“Envoyez-nous vo- tre taurobole et que Bellone nous - BHIR-IHBR

Transcription

|FORUM ROMANUM BELGICUM | 2015|
Artikel |Article |Articolo 12
Annelies Lannoy | Franz Cumont, Paul Lejay and the Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses
COLOFON
BELGISCH HISTORISCH INSTITUUT ROME |
INSTITUT HISTORIQUE BELGE DE ROME
Via Omero 8 - I–00197 ROMA
Tel. +39 06 203 98 631 - Fax +39 06 320 83 61
http://www.bhir-ihbr.be
Postadres | adresse postale | recapito postale |
mailing address
Vlamingenstraat 39 - B-3000 leuven
Tel. +32 16 32 35 00
Redactiesecretaris | Sécretaire de rédaction |
Segretario di redazione | Editorial desk
Prof.dr. Claire De Ruyt [[email protected]]
ISSN 2295-9432
Forum Romanum Belgicum is het digitale forum van het Belgisch Historisch Instituut te Rome, in opvolging van het Bulletin van het BHIR, waarvan de laatste aflevering nr. LXXVII
van jaargang 2007 was.
Forum Romanum Belgicum wil met de digitale formule sneller en frequenter inspelen op de resultaten van het lopend
onderzoek en zo een rol spelen als multidisciplinair onderzoeksforum. Door de digitale formule kan een artikel, paper
(work in progress) of mededeling (aankondiging, boekvoorstelling, colloquium enz.) onmiddellijk gepubliceerd worden. Alle afleveringen zijn ook blijvend te raadplegen op de
website, zodat Forum Romanum Belgicum ook een e-bibliotheek wordt.
Voorstellen van artikels, scripties (work in progress) en mededelingen die gerelateerd zijn aan de missie van het BHIR
kunnen voorgelegd worden aan de redactiesecretaris prof.
dr. Claire De Ruyt ([email protected]). De technische instructies voor artikels en scripties vindt u hier. De
toegelaten talen zijn: Nederlands, Frans, Engels en uiteraard
Italiaans.
Alle bijdragen (behalve de mededelingen) worden voorgelegd aan peer reviewers vooraleer gepubliceerd te worden.
“Envoyez-nous votre taurobole et
que Bellone nous
protège.”
Franz Cumont, Paul
Lejay and the
Revue d’histoire et
de littérature religieuses
(1896-1907)
1
Annelies Lannoy (FWO-UGent)
O
n November 18, 1893 Pope Leo XIII released Providentissimus Deus.2 The encyclical on Biblical scholarship marked a
significant phase in the so-called “early round
of the Modernist crisis” in the Roman Catholic
1.
Forum Romanum Belgicum est forum digital de l’Institut Historique Belge à Rome, en succession du Bulletin de l’IHBR,
dont le dernier fascicule a été le n° LXXVII de l’année 2007.
La formule digitale de Forum Romanum Belgicum lui permettra de diffuser plus rapidement les résultats des recherches en cours et de remplir ainsi son rôle de forum de
recherche interdisciplinaire. Grâce à la formule digitale, un
article, une dissertation (work in progress) ou une communication (annonce, présentation d’un livre, colloque etc.)
pourront être publiés sur-le-champ. Tous les fascicules pourront être consultés de manière permanente sur l’internet,
de telle sorte que Forum Romanum Belgicum devienne aussi
une bibliothèque digitale.
Des articles, des notices (work in progress) et des communications en relation avec la mission de l’IHBR peuvent
être soumis à la rédaction: prof.dr. Claire De Ruyt (claire.
[email protected]). Vous trouverez les instructions techniques pour les articles et les notices à Les langues autorisées sont le néerlandais, le français, l’anglais et bien entendu l’italien.
Toutes les contributions (sauf les communications) seront
soumises à des peer reviewers avant d’être publiées.
2.
I thank the Research Foundation – Flanders for
financing the doctoral project (G. 0126.08 –
Supervisor Prof. Praet) as part of which I first
examined Cumont’s correspondence with Lejay,
and my current postdoctoral fellowship which allowed me to continue my research. I studied this
correspondence during my stay at the Academia
Belgica in 2009, for which I was granted a scholarship of the BHIR-FWO. My special thanks go to
Prof. Danny Praet for his precious remarks on this
paper, and to Pamelia Anastasio, librarian of the
Academia, for her help during and after my stay
in Rome. I also thank Prof. Corinne Bonnet for
sharing her notes on Paul Lejay and the Institut
Catholique, which are not integrated in this paper
as they covered another period, but thoroughly
advanced my understanding of Lejay’s scholarly
position.
For more information on the background of this
document, cf. Olivier Artus, “Léon XIII et la Question Biblique”, in: Philippe Levillain – Jean-Marc
Ticchi, eds. Le pontificat de Léon XIII: renaissances du Saint-Siège? Rome, École française
de Rome, 2006, 307-315, at 309-314; Harvey
Hill, “Leo XIII, Loisy, and the ‘broad school’: an
early round of the modernist crisis”. Catholic
Historical Review 89 (2003), 39-59. For the text
of the encyclical: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_
enc_18111893_providentissimus-deus_en.html
Church.3 Since the last decades of the 19th century, a group of critical Catholic priests had been
trying to modernize religious scholarship. They
devoted themselves to applying historical-critical and comparative methodologies that had
produced great progress in Liberal-Protestant
and secular religious studies. The conclusions
of these Catholic scholars conflicted radically
with the traditional teachings of their institution.
Consistent historical-critical research showed
that the Bible contained numerous errors and
inconsistencies, and thus questioned its alleged
inerrancy and divine authorship.4 Studies of the
pagan religions that had surrounded the early
Christians, pointed out many similarities with
Christianity, which threw serious doubts on the
self-postulated uniqueness of the Christian faith.
Providentissimus Deus was the first of a long series of increasingly repressive texts by which the
Church wanted to call a halt to critical Catholic
scholarship. Leo XIII encouraged Catholic scholars to center their research on the Bible, but also
decreed that all exegetical and historical studies
should tie in with traditional theological premises. In a following encyclical (Depuis le jour
1899), Leo struck a more stern tone and formally forbade historical criticism. The papacy of his
follower, Pius X (1903-1914), further radicalized
these anti-scientific politics. His anti-Modernist
syllabus of Errors Lamentabili sane exitu (1907)
and encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis (1907)
were the start of a real witch-hunt of Modernist
priests and installed a climate of fear that paralyzed all attempts at critical scholarship in the
Church.
3.
4.
5.
The expression is Hill’s, cf. supra: “Leo XIII, Loisy,
and the ‘broad school’: an early round of the
modernist crisis.”
The bibliography on Roman Catholic Modernism
and the “Question Biblique” is extensive. Among
many excellent surveys: Émile Poulat, Histoire,
dogme et critique dans la crise moderniste, Paris,
Casterman, 1979 [1962]; Harvey Hill, The Politics
of Modernism. Alfred Loisy and the Scientific
Study of Religion, Washington (D.C.), The Catholic University of America Press, 2002; Charles
J.T. Talar, (Re)reading, Reception, and Rhetoric.
Approaches to Roman Catholic Modernism, New
York, Peter Lang, 1999; Giacomo Losito, ed. La
crisi modernista nella cultura europea, Roma, Istituto della Enciclopedia Italiana, 2012.
To the references of note 4 we may add Loisy’s
autobiography, with ample information about his
role in the Modernist crisis: Mémoires pour servir
à l’histoire religieuse de notre temps (I-II), Paris,
Nourry, 1930-1931; and François Laplanche –
Ilaria Biagioli – Claude Langlois, eds. Alfred Loisy
The French priest Alfred Loisy (1857-1940) was
one of the protagonists of Modernism.5 Since
1890, he held the chair “Écriture sainte” at the
Institut Catholique in Paris. Loisy’s independent
exegesis led him to highly critical insights about
the Bible and the alleged historical truthfulness
of the Catholic dogmas. He diffused these ideas through his journal l’Enseignement biblique,
which was explicitly aimed at the French clergy.6
In 1893 Loisy fell victim to the anti-scientific
sanctions of the Church. A few days before the
release of Providentissimus Deus, he was dismissed from the Institut Catholique. Loisy was
transferred to the chaplaincy of a girls’ school in
Neuilly-sur-Seine, where he had very limited access to libraries. Around the same time, he was
forced by the local archbishop to cease publication of his journal.7 But the attempts to silence
Loisy were completely ineffective. He continued
to reflect on a thorough reform of Catholicism,
which would enable critical scholarship to flourish
and turn the intellectual autonomy of the clergy
into reality.8 In 1896 a new journal for critical
religious studies was born: la Revue d’histoire et
de littérature religieuses (RHLR).9
In his Mémoires, Loisy looked back on the beginnings of the Revue.10 He explained how careful
he had to be to avoid new ecclesiastical sanctions. Loisy no longer was the director of the
journal. His friend Paul Lejay, Professor in Latin
philology at the Institut Catholique, agreed to
be the anonymous editor. In early 1896 Lejay
discretely started to search for collaborators.
One of these future collaborators was the Bel-
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
cent ans après. Autour d’un petit livre, Turnhout,
Brepols, 2007.
Alfred Loisy, Mémoires I, 204 (cf. n. 5).
Ibid., 297; Marvin R. O’Connell, Critics on Trial.
An Introduction to the Catholic Modernist Crisis,
Washington, Catholic University Press, 1994, 13.
During his exile in Neuilly he wrote La crise de la
foi dans le temps présent (published in 2010 by
François Laplanche), which was the basis of his
later Modernist writings, such as L’Évangile et
l’Église (Paris 1902).
For an introduction of the Revue, cf. Roger Aubert, “L’essor des revues d’érudition ecclésiastique au tournant des xixe et xxe siècles”. Revue
Bénédictine XLIV (1984), 410-443, at 421-422 ;
É. Thiéry, “Revue d’histoire et de littérature
religieuses”. In Catholicisme. Hier, aujourd’hui,
demain t. XII, Paris, Letouzey et Ané, 1990, col.
1159-1160.
Alfred Loisy, Mémoires I, 388 sq. Chapter XIV (cf.
n. 5).
gian historian of religions Franz Cumont (18681947).11 Cumont was a worldwide expert in ancient Roman religion, and specifically in the socalled “oriental” mystery cults.12 Starting from
1896, Lejay and Cumont regularly wrote each
other about the RHLR. Lejay’s letters to Cumont
are kept in Cumont’s private archives at the Academia Belgica in Rome.13 For reasons we will
later explain, only Lejay’s letters to Cumont have
been preserved, but these suffice to get a good
idea of the content of this file.14 The largely unexplored correspondence of Cumont and Lejay is
a precious historical document for both Cumont’s
and Lejay’s involvement in the RHLR. Due to the
difficult circumstances in which the journal was
published, the history of the RHLR is covered by
a veil of secrecy, which can – at least in part – be
lifted by the study of these letters.
A first aim of this paper is to broaden our knowledge of Cumont’s involvement in the first series
of the Modernist journal.15 Earlier scholarship of
his vast correspondence has pointed out that the
post-Catholic16, liberal Belgian scholar was befriended to various Modernist protagonists, and
that he had a great deal of sympathy for their
cause.17 In this respect, the correspondence of
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
For Cumont, see also in this journal: Eline
Scheerlinck, Sarah Rey and Danny Praet, “‘Analogies curieuses’ et ‘ressemblances frappantes.’
Des antiquisants face à l’impérialisme français
en Méditerranée”. Forum Romanum Belgicum 8
(2014), 1-14.
The oriental origin of these cults – commonly
acknowledged in Cumont’s time – is no longer
accepted. For a state of the art: Corinne Bonnet
– Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge – Danny Praet, eds.
Les religions orientales dans le monde grec et
romain: cent ans après Cumont, Brussel-Rome,
BHIR, 2009; James B. Rives, “Graeco-Roman Religion in the Roman Empire: Old Assumptions and
New Approaches”. Currents in Biblical Research 8
(2010), 240-299, at 257-259.
The archives preserve 26 letters of Lejay to
Cumont, written between 1896 and 1918. In the
present paper we will focus on selected letters
of 1896-1907. All letters can be accessed online,
cf. the database of Corinne Bonnet: URL: http://
www.academiabelgica.it/acadbel/askFCnew.php
Two of Lejay’s letters have been published in
Corinne Bonnet, La correspondance scientifique
de Franz Cumont, Brussel-Rome, BHIR, 1997,
267-270.
After his excommunication, Loisy continued the
journal from 1910 until 1922. Cumont’s contributions to the second series will not be discussed in
this paper.
Cumont and Loisy is beyond doubt one of the
most interesting documents.18 But Loisy and
Cumont entered into personal contact only after Loisy’s excommunication in 1908, and that
turns the Lejay-Cumont correspondence, which
started in 1896, into an interesting complementary testimony to Cumont’s preceding engagements. We will also focus on the relevance of his
contributions to the RHLR, which was a journal
dedicated to the history of Christianity. Although
most of Cumont’s RHLR articles were concerned
with “pagan” themes, an analysis of their content will show that they were of paramount significance for the history of early Christianity, and
therefore fitted in well with Lejay’s project.
The second aim is to show how the anti-Modernist threat affected the enlightened French clergy’s engagement in critical religious studies. As
Lejay’s letters cover the entire life of the RHLR,
from its inception in 1896 until its death sentence in 1907, they offer first-hand testimonies
to the ecclesiastical radicalization that took place
at that time. Moreover, the letters will provide
new insight into Lejay’s role in Modernism, which
16.
17.
18.
In a letter to Loisy, Cumont explained that he
had lost the Catholic faith of his childhood in his
twenties: cf. Bibliothèque nationale de France,
NAF 15651, Franz Cumont to Alfred Loisy, 3 May
1913, f° 137-138. For this correspondence, cf.
infra (note 17).
Cf. Corinne Bonnet, “Le ‘Saint-Piège’: les milieux
romains dans la correspondance de Franz Cumont, en particulier avec Alfred Loisy”, in François
Laplanche – Ilaria Biagioli – Claude Langlois, eds.
Alfred Loisy cent ans après. Autour d’un petit
livre, Turnhout, Brepols, 2007, 211-224; the
contributions of Corinne Bonnet and Danny Praet
to Science, Politique et Religion à l’époque de la
crise moderniste, Corinne Bonnet –Danny Praet
– Jan de Maeyer, eds, forthcoming ; Annelies
Lannoy, “‘It is poor Buonaiuti’s turn to burn.’ The
condemnation of the Rivista di Scienza delle religioni according to the correspondence of E. Buonaiuti, F. Cumont and A. Loisy”. Revue d’histoire
ecclésiastique 109 (2014), 154-186.
The correspondence of Loisy and Cumont (about
400 letters) is kept at the Bibliothèque nationale
de France, except for 9 letters of Loisy preserved
in the Academia Belgica. The correspondence
is currently being prepared for publication by
Corinne Bonnet, Danny Praet and myself. For a
first presentation: Annelies Lannoy, “La correspondance bilatérale entre Alfred Loisy et Franz
Cumont: brève présentation et projet d’édition”.
Anabases 13 (2011), 261-265.
has often been overlooked in modern scholarship.19
Historical background:
Precautions and why they were
necessary
Loisy conceived of the idea to establish a successor to his former Enseignement biblique in the
summer of 1895. Well aware that ecclesiastical
authorities were keeping a close eye on his actions, he took several precautions so as to guarantee the success of the new project. He decided
that the scope of the new journal should be wider
than the minefield of Biblical studies: the RHLR
would cover the entire field of “religious studies.” He furthermore understood the importance
of maintaining a low profile, so that “la nouvelle
revue ne fût pas combattue avant de naître.”20
While he had been the editor and sole contributor to the Enseignement biblique, he now wanted
to unite a team of editors and collaborators, both
ecclesiastics and “laïques.”21 Loisy’s only fixed
engagement was going to be the “chronique” on
Biblical exegesis, which he published under the
pseudonym “Jacques Simon.”22 It is interesting
to observe that Loisy didn’t even assume the responsibility of the RHLR behind the scenes, and
this while he could easily have taken care of the
contacts with collaborators and of the supervision of the editorial process without openly acting as the director of the journal. That his Revue
was finally realized, had everything to do with
the commitment of Paul Lejay, as is acknowl19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Lejay is mentioned only briefly in most Modernist studies: e.g. Alec Vidler, A Variety of Catholic
Modernists, London-New York, Cambridge University Press, 1970, at 21 and 61; Émile Poulat,
Histoire, dogme et critique, at 19 and 42 (cf.
n. 4). He did receive ample attention in Loisy’s
Mémoires (in all 3 volumes).
Ibid.
Loisy used the pseudonym (deduced from the
names of Richard Simon and Jacques Bossuet)
until the end of 1900 for the “chronique biblique”,
cf. Ibid., 413.
Ibid., 392.
The most elaborate biography of Lejay is: Roland
Delachenal, Notice sur la vie et les travaux de
M. l’abbé Paul Lejay, Paris, Institut de France,
1921. Among shorter and personal notices
nécrologiques : see Alfred Baudrillart, “M. l’abbé
Lejay”. Bulletin de l’Institut catholique de Paris
juillet 1920, 169-172 ; Salomon Reinach, “Paul
Lejay”. Revue Archéologique 12 (1920), 90-91 ;
Léon Dorez and Louis Havet, “Paul Lejay. Latiniste
edged by Loisy: “C’est surtout grâce à lui que la
revue a pu naître et durer.”23
When Loisy informed his close friend and former
colleague of the Institut Catholique of his plan,
Lejay immediately went aboard. Lejay’s “immaculate” reputation turned the eminent Latinist
and much-respected specialist in Patristics into a
well-suited candidate for the job of silent editor.24
Lejay contributed to the historic study of Christianity by founding, together with Abbé Hippolyte
Hemmer, the text collection Textes et Monuments
pour l’étude historique du christianisme, but, because his major publications mostly consisted in
philological studies and text editions, he largely
escaped anti-Modernist attention and was able
to keep his position at the Institut Catholique.25
However, it was especially after his death that it
became clear to his ecclesiastic superiors how
deeply Lejay had been involved in the Modernist movement.26 Lejay suddenly passed away in
1920, without making any settlements about his
private papiers and correspondence. They fell,
in part, into hands of the rector of the Institut,
Alfred Baudrillart.
The Cumont archives preserve an interesting
letter of Charles Michel, a former teacher of
Cumont’s at Ghent University, and a common
friend of Lejay and Cumont, of March 27, 1921,
which testifies to the sad fortune of Lejay’s
papiers. Apparently, Cumont had asked Michel if
he had tried to recover the letters he had written
to Lejay:
25.
26.
français”. Le Flambeau janvier – avril 1921, 4957. See also the “Avant-propos” by Louis Pichard
to Paul Lejay’s posthumous volume Histoire de
la littérature latine des origins à Plaute, Louis
Pichard, ed., Paris, Boivin 1924, v-xii. More recent
encyclopaedia entries include: Jacques Leclerc,
“Lejay (Paul)”, in Dictionnaire de théologie catholique. Table générale t. II, Paris, Letouzey et Ané,
1972, col. 2946; id., “Lejay (Paul)”, in Catholicisme. Hier, aujourd’hui, demain t. VII, Paris,
Letouzey et Ané, 1975, col. 259-261.
Lejay fell under anti-Modernist suspicion in 190708. The final volumes of the RHLR contained
“dangerous” articles of a certain Herzog and
Dupin, pseudonyms of the priest Joseph Turmel.
Lejay found himself in trouble when he refused
to reveal the identity of the author (cf. Loisy,
Mémoires III, 85, 150). Cf. infra (§5).
In the 1920s Lejay’s correspondence also lead to
the unmasking of the Catholic Modernist priest
Joseph Turmel as the author of the articles written by “Herzog – Dupin” in the RHLR, cf. infra.
Pour répondre à un point de votre lettre, je
vous dirai que je n’ai pas essayé d’arracher ma
correspondance aux griffes de votre éminent
confrère [Baudrillart27]. J’ai su par d’autres encore que par B. Hauss. [Bernard Haussoullier28]
comment s’est effectué le pillage des papiers
de mon pauvre ami. Tout ce qu’on a chipé là
est de bonne prise quand cela touchait de près
ou de loin au mouvement moderniste, et vous
pouvez penser que nous ne nous privions pas
d’en parler dans nos longues et fréquentes correspondances. Heureusement qu’ils n’ont pas
les lettres que j’ai reçues à ce sujet et où il y aurait eu de quoi l’envoyer dix fois au bûcher. On
me conseille de les brûler moi-même, mais elles
sont en lieu sûr et je ne puis me décider à m’en
séparer maintenant. Il y a là-dedans vingt-cinq
ans de ma vie la plus intime (…).29
In his Mémoires, written at the end of the 1920s,
Loisy tried to defend his late friend against the
posthumous anti-Modernist charges pressed by
Baudrillart, by claiming that the RHLR project
had nothing to do with the Modernist attempts
at reforming the Church30, and that, as a consequence, Lejay had never been a Modernist.
But Loisy’s intentionally narrow definition of “the
Modernist priest” – i.e. an active reformer of the
Church – cannot cover up the fact that the RHLR
really was an integral part of the Modernist aims,
and that Paul Lejay was one of its discrete, yet
most loyal supporters. This will especially become clear from the RHLR program, and from
Lejay’s letters to Cumont. In the end, the larger
part of Lejay’s correspondence was destroyed by
his pious family and by Baudrillart. This probably
27.
28.
29.
30.
Baudrillart was member of the Académie
française (since 1918). Cumont was member of
the Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres
(since 1913).
Bernard Haussoullier (1852-1926), Professor in
“Antiquités grecques” at the École des Hautes
Études, was a former teacher and regular correspondent of Cumont’s. He was the director of
the Revue de philologie, d’histoire et de literature
anciennes, to which collaborated Paul Lejay. Cf.
Jean-Baptiste Chabot, “Éloge funèbre de M. Bernard Haussoullier, membre de l’Académie.” CRAI
70 (1926), 195-199.
Academia Belgica, Charles Michel to Franz Cumont, 27 March 1921, CP 6674.
Alfred Loisy, Mémoires III, 543 (cf. n. 5): « La
tentative de réforme moderniste est une chose,
l’œuvre de la Revue d’histoire et de littérature
religieuses en est une autre. »
explains why Cumont’s letters to Lejay have not
been preserved.31
Let us now return to 1896. Lejay was prepared
to assume the responsibility of editorial director,
but he, too, shrank from doing so publicly. Lejay
and Loisy assembled an editorial committee, but
the names of its 7 members were never printed
in the RHLR, again in order to protect the clergy envolved.32 Why was the strictest secrecy an
absolute necessity to avoid future ecclesiastical
condemnations? The answer to this question can
be found on the very first page of the newborn
journal, where the RHLR mission was formulated
as follows:
La Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses
a pour objet principal l’histoire du christianisme.
L’histoire religieuse générale, l’histoire d’Israël et des peuples en relation avec les Juifs,
la littérature biblique, l’histoire ecclésiastique,
la littérature chrétienne rentrent dans son cadre, ainsi que l’étude de mouvements religieux
comme le mithriacisme, ou de mouvements
philosophiques comme le néoplatonisme.
Elle publie des articles de fond, des chroniques
et des comptes rendus. Les articles de fond sont
ou des mémoires originaux apportant des résultats nouveaux, ou des exposés destinés à préciser l’état actuel des questions et à servir aux
lecteurs de point de départ pour des travaux
personnels.
est purement historique et critique.33
31.
32.
33.
Nor have survived Loisy’s letters to Lejay. The
letters of Lejay to Loisy are preserved in the
Bibliothèque nationale de France, NAF 15658, ff.
276-316.
In his Mémoires Loisy explained that the name
of an employer (M.-A. Desbois) of the RHLR’s
printing company Protat was mentioned as the
responsible administrator of the journal. For the
members of the editorial committee, cf. Alfred
Loisy, Mémoires I, 392 (cf. n. 5): « Nous recrutâmes un comité de direction composé de sept
membres: Lejay ayant amené de très notables
laïques, Pierre de Nolhac, conservateur du Musée
de Versailles, aujourd’hui membre de l’Académie
française, Georges Digard, ancien membre de
l’École française de Rome, Edouard Jordan, alors
professeur à la Faculté des lettres de Rennes,
aujourd’hui à la Sorbonne ; et moi, Henri Margival, vicaire à Saint-Honoré-d’Eylau, maître de
conférences à l’Institut catholique, et François
Thureau-Dangin, mon ancien élève. »
RHLR 1 (1896), s.p.
Although the name of the journal didn’t refer to
Christianity, the program made it unmistakably
clear that this religion was its central point of
interest. The second paragraph reveals a critical
and comparative approach for both the history
of Judaism and Christianity. Basically, the explicit comparative perspective of the RHLR was
enough in itself to account for Lejay’s and Loisy’s
concern for secrecy. Although Providentissimus
Deus provided no rules on that specific issue,
both scholars were well aware that the Church
was hostile to a consistent comparative study of
Christianity.34 Besides the fact that this scholarship steadily eroded the proclaimed uniqueness
of Christianity, it could also have implications for
the alleged historical truthfulness of the Bible,
an issue that was at the crux of the Modernist
conflict. The striking similarity – to give only one
example – between the passion of Jesus and the
dying and rising pagan gods like Attis, Osiris or
Adonis had, in fact, been one of the main reasons
for critical exegetes to question the historicity of
the gospel accounts of Jesus’ crucifixion.35 Comparatism was inextricably intertwined with the
historical criticism the Church so much despised.
However, the real sting of the program was in the
tail. The emphatic last sentence was the clearest
statement against the biased, theologically inspired scholarship prescribed by the latest encyclical. In his Mémoires, Loisy explained how
this sentence was to be understood:
Notre programme théorique se bornait à cette brève déclaration de principes : « La Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses est
purement historique et critique. » Ce qui, en
français, signifiait que l’objet et l’esprit de la revue étaient uniquement scientifiques, non confessionnels.36
In the late 19th and early 20th century French
context of religious studies, the declaration
34.
35.
Cf. infra (§2) for the reasons why mithraism was
believed to be so particularly important for the
history of Christianity.
Cf. Walter P. Weaver, The historical Jesus in the
Twentieth Century 1900-1950, Harrisburg, Trinity
Press, 1999, 50: “The analogizing of Jesus to his
environment led first to the question whether
there was anything novel about Jesus (…), and
then whether there was anything historical about
Jesus. And the logical end would be whether the
historicity of Jesus was necessary to Christian
faith at all.” It should of course be added that
only a minority of critical exegetes took the final
step and fully rejected Jesus’ historical existence.
“purement historique et critique” was synonym
for a non-confessional and strictly scientific approach. This way, the RHLR sought alliance with
the secular academic world, where the study
of religion had recently undergone major institutional changes. In the 1880s several French
State universities had institutionalized “sciences
religieuses” as an autonomous department (e.g.
the École Pratique des Hautes Études), and “histoire des religions” as the subject of new university chairs (e.g. the Collège de France).37 The
program of the newly founded chairs prescribed
a critical, comparative (NB the plural “histoire
des religions”) and fully “neutral” approach.
These events in secular academia met with wide
resistance by conservative Catholic milieus, who
saw the financial support to the state Faculties
of Catholic Theology being cut down by the anti-clerical Third Republic.38 The result was a highly polarized academic climate, which was one
of the heralds of the Separation Law between
Church and State of 1905.
Before turning to Cumont’s involvement in the
RHLR, we once more give the floor to Loisy who,
in retrospect, marveled at the long life of the
journal:
À distance, il paraît merveilleux que la revue,
dirigée en fait par des ecclésiastiques, ait pu,
avec ce programme laïque, tenir douze ans sans
être écrasée sous les censures de l’Église. Mais
nous avions commencé modestement, et pendant quelques années nous fûmes prudents.39
Lejay’s invitation and Cumont’s
importance to the RHLR project
To grant the RHLR a chance of survival, Loisy
and Lejay wanted to persuade a decent group of
“savants laïques.” In part, this decision logically
stemmed from the goals of the RHLR program:
scholars who devoted their research to compar36.
37.
38.
39.
Émile Poulat, “L’institution des ‘sciences religieuses’” in Jean Baubérot , ed. Cent ans de
sciences religieuses en France, Paris, Cerf, 1987,
49-78; Patrick Cabanel, “Les sciences religieuses
en Europe et la formation de Franz Cumont”.
MEFRIM 111 (1999), 611-621, at 612-613; François Laplanche, La crise de l’origine, Paris, Albin
Michel, 2006, 25-30.
On the late 19th century laicization of French religious studies: Harvey Hill, The Politics of Modernism, 45-51 (cf. n. 4).
ative “histoire religieuse générale”, were almost
automatically located in the laicized “Histoire des
Religions.”40 In the final parts of this paper, it will
furthermore become clear that Lejay thought of
his non-clerical contributors as lightning rods to
deflect attention from the ecclesiastic collaborators of the journal. On January 28th, 1896, Lejay
wrote his first letter to Cumont and invited him
to collaborate:
Monsieur
Permettez-moi d’invoquer le souvenir de nos
brèves rencontres chez l’abbé Duchesne pour
m’adresser à vous. Nous allons publier sous le
patronage de l’excellent savant une Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses, qui paraîtra
tous les deux mois et dont le 1er n° sera publié,
je l’espère, dans la 1e quinzaine de mars. Elle a
pour centre d’études l’histoire du christianisme,
mais toutes les questions qui s’y rattachent, par
ex. l’histoire du culte de Mithra, sont de son domaine.
Nos principaux collaborateurs sont MM. Loisy &
Thureau Dangin fils pour la Bible et l’Orient ; H.
Cochin, P. de Nolhac, pour la Renaissance ; Goyau, Waltzing, Duchesne pour l’antiquité (sic) ;
Digard, Fabre, Fournier pour le moyen-âge
(sic) ; Margival pour le 17e s ; Paul Thomas41 et
Weyman pour la littérature ancienne de l’Église.
J’espère pouvoir compter sur votre concours,
malgré toutes les occupations qui vous sollicitent. Si de votre grand ouvrage sur Mithra ou
des questions adjacents vous pouvez nous donner quelque chose, nous serions très flattés. En
40.
41.
42.
43.
Cumont’s and Loisy’s views on « histoire des
religions » & the position of Christianity are discussed in Annelies Lannoy, « Le Jubilé Loisy de
1927. Entre histoire des religions et histoire du
christianisme », Revue de l’histoire des religions
229 (2012) 4, 503-526.
Latinist Paul Thomas (1852-1937) had been a
former teacher of Cumont, and was his colleague
at Ghent University, cf. Gabriel Sanders, “Paul
Thomas” in Theo Luykx, ed., Liber Memorialis
1913-1960, Deel 1 Faculteit der Letteren & Wijsbegeerte, Gent, Universiteit Gent, 1960, 9-19
(available online via UGent library : http://lib.
ugent.be/fulltxt/RUG01/002/036/339/RUG01002036339_2013_0001_AC.pdf.)
Academia Belgica, Paul Lejay to Franz Cumont, 28
January 1896, CP 2136.
Other links were Cumont’s teachers from Ghent,
Paul Thomas and Charles Michel. For Michel, cf.
Corinne Bonnet – Sarah Rey – Danny Praet – Annelies Lannoy, “Un collaborateur qui a ‘beaucoup
de qualités, mais…’ Lorsque Charles Michel introduit Franz Cumont auprès d’Alfred Loisy”. Pallas
88 (2012), 219-234.
tout cas, nous espérons que vous voudrez bien
nous promettre quelque article et nous autoriser à inscrire votre nom parmi nos collaborateurs
dans le prospectus qui sera prochainement distribué.
J’ignore pas combien ma demande est indiscrète, mais je ne désespère pas que vous vous
intéressiez à une entreprise dont la convenance
est généralement reconnue.
Veuillez m’excuser et agréer l’assurance de mes
sentiments respectueux et dévoués
Paul Lejay
119, Rue Cherche-Midi
Paris 28 janvier42
Lejay’s letter shows that the French priest Louis
Duchesne was the missing link between Cumont
and Lejay.43 Duchesne had been one of Cumont’s
teachers at the École Pratique des Hautes Études
in 1891-189244, and both scholars since maintained a close friendship.45 They probably met
quite regularly, first in Paris46, and after 1913 in
Rome, where Cumont then lived and Duchesne
was Director of the École française. Before his
professorship at the École Pratique, Duchesne
had been Professor at the Institut Catholique. He
is frequently called a precursor of Modernism, as
he highly valued historical criticism in his lessons
at the Institut. Duchesne imbued in his student
Loisy the reverence for independent and critical
research.47 Although Duchesne (in contrast to
Loisy) carefully avoided more controversial sub44.
45.
46.
47.
After his studies at Ghent University, Cumont
had completed his training in Germany, Austria,
& France. For Cumont and the EPHE, cf. Corinne
Bonnet, “La formation de Franz Cumont d’après
sa correspondance (1885-1892)”. Kernos 11
(1998), 245-264, at 258. For Cumont’s biography,
cf. Corinne Bonnet, La correspondance scientifique de Franz Cumont, 1-67 (cf. supra, n. 13);
Danny Praet, “Franz Cumont”, in Peter Kuhlmann – Helmuth Schneider, eds, Der Neue Pauly,
Supplemente Band 6, Stuttgart-Weimar, 2012,
260-262.
For Cumont’s personal contacts with Duchesne:
Corinne Bonnet, “Le Saint-Piège”, 222-223 (cf. n.
16).
Duchesne was also member of the Académie des
Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres (since 1888).
Loisy and Duchesne were first befriended, but
their relationship later deteriorated. As a result,
Loisy tended to downsize Duchesne’s influence
on his intellectual development: Émile Goichot,
Alfred Loisy et ses amis, Paris, Cerf, 2002, 21.
jects in his publications, he, too, would later incur condemnation under the papacy of Pius X.48
But Duchesne submitted and stayed a priest until his death in 1922. The scholar was an authority in early Church History. His work enjoyed wide
recognition in- and outside the Church. Lejay’s
mention of Duchesne was certainly not fortuitous: Lejay knew that Duchesne’s patronage of
the RHLR was important to bridge the gap with
the secular world and to win over non-Catholic
scholars like Cumont.
Lejay also knew that Cumont’s scientific profile
was well fitted to the program of the Revue. Although the Belgian scholar found himself at an
early stage of his academic career in 1896 (he
worked at Ghent University since 1892), he had
firmly established his reputation as an independent historian of religions. His scientific points of
interest clearly positioned him in a historical-critical tradition.49 Quintessential to this reputation
was his study of Mithraism. In 1894 Cumont had
started publishing his Textes et Monuments figurés relatifs aux Mystères de Mithra (TMMM), a
vast collection of all then known sources on the
cult of the Persian god, followed by an innovative theory about the oriental origins and historical development of the mystery cult.50 It is
particularly interesting that Lejay recognized the
importance of this “grand ouvrage” for the history of Christianity, while Cumont himself would
later announce in his introduction (published in
the final volume of 1899) that his study focused
48.
49.
50.
Cf. Michele Maccarrone, “Duchesne et La Curia
Romana” in École française de Rome, ed. Monseigneur Duchesne et son temps, Rome, École
française de Rome, 1975, 418-494.
Cumont’s earliest publications reveal an interest
in several subjects that imply a critical attitude
towards Christianity (e.g. Emperor Julian), as
has been pointed out by Danny Praet, “Wird rein
durch Feuer, Wasser, Luft und Erden. Teleologie,
universalisme en de symboliek van de elementen
in de godsdienst-filosofie van Franz Cumont” in
Tom Claes, ed. Door denken en doen. Essays bij
het werk van Ronald Commers, Gent, Academia
Press, 177-219 at 180.
Cumont’s theory on Mithraism is no longer accepted today, cf. Roger Beck, “Mithraism since
Franz Cumont”, ANRW II, 17.4., Berlin-New York,
Walter de Gruyter, 1984, 2002-2115; id., “Mithraism after ‘Mithraism since Franz Cumont’”, in Roger Beck, Beck on Mithraism: Collected Works with
New Essays, Aldershot – Burlington, Ashgate,
2004, 3-24. See the introduction of Nicole Belayche and Attilio Mastrocinque to the new edition
of Cumont, Les Mystères de Mithra, Bibliotheca
Cumontiana, Scripta Maiora III, Rome & Torino,
Nino Aragno – Brepols, 2013, xiii-lxxxviii.
on the internal development of the cult, and,
that, as a result, the relationship with Christianity would stay out of consideration.51
To clarify Lejay’s and Cumont’s seemingly contradictory judgments, it is necessary to take a
closer look at the position of the pagan mystery
cults in late 19th century history of religions. In
fact, disputes over Christianity’s dependence on
Mithras and on the other mystery cults (of e.g.
Attis & Cybele, Isis & Osiris) date back to the
Patristic era. One popular explanation ancient
Christian authors developed to account for the
strong similarities they observed between Christianity and the pagan cults, was that the devil
was responsible in order to divert people from
the true Christian faith.52 The 19th century
marked the beginning of a truly scientific study
of these religions’ relationship. Archaeological
expeditions in “the Orient” produced a spectacular increase of knowledge about ancient civilizations and renewed attention for the religious
environment in which Christianity was born.53
At the end of the 19th century and in the beginning of the 20th, the historical interdependence
of Christianity and the pagan mystery cults was
one of the most heavily debated topics in history of religions. Positions in these debates were
not only determined by the methodological and
scientific views of the scholars in question, but
also by their personal ideologico-religious con-
51.
52.
53.
Franz Cumont, Textes et Monuments figurés relatifs aux Mystères de Mithra, Bruxelles, Lamertin,
1899, ix : « Nous n’entreprendrons pas d’y suivre
les phases diverses de la lutte entre l’idolâtrie et
l’Église grandissante. » For Cumont’s views on the
role of the oriental religions in the transition from
paganism to Christianity, cf. Danny Praet, “Oriental Religions and the Conversion of the Roman
Empire. The Views of Ernest Renan and of Franz
Cumont on the Transition from Traditional Paganism to Christianity”, in David Engels – Peter Van
Nuffelen, eds. Religion and competition in Antiquity, Bruxelles, Éditions Latomus, 2013, 285-237.
Eric J. Sharpe, Comparative religion. A History,
London, Duckworth, 1986, 9.
For Cumont’s views on the Orient, cf. the doctoral dissertation of Eline Scheerlinck, An Orient of
Mysteries. Franz Cumont’s views on ‘Orient’ and
‘Occident’ in the context of Classical Studies in
the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
Gent 2014. For 19th century orientalism and the
study of early Christianity: Suzanne L. Marchand, “Toward an Oriental Christianity” in Suzanne
Marchand, German Orientalism in the Age of
Empire, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press,
2009, 252-291.
victions. This often resulted in harsh scholarly
dissension.54
Cumont never directly engaged in these debates, but his TMMM and later studies such as
Les religions orientales dans le paganisme romain (1906) played an important role in revealing the resemblances of the “religions orientales”
(as Cumont called the “oriental” mystery cults)
and Christianity. Cumont mostly hinted at these
similarities in an implicit and subtle way, but, at
times, he also included extensive lists of comparisons in his publications. The following passage
from his Mystères de Mithra (1900) illustrates
just how far-reaching his comparisons were:
La lutte entre les deux religions rivales fut d’autant plus opiniâtre que leurs caractères étaient
plus semblables. Leurs adeptes formaient pareillement des conventicules secrets, étroitement unis, dont les membres se donnaient le
nom de « Frères ». Les rites qu’ils pratiquaient,
offraient de nombreuses analogies : les sectateurs du dieu perse, comme les chrétiens, se
purifiaient par un baptême, recevaient d’une
sorte de confirmation la force de combattre les
esprits du mal, et attendaient d’une communion le salut de l’âme et du corps. Comme eux
aussi, ils sanctifiaient le dimanche, et fêtaient
la naissance du Soleil le 25 décembre, le jour
où la Noël était célébrée, au moins depuis le IVe
siècle. Ils prêchaient de même une morale impérative, tenaient l’abstinence et la continence
pour méritoires, et mettaient au nombre des
vertus principales le renoncement et l’empire
sur soi-même. Leurs conceptions du monde et
de la destinée de l’homme étaient similaires :
ils admettaient les uns et les autres l’existence
d’un ciel des bienheureux situé dans les régions
supérieures et d’un enfer peuplé de démons,
54.
For these debates, cf. the conference volume
Annelies Lannoy – Danny Praet, eds.The Christian
Mystery. Early Christianity and the pagan mystery
cults in the work of Franz Cumont (1868-1947)
and in the history of scholarship, to be published
in Potsdamer altertumswissenschaftliche Beiträge,
Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag. For a study of
the views of Loisy and Cumont on this relationship, cf. my doctoral dissertation: Het christelijke
mysterie. De relatie tussen het vroege christendom en de heidense mysterieculten in het denken
van Alfred Loisy en Franz Cumont, in de context
van de modernistische crisis, Gent 2012. For the
specific dissension of Protestant and Catholic
scholars, cf. Jonathan Z. Smith, Drudgery Divine.
On the Comparison of Early Christianities and the
Religions of Late Antiquity, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press, 1994.
contenu dans les profondeurs de la terre ; ils
plaçaient aux origines de l’histoire un déluge ;
ils donnaient comme source à leurs traditions
une révélation primitive ; ils croyaient enfin à
l’immortalité de l’âme et à une rétribution future, au jugement dernier et à la résurrection
des morts dans la conflagration finale de l’univers.
Nous avons vu que la théologie des mystères
faisait du Mithra « médiateur » l’équivalent du
Logos alexandrin. Comme lui, le Christ était
le μεσίτης, l’intermédiaire entre son Père céleste et les hommes, et, comme lui encore, il
faisait partie d’une trinité. Ces rapprochements
n’étaient certainement pas les seuls que l’exégèse païenne établît entre eux, et la figure du
dieu tauroctone, se résignant à contre-cœur à
immoler sa victime pour créer et sauver le genre humain, avait certainement été comparée à
celle du Rédempteur se sacrifiant pour le salut
du monde.55
But while Cumont didn’t seem to have had a
problem with recognizing and pointing to similarities (at least not in his earliest publications56),
he was much more silent on their historical origin. In the preface to his later bestseller Les religions orientales dans le paganisme romain, he
explained that the historical complexity of the
question should induce scholars to act prudently, and he urged against a single, reductionist
solution for all cases.57 However, in other cases – as e.g. the ill-documented oriental origins
of Mithraism, the argument of historical complexity had not stopped Cumont from developing and publishing his views. Earlier scholarship
of his correspondence (especially with Loisy)
has shown that the Belgian scholar had quite
55.
56.
57.
Franz Cumont, Les Mystères de Mithra, Nicole
Belayche – Attilio Mastrocinque, eds. Bibliotheca
Cumontiana, Scripta Maiora III, Rome & Torino,
Nino Aragno – Brepols, 2013, 152-153.
Even the amount of similarities drawn in Cumont’s published work, seemed to decrease in
the first years of the early 20th century, cf. Danny
Praet, Wird rein durch Feuer, Wasser, Luft und
Erden, 186-187 (cf. n. 47), which proves this was
a difficult period. In later publications, e.g. of the
1930s (e.g. “La fin du monde et les mages occidentaux”. Revue de l’Histoire des Religions 103
(1931), 29-96), Cumont again frequently pointed
to similarities.
Franz Cumont, Les religions orientales dans le paganisme romain, Corinne Bonnet – Françoise Van
Haeperen, eds. Bibliotheca Cumontiana, Scripta
Maiora I, Rome & Torino, Nino Aragno – Brepols,
2006, 9.
well-developed ideas on the historical reasons
behind Christian and pagan similarities, but that
he obviously preferred to reserve them for the
private context of his letters.58 An additional explanation for Cumont’s public carefulness likely
resides in the polemical nature of the debates.
Their profoundly ideological and religious scope
may have been an additional reason for a highly
independent scholar as Cumont not to get too
deeply involved. Instead, we will see that he preferred to give subtle hints of which the exact interpretation was left to other scholars, who were
more explicit in their negation or confirmation of
Christian imitations of the pagan cults. Cumont’s
careful approach coincided beautifully with the
cautious strategies of the RHLR: the themes of
his contributions were relevant for the critical
history of Christianity, but it was up to the readers to draw their own conclusions on the actual
origin of the similarities pointed out.
Cumont’s first contribution
to the Revue
Lejay’s letter of February 12th, 1896 confirmed
that Cumont had accepted the invitation: « Je
vous remercie de votre adhésion à notre projet
et de vos précieuses promesses de collaboration. Nous acceptons avec reconnaissance votre travail sur l’aeternitas des empereurs. »59
Cumont’s first contribution was published in the
second issue of 1896.
This first article offers a good example of the
subtle style that was so typical of Cumont. Accessibly written, his paper “L’éternité des empereurs romains”60 examined the origin of the
epithet aeternus, used for the Roman emperors
since the late second century. Cumont explained
that the belief in the ruler’s eternity was much
older than the second century. The roots were
58.
59.
This becomes especially clear from his correspondence with Alfred Loisy: cf. Annelies Lannoy, “St
Paul in the early 20th century history of religions:
‘The mystic of Tarsus’ and the pagan mystery
cults after the correspondence of Franz Cumont
and Alfred Loisy”. Zeitschrift für Religions-und
Geistesgeschichte 64 (2012), 222-239, “Comparing words, myths and rituals: Alfred Loisy, Franz
Cumont and the case of ‘Gaionas le deipnokritès”.
Mythos. Rivista di Storia delle religioni 7 (2013),
111-125.
February 1896, CP 2140. We have chosen to cite
fragments, instead of fully citing each letter, as
of oriental, and more specifically ancient Iranian, origin.61 After having mixed with Babylonian astrological ideas on immortality, these astro-religious ideas made their way to the West.
The popularity of the term aeternus was closely
related to the increasingly widespread belief in
the divinity of the Emperors, which was stimulated by the oriental religions that flourished in
the Roman Empire at that time. In analogy to
the ancient oriental ruler cults, the fate of the
Roman emperor was believed to be intimately
bound up with the pagan oriental planetary gods
such as Sol Invictus, who were also called aeternus (“supposé avoir toujours existé et devoir
toujours être”62). Through the spread of oriental
ideas in the Empire, the Roman emperor came to
be conceived of as the incarnation of these eternal gods. Ancient oriental astrology, which enjoyed wide adhesion at that time, helped to solve
the paradox between the undeniable mortality of
the emperor and his alleged Aeternitas. Popular astrological belief held that the soul of the
emperor was of heavenly origin. It preexisted in
“le monde supra-sensible”, and, endowed by the
heavenly spheres with the qualities to reign, it
thereafter descended to accomplish its earthly
tasks. After its stay on earth, « cette âme céleste
retournera dans les sphères étoilées où elle vivra
perpétuellement. »63
At the end of the article, Cumont briefly dealt
with the survival of these inherently pagan notions under the Christian emperors. He explained
that the Christian efforts to eliminate these conceptions were fruitless, because of their political importance, and “malgré l’impureté de leurs
origines religieuses.”64 By emphasizing this Christian-pagan continuity, Cumont in fact suggested
that ancient Christian political ideology contained
indirect borrowings from Mithraism. Although
he had not specified which particular oriental
cults had been crucial in spreading the notion of
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
Lejay often discussed editorial details which are
less relevant our paper.
RHLR 1 (1896), 435-452.
Franz Cumont, “L’éternité des empereurs romains”, 443. This paper is included in Volume IV
« Astrologie », edited by Danny Praet with collaboration of Eline Scheerlinck and Annelies Lannoy,
of the Scripta Minora Series of the Bibliotheca
Cumontiana, forthcoming (2015).
Franz Cumont, “L’éternité des empereurs romains”, 443-444.
Ibid., 448.
Ibid., 451.
Aeternitas, there are several indications that he
was especially thinking of the Mithras cult.65 It
has been mentioned that Cumont had pointed
to ancient Persia, the homeland of Mithraism, as
the origin of the belief in the eternity of the ruler.
Furthermore, he had indicated that the belief in
the eternity of the emperors especially started to
flourish under the reign of Commodus, who had
been initiated in the cult of Mithras.66 In a subtle
way, Cumont had thus given an example of the
importance the study of Mithraism67 could have
for the history of Christianity, in this case of 4th
century Christian political ideology, which proved
to be the continuation of preceding pagan evolutions.68 One could even go a step further and
consider that Cumont’s “pagan” paper also had
its importance for the very origins of Christianity.
By drawing attention to a pre-Christian conception of a god-man figure in ancient oriental ruler
cults, the Belgian scholar also provided a pagan
context for the Christian doctrines about the
pre-existing Christ (cf. Philippians 2: 6-11).69
Cumont’s emphasis on the ancient oriental origin of the divine ruler-cult directed the attention
of the attentive reader almost automatically, yet,
again only implicitly, to the East and to the birth
of Christianity itself.
In his letter of April 16, 1896 Lejay briefly expressed his appreciation of Cumont’s paper: “Il
me paraît excellent pour nous. Il serait à désirer
que de temps en temps nous puissions donner
des mémoires aussi sérieux.”70 However, from
Lejay’s letter of December 3rd, 1896, we know
65.
66.
67.
68.
See also Robert Turcan, “Le culte impérial au IIIe
siècle”, ANRW 17.2, 1978, 996-1084, at 1061.
For the link between Mithraism and Commodus,
cf. Manfred Clauss, The Roman Cult of Mithras.
The God and his Mysteries, New York, Routledge,
2000, 23-25.
And, by extension, of the other religions orientales, as Cumont considered them all of crucial
importance for the spread of a “nouvelle théologie
sidérale” in the Roman Empire. Cf. Danny Praet,
“Le néopythagorisme, les Baals syriens et les
divinités planétaires. Les théories de Franz Cumont et le cas de la Vie d’Apollonius de Tyane »
in Corinne Bonnet – Vinciane Pirenne-Delforge –
Danny Praet, eds. Les religions orientales dans le
monde grec et romain : cent ans après Cumont
(1906-2006), Brussel-Rome, BHIR, 2009, 369385, at 370-73.
For more recent studies of the Aeternus designation of the Roman Emperors, cf. e.g. Manfred
Clauss, Kaiser und Gott. Herrscherkult im römischen Reich, München-Leipzig, K.G. Saur, 2001,
256-260; Stephan Berrens, Sonnenkult und
Kaisertum von den Severern bis zu Constantin I
that Cumont himself hadn’t been very confident
about the suitability of his paper for RHLR. His
doubts were decisively brushed aside by Lejay:
Je tiens à vous transmettre très sincèrement
l’impression produite par votre article. Elle a été
excellente. Bien loin de justifier les craintes que
vous m’aviez exprimées à l’origine, toutes les
personnes que j’ai doucement sollicitées à me
dire du mal de votre enfant, s’y sont énergiquement refusées. J’en conclus que vous n’avez
plus qu’à récidiver. Nous demandons un petit
frère. Nous allons faire avec notre n° 6 une liste
d’articles à publier en 1897. Voyez-vous un titre
sous lequel ensuite vous pourriez dans le cours
de l’année faire un article ? Je dis : « un », par
discrétion. Naturellement le pluriel est possible
et préférable.71
From the following letter of December 24, 1896,
we know that Cumont was willing to comply
with Lejay’s request, but again had some doubts
about the content of a new contribution. Apparently, Cumont had considered the possibility of
publishing a chapter of his introduction to the
TMMM corpus in the Revue72, but finally rejected
the idea for reasons which are not entirely clear
from Lejay’s letter. Was Cumont afraid that the
RHLR audience would take little interest in the
subject? Those who were interested, he might
have suggested to Lejay, could read the future
volume, or his general introduction into Mithraism, which was to be published in Wilhelm Roscher’s Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen
und römischen Mythologie in 1897.73 Lejay replied to Cumont’s objections:
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
(193-337 n. Chr.), Stuttgart, Franz Steiner Verlag, 2004, 43 et passim.
This God-Man concept would become a prominent
point of attention in the comparative studies of
the Religionsgeschichtliche Schule, cf. Luigi Salvatorelli, “From Locke to Reitzenstein. The historical
investigation of the origins of Christianity.” Harvard Theological Review XXII (1929), 263-369, at
328-329.
April 1896, CP 655.
December 1896, CP 656.
We may add that Cumont regularly published
chapters of his monographs as papers in journals.
See e.g. Franz Cumont, “L’astrologie et la magie
dans le paganisme romain”. RHLR 11 (1906),
24-55, which is the final chapter of his Religions
orientales dans le paganisme romain (1906).
Franz Cumont, s.v. Mithras, in: Wilhelm H.
Roscher, ed., Ausführliches Lexikon der griechischen und römischen Mythologie, II.2, Hildesheim, Georg Olms Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1897,
k. 3028-3071.
Je ne vous ai pas écrit d’abord parce que j’étais
de votre avis. Et puis j’en ai changé. Si vous n’y
voyez pour vous et pour votre ouvrage aucun
inconvénient, je ne vois que des avantages pour
notre public à ce qu’il lise votre chapitre sur la
théologie des mystères (ou tout autre). Nous
avons un public de théologiens et d’ecclésiastiques français qui ne lira pas, permettez-moi
de vous le dire, votre ouvrage sur Mithra et
qui en ignorera jusqu’au titre malgré tous les
comptes rendus. Il va sans dire que ce public,
plein de bonne volonté et d’ignorance, ne sait
pas l’allemand et n’apprendra l’existence du
Lexikon de Roscher que dans la vallée de Josaphat, s’il est question de telles choses au jour
du jugement.74
Lejay’s words are an excellent testimony to the
scientific reality described above: French Catholic ecclesiastics and theologians were largely cut
off from contemporary secular religious studies.
The negative position of the Church towards laicized history of religions can certainly account
for this gap. The traditional education of priests
was poor and very much centered on apologetics and theology.75 Even if a minority of Catholic
priests and theologians was principally interested
in Cumont’s work, they would largely ignore its
existence because they simply didn’t know the
ways to access either his publications for specialist (e.g. TMMM) or non-specialist audiences
(e.g. the entree on Mithras in the Ausführliches
Lexikon). Moreover, in case they did find their
way to the mentioned Lexikon, there still was the
barrier imposed by the German language. The
task of the RHLR, Lejay firmly believed, was to
open up the intellectual horizon of his fellow ecclesiastics, and of theologians, no to forget.
Cumont clearly was convinced by Lejay’s arguments, because the 1897 issue indeed contained
a chapter of his TMMM: “La propagation des mys-
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
December 1896, CP 657.
Cf. Harvey Hill, The Politics of Modernism, 17 sq.
(cf. supra, n. 4).
RHLR 2 (1897), 289-305, 408-423.
The explicit list of parallels, quoted above, is included in the final chapter “Mithra et les religions
de l’empire”.
Lejay himself indicated in his letter of December
24: “ces questions de publication anticipée sont
assez délicates et je sais des auteurs qui y sont
absolument opposés. Jugez-en vous-même.” This
letter has been published by Corinne Bonnet, La
correspondance scientifique de Franz Cumont,
269 (cf. supra, n. 13).
tères de Mithra dans l’Empire romain.”76 It is difficult to gauge why Cumont finally chose to publish this chapter, instead of the one on Mithraic
doctrines mentioned in Lejay’s letter. Was this
chapter, which basically gave an overview of the
reasons for Mithras’ spread and popularity in the
Roman Empire and of the places where mithraea
were found, “safer” for the young RHLR than the
one on “la doctrine des mystères”, which – implicitly77 – pointed to similarities with Christianity? Or did Cumont simply prefer to reserve the
publication of the chapter on Mithraic doctrines
for the much anticipated volume with the introduction to his corpus?78 The TMMM’s chapter on
Mithraic “theology” contained highly innovative
ideas about the Persian-Babylonian origins of
Mithraism, which he perhaps didn’t want to “give
away” to a small, and as yet insignificant journal
as RHLR.
Although Cumont gladly contributed to the RHLR,
it should also be noted that his engagements had
certain limits. When Lejay asked for a new “article mithriaque” in September 1898, this time the
request didn’t result in a new RHRL publication.79
In another letter of 1899, Lejay invited Cumont
to write a “Chronique des religions de l’Empire
romain”, which would introduce the RHLR audience into the bibliography of Roman religion. But
Cumont expressed his doubts about the enterprise, and pointed to the amount of work such
a responsibility implied.80 Although Lejay did his
very best to convince Cumont, the “chronique”
never came to exist. At that time, Cumont regularly contributed to multiple journals.81 Increasing his engagement for the RHLR, might have
implied that he had to downsize his contributions
to other journals. It is very much typical of the
independent scholar Cumont was, that he care-
79.
80.
81.
September 1898, CP 658.
The « Chronique » is discussed in the following
letters of Lejay : 22 January 1899, CP 2264;
6 May 1899, CP 2291; 11 November 1900, CP
2458.
At the end of the 19th century, Cumont most frequently published in Revue archéologique, Revue
d’instruction publique en Belgique, Revue de philologie, de literature et d’histoire anciennes. Cf.
Cumont’s list of publications (by Annelies Lannoy
and Danny Praet) will be published in the volume
“Philosophie”, Bibliotheca Cumontiana, Scripta
Minora I, forthcoming, and is accessible online:
http://www.cumont.ugent.be/en/bibliography.
fully avoided an all too exclusive collaboration to
any one journal.82
However, when the RHLR was in serious trouble and Lejay urged for help in order to avoid
anti-Modernist sanctions, Cumont immediately
came to the rescue.
« Un besoin pressant de copie
laïque. »
The RHLR’s delicate situation in
1900
At the turn of the century critical Catholic priests
indeed drifted into an increasingly difficult situation. The papacy of Pius X marked the start of
the Modernist crisis, but his severe anti-Modernist measures didn’t come unexpectedly, as the
radicalization of the Curia’s anti-scientific politics
had begun towards the end of Leo XIII’s papacy. From Lejay’s letter of November 4, 1900, it
becomes clear that alarm bells were ringing for
the RHLR:
Cher Monsieur
N’avez-vous rien à donner à la Revue d’hist.
& de littérature relig. ? Nous avons un besoin
pressant de copie laïque. Donnez-nous un article technique, un texte commenté, ce que vous
voudrez. Vous aurez des tirages à part. Nos collaborateurs ecclésiastiques doivent s’abstenir
par prudence pendant quelque temps.83
On September 8, 1899 Leo XIII had released a
French encyclical “Depuis le jour”, directed at
the French clergy, about the education of the
priests.84 In this encyclical, the pope renewed
and reinforced the positions of Providentissimus
82.
83.
84.
In the end, Cumont would publish 6 papers in the
first series of the RHLR: “L’éternité des empereurs
romains” (cf. supra); “La propagation des mystères de Mithra dans l’empire romain” (cf. supra); “Le taurobole et le culte de Bellone”. RHLR
6 (1901), 97-110 (cf. infra) ; « La polémique de
l’Ambrosiaster contre les païens”. RHLR 8 (1903),
417-440; “L’astrologie et la magie dans le paganisme romain”, RHLR 11 (1906), 24-55 ; « Notes
de mythologie manichéenne », RHLR 12 (1907),
134-149.
November 1900, CP 2457.
For the encyclical and Leo’s measures, cf. Albert
Houtin, La Question Biblique chez les catholiques
de France au XIXe siècle, Paris, Picard, 1902,
Deus and condemned Catholic scholars who applied consistent historical criticism to the Bible:
“By these strange and perilous tactics [i.e. historical critical methods] they have worked to make
a breach with their own hands in the walls of
the city they were charged to defend. In our Encyclical [Providentissimus Deus] we have spoken
our mind on this rash, dangerous policy.”85 Leo
XIII furthermore emphasized the importance of
unconditional clerical obedience to the authority
of the Church. The new encyclical was followed
by a series of measures against autonomous and
critical research. In 1900 Leo put a stop to the
Congrès internationaux catholiques, which had
been initiated only a few years before with the
aim to stimulate and guide a (strictly controlled)
dialogue on the modernization of Catholic science.86 Two years later, Leo established the Pontifical Bible Commission, which had to ensure
strict compliance of Catholic publications on biblical questions with the official positions of the
Curia.87 Around the turn of the century, Lejay
was even more on his guard than before, and,
following the strategies set out by Loisy, he decided that the best way to divert attention from
his ecclesiastic collaborators, was to mobilize the
laic troops of the journal.
Lejay’s second letter of November 1900 contains just one short sentence from which the
content of Cumont’s reply is to be derived: “Envoyez-nous votre taurobole et que Bellone nous
protège.”88 Cumont had clearly agreed to help
out the RHLR, but the strong affirmative tone of
Lejay’s imperative may lead to suspect that the
Belgian scholar had, again, expressed his uncertainty about the content of the paper he had in
mind. The topic Cumont was investigating at that
time, i.e. the origins of the taurobolium (and the
role of the war goddess Mâ-Bellone in the spread
85.
86.
87.
88.
272-277; Hill, “Leo XIII, Loisy, and the ‘Broad
School’”, 56.
The encyclical can be read online : http://www.
vatican.va/holy_father/leo_xiii/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_08091899_depuis-le-jour_
en.html
For the Congrès scientifiques internationaux des
Catholiques, cf. Albert Houtin, La Question Biblique, 126-130, 261 (cf. supra, n. 82).
François Laplanche, La crise de l’origine, 44 (cf.
supra, n. 35). It should be added that the Bible
Commission especially turned into a real instrument against Modernism under Pius X.
Academia Belgica, Paul Lejay to Franz Cumont,
11 November 1900, CP 2458.
of this ritual over the western Roman Empire)89,
was indeed not exactly the harmless “technical
study” or “text commentary” Lejay was looking
for. It is impossible for us to ascertain whether Lejay’s tongue-in-cheek call for protection of
Bellone was a general remark, pointing to the
hostile Catholic climate in which he had to work,
or a specific reference to the potential danger of
Cumont’s contribution. To find out why the taurobolium may have been a risky topic, we once
more need to turn to the late 19th and early 20th
century context of history of religions.
In the debates about the historical relation of
Early Christianity and the pagan mystery cults
(in this case of Cybele), the taurobolium was a
prominent issue.90 As observed by Danny Praet,
Cumont and many of his contemporaries believed that the pagan ritual was intimately related to the hopes of a blissful afterlife.91 The
initiation ritual of the Roman cult of Magna Mater is best known from Christian texts of the 4th
and 5th century (especially from Prudentius’
Peristephanon, quoted right at the beginning of
Cumont’s paper92). In modern research, these
ancient Christian texts about the pagan “blood
baptism” are used with utmost caution. In order to increase the credibility of their thesis that
the devil was responsible for pagan resemblances to Christianity, ancient Christian authors often overemphasized the similarities of the pagan
ritual with Christian baptism. Cumont and many
of his contemporaries still relied heavily on the
early Christian accounts of the mystery cults,
and therefore often assigned an all too Christian significance to pagan rituals such as the taurobolium.93 A good case in point is the excessive
importance attributed to the notion in aeternum
renatus, found on a late 4th century inscription
89.
90.
For Cumont’s and Loisy’s views on the taurobolium, we refer to the recent paper of Danny
Praet: “Symbolisme, évolution rituelle et morale
dans l’histoire des religions: le cas du Taurobolium dans les publications et la correspondance
de Franz Cumont et d’Alfred Loisy”. Mythos. Rivista di Storia delle Religioni 7 (2013), 127-143.
For a discussion of the thesis Cumont defended in
this RHLR paper, cf. ibid. 134-135.
The relevance of the subject is pointed out by
Cumont himself in the very first lines of his
paper : « Tous les écrivains qui se sont occupés
des derniers siècles du paganisme, ont décrit la
cérémonie du taurobole et insisté sur l’analogie
des idées mystiques qu’on y attachait, avec
certaines doctrines du christianisme », cf. Franz
Cumont, “Le taurobole et le culte de Bellone”.
RHLR 6 (1901), 97.
about the taurobolium.94 Although Cumont knew
that the pagan ritual was purificatory and that its
effectiveness was limited in time (20 years, after
which it could be renewed), he also explained
that, just like Christian baptism, the taurobolium
could procure a definitive spiritual rebirth.95 According to Cumont, all oriental religions, Christianity included, simply spread the same or vary
similar ideas about the afterlife.96
The comparison of Christianity and the cult of
Cybele didn’t feature at the center of Cumont’s
paper. He only referred to the alleged similarity
of the significance of the taurobolium and the
Christian baptism at the beginning and end of
his article, and he didn’t pronounce an explicit opinion on the origin. But implicitly, Cumont
again questioned the absolute originality claimed
by Christianity by shedding light on a seemingly
similar pagan practice.
The attentive reader could also recover some
subtle hints about the common primitive “survivals” which Cumont acknowledged in pagan and
Christian religion. In his paper, Cumont had basically tried to trace the origins of the taurobolium, a ritual that pertained to the cult of several
goddesses of Asia Minor (including Mâ). All these
rites, he explained, were independent results of
the universal, primitive belief in the regenerative power of blood. Cumont referred to the then
popular scientific concept of “totemism”, developed by the Scottish scholar William Robertson
Smith, and pointed to the universal belief that
consumption and contact with the blood of a
victim were ways to absorb the qualities of the
victim, or, by extension, of the god who was believed to be incarnated in the victim. After the
example of the British anthropologist Edward
91.
92.
93.
94.
95.
96.
Danny Praet, “Symbolisme, évolution rituelle et
morale”, 130 (cf. supra, n. 87).
Franz Cumont, “Le taurobole et le culte de Bellone ”, 97 (cf. supra, n. 88).
See especially Danny Praet, “Symbolisme, évolution rituelle et morale”, 130.
Ibid., 133 and 135 (about inscription CIL IV, 510).
In modern scholarship it is now acknowledged
that only in a later stage (late 3rd century – end
of the 4th century) the ritual seems to have held
“an aspect of personal renewal and rebirth.” Cf.
Robert Duthoy, The Taurobolium. Its evolution
and significance, Leiden, Brill, 1969, 106. The
debated inscription in aeternum renatus is mostly
considered a falsification, or the result of Christian influence on the pagan cult.
This has been pointed out by Danny Praet, “Symbolisme, évolution rituelle et morale”, 135.
Burnett Tylor, he provided ample illustration
of rituals in religions of both past and present
which had preserved ritual “survivals” that went
back to these primitive ideas.97 Cumont carefully
excluded any reference to the Eucharist, but he
did quote fragments from works of colleagues,
which were particularly relevant to Christianity,
e.g. the following quote on the mystery cult of
Dionysus:
Catholic intransigence, during his later conflict
with the Belgian Catholic Minister of Education,
but these events were not coordinated by Rome,
and can be situated in the periphery of the actual
crisis.101 The situation was entirely different for
e.g. Loisy, who was formally excommunicated in
1908, and whose publications were continuously
put on the Index, even up to 30 years after he
had left the Church.102
En Grèce même, cet usage s’est perpétué dans
les homophagies des mystères de Dionysos,
le dieu ταυρόμορφος. Les fidèles dévoraient la
chair crue d’un taureau (…). « Ce n’était pas
seulement une allusion à la passion de Zagreus
et à son démembrement par les Titans ; comme
le taureau est une des formes de Dionysos,
c’était le corps du dieu dont se repaissaient
symboliquement les initiés, c’était son sang
dont ils s’abreuvaient dans ce banquet mystique. Ils croyaient ainsi faire descendre en eux
Dionysos et remplir son âme de sa divinité ».
Decharme, Mythologie de la Grèce, p. 438.98
In his letter of February 6, 1901, Lejay again
expressed his appreciation for Cumont’s contribution. This letter shows that Lejay, who was
known to be a reserved man103, gradually became less formal in his contacts with Cumont,
and again included a tongue-in-cheek comment
on the sad circumstances in which he was forced
to work:
We have seen that the relevance of Cumont’s articles for the history of Christianity may have been
reason enough to call in divine protection for the
RHLR. Still, Lejay’s final approval of the subject
indicates that the importance of the future content of Cumont’s contribution was subordinated
to that of the laic identity of its author. It is important to bear into mind that the Modernist crisis
was principally about extirpating critical scholarship inside the walls of the Church. Although
Cumont’s studies regularly received negative
response from conservative Catholic scholars99,
there is no reason to assume that they have ever
been formally denounced to the administration
of the Index of Forbidden Books.100 It is true that
Cumont, too, would suffer the consequences of
Votre étude me paraît intéresser indirectement
l’histoire du christianisme, puisqu’elle concerne
une des pratiques par lesquelles les anciens
cherchaient à satisfaire, parallèlement au christianisme, leurs aspirations à la vie future et à la
participation de l’âme. Sans parler de la méthode, dont il est toujours bon de donner des exemples, votre article touche à des phénomènes
religieux généraux, totémisme, communion par
la victime, etc., dont il est utile de présenter en
détail des cas concrets. Aussi je vais insérer votre art., bien que les philologues pussent grogner d’avoir à le chercher chez nous. Mais il faudra
bien qu’ils prennent l’habitude du chemin. J’ai
reçu, il y a huit jours, vos Codices Mediolanenses104 et vous en remercie. Hélas ! je ne sais
trop quand je pourrai reprendre mes études
97.
In Cumont’s theory, the primitive rituals of the
mystery cult of Cyble received increasingly superior mystic interpretations, due to the influence of
Judaism and Mazdaeism, cf. Danny Praet, “Symbolisme, evolution rituelle et morale”, 136.
98. Franz Cumont, “Le taurobole et le culte de Bellone”, 108, note 1 (cf. supra, note 88).
99. Corinne Bonnet – Françoise Van Haeperen, “Introduction”, in Franz Cumont, Les religions orientales
dans le paganisme romain, Corinne Bonnet –
Françoise Van Haeperen, eds, Bibliotheca Cumontiana, Scripta Maiora I, Rome & Torino, Nino
Aragno – Brepols, 2006, xi-lxxiv, at l-li.
100. This is clear from my research (October –
November 2009) in the archives of the Congregazione per la dottrina della fede & in the secret
archives of the Vatican, where the name of Cumont is fully absent.
6 févr. 1901
Cher Monsieur
101. For the “Affaire Cumont”, cf. infra.
102. For the successive condemnations of Loisy’s
Opera omnia (after his excommunication) in
1932 and 1938, cf. the files in the archives of
the congregazione per la dottrina della fede: (1)
Mémoires pour servir à l’histoire religieuse de
notre temps C.L. 1932 N.1, S.O. 990/1932; (2)
La crise morale du temps présent et l’éducation
humaine C.L. 1938 N.7., S.O. 19/1938.
103. Roldand Delachenal, Notice sur la vie et les travaux de M. l’abbé Paul Lejay, 14 (cf. supra, note
23).
104. Lejay refers to the third volume of the Catalogus
Codicum Astrologorum Graecorum, the series
of which Cumont was editor in chief (in coll.):
Aemygdius Martini et Dominicus Bassi, Codices
Mediolanenses, CCAG III, Bruxelles, Lamertin,
1901.
astrologiques avec l’Horace105 et une santé qui
demande plus de repos que de travail : je viens
d’être obligé de me condamner à deux ou trois
jours de flânerie. La Revue va mieux que moi. Il
faut convenir que l’incognito de son directeur la
sauve de bien des tribulations. C’est un condottiere lâchement masqué !
Votre tout dévoué
Paul Lejay106
To understand Lejay’s statement about the disgruntlement of the philologists, it should be recalled that “history of religion” had only recently
been institutionalized as an autonomous discipline. Many scholars who devoted themselves to
the study of ancient religion, were in fact classical
philologists, just like Cumont himself.107 Cumont
often published papers on religion in more general journals such as the French Revue de philologie, de littérature et d’histoire anciennes or
the later Revue belge de philologie et d’histoire,
…108 We know from the previous letter of Lejay
that the main audience of the RHLR consisted
of theologians and ecclesiastics, which by implication meant that non-ecclesiastic philologists
belonged to another scientific universe. In this
sense, too, Cumont’s participation in the RHLR
project built bridges between separated worlds.
Pius X had succeeded Leo XIII. In his letter of
January 11th 1907, Lejay explained to Cumont
that the atmosphere in the Church had grown
very tense. Lejay sensed that dark clouds were
gathering on the RHLR’s horizon, but he still believed that the journal could survive, with help of
Cumont and of other laic scholars, such as Cumont’s friend and colleague at Ghent University,
the classicist Joseph Bidez:
Paris, 11 janv. 1907110
Cher Monsieur,
N’auriez-vous pas un article pour la Revue ? Il
s’agirait du n° 2 (mars-avril). Voici pourquoi. Il
y aura dans ce n° un article un peu hardi. Je
voudrais que ce numéro fût entièrement composé de laïcs. Je vous dis cela confidentiellement. Il m’est égal que ce que vous pouvez envoyer soit long ou court. Je préférerais un article
long. Mais l’essentiel est d’éviter les signatures
ecclésiastiques. Je viens d’écrire à Bidez (sans
lui indiquer le motif de ma démarche). Quand
bien même, il aurait quelque chose, il y aurait
aussi place pour vous.
The end of the RHLR in 1907
Il devient de plus en plus difficile d’écrire, aux
ecclésiastiques, sous ce charmant pontificat.
Les jeunes hésitent et cela se comprend. Si parmi vos élèves se trouvaient des collaborateurs
possibles, vous nous rendriez un grand service
en les orientant de notre côté. Nous ne pouvons
pas être toujours sur la brèche.
Lejay’s strategy initially proved to be fruitful,
and the journal was able to continue – apparently without much difficulty – in the following
five years.109 But by early 1907 a new, and this
time more severe crisis arose. In the meanwhile,
Je vous écris comme à un vieil ami de la Revue.
Votre intervention me permettrait de rejeter au
n° 3 tous les articles ecclésiastiques. Ce sera
bien assez déjà qu’ils entrent dans une maison
qui sentira en use [sic] l’odeur du soufre.
105. Lejay collaborated to the edition project of the
works of Horace; he edited the Satires: G. Horati
Flacci Satirae, Paul Lejay ed., Paris, Hachette
1911. For other text editions published by Lejay:
Roland Delachenal, Notice sur la vie et les travaux
de M. l’abbé Paul Lejay, 24-28 (cf. supra, note
23).
106. Academia Belgica, Paul Lejay to Franz Cumont, 6
February 1901, CP 2540.
107. We may also think of the importance of comparative philology for the beginnings of religious
studies: Eric J. Sharpe, Comparative Religion,
35sq (cf. supra, note 50). Cumont’s paper included several observations on the etymology of the
word “taurobolium”, cf. Franz Cumont, “Le taurobole et le culte de Bellone”, 103-104 (cf. supra,
note 88).
108. See his bibliography (cf. supra, note 79): http://
www.cumont.ugent.be/en/bibliography.
109. We only have three (one of 1903 and two of
1906) letters of Lejay for the period 1902-1906
(Academia Belgica, CP 3058, CP 3656 and CP
3716). As these mostly include editorial comments on Cumont’s following contributions (“La
polémique de l’Ambrosiaster contre les païens”.
RHLR 8 (1903), 417-440 and “L’astrologie et
la magie dans le paganisme romain”. RHLR 11
(1906), 24-55), they are not included in this
paper. For a short discussion of Cumont’s “Ambrosiaster”, cf. Annelies Lannoy, Het christelijke
mysterie, 114 (cf. supra, n. 52).
January 1907, CP4015. Lejay’s (careful) aim to
continue the RHLR is also clear from his following
letter, 13 January 1907, CP4014: “L’essentiel est
de marcher et de travailler comme si le mieux
devait se réaliser.”
Recevez, cher Monsieur, l’assurance de mes
sentiments les plus dévoués
Paul Lejay
The hostile climate didn’t stop Lejay from pursuing the mission of the RHLR, but his letter illustrates well that it nourished an atmosphere
of distrust – he emphasized the confidentiality
of his letter and preferred not to inform Bidez of
his true motives – and that it scared off younger
priests. The controversial article mentioned by
Lejay was “La conception virginale du Christ”,
written by a certain Guillaume Herzog. The paper was followed by two other contributions of
the same author on Mary’s virginity. The articles
provided a historical-critical analysis of the gospel accounts of Mary.111 By demonstrating the
legendary character of the gospels, they criticized the historical believability of the Catholic
doctrines about Mary’s virginity. Guillaume Herzog was the pseudonym of the French Modernist
priest Joseph Turmel, who had published another
series of critical articles (on the Trinity) in the
1906 volume of RHLR under the pseudonym of
Antoine Dupin. From Turmel’s autobiography, it is
clear that Lejay knew the risks of the publication,
but decided to go ahead anyway: “My compliments of the season to you and your friend [Herzog]. Tell him that we are happy to fall with him
in the Thermopyles of Modernism for the defense
of civilization against Vatican barbarism.”112
Although Cumont immediately provided help by
sending his “Notes de mythologie manichéenne”,
which was published right after the first Herzog
paper, and proposed other scholars as possible
collaborators for Lejay113, his efforts could not
avert the mischief which the Herzog-Dupin articles had brought down on the RHLR.114 Lejay
111. “La conception virginale du Christ.” RHLR 12
(1907), 117-133; “La virginité de Marie après
l’enfantement”. RHLR 12 (1907), 320-340; “La
sainte Vierge dans l’histoire”. RHLR 12 (1907),
485-607.
112. Letter of Lejay (s.d.), quoted in Turmel’s autobiography: Charles T.J. Talar, ed. “Martyr to the
truth.” The Autobiography of Joseph Turmel,
Eugene, Pickwick Publications, 2012, 100.
113. Cf. Academia Belgica, Paul Lejay to Franz Cumont, 13 January 1907, CP4014. Cumont suggested Norbert Hachez, who was one of his
students at Ghent University.
114. The archives of the Institut de France (Lejay became a member of the Académie des Inscriptions
was called to account by his superiors of the Institut Catholique, but he denied his involvement
in the RHLR and refused to betray Turmel.115 In
December 1907, the final pages of the RHLR announced its suspension. In September 1907 the
anti-Modernist encyclical Pascendi dominici gregis and the syllabus of errors Lamentabili sane
exitu had forbidden any attempt at critical scholarship.116 By the end of 1907, the RHLR could no
longer convince any priests to collaborate. Moreover, Catholic priests were forbidden to have a
subscription to the journal.
À nos lecteurs
suspend pour quelque temps sa publication. (…)
Des générations catholiques plus anciennes,
auxquelles le temps avait refusé une culture
scientifique et l’accord de leur esprit avec celui
de leur époque, ont cherché dans nos fascicules
l’apologétique de leurs pères et n’y ont trouvé que la méthode de l’histoire. Déçus et irrités
de leur déception, ils n’ont cessé de dénoncer
notre entreprise à une autorité que plusieurs
d’entre nous reconnaissent comme la source
visible de leur religion personnelle. En tant que
savants, nous ne pouvions avoir que du respect
pour cette autorité ; mais dans notre domaine,
les mots de soumission et de révolte ne sauraient avoir de sens. (…)
Cependant nous aurions poursuivi notre
modeste destinée, si des mesures récentes, en
instituant dans les pays latins un système d’inquisition sans contrôle, ne menaçaient, avec les
auteurs, les lecteurs eux-mêmes. Nous n’avons
pas voulu concourir, même indirectement, à cette tentative ; nous attendrons le moment où le
calme et la sécurité seront rendus au travail des
hommes de science.117
et Belles-Lettres in 1919) preserve Lejay’s papiers
about this Herzog-Dupin affair: cf. Manuscrits de
la Bibliothèque de l’Institut de France, Ms. 8126,
4. For the Dupin-Herzog affair, cf. Alec Vidler, A
Variety of Catholic Modernists, 61; and especially
Charles J.T. Talar, ed. Martyr to the truth, 97 sq.
(cf. supra, note 111).
115. Ibid., 99.
116. On the genesis and background of these anti-Modernist texts, cf. Claus Arnold – Giacomo
Losito, “Lamentabili sane exitu” (1907). Les
documents préparatoires du Saint Office, Roma,
Libreria editrice vaticana, 2011.
The subsequent establishment of the Sodalitium Pianum (in 1909), a secret fellowship which tracked down Modernist priests,
and of the anti-Modernist oath (in 1910),
made clear to Lejay that this moment was
not situated anywhere in the near future.
The anonymity of his directorship finally saved
Lejay from dismissal or, worse, excommunication. But the price he paid to stay in the Church
was high. The rector of the Institut Catholique
forbade Lejay to engage or publish in any other
journal to which Loisy also contributed.118 Such
measures ironically forced Lejay to confine his
engagements to “philological” journals, in casu
the Revue de philologie, de littérature et d’histoire anciennes, of which he had criticized the
limited scope. The correspondence with Cumont
shows that even Lejay was now struck with fear.
In a postcard of January 1908, Lejay apologized for not having answered an earlier letter
of Cumont, and he expressed his regrets that
he hadn’t been able to meet Cumont during his
last stay in Paris: “Votre lettre aimable est venue
dans un moment où je n’avais ni le vœu ni un
peu la liberté de parler. Si vous m’aviez trouvé
nous aurions causé des choses – et aussi des
personnes. »119 Even in the private context of his
correspondence, Lejay now preferred to keep his
ideas about the “Vatican barbarism” to himself.
The RHLR was finally resuscitated in 1910 by
Loisy, who had in the meantime been appointed
to the chair of Histoire des Religions at the Collège de France (in 1909). When Loisy asked Cumont to collaborate, the Belgian scholar immediately accepted the invitation.120 For obvious reasons, the laic-ecclesiastic collaboration in which
Lejay used to take pride, no longer persisted in
the second series.
117. Anonymous, RHLR 12 (1907), 659-661.
118. Cf. Salomon Reinach, “Paul Lejay”, 91 (cf. supra,
note 23), and Lejay’s letter to Cumont, 10 May
1908, CP4280. In this letter Lejay asked himself
if there would ever be a fully non-confessional
French journal devoted to the scientific study
of religion (after having criticized the Revue de
l’histoire des religions for being a protestant
enterprise), but then concluded: “Si une revue
scientifique existait, mes intelligents chefs hiérarchiques m’interdiraient d’y écrire. Il ne me reste
plus que la Revue de l’instruction publique et la
Revue de philologie. »
***
The Lejay-Cumont correspondence is a precious
document for late 19th and early 20th century
intellectual history. The study of these letters
has led to interesting inside information about
the various ways in which individual scholars
like Franz Cumont and Paul Lejay, who worked
in very different institutional and scientific contexts and who were situated in widely divergent
religious-ideological milieux, combined efforts in
order to stimulate a truly critical and scientific
study of Christianity. Their shared engagement
built bridges between academic worlds that were
quite strictly separated: between ecclesiastic
scholars and “savants laïques”, but also between
historians of religions of philological and theological backgrounds.
The letters of Lejay have demonstrated that Cumont did much more than expressing his sympathy for the Modernist cause in his private letters.
Although the Belgian scholar carefully avoided
an all too exclusive association with the Revue,
he actively helped Lejay to accomplish the mission of the RHLR by publishing “pagan” studies
with an exceptionally high relevance for the history of Christianity, and by adducing new collaborators at the moment when the RHLR was
suffering from forced ecclesiastic anemia. During our study of Lejay’s letters we have observed
the extremely precarious situation of ecclesiastics like Lejay, who wanted to bridge the gap between Catholic and secular religious scholarship.
In his typical, ironical tone, Lejay once wrote to
Loisy: “Il faudra écrire l’histoire de la Revue. Les
lecteurs ne s’ennuieront pas.”121 The truth is that
this story had a bad ending for Lejay, who was
forced to sacrifice his already very limited freedom of speech to keep his position at the Institut
Catholique.
January 1908, CP4202.
120. Cumont would publish 4 articles in the new
series: “La propagation du manichéisme dans
l’Empire romain”. RHLR N.S. 1 (1910), 31-43;
“Fatalisme astral et religions antiques”. RHLR N.S.
2 (1912), 513-543 ; “Zoroastre chez les Grecs et
la doctrine zervaniste”. RHLR N.S. 8 (1922), 1-12,
and a review of Joseph Bidez’ Philostorgius in
1913 (RHLR N.S. 4, 563-564).
121. BnF, Paul Lejay to Alfred Loisy, 16 November
1907, NAF 15658, f° 286.
In retrospect, the study of the RHLR might induce one to wonder why highly intelligent and
autonomous scholars as Lejay finally chose to
endure the restrictions imposed on them by “des
générations catholiques plus anciennes, auxquelles le temps avait refusé une culture scientifique.” It was in a letter of 1907 to his friend and
the fellow priest-scholar Alfred Loisy that Lejay
explained his reasons to do so:
J’ai le choix entre ma situation [i.e. his position
at the Institut Catholique] et ma collaboration à
la Revue. Si j’étais seul au monde, le problème
serait plus simple. Mais je ne puis prendre sur
moi de faire souffrir moralement (et un peu
matériellement) autour de moi. Je crois donc
que je cesserai toute collaboration quelconque à
la Revue. Du moins, c’est le parti qui me paraît
le plus sage à première vue.122
Il est difficile à un étranger de juger de loin les
détails : mais le gros fait suffit, il est énorme.
Permettez-moi de vous adresser toute ma sympathie. Nous vivons dans un âge de caporalisme
béotien. Consolons-nous en le méprisant. Vous
savez toute mon admiration pour l’historien des
religions anciennes que vous êtes, pour votre
science et pour l’intelligence que vous mettez
dans la science. Vous vous dédommagerez par
quelque nouveau livre et nous ne vous plaindrons pas.125
Consideration for his very religious family (especially his pious sister) and financial reasons
(Lejay was only 46 years old in 1907) had forced
Lejay to hang on to his position at the Institut
Catholique and to stay in the Church, and, consequentially, to give up the RHLR.
In 1910, Franz Cumont, in his turn, was confronted with the ill effects of ideological interference in science: the Catholic Minister of Education, then in charge of nominations at the
Belgian State Universities, refused to nominate
him to chair of Roman history, and preferred a
less qualified, but Catholic scholar to the liberal, non-Catholic profile of Cumont.123 Contrary
to Lejay, Cumont’s prosperous financial situation – as son of a wealthy bourgeois family – allowed him to resign from his position at Ghent
University124 and to continue his research as a
fully independent scholar. Cumont would never
again accept a position at any university or institution. When Lejay found out what had happened to Cumont, he immediately wrote a letter
to express his sympathy. We conclude our paper
with Lejay’s sincere intellectual appreciation of
Cumont’s scholarship and his very apt description of the scientific reality of their time.
122. BnF, Paul Lejay to Alfred Loisy, 1907 (no exact
date), NAF 15658, f° 287.
123. For the “Affaire Cumont” we refer to the conference volume Science, politique et religion à
l’époque de la crise moderniste (op.cit.), and
especially to the contributions of Corinne Bonnet
& Danny Praet.
124. Cumont was already appointed as professor at
Ghent University, when he applied for the chair of
Roman history.
January 1910, CP659.

“Envoyez-nous vo- tre taurobole et que Bellone nous - BHIR-IHBR

Transcription

Documents pareils

Abortion overview - Classes

Grade 5

surfboard - Villard de Lans

Revue de presse ANGLAIS Semaine du 31 octobre au 06 novembre

View - Prince George Digitization

Revue de presse ANGLAIS Semaine du 24 au 30 octobre 2011

Purchase the online archive of two leading journals in the field of

Reported speech

harwood plaza- ajax - aug 3-16

Westney Heights Plaza Ajax - December 10, 2015