QUOTING POETRY INSTEAD OF SCRIPTURE: ERASMUS AND EUCHERIUS ON CONTEMPTUS

MUNDI
Author(s): E. Rummel
Reviewed work(s):
Source: Bibliothque d'Humanisme et Renaissance, T. 45, No. 3 (1983), pp. 503-509
Published by: Librairie Droz
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/20676912 .
Accessed: 04/04/2012 17:14
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Librairie Droz is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Bibliothque
d'Humanisme et Renaissance.

http://www.jstor.org

Bibliothdque

d'Humanisme

et Renaissance

Tome

XLV

- 1983 - n*
3, pp.

503-509

QUOTING POETRY INSTEAD OF SCRIPTURE:

ERASMUS AND EUCHERIUS ON
CONTEMPTUS MUNDI
Among the short pieces published by Erasmus together with theDisti
cha Catonis is an epistle by Eucherius, the fifth century bishop of Lyon '. It
is a letter addressed to his cousin Valerianus, urging him to abandon secu
In 1521
lar studies in favour of a life devoted to Christian philosophy.
Erasmus published his own treatise on the subject of contemptus mundi,
also in the form of a parainetic epistle counselling a certain Jodocus to
foresake wordly ambitions and embrace instead a monastic life2.There can
be no doubt that Eucherius'
letter served as a model for at least the first
a fact which so far has gone unnoticed, although the
part of the treatise
resemblance between the two pieces is quite obvious and, in some instan
ces, verbal3.
In his introductory letter to the reader Erasmus explained that the views
expressed in the treatise were not necessarily his own, that he had compos
ed itwhen he was barely twenty years old, at the request of a friend, and as
a rhetorical exercise4. In its structure the work is tripartite, beginning with
an exhortation to abandon wordly interests, followed by themore specific
to enter a monastery, and ending, somewhat unexpec
recommendation
tedly, in a passage criticizing the regular clergy3. The first section closely
letter in content, arrangement, and expression. Yet
parallels Eucherius'
Erasmus did not merely write a variation on the original: the changes he
introduced were of programmatic significance. The arguments advanced
1
to Alaard
of Amster
1517. Cf. the preface, Ep 676, addressed
Louvain, Martens,
letter ?as a boy? (line 5 CWE). He
dam. In itErasmus
explains that he first read Eucherius'
likens the author's style to that of the Greek orator Isocrates and praises him for employing
in treating a Christian
classical eloquence
theme, being a skilled orator, ?yet a genuinely
Christian spirit ? (line 18). This combination of classical form with Christian content will con
cern us further. See below pp. 507. ?
In the following Eucherius'
letter is quoted according to
Latina
the text inMigne Patrologia
(Paris, 1865) vol. 50, pp. 711-28.
2
1521. The text will be quoted according to the edition inASD
Louvain, Martens,
5-1,
?
In his introductory letter to the reader (Ep 1194)
40-86
pp.
(ed. and comm. S. Dresden).
Erasmus
that this youthful work had been circulating without his approval: me
complained
vivo et reclamante

Allen).

evulgant

quaslibet

nugas

quas puer

exercendi

stili gratia

lusi (lines 2-3

in
in S. Dresden's
No mention
ismade of Eucherius
commentary on De contemptu
but I am indebted to his work for the identification of some classical sources.
4
Alieni stomachi scripsi (Ep 1194:13, repeated in line 20 Allen). The treatise was writt
who was still alive
of Haarlem
en at the request, and in the name of, a certain Theodoricus
in 1521 (qui adhuc in vivis est, Ep 1194:10 Allen).
when the work was published
5
intro
This passage
(chapter 12) is generally regarded as a late addition, cf. Dresden's
duction in ASD
5-1, pp. 30-34.

ASD,

NOTES ET DOCUMENTS

504

by the two authors are similar, theirmethods of proof radically different:

Eucherius rests his case on the authority of the bible, Erasmus quotes the
classics. This element assigns to his treatise a role beyond that of a rhetoric
al exercise, converting it into a statement on the place of ethnic literature in
Christian education, a demonstration of the applicability of pagan wisdom
to Christian philosophy6.
Let us now examine more closely the relationship between the two epist
les, starting with a synopsis of their contents. Eucherius begins his protrep
ticwith the traditional captatio benevolentiae, reminding the addressee, his
cousin Valerianus, that they are linked by the double ties (geminum... vin
culum: 711D) of affection and kinship; asserting that he loves Valerianus
no less than he loves himself (cum te aeque ac me diligam: 711D); and prai
sing his hatural disposition which facilitates the writer's task (praecoqua
morum felicitate; per providam...
naturam: 712C).
Erasmus employs the same arguments in his exordium7; the writer, a
certain Theodoricus of Haarlem8, and the addressee, his nephew Jodocus,
are linked by the double bond (duplici catena: line 25) of affection and
loves his nephew as he loves himself (te aeque atque
kinship; Theodoricus
lines
28-9); Jodocus has shown a natural inclination
meipsum diligo:
toward the ideals promoted by thewriter (eodem te et optimus animi impe
tus et nostra vocat oratio: lines 40-1).
Eucherius now goes on to warn his cousin of the vicissitudes of secular
life: Erasmus proceeds with the same topic, though along different lines9.
In the next chapter, however, the joint approach continues. Eucherius
explains that two vices, greed and ambition (opum voluptas et honorum
dignitas: 716A), keep men from pursuing a spiritual life. He denies that
wealth contributes to happiness, arguing that itonly creates want: thewant
formore, that is (non voluptas, sed egestas: 716A). In support of his views
he quotes I Tim 6:10 (radix enim omnium malorum cupiditas: 716B). He
also points out the similarity between the respective Latin words for
and ?riches
?vices
(vitiis et divitiis: 716B).
Erasmus expresses the same ideas, preserving Eucherius'
sequence and,
in some cases, his terms. ?What is the advantage of wealth?
he asks. (I
shall not want
, (atne egeam: line 205) is the imaginary interlocutor's ans
wer. ?Nonsense
, insists the writer, ?it makes you want forever (lines
205-6). Like Eucherius, Erasmus quotes I Tim 6:10 (line 167) and points
out the similarity between thewords denoting ?vice
and ?wealth
respec
tively (vocabulis ipsis cognatio quaedam esse videatur vitiis ac divitiis: lines
174-5). He goes on to condemn the pleasures of the flesh, comparing them
to painted faces whose beauty is sham (fucatus nitor: line 230 = Cicero
A tt. 13.9.5). This commonplace
is also employed by Eucherius who speaks
6

reflection of this contemporary

debate

can be found

in Ep

49 (quoted

below

p.

508),Ep 149 to theabbot of St Bertin,and Ep 181 to colet (cf. J.H. LuptonA lifeof John

Colei,

1887, pp. 76-7).

London,
7
Starting at line 25. The first 24 lines echo Jerome Ep 14. See also below notes 9, 10.
8
See above note 4.
9
The passage
(lines 52-100) expresses ideas reminiscent of Jerome Ep 14.6.

NOTES ET DOCUMENTS
of painted faces whose artificial glow vanishes (fucatus splendor

722 B).

505
intercidit:

Both authors discuss the value of public honours next. Eucherius dispa
rages the pursuit of fame and honour for two reasons: they can be won by
good and bad men alike (ad hanc promiscue cum bonis mali ambitione
conscendant:
716D);
they are not lasting possessions. The exploits of
monarchs who once ruled supreme (?their diadem sparkling with gold irradiabat metallis diadema: 717A) and enjoyed great fame, are now little
more than fairy tales (apud nos iam quaedam fabula est: 717B).
Erasmus uses the same approach: fame is gained by good and bad men
alike (aeque perditissimo cuique ut optimo obveniunt: lines 283-4); it is,
moreover, shortlived. Kings once reigning in splendor (olim... radiante dia
: lines 342) are now dead
demate, ?once crowned with sparkling diadem
and survive only in popular tales (inanem quandam hominum fabulam:
lines 319-20).
Both authors then enlarge on the topic of Ubi sunt qui ante nos. Euche
rius professes surprise at man's folly. Death is before our very eyes, yet we
are oblivious to it (nihil ita quotidie homines, ut mortem, vident: nihil ita
obliviscuntur, ut mortem: 717C). Our fathers have died before us, we shall
die one day our sons will follow us into the grave (patres nostri praeterie
runt, nos abibimus, posteri sequuentur: 717C). Generation follows upon
generation like wave upon wave (ex alto undarum iactus, aliis atque aliis
is an uncertain hope (vicinum spera
supervenientibus: 717C). Tomorrow
mus diem, longinquum esse nescimus: 717D).
Erasmus expresses the same sentiments, and inmuch the same terms.
Death is continually before our eyes yet far away from our minds (ut nihil
ita ut ea sit in oculis, nihil ita absit ab animo: lines 358-9). Our ancestors
have died, we shall go the same path, our progeny will follow (abiere maio
res... nos sine omni discrimine eodem vadimus, sequentur item posteri:
lines 367-9). We are swept away as by a tide (rapidissimi inmorem amnis:
line 369). No one knows when death will strike (nemo tam senex quin unum
adhuc diem supervivere possit; nemo tam iuvenis qui hodiernae lucis sibi
lines 391-3).
vesperum possit polliceri:
Erasmus ends the first section of his epistle on a note of pessimism.
Once the earth was young (quadam sua... iuventa floreret: line 472), but
now it has grown old. We are living in an era worse than the ?iron age
lamented by the poets (ferream illam aetatem longe vicerimus: line 484).
Mankind
is plagued by war, poverty, sickness, and other ills (bella, factio
nes, caritates, penuriae, sterilitates, morbi, pestes: lines 474-5).
This is Eucherius'
conclusion as well: the world has entered its final
stage (postrema mundi aetas referta est malis tamquam morbis senectus:

722C). Like old age, it isbesetby ills: famine,pestilence,andwar (fames,

pestilentia, vastitas, bella, terrores: 722D).

Having presented their arguments against the pursuit of secular inte
rests, both writers proceed to explain an alternative mode of life: Eucherius
to abandon the precepts of pagan philosophy and to
counsels Valerianus
devote himself to scriptural studies, while in Erasmus'
treatise, the writer
exhorts Jodocus to enter a monastery.

506

NOTES ET DOCUMENTS

Although the arguments advanced in the two works are literary com
the structural and verbal resemblances between them establish
monplaces,
Erasmus' dependence on Eucherius beyond doubt10. It is in the choice of
examples and illustrations that he diverges from his model. While Euche
rius seeks his inspiration in the bible and gives his explanations a theo
logical overtone, Erasmus relies on popular wisdom and themoral philo
sophy contained in classical literature. It is significant, for example, that
Eucherius sees friendship as a gift of God (ipso dei munere: 711 C), natural
goodness as the result of divine grace (dei... indulgentia: 712C), while
Erasmus,
aspect, makes
dispensing with this metaphysical
friendship
appear a natural and characteristic human emotion, talent and inclinations
a matter of good fortune (lines 30-42).
In condemning wordly aspirations (717A-B), Eucherius quotes St. Paul
( Desire is the root of all evil I Tim 6:10) and the Psalms ( He hoards up
riches and knows not for whom he gathers them 38:7);
in describing
Erasmus also cites
wordly possessions as shortlived he echoes Job 14.
biblical sources (St. Paul and St Matthew
in lines 167, 221-2), but supple
ments their precepts with quotations from Roman poetry: Virgil's ?What
does the accursed thirst for gold not urge upon men's hearts?
,Horace's
?poor among his riches ,and Juvenal's ?wretched is it to stand guard over
great riches ". As a deterring example he names Croesus whose reversals
are recounted by Herodotus and whose misfortunes lefthim as poor as the
Homeric beggar Irus (line 211).
In condemning wordly pleasures (722A-C) Eucherius refers to I Peter
2:11 (<Desires of the flesh besiege the soul ) and I John 11:15 ( Do not
love the world and those that are in it ), whereas Erasmus quotes the pre
cepts of Plato and Cicero depicting desires as the ?bait of evil and as
, of Ovid who calls desires ?poison with honey , and
?coaxing mistresses
of Virgil who regards them as ?evil joys 1.
When Eucherius employs themetaphor of the ?aging world
,he places
it within the framework of the Christian doomsday tradition, quoting I
Cor 10: ?we, in whom the centuries have come to an end ; Erasmus on
the other hand quotes the famous Ovidian
lines ?Of hard iron is the last
to cha
, followed by Juvenal's verses ?Worse than the iron age...
age...
racterize his own era 13.He reinforces this pessimistic view of the world
quoting Cicero (This world ?has no commerce with virtue ) and St John
( The whole world lies in the powers of evil ) side by side 14.
10
is a partial one. The first part of the treatise appears to be a confla
The dependence
tion of ideas found in Eucherius'
epistle, Jerome Ep 14, and Innocent III De miseria humanae
inmy forthcoming translation and commentary of De con
conditionis, as I shall demonstrate
temptu in CWE.
11
3.56-7 at lines 171-2; Horace,
3.16,28 at line 179; Juvenal, Sat.,
Virgil, Aen.,
Odes,
14-304 at lines 193-4.
12
12.3.1 at line 228; Ovid, Amores,
Plato, Tim., 69D at line 233; Cicero, Ad Att.,
1.8.104 at line 235, and Virgil, Aen.,
6.278-9 at line 254.
li
at lines 494
1-127-131 at lines 486-92; Juvenal, Sat., 13.28-30, 60-63,26-7
Ovid, Met.,
502.
14
Cicero, Cato, 42 at line 506, I John 5:19 at line 507.

NOTES ET DOCUMENTS

507

More generally speaking, Eucherius seeks his heroes among the church
fathers and Christian princes, Erasmus draws his examples not only from
Christian sources, but also from ancient history and mythology'".
More significant even than the choice of illustrations isErasmus' reply
to the concluding passage in Eucherius' epistle. In his peroration the bis
hop questioned thewisdom of ancient philosophy and advised his cousin to
abandon his present studies:
?Why not cast off those precepts of the philosophers to whose writings
you are devoting your talent and labour, and let your mind become absorb
ed in the study of Christian doctrine? There too you will find a field to
exercise your genius of eloquence; and in a short while you will realize how
little our, that is, the precepts of piety and truth, owe to the precepts of
those philosophers. For their teaching contains only feigned virtue and
sham wisdom, ours perfect justice and solid truth. Thus one may say that
the others have only embraced the name of philosophy, we its life and
essence. For what philosophy of life can they offer us when they do not
know the source of life,when they do not know God? At the very beginn
ing they depart from the path of righteousness, and in everything else they
have fallen into erroneous ways. Therefore it comes to pass that such stu
dies end in deception. If any among them have more honourable goals they
devote themselves to wordly ambition and labour for thisworld so that the
fact that they refrain from vices does not free them from reproach. And
they are, as Scripture says, men who 'know things of this world' (Phil.
3:19) which shows that they cannot conceive true righteousness and wis
dom. Or, can any follower of the notorious school of Aristippus'6 reco
gnize the truth, when his thinking is no different from that of pigs and
cattle, when he places happiness in physical pleasure, when 'he makes his
belly his God and his shameful doings his pride' (Phil. 3:19)? How can a
doctrine teach us what is good and just when it is professed by spendthrifts,
(726A-C)
profligates, and adulterers?
Erasmus obviously differed from Eucherius in his assessment of ancient
philosophy. Throughout his treatise he showed his appreciation of classical
thought by coupling ancient precepts with scriptural wisdom. Issuing what
amounts to a challenge, he used hedonism, they very philosophy reviled by
Eucherius in his conclusion, to promote the Christian ideal of monasti
cism:
inmonasteries?'
?'Pleasure
you ask. 'That is like a picture of dolphins
in thewoods and boars in thewaves!' Yes, indeed, my Jodocus, our whole
mode of living is Epicurean
this conundrum
(lines 937-9). Explaining
Erasmus pointed out that Epicure did not teach unlimited hedonism, but
counselled men to choose pleasures free of negative consequences,
that is,
intellectual rather than physical pleasures. Eucherius thought of hedonists
15

the Great, Paulus Aemilius,

He refers to Xerxes, Alexander
and Pompey
Caesar,
(lines 314-17), Tithon, Nestor, and the Sybil at line 396. He links human forgetfulness with the
river Lethe (line 363) and wealth with the fabled rivers Tagus and
effects of themythological
Pactolus
(lines 218-19).
16
a contemporary of Socrates, and his grandson by the same name were the
Aristippus,
first advocates

of the doctrine

of hedonism.

NOTES ET DOCUMENTS

508

as men who knew only ?things of this world

,but Erasmus set them apart
from the ?worshippers of thisworld ". Eucherius believed that the follow
ers of Aristippus lived like ?pigs and cattle and made their ?belly a God
Erasmus distinguished true Epicureans
from men leading the life of
?cattle
and enjoying ?fodder fit for pigs or measuring ?happiness
in
terms of filling their bellies and gullies >. Eucherius accused the represent
atives of hedonism of being ?spendthrifts, profligates and adulterers
;
Erasmus declared that they a?were not profligates, adulterers, or drunkards
9. He clarified the doctrine of hedonism,
guzzling in themanner of Asotus
?What
advice
does
asking:
Epicure offer on this point? That we abstain
from those vulgar enticements of the body, lest they keep us from enjoying
the better and sweeter pleasures of themind
(lines 973-5). He insisted that
monks were practicing the philosophy of Epicure which, properly inter
preted, coincided with Christian teaching.
Erasmus' motives in adducing this rather contrived argument in favour
have been the subject of recent inquiries attempting to
of monasticism
define his ?Epicureanism
and to place it into the context of a Christian
tradition20. Although it is important to examine the general historical back
remarks, I consider it likely that the present passage
ground of Erasmus'
was inspired by Eucherius' criticism and constituted a direct reply to it, as
is suggested by the many parallels in Eucherius'
line of attack and Eras
mus' points of defense. It appears that Erasmus' reference to Epicure, like
the quotations from Roman poetry, served the purpose of demonstrating
the applicability of classical thought to Christian ideals. The use of classi
cal sources inDe contemptu is an affirmation of Erasmus' belief in thewis
dom of ancient philosophers and in their usefulness to the Christian writer,
a position which he had made clear in a letter to Henry of Bergen, bishop
of Cambrai. After paying lipservice to the view that Christian writers ought
to seek theirmodels among Christian rather than pagan authors, he added
this qualifying remark:
I shall not go too far in curbing my views, especially regard
?However,
'former
ingmy
darlings' [theRoman poets], as people call them to discre
dit me. I am happy to be of my friend Gaguin's opinion in thinking that
lustre can be added to ecclesiastical subjects by employing ethnic gear, pro
vided the style is pure. And I would not reprehend anyone for applying
Egyptian trimmings, but I am against the appropriation of Egypt in its
2
entirety
17
18

Mundi

cultores

(line

1017).

Porcinis
istis pabulis
(line 1018), ventris ac faucium
voluptate (line 1020), pecudes
esse desinant (line 958), pecora...
felicitatem ventris ac inguinis repletione non iniuria metiun
tur. At hominis...
(lines 960-62).
19
Non scortamur, non adulteramur, non Asotorum more nos ingurgitamus (lines 940-1).
20
Most
Scrinium
recently by R. Bultot ?Erasme, Epicure et leDe Contemptu Mundi?
Erasmianum
II (Leiden
1969) pp. 205-38, containing a summary of earlier literature.
21
translates vernaculis opibus by ?vernacular
gear?,
Ep. 49:91-6 Allen. Sir R. Mynors
In view of the preceding discussion,
Latin
but this term is somewhat restrictive in English.
I therefore chose the looser translation
authors must be included.
(that is, pagan Latin)
?ethnie?.

NOTES ET DOCUMENTS

509

In De contemptu Erasmus proved his point by successfully combining

an <ecclesiastical
subject , that is, a traditional Christian theme, with
oethnic gear , that is, quotations from classical literature.More generally,
in choosing and presenting material from
the method used by Erasmus
other authors illustrates his approach to source material, pagan or Chris
tian. He never follows his model slavishly, but selects what he considers
suitable for his purpose, at all times reserving for himself the right to dif
fer. So in the present case, in which he adopts Eucherius' arguments in
favour of a spiritual life, but opposes his view that ethnic philosophers
have been unable to attain true insights. He proves his point by relying on
pagan authors to support Christian ideals, pressing even that most noto
rious of pagan philosophies, hedonism, into the service of his church.
Toronto.

E. RUMMEL.