos et iustificavit; quos autem iustificavit, ipsos et glorificavit (Romans 8.30). . . . Tria vero reliqua in nobis fiunt, vocatio, iustificatio, glorification (Augustine, En. In Psalm. 150.3). For a discussion on this and other passages, consult Milhau, “Sur la division tripartite,” 70. 109. In De Trin. 1.6, Hilary employed verses 7–10 from Psalm 138 in his spiritual journey. That may have been the first time he had quoted the Psalms. For earlier in the In Matt. there are only two possible allusions to Psalms. At In Matt. 3.4 there is an allusion to Psalm 90.12–13 where Hilary is arguing that if Jesus threw himself down from the temple “he would not be harmed by stones, basilisks, lions, or dragons.” There is a briefer allusion at In Matt. 5.2 to Psalm 44.8 where Hilary comments that “oil is the fruit of mercy.” He acknowledges the prophetic status of his source: Oleum enim fructum misericordiae esse caelestis et propheticus sermo est. In his De Synodis the only references to Psalms occur in the documents cited by Hilary at 38 and 50. Similarly there are three instances of quotations of Psalms in documents preserved by Hilary in his Historical Fragments. There is a possible reference in his Ad Constantium. In De Trin. Hilary demonstrates a much greater interest in the Psalms. In book 1 he cites the three verses from Psalm 138 referred to in the first line of this note. In book 4 he uses verses from the Psalms five times in order to illustrate some feature of God. At De Trin. 4.8 he uses Psalm 7.11 to acknowledge God as judge. At 4.16 he employs Psalm 148.5 to identify God as creator of the firmament. At 4.35 he uses Psalm 45.7 (together with Isaiah 43.10) to establish the equality of Father and Son. At 4.37 he uses Psalm 2.8 to express the Son’s lordship over the nations. At 4.38 he uses Psalm 71.9–10 to express adoration to the Son. Then from books 4 to 10, Hilary quotes the Psalms only once each with the exception of book 6 where he quotes them twice. At De Trin. 5.11 Hilary employs Psalm 104.4 in speaking of God’s creation of the angels. At 6.16 he uses Psalm 110.3 to speak of the divine generation of the Son. At 6.18 he uses Psalm 81.6 in his distinction of the Son from all other holy people. At 7.10 he uses the same verse for the identical purpose. At 8.25 he uses Psalm 2.8 to speak of the divine generation of the Son. At 9.26 he quotes Mark 12.34–37 which uses Psalm 110.1 about God making enemies a footstool. At 10.12 he alludes to Psalm 15.10 without actually quoting it. Then in book 11 Hilary quotes from the Psalms five times. At De Trin. 11.10 he quotes Psalm 45.7 (along with John 20.17) against heretical interpretations on the creaturely status of the Son. At 11.15 Hilary quotes Psalm 22.6 and 22 in his discussion of the relation of the Son and all humanity particularly in and through suffering. At 11.18 he quotes again from Psalm 45.7 and also repeats Psalm 2.8. At 11.19 he returns

Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms  ³  53

But it would appear that, during his exile around Ancyra, he encountered commentaries on the Psalms and perhaps some pattern for their devotional use. There was clearly a strong interest in the Psalms among Greek Christians during the fourth century.110 The normal explanation for this interest has been to link the use of the Psalms in the practices of daily prayer within the emerging ascetical tradition. I am suggesting that Hilary’s audience consists of the broader circle of educated Christians.111 They, too, would know the experience of daily prayer.112 In his to Psalm 45.7 for a third time in book 11. In book 12 Hilary quotes from the Psalms on six occasions. At De Trin. 12.8, he repeats a quotation from Psalm 110.3 (as he had done back at De Trin. 6.16). At 12.9 Hilary combines Psalm 34.15 with Hosea 13.4 and Acts 13.22 to present God’s appeal to human operations as an analogy for His own. At De Trin. 12.12, Hilary combines Psalms 102.25 and 138.8 (together with John 1.3) to identify the Son’s role in creation. At 12.14 Hilary appeals to Psalm 21.31 on possible ambiguities in the language of “birth.” At 12.34 Hilary uses Psalm 71.17 and 5 to support the preexistent status of Christ. Finally at De Trin. 12.39 Hilary uses Psalm 32.6 to present the agency of the word of God. So with increasing frequency Hilary employs texts from the Psalms to explore not only different aspects of the Son’s divinity but also of his humanity. 110. One indication of this interest is reflected in Jerome’s De Viris Illustribus. There he identifies six Greek treatments of the Psalms by Eusebius of Caesarea in sec. 81, by Athanasius in sec. 87, by Theodorus of Heraclea in sec. 90, by Asterius of Cappadocia in sec. 94, by Serapion of Thmuis in sec. 99 and by Didymus of Alexandria in sec. 109. Sophronis is credited with the translation of Jerome on the Psalms into Greek. There are the two Latin translations of Greek originals by Eusebius of Vercelli and by Hilary. 111. It is clear from references in Jerome and others that interest in the Psalms was developing during this period. This began in the East but spread in the Latin West due to the activities of Ambrose in the 380s and Jerome and Augustine in the 390s. The Psalms would develop into a major component of the daily prayer of the monks in response to the advice in 1 Thes 5.17 and Mt 6.7 “to pray without ceasing.” Between his arrival at Marseilles in 415 and his death in 433, John Cassian reported in his De Institutione Coenobiorum 2–3 on the assignment of specific Psalms to the hours of the prayer practices of monks in Egypt, Palestine, and Mesopotamia. Back in the 360s Hilary and his colleague Eusebius of Vercelli both had produced Commentaries on the Psalms in Latin based to some extent on Greek originals. Eusebius has been associated with the ascetical tradition and perhaps that explains his interest. 112. The Psalms became the people’s biblical text used in recited or sung responses during the liturgy as the observations of Egeria and Nicetas illustrate later in the fourth century. The first describes liturgy in Jerusalem; the second recommends liturgical practices for Christians in the Balkans but both are at least thirty years after Hilary. Still later in middle of the fifth century, Musaeus, identified as a priest of Marseilles, is credited by Gennadius in De Viris Illustribus 79 (80) with developing a lectionary to assist lectors and to provide suitable instruction for the people. Presumably for a similar pastoral purpose, Musaeus also designed a responsaria psalmorum capituala. Gennadius, just after his notice on Musaeus, identifies Vincentius, another priest of Marseilles, who wrote a commentary, In Davidis Psalmos. In his sermons as bishop of Arles from 502 to 542, Caesarius provides numerous references to the people’s use of Psalms. In Sermon 6.3 he recommends that rustic men and women, who find time to sing love songs, ought instead to learn to recite the creed, the Our Father and Psalms 50 and 90. At Sermon 75.1 he compliments the congregation for singing Psalms better than people in neighboring churches and then goes on to ask them to reflect on the inner meaning of the text with references to Psalms 1, 7, 18, 72, and 118. At Sermons 64.2, 72.1, 76.1, 77.5, 152.2, 152.4, 188.6, 207.4, he reminds his congregation to sing Psalms with proper attention. At other times he recommends spiritual benefits of singing the Psalms as at 133.1, 134.1,

54  ³  Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms

comment on references to “morning” and “evening” practices of the Church, Hilary does appeal to prayer with musical settings.113 If it could be inferred that Psalms constituted at least part of this daily practice that might help to account for the proliferation of Greek commentaries on them. It would explain the interest of Eusebius of Vercelli who, according to Jerome ’s notice, translated the Commentary on the Psalms by Eusebius of Caesarea. At the end of his exile in the East, Eusebius participated in the Synod at Alexandria held in 362 under the restored Athanasius and even contributed to the Tomus ad Antiochenos.114 Athanasius’s interest in the devotional use of the Psalms is clearly reflected in his Epistula ad Marcellinum de Interpretatione Psalmorum. Although Athanasius’s Letter to Marcellinus cannot be dated with any certainty, Eusebius may have been influenced by that text itself or, at least, by Athanasius’s appreciation for the broad range of spiritual and psychological benefits of the Psalms for the practitioner. Καί μοι δοκεῖ τῷ ψάλλοντι γίνεσθαι τούτους ὥσπερ εἴσοπτρον, εἰς τὸ κατανοεῖν καὶ αὑτὸν ἐν αὑτοῦς καὶ τὰ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ψυχῆς κινήματα, καὶ οὓτως αἰσθόμενον ἀπαγγέλλειν αὐτούς. (Epistula ad Marcellinum 12 [PG 27, 24C]) (And it seems to me that for the singer these verses become like a mirror for him to observe in them both himself and the movements of his soul and to recite them with this perception.)

In the same letter Athanasius returns to the importance this biblical text has as the image of the life of the believer. Εἰ γὰρ δεῖ καὶ πιθανώτερον εἱπεῖν (sic), πᾶσα μὲν ἡ θεία Γραφὴ διδάσκαλός ἐστιν ἀρετᾶς καὶ πίστεως ἀληθοῦς· ἡ δέ γε βίβλος τῶν Ψαλμῶν ἕχει καὶ τὴν εἱκόνα (sic) πως τῆς διαγωγὴς τῶν ψυχῶν. (Epistula ad Marcellinum 14 [PG 27, 25C]) and 137.1. The singing of Psalms is a recurring theme for Rogation Days and in Lent as at Sermons 202.5, 207.3 and 208.3. In Sermon 238 addressed to monks, he says, Psalmi vero arma sunt servorum [D]ei. But in Gaul during the 360s, there is no extant evidence to demonstrate positively the people’s use of Psalms. Perhaps the evidence in Tertullian, and the one hint in Cyprian’s conversion scene lend some credibility to my hypothesis about Hilary’s reasons for deciding to choose the Psalms upon which to construct his model for the Christian life. At De Anima 9 Tertullian refers, in passing, to the components of worship service as “the reading of Scriptures,” “the chanting of Psalms,” “the preaching of sermons,” and “the offering up of prayers.” 113. . . . progressus ecclesiae in matutinum et vespertinorum hymnorum delectationes maximum misericordiae Dei signum est (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 64.12). 114. For a recent review of this episode and Rufinus’s interpretation of the role of Eusebius of Vercelli and Hilary in his Ecclesiastical History, esp. 1.21–22; consult Yves-Marie Duval, “La place et l’importance du Concile d’Alexandrie ou de 362 dans l’Histoire de l’Église de Rufin d’Aquilée (rôle d’Hilaire de Poitiers),” REAug 47 (2001): 282–302.

Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms  ³  55

(For if it is necessary to speak more persuasively, the whole of the Sacred Scripture teaches virtues and the values of faith. The book of the Psalms at any rate possesses the likeness, somehow, of the souls’ course of life.)

During his exile Eusbeius of Vercelli learned of the use of the Psalms. Eusebius is reputed to have introduced some form of communal asceticism at Vercelli.115 So he might have had a more specifically ascetical objective than I am arguing for Hilary. Hilary himself certainly knew about the emerging patterns of communal asceticism, probably from his experience around Ancyra during his own exile and perhaps from his contact with Eusebius during their campaign against Auxentius in Milan after their return to the West. Hilary certainly recognized the ascetical ideals of Martin of Tours whom he had tried to recruit for ministry in Poitiers.116 Martin’s biographer, Sulpicius Severus, wrote his various texts from 396 to 406 during which considerable tension erupted between clergy in Gaul and ascetics. Sulpicius consistently accuses the Gallic bishops of luxury and sycophancy at court.117 Hilary is one of the very few Gallic bishops Sulpicius treats with respect in The Life of Martin. He, pointedly, praises Hilary not for ascetical virtues but for his “theological understanding” and his “recognized faith.” In his treatment of the second cluster of Psalms on virtues in Christian life Hilary provides some limited evidence that he is 115. For an informative review of the evidence, see Joseph T. Lienhard, “Patristic Sermons on Eusebius of Vercelli and Their Relation to His Monasticism,” RBén 87 (1977): 164–72. 116. In his account of the relations between Hilary and Martin in Vita S. Martini, Sulpicius Severus seems to draw portraits of the two with some contrasting features. In doing so Sulpicius acknowledges Hilary’s status as a person of faith and theological learning: sanctus Hilarii Pictavae episcopum civitatis, cuius tunc in Dei rebus spectata et cognita fides . . . (5.1). Sulpicius presents Hilary as one who understands the ascetical ideals of Martin and his biographer but Sulpicius does not identify Hilary as a member of the ascetical movement. Sulpicius treats Hilary’s attempt to recruit Martin to ministry at Poitiers by appealing to ascetical values of humility. So when Martin turned down the offer to become a deacon, Hilary wisely offered the humbler office of exorcist. Martin did accept this position: Quam ille ordinationem, ne despixisse tamquam humiliorem videretur, non repudiavit (5.2). Throughout his Life of Martin, Sulpicius contrasts his monastic “hero” with hostile attitudes and questionable practices of other bishops at the time of his consecration, during a visit to the court at Trier, and in his conclusion. Hilary, who recognized pastoral potential in Martin, is the one episcopal exception throughout this narrative. For a discussion of the contrast between the learned Hilary and the unkempt, ascetic “outsider,” consult Raymond Van Dam, Leadership and Community in Late Antique Gaul (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985), 121. 117. See Sulpicius Severus, Vita Martini, 9.3–7, 20.1, and 27.3, Chronica, 1.23, and Dialogi, 1.21.

56  ³  Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms

aware of asceticism and its distinctive virtues. I shall be arguing that, although Hilary is familiar with this movement, he is addressing a somewhat broader audience. He accomplishes this without the rancor, which characterized relationships between ascetics and the broader Christian community in Gaul during the last decade of the fourth-century Gaul. In his Tractatus Hilary is applying the Psalms to the lives of all Christians. Perhaps he is echoing themes such as those in Athanasius’s Epistula ad Marcellinum. Perhaps he is extending to all Christians the traditional exegesis, which had interpreted the experiences and words of the Psalms as foreshadowing those of Christ. Later evidence, at least, demonstrates that in liturgical practice the Psalms would become the vehicle for the sung or recited responses not just of clerics and monks but of all the people.118 It is difficult to apply with certainty the many references in the Tractatus to the singing of Psalms as references to the actual musical performance either by ascetics or by the broader audience, which I am proposing. Hilary does comment frequently on musical references in his Instructio and also on a number of the subscriptions but I suspect that these are prompted by discussions in his Greek sources rather than observations about his own experience of musical performance.119 Throughout this study I am claiming that Hilary’s objectives in constructing a progressive model for the Christian life extend beyond his clergy and beyond the ascetics. If this is indeed the case, the tantalizing question remains about the reasons for the choice of the Psalms. Are the Psalms 118. My hypothesis is that the Psalms were the one biblical text that came to be used by lay people during the liturgy as a form of recited, sung, or chanted response. Cathedral liturgies of a later period certainly illustrate this practice but there is no extant evidence to demonstrate the practice in Gaul in the 360s. The brief references to the singing of Psalms in Tertullian and in Cyprian are certainly suggestive of some practices among Latin Christians in North Africa but they are not sufficiently detailed to validate fully my hypothesis. In fact notices about the novelty of the singing of Psalms in the liturgy, in Augustine and in Celestine I, suggest otherwise. For reviews of the evidence, consult Robert Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West: The Origin of the Divine Office and Its Meaning for Today (Collegeville, Minn.: Liturgical Press, 1986); James McKinnon, ed., Man & Music: Antiquity and the Middle Ages: From Ancient Greece to the 15th century (London: The Macmillan Press, 1990), chap. 3; and Johannes Quasten, Music and Worship in Pagan and Christian Antiquity (Washington, D.C.: National Association of Pastoral Musicians, 1983). 119. For a brief treatment of this matter consult James McKinnon, Man & Music, esp. chap. 10, where he translates some of the pertinent passages from Hilary, Instr.1–2, 5, 7, 8, 17, and 19. The passage on Instr.19 is particularly appropriate since Hilary is ostensibly discussing four ways of performing the Psalms with different relationships between instrumental music and choral singing. McKinnon’s note is a warning against interpreting the passage as a description of actual performance.

Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms  ³  57

the most appropriate text through which to construct his model for the Christian life? For that question there is, as yet, no definitive answer until we know more about liturgical practices in Gaul during the 360s. To conclude, this overview of the current state of research on the Tractatus super Psalmos has identified the scholarly consensus on the state of the text, authorship, title, the number of Psalms, date, and a Greek source(s). On the genre and audience, I will continue to argue for a broader purpose than simply homiletic material for Hilary’s clerical colleagues or a guide for members of the ascetical movement. This preliminary chapter has also identified specific issues, which will inform the objectives for this study. My ultimate purpose is to identify the character and the range of Hilary’s application of his threefold model of the Christian life throughout his Tractatus. One scholar, already noted, has claimed that although Hilary did announce his profectus theme, he failed to apply it or develop it throughout the Treatise.120 I do not agree and, in chapters 3 through 5, I will focus primarily on that objective. Hilary’s objective of a model for the Christian life can now be identified. If now it can be demonstrated that Hilary applied it in considerable detail then its potential impact on Hilary’s successors deserves to be considered. When he composed his Contra Julianum around 420, Augustine seems to have been aware of the theme of the Christian life. In the 390s Augustine began his own Enarrationes in Psalmos and his Confessiones which both provide ample evidence for people’s use of the Psalms. Christian people were responding, singing or reciting these texts. In a sense the Psalms were the people ’s text and hence, I suggest, they were an obvious choice for reflections on the conditions of the Christian life. But back in the 360s the evidence for that practice in Gaul is still circumstantial. So in answer to the three questions with which I opened this chapter, 120. For Philip T. maintained that Hilary failed to apply his proposal in Instr. 11: “But the fact that he intended to develop his commentaries on such a plan . . . is insufficient proof that he actually did. From a close study of the matter it has become clear to us that he did not do so” (The Divinization of Man, 25). I do not agree. To recognize the objectives of the author and his intended audience one should understand the genre of fourth- and fifth-century commentaries. I point out that even in the diffuse grammatical commentaries on Terence and Vergil by Donatus and Servius, there are coherent features of perspective that guide those authors’ selection, interpretation, and priorities.

58  ³  Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms

Hilary is providing a commentary on the Psalms and he has a model for the Christian life. I am proposing that it is the people’s use of the Psalms that provides the justification for Hilary’s integration of these two objectives. The third question raised an added feature of Hilary’s motive for this project. Some may feel that after his tumultuous struggles, Hilary may have preferred to withdraw to a quieter and simpler pastoral project on Scripture, prayer, and the Christian life. Although those are valid motives, this project may have also been part of the larger proNicene agenda. As we saw in his autobiographical introduction to De Trinitate, the divine status of the Son is what validates the life and the hope of the Christian. Our discussions on “conformity to the glorified body of Christ” in chapter 5 may very well confirm this additional theological dimension of Hilary’s objective for his Tractatus super Psalmos. In the next chapter I propose to explore Hilary’s approach to the Psalms by examining both his dependence on his Greek source(s) and also his independence from any such source(s). We have already seen one important example of Hilary’s selective use of Origen. The proposition that the Psalms are to be divided into three groups of fifty has very close parallels to a commentary on the Psalms by Origen. But Hilary develops his own triadic theme, which is different from Origen’s application to the Trinity. Moreover Hilary’s respect for and his appeals to the Septuagint suggest the probability of further reliance on Origen. To explore the extent of Hilary’s use of Origen will require a detailed assessment of the fragments of two of Origen’s Commentaries on the Psalms, which are extant only in a truncated and contaminated state. At the same time it will be important to assess how Hilary adapts information from that source to formulate his own theme for his Latin audience. As we have seen Hilary derives the threefold structure of the collection of the Psalms from Origen but he assigns those divisions not to the Father, Son and Spirit as his Greek predecessor had suggested, but rather to his three-stage model of the Christian life. This theme reflects his distinctive creative vision. Here there are some strong parallels to his account of his own conversion from pre-baptized state to Christianity in his autobiography, which he had designed as his introduction to his De Trinitate. In neither version of the Christian life, does he totally repudiate the cultural resources of his past. Rather Hilary exercises his criti-

Hilary’s Commentary and the Psalms  ³  59

cal judgment about these resources and he identifies some questions to highlight the superior value of the Christian life. Hilary’s model of conversion is responsibly progressive rather than categorically dismissive. In his discussion of “paths” and “avenues,” we have already seen a hint of Hilary’s use of positive examples from urban experience which is in stark contrast to Cyprian’s repudiation of Latin social culture as viewed from a mountain top. Hilary concludes his Instructio with another helpful urban metaphor, which I will use to open the discussion of his exegetical principles in the next chapter.

2

Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis

T

o illustrate his approach to principles of interpreta  tion, Hilary develops two extensive comparisons at   Instructio 24 and on Psalm 13. By extension the same illustrations and principles will guide our understanding of his Tractatus. In the first passage, Instructio 24, he uses a plan of a generic city as an extended metaphor for the scriptural text. He uses this parallel “to find the appropriate key to open each individual door to buildings in a city” in order to demonstrate the challenge to interpret Scripture. This example can be extended to present the challenge that confronts us to identify integrating themes to open Hilary’s diverse text for our understanding. Thus the “keys to the city” with which Hilary interprets the Psalms help us unlock the Treatise. Moreover, this passage is the first instance of his polyvalent use of the city metaphor that he also applies to his model for the Christian life. To explore further the interpretation of an authoritative text, Hilary introduces his second comparison at Tr. Ps.13.1. Here he explores parallels between imperial and Christian modes of discourse. Together these comparisons set up his basic themes and objectives for interpreting the book of the Psalms. These two passages frame my discussion of Hilary’s application of Christian exegetical methods, which are foundational to Hilary’s contributions to Chris60

Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis  ³  61

tology and Pneumatology. These themes account for the unity and the power of the biblical text, which has a universal application, across time, place, and social classifications. Both comparisons also highlight Hilary’s distinctive appeal to his audience, with whom he shares the Latin rhetorical background of the educated elite. Moreover, the first comparison with “keys to the city” presents the issue of Hilary’s relation to his Greek source as clearly as any other passage in his Treatise. There exists a slightly fuller version of a very similar metaphor in an extant fragment from Origen’s Alexandrine commentary on the Psalms. An investigation of this comparison along with other passages in the Instructio will demonstrate some of the extent of Hilary’s selective dependence on Origen. At the same time, there are indications to demonstrate the continuing influence of Hilary’s Latin exegetical and theological lens through which he selects and adapts material from Origen. The second comparison explicitly sets out the Latin rhetorical context in which both Hilary and his audience function. This cultural context informs many of the important images, examples, and applications throughout the Tractatus. The value of a stable city, for instance, is a significant theme in the traditions of Latin rhetoric and it is reflected in the writings of three contemporaries of Hilary. The influence of this rhetorical culture will continue in subsequent chapters on Hilary’s treatment of divine Providence, lists of ethical values with the disruptive impact of vice and the harmonizing role of virtue. Some of Hilary’s interest in the body of Christ and the risen body of the Christian may be influenced by residual elements of Stoicism in his Latin literary culture. To illustrate the complexities for interpretations of the Psalms at the end of his Instructio, Hilary presents his metaphor of the city. Here the city contains a variety of buildings each with a locked door. How is the reader to enter the text of the Psalms? The metaphor represents the challenge to find the correct key to unlock the different meanings of various texts in the collection of Psalms. In this first use of this image Hilary presents features which will become standard in all of his applications of this adaptable metaphor. He compares the book of the Psalms to “a beautiful and large city with many different buildings.” Each structure is locked and to open each one a person must identify the appropriate key

62  ³  Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis

from a pile where “they are thoroughly mixed up.” This disordered condition echoes the description of the state of the Psalms, which had confronted the Septuagint translators described at Tr. Ps. 150.1.1 Est autem diligens perpensumque iudicium expositioni psalmi uniuscuiusque praestandum, ut cognoscatur qua unusquisque eorum clave intellegentiae aperiendus sit. Nam liber omnis similis est urbi pulchrae atque magnae, cui plures aedes diversaeque sint, quarum fores propriis clavibus diversisque claudantur, quae cum unum in locum congestae permixtaeque sunt, volenti unamquamque aedem aperire maximam ignaro adferant difficultatem, ut clavem uniuscuiusque aedis inveniat sitque aut familiaris scientiae cognitam clavem cito ex copia illa congestae in unum varietatis eligere aut ingentis laboris aptam et congruam clavem aperiendi uniuscuiusque aditus invenire, quia ratio et qualitas non sinat non suas claves claustris disparibus coaptare. Itaque secundum Domini misericordiam aperiendi uniuscuisque psalmi clavem reperturi huius ipsius primi psalmi aditum propria sua et congrua clave pandamus. (Instr. 24) (An attentive and measured judgement for the interpretation of each Psalm must be supplied so that the key of understanding how each one of them is to be opened might be recognised. For every book is like a beautiful and large city. It has many different buildings, whose doors are locked with their own individual keys. Since these keys have been collected in one place and thoroughly mixed up, they present extreme difficulty to anyone without knowledge who wishes to open one in particular. In order for him to find the key of a particular building, it is a matter either of particular knowledge to choose quickly a key already known from that heap of different keys piled together. Or it is a matter a matter of huge effort to find the right key to open the door of a particular building because the design and quality would not allow particular keys to fit locks that did not match. And so, according to the mercy of the Lord, with the intention of finding the key for each Psalm to be opened let us throw open the door of this first Psalm with its own matching key.)

This metaphor reflects Hilary’s appreciation for the beauty, size, and range of the complexities in the text of the Psalms. It clearly emphasizes his recognition of the diversity in the text and the need for a variety of exegetical approaches guided by the mercy of God. Among his many adaptations of the city metaphor throughout the Tractatus, Hilary does pause on one occasion to provide an informative catalogue of the various structures and spaces in a conventional Roman 1. . . . clavibus diversisque claudantur, quae cum unum in locum congestae permixtaeque sunt . . . (Hilary, Instr. 24). [F]uit ergo in translatoribus hoc intellegentiae spiritalis, ut congestam hanc in plurimis continuatamque seriem patirentur in numerum . . . (Tr. Ps.150.1).

Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis  ³  63

provincial city. At Psalm 121, Hilary lists basic features of the city beyond simple structures with locked doors. Throughout his commentary on Psalm 121 Hilary applies the comparison to inhabitants who are in the third stage of his model. I will return to that particular application in chapter 5 of this study. In this passage, as at Instructio 24, the emphasis is still on diversity, this time, not of keys but of urban buildings and spaces. This catalogue of urban structures and spaces represents a map of a generic Roman city.2 Although the particular elements in this example are physical buildings and spaces, the use of “civitas” rather than “urbs” suggests that Hilary’s actual focus of the metaphor is on the inhabitants of the city and the variety of human activities in these different locations. The first cluster of three terms, namely “wall,” “gate,” and “tower,” deals with the outside perimeter of the city, presumably the prospect that confronts people on their approach.3 These physical structures also focus on elements of military defence and civic prestige, which are features in contemporary Latin rhetorical literature. The next three terms, designating open areas such as streets, and arcades, and shops or taverns, deal with physical locations in the city that provide for social, commercial and, perhaps, intellectual exchange. The last cluster of four terms actually consists of two conventional doublets. The first doublet, namely, “house” and “forum,” applies to private and public spheres of life in the city. The final doublet, namely, “temples,” and “palace,” applies to two spheres of religious and political authority in the city. So in these two applications of the city metaphor, Hilary emphasises diversity within a social entity and his various uses of the city will continue to reflect unity within diversity. This emphasis on diversity and inclusiveness was also the point of his preference for “avenues” in the choice of plateae at Tr. Ps. 118.4.12, which was noted in the previous chapter. Just as Hilary seeks to identify a variety of keys to open the text of the Psalms, I invoke the same metaphor to open his text of the Tractatus for our understanding. The first key for our inquiry will be Hilary’s relation 2. Civitatem autem necesse est diverso aedificiorum genere consistere. [N]on enim omnis est murus, porta, turris, neque omnis plateae, porticus, tabernae, neque domus, forum, templa, palatium; sed et differentibus inter se domorum magnificentiis differunt quoque cohabitantium dignitates (Hilary, Tr. Ps.121.14). 3. For evidence that, from the end of the third century, Poitiers was fortified with walls, consult, Catherine Balmelle, Les Demeures Aristocratiques d’Aquitaine: Société et Culture de l’Antiquité tardive dans le SudOuest de la Gaule (Bordeaux-Paris: Institut de Recherche sur l’Anitquité et le Moyen Age, 2001), fig. 2.

64  ³  Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis

to his Greek sources. His exile had brought him into contact with a Christian community in Phrygia and their theological concerns and resources. Prior to the composition of his Tractatus, Hilary had already demonstrated an interest in Greek Christian texts. The exile to Phrygia between 356 and 360 introduced him to the circle of Homoiousions around Basil of Ancyra.4 Hilary had sympathy for their theological perspectives, which he communicated in the content and tone of his De Synodis through which he was reporting back to his episcopal colleagues in Gaul and Britain. In the list of addressees, there is one interesting exception with possible relevance to the breadth of the audience I am positing for the Tractatus. For the diocese of Toulouse Hilary addressed the laity and the clergy not Bishop Rhodianus who was also in exile. In De Synodis he not only translated some documents but he had commented on the appropriate interpretation of the theological issues. He also offered his opinion on the art of translating from Greek into Latin and a comparison with the Greek originals demonstrates that he strove to provide an intelligible rather than a literal translation.5 That text also illustrates Hilary’s sense of his responsible independence from his source since he offers advice to his Greek contacts about the correct interpretation of their own principle terms. These contacts in the East may have had some influence on some of the topics and themes in his Tractatus. Contact with the Homoiousians may have expanded his understanding of the emerging ascetical tradition represented by Basil’s De Virginitate and by his associate, Eustathius of Sebaste.6 There are hints in the Tractatus that Hilary had some interest in medicine which he may have picked up from 4. There are close parallels between the De Synodis and a synodical letter and nineteen anathemas from a meeting called by Basil of Ancyra and quoted by Epiphanius, Panarion 73.2–11. At De Synodis 90, Hilary addressed bishops of this Ancyran circle with respect. He names Basil, Eustathius, and Eleusius. For an examination of Hilary’s use and appreciation for this circle, consult Jeffrey N. Steenson, “Basil of Ancyra and the Course of Nicene Orthodoxy,” unpublished Ph.D. diss. (Oxford: Oxford University, 1983), 254–65. For a brief discussion of his evidence and argument, see Paul C. Burns, “West Meets East in the De Synodis of Hilary of Poitiers,” Studia Patristica 28 (1993): 24–28. 5. See two passages: In quibus si quid vitiose inesse intelligitur, nemo mihi vitium potest assignare dictorum: internuntius enim, ut voluistis, sum ipse, non conditor (Hilary, De Synodis 7); non quod non ab aliis planissime omnia edita sint; sed quod ex greco in latinum ad verbum expressa translatio affert plerumque obscuritatem, dum custodita verborum collatio eamdem absolutionem non potest ad intelligentiae simplicitatem conservare (De Synodis 9). 6. For a helpful discussion of the themes of this text, consult Susanna Elm, “Virgins of God”: The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994), 113–25.

Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis  ³  65

Basil’s medical knowledge.7 Other possible influences of this circle on Hilary will emerge later in our study. Hilary’s relationship with Eusebius of Vercelli during their attempts to depose Auxentius of Milan may have reinforced Hilary’s interest in the collaboration with different orthodox traditions,8 asceticism, and commentaries on the Psalms.9

Use of Origen

In his Tractatus, Hilary does not name any nonbiblical text. But a patristic exegete, who is very familiar with both Hilary’s text and the works of Origen, asserted that Hilary was dependent on the Greek exegete. In his De Viris Illustribus composed in 393, Jerome claimed that, in his treatment of the Psalms, Hilary “imitated” Origen.10 Jerome returned to the issue eleven years later in 404 in order to defend his own translations of Origen and he specifically claimed that Hilary had “translated” Origen.11 In the first statement about “imitating” Origen, Jerome qualified his notice with the observation that Hilary “added some things of his own.” In this Letter to Augustine, Jerome went on to say that Hilary of Poitiers and Eusebius of Vercelli had translated Origen’s and Eusebius of Caesarea’s Commentaries on the Psalms. Most scholars have taken the “and” in Jerome ’s notice to be disjunctive with Hilary using one Greek source and Eusebius the other. This interpretation is confirmed by another remark in De Viris Illustribus.12 To further compound the challenge to identify the precise text which Hilary used, Origen wrote not one but a number of works on the Psalms. Jerome does not specify which work or works by Origen Hilary 7. Basilius Ancyranus episcopus, artis medicinae, scripsit Contra Marcellum et De Virgintate librum . . . (Jerome, De Viris Illustribus 89). For Hilary’s discussion of the role of sedation during surgery to prevent sensation, see De Trin. 10.14. 8. See Eusebius’s contribution to the Tomus ad Antiochenos 2.1–3 and 9.1–10.4 at Alexandria in 362. 9. For a discussion of the evidence for Eusebius’s introduction of communal asceticism for his clergy, consult Joseph T. Lienhard, “Patristic Sermons on Eusebius of Vercelli and The Relation to His Monasticism,” RBén 87 (1977): 164–72. 10. Hilarius . . . scripsit, et in psalmos commentarios . . . in quo opere imitatus Originem nonnulla etiam de suo addidit (Jerome, De Viris Illustribus 100). 11. apud Latinos autem Hilarius Pictaviensis et Eusebius, Vercellensis episcopus, Originem et Eusebium transtulerunt, quorum priorem et noster Ambrosius in quibus secutus est (Jerome, Epsitula ad Augustinum 112.20). 12. In De Viris Illustribus 96, Jerome also states that Eusebius of Vercelli translated the Commentary on the Psalms by Eusebius of Caesarea.

66  ³  Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis

employed. Moreover, most of these texts are extant only in fragments or in translations. Due to a number of factors, Origen’s texts have suffered considerable contamination. His work became the subject of a number of heated theological controversies.13 At times his books were banned. At different periods some people like Rufinus, sympathetic to Origen, produced edited versions or translations in which the potentially controversial passages were modified or dropped. At other times Origen’s books were destroyed. However versions of his works managed to survive in a variety of forms. They were often adapted, excerpted, and incorporated into early medieval Catenae. The monastic agenda of these editors would certainly govern their selections and editing procedures. Any use of the extant evidence then must acknowledge the role of the translator or excerptor who would select, abridge, and even adapt Origen’s original text. This editorial activity was motivated by theological controversies at some times and by monastic objectives at others. In 1965, Émile Goffinet attempted to explore Hilary’s use of Origen, but he did not sufficiently acknowledge the fragmented and contaminated state of Origen’s texts.14 I ask the reader to bear with me, as I lay out the complex evidence for the text of Origen in the extant fragments. Not only will this exploration pay tribute to the painstaking textual investigations of two French scholars in the last generation, but it will also identify the complicated evidence upon which must rest any discussion of Hilary’s use of sources and his originality. To deal with the extant fragments of Origen, Pierre Nautin has provided a very useful service.15 For the actual number of works by Origen on the Psalms, Nautin has argued that Jerome, in his Epistula 33 ad Paulam, used the catalogue of Origen’s works compiled by Eusebius for his lost Vita Pamphilii. So in his reconstruction of Eusebius’s original catalogue, Nautin found seventy-seven titles of Origen’s texts, which he has listed in three categories: a) treatises; b) homilies on biblical books and on diverse topics; and c) letters. At number 27 Nautin lists Origen’s 13. See Elizabeth A. Clark, The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992). 14. See Émile Goffinet, L’Utilisation d’Origène dans le Commentaire des Psaumes de saint Hilaire de Poitiers, Studia Hellenistica 14 (Louvain: Publications Universitaires de Louvain, 1965). 15. See Pierre Nautin, Origène: Sa Vie et son Oeuvre (Paris: Beauchesne, 1977), chapters 6 and 7.

Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis  ³  67

Excerpta in Psalmos 1 ad 25. At number 28 Nautin identifies a commentary on many Psalms in sequence from 1 to 118 and he maintains that this is a later and fuller commentary composed at Caesarea. Then at number 64 he lists the considerable number of homilies on selected Psalms 3 to 149. Finally at number 65 he identifies an Excerpta in Psalterium. For the second category at number 64, Nautin finds that Eusebius had mentioned an extensive series of homilies on the Psalms.16 Only homilies on Psalms 36 to 38 have survived and they do so only in the Latin translation of Rufinus.17 Nautin observes that perhaps some fragments from this homiletic material may have survived in the Catenae. But from this extant homiletic material I can identify nothing for direct comparison with the parallel treatment in Hilary’s selection of Psalms in his Treatise. The other three items in Eusebius’s catalogue of Origen’s works are more promising for our inquiry. At number 27 Eusebius names the Commentary on Psalms 1–25, which Origen composed early in his career while he was still at Alexandria.18 They are extant as fragments in the Philocalia with chapters ii through iii found in PG 12. Nautin has identified four passages, which he assigns to the beginning of the Alexandrine commentary by Origen (1076A–1077C; 1080BC; 1080D–1081D; and 1084A). Moreover, Nautin found that Eusebius cited parts of the four passages in his Ecclesastical History 6.25 and that Epiphanius cited part of the first passage in order to criticize it at his Panarion 64.5–7. These passages, which have been excerpted, truncated, and perhaps emended for theological purposes, survive to provide an initial basis for evaluating Jerome’s claim that Hilary had translated Origen on the Psalms. The first fragment is particularly useful since it is the beginning of Origen’s Alexandrine commentary on the first twenty-five Psalms and is reflected in some of the passages in Hilary’s own introductory material. The section preserved by Epiphanius contains a somewhat polemical defense 16. Eusebius has named the following homilies from Origen: one each for Psalms 13, 51, 54, 120, 125, 127–129; 131; 145–147; 149; two for 52; 121–124; 132–134; 137, 139; three on 118 and 144; four on 135 and 138; seven on 67. 17. See Rufinus, PG 12, 1319–1410. This material includes five homilies on Psalm 36, two on Psalm 37, and one on Psalm 38. 18. For evidence that this commentary was composed in Alexandria, see Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History 6.24.

68  ³  Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis

of the resurrection of the body. This issue in its original formulation in Origen might also have provoked Hilary to express his distinctive views on the transformation of the risen body.19 From the extant remains of Origen’s works Nautin reconstructs something of the shape and contents of the introductory sections for both the Alexandrine and the Caesarean commentaries. By comparing the evidence for the introduction in those two commentaries with the early stages of the Tractatus, Nautin concludes that Hilary had access to both. It seems that Origen used his discussion of Psalm 1 to introduce his Alexandrine commentary but composed a separate introductory section for the Caesarean commentary. There are extensive parallels between material in Origen’s extant selections for Hilary’s Instructio and also for his comment on Psalm 1. To conclude that where he does present information not found in the remains from Origen’s texts Hilary is the sole original author is difficult to determine definitively. Our discussions of Hilary’s major themes in the following chapters will identify significant perspectives, which have little or no antecedents in his Greek predecessor. Unfortunately there is no single critical edition for all the extant remains from Origen’s treatments of the Psalms. For our purposes I am relying on five sources for the extant fragments of Origen’s various works on the Psalms.20 19. See chap. 5. 20. The five sources are 1) Epiphanius, a hostile critic in the late fourth century, quoted a lengthy passage from Origen on Psalm 1 in his Panarion 64.5–7 that Nautin has identified as coming from the Alexandrine commentary on Psalm 1(GCS 31, p. 414, 13 to p. 417, 3). 2) Six more elements from the beginning of the Alexandrine commentary have been identified by Nautin (PG 12 at 1076A–1077C; 1080BC, 1080D– 1081D, 1084A, 1084BC, and 1092AB). 3) Nautin identified six elements from the prologue to the Caesarean commentary (PG 12, 1060C–1072B on the titles for the Psalms; 1072B on diapsalma; 1072B–1073B on the order of the Psalms; 1053A on use of finem in superscriptions of the Psalms; 1056A on five books of the Psalms; 1056B–1057C on speakers in the Psalms). 4) There is a selection of comments on the Psalms attributed to Origen (Hans Achelis, “Die unechte griechische Einleitung zu den Psalmen,” in Hippolytus Werke 1.2, GCS 1 [Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1897], 136–45). One passage, which was already quoted in our first chapter, deals with the organization of the Psalms into three groups of fifty, which is central to Hilary’s own organization upon which he constructs his theme. 5) Finally, there is a significant collection from different commentaries on Psalm 118 called the Palestinian Catena. There is a critical edition with extensive introduction and translation into French published by Marguerite Harl (see n. 22) and extensively employed by Marc Milhau, Hilaire de Poitiers: Commentaire sur le Psaume 118, SC 344, 347 (Paris: Les Éditions du Cerf, 1988). For parallels between Hilary’s text and what does survive of Origen’s works, I will also take note of the painstaking researches of Jean Doignon and Marc Milhau, each of whom have a very informative critical apparatus in their

Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis  ³  69

The critical editions of the Tractatus by Milhau on Tr. Ps. 118 and by Doignon, currently up to the end of 118, do highlight obvious parallels between Hilary’s text and Origen’s extant material. Due to the vagaries of the survival of Origen’s various works on the Psalms, the pattern of parallels with Hilary’s Treatise is not uniform. The parallels, which can be verified, occur basically in four clusters up to the end of the commentary on 118. They are particularly evident in Hilary’s Instructio and Psalm 118. For the Instructio there are parallels to Origen.21 For Hilary’s treatment of the lengthy Psalm 118, Doignon, in his testimonia, has noted 133 parallels with the version of Origen’s text preserved in the Palestinian Catena.22 There are some parallels for Hilary’s treatment of Psalm 1 at 1.1, 1.4, 1.7, 1.8, 1.12, 1.14, 15, and 1.16 with the lengthiest at 1.12. There are also a number of parallels for Hilary on Psalm 2 at 2.1, 2.8, 2.9, 2.36, 2.37, 2.38, 2.39, 2.42, and 2.44. For the rest of Hilary’s treatment up to Psalm 91, the editor provides scant extant evidence for parallels with Origen.23 A look at passages in the Instructio will illustrate some features of Hilary’s indebtedness to Origen’s commentaries. Five of these passages, at Instructio 1, 5, 6, 11 and 24, deal with themes significant for our study. Given the fragmentary and contaminated character of Origen’s text, it would be unwise to conclude definitively that, where Hilary differs from Origen, he is deliberately departing from his source at these points. There is, however, a consistency in some of the material found only in Hilary, which does suggest that he is expressing his own point of view. For the metaphor of the city in Hilary’s Instructio 24 with which we opened this chapter, there is a telling parallel preserved in extant material from what Nautin has identified as the Alexandrine commentary: respective critical editions. There are particularly close parallels for the Instructio, Psalms 1, 2, and 118. For Psalm 118, Milhau has also provided a very useful discussion of the material Hilary has derived from Origen as well as some observations on topics Hilary apparently chose to omit. 21. At paragraphs 1 (3x), 2, 3, 4 (2x), 5 (2x), 6 (3x), 7 (2x), 8 (3x), 9, 10(3x), 11, 12 (3x), 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 21, 23, and 24. There is no extant material for paragraphs 20 and 22. 22. For these, compare the testimonia in Doignon’s edition with the Palestinian Catena in Marguerite Harl, La Chaîne Palestinienne sur le Psaume 118 (Origène, Eusèbe, Didyme, Apollinarie, Athanase, Théodoret), SC 189,190 (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1972). 23. See Hilary, Tr. Ps. 13.2, 51.6–7, 53.4, 54.9, 55.1–2, 56.1 and 8, 59.1–2, 63.1, 65.16, 66.8, 67.1, 68.1 and 4, 69.1. There are parallels with extant evidence of Origen’s Homilies on the Psalms at 63.4 and 11, 69.4.

70  ³  Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis

Μέλλοντες δὲ ἄρχεσθαι τῆς ἑρμηνείας τῶν Ψαλμῶν, χαριεστάτην παράδοσιν ὑπὸ τοῦ Ἑβραίου ἡμῖν καθολικῶς περὶ πάσης θείας Γραφῆς παραδεδομένην προτάξομεν· ἔφασκε γὰρ ἐκεῖνος ἐοικέναι τῆν ὅλην θεόπνευστον Γραφὴν, διὰ τὴν ἐν αὐτῇ ἀσάφειαν, πολλοῖς οἴκοις ἐν οἰκίᾳ μιᾷ κεκλεισμένοις, ἑκάστῳ δὲ οἴκῳ παρακεῖσθαι κλεῖν οὐ τὴν κατάλληλον αὐτῷ· καὶ οὕτω διεσκεδάσθαι τὰς κλεῖς περὶ τοὺς οἲκους, οὐχ ἁρμοζούσας καθ’ἑκάστην ἐκείνοις οἵς παράκεινται· ἔργον δὲ εἶναι μέγιστον εὑρίσκειν τε τὰς κλεῖς καὶ ἐφαρμόζειν αὐτὰς τοῖς οἴκοις, οὕς ἀνοΐξαι δύνανται· νοεῖσθαι τοίνυν καὶ τὰς Γραφὰς οὕσας ἀσαφεῖς, οὐκ ἄλλοθεν τὰς ἀφορμὰς τοῦ νοεῖσθαι λαμβανούσας ἤ παρ’ ἀλλήλων ἐχουσῶν ἐν αὐταῖς διεσπαρμένον τὸ ἐξηγητικόν. (PG 12 1080 B–C) (As we are about to begin the interpretation of the Psalms, we will place at the front a most charming tradition handed down by the Jewish tradition which dealt with all the Holy Scripture as a whole. For that tradition said that, due to the obscurity within it, the whole of divinely inspired Scripture is like many locked residences within one structure. For each dwelling there is a key available but not one which matches the dwelling. And so the keys are scattered around the dwellings and not matching in each case those dwellings near which they are located. It is a very great task to find the keys to match them to the dwellings, which they can open. Therefore since they are obscure, the understanding of Scripture comes from no other source than from other passages with the interpretation scattered within them.)

Although Hilary makes no mention of Origen’s testimony about a Jewish source, there are many points of contact between the two versions. Hilary’s metaphor is very similar but not quite identical. In Origen the comparison is to “a structure with many residences.” In both versions “the keys have been scattered around” and the challenge is to select “the matching key for the dwelling.” This metaphor is offered as a comparison to the state of the Psalms, which requires many keys to open their meanings. The point of the parallel remains the same in the two texts but Hilary broadens the metaphor from “a structure with many residences” to “a beautiful and large city.” The two exegetes also express the application to the text of the Psalms in somewhat different ways. Hilary appeals to divine mercy for the means to open the first Psalm; Origen points out that the Scriptures themselves provide the means for understanding and concludes with the Pauline warning at 1 Corinthians 2.13, about teaching “not according to human wisdom but according to the teachings of the Spirit.” Given the fragmentary transmission of Origen’s texts care needs to

Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis  ³  71

be exercised in drawing firm conclusions about the precise character of Hilary’s dependence on his source. Hilary, however, is clearly following Origen’s basic objective and even many of the details of the metaphor. Hilary may very well have extended the “domicile” to “a beautiful and large city” in order to fit into the master metaphor of his whole Treatise.24 The frequent references in the Psalms themselves to “Sion,” “Jerusalem,” “holy city,” and “heavenly city” would make city an appropriate choice. Also in his writings before his exile, which were influenced by the perspectives of Latin theological and exegetical traditions, Hilary employed the city as a metaphor to central themes he is developing in this Treatise. On the actual location within their respective texts, it would appear that Origen presented his version in his comment on Psalm 1 whereas Hilary has drawn it back to the end of his Instructio to serve as an opening to his whole Treatise. Throughout Hilary’s Instructio, for which this passage at 24 is an imaginative conclusion, there are numerous other points of verifiable contact with passages in Origen. At Instructio 1, Hilary opens with an acknowledgement of the traditional Hebrew division of the Psalms into five books. Both authors specify the contents of each division: the first containing Psalm 1 to 40; the second containing up to Psalm seventy-one; the third up to Psalm 88; the fourth up to Psalm 105; and the fifth through to the final Psalm. Hilary identifies the Psalms by number whereas Origen accomplishes this by quoting the opening verse of the Psalm to which he is referring. This passage is to be found in the fragments of Origen’s own opening comments on Psalm 1.25 Later in the same paragraph, Hilary invokes the authority of Acts 1.20 (in libro psalmorum) to argue for one book. The same point and source is given in what Nautin identifies as contaminated fragments from Origen’s Caesarean commentary.26 At paragraph 2, Hilary raises the question of the identity of the author of individual Psalms which is also to be 24. In his text for this parallel, Émile Goffinet inadvertently omits the key word “urbs” in Hilary’s version of the metaphor. See Émile Goffinet’s version of the two passages and his discussion, L’ Utilisation d’ Origène, 33–36. 25. Εἰς πέντε βιβλία διαιροῦσιν Ἑβραῖοι τὴν τῶν Ψαλμῶν βίβλον· . . . τὸ δὲ πέμπτον· Ἑξομολογεῖσθε τῷ Κυρίῳ,” ἕως τῶν ἐσχάτων (Origen, Selecta in Pslamos [PG 12 1056A 4–12]). 26. Ἑβραῖοι ἐπέγραψαν τὴν βίβλιον Σέφρα θελείμ, ἐν δὲ ταῖς πράξεσι τῶν ἀποστόλων “βίβλος ψαλῶν” εἶναι λέγεται (Origen, H. Achelis, “Die unechte” [GCS 1.2,137, 5–6]).

72  ³  Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis

found in the same source in Origen.27 Hilary continues this discussion through paragraphs 3 and 4 and deals at some length with the contribution of Moses to the Psalms. To support his case he quotes Psalm 98.6, 3 Kings 13.2, and Jeremiah 15.1, all of which can be found in fragments from Origen’s Alexandrine commentary but in a different sequence and with additional verses from Psalms 99 and 98.28 At Instructio 5 Hilary acknowledges the challenge to interpret the text of the Psalms. For the initial passage, important for our discussion on exegetical methods later in this chapter, there are no extant parallels with Origen. A little later in this paragraph, several parallels with Origen are to be found. There are two biblical quotations from Isaiah 29.11–12 and Luke 11.52 both to be found in Origen’s Alexandrine commentary.29 In the same passage Hilary invokes the value of “allegory” and “types,” which is somewhat more specific than the extant passage in Origen.30 But then Hilary goes on to describe the objective of allegory and typology and he supplies an application to the various phases of “the body of Christ.” The successive stages of the body of Christ are identified as “being born,” “suffering,” “dying,” “being raised,” “to rule,” and “to judge.”31 At the stage of ruling, Hilary explicitly pauses to include “those who have been glorified with him.” None of these applications is to be found in the extant fragments of Origen on this passage. This application to sequential stages of the body of Christ is central to Hilary’s treatment of Christ and his role in the salvation of humans throughout his Tractatus. It would be imprudent to conclude definitively any27. προτέτακται γοῦν ἐπὶ μὲν τινῶν τὸ Δαυῒδ ὄναμα, ἐπὶ δὲ ἑτέρων τὸ Σολομῶν καὶ ἐπὶ ἂλλων τοῦ Ἀσάφ. εἰσὶ δὲ καὶ τοῦ ᾿Iδιθούμ τινες καὶ παρὰ τοῦτους ἄλλοι τῶν υἱῶν Κορέ, ὡς καὶ Μωσέως. τῶν οὔν τοσούτων ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ συναχθέντες οἱ λόγοι οὐκ ἂν ὑπὸ τοῦ εἰδότος λέγοιντο μόνου τοῦ Δαυῒδ (Origen, H. Achelis, “Die unechte” [GCS 1.2,137, 11–16]) 28. “Ψαλμὸς εἰς ἐξομολόγησιν,” οὖ ἡ ἀρχή· “Άλαλάξατε τῷ Κυρίῷ, πᾶσα γῆ (Ps. 99.1–2).” . . . Μωϋσέως, ἐκ τοῦ· “Ὑψοῦτε Κύριον τὸν Θεὸν ἡμῶν . . . (Ps. 98.5–7). . . . καὶ συναριθμηθέντος ὑπὸ ῾Iερεμίου τῷ Μωϋσῇ ἐν τῳ · “Οὐδ᾿ ἃν στῇ Μωϋσῆς καὶ Σαμουὴλ” [(Jeremiah 15.1], ὃτε ἐν ταῖς Βασιλείαις Ἰωσίας προεφητεύθη [3 Kings 13.2] (Origen, Selecta in Pslamos [PG 12,1057A12–C11]). 29. Origen, Selecta in Pslamos (PG 12, 1077B6–14 and 1077C9–11). 30. Ταῦτα γὰρ οὐ μόνον περὶ τῆς Ἀποκαλύψεως Ἰωάννου, καὶ τοῦ Ἡσαΐου νομιστέον λέγεσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ πάσης θείας Γραφῆς ὁμολογουμένως καὶ παρὰ τοῖς μετρίως ἐπαΐειν λόγων θείων δυναμένοις, πεπληρωμένης αἰνιγμάτων, καὶ παραβολῶν, σκοτεινῶν τε λόγων, καὶ ἄλλων ποικίλων εἰδῶν ἀσαφείας, δυσλήπτων τῇ ἀνθρωπίνῃ φύσει (Origen, Selecta in Pslamos [PG 12, 1077B14–C6]). 31. Sunt enim universa allegoricis et typicis contexta virtutibus, per quae omnia unigeniti Dei Filii in corpore et gignendi et patiendi et moriendi et resurgendi et in aeternum cum conglorificatis sibi, qui in eum crediderint, regnandi et ceteros iudicandi sacramenta panduntur (Hilary, Instr. 5).

Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis  ³  73

thing from its absence in this fragmentary text of Origen. The general approach of Origen, however, does not emphasize the physical body of Christ. But the body of Christ is central to Hilary’s accounts of both the initial transformation into the Christian life and the concluding transformation into glory after death. A similar pattern emerges in Hilary’s Instructio 6. Here Hilary is again speaking of the key of David to open the meaning of the text of scripture. In support he quotes two passages from the Apocalypse (3.7 and 5.1–5). Both passages are found in Origen’s comment on Psalm 1 in the Alexandrine commentary.32 Hilary once again turns to the stages of the body of Christ to illustrate the meaning of the key and “the seven signs” of the Apocalypse passage. Hilary identifies the seven stages of Christ’s body as “his incarnation, passion, death, resurrection, glory, reign and judging.”33 There is no indication in Origen’s extant treatment of “the key of David” that he applied it to the successive stages of the body of Christ. Then in the next paragraph Hilary deals with the symbolism of “the harp” and he provides the Hebrew term as well as the observation of the harp’s advantages as a musical instrument. These points are to be found in Origen’s fragments from the Caesarean commentary.34 But Hilary, once again, applies the symbolism to the body of Christ, which is not found in the corresponding passage in Origen’s surviving text.35 The references to an instrument “set in motion from above” and “not re32. ὁ Ἰωάννης ἀναδιδάσκει ἐν τῇ Ἀποκαλύψει λέγων “Καὶ τῷ ἀγγέλῳ τῆς ἐν Φιλαδελφείᾳ Ἐκκλησίας γράψον· Τάδε λέγει ὁ ἅγιος, ὁ ἀληθινὸς, ὁ ἔχων τὴν κλεῖδα τοῦ Δαυΐδ·. . . (Apoc. 3.7).” . . . Καὶ μετ᾿ὀλίγα· “ . . . Καὶ εἶδον ἄγγελον ἰσχυρὸν κηρύσσοντα φωνῇ μεγάλῃ· Τίς ἄξιος ἀνοῖξαι τὸ βιβλίον (Apoc. 5.1ff.)” (Origen, Selecta in Pslamos [PG 1077, vol. 12, A4–B5]). 33. Clavem igitur David habet, quia ipse per haec septem quaedam signacula, quae de corporalitate eius et passione et morte et resurrectione et gloria et regno et iudicio David de eo in psalmis prophetat, absoluit aperiens quod nemo claudet et claudens quod nemo aperiet . . . (Hilary, Instr. 6). 34. Εἰκὸς δ’ ἔχειν ἀναλογίαν καὶ τὸ μόνον προφητῶν τὸν Δαυῒδ σὺν ὀργάνῳ πεπροφητευκέναι, τῷ παρὰ μὲν Ἕλλησι καλουμένῳ ψαλτηρίῳ, παρὰ δὲ Ἑβραίοις νάβλα, ὅπερ μόνον ὀργάνων μουσικῶν ὀρθότατον εἶναι, οὐδὲν ἔχον ἐπικαμπές. καὶ μὴν οὐδὲ συνεργεῖται εἰς ἦχον ἐκ τῶν κάτω μερῶν, ὡς συμβαίνει ἐπὶ κιθάρας καὶ ἄλλων τινῶν, ἀλλ᾿ἄνωθεν (Origen [GCS 1, 2,140, 19–24]). 35. Eo enim organo prophetarum est, graece psalterio, hebraice nabla nuncupato, quod unum omnium musicorum organorum rectissimum est, nihil in se vel perversum continens vel obliquum neque quod ex inferioribus locis in sonum concentus musici commovetur, sed in formam dominici corporis constitutum organum sine ullo inflexu deflexuve directum est, organum ex supernis commotum et impulsum et in cantionem supernae et caelestis institutionis animatum, non humili et terreno spiritu, ut cetera terrae organa, personum (Hilary, Instr. 7).

74  ³  Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis

sounding with a lowly and earthly breath as all other instruments of the earth” are found in Origen but not the application to “the body of the Lord.” If Hilary’s appeals to the body of Christ as the foundation for the transformations within his model are not to be found within the extant texts of Origen, they are certainly found, as we shall see, in Hilary’s earlier exegesis within the Latin tradition. On the other hand, there is extant an extended discussion of the resurrected body for Origen on Psalm 1.5. Origen’s views on the resurrected body provoked heated criticisms from Methodius of Olympus who died at the end of the Great Persecution around 311 and then by Epiphanius who was active at the end of the fourth century. As a polemical argument against critics such as Celsus, Origen deals with the mutability of the physical body but points out that through all changes in the body there remains τὸ εἶδος τοῦ σώματος to provide continuity throughout the life of the person. He claims that it is this “idea” or “form” of the body that is resurrected.36 Origen’s later Christian detractors argued that this amounts to a denial of the physical status of the resurrected body. Henri Crouzel has provided a sensitive defence of Origen’s objective.37 In any case in this passage Hilary does not follow Origen’s lead unless Origen has influenced his terse phrase “the form of the body of Christ” at Instructio 7. I will return to this passage in Origen during our discussion of “the spiritualized body after the resurrection” in chapter 5. In the next paragraphs, Hilary deals with issues of the sequence of the Psalms with parallels in Origen’s extant text for sections of paragraphs 8 and 9 in the Instructio. At paragraphs 10 and 11 Hilary proposes his theme 36. διόπερ οὐ κακῶς ποταμὸς ὠνόμασται τὸ σῶμα, διότι ὡς πρὸς τὸ ἀκριβὲς τάχα οὐδὲ δύο ἡμερῶν τὸ πρῶτον ὑποκείμενον ταὐτόν ἐστιν ἐν τῷ σώματι ἡμῶν͵ καίτοι γε τοῦ οἱονεὶ Παύλου ἢ Πέτρου ἀεὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ ὄντος͵ ( . . . ), κἂν ῤευστὴ ᾖ ἡ φύσις τοῦ σώματος͵ τῷ τὸ εἶδος τὸ χαρακτηρίζον τὸ σῶμα ταὐτον εἶναι͵ ὡς καὶ τοὺς τύπους μένειν τοὺς αὐτοὺς τοὺς τὴν ποιότητα Πέτρου καὶ Παύλου τὴν σωματικὴν παριστάνοντας͵ καθʹἣν ποιότητα καὶ οὐλαὶ ἐκ παίδων παραμένουσι τοῖς σώμασι καὶ ἂλλα τινὰ ἰδιώματα͵ φακοὶ καὶ ἐπὶ τούτοις εἴ τί ἐστιν ὅμοιον ( Epiphanius, Panarion 64.14). This idea of “form” provides continuity during a lifetime. Origen proposes that this is the subject of the resurrection. Methodius has the figure he calls Proclus attempt to explain Origen’s meaning but then dismisses him somewhat derisively. In Aglaophon (On the Resurrection 1.20–24), Methodius attacked this proposal of a “form” as an inadequate basis to explain the Christian belief in the resurrection of the body. 37. See Henri Crouzel, Origen: The Life and Thought of the First Great Theologian, translated by A. S. Worall, 254–57 (San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1989). For a recent and more circumspect evaluation of Origen’s position, see Riemer Roukema, “La résurrection des morts dans l’interprétation origienne de  1 Corinthiens 15,” in La résurrection chez les Pères, edited by J.-M. Prieur, 161–77, Cahiers de Patristica 7 (Strasbourg: Univérsite Marc Bloch, 2003).

Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis  ³  75

for the commentary, which we have discussed in our first chapter. There we had seen that there are some parallels with the extant text of Origen but not at the critical point where Hilary proposes that each set of fifty Psalms deals with a stage in the life of the Christian believer. Then Hilary treats a succession of technical issues. He deals with the following terms: “sabbata sabbatorum” at Instructio 12; “ogdoadis” (13); the twenty-two books of the Old Testament (15);38 significance of the numbers seven and eight (16); meanings of “in finem,” “psalmus cantici,” “canticum psalmi” in the superscriptions to many of the Psalms (17–21);39 other terms dealing with “time” or with “historical personages” (22); and “diapsalma” or “pause” (23). There are parallels for at least some of Hilary’s discussions on each of these topics in the extant fragments of Origen. From this evidence of the parallels in the Instructio, it is easy to recognize Hilary’s dependence on Origen’s Alexandrine and Caesarean commentaries for a whole range of information. Hilary has made use of Origen for technical information on the organization of the collection of the Psalms, the status of the superscriptions, the state of the Greek manuscript evidence, etymologies, portfolios of scriptural quotations, and, on occasion, metaphors.40 Although it is possible to suggest a dependence on Origen for some material for which there is no parallel in the extant texts from Origen, it is impossible to do so with complete certainty. It is even difficult to have complete confidence in the extant material because it has been excerpted by a monastic editor for his own purposes and that person may also have edited out some of the more controversial themes of Origen.41 38. From the evidence of the indices in Jean Doignon’s two volumes, Hilary quotes or alludes to passages in all the books of the Old Testament, except the book of Judith. 39. At Instructio 19 there is tantalizing appeal to four kinds of music for the Psalms designated as instrumental, choral voices alone, the two simultaneously but not in unison, the two in unison. There is extant material in Origen for the first two at PG 12 1073A and 1072C. This passage does not appear to reflect actual musical performance witnessed by Origen in Alexandria or in Caesarea of the third century or in Hilary’s experiences in Gaul or Phrygia or Milan in the mid-fourth century. For this passage as an example of exegetical construction and not musical performance, see remarks of musicologist James McKinnon, Music in Early Christian Literature, Cambridge Readings in the Literature of Music (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 124, selection #272. 40. For a concise summary of parallels between Hilary and Origen, see the chapter on Hilary by Manlio Simonetti in Patrology, edited by Angelo Di Berardino and Johannes Quasten (Westminster, Md.: Christian Classics, 1986), 50–51. 41. For her assessment of the complex transmission of these texts, see Harl, Chaîne Pales., 59–67.

76  ³  Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis

It is important to point out that for the other major cluster of parallels on Psalm 118, Milhau has noted some themes in Origen which Hilary appears to have consistently passed over.42 For our purposes, we have noted a tendency in the parallels in the Instructio where Hilary offered an application to the body of Christ there is no evidence in the extant material that Origen had done so. This pattern seems to continue. At Tr. Ps.118.14.4, for example, both Hilary and Origen comment on Matthew 6.22: Lucerna corporis tui est oculus tuus. They both equate “body” with “church.” Origen goes on to apply the passage to one of his familiar spiritual themes.43 In this passage Origen goes on to reflect his emphasis on transformation of the “soul by λόγος.” Hilary, however, continues his focus on membership within the body of Christ.44 Ethics is another theme in Hilary, which will be prominent in our discussions of the basic transformations in his model of Christian life. I argue that he deals with ethical issues in a way that reflects his Latin rhetorical background. In the course of his discussion of Psalm 118, Hilary presents his approach to virtue and vice in a list or catalogue.45 Among the virtues he names “justice, modesty, thriftiness, mercy.” For examples of vices he names “quarrels, drunkenness, killing, pride, lewdness.” For 42. In his commentary at Sur le Psaume 118, vol. 1, 59–66, Marc Milhau compares Hilary’s treatment with the evidence for Origen’s work represented in the Palestinian Catena and with Ambrose’s homilies on the Psalms which were also influenced by Origen. At Chaîne Pales. 118, verse 81 Origen seems to have commented on the weakening, “defaillant,” of the soul which Hilary, it would seem, had chosen to omit. Milhau points out that Hilary seems to have deliberately omitted Origen’s penchant for proposing distinctions and classifications such as the three categories of virtue as practical, theoretical or logical which Origen, it would seem, discussed at Chaîne Pales. 118, verse 14. Hilary shows no interest in the orders of rational and nonrational beings at verse 107. The same phenomenon seems to occur at verses 137–138 over the different degrees of the reception of virtue. Milhau goes on to observe that Hilary omitted all of Origen’s references to Greek philosophy. Then at 118, verse 65, Origen interprets peace as the interior condition of Stoic impassibilty whereas Hilary, in a shift consistent with his cultural perspectives, applies it to social peace between individuals. Hilary also omits Origen’s discussions of opponents including pagans such as Celsus at 118.161 (Harl, Chaîne Pales., notes on 753). Hilary does not have as much to say about “topaz” at verse 127 or “fulness of time” at verse 33, or “midday” at verse 62. Hilary is much more succinct than Origen evidently was on the final verses of Psalm 118. Origen, for example, explores in much more detail the way the believer’s prayer reaches God. 43. “ὁ λύχνος τοῦ σώματός ἐστιν ὁ ὀφθαλμός”· ὅλου το σώματος τῆς Ἐκκλησίας ὁ λύχνος, ὁ ὀφθαλμός͵ ὁ διορακιτός ἐστιν ἀνὴρ καὶ ἔχων τὸv λόγον” (Harl, Chaîne Pales, 360). 44. Lucerna corporis tui est oculus tuus, corporis scilicet ecclesiae, quae unum corpus in Christo est, nosque invicem eius membra sumus (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.14.4). 45. Diligamus ergo iustitiam, modestiam, frugalitatem, misericordiam, et oderimus rixas et ebrietates, caedes, superbias, stupra (Hilary, Tr. Ps.118.13.13).

Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis  ³  77

this passage there is no parallel with Origen. Elsewhere in his extant material Origen will, on occasion, mention one or another of these virtues and vices, but he tends to present formal classifications, as noted by Milhau.46 Hilary tends to provide lists of individual vices and virtues often in succinct rhetorical clauses, as we shall see in the next chapter. From this survey of parallels, it is evident that Hilary used Origen for technical information on Hebrew and Greek, for the privileged status of the Septuagint, for portfolios of scriptural quotations, for the metaphor of social complexity and even for some themes. At this point a number of observations can be advanced to demonstrate Hilary’s independence from his Greek source. Hilary showed little or no interest in Origen’s more speculative ideas about preexistent souls or Middle Platonic mystical themes.47 Although Hilary did get the triadic structure of the book of Psalms from Origen, he developed his own theme over those three sections. Moreover on other substantial topics Hilary expressed consistent patterns, which I will use to argue that he did add his own distinctive perspectives. Hilary had his own approach to the Christological focus of the biblical text, in his formulations of the divine and human in Christ, his repeated references to the body of Christ, on ethical examples, and on the status of the risen body. Many of these distinctive treatments are consistent with his earlier exegetical work on Matthew, which may have been confirmed and expanded during his struggles with the Homoians. I propose that when he encounters themes in his Greek source, Hilary tends to adapt and to apply them in ways consistent with the perspectives of his Latin exegetical and theological background of the midfourth century.

Exegetical and Theological Perspectives

Hilary clearly retains confidence in the principles that guided his early exegetical writing in the In Matthaeum.48 He continues to rely on 46. See Milhau, Sur le Psaume 118, 64. 47. For his distinction between Hilary’s and Origen’s respective treatments of the Song of Songs on Psalm 119 see Jean Doignon, “Hilaire de Poitiers face à la mystique origénienne de la purification par l’amour,” REAug 36 (1990): 225–41. 48. For a thorough study of Hilary’s earlier Latin exegetical methods and applications, consult Jean Doignon, Hilaire de Poitiers avant l’exil: Recherches sur la naissance, l’enseignement et l’épreuve d’une foi épiscopale en Gaule au milieu du IVe siècle (Paris: Études Augustiniennes 45, 1971). For a more succinct examination of

78  ³  Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis

two levels of meaning in the scriptural text and retains the same range of terms, which he had used in his earlier exegetical work composed before his exile. He recognizes two levels of interpretation: the obvious sense that is designated as historical, literal or corporeal; and the deeper, more internal or spiritual sense. Hilary respects the historical level but he defends the importance of the deeper level as, for example, on Psalm 119.49 Here he says that “the meaning of the literal sense is considered first” and then “we should all the more eagerly follow the underlying spiritual sense.” This appeal to two levels of meaning is certainly consistent with the principles of his earlier exegesis on Matthew and it is also compatible with the basic approaches of Origen.50 Hilary does not put the two levels in opposition to each other. He argues that the Holy Spirit, to whom he will allude throughout the Treatise, informs the levels of interpretation. The Spirit provides the principle of ordo within Scripture, which accounts for its various strategies of communication.51 On Psalm 9 Hilary points out that “the Holy Spirit made humanity ready for the knowledge of God through many types of discourse.” In this passage he provides some different approaches that include “comparisons with human nature” or appeals “to the simplicity of faith” or “precepts on the course of life.”52 To illustrate the compatibility of the two levels of meaning, Hilary’s methods and applications to a theological agenda in Commentary on Matthew, see Paul C. Burns, The Christology in Hilary of Poitiers’ Commentary on Matthew (Rome: Augustinianum, 1981), chapter 1: “Exegetical Principles and Christology.” 49. In plerisque psalmis multa secundum historiae ordinem in superscriptionibus eorum esse edita legimus. . . . [S]ed meminisse nos oportet hos eosdem psalmos non idcirco omnes corporaliter intellegendos, quia his corporalium negotiorum significatio antefertur; quin potius oportet nos spiritalem intellegentiam sub hac quadam gestarum rerum commemoratione sectari . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 119.2). 50. For a study of the relatively consistent patterns of exegetical terminology throughout his texts, consult Néstor J. Gastaldi, Hilario de Poitiers Exegeta del Salterio: Un Estudio de su Exegesis en los Comentarios sobre los Salmos (Paris: Beauchesne, 1969), 78–93. Some of the shifts in the Tractatus such as the use of allegoricus and its cognates at Instr. 5, 51.13, 62.8, 67.1, 118.17.3, 134.1, and 146.10, 13, could be drawn from Origen. 51. For a comprehensive survey of Hilary’s views on the status of the Holy Spirit, consult Luis Ladaria, El Espiritu santo en San Ilario de Poitiers (Madrid: Madrid: Publicaciones de la Universidad Pontifica Comillas, 1977). Ladaria presents the extensive contributions of the Spirit: at work in creation, in the events and words of the Old Testament, in the baptism of Christ and believers, in the resurrection and glorification of Christ and believers, as well considerations of “spirit” as a correlative to “flesh” in the incarnation and in the final transformation in glory. 52. Quorundam psalmorum absoluta intellegentia est, quorundam obscurior sensus est; diversitatem utramque adfert diversitas prophetiae. Per multa namque et varia genera sermonis ad agnitionem Dei hominem Spiritus sanctus instituit, nunc sacramentorum occulta per naturas et comparationes hominum

Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis  ³  79

Hilary argues that Scripture teaches spiritual matters through physical things. At Tr. Ps. 120 he states that “the term of foot signifies the movements and motions of the mind.”53 To avoid simplistic arbitrariness of interpretation, Hilary insists on principles of coherence and order. He frequently invokes ordo for words and phrases,54 for events,55 for teaching56 and for understanding of the deeper level of meaning.57 He continues to rely on a fundamental ordo intelligentiae.58 He continues to value the diction in the text and frequently appeals to simple word order in the scriptural passage.59 Hilary finds this principle of ordo in the natural world,60 in the membership of the church,61 in the structure of confessio,62 in the role of grace to fulfill precepts for salvation.63 He also applies the principle of ordo to his distinctive model for the Christian life.64 He uses the same terminology comprehendens, nunc fidei simplicitatem verborum absolutione conmendans, nunc vitae ordinem praeceptorum veritate confirmans, nunc quid providendum sit et cavendum per personam prophetae, qui psalmum scribat, ostendens . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 9.1). 53. Pes est pars corporis omne corpus in res efficiendas agendasque circumferens. [E]t quia scriptura per corporalia spiritalia docet et invisibilia per visibilia demonstrat, sub pedis nomine motus mentis nostrae incessusque significant . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps.120.7). 54. Tenendus autem idem evangelicorum dictorum ordo . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps.2.23). Sed ut rationem atque ordinem ita dispositi huius sermonis intellegamus, necessarium est id quod difficultatem adfert, paucis absolvere (Tr. Ps. 65.2). 55. . . . ipse rerum gestarum ordo subdendus est (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 51.2). Talis autem temporum ordo non nisi ex prophetica scientia distributus est (Tr. Ps. 54.15). 56. Tenet autem ordinem prophetiae evangelica doctrina (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 2.27). Doctrinae his ordo ultissimus est (Tr. Ps. 2.42). Secundum doctrinae ordinem primum misericordia Dei poscitur (Tr. Ps. 66.2). 57. In his enim prophetiae spiritalis ordo consistit (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 63.3). 58. See, for example, Haec quidem non tamquam improbablia praetermittimus, sed quaedam alia in psalmo sunt, quae ordinem intellegentiae huius impediant (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 63.4). Ordo intellegentiae, qui primo versu continetur, hic idem in consequentibus est (Tr. Ps. 118.3.7). 59. Et sane idem nunc, ut in anteriore psalmo, prophetiae ordo distinguitur . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 67.3). Sequitur quoque par ratio dictorum . . . Sequitur etiam idem ordo dictorum et ex utriusque naturae intellegentia, hominis scilicet et [D]ei, sermo decurrit (Tr. Ps.138.22). [T]enet etiam nunc ordinem significationis utriusque, ut se et hominem et [D]eum doceat (Tr. Ps.138.27). 60. [O]mnia laudem [D]ei concinunt, licet quaedam sensu laudis carentia sint; sed per institutionis ordinem qualitatemque gignendi praeconium creatoris ostendunt (Hilary, Tr. Ps.148.6). 61. . . . secundum ecclesiae ordinem hic unus populus duplicis et professionis et honoris (Hilary, Tr. Ps., 52.21). 62. Et idcirco talem confessionis nostrae ordinem propheta esse docuit oportere (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 65.7) 63. Tenet itaque divinae dispensationis ordinem propheticus sermo (Hilary, Tr. Ps., 67.25). Adiuvandi igitur per gratiam eius dirigendique sumus, ut praeceptarum iustificationum ordinem consequamur (Tr. Ps.118.1.12). 64. Per omnem doctrinae ordinem gradibus scanditur; nam per gradus ad superiora provehimur (Hilary, Tr. Ps.132.1).

80  ³  Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis

to affirm compatibility between the two levels of meaning, the corporeal and the spiritual:[M]anet ergo idem ordo, ut sub his, quae corporaliter gesta sunt, ea, quae spiritaliter esset gerenda, praescripta sint. (Tr. Ps. 134.21) (Therefore there remains the same order so that underlying these events, which have been accomplished at the corporeal level, there have been prescribed those actions which are to be accomplished at the spiritual level.) To identify the divinely sanctioned objective in ordo and sermo within Scripture, Hilary often adds the modifier propheticus and its cognate forms.65 Within this perspective Hilary sees a fundamental continuity throughout Hebrew Scriptures leading to fulfilment in Christ. To support this inherent principle of order, he frequently paraphrases the passage at Hebrews 10.1 to illustrate continuity and fulfillment as well as to provide some of his terminology.66 Hilary consistently applies this principle of continuity to argue that everything points to Christ and his mission as the purpose or goal of the Law. He frequently invokes Romans 10.4 in support.67 We have already seen Hilary’s propensity to interpret issues in the biblical text as foreshadowing Christ and specifically Christ’s experiences in his body. Throughout the Tractatus Hilary uses many biblical figures to point to Christ.68 He often cites the patriarchs and Moses, and, even more frequently, David whom he includes among the prophets. 65. Tenuit autem propheticus sermo ordinem suum dicens . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 120.16). [T]enuit vero eundem propheta ordinem . . . (Tr. Ps.122.8). 66. . . . ut apostolus in plurimis docet, non secundum litterae intellegentiam legem esse tractandam, sed secundum spiritalem doctrinam futurorum in ea umbram (cf. Hebrews 10.1) esse noscendam (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.1.5). For nineteen uses of this terminology in the Tractatus, see Gastaldi, Exegeta del Salterio, 84. He also cites two instances in In Matt. 67. Quid ergo optat inquirere? Finem scilicet legis. Et quis erit finis legis? Apostolum audiamus: Finis enim legis Christus est (Romans 10.4) (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.5.4). For other references to this passage in Romans, see Tr. Ps. 51.4, 53.2, 54.1, 55.1, 56.2, 58.1, 68.18, 118.11.1, 118.12.11, 118.21.3. For an extended application, which includes Christ’s mission, see: Commaerentis et consolantis non solacium, sed fidem quaerit, ut si quis veniens ex lege et harum omnium passionum intellegens prophetiam secum tamquam in consummatione ipsius legis adsisteret, ut postea Paulus adimplens passiones Iesu Christi et consepultus in baptismo (Colossians 1.24) Christum finem esse scit legis (cf. Romans 10.4) (Tr. Ps. 68.18). 68. [N]on est ergo ambiguum, quod in psalmis de eo scriptum sit. [N]am tametsi pleraque in his talia sint, ut ad personam patriarcharum, prophetarum, martyrum, apostolorum generationis quoque primae et generationis sequentis referri oporteant, tamen, quia omnia in Christo et per Christum sunt, quidquid illud in psalmis est sub diversorum personis prophetarum, omne de ipso est: quia doctrina omnis, diversis licet praeceptorum generibus multiformis, hoc per diversos praestat, ut ipse noscatur (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 138.1).

Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis  ³  81

David’s troubles, for example, foreshadow the sufferings of Christ. At Tr. Ps. 139.1 Hilary rehearses the series of troubles David experienced under Saul “in the desert,” “in cities,” “in war,” and “in trickery,” as well as problems with his son, Absolom who threatened “his kingdom and his life.” Hilary then moves on to the level of speech at once “loftier” and “more sublime” in order to apply those experiences to the “One born of the Virgin for the mystery of human salvation.” Sed contuenti mihi penitus quasdam virtutes proprietatesque verborum, quae ultra humani sermonis consuetudinem altius nescio quid et sublimius elocuntur, eius potius hominis, in quo ex partu virginis ad sacramentum humanae salutis unigenitus [D]ei [F]ilius natus est, repertus est [P]salmus iste intellegi oportere. (Tr. Ps. 139.2) (But when I consider in depth certain meaningful significations of the words, which express something loftier and more sublime beyond the normal usage of human speech, that Psalm is found to be required to be understood rather of that human in whom the only-begotten Son of God was born from the birthing from a virgin for the mystery of human salvation.)

Thus the focus of the whole of Scripture on Christ extends to the divine mission to save all humans. In the Tractatus Hilary interprets divinus sermo (67.13) or sermo propheticus (65.26) as extending to all people in all places and in all times. A succinct expression of this perspective occurs at Tr. Ps. 119. That “Word” is not limited to its own time but reaches out to all ages and is most adaptable in the promotion of progress in the Christian life. I will return to this passage in the discussion of the comprehensive inclusiveness of people in the third cluster of Psalms in chapter 5.69 Another more expanded version applies this inclusive principle to the appropriateness of moral maxims for people who differ in social activities,70 age and gender. Talibus praeceptis formatur, talibus monitis instruitur, cui ad Deum iter est, cui ad sublimitatem eius ascensus est, cui in aeternis eius est requies. Praeceptum autem omne brevitate collectum est, ut memoriae mandetur, ut haereat animo, 69. [P]salmi enim non sui tantum temporis res enuntiant neque in eas solum aetates conveniunt, quibus scripti sunt, sed universis, qui in vitam venirent, [D]ei sermo consuluit, universae aetati ipse aptissimus ad profectum (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 119.4). 70. For the difference of age applied to physical, not moral development, see Seneca: Unicuique aetati sua constitutio est, alia infanti, alia puero, , alia seni: omnes ei constitutioni conciliantur in qua sunt (Epistula 121.15).

82  ³  Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis

ut foris ac domi, publice privatimque, die ac nocte retineatur, obtemperetur, instetur. Est enim haec brevitas locuples et infinita et ex omnibus Novi ac Veteris Testamenti praeceptis institutisque decerpta infantibus, feminis, viris, senibus aptissima. (Tr. Ps. 14.2) (By such precepts is he formed and by such warnings is he instructed whose way is to God, and whose ascent is to God’s heights, whose rest is God’s forever. For every precept is put together with brevity so that it may be committed to memory and cling to the soul, so that it would be retained, obeyed and practiced outdoors and in the home, publicly and privately, by day and by night. For this brevity is enriched, limitless, taken from all the precepts and practices of the New Testament and Old Testament and is perfectly adapted for infants, women, men, and seniors.)

This passage opens with a common synonym for profectus but adds two additional equivalents. To the phrase about the one “whose way is to God,” Hilary adds “the ascent to God’s heights” and “God’s rest forever.” Hilary goes on to identify the full range of these activities including public and private; diurnal and nocturnal, as well as diversity of age and gender embracing “infants,” “women,” “men,” and “the elderly.”71 Near the end of the Tractatus Hilary returns to his metaphor of the city, to describe the construction of the heavenly city “gathering people from the four regions of the world.”72 We shall deal with this passage in our discussion of shifting emphases within his main themes in the third cluster of Psalms in chapter 5. The future citizenship is to be inclusive and comprehensive. In yet another passage Hilary attributes this capacity to gather many peoples into unity to the power of the Spirit working through the Word and cites the Acts of Apostles 4.32.73 Often this comprehensive work of Christ and Word is accompanied by the activity of the Spirit as we have already seen on the variety of levels of Scripture at Tr. Ps. 9.1. At Tr. Ps. 13.5 Hilary makes the point that revelation is designed for all and that Holy 71. For a similar social range for participation in the singing of Psalms, consult Nicetas of Remesiana, De Utilitate Hymnorum 5. 72. . . . quae auditis opulentiae suae copiis cotidie ubique vivis fidelium lapidibus structa usque ad incolatus sui plenitudinem conparatur, cuius in congregandis omnibus ex quattuor partibus mundi velox sermo percurrit, rursum ad confrequentandam hanc beati regni civitatem in coetum consummatae plenitudinis congregandis (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 147.4). 73. Sermo itaque coeptus ex uno refertur ad plures. Est namque unus spiritus, et una credentium fides est secundum quod in Gestis Apostotolorum est: Erat credentium anima et cor unum (4.32); atque ita, cum ab uno coeptum designatur in plures, unanimitas docetur in pluribus (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 65.20).

Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis  ³  83

Spirit accomplishes this objective through the scriptural text74 and cites four passages in support.75 In several passages Hilary may be attributing to the Holy Spirit a fuller role than he had done in his earlier Commentary on Matthew.76 In both works Hilary assigns a prominent role to the Holy Spirit in baptism which is the pivotal event to begin the first transformation in the Treatise. Unfortunately Hilary’s original treatment of the baptismal commission at the end of that Gospel is no longer extant to offer a comparison with Trinitarian discussions of the Holy Spirit which do occur, on occasion, in Hilary’s De Trinitate and in his Tractatus super Psalmos. In this Treatise Hilary connects the Holy Spirit to the Word’s inherent ordo and its universal impact. Moreover, as we shall see in chapter 5, “spirit” plays a critical role in Hilary’s discussions of the creation of the first human at Tr. Ps. 118.10 and 129.3–6. This intervention of the Spirit also anticipates the conditions of the final demutatio. In the introductory section of De Trinitate 1.36, Hilary had promised an extended discussion of the Holy Spirit. He did not really fulfill that promise of extensive treatment but he did raise some aspects of his view of the Holy Spirit in two passages. Hilary made some comments at De Trinitate 2.1 in connection with his citation of Matthew’s baptismal commission. Hilary expressed the equality and the distinctiveness of each of Father, Son, and Spirit in three brief, balanced expressions.77 To the Spirit he twice assigned the role of “gift.”78 He returned to the topic at De Trinitate 12.55–56. Here Hilary explicitly removed the Holy Spirit from the category of “creature” just as he had done, at length, for 74. Omnibus igitur gentibus revelatum est et ab omnibus cognitum est (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 13.5). 75. The four biblical texts are Cantate Domino canticum novum, quia mirabilia fecit. Ostendit Dominus salutare suum, in conspectu gentium revelavit iustitiam suam (Ps 97.3); Adnuntiate in gentibus gloriam eius et in omnibus populis salutare eius (Ps 95.3); Ostende nobis, Domine, misericordiam tuam et salutare tuum da nobis (Ps 84.8); Multi prophetae et iusti concupierunt videre quae vos videtis et audire quae auditis (Mt 13.17). 76. In his earlier commentary Hilary had employed “spiritus” in two ways: one to designate the divine nature shared by Father and Son; the other to name the divine figure active at baptism. Here in the Tractatus Hilary is expanding the activities, which he assigns to the Holy Spirit but he is still exploiting the ambiguity of the term “spirit.” For a discussion of spiritus in Hilary’s In Matt., see Burns, The Christology, 69–72. 77. See Ladaria, El Espiritu santo, particularly 282. 78. Baptizare iussit in nomine Patris et Filii et spiritus sancti (Mt 28.19), id est in confessione et auctoris, et unigeniti, et doni. Auctor unus est omnium: unus est enim Deus Pater, ex quo omnia. Et unus unigenitus Dominus noster Iesus Christus per quem omnia. Et unus Spiritus donum in omnibus . . . intra quam sit in Patre et Filio et Spiritu sancto, infinitas in aeterno, species in imagine, usus in munere (Hilary, De Trin. 2.1).

84  ³  Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis

the “Son.” There he employed John 3.7–9 and went on to speak of the Spirit’s activity in “rebirth.” This is consistent with the designation of the Spirit as “gift.” Here he linked the activity of the Spirit to “speaking when, what and where he wishes.”79 These suggestions about the status and role of the Holy Spirit in De Trinitate get frequent applications in the Tractatus. At Tractatus 143, Hilary uses a doxology in which he formally assigns to the Holy Spirit an equal status to the Father and the Son.80 In many passages throughout the Tractatus Hilary associates the Spirit with the range and power of the Word as well as with the human capacity to recognize and to respond to that Word. At Tr. Ps.138 he asserts that every “prophetic word” is prompted by the “impulse of the divine Spirit.”81 In several passages on the relation of Spirit and biblical text Hilary assigns roles to the “spirit of prophecy,” and “spiritual understanding.” As we saw in the previous chapter, Hilary alludes at Tr. Ps.150.1 to the “spiritual understanding” in the translators who had imposed meaningful order and sequence on the scattered collection of Psalms. Earlier in his Instructio, Hilary links the text of the Psalms, the “spirit of prophecy” and stages in the body of Christ and his mission. “The spirit of prophecy” identifies the stages as the “coming of Our Lord Jesus Christ,” the “incarnation,” “suffering,” “sovereignty,” and “our resurrection.”82 So within his tradition of Latin theological and exegetical discourse Hilary continues to explore the potential in the term “spirit.” In addition to the equal status with Father and Son, the Spirit seems to be an active 79. Regenerationis meae fidem obtinens nescio: et quod ignoro, iam teneo. Sine sensu enim meo renascor, cum efficientia renascendi. Modus autem Spiritui nullus est, loquendi cum velit, quod velit, ubi velit . . . (Hilary, De Trin. 12.56). 80. . . . ipsi gloria, laus, honor, virtus, imperium. [P]atri in [F]ilio, [F]ilio in [P]atre et in sancto [S]piritu et nunc et semper et in omnia saecula saeculorum. [A]men. (Hilary, Tr. Ps.143.23). For a discussion of the evidence, consult Pierre Smulders, La doctrine trinitaire de Saint Hilaire de Poitiers, Analecta Gregoriana 32 (Rome: Pontifica Università Gregoriana, 1944), “Chapitre IX: L’Ésprit-Saint”; and Ladaria, El Espiritu santo, 320. For a more recent trenchant summary of the issues, see Basil Studer, Trinity and Incarnation: The Faith of the Early Church (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993), 123–25. 81. Omnis quidem propheticus sermo ex divini [S]piritus instinctu profectus est (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 138.1). 82. Non est vero ambigendum, ea quae in psalmis dicta sunt, secundum evangelicam praedicationem intellegi oportere, ut ex quacumque licet persona prophetiae spiritus sit locutus, tamen totum illud ad cognitionem adventus Domini nostri Iesus Christi et corporationis et passionis et regni, et resurrectionis nostrae gloriam virtutemque referatur (Hilary, Instr. 5).

Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis  ³  85

correlative with the “body.” In his In Matthaeum, Hilary had used “spiritus” and “caro” to express the divine and the human in Christ. Here in the Tractatus he extends the creative correlation in the interaction of the two levels of the scriptural text. Moreover he extends this correlation to both the transformative progression at baptism completed at resurrection and the final transformation into a “spiritualized body” to be explored in our chapter 5. To illustrate this use, Hilary uses the verse about “flying on the wings of a dove” in Psalm 54 to summarize the correlative relationship between “spirit” and “flesh” with references both to baptism and to the final transformation after death.83 Evolare autem ut columba festinat, id est in spiritalem redire naturam. Nam et in columbae specie spiritus in eum volando requievit, habitatione aliquando in eo homine, qui tum de Iordanis aquis ascendebat, inventa. Et haec quidem precationis est causa, quia infirmitate corporis degravatus hoc quod nobis est mortale susceperat, ut caro factus in spiritum evolaret. (Tr. Ps. 54.7) (“To fly forth” as a dove hurries on, that is, to return to a spiritual nature. For in the form of the dove, the Spirit “has rested from flying” on him and at some time or other is found dwelling in that man who was arising from the waters of the Jordan. And this to be sure is the cause of this prayer because he had been weighed down by weakness of the body, which, although mortal, he had taken up for us, so that although he had become flesh, he might “fly off ” into spirit.)

This transformation of flesh with its mortality, into spirit is an effective summary of Hilary’s agenda in the Tractatus. The transformation is accomplished through the stages of the Christian life. Each stage has its distinctive features but there are consistent elements inherent in the early stages that anticipate the goal. The same reference to the flight of birds in Matthew 10.29 had prompted a very similar treatment of the convertibility of body into a spiritualized state of body back in his earlier Commentary on Matthew.84 For each of these stages Hilary adapts his metaphor of the city. Back in In Matthaeum Hilary had already connected the city metaphor to themes which would become fundamental in the Tractatus namely, “body of Christ,” “church,” and “heavenly city” open to all people, 83. See Ladaria, El Espiritu santo, esp. 123, 135–36. 84. Quemadmodum autem si evolarent, unum essent, id est corpus in naturam animae transisset et gravitas illa terrenae materiae in profectum et substantiam animae aboleretur fieretque corpus potius spiritale (Hilary, In Matt. 10.19).

86  ³  Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis

“through association with his body.” In his comment on “a city built on a hilltop cannot be hidden (Mt 5.14),” Hilary had also made an explicit connection to the participation within the body of Christ.85 Hilary’s use of the symbol of the city with his connection to the body of Christ and the inclusion of a diverse group of inhabitants demonstrates the background of one of his distinctive applications of his governing metaphor of the city in the Tractatus. This particular application will receive further examination in chapters 4 and 5. So these sources of his Latin theological and exegetical background are fundamental to the ways Hilary employs terms, metaphors, and themes in the Tractatus. Does Hilary’s Latin exegetical and theological culture affect the actual deployment of his theme throughout his text? For his theme, as we have seen, Hilary identifies three stages in a sequence from initial conversion at baptism through resurrection to the ultimate transformation of demutatio. Then he claims that each cluster of fifty Psalms is devoted to one of those stages. It is probably this particular claim about discrete clusters of fifty Psalms, which persuaded Wild that Hilary did not follow through with his promise to assign a specific stage to each cluster. That assumption, however, overlooks the anticipatory feature of Hilary’s thought in which each stage contains the seeds of future development. We have just seen the principles and methods of Hilary’s exegesis in which earlier events and people anticipate in “a shadowy fashion” the fulfillment in Christ. On occasion, in the Tractatus, he invokes Hebrews 10.1 (umbra futurorum) to justify this approach to the biblical text. That same anticipatory or proleptic approach governs many of Hilary’s central themes in his progressive model of the Christian life. In the next chapter on the fallen condition of humans, we will examine Hilary’s use, at Tr. Ps. 2.39 and 41, of the potter in Jeremiah to argue that nothing of an imperfect vessel will be discarded. This approach is also reflected in Hilary’s analysis of the original creation of humans, which prepares for the conditions of that demutatio. So he does not feel rigidly constrained 85. Civitatem carnem quam adsumpserat nuncupat, quia ut, civitas ex varietate ac multitudine consistit habitantium, ita in eo per naturam suscepti corporis quaedam universi generis humani congregatio continetur. Atque ita et ille ex nostra in se congregatione fit civitas et nos per consortium carnis suae sumus civitatis habitatio (Hilary, In Matt. 4.12).

Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis  ³  87

to deal with baptismum, resurrectio, and demutatio as sharply separated events. This anticipatory character of Hilary’s thought has shaped the structure of my investigation. Since events anticipate later developments, I have found that Hilary’s treatment of baptismum is part of a continuum, which begins in the initial conversion and proceeds until it is completed in resurrectio. Then resurrectio becomes the prelude to demutatio.

The Influence of Latin Public Culture

Hilary has designed this model for the Christian life in order to engage his audience. To do so he evokes the educational culture, which he shares with that audience. He makes several references to his experience of the character and function of Latin grammatical and rhetorical education.86 To get some sense of this influence in Hilary’s text the informative testimonia in the recent critical editions by Milhau and by Doignon are very helpful. Doignon’s 1970 monograph certainly set the standard for an exploration of the cultural context of the In Matthaeum and he does provide some guidance for the cultural context of the Tractatus. I am suggesting that this influence prompted Hilary to express and to amplify his themes in ways which would resonate with general themes in the Gallic rhetorical culture which he shared with his intended audience. This is another indicator of Hilary’s differences with both fourthcentury Christian ascetics and figures in his own background such as Cyprian and Tertullian.87 86. For a helpful study on the function of the Roman grammarian which corrects the view of a polarized reactionary paganism against Christianity throughout the fourth century, consult Robert A. Kaster, Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society in Late Antiquity (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), especially 72–76 and 80–95. 87. Tertullian had formulated a very critical divide between classical culture and Christianity. He regarded classical culture as a poison and formulated his puritanical rejection in the rhetorical question, “What has Athens to do with Jerusalem (De Praescriptione haereticorum 7)?” For Tertullian’s uneasiness about Christians engaging in teaching Latin grammar and rhetoric, see his De Idolatria 10. We have already noted this repudiation of the public culture in Cyprian’s Ad Donatum. Later in the fourth century Jerome was to continue this sharp polarization in his famous dream on the road to Bethlehem in 374 described ten years later to Eustochium in Epistula 22.30. Augustine explored the traditions of classical culture in his Cassiciacum Dialogues but later as bishop he was to present Christianity as an alternative culture, especially in his De Doctrina Christiana written between 399 and 427. For significant differences between Basil of Cappadocia’s more positive approach to public culture from that of Augustine’s, consult Kaster, Guardians of Language, 87–88, as well as 77–78. Our examination of Hilary’s use of public culture will demonstrate that he is closer to Basil than to Augustine as represented in Kaster’s contrast.

88  ³  Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis

Hilary apparently grew up in the region of Poitiers not far from Bordeaux, which had emerged as an educational centre to challenge and even supersede the traditional Gallic schools at Autun.88 Ample literary evidence from the fourth-century schools at Bordeaux attests to the numbers and influence of grammarians and rhetoricians in that city.89 Moreover, the nature and objectives of the curriculum, the appeals to earlier texts, the social and ethical values can all be identified. Hilary’s experience of education in grammar probably prompted his appeal to the learning of the alphabet in his Exordium to the organization and objectives of Tr. Ps. 118.90 After mastering the alphabet and basic grammar, students would read, discuss, compare, and debate possible interpretations of a standard text. Hilary does mention that he is aware of a tradition of written and oral commentary on the Psalms.91 Since Hilary invokes this experience of Latin grammatical education and even more of Latin rhetorical training, I appeal to the Latin authorities who shaped these traditions: for grammar, Donatus and for rhetoric, Sallust, Cicero, Valerius Maximus, Seneca, and Aulus Gellius. Works are extant by the two of Hilary’s contemporaries from Bordeaux: Ausonius and Claudius Mamertinus. The extensive body of Ausonius’s writings demonstrates many of the features of rhetorical culture and its function in imperial administration. Themes, structures, and values of Latin rhetorical culture are also reflected in the collection of Gallic Panegyrics.92 In that collec88. See Sabine MacCormack, “Latin Prose Panegyrics,” Empire and Aftermath: Silver Latin II, edited by T. A. Dorey, 143–205, esp. 167 (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975). She points out that the schools at Autun enjoyed early fame but, with the ascendancy of Constantine and his sons, the schools at Bordeaux produced major rhetoricians such as Nazarius, Pacatus, and Ausonius. See, also, Sabine MacCormack, “Continuity and Change in Late Antiquity: The Ceremony of Adventus,” Historia 21 (1972): 721–52. She describes the important ritual of panegyric to acknowledge the arrival of the emperor at the entrance to a city. She argues that the religious content shifts but the form of the ceremony remains. She discusses, with appeals to relevant passages in Ammianus Marcellinus, the arrivals of Julian at Vienne in 355, Sirmium and Constantinople in 361, Antioch in 362. 89. For a thorough examination of the evidence at Bordeaux, consult Kaster, Guardians of Language, 100–6, 128, 460–61 for grammarians, and 104–5, 455–62 for rhetoricians. 90. Hanc igitur extitisse causam existimo, ut per litteras totius istius psalmi ordo decurreret, ut, sicut parvuli et imperiti et ad legendum imbruendi haec primum, per quae sibi verba contexta sunt, litterarum elementa cognoscerent, ita et humana ignoratio ad mores, ad disciplinam, ad cognitionem Dei per hunc singularum litterarum octonarium numerum ipsis velut infantilis doctrinae initiis erudiretur (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118, Exordium 1). 91. Multos vel praesenti sermone vel ex litteris ac scriptis eorum comperi ita sensisse de psalmo hoc (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 1.2). 92. See R. A. B. Mynors, XII Panegyrici Latini (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964).

  Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis  ³  89

tion there is found the panegyric by Claudius Mamertinus which he delivered in honor of Julian on January 1, 362. Finally, the historian Ammianus Marcellinus, who accompanied Julian during his campaigns in Gaul during the 350s, provides some primary evidence for conditions in that region. Against this background I will now examine Hilary’s informed and sympathetic comparison between imperial and Christian discourse. Very early in his Tractatus, at 13.1, Hilary appeals to the tradition of Latin rhetoric. In fact he had already employed the rhetorical conventions in an obviously experienced manner in his appeal to Constantius in November or December 359.93 In that appeal Hilary had been dealing with issues over his predicament as an exiled bishop prompted by struggles about the divine status of Christ and the legitimate interpretation of Scripture. In his discussion at Tr. Ps. 13.1, Hilary compares the responsibilities of Christian and imperial forms of discourse. The first verse to invite this comparison is quoted by Hilary as follows: Dixit inspiens in corde suo, non est Deus. He focuses on “dixit” to discuss public discourse. Hilary opens his discussion of this Psalm with a direct appeal to the complex interaction between speaker and audience and the authority in whose name they are assembled. Hilary establishes an instructive comparison between those who speak for God and those who speak for the emperor (rex). In this extensive parallel he also assumes that the speaker in each case is dealing with a privileged text or document and he uses imperial terms to identify those texts as “precepts, laws, constitutions.” Moreover, he identifies the ethical values that qualify one for a responsible engagement in either form of discourse. Hilary goes on to 93. For the critical edition, consult Alfred Leonard Feder, “Liber ad Constantium imperatorem,” in  S. Hilarii Episcopi Pictaviensis Opera, 195–205, CSEL 65 (Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1916). He begins by addressing Constantius with respect and demonstrates some familiarity with the nature of public discourse: Non sum nescius, piissime imperator, ea, quae de nonnullis negotiis ad conscientiae publicae audientiam proferantur, pro dignitate eorum, qui eloquuntur, vel gravia existimari solere vel levia, dum distantis opinionis ambiguam sententiam ad studium intellegentiae permovet hominis contemtus aut gratia (Ad Constantium 1). For an English translation with an introduction and notes, consult Lionel R. Wickham, Hilary of Poitiers: Conflicts of Conscience and Law in the Fourth-Century Church (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1997). For her discussion on Church-State relations during this period, see Patricia Just, Imperator et Episcopus: Zum Verhältnis von Staatsgewalt und christlicher Kirche zwischen dem 1. Konzil von Nicaea (325) und dem 1. Konzil von Konstantinopel, Potsdamer Altertumswissenschaftlichen Beiträge 8 (Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2003), esp. 112–16.

90  ³  Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis

develop this parallel for he proposes various features of the Latin rhetorical tradition as an exemplum, a model, or a paradigm, for the task at hand in his Tractatus. He begins with an observation about the well-known skill for the use of human speech. We need to respect the honor due to the authority in the present discourse over the text of the Psalms. Non enim secundum sermonis nostri usum promiscuam in his esse oportet facilitatem, sed loquentibus nobis ea quae didicimus et legimus per sollicitudinem sermocinandi honor est reddendus auctori. (Tr. Ps. 13.1) (For on these texts there must not be the casual fluency following the use of our speech but with care for this literary discussion we must render honor to the author when we are addressing the things we have learned and have read.)

From his use of sermocinandi it would appear that he is focussing on the common activity of reading and discussing texts in the two traditions of imperial and Christian discourse. Cicero had used the term.94 Suetonius had applied it to a literary conversation.95 Aulus Gellius had used it specifically in the context of a learned person familiar with traditional texts.96 Rather than denigrating the rhetorical tradition, Hilary embraces it as an exemplum for this discussion of sacred texts: Et exemplum nobis caelestis doctrinae praestat humani officii consuetude. (Tr. Ps. 13.1). (The practice of a human duty furnishes an example of heavenly teaching for us.) He goes on to acknowledge the care and respect for the office and the dignity of the emperor that guides an honorable and faithful interpretation of his words and the articulation of his precepts and concludes that much more care needs to exercised in speaking for God. In this comparison he identifies the values in the service of imperial discourse such as 94. Hoc ex opinione hominum sumetur, cum quemadmodum et quibus in rebus homines in consuetudine scribendi aut sermocinandi eo verbo uti soleant, considerabitur (Cicero, De Inventione 2.17.54). 95. Nihilo lenior in convictores Graeculos, quibus vel maxime adquiescebat, Xenonem quendam exquisitius sermocinantem cum interrogasset. . . . Item cum soleret ex lectione cotidiana quaestiones super cenam proponere comperissetque Seleucum grammaticum a ministris suis perquirere, quos quoque tempore tractaret auctores, atque ita praeparatum venire, primum a conturbernio removit, deinde etiam ad mortem compulit (Suetonius, De Vitis Caesarum: Tiberius 56). 96. “Pluria” forte quis dixit sermocinans vir adprime doctus, meus amicus, non hercule studio ferens ostendandi neque quo “plura” non dicendum putaret. Est enim doctrina homo seria et ad vitae offica devincta ac nihil de verbis laborante. Sed, opinor, assidua veterum scriptorum tractatione inoleverat linguae illius vox quam in libris saepe offenderat (Aulus Gellius, Noctes Atticae, 5.21.1–3).

Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis  ³  91

“diligence,” “care,” “respect,” “honor,” and “piety.” The obvious implication is that these values are even more necessary in the service of the Word of God. Si enim quis verba regis interpretans et praecepta eius in aures populi deducens curat diligenter et caute per officii reverentiam regis satisfacere dignitati, ut cum honore ac religione omnia et relegantur et audiantur, quanto magis convenit Dei eloquia ad cognitionem humanam retractantes dignos nos hoc officio praestare! (Tr. Ps. 13.1) (For if anyone, who interprets the words of the emperor and brings his precepts to the attention of the people, sees to it that he satisfies the dignity of the emperor with care and attention out of respect for his office so that all topics are proclaimed and heard with honor and piety, how much more it is appropriate for us to offer ourselves worthy of this duty when we are considering the words of God.)

In describing his function as a speaker in Christian discourse, Hilary makes two claims. He assumes that Christian discourse involves variety and diversity, a theme he will raise at other passages in his Tractatus as we have already seen in the city metaphor at Instructio 24. To meet this challenge he claims that he is a kind of “organ” or “instrument” of the Holy Spirit. He also asserts that the two forms of discourse on behalf of the emperor and of God impose on speakers and audiences respective responsibilities for dignity and attention. Sumus enim quoddam sancti Spiritus organum, per quod vocis varietas et doctrinae diversitas audienda est . . . qui cum reverentia ac metu sanctas scripturas sibi tamquam Dei verba commendent et cum debita dignitate ea insinuent mentibus audientium . . . (Tr. Ps.13.1) (For we are an instrument of the Holy Spirit, as it were, through which the variety of voice and the diversity of teaching is to be heard . . . who, with respect and awe, would cherish for themselves the Holy Scriptures as the words of God and would make them known to the minds of their listeners with the required dignity.)

In continuing his emphasis on speaking on behalf of God, Hilary employs the formal imperial terms for authoritative communication: constituta and leges. Oportet igitur et praedicantes existimare non hominibus se loqui et audientes scire non hominum sibi verba proferri, sed esse Dei voces, Dei constituta, Dei leges et reverentiam maximam utrique officio convenire. (Tr. Ps.13.1)

92  ³  Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis

(Therefore preachers also ought to think that they are not speaking to men and that their listeners ought to know that they are not being offered the words of men but the voice of God, the ordinances of God and the laws of God and that the greatest reverence is appropriate for each task.)

Immediately after this acknowledgement of the parallels between the two levels and even respect for both offices, Hilary returns to his comparison between the imperial and divine discourse and he hints, perhaps, at a contrast. He points out that in speaking of the hidden mysteries and eternal covenant, nothing should be expressed without a purpose or heard without due care: Maximi enim periculi res est de thesauris Dei, de sacramentis reconditis, de testamento aeterno aliquid aut supervacuum proferre aut neglegenter audire. (Tr. Ps. 13.1). (For either to offer anything from the treasures of God, from the hidden mysteries, from the eternal covenant heedlessly, or to listen to it carelessly, is a matter of the greatest danger). It is plausible that Hilary here appeals to pejorative nuances of supervacuum to suggest a subtle critique of imperial rhetoric. It might also reflect his frustrations over his own attempts to get access to the emperor Constantius.97 Hilary’s consideration of the traditions of imperial rhetoric does not end here. For in the first cluster there are other references to the application of rhetorical training to the imperial service. On Psalm 2 Hilary identifies the appropriate qualities for the exercise of imperial authority and these are very similar to statements in Cicero. In commenting on a verse which mentions the “royal sceptre,” Hilary speaks about the distinctive virtues of imperial authority with a repudiation of its abuse.98 This reflects Cicero’s own critique of the lust for domination and person97. See Hilary throughout his Liber contra Constantium. For his advice to ignore imperial threats: Et plerumque nos tamquam pro debita officii religione pie adulari regibus existimamus, quia in corpus nostrum sit his aliquid potestatis . . . His enim casibus corporum pro summa potestate desaeviunt et propter brevem dolorem libertatem ecclesiae, spei nostrae fiduciam, confessionem Dei addicimus (Hilary, 52.14). See also: Fuit ergo formidinis, ne persecutionibus principum aut idigne subderetur aut cederet, quia et causam odiorum praebuisse non sancti est Dei gratiam metu saeculi amisisse sine venia sit (Tr. Ps.118.21.2). [N]isi quod [D]ominus erat in nobis, cum insurgerent homines in nos, forsitan vivos degluttissent nos (Jeremiah 9.23).  [P]erpessi namque hominum insectationes, regum impias constitutiones, consiliatorum inlecebrosas adhortationes cum in fide maneamus . . . (Tr. Ps.123.3). 98. reges eos in virga ferrea, quamquam ipsum reges non tyrannicum neque iniustum sit, sed ex aequitatis ac moderationis arbitrio regimen rationale demonstret (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 2.35).

Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis  ³  93

al power in De Re Publica, which Doignon also noted in his apparatus.99 Hilary also distinguishes the function of “ruling” from that of “judging.”100 The first is associated with the danger of “domination;” the latter is dedicated to “equity.” In his apparatus the recent editor of the Tractatus has identified suggestive parallels with Cicero’s concern for the practice of equity in public administration this time in passages of his Tusculanae Disputationes101 and De Officiis.102 At Tr. Ps. 57.2 Hilary laments the contrast between frequent discussions of equity and the actual practice.103 At other passages Hilary raises the relation of imperial authority and religious authority. He does not question the legitimacy of imperial authority but he does subordinate it to the divine authority. At Tr. Ps. 52.14 he mentions a common attitude about the “debt of reverence for the imperial office” occasioned by fear of what can be inflicted on our bodies.104 Those threats and pains last only for a time while God provides salvation for eternity. Hilary sees Christian authority as a higher alternative, which he states in the passage noted above. At Tr. Ps. 118.6.10, Hilary explicitly develops the right to confront the emperor on central matters of Christian faith just as he himself had done.105 For on the appropriate formulation of the divine status of Christ, Hilary had challenged the emperor 99. Cur enim regem appellem Iovis optimi nomine hominem dominandi cupidum aut imperii singularis, populo oppresso dominantem, non tyrannum, potius? (Cicero, De Re Publica 1.33.50). 100. Differe vero iudicem atque regem ipso usu terrenae consuetudinis noscimus, quia non idem sit regnare quod iudicare, quia regnum dominatio sit, iudicium vero modus sit aequitatis (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 2.44). 101. . . . tum progressio admirabilis incredibiliusque cursus ad omnem excellentiam factus est dominatu regio re publica libertate (Cicero, Tusculanae Disputationes 4.1.1). 102. . . . ab hoc igitur genere largitionis, ut aliis detur, aliis auferatur, aberunt ii, qui rem publicam tuebuntur, inprimisque operam dabunt, ut iuris et iudiciorum aequitate suum quisque teneat et neque tenuiores propter humiltatem circumveniantur neque locupletibus ad sua vel tenenda vel recuperanda obsit invidia (Cicero, De Officiis 2.24.85). 103. Iustitiae sermo communis est, sed aequi iudicii studium et consuetudo paucorum est (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 57.2). 104. Et plerumque nos tamquam pro debita officii religione pie adultari regibus existimamus, quia in corpus nostrum sit, his aliquid potestatis, quibus nihil ultra de nobis licet quam latroni, quam febri, quam incendio, quam naufragio, quam ruinae (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 52.14). 105. Loquitur enim propheta constanter adversus principes terrae Deum praedicans. Et quidem duplex significatio sensus huius est, quia secundum dominica praecepta oporteat a nobis Christum coram regibus et potestatibus praedicari neque nos terrenarum potestatum fas est iure terreri, quominus omni confusione reiecta constanti et publica fide Deum, qui negantes negaturus sit, non negemus (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.6.10). See also chapter 5.

94  ³  Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis

Constantius. His own struggles with the imperial bureaucracy and the emperor Constantius probably influence these references to kingship and political authority.106 Although Hilary does subordinate imperial authority to divine authority, which allows him to offer criticisms, he does not deny its legitimacy. In fact even in the final section on the Christian life, he continues to appeal to experience of the imperial court. In his depiction of the ultimate desire in heaven “to see God,” Hilary compares the biblical transformation “from glory to glory” (2 Cor 3.18) and the popular interest to see the emperor when he is setting out on a journey.107 This theme of eagerness to see the emperor as he moves about in public would certainly appeal to an audience trained in Latin rhetoric as parallels in Ausonius and earlier in Pliny attest.108 A little later in a brief observation in his discussion about the status of the poor man, Lazarus, “in the bosom of Abraham,” Hilary describes the color of the clothing of people in heaven.109 Rather than appealing to biblical “white” or “red,” Hilary invokes imperial “purple” which is also featured in the account of the contemporary historian, Ammianus.110 I will return to these passages in our discussion of the shifts of emphasis 106. For the complexities of Hilary’s experience of imperial and ecclesiastical relations in the fourth century, consult Hanns Christoff Brennecke, Hilarius von Poitiers und die Bischofopposition gegen Konstantius II: Untersuchungen zur dritten Phase arianischen Streites (337–361) (Berlin, 1984),199–371. For a clear account of many of the issues between the Christian Church and the emperors in the decades after the death of Constantine, consult Timothy D. Barnes, Athanasius and Constantius: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2001). 107. Sed nos ex desideriis humanis prophetae desideria metiamur. Ad egressus regum quanta expectationis sollicitudine curritur et quod videntibus gaudium est, cum se praebuerint contuendos! (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.8.8). 108. References to Ausonius and to Pliny are reported in Marc Milhau’s edition on Sur le Psaume 118 118.8.8. Ausonius pays tribute to the emperor: cuius autem umquam egressus auspicatior fuit aut incessus modestior aut habitudo cohibitior aut familiaris habitus condecentior aut militaris accinctior? (Gratiarum actio ad Gratianum 14). Earlier in the rhetorical tradition Pliny describes the popular appeal of the emperor’s journeys: Adventante congiarii die observare principis egressum in publicum, insidere vias eximina infantium futurusque populus solebat . . . (Panegyric to Trajan 26). 109. . . . et idcirco ab angelis post carnis dissolutionem beata in Abrahae sinus fertur. [I]lle vero, cui omnis erat vestitus in purpura, cui totius civitatis nobilitas gravi dominatu subdita famulabatur . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 122.11). 110. . . . verum cum primitus visus adorandae purpurae datam sibi copiam advertisset, recreatus tandem suique securus, “Incaute,” inquit, “imperator, et temere cum paucis alienis partibus te commisisti.” cui amarum Iulianus subridens, “Haec verba prudentia serva,” inquit, “Constantio. maiestatis enim insigne non ut consiliario tibi, sed, ut desinas pavere, porrexi” (Ammianus Marcellinus, Rerum Gestarum Libri 21.9.8).

Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis  ³  95

for a number of significant themes in the third cluster of Psalms at the beginning of chapter 5. This Latin rhetorical culture probably also contributed to the appeal of the metaphor of the city.111 The main source is probably the biblical text itself. It had certainly become established in Hilary’s Latin exegetical traditions and he certainly used it in the In Matthaeum in connection with his central themes. But the existence of the city as a meaningful frame of reference within Latin rhetorical discourse was an added inducement for Hilary and his audience. There are some suggestive examples of appeals to the city in the surviving evidence of Hilary’s Gallic contemporaries. I am suggesting that in his commentary, Hilary recognises some comparisons with the methods and resources of the rhetorical traditions of Roman Gaul even though the authority and the themes of his text are of a very different order. I offer two examples from representatives of the rhetorical culture of fourth-century Gaul who use the theme of the city for a variety of rhetorical and literary purposes. In the Gallic grammarian and rhetorician Ausonius the city becomes both the ideal setting for an ordered social life and the basis of his own personal identity. Bordeaux, in particular, was the center of grammatical and rhetorical education that ultimately prepared Ausonius for a position of influence at Gratian’s imperial court at Trier. In my second example from a Panegyric by another rhetorician from Bordeaux, Julian is given credit for rescuing the cities of Gaul from the threats of warring barbarians and of rapacious imperial officials from 355 to 361. Their use of the symbol of the city is probably rooted in its use in Latin rhetorical literature by influential authors like Cicero. In De Natura Deorum Cicero has an important treatment of Stoic theology and the role of providence in the world and 111. A modern use of the metaphor of city and its quite different application might highlight Hilary’s distinctive use. In Civilization and Its Discontents (New York: Norton, 1961), Freud invoked the metaphor of the city in order to represent the topography of human memory, conscious and unconscious, in the individual (17–19). Freud’s use of the metaphor relates the present to the abiding presence and power of the past in the individual. Hilary’s use also respects the past and its impact on the present but the whole purpose has a much stronger future orientation and much more social inclusiveness. Freud is talking about levels of debris from past stages of the city’s history, which lie below the level of the contemporary city and can be recovered by archeology. So my efforts to open Hilary’s Tractatus will imitate the task of the modern archeologist who takes soundings of selected locations of a site to get some sense of what lies below. In each chapter I will focus on a selection of pertinent passages from Hilary’s text.

96  ³  Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis

in human affairs.112 Cicero presents “the universe as a common home or city of gods and people” in a passage that has attracted considerable scholarly attention.113 Cicero returns to this theme in De Finibus where he draws some implications for common moral objectives.114 In the passage from De Natura Deorum, Cicero goes on to acknowledge order and pattern in the universe which can be recognised through reason. Hilary, too, acknowledges these patterns in the natural world, as we shall see in the next chapter. The theme of global citizenship is picked up in Seneca.115 Probably Cicero’s and Seneca’s understanding of the “universal city” influences the way Hilary has adapted the symbol of city to represent each stage of his developmental model from sin to conversion and incorporation into the body of Christ and ultimate transformation in glory. Ausonius, a master of Latin rhetorical culture, demonstrates the continuing appeal of the theme of the city in his poem composed a decade or more after the death of Hilary. His Ordo Urbium Nobilium lists the famous cities of the empire beginning with Rome. He deals with twenty examples such as Constantinople, Carthage, Alexandria, Antioch, Athens, and Milan and he goes on to identify five Gallic centres: Trier, Arles, Toulouse, Narbonne, and Bordeaux. In this poem he concludes with his native town 112. For the residual influence of Stoicism on these and other themes, consult A. A. Long and D. N. Sedley, The Hellenistic Philosophers, vol. 1 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 158–437, “Stoicism”; Marcia L. Colish, The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages, 2 vols. (Leiden: Brill, 1990); and Michel Spanneut, Le stoïcisme des pères de l’Église (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1957). 113. Est enim mundus quasi communis deorum atque hominum domus aut urbs utrorumque; soli enim ratione utentes iure ac lege vivunt (Cicero, De Nat. Deorum 2.62.154). For an analysis of the Stoic treatments of city and for its adaptations by Cicero, consult Malcom Schofield, The Stoic Idea of the City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999), esp. chapters 2–3: “City of Love” and “Cosmic City.” Although Schofield is interested in the relation of Cicero to earlier Greek analysis of this Stoic theme, his summary does indicate themes of possible continuing influence in Latin rhetorical culture. “The fundamental premise is the proposition (1) that it is true of men and gods alone that by use of reason they live in accordance with justice and law. This proposition is taken to license the inference that (2) men and gods form a community or a city. It is then assumed (3) that the location of this city is the universe itself” (65–66). 114. Mundum autem censent regi numine deorum, eumque esse quasi communem urbem et civitatem hominum et deorum, et unum quemque nostrum eius mundi esse partem; ex quo illud natura consequi, ut communem utilitatem nostrae anteponamus (Cicero, De Finibus 3.19.64). 115. Duas res publicas animo complectamur, alteram magnam et vere publicam qua di atque homines continentur, in qua non ad hunc angulum respicimus aut ad illum sed terminos civitatis nostrae cum sole metimur, alteram cui nos adscripsit condicio nascendi (Seneca, De Otio 4.1). Cum hac persuasione vivendum est: “non sum uni angulo natus, patria mea totus hic mundus est” (Seneca, Epistulae Morales 28.4).

Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis  ³  97

and notes its reputation for wine, famous men, and the intelligence of its citizens. He praises its physical features of favourable weather and the river and a fountain. He pays particular tribute to the ordered plan of its gates, streets and broad avenues.116 He concludes his celebration of the cities of the empire with a tribute to the respective contributions of the cities of Bordeaux and Rome for his own personal identity. haec patria est; patrias sed Roma supervenit omnes. diligo Burdigalam, Romam colo. civis in hac sum, consul in ambabus: cunae hic, ibi sella curulis.        (Ordo Urbium Nobilum, 163–68) (This is my homeland but Rome transcends all homelands. I love Bordeaux; I revere Rome. I am a citizen in the latter, I am consul in both: here is my cradle, there is my consul’s seat.)

Elsewhere Ausonius had paid tribute to the grammatical and rhetorical schools of Bordeaux.117 In his historical account of the period which has survived, Ammianus Marcellinus has also provided a catalogue of the cities of Gaul which he had an opportunity to observe while he accompanied Julian from 355 to 361. His catalogue of the cities of Aquitania begins with Bordeaux and includes Poitiers.118 116. See Ausonius’s poem Ordo Urbium Nobilium 135–47: Burdigala est natale solum, elementia caeli mitis ubi et riguae larga indulgentia terrae, ver longum brumaeque novo cum sole tepentes aestifluique amnes, quorum iuga vitea subter fervent aequoreos imitata fluenta meatus. quadra murorum species, sic turribus altis ardua, ut aerias intrent fastigia nubes. distinctas interne vias mirere, domorum dispositum et latas nomen servare plateas, tum respondentes directa in compita portas per mediumque urbis fontani fluminis alveum. quem pater Oceanus refluo cum impleverit aestu, allabi totum spectabis classibus aequor. 117. In several of his compositions Ausonius pays tribute the schools of Bordeaux. His long poem Commemoratio Professorum Burdigalensium celebrates a range of grammarians and rhetoricians in that city. In that list he names a certain Anastasius, a grammarian, who moved from Bordeaux to Poitiers. In his Liber Protrepticus ad Nepotem, Ausionus returns to the importance of Roman schooling and encourages his grandson by appealing to the evidence of his own career. After he served as the teacher of the young Gratian, Ausonius eventually became consul. 118. in Aquitania, quae Pyrenaeos montes et eam partem spectat oceani, quae pertinet ad Hispanos,

98  ³  Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis

The defense and restoration of Gallic cities by Julian is also a significant theme in the Panegyric delivered by Claudius Mamertinus on January 1, 362.119 The first section of that panegyric deals with Julian’s career in Gaul. It deals rhetorically with issues covered by the historical narrative of Ammianus.120 Thus, in this investigation, certain general parallels between Hilary’s text and the panegyric of January 1, 362 can be noted.121 These include a) restoration of cities harassed by barbarians,122 b) remedies for conduct of public administration,123 c) practices undermining effective public service,124 d) public virtues of the emperprima provincia est Aquitanica, amplitudine civitatum admodum culta; omissis aliis multis, Burdigala [Bordeaux] et Arverni [Clermont] excellunt et Santones [Saintorige] et Pictavi [Poitiers] (Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae 15.11.13). 119. See R. A. B. Mynors, XII Panegyrici Latini III (IX) Gratiarum actio (Claudio) Mamertini de Consulatu suo Iuliano Imperatori, 121–44. 120. See Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae 16. 121. For an introduction, translation, and notes of this panegyric, consult Samuel N. C. Lieu, The Emperor Julian: Panegyric and Polemic (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1986), 1–43. For Julian’s contribution to the political vitality of cities, consult Averil Cameron in her chapter on Julian in The Later Roman Empire AD 284–430 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993), 93–94. As evidence she cites Codex Theodosianus: designed to strengthen Senates and councils at Constantinople and other cities (IX.2.1, XI.23.2, XII.13.1); designed to make tax burdens more equitable (VIII.5.12, X.3.1); designed to reduce the tax burden (XI.16.10). 122. Florentissimas quondam antiquissimasque urbes barbari possidebant; Galliorum illa celebrata nobilitas aut ferro occiderat aut immitibus addicta dominis serviebat. . . . In hoc statu imperator noster Gallias nactus minimum habuit adversus hostem laboris atque discriminis: una acie Germania universa deleta est, uno proelio debellatum (Claudius Mamertinus, de Consulatu suo 3.4.1– 3). 123. . . . iudicum nomine a nefariis latronibus obtinebantur (Claudius Mamertinus, de Consulatu suo 3.4.2). Sed emendatio morum iudiciorumque correctio et difficile luctamen et periculi plenum negotium fuit. Nam ut quisque improbissimus erat, ita maxime Caesaris rebus inimicus vitandis legum poenis de novo scelere remedia quaerebat; quia defendere admissa flagita non poterat; in ultorem iuris invidiam congerebat (de Consulatu suo 3.4.4). Illae provinciae obessae, oppugnatae, ferro ignique vastatae beatiores sunt his oppidis quae habet sine hoste Constantius. Aestate omnes in castris, hiemes in tribunalibus degit; ita illi anni spatia divisa sunt, ut aut barbaros domitet aut civibus iura restituat, perpetuum professus aut contra hostem aut contra vitia certamen (de Consulatu suo 3.4.6– 7). For abuses of imperial ambition: . . . non paucos huiusmodi furore vecordes etiam nostra aetas tulit, qui propter caecam imperandi cupidinem in ferrum ruerunt (de Consulatu suo 3.13.2). For the sorry record of provincial administration: Ita praeclara illa veterum nomina sordissimum quemque ex cohorte imperatoria et probrosissimum adulabant. Hi, cum in provincias immissi erant, qua sacra qua profana rapiebant, iter sibi ad consulatum pecunia munientes (de Consulatu suo 3.19.4–5). Then he addresses the failure of many men to serve in the military, or to acquire the skills of public speaking, since they are content only to amass wealth: Oratoriam dicendi facultatem multi laboris et minimi usus negotium nostri proceres respuebant. . . . Itaque omne studium pecuniae coacervandae; tanto enim quisque vir melior quanto pecuniosior habebatur (de Consulatu suo 3.20.2–3). 124. See Claudius Mamertinus’s sarcastic rhetorical question: Flagitiis administrantium non modo frena laxaret, sed etiam stimulator accederet, ne inter principes faceret morum dissimilitudo discordiam? (de Consulatu suo 3.5.2).

Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis  ³  99

or125 and his agents,126 e) description of transformed cities.127 Out of the rhetorical culture at Bordeaux emerged a speaker to address the external and internal threats to the cities of Gaul, the need for someone to supply remedies, and the importance of virtue in this renewal process. For anyone who wishes to be appointed as a magistrate, he advises against the pursuit of wealth and sycophantic ambition and to cultivate, instead, the virtues of “Equality,” “Temperance,” “Fortitude,” and “Providence.” In the chapter to come, we shall see that these two vices of “avarice” and “ambition” get the most frequent criticism from Hilary in his treatment of the ethical transformation from vice into the Christian life. In conclusion, this review of Hilary’s methods and sources has demonstrated his selective uses of detailed technical information in two of Origen’s treatments of the Psalms. The most significant information for our purposes is Origen’s position on the threefold organization of the book of Psalms. But at this point it is evident that Hilary, not Origen, considered the application of that structure to progressive stages in the Christian life. Moreover Hilary’s repeated appeals to the body of Christ appear to be independent of Origen. Thus this discussion has illustrated the continuing influence of Hilary’s Latin exegetical background and his Latin cultural resources. He shares this Latin culture with his audience and so this shapes the selection and adaptation of materials from his source and allows him to retain and to develop his distinctive approaches to the fundamental themes and applications of his Tractatus. 125. Scilicet et candorem Aequitatis potuit obumbrare et a Temperantia purpuram sancti ruboris abolere, cervicem Fortitudinis indignis confodere vulneribus, eruere oculos Providentiae! (Claudius Mamertinus, de Consulatu suo 3.5.4). See, also, his testimony to Julian’s work ethic: Videbunt enim iustum principatum laboribus curis vigiliis inquietum, cuius illi faciem amoenam et amabilem contemplantes laborum aspera non videbant (de Consulatu suo 3.5.2). For Julian’s disdain for excessive expenditures of court for accommodation: Haec cuncta animus voluptatum omnium victor abiecit (de Consulatu suo 3.11.3). For a treatment of virtue in this panegyric, consult R. C. Blockley, “The Panegyric of Claudius Mamertinus on the Emperor Julian,” AJP 93 (1972): 437–50. 126. Claudius Mamertinus describes the ideal magistrate as one who disdains wealth and currying of favor but rather follows the four traditional Platonic virtues: Sed multo multoque nunc facilior est ratio honorum petendorum. Quisquis, inquam, capere magistratum voles, auri atque argenti neglegens esto, nullas ostiatim potentum aedes obito, nullius pedes nullius genua complectitor. Adhibeto tantum tibi gratuitas et paratu facillimas comites, iustitiam fortitudinem temperantiam atque prudentiam: ultro ad te maximus imperator accedet et ut capessas rem publicam flagitabit (de Consulatu suo, 3.21.4). 127. Iulianus Almanniam domuit, Iulianus urbes Galliae ex favillis et cineribus excitavit. Illae provinciae obsessae, oppugnatae, ferro ignique vastatae beatiores sunt his oppidis quae habet sine hoste Constantius (Claudius Mamertinus, de Consulatu suo, 4.5–6).

100  ³  Hilary’s Principles of Exegesis

An important element in this examination of Hilary’s exegetical practices will govern the organization of our subsequent chapters. Hilary has proposed a three-stage model for the life of a Christian but those are not three static plateaus. Rather he presents a progressive sequence in which an earlier stage anticipates later developments. So rather than devote separate chapters to each of his three stages as if they were discrete and static, I shall focus on two major transformations within the model. The first, in the next chapter, will deal with Hilary’s treatment of conversion from pre-Christian to Christian, which he designates with the term baptismum. Then in chapter 5, I will examine his final transformation from resurrectio to the glorified body, which he calls demutatio. In each case my designation of his model as progressive will receive even more support. Between these two chapters I will deal with the dynamic principle that empowers each transformation. Hilary identifies this principle as “the body of Christ.” The parallels to Origen have repeatedly highlighted this as a distinctive focus in Hilary’s Tractatus super Psalmos. To introduce his exegetical commentary, Hilary employed the resources of his Latin literary culture to expand a metaphor in Origen and thus produced the first instance of his master metaphor of the city. In the application of that metaphor to his exegetical method, Hilary emphasized a unity, which respects diversity throughout the Psalms. To open the next chapter on the initial condition of the human before conversion, I return to another use of the same metaphor. In a somewhat different context from that which had confronted Julian’s campaigns, the city, at Tr. Ps. 13.3, is again under serious threat and requires someone to supply a remedy.

3

First Transformation: Baptismum

I

n his first cluster of Psalms, Hilary deals with the prog ress from vir saecularis to the life of the baptized Christian. He presents the critical limitations for life prior to baptism with another aspect of his polyvalent city metaphor. This version describes the dire situation of a “city in plague.” He develops his analysis of this stage with two biblical themes, each with a hopeful possibility. He also selects specific elements of this initial stage with which to connect his Christian understanding of both ethics and belief in the Godhead.1 In Latin literary culture Hilary finds a respect for the need of an ethical transformation from vice to virtue and an appreciation for divinity as the basis for order in the natural world. Hilary’s terminology for this pre-Christian condition also reflects his positive assessment of aspects of this preliminary status and its possibilities for members of his Latin culture and education. To designate the initial pre-Christian condition in his model, Hilary does not use the later pejorative Christian construction of paganus.2 In 1. This combination of ethics and belief in the Godhead reflects the sequence in his repeated definition of confessio and its cognates. 2. For a discussion of the later fourth-century Christian usage, see James J. O’Donnell, “Paganus,” Classical Folia 31 (1977): 163–69. For a broader treatment of Christian uses, see Harold Remus, “The End of ‘paganism’?” SR 33 (2004): 191–208.

101

102  ³  The First Transformation

his comment on Psalm 1, at least, he uses the term vir saecularis. In Tr. Ps. 65.4, as we have seen, he uses auditor profanus. Instead of a total repudiation of the past, Hilary employs the term confessio to organize his discussion of positive elements of the vir saecularis, which are retained and enhanced through conversion confirmed in baptism. These perspectives of the earlier state provide some positive elements for God to build upon in the first transformation.

“A City in Plague”

To dramatize the serious limitations of the condition of the vir saecularis, Hilary invokes his master metaphor of the city in a passage immediately after his comparison of imperial and Christian discourse. As I have been suggesting, the themes and issues of the city in Latin rhetorical culture, sharpened by the threats to Gallic urban life recounted in Ammianus Marcellinus and in the Panegyrics and celebrated by Ausonius, make such an appeal very compelling for both Hilary and his original audience.3 Hilary develops his reflection on the opening verse at Tr. Ps. 13.1 and focuses on insipiens and corrupti sunt et abominabiles facti sunt. For these terms Hilary immediately introduces a negative version of the city metaphor with the proposition that “a person on entering a city observes that all the inhabitants are wasting with disease, burning with fever and overcome with diverse kinds of illness.” Once again the city 3. In addition to the evidence from Ammianus, Mamertinus, and the Codex Theodosianus for interest in the security and vitality of cities cited at the end of the last chapter, see further evidence of Cicero’s contribution to this theme. See, for example, his description of the attractiveness of the city of Syracuse: atque hoc idem Syracusis. Urbs illa praeclara, quam ait Timaeus Graecarum maximam, omnium autem esse pulcherrimam, arx visenda, portus usque in sinus oppidi et ad urbis crepidines infusi, viae latae, orticus, templa, muri nihilo magis efficiebant, Dionysio tenente, ut esset illa res publica; nihil enim populi et unius erat populus ipse (De Re Publica 3.43). See, too, Cicero’s description of citizenship as the closest social bond: . . . interius etiam est eiusdem esse civitatis; multa enim sunt civibus inter se communia, forum, fana, porticus, viae, leges, iura, iudicia, suffragia, consuetudines praeterea et familiaritates multisque cum multis res rationesque contractae (De Officiis 1.17.53). Cicero also extends social bonds to include all people: In omni autem honesto de quo loquimur nihil est tam inlustre nec quod latius pateat quam coniunctio inter homines hominum et quasi quaedam societas et communicatio utilitatum et ipsa caritas generis humani. Quae nata a primo satu, quod a procreatoribus nati diliguntur et tota domus coniugio et stirpe coniungitur, serpit sensim foras, cognationibus primum, tum affinitatibus, deinde amicitiis, post vicinitatibus, tum civibus et iis qui publice socii atque amici sunt, deinde totius complexu gentis humanae. Quae animi adfectio suum cuique tribuens atque hanc quam dico societatem coniunctionis humanae munifice et aeque tuens iustitia dicitur (De Finibus 5.23.65).

The First Transformation  ³  103

comparison denotes comprehensive or universal involvement, but this time it is in contagion.4 Here every inhabitant is afflicted with a wasting disease. This crisis provokes an urgent search for a doctor and medicine. Ut enim qui pestilentem urbem ingressus omnes omnino inhabitantes morbo dissolutos et febribus aestuantes et diverso aegritudinum genere confectos contemplatus sit et nullum illic medicum inveniens ingemescat et nihil auxilii, nihil remedii adesse tantis malis doleat et desaevire magis membrorum pestem cotidie sentiat sciatque medicum in longinquo positum mederi posse, si adesset— quod solum superest—dolere desperationis exclamat dicens: Quis est qui eum praesentem efficeret et salutare eius adferret? (Tr. Ps. 13.3) (For just as some, who on entering a plague-ridden city, might behold all the inhabitants totally undone, burning with fevers, and weakened by various kinds of illnesses, would groan on finding no doctor there and grieve that no help, no remedy was available for such great evils. He would realize that the infection of bodies was raging more furiously every day; he would also know that a doctor, located at a distance, would be able to heal, if he were present. Only one reac4. In the preface to his translation of Eusebius’s Ecclesiastical History written in 402/403, Rufinus opens with a reference to cities under plague as a result of the disruptions caused by Gothic raids: Peritorum dicunt esse medicorum, ubi imminere urbibus vel regionibus generales viderint morbos, providere aliquod medicamenti vel poculi genus, quo praemuniti homines ab imminenti defendantur exitio (CCSL 20 [1961], 267). To support his view of the universality of original sin in his Contra Julianum, Augustine cites Hilary several times. Four of these are identifiable passages from the Tractatus (Tr. Ps. 1.9, 51.23, 118.3.4, 118.15.6, and 118.22.6). On one occasion, already noted, Augustine identifies Hilary’s theme as “hope for human perfection” (2.8.26). For a discussion of the passages and the textual versions in extant manuscripts of Augustine’s text, see Jean Doignon, “Testimonia d’ Hilaire de Poitiers dans le ‘Contra Iulianum’ d’Augustin: les textes, leur groupement, leur lecteur,” RBén 91 (1981): 7–19; and Doignon’s “Introduction,” lvii–lviii. In the passages Augustine cites from the Tractatus, Hilary does not employ Augustine’s terminology of “original sin,” but he does regard humans as in state of sin for which the only release is through the cleansing by divine mercy. I offer three examples. Augustine quotes from Tr. Ps. 118.22.6: Scit (sub peccati origine et: Hilary) sub peccati lege esse se natum (Contra Iulianum 1.3.9). Augustine acknowledges Hilary’s theme of “human perfection” to be completed in the resurrection of the body (Contra Iulianum 2.8.26). He cites a passage that focuses on the need for divine ablution: Quia lex, inquit, umbra erat [est: Hilary] futurorum bonorum (Heb10.1), idcirco per hanc praefiguratam [praeformatam: Hilary] significantiam docuit nos in hoc terreni et morticini corporis habitaculo mundos esse non posse, nisi per ablutionem caelestis misericordiae emundationem consequamur, post demutationem resurrectionis terreni corporis nostri effecta gloriosiore natura (118.3.4). In the same section, Augustine continues to praise Hilary’s emphasis on the completion of the progressive model of human perfection: Vides quemadmodum venerabilis catholicus disputator nec in hac vita mundationem nostram neget et tamen humanam perfectionem speret, id est perfectioris mundationis in ultima resurrectione naturam (Contra Iulianum 2.8.26). Augustine quotes Hilary on the need for divine mercy to effect the ethical transformation from Tr. Ps. 51.23: Non enim ipsa illa iustitiae opera sufficient ad perfectae beatitudinis meritum, nisi misericordia Dei etiam in hac iustitiae voluntate humanarum demutationum et motuum vitia non reputet (Contra Iulianum 2.8.29).

104  ³  The First Transformation

tion is left—he cries out in the pain of desperation: “Who is there who could make that doctor present and bring his healing power?”)

For this passage there are some parallels in the extant fragments of Origen that present rhetorical appeals to biblical figures and the search for a remedy. But there is no surviving evidence that Origen invoked the symbol of the “city” in this context. There are similarities, however, between Hilary’s use of this metaphor and a famous passage on “the city in plague” at the end of Lucretius’s De Rerum Natura. In his apparatus Doignon has pointed out the parallels between some of Hilary’s terms and those in the extended passage in De Rerum Natura (6.1138–1251).5 Lucretius appears to have depended on Thucydides’s systematic treatment of the “plague of Athens” in his Historiae (2.47–52) to produce a deeply pessimistic view of the human condition. This interpretation seems to conflict with Lucretius’s announced intention to remove the fear of divine intervention in human affairs.6 Hilary, however, takes up the metaphor, compresses it and focuses it for different purposes. Hilary is using the metaphor of the city in plague to represent the first stage of his progressive model but he does so with the expectation of a positive outcome. In marked contrast to Lucretius, Hilary looks to the divine for a cure. The human condition has become diseased and requires a “medicus” and “medicina.”7 This quest is prompted by the question posed in the text of this Psalm, which Hilary quotes, Quis dabit ex Sion salutare Israel? (Ps 13.7). At this point in Hilary’s metaphor, there occur several parallels with the extant fragments of Origen on this Psalm.8 Origen states 5. See Doignon’s apparatus where he identifies the following parallels between the diction of Hilary and of Lucretius at Ps 13.3: urbem ingressus; morbo dissolutos et febribus aestuantes; ingemescat et nihil auxilii, nihil remedii; tantis malis doleat et desaevire magis membrorum; medicum in longinquo positum mederi posse, si adesset. Inexplicably, Jean Doignon does not refer to the parallels in the extant text of Origen in PG 12 1205 in our n. 8. 6. Scholars have been puzzled by Lucretius’s motive for this concluding passage on “the city in plague.” Some argue that the intense hopelessness of this passage near the end of the unfinished poem expresses Lucretius’s personal depression as he contemplates suicide. Others see hints that the passage is connected to the thesis of the poem to discount any intervention of the gods. Disease does not originate in some emission from the place of the gods in outer space but has terrestrial origins. For a discussion of Lucretius’s method and purpose in this passage, consult Cyril Bailey, Titi Lucreti Cari De Rerum Natura Natura Libri Sex, vol. 3 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1947), 1723–44. 7. Hilary returns to medicus as an example of the difficulty to help a “patient who is out of his mind” (Ps 118.7.4). 8. Μυρίωv ἐπὶ τῆς οἰκουμέvης κυριευόντων κακῶν, τοῦ μόνου τὴv βοήθειαv ἐvεγκεῖv δυναμένοι συναισθόμεον τὸ

The First Transformation  ³  105

the need for medical help for everyone and this assertion will show up in Hilary’s passage.9 They also both dismiss Moses, Elijah, Isaiah, and the prophets as candidates for the healer.10 They both identify the power of the Word and the Holy Spirit as the universal medicus.11 Three of the same scriptural texts employed by Hilary appear in the same sequence as they occur in the fragments of Origen.12 Opus erat medico, qui una atque eadem auxilii sui ope universa curaret et tot ac varios in toto orbe languores non arte, non opere—quia quando opus et ars singulis adhibita profuisset?—sed Verbi potestate sanaret. Hunc requirit Spiritus, hunc expectat, ad cuius adventum febris quiesceret, caecitas desineret, paralysis non esset, mors non occuparet, hunc expectat, hunc proclamat, hunc orat: Quis dabit ex Sion salutare Israel? (Tr. Ps. 13.3) (There was need of a doctor who, by one and the same all-inclusive power of his help, would cure the many and varied infirmities in the whole world not by his skill, not by his effort—because when had effort and skill applied to individuals been effective?—but he would cure by the power of his Word. The Spirit seeks this healer, awaits this one at whose approach the fever would subside, blindness would cease, paralysis would not exist, death would not prevail—the Spirit is waiting for this one, is proclaiming this one, is begging this one: “Who will give Israel salvation from sin?”)

In the next paragraph Hilary connects his theme to the body of Christ in which “we” are to be included. Once again Hilary’s appeal to the body of Christ does not appear in the extant material of Origen. omnes enim currimus adprehendere, in quo sumus adprehensi a Christo, id est inveniri in eius corpore, quod ex nobis ipse praesumpsit, in quo ante constitutionem mundi a Patre sumus electi, in quo reconciliati ex inimicis et adquisiti Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιόν φησι· “Τίς δώσει ἐκ Σιὼν τὸ σωτήριον τοῦ Ἰσραήλ;” οὐ γὰρ Μωϋσῆς͵ οὐκ Ἡλίας͵ οὐχ Ἡσαΐας͵ οὐχ οἱ λοιποὶ τῶν προφητῶν ἐδεδώκεισαν· πάντα τοῦ νόμου τὰ ἔργα πρὸς τοιοῦτόν τι ἦν ἀσθενῆ. Ἀναγκαίου δὲ ὄντος τοῦ ἰατροῦ͵ τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἰᾶσθαι δυναμένου οὐ τέχνῃ καὶ οὐκ ἔργῳ͵ ἀλλὰ τῃ τοῦ λογου δυνάμει τοῦτον ἐλθεῖν προσεύχεται τὸ Πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον (Origen, PG 12 1205D–1208A). This parallel is noted by Émile Goffinet, L’ Utilisation d’ Origène dans le Commentaire des Psaumes de Saint Hilaire de Poitiers, Studia Hellenistica 14 (Louvain: Publications Universitaires de Louvain, 1965), 61–67, but not in Jean Doignon’s recent edition. 9. For an extensive study of the theme of “doctor” applied to God and to Christ throughout the works of Origen, consult S. Fernández, Cristo Medico, según Orígenes: La Actividad Médica como Metáfora de la Acción Divina (Rome, Institutum Augustinianum, 1999). Surprisingly this passage is not cited in this comprehensive study. 10. Non enim Moyses dederat, non Elias, non Esaias, non prophetae; omnia legis opera adversus tantam morborum pestem infirmabantur (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 13.3). For the same biblical examples and judgement, see Origen, n. 8. 11. For Hilary’s “Verbi potestate sanaret” and “requirit Spiritus,” compare Origen, PG 12,1208A, n. 8. 12. See Isaiah 52.10, Psalm 97.1, and Psalm 84.8.

106  ³  The First Transformation

sumus ex perditis, in quo apostolus cum damno universorum optat inveniri dicens. (Tr. Ps. 13.4) (For we are all racing to grasp the prize by which we have been grasped by Christ, that is to be found in the body of Christ, which he had previously taken up from us, in which we have been chosen by the Father before the beginning of the world, in which we have reunited from among the enemy and secured from among the lost ones, in which the Apostle [Phil 3.8] wishes to dwell with the loss of everything.)

In this passage there are a number of Christological themes to be discussed in the next chapter. The appeal to medicine is a frequent theme throughout the writings of Origen but for Hilary the medical allusion might also be prompted by themes in Latin culture and perhaps reinforced by his contacts with Basil of Ancyra. In Roman rhetorical literature Cicero had also linked the cure from vice with the language of medicine.13 Hilary uses this metaphor of “city in plague needing a doctor” as a dramatic illustration for the need of the transformation from pre-Christian to Christian. On occasion Hilary associates the metaphor of medicine with the act of confessio.14 As we shall see, the act of confessio in baptism marks a critical stage in the recovery from the plague in the metaphor. To complement the metaphor of a city in plague, Hilary employs a variety of biblical themes to present the predicament of people prior to the first transformation in baptism. To maintain the implications of that metaphor, Hilary proceeds to a diagnosis and a prognosis for the disease plaguing all people. Among the biblical references to address this fundamental human condition, Hilary appeals to the figure of Adam.15 The condition 13. For his account of the medicine for vice, consult Cicero: Minime mirum id quidem; nam efficit hoc philosophia: medetur animis (Tusculanae Disputationes 2.4.11). Sed quoniam suspicor te non tam de sapiente quam de te ipso quaerere—illum enim putas omni perturbatione esse liberum, te vis—videamus quanta sint quae a philosophia remedia morbis animorum adhibeantur. Est enim quaedam medicina certe . . . animorum salus inclusa in ipsis est. . . . Earum igitur perturbationum, quas exposui, variae sunt curationes. Nam neque omnis aegritudo una ratione sedatur; alia est enim lugenti, alia miseranti aut invidenti adhibenda medicina (Tusculanae Disputationes 4.27.58– 59). For a concise discussion on the role of a version of Stoic Philosophy as medicine for the soul in Tusculans, consult Malcolm Schofield, “Academic Therapy: Philo of Larissa and Cicero’s Project in the Tusculans,” in Philosophy and Power in the Graeco-Roman World: Essays in Honour of Miriam Griffin, edited by Gillian Clark and Tessa Rajak, 91–109 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002). 14. Maxima autem et utilissima est letalium vitiorum morbis in eorum confessione medicina (Hilary,  Tr. Ps. 137.2). 15. For a comprehensive survey of the role of Adam in Hilary’s Treatise, consult Luis Ladaria, “Adam y Cristo en los Tractatus super Psalmos de san Hilario de Poitiers,” Gregorianum 73 (1992): 92–122.

The First Transformation  ³  107

of sin, corruption, and mortality begins with the first Adam but a second Adam initiates recovery from this condition. In his comment at Psalm 59 on the expulsion of Adam in Genesis (3.17), Hilary expresses a parallel influence on the two conditions of the whole human race with “death and toil,” on the one hand, and “the gift of life and grace of justification,” on the other. Each condition takes its origin from a single figure.16 A little later, commenting on “the earth has given its fruit” in Psalm 66, Hilary makes the significant clarification that it is Adam, not the earth, that is the source of the universal contagion. To this earthly Adam Hilary contrasts the heavenly Adam. “He who is conformed to the heavenly Adam [1 Cor 15.47] possesses the innocent fruit of his earth, first well provided by the knowledge of God and secondly glorious with the works of chastity, justice, mercy, with the old man freed from his vices and desires [Gal 5.24].”17 This parallel between the earthly and the heavenly Adam expresses the moral features of the two conditions which I will explore later in this chapter. This passage picks up the theme of “putting off the old man” but goes on to identify the primary agent in this transformation. Here Hilary continues to employ corpus and carnem adsumpsit and this is his preferred expression for the incarnation since the In Matthaeum.18 He includes the succinct identification of “earthly body taken up by the Lord” and explicitly adds the qualification that he did so “without sin.”19 Hilary consistently maintains the universal sinful condition of humanity with only this one exception.20 16. Et haec quidem non magis ad Israel quam ad universitatem humani generis aptata sunt, quia ex uno in omnes sententia mortis et vitae labor exiit, cum dictum est: Maledicta terra in operibus tuis [Gn 3.17], nunc autem per unum in omnes donum vitae et iustificationis gratia abundavit (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 59.4). 17. Terrae elementum extra crimen fuit; caret ergo maledictione, quod carebat et crimine. Verum hic Adae terra, quae per inlecebram cibi erat criminosa, maledicitur. Haec ergo ab eo omnibus praesentis vitae maeroribus consumitur. . . . Omnis ergo terreno Adae similis hos maledictos fructus terrae suae reddit, ceterum qui iam caelesti Adae [cf. 1 Cor 15.47] configuratur habet innocentem terrae suae fructum, primum Dei cognitione locupletem, dehinc castitatis, iustitiae, misericordiae, operibus gloriosum, vetere homine cum vitiis et concupicentiiis eius exuto [cf. Gal 5.24] (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 66.7). 18. Consult Jean Doignon, “ ‘Adsumo’ et ‘adsumptio’ comme expressions du mystère de l’Incarnation chez Hilaire de Poitiers,” ALMA 23 (1953): 123–25, and for a summary, see Paul C. Burns, The Christology in Hilary of Poitiers’ Commentary on Matthew (Rome: Augustinianum, 1981): 95–97. 19. . . . exhibuit in ipso illo primum Domino nostro, qui terrenum corpus adsumpsit nihil pecans (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 66.7). 20. See, for example, Propheta in corpore positus loquitur et neminem viventium scit sine peccato esse

108  ³  The First Transformation

So Hilary maintains the parallel between the earthly and the heavenly Adam. In his comment on Psalm 68, he connects the heavenly one with an allusion to the descent of the Son “who emptied himself and took on a body and even death” (Phil 2.7–8). This whole passage from verses 6 to 11 will be a prominent scriptural passage in the next chapter on Hilary’s presentation of the fundamental role exercised by Christ throughout the three stages of the progressive model for the life of the believer.21 For the principle of our salvation from the condition introduced by Adam, Hilary appeals to our incorporation into the resurrection of Christ. He bases his point on a verse from Corthinians: “As in Adam we all die, so in Christ we will rise” (1 Cor 15.22).22 This passage acknowledges the connection between human mortality and Adam, on the one hand, and the salvation, on the other hand, that comes from “[Christ] taking up our nature” and “our being conformed to his glory.” These are central themes for our next two chapters. Among those who expressed confessio in salvation in Christ, Hilary specifically includes Adam together with “the woman who touched his garment” (Mk 5.30 and Lk 8.45), and Peter. Cain is the exception who did not express confessio.23 In addition to this Adam motif Hilary employs a second instructive biblical allusion to represent some features of the first transformation in baptism is derived from the image of “the potter” in Jeremiah 18. Hilary invokes the passage in his discussion of Psalm 2 especially on the last half of verse 3: et tamquam vas confringes eos. To expand on the posse. Unum meminit esse qui peccatum non fecit, neque inventus est dolus in ore eius [Isaiah 53.9; 1 Peter 2.11] (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.5.16). Sed propheta non audet in tantum se a peccato liberum effici velle, ut non meminerit unum solum esse qui peccatum non fecerit et dolus in ore eius inventus non sit, et idcirco subiecit: Usquequaque nimis (118.6.6). For another statement of the universal sinful condition of humanity: Miserere mei. Scit enim neminem sine peccato esse qui vivat et omnes in carne sitos misericordia Dei egere (118.8.9). 21. Primus enim homo de limo terrae; et secundus Adam in huius limi profundum de caelis descendens se ipsum tamquam ex alto veniens definxit. Evacuans ergo se, quippe cui substantia non erat, non iam usque ad carnis, verum etiam usque ad mortis profunda descendit, et omnis in eum terror desaevientis in nos tempestatis incubuit (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 68.4). 22. Et ut in Adam omnes morimur, ita et in Christo omnes resurgemus [1 Cor 15.22]. [L]iberatio ergo eius salus regum est. [R]egnabunt enim conformes gloriae suae, per adsumptam ab eo naturae nostrae coniunctionem rursum omnes in naturae eius communione mansuri (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 143.21). 23. [D]enique Adam confessus veniae reservatus et glorificatus in Christo est: Cain negans maledicto diaboli adaequatus est . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 119.11).

The First Transformation  ³  109

consideration to “break them like a dish,” Hilary provides the long passage from Jeremiah on the relation of a potter towards his material (Jer 18.1–10). The potter is working at his wheel and whenever a pot does not come out well he breaks it. The point in this passage is that the potter does not discard the material of the broken pot but reshapes it into another one. The biblical passage goes on to instruct Jeremiah to apply the lesson to the nation. Hilary applies it to rebirth in baptism.24 This passage continues to invoke scriptural passages on baptism with references to “rebirth,” “new man,” “dying with and being buried with the Lord.” With the use of nunc and tunc this passage clearly links baptism to the whole sweep of his progressive model. I will return in the last chapter to other elements in this significant passage in our treatment of demutatio and “continuity of the body in a spiritualized form.”25 To anticipate that chapter briefly: there is a principle enunciated in this very passage which has profound implications for Hilary’s understanding of transitions throughout the whole process. Does Hilary actually apply the practice of the potter and maintain the possibility of some continuity from one stage to the next? Will the confessio of the baptized person retain any of the ethical values and any assessments of the divine, which characterized the pre-Christian, traditional Roman, vir saecularis? After quoting “sowing in corruption and rising to incorruption” (1 Cor 15.42) in an extended passage, Hilary states his principle of continuity in a succinct fashion.26 Et cum id quod fuit in id quod non fuit surgit, non amisit originem, sed profecit ad honorem. (And when that which has been rises into what has not been, it has not lost its origin but has progressed to honor [Tr. Ps. 2.41]). In this passage Hilary is looking ahead to resur24. Confringi itaque nos tamquam vas figuli vel nunc vel tunc gaudeamus, ut et nunc modo figuli vasis commortui et consepulti Domino in baptismate in novitate vitae ambulemus (cf. Rom 6.4) et in novum Christi hominem, deposito vetere, renascamur [cf. Eph 4.22] et tunc per hunc novae nativitatis profectum in beatam illam ac Deo placentem iteratae reparationis nostrae speciem reformemur (Hilary, 2.41). 25. For his succinct anticipation of this theme which represents the final transformation: . . . confracta reparabit, non ex alia aliqua, sed ex vetere atque ipsa originis suae materie speciem illis complaciti sibi decoris impertiens, ut corruptibilium corporum in incorruptionis gloriam resurrectio non interitu naturam perimat, sed qualitatis condicione demutet. Non enim aliud corpus, quamvis in aliud resurget, apostolo dicente . . . seminatur in infirmitate, resurget in virtute; seminatur corpus animale, resurget spiritale [1 Cor 15.42] (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 2.41). Fit ergo demutatio, sed non adfertur abolitio. Et cum id quod fuit in id quod non fuit surgit, non amisit originem, sed profecit ad honorem. 26. See n. 25.

110  ³  The First Transformation

rection and the final transformation. In fact Hilary frequently connects the “washing of baptism” to the final transformation of the body after resurrection.27 For this comprehensive view of baptism, which links the believer to each stage in the mission of Christ’s body, Hilary invokes the authority of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.28 This theme and its origins in Latin Christian literature will be the central issue in chapter 5.29 This anticipation of the final goal in his model provides two guiding principles for Hilary’s views on the first transformation or conversion. Some of the ethical perspectives and treatments of the divine will be retained from the culture of those educated in the conventions of Latin grammar and rhetoric because for Hilary there is a “natural instinct” or predisposition to the fullness of Christian faith.30 Secondly, the anticipatory character of Hilary’s thought permits him to recognize elements of the concluding stage even in the initial one. We have seen this anticipatory feature of Hilary’s thought reflected in his exegetical principle expressed by Hebrews (Heb 10.1). We will meet it again in the chapters on his Christology and his soteriology. The connection of baptism to the ultimate goal is reflected in Hilary’s comments on “regeneration” at Psalm 14. He applies the actions of the “just person” to what appears to be the act of “confession” in the ritual of baptism with “renunciations of the devil, world, and sin in response to questioners.”31 The language of “regeneration” and “re27. . . . et in novae generationis lavacro possessio aeternorum corporum inchoatur, aquis ipsis baptismo Domini consecratis (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 65.11). 28. Sed meminit compatiendum et commoriendum esse cum Christo his qui conregnare cum eo velint. . . . Morimur enim secundum apostolum cum Christo et consepelimur in baptismo [cf. Rom 6.4] (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.15.13). See also Hilary, In Matt. 10.25. 29. Oritur enim ex mortuo, quisquis antea peccatis aridus et anterioris vitae radice decisus nunc eloquio [D]ei et sacramento baptismi aquis vitalibus revivescit (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 136.7). For passages important in his discussion of resurrection and transformation in chapter 5, see Hilary 118.3.4, and 10 and 129.3–6, and In Matt. 10.19, 23–24. 30. Et quidem uniuscuiusque mens ad cognitionem spemque aeternitatis naturali quodam fertur instinctu, quia veluti insitum impressumque omnibus sit divinam inesse nobis animarum originem opinari, cum non exiguam caelestis in se generis cognationem mens ipsa cognoscat (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 62.3). For another reference to this “natural instinct, see De Trinitate 1.7. For discussions of this important theme, consult Jean Doignon, Hilaire de Poitiers, “Disciple et témoin de la vérité” 356–367, Texte revu par Marc Milhau, 20– 21 (Paris: Insitut d’Études Augustiniennes, 2005). See also Jean Doignon’s earlier “En marge de Ps. 52.7b: la ‘foi première’ et la foi baptismale selon Hilaire de Poitiers,” Le Psautiers chez les Pères, edited by P. Maraval, 271–79, Cahiers de Biblia Patrstica 4 (Strasbourg: Centre d’analyse et de documentation patristique, 1994). 31. Et quia in regenerationis nostrae nativitate in haec sacramenta iuramus renuntiantes diabolo,

The First Transformation  ³  111

birth” is consistent with some of the terms in the three pivotal passages at Instructio 11, 51.2, and 150.1. The basic act at this passage 14.14 is referred to as confessio, which is also a prominent feature in that Instructio paragraph.32 Hilary’s consistent use of this particular term identifies his way of integrating two important themes throughout the Tractatus and, hence, in our analysis of his own text. An opportunity for Hilary to provide his definition of the term occurs in his comment on Psalm 66.6: Confiteantur tibi populi, Deus, confiteantur tibi populi omnes. Laetentur et exultent gentes, quoniam iudicabis populos in aequitate et gentes in terram diriges. Here Hilary distinguishes two aspects to the act of confessio. Invenimus enim confessionem duplici ratione esse tractandam; esse unam confessorum peccatorum, ubi in deserto Iordanis confitebantur peccata sua; esse aliam laudationis Dei, ubi Dominus loquitur ad Patrem: Confitebor tibi, Domine Pater [Mt 11.25] (Tr. Ps. 66.6) (For we have found that “confession” is to be treated in a double sense; that one sense is the confession of sins as when in the desert around the Jordan they used to confess their sins; that other sense is the profession of the praise of God as when the Lord speaks to the Father: “I shall praise you, O Lord and Father” [Mt 11.25]).

This passage identifies Hilary’s dual application of the term to include both the role of the ethical and the understanding of the divine throughout his progressive model. To reinforce the distinctively Christian character of this act, he goes on, in the same passage, to say that the “confession of sins” is to be based on the preaching of the prophets and the apostles and then adds that the praise of God is enjoined universally on all peoples.33 Hilary continues the same dual application of confessio in the third of the three clusters of Psalms. In this final cluster, as we shall see, there is a shift towards an emphasis on the second half, which enjoins “praises of God.” At Tr. Ps. 118 he provides a succinct expression of the dual function with that emphasis: Confessio vero non semper ad saeculo, peccatis, cum interrogantibus respondemus, retinendum usque in finem confessionis huius fidem statuit(Hilary, Tr. Ps. 14.14). 32. . . . Cum enim primus gradus sit ad salutem in novum hominem post peccatorum remissionem renasci sitque post paenitentiae confessionem . . . (Hilary, Instr. 11). 33. Prima ergo illa et superior confessio peccatorum esse credenda est, maxime quae praedicationi propheticae atque apostolicae conectitur; sequens haec laudationis Dei intellegenda est populorum, deinde omnium, id est gentium universarum (Hilary, Tr. Ps. Tr. Ps. 66.6).

112  ³  The First Transformation

peccata referenda est, verum etiam in Dei laudibus intellegenda est. (Tr. Ps. 118.8.15) (For “confession,” to be sure, is not always to be referred to sins but also is to be understood in the praises of God). At his commentary on Psalm135, Hilary invokes the reciprocal relation between God and humans contained in the double meaning of confessio. Ac primum in eo, quod ita coeptum est: [C]onfitemini [D]omino, duplicis intellegentiae significatio adfertur: ut aut [D]eum in confessione laudemus . . . aut peccata nostra confiteamur ei ab eo indulgenda. (Tr. Ps. 135.3) (And first in that passage, which begins as follows: “We confess to the Lord,” there is applied a meaning of double interpretation: as either let us praise God in our profession . . . or let us confess our sins to him by whom they are to be forgiven.)

Hilary goes on to point out that confession to God is required not because he does not already know the sin or that God is in need of our profession but rather it is necessary for us to acknowledge our relation to God and our need for divine mercy. For this passage there is a parallel in Origen.34 So Hilary’s source for this double function of confessio may very well be Origen. But his repeated appeals to the double meaning and his use of it as an organising theme seem to be unique to Hilary. In the next generation Augustine will employ both the dual aspects of this term and apply it as an organising principle in his Enarrationes and in his Confessiones. Hilary returns to this double meaning of confessio in two passages on Psalm 137. In the first example, he provides a succinct definition together with the general cross reference that he had maintained this same distinction in many other passages: Duplicem in confessione significationem esse, in plurimis locis demonstravimus: aut peccati nostri, aut laudationis [D]ei. (Tr. Ps. 137.1) (In many passages we have demonstrated there is a double meaning in “confession”: either a confession of our sins or a profession of our praise of God). Three paragraphs later he repeats this dual meaning together with the general cross reference and argues that there is a reciprocal rela34. Ἡ ἐξομολόγησις τὴν εὐχαριστίαν καὶ δοξολογίαν σημαίνει· κείται δὲ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς ἐξομομολογήσεως τῶν ἁμαρτιῶν, ὡς ἐνταῦθα (Origen, PG 12 1653D–1656A).

The First Transformation  ³  113

tion between the confession of sins and the divine response.35 Confession, then, marks the development from the condition of vir saecularis to baptized Christian. In his selection of biblical paradigms for the initial condition prior to baptism, Hilary recognizes promising features in the reuse of damaged pottery and in the two-Adam paradigm. This selective positive assessment is reflected in the ways in which he discusses the condition of the vir saecularis. In Psalms 1 and 2 where we have already seen his use of the potter in Jeremiah and the principle of a degree of continuity throughout his progressive model, Hilary introduces a contrast between both sides of the first transformation: vir saecularis and beatus vir. In his comment on Psalm 1, Hilary focuses on the text Beatus vir. Within this context he also raises the status of the representative of Roman culture whom he designates as “vir saecularis” (Ps 1.11).36 In other passages in close proximity he used the adjective, saecularis, with morally negative connotations. In the previous paragraph, he had employed the same adjective to warn about saecularium honorum ambitio (Ps 1.10). Later he uses saecularis ( v 38) to speak of passions and vices which threaten his progressive model. I am arguing that, in designating the condition prior to the first transformation as saecularis, Hilary depicts that condition as open to the possibility of progress. Two attributes, which he assigns to this state, can become an effective preparation for the double confessio towards moral progress and affirmations about the divinity. The basic positions Hilary values in the vir saecularis are twofold and they do correspond to the two functions just noted in confessio. In a sense there are some pre-Christian perspectives that can be integrated within the transformation into the Christian life. In Roman culture there is also an ethical repudiation of vice and an appreciation for virtue. In the same literary culture there is a tradition of recognizing the divine as the prin35. [D]uplex intellegentiae huius, ut superius iam diximus, sensus est. [N]am sive laudem [D]eo confitetur, quia verba oris eius audita sunt, sive per misericordiam [D]ei, cum diu orasset, adiutus iam omnibus peccatis desinentibus confitetur. [F]idei nostrae utrumque conveniens, ut et [D]ominum laudemus et confiteamur intellecta peccata (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 137.4). 36. For hints about his own upbringing in a pagan family, see his prayer in De Trin. 6.19– 21 which is inconclusive on this point (pace Introduction to SC 443, 13, n. 5). Perhaps his comment, at 146.12, on the bird that does not return to the ark, the church, but prefers to remain “among the empty things of the saeculum” may suggest something in his personal experience.

114  ³  The First Transformation

ciple of order in the operations of the universe and the natural world. For his ethical discussions Hilary employs rhetorically constructed lists of passions as the cause of instability in the human person. Here the influences of Latin rhetorical culture become quite pronounced. Much of Hilary’s ethical vocabulary, descriptions of the dynamics of vice within the human person, and transformation from vice to virtue echo the language and the analysis of the Latin rhetorical culture in Cicero and Sallust. In his application of these values to universal humankind Hilary is transcending the conventional restriction of these values to the Stoic wise man. These traditional ethical issues are also refocused and subordinated to the distinctive role of the Christian conceptions of the Godhead to be explored in the next chapter.

Confessio and Ethics

Hilary’s dual application of confessio to his treatment of the Christian life in the Tractatus expands on his presentation in his earlier autobiography in De Trinitate. That earlier analysis of progress towards conversion and the episcopate had been shaped exclusively by emotional and cognitive factors. Here in the Tractatus the emotional tone is less anxious. Those cognitive factors focused on the proper theological formulation of the Godhead and they remain critical in the Tractatus. In this Treatise he also adds ethical dimensions of the journey. He explicitly broadens the participation to include every believer. In this Treatise Hilary repeatedly demonstrates his interest in the ethical implications and so he emphasizes the transition from vice to virtue. Although there are the obvious Christian themes such as the universal sinful condition of humanity, some biblical treatments of sin and virtue, and some awareness of the emerging ascetical emphasis on certain virtues, a dominant influence in his naming of vices and their psychological operations originates in Roman rhetorical culture. For his treatment of ethical issues, Hilary continues to be influenced by the analyses of the functions of virtue and vice from that literature. As noted, Hilary associates passions and inducements to vice with the term saecularis (Ps 2.38).37 In the first two clusters of Psalms 37. Contritio ergo illa sive confractio est quae in nobis corporeas voluptates et saecularium vitiorum incentiva comminuit dignosque nos dignatione Domini praestabit (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 2.38).

The First Transformation  ³  115

up to Psalm 91, his lists of passions and vices, which afflict the basic human condition, curiously do not quote directly from the frequent lists in the Pauline Epistles38 or from the Decalogue in Exodus 20 (and 33).39 In the final chapter I will deal with the final transformation particularly in the last fifty Psalms and in that section Hilary will shift to more biblically oriented lists from Exodus40 and from Matthew.41 After discussing the reciprocal relation of the divine and human in the act of confessio at Tr. Ps. 135.3, Hilary appends another list of basic sins that echo biblical prohibitions.42 A little later in commenting on Matthew, “the eye as light of the body” (Mt 6.22–23), Hilary applies the function of eyesight to the responsibilities of “priests who are the eyes of the church” and goes on to list occupations which would imperil their appropriate function. These distractions include “business affairs, cares for money, increases of household possessions, extravagances of banquets.”43 The references to “business affairs,” “cares for money,” and “extravagances” occur repeatedly in lists of vices, which reflect his Roman rhetorical culture.44 38. Consult the lists in Rom 13.13; 1 Cor 5.11; 6.9–10; 2 Cor 12.20; Eph 4.31; 5.5; or Col 3.5– 8. 39. For the use of the Decalogue in Tertullian, consult his Adversus Marcionem 4.16, where he explicitly states the prohibitions against murder, adultery, stealing, and false witness. 40. . . . cum cogitamus atque agimus stupra, caedes, furta, falsitates, rapinas . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.18.3). 41. [B]onum est in ecclesia pauperes non esurire: quia, cum inops pascitur aut sitiens potatur aut nudus vestitur aut infirmus visitatur aut carcere clausus requiritur, et haec officiorum obsequia ei deferuntur, qui in singulis nobis esurit et sitit et alget et infirmatur et clauditur quique ait: amen dico vobis, quia quae fecistis uni ex minimis istis, mihi fecistis [Mt 25.40] (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 131.25). 42. [N]on enim confessio est, [D]eo, qui nihil ignoret, ea, quae gesseris, confiteri, quia professione ista [D]eus non eget, cuius cognitioni nihil occultum est, cuius aditui nihil invium est, cuius virtuti nihil relicum est, extra quem locus nullus est; sed confessio est rei scilicet eius, quae ignorabatur, professa cognitio, ex alterius iudicii opinione in alterius intellegentiae proficiens sententiam. [U]tile enim sibi ac iucundum quisquam esse antea existimaverat rapere, caedere, furari, superbire, potare, scortari; sed ubi haec omnia aeternae damnationi obnoxia esse cognovit, cognitis his confitetur errorem (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 135.3). 43. [E]x quo ingenti periculo sacerdotes, qui ecclesiae oculi sunt, negotiis saeculi, curis pecuniae et familarium rerum incrementis et conviviorum luxibus occupantur (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 138.34). 44. In the composition of his lists of vices Hilary does not seem to employ biblical patterns of organization nor does he follow the detailed categories to be found in Cicero’s Tusculanae Disputationes 3.1–13. Cicero begins with allusions to medicine for the body and medicine for the soul. He observes that the diseases of the soul are the more dangerous: At et morbi perniciosiores pluresque sunt animi quam corporis (3.3.5). In book 4 he examines emotions as diseases of the soul although later at 4.23 he complains that Stoics, and principally Chrysippus, had spent too much time on analogies between diseases of the body and diseases of the soul. In this book Cicero uses the term morbus twenty-two times. Cicero cites Zeno’s basic definition of vice: Est igitur Zenonis haec definitio, ut perturbatio sit, quod πάθος ille dicit, aversa a recta ratione contra naturam animi commotion (4.6.11). Cicero then constructs his lists around the four basic emotions of libido, laetitia, metus, and aegritudo. He proceeds to list a number of emotions under each heading. Two vices in

116  ³  The First Transformation

Even in the third section of the last fifty Psalms this type of list continues to occur. Hilary frequently provides lists of vices with some variations. Among common vices repeated in several of his lists there are “avarice,” “ambition,” and “drunkenness.” The first two are among the basic corrupting vices in Sallust’s analysis of Rome ’s moral decline. In his comments on the first Psalm, Hilary provides the first such list along with an observation identifying the psychological origin of these vices in basic human instinct. He also comments that these vices can be found even among Christians who fail to follow the discipline of the Church. Plures enim sint qui cum per confessionem Dei ab impietate discreti sint, non tamen a peccato per id liberi sint, in ecclesia quidem manentes, sed ecclesiae disciplinam non tenentes ut avari, ebriosi, tumultuosi, procaces, superbi, simulatores, mendaces, rapaces. Et ad haec quidem nos vitia naturae nostrae propellit instinctus. (Tr. Ps. 1.9) (For there may be many people who through their profession of God have been separated from godlessness. But nevertheless they are not free from sin because of this; they remain in the Church, to be sure, but do not follow the discipline of the Church so they are avaricious, drunken, unruly, insolent, proud, fakes, liars, rapacious. The propensity of our nature, indeed, propels us to these vices.)

He invokes a similar list in his discussion on Psalm 61.45 In these simple lists there seems to be no established priority nor sequence nor any definitive number. Interestingly, references to “avarice” and “drunkenness” appear in both. Neither list is overly preoccupied with sexual vices. Other examples reflect similar features but are open to other vices.46 In many examples “lust” is included; “ambition” appears; “avarice” and “drunkenness” continue. Closely related to these simple lists, Hilary has a grammatical construction in which he links the noun to a verbal form in order to represent the damaging influence of the vice.47 Hilary’s lists, namely ira and odium find their place under libido. Later Cicero deals with two of Hilary’s most common vices: avaritia and gloriae cupiditas (4.11.24– 25). 45. Sed hunc corporis sui parietem, quem ante libido, ebrietas, avaritia, ira, perfoderat (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 61.4). 46. In his enim tamquam in caelo verbum Dei permanet, in quibus hoc verbum non offenditur ira, ebrietate, odio, infidelitate, lasciviis (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.12.4). [S]unt autem haec diabolica, id est gentilium opera, quae significantur in manibus, venter, otium, luxus, libido, superbia, avaritia, ambitio (122.6); ut potator ex ebrietate, ut gulo ex cibus, ut avarus ex pecunia, ut ambitiosus ex honoribus, ut seditiosus ex turbis, ut libidinosus ex stupris (136.11); [L]oqui istud mens libidinosa, avara, insolens, ebria fideliter non potest (139.8). 47. Ceterum si nos ambitio detineat, si cura pecuniae occupet, si inlecebrae libidinum capiant, si negotia rerum familiarium demorentur, portio nobis Deus non erit saecularium curarum atque vitiorum posses-

The First Transformation  ³  117

There are several of these rhetorically constructed lists, which demonstrate an understanding of the impact of vice within the human person. Examples include “burning for lust,” “quick to anger,” “anxious for avarice,” “thirsting for drunkenness,” “vain for glory of the world.” We will examine the presentation of their impact on a person after a discussion about the social and cultural context for these lists. As we have seen, there is no definitive number or sequence and the following do show up in most of the lists: “avarice,” “drunkenness,” “anger,” and “lust.” Given Hilary’s encounters with the imperial court it is interesting that “ambition” and “desire for honor” are common examples of vice in his text. These vices, I think, reflect the type of ethical judgment to be found in the literature of the grammatical and, especially, the rhetorical curricula. Some of these terms reflect the language of Sallust and Cicero. Sallust, for example, uses avaritia in its various forms thirty times and ambitio in its various forms nineteen times.48 Valerius Maximus in his handbook of rhetorical exempla does have headings that cover some of the vices in Hilary’s lists. In Factorum uc Dictorum Memorabilium Libri Novem, book 9, he collects illustrations of de luxuria et libidine (9.1), de ira aut odio (9.3), de avaritia (9.4). The contemporary observer, Ammianus, perhaps, reflects moral concerns of others in Gaul of the 350s. Ammianus certainly highlights the interest in drink in his character portrait of the people of Gaul. He states that they are Vini avidum genus.49 Verb forms of tumultuare are also to be found in Ammianus to describe turmoil at court over the Silvanus affair at Res Gestae 15.5.11, and to describe insinuations at court against Julian (16.7.2 and 22.10.5). In another episode Ammianus quotes a saying of Julian against the rapacious sione detentis (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.8.2). Quomodo enim se Dei esse profitebitur in libidinem calens, in iram mobilis, in avaritiam sollicitus, in ebrietatem sitiens, in gloriam saeculi inanis? (118.12.12). 48. See, also, Cicero on ambitio : In cive excelso atque homine nobili, blanditiam, ostentationem ambitionem meam esse levitatis (De Re Publica 4.7). For avaritia: nullum igitur vitium taetrius est, ut eo, unde digressa est, referat se oratio, quam avaritia, praesertim in principibus et rem publicam gubernantibus (De Officiis 2.77). 49. In his character portrait of the people of Gaul, Ammianus describes their pugnacious temperament, even including the wives, as well as their attention to cleanliness and neatness: paene Galli sunt omnes et rutili luminumque torvitate terribiles, avidi iurgiorum et sublatius insolentes . . . tersi tamen pari diligentia cuncti et mundi nec in tractibus illis maximeque apud Aquitanos poterit aliquis videri vel femina, licet perquam femina (Res Gestae 15.12.1–2). Then he describes their prodigious drinking habits: vini avidum genus, affectans ad vini similitudinem multiplices potus, et inter eos humiles quidam, obtunsis ebrietate continua sensibus, quam furoris voluntariam speciem esse Catoniana sententia definivit, raptantur discursibus vagis (15.12.4).

118  ³  The First Transformation

habits of imperial agents.50 Ammianus uses rapax five times and applies it to eunuchs, tax collectors, soldiers and lawyers.51 The vices listed by Hilary might be prompted by a number of factors: the experience of corrupt Roman imperial officials; the destabilizing impact on Gaul of the usurpers Magnentius in 350 to 353 and Silvanus in 355; the Germanic incursions which confronted Julian from 356 to 360. All of these are recounted in the Res Gestae of Ammianus Marcellinus52 and celebrated among the victories of Julian in the Panegyric delivered to the emperor by Mamertinus on January 1, 362.53 Throughout his commentary Hilary provides similar lists of human vices. He sometimes focuses on one vice. Many passages demonstrate his preoccupation with “avarice.” He criticizes usury;54 he identifies the love of money as the root of all evil.55 He repudiates the amorous activities of gods in theatrical shows;56 he expresses relief that people are turning 50. Ammianus presents an episode and concludes with this observation by Julian: . . . et imperator “rapere,” inquit, “non accipere sciunt agentes in rebus” (Res Gestae 16.5.11). 51. See Ammianus Marcellinus, for eunuchs (Res Gestae 16.7.8), for tax collectors (21.16.17), for soldiers (22.4.7), and for lawyers (30.4.8). 52. See Ammianus Marcellinus, Res Gestae 15.8 ff., 16.1 ff. 53. See Claudius Mamertinus, de Consulato suo 3.4.1–2 cited n. 95–122. For Julian’s initiatives in the restoration of the cities of Greece, see 3.9.1–4. 54. Quid enim tam intolerabile quam ut indigenti ita beneficium tribuas, ut magis egeat et miseriam inopis opem laturus adcumules? (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 14.15). For Christian prohibitions against usury in the fourth century, consult the decrees of the Councils of Elvira (305), Arles (314) and Nicaea (325). For a sustained repudiation of the practice, consult Ambrose’s De Tobia. For a scholarly discussion of the evidence, consult Robert P. Maloney, “Usury in Greek, Roman and Rabbinic Thought,” Traditio 27 (1971): 79–109. See also his “Early Conciliar Legislation on Usury,” RTAM 39 (1972): 145–57, and his “The Teaching of the Fathers on Usury: An Historical Study on the Development of Christian Thinking,” VC 27 (1973): 241–65. See also John T. Noonan, “Authority, Usury and Contraception,” Dublin Review 509 (1966): 201–29. For the treatment of usury in Tertullian, consult Adversus Marcionem 4.17. 55. . . . quia avaritia malorum omnium radix est (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 61.1). Sed radix maxime iniquitatum in pecuniae cupiditate est (61.8). Mamertinus makes a similar point about greed: Itaque omne studium pecuniae coacervandae; tanto enim quisque vir melior quanto pecuniosior habebatur (Tr. Ps. 3.20.3). 56. Meminit enim quosdam incestarum et theatralium cantionum hymnis vacare et in castitatis excidium inlecebrosae vocis modulis inrepere, cum aut amantium deorum tabes aut eorum qui amantur fastidium fletur in canticis . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 64.2). Orat autem et animi et corporis oculos, eos scilicet qui theatralibus ludis captivi incubant, eos qui circensium certaminibus serviunt, eos qui vestium pretia mirantur, eos quos auri splendor et gemmarum varietas occupavit. Nisi forte non magis equorum cursu astrorum cursus est gratior et obscenis illis spectaculorum turpium fabulis non amoenius divina illa humanae spei eloquia cantarent, nisi forte huic terrenorum metallorum usu non magis aeternitatis respositae (118.5.14). See also Cicero: Cum artem ludicram scaenamque totam in probro ducerent, genus id hominum non modo honore civium reliquorum carere, sed etiam tribu moveri notatione censoria voluerunt (De Re Publica 4.10).

The First Transformation  ³  119

away from the excesses of Roman “superstitions.”57 Parallels for many of these four criticisms can be found not only in Christian apologetics but also in Roman authors such as Cicero and Marcus Terentius Varro. As the alternatives to specific vices, Hilary often groups them with the contrasting virtue.58 He explains that “He transforms us into a reasonable way of life with a contempt for money, with shame for debauchery, and tempers wrath by knowledge of truth, by community of living, by rites of religion” (Tr. Ps. 2.39). In a comment on Paul’s threefold distinction between a carnal, an animated and a spiritual person (1 Cor 2.14), Hilary identifies the capacity of the ensouled person to recognize the differences on the natural level between vices and virtues. “He spurns money, he becomes thrifty, he lacks ambition, he resists desires, and he becomes respected for goodness.”59 He specifically acknowledges the need to resist vice and to become virtuous. Later we will return to the discussion of spiritual virtues distinguished from these natural ones. In another example, Hilary provides many of the same or similar virtues as the moral alternatives to a list of vices. Then he goes on to give a second list of virtues with a specific focus on Christ.60 In his treatments of virtue, Hilary does not rely on the well-known classical list of virtues from Plato. A list, which reflects some of the Platonic virtues, does appear in the fragments from Origen on Psalm 1461 as well as on Psalm 2.62 They also appear in Mamertinus: iustitia, fortitude, temper57. Cotidie autem per populi credentis adcessionem benedictionis multiplicatur augeturque confessio, cum gentiles superstitiones impiaeque de diis fabulae, cum arae daemonum, eum idolorum inania reliquuntur et iter omnibus ac profectus dirigitur in salute (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 67.20). 58. Reformat autem nos ad rationabilem vitae usum contemptu pecuniae, luxus pudore, irae moderatione, veri scientia, communione vivendi, religionis officiis, cum per doctrinae regimen terroremque iudicii in has virtutes post vitia illa revivescimus (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 2.39); . . . de avaritia ad munificentiam transeamus, de libidinibus ad continentiam migremus, de ebrietate ad ieiunia revertamur, de furore, temeritate, odio, livore ad placabilitatem, rationem, misericordiam, benignitatem evolemus (125.6). 59. suo proprio sensu utilia et honesta diiudicans, ut pecuniam spernat, ut ieiuniis parcus sit, ut ambitione careat, ut voluptatibus resistat, ut bonitate venerabilis sit (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 14.7). 60. Diligamus ergo iustitiam, modestiam, frugalitatem, misericordiam, et oderimus rixas et ebrietates, caedes, superbias, stupra, cum quibus necesse est et diabolum oderimus. Diligentes vero pacem, veritatem, iustitiam diligemus eum qui est pax, iustitia et veritas, Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.13.13). 61. Ἐργαζόμενος σωφροσύνην, ὁμοίως ἀνδρείαν, ὁμοίως φρόνησιν, ὁμοίως εὐσέβειαν, ὁμοίως σοφίαν, καὶ λοιπὰς ἀρετάς (Origen, PG 12, 1208CD). 62. . . . ἥ καὶ αὐτὴ κληρονομεῖ ὡς σοφίαν, οὕτω καὶ γνῶσιν, καὶ ἀλήθειαν, καὶ δικαιοσύνην. Ἔστι δὲ ἡ κληρονομία τῆς λογικῆς φύσεως θεωρία τῶν σωματικῶν καὶ τῶν ἀσωμάτικων, καὶ τούτων ἁπάντων αἰτίου Θεοῦ (Origen, PG 12 1108C).

120  ³  The First Transformation

antia, and prudentia.63 There may be a hint of this classical list in one of Hilary’s later passage but even there the virtues occur within a larger catalog which, in part, might reflect biblical, catechetical and preaching patterns. They are followed by his conventional list of vices. He finishes with a list of virtues, which he links to attributes of Christ. This basis for “peace,” “truth,” and “justice” is very a different context from that of his Latin cultural sources. Hilary, on occasion, does mention virtues which are characteristic of the ascetical movement but not very often.64 Indeed he lists virginitas, continentia, and ieiunium (Tr. Ps. 14.8), but he cautions that they are not conducive to sanctity unless linked to his primary Christological foundational principle,65 to be discussed in the next chapter. Hilary is dismissive of those who would ridicule the virtues of fasting, moderation, and chastity.66 This particular list reflects a respectful attitude towards the ascetical perspective, but it is not necessarily promoting the particular focus of this emerging movement. Hilary goes on in this passage to appeal to the virtue of hope in the face of death, which awaits all.67 It is important to recall that Hilary does not appear to be an active member of the emerging Christian ascetical movement that would dominate the Gallic episcopacy in the next century.68 On traditional public values, he is engaged in a selective critique but not the comprehensive repudiation reflected in various ways within the ascetical tradition. Hilary did not categorically reject all his former cultural resources unlike the judgments we saw in Cyprian’s Ad Donatum and which also caused Au63. See Claudius Mamertinus, de Consulato suo 3.21.4, cited in chapter 2, n. 124. 64. See a passage where he lists a variety of virtues which might characterize different individuals: Alius ieiunio placet, alius simplicitate fidei promeretur, alius vitia eleemosynis redimit, alius se caritate consummat sicut alii curationum concessa virtus est, alii prophetiae scientia contributa est, alii fidei firmitas data est, alii sapientia et cognitio donata est (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.12.15). 65. Sciebat et virginitatem et continentiam et ieiunia esse curanda et, quia haec non proficiunt ad sanctitatem, nisi expleantur in Christo (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 14.8). 66. Plures autem sunt qui hanc expectationem fidei nostrae arguunt et inridunt dicentes talia: Quid ieiunia, quid continentia, quid castitas, quid iactura patrimonium utilitatis adfert? (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.15.7). 67. Vbi spes vestra est Christiani? Mors aequaliter dominatur universorum (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.15.7). 68. See, for example, William E. Klingshirn, Caesarius of Arles: The Making of a Christian Community in Late Antique Gaul (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); Philip Rousseau, Ascetics, Authority, and the Church in the Age of Jerome and Cassian (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978); and Andrea Sterk, Renouncing the World Yet Leading the Church: The Monk-Bishop in Late Antiquity (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004).

The First Transformation  ³  121

sonius to complain to Paulinus in their correspondence of the 380s. Even Sulpicius Severus seems to understand this distinction in his depiction of his monastic hero Martin of Tours and his respect for Hilary.69 From his cultural perspective Hilary confidently expresses respect for public virtue. Mamertinus makes virtue a theme of his Panegyric in his descriptions of the virtues of Julian and in his moral assessment of the people whom he attracts to imperial service. They “fight against the blandishments of sycophants” and “they recoil from the touch of money.”70 Hilary goes beyond lists of vices or descriptions of individual examples to suggest the influence of Stoic analyses of the functioning of vice in the human psyche. Hilary provides extensive rhetorically constructed lists of passions to illustrate how they disturb and disrupt the human person (Tr. Ps. 52.11, 53.6, 118.11.1, and 128.4).71 The first passage illustrates this pattern quite clearly. “The emotions of conflicting feelings drive us to [instability] as long as we are enraged by an insult, upset by a loss, inflamed by anger, disturbed by fear, deflected by love, driven by hate, carried away by joy, goaded by sorrow, divided by a judgment, changed by age.”72 For much of this passage Doignon finds parallels 69. See Sulpicius Severus, Vita S. Martini 5.1–3. 70. Tum aliud quoddam hominum genus est in amicitia principis nostri, rude (ut urbanis istis videtur), parum come, subrusticum; blandimentis adulantum repugnat, pecuniae vero alienae tamquam rei noxiae tactum reformidat, maximas opes in rei publicae salute et gloriosa imperatoris sui laude constituit (Claudius Mamertinus, de Consulato suo 3.21.2). 71. For other lists: Naturae humanae est, ut, cum id quod desiderat non potest obtinere, per desiderii iugem cupiditatem animi defectione teneatur. Et hoc nosse ex ipsis adfectionis nostrae motibus promptum est, in quantam animi defectionem eorum quos desideramus expectatione redigamur (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.11.1). On threats to “tranquility”: see . . . qui non aliquando in se habeat Dei verbum, cum sobrius, cum tranquillus est, cum continens est, cum benivolus est, cum misericors est; in his enim cum sumus, manet in nobis Dei verbum. . . . Sed subrepentibus turbidarum adfectionum motibus, cum subit pecuniae cura, cum aestus turpis ac lascivae cupiditatis accenditur, cum irae impetus commovetur, cum ebrietas desideratur, iam non est in nobis manens Dei verbum . . . in quibus hoc verbum non offenditur ira, ebrietate, odio, infidelitate, lasciviis (118.12.4). On anger and quarreling: In omni igitur, quam perpetimur, iniuria alterius opus, alterius instinctus est: et non sibi efficit, quisquis aliquid per turbulentae voluntatis impetum gerit. [N]on ergo his irascendum est, a quibus aliqua perpetimur, sed quotiensque per contumelias ad iracundiam provocamur, quotiensque per convicia ad lites excitamur, quotiensque ad dolorem et impiam damni querellam per rapinas et furta conpellimur aut in corporis voluptates blandae adhortationis sollicitamur instinctu, agnoscendus est hostis ille, per quem haec operum ac dictorum incentiva praebentur (128.4). 72. Humani vero motus ipsa plerumque mutatione diversi sunt et terrenae legis imperfecta natura fit alia ex alio instinctu se perturbante demutans; et ad id nos diversarum adfectionum motus impellit, dum contumelia irascimur, dum damno movemur, dum ira accendimur, dum metu perturbamur, dum amore

122  ³  The First Transformation

with Cicero’s more systematic analysis of passions and vices in his Tusculanae Disputationes.73 In his second passage, Hilary comments on the verse Deus exaudi orationem meam in Psalm 53. Hilary returns to the experience of movement and impulse in the soul that disturb equilibrium. He names some of these passions and repeats his concerns about “anger, hate, the blandishments of public adulation, the corrupting desire for lucre, and slander.”74 Commenting later on Psalm 118, Hilary quotes Isaiah about the bonds or restraints caused by sin (Is 5.18). Hilary lists his standard types of sin as habits which “constrain” the person.75 Interestingly, Hilary retains this same vocabulary for “movements of attraction within human nature.” He certainly does not subscribe to the earlier Stoic proposition that all emotions and movements are a threat to the wise person. Instead he distinguishes sharply between choices prompted by love from those prompted by hate.76 Even in his treatments of virtue in the third cluster, Hilary continues, on occasion, to appeal to examples and to analyses from Latin literary culture. Hilary claims that basic principles of justice can be known by everyone and he asserts the existence of a kind of natural law (Lex . . . veluti naturalis), which he confirms by a quotation from Romans and illustrates by examples similar to those expressed in Cicero.77 inflectimur, dum odio impellimur, dum gaudio efferimur, dum dolore stimulamur, dum iudicio dissidimus, dum aetate mutamur. His ergo subditi naturae infirmis motibus aequales esse non possumus, dum et adfectu demutabiles sumus et tempore (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 52.11). 73. . . . nam malitia certi cuiusdam vitii nomen est, vitiosita omnium—ex qua concitantur perturbationes, quae sunt, ut paulo ante diximus, turbidi animorum concitatique motus, aversi a ratione et inimicissimi mentis vitaeque tranquillae. Inportant enim aegritudines anxias atque acerbas animosque adfligunt et debilitant metu; iidem inflammant adpetitione nimia, quam tum cupiditatem, tum libidinem dicimus, inpotentiam quandam animi a temperantia et moderatione plurimum dissidentem (Cicero, Tusculanae Disputationes 4.15.34). 74. An illa quibus motus animi nostri et impetus pronuntiamus, tum cum de ira exardescimus, tum cum de odio obtrectamus, tum cum de dolore querimur, tum cum de adulatione blandimur, tum cum aut pro spe lucri aut de veritatis pudore mentimur aut de contumeliae offensione maledicimus? (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 53.6). 75. Ligat igitur omni vitiorum genere, ebrietatis consuetudine, voluptatum desideriis, infidelitatis piaculo (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.8.14). 76. Humanae eorum naturae omnes diversarum adfectionum adiacent motus, ut sunt odii et amoris. Sed amor impendendus est in dilectionem bonorum, odium autem adsumendum est ex offensa malorum (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.13.13). 77. . . . nam qui appetitus longius evagantur et tamquam exsultantes sive cupiendo sive fugiendo non satis a ratione retinentur . . . relinquunt enim et abiciunt oboedientiam nec rationi parent, cui sunt subiecti lege naturae; a quibus non modo animi perturbantur, sed etiam corpora (Cicero, De Officiis 1.29.102).

The First Transformation  ³  123

Sed hic praevaricatores existimantur omnes peccatores terrae; nullus excipitur, generaliter ad omnes praevaricationis nomen refertur. Lex enim veluti naturalis est iniuriam nemini adferre, nihil alienum praeripere, fraude ac periurio abstinere, alieno coniugio non insidiari. Novit et hanc naturae apostolus legem dicens: Cum enim nationes, quae legem non habent, naturaliter secundum legem faciunt, tales homines legem non habentes sibi ipsi sunt lex, qui ostendunt opus legis scriptum in cordibus suis [Rom 2.14–15]. (Tr. Ps. 118.15.11) (But here the transgressors are considered to be all the sinners of the earth: no one is excepted, for generally the term of transgression refers to all. For there is a sort of natural law: to do injury to no one, to seize nothing belonging to another, to abstain from fraud and perjury, not to plot against another’s marriage. And the Apostle knew of this law of nature when he said, “since the Gentiles, who do not have the Law, act naturally according to the law, such men without the Law are the law for themselves and show that the work of the Law is written in their hearts” [Rom 2.14–15].)

To represent the virtuous alternatives, Hilary, possibly influenced by Stoic models, refers to the ability of the “magnanimous” or “noble” person who conquers the disturbances by means of virtue.78 Again possibly influenced by his philosophical models, Hilary appeals to musical patterns in order to adopt balance and harmony and the acquisition of virtues to enable one to function in a seemly fashion.79 There are clear parallels to Cicero’s appeal to musical harmony to provide a model for the integration of values within the human person.80 The broad social values of popular Roman Stoicism may also inform the passage Tr. Ps. 118 where “justice” is described as the bond of peace within relationships human and divine (v 16).81 Certainly concordia, amicitia, and relations between humans and gods are persistent themes in Cicero.82 78. Frugalitatem autem et parsimoniam diligens nobilitatem animae caelestis captivam ebrietati non dereliquit (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.16.3). 79. Nostrum ergo est modo utilis organi corpora nostra in coaptatos et concinentes modos temperare, ut non vitia diligamus, ut non virtutes bonas oderimus, ut unicuique nos generi decenter atque utiliter coaptemus (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.13.13). 80. For an application of this comparison to social and political sphere: Ut enim in fidibus aut tibiis, atque ut in cantu ipso ac vocibus, concentus est quidam tenendus ex distinctis sonis . . . isque concentus ex dissimillimarum vocum moderatione concors tamen efficitur et congruens, sic ex summis et infimis et mediis interiectis ordinibus, ut sonis, moderata ratione civitas consensu dissimillimorum concinit, et quae harmonia a musicis dicitur in cantu, ea est in civitate concordia, artissimum atque optimum omni in re publica vinculum incolumitatis, eaque sine iustitia nullo pacto esse potest (Cicero, De Re Publica 2.42.69). 81. Iustitia etenim est amicitiae concordia, unanimitatis vinculum, fundamentum pacis, divinae atque humanae rationis operatio (Hilary, 118.16.4). 82. Cumque plurimas et maximas commoditates amicitia continet, tum illa nimirum praestat omnibus,

124  ³  The First Transformation

Although Hilary is indebted to his Latin rhetorical culture for his terminology for vices and for virtues and for their impact on the human subject, he certainly recontextualizes them within his Christian perspective. In a significant passage on Psalm 14, he distinguishes cultural values from Christian virtues. Quoting Colossians (2.22–23) and 1 Corinthians (2.14–15) in support, Hilary employs Pauline categories of “carnal,” “soul,” and “spirit” in order to classify and to rank virtues as capacities for action. We have already seen his account of the natural virtues, which recognize the responsible use of money, treatment of the poor, avoidance of ambition, and resistance to desires. These virtues elevate the human above the condition of beasts. Within these categories Hilary provides examples, comparisons, and judgments such as the contrast between “beast” and “human” which are similar to those found in Cicero.83 The distinguishing difference between Hilary’s assessment of his Latin culture and his Christian identity comes with his presentation of the category of “spirit.”84 The virtue and power of the spiritual level operate in and through the mystery of God in human flesh.85 Hilary’s treatment of spirit is as a central attribute of the Godhead. Hilary also applies “spirit” as a critical component in “the creation of the human” which provides a basis for “the spiritualization of the body” in the final transformation. This distinctive “spiritual” perspective provides knowledge about how God has won for us a victory over death, once again with the focus on the role of his body. There are a few other noticeable adjustments of perspective or emquod bona spe praelucet in posterum, nec debilitari animos aut cadere patitur. . . . Quod si exemeris ex rerum natura benevolentiae iunctinem, nec domus ulla nec urbs stare poterit, ne agri quidem cultus permanebit. Id si minus intellegitur, quanta vis amicitiae concordiaeque sit, ex dissensionibus atque discordiis percipi potest (Cicero, De Amicitia 7.23). 83. See, for example: nec vero illa parva vis naturae est rationisque, quod unum hoc animal sentit, quod sit ordo, [quid sit, quod deceat, in factis dictisque] qui modus. itaque eorum ipsorum, quae aspectu sentiuntur, nullum aliud animal pulchritudinem, venustatem, convenientiam partium sentit; quam similitudinem natura ratioque ab oculis ad animum transferens multo etiam magis pulchritudinem, constantiam, ordinem in consiliis factisque conservandam putat cavetque (Cicero, De Officiis 1.4.14). 84. For a systematic analysis of Hilary’s multiple uses of spiritus throughout his writings, consult Luis F. Ladaria, El Espiritu Santo en San Ilario de Poitiers (Madrid: Publ. Univ. Pontif. De Comillas, 1977). 85. Spiritalis autem est cui superiora illa ad Dominum studia sint et hoc quod agit per scientiam Dei agat intellegens et cognoscens quae sit voluntas eius, arcanum secreti consilii et absconditi a temporibus saeculi per revelationem ac donum spiritus sancti, intellegens et sciens quae ratio sit a Deo carnis adsumptae, qui crucis triumphus, quae mortis potestas, quae in virtute resurrectionis operatio (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 14.7).

The First Transformation  ³  125

phasis in Hilary’s presentation of the ethical features of this transformation. He subordinates virtue to the pivotal contribution of Christ; he expresses a more detailed principle of universality; he acknowledges the necessity of reform even with professing Christians. The acquisition of virtue is certainly an objective but Hilary does not see virtue as an end in itself. We have already seen his caveat on the ascetical virtues of “virginity,” “continence,” and “fasting” (Tr. Ps. 14.8). At Psalm 139 he continues to subordinate all virtue to the contribution of God.86 This affirmation of the essential role of the divine for salvation anticipates the discussions in the next two chapters on the fundamental role of the body of Christ in the two transformations at baptism and then after resurrection. Hilary’s consistent appeal to universal and comprehensive inclusion has a distinctively Christian dimension. Although there are universalizing influences in features of rhetorical cultures such as Cicero’s “cosmopolitanism” and rhetorical exempla that include women such as Lucretia and young people, Hilary expresses a general principle that we have already seen at Tr. Ps. 14.2. In that passage precepts in the divine Word reach out in the most appropriate adaptations to “infants,” “women,” “men,” and “seniors.” In a passage on Psalm 2, eternal life is offered through baptism “to all flesh.”87 This regeneration is applied to his interpretation of the potter passage from Jeremiah (2.39) in order to break down the vices in all people, in omnibus. He repeats, as we have seen, the same universal application at the end of his discussion of the “city in plague” on Psalm 13.88 There he is looking for a “doctor” to cure the whole world. One of the practical implications of Hilary’s universal and comprehensive perspective is his claim that there are churches in every city, urbs. He sets up a contrast between the Temple of Solomon in one city and the churches established in all parts of the world. In asserting that there are many churches in all the regions of the world, Hilary affirms their unity. “Although there is one Church in the world, each and 86. [H]aec autem e contrario precatio est, ut non virtutis suae salus, sed salutis suae virtus a [D]eo sit (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 139.10). 87. Haec ergo hereditas eius, ut omni carni det vitam aeternam, ut omnes gentes baptizatae atque regenerentur in vitam (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 2.31). 88. Opus erat medico, qui una atque eadem auxilii sui ope universa curaret et tot ac varios in toto orbe languores non arte, non opere . . . sed Verbi potestate sanaret (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 13.3).

126  ³  The First Transformation

every city obtains its own church.”89 This respect for diversity within a basic unity is also reflected in the variety he recognizes among people of virtue at Tr. Ps. 135 and in this case he names specifically biblical virtues of faith, hope, and charity.90 This affirmation of unity in the many Christian churches throughout the world might very well be a reflection of his consistent objectives. This theme informed his activities not only in western Gaul but also in Phrygia during his exile, his participation at the Synod of Paris upon his return from the East, his appeals to Constantius, and his campaign with Eusebius against Auxentius in Milan. Hilary, as we have seen, consistently anchors his perspectives in Christ and more specifically to his experiences “in his body” in order to identify the power to effect the transformations at each stage of his progressive model.91 Throughout his Treatise, Hilary connects “body of Christ” to “church” and to “city.” To emphasise the situation of the believer making the ascent to God, he returns to his symbolic equations of “a city built on a mountain,” “the body of Christ,” and “the church” with the causal connection that “we are the city of God.” Ergo quia qui Christi sunt in Christi corpore ante constitutionem mundi electi sunt et ecclesia corpus est Christi et fundamentum aedificationis nostrae Christus est et civitas super montem aedificata . . . cum et nos simus Dei civitas. (Tr. Ps. 14.5) (Therefore because they who belong to Christ have been chosen in the body of Christ before the beginning of the world, and the Church is the body of Christ and the foundation of our building and the city built on the mountain is Christ . . . since we too are the city of God.)

89. Sed et Moysi et Salomonis tabernaculum concidit; et deinceps apostoli plurima tabernacula condiderunt et per omnes orbis terrarum partes, quacumque adiri potest, quin etiam in Oceani insulis habitationes Deo plurimas paraverunt . . . Non ergo unum tabernaculum vel per Moysen frondeum vel per David exoptatum vel per Solomonem omnibus humanis operibus ornatum propheta desiderat, sed multa et innumerabilia, quia, etsi in orbe ecclesia una sit, tamen unaquaeque urbs ecclesiam suam obtinet; et una in omnibus cum tamen plures sint, quia una habetur in pluribus (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 14.3). 90. . . . id est per eiusdem huius saeculi turbidos aestus et fluctuantes motus transibimus, in quo plures ad iter divisiones sunt. [A]liis enim per ieiunia iter est, aliis per pudicitiam, aliis per eleemosynam, per fidem, per spem, per caritatem. [E]t haec omnia diversas necesse est habeant divisiones huius maris transeundi, omnibus tamen per has viarum divisiones iter saeculi transituris (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 135.14). 91. . . . omnes enim currimus adprehendere, in quo sumus adprehensi a Christo, id est inveniri in eius corpore, quod ex nobis ipse praesumpsit . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 13.4).

The First Transformation  ³  127

It is important to recognize that Christ is clearly the foundation for the first transformation. The appeals to “city on the mountain” and the “city of God” reflect the proleptic nature of Hilary’s thought. In answer to the question, “who will dwell in the tabernacle and who will rest on the holy mountain,” Hilary presents baptism as the means to be cleansed from vice. He goes on to name conventional kinds of activities to be avoided by the believer. He concludes on the note that while this first transformation is a major achievement, “the journey is only begun and yet not finished.”92 In fact he makes the telling observation that while many have made the confessio implied by baptism and are members of the Church, they still have a long way to go. He returns to this sense of the simple fragile beginning of the process initiated by baptism later on Psalm 63.93 In this discussion of ethical transformation, we have identified the range of indebtedness Hilary has to his background in Latin rhetorical culture. Although he uses that culture to identify vices, to establish the priority of virtue and to present the impact of vice upon the person, Hilary redeploys these with a Christian emphasis. He clearly grounds this first transformation in the power of the body of Christ.

Confessio of the Godhead

The act of confessio includes a second element beyond the ethical that acknowledges the divine role in this transformative process. Although there are distinctively Christian fundamental beliefs in this “profession,” there are some selective connections to Latin cultural treatments of the Godhead. In his Tractatus, Hilary identifies some positive elements within Latin culture. Hilary recognizes traces of his interest in God as “one,” as “creator,” and as “provident.” In a passage on Psalm 1, 92. Igitur impollutus ingrediens et extra omnem peccati labem vivens hic esse responsus est, cui post baptismi lavacrum nullae adhaeserint sordes, sed sit immaculatus et nitidus sitque ei non corpus stupris contaminatum, non oculi spectaculis theatralibus sordidi, non mens vino ebria, non pecuniae vita ancilla. Magnum est igitur his abstinere, sed non in his statim confecti itineris est requies; coepta enim in his via est, non peracta (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 14.6). 93. Non sanctum, non fidelem, non iustum, sed immaculatum sagittant eum cui per sacramentum baptismi sordes, et maculae veterum criminum recens ablutae sunt, nondum tamen firmatae fidei, nondum doctrinis spiritalibus eruditum, nondum contra haec pugnacis linguae arma certantem, sed simplicem et ex novae nativitatis infantia tenerum (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 63.7).

128  ³  The First Transformation

Hilary expresses respect for the traditional Roman with themes very similar to those which he had used in his autobiography in book 1 of De Trinitate, almost a decade earlier. Hilary acknowledges that in Roman culture there is an appreciation for the enduring features of the Godhead as one and as creator of the world: Possunt enim haec et in saeculari viro reperiri, ut unum Deum esse creatorem mundi opinetur. (For these beliefs can be found even in the secular man so that he would think that one God is the creator of the universe [Tr. Ps. 1.11]). This passage on Psalm 1 goes on to acknowledge conventional Roman appreciation for the value of the otium of a private and tranquil life just as he had done at the outset of that autobiography in De Trinitate. In the same Psalm Hilary continues to appeal to certain features of Latin rhetorical and philosophical treatments of the divine providence. He makes an important distinction between the impious man (impius) and the sinner (peccator) (Ps 1.7).94 The impious are those people who deny that God is creator of the world and its source of order and beauty and the judge of the moral status of humans. These “impious” wish “to be born and to die subject simply to natural necessity.” Hilary does repudiate views within public culture unacceptable to Christian faith such as this denial of divine providence. On several occasions in his commentary Hilary returns to the role of the divine to provide evidence which ought to elicit piety. He expands the theme of divine providence with illustrations of patterns of intelligible order in the cosmos, the natural world, and in the structures of particular organs and practices of individual species. For many of these passages there are close parallels with texts in Cicero’s philosophical treatises, which are identified in the apparatus of Doignon’s edition.95 In a comment on Psalm 65, for example, Hilary summarizes some patterns in the world of the sky, earth, and sea which are providentially designed to function according to an order which supplies protection 94. Igitur secundum hoc propositum exemplum impium discerni a peccatore non dubium est. Et impios quidem eos esse natura ipsa iudicii communis ostendit, qui cognitionem Dei expetere fastidiunt, qui nullum esse mundi creatorem inreligiosa opinione praesumunt, qui mundum in hunc habitum ornatumque fortuitis motibus constitisse commemorant, qui, ne quod iudicium creatori suo ob vitam recte criminoseve gestam relinquant, volunt ex naturae necessitate se nasci et ex eadem rursum necessitate dissolvi (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 1.7). 95. Jean Doignon also argues that this material may have been mediated to Hilary through the Latin apologetical traditions of Tertullian, Minucius Felix, and Lactantius.

The First Transformation  ³  129

and nourishment for human use and control. This should evoke reverence for divine majesty, “who established the ages, who founded the universe, who measured out the seasons, who decorated the heavens with stars, who filled the earth with produce, who marked off the seas with barriers and who chose men to either enjoy or be dominated by these things.”96 Admittedly the passage ultimately concludes with an allusion to the divine injunction in Genesis “to use the earth and to dominate it,”(Gn 1.28) but there also exists an extensive parallel in Cicero, Tusculanae Disputationes, which Doignon notes.97 Cicero spends considerably more time on the patterns and movements of sun, moon, and planets in the heavens, alterations of day and night, the four seasons, the location of the globe of the earth in the middle of the universe. He does go on to acknowledge the provision of support for human beings and the providential nature of these designs.98 Again at Tr. Ps. 68.29,99 91.3–4,100 and 96. Quis enim non trepidet ad maiestatem eius, qui saecula instituerit, mundum condiderit, tempora revolubili vicissitudine cursuque dimensus sit, caelum astris ornaverit, terram fructibus repleverit, mare obicibus concluserit, hominem ut his aut uteretur aut dominaretur elegerit? (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 65.5). 97. . . . tum multitudinem pecudum partim ad vescendum, partim ad cultus agrorum, partim ad vehendum, partim ad corpora vestienda, hominemque ipsum quasi contemplatorem caeli ac deorum cultorem, atque hominis utilitati agros omnes et maria parentia—haec igitur et alia innumerabilia cum cernimus, possumusne dubitare, quin is praesit, aliquis vel effector (Cicero, Tusculanae Disputationes 1.28.69). 98. Jean Doignon demonstrates that this appeal to design, order, and beauty in creation was a prominent theme in the Christian apologetical tradition as well. See, for example, Tertullian, Adversus Valentinianos 3 (briefly), Adversus Marcionem 1.10, 1.11, 1.12, 1.13, Ad Nationes 2.5. See Cyprian, Ad Demetriadem 14. 99. Laus universa ex rerum admirabilitate proficiscitur. Tum enim aliquid laude dignum videtur, cum opus ipsum ita magnificum atque praeclarum est, ut et providentiam ac virtutem gerentis et gestorum decus usumque contineat. Quod itaque sensum atque opinionem ingenii communis excellat, id per admirationem sui meretur et laudem: caelum ergo quod tanto ornatu distinctum impletum est tantosque motus atque cursus incredibili constantia ac varietate conservet, ut annum inter hiemem caloremque temperatis autumni et veris temporibus moderetur et finiat; terra autem quae supernis inumbrata naturis vel complexa in sese vel suscepta sinu semina et contineat et alat et fecundet et secundum uniuscuisque generis naturam usum maturitate consolidet; mare autem quod vitae nostrae modo nunc hausto spiritu nunc refuso animetur et maneat motuque in tanta sui varietate rationibus se lunaris incrementi detrimentique moderetur et profunda infinitaque sui obice mentem humanae opinionis excedat, ut neque quid extra se neque quid intra sit sensu persequente capiamus. In his tamen tantis tamque admirabilibus rerum naturarumque virtutibus in Deo . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 68.29). 100. Si sol signaque cetera cursus suos obeunt et habent ab eo permanendi in his in quibus sunt substantiam, a quo in hos cursus atque in haec officia composita sunt, si terra fructus suos profert materiem fecunditatis in dies sumens, per quam ei secundum temporum vices quaedam fertilitatis natura subiecta est, si cotidie animarum origines et corporum figurationes occulta et incognita nobis divinae virtutis molitione procedunt, et magnum est muneris tanti dona sentire, cum tamen eorum institutio nesciatur, sed haec etsi opus Dei sunt, verum in his labor nullus est, et quamquam habeant ex auctore suo ac dominante, quod talia sunt, non tamen eum a quo orta et per quem cotidie talia sunt defatigant (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 91.3). For the parallel with Cicero, see n. 97. Jean Doignon also adds the previous paragraph: Ut cum videmus

130  ³  The First Transformation

134.11,101 Hilary reflects on this providential basis for cosmic order and pattern in the sky, earth and sea. In the first instance he emphasizes the diversity and consistency of patterns of movements in the heavens, the annual sequence of the seasons, the rhythm of the crops, the pattern of the tides in relation to phases of the moon. In the second passage (Tr. Ps. 91.3–4), Hilary returns to the issue of order and pattern with perhaps a little more focus on provisions for humans.102 In each case Doignon provides parallels to Cicero’s De Oratore, in the first case, and to Cicero’s Tusculanae Disputationes as well as a brief one to De Natura Deorum for the second.103 From the order in the universe, Hilary goes on to cite at least one pattern among living species. He comments on the protective instinct of birds and chickens. At Tr. Ps. 56.3 he notes the care which birds take to provide protection for their young by covering them with their wings.104 Hilary quotes the lament over Jerusalem in Matthew (Mt 23.37) but Doignon also provides an extended parallel for the care with which birds speciem primum candoremque caeli, dein conversionis celeritatem tantam, quantam cogitare non possumus, tum vicisstudines dierum ac noctium commutationesque temporum quadrupertitas ad maturitatem frugum et ad temperationem corporum aptas eorumque omnium moderationem et ducem solem, lunamque adcretione et deminutione luminis quasi fastorum notantem et significantem dies, tum in eodem orbe in duodecim partes distributo quinque stellas ferri, eosdem cursus constantissime servantis, disparibus inter se motibus, nocturnamque caeli formam undique sideribus ornatam, tum globum terrae eminentem e mari, fixum in medio mundi universi loco, duabus oris distantibus habitabilem et cultum, quarum altera, quam nos incolimus, sub axe posita ad stellas septem, unde horrifer aquilonis stridor gelidas militur nives, altera australis, ignota nobis, quam vocant Graeci, αὐτίχθοντα ceteras partis incultas, quod aut frigore rigeant aut urantur calore: hic autem, ubi habitamus, non intermittit suo tempore (Tusculanae Disputationes 1.28.68). 101. Et quidem magnum est, si contueamur indemutabilem caeli firmitatem, solem annuis cursibus indefessisque moderatum vicesque anni definitis limitibus temperantem, perennes quoque lunae vicissitudines et inperturbatos ortus, lapsus, conversiones signorum, iam vero terrae opes et fecundos eius fructus in vitam hominum, pecudum, volucrum, bestiarum, plena deinde incolis suis maria et spirantium intra fluctus piscium vitam, tum porro, quia plurali genere maria graecitas elocuta est, oceani inaestimabiles vices et capacis abyssi inperspicabilem naturam, qua refusus in teram aestus resorbetur. [S]ed cum haec secundum humanam opinionem plena miraculis sint ac de ipsis dici merito debeat: omnia, quae voluit, fecit in caelo et in terra, in mari et in abyssis (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 134.11). 102. For an informative article on the probable role of Minucius Felix, as well as the self-reflexive sense of awe in the prayer in De Trin. 12.54, consult Jean Doignon, “Ordre du monde, Connaissance de Dieu et Ignorance de Soi chez Hilaire de Poitiers,” RSPT 60 (1976): 565–78. 103. For an example of Doignon’s parallels: . . . in quibus etiam felicitatem ipsam deorum immortalium iudicio tribui laudationis est (Cicero, De Oratore 2.85.347); isto igitur tam inmenso spatio quaero Balbe cur Pronoea vestra cessaverit. laboremne fugiebat? (De Natura Deorum 1.9.22). 104. Avibus naturae est infirmitatem pullorum alis inumbrare eosque a praetervolantium vi atque improbitate defendere, quod et in gallinis maxime noscimus, cum collectos intra pinnas fetus suos aut opacant aut tuentur (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 56.3).

The First Transformation  ³  131

and chickens provide for their young in contrast to the behavior of turtles and crocodiles in Cicero’s De Natura Deorum.105 We have already seen in our discussion of Tr. Ps. 54.7 in the last chapter that Hilary uses “birds on the wing” as a metaphorical reference to “spiritualization of the body.” He also finds evidence of providential design in the functions of human physiology. For example, Hilary refers to the complexity of the physiological structures designed to produce an intelligible voice.106 In Cicero’s De Natura Deorum, Doignon finds a similar treatment but with more attention to anatomical dynamics and allusions to production of musical notes.107 The vir saecularis thus can recognise in the ordered patterns of the universe, the natural world and in physiology evidence for divine providence at work. Moreover, Hilary seems to assign to the vir saecularis not just the satisfaction of this intellectual grasp of the divine as principle of order but also the human religious response of awe and reverence. In the passage Tr. Ps. 65.6 dealing with order in the universe, noted above, Hilary picks up the condition of the profanus auditor and applies it to the expected state of amazement, awe “at the majesty of the divine creator.” Hilary’s extensive positive assessment of Roman perspectives on the divine goes much further than his negative remarks on traditional Roman attitudes towards the divine which he had noted at the beginning of his stylised autobiography. There at the outset of his search he had dismissed a variety of traditional Roman views on the divine. At 105. Quid dicam quantus amor bestiarum sit in educandis custodiendisque is quae procreaverunt, usque ad eum finem dum possint se ipsa defendere. . . . iam gallinae avesque reliquae et quietum requirunt ad pariendum locum et cubilia sibi nidosque construunt eosque quam possunt mollissume substernunt, ut quam facillume ova serventur; e quibus pullos cum excuderunt ita tuentur ut et pinnis foveant ne frigore laedantur et si est calor a sole se opponant; cum autem pulli pinnulis uti possunt, tum volatus eorum matres prosequuntur, reliqua cura liberantur (Cicero, De Natura Deorum 2.51–52.129). 106. Linguae humanae officium est ut naturali impulsa ratione motu vario eodemque moderato vocem in verba distinguat extetque per eam ex confuso erumpentis spiritus sono dissonans ad rerum intellegentiam sermo (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 51.7). 107. Ad usum autem orationis incredibile est, nisi diligenter attenderis, quanta opera machinata natura sit. primum enim a pulmonibus arteria usque ad os intimum pertinet, per quam vox principium a mente ducens percipitur et funditur. deinde in ore sita lingua est finita dentibus; ea vocem inmoderate profusam fingit et terminat atque sonos vocis distinctos et pressos efficit cum et dentes et alias partes pellit oris; itaque plectri similem linguam nostri solent dicere, chordarum dentes, nares cornibus is qui ad nervos resonant in cantibus (Cicero, De Natura Deorum 2.59.149).

132  ³  The First Transformation

De Trintate 1.4 he stereotyped four positions on the divinity represented by various sectors of Roman culture. He began with a rejection of the views of the divinity to be found in poetry with an emphasis on sexual activities and numbers of the gods and he repeats that criticism in the Tractatus, as we have seen. He mentioned those who categorically denied the existence of gods, which he repeats during his comments on “impiety” in Psalm 1. He then summarizes the position of the Epicureans who accepted the existence of the gods but denied their providence, which he repeats here as well. Finally, he mentioned those who identified the divine with the elements of the earth or with various creatures or with material objects of metal, stone, or wood. All of these were inadequate to fulfil his longing to know the God who cared for him. In his autobiographical section of De Trinitate, Hilary discovered fundamental features of God through his encounter with specific scriptural texts. “I am who Am” (Ex 3.14) assured him of the existence of God. Then a portfolio of three biblical texts (Is 40.12, 66.1–2; Ps 138.7–10; Ws 3.5) all demonstrated to him the universal providence of God. The portrait of the divine in the autobiography of the De Trinitate is shaped around the conclusion of that journey in the knowledge of the Christian theological formulation of God who satisfies his intense personal anxiety about personal survival after death. In that text Hilary developed the position in a much more intensely personal fashion than in these passages of the Tractatus. Here Hilary appeals to ethical transformation and to providential order in the universe. He demonstrates Providence through patterns in living things and in human physiology which are all reflected in Stoicism, the dominant philosophical tradition of Hilary’s milieu. Stoics were convinced of a fundamental intelligible order that directed the universe and everything in it.108 Hence they developed an interest in astronomy with its variety of predictable cycles, the correlation between the moon and tides, and grammatical structures of language. Another important feature of Stoic interest was the nature, origin, and structure of ethical values. The basis of Stoic ethics is the rational correspondence 108. For critical discussions on Stoic physics, consult Robert B. Todd, “The Stoics and Their Cosmology in the First and Second Centuries AD,” and Michael Lapidge, “Stoic Cosmology and Roman Literature, First to Third Centuries AD,” both in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, 36.3, edited by Wolfgang Haase, 1365–78 and 1379–429, respectively (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989).

The First Transformation  ³  133

of human behaviour to the principle of order in nature.109 Thus these themes on both ethics and the divine reflect themes in the residual Stoicism which informs Hilary’s assessment of the vir saecularis. Moreover Stoic interest in compatibility between “spirit” and “matter” will provide the context for Hilary’s treatment of creation of the human and the ultimate transformation of the risen body in the last chapter. These statements on divine existence and providence, do not, of course, exhaust Hilary’s full profession of his faith in God. In the Tractatus, there are few or no references to creedal professions but there are frequent tributes to the marvellous works of God manifested primarily in the salvation of the fallen human race. One eloquent example occurs in the concluding paragraph of his comment on Psalm 67: Mirabilis Deus in sanctis suis. Before he proceeds to deal with this verse in the Psalm, Hilary adds the John 17.24 and 21: Pater, volo ut, ubi ego sum, hi mecum sint and ut omnes unum sint, ego in illis et tu in me. (Father, I wish that, where I am, these may be with me [and] that all may be one, I in them and you in me.) Mirabilis ergo in sanctis Deus est, quos, cum conformes gloriae corporis sui fecerit, per se, qui mediator est, etiam in unitate paternae maiestatis adsumet, dum et in eo per naturam Pater est ille rursum per societatem carnis in nobis est, quos in regnum praeparatum illis ante constitutionem mundi obtinendum locaverit, quibus, absorpta morte, immortalem vitam aeternam reddiderit. (Tr. Ps. 67.37). (Therefore “God is glorious in his saints.” Since he made them conformed to the glory of his body, through him, who is mediator, he has taken up even within the unity of the Father’s majesty, as long as both the Father is in him by nature, and he is in us through the association with the body. He has placed 109. On natural law: est quidem vera lex recta ratio naturae congruens, diffusa in omnes, constans, sempiterna, quae vocet ad officum iubendo, vetando a fraude deterreat; quae tamen neque probos frustra iubet aut vetat nec inprobos iubendo aut vetando movet. huic legi nec obrogari fas est neque derogari aliquid ex hac licet neque tota abrogari potest . . . nec erit alia lex Romae, alia Athenis, alia nunc, alia posthac, sed omnes gentes et omni tempore una lex et sempiterna et inmutabilis continebit, unusque erit communis quasi magister et imperator omnium deus; ille legis huius inventor, disceptator, lator; cui qui non parebit, ipse se fugiet ac naturam hominis aspernatus hoc ipso luet maximas poenas, etiamsi cetera supplicia, quae putantur, effugerit (Cicero, De Re Publica 3.27.22). This version of the passage is preserved in Lactantius, Institutiones Divinae 6.8.6–9. On the study of these patterns of order in the universe, which encourage a desire for immortality: Ipsa enim cogitatio de vi et natura deorum studium incendit illius aeternitatem imitandi, neque se in brevitate vitae collocatum putat, cum rerum causas alias ex aliis aptas et necessitate nexas videt, quibus ab aeterno tempore fluentibus in aeternum ratio tamen mensque moderatur (Tusculanae Disputationes 5.25.68–70).

134  ³  The First Transformation

them in the kingdom prepared for their occupation before the foundation of the world. To them after absorbing death he restored eternal everlasting life.)

This passage on the final goal of salvation both helps to complete the themes of Hilary’s confessio Dei, and it also anticipates the objectives for the next chapter. To conclude Hilary’s transformation from the vir saecularis to the baptized Christian, it is important to see his model of the Christian life as progressive in two senses. There is the sequential sense in which the person moves from one condition to another, and better, condition. There is also the positive sense in which selected values of the initial phase are preserved and enhanced in the latter stage. This latter sense of progressive distinguishes Hilary’s model for the Christian life somewhat from Cyprian and from many of the ascetical Lives identified in chapter 1. The fundamental dynamic, which enables this step and all the transformations in Hilary’s three stages of the Christian life, becomes most evident in the Christian understanding of the Godhead and the personal mission of the Son in and through his body. This focus on the body of Christ has been evident since our treatments of Hilary’s exegesis in chapter 2 with comparisons between Hilary’s commentary and that of his sources in Origen. Repeatedly we noted that where Hilary applied passages in Scripture to Christ in his body, the contaminated texts of Origen did not. Since we began this chapter with “a city in plague” (Tr. Ps. 13.3), we conclude with a reference to captivity in another city. On Psalm 125 Hilary reflects on the experience of the Jews in Babylon. He begins his comment on this Psalm with a dismissal of those who see no deeper level of meaning beyond the literal level in the text of Scripture. He is looking for a spiritual level of meaning at once “higher” and “deeper.”110 He then applies the references to “captivity” to the condition of vice and sin and the need for liberation from this ethical condition.111 Many of the 110. Nisi essent in psalmis quaedam tales prophetiae, ut in res atque homines eorum temporum, quibus scripta sunt, non convenirent, profecto auderent multi nihil in psalmis spiritaliter dictum existimare putarentque nos quasdam commenticias assertiones et ementitas interpretationes inquirere, quibus videremur altius nescio quid ac profundius ceterorum sensu intellexisse, proinde quasi nos sensui nostro ea, quae scripta sunt, coaptemus et non magis ex his, quae scripta sunt sensum diligentis et sollicitae intellegentiae consequamur (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 125.1). 111. Verum si cognita sapientiae doctrina et [D]ei praedicatione et remissione universorum peccatorum

The First Transformation  ³  135

same vices are repeated here but the virtues include continentia and tend to reflect biblical virtues such as “mercy,” “peace,” “joy,” and “charity.” We will examine this emergence of biblical moral perspectives in chapter 5. Hilary consistently links this transformative process to “incorporation within the body of Christ, the Church, and the city of Sion.”112 This universal incorporation into the body of Christ of the Church and the city of Sion is the most distinctive element in the first transformation and the whole subsequent progress to demutatio. Hilary’s consistent emphasis on the body of Christ, as the source and means for the transformations from vir saecularis to believer as well as resurrectio to demutatio, provides the principle focus for the next chapter. et resurrectione corporum et aeternitatis consortio et regno caelesti a dominantibus superioribus de avaritia ad munificentiam transeamus, de libidinibus ad continentiam migremus, de ebrietqate ad ieiunia revertamur, de furore, temeritate, odio, livore ad placabilitatem, rationem, misericordiam, benignitatem evolemus discentes haec omnia a lege, prophetis, evangeliis, apostolis et cantantes ex lege . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 125.6). [D]uas autem esse sationes sanctus apostolus Paulus docuit, carnis et spiritus, demonstratis et enumeratis seminibus sationis utriusque, cum caro adulteria, veneficia, comisationes, ebrietatem, avaritiam, idololatriam et cetera his similia sereret, spiritus vero pacem, gaudium, continentiam, caritatem, sobrietatem, mansuetudinem et quae sunt his consequentia seminaret, et sata sua uno quoque messuro [cf. Gal 6.8; 5.19–22] (125.11). 112. [A]vertit enim [D]eus captivitatem nostram per remissionem peccatorum. [A] dominatu enim vitiorum animam liberavit anteriora delicta non reputans et nos in vitam novam renovans et in novum hominem transformans, constituens nos in corpore carnis suae. [I]pse est enim ecclesia, per sacramentum corporis sui in se universam eam continens. [N]on erat Sion ante, quam liberaretur; sed Sion est, quae liberata est (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 125.6).

4

The Christological Foundation for Transformation

T

he power and dynamism that effects transformation in each stage of Hilary’s model for the Christian life is communicated by the divine operating in and through the body of Christ. Right from his early In Matthaeum, Hilary links this theme to his understanding of Church and develops that connection throughout the Tractatus. Hilary continues to characterize the divine as “spirit” and “eternal.” To safeguard the equality of the Father and Son, he employs some of the strategies of the earlier commentary and then refined in his disputes with the Homoians in his De Trinitate. Two recent studies, in particular, have helped to identify more clearly the range of influence Basil of Ancyra and his circle had upon Hilary’s presentation of the divinity of Christ, as we shall soon see.1 In De Trinitate, Hilary had developed both the unique status of the

1. For an important contribution to our understanding of the developments of Hilary’s Trinitarian thought from the period before his exile and then his significant responses to Sirmium 357 acquired during his increasing familiarity with Basil of Ancyra, consult Mark Weedman, The Trinitarian Theology of Hilary of Poitiers, Supplements to VC 39 (Leiden: Brill, 2007). Then for an assessment of the internal evidence for the complex stages of the composition of the De Trin. and the development of Hilary’s thought during that process, consult Carl L. Beckwith, Hilary of Poitiers On the Trinity: From De Fide to De Trinitate (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008).

136

  The Christological F oundat ion  ³  137

eternal generation of Christ to account for his relation to the Father and also his virginal birth to account for his freedom from sin and its consequences. In same text he deployed the Christological hymn in Philippians (2.6–11) to affirm the continuing divinity of the Son at each stage of his existence. In the Tractatus, Hilary expands this use of the Philippians text to maintain the continuity of the divine in Christ. Although Hilary does acknowledge the human soul of Christ in the Tractatus, just as had in his earlier work on the Trinity, we shall see that he seems to revert to his earliest arguments to account for the experiences of ignorance and suffering in Christ. Some of the other significant features of De Trinitate, as we shall see, are also absent in the Tractatus super Psalmos. In our discussion in chapter 2 on Hilary’s exegesis and use of Origen for technical information in his Instructio, there became apparent a suggestive pattern of references to the body of Christ at paragraphs 5 (twice), 6, and 7. There Hilary clearly seemed to be relying on Origen for technical information on “allegory,” “key of David,” and “the shape of a musical instrument (psalterium).” In all four cases, Hilary applied the information to Christ and specifically to the body of Christ. In each of these parallels the extant fragments of Origen were silent on the body of Christ. In two passages Hilary made reference to Christ’s body in a specific sequence of experiences. In paragraph 5, the second example applied the issue to the experience “in the body of the only-begotten Son in his birth, suffering, death, resurrection and shared glorification.”2 The passage in paragraph 6 had a similar sequence with the prophet speaking about the seven signs of “his incorporation, suffering, death, resurrection and glory, reign and judgment.”3 The first example in paragraph 5 was marginally different but spoke of “incorporation, suffering, reign and our resurrection.”4 The passage in paragraph 7 interpreted the spiritual level of the shape of the psalterium as denoting “the form of 2. Sunt enim universa allegoricis et typicis contexta virtutibus, per quae omnia unigeniti Dei Filii in corpore et gignendi et patiendi et moriendi et resurgendi et in aeterum cum conglorificatis sibi, qui in eum crediderint, regnandi et cetereos iudicandi sacramenta panduntur (Hilary, Instr. 5). 3. Clavem igitur David habet, quia ipse per haec septem quaedem signacula, quae de corporalitate eius et passione et morte et resurrectione et gloria et regno et iudicio David de eo in psalmis prophetat (Hilary, Instr. 6). 4. . . . tamen totum illud ad cognitionem adventus Domini nostri Iesu Christi et corporationis et passionis et regni et resurrectionis nostrae gloriam virtutem referatur (Hilary, Instr. 5).

138  ³  The Christological F oundat ion

the body of the Lord.”5 Moreover throughout the Tractatus, Hilary frequently links “the body of Christ” to “church,” and to “heavenly city.” In Hilary’s discussions of the extended sense of the body of Christ the master metaphor of city continues to play a role. The silence in the fragments of Origen on these specific applications to the successive stages of the “body of Christ” does not mean that he has nothing to say about Christ. In Psalm 2, which refers to “the iron scepter with which you will break them” (v. 2), the fragment from Origen focuses on Christ and uses Isaiah to connect him with “the branch of Jesse and its bloom” (Is 11.1–2). He goes on to invoke, from the same passage, the Spirit who came over him and endowed him with the “spirit of wisdom and understanding, counsel, courage, knowledge, piety and fear of the Lord.”6 In another treatment of Christ the fragments cryptically state that knowledge of the divinity of Christ is hidden and ineffable (Is 9.1).7 In yet another passage, the fragments do mention “the body of Christ.” The fragments acknowledge that the “Father sent the only-begotten Word into this world so that being made flesh completely without being changed in his nature he would declare pardon to captives, and sight to the blind” (Ps 2.8).8 The surviving Latin translation of Origen’s second homily on Psalm 36 does have a somewhat generic application of Ephesians which states that Christ looks after the Church because it is his own body (Eph 5.30).9 In one passage, there is an instructive parallel between Origen’s treatment and Hilary’s treatment of the body of Christ. In his comments on Psalm 55, Origen introduces a passage from Philippians, which is to provide a major influence for the ways in which Hilary formulates the 5. . . . sed in formam dominici corporis constitutum organum sine ullo inflexu deflexuve directum est (Hilary, Instr. 7). 6. Ἐξελεύσεται γὰρ, φησὶ, ῤάβδος ἐκ τῆς ῤίζης Ἰεσσαί, καὶ ἄνθος ἐκ τῆς ῤίζης ἀναβήσεται, καὶ ἀναπαύσεται ἐπʹαὐτὸν Πνεῦμα τοῦ Θεοῦ, πνεῦμα σοφίας καὶ συνέσεως, πνεῦμα βουλῆς καὶ ἰσχύος, πνεῦμα γνώσεως καὶ εὐσεβείας, καὶ ἐμπλήσει αὐτὸν πνεῦμα φόβου Θεοῦ [Is 11.1–2] (Origen, PG 12 1109A). 7. Κρύφιά ἐστι γνῶσις ἀπόῤῥητος [sic] τῶν περὶ Χριστοῦ τοῦ ἀληθινοῦ Θεοῦ μυστηρίων (Origen, PG 12 1185D). 8. . . . καὶ Πατὴρ πέπομφεν εἰς τόνδε τὸν ἐνεστηκότα κόσμον τὸν μονγενῆ Λόγον, ἵνα γενόμενος σὰρξ, καὶ χωρηθεὶς, καὶ φύσει ἀστραφὴς, κηρύξῃ αἰχμαλώτοις ἂφεσιν, καὶ τυφλοῖς ἀνάβλεψιν (Origen, PG 12 1108C). 9. Si intellexistis exemplum, redeamus nunc ad id quod propositum est. Apostolus dicit quia corpus Christi sumus, et membra ex parte. Christus ergo cuius omne hominum genus, imo fortassis totius creaturae universitas corpus est, et uniusquisque nostrum membra ex parte est (Origen, PG 12 1330A). For his comment on this passage, consult Antonio Orazzo, La salvezza in Ilario di Poitiers: Cristo salvatore dell’uomo nei Tractatus super Psalmos (Napoli: M. of Auria, 1986), 92–93.

  The Christological F oundat ion  ³  139

relation between the divine and human in Christ throughout the Tractatus. They are each commenting on verse 4: “In God I will hope; I will not fear what flesh may do to me.” Both Origen and Hilary apply the verse to Christ. The short fragment from Origen uses the terminology of “accepting the form of a servant [Phil 2.7] and being made in the likeness of sinful flesh, but he did not know sin, and assumed flesh although he alone of all who live in the flesh was without sin.”10 Hilary, too, appeals to the same biblical passage but develops his more extensive discussion to focus not so much on “the sinlessness of Christ” but on the body of Christ. Hilary follows Origen’s use of Philippians but for him the divine is not limited by flesh but operates through it. For Hilary, Christ’s body is not a barrier to the exercise of divine power but rather his body is the instrument through which the divine power engages humans. Christ exercises divine power through the body “by walking on water,” “by effecting a cure through touching his garment,” “in healing the blind and an ear which had been cut off,” “in forgiving sins,” and “moving through walls.”11 This comparison at Tr. Ps. 55.5 demonstrates Hilary’s continuing emphasis on the body of Christ and its critical function to express and to apply divine power.12 This passage, then, sets up our discussion of Hilary’s treatment of the divine and the human in Christ. In several ways his discussions in the Tractatus reflect his methods from his early In Matthaeum with frequent use of forms of adsumere corpus/carnem. Here, however, he will suggest an important distinction between “being a nature” and “taking 10. Οὐ φοβηθήομαι τί ποήσει μοι σὰρξ, κ.τ.ἑ. Ὁ τὴν τοῦ δοῦλου μορφὴν λαβῶν καὶ ἐν ὁμοιώματι γενόμενος σαρκὸς ἁμαρτίας, ὁ μὴ γνοὺς ἁμαρτίαν, ὑπὲρ ἡμῶν ἁμαρτίαν ἑαυτὸν ἐποίησε, σάρκα ἀναλαμβάνων, καὶ μηδὲν μόνος τῶν ἐν σαρκὶ ζησάντων ἁμαρτὼν, θαῥῤούτως λέγοι τό· “Τί ποιήσει μοι σάρξ” ( Origen, PG 12 1469C). 11. Sed digna plane etiam haec unigenito Deo vox est, cui exinanienti se ex Dei forma virtutem Dei atque naturam servilis forma non abstulit. Factus enim caro Deus etiam in adsumptione carnis Deus esse permansit utens virtutis suae sub consortio nostri corporis potestate. Non enim carne est degravatus, ne super undas ambularet neque non ut usque ad fimbrias vestis virtus divinae potestatis exiret neque ut non peccata dimitteret et sputo suo naturam videndi caecis ab utero oculis accenderet et, aure producta de vulnere abcisae auris, vulnus obduceret neque ut non solida parietum, corpore interlabente, penetraret (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 55.5). 12. For an informative catalogue of Hilary’s distinctive terms featuring “body,” consult Antonio Orazzo, La salvezza in Ilario di Poitiers: Cristo Salvatore dell’ vomo nei Tarctatus super Psalmos (Naples: M. of Auria, 1986), 86. He includes sacramentum corporationis (Instr. 6; 2.3; 63.2; 63.10); sacramentum dei corporati (1.5); mysterium corporationis (1.17); de sacramento futurae corporationis (1.14); Dominica corporatio (118.16.15); factum nostri corporis homo (51.3); corporatus deus (51.16); forma humani corporis (9.3); adventus corporalis (2.3); adventus corporeus (Instr. 5).

140  ³  The Christological F oundat ion

up a nature.” There are some other important developments in Hilary’s treatment of Christ. The most significant is Hilary’s use of Philippians (2.6–11) with the movement of Christ from forma Dei to forma servi and back to glory.13 This trajectory is quite consistent with the sequential stages of Christ’s mission in and through his body noted above as distinctive of Hilary in many of the parallels with Origen. The language of this Philippians passage provides Hilary with functional terminology for his treatments of Christ throughout the Tractatus. Another passage from the same epistle will provide the governing terminology for our next chapter on the final transformation of the resurrected body. Hilary’s uses of Philippians continue to suggest the contributions of his Greek sources provided by the circle around Basil of Ancyra.

Divinity of Christ: Continuities and Innovation

For his discussions of the Divine in the Tractatus, one might expect Hilary to integrate into his earlier themes the strategies, arguments, and scriptural passages he had developed in De Trinitate, highlighted in the recent monographs by Mark Weedman and Carl L. Beckwith. They discussed six themes in Basil and his circle that Hilary used in his De Trinitate. Hilary learned the polemical strategy of framing the extremes of the modalism of Sabellius and the adoptionism of Photinus against his adversaries.14 He also learned and applied the full meaning of the names “Father” and “Son,”15 the limitations of human analogies,16 the importance of “the Son as image of the Father,”17 and the critical notion of 13. For an informative examination of the use of Philippians 2.6–11 in Basil of Ancyra and then Hilary’s appeals to it in De Trin. 2, 7, and 10, consult Weedman, The Trinitarian, 130–35, 157–73. It should be noted that other significant scriptural passages in De Trinitate do not reappear with nearly the same frequency in the Tractatus. 14. For discussions of this strategy, consult Weedman, The Trinitarian, 93–95 and Beckwith, On the Trinity, 81–84. In the few examples of Hilary’s reaction to opponents at 63.10, 67.15 and 137.7, we will see him employ a wider range of categories. 15. For his discussion of these titles as early as the De Synodis, see Weedman, The Trinitarian, 105–13. For his discussion which begins with the baptismal formal at Mt 28.19, see Beckwith, On the Trinity, 57–62 and 96–102. 16. For his treatment of the limitations of human language and analogies in De Trin. 12, see Weedman, The Trinitarian , 181–86. For his discussions of the same issue in De Trin. 2 and 4, see Beckwith, On the Trinity, 101–2 and 84–90. 17. For the use in De Trin. of Colossians 1.15–16 with “the son as image of the Father,” see Weedman, The Trinitarian , 99–100 and Carl L. Beckwith, On the Trinity , 60–61. In the Tractatus, Hilary will bring this title up in Tr. Ps. 118.10.9 only to distinguish it from humans created in the image of God.

  The Christological F oundat ion  ³  141

“eternal generation.”18 Hilary also consistently qualified the language of “likeness” with his preferred terminology of “equality.”19 From his Greek contacts, Hilary probably learned the usefulness of Philippians. One of the surprising aspects of the Tractatus is that some of these issues forged in the heat of controversy do not reappear in significant ways in the Tractatus. The language of “eternal birth” does occur. In at least one occasion, Hilary distinguishes the status of the Son as “image of the Father” from all people made “in the image of God.” The use of passages from Philippians, however, does become foundational for central themes. But in the main, Hilary seems to return to his earlier terminology for his discussions of the divine in the Tractatus. To express the identity of Christ as divine in this Treatise, Hilary invokes three themes and terms, which he had employed in his earlier Commentary on Matthew. The terms designate God as “eternal,” God as “spirit” (hence omnipresent and provident), and Father and Son as “equal” and “distinct.” Although Hilary follows his De Trinitate with his explicit attribution of soul as well as body to Christ, he reverts, as we shall see, to his earlier explanations for Theopaschite expressions.20 Hilary’s ultimate objective in his Treatise is to present Christ who, through his own body, absorbs all corruption due to sin and offers eternity, spirit and salvation to all people. Furthermore I will be arguing, in the last section of this chapter, that Hilary continues to exploit the ambiguity inherent in corpus to designate the individual body and the social sense of universal humanity both, in a sense, taken up by Christ (adsumere). Since in his Tractatus Hilary refers to many of his theological positions only in passing, the more sustained elaboration in the De Trinitate provides basic overviews on the issues about the identity of Christ. In De Trinitate, especially in books 9 and 10, Hilary had asserted Christ’s full divinity and full humanity. Hilary repeatedly acknowledged a Son 18. For this important development of “eternal generation” in the early sections of De Trin. and then in books 7 and 12, see Weedman, The Trinitarian , 87–88, 136–45, and 181–88. In the last section, Mark Weedman explores Hilary’s important link of birth of the Son and infinity. For his discussion of eternal generation in De Trin. 2, see Beckwith, On the Trinity, 118–22. 19. For Hilary’s emphasis on the language of “being,” consult Beckwith, On the Trinity, 62–66. 20. For an informative discussion of controversies over this theme, with particular application to De Trin., consult Carl L. Beckwith, “Suffering without Pain: The Scandal of Hilary of Poitiers’ Christology,” in In the Shadows of the Incarnation: Essays on Jesus Christ in the Early Church in Honor of Brian E. Daly, S.J., edited by Peter W. Martens, 71–96 (Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008).

142  ³  The Christological F oundat ion

who was fully (totus) and truly (verus) divine. The Son also took on a humanity, which was neither alien (non alienus) nor imitation (non simulatus), but fully (totus) human and truly (verus) human.21 In De Trinitate, we will meet Hilary’s first use of Philippians 2 (6–11).22 For the applications of all this terminology to the full humanity in the Tractatus, we will be discussing a number of Hilary’s themes. This includes Christ’s “taking up of a body from the virgin,” (Tr. Ps. 118.14.8), his denial of the “alien” or “simulated” status of his humanity (Tr. Ps. 138.3), and the affirmation of his “true” rather than “simulated” humanity (Tr. Ps. 141.1), and his whole humanity composed of both body and soul (Tr. Ps. 53.8). These positions, already established in De Trinitate, inform his perspectives in his Tractatus. Here he applies these characteristics to the medicus who can enter “the diseased city of humanity” as fully human and as fully divine in order to produce a healing and to establish a new future for humanity by extending eternity and spirit through Christ. In one of his expressions of confessio, Hilary picks up some of the themes on the fallen human condition, discussed in our previous chapter, and presents God as the agent for the human journey away from contamination by traditional Roman religious practices towards salvation and eternity. Christ provides the “way” and “progress” “for all people.”23 So all people, who leave behind the practices of Roman religion, proceed on the journey “towards salvation.” This passage goes on immediately to identify the goal or salvation as God who is charac21. For Hilary’s use of these terms for full divinity and full humanity, consult De Trin. books 9 and 10. Hilary argues against those who use temporal stages in the status of the divine in the Son to challenge the fulness of the divine identity throughout the divine mission: Ut cum aliud sit ante hominem Deus, aliud sit homo et Deus, aliud post hominem et Deum totus homo totus Deus (De Trin.9.6).Then while commenting on the significance of the Philippians terminology of forma Dei and forma servi, he concludes: ita Jesus Christus per virtutem suam carnis adque animae homo ac Deus esset, habens in se et totum verumque quod homo est, et totum verumque quod Deus est (De Trin.10.19). In his discussion of his taking on a body through the Virgin and a soul from God, he concludes: quia totus hominis filius totus Dei Filius (De Trin.10.22). Near the end of book 10 in his affirmation of Christian faith against heretics, Hilary concludes: Totum ei Deus Verbum est, totum ei homo Christus est. retinens hoc in sacramento confessionis suae unum, nec Christum aliud credere quam Iesum, nec Iesum aliud praedicare quam Christum (De Trin.10.52). 22. For his account of Hilary’s use of Philippians 2.6–11 as an interpretative lens in De Trin., consult Weedman, The Trinitarian, 130–35. He points out that through this passage Hilary interprets John 17.3, 5.19, 14.28 and others to argue against the Homoian views on the inferiority and hence subordination of the Son. 23. Cotidie autem per populi credentis adcessionem benedictionis multiplicatur augeturque confessio, cum gentiles superstitiones impiaeque de diis fabulae, cum arae daemonum, eum [sic] idolorum inania relinquuntur et iter omnibus ac profectus dirigitur in salutem (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 67.20).

  The Christological F oundat ion  ³  143

terized as “eternity” and “infinity.”24 This is a confident assertion of the same quest, which Hilary had expressed back in the autobiographical section of De Trinitate in a much more urgent and intense manner. In that text, Hilary had made this quality of aeternitas the basis for the resolution of the anxious search for confidence in life after death. In De Trinitate, he had presented the struggle of the limited human mind to grasp the infinite and the eternal.25 Hilary had always employed the “eternal” attribute of God in a variety of ways.26 Right from his earliest writing on Matthew, Hilary had identified “eternity” as an essential divine attribute,27 which is extended to humanity through the body of Christ.28 In De Trinitate against the Homoians, he had argued for the eternal relationship of Father and Son. At books 10 and 12 Hilary had developed his understanding of eternal generation of the Son in response to his conflation of Homoian with Arian challenges that “there was a time when the Son/Word was not.”29 Thus there is some development of his formulation from his earlier Commentary on Matthew with the Son possessing a nature, which is eternal, to now with the divine generation itself being an eternal act.30 24. Hic igitur salutarium nostrorum Dominus ac Deus est, cuius de die in diem benedictionum significatur aeternitas. In eo enim, quod cotidie est, continuatur et semper, cum tanta aevi protendatur infinitas, quanta et dierum post dies successio consequatur (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 67.20). 25. His igitur religiosissimis de Deo opinionibus veri studio detentus animus delectabatur. Neque enim aliud quid dignum esse Deo arbitrabatur quam ita eum ultra intellegentias rerum esse, ut in quantum se ad aliquem praesumptum licet opinionis modum mens infinita protenderet, in tantum omnem persequentis se naturae infinitatem infinitas inmoderatae aeternitatis excederet (Hilary, De Trin. 1.6). 26. For a discussion of Hilary’s presentation of the finite human mind’s progress into the infinite (and eternal), consult John M. McDermott, “Hilary of Poitiers: The Infinite Nature of God,” VC 27 (1973): 172– 202. For a recent discussion of “divine infinity” within pro-Nicene thinkers including De Trin. book 12, consult Mark Weedman, “The Polemical Context of Gregory of Nyssa’s Doctrine of Divine Infinity,” JECS 18 (2010): 81–104, esp. 92–96. 27. See, for example, Deus autem sine mensura temporum semper est et qualis est, talis aeternus est. Aeternitas autem in infinito manens, ut in his quae fuerunt, ita in illis quae consequentur exentenditur, semper integra, incorrupta, perfecta, praeter quam nihil quod esse possit extrinsecus sit relictum (Hilary, In Matt. 31.2). 28. . . . sicut aeternitas naturae corpus accepit, ita cognoscendum est naturam corporis nostri aeternitatis adsumere posse virtutem (Hilary, In Matt. 16.5). 29. For the Arian position, see Hilary’s quotation of Arius’s Letter to Alexander at De Trin. 6.5–6. For their specific denial of the eternity of the Son, “Filius autem sine tempore editus a Patre et ante saecula creatus et fundatus, non erat antequam nasceretur. . . . Nec enim est aeternus aut coeternus aut simul non factus cum Patre” (De Trin.6 6). 30. Unigenitus vero Filius Dei, ut Dei verbum, ita est Deus verbum; non cum temporibus est, sed ante

144  ³  The Christological F oundat ion

That development, “generated from eternity,” is the position employed in the Tractatus super Psalmos.31 Earlier in the same passage, Hilary invokes the eternity of the Godhead without the polemical focus of the De Trinitate. In this passage Hilary distinguishes this eternal act from every other event in time where everything has a beginning and end.32 In the Tractatus, however, the most prominent appeal to the divine attribute of eternity is to provide the goal for the human quest. The gift of eternal life is accomplished by being joined to those stages in the mission of Christ. This gift is extended to the body as well as to the soul of the believer so that body as well as soul will participate “in a glorious transformation.”33 In the third cluster Hilary very succinctly states that the purpose of the prophetic text is to speak of “human salvation and eternity.”34 He returns to eternity as the human objective in a way reminiscent of the quest in De Trinitate. He finishes with a trenchant identification of its opposite point of view. “To be born to die is the cause not of life, but of death.”35 A little later he combines this objective with the correlative by which “the infirmity of earthly corruption will be absorbed.” That makes possible “the progress to the benefit of eternity.”36 tempora; non in aliquo, sed ante omnia est. Erat enim, cum tempora facta sunt, quippe qui ea fecerit. Erat ergo semper. Non enim est definitus in tempore, non subiectus in numerum; sed per quem est eorum omnium, quae et sunt et esse dici possunt, origo, ipse ille infinitae aeternitatis suae ortu, ut ab aeterno genitus, esse persistit (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 2.23). For his report of this development within the thought of Hilary, consult Pierre Smulders, La doctrine trinitaire de Saint Hilaire de Poitiers, Analecta Gregoriana 32 (Rome: Pontifica Università Gregoriana, 1944), 82–83 and 172–79. For a recent study on the stages of Hilary’s development of the eternity of the Son from his Liber adversus Valentem et Ursacium, through his De Synodis to his De Trin. 2–3, see Weedman, The Trinitarian, 74–115. For his analysis of Hilary’s exegetical strategies on “the birth of the Son” in De Trin. 7, see Weedman, The Trinitarian, 136–45. 31. Smulders cites the later part of this passage (La doctrine trinitaire, 177, n. 124). 32. . . . quia tempora omnia mutua temporum substitutio et gignit et terminat; atque ob id dies in tempore est, per quam tempus universum et inchoatum desinit et desinens inchoatur (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 2.23). 33. . . . quia hanc mors ex peccati lege consequitur, haec vero aeternitatem ex morte restituet. . . . ita magnum misericordiae Dei munus est, si commortui Christo vivamus in Christo [cf. 2 Timothy 2.11]. . . . quia per eam cum peccati lege resolutis demutationis gloriosae profectu aeternitas animae corporisque iam sine peccati corpore rependetur (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 62.6). 34. Certe diginitati eius decentissimum est ut qui spiritu Dei loquitur, ea quae humanae et salutis et aeternitatis sunt eloquatur (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.16.1). 35. Aequitatis autem mandatorum Dei ea summa est, ut omnibus sint salutaria, ut hoc, quod in hanc vitam venimus, cum profectu aeternitatis ineamus. Nam nasci ad mortem, non vitae causa est, sed mortis (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.22.3). 36. Has laudes Deo referre festinat, iudiciis Dei, absorpta terrenae corruptionis infirmitate, ad aeternitatis adiutus profectum (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.22.6).

  The Christological F oundat ion  ³  145

In addition to the divine attribute of aeternitas, Hilary also continues his practice from In Matthaeum to employ a second quality to depict the divine. This attribute of spiritalis is also featured in the ways by which the divine encounters the human. This attribute excludes the possibility of being corporeal and hence the limitations of time and space.37 The spiritual, noncorporeal status also permits God to be everywhere. In his comments on Psalm 118 on “the nearness of God”38 Hilary cites other biblical passages from Jeremiah and from Paul’s sermon in Acts to express an active and providential divine omnipresence. 39 He summarizes these consequences of the spiritual or noncorporeal status of the divine. “He is present everywhere and He is totally everywhere.”40 This divine omnipresence is not passive but rather active and providential. [L]egimus enim in [E]vangelio: quoniam [D]eus spiritus est [John 4.24], invisibilis scilicet et inmensa atque intra se manens et aeterna natura. . . . [D]eus autem, qui et ubique et in omnibus est, totus audit, totus videt, totus efficit, totus incedit. (Tr. Ps. 129.3) (For we read in the Gospel: since God is spirit [Jn 4.24], His nature is invisible, undoubtedly, both immense and remaining in Himself and also eternal. . . . God, however, who is both everywhere and in all things, totally hears, totally sees, totally accomplishes and totally engages.)

In the same passage Hilary goes on to talk about God’s presence and activity in human lives and repeats the divine capacity to see and to hear both outer and inner human affairs and to respond to human prayers.41 On Psalm 147, Hilary uses the divine provision of clouds, rain, grass, and food to confirm God’s providence and goodness at an even deeper level.42 37. [A]c primum intellegendum est [D]eum incorporalem esse neque ex partibus quibusdam atque officiis membrorum, ex quibus unum corpus efficitur, consistere (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 129.3). 38. Prope es Domine (Psalm 118.151) (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.19.8). 39. Deus adproprians ego sum et non Deus a longe, dicit Dominus [Jeremiah 23.23] and Non longe a nobis manentem quaerimus Deum; in quo ipso enim vivimus et movemur et sumus [Acts 17.27–28] (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.19.8). 40. Non corporalibus locis Deus continetur neque finibus aut spatiis divinae virtutis immensitas coartatur. Adest ubique, et totus ubicumque est; non pro parte usquam est, sed in omnibus omnis est. . . . Nihil a Deo vacat, nihil indiget (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 129.3). 41. [D]eus ergo ubique est et ubicumque adest, audit, videt, efficit; sed orandus a nobis est, ut secundum precem nostram adsit, audiat, videat, efficiat (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 129.3). 42. [I]n his enim omnibus [D]ei et providentia significatur et bonitas ut subtexto nubibus caelo terris pluvias infundat, ut vertices collium faeno vestiat et iumentis pabulum praebeat et avibus cibos praestet, quia

146  ³  The Christological F oundat ion

In commenting on Psalm 138 about “wonderful divine knowledge” (v. 5) beyond human understanding, Hilary poses a rhetorical question about the marvelous omnipresence of the providential God. Mirabilis facta est scientia tua ex me. [S]ed mirabilius quomodo? [N]empe cum omnia esse intra [D]eum docentur, dum [D]eus esse in omnibus praedicatur, dum inmensa et inconprehensibilis natura intus atque extra manens locos omnes. [Q]uibus contineri possit, excedat. [M]irabile est [D]eum ubique esse et nusquam abesse; in omnibus esse et totum esse, et extra locos ac tempora pro infinitate atque aeternitate sua semper esse. (Tr. Ps. 138.16) (“Your knowledge is marvelous in my opinion.” But how is it more marvelous? Certainly all things are taught to be within God while God is proclaimed to be in all things, with His immense and incomprehensible nature remaining within and without all places. He exceeds all things by which He could be contained. It is a marvel that God is everywhere and absent from no place. It is a marvel that He is in all things and is both wholly existing and He is always existing beyond places and times by virtue of His infinity and eternity.)

This marvelous aspect of the divine omnipresence continues in all places and times. In the next chapter this divine attribute of “spirit” becomes crucial in Hilary’s account of the creation of the human and in the ultimate transformation after the resurrection. As we shall see, the category of “spirit” mediates between “body” and “soul” and allows them to operate in a complementary fashion. In the Tractatus the dominant and distinctive contribution of the Godhead is effected in humans through the Son. So the equality of the Son with the Father remains the third continuing characteristic of Hilary’s treatments of the divine in this Treatise. This equality between the Father and the Son is clearly related to the eternal status of their relationship discussed above. Hilary repeatedly asserts the equality in nature, dignity, and honor between Father and Son. In his treatment of Psalm 2, Hilary focuses on equality against those who attack the full equality of nature and honor between Father and Son. Non enim discernitur contumelia alterius ab altero neque discretus est honor religionis ad utrumque. Qui enim per genuinam Patris et Filii secundum se legitimamque naturam in gloria divinitatis unum sunt, unum etiam sunt vel in contemptus iniuria vel in honore reverentiae et alter in altero aut honorificatur ab eo alimoniam universa, quae creavit, expectent. [S]ed haec omnia diligentius introspecta significationis alterius virtutem in se habent (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 146.7).

  The Christological F oundat ion  ³  147

aut spernitur. . . . Qui non honorificat Filium non honorificat Patrem, qui misit illum [John 5.21–23]. Non distinguitur honor, non discernitur contumelia; aequa in utrumque religio expectatur et iniuria unius contemptus utriusque est. Ita cum in uno uterque spernatur, qui unum sunt in divinitate ambo per gloriam, unum quoque sunt in religione ambo per honorem. (Tr. Ps. 2.10) (For the contempt of the one is not separated from the other and religious honor has not been divided for each of the two. For they, who are one in the glory of their divinity through the innate and true nature of Father and Son in accordance with themselves, are also one both in the injustice of contempt and in the honor of reverence and the one is either honored or despised in the other. . . . “The one who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent him” [Jn 5.21–23]. There is no distinction of honor, there is no division of contempt. Equality of worship is expected for both and the injustice of contempt for one applies to both. And since both are scorned in one, they who are both one in divinity through glory, are also one in worship through honor.)

For other scriptural resources in his defense of the equality between Father and Son, Hilary appeals to John.43 In yet another passage, Hilary argues that this relation of Father and Son is not simply a matter of agreement, nor a lack of dissimilarity but based on “the glory of the Father’s majesty which is natural to the Only-begotten.”44 In his consistent emphasis on the equality of Father and Son, Hilary also takes care to point out that their respective distinctiveness requires a respect for the different titles with “unbegotten” for the Father and “only-begotten” for the Son.45 So Hilary insists on the full divinity and hence equality of Father and Son and, at the same time, their distinctiveness within the relationship of generation.46 43. Qui me vidit, vidit et Patrem [John 14.9] atque illud: Ego et Pater unum sumus (John 10.30), quia in Filii et natura et nomine aeternae naturae ac nominis significatio continetur: apparens Filio vel susceptus a Filio Patri adparebit in Filio (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 62.4). For a summary of Hilary’s transformation of earlier patterns of exegesis in the Latin tradition in his In Matt., see Paul C. Burns, The Christology in Hilary of Poitiers’ Commentary on Matthew (Rome: Augustinianum, 1981), 79–80. For another citation of John 14.9: unum enim ambo sunt, et qui vidit [F]ilium, vidit et [P]atrem, quia [P]ater in[F]ilio et [F]ilius in [P]atre est (Tr. Ps. 129.9). 44. . . . nisi quod per concordem et non dissimilem a se innascibilis unigenitique naturam et [P]ater in [F]ilio et [F]ilius in [P]atre est deitatis in utroque nec genere nec voluntate dissidente substantia, cum paternae maiestatis gloria unigenito congenita sit? (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 131.22). 45. [U]nus ex uno, [D]eus ex [D]eo est. [N]on recipit alterum innascibilis, ut duo sint; nec admittit, quod est unus unigenitus, ne [D]eus sit. [N]on sunt duo innascibiles, non sunt duo unigeniti; in eo unusquisque quod est, unus est; dum parem nec unigenitus habet, nec innascibilis admittit, neque unigenitus  [D]eus ex alio quam innascibili [D]eo subsistit (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 134.8). 46. Verum cum in omni psalmo simplex [D]ei et absoluta laudatio est, meminisse debemus [P]atrem in [F]ilio et [F]ilium in [P]atre laudari et, cum ex substantiae similtudine ac proprietate naturae alter in altero sit

148  ³  The Christological F oundat ion

Critical to Hilary’s understanding of the Godhead in the Tractatus are the attributes of “eternity,” “spirit,” and “equality” between Father and Son. Inherent in these attributes is the capacity to be extended in some fashion in order to offer all people a share in the attributes of “eternity” and of “spirit.” So in his Tractatus super Psalmos, Hilary continues to employ the basic characteristics of the divine, which he has been using since his In Matthaeum. He retains the development from the period of his exile of the Son’s eternal status not just by possessing a nature, which is eternal, but by a relationship with the Father, which is constituted by an eternal act of generation. Before we look at Hilary’s treatment of the human dimension of Christ, we should note that he confronts a feature of the divinity, which appears to make Christ’s entrance into the human condition of change, suffering, and death an impossibility. To affirm the unchanging, impassible nature of the divine identity of the Son, Hilary appeals once again to the revelation of the divine name just as he had done back in De Trinitate 1.6. Non itaque ad demutationem Deus mobilis est neque ad aliud et ex alio transferendus incertae ipse inconstantisque naturae est, manet ut est, quippe qui dixerit: Ego sum qui sum et non demutor [Exodus 3.14]. Beata illa et perfecta aeternaeque virtutis bonitas non patitur conversionem nec demutatur ex alio in aliud motu accidentis instinctus. (Tr. Ps. 2.18) (And so God is not moved towards change nor is He of an uncertain and unstable nature to be transferred to one state from another. He remains as He is since he said, “I am who am and I am not changed” [Exodus 3.14]. The blessed and perfect goodness of eternal power does not experience alteration nor is it changed from one thing into another driven by the impulse of chance.)

The challenge for Hilary sets for himself is to express the Son’s taking up a body in ways that protect against any change to his full divinity and equality with the Father.

et ambo unum sint et, qui videt [P]atrem, videat et [F]ilium, non differre, quis ex duobus laudari existematur, cum utrumque sibi invicem et virtutis atque operum similitudo et indifferentis naturae ex [P]atre [D]eo genita et [F]ilio [D]eo nata divinitas unum eos esse testetur (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 144.3).

  The Christological F oundat ion  ³  149

Forma Dei and Forma Servi: Consequences for His Humanity

To establish and to protect this unchanging character of the divine identity of the Son, Hilary retains some of the strategies he employed in his early Commentary on Matthew and refined during his struggles against the Homoians. In De Trinitate against the Homoian uses of the “inferiority” passages in the Gospel, Hilary had exploited the special conditions of the birth of the Son into a body. He also deflects these limiting passages in the Gospels about the Son’s ignorance and suffering to their volitional character and to the Stoic distinction between “suffering” and “pain.” The first affects the body; the second affects the soul.47 In his defense of the divinity of the Son, Hilary had also made use of an extensive range of biblical passages but there is one of particular significance, whose applications he probably learned from Basil of Ancyra and his circle. Hilary employs a formulation for the mission of the Son, which is shaped by a biblical passage, which he developed in his writings only after he began his exile.48 The new emphasis, as I have noted in the introduction to this chapter, is Hilary’s frequent use of Philippians 2 (6–11). Although this passage had been discussed by Novatian in his De Trinitate 22, Hilary does not use it until after he makes contacts in the East.49 There are no obvious parallels for Hilary’s repeated use of Philippians 47. For an excellent examination of Hilary’s extended analysis of this issue in his De Trinitate, consult Beckwith, “Suffering without Pain.” 48. Hilary had quoted from this passage in Philippians only a few times in his earlier works. He has two verses, 2.6–7, from this Philippians passage in his In Matt. 16.11. It becomes much more frequent during the period of his exile. He cites the same verses twice in his De Trin. 8.45. In the De Trin. there are additional citations of verse 7 at 10.25, verse 8 at 11.30 and verse 9 at 9.8. Anticipating perhaps the pattern in the Tractatus, he quotes both 2.10–11 and 3.21 at 9.8. In De Synodis 85 Hilary invokes Philippians 2.7 and provides the full title with an indignant refusal to dismiss this epistle because Marcionites might use “form of servant/ man” to say “that Christ’s body was only a phantasm.” These totals are nothing like the frequency noted in the appendices of the first two volumes of the new critical edition of the Tractatus. In Doignon’s new edition up to Psalm 91, there is the full passage quoted at 2.33. There are twenty-eight other selections, which are either from specific verses or diction or allusions to verses 6 to 11. There are seven more passages, which use Philippians 3.21. For Doignon’s second volume on Psalm 118, there is the quotation of the full passage at 118.14.10. Hilary has echoes of the key terminology throughout. He also invokes verse 3.21 at 118.4.1 and alludes to it at 118.17.12. 49. For a comparison between earlier Latin treatments and Basil of Ancyra’s uses of Philippians 2.6–11 with application to Hilary’s De Trin., see Weedman, The Trinitarian, 161–66.

150  ³  The Christological F oundat ion

in Origen’s treatments of the same passages. The truncated condition of the Alexandrine ’s commentaries does not permit any definitive conclusions. Another potential source for the use of the Philippians passage would be Basil of Ancyra and his Homoiousian associates during the period of Hilary’s exile among them. In De Virginitate 50 attributed to Basil, there is one quotation of Philippians 2 (verses 6–7). Two documents produced by the circle around Basil also make use of this passage. The first document is a letter produced at a synod convened by Basil at Ancyra before Easter in 358 to criticize the Sirmium “blasphemy” of the previous year.50 This synodal letter expresses their position on the removal of all associations with temporality as well as with physicality in the Father’s generation of the Son.51 In the extensive portfolio of biblical passages marshaled to support their position, they include Philippians 2.6 (at Panarion 73.9.3–4) and 2.7 (at Panarion 73.8.8). Hilary was in the area during this time and the absence of his name from the signatories does not prevent him from knowing about the synod or at least the views of some of the participants.52 He certainly knew and respected them. At De Synodis 90 Hilary had addressed Basil and Eustathius with respect and equality. These are the first two signatories to the synodical letter. In fact the catalogue of the synods translated by Hilary in De Synodis is the same as those named in the preamble to Basil’s synodal let50. For two earlier studies of Hilary’s use of Basil of Ancyra and his circle, consult Alan Darwin Jacobs, “Hilary of Poitiers and the Homoeousians: A Study of the Eastern Roots of His Ecumenical Trinitarianism” (UMI Dissertation Service, 1969), and Jeffrey N. Steenson, “Basil of Ancyra and the Course of Nicene Orthodoxy,” unpublished Ph.D. diss. (Oxford: Oxford University, 1983), especially 254–65. A synod convened by Basil produced a critical response to the “Blasphemy” of Sirmium 357, which consisted of a letter with nineteen anathemas. The letter opens with appeals to the Eastern councils at Antioch in 341, Serdica 343, Sirmium 351 and Antioch 345. He then presents an extensive portfolio of biblical passages beginning with the baptismal commission in Matthew 28.19 to defend his view of Father and Son. The document concludes with a list of signatories. This document has been preserved by the hostile Epiphanius in his Panarion 73.2.1– 11.11. In his De Synodis Hilary has preserved a version of twelve of the nineteen anathemas from Basil’s Synod. Hilary then begins his account with the “Blasphemy” of 357 followed by the same creedal documents appealed to by the synodal letter produced under the leadership of Basil. 51. Καὶ εἴ τις ἐν χρόνῳ τὸν πατέρα πατέρα νοεῖ τοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ, καὶ μὴ ὑπὲρ χρόνους, καὶ παρὰ πάσας ἀνθρωπίνας ἐννοίας πιστεύει τὸν μονογενῆ υἱὸν ἐκ τοῦ πατρὸς ἀπαθῶς ὑφεστάναι, ὡς παραβαίνων τὸ ἀποστολικὸν κήρυγμα, χρόνους μὲν περὶ πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ παρωσάμενον, πιστῶς δὲ ἡμᾶς παιδεῦσαν τὸ “ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεὸν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος ( John 1.1),” ἀνάθεμα ἔστω. Καὶ εἴ τις τὸν πατέρα πρεσβύτερον χρόνῳ λέγοι τοῦ ἐξ ἑαυτοῦ μονογενοῦς υἱοῦ, νεώτερον δὲ χρόνῳ τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ πατρὸς, ἀνάθεμα ἔστω ( Epiphanius, Panarion 73.11.6). 52. The signatories are Basil, Eustathius, Hyperechius, Letoeus, Heorticus, Gymnasius, Memnonius, Eutyches, Severinus, Eutychius, Alcimedes, and Alexander.

  The Christological F oundat ion  ³  151

ter. The second document, preserved by the same source from 73.12.1 to 73.22.8, is the Letter of George. This document also cites the same two verses.53 This document, like Hilary at De Synodis 85, actually names the letter as the Epistle to the Philippians. That Letter of George discusses in sequence three Pauline passages (Col 1.15, Phil 2.6–7, and Rom 8.3). This portfolio sets up another indication of Ancyran influence on Hilary with its use of “image” as a title of Christ. This particular title is found infrequently in Hilary but at Tr. Ps. 118.10.7 he does distinguish Paul’s identification of the Son as “the image of the invisible God” (Col 1.15) from the creation of humans in the image of God in Genesis (Gn 1.26).54 In Tractatus super Psalmos the passage from Philippians (2. 6–11) becomes central to Hilary’s dynamic treatment of the status of the Son and His mission without much of the polemical applications, which characterized both of the Ancyran documents and Hilary’s De Synodis and De Trinitate. There they had used the language of “image” (Col 1.15), “form” (Phil 2.6–7), and “likeness” (Rom 8.3) to emphasize the distinctiveness of the Son against potential modalist interpretations associated historically with Sabellius and more recently with Marcellus of Ancyra.55 For his Tractatus, Hilary appears to emphasize the movement of the Son from the full status of the Godhead to the condition of the human, even accepting death and then back to the state of glory. This is consistent with the progressive states of the Son in his body, noted at the beginning of this chapter and back in his distinctive pattern in the paral53. Ἐν γὰρ τῇ πρὸς Φιλιππησίους Ἐπιστολῇ φησιν “ὅς ἐν μοφῇ θεοῦ ὑπάρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμὸν ἡγήσατο τὸ εἶναι ἴσα θεῷ, ἀλλʹ ἑαυτὸν ἐκένωσε, μορφὴν δούλου λαβών, ἐν ὁμοιώματι ἀνθρώπων γενόμενος” ( Epiphanius, Panarion 73.17.2). 54. Steenson, Basil of Ancyra, 260, n. 53, claims that there is only one prior use of this Christological title in Latin Christian texts at Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 5.20. He should also acknowledge its appearance at De Trin. 8.48–49 and 11.5, where the Ancyran influence is already at work. For Hilary’s discussion of Col 1.15 and for his sharp distinction between “image” applied to humans at Genesis 1.26 and the title of “image” applied to Christ in this epistle: fit enim ad imaginem Dei. Non Dei imago, quia imago Dei est primogenitus omnis creaturae [Colossians 1.15]; sed ad imaginem, id est secundum imaginis et similitudinis speciem (Tr. Ps. 118.10.7). For Hilary’s use of some consequences of “being made in the image of God”: [E]rgo ad imaginem  [D]ei homo interior effectus est rationabilis, mobilis, movens, citus, incorporeus, subtilis, aeternus. . . . [N] umquid aliquid corporale induimus cum in agnitionem renovamur? [N]ihil, ut opinor. [I]nduimus autem agnitionem [D]ei, fidem aeternitatis, innocentiae sinceritatem, bonitatis mores (Tr. Ps. 129.6). 55. Again, consult Mark Weedman, The Trinitarian, 158–66. He discusses Basil’s preference for the language of “likeness” and its influence on Hilary’s treatments of the Son’s relation to the Father as well as the Son’s relation to humanity.

152  ³  The Christological F oundat ion

lels with Origen in chapter 2. Hilary will also combine this passage with another verse from the same epistle (3.21) to be a pivotal feature of the discussion in the next chapter on the transformation of the resurrected body. Unlike those Ancyran texts and his own De Synodis and De Trinitate, Hilary is not as preoccupied with heretics in the Tractatus super Psalmos. On occasion, however, he does remind his audience of challenges to the equality of the Son with the Father. Heretics are not a primary concern in the Tractatus and so extended polemics seem to be, for the most part, muted.56 Significant exceptions occur at 63.10 and 67.15, which are followed ultimately by his confessio of faith in Christ at 67.20. There is another passage on Psalm 137 where he deals with those who, like the Sadducees, deny the resurrection.57 Hilary argues on Psalm 63 that heretics would destroy the basis for the divine initiative, which begins in the Godhead and proceeds through creation to incarnation, death, resurrection, and glory.58 On Psalm 67 Hilary provides a more extended summary of heretical positions just a few paragraphs before that confessio. Terminology from Philippians seems to be part of this polemical context. Hilary says that there are those who disrupt the peace of the Church by dividing the New from the Old Testament. He goes on to outline positions, which look like versions of Arian and Sabellian formulations. There are some people who separate Christ from the Father and consider him only a man, the forma servi. There are many others who do not acknowledge any divinity in the Son but proclaim only a son by adoption, a creature with a beginning in time. Still others see in Christ a Monarchian extension of the Father into flesh and taking the 56. See references to heretics at Tr. Ps. 63.5, 8, 10, 64.3, 67.15, 118.4.9, 118.11.6, and 118.13.4. 57. . . . ne qua hereticis de incompositae orationis confusione ad studia sua pateret inreligiositatis occasio. . . . eodem dicto evangelico et legis dominus Sadducaeis resurrectionem corporum abnegantibus respondens ostendit: de resurrectione autem mortuorum non legistis, quod dictum est vobis a [D]eo dicente: [E]go sum [D]eus Abraham et [D]eus Isaac et [D]eus Iacob? [N]on est deus mortuorum, sed viventium [Mt 22.31–32] ( Hilary, Tr. Ps. 137.7). 58. Iam si fidem haereticus destruet, Dei Filium semper fuisse cognoscet, nullo a Patre intervallo temporis separatum ipsum esse verbum, virtutem, sapientiam, Dei, hunc mundi opificem fuisse, hunc et hominis conditorem hunc prima mundi crimina diluuio abluisse, hunc Moysi legem dedisse, hunc in prophetis fuisse et per eos ingentia illa corporationis et passionis suae sacramenta cecinisse, hunc in corpore resurgentem caducae carni claritatem spiritalis gloriae intulisse et in naturam divinitatis suae terenae corruptionis absorbuisse primordial (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 63.10).

  The Christological F oundat ion  ³  153

status of Son at that time.59 This is one of the most detailed summaries of heretical positions in the Tractatus and he explicitly states that this account is consistent with his previous positions.60 Here in the Tractatus Hilary normally employs this passage from Philippians, which he probably acquired from his eastern sources, to express the progress of Christ through his body. He applies this to important features of the dynamic foundation for his three-stage model of Christian progress. Hilary quotes Philippians (2.6–11) in full only twice within his Tractatus at Tr. Ps. 2.33 and at 118.14.10 but he does quote individual verses from this passage often and he frequently incorporates “forma Dei” and “forma servi” into the distinctive terminology of his Christology.61 Hilary will employ this passage to maintain the full divinity of the Son even when he submits himself to the human condition, especially the death on a cross before he is restored to the full glory of the divine status. The first instance where he quotes this Pauline passage in full occurs at Psalm 2.33. Hilary is expanding on the verse in the Psalm where God is promising to give his Son “the ends of the earth for your heritage.” For Hilary the passage from Philippians identifies key stages in the fulfillment of that promise to the Son. He quotes the scriptural passage as follows. Qui cum in forma Dei esset, non rapinam existimavit se esse aequalem Deo, sed se exinanivit formam servi accipiens, in similitudine hominis constitutus et habitu repertus ut homo humiliavit se factus oboediens usque ad mortem, mortem autem crucis; propter quod et Deus illum exaltavit et donavit illi nomen, quod est super omne nomen, ut in nomine Iesu omne genu flectatur caelestium et terrestrium et infernorum et omnis lingua confiteatur, quia Dominus Iesus Christus in gloria Dei Patris. (Tr. Ps. 2.33) 59. Sed plerique sunt qui ecclesiae pacem sub haereticorum consortio mentiuntur disoluentes Novi ac Veteris Testsamenti conexam sibi coniunctamque rationem, dum plerique alium evangeliorum, alium Deum legis effingunt. Nonnulli vero adversum unigeniti Dei naturam nomenque venientes ex tempore natum solum hominem confitentur neque ex forma Dei in formam servi esse deductum, sed ex forma servi tantum esse coepisse confingunt. Plures autem non verae divinitatis Deum neque ex paternae maiestatis naturaeque proprietate subsistere disserunt; sed externae substantiae Deoque diversae, quae in adoptionem filii electa sit, modo creaturarum ex nihilo, quibus nulla origo anterior sit, constiterit. Plures etiam in corpus atque ex se protensum permanantemque Patrem loquuntur, ut adsumptio illa carnis ex virgine Filii nomen acceperit, non qui antea erat Dei Filius, idem hominis filius sit natus in corpora (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 67.15). 60. . . . quibus, ut spero, aliis locis uberius copiusque responsum est (Hilary, 67.15). 61. Consult, for example, the list in Antonio Orazzo, La salvezza, 37: 2.33; 53.8; 55.5; 67.15; 68.4 and 25; 118.14.10; 124.3; 131.7,12, and 17; 138.2 and 19; 143.7.

154  ³  The Christological F oundat ion

(Although he was in the status of God, he did not think it was robbery to be equal to God. But he emptied himself and accepted the status of servant and after he was established in the likeness of a human and recognized as a human by his appearance, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death, death on the cross. Therefore God both exalted him and gave him a name which is above every name so that at the name of Jesus every knee of creatures above, on, and below the earth might bend and every tongue might confess that the Lord Jesus Christ is in the glory of God the Father.)

Hilary immediately emphasizes certain themes in his comments on this text. He repeatedly states that the Son continues to be divine even when he takes on “the form of a servant.” When he quotes the same passage almost in full again in Tr. Ps. 118, he also adds his own paraphrase to emphasize the full divinity of the Son throughout the process.62 Back at Psalm 2, this passage provides a connection for the variety of themes Hilary had raised about the divine status, the human condition, and the return to glory. A little before the extended quotation of the Philippians passage at 2.33, Hilary links a reference to this passage to his discussion of the prayer of Jesus at John 17.5 in order to affirm once again the permanence of divinity in Christ. His prayer to be glorified is interpreted as an appeal “to become wholly, not other than, what he had been.”63 Frequently in the Tractatus, Hilary invokes similar terms for the equality of Father and Son, which he had employed in the earlier work on Matthew. At Psalm 53 as well, Hilary develops some of the implications involved in the taking up the human condition in “the form of a servant.” This has immediate consequences for the permanence of the divine identity which he has defended in his comments on Psalm 2 and elsewhere. In his introductory remarks on Psalm 53, Hilary points out that the sufferings and the pleas of David prefigure the sufferings and prayers of Jesus.64 So here he lays out the consequences of the human 62. Manens enim in Dei forma non vi aliqua sibi ac rapina id quod erat praesumendum existimavit, scilicet ut Deo esset aequalis. Erat enim in Dei forma, nihilque ei ex eius gloria deerat, in cuius forma manebat, sed formam servi per humilitatem accepit et habitu ut homo repertus est (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.14.10). 63. Qui enim in forma Dei erat, formam servi acceperat; et acceptae huic formae servi gloriam Dei, in qua mansit, expostulat dicens: Pater, clarifica me apud te ipsum ea claritate quam habui, priusquam mundus esset apud te [John 17.5]. Non nova quaerit, non aliena desiderat: esse talis, qualis fuerat, postulat sed precatur id se quod ante erat esse, gigni scilicet id quod suum fuit. Non erat autem idipsum tunc totus, quod ut fieret precabatur; fieri autem totus non aliud quod fuerat postulabat (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 2.27). 64. . . . [S]ed quia ad orationis cognitionem spiritali intellegentia opus esset, idcirco intellectus oratio,

  The Christological F oundat ion  ³  155

condition for Jesus. For he asks that “the name of God deliver him in that body in which he had been born, the very one which was appropriate to his earlier nature and rank.”65 Hilary then immediately introduces the language of the Philippians passage to affirm the full divinity of the Son who did not refrain from setting aside the privileges of the divine status in order to enter the condition of humans.66 This human condition of Christ entails all the limitations except sin.67 So Christ is born, and he experiences hunger, fatigue, thirst, but most especially suffering and death. Although Hilary acknowledges the “human soul” of Christ, he continues to deploy the two strategies to protect divinity from any change or suffering which he had employed in his Commentary on Matthew. The dynamic movement within the Philippians hymn allows Hilary to deal with the limitations of the human condition. In some sense Hilary continues to use his proleptic perspective and to anticipate the later glorified condition of Christ’s humanity in this passage and at Tr. Ps. 141.1.68 Hilary reiterates the fullness of the divinity of the Son with an allusion to John 1.1 and a quotation of John 5.19. To this he adds that the Son is “the most complete example of the humility of the human condition.”69 In the same passage Hilary then provides a range of limitations, which the Son experiences through his humanity. He deals with quia sit intellegenda, praescribitur. [S]cimus enim esse et illum David, cuius tabernaculum, quod ceciderat, excitatum est, iustum, orientem, regnantem, id est [D]ominum nostrum, [D]ei [F]ilium, qui frequenter fugerit, frequenter latuerit, frequenter oraverit, in ipso quoque tempore passionis et fleverit et ad [D]eum in tribulatione clamaverit, non ob naturalem quasi passionis metum, sed adfectum hominis, quem gerebat . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 141.1). I will deal with Hilary’s strategies on these Theopaschite expressions shortly. 65. Ait enim: Deus, in nomine tuo salvifica me. In humilitate corporis unigenitus Dei filius sub prophetae sui dictis haec precatur, qui et gloriam, quam ante saecula habuerat, reposcebat; salvificari se in dei nomine rogat, in quo est et nuncupatus et natus, ut se in eo corpore, in quo erat natus, idipsum, quod naturae anteriori suae et generi erat proprium, salvum faceret Dei nomen (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 53.4). 66. Et quia omnis haec ex persona formae servilis oratio est, cui formae servili usque ad crucem mortis adsumptae salutem eius nominis quod Dei est deprecatur, et salvandus ex Dei nomine id continuo subiecit (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 53.5). 67. On the connection between Christ’s “sinless condition” and “birth from a virgin” in Hilary’s De Trin., consult Mark Weedman, The Trinitarian ,160, and Carl L. Beckwith, “Suffering without Pain,” 77–86. 68. See n. 64. 69. Unigenitus Dei filius, Dei Verbum et Deus Verbum, cum utique omnia quae Pater posset omnia ea et ipse posset, sicuti ait: Quaecumque enim Pater facit, eadem et Filius facit similiter [John 5.19], et in indiscreto deitatis naturaeque nomine indiscreta quoque esset et virtus, ut absolutissimum nobis humanae humilitatis esset exemplum, omnia quae hominum sunt et oravit et passus est (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 53.7).

156  ³  The Christological F oundat ion

the deprivations caused by hunger, thirst, sleepiness, weariness, flight from the impious, sadness, tears, suffering and death.70 Hilary quickly reiterates his principle that this experience of the Son comes not from his divine nature but from that nature which he has assumed.71 Much later at Tr. Ps. 138.3, Hilary restates his principle very clearly. As we shall see in the next section, Hilary distinguishes between “being a nature” and “taking on a nature.”72 Returning to the consideration of Psalm 53, Hilary provides an important summary of his position on the full humanity of Christ.73 He is both Son of God and son of man. The Son, while remaining fully divine, becomes, by a birth into humanity, totally human, formed with a soul and a body. The birth into a human soul as well as a human body is expressed twice in this passage. Non enim alius Filius Dei quam qui filius hominis; et filius hominis non ex parte, sed natus, forma enim se Dei ex eo quod erat ad id quod non erat, id est ut nasci posset in animam suam corpusque, vacuante; et idcirco et Filius Dei et filius hominis, idcirco et Deus et homo, id est Dei Filius habitu humanae originis natus est, usque ad naturam scilicet hominis nascendi, qui totus ex anima et carne formabilis est, Dei se humilitante substantia. (Tr. Ps. 53.8) (For the Son of God is not someone else other he who is son of man; and he is the son of man not partially but born, with the status of God actually emptying itself from that which it was towards that which it was not, that is so that it could be born into his own soul and body. And therefore he is both Son of God and son of man, therefore both God and man; that is the Son of God is born with the condition of a human origin right up to the nature, indeed, of a fully born human who is totally formed from soul and flesh, with substance of God humbling itself.) 70. Et ex communi nostra infirmitate salutem sibi est deprecatus a Patre, ut nativitatem nostram cum ipsis infirmitatis nostrae inisse intellegeretur officiis. Hinc illud est quod esurivit, sitivit, dormuit, lassatus fuit, impiorum coetus fugit, maestus fuit et flevit et passus et mortuus est (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 53.7). 71. Et ut his omnibus non natura, sed ex adsumptione subiectus esse posset intellegi, perfunctus his omnibus resurrexit (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 53.7). 72. . . . aliud est esse naturam aliud adsumpsisse naturam (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 138.3). 73. For another summary, which links these themes to confession: Tenet autem in se eum confessionis modum, quem in nobis esse oportet fidei, ut in eo tam natura hominis quam natura Dei cognita sit. In forma enim servi veniens evacuavit se ex Dei forma. Nam in forma hominis existere manens in Dei forma qui potuit, aboleri autem Dei forma, ut tantum servi esset forma, non potuit. Ipse enim est et se ex forma Dei inaniens et formam hominis adsumens, quia neque evacuatio illa ex Dei forma naturae caelestis interitus est neque formae servilis adsumptio tamquam genuinae originis condicionisque natura est, cum id quod adsumptum est non proprietas interior sit, sed exterior adcessio . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 68.25).

  The Christological F oundat ion  ³  157

The specific inclusion of soul as well as body as the constitutive elements of the humanity of Christ is a significant development from his Christological discussions in his earlier treatment of Matthew. There are already clear signs of this development in his De Trinitate 10 and this expansion might also have been reinforced later in the early 360s by his association with Eusebius of Vercelli in their campaign against Auxentius of Milan. Eusebius of Vercelli, also exiled to the East, had participated in the Synod of Alexandria of 362. This synod produced the Tomus ad Antiochenos, which is the first document produced by Athanasius, or under his influence, to mention specifically the human soul of Christ.74 After dealing with various questions which had challenged the Nicene treatment of Father and Son, this document goes on to discuss, at paragraph 7, the full humanity of Christ in terms of soul as well as body. The discussion begins with a disavowal of any adoptionist model and then invokes the language of the Philippians passage. With his awareness of the Tomus, Eusebius of Vercelli could have reinforced Hilary’s affirmation of the human soul of Christ in the Tractatus. The document then expresses a confession of the full humanity comprising not only body but soul as well. “He took the form of a servant and for us became human according to the flesh in Mary and so in him the human race is completely and wholly delivered from sin and rescued from the dead . . . nor was the salvation in the Word accomplished in only the body but also in the soul.”75 Then in paragraphs 9 through 10 of the Tomus, there is the notice that basically the Nicene creed would be sufficient but, to provide further guidance, those who had remained at the Synod of Alexandria had gone a little further into related questions. That would certainly include the treatment of the soul of Christ noted above. Among those who remained to participate in this discussion two are specifically identified: 74. For a discussion of the textual evidence and the implications of the issue of the soul of Christ in this document for the thought of Athanasius, consult Aloys Grillmeier, Christ in the Christian Tradition, translated by John Bowden, vol. 1, 2nd ed. (London: Mowbrays, 1975), 308–26. 75. καὶ ἐν μορφῇ Θεοῦ ὑπάρχων, ἔλαβε δούλου μορφὴν, ἔκ τε τῆς Μαρίας τὸ κατὰ σάρκα γεγένηται ἄνθρωπος διʹἡμᾶς, καὶ οὕτω τελείως καὶ ὁλοκλήρως τὸ ἀνθρώπινον γένος ἐκευθερούμενον ἀπὸ τῆς ἁμαρτίας ἐν αὐτῷ, . . . Ὡμολόγουν γὰρ καὶ τοῦτο, ὅτι οὐ σῶμα ἄψυχον, οὐδʹἀναίσθητον, οὐδʹἀνόητον εἶχεν ὁ Σωτήρ. Οὐδὲ γὰρ οἷον τε ἦν, τοῦ Κυρίου διʹἡμᾶς ἀνθρώπου γενομένου, ἀνόητον εἶναι τὸ σῶμα αὐτοῦ, οὐδὲ σώματος μόνου, ἀλλὰ καὶ ψυχῆς ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ Λόγῳ σωτηρία γέγονεν· Υἱός τε ὤν ἀληθῶς τοῦ Θεοῦ, γέγονε καὶ υἵος ἀνθρώπου (Athanasius, Tom. Ad Antiochenos 7 [PG 26, 804]).

158  ³  The Christological F oundat ion

Asterius and Eusebius of Vercelli. Eusebius is included among the signatories and he also added a postscript in Latin, which was translated into Greek for this document. There Eusebius states that he agreed with the resolution on “subsistances” and “further concerning the Incarnation of our Savior, namely the Son of God who became man and who took everything like the composition of our old man upon Himself without sin, I ratify the text of this letter.”76 It remains to determine whether, in the Tractatus, Hilary actually employs the human soul as a psychological and theological principle to relieve his concerns about the impassibility of the divine in Christ.77 In the earlier De Trinitate, Hilary provided a general observation of the role of the human soul in the body. Through the soul, the person experiences sensations. “But when touched it feels, when pricked it suffers, when cold it stiffens, when warmed it feels joy . . . the sensation of soul flowing through them permits the experience of pain.”78 In this discussion of the interaction of the human soul and body, Hilary located sensation, sorrow, shivering, joy, hunger and satisfaction in the soul. Later in the same passage of De Trinitate, perhaps influenced by the medical interests of Basil of Ancyra, Hilary appealed to medical use of drugs to numb pain during surgery.79 A little later in De Trinitate, Hilary employed his distinction between pati and dolor80 and illustrates his point 76. Τούτοις καὶ Εὐσέβιος ὑπέγραψε Ῥωμαϊστὶ, ὦν ἡ ἑρμηνεία· ... οὐ μὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ περὶ τῆς σαρκώσεως τοῦ Σωτῆρος ἡμῶν, ὃτι ὁ τοῦ Θεοῦ Υἱὸς, καὶ ἄνθρωπος γέγονεν, ἀναλαβὼν πάντα ἄνευ ἁμαρτίας, οἷος ὁ παλαιὸς ἡμῶν ἄνθρωπος συνέστηκε, κατὰ τό ἐπιστολῆς ὓψος ἐπιστωσάμην (Tomus Ad Antiochenos, 10 [PG 26, 808]). 77. See Aloys Grillmeier’s concluding assessment of Hilary’s use of Christ’s soul, Christ in the Christian Tradition, 396–97: “Although Hilary had an advantage over Athanasius in that he clearly recognized the soul of Christ, he did not exploit this advantage sufficiently to answer the Arians. He still does not know how to make the soul of Christ into a full theological factor.” 78. Ea enim natura corporum est, ut ex consortio animae in sensum quendam animae sentientis animata, non sit haebes inanimisque materies, sed et adtacta sentiat et conpuncta doleat et algens rigeat et confota gaudeat et inedia tabescat et pinguescat cibo. . . . Cum igitur conpuncta aut effossa corpora dolent, sensum doloris transfusae in ea animae sensus admittit (Hilary, De Trin. 10.14). 79. Aut cum gravis necessitas recidendi corporis manet, medicato potu consopitur vigor animae, et in emortuam sensus sui oblivionem mens sucis violentioribus occupata conficitur. Ac tum doloris nescia membra caeduntur, et omnem alti vulneris plagam sensus carnis emortuus, sensu animae in se torpentis evadit. Adfert itaque dolorem per animae infirmis admixtionem in infirmum sensum suum corpus animatum (Hilary, De Trin. 10.14). 80. For a summary of Hilary’s use of these terms in his Commentary on Matthew, see Burns, Christology, esp. 84–94. This presents a review of the evidence in that earlier exegetical text, a survey of scholarly discussion, and evidence from Seneca: invulnerabile est non quod non feritur, sed quod non laeditur . . . (De Constantia Sapientis 3.3). Seneca expands this distinction: Nulla virtus est quae non sentias perpeti. Quid ergo

  The Christological F oundat ion  ³  159

with the image of a dart passing through water or flame accomplishing its purpose without making a hole in either water or fire.81 Still later in the same Treatise, Hilary did locate the lament of Jesus over the failure of Jerusalem and his sorrow for the death of Lazarus within the human soul of Christ. “For although the function of tears resides in the body, nevertheless, a certain sorrow of the soul, as it were, exudes tears in the service of the body.”82 Clearly here Hilary invoked the psychological function of the human soul to be the forum for Christ’s sensation, pain, and emotion. Does Hilary continue to invoke the human soul for this role in the Tractatus super Psalmos? In this Treatise Hilary also deals at length with the tears of Jesus over the death of Lazarus. He, however, makes no application to the soul of Christ but simply appeals to his concerns for the human race: “and when he wept as he was about to raise Lazarus, he was weeping for the infidelity of the human race.”83 At the end of the same passage, Hilary cites the apparent ignorance of Jesus raised by Cleophas in Luke 24.18.84 He wants to acknowledge that Christ did experience the affectus of the human condition in order to demonstrate his real humanity. Hilary in the Tractatus does not use the human soul of Christ as the forum of his suffering pain or ignorance. There is one possible appeal to the soul of Christ in a passage where Hilary is speaking of death and affirms that there is no impact on the impasest? quosdam ictus recipit, sed receptos evincit et sanat et comprimit . . . (10.4). For an informative discussion of the influence of Stoic psychology and Christian treatments of martyrdom in Hilary’s treatments of the sufferings of Christ, see, Mark Weedman, “Martyrdom and Docetism in Hilary’s ‘De Trinitate,’ ” Augustinian Studies 30 (1999): 21–41. For a clear and convincing discussion of Hilary’s use of Stoic psychological distinction between suffering and pain, as well as his complex application of this theme in his De Trinitate, consult Beckwith, “Suffering without Pain.” 81. . . . adferrent quidem haec impetum passionis, non tamen dolorem passionis inferrent: ut telum aliquod aut aquam perforans, aut ignem compungens, aut aera vulnerans, omnes quidem has passiones naturae suae infert, ut foret, ut conpungat, ut vulneret; sed naturam suam in haec passio inlata non retinet, dum in natura non est vel aquam forari, vel pungi ignem, vel aerem vulernari, quamvis naturae teli sit et vulnerare et conpungere et forare (Hilary, De Trin. 10.23). 82. Quid sit deinde, quod in eo fleverit? Deusne Verbum, an corporis sui anima? Nam quamvis lacrymarum officium in corpore sit, animi tamen eas, in minsterio corporis quasi quidam maeror exsudat (Hilary, De Trin. 10.55). 83. Luctus vero omnis adfectus in fletu est; et cum Lazarum excitaturus inlacrimat, infidelitatem humani generis lugebat; in habitu enim luctus flendi significatur adfectus (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 68.12). 84. Adeo autem nullum genus hominum de eo tacuisse manifestum est, ut Cleophus ei qui tamquam rerum ignarus causam sermonis interrogavit respondisse ita scribatur: Tu solus peregrinus es in Hierusalem et non cognovisti, quae facta sunt in diebus his? Stupior enim est de ignoratione unius in cognitione universorum (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 138.3).

160  ³  The Christological F oundat ion

siblity of the Son: “he applies the whole issue to the function of the body for which death occurs due to the separation from the immortal soul.85 Hilary is asserting that the separation of the soul from the body at his death did not compromise the impassability of his divine nature. There are other general observations about the human soul in the Tractatus. Hilary develops the relation of soul to body including another appeal to surgery in order to provide a parallel for the way God is actively present everywhere.86 Although Hilary demonstrated an understanding of the role of the soul as the animating and the sentient principle in the human body in his earlier De Trinitate, he does not seem to invoke the soul when dealing with the suffering of Jesus in the Tractatus. Instead he returns to his previous strategies employed in his Commentary on Matthew. Christ deliberately accepted these experiences for the salvation of humans. The voluntary character and the soteriological purpose were seen to obviate the Divine ’s direct experience of “pain.”87 In his comments on Psalm 53, he appeals cryptically to the voluntary status of Christ’s experience of death. Quod autem et in crucem actum unigenitum Dei Filium et morte damnatum eum qui nativitate, quae sibi ex aeterno Patre est naturalis, aeternus sit, frequenter, immo semper, praedicamus, non ex naturae necessitate potius quam ex 85. Id ipsum autem etiam psalmi consequentia demonstrant. [N]e enim indefessa illa virtus et inpassibilis unigeniti [D]ei natura mortis somno dormitatura existimaretur, rem omnem ad officium corporis, cui discessio inmortalis animae mors est, rettulit (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 131.9). 86. Non corporalibus locis Deus continetur neque finibus aut spatiis divinae virtutis immensitas coartatur. Adest ubique, et totus ubicumque est; non pro parte usquam est, sed in omnibus omnis est. . . . Nihil a Deo vacat, nihil indiget. Ubique est modo animae corporalis, quae in membris omnibus diffusa a singulis quibusque partibus non abest. Etiamsi privata quaedam ei et regia in toto corpore sedis est, tamen in medullis, digitis, artubus infunditur. Iam si corruptis aliquibus corporis membris recisione erit necesse, cum usum suum eadem membra vitiis emortua non habebunt, id quod putre cadumcumque carnis est sine detrimento animae recidetur. Ipsa enim corporis nostri anima sanis et integris admixta membris est; et cum eadem fuerint putria et recidenda, non sequitur (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.19.8). 87. For an example of a scholar who has accused Hilary of espousing a Docetic version of Christ, see R. P. C. Hanson, The Search for the Christian Doctrine of God (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988), 501. See also Weedman, The Trinitarian, 157, nn.1 and 2. For the clearest refutation of the Docetic charge against Hilary’s Christology, consult Beckwith, “Suffering with Pain.” Hilary repeatedly affirms the “body of Christ,” but tends, on occasion, to invest his body with anticipations of the “glorified” status. For a discussion of Hilary’s focus on the biblical sequence of preexistence, kenosis, and exaltation within a “transfiguration-theology,” see Grillmeier, Christ in the Christian Tradition, 308–9. For the influence of the “transfiguration” in Hilary’s treatment of Christ in his earlier commentary, consult Jeremy Driscoll, “The Transfiguration in Hilary of Poitiers’ Commentary on Matthew,” Augustinianum 24 (1984): 395–420.

  The Christological F oundat ion  ³  161

sacramento humanae salutis passioni fuisse subditus intellegendus est, et voluisse se magis passioni subici quam coactum. ( Tr. Ps. 53.12) (For we frequently, indeed, always, preach that the only-begotten Son of God driven to the cross and condemned to death is he who by virtue of his birth, which is natural for him from the eternal Father, is eternal. It must be understood that he was subjected to suffering not because of the demand of his nature, but because of the mystery of human salvation and that he willed to be subjected to suffering rather than to have been coerced.)

Hilary continues to work with a notion of divine impassability that prevents any change, alteration, or suffering for the divine.88 So he reiterates his emphasis on the voluntary character of the Son’s acceptance of the limitations of the human condition which had been one of his earlier strategies from his In Matthaeum. Although Hilary appeals to the Stoic distinction between pati and dolere, he still has the Son accept pain and suffering voluntarily.89 Also in the Commentary on Matthew, Hilary had employed this Stoic distinction between pati and dolere to protect the unchangeable and impassable divinity in the Son.90 On occasion he uses that strategy in the Tractatus: [S]uscepit ergo infirmitates, quia homo nascitur; et putatur dolere, quia patitur: caret vero doloribus ipse, quia [D]eus est. (Tr. Ps. 138.3) (He took up infirmities because he is born a human and is thought to feel pain because he suffers blows; but in fact he personally lacks pain because he is God.) On Psalm 68, Hilary once again raises the issue of Christ’s suffering but locates it in his familiar terminology of the Son “taking up of the body.” “For this fear of our infirmities did not have the strength to afflict God.”91 Here again, Hilary does not invoke the psychological role of the human soul as the location of suffering (dolere). 88. Et quamquam passio illa non fuerit condicionis et generis, quia indemutabilem Dei naturam nulla vis iniuriosae perturbationis offenderet, tamen suscepta voluntarie est, officio quidem ipsa satisfactura poenali, non tamen poenae sensu laesura patientem, non quod illa laedendi non habuerit pro ipsa passionis qualitate naturam, sed quod dolorem divinitatis natura non sentit (Hilary, Tr. Ps.53.12). 89. Passus ergo est Deus, quia se subiecit voluntarius passioni, sed suscipiens naturales ingruentium in se passionum, quibus dolorem patientibus necesse est eas inferre, virtutes, ipse tamen a naturae suae virtute non excidit, ut doleret (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 53.12). 90. For Hilary’s application of this distinction to the “sufferings of Christ” in his In Matt., consult Burns, Christology, 83–94. 91. Verum ineuntium harum passionum non aliunde quam ex adsumptione carnis et virtus est et potestas. Non enim incidere in Deum hic infirmitatum nostrarum terror valebat aut exerere se nisi in carne corporis nostri, tamquam in subiacente materie, potuerant passiones (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 68.4).

162  ³  The Christological F oundat ion

Although his humanity is like ours, it is clear he does not experience limitations in exactly the same way as we do. To present his case for the unique status of Christ’s humanity at De Trinitate, Hilary discussed conditions of his birth within the perspectives of the Philippians passage. Right after acknowledging the psychological function of the human soul (Tr. Ps. 10.14) noted above, Hilary asserted the Son’s unique birth from the virgin and the power of the Holy Spirit as the sources for the special character of his human body and by inference his soul.92 Although the virgin birth of Jesus is not frequent theme in the Tractatus super Psalmos, Hilary, at an early stage, does appeal to this special character of the Son’s birth. “It is hidden that he had put on himself the nature of human flesh not from the common kind of origin, but that nature came forth from and was born from a virgin.”93 In a couple of other passages, Hilary connects the special character of Christ’s body with the virgin birth.94 For Hilary, this establishes Christ’s body as his body as a perfect model from which we could learn. In the passage at Tr. Ps. 55.5 (quoted on p. 139, note 11), Hilary asserts that the Son expresses his divinity power through his human body “by walking on water, effecting cures by a simple touch, curing blindness and a severed ear by a physical gesture, moving through walls.” Hilary wants to affirm the full reality of the humanity taken up by the Son. After quoting John 1.14, Hilary expressly discounts the humanity of the Son as foreign or counterfeit and goes on to make the distinction, between “being a nature” and “taking up a nature.”95 92. Quodsi adsumpta sibi per se ex virgine carne, ipse sibi ex se animam concepti per se corporis coaptavit, secundum animae corporisque naturam necesse est et passionum fuisse naturam. Evacuans se enim ex Dei forma et formam servi accipiens [Philippians 2.7], et Filius Dei etiam filius hominis nascens, ex se suaque virtute non deficiens Deus verbum consummavit hominem viventem (Hilary, De Trin. 10.15). 93. Est et occultum naturam in eo carnis humanae non ex communi originis genere induisse, sed extitisse ex virgine et editam fuisse et absque nascendi initio procreatam (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 9.3). 94. Unigenitus Dei filius naturae nostrae ex virgine sibi corpus adsumens, cum in se ipso veram et perfectam humanae prudentiae formam praebuisset, quid a se disci tamquam exemplo doctrinae voluerit noscendum est (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.14.8). See also: Sed contuenti mihi penitus quasdam virtutes proprietatesque verborum, quae ultra humani sermonis consuetudinem altius nescio quid et sublimius elocuntur, eius potius hominis, in quo ex partu virginis ad sacramentum humanae salutis unigenitus [D]ei [F]ilius natus est, repertus est psalmus iste intellegi oportere (Tr. Ps. 139.2). For Mark Weedman’s and Carl L. Beckwith’s discussions of this theme in De Trin., see n. 67. 95. See n. 72.

  The Christological F oundat ion  ³  163

quia non alienae aut simulatae naturae hominem adsumpsit. [V]erbum namque caro factum habitavit in nobis: non in vitia infirmitatesque carnis ex verbi virtute deficiens, sed naturae nostrae infirmitates homo natus adsumens. [A]dsumptio autem infirmitatis non fecit infirmum, quia aliud est naturam esse, aliud adsumpsisse naturam. [E]t extra generis necessitatem voluntatis accessio est. [N]on enim peccator fuit, sed peccata suscepit; neque infirmus extitit, sed portavit infirmitates. (Tr. Ps. 138.3) (because he did not take up the humanity of an alien or artificial nature. For the Word made flesh lived among us not in vices and infirmities of flesh through the deficiency of the power of the Word but in being born human he took up the infirmities of our nature. The taking up of infirmity did not make him weak because it is one thing to be a nature and another thing to have taken up a nature. For the addition of will is outside the compulsion of birth. For he not a sinner but he did take on our sins nor was he weak but he did carry our weaknesses.)

In the comment on the subscription of Psalm 141 dealing with “David in the cave,” Hilary draws a parallel with the Son in the flesh. Again he wants to affirm the reality of the humanity of the Son. id est [D]ominum nostrum, [D]ei [F]ilium, qui frequenter fugerit, frequenter latuerit, frequenter oraverit, in ipso quoque tempore passionis et fleverit et ad [D]eum in tribulatione clamaverit, non ob naturalem quasi passionis metum, sed adfectum hominis, quem gerebat, ostendens: ut per hanc orationem et [F]ilius [D]ei, ad quem oraret, et ipse non simulatus homo, sed verus posset intellegi. (Tr. Ps. 141.1) (this is, our Lord, the Son of God, who frequently fled, frequently hid, frequently prayed, and also in the very time of his suffering he both wept and in distress he cried out to God, not from a natural fear of suffering, but from the emotion of the human which he was using, showing that through this prayer to God, to whom he was praying, the Son of God could be understood not as an imitation human but as a true one.)

Other passages in Psalms 51, 53, and 68 prompt Hilary to reiterate his approach to the Son’s humanity and suffering.96 96. He suffered and died in his humanity: . . . ostenditur a nobis unigenitus Deus, qui ante saecula natus est, in homine et passus et crucifixus et mortuus (Tr. Ps. 51.10). Again in a discussion of John 1.14, Verbum caro factum est, Hilary explicitly states that Christ suffered in his humanity: . . . ut, qui omnia secundum hominem passus est, idem omnia secundum hominem et loquatur, et quorum infirmitates portavit et peccata suscepit, eorum ad Deum deprecetur obsequio (53.4). Universarum itaque humanarum passionum sorte perfunctus secundum susceptas infirmitates nostras loquitur et dolet ipse quidem extra necessitatem et timoris positus et doloris, sed his se tamen quae suscepit adcommodans, ut qui carnis nostrae homo natus esset, et dolorum nostrorum querelis et infirmitatis precatione loqueretur (68.1). In addition to the discussion of grief at the occasion of the death of Lazarus, Hilary also makes the more

164  ³  The Christological F oundat ion

In affirming the reality of Christ’s experience through his humanity, Hilary continues throughout the Tractatus to account for Christ’s suffering with appeals to the voluntary character and the purpose of salvation. He does not invoke the soul of Christ as the forum for these experiences. Although Hilary does recognize the psychological function of the human soul, he does not employ it in the Tractatus as a theological principle to protect the changeless divinity of the Son against the Homoian charges. On the other hand, Hilary does explore a number of theological possibilities for the body of Christ. One theme of the body of Christ will build upon another passage from Philippians to develop the ultimate goal of the Christian to be discussed in the next chapter. Hilary’s interest in the inclusiveness of all kinds of people in the body of Christ has been evident since the Commentary on Matthew.

Corpus Christi: The Extended Sense

For the terminology to express the relation of the Son through his humanity to every human being, Hilary continues to rely on formulations already present in his Commentary on Matthew.97 In this Tractatus he does extend some of that terminology and applications in significant ways. For the comprehensive inclusion of people within the body of Christ, Hilary continues to expand his polyvalent metaphor of city. In the paragraph immediately following his graphic metaphor of “a city in plague,” Hilary applies the universal implications of the caro and corpus taken up by the Son. He is commenting on the verse that invites “all to ascend Mount Sion towards the holy city of Jerusalem.” Sion quae sit, apostolus docet, cum dicit: Adcedamus ad Sion montem et ad sanctam civitatem Hierusalem [Heb 12.22], omnes enim currimus adprehendere, in quo sumus adprehensi a Christo, id est invenire in eius corpore quod ex nobis ipse praesumpsit in quo ante constitutionem mundi a Patre sumus electi, in quo reconciliati ex inimicis et adquisiti sumus ex perditis, in quo apostolus cum damno universorum optat inveniri dicens [Phil 3.8]. (Tr. Ps. 13.4) general observation: Flet interdum et ingemescit et tristis est, et id ipsum ad infirmitatis tribuitur exemplum (68.12). He links suffering, infirmity and death on the cross to his soteriological objective: Percussus ergo est Dominus peccata nostra suscipiens et pro nobis dolens, ut in eo usque ad infirmitatem crucis mortisque percusso sanitas nobis per resurrectionem ex mortuis redderetur (68.23). 97. For a comprehensive discussion of this theme, consult Luis Ladaria, La Cristologiá de Hilario de Poitiers, Analecta Gregoriana 255 (Rome: Pontificia Universita Gregoriana, 1989), esp. chap. 3: “La Asunción de Toda la Humanidad,” 87–103.

  The Christological F oundat ion  ³  165

(What Sion is, the Apostle teaches when he says, “Let us go up to Mount Sion and the holy city of Jerusalem [Heb 12.22].” For we all run to take possession of that through which Christ has taken hold of us, that is to find ourselves in his body which he had first taken from us. In this we have been chosen by the Father before the foundation of the world; in this we have been reconciled with our enemies and secured from among the lost; in this the Apostle prays to be found with the loss of everything [Phil 3.8]).

In his comment on the very next Psalm, Hilary links this terminology “of being in his body” to a number of his familiar themes of “Church,” “city,” and “mountain.” This connection is prompted by the question in the first verse of the Psalm: Domine quis habitabit in tabernaculo tuo aut quis requiescet in monte sancto tuo? (Lord who will live on your tabernacle or who will rest on your holy mountain?) After dealing at 14.2 with the distinctive applications of divine precepts for the one on the way to God (cui ad Deum iter est) to all areas of the human condition, noted in our previous chapter, Hilary connects “body of Christ,” to “church,” and to “city.”98 Moreover, Hilary frequently expresses this inclusion in the body of Christ just as he had done in his earlier Commentary on Matthew with the word “in” or the prefix “con.”99 He adds prefixes to verbs on Christ’s death and burial to express our participation in those acts established by baptism.100 Many of these themes and terms are summed up in a passage on Psalm 91 which begins with citations from Philippians (Phil 3.12; 3.8), Ephesians (1.3–5), John (1.14); and is continued with terminology influenced by passages in Colossians, Ephesians, Galatians, and Philippians. Hilary’s thesis throughout this extensive passage is that “through connection with his body, we are taken up in Christ.”101 In this 98. Ergo quia qui Christi sunt in Christi corpore ante constitutionem mundi electi sunt et ecclesia corpus est Christi et fundamentum aedificationis nostrae Christus est et civitas super montem aedificata (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 14.5). 99. . . . quia omnes unum corpus sumus in Christo [Rom 12.5] . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.17.11). 100. For the participation in the death and resurrection of Christ through baptism: . . . commortui et consepulti Domino in baptismate in novitate vitae ambulemus [cf. Romans 6.4] et in novum Christi hominem, deposito vetere, renascamur [cf. Ephesians 4.22]( Hilary, Tr. Ps. 2.41). Morimur enim secundum apostolum cum Christo et conseplimur in baptismo [Romans 6.4] (Tr. Ps. 118.15.13). For the same theme in his early writing, see In Matt. 10.25. 101. Verbum caro factum est [John 1.14], quia, cum aliquando essemus alienati et inimici sensus eius in factis malis, nunc autem reconciliati sumus corpore carnis eius [Colossians 1.21–22]. Ergo per coniunctionem carnis adsumptae sumus in Christo; et hoc est sacramentum Dei absconditum a saeculis et generationibus in Deo, quod nunc revelatum est sanctis eius [Colossians 1.26], esse nos coheredes et concorporales et comparticipes pollicitationis eius in Christo [cf. Ephesians 3.6]. Patet ergo universis per coniunctionem carnis

166  ³  The Christological F oundat ion

passage, Hilary presents the role of Christ’s body in the transformation from the old to the new man. He refers to taking on the vices and desires and fastening them to the cross so that his body and those united to his body are transformed from humiliation to the glory of his body. This reference to Philippians 3.21, which surprisingly is not acknowledged in the recent critical edition, certainly anticipates the eschatological themes of the next chapter. But even in this life Hilary employs the language of “incorporation in Christ” as his extended “body” which is synonymous with his use of “church.” After an explicit list of sins to be forgiven and virtues to be acquired in his comment at Tr. Ps. 125, Hilary continues to associate the terms of “new man,” “incorporation,” and “church.”102 The connection of “conformity to the glorified body” and “Sion” had been developed in his comment on the previous Psalm. In that passage, Hilary linked “the body of the Lord” to “Mount Sion” and to “Jerusalem as city of God.”103 In the next paragraph, Hilary goes on to distinguish two stages of the “heavenly Jerusalem.” The first stage occurs on earth and that is a prefiguration of the full realization of the “heavenly Jerusalem” in eternity. Again the enabling agency is “the body of Christ” now “in glory.”104 Clearly he regards the instance of the reality “now” as a “form” or “type” of the fuller realization to come. This cluster of terms to represent the participation of believers in the body of Christ, which is aditus in Christo, si exuant veterem hominem [Ephesians 4.22] et cruci eius adfigant (Colossians 2.15), et ab his quae ante gesserunt in baptismo eius consepeliantur [Colossians 2.12] ad vitam, et, ut in consortium Christi carnis introeant, carnem cum vitiis et concupiscentiis adfigant [cf. Galatians 5.24]. Istius modi enim corpora configuravit in transformationem corporis sui et horum humilitatem in gloriam carnis suae transferet [cf. Philippians 3.21], qui contundentes omnes cupiditatum aculeos et voluptatum sordes abluentes post novae nativitatis sacramentum meminerint se non carnem suam habere, sed Christi (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 91.9). 102. [A]vertit enim [D]eus captivitatem nostram per remissionem peccatorum. [A] dominatu enim vitiorum animam liberavit anteriora delicta non reputans et nos in vitam novam renovans et in novum hominem transformans, constituens nos in corpore carnis suae. [I]pse est enim ecclesia, per sacramentum corporis sui in se universam eam continens. [N]on erat Sion ante, quae liberaretur; sed Sion est, quae liberata est.  [N]omen cum libertate convenit. [N]eque enim manentis, sed aversae captivitatis hoc nomen est (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 125.6). 103. [E]t non ambiguum est apostolum fundamentum Christum significasse, per quod beata illa  [D]ominici corporis ecclesia, cuius fundamentum est Christus, significari videtur in monte. . . . [H]abemus ergo montem Sion [D]omini, habemus et civitatem [D]ei Hierusalem (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 124.3). 104. [C]onfidamus in [D]omino, ut conformes corporis gloriae [D]ei simus [cf Philippians 3.21].  [H]abitemus nunc ecclesiam, caelestem Hierusalem ut non moveamur in aeternum. [I]n hac enim habitantes habitamus et in illa; quia haec illius forma est (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 124.4).

  The Christological F oundat ion  ³  167

“church,” “Sion,” and “city on a mountain top,” certainly expresses the fundamental role of Christ specifically in and through his glorified body. These terms had been a prominent feature of Hilary’s perspectives as early as his Commentary on Matthew. There in his comment on “a city on a mountaintop,” Hilary equated city and body and went on to demonstrate the number and the variety of the participants.105 Although this incorporation into the body of Christ both as a synonym for Church and then as the basis for “the conformation to the glorified body” after resurrection is Hilary’s primary example of human solidarity, it is not the only instance of this theme. In a number of passages Hilary speaks of the common condition of death confronting all people. It is this condition which Christ takes on and conquers for all by his death on the cross. He comments on the verse in Psalm 67, which enjoins “all people to sing for joy, because the way has been prepared by the one who ascended over the downfall.”106 Hilary clearly acknowledges the common view that death is obliteration.107 Hilary goes on to combine phrases from the Philippians hymn and a quotation in Luke 3.4 from Isaiah about “preparing the ways and making them straight” (Is 40.3–4) and he finishes his discussion with the provision of life after death for people.108 This theme expresses the divine response to the condition of human solidarity in sin and death. Hilary has a variety of expressions for the shared human condition of sin. This, in fact, is the theme cited by Augustine in Contra Julianum 2.26 where he conflates passages from Tr. Ps. 118.3.4 and 118.15.6.109 105. Civitatem carnem quam adsumpserat nuncupat, quia, ut civitas ex varietate ac multitudine consistit habitantium, ita in eo per naturam suscepti corporis quaedam universi generis humani congregatio continetur. Atque ita et ille ex nostra in se congregatione fit civitas et nos per consortium carnis sumus suae civitatis habitatio (Hilary, In Matt. 4.12). 106. Psallendum itaque ei iterque eius parandum est, qui ascendit super occasum (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 67.6). 107. Occasu autem universa quae veniunt in vitam intelleguntur aboleri. Abolitio autem omnium occidentium secundum humanam communemque opinionem existimatur in morte (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 67.6). 108. Super occasum enim nostrae mortis ascendens vitam nobis ex mortuis in se resurgente quaesivit (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 14.5). 109. Audi et beatissimum Hilarium, ubi speret hominis perfectionem. Cum enim loqueretur de pace evangelica [Psalm 118, verses 18 and 115], ubi Dominus ait, Pacem meam do vobis [John 14.27]: “Quia lex,” inquit, “umbra erat futurorum bonorum, idcirco per hanc praefiguratam significantiam docuit nos in hoc terreni et morticini corporis habitaculo mundos esse non posse, nisi per ablutionem coelestis misericordiae emundationem consequamur, post demutationem resurrectionis terreni corporis nostri effecta gloriosiore natura.” Rursus in eodem sermone: “Ipsis,” inquit, “Apostolis verbo licet iam fidei emundatis atque sanctificatis non

168  ³  The Christological F oundat ion

Sed quia lex umbra est futurorum bonorum [Heb 10.1], idcirco per hanc praeformatam significantiam docuit nos in hoc terreni et morticini corporis habitaculo mundos esse non posse, nisi per ablutionem caelestis misericordiae emundationem consequamur, post demutationem resurrectionis terreni corporis nostri effecta gloriosiore natura. (Tr. Ps. 118.3.4) (But because “the law is the shadow of benefits to come” [Heb 10.1], consequently he has taught through this prepared sign that we in the dwelling of an earthly and mortal body cannot be clean, unless we go through a cleansing by the purification of heavenly mercy accomplished after the transformation of resurrection with the nature of our earthly body made more glorious.)

In other passages in his commentary on Tr. Ps. 118, Hilary raises this theme of the universal sinful condition of humans.110 Hilary, for example, expresses the universal sinful condition in a succinct observation where he repudiates all suggestions that “God spurns any sinners.”111 The universal sinful condition means that all are in need of divine mercy.112 Since everyone established “in the flesh” is in this predicament, Hilary specifically exempts Jesus from being a sinner. He cites 1 Peter 2.22 and John 8.7 about the unique status of Jesus “who is alone without sin.”113 We have already seen Hilary’s comments on the unique characteristics of the virginal conception of Jesus to exempt him from this sinful condition. The theme of the victory over sin and death won for all by Christ is expressed by Hilary who links the body of Christ with “building of the city” and “establishing of the city on the mountain.” This model is both universal and progressive with completion only after the resurrecdeesse tamen malitiam, per conditionem communis nobis originis, docuit dicens, Si cum sitis mali, nostis bona data dare filiis vestris” [Matthew 7.11] (Augustine, Contra Julianum 2.26 [PL 44, 691]). For a discussion of Augustine’s use of Hilary’s Tractatus, consult Jean Doignon, “Testimonia d’ Hilaire de Poitiers dans le Contra Julianum d’ Augustin: les textes, leur groupement, leur lecteur,” RBén 91 (1981): 7–19. 110. . . . ipsisque apostolis verbo licet iam fidei emundatis atque sanctis non abesse tamen malitiam per condicionem communis nobis originis docuit dicens: Si ergo vos, cum sitis mali, nostis data bona dare filiis vestris [Mt 7.11] (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.15.6). Propheta in corpore positus loquitur et neminem viventium scit sine peccato esse posse (118.5.16). 111. Si enim peccatores Deus sperneret, omnes utique sperneret quia sine peccato nemo sit (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.15.10). 112. Miserere mei. Scit enim neminem sine peccato esse qui vivat et omnes in carne sitos misericordia Dei egere (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.8.9). 113. Sed propheta non audet in tantum se a peccato liberum effici velle, ut non meminerit unum solum esse qui peccatum non fecerit et dolus in ore eius inventus non sit (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.6.6). Ipse utique perfectus et sine peccato solus et unus in cuius ore dolus non fuit (118.14.8).

  The Christological F oundat ion  ³  169

tion of the dead. After quoting Isaiah 28.16, he applies the reference of “establishing a cornerstone in Zion” to the “body of Christ” and “city of God,” which we have seen at Tr. Ps. 124.3. In his commentary on Psalms 126 and 147 in particular, Hilary develops the building of the house or city of God. Throughout his comments on these themes, Hilary emphasizes inclusion within the body of Christ. On Psalm 126 he contrasts the divine initiative with any human activities or secular learning for the building of the city. This opens with the verse: nisi dominus aedificaverit sibi domum, in vanum laboraverunt, qui aedificant eam. (“Unless the Lord has built the house for himself, they labor in vain who build it.) Domus ergo aedificanda per [D]eum est. [H]umanis enim operibus structa non permanet, nec doctrinis saeculi instituta consistit, nec inani laboris et sollicitudinis nostrae cura custodietur. . . . [L]apidibus vivis augenda est, angulari lapide continenda est et mutae conexionis augmentis in virum consummatum et in mensuram Christi corporis extruenda, specie quoque ac decore gratiarum spiritalium adornanda [cf. 1 Peter 2.5; Ephesians 2.20]. . . . [H]aec domus in domos plures diversis fidelium aedificationibus in unoquoque nostrum ad ornatum et amplitudinem beatae illius civitatis excrescit. (Tr. Ps. 126.8) (Therefore the house is to be built by God. For things constructed by human efforts do not last nor do agreements based on the teachings of the secular world stand firm, nor will it be protected by the vain care of our work and concern. It must be enlarged by living stones and must be held together by the cornerstone and must be built by the increases in mutual connection into the complete man and capacity of the body of Christ and must be adorned with the look and also the decoration of spiritual blessings [cf. 1 Peter 2.5; Ephesians 2.20]. This house grows up into many houses and the different buildings of the faithful in each one of us for the decoration and fullness of that blessed city.)

In the next paragraph, Hilary provides a rhetorically constructed catalogue of biblical figures from Abraham to Mary who were agents in the construction of this city. He then concludes, as in the previous passage, with a reference to the diversity within the city.114 Haec civitatis illlius beatae atque sanctae aeterna custodia est, quae ex multis in unum convenientibus et in unoquoque nostrum [D]eo civitas est. [E]st enim haec sancti corporis et fidelis animae ei placita possessio. (Tr. Ps. 126.9) 114. For other passages on the inclusiveness in the various social applications of “the body of Christ,” see Hilary, Tr. Ps. 9.1, 13.5, 14.2, 51.15, 64.4, 65.20, 91.9, 118.17.11, 118.21.6, 119.4, 120.13, 138.1, 138.40.

170  ³  The Christological F oundat ion

(This is the eternal guardian of that blessed and holy city, which out of many coming together into one is the true city of God in each of us. For this city is the possession, pleasing to him, of the holy body and faithful spirit.)

A little later in his comments on the same Psalm, Hilary returns to the impact on the body and the soul of the believer. He goes on to acknowledge that this is a progressive model of the “city to built through the Lord in order to grow to its completed expansion.” [H]ae igitur civitates, id est sancti cuiusque corporis atque animae [D]eo placitus incolatus et coetus hunc unum habent perfectae huius habitationis artificem. [A]edificanda ergo per [D]ominum haec civitas est, ut in augmentum consummationis suae crescat. [N]on enim iam aedificatio coepta perfectio est, sed per aedificationem perfectionis consummatio conparatur. (Tr. Ps. 126.10) (For these cities, that is dwellings and assemblies of his holy body and spirit pleasing to God, have one architect of this perfect habitation. Therefore, this city is to be built through the Lord in order to grow to its completed expansion. For the beginning of the construction is not the completion but the consummation is provided through construction of perfection.)

Near the end of his Treatise at 147, Hilary celebrates the speed and range of the divine Word which daily reaches out to the corners of the earth gathering “building blocks” to contribute to the perfect completion of the city. “Its speedy report runs from all its parts gathered from the four corners of the world right up to the city of this blessed kingdom to be gathered into the assembly of its completed perfection.” 115 With this combination of the symbols of “body of Christ,” “church,” and “city” the theme of universal outreach and progressive development all provide the basis for the themes in the next chapter. There Hilary deals with the future after death by commenting on biblical themes and images which support the Christian faith and hope when “we will be conformed to the glorified body of Christ.” Hilary, as we will see, tends to change the future tense of the standard version of Philippians 3.21.116 115. . . . qui emittit eloquium suum terrae; velociter currit sermo eius. [P]raedicationis regni [D]ei non fuit lenta properatio, sed in omnem terram indefessa mobilitate et celeri transcucurrit. . . . [P]er hancque velocem transcursionem aedificatio beatae huius civitatis est coepta, quae auditis opulentiae suae copiis cotidie ubique vivis fidelium lapidibus structa (cf. 1 Peter 2.5) usque ad incolatus sui plentiudinem conparatur, cuius in congregandis omnibus ex quattuor partibus mundi velox sermo percurrit, rursum ad confrequentandam hanc beati regni civitatem in coetum consummatae plentudinis congregandis (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 147.4). 116. Et transformavit, inquit, corpus humilitatis nostrae conforme corpori gloriae suae (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 1.15).

  The Christological F oundat ion  ³  171

Throughout this discussion of incorporation into the extended body of Christ, Hilary begins the process in baptism but its full realization is an eschatological fulfilment after death. He usually links his master metaphor of “city” to “Jerusalem” or “Sion.” In the same Psalm 147, the invitation “to praise God” elicits a description of this ultimate city with its distinguishing quality of “peace gathering all the saints conformed to the glory of God . . . through faith in the body of the Lord.”117 Hilary finishes this passage by applying a number of biblical terms to the condition of the inhabitants of this future city. In this description he explicitly employs the terminology, corporum demutatorum, which leads to our theme in the next chapter about the ultimate transformation or change. [E]rgo et conventus ille pacificus et gloria illa corporum demutatorum in Hierusalem et Sion nomine est, quod utrumque unum est; non saxa inania neque aedificationes hebetes, sed rationale animal, fundamentorum vivarumque lapides gemmarum et cives sanctitatis et [D]ei in domesticos suos dominatus haec civitas est, quae ex sensu beatitudinis suae et confessionis praeconio advocatur ad laudem. (Tr. Ps. 147.2) (Therefore both that peaceful assembly and that glory of the transformed bodies in Jerusalem is also named Sion because the two of them are one. They are not hollow stones nor mindless buildings but this city is a living being, stones of the foundations and living gems and citizens of holiness and members of God’s own household. This city out of a sense of its own blessedness and proclamation of its confession is called to give praise.)

To conclude this discussion on the role of Christ in the life of the Christian, a number of themes have emerged from Hilary’s treatment of the dynamic relation of the divinity and humanity in Christ. Hilary has certainly applied characteristics of the Godhead equally to Father and Son. He presents their relationship as one of eternal generation. To defend the continuing divinity of the Son at each phases of his progressive mission, Hilary refers to the status of his unique birth of the Son. 117. Lauda Hierusalem, [D]ominum, lauda [D]eum tuum, Sion. [N]on differt Hierusalem a Sion; nam secundum locorum nomina urbis ipsius locus idem est; sed nominum interpretatio geminam hanc eiusdem urbis commemorationem necessario desiderabat. Hierusalem enim est civitas pacis. [E]t quia [D]omini nostri regnum in pace et unanimitate sanctorum est—et factus est, inquit, in pace locus eius [Psalm 75.3],—conventus ille beatorum qui [D]ei regnum est, Hierusalem tamquam civitas pacis est dictus. [C]ivitatem vero hanc vivis, ut apostolus ait, lapidibus extructam sanctorum coetus conformis gloriae [D]ei [cf. Philippians 3.21] ex resurrectione consummat, qui se, qualis futurus esset, per fidem in corpore [D]omini ante speculatus est et idcirco etiam Sion nuncupatur (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 147.2).

172  ³  The Christological F oundat ion

He expresses the continuing divinity of the Son at each stage with his extensive applications of the language of Philippians (2.6–11). Hilary discovered the potential of this passage from his contact with Basil of Ancyra and his circle. He continues to employ the strategies he had used since his Commentary on Matthew and attributes the ignorance and suffering of Christ to his volitional and intentional objective. Hilary affirms both the human body and the human soul of the Son. He does not use the soul of Christ to account for theopaschite expressions but he does expand on his creative uses of the body of Christ. Our comparisons with several parallels in Origen’s extant texts have highlighted Hilary’s interest in “the body of Christ.” To provide the dynamic power for the transformations at baptismum, resurrectio, and demutatio, Hilary makes use of the inclusive capacity of the body of Christ. In this chapter we have seen that theme applied to membership in the Church. To this theme of the Church as body of Christ Hilary continues to apply the metaphor of “city” in order to highlight his respect for diversity of membership in unity. In the next chapter, the body of Christ will be applied to the life of the Christian after the resurrection. So incorporation within the body of Christ in successive stages is the dynamic source for the progressive transformation of the believer.

5

The Last Transformation: Demutatio

H

ilary’s treatment of the third and final transforma tion in the Christian life, which he terms demutatio, continues to depend on incorporation in the body of Christ. In exploring this theme we are brought back to Hilary’s proposal with which we began this study. He stated that he would develop three stages of the Christian life and assign each stage a cluster of fifty Psalms. Wild had claimed that Hilary never did apply that proposal throughout his commentary. Since Hilary did outline features of this final stage of demutatio as early as Psalm 2, it might appear that Wild was correct at least in the apparent failure to observe distinct roles for each cluster of fifty Psalms. In exploring this third stage, however, a distinctive feature of Hilary’s thought becomes apparent. There is a pronounced eschatalogical or anticipatory character to each stage of his proposal.1 Features of early stages look forward to completion at later stages. So in the third cluster of Psalms, Hilary speaks at length about the creation of the human person in ways that establish the human components, which ul-

1. For a short but insightful account of this theme, see Michael C. McCarthy, “Expectatio Beatitudinis: The Eschatological Frame of Hilary of Poitiers’ Tractatus super Psalmos,” in In the Shadow of the Incarnation: Essays on Jesus Christ in the Early Church in Honor of Brian E. Daly S.J., edited by Peter W. Martens, 50–70 (Notre Dame, Ind.: Notre Dame University Press, 2008).

173

174  ³  The Last Transformation

timately contribute to the final condition of demutatio. This whole process is accomplished specifically within “the glorified body of Christ.” For expressing and developing this theme accomplished within the body of Christ, Hilary once again makes extensive use of a passage in Philippians, which he quotes as early as his comment on Psalm 1: Et transformavit, inquit, corpus humilitatis nostrae conforme corpori gloriae suae [Phil 3.21]. (“And he has transformed,” he says, “the body of our humility conformed to the body of his glory” [Phil 3.21] [1.15]). Hilary cites this passage repeatedly and adapts its language to his discussion of the final transformation.2 His modification of the conventional future to the past tense in this passage is yet another demonstration of the anticipatory or proleptic feature of Hilary’s thought. The standard version of the Pauline text with its future tense presumes that the final state will be accomplished in the ultimate future. Hilary’s modification to the past tense asserts that this ultimate realization has already begun. To determine whether Hilary’s version of this third stage expresses yet another influence from his Greek contacts or represents resources in his Latin background, we need to identify his sources for both the term demutatio and for its development. In this last cluster of fifty Psalms Hilary does continue to use examples from his public culture, but there are noticeable shifts of perspective in which, as we shall see, he includes more examples from experiences within the Christian community. To complete his model of Christian progress from baptismum through resurrectio, Hilary announces his term demutatio for this final stage, as we have seen in chapter 1, in his discussion of Psalm 150.3 The term demutatio means “change.” Within his comments on Tr. Ps. 150 Hilary provides a series of three descriptions about the characteristics of each stage of the three levels of his progressive model. His expressions for the third stage all provide the context for the transformation of the resurrected body. In the first summary he provides an extended description of the third stage after succinct but recognizable notices on stages one and two. 2. For a brief but effective summary of the scriptural foundations of Hilary’s soteriology, consult Gilles Pelland, “Hilaire, exégète de Philipiens 3.21,” in La résurrection chez les Pères, edited by J.-M. Prieur, 215–27, Cahiers de Biblia Patristica 7 (Strasbourg: Université Marc Bloch, 2003). In addition to examples of Phil 3.21 at 1.15, 14.5, 91.7, 124.3–4 and 141.8, he adds the following influential passages for Hilary’s soteriology: Phil 2.6–11; 1 Cor 15.24–28; Jn 17.1–5. 3. [A]c sic omnia, baptismum, resurrectio, demutatio continentur (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 150.1).

The Last Transformation  ³  175

[P]ost quae rursum aedificata iam in aeternum [D]ei civitate et omnibus ad gratulationem eius laudemque commonitis sub eiusdem rursum numeri potestate spes est consummata sanctorum, iam ad spiritalem omnibus gloriam naturamque renovatis, ut gradatim per hoc ad [D]ei consortium veniretur. . . (Tr. Ps. 150.1) (The hope of the saints has been completed once more under the power of the same number, with the city of God built anew for all eternity and with all reminded of thanks and praise to Him and with all people now renewed into spiritual glory and nature so that step by step, through this, one might come into the company of God.)

Here are themes that provide the context and perspective for our discussion about demutatio. These include “the completion of the building of the city of God,” “the quest for eternity,” “the prominence of praise and thanksgiving,” and “the inclusion of everyone in the renewal of a glory and a nature that is spiritual.” Hilary’s whole objective “is to arrive by stages into the company of God.” The second summary reiterates the goal of “attainment of a spiritual glory.”4 Hilary follows this assertion with the three terms designating each stage. Hilary then provides a third summary of his three stages. The final one again focuses on “the nature of spirit” and “praise”: . . . cum prima . . . sequens ad iudicium innocentiae resurrectione perducat, tertia in naturam spiritus et laudem constituat (Tr. Ps. 150.1) ( . . . when first . . . then he would lead to judgment of innocence at resurrection, and thirdly he would settle into the nature of spirit and praise). This formulation clearly locates “resurrection” in the second stage. The first change or conversion from pre-Christian status is initiated by baptism and completed by resurrection, which then opens the way to the final transformation of the resurrected body. Throughout his description of demutatio in Tr. Ps. 150.1, Hilary refers to a transformation into a “spiritual” condition. So a fundamental question for our consideration in this chapter will be: How does Hilary integrate this spiritual state with continued reliance on the body of Christ? We will examine Hilary’s discussions of this final transformation throughout the Tractatus, but a few preliminary observations about its general character deserve to be acknowledged at the outset. Hilary ap4. . . . iudiciique constantia spiritalis gloriae sumeret dignitatem (Hilary, Tr. Ps.150.1).

176  ³  The Last Transformation

proaches the final transformation and its eschatological context not primarily as an exercise in speculative or abstract thought but rather as an expression of his understanding as a Christian living on this earth. Hilary locates the issue within the “aspirations,” “hope,” and “longing” of a person anxious about “life after death,” or aeternitas as he has been calling it since the autobiographical section of his De Trinitate.5 Hilary also identifies the content of this “hope” within conventional features of Late Antique Christian eschatology.6 It is important to place Hilary’s discussion of demutatio within the broader spectrum of this eschatology. This includes life after death, resurrection of the body, judgment, punishment, comparison to angelic status, community of saints, the handing over the kingdom of the Son to the Father and the kingdom of God with the critical role of Jesus Christ throughout this process. Some of these themes are stated in biblical or conventional Christian terms; other themes reflect Hilary’s creative use of his theological and cultural resources.7 Throughout the Tractatus, but more prominently in his third section, Hilary provides a number of catalogues of the eschatological content of his “hope” or “expectation.” On Psalm 121 where he is commenting on the verse that “we will go in the house of the Lord,” Hilary opens with the confident assertion that the themes in this Psalm are clear to “those occupied with hope” or “longing for heaven.” “Hope” denotes Hilary’s basic perspective to the whole range of issues beyond death and he expresses this theme primarily through scriptural texts. The very terminology employed to present the content of this hope is based on allusions to identifiable biblical passages. 5. Hic iam mens trepida et anxia plus spei invenit quam expectabat (Hilary, De Trin. 1.11). For the resolution of this anxiety, see: In hoc igitur conscio securitatis suae otio mens spebus suis laeta requieverat, intercessionem mortis huius usque eo non metuens, ut etiam reputaret in vitam aeternitatis (De Trin. 1.14). For a discussion of this experience and the resources employed to resolve the problem, see Paul C. Burns, “Hilary’s Use of Communally Sanctioned Texts to Construct His Autobiography,” Zeitschrift Für Antikes Christentum/ Journal of Ancient Christianity 2 (1998): 65–83, especially 81–83. 6. For a brief but informed outline of Hilary’s approaches to eschatology, consult Brian E. Daley, “Eschatologie d’Hilarie,” in Eschatologie in der Schrift und Patristik, edited by Brian E. Daley, Horacio E. Lona, Joseph Schreiner, 161–63 (Freiburg: Herder, 1986). For a through and systematic treatment of the content of Hilary’s eschatology, consult Michael Durst, Die Eschatologie des Hilarius von Poitiers: Ein Beitrag zur Dogmengeschichte des IV. Jahrhunderts, Hereditas 1 (Bonn: Borengässer, 1987). 7. For a full presentation of Hilary’s use of these themes in biblical and classical literature, consult Durst, Die Eschatologie.

The Last Transformation  ³  177

ex suo enim sensu intellegentiam propheticae magniloquentiae consequetur, namque cum se meminerit scriptum [D]ei coheredem et consortem aeternorum bonorum [cf. Rom 8.17; Gal 3.29, 4.7], et similem angelis ex resurrectione renovandum [cf. Mt 22.31] et corruptione deposita in gloriam [D]ei ac [D]omini nostri Iesu Christi corporis conformandum [cf. Phil 3.21] futurumque incolam civitatis caelestis vivis lapidibius extructae . . . [cf. 1 Pet 2.5]. (Tr. Ps. 121.1) (from his own mind he will follow the understanding of the prophetic style of speech, for when he has remembered he has been mentioned in scripture as a coheir of God and one who shares in eternal blessings [cf. Rom 8.17; Gal 3.29, 4.7] and that he is destined to be renewed as a result of the resurrection in the likeness of angels [cf. Mt 22.31] and, with corruption laid aside, destined to be conformed to the glory of God and the body of our Lord Jesus Christ [cf. Phil 3.21] and to be a future inhabitant of the heavenly city built out of living stones . . . [cf. 1 Pet 2.5]).

Key phrases here all have biblical allusions to which Hilary frequently returns. Immediately following this passage, Hilary goes on to quote Matthew on “Jerusalem as the city of the great king” (5.35), and Ephesians on a person’s identity as “citizen with the saints and members of the household of God built on the foundations of the apostles” (2.19). These are followed with an extended adaptation of 1 Corinthians (13.12) to the effect that “we now see through a glass darkly, but that we will see face to face as through bodily vision.” This material in his first paragraph on Psalm 121 expresses Hilary’s theme and the biblical language, which lies at the heart of most of his treatment of Christian eschatology. Several of these themes will emerge in specific topics of this chapter: “conformation into the glory of God and the body of Jesus Christ,” “similarity to the angels,” “citizen of the heavenly city.” To retain the connection to “the body of Christ” which supplies the power and dynamism for all the transformation in his model, Hilary will explore the interactions within his understanding of the “possibility of spiritualized body.” This eschatological perspective is expressed in another passage at Tr. Ps. 9.4. This passage illustrates an even broader range of themes on his model of profectus extending from the condition of sin to the possibility of future glory. Here Hilary employs 1 Corinthians (15.22–28) to express these themes. He concludes with the objective that, after the Son hands over his kingdom to the Father, “the Father may co-reign in us

178  ³  The Last Transformation

and that God may be all in all.” Although the expression of “being conformed to the glory of his body” from Philippians (3.21) does not occur in the Corinthians passage, it is so central to Hilary’s own understanding, as we will see in this chapter, that he inserts it into his paraphrase of this passage. In this passage Hilary includes “all those from Adam to the time of the kingdom who have conquered by faith are transfigured by a heavenly status from the body while the devil is consigned to the punishment of eternal fire.”8 To express the final condition of the believer, Hilary employs the expression caelesti habitu a corpore transfiguratis. This transformation “from the body” anticipates the central question for our chapter. What is Hilary’s view of the status of the body after the resurrection and demutatio? Throughout his commentary, hope remains the distinctive attitude of the Christian looking ahead to life after the resurrection from the dead.9 We do not have to rehearse all of the earlier discussion at the end of chapter 1 about Hilary’s claim to devote each of the three clusters to a particular stage in his model for Christian progress. To remain with the theme of the final transformation, two observations can be made. First, 8. Hic igitur est finis occultis, mortuorum resurrectio, sanctorum clarificatio, malitiae dominantis abolitio, mortis interitus, et per hoc Christi regnum Patris quoque Dei regnum; his enim gestis, postquam Filio erunt a Patre universa subiecta, non ut per subiectionem regni adimatur aeternitas, sed ut nos clarificatos et immortalitate coopertos et in corporis sui gloriam conformatos in regnum Patris inducat, iam cohereditate sua dignos, iam in familiam Patris adsumptos, iam bonorum eius gloriaeque participes, ut Patri conregnet in nobis sitque Deus omnia in omnibus, cum subiectione oboedientiae in divinam naturam humanae adsumptionis absorbeatur infirmitas. Aeterna haec igitur per Filium laus Patri Deo debita est, suscitatis omnibus, qui ab Adam usque a regni tempus per fidem vixerint, et caelesti habitu a corpore transfiguratis et iniquitate malitiae omnis ablata et diabolo in poenam aeterni ignis addicto et de memoria hominum nomine eius exempto (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 9.4). 9. Spes non res praesentes obtinet, sed futuras. Sperat ergo quae verbo Dei, id est dictis propheticis continentur. Sperat autem vel retributiones fidei in vitam spiritalem, vel ipsum illum Domini nostri, qui Dei verbum est, adventum expectat. Spes enim ista meretur auxilium et audiutorium Dei. Non aliter aut nos meremur aut aliqui ante meruerunt quam verbum Dei Deum naturae nostrae carnem vel habitaturum sperasse vel quod habitaverit credidisse (Hilary, Tr. Ps.118.15.5). A little later he emphasizes the role of Christian hope when confronted with the universal condition of mortality. As a rhetorical response to those who ridicule Christian hope he states: Plures autem sunt qui hanc expectationem fidei nostrae arguunt et inridunt dicentes talia: Quid ieiunia, quid continentia, quid castitas, quid iactura patrimoniorum utilitatis adfert? Ubi spes vestra est, Christiani? Mors aequaliter dominatur universorum; in omnium corporum naturas commune ius illi est. Quin etiam universis nos bonis saeculi fruimur et vitae verae licentia utimur; et in quo tandem a nobis spei vestrae expectatione praestatis? . . . Vita enim nostra secundum apostolum absconsa in Christo est. . . . Sperat enim aeternitatem, sperat regnum caelorum, sperat regnum Dei, sperat spiritales benedictiones in caelestibus in Christo [Ephesians 1.3]. In hac spe, in qua non confunditur, rogat ut suscipiatur ut vivat (Tr. Ps. 118.15.7).

The Last Transformation  ³  179

it is clear that Hilary did not restrict his discussion of demutatio to the last fifty Psalms since he made significant comments about it at Tr. Ps. 2.41, 54.16, and 62.6. We need to examine these passages in order to get a complete view of Hilary’s treatment of this final stage of the profectus model. Then, in his third cluster, he continues to discuss many of his favorite themes with little or no adaptation to this final stage. He continues to make comparisons to imperial ritual, to the act of confessio, to lists of classical vices and virtues with their impact on the human person, to the inclusiveness of his model and to the metaphor of the city. A closer examination of these elements in the third stage, however, does suggest a consistent pattern of shifts of perspective. The focus on the final transformation might well prompt these shifts which can be detected in several of his favorite themes. Before we return to his discussion of demutatio in his earlier clusters and then his more expanded exploration of certain central features in this final transformation into a “spiritual body,” we will look at four shifts of perspective: 1) with more examples of biblical and Christian moral values, 2) with a greater emphasis on the importance of the second part of confessio, 3) with a renewed focus on the inclusiveness of the Word of God, and 4) with yet another application of the city metaphor.

Shifts in Perspective and “Heavenly City”

Just as we have seen Hilary adapt his major metaphor of the city to his topic at specific stages of his commentary such as Instructio 24 and 13.1, he continues to do so throughout this third section. The most sustained adaptation of the city to this third stage of the Christian life occurs at Tr. Ps. 121 where Hilary is commenting on the assertion that “we will go into the house of the Lord.” An examination of the ways Hilary applies some of his other familiar themes will also reflect four subtle shifts of perspectives in this third cluster. First, although Hilary continues to appeal to certain aspects of Latin rhetorical and public culture familiar to his audience, examples of Christian practices become a little more evident in his comment on the third cluster. He had invoked the principles of rhetorical education and developed a comparison to Christian preaching at Tr. Ps. 13.1, and in the Exordium to Tr. Ps. 118 he mentions the function of grammatical educa-

180  ³  The Last Transformation

tion to teach the letters of the alphabet. Prompted by the principle of the organization of Psalm 118 by eight verses for each of the twenty-two Hebrew letters, Hilary begins with the point that all acquisition of reasonable and perfect wisdom begins with the learning of the alphabet.10 Hilary adapts 2 Timothy (3.14–15) to illustrate the objective of teaching letters to children in the roman system of education. He identifies that the objective is to teach moral values, understanding and knowledge of God, which are precisely the principles, which had shaped his treatment of the first transformation.11 Later at paragraph 3, Hilary summarizes the threefold objectives for learning basic elements of belief, behavior, and knowledge of God.12 He does return to the learning of grammar at Tr. Ps. 118.16 with a little more on the teaching of ethical values in this elementary stage of education.13 In a conventional connection between speech and behaviour, the young are instructed in the knowledge of both.14 At central stages of the accomplishment of the final transformation we have already noted that Hilary does not hesitate to invoke comparisons with aspects of imperial conventions which can also be found in contemporary rhetorical literature. In his discussion of the desire “to see God” after the resurrection, Hilary deals with the limitations of physical vision and the need for transformation “from glory to glory” in the Pauline language of 2 Corinthians (3.18). As we have already seen in our discussion of the Latin rhetorical context of Hilary and his audience, 10. Qui ad doctrinam rationabilis et perfectae prudentiae praeparantur, ab ipsis statim elementis litterarum docendi sunt, ut perfectam veramque rationem tamquam ab exordio primae institutionis consequantur (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118, Exordium 1) 11. . . . ut, sicut parvuli et imperiti et ad legendum imbuendi haec primum, per quae sibi verba contexta sunt, litterarum elementa cognoscerent, ita et humana ignoratio ad mores, ad disciplinam, ad cognitionem Dei per hunc singularum litterarum octonarium numerum ipsis velut infantilis doctrinae initiis erudiretur (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118, Exordium 1). 12. Itaque per litteras singulas haec omnia maximus et ultra ceteros copiosissimus psalmus iste discrevit, ut per haec verborum elementa credendi, et vivendi et erudiendi in Deum doctrinae ratio et distinctio doceretur (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118, Exordium 3). 13. Et in psalmi exordio et deinceps frequenter meminimus per haec singularum litterarum quaedam quasi elementa discendi doctrinae nos pietatis, continentiae, intelligentiae, fidei et timoris institui, et ut rudem infantiam ad loquendi scientiam, quam et agendi doctrina consequitur . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.16.1). 14. To demonstrate this conventional wisdom, in his apparatus to his critical edition for Tr. Ps. 118.16.1, Marc Milhau refers to Quintilian: . . . quamquam apud Homerum et praeceptorum Phoenicem cum agendi tum etiam loquendi et oratores plures et omne in tribus ducibus orationis genus et certamina quoque proposita eloquentiae inter iuvenes invenimus . . . (Instit. 2.17.8).

The Last Transformation  ³  181

he invokes at the very goal of his progressive model the popular interest to see the emperor when he is moving out on a journey.15 A little later in a brief observation about the status of the poor man, Lazarus, “in the bosom of Abraham,” Hilary describes the colour of the clothing of people in heaven. Rather than appealing to biblical “white” or “red,” Hilary invokes noble “purple.” Hilary continues to assume validity for imperial authority, as he had in the earlier clusters, but he also maintains the right to challenge the imperial authority on religious matters.16 This position is consistent with his views expressed in the earlier clusters and with his own practice in his submissions to and against the emperor Constantius, specifically over the divine status of Christ.17 In this third section, however, there is a shift from examples taken from public culture to more appeals to the experience of the Christian within the Church. This certainly fits with the stage of the profectus, which represents the aspirations of the Christian believer looking ahead to the ultimate future. Within this third section Hilary develops the reference in the text at Psalms 118 on “your statutes are Psalms to me” (v 54) in order to appeal to the practice of praying the Psalms with heart as well as with voice.18 On yet another occasion at Tr. Ps. 118.148 the verse, “I lie awake throughout the night to meditate on your promise,” prompts Hilary to describe the contents of a Christian vigil. Vigilat ille diluculo, non exspectat ut gravatos somno oculos lux infusa proturbet. Vigilat ille et ipsum redeuntem lucis ortum orationibus obperitur, nunc prophetarum dictis occupatis, nunc psalmorum hymnis intentus, nunc patriarcharum et sanctorum gestis negotiosus, omne eloquium Dei in omni tempore et adsiduitate meditatus. (Tr. Ps. 118.19.5) (He is watchful at daybreak. He does not wait for the spreading light to disturb his eyes made heavy with sleep. He is watchful and with prayers he waits for 15. Sed nos ex desideriis humanis prophetae desideria metiamur. Ad egressus regum quanta expectationis sollicitudine curritur et quod videntibus gaudium est, cum se praebuerint contuendos! (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.8.8) 16. Loquitur enim propheta constanter adversus principes terrae Deum praedicans. Et quidem duplex significatio sensus huius est, quia secundum dominica praecepta oporteat a nobis Christum coram regibus et potestatibus praedicari neque nos terrenarum potestatum fas est iure terreri, quominus omni confusione reiecta constanti et publica fide Deum, qui negantes negaturus sit, non negemus (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.6.10). 17. For earlier passages on both the dangers and the validity of imperial authority, consult Hilary, Tr. Ps. 1.10, 2.44, (perhaps 51.2), 51.14 and the association of rex, regnum and Christ 2.24–25 and 51.4. 18. Exemplo suo docet suscepta semel in aures psalmorum cantica in corde esse retinenda et semper ea officio oris iteranda (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.7.5).

182  ³  The Last Transformation

the very rise of the returning dawn. Now he is occupied with the words of the prophets, now intent on the singing of the Psalms, now busy with the deeds of the patriarchs and the saints, and at every moment he attentively meditates on every word of God.)

He identifies prayers, prophetic texts, psalms, hymns, the activities of the patriarchs and the saints, which are all focused on the Word of God. In this cluster as well there is clear evidence for the developing cult of martyrs throughout the Christian Church. He rehearses the range of their sufferings but concludes on the theme of victory.19 There are two other explicit references to martyrs in this section. One deals with the tension for martyrs when confronted by members of their families;20 the other expresses the parallel between the effects of baptism and the consequences of the martyr’s sacrifice.21 Not all Hilary’s examples deal with positive features of Christian experience. Later in this section, Hilary comments critically on inattentiveness during liturgical readings. This example, in particular, might reflect his own episcopal role but the object of his concern almost certainly extends beyond clerical circles to include a congregation of ordinary believers. After a description of the content of “heavenly speech” as excelsum, divinum, rationabile, and perfectum, Hilary portrays the general attitude of people during the readings in Church as inattentive and distracted.22 This offends against the principles he had expressed in his comparison of imperial and Christian rhetoric back at Tr. Ps. 13.1. None of these comparisons are limited to the experiences of either 19. Hinc enim sunt in toto orbe terrarum beata fidelium confessorum et sancta martyria. Hinc plures patrimoniis spoliati, exiliis dispersi, vincti, caesi, usti, necati; sed felici semper mandatorum meditatione omnia, quaecumque ingruerunt, confirmatae fidei virtute vicerunt (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.18.9). 20. Scit enim esse Dominus plures tam inconsulti amoris, ut, cum persistere in martyrii gloria filios suos videant, ut tempori cedant rogent, ut sententiam mutent precentur et impiae pietatis erga eos utantur adfectu cum anus mater et pater senex miserabiles canos filio in ipso martyrii certamine cum invidia praedurae voluntatis eius ostendat. . . . Hoc igitur in tempore odisse nos patrem, matrem, uxorem, filios, fratres, sorores, et ipsam quoque animam Dominus praecepit (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.15.3). 21. See Hilary’s commentary on “I have another baptism with which to baptize” (Lk 12.50): Est ergo, quantum licet existimare, perfectae illius emundatio puritatis etiam post baptismi aquas reposita, quae nos sancti spiritus sanctificet adventu, quae iudicii igne nos decoquet, quae per mortis iniuriam a labe morticinae et societate purgabit, quae martyrii passione devoto ac fideli sanguine abluet (Tr. Ps. 118.3.5). 22. [S]ed plerumque, immo semper, vitio nostro accidit, ut, quae legi in ecclesia audiamus, auribus atque animis nostris longe ab his peregrinantibus neglegamus, ut per audiendi incuriam vilescat apud nos dictorum caelestium dignitas (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 135.1).

The Last Transformation  ³  183

clerics or ascetics. These observations may reflect the perspective of a bishop but they might easily extend to educated lay people in the fourthcentury audience, which I am envisioning for Hilary’s Tractatus. For lay people used the Psalms; lay people participated in vigils; lay people were interested in the cult of the martyrs; lay people, presumably, were sometimes inattentive during liturgical readings; all urban people would recognize the appeals to imperial pageantry. Another observation reflects Hilary’s concern over those who confidently begin the Christian journey but fail to live up to all of its obligations. He argues that although many think that they have discovered a useful and necessary path, the “way of the law of the Lord” is the only effective way. “This way must be not only entered upon but it must be fully lived to the end.”23 The relative frequency of appeals to the experience of Christian practitioners represents a significant shift of emphasis, which characterizes Hilary’s commentary on the last group of fifty Psalms. Second, this pattern of subtle shifts within basic perspectives already expressed in the first two clusters of Psalms can certainly be illustrated with other themes in the third section. Hilary continues to employ the double meaning confessio with three detectable adjustments. Within the theme of the “confession of sin” he still retains lists of vices and some ethical analyses from his Latin Roman rhetorical culture. At Tr. Ps. 118.1.2 in his contrast between those “who walk in the way of the Lord” and “those who do not,” Hilary provides a list of his familiar vices: “vices of the flesh,” “insolence of spirit,” “hunger for possessions,” “fame for earthly honors.”24 This appeal to traditional catalogues of vices is particularly evident in his account of captivity in Babylon in Psalm 136. He presents Babylon primarily as symbol for a moral prison within the human self.25 There he lists vices familiar from 23. Plures etenim utilem et necessarium viam se esse ingressos existimant; sed immaculati in via non erunt; quia non in lege Domini ambulant. Sed via haec non solum ineunda est, sed etiam peragenda (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.1.2). A similar concern had been expressed earlier at Tr. Ps. 1.9, as noted in chapter 3, p. 116. 24. Ego sum via. Quisque igitur in praeceptis eius institerit, hic beatus est, dum vitia carnis coercet, dum animi petulantiam edomat, dum avaritiae famem vincit, dum terrenorum honorum gloriam evitat (Hilary,  Tr. Ps. 118.1.2). 25. [C]aptae enim mentes nostrae sunt corporum saeculique dominatu, captae a daemonibus sunt iure

184  ³  The Last Transformation

the first two clusters: “drunkenness,” “luxury,” “avarice,” “ambition,” “malice,” and “anger.” Later on the same Psalm, Hilary repeats many of the same vices and their role as barriers to the “escape to Jerusalem as the principle of joy.”26 Hilary continues to name these vices, especially “drunkenness,” “avarice,” “ambition,” and “unrest.” I have suggested that this practice is reinforced by his familiarity with Latin rhetorical culture. Sometimes these vices appear with the succinct verb, which demonstrates how they destabilize the human person.27 On Psalm 118 he uses his standard list of vices to describe the objectives of saeculi humani.28 Hilary continues to refer to the language of his cultural resources to describe the impact of vice on the human person. Vices cause “disturbing motions,” as we have seen in chapter 3. On Tr. Ps. 118 Hilary expresses his familiar complaint about the practice of preferring wealth and gold to moral values. On this issue he goes on to make an interesting distinction between men and women. “Men want to have all power through gold” and “women prefer to make themsleves more attractive with jewels.”29 This distinction may reflect his personal observation or popular wisdom rather than rhetorical or biblical literature. Hilary continues to appeal to the conventional model of musical harmony to counteract vice with the positive effect of virtue.30 Once again the examples of vice contain examples from his standard list but one or vitiorum, quae imperium in nos suum per diversa ministeriorum genera exercent, dum nos ebrietas possidet, dum luxus subigit, dum avaritia devincit, dum ambitio occupat, dum malivolentia obtinet, dum ira usurpat, dum omnia in nobis regnant haec incentiva vitiorum (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 136.3). 26. [S]i non praeposuero Hierusalem in principio iucunditatis meae. [U]nicuique nostrum secundum voluntatis suae sententiam laetitiae causa subiecta est et ex affectu animi sui initium gaudii sumit, ut potator ex ebrietate, ut gulo ex cibis, ut avarus ex pecunia, ut ambitiosus ex honoribus, ut seditiosus ex turbis, ut libidinosus ex stupris (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 136.11). 27. . . . et hoc modo nocentibus, cum in peccatum impellunt, cum in gloriam inflant, cum in ira accendunt, cum in odium exacerbant, cum ad lasciviam inliciunt, cum ad avaritiam provocant (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.16.6). 28. Nam saeculi homines pecuniam, argentum, aurum et cetera opum instrumenta utilitatem vocant (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.5.13). 29. Et idcirco nihil habet sexus uterque pretiosius, dum viri posse omnia auro volunt, mulieres vero per gemmas fieri se existimant pulchriores (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.16.16). 30. Humanae enim naturae omnes diversarum adfectionum adiacent motus, ut sunt odii et amoris. Sed amor impendendus est in dilectionem bonorum, odium autem adsumendum est ex offensa malorum. Nostrum ergo est modo utilis organi corpora nostra in coaptatos et concinentes modos temperare, ut non vitia diligamus, ut non virtutes bonas oderimus, ut unicuique nos generi decenter atque utiliter coaptemus (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.13.13).

  The Last Transformation  ³  185

two may be prompted by biblical models: “quarreling,” “drunkenness,” “killing,” “pride,” and “debauchery.”31 In this third section there is a definite shift to include biblical catalogues of sins and examples of virtues. The previous passage, which had listed “killing,” contains two lists of virtues. One list may represent, at least in part, a classical catalogue: “justice,” “modesty or temperance,” “frugality,” and “mercy.”32 The second list clearly identifies virtues, which are specifically attributed to Christ: “peace,” “truth,” and “justice.”33 There are somewhat more frequent references to biblical lists of sins and analyses of their consequences. In this third section of his Treatise, Hilary, for the first time, does make some references to the Decalogue, albeit in summary form. In one case he refers to the two commandments against adultery and killing at Exodus (20.13–14).34 A little later in his treatment of Psalm 118, Hilary quotes the same two summary prohibitions on adultery and killing from the Decalogue and uses the shorthand expression, et cetera, to indicate that, for his audience, the summary is sufficient to recall the whole list.35 Hilary expresses a privileged position for all scriptural ethical norms. All divine commands are to be followed. Back at Tr. Ps. 118.1.12, Hilary presents a series of relationships, which entail appropriate responsibilities towards a son, towards a father, towards brothers, towards believers, towards leaders of the Church (circa ecclesiae principes), towards angels, towards God, and Our Lord.36 He then lists examples of sinners such as a person (religiosus) who is respectful to his father but hates his son and another who respects his brother but hates a slave, and another who worships God but hates a priest. In this final section of his progressive model Hilary is invoking some biblical examples of virtue and vice 31. . . . et oderimus rixas et ebrietates, caedes, superbias, stupra, cum quibus necesse et diabolum oderimus (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.13.13). 32. Diligamus ergo iustitiam, modestiam, frugalitatem, misericordiam . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.13.13). 33. Diligentes vero pacem, veritatem, iustitiam diligemus eum qui est pax, iustitia et veritas, Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.13.13). 34. Mandatum vero est quod per observantiam implendum est; ut illud: Non moechaberis, non occides. Non enim in eo species futurae imaginis continetur, sed praesentem habet operationis effectum (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.1.11). 35. Mandatorum enim ea est ratio, quae nos ad observantiam atque opus innocentiae instituunt, ut illud est: Non occides, non moechaberis, et cetera his similia (Hilary, Tr. Ps. Tr. Ps. 118.2.11). 36. Est nobis iustificatio circa servum Hebraeum distributa, est circa filium, est circa patrem, est circa fratres, est circa fideles viros, est circa ecclesiae principes, est circa angelos, est circa Deum ac Dominum nostrum unigenitum Deum verbum (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.1.12).

186  ³  The Last Transformation

without excluding the conventional Roman examples which marked his first two stages. This last passage perhaps reflects the diversity within Hilary’s inclusive understanding of the Christian life and extends his demographics to slaves. These examples reflect the continuing role of ethics at this stage of Hilary’s model and indicate a shift to include more specifically biblical or Christian values. Beyond the references to the Decalogue, it is perhaps not surprising that Hilary would refer to the Gospel of Matthew, the subject of his first commentary. Moreover, there are a number of passages from the Pauline Epistles dealing with ethical norms and perspectives. He paraphrases Paul’s identification with Christ in Philippians and Galatians to introduce a list of appropriate virtues for the Christian. Audebat sane ille qui dixit: Mihi vivere Christus est, et mori lucrum [Phil 1.21], et: Vivo iam non ego, vivit autem in me Christus [Gal 2.20]. Et qui huius fidei erunt similes, non impudenter quod Dei sint confitebuntur. Vox ista est animae Deo semper intentae; opus istud est misericordiae indefessae, continentiae immobilis, ieiunii usitati, largitionis impaenitentis. (Tr. Ps. 118.12.12) (He boasted with reason who said, “For me to live is Christ and to die is gain [Phil 1.21],” and “I live now not I but Christ lives in me [Gal 2.20].” And those who will be of similar faith will not be foolishly confessing that they belong to God. That expression is of a soul always fixed on God; it is the product of untiring mercy, unwavering continance, habitual fasting, unapologetic generosity.)

In another passage at Tr. Ps. 118.14.9 to distinguish the faithful from others, Hilary paraphrases a number of the Christian practices in Ecclestiasticus, Psalms and Matthew’s evangelical discourse.37 In this shift towards more examples of biblical and Christian ethical values, Hilary also demonstrates a familiarity with values normally associated with asceticism. At Tr. Ps. 118.16 there is an observation which may be influenced by Hilary’s awareness of this emerging tradition. “Contempt” for money or any other material thing was to be37. Scit insolentem esse et incapacem rerum secundarum naturae nostrae infirmitatem. Alii per opes insolescunt nescientes de largitione opum dictum esse: Eleemosyna enim abscondit peccatum [Ecclesiasticus 3.33] et rursum: Dispersit, dedit pauperibus, iustitia eius manet in saeculum saeculi [Psalm 3.9 [sic], cf. Psalm 111.9], et Dominum ipsum his qui esurientem cibassent, sitientem potassent, peregrinum domo recepissent, nudum vestissent, infirmum visitassent, clausum carcere consolati essent, dixisse [cf. Matthew 25.35–36]: Venite, benedicti patris mei, possidete praeparatum vobis regnum a constitutione mundi [Matthew 25.34] (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.14.9).

The Last Transformation  ³  187

come familiar diction among ascetics by the time of Jerome, if not before.38 This word and its cognates, however, had been used in Quintilian and in Tacitus.39 Another passage also goes beyond conventional Roman vices to other relationships, which might hinder Christian progress. Potential preoccupations with family affairs are included among a list of encumbrances.40 A final example possibly prompted, at least in part, by the Christian ascetical approach, but also with some parallels with Cicero, is found in Hilary’s reflection on the virtue of continentia to counteract the deleterious influence of vice.41 Perhaps Hilary’s awareness of the emerging Christian asceticism has influenced some of his selections of ethical terms and examples in these few cases but it is apparent that generally biblical paradigms influence his examples and analyses in this third section more than in the previous two sections of the Tractatus. To promote knowledge of and service of God, the weakness of human nature is strengthened by specific virtues and by religious practices. Scriputure recommends these practics. The virtues include “chastity, piety, modesty, love, truth, innocence, frugality” and the religious practices include “the duty of divine honor” and “varieties of sacrifices.”42 Although Hilary devotes considerable attention to the range and role 38. Contemptum vero pecuniae adsumens liberum se a terrenis dominationibus reservavit (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.16.3). 39. See three passages in Quintilian: neque enim videtur in eundem et contemptus pecuniae et cupiditas cadere (Instituta Oratoria 7.2.29–30); naribus labrisque non fere quicquam decenter ostendimus, tametsi derisus iis, contemptus, fastidium significari solet (Instituta Oratoria 11.3.80); at malis hominibus ex contemptu opinionis et ignorantia recti nonnumquam excidit ipsa simulatio . . . (Instituta Oratoria 12.1.12). From Tacitus: . . . quanto modicus privatis aedificationibus ne publice quidem nisi duo opera struxit, templum Augusto et scaenam Pompeiani theatri; eaque perfecta, contemptu ambitionis an per senectutem, haud dedicavit (Annales 6.45). 40. Ceterum si nos ambitio detineat, si cura pecuniae occupet, si inlecebrae libidinum capiant, si negotia reurm familiarum demorentur, portio nobis Deus non erit saecularium curarum atque vitiorum possessione detentis (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.8.2). 41. Per continentiae autem studium frigent fidelium corpora et calore naturae interioris extincto utres erunt frigidi, quae, cum intrinsecus per naturam vitiorum ecferventium incalescant, extrinsecus tamen continentiae patientia tamquam pruinae frigore obrigescant (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.11.4). See Cicero Continentia est per quam cupiditas consili gubernatione regitur (De Inventione 2.54.164). 42. Testimonia etenim Dei, id est ea quae sub testibus scripta sunt, etiamsi per observantiam legis humanam infirmitatem ad cognitionem et famulatum Dei imbuant, quippe ubi castitas, pietas, pudicitia, caritas, veritas, innocentia, frugalitas, et religio mandatur et per quasdam religionum consuetudines hostiarumque diversitates divini honoris officium praecipitur . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.17.1).

188  ³  The Last Transformation

of virtues at each stage of human progress, he is convinced that virtue alone is not sufficient to ensure progress.43 Even more important for the profectus of the Christian, he invokes analyses from Pauline letters which contrast “carnal” and “spiritual” as influences respectively for sin and for virtue.Without actually quoting Paul he invokes his theme on “sowing and reaping” from Galatians (6.7–8) and then returns to (5.19–24) about the carnal and spiritual origins of sins and virtues. [D]uas autem esse sationes sanctus apostolus Paulus docuit, carnis et spiritus, demonstratis et enumeratis seminibus sationis utriusque, cum caro adulteria, veneficia, comisationes, ebrietatem, avaritiam, idololatriam, et cetera his similia sereret, spiritus vero pacem, gaudium, continentiam, caritatem, sobrietatem, mansuetudinem et quae sunt his consequentia seminaret, et sata sua uno quoque messuro [cf. Galatians 6.8, 5.19–22]. (Tr. Ps. 125.11) (The holy Apostle Paul has taught that there are the two sowings of flesh and of the spirit, with illustrations and enumerations of the seeds of both types, since flesh sows adulteries, magic potions, revels, drunkenness, avarice, idolatry, and other things similar to these; but the spirit sows peace, joy continence, charity, sobriety, gentleness and whatever follows from these and what he sows belongs also to the reaper [cf. Gal 6.8, 5.19–20]). In another passage Hilary appeals to a passage in Romans (7.22–23) to present the moral tension between “the inner man” represented by “spirit” and “the outer man” represented by “body.” He finishes with a reference to Genesis (1.26) about being “made in the image of God” and describes the positive attributes of the spiritual condition. He identifies these qualities as “rational,” “flexible,” “moving,” “quick,” “incorporeal,” “precise,” “eternal.”44 We will soon turn to Hilary’s fuller account of creation of man at Tr. Ps. 118.10 and 129 and his ultimate destiny or 43. Virtutes propriae suae prophetae huic ad spem vitae aeternae non sufficiunt, neque quod spem in verbo Dei habuit, neque quod in spe eadem se conlocatus est neque quod Dei vivificatur eloquio neque quod non declinat a lege, neque quod se per memoriam iudiciorum adhortatur . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.7.4). 44. Scit se beatus apostolus Paulus per interiorem et exteriorem hominem dissidere. [P]er interiorem quidem hominem delectatur lege, per exteriorem vero hoc, quod non vult, agit: cum interior homo spiritus opera desiderat, exterior voluptates corporis concupiscit. [E]rgo ad imaginem [D]ei homo interior effectus est rationabilis, mobilis, movens, citus, incorporeus, subtilis, aeternus (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 129.6).

The Last Transformation  ³  189

demutatio to demonstrate that these moral dichotomies from Paul do not represent Hilary’s definitive judgement about “the body.” There are other passages in which Hilary appears to set up the moral dichotomy between “spirit” and “body” in the human person as a “great struggle” to “separate violently the association” between soul and body. In the passage about “the soul clinging to dust” at Psalm 118.25, Hilary summarizes the differences of origin and this enduring struggle between the two constitutive elements of the human person.45 Again at Tr. Ps. 136 on the captivity in Babylon, Hilary views the difference between body and spirit as a symbol of the moral dilemma in which humans are all captives. He diagnoses it as “a battle between desires of the flesh and of the spirit.”46 But Hilary does not appear to be advocating a completely negative view of the body even within moral choices and activity. There are passages in which both “soul” and “body” are both “captured by sin.” In commenting on “the return to Sion from captivity,” Hilary applies the experience of captivity to both body and soul but with much more dire consequences for soul.47 So Hilary’s use of Pauline themes to analyze the moral dimensions of confessio seems to set up a pejorative treatment of “body.” But Hilary does emphasize the consequence of vice is far more severe for the soul than for the body. In this third section, Hilary introduces a second shift of perspective in his appeals to confessio, which is beyond conversion from sin. Hilary, as we have already seen, frequently expresses the twofold character of confessio in this third cluster of Psalms.48 In this third section, however, 45. Et in pulverem mortis deduxisiti me. Igitur vel quia in terrae huius solo commoremur vel quia ex terra instituti confirmatique sumus, anima, quae alterius originis est, terrae corporis adhaesisse creditur, maximum ipsa certamen suscipiens, ut se manens in eo ab eius societate divellat, ut tamquam peregrina incolatu eius utatur (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.4.1). 46. [C]um igitur inter concupiscentiam carnis et spiritus pugna est . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 136.9). 47. Et quidem gravis est captivitas corporalis, quae iure libertatis amisso victorum dominatui subditur. [E]t serviunt tunc quidem corpora, sed nequaquam capitur fidelis animae libertas. . . . [A]t vero quanto infelicior est animae captivitas! [S]i eam avaritia ceperit, per corpus latrocinatur ac grassatur; si libido vicerit, communicat cum corpore servitutem; si luxus, ira, odium, temeritas, ebrietas, invidia subegerit, his imperantibus sibi dominis et anima et corpus in commune famulantur; atque ita captivitatem animae et corporis sequitur captivitas . . . at vero animae captivitas quam infelix est! (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 125.4). 48. Hilary refers to this theme with the confident assertion that his frequent appeals to this double meaning will be familiar: Duplicem in confessione significationem esse, in plurimis locis demonstavimus: aut peccati nostri, aut laudationis [D]ei. [E]t hoc ita esse, ex evangelicis dictis promptum est noscere . . . (Tr. Ps. 137.1).

190  ³  The Last Transformation

there is a shift to make the second component of confessio about praise of God (laudatio Dei) much more prominent. Hilary uses this theme to explore those attributes of God, which contribute to the human profectus. In a passage at Tr. Ps. 118.8.15 dealing with the practice of rising at night to pray, Hilary expresses the dual function of such activity with an emphasis on the second. Nec habet eum totus nocturni temporis somnus nec ei oblivio officii sui requie mediae noctis obrepit; surgit enim ad confitendum Deo. Confessio vero enim non semper ad peccata referenda est, verum etiam in Dei laudibus intellegendus est. (Tr. Ps. 118.8.15) (Neither does deep sleep of night time nor does forgetfulness of his duty catch him unaware from the rest of midnight; for he rises to praise God. For “confession” is not always to be referred to sins, but it also is to be understood in praises of God.)

He returns to this theme at Tr. Ps. 119.11 where he cites three positive biblical examples of Adam, a woman who is cured, and Peter to demonstrate the affirmation of the second aspect of confessio and to contrast with the failure of Cain to do so. On the basis of these scriptural models he adduces the universal application that “confession is the basis for our hope.”49 We have already noted Hilary’s double meaning of confessio but he clearly makes the “praise of God” the dominant element even within the confession of sin.50 This emphasis on laudatio Dei is a clear focus throughout this third section of the Tractatus. Hilary frequently acknowledges the marvelous works of God especially in the creation of the human at Tr. Ps. 118.10, 129 and elsewhere, and in the ultimate transformation of the Christian after the resurrection of the body. Within this “praise of God” he particularly emphasizes God as spirit, which he applies in a number of ways. As spirit, God is present and active everywhere. As spirit, he breathed into his human creation in an act, which anticipates the final transforma49. [D]enique Adam confessus veniae reservatus et glorificatus in Christo est: Cain negans maledicto diaboli adaequatus est; est enim iam a principio designatus homicida. [C]onfessa mulier fide sanata est; respondens fide Petrus claves caeli sortitus est. [A]tque ita omne spei nostrae praemium in confessione consistit, ut ea, quae consequi nos posse credidimus, consecutoros esse testemur (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 119.11). 50. Ac primum in eo, quod ita coeptum est: confitemini [D]omino, duplicis intellegentiae significatio adfertur: ut aut [D]eum in confessione laudemus, quia bonus, quia misericordia eius in saecula sit, aut peccata nostra confiteamur ei ab eo indulgenda, quia bonus et cuius indeficiens misericordia sit (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 135.3).

The Last Transformation  ³  191

tion or demutatio. These themes come together around the activity of “praise” in the very last paragraph of the Treatise and thus serve as a fitting conclusion for his lengthy Tractatus super Psalmos. [Q]uae laus omnis in sanctis est, quod ab his corruptionem carnis sanguinisque depulerit, quod ad imaginem creatoris sui sint reformati, quod conformes iam esse gloriae corporis [D]ei coeperint, quod in omnem [D]ei plentitudinem inpleantur, quod, cum [D]eus spiritus sit, [D]eum tamen non caro iam sit laudatura, sed spiritus. (Tr. Ps. 150.2) (All this praise is in the saints because he has driven away from them the corruption of flesh and blood because they have been reformed in the image of their creator, because they have begun to be already conformed to the glory of the body of God, because they are filled in the complete fulness of God. Since God is spirit, flesh will not praise God but now spirit will.)

This appeal to “our conformity to glory of the body of God” from Philippians 3.21 will be central to our discussion of the transformation of the resurrected body later in this chapter. In the appeals to confessio in the third section of the Tractatus, we see a greater focus on God and, in particular, on those divine attributes, which have a bearing on the human person and the achievement of the final transformation in his profectus. In his treatment of God in this context he invokes biblical passages such as Matthew (22.32): “God is God, not of the dead, but of the living.”51 Another passage which he appeals to on a number of occasions is the quotation by Paul in his sermon on the Areopagus: “he is not far from any of us, since it is in him that ‘we live, move and exist.’ ”52 As we have seen, Hilary appeals to the Divine attributes of “eternity” and “spirit.” The role of divine eternity and the resulting “City of God” are evident in the final summary of his theme at 150.53 Before exploring the consequences of these themes for the final transformation, we need to 51. [U]t in evangeliis responsione [D]omini ad Sadducaeos docemur, non est [Deus] mortuorum sed vivorum [Matthew 22.32] (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 135.5); . . . eodem dicto evangelico et legis [D]ominus Sadducaeis resurrectionem corporum abnegantibus respondens ostendit: de resurrectione autem mortuorum non legistis, quod dictum est vobis a [D]eo dicente: [E]go sum [D]eus Abraham et [D]eus Isaac et [D]eus Iacob? [N]on est deus mortuorum, sed viventium [Matthew 22.31–32] (Tr. Ps. 137.7). 52. [E]t hoc ex scripturis docemur, cum dicitur: ego sum [D]eus adproprians et non de longe (Jeremiah 23.23), et rursum: quoniam in ipso et vivimus et movemur et sumus [Acts 17.28] Hilary, Tr. Ps. 129.3); [N]on longe abest, qui per naturae suae virtutem et ipse ubique semper est, et totus semper et ubique est secundum illud Apostoli: quia in ipso sumus et in ipso vivimus ac movemur [Acts17.28] (Tr. Ps. 144.21). 53. [P]ost quae rursum aedificata iam in aeternum [D]ei civitate et omnibus ad gratulationem eius laudemque commonitis (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 150.1).

192  ³  The Last Transformation

turn to a subtle shift in the universal opportunity for confessio within this third section of the Psalms. Third, Hilary’s treatment of the inclusive universally inclusive character of the Christian life becomes more extensive in this third cluster. Back at Tr. Ps. 14.2 we had noted that the power of the scriptural text was most adapted to “infants, women, men, and old men.” Here in this third cluster of Psalms the social categories are even more extensive. On Tr. Ps. 119 Hilary observes that “the sacred text is not simply addressed to people of the time in which they were composed but to everyone who is ever born.” Once again he uses the description aptissimus and applies it to the purpose of the human profectus for people of all ages. [P]salmi enim non sui tantum temporis res enuntiant neque in eas solum aetates conveniunt, quibus scripti sunt, sed universis, qui in vitam venirent, [D]ei sermo consuluit, universae aetati ipse aptissimus ad profectum. (Tr. Ps. 119.4) (For the Psalms do not only declare topics of their own timeframe nor do they only fit with those periods in which they have been written but the Word of God takes into account all people who come into life and is most suitable for the progress for every age.)

Then in commenting in Tr. Ps. 137 on “you have magnified your sacred name over all,” Hilary seems to relate the divine omnipresence and providence to the divine universal offer to all social categories. It is cut off from “no child, woman, or man of any age.” Here the social designations of “slave and barbarian” are explicitly included. Causa etiam confessionis hinc sumitur: quoniam magnificasti super omnia nomen sanctum tuum. [N]on uni tantum genti [D]ei nomen est cognitum: super omnia magnificatum est et in omnes se magnitudo sanctitatis extendit. [N]on barbarus, non Scytha, non servus, non liber, non mulier, non vir, non aetas ulla secernitur: super omnia enim magnificatum [D]ei nomen est. (Tr. Ps. 137.10) (The reason for “confession” is taken from this passage: “Since above all things you have glorified your holy name.” Not to only one people is the name of God known: it is glorified over all and the immensity of its holiness extends to all. No barbarian, no Scythian, no slave, no child, no woman, no man, not any age is excluded: the name of God is glorified over all.)

Hilary emphasizes his theme of universal inclusion. In listing those social groups, Hilary provides the most extensive catalogue of social categories in the Tractatus. He begins with those most alien to Roman perceptions: “barbarian’ and “Scythian” and then proceeds to more familiar

The Last Transformation  ³  193

Roman categories including “slave” and then concluding with “child,” “woman,” and “man.” In this passage as well, he claims that the paraphernalia of traditional Roman religion have failed: “temples,” “statues,” “soothsayers,” “divination.”54 To signify the principle of unity to support this remarkable diversity of participants, Hilary uses the symbol of “way” or “road,” as we have seen. He returns to the theme of the “path” at Tr. Ps. 118.1.10. Here the reference to the plural form of “via” about “those committing wrong do not walk in his ways” prompts him to pick up his familiar theme of a variety of routes converging on the same path.55 In this third cluster of Psalms, Hilary continues to express the inclusiveness of the “ways,” as we have already noted in chapter 1, and argues that the Greek term is even broader than the Latin “via” and this is a more appropriate understanding of Christ as “the way.”56 Then on Psalm 127, Hilary returns to this theme of Jesus as “the way to the Father.” After quoting John 14.6, Hilary goes on to express his respect for a multiplicity of individual paths which are embraced within the way of Christ.57 In many ways the gathering of these people within “the way of Christ” is represented by the polyvalent metaphor of city. The final perspectival shift dealing with the city metaphor should not be a surprise. Right from his Instructio Hilary had deployed his symbol of the city. The frequent references to Sion and Jerusalem in this third section provide opportunities to use it as symbol of the final stage of the profectus. The most notable occasion is his discussion of Psalm 121, which begins on a note of joy, “I am glad,” and asserts that “we will go into the house of the Lord.” Throughout his commentary on this Psalm Hilary distinguishes be54. [T]empla conlapsa sunt, simulacra muta sunt, haruspices interventu sanctorum silent, augurium fides fallit: unum [D]ei nomen in omnibus gentibus sanctum est (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 137.10). 55. In primo versu singulariter via commemoratur, in hoc tertio plures, ex quo intellegendum est per multas vias ad unam perveniri; in qua quisque immaculatus si sit, hic beatus est (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.1.10). 56. Nam quod nos in exitibus dicimus, graecitas ex hebraeo ἐξόδους; transtulit. Et exodum proprie est, ubi ex multis angustis viis in unam patentem viam coitur. Quod vero nos plateas nuncupamus, eodem nomine graecitas numcupavit. Sed plateas latitudines esse graecus sermo designat, et nos putamus has esse urbium vias. Ergo sapientia, quae Christus est, in via illa, in quam nobis ex multis egressus est . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.4.12). 57. Nemo enim potest ad patrem venire nisi per me (John 14.6). [V]erum cum de prophetis ac scriptis eorum, quibus ad Christum pergitur, sermo est, tunc viae plures sunt in unam viam undique congruentes (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 127.3).

194  ³  The Last Transformation

tween the earthly manifestation and the heavenly city, which is to come. In his initial comments Hilary links two themes which are the basis for his understanding. We are to become “conformed into the glory of God and the body of our Lord Jesus Christ” and “future dweller in the heavenly city.”58 He begins with the Pauline distinction in 1 Corinthians (13.12) between “seeing darkly through a mirror and later face to face.”59 He describes the future condition as free from all our current afflictions.60 In the next three paragraphs on Psalm 121, Hilary goes on to maintain this distinction between the earthly and the heavenly cities. He further distinguishes the heavenly version by using his text of the Psalms to claim that it is not actually a city but like one. Despite this qualification he asserts that the earthly one does “prefigure the pattern of that eternal and heavenly city.”61 Later Hilary lists the stages towards the ultimate realization of that heavenly city. He catalogues major events in scripture from the punishment of Pharaoh, to the cleansing in the sea, to being fed the bread of angels in the desert, to being educated in the law, to being chastised by the prophets.62 Then he proceeds to the contribution of Christ. Once again he emphasizes the role of Christ’s body and links it to the acts of “belief ” and “confession.”63 He concludes this paragraph by repeating the content of the decisive confessio and linking it to the act of “praising the name of the Lord.” 58. . . . in gloriam [D]ei ac [D]omini nostri Iesu Christi corporis conformandum (cf Philippians 3.21) futurumque incolam civitatis caelestis vivis lapidibus extructae (cf. 1 Peter 2.5), de qua scripta est in evangelio . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 121.1). 59. . . . nosque per speculum interim et in aenigmate videre, perfecto autem veniente ea, quae unc pro parte sint, destruenda, et facie ad faciem, tamquam corporali visu [cf. 1 Cor 13.12] (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 121.1). 60. . . . ubi non aegritudo, non mors, non maestitia, non terror sit . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 121.1). 61. Hierusalem, quae aedificatur ut civitas. [N]on civitas, sed ut civitas; quia illa terrenae civitatis aedificatio et templi extructio et tabernaculi institutio speciem illius aeternae et caelestis civitatis praefigurabat (Hilary, Tr. Ps.121.4). On a similar theme: [A]edificanda ergo per [D]ominum haec civitas est, ut in augmentum consummationis suae crescat. [N]on enim iam aedificatio coepta perfectio est, sed per aedificationem perfectionis consummatio conparatur (Hilary, Tr. Ps.126.10). 62. On the same theme, see also Hilary, Tr. Ps.126.9. 63. . . . in nativitate a [D]omino per consortium corporis susceptus, in cruce si crederet salvatus, in resurrectione si confiteretur glorificatus . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps.121.8). On a similar theme: [A]vertit enim [D]eus captivitatem nostram per remissionem peccatorum. [A] dominatu enim vitiorum animam liberavit anteriora delicta non reputans et nos in vitam novam renovans et in novum hominem transformans, constituens nos in corpore carnis suae. [I]pse est enim ecclesia, per sacramentum corporis sui in se universam eam continens (Hilary, Tr. Ps.125.6).

The Last Transformation  ³  195

[C]onfitentur ergo nomini [D]omini, quia [D]eus est, quia [F]ilius unigenitus ingeniti est. [I]n hoc itaque testimonium Israhel in domum [D]omini tribus [D] omini conscendunt confitentes nomini [D]omini. (Tr. Ps.121.8) (Therefore they confess to the name of the Lord because he is God, because he is the only-begotten Son of the unbegotten. So in this testimony of Israel, the tribes of the Lord ascend into the house of the Lord praising the name of the Lord.)

By the same token anyone who acts against specific features in the biblical account of salvation is excluded.64 For another statement on exclusion, see Hilary’s comment on branches that do not bear fruit at Tr. Ps. 51.16.65 But the most distinctive feature of the “city” metaphor at Tr. Ps. 121 is the related theme of unity within diversity of citizenship. In the first discussion Hilary emphasizes the coherent unity of the body of the Church rather than a “jumbled mass,” in a close parallel to the condition of the keys back in the first use of the “city” metaphor at Instructio 24. Sed quia unum ecclesiae corpus est, non quadam corporum confusione permixtum neque singulis in indiscretum acervum et informem cumulum unitis, sed per fidei unitatem, per caritatis societatem, per operum voluntatisque concordiam, per sacramenti unum in omnibus donum, unum omnes sumus . . . (Tr. Ps.121.5) (But because the body of the church is one, not a mixture with some sort of confusion of bodies nor separate units joined together in a muddled heap and shapeless pile, but through the unity of faith, through the fellowship of love, through the harmony of deeds and intention, through the one gift of ministry in all, we are all one . . .)

“The unity of faith,” “the association of charity,” “the harmony of deeds and intention,” “the one gift of ministry in all” establish foundations for unity. The sentence concludes with the explicit quotation of 1 Corinthians and Acts.66 From unity he goes on with a clear emphasis on the possibility of universal participation in the building of the city: Sed forte 64. . . . prophetas audiens occidit; virginis partum prophetatum sibi infamavit, [D]eum in carne non credidit, peccati remissorem falsi peccati reum arguit, emit ad mortem, in crucem sustulit; testes resurrectionis ad silentium corrupit; apostolos morte intercepit (Hilary, Tr. Ps.121.8). 65. For a similar treatment of this passage, see McCarthy, “Expectatio Beatitudinus,” 63. 66. . . . in quod nos Paulus hortatur dicens: obsecro vos, fratres, ut idipsum sapiatis omnes eandem caritatem exercentes [1 Cor 1.10], et cum fuerit, ut scriptum est: erat autem omnium, qui credebant, cor et anima unum [Acts 4.32], tunc erimus civitas [D]ei . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps.121.5).

196  ³  The Last Transformation

sine exceptione ab universis aedificanda videbitur civitas, quod in tribubus cognominatis nulla fiat exception. (Tr. Ps.121.6) (But by chance the city will seem destined to be built by all peoples without exception, because in the names of the tribes no exception occurs). The unity within diversity becomes the theme in the detailed description of the physical elements of a typical city, which we described back in chapter 2. We return to the same passage to demonstrate that those different features of external structures, internal avenues and gathering places, private, and public venues contribute to variety within a unity. Civitatem autem necesse est diverso aedificorum genere consistere. [N]on enim omnis est murus, porta, turris, neque omnis plateae, porticus, tabernae, neque domus, forum, templa, palatium: sed et differentibus inter se domorum magnificentiis differunt quoque cohabitantium dignitates. (Tr. Ps.121.14) (A city, however, must consist of diverse types of buildings. For everything is not a wall, a gate, a tower, nor is everything a main road, a colonnade, a shop, nor is everything a home, a forum, temples or an imperial building. Moreover, just as the residences differ one from another, so also do the ranks of the inhabitants.)

Hilary appeals to a similar catalogue of city sites at Tr. Ps. 136 when he is talking about the captives sitting by the rivers of Babylon and not within their native urban environment.67 He discusses Babylon in contrast to the “heavenly Jerusalem” as a city in confusion and disarray separated by a variety of languages.68 Interestingly, in his discussion of Psalm 136, Hilary does not present Babylon as an alternative or opposing city but rather as a symbol of the internal state of a person captured by vice. But throughout this third section, the primary focus is on the application of the “city” metaphor to the heavenly city. Back at Tr. Ps. 121.14, Hilary employs the “city” to reflect diversity of activities and functions. He goes on immediately to interpret the tower as the symbol of strength and peace for all around it. “In every type of city, indeed, there is nothing firmer, more useful or higher than 67. Eos, qui secundum litteram intellegenda omnia existimant, interrogare vellem, quae flumina Babyloniam praetermeant, ut illic captus populus consederit et non potius aut in plateis aut in portis aut in turribus aut in domibus captivitatem suam fleverit? (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 136.6). 68. Sed quia Sion illa aeternae beatitudinis sedis est, et mater caelestis nobis Hierusalem est . . . et illa Babylon civitas confusionis et inrationabili motu turbulenta, quae, ut Genesis docet, a confusarum linguarum hominibus nuncupata Babylon est . . . (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 136.5).

The Last Transformation  ³  197

towers.”69 The next paragraph is devoted to unity within universality. Hilary employs references in the text about “brothers” and “neighbors” and “the priotiy of the royal house” to express the comprehensive demographic range for the heavenly city.70 Hilary identifies the sources of the unity of this comprehensive citizenship by appealing to the prayer of Jesus for unity in John’s Gospel: [F]idelis enim est, qui ait: [P]ater, pro his te rogo, ut omnes unum simus, ego in illis, et tu in me [Jn 17.20]. . . (Tr. Ps.121.15). (For faithful is he who says, “Father, for these I ask you that we all may be one, I in them and you in me” [Jn 17.20]). The location of Jesus in illis (in the people) rather than the usual in te (in you, i.e., the Father) reflects the role of Christ who gathers all these people together within the heavenly city.71 In the third cluster of Psalms there is an increasing acknowledgement of the experiences within the Church such as prayer, cult of the martyrs and values of asceticism. To his examples of traditional rhetorical treatments of virtue and vice, there are now added references to the Decalogue and to moral discussions in the Pauline Epistles. The second element of confessio has become more pronounced with emphasis on the praise of God’s universal presence and providence. The universal unity of the Church with an explicitly expanded diversity to include slaves and barbarians all combine to prepare the way for our consideration of Hilary’s final objective, “the transformation of the resurrected body.” Hilary will move beyond the dichotomy of carnal and spiritual to examine the complementary and progressive relationship of body, soul, and spirit in the human being from the moment of creation to ultimate realization in demutatio. This process is accomplished through the body of Christ and expressed principally through the biblical text of Philippians 3.21 about incorporation within the glorified body of Christ. 69. [I]n omni vero genere civitatis nihil neque firmius neque utilius neque celsius turribus est. [S]olita vero scriptura est gravia pro firmis et inmobilibus nuncupare; sic ubi ait; in populo gravi laudabo te [Psalm 34.18]. [N]unc quoque cum de pace virtutis memorasset, abundantiam beatitudinis perfectae et aeternae civitatis huius principibus tamquam firmissimis et gravissimis deputavit dicens: et abundantia in turribus gravibus tuis [Psalm 121.7] (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 121.14). 70. [M]ultitudinem in fratribus suis proximisque huius civitatis significant. . . . [D]iscernens enim gloriam domus [D]ei a civitatis universitate, quia necesse est ornatum domus regiae aedificationi civitatis totius anteferri, quaesivit bona eidem civitati (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 121.15). 71. For another example of this reading: sicuti ad Patrem pro his precatus est dicens: Pater, volo ut, ubi ego sum, hi mecum sint [John 17.24] vel illud: ut omnes unum sint, ego in illis et tu in me [John 17.21] (Tr. Ps. 67.37).

198  ³  The Last Transformation

Transformation of the Resurrected Body

In the course of his comments on verses of individual Psalms, Hilary mentions features of his understanding of the transformation of the resurrected body. Given the nature of such a commentary, he does not provide a sustained systematic treatment. He, however, identifies basic parameters of his view of this final transformation in his first cluster at Tr. Ps. 2.41 and adds some other elements in his second cluster at 54.16, 62.3, and 6.72 In this third section he returns to the theme more frequently and certainly expands on those earlier references to the final transformation. Of particular importance in this third cluster are the discussions of the three-stage account of the creation of the first human, particularly in his treatments of Psalms 118.10 and 129 (3–6). The focus on this extended treatment of human origins is designed to set up the parameters of the ultimate demutatio. For Hilary employs the human components at creation to anticipate the vital constitutive elements in the final transformation after the resurrection. At stake for Hilary is the relation of body, soul, and spirit throughout each of the three stages of the Christian life. In the previous chapter we have examined the importance he assigns to the divine attributes in Jesus Christ of “eternal” and “spiritual” as well as to the stages of “the body of Christ.” In this chapter we will explore the traces of these qualities in human origins and human destiny. His integration of these themes will provide a clear demonstration of the continuing influence of Tertullian’s exegetical and theological contribution. But this is not simply a passive influence for Hilary, since, as we will see, he adapts Tertullian’s materials for a very new perspective. Since Hilary’s various discussions of this transformation throughout the Tractatus are quite distinctive, a consideration of sources for this theme will be useful in order to obtain a clearer grasp of his objectives. There is a suggestive discussion on the resurrected body in a passage from Origen on the Psalms quoted by one of his critics. A clearer source, however, is to be found in the traditions of western exegetical and theological reflection. There are definite parallels for Hilary’s mod72. For a discussion of these passages in Tr. Ps. 62.3 and 6 in the context of “the resurrection of the whole person,” consult Durst, “Die Auferstehung als Wiedervereinigung von Leib und Seele,” in Die Eschatologie, 247–49.

The Last Transformation  ³  199

el and terminology in the Tractatus in his earlier Commentary on Matthew. There certainly are discernable influences from the texts of Tertullian particularly in De Carnis Resurrectione and in De Anima, where he specifically cites Stoic treatments of the compatibility of soul and body. On this topic of ultimate transformation of the body, as on ethics, passions and divine providence, there are traces of influences from Stoic thought. We look first at Hilary’s identification of the basic parameters of this final transformation in the first cluster of Psalms. Hilary anticipates this theme as early as his treatment at Tr. Ps. 2.41. We have already referred to sections of this passage in the previous two chapters. Since it contains his earliest treatment of continuity through his three stages, it deserves to be quoted at length here. Hilary is commenting on the extended passage from Jeremiah 18 (1–10) on the work of the potter who breaks down an imperfect vessel in order to reuse the clay rather than discard it. Here Hilary is at pains to defend the continuity of the body from its origins right through resurrection into glory. Even after sin and death the body is capable of being reconstituted rather than suffer destruction and annihilation. Et ipse fecit vas aliud secundum quod placuit in conspectu eius [Jer 18.4], significari intellegitur etiam illa quae secundum Dei voluntatem resurgentium corporum instauratio est futura. Prout ei enim placet et in conspectu eius dignum est, confracta reparabit, non ex alia aliqua, sed ex vetere atque ipsa originis suae materie speciem illis complaciti sibi decoris impertiens, ut corruptibilium corporum in incorruptionis gloriam resurrectio non interitu naturam perimat, sed qualitatis condicione demutet. Non enim aliud corpus, quamvis in aliud resurget, apostolo dicente [1 Cor 15.42]. (Tr. Ps. 2.41) (“And he personally made another pot according to what was pleasing in his sight” [Jer 18.4]. It is understood to signify also that the renewal of bodies rising again is going to be according to the will of God. According as it pleases him and is respectable in his eyes, he will restore what has been broken and not something else from a different source but from the old material of its origin, bestowing on them the shape of beauty pleasing to him so that the resurrection of corruptible bodies into the glory of incorruption does not annihilate their nature at death, but changes with the status of their quality. For the body will not rise into something ever so much different, as the Apostle says [Cor 15.42].)

200  ³  The Last Transformation

Hilary clearly asserts that the nature of the body, which rises “to the glory of incorruption,” does not perish but experiences a transformation of “the condition of its quality.” The vagueness of that last phrase will receive some clarification in the third cluster of his Tractatus. Then after quoting the Pauline passage of “what is sown in corruption rises in incorruption” from 1 Corinthians 15.42, Hilary introduces his key term demutatio and distinguishes it sharply from abolitio, as we have seen.73 Clearly Hilary links the original condition of the human to his theme of profectus towards the ultimate goal. In the third cluster he will expand the treatment of “origin” with some extended comments on the creation of the first human. Hilary will also expand his discussion of the ultimate goal and appeal to the biblical term of “glory” as well as to the roles of “spirit” and “eternity” in the realization of that goal. In his second cluster Hilary has a couple of more allusive references to this final transformation. At Tr. Ps. 54.16 Hilary invokes a version of 1 Corinthians 15.51 to affirm a universal resurrection but this is followed by a transformation in which there are excluded those “who do not fear God.”74 This claim about a limited participation in the ultimate transformation seems to contradict his assertions of universal application of the “Word” and “the body of Christ.” Hilary argues that the decisive issue of exclusion is the failure to believe that God became human and rose from the dead as human as well as God. In the third cluster Hilary 73. Fit ergo demutatio, sed non adfertur abolitio. Et cum id quod fuit in id quod non fuit surgit, non amisit originem, sed profecit ad honorem (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 2.41). For a discussion of Hilary’s terms demutatio, transformatio, transfiguratio and cognate verbs, consult Durst, “Der Auferstehungsleib,” in Die Eschatologie, 254–62. 74. Omnes secundum apostolum resurgent, sed non omnes commutabuntur, quia non timerunt Deum. Fas enim fuerat ignorantes in homine Deum resurgentem tamen Deum ex mortuis credidisse, patente his etiam post passionis piaculum paenitentia et indulgentia (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 54.16). For this exclusion it is important to note that Hilary consistently places the negative before the second verb when he cites 1 Cor 15.51. Hilary: Omnes quidem resurgemus, sed non omnes debutabimur (52.17); and Omnis enim caro resurget, sed non omnis demutabitur (69.3); Omnes quidem resurgent, sed non omnes commutabuntur (118.12.14). Hilary does not quote this verse in In Matt., De Trin., or De Synodis. Tertullian does cite it: et mortui, inquit, resurgent, nos demutabimur (De Carnis Resurrectionis 42), but the editor in CSEL 47, 86 has bracketed it off since the reading does not conform to the Vulgate version! Indeed it does not, but neither does it contain the misplaced negative found in Hilary. For a warning about theological problems inherent in this version, consult Alfredo Fierro, Sobre la Gloria en San Hilario: una Sintesis Doctrinal sobre la Nocio Biblica de “Doxa,” (Rome: Analecta Gregoriana 144, 1964), 209–10. For this pattern of the negative in the second half of the verse, consult Darrell D. Hannah, The Text of I Corinthinans in the Writings of Origen (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997). It appears to be a western contamination of the original Greek text.

The Last Transformation  ³  201

continues to invoke the incarnation, death and resurrection of Christ not just as a matter of propositional assent but he presents the very body of Christ in each of these phases as the agent for all transformations throughout the profectus including the ultimate demutatio. A little later in his discussion of Psalms 61 and 62 Hilary explicitly includes both body and soul in the final transformation. In the first instance Hilary specifically states the constitutive components of soul and body in the composition of the “whole human” and together both participate in “eternity.”75 On Psalm 62 he distinguishes soul and body with soul thirsting for God and flesh tied to earth which is barren. Even so there is the possibility of a final transformation that embraces both constitutive elements of the human. In the first case he employs this text of the Psalms not to separate, nor to exclude the body from the soul for he says it is appropriate “to hope for the salvation of body and of soul.”76 Although Hilary admits to serious difficulty, his objective is to include both body and soul in the ultimate resolution. He hints at the crucial role of spirit in that final victory. This spirit is also central to his more extended discussions of creation of the human in his third cluster of Psalms. A little later Hilary returns to basic elements in this theme. Death has come about due to sin but eternal life has been reestablished. He goes on to link this process to the participation in the death and burial of Christ in order to share in his life, which we noted in the last chapter.77 He cites Psalm 115.15 that the death of his saints is precious to God and 75. Quid enim ultra ignorantioni anxietatique hominum est relictum, cum aeternitas animae et corporis, id est totius hominis praedicetur (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 61.2). 76. Sitivit tibi anima mea, quam simpliciter et caro mea in terra deserta et invia et inaquosa . . . Sed nos spiritalibus doctrinis eruditi scimus et animae et corporis salutem a Deo esse donatum, si modo post regenerationis gratiam mentis gaudiis sensus corporis imbuatur, id est si non secundum carnem, sed secundum spiritum vixerimus, quia spiritus carnisque opera secundum apostolum vitiorum et continentiae studiis distinguitur. Arduum autem, sed maxime verum est aeternitatem ita corporis ut animae sperare (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 62.3). 77. . . . quia hanc mors ex peccati lege consequitur, haec vero aeternitatem ex morte restituet . . . ita magnum misericordiae Dei munus est, si commortui Christo vivamus in Christo (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 62.6). Hilary continues his understanding of the critical role of baptism in his progressive model. For it is through baptism that the believer is “incorporated within the death and burial of Christ”: . . . Sed meminit compatiendum et commoriendum esse cum Christo his qui conregnare cum eo velint. . . . Moriendum ergo nobis est, et omnia carnis nostrae vitia configenda cruci Domini sunt. Morimur enim secundum apostolum cum Christo et consepelimur in baptismo. . . . timet non cum Christo configi et commori et consepeliri, novum se hominem, nisi vetere cum vitiis et concupiscentiis exuto, intellegens non futurum (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.15.13).

202  ³  The Last Transformation

concludes that the goal of “eternity” is for both “soul” and “body.”78 This statement provides a clear summary of Hilary’s objective for his model of the Christian life. He proposes “the reward of eternity for soul and body by the progress of a glorious transformation.” Once again this progress is linked to sharing in the stages in the bodily experience of Christ from death to life. All of these themes receive extended treatment in the third cluster of Psalms. In this section Hilary does elaborate on some basic features. First the attributes of the Godhead which we discussed in the previous chapter do receive more attention. The “eternity” of God is critical as the source of the ultimate life after death available to people; the “spiritual status” of God is the means by which God is omnipresent from creation to final transformation. We return to these themes to repeat how Hilary understands the goal of the human profectus as “eternal” but more importantly to explore the contribution of “spirit” to the dynamic interaction of “body” and “soul.” Closely related to the “spiritual status” of the Godhead but distinguishable from it, “spirit” becomes the critical defining component both in Hilary’s account of the creation of the first human and “the qualitative change” of the risen body. The relevant theme in this third cluster, which receives perhaps the most extended discussion, is the three acts of God in the creation of the human person. Hilary develops this particularly at Tr. Ps. 118.10, and at 129 (3–6). As a consequence of the unique creation of the first human, Hilary goes on to provide some rhetorical passages on the superiority of the human over all other creatures. Against this background developed in the third cluster, Hilary also deals with the current sinful condition of humans and the divine response to effect resurrection and ultimate transformation, all accomplished through the agency of “the body of Christ.” To make this human profectus possible Hilary presents the Godhead as “spiritual” and hence “omnipresent.” He also relates the goal of “life after death” to the “eternity” of the Godhead. At Psalm 124, Hilary refers to the promise, at the end of Matthew, to be “with you all days until 78. . . . quia per eam cum peccati lege resolutis demutationis gloriosae profectu aeternitas animae corporisque iam sine peccati corpore rependetur (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 62.6).

The Last Transformation  ³  203

the end of the world.” Hilary relates the “spiritual status” of the divine to Christ’s presence among the people right “into eternity.”79 In a concise statement he expresses the presence and activity of “spirit” which “penetrates and holds together all things.”80 To demonstrate the role of “spirit” throughout the world, Hilary provides a comparison to the interaction of soul in the body. He also uses the example of surgery when dead flesh is removed without detriment to soul.81 Basil of Ancyra, with his medical background, may be the source or at least a reminder for this comparison. This appeal to a medical analogy to understand the active omnipresence of God prompts a warning about the qualified validity of appealing to natural phenomena for an understanding of God.82 Nevertheless Hilary does see the possibility for “spirit,” “soul,” and “body” to be cooperative principles. Rather than the clear dichotomy between soul and body in the Platonic tradition, his treatment definitely expresses a complementarity, which reflects a general Stoic influence in classical rhetorical literature. There are two basic principles, or ἀρχαί with ὕλη the passive element and πνεῦμα the active one. The main feature in early Stoic cosmology is that spirit penetrates matter. Chrysippus had proposed this model for both the whole universe and for the individual human. Spirit is responsible for order, function, and Providence throughout the universe. The 79. ecce ego vobiscum sum omnibus diebus usque in consummationem saeculi [Matthew 28.20]. [A]dest enim: et cum fideliter invocatur, per naturam suam praesens est. [S]piritus namque est omnia penetrans et continens. [N]on enim secundum nos corporalis est, ut, cum alicubi adsit, absit aliunde: sed virtute praesenti et se, quacumque est aliquid, porrigenti, cum replente omnia eius spiritu in omnibus sit, tamen ei, qui in eum credat, adsistit. [N]am et tribus vel duobus in nomine suo congregatis erit praesens [cf. Matthew 18.20], et in circuitu omnis populi sui est ex hoc et usque in aeternum (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 124.6). 80. [S]piritus namque est omnia penetrans et continens (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 124.6). 81. Ubique est modo animae corporalis, quae in membris omnibus diffusa a singulis quibusque partibus non abest. Etiamsi privata quaedam ei et regia in toto corpore sedis est, tamen in medullis, digitis, artubus infunditur. Iam si corruptis aliquibus corporis membris recisione erit necesse, cum usum suum eadem membra vitiis emortua non habebunt, id quod putre caducumque carnis est sine detrimento animae recidetur. Ipsa enim corporis nostri anima sanis et integris admixta membris est; et cum eadem fuerint putria et recidenda, non sequitur (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.19.8). 82. Haec quidem superflue divinae naturae ad comparationem similitudinis conferuntur, quia incomparabile est quidquid aeternum est nec recipit configuratae veritatis speciem ininitiabilis divinitatis exceptio. Sed intellegentiae nostrae istius modi coaptatur exemplar, ut per id secundum caelestium dictorum auctoritates incorporalem et immensum Deum circumscripto huic et corporali mundo intellegeremus admixtum, vitiosis vero et per opera sua emortuis non inesse. Quin etiam adhuc divinarum atque invisibilium rerum intellectus ex contemplatione corporalium rerum naturisque sectamur (Hilary, Tr. Ps.118.19.9).

204  ³  The Last Transformation

spirit, variously called soul or mind, is also responsible for movement and intelligence in the human being. There are echoes of these themes in Latin authors such as Cicero, Seneca, Claudius Mamertinus, and others.83 Hilary’s potential awareness of the Stoic influences on his model will become more evident when we deal with his probable source in the Latin theological tradition. For the application of these principles of “spirit” to humans, Hilary grounds its efficacy in its status as a divine quality. At Tr. Ps. 129.3, he affirms the “spiritual status of God” by citing John 4.24: quoniam [D]eus spiritus est. He applies this to the “invisible,” “self-contained,” and “eternal” nature of the divine.84 He goes on to apply the “spiritual status” to divine active omnipresence. “God, however, who is both everywhere and in all things, totally hears, totally sees, totally accomplishes, and is totally present.”85 Hilary concludes this passage by repeating his quotations, already cited at Tr. Ps. 118.19.8, of Jeremiah 23.23 together with Acts 17.28, to emphasize the totally active nature of divine omnipresence. At Psalm 144, Hilary combines both Psalm 118.151 and Acts 17.28 once again in order to emphasize the importance of omnipresence in his model and in this case to relate it to divine responsiveness to prayer.86 83. For a discussion of the evidence in Latin literature, consult Robert B. Todd, “The Stoics and their Cosmology in the first and second centuries AD,” and Michael Lapidge, “Stoic Cosmology and Roman Literature, First to Third Centuries AD,” in Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, 36.3, edited by Wolgang Hasse, 1365–78 and 1379–1429, respectively (Berlin: de Gruyter,1989). On pages 1386–90, Lapidge cites a number of passages from Cicero’s De Natura Deorum such as: haec ita fieri omnibus inter se concinentibus mundi partibus profecto non possent, nisi ea uno divino et continuato spiritu contineretur (2.7.19). See also De Natura Deorum 2.115; 2.119, and 3.28. From pages 1397–1401 he cites examples from Seneca. On the spirit within each person, for example, he cites Seneca: Prope est a te deus, tecum est, intus est . . . sacer intra nos spiritus sedet (Epistula 41.1–2). To demonstrate that Seneca locates the same dynamic principle within the universe and all of its parts, Lapidge cites, for example, Consolatio ad Helviam divinus spiritus per omnia maxima et minima aequali intentione diffuses (8.3). Lapidge completes his survey for evidence of Stoic views of the relation between spirit and matter in the universe and in the human being with two somewhat poetic references in the fourth-century Panegyrics12.26.1 and Claudius Mamertinus, de Consulatu suo, 11.14. The latter makes the following application about Jupiter who contemplates everything from on high: Iovis omnia esse , id scilicet animo contemplatus, quamquam ipse Iupiter summum caeli verticem teneat supra nubilia supraque ventos sendens in luce perpetua, numen tamen eius ac mentem toto infusam esse mundo (de Consulatu suo, 11.14.2). 84. . . . quoniam [D]eus spiritus est [John 4.24], invisibilis scilicet et inmensa atque intra se manens et aeterna natura (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 129.3). 85. . . . quoniam spiritus carnem et ossa non habet [Luke 24.39]. [E]x his enim corporis membra consistunt, quibus substantia [D]ei non eget. [D]eus autem, qui et ubique et in omnibus est, totus audit, totus videt, totus efficit, totus incedit (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 129.3). 86. Post quae sequitur: prope est [D]ominus invocantibus eum. [N]on longe abest, qui per naturae suae

The Last Transformation  ³  205

This divine attribute of “spiritual” is essential for his model of human profectus to function at each stage. We will return to its particular contributions at the moment of creation and ultimate transformation. The other aspect of the divine that is crucial for Hilary’s model is “eternity.” This has been the quest ever since his anxiety-driven autobiography about a decade earlier. Here, as we have already seen, he asserts tersely that “to be born to die is the cause of death not life.” Against this cryptic formulation of death as an ultimate goal, Hilary confidently asserts that the divine objective is “salvation for all.” That is presented as arriving into life once one enters “progress towards eternity.”87 Throughout the Tractatus “eternity” is both a divine attribute and the ultimate human objective.88 In a passage he summarizes the divine attributes. “Marvellous it is that God is everywhere and absent nowhere.”89 Hilary concludes this passage with an assertion of the infinite and the eternal status of God. To demonstrate the application of “spiritual” and “eternal” in the human profectus from its beginning in creation to final transformation, I will use four passages within his commentary on Psalms 118 and 129 (3–6) supplemented by appeals to other passages in his third cluster. It is clear that the constitutive elements operative at the creation of the first human anticipate the developments to be completed in the ultimate transformation or demutatio. Within the lengthy Psalm 118, Hilary’s comments on three verses, in particular, will provide a starting point for our examination of his perspectives, which contribute to the condition of the person after resurrection. virtutem et ipse ubique semper est, et totus semper et ubique est secundum illud Apostoli: quia in ipso sumus et in ipso vivimus ac movemur (Acts 17.28). [P]rope est invocantibus, cum nihil sit, quod sine eo sit (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 144.21). 87. Aequitatis autem mandatorum Dei ea summa est, ut omnibus salutaria, ut hoc, quod in hanc vitam venimus, cum profectu aeternitatis ineamus. Nam nasci ad mortem, non vitae est causa, sed mortis (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.22.3). 88. . . . sed verus ei [D]eus est, aeternus, omnipotens et universitatis effector (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 142.3); . . . per quem [D]eus invisibilis, incorporeus, aeternus et iusti iudicii iudex et beatae aeternitatis rex esse cantatur (Tr. Ps. 143.17). 89. [S]ed mirabilis quomodo? [N]empe cum omnia esse intra [D]eum docentur, dum [D]eus esse in omnibus praedicatur, dum inmensa et incomprehensibilis natura intus atque extra manens locos omnes.  [Q]uibus contineri possit, excedat. [M]irabile est [D]eum ubique esse et nusquam abesse; in omnibus esse et totum esse, et extra locos ac tempora pro infinitate atque aeternitate sua semper esse (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 138.16).

206  ³  The Last Transformation

The three critical stages of Hilary’s reflections all deal with the first human’s creation, current sinful condition, and ultimate transformation. The verse Psalm of 118.73, “Your hands have made me,” leads Hilary at Tr. Ps. 118.10, reinforced by his comments at Tr. Ps. 129, to an extended discussion of the two accounts of the creation of the first human with special emphasis on Genesis 1.26 and 2.7.90 He explores a three-stage sequence of “being made in the image of God,” “made from the earth,” and “animation caused by breath of God.” For the current impaired condition of the human, Hilary at Tr. Ps. 118.4 uses the verse 118.25, “My soul clings to the earthen floor,” to pose the issue of the relation of soul to body.91 Then, finally, to express his notions of the ultimate transformation at Tr. Ps. 118.3, Hilary appeals to verse 118.17 with its focus on future life “Restore your servant and I will live.”92 In this third cluster of Psalms, Hilary expands on his cryptic but informative discussion of the enduring nature of the conditions of “the origin” of humans which he had sketched back at Tr. Ps. 2.41. In both Tr. Ps. 118.10 and at 129 Hilary appeals to the biblical themes in the two accounts of the creation of the first humans at Genesis 1.26 and 2.7. He resolves the differences in the two passages by postulating three stages in the creation of the human: soul; body; and spirit. He summarizes this three-stage sequence at Tr. Ps. 129 where he criticizes those who would postulate something about the “corporeality” of God from the second of the three components of the human.93 In the first of these three passages at Tr. Ps. 118.10, Hilary associates the origin of the soul with the divine proposal at Genesis. 1.26 “to make humans in our image and likeness.” For this treatment of “the image” theme Hilary immediately introduces an important distinction to protect the uniqueness of “the Son.” He clearly distinguishes between “made 90. See Hilary’s text for Psalm118.10: Manus tuae fecerunt me et paraverunt me, et reliqua. 91. See Hilary’s text for118.4: Adhaesit pavimento anima mea: vivifica me secundum Verbum tuum, et reliqua. 92. See Hilary’s text for 118.3: Retribue servo tuo, vivam et custodiam sermones tuos, et reliqua. 93. faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram (Genesis 1.26), primum meminisse debet hominum institutionem naturis duabus contineri, animae scilicet et corporis, quarum alia spiritalis, alia terrena est, et inferiorem hanc materiam ad efficientiam atque operationem naturae illius fuisse potioris aptatam.  [E]rgo quisquis ita volet credere, ut corporalis [D]eus sit, quia ad imaginem eius homo factus est, conpositum esse [D]eum statuet, ex potiore scilicet inferioreque natura, quia de talibus homo constat. [Q]uidquid autem conpositum est, necesse est non fuerit aeternum; quia conpositio habet initium, quo conparatur, ut maneat (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 129.4).

The Last Transformation  ³  207

in the image and likeness of God” and “the image of God.” The second formulation is appropriate only for “the firstborn Son of God.” Perhaps Hilary’s contact with Basil of Ancyra sharpened his appreciation for the distintiveness of the Son as “the image of God.” Hilary also clearly separates the origin of “soul” from the origin of “body.”94 Homo vero, cum internam et externam in se naturam dissonantem aliam ab alia contineat et ex duobus generibus in unum sit animal rationis particeps constitutum, duplici est institutus exordio. Primum enim dictum est: Faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram (Genesis 1.26); dehinc secundo: Et accepit Deus pulverem de terra et finxit hominem (Genesis 2.7). (Tr. Ps. 118.10.6) (Since man indeed contains in himself an internal and an external nature discordant one from the other and, and since he is an animated being participating in reason, constituted from two kinds into one, he is established with a double origin. For first it is said: “Let us make man according to our image and likeness (Genesis 1.26)” and then secondly, “And God took dust from the earth and fashioned man (Genesis 2.7).”

He goes on to discuss the origin of soul as incorporeal. Primum opus non habet in se adsumptae aliunde alterius naturae originem. Incorporale est, quidquid illud tum de consilii sententia inchoatur; fit enim ad imaginem Dei. . . . Divinum in eo et incorporale condendum, quod secundum imaginem Dei et similitudinem tum fiebat; exemplum scilicet quoddam in nobis imaginis Dei est et similitudinis institutum. Est ergo in hac rationali et incorporali animae nostrae substantia primum, quod ad imaginem Dei factum sit. (Tr. Ps. 118.10.7) (The first operation does not have in itself the origin of another nature taken from another source. Whatever begins from the consequence of a plan is incorporeal; for it is made according to the image of God. . . . The divine and incorporeal to be created in him which then was made in the image and likeness of God; therefore established as a kind of example, to be sure, of the image and likeness of God. In this rational and incorporeal substance of our soul is the first indication that it is made in the image of God.)

Hilary proceeds immediately to present the second stage in the creation of the human. He begins by emphasizing a striking difference in the origins of the second stage. 94. For an informative discussion of the parallels for the double creation of the human and the use of the Pauline “inner” and “outer man” in Origen, Hilary, and Augustine, consult György Heidl, Origen’s Influence on the Young Augustine: A Chapter of the History of Origenism (Notre Dame, Ind.: Notre Dame University, Louaize Lebanon, and Gorgias Press, 2003): especially 111–24 and 273–98.

208  ³  The Last Transformation

Secundi vero operis efficientia quanto differt ab institutione prima! Deus terrae pulverem accepit. Nam sumitur pulvis et terrena materies formatur in hominem vel praeparatur et ex alio in aliud opere ac studio artificis expolitur. Primum ergo non accepit, sed fecit; secundo non primum fecit, sed accepit et tum formavit vel praeparavit. (Tr. Ps. 118.10.7) (But how different from the first creation is the production of the second piece of work! God took the dust of the earth. For dust is taken up and earthly matter is formed into man or is prepared and is refined from one form into another by the work and effort of the maker. And so he did not take the material in the first case but made it; but in the second he did not make the prime element but he took it and then formed and prepared it.)

This marked difference in the origins of soul and body has an impact on their respective identities and qualities. It certainly poses a serious question about degrees of compatibility between components with such different origins. The acknowledgment that “it is refined by the work and effort of the maker” does portend potential for effective interaction. Hilary then appeals to Genesis 2.7 for the divine act of “breathing into and perfecting soul and body.” Et inspiravit in eum spiritum vitae, et factus est homo in animam viventem (Genesis 2.7). Inspirationi ergo huic praeparatus sive formatus est, per quam natura animae et corporis in vitae perfectionem quodam inspirati spiritus foedere contineretur. (Tr. Ps. 118.10.8) (“And he breathed into him the spirit of life and man is made into a living soul (Genesis 2.7).” He was prepared or formed from this “breathing in” though which the nature of soul and body was held together for the perfection of life by a certain bond of the spirit that was breathed in.)

He concludes that this integration of soul and body in the perfecting of human life is held together by what he calls an “agreement of the spirit” or “marriage of the spirit.” This diction, as we shall see, was employed in his earlier Commentary on Matthew and is also found in earlier sources of his Latin theological and exegetical tradition. Hilary reiterates the threefold character of human origins.95 95. Quod ergo fit secundum imaginem Dei, ad animi pertinet dignitatem. Quod autem formatur ex terra, speciei corporis naturaeque primordium est. Et quia vel locutus ad alterum Deus intellegitur, cum dicit: Faciamus hominem (Genesis 1.26), vel triplex cognoscitur hominis facti formati perfectio, cum et fit ad imaginem Dei et formatur e terra et inspiratione spiritus in viventem animam commovetur, idcirco manibus se factum et formatum, non manu tantum propheta testatur, quia in constitutione sua et non solitarii tantum et eadem triplex fuisse docetur operatio (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.10.8).

The Last Transformation  ³  209

Hilary returns to the Genesis account of the creation of man in the divine image at Psalm 129 and he develops the range of mental attributes of the human. As we have seen, Hilary invokes a catalogue of the capabilities of the human soul, which echoes conventional descriptions in Roman culture. It ends with Hilary’s ultimate quest for “eternity.” [E]rgo ad imaginem [D]ei homo interior effectus est rationabilis, mobilis, movens, citus, incorporeus, subtilis, aeternus. (Therefore in the image of God the inner man has been made rational, flexible, moving, quick, incorporeal, subtle and eternal [(Tr. Ps. 129.6]). In this context he also states the notion of a staged sequence and the language which indicates a sympathetic, even loving collaboration between soul and body. Once again, there is clear evidence for this terminology in Tertullian, as we shall see.96 As a consequence of this unique character of the creation of humans, Hilary establishes a superiority of humans over other earthly creatures by employing a number of comparative terms of “usefulness,” “brilliance,” “beauty,” attractiveness.” He uses Tr. Ps. 118.73 to say that humans were made “by the hands of God” while all other creatures were created “by the word of God.” This has significant consequences for the commonly shared opinion that humans are “more useful” (utilius) and “more beautiful” (speciosius) than all other earthly creatures.97 The 96. Genesis docet longe postea, quam ad imaginem [D]ei homo erat factus, pulverem sumptum formatumque corpus, dehinc rursum in animam viventem per inspirationem [D]ei factum, naturam hanc scilicet terrenam atque caelestem quodam inspirationis foedere copulatam (Hilary, Tr. Ps.129.5). See Milhau, Sur le Psaume 118, vol. 2, 35, n.15, and his references back to Tertullian, De Anima 41.4, De Carnis Resurrectione 63, 3, and Hilary, In Matt. 10.23–24. For a very helpful discussion of the implications of the relations between soul and body expressed as societas, consortium, and foedus, consult Durst, “Der Mensch als lebendige Einheit von Leib und Seele,” 35–48. 97. Commune iudicium est inter omnia terrena Dei opera nihil homine utilius, nihil esse speciosius, quia etsi sint aliqua pulchra et ornata, magnitudinem quidem eius qui ea tam decora genuerit testantur, verum speciei et ornatus et institutionis suae fructum ipsa non sentiunt (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.10.1). For the preeminence of the creation of the human over all other creature in his Latin Christian culture, see, for example, Tertullian: primo quidem, ‘omnia’ quod sermone dei facta sunt [et sine illo nihil], caro autem et sermone dei constitit propter formam, ne quid sine sermone —faciamus enim hominem (Genesis 1.26) ante praemisit—et amplius manu propter praelationem, ne universitati comparetur: et finxit, inquit, deus hominem (Genesis 1.27)—iam homo, qui adhuc limus—et insufflavit in faciem eius flatum vitae, et factus est homo (Genesis 2.7) id est limus, in animam vivam, et posuit deus hominem, quem finxit, in paradiso (Genesis 2.8) adeo homo figmentum primo, dehinc totus. hoc eo commendarim, uti quicquid omnino homini a deo prospectum atque promissum est non soli animae verum et carni scias debitum [ut] si non ex consortio generis, certe vel ex privilegio nominis (De Carnis Resurrectione 5).

210  ³  The Last Transformation

nobility of the body and soul of humans is also a prominent theme in Hilary’s Latin Christian background.98 Tertullian adds the future use of a human body by Christ to further enhance its claim to honour. At Psalm 137 Hilary returns to this theme that man “as product of God’s hands” is “a more noble work.”99 At Psalm 129 he also describes the creation of the human as God’s “most handsome work” (pulcherrimum opus).100 At Tr. Ps. 118.10 Hilary goes on to identify these endowments and their functions which are to be used “to know and to venerate the author and parent of such great and good things.”101 We have seen that Hilary had begun this passage on the human as “more useful” and “more brilliant” with an appeal to common wisdom. To demonstrate the conventional character of Hilary’s claim of human superiority over all other animals, Milhau and Doignon, in their respective editions, provide parallels in Cicero and in Seneca. For the initial judgment of the superiority of the human, the editors cite passages from Cicero’s De Legibus,102 De Natura Deorum,103 and Seneca’s Epistolae.104 For 98. For the dignity of the clay used in the creation of the body, consult Tertullian: . . . adeo magna res, [agebatur] quae ista materia extruebatur. itaque totiens honoratur, quotiens manus dei patitur, dum tangitur, dum decerpitur, dum deducitur, dum effingitur. recognita totum illi deum occupatum ac deditum, manu sensu opere consilio sapientia providentia, et ipsa inprimis adfectione, quae liniamenta ducebat. quodcumque enim limus exprimebatur, Christus cogitabatur, homo futurus, quod et limus, et caro sermo, quod et terra tunc . . . ita limus ille iam tunc imaginem induens Christi futuri in carne non tantum dei opus erat sed et pignus (De Carnis Resurrectione 6). Tertullian concludes the final state is “better” and “happier’ than the original: licet et caro audiat: terra es et in terram ibis (Genesis 3.19) origo recensetur, non substantia. [revocatur datum] est esse aliquid origine generosius et de mutatione felicius (De Carnis Resurrectione 6). 99. [N]onnunquam manu [D]ei facta commemorari solent: homo vero semper manibus effectus, nobiliore in eum opere ex manuum connumeratione monstrato (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 137.17). 100. . . . cum pulcherrimum opus perfecto iam mundo inchoaret, hominem scilicet ad imaginem sui faciens, eum ex humili natura caelestique conposuit, anima videlicet et corpore (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 129.5). 101. Et hoc unum in terris animal rationale, intellegens, diiudicans, sentiens, constitutum est; horumque omnium generum quae in eo sunt, nihil aliud aliquid proficit quam ut ipse et ceteris aliis et his in quibus est natus utatur; utatur autem ad cognoscendum venerandumque eum qui tantorum in se bonorum auctor et parens sit (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.10.1). 102. Huc enim pertinet: animal hoc providum, sagax, multiplex, acutum, memor, plenum rationis et consilii, quem vocamus hominem, praeclara quadam condicione generatum esse a supremo deo; solum est enim ex tot animantium generibus atque naturis particeps rationis et cognitionis (Cicero, De Legibus 1.7.22). 103. nam cum praestantissumam naturam, vel quia beata est vel quia sempiterna, convenire videatur eandem esse pulcherrimam, quae conpositio membrorum, quae conformatio liniamentorum, quae figura, quae species humana potest esse pulchrior? (Cicero, De Natura Deorum 1.18.47). 104. Rather than Seneca, Epistula 113.15, a clearer parallel for the superiority of the reasoning animal would be his: Animus scilicet emendatus ac purus, aemulator dei, super humana se extollens, nihil extra se ponens. Rationale animal es. Quod ergo in te bonum est? Perfecta ratio . . . (Epistula 124.23).

The Last Transformation  ³  211

the mental attributes Milhau cites a rough parallel in Cicero’s De Legibus dealing with the pursuit of wisdom and knowledge of the self.105 Then for the function of these attributes “to know and to venerate the source and parent of so many good things,” he cites Cicero’s De Natura Deorum.106 In another context on Psalm134, Hilary makes a similar comparison between humans and other creatures. He asserts that “nothing is more lovable to God than man.”107 He develops the case this time not so much with appeals to common cultural estimations but with explicit references to the traditions of Scripture and Christian belief. Man is created not “at the Word of God” but “by the thought (consilio) of God.” He summarizes elements about the distinctive origin of “soul” and the life-giving principle from “the breath of God.” [M]undus verbo constitit, homo autem cum consilio efficitur, non verbo, sed opere cogitato. [F]it quoque ad imaginem [D]ei; per inspirationem etiam [D]ei vivens anima perficitur. (Tr. Ps. 134.14) (The world exists by the Word; man, however, is made intentionally not by his Word but through his deliberate action. He is also made in the image of God and, through the in breathing of God, a living soul is created.)

Hilary then lists the human being’s acceptance of the Law, status as inhabitant of paradise, a subject of jealousy for the devil, salvation from sin by divine mercy, being taken up in the assumed body of Christ.108 In his discussion in 118.10, Hilary indicates that sin has marred this wonderful creature. He no longer deserves to be called “human” and “made in the image and likeness of God.” He points out that Scripture represents fallen man as one of the beasts.109 105. Nam qui se ipse norit, primum aliquid se habere [sentient] divinum ingeniumque in se suum sicut simulacrum aliquod dicatum putabit; tantoque munere deorum semper dignum aliquid et faciet et sentiet et, cum se ipse perspexerit totumque temptarit, intelleget, quemadmodum a natura subornatus in vitam venerit quantaque instrumenta habeat ad obtinendam adipiscendamque sapientiam (Cicero, De Legibus 1.22.59). 106. Rather than Cicero, De Natura Deorum 2.61.153, a clearer parallel for the necessity to venerate the divine would be: Quos deos et venerari et colere debemus. Cultus autem deorum est optumus idemque castissimus atque sanctissimus plenissimusque pietatis, ut eos semper pura integra incorrupta et mente et voce veneremur (De Natura Deorum 2.28.71). 107. In eo, quod omnia, quae voluit, fecit in caelo, in terra, in mari et in abyssis, quantum cognitioni nostrae permissum est, nihil amabilius [D]eo homine est (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 134.14). 108. [L]egem accipit, voluntati suae permittitur, liber ab omnibus mundi [D]ominus constituitur, paradisi incola est, invidia diaboli dignus est, post peccatum misericordiae reservatur. . . . [H]ic ipse per sacramentum nativitatis secundum hominem Iesum Christum adsumptus in eum est (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 134.14). 109. Atque ob id magnum quiddam est homo. Hoc enim nomen, ubi rerum superius commemoratarum

212  ³  The Last Transformation

Because of sin, humans must wage battle against the infirmities of their fallen nature and hope for divine assistance.110 Moreover, sin disrupts the “marriage agreement” between soul and body. In his discussion of Tr. Ps. 118.25, “my soul clings to earth,”Hilary introduces his understanding of the rupture in the critical relation of soul and body.111 In the fallen condition there is a “massive struggle” (maximum certamen) “to rend asunder” (divellat) the relation of soul and body and for the soul to treat the body as an “alien dwelling” (peregrina incolatu).112 As we shall see, this condition of massive struggle is neither the original nor the ultimate relationship between the soul and body of the human being. Hilary proceeds to identify the origin and cause of this struggle. After he cites 1 Corinthians 6.17, Psalm 62.9, and Deuteronomy 13.4, he goes on to say that the soul desires to cling to God but because of sin it is drawn away towards earth. So in this condition the soul pleads with God to provide life.113 This desire for life is developed in Hilary’s commentary on the word Vivam in Psalm 118.17. Hilary says that the critical issue of the quest for life is not so much an issue for the present as it is for the future.114 The conflict between mortality and progress to expectation or hope can only be resolved through divine intervention.115 The human is cognitione neglecta in vitia deciderit, amittit, indignus scilicet iam homo nuncupari et qui secundum imaginem et similitudinem Dei factus sit; sed secundum exprobrationes propheticas et evangelicas aut serpens aut progenies viperarum aut equus aut mulus aut vulpus ei nomen est, et proprietas ei nominis sui, ubi de innocentia exciderit, aufertur (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.10.2). 110. Optat ergo diutino proelio in his corporis sui infirmitatibus militare, optat longo certamine adversus huius mundi nequitias consistere. Sed adhortationem ex misericordia Dei sperat, ut tribulatus licet et adflictus divinae adhortationis auxilio firmetur (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.10.14). 111. See n. 91. 112. Igitur vel quia in terrae huius solo commoremur, vel quia ex terra, instituti conformatique sumus, anima, quae alterius originis est, terrae corporis adhaesisse creditur, maximum ipsa certamen suscipiens, ut se manens in eo ab eius societate divellat, ut tamquam peregrina incolatu eius utatur (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.4.1). 113. Adhaerere igitur huic magis quam illi concupiscit. Sed quia meminit ex consortio eius nonnullam se labem contraxisse peccati, orat ut per verbum Dei, quamvis admixta terrenae mortalique naturae anima eius sit, ipse tamen in vitam vitae caelestis animetur. Scit enim se nunc pavimento adhaerere, non vivere; sed secundum verbum Dei, cui mortui vivunt, orat ut vivificetur in vitam (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.4.2). 114. Vivam atque observabo non praesentis temporis res est, sed significatio sermonis huius in futuri se tempus extendit. Scit enim propheta quando beata illa et vera viventium vita sit (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.3.3). 115. For another reference to the critical role of the incarnation in the accomplishment of “the eternity of soul and body”: Quid enim ultra ignorationi anxietatique hominum est relictum, cum aeternitas animae et corporis, id est totius hominis praedicetur, cum adsumptio atque susceptio terrenae nostrae carnis a Deo sub sacramento magnae huius pietatis ostensa sit, cum peccatorum remissio, condemnata peccati lege, sit praestita, cum homini nostro a dextris Dei consessus in caelis sit? (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 61.2).

The Last Transformation  ³  213

trapped in the body of sin, death and corruption. In answer to the plea, “Who will free me from this body of death?” Hilary concludes the passage above with the advice that “the nature of the true life cannot be in us unless the body is glorified into the nature of spirit.” Nunc enim et in pulvere mortis manemus et in mortis corpore sumus, a quo se liberari apostolus orat dicens: Miser ego homo, quis me liberabit a corpore mortis huius (Romans 7.24)? Habemus autem etiam nunc admixtam nobis materiam, quae mortis legi et peccati obnoxia est; et in huius caducae carnis infirmisque domicilio corruptionis labem ex eius consortio mutuamur, ac nisi glorificato in naturam spiritus corpore vitae verae in nobis non potest esse natura. (Tr. Ps. 118.3.3) (For now we remain in the dust of death and we are in the body of death, from which the Apostle prays that he be liberated in the words: “I am a miserable human; who will liberate me from the body of death (Rom 7.24)?” Moreover, we have even now matter mixed in us which is subject to the law of death and sin; and in the dwelling of the fallen and infirm flesh we take on the stain of corruption from the association with it. And except with the body glorified into the nature of spirit, it is not possible for the nature of true life to be in us.)

Here Hilary states, in summary form, the characteristics of the final transformation, demutatio, as he understands it. Our bodies, which are presently infected by sin and consequently death, must be “glorified” and transformed “into the nature of spirit.” In the following paragraph, and at Tr. Ps. 118.15.13, Hilary expands on this proposition. He employs terms close to his thematic statements (Instr. 11, 51.2 and 150.1) and he appeals to the necessity of a “washing” to complete the transformation from the fallen earthly body into a more glorious condition after the resurrection of the earthly body.116 In Hilary’s mind there is a progressive sequence from baptism to resurrection to glory. For after the resurrection, as we have already seen, our earthly body is completed by “a more glorious nature.” He invokes Hebrews 10.1 in which “the law is the shadow of good things to come” for the following lesson. 116. For another discussion of the role of baptism and the incorporation into the death, burial, and kingship of Christ, see, Sed meminit compatiendum et commoriendum esse cum Christo his qui conregnare cum eo velint [cf. Romans 6.8]. . . . Moriendum ergo nobis est, et omnia carnis nostrae vitia configenda cruci Domini sunt. Morimur enim secundum apostolum cum Christo et consepelimur in baptismo [Romans 6.4]. . . . timet non cum Christo configi et commori et consepeliri, novum se hominem, nisi vetere cum vitiis et concupiscentiis exuto [cf. Ephesians 4.22–24; Colossians 3.9–10], intellegens non futurum (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 118.15.13).

214  ³  The Last Transformation

Sed quia lex umbra est futurorum bonorum . . . docuit nos in hoc terreni et morticini corporis habitaculo mundos esse non posse, nisi per ablutionem caelestis misericordiae emundationem consequamur, post demutationem resurrectionis terreni corporis nostri effecta gloriosiore natura. (Tr. Ps. 118.3.4) (But because the passage, “Law” is “the shadow of good things to come” [Heb 10.1] . . . has taught us we cannot be clean in this dwelling of an earthly and mortal body, unless we pursue purification through the washing of heavenly mercy and with the achievement of a more glorious nature after the transformation of the resurrection of our earthly body.)

Later at Tr. Ps.136.13 after an extended discussion of Babylon and the captivity imposed by vice, Hilary asserts the role of “spirit” to overcome slavery to vice, to acquire virtue and to lead to the transformation.117 Still yet again, Hilary connects the whole transformation process to incorporation within the body of Christ. At Tr. Ps. 138 Hilary appeals to John 3.13 and relates this process of spiritualization to the mission of Christ who alone descended in order to ascend back to the Father.118 Without this initiative the soul is dragged down and held down by the earthly body.119

Innovative Approaches to the Resurrected Body

In his treatment of the resurrected body Hilary makes use of serveral terms and concepts from Tertullian, his predecessor in his Latin theological culture. For both authors, the interaction between body, soul, and spirit is critical. For this relation of body and soul Tertullian used 117. [H]aec ergo misera Babylonis est filia, id est caro omnium. [C]ui qui retribuet retributiones suas, beatus est, scilicet qui carnem suam dominatui animae subiecerit, et quisque eam spiritui subdiderit. [I]lla enim omnes eos, qui inperiti de [D]eo et ignari erant, omnibus voluptatibus et desideriis suis subegerat et captivae menti dominans imperabat. [S]ed cum per cognitionem [D]ei vitia eius, non dico abolitione, sed morte perimuntur, cum religio, pudicitia, largitio, sobrietas, et caritas impietatem, libidinem, avaritiam, ebrietatem simultatem, odia consumspit et omnibus operibus spiritus caro victa famulatur, tunc beatus est, qui retributionem suam ei retribuet, id est qui dominatum in eam spiritus, quo uti ipsa in spiritum erat solita, demutat (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 136.13). 118. [N]emo enim ascendit in caelum, nisi qui de caelo descendit, [F]ilius hominis, qui est in caelo (John 3.13) (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 138.22). 119. [T]erreni enim corporis natura ascensionem hanc nisi in caelestem gloriam demutata non obtinet (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 138.22). [S]i descendero in infernum, ades (138.8b): humanae ista lex necessitatis est, ut consepultis corporibus ad inferos animae descendant. [Q]uam descensionem [D]ominus ad consummationem veri hominis non recusavit. [I]d autem: quo abibo aut quo fugiam, et illic es et ades (138.7–8) ad significationem doctrinae eius, quae mirabilis ex eo facta est, pertinet, per quam [D]eus omnia esse et in omnibus esse sit cognitus: ut, licet faciem [D]ei homo fugiat, quia non sustinet, licet de supernis ad inferos mortis lege descendat, [D]eus tamen ubique sit semper et in omnibus.

The Last Transformation  ³  215

the analogy of a “spousal contract” which is picked up by Hilary, as we have seen. They both connect this critical interrelationship to the successive creation accounts in Genesis. They also both argue for some basic continuity of the body from this life to the resurrected state and for this continuity Hilary makes frequent use of Tertullian’s term demutatio. Tertullian invokes the incarnation to highlight the dignity of matter. At the beginning of the third century, Tertullian argued against an assortment of groups who supported the immortality of the soul but denied the resurrection of the body. He was attacking Neoplatonists, Pythagoreans, Marcion, and a number of Gnostic groups such as those associated with Basilides, Valentinus, and Apelles. Since Hilary’s agenda is much different from that of his predecessor, it will be important to identify the differences in their perspectives. For many of the ways of presenting the complementarity of “body,” “soul,” and “spirit,” Tertullian offers significant and meaningful parallels. Many of the basic features in Hilary’s treatment of the three-stage creation of the human, such as compatibility or marriage bond of soul with body,120 of the resurrection of soul and body, and final transformation (demutatio), were prominent themes in Tertullian. Moreover Tertullian sharply distinguished demutatio from “perdition” just as we have seen Hilary do.121 In another passage Tertullian cited the Stoics, Chrysippus and Cleanthes, to assert the cooperative relation between soul and 120. For the treatment of the “spousal commitment” between soul and body: Resurget igitur caro, et quidem omnis, et quidem ipsa, et quidem integra. in deposito est ubicumque apud deum per fidelissimum sequestrem dei et hominum Iesum Christum, qui et homini deum et hominem deo reddet, carni spiritum et spiritui carnem. utrumque iam in semetipso foederavit, sponsam sponso et sponsum sponsae comparavit. nam et si animam quis contenderit sponsam, vel dotis nomine sequetur animam caro. non erit anima prostituta, ut nuda suscipiatur a sponso. habet instrumentum, habet cultum, habet manicipium suum carnem (Tertullian, De Carnis Resurrectione, 63). 121. For his treatment of transformation of the flesh with a sharp distinction between change (demutatio) and abolition (perditio): interpretabimur itaque plenius et vim et rationem demutationis, quae ferme subministrat alterius carnis resurrecturae praesumptionem, quasi demutari desinere sit in totum et de pristino perire. discernenda est autem demutatio ab omni argumento perditionis. aliud enim demutatio, aliud perditio. porro non aliud, si ita demutabitur caro, ut pereat. peribit autem demutata, si non ipsa permanserit in demutatione, quae exhibita fuerit in resurrectione (Tertullian, De Carnis Resurrectione, 55). In the same paragraph Tertullian goes on to argue for continuity through changes: quomodo ergo quod perditum est mutatum non est, ita quod mutatum est perditum non est. perisse enim est in totum non esse quod fuerit; mutatum esse aliter esse est. porro dum aliter est, id ipsum potest esse. habet enim esse quod non perit; mutationem enim passum est, non perditionem. atque adeo potest et demutari quid et ipsum esse nihilominus, ut et totus homo.

216  ³  The Last Transformation

body. In doing so he argued that there was a degree of materiality in soul. In his earliest work Hilary had also retained, at least at the level of terminology, some equivalence between God, spirit, and corporeality. Here in the Tractatus, however, Hilary maintains a clear distinction between spirit and body but he does retain a consistent compatibility probably derived ultimately from the residual Stoic influences in his Christian and rhetorical culture.122 Moreover in his use of the Genesis account of the creation of man in De Carnis Resurrectione 4 and 5, Tertullian did recognize stages of “the creation of flesh by the hand of God” and “the breathing in of soul.”123 Hilary also takes up the theme of the stages in the creation of the human but for him this is much more clearly an anticipation of the final condition in glory. In addition to the special creation of the human, Tertullian appealed to the incarnation but simply to assign a special honor for human flesh.124 Although Hilary employs much of the terminology of Tertullian, he has moved far beyond the assertion of faith in the resurrection of the body to construct a dynamic understanding of how that is to be accomplished. This requires a progressive journey of the whole human person in unity with the progress of “the body of Christ” from birth, suffering, death, to resurrection and glory. In Hilary’s distinctive formulation of the ultimate destiny of his three-stage progressive model for the Christian life, Hilary is working with sources he had already employed before his exile and his extensive contact with Greek Christian resources. He is once again employing Stoic themes, mediated by Tertullian. Hilary, however, distinguishes three stages in the origin of man as “body,” “soul,” and “spirit.” First of all in the Tractatus Hilary does not follow Tertullian’s view of “spirit” as “refined matter.”125 The distinctive character of God as spirit is essential in Hilary’s treatment of divine omnipresence and Providence. Hilary 122. porro et animam compati corpori, cui laeso ictibus vulneribus ulceribus condolescit, et corpus animae, cui adflictae cura angore amore coaegrescit per detrimentum scilicet vigoris cuiusque pudorem et pavorem rubore atque pallore testetur. igitur animam corpus ex corporalium passionum communione (Tertullian, De Anima 5). 123. See Tertullian, De Carnis Resurrectione 5, quoted in n. 97. 124. On the dignity of human flesh enhanced by the divine intention to have the Son take up flesh, see Tertullian, De Carnis Resurrectione 6, quoted in n. 98. Tertullian concludes this paragraph with the affirmation that flesh is destined to have a transformation nobler and happier than its origin. [revocatur datum] est esse aliquid origine generosius et de mutatione felicius. 125. For an informative discussion of the background to Hilary’s terminology of “bodily soul” at Tr. Ps.

The Last Transformation  ³  217

also retains the important significance of Tertullian’s model and terminology, which is the compatibility between “soul” and “body.” Hilary’s attention to the third element of “spirit” is crucial for his characterization of the condition of the body after the resurrection. This “spiritualizing of the body” of the believer after the resurrection is made possible because of the connection to “the body of Christ.” Although Hilary employs the terminology and some of the themes in Tertullian, he has constructed a progressive model of the Christian journey into resurrection and glory. To explain this progress Hilary chooses another passage from Philippians to provide the language and perspective of the resurrected body. Admittedly Tertullian had developed an impressive portfolio of biblical texts to support his case for the resurrection of the body.126 But he did not select any specific passage to provide the interpretative lens for his argument. Hilary uses Philippians 3.20 to explore how bodies would be resurrected and what the final condition of the resurrected bodies would be. Some of these basic components of Hilary’s treatment of resurrection and transformation of the body in his Tractatus are already evident back in his earlier Commentary on Matthew at 10.19127 and 10.24.128 At 118.19.8, see Milhau, Sur le Psaume 118, vol. 2, 258, n. 11. For this issue in Hilary’s first commentary, consult Durst, “Exkurs: Zur corporalitas animae im Matthäuskommentar,” 30–35. 126. See Tertullian, De Carnis Resurrectione 47. For a description of Tertullian’s dossier of bibilical texts developed for his defense of the resurrection of the body between 208 and 211, see Raymond Minnerath, “Tertullien: l’anthropologie de la résurrection,” in La résurrection chez les Pères, edited by J.-M. Prieur, 119–33, Cahiers de Biblia Patristica 7 (Strasbourg: Université Marc Bloch, 2003). For another survey of Tertullian’s biblical dossier in De Carnis Resurrectione, see Frederick Chapot, “Tertullien, De resurrectione mortuorum 29– 32 dans la tradition d’Ezéchiel 37,1–14,” in La résurrection chez les Pères, edited by J.-M. Prieur, 135–59, esp. 137, n. 9, Cahiers de Biblia Patristica 7 (Strasbourg: Université Marc Bloch, 2003). 127. In commenting on the example of Providence in Mt 10.29 in his earlier commentary on that Gospel, Hilary presented the two possibilities for the human with the best involving some “spiritualizing of the body.” Thus either the weight and gravity become less and permit the body to become spiritual or sin makes the soul heavy and drags it down: Quemadmodum autem si evolarent, unum essent, id est corpus in naturam animae transisset et gravitas illa terrenae materiae in profectum et substantiam animae aboleretur fieretque corpus potius spiritale, ita peccatorum pretio venditis, in naturam corporum animae subtilitas ingravescit et terrenam contrahit ex vitiorum sorde materiem fitque unum ex illis quod tradatur in terram (Hilary, In Matt. 10.19). 128. This time Hilary adds the healing role of baptism and the contribution of the Holy Spirit in the recovery of the original compatibility of soul and body: Cum ergo innovamur baptismi lavacro per Verbi virtutem, ab originis nostrae peccatis atque auctoribus separamur recisisque quadam exsectione gladii Dei a patris et matris adfectionibus dissidemus, et veterem cum peccatis atque infidelitate sua hominem exuentes et per Spiritum anima et corpore innovati necesse est ingeniti et vestusti operis consuetudinem oderimus. Et quia corpus ipsum per fidem mortificatum in naturam animae, quae ex adflatu Dei venit—quamvis id ipsum

218  ³  The Last Transformation

10.25 in the same commentary, he discusses the renewed relationship and cooperative activity of soul and body after the contribution of the breath of God and the Word. This renewed relationship begins at baptism.129 But for his Tractatus super Psalmos, Hilary develops a model for the profectus of the Christian into resurrection. To do this he uses the passage from Philippians 3.20. This new element is not present in Hilary’s Commentary on Matthew. In his De Carnis Resurrectione, Tertullian had cited this passage only once with his portfolio of scriptural quatations about the afterlife. Tertullian retained its conventional future tense. So Hilary in the Tractatus uses Philippians 3.20 to present the ultimate goal of the Christian life “and we shall be conformed to the glory of his body.” So once again he appeals to “the body of Christ” through which and in which the Christian hope is accomplished. Moreover, this profectus of the Chriatian depends on the stages of the body of Christ is the other critical passage from the same epistle. To the Christological progression in Philippians 2 (6–11) on “the Son who takes on the form of a slave to return to the form of God in glory,” he connects his goal of the Christian life in Philippians 3.21. Moreover he projects this transformation of Philippians 3.20 back into the past tense, implying that this transformation is already underway. Clearly for Hilary these two progressive themes are not just rheortical parallels. For we have demonstrated throughout our fourth chapter that incorporation with the progressive stages of “the body of Christ” makes the Christian profectus possible. So throughout the Tractatus, the most frequent biblical passage to present this transformation from vice to virtue and from the body of corruption to a spiritualized or glorified transformation is Philippians adhuc in materia sua exstet—evadat, quia communio ipsis invicem concilietur ex Verbo, idcirco iam unum atque idem cum anima velle coepit effici, scilicet ut illa est spiritalis, quibus libertas voluntatis a socru sua (In Matt. 10.24). He goes on to emphasize the role of the Spirit to renew the correlatives of soul and body and to permit the will to function so that each component wishes for one and the same thing: Fitque gravis in domo una dissensio et domestica novo homini erunt inimica, quia ille per Verbum Dei divisus ab illis manere et interior et exterior, id est et corpus et anima in Spiritus novitate gaudebit; ea vero quae ingenita et a quadam prosapiae antiquitate deducta consistere in his quibus oblectata sunt concupiscunt, origo carnis et origo animae et libertas potestatis in duos dividentur, animam scilicet et corpus hominis novi, quae unum atque idem velle coeperunt, divisique tres duobus subiacebunt in dominatum eorum de Spiritus novitate potioribus (In Matt. 10.24). 129. Et indignus est Christo, qui non crucem suam, in qua compatimur, commorimur, consepelimur, conresurgimus, accipiens Dominum sit secutus in hoc sacramento fidei Spiritus novitate victurus (Hilary, In Matt. 10.25).

The Last Transformation  ³  219

(3.20–21).130 This text clearly grounds the whole process in the body of Christ, which is completed in the final transformation when “it is conformed to the body of his glory.” He quotes the passage in full in his comment on Psalm 141 where he retains the conventional future tense. This occurs after a quotation from 2.9–11 of the same epistle. This is Hilary’s primary scriptural support for his focus on the glorification of “the body of Christ.”131 [Q]uae autem sit iustorum exspectatio, idem apostolus docet dicens: nostra autem conversatio in caelis est, unde et salvificatorem expectamus Iesum Christum, qui transformabit corpus humilitatis nostrae conformatum corpori gloriae suae (Philippians 3.20–21). (Tr. Ps. 141.8) (Moreover, what the hope of the just is the same Apostle teaches in the words “Our spiritual abode, however, is in heaven from where we look forward to our saviour, Jesus Christ, who will transform the body of our humility and conform it to the body of his glory”) (Philippians 3.20–21).

For Hilary the Philippians treatment of the glorified Christ and the ultimate transformation of humans are intrinsically linked. A little later at Tr. Ps. 143.7, Hilary again cites Philippians 2.6–11 and connects it to a paraphrase of 3.20–21.132 Frequently Hilary selects the key terms from this passage, namely “conformed to the glory of his body.” The very next sentence in the passage provides a good example.133 Sometimes he cites the second half of the passage from Philippians 3.21.134 Sometimes he employs a shortened version of this second part of the verse.135 In 130. For an informative discussion of Hilary’s use of this passage in his writings, see Gilles Pelland, “Hilaire, exégète de Philipiens 3.21,” in La résurrection chez les Pères, edited by J.-M. Prieur, 215–27, Cahiers de Patristica 7 (Strasbourg: Université de Marc Bloch, 2003). Pelland groups this passage with other biblical texts to provide an overview of Hilary’s soteriology. He does not, however, discuss its influence on Hilary’s operational terminology in the Tractatus. 131. propter hoc exaltavit eum [D]eus et donavit ei nomen, quod est super omne nomen: ut in nomine Iesu omne genu flectat, caelestium et terrestrium et infernorum, et omnis lingua confiteatur, quia [D]ominus Iesus in gloria [D]ei [P]atris est (Philippians 2.9–11). [H]aec ei a [D]eo retributio est, ut ei corpori, quae adsumspit, paternae gloriae donetur aeternitas (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 141.8). 132. [E]t haec quidem evangelici sacramenti et humanae spei veritas est, humanam naturam corruptibilemque carnem per huius gloriae demutationem in aeternam transformatam esse substantiam (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 143.7). 133. [E]xpectant ergo iusti, dum retribuatur illi: scilicet ut conformes fiant gloriae corporis sui, qui est benedictus in saecula saeculorum. [A]men (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 141.8). 134. Nempe ille de quo idem apostolus meminit dicens: Et transformavit, inquit, corpus humilitatis nostrae conforme corpori gloriae suae (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 1.15). 135. . . . et in quo Deus est et per quod transfiguravit corpus humilitatis nostrae conformatum corpori

220  ³  The Last Transformation

both of these cases it is important to note that he uses the perfect tense, as a completed action rather than the future tense of the standard scriptural version.136 Hilary’s shift from future to perfect tense underlines an aspect of his perspective in which earlier phases tend to anticipate the later completed stages. On other occasions he extends the passage with some paraphrasing.137 In one of these examples Hilary clearly intends to emphasize the importance of Christ as mediator who shares in the unity of the divine majesty with the Father and in the association of flesh with us. Mirabilis ergo in sanctis Deus est, quos cum conformes gloriae corporis sui fecerit, per se, qui mediator est, etiam in unitate paternae maiestatis adsumet, dum et in eo per naturam Pater est et ille rursum per societatem carnis in nobis est, quos in regnum praeparatum illis ante constitutionem mundi obtinendum locaverit, quibus, absorpta morte, immortalem vitam aeternamque reddiderit. (Tr. Ps. 67.37) (And so God is “marvelous in his saints.” When he has made them conformed to the glory of his body, he will take them up though him, who is the mediator, also in the unity of the Father’s majesty. While the Father is also in him through his nature, he also is in us in turn through the association of his body. To these saints, whom he has arranged to occupy the kingdom prepared for them before the foundation of the world, he has restored immortal and eternal life by conquering death.)

Hilary often links this set of terms with other scriptural references to characteristic features of eternal life. In his use of the passage from Matthew 22.32, we have seen that “God is not the God of the dead.” Hilary goes on to claim that God is the God of those who are “to be transformed into heavenly glory” and thus those “who will be conformed to the body of the glory of God.” [U]t in evangeliis responsione [D]omini ad Sadducaeos docemur, non est [D]eus mortuorum, sed vivorum (Matthew 22.32). . . . [N]on dignatur [D]eus corruptgloriae suae, si tamen et nos vitia corporis nostri cruci eius confixerimus (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 14.5). For other brief allusions see 51.22, 52.17, 61.4, 91.10. 136. For a word of caution on union with Christ, see McCarthy (“Expectatio Beatitudinus,” 63), who cites Wild. He says that Christians attain full conformity to Christ only after their resurrection. The theological rationale for this intervention is clear but I do not think it does full justice to some of Hilary’s language, such as his frequent switch from the future to the perfect tense. 137. salutare scilicet induuntur conformes effecti gloriae salutaris, quia secundum apostolum de caelis salvificatorem nostrum expectamus, qui potens est secundum operationem efficientiae suae corpus humilitatis nostrae conformare corpori gloriae suae (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 131.26).

The Last Transformation  ³  221

ibilium et mortuorum [D]eus esse, sed eorum, qui in caelestem gloriam transformandi, exuti vetere homine terreno novum eum, qui in caelis est, induerunt, qui conformes erunt corpori gloriae [D]ei. (Tr. Ps. 135.5) (As we are taught by the Lord’s response to the Sadducees, “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living.” . . . God does not deign to be the God of the corruptible and the dead, but of those who are to be transformed into heavenly glory, who have put on the new person, who is in heaven, and who will be conformed to the body of the glory of God, after they have put off the old earthly person.)

Most of the time he chooses vocabulary derived from the full verse. A final example illustrates the use of his favorite terminology in conjunction with other terms to designate the experience of paradise. [S]ed propheta Hierusalem sibi initium laetitiae praeponit, hinc exordium gaudii sumens, quod in Hierusalem receptus immortalis ex mortali erit, quod angelorum frequentium coetu admiscebitur, quod in regno [D]omini recipietur, quod conformis gloriae ipsius fiet. (Tr. Ps. 136.11) (But the prophet places Jerusalem first as the beginning of joy for himself and from here we take the beginning of joy because in Jerusalem he will be received as immortal from a mortal condition, because he will be included in the assembly of the attending angels, because he will be received into the kingdom of the Lord, because he will be conformed to his glory.)

Here he includes a reference to the “admission among the company of throngs of angels.” This association with angels is a frequent theme in the Tractatus and it represents a significant development from the soteriology of the earlier treatment of Matthew, although there is one minor exception in the Treatise.138 In his earlier commentary Hilary had used Matthew 22.31 “they are like angels in heaven” as one of his expressions for the ultimate status of humans in paradise. In the latter Treatise on the Psalms, Hilary links the future status to the glorified body of Christ. This allows the saints “to associate with angels,” not “to become angels.” So these two passages from Philippians are fundamental for Hilary’s understanding of the progressive stages of Christ and for the human incorporation within his body to achieve the final transformation. At Tr. Ps.143.7, he provides an extended paraphrase of the divine forma and the 138. On this development away from indentification with angels in De Trin.11, see Weedman, The Trinitarian, 177–78. He does pont out one brief exception to this pattern at Tr. Ps. 121.1 but notes that it is immediately corrected with an appeal to conformation to “the body of Christ.”

222  ³  The Last Transformation

human forma along with the impact on the human transformation, noted above. Hilary definitely has a preference for formare and its cognates. For at Tr. Ps. 138, the Psalmic text reads replebuntur but he appeals to “certain manuscripts” that read formabuntur. He applies the same observation to Philippians 3.20–21.139 This interest in formare and its cognates is possibly influenced, or at least reinforced, by one of his sources for the Tractatus. The extant material from Origen preserved in Epiphanius Panarion 64 suggests a potential source or, more likely, a reinforcement of his own Latin cultural formation. Epiphanius, as we noted in chapter 2 on exegesis, preserves a passage from Origen on Psalm 1 and then a summary of Origen’s teaching on the resurrection composed by the hostile Methodius of Olympus.140 In that passage, Origen is dealing with the polemical taunts of non-Christians who were posing questions about the physical state of the risen body. Was all the hair over a lifetime included? Origen responds by arguing that the human body is always changing during one’s life but there is a form, which supplies continuity through those changes from infancy to adulthood. Origen’s proposal alone does not account for Hilary’s distinctive treatments of “form,” but Origen’s text on Psalm 1 could have brought it to mind and reinforced it. The Christian is incorporated into “the body of Christ” and ultimately into “the glorified body.” To describe this condition, Hilary makes extensive use of themes and vocabulary from his North African predecessor. From Tertullian Hilary has found Stoic terms which make “spirit” and “body” compatible. But to go beyond stating the fact of the resurrected body and explore how that is accomplished, Hilary integrates the stages of his progressive model of the Christian life to stages of the body of Christ from birth through death and resurrection to glory. For these two progressions Hilary makes extensive use of the two passages from Philippians. To the Christological progression in Philippians 2.6–11 on “the Son who takes on the form of a slave to reurn to 139. [N]empe iste: die replebuntur et nemo in his. [I]n quibusdam codicibus ita legimus: die formabuntur. [N]ec multum differt repleri et formari. [F]ormamur enim, ut conformes simus gloriae corporis [D]ei (Hilary, Tr. Ps. 138.37). 140. See Karl Holl, Epiphanius II: Panarion haer. 34–64, GCS [unnumbered] rev. ed. J Dummer (Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1980), 421–99. For an English version see Frank Williams, The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis Books II and III (Leiden: Brill, 1994), esp. #64.12–62, “Against Origen, also called Adimantius,” 141–88.

The Last Transformation  ³  223

the form of God in glory,” he connects his goal of the Christian life in Philippians 3.21: “and we shall be conformed to the glory of his body.” He tends to project this transformation into the past tense, which implies that this transformation is already underway. Thus incorporation into the stages of “the body of Christ” is the means by which and within which the Christian hope is accomplished. The combination of these two passages from Philippians to provide a dynamic Christology and a progressive soteriology cannot be accounted for from the extant passages from Origen on the Psalms, Hilary’s earlier commentary, or his Latin exegetical background. Tertullian had quoted this Philippians passage, with the conventional future tense, only once within one of his extensive portfolios of biblical quotations.141 Perhaps, as I have suggested in the last chapter, Hilary discovered the possibilities for the Epistle to the Philippians from his contacts at Ancyra. There is, however, no extant evidence for their use of the second passage at 3.21. But this passage is crucial to establish Hilary’s understanding of the objective of his quest and hope. For Hilary grounds his whole model of the Christian in the successive stages of the body of Christ through birth to death and resurrection to glory. In this chapter I have argued that there is a discernable shift of perspective in the third cluster of Psalms to provide more examples from the experience of the Christian community. More importantly Hilary’s preparation of the ultimate condition in the initial constitutive elements of the human person demonstrates the proleptic character of his thought, which tends to blur the distinct function of each cluster of fifty Psalms. In formulating the possibility, the means and the character of the final goal for the Christian, Hilary transforms terminology and themes in Tertullian to create a perspective that is profoundly different from that of his predecessor. Tertullian had asserted the fact of the resurrected body. Hilary uses the understanding of Christ refined in his struggles to defend the divinity of the Son in order to provide the means and the pattern for the resurrected body. Throughout this book, I have been arguing that Hilary planned to construct a commentary on the book of Psalms for a circle of educat141. See Tertullian, De Carnis Resurrectione 47.

224  ³  The Christological F oundat ion

ed Christians around him in Gaul. With this in mind he took Origen’s identification of the threefold structure of that book and developed a threefold progressive model of the Christian life. This concluded in “the heavenly City.” Among the range of eschatological biblical themes and terms, Hilary emphasized “conformity to the glorified body of Christ.” At this point Hilary’s pastoral consideration of the Psalms demonstrates a clear theological agenda. Does the Tractatus then represent a pastoral retreat from the theological contrversaries that had dogged his career? As a commentary Hilary’s text is an extended reflection on the biblical text. On this he imposes his model of the Christian life. This theme demonstrates the pastoral role of a bishop. The choice of the Psalms might have been prompted by its use as the people’s response. Is there perhaps another motive at work as well? The Tractatus super Psalmos has a theological perspective which integrates Christology and soteriology. This is an important theme throughout the Treatise and is at the heart of the final stage of this final chapter. This theme is an expanded version of the soteriological purpose of his authobiography composed to introduce his De Trinitate. If Christ is not fully divine then the ultimate hope of the Christian for eternal life of body and soul cannot be realized. With this persepctive Hilary anticipates some significant developments among other pro-Nicenes of the 380s and 390s. In an important study of developments of pro-Nicene thinkers, Lewis Ayres identifies a similar strategy in other writers. He finds in the writings of Gregory of Nyssa and then in Augustine a focus on the perfection of the human achieved through union in Christ.142 So now we can credit Hilary with his anticipation of the developments of the expanded pro-Nicene strategies that became prominent in these Greek and Latin writers of the next generation. 142. For this theme among pro-Nicenes in the 380s and 390s, consult Lewis Ayres, Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), esp. chapter 12: “The First and Brightest Light.” I am grateful to Mark Weedman for bringing this parallel to my attention.

Conclus ion

I

n this book I have examined Hilary’s objectives, thesis, intended audience, cultural context, and literary resources in his expansive Tractatus super Psalmos. In his introduction and commentary on a selected fifty-eight Psalms, Hilary lays out principles for the interpretation of this biblical text. Moreover, at three critical passages at Instructio 11, 51.2, and 150.1, he describes his thesis, which he links to a threefold division of the book of Psalms in successive clusters of fifty. I have taken Hilary at his word when he proposed to present throughout his commentary a three-stage journey of the Christian from the condition of sin to baptism to resurrection concluding in the ultimate transformation within “the glorified body of Christ.” Marc Milhau had examined Hilary’s announcement of this theme in those three pivotal passages. He presented Hilary’s identification of each stage as baptismum, resurrectio, and demutatio and then demonstrated the scriptural resources Hilary employed to describe these stages in each of those passages. I have shown how Hilary actually develops and applies this model throughout his discussions on the Psalms. Hilary had already demonstrated his interest in the Christian life earlier in the introductory book for De Trinitate. Features of that account reappear in the Tractatus in a considerably expanded form. At the outset I addressed Hilary’s choice of the Psalms to use as the scriptural resource and authority for his model of the Christian life. I suggested that the Psalms were the people’s Bible, as it were. Evidence, admittedly from a little later, indicates 225

226  ³  conclus ion

that people listened to other scriptural readings from the Old and New Testaments but they actually recited or sung selections from the Psalms as their response. There is not sufficient evidence from Christian practices in mid-fourth century Gaul to definitively substantiate this claim, so it remains as my operational hypothesis. It proved easier to identify Hilary’s sources and to demonstrate how he adapted them for his commentary. Hilary grew to respect the perspectives of Greek Christians whom he encountered around Ancyra, unlike Lucifer of Cagliari, another contemporary bishop exiled to the East. From his contacts around Ancyra, presumably he discovered the exegetical resources of Origen. To determine the degree of Hilary’s dependence on Origen’s texts, I have examined the surviving evidence for the Greek exegete’s contaminated and fragmented commentaries. I have followed Pierre Nautin’s research to explore how Hilary used both Origen’s early Alexandrine commentary and his later Caesarean Commentary on the Psalms. It is clear that Hilary takes the basic threefold division of the Psalter from Origen as well as a considerable amount of technical information. From Origen Hilary takes information about Hebrew and Greek versions as well as the privileged role of the Septuagint. He is indebted to the Greek scholar for interpretations of superscriptions, diapsalma, and for extensive portfolios of scriptural references. Hilary’s governing metaphor of the city may have been prompted by Origen’s use of “a house with many dwellings, each requiring its own key” in the prologue to his Alexandrine commentary. But Hilary does not copy Origen indiscriminately since he omits many things such as Origen’s interest in abstractions. Hilary, doubtless, learned about the works of Origen from his contacts around Ancyra. From them, too, he learned their distinctive theological articulation on the status of the Son’s relation to the Father, which he reported in his De Synodis. For his Tractatus super Psalmos, Hilary probably learned from them as well at least some of the possibilities of Christological themes in the Epistle to the Philippians. There is no evidence, however, that Hilary derived his central theme of a three-staged model of the Christian life from these Greek sources. Although the parallels with those fragmented Greek sources are highly suggestive, it is clear the Hilary remained profoundly influenced

conclus ion  ³  227

by the Latin exegetical, theological, and cultural traditions. These provided him with his basic critical perspectives, which he had demonstrated in his Commentary on Matthew, composed before his exile to the East. In many ways Hilary has developed his thought in creative directions. He retained many of the basic parameters for his analysis from his Latin western background. A significant reason for his continuing appeals to his Latin resources was his intended audience. I have proposed that his objective was to instigate a reflection on an authoritative text with his peers who would have shared his grammatical and rhetorical education available during the fourth century at Bordeaux. So examples, diction, analysis would be informed by appeals to Cicero and Sallust and reflected in the writings of other contemporaries from Bordeaux such as Ausonius and Claudius Mamertinus. Hilary treats his audience, not just as a liturgical congregation but as a circle of educated people discussing a major text, very much in the mode of Late Antique discussions of the texts of Terence and Vergil by Donatus, Macrobius, and Servius. In the appeal to that public culture, Hilary reflects, in Robert Markus’s phrase, the spirit of the “easy symbiosis between Christianity and paganism” in the 350s.1 There are no signs of the tension between Christians and traditional Roman culture provoked by Julian in the East in the early 360s and by Ambrose and Theodosius in the 380s and 390s. Clearly Hilary is integrating resources he learned from his contacts in the East with themes and methods in the Latin theological, exegetical, literary, and philosophical culture he shares with his audience. Hilary remains in control of all of these resources and creates something quite original. His theme of the Christian life grounded on “the body of Christ” demonstrates the creativity of Hilary forged during his struggles with his Homoian opponents. Hilary’s construction of his model of the Christian life made possible only by the divine working in and through the body of Christ anticipates an important mode of argument for other pro-Nicene writers. So the Tractatus super Psalmos is not just the project of an older bishop who retreats from the controversies of his past to engage in quiet pastoral reflections on the Psalms. 1. R. A. Markus, The End of Ancient Christianity (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 30.

228  ³  conclus ion

In working out his understanding of his three-stage model, Hilary also indicates that he is aware of the movement of Christian asceticism with its own alternatives for the Christian life. He encountered this first in the person of Martin and probably met other expressions of it in his contacts with Basil of Ancyra and his circle during his exile. Hilary’s comments on asceticism are very brief because he has a different audience in mind. This sets him somewhat apart from the other Christian lives written during the second half of the fourth century. In one way or another accounts by Athanasius, Jerome, Gregory of Nyssa, Sulpicius Serverus, and Augustine all promoted some version of an ascetical form of the Christian life. The closest surviving parallel for Hilary’s model in the Tractatus is his autobiographical introduction to De Trinitate composed about ten years earlier. I have pointed out some parallels between Hilary’s two treatments of conversion. In both instances Hilary constructs progress towards conversion around texts and he is also selects some elements of his pre-Christian culture which can provide preparation for fuller development within Christian faith. In both cases Hilary’s motive is theological. To make his model possible, the Christian must be united with the body of Christ and the divine power and life expressed in and through that body. Thus Hilary’s view of the Christian life presented in the Tractatus can be described as progressive in two senses of the term. There are the three stages that follow each other in a recognizable sequence. Then Hilary presents his model in ways in which selected earlier features are retained and enhanced in subsequent stages. The first transformation at baptismum requires a confessio in which the believer professes the inherent qualities of the divine and confesses ethical failures. In both aspects of this confession certain elements of traditional Roman concepts of Providence and of vice and virtue are retained and expanded by Christian faith. Then in the final transformation after resurrection, the “body” is retained in some fashion through a spiritualizing process. This relation of “spirit” to “the risen body” builds upon Hilary’s account of the original creation of the human as “body,” “soul,” and “spirit.” This progressive perspective certainly prevents Hilary from seeing each stage as a static plateau to be treated separately in the appropriate cluster of Psalms. Rather this approach enables him to anticipate the ul-

conclus ion  ³  229

timate stages of the human journey, which is reflected in his shift from the future to the past tense in his use of Philippians 3.21. This progressive and proleptic character of Hilary’s model helps to challenge Philip Wild’s claim in his 1950 monograph, that Hilary did not apply his threefold thesis in each discrete cluster of fifty Psalms. In the first transformation initiated by baptism, there is an impressive range of vices and virtues derived from Latin public culture. The most frequent vices named in his text are “ambition,” “avarice,” “drunkenness,” “anger,” which are all prominent in Latin rhetorical literature. Hilary also uses analyses of their respective psychological impacts on people derived from that Latin culture. Vice promotes instability and “perturbations”; virtue produces “harmony.” More conventional biblical terms emerge mainly in the last cluster of fifty Psalms. Hilary also appeals to certain perspectives on the existence and Providence of the Godhead from Latin literature. He shares with Cicero an interest in the regular cycles in the natural world that ensure nourishment and survival. For Hilary this providential care is far more focused on humans, the “most beautiful” work of creation. The ultimate destiny of the believer in the third stage is frequently expressed in the language of conventional scriptural themes. One very distinctive approach is Hilary’s appeal to the compatibility of spirit and body, which has roots in Tertullian as well as in his earlier Commentary on Matthew. Hilary insists that the final transformation, into the resurrected, glorified body, entails a development of the original body and not a move into something different. This compatibility of body and spirit probably owes something to Stoic influences in Latin culture. Hilary’s philosophical perspective is significantly different from the dichotomy inherent in Platonic treatments of soul and body that inform the treatment of the Christian life by Gregory of Nyssa and Augustine. From the other Christian Lives Hilary differs in yet another way. The other texts focus on the experience of one person, who is either a heroic representative of or a paradigm for Christian asceticism. Even in his autobiography, Hilary does not highlight one person. It would appear that he is offering a model without letting himself get in the way. Each reader should be able to find a reflection of oneself in Hilary’s texts. This perspective is certainly consistent with his manifest respect

230  ³  conclus ion

for diversity within the Christian life. Several times he acknowledges that the Word of Scripture is addressed to a whole variety of people of different genders, ages, social classes, and geographical locations. He repeatedly uses his master metaphor of city to illustrate diversity within one community. The metaphor of city is certainly supported by the many references in the Psalms to “Sion” and to “the heavenly Jerusalem,” but Hilary applies and develops the symbol under the influence of it in Latin philosophical, rhetorical, and historical literature. In the last paragraph of his Instructio, he uses the metaphor to state the need for many keys to open the text of the Psalms. Then to present the first stage of his human model in a dramatic passage on Psalm 13, he presents the sinful condition as “one entering into a city in plague.” Then in his discussion of Psalm 121, he returns to this polyvalent metaphor of city to present the citizens of the heavenly city. Hilary extends the symbol of city to inclusion within the body of Christ. In the passage on Psalm 13, he raises the critical need of Christ as medicus to heal all those in plague. Then throughout the Treatise, entrance into the heavenly city is effected through Christ. Here the body of Christ in its successive stages becomes the means for all to become believers and citizens. Hilary also exploits the city metaphor with different buildings, spaces, and roads to present the potential inclusion of all kinds of people. For Hilary the dynamic cause of this whole transformative process is Christ, specifically, the body of Christ. He repeatedly relates his account of the Christian transformation to “incorporation within the body of Christ.” He often connects this to Christ’s own progressive stages of incarnation, suffering, death, burial, resurrection, and glory. In fact citizenship in the heavenly city is effected through inclusion in the glorified body of Christ. Hilary also retains and expands upon the universal inclusion of everyone within his body. This theme is linked to his view of both church and heavenly city. All of these themes have suggestive antecedents within the traditions of Latin Christian literature. One exegetical authority for the dynamic role of Christ, which may have been derived from his contacts around Ancyra, is the invocation of the text and terminology of Philippians 2.6–11 and 3.21. This first passage provides the terminology to present stages in the mission of Christ as “di-

conclus ion  ³  231

vine,” “servant,” and “glorified.” The second passage is invoked frequently to describe the ultimate Christian status as the “conformity of the believer within the glorified body of Christ.” In the later passage he often changes the future tense of the standard version of the biblical text to the perfect tense. This demonstrates the anticipatory or proleptic feature of Hilary’s thought. For him the end is reflected in the beginning. This is very pronounced in his account of the three stages of the creation of the human. It might also account for Hilary’s tendency to emphasize the full divinity of Christ back into his interpretations of Christ’s admissions of lack of knowledge, his suffering, and his death. This emphasis in his Christology was shaped by his struggles against the Homoians in Liber adversus Valentem et Ursacium, De Synodis, and De Trinitate. In his discussions of Christ and his fundamental role in his transformative model, Hilary retains very little of the polemical urgency of his earlier writings. Hilary is still at pains to protect the impassibility of the divine in Jesus’ experiences of suffering and death and he resorts to strategies already apparent in his earlier Commentary on Matthew. Hilary continues to emphasize the divine volition to save humankind and he invokes the Stoic distinction between a “blow” and the experience of “pain.” He does affirm the human soul of Christ but does not employ it as the forum for Christ’s experiences of grief, hunger, and suffering. As we have shown, however, Hilary does make extensive theological use of “the body of Christ” in his Tractatus super Psalmos. He also retains the notion of an “eternal generation” to designate the relationship between Father and Son as an eternal one. I have fulfilled my objective and demonstrated that Hilary does indeed apply his three-stage progressive and inclusive model throughout his interpretation of the Psalms. In doing so, I have suggested some differences of perspective between Hilary’s understanding of the Christian life and the Christian Lives written in the second half of the fourth century. This now sets up the interesting possibility of Hilary’s influences upon his successors. I had noted that Jerome knew about the Tractatus. In fact in Epistula 5 he reported that he had transcribed it very early in his career. Later in Epistula 34 he expressed surprise that Marcella has not read it. He then treated it basically as a scriptural commentary from which he cited a few interpretations for which he offers his own correc-

232  ³  conclus ion

tions. Then in Epistulae 82, 84, and 112, Jerome defended his own practice of translating the works of Origen by citing the practice of Hilary. I also noted that Sulpicius Severus knew about Hilary. In contrasting his ascetic hero Martin of Tours to other lax bishops in Gaul, Sulpicius Severus specifically excluded Hilary from such criticism. Sulpicius, however, did not specifically acknowledge the particular theme of the Tractatus, when he praised Hilary for his “theological acumen” and “steadfast faith.” On the other hand, Augustine did quote from the Tractatus in his debate with Julian of Eclanum. The cryptic way in which he identified the source of his quotations indicates that he understood that Hilary was promoting a model for the Christian life. It remains for another study to determine whether Augustine ’s familiarity with the Tractatus when he wrote his polemic against Julian around 421 can be projected back to the 390s when Augustine began his own extensive in exegesis Enarrationes in Psalmos and in his Confessiones.

Bibliography Primary Sources: Hilary of Poitiers Brisson, Jean-Paul. Hilaire de Poitiers, Traité des Mystères. SC 19, 2nd ed. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1967. Doignon, Jean. Hilaire de Poitiers sur Matthieu: Introduction, Texte Critique, Traduction et Notes. 2 vols. SC 254, 258. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1978, 1979. ———. Sancti Hilarii Pictaviensis Episcopi Tractatus super Psalmos. Vol. 1. CCSL 61. Turnholt: Brepols, 1997. Doignon, Jean, and R. Demeulenaere, Sancti Hilarii Pictaviensis Episcopi Tractatus super Psalmos in Psalmum CXVIII. Vol. 2. CCSL 61A. Turnholt: Brepols, 2002. Feder, Alfred Leonard. “Tractatus Mysteriorum.” In S. Hilarii Episcopi Pictaviensis Opera IV, 1–38. CSEL 65. Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1916. ———. “Liber ad Constantium imperatorem.” In S. Hilarii Episcopi Pictaviensis Opera IV, 195–205. CSEL 65. Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1916. Migne, J.-P. Sancti Hilarii Pictaviensis Episcopi De Synodis, 471– 546. PL 10. Paris, 1844. Milhau, Marc. Hilaire de Poitiers: Commentaire sur le Psaume 118. SC 344, 347. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1988. Rocher, André. Hilaire de Poitiers: Contre Constance: Introduction, Texte Critique, Traduction, Notes et Index. SC 334. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1987. Smulders, P. Sancti Hilarii Pictaviensis: De Trinitate libri duodecim. 2 vols. CCSL 62, 62A. Turnholt: Brepols, 1979, 1980. ———. Hilaire de Poitiers: La Trinité. 3 vols. Edited with introduction by M. Figura. Translated by J. Doignon, G. M. de Durand, Ch. Morel, and G. Pelland. SC 443, 448, 462. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1999–2001. Zingerle, Antonius. S. Hilarii Episcopi Pictaviensis Tractatus super Psalmos. CSEL 22.Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1891. Primary Sources: General Achelis, Hans. “Die unechte griechische Einleitung zu den Psalmen.” In Hippolytus Werke 1.2, 136–45. GCS 1. Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1897. Adriaen, Marcus. Cassiodori Senatoris Expositio Psalmorum I–CL. CCSL 97–98. Turnholt: Brepols, 1958.

233

234  ³  bibliography Ailloud, Henri. Suétone: Vie des Douze Césars. T. 2. Paris: Société d’Édition “Les Belles Lettres,” 1967. Atzert, Karl. M. Tulli Ciceronis Scripta Quae Manservunt Omnia: De Officiis. Leipzig: Teubner, 1963. Ax, Wilhelm. M. Tulli Ciceronis Scripta Quae Manserunt Omnia: De Natura Deorum. Edited by Otto Plasberg. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1964. Bailey, Cyril. Titi Lucreti Cari De Rerum Natura Libri Sex. 3 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1947. Barrow, R. H. Prefect and Emperor: The Relationes of Symmachus A.D. 384 with Translation and Notes. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973. Brandt, Samuel, and Georg Laubmann. Divinarum Institutionum Libri L. Caeli Firmiani Lactanti. CSEL 19. 2 vols. Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1890. Brandt, Samuel, and Georg Laubmann. “De Ira Dei.” In L. Caeli Firmiani Lactanti Opera Omnia, 65– 132. CSEL 27. Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1893. Dekkers, Eligius, and I. Fraipont. Sancti Aurelii Augustini Enarrationes in Psalmos I–CL. 3 vols. CCSL 38, 39, 40. Turnholt: Brepols, 1956 Fontaine, Jacques. Sulpice Sévère: Vie de saint Martin. 3 vols. SC 133, 134, 135. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1967, 1968, 1969. Furneaux, Henry. P. Cornelii Taciti Annalium ab Excessu Divi Augusti Libri. 2 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1896. Garritte, G. Un témoin important du texte de la Vie de s. Antoine . . . Études de philologie, d’archéologie et de l’histoire anciennes. Rome: l’Institut Historique Belge, 1939. Reedited by H. W. F. M. Hoppenbrouwers. La plus ancienne version latine de la Vie de s. Antoine de saint Athanase. Nijmegen, 1960. Goldbacher, Alois. S. Aureli Augustini Hipponensis Epistulae. CSEL 34.1. Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1895. Green, R. P. H. The Works of Ausonius with Introduction and Commentary. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1991. Hardie, C. Vitae Vergilianae Antiquae. Oxford Classical Texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1957. Harl, Marguerite. La Chaîne Palestinienne sur le Psaume 118 (Origène, Eusèbe, Didyme, Apollinaire, Athanase, Theodoret). SC 189, 190. Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1972. Hartel, Guilemus. “Ad Donatum.” In S. Thasci Caecili Cypriani Opera Omnia. CSEL 3.1. Vienna: C. Gernoldi Filium Bibliopolam Academia, 1868. Heine, Ronald E. Gregory of Nyssa’s Treatise on Inscriptions of the Psalms: Introduction, Translation and Notes. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. ———, and Max Pohlenz. Ciceronis Tusculanarum Disputationum Libri V. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1957. Hilberg, Isidorus. Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Epistulae. CSEL 54. Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1910 and Vienna: Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1996. Holl, Karl. Epiphanius II: Panarion haer. 34–64. GCS [unnumbered]. Revised by J. Dummer. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1980 ———. Epiphanius III: Panarion haer. 65–80, De fide. GCS [unnumbered]. Revised by J. Dummer. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1985. Hubbell, H. M. De Inventione, De Optimo Genere Oratorum, Topica. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1960.

bibliography  ³  235 Kempf, C. Valerii Maximi Factorum et Dictorum Mememubolium Libri Novem. Stuttgart: Teubner, 1966. Kroymann, Aemilius. “De Carnis Resurrectionis.” In Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera, 25– 125. CSEL 47. Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1906. Marshall, Peter K. A. Gellii Noctes Atticae. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968. Migne, J.-P. Ex Origenis Commentariis in Psalmos, 1053–686. PG 12. Paris, 1857. ———. Origenis Commentariorum in Epistolam S. Pauli ad Romanos Praefatio, Libri I–X, 397–784. PG 11. Paris, 1857. ———. Tomus ad Antiochenos, 795–810. PG 26. Paris, 1857. ———. Sancti Epiphanii Panarion Adversus Haereses 73, 1–20, 399–440. PG 42. Paris, 1863. ———. Contra Julianum Pelagianum S. Augustini Libri Sex, 641–874. PL 44. Paris, 1865. ———. “De Viris Illustribus Liber ad Dextrum Praefectum Praetorio.” In Sancti Eusebii Hieronymi Opera Omnia, 631–760. PL 23. Paris, 1883. ———. Epistula ad Marcellinum de interpretatione Psalmorum, 11–46. PG 27. Paris, 1887. Mynors, R. A. B. Cassiodori Senatoris Institutiones Divinarum et Saecularium. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1937. ———. XII Panegyrici Latini. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1964. O’Donnell, James J. Augustine’s Confessions. 3 vols. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1992. Powell, J. G. F. M. Tulli Ciceronis De Re Publica, De Legibus, Cato Maior De Senectute, Laelius De Amicitia. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006. Radermacher, Ludwig, and Vinzenz Buchheit. M. Fabi Quintiliani Institutionis Oratoriae Libri XII. 2 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1965. Rand, E. K., J. J. Savage, H. T. Smith, G. B. Waldrop, B. M. Elder, B. M. Peebles, and A. F. Stocker. Servianorum in Vergilii Carmina Commentariorum volumen II. Lancaster, Pa.: Societatis Philologicae Americanae cura et impensis, 1946. Reifferscheid, August, and Georgius Wissowa. “De Anima.” In Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertlliani Opera, 298–396. CSEL 20, Vienna: F. Tempsky, 1890. Reynolds, L. D. L. Annaei Senecae Ad Lucilium Epistulae Morales. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965. ———. L. Annaei Senecae Dialogorum Libri Duodecim. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1977. ———. M. Tulli Ciceronis De Finibus Bonorum et Malorum Libri Quinque. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1998. Seyfarth, Wolgang, Liselotte Jacob-Karau, and Ilse Ulmann. Ammiani Marcellini Rerum Gestarum Libri qui supersunt. 2 vols. Leipzig: Teubner, 1978. Simonetti, Manlio. “Tyranni Rufini in Libros Historiarum Eusebii.” In Tyrannii Rufini Opera, 276–68. CCSL 20. Turnholt: Brepols, 1961. Stocker, A. F., A. H. Travis, H. T. Smith, G. B. Waldrop, and R. T. Bruère. Serviorum in Vergilii Carmina Commentariorum volumen III. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967. Vaillant, André. De Virginitate de saint Basile: Texte Vieux-Slave. Paris: Institut d’Études Slaves, 1943. Wilson, N. G. St. Basil and the Value of Greek Literature. London: Duckworth, 1975. Secondary Sources Ayres, Lewis. Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

236  ³  bibliography Balmelle, Catherine. Les Demeures Aristocratiques d’ Aquitaine: Société et Culture de l’Antiquité tardive dans le Sud-Ouest de la Gaule. Bordeaux-Paris: Institut de Recherche sur l’Antiquité et le Moyen Age, 2001. Bardy, Gustav. “Tractare,” “Tractatus.” RSR 33 (1946): 211–35. Barnes, Timothy D. Constantine and Eusebius. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1981. ———. Ammianus Marcellinus and the Representation of Historical Reality. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1998. ———. Athanasius and Constantine: Theology and Politics in the Constantinian Empire. 2nd ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2001. Beckwith, Carl L. “The Condemnation and Exile of Hilary of Poitiers at the Synod of Béziers (356 C.E.).” JECS 13 (2005): 21–38. ———. Hilary of Poitiers: On the Trinity: From De Fide to De Trinitate. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008. ———.“Suffering without Pain: The Scandal of Hilary of Poitiers’ Christology.” In In the Shadows of the Incarnation: Essays on Jesus Christ in the Early Church in Honor of Brian E. Daly, S.J., edited by Peter W. Martens, 71–96. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008. Blockley, R. C. “The Panegyric of Claudius Mamertinus on the Emperor Julian.” AJP 93 (1972): 437–50. Booth, Alan D. “Notes on Ausonius’ Professores.” Phoenix 32 (1978): 235–49. ———. “The Academic Career of Ausonius.” Phoenix 36 (1982): 329–43. Borchardt, C. F. A. Hilary of Poitiers’ Role in the Arian Struggle. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1966. Brennecke, Hanns Christoff. Hilarius von Poitiers und die Bischofsopposition gegen Konstantius II: Untersuchungen zur dritten Phase des arianischen Streites (337–361). Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984. Brown, Peter. “The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity.” JRS 61 (1971): 80–101. ———. The Cult of the Saints: Its Rise and Function in Latin Christianity. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1981. ———. Society and the Holy in Late Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1982. ———. The Body and Society: Men, Women and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988. ———. Augustine of Hippo: A Biography. 2nd ed. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Bruggisser, Philippe. Romulus Servianus: La légende de Romulus dans les Commentaires à Virgile de Servius: Mythographie et idéologie à l’époque de la dynastie théodosienne. Bonn: Habelt, 1987. Burns, Paul C. The Christology in Hilary of Poitiers’ Commentary on Matthew. Rome: Augustinianum, 1981. ———. “Hilary of Poitier’s Confrontation with Arianism in 356 and 357.” In Arianism: Historical and Theological Reassessments, edited by Robert C. Gregg, 287–302. Cambridge, Mass.: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1985

bibliography  ³  237 ———. “Augustine ’s Distinctive Use of the Psalms in the Confessions: The Role of Music and Recitation.” Augustinian Studies 24 (1993): 133–46. ———. “West Meets East in the De Synodis of Hilary of Poitiers.” Studia Patristica 28 (1993): 24–28. ———. “Hilary’s Use of Communally Sanctioned Texts to Construct His Autobiography.” Zeitschrift Für Antikes Christentum/Journal of Ancient Christianity 2 (1998): 65–83. ———.“The Writings of Hilary of Poitiers in Medieval Britain from c. 700 to c. 1330.” In From Arabye to Engelond: Medieval Studies in Honour of Mahamoud Manzaloui on his 75th Birthday, edited by A. E. Christa Canitz and Gernot R. Wieland, 201–16. Ottawa: University of Ottawa Press, 1999. Burrus, Virginia. The Making of a Heretic: Gender, Authority and the Priscillianist Controversy. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1995. Cameron, Alan. Claudian: Poetry and Propaganda in the Court of Honorius. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970. ———. “Paganism and Literature in Late Fourth Century Rome.” In Christianisme et formes littéraires de l’antiquité tardive en Occident, edited by Manfred Fuhrmann and Alan Cameron, 1–30. Entretiens sur l’antiquité classique 23. Geneva: Foundation Hardt, 1977. Cameron, Averil. Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire: The Development of Christian Discourse. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. ———. The Later Roman Empire AD 284–430. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1993. Cameron, Michael. “Enarratines in Psalmos.” In Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, edited by Allan D. Fitzgerald, 290–96. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999. ———. “Totus Christus and the Psychagogy of Augustine ’s Sermons.” Augustinian Studies 36 (2005): 59–70. ———. “Totus Christus as Hermeneutical Centre in Augustine’s Enarrationes in Psalmos.” In The Harp of Prophecy: Psalms in Early Christian Exegesis, edited by Brian E. Daley. Notre Dame, Ind.: Notre Dame University Press, forthcoming. Casamassa, A. “Appunti per lo studio dei ‘Tractatus super Psalmos’ di Ilario di Poitiers.” Studia Anselmiana 27/28 (1951): 231–33. Chadwick, Henry. Priscillian of Avila. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1976. Chapot, Frederick. “Tertullien, De resurrectione mortuorum 29–32 dans la tradition d’Ezéchiel 37, 1–14.” In La résurrection chez les Pères, edited by J.-M. Prieur, 135–59. Cahiers de Biblia Patristica 7. Strasbourg: Université Marc Bloch, 2003. Clark, Elizabeth A. The Origenist Controversy: The Cultural Construction of an Early Christian Debate. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992. ———. “Asceticism.” In Augustine through the Ages: An Encyclopedia, edited by A. D. Fitzgerald, 67–71. Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1999. Colish, Marcia L. The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages. 2 vols. Leiden: Brill, 1990. Cox Miller, Patricia. Biography in Late Antiquity: A Quest for the Holy Man. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983. Crouzel, Henri. Origen: The Life and Thought of the First Great Theologian. Translated by A. S. Worall. San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1989. Daley, Brian E. “Eschatologie d’Hilaire.” In Eschatologie in der Schrift und Patristik, edited by Brian E. Daley, Joesph Schreiner, and Horacio E. Lona, 161–63. Berlin: Herder, 1986.

238  ³  bibliography ———. The Hope of the Early Church: A Handbook of Patristic Eschatology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991. ———, ed. The Harp of Prophecy: Psalms in Early Christian Exegesis. Notre Dame, Ind.: Notre Dame University Press, forthcoming. Doignon, Jean. “ ‘Adsumo’ et ‘adsumptio’ comme expressions du mystère de l’Incarnation chez Hilaire de Poitiers.” ALMA 23 (1953): 123–35. ———. Hilaire de Poitiers avant l’exil: Recherches sur la naissance, l’enseignement et l’épreuve d’une foi épiscopale en Gaule au milieu du IVe siècle. Études Augustiniennes 45. Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1971. ———. “Ordre du monde, Connaissance de Dieu et Ignorance de Soi chez Hilaire de Poitiers.” RSPT 60 (1976): 565–78. ———. “Testimonia d’ Hilaire de Poitiers dans le ‘Contra Iulianum’ d’Augustin: les textes, leur groupement, leur lecteur.” RBén 91 (1981): 7–19. ———. “Notes critiques pour une édition améliorée des citations du Psautier dans les Tractatus super Psalmos 51 à 69 d’Hilaire de Poitiers.” Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 27 (1988): 183–97. ———. “Peut-on considérer avec Jérôme (Epist. 34, 5) qu’Hilaire s’est fourvoyé au sujet du verset 2 du Psaume 127?” In Jérôme entre l’Occident et l’Orient, edited by Yves-Marie Duval, 165–71. Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1988. ———. “Comment Hilaire de Poitiers a-t-il lu et interprété le verset Philippians 3.21.” VC 43 (1989): 128–37. ———. “Hilaire de Poitiers face à la mystique origénienne de la purification par l’amour.” REAug 36 (1990): 225–41. ———. “En marge de Ps 52.7b: la “foi première” et la foi baptismale selon Hilaire de Poitiers.” In Le Psautier chez les Pères, edited by P. Maraval, 271–79. Cahiers de Biblia Patristica 4. Strasbourg: Cente d’analyse et de documentation patristique, 1993. ———. Hilaire de Poitiers, “Disciple et témoin de la vérité” 356–367. Texte revu par Marc Milhau. Paris: Institut d’Études Augustiniennes, 2005. Driscoll, Jeremy. The Transfiguration in Hilary of Poitiers’ Commentary on Matthew.” Augustinianum 24 (1984): 395–420. Durst, Michael. Die Eschatologie des Hilarius von Poitiers: Ein Beitrag zur Dogmengeschichte des IV. Jahrhunderts. Hereditas 1. Bonn: Borengässer, 1987. Duval, Yves-Marie. “La place et l’importance du Concile d’Alexandrie ou de 362 dans l’Histoire de l’Église de Rufin d’Aquilée (rôle d’Hilaire de Poitiers).” REAug 47 (2001): 282–302. Edwards, Mark, and Simon Swain. Portraits: Biographical Representation in the Greek and Latin Literature of the Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Elm, Susanna. “Virgins of God”: The Making of Asceticism in Late Antiquity. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994. Fernández, S. Christo Médico, según Orígenes: La Actividad Médica como metáforica de la Acción Divina. Rome: Institutum Augustinianum, 1999. Fierro, Alfredo. Sobre la Gloria en San Hilario: una Sintesis Doctrinal sobre la Nocio Biblica de “Doxa.” Analecta Gregoriana 144. Rome: Libreria Editrice Dell’Università Gregoriana, 1964. Freud, Sigmund. Civilization and Its Discontents. New York: Norton, 1961.

bibliography  ³  239 Galtier, Paul. “La ‘Forma Dei’ et la ‘Forma Servi’ selon saint Hilaire de Poitiers.” RSR 48 (1960): 101–18. Gastaldi, Néstor J. Hilario de Poitiers Exegeta del Salterio: Un Estudio de su Exegesis en los Comentarios sobre los Salmos. Paris: Beauchesne, 1969. Goffinet, Émile. L’Utilisation d’Origène dans le commentaire des Psaumes de saint Hilaire de Poitiers. Studia Hellenistica 14. Louvain: Publications Universitaires de Louvain, 1965. Goold, George P. “Servius and the Helen Episode.” HSCP 74 (1970): 101–68. Grillmeier, Alyos. Christ in the Christian Tradition. Translated by John Bowden. 2nd ed. Vol. 1. London: Mowbrays, 1975. Hagendahl, Harald. Latin Fathers and the Classics. Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia 44. Göteborg: Elanders, 1958. Hägg, Tomas, and Philip Rousseau, with Christian Høgel. Greek Biography and Panegyric in Late Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000. Hannah, Darrell D. The Text of I Corinthians in the Writings of Origen. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1997. Hanson, R. P. C. The Search the Christian Doctrine of God: The Arian Controversy 318–381 AD. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1988. Heidl, György. Origen’s Influence on the Young Augustine: A Chapter of the History of Origenism. Notre Dame, Ind.: Notre Dame University, Louaize Lebanon, and Gorgias Press, 2003 Heine, Ronald E. Gregory of Nyssa’s Treatise on the Inscription of the Psalms: Introduction, Translation, and Notes. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. Hill, R. C. “Chrysostom, Interpreter of the Psalms.” Estudios Biblicos 56 (1998): 61–74. Hunt, E. D. “Ammianus Marcellinus and Christianity.” CQ 25 (1985): 186–200. Hunter, David G. “Vigilantius of Calagurris and Vitricius of Rouen: Ascetics, Relics, and Clerics in Late Roman Gaul.” JECS 7 (1999): 401–30. Jacobs, Alan Darwin. “Hilary of Poitiers and the Homoeousians: A Study of the Eastern Roots of His Ecumenical Trinitarianism.” Unpublished diss. UMI Dissertation Service, 1969. Jones, A. H. M. The Later Roman Empire. 3 vols. Oxford, 1964. Just, Patricia. Imperator et Episcopus: Zum Verhältnis von Staatsgewalt und christlicher Kirche zwischen dem 1. Konzil von Nicaea (325) und dem 1. Konzil von Konstantinopel. Potsdamer Altertumswissenschaftlichen Beiträge 8. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2003. Kannengiesser, Charles. “Hilaire de Poitiers, saint.” Dictionnaire de Spiritualité VI (1968), 466–99. Kaster, Robert A. “Servius and idonei auctores.” AJP 99 (1978): 181–209. ———. Guardians of Language: The Grammarian and Society. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988. Kelly, J. N. D. Jerome: His Life, Writings, and Controversies. London: Duckworth, 1975. Klingshirn, William E. Caesarius of Arles: The Making of a Christian Community in Late Antique Gaul. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Ladaria, Luis F. El Espiritu santo en San Ilario de Poitiers. Madrid: Publicaciones de la Universidad Pontifica Comillas, 1977. ———. La Cristología de Hilario de Poitiers. Analecta Gregoriana 225. Rome: Pontificia Università Gregoriana, 1989.

240  ³  bibliography ———. “Adam y Cristo en los Tractatus super Psalmos de san Hilario de Poitiers.” Gregorianum 73 (1992): 92–122. Lapidge, Michael, “Stoic Cosmology and Roman Literature, First to Third Centuries AD.” In Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt, 36.3, edited by Wolfgang Hasse, 1379– 1429. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989. Liebeschuetz, J. H. W. G. “Religion in the Panegyrici Latini.” In Überlieferungsgeschichtliche Untersuchungen, edited by Franz Paschke, 389–98. Texte und Untersuchungen 125. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1981. Lienhard, Joseph T. “Patristic Sermons on Eusebius of Vercelli and Their Relation to His Monasticism.” RBén 87 (1977): 164–72. Lieu, Samuel N. C. The Emperor Julian: Panegyric and Polemic. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1986. Lieu, Samuel N. C., and D. Montserrat, eds. From Constantine to Julian: Pagan and Byzantine Views. London: Duckworth, 1986. Lloyd, R. B. “Republican Authors in Servius and the Scholia Danielis.” HSCP 65 (1961): 291–341. Long, A. A., and D. N. Sedley. “Stoicism.” In The Hellenistic Philosophers, vol. 1, 158–437. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. McCarthy, Michael C. “Expectatio Beatitudinis: The Eschatological Frame of Hilary of Poitiers’ Tractatus super Psalmos.” In In the Shadow of the Incarnation: Essays on Jesus Christ in the Early Church in Honor of Brian F. Daley S.J., edited by Peter W. Maertens, 50–70. Notre Dame, Ind.: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008. MacCormack, Sabine. “Continuity and Change in Late Antiquity: The Ceremony of Adventus.” Historia 21 (1972): 721–52. ———.“Latin Prose Panegyrics.” In Empire and Aftermath: Silver Latin II, edited by T. A. Dorey, 143–205. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1975. Maloney, Robert P. “Usury in Greek, Roman and Rabbinic Thought.” Traditio 27 (1971): 79–109. ———. “Early Conciliar Legislation on Usury.” RTAM 39 (1972): 145–57. ———. “The Teaching of the Fathers on Usury: An Historical Study on the Development of Christian Thinking.” VC 27 (1973): 241–65. Markus, R. A. “Paganism, Christianity and the Latin Classics in the Fourth Century.” In Latin Literature of the Fourth Century, edited by J. W. Binns, 1–21. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1974. ———. The End of Ancient Christianity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Marrou, Henri-Irénée. Histoire de l’éducation dans l’antiquité. 6th ed. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1965. Matthews, John. Western Aristocracies and Imperial Court A.D. 364–425. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975. ———. The Roman Empire of Ammianus Marcellinus. 2nd ed. London: Duckworth, 1989; Ann Arbor: Michigan Classical Press, 2007. McDermott, John M. “Hilary of Poitiers: The Infinite Nature of God.” VC 27 (1973): 172– 202. McKinnon, James. Music in Early Christian Literature. Cambridge Readings in the Literature of Music. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987.

bibliography  ³  241 ———, ed. Man & Music: Antiquity and the Middle Ages: From Ancient Greece to the 15th Century. London: Macmillan Press, 1990. Meijering, E. P. Hilary of Poitiers: On the Trinity, De Trinitate 1,1–19, 2, 3. Leiden: Brill, 1982. Milhau, Marc. “Un texte d’Hilaire de Poitiers sur les Septante, leur introduction et ‘les autres traducteurs’ (In ps. 2.2–3).” Augustinianum 21 (1981): 365–72. ———. “Sur la division tripartite du Psautier (Hilaire de Poitiers, Tr. Ps. Inst. 11).” In Le Psautier chez les Pères, edited by P. Maraval, 55–72. Cahiers de Biblia Patristica 4. Strasbourg: Centre d’analyse et de documentation patristique, 1993. Minnerath, Raymond. “Tertullien: l’anthropolie de la résurrection.” In La résurrection chez les Pères, edited by J.-M. Prieur, 119–33. Cahiers de Biblia Patristica 7. Strasbourg: Université Marc Bloch, 2003. Nautin, Pierre. Origène: Sa Vie et son Oeuvre. Christianism Antique 1. Paris: Beauchesne, 1977. Nixon, C. E. V. “Latin Panegyrics in the Tetrarchic and Constantinian Period.” In History and Historians in Late Antiquity, edited by Brian Croke and Alanna M. Emmett, 88–99. Sydney: Pergamon Press, 1983. Nixon, C. E. V., and Barbara Saylor Rodgers. In Praise of Later Roman Emperors: The Panegyrici Latini: Introduction, Translation and Historical Commentary. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Noonan, John T. “Authority, Usury and Contraception.” Dublin Review 509 (1966): 201–29. O’Donnell, James J. “Paganus.” Classical Folia 31 (1977): 163–69. Orazzo, Antonio. “Ilario di Poitiers e la ‘universa caro’ assunta del Verbo nei Tractatus super Psalmos.” Augustinianum 3 (1983): 399–419. ———. La salvezza in Ilario di Poitiers: Cristo salvatore dell’uomo nei Tractatus super Psalmos. Napoli: M. of Auria, 1986. Quasten, Johannes. Music and Worship in Pagan and Christian Antiquity. Washington, D.C.: National Association of Pastoral Musicians, 1983. Pelland, Gilles. “Hilaire, exégète de Philipiens 3.21.” In La résurrection chez les Pères, edited by J.-M. Prieur, 215–27. Cahiers de Biblia Patristica 7. Strasbourg: Université Marc Bloch, 2003. Perkins, Judith. The Suffering Self: Pain and Narrative Representation in the Early Christian Era. London: Routledge, 1995. Pettorelli, J. P. “La thème de Sion, expression de la théologie et de la rédemption dans l’oevre de saint Hilaire de Poitiers.” In Hilaire et son temps: actes du colloque de Poitiers, 29 septembre–3 octobre 1968, à l’occasion du XVIe centenaire de la morte de saint Hilaire, 213– 33. Paris: Études Augustiniennes 35, 1969. Rapp, Claudia. Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition. The Transformation of Classical Heritage 37. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. Remus, Harold. “The End of ‘Paganism’?” SR 33 (2004): 191–208. Reynolds, L. D., ed. Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics. With contributors Peter K. Marshall and others. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983. Riché, Pierre. “La survivance des écoles publiques en Gaule au Ve siècle.” Le moyen âge 12 (1957): 421–36.

242  ³  bibliography Rondeau, Marie-Josèphe. Les commentatires patristique du Psautier (III–Ve siècles). 2 vols. Orientalia Christiana Analecta 219–20. Rome, 1982. Roukema, Riemer. “La résurrection des morts dans l’interprétation origienne de 1 Corinthiens 15.” In Les résurrection chez les Pères, edited by J.-M. Prieur, 161–77. Cahiers de Patristica 7. Strasbourg: Univérsite Marc Bloch, 2003. Rousseau, Philip. Ascetics, Authority, and the Church in the Age of Jerome and Cassian. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1978. Salzman, Michele R. On Roman Time: The Codex-Calendar of 354 and the Rhythms of Urban Life in Late Antiquity. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991. Schellauf, F. Rationem afferendi locos litterarum divinarum quam in Tractatibus super Psalmos sequi videtur S. Hilarius episcopus Pictaviensis. Graz, 1898. Schofield, Malcolm. The Stoic Idea of the City. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999. ———. “Academic Therapy: Philo of Larissa and Cicero’s Project in the Tusculans.” In Philosophy and Power in the Graeco-Roman World: Essays in Honour of Miriam Griffin, edited by Gillian Clark and Tessa Rajak, 91–109. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002. Simonetti, Manlio. La Crisi Ariana nel IV secolo. Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 11. Rome: Augustinianum, 1975. ———. “Hilary of Poitiers and the Arian Crisis in the West.” In Patrology, edited by Angelo Di Berardino and Johannes Quasten, 33–61. Westminster, Md.: Christian Classics, 1986. Skidmore, Clive. Practical Ethics for Roman Gentlemen. Exeter: University of Exeter Press, 1996. Smulders, Pierre. La doctrine trinitaire de Saint Hilaire de Poitiers. Analecta Gregoriana 32. Rome: Pontifica Università Gregoriana, 1944. ———. “A Bold Move of Hilary of Poitiers.” VC 42 (1988): 121–31. Sogno, Christiana. Q. Aurelius Symmachus: A Political Biography. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2006. Spanneut, Michel. Le stoïcisme des pères de l’Église. Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1957. Stancliffe, Clare. St. Martin and His Hagiographer: History and Miracle in Sulpicius Severus. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1983. Steenson, Jeffrey N. “Basil of Ancyra and the Course of Nicene Orthodoxy.” Unpublished Ph.D. diss. Oxford: Oxford University, 1983. Sterk, Andrea. Renouncing the World Yet Leading the Church: The Monk-Bishop in Late Antiquity. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 2004. Studer, Basil. Trinity and Incarnation: The Faith of the Early Church. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1993. Swain, Simon. “Biography and Biographic in the Literature of the Roman Empire.” In Portraits: Biographical Representation in the Greek and Latin Literature of the Roman Empire, edited by Mark J. Edwards and S. Swain, 1–37. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997. Taft, Robert. The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West: The Origin of the Divine Office and its Meaning for Today. Collegeville, Minn.: The Liturgical Press, 1986. Thompson, E. A. The Historical Works of Ammianus Marcellinus. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1947. Todd, Robert B. “The Stoics and Their Cosmology in the first and second centuries AD.” In Aufstieg und Niedergang der Römischen Welt 36.3, edited by Wolfgang Haase, 1365–78. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1989.

bibliography  ³  243 Toohey, Peter. “Acedia in Late Classical Antiquity.” Illinois Classical Studies 15 (1990): 339– 52. Van Dam, Raymond. Leadership and Community in Late Antique Gaul. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985. Van Oort, Johannes. Jerusalem and Babylon: A Study into Augustine’s City of God and the Sources of his Doctrine of the Two Cities. Leiden: Brill, 1991. Weedman, Mark. “Martyrdom and Docetism in Hilary’s ‘De Trinitate.’ ” Augustinian Studies 30 (1999): 21–41. ———. The Trinitarian Theology of Hilary of Poitiers. Supplements to VC 39. Leiden: Brill, 2007. ———. “The Polemical Context of Gregory of Nyssa’s Doctrine of Divine Infinity.” JECS 18 (2010): 81–104. Wickham, Lionel R. Hilary of Poitiers: Conflicts of Conscience and Law in the Fourth-Century Church. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1997. Wild, Philip T. The Divinization of Man according to Saint Hilary. Mundelein: St. Mary of the Lake Seminary, 1950. Wilken, Robert L. John Chrysostom and the Jews: Rhetoric and Reality in the Late Fourth Century. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983. Williams, Daniel H. “A Reassessment of the Early Career and Exile of Hilary of Poitiers.” JEH 42 (1991): 202–17. ———. “The Anti-Arian Campaigns of Hilary of Poitiers and the Liber contra Auxentium.” Church History 61 (1992): 7–22. ———. Ambrose of Milan and the End of Arian-Nicene Conflicts. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995. Williams, Frank. The Panarion of Epiphanius of Salamis Books II and III (Sections 47–80, De Fide). Leiden: Brill, 1994. Whittaker, John. “Christianity and Morality in the Roman Empire.” VC 33 (1979): 209–25. In Studies in Platonism and Patristic Thought, edited by John Whittaker. London: Variorum Reprints, 1984. Young, Frances. Biblical Exegesis and the Formation of Christian Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Zetzel, James E. G. Latin Textual Criticism in Antiquity. Salem, N.H.: Ayer, 1981.

Index of Selected Scriptural Passages Genesis 1.26: 151, 188, 206, 207, 208n95, 209n97 2.7: 2 06, 207, 208, 209n97 Exodus 3.14: 4 8, 132, 148, 180 Jeremiah 18.1–10: 86, 109, 113, 125, 199 15.1: 72 23.23: 145n39, 191n52, 204 John 1.1: 150n51, 155 1.1-14: 48 1.14: 162, 163n96, 165n101 4.24: 145, 204 5.19: 142n22, 155, 188 5.21–23: 147 10.30: 147n43 14.6: 193

14.9: 147n43 14.28: 142n42 17.3: 142n22 17.5: 154 17.20: 197 17.24: 133, 197n71 Acts of the Apostles 17.27–28: 145n39 Romans 6.4: 109n24, 110n28, 165n100, 213n116 10.4: 80, 159n80 12.5: 165n99 1 Corinthians 1.22: 108 1.22–28: 177 15.42: 109, 199, 200 15.51: 200 Colossians 1.15: 140n17, 151n54 2.9: 10 2.12: 166n19

245

Philippians 2.6–7: 149n48 2.7: 108, 139, 149n48, 150, 162n92 2.9: 209, 219n131 2.6–11: 137, 140, 142n22, 149n49, 150, 151, 154, 172, 174n2, 219, 222, 230 3: 20–21: 23, 149n48, 174, 177, 178, 191, 197, 218, 219, 222–23 1 Peter 2.5: 169, 170n115, 177, 194n58 Hebrews 10.1: 27, 28, 80, 86, 103n4, 110, 168, 213, 214 12.22: 38n70, 164, 165

Index of Classical and Patristic Authors Ammianus Marcellinus. Rerum Gestarum Libri 15.5.11: 117 15.8: 118n52 15.11.13: 98n118 15.12.1–2: 117n49 15.12.4: 117n49 16.1 ff.: 98n120: 118n52 16.5.11: 118n50 16.7.2: 117 16.7.8: 118n51 21.9.8: 94n110 21.9.8: 94n110 21.16.17: 118n51 22.4.7: 118n51 22.10.5: 117 30.4.8: 118n51 Athanasius. Epistula ad Marcellinum de Interpretatione Psalmorum 12 (PG 27: 24C): 54 14 (PG 27: 25C): 5 . Tomus ad Antiochenos 7 (PG 26: 804): 157n75 10 (PG 26,808): 158n76

_____

Augustine. Contra Julianum 1.3.9: 103n4 2.8.26: 51n107, 103n4, 167n109 2.8.29: 103n4 . Enarrationes in Psalmos 150.1–3: 38n70 150.3: 38n70, 52n108

_____

Aulus Gellius. Noctes Atticae 5.21: 1–3, 90n96 9.9.12: 30n39 Ausonius. Gratiarum Actio ad Gratianum 14: 94n108 . Ordo Urbium Nobilium 135–47: 96n116 163–68: 97

_____

. Protrepticus ad Nepotem 66–76: 50n98

_____

Cassiodorus. Expositio Psalmorum Praefation 4: 19n5 Praefatio 12: 19n5

247

6.8: 19n5 9.645: 19n5 . Institutiones Divinarum et Saecularium Litterarum 1.4.1: 19n5

_____

Cicero. De Amicitia 7.23: 124n82 . De Finibus 3.19.64: 96n114 4.9.21: 44n81 5.14.40: 48n93 5.23.65: 102n3

_____

. De Inventione 2.17.54: 90n94 2.54.164: 187n41

_____

. De Legibus 1.7.22: 210n102 1.22.59: 211n105

_____

. Tusculanae Disputationes 1.28.68: 129n97 1.28.69: 130n100 2.4.11: 100n13

_____

248  ³  Index of Classical and Patristic Authors . Tusculanae Disputationes (cont.) 3.1–13: 115n44 3.3.5: 115n44 4.1.1: 93n101 4.6.11: 115n44 4.11. 23–24: 116n44 4.15.34: 122n73 4.23: 115n44 4.27.58–59: 106n13 5.25.68–70: 133n109

Claudius Mammertinus. Gratiarum Actio de Consulatu suo Iuliano Imperatori 3.4.1–3: 98n122, 118n53 3.4.2: 98n123 3.4.6–7: 98n123 3.5.2: 98n125 3.5.4: 98n125 3.11.3: 98n125 3.13.2: 98n123 3.19.4–5: 98n123 3.20. 2–3: 98n123 3.21.2: 121n70 3.21.4: 99n126, 120n63 4.5–6: 99n127 11.4: 204n83 Cyprian. Ad Demetriadem 14: 129n98 . Ad Donatum 3: 46n89 14: 47n90 15 : 47n91 16: 47n92

_____

. Epistulae 22.30: 8n87

_____

Epiphanius. Panarion 64.5–7: 67: 68n20 64.14: 74n36

10.23: 23: 159n81 10.30: 23: 147n43 10.47–48: 23 11.10: 52n109 11.15: 52n109 11.18: 52n109 11.19: 23: 52n109 11.35: 23 11.48: 23 12.8: 19n5, 53n109 12.9: 53n109 12.12: 53n109 12.14: 53n109 12.34: 53n109 12.39: 53n109 12.54: 130n102 12.55–56: 83

73.2.11: 64n4, 15n50, 51 73.17.2: 151n53

_____

Eusebius of Caesarea. Ecclesiastical History 6.24: 67n18 Hilary of Poitiers. Ad Constantium 1: 89n93 . De Synodis 1: 14n46 7: 64n5 9: 14n47, 64n5 38: 52n109 50: 52n109 85: 149n48, 151

_____

. De Trinitate 1.4: 49n97 1.6: 52n109, 143n25 1.9: 44n83 1.10: 45n86 1.11: 176n5 1.16–17: 23n12 1.20: 48n93 1.36: 83 4.16: 52n109 4.35: 52n109 4.37: 52n109 4.38: 52n109 5.11: 52 n109 6.16: 52n109 6.18: 52n109 6.19–21: 113n36 7.23: 23n12, 144n30 7.10: 52n109 9.4: 23: 44n80, 45n84 9.8: 23: 149n48 9.26: 52n109 9.38: 23 10.12: 52n109 10.14: 64n7, 158n78, 79, 162

_____

. In Constantium 5: 24n18

_____

. In Matthaeum 3.4: 52n109 4.12: 86n85, 167n105 5.1: 46 5.2: 52n109 10.19: 85, 110n29, 217n127 10.23–24: 209n96, 218n128 10.25: 110n28, 165n100, 218n129 16.5: 143n28 16.11: 149n48 31.2: 143n27

_____

. Tractatus super Psalmos Instr. 1–2: 56n119, 69, 71 Instr. 3 : 69n21 Instr. 4 : 69n21 Instr. 5 : 56n119, 69, 72, 78n50, 84n82, 137n2, 137n4, 139n12

_____

Index of Classical and Patristic Authors  ³  249 Instr. 6 : 69, 73, 137n3, 139n12 Instr. 7 : 56n119, 69n21, 73n35, 138n5 Instr. 8 : 56n119, 69n21 Instr. 9 : 69n21 Instr. 10: 69n21 Instr. 11: 15, 18, 31, 38, 39n71, 40, 41, 42, 57n120, 69, 111, 225 Instr. 12: 69n21, 75 Instr. 13: 69n21 Instr. 14: 69n21 Instr. 15: 69n21 Instr. 16: 69n21 Instr. 18: 56n119, 69n21, 75n39 Instr. 19: 69n21 Instr. 21: 69n21 Instr. 23: 69n21 Instr. 24: 13n44, 20, 60, 62, 63, 69, 91, 179, 195 1.1: 69 1.2: 9n26, 49n96, 88n91 1.4: 69 1.5: 139n12, 174 1.7: 69, 128n94 1.8: 69 1.9: 103n4, 116, 183n23 1.10: 181n17 1.11: 128 1.12: 69 1.14: 29, 69, 170n116, 174, 219n134 1.16: 69 2.1: 69 2.2–3: 27n26, 29 2.3: 139n12 2.8: 52n109, 69 2.9: 69 2.33: 29, 149n48, 153 2.36: 69 2.37: 69 2.38: 69: 114

2.39: 69, 86, 119,125 2.41: 109, 165n100, 179, 198, 199, 200n73, 206 2.42: 69, 79n56 2.44: 69, 93n100, 181n17 9.1: 79n52, 82, 169n144 9.4: 44n80, 177, 178n8 13.1: 31, 60, 89, 90, 91, 92, 102, 179, 182 13.2: 69n23 13.3: 42, 100, 103, 104n5, 105, 125n88, 134 13.4: 105–6: 126n91, 164 13.5: 82, 83n74, 169n114 14.2: 82, 125, 165, 169n114, 192 14.3: 126n89 14.5: 29, 126, 165n98, 167n108, 174n2, 220n135 14.8: 120, 125 14.14: 42, 111 14.15: 118n54 51.2: 15, 31, 38, 39n71, 41, 79n55, 111, 181n17, 213, 220n135, 225 51.4: 80n67, 181n17 51.5: 25n19 51.6–7: 69n23 51.10: 163n96 51.12: 22n22 51.13: 28n31 51.14: 181n117 51.15: 169n114 51.16: 139n12: 195 52.11: 121, 122n72 52.14: 24n16, 92n97, 93 52.17: 200n74, 220n135

52.21: 79n61 53.2: 80n67 53.4: 69n23, 155n65, 163n96 53.6: 121, 122n74 54.1: 25n19, 80n67 54.7: 85, 131 54.9: 69n23 54.11: 26n22 54.15: 79n55 54.16: 179, 198, 200 55.1–2: 69n23, 80n67 55.5: 139, 153n61, 162 56.1: 69n23 56.2: 80n67 56.3: 130 56.4: 25n19 57.2: 93 58.1: 80n67 58.10: 21n8, 25n19 59.1: 27n27 59.1–2: 69n23 59.4: 107n16 60: 28 60.2: 28 60.5: 25n19 60.1: 118n55 61.2: 201n75, 212n115 61.4: 116n45, 220n135 61.8: 118n55 62.3: 110n30, 198, 201n76 62.6: 144n33, 179, 198n72, 201n77, 202n78 62.8: 78n50 63.1: 69n23 63.2: 139n12 63.3: 79n56 63.4: 69n23, 79n58 63.5: 152n56 63.7: 127n7 63.10: 139n12, 140n14, 152 63.11: 69n23 64.2: 53n112, 118n56

250  ³  Index of Classical and Patristic Authors . Tractatus super Psalmos (cont.) 64.3: 152n56 64.4: 25n19, 169n114 64.10: 28n32 64.12: 54n113 65.2: 28n30, 79n54 65.3: 25n20 65.4: 30, 102 65.6: 131 65.7: 79n62 65.11: 110n27 65.16: 69n23 65.20: 82n73, 169n114 65.26: 81 66.2: 79n55 66.6: 42, 111 66.7: 107nn17, 19 66.8: 69n23 67.1: 69n23, 78n50 67.3: 79n59 67.13: 81 67.15: 140n14, 152, 153nn59, 60, 61 67.20: 43, 119n57, 142n23, 143n24, 152 67.25: 79n63 67.37: 133, 197n71, 220 68.1: 69n23, 163n96 68.4: 108n21, 153n61, 161n91 68.12: 159n83, 164n96 68.18: 80n67 68.29: 129 69.1: 69n23 69.3: 200n74 69.4: 69n23 91.3–4: 129, 130 91.7: 174n2 91.9: 166n101, 169n114 91.10: 220n135 118 Exord. 1: 31n41, 88n90, 180nn10, 11 118 Exord. 3: 180n12 118.1.2: 183 118.1.5: 29n34, 80n66

_____

118.1.10: 193 118.3: 206 118.3.3: 212n114 118.3.4: 103n4, 110n29, 167–68, 214 118.3.5: 182n21 118.3.7: 79n58 118.4: 206 118.4.1: 149n48, 189n45, 212n112 118.4.2: 212n113 118.4.5: 27n29 118.4.6: 2 n28 118.4.9: 152n56 118.4.11: 152n56 118.5: 28n30 118.5.1: 26n22 118.5.4: 80n67 118.5.13: 184n28 118.5.14: 118n56 118.5.16: 108n20, 168n110 118.6.6: 108n20, 168n113 118.6.10, 93, 181n16 118.7.4: 104n7, 188n43 118.7.5: 30, 181n18 118.8.1: 27n24 118.8.2: 117n47, 187n40 118.8.9: 108n20, 168n112 118.8.14, 122n75 118.8.15, 42, 112, 190 118.10: 24, 83, 188, 190, 198, 202, 206, 210, 211 118.10.1: 209n97, 210n101 118.10.2: 212n109 118.10: 325n19 118.10.6: 207 118.10.7: 151, 207, 208 118.10.8: 208 118.10.9: 140n17 118.10.14: 212n110 118.11.1: 80n67, 121

118.11.4: 187n41 118.12.3: 26n22 118.12.4: 116n46, 121n71 118.12.11: 80n67 118.12.14: 200n74 118.12.15: 120n64 118.13.13: 76n45, 119n60, 122n76, 123n79, 184 n30, 185nn31, 33 118.14.4: 76 118.14.9: 186 118.15.3: 182n20 118.15.5: 178n9 118.15.7: 120nn66, 67, 178n9 118.15.11: 123 118.15.13: 110n28, 165n100, 201n77, 213 118.16.1: 144n34, 180nn13, 14 118.16.3: 123n78, 187n38 118.16.4: 123n81 118.16.6: 184n27 118.16.15: 139n12 118.16.16: 184n29 118.17.1: 187n42 118.17.3: 78n50 118.17.11: 165n99, 169n114 118.17.12: 149n48 118.18.3: 115n40 118.18.5: 26n22 118.18.9: 182n19 118.19.5: 181 118.19.8: 145nn37, 39, 160n86, 203n81, 204, 217n125 118.19.9: 203n82 118.21.2: 24n16, 92n97 118.21.3: 80n67 118.22.3: 144n35, 205n87

Index of Classical and Patristic Authors  ³  251 119.2: 78n49 119.4: 81n69, 169n114, 192 119.11: 108n23, 190 120.7: 79n53 120.16: 80n65 121.1: 177, 194nn58, 59, 60, 221n138 121.4: 194n61 121.5: 195 121.8: 194n63, 195 121.14: 63n2, 196, 197n69 122.6: 116n46 122.7: 23 122.8: 80n65 122.10: 24n17 122.11: 94n109 123.3: 24n17, 92n97 124.3–4: 29, 174n2 124.6: 203nn79, 81 125.1: 134n110, 135n111, 188 125.4: 189n47 125.6: 119n58, 135n111, 112, 166n102, 194n63 125.11: 135n111, 188 126.9: 169, 194n62 126.10: 170, 194n61 127.3: 193n57 128.4: 121 129.3–6: 83, 110n29 129.3: 145, 191n52, 204 129.4: 206n93 129.5: 209n96, 210n100 129.6: 151n54, 188n44, 209 131.25: 115n41 131.26: 220n137 132.1: 79n64 134.1: 53n112, 78n50 134.11: 130 134.14: 211 135.1: 30n38, 182n22

135.3: 112, 115, 190n5 135.5: 191n51 135.12: 20, 221 135.14: 20, 126n90 136.3: 184n25 136.5: 196n68 136.6: 196n67 136.7: 110n29 136.8: 30n38 136.9: 189n46 136.10: 26n22 136.11: 116n46, 184n26, 221 136.13: 214 137.1: 54n112, 112, 189n48, 192, 193n54, 210n99 137.2: 106n14 137.3–4: 42 137.10: 192, 193n54 137.17, 210n99 138.1: 80n68, 84n81, 169n114 138.3: 142, 156, 159n84, 161 138.4: 23n14, 24, 169n114 138.8: 53 138.16: 146, 205n89 138.17, 23 138.20, 28n30 138.22: 79n59, 214nn118, 119 138.27: 79n59 138.34: 115n43 138.37: 25n19, 222n139 138.40: 169n114 139.1: 81 139.2: 81: 162n94 139.8: 116n46 139.10: 125n86 141.8: 174n2, 219 142.3: 205n88 143.2: 26n23, 84n80, 108n22 143.7: 153n61, 219, 221

143.17: 205n88 143.21: 108n22 143.23: 84n80 144.21: 191n52, 205n86 146.10: 78n50 146.12: 24, 113n36 147.4: 82n72, 170n115 148.1: 40n72, 42 148.6: 79n60 150.1: 15, 18, 32, 38, 39, 40, 41, 62, 84, 111, 174n3, 175, 191n53, 213, 225 150.2: 191 Jerome: De Viris Illustribus 89: 65n7 96: 65n12 100: 19n4, 21, 65n10 . Epistulae 5.2.3: 19, 21, 231 20.1: 21n8, 50n102 33: 66 34: 19n4, 231 49: 13, 19, 21n8 55.3: 21n8 57.6: 21n8 58.10: 21n8 60.7: 21n8 70.5: 21n8 82.7: 21n8, 19n4, 232 84.6: 21n8, 19n4, 232 107.12: 21n8 112.20: 21n8, 19n4, 232

_____

Lactantius. De Ira Dei 2.1: 48–49 . Institutiones Divinae 6.8.6–9: 133n109

_____

Lucretius. De Rerum Natura 6.1138–1251: 104

252  ³  Index of Classical and Patristic Authors Nicetas of Remesiana. De Utilitate Hymnorum 5: 82n71

Pliny the Younger. Panegyricus ad Taianum 26: 94

Origen. On First Principles 3.6.5: 44n83

Quintilian. Institutio Oratoria 2.17.8: 180n14 7.2.29–30: 187

. Alexandrine Commentary on the Psalms GCS 31: 414.13–417.3, 68 n20 PG 12: 1076A–1077C: 67, 68n20, 72n29 PG 12: 1080BC, 67, 68n20 PG 12: 1080D–1081D: 67, 68n20 PG 12: 1084A: 67, 68n20 PG 12: 1084BC: 68n20 PG 12: 1092AB: 68n20 PG 12: 1108C: 119n62, 138n8 PG 12: 1205D–1208A: 105n8 PG 12: 1208CD: 119n61

_____

. Caesarean Commentary on the Psalms PG 12: 1053A: 68n20 PG 12: 1056A: 68n20, 71n25 PG 12: 1056B–1057C: 68n20 PG 12: 1060C–1073B: 68n20 GCS 1.2: 137, 71nn26, 27 GCS 1.138.21–193.3: 43n79 GCS 1.136–145: 68n20

_____

. Chaîne palestinienne 118.14.4: 76n43

_____

Rufinus. Ecclesiastical History Preface : 103n4 1.8: 4n8 1.221–22: 54n114 . Translation of Origen’s Commentary on Romans 6.5: 44n80

_____

. Translation of Origen’s Sermons on the Psalms 36–37: 67 48: 67

. Chronica 1.23: 55n117

_____

. Vita S. Martini 5.1: 55n116, 121n69 5.2: 55n116 9.3–7: 55n117 20.1: 55n117 27.3: 55n117

_____

Tertullian. Adversus Marcionem 1.10–13: 129n98 4.16: 115n39 4.17: 118n54 . Adversus Valentinianos 3: 129n98

_____

_____

_____

Seneca. Consolatio ad Helviam 8.3: 204n83

_____

. De Otio 4.1: 96n115

_____

_____

. Epistulae 11.1: 50n101 20.1–2: 50n102 28.4: 96n115 41.1–2: 204n83 113.15: 210n104 121.15: 81n70 124.23: 210n104

Suetonius. De Vitis Caesarum: Tiberius 56: 90n95 Sulpicius Severus. Dialogi 1.21: 55n117

. De Anima 5: 216n122 9: 54n112 41.4: 209

. De Idolatria 10: 87 . Ad Nationes 2.5: 129n98

_____

. De Praescriptione haereticorum 7: 87

_____

De Carnis Resurrectione 5: 209: 216 6: 210n74 42: 200n74 47: 217n126, 223 55: 215 63.3: 215 Valerius Maximus. Facta et Dicta Memorabilia Preface : 50n100 9.1: 3–4: 117

Index of Modern Scholars Ayres L., 3n2, 37, 224 Balmelle, C., 50n98, 63n3 Bardy, G., 29n36 Barnes, T. D., 3n4, 9n25, 12, 37n67, 94n106 Barrow, R. H., 8n20 Beckwith, C. L., 2n1, 4n6, 10, 12n37, 35, 36, 45n86, 48n94, 136n1, 140, 141n18, 19, 20, 149n47, 156n67, 159n80, 160n87 Blockley, R. C., 99n125 Borchardt, C. F. A., 2, 33 Brennecke, H. C., 12, 37n 67, 94n106 Brisson, J. P., 23 Bruère, R. T., 7n16 Bruggisser, P., 8n19 Burns, P. C., 2n1, 14n45, 48, 45n86, 51n106, 64n4, 78n48, 83n76, 107n18, 147n43, 158n80, 161n 90, 176n5 Cameron, Alan, 8n22 Cameron , Averil, 98n121 Cameron, M., 36n62

Casamassa, A., 20n6 Chadwick, H., 5n9 Clark, E. A., 66n13 Clark, G., 106n13 Colish, M., 96n112 Coustant, P., 23n12, 29n36 Crouzel, H., 74 Daley, B. E., 34n54, 37n62, 176n6 Demeulenaere, R., 13n40, 22n11 Doignon, J., 10, 12, 13, 16, 18, 19n3, 20n6, 21n10, 22, 23, 24, 25n19, 28, 29, 30, 31, 34, 35n55, 37, 40n73, 48n93, 51n103, 68n20, 69, 77nn47–48, 87, 93, 103n4, 104, 107, 107n18, 110n30, 121, 128n95, 129, 130, 131, 168n109, 210 Durst, M., 34n54, 35, 176nn6, 7, 198n72, 200n73, 209n96, 217n125 Duval, Y. D., 19n4, 55n114

253

Edwards, M., 7n15 Elder J. P., 7n16 Elm, S. 64n6 Feder, A., 23n14, 89n93 Fernández, S., 105n9 Fierro, A., 29n35, 33, 37n69, 44–45, 200n74 Freud, S., 95n111 Galtier, P., 37n69 Garritte, G., 4n7 Gastaldi N. J., 34, 78n50, 80n66 Goffinet, E˙., 33, 66, 71n24, 105n8 Green, R. P. H., 8n21, 12 Grillmeier, A., 157n74, 160n87 Hägg, T., 7n15 Hannah, D. D., 200n74 Hanson, R. P. C., 37, 160n87 Hardie, C., 3n5 Harl, M., 68n20, 69n22, 75n41, 76n42, 43 Heidl, G., 207n94 Heine, R. E. , 20n7 Hunter, D. G., 5

254  ³  INdex of Modern Scholars Hoppenbrowers, H. W. F. M., 4n7 Jacobs, D., 150n50 Just, P., 12n38, 24n18, 89n93 Kannengiesser, C., 13, 22, 23n12, 33 Kaster, R. A., 9n24, 11n32, 12, 87nn86–87, 88n89 Kelly, J. N. D., 21n9 Klingshirn, W. E., 5n11, 31n43, 120n68 Ladaria, L. F., 43n32, 35, 78n51, 83n77, 84n80, 85n83, 106n15, 124n84, 164n97 Lapidge, M., 132n108, 204n83 Leinhard, J.T., 55n115, 65n9 Lieu, S. N. C., 98n121 Long, A. A., 96n112 Lowe, E. A., 51n104 MacCormack, S., 8n23, 12, 88n88 McCarthy, M. C., 36, 173n1, 195n65, 220n136 McDermott, J. M., 143n26 McKinnon, J., 25n21, 56nn118, 119, 75n39 Meijering, E. P., 2n1, 3n5 Maloney, R. P., 118n54 Markus, R. A., 11n32, 227n1 Milhau, M., 13, 15, 18, 22, 27n25, 37, 38n70,

44n80, 52n108, 68n20, 69, 76, 77, 87, 110n30, 180n14, 209n96, 210, 211, 217n125, 225 Matthews, J., 9n25, 12, 50n98 Minnerath, R., 217n126 Mynors, R. A. B., 88n92, 98n119 Nautin, P., 9, 43n78, 66–69, 71 Noonan, J. T., 118n54 O’Donnell, J. J., 101n2 Orazzo, A., 34n52, 53, 35, 138n9, 139n12, 153n61 Peebles, B. M., 7n16 Pelland, G., 174n2, 219n130 Pettorelli, J. P., 34, 37n69 Quasten, J., 56n118, 75n40 Rand, E. K., 7n16 Rapp, C., 31n43 Remus, H., 11n31, 101n2 Rocher, A., 14n49, 24n17 Rondeau, M. J., 29n36 Roukema, R., 74n37 Rousseau, P., 7n15, 31n43, 120n68 Salzman, M. R., 12 Savage, J. J., 7n16 Schellauf, F., 28n33 Schofield, M., 96n113, 107n13 Sedley, D. N., 96n112 Simonetti, M., 2n1, 37n63, 68, 75n40

Skidmore, C., 50n100 Smith, H. T., 7n16 Smulders, P., 2n1, 33, 84n80, 144n30, 31 Sogno, C., 8n24 Spanneut, M., 96n112 Stancliffe, C., 5 Steenson, J. N., 10n30, 64n4, 150n50, 151n54 Sterk, A., 31n43, 120n68 Stocker, A. F., 7n16 Studer, B., 37n68, 85n80 Swain, S., 7n15 Taft, R., 56n118 Todd, R. B., 132n108, 204n83 Travis, A. H., 7n16 Van Dam, R., 12, 55n116 Vessey, M., 31n42 Waldrop, G. B., 7n16 Weedman, M., 136n1, 140, 141n18, 142n22, 143n26, 144n30, 149n49, 151n55, 155n67, 159n80, 160n87, 221n138, 224n142 Wickham, L. R., 14n49, 89n93 Wild, P. T., 33, 36, 86, 173, 220n136 Wilken, R. L., 36n61 Williams, D., 12, 14n49, 24n18 Williams, F., 222n14 Zingerle, A., 16, 18, 21

A Model for the Christian Life: Hilary of Poitiers’ Commentary on the Psalms was designed in Fournier with Garda display type by Kachergis Book Design of Pittsboro, North Carolina. It was printed on 55-pound Natures Recycled and bound by Sheridan Books of Ann Arbor, Michigan.