Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7.djvu/502

 HOMILETICS

444

HOMILETICS

oratorical sermons. Quite the contrary; St. Chrysos- tom's homilies were models of simplicity, and he fre- quently interrupted his discourse to put questions in order to make sure that he was understood; while St. Augustine's motto was that he humbled himself that Christ might be exalted. In passing we might refer to a strange feature of the time, the applause with which a preacher was greeted. St. Chrysostom especially had to make frequent appeals to his hearers to keep quiet. Bishops commonly preached outside their own dioceses, especially in the great cities; polished sermons were evidently in demand, and a stipend was given, for we read that two Asiatic bishops, Antiochus and Severianus, went to Constantinople to preach, being more desirous of money than of the spiritual welfare of their hearers (Thomassin, ibid., ix, 504).

After the age here described preaching was on the decline in the West, partly because of the decay of the Latin language (cf. F^nelon, "Dial.", 164), and in the East, owing to the controversies on Arianism, Nestor- ianism, Eutychianism, Macedonianism, and other heresies. But still preaching was regarded as the chief duty of bishops; for instance, Ciesarius, Bishop of Aries, gave charge of all the temporal affairs of his diocese to deacons, that he might devote all his time to the reading of the Scriptures, to prayer, and to preaching. The next great name in preaching is that of St. Gregory the Great, particularly as a homilist. He preached twenty homiUes, and dictated twenty more, because, through illness and loss of voice, he was unable to preach them personally. He urged bishops very strongly to preach ; and, after holding up to them the example of the Apostles, he threatened the bishops of Sardinia in the following words: "Si cujus liljet Episcopi Paganum rusticum invenire potuero, in Epi.scopum fortiter vindicabo" (III, ep. xxvi). An edict was issued Ijy King Guntram stating that the assistance of the public judges was to be used to bring to the hearing of the word of God, through fear of punishment, those who were not disposed to come through piety. The Synod of TruUo laid down that bishops should preach on all days, especially on Sundays; and, by the same synod, bishops who preached outside their own diocese were reduced to the status of priests, because being desirous of an- other's harvest they were indifferent to their own — "ut qui alienae messis appetentes essent, suae in- curiosi". At the Council of Aries, in 813, bishops were strongly exhorted to preach; and the Council of Mainz, in the same year, laid down that bishops should preach on Sundays and feast days either them- selves (suo mnrte) or through their vicars. In the Second Council of Reims (813), can. xiv, xv, it was enjoined that bishops should preach the homilies and sermons of the Fathers, so that all could understand. And in the Third Council of Tours (can. xvii), in the same year, bishops were ordered to make a translation of the homilies of the Fathers into the rustic Roman tongue, or theodesque — the rustic Roman tongue being a species of corrupt Latin, or patois, understood by the uneducated (Thomassin, "DeBenef.", II, 1. III,c. Ixxxv, p. 510). Charlemagne and Louis the Pious were equally insistent on the necessity of preaching. The former went so far as to appoint a special day, and any bishop who failed to preach in his cathedral before that day was to be deposed. Pastors, too, were ordered to preach to their people as best they could; if they knew the Scriptures, they were to preach them; if not, they were at least to exhort their hearers to avoid evil and do good (Sixth Council of Aries, 813, can. x). The Homiliarium of Charlemagne is treated elsewhere (see Homili.\rittm).

We next come to the Middle .\ges. It has been

commonly said by non-Catholic writers that there

was little or no preaching during that time. So popu-

•lar was preaching, and so deep the interest taken in it,

that preachers commonly found it necessary to travel

by night, lest their departure should be prevented. It is only in a treatise on the history of preaching that justice could be done this period. The reader is re- ferred to Digby's "Mores Catholici", vol. II, pp. 158-172, and to Neale, "Mediaeval Sermons". As to style, it was simple and majestic, possessing little, perhaps, of so-called eloquence as at present under- stood, but much religious power, with an artless sim- plicity, a sweetness and persuasiveness all its own, and such as would compare favourably with the hollow declamation of a much-lauded later period. Some sermons were wholly in verse, and, in their in- tense inclusiveness of thought, remind one of the Sermon on the Mount: —

Magna promisimus; majora promissa sunt nobis: Servemus hsec; adspiremus ad ilia. Voluptas brevis; poena perpetua. Modica passio; gloria infinita. Multorum vocatio; paucorum electio; Omnium retributio. (St. Francis, as quoted by Digby, op. cit., 159.)

The characteristics of the preaching of the time might be summed up as follows: First, an extraor- dinary use of Scripture, not a mere introducing of the Sacred Text as an accretion, but such a use as comes from entwinement with the preacher's own thought. It would almost appear as if many preach- ers knew the Scriptures by heart. In some cases, however, this admirable use was marred by an exag- gerated mystical interpretation, which originated in the East and was much sought after by the Jews. Secondly, power on the part of the preachers of adapt- ing their discourses to the wants of the poor and igno- rant. Thirdly, simplicity, the aim being to impress a single striking idea. Fourthly, use of familiar maxims, examples, and illustrations from life — their minds must have been much in touch with nature. And, fifthly, intense realization, which necessarily resulted in a certain dramatic effect — they saw with their eyes, heard with their ears, and the past be- came present. For examples, the reader is again referred to the collection of "Mediajval Sermons" by Neale.

A few words as to the influence of scholastic philos- ophy. It supplied an almost inexhaustible store of information; it trained the mind in analysis and pre- cision; whilst, at the same time, it supplied a lucidity of order and cogency of arrangement such as we look for in vain in even the great orations of Chrysostom. On the other hand, philosophy regards man only as an intellectual being, without considering his emotions, and makes its appeal solely to his intellectual side. And, even in this appeal, philosophy, while, like algebra, speaking the formal language of intellect, is likely to be wanting from the view-point of persuasive- ness, inasmuch as, from its nature, it makes for con- densation rather than for amplifieation. The latter is the most important thing in oratory — "Sunima laus eloquentia; amplificare rem ornando." I'Y-nelon (Second Dialogue) describes it as portrayal; De Quincey, as a holding of the thought until the mind gets time to eddy about it; Newman gives a masterly analysis of it (Idea of a LTnjv., 1899, p. 280); his own sermons are remarkable for this quality of amplifi- cation, as are those of Bounlaloue on the int(^lleetual, and those of Massillon on the intellectual-emotional side, V. g. the latter's sermon on the Prodigal Son. Philosophy, indeed, is necessary for oratoiy; philos- ophy alone does not constitute oratory, and, if too one-sided, may have an injurious eiTeet — "Logic, therefore, so much as is useful, is to lie referred to this one place with all her well-couched heads and topics, until it be time to open her contracted palm into a graceful and ornate rhetoric" (Milton, "Trac- tate of Education"). What has been here stated refers to philosophy as a system, not to individual