BASILIO, SANTO

SAINT BASIL. – Bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, born there c. 330 and died in 379, Doctor of the Church.

Summary:

I. Life

II. Works

III. Theological Thought

IV. Pedagogy.

The sources for the knowledge of the life and works of St Basil are particularly abundant. They consist first of all of his own writings, especially his letters; then of the funeral oration composed in his praise by St Gregory Nazianzen (PG 36, 496-606) and other writings by the same author; St Ephrem also left a eulogy of him (Assemani, Opp. S. Ephr., II, 289-96); and St Gregory of Nyssa, Basil’s brother (PG 46, 787-818), who also speaks of him in various other places. St Jerome lists some of his works in De viris illustribus, 116; and since Basil played such a significant role in Church history, ecclesiastical historians such as Philostorgius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret, and Rufinus also mention him.

I. Life

He was born to Basil, a wealthy landowner, rhetorician, and lawyer, and to the virtuous Emmelia, in a family where the Christian faith was deeply rooted and had a glorious tradition. His paternal grandmother, Macrina, often recalled St Gregory Thaumaturgus, of whom she had been a fervent disciple in her youth. He had five brothers, among whom was Gregory, later bishop of Nyssa, and Peter, bishop of Sebaste, and five sisters, of whom only the eldest, Macrina, is known to us. After his initial studies under his father’s guidance—during which time the family seems to have moved to Neocaesarea in Pontus—he continued them in Caesarea, Constantinople, and finally for four or five years in Athens, which was still the cultural capital of the Hellenic and pagan world, where renowned rhetoricians such as Libanius and Prohaeresius taught. There he met St Gregory Nazianzen, with whom he formed an intimate friendship. Upon his return home c. 356, he took up the teaching of rhetoric and for a time entertained dreams of worldly glory; then, especially at the urging of his sister Macrina, he decided to embrace an ascetic life. He likely received Baptism only then, delayed as was common at the time, and in 357-58 he undertook a journey through Egypt, Palestine, Syria, and Mesopotamia with the intention of studying the monastic life there. He then retired to solitude on the banks of the Iris near Neocaesarea, where his friend Gregory of Nazianzus soon joined him, and a community formed. After five years, he was urged by Eusebius, bishop of Caesarea, to accept priestly ordination and assist him in ministry; but disagreements arose, perhaps due to jealousy on the latter’s part, who had been elected bishop while still a catechumen, without theological or practical preparation. To avoid divisions within the clergy, Basil preferred to return to the solitary life. When, under Valens, orthodoxy seemed in peril, the good offices of Gregory Nazianzen secured Basil’s return to Caesarea, where he resumed working alongside Eusebius himself to uphold the true faith and regulate the liturgy, devoting himself to alleviating the calamities of a terrible famine that afflicted Cappadocia in 368.

Upon Eusebius’ death in 370, Basil was elected—though not without opposition—to succeed him in that metropolitan see, which at the time appears to have had about fifty suffragan sees. Meanwhile, the Arian persecution raged; Valens, who had briefly visited Caesarea in 365, returned in 371 or 372 and repeatedly attempted to induce Basil to make concessions, though he did not dare resort to violence against him. Basil also faced conflicts arising from the claims of Antimus, bishop of Tyana, who, when Valens divided Cappadocia into two provinces, usurped the metropolitan rights over the dioceses of Second Cappadocia, of which his see became the administrative center. He also clashed with his close friend Gregory Nazianzen, whom he had appointed bishop of the small town of Sasima, a see contested by Antimus. Alongside his vigilance, instruction, and struggle for Nicene orthodoxy, Basil devoted extraordinary energy to charity, organizing hospices to assist various categories of the needy in the local districts administered by a chorepiscopus, and especially in the diocesan capital, where his efforts gave rise to what was almost a second Caesarea, a city of charity that the people called Basilide. His work extended beyond the boundaries of his jurisdiction, as when in 372, at Valens’ request, he traveled to Armenia to assist in filling vacant episcopal sees there.

He played a primary role in the relations between the Eastern and Western episcopates regarding the struggle against Arianism and related issues, such as the schism in Antioch. In 371, he sent the deacon Dorotheus to Rome with a memorandum to Pope Damasus, outlining the wretched condition of the Eastern Churches and requesting the dispatch of legates to restore unity. Later, Basil and other colleagues appealed for a visit from Western bishops themselves and asked them to secure the intervention of the emperor Valentinian, who was favorably disposed toward Catholics, with his brother Valens. The action of the Western bishops, especially Damasus, seemed too slow and ineffective to Basil, who strongly complained about it; in the matter of Antioch, he was further dismayed by the Westerners’ favor toward the bishop Paulinus, while the East supported Meletius. Later, relations became cordial again. Basil died on 10 January 379, consoled by the prospect, with the accession of Theodosius to the throne, of the victory of orthodoxy. Throughout his not-long life, worn down by penances and afflicted by painful illnesses, he deployed the magnificent resources of his intelligence, heart, and practical wisdom in multifaceted activity for his diocese and for the universal Church—as defender of the faith and Catholic unity, as preacher and pastor, as legislator of monastic life, and as a promoter and organizer of charity—earning from contemporaries and posterity the title of “the Great.” Feast day: 14 June.

II. Works

A man nourished by long study and assiduous contemplation, called by Providence to unceasing activity of governance for which he was wonderfully endowed by nature, Basil left in his writings the sober records of his learning but above all of his inner life and intense pastoral action. All his works are occasional, composed to meet immediate practical needs.

In collaboration with St. Gregory Nazianzen, he composed, in the solitude of Pontus (358–59), the Philokalia, an anthology of Origenist passages, which has not come down to us. Of the Orations, we have two groups of exegetical content: the nine homilies on the Hexaemeron and the thirteen on the Psalms. In the former (PG 29, 3–208), delivered during a week of Lent, he comments on the work of creation up to and including the fifth day. We do not know why B. did not also explain the creation of man. The orator bases himself on the literal sense of Scripture, without neglecting allegory, demonstrating a ready sensitivity to the needs and tastes of his audience; examples and similitudes drawn from nature, prompted by the subject itself, abound and are directed toward moral instruction, which is the dominant aim.

B. commented on Psalms 1, 7, 14, 28, 29, 32, 33, 44, 45, 48, 49, 59, 61, 114 (PG 29, 209–494), dedicating a homily to each, always with a predominantly moral intent. There are also twenty-four other homilies (PG 31, 163–618), not all of which are certainly authentic; they cover exegetical topics (the 12th on the beginning of Proverbs and the 16th on the words “In principio erat Verbum”), dogmatic-apologetic themes (the 9th, God is not the author of evils; the 35th on faith; the 24th against the Sabellians, Arius, and the Anomoeans), and encomiastic subjects (the 5th in honor of St. Julitta; the 17th on St. Barlaam, considered spurious; the 18th on St. Gordius; the 19th on the Forty Martyrs of Sebaste; the 23rd on St. Mamantus). But moral exhortation is predominant, whether urging fasting (1st, 2nd [disputed]), self-knowledge (3rd), gratitude (4th), or calling upon the rich to consider the vanity of riches and the duty of almsgiving (6th, 7th, 8th, 21st), or condemning anger (10th), envy (11th), drunkenness (14th), or the abuse of postponing Baptism (13th), or recommending humility (20th). Particularly successful is the 22nd homily, in reality a little treatise, in which he teaches young people how they may read pagan books with profit.

B. may be considered the founder of Christian preaching as a literary genre. He knows how to profit from his vast culture and refined rhetorical training; yet from his discourses there always emerges, in the foreground, the figure of the shepherd who never loses sight of the needs of souls and, with a profound intuition of the psychology of the crowd, presents Christian doctrine and morality in the most suitable form.

B.’s strictly theological output is not abundant, though he was one of the most illustrious champions of orthodoxy against Arianism: either he lacked the time, absorbed as he was by practical activity, or he felt little attraction for and lacked confidence in the usefulness of controversy. Between 363 and 365 he wrote the Refutatio Apologetici imp. Eunomii, in three books (PG 29, 497–670), against the bishop of Cyzicus, who had carried Arianism to the extreme consequences of pure rationalism. B. reports the most important passages of his adversary and refutes them with dialectical vigor and apostolic zeal, setting forth in the first book especially the concept of “ingenerate being: áγέvvητος,” demonstrating in the second the consubstantiality of the Son and in the third that of the Holy Spirit. The book De Spiritu Sancto (PG 32, 67–218), written in 374, is a response to accusations that he was hesitant regarding the divinity of the third Person. The treatise therefore has the character of dogmatic exposition and personal apology.

Under the title Ascetical Works there has come down to us a collection of writings (PG 31, 619–1428), not all certainly by Basil. The central part consists of the Moralia, “Moral Rules,” each divided into several chapters and supported by passages from the New Testament, and two works that connect with B.’s activity as a reformer of monasticism. These are collections of instructions on the religious life, in the form of answers to questions, arranged without logical order. The first, Regulae fusius tractatae, was composed in the solitude of Pontus and comprises fifty-five sections dealing with the general duties of the monk; the second, written later, consists of 313 Regulae brevius tractatae, which develop a kind of casuistry of monastic life. Norms of ascetical life are also found scattered in the orations and in many letters. The Epistolary comprises 366 letters (PG 32, 219–1112), among which some are spurious or doubtful and others addressed to him; the Maurist editors divided them into three classes according to chronological order: letters written before his episcopate, during his episcopate, and of uncertain date. They treat of dogma and ecclesiastical discipline, of particular needs and interests of the Church, or contain exhortations to repentance or advice on spiritual life; others fall into the genre of consolatio for the death of loved ones or express the sentiments of friendship, recommending to various persons the needs of those who appealed to the bishop.

As for style, it naturally varies according to the character, purpose, and recipient of the writing; but in the letters even more than in the discourses, B. shows himself an expert and accurate writer. He uses an elegant and pure language, regulated by the norms of the dominant Atticism, and never belies that rhetorical training to which he had devoted himself with serious commitment and which so effectively influenced Christian writers of the fourth century. It is in this period that the Second Sophistic enters with all its resources into Christian literature. Yet, while observing, in the arrangement of material, the choice of topics, the use of figures, and the search for sound effects, the precepts learned at school, B. never sacrifices thought to form and constantly tends toward his practical end with straightforwardness and vigor. More restrained than his friend and fellow student Gregory Nazianzen, while he knows how to vary his tone according to circumstances, he adheres to a simple and accessible language for the people, enlivening his exposition with a variety of scenes, an abundance of anecdotes, vivid descriptions, and the vibrations of sincere feeling.

Alongside the works mentioned above, whose authenticity, apart from some reservations already expressed, is guaranteed by external testimony and internal arguments, others have come down to us under B.’s name, either spurious or of doubtful authenticity. The fourth and fifth books of Adversus Eunomium (PG 29, 671–774) are by Didymus the Blind. The book De virginitate (PG 30, 669–810) is today attributed to Basil of Ancyra. Not by B. are some letters, including the correspondence with Apollinaris (nos. 361–64; PG 32, 1101–1108). Controversial because unknown to Photius are the three sermons prefixed to the Moralia and the two that precede the Regulae; generally regarded as apocryphal are the Poenae and the Constitutiones asceticae, which close the group of ascetical works. In the Enarratio in prophetam Isaiam (PG 30, 117–668), some see the notes of a series of conferences delivered by B. in 374–75, while others attribute it to an unknown contemporary author, and for others there is only a small Basilian nucleus upon which other writers’ compositions were superimposed. The correspondence with Libanius (nos. 335–59; PG 32, 1077–1100), already considered supposititious by the Maurists, is deemed authentic by others. As for the Liturgy (PG 31, 1629–56) that bears the name of St. B. and is still used for ten days of the year in the Greek Church, it is difficult to determine how much is due to B. and how much has been added subsequently.

### III. Theological Thought

It was above all the Trinitarian doctrine that drew B.’s attention, due to the need to counter the spread of Arianism. While maintaining, against the rationalism of Eunomius, that God is not comprehensible by any creature (Adv. Eun., I, 14) and that above all one must adhere to the tradition of the Fathers (ibid., I, 1 sg.; Hom., 24, 6), he attempts to elucidate the dogma by distinguishing between οὐσία and ὑπόστασις (understanding the term πρόσωπον correctly, which had previously been used indiscriminately), deriving the meaning of these terms from Platonic philosophy. He conceives the former as the common essence and the latter as individual subsistence (Ep., 38, 2, 3; 236, 6). He insists that the properties of the Persons be affirmed while maintaining unity (μοναρχία; De Sp. S., 18, 45); the properties of the Persons do not divide the identity of the essence (Adv. Eun., II, 28). The distinguishing notes of the three Persons are: in the Father, being Father and subsisting alone, without any cause (ἐκ μηδεμίας αἰτίας); in the Son, the shining forth, as the only-begotten, from the unbegotten light, and in making known, through Himself and with Himself, the Spirit who proceeds from the Father; in the Holy Spirit, being manifested after the Son and with the Son, and having subsistence from the Father (Ep., 38, 4). In substance, therefore, the divine Persons are distinguished from one another by their mutual relations (σχέσεις). The Son proceeds from the Father as the perfectly equal image of Him, through an impassible, indivisible, eternal generation, like a ray of light, like a word that perfectly expresses thought (Adv. Eun., II, 12, 16, 28; Hom., 16, 3).

In affirming the ὁμοούσιος “consubstantial” (πρόσωπος) (ἐμμοούσιος) (“substantial”) (πρόσωπος) (“substantial”) (“substantial”) (“substantial”) (“substantial”) (“substantial”), he adds ἀπαραλλάκτως (“without any difference”), thus equating it with ὁμοούσιος (Ep., 9, 3). Throughout the treatise *De Spiritu Sancto* and elsewhere, he defends the divinity of the third Person and His consubstantiality with the Father and the Son (cf., e.g., De Sp. S., 18, 45 sg.; Adv. Eun., II, 34), though he avoids calling Him God so as not to provoke too much opposition. Regarding the manner of procession, while acknowledging the difficulty of understanding it, he affirms not only the intimate union of the Holy Spirit with the Father and the Son (Hom., 24, 6-7) but also that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son (ἐκ τοῦ μονογενοῦς), not by generation but as “spiritus oris eius” (De Sp. S., 18, 45; Ep., 38, 4).

In Christology, he affirms that the Word assumed a true human body, and only thus could He redeem us (Ep., 261, 2); Christ is therefore not merely man but God-man (In ps., 48, 4). Regarding the manner of redemption, B. appears uncertain: in the same passage where he seems to accept the explanation of the price paid to the devil, he also asserts that God had to be appeased by the holy and precious blood of Jesus Christ so that man might obtain the remission of sin (ibid., 3-4). Man, like the angel, received from God sanctification and likeness to Him. The effects of sanctifying grace are described as a return to the image of God, elevation, illumination, spiritualization, as well as charismatic gifts (De Sp. S., 9, 23; 16, 38). Adam, deceived by the devil, ate the forbidden fruit, thus falling from his natural state, losing his greatest good—which was adherence to God—plunging into every kind of evil and transmitting sin to humanity (Hom., 1, 3; 8, 7; 9, 6-7). The necessity of actual grace is repeatedly declared, seemingly also for the beginning of faith and justification, when it is said that our free will is prepared by the Lord (De Sp. S., 8, 18), that we do not seize Christ by our own strength but are seized by Christ through His coming (Hom., 20, 4), and that the Lord anticipates and uplifts us, as a child unable to swim is lifted above the water (In ps., 29, 2).

Faith is “full assent (ἀδιάκριτος) to what is heard, with full certainty of the truth of the things that are preached as a gift of God” (De fide, 1), and it is preceded by rational knowledge of God’s existence through creatures (Ep., 235). The truths to be believed are drawn from Scripture and unwritten traditions (De Sp. S., 7, 16; 9, 22; 10, 25; 27, 66 sgg.; 29, 71; 30, 77; Ep. 140, 2; 243, 2). The efficacy of Baptism, necessary for salvation as is faith (De Sp. S., 12, 28), comes not from the water but from the presence of the Holy Spirit (ibid., 15, 35); Baptism restores us to paradise, raises us to the kingdom of heaven, and brings us back to the adoption of sons, giving us the confidence to call God our Father, making us partakers of Christ’s grace, children of the light, sharers in eternal glory, and bestowing the fullness of every blessing; it can be supplied by martyrdom (ibid., 15, 36). The presence of the Lord’s body and blood in the Eucharist is mentioned by citing biblical texts (Reg. brev., 172, 309; Mor., 8, 1); daily Communion is commendable, and to facilitate frequent reception, it is permitted—not only in times of persecution but also for solitaries and, in certain places such as Alexandria and Egypt, for all—to keep the Eucharist in their homes after the priest has completed the sacrifice (Ep., 93). Confession of sins is necessary to those who can heal them, namely, to those entrusted with the administration of God’s mysteries (Reg. brev., 220, 288; cf. In ps., 32, 3). Regarding eschatology, B. resolutely condemns the opinion that denies the eternity of the punishments of hell (De Sp. S., 16, 40; Reg. brev., 267).

In moral theology, B. draws largely from the Cynic-Stoic doctrine, which had become common property, particularly in the form of the diatribe, a kind of popular moralizing preaching that exerted notable influence on Christian preaching. He particularly combats drunkenness, envy, pride, avarice, and the hardness of heart of the rich, with terms that might seem to deny the right to property (Hom., 8, 7), though his statements on the duty of charity are more energetic. In the ascetical field, he presents monastic life as the state of perfection (Serm. de renum. saec., 2, of contested authenticity), which he understands in the cenobitic form, extolling its advantages over the eremitical life for the correction of one’s own defects, the exercise of charity, and all virtues (Reg. fus., 7; Serm. de renum. saec., 2). The Basilian monastery comprises a modest number of monks compared to the monastery of St. Pachomius and is not linked, as the latter was, to a true organization with other monasteries. Of paramount importance is docile obedience to the spiritual director (ibid., 3-4). The monk must work with his hands, according to the superior’s directives, to mortify himself, to exercise charity toward his neighbor, and to fulfill the will of God (Reg. fus., 37-43); he must study Scripture, and the *Regulae breves* are indeed ascetical explanations of biblical passages; he must attend to prayer and psalmody in community, distributed throughout the different hours of the day (Reg. fus., 37, 2-5). While insisting on the necessity of mortifying the body (Reg. fus., 17, 2; Hom., 3, 3), he advocates moderation, keeping in mind bodily needs and the primacy of spiritual mortification (Reg. fus., 19, 20, 22; Reg. brev., 126, 128, 139, 196). In this way, the soul will attain union with God, the source of all delight (In ps., 32, 1, 4; 44, 6; 45, 2; Hom., 4, 2). Even today, Eastern monasticism follows the path traced by St. B., though he did not intend to found what is now called a religious order.

Studies: Biography: F. Baert, in Acta SS. Junii, II, Antwerp 1968, pp. 807-958; Tillemont, IX, Paris 1714, pp. 1-304, 628-651; P. Maran, in the preface to the Maurist edition, PG 29, pp. v-xxxvii; P. Allard, S. B., Italian trans., Rome 1904; I. Schäfer, B. de Grossen Beziehungen zum Abendlande, Münster in Westphalia 1909; J. Wittig, Leben, Lebensweisheit und Lebenskunde des hl. Metropoliten B., Freiburg in Br. 1920; M. M. Fox, The Life and times of st. B. the Great as revealed in his works (Patristic Studies, 57), Washington 1939. – Literary works: E. Fialon, Etude littéraire et historique sur st. B., 2nd ed., Paris 1869; J. Wittig, Des hl. B. geistliche Übungen (Breslauer Studien zur hist. Theol., 1), Breslau 1922 (Commentary on Isaiah); cf. the critique by Altaner in Byzantin.-Neugriech. Jahrbücher, 3 (1922), p. 426 sq.; J. M. Campbell, The influence of the second sophistic on the sermons of St. B. (Patristic Studies, 2), Washington 1922; L. W. Jack, and the greek Literature (Patristic studies, 1), ibid. 1922; M. Bessières, La tradition manuscrite de la correspondance de B., Oxford 1923; A. C. Way, The language and style of the Letters of st. B. (Patristic Studies, 23), Washington 1927. – Monasticism: H. Morison, St. B. and his rule, Oxford 1912; W. C. Clarke, B. the Great. A study in Monasticism, Cambridge 1913; M. M. G. Murphy, St. B. and monasticism (Patristic Studies, 25), Washington 1930. – Thought: K. Holl, Amphilochus von Ikonium in seinem Verhältnis zu den grossen Kappadoziern, Tübingen and Leipzig 1904, pp. 122-58; F. Nager, Die Trinitätsthere des hl. B., Paderborn 1912; J. Maier, Die Eucharistie der drei grossen Kappadozier, Freiburg in Br. 1915; Humbertclaude, La doctrine ascétique de st. B. de Césarée, Paris 1932; P. Batiffol, L'ecclésiologie de B., in Echos d'Orient, 21 (1922), p. 9 sq.; M. J. Lubatschivsky, Des hl. B. Kampf gegen den Arianismus. Ein Beitrag zur Textgeschichte der B. liturgie, in Zeitschrift für Kathol. Theologie, 46 (1942), p. 20 sq.; Y. Courtonne, St. B. et l'hellénisme, Paris 1934. – General works: Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, III, Freiburg in Br. 1923, pp. 130-62, 670 sq.; O. Stählin, Die altchristliche griechische Literatur, Munich 1924, pp. 1407-13 (extract from W. V. CRISTO, Geschichte der griechischen Literatur, 6th ed., part 2, 2); A. Puech, Histoire de la littérature grecque chrétienne, III, Paris 1930, pp. 234-317; P. Allard and M. Besses, s. V. in DThC, II, cols. 441-59; G. Bardy, s. V. in DHG, VI, cols. 1111-26; id., s. V. in DSP, I, cols. 1273-83; M. Viller and R. Rahner, Aszese und Mystik in der Väterzeit, Freiburg in Br. 1939, pp. 122-33. Michele Pellegrino

IV. PEDAGOGY

In chapter 6 of his monastic Rule, S. B. lays down certain norms regarding the education of young men who intend to devote themselves to the monastic life. First of all, S. B. wishes the young to live apart from the older monks, not only so that they may not grow too familiar with those whom they must always treat with respect, but also so that they may not take bad example from the older monks and from those actions which, though tolerable in an older man, are not to be permitted in a young one. The young and the old will share only in the exercises of piety. The young will have a different daily schedule from that of the older monks, and even the food will be served differently according to age and need. S. B. wishes the master to be chosen with the greatest care: he must surpass the others in experience and must be known for his gentleness, so that, with a father’s heart, he may correct the young man’s faults, applying, where necessary, suitable remedies so that “by punishing the fault he may train the soul to overcome its passions” (Regulae fusius tractatae, 33). The child must be trained in the habit of virtue so that when the use of reason comes to him, he will already be well on the way to virtue, for habit formed brings ease and readiness to virtuous living.

For the instruction of the young who devote themselves to the monastic life, S. B. wishes them to approach Sacred Scripture. The masters must recount to them the stories and wonderful deeds narrated therein. “Have them learn,” he says to the masters, “the sayings of the Proverbs, set them themes for memorization, both of words and of things, so that the children may reach their goal without boredom, without disgust, but with delight, as if in play.” Among the homilies of S. B. that have come down to us, the 22nd, addressed “to the young on the fruits that may be drawn from Greek writers,” deserves mention for its pedagogical value. As is well known, a question that agitated the ancient Christian world with differing and opposing solutions was that of the relationship between the new Christian culture and the old pagan culture. A question that would reappear here and there in the course of the centuries; indeed, it can be seen resurfacing in Italy during Humanism and in France in the nineteenth century. S. B., like the Fathers of the Eastern Christian Church in general, while insisting on the necessity of Christian wisdom as the repository of truth, does not despise ancient learning. S. B. believes that profane writings can lead the Christian to knowledge of the truth and to the practice of virtue. It is through the study of the ancient classics that one acquires that richness of ornament and form so well suited to enrich the substance of Christian wisdom. The tree is admired and pleasing not only for its fruit but also for the splendor of its foliage. Moses trained in the disciplines of the Egyptians, and Daniel in those of the Chaldeans. The study of the classics is useful for those who wish to devote themselves to religious studies, because from them, which narrate virtuous deeds and teach sound morals, one can, as bees gather honey from flowers, extract the moral lessons they contain. While S. B. wishes the ancient classics to be studied, he warns that not all are suitable to be placed in the hands of the young. Thus, works or passages that describe vicious scenes or teach false doctrines must be excluded from the young. There are many virtuous examples that S. B. finds in the ancient world and that Christians may imitate. Socrates, Pericles, Alexander perform virtuous acts; even Diogenes, with his contempt for earthly things, teaches how one ought to behave toward them. Moreover, even in the ancient poets one may find material for good education, as in Homer, Theognis, Prodicus—this last for the episode of Hercules at the Crossroads. S. B. concludes by affirming that if the ancient writers had the worldly life in view, we may make use of their works and their sayings for the life of heaven.