Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

bant. Quorum ego voluntatem secutus non peperci labori meo, quin ea, quæ permultis voluminibus perscripta continebantur, duobus libellis concluderem, ita brevitati studens, ut pæne nihil gestis subduxerim. Visum autem mihi est non absurdum, cum usque ad Christi crucem Apostolorumque actus cucurrissem, etiam post gesta connectere: excidium Hierosolymæ vexationesque populi Christiani et mox pacis tempora ac rursum ecclesiarum intestinis periculis turbata omnia locuturus. Ceterum illud non pigebit fateri me, sicubi ratio exegit, ad distinguenda tempora continuandamque seriem usum esse historicis ethnicis atque ex his, quæ ad supplementum cognitionis deerant, usurpasse, ut et imperitos docerem et literatos convincerem. Verumtamen ea, quæ de sacris voluminibus breviata digessimus, non ita legentibus auctor accesserim, ut prætermissis his, unde derivata sunt, appetantur; nisi cum illa quis familiariter noverit, hic recognoscat, quæ ibi legerit. Etenim universa divinarum rerum mysteria non nisi ex ipsis fontibus hauriri queunt."

Sulpicius Severus, the author of the Chronicle, who lived in the latter part of the fourth and the commencement of the fifth century, was a native of Aquitania (the southern part of Gaul), of respectable parentage and liberal education. His literary culture and his professional eminence as an advocate being generally recognized, and his social position being strengthened by his marriage with a wealthy and noble lady, who, however, soon died, Severus was about to enter upon a most brilliant career when suddenly he resolved to retire from the allurements and burden of this world. He not only adopted a monastic mode of life, but also entered the clerical state, although he rose to no higher rank than that of presbyter. Disowned by his father, he found compensation in the increased affection of his mother-in-law, Bassula, and in the intimate and enduring friendship of the celebrated Martinus, Bishop of Tours. Severus lived at a time when the monastic and ascetic tendency, which had long before spread over the East, began to make its appearance in the West also. The important change of life on the part of Severus was undoubtedly one of the effects of this tendency, although he, as well as his teacher

* Joseph Scaliger calls him, "Ecclesiasticorum purissimus scriptor."

and friend Martinus, kept aloof from, and even opposed, one of the most striking illustrations of the same spirit, the sect of Priscillianus, with whom he shared, besides the predilection for an ascetic life, another characteristic, a literary and intellectual culture of a high order.

It is one of the objects of Bernays to facilitate a more thorough and complete understanding of the Chronicle of S. Severus by pointing out how the events and circumstances in the midst of which Severus lived and wrote affected his work. The account which Bernays gives of the origin, character, and fate of the sect of Priscillianus, which, although brief, is on the whole correct and satisfactory, is intended to place the reader of the Chronicle in a position to comprehend, not only the general spirit of the work, but all the insinuations and allusions in which it abounds. It is difficult, if not impossible, to say with precision what the distinguishing doctrines of the sect were. While they were suspected and persecuted by synods as heretics, and proceeded against by the state as criminals, the accounts of their doctrines are extremely indefinite and obscure. It should be borne in mind, in order to understand more fully the relation of Severus to the Priscillians, that this respect and love of intellectual and literary culture was not so much a characteristic of Severus and the Priscillians as of their common country, the southern part of Gaul (Aquitania) being at this time, with regard to culture and refinement, at the head of all the Roman provinces, and excelling not only Spain and Africa, but Rome itself.

The existence of the sect of the Priscillians was not a long one. It may be said to owe its origin to an Egyptian Gnostic, Marcus, whose disciples, Elpidius, a rhetorician of classical culture, and Agape, a noble lady, were in their turn the teachers of Priscillianus, who, like them, combined the advantages of noble birth and high culture. The sect spread rapidly, especially among the educated and refined in Spain, where Priscillianus chiefly lived as Bishop of Abila, and Aquitania. The condemnation and execution of Priscillianus with four of his principal followers imparted new life and energy, the usual result of persecution, to the sect, and it may be traced to the commencement of the second half of the sixth century (563).

It seems to have died out soon after; at least no mention is made of it after that date.*

Severus and his guide and friend, the Bishop Martinus, although like Priscillianus and his followers evincing a decided preference for an ascetic life, were opposed to that sect; but they disapproved most energetically the violent proceedings of their enemies in allowing the matter to be taken out of the control of a synod, the proper authority in matters of doctrine and religious practice, and transferred to an imperial court of justice. The consequence was a schism among the orthodox clergy which was not healed for many years. Martinus for the remaining sixteen years of his life refused to be present at any synod or convention of bishops.

But the attention of Bernays is not limited to the sect of Priscillianus. In many other instances he points out, with great shrewdness, penetration, and ingenuity, the impression Severus wishes to make upon his readers, or the views applicable to his own times and circumstances which he desired to inculcate, sometimes by a slight and scarcely perceptible departure from, or modification of, the Biblical narrative, or by the introduction of a brief remark.

Some of these latter instances should, perhaps, be briefly mentioned, as they have some bearing upon the historical reliability of Severus, and thus upon some of the theories or hypotheses of Bernays. Speaking of the arrest of the prophet Jeremiah, and the willingness of King Zedekiah to release Jeremiah, Severus, in conformity with the Scriptures, remarks that the chiefs opposed this measure, adding of his own, without any authority of the Scriptures, that it is the practice of princes to oppress the good ("obsistentibus Judæorum prineipibus, quibus iam inde a principio moris fuerat bonos premere"). Then, in the sequel of the account, he suddenly exchanges the term chiefs for priests (" Sed rex, licet impius, aliquanto tamen sacerdotibus mitior, educi prophetam de lacu et carceris custodiæ reddi iubet"). Bernays explains this change of terms, which has not a little puzzled some of the editors and interpreters of the Chronicle, by the desire of Severus of

See Neander's Eccles. Hist., Vol. III. pp. 993–1005.

VOL. LXXII. - 5TH S. VOL. X. NO. I.

3

making the parallel between the conduct of the Emperor Maximus, influenced as he was by the bishops belonging to the party of Bishop Ithacius, and the treatment of the Priscillians, on the one hand, and the conduct of King Zedekiah, controlled in his treatment of the prophet by the chiefs, on the other, more complete.

Of a still greater departure from his Biblical authority is Severus guilty in the account of King Saul, who, according to Scripture, was merely threatened with the future loss of the throne as a punishment for having offered a sacrifice without waiting for the arrival of Samuel. Not satisfied with this, Severus states that the Israelitish army, in consequence of the guilt of the king, was seized by a panic ("ex delicto regis metus omnem exercitum pervaserat"); representing thus the inefficiency of the army as a punishment of the act of Saul, while the Scriptures ascribe it exclusively to the want of arms, the legitimate result of a previous treaty with the Philistines which interdicted the manuufacture of iron for any but agricultural purposes. Why this departure from the truth? Because Severus wishes to aim a blow at the unjustifiable interference of the Emperors Gratianus and Maximus in the case of the sect of Priscillianus.

To censure the Roman practice of paying, on festive days, divine honors to the statues and images of the emperors, Severus avails himself of the story of Nebuchadnezzar, but not without taking a similar liberty with the fact as stated in the Scriptures. These relate that the king erected a golden image, and commanded it to be worshipped, without saying whose the image was. Severus says that it was the king's own image (" statuam sibi auream immensæ magnitudinis posuit adorarique eam ut sacram effigiem præcepit").

After these and other instances of a somewhat questionable liberty taken by Severus in the use of his Biblical sources, Bernays concludes this part of his work with this general confession: "Even if, in order to mirror his own time in the Book of God, he may naïvely have given a certain inclination to the glass to suit his purpose, we will not take offence at this, since we possess the original of the Bible as our inheritance, that cannot be falsified, and need not learn

its true meaning from him and such as he." It may be said that the independent republican spirit displayed by Severus in the above-mentioned cases is honorable and praiseworthy. It may be so, but it cannot justify this tampering with the truth of history. We are by no means disposed to be very severe upon Severus for this failing, but it should not be overlooked when there is occasion to compare his historical truthfulness with that of other historians. It is very true, that the liberty which Severus took with the text of the Old Testament will have but little power to mislead us into an erroneous interpretation of the Scriptures; but is it to be supposed or taken for granted that a writer who did not scruple, when it suited his purpose, to modify the language of the Scriptures, was more scrupulous in the use of his other authorities?

That part of Bernays's work which relates to the language and object of Severus is elaborated with great learning and ingenuity. The object of Severus, as stated by himself, was to furnish to Roman readers an abridgment of the historical contents of the Old Testament, and of the succeeding history to his own time, which was by no means to supersede the Scriptures, but which should meet the objections of cultivated and refined readers to the uncouth and barbarous translations then in use, (especially the Itala, - the translation of Jerome appeared 404, after the Chronicle of Severus,) and render intelligible to Romans, familiar with Roman customs, laws, and jurisprudence, the customs, and more especially the civil and criminal legislation, of the Jews. This is done in a language drawn from the best of the leading Roman historians, Sallust, Tacitus, Velleius, and with that clearness and precision which could only belong to a professional lawyer, and which would attract the attention of his professional brethren. The work was intended to render the Old Testament, the foundation and starting-point of Christianity, intelligible and palatable to the refined, highly educated, and critical Romans of the time of Severus.

From the words of Severus, as quoted above, it appears that he used profane authors, whenever he found it expedient so to do. One of the most interesting portions of the work of Bernays is that in which he makes the destruction of Jerusa

« AnteriorContinuar »