Christian Tornau

• Due to the conventions of late-antique epistolary politeness, it is not always easy to identify polemical passages in Augustine’s correspondence. The present contribution attempts to discern and classify some recurrent techniques and strategies that are characteristic of letters the addressee of which is him- or herself the target of Augustine’s polemics, i. e. in which polemical rhetoric is blended with diplomacy. After describing some more formal techniques, such as polemical hermeneutics and Refraintechnik, I turn to the rhetorical, i. e.Due to the conventions of late-antique epistolary politeness, it is not always easy to identify polemical passages in Augustine’s correspondence. The present contribution attempts to discern and classify some recurrent techniques and strategies that are characteristic of letters the addressee of which is him- or herself the target of Augustine’s polemics, i. e. in which polemical rhetoric is blended with diplomacy. After describing some more formal techniques, such as polemical hermeneutics and Refraintechnik, I turn to the rhetorical, i. e. persuasive, functions of polemics in Augustine’s anti-pagan, anti-Donatist and anti-Pelagian letters, using the basic distinction between direct polemics (polemics against the addressee in person) and indirect polemics (polemics against the addressee’s group or friends) as a starting point. Another relevant distinction, taken into account throughout, is whether a polemical letter is primarily designed to impress the immediate addressee or to have an effect on the wider readership that Augustine had to reckon with as soon as a letter was dispatched.…