Pagan Classics, Question of the

PAGAN CLASSICS, Question of the. - It is the problem of the advisability and lawfulness of the use of the p. c. in Christianity.

I. IN THE EARLY TIMES OF THE CHURCH

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

It cannot be denied that, both in the East and in the West, very many Christians (οἱ πολλοί χριστιανῶν, says St. Gregory of Nazianzus, In laudem Basilii magni: PG 36, 508) declared themselves satisfied with their faith alone and with their book, the Bible; and they thought that one should do without, indiscriminately, the entire literary heritage of the classics of Greece and Rome. Even in many monasteries, the religious, intent above all on the problem of the salvation of the soul, deprecated the works of pagan writers as fatal to their task (cf. Cassian, Collat., XIV, 12-13: PL 49, 974; and the witty saying of St. Jerome, Contra Vigilantium: PL 23, 367: « Monachus... non doctoris habet sed plangentis officium »). The propaganda of this state of mind was strong and was supported also by many ecclesiastical writers (e.g., Tertullian, De spectac., 18: PL 1, 650; De anima, 3: PL 2, 651; Theophilus of Antioch, Ad Autolycum, I, 2: PG 6, 1025), among some of whom the denigration of classical culture became systematic (e.g., Tatian, Oratio adversus Graecos, 1-3: PG, 6, 803-11; Hermias, Irrisio philosophorum qui extra sunt: PG 6, 1169-80). Against this fanatical intransigence Clement of Alexandria (Strom., I, 1, 11-14 and VI, 11: PG 8, 693-92 and 9, 304-317), St. Jerome (Epist., 70: PL 22, 664-68), St. Gregory of Nazianzus (PG, loc. cit.), Synesius of Cyrene (Epist., 153: PG 66, 1553) and Socrates (Hist. eccl., III, 16: PG 67, 420) had to defend themselves.

The distrust of classical culture was in part well founded: all around, the circus, the theater, the festivals, the institutions, every public and private activity, collective and individual, recalled idolatry and exuded sensuality. And this naturally was reflected in literature with its immoral narratives, pandering to every indulgence, even the most base; with its atheistic and dissolving philosophy; and through the charm of style and imagery it filtered its deadly poison into souls. It suffices to recall Augustine in tears reading in Virgil the unhappy loves of Aeneas and Dido (Confess., I, 13); and that he tries to restrain his friend Licentius from describing the fortunes of Pyramus and Thisbe (De ordine, I, 3-8: PL 32, 977-979), or St. Paulinus of Nola, who tries to spur to conversion the poet Jovius, always uncertain and hesitant because held back by his love of classical poetry (Epist., 16, 6: PL 61, 227-34), or St. Jerome who describes to the virgin Eustochium his remorse because, though immersed in fasting and penance, he felt drawn to the reading of Cicero and Plautus, and the terrible judgment he underwent in a dream, in which he heard himself reproached: « You are a Ciceronian and not a Christian » (Epist., 22, 30: PL 22, 416-17). Such references could easily be multiplied; but they, while they tell of the painful tragedy of so many Christians in those early centuries, also show that the most learned and educated did not feel able to renounce what they had studied as children and the fascination of a culture so grandiose and effective as was that of the pagan Latin and Greek world. Therefore, if at first these « great spirits », in defending themselves from the exaggerated intransigence of the majority, spoke hesitantly and sought reasons that were not literary but of practical utility and of service for a better understanding of Holy Scripture, in the 4th century they spoke more freely, insisting on how much that was useful, and not only useful but also beautiful and literary, could be gathered from the ancient writers. All the more so since, in the face of the derision, irony and sarcasm of the pagans, who reproached Christians for the illiteracy and « barbarism » of the biblical style in the Greek and Latin versions, they understood that in order to stand up to them, one had to fight with equal weapons and therefore present to them not only the truth, but also the superior beauty of Christian doctrine, expounding it according to the art of eloquence, the rigor of philosophy, the perfection of a literary form.

The reason must have seemed clear, because Tertullian himself, so intransigent, comes out and says: « Litteras necessarias confitebor et commercis rerum et nostris erga Deum studiis » (De cor., 8: PL 2, 87). Thus Clement of Alexandria 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); St. Basil writes the celebrated opuscule falsely placed among the sermons (PG 31, 563-90) on how to profit from profane authors (v. BASILIO, santo, § IV); St. Ambrose writes the De officiis ministrorum, closely modeling it on Cicero's De officiis; St. Jerome, to Rufinus, who reproached him for perjury and sacrilege for not keeping the resolve made in the famous dream, to occupy himself no longer with the classics, replies that the needs of apologetics required otherwise (Apol. contra Rufinum, I, 30: PL 23, 441); St. Augustine in the De ordine (II, 8 ff.: PL 32, 1006 ff.) and in the De doctrina christiana (II and III: PL 34, 35-90) reaches the same conclusions (cf. H. I. Marrou, St Augustin et la fin de la culture antique, Paris 1939).

The problem, on the authority especially of Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine, was therefore resolved and ancient culture was saved; indeed, it will be precisely the Church, especially through the monks who copied manuscripts, that will save the texts of the ancient writers during the era of the barbarian invasions; spread them throughout Europe, maintain and recommend their use in the schools; it suffices to cite the names of Cassiodorus, of Alcuin, of Rabanus Maurus, of Gerbert, of Gerson (cf. Daniel, pp. 56-178; de Labriolle, op. cit., pp. 37-41).

II. IN THE RENAISSANCE

The question of the use of the pagan classics arose again very much alive in Florence, in the 14th and 15th centuries, where the study of the ancient authors flourished in full vigor. This began to disturb some, who sensed in it a danger for the faith, for morals, for the integrity of doctrine, a deviation from sound Christian philosophy, something, in short, that could be fatal to the right conception of the world, of history, of the human person. And the danger seemed all the more serious in that devout and believing humanists were not scarce.

Hence the battle, begun by Fra Giovanni di S. Miniato, a Camaldolese, flanked by other minor anti-humanists, and especially by a part of the religious of the various convents. But the most seasoned hand was that of the Dominican Blessed Giovanni Dominici, later cardinal. Already in the Regola del governo di cura familiare he had risen with a certain passion against the tendency that taught more to know Jupiter and Saturn, Venus and Cybele, than God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit, that poisoned with sacrifice to false divinities minds delicate and still without vigor, that nurtured in the sense of unbelief the apostate nature of 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 to persuade him not to let himself be enticed by classical antiquity. Alongside reasons that, in warning of dangers, are good, there stand exaggerated, unfounded, sometimes contradictory arguments; as, for example, the phrase «utilus est christianis terram arare quam gentilium intendere libris». For this reason his opponents had an easy game and the cause of humanism gained in value and in zeal. Because the aberrations that were noted were not caused by the renewed study of antiquity in itself, but by the abuse of some, who took from it occasion for the unbridledness of minds and for emancipation from all morality. For this reason the Church continued to promote every salutary cultural progress.

III. IN THE 17TH CENTURY

A new flare-up occurred in the 17th century through the exaggerated and inopportune work of Abbot Armand Jean 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 occupations of the monk, he states clearly how study and learning are a nourishment foreign to his condition, an occupation that harms him, because it destroys humility, brings disorder into the heart, and ruins piety.

Therefore intellectual work must be set aside. The book, protected by Bossuet, had great resonance, but obtained nothing other than a series of replies and counter-replies. Le Bouthillier, however, was too manifestly on the wrong side, so the flame that had been kindled, after some stir, subsided into disillusionment.

IV. IN THE 19TH CENTURY

Sharper, by contrast, was the struggle stirred up in the 19th century by Abbot J. Gaume, vicar general of Nevers, who published against the predominant use of pagan authors in Catholic colleges a tumultuous book: Le ver rongeur des sociétés modernes (Paris 1851). He wanted Christian authors to be used exclusively in the first years of teaching Latin and Greek; the pagan classics would come later, in the final years, but they would have to be carefully revised and carefully explained. Having done otherwise had caused the deplorable state of society in those times, whereas his thesis, if applied, would have made socialism, communism and every other formidable error disappear. The peremptory, aggressive tone, violent to the point of calling the teaching given until then by the name of "scholastic paganism," harmed him and cast almost into the shadows even what might have been good in it. If enthusiastic sympathies and support were not lacking (Montalembert, d'Alzon, Donoso Cortés and especially Louis Veuillot), his opponents were more vigorous and more resolute: the bishop of Nevers, the Jesuits on behalf of their colleges, Dupanloup, and the Civiltà Cattolica through the pen of Fr. Carlo Curci countered the unjust assertions. And soon, to calm every storm and restore balance, came the word of Pius IX, with the encyclical Inter multiplices of 21 March 1853, in which he earnestly beseeches the bishops of France to ensure that the young students of the sanctuary "learn true elegance of speech and writing, and eloquence, both from the most wise works of the holy Fathers and from the most distinguished pagan writers, duly purged" (Acta Pii IX, I, Rome 1854, p. 433).

Moreover, such has always been the norm followed and inculcated from the very beginning of the Church, "which knew how to appreciate at all times the usefulness brought by the study of the classics through the appropriation of the immortal beauty of form proper to antiquity" (Pastor, I, p. 56).

Celestino Testore