Scanned text contains errors.
nothing certain with regard either to his subsequent career or to the date of his death. In the chronicle of Ado (fl. a. d. 850) he is spoken of as the No-tarius of Pope Leo, and in some MISS, is styled Episcopus Rhegiensis (i. e. Ries in Provence), but ecclesiastical historians agree in believing that Prosper of Aquitaine had no claim to these titles.
The works usually ascribed to this writer may be divided into three classes: — I. Theological. II. Historical. III. Poetical.
I. theological.—1. Epistola ad Augustinum de Reliquiis Pelagianae Haereseos in Gallia. Written between A. d. 427—429, and considered of importance in affording materials for the history of Semipelagianism. 2. Epistola ad Rufinum de Gratia et Libero Arbitrio* Written while Augustin was still alive, and therefore not later than the middle of the year A. d. 430. 3. Pro Augustino Responsiones ad Capitula Objectionum Gallorum calumniantium. Written about a. D. 431. 4. Pro Augustini Doctrina Responsiones ad Capitula Objectionum Vincentianarum. Written, probably, soon after the preceding. 5. Pro Augustino Responsiones ad Excerpta quae de Genuensi Civitate sunt missa. Belonging to the same epoch as the two preceding. 6. De Gratia Dei et Libero Arbitrio Liber. In reply to the doctrines of Cassianus respecting Freewill, as laid down in the thirteenth of his Colla-tiones Patrum [CASsiANUsJ, whence the piece is frequently entitled De Gratia Dei adversus Collato-rem. Written about a. d. 432. 7. Psalmorum a C. usque ad CL. Expositio, assigned by the Benedictine editors to a. d. 433, but placed by Schoene-niann and others before a. d. 424. 8. Sententia-rum ex Operibus S. Augustini delibatarum Liber unus. Compiled about a. d. 451. The whole of the above will be found in the Benedictine edition of the works of Augustin ; the epistle is numbered ccxxv., and is placed immediately before another upon the same subject by Hilarius ; the remaining tracts are all included in the Appendix to vol. x.
The authenticity of the following is very doubtful:—1, Confessio. Sometimes ascribed to Prosper Aquitanicus, sometimes to Prosper Tiro. It was first published from a Vatican MS. by Sirmond (8vo. Par. 1619), in a volume containing also the Opuscula of Eugenius, bishop of Toledo, together with some poems by Dracontius and others. See also the collected works of Sirmond, Paris, 1696, vol. ii. p. 913. 2. De Vocatione Gentium Libri duo. Ascribed in some MSS. to Ambrose. Great diversity of opinion exists with regard to the real author. Erasmus would assign it to Eucherius, bishop of Lyons, Vossius to Hilarius Prosperi, Quesnel to Leo the Great. The whole question is fully discussed by Antelmius, in an essay, of which the title is given at the end of this article, and by the brothers Ballerini in their edition of the works of Leo, vol. ii. p. 662 [leo]. Those who assign it to Prosper suppose it to have been written about a. d. 440, while the Ballerini bring it down as low as 496. 3. Ad Sacram Virginem Demetria-dem Epistola s. De Plumilitate Christiana Tractatus, supposed to have been written about A. d. 440. It is placed among the letters of Ambrose (Ixxxiv.) in the earlier editions of that father, claimed for Prosper by Sotellus and Antelmius, chiefly on account of a real or fancied resemblance in style, and given by Quesnel to Leo the Great. See the edition of the works of Leo by the Ballerini, vol. ii. p. 743. 4. Praeteritorum Sedis Apostolicae
! Episcoporum Auctoritates de Gratia Dei et Libero Voluntatis Arbitrio. Believed to have been compiled about a. d. 431. It was first made known by Dionysius Exiguus who subjoined it to the Epistle of Coelestinus addressed to the bishops of Gaul. See the observations of the Ballerini in the edition of Leo, vol. ii. p. 719.
The following, although bearing the name of Prosper, are certainly spurious :—1. De Vita Con-templativa Libri ires. Composed, in all probability, as Sirmond has pointed out, by Julianus Pomerius, a Gaulish presbyter, who flourished at the close of the fifth century. (Gennad. de Virislll. 98 ; Isi-dor. de Script. Eccles. 12.) 2. De Promissionibus et Praedictionibus Dei. Referred to by Cassiodorus as the production of Prosper, but apparently the work of some African divine.
II. historical.—Two, perhaps we should say three, chronicles are extant bearing the name of Prosper. It will be convenient to describe them separately according to the titles by which they are usually discriminated.
1. Chronicon Consulare, extending from a. d. 379, the date at which the chronicle of Jerome ends, down to A. d. 455, the events being arranged according to the years of the Roman consuls. We find short notices with regard to the Roman emperors, the Roman bishops, and political occurrences in general, but the troubles of the Church are especially dwelt upon, and above all the Pelagian heresy. In the earlier editions this chronicle ended with the year a. d. 444, but appeared in its complete form in the Historiae Fran-corum Scriptores Coaetanei of Andrew Du Chesne, fol. Par. 1636—1649. Rosier infers from internal evidence, that it was originally brought down by Prosper to a. d. 433, and that subsequently two additions were made to it, either by himself or by some other hand, the one reaching to a. d. 444, the other to a. d. 455. We ought to observe also that, as might be expected in a work of this nature, we find it in some MSS. continued still further, while in others it is presented in a com-pressed and mutilated form.
2. Chronicon Imperially called also Chronicon Pithoeanum, because first made known by Peter Pithou, in 1588. It is comprehended within precisely the same limits as the preceding (a. d. 379—455), but the computations proceed according to the years of the Roman emperors, and not according to the consuls. While it agrees with the Chronicon Consulare in its general plan, it differs from it in many particulars, especially in the very brief allusions to the Pelagian controversy, and in the slight, almost disrespectful notices of Augustine. It is, moreover, much less accurate in its chronology, and is altogether to be regarded as inferior in authority.
The singular coincidence with regard to the period embraced by these two chronicles, a coincidence which, however, in some degree disappears if we adopt the hypothesis of Rosier, would lead us to believe that they proceeded from the same source ; but, on the other hand, the difference of arrangement, and the want of harmony in details, would lead to an opposite conclusion. Hence, while the greater number of critics agree in regarding Prosper Aquitanicus as the framer of the first, not a few are inclined to make over the second to Prosper Tiro, who, it is imagined, flourished in the sixth century. It must be remembered, at
N N 3