Ut in his reperias aliquam partem uasorum Dei: Jerome and the Pagan Culture in the CDan

Abstract

The image of the vasa domus Dei, repeated on two occasions in the book of the prophet Daniel (Dan 1:2 and 5:4), enables Jerome to formulate an explicit judgement on pagan culture. Drawing extensively on a well-established repertoire, he highlights in one case its positive aspects and in the other its negative ones, and so in CDan 1,1,2b, he underlines the presence, at least in philosophy, of some truths drawn from the doctrine of God; in CDan 2,5,4, he discusses the wicked use the heretics make of the saeculares litterae.

1. Introduction

Ad intelligendas autem extremas partes Danielis, multiplex Graecorum historia necessaria est: Sutorii uidelicet Callinici, Diodori, Hieronymi, Polybii, Posidonii, Claudii Theonis et Andronyci cognomento Alipi, quos et Porphyrius secutum esse se dicit, Iosephi quoque et eorum quos ponit Iosephus, praecipueque nostri Livii, et Pompei Trogi, atque Iustini […] et siquando cogimur litterarum sae-cularium recordari et aliqua ex his dicere quae olim omisimus, non nostrae est uoluntatis sed, ut ita dicam, grauissimae necessitatis: ut probemus ea quae ante saecula multa a sanctis prophetis praedicta sunt, tam Graecorum quam Latinorum et aliarum gentium litteris contineri1.

These words close the prologue of the Commentary on Daniel, composed by Jerome in 407 for Pammachius and Marcella2. In the opening of this text, Jerome had expressed the intention not to follow the anti-pagan line adopted by his predecessors but rather to expound, for Christians only, the profound meanings contained in the book of Daniel, the prophet who, among all of them, in his judgement, announced the Christ in the clearest way3. Yet, despite such a programmatic declaration, the name of Porphyry and reference to this figure pervade the work, right from the first lines4: and thus what turns out to be one of the central themes of Jerome’s commentary is precisely the opposition to this pagan philosopher and polemicist who had tried to undermine the foundation of Christianity by a ruthless criticism of the Scriptures, focused particularly on the New Testament and on Daniel5.

The need to refute Porphyry’s arguments, which were characterised by a rigorously literal reading of the text of Daniel, obliges Jerome too to draw on an interpretation which is for the most part of an historical character6. As an inevitable consequence of such an exegetical approach, Jerome finds himself continually contending with historiographical sources, as well as with pagan culture in general7; and that despite the closing notice in the prologue which appears categorical in rejecting the systematic use of the saeculares litterae and in declaring the intention of having recourse to them only if they are actually indispensable (a clearly signalled aspect, first by means of the verb cogere, which anticipates the idea of constraint and then through the more explicit expression non nostrae est voluntatis, sed … gravissimae necessitatis). This discrepancy between such a clear rejection and his constant dialogue with the pagan cultural patrimony, which is revealed in his refutation and in his overall exegesis of the prophet, allows us a clear peep into that interior conflict, which goes back to Jerome’s dream described in Epistle 22,30 and which is recalled through the hint at themes, images, or examples of the pagan literature quae olim omisimus8.

However, this contrast between declarations and Jerome’s concrete practice will not be the object of the present study9. In fact, the intention to explore how the complex relationship between Jerome and the pagan culture is played out within CDan will be followed by taking the cue not from the effective use of the materials which our author had at his disposal but from his exegesis of the prophet: Taking as a useful starting point Daniel’s repetition in two separate places of the image of the vasa domus Dei, Jerome was actually able to set out in this anti-Porphyryan writing, though in agreement with the authoritative testimony of the biblical text, an explicit reflection on the reliability of the pagan sapientia and on the legitimate ways for Christians to use it.

2. Vasa Robbed by the Pagans

Almost in the opening lines of his Commentary on Daniel, Jerome already finds himself having to reckon with the figure of the vasa domus Dei, which are quoted for the first time right at the beginning of the book (Dan 1:2):

Et partem uasorum domus Dei; et asportauit ea in terra Sennaar in domum dei sui, et uasa intulit in domum thesauri dei sui […] Simulque animaduertendum secundum ἀναγωγήν, quod rex Babylonis non potuerit universa Dei uasa transferre et in idolio10 quod sibi finxerat collocare, sed partem uasorum templi Dei, quae intellegenda sunt dogmata ueritatis; si enim cunctos philosophorum reuoluas libros, necesse est ut in his reperias aliquam partem uasorum Dei—ut apud Platonem: fabricatorem mundi Deum; ut apud Zenonem stoicorum principem: inferos et immortales animas, et unum bonum honestatem—, sed quia iungunt mendacium ueritati, et naturae bonum multis perdunt malis, ideo partem uasorum Dei et non omnia uasa integra atque perfecta cepisse memorantur11.

This explanation is given immediately after the literal exposition of the passage, which is limited to identifying the Land of Shinar with Babylon so as to inform the reader that it was into this city that Nebuchadnezzar brought the vasa of the temple of God12. This is a historical clarification, which also has its own usefulness in the spiritual understanding of the words of Daniel13. Indeed, the fact that this transfer happens in the direction of Babylon, figure par excellence of the gentes, lends itself easily to being interpreted as a symbol of the acquisition of those vasa by the pagan world. Thus, the unravelling of the allegorical significance hidden within the image of those objects is made possible by the prophet’s precision. By no accident, Jerome places the stress on the fact that not all the vasa were transferred but only pars. In fact, this makes it easy for Jerome to understand the vessels of God as symbols of the perfect (because divine) dogmata veritatis14. At a certain point, the pagan philosophical culture took these to itself, but only partially, establishing those fragments of the truth “robbed” from God within its own lies.

This kind of interpretation of Dan 1:2, which establishes a connection between the impious theft committed by Nebuchadnezzar and what was imagined as the source of pagan philosophy, as far as is known, occurs nowhere else in the pages of the Fathers. On the other hand, very rarely, Christian authors displayed an interest in this verse, albeit minimal15. However, the fact that Jerome’s general sense is not actually new since it directly calls to mind the theme of the furta Graecorum—found in Christian literature from the times of the Apologists16—, has led to the presumption that, behind such a reading, isolated what is more even Jerome’s production itself, could be hidden a reminiscence of some previous readings, perhaps of Origen’s Stromata17. Now, since in the absence of the Alexandrine’s text every attempt to verify or refute such a suggestion is superfluous, we have to admit the existence of some significant ideas in an Origenian reflection on Ex 12:35-36, which are also shared by CDan 1,1,2. In fact, focusing on this biblical text, Origen has the opportunity to concentrate his own attention on another theft, that committed by the Hebrews at the expense of the Egyptians at God’s command:

ποιητικῶς δὲ διὰ τοῦτ’ ἂν ηὐξάμην παραλαβεῖν σε καὶ φιλοσοφίας Ἑλλήνων τὰ οἱονεὶ εἰς χριστιανισμὸν δυνάμενα γενέσθαι ἐγκύκλια μαθήματα ἢ προπαιδεύματα, καὶ τὰ ἀπὸ γεωμετρίας καὶ ἀστρονομίας χρήσιμα ἐσόμενα εἰς τὴν τῶν ἱερῶν γραφῶν διήγησιν· ἵν’, ὅπερ φασὶ φιλοσόφων παῖδες περὶ γεωμετρίας καὶ μουσικῆς γραμματικῆς τε καὶ ῥητορικῆς καὶ ἀστρονομίας, ὡς συνερίθων φιλοσοφίᾳ, τοῦθ’ ἡμεῖς εἴπωμεν καὶ περὶ αὐτῆς φιλοσοφίας πρὸς χριστιανισμόν. Καὶ τάχα τοιοῦτό τι αἰνίσσεται τὸ ἐν Ἐξόδῳ γεγραμμένον ἐκ προσώπου τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα λεχθῇ τοῖς υἱοῖς Ἰσραὴλ αἰτεῖν παρὰ γειτόνων καὶ συσκήνων σκεύη ἀργυρᾶ καὶ χρυσᾶ καὶ ἱματισμόν· ἵνα σκυλεύσαντες τοὺς Aἰγυπτίους εὕρωσιν ὕλην πρὸς τὴν κατασκευὴν τῶν παραλαμβανομένων εἰς τὴν πρὸς θεὸν λατρείαν18.

Beyond the fact that the roles of the protagonists turn out to be inverted here compared with what we read in CDan, since those “robbed” and those responsible for the theft are now, respectively, the pagans and Israel, it is interesting to note that, before Jerome, an Origenian exegesis is attested which associates the scriptural image of the theft of the σκεύη with the relation between the pagan culture (particularly philosophy) and the religion of the true God19. The reversal of the players, however, determines a completely opposite interpretation of the vasa within the two texts: in fact, if, in Origen’s passage, the vessels stolen with divine authorisation are the symbol of the disciplines of the gentiles, which can be usefully placed in the service of Christianity, in the extract from Jerome, the vasa domus Dei removed by Nebuchadnezzar are, on the contrary, the dogmata of God which the philosophers have pilfered in support of their own lies. However, despite this, the general insight remains the same.

Thus, beyond the basic idea, there is also the overall attitude displayed by the two authors towards the pagan sapiential that associates CDan 1,1,2 and the Origenian letter. Both the readings offered, actually, reveal a position in some ways severe towards pagan learning, but also, at the same time, the possibility of an, albeit limited, openness towards it. Even if reluctantly, Origen accepts a provisional and instrumental use of Greek paideia; Jerome equally concedes that philosophy can contain a smidgeon of truth hidden within it20.

Leaving aside now this comparison, which does not claim to indicate Origen’s text as the source for our author but aims simply to support the hypothesis of an Origenian inspiration for CDan 1,1,2, what remains is to consider a final aspect of Jerome’s commentary on Dan 1:2, namely, the example which he briefly reports by mentioning Plato and Zeno, the founders of the two philosophical schools most esteemed by early Christian literature. He will not refer again in this writing to the forefather of Stoicism21; to Plato, on the other hand, he will refer again a little later and in quite different terms. If, in fact, corresponding to this his first mention, he underlines what vas this philosopher had drawn from the dogmata of God, and, therefore, covertly his merit in enunciating at least a partial truth, in what follows he will indicate him, rather, as responsible for a false doctrine which was the source of a widespread erroneous comprehension of Dan 2:2822; and that is taken up as an indirect, explicit confirmation of his reading according to which philosophy came into possession of only some of the divine vasa, remaining, in any case, largely bound up with lies and deceiving theories.

3. Vasa Profaned by the Heretics

The tolerance shown by Jerome in CDan 1,1,2 towards philosophy is easily reconciled with the warning, again of Origenian memory but quite frequent in the pages of our author, according to which the Christians must make use of the pagan culture with the shrewdness to radere away everything false or wicked contained in it so as to draw from it only those teachings that could be ascribed to the veritas23. Extending to this principle the image which Jerome constructed based on Daniel, we could assert that the faithful must value and learn from the pagan culture only what it obtained from the theft of the vasa Dei. Therefore, an inappropriate use of philosophy which prescinds from those elements in it which participate, albeit imperfectly, in the goodness and truth of God, can drag the believer into error.

Another type of improper and deceptive use is highlighted by Jerome in the second book of his commentary when he once again comes across the image of the vasa stolen by Nebuchadnezzar, which makes another appearance in Dan 5:2-3:

Bibebant uinum et laudabant deos suos aureos et argenteos et aeneos, ferreos ligneosque et lapideos. Quanta stultitia: in aureis uasis bibentes, deos ligneos laudabant et lapideos! Quamdiu uasa fuerunt in idolio24 Babylonis non est iratus Dominus—uidebantur enim rem Dei secundum prauam quidem opinionem, tamen divino cultui consecrasse—, postquam autem humanis usibus diuina contaminant, statim sequitur poena post sacrilegium; laudant autem deos suos, insultantes Deo Iudaeorum, quod, illis uictoriam tribuentibus, bibant in uasis eius25.

These words form only the first part of Jerome’s exegesis, that which reflects briefly on the historical content of the passage26. Beyond the mention of the inevitable punishment that will strike the guilty, Jerome makes two observations which anticipate the subsequent spiritual interpretation and, therefore, the identification of those responsible for the vilification of the vasa: on the one hand, the indication that those “vessels” are profaned if used for human purposes and so not in a licit manner; on the other hand, the clarification that God is insulted if, while use is made of his vasa, different gods are being praised.

This fits well with the behaviour which Jerome encounters in the heretics who are seemingly employed in divine doctrine but actually being led to celebrate something else altogether:

Iuxta tropologiam hoc dicendum est: quod omnes haeretici et doctrina contraria ueritati—quae assumit uerba prophetarum, et testimoniis diuinae scripturae abutitur ad sensum suum, et dat bibere his quos decepit et cum quibus fornicata est—tollat uasa templi Dei, et inebrietur in eis, et non Deum cuius uasa sunt, sed deos laudet aureos et argenteos et aeneos, ferreos ligneosque et lapideos27.

In the light of this explanation, which is indicated as tropological28, it is clear that for vasa domus Dei, Jerome again understands the dogmata veritatis, the divine truths delivered to the Scriptures. If the words of Dan 1:2 reveal that they have been stolen by the pagan sapientia, those of Dan 5:4 now denounce a further illicit appropriation of them, this time by the guests who drink from those vasa in a state of inebriation, the heretics29. Taking possession of that veritas, they twist it to their mad aims and their lies in order to deceive those who give them an ear30. As is inferred from the historical exegesis presented, in Jerome’s eyes, that is much more serious than the action of Nebuchadnezzar: as Daniel’s account attests, the pagan philosophers, although in error, are not inspired by evil intentions and so are not punished. The heretics, on the other hand, have adopted dogmata of God for wicked and essentially human ends and they will inexorably meet with divine punishment.

The humanus usus of the vasa is not the only sin that can be imputed to the heretics; much worse is the other outrage described by the prophet: the use of the “vessels” to worship other gods.

Therefore, what immediately follows is the precise identification of the idols worshipped by those impostors. For Jerome, that becomes the pretext for a new reflection on his relationship with the pagan literary culture. In this case, however, as new elements in play within this relationship, he also adds the heretics:

Aurei mihi uidentur dii: qui saeculari ratione compositi sunt; argentei: qui habent eloquii uenustatem et rhetorica arte constructi sunt; qui autem inferunt fabulas poetarum et uetustis utuntur traditionibus, habentes inter se multam uel elegantiae uel stultitiae differentiam: isti uocantur aenei et ferrei; qui autem peni-tus inepta proponunt: lignei appellantur et lapidei—; quos omnes in duas partes Deuteronomium diuidit, scribens: Maledictus qui faciet sculptile et conflatile, opus manuum artificis, et ponet illud in abscondito—abscondunt enim omnes haeretici et operiunt mendaciorum suorum dogmata: Vt sagittent in obscuro rectos corde—31.

The “gods” whom the heretics worship and serve are those which provide them with the tools to perpetrate their own deceptions and obfuscate the vision of truth through the falsity of their doctrines. Jerome is talking about philosophers (as we understand from the reference to “profane reason”, ratio saecularis), rhetoricians, poets and even authors of less valuable literature. The association between the different materials used to make the idols worshipped by the guests and the teachings that can be obtained from these “masters” determines a gradual differentiation within the latter, from the highest, represented by philosophy and rhetoric, to the lowest. Thus, we have an outline of the same hierarchy of saeculares disciplines which Jerome reproduces in several places in his work, often, actually, limited to the first two and their association with gold and silver32. This practice, however, is attested by Jerome himself when, a little later, in his Commentary on Ezekiel, he declares: Crebro diximus aurum ad mentem, argentum ad eloquium pertinere33.

The fact that the heretics set up the pagan scientiae as idols reveals implicitly how little they have really turned to God and rather how much they are led to seek the approval of men and measure themselves with enthusiasm against those disciplines that support them in their intentions, to the point of almost making them the object of worship. In this sense, it is clear why such instruments in the hands of these impostors, namely, philosophy and rhetoric, exercise two prominent roles: dialectic, furnishing the heretics’ lies with rhetorically elaborate expressions, allows those tricksters to cheat with the art of the word; philosophy, superior as mens which prompts the verbal expression, provides them with crafty and fraudulent arguments which the eloqium will render still more appealing and seductive34.

The presence of this anti-heretical tirade immediately before the discussion of the symbolical meanings of dii aurei, argentei, etc., contributes to creating in the reader the conviction that those who corrupt themselves with heresy are none other than philosophi who are capable of mastering ratio saecularis and rhetorica35 with wicked cunning; and that induces the reader to believe automatically that the condemnation which strikes the heretics necessarily covers the pagan scientiae as well. Yet, on a closer look, the hierarchy of the saeculares litterae is described by our author in a rather aseptic manner: in fact, in recalling the rationality of the philosophers and the elegance of the rhetors, he expresses himself without any objective polemical touch36. Besides, it is well known that Jerome believed that philosophy and rhetoric (mostly the former, less the latter) can legitimately be learned and implemented by all believers if applied to God. This more open vision, in this context of strong hostility to the pagan and heretical worlds, cannot here receive explicit expression, as happens, for example, in the next part of the passage from the already quoted CEz, where there is space for a prayer of the believer who hopes to use pagan tools wisely and differently from the heretics37. However, it could also be traced in the detached but not hostile presentation of those disciplines in the CDan, which could imply the same criteria anticipated by Jerome at the beginning of his exegesis of Dan 5:4, in connection with the divine dogmata. These are: mode of use and purpose, adoption in the divine cult or for human aims, determining the goodness or the wickedness of the pagan sapientia, the possibility of its being of benefit.

However, the anti-heretical task which he has taken upon himself in this instance does not allow him to enter into the merit of this question, which, without ever being stated, must immediately make way for the indispensable conclusive shot against the enemy. This is entrusted to Deut 21:15 and to its threat of a curse on whoever, like the heretics, set up as their own idols the tools that conceal the truth. This warning restores to the reader the impression that, when those scientiae are elevated to dii, they perform the role of companions and mothers of impiety.

4. Conclusions

The path traced here so far, following the prophetic image of the vasa domus Dei, has enabled us not only to explore the personal and practical relationship established by Jerome with pagan literature in his Commentary on Daniel but also to discover the opinion on it he expresses in his exegesis and debate with the words of the prophet. The result was the confirmation, even on the interpretative level, of that constant tension in Jerome’s writings which sees him, on the one hand, making a show of categorically rejecting every form of pagan knowledge and, on the other hand, drawing on it abundantly. This harsh contrast in Jerome’s perception of the saeculares litterae finds its own logical raison d’être in that double nature which he clearly showed in CDan 1,1,2: philosophy (like, a fortiori, the rest of the pagan cultural heritage) is rich in false doctrines which induce him reasonably to take his distance; however, to reveal their validity and to divert from the idea of renouncing them is emerging from the complex of those fantastic lies, of fleeting and sporadic fragments of truth which, as rare pearls, enable the Christian to rediscover that pars vasorum which the pagans stole from the domus Dei.