Noting how an hypothesis can turn into a truth simply by being repeated, this article examines carefully the basis for the date normally given for this sermon and the frailty of the textual tradition that is the basis for the Morin edition of this sermon. After a careful analysis of the factors that might help to date it, it is assigned an uncertain date. It remains, however, plausible to think that it was delivered ad mensam Cypriani. The analysis of the transmission of this sermon includes several new manuscripts, a new stemma and several general observations about its transmission. This article concludes with comments about the content and a new edition of the Latin text of the sermon.

In this article the author provides new external evidence demonstrating that the correspondence between the philosopher Seneca and the apostle Paul is a forgery. The author compares archaeological data offered by inscriptions, graffiti and regionarii with information conveyed by the apocryphal letters. The setting of the epistles, as well as information about the duration and damages of the Neronian fire, contrast with the archaeological data, indicating that the text should be considered a forgery. The contribution shows that the forger worked rather in a literary mode. Conversely, the only archaeological date (CIL XIV 566) that scholars have brought to support authenticity is probably not a Christian inscription and does not prove anything regarding a meeting between Seneca and Paul or Seneca’s conversion. The origin of the correspondence should instead be traced to the cult of the apostles Paul and Peter during the 3rd and 4th centuries.

The basic idea of the present work is this one: supposing the it is not naive nor anachronistic to read the situation psychologically, Ambrose never was a ‘mentor’ who used his friendship to dominate totally Gratian who would have been a weak character. The investigation considers almost the whole reign, in two parts: (1) De fide ad Gratianum libri V. (2) The Council of Aquileia. It aims to develop a more subtle understanding of: (1) the image of each of the two protagonists, as they mirror one another; (2) the history of their links, shaped of course by the existence of powerful cliques at court and by the strict rules governing the relations between a bishop and an emperor; (3) the notion, more broadly, of the progressive establishing of the Christian Empire. This, then, is a work of synthesis. Such an undertaking is timely, given the number, size and importance, of the studies on the subject.