(fourth-century Christian sarcophagus) Take as a starting point given the fact: the ancient Christian literature is a relatively young discipline. The first Italian chairs this matter back to the year 1949. But let's see why it is so young and because its beginnings were strongly disputed. The specificity of all literature is shown in character external, formal, ie is given by the language. We speak indeed of Italian literature, English, French, German and so on. Here, on the other hand, we have a literature that is characterized not so much the language but for its content. From Indeed, the ancient Christian literature has as its object works originally written in Greek, Latin and also in Oriental languages. This feature specifies the fine, because it represents a unicum: we speak of an ancient Christian literature, but not, for example, from a medieval Christian literature. This is because, with the spread of Christianity throughout the Middle Ages is christened, is in the East or the West: for this reason, literature, medieval Latin and Greek that are naturaliter Byzantine Christian. On the other hand, the ancient Christian literature in the nomenclature already opposed to the classical Greek and Latin literatures.
Just characterized by its more on the basis of content than on language, those who objected were absolutely the autonomy of ancient Christian literature. Even at the beginning of last century U. von Wilamowitz, the princeps philologorum denied the independent existence of our discipline because it considered the prevailing language in which the Christian content was expressed: for him there is a Latin and Greek literature, no distinction between pagan and Christian content. Currently widely prevalent not only in Italy but also abroad, the concept of autonomy of the discipline, founded on the appreciation of the content at the expense of language. We wave
now the other data of a general nature that interferes deeply in our argument. What is meant by literature, from what we talk about Italian literature, French, English? It's like saying: what are the texts that mean that there is an Italian literature? Today, the concept of literature is latitudinal: we can rightly say that everything you write and publish in Italian language is literature. For example, even a crime novel is considered literature. 40/50 years ago but things were quite different: to characterize a literature was not enough the fact that only exist physically a text written in a particular language, but were required to be written in a particular mode, which had "literary dignity." So, a few decades ago, nobody would dream of considering a part of English literature Aghata Christie novel. Today, as I said, things are different, but this was the case and such a widespread belief was reflected also in our specific context.
commonly understand in the context of ancient Christian literature all Christian texts written between the I and VIII century. But one important German critic who was active around the middle of the nineteenth century, FJ Overbeck stated that one could only speak of Christian texts from Clement of Alexandria, ie around the end of the second century. In other words, writers such as Ignatius, Irenaeus and Justin were not worthy to be part of literature because they discerned in her works that literary dignity, that is, the refined rhetoric and stylistic development, which he and many of his day, was constitutive of a literature. I mean, this valuation took into account not only what was written but particularly the way it was written. Today, the rhetoric has been set aside for so many years, the prevailing design a much broader range of literature and it was very important for the awareness about the autonomy of ancient Christian literature as something apart, while the consideration of the contents assumed a decidedly prevailing value relates to the way in which this content was expressed.
All this serves as an introduction to our particular argument, ie, "tradition and innovation." When I speak of "expressive form of a certain level" in the ancient world, I immediately refer to the rhetoric, at that distant time, unlike today, was the basic discipline of all forms of instruction. But this, on one hand the coalition Christian literature from the classical tradition, on the other side shows the state of dialectical tension connection with which it was lived.
To present the argument clearly, let us consider the movements of the concept that many Christians were already in the early second century, its particular "being in the world", is in contrast with the Jews, either with the Greeks: it is more At about this time that these were characterized as an triton genos is compared to some, is the other, proudly stating its uniqueness about those who, for them, were the most important cultural entities. Born in the Jewish world, spread rapidly through the Greek world, but with characteristics that allow them to represent the consciousness of something new and is diverse in relation to the Jewish world, is the Greek world. On the other hand, they inevitably took many elements is a part, is another.
Initially, under the state of things, the influx was the prevailing Jewish: in essence, Christians differ while retaining the Jews that Christ is the Messiah and that faith rescues him from sin and spiritual death, while that most of the Jews refutes this identification and its salvific meaning. However, put this fundamental difference, Christians, as Jews by birth and education, more natural way, take all that Jewish culture in the way they express themselves and also how to express what is not specific about the problem messianic. We are precisely in its infancy. But Christianity quickly expanded into the Greek world, and then Roman, the newcomers began to be so ever more prevalent, of pagan origin in relation to the original belongs to the Jewish world, and Christianity, because, after a confrontation with the Jewish world, begins its battle with the world the Greek world. Also here is characterized by content that, in relation to the pagan world, was even more radical opposition against the Jewish world. With Jews, Christians codividiram a very large tradition of religious character, which is synthesized mainly in the Old Testament. Moreover, with the pagan world, the contrast is programmatic. Christians struggle with the Jews, but the pagans are opposed to a more determined, because there can be no common ground between the Christological monotheism and polytheism with its religious tradition. On the other hand, these Christians now pass quickly from Aramaic to Greek (already the first generation but Christian missionaries spoke Greek rather than Aramaic), the "speak Greek," and then in the Latin world "speak Latin "by force of circumstance, sets a close relationship with the pagan culture, which was expressed precisely in Greek and Latin, without which in turn is set aside a previous Jewish influences. To clarify with an example the simultaneous presence of the influx of Jewish and Greek, as we emphasize two were the most important ways in which took shape exegetical literature devoted to the interpretation of Sacred Scripture, the homily and the Commentary. The homily derives from the synagogue, that is, the Jewish tradition, the commentary, in turn, the Greek scholastic tradition. Thus, one requirement for literary hermeneutic character is shaped differently according to the prevailing influence, Jewish or pagan. But for us it is fundamental: this juxtaposition, the two inflows come to penetrate themselves with one another. Origen, who performed the first comment of scholastic origin and successively the homily, structured on the basis of this comment and, in fact, merged into the exegetical homily two literary genres that were related to the origin, radically different from one another. Thus, they perceived the two inflows: the Christian culture appropriates the inflows and a part of another and not just overlap, but tends to mix them together to make something new for both sources. This dialectic of innovation and tradition is that fundamentally the relationship between content and form.
He spoke shortly before the decisive influence of the rhetoric: this course, obliterated in school today, was then the basis of scholastic teaching a certain level. This means that when a Christian writes, being literate person as of right, even modest, cultural level, is expressed according to the traditional rhetoric of the modules learned in school: in fact, Christian writers of the II and III centuries, except for rare exceptions (Irenaeus, Origen), pagans are converted into adulthood and, therefore, were trained and culturally scholastic in the pagan world, studied at school pagan, based on the study, in the Eastern world, in Homer, Thucydides, Demosthenes, and the Western world in Virgil, Cicero, Sallust, Livy, the point of assimilating a more or less complete training cultural. Becoming Christians, they are conscious of being born, through baptism, to a new life outside, but especially inside, different from previous and opposed this. So now, moving from paganism to Christianity, they are aware of the requirement to escape the cultural training before, but you can not have a sudden intellectual habitus acquired through years of hard fatigue, past the elementary level, the stroke of the ferrule generously given by the master, as we are reminded Horace [1] .
The contrast is felt very strongly at the theoretical level. Tertullian says: "That thing is in common between Athens and Jerusalem? And between the Portico of Solomon and the portico of Stoicism? ". The sense is of a fracture that is as radical in religious matters, because there can be no contact between the pagan Christian religion and that there should be also in literature, because there should also be contact between the pagan and Christian literary expression. The opposition theory is clear: the refutation of the pagan culture is attested to by virtually all authors of the century, with the exception of Justin and very partial, more confident, Clement of Alexandria. However, it is a theoretical position. For when, in fact, these authors put in writing their reflections, here they can not extricate themselves from what is their cultural, not even those, like Tatian and Tertullian, are more drastic in its condemnation of classical culture: learned to write in a certain way and may not start, offhand, to write another. So also, if the content is radically Again, the form continues always adhered to the classical tradition.
Here we must distinguish between the eastern and western environment, as found in the Christian world of the Greek language the extension of a distinction that is evident in pagan literature. The Greeks developed, beyond a rhetorical form of high literary quality (feature, obviously, of oratory, but also of great history) is also a simpler way to express themselves, own the memoir literature, which we define as hypomnemata, a way simpler it is, for example, that of philosophical expression. The philosophers of the century III onwards have expressed with this language and literary discourse simpler, more naive purposely profile for the preparation rhetoric, which is appreciated as a great literary achievement in context, because the language is beyond that of philosophy, those disciplines that define science in broad sense. It is the language in which it is expressed naturally authors such as Justin and Irenaeus. Undoubtedly there are also ambitions to a more refined expression and certainly not lacking instances in which the author is timely raise the tone of the style as, for example, when Clement of Alexandria speaks to his Gentile readers in Protrept: but fundamentally the language of Greek writers of the late first century, around the second century until Origen himself in the third century, is the language of hypmnemata. The Latin
virtually ignored this mode of expression, in favor of a literature ever more high level. A great historian, Th Mommsen said that all Latin literature is steeped in the rhetoric, made an exception only for Catullo. This view, expressed so radically, it is obviously too extreme. But you can not deny that Mommsen has taken a key feature of the mode of expression in Latin, and rightly, from their way of thinking: a rhetorical being purely a Greek in Rome was assimilated so radically as to become a true and proper way to not only express themselves but also of thinking and living, even dying as well: just mention the death of Cicero, and that of Lucan, antifrasticamente as Petronius dies according to the famous narrative of Tacitus [2] . In this regard, Mommsen saw a constitutive character of literature prosástica Latin, which ignored the mode of expression in the simplest sense is that the scientific language of the Greeks: When Seneca writes about science, his prose is rhetorically refined as well as when he writes of arguments philosophy morale. This character goes to a Christian context. Tertullian and Ciprinao, the two most important Christian writers of the Latin language of the third century always express themselves in a very refined level rhetorically. Tertullian introduced in Christian literature and very soon the treaty drawn rhetorically dedicated to a specific argument of doctrine, morals or the other (the baptism of patientia, adversus Praxean, etc..), Taking the example of Cicero (Brutus, of amicitia etc.). and Seneca (from clementia, anger); Cipriano followed his example (ad Donatum of mortalitate, zeal et livor etc.).. So, new content, expressions of a way of living and thinking very specific about that occurred in the pagan environment, are expressed in a form that is linked very closely to the classical tradition.
However, the relationship between tradition and innovation, originality and adherence to classic models is not always simple features like expose to date. On one side, in fact, the influence extends beyond the classic form, the same way to prepare the content, and on the other hand, the novelty of the content also affects the shape. In part, the authors also point out that most Christians programmatically hostile to pagan culture, like Tatian and Tertullian, and develop content doctrinally significant, can not do more than enter the specifics of Christianity in a web of thought characterized by the parameters and modules development typical of Greek philosophy, especially Platonic and Stoic, which alone could enable development of sparse data reflect an incipient doctrine in a coherent and organic. Moreover, the novelty of content, in turn, requires a way of expressing that it is clear also that, in relation to new models pagans. In the period prior to Constantine's fourth century revolution, the most important example in this context is represented by Ekklesiastiké history (Which would be better translated "Church History" than "Ecclesiastical History") of Eusebius of Caesarea. Being a work of history falls to the rich historical tradition Greek (Herodotus, Thucydides, Polybius): however, in relation to these and other traditional models, the historical work of Eusebius fact represents a new and original, as the ancient world ignored the story of a religious movement. Religion, as such, could not have history, since in the ancient world that became a cult through extrinsic officer, who was repeating always the same for centuries, was characterized by immobility, for stability, so the lack of events that could be characterized as historical. The life of the Christian church, instead, was too busy to be outside (through the difficult relations with Jews and Romans) or internally (by the contrasts of doctrine and discipline of character). There was therefore subject to write a historical work. For this reason, the very fact of writing a story closely related to Eusebius Greek literary tradition, which historiography was one of the manifestations and higher, these affiliates, Eusebius, cultíssima person, was perfectly conscious. But it fits in this tradition so totally unique. Historiography was considered a literary form of a high cultural level. Ephorus and Theopompus disciples of Isocrates, had formalized this concept, under which Cicero defined the history opus maxime oratorium. At the time of Eusebius, the historiographical model of excellence, rather than historians of the Hellenistic period, was Thucydides, the greatest historian of antiquity. And then there were also attempts to mimic that style so hard and so personal. We are, however, the maximum of literary expression. However, Eusebius memoirist who preferred the way - as I waved - in the ancient world was the expressive form of the philosophical and scientific, but not of historical work. Because he did not say, but probably being the richest of his writing papers referred to in immediate mode (some books in the History of Eusebius Paracas, precisely, a collection of steps taken from earlier Christian authors and put together in a sort of glue) precisely because they understood the importance of reporting this documentation, critical to the understanding of Christianity and it is difficult to access in its original form: hence, without redesign it in order to insert it organically in their own historical discourse - as it should have done to perform a work historically high level - a preferred form of expression simpler.
Eusebius, on the other hand, knows well how to express themselves in very high: when it celebrates Constantine, the level of his prose rises, and not a little. For this reason, some form of history was prepared expressly for him dear because of the extensive documentary component of his historic speech. Thus, he set a definitive way, in Christian literary environment of the Greek language, the characters of historiography, in large part because historians have mirrored later in the model Eusebian. Thus, a genre of classical literature, high-level estilisco expressively and well specified in the long tradition, passed to Christian lyrics with new features, or in relation to content, whether in relation to a form of expression.
We are still in the period before the great revolution of Constantine: Eusebius is, in fact, between the time that he himself defined as "martyrs" and the great reform of Constantine. The "revolution" Constantine had profound repercussions also in our specific context, as on all others in the church life. The Christian religion is rapidly becoming a favorite of the emperor and, at the end of the century IV gets the legal prerogative of being the only officially recognized religion by the state. This new state of affairs provided, of course, not only a huge expansion over the next few decades, but also a very strong increase in weight and prestige, a presence, over the years, increasingly strong and significant in all manifestations of life characteristics of Empire. In this context, Christians realized the need to specify very effectively their presence also in terms of degree. It is then that the homily, so far characterized in relation to the form of simple and modest, has to be of great opus oratorium apparatus. If we confront the homilies of John Chrysostom with those of Origen, the difference could not be more clear and palpable. The Christian oratory becomes thus an oratory apparatus, as was that pagan. In the novelty of the content must match an elevation of a formal nature. This awareness poses a problem. One of the new forms of Christian oratory, perhaps more specifically, is the panegyric of the martyrs in the occurrence of the dies natalis. Indeed, the cult of the martyrs became the most distinctive aspect of Christian worship and apparent, and when there was a feast of the martyr, it was customary that a speaker will celebrate the deeds with a panegyric, that is, with a kind of celebratory speech and encomiastic, very traditional in the pagan world, in which it was widely used, especially as a form of public celebration, the first emperor, but also outstanding character of key administrative positions. Christians also transferred this way (this is still one more time "tradition and innovation") to his world. The content is completely new, but how long is the sacred and very traditional practice is the rhetorical arsenal of which it makes use. In this regard, note that there were people, who like Basil of Caesarea, personality also significant for the intelligence with which they perceived the relationship between Christian and pagan letters, wondered if the celebration of martyrs, which was the most authentic expression of Christian faith was compatible with the use of traditional models of pagan rhetoric, and sponsored a new rhetoric specifically Christian. While his friend Gregory Nazianzen communed not, in fact, this concern, and continued to peacefully express their refined rhetorical eloquence in the way more traditional concern of Basil was also shared with John Chrysostom that, with the other two, is the triad Christians of the great orators of the Greek language. But what we want to highlight is that this awareness was destined to remain purely theoretical, unable to translate into a real novelty and very expressive character. In fact, let Basil, Chrysostom is, when moving from theory to practice, whether in the panegyrics of the martyrs, or in the homilies continue to express themselves in traditional forms of rhetoric. The same discrepancy between theory and practice found among speakers of Latin in Augustine.
You can not separate themselves from the traditional mode of expression, and the main reason for this adherence is related to scholastic education. In fact, even when Christianity becomes state religion, can not replace a school with a very traditional school. This, then it was accessible only to educated people, who were those who did literature, even when the Empire became officially Christian, still based in the east on Homer, the lyric, Pindar, Demosthenes, Thucydides, and in the Latin of Virgil , Horace, Terence, Cicero, and Salustio Livio. The Christian student who studies these authors, according to the warning of Speech to Young Basil tries to be careful not to get involved with the content of what they read, However, with such scholastic education, mode of literary expression level could not not remain the same as before.
exemplifying conclude with a secondary literary genre that, to modern critics do not like because of the prevailing rhetorical dimension, but that was formerly remarkable fortune: a biblical paraphrase. Giovenco, a English priest versed in Latin metrics, writes about the year 330, the Libri Evangeliorum transferring four books in hexameter verse - the specific Greek and Latin epic poetry - the contents of the Gospels of Matthew and John Modern scholars settle Giovenco in short, considering veleidosa initiative and translate the very incongruous in hexameters traditional Virgilian and Ovidian type (besides loaded and Baroque) the contents of the Gospels, fascinating in its simplicity. And yet this piece was a very great fortune and was much imitated between the fourth and sixth century. Indeed, the simplicity of the Gospel, which modern admire so much, was far less appreciated in ancient time, precisely because the kind of scholastic education in rhetoric, typical of any educated person, one judge was simply the product of inexperience and ignorance. For this reason, the initiative to Giovenco, which reflects the content of evangelical rhetorically elaborate form, that content suited to the tastes of educated people and became more easily and enjoyably accessible. Hence the success of the initiative. This same literary genre, we now consider minor, is the one that best highlights the dialectic innovation / tradition, ie the ability to demonstrate that Christians know to enjoy a rich tradition of literary character, a type of instrumentation traditionally scholastic rhetoric, to express fundamentally new content.
Manlio Simonetti
Università degli Studi di Foggia, April 17, 2002.
Translation: Aurelio Correia Lima / Salesian Pontifical Università - Rome
[1] About the blows received from the master Orbílio, cf. Epistolae, II 1, 71
[2] Cf Annales, XVI, 19
