Chapter 3
TERTULLIAN
for committing acts of violence, and the feet to lead a roving life; nor was the spirit implanted in the body that it might become a workshop for contriving acts of treachery and fraud and injustice. I think not. (11) For if God, who demands innocence of us, hates all wickedness, even if it be only in thought, then it is certain beyond all doubt that it was never His intention in creation that whatever He created should lead to acts He condemns, even if those acts are done through the medium of His handiwork. The whole reason for condemnation is, rather, the misuse of God's creation by God's creatures.
(12) We, therefore, in coming to know the Lord, have also looked upon His rival, and in learning the Creator, we have likewise detected the perverter; we ought, then, to feel neither surprise nor doubt. For man himself, God's handiwork and image, the lord of the whole universe, was hurled down in the very beginning from his state of in nocence by the power of that angel, perverter of God's creation and His rival; at the same time, that same per verter corrupted along with man the whole material world, man's possession, created like man for innocence, and turned it against the Creator. And in his anger that God had given it to man and not to him he intended to make man in this very possession guilty before God as well as establish his own power in it.
Chapter 3 (1) Armed with this knowledge against heathen opinion, let us now turn, instead, to the same excuses put forward by people in our own ranks. For there are some brethren
SPECTACLES
who, being either too naive or overparticular in their faith, demand a testimony from holy Scripture, when faced with giving up the spectacles, and declare the matter an open question, because such a renunciation is neither specifically nor in so many words enjoined upon the servants of God.
(2) Now, to be sure, nowhere do we find it laid down with the same precision as 'Thou shalt not kill,' 'Thou shalt not worship an idol,' 'Thou shalt not commit adultery,'
'Thou shalt not commit fraud'1—nowhere do we find it thus clearly declared: 'Thou shalt not go to the circus,' 'Thou shalt not go to the theater,' 'Thou shalt not watch a con test or show of gladiators.' (3) But we do find that to this special case there can be applied that first verse of David, where he says: 'Happy is the man who has not gone to the gathering of the ungodly, nor stood in the ways of sinners, nor sat in the chair of pestilence.'2 (4) Tor, even though
1 Exod. 20.13; 4; 14; 15.
2 Ps. 1.1. The train of thought of this chapter is characteristic of Tertullian and of a number of early Christian apologists. They are under the influence of the sophistic methods of argumentation, taught in the schools of rhetoric of the day: everything is capable of proof, if one is clever enough to twist the meaning of words. Since some Christians, who are 'either too naive or overparticular in their faith,' look for evidence in holy Scripture concerning the question of the spectacles, Tertullian sets out to provide them with such a proof.
Though he cannot find a scriptural passage which explicitly forbids going to the spectacles, he thinks that Psalm 1.1 is applicable to the case, and does not shrink from straining and distorting the meaning of the text. He is not the only apologist who finds a relationship between Ps. 1.1 and the spectacles. Thus we read in Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 3.11.76.3: 'As for the theater, the Educator certainly does not lead us there; one could—not unreasonably—call the stadium and theater "seats of pestilence".' While Clement mentions the scriptural passage only by way of allusion, Tertullian comments on it at full length with special emphasis on the structural features of the buildings in which tne spectacles take place, devoting the entire chapter to the interpretation of the passage in order to drive home his point.
TERTULLIAN
David seems to have praised that well-known just man, because he took no part in the gathering and meeting of the Jews deliberating on the killing of the Lord,3 divine
Scripture admits always a broader interpretation wherever a passage, after its actual sense has been exhausted, serves to strengthen discipline. So, in this case, too, the verse of David is not inapplicable to the prohibition of spectacles.
(5) For, if then he called a mere handful of Jews 'a gathering of the ungodly,' how much more such a vast crowd of heathen people? Are the heathens less ungodly, less sinners, less the enemies of Christ that the Jews were then?
(6) Moreover, the other details also fit in well. For at the spectacles there is both sitting 'in the chair' [in cathedra] and standing 'in the way' [in via]. For 'ways' [viae] they term both the gangways that run round the girding walls and the aisles that slope down the incline and divide the seats of the populace;4 in like manner is the very place for 3 Tertullian means Joseph of Arimathea; cf. Luke 23.50-51.
4 The semicircular space set apart for the audience in a Roman theater was usually divided into three ranks, the lowest of which was reserved for the magistrates and other persons of distinction, while the middle and uppermost were assigned to the great masses of citizens and the lowest classes of the population respectively. The ranks were separated from each other by a wall which ran completely around the auditorium, like a belt, and was hence called balteus
(Tertullian) or praecinctio (Vitruvius, De architectura 5.3.4). Along this dividing wall ran a curved level gangway, called cardo
(Tertullian) or iter (Vitruvius, ibid.) . Such a dividing wall with its gangway is preserved, for instance, in the theater of Timgad, in North Africa (see M. Bieber, The History of the Greek and Roman
Theater [Princeton 1939], p. 363, Fig. 471) . Each rank was again divided into wedge-shaped blocks or sections by aisles which ran transversely to the direction of the seats. Tertullian's description obviously presupposes a theater building in which only the upper ranks, i.e., those for the common people, were divided by aisles into wedge-shaped sections, while the seats of honor formed an unbroken semi circle. This structural feature appears in theaters which have been excavated in Tertullian's native land, for instance in Timgad
SPECTACLES
chairs in the curving gallery called 'chair [cathedra]? (7) And so, to take the converse of the verse of David, 'he is unhappy who has gone to any gathering whatsoever of the ungodly, stood in any way at all of sinners, and sat in any chair of pestilence.'* * * * 5 6 Let us take, then, the general application, even when, besides the general, a special interpretation is conceded. For some things that are said with special intent have also a general meaning. (8) When God reminds the Israelites of discipline and upbraids them, His words apply undoubtedly and Dugga (see Bieber, op. cit. pp. 362-364, Figs. 470, 471, 473, and 474).
Though both the gangways along the girding walls of the several ranks and the aisles within the latter served primarily as approaches to the tiers (Tertullian calls both viae— ways'), they could also be used as a standingplace by those who were unable to secure seats.
The circus and amphitheater had a similar layout, with the excep tion that the seats of the spectators did not form a semicircle, but encompassed the central arena.
5 The cathedra was a comfortable chair, equipped with a sloping back and intended especially for women. Since women used such chairs also at the spectacles, the name was accordingly transferred to the seats reserved for women in the theater and amphitheater, as we learn from Calpurnius, Bucolica 7.23-27, who adds that these seats were located at the top of the building, i.e., in the 'curving gallery' of Tertullian. The assignment of separate space to women in the theater and amphitheater .seems to have been carried through at the order of Augustus (see J. Marquardt, Romische Staatsverwaltung
3 [2nd ed. by G. Wissowa, Leipzig 1885] 534-535) . There was no such separation, however, in the circus (ibid. 507). Tertullian finds, therefore, three points of relationship between the spectacles and the scriptural passage he cited: 'the vast crowd of heathen people' at the spectacles and 'the gathering of the ungodly' in the psalm; the viae—'ways'—in the theater buildings and 'the ways of sinners' mentioned by the Psalmist; finally, there is also a special space for the spectators, called cathedra—'chair,' that agrees with 'the chair of pestilence' in Scripture.
6 After Tertullian has shown that there exists a relationship between the scriptural passage and the spectacles, he tries to prove that such an interpretation of the verse is quite justified. For this purpose he changes the originally affirmative sentence into a negative clause, inserts quite imperceptibly a few indefinite pronouns, and thus has a
TERTULLIAN
to all men; and when He threatens destruction to Egypt and Ethiopia, He certainly cautions every sinful nation against judgment to come. Thus, if we reason from a special case to the general type that every sinful nation is an Egypt and Ethiopa, in the same manner we reason from the general class to a special case that every spectacle is a gathering of the ungodly.
Chapter 4 (1) Lest anyone think that I am avoiding the point in question, I shall now appeal to the prime and principal authority of our 'seal'1 itself. When we step into the water and profess the Christian faith in the terms prescribed by its law, we bear public witness that we have renounced the Devil and his pomp and his angels. (2) What, how ever, shall we call the chief and foremost manifestation by which the Devil and his pomp and his angels are recognized, if not idolatry? From this source, in a few words—because
I will not dwell any longer on this subject—comes every unclean and evil spirit. (3) So, if it shall be proved true generally applicable and valid proposition. His whole method of argumentation shows how strongly he is influenced by the schools of rhetoric of his day. The same is true concerning the remaining part of the chapter, which abounds in pointed antitheses, all based on the idea that scriptural passages admit, besides the particular, a general interpretation. Thus, Israel upbraided by the Lord for its unbelief and Ethiopia threatened with punishments for its sins are the representatives of all rebellious and sinful nations.
1 The 'seal' (signaculum) is often simply the sign of the cross, which the Christian draws with the hand on his forehead, but here it means the sacrament of baptism, at which the candidate renounces publicly, before the whole Christian congregation, 'the Devil and his pomp and his angels', i.e., paganism, its worship, and lax morality.