ORDER 2080059

B ETWEEN ARTES PRAEDICANDI

AND A CTUAL S ERMONS: R OBERT OF
B ASEVORN ’S F ORMA PRAEDICANDI AND
THE S ERMONS OF JOHN W ALDEBY , OESA

Yuichi Akae

I. Introduction

T
here were two principal methods of sermon composition in the later
Middle Ages. The words ‘ancient’ (antiquus) and ‘modern’ (modernus)
were often used to denote them. The ‘modern’ form of sermons appeared
in the late twelfth and the thirteenth centuries as a new form of sermon — hence
the name — and it lasted throughout the later Middle Ages and beyond. Sermons
before this period are called sermons in the ‘ancient’ form, although the form did
not die out after the thirteenth century.
The ‘ancient’ form is described by H. Leith Spencer as ‘an expository method
of preaching which permits the practitioner to expatiate upon an entire passage
of scripture’.1 It manifests itself most frequently in the form of a running
commentary on a biblical passage, expounding the lection clause by clause.2 A
modern sermon is the ‘careful elaboration of a single selected thema, an individual

1
H. Leith Spencer, English Preaching in the Late Middle Ages (Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1993), p. 236.
2
Spencer, English Preaching, pp. 232–33, persuasively argues that divisions, that is the
technique of dividing a sermon into several parts, can also be employed in the ancient form. This
counters a view held by some that divisions are incompatible with ancient form and hence the
hallmark of the modern form.

Page 23
ORDER 2080059

10 Yuichi Akae

line from Scripture’.3 It is divided into several parts and each part branches out
further into subdivisions.
Many attempts have been made to describe the modern sermon form in
general terms by means of summaries or studies of preaching manuals generically
called artes praedicandi, sometimes combined with schematisations of actual
sermons.4 Although artes have received a mixed reaction from scholars in terms
of their historical value for an understanding of preaching,5 Siegfried Wenzel, in
particular, has argued that ‘surviving sermons that have the length and fullness
one might expect to find in oral delivery are built precisely on the pattern taught
by artes praedicandi’.6
In the present article I would like to go further than the schematisation of
sermons by presenting the results of part of a comprehensive and systematic
comparison of the preaching techniques expounded in an ars praedicandi and
those used in actual sermons.7 By confirming the similarities between the two,

3
M. Michele Mulchahey, First the Bow is Bent in Study: Dominican Education before 1350,
Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, Studies and Texts, 132 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute
of Mediaeval Studies, 1998), p. 402. It is to be noted, however, that the word thema should not
be associated exclusively with the modern form. It could sometimes mean the entire pericope of
the day as opposed to a single line from it, and in this case the word is compatible with the
‘ancient’ form. Spencer, English Preaching, p. 232. In what follows, the words of themata
(dictiones) are shown in boldface and italics.
4
For an overview of recent studies of this genre see Marianne G. Briscoe, ‘Artes praedicandi’,
in Artes praedicandi and Artes orandi, ed. by Marianne G. Briscoe and Barbara H. Jaye, Typologie
des sources du moyen âge occidental, 61 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1992), pp. 9–76. Siegfried Wenzel
lists schematic analyses of several individual modern sermons from later medieval England in his
Latin Sermon Collections from Later Medieval England: Orthodox Preaching in the Age of Wycliff,
Cambridge Studies in Medieval Literature (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), p.
12, n. 21.
5
Briscoe remarks: ‘references to the ars praedicandi in other medieval works are virtually
unknown. It is even questionable how much the manuals influenced sermon writing’ (Briscoe,
‘Artes Praedicandi’, p. 72).
6
Siegfried Wenzel, Preachers, Poets, and the Early English Lyric (Princeton: Princeton
University Press, 1986), pp. 61–100 (p. 69). See also Siegfried Wenzel, Latin Sermon Collections,
pp. 11–16.
7
The present article is a revised and heavily abridged version of Chapter 4 of my doctoral
dissertation: Yuichi Akae, ‘A Study of the Sermon Collection of John Waldeby, Austin Friar of
York in the Fourteenth Century’ (doctoral dissertation, University of Leeds, 2004), pp. 97–214.
Based on the solid ground provided by Wenzel’s analysis (see n. 6, above) of the Division of the
thema (see the discussion below) and Spencer’s discussion of sermon form (English Preaching,

Page 24
ORDER 2080059

BETWEEN ARTES PRAEDICANDI AND ACTUAL SERMONS 11

such investigation should support Wenzel’s general view, eliminating unwarranted

doubts concerning artes.8 Moreover, it should better equip scholars of ‘modern
sermons’ to appreciate the art of preaching of learned preachers who also
preached to the laity, and their sensitivity to the art, something which simple
schematisations do not achieve. Furthermore, such a comparative study of
research should open up many areas of further study of what can be called the
morphological analysis of modern sermon forms.
While there are a vast number of sermons extant — according to one
calculation, 140,0009 — and more than 175 different artes praedicandi10 are
known, I have focused on one particular ars praedicandi and one particular
sermon collection, both of which come from fourteenth-century England. It is
useful first of all to set out the basic details concerning these two works.
The Forma praedicandi by Robert of Basevorn is one of the most well known
artes praedicandi.11 In this work probably completed in 1322, the author displays

pp. 228–68), my attempt covers a much wider range of preaching techniques and considerations
behind the use of them, although only a part of the result can be presented here.
8
Certainly some limitations relating to them remain. In a carefully worded observation,
David d’Avray also expresses a reservation: ‘[o]f course the artes praedicandi can take us a long way,
but they can also be an inadequate and misleading guide precisely because most men are very
imperfectly aware of their own calculi of thought’ (The Preaching of the Friars: Sermons Diffused
from Paris before 1300 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), p. 242). D’Avray indicates that the
authors of the artes praedicandi often do not explain things they took for granted (cf. p. 245). One
of the most remarkable examples is the absence of any discussion of the ‘preaching calendar’ by
preaching theorists. See David d’Avray, ‘The Gospel of the Marriage Feast of Cana and Marriage
Preaching in France’, in The Bible in the Medieval World: Essays in Memory of Beryl Smalley, ed. by
Katherine Walsh and Diana Wood, Studies in Church History Subsidia, 4 (Oxford: Blackwell,
1985), pp. 207–24 (repr. in Modern Questions about Medieval Sermons, ed. by Nicole Bériou and
David d’Avray (Spoleto: Centro italiano di studi sull’alto Medioevo, 1994), pp. 135–54); Jussi
Hanska, ‘Reconstructing the Mental Calendar of Medieval Preaching: A Method and Its Limits
— An Analysis of Sunday Sermons’, in Preacher, Sermon and Audience in the Middle Ages, ed. by
Carolyn Muessig (Leiden: Brill, 2002), pp. 293–315. See also Hanska’s essay in the present volume.
9
Hanska has estimated the figure, based on the entries of Schneyer, Rep. Hanska,
‘Reconstructing the Mental Calendar’, p. 299.
10
Harry Caplan, Mediaeval artes praedicandi: A Hand-List, Cornell Studies in Classical
Philology, 24 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1934); Harry Caplan, Mediaeval artes
praedicandi: A Supplementary Hand-List, Cornell Studies in Classical Philology, 25 (Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1936).
11
‘Forma praedicandi’, ed. by T.-M. Charland in Artes praedicandi: Contribution à l’histoire de
la rhétorique au moyen âge, Publications de l’Institut d’études médiévales d’Ottawa, 7 (Paris: Vrin,

Page 25
ORDER 2080059

12 Yuichi Akae

an extensive knowledge of the art of preaching, both in ancient and modern form.
His main focus was on the composition of the modern form, in which he discerns
two minutely differentiated methods of sermon composition: the ‘Oxonian’, or
‘English method’, and the ‘Parisian’, or ‘French method’.12
Although hardly anything is known about Basevorn himself, his knowledge of
the ‘Oxonian’, or English, way of preaching and the fact that he dedicated the
Forma praedicandi to an abbot of the Cistercian monastery at Basingwerk, Wales
(near the English border), suggest that he was based in Britain at some point.13
Both the ‘Oxonian way’ and the ‘Parisian way’ are variants of the modern
sermon form, and their differences are very subtle. Basevorn describes them thus:
Inter tamen modernos sunt modi magis usitati, scilicet gallicus et anglicus, utpote de
duabus magis famosis universitatibus emanantes, et ex praedictis doctoribus et aliis
habentes originem, nullum tamen unum sequentes, sed in parte modum unius et in parte
modum alterius et parte de suo addentes et multa quae magis.14
(Among the modern [methods] those more commonly used are the French method and
the English method, emanating (emanantes) from two rather famous universities. They
have their origin in the aforementioned Doctors and others [i.e. Christ, Paul the Apostle,
Augustine, Gregory the Great, and Bernard], and yet follow no particular one. They in
part add the method of one and in part add the method of another and in part add from
their own many methods.)

Based on this passage, Charland suggests that Basevorn’s sermons were for a
university audience and not for the laity. However, what this passage makes clear
is that the two major modern sermon methods were ‘spreading’ (emanantes) from
these universities. One therefore has to be careful before considering these
methods as confined to a university environment.

1936), pp. 231–323. ‘Robert of Basevorn: The Form of Preaching (1322 A .D .)’, trans. by Leopold
Krul, in Three Medieval Rhetorical Arts, ed. by James J. Murphy (Berkeley: University of
California Press, 1971), pp. 109–215. Hereafter, this work is referred to as FP. I have based my
translation on that of Krul, but have paraphrased or altered it to produce a clear text for the
purpose of analysis and comparison. In what follows I refer to the original text only.
12
As for the Oxonian and Parisian methods, see further below. The overall structure of the
Forma praedicandi is discussed in Yuichi Akae, ‘The Importance of Curiositas in Late Medieval
Preaching’, in Minds of the Past: Representations of Mentality in Literacy and Historical Documents
of Japan and Europe, ed. by Takami Matsuda, Kenji Yoshitake, Masato Izumi, and Michio Sato
(Tokyo: Centre for Integrated Research on the Mind, Keio University, 2005), pp. 51–74
(especially pp. 55–57).
13
Charland, Artes praedicandi, p. 81.
14
FP, chap. 7, p. 244

Page 26
ORDER 2080059

BETWEEN ARTES PRAEDICANDI AND ACTUAL SERMONS 13

The sermons examined alongside Basevorn’s ars praedicandi are those

composed by John Waldeby, an Austin Friar at York. His Novum opus dominicale,
probably compiled in the 1360s, is a de tempore collection of fifty-six sermons
for sixty occasions, most of which are Sundays, plus a few major feasts.15
Waldeby was a significant figure in the English province of the Augustinian
Hermits. He was only an acolyte in 1333, ten years after Basevorn composed the
Forma praedicandi.16 This makes it unlikely that they encountered each other
personally — in Oxford or elsewhere. However, Waldeby most probably studied
at Oxford;17 therefore there is a possibility that he was familiar with the Oxonian
method. Waldeby taught ‘young’ student-friars at schools in the York convent of
the Austin Friars.18 These young student-friars were the primary users of his
sermon collection. It has to be noted that they were literate but not as well
educated as university students. It also has to be noted that Waldeby intended his
sermons to be used as models for preaching to the laity.19

In comparing these two works in terms of preaching techniques, Basevorn’s own

definition should be utilized. In Chapter 14 of the Forma praedicandi, Basevorn
enumerates twenty-two preaching techniques — he calls them ‘ornaments’

15
The Novum opus dominicale is extant in two manuscripts: Oxford, Bodleian Library, MSS
Laud Misc. 77 (D) and Bodley 687 (B). All transcriptions are taken from D, the more authoritative
MS. I follow Morrin’s sigla. Margaret J. Morrin, John Waldeby, O.S.A., c. 1315–c. 1372: English
Augustinian Preacher and Writer; With a Critical Edition of His Tract on the ‘Ave Maria’ (Rome:
Analecta Augustiniana, 1975), p. 64.
16
The Register of John Kirkby Bishop of Carlisle, 1332–1352, and the Register of John Ross
Bishop of Carlisle, 1325–32, ed. by Robin Lindsay Storey, 2 vols, Canterbury and York Society,
79, 81 (Woodbridge: Boydell & Brewer, 1993, 1995), I, 28 (entry no. 152).
17
There is no contemporary record for this, but John Bale wrote in 1533: ‘Maturioribus annis,
ad literas educatus, Oxonij strenue scientijs diuinis & humanis incumbebat. Nec sine fructu. Nam
literati uiri titulos omnes merito oblatos, sollennitate quadam ibidem est adeptus, sui ordinis etiam
provincialis preses postea designatus’ (Scriptorum illustrium maioris Brytanniae catalogus: Basle
1557, 1559 with the Dedication to Queen Elizabeth from the Grenville Library Copy in the British
Museum, 2 vols (Farnborough: Gregg, 1971), I, 499). Scholars have supported this view. See a recent
discussion of Waldeby by Wenzel, Latin Sermon Collections, pp. 40–44 (p. 40).
18
Yuichi Akae, ‘A Library for Preachers: The Novum opus dominicale of John Waldeby
OESA and the Library of the Austin Friars at York’, Medieval Sermon Studies, 49 (2005), 5–26
(especially p. 10, n. 28). See also Wenzel, Latin Sermon Collections, p. 42, n. 13.
19
Akae, ‘A Library of Preachers’, p. 20.

Page 27
ORDER 2080059

14 Yuichi Akae

(ornamenta) — for the composition and delivery of a modern sermon.20 These

ornaments, listed in Appendix 1 (below), can be divided into three groups.
The first group is what I call ‘componential ornaments’, that is, ornaments
which form the components of a modern sermon (1–7, 11, 14, 15). All the
sermons in the Novum opus dominicale are in the modern form. A modern sermon
is, as mentioned above, the ‘careful elaboration of a single selected thema’. The
thema is ‘elaborated’ upon in various components that make up the structure of
a modern sermon. Basevorn discusses some of these components under the name
of ‘ornaments’, as Appendix 1 shows. He also discusses other components in this
work without counting them as ornaments: among these components are
principals (the largest units of argument within a sermon: a sermon usually
includes two to four principals); subdivisions (the units of argument within a
principal); and exempla (illustrative stories). A comparison between Waldeby’s
sermons and Basevorn’s discussion according to each ‘componential ornament’
is a comparison of the sermon forms of the two writers in terms of structure. The
sermon structure/components Basevorn expounds correspond with those
Waldeby uses in his sermons. Appendix 2 illustrates the sermon structure.
The analysis of the structure or the components of a sermon is only a part of
the process of understanding the modern sermon form. This is clear from the
second group of Basevorn’s ornaments, which I call noncomponential ornaments
(8–10, 12, 13). They consist of preaching techniques which are not components
themselves but are used in more than one component of the main body of a
sermon. They concern the development of a sermon, rather than its structure.
Among noncomponential ornaments, those of ‘Dilatation’ (dilatatio) and
Correspondence stand out as the most important.
The third and last group of Basevorn’s preaching techniques consists of the last
seven ornaments (16–22).21 These can be called delivery-related ornaments since
they are all concerned with the ‘live’ performance of preaching. All seven of these
are outside the scope of my investigation since written sermons tend not to
provide much information concerning the delivery-related techniques, which
were by nature used extemporaneously and some of which were nonverbal, like
gesture.
A specimen sermon has been chosen from the Novum opus dominicale to
provide the main focus of analysis. The sermon selected is that for the Second

20
FP, chap. 14, p. 249.
21
They are all discussed in Chapter 50, the last chapter of the Forma praedicanidi.

Page 28
ORDER 2080059

BETWEEN ARTES PRAEDICANDI AND ACTUAL SERMONS 15

Sunday after Epiphany (W20).22 It represents a good example of the common

structure of the sermons in the Novum opus dominicale and includes many of the
preaching techniques that Basevorn discusses in the Forma praedicandi. There are
also several popular thirteenth-century sermons, edited by d’Avray, which were
composed on the same thema—‘There was a marriage’ (Nuptiae factae sunt)
( John 2. 1)—for the same Sunday on the same topic of marriage.23 These provide
a point of triangulation to gauge the relative similarity and difference between the
techniques of the three parties, in fact as it turns out, between the two, Basevorn
and Waldeby on the one hand, and the thirteenth-century marriage sermons on the
other hand. Sermon W20 can be schematised as in Appendix 3, below (omitting
exempla), which shows that the sermon is divided into two: ‘introductory section’
and ‘body’, as in Appendix 2.
Owing to limited space, what follows is a condensed discussion of several
componential ornaments that are used in the introductory section of a sermon (in
this case sermon W20) and one noncomponential ornament as used in another
sermon.

II. Prothema/antethema

The first example concerns how Basevorn explains prothema/antethema and how
Waldeby uses it. In the Forma praedicandi Basevorn uses the term antethema (or
prothema) in two senses, although he does not specify in which sense he is using
the term each time.24

22
D, fols 46 r–48 v. I have numbered each item in the Novum opus dominicale from W1 to
W60 (W denotes Waldeby), which agrees with Wenzel’s numbering (Latin Sermon Collections,
pp. 625–30). He uses WA instead of W.
23
D. L. d’Avray, Medieval Marriage Sermons: Mass Communication in a Culture without
Print (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001).
24
Thomas of Chobham’s discussion on prothema in his early-thirteenth-century artes
praedicandi seems to indicate the amorphous situation from which the two senses of the word
that Basevorn uses in the fourteenth century developed: ‘Vnde, numquam poterit bene predicare
qui secundum usum, uel secundum artificium nesciat proemium suum in predicando bene
proponere. Vocant autem quidam predicatores prologum suum prothema, quasi thema ante
thema; ut scilicet ante quam prosequantur principale thema proponunt quoddam breue thema
et exponunt ad captandam beneuolentiam et preparandam attentionem auditorum et docilitatem
eorum. Debet autem semper tale esse prothema, quod conueniat cum principali themate. Quod
si fuerit inpertinens et discoherens quod proponitur, uitiosum est exordium. Vt si aliquis uelit
predicare principaliter de castitate et ipse proponat prothema suum de misericordia erga pauperes,

Page 29
ORDER 2080059

16 Yuichi Akae

First, Basevorn uses the word to mean a prologue to a sermon which includes
the three ornaments: the Invention of the thema, Capturing of Attention,25 and
Prayer — practically, everything before the reiteration of the thema.26
The second meaning of the word is a more specific one. The following passage
from Chapter 23 illustrates this meaning clearly:
Solebat a quibusdam sic fieri quod eligebant sibi unum thema, et tunc de aliqua dictione
thematis sumebant sibi auctoritatem loco antethematis, […]. V.g. posito quod thema esset:
Videte quomodo ambuletis [Ephesians 5. 15], statim addebant unam auctoritatem in qua
esset videre, vel in qua esset ambulare, sic dicendo: Quod vidi, narrabo tibi [Job 15. 17],
vel sic: In pace veritate ambulavit mecum et multos avertit ab iniquitate [3 Kings 3. 6]. Et
tunc illam secundam auctoritatem pro antethemate sequuntur, et primam pro themate.
Cujus rei nullam necessitatem video nisi quia auctoritas illa secunda magis proprie et
immediatius possit aptari vel praedicatori verbi Dei, vel auditori, vel ipsi verbo, vel
omnibus tribus simul, vel aliquibus duobus illorum trium.27
(In former times […] some preachers used to select one thema for themselves, and then
took an authority dealing with some word of the thema in place of an antethema. [...]
Take, for example, the thema: ‘See how you walk’ [Ephesians 5. 15]. Immediately they
would add one authority which contained the words ‘to see’ or ‘to walk’, saying ‘What I
saw I will tell you’ [Job 15. 17], or: ‘He walked with me in peace and truth and turned
many from iniquity’ [3 Kings 3. 6]. And then they would follow the second authority
[Job 15. 17 or 3 Kings 3. 6] as an antethema, and the first authority [Ephesians 5. 15] as
the thema. I see no need for this unless the second authority is more properly and
immediately suited to the preacher of God’s word, or the hearer, or to the word itself, or
to all three at the same time, or to two of the three.)

inpertinens est prothema’: Thomas of Chobham, Summa de arte praedicandi, ed. by Franco
Morenzoni, CCCM, 82 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1988), p. 265. See also Franco Morenzoni, Des écoles
aux paroisses: Thomas de Chobham et la promotion de la prédication au début du XIIIe siècle,
Collection des études augustiniennes, Série moyen-âge et temps modernes, 30 (Paris: Institute
d’études augustiniennes, 1995), pp. 209–10, 214–15.
25
Concerning this ornament, Basevorn recommends that the preacher should attract the
minds of the listerners in order to make them willing to hear and remain by telling some
terrifying stories or stories of marvellous things (mirabilia). FP, chap. 24, pp. 260–62.
26
‘Ecce nunc, secundum ordinem praemissum capitulo 14 o , expedito aliqualiter de tribus
ornamentis antethematis [pro]sequendum est de ornamentis thematis, quorum primum est
introductio’: FP, chap. 31, p. 268. See also FP, chap. 25, p. 264: ‘Hic etiam notandum quod oratio
quae in fine antethematis ponitur’, and the end of Chapter 37 of FP (p. 284). Chapter 21 also
gives an example of an antethema in this sense.
27
FP, chap. 23, p. 259.

Page 30
ORDER 2080059

BETWEEN ARTES PRAEDICANDI AND ACTUAL SERMONS 17

In this passage Basevorn uses the term antethema to denote a specific technique
(rather than as a synonym for prologue). He appears to think that this meaning
is more original than the other, but seems to conclude that this technique has
become less important than it used to be.
Among fifty-six sermons in his de tempore collection, Waldeby uses the
antethema in this second sense in one instance, where he explicitly uses the word
antethema.28 However, there is usually an antethema in the sense of ‘prologue’,
which theoretically encompasses the thema, Capturing of Attention, and Prayer.
This suggests that, although Waldeby does not explain his concept of prothema,
his practice can be understood within the same line of thought as Basevorn’s. It is
likely that Waldeby shared Basevorn’s understanding of the prothema.

III. Reiteration of the Thema

After an antethema as a prologue, a preacher is expected to repeat the thema.29 In

this reiteration of the thema, Waldeby uses the phrase ubi prius. For example, in
the sermon for the Second Sunday after Epiphany, he says,
4/ … ad quos excitant uerba que pro themate premissa sunt: Nupcie facte sunt, ubi prius.30

(4/ the words which have been set down as the thema — There was a marriage as
referred to before—rouse <us> towards these things [mentioned in the earlier part of
paragraph 4/].)

28
The sermon for the fourth Sunday after Easter (W40) has the thema: Ille arguet mundum
(Io. 16.8). Waldeby added to this Argue cum Dei imperio (cf. Titus 2. 15) as an antethema which
shares the verb arguere with the thema (‘Iam ad propositum antethematis quid aliud facit
predicator ubi Dei quam peccatores arguit. Sicut Paulus dixit ad quemdam episcopum Titum,
disci|pulum [fol. 102v ] suum, capitulo 2o : Argue cum Dei imperio (cf. Tit 2. 15) […]’: D, fol. 102r–v).
29
In Basevorn’s discussion, the ornament of Introduction can almost be equated with the
antethema as a prologue, except that the former not concluded with a prayer (FP, chap. 31, pp.
268–72). In this sense, Waldeby’s sermon W 20 has an Introduction (paragraphs 2/–4/) rather
than an antethema. I refer to the relevant paragraphs of sermon W 20 (critically transcribed in
Appendix 4 of my doctoral dissertation) by bold numbers followed by a slash. Akae, ‘A Study of
the Sermon Collection of John Waldeby’, pp. 297–305. Both of these two techniques can be seen
in Waldeby’s sermon for the fourth Sunday in Lent (W30) (D, fol. 77 v).
30
D, fol. 46 r.

Page 31
ORDER 2080059

18 Yuichi Akae

In the Forma praedicandi Basevorn focuses on the use of this phrase specifically.
He states that, in the reiteration of the thema, some preachers do not repeat the
thema fully, but just say ubi prius: ‘as [referred to] before’, namely in the statement
of the thema at the beginning of the sermon. However, he continues, the thema
has to be repeated in full, since there are always people who come late and miss the
thema at the beginning of the sermon.31 To turn to the Novum opus dominicale,
Waldeby uses the phrase ubi prius in the vast majority of his sermons, but at the
same time he always reiterates the thema in full. Here again, Waldeby’s practice
is perfectly in accord with Basevorn’s suggestion. It is likely that Waldeby shared
the same concern Basevorn expresses.

IV. Confirmation of Parts

Three components follow the reiteration of the thema: Division of the thema,
Declaration of Parts, and Confirmation of Parts.32 In the Division of the thema,
the thema is divided into two to four parts (in the case of W20, two: Nupcie and
facte sunt), and each part is interpreted by ‘distinction’ (distinctiones):
5/ In quibus uerbis ecce duo breuia que sunt:
irrefragabile uinculum: Nupcie; [46 v ] et
tollerabile remedium, quia ad hoc facte sunt.

(5/ In these words [i.e., the thema] behold two short points, which are:
the unbreakable chain: marriage; and
the bearable remedy, because it [i.e., the marriage] was made to this effect.)

31
‘Aliud etiam sciendum, quod in resumptione thematis post orationem, vitiosum reputatur
quod sic quotetur ubi prius, quamvis prius in antethemate quotabatur; sed exprimendum est
explicite sicut in antethemate exprimebatur, propter aliquos qui a casu, sicut frequenter contingit,
in antethemate non fuerunt. Etsi fuissent, securius est explicite quotare bene. Tamen sufficit sic
scribere sicut expedit cuilibet scribenti sermones in ipsa Scriptura capitula quotare. Sed nimis
simplex est qui in toto innititur Scripturae, ut ita per omnia dicat: sicut scriptum est’: FP, chap.
31, p. 269.
32
According to Basevorn (FP, chaps 34–38), Declaration of Parts partly overlaps with the
preceding ornament, Division of Parts, and partly overlaps with the ornament which follows,
Confirmation of Parts. The following discussion of these ornaments is a simplified, yet precise,
understanding of his text, applied to Waldeby’s sermon W20. A full analysis is offered in Akae,
‘A Study of the Sermon Collection of John Waldeby’, pp. 121–27.

Page 32
ORDER 2080059 KATERN 2

BETWEEN ARTES PRAEDICANDI AND ACTUAL SERMONS 19

Namely, Nupcie corresponds to ‘the unbreakable chain’, facte sunt to ‘the

bearable remedy’.
Division of the thema and distinctions are followed by Declaration of Parts,
the technique that organizes ‘distinctions’ into a logical line of argument.33 Since
there are now two parts, each coupled with a distinction, there are two
Declaration sentences.
6/ Vinculum est irrefragabile, quia sola morte dissoluuntur nupcie.
Set remedium est tollerabile, quia prole fecunda perficitur et ad hunc effectum nupcie
facte sunt.

(6/ The chain is unbreakable, because marriage is dissolved only by death.

But the remedy is bearable, because it is carried out for abundant offspring and the
marriage is made to this effect.)

One of the two Declaration sentences, ‘Vinculum est irrefragabile, quia sola morte
dissoluuntur nupcie’, not only repeats the distinctions already set out in the
Division of the thema (5/), but also provides the link between the distinctions and
the divided parts of the thema (5/). This link is secured by analogy between, for
example, one of the two distinctions ‘the unbreakable chain’ and one division of
the thema ‘marriage’ (Nuptiae), which is only dissolved by death.
These links, or the Declaration, are immediately verified or confirmed by
biblical authorities (Confirmation of Parts).
Pro utroque simul Io (i.e., Matthew 22. 2): Simile est regnum celorum homini regi qui fecit
nupcias filio suo.
(For both points at the same time Io (Matthew 22. 2): The Kingdom of Heaven is likened
to a human king who made a marriage for his son.)

In this case, Matthew 22. 2 provides a biblical proof for both Declarations (pro
utroque).
How the Confirmation by biblical authority — in this case Matthew 22. 2 —
supports a Declaration/distinction is not always clear. The connection is evident
in the second Declaration (the marriage as bearable remedy because of offspring)
since Matthew 22. 2 includes the words ‘son’ (‘offspring’), and ‘marriage’.
Concerning the first Declaration (the marriage as ‘unbreakable chain’, dissolved
only by death), it is not so evident in our eyes. Waldeby, the preacher, does not
offer an explanation.

33
FP, chap. 34, p. 275.

Page 33
ORDER 2080059

20 Yuichi Akae

This is particularly where Basevorn’s discussion provides an insight. He states:

‘The proposition is confirmed by a corresponding verbal/vocal authority [i.e., an
authority which includes the same word as the thema], either through allusion or
explicitly’.34 He gives one example for illustration. He takes a sermon with the
thema, Justus de angustia liberatus est (The just man was delivered from
distress) (Proverbs 11. 8), in which ‘virginity’ is a distinction of the word of the
thema, justus. Concerning the Confirmation of Parts, Basevorn comments: ‘since
that authority “Lux orta est justo” (Light is risen to the just) (Psalm 96. 11) does
not expressly talk about “virginity” (the point to be supported), it is therefore
adduced through allusion and not expression’.35 However, it is also equally
important that Psalm 96. 11 does include the word justo, picking up on the same
word in the thema; hence Psalm 96. 11 is ‘a corresponding verbal/vocal
authority’.36 In this respect, Matthew 22. 2, which includes the words, facio,
nupcie, and est, verbally corresponds to the thema: nupcie facte sunt. Here too,
Waldeby follows the rule described by Basevorn and it seems impossible to
understand Waldeby’s intention without Basevorn’s explanation.37
Concerning the Confirmation of Parts, Basevorn states that there are two
different methods, the Parisian method and the method used by ‘some preachers,
especially in England’, and he explains each separately. He devotes three chapters
(35–37), one of which is very long, to the Parisian method, while he gives one
chapter (Chapter 38) to the English method. Although some of the principles of
the Parisian method also apply to the English method, there are differences
between the two. The most important of these is that in the Parisian method the
Confirmation of Parts tends to have a more highly developed, often prolonged
structure — hence Basevorn’s extended discussion — while in the English method

34
FP, chap. 35, p. 281: ‘confirmatur propositum per correspondentem vocalem auctoritatem,
vel per allusionem vel per expressionem.’
35
FP, chap. 35, p. 281: ‘quia illa auctoritas Lux orta est justo (Ps 96. 11) non loquitur expresse
de virginitate, ideo adducitur per allusionem et non per expressionem.’
36
At this point it may be noted that the necessity for the biblical authority to include the
same word as the thema rendered the concordance an indispensable reference book.
37
I have provided an extensive discussion on ‘verbal agreement’ in my doctoral thesis (Akae,
‘A Study of the Sermon Collection of John Waldeby’, pp. 195–214; here especially pp. 195–96),
and presented it in a paper titled ‘The Mindset of Fourteenth-Century Preachers: Composing
Latin Sermons and Preaching in the Vernacular’, at the Thirty-ninth International Congress on
Medieval Studies, 6–9 May 2004, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo.

Page 34
ORDER 2080059

BETWEEN ARTES PRAEDICANDI AND ACTUAL SERMONS 21

this component tends to be simple and brief.38 In this and other respects,
Waldeby’s method for the Confirmation of Parts clearly belongs to the English
method.

V. Ornament of Correspondence

Having examined some of the significant ornaments, it is appropriate now to

discuss one remarkable technique from noncomponential ornaments. Basevorn
defines the ornament of Correspondence as follows:
Est autem decimum ornamentum, quod vocatur correspondentia, quae est expressa
convenientia partium inter se, ut si primum principale divideretur in a b c, secundum
principale in d e f, tertium in g h i, tunc, secundum istud ornamentum, requiritur quod
sit convenientia inter a et d et g, et 2o inter b et e et h, et 3o inter c et f et i.39
(The tenth ornament, called Correspondence, is the express agreement of parts between
themselves, as when the first principal is [further] divided into a b c, the second into d e
f, the third into g h i. Then, according to this ornament, there must be agreement among
a d g, b e h, and c f i.)

Basevorn provides an example:

V.g. in speciali, ut si post thematis divisionem, declarationem et partium confirmationem
diceretur sic: Justus, inquam, triplici justitia in qua omnis justitia, de triplici angustia est
tripliciter liberatus. Erat enim justus (a) puritate pudicitiae virginalis, (b) doctrina
dulcedinis spiritualis et (c) dilectionis privilegio specialis. Cujus tamen, quia contra bonum
malum, angustia triplex erat: (d) ardor olei omburentis, (e) rigor exilii affligentis, (f)
horror periculosi poculi perimentis. Sed quia ‘multae tribulationes justorum, et de omnibus
hiis liberabit eos Dominus’ (Ps 33. 20), liberatus est (g) potenter , (h) sapienter, (i)
clementer. Et haec sibi invicem correspondent.40

38
Basevorn comments about the method used in England: ‘Causa autem quare isti tam
breviter transeunt istud ornamentum quod est partium declaratio, est quia utuntur residuis
ornamentis, quae requirunt magnum tempus’ (The reason why they [i.e., some English preachers]
pass over this ornament, which is the Declaration of Parts so briefly is that they use the remaining
ornaments which demand much time) (FP, chap. 38, p. 291). Although here he uses the term
‘Declaration of Parts’, Basevorn is clearly referring to the Confirmation of Parts. Concerning the
prolonged version of the Parisian method, see Basevorn’s example in FP, chap. 37, p. 286.
39
FP, chap. 42, p. 299.
40
FP, chap. 42, p. 299. The markers, (a) to (i), and the bold types indicating the words of the
thema are mine.

Page 35
ORDER 2080059

22 Yuichi Akae

(Take one example, in particular: after the Division of the thema [i.e., Justus de angustia
liberatus est (Proverbs 11. 8)], the Declaration and Confirmation of the Parts, one would
say:

The just man, I say, by a triple justice in which is all justice, was triply delivered from
a triple distress, for
he (i.e., the just man) was just
(a) by the purity of virginal modesty,
(b) by the teaching of spiritual sweetness, and
(c) by the privilege of special love.
Because evil is against good, his distress was threefold:
(d) the heat of burning oil,
(e) the rigour of a prostrating exile,
(f) the horror of a destroying dangerous cup.
However, because many are the afflictions of the just, but out of them all will
the Lord deliver them (Psalm 33. 20), he was delivered
(g) with power,
(h) with wisdom,
(i) with clemency.)
These correspond with each other.)

This ornament is not used in the specimen sermon W20 (at least in this form),
but it is in the sermon for the Second Sunday in Advent (W14) in a highly similar
fashion to Basevorn’s example.41 In order to demonstrate Waldeby’s use of this
technique, I quote here the relevant passage.42
4/ Set pro materia collacionis aduertendum quod signa sunt in scriptura sacra
quadruplina.
a) Est enim signum placacionis. De quo habetur Hester43 (5. 2) de uirga aurea
quam rex pretendit in signum clemencie.
b) Secundo est signum saluacionis. De quo Ezekiel 9(. 4) de signo Taw.
c) Signum distinctiuum in prediis. De quo habetur Apocalypse vii (7. 3):
‘Quousque signemus seruos Dei nostri’, etc.
d) Quarto est signum congretiuum in preliis. Ysaye 13(. 2): Super montem
caliginosum leuate signum.

41
This ornament is also seen in W11 and W25.
42
D, fol. 29 r–v.
43
Signa Hester. quarto] in marg. D

Page 36
ORDER 2080059

BETWEEN ARTES PRAEDICANDI AND ACTUAL SERMONS 23

5/ Item legimus in scriptura quadruplicem disposicionem solis,44 id est

e) solis obscuracionem:45 Apoc. 6 (cf. Apocalypse 8. 12);
f) solis percussionem:46 ibidem capitulo 9 (cf. Apocalypse 8. 12);
g) solis reuersionem in orologio:47 R . (4 Kings 20. 11) et Ys 38(. 8);
h) solis stacionem in bello:48 Ios 10(. 12-13).
5/m/ Moraliter reddenda singula singulis dico.
a–e) Sic [primo] signum placacionis est in sole obscurato et designat Christi
aduentum in carnem.
b–f) Secundo signum saluacionis [est] in sole percusso [29 v] et designat Christi
aduentum in crucem.
c–g) Tercio signum distinctiuum est in sole reuertente 49 et designat aduentum
Christi in animum.50
d–h) Quarto signum congregatiuum est in sole stante et remanente 51 et designat
aduentum Christi in iudicium.
Et sic quadruplex Christi aduentus describitur plane et seriose in uerbo breui quod
est assumptum pro themate:52 Erunt signa in sole.53

(4/ But it has to be noted as the subject matter of the sermon that there are four signs in
Holy Scripture.
a) There is the sign of conciliation. Concerning this there is treatment in Esther
about the golden sceptre which the king held out as the sign of clemency.
b) Secondly, there is the sign of salvation. Concerning this there is treatment in
Ezechiel 9 about the sign Tau.
c) [There is] the Sign that distinguishes between status. Concerning this there is
treatment in Revelation 7: ‘Until we mark with a sign the servants of our God’.
d) Fourthly, there is the sign [i.e., banner] for assembling in battles. Isaias 13: ‘Lift
up the sign [i.e., banner] upon the dark mountain’.

44
Disposicionem solis quadruplex] in marg. D
45
1] in marg. D
46
2] in marg. D
47
3] in marg. D
48
4] in marg. D
49
reuertente ] corr. ex reuerte D reuertente B
50
animum] animum animum first one crossed out D
51
et remanente] not found B
52
describitur plane ... pro themate] plane discribitur (sic) cum dicitur B.
53
sole] sole et luna B

Page 37
ORDER 2080059

24 Yuichi Akae

5/ Likewise, we read in Scripture four dispositions of the sun, that is:

e) the darkening of the sun: Apc ch. 6
f) the eclipse of the sun: Apc ch. 9
g) the reversing of the sun in the sun dial: Rg et Isaias 38
h) the staying of the sun during war: Josue 10
5/m/ In moral terms I say one thing to be brought home for each point.
a–e) Thus [firstly] the sign of conciliation is in the darkened sun and it indicates
the coming of Christ into the flesh.
b–f) Secondly, the sign of salvation [is] in the eclipsed sun, and it indicates the
coming of Christ to the Cross.
c–g) Thirdly, the sign that distinguishes [between status] is in the sun moving
backwards, and it indicates the coming of Christ into a soul.
d–h) Fourthly, the sign for assembling [in battles] is in the sun not moving and
staying, and it indicates the coming of Christ in judgement.
And the four-fold coming of Christ is thus described plainly and effectively in a short
word which was adopted as the thema: There shall be signs in the sun)

Waldeby expands two words from the thema — signum and solis — separately
into four parts (a to d, and e to h),54 and then makes each of the four expanded
parts of one word (signum) correspond to one of the four of the other words
(solis) in turn. The resulting four combinations (a–e to d–h) form the four
principals of the sermon.55

The points of similarity between the sermon forms used by Basevorn and
Waldeby which have been seen above — and there are more, although it is not
possible to mention them all — are robust enough, I believe, to draw the
conclusion that they deal with one identical and specific type of the modern
sermon form, rather than just the general modern form. It is highly difficult to
prove this claim. There is a logical gap between being similar and being identical,
and to a large extent it is a matter of degree. What is now important is to assess the
degree of congruity between Waldeby and Basevorn’s sermon forms.

54
This amplification is what the ornament of Dilatation (see Appendix 1) achieves.
55
The passage quoted here from Sermon W14 forms a component called the Process
(processus) that is often used after the Confirmation of Parts. The Process is equivalent to divisio
ab extra in the terminology which Wenzel employs (Wenzel, Latin Sermon Collections, p. 12;
Wenzel, Preachers, Poets, and the Early English Lyric, p. 89).

Page 38
ORDER 2080059

BETWEEN ARTES PRAEDICANDI AND ACTUAL SERMONS 25

For this purpose it is useful to look at six marriage sermons from the thirteenth
century edited by David d’Avray. As noted above, they have the same thema as
Waldeby’s Sermon W20 and are among the most popular modern sermons
composed in the thirteenth century, being successful model sermons which many
preachers consulted when composing sermons for the same Sunday.
What is conspicuous about these thirteenth-century marriage sermons is that,
although they have the same thema, none of them divides the thema. The
comparison between Waldeby’s marriage sermon and that of Gérard de Mailly,
OP, shows the differences between them most clearly because both sermons are
concerned with the same two main subjects: bodily and spiritual marriage.56
Gérard’s sermon does not divide the thema; therefore there is neither a Division
of Parts nor a Declaration and Confirmation of Parts.57 This structural
characteristic is also found in all the other five sermons. The absence of these
components relating to the Division of the thema is highly significant, as I discuss
shortly.
The overall structure of the main body of Gérard’s sermon is essentially similar
to that of Waldeby’s and that discussed by Basevorn. Gérard’s sermon has four
principals, each subdivided into two to four subdivisions,58 and the other sermons
also have a similar structure: the same as that found in Waldeby’s sermon
collection.59
This simple comparison demonstrates that Basevorn’s ars, Waldeby’s sermons
and the six thirteenth-century marriage sermons share the general structure of the
modern sermon, which consists of the thema, an introductory section, and several
principals divided into subdivisions (that often include exempla). However, there
are important differences between the two groups: Basevorn-Waldeby on the one

56
Ed. and trans. by d’Avray in Medieval Marriage Sermons, pp. 247–73. The marriage sermon
of Pierre de Saint-Benoît, OM, uses similar ideas but much of his emphasis is on spiritual marriage
(pp. 209–25).
57
It does include a passage structurally equivalent to the Process (see n. 55, above) in
Waldeby’s sermons. Paragraph 2 of the sermon (d’Avray, Medieval Marriage Sermons, pp.
248–49): ‘2/1/ Docemur autem in presenti euuangelio quale debet esse matrimonium corporale
et etiam spirituale. /2/ Ad cuius euidentiam notandum quod sunt sunt 4 genera nuptiarum,
scilicet nuptie carnales, sacramentales, spirituales, eternales. /3/ Prime nuptie celebrantur in
prostibulo concupiscentie; /4/ secunde in tabernaculo ecclesie; /5/ tertie in thalamo conscientie;
/6/ quarte in palatio glorie’. D’Avray points out that Gérard may have borrowed this fourfold
schema of marriage from Pierre de Saint-Benoît (para. 2/1–2/: pp. 210–11).
58
Cf. the schema of the sermon (d’Avray, Medieval Marriage Sermons, pp. 227–28).
59
See Appendices 2 and 3, below.

Page 39
ORDER 2080059

26 Yuichi Akae

hand, and the thirteenth-century marriage sermons on the other hand. The
sermons in the latter group lack the Division of the thema and the Declaration
and Confirmation of Parts in their introductory sections. These three
components — the Division of the thema and the Declaration and Confirmation
of Parts — are particularly significant for Basevorn and Waldeby. When Basevorn
discusses the Division of the thema, he does not seem to consider the possibility
of modern sermons without such a division; he simply takes it for granted.60
Waldeby also clearly considers the inclusion of these components as the standard
procedure that has to be followed and, if he does not follow the procedure, he feels
it necessary to notify his readers/listeners. For example, in the sermon for the First
Sunday after Pentecost (W48), Waldeby omits the Confirmation of Parts, saying
‘The confirmation will be clear in the [following] discussion’.61 These examples,
found particularly in the introductory section of Waldeby’s sermons, show that
the rules of sermon composition as expounded by Basevorn are applied in
Waldeby’s sermons. Therefore, what is lacking in the thirteenth-century marriage
sermons is not only these components but also the sense of strictness shared by
Basevorn and Waldeby concerning this specific procedure of sermon composition.
This comparison makes the closeness of Waldeby and Basevorn even more
striking, while showing that the more general characteristics of their sermon
techniques are applicable to other sermons composed in the thirteenth century
and widely circulated.
D’Avray’s thirteenth-century preachers are clearly distinct from Basevorn and
Waldeby not only chronologically but also geographically and biographically.
These thirteenth-century preachers are mostly Parisian in terms of their training.
Given the structural distinctions between d’Avray’s thirteenth-century sermons
and those of Basevorn-Waldeby, and the proximity between Basevorn and
Waldeby in terms of their chronological, geographical, and biographical contexts,
it is now possible to argue that Basevorn and Waldeby’s sermon forms are
congruent and their works the product of the same intellectual milieu. This
connection is of more consequence than trying to establish whether or not
Waldeby read Basevorn’s text directly.

60
FP, chap. 33.
61
‘Confirmaciones patebunt in tractando’: D, fol. 116 r. Other examples are found, for
example in D, fol. 127 v (W54): ‘Auctoritates patebunt in tractando partes diuisionis’, and in D,
fol. 2v (W2).

Page 40
ORDER 2080059

BETWEEN ARTES PRAEDICANDI AND ACTUAL SERMONS 27

VI. Conclusion

The present investigation confirms the rehabilitation of artes praedicandi for

understanding techniques in sermon composition through a close textual
comparison of the Forma praedicandi of Robert of Basevorn and Waldeby’s
sermons in the Novum opus dominicale, although what can be said concerning the
two works discussed here does, of course, not necessarily apply to all the works of
the two genres (sermons and artes). The comparison has brought about greater
awareness of Waldeby’s compositional techniques and the considerations lying
behind the use of them, many of which are impossible to recognize simply by
reading his sermon texts themselves.
In addition, this study suggests potential areas of further study in the
chronological development and geographical distribution of modern sermon
forms. The rules for modern sermon composition shared by Basevorn and
Waldeby were slightly but distinctly different from those followed by major
thirteenth-century Parisian preachers, who were at the heart of the preaching
system of the mendicant friars.62 As seen above, Basevorn discusses both Parisian
and Oxonian methods in the fourteenth century. Waldeby’s Novum opus
dominicale uses both the Oxonian method (e.g., the Confirmation of Parts) and
the Parisian method (e.g., extensive use of figurae).63
Waldeby acquired his training in the art of preaching through the educational
system of the English Austin Friars and probably studied at the University of
Oxford. The reference books in the York Library include many works written at
or in connection with the University of Paris, such as the Sermones dominicales by
Guy d’Evreux, OP.64 Therefore, Waldeby’s use of techniques of the Parisian
method can be considered indirect evidence of the influence of that method over
the Oxonian method. Waldeby’s Novum opus dominicale can now be situated
within the mendicant preaching system with Paris at its summit. It is also
confirmed that the modern sermon form spread not only at a university level. The
rules of modern sermon composition, explained by Basevorn and practised by
Waldeby, were imparted by Waldeby in person and by his sermon collection to
his own friar-students at the Austin Friars at York, and probably elsewhere,
particularly among the Austin Friars in England.

62
D’Avray, Medieval Marriage Sermons; d’Avray, The Preaching of the Friars.
63
For the discussion of figurae, see Akae, ‘A Study of the Sermon Collection of John
Waldeby’, pp. 153–62.
64
Akae, ‘A Library for Preachers’, especially pp. 17, 25–26.

Page 41
ORDER 2080059

28 Yuichi Akae

Appendix 1: Twenty-two Ornaments of Sermon Listed by Robert of Basevorn

1. (Invention of) the thema (thematis inventio)

2. Capturing of attention (auditus allectio)
3. Prayer (oratio)
4. Introduction (introductio) a) Componential
5. Division (divisio) ornaments
6. Statement of the Parts (partium declaratio)
7. Confirmation of the Parts (partium confirmatio)

8. Dilatation (dilatatio)

9. Digression, which could be more properly b) Noncomponential

called Transition (digressio, quae magis ornaments
proprie posset vocari transitus)

10. Correspondence (correspondentia)

11. Congruence of Correspondence a) Componential
(correspondentiae congruentia) ornaments
12. Circuitous Development (circulatio) b) Noncomponential
13. Convolution (convolutio) ornaments
14. Unification (unitio)
a) Componential
15. Conclusion (clausio) ornaments

16. Colouration (coloratio)

17. Modulation of voice (vocis discretio)
18. Appropriate gesture (gestus convenientia)
19. Timely humour (opportuna jocatio)
c) Delivery-related
20. Allusion (allusio) ornaments
21. Firm impression (inculcatio)
22. Weighing of subject matter
(rei dicendae ponderatio)

Page 42
ORDER 2080059

BETWEEN ARTES PRAEDICANDI AND ACTUAL SERMONS 29

Appendix 2: Basevorn and Waldeby’s Sermon Structure

Introductory Section1

The thema
(Antethema as a specific technique)2
(Winning-over the audience)

(Prayer)
(Introduction)
The reiteration of the thema

The Division of the thema and Distinctions

Declarations of Parts
Confirmation of Parts
(Process)

Body3

Principal 1
Subdivision 1.1
Subdivision 1.2

Principal 2
Subdivision 2.1
Subdivision 2.2

Conclusion

1
Items in round brackets can be omitted.
2
Antethema as a prologue (can be omitted).
3
The number of principals and subdivisions varies.

Page 43
ORDER 2080059

30 Yuichi Akae

Appendix 3: The Schema of SermonW20 (omitting exempla)

Introductory Section

Thema: Nuptiae factae sunt.

Introduction
Division of the thema and Distinctions
Nuptiae a) the unbreakable chain
Factae sunt b) the bearable remedy
Declaration of Parts
Confirmation of Parts
Process 1) bodily marriage > Principal 1
2) spiritual marraige > Principal 2

Body

Principal 1: Bodily marriage

Subdivision 1.1: b) The marriage as the tolerable remedy
The observance of marriage has been tolerable and lawful
Subdivision 1.2: a) The marriage as the unbreakable chain
The breach of marriage deserves to be cursed and is full of danger

Principal 2: Spritual marriage as the contract between Christ and Christians

Spiritual marriage is quickly dissolved by sin, i.e., spiritual adultery
only to be recovered through the legal process of penitence
Subdivision 2.1: From water into wine = From the judgement (the court
process) of a confession and the justice (product of that process) of
satisfaction into mercy of forgiveness and into the commiseration of
divine consolation
>> Failing of spiritual marriage and its recovery through penitence as legal process
[b) marriage as the tolerable remedy]
Subdivision 2.2: The singing of angels = The condemnation of spiritual
adultery, i.e. sin, and for the perseverance in spiritual marriage with
Christ through penitence
>> Failing of spiritual marriage and its recovery through penitence as perseverance
[a) marriage as the unbreakable chain]

Page 44
ORDER 2080059

BETWEEN ARTES PRAEDICANDI AND ACTUAL SERMONS 31

Unification

Statement 1: Spiritual marriage between Christ and the penitent soul

Bodily marriage between a man and his lawful wife
= Each has the status of lawful and perfect condition
>>Emphasis on the legal aspects of marriage (Distinction b, Subdivisions 1.1 & 2.1)
Statement 2: Perseverance is necessary in bodily marriage as much as in
spiritual marriage
>>Emphasis on perseverance (Distinction a, Subdivisions 1.1 & 2.2)

Conclusion (a prayer)

Page 45