Letter to his critics

I know that Envy, as long as this world shall exist, will never completely die out. While I cannot understand how I might be the object of Envy – for who envies the pauper? – nonetheless a response must be provided to those critics who, adjudging themselves holier-than-thou, announce that we act out of vanity and the desire for flattery. We respond publically to them that our little text does not serve flattery, but common utility. Therefore, may our “most holy” critic listen to what should be useful about this thing. In one way, it is natural and characteristic of noble and talented minds that the more they are exalted with great praises, the more they are brought to uprightness. And indeed it is manifest to me more brightly than light, that no perfection lacks in the most venerable man whose praises I presumed to make some time ago. But since every best gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of lights[1], whenever we preach about the grace of God in someone, without any doubt the same praise is given to the Benefactor himself. It is written: Praise the lord through his saints.[2] If it is contested that the saints ought to be praised only after their life has ended, in our defence we cite that the Lord Christ commended John the Baptist with special praise while he was still living in the flesh; he also called Nathanial a true Israelite without guile.[3]Also, we read that Paul the Apostle often extolled his disciples and his fellow apostles with the highest praises. He even said: Surpass each other in honour[4]and Honour those to whom honour is due.Sulpitius Severus wrote to the blessed –and still living– Martin many things about his virtue. The most celebrated fathers of the Church – Augustine, Jerome, Ambrose, Paulinus – honoured each other with abundant praise. Of them, even the blessed priest and monk Paulinus (having already left his secular position at Nola in Campania) is read to have authored a most elegant book in praise of the great emperor Theodosius. Sidonius, a most learned man and of the most brilliant skill, the former bishop of Auvergne (after being a prefect and consul) celebrated almost all the illustrious men of his time with great praise; his verse and prose letters provide elegant testimony to those able to understand them. And it is clear that even the renowned martyr Cyprian offered some praise in his letters either to the pope Cornelius or to the reader Celerinus[5]and to other saints still fighting against the devil and the world. Also we cannot fail to mention our Fortunatus of Poitiers who distinguished himself by his poetry during the time of his priesthood and bishopric and who extolled Gregory of Tours and many other bishops of his time, and even the king Sigebert in very worthy panegyric. My time will disappear before my discourse will, if I must mention individually how many and which of our Fathers and religious men endeavoured to honour, to commend, [and] to exhort, not for the purpose of adulation (as imagine some people of our time, most ignorant and completely unaware of Antiquity), but in line with a certain most upright custom of humanity and piety. Now indeed if we consider the pagan philosophers, is there anyone in that time who wrote either history or something about the discipline of the liberal arts, who did not also include praises of kings or emperors? It occurred to me about the great number of them, what the most solemn man Tullius Cicero wrote in his books On the Republic, namely that the prince of the community ought to be nourished with glory and as long the honour of the prince is exhibited by all, the republic will stand. This should refute envy, and now he, “our most holy” critic, blushing, concedes that our lords and fathers may be honoured and revered by us with suitable praise. For whosoever is worthy of praise, will never grow angry about the praise of praiseworthy men.

[1]James 1:17.

[2]Psalm 150:1

[3]John 1:47

[4]Romans 12:10 / 13:7

[5]Cyprian, Ep. 39