{"http:\/\/dx.doi.org\/10.14288\/1.0413616":{"http:\/\/vivoweb.org\/ontology\/core#departmentOrSchool":[{"value":"Arts, Faculty of","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"History, Department of","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/dataProvider":[{"value":"DSpace","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/creator":[{"value":"Li, Chenyang","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/issued":[{"value":"2022-05-16T17:11:23Z","type":"literal","lang":"en"},{"value":"2022-05-03","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/aggregatedCHO":[{"value":"https:\/\/circle.library.ubc.ca\/rest\/handle\/2429\/81565?expand=metadata","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2009\/08\/skos-reference\/skos.html#note":[{"value":"  Contrition and Emulation: Ambrose\u2019s De apologia prophetae David and Its Carolingian Reception By Chenyang Li   Course: HIST 449, Honours Graduating Essay Instructor: Dr. Robert Brain   A graduating thesis submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in  The Faculty of Arts History department    We accept this thesis as confirming to the required standard Supervisor: Dr. Courtney Booker  Committee Members: Dr. John Christopoulos and Dr. Shoufu Yin    University of British Columbia May 3, 2022 Table of Contents Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................ iii Introduction ........................................................................................................................... 1 The Carolingian Renaissance and the Remembrance of Theodosius\u2019s Penance ................ 2 Historiography on the Two Penances ..................................................................................... 4 Research Focus and Chapter Outline ..................................................................................... 5 Chapter 1 ............................................................................................................................... 9 The Penitential Psalms, Penance, and Parrhesia in the Fourth Century ................................. 9 The \u201cPenitential\u201d Psalms: Their Designation and Content ................................................ 10 The Penitential Psalms: Imitation ......................................................................................... 12 A New David ............................................................................................................................ 14 Penance: Redemptive Readmission ....................................................................................... 15 Parrhesia: Admiration for Boldness ...................................................................................... 18 Ambrose\u2019s Innovation: A Spiritual Advisor ........................................................................ 20 Chapter 2 ............................................................................................................................. 22 The Apologia prophetae David and the Apologia David altera .............................................. 22 Dating of the Two Defenses .................................................................................................... 23 Summary of the Second Defense ............................................................................................ 24 Summary of the First Defense ................................................................................................ 30 Chapter 3 ............................................................................................................................. 36 The Ninth-Century Penitential Context and the Carolingian Remembrance of Ambrose ...... 36 Longing for the Classical ........................................................................................................ 36 Remembrance of Ambrose: His Words and Deeds ............................................................. 38 The Two Penances of Louis the Pious ................................................................................... 42 Chapter 4 ............................................................................................................................. 46 The Carolingian Reception of Ambrose\u2019s Defenses of David ................................................ 46 Ambrosian Sovereignty .......................................................................................................... 46 Imitating David ....................................................................................................................... 48 Sovereign Accountability and Divine Punishment .............................................................. 50 The Bishop as medicus ............................................................................................................ 52   ii Heeding the Doctors\u2019 Advice .................................................................................................. 53 Emulation of Ambrose ............................................................................................................ 54 Epilogue ............................................................................................................................... 58 On Penance .............................................................................................................................. 60 Bibliography ........................................................................................................................ 63 Primary Sources ...................................................................................................................... 63 Secondary Sources .................................................................................................................. 65      iii Acknowledgements  This thesis would not be possible without the support of many people.  First, I would like to thank Dr. Courtney Booker for his greatly appreciated help. Thank you, Dr. Booker, for your engaging lectures, for your office hours, and for your meticulous edits that have helped me throughout my undergraduate years. Thank you for encouraging me to apply to the Honours Program, for enduring my procrastination and my illogical early drafts that were bizarrely off topic. Thank you for steering me in the right direction, for editing every version of every chapter of this thesis, even correcting hundreds of footnotes. This thesis simply would not exist without your consistent help and support, and I can never express my thankfulness enough. It is my greatest honor to have finished this project with you. Thank you for your patience and kindness! Most of all, thank you for showing me what it means to be a scholar.  To my professors and my cohort. Thanks to Dr. Robert Brain, Dr. Kelly McCormick, and Dr. Leslie Paris for facilitating great seminars, for your feedback and encouragement. To Dr. Clayton Ashton for your light-hearted classes and your support. To my cohort and Calvin, for your helpful criticisms and questions, and for your continuous encouragement.  To my friends. To Calvin Lin, Luna Liu, and Luyu Chen, for the conversations that kept me cheerful, thanks for the happy times. Special thanks to Lucas and his family for sheltering me for years during the pandemic, and for showering me with love, support, and first-class food. Thank you for your kindness, for devoting your time to me, and for being my friends and family in Canada. It is my pleasure and honor to have known you all.  Lastly, I would like to extend my deepest gratitude to my family, you have made everything possible for me. I want to thank my grandparents maternal, for listening to me talking   iv endlessly of Dr. Booker\u2019s classes and the Carolingians from first year, for always trusting me in my decisions and allowing me to do what I want. Thank you for your understanding when I go to my own retreat and do not call for weeks. I am sorry that I was not able to be with you and rest beside you for years, but I want you to know that your continuous support and trust in me are the forces that drive me on. To Ling. Thank you for your kindness, for taking care of me throughout the months so that I could relax after working and studying. Thank you for teaching me discipline, love, manner, and a kernel of myself that had been unknown to me. These months have introduced many ups and downs into my life, thank you for shattering the ridiculously childish barriers that I had placed between myself and the world. Thank you for your admonitio. To my parents. Because of your sacrifices, I had the privilege to be oblivious of anything other than my studies until this semester. I could never express my gratitude towards you for creating a fortress to keep me from the turmoil, for letting me indulge in my studies and my little happiness, for supporting me in every decision I make, and for loving me unconditionally and anxiously every second and every minute. Thanks to my father for deliberating and planning for me, giving me the financial freedom to explore. To my mother for calming me at 3 a.m., for tolerating my temper with kindness, and for helping me to build trust in myself.  Finally, I want to take this opportunity to thank everyone, listed and unlisted, for helping me reach the end of my thesis and the end of my undergraduate life. Thank you.     1 Introduction In 390, the Roman Emperor Theodosius (347\u2013395), infuriated over the murder of his general Butherich in Thessalonica, commanded his troops to slaughter the city\u2019s population for three hours in reprisal. Ambrose (339\u2013397), the bishop of Milan, stepped forward to privately reprimand the emperor for this massacre with a letter and an exegetical text on Psalm 50.1 In the past, the bishop often held the emperor\u2019s favorable attention and had sometimes even preached at court with Theodosius himself as the audience; perhaps emboldened by the success of these previous interactions, Ambrose now complained in his letter that the emperor had infringed on the bishop\u2019s \u201cnatural right\u201d to participate in the inner circle of the imperial government. He then conveyed the Christian community\u2019s collective lament and disapproval of the massacre, and even dared to excommunicate Theodosius until such time that the emperor would humiliate himself publicly: he should undertake the ritual of penance to acknowledge his sin and reconcile himself with God.2 When the recalcitrant emperor referred to the crimes of the biblical King David in his defense, Ambrose replied that since Theodosius had imitated David in his fall, he should now follow David in his rise.3 Furthermore, as the priest Nathan had effectively persuaded King David to perform a public penance, Ambrose now assumed the role of Nathan in his letter of exhortation to Theodosius as he urged the latter to remit his iniquity like David\u2014with unrelenting contrition and perpetual penance. Ambrose attached to this audacious letter a  1 Irene van Renswoude, The Rhetoric of Free Speech in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 91. For evidence confirming that the exegesis is dedicated to Theodosius, see Ambrose, Apologie de David, ed. Pierre Hadot and Marius Cordier, Sources Chr\u00e9tiennes 239 (Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1977), 37\u201341. For discussions on Ambrose\u2019s previous initiatives that had angered Theodosius, see Renswoude, The Rhetoric of Free Speech, 98\u2013106. 2 Ambrose, \u201cLetter on the Massacre at Thessalonica (390),\u201d in Ambrose of Milan: Political Letters and Speeches, trans. John Hugo Wolfgang Gideon Liebeschuetz (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005), 265\u201367.  3 Paulinus of Milan, The Life of Saint Ambrose: A Translation of the Vita Sancti Ambrosii, trans. Mary Simplicia Kaniecka, Christian Roman Empire Series, vol. 13 (Merchantville, NJ: Evolution Publishing, 2019), 26.   2 commentary on Psalm 50 (one of the seven \u201cPenitential Psalms\u201d: nos. 6, 31, 37, 50, 101, 129, and 142), entitled De apologia prophetae David, in which he further highlights David\u2019s repentance and the recovery of his royal dignity, arguing that \u201c[King David\u2019s] fall is ordinary, but his confession is exceptional.\u201d4 Addressing a delicate situation with both shrewdness and boldness, Ambrose used his letter and commentary to achieve his aims. Ambrose was successful in his admonition. In a funeral oration that Ambrose dedicated to Theodosius, for instance, he reveals that the emperor had \u201cabstain[ed] from participation in the sacraments, abandon[ed] his imperial procession in full regalia, and we[pt] publicly.\u201d5 Furthermore, just like King David, who derived his power from his penance and his recognition of his powerlessness before God, Theodosius and his royal dignity were not diminished by his public self-abasement.6 Ambrose praised Theodosius as the most august and glorious emperor, and confirmed that his humility allowed him to attain salvation. Later generations would also remember Theodosius in a good light, respecting him for having exemplified ideal kingship and having fashioned himself as a new David.7  The Carolingian Renaissance and the Remembrance of Theodosius\u2019s Penance  Besides attempting to revive Christian Roman penitential traditions, the Carolingians also admired the actions of Theodosius and Ambrose as demonstrative of the quintessential  4 Ambrose, Apologie de David, ed. Hadot and Cordier, 92: \u201clapsus communis, sed specialis confessio.\u201d 5 Ambrose, \u201cOration on the Death of Theodosius I (395),\u201d in Ambrose of Milan: Political Letters and Speeches, trans. John Hugo Wolfgang Gideon Liebeschuetz (Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005), 193. 6 Lynn Staley, \u201cThe Penitential Psalms: Conversion and the Limits of Lordship,\u201d Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 37, no. 2 (2007): 248. 7 Ambrose, \u201cOration on the Death of Theodosius I (395),\u201d 190; H\u00e9l\u00e8ne Yagello, \u201cHistoire, ex\u00e9g\u00e8se et politique: L\u2019apologie de David d\u2019Ambroise de Milan et les Carolingiens,\u201d Sources: Revue de l\u2019Association Histoire au pr\u00e9sent 49\u201350 (1999): 110.   3 relationship between a sovereign and bishop. During the late eighth and ninth centuries, Charlemagne initiated a host of educational, religious, and cultural reforms to enhance the clergy\u2019s intellectual quality and raise the level of religious instruction within his realm (part of a program known more generally as the \u201cCarolingian Renaissance\u201d). Among the various reform initiatives, a special emphasis was placed on the salutary effects of penance, as well as on the clarification of episcopal duties. One consequence of the Carolingians\u2019 increased interest in penance was the recognition of a now-problematic diversity of penitential traditions in use throughout the realm. In response, Carolingian ecclesiastics sought to achieve uniformity among the various ritual forms by only accepting Roman provenance as a guarantee for authenticity of any given penitential text.8 As part of their re-examination of and esteem for Roman culture of late antiquity, these same ecclesiastics understood Theodosius as the model Christian emperor, and regarded Ambrose\u2019s bold remonstration as that of an ideal bishop properly exercising his duties.9  The Carolingian familiarity with Ambrose, his commentary, and his encounter with Theodosius could have influenced Frankish emperor Louis the Pious (778\u2013840),to undertake his two public penances. Through scrupulous analyses of the transmission and reception of Ambrose\u2019s letter and exegesis of Psalm 50, scholars such as Irene van Renswoude have demonstrated that many among the literate and learned in the ninth century were familiar with Ambrose, Theodosius, and the latter\u2019s penance. Certain scholars have also suggested that the remembrance of Theodosius\u2019s penance may have influenced Louis the Pious to repent in 822 to appease God through confession and fasting, almsgiving and prayers.10  8 Rob Meens, Penance in Medieval Europe, 600\u20131200 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014), 123. 9 Renswoude, The Rhetoric of Free Speech, 196. 10 Renswoude, The Rhetoric of Free Speech, 197; Yagello, \u201cHistoire, ex\u00e9g\u00e8se et politique,\u201d 111.   4 The Carolingian bishops allied with the rebellion may also have followed the Ambrosian legacy by pushing for the second penance of Louis in 833. Due to Louis\u2019s sons\u2019 discontent with the emperor\u2019s arrangements for his succession, they raised two rebellions in the 830s and forced their father to submit to another public penance in 833. H\u00e9l\u00e8ne Yagello argues that since many Carolingian clerics had been working to restore the \u201cancient\u201d public penance of Theodosius\u2019s era, they were influenced by Ambrose\u2019s commentary on Psalm 50 in their admonition of Louis, for they appear to have emulated the steps that Ambrose had taken against Theodosius.11  Historiography on the Two Penances Several modern scholars have focused on the memory and reception of Theodosius\u2019s penance in later centuries. Sarah Hamilton has compared Ambrose\u2019s Apologia David to an eleventh-century vita and discussed Ambrose\u2019s influence on later authors\u2019 representations of pious kingship, while H\u00e9l\u00e8ne Yagello has succinctly examined the ninth-century interpretations of Ambrose\u2019s commentary on Psalm 50.12 Mayke de Jong has articulated the importance of the confrontation between Ambrose and Theodosius in the ninth century by showing that the Carolingians admired the event as being demonstrative of both how a bishop should exercise his office, and how an emperor should undertake voluntary penance to purge himself of sin and redeem himself in the eyes of God.13  Modern scholarship has also offered different interpretations of Louis\u2019s penance in 833, and related the Carolingian bishops\u2019 efforts of pushing for Louis\u2019s penance to their  11 Yagello, \u201cHistoire, ex\u00e9g\u00e8se et politique,\u201d 111. 12 Sarah Hamilton, \u201cA New Model for Royal Penance? Helgaud of Fleury\u2019s Life of Robert the Pious,\u201d Early Medieval Europe 6, no. 2 (2003): 189\u2013200; Yagello, \u201cHistoire, ex\u00e9g\u00e8se et politique.\u201d 13 Mayke de Jong, The Penitential State: Authority and Atonement in the Age of Louis the Pious, 814\u2013840 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 118, 122.   5 understanding of the duty of their episcopal office. Mayke de Jong adopts an approach that treats the political and religious implications of Louis\u2019s penance in 833 among his contemporaries, while Courtney Booker offers an analysis of the competing contemporaneous medieval narratives of the penance, and traces the legacy of these interpretations in medieval and modern memory.14 In particular, De Jong and Booker have looked closely at Carolingian discussions of the duties of the episcopal office, and have demonstrated the rise of an episcopal \u201cself-consciousness\u201d during the reign of Louis the Pious. According to De Jong, both Carolingian kingship and the Carolingian episcopal office entail \u201csublime authority and heavy responsibility\u201d\u2014both offices require the \u201csteering [of the] people towards salvation,\u201d and being accountable for the people\u2019s iniquities before God.15 This idea of an office\u2019s authority and responsibility was shared by Louis and his rebel sons\u2019 bishops, who often cited passages from the Old Testament book of Ezekiel to admonish others of the consequences of negligence.16 For example, the rebel bishops staunchly stated that since Louis had committed a sin, their silence and dissimulation would violate the duty of their episcopal office and result in God exacting his terrible vengeance upon everyone.17   Research Focus and Chapter Outline Brian Dunkle\u2019s recent English translation of Ambrose\u2019s two commentaries on the penitential fiftieth Psalm have provided the opportunity to examine the nature and degree of their influence on Louis the Pious\u2019s penances. Despite a growing number of detailed analyses on the  14 De Jong, The Penitential State; Courtney M. Booker, Past Convictions: The Penance of Louis the Pious and the Decline of the Carolingians (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009). 15 De Jong, The Penitential State, 37, 115. 16 De Jong, The Penitential State, 79; Booker, Past Convictions, 140, 142. 17 Booker, Past Convictions, 142.   6 prominent significance of penance in Carolingian Europe, the reception of Ambrose\u2019s penitential exegesis, De apologia prophetae David, has not yet been carefully considered within the Carolingian context. While the Latin critical edition of Ambrose\u2019s commentaries is available, I will not undertake a philological examination of the Latin texts.18 Rather, I will adopt a formalist approach and use Dunkle\u2019s English translations of De apologia prophetae David and Apologia David altera to focus on the poetics of the two texts.19 I hope to offer new perspectives that emphasize the importance of Ambrose\u2019s text beyond its theological prominence: to recognize the De apologia prophetae David as exemplary or demonstrative\u2014from an episcopal point of view\u2014of the correct relationships that should obtain among the lay sovereign, the clergy, and God. I will attempt to uncover how Carolingian understandings of the performative component of the Penitential Psalms and their perceived effects, in combination with the awareness of both Ambrose\u2019s texts and the penance of Theodosius, could have contributed to or even have inspired Louis the Pious to undertake his own public penances. Overall, my study seeks to examine how both the Carolingian fixation on penance and the Penitential Psalms, and their insistence on the supposedly ancient Roman, and thus \u201ccorrect,\u201d method of engagement with such texts, informed the performance and meaning of Theodosius\u2019s and Louis\u2019s penances.  Chapter One and Two focus on Ambrose\u2019s exegesis and its late fourth-century penitential context. In Chapter One, I will review the value and significance of the Penitential Psalms, penance, and the rhetorical practice of parrhesia (frank speech) in the fourth century to contextualize the objectives of Ambrose\u2019s exegesis. I will then discuss the multivalent effects of fourth-century penitential rituals for both the punishment of secular offenses and the  18 Ambrose, Apologie de David, ed. Hadot and Cordier. 19 Ambrose, Treatises on Noah and David, trans. Brian Dunkle (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2020).   7 reintegration of sinners back into the Christian community. Underscoring the importance of Ambrose\u2019s exegesis to Theodosius\u2019s undertaking penance, I will show how Ambrose linked the philosopher\u2019s practice of parrhesia with the priest\u2019s ministerial duty, thereby holding himself\u2014a \u201cphilosopher-bishop\u201d\u2014doubly accountable for admonishing Theodosius. Chapter Two presents a summary of Ambrose\u2019s exegesis of Psalm 50, a work of commentary that he appears to have written in two versions at slightly different times. I will demonstrate that both texts underscore the imitability of David\u2019s penance, the importance of listening to a priest\u2019s advice, and that a king shall always be held accountable as the steward of a realm entrusted to him by God.   Chapter Three and Four discuss the Carolingian penitential context, the Carolingian remembrance of Ambrose, and the possible influence and use of Ambrose\u2019s exegesis in the ninth century. The third chapter first describes the Carolingian longing for a return of Roman late antique practices and traditions during the historical context of the Carolingian Renaissance, exemplified in their reviving the use of the Penitential Psalms and in their emulation of the fourth-century penitential rituals. It then suggests that the ninth century held Ambrose in high esteem based on their citation of or reference to Ambrose and his works, and concludes with a recounting of the historical context leading to Louis\u2019s two penances. Chapter Four discusses the influence of the main ideas of Ambrose\u2019s Defenses in the ninth century, specifically in the context of Louis\u2019s penances. The first section compares the similarities between Ambrose\u2019s ideas and Louis\u2019s moral reforms, and suggests that Louis could have conducted his first penance in 822 in accordance with Ambrose\u2019s teaching and in emulation of Theodosius. The second section proposes that the rebel bishops may have used Ambrose\u2019s ideas to provide justifications for their bold admonition. It then concludes with a comparison of the accounts of Louis\u2019s, David\u2019s, and Theodosius\u2019s penances, to suggest that the Carolingian bishops also sought to emulate   8 Ambrose\u2019s actions to provide examples for future generations. Lastly, this thesis will end with a brief epilogue discussing other possible research opportunities in relation to the Defenses.      9 Chapter 1 The Penitential Psalms, Penance, and Parrhesia in the Fourth Century     Using parrhesia (frank speech) and his exegesis on the Penitential Psalms, Ambrose of Milan reprimanded Roman emperor Theodosius and effectively persuaded him to undertake a public penance in 390.20 Historians during the Middle Ages long recognized Ambrose as an exemplary bishop for having done so. Sozomen (400\u2013450), a Roman church historian, recounted how Ambrose\u2019s public rebuke even attracted the admiration of Theodosius himself, while other contemporaneous historians and chroniclers held this incident as exemplifying the ideal relationship between a bishop and an emperor.21 What has arguably made Ambrose appear admirable was his extreme boldness in articulating his concerns, fearlessly speaking truth to power, and his success in convincing Theodosius to publicly confess his sins for the purpose of reconciling himself with the people and receiving communion from the Church again. During their encounters, Ambrose diligently fulfilled his episcopal duties by supplying the emperor with sincere advice and admonition. Although Ambrose did not block Theodosius at the church gates to reproach him publicly, as Sozomen would recount dramatically, Ambrose did successfully persuade Theodosius to repent by guiding the emperor privately with a long letter, to which Ambrose also attached his exegesis on the \u201cMiserere mei,\u201d the penitential fiftieth psalm.22   20 Renswoude, The Rhetoric of Free Speech, 5. 21 Sozomen, Historia Ecclesiastica, VII, 25, ed. Joseph Bidez and G\u00fcnther Christian Hansen, trans. Chester D. Hartranft, Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church 2 (Oxford: Parker, 1891), 394; Renswoude, The Rhetoric of Free Speech, 88, 97. 22 Peter Brown, Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1992), 10.   10    The present chapter surveys the fourth-century use of the Penitential Psalms, penance, and parrhesia as elements of contemporaneous penitential discourse. To better understand Ambrose\u2019s strategy of practicing parrhesia and using his commentary on Psalm 50 to persuade Theodosius to undertake a public penance, it is crucial to investigate what the Psalms, penance, and parrhesia meant in Ambrose\u2019s time. The following sections will lay the groundwork for this investigation. I will first review the creation of the \u201cPenitential\u201d Psalms and discuss their instructional and ritual use by ecclesiastics. I will then turn to one of the goals for which these psalms were used: persuading people to perform penance. That is, I will comment on the redemptive, reconciliatory, disciplinary, and dramatic effects of the penitential ritual. Finally, I will explore parrhesia\u2014Ambrose\u2019s rhetorical technique for persuading Theodosius to perform penance\u2014by investigating its meaning and use in late antiquity. I will then discuss Ambrose\u2019s originality in combining the practice of frank speech with episcopal responsibilities to achieve his immediate goals.   The \u201cPenitential\u201d Psalms: Their Designation and Content The content of the Psalms is primarily concerned with the fall and subsequent rise of King David of Israel. David committed adultery with Bathsheba, a married woman, after he had seen her bathing from the roof of his house. After murdering Bathsheba\u2019s husband and marrying Bathsheba himself, David was reproached by the prophet Nathan, a priest sent by God to reprimand David for his egregious sins. Upon meeting Nathan, David admitted his sins and   11 repented with tears.23 Through his remorseful confession and repentance, David regained his favorable position with God and was honored over the centuries as the ideal king and just man. Late antique Christians identified seven psalms as a specific group relating to penance. Origen of Alexandria (184\u2013253), a Christian theologian, was the first to notice the common theme of penance among seven particular psalms.24 Three centuries later, Cassiodorus (485\u2013585), a renowned Roman statesman and scholar, formed the subcollection of the Penitential Psalms by singling out seven inconsecutive psalms from the Psalter: nos. 6, 31 (32), 37 (38), 50 (51) the \u201cMiserere mei,\u201d 101 (102), 129 (130) the \u201cDe profundis,\u201d and 142 (143).25 However, although Cassiodorus, in his exegetical work Expositio Psalmorum, was the first commentator who made this designation of select psalms explicit, he repeatedly stated that he had \u201cinherited\u201d rather than \u201cestablished\u201d the grouping.26 Consequently, scholars have argued that the creation of the specific collection of \u201cpenitential psalms\u201d occurred sometime more generally between the third and the sixth century. Furthermore, the different numbering of the psalms is a result of different translation versions of the Psalter. Unsatisfied with the version of the Latin Bible based on the Greek Septuagint translation, the trilingual Church Father Jerome (347\u2013420) translated the Hebrew Bible directly into Latin (the version later known as the Vulgate), and in the process combined Hebrew Psalms 9 and 10 into Vulgate Psalm 9, while dividing the Hebrew Psalm 147  23 Ruth Mazo Karras and Alastair Minnis, Medieval Theory of Authorship: Scholastic Literary Attitudes in the Later Middle Ages (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011), 105. 24 Michael S. Driscoll, \u201cThe Seven Penitential Psalms: Their Designation and Usages from the Middle Ages Onwards,\u201d Ecclesia Orans 17 (2000): 153. 25 Robert M. Kellerman, \u201cMiserere Mei: Penitential Psalms and Lyrics in English Literature, 1300\u20131650\u201d (Ph.D. diss., Michigan State University, 1997), 3; E. Ann Matter, \u201cPetrarch\u2019s Personal Psalms (Psalmi Penitentiales),\u201d in Petrarch, ed. Victoria Kirkham and Armando Maggi (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009), 219, 427. Driscoll, \u201cThe Seven Penitential Psalms,\u201d 154. 26 Annie Sutherland, \u201cPerforming the Penitential Psalms in the Middle Ages,\u201d in Aspects of the Performative in Medieval Culture, ed. Manuele Gragnolati and Almut Suerbaum (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010), 20; Kellerman, \u201cMiserere Mei,\u201d 4; Clare Costley King\u2019oo, Miserere Mei: The Penitential Psalms in Late Medieval and Early Modern England (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2012), 5.   12 into Vulgate 146 and 147. All references to the Psalms in this thesis will be according to the Latin Vulgate version, and will refer to \u201cMiserere mei\u201d as Psalm 50.  The Penitential Psalms: Imitation   Late antique authors were familiar with the Penitential Psalms and focused more on their enlightening ethical effects, despite the Psalms\u2019 ornate rhetorical elements. Although the seven Penitential Psalms were not specifically designated for recitation during the period of Lent until the twelfth century, Christians had been well-acquainted with them since late antiquity, for theologians and preachers had long been advocating since that time for their liturgical and penitential use.27 In his Confessions, an autobiographical work recounting his spiritual exploration and self-scrutiny, the great Church Father Augustine (354\u2013430) demonstrates his period\u2019s familiarity with this group of psalms. Besides quoting extensively from the Penitential Psalms, Augustine confirms that the Psalms are \u201csung throughout the whole world.\u201d28 Furthermore, even as one who was mindful of the power of rhetoric, Augustine could not help but admit that the Davidic psalms \u201cenkindled him\u201d with words \u201choneyed with\u2026 luminous [divine] light,\u201d as he strained his ears to hear their delightful \u201cmelody.\u201d29 Yet, despite their exquisite, seductive form, the Penitential Psalms also evince strong ethical values that aim to elicit emotionally edifying responses from their audience.30 Cassiodorus, for instance, praised the  27 Kellerman, \u201cMiserere Mei,\u201d 4; Staley, \u201cThe Penitential Psalms,\u201d 222; King\u2019oo, Miserere Mei, 13, 14. 28 Augustine, Confessions, 9.4.8, ed. George Stade, trans. Albert C. Outler and Mark Vessey (New York: Barnes and Noble, 2007), 113.  29 Augustine, Confessions, 4.15.27; 9.4.11, trans. Outler and Vessey, 51, 114. 30 Michael P. Kuczynski, Prophetic Song: The Psalms as Moral Discourse in Late Medieval England (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995), xvi.   13 reading of the Penitential Psalms as taking \u201cheavenly honey,\u201d but also maintained that they were spiritually rich beneath their elaborate and captivating rhetorical cloak.31   To achieve their desired ethical effects, the Psalms build up an emotional climax, eliciting the reader\u2019s passionate feelings and responses, in order to move them to imitation and contrition.32 According to E. Ann Matter, the Penitential Psalms heighten the reader\u2019s emotions up to the central piece, Psalm 50, which reaches its crescendo by featuring a speaker remorsefully repenting and imploring God to have mercy on him.33 Augustine himself remarked that after reading the Psalms, he \u201ctrembled with fear\u201d in recognizing his own sinful love of vanity and falsehood, and spoke \u201cloudly and earnestly\u201d of his contrition.34 Augustine was \u201cwarmed with hope\u201d of rejoicing in God after reading the Psalms, as he believed that God\u2019s mercy would grant him salvation after he repented like David.35  The Penitential Psalms were also used in late antique and early medieval schools as models for writing and for behavior. They were employed as a formal written exercise by which beginners would take their first steps toward learning and internalizing various rhetorical tropes and figures. But the study of the Psalms had a greater purpose than merely serving as a model for rhetorical training.36 Christians studied the Psalms\u2019 moral lessons and respected David as a prophetic teacher, who had connected his personal repentance for his sins with his social responsibility as a king, leading his people by setting an example with his morally righteous  31 Driscoll, \u201cThe Seven Penitential Psalms,\u201d 155. 32 Matter, \u201cPetrarch\u2019s Personal Psalms,\u201d 220. 33 Matter, \u201cPetrarch\u2019s Personal Psalms,\u201d 220. 34 Augustine, Confessions, 9.4.9, trans. Outler and Vessey, 113. 35 Augustine, Confessions, 9.4.11, trans. Outler and Vessey, 114. 36 Kuczynski, Prophetic Song, xix.   14 behavior.37 More than just a text to be studied, the Penitential Psalms were a guide for action, as their readers were meant to emulate their content\u2014like David, they were to feel both ashamed of their transgressions and encouraged to repent and behave righteously.38  A New David Theologians of the fourth and fifth centuries reached a consensus that, besides providing the Christian community with a penitential model, the essence of the Davidic story lies in its heroism that was worthy of emulation. As Lynn Staley observes, Latin authors of the early medieval West such as Ambrose, Augustine, Cassiodorus, and Alcuin all shared a common interest in the language of penitential discourse.39 David was the perfect model for penance, adds Kevin Uhalde, not only because that king demonstrated the positive outcome of being a sincere penitent, but also because his words and deeds provided moral sentiments and a unified language to move the entire Christian community to introspection and contrition.40 Augustine, for example, preached to his congregation that, while Nathan the prophet had not been sent to them, it was David who had been sent\u2014a contrite and penitent king with whom everyone should moan, weep, and finally \u201cshare his delight\u201d together.41   37 Kuczynski, Prophetic Song, xvii, xx. 38 Kuczynski, Prophetic Song, xx; Lawrence M. Clopper, Drama, Play, and Game: English Festive Culture in the Medieval and Early Modern Period (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001); O. B. Hardison, Jr., Christian Rite and Christian Drama in the Middle Ages: Essays in the Origin and Early History of Modern Drama (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1965); Sutherland, \u201cPerforming the Penitential Psalms,\u201d 20. 39 Staley, \u201cThe Penitential Psalms,\u201d 222.  40 Kevin Uhalde, \u201cJuridical Administration in the Church,\u201d in A New History of Penance, ed. Abigail Firey (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 124. 41 Uhalde, \u201cJuridical Administration in the Church,\u201d 114; Augustine, Enarrationes in Psalmos 50, ed. Eligius Edkkers and Johannes Fraipont, CCSL 38 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1956), 602.    15 In his commentary on Psalm 50, Ambrose connected David with Christ\u2019s incarnation, hoping thereby to persuade Theodosius to imitate David. Ambrose normalizes David\u2019s sin as a commonality of human nature, and made a typological connection between King David and Christ, maintaining the belief that David is the incarnation of Christ.42 Ambrose underscores that Christ assumed the body of an adulterer only because he wished to teach the wicked about the way of piety and to convert the impious.43 Within the story of Psalm 50, the prophet Nathan reprimanded David and showed him the proper means to repent; beyond Psalm 50, David\/Christ attempted to preach the faith to the wicked. Here, Ambrose may also have been speaking allusively to Theodosius about the recent massacre at Thessalonica: when Ambrose, by way of his rhetorical skills, downplays David\u2019s transgressions, he may thereby be downplaying Theodosius\u2019s recent sin\u2014like David, the emperor had been motivated by human nature. And when Ambrose extols the penance of David, exclaiming that \u201clater rulers\u201d should have imitated David to avoid the experience of \u201cbitter war\u201d and cleanse their sins with penance, he may also, through the same implicit comparison, be advising Theodosius to govern his passion and thereby turn his sinful massacre into an elevated manifestation of piety\u2014to be the \u201cNew David.\u201d44 Undertaking a public penance was to be the method of this transformation.  Penance: Redemptive Readmission    Accounts of late antique penance not only stress the importance of the ritual\u2019s publicity, but also demonstrate the contemporaneous attention given its performative aspect. Although the  42 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d in Treatises on Noah and David, trans. Brian Dunkle (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2020), 114\u201317. 43 Brian Dunkle, \u201cIntroduction,\u201d in Treatises on Noah and David (Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2020), 146, 149. 44 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 120.   16 notion of sin originated in Judaism, Christians used it to construct a penitential discourse.45 Claiming that \u201call human beings sinned [and] all [should] make reparation,\u201d the early Church used a discursive language of transgression and forgiveness to create a cohesive community that was to work toward the common goal of attaining salvation.46 Penance was believed to be the way to remit one\u2019s sins for their souls\u2019 salvation. Tertullian (155\u2013220), an early Christian apologist, was the first person to describe the ritual of public penance. He had demonstrated that neither sin nor reparation was a personal matter, as both involved\u2014whether directly or indirectly\u2014the entire Christian community.47 During Christian gatherings, the \u201cpenitent\u201d had to dress in sackcloth and ashes, prostrate himself before the priests in humiliation, and thereafter live on a restricted diet in the hope of meriting reconciliation with his congregation.48 Tertullian\u2019s description, though perhaps not accurately reflecting his contemporary reality, displays what he believed to be his period\u2019s central attitudes and concerns regarding penance: its publicity and performativity.49  Late antique penance also focused on reconciliation and readmission. It was understood to be an honorable, solemn procedure that demonstrated the penitent\u2019s devotion and consisted of a series of events, including public confession, bishops\u2019 remonstrations, and a public performance of humiliation and tears. While excommunication\u2014a priest\u2019s or a bishop\u2019s official exclusion of someone from participating in the sacramental rites of the Church\u2014was the most  45 Brown, Power and Persuasion, 68. 46 Brown, Power and Persuasion, 68. 47 Tertullian, Tertullian: Treatises on Penance: On Penitence and On Purity, trans. William P. Le Saint, (Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1958), 86\u201387. 48 Kellerman, \u201cMiserere Mei,\u201d 116; Meens, Penance in Medieval Europe, 16; Brown, Power and Persuasion, 68; Tertullian, Tertullian, trans. Le Saint, 86, 87. 49 Claudia Rapp, Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013), 78; Uhalde, \u201cJuridical Administration in the Church,\u201d 102.   17 extreme form of alienation in Christianity, the early Church put considerable efforts into readmitting penitents, even if they were excommunicated.50 Readmission was undoubtedly the highlight of the whole penitential ritual. Rather than an unbearably humiliating process, penance provided the excommunicated with a dignified and edifying opportunity for reconciliation. Indeed, as Kevin Uhalde shows, the title \u201cpenitent\u201d in late antiquity was one held in honor and respect, even being worthy of record on the penitents\u2019 tombstones as a testament to their penitential devotion.51 Capable of effecting both contrition and pride, public penance in the fourth century was not just a legalistic and rigorous process that people sought to avoid, but also one that allowed reintegration with the Christian community through an honorable demonstration of devotion.  To be sure, late antique penance had disciplinary effects, as it intersected with the Roman juridical system. If serious offenders like murderers and adulterers wanted to reconcile themselves with the Christian community, they needed to submit to a ritual penance and seek the bishop\u2019s forgiveness.52 According to Tertullian, Christians had established a set of redemptive penitential rituals by which to perform exculpatory moral exorcism during their collective gatherings.53 Transgressors of secular laws were not only prosecuted by the Church, but also had to reconcile with God and the Christian community through ritualized debasement, which subjected them to the community\u2019s gaze and judgment. In short, penance was becoming a prerequisite for returning to the Christian congregation after having committed a serious fault,  50 Rapp, Holy Bishops, 93. 51 Uhalde, \u201cJuridical Administration in the Church,\u201d 99. 52 Uhalde, \u201cJuridical Administration in the Church,\u201d 98. 53 Brown, Power and Persuasion, 68; Tertullian, Tertullian, trans. Le Saint, 86.   18 and by the fourth century it was being used as a means to discipline even secular offences.54 In describing the penitential rituals of both Emperor Theodosius and King David, Ambrose depicted the two sovereigns as casting themselves prostrate on the floor, \u201cweep[ing] publicly\u201d over their sins, and praying with groans and tears for God\u2019s forgiveness.55 He saw little distinction between David\u2019s time and Theodosius\u2019s time. For Ambrose, David\u2019s successful penance should serve as an example for Theodosius to follow to redeem himself for his sin. The method which Ambrose adopted to advise Theodosius was a conflation of parrhesia and his episcopal duties.  Parrhesia: Admiration for Boldness  Parrhesia was an established late antique cultural practice that centered on criticism and truth-telling between friends. Parrhesia means frank speech, or \u201cfrankly speaking one\u2019s own mind,\u201d especially when uttering \u201ca deserved reproach,\u201d while parrhesiastes are those who use parrhesia.56 Although a set of rhetorical rules governed parrhesia to help those who used it to achieve the most effective results, its practice differed from rhetoric both in its ultimately critical nature and in its speaker\u2019s absolute conviction in the veracity of their words. The ancient Athenians admired parrhesia as a fundamental ideal of democratic politics, adopted it as a tool of criticism, and used it to effect both social and political change by speaking out against their rulers for the purpose of correction.57 Irene van Renswoude has traced the history of parrhesia,  54 Meens, Penance in Medieval Europe, 18. 55 Ambrose, \u201cOration on the Death of Theodosius I (395),\u201d chp. 34, trans. Liebeschuetz, 193; Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 128, 129, 137. 56 S. Sara Monoson, \u201cFrank Speech, Democracy, and Philosophy: Plato\u2019s Debt to a Democratic Strategy of Civic Discourse,\u201d in Athenian Political Thought and the Reconstitution of American Democracy (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2018), 175.  57 Brown, Power and Persuasion, 65; Renswoude, The Rhetoric of Free Speech, 5, 10, 16, 17.   19 noting that it appears prominently in the New Testament\u2019s Acts of the Apostles, while instruction books on the intricate and tacit social codes that governed parrhesia are also attested as early as the first century.58 The existence and circulation of these manuals suggest that frank speech was a carefully constructed cultural practice that had been going on for some time. Although parrhesiastes followed certain conventions in their approaches, the core of the practice remained anchored in the speaker\u2019s conviction and courage. The parrhesiast genuinely and strongly believed in the veracity of his view, explains Michel Foucault, since the very act of frank speech suggested that the person was telling the truth as he saw it.59  The parrhesiastes also sought to \u201cconfront, oppose, or find fault\u201d with powerful interlocutors of superior status or position, which thereby imputed a martyr-like spiritual authority to the inferior frank speakers.60 The parrhesiast demonstrated a willingness to compromise or sacrifice their own interests, rights, or even life, in their fearless attempt to reprimand their interlocutors and articulate untimely truths. The potential danger of fully vocalizing such truths in a context where silence was normally expected heightened people\u2019s respect for the speaker\u2019s audacity and disregard of punishment.61 Indeed, both the pagan elite and Christians of the fourth century looked up to the \u201cpossessors of parrhesia\u201d as laudable opponents of ruthless tyranny.62 People admired their courage and trusted their capability to steer the empire onto the right course with their frank, unvarnished utterances.63   58 Renswoude, The Rhetoric of Free Speech, 1\u20133, 9. 59 Michel Foucault, \u201cDiscourse and Truth\u201d and \u201cParresia,\u201d ed. Henri-Paul Fruchaud and Daniele Lorenzini (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2019), 3; Monoson, \u201cFrank Speech, Democracy, and Philosophy,\u201d 175. 60 Foucault, \u201cDiscourse on Truth,\u201d 5; Monoson, \u201cFrank Speech, Democracy, and Philosophy,\u201d 175. 61 Monoson, \u201cFrank Speech, Democracy, and Philosophy,\u201d 177. 62 Richard Flower, Emperors and Bishops in Late Roman Invective (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), 25. 63 Monoson, \u201cFrank Speech, Democracy, and Philosophy,\u201d 178.   20  Ambrose\u2019s Innovation: A Spiritual Advisor   The notion of frank speech was often associated with the image of ancient philosophers, who could \u201ctame the heart of the emperor\u201d by employing parrhesia.64 The fourth-century image of the philosopher was a \u201ctranquil, bearded figure\u2026. with bare chest and simple cloak,\u201d retired from secular affairs and far removed from the locus of power.65 However, while some philosophers, such as Aristotle and Plato, merely wrote on political matters to voice their concerns and suggestions, other philosophers, such as Cicero and Themistius, were themselves directly involved in them.66 For instance, in the fourth century, the philosopher Themistius personally pacified and counseled the Emperor Valens.67 Philosophers as parrhesiastes who admonished rulers with equanimity, making bold and candid speeches to suggest changes for the better, became a common trope. As men of the court who were \u201cat one and the same time close to power and independent of it,\u201d they used their erudition and aplomb to intervene in secular affairs by offering candid advice to the emperor and his entourage.68 However, in 390, Ambrose altered the model of the frank speaker by conjoining the role of philosophers and the classical notions of parrhesia together with a Christian bishops\u2019 duty and authority. Summarizing Ezekiel 3:18 in his letter to Theodosius after the massacre at Thessalonica, Ambrose warned the emperor of a priest\u2019s double accountability: that if a priest  64 Brown, Power and Persuasion, 66. 65 Brown, Power and Persuasion, 62. 66 Pierre Hadot and Arnold I. Davidson, Philosophy as a Way of Life: Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1995), 106; Yelena Baraz, \u201cThe Gift of Philosophy: The Treatises as Translations,\u201d in A Written Republic: Cicero\u2019s Philosophical Politics (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012), 96. 67 Brown, Power and Persuasion, 68. 68 Brown, Power and Persuasion, 64, 69.   21 does not \u201cadmonish the wrongdoer\u2026 the priest will be liable to punishment\u201d himself.69 While philosophers held privileged advisory positions to guide emperors by boldly admonishing them, Ambrose argued that the priest was also duty-bound to rebuke candidly anyone who goes astray, for he shall be liable for the sins that he did not correct. With this connection, Ambrose combined the traditional role of philosophers with the moral responsibility of a priest\u2019s office.70 In legitimizing his own authority to admonish the ruler, Ambrose further modified his status from a bishop to an advisor of the emperor, making himself the \u201cspiritual guide\u201d of Theodosius\u2014an authority no mere philosopher could ever wield.71 Conflating the unique aptitudes of philosophers and the classical rhetorical tradition of parrhesia with Christian ministerial duties, Ambrose\u2019s innovation offered bishops of later generations a model to follow both in word and deed. One of the mediums through which Ambrose delivered his frank speech was his exegesis on Psalm 50.     69 Ambrose, \u201cLetter on the Massacre at Thessalonica (390),\u201d trans. Liebeschuetz, 264. 70 Brown, Power and Persuasion, 68. 71 Renswoude, The Rhetoric of Free Speech, 89; Brown, Power and Persuasion, 112.   22 Chapter 2 The Apologia prophetae David and the Apologia David altera  In this chapter, I will focus on the Apologia prophetae David of Ambrose, a text which exists in two versions: the Apologia prophetae David, hereafter referred as the First Defense of David or the First Defense; and Apologia David altera, the Second Defense of David, or the Second Defense. Both texts are commentaries on the Penitential Psalm 50 and share common themes regarding the virtue of King David, the typological connection between David and Christ, and the importance of imitating David\u2019s penance. I will first introduce the two texts and then summarize their contents to illustrate their differences in structure and objective. With this chapter, I shall demonstrate that, despite their differences, both Defenses underscore the imitability of David\u2019s penance and the divine accountability that is intrinsic to a king being entrusted with his kingdom by God. Although Ambrose\u2019s two commentaries were written with different objectives, both Defenses downplayed David\u2019s transgressions, articulated a king\u2019s status as being beneath God, and extolled his penance as worthy of emulation. The Second Defense offers theological arguments to counter three groups of opponents, while the First Defense exhibits a line-by-line exegesis that centers on the themes of sin, confession, and emulation. Despite their difference in focus, both Defenses begin by excusing or normalizing David\u2019s sin. The Second Defense first addresses the gentiles to justify David\u2019s sin on the basis of human nature and Bathsheba\u2019s corrupting influence, while the First Defense pleas for David by claiming that his sin was a consequence of the fragility of human nature. The two Defenses then prove the secular king\u2019s status as hierarchically below God within the Church, since the king owed his authority to God   23 and relied on God to vouchsafe the kingdom to him. Furthermore, both texts also praise David\u2019s repentance as being worthy of emulation. This is revealed by the Second Defense\u2019s call to the congregation to follow David\u2019s example and confess their sins, whereas the First Defense describes in detail how David recognized his own iniquities and received God\u2019s pardon through charity, repentance, and confession. The First Defense also reiterates the general importance of listening to a priest\u2019s admonition, while the Second Defense demonstrates a tighter theological focus. It refutes claims of the Jews and other religious rivals by articulating Christ\u2019s identity as other than Solomon and separate from God, and concludes with a typological exegesis that excuses David\u2019s sin and demonstrates the promising future of Christianity.    Dating of the Two Defenses Based on the texts\u2019 manuscript transmission and intertextual references, it appears that Ambrose finished the Second Defense prior to 388, then used it to complete the First Defense in response to emperor Theodosius\u2019s massacre at Thessalonica in 390. Because the two texts tended to be compiled together in medieval manuscripts and lack proper titles, scholars have given the texts their designations based on their order in the extant manuscripts (rather than on their respective dates of composition), thus naming Apologia prophetae David, which appears a few folios before the Apologia David altera, as the First Defense, despite it being the later composition.72 The Second Defense\u2019s absence in any early manuscript and its different style, however, have led to an ongoing controversy about its Ambrosian authenticity.73 Nevertheless,  72 Dunkle, \u201cIntroduction,\u201d 15. For the two texts\u2019 manuscript transmission, see Martine Roques, \u201cLa tradition manuscrite de l\u2019apologia Dauid altera attribu\u00e9e \u00e0 Ambroise,\u201d Recherches Augustiniennes et Patristiques 34 (2005): 239\u201397. 73 Debates about its authorship have been ongoing since the fifteenth century; for details, see Franco De Capitani, \u201cAnalogie fra un\u2019opera Ambrosiana discussa ed Alcuni scritti antimanichei di Sant\u2019Agostino,\u201d Rivista di Filosofia   24 scholars in the twentieth century defended the Ambrosian authorship of the Second Defense, and argued for a chronological inversion of the texts\u2019 traditional sequence in the manuscripts.74 Because its pedantic format and relatively rigid division of ideas are so unlike Ambrose\u2019s later, fluid style, these scholars date the Second Defense\u2019s time of composition to Ambrose\u2019s early episcopal years of 375 to 378.75 In contrast, the First Defense has been universally accepted as an authentic work due to its popularity and its stylistic affinities with other, more securely dated works of Ambrose.76 Revolving around the themes of sin, redemptive penance, and the authority that God holds over the king, the First Defense likely was meant to clarify and elucidate points made in Ambrose\u2019s relatively succinct letter to the emperor in 390 about the Thessalonica massacre.77  Summary of the Second Defense  The Second Defense is comprised of three distinct sections, in which Ambrose addresses and refutes three religious groups\u2019 respective theological concerns over Penitential Psalm 50. The first part identifies the weakness of human nature, offers viable corrections for such weakness, and positions secular kings within the Church. That is, Ambrose first normalizes  Neo-Scolastica 66, no. 1 (1974): 59\u201388; Herv\u00e9 Savon, \u201cDoit-on attribuer \u00e0 Saint Ambroise \u2018l\u2019Apologia Dauid Altera\u2019?\u201d Latomus 63, no. 4 (2004): 930\u201362; Roques, \u201cLa tradition manuscrite.\u201d 74 Dunkle, \u201cIntroduction,\u201d 15. For manuscript study that led to the conclusion that the two texts were the products of a common author, see De Capitani, \u201cAnalogie fra un\u2019Opera Ambrosiana ed Scritti di Sant\u2019Agostino\u201d; Hugh Connolly, \u201cSome Disputed Works of St Ambrose,\u201d The Downside Review 65, no. 2 (1947): 121\u201330. 75 Savon, \u201cDoit-on attribuer \u00e0 Saint Ambroise,\u201d 935, 948; Dunkle, \u201cIntroduction,\u201d 16.  76 Dunkle, \u201cIntroduction,\u201d 19; Hartmut Leppin, \u201cDas Alte Testament und der Erfahrungsraum der Christen. Davids Bu\u00dfe in den Apologien des Ambrosius,\u201d in Die Bibel als politisches Argument: Voraussetzungen und Folgen biblizistischer Herrschaftslegitimation in der Vormoderne, ed. Andreas Pecar and Kai Trampedach (Munich: Oldenbourg, 2007), 130, 133; Ambrose, Apologie de David, ed. Hadot and Cordier, 39, 41, 42; Neil B. McLynn, Ambrose of Milan: Church and Court in a Christian Capital (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), 315; Savon, \u201cDoit-on attribuer \u00e0 Saint Ambroise,\u201d 958. 77 McLynn, Ambrose of Milan, 315; Savon, \u201cDoit-on attribuer \u00e0 Saint Ambroise,\u201d 958; Ambrose, Apologie de David, ed. Hadot and Cordier, 41, 42.   25 David\u2019s sin, emphasizes the value of David\u2019s penance to persuade the text\u2019s audience to follow David as a model, and finally contends that secular laws are only useful for helping Christianity. In the Second Defense\u2019s second part, Ambrose addresses the Jews and other religious rivals, arguing that Solomon is not Christ, that Christ has a distinct and separate identity from God, and that Christ had assumed the body of David for the salvation of the world. Lastly, Ambrose calls on his congregation to confess like David, and reassures them that David\u2019s corrupt deeds were justified because grace has long been promised. In this section, Ambrose describes both the necessity and the benefits of confessing one\u2019s sin, and then uses typological connections and an allegorical story to illustrate the prosperity of the Christian legacy.  - First Part Ambrose normalizes David\u2019s sin by vilifying Bathsheba, and then informs the gentiles that the weakness of human nature does not impede God\u2019s forgiveness, for David had already correctly remitted his sin by listening to a priest\u2019s advice to perform public penance.78 Anticipating the gentiles\u2019 potential misinterpretation of Psalm 50 as enticing its readers to sin like David, Ambrose forestalls such a reading by stating that Christ disciplines the nation and condemns adultery; he would never allow a psalm to exist that could incite criminal thoughts. 79 Ambrose also points to Bathsheba, the source of David\u2019s sin, to mitigate and normalize that king\u2019s adultery. Describing her as a \u201clascivious woman\u201d and a \u201cpowerful force for vice,\u201d Ambrose defines David\u2019s encounter with Bathsheba as one that \u201cany man [would find] difficult to escape unharmed,\u201d and admonishes his congregation to refrain from approaching any such  78 Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 169. 79 Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 152\u201353.   26 deceitful and dangerous woman.80 Ambrose then describes David\u2019s penance as a model for the exoneration of sins and argues that he was a rarity among kings, one who had done the right thing of imploring God\u2019s mercy. He illustrates how David followed the fourth-century penitential rituals by first acknowledging his sin, then \u201cfalling prostrate on the ground, [and] covering himself with sackcloth.\u201d81 Noting how the priest Nathan reprimanded David to weep, fast, and repent in exchange for God\u2019s mercy, Ambrose also explicates this event\u2019s humiliating effect on David, which was due to the difference in status between Nathan and the king.82 Nathan\u2019s reproach was certain to bring \u201cgreat embarrassment and shame\u201d upon David, because a powerful secular king had been condemned by a lesser person, a mere \u201cprophet.\u201d83 However, the seemingly shameful experience also makes David\u2019s confession all the more admirable, for he demonstrates humility in not abusing his power but accepting the lowly priest\u2019s criticism and pleading for God\u2019s mercy.   Ambrose also declares that God\u2019s position is hierarchically superior to the king, as God had entrusted the kingdom to David and rewarded him with redemption for his contrition and piety. Ambrose first claims that David\u2019s sin is one that would be specifically against God. Since God had vouchsafed the kingdom to David, Ambrose explains, the king was responsible for preserving \u201cwith an inviolate faith the profit entrusted to [him] from the heavenly commandments.\u201d84 Therefore, a king sinning is a king violating his promised faith towards God, and he needs to remit his sin with penance, beseeching divine pardon in the hopes of  80 Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 157\u201360. 81 Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 155. 82 Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 184, 185. 83 Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 185. 84 Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 194.   27 reconciliation.85 Moreover, while all men are naturally drawn to sin, explains Ambrose, a ruler\u2019s enormous secular power presents an additional, especially potent \u201cincentive\u201d that lures him to commit iniquities and to disregard God\u2019s supremacy.86 Since power only adds to the temptation of sinning, Ambrose applauds David for not abusing his sovereignty as a ruler and nullifying divine justice, but publicly admitting his sin in contrition despite the shame and subjecting himself to God.87 Ambrose\u2019s hierarchy of sovereignty is made more explicit when he elucidates that secular power is only useful when it serves Christianity, such as by \u201cimproving divine ceremonies\u201d and consecrating buildings for God.88 Furthermore, in approval of the king\u2019s actions, God, who is hierarchically superior, graciously rewarded David\u2019s penance with redemption, and compensated David\u2019s piety by making him the \u201cking and the victor over many nations.\u201d89   - Second Part Ambrose then turns to the Jews and various heresies to argue that Solomon is not Christ and that Christ has a distinct and separate identity from God. Historical context suggests that the heresies posed no threat to Ambrose, but Ambrose still constructed their arguments from scripture, and then refuted the claims to rhetorically encourage Christians to view themselves as inheriting the only true form of Christian faith.90 To counter the Jews who contended that  85 Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 194. 86 Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 156, 160. 87 Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 155. 88 Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 156. 89 Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 160. 90 Maria Doerfler, \u201cAmbrose\u2019s Jews: The Creation of Judaism and Heterodox Christianity in Ambrose of Milan\u2019s Expositio Evangelii secundum Lucam,\u201d Church History 80, no. 4 (2011): 756, 770, 771.   28 Solomon is Christ, Ambrose contrasts Solomon\u2019s \u201cbeg[ging] for wisdom\u201d with Christ\u2019s wise nature, and observes that Solomon \u201clabored in vain\u201d in building the Temple to God, his greatest achievement, because the Temple was ultimately constructed by \u201cheavenly strength\u201d rather than Solomon\u2019s efforts.91 Discrediting Solomon\u2019s wisdom and ability, Ambrose opines that Solomon was simply a human with impressive power, and even Joshua, who could control the stars, appears more like Christ than Solomon.92 Ambrose then rebukes the claims of Arius, Sabellius, and Photinus, who all identified with Modalism, a heresy maintaining that God manifested himself under the form of Christ and thus rejecting Christ\u2019s own distinct identity.93 According to Ambrose, Christ has a separate identity from God, despite the two reigning with a \u201cunity of power.\u201d94 Christ could have assumed David\u2019s body for the salvation of the world, even though David had sinned.95   - Third Part By the end of the Second Defense, Ambrose calls all Christians to confess their sins to God, who will wipe them clean, and affirms the presence of divine providence. Discussing how David and the apostle Paul both recognized their sins, Ambrose asks his audience emphatically and rhetorically whether they would dare to claim their innocence when even the saints have confessed their iniquities.96 To discourage Christians from hiding their sins, Ambrose warns that Judgment Day will make everyone shamefully reveal their iniquities; therefore, it would be  91 Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 161\u201363. 92 Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 163, 164. 93 Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 165. 94 Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 194. 95 Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 168. 96 Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 192.   29 better to confess now, despite the shame, so that God may pardon and absolve their faults.97 Sins lodge within one\u2019s heart and will always testify, accuse, and condemn their bearer, but because God blots them out in exchange for penance, Christians need to confess promptly to cleanse themselves.98 After remarking on the properties of sin, Ambrose concludes by reminding people of God\u2019s grace and divine providence, as God not only \u201cforgives what was past\u201d but also \u201cprescribes what was to come.\u201d99 Ambrose also espouses the hidden mysteries of Psalm 50 and uncovers the legacy of David\u2019s corrupt deeds for Christians. He first establishes the connection between David and Christ by stating that David sinned in order to save the world from erring and to redeem himself \u201cin the body of Christ.\u201d100 Since David had also addressed God as his \u201cfather\u201d like Christ would, this further suggests that David was \u201cchosen as the source\u201d for Christ\u2019s body.101 Ambrose allegorically connects the nude Bathsheba with the Church, loved by David just as Christ would love the Mother Church, while the death of Uriah, Bathsheba\u2019s husband, frees Bathsheba to legally unite with David\/Christ.102 Through these typological connections, Ambrose thus excuses David of the sin of adultery with Bathsheba in order to legitimize their union as a lawful one between Christ and the Church, a \u201cfaithful chastity.\u201d103 This conjugal relationship also yields Solomon, the \u201ceternal fruit among the Christians.\u201d104 While the prosperity of Christians is demonstrated and promised within Psalm 50, Ambrose then digresses to explicate the allegorical  97 Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 192, 193. 98 Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 191. 99 Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 194. 100 Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 169. 101 Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 169, 170, 174. 102 Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 174, 181, 183.  103 Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 176. 104 Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 184.   30 story of the rich man and poor man to further emphasize the auspicious legacy of Christianity. Although the priest Nathan initially used this story to persuade David to perform penance, Ambrose used it to emphasize the promised glory of Christianity. The poor man, Ambrose observes, represents Christians led to heaven by their \u201cnoble poverty,\u201d while the Jews are the rich men having sins as their guests.105 In the end, the Jews will die, but the Christians will \u201cenjoy more abundant blessings\u201d because of their piety.106  Summary of the First Defense Departing from the Second Defense\u2019s tight focus on a theological exegesis of David\u2019s adultery, the First Defense engages in a broader discussion of sin, confession, and emulation. Although the First Defense also discusses divine providence, it follows the early Church theologians Didymus and Origen in providing a detailed and expanded line-by-line exegesis of Psalm 50.107 Thematically, the First Defense can be divided into two sections: a plea for David, and the plea of David. An introduction precedes the first section, within which Ambrose enumerates David\u2019s virtues, recounts David\u2019s story, and argues for a deeper meaning underlying the scriptural text. In the first section, Ambrose provides an explication of and justification for David\u2019s sins. The second section then presents David\u2019s own plea, in which he recognizes his own iniquities and remits them through charity and repentance.  The text begins with Ambrose explaining his objective\u2014namely, excusing David from condemnation and discussing him both as a model for the faithful to emulate and as a reminder of divine providence. Ambrose claims that, in truth, David needs no defense, for he already  105 Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 185, 186. 106 Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 187. 107 Leppin, \u201cDas Alte Testament,\u201d 120, 126.   31 received divine affirmation for his glory, and God had also pardoned Solomon on his behalf.108 Anticipating that his audience will overlook the deeper meanings beneath Psalm 50\u2019s superficial story of adultery and homicide, Ambrose then explicates the nuances of these failings of David by viewing them from a wider perspective.109 It is precisely because the saints make mistakes, Ambrose reasons, that normal men can receive them as both companions and models who share the same weakness within their nature.110 Moreover, the saints\u2019 mistakes also make people aware of the working of divine power. Indeed, besides succumbing to the weakness in his nature and falling because it was part of the divine plan, David\u2019s rise and fall also remind people of God\u2019s continuous presence in the world, preventing people from stumbling into a \u201cpit of deceit.\u201d111 Some saints\u2019 \u201chuman sensibility\u201d of vanity may have led them to attribute divine assistance to their own virtue, but, as Ambrose demonstrates, their special abilities in fact derive from and belong to God, not themselves.112     The Plea for David In light of human frailty and David\u2019s exceptional penance, Ambrose pleas on David\u2019s behalf that his sin was a part of human nature and then justifies it by way of David\u2019s penance and charity. Recounting the sins of holy priests and the fact that a person is already a sinner at birth, Ambrose represents David\u2019s iniquity as a universal aspect of human nature.113 Furthermore, Ambrose alludes to the corruptive influence of secular power, a topic that he had dwelt on  108 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 106, 107. 109 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 105. 110 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 108. 111 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 109. 112 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 109. 113 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 113, 114.   32 previously in the Second Defense.114 He again speaks unfavorably of power and of its negative consequences of seducing men to sin, but here he immediately shifts his attention to specifically applaud David for having sinned \u201conly once\u201d when he had been exposed to the temptations of power and prestige throughout his life.115 David not only conquered the temptation of royal power, Ambrose maintains, but he had also publicly and virtuously purified himself with an extraordinary repentance.116 When even ordinary citizens, who had far less to lose, felt ashamed to confess, the king boldly prostrated himself on the ground and assiduously followed the penitential procedure to repent publicly with tears, sighs, and fasts.117 Besides performing confession and penance, David also committed himself to good deeds in the hope of redeeming himself.118 Ambrose enumerates David\u2019s merits to demonstrate that his virtues had outweighed his vices, listing the king\u2019s devotion to God, victorious battles, love towards his soldiers, and how he even honored his enemies.119 In short, Ambrose normalized David\u2019s sin, representing it as a trait shared by all, and then justified it with David\u2019s exemplary repentance and a series of his laudable deeds.  The first part of the First Defense concludes with a remark on the importance of listening to a priest\u2019s admonition, and a discussion of how kings owe their authority to God. To emphasize the significance of following a priest\u2019s correction, Ambrose extols David in comparison to the \u201cother men,\u201d who deny their sin when priests point it out and thereby make their fall greater.120  114 Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 156. 115 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 107. 116 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 113. 117 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 107, 113. 118 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 117, 118. 119 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 118, 119, 122, 125. 120 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 108.   33 Furthermore, Ambrose remarks that, due to David\u2019s \u201calacrity of pardon\u201d and prompt confession, God forgave him and accepted him back into the Christian community.121 For Ambrose, divine forgiveness indicates God\u2019s ongoing presence in the world. To further highlight David\u2019s admirable humility and meekness before God, Ambrose describes other instances of David trusting in divine providence and subjecting himself to the power of the Lord.122 Moreover, when God bestowed specific powers on David, the king did not attribute these abilities to himself, but understood that they were his only thanks to God\u2019s approval.123 More generally, David\u2019s experience reveals the proper hierarchical relationship between terrestrial sovereigns and the divine lord; as Ambrose explains, God stands above secular rulers, since He has the power to provide or withhold unique gifts to them as He sees fit. Describing David\u2019s discovery of confession and penance as a means to perpetual peace, Ambrose stresses the absolute authority of God, whom a sovereign is expected to \u201cpraise, love, and trust\u201d no less than subjects do with respect to their terrestrial king.124   The Plea of David The second part of the First Defense constitutes the plea of David, in which Ambrose lets David speak for himself, beginning with David\u2019s admission of his guilt and his obligation to God. Reckoning that he was born from sin and had done evil before the Lord, David begs God\u2019s mercy and implores Him to cleanse him of his injustice.125 Ambrose praises David\u2019s guilty  121 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 107. 122 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 125. 123 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 119, 120. 124 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 120. 125 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 128.   34 conscience, arguing that publicly admitting one\u2019s shame is essential in avoiding the repetition of past mistakes.126 The reason for David\u2019s recognition, Ambrose expounds, is because David correctly understood his relationship with and responsibility toward God. Although kings are not bound by worldly laws and cannot be held \u201caccountable\u2026 against an individual,\u201d they are still liable to God for their positions within the Church.127 Despite their supreme position in the secular world, rulers owe devotion and fidelity toward God, and they are also subject to the divine law.128  Entrusted by God with the care of His people, rulers are tasked to be the stewards of God\u2019s palace; consequently, their responsibilities to God are all the greater.129 To demonstrate his piety and to acknowledge his transgressions, David actively sought forgiveness of his sins through vocalization of his guilt, the performance of penance, and continuously beseeching God\u2019s mercy. Wanting to be \u201cwashed thoroughly from [his] injustice,\u201d David first heaps up proclamations of his sinful nature and his specific transgressions of adultery and murder.130 Here, Ambrose interjects to make a distinction between iniquity and sin, and points out that while iniquity is the heavy and wicked condition of the mind, remittable only through God\u2019s cleansing, sins can be \u201cforgiven through grace [or] covered through charity.\u201d131 David followed the fourth-century penitential rites of casting himself prostrate on the floor, his face streaming with tears; of fasting and refraining from bathing; and of imploring God\u2019s mercy and devoting himself to honorable works.132 After David had pleaded for divine intervention to  126 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 129, 130, 131. 127 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 133. 128 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 133. 129 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 133. 130 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 136, 138. 131 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 132, 142. 132 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 128, 129, 137.   35 cleanse his \u201cbloodguilt\u201d (de sanguinibus), God pardoned him for humbling himself and treating himself as a sinner. 133 Overall, both Defenses express similar thematic ideas by normalizing David\u2019s sin, explicating the imitability of fallible saints, and demonstrating a king\u2019s duty and responsibility towards God. While this chapter has delved into the texts themselves to provide a summary, the next chapter will zoom out to consider the broader historical context of the ninth century. Building on the discussions of these two chapters, the fourth chapter will then consider the similarities between the main ideas expressed in Ambrose\u2019s Defenses and those of the Carolingians.  133 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 143.   36 Chapter 3 The Ninth-Century Penitential Context and the Carolingian Remembrance of Ambrose   This chapter will describe the Carolingian context within which Louis the Pious performed his two public penances in 822 and 833. I will first sketch the ninth-century penitential context as one in which the ritual\u2019s nature and performance during the era of Roman late antiquity was revived and emulated, and then discuss the Carolingians\u2019 remembrance of Ambrose and Theodosius. I will then examine how Carolingian bishops used Ambrose\u2019s innovative combination of the classical rhetorical practice of parrhesia and priestly ministerial duties to articulate their responsibility of admonishing the emperor. Since the next chapter will examine the function, use, and influence of Ambrose\u2019s Defenses specifically with respect to Louis\u2019s penances, this chapter will conclude with an overview of the historical events leading to those dramatic rituals.   Longing for the Classical In the late eighth century, Charlemagne and his court began a revival of the Roman classical and Christian past. Concerned with his people\u2019s spiritual health and believing that even the incorrect pronunciation of the Psalms would impact a person\u2019s chance of salvation, Charlemagne sponsored a series of educational, religious, and legislative reform movements to improve his subjects\u2019 general educational level and religious understanding.134 One aspect of this  134 Meens, Penance in Medieval Europe, 114; Henry Mayr-Harting, \u201cPraying the Psalter in Carolingian Times: What Was Supposed to Be Going on in the Minds of Monks?\u201d in Prayer and Thought in Monastic Tradition: Essays in Honour of Benedicta Ward SLG, ed. Santha Bhattacharji, Dominic Mattos, and Rowan Williams (London: Bloomsbury, 2014), 80.   37 late antique Roman revival was the special attention given to penance. Penitential handbooks, which detailed the method of the ritual, the different types of sin, and the corresponding penitential punishments to absolve them, were widespread throughout the Carolingian realm and, in the eyes of the reformers, disturbingly diverse in their content. In numerous council meetings Frankish bishops sought to reach an agreement on determining an authoritative, standard version of penance, but labored in vain.135 A consistent aspiration of these bishops was a return to the late antique, Roman, \u201ctraditional\u201d form of the ritual. Bishops at the Council of Chalon in 813, for instance, longed for the same ancient customs of excommunication and reconciliation to be applied in the present.136 Bishop Jonas of Orl\u00e9ans (760\u2013843) also regretted the absence of the traditional form of penance, since few in his day were demonstrating their contrition by voluntarily and publicly repenting in sackcloth and ashes with \u201cremorseful laments.\u201d137  The Carolingian Renaissance also witnessed an interest in the Penitential Psalms and their function in the ritual of penance. Alcuin of York (735\u2013804), head of the Palace School under Charlemagne, in particular sought to spread the ancient use of the Penitential Psalms during the reform movement.138 He was the first person since Cassiodorus in the sixth century to comment on this distinct group of seven psalms and to recognize its ritual significance.139 Although historians often describe Alcuin as a liturgist who was prone to re-utilize and systematize rather than to innovate, he did not slavishly copy the Celtic or Anglo-Saxon prayer  135 Meens, Penance in Medieval Europe, 116\u201318. 136 Concilium Cabillonense (813), ed. Albert Werminghoff, MGH, Concilia aevi Karolini, 2(1) (Hannover: Hahn, 1906), 278. 137 De Jong, The Penitential State, 244. 138 Eleanor Shipley Duckett, Alcuin, Friend of Charlemagne: His World and His Work (New York: Macmillan, 1951), 109. 139 Driscoll, \u201cThe Seven Penitential Psalms,\u201d 158.   38 books that he had at hand, which lacked the Penitential Psalms.140 Rather, he specifically looked for the seven psalms that originated from antiquity, and prefaced a prayerbook by prescribing eight circumstances of employing the Psalms, with their first and foremost use being their recitation during penance.141 Alcuin\u2019s preface, the \u201cDe laude psalmorum,\u201d provided the foundational basis for the Carolingians\u2019 further application of the Psalms and the mid-ninth century emergence of a private devotion program.142 This great impact is evinced by the more than two hundred extant manuscript copies of the Psalms, of various lengths and titles, appropriated by the Carolingians for diverse usage, and studied by people ranging from King Charles the Bald to the noble laywoman Dhuoda.143   Remembrance of Ambrose: His Words and Deeds  The Carolingians remembered and admired Ambrose and Theodosius, painting them in a good light and referring to their acts in typological terms. While Ambrose used King David\u2019s redemption through penance as an example to persuade Emperor Theodosius to perform the ritual, both Ambrose\u2019s rebuke and Theodosius\u2019s own penance would themselves serve as examples for later centuries to admire and emulate.144 Indeed, a significant part of the remembrance of Ambrose in the ninth century centers on his successful reproach in correcting the errant emperor. This remembrance can be connected to a fifth-century biography of Ambrose  140 Driscoll, \u201cThe Seven Penitential Psalms,\u201d 180. 141 Jonathan Black, \u201cPsalm Uses in Carolingian Prayerbooks - Alcuin and the Preface to De psalmorum usu,\u201d Mediaeval Studies 64 (2002): 2, 3. 142 Black, \u201cPsalm Uses in Carolingian Prayerbooks,\u201d 18. 143 Black, \u201cPsalm Uses in Carolingian Prayerbooks,\u201d 3, 18. 144 Michael P. Kuczynski, \u201cThe Psalms and Social Action in Late Medieval England,\u201d in Place of the Psalms in the Intellectual Culture of the Middle Ages, ed. Nancy van Deusen (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1999), 194, 199, 200. For a detailed list of Carolingian references to Ambrose\u2019s encounter with Theodosius, see Renswoude, The Rhetoric of Free Speech, 195 n. 82.   39 written by his secretary, Paulinus of Milan. Although references to Ambrose almost ceased by the end the sixth century, the ninth century witnessed a proliferation of interest in both Ambrose and Theodosius.145 In creating a critical edition of Paulinus\u2019s biography of Ambrose, Michele Pellegrino consulted forty-two existing manuscripts, one third of which was from the ninth and tenth centuries, testifying to Carolingian ecclesiastics\u2019 great interest in and respect for the Church Father.146 Furthermore, in a late ninth-century copy of the biography that survived in full, an entire third of the text is dedicated just to Ambrose\u2019s rebuke and Theodosius\u2019s public penance, demonstrating the special attention paid to this momentous encounter in Ambrose\u2019s rich career.147 In the Epitaphium Arsenii, a Carolingian hagiographical text modeled after Ambrose\u2019s funeral oration for his brother, its author Radbertus, a monk of Corbie, created an imaginative narrative that uses the life and times of Ambrose to speak allusively about Carolingian concerns. Radbertus felt confident enough in his audience\u2019s knowledge to deploy a set of typological connections that recount ninth-century history by way of late antique aliases that are intricately connected to Ambrose and others of his circle, despite Ambrose\u2019s name never being explicitly mentioned in the text.148 To be effective, such an allusive technique relied not only on a reader\u2019s familiarity with Ambrose and his era, but also that the reader held Ambrose in high esteem.149   145 Renswoude, The Rhetoric of Free Speech, 195. 146 Renswoude, The Rhetoric of Free Speech, 195; Angelo Paredi, \u201cPaulinus of Milan,\u201d Sacris Erudiri: Journal of Late Antique and Medieval Christianity 14 (1963): 206. 147 Giorgia Vocino, \u201cFraming Ambrose in the Resources of the Past: The Late Antique and Early Medieval Sources for a Carolingian Portrait of Ambrose,\u201d in The Resources of the Past in Early Medieval Europe, ed. Clemens Gantner, Rosamond McKitterick, and Sven Meeder (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 135, 136, 140. 148 Mayke de Jong, \u201cFrom the Order of the Franks to the World of Ambrose: The Vita Adalhardi and the Epitaphium Arsenii Compared,\u201d in Historiography and Identity III: Carolingian Approaches, ed. Rutger Kramer, Helmut Reimitz, and Graeme Ward (Turnhout: Brepols, 2021), 50. 149 De Jong, \u201cFrom the Order of the Franks to the World of Ambrose,\u201d 54.   40 Furthermore, Carolingian bishops also highlighted Ambrose\u2019s courageous remonstration, and demonstrated an \u201cAmbrosian\u201d combination of the classical rhetorical technique of parrhesia with the episcopal ministry to admonish and correct the ruler. A master of parrhesia, of boldly speaking truth to power, Ambrose had successfully corrected an erring ruler twice in his life.150 Admiring Ambrose, the Carolingian reform bishops often recounted Ambrose\u2019s encounter with Theodosius with a focus on Ambrose\u2019s daring admonition.151 Like Ambrose, Carolingian reform bishops underscored the obligation of their office and the exercise of their priestly right to render a constructive admonition when they would see the ruler going astray.152 Moreover, the emperor was expected to listen to any such frank\u2014and thus truthful and therapeutic\u2014admonition and emend his behavior accordingly.153 Among the sins that were considered especially offensive to God and the Christian community, the Carolingians emphasized the sin of negligence.154 Historian Mayke de Jong notes that from the time of Charlemagne, reform councils harangued that ecclesiastics, who work as mediators between God and humanity, would be convicted of having sinned themselves if they ignored their ministerial duty of correcting a sinner.155    It was not just Ambrose\u2019s practice of parrhesia that was well known in the ninth century, for manuscript transmission and Carolingian usage of the Psalms also demonstrate the remembrance and knowledge of Ambrosian ideas. A renowned Church Father, Ambrose was  150 Vocino, \u201cFraming Ambrose in the Resources of the Past,\u201d 144. 151 Renswoude, The Rhetoric of Free Speech, 197 n. 89. 152 For Carolingian incorporation of frank speech, see Renswoude, The Rhetoric of Free Speech, 198. 153 De Jong, The Penitential State, 144. 154 De Jong, The Penitential State, 121.  155 De Jong, The Penitential State, 121. For more on the Carolingian councils of 813, see Rutger Kramer, \u201cA Model for Empire: The Councils of 813 and the Institutio Canonicorum,\u201d in idem, Rethinking Authority in the Carolingian Empire: Ideals and Expectations during the Reign of Louis the Pious (813\u2013828) (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2019), 65.   41 well-respected in the ninth century, and his exegetical works were popular.156 Seven manuscript copies of his First Defense dating from the seventh to ninth centuries are extant, suggesting that this exegesis on Psalm 50 had some currency.157 Indeed, several Carolingian authors quoted from the First Defense, including Dhuoda, a lay aristocratic woman. In 843, Dhuoda wrote a handbook of advice for her son William\u2019s spiritual education and salvation that consists of ideas that closely parallel Ambrose\u2019s First Defense.158 Besides making similar cases regarding the remission of sin and minimizing one\u2019s culpability through almsgiving, Dhuoda\u2019s text\u2014like Ambrose\u2019s exegesis\u2014also underscores the imitability and reconciliatory effects of the Psalms.159 In the First Defense, Ambrose argues that King David\u2019s sins are beneficial for commoners, for if one repents after sinning, no matter their rank or status, God would still cleanse their iniquities and accept them back into the Christian community.160 Similarly, Dhuoda asked her son to emulate David through zealous recitation of the Penitential Psalms, and assured him that such devoted and contrite recitation would grant him David\u2019s \u201cmoral uprightness\u201d and \u201cGod\u2019s mercy.\u201d161 Although it is likely that Dhuoda took these ideas from Alcuin, who had repeated  156 Jerome Bertram, \u201cThe Council of Aachen and the Canonical Institute,\u201d in The Chrodegang Rules: The Rules for the Common Life of the Secular Clergy from the Eighth and Ninth Centuries. Critical Texts with Translations and Commentary (London: Routledge, 2005), 166. 157 Yagello, \u201cHistoire, ex\u00e9g\u00e8se et politique,\u201d 112. 158 Margaret Trenchard-Smith, \u201cFuribunda Silentia: The \u2018Raging Silences\u2019 of the Testimony of Dhuoda, Countess of Septimania\u201d (Unpublished manuscript, UCLA, 1997), 1, 28. 159 Marie Anne Mayeski, \u201cA Mother\u2019s Psalter: Psalms in the Moral Instruction of Dhuoda of Septimania,\u201d in The Place of the Psalms in the Intellectual Culture in the Middle Ages, ed. Nancy Van Deusen, SUNY Series in Medieval Studies (Albany, NY: State University of New York, 1999), 149; Dhuoda, Liber Manualis: Handbook for Her Warrior Son, trans. Marcelle Thi\u00e9baux, Cambridge Medieval Classics 8 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 161; Annie Sutherland, \u201cPerforming the Penitential Psalms in the Middle Ages,\u201d in Aspects of the Performative in Medieval Culture, ed. Manuele Gragnolati and Almut Suerbaum (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010), 19; Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 132. 160 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 108, 138. 161 Dhuoda, Liber Manualis, trans. Thi\u00e9baux, 235; Mayeski, \u201cA Mother\u2019s Psalter,\u201d 146; Mayr-Harting, \u201cPraying the Psalter in Carolingian Times,\u201d 96.   42 them in his own commentary on Psalm 50, the fact that she was familiar with these ideas as a lay woman is itself suggestive of their wide influence.162  The Two Penances of Louis the Pious  In 806, Charlemagne issued his Divisio regnorum, in which he not only outlined the division of his kingdom among his heirs but also made pre-emptive efforts to forestall violence among them.163 According to Thegan (800\u2013850), a biographer of Louis the Pious, Louis swore to Charlemagne in 813 that he would show \u201cunfailing mercy\u201d to \u201call his relatives.\u201d164 However, he violated this oath in the following years. Upon Charlemagne\u2019s death in 814, Louis quickly moved from his palace in Aquitaine to the court of Aachen to assume the imperial title. Disgusted with what he found there, he \u201ccleansed the palace\u201d by sending an \u201cextremely large crowd of women,\u201d including his sisters, into either exile or monastic confinement.165 Louis also violently quashed the rebellion in early 818 of his nephew, King Bernard of Italy, who was captured, blinded, and died shortly thereafter.166 For fear of further rebellions, Louis tonsured his half-brothers and sent them to monasteries.167 Two apologists for Louis distanced their sovereign from the lethal act of Bernard\u2019s blinding by claiming that certain advisors had done it \u201cagainst  162 Alcuin, \u201cPsalmus VI,\u201d in Alcuini opera omnia, vol. 2 (Paris, 1863), 575. 163 Charlemagne, \u201cCharlemagne\u2019s Division of His Kingdoms,\u201d chp. 18, in Carolingian Civilization: A Reader, ed. Paul Edward Dutton, trans. Dana Carleton Munro, 2nd ed. (Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2004), 151. 164 Thegan, \u201cThe Deeds of Emperor Charles the Great,\u201d chp. 6, in Charlemagne and Louis the Pious: The Lives by Einhard, Notker, Ermoldus, Thegan, and the Astronomer, trans. Thomas F. X. Noble (University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009), 197. 165 The Astronomer, \u201cThe Life of Emperor Louis,\u201d chp. 23, in Charlemagne and Louis the Pious: The Lives by Einhard, Notker, Ermoldus, Thegan, and the Astronomer, trans. Thomas F. X. Noble (University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009), 248\u201349; Nithard, \u201cNithard\u2019s History,\u201d bk. 1, chp. 2, in Carolingian Civilization: A Reader, ed. Paul Edward Dutton, trans. Bernard W. Scholz and Barbara Rogers, 2nd ed. (Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2004), 334. 166 Thegan, \u201cThe Deeds of Emperor Charles the Great,\u201d chp. 22, 23, trans. Noble, 205\u20136; The Astronomer, \u201cThe Life of Emperor Louis,\u201d chp. 45, trans. Noble, 276\u201377. 167 Nithard, \u201cNithard\u2019s History,\u201d bk. 1, chp. 2, trans. Dutton\/Scholz and Rogers, 334.   43 the will of emperor,\u201d and painted Louis as a victim of the discord.168 Still, the Franks displayed great anguish in seeing the broken family bonds and resulting political strife, with Louis having blatantly violated his oath to never \u201cmutilate or blind or forcibly tonsure\u201d his younger kindred.169  In 822, Louis undertook a public penance for both his sins against his family and certain undisclosed sins of his father. The enormity of this act must have been apparent to all\u2014no such penance had been performed by a sovereign in the West since that of Theodosius in 390. Louis recognized his and his father\u2019s iniquity, sought reconciliation with his family and people, and wanted to appease God for having forcibly tonsured and even having murdered his kindred.170 After a year of preparation, the public penance was conducted at Attigny in August of 822.171 Weeping and confessing, Louis admitted his own culpability before his people, acknowledged Charlemagne\u2019s failings, and then sought forgiveness for these sins with prayers and almsgiving.172 Although the bishops pronounced Louis\u2019s public penance as eminently successful, things would go from bad to worse by 829.173 In that year, Louis broke his first succession arrangement of 817 in order to now include Charles, his six-year-old son with his second wife, Judith, as an heir. Infuriated over their now-diminished inheritance, the three sons of Louis\u2019s first marriage, Lothar, Pippin, and Louis the German, rebelled against their father in 830. Through the  168 Thegan, \u201cThe Deeds of Emperor Charles the Great,\u201d chp. 22, trans. Noble, 205\u20136; The Astronomer, \u201cThe Life of Emperor Louis,\u201d chp. 45, trans. Noble, 276\u201377. As an example of contemporaneous discontent over Louis\u2019s actions, see arguments dating Einhard\u2019s biography of Charlemagne to the 820s as an indirect critique of Louis: Paul Edward Dutton, Charlemagne\u2019s Courtier: The Complete Einhard, 2nd ed. (Peterborough: Broadview Press, 1998), xix, xx. 169 De Jong, \u201cFrom the Order of the Franks to the World of Ambrose,\u201d 50; Charlemagne, \u201cDivisio Regnorum (806),\u201d chp. 18, trans. Dutton, 151. 170 Royal Frankish Annals, in Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and Nithard\u2019s Histories, trans. Bernard W. Scholz and Barbara Rogers (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972), 111. 171 The Astronomer, \u201cThe Life of Emperor Louis,\u201d chp. 35, trans. Noble, 262\u201364; Capitula ab episcopis Attiniaci data (822 Aug.), ed. Alfred Boretius, MGH, Capitularia regum Francorum, 1 (Hannover: Hahn, 1883), 357\u201358. 172 Thegan, \u201cThe Deeds of Emperor Charles the Great,\u201d chp. 23, trans. Noble, 206; Capitula ab episcopis Attinaci data (822 Aug.), ed. Boretius, 357\u201358. 173 Capitula ab episcopis Attinaci data (822 Aug.), ed. Boretius, 357.   44 combined might of their armies and public support, they forced Judith into a convent and made Louis promise to continue with the original plan of succession.174 However, public support over the legitimacy of the rebellion\u2014of sons rebelling against their father, a biblical abomination\u2014quickly eroded, and Louis managed to re-establish control over his army and his court within just a few months. Removing Judith from her monastic confinement, Louis drafted a new succession plan in 831, the \u201cRegni divisio,\u201d in which he punished Lothar\u2019s filial disobedience by confining him to Italy, while making the other three sons the main beneficiaries of the Frankish empire north of the Alps.175 Not content with the new arrangement, Lothar, Pippin, and Louis the German raised a second rebellion in 833, which came to the verge of a battle, but ended once again with Louis\u2019s capture when his troops deserted him. On October 1, 833, in Compi\u00e8gne, a delegation of rebel bishops collectively admonished Louis for a variety of sins and urged him to submit to another public penance for the safety of his people and the salvation of his soul.176 Days later, Louis debased himself publicly in the church of Saint-M\u00e9dard in Soissons, declared himself unfit to rule, and exchanged his regalia for the garb of a penitent to demonstrate his withdrawal from his royal office.177 Yet, within a few months, public opinion once again wavered over the righteousness of the sons\u2019 actions, and Louis regained his freedom. With the support of Pippin and Louis the German, Louis the Pious soon forced Lothar to surrender, and in February of 835 had himself formally and solemnly re-invested with his imperial regalia. In this ritual reversal at  174 Nithard, \u201cNithard\u2019s History,\u201d bk. 1, chp. 3, trans. Dutton\/Scholz and Rogers, 334. 175 Regni Divisio (831. Feb.), ed. Alfred Boretius and Victor Krause, MGH, Capitularia regum Francorum, 2 (Hannover: Hahn, 1883), 24. 176 Thegan, \u201cThe Deeds of Emperor Charles the Great,\u201d chp. 43, trans. Noble, 209\u201310; The Astronomer, \u201cThe Life of Emperor Louis,\u201d chp. 49, trans. Noble, 282\u201383 177 The Astronomer, \u201cThe Life of Emperor Louis,\u201d chp. 49, trans. Noble, 283.   45 the palace of Thionville, he assembled a council of nearly all the realm\u2019s bishops and abbots to declare the penance of 833 uncanonical.178 Louis maintained his sovereignty over his sons for the next five years until his death in June, 840.179    178 The Astronomer, \u201cThe Life of Emperor Louis,\u201d chp. 54, trans. Noble, 287. 179 The Astronomer, \u201cThe Life of Emperor Louis,\u201d chp. 64, trans. Noble, 301\u20132.   46 Chapter 4 The Carolingian Reception of Ambrose\u2019s Defenses of David  While previous chapters have sought to establish the Carolingians\u2019 familiarity with and knowledge of Ambrose, his exegesis, and his encounter with Theodosius, the present chapter will delve into the reception of Ambrose\u2019s Defenses of David in the ninth century. The first section outlines how Louis was influenced by ideas that run parallel to those discussed in the Defenses, as Louis demonstrated an understanding of a king\u2019s relationship with and responsibility towards God that was similar to that of Ambrose. It concludes by suggesting that Louis did his penance in 822 both in accordance with Ambrose\u2019s teaching in the Defenses and in emulation of David and Theodosius. The second section examines Carolingian bishops\u2019 use of several Ambrosian ideas, including the duties of priests as moral and spiritual physicians, the importance of a king heeding priests\u2019 advice, and the responsibilities of a king to safeguard the realm entrusted to him by God. I contend that the bishops who rose in rebellion against Louis in the 830s wished to create a \u201cministerial\u201d model for future generations to emulate, and that they specifically staged Louis\u2019s second penance (in 833) following Ambrose\u2019s example.    Ambrosian Sovereignty Louis the Pious was influenced by Ambrose\u2019s idea about the relationship between a king and God, as he came to view a king as indebted to God and accountable to Him, despite the ruler\u2019s supreme secular power and authority. In his Second Defense, Ambrose used the metaphor of creditor and debtor to capture the relationship between God and king, while in both Defenses he articulated how God had entrusted the kingdom and people to the secular ruler\u2019s   47 administration.180 Furthermore, Ambrose established that kings are \u201csubject to God through devotion and fidelity,\u201d owing \u201cinviolate faith\u201d to God for the realm\u2019s management.181  Considering Ambrose\u2019s revered authority in the ninth century, Louis may have been influenced by the Defenses in recognizing his responsibility as a king towards God. In issuing capitularies, a series of legislative and administrative acts, Louis specified his relationship with God in terms and concepts similar to those described by Ambrose. Issued between 823 and 825, Louis\u2019s capitulary of general admonition to all orders of the kingdom, the Admonitio ad omnes regni ordines, delineated a ruler\u2019s relationship with God specifically as one of creditor and debtor.182 In addition to using terminology similar to that of Ambrose, Louis recognized that God had granted him the right of \u201cadministration\u201d of the kingdom, and decreed that everyone, including himself, should be thankful to God and render Him just praise.183   Unlike Ambrose\u2019s characterization of bishops as providing only spiritual assistance, Louis recognized bishops as helpers assisting him in the pragmatic management of the realm. In his Defenses, Ambrose had presented the priest Nathan as a model of divine assistance preventing David from \u201cfalling into condemnation,\u201d yet Ambrose did not hold Nathan as accountable towards God.184 Louis would adapt Ambrose\u2019s idea by explaining that bishops derive their power from the ruler and would assist him with the administration of the empire.185  180 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 133; Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 185, 193. 181 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 133; Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 193. 182 Admonitio ad omnes regni ordines (823\u2013825), chp. 2, ed. Alfred Boretius, MGH, Capitularia regum Francorum 1 (Hannover: Hahn, 1883), 303, \u201csicut debitores sumus.\u201d 183 Admonitio ad omnes regni ordines (823\u2013825), chp. 1, 2, ed. Boretius, 303, \u201cin huius regni administratione specialiter conserventur\u201d; \u201cDeo iustas laudes persolvere et vestrae bonae intentioni multimodas debemus gratias referre.\u201d 184 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 109, 133. 185 Admonitio ad omnes regni ordines (823\u2013825), chp. 3, 8, ed. Boretius, 303, 304.   48 Like Ambrose, he could have attempted to include bishops as his joint assistants, but he also distinguished Nathan, the priest sent by God to provide divine assistance, from his own Carolingian bishops operating under him to jointly look after the realm.186 Whereas Ambrose had held only the king as accountable towards God, Louis now declared that every helper could be convicted of the sin of negligence, with the sovereign holding the heaviest responsibility for the salvation of all.187   Imitating David Ambrose also affected Louis\u2019s actions through his commendation of David\u2019s fulfillment of his social duty. In both Defenses, Ambrose commented on the imitability of David\u2019s recovery, as everyone could and should identify with David\u2019s sin and follow David\u2019s example of penance to redeem themselves.188 Ambrose called on the whole Christian congregation to follow David, admiring him as the proper moral example in leading his people to humble themselves before God, thereby procuring grace and redemption.189 Like Ambrose, Louis also recognized the social responsibility of those of higher status to set a model for those beneath them to follow. He urged the high officials and bishops of his realm to \u201cguide\u201d their inferiors \u201cby word and example\u201d of their own actions.190 Although Louis did not explicitly refer to Ambrose or his commentaries, I believe his actions in the 820s reflect his internalization of the Ambrosian ideal of proper kingship and his  186 De Jong, The Penitential State, 37; Admonitio ad omnes regni ordines (823\u2013825), chp. 4, ed. Boretius, 303. 187 Admonitio ad omnes regni ordines (823\u2013825), chp. 3, ed. Boretius, 303; De Jong, The Penitential State, 37, 122. 188 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 108; Kuczynski, \u201cThe Psalms and Social Action,\u201d 200. 189 Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 192. 190 Bertram, \u201cThe Council of Aachen and the Canonical Institute,\u201d 134, 152; Admonitio ad omnes regni ordines (823\u2013825), chp. 9, ed. Boretius, 304.   49 attempts to emulate David\u2019s (and Theodosius\u2019s) clemency and penance. Both Defenses describe the effects of charity and penance in cleansing sins, with Ambrose contending that David remitted his sin with good deeds and cleansed his injustice through both the vocalization of contrition and an outstanding public penance.191 Perhaps swayed by Ambrose\u2019s portrayal of King David, Louis demonstrated his own clemency and charity, and then performed a public penance to cleanse himself. Like David, who \u201cwept with loud mourning\u201d and \u201cdeplored\u201d the death of Absalom, his impious parricidal son, Louis also demonstrated his sadness and contrition over the harm of his enemies.192 He wept over the death of his rebellious nephew, Bernard; he bequeathed monasteries to his half-brothers whom he had forcibly tonsured; and he granted amnesty and restored properties to the followers of the rebellion.193 In recognition of his sins, Louis gave \u201ca great deal to the poor\u201d in the hopes of cleansing himself through charity.194  Louis may also have been inspired to perform his astonishing public penance in 822 in observance of Ambrose\u2019s penitential teaching, and in emulation of David and Theodosius (the only two sovereigns in the West known to have previously performed such penance). Ambrose, for instance, had affirmed the benefits of immediately confessing one\u2019s sins in this life, for one would then not appear despicable before God in the next.195 Ambrose describes admiringly how, upon recognizing his sin, David \u201cdid not allow the awareness of his crime to stay hidden\u201d within  191 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 126, 132, 137, 142; Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 155. 192 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 121, 125. 193 Thegan, \u201cThe Deeds of Emperor Charles the Great,\u201d chp. 23, trans. Noble, 206; De Jong, The Penitential State, 123. 194 Thegan, \u201cThe Deeds of Emperor Charles the Great,\u201d chp. 23, trans. Noble, 206. 195 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 109; Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 191, 192.   50 his conscience (conscientiam) \u201ceven for a moment,\u201d but immediately rendered a \u201chasty confession\u201d with \u201cimmense distress.\u201d196  The same haste and distress also marked Louis\u2019s first penance. The Council of Aachen in 816 decreed that, once a person \u201cadmits to a serious crime,\u201d there should be no delay for him to do a \u201cspontaneous penance\u201d to remit his sin, a decree that Louis would keenly practice himself.197 Once Louis recognized his sin, he did not delay or hesitate. Rather, like David, he exhibited a similar feeling of anxiety, as Louis was \u201canxious to be reconciled.\u201d198 In 822, openly confessing his and his father\u2019s errors and seeking to correct this sin through almsgiving and prayers, Louis \u201cimitat[ed] the example of the emperor Theodosius,\u201d explains his anonymous contemporary biographer, and performed a public penance.199   Sovereign Accountability and Divine Punishment  Besides influencing Louis, Ambrose\u2019s teaching also influenced the bishops, for despite their competing agendas they all agreed on several points that bear a striking resemblance to arguments that Ambrose made in his Defenses. After Louis\u2019s second penance in 833, the rebel bishops maintained that Louis had received their salubrious admonition and heeded their advice.200 They agreed that God entrusted the kingdom to secular sovereigns like Louis, who was  196 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 107; Ambrose, Apologie de David, ed. Hadot and Cordier, 76, \u201cne exiguo quidem momento manere penes se delicti passus est conscientiam, sed praematura confessione atque inmenso dolore reddidit peccatum suum domino.\u201d 197 Bertram, The Council of Aachen and the Canonical Institute, 121, \u201cSi vero quis in collegio canonicorum culpam criminalem admiserit, huic nulla est danda dilatio, quin aut sponte penitentiam pro admisso crimine gerat aut\u201d; Rutger Kramer, Rethinking Authority in the Carolingian Empire: Ideals and Expectations during the Reign of Louis the Pious (813\u2013828) (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2019), 94. 198 Astronomer, \u201cThe Life of Emperor Louis,\u201d chp. 35, trans. Noble, 262. 199 Astronomer, \u201cThe Life of Emperor Louis,\u201d chp. 35, trans. Noble, 262. 200 De Jong, The Penitential State, 241; Episcoporum de poenitentia, quam Hludowicus imperator professus est, relatio Compendiensis (833 Oct.), chp. 1, ed. Courtney M. Booker, \u201cThe Public Penance of Louis the Pious: A New   51 expected to heed the bishops\u2019 counsel in order to provide peace for his subjects and lead them to salvation. Using and expanding on the metaphor of bishops as doctors, which Ambrose had used, the bishops described themselves as both physicians and faithful assistants, accountable for correcting the king and keeping him from going astray.  To reprimand Louis to conduct penance in 833, the rebel bishops condemned Louis for failing in his duty and thus offending God, echoing Ambrose\u2019s idea regarding a king\u2019s responsibility to keep his entrusted empire peaceful. Ambrose had observed that God commanded the sovereign to take care of the earthly country, and that a ruler is thus responsible to God for the physical and spiritual safety of his people who are entrusted to him.201 Arguing that David\u2019s virtues outweighed his vices, Ambrose invited his readers to consider David\u2019s laudable quality in preserving \u201cperpetual peace\u201d and leading his people away from murder and bloodshed.202 The same sentiment is echoed in the report of the rebel bishops on Louis\u2019s second penance, as they justified their condemnation of the emperor by arguing that he had failed in his duty of preserving the peace.203 The rebel bishops first acknowledged that God had granted Louis his position for keeping the kingdom intact and peaceful, and then charged that Louis had offended God by disrupting the peace and leading God\u2019s people into disorder.204 With this claim, the rebel bishops relied on Ambrose\u2019s idea of the king\u2019s responsibility to God as their basis for  Edition of the Episcoporum de poenitentia, quam Hludowicus imperator professus est, relatio Compendiensis (833),\u201d Viator 39, no. 2 (2008): 16. 201 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 133; Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 193. 202 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 120. 203 Relatio Compendiensis, ed. Booker, 15, \u201cet in eo multis modis Deum offendisse et ecclesiam Christi scandalizasse populumque per suam negligentiam multifarie in perturbationem induxisse.\u201d 204 Relatio Compendiensis, ed. Booker, 13, \u201claborem pacificum et unitum... fuerit et domino Ludewico imperatori a Deo ad regendum sub magna pace commissum Dominioque\u201d; 15, \u201cet in eo multis modis Deum offendisse et ecclesiam Christi scandalizasse populumque per suam negligentiam multifarie in perturbationem induxisse.\u201d   52 judgment. By arguing that Louis had failed to discharge the divine duty of his office, the rebel bishops provided legitimate grounds for their demand that Louis perform another penance as a way to remit his sin and reconcile himself with God.   The Bishop as medicus    Ambrose\u2019s metaphor that likens a priest\u2019s prescription of penance to a physician applying medicine to cure a wound was used by the rebel bishops to justify their position and authority to admonish. In his First Defense, Ambrose describes Christ as assuming the body of an adulterer to convert the impious like a heavenly physician (medicus caelestis) curing the sick, with penance being the penitent\u2019s \u201cremedy of health\u201d (remedia sanitatis).205 Alcuin also appropriated this metaphor in his exegesis on Psalm 50 and his letter Ad pueros sancti Martini, the latter written for his students on the necessity of confession. Although he did not explicitly cite Ambrose, Alcuin demonstrates parallel ideas when he refers to God as the physician (medicum Deum) healing the sinner\u2019s ulcers, and repeatedly urges his audience to use penance as the medicine (medicina) for the health of their souls.206  The Carolingians quickly adopted the idea of penance as spiritual medicine and used it as a common trope. Louis\u2019s biographer the Astronomer, for instance, maintained that the emperor respected the counts and abbots as doctors who could cure the illness of the kingdom, while the  205 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 146; Ambrose, Apologie de David, ed. Hadot and Cordier, 176, \u201cet medicus illu caelestis\u2009: non opus est sanis, inquit, medicus, sed infirmis\u201d; 136, \u201cqui autem agnoscit utique resipiscit, non respuit remedia sanitatis, se ipse restringit, paenitet eum culpae.\u201d 206 Alcuin, \u201cPsalmus VI,\u201d verse 1, 575, \u201cad medicum Deum recurrat, qui ulcera peccatorum suorum sanet\u201d; Michael S. Driscoll, \u201c\u2018Ad Pueros Sancti Martini\u2019: A Critical Edition, English Translation, and Study of the Manuscript Transmission,\u201d Traditio 53 (1998): 52, \u201cConfessio tua medicina est vulnerum tuorum\u201d; 60, \u201cad confessionis medicamentum,\u201d \u201cut medicamenta salutis proficere valeant in vobis.\u201d   53 rebel bishops used the same metaphor for different effects.207 Seeking to legitimize their condemnation of Louis, they asserted their role as the empire\u2019s spiritual physicians (medici spiritales), rightfully providing healthy admonitions for the sake of the body politic.208 The rebel bishops fashioned themselves not as mere secular assistants working under the emperor, but as doctors with divinely endowed expertise and power. Just as patients do not have equal medical authority before a doctor to argue for the condition of their health, the rebel bishops elevated their position and asserted that Louis should respect their professional authority and follow their salutary prescription of confession and penance.   Heeding the Doctors\u2019 Advice  The Carolingian bishops also followed Ambrose\u2019s discussion of royal and priestly duties in their accusation that Louis failed to seek their counsel before taking action. They begin their report of Louis\u2019s second penance with a lengthy discussion that justifies their bold admonition of the emperor on the basis of their duty as bishops (ministerium episcoporum).209 Within this prelude, they demonstrate how they have expanded on Ambrose\u2019s ideas to elevate themselves. In both Defenses, Ambrose had praised David for his willingness to accept the priest Nathan\u2019s advice to correct his sin. Such admirable humility by David shows that he prized emending his sin for salvation\u2019s sake over any personal feeling of humiliation of being reproached by a person of lesser status.210 The rebel bishops attempt to normalize and rationalize David\u2019s humility of  207 Astronomus, Vita Hludowici imperatoris, chp. 3, ed. Ernst Tremp, MGH, SS rer. Germ. 64 (Hannover: Hahn, 1995), 290, \u201cRegnum esse veluti corpus quoddam et nunc isto... velut quibusdam medicis sanitas accepta tutetur.\u201d 208 Relatio Compendiensis, ed. Booker, 15, \u201cpontifices, utpote medici spiritales, salubriter admonuerunt.\u201d 209 Relatio Compendiensis, ed. Booker, 17, \u201comnibus in christiana religione constitutes scire convenit, quale sit ministerium episcoporum.\u201d 210 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 108; Ambrose, \u201cThe Second Defense of David,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 184, 185.   54 accepting the advice of the priest Nathan as not simply a duty of the sovereign but an act that was admirable. For example, they observe that Louis sinned by initiating useless military campaigns without any prior consultation.211 While undertaking such \u201cuseless military campaigns\u201d itself sufficed as a sin that would necessitate Louis\u2019s repentance, the bishops specifically added that Louis decided on his course of action without consulting their advice. Implicating themselves in their admonition of the negligent emperor, the rebel bishops thereby elevated their status from assistants working under Louis to the essential, indispensable position of spiritual advisors.    Emulation of Ambrose In the eyes of the rebel bishops, Louis\u2019s first penance of 822 did not have the same exemplary effect as David\u2019s or Theodosius\u2019s penance. Ambrose had explained how David derived his power and attained his sanctity through penance, while Theodosius, in emulation of David, also shone in the \u201cglories\u2026 of the saints.\u201d212 Just as Theodosius remembered David, the Carolingians remembered Theodosius as a model sovereign; the Astronomer had specifically praised Louis for his imitation of Theodosius\u2019s example (imitates Theodosii imperatoris exemplum).213 Yet, the rebel bishops had a different opinion. Although some contemporary narratives recount Louis performing his first penance in accordance with his bishops\u2019 admonition, he is described as having undertaken it of his own volition, with little ecclesiastical interference. Unlike Ambrose, the bishops not only failed to compel the emperor to contrition,  211 Relatio Compendiensis, ed. Booker, 13, \u201cac bonorum hominum consiliis acquiescere curavit\u201d; 18, \u201cDe diversis expeditionibus, quas in regno sibi commisso non solum inutiliter, sed etiam noxie sine consilio et utilitate fecit.\u201d 212 Ambrose, \u201cOration on the Death of Theodosius I (395),\u201d trans. Liebeschuetz, 196. 213 Astronomus, Vita Hludowici imperatoris, chp. 35, ed. Tremp, 406.   55 but in the wake of Louis\u2019s penance even acknowledged their own sin of negligence in discharging the duties of their office.214  However, Louis\u2019s second penance provided the bishops with another opportunity to emulate Ambrose and assert their attentiveness to their episcopal ministry, in the hopes of presenting themselves as exemplars for future generations. While Louis himself had described the bishops as the emperor\u2019s \u201cassistants\u201d in managing the empire divinely entrusted to him, the rebel bishops had a competing agenda.215 In 833, they claimed that they were acting to set an example (exemplum) for future generations and declared themselves responsible for the salvation of all.216  In the preliminary steps leading to Louis\u2019s penance, the rebel bishops followed a series of actions that Ambrose himself had taken. Ambrose had sent the emperor Theodosius a letter and a commentary in 390 that outlined his sins and the method of their remedy; the rebel bishops in 833 likewise provided Louis with a \u201cbooklet\u201d that outlined his sins and the method of their remedy.217 Within his letter and his exegesis, Ambrose used the example of David to persuade Theodosius to follow David\u2019s example, identify with David\u2019s sin, and emulate his recovery. Within their booklet, the rebel bishops told Louis to read it as a \u201cmirror,\u201d and expected Louis to follow David, the \u201cperfect penitent,\u201d speak the words of Psalm 50, and state that \u201che knows his  214 Capitula ab episcopis Attiniaci data (822 Aug.), ed. Boretius, 357, \u201cvestroque etiam saluberrimo exemplo provocati, confitemur\u2026 neglegentes extitisse\u2026 pro captu intellegentiae nostrae nos vello adhibere profitemur.\u201d 215 Admonitio ad omnes regni ordines (823\u2013825), chp. 4, ed. Boretius, 303, \u201cnobis veri adiutores in administratione ministerii nobis commissi existatis\u201d; \u201cThe Report of Compi\u00e8gne by the Bishops of the Realm concerning the Penance of Emperor Louis (833),\u201d trans. Mayke de Jong, The Penitential State: Authority and Atonement in the Age of Louis the Pious, 814\u2013840 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 271. 216 Relatio Compendiensis, ed. Booker, 12, \u201cSic exerceant ministerium suum, ut et praesentibus salubriter consulant et futuris sint exemplum salutis.\u201d 217 Agobard of Lyons, \u201cAgobard\u2019s Attestation to the Penance Performed by the Emperor,\u201d trans. Mayke de Jong, The Penitential State: Authority and Atonement in the Age of Louis the Pious, 814\u2013840 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009), 278.   56 iniquity and his sin is always before him.\u201d218 Although the rebel bishops never explicitly cite Ambrose or his Defenses, their actions demonstrate that they followed Ambrose\u2019s steps in engaging the penitent with Psalm 50 to provoke his contrition and imitation of David. According to the contemporary report of one of the rebel bishops, Agobard of Lyons, Louis\u2019s contrite heart was \u201creawakened\u201d by the bishops\u2019 exhortations.219  Despite the fact that the Carolingians had a rich variety of penitential traditions, the rebel bishops orchestrated a penance for Louis that was almost identical to the penitential rituals of Ambrose\u2019s accounts. Following his knowledge of fourth-century penitential practices, Ambrose had depicted David\u2019s penance as consisting of prostration, profuse tears, fasting, and the repeated use of verses from Psalm 50 to proclaim his contrition.220 Ambrose\u2019s representation of Theodosius\u2019s penance similarly includes public weeping and continuous prayers for divine mercy.221 However, Ambrose observes that Theodosius had also thrown \u201call [his] royal attire to the ground\u201d to demonstrate his contrition, an action that Ambrose did not describe David as having done.222  In Bishop Agobard\u2019s detailed description of Louis\u2019s penance of 833, its striking similarities with David\u2019s and Theodosius\u2019s penances connect the three ritual acts of different temporalities together. Requesting to repent after the bishops\u2019 admonition, observes Agobard, Louis \u201cflung his armour\u201d to the floor, exchanged his royal regalia for penitent\u2019s garb,  218 Agobard of Lyons, \u201cAgobard\u2019s Attestation,\u201d trans. De Jong, 278; Ambrose, Apologie de David, ed. Hadot and Cordier, 132, \u201cquoniam iniquitatem meam ego agnosco et delictum meum contra me est semper\u201d; Agobard of Lyons, Agobardi cartula de poenitentia ab imperatore acta (833 Oct.), ed. Alfred Boretius and Victor Krause, MGH, Capitularia regum Francorum, 2 (Hannover: Hahn, 1897), 57, \u201cquod per penitentem perfectum dictum est: \u2018Iniquitatem meam ego agnosco; peccatum meum contra me est semper.\u2019\u201d 219 Agobard of Lyons, \u201cAgobard\u2019s Attestation,\u201d trans. De Jong, 279. 220 Ambrose, \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus,\u201d trans. Dunkle, 128, 129, 137. 221 Ambrose, \u201cOration on the Death of Theodosius I (395),\u201d chp. 34, trans. Liebeschuetz, 193. 222 Ambrose, \u201cOration on the Death of Theodosius I (395),\u201d chp. 34, trans. Liebeschuetz, 193.   57 \u201cprostrated\u201d himself on the ground before the altar, and \u201cconfessed\u2026 four times to all in a clear voice, in a flood of tears\u2026 with psalms and prayers\u201d in hopes of reconciliation and redemption with God.223 In Agobard\u2019s description, Louis\u2019s penance mixed the key elements of Ambrose\u2019s two accounts of the penitential ritual. The textual similarities between these three penances cannot be explained simply as a by-product of the Carolingian Renaissance\u2019s aspiration to return to late antique, \u201ctraditional\u201d exemplars as the basis for its cultural reforms, but must also be considered as a deliberate function of the Carolingian episcopate\u2019s aspirations to achieve its immediate, political-soteriological goals.     223 Agobard of Lyons, \u201cAgobard\u2019s Attestation,\u201d trans. De Jong, 279; Agobard of Lyons, Agobardi cartula de poenitentia, ed. Boretius and Krause, 57.   58 Epilogue  This project has attempted to identify the influence of Ambrose\u2019s two Defenses in the ninth century, especially within the context of Louis the Pious\u2019s two penances. To contextualize the Defenses, Chapter One discussed the fourth-century knowledge and use of three penitential elements\u2014the Penitential Psalms, penance, and parrhesia\u2014that helped Ambrose to advise emperor Theodosius to undertake his penance. Chapter Two summarized key ideas discussed in Ambrose\u2019s Defenses, including how both texts softened the effects of David\u2019s sin, extolled David\u2019s penance, reiterated the imitability of saints\u2019 faults, and articulated a king\u2019s position as that of a steward safeguarding this realm for God. The third chapter examined the Carolingian penitential context and remembrance of Ambrose. It starts with the Carolingian longing for a return of late antique cultural values and forms, and proceeds to examine the revival of the late antique ritual of penance and its use of the Penitential Psalms. The chapter continues with the Carolingian remembrance of Ambrose and Theodosius, suggesting that in the ninth century Ambrose was admired for exercising his ministerial duty, and Theodosius was lauded for heeding Ambrose\u2019s admonition. The fourth and final chapter evinces the influence of the main ideas of Ambrose\u2019s Defenses in the ninth century. It first examines Louis\u2019s demonstration of his internalization of Ambrosian ideas on the administrative duties of a king, and then suggests that his striking first penance in 822 may have been done in emulation of Ambrose\u2019s teaching and Theodosius\u2019s example. It then hypothesizes that Carolingian rebel bishops may have used Ambrosian ideas regarding the bishop\u2019s ministerial duties to justify and legitimize their audacious admonition of Louis. The chapter ends with a discussion of the rebel bishops\u2019 attempt to emulate Ambrose in order to remedy the ills of their present and set an example for the future.    59 Lacking evidence such as the direct citation of or reference to Ambrose\u2019s Defenses by Carolingian authors, I have simply demonstrated certain parallels and hypothesized corresponding connections. The understudied textual transmission, reception, and influence of the Defenses invites more research and exploration. Future studies could discuss the Carolingian reception of Ambrose\u2019s ideas on the king\u2019s responsibilities and duties, and on other topics revolving around the theatricality of penance and conscience. In short, my project has only raised more questions than it answers. This brief epilogue will discuss several areas of research in relation to the Carolingians and the Defenses that I think would be profitable to pursue.  Future research might investigate other appropriations of Ambrose\u2019s work by the Carolingians. The relationship between Ambrose\u2019s Defenses and the Carolingian program of educational reform could bear further study. Seeking to revive and spread the use of the Penitential Psalms, Alcuin outlined their utility in a popular preface that survived in hundreds of extant manuscripts. Given the pervasive influence of Alcuin\u2019s texts during the ninth century and beyond, an investigation of the intertextuality between the Defenses and Alcuin\u2019 exegeses would thus be of great value. The impact of Ambrose\u2019s Defenses on Carolingian narratives describing Louis\u2019s penance might also be more carefully evaluated. For example, throughout the Astronomer\u2019s biography of Louis, the emperor is depicted as always having regarded peace as his central concern. He sought peace treaties with neighboring kings, repeatedly forgave his enemies, and always demonstrated clemency; as the Astronomer put it, Louis was a \u201ccherisher of peace [and] lover of unity.\u201d224 Having labored for his beloved empire, Louis successfully kept his kingdom intact and died in a  224 The Astronomer, \u201cThe Deeds of Emperor Charles the Great,\u201d chp. 23, 25, 26, 35, 39, 42, 48, 54, 61, trans. Noble, 248\u201353, 262\u201364, 267, 272\u201374, 279\u201382, 287\u201389, 296\u201398.   60 state of \u201cspiritual and temporal peace.\u201d225 As Andrew Romig notes, with this characterization the Astronomer stressed that Louis had used his \u201czeal for forgiveness\u201d to bind an empire that was nearly torn asunder by evil forces and strife.226 Although historians have understood the Astronomer\u2019s account as one Carolingian thinker\u2019s attempt to contemplate the possibility of restoring concord and peace through clemency, his work also evinces strong ethical values that I believe carry an Ambrosian intertextual resonance: that a good sovereign should have an awareness of his position as provisional and probationary, as being entrusted to him by God and dependent on the successful preservation of peace.227 Thus, I think a close study of the influence of Ambrose\u2019s texts on the Astronomer would yield dividends.   On Penance  Another topic that could bear further study is the \u201ctheatricality\u201d of penance and penitential rituals. In the fourth century, the amount of tears during the performance of penance was related in direct proportion both to the penitent\u2019s level of regret and to the bishop\u2019s level of authority. As a fundamental sign that allowed penitents to demonstrate their \u201cdeprecatory supplication\u201d and regretful repentance, the shedding of tears was also meant to effect the propitiation of the community and clergy.228 In fulfilling their episcopal duties of pastoral care, bishops were also expected to publicly demonstrate their compassion by praying with tears for others\u2019 sins.229 Participating in this tradition, Ambrose emphasized how David and Theodosius  225 Astronomer, \u201cThe Deeds of Emperor Charles the Great,\u201d chp. 64, trans. Noble, 301\u20132; Romig, \u201cIn Praise of the Too-Clement Emperor,\u201d 409. 226 Romig, \u201cIn Praise of the Too-Clement Emperor,\u201d 405. 227 Romig, \u201cIn Praise of the Too-Clement Emperor,\u201d 409. 228 Rapp, Holy Bishops, 77. 229 Rapp, Holy Bishops, 88.   61 both shed abundant tears in contrition during their penances, while Agobard in his account also underscored Louis\u2019s weeping. One could conduct a close study of the theatricality within Ambrose\u2019s texts, and trace how this theatricality of penance retained its importance over the centuries as a measurement of contrition and compassion.  Finally, I conclude with a few remarks on promising points of analysis regarding the Defenses, contrition, and conscience. Historian Abigail Fiery has noted the Carolingians\u2019 growing focus on the \u201cexcavation of the interior,\u201d as they developed increasingly aggressive measures to probe the individual, private conscience and judge one\u2019s interior thoughts.230 This discourse on conscience was already present in Ambrose\u2019s Defenses. Concerning the transparency of one\u2019s mind before God, Ambrose remarks that \u201chidden things (abscondita cogitationum) \u2026 and secrets of the mind (mentis occulta) do not escape\u201d God\u2019s observation.231 Besides admonishing his reader that they could conceal nothing before God, Ambrose also discusses conscience. He emphasizes that although David could be acquitted by secular laws as a king, he was still \u201cguilty in his own conscience (conscientiae).\u201d232 With this statement, Ambrose makes the case for conscience as a binding moral power that transcends secular laws. Similar ideas also appeared in Alcuin\u2019s treatise, in which Alcuin repeatedly asks people to confess their secrets, and to refrain from concealing them because God already knows all.233 The rebel bishops again participated in this discourse when they condemned Louis in 833, as they invoked the  230 Abigail Firey, A Contrite Heart: Prosecution and Redemption in the Carolingian Empire, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions, 145 (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 5. 231 Ambrose, Apologie de David, ed. Hadot and Cordier, 144, \u201cTibi soli peccaui, quem solum abscondita cogitationum et mentis occulta non fallunt.\u201d  232 Ambrose, Apologie de David, ed. Hadot and Cordier, 178, \u201cnecis eius conscius ueniam tan ti poscat admissi et quamuis rex legibus absolutus suae tamen reus sit conscientiae.\u201d  233 Driscoll, \u201c\u2018Ad Pueros Sancti Martini,\u2019\u201d 50, \u201cAge igitur paenitens, propria scelera confitere, pande per confessionem tuae iniquitatis secretum. Nota sunt Deo quae in occulto fecisti. Quae si non dixerit lingua, non poterit celare conscientia\u201d; \u201cetsi hominis oculos in peccatis effugere valeas nullatenus tarnen Dei aspectum latere poterit quicquid in occulto gesseris.\u201d   62 conscience when advising Louis against concealing anything from God.234 In short, future studies might also examine the textual influence of Ambrose\u2019s Defenses on Carolingian ethics and their notion of conscience.    234 Relatio Compendiensis, ed. Booker, 15, \u201cin quibus maxime se Deum offendisse profitebatur, ne forte interius aliquid tegeret aut in conspectu Dei quippiam dolose ageret, sicut iam pridem in Compendio palatio ab alio.\u201d   63 Bibliography Primary Sources  Admonitio ad omnes regni ordines (823\u2013825). Edited by Alfred Boretius. MGH, Capitularia regum Francorum 1:303\u20137. Hannover: Hahn, 1883. Agobard of Lyons. \u201cAgobard\u2019s Attestation to the Penance Performed by the Emperor.\u201d Translated by Mayke de Jong. The Penitential State: Authority and Atonement in the Age of Louis the Pious, 814\u2013840, 277\u201379. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. \u2014\u2014\u2014. Agobardi cartula de poenitentia ab imperatore acta (833 Oct.). Edited by Alfred Boretius and Victor Krause. MGH, Capitularia regum Francorum, 2:56\u201357. Hannover: Hahn, 1897. Alcuin. \u201cPsalmus VI.\u201d In Alcuini opera omnia. Vol. 2, 575\u201376. Paris, 1863. Ambrose. Apologie de David. Edited by Pierre Hadot and Marius Cordier. Sources Chr\u00e9tiennes 239. Paris: Les Editions du Cerf, 1977. \u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cA Defense of the Prophet David to Theodosius Augustus.\u201d In Treatises on Noah and David. Translated by Brian Dunkle. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2020. \u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cLetter on the Massacre at Thessalonica (390).\u201d In Ambrose of Milan: Political Letters and Speeches. Translated by John Hugo Wolfgang Gideon Liebeschuetz. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005.  \u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cOration on the Death of Theodosius I (395).\u201d In Ambrose of Milan: Political Letters and Speeches. Translated by John Hugo Wolfgang Gideon Liebeschuetz. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 2005. The Astronomer, \u201cThe Life of Emperor Louis.\u201d In Charlemagne and Louis the Pious: The Lives by Einhard, Notker, Ermoldus, Thegan, and the Astronomer. Translated by Thomas F. X. Noble. University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009. \u2014\u2014\u2014. Vita Hludowici imperatoris. Edited by Ernst Tremp. MGH, SS rer. Germ. 64. Hannover: Hahn, 1995. Augustine. Confessions. Edited by George Stade. Translated by Albert C. Outler and Mark Vessey. New York: Barnes and Noble, 2007. \u2014\u2014\u2014. Enarrationes in Psalmos 50. Edited by Eligius Edkkers and Johannes Fraipont. CCSL 38. Turnhout: Brepols, 1956. Capitula ab episcopis Attiniaci data (822 Aug.). Edited by Alfred Boretius. MGH, Capitularia regum Francorum, 1:375\u201378. Hannover: Hahn, 1883.  Charlemagne. \u201cCharlemagne\u2019s Division of His Kingdoms.\u201d In Carolingian Civilization: A Reader. Edited by Paul Edward Dutton. Translated by Dana Carleton Munro. 2nd edition. 146\u201351. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2004. Concilium Cabillonense (813). Edited by Albert Werminghoff. MGH, Concilia aevi Karolini, 2(1):273\u201385. Hannover: Hahn, 1906. Dhuoda. Liber Manualis: Handbook for Her Warrior Son. Translated by Marcelle Thi\u00e9baux. Cambridge Medieval Classics 8. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998. Episcoporum de poenitentia, quam Hludowicus imperator professus est, relatio Compendiensis (833 Oct.). Edited by Courtney M. Booker. \u201cThe Public Penance of Louis the Pious: A   64 New Edition of the Episcoporum de poenitentia, quam Hludowicus imperator professus est, relatio Compendiensis (833).\u201d Viator 39, no. 2 (2008): 1\u201319. Nithard. \u201cNithard\u2019s History.\u201d In Carolingian Civilization: A Reader. Edited by Paul Edward Dutton. Translated by Bernard W. Scholz and Barbara Rogers. 2nd edition. 333\u201363. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2004.  Paulinus of Milan. The Life of Saint Ambrose: A Translation of the Vita Sancti Ambrosii. Translated by Mary Simplicia Kaniecka. Christian Roman Empire Series. Vol. 13. Merchantville, New Jersey: Evolution Publishing, 2019. Regni Divisio (831. Feb.). Edited by Alfred Boretius and Victor Krause. MGH, Capitularia regum Francorum, 2:20\u201324. Hannover: Hahn, 1883. \u201cThe Report of Compi\u00e8gne by the Bishops of the Realm concerning the Penance of Emperor Louis (833).\u201d Translated by Mayke de Jong. The Penitential State: Authority and Atonement in the Age of Louis the Pious, 814\u2013840. 271\u201377. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.  Royal Frankish Annals. In Carolingian Chronicles: Royal Frankish Annals and Nithard\u2019s Histories. Translated by Bernard W. Scholz and Barbara Rogers. 88\u2013125. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1972. Sozomen. Historia Ecclesiastica. Edited by Joseph Bidez and G\u00fcnther Christian Hansen. Translated by Chester D. Hartranft. Select Library of Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church 2. Oxford: Parker, 1891. Tertullian. Tertullian: Treatises on Penance: On Penitence and On Purity. Translated by William P. Le Saint. Westminster, MD: The Newman Press, 1958. Thegan, \u201cThe Deeds of Emperor Charles the Great.\u201d In Charlemagne and Louis the Pious: The Lives by Einhard, Notker, Ermoldus, Thegan, and the Astronomer. Translated by Thomas F. X. Noble. University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2009.     65 Secondary Sources  Baraz, Yelena. \u201cThe Gift of Philosophy: The Treatises as Translations.\u201d In A Written Republic: Cicero\u2019s Philosophical Politics, 96\u2013127. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012. Bertram, Jerome. \u201cThe Council of Aachen and the Canonical Institute.\u201d In The Chrodegang Rules: The Rules for the Common Life of the Secular Clergy from the Eighth and Ninth Centuries. Critical Texts with Translations and Commentary. London: Routledge, 2005. Black, Jonathan. \u201cPsalm Uses in Carolingian Prayerbooks - Alcuin and the Preface to De Psalmorum Usu.\u201d Mediaeval Studies 64 (2002): 1\u201360. Booker, Courtney M. Past Convictions: The Penance of Louis the Pious and the Decline of the Carolingians. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2009. Brown, Peter. Power and Persuasion in Late Antiquity: Towards a Christian Empire. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1992. Capitani, Franco De. \u201cAnalogie fra un\u2019opera Ambrosiana discussa ed Alcuni scritti antimanichei di Sant\u2019Agostino.\u201d Rivista di Filosofia Neo-Scolastica 66, no. 1 (1974): 59\u201388. Clopper, Lawrence. Drama, Play, and Game: English Festive Culture in the Medieval and Early Modern Period. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001. Connolly, Hugh. \u201cSome Disputed Works of St Ambrose.\u201d The Downside Review 65, no. 2 (1947): 121\u201330. De Jong, Mayke. \u201cFrom the Order of the Franks to the World of Ambrose: The Vita Adalhardi and the Epitaphium Arsenii Compared.\u201d In Historiography and Identity III: Carolingian Approaches, edited by Rutger Kramer, Helmut Reimitz, and Graeme Ward, 39\u201363. Turnhout: Brepols, 2021. \u2014\u2014\u2014. The Penitential State: Authority and Atonement in the Age of Louis the Pious, 814\u2013840. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Dutton, Paul Edward. Charlemagne\u2019s Courtier: The Complete Einhard, 2nd edition. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 1998. Driscoll, Michael S. \u201c\u2018Ad Pueros Sancti Martini\u2019: A Critical Edition, English Translation, and Study of the Manuscript Transmission.\u201d Traditio 53 (1998): 37\u201361. \u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cThe Seven Penitential Psalms: Their Designation and Usages from the Middle Ages Onwards.\u201d Ecclesia Orans 17. (2000): 153\u2013201.  Duckett, Eleanor Shipley. Alcuin, Friend of Charlemagne: His World and His Work. New York: Macmillan, 1951. Dunkle, Brian. \u201cIntroduction.\u201d In Treatises on Noah and David, 3\u201324. Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press, 2020. Firey, Abigail. A Contrite Heart: Prosecution and Redemption in the Carolingian Empire, Studies in Medieval and Reformation Traditions. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Flower, Richard. Emperors and Bishops in Late Roman Invective. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013. Foucault, Michel. \u201cDiscourse and Truth\u201d and \u201cParresia.\u201d Edited by Henri-Paul Fruchaud and Daniele Lorenzini. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2019. Hadot, Pierre and Arnold I. Davidson. Philosophy as a Way of Life: Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1995.   66 Hamilton, Sarah. \u201cA New Model for Royal Penance? Helgaud of Fleury\u2019s Life of Robert the Pious.\u201d Early Medieval Europe 6, no. 2 (2003): 189\u2013200. Hardison, O. B. Jr. Christian Rite and Christian Drama in the Middle Ages: Essays in the Origin and Early History of Modern Drama. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1965. Karras, Ruth Mazo and Alastair Minnis. Medieval Theory of Authorship: Scholastic Literary Attitudes in the Later Middle Ages. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011. Kellerman, Robert M. \u201cMiserere Mei: Penitential Psalms and Lyrics in English Literature, 1300\u20131650.\u201d Ph.D. diss., Michigan State University, 1997. King\u2019oo, Clare Costley. Miserere Mei: The Penitential Psalms in Late Medieval and Early Modern England. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 2012. Kramer, Rutger. \u201cA Model for Empire: The Councils of 813 and the Institutio Canonicorum.\u201d In Rethinking Authority in the Carolingian Empire: Ideals and Expectations during the Reign of Louis the Pious (813\u2013828), 59\u2013122. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2019.  Kuczynski, Michael P. Prophetic Song: The Psalms as Moral Discourse in Late Medieval England. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995. \u2014\u2014\u2014. \u201cThe Psalms and Social Action in Late Medieval England.\u201d In Place of the Psalms in the Intellectual Culture of the Middle Ages, edited by Nancy van Deusen, 191\u2013215. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1999. Leppin, Hartmut. \u201cDas Alte Testament und der Erfahrungsraum der Christen. Davids Bu\u00dfe in den Apologien des Ambrosius.\u201d In Die Bibel als politisches Argument: Voraussetzungen und Folgen biblizistischer Herrschaftslegitimation in der Vormoderne, edited by Andreas Pecar and Kai Trampedach, 119\u201335. Oldenbourg: De Gruyter, 2019. Matter, E. Ann. \u201cPetrarch\u2019s Personal Psalms (Psalmi Penitentiales).\u201d In Petrarch, edited by Victoria Kirkham and Armando Maggi, 219\u201328. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009. Mayeski, Marie Anne. \u201cA Mother\u2019s Psalter: Psalms in the Moral Instruction of Dhuoda of Septimania.\u201d In The Place of the Psalms in the Intellectual Culture in the Middle Ages, edited by Nancy Van Deusen, 139\u201351. Suny Series in Medieval Studies. Albany, NY: State University of New York, 1999. Mayr-Harting, Henry. \u201cPraying the Psalter in Carolingian Times: What Was Supposed to Be Going on in the Minds of Monks?\u201d In Prayer and Thought in Monastic Tradition: Essays in Honour of Benedicta Ward SLG, edited by Santha Bhattacharji, Dominic Mattos, and Rowan Williams, 77\u2013100. London: Bloomsbury, 2014. McLynn, Neil B. Ambrose of Milan: Church and Court in a Christian Capital. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994. Meens, Rob. Penance in Medieval Europe, 600\u20131200. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. Monoson, S. Sara. \u201cFrank Speech, Democracy, and Philosophy: Plato\u2019s Debt to a Democratic Strategy of Civic Discourse.\u201d In Athenian Political Thought and the Reconstitution of American Democracy, 172\u201397. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2018. Paredi, Angelo. \u201cPaulinus of Milan.\u201d Sacris Erudiri: Journal of Late Antique and Medieval Christianity 14 (1963): 206\u201330. Rapp, Claudia. Holy Bishops in Late Antiquity: The Nature of Christian Leadership in an Age of Transition. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2013.   67 Renswoude, Irene van. The Rhetoric of Free Speech in Late Antiquity and the Early Middle Ages. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019.  Romig, Andrew J. \u201cIn Praise of the Too-Clement Emperor: The Problem of Forgiveness in the Astronomer\u2019s Vita Hludowici imperatoris.\u201d Speculum 89, no. 2 (2014): 382\u2013409. Roques, Martine. \u201cLa tradition manuscrite de l\u2019apologia Dauid altera attribu\u00e9e \u00e0 Ambroise.\u201d Recherches Augustiniennes et Patristiques 34 (2005): 239\u201397. Savon, Herv\u00e9. \u201cDoit-on attribuer \u00e0 Saint Ambroise \u2018l\u2019Apologia Dauid Altera\u2019?\u201d Latomus 63, no. 4 (2004): 930\u201362. Staley, Lynn. \u201cThe Penitential Psalms: Conversion and the Limits of Lordship.\u201d Journal of Medieval and Early Modern Studies 37, no. 2 (2007): 221\u201369. Sutherland, Annie. \u201cPerforming the Penitential Psalms in the Middle Ages.\u201d In Aspects of the Performative in Medieval Culture, edited by Manuele Gragnolati and Almut Suerbaum, 15\u201338. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2010. Trenchard-Smith, Margaret. \u201cFuribunda Silentia: The \u2018Raging Silences\u2019 of the Testimony of Dhuoda, Countess of Septimania.\u201d Unpublished manuscript, UCLA, 1997. Uhalde, Kevin. \u201cJuridical Administration in the Church.\u201d In A New History of Penance, edited by Abigail Firey, 97\u2013121. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Vocino, Giorgia. \u201cFraming Ambrose in the Resources of the Past: The Late Antique and Early Medieval Sources for a Carolingian Portrait of Ambrose.\u201d In The Resources of the Past in Early Medieval Europe, edited by Clemens Gantner, Rosamond McKitterick, and Sven Meeder. 135\u201352. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015. Yagello, H\u00e9l\u00e8ne. \u201cHistoire, ex\u00e9g\u00e8se et politique: L\u2019apologie de David d\u2019Ambroise de Milan et les Carolingiens.\u201d Sources: Revue de l\u2019Association Histoire au pr\u00e9sent 49\u201350 (1999): 103\u201322. ","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/hasType":[{"value":"Graduating Project","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/isShownAt":[{"value":"10.14288\/1.0413616","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/language":[{"value":"eng","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#peerReviewStatus":[{"value":"Unreviewed","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/www.europeana.eu\/schemas\/edm\/provider":[{"value":"Vancouver : University of British Columbia Library","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/rights":[{"value":"Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International","type":"literal","lang":"*"}],"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#rightsURI":[{"value":"http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by-nc-nd\/4.0\/","type":"literal","lang":"*"}],"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#scholarLevel":[{"value":"Undergraduate","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/isPartOf":[{"value":"University of British Columbia. HIST 449","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/title":[{"value":"Contrition and Emulation : Ambrose\u2019s De apologia prophetae David and Its Carolingian Reception","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"http:\/\/purl.org\/dc\/terms\/type":[{"value":"Text","type":"literal","lang":"en"}],"https:\/\/open.library.ubc.ca\/terms#identifierURI":[{"value":"http:\/\/hdl.handle.net\/2429\/81565","type":"literal","lang":"en"}]}}