“Envoyez-nous vo- tre taurobole et que Bellone nous - BHIR-IHBR
Transcription
“Envoyez-nous vo- tre taurobole et que Bellone nous - BHIR-IHBR
|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 |FORUM ROMANUM BELGICUM | 2015| Artikel |Article |Articolo 12 Annelies Lannoy | Franz Cumont, Paul Lejay and the Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses 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). |FORUM ROMANUM BELGICUM | 2015| Artikel |Article |Articolo 12 Annelies Lannoy | Franz Cumont, Paul Lejay and the Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses 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. |FORUM ROMANUM BELGICUM | 2015| Artikel |Article |Articolo 12 Annelies Lannoy | Franz Cumont, Paul Lejay and the Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses 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). Alfred Loisy, Mémoires I, 392 (cf. n. 5). 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. |FORUM ROMANUM BELGICUM | 2015| Artikel |Article |Articolo 12 Annelies Lannoy | Franz Cumont, Paul Lejay and the Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses 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. La Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses 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. |FORUM ROMANUM BELGICUM | 2015| Artikel |Article |Articolo 12 Annelies Lannoy | Franz Cumont, Paul Lejay and the Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses 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. Alfred Loisy, Mémoires I, 394 (cf. n. 5). 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). Alfred Loisy, Mémoires I, 394 (cf. n. 5). |FORUM ROMANUM BELGICUM | 2015| Artikel |Article |Articolo 12 Annelies Lannoy | Franz Cumont, Paul Lejay and the Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses 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. |FORUM ROMANUM BELGICUM | 2015| Artikel |Article |Articolo 12 Annelies Lannoy | Franz Cumont, Paul Lejay and the Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses 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. |FORUM ROMANUM BELGICUM | 2015| Artikel |Article |Articolo 12 Annelies Lannoy | Franz Cumont, Paul Lejay and the Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses 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. |FORUM ROMANUM BELGICUM | 2015| Artikel |Article |Articolo 12 Annelies Lannoy | Franz Cumont, Paul Lejay and the Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses 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. Academia Belgica, Paul Lejay to Franz Cumont, 12 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. |FORUM ROMANUM BELGICUM | 2015| Artikel |Article |Articolo 12 Annelies Lannoy | Franz Cumont, Paul Lejay and the Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses 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. Academia Belgica, Paul Lejay to Franz Cumont, 16 April 1896, CP 655. Academia Belgica, Paul Lejay to Franz Cumont, 3 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. |FORUM ROMANUM BELGICUM | 2015| Artikel |Article |Articolo 12 Annelies Lannoy | Franz Cumont, Paul Lejay and the Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses 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. Academia Belgica, Paul Lejay to Franz Cumont, 24 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. Academia Belgica, Paul Lejay to Franz Cumont, 19 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. |FORUM ROMANUM BELGICUM | 2015| Artikel |Article |Articolo 12 Annelies Lannoy | Franz Cumont, Paul Lejay and the Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses 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. Academia Belgica, Paul Lejay to Franz Cumont, 4 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. |FORUM ROMANUM BELGICUM | 2015| Artikel |Article |Articolo 12 Annelies Lannoy | Franz Cumont, Paul Lejay and the Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses 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. |FORUM ROMANUM BELGICUM | 2015| Artikel |Article |Articolo 12 Annelies Lannoy | Franz Cumont, Paul Lejay and the Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses 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. |FORUM ROMANUM BELGICUM | 2015| Artikel |Article |Articolo 12 Annelies Lannoy | Franz Cumont, Paul Lejay and the Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses 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). 110. Academia Belgica, Paul Lejay to Franz Cumont, 11 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.” |FORUM ROMANUM BELGICUM | 2015| Artikel |Article |Articolo 12 Annelies Lannoy | Franz Cumont, Paul Lejay and the Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses 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 La Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses 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. |FORUM ROMANUM BELGICUM | 2015| Artikel |Article |Articolo 12 Annelies Lannoy | Franz Cumont, Paul Lejay and the Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses 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. 119. Academia Belgica, Paul Lejay to Franz Cumont, 1 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. |FORUM ROMANUM BELGICUM | 2015| Artikel |Article |Articolo 12 Annelies Lannoy | Franz Cumont, Paul Lejay and the Revue d’histoire et de littérature religieuses 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. 125. Academia Belgica, Paul Lejay to Franz Cumont, 6 January 1910, CP659.