1. A reaction on a binding by oaths, etc. (21, 1-3)
:,w,4-2U,5
21-22, SURVEY, REMARKS
sudden transition from an impersonal (dicendum erit) into a personal construction (ego) makes the statement more vivid. nationum (sc. deos): Tert. uses the same expression in 15, 2. Sed hoc ... praestructum est: the observations of 20, 2-3 are not a discussion of the subject-matter announced in par.
1 but rather (magis) a praestructio (this rare word, not mentioned in OLD, occurs no less than nine times in Tert.'s works), i.e. a preparation of the discussion that follows (sequentia).
Chs. 21-22. The vice of timidity 'The vice of timidity is there, first if someone binds you in the name of his gods and you do not protest out of fear to be recognized as a Christian.
Herewith you acknowledge the majesty of those gods (§ 1). Do you not see that you are the victim of the tricks of Satan? What he cannot achieve by means of your mouth (= open confession) he achieves by means of your ears
(§ 2). If the man who wants to bind you approaches you in an unfriendly way, you have to stand firm and fight; if he is friendly, it is safer for you to transfer your engagement from the gods to the Lord and not to bind yourself to him,
5. Ceterum: 'But to return to our subject-matter announced in par. 1: it is a vice of custom to say: 'Mehercule' and 'Medius Fidius'.' To utter these words is, of course, contrary to the precept not to name the gods of the pagans. But it is more: it means no less than an oath by Hercules, although many people are not aware of this fact (accedente ignorantia). In this context cf. P. Brown, Augustine of Hippo. A Biography (London-Boston 1967), 149: who is used by the devil to make you idolatrous (§ 3). Every tolerance in this matter is idolatry.
I know a Christian who at a lawsuit was addressed by a heathen with the malediction 'Jupiter be angry with you' and answered 'no, with you'. This is the reaction of a heathen and thus idolatrous. Even if he had not retorted the malediction, but only had shown himself indignant, he would have perpetrated idolatry. By becoming angry one confirms the existence of the god
'the Africans were notorious swearers of oaths. Augustine's early sermons show how he had to combat this vice in his congregation' (for this statement
Brown refers to Augustine's De serm. Domini in monte 1, 17,51 and Expos. ep. ad Gal. 9). per Herculem: this is obvious in the case of Mehercule. But Tert. seems to combine Medius Fidius also with Hercules. For this use cf.
Serv. Dan. ad Verg. Aen. 4, 204: fidius, id est ~tO~ u[6~, 10 vis filius, id est Hercules. Cf. on this subject Wissowa, Rei., 118 and 130-1. Porro denotes a continuation; here this continuation consists of the minor of the argument:
'Now what else is an oath by those whom you have forsworn than a collision of faith with idolatry' (conclusion: 'Ergo, it is not allowed'). quid ... quam
(§ 4). For why should one become angry because of somebody whom one knows to be nothing? The more so, if one returns the malediction.-The Christian ought to laugh at such a situation or rather return the malediction by a benediction in the name of God, as Holy Scripture commands, thus destroying the idols and honouring God (§ 5).
22. Similarly a Christian may not tolerate that he is blessed in the name of the gods of the heathens. A blessing by the gods is a malediction of God (§ 1).
If I give an alms to somebody and he imprecates the blessings of his gods upon me, then my alms becomes an honour to those gods (§ 2). He should know that I did it for the honour of God. - 'But God knows my intention'. Yes, but He also sees that I was not willing to show that I did it for Him.-Many say:
= quid a/iud ... quam. Cf. e.g. cor. 14, 2: Quid enim est in capite feminae corona quam formae lena, quam summae lasciviae nota? per eos ... per quos: cf. 21, 1: per deos suos ob/igat; 21, 2: iures per idola; 22, 1: benedici per deos nationum. After per eos we should supply deieras (or fit after si,
'nobody has to make himself known'. But no more has one to deny what one is. For to dissimulate that one is a Christian is to deny one's faith, and every denial is idolatry, just as every act of idolatry is a denial of faith (§ 3). ' which amounts to the same thing). The antithesis deieras ... eierasti shows the impossible situation for a Christian who says mehercule, etc. eierasti: viz., in baptism, where the candidate is asked whether he is willing to renuntiare satanae et pompae et ange/is eius (= in the first place the pagan gods). Cf. on this the note on 18, 7. praevaricatio: Tert., who frequently uses the verb praevaricari and its derivations praevaricatio and praevaricator, here uses praevaricatio in its original sense of 'tempering with the opposing party' as Remarks Tertullian illustrates the vice of timidity by three cases in which the Christian is confronted with idolatrous utterances of others and in consequence of a also in an. 1, 6 where (to quote Waszink's comment ad loc., 94) 'Socrates is qualified as a praevaricator, because, though denying the existence of the gods, he yet admitted their existence by his sacrifice to Aesculapius'. In most cases, however, Tert. uses this verb with the more general meaning 'to deceive' . wrong reaction becomes himself guilty of idolatry. In most cases this reaction is one of silence. In his view this silence, which originates in fear, is equivalent to a confession. Hence this silence is discussed here under the head of idolatry in words.
The three cases are:
1. A reaction on a binding by oaths, etc. (21, 1-3) A heathen binds a Christian by invocation of his gods (per deos suos obligat