¹ See St. Jerome, De viris illustribus 100, Ad Gal. praef. 2; Isidore of Seville, Off. eccl. 1.6. Google Scholar

² Arezzo, Fraternità di Maria, S. VI 3, foll. 1–15, saec. XI ², written for Abbot Desiderius of Monte Cassino. See Lowe, E. A., The Beneventan Script (Oxford 1914) 70 and 334.Google Scholar

³ The following are the principal editions of the hymns (C[lavis] P[atrum] L[atinorum] 463): Feder, A. CSEL 65.208–216; Myers, W. N., The Hymns of St. Hilary of Poitiers in the Codex Aretinus (Philadelphia 1928); Wilhelm Meyer, ‘Die drei arezzaner Hymnen des Hilarius von Poitiers und Etwas über Rythmus,’ GoH. Nachrichten (1909) 397ff.; Bulst, W., Hymni Latini Antiquissimi (Heidelberg 1956) 31–35. The editions will be referred to subsequently by the editor's name. Unless otherwise indicated the edition followed in this discussion is that of Bulst.Google Scholar

⁴ Meyer, W. 399.Google Scholar

⁵ The metrical symbols used in this paper are based (with necessary changes for Latin metrics) on the system devised by Paul Maas and Bruno Snell as the system appears in Rosenmeyer, T., Ostwald, M. and Halporn, J., The Meters of Greek and Latin Poetry (London and New York 1963) 61f. The basic symbols are: | = break (caesura or diaeresis); || = pause; ia = iambic metron (× – –); iaP = iambic foot; _Λ = acephaly (in the Aeolic base) or catalexis; gl = glyconic; gl^c = asclepiad (i.e., glyconic with inserted ‘choriamb ’) The two lines quoted are iambic senarii (6iaP).Google Scholar

⁶ The text is so printed in the editio princeps , Gamurrini, J., S. Hilarii Tractatus de Mysteriis et Hymni. (Rome 1887) 28–30. See also the photographs in Myers, op. cit. plates I and II. For the exceptions to the general rule see footnote 19, below.Google Scholar

⁷ Op. cit. 405.Google Scholar

⁸ Ibid. 407f.Google Scholar

⁹ The patterns of iambic senarii are based on Hymns 1 and 2. Google Scholar

¹⁰ By Meyer and Myers. See also Feder, A. L., ‘Studien zu Hilarius von Poitiers. III,’ Sb. Akad. Vienna 169.5 (1912) 84f.Google Scholar

¹¹ The lengthening of an element at the caesura, e.g. D4 = 16: orat quod maneāt | alter …, is not a metrical anomaly, for a break can be considered as a pause. It is worth noting that all the cases of this ‘lengthening’ in Hilary occur at the phrase boundaries. For a discussion of phrase boundaries in Latin see Cunningham, M., ‘Some Phonetic Aspects of Word Order Patterns in Latin,’ Proceedings American Philosophical Society 101 (1957) 490–505. The converse shortening of an element in hiatus, e.g. H4 = 32; transformans se ut est |, is likewise not anomalous.Google Scholar

¹² Op. cit. 406.Google Scholar

¹³ Meyer 407, who also noted that one should regard the first half of the ia_Λgl as a halfsenarius (p. 402, note to line 2). Google Scholar

¹⁴ See Myers, W. N., op. cit. (n. 3 above) 31.Google Scholar

¹⁵ The emendation suggested by Collins, S. T., ‘Corruptions in Christian Latin Poetry,’ Journal of Theological Studies 50 (1949) 69, that we should read for quod pater sit (‘an intruded interpretation in “Church Latin”’) the ‘original esse pater’ is certainly incorrect. A cursory reading of a few pages of Hilary De Trinitate or even a check of Feder's index s.v. quod (CSEL 65.317) would have shown him this.Google Scholar

¹⁶ There are several problems in Hymn 2. One slight emendation might be mentioned here. Line 19 in the editions reads: Kandens frigescit | stagnum pāllῐdāe Stygῑs || (end of the line is corrupt in the MS; Stygis is Dreves’ emendation). The line cannot be correct in this form, for the fifth foot of the 6iaP can only be an iamb if the final word is a cretic, if the last two feet form one word, or if the next to last word is a monosyllable (see Rosenmeyer et al., Meters [cit. supra n. 5] 74). No one of these conditions is fulfilled here; we should, therefore, read: Kandens frigescit | pallidae stāgnūm Stygῑs ||. Google Scholar

¹⁷ A similar objection might be raised in L4 = 44: ortus qu(am) unigen(am) in- | nascibilis pater ||. Here a break after the prefix, which Hilary may have regarded as separable, is possible. Google Scholar

¹⁸ Op. cit. 406.Google Scholar

¹⁹ AH 50 (1907) 3–9.Google Scholar

²⁰ The cases where the scribe has wrongly divided are: (a) where the scribe was misled by the punctuation: E2 = 18, I1 = 33 (a ‘short’ line), 12 = 34, 13 = 35 (a ‘short ‘line), M4 = 48, or (b) where the text is faulty: L4 = 44 (unigena quam A quam unigena Meyer), M2 = 46 (see my emendation above at n. 17), 06 = 56 (the line here under consideration), P4 = 60 (se se qui penes est A se sequi <qui> penes est Dreves).+penes+est+Dreves).>Google Scholar

²¹ E2 = 18: ‘mens humana’ — ‘gens humana’ (Horace, Odes 1.3.26), as pointed out by Weyman, C. in Berliner Philologische Wochenschrift 37 (1917) 1172. (Also in Weyman's Beiträge zur Geschichte der christlich-lateinischen Poesie [Munich 1926]).Google Scholar

²² This line is not in the manuscript, which has lost two leaves of a quaternion at this point. My reasons for suggesting that the missing line is ia_Λgl are discussed below. Google Scholar

²³ CPL 330. For the text see C. Lambot, ‘Texte complété et amendé du “Psalmus contra partem Donati” de saint Augustin,’ Revue Bénédictine 47 (1935) 312–330. It is reprinted with a few changes in Bulst, op. cit. 139–146 (emendations 197–8).Google Scholar

²⁴ St. Augustine himself declares that he cut the alphabet short: ‘… per Latinas litteras feci, sed usque ad V litteram, quales abecedarias appellant. tres vero ultimas omisi, sed pro eis novissimum quasi epilogum adiunxi …’ (Retractationes 1.19.1 [p. 96 Knöll]). Google Scholar

²⁵ CPL 827. Text: Bulst, op. cit. 147–155 (emendations 198–9). See also Lambot, C., ‘Un psaume abécédaire inédit de saint Fulgence de Ruspe contre les Vandales ariens,’ Revue Bénédictine 48 (1936) 221–234.Google Scholar

²⁶ Cf. Manlio Simonetti, ‘Studi sull’ innologia popolare cristiana dei primi secoli’ Memorie Accad. Lincei ⁸ 4 (1952) 368, who, however, believes that there were further stanzas of summary after stanza T. I take the term ‘Du-Stil’ from Simonetti (op. cit. 345) who (ibid. n. 1) credits Norden, E., Agnostos Theos (Berlin 1913) 166ff. with it. Pellegrino, M., ‘La Poesia di Sant’ Ilario di Poitiers,’ Vigiliae Christianae 1 (1947) 203, suggests that in stanza T Hilary intends to celebrate the glory of the Second Person. I assume that Pellegrino means that Hilary intends to do so in another poem, for such a subject would be too extensive at this point in the hymn. Pellegrino, too, believes that stanza S marks the beginning of the conclusion.Google Scholar

²⁷ I add here, in the form of an apparatus criticus, the places where my text differs from Bulst (A = MS Arezzo VI 3): A4 = 4 sit A: est scripsi H2 = 30 est A om. Meyer M2 = 46 aeternus ut incorruptibilis deus A: incorruptibilis ingenitus ut deus scripsi N1 = 49 in A om. Meyer N3 = 51 in unigena A invertit Meyer 04 = 56 sit A: sic scripsi cum A: inest cum scripsi quod est A: sit scripsi. By accepting Meyer's emendation in H2 = 30, we can scan the line as g1^c; again, it is in Meyer's reading that N1 = 49 is the normal gl. Myers, who keeps the manuscript text, must assume the irregular scansion Deŭs 'st in H2 and quibŭs 'st in N1; see his remarks (p. 20). Google Scholar

²⁸ Meyer 407f. Google Scholar

²⁹ Ibid. 408.Google Scholar

³⁰ For a study and survey of Greek doctrinal hymnology of this period see Simonetti 342–351. Google Scholar

³¹ Simonetti 344, 347. Google Scholar

³² In classical Latin, both the iambic senarius (6iaP) and the trochaic septenarius (8troP_Λ) allow resolutions. The second hymn of Hilary in 6iaP has no resolutions; all lines consist of twelve syllables. In the third hymn (written in 8troP_A) there are a number of apparent resolutions which can be eliminated if we have regard for phonetic modifications in late Latin (see Palmer, L. R., The Latin Language [London 1954] 155–159): consiliis (5) and sanie (7) are to be pronounced with consonantal i [j]; hominum (12) and hominem (25) pronounced hom'num and hom'nem; populis (15) pronounced pop'lis. In line 19, is has already been suspected by the previous editors; it can be eliminated without affecting the sense of the line.Google Scholar