Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 7.djvu/505

 HOMILIARItTM

447

HOMILIARIUM

concionatore"; "De concione"; "De concionantis

prudentia ot industria ". Much is to be found in the writings of St. Vincent de Paul, of St. Alphonsus Lig- uori, and in St. Francis de Sales, especially in his cele- brated letter to Monsignor Kremiot, Archbishop of Bourges. Among the Dominicans we find Alexander Natalis with liis "Institutio concionantium tripar- tita" (Paris, 1702). In the "Rhetorica ecclesias- tica " (1627) of Jacobus de Graffiis is contained a symposium of the instructions on preaching by the Franciscan Francis Panigarola, the Jesuit Francis Borgia, and the Carmelite Johannes a Jesu. The "Dialogues" of F^nelon, the work of Pere Blaise Gis- bert, that of Amadeus Bajocensis and of Guido ab Angelis have already been referred to. In the nine- teenth century homiletics took its place as a branch of pastoral theology.andmanymanualshave been written thereon, for instance, in German, compendia by Brand, Laberenz, Zarbl, Fluck, and Schuch; in Italian, by Gotti and .Vudisio; and many in French and English, some of which are quoted in the bibliography at the end of this article.

The question as to how far homiletics should make use of profane rhetoric is often raised. Some assert its independent character, and say that it is independ- ent in origin, in matter, and in purpo.se: in origin, because it has not grown out of profane rhetoric; in matter, because it has to deal not with natural, but with supernatural truths clearly defined in Revelation ; and in purpose, because the aim is to lead souls to co- operate with the grace of the Holy Spirit. The up- holders of this view point also to certain passages in Scripture and in the Fathers, notably to the words of St. Paul (I Cor., ii, 4): "And my speech and my preaching urns not in the persuasive words of human Wfisdom, but in shewing of the Spirit and power "; also to I Cor., i, 17; ii, 1, 2; and II Cor., iv, 2; and to the testimony of Cyprian (Ep. ad Donat.), Arnobius (Adv. Nationes), Lactantius (Institutionum divina- rum), and to Sts. Gregory of Nazianzus, Augustine, Jerome, and Chrysostom. The last-named says that the great difference may be summed up in this: that the orator seeks personal glory, the preacher practical good. On the other hand St. Paul's own sermons are in many cases replete with oratory, e. g., his sermon on the Areopagus; and the oratorical element gener- ally enters largely into Scripture. Lactantius, the Christian Cicero, regretted that there were so few trained preachers (Inst. Div., V, c. i), and we know that St. Gregory of Nazianzus, as well as Sts. Chrysos- tom and Augustine, made use of rhetoric in preach- ing. The writer of this article thinks that there would be no room for difference of opinion if oratory were defined not according to the style that prevails in any particular period, but according to that which constitutes its very essence, viz. persuasiveness. And he thinks it will be found that the Fathers, in speaking against oratory in preaching, had in mind the false style that then prevailed. For instance, St. Gregory of Nazianzus censured the use in the pulpit of the eloquence and pronunciation of the theatre; but surely that was not to oppose real oratory. Also we know that many unhealthy excrescences had grown by this time around Greek oratory, and it was probably such imperfections that those who spoke against it had in mind. Who, for instance, can read Demetrius "On Style" without feeling how petty are many of the tricks of speech and figures that are there found? Many extravagances are indulged in, in the name of oratory, but true oratory, as the art of persuasion, can never be out of place in the pulpit.

Keppler in Kirchenlex., s. v. Itomuetik, gives an extensive, especially German, bibliography: Thomassin, Vetus et Nova Ecclesiw Disciplina (Paris. 168S} ; Digbt. Mores Catholici (Lon- don, 1846); Neale, Mediwval Sermons (I..ondon. 1856); Bar- DBNHEWER, Piitrology, tr. Shahan (St. Ix)uis. 1908); Duchesne, Christian Worship (tr. London, 190:3); Schmid, Manual of PatroloQji (tr. St. Ix)ui3. 1899); Schuch. The Friest in the Pul- pit (tr. New York, 1905) ; Potter, Sacred Eloquence (New York,

1891); MacNamara. Sacrni Rhetoric (Dublin, 1882); Boyle. Instructions on Preaching (New York, 1002); Fee.ney, Manual of Sacred Rhetoric (St. Louis. 1901); Coppens, Oratorical Com- position (New York. 1885); Fenelon, Three Dialogues on Pul- pit Eloquence (tr. Ixsndon and Philadelphia. 1897); Hogan, Clerical Studies (Boston, 189S); St-\ng, Pastoral Theology (New Y'ork, 1897): Mullois, The Clergu and the Pulpit (tr. Lon- don, 1867). Many works on pastoral theology contain use- ful chapters on homiletics, amongst others: M.\>jning, Eternal Priesthood (London. 1884); Gibbons, The Ambassador of Christ (Baltimore, 1896): Oakley, The Priest on the Mission (London. 1871); Smith. The Training of a Priest (New York, 1899); Hamon, Traitc de la Prcdicatioji (Paris. 1906): Monsabre. J^a Predication, avant, pendant, et apres (Paris, 1900); Boucher, L' Eloquence de la choice (Lille. 1894): Arnauld, Reflexions sur V Eloquence des Pri'dicateurs (Paris. 1695); Maury, i'ssai sur V Eloquence de la chaire (Paris. 1.S10): Dupanloup, Entretiens sur la Predication (Paris, 1866); Fontaine, La Chaire et V Apologetique au XI Xe siccle (Paris. 1887); Longhaye. La Predication (Paris. 1.S97): yioVRUET, Lemons sur V Art de Precher (Paris, 1909). Non-Catholic works in English: Grinfield, History of I^eaching (London, 1880); Phillips Brooks, Lec- tures on Preaching (London. 190:ii); Hoppin. Homiletics; Pas- toral Theology (New York, 1901); Ker, History of Preaching (London, 188.8); Beecher. Yale Lectures on Preaching (New York. 1892); Burton, /» Pulpit and Parish (Boston. 1888); 3 AMES, The Message and the Messenger (fjondon, 1898); Dargan, History of Preachina (i^cnuUm, 1905) : Broadus, Preparation and Delivery of a Sermon (London, 1871); Shurter, The Rhetoric of Oratory (New York, 1909).

P. A. Beecher.

Homiliarium, a collection of homilies, or familiar explanations of the Gospels (see Ho.mily). From a very early time the homilies of the Fathers were in high esteem, and were read in connexion with the recitation of the Divine Office (see Breviary; Of- fice). That the custom was as old as the sixth century we know from the fact that St. Gregory the Great refers to it, an<l that St. Benedict mentions it in his rule (Batiffol, " History of the Roman Brev- iary", 107). This was particularly true of the hom- ilies of St. Leo I, very terse and peculiarly suited to liturgical purposes. As new feasts were added to the Office, the demand for homilies became greater, and by the eighth century, the century of liturgical codification, collections of homilies began to appear (Batiffol, op. cit., 108). Such a collection was called a homiliarium, or homiliarium (i. e. liber) doc- hirum. In the early Middle Ages numerous collec- tions of homilies were made for purposes of preaching. Many homiliaria have come down to us, and there are medieval references to many others. Mabillon (De Liturgia Gallicana) mentions a very old Galilean homiliariimi. In a manuscript of the eighth century we find reference to a homiliarium by Agimimdus, a Roman priest. Venerable Bede compiled one in Eng- land. In the episcopal library at Wiirzburg there is preserved a homiliarium by Bi.shop Burchard, a companion of St. Boniface. Alanus, Abbot of Farfa (770), compiled a large homiliarium, which must have been often copied, for it has reached us in several manuscripts. In the first half of the ninth century Smaragdus, Abbot of St. Michael's on the Meuse, compiled from the Fathers a book of homilies on the Gospels and Epistles for the whole year. Haymo, a monk of Fulda and disciple of Alcuin, afterwards Bishop of Halberstadt (841), made a collection for Sundays and feasts of the saints (Trithemius in Lin- gard, II, 31.3, note). Rabanus Maurus, another pupil of Alcuin, and Eric of Auxerre compiled each a collection of homilies. All these wrote in Latin.

Perhaps the most famous homiliarium is that of Paul Warnefrid, better known as Paul the Deacon, a monk of Monte Cassino. It was made by order of Charlemagne, and has been greatly misrepresentetl in recent times. Mosheim (Eccl. Hist., II, p. 150, London, 1845) and Neander (V, 174), followed by various encyclopedias and many Protestant writers, assert that the great emperor had it compiled in order that the ignorant and slothful clergy might at least recite to the people the Gospels and Epistles on Sundays and holidays. As a matter of fact, this particular collection was not made for pulpit use but