Schmidt, C., H. J. Polotsky and A. Böhlig, Manichäische Handschriften der Staat lichen Museen Berlin, herausgegeben im Auftrage der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften unter Leitung von Prof. Carl Schmidt. Band I Kephalaia, Erste Hälfte (Lieferungen 1-10), Stuttgart, 1940.

Waldschmidt, E. and W. Lentz., Die Stellung Jesu im Manichäismus, Abhandlungen der preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Jahrgang 1926, Berlin, 1927.

von Wesendonk, O.G., Die Lehre des Mani, Leipzig, 1922.

E. WORKS ON LANGUAGE AND STYLE

1. Works on the Language and Style of St. Augustine

Balmus, C. I., Étude sur le style de saint Augustin dans les Confessions et la Cité de Dieu, Paris, 1930.

Barry, Sister M. Inviolata, St. Augustine the Orator. A Study of the Rhetorical Qualities of St. Augustine's Sermones ad Populum. The Catholic University. of America Patristic Studies, Vol. VI, Washington, 1924.

Bogan, Sister M. Inez, The Vocabulary and Style of the Soliloquies and Dialogues of St. Augustine. The Catholic University of America Patristic Studies, Vol. XLII, Washington, 1935.

Camelot, Th., "Credere Deo, Credere Deum, Credere in Deum," Les sciences philosophiques et théologiques [formerly Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques] 1 (1941-1942) 149-155.

Finaert, J., L'évolution littéraire de saint Augustin, Paris, 1939.

Saint Augustin rhéteur, Paris, 1939.

Hrdlicka, C. L., A Study of the Late Latin Vocabulary and of the Prepositions and Demonstrative Pronouns in the Confessions of St. Augustine. The Catholic University of America Patristic Studies, Vol. XXXI, Washington, 1931. Mahoney, Sister Catherine of Siena, The Rare and Late Latin Nouns, Adjectives, and Adverbs in St. Augustine's De Civitate Dei: A Morphological and Semasiological Study. The Catholic University of America Patristic Studies, Vol. XLIV, Washington, 1935.

Mohrmann, C., Die altchristliche Sondersprache in den Sermones des hl. Augustin, Erster Teil, Nijmegen, 1932.

Paluszak, A. B., The Subjunctive in the Letters of St. Augustine. The Catholic University of America Patristic Studies, Vol. XLVI, Washington, 1935.

2. Other Works on Language and Style

Barry, Sister M. Finbarr, The Vocabulary of the Moral-Ascetical Works of St. Ambrose. A Study in Latin Lexicography. The Catholic University of America Patristic Studies, Vol. X, Washington, 1926.

Bernhard, M., Der Stil des Apuleius von Madaura, Stuttgart, 1927.

Braunlich, A. F., The Indicative in the Indirect Question in Late Latin, Chicago, 1920.

Gimborn, D. T., The Syntax of the Simple Cases in St. Hilary of Poitiers. The Catholic University of America Patristic Studies, Vol. LIV, Washington, 1938.

Halliwell, W. J., The Style of Pope St. Leo the Great. The Catholic University of America Patristic Studies, Vol. LIX, Washington, 1939.

Jülicher, A., Itala, Das neue Testament in altlateinischer Überlieferung nach den Handschriften, Vol. I, Matthäus-Evangelium, Berlin, 1938; Vol. II, MarcusEvangelium, Berlin, 1940.

Norden, E., Die antike Kunstprosa, 2 vols., 4th reprint, Leipzig, 1923.

Sabatier, D. P., Bibliorum sacrorum latinae versiones antiquae seu vetus Itala, 3 vols. in six, Paris, 1749-51.

Sherlock, R. B., The Syntax of the Nominal Forms of the Verb, Exclusive of the Participle, in St. Hilary. The Catholic University of America Patristic Studies, Vol. LXXVI, Washngton, 1947.

Skahill, B. H., The Syntax of the Variae of Cassiodorus. The Catholic University of America Studies in Medieval and Renaissance Latin, Vol. III, Washington, 1934.

Souter, A., A Glossary of Later Latin to 600 A.D., Oxford, 1949.

Svennung, J., Orosiana, Uppsala, 1922.

Untersuchungen zu Palladius und zur lateinischen Fach- und Volkssprache,
Lund, 1935.

Vine, W. E., An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words with Their
Precise Meanings for English Readers, London and Edinburgh, 1940.
Volkmann, R., Die Rhetorik der Griechen und Römer in systematischer Übersicht,
2nd ed., Leipzig, 1885.

F. OTHER WORKS

Arnou, R., "Platonisme des pères," Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, Vol. XII, Paris, 1934. Cols. 2258-2392.

Bardenhewer, O., Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, Vol. IV, Freiburg im Breisgau, 1924.

Benignus, Brother, F. S. C., Nature, Knowledge, and God, Milwaukee, 1947. Bréhier, E., Histoire de la philosophie, Vol. I, L'antiquité et le moyen âge, Paris, 1926-1928.

Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, The Holy Bible. Translated from the Original Languages with Critical Use of All the Ancient Sources by Members of the Catholic Biblical Association of America. Sponsored by the Episcopal Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine. Vol. I, Genesis to Ruth, Paterson, New Jersey, 1952.

The New Testament of Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Translated from the Latin Vulgate. A Revision of the Challoner-Rheims Version. Edited by Catholic Scholars under the Patronage of the Episcopal Committee of the Confraternity of Christian Doctrine, Paterson, New Jersey, 1947. Courcelle, P., Les lettres grecques en Occident de Macrobe à Cassiodore, Paris, 1943. Fuller, B., The Problem of Evii in Plotinus, Cambridge, 1912.

Gilson, E., The Spirit of Mediaeval Philosophy, translated by A. H. C. Downes, New York, 1936.

Schanz, M., C. Hosius, and G. Krüger, Geschichte der römischen Literatur, vierter Teil, zweite Hälfte: Die Literatur des fünften und sechsten Jahrhunderts. In Handbuch der klassischen Altertumswissenschaft, Vol. VIII, Munich, 1920. Schoenemann, C. T., Bibliotheca historico-literaria Patrum latinorum, Vol. II, Leipzig, 1794. Wordsworth, J., H. White, H. Sparks, Novum Testamentum Domini Nostri Iesu Christi Latine secundum editionem Sancti Hieronymi, Vol. I, Oxford, 18891898; Vol. II, Oxford, 1913-1941; Vol. III (1), Oxford, 1905; (2), Oxford, 1949, (3), Oxford, 1954.

A. THE TEXT

The DNB is among the anti-Manichaean writings of St. Augustine edited by Joseph Zycha in the CSEL, Vol. XXV, pars 2. On the grounds of numerous omissions in his index of Scriptural passages, of his omission of the Manichaean sources in his Index Scriptorum, and of his defective critical apparatus, the editor was criticized by Jülicher1 and Lejay2, among others. Dom De Bruyne takes exception to the strictures of Zycha's critics as "fort exagérées et parfois injustes." He considers the CSEL edition as a definite improvement over that of the Maurists, its admitted errors being subject to correction through the critical apparatus3. The new text was reviewed favorably by Weihrich and Petschenig," and Jülicher admits that the text in general will restore the original, there having been seldom reason for conjecture on the part of the editor.6

Fortunately the DNB has an excellent manuscript tradition. The oldest manuscripts are the best in this case, so that the editor had but in general to follow them..? Hence Zycha based his edition on the following codices.8 Codex Sangallensis 152 (S), 9th century, preserves DNB well and very fully. Codex Parisinus 13360 (P), 9th century, has no large lacunae, although single words are missing here and there and many words are corrected wrongly. Codex Sangallensis 148 (G), 11th century, has lacunae of single words and whole sentences. Codex Admuntensis, formerly 55, now 712 (A), 12th century. Codex Vindobonensis 1009 (V), 12th century, in general is like the Laudunensis. Codex Laudunensis 128 (L), 13th century. Some of the last sections of this codex manifestly belong to the 14th century. It agrees closest with V, not so much in the DNB as in the c. epist. fund.

Of these codices Zycha finds S to be by far the best. P is next in excellence and in this respect is closer to S than to G, the third best. P makes possible the rectifying of errors in S. P and S must be regarded as the norm for the evaluation of all the other mss., since the latter have

1 Historische Zeitschrift 70 (1893) 495-6.

2 Revue critique d'histoire et de littérature, N.S. 34 (1892) 504-5.

3 Misc. Agost. II, 522.

4 Zeitschrift f. d. österr. Gymm. 43 (1892) 407-9.

5 Wochenschrift für klassische Philologie 9 (1892) 632.

6 Loc. cit.

7 Zycha, p. LXII.

8 Ibid. p. LVI, where these mss. are described in greater detail.

been greatly marred by lacunae and every variety of corruption. Of the mss. other than S and P, the best by far is G. Codices A and V, with which L is usually associated, are remarkably alike in corrupt readings, and the Amerbach edition (Basileae, 1506) usually agrees with them.9 The discrepancies between Zycha's text and that of the Maurists, the latter in this respect usually agreeing with the Amerbach, affect the meaning in only four instances. In two of these cases I have accepted Zycha's readings, viz. restitit for resistit (sec. 20,3) and satietate for societate (sec. 41, 27), but I have rejected his reading conterendos (sec. 36,3) and his conjecture secundum (sec. 44,22) in favor of the Maurist readings conterendo and seu. Furthermore I have altered the punctuation to accord with English usage, capitalized Deus and words which begin a sentence, written consonantal u as v (e.g. as in vivit), and have italicized the quotation from Sap. 11,21 in sec. 21. Otherwise I have adhered to the text of Zycha.

No verbatim citation of Scripture of significant length in the DNB has escaped Zycha, but note should be taken of the following errors and omissions. The references are to the section of the DNB and, in parenthesis, to page and line of the CSEL text.

1. Errors in Citation

Sec. 24 (866,5): Ps. 101,27 should read Ps. 101,27-28; (866,7): Sap. 12,27 should read Sap. 7,27. Sec. 32 (870,19): Prov. 8,15 should read Prov. 8,15-16; (871,2): Iob 1,2 should read Iob 1,12; (871,3): Matth. 26,31 sqq. 67 sqq. should read Matth. 26,31 sqq. 69 sqq. Sec. 48 (888,9): 11 cf. Matth. 5,45 should read 9 cf. Matth. 5,45; (888,11): 12 cf. Ez. 33,1 should read 11 cf. Ez. 33,11; (888,12): 13 cf. Sap. 12,2 should read 12 cf. Sap. 12,2; (888,13): 17 cf. Rom. 2,4 sqq. should read 13 cf. Rom. 2,4 sqq.; (888,17): 19 cf. Ez. 18,21 should read 17 cf. Ez. 18, 21-22; (888,23): 24 cf. Ps. 50,19 should read 23 cf. Ps. 50,19.

2. Scriptural Expressions and Topical References not Noted.

Sec. 16 (861,24): Cf. Dan. 3,51 and 3,72; (861,25): Cf. Eccle. 8,9. Sec. 18 (862,10): Cf. Is. 43,1. Sec. 20 (863,25): Cf. Act. 2,31; (864,1): Cf. Ioh. 20,25. Sec. 29 (869,4): Cf. Col. 1,16. Sec. 31 (869,28): Cf. 4 Esdr. 7,68; (870,1): Cf. Iob. 20,21. Sec. 32 (871,6): Cf. Sap. 12,15. Sec. 33 (871,24): Cf. Gen. 2,20; (871,25): Cf. Sap. 2,24. Sec. 34 (872,7): Cf. Gen. 2,8-9; (872,11): Cf. Marc. 13,19. Sec. 36 (872,27): Cf. Gen. 3,17-19. Sec. 48 (888,24): Cf. Matt. 12,31; (889,9): Cf. Ps. 24,7 and 140,5.

9 Ibid. p. LXII. Zycha did not use the edition attributed to Kasper Hochfeder, Cracow, ca. 1475 (cf. the Bibliography). To judge from his Prolegomena (p. LXXX; cf. p. 854), he did not know it, since he calls the Amerbach the editio princeps. Schoenemann, to whom Zycha refers for the editions (in his Prolegomena, p. LXXX), was also unaware of the Cracow edition. He does not list it among the incunabula, and, although he usually indicates their contents, the DNB is not mentioned (cf. Schoenemann, Bibliotheca historico-literaria Patrum latinorum II, 73-84). So far as I am aware, the Cracow edition has not been studied for the text of the DNB.