Imágenes de páginas
PDF
EPUB

andria or of Athens. Although it might co-operate by its high intellectual pretensions in inflaming the heathen fanaticism of Julian, it would have little effect in eventually retarding the extinction of heathenism. It was merely a sort of refuge for the intellectual few-a self-complacent excuse which enabled them to assert, as they supposed, their own mental superiority, while they were endeavouring to maintain or revive the vulgar superstition, which they themselves could not but in secret contemn. The more refined it became, the less was it suited for use, and the less it harmonized with the ordinary paganism. Thus, that which in one respect elevated it into a dangerous rival of Christianity, at the same time deprived it of its power. It had borrowed much from Christianity, or at least had been tacitly modified by its influence; but it was the speculative rather than the practical part-that which constituted its sublimity rather than its popularity-in which it approximated to the gospel.

common

'If,' in the words of Tschirner, this new Platonism taught how to reconcile the philosophical theory of the divine nature with the belief in the gods of their ancestors-if it repelled many of the charges of the Christians, by the distinction between that which was essential and that which was accidental in the popular religion-it thus justified an adherence to the prevailing opinions and usages. So far it was a support to sinking heathenism. But it was not and could not be more than a support to a falling building, an edifice which, when the foundations are once undermined by time, can never recover its ancient firmness; it totters and leans towards its fall, though here and there new buttresses may be run up, and the cracks in the wall cemented. There was no reconciling the contradiction between the religious ideas of the time, and the sacred legends, whatever sense might be given to the latter; the ceremonies of religion did not change their nature according to the explanation which the philosophy of the times sought to give them; and whoever thought upon the subject more closely could not dissemble to himself, that this system of the later Platonism was something different from the religion of his ancestors.'-Tschirner, p. 473.

There could not be a higher testimony at once to the success and the superiority of Christianity, than this constrained approximation of heathenism. This showed at once the authority it had obtained over the general mind, and that the highest philosophy could not maintain its dignity, without learning, in a great degree, to speak the language of Christianity. This was an homage paid to its influence, as a religion so singularly adapted to the nature of man, and as a philosophy which embraced everything valuable which had been wrought out by human reason, at the same time that it revealed truths which reason had in vain endeavoured to attain.

Before

Before we close our account of Tschirner's work, we must express our high opinion of the felicity and candour with which he has characterised the writers on both sides in this great controversy. He has on one side introduced the apologists and influential writers in favour of Christianity; on the other, the antagonists of the new religion, whether, like Porphyry and Celsus, direct assailants, or, as the teachers of the new Platonism, the rivals and competitors of Christianity. We may again express our regret that a work so auspiciously begun was not permitted to be completed by the same hand.

The influence of the new philosophy and its effects in the regeneration of heathenism were chiefly confined to the eastern division of the Roman empire. As we pass to the work of M. Beugnot, we leave these speculative theories behind, and are almost exclusively occupied with historical facts. Political institutions, not philosophical systems, were the firm antagonists of Christianity in the west. It was the Roman nobility, the senate itself, not the philosophic school, which refused all compromise with the new faith. Heathenism rallied behind the walls of the ancient and majestic temples of the capital; it denounced the Christians as dangerous to the stability of the empire. As every calamity came darkening on, it aggravated its charge; and seemed to find pride and consolation in the sentiment, that it was itself in no way accessory to the approaching fall—that it had a foreign religion, to which it might justly attribute the depravation of Roman manners, the waning of Roman valour, the ignominy which pursued the Roman arms. It was, they cried, the just and righteous anger of the insulted gods, which avenged itself on the guiltless as well as on the irreligious authors of this fatal revolu

tion.

It is chiefly this re-organization of the ancient faith in the city of Rome, under the auspices of the most distinguished senators, which M. Beugnot has attempted to trace. His proofs are sometimes solid and convincing, at others somewhat slight and fanciful. But there can be no doubt that his general theory is correct. While the East only offered the opposition of sophists and rhetoricians; while a vague and half-Christianized philosophy lingered in the schools of Athens, and in other cities both of Asia Minor and Syria, a strong and compact pagan interest was formed in the west, of which Rome was the centre; the pontiffs, who were the leading senators of Rome, the chief supports; and the inseparable connexion between the glory and dominion of Rome, and the worship of those gods, under whose tutelary guidance Rome had subdued the world, was the rallying point and watchword for the decaying energies of heathenism.

M. Beugnot

M. Beugnot commences with the period of the visible triumph of Christianity-the reign of Constantine. We must not re-open that difficult and almost inexplicable problem, the motives and the conduct of the first Christian emperor. It is quite clear, that -to whatever extent Constantine personally embraced Christianity-however sincere or ambiguous his faith-he advanced the contest of the two religions no further than a perfect equality. It was first toleration, then favour, which he showed to the new religion. He did much more for Christianity by the indirect influence of his countenance and familiar intercourse, than by overt acts against the established paganism.* There are one or two instances stated by Eusebius, in which he suppressed certain pagan temples, but they were those either obnoxious to a charge of gross fraud, or offensive to public morals. If he lavished the finances of the empire on the restoration of the Christian churches, which had been ruined during the persecution of Dioclesian, or in founding new ones, far more costly and magnificent than had ever yet enshrined the worship of Christ-still these more imposing edifices merely confronted, they did not yet usurp, the fanes of the ancient deities; the only public building which as yet was made over to them was the unconsecrated basilica, or hall of justice. This, as the late Mr. Hope has traced in his valuable work on architecture, is the general model of the Christian churches. The imperial patronage of the clergy went no farther than to place them on the same footing with the sacerdotal order of the empire, in respect to privileges and exemptions from public burdens and offices. The only rites or ceremonies which he endeavoured to suppress were those which the original theory of the Roman religion proscribed with equal severity-private divination, the secret attempts, by sorcery, or by any other unhallowed arts, to penetrate into the mysteries of futurity. But in general, it was by neglect, rather than by the open expression of contempt, or by any direct act of hostility, that Constantine still further desecrated the popular religion. It is remarkable, that in Rome itself Constantine appears to have shown most openly his contempt or indifference for the Roman religion. He was in that city during the year 314, the year in which the Secular games ought to have been celebrated. These games, which were a sort of commemoration of the triumphs of Rome over the

* M. Beugnot, in a note, has observed the respectful language in which Constantine still spoke, in the public edicts, of the established paganism. It is Vetus observantia, vetus consuetudo; templorum solemnia; consuetudinis gentilitiæ solemnitas. Under his successors again, we find expressions like the following:- Error; dementia; error veterum; profanus ritus; sacrilegus ritus; nefarius ritus ; superstitio pagana, damnabilis, damnata, deterrima, impia; fuuestæ superstitionis errores; stolidus paganorum error,' &c.-Beugnot, vol. i. p. 80.

world,

world, did not take place, and to their interruption, the pagan historian Zosimus* attributed all the subsequent calamities of the empire. By his contemptuous absence from the Capitoline games, to which former emperors had passed in state at the head of the army, and environed by the senate, Constantine drew upon himself' (according to the language of the same historian) the hatred of the senate and of the people.'

'Rome was the cradle and the centre of the ancient national faith. Many traditions, which had risen to the rank of religious doctrines, had their birth within her walls, and invested her with a religious character, which still shone in the days of Constantine with a living lustre. The pagans of the west considered Rome as the sacred city, the sanctuary of their hopes, the point to which all their thoughts ought to centre; and the Greeks, with their usual exaggeration, recognised in her a part, not of earth, but of heaven. (Liban. Epist. 1083.) The aristocracy, endowed with its numerous pontificates, and leading in its train a host of clients and freedmen, to which it imparted its own passions and its attachment to error, displayed an ostentatious piety. It furnished, by its temporal wealth, the means of subsistence to a populace, greedy, turbulent, and superstitious, in whose ranks it was easy to maintain the most odious prejudices against Christianity. The hope of obtaining distinction, of acquiring riches, or merely of sharing in the public distributions, attracted to that city all the provincials who were without fortune, or, what is worse, discontented with their fortune. Italy, Africa, Spain, and Gaul, sent the choice of their youth to form their minds by the lessons of professors, whose principal merit was their jealous hatred of all new opinions, and who had obtained a melancholy distinction during the persecutions. The pagan standard floated in full freedom over the walls of the capital. The public or private sacrifices, the sacred the consultation of the augurs, the frequenting of the temples in this sink of all superstitions, were popular and every day occurrences. Everywhere were heard maledictions against the name of Christ, and predictions of the approaching ruin of his worshippers; everywhere the glory of the gods was proclaimed, and their protection invoked. How cruel and humiliating must have been the situation of the Christians, lost in the depths of that city, where at every step a temple, an altar, a statue, and horrible blasphemies revealed the still active influence of falsehood! They did not dare to build churches, nor to open schools, nor publicly to answer the charges brought against them in the theatres, in the forum, or in the baths, so that they might appear to exist only to display by contrast the dominion of idolatry. This state of things wounded the conscience of Constantine, and that prince,

It is a curious illustration of the spirit in which the history of this period has been studied, that the publication of the work of Zosimus was for a long time considered dangerous to Christianity. Thuanus, in his Life (p. 24) relates, that during the pontificate of Pius V., he attempted in vain to obtain permission to read the MS. both in Rome and in Florence.

by

by openly announcing his opinions, made the Romans on a sudden comprehend the new part which they would have to play; that part they accepted without hesitation. Let us not accuse Constantine of rashly yielding himself up, on this occasion, to the influence of his convictions: Rome was predisposed to become the centre of the pagan opposition; the fact which revealed that truth was of little importance.'— Beugnot, i. p. 75.

This brilliant, but rather rhetorical, we had almost written dramatic, passage strongly contrasts with the calmer and more philosophic tone of the German writer. The one is writing from the fulness of his knowledge on the subject, the other making a striking effect with less copious means. There is truth in the statement of M. Beugnot, but some exaggeration on one side, and some suppression on the other. We do not doubt that the ecclesiastical writers among the Roman Catholics have rather dissembled the strength of the pagan party in Rome. It was a dangerous admission that, in the Papal see itself, Christianity made slower progress and was encountered by a more resolute and organized opposition than in any other city of the empire. But M. Beugnot, we conceive, has depressed the Christians of Rome below their relative number and importance, particularly at this period. He has not noticed the remarkable fact, which is clear from Zosimus, and other authorities, that Maxentius endeavoured to revive the spirit of paganism in his own favour before the fatal battle of the Milvian Bridge. Constantime held one of the councils against the Donatists at Rome-bishops from all parts of Italy assembled under the express sanction of the emperor to hold their public court of inquiry. Yet if indeed Constantine was the avowed champion of Christianity at Rome, he gave a fearful advantage to the enemies of that religion. For it was at Rome that the event took place which spreads a dark shadow, that cannot be dispelled, over the reign and the character of the first Christian emperor. The examination of his gallant and popular son Crispus took place in Rome; and though the judicial murder was not perpetrated in that city, yet the feeling of the Roman people on this black transaction was expressed in the memorable pasquinade which compared the days of Constantine to those of Nero.

We apprehend that it was the foundation of Constantinople which, while it degraded Rome from her rank as capital of the world, tended principally, though indirectly, to strengthen the pagan party in the city. Among the leading motives of policy and ambition which induced Constantine to found an castern metropolis bearing his own name, might mingle some vague thoughts of the more rapid propagation of Christianity

« AnteriorContinuar »