Pagan Classics, Question of the

PAGAN CLASSICS, QUESTION OF THE. — This is the question of the appropriateness and legitimacy of the use of pagan classics in Christianity.

SUMMARY:

I. In the early period of the Church

II. In the Renaissance

III. In the seventeenth century

IV. In the nineteenth century.

I. IN THE EARLY PERIODS OF THE CHURCH

From the earliest times Christians asked themselves to what extent their cultural and moral life, so opposed to the paganism amid which they lived, could be reconciled with the reading, study, and imitation of the Latin and Greek classics. The answers varied, and the question became considerably heated, taking on the character of a bitter and strenuous battle.

It cannot be denied that, both in the East and in the West, very many Christians (οἱ πολλοί χριστιανῶν, says s. Gregorio di Nazianzo, In laudem Basilii magni: PG 36, 508) declared themselves content with their faith alone and with their book, the Bible; and thought that one should do without, indiscriminately, the entire literary heritage of the classics of Greece and Rome. In many monasteries as well, religious, intent above all on the problem of the soul’s salvation, condemned the works of pagan writers as fatal to their task (cf. Cassiano, Collat., XIV, 12-13: PL 49, 974; and the witty saying of s. Girolamo, Contra Vigilantium: PL 23, 367: « Monachus... non doctoris habet sed plangentis officium »). The propaganda for this state of mind was strong and was also supported by many ecclesiastical writers (e.g., Tertulliano, De spectac., 18: PL 1, 650; De anima, 3: PL 2, 651; Teofilo di Antiochia, Ad Autolycum, I, 2: PG 6, 1025), among whom the denigration of classical culture became systematic (e.g., Taziano, Oratio adversus Graecos, 1-3: PG, 6, 803-11; Ermia, Iristio philosophorum qui extra sunt: PG 6, 1169-80). Against this fanatical intransigence Clemente di Alessandria (Strom., I, 1, 11-14 and VI, 11: PG 8, 693-92 and 9, 304-317), s. Girolamo (Epist., 70: PL 22, 664-68), s. Gregorio di Nazianzo (PG, loc. cit.), Sinesio di Cirene (Epist., 153: PG 66, 1553), and Socrate (Hist. eccl., III, 16: PG 67, 420) had to defend themselves.

Distrust of classical culture was partly justified: all around them, the circus, the theater, the festivals, the institutions, every public and private, collective and individual activity, evoked idolatry and exuded sensuality. And this naturally found its reflection in literature, with its immoral narratives, indulging every gratification, even the most shameful; with its atheistic and subversive philosophy; and through the enchantment of its style and images, its deadly poison filtered into souls. It is enough to recall Agostino in tears while reading in Virgil of the unhappy love of Aeneas and Dido (Confess., I, 13); and his attempt to restrain his friend Licenzio from describing the story of Pyramus and Thisbe (De ordine, I, 3-8: PL 32, 977-979); or s. Paolino di Nola, who sought to spur the poet Giovio toward conversion, always uncertain and hesitant because he was held back by his love of classical poetry (Epist., 16, 6: PL 61, 227-34); or s. Girolamo, who describes to the virgin Eustochio his remorse because, although immersed in fasting and penance, he felt himself drawn to reading Cicero and Plautus, and the terrifying judgment he underwent in a dream, in which he heard himself reproached: « Tu sei ciceroniano e non cristiano » (Epist., 22, 30: PL 22, 416-17). These references could easily be multiplied; but while they recount the painful tragedy of so many Christians in those early centuries, they also show that the most learned and educated did not feel able to renounce what they had studied as children, or the fascination of a culture as grand and powerful as that of the pagan Latin and Greek world. Thus, if at first these « spiriti magni », in defending themselves against the exaggerated intransigence of the majority, spoke hesitantly and sought reasons not literary but practical and useful for a better understanding of Sacred Scripture, in the fourth century they spoke more freely and insisted on how much that was useful, but also beautiful and literary, could be gathered from the ancient writers. All the more because, faced with the mockery, irony, and sarcasm of the pagans, who reproached Christians for the lack of literary culture and the « barbarie » of the biblical style in the Greek and Latin versions, they understood that, if they were to stand up to them, they had to fight with equal weapons and therefore present them not only with the truth but also with the superior beauty of Christian doctrine, setting it forth according to the art of eloquence, the rigor of philosophy, and the perfection of literary form.

The reasoning must have seemed clear, for Tertulliano himself, so intransigent, comes out with the words: « Litteras necessarias confitebor et commercis rerum et nostris erga Deum studiis » (De cor., 8: PL 2, 87). Thus Clemente di Alessandria defends the study of the classics and their methods (cf. P. Camelot, Les idées de Clément d'Al. sur l'utilisation des sciences et de la littérature profane, in Recherches de science religieuse, 21 [1931], pp. 38-66; cf. also ibid., pp. 541-569); s. Basilio writes the celebrated brief treatise falsely placed among the sermons (PG 31, 563-90) on how to profit from profane authors (v. IV); s. Ambrogio writes the De officiis ministrorum, closely following Cicero’s De officiis; s. Girolamo replies to Rufino, who reproached him with perjury and sacrilege for not keeping the resolution made in the famous dream—that he would no longer concern himself with the classics—that the necessities of apologetics required otherwise (Apol. contra Rufinum, I, 30: PL 23, 441); s. Agostino reaches the same conclusions in the De ordine (II, 8 sgg.: PL 32, 1006 sgg.) and in the De doctrina christiana (II and III: PL 34, 35-90) (cf. H. I. Marrou, St Augustin et la fin de la culture antique, Parigi 1939).

The problem, especially on the authority of Ambrogio, Girolamo, and Agostino, was therefore resolved, and ancient culture was saved; indeed, it was precisely the Church, especially through the monks who transcribed manuscripts, that would save the texts of the ancient writers during the period of the barbarian invasions; disseminate them throughout Europe; and preserve and recommend their use in schools. It is enough to mention the names of Cassiodoro, Alcuino, Rabano Mauro, Gerberto, and Gersone (cf. Daniel, pp. 56-178; de Labriolle, op. cit., pp. 37-41).

II. IN THE RENAISSANCE

The question of the use of pagan classics arose again with great force in Florence during the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, where the study of the ancient authors was flourishing vigorously. This began to trouble some people, who perceived in it a danger to the faith, morality, and integrity of doctrine, a deviation from sound Christian philosophy—in short, something that could prove fatal to a proper conception of the world, history, and the human person. And the danger seemed all the graver because devout and believing humanists were by no means lacking.

Hence the battle, begun by fra Giovanni di S. Miniato, a Camaldolese, and joined by other minor opponents of humanism, especially by some of the religious in the various convents. But the most formidable hand was that of the Dominican b. Giovanni Dominici, later a cardinal. Already in the Regola del governo di cura familiare he had risen with a certain passion against the tendency that taught people more about Jupiter and Saturn, Venus and Cybele, than about God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; that poisoned delicate souls, still lacking strength, by sacrificing to false divinities; and that nurtured, in the spirit of unbelief, nature apostate from the truth. But his voice was stronger in the work Lucula noctis (published in full in Paris only in 1908 by the Dominican R. Coulon), dedicated to Coluccio Salutati in order to persuade him not to allow himself to be enticed by classical antiquity. Sound reasons, which warn against dangers, are joined by exaggerated, unfounded, and at times contradictory arguments, such as, for example, the statement: «utilus est christianis terram arare quam gentilium intendere libris». For this reason, his opponents gained the upper hand, and the cause of humanism acquired greater value and zeal. For the aberrations that were observed were not caused by the renewed study of antiquity in itself, but by the abuse made of it by certain people, who seized upon it as an occasion for unrestrained spirits and emancipation from all morality. For this reason the Church continued to promote every wholesome cultural advance.

III. IN THE 17th CENTURY

A renewed flare-up occurred in the 17th century as a result of the exaggerated and ill-advised work of Abbé Armando Giovanni Le Bouthillier de Rancé, reformer of La Trappe: De la sainteté et des devoirs de la vie monastique (2 vols., Paris 1683), where, speaking of the monk’s occupations, he clearly states that study and learning are nourishment foreign to his condition, an occupation harmful to him, because it destroys humility, brings disorder to the heart, and ruins piety.

Intellectual work, therefore, must be set aside. The book, protected by Bossuet, attracted great attention, but produced nothing more than a series of replies and counter-replies. Le Bouthillier, however, was too manifestly in the wrong; hence the flame he had kindled, after causing considerable commotion, died down in disillusionment.
IV. NEL SEC. XIX. - Più acuta invece fu la lotta destata nel sec. XIX dall'abate J. Gaume, vicario generale di Nevers, che pubblicò contro l'uso predominante degli autori pagani nei collegi cattolici un libro burrascoso: Le ver rongeur des sociétés modernes (Parigi 1851). Egli voleva che nei primi anni d'insegnamento del latino e del greco si adoperassero esclusivamente autori cristiani; i c. p. verrebbero dopo, negli ultimi anni, ma dovranno essere ben rivisti e ben spiegati. L'aver fatto diversamente aveva causato lo stato lacrimevole della società di quei tempi, mentre la sua tesi, applicata, avrebbe fatto scomparire il socialismo, il comunismo e ogni altro formidabile errore. Il tono perentorio, aggressivo, violento fino a chiamare l'insegnamento dato fino allora con il nome di «paganesimo scolastico», gli nocque e gettò quasi nell'ombra anche ciò che poteva essere buono. Se non mancarono le simpatie e gli appoggi entusiasti (il Montalembert, il d'Alzon, Donoso Cortés e specialmente Luigi Veuillot), i contraddittori furono più vigorosi e più decisi: il vescovo di Nevers, i Gesuiti per i loro collegi, il Dupanloup, la Civiltà Cattolica per la penna del p. Carlo Curci, controbatterono le ingiuste asserzioni. E presto a sedare ogni tempesta e a rimettere l'equilibrio, giunse la parola di Pio IX, con l'enciclica Inter multiplices del 21 marzo 1853, nella quale prega caldamente i vescovi di Francia a far sì che i giovani alunni del santuario «imparino la vera eleganza del parlare e dello scrivere, l'eloquenza, sia dalle sapientissime opere dei santi Padri, sia dai più insigni scrittori pagani, debitamente purgati» (Acta Pii IX, I, Roma 1854, p. 433).

Del resto tale è stata sempre la norma seguita e inculcata fin dall'inizio della Chiesa «che seppe ognora apprezzare l'utilità che apporta lo studio dei classici mediante l'appropriazione dell'immortale bellezza della forma propria all'antichità» (Pastor, I, p. 56).