5. A final observation has still to be made concerning the division of
V III PlilitACE 111.
had been expected. Not only did we have to prepare a commentary on the chapters 13-24, but our researches on the treatise itself also made revisions of the first part necessary. Moreover, the trelltment in the commentary on chs.
The publication of this long and laborious work would not have been possible without the never-flagging assistance of Mrs. Dr. Hetty van RooijenDijkman, who not only typed the entire text of the detail commentary in its continually altered versions, but also controlled it with an ever-wakeful eye,
1-12 was so extensive and detailed that a! continuation in the same measure would have resulted in a far too expensive book. both with regard to the contents and their formulation. We are quite unable to give adequate expression to our gratitude for the devotion she showed in carrying out this task.
We decided therefore to adopt the following method:
1. Of the introductory chapters we retained the first which dealt with manuscripts, etc. (with some supplementary additions to the notes). The other chapters (Survey, Purpose of the Treatise, Date) were rewritten.
Our sincere thanks go also to Mrs. C. S. Rikkers-Krantz, who typed with great care the revised Latin text with the critical apparatus, the English translation and the Surveys and Remarks, to Dr. R. W. Daniel (Bonn) who corrected the English of the translation, the Surveys and the Remarks, and to Dr. D. T. Runia (Soest) who performed the same task with regard to the Introduction.
2. The critical text and apparatus were retained, apart from some details which have been mentioned in the apparatus.
3. The translation required revision. In the process of revision we made, needless to say, extensive use of Van der Nat's (and Thelwall's) version.
4. In the commentary we made a tripartition: 'Survey', 'Remarks', 'Commentary' . The functions of the first and the third part are self-evident.
In the Remarks we wish to draw attention to the coherence of the text, which is often intricate in Tertullian, and to other general questions. We hope that this will contribute to a better understanding of a difficult text. The Surveys and the Remarks have been written by the co-authors. With regard to the commentary proper, it should be noted that chs. 1-12 derive from the manuscript of Dr. van der Nat, except those passages where we enter in discussion with him. As was said above, we felt the need to shorten his text on many places. The commentary on chs. 13-24 is solely the work of the coauthors.
Last but not least, we would like to express our gratitude to the Publishing House of E. J. Brill, which was prepared to take the risk of publishing this complex work, and has produced it with the attention to qualitative excellence which has given the House its deservedly high reputation.
5. A final observation has still to be made concerning the division of Tertullian's text. The division in chapters was the work of Pamelius (1579).
The subdivision in paragraphs was not introduced until the publication of the text in the series Corpus Christianorum (1954) by Dom. E. Dekkers, who for the rest copied that by Reifferscheid-Wissowa in CSEL (see, however, p. 6, note 30). In his dissertation Dr. van der Nat decided to make another division which was more in agreement with the treatise's line of thought. Although Van der Nat's new division was clearly superior, we decided not to follow him in the interest of avoiding confusion. We are aware of the fact that neither the division in chapters nor that in paragraphs is ideal, but are at the same time persuaded that the most important function of those divisions is to facilitate references to the text. This use is certainly best served by the existence of one set of divisions. The Latin text has thus been printed in the traditional way, divided into the usual chapters and paragraphs. However, in order to take away any wrong impressions to which these divisions could give rise, we have decided to divide the translation into paragraphs which give a better insight in the treatise's line of thought.
LISTS OF ABBREVIA nONS
ABBREVIATIONS OF BOOK TITLES
Ancient Christian Writers (Westminster, Maryland-London) Archiv fUr lateinische Lexikographie und Grammatik (Leipzig)
Aufstieg und Niedergang der rbmischen Welt. Geschichte und Kultur Roms im Spiegel der neueren Forschungen. Herausgegeben von Hildegard Temporini und Wolfgang Haase (Berlin-New York) Archiv fUr Religionswissenschaft (Berlin)
Corpus Christiano rum (Turnhout) Corpus Glossariorum Latinorum Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (Wien)
Dictionnaire d' Archeologie Chretienne et de Liturgie (Paris) C. Daremberg - E . Saglio, Dictionnaire des Antiquites grecques et romaines
(Paris) .
Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller (Leipzig) Grammatici Latini Handbuch zum Neuen Testament ... herausgegeben von Hans Lietzmann
(TUbingen) Mnemosyne (Leiden) Oxford Latin Dictionary (Oxford) Patrologia Graeca Patrologia Latina Reallexikon fUr Antike und Christentum (Stuttgart)
Realencyclopadie der c1assischen Altertumswissenschaft (Stuttgart) Revue des Etudes Latines (Paris) Religionsgeschichtliche Versuche und Vorarbeiten (Giessen)
Sources Chretiennes (Paris) Thesaurus Linguae Latinae (Leipzig) Vigiliae Christianae (Amsterdam) Zeitschrift fUr die Neutestamentliche Wissenschaft (Berlin)
ACW ALL ANRW ARW CC COL CIL CSEL DACL DS GCS OL HdbNT Mnem.
OLD PG PL RAC RE REL RVV SC TLL Vig. Chr.
ZNTW
LISTS OF ABBREVIATIONS
XII
ABBREVIATED TITLES OF THE WORKS OF TERTULLIAN
De anima Apologeticum De baptismo De carne Christi De corona De cultu feminarum De exhortatione castitatis De fuga in persecutione Adversus Hermogenem De idololatria De ieiunio Adversus Iudaeos Adversus Marcionem Ad martyras De monogamia Ad nationes De oratione De paenitentia De pallio De patientia De praescriptione haereticorum Adversus Praxean De pudicitia De resurrectione mortuorum Ad Scapulam Scorpiace De spectaculis De testimonio animae Ad uxorem Adversus Valentinianos De virginibus velandis
INTRODUCTION
an. apol. bapt. cam. Chr. cor. cult. fem. exh. cast. fuga
MANUSCRIPTS, EDITIONS, COMMENTARIES
AND TRANSLATIONS *
The study of the manuscripts of Tert. has established that in the Middle Ages several collections of works of this author were in existence I:
Herm. idol. ieiun.
Iud.
Marc. mart. man. nat. oral. paen. pall. pat. praescr.
1. The collection of the Codex Agobardinus, the oldest extant manuscript of TerL'.
2. The collection of the manuscript of Troyes 523 (Codex Trecensis) of the twelfth century 3 • 3. A collection represented by a number of manuscripts, which derive from a lost Codex Cluniacensis and a likewise lost manuscript from Hirsau
(Wiirttemberg), the Hirsaugiensis4.
* [In this chapter the text of Van der Nat has been maintained, but since the research of the manuscript tradition of Tert. 's works has made some progress during the last 25 years, some additional remarks have been added within square brackets.]
Prax. pud. res.
Scap. scarp. spect.
Cf. especially E. Kroymann, Die Terlullian-Oberlieferung in Ilalien (Sitz. BeT. Akad. Wien
138, 1898); Kritische Vorarbeiten fiir den Ill. und IV. Band der neuen Tertullian-Ausgabe (ib.
143, 1901); Prefaces CSEL XLVII and LXX. More literature will be given in the next notes. For summaries, see Gerlo, I, 1 ff.; Diercks, V ff.; Mohrm., Terl. Apol., XI, XLI ff.; Corp. Christ., seT. Lat. I, p. VI ff.; especially Waszink's introduction to the translation of Adversus
Hermogenem (ACW 24, Westminster, Maryland-London 1956). For the textual history of the Apologeticum. constituting a problem by itself which is left out of consideration here, see lest. an. ux.
Valenl. virgo vel.
Hoppe's preface to CSEL LXIX; Becker, Terl. Apol., 105 ff.
Possibly a fragment of a Codex Ambrosianus (G 58 sup., olim Bobiensis, S. X-XI) also derives from this collection, see Diercks, X-XII. The Codex Agobardinus will be discussed more elaborately below.
) Cf. J. W. P. Borleffs, Mnem. N.S. 59 (1932), 1 ff.; ib. N.S. 60 (1933), 41 ff.; 'La valeur du codex Trecensis de Tertullien pour la critique du texte dans Ie traite De baptismo', Vig. Chr. 2
(1948), 185 ff.; cf. also the preface to his edition of De palienlia, De baplismo and De paenitentia
(The Hague 1938), p. 8 ff. [For the evaluation of the Trecensis see now H. Trankle's observations in his edition of Adv. Iudaeos: " ... sie ist zugleich sehr gut und sehr schlecht" (p. CXVIII);
"masslos iiberschatzt" (p. CXXV).] • Cf. also J. W. P. Borleffs, 'Zur Luxemburger Tertullianhandschrift', Mnem. seT. III 2 (1935),
299 ff. [Trankle (op. cit., see n. 3) argues that it is incorrect to give a central place to a (lost) codex
Cluniacensis in this collection. According to him, this collection stems from a hyparchetype e which parted into two families: ex and~. Trankle identifies ~ with the lost codex Hirsaugiensis: the lost codex Cluniacensis should not be identified with ex or e, as some authors have done. It should be considered as just one member of the family ex. Trankle advises, therefore, to stop speaking of a corpus Cluniacense, since this gives a wrong impression of the importance of this member of the family. This advice has not been followed by J. Cl. Fredouille (in his edition of Adv.
Valent., S.C. 280, p. 48 ff., and De patientia, S.C. 310, p. 39) and Ch. Munier (Vig. Chr. 38,
1984, p. 313), who continue speaking of a 'so-called' corpus Cluniacense. In our vision, Van der
Nat's formulation "which derive from a lost Codex Cluniacensis should be changed into "to which belonged a lost codex Cluniacensis".]
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
Lofstedt and Thornell have shown that in those cases where the Agobardinus deviates from other sources, the readings of this manuscript are mostly the correct ones.
4. A collection which was found, together with Novatian's De Trinitate, in three lost manuscripts, a Coloniensis, a Corbeiensis and the Codex Ioannis
Clementis Angli, used by Pamelius for his edition (1579)5.
It is beyond doubt that at least one more manuscript has existed which contained the De idololatria, since we find the complete text in the editio princeps of the treatise and in another edition for which a manuscript has been used.
B In 1545 an edition appeared at Paris, which for a long time was attributed to Ioannes Gangneius, but which actually was the work of Martinus
MESNARTIUS 12. The siglum is B. This is a reprint of the third edition of Beatus
Rhenanus 1\ however, with the addition of Novatian's De trinitate and De cibis iudaicis, a part of De patientia which was absent in Rhenanus, and nine other works of Tert. 14. Mesnart declared that these were opuscu/a ... ex vetustissimo codice desumpta. In the margin Mesnart gives divergent readings
5. Recently traces of a fifth collection were found in the fragments contained in the Codex Ottobonianus 25 of the fourteenth century 6.
A Of all these manuscripts it is only the first which contains the De idololatria.
The Codex Parisinus latin us 1622 of the Bibliotheque Nationale at Paris, called Codex Agobardinus after its first possessor, Agobardus, bishop of Lyons 7, is a parchment manuscript dating from the beginning of the ninth century. It was described in detail by M. Klussmann 8 • The siglum is A. The text of De idololatria is found on fo1. 105v up to and including fo1. 118 v, where, at the beginning of the last line but one, after the word evitandum (18,
9) an abrupt beginning is made with De anima 6, 7 (the first words are de minutiloquio Aristotelis) 9. From this it follows that the latter part of the De idololatria and the beginning of the De anima were already absent in the manuscript used by the copyist of the Agobardinus 10. The manuscript has been seriously damaged by damp. However, the damage to De idololatria is far less than, for instance, that to Ad nationes: the edges of fo1. 105v up to and including fo1. 109v have been strongly affected and they have also been cut off, so that in many cases letters or words have become illegible or have even disappeared entirely; although fo1. 110 and the following ones also show traces of damp, it is not to such an extent that the writing has become illegible.
The text of De idolo/atria confirms the qualities and defects of this manuscript which have already been frequently noted: on the one hand it contains a great number of omissions and many cases of haplography, on the other hand it is free from learned emendations and interpolations II. Especially the works of Ig (Bmg) , often taken from the Agobardinus 15 •
It is generally assumed that by the vetustissimus codex is meant the Agobardinus 16. This, however, is incorrect: Mesnart edited treatises which have never been part of the Agobardinus 17, he fills up lacunae in this manuscript and puts the works of which he is the first editor in a different order 18. Nevertheless it is certain that he has used the Agobardinus, and also the Trecensis 19. For the rest the whole matter remains problematic 20. Dom
Elegius Dekkers thinks that actually Mesnart did not follow one manuscript, but made a rather haphazard use of various manuscripts 2l • For the constituL2
An acrostic on the reverse of the title-page reveals the name of the real author, see Kroymann,
CSEL XLVII, p. XII; Gerlo, 1,10-1.
Ll The first edition appeared in 1521, the second in 1528, the third in 1539, all at Basle. They do not contain De idololatria.
That is, De testimonio animae, De anima, De spectaculis, De baptismo, Scorpiace, De idololatria, De pudicitia, De ieiunio, De oratione (up to and induding chapter 19).
In De idololatria 6 out of 14, in De anima 62 out of 120 (Waszink, 2 *).
, Cf. E. Dekkers, 'Note sur les fragments recemment decouverts de Tertullien', Sacris Erudiri
4 (1952), 372-383, especially 372-6; G. I. Lieftinck, 'Un fragment de De spectaculis de Tertullien provenant d'un manuscrit du neuvieme siecle', Vig. Chr. 5 (1951),193 ff. Lieftinck has identified a fragment of De spectaculis. His hypothesis that this fragment has been part of the Cologne manuscript was confirmed by Dom Dekkers.
L6 Thus Hartel-Wissowa, CSEL XX, pp. IX-XI; Kroymann, QC, 7 ff., and also Dekkers, art. cit., 379. For the text of De oratione the Agobardinus did indeed serve as a basis, but this is an exceptional case, see Diercks, XIII ff.
L7 That is, De baptismo, De pudicitia, De ieiunio.
The text of De idololatria, too, was based by Mesnart on another manuscript: not only does he give the latter part which is absent in the Agobardinus, but he also fills up most of the omissions of this manuscript and in several passages he gives a more extensive version of the text than the Agobardinus (whereas the opposite is not found anywhere).
Cf. 1. W. P. Borleffs, 'Un nouveau manuscrit de Tertullien', Vig. Chr. 5 (1951), 65 ff.; preface to the edition of De paenitentia, CSEL LXXVI, 129 ff.
He lived from 779 to 840/1; in 816 he became a bishop. See E. Debroise, 'Agobard', DACL
I, I: 971-9.
• M. Klussmann, Curarum Tertullianearum particulae tres (Gotha 1887); cf. also Borleffs' preface to the edition of Ad nationes (Leyden 1929), V ff.; the preface to CSEL XX by Hartel and Wissowa, VI ff.; V. d. Vliet, 64-6. Originally the manuscript contained 21 treatises, but the latter part has been lost. This part contained more than half of De carne Christi and 8 other treatises (of which 5 do not occur in any other manuscript) . [See also the Additional Note below.)
• A later hand has underlined evitandum and added De Anima cap. VI in the margin.
A same case is found in fo!. 171r, where per ecc/esias quas<i> (orat. 21, I) is followed by disposita utensilitas (cult. fem. I, 5, 2); see Diercks, IX-X .
For the Agobardinus, cf. the preceding note and note 15; for the Trecensis, cf. Borleffs,
Mnem. N.S. 59 (1932), 4 and the edition of De patientia etc., p. 10-1.
The text of the Codex Ottobonianus shows a relationship with that of Mesnart and Gelenius
(cf. n. 6), just as that of the fragment identified by Lieftinck and Dekkers (cf. n. 5). lL Art .. cit., 378-81, especially 381: "Mesnart a dispose, en dehors de I'Agobardinus, du
Trecensls, du manuscrit de Sainte-Genevieve (i.e., for Novatian's De cibis Iudaicis) et d'un exemplaire de la collection de Corbie (i.e., for Novatian's De trinitate), encore d'un ou, plus probablement, de plusieurs aut res manuscrits. Ce qu'il decrit d'un mot fort laconique ex
Vetustissimo codice desumpta a ete en realite une operation bien complexe".
L L Kroymann's view (CSEL LXX, p. XI ff., and QC, 10) that the Agobardinus should contain interpolations was also contested by Waszink, 2 *, n. 2.
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
elaborately described by others 28, the following summary of the most important facts may suffice. tion of the text of De idololatria this edition is especially important, because it fills up lacunae and supplies the concluding chapters. In the cases where it diverges from the Agobardinus the latter is mostly correct 22.
The edition of Jacobus PAMELIUS (Antwerp 1579) is based on that of Gelenius. In his Adnotationes he mentions a few emendations of HARRISIUS.
This edition went through many reprints, of which the one appearing at Franeker in 1597 deserves special mention: it was edited by Franciscus IUNIUS, who added notes of his own instead of those of Pamelius. In its turn the Pameliana served as a basis for the edition of Ioannes Ludovicus DE LA CERDA
(Paris 1624-1630); however, De la Cerda was acquainted with the corrections and conjectures by Iunius, Latinius and Ursinus, and he adopted some of their suggestions. Of the many conjectures made by these editors only a few are correct (mostly those of Iunius).
Gel The second edition containing the complete text of the present treatise is that of Sigismundus GELENIUS (Bas Ie 1550). It is based on Mesnart's edition, but Gelenius assures us that for the text of twelve works 23, including De idololatria, he has used a Codex Masburensis, which he had obtained ex ultima Britannia 24. Not once, however, does Gelenius indicate whether his deviations from the text of Mesnart are derived from his manuscript or must be regarded as his own conjectures. Consequently concerning the value of this manuscript nothing can be established with certainty. Its identity, too, remains uncertain. After Diercks had argued persuasively that the manuscript
Gelenius used was the same as that of Mesnart 21, Dom Dekkers has expressed the view that, apart from relying on Mesnart's edition, Gelenius only used the Nicolaus RIGALTIUS was the first to base his edition (Paris 1634) on the Agobardinus. His collation of this manuscript is fairly accurate. He adopts a great number of the emendations by Ursinus. Although many of his own conjectures are incorrect, he was on the whole more successful than his predecessors. This edition, too, was reprinted many times. The reprint which appeared in 1664 was edited by Ph. PRIORIUS, whose notes (at least with respect to De idololatria) are of no value.
Coloniensis 26 • From the text of De idololatria we can establish a close relationship between Gelenius and Mesnart: frequently they show the same divergencies from the Agobardinus. But in addition to this they also show a great number of differences. However, these differences are all constituted by real or supposed corrections of Gelenius; nowhere in the latter do we find a reading of a totally different nature (in 22, 1 Mesnart's reading is so absurd, that a radical alteration is inevitable). For this reason it is probable thatapart from his own conjectures-Gelenius made a better use of Mesnart's manuscript (it is even possible that he relied on the latter's edition alone).
However, only a detailed examination of all relevant materials can solve this problem, if it can be solved at all. In any case Gelenius' edition remains important for the constitution of the text of De idololatria, although Hoppe's praise 27 is certainly exaggerated.
The editions of J. S. SEMLER (Halle 1771) and E. F. LEOPOLD (Leipsic 1839) have no value for the constitution of the text. They are arbitrary mixtures of the Pameliana of 1597 and the Rigaltiana; the few conjectures which they contain are all erroneous.
The edition of F. OEHLER (Leipsic 1853-54) has sometimes been criticized all too severely. In spite of its many deficiencies, of which the principal one is the highly unreliable adnotatio critica, it remains indispensable, especially because of Oehler's unquestionable gift for textual criticism and interpretation (Waszink, 3 *-4 *) by which the present treatise, too, has profited more than once.
In the case of the De idololatria later editions have not been based on other manuscripts, so that they only contain conjectures. As they have already been
G. CURREY edited De idolo/atria together with De spectaculis and De corona (Cambridge 1954), using Oehler's adnotatio critica. His text 'does not precisely agree with that of any edition that has hitherto appeared' (p. XIII).
He does not introduce any conjectures of his own.
See above. Hoppe's view that against A the correct reading is frequently given by B (Beitr.,
10) is incorrect.
2l That is, the nine treatises first edited by Mesnart and De resurrectione mortuorum, De praescriptione haereticorum, De monogamia.
,. The manuscript was procured for him by one Ioannes Lelandus, who had found it in Masburensi coenobio gentis eius vetustissimo. The suggestion that by this the Abbey of Malmesbury (Wiltshire) was meant was first put forward by J. M. Lupton in his edition of De baptismo (Cambridge 1908), p. XXXVI.
Diercks, XIX ff.; his view was adopted by Borleffs (edition of De patientia etc., 11 n. 1; Vig.
Chr. 5 (1951), 77; CSEL LXXVI, 134). The possibility had already been suggested by HartelWissowa, CSEL XX, p. XI.
Art. cit., 382. As De idololatria did not occur in the Coloniensis, this would mean that for the text of this treatise Gelenius made use of Mesnart's edition only. Consequently the divergencies would all be his own conjectures.
It has been the merit of A. REIFFERSCHEID (CSEL XX, Vienna 1890) to have given the first reliable notation of the readings of the Agobardinus 29 and (to a lesser extent) of the edition of Gelenius. However, as regards the other editions his adnotatio critica is incomplete and, in the case of Mesnart, not seldom faulty. In his text many of his own erroneous conjections are
Cf. Gerlo, 1, 9 ff.; Waszink, 3 *-4 *; very elaborately Diercks, XXII ff.
However, he is inconsistent as regards orthographic variants, which are sometimes recorded but mostly left out.
Beitr., 11-2.
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
included 30. Two collections of conjectures deserve notice. The one of Latinus LATINIUS (Rome 1677) contains a few real corrections. He adds four conjectures of Petrus ClACCONIUS, two of which are correct. The conjectures of Fulvius URSINUS were edited by Ioannes it Wouwer (Frankfurt 1603), who alleges that they derive from an old manuscript 31. This remains a problematic question deserving further examination 32. In any case Ursinus provides a few remarkable corrections (e.g. 9, 3; 22, 2-3).
There are two mainly reliable translations, a German one by K. A. H.
Kellner 36, and an English one by S. Thelwall 37 • Both are based on Oehler's text. Their value does not greatly differ. That of Thelwall is more oldfashioned and rather stiff because of its literalistic character 38.
Additional Note The Agobardinus has some features which, as far as we can see, have not been noticed until now. There is a difference in the handwriting between the first part (f. 105 V-Ill v = idol. 1,1-10,2) and the second (f. 112 r -118 v = idol.
10, 2-18, 9). In the second part the size of the letters is somewhat smaller; hence in that part the number of the lines per page is one more than in the first part (23 instead of 22). The different hands manifest themselves inter alia in the way of writing the capital S. In the first part it has a large upper part and a small lower part; in the second the upper part is small, the lower large.
Another difference is in the manner of writing the diphtong ae. In both parts there is variation: sometimes it is written in full, sometimes the well-known abbreviation (an e with little stroke underneath (~)) is used. But whereas in the first part this abbreviation is used only ten times, in the second part it is much more frequent; it appears already eight times in the first five lines. These divergencies in the orthography of the ae are not noted in the apparatus. We only mention the cases in which a single e is written instead of ae, or when ae is written instead of e (e.g. grece in 3, 4 and aevitandum in 18, 9).
Finally we may mention an inaccurate collation of the Agobardinus by losias MERCERUS, found in a copy of the Pameliana of 1584 preserved in the Library of Leiden University (it derives from the library of Isaac Vossius).
Mercerus made this collation in 1625 33 ; he added one conjecture of his own, which is incorrect (10, 1).
The present edition is based on a repeated collation of the Agobardinus (I have also made use of a photographic reproduction) and of the editions. In order to give a complete picture of the text of the only extant manuscript I have also included orthographic divergencies in the adnotatio critica. [See, however, the Additional Note below.] In those places where the text has been lost or is illegible the estimated number of letters which have disappeared has been indicated by dots. Dots have been placed under letters which are only barely legible. I have striven to mention everything that has been contributed by scholars to the emendation of the text. The orthography of compound words is a difficult question. The Agobardinus is inconsistent in this matter.
I have given the prepositions in compounds in the assimilated form 34, but I have not used assimilation in the case of other words " .
Also in another respect the second part is different from the first: whereas in the first part the upper margin is empty, from f. 112r onwards one reads on the recto side of the pages :IDOLATRIA:, on the opposite verso side :DE:
(this means that the first :DE: is on f. 111 v, which page still belongs to the first part).
Of the existing commentaries that of De la Cerda deserves to be mentioned first. He is the only commentator who has tried to enter into the structure of Tert. 's work and into his manner of reasoning, as was justly remarked by Waszink (p. 4*). Oehler, who adopted several valuable notes from his predecessors, especially from Rigaltius, has already been mentioned. Currey's commentary is likewise based on the work of earlier scholars, but he adds some correct observations of his own.
The situation at the end of the text of De idololatria is complex. As was said above, after the word evitandum in idol. 18, 9-thus in the middle of a sentence-an abrupt beginning is made with the text of De anima 6, 7. (A later hand has written in the margin: De anima cap. VI). This happens in the last line but one of f. 118 v. But in the upper margin of 118 v -119 r one still reads:
DE - IDOLATRIA, even though 119r contains the text of De anima. MoreOver in the upper margin of 119 v-120r the title DE - IDOLA TRIA was again
,0 A just criticism of Reifferscheid's work was given by Hoppe, Beitr., 6. We may pass by the edition of De idololatria in Corp. Christ., ser. Lat. II (1954) which is only a reprint of Reifferscheid's edition. [One should, however, not neglect the observations added by Dekkers at the bottom of the pages.] 1I Wouwer even distinguishes readings of Ursinus' manuscript and emendations of Ursinus himself (cf. e.g. idol. 5, 2). l2 Cf. Kroymann, CSEL XLVII, p. XXVII ff. ; Borleffs, Mnem. N.S. 59 (1932), 10-1 and edition of De patientia etc., 12 n. 1; Diercks, XXVII ; Dekkers, art. cit., 377 n. 6.
Tertullianus, Stimtliche SchriJten (Koln) 1882. For the new edition of this translation
(Tertullians Ausgewtihlte Schrijten I: Private und Katechetische Schriften, Kempten-Miinchen
II Cf. Diercks, XXVI.
1912) use was also made of Reifferscheid's edition.
With the exception of adbefore m and obbefore sand t.
The Writings oj Tertullian. Translated by S. Thelwall and P. Holmes. Vol. I, Edinburgh 1869
(Ante-Nicene Christ. Library vol. XI).
We may pass by the French translation by M. de Genoude (Paris 1852) and the Dutch one by H. U. Meyboom (Leyden 1931), which are entirely unreliable.
II So I read e.g. quamquam, quidquid, quicumque. However, this does not apply to quotations from other editions of Terr.; only, my reading is always idololatria (Kroymann in CSEL XLVII idolatria; see the note on the title).
INTRODUCTION
INT1{UUUCTIUN
THE PURPOSE OF DE IDOLOLA TRIA
written, but there IDOLATRIA has been struck out and ANIMA has been written instead. (Further on the title is: DE CENSU - ANIMAE). Finally we note that the table of contents at the beginning of the Agobardinus says that on f. 105 DE IDOLA TRIA begins and on f. 119 DE CENSU ANIMAE. It is difficult to explain this situation. It is obvious that the scribe of the Agobardinus was not aware of the fact that in the last but one line of f. 118 v he passed over from De idololatria 18, 9 to De anima 6, 7. He must have been copying as example a text in which a fascicle, containing the last six chapters of idol. and the first six of an., was missing. But for the rest the course of events can hardly be traced. Who was responsible for writing the titles in the upper margins? Who corrected the title on f. 120r and why did he not correct that of f. 119 r? Several hypotheses are possible; not one of these can be considered as certain.
The title of this treatise could give the impression that it concerns a welldefined subject matter, viz., the veneration of images of gods (or of the gods themselves). The question could then arise, whether it is not quite clear beforehand that such a veneration is disallowed for a Christian. What is the point of writing a treatise about it?
The answer is that for Tertullian idolatry has a wider range. In the introduction (ch. 2) he argues that the concept of idolatry is not restricted to the exercise of priestly functions and bringing sacrifices to the gods. The heathen religion has a great number of ramifications in social life, and wherever the Christian comes into contact with these ramifications he is in danger of perpetrating idolatry. De idololatria is a treatise on the practice of Christian life in relation to the (often hidden) religious elements in the heathen world.
The reader will have noticed that in all these titles we find written idolatria, not idololatria. This way of writing does not occur in the treatise itself except at the beginning of the second part. There the situation is as follows: the first time that the term appears in the second part one reads idolatria (10, 6) but 10 has been written above; the second time one reads idolatria (11, 1), the third time idololatria (11, 2) and the fourth idolalatria (11, 2). Further on one finds idolo!atria, as in the first part, except in 16, 3. It seems that the irregularity at the beginning of the second part is connected with the change of scribe. He may have written the titles in the upper margin in advance and begun by writing idolatria in the text as well, but obviously he adapted himself to the reading of his example later on.
Tertullian sees the dangers approaching from many sides. Two main categories are discerned: dangers that arise in the exercise of an occupation or profession, e.g. that of sculptor, astrologer, teacher, trader; and, secondly, dangers caused by social contacts. Is it permissible for a Christian to make images of gods? Is he allowed to be a teacher? How should he behave at heathen festivities? Is he allowed to participate in public celebrations? Is he allowed to be present at private ceremonies, e.g. at the marriage of the son or daughter of his neighbour? And what about occupations in the public sphere? Can the Christian be or become a soldier? In all these situations Tertullian finds vestiges, hidden to a greater or lesser extent, of the heathen religion. The task he sets himself is to warn his readers about the dangers involved.
Finally, in the margin of f. 112 r and the following pages one finds a certain number of indicators with corresponding signs in the text. The indicators are
N 2, N 3, N 5, N 6 on f. 112 r, 114r, 117 r, 118 v • The corresponding signs in the text are breaking off signs, located at N 2 between idolis and catechisat
(10, 6), at N 3 between habeo and dixit (12, 4), at N 5 between vero and privatarum. (N 6 has no corresponding sign in the text.) These indicators and signs must have been applied by someone who gave the text to a printer or by the printer himself, to mark the end of successive pages. (We thank Prof.
P. F. J. Obbema of the Leiden University Library for this suggestion.) Tertullian's instructions are directed to two groups of fellow-Christians: to the simple believers who are not aware of the dangers threatening them on all sides; and, secondly, to those who are quite well aware of them but close their eyes, in other words to those who do not want to see the dangers (see ch. 2,
1: ignorata ... dissimu/ata). His aim is to convince both these groups of the validity of his radical viewpoint.
Of course, he is quite well aware of the arguments which can be alleged against his view. 'A Christian has to live', 'he needs instruction' etc. Such objections are often put into the mouth of the imaginary opponents. Sometimes the objection is easily recognizable, sometimes it has to be reconstructed by means of a close analysis of the text. This way of writing gives the treatise a vivid character. One could speak of a dialogue in disguise. (In the translation we have made the objections more easily identifiable by placing them between single quotation-marks.) In the edition of Mesnart the folia 281-4 have at the bottom of the recto sides: N, N ij, N iij, N iiij. Remarkably the letter N is the same as what was found in the Agobardinus, but the numbers added to this letter do not agree in the two texts. The distances between N 2, N 3, etc. in the Agobardinus disclose that the page size of the intended printing would have been smaller than in the actual printed edition of Mesnart. At any rate these indicators and signs are of no concern for the constitution of the text.
Everyone knows Tertullian's radical attitude towards the heathen (Greek) philosophy. It has been unforgettably worded in the famous rhetorical ques-
INTRODUCTION
IN IKUIJUCllUN
tions in De praescriptione haereticorum: Quid ergo Athenis et Hieroso/ymis?
Quid academiae et ecclesiae? What Tertullian states there in terms of theoria, he argues in De id%/atria in relation to Christian praxis. Just as there is a radical opposition between Athens and Jerusalem in the domain of thinking, so there is an opposition between Rome and Jerusalem in daily life. (Rome stands for 'not Christian'; cf. apo/. 35, 9.) He could have formulated it this way: Quid Romae et Hieroso/ymis? Quid vitae paganae et vitae Christianae? corona, written in 211, it is considered that De id%latria represents a further step on the path of intolerance in Tert.'s Montanist thinking. Moreover, idol.
19, 1 seems to contain a reference to De corona; thus it must have been written after 211.
In his introduction Van der Nat opposes this line of argumentation. He states first of all that there is no reference to De corona in idol. 19, 1: at nunc de isto quaeritur. (R. Braun, art. cit., 279, joins Van der Nat in this interpretation. See also our Remarks at ch. 19.) He agrees with his opponents that in De idololatria Tert. is more radical than in De corona, but adds that it is very dangerous to use these kinds of differences as a standard for chronological order. In his Montanist works Tert. is by no means always more rigorous than in earlier treatises. One needs to take the nature of his writings into account, and this is closely related to his personality. Tert. writes in order to dispute, not in order to theorize; and he is a man with a highly aggressive temperament. Moreover, the immediate object at which he is aiming in a certain line of argument often dominates him to such an extent, that it is to this alone that his attention is directed, to the neglect of all other concerns. On this it is worth citing Van der Nat at some length. "The natural result of this tendency is that contrary views are found even within the same work. The present treatise provides us with a good example. In ch. 4 Tert. declares the makers of idols and the worshippers to be equally at fault, but in ch. 6 he argues that it is actually the makers of idols who are the worshippers par excellence and in fact practise idolatry to a greater degree than the ordinary worshippers. After this he declares that the making of attributes belonging to idols is even more important and, accordingly, an even more grievous sin (ch. 8). Finally in ch.
Tertullian lives at a time, in which the Christian community is experiencing considerable growth. Such growth could easily lead to an increasing superficiality in the practice of Christian life. Tertullian sets out a standard (cf.
24, 3 Haec erit lex nostra) for those who are living as Christians in that world, as well as for those who want to join the Christian community. His radical viewpoint should not be confused with Montanism. Tertullian draws attention to many dangers and possible misuses, but nowhere in this treatise does he take a stand against the Church. Yet this opportunity stood wide open to him, e.g. in chapter 7, where he observes that even idol-makers are given a place in the ordo ecclesiasticus. His aim is to exhort his fellow Christians to give clear testimony of their faith. This aim is carried out in a not unsuitable manner, especially when one recalls that he is writing at the time when the idea of martyrdom is a vivid presence in every Christian's mind.
DATE OF DE IDOLOLA TRIA
"Although the literature on the chronology of Tert.' s works is extensive, the dates of many of his writings remain uncertain. One of the most controversial datings is that of De id%/atria." With these words written in 1960
Van der Nat began his discussion of the problems with regard to the dating of this treatise, and they retain their validity up to the present day. De id%/atria has been located in practically every period of Tert.'s literary activity. Some authors give it a very early dating, i.e. before the Ap%geticum
(197), others regard it as Montanist and affirm that it dates either from the period in which Tert.'s thinking moved in the direction of Montanism (after 208) or from the time when he turned completely away from the catholic
Church (after 211); a third group places it in the middle period. For the representatives of these viewpoints see R. Braun, 'Chronologia Tertullianea:
Le De carne Christi et Ie De id%latria' , Annales de la Faculte des Lettres et Sciences humaines de Nice, n° 21, 1974,274-81, and Van der Nat's introductory chapter on the date of De idololatria, p. 14*, n. 2.
11, however, it is the trade in frankincense which is considered to be the principal form of idolatry ... Another significant example is found in idol. 8.
There Tert. is completely dominated by his desire to prove that artisans can provide for themselves sufficiently without having to enter the service of idols.
One of his examples is that more wreaths are needed for purposes of luxurious living than for religious ceremonies. Evidently it escapes Tert. 's notice that in this way he sanctions-and even recommends-the occupation of a maker of wreaths, although elsewhere he regards the wearing of wreaths as unlawful in any circumstances and forbids Christians to be of assistance to others in what they themselves are not allowed to do." (p. 12*) In a note Van der Nat refers to apol. 42, 6. He could have referred also to chs. 5-6 of De corona, where wreaths are said to be contrary to nature and, therefore, forbidden to Christians. A reference to De corona would have been interesting, since here the viewpoint of De corona is more rigorous than that of De idololatria, in contradistinction to the above-mentioned case of the military service. This confirms the thesis that such a difference cannot be used as a decisive argument for a certain chronological order.
Those who advocate a late date base this primarily on the intolerant viewpoint with regard to the military service of a Christian put forward in idol. ch. 19. Since this viewpoint is even more rigorous than that found in De
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
8, on the other hand, he reproaches his fellow Christians that they are even more eager than the heathens to decorate their doors with lamps and wreaths.
There is a great difference between these two texts.
We are of the opinion that Van der Nat was right in arguing that the difference between De idololatria and De corona can easily be explained by the different purposes of the two treatises. In De idololatria Tert. intended not only to give the Christian a set of rules, but also to provide a viewpoint with regard to the admission of converts. In De corona, on the other hand, he exclusively addresses those who are already Christians but refuse to accept the necessary consequences of their faith.
Van der Nat's early dating was followed by T. D. Barnes, Tertullian: a Historical and Literary Study, in the first edition (1971), and Th. Klauser,
'Sind der christlichen Oberschicht seit Mark Aurel die hoheren Posten im Heer und in der Verwaltung zuganglich gemacht worden?', JbA C 16 (1979)
60-6. Some years earlier C. Becker, Tertullians Apologeticum, Werden und Leistung (1954) had defended the same opinion. In the second edition of his work, however, Barnes changed his mind. Influenced inter alia by Braun's article mentioned above, he now takes the view that on the basis of a comparison of parallel passages it follows that the De spectaculis and De idololatria both postdate the Apologeticum. Braun proposes a date between 203 and 206. We regard his opinion as the most attractive one, although a greater range remains possible, i.e. between 198 and 208. The only certain point in the relative chronology is the priority of De spectaculis in relation to De idololatria (see idol. 13, 1). For the rest one remains in the sphere of probability.
"It is true", says Van der Nat, "that Tert. takes a severe view of the participation of Christians in the life of heathen society. But severity and Montanism are not the same thing! Tert. emphasizes the difference that exists (or should exist) between Christians and heathens: this is also the case in De spectaculis and in the second book of De cultu feminarum, which were written before Tert. took the side of the Montanists. He gives evidence of a negative attitude towards life and the world; but the same mentality is found in De spectaculis and even in the Apologeticum. On the other hand it should be acknowledged that he takes a very mild view of the participation in familyfestivals of the heathens, even if they are religious in character (idol. 16). To arrive at a just criticism of the work as a whole the value of this point should not be depreciated. However, this argument is conclusive: not only are his views on the most important subjects coming up for discussion shared by nonMontanist sources (e.g. Hippolytus' Traditio apostolica), but also symptoms of Montanism are absent precisely in those passages where they would be expected (idol. 7). Finally it must be pointed out that, although Tert. opposes the rudes and dissimulantes, he never breaks the unity and solidarity in the common struggle against heathendom, which is quite in contrast even with those works which were written when Tert., though already in sympathy with Montanism, had not yet severed his relations with the Church" (e.g. De virginibus velandis; cf. De Vries, Bijdrage, 39) (p. 13 *).
ANALYSIS A. INTRODUCTION: the subject matter 1. Idolatry, in a broad sense, is the summit and summary of all sins: it is the main sin and includes all other sins; all sins are idolatry. (1)
2. The author will confine himself to idolatry in its proper sense. This will afford sufficient material for a treatise, since idolatry is not restricted to such open acts as bringing sacrifices and burning incense, but extends to a very large domain of ramifications. These hidden forms of idolatry will be the main subject-matter of the treatise. (2)
We agree with Van der Nat that all this leads to the conclusion that De idololatria is not a Montanist work. It must have been written before 208. But how long before 208? Van der Nat advocates a very early date, even before that of the Apologeticum (197). The words of idol. 18, 8 (supplicia consulta sunt) seem to point to a time shortly before a persecution, and we know that a persecution took place in 197-8. Further, in his Apologeticum Tert. speaks of a decoration of houses, which makes them look like brothels. The manner in which this comparison is made in apol. 35,4 might seem to betray a dependence on idol. 15, 8; particularly the use of the possessive pronoun of the second person (luae) is more appropriate to the context of idol. 15, 8 and, therefore, must be earlier. In our view, however, there is a considerable difference between the two texts just mentioned. In apol. 35,4 Tert. opposes the heathens and identifies himself with the Christian community (cur die laeto non laureis postes obumbramus nec lucernis diem infringimus?). In idol. 15,
B. THE MAIN PART: the ramifications of idolatry (3-23) I. Idolatry by exercising arts or professions (3-11)
1. The art of making idols (3-7) a) The maker of idols is guilty of idolatry. (3)
Although idolatry can exist without idols, it only received its name and increase after the devil had brought the makers of images into the world. Every art that produces idols in whatever way has become a summit of idolatry. (3, 1-2)
The kind of art and the kind of matter used in it are of no consequence. Every service (worship) of every image whatsoever is idolatry. Hence the maker of every idol is guilty of idolatry.
(3, 3-4)
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
measures of the worldly authorities confirm the divine sentence.
(9, 1-2) b) The testimony of Scripture (4) God forbids the making of idols, and he forbids it as much as he does the worshipping of them. Since the making of something precedes the worshipping of it, the prohibition to make idols is also earlier, i.e. more fundamental, than the precept not to worship them. Thus the making of idols is even a more grievous sin.
The magi who announced the birth of Christ and worshipped Him do not justify the present, idolatrous, astrology. They were in fact the last men to be allowed to practise this profession. (9, 3-6a)
After the appearance of the gospel one finds that all magi, astrologers, etc. are punished. (9, 6b-7)
(4) c) The excuses of the makers of idols (5) The fact that astrology did not foresee its own future proves its worthlessness.
4. The profession of teacher (10) A Christian is not allowed to be a schoolmaster or to teach language and literature, because, first, he should have to catechize about the idols and, second, he should have to participate in heathen festivities with their idolatrous acts. (10, 1-4a)
The idol makers argue that they must be allowed to exercise their art because (i) they have nothing else to live from, (ii) St Paul allows them to stay in their art, (iii) the same apostle commands his Christians to earn their livelihood by the work of their hands.
Tertullian refutes these arguments by a deductio ad absurdum. (5, 1-3a). Finally the makers of idols refer to Moses who made the bronze serpent. Tertullian answers that this is a prefiguration and therefore stands apart. Against those who do not believe in the prefigurative nature of the serpent, Tertullian argues that the same God gave the general commandment not to make idols and to Moses that of making the bronze serpent. Follow Moses in not making an idol, unless God commands otherwise. (5, 3b-4) d) The sacrament of baptism is a sufficient argument in itself (6)
The study of language and literature is not forbidden to the Christians, because the situation of him who learns is quite different from that of him who teaches. Moreover, the studia saecularia are a necessary basis for the studia divina. (10, 4b-7)
5. The function of trader (11) As it is based on covetousness, which St Paul also calls idolatry, and on deceit, trade is already in itself of a dubious legality. (11, 1)
But even if in some cases it can take place without those sins, certainly that form of trade is forbidden which provides articles to be offered as a sacrifice to idols, such as incense. Idolatry is more easily carried on without an idol than without frankincense. A dealer in frankincense is a servant of the demons and, in consequence, comes into conflict with the Christian faith. (11, 2-8a)
How can one maintain to renounce the devil and his angels (the demons) if one makes their images? (6, 1-2a)
The argument 'I make them but 1 do not worship them' is not valid. (6, 2b-3) e) The complaint of the zealous believer (7)
The zealous believer will complain when he sees the maker of idols entering the church and touching the body of Christ with hands that made the idols. (7, 1) Summary of ch. 3-11: no handicraft, profession or trade taking part in the manufacture or the provision of idols is free from idolatry. (11, 8b) 6. On the excuse of the necessity of a living (12)
This excuse, if uttered by a Christian, comes too late. He should have deliberated before he accepted the faith. (12, 1)
The idol maker is even chosen into the ecclesiastical order, which is a truly great shame. (7, 2-3) 2. The arts of making other objects in connection with the service of the gods (8) But even now, after baptism, he has the sayings of the Lord and the examples given by Him. (12, 2-4a) Other arts not making idols but manufacturing their attributes are equally guilty of idolatry. (8, 1) Although it may be difficult, idolatry has to be avoided like a pestilence. (12, 4b-5) II. Idolatry by participation in social life (13-23)
The excuse of having to secure maintenance is not valid here either. The more so because the practisers of those arts can easily win their living by applying their skill to other objects. (8, 2-5a)
3. The profession of astrologer (9) About the idolatrous nature of the profession of astrology (and magic) there can be no doubt; it was taught by the fallen angels. The 1. Idolatry in deeds (13-19) a) Festivities (13, 1-17, 1) aa) Public festivals (13, 1-14, 5) Sacrifices and priestly offices need not even be discussed.
INTRODUCTION
IN TRODUCTION
J I
The visiting of spectacles has been dealt with in a special treatise. Hence participation in pagan festivities has to be discussed, which we allow sometimes to ourselves either out of untenable. According to the same rule, we may obey magistrates and powers as long as we do not perpetrate idolatry. (17, 1) b) Functions of dignity and power (17, 2-18, 9) lustfulness or out of fear of making ourselves known as Christians. (13, 1) (1) Celebrations together with the heathens (13, 2-14, 5)
Are Christians allowed to exercise these functions, if they succeed in avoiding idolatry and other forbidden actions? The examples of Joseph and Daniel seem to suggest a positive answer.
(17, 2) Christians should not share in the pleasures of the heathens as Scripture shows clearly. (13, 2-4a)
Pagan holidays of giving and rejoicing should not be observed by a Christian. Show that you are a Christian by not conforming to the rules of the heathens. Otherwise the Lord would be ashamed of you. (13, 4b-6)
As to the condition mentioned just now, let us assume that this is possible. (17, 3) However, the dress and the insignia belonging to these offices are tainted with idolatry, which makes these functions forbidden for Christians. The cases of Joseph and Daniel were different.
(18, 1-4a) Neither the Scriptural precept to avoid blasphemy of the Name, nor St Paul's assertions that he wished to please all by all means and that he has become all things to all can be adduced in support of a communion with the celebrations of heathens. (14, 1-5) (2) Celebrations of the Christians on their own (14,6-15, 11)
Moreover, one should bear in mind that old and new are not always comparable. Joseph and Daniel were slaves, the Christian is nobody's slave but Christ'S; he should follow the example of the Lord. (18, 4b-7) A fortiori the Christian is not allowed to celebrate festivals like the Saturnalia on their own. (14, 6) The heathens would never do the same with a Christian feast.
They show more fidelity to their own religion. (14, 7) The worldly powers are hostile to God. Besides, birth and fortune are in themselves obstacles in the fight against idolatry, a sin which a Christian has to avoid even at the cost of his life. (18, 8-9) c) Military service as a common soldier (19)
The decoration of doors with lamps and laurel-wreaths is an idolatrous act, not only if it is meant as an homage to an idol, but equally if it is intended in honour of a human being, viz., the emperor. (15, 1-4)
The higher ranks belong to the offices of power and dignity discussed just now. The lower ranks and common soldiers, however, are not less forbidden. The divine and human sacrament do not tolerate each other. Examples·taken from Old and New Testament which seem to point in the other direction are refuted. In St Peter
Christ has disarmed every soldier. (19, 1-3) 2. Idolatry in words (20-22) Not only in deeds but also in words idolatry threatens our Christian way of life. These words originate either from custom or from timidity. (20, 1) Romans and Greeks know gods of doors. Enoch speaks about this form of superstition. If we decorate our doors, we give honour to the idols. (15, 5-7a)
Confirmation from experience: the dream of one of the brethren. (15, 7b-8a) Examples for our attitude towards those in authority may be found in the stories of the three brothers and Daniel in Dan 3 and 6. (15, 8b-lOa) Praenotandum: The prohibition of Scripture not to name the gods of the heathens does not mean that we may not pronounce them, but that we may not call them 'gods'. (20, 2-4) a) Idolatry because of custom (20, 4) Final adhortation not to do the works of the heathens.
(15, IOb-ll) bb) Private festivities (16, 1-17, 1) Expressions like mehercule are in fact formulas of swearing by heathen gods. (20, 4) b) Idolatry because of timidity (21-22) Christians may take part in family-festivals, since the matters concerned (toga virilis, matrimony etc.) are not tainted by idolatry. They may not, however, partake in the religious part of the festivity. (16, 1-5) Otherwise the position of the Christian servants of heathen masters would become
Timidity to make ourselves known as Christians occasions often a wrong reaction to somebody's else's words. This reaction may also be that of silence. Tertullian presents three cases.