Chapter 6
TO THE MARTYRS
Chapter 6 (1) Let us, however, no longer talk about those examples of perseverance proceeding from inordinate ambition. Let us, rather, turn to a simple contemplation of man's ordinary lot so that, if we ever have to undergo such trials with forti tude, we may also learn from those misfortunes which some times even befall unwilling victims. For how often have people been burned to death in conflagrations! How often have wild beasts devoured men either in the forests or in the heart of cities after escaping from their cages! How many have been slain by the sword of robbers! How many have even suffered the death of the cross at the hands of enemies, after having been tortured first and, indeed, treated with every kind of insult! (2) Furthermore, many a man is able to suffer in the cause of a mere human being what he hesitates to suffer in the cause of God. To this fact, indeed, our present days may bear witness. How many prominent persons have met with death in the cause of a man, though such a fate seemed most unlikely in view of their birth and their rank, their physical condition and their age! Death came to them either from him, if they had opposed him, or from his enemies, if they had sided with him.1
1 This may refer to the destruction of the army of Clodius Albinus, the most powerful rival of Septimius Severus for the throne of the Caesars, near Lyons, in a.d. 197' and to the still more terrible massacre of Albinus' partisans throughout the empire. At Rome the victor wreaked vengeance especially upon a number of senators who had sided with his opponents.
SPECTACLES
Translated by
RUDOLPH ARBESMANN, O.S.A., Ph.D.
Fordham University
INTRODUCTION
n the time of the emperors the Roman world knew and enjoyed especially four kinds of public amuse ment: the chariot-races of the circus; the gladia torial combats and hunting spectacles of the amphitheater; the performance of farces, such as mimes and pantomimes, in the theater; and the athletic contests of the stadium. The omnipotent rulers saw in these amusements the best means for purchasing popular favor, keeping the masses contented, and making them forget their own insignificance. Each emperor tried to outdo his predecessor in the frequency and splendor of his spectacles, so that, under some emperors, almost one half of the days of the year were given to public exhibitions. The Roman poet Juvenal (Sat. 10.81) summed up the desires of the people in the often-quoted words panem et circenses ('bread and races'). Still worse, every art was employed on such occasions to intoxicate the senses of the spectators and quiet their moral scruples. Thus it is not surprising to find a number of passages in the works of pagan authors, cautioning against the degrading influences of the spectacles. Yet the adverse judgment of these writers was not primarily evoked by those very features which,
TERTULLIAN
because of their moral perversity, justly deserved condem nation: the wholesale destruction of life, human and animal, in the arena for the amusement of spectators, or the crude coarseness and frivolous obscenity of the mimes and panto mimes which had long displaced the tragedies and comedies of old. Their criticisms are rather philosophical common places, emphasizing some evil effects of the spectacles on men. Dio Chrysostom, for instance, disapproves of the un dignified behavior of the spectators in the circus, theater, and stadium (Or at. 32.41-43); Libanius takes exception to the races in the circus because they keep men from study ing rhetoric (Orat. 35.13), or he finds fault with people going to the theater because this pastime leads to idleness
(Orat. 41.7). Only the philosopher Seneca, speaking of the crude slaughter in the amphitheater (Ep. 7.2ff.), finds words of condemnation which, to some extent at least, express our own thought and feeling concerning these inhuman delights. Unlike the pagan authors, the Christian writers, beginning with the early Greek apologists, are uncompromis ing in their attitude toward the spectacles. They do not content themselves with merely censuring the brutalizing effects of the circus, theater, athletic contests, and gladiatorial encounters on the minds and souls of the spectators. They rather attack the very nature of these amusements and find them incompatible with the idea of God as Creator of the world and with man's right and dignity. Accordingly, they assert that it is the stern duty of all men to absent themselves from such pastimes. Weaning the Roman world from its long-cherished amusements was a long and painful process. Legislation, both ecclesiastical and imperial, had to be added to the untiring efforts of Christian writers and preachers to stamp out the last vestiges of the pagan spec-
SPECTACLES
tacles. Even so, it lasted centuries, until the race courses, theaters, amphitheaters, and gymnasia, whose walls had begun to crumble and fall into decay, were finally abandoned.
In view of Tertullian's fiery, irascible and intolerant dis position, it is hardly surprising that none of the early Christian authors has attacked the pagan spectacles so relentlessly and violently as this aggressive and headstrong African writer.
He missed no opportunity to demonstrate and expose their deceitful character. Hence, longer or shorter passages con demning one or the other kind of these amusements can be found in several places of his works (Apology 6.3; 15.1-6;
38.4; 42.7; De cultu feminarum 1.8.4-5; Scorpiace 6.2-5; De corona 6.3; De pudicitia 7.15). Moreover, he considered the question whether a Christian was allowed to attend the performances in the circus, theater, amphitheater, and sta dium so important that he wrote a special treatise on this subject, entitled De spectaculis. In Tertullian's day some
Christians evidently held rather broad views concerning the lawfulness of frequenting the pagan spectacles. Catechumens, still only slightly familiar with the demands of Christian life, or too ready to elude them, seem to have thought these amusements permissible, as long as they were, at least for mally, still pagans. But a number of baptized Christians, too, apparently found it difficult to give up entertainments they had greatly enjoyed in their former life.
It was, then, for very practical pastoral reasons that Tertullian addressed this treatise to both catechumens and baptized Christians, reminding them of their most solemn responsibility as to faith and morals, and telling them categorically that participation in pagan spectacles under whatever form was incompatible with the tenets of Chris tianity and, therefore, forbidden under any circumstances.
TERTULLIAN
His argumentation can briefly be summed up as follows.
Since the spectacles are idolatrous in their very origin and spirit, a Christian cannot take part in them without making himself guilty of idol worship and without injury to his own faith (Ch. 4-13). Moreover, frequenting these amusements necessarily undermines moral discipline, since they rouse the most violent passions (Ch. 14-27). Of the arguments produced by Tertullian to prove the unlawfulness of fre quenting the spectacles, those based on the charge of idolatry are of special interest. To be sure, Tertullian is not the first
Christian author to point out the idolatrous character of the spectacles, since the idea appears a few years earlier in St.
Irenaeus' work Adversus haereses 1.1.12 (ed. W. W. Harvey [2 vols., Cambridge 1857] 1.55-56). There the bishop of Lyons upbraids the Valentinian Gnostics for 'being the first to assemble at every festival amusement of the heathen, taking place in honor of the idols, some of them going even so far as not to keep away from that bloody spectacle, hateful both to God and men, in which men fight with wild beasts or engage each other in single combat.' While, then, Ter tullian cannot be credited with introducing the idea of idolatry into the literary feud against the spectacles, he has developed the arguments based on it in great detail. As a matter of fact, the charge of idolatry is the main theme of the anti quarian part of the treatise (Ch. 5-13), whose purpose is to prove the idolatrous character of the various kinds of spectacles from their origin, names, founders and equip ment, from the deities to whom they are dedicated, the superstitions observed in them, the places where they are held, and the arts displayed in them.
Tertullian's out-and-out indictment of the spectacles comes hardly as a surprise. In the question of conformity and non-
SPECTACLES
conformity to worldly pleasures, this 'first great Puritan of the West,' as some have called him, refuses any compromise.
Whatever savors of paganism is hateful to him, because it belongs to 'the pomp of the Devil' which the Christian has solemnly renounced in baptism (Ch. 24). He cannot tolerate anything which has even the slightest appearance of guilt in matters of faith and moral discipline. He believes that there exists a clear line of demarcation between the world and Christ (26.4). Though he acknowledges that there are some features worthy of praise in dramatic art, he is quick to point out that, because of the idolatrous and immoral character of the theater, these features are but 'drippings of honey from a poisoned cake' (27.5). In his eagerness to define rigidly every single thing by authority, he forbids participation in the pagan spectacles in the name of holy
Scripture (Ch. 3), giving a most fanciful interpretation of Ps. 1.1: 'Happy is the man who has not gone to the gathering of the ungodly, nor stood in the way of the sinners, nor sat in the chair of pestilence.' It is only fair to point out that Tertullian was not the only Christian author to refer to this scriptural passage, while attacking the pagan spec tacles. We also find it quoted by his contemporary Clement of Alexandria in his Paedagogus 3.11.76.3, and similarly in his Stromata 2.15.68.1. In the latter passage Clement states that he had heard this interpretation from a learned man, most probably a member of the catechetical school of Alexandria. From there, in some way unknown to us, this interpretation must have found its way to Tertullian, and later (about 400) into the Apostolic Constitutions 2.61.1-2.
It also occurs in St. John Chrysostom, De poenitentia, hom.
6.1. While, however, Clement merely alludes to the scrip tural passage (see below, Ch. 3 n. 2), Tertullian devotes
TERTULLIAN
an entire chapter to its interpretation, straining and twisting its meaning to make the sacred text speak on his behalf, and maintaining that the rules of the Gospel must be re ferred to, as suitable to all the experiences of those who embrace it. It is especially the last chapter (30) in which we can well discern the real character of Tertullian. It contains an impressive and truly poetical description of the Last Judgment, and the thoughtful reader cannot fail to be struck by the intense earnestness and absolute sincerity of the writer. But is also reveals his greatest weakness, which is a regrettable lack of moderation. He is not able to curb the passionate fire of his nature, the hatred of everything pagan that burns in his soul and makes him gloat over the punishment of the wicked. Carried away by his cause, he marshals all the resources of his brilliant mind and vast erudition: his profound knowledge of the past and its literature, his superb mastery of the Latin language, his rhetorical and dialectical skill, his extraordinary gift of wit and sarcasm.
De spectaculis is one of Tertullian's most interesting and original works. It not only throws revealing light on his peculiar character as a writer and his attitude as regards pagan society and certain forms of the civilization of his day, but also holds a unique position in ancient literature inasmuch as it is the only comprehensive treatise on the subject which has come down to us. Suetonius' Hist or ia ludicra, listed as Spectacles and Games among the Romans in the rather long catalogue of Suetonian works preserved in Suidas, is lost. So are the writings of Varro in this field (especially the section of his Antiquities of Things
Human and Divine which deals with the subject) and similar works by the grammarian Sinnius Capito and King
SPECTACLES
Juba II of Mauretania. Mention must also be made of a small tract, likewise entitled De spectaculis, which, on insufficient grounds, has been claimed for St. Cyprian and is now generally assigned to Novatian. It is, however) con siderably briefer than the treatise of Tertullian and, with regard to contents, sinks into insignificance in comparison with the wealth of information offered by Tertullian. In addition, its author has made ample use of Tertullian's work. This being the situation, the latter's treatise gains in importance. As a matter of fact, without it our literary sources on the subject would amount only to a number of passages found here and there in the works of ancient authors, leaving us with lamentable blanks in our knowledge about the various kinds of spectacles in antiquity. We mention especially Tertullian's rather minute description of the circus (Ch. 8), which supplements our other main source of information, namely, archaeological material.
Tertullian's familiarity with the past and its literature has been mentioned before. In the antiquarian part of De spectaculis he quotes the following ancient authors: Timaeus, Varro, Piso, Tranquillus Suetonius (Ch. 5); Hermateles (Ch. 8); Stesichorus and Virgil, though the latter not by name (Ch. 9). There is, however, no need for supposing that Tertullian had a first-hand knowledge of all these authors. Timaeus, for instance, was hardly his direct source for the information on the origin of the Etruscans. As a matter of fact, he himself points to the secondary source he used in this case, namely, one of the 'many authors who have published treatises on the subject' (5.2.) The same holds true concerning the Roman annalist L. Calpumius
Piso and Stesichorus, a Greek lyric poet of the sixth century b. c. Finally, in quoting Hermateles, Tertullian apparently
TERTULLIAN
made a slip, since a writer by this name seems to be unknown.
Considering the method ancient writers followed in using and quoting sources, it is best to assume that Tertullian used mainly one of the works that had been written on spectacula, and in which he found the quotations from ancient authors on the subject. Varro and Suetonius suggest themselves as such main authorities. Of the two Suetonius is the more probable, because Tertullian mentions some things which did not yet exist at Varro's time: for instance, the obelisk in the Circus Maximus (Ch. 8), placed there by Augustus in 10 b. c.; the four 'factions' of the circus
(Ch. 9), of which the Greens and the Blues arose only at the beginning of the Empire; the agones (Ch. 11), which were likewise introduced into Rome under the emperors.
Moreover, Tertullian refers those of his readers who want to have more particulars on the spectacles to Suetonius explicitly (5.8). All this, of course, does not exclude the possibility that, on a number of questions, he also consulted
Varro, one of Suetonius' main sources, and added some more material from his own considerable knowledge of ancient literature. Nor were the works of the Greek apologists strangers to him, though, in borrowing a number of thoughts from them, he never lost his rugged independence and originality. Thus, in the treatise De spectaculis, he developed the arguments based on the charge of idolatry at great length, while his Greek predecessors censured the spectacles almost exclusively on moral grounds. Finally, mention must be made of the great number of texts from Scripture which he quotes, interprets, and paraphrases with remarkable skill, having only one thought in his eager and stubborn mind, namely, to convince.
The composition of the treatise shows a careful arrange-
SPECTACLES
ment of the material. Several times Tertullian himself calls attention to the plan of his work (for instance, 4.4; 8.1;
9.1; 10.1; 10.13; 12.1; 12.5; 13.1; 14.1). The arrangement of the material in his antiquarian part according to origin, names, places, etc., may possibly go back to his main source,
Suetonius. How Tertullian followed a well-contrived plan we may see from the following outline of the treatise.
Introduction.
1. Statement of subject: It is impossible for a Christian to attend the spectacles.
Part I (2-4) :
2. Refutation of the objection that everything used in the spectacles comes from God and hence is good.
3. A condemnation of the spectacles can also be found in holy Scripture.
4. The Christian is bound by his baptismal vows to shun the spectacles because of their idolatrous character.
Part II {5-13):
5. The idolatrous character of the spectacles is evident from their very origin.
6. Likewise, from their names.
7. The same is true concerning all the equipment used in them.
8. Also, the place where they are performed (the circus) is defiled by idolatry.
9. In like manner, the arts displayed in the circus.
10. The theater is likewise related to idol worship (origin, name, equipment, place, arts displayed are dealt with in
TERTULLIAN
one chapter; the same applies to the discussion of the agones and the amphitheater).
11. Likewise, the agones and 12. The amphitheater.
13. Recapitulation of the arguments based on the charge of idolatry.
14. Leading to Part III, Tertullian proposes to discuss the spectacles from another point of view, namely, 'lust of pleasure.'
Part III (15-27):
15. The spectacles are incompatible with true Christian spirit.
16. Frenzy and similar passions rule supreme in the circus.
17. The performances in the theater are noted for im morality and obscenity.
18. The gymnastic contests in the stadium are objection able because of their moral worthlessness.
19. The various gladiatorial encounters in the amphi theater are detestable because of their inhuman cruelty and brutality.
20. Rejection of the objection that the sun and God Himself look on at the spectacles without being defiled.
21. At the shows the spectator does things which he loathes in ordinary life.
22. The wicked nature of the spectacles is also proved by the social and legal infamy attached to the profession of charioteer, actor, athlete and gladiator.
23. The conduct of the performers at the spectacles displeases God.
24. The pagans know the true Christian by his absence from the spectacles.
SPECTACLES
25. The behavior of the spectators at the shows is in consistent with the Christian way of life.
26. At times, God inflicts sudden punishment on Christians for attending the spectacles.
27. Also, the apparently innocuous features of the spec tacles are but enticements of the Devil.
Conclusion (28-30).
28. The pagans may enjoy themselves in this world, the Christian looks forward to the life to come.
29. Moreover, also in this life the Christian can find many exquisite pleasures given by God which amply com pensate him for foregoing the pleasures of the world.
30. Lastly, for the Christian there are still greater spec tacles to come: the second coming of the Lord to establish the kingdom of the just, and, finally, the greatest spectacles of all: the conflagration of the created world and the Last
Judgment.
Tertullian himself refers to his De spectaculis in three of his later writings: De cultu feminarum 1.8.4, De idololatria
13.1, and De corona 6.3. While the third of these works definitely belongs to the Montanistic period of his life
(written probably about 211), the first, showing no trace of Montanism, must have been composed during the first years of his literary activity and is thought to have appeared between 197 and 201. Accordingly, the treatise De spec taculis belongs to the period between 197 and 200. Tertullian, who wrote with equal facility in Latin and Greek, mentions
(De corona 6.3) that he also published the treatise in Greek.
Nothing more is known of this edition.
The text of the treatise came down in a single manu-
TERTULLIAN
script of the ninth century, the Codex Parisinus Latinus 1622, called Agobardinus after its owner, Agobard, Bishop of Lyons, who died in 840. The manuscript is generally reliable, though in some parts difficult to read and marred by a number of lacunae and mistakes made by the scribe in the process of copying. Hence, some recently discovered fragments and the two older editions are especially important for the reconstruction of the text: the edition by Martinus
Mesnartius (Paris 1545) who, besides the Agobardinus, used another tradition and gave divergent readings in the margin; and the edition by Jacobus Pamelius (Antwerp 1579), who made use of the now lost Codex of Joannes Clemens Anglus.
Mention must also be made of Isidore of Seville, who, in some parts of his Origines (especially Book 18 entitled De bello et ludis), sometimes incorporates verbatim passages from the antiquarian part of Tertullian's treatise. The text followed in the present translation is that of E. Dekkers in Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 1 (Turnholti 1954)
225-253. The editions by A. Reifferscheid and G. Wissowa (CSEL 20.1-29) and A. Boulanger (Paris 1933) were consulted throughout. The English version by T. R. Glover in the Loeb Classical Library, and the German version by K. A. H. Kellner in the Bibliothek der Kirchenvater, have proved helpful. Some parts of the introduction and a number of footnotes are especially indebted to J. Buchner's excellent commentary on the treatise.
SPECTACLES
SELECT BIBLIOGRAPHY
Texts:
A. Reifferscheid and G. Wissowa, CSEL 20 (1890) 1-29.
A. Boulanger, Tertullien. De spectaculis (Paris 1933) .
E. Dekkers, Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina 1 (Turnholti 1954) 225-253.
J. Marra, Q_. Septimii Tertulliani De spectaculis, De Fuga in persecutione, De pallio (Corpus Scriptorum Latinorum Paravianum;
Turin 1954).
Translations:
S. Thelwall, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers (American reprint of the Edinburgh edition) 3: Latin Christianity. Its Founder,
Tertullian (New York 1903) 79-91.
K. A. H. Kellner, in Tertullians private und katechetische Schriften (Bibliothek der Kirchenvater. Tertullians ausgewahlte Schriften
1; Kempten and Munich 1912) 101-136.
T. R. Glover, Tertullian. De spectaculis, in Loeb Classical Library (London and New York 1931) 229-301.
Secondary Sources:
O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur 2 (2nd ed., Freiburg i.B. 1914) 416.
M. Bieber, The History of the Greek and Roman Theater (Prince ton 1939).
J. Buchner, Quint. Sept. Flor. Tertullian de spectaculis. Kommentar (Wurzburg 1935) .
E. K. Chambers, The Mediaeval Stage 1 (Oxford 1903) 1-22.
R. M. Chase, 'De spectaculis,' Classical Journal 23 (1927) 107-120.
W. W. Fowler, The Roman Festivals of the Period of the Republic (London 1916) .
L. Friedlander, Roman Life and Manners under the Early Empire (Engl, trans. of 7th German edition by J. H. Freese and L. A.
Magnus, 4 vols.; London 1908-1913) 2.1-130.
TERTULLIAN
J. Kohne, Die Schrift Tertullians 'Ueber die Schauspiele' in kulturund religionsgeschichtlicher Beleuchtung (Breslau 1929).
P. de Labriolle, History and Literature of Christianity from Tertullian to Boethius, trans. H. Wilson (New York 1925) 50-105.
G. I. Lieftinck, 'Un fragment de de spectaculis de Tertullien provenant d'un manuscrit du neuvieme siecle,' Vigiliae Christianae
5 (1951) 193-203.
E. Lofstedt, Zur Sprache Tertullians (Lund and Leipzig 1920).
J. Marquardt, Romische Staatsverwaltung 3 (2nd ed. by G. Wissowa, Leipzig 1885) 482-566.
J. Morgan, The Importance of Tertullian in the Development of Christian Dogma (London 1928).
J. Quasten, Patrology 2 (Westminister, Md. 1953) 292-294.
M. Schanz, C. Hosius and G. Kruger, Geschichte der romischen Literatur, Handbuch der Altertumswissdnschaft VIII 3 (3rd ed.,
Munich 1922) 283,284.
H. F.- Soveri, De ludorum mefnoria, praecipue Tertullianea (Diss., Helsingfors 1912).
J. H. Waszink, 'Varro, Livy and Tertullian on the History of Roman Dramatic Art,' Vigilae Christianae 2 (1948) 224-242.