Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 12.djvu/374

 POVERTY

324

POVERTY

movement. For him it meant life understood as a dance which the Greeks made a science.

Finally the landscape becomes more and more im- portant in this lyrical or poetical side of his work. Nature accompanies with its profound harmony the human sentiments which transpire on its surface, the persons are merely a melodious figure outlined against the chorus of tilings. As a landscape artist he is with- out a peer, unless it be Titian. Constable finds some- thing rehgious in his landscapes; in fact when con- templating his "Poh'phemus" or his "Cacus" (St. Petersburg), it is easy to understand (what no one since Virgil has felt) the naturalistic and mysterious origin of myths. Beyond doubt this is sometliing far removed from the pious Franciscan tenderness as it finds expression in the "Canticle of creatures"; it is rather the religion of Epicurus or Lucretius, which teaches conformity with the ends of the universe and as supreme wisdom counsels harmony with the rhythm of nature. Towards the end of his life Poussin seems to have renounced the personal or dramatic element. His last works, the "Four Seasons" of the Louvre (166-1-65), are simply four landscapes which please by varietj- of sense. Like the ancient sage the master leaves history and psychology, and devotes himself simply to music. Between 1024 and his death he was absent from Rome only once (1641-2) at the command of RicheUeu, who sunmioned him to Paris to superintend the work at the Louvre with the title of painter to the king. This journey was otherwise un- fortunate. The artist was misunderstood by the painters, who soon succeeded in driving him away. All that remains of this period are two large pic- tures, a "Last Supper", ven,- mediocre, painted for St. Germain en Laye, a "'Miracle of St. Francis Xavier", painted for the Jesuit novitiate, and a ceil- ing, the "Triumph of Truth", painted for Richelieu's chateau at Rueil. These three canvases are at the Louvre. On his return to Rome Poussin found his authority much increased by his official title. He Uved not far from the Trinita de Monti in a Uttle side street where he had as neighbours Claude Lorrain and Salvator. Among artists he exercised a singular in- fluence. Nearly all the Frenchmen who came to Rome to study, froni Mignard to Le Brun and Sebastien Bourdon, not to mention his brother-in-law Gaspard Dughet (called " Guaspre "), imitated him and claimed him as master; but as usual none of them understood him. In his centurj' he was an isolated genius, but his glory has not been" useless to us; it shone more bril- liantly in the decadence of the Itahan school and it gave to the French school what it had hitherto lacked — titles and an ancestor.

I. Poussin's correspondence in BoTT.iRl, RaccoUa di Letiere (Rome, 17&4), and in Quatremere de Quincy, Collection des LeUres du Poussin (Paria, 1S24). defective edition, a critical one is in press. II. Biographies: Bellori, Vile de' pMori (Rome, 1672); F^UBiEN, EiUrelicns sur la tie des plus exceUents peinlres (2nd ed., Paris. 1688) ; Archires de VArtfranQais (Paris, 1854 sq.), 1,1-11,140-50; 11,224-31; III, I-IS; VI, 241-54. III. Studies on Potlssin: de S.uxt Germain, Vie de N. Poussin (Paris, 1806) ; Grjiha^m, Memoirs of the life of N. Poussin (London, 1820); BoocHrrrf. Le Poussin. sa vie et son ceuvre (Paris. 1858); Dei.a- CROix, Le Poussin in Piron. Eug. Delacroix, sa vie et ses <£uvres (Paris, 1863) ; Jori.N, Conferences de VAcadtmie de peinture et de Bculplure (Paris. 1883); Dexio, Nicolas Poussin (Leipzig, 1898); Advielle. Recherches sur Nicolas Poussin (Paris, 1902); Des- jABDiNs, Poussin (Paris, s. d.).

Louis Gtt.t.et.

Poverty. I. The Moral Doctrint: of Po^t:rtt. — Jesus Christ did not condemn the possession of worldly goods, or even of great wealth ; for He himself had rich friends. Patristic tradition condemns the opponents of private property; the texts on which such persons rely, when taken in connexion with their context and the historical circumstances, are capable of a natural explanation which does not at all support their contention (cf. Vermeersch, "Qutest. de jus- titia", n. 210), Nevertheless it is true that Christ constantly pointed out the danger of riches, which,

He sa}'s, are the thorns that choke up the good seed of the word (Matt,, xiii, 22). Because of His poverty as well as of His constant journeying, necessitated by persecution. He could say: "The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air nests: but the son of man hath not where to lay his head" (Matt., viii, 20), and to the young man who came to ask Him what he should do that he might have life everlasting. He gave the coun- sel, "If thou wilt be perfect, go scU what thou hast, and give to the poor" (Matt., xix, 16-21). The re- nunciation of worldly possessions has long been a part of the practice of Christian asceticism; the Chris- tian community of Jerusalem in their first fervour sold their goods "and divided them to all, according aa everj- one had need" (Acts, ii, 45), and those who em- braced the state of perfection understood from the first that they must choose poverty.

Does this mean that poverty is the object of a special virtue? Gury (Theolog. moralis II, n. 155) answers the question in the affirmative, and many religious writers favour the same opinion, which ig supported by the ordinarj' conventual and ascetical literature; what is prescribeil by the vow of poverty is compared therein with the virtue of poverty, just as we compare the vows of obedience and chastity with the corresponding virtues. But this is erroneous; for the object of a virtue must be something honour- able or praiseworthy in itself: now poverty has no in- trinsic goodness, but is good only because it is useful to remove the obstacles which stand in the way of the pursuit of spiritual perfection (St. Thomas, "Contra Gentiles", III, cxxxiii; Suarez, "Derehgione", tr. VII, 1. VIII, c.ii,n.6; Bucceroni, "Inst.theol.mor.", II, 75, n. 31). The practice of poverty derives its merit from the virtuous motive ennobling it, and from the virtues which we exercise in regard to the privations and sacrifices accompanying it. As everj' vow haa for its object the worship of God, poverty practised under a vow has the merit of the virtue of religion, and its public profession, as enjoined by the Church, forms a part of the ritual of the Catholic religion.

The ancients understood the nobility of making themselves independent of the fleeting things of earth, and certain Greek philosophers lived in voluntary penurj-; but they prided themselves on being superior to the\-ulgar crowd. There is no virtue in such pov- erty as this, and when Diogenes trampled Plato's carpet, saying as he did so: "Thus do I trample on Plato's pride", "Yes", answered Pl.ato, "but only through your own pride." Buddhism also teaches the contempt of riches; in China the tenth precept of the novices forbids them to touch gold or silver, and the second precept of female novices forbids them to pos- sess anything of their own; but their ignorance of a personal God prevents the Buddliist monks from having any higher motive for their renunciation than the natural advantage of restraining their desires (cf. Wieger, "Bouddhisme chinois", pp. 153, 155, 183, 185). If voluntary poverty is ennobled by the motive which inspires it, the poverty which puts aside tem- poral possessions for the service of God and the salva- tion of souls is the most noble of all. It is the apostolic poverty of the Christian religion, which is practised in the highest degree by missionaries in pagan countries, and to a certain degree by all priests: all these voluntarily give up certain possessions and ad- vantages in order to devote themselves entirely to the service of God.

Voluntary poverty is the object of one of the evan- gelical counsels. The question then arises, what poverty is required by the practice of this counsel or, in other words, what poverty suffices for the state of perfection? The renunciation which is essential and strictly required is the abandonment of all that is superfluous, not that it is absolutely necessarj' to give up the ownership of all property, but a man must be contented with what is necessary for his own use. Then