Tertullian - A Historical and Li - Barnes, Timothy David

TRENT UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2019 with funding from
Kahle/Austin Foundation
https://archive.org/details/tertullianhistorOOOObarn
TERTULLI AN
A Historical and Literary Study
TERTULLIAN
A Historical and Literary Study
TIMOTHY DAVID BARNES

Assistant Professor of Classics,
University College, Toronto
CLARENDON PRESS • OXFORD

/£A\ X'A'Sr 0
Oxford University Press, Ely House, London W. i

GLASGOW NEW YORK TORONTO MELBOURNE WELLINGTON
CAPE TOWN SALISBURY IBADAN NAIROBI DAR ES SALAAM LUSAKA ADDIS ABABA
BOMBAY CALCUTTA MADRAS KARACHI LAHORE DACCA
KUALA LUMPUR SINGAPORE HONG KONG TOKYO
(g) OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 197 I
Printed in Great Britain by

Alden & Mowbray Ltd
at the Alden Press, Oxford
It is the concrete being that reasons; pass a number of years, and I
find my mind in a new place; how? the whole man moves; paper
logic is but the record of it.
JOHN HENRY NEWMAN
192958
PREFACE
A historical and literary study of Tertullian needs no

apology or lengthy justification. Books, monographs and
learned articles proliferate on many aspects of Tertullian’s
writings and theology. Yet a central task has long been forgot¬
ten, if not deliberately omitted. No author—least of all an
orator, polemicist, pamphleteer and satirist—can be rendered
fully intelligible unless he is set in his proper historical and cul¬
tural milieu. Since Tertullian was active in Carthage in the
reigns of Septimius Severus and his son Caracalla, there must
be four main points of reference. First, the contemporary history
of the Severan age. Next, the provincial society of Roman Africa
and its metropolis. Third, the Second Sophistic Movement in
the Greek world, whose most adequately known protagonist in
the west was Apuleius of Madauros, himself an African of the
generation before Tertullian. Finally, and perhaps most im¬
portant, the development of Christianity. I have written on the
assumption that only in terms of this unique historical environ¬
ment can we hope to explain what Tertullian was, or what and
why he wrote. To neglect the background precludes genuine
understanding.
The present work is the product of a happy decade spent in

Oxford, first as an undergraduate at Balliol, subsequently for
two years as a Senior Scholar at Merton and for four years as a
Junior Research Fellow of Queen’s. I am deeply grateful to all
three colleges for the opportunities which they have given me,
both to study and to enjoy the friendship of those to whose help I
owe so much. Any attentive reader will note the pervasive in¬
fluence of the published works of Sir Ronald Syme and Fergus
Millar: I have tried to perform for a Christian writer something
of what they have achieved for Tacitus and Cassius Dio. I have
also had the immense good fortune to be taught by both these
scholars. The present book is an expansion of an Oxford doctoral
viii PREFACE
thesis commenced in October 1964 under the supervision of Sir
Ronald Syme and completed in January 1970 under that of
Fergus Millar. The former gave me the courage and confidence
to tackle a task which appeared impossibly daunting, the latter
provided constant help and advice at every stage of the actual
composition, and neither has ever failed to offer me the con¬
tinual guidance and inspiration without which I would have
been totally unable to write.
Many others have aided in shaping the work, either in con¬
versation or by their comments on the text, I am grateful to
them all, and must ask their forgiveness if I record but a few
by name. Three have an especial interest in early Christianity:
Geoffrey de Ste. Croix has frequently drawn my attention to
relevant evidence and fresh problems; Peter Brown read my
thesis and suggested considerable improvements in it; and the
Very Reverend Dr. Henry Chadwick acted as my mentor at a
critical juncture. Michael Reeve has provided much salutary
criticism and advice on literary and linguistic problems, and I
must thank my examiners, the Reverend Dr. S. L. Greenslade
and Mr. R. G. M. Nisbet, for their painstaking care in detect¬
ing several serious errors and oversights. Numerous others
doubtless remain.
My greatest debt of gratitude, however, is to my wife, for
creating the mental and emotional tranquillity which has
enabled me to devote so large a part of my energies to historical
scholarship.
T.D.B.
Oxford
16 July 1970
AUTHOR’S NOTE
Portions of this book are closely based upon articles published

in the Journal of Roman Studies and the Journal of Theological
Studies. References to Tertullian follow the division into chap¬
ters and sections of Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina I/II.
CONTENTS
Abbreviations xi
i. Introduction 1
PART ONE
ii. The Evidence of Jerome 3
m. Tertullian’s Father 13
iv. The Jurist Tertullianus 22
v. Chronology 3°
PART TWO
vi. Tertullian’s Life and Background 57
vii. Christianity in Africa 60
vm. Christians and Pagans in Carthage 85
ix. Knowledge or Revelation? 115
x. The New Prophecy T3°
xi. Persecution *43
xii. Martyrdom x^4
xiii. A Pagan Education x&7
xiv. The Christian Sophist 211
Appendices 233
Editions, Commentaries and Translations 286
Bibliography 292
Index of Names and Subjects 3°9
Passages of Tertullian Discussed 3*9

ABBREVIATIONS
AE VAnne'e epigraphique
BMC Catalogue of Coins in the British Museum
CCL Corpus Christianorum, Series Latina (Turnhout, 1953-)
CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum
CQ Classical Quarterly
CR Classical Review
CSEL Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum (Vienna, 1866-)
FIRA2 S. Riccobono and others, Fontes Iuris Romani Antejustininia2
(1940-43)
CCS Die Griechischen Christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten Jahrhunderte
(Berlin, 1897-)
IGRR Inscriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes
ILCV H. Diehl, Inscriptiones Latinae Christianae Veteres (1925-31)
ILS H. Dessau, Inscriptiones Latinae Selectae (1892-1916)
IRT Inscriptions of Roman Tripolitania
JEH Journal of Ecclesiastical History
JRS Journal of Roman Studies
J TS Journal of Theological Studies
PG J. P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca
PIR Prosopographia Imperii Romani
PL J. P. Migne, Patrologia Latina
P-W Pauly-Wissowa, Real-Encyclopadie der Classischen Altertumswis-
senschaft (1896-)
RAC Reallexicon fur Antike und Christentum (Stuttgart, 1941-)
TLL Thesaurus Linguae Latinae
I
INTRODUCTION
B iography enjoys a permanent popularity. Tacitus wrote

Histories and Annals, concentrating on the political and
social history of the senatorial order at Rome. His con¬
temporary Suetonius provided easier reading matter: lives of
the emperors from Julius Caesar to Domitian. Tertullian con¬
flated the two traditions and alluded to Tacitus’ Annals as
‘vitae Caesarum’.i In recent times the genre retains its appeal,
despite inappropriateness. A long series of treatises, sermons and
letters, together with a spiritual autobiography, reveal the
gradual development of the intricate mind of Augustine, and
permit the composition of a modern biography at once serious
and illuminating.2 But Augustine stands virtually alone among
men of the ancient world. Even such voluminous writers as
Cicero and Jerome are best treated in a style other than the
biographical. And what of the biographies of Roman em¬
perors? On an unfavourable view, their authors have all but
forfeited any claim to be historians.
Paucity of evidence renders a full biography of Tertullian
impossible. Hence, for the most part, the task of setting him in
his historical context or cultural milieu has been shirked.
Scholarly attention has been happily engrossed on peripheral
problems or isolated aspects of Tertullian’s thought and writ¬
ings. Nonetheless, a conventional picture of his life has firmly
established itself, whose main outlines run briefly as follows.
Tertullian was born in Carthage c. 155, the son of a centurion in
the Roman army. As he grew up, he rebelled against the mili¬
tary ideals of his father, which nevertheless exerted an impor¬
tant influence upon his theology. In early manhood, he went
to Rome to study law, where he acquired a reputation as a
iurisconsultus and may have composed two legal textbooks (De
castrensi peculio and Quaestiones) which are cited in the Digest and
1 Scorp. 15. 3 (p. 202).

2 P. Brown, Augustine of Hippo. A Biography (1967).
2 INTRODUCTION
Institutions of Justinian. His sympathy with Stoicism made him

susceptible to Christian ideas: the fortitude of martyrs and his
consciousness of the moral superiority of Christianity led him to
conversion c. 193. He then (or perhaps before his conversion)
returned to Carthage. Soon he was ordained a priest, but his
natural propensity to revolt and his detestation of worldly
priests drove him to join the Montanists. As a Montanist, he
became ever more hostile to the Roman Empire and to Roman
civilization, and was soon so dissatisfied with even the Mon¬
tanists that he founded his own sect of Tertullianistae. He died
at a great age, perhaps as late as 230 or 240.
The first part of the present work will provide a demolition.

First, the evidence of Jerome will be tested and rejected:
that will remove any reason for believing either that Tertul-
lian’s father was a soldier or that he himself was ever a priest
(Chs. II, III). Next, the identification of Tertullian with the
jurist Tertullianus will be decisively discounted (Ch. IV).
Finally, the chronology of Tertullian’s works will be examined
afresh and some standard dates refuted. Only when demolition
is complete can reconstruction commence—with a new chrono¬
logical framework (Ch. V), which will be assumed and employed
for the second part (Chs. VI-XIV). These chapters address
themselves to a twofold problem: what was Tertullian’s in¬
tellectual and literary development? and how does Tertullian
illuminate the obscure world of early Christianity? These are
not two separate problems, since it is precisely Tertullian’s
development which must dispel the obscurity. The single prob¬
lem has both an objective and a subjective dimension. Eusebius
was almost completely ignorant of Tertullian: therefore
Tertullian can be used to disprove Eusebius’ interpretation of
early ecclesiastical history and to penetrate beneath his theories
to the real situation of Christians in the reign of Septimius
Severus. Within this objective framework, however, Tertullian
must be treated as a living figure. His experiences and his
reactions to the society in which he found himself must be
recreated and relived.
PART ONE
II
THE EVIDENCE OF JEROME
O f Tertullian’s life very little is known. A single ancient

account is extant, of a mere twenty lines: the fifty-third
chapter of Jerome’s De Viris Illustribus.1 Any interpreta¬
tion of Tertullian, therefore, ought to begin by investigating
this account, of which a full translation will be helpful.
Tertullian, the next Latin writer after Victor and Apollonius, was
a priest, a man of the province of Africa and the city of Carthage,
and the son of a centurio proconsularis. He possessed a sharp and
violent talent, and flourished in the reigns of Severus and Caracalla.
He wrote many volumes, which I shall omit because they are well
known. I myself saw a certain Paul, an old man of Concordia
(which is a town in Italy): he told me that as a youth he had seen a
man at Rome, who had been the secretary of the aged Cyprian, and
who recalled that Cyprian would never let a day pass without reading
Tertullian, and that he often said to him ‘Give me my master’,
clearly meaning Tertullian.
Tertullian was a priest of the church until middle age, but then,
because of the envy and insults of the clergy of the church of Rome,
he lapsed into Montanism and refers to the New Prophecy in many
treatises. In particular, he directed against the church discussions
of modesty, of persecution, of fasting, of monogamy, and of divine
possession (in six books, with a seventh against Apollonius). He
is said to have lived to an advanced age, and to have published
many tracts which are no longer extant.
1 Jerome had already given Tertullian a brief entry in his Chronicle, under a.d.
208: Tertullianus Afer, centurionis proconsularis fxlius, omnium ecclesiarum ser-

mone celebratur {GCS XLVII. 212). Later he employed the De Viris Illustribus for
his letter to the Roman orator Magnus (Epp. LXX. 3 ff.).
4 THE EVIDENCE OF JEROME
Jerome was writing in Bethlehem in 392 or early 393-1 The

De Viris lllustribus is a series of short notices on Christian writers
up to the time of its composition. Contemporaries are included,
and even the author himself (135)* The aim is apologetic.
Jerome proclaims as his chief models Suetonius work of the same
name and Cicero’s Brutus, and sets out to demonstrate that the
achievements of Christian scholarship and literature are in no
way inferior to those of the pagans. Celsus, Porphyry and
Julian, he warns, those savage denigrators of Christ, will no
longer be able to accuse the Christians of uneducated simplicity.
On the contrary, they will be forced to recognize their own
lack of learning (praef.Jerome furthers his aim with some
subtlety. The persistent and insidious addition of laudatory
epithets cannot fail to convey to the reader an exaggerated
impression of the attainments of the Fathers of the Church.2 No
wonder that the De Viris lllustribus was so popular in the
Christian Middle Ages.3 *
The historical context is not irrelevant. Christianity was on
the threshold of its final victory. In 391 the emperor Theodosius
issued an edict forbidding the public celebration of pagan
cults.** Almost at once the great Serapeum in Alexandria was
destroyed, and the ruin of other important shrines was soon to
follow.5 In 392 pagan hopes rose again when Eugenius was put
up as emperor by Arbogast the Frank. But Arbogast and
Eugenius were defeated in September 394 at the battle of the
Frigidus, and paganism ceased to be a political force.6 7 Or rather,
the early fifth century saw a coalescence of the two cultural
traditions, Christian and pagan.? And, if pagan scholarship and
learning saw a final flowering with Macrobius, nevertheless
Jerome’s boast about the past came true in the present:
Christian learning was now at least equal to pagan.
1 App. 1.
2 Note the following figures: ‘elegans’ occurs sixteen times; ‘clarus’ and its
derivatives twelve; ‘insignis’ eleven; ‘eloquens’ or ‘eloquentia’ eight; ‘eruditus’ or
‘eruditio’ seven; ‘disertus’ six.
3 For the details, A. Feder, Studien zum Schriftstellerkatalog des heiligen Hieronymus
(i927)-
* Cod. Theod. XVI. 10. 10: nemo se hostiis polluat,... nemo delubra adeat,
templa perlustret et mortali opere formata simulacra suspiciat, etc.
5 Rufinus, HE XI. 22 ff.
6 O. Seeck, Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt V (1913), 217 If.
7 As Gibbon perceived (Decline and Fall, Ch. XXVIII).
THE EVIDENCE OF JEROME 5
The De Viris Illustribus was composed at the suggestion of
Nummius Aemilianus Dexter [praef), a prominent supporter
of Theodosius and a devout Christian. Having visited Jerome
in Bethlehem, it seems, Dexter came away the recipient of the
treatise. In it he was appropriately flattered: both he and his
father, bishop Pacianus of Barcelona, are accorded the warmest
praise (106; 132). Other contemporaries were treated less
charitably. Jerome forestalled criticism by advising those who
were omitted to blame their own obscurity rather than the
author’s lack of industry [praef.). And he hinted darkly at the
faults of a personal enemy, refusing to proffer a verdict on the
writings of Ambrose, lest he be castigated lor adulation or for
being truthful (124).
In his undertaking Jerome had no predecessors. His informa¬
tion comes, he affirms, from Eusebius and from his own reading
of the authors discussed [praef). These sources he supplements
from personal recollection. Does his chapter on Tertullian,
therefore, derive solely from his reading of Tertullian and his
encounter with Paul of Concordia?
With Constantine the Christian church emerged from dark¬

ness into light. For the fourth and subsequent centuries there is
a vast mass of evidence concerning its history; and for the fourth
century Jerome could draw on his own memory and the recol¬
lections of older contemporaries. Such oral sources might
sometimes, as with the story of Cyprian’s reading of Tertullian,
produce reliable information for the middle of the third century.
But that was exceptional. For the years before 300j the genuine
evidence outside Eusebius was almost as exiguous then as it
is now. Its volume was inflated early by legend and invention.
sometimes even Eusebius was taken in, as by the fictitious
exchange of letters between Jesus and Abgar, which was
preserved in the state archives at Edessa.1
The earliest Christians to write in Latin pose a special prob¬
lem. For Eusebius had little interest in the development of
Christianity in the western half of the Roman Empire, except
when it impinged on the eastern half. His knowledge of Chris¬
tian literature in Latin was extremely restricted. Of Minucius
Felix and Victorinus of Poetovio he appears entirely ignorant,
1 he I. 13- 5 ff-
B
and he could bring Cyprian into his Ecclesiastical History only

because he found some letters from Cyprian and Cornelius in
the episcopal archives at Antioch and because he was named in
a letter of Dionysius of Alexandria.1 His knowledge of Tertullian
was confined to the Apologeticum, and that in a poor Greek
translation, which he uses simply as a historical witness to
certain facts or alleged facts for which he has little or no better
evidence.2 Thus Tertullian is cited for Pilate’s letter to Tiberius
about Jesus and the emperor’s letter to the Senate in favour of
the Christians, for the persecutions of Nero and Domitian, for
Pliny’s execution of Christians, and for the miracle of the
‘Thundering Legion’.2 Eusebius missed, however, the state¬
ments in another work that Severus protected some senators
who were Christians from the fury of the mob, and that
Caracalla was virtually brought up as a Christian.4 These
would have constituted valuable support for his interpretation
of Christian history.2 Jerome’s treatment of the early Latin
Fathers is thus of necessity often entirely independent of
Eusebius.
According to Jerome, the first Christian to be distinguished
in Latin letters was Seneca (12). Jerome admits that he would
not have included him but for his correspondence with Paul,
which was widely read.2 He quotes a remark from one of the
letters, and adds that Seneca died two years before Peter and
Paul. Perhaps Jerome’s obvious caution should be interpreted
as disbelief in the authenticity of the letters.7
The next two Latin writers in Jerome’s catalogue in fact
wrote in Greek. Victor, who was the thirteenth bishop of Rome
and ruled the church for ten years under Septimius Severus,
wrote ‘super quaestione paschae’ and other short tracts (34).
Apollonius was a senator of Rome (42).8 Under Commodus
1 HE VI. 43. 3; VII. 3.

2 A. Harnack, Texte u. Unters. VIII. 4 (1892), 1 ff.
3 HE II. 2. 4 ff.; II. 25.4; III. 20. 7 (also citing Hegesippus); III. 33. 3; V. 5. 5 ff.
(also citing Apollinaris).
4 Tertullian, Scap. 4. 5 f. 3 Cf. HE V. 21. 1 ff.
« For these letters, cf. C. W. Barlow, Epistolae Senecae ad Paulum et Pauli ad
Senecam ‘quae vocantur’ (1938); A. Momigliano, Contributo alia storia degli studi classici
('955), !3 ff-
7 Barlow, o.c. 81.
3 A fourth century phrase, cf. R. Syme, Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (1968),
!52-
he was betrayed by a slave and obtained leave to compose a

defence of his faith, which he read in the Senate. Nevertheless,
the Senate sentenced him to be beheaded, because an ancient
law forbade confessing Christians who had been denounced to
be set free. Jerome is here clearly dependent on Eusebius, and
in the case of Apollonius copies his very words. His belief that
Apollonius was a senator is no more than an inference from his
trial before the Senate: Eusebius strongly implies that he was
not, when he asserts only that he was famous for his learning
and philosophy.1 The work by Victor whose title Jerome quotes
was written in Greek. For it was Victor’s contribution to a
conflict which broke out in Asia and in which all the other
disputants wrote in Greek.2 As for the other short tracts, it
must remain doubtful whether Jerome knew of anything
besides the letters of excommunication which Victor sent to
Asia.3 Jerome’s belief that Victor and Apollonius wrote in
Latin is a simple but erroneous deduction from the fact that
they wrote in Rome. Hippolytus still wrote in Greek a genera¬
tion later, even when attacking the bishop of Rome with a
Roman audience in view.
After Tertullian (53), the next Latin writer is Minucius Felix
(58). He was a famous advocate at Rome who composed the
dialogue Octavius. Jerome refuses on stylistic grounds to admit
Minucius’ authorship of another work attributed to him, De
Fato or Contra Mathematicos, and concludes by recording that
Lactantius mentioned him.* Jerome has clearly read the
Octavius and the De Fato. He has inferred Minucius’ profession
and place of residence from the formers But, though he cor¬
rectly puts him after Tertullian, he fails to assign Minucius a
precise date.
For Cornelius, bishop of Rome, Jerome gives a catalogue of
his writings, adding the date and length of his episcopate, the
name of his successor Lucius and that he died a martyr (66).
Jerome has taken the final items from his edition of Eusebius’
Chronicle,(> and perhaps ultimately from the Chronographer of
354.7 The list of Cornelius’ works is copied from Eusebius, not
1 HE V. 21. 2. For the problems posed by the various accounts of Apollonius’
trial, cf. JRS LVIII (1968), 40; 46 ff.
2 HE V. 23 f.; cf. III. 31. 2.
3 HE V. 24. 9. 4 Div. Inst. V. 1. 22. 5 Oct. 2. 1 ff.
« GCS XLVII. 218 f. 7 Mon. Germ. Hist., Auct. Ant. IX. 75.
without a serious blunder: the second letter which Jerome

attributes to him (that ‘de Novatiano et de his qui lapsi sunt)
corresponds to what appears in Eusebius as a letter of Cyprian.1
But Jerome has been able to add a fact from his knowledge of
Cyprian, that the bishop of Carthage had sent Cornelius
eight letters.2 3
On Cyprian, Jerome is both well informed and owes nothing
to Eusebius (67). He had read the Vita Cypriani by Pontius as
well as the works of Cyprian himself. He relates that Cyprian
at first taught rhetoric until he was converted to Christianity by
the priest Caecilius. Once a Christian, he gave all his wealth to
the poor, and soon became a priest and the bishop of Carthage.
Jerome declines to give a catalogue of his works since they are
too famous, and the chapter closes by recording that Cyprian
was martyred under Valerian and Gallienus, on the same day
as Cornelius but in a different year. Though the information
about Cyprian’s death comes from another hagiographical
source (perhaps the acta proconsularia), the rest of the chapter is
drawn from Pontius. Before Jerome it is Pontius alone who
relates that Cyprian gave away all that he possessed.2 There is
also an error. Pontius reports the name of the man who con¬
verted Cyprian as Caecilianus:4 5 6 Jerome reproduces the name
as Caecilius and declares that it was from him that Cyprian
acquired the cognomen Caecilius.
The short notice on Pontius (68) need be based on nothing
besides his encomiastic biography of Cyprian.2 That he was a
deacon of the bishop was either stated in Jerome’s manuscript
of the Vita (though it is anonymous in the extant manuscripts),
or is an inference from it whose validity is uncertain.<>
Novatian was a priest in Rome who attempted to usurp the
position of Cornelius and founded the sect of the Novatiani (70).
Jerome adds that the instigator was Novatus, a priest under
Cyprian, and gives a list of Novatian’s works. Here Jerome has
1 HE VI. 43. 3.
2 Viz. Cyprian, Epp. XLIV, XLV, XLVII, XLVIII, L, LI, LII, LIX.
3 Vita Cypriani 2. 7.
4 Vita Cypriani 4. 1. Some editors print ‘Caecilius’: an unjustified emendation to
harmonize with Jerome.
5 Pontius’ authorship was denied, for inadequate reasons, by R. Reitzenstein,
Sitzungsber. d. Heidelberger Akad. d. Wiss., Phil.-hist. Kl. 1913, Abh. 14, 46 ff.
6 A. Harnack, Texte u. Unters. XXXIX. 3 (1913), 2 f.
corrected Eusebius through his knowledge of Cyprian. Eusebius

alleged that the schism originated with Novatus, a priest at
Rome.1 But the correspondence of Cyprian reveals that it was
Novatian who fomented trouble at Rome, while Novatus
opposed Cyprian in Carthage and went to Rome only after the
start of the dissensions.2
Jerome knows little about Victorinus of Poetovio (74)- Apart
from a notice of his martyrdom (which lacks a date), he merely
refers to and makes brief observations upon his works. The
source of the latter can only be the works themselves and
Jerome’s reflections upon them.2 The sole earlier mention of
Victorinus anywhere is a passing (and confusing) reference in
Optatus.4 Perhaps Jerome’s knowledge of Victorinus’ works and
martyrdom was acquired during his youth in Dalmatia.5
Arnobius taught rhetoric at Sicca under Diocletian (79). His
pupils included Lactantius (80), who was summoned with Flavius5
the grammarian to Nicomedia to teach rhetoric, still under
Diocletian. The Latin rhetor lacked pupils in the Greek city,
and turned to writing. In his old age he became the tutor of
Constantine’s son Crispus in Gaul. Jerome also gives the custom¬
ary catalogue of the writings of Arnobius and Lactantius. The
works of the latter could be the source of all the biographical
information in these two chapters. He composed a symposium
in Africa while young, a hexameter poem describing his
journey from Africa to Nicomedia, and a book entitled
Grammaticus, none of which is still extant. The dialogue and
poem ought to have depicted the author s life at Sicca and his
teacher Arnobius. The Grammaticus will presumably have
narrated Lactantius’ miseries in Nicomedia and analysed the
failure of Diocletian’s attempt to make Latin the one language of
the empire. As for his being tutor to Crispus, that could be a
fact still remembered in the late fourth century which Jerome
need not have found in a written source. He might, however,
1 HE VI. 43. 1. But the Chronicle appears to have distinguished the two (GCS
XX. 226).
2 Cyprian, Epp. XIV; L; LII.
3 Little is now extant, cf. E. Dekkers, Clavis Patrum LdtinoTwn2 (1961), ion.
4 De Schism. Donat. I. 9.
5 For Jerome’s education, cf. F. de Cavallera, St. Jdrome. Sa vie et son ceuvre I
(1922), 6 ff.
« Or Fabius, cf. the edition of C. A. Bernoulli (1895), xlv.
IO THE EVIDENCE OF JEROME
have taken it from the lost letters of Lactantius, which he had

certainly read.1 Jerome himself reveals that Lactantius addres¬
sed two books of epistles to Acilius Severus (hi), Pretorian
Prefect, ordinary consul for 323 and Prefect of the City not
long after.2
Jerome’s sources are identifiable. Almost everything comes

from Eusebius where he is relevant, or from the works of the
writers discussed. The only items which come from elsewhere
derive from memory or a hagiographical source. There is a
strong presumption, therefore, that the whole of the chapter on
Tertullian, excepting only the story heard from Paul of Con¬
cordia, derives from Tertullian’s writings.
Tertullian himself frequently states or implies that he is in
Carthage in the reigns of Severus and Caracalla. That he lapsed
into Montanism in middle age is possibly true; but it need be
no more than an inference from the long series of his works.
The assertion that he lived to an extreme old age may perhaps
rest on oral tradition.3 More probably (and some tracts by
Tertullian were known to Jerome only as titles in a catalogue4),
his extreme old age derives from the same inference. For on
one matter of some importance Jerome is silent. He fails to
mention the contemporary Tertullianistae. This Carthaginian
sect was received back into the church by the bishop, but only
after it had propagated itself in Rome by gaining some spec¬
tacular conversions in 388.5
Tertullian lapsed into Montanism ‘invidia et contumeliis
clericorum Romanae ecclesiae’. What does Jerome mean? That
Tertullian was impelled by the envy and insults of the clergy of
Rome? If the words are interpreted thus, a further problem
arises. Has Jerome preserved a valuable fact, or has he pro¬
jected back into the past his own quarrel with the priests of
Rome ? The latter seems far more likely.<> But the phrase could
1 CSEL XXVII. 155 ff.
2 A. Chastagnol, Les Fastes de la Prefecture de Rome au Bas-Empire (1962), 77 f.
3 Jerome states ‘fertur vixisse’: for his use of ‘fertur’, compare De Vir. III. 92;
130; 132.
4 Jerome, Epp. LXIV. 22 {De Aaron vestibus). 5 App. 13.
6 S. von Sychowski, Hieronymus als Litterarhistoriker (1894), 142; C. Mohrmann,
ftudes sur le Latin des Chretiens III (1965), 387 f. On the other side, however, note A.
Harnack, Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius II (1904), 294 f.;
P. de Labriolle, La crise montaniste (1913), 354.
THE EVIDENCE OF JEROME n
perhaps refer to Tertullian’s own feelings and behaviour as
evidenced in his Montanist writings.
Two of Jerome’s assertions remain whose origin and validity
are yet untested: that Tertullian was a priest, and that his
father was a ‘centurio proconsularis’. Modern scholarship has
built much on accepting Jerome, using these two ostensible
facts both to determine the chronology of Tertullian’s works and
to explain his whole intellectual development.1 But both mani¬
festly derive from Jerome’s reading (or misreading) of Ter¬
tullian. Since there are treatises cast in the form of sermons, it
would be easy for anyone to conclude that their author really
was a priest.2 And Jerome himself will have wished to believe
that a writer whom he so much admired was a priest, especially
a priest who (like himself) had been treated badly by the Roman
clergy.3 The facts are easily ascertained. Tertullian never
describes himself as ordained or appeals to his position as a
priest in order to strengthen an argument. On the contrary,
he twice classes himself among the laity.4 As for Tertullian’s
father, the title ‘centurio proconsularis’ is unparalleled and
improper.5 It betrays ignorance of what troops were at the
service of the proconsul of Africa in the second century. He
had an urban cohort permanently stationed in or near Car¬
thage, and a detachment sent annually from the legion III
Augusta at Lambaesis.6 No centurion in either body of troops
was a ‘centurio proconsularis’. Nor did any centurion any¬
where ever bear that title: proconsularis is never (for obvious
■ e.g., P. Monceaux, Rev. philA XXII (1898), 82 ff.; W. H. C. Frend, Martyr¬

dom and Persecution in the Early Church (1965)1 366.
2 But an error, cf. p. 117-
s Mohrmann, o.c. 387 f.
4 Exhort. Cast. 7. 3; Mon. 12. 2. For full discussion, H. Koch, Hist. Jahrbuch der
GorresgesellschaftXXV 111(1907), 95 ff.; felt schr. fur Kirchengesch.XXXV (1914), 1 ff.;
Theologische Studien und Kritiken Cl 11 (1931), 108 ff.; H. von Campenhausen,
Kirchliches Amt und geistliche Vollmacht in den ersten Jahrhunderten (1953). 25° H. Some
of Koch’s arguments (though not the most important) were exploded by P. de
Labriolle, Bull. Pane. litt. et d’arch. chrit. Ill (1913)1 161 ff- There the matter rests,
although to suppose Tertullian a layman comes hard even to modern priests (e.g.,
J. Quasten, Patrology II (1953), 247; S. L. Greenslade, The Library of Christian
Classics V: Early Latin Theology (1956)1 21). ... „. „ , ,
s For the normal titles of centurions, see T. Wegeleben, Die Rangordnung der
romischen Centurionen (Diss. Berlin, 1913), 7 S.;A. von Domaszewski-B. Dobson,
Die Rangordnung des romischen Heeres2 (1967), xxiii ff.; 90 ff.
6 R. Cagnat, L’amide romaine d’Afrique2 (1913)1 211 ^
i2 THE EVIDENCE OF JEROME
reasons) attested as part of the designation of any rank in the

Roman army. The provenance of the phrase is not hard to
discover: it is Jerome’s deduction from a false reading in a
passage of the Apologeticum, to which the discussion must now
turn.
Ill
TERTULLIAN’S FATHER
T heApologeticum derides the popular belief that Christian

ritual involved the ceremonial sacrifice of infants.1 Such
a misapprehension of Christian standards of conduct,
Tertullian proclaims, rests on nothing but hostile and unfoun¬
ded rumour. No evidence exists, and the charge is ridiculous:
no Christian would consider even eternal life worth the price of
murder. But pagans clearly find the accusation plausible. Why ?
Because they perform such sacrifices themselves. Proof is to
hand:
infantes penes Africam Saturno immolabantur palam usque ad
proconsulatum Tiberii, qui eosdem sacerdotes in eisdem arboribus
templi sui obumbratricibus scelerum votivis crucibus exposuit,
teste militia patriae nostrae,2 quae id ipsum munus illi proconsuli
functa est [Apol. 9. 2].
That, at least, is the text of the main manuscript tradition of the

Apologeticum.3 4 The lost manuscript from Fulda, however, appears
to have presented several divergent readings (the words which
differ are printed in italics):
infantes penes Africam Saturno immolabantur palam usque ad
proconsulatum Tiberii, qui ipsos sacerdotes in eisdem arboribus
templi sui obumbratricibus scelerum votivis crucibus vivos exposuit,
teste militia patris nostri, quae ad ipsum manus illi proconsuli functa est.
The text of the Apologeticum presented by the Fuldensis

diverges widely from that of the mam medieval manuscript
tradition.4 Not only does it offer a different reading in more
than one thousand places, but it contains a long paragraph not
found in the extant manuscripts (the so-called Fragmentum
1 Apol. 7. 1 ff. .
2 For ‘teste etc.’, cf. Marc. III. 24. 4: constat enim ethnicis quoque testibus-
3 Apart from the trivial mis-spelling ‘obumbraticibus .
4 For the details, cf. H. Hoppe, CSEL LXIX; C. Becker, Tertullian: Apologeticum2
(1961), 229 ff.
14 TERTULLIAN’S FATHER
Fuldense, inserted between 19. 1 and 19. 2). Further, a small

fragment of another manuscript from Rheinau (containing
38. 1-40. 2) seems to preserve the same textual tradition. There
exist, therefore, two distinct recensions of the Apologeticum.
What is the explanation ? Perhaps the two versions both derive
from Tertullian’s own hand: perhaps the Fuldensis represented
his first attempt at rewriting the Ad Nationes, while the vulgate
tradition descends from his final, polished version.1 This theory
may contain some truth: at all events, the textual variants and
the Fragmentum Fuldense require a complicated hypothesis.2 But
it is not clear that any general explanation will be valid for
every pair of variants. For in the passages quoted the differences
of reading are by no means all of the same order.
Tpsos’ in the Fuldensis is much superior to ‘eosdem’: indeed,
it is hard to see what meaning the latter can have in a context
where the priests are mentioned once.3 On the other hand,
‘vivos exposuit’ produces a poor clausula in comparison with
‘crucibus exposuit’.4 In both these cases, therefore, corruption
is likely: ‘ipsos’ could easily have been changed to ‘eosdem’
under the influence of the following ‘eisdem’, and ‘vivos’ may
be an intrusive gloss on ‘exposuit’. Again, ‘ad ipsum manus’ in
the Fuldensis is a simple corruption which involves only two
letters. Finally, what of ‘patris nostri’ and ‘patriae nostrae’ ?
These have often been interpreted as author’s variants5—
implausibly, since the two readings have totally contradictory
senses. ‘Patris nostri’ puts the suppression of infant sacrifice
in Carthage in the time of Tertullian’s father, i.e. near the
middle of the second century. ‘Patriae nostrae’ dates it to the
reign of the emperor Tiberius, more than a century earlier. If
both were written by Tertullian, one statement must be pure
invention and the change due to entirely stylistic motives. That
is belied by Tertullian’s mode of argument. Infant sacrifice to
1 G. Thornell, Studia Tertullianea IV (1926); C. Becker, Tertullians Apologeticum:
Werden und Leistung (1954).
2 App. 3.
3 The same objection does not apply to “in eisdem arboribus’: they are the same
trees which used to hide the crime.
4 Viz. --du x against uu tj — uu X. For statistics of clausulae (not
wholly complete or reliable), cf. F. di Capua, Le clausole metriche nelV ‘Apologetico’
(1912), 17 ff.
5 So Becker, o.c. (1954)? 211 f-, with reference to ‘diese Tendenz Tertullians,
immer mehr mit seinem Ich zuriickzutreten’.
TERTULLIAN’S FATHER 15
Saturn was a commonplace, one of the standard rhetorical
exempla of barbarity. Tertullian has characteristically taken
pains to make the commonplace relevant to his audience.
But this procedure would be otiose unless his audience already
knew the story of the suppression of such sacrifices, and unless
the story had a definite historical context. ‘Patris nostri’ and
‘patriae nostrae’, therefore, are not author’s variants. One is the
correct reading, written by Tertullian, the other a corrupt one.1
Three sorts of evidence converge to establish ‘patriae nostrae’.
Archaeological evidence indicates the approximate date when
infant sacrifice in African towns ceased. The suppression of
Druidic sacrifices in Gaul by Augustus, Tiberius and Claudius
offers an argument from analogy. And the context of Tertullian’s
statement might conceivably be held decisive, even in isolation.
The sacrifice of children to a deity was a custom deeply

rooted in ancient Semitic civilizations, practised in Africa no less
than in Syria and Palestine.2 Such offerings began in Carthage
with the founding of the city by Phoenician colonists, and con¬
tinued until (and perhaps beyond) its destruction in 146
b.c.3 A decline, however, is discernible comparatively early. In
Carthage itself, the tophet probably passed out of use even

before the sack of the city by the Romans.« At Hadrumetum,
the Punic cults became subject to Hellenistic influence during
the later period of the Carthaginian empire, and infant
sacrifice apparently petered out in the first century b.c.5 At
Utica, where occupation was continuous, the Roman town was
built over old Punic necropoleis—a sure sign of the demise of
the ancient religion.5 There is but one single scrap of archaeolo¬
gical evidence which tends to show that human sacrifice persis-
1 Ausonius, Epicedion in patrem 38 provides the perfect analogy. There the manu¬
scripts offer ‘natos quattuor edidimus’ and ‘natos tres numero genui’. These were
once widely taken for variants from the pen of Ausonius himself (H. Emonds,
Zweite Auflage im Altertum (1941), 95 ff.)- But <tres numero genui’ seems rather to be
the deliberate emendation of a scribe, cf. G. Jachmann, Concordia Decennalis
(1941), 62 ff.
2R, Dussaud, Les origines canandennes du sacrifice isradlite (1921), 163 ff. For the
Greco-Roman world, F. Schwen, Die Aienschenopfer bei den Griechen und Romern (1915) •
3 M. Leglay, Saturne africain: Histoire (1966), 61 ff.; 417 ff.
4 L. Poinssot-R. Lantier, Rev. hist. rel. LXXXVII (1923), 32 ff., esp. 66 ff.
5 P. Cintas, Revue africaine XCI1 (1947), 1 ff.; L- Foucher, Hadrumetum (1964), 33 ff.
6 P. Cintas, Karthago II (1951), 77-
i6 TERTULLIAN’S FATHER
ted under the Roman Empire: a small piece of pottery allegedly

datable to c. a.d. 50 was found at Utica in an urn together with
the bones of a young child.1 This find is so far unique, and its
dating and significance must remain doubtful. For on other
sites (such as Mactar) evidence is accumulating on the other
side which indicates that infant sacrifice ceased long before a
native town adopted Roman customs or institutions.2 3 As for
Carthage, it was a colonia, a city of Roman citizens. Admittedly,
in the countryside, rustic stelae datable c. 200 commemorate
the sacrifice of lambs as mere substitutes for children.2 But that
does not prove that the substitution is a recent innovation:
liturgical language has always been strongly conservative.
There appear, however, to be two pieces of decisive literary
evidence. In the late second century, Sextus Empiricus wrote
that men were sacrificed to Cronus:4 and, in the late third
century, Porphyry stated that there was still public human
sacrifice in Carthage.5 * * But Sextus combines the mention of
sacrifice to Cronus with the Scythian (more properly, Tauric)
custom of offering strangers to Artemis. That destroys his
value as evidence: the two examples are rhetorical common¬
places, repeated from one author to another without variation
or attempt at verification.6 Porphyry avoids this commonplace,
and combines the Carthaginian sacrifice with the sacrifice of
humans by the Arcadians at the Lykaia.? Again, however, that
is not evidence for the contemporary world. Porphyry has
lifted the whole passage, including the examples, from Theo¬
phrastus—who was writing six centuries earlier.8
1 The exact words of the archaeologist are important: ‘un tout petit morceau de
poterie remontant au milieu du premier siecle de notre ere, sans nul doute balaye
sur l’aire d’incin^ration en meme temps que les restes du malheureux enfant
immol£, se trouvait aussi a l’interieur de l’urne’ (Cintas, ib. 77). W. H. C. Frend,
Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (1965), 345 n. 236, appeals for further
evidence to C. Poinssot, Karthago VI (1955), 36 ff. But that article adds nothing
relevant.
2 G. C. Picard, Recueil de Constantine LXVI (1948), 117; KarthagoV III (1957), 42 f.
3 J. Carcopino, Aspects mystiques de la Rome paienne (1942), 39 ff.
4 Hypotyposes III. 208; 221.
5 De Abstinentia II. 27.
4 See the passages collected by J. E. B. Mayor, Thirteen Satires of Juvenal (1900),
386 f.; J. E. B. Mayor-A. Souter, Tertulliani Apologeticus (1917), 199; M. Leglay,
o.c. 315 ff.
2 Cf. P-W XIII. 2233 f.
8 W. Potscher, Theophrastus Tie pi Euoepdas (1964), 107; 172 ff.
TERTULLIAN’S FATHER *7
The Druidic practice of human sacrifice was suppressed by
the Roman authorities in the very early principate. Four authors
either record the fact of suppression or furnish relevant details.
Strabo states that by his day the Romans had made the Gauls
renounce their uncivilized customs in the matter of sacrifices
and prophecy.1 Pomponius Mela, in the reign of Claudius,
asserted that only ritual traces of the former savagery remained.2
A generation later, the elder Pliny stated that the reign of
Tiberius saw the destruction of the Gallic Druids, and told
how Claudius executed a Roman knight of the Vocontii for
carrying a magic egg.3 Suetonius, however, contradicted Pliny:
it was Claudius who completely abolished the barbaric religion
of the Druids, which Augustus had only forbidden Roman
citizens to practise.4
A reconciliation of the apparent contradictions has become
the standard view. First, Augustus forbade Roman citizens to
practise the Druidical religion. Then Tiberius suppressed the
priesthood, and with it human sacrifice in Gaul. Finally,
Claudius destroyed the religion completely.5 But, on this view,
Suetonius was unaware of the most decisive step, the suppres¬
sion of sacrifice by Tiberius. More important, Strabo, who
thought that sacrifice had already ceased in his time, was
writing under Augustus. Although his Geography contains
later additions (datable c. a.d. 20) the work was originally
published very soon after 2 b.c.,6 and the book on Gaul shows
no demonstrable sign of later revision.7 Perhaps, therefore,
there were not several distinct stages in the suppression of the
Druids, but rather several attempts at complete suppression.
The statements about Tiberius and Claudius are quite easily
explicable. A recrudescence of the national religion at the time
of the Gallic revolt in a.d. 21 or the Roman conquest of Britain
in 43 would not be inconceivable.
Be that as it may, human sacrifice in Gaul was suppressed
1 Strabo, p. 198. .
2 De Chorographia III. 18. Mela was writing in 43 (111. 49)
3 Nat. Hist. XXX. 13; XXIX. 53 f.
* Claudius 25.5. , f .
s e.g., R. Freudenberger, Das Verhalten der romischen Behorden gegen die Uinsten im
2. Jahrhundert (1967), 86 ff. Against, R. Syme, Tacitus (7958), 457 f.
6J. G. C. Anderson, Anatolian Studies presented to Sir W. M. Ramsay (1923), 1 ff.
For the additions, cf. P-W IV A. 77 f.; PIR2 J 65.
2 E. Pais, Italia antica I2 (1922), 277 f.
i8 TERTULLIAN’S FATHER
very early. Roman motives may in part have been moral: as

long ago as 97 b.c. the Senate had decreed that no human
being should be sacrificed.1 Against such a background, open
toleration of the same custom in Carthage for another century
is most improbable.2 In the reign of Vespasian, the elder
Pliny thought that the Roman Empire no longer displayed any
traces of human immolation.2
Nor does the context of Tertullian’s statement wholly lack

probative force. First, he draws a contrast between the former
open sacrifice and the present secret practices.4 The longer the
period since the suppression, the more the contrast gains in
point. Secondly, the open sacrifices continued ‘usque ad
proconsulatum Tiberii’. ‘Tiberii’ should signify the emperor
Tiberius, who has twice already been mentioned.5 Hence there
is a clear dilemma. If ‘Tiberii’ is correct, then ‘patriae nostrae’
is also correct. In order to render ‘patris nostri’ acceptable,
‘Tiberii’ must either be adjudged corrupt or emended away.6
To support one of the latter courses, a linguistic argument
could be invoked. ‘Usque ad proconsulatum Tiberii’ would
normally be translated ‘until the proconsulate of Tiberius’. But
Tiberius was never proconsul of Africa. Nor is it plausible to
postulate an allusion to the emperor’s proconsular imperium, in
virtue of which power he might theoretically be supposed to
have acted.2 Nor again will the simple emendation of ‘pro¬
consulatum’ to ‘proconsulem’ remove the abnormality:8 can
‘proconsulem Tiberii’ mean ‘a proconsul in the reign of Tiberius’ ?
It is tempting to conjecture that Tertullian has misremembered
a passage of Tacitus. The historian described how (in 21) the
Senate debated the proconsulate of Africa inconclusively, and
1 Pliny, Nat. Hist. XXX. 12.
2 No evidence besides Tertullian is cited by Frend, o.c. 361 f.; 383; Leglay, o.c.
323.
3 Nat. Hist. XXX. 14.
4 Apol. 9. 3.
3 Apol. 5. 2; 7. 3.
6 H. Dessau, PIR1 T 144, diagnosed corruption; A. Schulten, Das romische Afrika
(■899), 102 n. 51, conjectured ‘C. Serii’, i.e. C. Serius Augurinus, proconsul of
Africa in 169/70. But this man should be styled ‘Augurini’, as in Cod. Just. III.
31. 1.
7 Carcopino, o.c. 42.
s So Scaliger: see Waltzing, Etude sur le Codex Fuldensis de VApologetique de
Tertullien (1914-17), 183.
eventually referred the matter to Tiberius.1 Tertullian had

read this debate, since he elsewhere alludes to and misreports
a speech in the very next chapter of the AnnalsA The notion will
not silence scepticism. Accordingly, an emendation may be
proposed, with due diffidence. Perhaps Tertullian actually
wrote ‘usque ad proconsulatum Blaesi’: Q. Junius Blaesus was
proconsul for two years (21-23) and campaigned against the
rebel TacfarinasA The date would be highly appropriate for the
suppression (and possibly an antecedent revival) of a distinc¬
tively Punic religious rite.
Any argument from ‘Tiberii’ must consequently be dis¬
carded. That will not invalidate the historical and archaeologi¬
cal considerations already advanced. And there remains
Tertullian’s contrast of the past and present to set beside them.
One final obscurity needs to be removed: what was the ‘militia
patriae nostrae’ ? Perhaps the urban cohort permanently
stationed in Carthage.4 Alternatively, a municipal paramilitary
organization in the Roman colonial
‘Patriae nostrae’ is thus established as the correct reading.

But Jerome’s text had ‘patris nostri’: hence his deduction that
Tertullian’s father was a ‘centurio proconsularis.’6 That might
appear improbable: a demonstrably false reading attested
within two centuries of the composition of the Apologeticum.
Accordingly, some cite Jerome as proof that the correct reading
is ‘patris nostri’.7 Others, more subtly, use the passage as proof
that the only text of the Apologeticum available to Jerome
was the version of the Fuldensis.8 The former view is defective
in logic, confusing antiquity with correctness; the latter over¬
looks important evidence. There are long direct quotations
1 Ann. III. 32; 35.

2 Pall. 4. 9 (p. 202).
3 Velleius Paterculus II: 125. 5; Tacitus, Ann. III. 35. 2 f.; 58. 1; 72. 4 ff.; IV. 23.
if. .
4 R. Cagnat, L’armle romaine d'Afrique2 (19x3), 211 ff. On the meaning of
‘patria’, cf. Historia XVI (1967), 104.
5 A paramilitary iuventus is attested at Mactar and Thysdrus, cf. G. C. Picard,
Karthago VIII (1957), 77 ff; Herodian VII. 4. 1 ff. But the inhabitants of a
colonia were expected to render armed assistance to a Roman governor, cf. R. Syme,
Studies in Roman Economic and Social History in honor of A. C. Johnson (i950» 114'
<> H. Dessau, Hermes XV (1880), 473.
1 Waltzing, o.c. 183; E. Dekkers, CCL I. 102.
s Becker, o.c. (1954), 211 f.
20 TERTULLIAN’S FATHER
of the Apologeticum in Eusebius, Rufinus and Jerome; a close

and unacknowledged adaptation of an extended passage in
the anonymous Altercatio Heracliani laid cum Germinio episcopo
Sirmiensi\ and numerous brief quotations or freer adaptations.1
One case only need be cited here, as illustrative of the general
tendency of the evidence. The pseudo-Cyprianic treatise Quod
idola dii non sint has many allusions to the Apologeticum, among
them the sentence
Iudaeis erat apud deum gratia: sic olim iusti erant, sic maiores
eorum religionibus oboediebant [Quod idola io].
The Fuldensis had
totum Iudaeis erat apud deum praerogativa ob insignem iustitiam et

fidem originalium auctorum.
But the extant manuscripts have
totum Iudaeis erat apud deum gratia, ubi et insignis iustitia et

fides originalium auctorum [Apol. 21. 4].
Thus the treatise used a text with ‘gratia’, as in the main

manuscript tradition. Elsewhere, however, the treatise sides
with the Fuldensis:
existimabant magum de licentia potestatis [Quod idola 13]
corresponds to the Fuldensis’
uti magum existimarent de potestate
against the main tradition’s
uti magum aestimarent de potestate [Apol. 21. 17]-2 3
In brief, the texts of the Apologeticum current in late antiquity

now agree with the Fuldensis, now agree with the extant
manuscripts, now diverge from both.3 Indeed, in one passage,
Eusebius and Jerome attest a reading, clearly original and
authentic, which is corrupt in all the known manuscripts of
1 For the full list, CCL I, Tabulae ia-c.

2 E. Lofstedt, Kritische Bemerkungen zu Tertullians Apologeticum (1918), 27 ff.,
gives the full statistics: Quod idola dii non sint has three agreements with each tradi¬
tion against the other.
3 APP- 3-
Tertullian.1 There is, consequently, no inconcinnity or im-

plausibility in maintaining both that Tertullian wrote ‘patriae
nostrae’ and that Jerome read ‘patris nostri’. The open sacrifice
of children had ceased in Carthage long before the middle of
the second century—and there is no valid evidence whatever
that Tertullian’s father was a soldier.
1 Viz. ‘ut deo’ for the manuscripts’ ‘et deo’ at Apol. 2. 6, cf. CCL I. 88.
G
IV
THE JURIST TERTULLIANUS
T he Digest and the Codex Justinianus quote the opinions of a

jurist Tertullianus, who wrote a single book De Castrensi
Peculio and eight books of Quaestiones.1 The fragments which
remain (four quotations from the former, five from the latter
work) can give little idea of the scope or competence of either
composition.1 2
The castrense peculium was a legal innovation of Augustus.3
It consisted of what a soldier acquired during his service, and
over it even afiliusfamilias had powers approximating to owner¬
ship.4 Hence there inevitably arose the conflicts with family law
which are the subject of the extant fragments of Tertullianus’
De Castrensi Peculio. One of the four considers the implications
when the filius familias is mad;5 two discuss the validity of wills
made by the filius familias under various circumstances during
and after his military service;6 and one relates to the extension
of the soldier’s privileges at the expense of family law. Tertul¬
lianus declares that a soldier ought above all to own what he
brought with him into the camp with the permission of his
father.2 This opinion was controversial, and weighty names dis¬
agreed.8 Some conclude, therefore, that Septimius Severus
granted this extension of privilege and maintain that all texts
which declare against it are prior to 198, all those which con¬
cede it later than 200.9 But that resolution of their disagree¬
ments is facile and unsupported by any evidence.10 So far from
1 Dig. (ed. Mommsen and Kruger), Index Auctorum, XXII.

2 Collected by O. Lend, Palingenesia Iuris Civilis II (1889), 342 f.
3 Tituli ex corpore Ulpiani XX, 10 (F1RA2 II, p. 283); Inst. II. 12.
4 See, in general, A. Berger, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law (1953), 624;
J. A. Crook, Law and Life of Rome (1967), 110 f.
5 Cod. Just. V. 70. 7. 6 Dig. XXIX. 1. 23; 33. 7 Dig. XLIX. 17. 4.
8 F. La Rosa, Ipeculii speciali in diritto romano (1953), 22.
9 H. Fitting, Das Castrense Peculium (1871), 36; E. Albertario, Studi di Diritto
Romano I (1933), 159 ff.
10 A. Guarino, Bull. 1st. Dir. Rom. XLVIII (1941), 41 ff.; La Rosa, o.c. 32 f.
THE JURIST TERTULLIANUS 23
being explained away, such a dispute between Roman jurists

should be allowed to stand as historical fact.
Quaestiones formed a popular genre among the jurists: works
with that title were written by Caecilius Africanus, Callistratus,
Juventius Celsus, Fufidius, Volusius Maecianus, Papinian,
Paul us and Cervidius Scaevola.1 The quaestiones seem to have
been simply a series of unrelated problems considered separ¬
ately. The five fragments from Tertullianus all concern family
law: either this was Tertullianus’ special interest or the
Quaestiones are a by-product of his work on the castrense peculium.
One is important for chronology. Ulpian cited Tertullianus for
a verbal opinion of Sextus Pomponius.2 Ulpian was writing
under the sole rule of Caracalla,2 and Pomponius’ period of
eminence stretches from about 130 to about 165.4 The inference
is clear. Ulpian was writing only two generations after Pom¬
ponius. Would not the best authority for what Pomponius said
be one of his close disciples? Prima facie, therefore, Tertullianus
was a pupil of Pomponius, and so born no later than 155.5
A question at once poses itself: is there some connexion

between the jurist and the Christian writer ? Many have deemed
that they are identical/ Four plausible and relevant arguments
can be adduced in support, and must briefly be assessed.2
First, homonymity might seem to create a presumption of
identity, since the name Tertullianus is far from common.8
Secondly, the Christian displays a thorough and (it is claimed)
profound knowledge of Roman law.9 Third, the two may have
1 See Lenel, o.c. I and II, under the names.

2 Dig. XXIX. 2. 30. 6: ‘quod et Sextum Pomponium opinatum Tertullianus
libro quarto quaestionum refert: putasse enim . . .’.
3 The quotation is from the eighth book of Ad Sabinum, the sixth and forty-third
books of which mention respectively ‘divus Severus’ {Dig. XXIV. 1. 23) and
‘imperator Antoninus cum divo patre suo’ {Dig. XII. 6. 23. 1; XLVI. 3. 5. 2.).
* Dig. I.2.2.49; L. 12.14; cf. W. Kunkel, Herkunft undsoziale Stellung der romischen
^ 5 For the'age at which legal studies began, see H. I. Marrou, Histoire de l Education
dans I’antiquite6 (1965), 390; 418 ff. _ w „ „ P ,
6 So, in recent years, J. Quasten, Patrology II (1953), 246; W H. C. Frend,
Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (1965), 330 ( perhaps ); 366 ( probably ).
t Cf. Kunkel, o.c. 236 ff. , \ Q
s P de Labriolle, Nouv. rev. d’hist. de droit fr. et etr. XXX (1905), 8.
9 A. Beck Romisches Recht bei Tertullian und Cyprian (1930). Note, however, the
sceptical review by A. Steinwenter, Zeitschr.Sav.St., Roman. Abt. LII (1932), 412 ft-
24 THE JURIST TERTULLIANUS
been exact contemporaries.1 And, finally, Eusebius might be

thought to make the identification when he calls Tertullian a
man skilled in Roman law and among the most illustrious at
Rome.2
Even if the premises of these four arguments were well
founded, the conclusion is not inescapable. Why may there not
have been two Tertulliani flourishing at precisely the same
period? In fact, however, the premises rest upon untenable
assumptions. First the name. The jurist is known only as
Tertullianus, so that the homonymity, so far as is known, is
confined to the cognomen. This, though not common, is far
from a portentous rarity, and inscriptions reveal bearers of it
throughout the Roman Empire.3
Secondly, knowledge of Roman law was not the exclusive
prerogative of iurisconsulti. It was a necessity for advocates
pleading cases in court and also a normal possession of the
educated man. The judicious held legal knowledge to be a pre¬
requisite for any sort of public speaking.4 And, since ancient
education consisted essentially of training in oratory, few with
any pretensions to culture could avoid becoming familiar with
the law.5 In consequence, not only are rhetorical treatises and
the collections of academic declamations full of legal informa¬
tion, but hardly a single Latin author is free from legal allu¬
sions.« The line begins with Plautus, the earliest Latin writer of
whom more than fragments are extant;2 it continues unbroken,
through Apuleius,8 beyond Tertullian to Cyprian,9 to Arnobius
and Lactantius.10 The legal knowledge of Tertullian is readily
explicable by the easy hypothesis that he received a normal
education.11
1 Fitting, o.c. 36; against, H. Dessau, PIR1 S 324.
2 HE II. 2. 4: TeprvXXi.av6s rody 'Pojfiatojv vo/iovi rjKpiflcuKcus, avrjp ra. re aAAa
ZvSo£os kcll tu>v paXiara e-rrl 'Pcuprp; Xap.tr pdsv.
3 Kunkel, o.c. 236 f.
4 Quintilian, Inst. Orat. XII. 3. 1 ff.
5 E. P. Parks, The Roman Rhetorical Schools as a Preparation for the Courts under the
Early Empire (1945); S. F. Bonner, Roman Declamation (1949), esp. 84 ff.
6 Crook, o.c. 18; 33.
7 E. Fraenkel, Elementi plautini in Plauto (1962), 4 f.; 399.
8 F. Norden, Apuleius von Madaura und das romische Privatrecht (1912).
9J- Vogtle, Die Schriften des hlg. Cyprian als Erkenntnisquelle des romischen Rechts
(1920); Beck, o.c. 132 ff.; G. W. Clarke, Latomus XXIV (1965), 633 ff.
10 C. Ferrini, feitschr. Sav. St., Roman. Abt. XV (1894), 343 ff.
11 Alternatively, perhaps, he was a causidicus (so A. Steinwenter, P-W V A. 845).
As for the third argument, the two Tertulliani, so far from

being exact contemporaries, were probably born at different
times. The jurist was (it seems) a pupil of Pomponius, so that
his birth can hardly fall later than the middle of the second
century.1 For the Christian’s date of birth the decade 150 to 160
is the popular conjecture.2 But a later date may be preferable,
around 170. If he became a Christian as a young man, why
assign his earliest writings in the defence of his faith to his
middle age ? The Ad Uxorem presupposes that its author married
a Christian wife, being already a Christian himself.2 And in the
De Anima Tertullian controverts Aristotle and appeals to
observation to prove that small children have dreams.4 A
man most often entered upon marriage about the age of
twenty.5 Decisive proof may perhaps be sought in the lost
Ad amicum philosophum.6 The possibility that Tertullian was born
c. 170 deserves further investigation.7
Finally, the evidence of Eusebius can here count for nothing.
It is unlikely that he had heard of the jurist, and his knowledge
of those Christians who wrote in Latin is very meagre.8 His
estimate of Tertullian’s rank and position derives from two
facts. First, he believed that the Apologeticum was delivered
before the Senate at Rome.« This erroneous belief is in turn
deduced from the prooemium of that work, which he knew only
in a Greek translation. Tertullian addressed the magistrates
who were sitting ‘in ipso fere vertice civitatis’.10 By this he surely
meant ‘on the Byrsa in Carthage’. But the phrase is easy to mis¬
understand, and the Greek translation was poor.11 Secondly,
Eusebius is citing Tertullian precisely on a point of law, as
evidence for a senatus consultum against the Christians in the
reign of Tiberius.12 Tertullian’s testimony is the more valuable
And on any view, the juristic elements in Tertullian s thought are subordinate to
rhetoric, cf. J. Lortz, Tertullian als Apologet II (1928), 221 ff.
1 Above, p. 23.
2 e.g., A. Harnack, Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius II (1904),
295 (‘t. 150-c. 155’); Quasten, o.c. 246 (‘about 155’); B. Altaner-A. Stuiber,
Patrologie1 (1966), 148 (‘urn 160’).
3 Ux. I. 1. 1; etc.
4 An. 49. 1. Plagiarism from Hermippus of Berytus, according to J. H. Waszink,
Tertulliani De Anima (1947), 514.
s M. K. Hopkins, Population Studies XVIII (1965), 3°9 ff-
e App. 8. ?Ch. VI. 8pp. 5/6- 9 HEW. 5.5. 10 Apol. 1. 1.
u A. Harnack, Texte u. Enters. VIII. 4 (1892), 1 ff.
i^JfPS LVIII (1968), 32 f.
for Eusebius if he speaks as an expert.1 In addition, a general

tendency can be discerned both to exalt the status of early
Christians and to make Christians out of known figures of high
social standing.2
The arguments for the identification being weak, is there
anything conclusive in the other scale? Some are content to
leave open a formal possibility.2 But strong arguments may be
discovered.
First, chronology. The Christian seems to be some years
younger than the jurist. The difficulty can be evaded only by
supposing that the jurist became a Christian after composing
his two legal treatises.4 Against this are Tertullian’s apparent
conversion as a young man,5 and the wide differences of social
class and milieu. The Christian belongs to Africa, his loyalty to
the Roman Empire may be called in question, and he can go
so far as to pose as an enemy of the established orders The
jurists of the age, in contrast, were of necessity the champions of
mos maiorum, forming part of the class which remained longest
impervious to Christianity.2 It demands great faith to believe
that any iurisconsultus under the Antonine dynasty could have
been a Christian—not to speak of a pupil of the illustrious
Pomponius.
Next, the evidence of Lactantius. The earliest extant mention
of Tertullian implies unmistakably that he was not only not a
jurist, but not even an advocate of lasting fame. Lactantius
passes under review the defenders of truth and wisdom. Minucius
Felix possessed no mean position among causidici, but his
Octavius reveals more promise than achievement. Septimius
Tertullianus was an expert in every literary genre, but lacked
facility, neatness and clarity. Cyprian, however, had every
1 Compare HE I. 5. 3: 6 twv -nap' 'Efipaiots emoripoTaTOS laropiKwv <PXav 10s
'Iwotjttos.
2 H. Delehaye, Les Ugendes grecques des saints militaires (1908), 39; T. D. Barnes,
JRS LVIII (1968), 36.
3 So Kunkel, o.c. 240.
4 So Harnack, o.c. (1904), 293; H. Fitting, Alter und Folge der Schriften romischer
Juristen (1908), 79; Quasten, o.c. 246.
3 Ch. VI.
6 Hence P. Monceaux felt forced to deny identity—and conjectured kinship
(Histoire littiraire de I'Afrique ckritienne I (1901), 181).
7 The Senate was still in large part pagan even in the late fourth century
(H. Bloch, The Conflict between Paganism and Christianity in the Fourth Century (ed. A.
Momigliano, 1963), 193 ff.).
virtue a writer could desire.1 Even if Lactantius knew nothing

about Tertullian and Minucius Felix beyond what he could
infer from their writings, his statement is still significant. For
the legal knowledge which has often impressed modern students
of Tertullian seemed to him to call for no special comment.
Finally, Tertullian’s knowledge or ignorance of legal niceties.
Legal terminology undoubtedly influenced the theology of
Tertullian.2 In that field, however, recondite legal expertise is
hard to prove or disprove. Tertullian seems to employ legal
language to formulate theological notions in a way improbable
for an academic lawyer.3 But he may have chosen to adapt that
terminology by deliberately remoulding it for its new purpose.
Again, his remarks on divorce may not be strictly accurate; but
literary reminiscence of the scriptures must be taken into
account.4 There may also be a mistake about the Lex Scantinia.
While he is discussing the impossibility of second marriage
Tertullian derides the bishop of Uthina for disregarding it.3
The Lex Scantinia, however, was directed against sodomy.^
Yet ignorance by Tertullian is not thereby proved. He may be
alluding to a recent cause celebre, in order to illustrate the
catholics’ claim ‘omnia licent episcopis’: for this a notorious
delinquency of any sort would serve. If the allusion is accurate
it need not come from the study of jurisprudence: Tertullian
could easily have remembered it from his reading of Juvenal.2
There is, nonetheless, something more important. No specific
lex, senatus consultum or imperial decree proscribed Christianity
as illegal.8 Yet Tertullian, with all his ridicule of persecution
and condemnation for the nomen Christianum alone, never makes
this telling point. Although both Christians and other male¬
factors were tried by the same legal process, the punishment of
1 Div. Inst. V. 1. 21 ff. „ .
2 See, e.g., P. Vitton, I concetti giuridici nelle opere di Tertulliano (1924); Peck, o.c.
7 ff.; J. K. Stirnimann, DiePraescriptio Tertulliansim Lichte des romischen Rechts und der
Theologie (1949). C\ cr cr
3 S. Schlossmann, Zeitschr.fiir Kirchengesch (1906), 251 ff; 4°7 u-
4 E. Levy, Der Hergang der romischen Ehescheidung (1925), 59 f.; 96;^ 103.
5 Mon. 12. 3: prospiciebat spiritus sanctus dicturos quosdam: omnia licent
episcopis’, sicut ille vester Utinensis nec Scantiniam timuit. quot enim ex digamia
praesident apud vos.
e P-W XII. 2413. . . . , . , , .
7 Juvenal, II. 43 f.: quod si vexantur leges ac mra, citari / ante omms debet
Scantinia. For Tertullian’s knowledge of the satirist, cf. Ch. XIII.
s JRS LVIII (1968), 32 ff.
common criminals was originally laid down by laws, while that

of Christians was not. However, instead of basing an argument
on this fundamental difference, Tertullian contends that
Christians are not in the same category as other criminals
because they are treated differently by the magistrate.1 In one
passage, indeed, he speaks of laws against the Christians.2 Nor
does Tertullian betray any awareness of the varying punish¬
ments meted out to Christians, which were the subject of a
chapter in the seventh book of Ulpian’s De Officio Proconsulis.3
Since both are excellent debating points, Tertullian must be
pronounced ignorant of both. His knowledge of Roman law as
it concerned the Christians derives from personal experience
and literature: he adapted the Apology of Melito or Miltiades
and, in the Apologeticum though not in the Ad JVationes, added
facts from Tacitus and Pliny.4 Such a degree of ignorance, if
not utterly incompatible with his being a iurisconsultus, pro¬
vides a strong argument against the identity of the two Ter-
tulliani.
Not that the Christian was wholly unaware of the more
sensational aspects of Roman law. Two examples can be pro¬
duced. A woman of Alexandria who produced quintuplets
was brought before Hadrian in Rome, and the jurists Gaius and
Salvius Julianus duly explored her significance for family law.s
Tertullian knew of the prodigy and cited it in the De Animal
The woman and her five children were clearly famous and may
already have become a commonplace in the rhetorical schools.
The Ad JVationes describes at some length a family tragedy
which allegedly came before the Prefect of the City, Seius
Fuscianus.2 A well-born boy wandered out of his parents’ home,
was kidnapped by a Greek, taken to Rome and sold as a slave.
His own father unknowingly bought him, treated him as a
catamite, and when he grew up, set him to work in chains in
1 Apol. 2. i ff. 2 Apol. 4. 3 ff.
3 Known from Lactantius, Dio. Inst. V. 11. 19.
■> Ch. VIII.
3 Dig. XXXIV. 5. 7 pr.; XLVI. 3. 36.
6 An. 6. 8: invenitur etiam in iure civili Graeca quaedam quinionem enixa.
Alleged to indicate the identity of the two Tertulliani by J. H. Waszink, Ter-
tulliani De Anima (1947), 145. The inference was disproved in advance by Schloss¬
mann, o.c. 269.
7 Prefect ? 186-90, cf. G. Vitucci, Ricerche sulla Praefectura Urbi in eta imperiale
(1956), 118.
the fields. There he encountered his nurse and paedagogue,

who were being punished for losing him. The truth emerged,
the slave-dealer was found, the parents hanged themselves, and
the Prefect awarded the son their property.1 Knowledge of legal
cases so striking and notorious will hardly have been confined to
academic lawyers. The quintuplets of the De Anima occur in a
chapter which draws on Soranus’ Tlepl Wvxfjs.2 Soranus was
writing in the reign of Hadrian and also composed gynaecologi¬
cal treatises.3 And the woman was also known to a near con¬
temporary of Tertullian who published biographies of emper¬
ors: he registered the birth of quintuplets, in the reign of
Hadrian’s successor.4 As for the story in the Ad JVationes,
Tertullian might have been in Rome at the time.5 Even in
Carthage, however, many would have heard a tale so moving
and so indicative of Roman life and morals.
The significance of Tertullian’s religious attitudes should not

be rendered trivial. Just as his conception of the life of faith as
the ‘militia Christi’ does not result from being the son of a
soldier,6 7 so his legalistic approach to Christianity does not issue
from academic expertise in jurisprudence. Religious attitudes
so fundamental arise naturally out of the Christian predicament.
Appeal to the personal background of isolated individuals will
not explain their wide prevalence. Still less can ‘Tertullian the
jurist’ be invoked to explain the later development of Latin
Christendom."1
i Nat. I. 16. 13 ff.

2H. Karpp, Z^tschr. fur neutest. Wiss. XXXIII (1934), 32 ff-; Waszink, o.c.
132.
3 Kind, P-W III A. 1113 ff.
4 HA, Pius 9. 3. For the source, and its interest in legal matters, cf. R. Syme,
Emperors and Biography (1971), 43.

5 E. Noeldechen, Tertullian {1890), 27. For Tertullian’s presence there (uncertain),
App. 5. .
« Compare Cyprian: H. A. M. Hoppenbrouwers, Recherches sur la terminologie du
martyre de Tertullien a Lactance (1961), 149 ff-
7 The legalism of the medieval Papacy was derived from Tertullian by W.
Ullmann, A History of Political Thought: The Middle Ages (1965), 20 f.
V
CHRONOLOGY
S tyle, doctrine, references to earlier works, contemporary

allusions—all these criteria are to some extent available for
dating the writings of Tertullian. At first sight, therefore,
the establishment of a definitive chronology (at least in outline)
appears an easy task, and broad agreement has in fact pre¬
vailed for more than two generations. About the turn of the
century, four detailed and divergent chronological schemes
were propounded within twenty years.1 But since the last of
these (in 1908) no comprehensive study of the whole problem
has been published.2 Debate has inevitably continued on the
dates of individual treatises or groups of treatises, and some
valuable results have occasionally been achieved.3 Now the time
has come for a thorough reappraisal.
Despite differences in detail, the various chronologies en¬
shrined in reference books all share certain fundamental errors.4
For they all rely on three basic premises. First, that Tertullian
was a priest in the church at Carthage and for a period devoted
himself to the composition of sermons. Hence all his works in
this genre must be assigned to a single period, either c. 197 or
from 200 to 206.5 Second, that the De Pudicitia attacked
Callistus, who was bishop of Rome for five years, c. 217 to c. 222.
Hence the De Pudicitia and other Montanist works must be
1 E. Noeldechen, Texte u. Unters. V. 2 (1888), 1 ff.; P. Monceaux, Rev. phil.2

XXII (1898), 77 ff. (restated in Histoire lit ter aire de I'Afrique chrdtienne I (1901),
>93 ff-) j A. Harnack, Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius II (1904),
256 ff.; K. Adam, Der Katholik4 XXXVII (1908), 341 ff.; 416 ff.
2 R- Braun, Deus Christianorum (1962), 563 ff., merely catalogues the views of
others.
3 Yet the most amazing misapprehensions still exist. A recent book (treated with
respect by the critics) dates the Ad Scapulam to 202: R. Klein, Tertullian und das
romische Reich (1968), 9; 114.
4 Schanz-Hosius, Gesch. d. rom. Litt. IIP (1922), 272 ff.; J. Quasten, Patrology
11 (i953)> 246 ff; B. Altaner-A. Stuiber, Patrologie2 (1966), 148 ff.
3 Respectively, Adam, o.c. 433; Monceaux, o.c. (1901), 201.
CHRONOLOGY 31
dated c. 220.1 This identification of Tertullian’s adversary is
now rightly discarded. Yet the date of c. 220, which was deduced
from that alone, still persists even in those handbooks which
implicitly deny its validity.2 Third and most pernicious has
been an assumption about the nature of the persecution of
Christians in the Roman Empire. Many of Tertullian’s treatises
were written at a time of persecution, and they are all assigned
to one of three dates: either to 197 with the Ad Nationes and
Apologeticum, or to 202/3 during the ‘persecution of Septimius
Severus’, or finally to ‘the persecution of Scapula’, who was
proconsul of Africa in 212/3.3 4
All three premises are false. Tertullian’s priesthood is
vouched for only by Jerome and later authors dependent on
Jerome. Their authority cannot survive investigation or con¬
frontation with the statements of Tertullian himself.* The
De Pudicitia attacks a bishop of Carthage, and the identification
of Tertullian’s opponent as Callistus can only be sustained by a
tendentious emendation of the text.5 And the assumption that
Tertullian witnessed but three outbreaks of persecution happens
to be contradicted by a historical allusion in the Scorpiace.6
Moreover, the assumption itself rested upon an erroneous belief
that in 202 Septimius Severus instigated a universal and syste¬
matic but brief persecution.2
The accepted chronological framework being unsound,
surer foundations need to be constructed. The question of
method becomes important. After a few general remarks by
way of preface, previous investigations have tended to proceed
treatise by treatise, thus concealing the logical structure of the
arguments upon which the whole edifice was built. It will be
better to give separate consideration to each of the four criteria
available, and to begin with the most objective.
1 Noeldechen, o.c. 132 ff.; Monceaux, o.c. 200; 207; Harnack, o.c. 260; 286;
Adam, o.c. 428.
2 Quasten, o.c. 247; Altaner-Stuiber, o.c. 148.
3 Noeldechen, o.c. 155 f.; Monceaux, o.c. 202; 208 f.; Harnack, o.c. 279;
Adam, o.c. 433 f.
4 p. 11.
5 p.247.
vF^dSproo^cf.J^’ LVIH (1968), 40 f.; JTS, N.S. XIX (1968), 526 f.;
XX (1969), 130 f.; Harvard Studies LXXIV (1970), 313 ff-
32 CHRONOLOGY
i: ALLUSIONS TO HISTORICAL EVENTS
The precisely datable writings of Tertullian span a period of

hardly more than fifteen years (from 196 or 197 to 212).
There will be no profit, therefore, in cataloguing contemporary
or historical allusions which do not help in dating a work more
closely within this short period. Nor can the discussion be
advanced by attempts to build upon uncertain or questionable
allusions, or upon allusions which refer to historical events
which cannot themselves be dated at all accurately. Nor should
the course of the argument be diverted in order to refute ima¬
ginary allusions or to expose misinterpretation.! What must
be offered is a brief discussion of those few historical allusions in
Tertullian which contribute something positive for precise
chronology.
(1) Mart. 6. 2
ad hoc quidem vel praesentia nobis tempora documenta sint:
quantae qualesque personae inopinatos natalibus et dignitatibus et
corporibus et aetatibus suis exitus referunt hominis causa, aut ab
ipso, si contra eum fecerint, aut ab adversariis eius, si pro eo steterint.
L. Septimius Severus, governor of Pannonia Superior, was

proclaimed emperor at Carnuntum on 9 April 193.2 He at
once marched on Rome, where Didius Julianus was deserted
by his troops and killed early in June. Recognized as emperor by
the Senate, Severus proceeded to defeat two more serious rivals
for supreme power, first Pescennius Niger, former governor of
Syria (in 193/4), then D. Clodius Albinus, governor of Britain
(in 196/7), in the meantime conducting a campaign against the
Parthians.3
The general allusion to the civil wars in the Ad Martyras is
clear enough. But can a more precise date be deduced? If
stress were laid on the word ‘praesentia’, it could be maintained
that Tertullian had not yet heard of Albinus’ final defeat (at
Lugdunum on 19 February 197).4 However, the full phrase
1 Cf. App. 7. 1 2 Feriale Duranum II. 3.

3 For a clear outline of the reign of Severus, cf. F. Millar, A Study of Cassius Dio
(1964), 138 ff- '
4 HA, Sev. 11. 7. The deduction was confidently drawn by Monceaux, o.c. 196 f.
For subsequent discussion, cf. A. Quacquarelli, Q_. S. F. Tertulliani Ad Martyras
(1963), 21 f.
CHRONOLOGY 33
reads ‘praesentia nobis tempora’: i.e. not ‘present in time’, but
‘before the reader’s eyes’. Moreover, the contrast between ‘ab
ipso’ and ‘ab adversariis eius’ seems to presuppose knowledge
that the ultimate victor in 197 was Septimius Severus. The Ad
Martyr as, therefore, was written after Tertullian heard of
Albinus’ defeat, that is, no earlier than March 197-1
(2) Nat. I. 17. 4

adhuc Syriae cadaverum odoribus spirant, adhuc Galliae
Rhodano suo non lavant.
These words entail a date for the Ad Nationes at least some

months after the battle of Lugdunum.2
(3) APoL 35- 9

unde Cassii et Nigri et Albini?
Apol. 35.11
sed et qui nunc scelestarum partium socii aut plausores cotidie
revelantur, post vindemiam parricidarum racematio superstes. . . .
Apol. 37. 4
plures nimirum Mauri et Marcomanni ipsique Parthi.
The Apologeticum was composed after the defeat of Albmus,

while ‘the accomplices in guilty plots’ (i.e. the surviving followers
of both Albinus and Niger) were still being hunted down, and
apparently when the Parthians were topical. It is impossible to
deduce from this precisely how long after February 197
Tertullian was writing. Severus invaded Mesopotamia for the
second time in the autumn of 197? an<^ the war was finished by
the late summer of 199.3 The Parthians could be a subject of
topical interest throughout these years, and even later.4
Again, T. Claudius Xenophon was appointed imperial pro-
1 So Noeldechen, o.c. 29 f.; Adam, o.c. 348. .

2 No date can be inferred from Nat. I. 17. 3: ita vero sit, cum ex vobis natiombus
quotidie Caesares et Parthici et Medici et Germanici fiant. The passage may derive
from Melito. If so, the mention of‘Germanicus’ will date his Apology later than 172,
cf. PIR* I, pp. 122, 303.
3 Millar, o.c. 142 ff. . . . , .
4 It is usually assumed (for no good reason) that Tertullian must be writing before
Severus’ invasion of Mesopotamia: A. Harnack, Zeitschr fur Kirchengesch. II
(1878), 574 ff.; Noeldechen, o.c. 25; Monceaux, o.c. 198; A. Schneider, Le
premier livre Ad Nationes de Tertullien (1968), 9*
34 CHRONOLOGY
curator with the express task of confiscating property in Africa

in 197 (or very early in 198).1 But nothing discloses how long his
activities continued.
Three other possible dates ought to be recorded, if only for
immediate rejection. The proconsul of Africa for 202/3 died in
office; the powerful pretorian prefect Fulvius Plautianus fell on
22 January 205; and some sort of conspiracy was detected and
punished in 207 or 208.2 Could the allusion be to those impli¬
cated in one of these three episodes? There is a decisive objec¬
tion: unless Tertullian is referring to adherents of Niger and
Albinus (passive sympathizers as well as active helpers), what
is then the point of describing them as the ‘gleanings that re¬
main after a whole vintage of assassins’ ? The Apologeticum was
therefore written in autumn 197 or some time later.2
(4) An. 55. 4

quomodo Perpetua, fortissima martyr, sub die passionis in revela-
tione paradisi solos illic martyras vidit . . . ?
Perpetua suffered martyrdom on the Nones of March 203.

The De Anima need not also be subsequent to the publication of
the Passio PerpetuaeA
(5) Scorp. 6. 2/3

adhuc Carthaginem singulae civitates gratulando inquietant
donatam Pythico agone post stadii senectutem. ita ab aevo dignis-
simum creditum est studiorum experimentum committere, artes
corporum et vocum de praestantia expendere, praemio indice,
spectaculo iudice, sententia voluptate.
Tertullian here states that the stadium has become un¬

fashionable, displaced from popular favour by the Pythicus agon.
This was a musical contest with singing and dancing, and
Tertullian represents it as a privilege granted to Carthage.
Plausibility and analogy combine to imply a connexion with
Septimius Severus’ visit to the city, which probably occurred
1ILS 1421, cf. Historia XVI (1967), 99.
2 Respectively, Pass. Perp. 6. 2; Dio LXXVII (LXXVI). 3. 1 ff.; ILS 429,
430. M. Sordi, II Cristianesimo e Roma (1965), 474 ff., dates the Apologeticum to 202
on different (and fallacious) grounds.
3 In favour of 198, cf. H. Kellner, Chronologiae Tertullianeae Supplementa (Prog.
Bonn, 1890), 9 ff; Adam o. c. 343 ff.
4 For which, cf. App. 17.
CHRONOLOGY 35
in the spring or early summer of 203. Tertullian’s reference to
embassies of congratulation arriving in Carthage may there¬
fore be held to indicate that he is writing late in 203 or early in
204.1
(6) Res. Mort. 42. 8

sed et proxime in ista civitate cum odei fundamenta tot veterum
sepulturarum sacrilega conlocarentur, quingentorum fere annorum
ossa adhuc succida et capillos olentes populus exhorruit.
The remains of the odeum at Carthage and of the underlying

Punic necropolis have been discovered.2 But the epigraphic
evidence (which might have furnished an exact date) consists
of one fragmentary and ambiguous inscription.2 * The construc¬
tion of the odeum, therefore, must be dated by inference from
its apparent connexion with the Pythicus agon A Yet Tertullian
could be writing many years later: the connotations of‘proxime’
are vague,5 and such a striking discovery as the miraculously
preserved bones would not quickly be forgotten in Carthage.
(7) Pall. 2. 7
quantum urbium aut produxit aut auxit aut reddidit praesentis
imperii triplex virtus! Deo tot Augustis in unum favente quot census
transcripti, quot populi repurgati, quot ordines illustrati, quot
barbari exclusi. revera orbis cultissimum huius imperii rus est,
eradicato omni aconito hostilitatis et cactoetrubosubdolaefamiliari-
tatis.
From Tertullian’s reference to three Augusti four dates
have been deduced, viz. 193,6 194-196,7 209-118 and 222/3.9
None is convincing. The prooemium of the De Pallio excludes
1 For the full statement, JTS, N.S. XX (1969), 125 ff.

2P. Gauckler, Rev. arch.3 XLI (1902), 383 ff.; A. Audollent, Carthage romaine
(1901), 258.
3 Inscr. lat. de la Tunisie 983. 4 JTS, N.S. XX (1969), 126.
5 Cf. Marc. III. 24. 4 (eight years).
6 H. Kellner, Theol. Quartalschr. LII (1870), 537 ff.; H. Koch, P-W VA. 827; H.
Hoppe, Beitrage zur Sprache und Kritik Tertullians (1932), 63 ff; J. Klein, Tertullian:
Christliches Bewusstsein und sittliche Forderungen (1940), 252 ff.
7 J. Marra, Tertulliano, De Pallio (1937b 27 ff
s Noeldechen, o.c. 76 f.; Monceaux, o.c. 201; Harnack, o.c. (1904), 259;
Adam, o.c. 359.
9 G. Saflund, De Pallio und die stilistische Entwicklung Tertullians (1955b 41 ff?
R. Braun, Deus Christianorum (1962), 577.
36 CHRONOLOGY
a time of civil war such as the years 193 to 197: it is a time
of peace and plenty—and sarcasm is unlikely in the opening
sentence, which must catch the attention and appeal for the
sympathy of the audience.1 Nor can talk of the three Augusti
(Septimius Severus and his two sons, Caracalla and Geta) be
confined to the years 209 to 211. Although Geta first appears as
Augustus on the imperial coinage in 209,2 3 4 inscriptions (espec¬
ially in Africa) begin to style both brothers Augusti as early as
198.2 The date of 222/3 runs into a preliminary difficulty: the
‘praesentis imperii triplex virtus’ must comprise the emperor
Severus Alexander, his mother Julia Mamaea and his grand¬
mother Julia Maesad And it relies excessively on one passage
about a dead emperor:
impuriorem Physcone et molliorem Sardanapallo Caesarem . . . et

quidem Subneronem [4. 5].
That will fit Elagabalus, who was murdered in March 222.5 6

But the identification is not certain. Already on 1 January 193
the dead Commodus was denounced by the Senate in Rome as
‘more cruel than Domitian, more depraved than Nero’.6
Despite the concentration of posterity on the vices of Elagabalus,
it remains doubtful whether he could surpass the excesses of
Commodus.7
None of the three dates so far considered can give proper force
to the ‘rooting out of the prickly briar of treacherous friend¬
ship’. This phrase reflects perfectly the official story about
Plautianus, assiduously propagated after his fall on 22 January
205.8 To the cultivated who had read a full text of Tacitus’
1J. Geffcken, Kynika und Verwandtes (1909), 58.

2 BMC, R. Emp. V. clxxviii; 353 ff.
3 e.g. CIL VIII. 2551; IRT 913 ff.; AE 1948. 214.
4 Saflund, o.c. 44.
5 Saflund, o.c. 39: ‘von den Kaisern, deren Regierung Tertullian selbst erlebt
hat, kommt nur einer als “Subnero” in Betracht’. In contrast, E. Noeldechen
thought that ‘Subnero’ masked Caracalla (Jahrbiicher furprotestantische Theologie XII
(1886), 633).
6 HA, Comm. 19. 2: saevior Domitiano, impurior Nerone—from the one genuine
document in the whole of the Historia Augusta (J. M. Heer, Philologus, Supp. IX
(1904), 187 ff).
7 Dio LXXIII (LXXII). 17. 1 ff; HA, Comm. 3. 4 ff. On the quality of the latter
source for the reign of Commodus, see Heer, o.c. 7 ff.
s Cf. E. Hohl, Sitzungsber. d. deut. Akad. d. Mss. zu Berlin, Klasse fur Philosophic
usw. 1956, Nr. 2, 33 ff.
CHRONOLOGY 37
Annals ‘subdola familiaritas’ must have evoked the historical
parallel of Aelius Seianus.1 The nearer to January 205 the De
Pallio was composed, the sharper Tertullian’s allusion.
(8) Marc. I. 15. 1

at nunc quale est, ut dominus anno quinto decimo Tiberii
Caesaris revelatus sit, substantia vero anno quinto decimo iam
Severi imperatoris nulla omnino comperta sit?
Severus’ dies imperii was 9 April 193.2 The fifteenth year of

his reign thus ran from April 207 to April 208—though
Tertullian might have had in mind Severus’ fifteenth tribunicia
potestas (i.e. 10 December 206 to 9 December 207).3 But how
much of the Adversus Marcionem belongs to Severus’ fifteenth
year ? The fifth book has been branded as a subsequent addition,
perhaps composed as late as 210.4 In truth, however, all five
books form a clear unity and ought all without exception to be
assigned to the same date.5
(9) Cor. Mil. 1. 1

proxime factum est: liberalitas praestantissimorum imperatorum
expungebatur in castris, milites laureati adibant.
The De Corona Militis speaks of (plural) emperors: hence it

antedates Caracalla’s murder of Geta in the winter of 211/12,
probably on 26 December 211.6 The donative to the soldiers
could be that to celebrate the accession of Severus’ sons after the
death of their father on 4 February 211.7 But earlier donatives
cannot be excluded. Imperial liberalitates are attested in 202,
203, 205 and 208 ;8 and other criteria will exclude the first two
and suggest that 208 is the best date for the De Corona Militis.9
1 Note ‘subdolae adfinitatis’ used of Augustus’ treatment of Antony (Ann. I. io);
and the epithet is twice applied to the words and actions ofTiberius (I. 81; VI. 51).
2 Feriale Duranum II. 3.
2 So, apparently, J. Quasten, Patrology II (1953), 275.
4 e.g., Harnack, o.c. 283 f. 5 App. 11. 6 App. 17.
2 So Noeldechen, o.c. 106; Monceaux, o.c. 206; Harnack, o.c. 279 ff.; Adam,
o.c. 357. The De Corona is ‘certainly of 211’ according to S. L. Greenslade, The
Library of Christian Classics V: Early Latin Theology (1956), 81, and the most recent
editor mentions no other possibility (J. Fontaine, Tertullien: Sur la Couronne (ig66),
41 f-)-
8 G. Barbieri, Diz. epig. IV. 858 ff.
s pp. 45-47. The dates 202 and 203 are rendered impossible by an allusion to
the New Prophecy (p. 44).
D
38 CHRONOLOGY
(10) Scap. 3. 3
nam et sol ille in conventu Uticensi extincto paene lumine adeo
portentum fuit, ut non potuerit ex ordinario deliquio hoc pati
positus in suo hypsomate et domicilio: habetis astrologos!
The eclipse of the sun is confidently dated by the astronomers

to 14 August 212.1 Since Tertullian is concerned with Scapula’s
future actions, he must be writing long before the end of
Scapula’s year as proconsul of Africa. Since the proconsular
year began in July, the Ad Scapulam belongs to the late summer
or early autumn of 212.2
Examination of Tertullian’s allusions to contemporary

events thus gives the following secure results:
after February 197 Ad Martyr as, Ad Nationes, Apologeticum
after 7 March 203 De Anima
late 203/early 204 Scorpiace
later than 203 De Resurrectione Mortuorum
after January 205 De Pallio
207/8 Adversus Marcionem
early 208 (or 205 or 211) De Corona Militis
c. September 212 Ad Scapulam
II : REFERENCES TO EARLIER WRITINGS
Tertullian’s references to his own works require careful deploy¬

ment in order to yield valid results, and three types of evidence
must be set aside. First, references to works which are now lost
are of little use in dating those still extant. Second, apparent
declarations of intention to discuss a particular topic can pro¬
vide only a hazardous inference3—except for the promise to
attack individual heresies made at the end of the De Praescrip-
tione Haereticorum. Third, Tertullian’s references to his refutations
of the theology of Marcion must be ignored. There were three
1 F. K. Ginzel, Spezieller Kanon der Sonnen- und Mondfinsternisse (1899), 206;

F. Boll, P-W VI. 2361 f. For elucidation of Tertullian’s astrological terms, cf.
A. Bouch6-Leclerq, L’astrologie grecque (1899), ff.
2 On Scapula’s proconsulate (sometimes illegitimately spread over two years),
see further App. 14; ig.
3 Note Marc. I. 1.7: sed alius libellus hunc gradum sustinebit adversus haereticos,
etiam sine retractatu doctrinarum revincendos, quod hoc sint de praescriptione
novitatis. The De Praescriptione Haereticorum was composed some years before 207.
CHRONOLOGY 39
distinct editions of the Adversus Marcionem: the extant work in
five books; a treatise on a similar scale; and a much briefer
tract which Tertullian may have composed shortly after the De
Praescriptione HaereticorumA The necessary warning is furnished
by a passage of the Scorpiace which is often adduced to prove that
work later than the extant Adversus MarcionemA On a closer
inspection, the Scorpiace can equally well allude to the first and
briefest attack on Marcion.1 2 3 Correct method, therefore, will
demand that all Tertullian’s references to his anti-Marcionite
tracts be ignored in determining his chronology.4
These qualifications made, certain sequences can be estab¬
lished:
A. Pud. i. io
erit igitur et hie adversus psychicos titulus, adversus meae quoque
sententiae retro penes illos societatem, quo magis hoc mihi in
notam levitatis obiciant.
The De Pudicitia is therefore subsequent to the De Paenitentia.
B. Jej. i. 4
iam edidimus monogamiae defensionem.
The De Jejunio is therefore later than the De Monogamia.
C. (i) Cult. Fem. I. 8. 4

omnes istae profanae spectaculorum saecularium voluptates, sicut
de illis suum volumen edidimus . . .;
(2) Idol. 13. 1

de spectaculis autem et voluptatibus eiusmodi suum iam volumen
implevimus;
(3) Cor. Alii. 6. 3

sed et huic materiae (sc. the pleasures of spectacula) propter suavilu-
dios nostros Graeco quoque stilo satisfecimus.
1 Marc. I. 1. 1 f.
2 Scorp. 5. 1, cf. Monceaux, o.c. 206; Harnack, o.c. 284; Adam, o.c. 302.
>JTS, N.S. XX (1969), 107 f. _ , .. ,
4 Similarly, statements such as Idol. 19. 1; at nunc de isto quaeritur an fidehs ad
militiam converti possit. Monceaux deduced that the De Corona must closely follow
the De Idololatria (o.c. 206). Nor will it be prudent to build any deduction on Oral.
20. I.
40 CHRONOLOGY
The first book of the De Cultu Feminarum and the De Idololatria
thus state explicitly that the De Spectaculis has already been
published, while the De Corona Militis implies that it is subse¬
quent to both the Greek and the Latin versions of that work.
D. (i) Marc. V. io. i

revertamur nunc ad resurrectionem, cui et alias quidem proprio
volumine satisfecimus omnibus haereticis resistentes;
(2) Res. Mort. 2. 13

habet et iste a nobis plenissimum de omni statu animae stilum;
Res. Mort. 2. 5
volumen praemisimus de carne Christi;
Res. Mort. 17. 2

animam corporalem et hie profitemur et in suo volumine probavi-
mus;
Res. Mort. 45. 4

docuimus in commentario animae;
(3) An. 21.6

inesse autem nobis to oAreôvcnov naturaliter iam et Marcioni1
ostendimus et Hermogeni;
(4) Val. 16. 3

haec erit materia quae nos commisit cum Hermogene ceterisque,
qui deum ex materia, non ex nihilo, operatum cuncta praesumunt;
(5) Scorp. 4. 3
nos autem de deo alibi2 dimicantes et de reliquo corpore haereticae
cuiusque doctrinae nunc in unam speciem congressionis certas
praeducimus lineas . . .;
(6) Herm. 1. 1
solemus haereticis compendii gratia de posteritate praescribere;
1 Not a reference to the extant Adversus Marcionem (II. 5. 1 ff.). Those who assume
that it is must posit a gap of two years between the fourth and fifth books of the
latter: Harnack, o.c. 261; 283 f.; Monceaux, o.c. 198; 209; Adam, o.c. 350 ff.;
426 f.; 434; J. H. Waszink, Tertulliani De Anima (1947), 5*; 295. That is erroneous,
cf. App. 11. Still less need one extend the composition over the decade (207-17)
postulated by Noeldechen, o.c. 73 flf.; 93 ff.; 121 ff.; 156 f.
2 i.e., in the De Praescriptione Haereticorum and (possibly) the first edition of the
Adversus Marcionem.
CHRONOLOGY 41
(7) Prax. 2. 2/3

quo peraeque adversus universas haereses iam hinc praeiudicatum
sit id esse verum quodcumque primum, id esse adulterum quodcum-
que posterius. sed salva ista praescriptione . . . dandus est etiam
retractatibus locus, vel ne videatur unaquaeque perversitas non
examinata, sed praeiudicata damnari . . .;
(8) Cam. Chr. 2. 6

sed plenius eiusmodi praescriptionibus adversus omnes haereses
alibi iam usi sumus;
Cam. Chr. 12. 5

plenius haec prosequitur libellus quem scripsimus de testimonio
animae;
(9) Test. An. 5. 6

mm divinae scripturae . . . multo saecularibus litteris vel modica
tantum aetate aliqua antecedant, ut loco suo edocuimus ad fidem
earum demonstrandam.1
These passages permit the construction of a stemma (in

which parallel position does not imply contemporaneity):
Apologeticum
De Praescriptione Haereticorum De 'Testimonio Animae
Adversus Praxean Adversus Hermogenem Scorpiace De Came Christi
Adversus Valentinianos De Anirna
De Resurrectione Mortuorum
Adversus Marcionem
Apart from the sequences established, a negative result emerges:

reference in one work to another does not of itself entail that the
two were composed close together in time.
1 i.e., Apol. 19. 1 ff.
42 CHRONOLOGY
III : DOCTRINE
Jerome deduced from his writings that Tertullian remained

orthodox in his beliefs and loyal to the established ecclesiastical
hierarchy until middle age, when he became a Montanist and
began to attack the church with an insistent ferocity.1 Jerome
can hardly have possessed valid evidence about the age at
which Tertullian turned to Montanism,2 but the direction of
Tertullian’s theological development is clear enough. The De
Pudicitia confesses that its author’s earlier pronouncements
concerning repentance agreed with those of the ‘psychici’,
so that his change of opinion might seem to some to denote
fickleness.3 It follows that Tertullian’s avowedly Montanist
works are later than the demonstrably orthodox. But is it
possible to go further ? Some are content with a bare classifica¬
tion of Tertullian’s writings into two categories, renouncing any
attempt to establish an approximate order for either the ortho¬
dox or the Montanist works,4 or else inferring the order within
each category from criteria other than doctrinal progression.3
That procedure is easy, and unsatisfactory. The possibility of
deducing a more detailed order ought at least to be explored.
Historical interpretations of the rise of Montanism inevitably
differ, according to the prejudices and preoccupations of the
exegete.6 But the theological issue is clear. The orthodox dubbed
the Montanists ‘Cataphryges’ or ‘the Phrygian heresy’. Yet
they had to confess that they were orthodox in all matters of
Christian doctrine.7 Only in the fourth century could polemical
writers accuse the Montanists of purely theological error, and
then the accusation patently relied upon a perverse and ana¬
chronistic interpretation of an utterance of Montanus himself.8
A contemporary of Montanus, writing in Asia soon after the
event, has left a detailed account of the origins of Montanism.
The Devil took possession of Montanus, who began to utter
ecstatic prophecies, and soon also of two women (i.e. Prisca (or
1 De Vir. III. 53. 2 Ch. II. 3 pud. 1. 10.

4 B. Altaner-A. Stuiber, Patrologie1 (1966), 149.
5 The method of Monceaux, Harnack and Adam.
6JTS, N.S. XX (1969), no f.
7 For a full collection of evidence, P. de Labriolle, Les sources pour I’histoire de
Montanisme (1913).
•J7S,N.S. XX (1969), 113.
CHRONOLOGY 43
Priscilla) and Maximilla). After frequent deliberations on their
prophecies, the churches in Asia pronounced them to be not of
divine origin but profane, and the Montanists were excom¬
municated.1 About the same time, Irenaeus severely castigated
an overreaction to Montanism: some Christians, objecting to
the use made of the texts in John where Jesus promises to send
the Paraclete (Jn. 14. 16, etc.), rejected the whole gospel.2 In
these days the Spirit spoke not only through the chosen prophet
and prophetesses, but also through their followers. Thus the
Passion of Perpetua pleads for the public reading of worthy new
examples of faith as well as the old, and proclaims that the Holy
Spirit still speaks to men, in the new prophecies and visions
promised long ago.3
As a Montanist, Tertullian held the overriding sin of the
catholics to be that they quarrel with the Paraclete, deny the
New Prophecy and refuse to receive the Spirit.4 He wrote a vast
work in seven books on the subject of ecstatic possession,3 and
he described how a woman in Carthage used to become ecstatic
and converse with angels, sometimes even with God.« Jerome
saw the point: ‘lapsing into Montanism Tertullian began to
write about the New Prophecy’.'7 * A slight amplification is
desirable for measuring degrees in Tertullian’s Montanism.3
The table below plots the occurrences (one or more) in Ter¬
tullian’s works of eight ideas or expressions distinctive of
Montanist beliefs:
1. The naming of Montanus, Prise (ill) a9 * or Maximilla, or
appeal to Montanist ‘oracles’ uttered by them.19
2. Reference to the New Prophecy or rebuttal of charges of
‘pseudoprophetia’ and of introducing nova disciplina .
3. Commendation of the ecstatic state.
4. Mention of spiritual gifts possessed only by Montanists.11
1 Eusebius, HE V. 16.3 ff.

* Adv. Haer. III. 11. 9. „ T„
3 P- 77- 4 Jej. 1. 3. 5 App. 9. 6 An. 9. 4. 7 De Vir. III. 53.
s Cf. P. de Labriolle, La crise montaniste (1913), 354 T. D. Barnes, JTS,
N.S. XX (1969), 113 f.
» For the variation, cf. de Labriolle, o.c. 23.
10 The ‘oracles’ are listed by G. N. Bonwetsch, Geschichte des Montanxsmus (1881),
197 ff.; P. de Labriolle, La crise montaniste (1913)) 34 Aland, Kirchenges-
chichtliche Entwurfe (i960), 143 ff
11 Cf. A. Hilgenfeld, Die Glossolalie in der alien Kirche (1850), 115 n.
44 CHRONOLOGY
5. Description of the Holy Spirit as the ‘Paracletus’.1

6. ‘Nos’ or ‘noster’ used to describe things or persons pecu¬
liarly Montanist.
7. ‘Vos’ or ‘vester’ used to contrast catholic Christians with
Montanists.
8. Abuse of the catholics as ‘psychici’.
Treatises where none of these phenomena appear are not

included in the table, whose order is alphabetic.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Adversus Marcionem I2 - - - + + + - -
II ■— - - — — — — —
III3 + + - — — + — —
IV4 - + + + +
- + -
V3 + + + + — + - -
Adversus Praxean + + - + + + — +
Adversus Valentinianos6 — — — — —
+ _ _
De Anima +7 + + + + + — —
De Corona Militis8 — + — _ — _ _ _
De Exhortatione Castitatis9 + — — _ _ _ _ _
De Fuga in Persecutione + 10 - - - + _
+ _
De Jejunio + + + + + + + +
De Monogamia - + - + + + + +
De Pudicitia + + - + + + + +
De Resurrectione Mortuorum + + — —
+ _ _ _
De Virginibus Velandis - + 11 - + 12 + + - _
The degree to which a treatise is permeated by Montanism

does not by itself afford a sure indication of its approximate
place in the Tertullianic corpus. Tertullian was too accomplished
1 Jn. 14. 16 f.; 15. 26 f.; 16. 13. These texts are given an orthodox interpretation
in De Praescriptione Haereticorum (8. 14 f.), which is here omitted.
2 Only Marc. I. 29. 4: quern quidem apud nos spiritalis ratio paracleto auctore
defendit.
3 Only Marc. III. 24. 4: hanc et Ezechiel novit et apostolus Johannes vidit et qui
apud fidem nostram est novae prophetiae sermo testatur.
4 Only Marc. IV. 22. 4 f. 3 Marc. V. 8. n f.; 15. 5 f.; 16. 4.
6 Only Val. 5. 1: Proculus noster, virginis senectae et Christianae eloquentiae
dignitas. For this person, cf. Eusebius, HE II. 25. 6; [Tertullian], Adv. omn. haer.
7. 2; Pacianus, Epp. I. 2; Jerome, De Vir. III. 59.
7 An. 55. 5; cf. Fug. 9. 4.
8 Only Cor. Mil. 1. 4: martyria recusare meditentur qui prophetias eiusdem
spiritus sancti respuerunt.
9 Only Exhort. Cast. 10. 5: per sanctam prophetidem Priscam ita evangelizatur
quod sanctus minister sanctimoniam noverit ministrare.
10 Fug. 9. 4, cf. 11. 2. 11 Virg. Vel. 1. 1 ff.
12 Virg. Vel. 17. 3: nobis Dominus etiam revelationibus velaminis spatia metatus
est. nam cuidam sorori nostrae angelus in somnis cervices, quasi applauderet,
verberans. , . .
CHRONOLOGY 45
a pleader to allow any hint of differences between Christians to
spoil an argument addressed to a pagan audience. Thus the
Ad Scapulam of 212 reads very much like a precis of the Apolo-
geticum of many years earlier. It stresses the willingness, or rather
the eagerness, of all Christians to die for their faith, and the
untainted purity of their lives. Both assertions are apologetic
commonplaces, appropriate in a plea addressed to the pro-
consul of Africa. A similar reticence about doctrinal disputes
was not necessary when Tertullian was attacking Gnostics,
Marcionites or the faint-hearted for a purely Christian audience.
So far as concerns its content, therefore, the Ad Scapulam could
be contemporary with (or even later than) the violent de¬
nunciations of catholic Christians for immorality which fill so
much of the De Jejunio.1 Furthermore, Tertullian sometimes
lacked any opportunity to assert Montanist ideas or to castigate
‘psychici’ without ruining the logical flow of his argument. Thus
the fourth book of the Adversus Marcionem, being a close exegesis
of Marcion’s text of Luke, contains only one brief passage which
reveals its author as a Montanist, while the second book of the
same work has no discernible trace of Montanism whatever.
Nevertheless, four treatises clearly stand apart from the rest.
The Adversus Praxean, De Jejunio, De Monogamia and De Pudicitia
show little inclination to argue with the hated psychici, who are
there denounced, derided, abused and traduced. Few will deny
that these four are the latest of Tertullian’s extant Montanist
writings.2 * At the other extreme, some works are tinged only
slightly with Montanism. The Adversus Valentinianos reveals
Tertullian’s sympathies in a single phrase: a notorious Montan¬
ist pamphleteer is styled ‘Proculus noster’.2 Not dissimilar are
the De Anima, De Resurrectione Mortuorum and Adversus Marcionem.
For at no point in these long tracts does Tertullian’s argument
ever depend upon premises or assumptions which would be
acceptable to none but a Montanist. And only once—pre¬
dictably, in the latest of the three—are other Christians called
‘psychici’.4 And the De Corona Militis, despite its general thesis,
1 Montanist attitudes occasionally break through (p. 167).

2 Noeldechen, o.c. 132 ff.; Monceaux, o.c. 207; Harnack, o.c. 285 f.; Adam, ox.
427 ff.
s p. 44, n. 6.
4 Marc. IV. 22. 5. For the order of composition, p. 41.
46 CHRONOLOGY
should be one of Tertullian’s earliest Montanist works: the

Holy Spirit is never designated as the Paraclete and the New
Prophecy appears in one passage alone, and then in neutral
terms as ‘prophetiae spiritus sancti’.1
Between these two classes come treatises whose aim is to
persuade ordinary Christians to espouse the Montanist cause.
The De Exhortatione Castitatis urges a friend whose wife has
recently died not to remarry: one passage appeals to an ‘oracle’
uttered by the prophetess Prisca.2 The De Virginibus Velandis
reiterates a view already advanced in the De Oratione and De
Cultu Feminarum II, that virgins ought to be veiled in public.3
The central argument relies on the constant operation of the
Paraclete: though the ‘regula fidei’ remains ever constant, disci¬
pline can always be improved by the grace of God.4 Both these
works, therefore, can be interpreted as an appeal to the catholic
laity against the ecclesiastical hierarchy in Carthage.3 The De
Fuga in Persecutione is a Montanist protrepticus: it argues that the
conduct which is obligatory for every Christian at a time of
persecution is in practice only possible for those who accept the
guidance of the Paraclete.6
Three stages have thus been defined. Can they now be
assigned any precise dates ? Discussion must clearly start from
the Adversus Marcionem. For the first book not only declares that
it was written in 207/8, but makes an unambiguous profession
of Montanism:
apud nos spiritalis ratio paracleto auctore defendit (sc. nubendi

modum), unum in fide matrimonium praescribens \Marc. I. 29. 4].
Perhaps, therefore, Tertullian first openly turned to Montanism

in 207: that seems to be the standard view of recent scholar¬
ship.7 A doubt is permissible. Why should the earliest precisely
datable trace of Montanism in Tertullian’s writings also happen
to be the earliest of all ? That assumption places too much trust
in coincidence. Moreover, the fifth book of the Adversus Mar¬
cionem refers to the De Resurrectione Mortuorum, which in turn
1 p. 44 n. 8.
i Exhort. Cast. io. 5 (p. 44 n. 9).
3 Orat. 22. 4; Cult. Fern. II. 7. 2.
4 Virg. Vel. 1. 1 ff. s Ch. X. <> p. 183.
7 e.g., CCL II. 1627. Also, by implication, E. Dekkers, Clavis Patrum Latinorum2
(1961). 3-
CHRONOLOGY 47
refers to the De Anima and the Adversus Valentinianos d If Ter-
tullian did not turn to Montanism until 207, the composition of
the Adversus Marcionem has to be spread out over several years.
That hypothesis is implausible in itself.2 It is also unnecessary,
if Tertullian’s adherence to Montanism began before 207.
The De Corona Militis is relevant. Though habitually dated to
211, it might have been composed in 208—or even 205.3 If the
earlier date were adopted, the following schema could be
proposed:
205 De Corona Militis
205-7 Adversus Valentinianos, De Anima, De Resurrectione Mortuorum
208/9 De Virginibus Velandis, De Exhortatione Castitatis, De Fuga in
Persecutione
210/1 Adversus Praxean, De Monogamia, De Jejunio, De Pudicitia.
But there is a difficulty. The De Corona Militis ridicules those

who
mussitant denique tam bonam et longam pacem periclitari sibi
[i- 5l-
If Tertullian were writing in 205, that would be only about

a year after the persecutions alluded to in the Scorpiace.4
Even with sarcasm taken into account, ‘longam pacem’ would
then sound implausible. On the other hand, in 208 the period
of freedom from persecution could be anything up to four years.
Hence the later date deserves preference. As for the latest works,
no exact dates are possible, once illegitimate inferences from the
De Monogamia and De Pudicitia are disallowed.3 But there is no
good reason to postulate a long gap in Tertullian’s literary
production, and none of these works need have taken more
than a few weeks to write. Accordingly, the following chronol¬
ogy may be proposed for Tertullian’s Montanist works:
206/7 Adversus Valentinianos, De Anima, De Resurrectione Mor¬

tuorum
early 208 De Corona Militis
208/9 De Virginibus Velandis, De Exhortatione Castitatis, De Fuga
in Persecutione
210/11 Adversus Praxean, De Monogamia, De Jejunio, De Pudicitia.
1 p. 41. 2 App. 11. 3 P- 37- 4 Scorp. 1. 5 ff. 5 P- 30

48 CHRONOLOGY
Decisive confirmation or disproof will come when (and if) the
lost De Ecstasi can be dated precisely by reference to the
chronology of Montanism.1
What of the pre-Montanist works? Little can emerge from
a consideration of doctrine. Since Tertullian’s main develop¬
ment is towards Montanism, everything under that head has
already been discussed. Three points alone may be made. First,
the De Came Ckristi ought to be put close to the De Resurrectione
Mortuorum.2 Second, since the Adversus Valentinianos forms part
of a series of works directed against individual heresies which
develop the De Praescriptione Haereticorum, this series ought per¬
haps to be put shortly before Tertullian’s adhesion to Montan¬
ism. Third, two omissions from the list of Montanist works must
be carefully observed: both the De Idololatria and the Scorpiace
were written before Tertullian turned to Montanism.
iv: STYLE
Stylistic arguments for dating the works of Tertullian may take

one of three forms. First, if two or more treatises exhibit frequent
similarities of thought and expression, that might be taken as a
sign that they belong to approximately the same stage in
Tertullian’s literary career.3 Second, comparison of individual
passages in different treatises may indicate that one passage
presupposes the other or develops one of its ideas or phrases,
and must therefore be a later composition.4 5 6 Third, the pro¬
fessedly Montanist works, together with the precisely dated
Ad Scapulam (of 212), possess certain common characteristics
which distinguish them as a class from the demonstrably early
and orthodox works.3 It was premature, therefore, to denounce
stylistic criteria as being too subjective to aid in establishing the
chronology of Tertullian.*
Before any of the three types of argument can be employed
1 App. 9.
2 To secure which E. Evans, Tertullian’s Treatise on the Incarnation (1956), ix f..
dated the De Came Christi later than both Adversus Valentinianos and Adversus
Marcionem IV.
3 Noeldechen, o.c. 2 ff.; Harnack, o.c. 266 ff; Adam, o.c. 362 ff.; 416 ff.
4 C. Becker, Tertullians Apologeticum. Werden und Leistung (1954), 346 ff.
5 G. Saflund, De Pallio und die stilistische Entwicklung Tertullians (1955), 56 ff.
6 Monceaux, o.c. 196.
CHRONOLOGY 49
with confidence, however, its validity must be investigated. The
style of Tertullian’s later works can easily be described by a
simple enumeration of the common observable phenomena.
The later works show a marked trend towards a more rhythmic¬
al prose with increasing alliteration and rhyme. The clearest
change is in Tertullian’s use of the conjunction ‘et’: its absolute
frequency rises, it comes in more often after other conjunctions,
and syndetic combinations largely replace asyndetic. In this
type of argument, therefore, the subjective element can be
eliminated.1 Its disadvantage is its lack of precision: it cannot
safely be used to assign any work to a particular place in the
series (as was attempted for the De Pallio).2
Comparison of individual passages is rendered fruitful by a
thorough study of the numerous similarities between the Ad
Nationes and the Apologeticum. Since the Apologeticum is so largely
a remodelling of the Ad Nationes, the direction in which Tertul-
lian recast his thought and refined his language can be described
at length.3 Some degree of certainty is therefore attainable.
Arguments from shared similarities can be seriously mis¬
leading. They have constantly been invoked to date the
Scorpiace in close proximity to the De Anima and De Fuga in
Persecution.4 The argument is demonstrably erroneous.5 Hence
its general validity is called in question. For a distinctive feature
of Tertullian’s literary technique has been ignored: he fre¬
quently reworked material after the lapse of several years. A few
examples must suffice. The Apologeticum brilliantly (and accur¬
ately) characterized the emperor Hadrian as ‘omnium curiosita-
tum exploratory Perhaps almost a decade later, in the Adversus
Valentinianos, Tertullian adapted the phrase to produce a some¬
what implausible description of a father of the church: ‘Iren-
aeus, omnium doctrinarum curiosissimus exploratory The Ad
Scapulam used practically unchanged much material from the
Apologeticum, which was written nearly fifteen years before. In
the earlier work, Tertullian proclaimed the loyalty of Christians
to the emperor:
unde Cassii et Nigri et Albini ? . . . de Romanis, nisi fallor, id est de
non Christianis. atque adeo omnes illi, sub ipsa impietatis eruptione,
i Saflund, o.c. 6o ff. 2 Saflund, o.c. 79. 3 Becker, o.c. 31 ff.

4 e.g., J. H. Waszink, Tertulliani De Anima (1947), 6*.
5 JTS, N.S. XX (1969), 119 ff. 6 Apol. 5. 7- 7 Vat. 5. 1.
50 CHRONOLOGY
et sacra faciebant pro salute imperatoris et genium eius deierabant,
alii foris, alii intus, et utique publicorum hostium nomen Christianis
dabant \Apol. 35. 9/10].
The later work reiterates the claim in very similar words:
sic et circa maiestatem imperatoris infamamur; tamen numquam

Albiniani, nec Nigriani, vel Cassiani inveniri potuerunt Christiani,
sed idem ipsi qui per genios eorum in pridie usque iuraverant, qui
pro salute eorum hostias et fe cerant et voverant, qui Christianos
saepe damnaverant, hostes eorum sunt reperti [Scap. 2. 5].
And Tertullian displays his knowledge of certain obscure and

primitive Roman deities no less than four times:
certi enim esse debemus, si quos latet per ignorantiam litteraturae

saecularis, etiam ostiorum deos apud Romanos, Cardeam a cardini-
bus appellatam et Forculum a foribus et Limentinum a limine et
ipsum Ianum a ianua [Idol. 15. 5];
taceo deos Forculum a foribus et Cardeam a cardinibus et liminum

Limentinum, sive qui alii inter vicinos apud vos numinum ianitorum
adorantur [Nat. II. 15. 5];
quas mihi potestates ianitrices adfirmas iuxta Romanam supersti-
tionem fBarnum quendam et Forculum et Limentinum? [Scorp.
10. 6];
at enim Christianus nec ianuam suam laureis infamabit, si norit,

quantos deos etiam ostiis diabolus adfinxerit, Ianum a ianua,
Limentinum a limine, Forculum et Carnam a foribus atque car¬
dinibus [Cor. Mil. 13. 9]A
The four works span at least a decade. Hence it is illegitimate

to deduce from the similarities of the De Idololatria to the De
Corona Militis that the two are close to each other in date.1 2 3
Similarly, the Scorpiace. Its resemblances to the Montanist De
Anima and De Fuga in Persecutione can be matched with equally
striking affinities to the early ApologeticumA And a close parallel
can even be observed between the Apologeticum and the savagely
Montanist De Jejunio:
1 The names come from Varro, cf. R. Agahd, Jahrbucher fur class. Philologie, Supp.
XXIV (1898), 185 f. ‘Carna’ should probably be read in all four passages, cf.
W. Otto, TLL, Onom. II. 200 f.
2 So Monceaux, o.c. 206; Greenslade, o.c. 81.
3 JITS, N.S. XX (1969), 120 f.
CHRONOLOGY 5i
cum ab imbribus aestiva hiberna suspendunt et annus in cura est,
. . . nudipedalia populo denuntiatis, caelum apud Capitolium
quaeritis \Apol. 40. 14];
cum stupet caelum et aret annus, nudipedalia denuntiantur [Jej.

16. 5].
Only one other ancient author mentions the ceremony of

nudipedalia,3 whose name is known from these two passages of
Tertullian alone.2
Two types of stylistic argument may thus be regarded as
valid. Tertullian developed the structure of his sentences and
his use of the word ‘et’ in a way which can be approximately
defined; and his habit of employing the same material in more
than one place will sometimes indicate the order in which he
wrote different treatises. Great caution is required, since the
inferences so often depend on exact wording. The textual
tradition of Tertullian is sometimes dubious and fragile (no
single extant manuscript, for instance, of either De Jejunio or
De Pudicitia), and it diverges most frequently on precisely those
subtle nuances (such as addition or omission of ‘et’) upon
which a stylistic argument tends to rely. Any conclusions, there¬
fore, must be treated as provisional.
Tertullian’s later works show a tendency to a more rhythmical

and alliterative style. In the state of the evidence, however, full
statistics can only mislead, and its general characteristics cannot
assign any treatise of Tertullian to a particular place in the
series. Further, with a work like the De Pallio (and perhaps
others), difference of genre exerts an incalculable influence.3
Nevertheless, certain important deductions can be made with
confidence. First, the two books of De Cultu Feminarum do not
belong together, and the first is later than the seconds Next, the
Adversus Judaeos should be grouped with the early works.5 Third,
the De Idololatria and the Scorpiace (which some still date to
c. 212) are also both early works.6 Fourth, and perhaps more
1 Petronius, Satyricon 44. 18.
2 E. Marbach, P-WXVII. 1239 ff.; K. Latte, RomischeReligions,geschichte (i960),79.
3 Saflund, o.c. 101 ff.; C. Becker, Gnomon XXVIII (1956), 428 ff.
4 Saflund, o.c. 106 f. 5 Saflund, o.c. 60.
« JTS, N.S. XX (1969), 122; 130. Saflund dated both treatises to the period ‘der
grossen Verfolgung des Jahres 211/12’ (o.c. 72; 120 f.). He apparently meant the
proconsulate of Scapula—in 212/3 (App. 19).
52 CHRONOLOGY
conjecturally, the AdScapulam may be the latest of all Tertullian’s
extant writings.1
A full comparison of all the numerous parallel passages in
Tertullian would be a lengthy and unprofitable undertaking.
Only those passages should be considered which provide signifi¬
cant results. Those works whose date so far remains uncertain
need to be related to those whose date has been established by
more objective and precise criteria. Each treatise in that
category will therefore be treated separately, in alphabetical
order and with brief comments.
Ad Martyr as
Several passages show that the Ad Martyras preceded the
Apologeticum.2 What then is its relationship to the Ad Nationes ?
It is normally assumed that the Ad Martyras precedes that too.3
On the other side, however, can be quoted at least one passage
of the Ad Nationes:
reliquum obstinationis in illo capitulo collocatis, quod neque
gladios neque cruces neque bestias vestras, non ignem, non tormenta
ob duritatem ac contemptum mortis animo recusemus. atenim haec
omnia apud priores maioresque vestros non contemni modo, sed
etiam magna laude pensari a virtute didicerunt. gladius quot et
quantos viros voluntarios! piget prosequi, crucis vero novitatem
numerosae, abstrusae, Regulus vester libenter dedicavit; regina
Aegypti bestiis suis usa est; ignes post Carthaginensem feminam
Asdrubale marito in extremis patriae constantiorem docuerat
invadere ipsa Dido, sed et tormenta mulier Attica fatigavit tyranno
negans, postremo, ne cederet corpus et sexus, linguam suam pastam
expuit, totum eradicatae confessionis ministerium. sed vestris ista
ad gloriam, nostris ad duritiam deputatis [Nat. I. 18. i ff.].
These five traditional examples of fortitude reappear in both
the Ad Martyras and the Apologeticum—on each occasion with
others added.4 The Ad Nationes, therefore, appears to have been
composed before Tertullian decided to employ so full an
enumeration. Moreover, whereas the Ad Nationes uses these
1 Cf. Saflund, o.c. 60; 65; 68 f.
2 Becker, o.c. (1954), 35° ff-
3 J. W. P. Borleffs, De Tertulliano et Minucio Felice (1925), 38 f.; Becker, o.c. 352.
Others postulate a date as late as 202 or 203: e.g., G. D. Schlegel, Downside Review
LXIII (1945), 125 ff.
4 PP- 218/9.
CHRONOLOGY 53
exempla to defend the Christians, both the Ad Martyras and the

Apologeticum use them in an exhortation to martyrdom.1
Adversus Hermogenem
This work preceded the De Pallio:
nisi si et Sileno illi apud Midam regem adseveranti de alio orbe

credendum est, auctore Theopompo [Herm. 25. 5];
ut Silenus penes aures Midae blatit [Pall. 2. i].2
Tertullian’s introduction of the rare and archaic ‘blatire’3

indicates clearly the order of composition.
Adversus Judaeos
The Adversus Judaeos, though genuine, was never thoroughly
revised or properly published by Tertullian.4 It abounds in
doublets, and much of the material was later employed in the
third book Adversus Marcionem.5 Further, some of its theological
formulations seem to be employed in the Apologeticum.6
De Cultu Feminarum
Several passages in the first book take over and develop
material from the second in a more rhetorical and allusive
form.2
De Idololatria
This treatise was composed before the Apologeticum :
tu lumen es mundi et arbor virens semper, si templis renuntiasti, ne

feceris templum ianuam tuam. minus dixi: si lupanaribus renuntiasti,
ne indueris domui tuae faciem novi lupanaris [Idol. 15. 11];
o nos merito damnandos! cur enim vota et gaudia Caesarum casti et

sobrii et probi expungimus ? cur die laeto non laureis postes obum-
bramus nec lucernis diem infringimus ? honesta res est, sollemnitate
publica exigente, induere domui tuae habitum alicuius novi
lupanaris! [Apol. 35. 4].
1 Becker, o.c. 358 f. 2 Saflund, o.c. 99. 3 TLL II. 2049 f.

4 See, mostrecendy, H. Trankle, Q.S. F. Tertulliani Adversus ludaeos (1964), liii ff.
s Saflund, o.c. 122 ff. 6 Trankle, o.c. lxvi f. 3 Saflund, o.c. 107 ff.
E
54 CHRONOLOGY
The purport of ‘tuae’ and the motivation of ‘lupanaris’ in the
latter passage are totally obscure:1 Tertullian has therefore
simply taken them over from the De Idololatria, where they are
easily comprehensible and appropriate.2
De Pallio
Comparison of similar passages in the De Pallio and Apolo-
geticum leaves no doubt that those in the former are modelled on
those in the latter.3
De Spectaculis
The De Spectaculis preceded the De Idololatria—and therefore
the Apologeticum (which appears to allude to its conclusions).4
Moreover, it seems to be earlier than the Ad Nationes:
si Capitolium, si Serapeum sacrificator vel adorator intravero, a Deo

excidam [Sped. 8. io];
sic Serapeum, sic Capitolium petitur; addicitur, conducitur divini-

tas eadem voce praeconis, eadem exactione quaestoris [Nat. I.
io. 22];
sic Capitolium, sic olitorium forum petitur; sub eadem voce

praeconis, sub eadem hasta, sub eadem annotatione quaestoris
divinitas addicta conducitur [Apol. 13. 5].
A progression can surely be detected.3
v: CONCLUSIONS
The following chronological table may now be offered. It

cannot possess any greater validity than the arguments ad¬
vanced in the preceding pages. Four criteria have been
employed: historical allusions, references to other works, doc¬
trinal progression and style. They yield virtually nothing for
1 Elsewhere the Apologeticum consistently uses the second person of and for those
who are not Christians.
2 R- Heinze, Bericht uber die Verhandlungen d. kon. sachs. Ges. d. Wiss. zu Leipzig
Phil.-hist. Kl. LXII (1910), 441; Becker, o.c. 349 f.
3 Becker, o.c. 354 ff.; Saflund, o.c. 91 ff.
4 Apol. 38. 4. Yet the most recent editor still puts the De Spectaculis after the
Apologeticum: E. Castorina, Tertulliani De Spectaculis (1961), lxxvii.
3 Becker, o.c. 348 f.; cf. Heinze, o.c. 459.
CHRONOLOGY 55
several treatises of the period before Tertullian became a

Montanist: Ad Uxorem, De Baptismo, De Oratione, De Paenitentia,
De Patientia. Strictly, therefore, all these should appear under
the simple rubric ‘before 206’. There will be no harm, however,
in suggesting conjectural dates (with the addition of a question
mark)—provided that they are realised to be conjecture.
De Spectaculis
196 or early 197 De Idololatria
De Cultu Feminarum II
Ad Nationes
summer 197 Adversus Judaeos
summer/autumn 197 Ad Martyras
autumn 197 or later Apologeticum
198 De Testimonio Animae
De Baptismo
De Oratione
? between 198 and De Paenitentia
■<
203 De Patientia
Ad Uxorem
203 De Praescriptione Haereticorum
late 203/early 204 Scorpiace
Adversus Hermogenem
204/5
205 De Pallio
? 205/6 De Cultu Feminarum I
206 De Came Christi
Adversus Valentinianos
De Anima
206/7
between April 207

{ De Resurrectione Mortuorum
and April 208 Adversus Marcionem

early 208 De Corona Militis
De Exhortatione Castitatis
208/9 De Fuga in Persecutione
De Virginibus Velandis
Adversus Praxean
De Monogamia
210/11 <
De Jejunio
De Pudicitia
c. September 212 Ad Scapulam
This chronological scheme will be assumed (without con¬

tinual reference back) in the chapters which follow. Its validity
56 CHRONOLOGY
will tend to receive confirmation in so far as it can render
Tertullian’s literary, intellectual, moral and theological
development comprehensible.1 But let it be repeated un¬
equivocally: the dates are deduced from the arguments ad¬
vanced—which do not always amount to certainty. An element
of conjecture has deliberately been admitted in order to pose a
choice between reasoning and psittacism: should Tertullian’s
writings be dated by rational speculation or by the mindless
repetition of received views? The historian at least cannot
hesitate: rational speculation provides the foundation of his
craft.
1 As attempted in Chs. VIII-X.

PART TWO
VI
TERTULLIAN’S LIFE AND

BACKGROUND
J erome asserts that Tertullian was the son of a centurion

in the Roman army, that he served as a priest of the Car¬
thaginian church until middle age, and that he attained a
great age.1 Augustine and ‘Praedestinatus’ report that he
quarrelled with the Montanists and founded his own sect of
Tertullianistae.2 Hence a picture of the man began to emerge.3
Next, since Eusebius stated that Tertullian had an accurate
knowledge of law and was famous at Rome,4 he was identified
with the jurist Tertullianus quoted in the Digest and Codex
Justinianus, or at least made into a prominent lawyer of the
imperial capital.5 Then the De Pudicitia provided the chrono¬
logy: if that were written c. 220, Tertullian’s life would span the
years between 150-60 and 225-40.6 The portrait assumed a
sharper outline and became familiar by frequent reproduction.2
Now the canvas is wiped clean, the old picture almost entirely
erased. On the matters in question, neither Jerome (Chs. II,
III) nor Augustine and ‘Praedestinatus’ (App. 13) possessed
any authentic information. Tertullian’s legal knowledge has
1 De Vir. III. 53.

2 PL XLII. 46 f.; LIII. 616 f.
3 C. Baronius, Annales Ecclesiastici II (1607), 265 ff.; L. S. Lenain de Tillemont,
Mdmoires pour servir a Vhistoire eccldsiastique III (1701), 196 ff.

* HE II. 2. 4.
5 A. Neander, Antignostikus. Geist dcs Tertullianus2 (1849), 8.
6 A. Harnack, Die Chronologic deraltchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius II (1904), 256 ff.
7 e.g., with slight variations in detail, Realencyklopadie fur protestanlische Theologie
undKirchei XIX (1907), 539 ff; Diet, de Mol. cath. XV (1946), 130 ff; Enciclopedia
cattolica XI (1953), 2025 ff.; Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church (1957), 1334 f-
58 TERTULLIAN’S LIFE AND BACKGROUND
been exaggerated (Ch. IV), the chronology of his life and

writings mistaken (Ch. V). It is not even certain that he ever
visited Rome (App. 5). What manner of man then was Ter-
tullian? Familiar and erroneous opinions will assuredly reassert
themselves unless they are replaced by something nearer the
truth.
If Tertullian’s extant works cover the brief period of approx¬

imately sixteen years (196 to 212), may it not be deduced that
he was born c. 170, that he began writing when young, and that
he died before he reached old age? The inference runs some
risk of outright dismissal: since the Apologeticum is an acknow¬
ledged masterpiece of rhetorical skill, how can its author have
been a young man? Grave and elderly scholars refuse to
concede such an outrageous possibility.1 But the Apologeti¬
cum belongs to an established literary genre and owes a great
debt to a long line of Greek apologists (p. 108). When Tertullian
attempted to compose in a new genre, his early works did show
clear signs of immaturity (p. 101)—witness De Spectaculis (p.
95) and Ad Martyras (p. 227). To repeat therefore: once Jerome’s
inference from the long series of his works is discounted
(p. 10), nothing forbids the hypothesis that Tertullian was born
c. 170.
Concentration on Tertullian’s supposed military extraction
and academic legal expertise has diverted attention away from
something of vital import: he himself reveals that he belonged
by both birth and upbringing to literary circles in Carthage
(pp. 195/6). He consequently deserves to be related to the general
intellectual culture of his time (Ch. XIII) and to the Second
Sophistic Movement and Apuleius (Ch. XIV). Neither his
precise provenance nor social background can be discovered
(p. 87), nor again at what age or by what means he was con¬
verted from paganism to Christianity (App. 6). But he was
apparently still young when he composed the lost Ad amicum
philosophum on the troubles of married life, whose Christian
character seems undeniable (App. 8). Further, the Ad Uxorem
indicates that, himself already a Christian, he married a
1 Note J. P. Waltzing, Musie beige XXV (1921), 15: ‘il etait alors dans la force et
dans la pleine maturite de son talent. II faut en inferer qu’il approchait de Page
mur . . .’.
TERTULLIAN’S LIFE AND BACKGROUND 59
Christian wife (pp. 137/8), and a conjecture may be ventured
that a bereavement affected his moral and theological attitudes
(pp. 136/7).
When and how did Tertullian die ? If he wrote his last extant
work soon after he was forty, he can surely not have survived for
very many years longer. And he may even have perished as a
martyr whom the church preferred to forget. Ecclesiastical
historians affect to believe that no Montanist ever suffered for
being a Christian,1 or that Tertullian himself must have
been immune from danger.2 But is it really certain that
Tertullian did not share the fate of Rutilius (pp. 185/6).
Many details remain blurred. Since this biographical sketch

claims to be a faithful representation, it cannot go beyond a
few bold outlines. Any attempt at a full biography of Tertullian
has therefore been renounced (Ch. I). Instead, his writings
should be set against their historical and cultural background.
Tertullian lived in Carthage during the reigns of Septimius
Severus and his son Caracalla. What did it mean for him to be a
Christian? And how did his activities as a Christian affect
others ?
1 Eusebius, HE V. 16. 20 ff.; 18. 6 ff.

2 A. Quacquarelli, Gregorianum XXXI (i95°)> 5®9-
VII
CHRISTIANITY IN AFRICA
K nowledge of Christianity in Roman Africa

with slander and innuendo. The Metamorphoses of
begins
Apuleius of Madauros, which were composed in the first

instance for a Carthaginian audience, paint an unflattering
picture of a miller’s wife. Cruel and petulant, lustful and drun¬
ken, extravagant and avaricious, she lacked no imaginable vice
and hated honour and decency. She despised the Gods and,
instead of true religion, she practised private devotions to a god
whom she proclaimed to be the one true god. But her worship
of him served merely to deceive her poor husband, so that she
could begin tippling early in the morning and spend the whole
day in one long sexual orgy.i This passage occurs in a novel and
is acknowledged fiction. Nevertheless its relevance to the con¬
temporary world will not have been missed by Apuleius’
original readers. The polemics of Celsus (as quoted by Origen)
reveal that similar aspersions on Christian morality were
current in Asia.2 As for Africa, they still circulated in Carthage
in the days of Tertullian.3
In strong contrast stand the first African Christians of whom
any precise knowledge is preserved. Persecution came to the
province at the start of the reign of Commodus: Vigellius
Saturninus, proconsul in 180/1, was the first governor to execute
a Christian.4 Soon after his arrival in Carthage, on 17 July 180,
he condemned to death some Christians from a small and
obscure town near the great metropolis. By good fortune, what
appears to be a transcript of the trial (or at least of its final
stages) happens to be extant in the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs.s
In the consulship of Praesens (for the second time) and Condianus,6
1 Apuleius, Met. IX. 14, cf. App. 21. 2 Origen, Contra Celsum III. 55; VI. 40.
3 Apol. 7. 1 ff. * Tertullian, Scap. 3. 4.
3 App. 16. On the alleged martyrdoms at Madauros, see App. 15.
6 i.e. C. Bruttius Praesens and Sex. Quintilius Condianus (A. Degrassi, Fasti
consolari (1952), 50).
60
CHRISTIANITY IN AFRICA 61
on the sixteenth day before the Kalends of August, at Carthage,
in the secretarium:
Speratus, Nartzalus, Cittinus, Donata, Secunda and Vestia were
brought in. Saturninus the proconsul said: You can earn the pardon
of our lord the emperor if you return to your senses.
Speratus said: We have done no wrong, we have never turned our
hands to wickedness; we have cursed no one, but return thanks
when we are abused; and therefore we are loyal to our emperor.
Saturninus the proconsul said: We too are religious, and our religion
is simple, and we swear by the genius of our lord the emperor, and
we make offerings for his safety, which you ought to do too.
Speratus said: If you will listen, I shall tell you a mystery of simplicity.
Saturninus said: I shall not listen if you speak evil of what we hold
sacred; please swear by the genius of our lord the emperor.
Speratus said: I do not recognise the empire of this world; I serve
instead the God ‘whom no man has seen or can see with mortal
eyes’.1 I have not committed theft; but if I buy anything I pay the
tax on it: for I recognise my lord, the king of kings and emperor of
all mankind.
Saturninus the proconsul said to the rest: Stop being of this belief.
Speratus said: An evil belief is to commit murder, to bear false
witness.
Saturninus the proconsul said: Don’t be involved in this man’s
madness.
Cittinus said: We do not have anyone to fear except the lord our
God who is in heaven.
Donata said: Honour to Caesar as Caesar; but fear to God.
Vestia said: I am a Christian.
Secunda said: What I am, that I wish to remain.
Saturninus the proconsul said to Speratus: Do you persist in being a
Christian ?
Speratus said: I am a Christian; and they all shouted agreement with
him.
Saturninus the proconsul said: Do you not want an interval for
reflection ?
Speratus said: In a cause so just there is no deliberation.
Saturninus the proconsul said: What is that in your satchel?
Speratus said: Books and letters of Paul, a just man.
1 I. Timothy 6. 16, cf. App. 24.

62 CHRISTIANITY IN AFRICA
Saturninus the proconsul said: Have an adjournment of thirty days
and reflect.
Speratus said again: I am a Christian; and they all shouted their
agreement with him.
Saturninus the proconsul read out his decision from a tablet:
Speratus, Nartzalus, Cittinus, Donata, Vestia, Secunda and the rest,
having confessed that they live according to the Christian religion,
since they obstinately persisted when given the opportunity of
returning to Roman ways, are to be executed by the sword.
Speratus said: We give thanks to God.
Nartzalus said: Today as martyrs we shall be in heaven: thanks be
to God.
Saturninus the proconsul ordered the herald to proclaim: Speratus,
Nartzalus, Cittinus, Veturius, Felix, Aquilinus, Laetantius,
Ianuaria, Generosa, Vestia, Donata and Secunda I have ordered to
be beheaded.
All said: Thanks be to God. And so they were all crowned with
martyrdom together, and reign with the Father, the Son and the
Holy Spirit for ever and ever. Amen.
The significance of this document can hardly be exaggerated.
It states the dominant motif of African Christianity: uncom¬
promising rejection of an alien world. When condemned to
death the martyrs rendered thanks to God: that very day they
would be in paradise. With these words they answered the
question which was always to divide Christians in Africa more
deeply than any other: when persecution threatened, what
should the Christian do ? Other provinces were rent by heresy
and disputes over doctrine and dogma. In Africa such matters
were trivial when compared to the endemic disease of schism.
Only the genius (and duplicity) of Cyprian held the African
church together after the persecution of Decius. Without his
presiding wisdom the Great Persecution of Diocletian (though
extremely mild in its demands)1 occasioned a permanent split
into Catholics and Donatists. It was no accident that the words
of the first African martyrs became a party slogan in the fourth
century: ‘Deo gratias’.2
No less important, the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs reveal the
penetration of Christianity into the African countryside. The
1 G. E. M. de Ste Croix, Han. Theol. Rev. XLVII (1954), 75 ff.
2 P. Monceaux, Histoire litteraire de VAfrique chritienne IV (1912), 437 ff.; H.
Leclercq, Diet, d'arch, chrdt. IV. 652 ff.
home-town of the martyrs is obscure and practically unattested,
even its precise name (Scilli or Scillium) being uncertain.1
Both Catholics and Donatists produced an ‘episcopus Scilli-
tanus’ at the Council of Carthage in 411, and both bishops are
listed as belonging to the province of Zeugitana.2 Over two
centuries later (in 646) a bishop happens again to be attested.3 * *
Otherwise there appears to be only a gravestone at Simitthu
which styles a woman Tscilitana’,* and two pieces of evidence
which import a complication. George of Cyprus in the early
seventh century and Leo the Wise in the late ninth both record
an African town Ukt/Xt] as the seat of a bishop. But both list
Z/C77A77 under the province of NumidiaA There might therefore
have been two towns: Scillium in the close vicinity of Carthage
(attested in 411 and 646), and Scilli in Numidia (which appears
in the Byzantine authors).6 Or perhaps both George and Leo
were simply misinformed.7 At all events, therefore, the Scillitan
martyrs ought to come from a small town or village close to the
African metropolis. Their names indicate clearly their social
status: members of the undifferentiated mass of African peasants
who filled the several hundred cities of Roman Africa.8 To
enquire into their racial origins is probably a vain question: in
their world who cared about such matters? However, for what
it is worth, Nartzalus and Cittinus bear names that are native
to Africa.9
A paradox arises. No precise evidence exists for African
Christianity before the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs. Yet these acta
presuppose a wide dissemination of the Christian faith, and
quote from a Latin translation of the Bible. Hence there is a
strong temptation to go further back and to seek the ultimate
origins of the Carthaginian church. Theories proliferate. Per¬
haps Christianity came to Africa in the Apostolic Age, brought
1 H. Dessau, P-W II A. 819: ‘Scillium, so oder ahnlich.’

2 Gesta Coll. Carth. I. 143; 206 {PL XI. 1318; 1343).
3 J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio X (17^4)) 94° •
5 H. Gelzer, Georgii Cyprii Descriptio Orbis Romani (1890), 34; Leo, PG CVII. 344.
7 j. Mesnage, UAfrique ckritienne (1912), 219. Neither Silgita nor S1II1 (each
attested once) appears to be relevant (ib. 430).
s W H C. Frend, The Donatist Church (1952), 88. >
9 For Cittinus, cf. TLL, Onom. II. 464- ‘Nartzalus’ should perhaps be ‘Nartialus s
cf. CIL VIII. 1387; 26939.
by eastern merchants or by Jews who had made a pilgrimage to
Jerusalem and had had the good fortune to hear the first
apostles ‘speaking with tongues’ at the very first Pentecost.1
For does not the Bible say that the apostles were heard by
pilgrims from Libya (Acts 2.10)? Perhaps Christianity came
a century or more later, in the Antonine age, through the
Jewish community of Carthage.2 Who knows ? Late antiquity
felt the need to fill a gap in its knowledge with implausible
legends.3 Modern scholars feel the same need, and satisfy it
with idle speculation. Nothing supports the prevailing theory
that the Carthaginian church grew out of the Carthaginian
Jewish community around 150.4 If reliable evidence is wanted,
the enquiry cannot penetrate beyond the nature of the African
church in the days of Tertullian and the beliefs concerning its
origin which are reflected in the De Praescriptione Haereticorum.
Roman law made provision for ‘praescriptiones’ of various

types which ruled a plaintiff’s case completely out of court.*
Tertullian has cast a whole treatise into the form of a legal
simile. To paraphrase his own words, he applies for an injunc¬
tion to restrain any heretic from trespassing upon holy scripture,
which is the sole property of Christians.6 But who counts as a
Christian ? That is a question which does not in any age allow
of an easy answer. On at least two criteria, most of the Gnostics
whom Tertullian attacks qualified: they read and believed the
Bible, and they conceded the validity of baptism.? The De
Praescriptione Haereticorum predictably assumes a different
answer. ‘We ought not to be surprised’, Tertullian begins, ‘at
the existence or success of heresies’.» Author and audience share
a like contempt for heretics, and the vocabulary prejudges the
central issue. Gnostics cannot be Christians if they are heretics,
and heretics must be totally different from ‘us’. Gnostic ideas
had clearly achieved such success in Carthage that Tertullian
‘.A: Audollent, Diet, d’hist. et de gdog. eccl. I (1912), 709; 712; J. Mesnage, Le
Lhnstiamsme en Afrique (1914), 53 ff.
2 W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (1965), 361 ff.
3 A. Audollent, Carthage romaine (1901), 435 ff.
4 App. 22.
5 Cf. A. Berger, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law (1953), 645 f.
6J. Stirnimann, Die Praescriptio Tertullians im Lichte des romischen Rechts und der
Theologie (1949), 11 ff.; R. F. Refoule, Sources chretiennes XLV1 (1 or.7) 20 ff
7 Ch. XII. 8 Praescr. Haer. 1. 1.
needed to rally the faithful.1 Refutation of the deluded ideas
which assailed them was deferred. Tertullian addressed himself
to those of simple faith.
Heresy, he proclaimed, like persecution, tests men’s faith.2
It was predicted by Christ and condemned by Paul, who
uttered a warning against philosophy and vain deceits.3 Its
cause is boundless and unfettered curiosity.4 The heretic, there¬
fore, can easily be discovered: since he seeks endlessly without
ever finding, he must seek to doubt the ‘regula fidei’ which
genuine Christians believe without question.5 Tertullian’s argu¬
ment relies upon two texts and a definition: ‘seek and ye shall
find’ (Mt. 7. 7), ‘thy faith hath saved thee’ (Lk. 18. 42), and the
equation of faith with assent to a credal formula. Since the heretic
still seeks, he cannot have found; since he has not found, he
cannot believe; and if he does not believe, he is no Christian.6
But the skilful heretic makes effective play with biblical texts.7
T ertullian must convince his readers that such use of the scriptures
is illegitimate. Accordingly, he denies the heretic any right
whatsoever to cite or discuss the Bible.
Paul forbad discussion with heretics, and it can serve no
useful purpose. For the heretics reject part of the scriptures and
pervert the sense of what they accept to suit themselves. In any
discussion they must perforce impute to their opponents their
own dishonest tampering with the sacred text. Appeal to
scripture, therefore, will be ineffectual. Hence, with a circularity
of argument which his readers would find entirely convincing,
Tertullian states the principle which will provide a decision:
where there is true discipline and Christian faith, there too will
be found true scriptures, true exegesis, true Christian tradition.8
It only remains to ask who possesses such faith and the scrip¬
tures, and what is the source and transmission of Christian
discipline.
Jesus Christ chose twelve disciples to be the teachers of man¬
kind and, after his resurrection, ordered the eleven surviving
apostles to go and to teach all men to be baptized in the Father,
1 Praescr. Haer. 1.2: inconsiderate plerique hoc ipso scandalizantur quod tantum
haereses valeant.
2 Praescr. Haer. 2. 8; 3. 6; 4. 5 f. 3 Praescr. Haer. 4. 1 ff.; 6. 1 ft.
4 Praescr. Haer. 8. 1 ff. 5 Praescr. Haer. 12. 5 ff.
6 Praescr. Haer. 14. 10. 7 Praescr. Haer. 14. 14.
8 Praescr. Haer. 16. 1 ff., esp. 19. 2 f.
the Son and the Holy Spirit. The eleven coopted a twelfth,
were given the power of the Holy Spirit, preached the faith and
instituted churches, first in Judaea and then throughout the
whole world. From the churches which they founded other
churches acquired, and still today continue to acquire, a graft of
faith and the seeds of true doctrine. Hence these churches too are
considered apostolic, being offshoots of the original apostolic
churches. Since the nature of every object is determined by its
origin, every church is apostolic, so long as unity is maintained.
Christ received the truth from God and transmitted it to his
apostles, they in turn handed it on to the churches which they
founded: outside this chain, no one can possess the truth.1
The argument needs no further development. Tertullian can
only refute possible objections, attack the heretics and restate
his conclusion. He therefore considers and rejects three objec¬
tions : that the apostles did not know the whole truth, that they
did not reveal all that they knew, and that the heretics, so far
from perverting the truth, are rescuing it from misinterpretation
by the churches.2 Then he denounces the heretics for inter¬
polating scripture, for innovations in ecclesiastical discipline
and for meddling in occult sciences.3 Finally, he repeats the
prohibition on heretics’ using the Bible and promises a detailed
rebuttal of their teachings.4
An essential part of Tertullian’s reasoning has so far been
omitted: how does the argument apply to the church of Car¬
thage? No difficulty would arise if this church were apostolic or
known to be the daughter of a church which was itself apostolic.
But Tertullian felt unable to assert either of these propositions.
Instead, he employs a weaker proof. The doctrine of the
Carthaginian church and its ‘regula fidei’ are true because it is
in communion with the apostolic churches and they share its
doctrine. Tertullian invites his readers to consider the indubit¬
ably apostolic sees, which received letters from the hands of the
apostles: Corinth, Philippi, Ephesus, and above all the glorious
church of Rome, whence Carthage possesses her authority too.
Rome shares with the African churches creed, faith, Old and
New Testaments, baptism, eucharist and church discipline.3
1 Praescr. Haer. 20. 1 ff. 2 Praescr. Haer. 22. 1 ff.

3 Praescr. Haer. 38. 1 ff. * Praescr. Haer. 44. 14.
5 Praescr. Haer. 36. 1 ff.
There arises from this passage a theory that Carthage was
evangelized by missionaries from Rome,t which could perhaps
never be utterly disproved. But Tertullian does not say or imply
that evangelization came from Rome, that Carthage is a
daughter-church of Rome. He founds his argument on similarity
of creed and ecclesiastical practices, choosing ambiguous words
to describe the nature of the relationships Whatever the facts
might have been Tertullian could not assert positively that
the church of Carthage was founded from Rome, or by any
other undeniably apostolic church. The praise of Rome (Ter¬
tullian brings in the deaths of Peter and Paul, and the story that
John emerged unscathed from immersion in boiling oil)3 covers
a weakness in the reasoning. Neither Tertullian nor his readers,
it must be concluded, possessed any precise knowledge of how
Christianity came to Africa.4
Carthage was a city which could vie with Alexandria for

second place after the imperial capital.3 Nor was it merely a
commercial centre. For an intellectual, its repute stood high
enough to induce Apuleius to return from his eastern travels
and studies in Athens.6 Carthage was cosmopolitan, and re¬
tained that character for more than two centuries after Ter¬
tullian, when Salvian of Marseille saluted the city as Rome in
Africa.7 Statistics are of course unavailable. Nonetheless, three
indices of its variegated population are significant. There was a
large community of Jews, important enough to possess their own
extensive cemetery—the only such community attested in the
Latin African provinces at such an early date.8 One quarter of the
magical tablets containing curses found at Carthage are not
1 e.g., H. Lietzmann, The Founding of the Church Universal (1938), 217; W. H. C.

Frend, The Donatist Church (1952), 87.
2 Praescr. Haer. 36. 2: si autem Italiae adiaces, habes Romam unde nobis
quoque auctoritas praesto est.
2 Praescr. Haer. 36. 3.
4 P. Lejay, Melanges G. Kurth II (1908), 45; H. Koch, Theologische Studien und
Kritiken Cl (1929), 471 ff. It is idle therefore to appeal to Gregory the Great or to
Augustine, as does P. Monceaux, Histoire litteraire de VAfrique chritienne I (1901), 6 f.
5 Herodian, VII. 6. 1. s p. 194*
1 De Gubernatione Dei VII. 67. Salvian’s compliments are conventional: though
writing after the Vandal conquest, he still speaks of the proconsul of Africa (VII.
68).
8 Apps. 22; 28.
only written in Greek characters (a common device) but also
in the Greek language.1 Carthaginian inscriptions to Serapis
too show a high proportion in Greek.2 3 If these indications are
not misleading, a substantial part of the populace will have
spoken Greek habitually and many Carthaginians will have
been immigrants from the east.
Analogy now comes in. Something is known about the origins
of Christianity in two other large cities of the western empire.
In Rome, the young religion sought its first converts among the
Jewish community and, despite its failure to win many Jewish
adherents, the Roman church was primarily Greek-speaking
into the third century.2 In Gaul, a violent pogrom in the reign
of Marcus Aurelius caused the Christians of Lugdunum and
Vienna to write to the churches in Asia and Phrygia a letter
which Eusebius has largely preserved.4 The letter is in Greek
and reveals that the bishop of Lugdunum had a Greek name
(Pothinus) and that two of the martyrs were of Asian origin
(Attalus of Pergamum and the Phrygian Alexander). In both
Rome and Gaul, therefore, Christianity first took root among
the Greek communities. There is no valid reason to suppose its
development at Carthage any different. On the contrary,
several facts support the analogy. First, the liturgy of the
Carthaginian church (so far as its details can be ascertained)
appears to differ from that of Rome and to show certain
affinities with eastern practices.5 Secondly, Tertullian’s Ad
Martyras seems to presuppose that its readers will be familiar
with the story of Peregrinus, who immolated himself at the
Olympic Games in 165.6 Next, the Passion of Perpetua: the
vision of the martyr Saturus, which he wrote in his own hand,
appears to have been composed in Greek.2 Moreover, the vision
contains an episode where Perpetua meets the bishop and a
presbyter and addresses them in Greek.* Finally, the Greek
works of Tertullian. Some, to be sure, assume that Tertullian
wrote them for an audience outside Africa.9 But their titles and
1 A. Audollent, Defixionum Tabellae (1904), 287 ff.; 423 ff. (12 out of 51). Con¬
trast Hadrumetum (3 out of 38, ib. 360 ff.; 425 f.).
2 L. Vidman, Sylloge inscriptionum religionis Isiacae et Serapiacae (1969), 325 ff.
3 G. La Piana, Harv. Theol. Rev. XVII (1925), 201 ff.
4 Eusebius, HE V. 1. 1 ff. s App. 23. « p. 218.
7 App. 17. 8 Pass. Perp. 13. 2.
9 e.g.j W. Thieling, Der Hellenismus in Kleinafrika (1911), 170.
subjects were all relevant to Carthage: on the baptism of here¬
tics, on shows and games, on the veiling of virgins.1 Surely those
treatises were intended for the Greek-speaking Christians of the
African metropolis.2
Christianity spread rapidly. In 212 Christians were to be
found not only in major cities of Africa like Hadrumetum,
Utica and Thysdrus, but in the ranks of the African army and
in Mauretania.3 When Tertullian proclaimed that the new
religion filled the whole world, his words did not entirely lack
plausibility. Nothing (he asserted) was unaffected. Christianity
had penetrated town and country, and into every stratum of
society.4 Christians of the lower orders were a familiar pheno¬
menon, but at this distance of time most have become impercep¬
tible to the historian. More attention must therefore go to those
Christians of birth and education who have left a permanent
record of their existence, among whom Tertullian should
stand high. Whatever his place of birth and precise family
circumstances, he came from a literary background.5 Moreover,
he lived in an age which prized literary attainments and which
permitted the gifted to overcome low birth, to amass riches and
to acquire social standing—all as a reward of proficiency in
declamation.6 7 Hence Tertullian provided a living authentica¬
tion of his own assertions. He invited the proconsul Scapula to
contemplate the havoc which his persecution of the Christians
would bring: Carthage would be decimated, everyone would
lose relatives and friends, perhaps one might see among the
victims men and women of senatorial rank, or friends and rela¬
tives of members of the proconsul’s own entourage.2 Could
Scapula have confidence that Tertullian was wrong ? Christians
were already intruding themselves into positions of secret
power and influence at the imperial court. The freedman
1 Bapt. 15. 2; Cor. Mil. 6. 3; Virg. Vel. 1. 1.

2 App. 9. Gf. further, in support of an eastern origin for African Christianity, W.
Telfer, Texte u. Unters. LXXIX (1961), 512 ff.
3 A. Harnack, Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums4 (1924), 887 ff.
4 Apol. 37. 4: hesterni sumus, et orbem iam et vestra omnia implevimus, urbes
insulas, castella municipia conciliabula, castra ipsa tribus decurias, palatium
senatum forum, sola vobis reliquimus templa.
3 pp. 195/6. Carthage was his ‘patria’ (Ch. Ill, cf. pp. 86/7).
6 App. 4.
7 Scap. 5. 2.
F
M. Aurelius Prosenes was a cubiculo of Caracalla.1 He accom¬

panied the emperor to the east, and died while returning after
his murder in 217. His bones were transported back to Italy in
a fine sarcophagus which openly proclaimed adherence to, or
at least sympathy with, Christianity.2 3 Scapula might not have
encountered Prosenes. But Tertullian reminded him of another
Christian in the imperial household: a certain Proculus was
the servant of Euodus, who had educated the reigning emperor
Caracalla.3 He omitted to mention that Caracalla put Euodus
to death immediately after his accession.4
As for Christians of senatorial rank, the name of one may
already be known. Vibia Perpetua of Carthage is described in
a contemporary document as being of high birth, of good
education and nobly married.5 6 Such language (which may of
course be tendentious) comes close to indicating senatorial
rankA At the very least, Perpetua’s nomen is suggestive. Three
Vibii were proconsuls of Africa in the first century,7 and no
proconsul of that name happens to be attested after the reign of
Vespasian. If Perpetua’s family had gained Roman citizenship
from one of the three known Vibii, its standing in Carthage was
no humble one.
The number and identity of the Christian communities in
Africa are almost as obscure as their social composition.
Tertullian had no cause to describe the progress of the faith
impartially, or even to offer precise facts. He simply presupposes
from the start both a large Christian community in Carthage
and a spread of Christianity outside the metropolis.8 He does,
however, let slip one valuable remark: the small town of
1ILS 1738 = ILCV 3332. A generation earlier, Commodus’ favourite concubine

exerted influence on behalf of a Christian deported to Sardinia (Hippolytus,
Ref. omit. haer. IX. 12. 11).
2 H. U. Instinsky, Abhand. d. Akad. d. Wiss. in Mainz, Geistes- u. Sozialwiss. Kl.
1964, Nr. 3, 113 ff.
3 Scap. 4. 5. Editors persist in printing ‘Euhodiae’ (CCL II. 1230) or ‘Euhodae’
(CSEL LXXVI. 14): the correct form is certain, cf. PIR2 E 117.
4 Dio LXXVI 11 (LXXVII). 1. 1.
5 Pass. Perp. 2: honeste nata, liberaliter instructa, matronaliter nupta. Echoed in
CIL VIII. 870.
6 TLL VIII. 487; 490.
7 Viz. A. Vibius Habitus, cos. suff. 8, C. Vibius Marsus, cos. suff. 17, Q. Vibius
Crispus, cos. III. c. 82, cf. B. E. Thomasson, Die Statthalter der romischen Provinzen
Nordafrikas von Augustus bis Diocletianus II (i960), 22; 27; 45 f.
8 Harnack, o.c. 890.
Uthina had a bishop whose vices had attained some notoriety.1
Otherwise, he reveals little about Christians outside Carthage.
Nor can the record be supplemented from epigraphy or archae¬
ology : no undeniably Christian building or inscription survives
in Africa earlier than the fourth century.2 3 One incident alone
indicates with any exactness the diffusion of Christianity, and
that is attended by all manner of problems. Cyprian twice refers
to a synod of bishops under Agrippinus (who was therefore
bishop of Carthage) which ordained that heretics who joined
the church must undergo rebaptism.2 Augustine adds the
important detail: the decision was taken by a gathering of
seventy bishops.4 The date could be as early as 190 or as late as
230, and the seventy bishops could comprise the total number,
the majority, or even a minority of the bishops either for pro¬
consular Africa alone, or for Africa and Numidia, or for all the
African provinces.5 * In 256 the council of Carthage was attended
by eighty-five bishops, whose sees are all known and who came
from all parts of proconsular Africa and Numidia but not from
Mauretania.5 But the total number of African bishops may
already have exceeded one hundred and fifty or even two
hundred.7 The search for precision—or grandiose theories about
Christianity in the African countryside8—had better be aban¬
doned. The evidence will admit only imprecision.
On 7 March 203 (or, just possibly, 202 or 204), Vibia Per-

petua and her companions suffered martyrdom in Carthage to
celebrate the birthday of Geta Caesar, the younger son of
Septimius Severus.9 A record survives in the Passion of Per-
petua. This pearl of hagiographical literature (as even the most
sceptical are compelled to describe it)10 can be demonstrated to
1 Mon. 12. 3. 2 App. 27.

3 Cyprian, Epp. LXXI. 4; LXXIII. 3.
4 Augustine, De unico baptismo 13. 22.
3 Cf. A. Audollent, Diet, d’hist. et de gdog. eccl. I. 1039 ff
6 H. von Soden, Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven und Bibliotheken
XII (1909), 247 ff. And ninety bishops gathered at Lambaesis c. 240 (Cyprian,
Epp. LIX. 10).
7 Soden, o.c. 264; Harnack, o.c. 898.
8 e.g., W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (1965), 332;
345-
» Apps. 17; 18.
10 J.Geffcken, Hermes XLV (1910), 484.
be almost contemporary with the events which it narrates.1
Further, it contains two documents penned by the martyrs
Perpetua and Saturus in prison, which relate their dreams and
reveal their eschatological hopes.2
Several young catechumens were arrested, the two slaves,
Revocatus and Felicitas, Saturninus and Secundulus, and the
noble Vibia Perpetua, who were apparently all inhabitants of
Carthage3 and members of a single household. According to
Perpetua’s own report, she was first put under house-arrest, and
the martyrs used the brief respite to receive baptism. Then they
were transferred to the prison (next to the residence of the
governor on the rocky hill of the Byrsa which dominated
Carthage). Here the Christians were visited by Perpetua’s
family and by two deacons who bribed the guards to allow the
prisoners to take fresh air. The conditions of their confinement
being improved, and permission obtained to nurse her infant
son, Perpetua at once felt relieved of worry for her family and
began to enjoy being in prison. Her brother challenged her to
ask God for a dream to disclose whether her fate was to be
death or freedom. Perpetua, being accustomed to converse with
God, promised an answer for the next day, and duly received
the desired revelation. She saw a bronze ladder leading to heaven,
narrow and surrounded with iron weapons to wound any who
ascended carelessly or felt giddy. At the foot of the ladder lay
a huge and frightening serpent. Another martyr ascended first,
and shouted encouragement. Perpetua invoked the name of
Jesus and trod on the serpent’s head. She ascended and saw a
vast garden, with an elderly shepherd milking sheep and around
him many thousands clad in white. The shepherd welcomed
Perpetua and gave her a piece of the cheese from the sheep’s
milk. She ate, and everyone said ‘amen’. At this Perpetua awoke
realizing that she was destined for martyrdom.4
Soon a rumour spread that the Christians were about to be
tried. Perpetua’s father came from the city to dissuade her from
death. She remained steadfast, grieving only that her father,
1 App. 17. 2 Pass. Perp. 2; 14; 16. 1.

3 Not Thuburbo Minus, cf. H. Delehaye, Les passions des martyrs et les genres
littiraires2 (1966), 53.
4 Pass. Perp. 2 ff.
alone of the whole family, would fail to rejoice at her passion.i

One day the Christians were suddenly led out for trial in the
forum, where a large crowd had gathered. The rest were
questioned and confessed. When Perpetua’s turn came, her
father approached with her baby son and urged her to pity
him. His pleas were reinforced by the procurator Hilarianus,
who was acting in the place of the deceased proconsul.2 But
she refused to sacrifice for the safety of the emperors and con¬
fessed herself a Christian. When her father attempted to inter¬
vene again, he was restrained by force. Sentence inevitably
followed, and all the martyrs were condemned to fight the
beasts. They returned joyfully to their cells, and Perpetua was
finally separated from her child.3
The Christians prayed together in prison. On one occasion,
Perpetua suddenly uttered the name of Deinocrates, a dead
brother whom she had until then forgotten. The utterance was
unintentional, but had a happy consequence. For Perpetua
perceived that she was worthy of praying for him, and that night
she received a vision. She saw Deinocrates come out of a dark
place, very hot and thirsty, dirty and pallid, his face still
showing the cancerous wound which had killed him at the age
of seven. Perpetua could do no more than say a prayer for her
brother, because between them there was a great gulf fixed.
Near Deinocrates lay a pool of water from which he was trying
to drink. But the sides were too high. Perpetua awoke, per¬
ceiving that her brother was in torment. She therefore began to
pray for him all day and every day, until the martyrs were
transferred to the military prison. Her prayers were answered.
In another dream she saw Deinocrates in the same place as
before. Now, however, he was clean and refreshed, his wound
healed. The sides of the pool had been lowered, and the boy
was drinking water without ceasing. Over the pool hung a
bowl full of water, which Deinocrates began to drink and which
never emptied. The child drank and was satisfied, then started to
play happily. Perpetua awoke, and divined that her brother
had been released from torment.4
1 Pass. Perp. 5. 1 ff., cf. Harnack, o.c. 405 ff.

2 Pass. Perp. 6. 2, cf. App. 18. 3 Pass. Perp. 6. 1 ff.
4 Pass. Perp. 7. 1 ff. For comment on the motifs in the two dreams, cf. F. J.
Dolger, Antike und Christentum II (1930), 1 2 ff-
The bravery of the Christians impressed the optio Pudens,

who was one of their guards. He admitted visitors freely,
among them once more Perpetua’s father. Finally, on the day
before the games, Perpetua had another vision. She saw the
deacon Pomponius come to the prison and knock hard. She
opened the door to discover Pomponius dressed in white and
wearing fancy shoes. He took her by the hand and led her along
a hard and tortuous route until they came panting to the
amphitheatre. The deacon then led her to the middle of the
arena, bade her not to be afraid and went away. Perpetua
stood before the crowd awaiting the beasts. Instead there came
to fight her an ugly Egyptian with his attendants, and to aid
her handsome young men. Perpetua was undressed—and found
herself a man. She was rubbed down with oil, while the Egyp¬
tian rolled himself in the sand of the arena. Then a large man
appeared, taller even than the top of the amphitheatre. He
wore fancy shoes of gold and silver, and carried both a trainer’s
stick and a green bough with golden apples. He asked for
silence, and named the prizes: if the Egyptian won, he would
kill Perpetua; if she won, she would receive the bough. The
contest commenced, and Perpetua was victorious, crushing
with her foot the face of her adversary. She received her prize
from the umpire, who kissed her and said ‘Daughter, peace be
with you’. Perpetua awoke confident of victory on the morrow,
and set down her visions in writing. Her fight was not against
mere beasts but against the Devil himself.1
So far Perpetua’s own report. She had been initiated into the
faith by one Saturus, who by chance had escaped arrest. He
therefore surrendered himself and was imprisoned with the
rest.2 He too saw visions and wrote them down. After their
death (he wrote), the martyrs left the flesh and were carried by
four angels towards the east. They saw a great light, and Saturus
said to Perpetua, who was beside him, ‘This is what the Lord
promised us’. A huge space opened out, like a garden, with
rose trees and every sort of flower: the trees were as tall as
cypresses and their leaves were falling incessantly. In the garden
were four more angels, brighter than the others, who welcomed
the martyrs with respect and admiration. The first angels were
1 Pass. Perp. 9. 1 ff., cf. F. J. Dolger, Antike und Christentum III (1932), 177 ff.
2 Pass. Perp. 4. 3.
afraid and set the martyrs down. They went forward a furlong
and found four more martyrs who had already died in the same
persecution. When they began to question them, the angels
said ‘Gome first, enter and greet the Lord’. They approached
the place, whose walls appeared to be built of light. Before the
door stood four angels, who clothed them in white robes. They
entered and heard a voice saying ‘Holy, holy, holy’ without
ceasing. And they saw as it were an old man sitting, with snow-
white hair and a youthful face. To his right and to his left stood
four elders, and behind them many more. The martyrs stood
before the throne in wonderment and awe. And four angels
lifted them up, and they kissed him that sat upon the throne,
and prayed. And the elders said ‘Go, and rejoice’.1 Saturus said
to Perpetua ‘You have what you desire’. She replied ‘Thanks be
to God, for I am now even happier than I was in the flesh’.2
The martyrs went out, and saw before the door the bishop
Optatus and the priest and teacher Aspasius, each standing
sadly alone. The two men fell on their knees, begging the
martyrs to reconcile them. The martyrs protested that a bishop
and a priest ought not to kneel before them; but they were
moved and embraced them. Perpetua began to address them in
Greek, and the martyrs took them aside under a rose tree. The
angels then bade Optatus and Aspasius allow the martyrs to
refresh themselves, and forget their quarrels with each other.
This cast them into dismay, and the angels said to Optatus
‘Discipline your people; they come to you as if they were the
warring supporters of different factions in the circus . The martyrs
thought that the angels wished to shut the doors, and they
began to recognize many Christians there who were also
martyrs.3
Saturus awoke, and consigned his dream to paper. Another
martyr, Secundulus, for obscure reasons, was denied to the
beasts and executed in prison.4 Not so, however, Felicitas,
although she was eight months pregnant. Afraid that her execu¬
tion would be postponed, she and her companions prayed to
God for premature birth. No sooner was the prayer ended than
1 Perhaps a liturgical formula, cf. F. J. Dolger, Antike und Christentum VI. 2

(1940), 117.
2 Pass. Perfi. 11. 1 ff.
s Pass. Perp. 13. 1 ff. 4 Pass. Perp. 14.
the pains of labour commenced. Felicitas was delivered of a
daughter who was at once adopted by another Christian. 1
The day of triumph dawned. The martyrs proceeded from
prison to the amphitheatre bright and joyful. Perpetua was
singing and radiant, as befitted the bride of Christ and beloved
of God. When an attempt was made to clothe the martyrs in
sacred robes like priests of Saturn or devotees of Ceres,2
Felicitas struggled to such effect that the tribune desisted.
Revocatus, Saturninus and Saturus flung threats at the
watching crowd and the procurator HilarianusA
The games began. Saturninus and Revocatus were mauled
by a leopard, then by a bear. Saturus detested bears and ex¬
pected to be finished by a single bite from the leopard. How¬
ever, when he was trussed up and offered to a wild boar, the
boar only grazed Saturus, but gored the attendant and gave
him a wound which later proved fatal. Then Saturus was put
on a platform and wheeled in front of the bear’s cage. The
bear refused to come out.4
Perpetua and Felicitas were led on, naked and covered
only with nets. The crowd was shocked to see them, the one
delicate, the other hardly recovered from childbirth. They were
therefore clothed in tunics and set before a ferocious wild
heifer. Perpetua was tossed, fell modestly and rearranged her
hair. Felicitas was knocked down, and Perpetua helped her to
her feet. They stood, expecting another attack. But the crowd
shouted for mercy and they were led off.5
At the end of the spectacle, Saturus was brought on again. A
leopard was released and bit him. From the wound he bled so
profusely that the crowd mocked his second baptism with the
cry ‘Well washed’.6 Saturus turned to the soldier Pudens, took a
ring from his finger, dipped it in his wound and gave it to him
as a pledge and a memorial of his blood.7 Then he was laid
1 Pass. Perp. 15. 1 ff.
2 Cf. G. C. Picard, Recueil de Constantine LXVI (1048), 117 ff.
3 Pass. Perp. 18. 1 ff.
4 Pass. Perp. 19. 1 ff. A mosaic from Tripolitania depicts an almost identical
scene, cf. S. Aurigemma, I mosaici di £liten (1926), 131 ff; L’ltalia in Africa I
(i960), tav. 137; 151 ff. 3 Pass. Perp. 20. 1 ff.
6 Cf. ILS 5725 (Brixia): bene lava! salvu(m) lotu(m). peripsuma su. Dessau
pertinently cited Eusebius, HE VII. 22. 7; CIL VIII. 8424.
7 For Saturus’ motives, cf. F. J. Dolger, Vortrage der Bibliothek Warburg 1923-24.
(1926), 196 ff.
unconscious with the rest to be despatched in the usual place.
When the crowd demanded to watch this final episode, the
martyrs stood up and presented themselves. The rest received
the last blow without moving and in silence. Perpetua, how¬
ever, screamed out and, when the inexperienced gladiator
hesitated, she guided his hand to her throat.1
‘O brave and blessed martyrs!’ Many generations of Chris¬

tians have echoed the admiration stated by the author of the
Passion of Perpetua.2 But one cardinal fact tends to be played down
or ignored.3 The theological character of the Passion is Montanist
through and through. The preface begins with polemic.4
If ancient examples of faith are written down and read in divine
service, why not new proofs too? Antiquity inevitably arro¬
gates prestige and authority. But God promised to pour his
spirit on his servants in the last days, so that they should pro¬
phesy, so that young men should see visions and old men dream
dreams (Acts 2. 17, citing Joel 2. 28). Hence the motive for
writing. God will be glorified when the fulfilment of his pro¬
mises is described by one who acknowledges and respects the
recent prophecies and visions.5 Those who participated in the
events to be narrated will relive them, those who will now learn
of them for the first time will have communion with the holy
martyrs.6 The epilogue repeats the theme in muted tones,7
and the narrator turns aside in one passage to commend the
ecstatic state.8
The Montanist colouring of the document cannot entirely
be attributed to its editor. The thoughts, words and actions of
the martyrs themselves display features which are hard to
interpret m any strictly orthodox sense. What should the
historian of dogma make of Perpetua’s visions concerning
1 Pass. Perp. 21. i ff. 2 Pass. Perp. 21.5.

3 e.g., respectively, H. Leclercq, Diet, d’arch. chrit. XIV (1939)) 401 “• >
Dodds,,Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety (1965), 47 ff.
4 Pass. Perp. 1. 1 ff. ....
3 Pass. Perp. 1. 4: itaque et nos, qui sicut prophetias ita et visiones novas panter
repromissas et agnoscimus et honoramus. . . .
6 Pass. Perp. 1. 5. ... . .
7 Pass. Perp. 21. 5:haecnon minora veteribus exempla m aedmcationem ecciesiae
legere debet, ut novae quoque virtutes unum et eundem semper Spiritum Sanctum
usque adhuc operari testificentur.
3 Pass. Perp. 20. 3.
Deinocrates? They clearly imply that a martyr (but perhaps
not anyone else) can effect the release of a soul from hell and
secure its admittance to heaven.1 Offended piety has of course
sought an escape by invoking the doctrine of purgatory. But
that is an adventitious and anachronistic notion: the idea of
purgatory entered Christian theology later, by way of the
Gnostics and Origen.2 3 Moreover, authoritative manuals of
theology disagree on a fundamental point. If Deinocrates was
not transferred from hell to heaven, was he transferred from
hell to purgatory,2 or from purgatory to paradise ?4 Perhaps it
would be better to take refuge in modern psychoanalytic
theory.5 Perpetua knew (or thought she knew) that she con¬
versed with God: she took her dream to signify that her brother
had been released from punishment (not purification) and
admitted to bliss.6 * As for Saturus, his dream manifests a sub¬
versive attitude towards the clergy. When the martyrs enter
the presence of God, the bishop and the priest are excluded.
They are sad and isolated figures: by implication, their only
hope lies in the martyrs at whose feet they fall.2
Still more suspect is the assistance afforded by the martyrs to
the persecutors. Saturus had the misfortune to be absent when
Perpetua and the rest were apprehended. He therefore went
of his own volition and surrendered himself to the authorities.8
As for Perpetua, she came near to suicide. The gladiator who
had the task of cutting her throat was young and inexperienced.
She therefore grasped his wavering hand, and herself supplied
the blow which drove the sword through her throat.9 For this
the author of the Passion commends her warmly. Since the
Devil was afraid of Perpetua, she could never have been killed,
had she not wished it herself.10
1 Pass. Perp. 7. 1: cognovi me statim dignam esse, et pro eo petere debere; 8. 2: et

satiatus accessit (sc. Deinocrates) de aqua ludere more infantium gaudens. et
experrecta sum. tunc intellexi translatum eum esse de poena.
2P- ”5-
3 So Diet, de thdol. cath. XIII. 1213.
4 Thus the Vatican publication, Enciclopedia cattolica X. 335.
5 Deinocrates ‘presumably represents an element in the Unconscious which is
demanding attention’, according to Dodds, o.c. 51.
6 Pass. Perp. 4. 1; 8. 2. 1 Pass. Perp. 13. 1. « Pass. Perp. 4. 3.
9Pass. Perp. 21. 4: errantem dexteram tirunculi gladiatoris ipsa in iugulum
suum transtulit.
10 Pass. Perp. 20. 4: fortasse tanta femina aliter non potuisset occidi, quae ab
Its Montanist colouring establishes and enhances the histori¬
cal value of the Passion of Perpetua. The text reveals the true
state of the church of Carthage in the reign of Septimius
Severus. Open dissensions existed and are reflected in the vision
of Saturus. But the Montanist party was still accepted as be¬
longing to the catholic church, and Perpetua was rapidly
accepted as a catholic, not a Montanist martyr. By the fourth
century, if not before, there existed in Carthage a church
dedicated to her memory and that of her companions.1 Augus¬
tine preached sermons in her praise which quoted and para¬
phrased the extant Passion.2 Ignoring (or not perceiving) the
Montanism, he waxed eloquent in extravagant laudation.
When Felicitas gave birth in prison, although she did not lack
Eve’s sinfulness, she nevertheless also possessed the grace of
Mary the mother of Jesus.3 Both she and Perpetua overcame
fear and pain, true martyrs of Christ for his name and righteous¬
ness, holy handmaids of God.4 In Augustine’s day, the Passion
was read in church, and treated by some as canonical scrip¬
ture.5 And Perpetua’s repute spread far beyond Africa. Two
generations before Augustine, in the reign of Constantine, the
anniversary of her martyrdom already appeared in the official
calendar of the church of Rome—in the company of the apostles
Peter and Paul.6 Such a development of the cult of Perpetua
surely presupposes that, at the time of her death in 203, she
was accepted without question as a member of the Carthaginian
church.
Can the author of the Passion be identified? Its style and
theology bear an unmistakable resemblance to those of Tertul-
lian, who is often claimed to be the final editor.? Yet there
exist also differences, which encourage some to posit as the
immundo spiritu timebatur, nisi ipsa voluisset. A pious admirer comments: ‘rien
de morbide dans l’attitude des martyrs, ils n’aspirent point 4 la mort’ (R.
Paciorkowski, Rev. et. aug. V (i959)> 388).
1 H. Leclercq, Diet, d’arch. chit. XIV. 432 ff. For the literary evidence, cf.
C. J. M. J. van Beek, Passio Sanctorum Perpetuae et Felicitatis I (1936), 149* ff.
2 Serm. 280; 281; 282 (PL XXXVIII. 1280 ff).
3 Serm. 281. 3.
* Serm. 280. 4; 281. 1.
5 Augustine, De natura et origine animae I. 10. 12.
6 Mon. Germ. Hist., Auct. Ant. IX. 71. For the date (probably 336), cf. H. Stern,
Le calendrier de 354 (i953)> 44> 1 x3 f-
7 e.g., J. Quasten, Patrology I (i95°)> I®1 *•
8o CHRISTIANITY IN AFRICA
author the deacon Pomponius who visited Perpetua in prison.1
On either side, however, the arguments have been fallacious
or inadequate.2 3 4 5 Contrary to common belief, positive arguments
for attributing any literary composition to a precise author are
harder to sustain than the negative ones in favour of dissocia¬
tion. And for the Passion of Perpetua there is no possibility of
comparing Tertullian with any contemporary writers from the
same milieu—who may plausibly, in any event, be conjectured
to have imitated him. Something might speak for Tertullian.
Felicitas went out ‘from blood to blood, from the midwife to
the gladiator’.3 The pun and the incongruous antithesis recall
some of his strained comparisons and verbal quibbles. He de¬
rided the popular cry ‘The Christians to the lion’ by enquiring
whether they were all to be offered to one liond A man capable
of that could write in such terms about Felicitas. But, if Ter¬
tullian himself could, so too could an imitator. And there is a
decisive consideration on the other side: the De Anima con¬
flates episodes from a dream of Perpetua and that of SaturusA
Montanism came from the east. From the east too came the
more intellectual disease of heresy. Ideas will often percolate
from one area to another by devious and imperceptible paths.
The theoretical systems of Marcion and Valentinus, with the
refinements added by their disciples, had an irresistible appeal
everywhere. At Carthage, however, the seductions of false
doctrine were rendered still more alluring by the presence of
important heretical teachers. Hermogenes was an easterner who
had incurred the wrath of Theophilus of Antioch.^ The latter
composed a detailed refutation of his doctrines which may (or
may not) have been the immediate cause of his removal to
Africa to seek followers there. Tertullian considered him so
important that he devoted two treatises to refuting him, the
extant Adversus Hermogenem and the lost De Censu Animae, which
he himself describes as an attack on Hermogenes.2 Elsewhere,
Tertullian tends to attack unnamed Valentinians, Gnostics and
1 R. Braun, Rev. it. lat. XXXIII (1955), 79 ff.; J. Campos, Helmantica X (1959),
3Hl- 2 App. 17.
3 Pass. Perp. 18. 2: a sanguine ad sanguinem, ab obstetrice ad retiarium, lotura
post partum baptismo secundo.
4 Apol. 40. 2.
5 An. 55. 4. 6 Eusebius, HE IV. 24. 1. 2 jn. 1. 1.
Marcionites. Two passages, however, may reveal another

heretical teacher resident in Carthage.
The peroration of the Scorpiace rises to emotional heights,
dilating on the martyrdoms of the apostles.1 Then Tertullian
turns to castigate the denigrators of martyrdom, whom he has
so far derided as Gnostics and Valentinians. An unfamiliar
name appears: Prodicus is yoked with Valentinus as a heretic
who holds that the Christian’s confession must be in the here¬
after not on earth.2 The question poses itself: who is Prodicus?
Tertullian’s original readers in Carthage clearly knew. For
Prodicus reappears some years later in the same company in the
Adversus Praxean: people like Prodicus and Valentinus introduce
several Gods besides the true creator of the universe.3 Prodicus
is an otherwise obscure figure. Eusebius does not record his
name, nor do such pertinacious cataloguers of heresies as
Epiphanius of Cyprus and the western authors Filastrius and
‘Praedestinatus’. Apart from a reference by Theodoret in the
fifth century,4 Clement of Alexandria is the only ancient author
who mentions Prodicus.5 Clement said that his followers boasted
of possessing the secret books of Zoroaster, that they lived
licentiously, and that they vaunted themselves as the true sons
of the primordial deity.6 Comparison with Hermogenes will
suggest that Prodicus too came to Carthage—a hypothesis which
may in any event be necessary to explain Tertullian’s refer¬
ences to him.
Prodicus may also be Tertullian’s main target in the Adversus
Valentinianos. He mentions his name twice in association with
Valentinus, whose heresy had won many adherents in Africa.2
Tertullian’s attack proceeds mainly by ridicule and caricature.3
But he digresses in order to consider the historical development
of the heresy. Valentinus turned to mythology because he
1 Scorp. 15. 1 ff.

2 Scorp. 15. 6: quodsi iam tunc Prodicus aut Valentinus adsisteret suggerens non
in terris esse confitendum. . . .
3 Prax. 3. 6.
4 Haer. Fab. Compendium I. 6 (PG LXXXIII. 352 f.). Probably derived from
Clement, cf. Diet, of Christian Biography IV (1887), 490 f.

5 A. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius (1893), 163 f.
« Strom. I. 69. 6; III. 30. iff.
2 Tertullian, Val. 1. 1: Valentiniani, frequentissimum plane collegium inter
haereticos.
s Ch. XIV.
had failed to get elected a bishop.1 His followers took over and
elaborated his mythology. Tertullian names his most famous
disciples: Ptolemaeus, Heracleon, Secundus, Marcus and
Theotimus.2 But he proclaims that Valentinus’ true doctrine is
preserved by only one of his contemporary followers: Axionicus
of Antioch.2 By implication, the Valentinians of Carthage are
not only wrong, they are not even true Valentinians. If that is
Tertullian’s line of argument, he would not ruin it by naming
his principal opponent.
Montanus began to prophesy in Asia not far from the year

170.4 The Christian communities were still small and few in
number, and the Greek element was still important, even pre¬
dominant, in the western churches. The New Prophecy con¬
sequently gained a rapid diffusion—and almost recognition
from the ecclesiastical hierarchy. There is no reason entirely to
disbelieve the explicit statement of Tertullian that the bishop
of Rome recognized the prophecies of Montanus, Prisca and
Maximilla as genuine utterances of the Holy Spirit, and was on
the point of communicating his acceptance to the churches of
Asia and Phrygia.5 Such a contemporary statement was not
likely to be repeated by ecclesiastical historians, whose duty lay
in magnifying the virtues of the orthodox even if that entailed
the suppression of fact.6
The bishop of Rome soon changed his mind, and the fight
against the New Prophecy began. Pamphlet after pamphlet
denounced the followers of Montanus with scant regard for
truth.7 An anonymous writer attempted to prove that Mon-
tanists were no better than Gnostics, that they deliberately
avoided martyrdom, that not one Montanist had ever suffered
for the faith.* The charge was patently false, but would easily
take in the prejudiced or uncritical;9 It was gleefully repeated
by Apollonius and eagerly believed by Eusebius. 10
1 Val. 4. 1. 2 Val. 4. 2 f.
3 Val. 4. 3. Axionicus is mentioned only once elsewhere (Hippolytus, Ref. omn.
haer. VI. 35. 7) and gains no admittance to many standard handbooks.
*JTS, N.S. XXI (1970), 403 ff.
5 Prax. 1. 4 f. Slight exaggeration will inevitably be surmised.
6 Note the candid admission of Eusebius, HE VIII. 2. 3.
7 P- de Labriolle, La crise montaniste (1913), 45 ff. » Eusebius, HE V. 16. 12.
9 e.g., A. Birley, Marcus Aurelius (1966), 305.
10 Eusebius, HE V. 18. 5 ff. (Apollonius); 18. 1 (Eusebius’ comments).
The church of Carthage could not remain for ever insensitive

to the changing theological climate. Montanists and Montanism
were still acceptable in 203, perhaps a full decade after the bishop
of Rome condemned them. And they remained acceptable for
some time beyond 203. Otherwise, the Passion of Perpetua could
not so readily have been taken up by the church. Yet the bishop
of Rome had spoken, and many (even in Tertullian’s day)
found that reason enough to obey meekly and without question.
Tertullian felt grave disquiet. If one took the Gospels seriously,
how could such docile obedience to a bishop be justified ? And
if Christianity was a living faith, how could one deny that the
Holy Spirit still spoke to men?
As the church of Carthage moved away from Montanism,
Tertullian moved towards it. Soon he began to feel his position
intolerable. He first tried persuasion and sought common ground
with the catholics against Gnosticism. Only belief in the New
Prophecy (he argued) could give a man the courage to face
martyrdom: in other words, only a Montanist can be a true
Christian.1 2 3 In matters of religion, however, argument is often
otiose or ineffective. Tertullian, never a patient man (as he
himself confesses),2 despaired of converting others to Montan¬
ism. When the break came, he turned to violent invective. In
his mind the issue was simple. Recognition of the Paraclete and
defence of him against disbelievers separated him from those
whom he must now call ‘psychici’, materialists, men of the flesh.3
He therefore proceeded to attack, taking as his motto the words
of Speratus the Scillitan: ‘in a cause so just there is no
deliberation’.
Tertullian’s later writings receive abuse and condemnation
in subsequent ages.4 Many of the charges are unmerited. Ter¬
tullian did not leave the church wholly or mainly of his own
accord. In the age of the Severi, the church was changing. It
was becoming an established institution in which enthusiasm
or direct communion with God presented a threat to the
ecclesiastical hierarchy. Tertullian was the first great teacher of
1 Fug. 14. 3.
2 Pat. 1. 1.
3 Prax. 1. 7, etc. }
4 R. a. Knox, Enthusiasm (1952), 46, diagnosed ‘undergraduate irresponsibility
and ‘a certain kinship with Hurrell Froude’.
unimpeachable doctrinal orthodoxy who dared to enunciate an

unpalatable truth: the church is not a conclave of bishops, but
the manifestation of the Holy Spirit.1
1 Pud. 21. 17: ecclesia spiritus per spiritalem hominem, non ecclesia numerus
episcoporum. Hence hailed as ‘the ancestor of all puritan nonconformity’ (W. H. C.
Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (1965), 366).
VIII
CHRISTIANS AND PAGANS IN

CARTHAGE
T ertullian offered his fellow-citizens a highly coloured

account of the history oftheir city. F ate submitted Carthage
to the power of Rome and she slowly adopted the ways of
the conqueror. After the foul portents of Gracchus and the
violent pantomimes of Lepidus, after the triple altars of Pompey
and the long delays of Caesar, Statilius Taurus built walls,
Sentius Saturninus conducted the solemn inauguration, and the
city assumed the title of Colonia Concordia Julia Carthago.1
The Carthaginians began to wear the toga, and Tertullian felt
constrained to apologize: since he was urging them to wear the
pallium instead, his audience might be ashamed or grieved to
adopt a Punic custom.2
The facts were no more prosaic than Tertullian’s brief survey.
Rome destroyed the great Punic capital in 146 b.c. and a solemn
curse was pronounced on the ground where it stood.3 A genera¬
tion later, C. Gracchus attempted to put the empty site to
profitable use: he proposed to settle landless Italians there,
himself visited Africa to assign land, and founded his colony.
But Gracchus’ political opponents contrived to defeat the enter¬
prise (wolves were said to have removed the boundary stones)
and Carthage lay virtually deserted once more.4 Undeterred by
such ill omens, Julius Caesar decided to settle some of his
veteran soldiers, and a formal ‘deductio’ seems to have occurred
1 Pall. 1.2: post Gracchi obscena omina, et Lepidi violenta ludibria, post trinas
Pompei aras et longas Caesaris moras, ubi moenia Statilius Taurus imposuit,
sollemnia Sentius Saturninus enarravit, cum Concordia Iulia toga oblata est. On
the perplexing ‘trinae arae’, cf. S. Gsell, Histoire ancienne de I’Afrique du Nord VII
(1928), 285.
2 Tertullian is not protesting at the abandonment of native dress, but conciliating
his audience: sit nunc aliunde res, ne Poenicum inter Romanos aut erubescat aut
doleat {Pall. 2. 1).
3 Cicero, De Lege agr. I. 5; II. 51; Appian, Pun. 135. Macrobius has preserved
the actual words {Sat. III. 9. 10 ff).
4 Plutarch, Caius Gracchus 11; Appian, Bell. civ. I. 105 f.; Pun. 136.
G
86 CHRISTIANS AND PAGANS IN CARTHAGE
before his untimely death.1 The triumvir Lepidus, who ruled

Africa for four years (40-36), was not inactive: in 38 b.c. the
cult of Ceres was publicly established.2 3 It was Octavian, how¬
ever, who brought Caesar’s plans to full fruition. The curse was
repudiated or conveniently forgotten, and three thousand
veterans arrived.2 Finally (if Tertullian may be believed)
Sentius Saturninus performed the appropriate religious rites.4
Carthage possessed a vast territory which extended inland for
as much as sixty miles and included towns as remote as Thig-
nica, Thubursicu Bure and Thugga.5 Caesar’s foundation con¬
trolled no fewer than eighty-three ‘castella’, of which, more than
two hundred years later, it apparently retained sixty-two.6 The
land attributed to Carthage was exempted from the payment of
tribute: an inscription of the reign of Trajan (and found at
Thugga) lauds the services of a senator and consul who effec¬
tively protected the ‘immunitas perticae Carthaginiensis’.7 8 In
part at least, the organization of the colony’s dependent terri¬
tory reflects an earlier age. One of its districts bore the antique
and Punic title of ‘pagus Zeugei’.s Moreover, when Diocletian
divided the province of Africa Proconsularis, he styled two of
the three new provinces Zeugitana and Byzacena. Byzacium
(the noun of which ‘Byzacenus’ is the adjective) had denoted a
region near Carthage in the time of Hannibal.9
The ‘territorium’ of Carthage creates a further uncertainty
about Tertullian. The colony was his ‘patria’.10 But it cannot
1 Strabo XVII, p. 833; Plutarch, Caesar 57; Solinus, Coll. rer. mir. XXVII. 11.
For the details (and problems), cf. L. Teutsch, Das romische Stadtewesen in Nordafrika
(1962), 101 ff.
2 CIL VIII. 26255 = ILS 9401, cf. Teutsch, o.c. 105 f.
3 Dio LII. 43 (under 29 b.c., and alleging that Lepidus had laid waste part of
the site).
4 Pall. 1. 2. A problem exists. Ancient chronicles record the restoration of Car¬
thage under the year 28 (Mon. Germ. Hist., Auct. Ant. IX. 217; 276), modern scholars
make Saturninus proconsul of Africa in 14/13 (E. Groag, P-W II A. 1515). On the
face of things, C. Sentius Saturninus (cos. ord. 19 b.c.) ought to be the proconsul
for 28/27, in succession to L. Autronius Paetus (CIL I2, pp. 56; 77).
5 T. R. S. Broughton, The Romanization of Africa Proconsularis (1929), 58 ff.
Observe, however, that the hypothetical ‘double community’ of colony and
‘civitas libera’ never existed (Teutsch, o.c. 103 f; 152 ff.).
6 ILS 1945; CIL VIII. 23599.
1 AE 1963. 94. ‘Pertica’ was defined by Julius Frontinus as ‘omne solum quod
coloniae adsignatum est’ (K. Thulin, Corp. Agr. Rom. I. 1. 14 f.).
8 ILS 9482.
9 Polybius III. 23. 2; XII. 1. 1; Livy XXXIII. 48. 1. 10 Ch. III.
CHRISTIANS AND PAGANS IN CARTHAGE 87
thence be deduced that he was a native of the city itself. He

might derive from a small town in the hinterland. In which case,
his extraction still remains obscure.1 The area around Thugga
received many immigrants from Italy during the late Republic.2
However, for what it may be worth, an inscription found near
Thignica records one ‘Tertulla Septimi Gestaris hi.’.2 African
epigraphy can produce three Tertulliani from the region on the
borders of Africa Proconsularis and Numidia.4
The Roman colony prospered. Corn for the imperial capital
passed through on its way from the fields of the Bagradas
valley to Italy, and by the reign of Claudius the geographer
Pomponius Mela could report that Carthage had regained her
wealth.5 Despite slight disturbances in the civil wars which fol¬
lowed the overthrow of Nero, the age of the Flavians witnessed
an increasing affluence. Carthage was soon able to boast Roman
consuls among her citizens,6 and in the course of the second
century she acquired the public buildings appropriate to her
status. A Hadrianic aqueduct brought a copious supply of water
from a source which was fully fifty miles distant.7 And a happy
misfortune provided the occasion to rebuild the centre of the
city on the grandest scale. A fire destroyed the forum towards the
end of the reign of Antoninus Pius.8 The liberality of the em¬
peror and his joint successors rapidly repaired the damage, and
their generosity can easily be inferred from the surviving
remains of the vast new baths.9 The orator Fronto rendered
thanks in the Senate.111 Carthage became the equal or the
superior of Alexandria, a city second only to Rome itself.11
To an African at least, she was the glory of the earth.12
Within this crowded city there existed two alien communities,

distinguished by their religion. When news came of Septimius
1 Cf. App. 4. 2 Teutsch, o.c. 9 ff. 3 CIL VIII. 25963.

4 CIL VIII. 11915 (Thigibba); 17318 (north of Thagaste); 27403 (Aunobaris).
5 De Choroagraphia I. 34: iam quidem iterum opulenta.
6 e.g., Senecio Memmius Afer, cos. suff. 99 (CIL VIII. 24586; XIV. 2243;
3597)- . r n cr
i A. Audollent, Carthage romaine (1901), 57 f.; 183 ff.
s HA, Pius 9. 2, cf. 8. 4.
9 G. C. Picard, La Carthage de saint Augustin (1965), 22 f.
10 Fronto, Frag. VIII = pp. 241 f. Hout.
11 Herodian VII. 6. 1; Solinus, Coll. rer. mir. XXVII. 11.
12 Victor, Caes. 40. 19.
Severus’ successes in war, Carthage celebrated the event with
gay abandon. Bonfires blazed in the streets, couches were
trundled out of houses, the people feasted in every alley, the
whole city took on the appearance of a gigantic tavern. Wine
flowed, brawls occurred, the normal restraints of morality dis¬
appeared. The rich decorated their doorways with huge gar¬
lands of laurel, lit lanterns in their entrance halls, and disported
themselves in the forum on elegant and costly sofas.1 The world
had rarely seen such luxury. Civil strife was at an end, the
emperor had two sons to succeed him and to found a strong
dynasty, and men could expect the prosperity of the Antonine
age to return and endure. Severus had vanquished the Parthians
and defeated his rivals for the throne without endangering the
imperial frontiers. No Germans invaded Gaul, no Moors or
Gaetulians troubled the serenity of Africa.2 The world was
more civilized than ever before, its population greater. Every¬
where was accessible, everywhere familiar. Notorious deserts
had been replaced by pleasant farms, forests by tilled fields, wild
beasts by domestic herds and flocks. Both sandy waste and
pestilential marshland were now reclaimed. More cities now
existed than once there were cottages.3 The felicity of the reign
of Severus could challenge comparisons with Homer’s idyllic
Phaeacia, its material affluence with that of the mythical king
Midas.4
In the spring and summer of 197, Carthage enjoyed a grate¬
ful season of carnival. There were, however, some who declined
to participate. The Jews and the Christians both held that
such celebrations fell under an interdict because they were
tainted with idolatry. When they heard the joyous news, they
remained sober, they slept at night, they refused to bedeck their
houses with laurel, they avoided licentious behaviour, they
refused to toast the genius of the victorious emperor.5 A loyal
pagan could hardly fail to notice that not everyone shared his
rejoicing.
To an outsider, Jews and Christians exhibited other shared
peculiarities. Both communities buried their dead in their own
1 Tertullian, Apol. 35. 2; 35. 11.

2Jud. 7. 8. 3 An. 30. 3. ■< Pall. 2. 7.
5 Apol. 35. 4. Though Tertullian does not mention the Jews, their behaviour can
be inferred.
separate cemeteries. The Jews used a subterranean necropolis

to the north of the town:1 the Christians had ‘areae sepul-
turarum’, which pagans could identify well enough to plunder
and despoil.2 Indeed, when the procurator Hilarianus was
fulfilling the duties of a deceased proconsul (in 203), a riotous
crowd disputed whether the Christians legitimately owned these
burial places.3 Both communities not only abstained from nor¬
mal festivals but also kept one day in every seven sacred to their
deity, during which they were disinclined to do business.4 Not
every pagan might always remember that they disagreed be¬
tween each other on which it should be.5 On the Sabbath and
on Sunday respectively, the Jews and Christians of Carthage
gathered together for worship: the former to their synagogue,
the latter in church. By the time of Tertullian the city already
contained at least one building (perhaps part of a private house)
which could be described as a church.6 The time and the place
of Christian assemblies were known to pagans. Sometimes the
worshippers were surrounded and assaulted, or prevented from
leaving.2
On occasion spectacular events occurred. There was a Chris¬
tian woman who became ecstatically possessed and received
visions during divine service. As the scriptures were being read,
as psalms were sung, as sermons delivered or prayers intoned,
she conversed with angels and even with God himself. She saw
and heard mysteries, she penetrated men’s hearts, she per¬
formed acts of healing. After the service had ended and the
congregation dispersed, the Montanists stayed to hear what the
woman had seen.s Happenings of this sort could hardly avoid
publicity or even notoriety. If ordinary Christians saw how
Montanists differed from themselves, pagans were no less able
clearly to identify the Christians in their midst. There was little
1 A. Delattre, Gamart, ou la necropole juive de Carthage (1895); J. Ferron, Cahiers de

Byrsa VI (1956), 105 ff.
2 Apol. 37. 2.
s Scap. 3. 1. For the date and person, pp. 163; 263; 266/7.
4 Idol. 14. 6 f.
s And some Christians actually kept the Jewish Sabbath (Jej. 14. 3).
6 For early Christian meeting-places elsewhere, cf. A. Harnack, Mission und
Ausbreitung des Christentums4 (1924), 611 ff.; C. H. Kraeling-C. B. Welles, The
Excavations at Dura-Europos, Final Report VIII. 2: The Christian Building (1967),
127 ff.
2 Nat. I. 7. 19. s An. 9. 4.
attempt at secrecy. Tertullian held it to the discredit of heretics
and Gnostics that the majority of them had no churches. They
resembled wandering exiles, bereft of family, home and faith.1
The ordinary Christians of Carthage (it follows) were a group
who could easily be defined and recognized.
For themselves—and for any Roman official—the differences

between Jews and Christians were more important than their
similarities. Although Jewish by origin, Christianity parted
company with its parent faith long before the days of Tertullian.
As a direct result of the separation, Christianity became illegal.2
Although Jews were widely hated and often harassed by their
enemies, they could at least seek the protection of the law.
Many an emperor had expressly affirmed the right of the Jews
to observe their ancient traditions.3 Whatever suspicions might
be entertained about their conduct and morals, the Jews
worshipped the God of their fathers and their religion was
accordingly regarded as lawful.4 By the same token, proselytism
and the circumcising of gentiles were improper and illegal.5
In these circumstances, the breach between Christianity and
Judaism inevitably changed the legal position of the former.
Henceforward a pagan could deny the right of a Christian to
his very existence.6
What relations obtained between the Christian and Jewish
communities of Carthage? An answer cannot easily be given.
The decisive testimony must be discarded: nothing indicates
that Christians were ever buried in the Jewish cemetery of
Gamart.7 8 And large opportunities offer for tendentious specula¬
tion. The Jews have been rendered responsible for the persecu¬
tion of Christians in Carthage.5 Likewise, the success of Montan-

2 JRS LVIII (1968), 49 f.
3J. Juster, Les Juifs dans 1’Empire romain I (1914), 213 ff.
4 Tacitus, Hist. V. 5. 1.
5 Note the clear statement of Modestinus in the third century: circumcidere
Judaeis filios suos tan turn rescripto divi Pii permittitur: in non eiusdem religionis
qui hoc fecerit, castrantis poena irrogatur (Dig. XLVIII. 8. 11. pr.).
6 Apol. 4. 4; ‘non licet esse vos!’ For the contrast with Judaism, cf. 21. 1: quasi sub
umbraculo insignissimae religionis, certe licitae.
7 App. 22.
8 W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (1965), 334:
‘behind this agitation stood the Jews’. An alert reviewer detected the latent anti-
CHRISTIANS AND PAGANS IN CARTHAGE 9i
ism has been attributed to the malign influence of local Jews.1

Further, so it has confidently been asserted, Tertullian shows
the influence of contemporary Judaism: he derived thence
either his virtuous rejection of idolatry or the more reprehensible
elements of his later theology.2 The prejudice of the exegetes is
obvious, and the evidence has not always been accurately re¬
ported. Partisan bias has even contrived to reverse history and to
allege that Judaism was illegal while Christianity was not.3 A
sober account must be given of what Tertullian reveals for the
African metropolis.
The Jews and the Israel who people the pages of Tertullian
are the nation of the Bible. The Old Testament provided a small
number of important arguments for the truth of Christianity
and an inexhaustible supply of examples and pronouncements
with which to edify the faithful or confute heretics. Tertullian
therefore sought to define the correct principles of hermeneutics,
and perpetually discussed biblical history.* Anti-semitism was
the natural consequence. The Jews persecuted the prophets who
foretold the coming of the Christ, whose blood lay upon the
whole race (Mt. 27. 25).5 And prejudice received confirmation
from the Acts of the Apostles. Were not the founts of persecution
the synagogues of the Jews at whose hands the apostles
suffered ?<> Christian truth encountered hatred from the start.2
semitism (JRS LVI (1966), 234). Prejudice has so far been impermeable to argu¬
ment: see Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa IV (1968), 3 ff.; JTS, N.S. XXI
(igyo), 92 ff. (an inaccurate and misleading disquisition). Tertullian himself would
have admitted that the Jews were irrelevant to contemporary persecution (cf.
Fug. 6. 2.)
ij. M. Ford, JEH XVII (1966), 153 ff.
2 Respectively, Y. Baer, Scripta Hierosolymitana VII (1961), 89; Frend, o.c.
(1965), 373 f.
3 Baer, o.c. 84 ff., who states that for the unlawfulness of Christianity ‘there is no
specific evidence prior to Tertullian’. He ought to have paid more attention to
Pliny, Epp. X. 96/97 (pp. 152-154)- _ ,
4 p. 180, etc. For a general treatment, cf. G. Zimmermann, Die hermeneutischen
Prinzipien Tertullians (Diss. Leipzig, 1937) 5 O- Ktiss, Neutestamentliche Aufsatze.
Festschrift fur Prof. J. Schmid (1963), 138 ff.
5 Orat. 14: omnibus licet membris lavet quotidie Israel, numquam tamen mun-
dus est. certe manus eius semper inmundae, sanguine prophetarum et ipsius
Domini incrustatae in aeternum; et ideo conscientia patrum hereditarii rei nec
attollere eas ad Dominum audent, ne exclamet aliquis Esaias, ne exhorreat
Christus. The Christians were the successors of the prophets (Jud. 13. 19), and their
Christ was murdered by ‘omnis synagoga filiorum Israel’ (Jud. 8. 18).
6 Scorp. 10. 10. Not a contemporary reference (p. 175).
7 Apol. 7. 3.
The faithful had to endure obloquy and slander: again it

originated from the Jews of the apostolic age.1
Tertullian’s references to contemporary Jews betray a lack
of real contact. His Adversus Judaeos was written to convert not
Jews but pagans. Tertullian attempted to show that Christianity
was the genuine spiritual heir of Israel in order to persuade the
sympathetically inclined to join the newer religion rather than
become Jewish proselytes.2 In the contemporaneous Ad
JVationes, it is true, a Jew appears as a fomenter of trouble for
the Christians. But he is an apostate Jew, and when Tertullian
repeated the story in the Apologeticum, he omitted his race.2
Such a detail was clearly trivial and unimportant. Moreover,
Tertullian’s knowledge of Jewish customs and ideas is totally
superficial: their food taboos and their habit of ritual washing
every day could be inferred from the Bible.* In fact, the one
genuinely informative observation turns out to be almost comic:
the Jews veil their women.2 Of contemporary Jewish ideas
Tertullian was ignorant, as a comparison with either Justin or
Augustine makes plain.® Further, Tertullian knew no Hebrew
whatever and he shows no awareness that Rabbinical scholars
could be found in Carthage.2 It required little knowledge of
the contemporary world to declare that the Jews still denied
that the Messiah had come.8 For Tertullian (as for many later
Christians) Judaism was an unchanging, fossilized faith, not to
be taken seriously or deserving proper attention.9 Any similarity
which he displays to contemporary Judaism does not originate
in direct derivation. Two monotheistic faiths with so much in
common and both placed in the same alien environment could
hardly avoid adopting closely similar attitudes.1®
1 Jud. 13. 26.
1 Jud. 1. 2: occasio quidem defendendi etiam gentibus. . . .
3 Nat. I. 14. 2; Apol. 16. 12 (both quoted in App. 6).
4 Orat. 14; Bapt. 15. 3, cf. Idol. 14. 6.
5 Orat. 22. 8; Cor. Mil. 4. 2.
6 H. Trankle, Q.S.F. Tertulliani Adversus Judaeos (1964), lxx ff.; B. Blumenkranz
Die Judenpredigt Augustins (1946), 59 ff.
7 A- L- Williams, Adversus Judaeos (1935), 52. The contrary is confidently postu¬
lated by Ford, o.c. 155.
8 Apol. 21. 15.
9 Jej- 33- 6.
10 That is to say, the undeniable affinities between Tertullian and Judaism (Ford,
o.c. 155 ff.) may be analogical, not genealogical. For this crucial distinction, cf!
B. M. Metzger, Historical and Literary Studies (1969), 9 f. Further, any genealogical
Nothing indicates, therefore, that the Jewish community of

the city or its teachers exerted much influence on the develop¬
ment of Christianity in Carthage or on Tertullian.i Nonetheless,
it need not be denied that Christians and Jews viewed each
other with scarcely veiled hostility. Analogy suggests, however,
that the enmity may have been stronger on the Christian side.2
Already in the reign of Commodus violence had been perpetra¬
ted. Callistus, who was later to become bishop of Rome,
invaded a synagogue one Sabbath and disrupted the service.
The Jews resisted with force and dragged the intruder before
the Prefect of the City. He reaffirmed the right of Jews to
assemble and to read the Law publicly, and banished Callistus
to the mines of Sardinia.3 He was later released through the
influence of Marcia, the favourite concubine of the emperor.
What was likely to happen when there was a Christian on the
imperial throne ? Christianity was illegal in the reign of Com¬
modus. How would the Jews fare when it became the established
religion of the state? The future could be predicted. Tertullian
believed that force could justifiably be used to coerce heretics—
and perhaps others.4
It can surely be no accident that Tertullian’s three earliest

extant works are De Spectaculis, De Idololatria and what appears
in modern editions as the second book De Cultu Feminarum. All
three address themselves to similar problems: how ought
Christians to live out a life of faith in a pagan society? The
De Spectaculis considers the propriety of attending games and
shows, the De Idololatria every activity of normal life, De Cultu
Feminarum II the dress and demeanour of women. The prob¬
lems were acute and important. No Christian could totally
isolate himself from his environment except by martyrdom:
only in prison or by death could he avoid seeing the statues and
temples of Gods, mixing with those who celebrated heathen
affinities are likely to descend independently from earlier Judaism, whether
biblical, Maccabean or of the period when Christianity originated within a
Jewish milieu.
1 For Jewish Scholars in Carthage, App. 28.
2 Contrast Williams, o.c. xvi: ‘Jews have never been backward in attack’.
3 Hippolytus, Ref. omn. haer. IX. 12. 7 ff. The Prefect was Seius Fuscianus (p.
28). It is sometimes alleged, against Hippolytus, that the Jews owed Callistus
money, or that there already existed a dispute (Frend, o.c. 218).
4 Scorp. 2. 1: duritia vincenda est, non suadenda.
festivals, smelling the odours of pagan sacrifices or encountering
the normal manifestations of lust and luxury.1 The Cartha¬
ginians were addicted to the violence of gladiatorial displays.
Indeed, in the reign of Constantius, a geographer singled out
this addiction as one of the main characteristics of the city:
another was its street of silversmiths.2 In an apologetic work
Tertullian might satirize the Carthaginians for dining off
gigantic silver platters, for enjoying themselves in comfortable
seats at the theatres and for permitting noble matrons and
vulgar whores to dress alike.3 But when he dispassionately
contemplated the Christian community, he saw that these
vices need not be the prerogative of pagans.
Some smart young men had embraced Christianity without
perceiving that they must now renounce their former pleasures.4
Could not a Christian watch a spectacle in the theatre or amphi¬
theatre without degrading himself? Tertullian addressed him¬
self to recent converts and neophytes in general, and reminded
them of the conditions of faith, of the reason inherent in truth, of
the requirements of ecclesiastical discipline.3 A simple state¬
ment, however, would clearly not suffice. Arguments must be
produced, lest anyone be tempted to sin through ignorance,
whether real or pretended. For the force of pleasure can pro¬
long ignorance and corrupt the conscience. Heathens seduce
their Christian friends by arguing that enjoyment of spectacles
is a harmless pleasure which cannot offend God, that God
would not have created the material for spectacles if he had
not intended it to be used.6 Tertullian protests that, though
God has created, the Devil and sinful men have perverted his
gifts.7 The harder task remains of convincing in Christian terms
those who have invented a theological justification for their
pleasures.
The simple and crafty alike appeal to the Bible: since it
contains nothing relevant, games are permissible. Tertullian’s
learning supplied the defect. ‘Blessed is the man who enters not
1 Mart. 2. 7.
2 Expositio totius mundi 61. For the date (c. 359), cf. J. Rouge, Sources chritiennes
CXXIV (1966), 9 ff.
3 Apol. 6. 3: in lances . . . argentaria metalla producta, etc.
4 They were ‘suaviludii’ (Sped. 20. 2; Cor. Mil. 6. 3). The word is not attested
elsewhere.
5 Sped. 1. 1. 6 Sped. 1. 2 ff. 7 Sped. 2. 1 ff.
the assembly of the impious’ (Ps. 1. 1): what could be more

impious than a crowd baying for blood in an amphitheatre?1
The application of the text is not sophistical. By their baptismal
vow Christians have renounced the Devil, his angels and his
whole entourage, that is, they have renounced idolatry. And
Tertullian can easily prove the idolatrous nature of every kind of
public entertainment. He will describe their origin and develop¬
ment, their connexion with superstition, their tutelary deities
and their founders.2 Eight learned chapters follow, culled
largely from Suetonius’ lost Ludicra Historia with additions from
Varro and other writers.3 Timaeus and Stesichorus are quoted,
and an obscure writer on obelisks.4 Tertullian could also add
details from his own experience, which he preferred to forget.5
And he produced a characteristic epigram: ‘Pompeius Magnus,
solo theatro suo minor.’6 But the erudition is loosely tied to the
argument (a sign of the author’s immaturity), and Tertullian
realized that the argument from idolatry would not convince
everyone.2 He therefore devoted more space to moral considera¬
tions.
None would deny that concupiscence was evil. But, just as
one can covet money, status, glory, delicate food or sexual
enjoyment, so one can have an unhealthy desire for pleasure
itself.8 Watching spectacles inevitably causes excitement and
baser emotions, which are all forbidden to a Christian.9
Tertullian describes the vile happenings in theatres and arenas:
the tumult and quarrels which arise from betting, the obscene
gestures of Atellan farces, the exhibition of naked prostitutes,
the degrading cruelty of boxing in the stadium, the proficiency
of gladiators who have learnt to murder skilfully.10 No Christian
who goes to watch can avoid joining in the wanton behaviour
of the multitude. Even pagans despise their entertainers and
exclude them from public life: how much more severe will be
the verdict of God!11 Tertullian exploits the contradiction in
1 Sped. 3. 1 ff. 2 Sped. 4. 1 ff.
3 Sped. 5. x—12. 7. For discussion of the sources, cf. S. Oswiecimski, De scriptorum
Romanorum vestigiis apud Tertullianum obviis quaestiones seledae (i950> E.
Castorina, Tertulliani De Spedaculis (1961), lxxxii ff.
4 Sped. 5. 2; 9. 2; 8. 5 (Hermateles). Hermateles might be identical with Herma-
pion (Ammianus XVII. 4. i7> cf- Castorina, o.c. 181).
5 Sped. 19. 5. 6 Sped. 10. 5. 7 Sped. 14. 1.
s Sped. 14. 2 f. 9 Sped. 15. 2 ff. 10 Sped. 16. 1 ff.
11 Sped. 22. 1 ff.
men’s conduct, and contrasts their actions in the amphitheatre

with their piety in church. They are even capable of shouting
‘The greatest ever!’ to a gladiator and quite forgetting God and
his Christ.1 Moreover, visitors to the theatre are exposed to the
attacks of demons: Tertullian adduces two recent cases.2
The conclusion is clear. Christians should hate those pagan
assemblies where God is blasphemed, where the crowd daily
demands Christians to be offered to the lions, where persecu¬
tion begins, where temptation lurksA Although the Christian
can there escape detection, he ought to consider the Last
Judgement. Tertullian warms to this congenial theme and
reveals the strength of his audience’s attachment to their
pleasures. A long passage of fiery eloquence argues that re¬
nunciation now will bring far greater pleasure in the future:
the pleasure of watching one’s enemies in eternal torment.4
Tertullian paints the scene with consummate artistry. He
evinces a vitriolic hatred—which is largely artificial. When a
Christian ruled the Roman Empire, he forbad gladiatorial dis¬
plays.s The institution survived for decades.s Merely rational
argument would not have deterred Tertullian’s audience from
visiting the theatre or amphitheatre. He therefore elaborated
an appeal to their baser emotions.
Games were only one aspect of contemporary life, and Ter¬
tullian soon felt a broader treatment to be necessary. His De
Idololatria closely followed the De Spectaculis (to which it refers)7
and considered what attitude a Christian should adopt towards
every facet of normal life. Tertullian took his stand on the issue
of idolatry, under which every crime and sin could easily be
subsumed.8 Some simple souls believed that idolatry comprised
only performing sacrifices, attending pagan rites or holding a
1 Sped-. 25. 5: quale est . . . ex ore quo ‘amen’ in Sanctum protuleris, gladiatori
testimonium reddere, els an'alwvos, alii omnino dicere nisi Deo et Christo. For
the correct reading (not printed by any editor), cf. L. Robert, Etudes ibierabhiques
et philologiques (1938), 108 ff.
2 Sped. 26. 1 ff.
3 Sped. 27. i.
4 Sped. 30. i ff, cf. 29. 5: vis autem et sanguinis aliquid? habes Christi.
5 Cod. Theod. XV. 12. 1 (325): cruenta spectacula in otio civili et domestica
quiete non placent. quapropter, qui omnino gladiatores esse prohibemus
6 P-W, Supp. III. 771 ff.
7 Idol. 13. 1.
* Idol. 1. 1: principal crimen generis humani, summus saeculi reatus, tota causa
iudicii idololatria.
priesthood.1 But the word had a far wider sense: analogies are
provided by adultery, which comprises even a lustful look (Mt.
5. 28), and by murder, which includes all hatred (I Jn. 3. 15).
In the world as it exists, idolatry can be defined as any service
which involves any idol.2 God forbade idols to be made or
worshipped, and their ineffectuality was proclaimed by Enoch
and Isaiah. But there is no point in reciting a long list of
scriptural texts, since everyone must know that the Lord has
cursed and damned the makers and worshippers of idols.3
Problems only arise when the prohibition has to be put into
practice.
The church is open to all who work with their hands, but
they must obey the law of God and cease to manufacture graven
images.4 Other trades stand in the same position: builders,
silversmiths, decorators, painters, stonemasons, bronze-workers,
engravers must all practise their arts without encouraging
idolatry. They must refuse to construct temples, altars and
shrines or to portray deities. Their living will be secure. For
luxury and ambition are more powerful emotions than super¬
stition. There will always be private houses, official residences,5
baths and blocks of flats to be decorated, and the demand will
never fail for expensive tableware.6 Some professions too involve
idolatry. The case of astrology should be clear enough. But a
convert had recently asserted his right to continue to practise it.
Tertullian derides him at some length and presents him with a
specious dilemma. If he was unaware that he would become a
Christian, he cannot know the future. If he had known, he
ought also to have known that Christians cannot indulge in
astrology.7 But what of schoolteachers? Does their profession
not entail idolatry? At the very least, a teacher collects fees
from his pupils at certain religious festivals. Teaching is there¬
fore forbidden. But not learning, since secular studies are a pre-
1 Idol. 1. 1 ff.
2 Idol. 3. 4: idololatria omnis circa omne idolum famulatus et servitus.
3 Idol. 4. 1 ff. Observe that Tertullian plays down his own erudition: ego,
modicae memoriae homo, . . . quid recolam de scripturis? (4. 5).

4 Idol. 5. 1 ff. .
5 In contrast, the ‘Abodah Z^rah explicitly forbids Jews to take part in building
basilicas or judgement-seats (I. 7). (The tractate was edited by W. A. Elmslie,
Texts and Studies VIII. 2(1911), and translated by H. Danby, The Mishnah (1934).
437 ff-)-
«Idol. 8. 1 ff. 2 Idol. 9. 1 ff.
requisite for divine ones. Moreover, a believer can discount the

harmful elements, and stay away from school to avoid the
celebration of pagan festivals.1 Christians may take part in
business, provided that they avoid avarice and any action which
may enable sins to be committed. A gladiatorial trainer, for
example, or one who buys the flesh of sacrificial victims cannot
be permitted to join the church, nor may any Christian take up
such business. The principle is simple: no art, profession or trade
which contributes to the cult of idols is exempt from the charge
of idolatry.2
His theorizing will be vacuous unless Tertullian can over¬
come a real anxiety in his audience: if they take his advice, how
are they to live?3 Tertullian pointed out that the poor were
blessed, that a Christian should take up his cross and leave his
family, his business, his profession, whatever ties him to his
former life. Faith does not fear hunger.4 But he was aware of the
weakness of the flesh. Unless he specified what activities were
legitimate, his hearers might resign themselves to despair or
apathy. Pagan sacrifices need not even be mentioned, and
spectacles had been discussed elsewhere (in the De Spectaculis).5
Public holidays and special celebrations offered a serious prob¬
lem. Nonetheless, clear principles can be laid down for action.6
On the one hand the Christian must avoid forswearing his
faith, implication in superstitious observances or blasphemy. On
the other, he need not be a kill-joy, he must mix with his
fellow men.2 He must therefore avoid the idolatry of decorating
his doorway with garlands to honour a man, even if that man be
the emperor. Tertullian appeals to a recent event. The slaves of
a Christian, on hearing of an imperial success, hung a garland on
his door. God rebuked the master in a vision that very night.
Christians must of course obey the government and its magis¬
trates. But, as the book of Daniel clearly states, their obedience
stops short of idolatry. Let not a Christian who has renounced
temples and brothels turn his own house into one.8
1 /dal- JO- 1 ff-, esp. 10. 4: quomodo repudiamus saecularia studia, sine quibus
divina non possunt?
2 Idol. 11. 1 ff. The ‘Abodah Zarah prohibits all business of any sort with gentiles
for three days before each of their main religious festivals (I. 1).
3 Idol. 12. 1. 4 id0i I2> x ff 5 id0i I3- , « IdoL j. j ff
7 Idol. 14. 5.
8 Idol. 15. 1 ff. For the ‘gaudia publica’, p. 248.
Tertullian was writing for an audience which embraced every

stratum of society. He therefore proffers advice to slaves, to
freedmen and to attendants in the service of a magistrate: so
long as they do not actually assist in performing a sacrifice, they
can avoid idolatry.1 Equally a servant of God can become a
magistrate or official, provided that he has no contact with
sacrifices or temples, provided that he refuses to preside at games
or rites or to take an oath, and provided that he tries no one for
his life or inflicts any punishment.2 3 Tertullian was aware that
the conditions amounted to prohibition. To reinforce his point,
he argues at some length that the dress and trappings of any
office are tainted with idolatry.2 In effect, therefore, a Christian
is forbidden to enter public life, and a similar interdict holds
for military service.4 Idolatry can also be committed by words.
A Christian must not swear by the pagan gods, allow another to
bind him by an oath in their name, allow himself to be blessed in
their name or make any legal contract (either by word of mouth
or in writing) which contains an oath in their name. Jesus
expressly forbad swearing oaths (Mt. 5. 34) and it is sheer
casuistry to pretend that written oaths are different.5 6
The Christian has embarked on a perilous voyage. Idolatry
is a deep pool, a shipwreck, a vortex, from which all escape is
impossible. But a man can avoid idolatry if he genuinely fears
to commit it, and its avoidance provides the mark which dis¬
tinguishes Christians from pagans. The divine law must be
made clear to those who wish to embrace the faith and be
inculcated in new converts. They must make a deliberate
choice: those who already observe the law must continue to do
so, those who do not must renounce their sinful ways. No
idolater is permitted to be in the church.<>
The argument of the De Idololatria has not always been
studied with sufficient care. Tertullian’s main preoccupation
was not whether a Christian could serve in the army.7 Nor can
1 Idol. 17. 1.
2 Idol. 17. 2 f.
3 Idol. 18. i ff. Note the mention of senatorial insignia: praetextae et trabeae et
aticlavi, fasces quoque (18. 3).

4 Idol. 18. 8; 19. 1 ff.
5 Idol. 20. 1 ff.
6 Idol. 24. 1 ff.
2 As implied by J. Quasten, Patrology II (1953), 310-
ioo CHRISTIANS AND PAGANS IN CARTHAGE
any trace be detected either of the Montanism which is often

said to pervade the work1 or of a rigorous and thorough rejec¬
tion of normal life.2 Still less does Tertullian betray the in¬
fluence of contemporary Judaism.2 The De Idololatria treats
every aspect of the problem, how a Christian ought to live out
his life in the world. Tertullian is writing mainly for recent
converts—and perhaps not long after his own conversion.4 He
emphasizes the baptismal vow.5 And he has adopted a com¬
paratively moderate position. He allows Christians to attend
such ceremonies as the assumption of the toga, betrothals,
marriages and naming ceremonies.6 To be sure, they may not
accept invitations to sacrifices. But if they happen for some other
reason to be with a friend or relation who is performing a
sacrifice, they are mere spectators, not participators in idolatry.2
What Montanist (or what Jew) would have adopted an attitude
so broadminded?
The De Spectaculis and De Idololatria consider problems which
concerned men rather than women. Christian women were not
obliged continually to walk past temples, to attend games or to
join in pagan festivals.8 If they wished, they could unobtrusively
devote themselves to private piety. Tertullian therefore ad¬
dressed himself to them with some show of diffidence.* He did
not need to convince them of the necessity or virtue of modesty;
rather, of how they should display their modesty, which consists
not merely in avoiding fornication but also in a chaste ap¬
pearance.16 Tertullian takes over and develops an idea which
1 e.g., P. Monceaux, Histoire littdraire de I’Afrique chretienne I (1901), 206: ‘le traits
De Idolatrie, tout montaniste d’inspiration, . . .’.
2B. Altaner-A. Stuiber, Patrologiei (1966), 158.
3 Y. Baer postulated derivation from ‘the decisions of Jewish rabbis taught in
our Mishna and Baraitot’ (Scripta Hierosolymitana VII (1961), 92). For three im¬
portant differences between the positions of Tertullian and the ‘Abodah Zarah p. 07
n- 2i P- 98 n. 2; below, n. 6.
« Ch. VI.
5 Idol. 6. 2; 12. 1; 24. 3. It recurs, however, in the later De Corona Militis (2 2•
!3- 7)- ’
6 Idol. 16. 1 ff. The ‘Abodah Zarah forbids any Jew even to transact business
with a gentile on the day when he celebrates a wedding-feast for his son (I. 3).
7 Idol. 16. 5: si propter sacrificium vocatus adsistam, ero particeps idololatriae:
si me aha causa coniungit sacrificanti, ero tantum spectator sacrificii.
8 Cult. Fem. II. 11. 1.
9 Cult. Fem. II. 1. 1: ancillae dei vivi, conservae et sorores meae, quo iure deputor
vobiscum, postremissimus omnium equidem, eo iure.
10 Cult. Fem. II. 1. 2.
CHRISTIANS AND PAGANS IN CARTHAGE ioi
the De Idololatria had adumbrated: fear of sin provides the

basis for salvation.1 A woman ought not to encourage lustfulness
by her dress or demeanour. She must seek to please her husband
alone. Plain cleanliness will suffice. It is vain to cultivate beauty,
wicked to plaster oneself with cosmetics. As for those who dye
their hair, do they desire to turn themselves into Gauls or
Germans? Shame on them: may the daughters of wisdom leave
such foolishness! Fancy hair-styles are equally reprehensible.2
In brief, Christian women should renounce extravagant bodily
accoutrements and adornments. God created the instruments of
luxury to test mankind’s self-control, and a Christian woman can
have no good reason for gadding about in finery.2 Appearances
do matter: Christian modesty must not only exist but be seen.
Luxury is nothing but an impediment to martyrdom. The end
of the world may be at hand. For Christians it is an age of
iron, especially at the present: the stoles of martyrs are being
prepared, angels are ready to act as pall-bearers. The Christian
must forfeit worldly ornaments if he or she desires to gain a
heavenly reward.4
Tertullian’s literary apprenticeship was now drawing to a
close. He had written the lost Ad amicum philosophum,5 on
spectacles and on idolatry, and a treatise on the dress of women.
The three extant works reveal skill but not mastery. They dis¬
play flashes of genius in a rambling and ill-organized structure.
Tertullian had not yet learnt how to make his erudition most
effectively serve his argument. He had not yet acquired the
gift of ordering his material to best advantage. His talent for
satire still lay dormant, and his writing still lacked incisiveness.
It was a series of persecutions in Carthage after the final
victory of Septimius Severus (19 February 197) which turned
Tertullian into a consummate artist. He learnt how to combine
traditional literary genres into something new and distinctively
Christian in his Ad Martyras.6 And after two false steps (the
Adversus Judaeos and Ad Nationes), he produced an oration of
imposing grandeur and searing effectiveness. The Apologeticum
captured literary ascendancy in the Latin world for Christianity.
Tertullian removed the need for defensive apologetics: his
1 Cult Fem. II. 2. 2, cf. Idol. 24. 2. *Cult. Fern. II. 3. 1 ff.
3 Cult. Fem. II. 9. 1 ff. 4 Cult. Fem. II. 13. 5 ff, cf. 9. 8.
5 App. 8. 6 Ch. XIV.
H
imitators (Minucius Felix, Cyprian, Arnobius, Lactantius)

moved in to the attack and openly sought converts in intellec¬
tual circles.1
In the ideal conception, a Roman emperor embodied justice

and cared for his subjects. A story which may be fictitious will
aptly illustrate.2 Claudius (268-70) was approached by an old
woman. She had been robbed of her property under the pre¬
vious emperor, who bestowed it upon Claudius himself.
Magnanimously, he restored it, affirming that he now gave
back as emperor what he had taken when the laws were not
his concern. It was necessary to believe that the sovereign was
both good and just: otherwise what redress could be imagined
for present afflictions ? Peasants on an imperial estate in Africa
dispatched a plaintive plea to Commodus: they requested
protection against the nefarious activities of the emperor’s
procurator, who had sent soldiers to beat, assault and terrorize
them.2 4 In their own eyes at least, Christians suffered vexations
which were equally unmerited and unjust. What more natural
therefore than to appeal to the emperor for his help ?
The earliest apology was addressed to the emperor Hadrian.4
Its author was Quadratus, of whose work but a single sentence
survives.5 Although no valid evidence exists, Quadratus doubt¬
less seized the opportunity afforded by Hadrian’s presence in
the East: he may even have presented his apology to the em¬
peror.6 7 The next apology, that of Aristides, is preserved, partly
in the original Greek and partly in translation.2 Throughout
Aristides invokes the emperor and maintains the second person
singular. Justin went further: he couched one apology in the
form of a petition to Antoninus Pius and his two sons, a second
(or a supplement to the first) apparently as a speech to the
1 For Tertullian’s place in Latin literature, Ch. XIII.

2 Zonaras XII. 25.
3ILS 6870 = FIRA2 I. 103.
4 Chronological problems are here largely ignored. The treatment of R. M.
Grant, Vig. Chr. IX (1955), 25 ff., is fallacious on several counts.
5 Eusebius, HE IV. 3.
6 As Jerome believed (De Vir. III. 19). For a serious error of Jerome concerning
Quadratus, App. 2.
7 J. Geffcken, Zuoei griechische Apologeten (1907), 4 If.; G. Ruhbach, Altkirchliche
Apologeten (Texte zur Kirchen- und Theologiegeschichte I, 1966), 15 ff.
Roman Senate.1 Melito (as quoted by Eusebius) addressed the

emperor Marcus, demanding whether the Christians were being
harried throughout Asia at his command and referring to
letters of‘your grandfather Hadrian’ and ‘your father when you
were associated with him’.2 Athenagoras is even more circum¬
stantial. He entitled his apology ‘The Embassy of Athenagoras
of Athens, the Christian philosopher, concerning the Chris¬
tians’.3 The exordium appeals to Marcus Aurelius and Commo-
dus, the exposition continually employs the second person
plural and compliments the emperors, the peroration asks them
to nod their approval of the plea.4
Was this all an elaborate pretence? It is too facile to assume
that the Greek apologists were writing for a wide pagan audience
and to discount the invocation of the emperors.5 In both theory
and practice, the emperor was accessible to all his subjects.6
Christian apologists addressed themselves to the emperors with
a double purpose. Their work was intended also to be read by a
wider public. Hence, when they requested protection from the
former, they hoped thereby to dissuade the latter from instigat¬
ing or countenancing persecution.7 Modern analogies could
be provided.
The procedure had a drawback which rendered the apologists
ineffectual. Christianity was illegal and its illegality was assumed
or reaffirmed by every emperor of the second and early third
centuries.8 Persecution, however, varied in its incidence and
intensity, not according to the attitude of the reigning emperor,
but through the actions and attitudes of magistrates and the
pagans whom they governed.9 Athenagoras (or Apollinaris of
Hierapolis) was perhaps the last Christian to direct an apology
1J. K. T. Otto, Corpus Apologetarum I (1847), xix f.; 2; 166, cf. B. Altaner-
A. Stuiber, Patrologie1 (1966), 66 f.
2 Eusebius, HE IV. 26. 5 ff.
3 E. Goodspeed, Die altesten Apologeten (1914), 315; Ruhbach, o.c. 35.
4 Athenagoras, Legatio 1. 1: 17 t//rerepa, fj.eya.Xot flaoiXewv, otKoopcv-q aXXos
aXXois edeot ypodvrai /cat voptotj; 37. 1 : vptets 8f, <3 77avra ev natoi pvoei kcu
rratSeia ypifOTOt Kai perptoi /cat <f>tXa.vdptoTTOi /cat rfjs fiaoiAeias afiot, . . . tt)v
fiacnAiKT)v KepaXr/v emvet/aare.
5 As does K. Baus, Handbook of Church History I (1965), 171 ff.
e F. Millar, JRS LVII (1967), 9 ff.
7 On the relative importance of the various elements in the Greek apologists,
cf. M. Pellegrino, Studi su I’antica apologetica (1947), 1 ff.
s JRS LVII I (1968), 32 ff.
s Ch. XI.
to the emperor.1 Tatian wrote an Oration to the Greeks, Theophi-

lus of Antioch dedicated his defence of Christianity to his friend
Autolycus, an anonymous author (so it may be argued) wrote
to Ti. Claudius Diognetus who was an imperial procurator in
Egypt at a time of severe persecution.2 It was Miltiades, how¬
ever, who took the step which was decisive for Tertullian. He
composed an apology ‘to the rulers of the world’: that is, not
the emperors, but provincial governors.3 He also foreshadowed
two works which Tertullian left unfinished: a treatise against
the pagans and one against the Jews.4 Not without reason did
Tertullian call Miltiades ‘ecclesiarum sophista’:5 it may be
conjectured that without Miltiades he could never have com¬
posed the Apologeticum.
As his first essay in the apologetic genre, Tertullian wrote two

books entitled Ad Nationes, whose unpolished state indicates
that they were never fully revised for publication.^ The first
book argues that Christians are persecuted and punished simply
because pagans are ignorant of what it is that they hate, then
rebuts the customary slanders (cannibalism, incest and the like),
with much disjointed ridicule of pagan religion and morality.
Tertullian’s material consists largely of commonplaces familiar
from Greek apologies.7 His main sources (it may be conjectured)
were the lost works of Melito and Miltiades: other apologists
such as Justin and Tatian were first employed in the Apologeticum.8
One palpable adaptation of Melito has some importance.9
The Greek writer connected the rise of Christianity with the
1 Eusebius, HE IV. 26. 1; 27. 1.
2 H. I. Marrou, A Diognete2 (Sources c hr Etiennes XXXIII bis, 1965), 241 ff.
On Diognetus, H. G. Pflaum, Les carrieres procuratoriennes dqueslres sous le Haut-
Empire romain II (i960), 659 ff. Note, however, that Claudius Julianus was not
rationalis Aegypti, but Prefect (JTS, N.S. XIX (1968), 526 f.). Diognetus is now
attested apparently acting for the prefect Julianus in 204 (Sammelbuch 9866).
3 Eusebius, HE V. 17. 5: 7rpos roils KoapcKovs apxovTas. For the meaning of
‘koo^lkos’ in Eusebius, compare HE IV. 7. 9; VII. 30. 8; 30. 19; Mart. Pal. 4. 3.
For what it is worth, Jerome did not assume a reference to the emperors (De Vir.
Ill. 39).
4 Eusebius, HE V. 17. 5.
5 P- 232.
6 C. Becker, Tertullians Apologeticum: Werden und Leistung (1954), 58 ff.
7 See the analysis and detailed commentary of A. Schneider, Bibliotheca
Helvetica Romana IX (1968).
8 pp. 107/8.
9 JRS LVIII (1968), 34 f.
development of the Roman Empire, and asserted that only the

bad emperors Nero and Domitian had persecuted Christians.1
Tertullian borrowed the idea and coined the phrase ‘institutum
Neronianum’ to stigmatize persecution.2 3 The Apologeticum
discarded the phrase, but refined Melito’s idea still further and
drew on Tacitus and Pliny to ground the discussion more
firmly in Roman history.2 When he wrote the Ad Nationes,
Tertullian had not realized fully that he needed to weave to¬
gether material from both Christian and pagan authors. Here
he quotes from Virgil, Herodotus, Plato, Homer, Tacitus’
Histories and Ctesias :4 the Apologeticum would name more than
thirty pagan authorities.5 6 Tertullian was beginning to make his
inherited material relevant to the Carthaginian milieu. He
described a recent incident provoked by an apostate Jew, and
complained about the violence offered to the Christians when
they gathered for worship.0 But he failed to avoid a feeble
incongruity: a full page on a family tragedy which (if not
fictitious) occurred nearly a decade earlier in Rome.7
The second book shows greater originality.8 Tertullian
deserts the well-worn paths of Greek apology, and culls his
material from the antiquarian compilations of M. Terentius
Varro.9 From the former he took the idea that pagan gods were
simply deified men.10 But he illustrates it lavishly from Varro,
with appeal to Cassius Hemina (wrongly named as Cassius
Severus), Cornelius Nepos, Tacitus and Diodorus Siculus, with
an allusion to Pindar and quotations of Virgil,11 and with an
apparent borrowing from the elder Pliny.12 Absurdities still
1 Eusebius, HE IV. 26. 9.

2 Nat. 1. 7. 8 f.
3 Apol. 2. 6 ff.; 5. 3 f.
4 Nat. I. 7. 2; 8. 2 f. (p. 198); 9. 6; 10. 38 ff.; 11. 1 ff.; 16. 4.
5 P- 196.
6 Nat. I. 14. 1 f. (App. 6) ; 7. 19 (p. 89).
7 Nat. I. 16. 13 ff. (pp. 28/9).
8 For a full treatment, see the commentary of M. Haidenthaller Studien zur
Geschichte und Kidtur des Altertums XXIII (1942).
9 Named at Nat. II. 1. 8. For the extent of Tertullian’s debt, cf. R. Agahd,
Jahrbiicher fur class. Phil., Supp. XXIV (1898), 71 ff.
10 Nat. II. 9. 10, etc.
11 Nat. II. 12. 26; 14. 12; 13. 14 ff.; 17. 6.
32 Nat. II. 16. 5. Tertullian here substitutes Pompey for Lucullus as the man who
introduced the cherry into Italy (Pliny, Nat. Hist. XV. 102). Apol. 11.8 corrects the
mistake.
io6 CHRISTIANS AND PAGANS IN CARTHAGE
obtrude. Serapis is identified with Joseph.1 And who in Car¬

thage cared that the patron deity of Casinum was Delventinus,
of Narnia Visidianus, ofAtinaNumiternus, ofAsculum Ancharia
or of Vulsinii Nortia? The Apologeticum employed the same list
not just for ridicule, but as an argument that every community
should be allowed to have its own gods.2 * Tertullian revealed
good judgement if he left the Ad Nationes unfinished.
His Adversus Judaeos belongs to the same period and is far
more obviously unfinished.2 It took its inception from a lengthy
argument between a Christian and a Jewish proselyte, which
suffered from the interruptions of ignorant bystanders.4 The
Christian (it may plausibly be deduced) was Tertullian himself,
and he decided to settle the question in writing and with careful
reference to the evidence of the Bible. The audience which he
envisaged was not the Jewish community of Carthage, but
sympathetic pagans who might be confronted by missionary
efforts from both religions.5 He set out to demonstrate that the
Christians had inherited the privileged position once enjoyed by
the Jews as the people of god. He sketched the gradual revela¬
tion of God’s law in the Old Testament and its replacement by
the New Covenant: circumcision, observance of the Sabbath
and the ancient sacrifices belong to the past. And he sought to
prove, principally from Daniel, that Jesus was the Messiahs
But what of the traditional argument from prophecy? Tertul¬
lian had so far left it out. He therefore rapidly penned six in¬
coherent and repetitious chapters on the subject.2
What were the sources of the Adversus Judaeos ? Derivation
from Justin’s extant Dialogue with Tryphon is conventionally and
confidently supposed.2 8 Comparison with the Ad Nationes
suggests otherwise. Apollinaris of Hierapolis and Miltiades
composed lengthy tracts against the Jews.9 At about the same
1 Nat. II. 8. IO. 2 Nat. II. 8. 6; Apol. 24. 8.

3 H. Trankle, Q_. S. F. Tertutliani Adversus Judaeos (1964), xxxvi; lii.
4 Jud. 1. 1.
5 p. 92. Tertullian is explicit: the discussion was between a Christian and a
Jewish proselyte (1. 1), who was ‘homo ex gentibus nec de prosapia Israelitum
Iudaeus’ (1. 2).
6 Jud. 1. 3 ff.
7 Jud. 9. 1 ff. For doublets in these chapters, cf. Trankle, o.c. 1 f.
8J- Quasten, Patrology II (1953), 269; Trankle, o.c. Ixviii ff. Rightly denied,
however, by A. L. Williams, Adversus Judaeos (1935), 52.
9 Eusebius, HE IV. 27; V. 17. 5.
time Melito’s apology linked together the fortunes of Christian¬

ity and the Roman Empire.1 Tertullian’s Adversus Judaeos
contains something analogous. It expounds the seventy weeks
of Daniel’s prophecy (9. 24) as ending with the destruction of
the Temple in the first year of the reign of Vespasian.2 A con¬
temporary disagreed with Tertullian: for him the seventy weeks
ended with the tenth year of Septimius Severus and the coming
of the Antichrist was at hand.3 The calculation had an academic
flavour, and Tertullian realized that the Adversus Judaeos was
irrelevant to the real situation of Christians in Carthage. He put
the work aside unfinished. Someone else published it, perhaps
against his wishes.4 Tertullian had more important business.
Pagan hostility entailed persecution.
The Apologeticum gains its powerful effectiveness from two

main characteristics: its virtuosity, and its sharp relevance to
the circumstances in which its author was living. Tertullian
applied the techniques of contemporary rhetoric to the defence
of Christianity, reinforcing his message with every literary
adornment which could increase its appeal.5 He took all that
he could use from his Greek predecessors: not their flabby
oratory, their earnest and touching naivety, or their jejune
expositions of Christian life and philosophy, but whatever con¬
crete facts or names would further his design. He took their
disparate themes and fused them together. Instead of a separate
defence of Christianity and refutation of paganism, Tertullian
combined the two in a characteristically aggressive fashion.5 He
would reply to every charge: the crimes which the Christians
were accused of committing in secret were in fact openly per¬
petuated by pagans. Christians were considered criminal, silly,
damnable and contemptible. Tertullian set out to make the
accusers blush.7
1 Eusebius, HE IV. 26. 9. 2 Jud. 8. 1 ff.
3 Eusebius, HE VI. 7. 4 Trankle, o.c. lii.
5 R. Heinze, Bericht iiber die Verhandlungen d. kon. sacks. Ges. d. Wiss. zu Leipzig,
Phil.-hist. Kl. LXII (1910), 281 ff.
6 R. Braun, Hommages a J. Bayet (1964), 114 ff.
7 Apol. 4. 1: nec tantum refutabo quae nobis obiciuntur, sed etiam in ipsos
retorquebo qui obiciunt . . . uti erubescant accusantes; 4. 2: respondebimus ad
singula, quae in occulto admittere dicimur, quae illos palam admittentes inveni-
mus. As the final clause, the Fuldensis apparently had ‘quae palam admittentes
inveniuntur’, cf. Becker, o.c. J25.
io8 CHRISTIANS AND PAGANS IN CARTHAGE
Unlike the Ad Nationes, the Apologeticum ransacks the Greek
apologists for apt illustrations. From Justin comes a misconcep¬
tion: Simon the magician (Acts 8. 9 ff.) honoured as a God at
Rome with a statue and the title ‘sanctus deus’.1 Theophilus
provided a proof that Moses lived before the Trojan war, that
Christianity therefore has a respectable claim to antiquity.2
From Tatian came the additional detail that Moses was the
exact coeval of Inachus, King of Argos.2 From Apollinaris
apparently derives the miracle of the ‘Thundering Legion’.4
Tertullian plundered his own works too. The matter of the Ad
Nationes has been refashioned and rephrased entirely.5 In
addition, Tertullian alludes to the conclusions of the De
Spectaculis,6 adapts a sentence from the De Idololatria,1 takes over
some theological ideas formulated in the Adversus Judaeos,8 and
draws heavily on his Ad Martyras for the peroration.9
Pagan authors were also put to good use. The cases of Pliny
and Tacitus are well known.10 Suetonius supplied the useful fact
that Augustus, the founder of the empire, refused to be called
‘dominus’.11 And Varro may have supplied some information
which the Ad Nationes had omitted.12 When philosophical
opinions were canvassed, an appeal could be made to Cicero’s
Tusculan Disputations or Seneca’s FortuitaD Tertullian scoured
the literature of the ancient world in search of titbits: he could
retail any number of scandals concerning pagan philosophers14
and he discovered that, contrary to patriotic invention, the
Gauls had actually sacked the Capitol in Rome.15 Further, since
Christianity was related to Judaism, Josephus could furnish
relevant information.15 Finally, if evidence could not be found,
its existence could at least be postulated. Pilate must have
1 Apol. 13. 9, cf. Justin, Apol. I. 26. 2.
2 Apol. 19. 1* ff., cf. Theophilus, Ad Autolycum III. 20 ff.
3 Apol. ig. 3, cf. Tatian, Orat. ad Graecos 39.
4 Apol. 5. 6, cf. Eusebius HE V. 5. 4.
3 Becker, o.c. 33 ff; 162 ff; 195 ff.
6 APol- 38. 4 (p- 54)-
7 Apol- 35- 4 (PP- 53/4)-
8 Apol. 21. 4 ff., cf. Trankle, o.c. lxvi f.
9 PP- 218/9; 227/8. 10 pp. 201/2.
11 Apol. 34. 1, cf. Suetonius, Div. Aug. 53. 1. For use of Suetonius elsewhere,
PP- 95; >98-
12 Apol. 24. 8 expands the Varronian list in Nat. II. 8. 6.
13 Apol. 50. 14. 14 Apol. 46. toff. 13 Apol. 40. 8 (p. 205).
13 Apol. 18. 5 ff, cf. A. Vitale, Mush Beige XXVI (1925), 63 ff
reported the true facts about the crucifixion to Tiberius, who in

turn communicated them to the Senate; and a letter of Marcus
Aurelius might be found which ascribed the miraculous de¬
liverance of his army to the prayers of the Christians.1 The
mysterious darkness which covered the earth while Jesus hung
upon the cross (Mk. 15. 33, etc.) posed a problem. The date
coincided with no eclipse of the sun.2 If disbelievers looked,
however, they could find a record of the event—fin arcanis
vestris.’3 The massive erudition was not designed as mere
ostentation. Those who were familiar with the Sophistic
Movement of the second century would not have expected less
from an expert orator. Tertullian had shown himself at least the
equal of an Apuleius.4
The Apologeticum reflects the circumstances of its composition
in Carthage. The exordium addresses the magistrates on the
hill of the Byrsa which dominated the city, and cites a recent
case: Christians were savagely harassed in a trial in the ‘secre-
tarium’ of the proconsul and given no opportunity for defence.5 *
Perhaps Tertullian can supply the want by writing. But he is
not writing for the proconsul alone. Admittedly, careful
distinctions are sometimes drawn. Tertullian refers to the
senatus consulta and the imperial mandata by which the proconsul
was bound and to the verdict which he read ‘de tabella’.<>
And the peroration reverts to the theme: ‘go to, good magis¬
trates! the people will love you for torturing and killing
Christians’.7 Throughout, however, Tertullian seeks to divide
all his educated readers from the blind prejudices of the mob,
who were not likely to read the Apologeticum.8 The second person
plural most frequently comprises not magistrates alone, nor
1 Apol. 5. 2; 21. 24; 5. 6.

2 F. Boll, P-W VI. 2360; P. de Labriolle, La reaction paienne9 (1950), 204 ff.
3 Apol. 21. 19.
4 p. 212.
5 Apol. 1. 1: Romani imperii antistites . . . quod proxime accidit, domesticis
iudiciis nimis operata infestatio sectae huius. For ‘domestica iudicia’, cf. Heinze,
o.c. 292; J. Lortz, Tertullian als Apologet I (1927), 63; for the role of municipal
officials in arresting Christians, pp. 143/4.
«Apol. 2. 14; 2. 20.
2 Apol. 50. 12.
s For Tertullian’s variable use of the second person, note Apol. 44. 2 f.: vestros
enim iam contestamur actus, qui cotidie iudicandis custodiis praesidetis, qui
sententiis elogia dispungitis (i.e. magistrates). . . . de vestris semper aestuat career,
de vestris semper metalla suspirant . . . (i.e. pagans in contrast to Christians).
IIO CHRISTIANS AND PAGANS IN CARTHAGE
pagan society in general, but the cultured classes. Which is
highly significant: the triumph of Christianity in the Roman
Empire is marked by the literary eminence of its protagonists.
Were pagans converted by the Apologeticum? The answer
cannot be divined. Its effect on Christians, however, was deep
and immediate. If Tertullian appeared to invoke Roman
magistrates and to address the pagan world, most of his
statements were also designed to encourage Christians. They
felt confidence in a spokesman who could prove their respect¬
ability, both social and intellectual, by his very existence.1
He damned by ridicule the aspersions which daily assailed
them, he filled them with a strong sense of moral superiority. If
they heeded Tertullian, they need no longer believe themselves
outcasts from normal society: when good and honest men meet
together—‘non est factio dicenda sed curia’.2
Tertullian’s readers recognized the contemporary world
which he set before their eyes. Soldiers were a familiar sight,
posted in every province to track down robbers and bandits.3
They sometimes abused their position and practised blackmail
on the Christians.4 After the victories of Septimius Severus, the
remnants of opposition were being hunted down.5 Any in¬
habitant of Carthage was expected to denounce traitors and
public enemies. Carthage had rejoiced at the end of civil strife.6
Now even some who had most ostentatiously celebrated were
being denounced:7 an imperial procurator had arrived (or
would soon arrive) to supervise the confiscations.8 If the
Christians remained sober, that did not diminish their loyalty.
Was it Christians who supported Avidius Cassius (in 175),
Pescennius Niger and Clodius Albinus? Was it Christians who
lay in ambush for emperors or strangled Commodus (on 31
December 192) ? Was it Christians who broke into the imperial
palace and murdered Pertinax (in March 193) ?9 On the
contrary, they pray continually to God for his safety and wel-
1 P- 69. 2 Apol. 39. 21. 3 Apol. 2. 8.

4 Apol. 7. 3, cf. Fug. 13. 3. s HA, Sev. 12. iff. « p. 88.
7 Apol. 35. II. 8 ns I42I (pp. 33/4).
9 Apol. 35. 9: unde Cassii et Nigri et Albini? unde qui inter duas laurus obsident
Caesarem? unde qui faucibus eius exprimendis palaestricam exercent? unde qui
armati palatium irrumpunt, omnibus Sigeriis atque Partheniis audaciores? de
Romanis, nisi fallor, id est de non Christianis.
The passage requires detailed elucidation. Parthenius and Sigerius plotted the
CHRISTIANS AND PAGANS IN CARTHAGE m
fare: they desire the Empire to be safe, the world at peace, the
armies powerful, the Senate loyal and the populace content.1
And what reward do they receive from their fellow men?
Whenever a public calamity occurs, if there is an eclipse or an
earthquake, if there is famine or plague, the cry goes up ‘The
Christians to the lion’.2 How ungrateful! The world owes its
protection from evil spirits to the prayers of Christians. If
they wished to be spiteful, they could easily withdraw that
protection.3 Let the presiding deities of Carthage be put to the
test. Let someone be produced who inhales the divine power by
sniffing at an altar or cures himself by belching or utters oracles
panting, someone who is believed to be possessed by Caelestis
or Asclepius. Then let a Christian address him. If Caelestis and
Asclepius do not at once confess that they are mere demons, the
impudent Christian will deserve to be killed on the spot.4
Pagans resent the aloofness of Christians and assert that they
are unprofitable in business. Sheer misrepresentation. Since
they must live, they need the forum, the meat-market, baths,
inns, shops and factories, market-days and the normal inter¬
course of commerce. Christians, it is true, do not attend pagan
rituals or the amphitheatre, dine in public at the feast of
Liberalia, wear garlands or buy incense. Yet they purchase
food and flowers, even costly Arabian perfumes for burying
their dead. As for the loss to temple revenues, that must be
admitted. But it is counterbalanced by the Christians’ charity to
the needy and their unusual honesty in paying taxes.3 Those
who can genuinely complain that they lose money from the
spread of Christianity are all despicable: panders and pimps,
assassins, poisoners and magicians, soothsayers, wizards and
murder of Domitian (Dio LXVII. 15. i, cf. Suetonius, Dorn. 17. 2). Pertinax was
killed on 28 March 193 when armed soldiers (equites singulares and pretorians) in¬
vaded the palace with drawn swords (Dio LXXIV. 9. 2; Herodian II. 5. 2; HA,
Pert. 11. 4 ff.). Commodus was first poisoned (without fatal results) by his concubine
Marcia, then strangled by the athlete Narcissus (Dio LXXIII. 22. 4 f.; Herodian I.
17. 8 ff.; HA, Comm. 17. 2). By a process of elimination, therefore, ‘qui inter duas
laurus o’bsident Caesarem’ should refer to the conspiracy against Commodus in
183 by his relatives Ummidius Quadratus, Lucilla and Claudius Pompeianus
Quintianus (Dio LXXIII. 4. 4 f.; Herodian I. 8. 3 ff.; HA, Comm. 4. 1 ff.). But
‘inter duas laurus’ may present a difficulty, cf. F. Grosso, Rendiconti Acc. Naz. dei.
Lined» XXI (1966), 140 ff. Tertullian evidently did not expect his readers to
consider Marcia a Christian.
1 Apol. 30. 4; 32. 1; 39. 2. 2 Apol. 40. 1 f. 3 Apol. 37. 9.
4 Apol. 23. 4 ff. 5 Apol. 42. 1 ff.
astrologers.1 And what loss to the state could be greater than the
extermination oflarge numbers of innocent and honest citizens
whose only crime is their faith ?2
Christians are incessantly harassed. But do their enemies
really know what sort of community they are persecuting ? The
slanders commonly believed are plausible only because pagans
are themselves guilty of greater immorality: a recent case
proves that Christians hold chastity dearer than life itself.3 In
the sphere of religion, the same contrast obtains. Pagan religion,
not Christian, practises human sacrifice, and in Carthage to this
very day the priests of Bellona mutilate themselves.4 The pagan
Gods are as immoral as their worshippers, who treat them with
scant respect.5 Tertullian describes the contrasting purity of the
Christian conception of God and of their whole way of life.6
Christians form a community united by faith, by discipline and
by a common hope. They meet to pray to God, and they pray
on behalf of the world. They read the scriptures, they listen to
edifying sermons, and they rigorously exclude anyone who
breaks the rules. At the meetings there preside venerable old
men, chosen for their probity not their wealth. Christians con¬
tribute funds once a month or whenever they wish, without any
compulsion. The money does not provide banquets or drinking
parties, but goes to support the needy, orphans and the aged,
shipwrecked travellers, and Christians who for their faith are
working in the mines, exiled on inhospitable islands or confined
in prison. Their care for one another can only be offensive to
those who hate their neighbours. Unlike their enemies, they
share everything except their wives. What more natural than
that such a community should eat together? Their common
meals have a name which signifies ‘love’ in Greek. Prayer comes
first: then they eat just enough to satisfy their hunger and drink
no more than modesty permits. For they know that during the
night God may speak to them. After the meal, the scriptures are
discussed, everyone present being called upon to say what he
can. Finally a prayer closes the meeting, and the Christians
return quietly and soberly to their homes.’
1 Apol. 43. 1. 2 Apol. 44. 1 ff.

3 AP°l- 9- 1; 50. 12.
4 Apol. 9. 2 ff. 5 Apol. 13. 1 ff. 6 Apol. 17. 1 ff.
7 Apol. 39. 1 ff.
The Apologeticum was designed to be read by the learned.

Tertullian saw the need for something simpler and briefer if he
intended to reach a popular audience. Hence his short dis¬
course De Testimonio Animae. Great curiosity and a greater
memory were necessary, if a man desired to extract from philoso¬
phers or poets or any other pagan writers proofs that Christian¬
ity was true, with which he might convict his enemies and per¬
secutors of error and injustice.1 Works of that sort had been
composed which demonstrated that the Christian religion was
nothing new or extraordinary, nothing that could not be
supported from traditional literature, nothing other than the
elimination of old errors. But what practical results had they
achieved? Philosophers are accounted wise in so far as they
agree with the Christians, yet as soon as they attempt to put
their doctrines into practice, by rejecting rituals or renouncing
the world, they are vilified as Christians. An almost unbridge¬
able gap exists: men cannot accept the Bible since no one reads
it until after his conversion.2 Tertullian brings forward a new
witness, familiar to all. It is man’s soul. He dismisses the vain
disputes about its nature and summons the pure soul: not
fashioned in the schools, trained in libraries, or belching wisdom
from the Athenian Academy and Stoa, but plain and un¬
adorned, uncorrupted by learning. It is the soul of the common
people whom one finds in the street or in workshops.3 This soul
is not Christian, but it will bear witness to Christianity.* With a
liberty which Christians do not enjoy, the soul preaches mono¬
theism. Everywhere one can overhear men saying ‘What God
gives’, ‘If God wishes’, ‘Good God’, or ‘God bless’. That is the
testimony of the soul and leads to Christianity.5
What happens in the shrines of Carthage ? Bedecked with the
wreath of Ceres, clad in the saffron pallium of Saturn or the
linen robes of Isis, the soul often invokes God as judge in the
very temples. The soul stands in the temple of Asclepius, Juno
or Minerva and refuses to acknowledge that they are living
deities. In fact, they are demons.6 Tertullian renders his
challenge to pagans disturbing with acute psychological insight.
He invites the soul to consider its fate after death. Christians
declare that it will survive, that according to its deserts it will be
1 Test. An. 1. 1. 2 Test. An. 1. 2 ff. 3 Test. An. 1. 5 f.
4 Test. An. 1.7. 5 Test. An. 2. 1 ff. 6 Test. An. 2. 7.
consigned either to eternal bliss or to everlasting torment. Men

fear death. For they call the dead unfortunate and wish them a
peaceful repose. They must therefore believe that the soul
retains the capacity for feeling even after death. And men
desire still to be remembered when they die. They try to per¬
petuate a record of themselves, either in works of literature or
through remembrance of their virtues or simply by the ostenta¬
tion of their tombs.1 Tertullian could have adduced Pliny and
Tacitus;2 the inhabitants of any Roman town passed a row of
varied funeral monuments whenever they set foot outside the
city gate. Christianity offered a more pleasing hope.
The testimony of the soul is true, simple, popular, universal,
natural and therefore divine.3 The majesty of nature precludes
its being frivolous or absurd. The soul is a primordial and
primeval witness: it is universal and must be believed.4 Ter¬
tullian cleverly closes the De Testimonio Animae by harping on
the fears of mankind. The soul will stand before God on the
Day of Judgement. Will it have proclaimed God or disdained
him, abominated demons or adored them, expected or dis¬
believed in the judgement to come, predicted the torments of
hell or failed to escape them, will it have embraced or persecuted
the name of Christian ?5 The prospect must terrify all who do
not believe that the soul dies with the body.
1 Test. An. 4. 1 ff.

2 Pliny, Epp. V. 5. 4: qui vero posteros cogitant, et memoriam sui operibus
extendunt, his nulla mors non repentina est; Tacitus, Agr. 46. 4: Agricola posteritati
narratus et traditus superstes erit.
3 Test. An. 5. 1. 4 Test. An. 6. 3. 5 Test. An. 6. 5 f.
IX
KNOWLEDGE OR REVELATION?
G nosticism was a multifarious phenomenon. No single

‘Gnostic religion’ or ‘Gnosis’ existed, but many hetero¬
geneous forms of each.1 In the realm of theology, some
Gnostics were almost indistinguishable from pagans, others
almost indistinguishable from orthodox Christians. Conversely,
an orthodox theologian (witness both Clement and Origen)
might share many of his ideas with the Gnostics.2 In conse¬
quence, Gnosticism sometimes served as the vehicle whereby
a pagan conception could ultimately establish itself as in¬
herently Christian.3 On a more mundane level, Gnostic
attitudes to worship varied greatly. Some retained the con¬
ventional forms of Christian liturgy with little or no innovation;
others accepted the existing forms and added exotic and more
exciting elements; others again contemptuously dismissed every
conventional form, including the act of prayer, as irrelevant
or worse.4
Can a unifying factor be discovered? Gnostic ideas corres¬
pond to deep and universal anxieties and desires of mankind:
preoccupation with the problem of evil, a sense of alienation,
and a longing for esoteric knowledge of the secrets of the uni¬
verse.5 Hence something closely akin to Gnosticism has arisen
in many periods of the world’s history. But in one respect the
second century was unique. Christianity was entering a society
largely unfamiliar with its original Jewish background. How
i R. M. Grant, After the New Testament (1967), 195 ff. For the wide diversity of
modern interpretations and the state of the question, see Le Origini dello Gnosticismo
(ed. U. Bianchi): Studies in the History of Religions XII (1967).
2 W. Bauer, Rechtgldubigkeit und Ketzerei im altesten Christentum (1934), 193 ff-
3 The paradigm case is purgatory, cf. E. Norden, P. Vergilius Maro Aeneis Buch VP
(i957), 29 ff- Some modern Roman Catholic scholars still attempt to foist their own
belief on Tertullian: G. Bardy, Diet, de thiol, cath. XV (1946), 164; J. Quasten,
Patrology II (1953), 338; A. Piolanti, Enciclopedia cattolica X (1953), 335- For dis"
proof, cf. A. J. Mason, JTS III (1902), 598 ff- Tertullian never implies that souls
either can or must be purified in the hereafter.
4 Grant, o.c. 173 ff.
5 A. D. Nock, Harv. Theol. Rev. LVII (1964), 255 ff.
116 KNOWLEDGE OR REVELATION?
could it be rendered comprehensible? When Justin sought to
reconcile his faith with Platonism as it was then understood, his
purpose was partly practical. If he could persuade the educated
to abandon their pagan cults and make common cause with the
Christians, then persecution must cease at once. But he himself
approached his new religion from philosophy,1 and never shed
his high regard for Stoic ethics and Plato’s metaphysics. Justin
had the wisdom or foresight to combine philosophy and
Christianity with due emphasis on the latter.2 Others were less
circumspect. They subordinated their Christian beliefs to
philosophy, to theosophy, even to astrology and magic. Whence
the bewildering diversity. Some Gnostics boasted of possessing
the sacred books of Zoroaster J others were deeply influenced
by the angelology of Jewish mystics;4 some were fervently
ascetic, others sheer libertines.5 All, however, believed that
redemption and salvation came through ‘gnosis’ or knowledge.
But knowledge of what? A disciple of Valentinus explained:
the knowledge of who we were (i.e. in a previous incarnation),
what we have become, where we were and where we were cast,
whither we are hurrying and whence we are being ransomed,
what birth and rebirth are.6
Tertullian saw the point. Gnostics ask the same questions as
philosophers: whence comes evil and why ? whence comes man
and how ? Valentinus only needed to add, whence comes God ?
He could then apply Aristotelian dialectic, infuse a little
Platonism, and produce his monstrous fables and genealogies,
his unprofitable researches and mythologies.7 But was it always
possible to distinguish Gnostics or heretics from ordinary
Christians ? Conduct might be a surer indication than professed
belief. A man’s attitude to martyrdom helped to place him.
Yet under duress the Gnostic and the cowardly tended towards
identical behaviour.8 In Carthage and elsewhere, however, there
existed clearly identifiable Gnostic confraternities.
'Justin, Dial. i. i ff.

2 H. Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition (1966), 9 ff.
3 p. 81.
4 A. Bohlig, Mysterion und Wahrheit (1968), 80 ff.
5 H. Chadwick, The Early Church (1967), 36.
6 Theodotus, quoted by Clement, Excerpta ex Theodoto 78. 2.
7 Praescr. Haer. 7. 5 ff. Origen’s diagnosis was similar (Contra Celsum III 12)
3 Ch. XII.
KNOWLEDGE OR REVELATION? 117
The De Praescriptione Haereticorum derides the disorderly
heretics.1 They observe no distinction between catechumens
and full believers; they will even admit pagans to their eucharist.
They think simplicity consists in destroying all discipline, and
bestow their peace on one and all without discrimination. They
all arrogantly claim knowledge, they know their catechism
before they learn it. Their immodest women dare to teach and
dispute, perform exorcisms, promise cures, and perhaps even
baptize converts. Their ordinations are random: now they
ordain a neophyte, now a pagan, now an apostate from
orthodoxy. Their bishops change daily; a man can be deacon
one day, a reader the next, or today a priest and tomorrow a
layman. In other words, the Gnostics have no ordered
ecclesiastical hierarchy.2 Variety and disunity are their only
common characteristics, and most of them do not even have
churches. Their boon companions are magicians, conjurors,
astrologers and philosophers.
Tertullian’s position in the Carthaginian church can perhaps

be defined precisely. Since he was not a priest but a layman,3
he may have owed his influence partly to a custom which he
himself describes. After their common meal Christians were
invited to speak, either to recite something from the scriptures
or according to each man’s capabilities.4 5 6 It need not necessarily
be supposed that anything extant was ever delivered thus.3
But Tertullian wrote several treatises (for example, De Spectaculis
and De Cultu Feminarum II)3 in the form of sermons: they
therefore have a specific context in the life of the local church.
And the hypothesis of actual delivery can plausibly be enter¬
tained for four works: De Oratione, De Baptismo, De Patientia, De
Paenitentia.
The De Oratione comprises two distinct parts: nine chapters on
1 Praescr. Haer. 41. 1 ff.

2 For the frequent election of laymen as bishops under the Christian Empire,
cf. A. H. M. Jones, The Later Roman Empire II (1964), 915 If.
3 p. 11.
4 Apol. 39. 18: post aquam manualem et lumina, ut quisque de scripturis divinis
vel de proprio ingenio potest, provocatur in medium deo canere.
5 The majority of Tertullian’s works were asserted to be actual sermons by J. A.
Knaake, Theologische Studien und Kritiken LXXVI (i9°3)> 608 ff.
6 PP- 94; I0°-
I
the Lord’s Prayer (a commentary phrase by phrase) and a

further twenty on a variety of different subjects. Most of these
are little more than disjointed fragments, perhaps even notes to
aid Tertullian in homiletic discourse.1 He considers the mental
attitude prerequisite for prayer, and argues that the hands
should be washed before and raised during prayer, that cloaks
ought to be removed, that one should sit down immediately
prayer is finished, that prayers should be intoned in a moderate
voice.2 * Further brief chapters consider problems of fasting and
the etiquette of praying.2 One subject alone receives a lengthy
treatment: are virgins (of any age) exempt from wearing a veil
during services?4 That reveals something significant about
Tertullian.5 Pagans were clearly not intended to read the De
Oratione, whose exegesis of ‘Thy kingdom come’ contradicts the
Apologeticum. There Tertullian represented Christians as
beseeching God for the end of the world to be delayed.6 Here
he desires its swift approach: Christians yearn to see the heathen
confuted and the angels exultant.7
The De Baptismo was occasioned by the activities of a heretical
woman who evidently persuaded several neophytes that bap¬
tism was unnecessary.8 Tertullian had already written in Greek
to prove that heretics who joined the church needed to be
baptized again.9 * Now he sought to preserve ecclesiastical
discipline against the rejection of baptism altogether. As a
literary (and perhaps an actual) form, he chose to address
catechumens who were being instructed in the faith.19 His tone
was moderate and respectful of authority: disobedience to the
bishop begat schism.11 With a wealth of detail about African
liturgical practices, he descanted on God’s purpose in using
water for spiritual ends and justified it from scripture.12 And he
deliberately prepared his audience to receive the sacrament,
1 E. Evans, Tertullian's Tract on the Prayer (1953), xi.

2 Orat. 10 ff. 3 Orat. 23. 1 ff.
4 Orat. 20. iff. ip. 137.

6 Apol• 32. I; 39- 2. 2 Orat. 5. 4.
8 Bapt. 1. 2, cf. App. 26. s Bapt. 15. 2.
10 E. Evans, Tertullian's Homily on Baptism (1964), xi f.
11 Bapt. 17. 2: episcopatus aemulatio schismatum mater est. For the meaning of
‘aemulatio’ in Tertullian, cf. J. H. Waszink, Tertulliani De Anima (1947), no f.
12 Bapt. 2. 1 ff. For the liturgical significance of the homily, cf. E. Dekkers,
Tertullianusen degeschiedenis der liturgie (1947), 163 ff.; Evans, o.c. xvii ff. Other items
in the vast bibliography are listed by J. Quasten, Patrology II (1953), 281.
KNOWLEDGE OR REVELATION? ii9
humbly requesting them when they received it to remember

Tertullian the sinner. 1
The De Patientia opens with a personal confession: the author
lacks patience himself, so that writing about it will console him
and perhaps aid in its attainment.2 The treatise comprises an
extended panegyric of the divine virtue, which supports faith
and permits the leading of a Christian life.2 Its importance lies
largely in Tertullian’s growing awareness that a Christian’s
professions must be put into practice. Patience ought to enable
Christians to tolerate slander according to the Lord’s precepts
(Mt. 5. 11) 4
Penitential discipline involved several of Christianity’s funda¬
mental assumptions. In the earliest days, the end of the world
was imminently awaited: repentance and subsequent baptism
cleansed away a man’s sins, and he could confidently await
salvation. As time wore on and the world continued to exist, a
problem arose: was a man who sinned after baptism irretriev¬
ably damned? did such sin nullify his former repentance? The
crafty and credulous (like Constantine) deferred baptism to
avoid the risk.5 The practice was roundly condemned by
ecclesiastics. But how were the contradictory ideals of holiness
and mercy to be reconciled ? Bishop Dionysius of Corinth urged
the church in Pontus to receive back into communion all who
repented of a lapse, whether of conduct or into heresy.6 This
view prevailed, and a system of penitential discipline was
instituted and gradually developed, with infinite gradations
for every sort of delinquency.7 Tertullian’s De Paenitentia
illustrates and expounds an early stage in this development.8
The homily commences with a panegyric on repentance as
being necessary for salvation.9 Then Tertullian discusses the
repentance of converts (which was not controversial) before
tackling the real matter of dispute.10 Is a second repentance per-
1 Bapt. 20. 5. 2 Pat. 1. i f.
3 Pat. 15. 2: omnia enim placita eius (sc. dei) tuetur, omnibus mandatis eius
intervenit.
4 Pat. 8. 3 (p. 164). 5 Jones, o.c. 980 f. 6 Eusebius, HE IV. 23. 6.
7 K. Baus, Handbook of Church History I (1965), 318 ff.
8 See B. Poschmann, Paenitentia Secunda (1940), 261 ff.; 284 ff; the detailed
commentary of W. P. Le Saint, Ancient Christian Writers XXVIII (1959)> 135 ff
» Paen. 1. 1 ff. ‘Paenitentia’ denotes both ‘repentance’ and ‘penance’, cf. Le
Saint, o.c. 132 f.
10 The transition comes at Paen. 7. 1.
missible? Tertullian adopts an ostensibly firm position: he

allows a second repentance, but not a third.1 Time was quickly
to show the fragility of this view: Tertullian later disallowed a
second repentance for the gravest sins,2 the church came to
permit an unlimited number.
These four homiletic works occupy a peripheral place in

Tertullian’s literary career. They concern purely ecclesiastical
matters. Tertullian devoted far more of his energies to problems
which their external environment forced upon Christians. At
first it was pagan society, in the earliest extant writings (of 196
or 197): De Spectaculis, De Idololatria and the second book De
Cultu Feminarum all concern how a Christian ought to comport
himself in the world. Soon Tertullian was writing to gain
converts and under the influence of persecution: the Ad
Martyras to Christians in prison, the Ad Nationes and Adversus
Judaeos, the Apologeticum and De Testimonio Animaed Some of his
later works revert to the same topics: the Scorpiace (203/4) and
the DeFuga in Persecutione (208/9) discuss how a Christian ought
to act at a time of persecution,4 the De Corona Militis (208) takes
up the De Idololatria,5 the dress of women was a continual pre¬
occupation,^6 and the Ad Scapulam (212) distils the essence of the
Apologeticum.'' But Tertullian’s interest began to focus more on
theological issues. He engaged in polemic against Gnostics and
Marcion, and he embraced the New Prophecy of Montanus.
The development commenced from the De Praescriptione
Haereticorum. Tertullian wrote this work for the ordinary
Christians of Carthage, to protect them against any sort of
heresy.8 The central argument arises naturally out of a passage
in the Apologeticum where Tertullian denied any similarity
between the competing philosophical sects and the doctrinal
disagreements of Christians, asserting that those who dis¬
agreed with the church were all falsifiers.9 In the De Praescrip¬
tione he dismissed the theology of Valentinus, Marcion and the
rest as not worthy of serious consideration: apostolic succession
1 Paen. 7. 10: (deus) conlocavit in vestibulo paenitentiam secundam quae
pulsantibus patefaciat, sed iam semel quia iam secundo, sed amplius numquam
quia proxime frustra.
2p. 141. 3 For these eight works, Ch. VIII.
* Gh. XII. 5 P- J34- 6 P- 137-
7 p. 166. 8 pp. 64-66. » Apol. 47. 9 f.
was the hallmark of true doctrine. Already, however, he in¬

tended to refute the individual heresies one by one.1
Two eminent heretics, Hermogenes and Prodicus, were active
in Carthage.2 There were also other Gnostics: followers of
Marcion and Apelles, a ‘Caina haeresis’ of Ophites,3 and an
obscure fellow who combined Christianity with Pythagorean-
ism.4 The disciples of Apelles possessed enough importance for
Tertullian to compose an Adversus Apelliacos which is not extant.5 *
There still survive some of the treatises which he wrote against
Hermogenes and Marcion: the former provoked not only the
Adversus Hermogenem but also De censu animae (now lost) and
hence De anima, the latter an Adversus Marcionem twice re¬
written and expanded, De Came Christi and De Resurrectione
Mortuorum. By the side of these vast and closely argued treatises
the Adversus Valentinianos provides comic relief: Prodicus (it
may be maintained) is anonymously denigrated while his
doctrines are satirized.« For his intellectual development the
attacks on Flermogenes and Marcion have immensely greater
significance. They led him on to a systematic exploration of
theology. The Adversus Hermogenem was followed by a treatise
on the nature of the soul, the first (or second) refutation of
Marcion by lengthy treatments of Christ’s incarnation and the
resurrection of the dead.
Problems of chronology may help to illuminate the move¬
ment of Tertullian’s mind. Both the De Praescriptione Haereti-
corum and the first attack on Marcion preceded the Scorpiace
(203/4).7 The series of tracts against individual heresies cul¬
minates in the De Resurrectione Mortuorum (206/7) and the extant
Adversus Marcionem (207/8). When Tertullian wrote the De
Praescriptione, he considered the heresies of Marcion, Apelles and
Valentinus to be the most notorious and popular.8 At some
stage, he read widely and carefully to prepare for his lengthy
treatments of theological subjects. He may (so it has been
postulated) have written little that is extant in the years 203 to
1 Praescr. Haer. 44. 14. 2 PP- 80/1. 3 App. 26.

4 Jej, I5. I: apud Iovem, hodiernum de Pythagora haereticum. Presumably
identical with ‘Nigidius nescio qui’ (Praescr. Haer. 30. 13). The historical Nigidius
Figulus rescued Pythagoreanism from centuries of total oblivion according to
Cicero (Timaeus 1).
5 Cam. Chr. 8. 3. « pp. 81/2; 220/1.
7 pp. 39; 40. 8 Praescr. Haer. 30. 10.
KNOWLEDGE OR REVELATION?
205.1 For that period of Tertullian’s life saw the composition of

the Adversus Apelliacos and at least three lost works not so far
mentioned: De paradiso, De fato and De spefidelium.2 Further, to
the years around 204 may belong De came et anima, De animae
summissione and De superstitione saeculi, titles known only from a
list of contents in a medieval manuscript.3
Hermogenes’ central tenet was that God created the universe

out of pre-existent matter. For he must have created it either
out of himself, or out of nothing, or out of something. Hermogenes
proved that God created out of something by eliminating the
other two possibilities: the first on logical grounds, the second
by denying that God could have created evil.4 There were also
subsidiary philosophical and scriptural arguments, including
refutations of opposing views.5 The whole system owed much
to Plato and to contemporary Middle Platonism, especially
Albinus.6 But a serious difficulty was encountered when Her¬
mogenes combined his philosophy with Christianity. The soul,
none could gainsay, has fallen into sin. How could that be?
Hermogenes maintained that matter, though eternal, lacked
any positive quality, being neither corporeal nor incorporeal,
neither good nor evil, and that the soul originated in matter.?
He consequently needed to circumvent a text of scripture: God
breathed into man’s nostrils ‘the breath of life, and he became
a living soul’ (Gen. 2. 7). Since God would otherwise have
created evil by giving life to the sinful soul, Hermogenes held
that the ‘breath of life’ comprised only the higher faculties of
the soul, but that the soul itself had no beginning in time.3 8
Tertullian used an earlier treatise against Hermogenes by
Theophilus of Antioch.9 But he cast his material into the form
of a speech, which opened and closed with invective. Hermo-
1 P- 55-
2 An.20. 5; 55. 5; Marc. III. 24. 2. For the Adversus Apelliacos, see now J.-P.
Mah6, Rev. dt. aug. XVI (1970), 3 ff.
3 i.e. the Codex Agobardinus. For a description, M. Klussmann, Curarum
Tertullianearum Particulae I et II (Diss. Halle, 1881), 3 ff.
4 Herm. 2. 1 ff. s Herm. 4. 1 ff.
*J- H; Waszink, Vig. Chr. IX (1955), 129 ff. For Albinus, see P. Merlan, Cam¬
bridge History of Later Greek and Early Medieval Philosophy (1967), 64 ff.
7 Herm. 4. 1; 35. 1 ff; An. 11. 2.
8 J. H. Waszink, Tertulliani De Anima (1947), 9* ff.
9 J. H. Waszink, Ancient Christian Writers XXIV (1956), 9 ff
genes was a heretic by nature, who deserted Christianity for
philosophy, the church for the Academy and Stoa, and made
matter equal to God.1 Hermogenes indulged in painting.
Tertullian perceived that his foible could be exploited for his
peroration: when Hermogenes depicted matter as irregular,
confused, turbulent, with a disordered, violent and frenetic
motion, he was simply painting a portrait of himself.2
His doctrines demanded more serious attention, and Ter¬
tullian produced a reasoned refutation. He argued that Her-
mogenes’ belief that matter existed before the Creation involves
several absurdities and self-contradictions, that God did create
evil, and that God’s creation of matter out of nothing can be
proved both on philosophical grounds and from scripture.3
Further contradictions are then found in Hermogenes’ concep¬
tions both of matter and of creation.4 The truth, as always, is
clearly stated in the Bible.5 But Tertullian did not feel satisfied:
the Adversus Hermogenem left untouched important corollaries of
his adversary’s doctrine. He therefore devoted a treatise
specifically to the ‘census animae’, i.e. the original essence of
the soul.6 And discussion of that led him on to a general treat¬
ment of the soul in order to destroy the psychological theories
which underlay not only Hermogenes’ system, but also that of
other Gnostic teachers.7 In this he took issue with a long
philosophical tradition deriving from Plato that the soul was
eternal and incorporeal, and that it consisted of separate parts.8
The size of the De Anima and its wealth of erudition fully match
the importance of the subject. Tertullian could draw on a rich
doxographic tradition and on Stoic discourses, particularly the
four books on the soul by Soranus of Ephesus.9 But his main
purpose was not philosophical. If one discarded the doctrines
of anamnesis and metempsychosis, and if one denied that a
man’s soul ever existed before he was conceived, an important
source of esoteric knowledge disappeared.10 For it follows that a
1 Herm. 1. 1 ff. (p. 220). 2 Herm. 45. 6. 3 Herm. 4. 1 ff.

4 Herm. 35. 1 ff. 5 Herm. 17. 1 ff.; 45. 1 f.
6 For its probable contents, cf. J. H. Waszink, Tertulliani De Anima (1947), 7* ff.
7 The philosophers were ‘the patriarchs of the heretics’ {Herm. 8. 3; An. 3. 1).
s An. 1. 1 ff.; 5. 1 ff.; 14. 1 ff

9 H. Karpp, feiUchr. fur neutest. IViss. XXXIII (i934-)> 31 ff-5 Waszink, o.c.
21* ff.
10 An. 23. 1 ff.
man’s knowledge is all acquired in this life and that human
nature gradually develops from birth.1 Tertullian was carefully
removing several assumptions which could give rise to Gnostic
ideas. And, as was his constant practice, he related his appar¬
ently abstruse reasonings to the familiar context of life in
Carthage. A Montanist woman could vouch for the corporeal
nature of the soul: she had seen the soul in a vision, and it was
a delicate and luminous essence, with an airy colour and human
shape.2 Two recent occurrences might seem to prove that not
all the soul left the body at death. A woman who died in the
prime of life raised her hands into an attitude of prayer as soon
as a priest began to pray over her corpse and lowered them
again when he had finished. And a corpse was said to have
moved to allow room for another next to it in the cemetery.
Tertullian claims the extraordinary events as miracles.3 And
was there doubt about the fate of souls after death ? The martyr
Perpetua saw none but martyrs in paradise.4
Marcion was no Gnostic. So far from combining Christianity

with pagan philosophy, he was obsessed by contradictions
within the Jewish and Christian tradition. So far from prizing
‘gnosis’, he insisted on faith in the God who revealed himself in
Christ.5 And he inculcated in his followers not only high stan¬
dards of morality (as Tertullian conceded) ,<> but also readiness
for martyrdom.? If the term be used at all strictly, Marcion
cannot be classed as a Gnostic. His system admittedly exhibited
characteristics which are found in types of Gnosticism: he
rejected the Old Testament, he separated the supreme un¬
knowable God from the creator and lawgiver, he regarded
matter as evil, and he denied both the human nature of Jesus
and the resurrection of the flesh.* Marcion may (or may not)
1 An. 25. 1 ff.; 37. 5 ff. 2 An. 9. 4. 2 An. 51. 6 f.

4 An. 55. 4. An error (p. 80).
s H. Chadwick, The Early Church (1967), 38 ff. For the reconstruction ofMarcion’s
writings, A. Harnack, Marcion: Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott2 (Texte u. Unters.
XLV, 1924), 32 ff; 68 ff. Tertullian’s statements are not always employed with
due caution, cf. G. Quispel, De Bronnen van Tertullianus’ Adversus Marcionern (104.2)
80 ff.
6 Praescr. Haer. 30. 5: (Apelles) lapsus in feminam, desertor continentiae Mar-
cionensis, ab oculis sanctissimi magistri Alexandriam secessit.
7 Note Passio Pionii 21.5, cf. Eusebius, HE IV. 15. 46.
8 R. M. Grant, Gnosticism and Early Christianity2 (1966), 121 ff.
KNOWLEDGE OR REVELATION? *25
have derived these attitudes from Cerdo.1 More significant, they

all arise naturally out of a Christian context: unless resort is
made to allegory, the Old and New Testaments do operate
with different conceptions of God, and the humanity of Christ
can only be defended through the apparent self-contradiction
that he possessed both a human and a divine nature. There is
no need therefore to assume that Marcion was greatly indebted
to Syrian Gnosticism.2 He never descended to the level of
Valentinus. He spun no myths, no genealogies, no speculations
about cosmogony, and he avoided angelology. His Antitheses
exploited contradictions between different elements in the
Christian tradition. Tertullian realized their intellectual force
and paid their author a compliment by devoting to them the
longest of all his extant works, the five books Adversus Mar-
cionem. These were preceded by the De Came Christi and the De
Resurrectione Mortuorum, which expanded themes from its first,
and perhaps also from its second edition.3
Marcion was envisaged as the principal adversary in the De
Came Christi. He denied the incarnation and the human nature
of Christ, in which he was followed by two disciples who later
deserted him, Apelles and Valentinus.4 They were docetists, and
this piece of fiction (Apelles probably was a Marcionite, but
Valentinus could not have been)3 enables Tertullian to concen¬
trate on Marcion. He was perhaps writing mainly to satisfy his
own mind. His normal literary habits reasserted themselves. The
De Came Christi opens with an insult designed to secure a favour¬
able reception from ordinary Christians: when the docetists
dispute the doctrine of bodily resurrection and vainly quibble
about the human nature of Christ, they are copying the
Sadducees.6 Tertullian promises to defend traditional Christian
belief: Jesus himself confuted the Sadducees on this very point
(Mt. 22. 23 ffi).
1 As Irenaeus alleged (Adv. Haer. I. 27. 1 f.) and Tertullian repeated {Marc.
I. 2. 3).
2 Marcion has recently been linked with Jewish apocalyptic hopes: he was
writing immediately after the ‘thoroughgoing massacre of the Jews in the eastern
part of the empire’in 135 (Grant, o.c. 122). The massacre may never have occurred:
unlike the two earlier revolts (66—73 an<^ 115—17)» l32~5 appears to have
involved no disturbances outside Palestine.
3 App. 11. 4 Cam. Chr. 1. 2 f.
s Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. 27. 1 f.; HI. 4- 3i Eusebius, HE V. 13. 1 ff.
6 Cam. Chr. 1. 1.
Tertullian had carefully read the heretics whom he set out to

refute. After the exordium, he takes, expounds and argues
against Marcion, Apelles and Valentinus in turn.1 His know¬
ledge of his opponents extended to a writer not recorded else¬
where: a certain Valentinian by the name of Alexander, who
constructed fancy syllogisms.2 Each heretic is contrasted with
traditional beliefs and in addition accused of inconsistency. If
Marcion excised the nativity from his gospel, why did he leave
in the still more objectionable Passion?3 If Apelles and his like
contend that Christ’s flesh was composed of celestial elements,
they have forgotten that on their own admission these elements
were created by a ‘fiery prince of evil’.4 If Valentinus and others
affirm that Christ’s flesh was made out of soul, that implies that
men’s souls, which have not been turned into flesh, are in¬
capable of salvation.5 Tertullian then restates and expands
traditional views in an amplificatio which also contains additional
refutations of the heretics.5 Finally the peroration of the De
Came Christi prepares the way for its sequel :7 the De Resurrectione
Mortuorum of twice its length.
‘Christians believe in the resurrection of the dead.’ The mass
of men ridicule the idea of survival after death. Yet when they
have cremated a corpse, they then set rich feasts in its shrine as
if it were hungry. Is that piety or cruelty ?» Whenever the
readers of the De Resurrectione Mortuorum left Carthage, they will
have passed along rows of funeral monuments and shrines.0
The more educated would recall that Epicureans believed that
nothing survives after death, a sentiment also repeated by
Seneca. Tertullian reminds them that even some pagans
accept survival after death. Pythagoras, Empedocles and Plato
all believed in metempsychosis: an error, but in some sense an
acknowledgement of the resurrection of the dead.10 Heretics,
however, appropriate to themselves, not the insights, but the
mistakes of pagan philosophers.11
The De Resurrectione throughout presupposes the De Came
Christi. Tertullian protests that this is the logical order: unlike
1 Respectively, Cam. Chr. 2. 1-5. 10; 6. 1-9. 8; 10. 1-16. 5.
2 Cam. Chr. 15. 3; 16. 1; 17. 1.
3 Cam. Chr. 5. 1 ff. (pp. 223/4).
4 Cam. Chr. 8. 2. 5 Cam. Chr. 10. 1 f. « Cam. Chr. 17. 1 ff.
7 Cam. Chr. 25. 2. 8 Res_ Mort. 1. 1 ff. 9 p. 114.
10 Res. Mort. 1. 4 ff. 11 Res. Mort. 2. 1 ff.
heretics, who never discuss things in due order, he has begun
from first principles.1 In fact, the work possesses the structure
of a speech, not a rigorous series of philosophical or theological
deductions: Tertullian parries objections before stating his
positive case.2 3 Since his opponents have denigrated the flesh,
Tertullian will rescue its reputation by means of an encomium.2
Then the real subject can be broached: the resurrection of the
flesh according to the Old and New Testaments.4 Again,
however, a preliminary task intrudes: Tertullian must repel
attempts to interpret the Bible allegorically.5 Finally, the
exposition of the scriptures proceeds :6 it is Tertullian’s favourite
mode of argument. Traditional doctrines have been reaffirmed.
But how are men to be preserved from vain speculation and the
danger of heresy ? Almighty God in his providence has poured
his Holy Spirit on his servants in the last days, he has revived
the waning faith in bodily resurrection and purged away all
ambiguity in the Bible by illuminating its words and meaning.
Everything is made clear by the New Prophecy vouchsafed by
the Paraclete.7
The vast Adversus Marcionem (207/8) has a simple structure:

the first book tackles Marcion’s philosophical arguments, the
second demonstrates the identity of the Creator and Marcion’s
Good God, the father of Jesus, the third disproves Marcion’s
Christology, the fourth examines his Gospel, the fifth his version
of the Pauline epistles.8 Tertullian took some of his material
from his early and unfinished Adversus Judaeos, and pressed into
service both Theophilus and Irenaeus.9 Neither was a new
author for Tertullian: the Adversus Hermogenem had drawn on
the former, the Adversus Valentinianos very heavily on the
latter.10 But it is not clear that either contributed excessively to
1 Res. Mort. 2. 7 f.
2 For a formal analysis, pp. 208—210. The general significance of the work has
recently been investigated by P. Siniscalco, Ricerche sul ‘De Resurrectione’ di Tertul-
liano (1966).
3 Res. Mort. 5. 1. 4 Res. Mort. 18. 1. 5 Res. Mort. 19. 1 ff.
6 Res. Mort. 29. 1 ff. 7 Res. Mort. 63. 7 ff. 8 App. 11.
9 Respectively, H. Trankle, Q.S. F. Tertulliani Adversus Judaeos (1964)) l*11
G. Quispel, De Bronnen van Tertullianus’ Adversus Marcionem (1943), 22 ff. In addition,
there appear to be derivations from Justin, cf. recently C. Moreschini, Omaggio a E.
Fraenkel (1968), 131 ff.
i° pp. 220/1.
the Adversus Marcionem. For the most part Tertullian relied on

his own ingenuity, his knowledge of the Bible, and his reading of
Marcion’s Antitheses and version of the New Testament. By
tying his arguments closely to these texts he was able to simplify
and hasten the composition, and to produce a huge tract which
always exhibits solid documentation. That corresponded to
Tertullian’s normal inclinations: he applied the techniques of
rhetoric to specific issues and avoided metaphysical speculation.
The theological argument of the Adversus Marcionem is complete
by the end of the first book. The rest comprises documentation
and exegesis. Even the third book, on the nature of Christ,
added little of substance, and Tertullian himself conceded that
it might be superfluous.1 The controversy centred on a single
question: was there one God or two ?
The Adversus Marcionem opens with a preface explaining the
genesis of the work and an exordium setting forth the wild
nature of the Pontus which produced the wild heresiarch
Marcion.2 Marcion introduces two Gods: the creator (who is
the God of Christians) and his own. Obsessed (as is often the
case) with the problem of evil, he imagines the God of the Old
Testament to be malign, the God revealed in Christ to be pure
kindness.3 That description serves as the formal narratio, and
the partitio follows: the principal, the whole issue concerns
whether two Gods may be inferred to exist.4 True Christian
belief stands in no doubt: if God is not unique, he is not God.
His nature can to some extent be defined: God is the supreme
power, existing eternally, unborn and uncreated, without
beginning or end.5 It follows ineluctably that there cannot be
two Gods.6 There the argument could end. But Tertullian
wished to frustrate all attempts to evade the unpalatable con¬
clusion. And he desired to impress his audience, which was
1 Marc. III. i. i: licet ex abundanti post decursam defensionem unicae divini-

tatis. For ex abundanti’, cf. H. Hoppe, Syntax und Stil des Tertullian (1002), 111
2 Marc. I. 1. 1 ff.
3 Marc. I. 2. 2: languens enim—quod et nunc multi, et maxime haeretici—
circa mali quaestionem. . . .
4 Marc. I. 3. 1.
5 Marc. I. 3. 2: id definio, quod et omnium conscientia agnoscet: deum summum
esse magnum in aeternitate constitutum, innatum, infectum, sine initio, sine fine.
A. Kroymann deleted the last six words (CSEL XLVII. 293). Unjustifiably, cf.
A. Bill, Texte u. Unters. XXXVIII. 2 (1911), 17 ff.
6 Marc. I. 3. 3 ff.
large and contained uneducated people who might be lured

into error.1 Hence a long confirmatio and reprehensio, decked out
with frequent scriptural allusions or quotations and all the
tricks at an orator’s command.2
The peroration derides Marcionite asceticism, and Tertul-
lian’s Montanism breaks through.3 During the composition of
his vast disquisitions on problems raised by Gnostics and by
Marcion he had come to accept the New Prophecy. Christianity
was a revealed religion.4 Had revelation ceased or did the Holy
Spirit still speak to men? The dilemma could not be evaded.
1 Whoever purloined the second edition of the Adversus Marcionem ‘exhibuit

frequentiae’ (I. 1. 1), and Tertullian promised ‘respondebo et stulto, qui nec hoc
recogitaverit, ne tantundem et in deum Marcionis possit retorqueri’ (I. 7. 2).
2 Marc. I. 4. 1 ff.
3 Marc. I. 29. 4. The chapter shows apparent signs of rewriting and internal
contradiction, cf. J.-C. Fredouille, Rev. et. aug. XIII (1967)3 1 ff-
4 Since baptism was ‘consecutio spiritus sancti’ {Marc. I. 28. 3). For the relative
stress on reason and revelation in Tertullian, cf. J. Lortz, Der Katholik4 XLII
(1913), 124 ff. More recent studies are listed by J. Quasten, Patrology II (1953),
321 f.
X
THE NEW PROPHECY
D uring the winter of 165/6 a Roman army sacked Seleucia

on the Tigris. The following summer Lucius Verus return¬
ed to Rome to celebrate a Parthian triumph.1 Part of his
troops marched overland and passed through the populous and
flourishing cities of Asia, where at Ephesus the sophist Flavius
Damianus entertained them at his own expense.2 But victory
in the east did not bring security. In the wake of the legions
came plague and pestilence, caught (so men said) in the temple
of Apollo at Seleucia.3 Dire peril also threatened the Roman
Empire from the north. A Marcomannic war was already
beginning, and both emperors prepared to campaign in person.
Priests were summoned to Rome from all quarters, every sort of
propitiatory rite was performed—and carts and waggons daily
transported large numbers of dead out of the city.4
For the Christians, natural disaster portended persecution.
Not long before, severe earthquakes had provoked an outbreak
in Asia.5 Now a spate of Christian apologies filled the later years
of the reign of Marcus Aurelius.6 The faithful were continually
harassed. And the emperor himself encouraged their enemies:
he consulted the oracle of Alexander of Abonuteichos, at whose
behest he cast two live lions into the Danube.7 8 Alexander had
shown himself an implacable foe of the Christians.3 The
Platonic philosopher Celsus provided an intellectual justifica¬
tion of persecution. His True Reason invited the Christians to
1 HA, Verus 8. 5, cf. For fuller details, and other evidence, cf. JRS LVII (1967), 72.
2 AE 1913. 170.
3 HA, Verus 8. 1 ff.; Ammianus XXIII. 6. 24.
* HA, Marcus 12. 13 ff.
5 During the proconsulate of L. Antonius Albus in 160/1 (p. 155).
6 B. Altaner-A. Stuiber, Patrologie7 (1966), 58 ff.
7 Lucian, Alexander 48. The Column of VIarcus Aurelius may have depicted the
scene, cf. E. Petersen—A. von Domaszewski—G. Calderini, Hie Marcus-Saule auf
Piazza Colonna in Rom (1896), 57 f.; 112; Tafel 20.
8 Lucian, Alexander 25; 38.
THE NEW PROPHECY 131
contemplate their folly. Instead of making them lords of the

world, their God had cut them off from home and family: if
at present any Christian still escaped detection as a vagrant, he
would soon be sought out and done to death.1
Against this background (and c. 170)2 Montanus began to
prophesy. In a remote village in Phrygian Mysia, he fell into a
convulsive frenzy and uttered oracles.3 Likewise the two pro¬
phetesses, Prisca (or Priscilla) and Maximilla. All three
spoke as the mouthpieces of God himself: their possession was
truly divine, not the doing of a mere angel or messenger from
heaven.4 In them God spoke, the Almighty, The Father, the
Son and the Holy Spirit. The prophets played a consciously
passive role as God’s instruments: they were the lyre which the
Spirit plucked like a plectrum.5 Through them God spoke
directly to the world, and especially to the humble, in order to
give them the courage to die as martyrs.6 The end of the world
was approaching, and the New Jerusalem (Rev. 21. 1 ff.)
would descend on Pepuza in Phrygia.7 In a word, Montanism
was a millenarian movement.8
Montanus rapidly gained many followers. The churches in

Asia pronounced his prophecies to be inspired by the Devil, and
the Montanists were excommunicated, then vilified in slander¬
ous pamphlets.9 But the challenge to the ecclesiastical hierarchy
remained. A bishop of Rome was almost won over,10 and effects
were felt in Alexandria and even in distant Gaul.11 It was in
Africa, however, that Montanism gained its greatest success.
The evidence (principally the Passion of Perpetua) indicates that
the church of Carthage nearly succumbed.12 Tertullian recog¬
nized the validity of the New Prophecy. Since Christianity was
1 Origen, Contra Celsum VIII. 69. For Celsus’ philosophical background, cf. C.
Andresen, Logos und Nomos (1955), 79 ff
2 p. 254. 3 Eusebius, HE V. 16. 7.
4 Epiphanius, Panarion XLVIII. n. 9. 5 lb. 4. 1.
6 Tertullian, Fug. 9. 4; An. 55. 5; Epiphanius, Panarion XLVIII. 10. 3.
2 Epiphanius, Panarion XLIX. 1.3. For the full complement of known Montanist
oracles, P. de. Labriolle, La crise montaniste (1913), 34 ff-5 K- Aland, Kirchengeschicht-
liche Entwurfe (i960), 143 ff.
8 N. Cohn, The Pursuit of the Millennium3 (1970), 13; 25.
9 Eusebius, HE V. 16. 3 ff. 10 p. 82.
11 A. Faggiotto, La diaspora catafrigia (1924), 21 ff.
k Ch. VII.
132 THE NEW PROPHECY
a revealed religion, he was unwilling to believe that revelation

had ceased in the Apostolic age. Inexorably, therefore, he was
led on to espouse the Montanist cause. The issues were simple
in his eyes. Recognition of the Paraclete, whom God had prom¬
ised to send (Jn. 14. 16), severed him from the ‘psychici’.1
The Paraclete, the ‘deductor omnis veritatis’ (Jn. 16. 13), gave
necessary counsel to every Christian. Its promptings preserved
doctrinal orthodoxy from the assaults of heresy, and enabled
men to face with constancy and equanimity the prospect of
imminent martyrdom.2 Hence a change came over Tertullian’s
attitudes, as he worked out the consequences of his acceptance
of the New Prophecy.3 The De Corona Militis represents an early
stage of this development, the De Jejunio its culmination.
The former arose from an incident in the camp—presumably
the military camp in Carthage.4 Tertullian describes the scene
vividly. When an imperial donative was being distributed, one
soldier held his garland in his hand. Murmuring began, and he
was led before the tribune, where he proclaimed himself a
Christian. The soldier was then brought before the commanding
officers and confined to prison, where he now eagerly awaits the
donative of Christ, his martyrdom.3 * Other Christians continue
to serve as soldiers, he alone is a true Christian. Other Christians
even now, like pagans, pour scorn on his presumptuous rash¬
ness. Appropriately, for they are deaf to the Holy Spirit and its
prophecies: when martyrdom offers, be they laymen or priests,
they pack their bags and flee.3 But confession of one’s faith can
be discussed on another occasion.7 For the present Tertullian
proposes to discuss only the propriety of wearing garlands. The
1 Prax. 1. 7: et nos quidem postea agnitio Paraded atque defensio disiunxit a

psychicis.
2 An. 58. 8 (p. 208); Res. Mort. 63. 7 ff. (p. 127); Fug. 14. 3 (p. 182).
3 Labriolle, o.c. 294 ff.; H. Karpp, Schrift und Geist bei Tertullian (1955), 9 ff.
4 P. Monceaux, Histoire littiraire de VAfrique chretienne I (1901), 269, believed the
scene historical and situated it in Lambaesis, A. von Domaszewski, Die Religion des
romischen Heeres (1895), 95, held it invented but referring to the camp of the Pre-
torian Guard in Rome. Both relied on the same sentence: suffragia exinde, et res
apud acta, et reus ad praefectos {Cor. Mil. 1. 2). ‘Praefectos’ could indicate
auxiliary prefects at Lambaesis, but prima facie denotes the two pretorian prefects
cf. P. Franchi de’ Cavalieri, Studi e Testi LXV (1935), 357 ff. However, Tertullian
may simply be using the word improperly. For the soldier seems to have been
imprisoned in Carthage {Cor. Mil. 1.3).
3 Cor. Mil. 1. 1 ff. « Cor. Mil. 1. 4 f.
7 i.e. in De Fuga in Persecutione.
THE NEW PROPHECY I33
issue was not trivial, but involved fundamental principles.1

Some Christians asked ‘where are we forbidden to wear
garlands ourselves ?’, and argued that what the Bible did not
explicitly forbid was thereby permitted. It is equally easy to con¬
clude that what the Bible does not permit is thereby prohibited.2
A dispute of this nature can only be resolved by reference to
Christian tradition and generally accepted moral standards.3
Tertullian starts from the life of the Church. How much of it
is prescribed by scripture ? The neophyte comes to church and
promises under the hands of a priest to renounce the Devil, his
pomp and his angels. Then he is baptized to a formula longer
than that in the Gospel (Mt. 28. 19), tastes a loving cup of milk
and honey, and abstains from washing for a week. All Christians
receive the sacrament of the eucharist from the hands of priests,
make offerings on the anniversary of a brother’s death, consider it
wrong to fast or kneel to pray on Sunday or in the period between
Easter and Pentecost, cross themselves on their going out and
their coming in, on dressing, on washing, on eating, on lying down
or reclining, on every activity of daily life.4 None of this can be
found in scripture: its justification lies in tradition and unchal¬
lenged acceptance.5 Refusal to wear garlands is just as much a
Christian tradition and a part of church discipline.6
The habit of wearing garlands must also be condemned for
other reasons. First, as contrary to nature. Flowers can be en¬
joyed either for their appearance, for their fragrance, or for both.
One who wears flowers on his head can neither see nor smell
them. Therefore, he is using them in an unnatural fashion. And
an offence against nature offends both philosophy and God,
who created nature.? Second, knowledge of pagan literature
demonstrates that wearing garlands inevitably involves idol¬
atry.8 Tertullian specifies some details and cites Claudius
Saturninus’ De Coronis for the rest.9 But a possible objection
1 Cor. Mil. 1. 6. For the cultural background, cf. K. Baus, Der Kranz in Antike
und Christentum (1940); J. Fontaine, Tertullien sur la Couronne (1966), 15 ff.
2 Cor. Mil. 2. 4.
3 On Tertullian’s attitude towards tradition, cf. F. de Pauw, Ephemerides Theo-
logicae Lovanienses XIX (1942), 5 ff.
4 Cor. Mil. 3. 2 ff. 5 Cor. Mil. 4. 1.
« Cor. Mil. 2. 1. 7 Cor. Mil. 5. 1 ff. 8 Cor. Mil. 7. 1 ff.
9 Cor. Mil. 7. 6, cf. 10. 9; 12. 1. Note that Tertullian later uses material from
Varro (13. 9) already employed at Idol. 15. 5; Nat. II. 15. 5; Scorp. 10. 6 (p. 50).
K
arises: even if the habit of wearing garlands has idolatrous

origins may it not be turned to Christian use? One could
adduce letters, which Mercury invented, but which Christians
must employ both for business and for divine study, or medicine
and ships which Asclepius and Minerva invented.1 Tertullian
denies the argument from analogy: these are all necessities for
living, while garlands are not. Again, unlike garlands, all these
receive sanction in scripture and in Christian life.2 Feeling
more certain of his ground, Tertullian now essays a proof from
scripture. Garlands are by their nature idolatrous, and there¬
fore forbidden.3
Military garlands are a special case, because no Christian
ought to be a soldier. A whole host of reasons are adduced.4 In
brief, every believer is a soldier of Christ, whose army a soldier
deserts.5 No Christian need join the army, but a soldier who
becomes a convert has the duty of undergoing martyrdom.
However, suppose that being a soldier were allowable, what
then? Garlands are still forbidden. Tertullian demonstrates the
close connexion between military garlands and pagan deities:
even if he remains silent during every ceremony, the garlanded
soldier has become an idolater.6 Similarly, for the same reasons,
in every department of public or private life garlands must be
carefully avoided by Christians.7 God will give them a garland—
of eternal life. The Christian has an everlasting flower which
will never droop or fade: let him not be cheated of it by the wiles
of the Devil.8
The De Corona Militis defends a view which many Christians,
perhaps a majority, accepted. It takes up the central theme of
the De Idololatria in a restricted area.9 As before, Tertullian
considers the problems of a Christian in pagan society. His
main concern was not whether Christians could legitimately
serve in the Roman army.11* Indeed, from the small space
1 Cor. Mil. 8. 1 ff. 2 Cor. Mil. 8. 5.

3 Cor. Mil. 9. 1 ff. « Cor. Mil. 11. 1 ff.
5 Cor. Mil. 11. 5: apud hunc (sc. Iesum) tam miles est paganus fidelis quam
paganus est miles fidelis.
6 Cor. Mil. 11. 6 f. 7 Cor. Mil. 12. 1 ff.
8 Cor. Mil. 15. 3 f. 9 For which, see pp. 96-100.
10 As J. Quasten asserts, Patrology II (1953), 307. Tertullian’s attitude to military
service has attracted a vast bibliography: see, recently, W. Rordorf Vig Chr
XXIII (1969), 105 ff.
allotted to the question, it may be deduced that Tertullian
expected most Christians to be in agreement with him. He re¬
veals the live issue clearly enough at the outset. Some Christians
in Carthage had begun to wear garlands: the soldier who re¬
fused provoked heated discussion and was accused of recklessly
courting death.1
In the De Jejunio Tertullian faced a far more difficult task.
Montanist practices of fasting were an undoubted innovation :2
they prolonged the official fasts (‘stationes’, of half a day) until
the evening, added two weeks of xerophagy (the eating of only
dry food, with no meat, gravy, moist vegetables or wine) and
abstinence from washing.3 Hence the charge of heresy or false
prophecy, and an anathema pronounced.4
Tertullian no longer harboured any real hope of persuading
those who rejected the New Prophecy. He was writing rather to
justify, to vindicate and to encourage the Montanists alone.
Catholics accused Montanists of gluttony, avarice, gambling,
exploiting orphans and widows, committing crimes of robbery,
dyeing their hair, painting their eyes, practising usury and
avoiding martyrdom—even of the ritual murder of infants.5
For the most part, Tertullian did not trouble to dispute the
charges: he simply replied in kind.6 After a lengthy defence of
fasting from scripture (which foreshadows or even enjoins the
Montanist practices),7 he turned to savage attack. Fasting,
xerophagy, the day-long abstinence from food induce humble¬
ness of mind, teach a man to endure prison and torture as his
duty, to face martyrdom cheerfully.8 Contrast a recent catholic
‘martyr’, who died only because he was too drunk to deny being
1 Cor. MU. 1. 6; x. 4.
2 Apollonius, at Eusebius, HE V. 18. 2; Hippolytus, Ref. omn. haer. VIII. 19. 1 f.;
X. 25.
3 Jei. 1. 4; 2. 1 ff.; 15. 2. On which practices, cf. J. Schummer, Die altchristliche
Fastenpraxis (1933), 35 ff.; 227 ff.

4 Jej. 1.5: novitatem igitur obiectant, de cuius inlicito praescribant aut haeresin
iudicandam, si humana praesumptio est, aut pseudoprophetiam pronuntiandam,
si spiritalis indictio est, dum quaque ex parte anathema audiamus qui aliter
adnuntiamus.
5 Eusebius, HE V. 16. 12 ff. (anonymous); 18. 3 ff. (Apollonius). For the charge
of ritual murder, cf. ‘Praedestinatus’, De Haer. I. 26, reporting Tertullian’s lost De
Ecstasi (PL LIII. 596, quoted at CCL II. 1334).
6 But note Jej. 16. 7: sed bene quod tu nostris xerophagiis blasphemias ingerens
casto Isidis et Cybeles eas adaequas. . . .
1 Jej. 2. 1 ff. % Jej■ 12. 2.
a Christian. 1 The God of the ‘psychicus’ is his stomach, his

paunch is his altar, his cook his priest, the smell of cooking food
is his Holy Spirit and a belch its prophecy. During their‘agape’,
young catholics copulate, the older ones fix their minds on large
platters of roast meat. They measure holiness by conviviality,
by a keen palate, by a taste for costly food and fine wine. As
materialists, they cannot understand spiritual matters.2
Tomorrow we may die: let us therefore fast to prepare ourselves.
Montanists fast in training for a contest—not against flesh and
blood, but against the powers of this world, against evil spiritual
influences (Eph. 6. 12). One needs faith and a courageous
spirit.3 A fat Christian will please the lion or the bear which
devours him more than he pleases God.4
In Tertullian’s intellectual and theological development,

personal factors cannot be completely ignored. Lack of evidence
precludes any sort of a full analysis or description of his per¬
sonality (though one has been essayed),5 and very little
certainty can be attained. Tertullian has been represented as
both a lifelong rebel and a devotee of order and discipline, both
as one who loyally accepted and as one who wholeheartedly
rejected the Roman Empire.6 A dilemma confronts all who
reflect about Tertullian: either to indulge in speculative
fantasy or to renounce all conjecture entirely. And Tertullian
himself took few pains to reveal himself or to adopt consistent
attitudes.7 Nonetheless, some explanation must be attempted
for his repeated discussion of women and marriage. On the
assumption that he married and then lost his wife, Tertullian’s
Montanism can be understood, in part at least, as the psycho¬
logical buttress of his belief that remarriage was wrong. The
ideal of a single marriage had both Christian and pagan roots.8
But it received confirmation in the New Prophecy. Prisca
1 Jej- 12. 3 (pp. 183/4). 2 Jej- 16. 8ff. 3 Jej. 17.5 ff.
4 Jej. 17. 9: saginatior Christianus ursis et leonibus forte quam deo erit neces-
sarius, nisi quod et adversus bestias maciem exercere debebit.
5 B. Nisters, Tertullian. Seine Personlichkeit und sein Schicksal. Ein charakterologischer
Versuch (1950). According to this writer, though Tertullian manifested paranoid
tendencies and other abnormalities, he cannot quite be classified as a psychopath
(o.c. 114).
s pp. 219/20; 258. ? H. Koch, P-W V A. 823; 829 ff.; 834 ff.
8 L. Godefroy, Diet, dethiol.cath. IX (1927), 2045 ff.; B. Kotting, /L4CHI. 1016 ff.;
G. W. Williams, JRS XLVIII (1958), 24.
and Maximilla left their husbands for a celibate existence.1
Tertullian (it may be conjectured) felt a serious moral prob¬
lem: natural sensitivity to feminine beauty battled with ethical
standards of purity whose origin was largely intellectual. In
his youth he had delighted in adultery: as a Montanist he strove
for continence.2 He knew what feelings an elegant woman could
arouse in young men’s hearts.3 4
Tertullian’s earliest work concerning women (composed in
196 or 197) was the second book De Cultu Feminarum 4 Some
years later, but before he avowedly espoused the New Prophecy,
he reworked the same material: it stands in modern editions as
De Cultu Feminarum I, but may originally have been entitled De
habitu muliebri.5 The change in tone cannot be mistaken: instead
of ‘handmaids of the living God, my fellow servants and sisters’,
the later tract addresses womankind as the daughters of Eve,
the entrance-door of the Devil, the forfeiter of paradise, the
deserter of the divine law who deceived Adam, the image of
God.6 Between these two works, Tertullian broached two sub¬
jects to which he later returned as a Montanist. A long section
of the De Oratione argues that virgins as well as married women
should wear a veil in church.7 And the Ad Uxorem considers
what his wife should do if he dies. The first book urges her not
to remarry at all,8 the second not to wed herself to a pagan. The
first relies on theological argument, the second on moral con¬
siderations. In the opinion of an expert, the Ad Uxorem contains
an appreciation of Christian marriage unequalled in patristic
literature, but is deficient in casuistry.9 More important, it
indicates that Tertullian himself was married to a Christian
wife. He addresses the work to his ‘most beloved fellow servant
in the Lord’,10 and the analogy of his homiletic writings will
1 Eusebius, HE V. 18. 3.
2 Res. Mort. 59. 3: ego me scio neque alia carne adulteria commisisse neque nunc
alia carne ad continentiam eniti.
2 Cult Fem. II. 3. 3: ut spiritus in ea coronetur, non ut oculos et suspiria adu-
lescentium post se trahat.
4 Ch. VIII.
s H. Koch, Theologische Studien und Kritiken Cl (1929), 469 ff.
6 Cult. Fem. I. 1. 1 f., cf. II. 1. 1. 7 Orat. 21. 1 ff.
s Ux. I. 1.4: praecipio igitur tibi, quanta continentia potes. . . . The relative
clause may betray the author’s unease about himself.
9 W. P. Le Saint, S.J., Ancient Christian Writers XIII (1951), 6 f.
10 Ux. I. 1. 1; II. 1. 1.
support the idea that he speaks in propria personaA Further, th zAd

Uxorem appears to confirm that Tertullian was not a poor man.1 2
The first book praises continence, continually appeals to the
Pauline epistles, stigmatizes second marriage as concupiscence,
and challenges the addressee to emulate the most chaste among
the pagans. Continence helps one to gain eternal life.3 Besides,
Tertullian’s widow will be able to console herself by thinking of
him and his words.4 The arguments are not convincing. Ter¬
tullian therefore soon added a second book, urging his wife, if
she must remarry, at least to marry another Christian. Not only
was marriage to pagans discountenanced by the apostle Paul
(I Cor. 7. 7 ff.), but it presents serious dangers to faith and
morality.5 A pagan husband will obstruct both fasting and
works of charity. He will not tolerate his wife leaving the house
in the evening to attend church services. And what will he
think when she spends a whole night away from him during
the Easter vigil? Will he allow her to attend the ‘agape’ with
its foul repute? Or to visit martyrs in prison and kiss their
fetters? Or to salute fellow Christians with a kiss or wash
their feet ? Or to entertain a travelling Christian in his house ?6
Suppose a pagan husband does tolerate all this and more.
What can be his motive? It is blackmail.7 As for the wife, how
can she avoid contact with demons? Her whole environment
will be pagan and hostile. A woman converted after marriage
must of course endure her situation, but nothing can be said
in favour of exposing oneself to such great dangers.8 Tertullian
closes the work with a panegyric on Christian marriage.9
Some years later (in 208/9), Tertullian reverted to the subject
and redeployed some of the material from his Ad Uxorem.™ Now
a Montanist, he endeavoured to persuade a Catholic not to
1 p. 117.
2 Observe Ux. I. i. 2: nam si de saecularibus satis agentes sumus et ut utrique
nostrum consultum volumus tabulis ordinamus, cur non magis de divinis atque
caelestibus posteritati nostrae prospicere debeamus? 3 Ux. I. 7. 1 ff.
4 Ux. I. 8. 5. E. Evans found Tertullian’s apparent acceptance of the custom of
marrying girls before puberty ‘the strongest ancient testimony I know to the natural
hardness of the human heart’ (Tertullian's Tract on the Prayer (icm), SQ).
3 Ux. II. 1. 2 ff. 6 Ux. II. 4. 1 ff. 7 t/* II. 5 3.
3 Ux. II. 6. i ff. « Ux. II. 8. 6 ff.
10 e.g., the pagan examples (Exhort. Cast. 13. 1 ff, cf. Ux. I. 6. 3 f.; 7. 5) later
reworked in De Monogamia (17. 2 ff). On which, see further H. Pet re, L’exemplum
chez Tertullien (1940), 69 ff.
remarry after the recent death of his wife.1 He now rejected
second marriage decisively: it is contrary to God’s wishes and
forbidden by Paul (I Cor. 7. 27 f.).2 Tertullian sought proof in
the scriptures and laid emphasis on the spiritual value of
continence and virginity.3 Moreover, he quoted the prophetess
Prisca: ‘purity gives harmony of soul, and the pure see visions
and, bowing down, hear voices speaking messages of salvation’.4
Second marriage was nothing but a species of fornication.5
Tertullian’s views did not commend themselves at all widely
and were, perhaps even formally, condemned as heretical.6 As
on other issues, therefore, he declined any more to argue with
those whom he could not persuade, and composed a violent
attack on the catholics. The De Monogamia (210/11) takes up
the themes of the Ad Uxorem and De Exhortatione Castitatis in a
far more aggressive and abusive fashion.7 On one issue, however,
he was just as moderate as in the De Exhortatione, or perhaps
more equivocal. Since God created the institution, denigration
of marriage was mistaken. Both heretics and ‘psychici’ went
astray: the former rejected marriage like eunuchs, the latter
multiplied it like charioteers.8 Montanists alone, guided by the
Paraclete, kept to the way of truth and believed in one mar¬
riage.9 The doctrine of monogamy was not new: Tertullian
adduces a long catena of familiar scriptural texts, from the Old
Testament, the Gospels, and the epistles of Paul.10 Just as the
Paraclete guarded against the adulteration of the Christian
‘regula fidei’, so it prevented the degeneration of Christian
1 Exhort. Cast. 1. 1. 2 Exhort. Cast. 3. 2 ff.

3 Exhort. Cast. 2. 1 ff.; 10. 2 ff. 4 Exhort. Cast. 10. 5.
s Exhort. Cast. 9. 1: non aliud dicendum erit secundum matrimonium quam
quasi species stupri. A. Kroymann deleted ‘secundum’ (CSEL LXX. 141 = CCL
II. 1027). It ought to be guaranteed by Athenagoras, Legatio 33. 2: 6 yap 8evrepos
(sc. yap.os) einTperrijs ion poixâ.
6 Implied by Mon. 2. 1: itaque monogamiae disciplinam in haeresim expro¬
brant . . ., ut iam de hoc primum consistendum sit in generali retractatu, an
capiat Paracletum aliquid tale docuisse quod aut novum deputari possit adversus
catholicam traditionem aut onerosum adversus levem sarcinam domini.
7 See the commentaries of Le Saint, o.c. 114 ff.
s Mon. 1. 1: haeretici nuptias auferunt, psychici ingerunt, etc.
9 Mon. 1.2: unum matrimonium novimus, sicut unum deum. Contrast 3. 10: in
hoc quoque Paracletum agnoscere debes advocatum, quod a tota continentia
infirmitatem tuam excusat. Does not the latter passage imply that celibacy is
superior to marriage?
10 Mon. 4. 1 ff.
morals. 1 The Paraclete imported no novelty whatever, it

restored rather than innovated.1 2
The charge of heresy had obviously had some effect in
Carthage. The De Monogamia fulfils a double function: to damn
the catholic acceptance of remarriage, and to justify rejection
to a Montanist audience. The accusation that Montanists were
innovators was plausible and in part true. Tertullian accord¬
ingly welcomed an opportunity to defend tradition and the
practice of the apostolic age against innovations introduced by
those who would not admit the New Prophecy. Hence he wrote
De Virginibus Velandis and De Pudicitia.
In Carthage, virgins were not compelled to wear a veil when
attending services.3 By contrast, several apostolic churches in
Greece and neighbouring countries concealed their virgins
beneath a veil, as was also the custom elsewhere in Africa.4
Veiling had therefore the sanction of tradition. Justifiably, for
Paul prescribed that all women should pray with their heads
covered (I Cor. 11. 5 ff.).5 Tertullian felt strongly on the
subject: witness the lengthy remarks in the De Oratione and a
digression in De Corona Militis.6 For virgins to be seen by any
roving eye encouraged lustfulness.7 Tertullian denied the
validity of local custom and sought to persuade women to wear
the veil by an argument largely independent of Montanist
views.8 The Paraclete comes to aid human weakness, to lead
Christians towards perfection. Its role is to direct discipline, to
reveal the scriptures, to better men’s minds, to improve man¬
kind. The New Prophecy completes the Gospel. As for
veiling, truth must be preferable to habit, which can arise and
harden from all sorts of trivial or irrelevant causes. If the New
Prophecy enjoins veiling, that is not innovation but a return
to apostolic practice and precept. Tertullian devotes most of the
De Virginibus Velandis to a careful exegesis of the crucial biblical
1 Mon. 2. 3 f.
2 Mon. 4. 1: Paracletum restitutorem potius sentias eius (sc. monogamiae)
quam institutorem.
3 Orat. 21.1 ff.; Virg. Vel. i. i. On the local custom, there seems to be no signficant
modern discussion subsequent to E. Noeldechen, Zeitschr. fur kirch. Wiss. u. kirch.
Leben VII (1886), 46 ff.
4 Virg. Vel. 2. 1. 5 Virg. Vel. 4. 1 ff.
6 Orat. 21. 1 ff.; Cor. Mil. 4. 2 ff. 7 Virg. Vel. 2. 3 f.
8 Virg. Vel. 1. 1 ff.
text (I Cor. 11. 5 fif), arguing that Paul included virgins among
women. His position accords with scripture, with nature, and
with the requirements of discipline.1 By way of peroration,
Tertullian turns to admonition. Let all Christian women,
married or not, wear the veil, the protection of modesty, a wall of
defence against assaults on their chastity. When they read
Tertullian’s words, and prefer truth to custom, may they receive
peace and grace from Lord Jesus.2
Very different in tone is the De Pudicitia. In his De Paenitentia
Tertullian had allowed a second repentance for any single sin
committed after baptism.3 The De Pudicitia allows this ‘paeni¬
tentia secunda’ only for the more venial sins. Its composition
was provoked by a bishop of Carthage, who declared that absolu¬
tion could be given to Christians who committed the sins of
adultery and fornication.'1 This represented an important stage
in the development of ecclesiastical penance,5 which Tertullian
attacked in a long, abusive, and sometimes hysterical diatribe.
His arguments, as usual, were mainly scriptural.« Their fervent
tone derives from annoyance and unease. Tertullian resented
the strengthening of episcopal control, which was partly
designed to defend the church against Montanism. And he
reacted violently when he thought purity imperilled: was
purity not the flower of virtue, which honoured the body and
adorned both sexes, which preserved blood untainted and
guaranteed parentage ? was it not the foundation of holiness,
and the universally recognized proof of good character ?7 The
De Pudicitia surely discloses something significant about Ter¬
tullian’s mentality.8
Among Tertullian’s latest works are two of great significance

for the future. The openly Montanist Adversus Praxean, which
develops the doctrine of the Trinity, has earned the highest
1 Virg. Vet. 16. 1. 2 Virg. Vet. 16. 3 ff.; 17. 5.
3 Pud. 1. 10, cf. p. 120.
4 Pud. 1. 6 f. Not the bishop of Rome, p. 247.
5 K. Baus, Handbook of Church History I (1965), 328 ff. For the relevance of the
De Pudicitia, see also B. Poschmann, Paenitentia secunda (1940), 300 ff.
6 t or a brief analysis, W. P. Le Saint, Ancient Christian Writers TOCVIII (^ 959)>
42 ff. Tertullian had always believed that God alone ‘peccata dimittit’ (Bapt. 10. 3),
here the ‘episcopus episcoporum’ is made to say ‘ego . . . delicta . . . dimitto
(Pud. 1.6).
i Pud. 1. 1. s cf. pp. 136/7.
possible praise: despite occasional inaccuracies, it is a vigorous

sketch of the Catholic position.1 Its influence was immediate
and permanent, first on Novatian’s De Trinitate, later through
Augustine’s De Trinitate on the Catholic Middle Ages.2 The Ad
Scapulam foreshadows Lactantius’ De Mortibus Persecutorum,3 and
hence both Augustine’s De Civitate Dei and Orosius’ Historia
adversus paganos. Tertullian sees God’s hand in natural disasters
which follow persecution and in the unpleasant deaths of
magistrates who condemn Christians.4 It was a small step to
give the whole history of Rome and the Roman Empire a
theological interpretation.
Tertullian’s Montanism must be assessed dispassionately. His
literary technique improved with age, and his orthodoxy on
matters of doctrine remained impeccable, but his position in the
Christian society of Carthage deteriorated. Montanists were
excluded from the church, their New Prophecy rejected and
derided. Tertullian attempted persuasion, to no avail. In
similar circumstances, what man of his talent and predisposi¬
tions could refrain from polemical attack? The Holy Spirit
still spoke to men: the majority of Christians in Carthage
simply refused to listen. The Adversus Praxean exemplifies a
paradox: Tertullian helped to rescue the Catholic Church from
theological heresy precisely because he was a Montanist.
1 A. d’Ales, La theologie de Tertullien (1905), 80 f.: ‘esquisse vigoureuse, bien que

parfois incorrecte, de la theologie catholique sur la Trinity’. For a full commentary
(and much more), cf. J. Moingt, Theologie trinitaire de Tertullien I-IV (1966-69).
2J. Quasten, Patrology II (1953), 285.
3 J- Moreau, Lactance: De la Mort des Persecuteurs I (Sources chritiennes XXXIX,
1954), 64.
4 Scap. 2. 10 ff. Arguably the latest of all Tertullian’s extant works (p. 52).
XI
PERSECUTION
A narrative history of the persecutions of Christians in the

Roman Empire before the reign of Decius can never be
written. The evidence necessary for such an undertaking
is lost irretrievably. Hence the isolated details which alone
survive cannot be combined to form a connected account, un¬
less they are arranged in accordance with a preconceived and
a priori theory. To attempt a narrative is to ask the wrong
question. It is to seek the distinguishing marks of different
outbreaks of persecution instead of their common charac¬
teristics. The evidence for almost every province and every
period is exiguous and incomplete. Yet enough does survive to
establish the general nature and incidence of persecution.
The influence of the Roman governor on the lives of the

Christians in his province was enormous. Not only did he alone
conduct the trials at which they could be condemned to death,
but in conducting them he enjoyed a practically unfettered
freedom. His choice determined whether they were to live or die.
By the late second century, no local magistrate was likely
to try any capital case, even if he was not strictly and expiessly
forbidden to do so by law. But Christians were in a special
position. No law,senatus consultum or universally binding imperial
decree had originally declared Christianity a criminal offence, i
Local magistrates, even if they could punish serious crimes
proscribed by the laws of their own cities, almost certainly
lacked the power to punish new offences lying outside their
scope.2 In contrast, the Roman governor of a province was
entitled to take cognisance of criminal acts not explicitly
defined by any law.3 It should therefore be assumed that local
magistrates never did more to a Christian than arrest him and
i JRS LVIII (1968), 32 ff. 2 T. Mommsen, Romisches Strafrecht (1899), 222 ff.
3 Mommsen, o.c. 193 ff.
i44 PERSECUTION
dispatch him for trial before the governor—as the evidence in

fact indicates.1 Polycarp was pursued and arrested by diogmitae
and hippeis at the behest of the irenarch of Smyrna, and brought
directly to the proconsul of Asia.2 Christians at Lugdunum
were arrested by the tribune of the cohors urbana stationed there
and the chief magistrates of the city acting in concert. Once
they had confessed to their crime, however, they were con¬
signed to prison to await the coming of the governor, who
finally executed the majority.3 In Africa, the proconsul Ves-
pronius Candidus sent a Christian back to his home town for
punishment, and Valerius Pudens refused to try another who
was sent to him (presumably by local magistrates) with a
written account of his crime.4 That is the whole of the reliable
evidence for the part played by local officials in the trials of
Christians before 250. The conclusion is unambiguous: they
would arrest Christians and dispatch them to the governor, but
no more.
In Roman law, the system of trial by jury never established
itself firmly even in the capital. There it was only instituted by
certain leges publicae during the last century of the Republic.
Elsewhere, no traces of trial by jury can be found later than the
reign of Augustus,5 and even in Rome the system soon fell into
general desuetude, disappearing finally under the Flavian
dynasty.5 After this date all trials were either held before a
magistrate (from the humblest local official to the highest
imperial dignitaries including the emperor himself) or a
specially appointed iudex, or else conducted by the Senate or
local ordo. In all four cases the procedure was the same: an
informal process for which modern scholars have invented the
technical term ‘cognitio extra ordinem’.2
1 H. Leclercq, Diet, d’arch. chrit. X. 2387 ff.

2 Mart. Pol. 6. 2 ff. On the irenarch and his subordinates, see further O. Hirsch-
feld, Kleine Schriften (1913), 605 ff.
3 Eusebius, HE V. 1. 8 ff.
4 Tertullian, Scap. 4. 3; cf. Pass. Pionii 10. 4.
3 There appears to be no evidence besides ILS 6286 and SEG IX. 8 (= V. Ehren-
berg-A. H. M. Jones, Documents illustrating the Reigns of Augustus and Tiberius2 (1 n r. c)
nos. 229; 311). v aoo;,
6 P. D. A. Garnsey, JRS LVII (1967), 56 ff.
2 e.g., A. N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament
(1963)> 30; J. A. Crook, Law and Life of Rome (1967), 85. The term occurs in no
ancient text, cf. F. Millar, JRS LVIII (1968), 222.
PERSECUTION 145
Fundamental differences exist between the two types of
trial.1 The leges publicae declared certain specific acts to be
illegal, instituted a system of jury-courts to try those accused of
committing them under a prescribed procedure, and laid down
precise penalties for each offence.2 In trials outside this system
all was vague and indeterminate. The Senate or the magistrate
could punish any act, whether proscribed by statute or not, and
the procedure and penalties could be varied to consort with the
wishes of those who happened to be presiding. No distinction
was drawn between verdict and sentence: the case was heard,
and then a sententia was announced which simply stated what
was to be done.3 If the trial was before a magistrate or pro¬
magistrate, he had sole charge: he was not obliged to take the
advice of anyone, and if he summoned friends to form a
consilium (which was customary) there was no legal constraint
to follow their opinions.4
The theoretical flexibility of Roman law is well attested in
cases concerning Christians. Only the presiding magistrate s
freedom to disregard his consilium cannot be illustrated and
that simply for lack of any evidence. Tertullian implies that the
proconsul of Africa normally had a consilium when trying
Christians.5 But no reliable description of the trial of a Christian
before 250 is extant in which it appears.6 7 Apart from its silence
on this point, however, the evidence shows variations in the
procedure followed, extreme variations in the punishments
inflicted, and even some instances of outright acquittal.
In Pontus, Pliny had no qualms in acting on the strength of
an anonymous libellus or the secret denunciations of an in¬
former.2 Trajan, however, declared that anonymous delations
were a bad example, unworthy of the felicity of the age, and
ought to be ignored.8 Some years later (in 122/3), Hadrian
reiterated the same opinion, when writing to Minicius Funda-
1 Sherwin-White, o.c. 1 ff.; Crook, o.c. 68 ff.

2 W. Kunkel, P-W XXIV. 720 ff.
3 As emerges most clearly in a senatorial trial reported by Pliny, Epp. VIII. 14.
♦ P. D. A. Garnsey, JRS LVI (1966), 177 ff
5 Scap. 4. 3: inter advocatos et assessores.
6 Note however its apparent attestation in 304: R. Knopf—G. Kruger-G.
Ruhbach, Ausgewahlte Martyrerakten (1965)) 101 •
7 Pliny, Epp. X. 96. 5 f.
s Pliny, Epp. X. 97. 2.
146 PERSECUTION
nus, proconsul of Asia.1 The insistence of Trajan and Hadrian

on the necessity of formal accusation in court was sometimes
flatly ignored—but on occasion invoked as justification for
acquitting a Christian. It was ignored at Smyrna in the
pogrom which led to the death of Polycarp, it was ignored in
a persecution at Lugdunum, and in the trial of Vibia Perpetua
in Carthage.2 Yet Valerius Pudens refused to try a Christian on
the basis of a written accusation, and released him.3 (The
regular procedure for serious cases seems to have been fol¬
lowed: the local magistrates sent the prisoner to the proconsul
with a written statement of the pertinent facts.)4 Again, those
who denied being Christians were normally forced to prove the
sincerity of their denial by performing an act of sacrifice to the
pagan Gods.5 One proconsul of Africa, however, felt free to
omit the command to sacrifice when a Christian accused before
him forswore his faith.6 Again, an affirmative reply to the
question ‘Christianus es?’ was a plea of guilty, and normally
followed (after exhortations to repentance and the like) by the
passing of sentence.7 Nevertheless, Cingius Severus (proconsul
of Africa c. 190) told the accused how to answer his questions
and avoid both conviction and apostasy.^
Others went further without taking refuge in the technicalities
of procedure. As proconsul of Asia, Arrius Antoninus gained
the reputation of a violent persecutor. All the Christians of a
town where he chanced to be presented themselves before him
in a crowd. He executed a few, but informed the rest that if they
wanted to die they could easily find a rope or a cliff.9 Antoninus’
action was prudent: it punished the crime and avoided exces¬
sive bloodshed. Yet he both ignored the theoretical requirement
1 Justin quoted the letter in Latin (Apol. I. 68), Eusebius in a Greek translation
(HE IV. 9), which has supplanted the original in the manuscript ofjustin. Rufinus’
Latin version is not the original, but a retranslation of Eusebius’ Greek (HE IV. q).
For the date, cf. AE 1957. 17.
2 Mart. Pol. 9. 1 ff.; Eusebius, HE V. 1. 8 ff.; Pass. Perp. 6. t ff.
3 Tertullian, Scap. 4. 3.
< Dig. XLVIII. 3. 6. 1.
3 G. E. M. de Ste Croix, Past and Present XXVI (1963), iq f
« Tertullian, Scap. 4. 3.
7 e.g., Mart. Pol. 10. 1 ff.; Acta Justini (short recension); Acta Scill.; Pass Perp
6. 3 f.
8 Tertullian, Scap. 4. 3. On the date, cf. B. E. Thomasson, Die Statthalter der
romischen Provinzen Nordafrikas von Augustus bis Diocletianus II (iq6o)
8q f.
PERSECUTION 147
of a formal accusation and acquitted men who were just as
guilty as those he condemned. Antoninus’ attitude was carried
to its logical limit by an unknown legate of Syria.1 The famous
Peregrinus was imprisoned to await trial for Christianity. Once
in prison, his already great reputation among the faithful
passed all bounds. Widows and orphans thronged the gaol,
priests offered enormous bribes in order to sleep in the presence
of the saint, holy discourses were delivered, grandiose feasts
brought in, and Peregrinus was hailed as a second Socrates.
But, on this occasion, Peregrinus’ yearning for a glorious death
was frustrated. The legate perceived his desire for martyrdom
and the fame which would attend it. He therefore released him
without so much as a beating. Such at least is the account of
Lucian.2 Even if neither its accuracy nor its veracity may
validly be assumed, its historical significance cannot be con¬
tested. Either Lucian records what happened when one particu¬
lar Christian was arrested, or Peregrinus is an example of what
might happen in any case—and thus possesses a universality
which would be lacking in a particular case.
Christians were, of course, often punished severely. But the
punishments meted out vary unsystematically. Roman law
graded different modes of execution: the more privileged
(Roman citizens, later honestiores) were beheaded, the less
privileged burnt, thrown to the beasts or crucified.2 In the
sentences passed on Christians the variations seem little more
than arbitrary. Pliny conscientiously dispatched those Christians
who were Roman citizens to Rome and beheaded the rest.4
In the persecution in Gaul, the governor wrote to the emperor,
and was apparently instructed to behead those who were citi¬
zens and send the rest to the beasts. Yet, in order to please the
crowd, he sent to the beasts Attalus, whom he knew to be
a Roman citizen.5 Again, in Carthage in 203, both slaves and
1 Between 120 and 140. G. Bagnani, Historia IV (1955), no ff., distinguishes
two governors: C. Publicius Marcellus (cos. suff. 120) who arrested Peregrinus
on the outbreak of the Jewish revolt in 132, and Julius Severus who released him
later. He appears to have conflated C. Julius Severus (cos. suff. c. 138; PIR2 J
573) and Sextus Julius Severus (cos. suff. 127; PIR2 J 57^)- Mis chronology might,
however, be correct.
2 De Morte Peregrini 11 ff.
J P. D. A. Garnsey, Social Status and Legal Privilege in the Roman Empire (1970), 103 ff.
4 Pliny, Epp. X. 96. 3 f.
5 Eusebius, HEW. 1. 47 ff.; cf. JRS LVIII (1968), 40.
148 PERSECUTION
Vibia Perpetua shared the same fate of damnatio ad bestiasd

Admittedly, the distinction between citizens and non-citizens
had largely lost its importance and significance in the second
century, being superseded by the division into honestiores and
humiliores.2 But the evidence fails to indicate that the punish¬
ments inflicted on Christians were graded according to their
social status. Polycarp, who appears to have possessed no small
wealth, was burnt alive.3 The African Christians of Scilli who
were beheaded in 180 all have names which point to a very low
social position.4 But twenty-three years later the slaves Revocatus
and Felicitas were exposed to the beasts with Perpetua, who on
the normal criteria ought to belong to the class of honestiores.5
Some Christians suffered nothing more severe than temporary
imprisonment. About 200, this category appears to become
numerous, and for it comes into use the technical term ‘con¬
fessor’.6 Thus are described Christians who survived the perse¬
cution in Gaul which Eusebius dates to 177 and the persecutions
in Egypt in the first decade of the third century.? Their precise
legal classification is a little unclear. Although the theoretical
function of prison was to prevent the flight of those awaiting
trial or the execution of their sentence, imprisonment was
occasionally employed as a penalty.* Perhaps, however, the
confessor was usually in the position of Peregrinus, who was
simply released without punishment.9 Significantly, when
Tertullian derides the so-called martyrdom of Praxeas, he
observes that he was merely imprisoned briefly, and not even
beaten. 10
The variations of procedure and penalties, the attested
acquittals and the refusals to punish all arise from the freedom
of the provincial governor to act as he thought fit. This was not
without its effect in the more abstruse regions of theology.
Commenting on the actions of Pilate (Mt. 27. 15 ff.), Origen
1 Pass. Perp. 18. i ff.
2 Garnsey, o.c. (1970), 260 ff.
3 Mart. Pol. 11. 1 ff., cf. (for slaves and property) 6. 1 ff.
4 P- 63. s p, ~]Q'
6 H. Leclercq, Diet, d’arch. chrit. III. 2508 ff.

7 Eusebius, HE V. 4. 3; VI. 8. 7.
8 Garnsey, o.c. 147 ff.
9 Lucian, De Morte Peregrini 14.
10 Prax. 1. 4: de iactatione martyrii inflatus ob solum et simplex et breve carceris
taedium. ‘Praxeas’ may be a pseudonym, cf. App. 25.
PERSECUTION 149
entertained a remarkable possibility. Perhaps those in positions
of authority who helped the Christians as much as they were
able were not irrevocably damned because of their paganism:
the prayers of the faithful might rescue them from hell.1
If it was the governor alone who decided how to treat

Christians, two consequences follow of the utmost importance.
First, the attitude of the reigning emperor cannot legitimately
be inferred from the actions of provincial governors. Secondly,
it is mistaken to attempt to distinguish, for the Roman Empire
as a whole, periods of persecution and periods of peace,
corresponding to the reigns of different emperors. On these two
errors rest all attempts at a narrative of the persecutions,
beginning with Eusebius.2 Both must be discarded, and the
realities established. The emperor and the Senate were irrele¬
vant to the persecution of Christians until they interfered
actively.3 * But did they ever interfere before the time of Decius ?
The Senate is not known ever to have concerned itself with
Christians. Tertullian alleges that it debated the divinity of the
Christ under Tiberius/ But that is mere invention. Fronto
wrote a speech which virulently denigrated the Christians.5 *
But it should not be assumed that he delivered it in the Senate,
or perhaps even that he delivered an ‘Oration against the
Christians’ at all/ And the debate about the expenses of
gladiatorial displays in 177/8 need have nothing directly to do
with the Christians.7
1 Comm. ser. 121 (GCS XXXVIII. 254 f.).

2 One example will suffice. W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early
Church (1965) produces the following schema: persecution by Domitian (211 ff.)
and under Trajan (217 ff.), toleration under Hadrian (223 ff.) and until the 160s
(236 ff.), ‘The Years of Crisis, 165-180’ (268 ff.), the Christians lot improving
under Commodus (315), a ‘co-ordinated world-wide move against the Christians’
in 202/3 (321) but otherwise peace under Septimius Severus and Caracalla (323),
the reign of Severus Alexander ‘a sort of golden age for the pre-Constantmian
Church’ (329), ‘murderous activity’ by Maximin (390), ‘benevolent toleration’ by
Philip (397). That corresponds exactly with Eusebius, HE III. 17 ff; 32 f.; IV. 7 ff;
IV. 15 ff; V. praef. 1 ff; V. 21. 1; VI. 1. 1; VI. 28; VI. 34.
3 JRS LVIII (1968), 32 ff On the reliability of the relevant evidence, see also
JTS N S XIX (1968), 509 ff. 4 Apol. 5. 2. 5 Minucius Felix, Oct. 9. 6; 31. 2.
6p. Frassinetti, Giorn. ital. difil. II (>949), 245, conjectured that Fronto de¬
livered a speech in the Senate at the emperor’s express command, thereby in¬
stigating the death of Justin. Pure fantasy, cf. below, p. 161.
7 As is assumed by J. H. Oliver-R. E. A. Palmer, Hesperia XXIV (1955)* 320 ff
L
150 PERSECUTION
As for the emperors, the truth is disguised by many later
fictions which still win credence.1 Thus Hegesippus, writing
about 150, related that some members of the family of Jesus,
who were peasant farmers in Palestine, came before Domitian:
he set them free and put an end to persecution.2 The story has
a complete disregard for geography. Domitian spent all his
years as emperor either in Italy or on the northern imperial
frontiers. Yet Hegesippus seems to imagine that peasants from
Palestine could be arrested by an evocatus and brought before
him without any difficulty.3 The model for the story is clear—
the myth of King Herod’s fears about the infant Jesus (Mt. 2.
3 ff.). All other authors who depict Domitian as a persecutor
derive their information either directly or indirectly from
Melito.4 This dependence nullifies their testimony. For Melito
himself had no precise evidence: he employed (or invented) the
story of persecution by Domitian to justify his argument that
only bad emperors condemned Christians.5 Those executions
in Rome which Domitian instigated personally (Flavia
Domitilla and others) need have nothing to do with Chris¬
tianity.6 * On the other hand, the executions of Christians in
Asia Minor which are attested in Revelation and the so-called
First Epistle of Peter need not have involved any reference to the
emperor.2 The letter of the church of Rome to the Christians of
Corinth (otherwise known as the First Epistle of Clement) implies
strongly that there had been no persecution of Christians in the
capital itself.8
Later emperors too were accredited with fictitious measures
1 Of the six fictions discussed here, all are accepted by M. Sordi, II Cristianesimo e
Roma (1965). H. Gregoire, Lespersecutions dans I’empire rornain2 (1964), rejects one,
Frend, o.c. two. It is melancholy to recall that an English reviewer felt able to
credit the first-named with ‘a mastery of the evidence over the whole of the three
centuries covered by her book’ (CR, N.S. XVII (1967), 196).
2 Quoted by Eusebius, HE III. 20. 1 ff.
3 Eusebius, HE III. 20. 1.
A JRS LVIII (1968), 35 f. To be sure, Eusebius’ Chronicle quotes one Bruttius in
support (GCS XX. 218; XLVII. 192). He ought, however, to be Pliny’s friend
Bruttius Praesens (PIR2 B 164) writing about the senatorial (and therefore pagan)
victims of Domitian.
6 Dio LXVII. 14.
2 Revelation 2. 10 ff.; I Peter 1. 6 ff. For comment, cf. J. N. D. Kelly, A Com¬
mentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude (1969), 2 ff.
8 I Clement 3. 1 ff.
PERSECUTION 151
against the Christians. The Vita Abercii (composed c. 400)

reports a decree of Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus ordaining
universal public sacrifice throughout the empire.1 But it is an
obvious reflection of the edicts of Decius and Diocletian, with a
literary reminiscence of the familiar decree of Augustus that all
the world should be taxed (Lk. 2. 1). The Historia Augusta
records no less than three imperial decisions. First, an edict of
Septimius Severus putting Christians into precisely the same
legal position as Jews. Second, the unfulfilled intention of
Elagabalus to incorporate the religions of the Jews, Samaritans
and Christians in his general syncretism of all the traditional
cults of the Roman world. Third, the toleration of Severus
Alexander, who also protected the privileges of the Jews.2 All
three are inventions: they possess no relevance to Christianity
in the age of the Severi, only to their author’s religious preju¬
dices.3 Nor was fiction about an emperor’s relations with
Christians necessarily a late phenomenon: witness Tertullian
on Marcus Aurelius.4
In contrast to such inventions, the genuine evidence points
to the relative unimportance of the emperor’s attitude. Admit¬
tedly, the emperor Nero is branded as the first to execute a
Christian.5 6 But his action clearly belongs to a special category.
In 64 a large part of Rome burnt, and neither imperial largesse
nor religious rites could quiet the popular suspicion that the
fire had been ordered by Nero himself. Accordingly, a scape¬
goat was necessary. The Christians, a detested class, were there¬
fore accused of incendiarism. The charge on which they were
put to death, if indeed a precise charge was needed at such a
time, was not that they were Christians, but that they had set
fire to Rome. Nero deliberately confused the issue by equating
the confession of Christianity with an admission of arson, and
the equation found a ready acceptance from the hysterical mob.<>
The Christians were executed as incendiaries: there was no
formal legislation to declare the new religion illegal,2 nor did
1 Vita Abercii i; cf. JRS LVIII (1968), 39.

2 HA, Sev. 17. 1; Elag. 3. 5; Alex. 22. 4.
3 JRS LVIII (1968), 40 ff.
4 Apol. 5. 6: at nos e contrario edimus protectorem. . . .
3 Melito, at Eusebius, HE IV. 26. 9; Tertullian, Nat. I. 7. 9; etc.
6 Tacitus, Ann. XV. 44.
1 JRS LVIII (1968), 34 f.
152 PERSECUTION
the persecution extend outside the city of Rome. The signifi¬

cance of this episode should not be exaggerated. Christian
apologists, ecclesiastical historians and some students of
Roman law invoke it to explain how Christians came to be
classified as criminals.1 But the connexion with other outbreaks
of persecution has never been demonstrated, and is an un¬
necessary hypothesis. Pagan governors, no less than the pagans
they governed, were predisposed to detest the Christians. And
they possessed the power to punish them without reference to
the emperor.2
When Pliny was making his normal administrative tour of
Pontus in the autumn of no, Christians were denounced before
him by accusers, in Amisus or Amastris.3 Although he did not
(on his own admission) know how Christians were normally
punished because he had never taken part in any trial concern¬
ing them, he nevertheless beheaded those who confessed to
being Christians (except for those who were Roman citizens,
whom he sent to Rome). After the first trial (or trials), more
were accused in an anonymous libellus and by an informer.
Pliny released those who said they that were not Christians and
never had been, but first he made them invoke the Gods, sacri¬
fice before statues of the Gods and of the emperor and curse the
Christ. He also compelled those who said that they had been
Christians but were no longer to do the same. But, before re¬
leasing these, he wrote to Trajan.4 Trajan, in reply, professed
to be laying down no universal rule, but declared that Christ¬
ians, though they were not to be hunted out, were to be punished
if openly accused and convicted. However, if a man said he
was not a Christian and proved it by sacrificing to the Gods, his
change of heart should earn him pardon, even if his past was
not free from suspicion.5
Pliny, when trying the Christians before him, had no need
to rely on any law which made Christianity a capital crime:
indeed he appears not even to have known whether there was
1 To name two from each category: Melito, at Eusebius, HE IV. 26. 9; Tertullian,
Nat. I. 7. 9; Eusebius, HE II. 25. 3; Frend, o.c. 167; A. N. Sherwin-White,
The Letters of Pliny (1966), 781 ff.; Crook, o.c. 279.
zJ/tfLVIII (1968), 48 ff.
3 On the date (which could be 111 or 112) and place, cf. Sherwin-White, o.c.
80 f.; 693 f.
4 Pliny, Epp. X. 96. s Pliny, Epp. X. 97.
PERSECUTION 153
one. There were three categories of accused: those who con¬
fessed to being Christians; those who denied ever being
Christians; and those who admitted having been Christians in
the past, but said that they were no longer. Pliny was certain
how he ought to treat the first two classes.The second he
released, while the first he either executed on the spot (the non¬
citizens) or sent to Rome for punishment (the citizens).1 The
third class, however, a very large one, presented a problem and
caused Pliny to write to the emperor. When he executed or
despatched to Rome those who confessed, he had no doubts
that punishment was merited. But his investigation of the third
class revealed that the Christians had committed no illegal acts
like robbery or adultery: their only crime was a depraved
superstition. He accordingly urged on Trajan at some length
the advantages of allowing ‘paenitentiae locus’.2
It is not clear whether Trajan, in his reply, made a change in
the legal position of Christians or not. Since Pliny implies that
trials of Christians were far from rare, it is hard to believe that
no one before had been accused of Christianity after ceasing to
be a Christian. Governors before Pliny may have set free those
who answered ‘non sum’ to the putting of the charge Christ-
ianus es?’, without enquiring whether they had been Christians
in the past. However, whether Trajan’s ruling is an innovation
or the reaffirmation of a principle already established, Christ¬
ianity is placed in a totally different category from all other
crimes. Wffat is illegal is being a Christian: the crime is erased
by a change of heart. The function of the sacrifice is to demon¬
strate that, even if a man has been a Christian, his change of
heart is genuine and not just a matter of words.3
During the second and early third centuries those accused of
being Christians continued to be set free if they performed a
symbolic act of sacrifice, and punished if they did not. In the
language of Pliny and the apologists, condemnation was for the
nomen;4 and, as Tertullian remarked, there was nothing to
1 A normal practice, cf. F. Millar, JRSLVI (1966), 159; 165; P. D. A. Garnsey,

ib. 181 f. . ,
2 Pliny, Epp. X. 96. 5 ff. Pliny (it should not be overlooked) had a serious practical
problem: were the numerous prisoners still in custody to be released or executed ?
His letter is designed both to elicit an answer and to persuade Trajan to sanction
their release. .
3 de Ste Croix, o.c. 19 f. 4 Pliny, Epp. X. 96. 2; Justin, Apol. I. 4; etc.
154 PERSECUTION
prevent a man from denying and regaining his liberty ‘iterum

Christianus’.1 There is but one example of suspected Christians
being punished even after apostasy: in the violent persecution at
Lugdunum. In this case, however, there was apparent evidence
of those flagitia which Trajan had considered irrelevant: some
pagan slaves belonging to Christians were threatened with
torture and denounced the Christian community for Thyestean
feasts and Oedipodean incests.2
The principle enunciated by Trajan was reaffirmed on
several occasions. The proconsul of Asia for 121/2 wrote to
Hadrian about accusations of Christianity. Hadrian replied to
the proconsul for the next year, Minicius Fundanus, and this
letter was quoted (perhaps quite accurately) by the apologist
Justin and by Eusebius. It prohibits condemnation in response
to mere shouting and clamour, and recommends the proconsul
to deal severely with those who bring a frivolous accusation of
Christianity.3 The rescript seems to presuppose both that there
had been a public outcry similar to that which later led to the
death of Polycarp in the stadium at Smyrna,4 and that delatores
were employing the imputation of Christianity to stir up prejudice
against those whom they accused of less serious crimes. The
genuineness of the transmitted text is not entirely beyond
question. But it can be defended by one important fact: despite
later Christian interpretations, no change is made in the
Christians’ legal position as defined by Trajan.5
# According to Melito, Antoninus Pius wrote to the Greek
cities to forbid violent measures against the Christians, and he
names specifically letters to Larisa, Thessalonica, Athens and
‘all the Greeks’. All these had the same tenor as Hadrian’s
rescript to Fundanus, with which Melito explicitly compares
them.6 The last letter which Melito records may be preserved_
at least in a much interpolated form. The manuscript of Justin
and Eusebius Ecclesiastical Histovy present an alleged imperial
letter of 161 to the provincial council of Asia.2 The former
ascribes it to Antoninus Pius at the end of his reign, having the
1 Apol. 2. 17. 2 Eusebius, HEW. 1. 14; 25 ff.; 33 ff.
3 Eusebius, HE IV. 9. Other extant versions of the rescript all derive from
Eusebius (p. 146 n. 1).
4 Mart■ PoL 3- 1 ff- 5 JRS LVIII (1968), 37.
7 Cod. Par. Gr. 450 (reproduced at GCS IX. 1. 328); Eusebius, HE IV. 13.
PERSECUTION 155
correct imperial titulature for the period 10 December 160 to
7 March 161; but the latter reproduces a letter of Marcus
between 7 March and 10 December 161.1 As extant, neither
form of the letter can be authentic. Nevertheless, it has a
genuine historical context: continual earthquakes in Asia
during the proconsulate of Antonius Albus, which can be
assigned to 160/1.2 Hence the existence of an imperial letter
about the earthquakes is probable. And it may well have
prohibited indiscriminate violence against the Christians.3 Be
that as it may, the letter of the Gallic churches demonstrates the
emperors’ unchanging attitude: the governor enquired about
the punishment of the Christians who were Roman citizens, the
emperor (always assumed to be Marcus Aurelius) prescribed
decapitation for them, but added that apostasy merited free¬
dom.4 Nor was there any alteration under the Severi or in
succeeding reigns before Decius.5 Indeed, one of the bloodiest
pogroms of all occurred in Alexandria in 248—in the reign of an
emperor whom contemporaries believed to be sympathetic
to the Christians.6
The reigns of different emperors cannot validly be charac¬
terized as either periods of unbroken peace for the Christians
or periods of incessant persecution. For the reliable evidence,
though sparse, shows an even distribution. Nor is the element
of paradox absent. Eusebius is followed by later historians in
asserting that the reign of Commodus was a period of increasing
tolerance, in contrast to the savage treatment of Christians in the
reign of Marcus Aurelius.7 Yet the thirteen years of Commodus
rule have a higher frequency of well-attested instances of
persecution.8 Again, Eusebius drew his knowledge of Pliny’s
execution of Christians from Tertullian:9 there apparently
existed no independent tradition on which he could rely. And
he was unaware of a violent pogrom in Cappadocia c. 235
1 Calling it, however, a letter of Pius {HE IV. 12).
2 G. W. Bowersock, Haw. Stud. LXXII (1967), 289 ff.
2 JRS LVIII (1968), 38.
4 Eusebius, HE V. 1. 44; 47 > 5°*
5 JRS LVIII (1968), 40 ff.
« Eusebius, HE VI. 41. 1 ff. For Philip’s attitude, cf. ib. 36. 3 (letters of Origen);
41. 9 (Dionysius of Alexandria).
2 e.g. A. Birley, Marcus Aurelius (1966), 329.
s Viz. four in thirteen years as against five in nineteen.
s HE III. 33.
156 PERSECUTION
which happens to be described in a letter preserved in the
correspondence of Cyprian.1 Eusebius, therefore, is a poor guide
to the real incidence of persecution. In fact, there is hardly an
emperor between Trajan and Decius for whose reign evidence
of persecution is totally lacking.
Under Trajan fell the deaths of Symeon and Ignatius, the
bishops of Jerusalem and Antioch, and of the Christians
executed by Pliny in Pontus.2 Under Hadrian, Christian
apologists began to complain of the harassment of Christians in
Asia, and Peregrinus failed to become a martyr.3 To the first
year of Antoninus Pius, Eusebius assigns the martyrdom of
Telesphorus, bishop of Rome.4 And the last decade of the reign
saw Justin protesting against persecution, the Prefect of the
City condemning Christians in Rome, and a violent pogrom at
Smyrna in which the bishop Polycarp met his end (? 157).5
In the reign of Marcus Aurelius, Christian apologies continued
to be composed,e and martyrs are attested in Rome, at Athens
and Laodicea, and probably in Gaul.2 Under Commodus,
Christians suffered death or less serious punishments in Africa,
at Rome and in Asia.3 The reign of Septimius Severus provides
good evidence of continuing persecution in Egypt and Africa,s>
and of isolated outbreaks in Cappadocia and at Byzantium
(when it was held by the partisans of Pescennius Niger),111 with
more ambiguous indications for other areas.11
For later reigns the evidence is even more meagre. Thus, for
the reign of Caracalla, none apparently exists outside the
writings of Tertullian, who chances to mention in passing
1 Cyprian, Epp. LXXV. io; cf. HE VI. 28.
2 Eusebius, HE III. 32; 36; Pliny, Epp. X. 96. 1 ff.
3 Eusebius, HE IV. 3; Lucian, De Morte Peregrini 11 ff.
4 HE IV. 10. Transferred to the last year of Hadrian by Frend, o.c. 225.
5 Justin, Apol. I. 1; I. 29; II. 2; Mart. Pol. 21. See, respectively, A. Stein, Die
Prdfekten von Agypten (1950), 80 ff; W. Hiittl, Antoninus Pius II (1022) iqi f •
T. D. Barnes, JTS, N.S. XIX (I968), 510 ff '*
6 R. M. Grant, Vig. Chr. IX (1955), 25 ff.
7 Respectively, Acta Justini; Eusebius, HE IV. 23. 2; IV. 26. 3; V. praef 1 ff
The dates offer problems, cf. JTS, N.S. XIX (1968), 515 ff; XXI (1970), 408. ’
s Acta Sail.; Tertullian, Scap. 3. 4; 5. 1; Eusebius, HE V. 21. 1 ff.
9 JTS, N.S. XX (1969), 130 f.
10 Tertullian, Scap. 3. 5: Caecilius Capella in illo exitu Byzantino ‘Christiani
gaudete!’ exclamavit.
-R- J- Neumann, Her romische Staat und die allgemeine Kirche bis auf Hiokletian I
(i89o), 165 ff; 291 ff. On Hippolytus, In Dan. I. 20. 2 f., cf. JRS LVIII (1968)
42 f.
PERSECUTION i57
persecutions in Numidia and Mauretania besides those in
proconsular Africa.1 Yet it was during this reign that Ulpian
compiled his De Officio Proconsulis for the practical guidance of
governors.2 The seventh book listed all the imperial pronounce¬
ments dealing with the punishment of Christians.3 The work’s
authority was soon invoked in legal disputes,4 and the discussion
of what penalties to inflict on Christians was clearly no mere
academic exercise. Again, the reign of Severus Alexander is
almost always regarded as a period of toleration.5 Did not the
emperor’s mother summon the mellifluous Origen to Antioch
to expound to her his philosophy?6 Yet close attention to
chronology reveals that Alexander may still have been emperor
when earthquakes and the subsequent outcry led Licinius
Serenianus, the governor of Cappadocia, to lend his hand to
attacks on the Christians of the province.7 In contrast, Maximin
has always had the reputation of being a persecutor.8 But the
only attested executions of Christians which can possibly be
assigned to his reign occurred in Cappadocia, in a persecution
which Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea at the time, described
as a local affair.9 Here, as elsewhere, potent influence is
exerted by the myth that the Christians were protected by
the good emperors and vexed only by the bad. Significantly,
Eusebius attributed to the persecution of Decius a pogrom in
Alexandria which the bishop Dionysius (whom he quotes)
explicitly dated to 248.10
The silence of sources about persecution in the generation
before Decius is perhaps more apparent than real. A letter
1 Scap. 4. 8. A conjectural attribution might partly fill the gap. There is extant
in Syriac an apology addressed to the emperor Antoninus and attributed to Melito
(J. K. T. Otto, Corpus Apologetarum IX (1872), 423 fF.; 499 ff.). It could possibly
belong to the reign of Caracalla, cf. A. Harnack, Die Chronologie der altchristlichen
Litteratur bis Eusebius I (1897), 522 ff.
2 Dig. I. 16. 4; 16. 6. 3; etc.
3 Lactantius, Div. Inst. V. 11. 19.
4 AE 1966. 436.
3 Gr^goire, o.c. 38; Sordi, o.c. 239 ff.; Frend, o.c. 329 f.
6 Eusebius, HE VI. 21. 4 f.
7 App. 20.
8 Grifgoire, o.c. 40; Sordi, o.c. 247 ff.; Frend, o.c. 390 ff. For an attempt to
establish the facts, cf. G. W. Clarke, Historia XV (1966), 445 ff.
9 Cyprian, Epp. LXXV. 10. And note that Lactantius’ De Mortibus Persecutorum
omits Maximin altogether.

i° HE VI. 41. For the chronology, cf. JRS LVIII (1968), 43.
158 PERSECUTION
written by Cyprian in 251 to his Carthaginian congregation

contains a relevant remark. The recent martyr Celerinus, he
observes, emulated his relatives in dying for the faith. His
grandmother was crowned with martyrdom long ago. Two
uncles, the brother of his father and the brother of his mother,
both soldiers, routed the Devil and gained God’s reward by
their famous passion. And prayers are offered for all three every
year, at the annual commemoration of the anniversary of the
martyrs.1 None of these can be a victim of the Decian persecu¬
tion, which began in the winter of 249/50.2 * Nor again is it likely
that Celerinus’ grandmother died as long ago as the reign of
Caracalla, between 211 and 217. She may well have suffered
death under Severus Alexander, with the two men dying in the
reign of Gordian (238-44). But, whatever the date, the fiction
that the Christians enjoyed thirty-eight years of untroubled
peace (from 211 to 249)2 must now be discarded.
Once the role of the governor and the practical irrelevance

of the emperor is conceded, the political and social realities
behind the persecutions may be delineated. Roman administra¬
tion was essentially quietist: the provincial governor did not so
much set out to administer his province in a preconceived
fashion as settle disputes which arose and decide questions
which were forced on his attention. His paramount duty was to
preserve public order,4 and in performing this duty he possessed
almost unfettered freedom of action. In consequence, those
who provoked a disturbance were likely to obtain less than
justice if injustice would maintain the peace. Thus the prefect of
Judaea, Pontius Pilatus, confronted with the leaders of the Jews
denouncing Jesus and a mob howling for his blood, was little
interested in the guilt or innocence of a poor and insignificant
Galilean whose life could easily be sacrificed. He therefore had
Jesus crucified.
The role of the governors who tried Jesus’ followers was often
1 Cyprian, Epp. XXXIX. 3. The date is winter or spring 251, cf. A. Harnack
Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius II (1904), 347.
2 On the precise chronology, cf. G. W. Clarke, Antichthon III (1969), 63 ff.
2 As Sulpicius Severus asserted (Chronica II. 32. 2). For a full refutation, ITS,
N.S. XXII (1971), 159 ff.
4 As Ulpian declared, Dig. I. 18. 1 ff.
PERSECUTION 159
no less passive. Hagiographical literature, being intended for

the edification and encouragement of the faithful, ought to
depict the magistrates who condemned Christians as more
savage than they really were. Such at least is the tendency of
Prudentius and the fictional ‘epic passions’.1 In fact, however,
the authentic acta martyrum2 show the magistrates as reluctant
to send Christians to their deaths. Instead, they urge the
Christians to display moderation and common sense, and not to
persist in an incomprehensible refusal to conform.3 It is the
pagan mob which appears as the bitter and implacable foe,
both in the contemporary accounts of martyrdoms and in the
writings of Tertullian.4 One can easily understand why
magistrates who themselves had no strong hostility to the
Christians nevertheless had them executed. In the Roman
Empire, an assembled crowd was always a powerful political
force. In the capital theplebs could topple an imperial favourite;5
and, if not sufficiently appeased by bread and circuses, might
on occasion come close to lynching the emperor himself.6 If
even the emperor could thus be coerced, what of an imperial
legate or a mere proconsul ? The emperor had several thousand
pretorians at hand to protect him. But the proconsul of Africa
had no more than two cohorts under his command, the pro-
consul of Asia perhaps only one; and neither was habitually
accompanied by more than a handful of troops.7 8 The crowd in
the stadium at Smyrna bellowed ‘Away with the atheists!
Fetch Polycarp’, and the irenarch duly went to arrest him.3 It
is small wonder that when Polycarp subsequently invited him
to fix a day to hear a full exposition of Christianity, the pro-
consul replied ‘Persuade the people’.9 When the herald
announced that Polycarp had confessed to being a Christian,
the crowd urged Philippus the Asiarch to set a lion on him.
1 H. Delehaye, Les passions des martyrs et les genres litter aires2 (1966), 171 ff.; I.
Opelt, Philologus CXI (1967), 244 ff.
2 As defined in JTS, N.S. XIX (1968), 509 ff.
3 e.g., Acta Scill. (quoted in Ch. VII).
4 Mart. Pol. 3. 1 ff.; Tertullian, Apol. 40. 1.
3 A riot led to the fall of Cleander under Commodus: Dio LXXII. 13. 1 ff.;
Herodian I. 12. 1 ff; HA, Comm. 7. 1.
6 Tacitus, Ann. XII. 43 (Claudius); Epitome de Caes. 15. 9 (Antoninus Pius).
i R. Cagnat, L'armee romaine d’Afrique2 (1913), 211 ff; E. Ritterling. JRS XVII
(1927), 28 ff.
8 Mart. Pol. 3. 2 ff. 9 Mart. Pol. 10. 1 f.
i6o PERSECUTION
When Philippus declined, the crowd decided to burn Polycarp

themselves and fell to preparing the fire.1 What could the pro-
consul do to stop them? A Christian was a self-confessed
criminal. No one could be blamed for executing him, or for
allowing him to be done to death by a sort of folk-justice.2 Why
should a governor risk a riot and political disgrace for the sake of
a fanatic who proclaimed that death was more welcome than life ?
The Christian in a large city was particularly vulnerable to
the pressure of a crowd. One of the central features of Roman
life was the constant celebration of games and festivals, with
gladiatorial contests and the public execution of criminals.
Hence Christians, as criminals, could be employed for public
entertainment. Prejudice against an alien group could be
activated by the desire to enjoy a spectacle—a desire which it
was perilous and inexpedient for the ruling classes to ignore.
Equally important was the universal belief, common to rulers
and ruled, pagans and Christians, that natural disasters were
caused by offences to the divine power which ordained the
world.3 Hence any striking natural calamity, such as an earth¬
quake, might provoke violence against the Christians and the
inevitable sentences of martyrdom.4 On the other hand, crowds
are notoriously fickle and quickly disperse, so that the danger
which they presented to the Christians soon subsided.
Private enmities were another matter, to whose importance
Pliny’s actions in Pontus bear witness. First, Christians were
openly denounced before him; then there appeared an anony¬
mous libellus containing many names; finally, more were accused
by a secret informer. Pliny had no hesitation in acting on
all three types of information.5 The same factor is evident in
Hadrian’s letter to Minicius Fundanus: the emperor threatens
condign punishment for those who bring frivolous accusations
of Christianity to stir up prejudice.6 Some of the abuse which
Apuleius heaped on his adversaries before the proconsul of
Africa at Sabratha in the winter of 158/9 could be construed to
1 Mart. Pol. 12. 2 ff.

2 There is no need to elevate this into a principle of Roman law, as attempted by
J. Colin, Les villes libres de l’Orient grico-romain et Venvoi au sufiplice par acclamations
populaires (1965), 109 ff.
3 e.g., Tertullian, Apol. 40. 1 ff.
4 Origen, Comm. ser. 39 (GCS XXXVIII. 75).
5 Pliny, Epp. X. 96. 2 ff. 6 Eusebius, HE IV. 9. 3.
PERSECUTION 161
suggest that they practised Christianity.1 And Fronto’s slander
of the Christians may have occurred in similar circumstances.2
Perhaps it was private grudges which led to the martyrdoms of
Justin and Apollonius in Rome;3 and, if Justin himself is to be
believed, a husband was capable of denouncing his wife as soon
as he discovered that she had become a Christian convert.4
Moreover, the possible danger to Christians from personal
enemies will illuminate an obscure remark by Melito. In his
Apology, he protested at a new happening: the Christians
throughout Asia were being harassed by a new decree (or new
decrees). He asked the emperor whether the new decree was
issued at his command.5 It may be conjectured that the pro-
consul, in the edict which every governor issued on entering his
province, had for the first time explicitly included Christianity
among the offences of which he proposed to take cognisance.6
Once that was done, their enemies could accuse Christians
with no fear that the proconsul might either acquit the defend¬
ant or round on the accuser.
In short, therefore, the Christian could never feel perman¬

ently safe. A sympathetic or kindly governor might effectively
discourage persecution or mitigate its effects. But the Christians
had no guarantee that his successor would not initiate a savage
pogrom and harry them mercilessly. Nor could he predict
when persecution was going to be provoked by natural disaster,
or even the fickle clamours of an assembled crowd. Actual
persecution, however, was local, sporadic, almost random.7
How large was the number of martyrs ? Estimates vary, and
the question lends itself to acrimonious and inconclusive
dispute.8 Statistics are unavailable, the vagaries of the evidence
1 App. 21.
2 There is no real warrant for supposing that Fronto composed an ‘Oration
against the Christians’. Minucius Felix (the only evidence) states merely that
Fronto attacked Christians for Thyestean banquets {Oct. 9. 6), and his words
might count against the existence of a whole speech on the subject: non ut ad-
firmator testimonium fecit, sed convicium ut orator adspersit (31. 2).
3 Eusebius, HE IV. 16. 1 ff.; V. 21. 1 ff. But Eusebius seems to misreport
Tatian, cf. JTS, N.S. XIX (1968), 516 f.
4 Apol. II. 3 f. Similarly, Tertullian, Apol. 3. 4.
5 Eusebius, HE IV. 26. 5 f. 6 JRS LVIII (1968), 39.
7 Origen, Contra Celsum II. 13; III. 8; Comm. Ser. 39.
8 EE Dodwell’s dissertation De Paucitate Martyrum (1684) led T. Ruinart to collect
and publish the Acta Primorum Martyrum Sincera et Selecta (1689), most of which are
162 PERSECUTION
preclude any sort of computation, and the estimates even of
contemporaries disagreed. Origen, writing c. 247, put the
number of martyrs very low. Half a dozen years later Cyprian
spoke of ‘martyrum innumerabilis populus’.1 The Decian
persecution of 250/1 will not account for the difference. Two
facts in particular, however, indicate that the number was
comparatively small. No African bishop died a martyr’s death
before Cyprian in 258, who was himself a survivor of the Decian
persecution.2 And one proconsul of Africa had never partici¬
pated in any trial of Christians until some were accused before
him at Thysdrus.5 He will already have arrived in Carthage,
stayed there some time, presumably visited Utica and certainly
have passed through Hadrumetum, all without encountering a
Christian who needed to be tried. The proconsul was Julius
Asper, who later acquired a position of great influence under
Caracalla. His early career appears (unfortuntely) to be un¬
known, and it is possible that he served in provinces of the west
or on the northern frontiers. Nonetheless, it is of the highest
significance that in the late second and early third centuries a
man of Asper’s type could still undergo all the stages of a
senatorial career as far as the proconsulate of Africa before he
had to try a Christian: he seems to be a novus homo from Pisidian
Antioch4 who was active in the law-courts at Rome.5
Arithmetical calculations do not matter. The nature and
incidence of persecution before Decius both allowed the growth
of Christian communities and fostered a spirit of insecurity. On
the one hand, the Christian could usually escape by tactful
withdrawal for a brief period. On the other, he was an easy
target for blackmail, his escape might be prevented, and he
must be ready to bear witness to his faith with his life. The most
unhistorical. Gibbon pertinently observed that ‘even admitting, without hesitation

or inquiry, all that history has recorded or devotion has feigned’ the primitive
martyrs were greatly outnumbered by the Protestants whom Charles V massacred
in the Netherlands (Decline and Fall ch. XVI). Sectarian passions are still aroused,
cf. Diet. de. thiol, cath. X. 237 ff.
1 Origen, Contra Celsum III. 8; Cyprian, De Mortalitate 26.
2 Pontius, VitaCypriani 19. 1; sacerdotales coronas in Africa primus imbueret. . .
ex quo enim Carthagini episcopatus ordo numeratur, numquam aliquis quamvis et
bonus ex sacerdotibus ad passionem venisse memoratur.
4 w- M- Ramsay, JRS XIV (1924), 176. Approved in PIR2 J 182.
3 CIL XIV. 2516.
PERSECUTION 163
serious result of the persecutions was not so much the deaths of
Christians as an atmosphere of emotional tension, which pro¬
foundly affected Christian corporate life and the development
of Christian thought. Though an individual Christian might
never himself be persecuted or harassed, the church became and
remained a church of martyrs. Being unable to predict when
danger might suddenly strike, the Christian had always to hold
himself in readiness for torture and for death. One proconsul of
Africa died in office. According to the normal custom, an
imperial procurator performed his duties for the remainder of
the year.i The proconsul may have discountenanced persecu¬
tion. But after his decease the Christians of Carthage enjoyed
little respite from vexation. Perpetua and her companions were
martyred in March, and in the summer riots broke out.1 2 The
procurator was an austere man of unbending loyalty to tradi¬
tional religion: in Spanish Asturica (perhaps his place of
origin) he built an altar for the well-being of an emperor, and
addressed his prayer to the Gods and Goddesses of the Roman
pantheon to whom it was meet and lawful so to do.3 Such a
man would not deny the martyr’s crown to any Christian who
came before him.
1 Pass. Perp. 6. 2. For the phenomenon, C. W. Keyes, The Rise of the Equites in the
Third Century (1915).
2 PP- 89; 263; 266.
3 The stone reads: dis deabusque quos ius fasque est precari in pantheo P. Ael.
P. f. Hilarianus proc. Aug. cum liberis pro salute////Aug. ////. Published by A.
Garcia y Bellido, Boletin de la Real Academia de la Historia CLXIII (1968), 202 no. 4.
XII
MARTYRDOM
‘T'v lessed are ye when men shall revile you, and persecute
l-C you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely,
■ J for my sake’ (Mt. 5. 11). Their first experience of persecu¬
tion caused the second generation of Christians to remember (or
invent) this famous saying of their Lord.1 In neither that nor
subsequent generations, however, was every Christian capable
of welcoming persecution with unalloyed gladness of heart.
Persecution being normally a brief and sporadic phenom¬
enon,2 many Christians of the second and third centuries must
have passed their whole lives unmolested by authority, while
those who felt themselves endangered possessed great freedom
of action. Hence, since the threat of arrest and death was
constant (at least from the late first to the later third centuries)
a thoughtful and pious man could not avoid two questions of
principle. How ought he to behave when arrested ? and ought
he to attempt to escape arrest? At first sight, Jesus’ command
was unambiguous. Yet a long line of defenders of the faith, who
accounted Christians blessed when persecuted, were manifestly
reluctant to count them blessed when slandered: false accusa¬
tions were not welcomed, but angrily repudiated. To a logical
mind, rejection of one half of the beatitude must bring the other
into doubt.3 Moreover, the exhortation to martyrdom seemed
to be contradicted by another saying of the Lord: ‘when they
persecute you in this city, flee ye into another’ (Mt. 10. 23).
If a pagan heeded the assertions of apologists, he would
conclude that the Christian community consisted entirely of
men, women, and even children thirsting for death. The
earliest preserved apology, that of Aristides, appears to be
1 Lk. 6. 22 has something very similar, Mark has not. For a professedly sociologi¬
cal explanation, see D. W. Riddle, Ze^schr-fiirneutest. Wiss. XXXIII (1934), 271 ff.
2 Ch. XI.
3 As Tertullian perceived: dominum servi consequamur et maledicamur
patienter ut benedicti esse possimus {Pat. 8. 3).
MARTYRDOM 165
content with a short and unadorned statement of what rapidly
became a commonplace. Christians are ready to give up their
lives for Christ, in accordance with his commands: if a Christian
dies in sin, his friends lament that he will undergo punishment,
but the death of a righteous man occasions only rejoicing.1
Justin laid more emphasis on the relevance of the Last Judge¬
ment. No one ought to be surprised, he observed, that Christians
were willing to die for their faith: all men must die sooner or
later. What matters is the quality, not the length of a life. God
loves truth, and its denial is an evil and a falsehood. The
Christian does not want to live in falsehood; he desires an
eternal and pure life with God, which he will achieve by obed¬
ience to his commands and by public confession of his beliefs.2
Naturally enough, such unimpeachable sentiments could not
be omitted by any subsequent apologist who addressed himself
to persecutors or to pagan authority.3
Tertullian included the commonplace in his Ad Nationes
and Apologeticum. Characteristically, however, he employed it
both more subtly and more aggressively. He brings the
Christian’s willingness to die into the exordium of both his
large apologetic works. Both open by accusing pagans of
ignorance: they condemn Christianity without knowing what
sort of thing they are condemning.4 But no Christian is ashamed
of his religion, only of not being converted sooner. He glories in
being accused, he acquiesces in arrest; he does not defend him¬
self, he admits the charge; he gives thanks for his condemna¬
tion. How absurd if he were a genuine wrongdoer!5
Educated pagans felt shocked at an attitude which savoured
of purblind fanaticism. Galen, who admired the lofty morality
practised by Christians, felt disgust when he beheld their
irrationality.6 So too did the emperor Marcus. Contemplating
the prospect of death, he commended an attitude of thoughtful
resignation: one should act with dignity, avoiding melodrama
and the sheer contrariness of Christians.7 The apologist, there-
1 Aristides, Apol. 15. 10 f. 2 Justin, Apol. I. 8; I. 57; II. 4.

3 Gf. Athenagoras, Legatio 2. 1 fT.; Tatian, Orat. ad Graecos 4.
4 Nat. I. 1. 1; Apol. 1. 1 ff. Pagan ignorance is perfectly exemplified by Pliny, Epp.
X. 96. 1 ff.
s Nat. I. 1. 10; Apol. 1. 12 f.
6 R. Walzer, Galen on Jews and Christians (1949), 14 ff.; 48 ff.
2 Meditations XI. 3. Marcus was not thinking only of ‘voluntary martyrs’, as
M
166 MARTYRDOM
fore, might decide that the suspicion of fanaticism needed to be

parried. Justin (one senses) was concerned to explain, almost to
excuse. Not so Tertullian, who compares the Christian to a
soldier. In the abstract, no one wishes to suffer. But in battle
one must. The Christian wins a victory when he is executed,
a victory whose prize is eternal life.1 The obstinacy which
pagans deride is not only a virtue, but the supreme instrument
of evangelization. It makes a man ask what Christianity is:
when he sees, he becomes a Christian himself and longs to
suffer. For by martyrdom all his sins will be forgiven. The
Christian has cause to give thanks for being sentenced: con¬
demnation on earth means absolution from God.2
Near the end of his literary career, Tertullian returned once
more to the apologetic genre. In the late summer or early
autumn of 212,3 he addressed a menacing letter to the pro-
consul of Africa, which recapitulates much of the substance, and
sometimes the very words, of the Apologeticum. The passage of
nearly fifteen years had not induced much change in Ter-
tullian’s basic arguments, and the exordium of the Ad Scapulam
closely echoes those of his two earlier apologetic works. We are
not afraid, he begins, of the sufferings which ignorant enemies
inflict. All who join our community know that they must be
prepared to give their lives. We rejoice when condemned to
death.4 Tertullian then discloses his motive for writing: since
Christians must love their enemies, he must give warning of the
terrible retribution in store for those who persecute.5 Such a
profession of concern for Scapula was clearly necessary. For,
when Tertullian warmed to his task and eagerly expatiated on
this congenial theme,5 the proconsul would not easily have per¬
ceived the undertones of affection. He might, however, have
observed a significant change in the apologist’s description of
Christian behaviour. No longer do they rejoice when arrested:
they now provoke arrest.7 No longer can Christians merely be
discovered in every social order: if Scapula persists in his
hostility, he will be confronted by thousands of every age and
A. S. L. Farquharson assumed {The Meditations of the Emperor Marcus Antoninus II

(1944)> 859).
1 Apol. 50. 1 ff. 2 Apol. 50. 15 f. 3 p. 38.
4 Scap. 1. 1 f. s Scap. i. 3 f. 6 Scap. 3. 1 ff.
7 Scap. 1.2: etiam ultro erumpentes; 5. 1: nos haec non timere sed ultro vocare.
MARTYRDOM 167
sex and status offering themselves for martyrdom. 1 In other
words, Tertullian represents every Christian in Carthage as
being a Montanist.
Reality inevitably differed from the claims of propaganda.
The zeal of martyrs might excite the attention of pagans like
Galen and Marcus Aurelius. But how many Christians really
were prepared for martyrdom ? Even before the Apostolic Age
had wholly passed away, a visionary was complaining that the
church of Laodicea was lukewarm in its faith (Rev. 3. 15 f.).1 2 3
About the same time, also in Asia, an anonymous writer com¬
posed a letter and passed it off as the work of an apostle long
dead: among his motives, fear of numerous apostasies bulked
large (I Peter 1. 6 ff.).3 Nevertheless, a generally recognized
standard of conduct still appears to have prevailed: despite the
weakness of the flesh, few yet denied the propriety or the
necessity of martyrdom. It was left to later ages to elaborate a
theological justification for its avoidance.
Gnostics (as etymology implies) held that salvation came less
by baptism than by knowledge.4 What then was the relative
importance of each? The Gnostic had a choice which either
reflected or determined his attitude to martyrdom. For martyr¬
dom was a baptism of blood, a second baptism more efficacious
than the first, but of the same order.5 Hence, if ordinary bap¬
tism counted for little, so too must martyrdom. The first to
draw this corollary was Basilides of Alexandria: he taught that
martyrdom was unnecessary, that there was no harm in light¬
hearted denial of faith in time of persecution.6
Basilides’ position can hardly have been so simple, unless he
had forgotten something. Jesus promised to confess before his
father in heaven those who confessed him before men, and to
deny those who denied him (Mt. 10. 32 f.; Lk. 12. 8 f.).
A Gnostic who taught that apostasy was permissible would need
1 Scap. 5.2: tantis milibus . . . offerentibus se tibi.

2 Pergamum was commended for courage in face of persecution (Rev. 2. 13).
3 Cf., however, J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude
(1969), 26 ff.
4 Theodotus, quoted by Clement, Excerpta ex Theodoto 78. 2.
5 Pass. Perp. 18. 2; 21. 2. The connexion was obvious, cf. Origen, on Mt. 20.
20-24 (CCS XL. 4^4)*
« [Tertullian], Adv. ornn. haer. 1.5: martyria negat esse facienda; Eusebius, PIE
IV. 7. 7-
168 MARTYRDOM
a subtle exegesis to circumvent this text. Basilides’ interpretation

is unknown. But that of Heracleon, the most famous pupil of
Valentinus, has been preserved by Clement of Alexandria.
Heracleon distinguished verbal confession from the true confes¬
sion evinced by a man’s inner beliefs and his way of life. Verbal
confession (he held) was not an overriding duty nor was
martyrdom sufficient for salvation. Apostasy, therefore, was
both irrelevant and impossible. The true confessor could never
deny, no matter what he said with his tongue.1 2 Clement had to
admit that he broadly agreed with Heracleon. But he parted
company with him on one central issue: even if a man’s life
failed to measure up to Christian ideals, the sincerity of his faith
could nevertheless manifest itself in a willingness to undergo
torture and death rather than deny.2 The prospect of martyrdom
clearly disturbed Clement, who styled himself a true Gnostic.3
Accordingly, he redefined the awkward term: he took
‘martyrdom’ to signify confession before God (not man), or
knowledge of the truly existing God.4 The corollary of this view
was comforting: the ascetic or the monk possessed equal stature
to the martyr.5
When persecution struck, Clement prudently left Alexandria.
Others, among them the young Origen, braved out the storm.6
There was little doubt whose example was more widely
followed, at least in Egypt and the east.
During the persecution ordained by Diocletian, Peter the

bishop of Alexandria fled the country, thereby causing schism
in the Egyptian church and indirectly preparing the way for the
Arian controversies.7 After Diocletian’s abdication (i May 305),
Peter returned to his see and within a year composed a docu¬
ment of great historical significance. It is normally styled a
1 Clement, Strom. IV. 71. 1 ff., esp. 72.2: povoi S’iv avrai 6p.o\oyovcnv ol iv rfj ko.t'
auTov op.o\oyiq koI npdêi fhovvres. . . .Siorrep apvrjoaodcu avrov ovSeirore Swavrai.
2 Strom. IV. 73. 1 f.
3 W. Volker, Der wahre Gnostiker nach Clemens Alexandrinus (Texte u. Unters. LVII,
1952), esp. 507 ff.
4 Strom. IV. 15. 3; 16. 3.
5 W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (1965), 352 ff.
6 Eusebius, HE VI. 1. 1 ff. Clement’s flight is implied by HE VI. 6, cf. A. Har-
nack, Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius II (1904), 7 f.
7 H. I. Bell, Jews and Christians in Egypt (1924), 38 ff.
MARTYRDOM 169
‘Canonical Epistle’, since it survives mainly as a series of four¬

teen rubrics in Greek collections of canon law.1 The work from
which the rubrics are extracted may originally have borne the
title ‘On Repentance’.2 Or it may have been simply a ‘Paschal
Letter’.3 But the Syriac fragments unambiguously style it (like
Cyprian’s De Lapsis) ‘On those who apostatised during the
persecution’. It seems, therefore, that Peter wrote the letter as a
metropolitan expounding ecclesiastical discipline to subordinate
bishops.4 * The appellation ‘Canonical Epistle’ does not after all
misrepresent the nature of its contents, and its quasi-official
status and high reputation in later centuries underline its
historical importance. The majority of eastern Christians clearly
accepted its moral and theological judgements.
Martyrs presented no problem to the bishop. But what of the
living? Tact was needed, and subtlety. For the reactions of
Peter’s flock had ranged from the utmost fortitude to the most
despicable cowardice, and it was the bravest who had perished.
Peter must rally the survivors, restore their self-respect and,
above all, hold together the Christian community. Some had
endured imprisonment, insufferable torture and endless flog¬
gings, before the weakness of the flesh had betrayed them.3
Mere chains and the stink of prison had been too much for
others.6 A third category had been driven to sin by fear alone,
and some of them refused even to perform penance.2 The more
astute had resorted to deception, or else compelled slaves to
take their place in sacrificing.* Others again (including some
priests) had lapsed once; but, remembering that the just man
can fall seven times and still arise (Prov. 24. 16), had blotted
1 No full or critical edition exists. A. Mai, whose text was reproduced by Migne
(PG XVIII. 467 ff.), merely excerpted Photius’ Syntagma Canonum (Spicilegium
Romanian VII (1842), 444 ff.). M. J. Routh took over Harduin’s text (Acta Con-
ciliorum I (1715), 225 ff) ‘sed ex manuscriptis Bodleianis correctam’ (.Reliquiae
Sacrae2 IV (1846), 23 ff, cf. 53). A fresh text of the Greek remains was provided
by J. B. Pitra, Juris Ecclesiastici Graecorum Historia et Monumenta I (1864), 551 ff.
But Pitra overlooked important Syriac fragments published by A. P. de Lagarde,
in Reliquiae iuris ecclesiastici antiquissimae (1856). These are rendered into Greek
by E. Schwartz, Ges. Schr. Ill (1 959)j 9° ff-
2 Routh, o.c. 23.
3 B. Altaner-A. Stuiber, Patrologie1 (1966), 212.
4 Schwartz, o.c. 93 ff .
s Canon I. For details of the persecuting edicts (four in all) and their enforce¬
ment, cf. G. E. M. de Ste Croix, Harv. Theol. Rev. XLVII (1954). 75 ff-
« Canon II. 7 Canons III, IV. 8 Canons V-VII.
170 MARTYRDOM
out their fault by offering themselves for prison and torture a

second time and more successfully.1 Many had resorted to
bribery and thus remained unmolested by the authorities, or
had withdrawn into the country or desert.2 Yet there were
some who not only endured chains without flinching, but also
thwarted their adversaries: when they were carried to a pagan
altar by force, they let their hands burn rather than perform an
unholy sacrifice.3 In the face of such a diversity of experience,
it was no easy task to maintain ecclesiastical unity.
To resolve the difficulties, Peter adopted a simple criterion.
Everyone except the Gnostics conceded that apostasy was sin¬
ful.4 Peter therefore equated apostasy with sacrifice, and argued
that any Christian who had not himself sacrificed and who had
not compelled his Christian slaves to sacrifice in his stead had
acted impeccably. Accordingly, he imposed penitential disci¬
pline on those who had succumbed,5 and wrote a theological
justification of those who had evaded the issue.
First he denigrated enthusiasm. Those who rushed forward
to the contest heaped coals on their brethren. Had they for¬
gotten that all Christians pray not to be led into temptation?
Were they not aware that Jesus often withdrew to escape his
enemies or that, so far from giving himself up in Jerusalem, he
waited to be arrested? Jesus said ‘They will deliver you up’
(Mt. 10. 17), not ‘You will deliver up yourselves’. Moreover, he
unambiguously ordered Christians to flee persecution: ‘when
they persecute you in this city, flee ye into another’ (Mt. 10. 23).
He does not wish Christians to desert to the Devil, for that
would cause eternal death. Rather, Christians should be alert
and pray not to be led into temptation.5 Imitation of Christ was
an ideal which inspired many a martyr.2 By Peter’s argument
that ideal was now transformed: the true disciple was not he
who endured, but he who ran away.
The bishop of Alexandria did not shrink from drawing
the logical consequences. Those who employed bribery were
entirely exempt from blame. They had suffered financial hard-
1 Canons VIII, X. 2 Canons XII, XIII. 3 Canon XIV.
4 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. IV. 33. 9 (A. Rousseau, Sources chrStiennes C (1965), 820 ff.),
cf. A. Orbe, Losprimeros herejes ante lapersecucion {Anal. Greg. LXXXIII, 1956), 242'
ff.
5 Canons I-VII. <s Canon IX.
7 H. von Campenhausen, Die Idee des Martyriums in der alten Kirche (1936), 89 ff.
MARTYRDOM 171
ship to save their souls, they had served God rather than
mammon. ‘For what shall it profit a man if he shall gain the
whole world, and lose his own soul?’ (Mk. 8. 36). And added
justification could be sought in the conduct of the apostles
Paul and Silas in Thessalonica.1 Scriptural justification was easy
to find for those who had run away: the examples of Peter and
of Mary and Joseph proved that they were not morally respon¬
sible for the sufferings of those they left behind.2
The ‘Canonical Epistle’ evokes strong emotions. Peter
receives high praise in some quarters for displaying a warm
sympathy for the fate of the fallen.3 Others might consider his
indulgence excessive.4 Neither verdict is informative. It is more
important to note Peter’s affinities with Clement. Peter stated
that those who withdrew abandoned everything for the sake of
their souls.5 * He might have been echoing a remarkable piece of
Clement’s biblical exegesis. Clement had opined that the
Christian who allowed himself to be arrested shared part of the
moral culpability for the persecutor’s wickedness. As for the
enthusiast, in Clement’s eyes he bore the whole responsibility for
his death. Jesus counselled flight so that Christians might avoid
sin.6 Peter’s ‘Canonical Epistle’ enjoyed reputation and
authority in the eastern church. And its debt to Clement reveals
that its attitudes were no novelty. On the contrary, the bishop
of Alexandria might have been cast as the adversary of Ter-
tullian himself.
Tertullian’s attitude to martyrdom changed with the passing

years. That is a platitude; but one whose truth has rarely been
accurately perceived. For generations the Scorpiace was ex¬
pounded as an expression of Tertullian’s Montanism.7 That can
1 Canon XII.
2 Canon XIII, cf. Acts 12. 4 ff.; Mt. 2. 11 ff.
3 K. Baus, Handbook of Church History I (1965), 345.-Elsewhere in that volume,
the general editor of the handbook (H. Jedin) states clearly that none but a Roman
Catholic can write ecclesiastical history (ib. 5; 9; 10).
4 For a recent exculpation, cf. G. W. Clarke, Antichthon III (1969), 74 f.
5 Canon XIII.
« Clement, Strom. IV. 76. 1 ff. That again brings Clement close to the views of
Basilides and Heracleon, cf. Campenhausen, o.c. 94; 109.
7 e.g., Campenhausen, o.c. 117 ff.; Orbe, o.c. 50 ff.; 90 ff.; H. A. M. Hoppen-
brouwers, Recherches sur la terminologie du martyre de Tertullien a Lactance (1961), 5 i
Frend, o.c. 372.
172 MARTYRDOM
be shown to be clearly impossible, since it accepts a view of

apostolic succession incompatible with any sort of belief in the
New Prophecy.1 The Scorpiace must be redated to 203/42, and
therefore understood as representative of orthodox opinion in
Carthage.
It is a time of persecution and the faithful are being hunted
down like hares. Some have proved by their deaths that they
are true Christians, others have so far only tasted martyrdom in
prison.3 But the faith of simple folk is being assailed by a sort of
poisonous scorpion: the Gnostics, the Valentinians, the
denigrators of martyrdom have emerged from their dens intent
on stinging, paralysing, killing. Their poison is argument.
Innocent men are dying, they say, without cause. And so they
destroy the simple-minded, who do not know the plain precepts
of scripture. Other Christians are not so easily caught, being
defended by watchful faith. Yet even they are gradually over¬
come by the poison, which dulls their senses, deadens the mind,
produces revulsion at the name of Christian. Then their minds
want to vomit up their faith, and they relapse finally into heresy
or heathenism. For they conclude that persecution comes from
the Devil. Tertullian sees the need for an antidote to the bite of
such scorpions as the Gnostics. Anyone who reads will have
drunk it; and the cup is not bitter, but sweeter than honey.4
Tertullian has satirized rather than stated the Gnostic
position. But there is nothing flippant in his reply. Not that he
attempted (or desired) to persuade the Gnostics: they needed
compulsion not persuasion.5 His audience was the orthodox
Christian community of Carthage, his purpose to strengthen
their resolve. As the best form of argument therefore, he
selected biblical exegesis. Martyrdom is a duty and a necessity,
good and profitable, because it is ordained by God.<> Once he
has thus stated his thesis, Tertullian argues in a discursive
fashion, following the order of his texts and refuting possible
objections as they arise.7
iJTS, N.S. XX (1969), 115 ff., in comment on Scorp. 9. 3; 10. 8.

2 PP- 34/5- 3 Scorp. 1. 11.
4 Scorp. 1. 5 ff.; 1. 12 f. For ‘ab ipso scilicet cynocephalo’ (i. io), cf. App. 7.
5 Scorp. 2. 1: ad officium haereticos compelli non inlici dignum est.
6 Scorp. 2. 1 f.
7 The formal structure may be analysed in terms of ancient rhetorical theory,
cf.JTS, N.S. XX (1969), 108 ff.
MARTYRDOM 03
‘Thou shalt have no Gods but me’ (Exod. 20. 2). Thus spoke
Jehovah to Moses, and to all mankind, laying an interdiction
upon all forms of idolatry. The point is reinforced by a long
catena of extensive quotations, mainly from Deuteronomy.1 2
Superstition, however, was not only forbidden but punished—
witness the three thousand killed after they made the golden
calf (Exod. 32. 25 ff.) and the twenty three thousand in Shittim
who lusted after the daughters of Moab and were initiated into
the rites of Baal (Numb. 25. 1 lb.).2 Nor were later gener¬
ations spared: from the death of Joshua, under the rule of the
Judges and the Kings of Israel, God preserved the neighbouring
races in order to chastise his people for their idolatry by war,
captivity and an alien yoke. The lesson of history, therefore, is
that God desires martyrdom, for to encourage that was his
purpose in forbidding idolatry.3
The Gnostic denies or reprobates God’s clear intention. He
either invents another God with different wishes, or rejects our
God, or at least denies the will of God if he cannot deny his
existence.4 No matter. These general objections have been
answered elsewhere, in the De Praescriptione Haereticorum. On
this occasion, Tertullian needs only to reaffirm that the God
who forbids idolatry is the God of Israel, and failure to obey
him without question is itself idolatry.5
Another objection was clearly more dangerous, since
Tertullian provides a fuller refutation. This questioned the
goodness of God’s will. Tertullian replies that, since God is by
definition good, his will too must be good. Further, martyrdom
is good because it is the opposite of idolatry, an evil from which
it liberates men.6 How many of their original readers will have
followed the logic or detected the fallacies of these lines ? Perhaps
their author intended to dazzle rather than convince. For the
motives underlying the objection are revealed when Tertullian
denounces the perversity of men, who shun healing medicines
to seek what will be dangerous or fatal.7 He appeals to medical
and athletic analogies which he develops at length, in detail and
with virtuosity. Martyrdom is God’s medicine and brings
1 Scorp. 2. 2 ff.
2 Scorp. 3. 1 ff. For the choice of examples, App. 7.
3 Scorp. 3. 5 ff. 4 Scorp. 4. 2. 5 Scorp. 4. 3 ff.
6 Scorp. 5. 1 ff. 7 Scorp. 5. 5.
174 MARTYRDOM
eternal life; it is a contest with the Devil, the prize of victory

being salvation, and no competitor should complain at the
petty injuries which victory requires.1 Moreover, Tertullian
appeals to the gross self-interest of his audience. God foresaw
the weakness of man and the wiles of the Devil, he predicted
that some Christians would sin even after baptism. He therefore
instituted a second forgiveness of sins by the baptism of blood.
In other words, martyrdom indefeasibly guarantees salvation.2 3
A third and final objection remains: the Gnostics complain
that God is a murderer.2 What blasphemy! God does kill. He
does not thereby become a murderer. For he kills in order that
the victim may live everlastingly. And he has declared the truth
plainly, in the mouth of Solomon: ‘Wisdom strangled her
sons.’ Tertullian descants on the theme, bringing in polemic
against pagan sacrifices.4 A perceptive Gnostic might have
observed something peculiar about the quotation on which the
argument is constructed: it appears not to come from the
Proverbs of Solomon, but from the words of Joshua ben Sirach
in Ecclesiasticus, and to result from textual corruption.5 Has
Tertullian for once been detected using a florilegium or collec¬
tion of testimonia without verifying its accuracy ?6
All three objections were misconceived. The issue is simple:
is martyrdom ordained by God? For if God ordains it, martyr¬
dom must possess a rational purpose.7 Tertullian accordingly
adduces as proof a long series of scriptural texts. First, from the
Old Testament. From the start of history, the righteous who
were moved by the spirit of God suffered violent deaths. Abel
was only the first of a long line which included David, Elijah,
1 Scorp. 5. 6 ff.
2 Scorp. 6. 9, cf. Bapt. 16.2: hie est baptismus qui lavacrum et non acceptum
repraesentat et perditum reddit! For full commentary, F. J. Dolger, Antike und
Christentum II (1930), 125 ff. Tertullian was echoing and craftily employing a
common view, stated already in the Shepherd of Hermas (Sim. IX. 28) and fully
endorsed by Origen, cf. W. Hellmanns, Wertschatzung des Martyriums als eines
Rechtfertigungsmittels in der oltchristlichcn Kirche bis zum Anjcnge dcs vierten Jfahrhunderts
(Diss. Breslau, 1912), 14 ff.
3 Scorp. 7. 1. 4 Scorp. 7. 2 ff.
5 A. Reifferscheid-G. Wissowa identified the quotation as coming from Prov. 9. 2

(CSEL XX. 158 = CCL II. 1081). Comparison with Clement, Strom. VII. 105. 1
points rather to Ecclus. 4. 11.
6 A. Vaccari, Scritti di erudizione e difilologia II (1958), 7 ff., infers that Tertullian
attributed Ecclesiasticus to Solomon.
7 Scorp. 8. 1.
MARTYRDOM 05
Jeremiah, Isaiah, Zachariah and Daniel.1 Next, the Gospels.
When Jesus said ‘Blessed are they which are persecuted for
righteousness’ sake’ (Mt. 5. 10), his statement had universal
application. At first sight the beatitude ‘Blessed are ye when men
shall revile you, and persecute you’ might seem intended for
Jesus’ immediate disciples alone. In fact, Jesus was thinking of
all Christians as spiritual descendants of the first apostles.2
Nor should the argument be confined to a single pair of texts:
Jesus commended confession of his name before men and
martyrdom in no ambiguous fashion when he prescribed a code
of conduct for the twelve apostles and hence for all disciples in
every generation.3 To be sure, some maintain that Jesus meant
the confession to be in the hereafter, not on earth—as if the
only real men were Valentinus’ mythical creations.4 To counter
this thesis, Tertullian employs a fourfold reductio ad absurdum.5
Suppose that by ‘men’ Jesus did mean Valentinus’ Teleti,
Acineti and Abascanti. What then becomes of his promise
‘Whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess also
before my Father which is in heaven’ (Mt. 10. 32) ? The Gnostic
has destroyed the contrast between earthly and celestial, and
convicted Jesus of being muddle-headed. Moreover, only the
Christian who has confessed Jesus here on earth will have the
opportunity to do so in heaven. For Jesus gave the keys of
heaven to Peter and the church, and they are in the possession
of every confessor. Again, if a Christian lacks the courage to
confess on earth, how will he dare to defy greater powers in the
hereafter? The heretic will have to be bold to escape Tertul-
lian’s argument. Since confession presupposes hostility and
persecution, he must suppose that hatred of the name of Christian
exists in heaven, where Christ sits at the right hand of God. To
heaven he must transfer the whole paraphernalia of persecu¬
tion: the Jews who harassed the first apostles,6 the pagan
crowds in the contemporary amphitheatre, the Christian’s
family, kings and governors and armies, prison and instruments
of torture, even a supply of wild animals. Without all these,
how can there be any confession in heaven?
The Gnostic need not answer, since these words were not
1 Scorp. 8. 1 ff. 2 Scorp. 9. 1 ff. 3 Scorp. 9. 4 ff.

4 Scorp. 10. 1. 5 Scorp. 10. 4 ff.
6 Not the contemporary Jews of Carthage, cf. JTS, N.S. XX (1969), 132.
176 MARTYRDOM
intended for his ears. The orthodox, for whom Tertullian was
writing, would not have questioned their validity. But they
needed to know how to answer a Gnostic themselves. Let them
therefore reply simply by an appeal to the scriptures.1 The
arguments concerning confession apply also to martyrdom.
‘He that loseth his life for my sake shall find it’ (Mt. 10. 39):
a Christian who remembers that will resist the blandishments
of both magistrate and heretics.2 The followers of Christ are all
of one mind: the epistles of Peter, John and Paul, and the
Revelation of John, all provide exhortations to avoid idolatry,
to practise constancy and to undergo martyrdom.3 Paul’s
injunction to obey authority is no excuse to avoid martyrdom,
but a command to upright living.4
The precepts of scripture are clear, and the apostles were
prepared to undergo persecution and death in accordance with
them.5 Peter and Paul died in Rome under Nero. What would
they have said to Prodicus and Valentinus? They would have
echoed Jesus’ words to the tempter: ‘Get thee hence Satan: for
it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him
only shalt thou serve.’6 The argument is complete, for that is
the prohibition of idolatry. It only remains for Tertullian to
recall his original metaphor. The Gnostics’ poison cannot harm
anyone who has read the Scorpiace.7 8
Martyrdom or apostasy? That is the question to which the

Scorpiace addresses itself. The third possibility, flight, is omitted,
or rather assumed to be legitimate. When Tertullian declares
‘the hunt is on: I myself am surrounded like a hare’,® the simile
implies that, like a hare, he is attempting to escape. Two other
early works are more explicit. The De Patientia is an extended
panegyric of that virtue, which Tertullian lauds as the key to
1 Scorp. 11. 4 ff. 2 Scorp. 11. i ff.; 11. 8.

3 Scorp. 12. l ff. 4 Scorp. 14. 1 f. 5 Scorp. 15. 1 ff.
6 Reliance on memory has here led Tertullian into comic error. As quoted above,
the text comes from Mt. 4. 10. But after ‘recede satana’, Tertullian adds ‘scanda-
lum mihi es’. That was said by Jesus, not to the Devil, but to Peter (Mt. 16. 23).
7 Galen gave the recipes of several antidotes against real scorpions (De Antidotis
II. 12 = XIV. 175 ff. Kuhn). He also observed that a man who had fasted and
spat on a scorpion twice or thrice would kill it at once (IJepl evxvplas /cal KdKoxvp.-
las rpo<f)d>v I. 13 = Corp. Med. Gr. V. 4. 2. 392 = VI. 754 f. Kuhn). Tertullian
claimed that for a Christian faith was an adequate protection (Scorp. 1. 3 f.).
8 Scorp. 1. 11.
MARTYRDOM >77
salvation. Patience obeys all God’s commands, it reconciles

mankind to one another, it promotes all forms of virtuous
conduct, it overcomes temptation and consummates martyr¬
dom.! Strictly, that seems to imply that martyrdom should be
sought. And Tertullian’s final words are an exhortation to
repay the ‘patientia’ which Christ spent for men.1 2 Nonetheless,
in time of persecution, Tertullian permits patience to have a
double application. Not only will patience prevent apostasy
and enable a Christian to endure torture and barbarous modes
of execution, but it also overcomes the inconveniences of flight.3
Imprisonment and the attendant possibility of martyrdom are
conceived as something to be avoided, as something which may
forestall flight.4 In the first book of the Ad Uxorem Tertullian
reveals similar preconceptions when expounding Paul s dictum
that marriage was better than being consumed with lust
(I Cor. 7. 9). Although that constitutes no prohibition of
marriage, Tertullian avers, it is far better neither to marry nor
to be consumed by lust.3 Compare flight from persecution: it is
permitted and better than apostasy under torture; but what is
permitted is not necessarily good.6 This is not a mere repetition
of the statements in the De Patientia. Tertullian has changed
his position if only slightly. Flight from persecution he no longer
regards as normal: he now condones it as a pis alter for the
weaker brethren. But this intermediate position was vulner¬
able—unless one copied Clement and redefined martyrdom.2
For, on this view, flight represents a declension from ideal
standards of conduct. But why should back-sliding be con¬
doned ? An honest Christian ought to have the courage of his
convictions.
Montanism resolved the contradiction. The Holy Spirit had
spoken through Miontanus and the two prophetesses. Desire
not to die in bed, in childbirth or from fever, but in martyrdom,
to glorify him who suffered for us’.« After his conversion,
Tertullian was soon deriding the views he had once shared.
Rejection of the prophecies of the Holy Spirit entails avoidance
of martyrdom. Men appeal to the scriptures, pack their bags
1 Pat. 15. 2. .
2 Pat. 16. 5. The word here signifies both patience and suffering.
3 Pat 13 6 ff 4 Pat. 13. 6: si et career praeveniat-
5 Ux. I. 3. 1 ff. 6 Ux. I. 3- 4- 7 P- l68‘ 8 Fug- 9- 4‘
178 MARTYRDOM
and flee from city to city. For they can only remember that one
sentence from the whole of the Gospels.1 On this occasion,
however, Tertullian was arguing about the wearing of garlands
and military service. He therefore postponed a full discussion of
confession for a later date.2 His promise was kept in a master¬
piece of persuasive pleading, the De Fuga in Persecutione.
‘You asked me recently, Fabius, whether one should flee in

time of persecution, since the situation is threatening.’ Tertul¬
lian poses the issue bluntly at the outset. At the time (he pro¬
tests) he returned Fabius an unsatisfactory answer: now he will
provide a fuller treatment. His friend’s request for advice and
the times demand it; and the problem cannot be ignored even
by those who reject the Montanist prophecies.3 The argument
will be independent of Tertullian’s Montanist beliefs. One
assumption alone needs to be granted: that nothing happens
without the consent of God. Let it be noted, however, that this
assumption does not entail that God is the author of sin and
evil.4
Persecution is a test of men’s faith, it is a judgement between
the good and the bad, a winnowing of the corn from the chaff.
It is also the ladder of Jacob’s dream, leading upwards for
some, but for others downwards (Gen. 28. 12). Persecution
may also be viewed as a contest, with God as umpire and prize-
giver. Since persecution ends in glory for God, it surely occurs
according to his will. And belief in God finds more fervent
expression in time of persecution. Hence persecution can hardly
be ascribed to the Devil, if it makes the servants of God better
men.5 But persecution, being unjust, seems to many to come
from the Devil: for what could be more unjust than for the
worshippers of the true God to be treated like common
criminals? Tertullian meets this objection by defining the
Devil’s function more precisely.® Since the testing of faith
requires persecution, and this in turn requires injustice, the
machinations of the Devil are subordinate to the will of God.
1 Cor. Mil. 1. 4 f. The date seems to be 208 (pp. 37; 47).

2 Cor. Mil. 1. 5: de quaestionibus confessionum alibi docebimus.
2 Fug. 1. 1: quoted, with a brief exposition of the structure of the treatise at
JTS, N.S. XX (1969), 118.
4 Fug. 1.2. 5 Fug. 1. 3 ff. 6 Fug. 2. 1 ff.
MARTYRDOM 09
God desires to test men’s faith, and the Devil can set to work
only because God tests by persecution. In other words, injustice
is employed solely in order to exhibit the righteousness of the
faithful, and persecution comes not from the Devil but through
him. Satan has no power over the servants of the Lord, except
that which God allows him. Several examples testify. First, Job,
whom God delivered into the hands of the Devil (Job 1. 12;
2. 6). Then Jesus’ promise to protect his disciples, which
implies that the Devil is permitted only to challenge (not to
destroy) their faith (Lk. 22. 31 f.). Again, the Lord’s Prayer:
‘lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one’
acknowledges that temptation, which includes persecution,
comes from God and implies that Christians are not in the
Devil’s power.1 Moreover, the Devil would not have taken
possession of Gadarene swine had not God ordered him (Mt.
8. 31 f.). The Devil has power over the heathen.2 But over the
household of God he has no power of his own: he is merely
permitted to test them, or to punish them (witness King Saul),
or (as Paul recognized) to induce humility (I Sam. 16. 14;
II Cor. 12. 7). Indeed, Paul consigned apostates to Satan
(I Tim. 1. 20; II Tim. 1. 15): so far from possessing power over
the servants of God, the Devil has to receive it from their very
hands. A further catena of texts reinforces the proof (Isaiah
45. 7; Deut. 32. 39; Zach. 13. 9; Mt. 10. 29; 10. 31): if God did
not will persecution, pagans would not vex Christians.
Once that point is agreed, Fabius’ question receives its answer.
If persecution comes from God, one should not flee. For, if it
comes from God, it ought not to be shunned and cannot be
avoided. It ought not to be shunned because it is good and
divine in origin, because it has a purpose—to determine whether
a man shall be saved or damned—and to refuse what is good is
sinful. It cannot be avoided because God’s will cannot be
frustrated. Hence those who believe in flight must either impute
evil to God or consider themselves stronger than him.3
An imaginary dissenter now interrupts. ‘I flee to avoid
denial: God could bring me back if he really wished.’ Tertullian
poses a dilemma. If the objector is certain that he will deny,
1 A different exegesis (and text) had appeared at Orat. 8. 1 ff.

2 Tertullian apparently alludes to Isaiah 40. 15.
3 Fug. 4. 1 ff.
i8o MARTYRDOM
then he has already in effect denied. If he is uncertain, why

does he risk losing his salvation? Confession or denial is either
in our power or in God’s: if the former we should confess, if the
latter no reason exists for fleeing. Flight dishonours God, for it
shows despair that God can protect; and he who flees does not
always escape.1
The dissentient voice interposes again: ‘but to flee from city
to city is our Lord’s command’.2 Tertullian might once have
agreed.3 Now, however, no longer satisfied with cant phrases
and reiterated appeal to an isolated dictum, he insists on closer
examination of the context.4 Jesus was speaking to his apostles
on a particular occasion. How can his commands be given a
universal application when they forbid contact with gentiles and
Samaritans? That was relevant to the apostles, but has clearly
ceased to be relevant to Christians who have nothing to do
with the Jews.5 Jesus was instructing his disciples to preach to
the lost sheep of the house of Israel alone—an injunction which
has long been obsolete.6 Moreover, other sayings of
Jesus are irreconcilable with a continuing command to flee:
‘whosoever shall confess me before men, him will I confess
before my father’ (Mt. io. 32); ‘blessed are they which are
persecuted for my name’s sake’ (a conflation of Mt. 5. 10
and 5. 11); ‘he that endureth to the end shall be saved’ (Mt.
10. 22).
The opponent has not yet been silenced. ‘But God foresaw
the weakness of men, and in his humanity offered them the
refuge of flight.’ Tertullian feels provoked into sarcasm: the
objector must consider God incapable of saving the infirm
without employing such a shoddy device.2 In truth, however,
God rejects, not cherishes, the weak: Jesus commanded
potential disciples to take up their cross (Mt. 10. 38; Lk. 14. 27),
and the Revelation of John puts the timid in the lake of fire and
1 Fug. 5. 1 ff.
2 Fug. 6. 1. The correct reading is ‘immo, inquit, quia etc.’ (CSEL LXXVI. 26).
For the ellipse, cf. V. Bulhart, Sitzungsber. d. osterr. Akad. d. Wiss., Phil.-hist K1
CGXXXI. 5 (1957), 14 f.
3 pp. 176/7.
4 Fug. 6. 1 ff., expounding Mt. 10. 5 ff.
5 Fug. 6. 2. « Fug. 6. 6.
1 Fug. 7. 2. V. Bulhart accepts the manuscript reading (CSEL LXXVI. 29);
J. J. Thierry deletes ‘fuga’ before ‘tam turpi et indigno et servili praesidio’ (CCL
11. 1144).
MARTYRDOM 181
brimstone, which is the second death (Rev. 21. 8). To be sure,

Jesus himself on occasion withdrew, and he professed himself
anxious unto death and that the flesh was weak (Mt. 26. 38 ff.).
But that does not provide a paradigm of conduct. Rather, it
proves Christ’s human nature (which is sometimes explained
away) and the weakness of body and soul without the Holy
Spirit. Again, Jesus asked that the cup might pass from him.
Yet he added: ‘not as I will, but as thou wilt’ (Mt. 26. 39). If a
man flees, he is doing as he wishes, not as God wills.1
The apostles did not commend the precept to flee from city
to city.2 How could they when they were writing from prison
or an island exile ? Paul bade us stand firm in the faith (Ephesians
6. 14 ff.). John stated that cowardice was incompatible with
love of God (I Jn. 4. 18). And if men heed the Spirit, the Spirit
exhorts all men to martyrdom.3
Some Christians, however, set aside divine exhortation in
favour of a piece of worldly wisdom: ‘he who flees will fight
again.’4 In contrast, Tertullian construes flight as irreparable
defeat, and caps Menander with Virgil: ‘is death so miserable ?’5
Surely the soldier of Christ who is overcome by torture is less
reprehensible than the simple deserter. And the example of
Jonah suggests that running away from God will not always be
successful (Jonah 1. 3; 2. 1 ff.). How much better to trust in
God’s protecting hand! How much more preferable to perish
through the will of God than to provoke his anger by running
away !6
All the servants of God have the same duty, whatever their
station. But when priests and deacons, when even bishops are in
flight, what will the mere layman conclude ? The good shepherd
may lay down his life for his sheep (Jn. 10. 11). But the clergy
are bad shepherds, deaf alike to the precepts of scripture and the
promptings of the Holy Spirit, which denounces runaways.
They leave their flock defenceless and without guidance.7
Fabius thus has his full answer.8 But there is a further ques-
1 Fug. 8. 3. 2 Fug. 9. 1 ff.

3Fug. 9. 4. Two Montanist oracles are cited: one is otherwise unknown, the
other only found elsewhere at An. 55. 5. But Tertullian studiously avoids Montanist
terminology.
4 S. Jaekel, Menandri Sententiae (1964), 36. Also quoted by Aulus Gelhus (Nod.
Att. XVII. 21. 31).
sAeneid XII. 646. ^ Fug. 10. 1 ff. 1 Fug. 11. 1 ff. * Fug. 12. 1.
N
182 MARTYRDOM
tion: even if persecution may not be fled, may it not neverthe¬

less be bought off? Tertullian equates flight and bribery:
flight is bribery without the expense, bribery the cash equivalent
of flight.1 Such bribery devalues man’s redemption. Tertullian
develops the theme with eloquence and a wealth of scriptural
allusion.2 And he lets fall the crucial equation upon which his
whole argument depends: apostasy is the refusal of martyrdom.3
Man cannot serve God and mammon. But who is a greater
slave to mammon than the man whom mammon has ransomed
from persecution ?4 Perhaps the churches regard the bribes they
pay as a sort of tax—like the taxes levied on innkeepers,
money-changers, bath attendants, gamesters and brothel-
keepers.5 6
Someone is sure to interject: ‘but how can we gather together
for services?’5 Tertullian suggests that imitation of the apostles
would not come amiss: instead of bribing soldiers, why not try
reliance on faith and take a risk? Or else come together at
night?7 8 Perhaps Tertullian’s message is harsh, for the way is
certainly narrow. If so, the Paraclete is necessary. For those who
have received the Paraclete (i.e. the prophecies of Montanus,
Prisca and Maximilla) do not know how to flee from or buy off
persecution: the Paraclete will speak through them at their
trial and aid them in their suffering and death.8
The De Fuga in Persecutione tends to receive scant praise.

Tertullian stands accused of palpable exaggeration for con¬
demning flight,9 of sophistry (for taking the Bible too seriously),15
1 Fug. 12. 1: sicut fuga redemptio gratuita est, ita redemptio nummaria fuga
est. . . pedibus stetisti, curristi nummis.
2 Fug. 12. 2 ff.
3 Fug. 12. 5: negatio est etiam martyrii recusatio.
4 Fug. 12. 6. Peter of Alexandria drew precisely the opposite deduction from the
same text (pp. 170/1).
5 Fug. 13. 3. For the textual difficulties, cf. G. Thornell, Studio Tertullianea III
(1922), 36. The passage gives rise to some perplexity when pressed into service as
historical evidence: T. Mommsen, Romisches Strafrecht (1899), 313 f.; O. Hirsch-
feld, Kleine Schriften (1913), 583 ff.; G. Lopuszanski, Ant. Class. XX (1951), 6 ff.
6 Fug. 14. 1, cf. 3. 2.
7 Fug. 14. 1. Tertullian alludes to the texts ‘faith will move mountains’ (I Cor. 13.
2) and ‘Christ will give you light’ (Ephesians 5. 14).
8 Fug. 14. 2 f. 9 * G. Bardy, Diet, de thiol, cath. XV. 138.
10 Baus, o.c. 203: ‘with a sophistry that sometimes borders on the acrobatic he
defends the prohibition against flight in time of persecution’.
MARTYRDOM 183
and his statements that priests and bishops ran away are
attributed to Montanist bias.1 But the historical context and the
logical structure of the work should not be neglected. Persecu¬
tion threatened, and the majority of Christians regarded flight
as both permissible and prudent. Some utter pietists were also
to be found, whose only concern was that the normal church
services should not be disrupted, whatever the cause.2 Tertullian
therefore made his arguments independent of his Montanist
convictions. Admittedly, he introduced two Montanist oracles.3
But he introduced them circumspectly and allusively, as the
voice of the Holy Spirit, and possessing an equal validity to the
pronouncements of the apostles Paul and John.4 And the two
prophecies are far from integral to the argument. For the rest,
Tertullian begins from the unimpeachable premise that nothing
happens contrary to the will of God,5 and he proceeds by
logical reasoning and sober biblical exegesis. Where is the
exaggeration ? Where the sophistry ? The critics (it appears) dis¬
like Tertullian’s conclusion. Most Christians fell short of the
standards to which they ought to have adhered. Tertullian
made good use of this discrepancy between theory and reality.
He stated—as a psychological observation—that only a Mon¬
tanist could have the courage to perform the conduct which was
obligatory for every Christian.6 If his arguments cannot be
refuted in strict logic, Tertullian must perforce be accused of
exaggeration. The Dc Fuga in Pcvsccutionc is an exhortation to
Montanism.
The cult of martyrs increased as readiness for martyrdom

declined. Tertullian derided the catholics for attributing spirit¬
ual authority to their martyrs and confessors. No sooner is a
man put in chains than adulterers and fornicators throng the
prison seeking absolution for their sins.7 Nor did the sinneis
come with empty hands. Baskets of food and drink accompanied
them and ameliorated the lot of the imprisoned brother.
Tertullian discusses the case of a recent martyr. When Pristinus
1 P. Monceaux, Histoire littdraire de VAfrique chrdtienne I (1901), 421. Observe that
no African bishop was martyred before Cyprian (p. 162).
2 Fug. 3. 2; 14. 1. 3 Fug. 9. 4; 11. 2.
4 Fug. 9. 4: Spiritum vero si consulas. ...
s Fug. 1.2: satis est quidem praescribere nihil fieri sine Dei voluntate.
6 pUa. 14. q. 7 Pud. 22. 1. Compare Peregrinus (p. 147).
184 MARTYRDOM
was put under house arrest, he indulged himself in every luxury.

Finally, on the day of his trial, he was so dosed up with heady
wine that he felt no more than a tickle from the tortures, was
unable to answer the proconsul’s questions and was tortured to
death. Although he tried to deny, he could utter nothing more
coherent than belches and hiccoughs.1
The story may well be fictitious. Its truth or falsity, however,
matters less than its underlying assumption: despite his death,
Pristinus was not a Christian martyr because he wished to
deny.2 Most Christians would have shared Tertullian’s preju¬
dice. But they refused to apply similar reasoning to the martyr
who wished to escape. During the persecution of Diocletian, the
bishop Peter withdrew from Alexandria into the Libyan desert.
One consequence was schism. On his return Peter’s discredited
authority was repaired with difficulty, until a fortunate accident
rendered it impregnable. In 311, the emperor Maximinus Daia
satisfied the religious prejudices of himself and some of his
subjects by initiating a persecution of the Christians in those
parts of the Roman Empire which he controlled^ Maximinus
was resolved not to be cheated of a spectacular victim. He
therefore sent an agent secretly to Egypt who arrested the
unsuspecting Peter and beheaded him at once.* The eternal
reputation of the martyr-bishop was established.5
Pious invention soon set to work. Within two generations of
Peter’s death his earlier flight had so far been forgotten that
Epiphanius was deceived by a story that he had been cast into
prison with the schismatic Meletius.6 Fictitious lives of the
martyr proliferated, with every sort of bogus detail.2 Peter had
left Alexandria in 303 to seek refuge in Syria, in Mesopotamia,
in Palestine, even on unnamed islands.» And his execution was
1 Jej- 12. 3.
2JeJ- 12. 3: ille Pristinus vester non Christianus martyr ... in ipsa negatione
discessit.
3 i.e. Asia Minor, Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Cyrenaica.
^ Eusebius, HE IX. 6. 2. For the date (26 November 311), H. Castritius, Studien
zu Maximinus Daia (1969), 65.
5 H. Delehaye, Les martyrs d’Egypte (1923), 24 ff.
6 Epiphanius, Panarion LXVIII. 1. 4 f.
1Bibliotheca Hagiographica Graeco3 (1957), 197 f.; Bibliotheca Hagiographica Latina
(‘°99)) 973; ib., Supp.3 * 5 6 (1911), 253; Bibliotheca Hagiographica Orientalis (1910), 204 f.
»H. Hyvernat, Les actes des martyrs de I'figypte I (1886), 258; 268; J. Viteau,
Passions des Saints Ecaterine et Pierre d' Alex andrie (1897), 73*
MARTYRDOM 185
not sudden, but only came after a prolonged display of deliber¬

ate fortitude.1 Peter was even (in flat defiance of Eusebius) set
on a level with his more famous namesake: the one was the
first of the apostles, the other the last of the martyrs.2
Peter’s ‘Canonical Epistle’ became an authoritative source
of canon law in the Greek churches.3 Hence a temptation to
extrapolate, to assume Peter typical of eastern Christianity, to
exploit the contrast between Peter and Tertullian as the
contrast between East and West.4 But the contrast is rather one
between religious types. A Gallic saint becomes relevant.
Ferreolus of Vienne (so the Passio Ferreoli alleges) was brought
before the governor Crispinus and ordered to sacrifice.5 He
refused, was threatened and whipped. When he still refused he
was put in chains and incarcerated. Two days passed. On the
third day, with the gaolers still deep in slumber, Ferreolus’
chains were loosed and he could walk out of prison.6 And so,
‘fleeing according to the Gospel’, he left the town by the Lyon
gate, pondering how to avoid leaving a trail for pursuers. He
therefore uttered a prayer and jumped into the Rhone. The
elements obeyed God’s servant. The stream held back. A few
swift strokes and Ferreolus had crossed. Soon, however, he was
arrested again, his arms were bound behind his back and he
was suddenly run through with a sword. Ferreolus became the
patron saint of Vienne,7 and his body (still complete) was
discovered by its bishop Mamertus, who thereby set himself on
a level with St. Ambrose of Milan.8
The Passio Ferreoli assumes the propriety of flight from
persecution. In his later years, Tertullian would have used the
same story to point a moral. The De Fuga in Persecutione records
1 Hyvernat, o.c. 272 ff.; Viteau, o.c. 75 ff.

2 Hyvernat, o.c. 276; Viteau, o.c. 79.
3 By the second canon of the Trullan Synod of 692 (J. D. Mansi, Sacrorum Con-
ciliorum Nova et Amplissima Collectio XI (1765), 940).
4 Frend, o.c. (1965), 536 ff.; G. E. M. de Ste Croix, The Crucible of Christianity
(1969), 349.
5 T. Ruinart, Acta Primorum Martyrum Sincera et Selecta2 (1713), 462 ff.
6 The ‘miraculous deliverance . . . admits of a perfectly natural explanation’
(Diet, of Christian Biography II. 506). On the contrary, pure fiction and imitation
of Acts 12. 7 ff.
7 Venantius Fortunatus, Carm. VIII. 3. 162; Gregory of Tours, Liber de Virtutibus
Sancti Juliani 2.
8 Or so a flatterer assured him (Sidonius Apollinaris, Epp. VII. 1. 7).
186 MARTYRDOM
a martyr named Rutilius. He had often fled persecution or

bought off danger, and thought himself safe. He was suddenly
arrested, tortured and burnt. But he ascribed his passion,
which he had so far avoided, to the pity of God. To Tertullian
that was proof manifest. Flight was wrong, flight was in vain,
flight was against the will of God.1
1 Fug- 5- 3-
XIII
A PAGAN EDUCATION
L atin letters had declined. To the ‘Golden Age’ of the late

Republic and the reign of Augustus succeeded a ‘Silver
Age’ whose last representatives were Pliny and Tacitus,
Suetonius and Juvenal. Pride of place was passing to the once
despised Greeks. A story circulated that the emperor Trajan
was unable to understand the sophist Dio of Prusa.1 His
successor Hadrian wrote fluent Greek and showed himself a
notable philhellene.2 Antoninus Pius seemed to promise a re¬
turn to western ways and was hailed as a second King Numa.3 4
For a time the cosmopolitan Hadrian could perhaps be dis¬
missed as a temporary aberration. But two teachers of the young
prince Marcus held the consulate in the same year (143): the
fabulously rich Athenian Herodes Atticus as ordinarius with
M. Cornelius Fronto as suffect consul, an orator from Girta who
passed his life in Italy. The precedence of Herodes foreshadowed
the future. The decisive event had already occurred, when
Marcus at the age of eleven donned the pallium and devoted
himself to the serious study of philosophy, a subject which
could only be studied with profit and enjoyment in Greek.*
Marcus never lost his respect or affection for Fronto. In his
Meditations (which he chose to write in Greek) he acknowledges
his intellectual debts, counting Fronto among his creditors.
However, apart from relatives and the Gods, philosophers
predominate, the Stoic Junius Rusticus, Apollonius of Chalce-
don, Sextus of Chaeronea the nephew of Plutarch, the Platonist
Alexander, the Stoics Cinna Catulus and Claudius Maximus,
the Peripatetic Claudius Severus. For the rest, only Diognetus
who taught the emperor painting, and the grammarian
Alexander of Cotiaeum.3 The full account of his teachers in the
i Philostratus, F5 I. 7. 2.
2 R. Syme, Les empereurs romains d’Espagne (1965)) 243 ff-
3 HA, Pius 13.4. And Pius’ coinage parades Italian types, cf. BMC, R. Emp. IV.
lv ff.
4 HA, Marcus 2. 6. 3 Marcus, Meditations I. 1 ff.
188 A PAGAN EDUCATION
Historia Augusta supplies the names of those whom Marcus felt
no cause to recall as important in his intellectual development.
They comprise three Greek orators, two Latin grammatici, and
the jurist Volusius Maecianus.1
When Marcus became emperor, Latin literature was already
unfashionable. In Rome itself Galen was the great attraction.
Morbidity and hypochondria guaranteed the great doctor a
ready audience for his anatomical displays.2 But he regarded
himself as a philosopher and did not fail to impress upon his
admirers the necessity of theoretical knowledge.3 The emperors’
philhellenism struck the tone of society. If the example of
Marcus commended Greek thought, the more frivolous could
copy the delight which Lucius Verus took in dancing, panto¬
mimes and a courtesan from Smyrna.4 Commodus, it is true,
manifested no intellectual interest in literature of any sort.
Contemporaries explained such deficiencies in his character by
the inexpugnable hypothesis that he was sired by a gladiator.3
But the tide of Hellenism did not ebb. On the contrary, the
African emperor Septimius Severus had spent some time in
Athens applying himself to study and tourism.3 Even if his
attitude towards the town was not wholly favourable (its
citizens are alleged to have insulted him), his studies had a
permanent effect. As emperor he would spend part of every
afternoon in peripatetic conversation in both Latin and Greek.2
And Africa itself witnessed a striking example of his admiration
for things Greek. Severus passed the winter of 202/3 in his
native town of Lepcis and held court there. The talented
gathered in Lepcis from the whole world: a professor of
rhetoric at Athens was rumoured (falsely as it turned out) to
be on the point of journeying to Africa to plead for fiscal
privileges,8 and Severus imported architects and stone-masons
from Asia to rebuild Lepcis in extravagant magnificence.9 The
1 HA, Marcus 2. 3 ff.
2 G. W. Bowersock, Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (1969), 62 f.
3 He wrote a work entitled ‘That the best doctor is also a philosopher’ (I.
Muller, Galeni Scripta Minora II (1891), 1 ff.).
4 D. S. Robertson, Essays and Studies presented to W. Ridgeway (1913), 180 ff.;
L. Robert, Hermes LXV (1930), 120; T. D. Barnes, JRS LVII (1967), 70 ff.
5 HA, Marcus 19. 1 ff., at least some of which must derive from Marius Maximus.
6 HA, Sev. 3. 7.
7 Dio LXXVII (LXXVI). 17. 2. 8 Philostratus, VS II. 20. 2.
9 M. F. Squarciapino, Leptis Magna (1966), 16 ff; 95 ff.
A PAGAN EDUCATION 189
emperor proceeded at length to Carthage, where it appears

that he founded new games. They were Pythia: another impor¬
tation from the Greek east.1
The renascence of the Greek east was proceeding apace. The
age of the Antonines and Severi saw the flowering of rhetoric
in the movement which Philostratus styled the Second Sophis¬
tic.2 This was no idle intellectual or academic movement. Its
protagonists were men of position, wealth and political power,
who, if the need arose, could prevail over a proconsul of Asia.3
Nor was the revival of Greek civilization cut short by the
violent upheavals of the third century. Despite political anarchy,
despite constant barbarian incursions, men still wrote works of
literature, forerunners of the long centuries of Byzantine
civilization.4 5 Among the minor figures there arose two giants,
whose work determined the thought of ages to come: Origen
and Plotinus. Equally remarkable was Porphyry, whose biblical
scholarship and historical knowledge of the Hellenistic age
stood unsurpassed for more than one and a half millennia.
Porphyry could prove that the book of Daniel was written in
the reign of Antiochus IV of Syria (175-164 b.c.)3—a proof
whose validity can still be denied by a pertinacious obscurantist,
whose significance can still be played down by the subtle
denigration of the pious.6 7
The Latin west presents a miserable contrast. Some literary
genres inevitably persisted. No civilized society can dispense
with lawyers, political orators or grammarians. Even in these
fields, however, all was not well. After the voluminous writings
of Paulus, Ulpian and Ulpian’s pupil Herennius Modestinus,
juristic literature appears to have renounced the possibility of
creative writing: the only legal text of any compass surviving
from the later third century is a bald summary of Paulus, viz.
the Sententiae Pauli.1 And around 390, when a later orator
came to collect the prime specimens of Latin panegyric
1JTS, N.S. XX (1969), 125 ff.

1 VS I. praef.
3 Bowersock, o.c. 17 ff.; T. D. Barnes, Historia XVIII (1969), 383 f.
^ F. Millar, JRS LIX (1969), 12 ff.
5 For the relevant fragments and testimonia, see A. Harnack, Abhand. d. kon.
preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin, Phil.-hist. Kl. 1916, 1 ff.
^ A. Vaganay, Diet, de thdol. cath. XII. 2583, accuses Porphyry of superficiality.
7 E. Levy, êitschr. Sav. St., Roman Abt. L (1930), 272 ff.
(all except the first by Gauls), he deemed none worthy of

inclusion between Pliny’s masterpiece (delivered in 100) and a
speech delivered at Treveri in 289.1
Every other type of pagan literature died. No generation can
resist the temptation to versify. But what genuine poetry can
pagan Latin literature offer in this period ? After the ‘neoterici’
of the late second century, there is the metrical handbook of
Terentianus Maurus, possibly the Liber medicinalis of Q.
Serenus (whose date is totally uncertain), a collection of
improving maxims styled the Disticha Catonis, and a number of
isolated and mostly anonymous poems.2 A single genuine poet
can be discovered: Nemesianus of Carthage wrote four eclo¬
gues and Cynegetica which praised the emperors Carinus and
Numerianus (283/4).3 As for antiquarians, agricultural writers,
astrologers and collectors of mirabilia (all once flourishing
genres), the record is equally bare. After Aulus Gellius (who
preferred Greek antiquities), the antiquarian Sammonicus
Serenus, whom Caracalla murdered, apparently stands alone.
And Gensorinus, who wrote De die natali in 238, the agricultural
writer Gargilius Martialis of Auzia, who died fighting the
Moors in 260, and the undatable Collectanea Rerum Mirabilium
of Julius Solinus are each unique representatives of their class.4
The lamentable poverty of Latin literature in the third
century has long been hidden by the Historia Augusta.5 This
mendacious work invents a long series of otherwise unattested
authors who gain admittance to standard handbooks6 and
whose presumed existence conveys an impression that many
sorts of literature were still flourishing.2 Two false stories in par¬
ticular have had manifold repercussions. Sammonicus Serenus
(the Historia Augusta asserts) owned a library of sixty-two thou¬
sand volumes, which he bequeathed to his son. The son in
turn left the library to the M. Antonius Gordianus who became
1 R. Pichon, Rev. it. anc. VIII (1906), 247 ff.
2 Schanz-Hosius, Gesch. d. rom. Litt. IIP (1922), 21 ff.
3 J- W. and A. M. Duff, Minor Latin Poets (Loeb Classical Library, 1934), 451 ff.
4 Schanz-Hosius, o.c. 180 f.; 219 ff. The obscure Cornelius Labeo, who wrote
about religious curiosities (ib. 181 ff), might belong to the reign of Tiberius (cf.
R. Syme, Ten Studies in Tacitus (1970), 67).
5 R. Syme, Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (1968), 104.
6 e.g., H. Peter, Historicorum Romanorum Reliquiae II. 129 ff.
7 See the egregious survey of E. K. Rand, Camb. Anc. Hist. XII (1939), 588 ff.;
597 ff-
emperor with his father for a brief spell in the spring of 238.1
If this tale can be credited and the books assumed to be mostly
Latin, how could literature and learning be dead? In truth,
however, both Serenus’ son and the library are inventions.2
Gordianus was an easterner who received the dedication of
Philostratus’ Lives of the Sophists.3 Such a man would not have
been proud of owning more books in Latin than was strictly
necessary. Again, the Historia Augusta credits Gordianus’ father
with composing (in his youth) poems on all the subjects which
Cicero had treated in verse and an epic in thirty books on the
reigns of Antoninus Pius and Marcus Aurelius, after the manner
of Statius.4 Therefore (the precious item is seized upon with
alacrity) Statius was still read, and it becomes possible to trace
the fortunes of Silver Latin poetry in the second century.5
The historian Tacitus perceived that only an intellectually
barren age will produce no historical writing.6 He himself found
no followers before Ammianus Marcellinus in the late fourth
century. The reading public found the present too dull, the
recent past too offensive. They turned to men like Florus, who
provided a rhetorical and patriotic rehash of Livy.7 From time
to time, a spate of ephemeral publications would perform a
service which journalism later removed from the field of litera¬
ture: narrations of spectacular wars, such as those of L. Verus
or Septimius Severus.8 Biography (as always) retained its
appeal, and two emperors who had much to explain (Hadrian
and Severus) put out autobiographies.9 Finally, the end of the
Severan dynasty provoked two disciples of Suetonius. One is an
attested figure, Marius Maximus, a general of Severus in 193
who lived on into the reign of Severus Alexander. Maximus
went beyond his exemplar in scandal and salacity, and his
deleterious qualities endeared him to at least one later genera-
1 HA, Gord. 18. 2.

2 Syme, o.c. 160 f.
3 Latomus XXVII (1968), 581 ff.
4 HA, Gord. 3. 2 f. All duly registered without query by Schanz-Hosius, o.c.
18 f.; Rand, o.c. 597 f.
5 P. Wessner, Phil. Wochenschrift XLIX (1929), 333.
6 Agr. 1. 1.
^ R. Syme, Tacitus (1958), 503.
8 Lucian, Quomodo historia i ff.; Fronto, Principia Historiae\ DioLXXIII (LX.XII).
23. 1 ff.; Herodian III. 7. 6. For an earlier period, cf. Josephus, Bell. jud. I. 1 ff.
» Schanz-Hosius, o.c. 7; 15.
tion.i The other, a more prosaic biographer, who happens not

to be attested anywhere explicitly, went down to the death of
Caracalla in 217 (Maximus continued for another five years)
and served as the main source for the first part of the Historia
Augusta.1 2 After this pair, nothing for a century.3
The darkness was neither total nor ubiquitous. In Africa

the polite arts were still practised. Apuleius returned to Carthage
after his travels in the east and Italy, becoming high priest of
the provincial council and acquiring a reputation for magic.4 In
the next generation, Tertullian was clearly the luminary of his
age, and inaugurated the new and living form of Christian
Latin literature. Isolated pagan figures can be assigned to
Africa of the third century: Censorinus, Gargilius Martialis,
Nemesianus.5 They are few enough—but almost outnumber all
the other pagan Latin writers of the period. In turn, however,
they are greatly outnumbered by the Christian authors. First,
Minucius Felix, whose dialogue Octavius must be assigned to the
middle of the third century, and who was arguably writing in
Africa for an African public.6 Next Cyprian, like Minucius
Felix an imitator of Tertullian, who forsook a chair of rhetoric
in Carthage to become bishop.7 Nor did Cyprian stand alone:
his friend the deacon Pontius wrote a biography and his name
attracted several pseudepigrapha from unknown African
hands.8 Soon too, again in Africa, Christian poetry (if the word
may be used of so hispid a writer) was composed by Commo-
dianus, an immigrant from Palestine.9 In the next generation,
Arnobius taught rhetoric at Sicca and composed a long and
virulent diatribe against paganism, an Adversus JVationes in
seven books.10 His pupil Lactantius was invited from Africa by
Diocletian to teach Latin at Nicomedia. The enterprise was
1 Syme, o.c. (1968), 89 ff.

2 R. Syme, Emperors and Biography (1971), 30 ff.; 113 ff.
3 Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium 1968/6g (1970), 40 f.
4 App. 12.
5 Schanz-Hosius, o.c. 31; 220; 223.
6 See J. Beaujeu, Minucius Felix: Octavius (Coll. Bude, 1964), xxiii ff.; xliv ff.
7 p. 8.
8 J- Quasten, Palmtops II (1953), 367 ff.
9 Both date and milieu are highly controversial, cf. B. Altaner-A. Stuiber
Patrologie7 (1966), 181 f.
10 Altaner-Stuiber, o.c. 183 f.
not successful, but Lactantius ended his life as tutor to the son
ot Constantine and acquired a formidable reputation as a
writer.1 All these men either wrote in Africa or were educated
there. In Africa, therefore, literature was not dead. An obscure
fact will illustrate. The number of acta martyrum which can
validly be regarded as either contemporary or accurate
records of the trial, imprisonment and execution of early Chris¬
tians is very small.2 Yet of this mere handful, most of those
written in Latin are African. Indeed, if the year 300 be taken
as the terminus, all the genuine acta martyrum except one emanate
from Africa: the Acts oj the Scillitan Martyrs (180), the Passion of
Perpetua (203), the Acta Cypriani (258), the accounts of the
martyrdoms of Marianus and Jacobus, and of Montanus and
Lucius, and the passions of two military martyrs: Maximilianus
at Theveste in 295 and Marcellus in 298 at Tingi.3 The exception
is the Acts of Fructuosus, bishop of Tarragona in Spain, who was
executed in 258.4 (Two passions of the Decian persecution
which are admitted to standard collections must be dis¬
carded, viz. the Acta Acacii and the Acta Maximi).5 No similar
acta or passions are preserved from Italy, Gaul or Britain. These
areas cg.n hardly have lacked martyrs altogether. One must
deduce that no one there was concerned to produce literature.
At Rome, the bishop Victor and the turbulent Hippolytus
still wrote in Greek.6 To be sure, Latin translations of scripture
were probably already in existence in Italy.7 But creative
Christian writing in Italy began under the impact of Tertullian:
the first man to write theology in Latin in Italy was the
schismatic Novatian, whose work De Trinitate was little
more than an epitome of Tertullian.8 But Novatian provoked
little reaction. The next Christian to write in Latin outside
Africa was Victorinus of Poetovio, whose motive can be deduced
from Jerome’s remark that he knew Greek better.9 Since he
ip. 9. 2JTS, N.S. XIX (1968), 509 ff.
3 E. Dekkers, Clavis Patrum Latinorum2 (1961), nos. 2049; 32; 53; 2050-3. Possibly
also the Passio Cassiani (R. Knopf-G. Kriiger-G. Ruhbach, Ausgewahlte Martyrerak-
ten4 (1965), 89 f.).
4 Dekkers, o.c. no. 2055.
3 Knopf-Kruger-Ruhbach, o.c. 57 ff.; cf. respectively, A. Harnack, Die
Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius II (1904), 468 f.; H. Lietzmann,
Kleine Schriften I (1957), 229 ff.
6 pp. 6/7. 7 App. 24. 8 Jerome, De Vir. III. 70.
9 De Vir. III. 74.
composed mainly biblical commentaries, Victorinus was draw¬
ing on the theology of the east in order to enlighten the Chris¬
tians of Pannonia. Victorinus died c. 300.1 Another generation
passed. Then, under Constantine, wrote Reticius of Augusto-
dunum and the Spaniard Juvencus: the former composed a
commentary on the ‘Song of Songs’ and a refutation of Novatian
the latter turned the Gospels into verse.1 2 Under Constantine’s
sons, the trickle became a flood: the Donatist schism and the
Arian controversy had released a flow of rhetoric, polemic and
theology which was never to be staunched.3
The role of Africa is clear, and within Africa the role of
Tertullian. It was his powerful example that inspired Minucius
Felix, Cyprian, Arnobius and Lactantius. Though his name is
studiously avoided (except once by Lactantius),4 the debt of all
four writers to him is undeniable. Tertullian had shown that a
Christian could write elegant Latin. Cyprian (the story is
revealing) read him every day.5
Tertullian grew up and lived in Carthage. His writings,
therefore, provide valuable testimony for the education which
he received and which was available to others. Admittedly,
Tertullian may have learnt much abroad, either in Rome or
on travels to the cities of the east where the great sophists
taught. But the hypothesis is not necessary,6 and the presumed
travels happen not to be explicitly attested.7 Moreover, evidence
from both before and after Tertullian indicates that the schools
of Carthage could have provided all the learning that was good
for a man.3 Although Apuleius had completed his education in
Athens, he had spent most of his formative years in Africa,
learning Greek and even beginning to study philosophy in
Carthage.9 Apuleius was clearly not unique. For his extant
declamations, all apparently delivered in Carthage soon after
160, presuppose in his audience a high degree of learning in
both Latin and Greek. And Carthage was able to attract teachers
from outside Africa: a Greek philosopher died there after
1 Perhaps in 304 precisely (M. Schuster, P-W VIII A. 2081).

2 Jerome, De Vir. III. 82; 84.
3 O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Litteratur III (1912), 365 ff.
4 P- 26. 5 Ch. II.
6 J. Jung, Wiener Studien XII (1891), 231 ff. 7 App. 5.
8 F. Schemmel, Phil. Wochenschrift XLVII (1927), 1342 ff.
9 Apuleius, Flor. 18.
coming from Crete.1 Two centuries after Apuleius, the Con¬

fessions of Augustine show that Carthage still maintained its
academic excellence. Augustine came to the metropolis at the
age of sixteen. He had learnt the rudiments in his native
Thagaste, and had begun to study literature and rhetoric at
nearby Madauros. Carthage formed the culmination of his
education, and he became a teacher of rhetoric.2 The next
stages of Augustine’s career reveal the prestige of the schools of
Carthage: he went to Rome and thence, very soon, on the
recommendation of Symmachus himself, to the chair of rhetoric
at the imperial capital of Milan.3 A professor at Carthage was
an important person.
The schools of Carthage outlasted Roman rule, and pro¬
duced an efflorescence of literature in Vandal Africa.4 Rhetoric,
law and philosophy continued to be taught, and when Justinian
reconquered the city in 534 he maintained or restored fiscal
privileges for four professors in grammar and rhetoric.5 Carthage
still possessed a reputation for learning in the eyes of Salvian of
Marseille in the fifth century,6 and a poet in the reign of King
Thrasamund boasted proudly of the Vandal capital:
Carthago studiis, Carthago ornata magistris.7
He might have been echoing the words of Apuleius three hundred
years before: Carthage the venerable teacher of the province,
Carthage the heavenly Muse of Africa, Carthage the inspiration
of the Roman world.8
By both birth and upbringing, Tertullian belonged to literary
circles in Carthage. One of his relatives was a litterateur, who
turned a philosophical dialogue (the Pinax attributed to Cebes,
the friend of Socrates) into a cento of Virgilian verses.9 He
1 CIL VIII. 12924.
2 Augustine, Confessions II. 3; III. 1; V. 8. He also spent a period teaching
rhetoric at Thagaste (IV. 4; 7).
3 P. Brown, Augustine of Hippo (1967), 65 ff.
4 G. Courtois, Les Vandales et I’Afrique (1955), 223 ff. 5 Cod. Just. I. 27. 1. 42.
6 Salvian, De Gubern. Dei VII. 68. But part of his description of Carthage has been
held to derive from Tertullian: J. P. Waltzing, Musde Beige XIX-XXIV (ig2o),
39 ff.; P. Courcelle, Histoire littdraire des grandes invasions germaniques3 (1964), 154.
7 Anth. Lat. 530. 32 (E. Baehrens, Poetae Latini Minores IV. 427).
8 Flor. 20.
9 Praescr. Haer. 39. 4: meus quidam propinquus ex eodem poeta inter cetera
stili sui otia Pinacem Cebetis explicuit. On the original, cf. R. F. Refoule, Sources
chrdtiennes XLVI (1957), 143.
himself knew the rhetorical schools and could quote the perora¬
tion of a declamation which the rhetor Phosphorus delivered
publicly. Phosphorus’ pupils shouted out in wonder at his
technique: Tertullian pronounced him frigid.1
Everyone read the classics. But how extensive was their know¬
ledge ? Virgil and Terence, Sallust and Cicero, whom Arusianus
Messius in 395 defined as the ‘quadriga’ of standard authors—
these were familiar to all, studied carefully by every schoolboy.2
A man who wished to regard himself as genuinely erudite
would not be satisfied with standard texts, especially if he were
intent on impressing others. Hence the long list of literary
authorities (their number exceeds thirty) whom Tertullian trium¬
phantly parades in his Apologeticum: Pliny the younger,
Herodotus, Ctesias, Diodorus and Thallus, Cassius Severus and
Cornelius Nepos, Pythagoras and Plato, Pindar, the Cynics
Diogenes and Varro, Cornelius Tacitus, Aristeas, Manetho the
Egyptian, Berossus the Chaldean, Hiram of Tyre, Ptolemy of
Mende, Menander of Ephesus, Demetrius of Phalerum,
King Juba of Mauretania, Apion and his adversary Josephus,
the Stoics Zeno and Cleanthes, Plato again and again, Epicurus,
Hostilius,Laberiusand Lentulus (three writers of mimes), Cicero
and Seneca, Pyrrhon and Callinicus.
How genuine was this erudition? Some is demonstrably
borrowed. For the Letter of Aristeas is paraphrased from Jose¬
phus, whom Tertullian does not name in the close context.3
Similarly, the list of writers on oriental antiquities, from
Manetho to Apion, derives from Josephus and Theophilus
of Antioch.4 And the use of handbooks or florilegia will
inevitably be surmised, since so much of the learning of late
antiquity derives from such easily accessible compilations.5 A
clear case exists in Tertullian’s use of stories about ancient
philosophers and quotations of their sayings, which circulated
widely in compendia.6
1 Vat. 8. 3.
2 H. I. Marrou, Histoire de 1’education dans VantiquiU6 (1965), 405 f.
3 Apol. 18. 7, cf. A. Vitale, Musie Beige XXVI (1922), 62 ff.
4 Apol. 19. 6, cf. Josephus, Contra Apionem I. 73 ff.; Theophilus, Ad Autolycum III.
22. On Hiram (an error), F. Jacoby, FGrH III C (1958), 828.
5 H. Chadwick, RAC VII. 1131 ff.
6 R. Hope, The Book of Diogenes Laertius (1930), 37 ff.
Direct use of one author by another tends to be difficult to

prove beyond all doubt. The hypothesis of an intermediary, of a
pre-existent selection, of a compendium, can rarely be com¬
pletely excluded. Its probability lessens, however, the more
often it has to be invoked. And in some cases the hypothesis
may be inherently implausible. Tertullian constitutes the
major source for recovering fragments of Suetonius’ lost writ¬
ings on dramatic art and (with Augustine) for our knowledge of
Varro’s lost researches into Roman religion.1 None will wish
to deny that Tertullian had excerpted these works for himself.
But how wide was Tertullian’s learning? The case of one Greek
author will illustrate the difficulty of ascertaining—and the
inaccuracy of Tertullian’s memory.
The Apologeticum quotes Herodotus for the barbarian habits
of the Scythians, who cover themselves in blood when making
treaties, and refers to a famous and ambiguous oracle which
Delphi gave to Croesus.2 Both allusions could derive from extracts
of Herodotus,3 and the De Oratione quotes again from the same
oracle.4 Again, the De Anima quotes Herodotus three times:
for Astyages the king of Media dreaming about his daughter
Mandane, for the assertion (held to be false) that the
Atlantes in Libya never dream, and for the Nasamones’
practising incubation at the tombs of their dead parents.5 6
All three citations (it is authoritatively stated) are taken
from the dream book of Hermippus of Berytus.e For after
the first of them Tertullian refers the curious reader to
Hermippus for further details.7 The technique is familiar,
in Tertullian as in other writers, of implicitly concealing
one’s indebtedness. Since Hermippus is not extant,8 the
hypothesis of derivation seems impregnable. But a doubt
1 R. Agahd, Jahrbucherfur class. Phil., Supp. XXIV (1898), 1 ff.; J. H. Waszink,

Vig. Chr. II (1948), 224 ff.; S. Oswiecimski, De scriptorum Romanorum vestigiis apud
Tertullianum obviis quaestiones selectae (1951), 65 ff.
2 Apol. 9. 9; 22. 10, cf. Herodotus IV. 70; I. 47.
3 H. P6tre denied that Tertullian ever consulted Herodotus himself (L’exemplum
chez Tertullien (19401,67), K. Holl claimed ‘Tertullians Gelehrsamkeit ist immer
eine ad hoc erworbene’ (Preussische Jahrbucher LXXXVIII (1897), 270), and C.
Guignebert ‘il n’est pas lui-meme un savant’ (Tertullien (1901), 611).
4 Oral. 17. 4.
5 An. 46. 4; 49. 2; 57. 10; cf. Herodotus I. 107; IV. 184; IV. 172.
6 J. H. Waszink, Tertulliani De Anima (1947)) 45* 5 491-
7 An. 46. 11. 8 For the known facts, Heibges, P-W VIII. 853 f.
O
arises. An adept at detecting plagiarism applied the same line

of argument to Tertullian’s statement that Suetonius reported
that Nero never experienced dreams:1 this was denied to come
from direct consultation and held to be taken from Soranus, a
Greek medical writer of the time of Hadrian.2 Hence a re¬
markable absurdity: a Greek reading a Latin biographer who
may have written after him. But the improbability has an apt
parallel. The De Corona Militis cites Claudius Saturninus on
the subject of garlands.3 Plagiarism from Varro according to
one scholar.4 But Saturninus was apparently writing in the age
of the Antonines.5 The possibility remains open that Tertullian
has added something to Hermippus from his own perusal of
Herodotus.
Elsewhere Tertullian quotes anonymously (‘dicitur’) the
story of Psammetichus’ linguistic researches.6 The king of
Egypt put two new-born children in the care of a nurse whose
tongue had been cut out. The first sound they uttered would
signify which race on earth was the oldest. They duly said
‘becos’, which means ‘bread’ in Phrygian, and this was con¬
cluded to b.e the primeval race. Tertullian follows Herodotus’
phrasing, but makes a small mistake. In Herodotus the atten¬
dant was a shepherd whom Psammetichus requested not to
speak: he explicitly rejected another version of the story,
which substituted females whose tongues had been removed for
the shepherd.7 Tertullian (it should appear) has used Herodo¬
tus directly and conflated the two forms of the story. Confirma¬
tion can be sought from an unexpected fact. The story happens
never to occur in ancient literature outside Herodotus and
quotations of him.8 The reason is clear: everyone knew whence
it came.
For direct use of Herodotus, the opening of the Adversus
1 An. 44. 2. cf. Suetonius, Nero 46. 1. Further, An. 46. 7 derives from Suetonius,
Div. Aug. 94. 9: read therefore ‘in vitae illius commentariis conditum est.’
2 E. Rohde, Kleine Schriften II (1901), 206 ff. Not accepted by Waszink, o.c.
47*; 475-
3 Cor. Mil. 7. 6.
4 J. Geffcken, Kynika und Verwandtes (1909), 100.
5J. Fontaine, Tertullien: Sur la Couronne (1966), 100.
6 Nat. I. 8. 2 f. For comment, cf. A. Schneider, Le premier livre Ad JVationes de
Tertullien (1968), 190 ff.
7 Herodotus II. 2. 5.
8 e.g., Pollux, Onomasticon V. 88.
A PAGAN EDUCATION »99
Marcionem is decisive.1 Tertullian evokes the savage Pontus and
all its monstrous barbarities.2 But its greatest wonder is Marcion
himself, who outdoes everything. Of course, the icy cold of the
region is depicted at length. But an inconcinnity obtrudes: with
icy streams and snowy mountains there appear fiery lakes.
Editors emend the text, substituting snow for fire.2 In fact,
Tertullian’s memory has erred again. Describing the intense
cold, Herodotus stated that the Scythian winter was so intense
that one could not make mud by pouring water on the ground,
but only by lighting a fire.4 Tertullian has remembered the
fire but used it incongruously. The error ought to be ascribed to
direct derivation.5 Two further allusions will dispel any
lingering doubt. Midas’ rose-garden might have attained some
notoriety,<5 but Tertullian produces the information that its
roses each had a hundred petals: Herodotus said sixty.7 And
Tertullian once recalls the sandstorm which incommoded part
of Gambyses’ army: the obscurity of the allusion presupposes
knowledge.8
Herodotus was a fascinating author who never entirely fell
out of favour: he could be consulted for the quaint customs of
strange races, for exotic tales of the mysterious east, or for the
stirring resistance of Greece to a barbarian invader. More
surprisingly, Tertullian also shows familiarity with three Latin
writers of the ‘Silver Age’ who endured a long period of un¬
popularity: Pliny the younger, Tacitus and Juvenal.
Jerome and Rufinus were both born shortly before the middle
of the fourth centuryA Their close friendship and subsequent
enmity produced valuable results, not least among them a list of
authors read in school when they were young. When about to
attack Rufinus’ method of expounding scripture, Jerome ran
through the commentaries his enemy must have read: Asper on
Virgil and Sallust, Vulcatius on Cicero’s speeches, Victorinus
1 Marc. I. i. 3 f.
2 A commonplace, cf. A. Bill, Texte u. Unters. XXXVIII. 2 (1911), 9 IT.
3 A. Kroymann, CSEL XLVII. 291 = CCL I. 442.
4 Herodotus IV. 28. 1.
s Otherwise Bill, o.c. 11: ‘ist direkte Entlehnung unwahrscheinlich’.
6 pall. 2. 7. 1 Cor. Mil. 14. 4, cf. Herodotus VIII. 138. 2.
s Pall. 2. 4: utinam et Africa semel voraginem paverit, unicis castris fraudatis
expiata! Compare Herodotus III. 26.
9 F. Cavallera, Saint Jhome. Sa vie etson teuvre II (1922), 3 If.
on Cicero’s dialogues and Terence, Donatus on Virgil, and

anonymous commentators on Plautus, Lucretius, Horace,
Persius and Lucan.1 That these were the standard authors for
those who went beyond the mere ‘quadriga’ emerges clearly
from Jerome’s voluminous writings. Allusions to and quotations
from these authors abound, while those from writers outside the
list are very sparse.2 Pliny, Tacitus and Juvenal were not
normally read at the time of Jerome’s youth. But they came back
into fashion, and even notoriety, before his old age. Around 390,
Ammianus Marcellinus protested at the reading habits of the
aristocracy: they looked at nothing else besides Juvenal and
the scandalous Marius Maximus.2 Ammianus himself imitated
and continued Tacitus,4 and a decade later Sulpicius Severus
composed Christian Chronica which sought to combine the
ecclesiastical history of Eusebius with the secular framework of
Tacitus.5 At the same time, the son of Symmachus edited his
father’s letters. The arrangement which he chose (nine books of
private letters, one of official correspondence) challenged
comparison with Pliny.5 The Fathers of the Church reflected
changing tastes. Augustine, who took no interest in the history
or literature of imperial Rome, shows no sign of ever having read
Tacitus or Pliny.2 But after the sack of Rome in 410 he read
Juvenal for evidence on the moral decadence of the imperial
city.8 Jerome implies that he read Pliny’s Letters while he was
young.f That could be true, but no certain echo of Pliny has yet
been discerned in anything he wrote prior to 395.10 Jerome pro¬
bably never read Tacitus, whom he mentions once, as writing
the lives of the emperors from Tiberius to Comitian in thirty
books.11 As for Juvenal, the extent of Jerome’s knowledge stands
in dispute. Several clear quotations exist: all of the same line,
'Jerome, Contra Rufinum I. 16 {PL XXIII. 410).

2 H. Hagendahl, Latin Fathers and the Classics (1958), 269 ff.
3 Ammianus XXVIII. 4. 14.
4 G. B. A. Fletcher, Rev. phil.3 XI (1937), 389 ff.
5 J. Bernays, Uber die Chronik des Sulpicius Severus (1861 )> 53 ff-
6 H. Peter, Der Brief in der romischen Literatur (1903), 148.
7 H. Hagendahl, Augustine and the Latin Classics (1967), 694.
8 Hagendahl, o.c. 477; 704. » Epp. CXXV. 12. 1.
10 Hagendahl, o.c. (1958), 186 f. The preface to the De Viris Illustribus of 392
has been argued to contain an allusion to Pliny, Epp. IX. 2. 2 (G. P. Jones, Phoenix
XXI (1967), 301). The similarity could easily be accidental.
11 In Zach. XIV. 1 f. {CCL LXXVI A. 878).
which occurs suspiciously near the beginning of the first satire.1

Otherwise, allusions are hard to detect and perhaps non¬
existent.2 *
Tertullian easily surpasses both Jerome and Augustine. Pliny
(it is true) he quotes only once, for his correspondence with
Trajan on the subject of Christians.2 Hence easy recourse to the
hypothesis that he consulted a collection of testimonia relating
to Christianity,4 5 6 or that he knew only the tenth book of the
Letters.5 However, if such a collection existed, no other Christian
seems ever to have used it: Eusebius (whom Jerome copies)
takes his quotation of Trajan’s rescript to Pliny from Tertullian.®
As for the first nine books, perhaps Tertullian read them without
finding anything of interest. A man of his temperament could
easily have found the style frigid, the expression commonplace,
and the matter uninteresting.
Tacitus had more to offer. A Christian apologist who knew
his writings would feel the need to refute some of Tacitus’
remarks about the Jews. Tacitus had asserted that what was
sacred to the rest of mankind was despised by the Jews and that
they practised all sorts of immorality.7 Since Christianity was by
origin Jewish, the same beliefs were entertained concerning
Christian behaviour.2 * The Ad JVationes and Apologeticum,
therefore, both discuss Tacitus’ slanders on the Jews.9 But the
fifth book of the Histories has left two more traces in these works:
Tertullian refers to Tacitus as an authority on the nature of the
god Saturn, and appears to allude to his description of the
Judaean desert.10 These chapters were perhaps an obvious
quarry. Did Tertullian read the rest of the Histories or the
Annals? Proof can be produced. Discussing the origins of
persecution, the Apologeticum appeals to ‘commentarii vestri’:
there the pagans can read how Nero was the first to execute
1 viz. I. 15.
2 A. Liibeck, Hieronymus quos noverit scriptores et ex quibus hauserit (1872), 198 ff.
Apol. 2.6.
4 E. T. Merrill held that Tertullian knew Pliny only at second hand (Wiener
Studien XXXI (1909), 251 ff.).
5 A. Cameron scouts this possibility (CQ, LIX (1965), 292; 296 f.).
6 JRS LVIII (1968), 32.
2 Tacitus, Hist. V. 4. 1. 8 Tacitus, Ann. XV. 44.
« Nat. I. 11. 1 ff.; Apol. 16. 2 ff. Significantly, Tertullian cited the wrong book,
the fourth (CCL 1. 115).
Nat. II. 12. 26; Apol. 40. 7, cf. Tacitus, Hist. V. 7. 1.
Christians just as the new religion was beginning to gain con¬
verts in Rome.1 The source of Tertullian’s statement becomes
clear from a passage of the Scorpiace, which ascribes the same in¬
formation to ‘vitae Caesarum’.2 Many conclude that Tertullian
means Suetonius.2 But Tacitus has a better claim, since he states
both that Nero was the first persecutor and that Christianity
was taking a hold in the capital. That his annalistic history
is called ‘vitae Caesarum’ offers no obstacle. On the contrary,
such a designation illuminates the literary tastes of Tertullian’s
day.4 Other traces of Tacitus are perhaps more conjectural. The
De Pallio appeals to a speech of Caecina Severus in the Senate
complaining of senatorial women appearing in public without
robes, and to highly moral pronouncements by Lentulus the
augur.5 Tacitus’ Annals contain a speech by Caecina Severus
on a closely similar theme (the avarice of governors’ wives)
and mention the name of Lentulus.6 7 Tertullian has perhaps
once more been betrayed by his memory of what he had read.
And a similar mistaken recollection of the same book of the
Annals might help to resolve a notorious textual perplexity
in the ApologeticumJ
Juvenal left a deeper impression on Tertullian, who often
rises to a truly Juvenalian indignation. Two allusions have long
been recognized. The opening of the De Pudicitia depicts the
dishonour into which modesty is fallen, transposing into
Christian terms the first lines of Juvenal’s sixth satire.8 In the
fourth book Adversus Marcionem Tertullian derides Marcion’s
second God, who lacks omnipotence: who, he asks, can give the
power of crushing snakes and scorpions ? The Lord of all crea¬
tion, or a God who does not rule a single lizard ?9 That recalls
Juvenal’s ridicule of the man who deserts Rome for a country
1 Apol. 5. 3. 2 Scorp. 15. 3.

3 e.g. J. H. Waszink, Tertulliani De Anima (1947), 479; J. W. P. Borleffs, Vig.
Chr. VI (1952), 142.
4 Ch. I. 3 pan 4. g.
6 Ann. III. 33. Lentulus the augur appears twice in this book of the Annals
(III. 59; 68). A. Groag accepted Tertullian’s statement without demur (PIRi C
1379). Rather, yet another false reminiscence.
7 p. 19. Further, Idol. 9. 2 might be based on Tacitus, Ann. II. 32.
8 H. Hoppe, De sermone Tertullianeo quaestiones selectae (1897), 24. The influence of
the same passage has also been detected in Cult. Fem. I. 1. 1 (E. Evans, Tertullian's
Tract on the Prayer (1953), 57).
9 Marc. IV. 24. 9.
retreat: it is something, he concedes, to make yourself the

owner of a single lizard.1 The search for other Juvenalian echoes
has not been conspicuously successful. An attempt to discover
some in the Apologeticum convinced nobody.2 And a long list
of professions in the De Pallio arises more naturally out of the
subject matter than from a reminiscence of the third satire.2
Perhaps therefore one should be content with the two acknow¬
ledged echoes. But another apparent slip of Tertullian’s
memory may argue additional knowledge of Juvenal. The De
Pallio records the extravagance of Asinius Celer, who spent six
thousand sesterces on a single mullet.4 The name and story are
taken from the elder Pliny or his source.5 But in Pliny the fish
costs eight thousand sesterces. Tertullian may have conflated
Celer with a character in Juvenal’s fourth satire: the odious
Crispinus spent precisely six thousand on one mullet.6
Tertullian’s knowledge of Silver Latinity is striking. For a
long period no one else can display any knowledge of these three
authors. Sammonicus Serenus had certainly heard of the
younger Pliny, since he conflated him with his uncle.7 But there
is no positive sign that he had read the Letters, and one ought
not any longer to assume that they were to be found in his
(fictitious) library of sixty-two thousand volumes.8 Apart from
Tertullian, and a possible allusion in Fronto^ the record is
bare until Jerome, Ammianus and the scholia onjuvenal (which
were composed towards the year 400).10 For Juvenal, the case is
similar. Known to Tertullian and quoted once by Lactantius,11
he remained otherwise unknown until the last quarter of the
1 Juvenal III. 230 f., cf. C. Weyman, Neophilologus VII (1922), 283.
2 2. K. Vysoky, Remarks on the Sources of the Works of Tertullian (in Czech, 1937) •
But ‘mentiri nescio’ {Apol. 33. 3) might be an unconscious echo of Juvenal III.
4Ij Pall. 6. 2, cf. Juvenal III. 75 ff. Adduced by G. Highet, Juvenal the Satirist
(1954)s 297-
4 Pall. 5. 6.
5 Pliny, Nat. Hist. IX. 67.
6 Juvenal IV. 15: mullum sex milibus emit. Geffcken argued that Tertullian
wrote ‘octo’, but that a scribe who knew Juvenal changed the number (o.c. 79) •
7 Macrobius, Sat. III. 16. 5. ,
8 As does Cameron, o.c. 290—with the added refinement that Sammonicus had
not read as far as Epp. VI. 16.
9 Discussed by A. Cameron, CQ_ LXI (1967), 421.
10 For the details, A. Cameron, CQ.LIX (1965), 289 ff; LXI (1967), 421 f.
11 Div. Inst. III. 29.
fourth century.1 Tacitus too leaves no certain trace in Latin

literature outside Tertullian between Florus (who reacted
against him) and the late fourth century when Ammianus
imitated and continued the Annals and Histories, and commenta¬
tors on Juvenal were looking for historical information to
illuminate obscure passages.2 3 The only apparent evidence to the
contrary comes from the Historia Augusta. The emperor Tacitus
is reported to have ordered the copying of the works of his
forebear the historian and, ostensibly in the reign of Diocletian,
‘Flavius Vopiscus’ referred to Tacitus as a historian.2 Evenrecent
scholars who realize that the emperor was not descended from
the historian cannot resist the story: it illustrates the intellectual
climate of the third century and provides a valuable chapter in
the transmission of classical texts.4 5 6 7 The anachronism was
pointed out long ago: the Historia Augusta projects the habits of
the age of Symmachus back into a period barren of literature
and learning.s
Tertullian recovers his credit as a learned man. He knew a
forgotten period of Latin literature. Why then deny him equal
acquaintance with more fashionable authors? And if his
curiosity extended so far, why deny or play down his knowledge
of Greek literature ? His erudition does not always show, because
he was intent on effective use in argument rather than on
empty display. He therefore undertook a serious enquiry into
Roman history and antiquarian legends. Varro he knew, and
perhaps the elder CatoA He also quotes Ennius,2 from whom he
may have taken a particularly precious piece of information.
After the Gauls defeated the Romans at the Allia in 390 b.c.,
they captured the city. A story was assiduously propagated that
the Capitol held out against the siege. Sacred geese (it was asser¬
ted) saved the Capitol when the Gauls tried to climb it by
1 A. D. E. Cameron, Hermes XCII (1964), 367 ff.

2 Schanz-Hosius, Gesch. d. rom. Lit. ID (1935), 639 ff.; G. B. A. Fletcher, Rev.
phil.i XI (1937), 377 ff.
3 HA, Tac. 10. 3; Aur. 2. 1.
4 D. Dudley, The World of Tacitus (1968), 17; L. D. Reynolds-N. G. Wilson,
Scribes and Scholars (1968), 28.
5 E. Hohl, Hermes LV (1920), 300 f.
6 Nat. I. 10. 17 ff.; II. 1. 8 ff.; Pall. 3. 8. Frequent use of Cato is postulated by
S. Oswiecimski, De Scriptorum Romanorum apud Tertullianum obviis quaestiones selectae
0950, 47 ff.
7 Val. 7. 1; An. 33. 8.
stealth, and every year a sumptuous procession commemorated

the glorious deliverance.1 Another version of the story main¬
tained a shadowy existence, which bore the stamp of truth: the
Gauls had in fact captured and burnt the Capitol. Ennius,
Lucan and Silius Italicus bear witness—and Tertullian.2
That betokens an uncommon degree of learning.3 When Orosius
came to collect all the disasters which the Romans had suffered
before the advent of Christianity, he missed the sack of the
Capitol and tamely accepted the version which was more
amenable to patriotic pride and more damaging to his own case.4
So too did Augustine.5
Lactantius realized that Tertullian was skilled in every literary
genre.6 And among the genres philosophy occupied no trivial
place. Interest or curiosity alone would have led Tertullian to
philosophical books, just as it led him to acquire some know¬
ledge of medicine.7 But he had a strong motive to investigate the
subject deeply. The Gnostics attempted a fusion of Greek
philosophy and Christian theology.5 If Tertullian wished to
refute them on their own ground, he must show that their
comprehension of philosophy was perverse or deficient.
Tertullian’s reading of Plato can be documented in details
To be sure, some of his knowledge could derive from inter¬
mediate sources. But many passages show direct acquaintance
or verbal similarity with Plato’s text. Tertullian can translate
accurately long passages of philosophical importance,!0 or
briefly paraphrase a striking turn of expression.11 Certain
treatises inevitably predominate, as they always do in late
Platonism: Phaedo, Phaedrus, Timaeus and the dream of Er from
the last book of the Republic. Dependence on excerpts alone
1 Aelian, Nat. Anim. II. 33.

2 Ennius, frag. 164 Vahlen; Lucan, frag. 12 Morel; Silius Italicus I. 525 f.;
IV. 150 f.; VI. 555 f.; Tertullian, Apol. 40. 8. For discussion of the evidence, see
O. Skutsch, JRS XLIII (1953), 77 G H. J. McGann, CQ, LI (1957), 126 ff.;
G. W. Clarke, CR LXXXI (1967), 138.
3 Tertullian was a journalist, not an antiquarian, according to W. H. C. Frend,
Rivista di storia e di letteratura religiosa IV (1968), 8. The antithesis is imperfect.
4 Hist. adv. pag. II. 19. 6 ff.
5 De civ. Dei II. 22. 6 Div. Inst. V. 1. 23.
7 p, de Labriolle, Archives generates de medecine LXXXI 11 (1906), 1317 ff*
s Ch. IX.
» A. d’Ales, Rev. 6t.gr. L (1937), 334 ff
10 e.g., An. 18. 1 f. translating Phaedo 65a 1 ff.
11 e.g. Apol. 24. 3 (Zeus’ celestial entourage, from Phaedrus 246c).
could not account for Tertullian’s long quotations or for his

knowledge of other Platonic dialogues, such as the Theaetetus,
Philebus and Laws.1 Aristotle is less in evidence.2 But Tertullian
had thoroughly assimilated the late Platonism of Albinus (an
elder contemporary of Galen) and the Stoic ideas which always
tended to prevail in Latin intellectual circles.2
Detailed investigation of the extent of Tertullian’s philoso¬
phical knowledge is otiose and impossible. Too much theorizing
has been lost. An analysis of his philosophical writings will
answer a more important question: how was it employed?
The De Anima sets out to destroy the psychological theories

underlying several Gnostic systems, and its structure is con¬
ventionally analysed as if it were discursive philosophy.4
Another view is both possible and preferable. The De Anima
should be analysed as a speech. Ancient rhetorical handbooks
(like Cicero’s youthful De Inventione) divided a speech into
certain sections: exordium, narratio, partitio (or propositio), con¬
firmation reprehensio and peroration.5 Tertullian (none will deny)
deliberately used the standard forms when composing his
Apologeticum.6 Nor does that ornate work of art stand alone: a
similar analysis can be applied to such apparently unpromising
material as the Scorpiace7—and perhaps to the De Anima.
Tertullian begins by explaining the scope of the work:
the De Anima will treat of problems which the earlier De
Censu Animae omitted.8 Discussion is necessary because Plato’s
treatment in the Phaedo was mistaken: the truth can only be
fully perceived by divine revelation, and even Christians are led
astray by pagan philosophers, the patriarchs of the
heretics.0 Tertullian pronounces the exordium finished.10 As
1 No fragment of the Philebus has yet been found on papyrus (R. A. Pack, The Greek
and Latin Literary Texts from Greco-Roman Egypt2 (1965), 81 ff.).
2 Only in the De Anima, where he is quoted twelve times. Pud. 1. 1 ff. was claimed
to derive from Me. Eth. 1179b 20 ff. by P. Keseling, Philosophisches Jahrbuch LVII
(1947), 256 f.
3 G. Rauch, Der Einfluss der stoischen Philosophic auf die Lehrbildung Tertullians
(1890); J. H. Waszink, Tertulliani De Anima (1947), 21* ff.; M. Spanneut, Le
Stoicisme des peres de Viglise (Patristica Sorbonensia I, 1957), 150 ff.; 181 ff.; 210 ff.-
281 ff.; 305 ff.; 391 ff.
4 Waszink, o.c. 15* ff. 5 App. 10.
6 C. Becker, Tertullian: Apologeticum2 (1961), 21 ff.
7 JTS, N.S. XX (1969), 108 ff.
* An. 1. 1. 9 An. 1. 2 ff. ™ An. 3.4.
precept demanded he had rendered the audience well disposed,

attentive and eager to learn.1 He had renounced any attempt
to persuade the purblind: his purpose was to convince waverers
not to join the heretics.
The point at issue can now be posed.2 The origin of the soul
having been defined (in De Censu Animae), the question is its
essence or nature. Since it has been shown to spring from the
breath of God, it must, despite Plato, have a beginning. A brief
narratio now follows.3 A host of philosophers are adduced who
stated that the soul was corporeal: Eubulus, Critolaus, Xeno-
crates, Aristotle, Hipparchus and Heraclitus, Hippo and Thales,
Empedocles and Critias, Epicurus, the Peripatetics and Stoics,
Zeno, Cleanthes and Chrysippus, even Lucretius. The argu¬
ments of all these having been adumbrated, the propositio can
now be enunciated in lapidary style:
igitur corpus anima, quae nisi corporalis corpus non derelinquet.4
The confirmatio and reprehensio proceed in great detail, until the

argument seems complete.5 Tertullian recapitulates his con¬
clusions (some of them from the De censu animae): the soul
springs from the breath of God, is immortal and corporeal, has a
shape and simple substance, possesses a wisdom of its own,
evolves differently in different individuals, has free will but is
subject to external misfortunes, can be changed, is rational,
commanding and intelligent, is always of the same true
essence.6 A peroration is expected. Instead, Tertullian goes on
from the conclusions at which he has arrived to reopen the
subject of the soul’s origin.2 This might be a fresh beginning.*
But rhetorical handbooks allowed for amplificatio.9 And Tertul¬
lian might have perceived the fragility of his argument so far. It
could all be upset if an opponent denied that all souls possessed
one unique essence. They therefore needed to be forestalled, by
consideration of whence, at what point of time, and how the
soul arises.
Again there were heretical views to be refuted, especially
1 Quintilian, Inst. Orat. IV. i. 5.

2 An. 4.1. 3 An. 5. iff. 4 An. 5- 6.
5 An. 6. 1 ff. 6 An. 22. 2.
7 An. 22. 2: sequitur nunc ut quomodo ex una redundet consideremus.
s Waszink, o.c. 17*.
9 Cf. Cicero, De Inventione I. 97.
the doctrines of anamnesis and metempsychosis.1 Again there

was a long series of positive arguments in which Tertullian
follows the development of the soul from conception through
life and beyond death.2 This time a proper peroration closes
the whole work, devoted to the emotional subject of rewards
and punishment in the after-life.1 Tertullian marks its beginning
by using (for the first time in the whole treatise) the rhetorical
device of interpellatio or contrapositio. An imaginary opponent
interjects: ‘does every soul therefore enter hell?’ Tertullian
replies in the affirmative, and reveals that he has deliberately
postponed certain subjects for this, the ‘clausula’ of his work.4
He proceeds with a long series of questions of varying length,
mainly rhetorical.1 When they cease another rhetorical device
appears: an enumeration of exempla.fi A few lines of close
argument, a recapitulation, laudation of the Paraclete, and
Tertullian pronounces the treatise ended.’
A similar analysis can be applied to almost everything ter¬
tullian wrote. One pair of treatises possess an especial signifi¬
cance. The De Came Christi yields at once to rhetorical analysis,
but its sequel, the De Resurrectione Mortuorum, seems recalci¬
trants Perhaps, therefore, Tertullian deliberately changed the
style of treatment. For, although the earlier work announces
the later, a delay of some years may have intervened.9 And a
careful study appeared to indicate that the De Resurrectione
Mortuorum bore the character of a treatise to be read rather than
a speech to be delivered.19 That verdict can be shown to be
premature: Tertullian, so far from ignoring the precepts of
rhetorical theory, has cleverly adapted them to his particular
purpose.11 Cicero had observed the effectiveness and occasional
1 An. 23. 1 ff.; 28. 1 ff.
2 An. 25. 1 ff.; 36. 1 ff.
3 An. 58. 1 ff.
4 An- 58- 1: omnis ergo anima penes inferos? inquis. velis ac nolis, etsupplicia iam
illic et refrigeria: habes pauperem et divitem. et quia distuli nescio quid ad hanc
partem, iam opportune in clausula reddam.
5 An. 58. 2 ff.
6 An. 58. 5.
7 An. 58. 6 ff.
s E. Evans, Tertullian1 s Treatise on the Incarnation (1956), x ff.; Tertullian's Treatise

on the Resurrection (i960), xvi ff.
9 JTS, N.S. XX (1969), 115. This view is explicitly rejected above (p. 48).
10 Evans, o.c. (i960), xvi.
11 R. Sider, Vig. Chr. XXIII (1969), 177 ff.
necessity of a figure styled ‘praemunitio’, whereby the orator

first removes possible objections and prepares the audience be¬
fore stating his own positive case.1 The De Resurrectione Mor-
tuorum develops this device at great length. In the opening four
chapters can be discerned the normal exordium, narratio (the
views of philosophers and heretics) and statement of the issue.2
They do not occur, however, in precisely that order. For
Tertullian has arranged them to lead into the lengthy ‘prae¬
munitio’.3 As he confesses himself, the procedure is rhetorical, a
fault which he somewhat disingenuously imputes to his
adversaries.4 Thirteen lengthy chapters follow, which Ter¬
tullian clearly marks off from what precedes and what follows.
At the beginning he states that before the main argument he
must, by means of a panegyric, rescue the dignity of the flesh
from disparagement;5 and at the end he describes the proce¬
dure as ‘praestructiones’.6 At last the central argument com¬
mences, by explaining the terms to be used.7 But another set of
‘praestructiones’ at once intrudes: again Tertullian blames his
adversaries, this time for resorting to metaphors and riddles.8
After ten chapters, all preliminaries are finished and Tertullian
launches into a confirmatio of the standard type with a long
quotation from Ezekiel.9 After expounding this, a text from
Enochs and several passages from the New Testament, Ter¬
tullian turns to the reprehensio and explicitly marks the transi¬
tion.11 In turn a transition is indicated to the amplificatio,12 and
a brief peroration reviews the preceding arguments to close in
1 Cicero, De Oratore II. 304; III. 204.
2 Res. Mart. 1. 1 ff.
3 Sider, o.c. 177 f.
4 Res. Mort. 5. 1: ita nos rhetoricari quoque provocant haeretici, sicut etiam
philosophari philosophi.
3 Res. Mort. 5. 1.
6 Res. Mort. 18. 1: hucusque praestructionibus egerim ad muniendos sensus
omnium scripturarum, quae carnis recidivatum pollicentur.
2 Res. Mort. 18. 4 ff.
8 Res. Mort. 19. 1 ff.
» Res. Mort. 29. 1 ff, quoting Ezekiel 37. 1-14.
10 i{es, Mort. 32. 1. On the attribution, see A. d’Ales, La thiologie de Tertullien
(1905), 225.
n Res. Mort. 40. 1: nihil autem mirum, si et ex ipsius mstrumento argumenta
captantur, cum oporteat haereses esse; quae esse non possent, si non et perperam
scripturae intellegi possent. Further 46. 9: porro, ut ad singula quaeque respon-
deam. . . .
12 Res. Mort. 51.x.
an emotional and elevated tone, with an exhortation to
acknowledge the New Prophecy, a guarantee of orthodoxy.1
Philosophy and theology, it must be concluded, are subor¬
dinate to oratory—which accounts for the effectiveness of
Tertullian’s writings. ‘What has Athens to do with Jerusalem?’
he once exclaimed ‘or what has the Academy in common with
the church V2 3 Almost every word he wrote gave the lie to the
answer he implies. Tertullian would have deplored the attempts
of Justin, Clement and Origen to reconcile Christianity and
pagan philosophy.3 He explicitly rejected a Stoic, Platonic or
dialectical Christianity.4 5 But in a wider sense, he had himself
reconciled Christianity and classical culture. For he used the
benefits of a traditional education and the fruits of his pagan
erudition to defend and to propagate what he considered to be
the truth. The closing words of the De Pallio resolve any con¬
flict between the two cultures: the humble pallium of the
pagan philosopher is ennobled, once it is donned by a Christian.s
In Tertullian’s hands, rhetoric too underwent a similar trans¬
formation.
1 Res. Mort. 63. 9 f.

3 H. Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition (1966), 1 ff.
4 Praeser. Haer. 7. 11: viderint qui Stoicum et Platonicum et dialecticum Chris-
tianismum protulerunt.
5 Pall. 6. 4: gaude, pallium, et exsulta! melior te iam philosophia dignata est,
ex quo Christianum vestire coepisti.
XIV
THE CHRISTIAN SOPHIST
I n the classic definition, an orator’s task was to instruct, to

move, to please.1 The sophistic movement of the second
century soon added a fourth to the three requirements of
Quintilian: an orator was now expected to dazzle by his
virtuosity. Critics berated Scopelian of Smyrna, whose style
they found intemperate and dithyrambic: being accused of
beating a loud drum in his frenzied gesticulations, he retorted
that the drum was the shield of Ajax. Scopelian’s eloquence
persuaded Domitian to rescind or modify an imperial edict,
and noble young men followed him back to his city desiring
to receive instruction.2 Aelius Aristides too swayed an emperor,
when his threnody on Smyrna (still extant) reduced Marcus
Aurelius to tears.3
Philostratus praised Aristides for avoiding empty verbosity. In
recent times, however, few have been able to kindle much
sympathy for the orator or his contemporaries, who have
acquired a formidable reputation for pompous vapidity.4 Such a
verdict precludes an understanding of the Antonine age. The
sophists were important personages, who commanded both
respect for their political influence and genuine admiration for
their literary attainments. Nor was their oratory always reserved
for academic displays. Every emperor, and every provincial
governor, was constantly welcomed to the cities which he
visited or assailed by embassies from those which he did not,
requesting some privilege or favour. On every such occasion, a
speech might be required (witness the handbook of Menander
flepl ’ETnSeiKTiKwv),5 and it can plausibly be claimed that the
1 Quintilian, Inst. Orat. III. 5. 2. 2 Philostratus, VS l. 21. 1; 21. 5 f.

2 Philostratus, VS II. 9. 1 f. The speech in question is Orat. XVIII Keil.
4 e.g., ‘a museum of fossils’ (B. A. van Groningen, Mnemosyne4 XVIII (1965),
52)-
5 L. Spengel, Rhetores graeci III (1856), 331 ff. The best edition is C. Bursian,
Abhand. d. phil.-hist. Kl. d. kon. bayer. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Munchen XVI. 3 (1882),
212 THE CHRISTIAN SOPHIST
political power of a cultured elite has never stood higher than

during the prosperous and settled days of the Antonines and
Severi.1
Sometimes a man’s very life might depend upon his elo¬
quence. That was the situation of the Christian apologists—
and of Apuleius when he stood trial at Sabratha in 158/9 before
the proconsul of Africa. The charge was magic and murder: if
found guilty, Apuleius could expect exile or even death.2 3
His extant speech of defence provides a lively illustration of
what a sophist thought likely to be effective in a genuine trial.2
Apuleius inevitably employs the normal devices of a speaker in
any age: sophistical argument (in the bad sense), irony and
invective, the use of maxims, anecdotes and historical examples,
a large range of stylistic tricks to impart vigour and variety.4
But two traits in particular seem to be peculiar to the Second
Sophistic: the lavish display of erudition, and the prominence
of philosophical themes.
Apuleius of course cites the standard authors whom everyone
read, both Latin and Greek: Virgil, Sallust and Cicero (by
some oversight, not Terence), Homer and Euripides, Demos¬
thenes and the Stoics.5 He also appeals to lesser known Latin
poets like Catullus, Tibullus and Propertius, and to fashionable
and archaic literature: an oration of Cato the censor, the
styles of oratory practised by Cato, Laelius and Gracchus,
the poems of Ennius and Laevius.6 Among Greek authors
Apuleius vaunts his knowledge of all sorts of philosophers,
including quotations from Theophrastus and Aristotle’s zoologi¬
cal and anatomical treatises, and he appeals to a fragment
of Solon in order to prove that a respectable philosopher can
innocently write pederastic verses.2 To continue the catalogue
would be tedious. Enough has already been said to show that
the vast erudition of Tertullian’s Apologeticum would not have
seemed out of place to its original audience.8
The prominence of philosophy in Apuleius’ speech might be
1 G. W. Bowersock, Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire (1969), 1.

2 R. MacMullen, Enemies of the Roman Order (1967), 121 ff.
3 A. Abt postulated (perhaps correctly) that Apuleius completely refurbished
the speech before publication (Die Apologie des Apuleius von Madaura und die antike
Zauberei (1908), 14).
4 R- Helm, Altertum I (1955), 86 ff. 5 Apol. 4; 10; etc.
6 Apol. 17; 95; 13; 30; 39. 7 Apol. 36 ff.; 9. 8 p.196.
THE CHRISTIAN SOPHIST 213
explained by the identity of both speaker and proconsul. The

magistrate was Claudius Maximus, himself a noted Stoic from
whom Marcus Aurelius professed to have learnt much,1 while
Apuleius proudly described himself as a Platonic philosopher.2
Moreover, his defence alleges that the charge of magical
practices arose from his philosophical researches into natural
history.3 Yet the fusion of orator and Platonist in one man
reflects contemporary preoccupations. Teachers of rhetoric
(beginning with Isocrates) had always recommended a ground¬
ing in philosophy.4 But a distinct change can be detected in the
nature and degree of an orator’s knowledge of the subject
between Cicero and Apuleius. When Cicero went to Athens,
he studied living philosophical issues, becoming versed in the
theories of the late Academy and the most recent Stoics.5 Two
centuries later, Herodes Atticus attended the school of L.
Calvenus Taurus, a philosopher from Syria and friend of
Plutarch: he learnt, not living philosophy, but the doctrines of
Plato.6 Soon Philostratus was celebrating the marriage of
philosophy and rhetoric in his Lives of the Sophists, and defined
the sophist’s art as philosophical rhetoric.7 Gorgias and Hippias
had finally triumphed over Socrates and Plato. Protagoras and
Carneades were duly enrolled as sophists, to be put alongside
Dio of Prusa and the shallow Favorinus of Arelate, the great
Polemo and Herodes Atticus.3 It is not fanciful to discern the
same fusion of disciplines in Tertullian, who cast long philo¬
sophical and theological treatises into the form appropriate to
a speech.9
Tertullian’s erudition and technique can thus both be viewed
as a manifestation of the Second Sophistic Movement. There
will be no need, therefore, to retail at length how much he owes
to standard rhetorical theory and practice. His debts to his
classical education are many and great. Without a thorough
training in ancient rhetoric one may doubt whether he would
1 Meditations I. 13, cf. R. Syme, Historia XIV (1965), 352 ff.
2 Apol. 10, cf. Schanz-Hosius, Gesch. d. rom. Litt. Ill3 (1922), 101 f.
3 Apol. 25 ff. Apuleius was curious ‘cognitionis gratia’ (27).
4 H. I. Marrou, Histoire de I’Mucation dans I’antiquite'6 (1965), 131 ff
5 R. Hirzel, Untersuchungen zu Ciceros philosophischen Schriften I-III (1877-83).
« Philostratus, VS II. 1. 14. For further details about this man, PIR2 C 339.
2 VS I. 6; I. 8; I. praef.
8 VS I. 4; I. 6; I. 8; I. 10; I. 25; II. 1.
s Ch. XIII.
P
have learnt how to employ exempla, both pagan and Christian.1

And his education may explain his heal thy distaste for allegorical
interpretations of scripture.2 3 But such general debts were
possible in any age. The problem (not always accurately
defined) was to relate Tertullian to the sophistic movement of
the second century.3 An answer has been sought in his learning
and his method of treating philosophy. A third similarity may
now be cited. Tertullian was familiar with the stylized en¬
comium or vituperation of a set theme, knowing both when it
should be employed and when avoided. In the De Baptismo he
suddenly stops himself, professing fear that he is composing a
panegyric of water rather than a justification of baptism.4 5
After which few can have detected any change in his method.
To be sure, anyone may relapse into eloquence when he broaches
a subject dear to his heart. Even the elder Cato rose above
himself in enumerating the virtues of cauliflower.6 But such
panegyrics were a common exercise in Tertullian’s age, well
worthy (so Philostratus opined) of a genuine sophist.6 Fronto
wrote praises of smoke and dust,7 Lucian contributed a parody
on the fly (which he declined to magnify into an elephant).8
Dio of Prasa and Apuleius composed panegyrics on the parrot:9
the latter is extant and deserves to be set beside some of
Tertullian’s performances.10
The stylized set-piece or story made an effective opening to
a speech. When addressing an emperor, Dio led off with the
famous story of Alexander the Great and Timotheus the flute-
player.11 Tertullian, about to discuss the propriety of wearing
garlands, preferred a contemporary story: of a Christian who
1 H. P6tre, L’exemplum chez Tertullien (1940), 11 ff.

2 R. P. G. Hanson,JTS, N.S. XII (1961), 273 ff.
3 E. Norden, Antike Kunstprosa2 (1909), 606 ff. More recently, cf. A. F. Memoli,
Aevum XL (1966), 1 ff. And Philostratus deserved to be adduced in discussions
of De Pallio (p. 231).
4 Bapt. 3. 6: vereor ne laudes aquae potius quam baptismo rationes videar
congregasse.
5 Cato, De agricultura 156. 1 ff, which Pliny praised heartily {Nat. Hist. XIX. 57;
XX. 78).
« FSI. 7. 1.
7 Fronto, Laudes fumi et pulveris (201 ff. Hout).
8 Lucian, Laudes muscae 12.
9 Philostratus, VS I. 7. 1; Apuleius, Flor. 12.
10 e.g., the chamaeleon and the peacock {Pall. 3. 3; 3. 1).
11 Dio of Prusa, Orat. I. 1 ff.
refused to participate in the normal celebrations of an imperial

donative.1 On other occasions he chose a formal panegyric or,
more to his taste, a formal vituperation. The Scorpiace begins:
‘the earth sends forth a great evil in the shape of a small
scorpion’. The vile beast is sharply delineated. It is especially
dangerous in the heat of summer; and for Christians that means
persecution. Tertullian maintains the metaphor throughout:
the Scorpiace is an antidote to the bite of the Gnostics.2 What can
the explanation be? Perhaps Tertullian was writing under the
influence of Galen, who gave recipes for remedies against the
scorpion’s sting.5 Rather, he exploits a formal theme which
happened to be apposite. The Adversus Marcionem lends support.
After a brief explanation of how he came to be writing against
Marcion for the third time, Tertullian launches into a descrip¬
tion of the wild Pontus, whose crowning horror is the heresiarch.4
An advocate stands under no obligation to tell the naked

truth, or perhaps even to tell the truth at all. Woe betide him,
however, if he be detected in mendacity. Ancient techniques
of defamation were highly developed and all sorts of wild
allegations were made about a politician’s origin or behaviour.5
Cicero realized the value of the invented story. The elder
Crassus had once alleged that Memmius had bitten the arm of
one Largus at Tarracina after a quarrel over a prostitute. Sheer
invention, but Crassus adduced evidence: all over the walls
in Tarracina were scribbled graffiti which proclaimed the fact.6
For events in distant places, proof might not be necessary. In
his youth Julius Caesar visited Bithynia. Hence a rumour of
disgraceful relations with King Nicomedes, and a pullulating
efflorescence of detailed stories which Caesar’s enemies gleefully
cultivated. Dolabella, the elder Curio, Bibulus, the virtuous
Brutus, C. Memmius and Cicero all lent a hand.7 Pure fiction,
1 Cor. Mil. 1. 1 ff. 2 Scorp. i. i ff.; 15. 6.

3 A. Vaccari, Scritti di erudizione e di filologia II (1958), 7 f. 4 p. 199.
5 W. Suss, Ethos (1910), 247 ff.; R. G. M. Nisbet, M. Tulli Ciceronis in L. Cal-
purnium Pisonem Oratio (1961), 192 ff. For Tertullian’s debt to traditional rhetoric
cf. S. Seliga, Eos XXXVII (1936), 267 ff.
6 Cicero, De Oratore II. 240: salsa, ac tamen a te ipso ficta narratio; addidisti
clausulam: tota Tarracina turn omnibus in parietibus inscriptas fuisse litteras
L.L.L.M.M.; cum quaereres id quid esset, senem tibi quendam oppidanum
dixisse ‘lacerat lacertum Largi mordax Memmius’.
2 Suetonius, Div. Jul. 49. 1 ff.
2l6 THE CHRISTIAN SOPHIST
it is clear, and out of character!—though the story still provides
salacious and scurrilous material for biographers.2 Tertullian’s
tale of Pristinus, who attained the martyr’s crown only because
he was too drunk to avoid it, may fall into the same category.3
Tertullian knew the techniques of slander and its pitfalls. In
comparison with other Christian writers, his attacks on heretics
are (except in one respect) striking for their moderation. When
Marcion is dubbed a Pontic sea-captain, Tertullian comes close
to the truth.1 2 3 4 Marcion’s father was a bishop in Pontus, and the
heretic had owned a ship.5 6 Similarly, Praxeas and Valentinus
are accused of little more than deluded arrogance and per¬
verted ambition.6 Both accusations were at least highly plaus¬
ible. Tertullian also knew how to use falsehood without assert¬
ing it. Marcion is no Marrucine, but a man of Pontus.7 * Why
Marrucine ? The Marrucini were savage mountain warriors of
central Italy.s Tertullian conveys by implication that Marcion
exceeds even their notorious cruelty.
Accusations of physical deformity and moral depravity were
standard topics.9 Christianity, however, deprived the clear¬
sighted Tertullian of the former. If a man were mis-shapen, the
fault might easily be imputed to the creator. For moral depravity
he liked to be able to cite evidence. That was easy for the past:
in the lives of the philosophers one could discover any number
of grave delinquencies.10 With contemporaries one had to
proceed more carefully. Pagans could be accused of practising
infanticide for a simple reason: since they imputed such crimes
to the Christians, something in their own conduct must render
the charge credible.11 In one area alone, Tertullian let his
imagination run wild. Sexual depravity (though only once, or
perhaps never, homosexual vice) !2 he attributed to all without
exception. Carpocrates he hailed as a magician and fornicator,
1 H. Strasburger, Caesars Eintritt in die Geschichte (1938), 36; 46 f.; 78; 82.
2 e.g., M. Grant, Julius Caesar (1969), 28.
3 PP- 183/4.
4 Praescr. Haer. 30. 1; Marc. V. 1.2.
5 According to Hippolytus, Marcion’s father was bishop of Sinope (Epiphanius,
Panarion XLII. 1. 4). And he made a present of 200,000 sesterces to the Roman
Church (Praescr. Haer. 30. 2).
6 Prax. 1. 4 f.; Val. 4. 1. 2 Marc. V. 17. 14.
8 Prominent in the Bellum Italicum of 90-89 b.c. (Strabo, p. 241).
9 Suss, o.c. 249 ff.; Nisbet, o.c. 194 f.
10 Apol. 46. 10 ff. 11 Apol. 9. 1 (p. 13). 12 On Mon. 12. 3, p. 27.
the artistic Hermogenes as an unrestrained libertine who

seduced women more often than he painted them.i Apelles
abandoned the continence expected of a follower of Marcion and
withdrew from Alexandria. On his return he seduced the famous
virgin Philumene and made her a whore.2 In his later years Ter-
tullian applied similar invective to the catholics. Of old he had
ridiculed stories of orgies at Christian services as the product
of idle and absurd rumour.2 The De Jejunio makes the same
accusation: at the catholic ‘agape’ young men sleep with their
sisters in Christ, compounding gluttony and contempt for fasting
with wantonness.4 A contemporary pagan might well have con¬
cluded that the stories could not be wholly absurd. More recent
readers of Tertullian will diagnose sexual frustration, and call to
mind the fervid prurience of Tertullian’s admirer Jerome.5
Fallacious argument will always be a necessity for any

orator. Even a valid case will have some weak points which
need disguising. But some orators reveal an addiction to the
bold and impressive fallacy stated with the force of over¬
whelming conviction. Usurpers like Avidius Cassius, Pescennius
Niger and Clodius Albinus were Romans and traitors. How
could one therefore deny that Christians, who were traitors,
were also Romans ? They could not be both non-Romans and
traitors, since acknowledged Romans have turned out to be
traitors.6 That is the fallacy of the excluded middle, one of
Tertullian’s favourites. The De Anima contributes an even neater
example. To breathe is to draw breath; every animate being
draws breath, therefore, breathing is the mark of being alive.
Hence Tertullian can construct a further argument on the
assumption that being alive and breathing are equivalent.2
The complicated syllogism has the clear purpose of proving
something palpably false: if it is alive, a soul breathes.8
To confess the fallacy or appear uncertain would destroy the
effect. In consequence, Tertullian exhibits a certain blandness,
concealing a delight in penetrating fallacies unperceived. And
he reinforces the impression of reliability by his clever treat-
1 An. 35. 1; Mon. 16. i. 2 Praescr. Haer. 30. 5 f.
3 Nat. I. 7. 1 ff.; Apol. 7. 1 ff.
4 Jej. 17. 2 f. 5 Cf. pp. 136/7. 6 Apol. 36. 1. 7 An. 10. 7 f.
8 An. 11. 3: anima, id est flatus; cf. J. H. Waszink, Tertulliani De Anima (1947))
180 ff.
2l8 THE CHRISTIAN SOPHIST
ment of exempla. Quintilian defined an exemplum as the recalling

of some action (historical or imaginary) which was useful for
driving home the orator’s point.1 What was expected is evident
from the classic panegyric: Pliny compares the emperor Trajan
successively with Pompey, Papirius Cursor, Quinctius Flamini-
nus, the Pisones Frugi, the wise Laelius and Q. Metellus Pius.2
The standards of comparison were patriotic and traditional,
taken from the annals of the Republic. Their validity endured
for centuries. When the Historia Augusta rises to eloquent reflec¬
tion on the history of Rome, the illustrious names invoked are
almost exclusively Republican,2 and it is the pages of Livy
(probably in epitome) which fill the bulk of Orosius’ Historia
adversus paganos. Tertullian knew and used standard collections
of exempla, where Greek joined with Roman history. If fortitude
was in question, there was an appeal to Mucius, who burnt his
hand before Lars Porsenna, the self-immolation of Empedocles
and Dido, Regulus’ return to captivity and death, Anaxarchus
who made jokes while being pounded, the Attic whore who spat
her tongue out at the tyrant, the endurance of Zeno of Elea
under the tortures of Dionysius of Syracuse, the bravery of
Spartan boys. That collection impressed pagans in the perora¬
tion of the Apologeticumd For a Christian audience, Tertullian
saw that mere enumeration of traditional examples would not
suffice. The list in the Apologeticum modifies an earlier treatment
of the theme in the Ad Martyras. There Tertullian had included
Lucretia, who died to preserve her chastity. Also Heraclitus
and Cleopatra, who killed herself to avoid falling into the hands
of her enemies. Anaxarchus and Zeno do not appear: how
many simple Christians knew those names? But Tertullian
has added Peregrinus, who immolated himself at the Olympic
Games of 165, and gives Spartan endurance a contemporary
relevance.5 The reasons for the differences are clear. A pagan
audience would appreciate the familiar exempla from Roman
history and the lives of the philosophers. A Christian audience
needed to have their relevance pointed in detail. If glass is so
precious, how valuable must be a genuine pearl! Why should
1 Inst. Oral. V. ii. 6. 2 Pliny> Pan. 29. 1 ff.; 57. 5; 88. 6.
3 R. Syme, Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (1968), 114; 136.
4 Apol. 50. 5 ff. For Christian use of such pagan exempla of bravery, cf. M. L.
Carlson, Class. Phil. XLIII (1948), 93 ff.
5 Mart. 4. 4 ff.
Christians hesitate to die for the truth, when others die for
false ideals such as their own glory?1
Tertullian was a creative writer. Not for him the insipid
imitation of established canons, the slavish application of
traditional rhetorical precepts. The Apologeticum does not simply
reiterate the standard examples of human sacrifice. To Gallic
sacrifices of the aged to Mercury, to the barbaric rites of the
Tauric Chersonese (which he consigns to the stage), Tertullian
adds two examples whose bearing the audience will rapidly
perceive. Men are still sacrificed to Jupiter in Rome: criminals
admittedly, but the rite still persists. And Tertullian appeals to
an example from Carthage itself: human sacrifice was sup¬
pressed and its practitioners crucified by the local militia in the
reign of Tiberius.2 3 4 More examples of similar bestiality are then
added from Tertullian’s reading of Herodotus and Sallust.5
But the whole catalogue closes with yet another traditional
example given contemporary relevance: the priests of Bellona,
apparently in Carthage, mutilate themselves and feed on
freshly killed animals.4 In the Ad Martyras the traditional
exempla have received an addition still more recent than
Peregrinus (who belonged to the preceding generation).
Tertullian refers to the civil wars of Septimius Severus: if men
must die, why risk falling a victim to political intrigue or mis¬
judgement? A Christian will prefer to die for God rather than
for an emperor or his rivals.5 Tertullian had observed the world
around him with some care. If he wished, he could emphasize
the prosperity and happiness of the Roman world.6 Alterna¬
tively, when the argument so demanded, he rendered the
prospect gloomy and spoke (like the senator Cassius Dio) of an
age of iron.7 Such statements conceal rather than disclose
Tertullian’s true opinions, and it is pointless to ask which he
really believed. He may easily have oscillated between genuine
optimism and pessimism.* Or perhaps he was merely following
an orator’s normal practice of selecting the convenient facts.
1 Mart. 4. Q.
2 Ch. III.
3 Herodotus IV. 70; Sallust, Cat. 22. 1 ff.
4 Apol. 9. 2 ff. 5 Mart. 6. 2. 6 Pall. 2. 7; An. 30. 3.
7 Cult. Fem. II. 13. 6, of. Dio LXXII (LXXI). 36. 4.
8 Tertullian has been presented as both a ‘loyal subject (A. N. Sherwin-White,
Roman Citizenship (1939), 268) and as one who utterly rejected everything Roman
Polemic requires satire, ridicule and a still rarer gift: the

ability to seize upon and exploit the weak points in an oppo¬
nent’s argument. Tertullian was an adept in all three. Consider
his portrait of Hermogenes. He was a heretic (Tertullian
asserts) by nature, a turbulent fellow who mistook loquacity for
eloquence and rudeness for firmness of mind, who thought his
conscience compelled him to slander everyone. He was forever
painting and marrying, invoking the law of God to defend
licentiousness while ignoring it in order to paint. He was
doubly false, with both pen and paint-brush, an utter corrupter
of both the flesh and the Gospel. Perhaps that was due to his
name: the Hermogenes of the Bible deserted the apostle Paul
(II Timothy i. 15).1 However, Tertullian priggishly observes,
the man’s character is irrelevant to his doctrines.2 A suspicion
arises that Tertullian could not resist satire.
In one work ridicule has the greater part.2 The Adversus
Valentinianos introduces the doctrines to be refuted as an
Eleusinian heresy, the product of Athenian superstition.4 This
jocular tone is carefully maintained throughout, and Tertullian
playfully considers the possibility that the Valentinian God
lives on a roof-top in the Isles of the Blessed.5 Some argument
is offered, but Tertullian for the most part relies on ridicule:
against the Valentinians it was the most effective weapon. He
reduces Valentinus’ ‘tragic myth’ to a vulgar farce. In Valen¬
tinus’ conception, there existed a perfect pre-existent Aeon,
called Proarche, Propator or Bythos, which was both invisible
and incomprehensible. Eternal and unbegotten, he remained for
vast ages serene and quiescent. At length Bythos decided on
creation and deposited the beginning of all things in Sige, just
as seed is deposited in the womb. Sige gave birth to Nous, who
was also Monogenes, Father and the Beginning of All Things,
and to Aletheia. These four constituted the first and first-
begotten Tetrad, the root of all things. Monogenes sent forth
the Word and the Life, and their conjunction brought forth
(Frend, o.c. 365 ff.). In fact, Christian attitudes were bound to be ambivalent,
cf. J. M. Hornus, Rev. d’hist. etdephil. rel. XXXVIII (1958), 13 ff. For an exhaustive
discussion, see C. Guignebert, Tertullien (1901), 1 ff.
1 Herm. 1. 2.
2 Herm. 1. 3: sed viderit persona, cum doctrina mihi quaestio est.
3 G. Quispel, Nederlands theologisch Tijdschrift II (1947-8), 280 ff.
4 Val 1. 1; 1. 3. 5 Val. 7. 3.
Man and the Church. Hence the primordial Ogdoad, and from
it came the full Thirty Aeons which comprised the Pleroma.
So far Irenaeus, whom Tertullian had before his eyes.1 He was
not content, however, with mere copying. He intended to
subvert the dignity of Valentinus’ system. Bythos, he conceded,
rested in deep tranquillity: he was a lazy, almost bemused deity,
like the gods of Epicurus. Sige gave birth to Nous, in silence of
course.2 Monogenes was misnamed, since he had a sister: he
ought to have been called Protogenes.3 Bythos and Sige, Nous
and Aletheia, were they not the first team of the Valentinian
faction in the celestial races ? And what of the whole Ogdoad ?
On Valentinus’ own admission, they are the incestuous off¬
spring of brother and sister Aeons. What a holy and majestic
heretical family! How prolific! But are they Gods or
criminals ?4
To an eye for satire Tertullian added a keen perception of
the logic of his opponents’ position. He wrote Adversus Valen-
tinianos, not against Valentinus. His disciples had deserted
their master, but developed his pernicious system. Valentinus
has vanished, but there are Valentinians everywhere. The
heresy resembles a prostitute who has to use heavy make-up
every day.5 The Valentinians are thus convicted of both falsity
and disloyalty. The same attack could also succeed against the
catholics. The bishop of Carthage had presumed to dispense
forgiveness to adulterers and fornicators. What an appropriate
edict to be read in church! The church is the pure and holy
bride of Christ, and the bishop was manifestly perverting
Jesus’ own words: ‘who can forgive sin but God only?’ (Mk.
2- 7)-6
Of more general application was Tertullian’s ability (which
increased with age) to seize upon the essence of a theory, to
express it in a pithy epigram, and thus expose it to derision.
The Apologeticum observes that the Roman Empire is no
i Ado. Haer. I. i. i. 2 Val. 7. 4 f.
3 Val. 7. 6: Monogenes quia prior genitus quanto congruentius Protogenes vocare-
tur! A. Kroymann bracketed the sentence (CSEL XLVII. 185 = CCL II. 75^),
J.-C. Fredouille has reinstated it (Vig. Chr. XX (1966), 58). Neither seems to have
perceived that Tertullian is alluding to a famous charioteer, who may be identical
with the favourite of Elagabalus {HA, Elag. 6. 3).
4 Val. 7. 8.
3 Val. 4. 3. The main target may be Prodicus (pp. 81/2).
« Pud. 1. 7 f.; 21. 2.
tyranny. For tyrants use torture as a punishment, imperial

magistrates merely to discover the truth. And how can Chris¬
tians be criminals ? Alone of suspects, they are tortured if they
confess, punished if they persist in confessing, and acquitted
when they deny. Even Trajan was confused, when he ordered
Christians to be punished, as if they were guilty, but not sought
out, as if they were innocent. Tertullian develops the theme
rather inconclusively.1 The Ad Scapulam of practically fifteen
years later shows the improvement in Tertullian’s technique.
Several pages of the earlier work are summed up in two crisp
sentences. Scapula has been entrusted with the duty of con¬
demning criminals who confess and torturing those who deny
their crime. Does he not see that he contravenes his duty by
compelling Christians who confess to deny ?z On other occasions
too, Tertullian expressed a long and complex argument in one
sharp phrase. The De Fuga in Persecutione considers the problem,
whether escape from persecution by bribery is as impermissible
as physical flight. The answer can be expressed very briefly:
‘you have stood fast with your feet and run away with your
money’.3
Being designed to persuade, the Ad Scapulam and De Fuga
could not employ the savage caricature which Tertullian liked
to use when attacking an opponent before a sympathetic
audience. Praxeas was roundly abused, even his name may be
a nickname, signifying ‘busybody’.* His theology was crude:
he drove away the Paraclete and crucified God the Father.3
The catholic attitude to marriage was objectionable. If the
heretics abolished, the catholics multiplied the institution.
The law of the creator was spurned, alike by blasphemous
rejection and licentious abuse. Heretics and catholics could
easily be described: eunuchs and charioteers.6 And the inevit¬
able concomitant of debauchery was gluttony. To the depraved
fasting was naturally abhorrent.? Tertullian professed to depict
the catholics once and for all with a vulgar word: inside and
out, they are no better than fancy sausages. Their theology
1 Apol. 2. i ff.
2 Scap. 4- 2: quid enim amplius tibi mandatur quam nocentes confessos damnare,
negantes autem ad tormenta revocare? videtis ergo quomodo ipsi vos contra
mandata faciatis, ut confessos negare cogatis.
3 Fug. 12. i. 4 App. 25. 3 Prax. 1.5. 6 Mon. 1. 1.
1 Jej. 1.2: per edacitatem salacitas transit.
was also easily characterized: they quarrelled with the Holy

Spirit.1
In dissecting an opponent’s position, Tertullian shows a
consummate skill which can cause no small perplexity to the
earnest and the philosophically minded. Marcion denied the
human birth of the Christ as being ridiculous and absurd.
On a superficial level, one might retort that Marcion made it
easier to believe that Jupiter became a bull or a swan than
that the Christ became truly man.2 3 More seriously, one could
seek and discover God’s purpose: to challenge conventional
beliefs. Of course there was something shameful in Christ’s
passion. But which was the shameful element? Marcion
professed to accept that Christ was crucified, but denied
that he was born of Mary. But which was the greater indig¬
nity for God, to be born or to die ? to be circumcised or executed ?
to be nursed or buried? If Marcion cannot accept Christ’s
birth, how can he accept that Christ endured insults and
sufferings? Marcion wishes to destroy a shame which is
necessary to faith. Foolish the belief may be, but it brings
salvation. The Son of God was crucified: the Christian is not
ashamed precisely because he ought to be. The Son of God
died: it is credible because it is improbable. He was buried
and rose again: that is certain because it is impossible.1
Tertullian’s argument is often misunderstood and mis¬
interpreted. He tends to be credited with the assertion ‘credo
quia absurdum’, which he never used.4 And the passage is
frequently invoked to prove his irrationality, or that he viewed
religion as the realm of subjective and unreasoning emotion.1 * *
If that was his true attitude, why did he ever descend to
apparently rational argument? The context could more plaus-
1 Jej. 1. 3: quinam isti sint, semel nominabo: exteriores et interiores botuli

psychicorum. hi paracleto controversiam faciunt.
2 Cam. Chr. 4. 7.
3 Cam. Chr. 5. 1 ff.
4 e.g., H. Chadwick, The Early Church (1967), 93. Others attribute the sentiment
(perhaps with greater justice) to Augustine, cf. G. Fumigalli, Chi I’ha detto?9
(1946), 450. But no Latin theologian ever uttered it (G. Sohngen, Lexicon fur
Theologie und Kirche2 III (1959), 89). Whence therefore comes the error ? The culprit
has apparently not yet been identified.
5 H. Chadwick, Early Christian Thought and the Classical Tradition (1966), 2: ‘a
milestone along a path in Christian thought which leads through Sir Thomas
Browne to Kierkegaard and his modern disciples’.
ibly be construed to make Tertullian a forerunner of scholastic¬

ism or an early adherent of ‘natural religion’ i—or else to
exemplify the pitfalls of religious language.2 It tends, however,
to be forgotten that Tertullian’s paradox is only apparent.3
He is contrasting the assumptions of Christianity with those
of pagan society. That is his argument against Marcion, who
rejects parts of the Gospels because he considers them deficient
by conventional standards. Tertullian presents the issue as he
does in works concerned with martyrdom: if a Christian denies
Jesus on earth, Jesus will deny him in heaven.1 2 3 4 * * Marcion presents
a threat similar to persecution, though the danger is not
physical but moral. Can the Christian accept without blushing
what Marcion finds so shameful? Tertullian removes the
difficulty with a stroke. Jesus’ crucifixion and death are not
shameful or incredible although Marcion asserts them to be both.
On the contrary, his crucifixion and death are neither, precisely
because Marcion asserts them to be both. The argument has been
subtly shifted. Marcion’s arguments were purely intellectual.5
Tertullian not only refuted them at vast length by intricate
ratiocination, he also played on the emotions of his audience
to render the intellectual arguments irrelevant.« Marcion had
inconsistently left the narrative of the Passion in his new
Gospel.7 Tertullian attacked his inconsistency in emotional
terms. The procedure had good oratorical precedents.8
Classical oratory was divided into a number of clearly

delimited genres. Handbooks spoke of three types of speech:
epideictic, deliberative and forensic.9 The classification had its
uses. But it could sometimes be a hindrance. Quintilian insisted
on the unity of rhetoric and preferred to call the three types of
speech different parts of oratory or different types of case. Yet
1 M. Grabmann, Die Geschichte der Scholastischen Methode I (1909), 118 ff.; A

Vaccari, Scritti di erudizione e di Jilologia II (1958), 20 f.
2 B. A. O. Williams, New Essays in Philosophical Theology (1955), 187 ff.
3 See the clear exposition of V. Decarie, Vig. Chr. XV (1961), 23 ff.
4 Cam. Chr. 5. 3, quoting Mt. 10. 33. 3 Ch. IX.
6 Marcion’s Jesus becomes ‘de aliquo circulatorio coetu . . . magum hominem
. . . spectaculi artificem . . . vivorum avocatorem’ {Cam. Chr. 5. 10).
7 Marc. IV. 40. 1 ff.
8 Aristotle, Rhet. 1400 a 5 ff, recognized the place of argument from antecedent
improbability, cf. J. Moffatt, JTS XVII (1915/16), 170 f.
9 e.g., Cicero, De Inventione I. 7.
he still found difficulties of classification. The realm of delibera¬

tive and forensic oratory seemed obvious. Epideictic oratory
was the problematical case. In traditional theory, it was con¬
cerned with panegyric and vituperation. Under which type,
therefore, Quintilian asked, could one subsume complaints,
consolation, pleas of extenuation, the arousal of excitement or
fear, encouragement, precepts for action, the interpretation of
obscure documents, narrating a story, intercession, the rendering
of thanks, congratulation or insult, imprecations, the description
of objects, solemn charges, refusal, prayer and so on?> Would
it not be better to admit an infinity of rhetorical genres ?
A writer of genius could not allow himself to be constrained
by formal rules or the neat division of genres. The prime example
(despite its editors’ robust denials) is Tacitus’ Agricola. The
work is clearly a biography, as its exordium declares.1 2 3 But
what else besides a biography ? Parts read more like an encom¬
ium,2 others import into the ostensible biography an excessive
amount of geography, ethnography and military history.4
There is also something which resembles a textbook controversial
Agricola and a highland chieftain urging the virtues and de¬
merits of the Roman Empire.5 6 The description of Agricola’s
death recalls the ‘exitus illustrium virorum’ written by other
survivors of Domitian, and it provokes Tacitus to philosophical
reflections (in a Ciceronian style) which contain the elements
of a formal consolatio A And throughout the work runs a political
and moral theme which permeates the whole of Tacitus: how
should a man conduct himself under a tyranny? The Agricola
gives an answer which reconciles integrity with human dignity:
good men can live under a bad emperor without losing their
self-respect.7
A similar literary problem confronted Tertullian when he
1 Inst. Orat. III. 3. 14 ff.

2 Agr. 1.4: narraturo mihi vitam defuncti hominis. . . .
3 Cf. Agr. 3. 3: hie interim liber, honori Agricolae soceri mei destinatus, profes-
sione pietatis aut laudatus erit aut excusatus.
4 Agr. 10. 1 ff.; 18. 1 ff.
5 Agr. 30. 1 ff.
6 Agr. 43. 1 ff. cf. R. M. Ogilvie-I. Richmond, Corndii Taciti De Vita Agricolae
(1967), 13 f-; 301 ff.
7 Agr. 42. 4. One critic descried ‘the frustration of the born introvert’ (B. Walker,
The Annals of Tacitus (1952), 198). For a juster appreciation, R. Syme, Tacitus
(1958), vi.
wrote Ad Martyras, a work addressed to Christians in prison

awaiting trial. Convention prescribed a consolatio for those
suffering present affliction, or an exhortatio if bravery was
needed to meet future dangers.1 2 3 4 Neither genre was wholly
appropriate in the Christian context. Anyone about to undergo
martyrdom ought to be an object of admiration, almost envy,
not pity: he was blessed, already as good as a martyr, deemed
worthy of forgiving sins on earth or (like Perpetua) securing
eternal bliss for those who had proceeded to a less pleasant
supernatural habitation.2 Equally, one who was already a
martyr designate could hardly be exhorted to courage by a
Christian outside prison.2 To address the imprisoned, therefore,
Tertullian transcended the limitations of the normal genres.
He took some elements appropriate to a consolatio, and others
belonging to exhortation, combined them with several motifs
from the philosophical diatribe—and wrote something new and
Christian.* Precise analysis is difficult, since the historical
development of the pagan literary forms remains obscure.
Some of the most influential and famous examples are lost
(like Seneca’s De immatura morte),5 6 7 8 and the temptation is strong
to attribute every element in an extant protreptic composition
to derivation from Aristotle’s ProtrepticusA
Tertullian begins with a brief statement of his purpose in
writing, unworthy as he is, to comfort the martyrs.? He then
passes to the Christian version of the universal sentiment that
external conditions, being beyond man’s control, are irrelevant,
that our will and reason alone determine whether we are happy
or unhappy.* The Christian version emphasized the role of the
Devil (prison was one of his abodes) and the importance of the
Holy Spirit.9 Present ills could also be contrasted with future
1 For the two genres, cf. K. Buresch, Leipziger Studien IX (1886), 1 ff • P. Hart-
lich, ib. XI (1889), 207 ff.
2 Mart. 1. 6; Pud. 22. 1 ff.; Pass. Perp. 7. 1 ff.
3 Mart. 1.2: nec tantus ego sum ut vos alloquar; verumtamen. . . .
4 L. Alfonsi, In memoriam A. Beltrami (1954), 39 ff.
3 F. Haase, L. Annaei Senecae Opera III (1897), 423 f. For possible use of Seneca
in the Ad Martyras, cf. Z. K. Vysoky, Listy filologicki LXXII (1948), 156 ff.
6 Aristotle, frag. 50-61 Rose.
7 Mart. 1. 1 f.
8 Cf. Seneca, De Constantia Sapientis 5. 4" the wise man is ‘contentus virtute,
quae fortuitis non indiget ideoque nec augeri nec minui potest’.
9 Mart. 1. 3 ff.
bliss—and future revenge.1 * Prison, if it mortified the flesh,

could bring benefit to the spirit, to which all things lie open.2
Further, Tertullian adapts the old adage that the wise or just
man, the true philosopher, must always be happy despite
apparent pain: the body is insensitive when the mind is in
heaven.3
Having epitomized and adapted the themes of consolation,
Tertullian turns to the diatribe for inspiration. Suppose prison
to be unpleasant even for Christians, what then? Tertullian
argues from analogy. Christians are soldiers of the living God,
and no one goes to war in comfort or without undergoing
strenuous exercises. Christians are also runners in a race whose
prize is eternal life. Jesus Christ is their trainer, who wishes to
test their strength: the training ground is prison.4
Tertullian turns next to exhortation. Jesus himself confessed
that the Spirit was willing but the flesh was weak (Mt. 26. 41).
Does this not imply that the flesh should obey the Spirit?3 5
Tertullian recalls famous cases of unpleasant death by pagans
who sought fame and glory: Lucretia, Heraclitus, Dido,
Empedocles, Peregrinus, the wife of Hasdrubal, Regulus,
Cleopatra.6 There is an imaginary objection: ‘but fear of death
is less than fear of torture’. Tertullian appeals to the familiar
Athenian whore who bit out her tongue and to the Spartan
institution of whipping. These are all pagans with false ideals.
How much more should the Christian endure for the sake of
truth and for celestial glory !? God allowed their displays of
courage as a challenge to Christians.8 Moreover, violent deaths
happen every day, even by accident: and in the recent civil
wars, all sorts of men were killed for loyalty to a mere man.9
The Ad Martyras is one of Tertullian’s earliest extant works.
Its structure is wooden: the genres, though combined, are not
interwoven. The exempla are somewhat laboured, with in¬
appropriate touches: Mucius only lost a hand and Heraclitus’
suicide in a dungheap is not edifying.10 The Apologeticum was
1 Mart. 2. 3 f. 2 Mart. 2. 5 f.
3 Mart. 2. 10. The locus classicus is Plato, Rep. 360c 1 ff.
4 Mart. 3. 1 ff. The analogies clearly owe something to Paul (I Cor. 9. 25;
Ephesians 6. 10 ff). But they would not be out of place in a pagan exhortation, cf.
Hartlich, o.c. 323 ff.; Alfonsi, o.c. 43.
5 Mart. 4. 1. 6 p. 218. 7 Mart. 4. 7 ff.
8 Mart. 5. 2. 9 Mart. 6. 1 f. 10 Mart. 4. 4 f.
soon to remedy these defects and to employ the matter of the

Ad Martyras more effectively in a different context.1 But the
earlier work, precisely because of its imperfections, reveals
Tertullian’s procedure more clearly. He employed his mastery
of literary genres in order to combine and transform traditional
patterns into something specifically Christian.
Apuleius’ Florida proclaim, or rather assume, the equivalence

of rhetoric and philosophy. One of the pieces asks the audience
why they have come to the theatre to hear Apuleius. If the
performer were a mimer, rope-dancer or comic actor, they
would laugh, be excited or be amused. In fact, he is a
philosopher who will give them instruction.2 On another
occasion, Apuleius lavished praise on the omnicompetent
sophist Hippias of Elis (whose reputation for sagacity endures
to this day).3 Hippias was not only a paragon of eloquence, but
a model of dexterity which provoked emulation. Apuleius
himself could write (in both Latin and Greek) poems of every
sort, choral, lyrical, tragic and comic, satires and riddles,
different types of history, speeches worthy of an orator and
dialogues worthy of a philosopher. The proconsul (so he
assured him) deserved all these sorts of celebration—all at the
same time.4 Study of philosophy had made Apuleius eloquent.
The reason and speech of a philosopher were always fresh,
impressive to hear, profitable, and of universal validity.5
Public honours were showered on Apuleius. He was high
priest of the provincial council of Africa and received statues
in the forum of Carthage.6 Respect was thus paid to the philoso¬
pher, but the orator perhaps aroused the greater admiration.
Apuleius could draw a larger audience than any philosopher
before him. But how many listeners could forgive him a single
solecism or a single false syllable?7 One of the Florida is a
panegyric on a parrot, another on the island of Samos.8 Since
i pp. 52/3; 108. 2Flor. 5.
3 ‘A clever man who would not have been the victim of a forgery’ (of an in¬
scribed discus contemporary with the first Olympic Games), according to G. L.
Huxley, Early Sparta (1962), 42.
4 Flor. 9: quae utinam possem equidem non singillatim ac discretim, sed cunctim
et coacervatim tibi, proconsul optime, offerre.
5 Flor. 13. 6 Flor. 16.
7 Flor. 9. 8 Flor. 12; 15.
the oratory of the age always contained so much culled from

the lives of the ancient philosophers, the Florida duly expounded
at length certain episodes in the lives of Hippias, Protagoras,
Thales of Miletus, the doctor Asclepiades.1 Unfamiliar erudi¬
tion was also an asset. Everyone had heard of the comedies of
Philemon. But how many knew about his death? Apuleius
expressed his gratitude for receiving a statue by enlightening
the ignorance of the provincial council.2
Past philosophy and dead philosophers receive high praise
from Apuleius. The living varieties were not so welcome. Crates
the disciple of Diogenes had been a veritable Hercules. Whereas
the mythical hero had cleansed the world of monsters, Crates
had cleansed men’s minds of monstrous and barbarous emo¬
tions. Though Crates lived semi-naked, he was of course
originally born into a noble and wealthy family.3 Crates’
contemporary disciples filled Apuleius with distaste. He
denounced them bitterly as philosophers in appearance alone,
who omitted to acquire universal knowledge. They were boor¬
ish, dirty and ignorant, philosophers only as far as their cloak.
Unrestrained speech and loose morals are easy to practise.
What yokel, porter or innkeeper could fail to utter more eloquent
curses if he donned a philosopher’s pallium ?4
‘Men of Carthage, the leaders of Africa, who are both noble and
fortunate, I rejoice to see you so prosperous that you can study
fashions of dress. Peace, plenty and leisure—the empire and the
weather are set fair.’ One might be listening to Apuleius as he
begins to pay an extravagant compliment to the citizens of the
African metropolis. In fact, it is Tertullian in theguiseofaCynic.5
The De Pallio presents insuperable linguistic difficulties. The man¬
uscript tradition is poor and often corrupt, the style deliberately
baffling and enigmatic, its comprehension and elucidation the
ultimate challenge to philological acumen.6 Estimates have differ¬
ed widely on its date (from 193 to 222/3), on ^ts purpose, even on
whether it is Christian or not.2 For there appears to exist a
1 Flor. 9; 18; 19. 2 Flor. 16. 3 E/or. 22.
4 Flor. 7, cf. 9: quaedam, ut saepe dixi, palliata mendicabula obambulant.
5 Pall. 1. 1.
6 E. Norden found it ‘[die] schwierigste Schrift in lateinischer Sprache die ich
gelesen habe’ (Antike Kunstprosa2 (1909), 615).
7 G. Saflund, De Pallio und die stilistische Entwicklung Tertullians (1955), 27 ff.
contradiction between its extravagantly recherche style and the

simplicity of its apparent message, that men should forsake the
toga for the pallium and become Christians. Hence, on the one
side, the De Pallio can be persented as a mere ‘jeu d’esprit’ or
literary curiosity,1 on the other as Tertullian’s renunciation of the
Roman Empire and his own Roman citizenship.2 In the historical
milieu the contradiction does not exist. Rhetoric and philosophy
went together with erudition and display. The extravagance
of the style forms an important part of Tertullian’s message: a
Christian can surpass an Apuleius on his own ground.
The basic argument has a simple outline.3 The citizens of
Carthage ought to regard the pallium both as a more convenient
garment than the toga and as their ancestral garb, since the
toga was only introduced to the city in the reign of Augustus.4
But perhaps men will blush at wearing Punic dress. Tertullian
therefore advances an argument of universal application: all
nature is in the habit of changing both dress and appearance
(a long series of richly elaborated examples follow, from the
physical world, of animals and of men), so that change is
according to nature.5 Admittedly, some changes of dress are
contrary to nature and disgraceful, such as Achilles pretending
to be a girl on Scyros or Hercules exchanging clothes with
Omphale.6 But even the rigorous Cato wore a pallium.2 * *
Tertullian invites his audience to look around them: all sorts
of disreputable characters wear the toga.s Contrast the wearers
of the pallium: schoolmasters, teachers, grammarians, rhetors,
sophists, doctors, poets, musicians, all the practitioners of
polite studies.9 The pallium is not only easy to wear, but it
releases a man from the oppressive cares of public life, whose
renunciation can be defended by appeal to Epicurus and Zeno.10
1 G. Boissier, La fin du paganisme I (1891), 258; H. Koch, P-W VA. 826.

2 D. van Berchem, Mus. Held. I (1944), 108; Saflund, o.c. 52 ff. In refutation, cf.
R. Klein, Tertullian und das romische Reich (1968), 89 ff.
3 Compare the analysis of Boissier, o.c. 239 ff., and the close paraphrase by
J. Geffcken, Kynika und Verwandtes (1909), 58 ff.
4 Pall. 1. 2 f.
3 Pall. 2. 1 ff. This passage has often been misunderstood (cf. p. 85). It is not
evidence for ‘Punic nationalism’ (as Saflund assumes, o.c. 52 ff.) or for a ‘Punic
cultural revival’ (W. H. C. Frend, The Donatist Church (1952), 105). Quite the
reverse: Tertullian reveals the social cachet of Roman manners.
« Pall. 4. 2 ff. 2 Pall. 3. 8. s Pall. 4. 8.
9 Pall. 6. 2. 10 Pall. 5. 3 f.
The toga is no guarantee of good morals. Consider the notorious

‘piscinarii’ of the late Republic, or other examples of gluttony
and vice like Nero, Apicius, Rufus, Scaurus, the gambler
Curius and the drunkard Antony.1 Those who wear the pallium
never perpetrate such behaviour. Far from it, they are the only
critics.2 A man of conscience ought therefore to exchange his
toga for a pallium. But the pallium is now ennobled by a truly
divine philosophy since it has begun to be worn by Christians.3
Tertullian thus relies upon premisses which a pagan would
instinctively accept in order to reach a disturbing conclusion.
Renunciation of the toga can be justified in terms of Cynic,
Epicurean and Stoic philosophy. For an Epicurean or Cynic it
betokens an indifference to public life and its discomforts, a
withdrawal from the world. For a Stoic, it is in accordance
with nature. And for both the pallium signifies a preference
for education over materialism.4 Tertullian is not preaching
the virtues of asceticism, nor manifesting his conversion to
Montanism.5 Still less does he urge the Carthaginians to renounce
the Roman Empire. He has adapted the Cynic diatribe and
rhetorical exercises to his own purposes. He proves, in terms of
pagan preconceptions, that a decent man ought to forsake the
toga for the pallium. The corollary which is his main contention
he reserves for the conclusion: anyone who adopts the pallium
ought also to become a Christian. A contemporary would have
seen the point.6 The sophistic movement had united philosophy
and rhetoric. Tertullian shows that a Christian can take his
pagan intellectual inheritance with him into his new faith. The
antithesis between Athens and Jerusalem, between the Academy
and the church, has been resolved.
A man’s character will often reveal itself most clearly if he

states whom he admires and why. Tertullian has left a brief
statement of his debt to earlier writers who attacked Gnostics.7
1 Pall. 5. 5 ff. 2 Pall. 6. 1. 3 Pall. 6. 4.

4 As it still did when there were Christian emperors, cf. Eunapius, VS p. 466.
5 So most assume: e.g., E. Noeldechen, Tertullian (1890), 261 ff.; P. Monceaux,
Histoire litUraire de l'Afrique chrdtienne I (1901), 405 ff.; M. Zappala, Ricerche religiose
I (1925), 132 ff.; 327 ff. Nor ff. is it a personal apologia (J. Moingt, Thdologie
trinitaire de Tertullien I (1966), 60).
« Observe Philostratus, Epp. XXXV: M viroBrjor) ttotc, ktA.
7 Val. 5. 1.
Such polemic was dear to his heart and accounts for the larger
part of his literary production. Small wonder then that he
should have read Justin (whose compendium of heresies and
refutation of Marcion are lost)1 2 and Irenaeus. None could
quarrel with his description of Justin as philosopher and martyr.
More significant is the phrase used of Irenaeus: ‘omnium
doctrinarum curiosissimus explorator’. Irenaeus would not
have approved.2 Tertullian had used a very similar phrase of
the emperor Hadrian, in a brilliant and accurate epigram:
‘omnium curiositatum explorator’.3 That hit off an important
facet of the emperor’s character—and of Tertullian’s. With
Justin and Irenaeus are yoked two other writers. Tertullian
commends one Proculus for a virgin old age and Christian
eloquence, and Miltiades for being an ecclesiastical sophist. The
combination helps to define Tertullian. Proculus combined his
own moral and literary aspirations, and he accorded Miltiades
a designation which he could more justly have claimed for
himself: ‘ecclesiarum sophista’.
1 Recorded by Justin, Apol. I. 26; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. IV. 6. 2; Eusebius, HE

IV. 18. 9.
2 Cf. Adv. Haer. II. 25. 4 ff.
3 Apol. 5. 7.
APPENDICES
A. JEROME
1. The Date of the De Viris Illustribus 235

2. Jerome and Eusebius 236
3. The Textual Tradition of the Apologeticum 239
B. TERTULLIAN
4. The Full Name of Tertullian 242

5. Tertullian in Rome 243
6. Accidental Autobiography 245
7. Some Alleged Historical Allusions 247
8. Ad amicum philosophum 250
9. De Ecstasi 253
10. Rhetorical Structure 254
11. The Composition of the Adversus Marcionem 255
12. Tertullian and Apuleius 256
13. The Tertullianistae 258
C. GOVERNORS AND MARTYRS
14. The Proconsular Year 260

15. Namphamo of Madauros 261
16. The Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs 262
17. The Passion of Perpetua 263
18. The Proconsul Rufinus 266
19. Mavilus of Hadrumetum 267
20. Licinius Serenianus 269
D. AFRICAN CHRISTIANS
21. Apuleius and Christianity 271

22. Jewish Origins? 273
23. Liturgical Customs 275
24. The Latin Bible 276
234 APPENDICES
25. Praxeas 278
26. The Heresy of Gaius 279

27. Christians in Mauretania 280
28. The Jewish Diaspora 282

A. JEROME
i. The Date of the De Viris Illustribus

In the final chapter of the De Viris Illustribus (135), Jerome lists
his own writings ‘usque in praesentem annum, id est Theodosii
principis XIV’, thus fulfilling his promise to provide a catalogue of
Christian scholarship ‘a passione Christi usque ad quartum decimum
Theodosii imperatoris annum’ (Praef.).1 Hence a precise date: the
fourteenth year of Theodosius ran from 19 January 392 to 19 January
393-2
A recent theory challenges the date, arguing that Jerome must
mean the calendar year 393.3 For the preface to his commentary on
the book of Jonah states that not only the commentaries on the five
prophets (recorded in De Vir. III. 135) but also the threnody on the
death of Nepotianus (Epp. LX, to Heliodorus) were written within
the preceding ‘triennium’ (PL XXV. 1118). Now this epistle was
composed after the murder of Rufinus on 27 November 3954 and
(so it is maintained) in summer, i.e. in the middle of 396. Therefore,
the De Viris Illustribus records works of Jerome which were not
written before the summer of 393.5
The conclusion cannot be regarded as certain. It was once pro¬
posed to emend ‘triennium’ to ‘quadriennium’.6 But the reading of
the manuscripts appears to be unanimous.7 Nonetheless, another
way of escape offers. The date of the lament for Nepotianus is
partly inferred from Jerome’s letter to Oceanus on the death of
Fabiola. There Jerome writes
plures anni sunt, quod super dormitione Blaesillae Paulam . . . consolatus

sum. quartae aestatis circulus volvitur, ex quo ad Heliodorum episcopum
Nepotiani scribens epitaphium, quidquid habere virium potui, in illo tunc
dolore consumpsi [Epp. LXXVII. 1].
Even if the reading ‘quartae aestatis circulus’ (rather than ‘aetatis )

is unimpeachable,8 the letter to Heliodorus might have been written
1 Cf. Epp. XLVII. 3. 2.

2 O. Seeck, Geschichte des Untergangs der antiken Welt V (1913), 125; 479.
3 P. Nautin, Rev. hist. eccl. LVI (1961), 33 ff. A date early in 393 had already been
assumed by F. Cavallera, St. Jerome. Sa vie et son teuvre II (1921), 31-

4 Socrates, HE VI. 1. 5 Nautin, o.c. 34.
6 L. S. Lenain de Tillemont, Mimoires pour servir a Vhistoire ecclisiastique XII
(1707), 645.
7 P. Antin, Jerome: Sur Jonas (Sources chrdtiennes XLIII, 1956)) 5°-
s Cf. TLL I. 1091; III. 1110.

236 APPENDICES
in the spring, not the summer. No need therefore to emend the pro¬
logue to the In Jonam. Jerome wrote ‘triennium circiter fluxit,
postquam quinque prophetas interpretatus sum’ {PL XXV. 1118).
The qualification ‘circiter’ enables the fourteenth year of Theodosius
to be assigned its obvious meaning—January 392 to January 393.
The heading of the Greek translation imports a complication. It

reads: 7rpos Ae^rpov errapôv TTpcuTcuplcov.1 2 Nummius Aemilianus
Dexter is attested as pretorian prefect in 395, not 392.2 The words
‘cVapyov 77-paiTwptwv’ are consequently anachronistic. Neither the
preface of the De Viris Illustribus nor Jerome’s later account of its
composition (Contra Rufinum II. 23 {PL XXIII. 467)) implies that
Dexter was prefect at the time of writing. And, despite some editors,3
there is no equivalent phrase in the Latin version.4 The intrusive
title is perhaps not without parallel. Philostratus dedicated his
Lives of the Sophists to Antonius Gordianus the younger. The manu¬
scripts all head the work to) Xape-npoTaTcp viraTcp ' AvtiovIco EopSeavcp
<P\avlos L>i\6otparos . Yet Gordian may not yet have been consul
when he received the Lives.5
2. Jerome and Eusebius

Much of the De Viris Illustribus can be confronted with its immediate
and acknowledged source, the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius. From
a comparison of the two, certain characteristics of Jerome’s work can
be discerned.6
First, Jerome never questions the reliability of Eusebius. Thus he
accepts Eusebius’ interpretation of what a writer says without asking
whether it is correct. Hegesippus wrote that he came to Rome and
made a list of the bishops up to Anicetus (at HE IV. 22. 2 f.). He
records the successors of Anicetus, Soter and Eleutherus, but does not
claim to have been in Rome while they served as bishops. Eusebius,
however, ascribed to Hegesippus the statement that he was in Rome
in the time of Anicetus and stayed until Eleutherus was bishop {HE
IV. 11. 7). Jerome declares that Hegesippus asserts that he came to
Rome in the episcopate of Anicetus and remained until that of
Eleutherus (22). Again, according to Origen {Contra Celsum I. 48)
1 O. von Gebhardt, Texte u. Unters. XIV. ib (1896), 1.

2 O. Seeck, Regesten der Kaiser und Papste (1919), 284 ff.
3 e.g., W. Herding (Teubner, 1879).
4 See the editions of C. A. Bernoulli (1895) and E. C. Richardson (1896), and
the collation of a new manuscript by W. H. P. Hatch, Harv. Stud. XXIII (1912), 53.
5 Latomus XXVII (1968), 588.
6 S. von Sychowski, Hieronymus als Litterarhistoriker (1894), 45 ff.; J. Huemer,
Wiener Studien XVI (1894), 121 ff.
A. JEROME 237
and Eusebius (HE II. 23. 20), followed by Jerome (2), the Jewish
historian Josephus acknowledged that Jerusalem had been destroyed
because the Jews had murdered James ‘the Just’. This admission is
found in no extant text of Josephus and runs counter to his view of
the episode: James was killed through the machinations of the
high-priest, whom right-minded Jews immediately ousted from his
position.1 It might, nonetheless, have stood in any text of Josephus
which Jerome was able to consult.2 But Jerome did not attempt to
verify the report of Eusebius. For he attributes to the Jewish historian
a description of the character of James which Eusebius had inferred
from Hegesippus and Clement (HE II. 23. 19).
Secondly, Jerome far surpasses Eusebius in credulity. What was in
Eusebius presented as surmise or mere rumour is for Jerome estab¬
lished and indubitable fact. Philip was the first emperor to be a
Christian (54). But Eusebius had affirmed only that there was a story
that he was a Christian (HE VI. 34). (The story Eusebius tells is
ascribed elsewhere, with a different ending, to Decius or Numeria-
nus ;3 and one may doubt whether it was invented before there was a
real Christian emperor on the throne, i.e. before the victory of
Constantine in 312.)4 Eusebius speaks of Pantaenus in India almost
as if he doubted the story (HE V. 10): Jerome admits no such un¬
certainty (36). Eusebius felt obliged to justify his acceptance of the
improbable story that Philo had heard Peter preaching in Rome and
befriended him (HE II. 17* 1 f-): not so Jerome, who states that it is
only a story—like Philo’s visit to Rome to plead before Caligula
(11).
Thirdly, Jerome mistranslates and misunderstands. He gives the

name of Justin’s father as Priscus Bacchius (23): the Greek which he
was copying had Priscus the son of Bacchius (HE IV. 12). A grosser
mistake is to render ‘ol8a by ‘vidi’ (16, cf. HE III. 36. 11). In a list
of the works of Philo there appear as two different treatises ‘de
Alexandro et quod propriam rationem muta habeant’ (11), while
to Eusebius these were alternative titles of the same work (HE II. 18.
6). Jerome also commits the opposite fault when he fails to realize
that Ignatius’ letter to Polycarp is not the same as his letter to the
church of Smyrna (16, cf. HE III. 36. 10),5 and when he conflates
homonyms. Eusebius recorded two Quadrati: the one addressed an
apology to Hadrian (HE IV. 3), the other succeeded Publius as
1 Ant. Jud. XX. 200 ff.

2 Sychowski, o.c. 49 f. For tampering with the text of Josephus, cf. H. at. J.
Thackeray, Josephus (1929), 125 ff. _nnT,ml , co,
3 Philostorgius, HE VII. 8 (GCS XXI. 89 f.). 4 JRS LVIII (1968), 43-
5 Cf. J. B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers, Part II: S. Ignatius. S. Polycarp. I2
(1889), 156; 243.
238 APPENDICES
bishop of Athens {HE IV. 23. 3). Jerome combines the two (19)—and
is perversely followed by some modern scholars.1
Fourth, Jerome dishonestly conceals both his ignorance and his
debt to Eusebius. He asserts that Philo wrote some works besides
those he lists which are no longer extant (11); but the list is entirely
copied from Eusebius {HE II. 18). Of the Chronographiae of Cassianus,
mentioned by Clement of Alexandria, Jerome informs the reader that
he has not been able to obtain a copy (38). He may (or may not)
have made a search; but his information about Clement’s literary
debts comes wholly from Eusebius {HE VI. 13). Of the letter of the
church of Rome to the Corinthians (otherwise I Clement) Jerome
avers ‘in nonnullis locis etiam publice legitur’, and delivers himself of
a judgement on its style and its relation to the Epistle to the Hebrews
(15). He introduces the judgement with the words ‘mihi videtur’;
yet both that and the statement that it is still read publicly reproduce
the precise wording of Eusebius {HE III. 16; 38). Andjerome fails here
to put on record the letters concerning virginity attributed to Clement
which he mentions in his attack on Jovinianus.2 It is therefore a nice
question how far his claims to personal acquaintance with the works
he discusses are fraudulent: there is a contemporary parallel.3
The De Viris Illustribus is neither careful nor entirely honest. Yet

some of Jerome’s additions to Eusebius contain genuine informa¬
tion. Sometimes this is contemporary knowledge: thus the resting-
places of the relics of Peter, Luke and Ignatius (1; 7; 16). Other
additions may come from hagiographical sources: Jerome is the
earliest evidence for the day of Cornelius’ martyrdom, allegedly the
same as Cyprian, i.e. 14 September (66/7).4 5 But others again are
unhistorical. Jerome purports to give the name of the bishop of
Alexandria who sent Pantaenus on his missionary journey to India
(36),3 and he appeals to the forged correspondence between Paul
and Seneca (12). Yet Jerome had read works which are now lost.
Almost alone he records the commentaries on the Gospel and the
proverbs of Solomon which were attributed to Theophilus of
Antioch, and which he declares that he read (25) ;6 7 and he alone
attests the existence and productions of Geminus of Antioch (64).2
1 P. Andriessen, Recherches de thiologie ancienne et rn/die'vale XIII (1946), 125 ff.

2 Adv. Jovin. I. 12 (PL XXIII. 239).
3 R. Syme, Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (1968), 98 f.
4 For the evidence concerning Cornelius and his cult, H. Leclercq, Diet, d'arch.
chrit. III. 2968 ff.
5 Viz. Demetrius, known to Jerome from Eusebius, HE V. 22. 1, etc.
6 Sychowski, o.c. 117 f.
7 Also at GCS XLVII. 215. Jerome seems not to have read Geminus, cf. Sychow-
A. JEROME 239
In assessing Jerome’s information, great care is consequently
necessary and attention to detail. But no systematic source can be
discovered besides Eusebius, the works of the writers discussed, and
personal recollection. Everything which cannot be traced back to
one of these three derives either from hagiography or legend.
3. The Textual Tradition of the Apologeticum

A lost manuscript from the Benedictine monastery at Fulda,
whose readings have to be inferred from the report of the sixteenth-
century humanist Franciscus Modius, and a fragment of a manuscript
from Rheinau (containing 38. 1-40. 2) present (or presented) a text
of the Apologeticum which differs from that of the main medieval
manuscript tradition in more than a thousand places.1 To account
for this phenomenon, two main theories have been advanced. It
used to be believed that the version of the Apologeticum current in
antiquity was that of the Fuldensis, while the vulgate tradition de¬
rived from an interpolated Carolingian edition.2 More recently,
another theory almost attained the status of orthodoxy.3 Both ver¬
sions (it was held) derive from the hand of Tertullian himself,4 and
that of the Fuldensis was interpreted as an intermediate stage be¬
tween the Ad Nationes and its final remoulding to produce what
stands as the vulgate text of the Apologeticum A This theory had much
to commend it: not only do many of the thousand variants seem to
show systematic divagation, but the Fragmentum Fuldense clearly
constitutes an alternative and inferior version of a passage in the
vulgate (19. 1 ff.).6 But there is a difficulty, fatal to any hypothesis
that the two versions descend from Tertullian’s autograph recta via'.
ski, o.c. 157. What therefore was the source of his information? A. Harnack sug¬
gested, without conviction, that there might be a lacuna in Eusebius, HE VI. 20
(Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius II (1893), 515).
1 For a full exposition, see J. P. Waltzing, Elude sur le Codex Fuldensis de Tertulhen
(1914-17); H. Hoppe, CSEL LXIX. xxxii ff.; E. Dekkers, CCL I. 78 ff.; C. Becker,
Tertullian: Apologeticum2 (1961), 229 ff. The Rheinaugensis was collated by A.
Souter, JTS VIII (1907), 297 ff. ,, T , ,
2 C. Callewaert, Rev. hist.litt. ret. VII (1902), 322 ff.; MelangesC. Moeller I (1914),
165 ff.; Waltzing, o.c. 128 ff.; E. Lofstedt, Tertullians Apologeticum textkntisch unter-
sucht (1915), 72 f. ,
3 G. Pasquali, Storia della tradizione e del critico del testo (1931), 16 ff.; H. Emonds,
Zweite Auflage in Altertum (1914). *37 ff-5 K-. Buchner, in Geschichte der Textuberhe-
.VchrQrs’ r«efe u. Unters. XL. 4 (1914); G. Thornell, Eranos XVI (1916),
5 G. Thornell, Studia Tertullianea IV (1926), 9; 64; C. Becker, Tertullians

Apologeticum: Werden und Leistung (1954)5 105 ff
c Becker, o.c. 149 ff.
240 APPENDICES
they both concur in several major corruptions or doublets.1 By the

accepted canons of textual criticism, this entails descent from a single
archetype.2 Moreover, even if there were two versions of the
Apologeticum from the author’s own hand, it cannot be assumed that
each would be preserved in a separate medieval manuscript tradi¬
tion.3 Cyprian may have composed two distinct versions of his De
Unitate Ecclesiae\ successive generations of scribes have produced a
vast conflation, and no manuscript or group of manuscripts ad¬
heres throughout to the same (putative) version.4 Hence, even if
there are pairs of variants in the Apologeticum which go back to
Tertullian himself, they may derive from a single autograph which
contained much alteration and copious annotation5—and both
variants may sometimes be found in the same branch of the manu¬
script tradition.6 The problem needs an unprejudiced re-examina-
tion.2 8 For the supposed parallels to the ‘double recension’ of the
Apologeticum are almost all either doubtful or non-existent.3 And in
the Apologeticum many (if not all) of the alleged author’s variants
consist of one correct reading and one corruption. Even ‘patriae
nostrae’ and ‘patris nostri’ (Apol. 9. 2) have been expounded as
variants instead of the correct reading and a corruption.9 10
Support for the theories in question was also sought in external

evidence, including Jerome (De Vir. III. 53). Ancient writers (it was
claimed) knew only one version of the Apologeticum, that preserved in
the Fuldensis.19 The claim is demonstrably false.11 The pseudo-
Cyprianic treatise Quod idola dii non sint agrees equally with both
1 P. Frassinetti, Rend. 1st. Lombardo, Classe di Lettere XCI (1957), 27 ff.- W.

Biihler, Philologus GIX (1965), 121 ff.
2 P. Maas, Textual Criticism3 (1958), 42 ff.
3 i.e. the transmission could be ‘contaminated’, cf. Maas, o.c. 7 f.; 49.
4 M- Bevenot, The Tradition of Manuscripts: A Study in the Transmission of St.
Cyprian’s Treatises (1961), esp. 56 ff.
5 A. Onnerfors, Gnomon XXXVIII (1966), 782 ff.
6 At AP°l- 26. 1 f., the vulgate has ‘sine civitatibus aliquando . . . silvestris’.
‘Silvestris’, which did not stand in the Fuldensis, appears to be an author’s variant
for ‘sine civitatibus’, displaced from its proper context, cf. M. D Reeve CR N S
XX (1970), 136.
7 For the continuing controversy, cf. P. Frassinetti, Leparole e le idee VIII (10661
259 ff-
8 G. Jachmann, Concordia Decennalis (1941), 47. For subsequent work on the
subject, cf. M. D. Reeve, Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc. CXCV (1969), 75.
9 p. 14. W. H. C. Frend has something all his own: ‘I am accepting the amend¬
ment “patris nostri”’ (Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (1965), 383).
10 Callewaert, o.c. (1902), 350; Thornell, o.c. (1926), 73.
11 frassinetti, o.c. (1957), 11 ff. For a full list of ancient quotations and allusions
see CCL I, Tabulae ia-ic.
A. JEROME 241
traditions. 1 Similarly (so it appears) the allusions in the anonymous

fourth century Altercatio Heracliani cum Germinio episcopo Sirmiensi.1 23
Further, a quotation in Rufinus’ Historia Ecclesiastica appears to
attest a reading different from the two readings in the vulgate and
the Fuldensis (Apol. 5. 4).3
1 p. 20. Becker argued that both were known, but that every ancient writer
who quoted the Apologeticum quoted from either one of the two ‘uncontaminated’
versions (o. c. (1954), 146 ff.).
2 Published by G. P. Caspari, Kirchenhistorische Anecdota (1883), 133 ff.; whence
PL. Supp. I. 345 ff. For the allusions, see CCL I. 124 f.
3 Rufinus, HE II. 25. 4: ‘quasi homo’, for ‘quia homo’ (Fuldensis) or ‘qua et
homo’ (vulgate).
B. TERTULLIAN
4. The Full Name of Tertullian1

In the last sentence of the De Virginibus Velandis Tertullian reveals his
gentilicium:
haec cum bona pace legentibus . . . pax et gratia a domino nostro Iesu
redundet, et cum Septimio Tertulliano, cuius hoc opusculum est [Virg. Vel.
17- 5]-2
The medieval manuscripts give his full name as Q,. Septimius
Florens Tertullianus. Such evidence is inscrutable, and in the
absence of anything better or contradictory cannot but be accepted.
For his origin and extraction Tertullian’s name yields little. Most
Septimii are of humble status, but the frequency of the name is
probably the result of Septimius Severus’ becoming emperor in 193.
And against the many humble Septimii can be set the Septimii of
Lepcis, the leading family of that prosperous city which produced a
counsellor of Marcus Aurelius and then an emperor.3 The nomen
has been held to be originally Etruscan.4 But no deduction could be
made from that alone, and formation from the praenomen Septimus is
more probable. However, very few Septimii are found as soldiers
before 193: a count in 1916 discovered no more than two out of a
total of known soldiers running into many hundreds, and subse¬
quent discoveries have added few more.5
The cognomina are slightly more valuable. Not because they dis¬
close Tertullian’s racial origins or exact provenance, but as indicat¬
ing that the family may have occupied a low position on the social
scale. Tertulliani are attested in all parts of the Roman world.6
Not many, however, attained any eminence. Nonetheless, the
theologian’s name is hardly more undistinctive than that of the
1 O. Hirschfeld once read a paper to the Berlin Academy entitled ‘Die Namen
des Tertullianus’ (Sitzungsber. d. preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin 1915, 31): there
seems to be no record of its contents.
2 Cf. Lactantius, Div. Inst. V. 1. 22.
3 Historia XVI (1967), 87 ff.
4 W. Schulze, spur Geschichte lateinischer Eigennamen (1904), 229.
5 L. R. Dean, A Study of the Cognomina of Soldiers in the Roman Legions (1916), 120 f.;
G. Forni, II reclutamento delle legioni da Augusto a Diocleziano (1953), 111 n. 2. Add,
however, the L. Septimius who killed Pompey (T. R. S. Broughton, Magistrates of
the Roman Republic II (1952), 278 f.).
6 p. 24. For those in Africa, p. 87.
B. TERTULLIAN 243
eastern senator M. Ulpius Tertullianus Aquila.1 Florens in contrast
is almost completely unattested.2 Yet names of the same formation
(viz. Valens, Crescens) are common and suggestive of humble
origin.3
Tertullian’s name is colourless. But that in itself does not demon¬
strate his position in African society. Salvius Julianus (it may be
argued) was by birth an Aemilius of Hadrumetum; but his learning
won him the chief place among Roman jurists.4 The parents of
Lucian of Samosata could scarcely afford an education for their
son,5 and yet he became the friend and assistant of a prefect of
Egypt, and might have ended as a secretary to the emperor.6 Men of
letters have rarely prospered so greatly as in the second century.7
Tertullian could expect fame and fortune as the reward of his
eloquence, whatever his initial station in life. Even a slave might
gain liberty and illustrious acquaintances. Epictetus did, the former
slave of Nero’s freedman, Epaphroditus.8
Tertullian’s name proves nothing, and cannot be invoked in
aid of any thesis. For all that it can reveal, he could be the son of a
soldier or not, of immigrant Italian stock or of native (Punic or other)
extraction. But what does that matter ? Attention should concentrate,
not on his supposed racial characteristics,9 but on his definable place
in Carthaginian society.10
5. Tertullian in Rome
Tertullian is not identical with the jurist Tertullianus. There is no
need, therefore, to suppose that he ever practised law in Rome.11
A further question now arises: did Tertullian ever visit the city or
study there? An affirmative answer is commonly given.12 Works of
reference even profess to know at what date he returned to Carthage.13
1 G. Barbieri, L’albo senatorio da Settimio Severn a Carino {193-285) (1952), no.

1768.
2 There is no Florens in CIL VIII.
3 I. Kajanto, Onomastic Studies in the Early Christian Inscriptions of Rome and Carthage
(1963)* 23; 28; 57; 61.
4 Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium ig68/6g (1970), 45 ff.
5 Lucian, Somnium 1 ff.
« Lucian, Apologia 12; cf. H. G. Pflaum, Mel. d’arch. etd’hist. LXXI (1959), 281 ff.
2 pp. 211/2. 8 PIR1 E 74; F. Millar, JRS LV (1965), 141 ff.
9 R. Braun, Bulletin de l’Association Guillaume Bu<U 1965, 189 ff, makes him a
Berber, a student of psychology depicts him as ‘einen lebhaften Knaben von
sudlichem Feuer’ (B. Nisters, Tertullian. Seine Personlichkeit und sein Schicksal (1950),
ii5)-
10 Chs. VII, VIII, XIII. 11 Ch. IV.
12 e.g., J. Quasten, Patrology II (1963), 246.
n e.g., B. Altaner-A. Stuiber, Patrologiei (1966), 148: ‘um 195 ist er aus Rom, wo
er Rechtsanwalt war, als Christ in seine Vaterstadt zuriickgekehrt’.
244 APPENDICES
And some scholars claim to know the duration of his stay: either
lengthy1 or only for a brief period.2
Space need not be wasted on assertions that the De Idololatria or
the Adversus Valentinianos were written at Rome, or that Tertullian
must have been in the capital in 180 (cf. Apol. 25. 5).3 One passage
alone can plausibly be cited for proof of Tertullian’s presence in
Rome:
gemmarum quoque nobilitatem vidimus Romae de fastidio Parthorum et

Medorum ceterorumque gentilium suorum coram matronis erubescentem
[Cult. Fem. I. 7. 2].
Is not ‘vidimus Romae’ the personal report of an eye-witness?4 Yet

the precise import of the passage causes some perplexity. Perhaps
Tertullian saw a triumph of Septimius Severus over the Parthians in
202.5 Or was it games to celebrate the marriage of Caracalla to
Plautilla?6 Or might Tertullian be drawing on recollections of a
triumph he beheld long ago in his youth ?7 The facts are less roman¬
tic. Tertullian observes that ornaments are worn simply because they
are imported and rare:
haec omnia de raritate et peregrinitate sola gloriam possident. denique intra

terminos patrios non tanti habentur. semper abundantia contumeliosa in
semetipsam est. apud barbaros quosdam, quia vernaculum est aurum et
copiosum, auro vinctos in ergastulis habent, et divitiis malos onerant, tanto
locupletiores quanto nocentiores [Cult. Fem. I. 7. 1].
Then come jewels (I. 7. 2, quoted above). ‘De fastidio Parthorum’:

Roman matrons can wear the jewels because the Parthians despise
them and hence do not want to keep them, not because the Parthians
have yielded them up by force.8 The alleged reference to a triumph
or to games in Rome is illusory.
What of ‘vidimus Romae’ ? Something may come from an
examination of Tertullian’s use of pronouns in the first book of the
De Cultu Feminarum. The treatise addresses itself at the outset to
Christian women, ‘sorores dilectissimae’ (1. 1). But Tertullian also
1 A. Harnack, Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius II (1904),

293-
2 A. D. E. Cameron, Hermes XCII (1964), 374.
3 E. Noeldechen, Zeitschr. fur wiss. Theol. XXXI (1888), 207 ff.; 443 ff. •
Tertullian (1890), 25 ff.
4 H. Koch, P-W V A. 823: ‘dass er in Rom war, sagt er selbst’.
5 Noeldechen, o.c. (1890), 27; J. Marra, Tertulliani de cultu feminarum libri duo
(1 93°)j xxxiv. For the various celebrations of 202, cf. BMC, R. Emp. V. cxvlii ff.
6 C. Fuchs, Geschichte des Kaisers L. Septimius Severus (1884), 97.
7 J. Marra, De Corona liber, De Cultu Feminarum libri duo2 (1951), 126.
8 For the connotation of ‘fastidium’, cf. Pat. 7. 3; 10. 4.
B. TERTULLIAN 245
uses the singular: thus ‘mulier’ (1. 1) and ‘dei ancilla’ (4. 2).The
first person plural is employed for actions performed by both the
author and the audience:
hi sunt nempe angeli, quos iudicaturi sumus, hi sunt angeli, quibus in

lavacro renuntiamus . . . qua constantia tribunal illud ascendemus decreturi
aversus eos, quorum munera appetimus? (2. 4/5)
Similarly, ‘legimus omnem scripturam’ (3. 3) and ‘nos’ (3. 3).

Tertullian’s personal views and actions are reported in the first
person singular: ‘opinor’ (1. 3; 2. 5; 3. 1), ‘scio’ (3. 1), ‘taceo’ (5. 3),
‘interpreter’ (6. 1), ‘non dico’ and ‘noverim’ (6. 2). However, con¬
sistency is not maintained to the end: ‘de illis suum volumen implevi-
mus’ (8. 4) refers to Tertullian’s publication of his De Spectaculis.
Hence ‘vidimus Romae’ may be a statement about the author alone.
Yet it could equally well have been said if Tertullian merely thought
that some of his readers would have been to Rome—or even if neither
author nor audience had seen the city in person. Virgil may appo¬
sitely be adduced:
vidimus undantem ruptis fornacibus Aetnam [Georg. I. 472].
Servius quotes Livy for the date: early in 44 b.c., shortly before the
death of Julius Caesar.1 No reason, however, to deduce that Virgil
happened at that moment to be in Sicily. The first person report as
of an eye-witness is a rhetorical device, in Tertullian no less than in
Virgil. Which is relevant to Tertullian’s conversion.
6. Accidental Autobiography
How much does Tertullian reveal about himself? At first sight,
practically nothing. Given the dearth of external evidence for his
life, therefore, a temptation arises to discover autobiography in state¬
ments which apparently possess a wider reference. The mode of his
becoming a Christian (it is claimed) can be described: he was
moved by the obstinacy of martyrs (perhaps the very Scillitan
martyrs whose acta are extant) and experienced sudden conversion.2
The reconstruction is represented as no more than a report of
Tertullian’s own words: ‘haec3 et nos risimus aliquando. de vestris
sumus’ {Apol. 18. 4); ‘ipsa ilia obstinatio quam exprobratis magistra
est’ [Apol. 50. 15); ‘quisque enim tantam tolerantiam spectans, ut
aliquo scrupulo percussus, et inquirere accenditur, quid sit in causa,
1 There paradoxically exists no other extant evidence, cf. C. Hiilsen, P-W I.

1112.
2 T. R. Glover, The Conflict of Religions in the Early Roman Empire (1909), 312;
318 ff.
3 i.e. the Last Judgement.
R
246 APPENDICES
et ubi cognoverit veritatem et ipse statim sequitur’ (Scap. 5. 5). And

the theory gains wide assent in standard works.1 But what of the
context of Tertullian’s statements? The central thesis of both
Apologeticum and Ad Scapulam holds that persecution derives from
ignorance. As a logical corollary, Tertullian must assert that all who
know what Christianity is at once become Christians, that a reasoned
and deliberate condemnation is impossible. Hence autobiography
becomes subordinate to the exigencies of the argument. As for the
words ‘de vestris sumus’, the context requires that the first person
plural comprise all (or at least most) Christians: ‘fiunt non nascuntur
Christiani’ (Apol. 18. 4). And Tertullian adapts a Stoic adage:
‘neminem nasci sapientem sed fieri’ (Seneca, De Ira II. 10. 6).2
Tertullian’s procedure can be seen clearly in a pair of passages,
where the second is a reformulation of the first:
nuper quidam perditissimus in ista civitate, etiam suae religionis desertor,

solo detrimento cutis Iudaeus . . . picturam in nos proposuit sub ista pro-
scriptione: ‘Onocoetes’. iserat auribus cantherinis, in toga, cum libro, altero
pede ungulato. et credidit vulgus illi Iudaeo [Nat. I. 14. 1/2];
sed nova iam Dei nostri in ista civitate proxime editio publicata est, ex quo
quidam frustrandis bestiis mercenarius noxius picturam proponit cum
eiusmodi inscriptione:
DEUS CHRISTIANORUM ONOCOETES.
is erat auribus asininis, altero pede ungulatus, librum gestans et togatus.

risimus et nomen et formam. sed illi [i.e. pagans] debuerant adorare
[Apol. 16. 12].
Did Tertullian laugh? The laughter is added merely for effect, and
the first person plural serves to contrast Christians and pagans.3
The search is in vain, speculation uncontrollable, and Tertullian

may after all have been converted to Christianity by the fortitude of
martyrs.4 It will be prudent, however, to seek autobiography only
where Tertullian unambiguously speaks of himself. A modest
result can be attained: Tertullian was brought up a pagan (Paen. 1.
1), on some occasions he sinned egregiously (Res. Mort. 59. 3), and he
realized the volatile impatience of his own personality (Pat. 1. 1 ff).
More can be gathered from elsewhere, notably his marriage and
1J- Quasten, Patrology II (1953), 247; K. Baus, Handbook of Church History I (1965),
250.
2J. Geffcken, fwei griechische Apologeten (1907), 285; Kynika und Verwandtes
(1909), 86; E. Bickel, Pisciculi (1939), 54 ff.
3 Compare Cult. Fern. I. 7. 2: vidimus Romae (App. 5).
4 P. Monceaux, Histoire littdraire de VAfrique chre'tienne I (1901), 182: ‘comme
toutes les ames genereuses, il dut etre frappe d’abord de la Constance des chretiens’.
B. TERTULLIAN 247
education, and something about his background.* Nor need fre¬
quent visits to the amphitheatre be denied (cf. Sped. 19. 4). But that
Tertullian has left an account of the true stages of his conversion
must be doubted.2
7. Some Alleged Historical Allusions

For the detection of historical allusions in any author, clarity and
attention to correct method are necessities. In the case of Tertullian,
some allusions are precise enough to permit of certainty and can be
used as valid evidence for chronology.3 Others must be rigorously
discarded. First, demonstrably erroneous identifications. If the De
Pudicitia attacked the bishop of Rome Callistus, that would entail a
date c. 220.4 In fact, the treatise is directed against a bishop of
Carthage:
praesumis et ad te derivasse solvendi et alligandi potestatem, id est ad

omnem ecclesiam Petri propinquam? [Pud. 21. 10].
The words ‘ad omnem ecclesiam Petri propinquam’ are decisive,5

and the identification of Tertullian’s opponent as Callistus can only
be sustained by illegitimate emendation.6 7 Hence the inferred date of
c. 220 loses its validity.2 Second, even some precise statements are
insufficient to establish an exact date. The De Monogamia was
avowedly written 160 years after Paul’s first letter to the Christians of
Corinth.8 Since the letter is commonly dated c. 55, it might be de¬
duced that Tertullian was writing between 212 and 219.9 However,
the true date of I Corinthians is probably irrelevant: it ought rather
to be asked, what its date was assumed to be by Tertullian. But to
that question the answer will remain forever unknown. Finally, a
wide category raise a crucial problem of method. Events which con¬
firm or illustrate a general remark cannot provide a secure terminus
1 pp. 25; 58/9; 87; 136-138; 195/6. 2 Monceaux, o.c. 182. 3 Ch. V.
4 E. Noeldechen, Texte u. Unters. V. 2 (1888), 132 ff.; P. Monceaux, Histoire
litteraire de I’Afrique chrdtienne I (1901), 200; 207; A. Harnack, Die Chronologie der
altckristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius II (1904), 260; 286; K. Adam, Der Katholik4
XXXVII (1908), 428; Schanz-Hosius, Gesch. d. rom. Litt. Ill3 (1922), 304.
5 i.e. ‘to every church’, or possibly ‘to the whole church related to Peter’, cf.
W. P. Le Saint, Ancient Christian Writers XXVIII (1959), 284 ff.
6 A. Harnack, Sitzungsber. d. preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin, Phil.-hist. Kl. 1927;
148, emended ‘omnem’ to ‘Romanam’. Others are less candid. For the contro¬
versy, see B. Altaner, Theologische Revue XXXVIII (1939), 129 ff.; K. Beyschlag,
Theol. Zeitschr. XX (1964), 103 ff.
7 P- 31-
8 Mon. 3. 8: iam non oblique a nuptiis avocans, sed exerte, cum magis nunc
tempus in collecto factum sit, annis circiter CLX exinde productis.
9 A. Harnack, o.c. (1904), 260; 286. Adam preferred to assume that I Corin¬
thians was written in 58 and therefore the De Monogamia in 218 (o.c. 430).
248 APPENDICES
post quern, nor can general allusions securely be referred to a precise
occasion.1 The De Idololatria, for example, records public rejoicing:
scio fratrem per visionem eadem nocte castigatum graviter, quod ianuam
eius subito adnuntiatis gaudiis publicis servi coronassent [15. 7]
The legend gaudia publica first appears on the imperial coinage

in 207 ;2 but 207 is not the date of the De Idololatria.3 The ‘gaudia
publica’ are a victory of Septimius Severus in war—possibly the
final defeat of Clodius Albinus.4
One chronological system was devised for Tertullian which relied
very largely on correlating such general allusions with something
specific.5 A condign protest was lodged long ago: the method
‘squeezes the lemon until less than no juice is left’.6 But it will not be
extraneous to present purposes to illustrate such methodological
errors from a single treatise. The Scorpiace (it was claimed) was
composed in 212 or 213, and alluded to a persecutor who was either
the emperor Caracalla or the proconsul Scapula (1. 10), to Cara-
calla’s murder of his brother Geta (8. 3), to the subsequent killing
of Geta’s partisans (3. 4/5), and to the constitutio Antoniniana (15. 7).7
A detailed examination reveals that all of these allusions are
imaginary.8
First, Caracalla or Scapula as persecutor:
et nunc in praesentia rerum est medius ardor, ipsa canicula persecutionis, ab

ipso scilicet cynocephalo [1. 10].
The allusion to the baboon could hardly be more obscure. But
1 Cf. the clear enunciation of G. W. Bowersock, Haro. Stud. LXXI (1966), 34.
2 F. Panvini Rosati, Arch. Class. IV (1952), 209 ff.
3 PP- 53/4- Still less can the ‘gaudia publica’ be the accession of Caracalla, as
Monceaux assumed (o.c. 207).
« Ch. VIII.
3 E. Noeldechen, ‘Die Abfassungszeit der Schriften Tertullians’, Texte u. Unters.
V. 2 (1888), 1 ff. Noeldechen formulated, developed and then defended his
chronological theories in a long series of specialized articles: Hist. Zdtschr. LIV
(1885), 225 ff.; Jahrbiicher fur protestantische Theologie XII (1886), 615 ff.; Zedschr.
fiir kirchliche Wissenschaft und kirchliches Leben VII (1886), 87 ff; Zedschr. fiir wissen-
schaftliche Theologie XXIX (1886), 207 ff; XXX (1887), 187 ff; 385 ff; XXXI
(1888), 207 ff; 343 ff; XXXII (1889), 411 ff; Historisches Taschenbuch6 VII
(1888), 157 ff. The theories were finally subsumed in his biographical essay
Tertullian (1890)—which failed, however, to restrain him from frequent repetition
in the following years.
6 G. Kruger, Literarisches Centralblatt fiir Deutschland 1889, 459.
7 E. Noeldechen, Zedschr. far kirchl. Wiss. und kirchl. Leben VII (1886), 95 ff;
Texte u. Unters. V 2 (1888), 13; 112; 114; Hist. Taschenbuch<> VII (1888), 189;
Zeitschr. fur wiss. Theol. XXXII (1889), 422. On the disputed date of the constitutio
Antoniniana, see F. Millar, Journ. Eg. Arch. XLVII (1962), 124 ff
* JTS, N.S. XX (1969), 122 ff.
B. TERTULLIAN 249
why imagine a reference to Caracalla, or Scapula, or, as some older

commentators held,1 to Severus or Plautianus? It is more plausible
to see a reference to the Devil.2 That would explain the sarcastic
‘scilicet’: Tertullian is again rehearsing the arguments of the Gnostics
whom he is about to refute.3 There may also be a pun. The dog-headed
ape comes after the dog-star of persecution, and is appropriate to
the metaphors of hot weather. For both baboons and the Devil were
associated with Egypt and Ethiopia.4
Second, Caracalla’s murder of his brother:
a primordio enim iustitia vim patitur. statim ut coli deus coepit, invidiam
religio sortita est. qui deo placuerat occiditur, et quidem a fratre [8. 2/3].
Cain’s murder of Abel not only fits perfectly into its context but is
also an obvious example for Tertullian to use here, with his predilec¬
tion for arguments based on an object’s origin or original qualities.5
In fact, he names Cain on four other occasions—all of them earlier
than the death of Geta on 26 December 211.6
Third, the deaths of Geta’s sympathizers:
itaque [sc. after making the golden calf] tria milia hominum a parentibus
proximis caesa, quia tarn proximum parentem deum offenderant. ... In
Arithmis cum divertisset Israel apud Sethim, abeunt libidinatum ad Alias
Moab, invitantur ad idola, . . . ob hanc quoque idololatriam moechiae
sororem viginti tria milia domesticis obtruncata gladiis divinae irae lita-
verunt [3. 4/5].
Tertullian adduces these two examples as proof that God always

punishes idolatry and superstition: what more natural than the
selection of these two striking episodes ?
Fourth, the constitutio Antoniniana:
tunc Paulus civitatis Romanae consequitur nativitatem, cum illic martyrii

renascitur generositate [15. 3].
The Roman citizenship in question is surely Paul’s. For it was only

as a result of his possession of it that he was sent to Rome for trial.7
Thus the sentence quoted may be paraphrased: ‘Paul reaped the
1 Pamelius and Junius, reported by F. Oehler, Tertulliani quae supersunt omnia I

(1853), 498.
2 So W. C. McDermott, The Ape in Antiquity (1938), 37.
3 Cf. Scorp. 1. 6-8.
4 Respectively, Pliny, Nat. Hist. VI. 184; 190; F. J. Dolger, Die Sonne der Gerech-
tigkeit und der Schwarze (1918), 52 ff.
5 H. P6tr£, Lexemplum chez Tertullien (1940), 97 f.
6 Viz. Marc. II, 25. 3 ff.; Orat. 7. 3; Pat. 5. 16; Val. 29. 1 f.
7 Acts 22. 25, ff. cf. P. D. A. Garnsey, JRS LVI (1966), 182 ff.
250 APPENDICES
reward of being born a Roman citizen, when he was reborn by his

martyrdom in Rome.’1
Similar considerations apply to the De Paenitentia:
quid ilium thesaurum ignis aeterni existimamus, cum fumariola quaedam

eius tales flammarum ictus suscitent, ut proximae urbes aut iam nullae
extent aut idem sibi de die sperent? dissiliunt superbissimi montes ignis
extrinsecus feti, et—quod nobis iudicii perpetuitatem probat—cum dis-
siliant, cum devorentur, numquam tamen finiuntur! [12. 2/3]
Cassius Dio records an eruption of Vesuvius which immediately

preceded the fall of Fulvius Plautianus on 22 January 205.2 Hence a
precise date for the De Paenitentia (immediately afterwards) has
confidently been deduced.3 But Tertullian has in mind the famous
eruption of Vesuvius in 79, when the neighbouring cities of Pompeii
and Herculaneum were overwhelmed: it is not then necessary to
suppose a contemporary allusion in addition.4 Likewise, neither a
reference to the stability of the Roman imperial frontiers in the
Adversus Judaeos (7. 8) nor the mention of celebrations in the De
Spectaculis (6. 2) permits any precise chronological deduction.5
The former, however, mentions the division of Syria (Jud. 9. 12),
which Severus made in 194.6
8. Ad amicum philosophum
Jerome twice mentions a lost treatise of Tertullian whose subject
he defines as ‘de angustiis nuptiarum’. In a long exhortation to
perpetual virginity, he refuses to discuss the evils of married life
and refers Eustochium to Tertullian and other writers:
si tibi placet scire, quot molestiis virgo libera, quot uxor constricta sit, lege
Tertulliani ad amicum philosophum et de virginitate alios libellos7 et
1 For ‘nativitas’ in Tertullian, see H. Ronsch, Itala und Vulgate (1875), 52;
H. Hoppe, Syntax und Stil des Tertullian (1903), 122.
2 Dio LXXVII (LXXVI). 2. 1.
3H. Kellner, Der Katholifa XLII (1879), 561 ff.; E. Noeldechen, Texte u.
Unters. V. 2 (1888), 59 ff.; K. Adam, o.c. 348 ff.; J. Quasten, Patrology II (1953),
299- The allusion (if valid) would imply a date of late 204 or early 205: all the
scholars cited incautiously advance the fall of Plautianus by a whole year and
assign the De Paenitentia to late 203 or early 204.
4 Perhaps ‘idem sibi de die sperent’ (i.e. ‘fear’) indicates that the volcano was
already rumbling and had not yet erupted. That would indicate a terminus ante
quem.
3 These passages have sometimes been employed to date the Adversus Judaeos to
195/6, the De Spectaculis to summer 197: respectively, E. Noeldechen, o.c. 46 ff.; J.
Marra, Tertulliani de cultu feminarum libri duo (1930), xxxiii.
6 AE 1930. 141.
7 i.e., De Exhortatione Castitatis, De Virginibus Velandis, De Pudicitia. H. Kellner,
B. TERTULLIAN 251
beati Cypriani volumen egregium et papae Damasi super hac re versu

prosaque composita et Ambrosii nostri quae nuper ad sororem scripsit
opuscula [Epp. XXII. 22].
In his attack on the liberal Jovinianus, Jerome repeated the same

ploy. He professes that the inconveniences of marriage are a rhetori¬
cal commonplace on which he has dilated enough in his Contra
Helvidium (on the perpetual virginity of Mary) and in his epistle to
Eustochium. That was forgivable:
certe et Tertullianus, cum adhuc esset adulescens, lusit in hac materia, et

praeceptor meus Gregorius1 virginitatem et nuptias disserens Graecis
versibus explicavit [Adv. Jovin. I. 13].
The allusion to the Ad amicumphilosophum is clear, and a suspicion thus

arises that Jerome has on occasion made unacknowledged use of the
work, perhaps precisely in the Adversus Jovinianum.2 Hence a vast
field for erudite speculation and several laborious attempts to recon¬
struct the lost text from Jerome.3 In contrast, the significance of the
Ad amicum philosophum for Tertullian’s intellectual development has
tended to be neglected.
The work belonged to a familiar and traditional genre—witness
Seneca’s lost dialogue De matrimonio.4 Moreover, according to
Jerome, it was a youthful work. Perhaps, therefore, Tertullian
wrote it before his conversion to Christianity: indeed that appears to
be an inevitable corollary of dating his birth c. 155.5 But Jerome
mentions the Ad amicum philosophum in purely Christian contexts.
Eustochium is referred to Tertullian, Cyprian, Damasus and Am¬
brose, while in the Adversus Jovinianum Jerome defends himself for
having discussed the evils of marriage by appeal to the example of
Tertullian and his own teacher Gregory of Nazianzus.6
The detection of fragments requires a trust in Jerome’s memory
Wetzer und Welte’s Kirchenlexicon2 XI (1899), 1402, implausibly identified Ad
amicum philosophum itself with the De Exhortatione Castitatis.
1 Migne, following Vallarsi, correctly glosses ‘Gregorius Nazianzenus’ (PL
XXIII. 241). The latter word has no manuscript authority.
2 E. Bickel, Diatribe in Senecae philosophi fragmenta I (1915), 29.
2 Bickel, o.c. 237 ff.; P. Frassinetti, Rend. 1st. Lombardo, Classe di Lettere
LXXXVIII (1955), 151 ff.; C. Tibiletti, Atti Torino, Ser. ii, XCV (1960/61),
122 ff.
4 D. S. Wiesen, St. Jerome as a Satirist (1964), 113 ff. The most recent attempt to
reconstruct Seneca’s dialogue is by Frassinetti, o.c. 185 ff.
5 P. Monceaux, Histoire litUraire de VAfrique chrdtienne I (1901), 195? O. Barden-
hewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur II2 (1914), 43°- Harnack remained
doubtful about the work’s date and character (Die Chronologie der altchristlichen
Litteratur bis Eusebius II (1904), 295). Others sagely refrained from expressing any
definite opinions (e.g. J. Quasten, Patrology II (1953), 318).
6 For Gregory’s poems in praise of virginity, see PG XXXVII. 521 ff.
252 APPENDICES
which will not lightly be conceded. One apparent quotation dis¬
appears on close scrutiny. Jerome refers one of his correspondents to
Tertullian with the words:
de secundo problemate tuo Tertullianus in libris de monogamia disseruit

adserens sanctos dici fidelium filios, quod quasi candidatae sint fidei et
nullis idololatriae sordibus polluantur [Epp. LXXXV. 5].
The statement (it was averred) cannot be found in the De Monogamia

or in any of Tertullian’s extant works: therefore, either Jerome is in
some way mistaken, or the quotation comes from a lost treatise
which can hardly be other than the Ad amicum philosophumA Further,
it proves that the work belonged to Tertullian’s Montanist period.2
In fact, Jerome’s words recall something in the De Anima:
Ceterum, inquit, immundi nascerentur [I Cor. 7. 14], quasi designates tamen

sanctitatis ac per hoc etiam salutis intellegi volens fidelium filios, ut huius
spei pignore matrimoniis, quae retinenda censuerat, patrocinaretur [39. 4].
Jerome, it should appear, wrote ‘in libris de monogamia’ when he

meant ‘in libro de anima’.3
A second instance is hardly more convincing:
refert autem Tertullianus, quod a Nerone4 missus in ferventis olei dolium

purior et vegetior exiverit quam intraverit [Adv. Iovin. I. 26].5
This might be Jerome’s faulty recollection of something still extant:6
apostolus Johannes posteaquam in oleum igneum demersus nihil passus est,

in insulam relegatur [Praes. Haer. 36. 3].
But Tertullian makes no mention here of John’s virginity. Hence,

given Jerome’s probable use of Tertullian in the Adversus Jovinianum, a
case can be made for derivation from the Ad amicum philosophumA
The identification of fragments is a trivial matter. But once

Jerome’s direct assertions about its character are accepted as
accurate (and nothing else is available), something follows of the
greatest consequence. If the Ad amicum philosophum was a youthful
work and Christian in inspiration, Tertullian had already turned to
Christianity as a young man.3 Jerome (none can deny) provides
1 Bickel, o.c. 251.
2 E. Dekkers, Clavis Patrum Latinorum2 (1961), 5 no. 31 d.
3 J. H. Waszink, Tertulliani De Anima (1947), 446.
4 Vallarsi printed ‘Romae’. For ‘a Nerone’, Bickel, o.c. 253 ff.
5 PL XXIII. 259. Jerome repeats the story in comment on Mt. 20. 22/23
{PL XXVI. 149).
6 A. Harnack, Sitzungsber. d. preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin XXIX (1895), 571.
7 Bickel, o.c. 252 ff. But note the doubts of Frassinetti, o.c. 173; Tibiletti, o.c.
155- 8 Ch. VI.
B. TERTULLIAN 253
evidence for his own reading:1 the Ad amicum philosophum may have
described its author as an ‘adulescens’.
9. De Ecstasi
Another lost work recorded by Jerome was entitled De Ecstasi {De
Vir. III. 24; 40; 53). The name has often suggested that Tertullian
wrote it in Greek2—a conclusion sometimes reinforced by a subtle
transformation of the title into ‘nepl iKa-Taaecjs’A Hence a picture
of Tertullian very dissimilar to that painted in the present work: of a
Tertullian in correspondence with bishops of the eastern churches, of
a Tertullian who was the last or only Christian writer to span both
east and west and to write for a world-wide Christian audience.4 If
accurate, this picture would possess no small significance for under¬
standing the rift between eastern and western Christianity in later
centuries. But it fails to correspond with reality. Tertullian’s Greek
works were intended to be read in Carthage. So much is evident from
their homiletic subject-matter: on baptism, on games and shows, and
on the veiling of virgins.5 Further, no later eastern writer ever shows
any awareness of their existence.6 As for De Ecstasi, it was written in
Latin. Two proofs exist, each conclusive in itself. Jerome knows of Ter¬
tullian only as a Latin author {De Vir. III. 53), and his imperfect com¬
mand of Greek would not have permitted him to read the De Ecstasi (as
he clearly had) in that language with any facility.7 ‘Praedestinatus’
quotes from the De Ecstasi—and quotes in Latin {De Haer. I. 26).8
Jerome’s information about the De Ecstasi permits important

historical deductions. Tertullian originally wrote six books, but
later added a seventh specifically to refute Apollonius {De Vir. III.
40). Now Apollonius was writing (so he himself stated) in the fortieth
year after Montanus had begun to prophesy (Eusebius, HE V. 18.
1 Ch. II.
2 P. Monceaux, Histoire littdraire de I’Afrique chrdtienne I (1901), 420; A. Harnack,
Die Chronologie der altchristlichen litteratur bis Eusebius II (1904), 277; O. Bardenhewer,
Geschichte der altkirchlichen Litteratur II2 (1914), 429; Schanz-Hosius, Gesch. d. rom.
Litt. Ill3 (1922), 325; J. Quasten, Patrology II (1953), 317-
3 S. von Sychowski, Hieronymus als Litterarhistoriker (1894), 116; 132; Harnack,
o.c. 277; Bardenhewer, o.c. 429; Quasten, o.c. 317; E. Dekkers, CCL I (1954),
vi. All texts of Jerome known to me (except Sychowski) print either ‘de exoTaoei.’
or ‘de ecstasi’.
4 W. Thieling, Der Hellenismus in Kleinafrika (1911), 170. 5 p. 69.
6 A. Harnack, Sitzungsber. d. preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. zu. Berlin XXIX (1895), 549 ff.
Few will concede the reminiscences in Didymus of Alexandria, De Trin. II. 14
(PG XXXIX. 692 ff.), alleged by G. Bardy, Didyme I’aveugle (1910), 234 f.
7 Cf. Sychowski, o.c. 71 ff.; H. Hagendahl, Latin Fathers and the Classics (1958),
93; 106; 177.
8 PL LIII. 596, reproduced at CCL II. 1334 f.
254 APPENDICES
12). Hence two important chronological deductions: the Phrygian
prophecies had their inception not far from the year 170;1 and the
De Ecstasi was written not many years after 210. Further, if Jerome
may be taken to imply (De Vir. III. 53) that the De Ecstasi was subse¬
quent to De Monogamia, De Jejunio and De Pudicitia (to any of which
it may have referred), Tertullian composed the latest works of which
any precise record survives early in the reign of Caracalla. The De
Ecstasi, therfore, may be adduced to defend or corroborate the view
that the Ad Scapulam is Tertullian’s last production still extant.2
10. Rhetorical Structure

Partes (orationis) sex esse omnino nobis videntur: exordium, narratio
partitio, confirmatio, reprehensio, conclusio.
So the youthful Cicero (De Inventione I. 19). In his maturity, he
preferred to distinguish fewer divisions, especially for a defending
advocate: principia, narrationes, firmament a, perorationes (Part. Orat. 15).
That was a departure from the handbooks only permitted to one who
was a great orator. The old divisions persisted and received a classic
(and lengthy) exposition from Quintilian, who admitted also
propositio and egressio (Inst. Orat. IV. 1. 1 ff.). For present purposes
something briefer will suffice. Cicero once neatly and perceptively
defined the tasks of a speaker:
initio conciliandos eorum esse animos qui audirent; deinde rem demonstran-
dam; postea controversiamconstituendam; tumid, quod nos intenderemus,
confirmandum; post, quae contra dicerentur, refellenda; extrema autem
oratione ea, quae pro nobis essent, amplificanda et augenda, quaeque essent
pro adversariis, infirmanda atque frangenda \De Oratore I. 143].
Terminology varied. The following simple definitions may therefore

be helpful, from an anonymous writer of the age of Cicero:
inventio in sex partes consumitur: in exordium, narrationem, divisionem,
confirmationem, confutationem, conclusionem.
exordium est principium orationis, per quod animus auditoris constituitur
ad audiendum.
narratio est rerum gestarum aut proinde ut gestarum expositio.

divisio est, per quam aperimus, quid conveniat, quid in controversia sit, et
per quam exponimus, quibus de rebus simus dicturi.
confirmatio est nostrorum argumentorum expositio cum adseveratione.
confutatio est contrariorum locorum dissolutio.
conclusio est artificiosus orationis terminus [Rhet. ad Herennxum I. 4].
1JTS', N.S. XXI (1970), 406. The connexion was seen long ago by A. Hilgen-
feld, Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristentums (1884), 570 ff.
2 P- 52.
B. TERTULLIAN 255
A schoolteacher of the age of Tertullian would not have phrased it
very differently.
11. The Composition of the Adversus Marcionem

The five books of the extant Adversus Marcionem are conceived on a
vast scale. Yet the whole work possesses a clear and simple structure.
Book I examines and refutes Marcion’s philosophical arguments for
the existence of two Gods. II concentrates almost exclusively on the
Old Testament, showing against Marcion that the God of the Old
Testament is recognizably the same as the God of the New Testa¬
ment. Ill defends the traditional view of the Christ as both human
and divine. IV then carries the attack into Marcion’s chosen terri¬
tory: it contends that even his rewritten and interpolated version of
Luke’s Gospel supports the traditional teaching: ‘frustra laborasti.
Christus enim Jesus in evangelio tuo meus est’ (IV. 43. 9). The fifth
book completes the argument from scripture by examining the
epistles of Paul to prove ‘nullum alium deum ab apostolo circum-
latum, sicut probavimus nec a Christo’ (V. 1.9). Tertullian has thus
fulfilled the promise given at the end of the first book, to provide a
detailed exposition of the sacred texts on which Marcion relied (I. 29.
9)-
The bulk of the Adversus Marcionem clearly caused its author deep
misgivings. He felt frequent apology to be necessary. The exordium of
the whole work explains its genesis. Since the first refutation of
Marcion (published some years previously)1 was too cursory,
Tertullian had rewritten it at greater length. But the revised version
was purloined by a dishonest friend and circulated in a mutilated
form. Tertullian therefore took the opportunity to recast and
expand his ideas: ‘emendationis necessitas facta est innovationis’
(I. 1. 1). That is not really an adequate justification. Hence Ter¬
tullian also felt obliged to repeat himself in very similar terms when
beginning the second book (II. 1. 1). Likewise the third book:
‘secundum vestigia pristini operis, quod amissum reformare per-
severamus, iam hinc ordo de Christo’ (III. 1. 1). And, though the
fourth book lacks any remarks of this sort, the fifth and final book
asserts its adherence to Tertullian’s original plan:
et ideo ex opusculi ordine ad hanc materiam devolutus apostoli quoque

Pauli originem a Marcione desidero [V. 1. 1].
Finally, the whole work closes with profuse apologies for its length:
memento, inspector, quod ea, quae pertractata sunt retro, de apostolo quoque
probaverimus, et si qua in hoc opus dilata erant expunxerimus, ne aut hie
1 P- 39-
256 APPENDICES
supervacuam existimes iterationem, qua confirmavimus rem pristinam, aut
illic suspectam habeas dilationem, qua eruimus tempori ista.1 si totum opus-
culum inspexeris, nec hie redundantiam nec illic diffidentiam iudicabis
[V. 21. 2].
The genesis of the extant work, its unity of plan and purpose, and
the repeated apologies for its extreme length all point to an obvious
conclusion: the five books of the Adversus Marcionem were composed
together in a relatively short space of time, probably no more than a
few months. There is no call to spread the composition over nearly a
decade, or to posit a gap of two to three years between the fourth and
fifth books.2
The fallacy can easily be exposed. The De Came Christi states
audiat igitur et Apelles, quid iam responsum sit a nobis Marcioni eo libello,
quo ad evangelium ipsius provocavimus, considerandam scilicet materiam
pronuntiationis istius [7. 1].
If this be taken as a reference to the extant Adversus Marcionem (IV.

19. 1 ff.), it becomes necessary to insert the composition of both the
De Came Christi and the De Resurrectione Mortuorum between its fourth
and fifth books (cf. Marc. V. 10. i).3 But the absence of any excuse
for the work’s length in the fourth book may indicate that Tertullian
has taken it over largely unchanged from the second edition. In
which case, all the difficulties vanish. Analysis of the sources of the
Adversus Marcionem does not prove that its composition occupied any
great period of time.4 5 Further, stylistic arguments can be advanced for
considering the De Came Christi to be the earlier work.3
12. Tertullian and Apuleius
Augustine regarded Apuleius as a magician every bit as powerful as

Apollonius of Tyana (Epp. CII. 32; CXXXVI. 1; CXXXVIII.
18).6 He also knew, or deduced from the Florida, that Apuleius held
the prestigious office of sacerdos provinciae Africae {Epp. CXXXVIII.
1 The reading of A. Kroymann, CSEL XLVII. 650 = CCL I. 726.

2 p. 40.
3 The standard procedure: E. Noeldechen, Texte u. Unters. V. 2 (1888), 121 ff.;
156 f.; P. Monceaux, Histoire litteraire de I’Afrique chritienne I (1901), 198; 209;
A. Harnack, Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius II (1904), 283 f.;
K. Adam, Der Katholik* XXXVII (1908), 350 ff; 426 f.; 434.
4 The assumption of G. Quispel, De Bronnen van Tertullianus’ Adversus Marcionem
(3 943) > 16 ff Observe that Quispel contradicts himself on the date of Marc. IV/V:
did Tertullian add these books much later (17) or shortly after he wrote the first
three (21) ?
5 J.-P. Mah6, Rev. dt. aug. XVI (1970), 14 ff.
6 For the full details, P. Monceaux, Revue des deux mondes LXXXV (1888), 571 ff.
B. TERTULLIAN 257
19; cf. Flor. 16).1 Apuleius was thus an important public figure in
Carthage whose reputation only grew with time. As Lactantius ob¬
served, ‘cuius solent et multa et mira memorari’ (Div. Inst. V. 3. 7).
Tertullian cannot have remained unaware either of Apuleius’
activities as a sophist (which included politics)2 or of his writings.
Besides the Apology, Florida, Metamorphoses and lost works (most
known only from their author’s boasting), one must admit as genuine
two books De Platone et eius dogmate, the tract De Deo Socratis and a
Latin translation of the pseudo-Aristotelian De MundoA How many of
these had Tertullian read? Confident lists of derivations, mainly
from the Apology, were once produced4—and applauded by others.5
They lack all cogency: for example, when Tertullian wrote of Mary
‘saltu quodam mater ante quam nupta’ {Cam. Chr. 23. 5), that was
held to be modelled on Apuleius’ remark about his wife ‘vidua ante
quam nupta’ {Apol. 76).6 Another case of derivation has recently
been alleged. The demonology of the De anima is compared to that of
Apuleius’ De Deo Socratis, and several passages adduced to prove that
the latter had been read by Tertullian.7 Only that pair of passages
which bears the main weight of the argument needs to be quoted:
Socrates, vir adprime perfectus et Apollinis quoque testimonio sapiens,

hunc deum suum cognovit et coluit \De Deo Socratis 157];
sapientissimus Socrates secundum Pythii quoque daemonis suffragium
scilicet negotium navantis socio suo [De Anima 1.5].
Few will concede the presumed derivation. Socrates appears fre¬

quently in early Christian writers,8 9 and Tertullian could easily have
taken the familiar oracle from Plato’s Apology (21a) entirely of his
own volition.9 It was a rhetorical commonplace.10
Tertullian and Apuleius could also be brought into direct contact
if the chronology of the latter were revised: might not the last book of
1 For the attested sacerdotes, cf. R. P. Duncan-Jones, Epigraphische Studien V

(1968), 151 ff.; for their political importance, J. Deininger, Die Provinziallandtage
der romischen Kaiserzeit (1965), 134.
2 A recent writer labours under a serious misapprehension: ‘Apuleius lived in
Carthage without aspiring to public life’ (P. G. Walsh, Phoenix XXII (1968), 151).
3 Schanz-Hosius, Gesch. d. rom. Litt. Ill3 (1922), 119 ff.
4 E. Noeldechen, Tertullian (1890), 10; J. van der Vliet, Studia Ecclesiastic a.
Tertullianus I (1891), 13 ff.; C. Weyman, Sitzungsber. d. bayer. Akad. d. Wiss. zu
Miinchen 1893. II, 340 f.
5 F. Gatscha, Dissertationesphilologae Vindobonenses'Vl (1898), 156!.; E. H. Flaight,
Apuleius and his Influence (1927), 95.
6 Weyman, o.c. 341.
7 C. Moreschini, Maia XX (1968), 19 f.
8 A. Flarnack, Sokrates und die alte Kirche (Prog. Bonn, 1900), 16 ff.
9 Cf. Apol. 46. 5: Socratem Apollo sapientissimum omnium cecinit.
10 Cf. Pan. Lat. IX. 16. 2.
258 APPENDICES
the Metamorphoses have been composed c. 190 as a counterblast to
Christian propaganda?1 The idea is alluring—and meretricious.2
The two men deserve a confrontation which does not strain either
evidence or credibility.3
13. The Tertullianistae

In 388 there briefly emerged into the light of history a sect of
Tertullianistae. Of Carthaginian origin, it gained rapid adhesions at
Rome and was patronized by a supporter of the usurper Magnus
Maximus. Soon, however, the confraternity vanished again, when its
surviving members in Carthage rejoined the Catholics and surren¬
dered their basilica to bishop Aurelius.
Augustine (De Haer. 86) and the anonymous ‘Praedestinatus’,
who partly copies him (Haer. I. 86), furnish the valuable information.4
At once a problem arises. The history of the Tertullianistae before
388 cannot be ascertained. What connexion had they with Tertuflian
besides their name? Augustine and ‘Praedestinatus’ claim to know:
Tertuflian founded the sect (‘sua conventicula propagavit’) after
quarrelling with the Montanists. The fact, which has rarely been
challenged, permits significant deductions: Tertuflian passed his
life in incessant rebellion, against father, church and finally Mon¬
tanists, and died in a ‘sectarian wilderness’ awaiting the promised
Parousia in virtual isolation.5
A doubt may be voiced. How did Augustine and ‘Praedestinatus’
know ? Presumably by mere inference from the name of Tertullianis-
tae. Jerome was unaware that Tertuflian founded a sect,6 although
he records the Novatianists (De Vir. III. 70). It was suggested long
ago that the Tertullianistae were simply the Montanist party in
Africa.7 That notion can be supported from something in ‘Prae¬
destinatus’ :
Tertullianistas olim a Sotere papa Romano damnatos legimus (PL LIII

616).
Soter was bishop of Rome in the reign of Marcus Aurelius (Eusebius,
1 Walsh, o.c. 151 ff.

2 App. 21.
3 Ch. XIV. For possible stylistic debts, cf. recently A. F. Memoli, Aevum XL
(1966), 1 ff., on Tertullian’s sentence structure.
4 PL XLII. 46 f.; LIII. 616 f. For ‘Praedestinatus’ (c. 435), cf. B. Altaner-
A. Stuiber, Patrologie1 (1966), 459.
5 W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (1965), 366.
Contrast, however, P. Guilloux: ‘ce fils de centurion romain Gait ami de l’ordre
et de la discipline’ (Rev. hist. eccl. XIX (1923), 142).
6 p. 10.
7 J- M. Fuller, Diet, of Christian Biography IV (1887), 819.
B. TERTULLIAN 259
HE IV. 19; 30. 3), and ‘Praedestinatus’ had already made the same
dubious statement about the Montanists:
scripsit contra eos librum sanctus Soter papa Urbis (Haer. I. 26).
‘Praedestinatus’ is confused1—and making deductions from Tertul-

lian’s lost De ecstasi (CCL II. 1334 f.).2 The ‘liber’ may be a letter
excommunicating Montanists in Asia.3 Further, Tertullian’s
Adversus Praxean (1. 5)4 and the pseudo-Tertullianic Adversus omnes
haereses (8. 4) appear to indicate that it was a later bishop of Rome
than Soter who acted against the Montanists.5 A sceptic will be
forgiven for concluding that the Tertullianistae need have no place
in a study of Tertullian.6
1 ‘Wenig glaubwurdig’, according to Altaner-Stuiber, o.c. 108.

2 P- 253-
3 A. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius (1893), 590.
4 p. 82.
5 Cf. Altaner-Stuiber, o.c. 108.
« Ch. VI.
C. GOVERNORS AND MARTYRS
14. The Proconsular Year

The provinces of Africa and Asia regarded the annual arrival of a
new proconsul as an important event.1 But when precisely did he
arrive? Three views have been propounded. Mommsen and
Marquardt held that the proconsul normally arrived in May during
the late Republic, on 1 July under the empire.2 Others suppose him
always to have arrived in May.2 But a recent writer argues that, at
least in Asia, the proconsular year began in September.4 What is the
evidence ?
The emperor Tiberius ordered proconsuls to leave Rome by 1
June.5 This date was advanced to 1 April by Claudius, who was
later forced to allow an extension to the middle of the month.6
Tacitus reveals that the appointment of the next proconsuls of Africa
and Asia was debated in the Senate in the spring of 21.7 Therefore,
the standard views run, the proconsul entered his province in May
or July. The inferences are clearly vulnerable, and the recent writer
adduces eight items of evidence in favour of September.8 On close
inspection, however, six turn out to be irrelevant;9 a seventh
requires prior emendation ;10 and the eighth relies on an unproved
premise.11 Thus the new theory fails, again for lack of evidence.
Scholars constantly appeal to Mommsen, and follow him in

neglecting the direct testimony which exists for the African pro-
consul.12 Tertullian’s Ad Scapulam and the Acta Cypriani provide a
terminus ante quem of mid-August. Scapula was in Utica trying
Christians on 14 August 212 (Scap. 3. 3).13 Writing soon after,
I Dig. I. 16. 4.
2J. Marquardt, Romische Staatsverwaltung I2 (1881), 336 f.; T. Mommsen,
Romisches Staatsrecht II3 (1887), 205; 255 f.
3 V. Chapot, La province romaine d’Asie (1904), 292; W. Hiittl, Antoninus Pius II
(1933), 33-
4 G. A. Behr, Aelius Aristides and the Sacred Tales (1968), 79.
5 Dio LVII. 14. 5. 6 Dio LX. 11. 6; 17. 3.
7 Ann. III. 32.
8 Behr, o.c. 79.
9 Viz. Aristides, Orat. L. 97 Keil; Dio LXXIX. 22. 4; Pliny, Epp. X. 17 A; IGRR
IV. 1156a; Sylloge3 781; 833. To rehearse the reasons in detail would be tedious.
10 Viz. the subscription to Aristides’ Eleusinios (XXII Keil).
II i.e. that the provincial council of Asia always elected prytaneis in July (Behr,
o.c. 79; 84).
12 e.g., A. N. Sherwin-White, The Letters of Pliny (1966), 383.
13 P- 38-
C. GOVERNORS AND MARTYRS 261
Tertullian expected him to remain as proconsul for some months

(■Scap. 5. 2). Again, Cyprian was banished from Carthage to Curubis
by Aspasius Paternus on 30 August 257 (Acta Cypriani 1. 1). When he
had been there a long time, Paternus was succeeded by Galerius
Maximus, who recalled Cyprian (2. 1). On his return, the bishop
remained at home awaiting the new proconsul’s summons. It came
on the Ides of September (2. 2 f.). The proconsulate of Cornelius
Anullinus (cos. II 199) may provide the terminus post quem. Standard
works make his proconsular year 193/4.1 But 192/3 seems preferable
on general historical grounds.2 Now the town of Ucres erected a
dedication to Septimius Severus after his accession when he was al¬
ready pontifex maximus and cos. des. II, ‘anno Corneli Anullini procos.
c.v. et Valeri Festi leg. eius’ (1LS 413). News had presumably already
come of Severus’ recognition as emperor by the Senate early in June.
Anullinus’ proconsular year really was 192/3, it must have ended af¬
ter the middle of that month.
That is the sum of reliable evidence for Africa.3 For Asia there
appears to be nothing comparable. The African items, however,
ought to suffice. The proconsular year began in July—assuming that
practice was consistent.4
15. Namphamo of Madauros

Vigellius Saturninus was the first to execute a Christian in
Africa.5 The date and identity of the proto-martyrs are revealed by
the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs: Speratus, Nartzalus, Cittinus, Donata,
Vestia, Secunda, and perhaps six more, were sentenced to death by
Saturninus on 17 July 180.6
Certain martyrs of Madauros are sometimes accorded precedence

over the Scillitani.7 Writing to Augustine in 390, the grammarian
Maximus of Madauros ridiculed the local saints:
quis enim ferat Iovi fulmina vibranti praeferri Migginem, Iunoni, Minervae,
Veneri Vestaeque Sanamem et cunctis, pro nefas! diis immortalibus archi-
martyrem Namphamonem? inter quos Lucitas etiam haud minore cultu
suspicitur atque alii interminato numero, diis hominibusque odiosa nomina,
1 PIR2 C 1322; G. Barbieri, L’albo senatorio da Settimio Severn a Carino {193-285)

(1952), no. 191; B. E. Thomasson, Die Statthalter der romischen Provinzen Nordafrikas
von Augustus bis Diocletianus II (i960), 99.
2 T. D. Barnes, Historia XVI (1967), 98; G. Alfoldy, Bonner Jahrbiicher CLXVIII
(1968), 124; 140.
3 For some doubtful items, cf. Apps. 18. 19.
4 Nothing specified the exact day, cf. Dig. I. 16. 4. 4.
5 Tertullian, Scap. 3. 4. 6 Ch. VII; App. 16.
7 J. Quasten, Patrology I (1950), 179, contrives to conflate the two groups.
S
262 APPENDICES
qui conscientia nefandorum facinorum specie gloriosae mortis scelera sua
sceleribus cumulantes dignum moribus factisque suis exitum maculati rep-
pererunt [Augustine, Epp. XVI. 2].
Augustine’s reply is mainly directed at undermining Maximus’

paganism. But a circumspect remark on the cult of the saints is
significant:
ad summam tamen ne te hoc lateat et in sacrilega convicia inprudentem

trahat, scias a Christianis catholicis, quorum in vestro oppido etiam ecclesia
constituta est, nullum coli mortuorum, nihil denique ut numen adorari,
quod sit factum et conditum a deo, sed unum ipsum deum, qui fecit et
condidit omnia [Epp. XVII. 5].
Why ‘a Christianis catholicis’? Namphamo, Miggin, Saname and

Lucitas are clearly Donatist martyrs of the fourth century.1
Some still affect to ignore this obvious truth and argue as follows.
Namphamo was the first martyr of Africa (‘archimartyr’ being con¬
fused with ‘protomartyr’).2 A natalis Namphamonis is alleged (falsely)
to be recorded in the Martyrologicum Hieronymianum on 4 July.3
Therefore, since Vigellius Saturninus was the first to execute a
Christian in Africa, Namphamo was martyred on 4 July 180.4
Such an inference does not follow from the false evidence adduced.
Even if it did, an additional argument could now be marshalled.
The proconsul of Africa normally arrived in Carthage in July.5
Saturninus was in Carthage on 17 July 180. Is it possible that he
should have made the return journey of four hundred miles to
Madauros and back between his first arrival and that day?
16. The Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs

The extant account of the trial of six humble Christians from
Scilli (or Scillium) is a precious document.6 Nonetheless, it presents
certain problems of interpretation.7 First, the trial opens without the
customary putting of the charge: ‘Are you a Christian?’ Instead
the proconsul urges the accused to change their minds. Secondly,
although the trial opens with six accused, more appear in the middle,
1J• H. Baxter, JTS XXVI (1924), 21 ff. Dismissed as ‘most improbable’ by

P. G. Walsh, Phoenix XXII (1968), 154.
2 W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (1965), 313; 339.
3 P. Allard, Histoire des persecutions pendant les deux premiers siecles (1885), 436.
Like Mavilus (App. 19), Namphamo appears to have been interpolated by
Baronius, cf. P. Monceaux, Histoire lit Crane de V Afrique chre'tienne I (1901), 43.
4 Frend, o.c. 339.
5 App. 14.
« Ch. VII.
TJTS, N.S. XIX (1968), 5t9 f.
and the public announcement of the verdict contains another six
names in addition to the original six. Third, a hiatus exists in the
procedure. The proconsul proposes an adjournment of thirty days,
the Christians reaffirm their guilt—and the next words record the
passing of sentence. These difficulties might result from a later
imperfect recollection by eye-witnesses.1 Or the additional names
might be due to combination of two sets of martyrs or to simple
interpolation.2 On the other hand, all three difficulties are explicable
by a single hypothesis: the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs are an in¬
complete transcript of the trial or else a transcript of part of the trial
(which may have been prolonged over more than one day). At all
events they seem to derive from some official source: if the Scillitani
were tried ‘in secretario’, how could their trial be witnessed by other
Christians ?3
17. The Passion of Perpetua

The Passion of Perpetua provides invaluable testimony for the
Christian community of Carthage in the early third century.4 Its
claim to be regarded as authentic and contemporary therefore
deserves to be substantiated.5 In form, the passion is a narrative
which quotes two primary documents, an account of Perpetua’s
trial and experiences in prison (3-10), and Saturus’ description of a
vision he saw (11—13), both written in the martyr’s hand (2; 11. 1).
That both documents are what they purport to be appears to be
confirmed by their style: they differ markedly both from the rest of
the Passion and from each other.6
An extremely early date is guaranteed by one decisive fact: it
constitutes the only explicit and genuine evidence for the birthday
of Septimius Severus’ younger son. The hagiographical tradition
discloses that Perpetua’s martyrdom was celebrated on the Nones
of March and (less certainly) that her death fell in 203.7 The Passion
states that the day of the martyrdom coincided with the ‘natale
1 J. Geffcken, Archiv fur Stenographic LVII (1906), 89; M. Hoffmann, Texte u.
Unters. XGVI (1966), 51.
2 F. Corsaro, Nuovo Didaskaleion IV (1956), 32 ffi; M. Simonetti, Rev. it. aug. II
(1956), 43 f.; H. Karpp, Vig. Chr. XV (1961), 165 ff.
3 JTS, N.S. XIX (1968), 520; 528.
< Ch. VII.
5 For a fuller exposition, cf. JTS, N.S. XIX (1968), 521 ff.
a W. H. Shewring, JTS XXX (1928/9), 56 f.; Rev. bt!n<!dictine XLIII (1931),
15 ff.
7 C. J. M. J. van Beck, Passio Sanctarum Perpetuae et Felicitatis I (1936), 162* ff, to
which may be added C1L VIII. 25038a. The day is commemorated in the depositio
marlyrum of the Ghronographer of 354 {Mon. Germ. Hist., Auct. Ant. IX. 71). For the
year, the Fasti Vindobonenses of the sixth century have 203, Prosper Tiro in the
fifth 204 (ib. 287; 434).
264 APPENDICES
Getae Caesaris’ (7. 4), i.e. the birthday of Severus’ second son.1
Now, despite apparent contradictions, the evidence for Geta’s
birthday does point to early March.
The Historia Augusta asserts that Geta was born at Milan on
27 May ‘Severo et Vitellio conss.’.2 But that statement is made in the
Vita Getae, a life whose fictional character is easily demonstrable and
generally acknowledged.3 Moreover, better testimony proves that
Geta was born in Rome, not Mediolanum.4 And the consular date is
surely equally bogus.5 In such circumstances, the day alleged
deserves no credence. It follows that the standard date of Geta’s
death (February 212), being deduced from a birthday in May must
be discarded.6
Xiphilinus’ epitome of Cassius Dio states that Geta lived twenty-
two years and nine months.7 Hence it may be possible (within
certain limits) to compute the date of his birth from that of his
death, for which the Chronographer of the year 354 appears to
provide the necessary evidence when he gives the length of Geta’s
reign as ‘m. X d. XII’.8 But, since Septimius Severus died on
4 February 211,9 either Dio was mistaken in reporting that Caracalla
tried to murder his brother during the Saturnalia (which began on
17 December),10 or else the Chronographer’s figures must contain
an error. The former possibility can be excluded: Dio was in Rome
at the time.11 Two easy emendations of the Chronographer offer
themselves: ‘m. X d. XXII’ or ‘m. XI d. XII’, putting Geta’s
death on 26 December 211 or 16 January 212. Either date can be
reconciled with the relevant papyrological evidence: a contract
made in Antinoopolis on the second day of Pharmouthi (i.e. 28
March) implies that Geta was dead before the middle of February.12
But a valuable notice in the Vita Caracallae (which, unlike the Vita
Getae, is based upon a nearly contemporary source) establishes the
earlier date: thesonofthejuristPapinian was executed after the death
of Geta and also three or four days after he had given his quaestorian
1 On other interpretations of‘natale’, all equally impossible, ci.JTS, N.S. XIX

(1968), 522 f.
2 HA, Geta 3. 1.
3 JRS LVII (1967), 74.
4 HA, Sev. 4. 2, cf. R. Syme, Emperors and Biography (1971), 30 ff.
5 R. Syme, Ammianus and the Historia Augusta (1968), 123.
6 Gf. W. Seston, Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium ig6f6g (1966), 212
2 Dio LXXVIII (LXXVII). 2. 5.
8 Mon. Germ. Hist., Auct. Ant. IX. 147.
9 Dio LXXVII (LXXVI). 15. 2, cf. Feriale Duranum I. 17.
10 Dio LXXVIII (LXXVII). 2. 1.
11 F. Millar, A Study of Cassius Dio (1964), 18 f.; 150.
12 P. Lond. 1164, cf. JTS, N.S. XIX (1968), 524 f.
games, which ended on 24 December.1 Geta, therefore, was murdered

on 26 December 2112—and born between 27 February and 26
March 189. Dio himself will have stated the length of his life to the
day: as elsewhere, Xiphilinus has simply omitted the days.3 That
Geta was born precisely on the Nones of March cannot formally be
proved. Yet that date must be approximately correct. And if the
Passion of Perpetua alone has preserved the exact day, its author must
be a close contemporary. After Geta’s death all traces of his existence
were assiduously removed, even in the remotest corners of the Roman
world,4 and his birthday fell rapidly into oblivion.
The Passion of Perpetua therefore belongs to Africa of the very
early third century. Can its author be identified ? Some hold him to
be none other than Tertullian,5 others the deacon Pomponius, who
visited Perpetua in prison (3. 4; 10. i).<> It will be safer to resist the
temptations of insecure hypotheses. The undoubted stylistic affinities
of the Passion with Tertullian do not amount to proof.7 For no other
evidence indicates how Tertullian’s Christian contemporaries
wrote: perhaps they all felt impelled to imitate his forceful rhetoric.
Further, Tertullian misrepresents the Passio (An. 55. 4).8
Other documents come into the reckoning, viz. a Greek version

of the Passion, and Latin Acts of Perpetual The acta are clearly
derivative from the passio and possess no independent value.10 They
were presumably concocted by someone who perceived and wished
to expel the strong Montanistundertonesintheauthenticdocument.11
The Greek passion was formerly argued to be an independent
composition of the author of the Latin version (which might have
indicated that he was Tertullian).12 Detailed philological investiga¬
tion then seemed to have settled the question: the Greek was a
translation, though not necessarily from a text exactly identical with
the Latin version.13 However, something important has recently been
brought to light: the style of the Greek version is not homogeneous,
1 HA, Came. 4. 2, cf. JTS, N.S. XIX (1968), 523 f.
2 So, bluntly and without arguing the case, A. von Domaszewski, Sitzungsber. d.
Heidelberger Akad. d. IViss., Phil.-hist. Kl. 1918, Abh. 13, 63 f.
3 Gf. Dio LIX. 30. 1; LXIII. 29. 3; LXVI. 17. 3.
4 S. Sauneron, Bull, de Vinst.fr. d’arch. orient. LI (1952), 111 ff.; P. Mertens,
Hommages a L. Herrmann (i960), 541 ff.
5 Beek, o.c. 92* ff; J. Quasten, Patrology I (1950), 181 f.
6 R.Braun,Rev.dt.lat. XXXIII (1955), 79ff.; J. Campos, Helmantica'K (1959), 381.
7 For the parallels, see P. de Labriolle, Bull, d’anc. litt. et d’arch. chr. Ill (1913),
126 ff.; La crise montaniste (1913), 345 ff.
8 p. 80. 9 Beek, o.c. 55 ff. 10 Beek, o.c. 98* ff. 11 p. 77.
32 Beek, o.c. 92* ff; Quasten, o.c. 181.
n E. Rupprecht, Rhein. Mus., N.F. XC (1941), 177 ff; V. Reichmann, Philologus,
Supp. XXXIV. 3 (1943), 100 ff.; Campos, o.c. 362 ff.
266 APPENDICES
the chapters which report Saturus’ vision (11-13) differ from the
rest, and a strong case can here be made for the priority of the
Greek.1 The Passion of Perpetua, therefore, provides further testimony
to the importance of Greek in African Christianity in the days of
Tertullian.2 Also, by an obvious corollary, any motive is removed
for rejecting Saturus’ dream on subjective grounds.3
18. The Proconsul Rufinus

The Martyrologium Adonis records, under the eighteenth day of
July,
apud Carthaginem, natalis sanctae Guddenes virginis, quae Plutiano et Zeta
consulibus [i.e. Plautiano et Geta, conss. 203], iussu Rufini proconsulis,
quater diversis temporibus equulei extentione vexata, et ungularum horren-
da laceratione cruciata, carceris etiam squalore diutissime afflicta, novissime
gladio caesa est \PL CXXIII. 304].
If accurate, this notice will not only provide the name of the
proconsul in 203/4, but also define the beginning of the proconsular
year more strictly than other evidence permits.4 In March 203,
Vibia Perpetua was condemned to death by ‘Hilarianus procurator,
qui tunc proconsulis Minuci Timiniani defuncti ius gladii acceperat’
(Pass. Perp. 6. 2).5 The new proconsul Rufinus had therefore taken
office before 18 July. But extreme caution is in place. Ado was
writing in the ninth century.6 7 Although he claims to have collected
acta martyrum (PL CXXIII. 143), and thus might have had access to
something authentic which happens no longer to be extant, most of
his material is palpable fiction. Some of the invented names are
delightful: Nero’s relative Satellicus and his son Sylvius; Aurelianus
the betrothed of Flavia Domitilla, and his brother Luxorius;
the senators Palmatius and Simplicius who were executed by Severus
Alexander with their families and servants (forty-two and sixty-eight
respectively); Plato, governor of Rome under Aureliand Despite the
undoubted presence of some genuine names, therefore, probability
tells against Rufinus. Moreover, Ado reveals the character of the
1 A. Fridh, Le probleme de la Passion des Saintes Perpdtue et FSlicite (1968), 30 ff.;

55 ff-
2 p. 68.
3 As does E. R. Dodds, Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety (1965), 49.
4 App. 14. Rufinus is accepted without question in standard works: A. C. Pallu
de Lessert, Pastes des provinces africaines sous la domination romaine I (1896), 240 f.;
B. E. Thomasson, Die Statthalter der romischen Provinzen Nordafrikas von Augustus bis
Diocletianus II (i960), 105 f.
5 On the date, cf. App. 17.
6 Archbishop of Vienne, 860-75.
7 PL CXXIII. 267; 247; 261; 263 f.; 283.
Passio Guddenis which he summarizes: it is one of the ‘epic’ passions
whose historical value is negligible.1 And there is another difficulty:
the martyrdom of Gudden may originally have been celebrated,
not on 18 July, but on 27 June.2
Were Rufinus better attested, an inscription found near Rome

could assume startling relevance:
] IO.T.F.PAPIR.RUFI
Jnxcio.opimiano
] C.PROVINC.ASIAE. ET
]lAE.C.F.IUSTAE
JlBUS.DULCISSIMIS.AC
PIENTISSIMIS
] S.OPIMIANUS. FILIUS [.AE 1906. 80].
Who is this man ? Whether or not the penultimate name of the de¬
ceased man be ‘ Vinicius’, might he be the Opimianus attested as con¬
sul in 155 (ILS 8380) ?3 Hence, possibly, fresh light on the chron¬
ology of Montanism if he were proconsul of Asia soon after 170.4
However, this Opimianus need not even be a senator: ‘[pro]c. prov¬
ing. asiae’ should designate an imperial procurator of Asia.5 Be
that as it may, the inscription may have contained a suggestive
collocation of names: ‘RuFi[no Mi]Nicio Opimiano’. Could the
proconsul of Africa whom Hilarianus replaced have been a Minicius
Opimianus? (‘Minicius’ and ‘Minucius’ are freely interchangeable,
and the Greek translation of the Passion ofPerpetua styles the proconsul
Minucius Op(p)ianus.)6 And could he also have been the Rufinus
who condemned Gudden ? Assigning the martyrdom of Gudden to 18
July would then transfer the death of Perpetua to 7 March 204.7
That is pure speculation. If facts and solid evidence are required,
it will be best to exclude Rufinus from the fasti of Africa altogether.
Late hagiography is usually no guide to early Christian history. But
a new discovery may reinstate Rufinus—and restore the credit of
Ado of Vienne.
19. Mavilus of Hadrumetum

Tertullian speaks of a martyr Mavilus in a passage which gives
rise to no small perplexity and misapprehension:
1 H. Delehaye, Les passions des martyrs et les genres litter aires2 (1966), 171 ff.
2 H. Quentin, Les martyrologes historiques du moyen age (1908), 174; 456; 482.
3 So A. Degrassi, Fasti consolari (1952), 44.
* Cf. JTS, N.S. XXI (1970), 406 ff.
5 H. Dessau, Ephemeris epigraphica IX (1910), 408; A. Stein, P-W I A. 1186.
« C. J. M. J. van Beek, Passio Sanctarum Perpetuae et Felicitatis I (1936), 19.
7 Cf. App. 17.
268 APPENDICES
tibi quoque optamus admonitionem solam fuisse, quod, cum Adrumeticum
Mavilum idem Caecilius ad bestias damnasset, statim haec vexatio subse-
cuta est, nunc ex eadem causa interpellate sanguinis [Scap. 3. 5].
That is the text of E. Dekkers (CCL I. 1129 f.) and with two diver¬
gences (‘<nec> statim’ and ‘est et nunc’) of V. Bulhart (CSEL
LXXVI. 13). On the strength of which Caecilius Capella has been
enrolled among the proconsuls of Africa.1 Elsewhere, the passage
assumes a very different form:
cum Adrumeticum Mavilum ad bestias damnasses.2
The readings need careful scrutiny. All the manuscripts read

‘damnasset’, but only one has the words ‘ide Caecilius’, which look
like a gloss (cf. Pall. 3. 7).3 Further, the sense seems to require
Scapula himself to be the subject of ‘damnasses’. For Tertullian
reminds the proconsul of the omens which have attended persecution
of Christians in Africa (Scap. 3. 1 ff.). Then he cites cases of governors
who died unpleasant deaths because they executed Christians (3. 4).
Logically, Tertullian should now turn to Scapula:
sed qui sibi videntur impune tulisse, venient in diem divini iudicii. tibi
quoque etc. [3. 5].
The proconsul still has time to repent since he has so far received
only an admonition. A second reference to Caecilius Capella would
destroy the argument.
The Calendarium Carthaginiense (PL XIII. 1219)4 and the Martyro-

logium HieronymianumP record a martyr Maiolus on 11 May. Hence
some manuals of instruction extend Scapula’s proconsulate to cover
two years (i.e. 211—13)-6 As an alternative, some might prefer to
deduce that the proconsular year began on 1 May.? On a more sober
estimate, Maiolus need not be identical with Mavilus. And, although
the Martyrologium Hieronymianum records a Maiulus on three other
days (18 January, 19 February and 7 March),« the Mavilus whom
1 W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (1965), 333.

2 B. E. Thomasson, Die Statthalter der romischen Provinzen Nordafrikas von Augustus
bis Diocletianus II (1960), 112.
2 Thomasson, o.c. 113. A. Quacquarelli, Q.S. F. Tertulliani Ad Scapulam (1957),
62 f., prints ‘damnasset’ but altogether omits ‘ide Caecilius’ from his apparatus
criticus.
4 Also reproduced by H. Lietzmann, Die drei altesten Martyrologien2 [Kleine Texte
II, 19”), 5-
5 Acta Sanctorum, Novem. II. 2. 247.
6 Riba, P-W X. 800; G. Barbieri, L’albo senatorio da Settimio Severo a Carino {193-
s85) ('952)> no. 307; J. Quasten, Patrology II (1953), 267. ‘Proconsul Africae anno
212-213,fortasse iam ab anno 21 /’, according to PIR2 J 557.
7 Cf. App. 14. s Acta Sanctorum, Novem. II. 2. 45; 105; 132 f.
Scapula condemned may be completely unknown to hagiography.1
The martyrs of history have little in common with the saints of faith.
20. Licinius Serenianus

The correspondence of Cyprian contains the Latin translation
(assuredly contemporaneous) of a letter which he received from
Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea in Cappadocia, and which had a place
in the baptismal controversies at Carthage (Epp. LXXV). Its date
can be quite closely defined: the late summer or early autumn of 256,
about the time of the Council of Carthage (1 September).2
Firmilian recalls and describes an outbreak of persecution when
Serenianus was governor of Cappadocia, ‘acerbus et dirus persecutor’
(Epp. LXXV. 10. 1). That is, Licinius Serenianus, apparently a
Spaniard (cf. ILS 3106), who is attested on several milestones of the
first years of Maximin (CIL III. 6932; 6945; 6951 f.; 12170; 12195).3
As frequently, the trouble started with natural disaster:
ante viginti enim et duos fere annos temporibus post Alexandrum impera-
torem multae istic conflictationes et pressurae acciderunt vel in commune
omnibus hominibus vel privatim Christianis: terrae etiam motus plurimi et
frequentes extiterunt, . . . ut ex hoc persecutio quoque gravis adversum nos
nominis fieret. . . [Epp. LXXV. 10. 1].
There is a contradiction not often perceived. Twenty-two years

from the death of Severus Alexander—the date should be 257. One
scholar therefore simply transfers the letter of Firmilian to that year,
regardless of its context in Cyprian’s correspondence.4 5 Or it could be
conjectured either that Firmilian meant to reckon inclusively, or
that the figure of twenty-two is wrong, being an error by Firmilian
himself or corruption in the manuscripts. It will do no harm to
venture another hypothesis. Why should the persecution not have
occurred in 234 when Severus Alexander still reigned? One could
(and must) cheerfully waive ‘the persecution of Maximin’.3 But the
phrase ‘temporibus post Alexandrum imperatorem’ is recalcitrant.
1 Thomasson asserts (at third hand) that the Martyrologium Romanum registers
Mavilus on 4 January (o.c. 113, deriving ultimately from Acta Sanctorum, Jan. I
(1643), 164). In fact, the notice in the martyrology was interpolated c. 1580, from
the passage of Tertullian under discussion: it occurs in Martyrologium Romanum
(1583), 3; (1584), 5, but is absent from the parallel passage in P. Galesinius,
Martyrologium Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae (1578), 3- The interpolator may therefore
be named as Baronius (cf. p. 262 n. 3).
2 P. Monceaux, Histoire litUraire de VAfrique chretienne II (1902), 257 f.; A. Har-
nack, Die Chronologie der altckristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius II (1904), 360 f.
3 G. Barbieri, L’albo senatorio da Settimio Severn a Carina [193-285) (1952), no. 1632.
4 G. W. Clarke, Historia XVI (1966), 445.
5 p. 157, cf. R. Syme, Emperors and Biography (1971), 192.
270 APPENDICES
To defend the date of 234, the further hypothesis would have to be
invoked, that the original Greek once read something like ‘iv toZs
KaT yAAe£av8pov Kaipols . Falsification of history came easy to Chris¬
tians who wrote about the persecutions (witness Lactantius), and
Maximin was eventually accused of the murder of his wife (whom
the Senate deified).1 In default of fresh evidence, however, the tradi¬
tional date of 235 must still stand.
The problem deserved to be posed. The last word can safely rest
with the Historia Augusta, which includes among the counsellors of
Severus Alexander the fictitious character ‘Aelius Serenianus,
omnium vir sanctissimus’ (Alex. 68. i).2 That might derive from a
desire to mock Cyprian.
1 Syncellus p. 680 Bonn; Zonaras XII. 16. She was Diva Caecilia Paulina
(PIR1 C 91; AE 1964. 202; 236).
2 Whence the conflation ‘Aelius Serenianus, praeses of Cappadocia’ (W. H. C.
Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (1965), 333; 605). The same
writer incautiously transfers the persecution to the year 236 (o.c. 333).
D. AFRICAN CHRISTIANS
21. Apuleius and Christianity

Apuleius’ Apology and Florida shed valuable light on African society
in the Antonine age. The Apology was delivered in Tripolitanian
Sabratha before the proconsul Claudius Maximus in the winter of
158/9 (Apol. 1; 59) d it describes in detail its author’s reception in
nearby Oea and his dealings with various members of a wealthy
family of the town. The Florida are a disconnected series of purple
passages selected (probably by a later hand) from speeches which
Apuleius delivered in Carthage during the next decade.2 On the
normal view, neither work makes the slightest reference to Chris¬
tianity. Recently, however, Apuleius’ adversary, Sicinius Aemilianus
of Oea, has been claimed as a Christian (of Sabratha).3 His austere
manners (derided at Apol. 10; 66) are taken as a sign that he pos¬
sessed the vigorous spiritual force inherent in the new religion.4
Apuleius’ taunts against his obscure existence {Apol. 16) and his
negligence of the gods of city and countryside {Apol. 56) are com¬
pared with reproaches levelled at Christians in the Octavius of Min-
ucius Felix (8. 4; 10. 1 f.). Hence two conclusions are drawn: Aemil¬
ianus was a Christian, and the Octavius reflects pagan polemic of precise¬
ly the middle of the second century.5 The argument is clearly vulner¬
able. For it ignores the context of Apuleius’ statements. In his speech
as prosecutor Aemilianus had vilified Apuleius’ conduct and morals
(cf. Apol. 3). Apuleius was compelled to reply in similar fashion.
How easy for Aemilianus, he observes, to speak wildly about another
whilst remaining silent about his own vices: as a public figure
Apuleius must live almost in public, while Aemilianus can conceal
his own character in obscurity {Apol. 16). That is a neat device for
discrediting a man who spent his days in his country villa. Again,
when he presents Aemilianus as a notorious atheist whom the people
of Oea nicknamed Mezentius, Apuleius has a clear purpose. He is
attempting to absolve himself from a strong suspicion of dabbling in
magic. He therefore depicts his own superstition as wholesome
religion and discounts what the prosecutor has said as merely the
product of his atheism {Apol. 56). In the circumstances, there cannot
1 R. Syme, Rev. dt. anc. LXI (1959), 3*8.

2 Schanz-Hosius, Gesch. d. rom. Litt. Ill3 (1922), 117 ff. The only datable pieces
are Flor. 9 and 17: respectively, 162/3 and 163/4 (Syme, o.c. 316 ff.).
3 E. Griset, Rivista di studi classici V (1957)> 35 ff
4 Griset, o.c. 37. 5 Griset, o.c. 38 f.
272 APPENDICES
even be any guarantee that the nickname was genuine.1 If Apuleius
had really wanted to suggest that Aemilianus was a Christian,
ambiguity was easy to avoid: Aemilianus could be accused of having
his own private (and depraved) religion. Moreover, the proof of
Aemilianus’ Christianity relies upon a demonstrably false date for
Minucius Felix, who modelled his Octavius on Tertullian’s Apolo-
geticum, and who consequently belongs to the third century.2
The Metamorphoses contain a hostile and unmistakable allusion to

Christianity (IX. 14).3 Its precise import may be obscured by two
uncertainties. Rohde once contended that the Metamorphoses ante¬
dated the Apology, being written in Apuleius’ youth and at Rome,4
and his authority rapidly established this view as the communis
opinio A It soon, however, encountered decisive refutation,0 and is
now generally abandoned.7 But no agreement yet exists on the pre¬
cise date. One passage was held to entail composition after the
accession of Marcus Aurelius: ‘liberis tuis tutores iuridici provincialis
decreto dati’ (Met. I. 6). Combined with references to a single
emperor (III. 29; VII. 6; IX. 42; X. 13), that pointed to the years
169 to 176.8 Still later dates find recent advocates. The novel appears
to betray knowledge of a joint letter of Marcus Aurelius and
Commodus on the subject of runaway slaves (Met. VI. 4; cf. Dig.
XI. 4. 1. 2).9 But both arguments (and others of the same type)10
are open to a similar objection: iuridici certainly existed before 161
(in fact none happens to be attested at any period either for the
province in which the novel is set (Achaea) or for Africa), and it is
not clear that the letter of Marcus and Commodus made any
substantial innovation in the law.11
As for the place of writing, there can be no serious doubt. The
Metamorphoses are set in Greece and Rome. But the work addresses
1 Cf. Historia XVI (1967), 96, in comment on Apol. 98.

2J. Beaujeu, Minucius Felix: Octavius (1964), xliv ff.
3 p. 60. P. de Labriolle diverted the unpleasant aspersions to Jewish proselytes {La
r(action paienne (1934), 70). In disproof, L. Herrmann, Latomus XII (1930) 188 ff.
4 Kleine Schriften II (1901), 43 ff.
5 Cf. G. Lehnert, Bursians Jahresber. CLXXI (1915), 171 ff,
6 R. Hesky, Wiener Studien XXVI (1904), 71 ff.
7 e.g., U. Carratello, Giorn. ital. di.pl. XVI (1963), 97 ff.
3 Hesky, o.c. 73; 80.
5 G. W. Bowersock, Rhein. Mus. CVIII (1965), 282; P. G. Walsh, Phoenix XXII
(1968), 149 ff.
10 e.g., F. Norden, Apuleius von Madaura und das romische Privatrecht (1912) 64*
102; 135.
11 Dig. XI. 4 cites numerous very similar enactments. Any change probably
consisted in an intensification of espionage, cf. M. Rostovtzeff, SEHRE2 (10*7')
738 f. V y0/'’
D. AFRICAN CHRISTIANS 273
itself to a Latin-speaking audience outside Rome (I. 1; XI. 26).1

It was therefore composed in Africa and for a Carthaginian audience,
and thus may serve as evidence for beliefs and attitudes there.
There is no call, however, to set the last book as late as 190 or make
it contemporary with Tertullian’s Apologeticum.2
22. Jewish Origins

That the origins of Christianity in Roman Africa are obscure is a
commonplace.3 Speculation therefore becomes tempting and im¬
probable theories proliferate. Most of these can simply be dismissed
as fable.4 One persistent view, however, demands more serious
attention. It holds that the Christian community at Carthage arose
out of the Jewish in the middle of the second century.5 Notable
inferences can then be drawn. Tertullian’s theological development
or the success of Montanist ideas in Carthage can be ascribed to the
direct influence of local Jews.6 But, attractive as it may seem to
some, this theory makes implausible history: Judaism and Christian¬
ity had diverged and gone their separate and hostile ways almost a
century earlier, at the time of the great Jewish revolt (66-73). The
difficulty might, it is true, be overcome by postulating an apostolic
origin for the church of Carthage.7 But this view too (for different
reasons) lacks plausibility.8 Nonetheless, since arguments from
plausibility are subjective, the evidence for a connexion between the
Jews and Christians of Carthage must be reviewed. If inferences
from accidental similarity are discarded (as correct method re¬
quires),9 two items alone remain. First, alleged Christian use of the
Jewish cemetery at Carthage. Second, the prominence oi seniores laid
in the African church. Neither is cogent. Both involve delicate
questions of historical method.
1 Hesky, o.c. 79 f.
2 So Walsh, o.c. 150 ff. That scholar entertains several peculiar notions about
second-century Christianity, regarding as authentic the ‘Letter of Hadrian’
{HA, Quad. Tyr. 8. 1 ff.)—which he cites at second hand (o.c. 151).
3 W. H. C. Frend, The Donatist Church (1952), 87.
4 A. Audollent, Carthage romaine (1901), 435 ff.
5 E. Babelon, Carthage (1896), 175 ff; Audollent, o.c. 163; P. Monceaux, Histoire
littdraire de VAfrique chrdtienne I (1901), 9; H. Leclercq, Diet, d’arch. chrdt. II (1910),
2206 f.; M. Simon, Verus Israel (1948), 153; W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and
Persecution in the Early Church (1965), 361 ff.
« Respectively, Frend, o.c. 373 f.; J. M. Ford, JEH XVII (1966), 145 ff. Still
less plausibly, Y. Baer, Scripta Hierosolymitana VII (1961), 88 ff, claimed that the
De Idololatria was inspired by the tractate ‘Abodah Zarah. For disproof, pp. 97-100.
7 J. Mesnage, Le christianisme en Afrique (1914), 53 ff.
8 Ch. VII; App. 28.
9 For a list of claimed similarities, W. H. C. Frend, JTS, N.S. XII (1961), 283.
274 APPENDICES
The cemetery is purely Jewish.1 Assertions to the contrary can be
divided into four classes. First, the lack of decisive proof that
Christians were not buried there (a thing impossible to provide) is
construed as evidence that they were.2 The logical fallacy is obvious.
Some scholars vaguely speak of Christian epitaphs among the Jew¬
ish.3 But the inscriptions from the cemetery show no unambiguous
sign of Christianity: the phrase ‘in pace’ (which appears on six
tombs) is in no way unexpected in a purely Jewish context, and a
fragment reading ‘]arissim[’ clearly proves nothing.4 The more
sceptical, therefore, rest their case on one undeniably Christian
epitaph, which contains two instances of the formula ‘fidelis
(fideles) in pace’.5 However, the inscription in question does not
come from the cemetery: neither its exact provenance nor the
circumstances of its discovery could be ascertained even at the time.6
Finally, there is the easy appeal to evidence at second or third hand.7
A reductio ad absurdum has also unwittingly been offered: the cemetery
proves that the Christians of Carthage practised ‘strict adherence
to Talmudic funerary prescriptions’.8 In other words, not one
undeniably Christian epitaph is attested from Gamart,9 10 and no
evidence whatever has yet been produced that Christians were
buried there. By the earliest years of the third century, at the latest,
they possessed their own ‘areae sepulturarum’ (Scap. 3. 1).
The seniores laid of the African church are a remarkable pheno¬
menon. 10 But they come into prominence only in the fourth century.11
Hence the problem: are these lay elders an institution peculiar to
Africa, or a survival from primitive Christianity ? If the former, their
origin must presumably be sought in the African background.12
If the latter, the institution derives from Judaism in the first century13
1 For a full description, A. L. Delattre, Gamart, ou la nkropole juive de Carthage

(■895); J. Ferron, Cahiers de Byrsa VI (1956), 105 ff.
2 A. de Vogue, Rev. arch.3 XIII (1889), 184: ‘il ne serait pas impossible d’ailleurs
que quelques-unes de ces tombes decodes fussent chretiennes’. This tentative
hypothesis assumes a more positive aspect in later works, e.g., Babelon, o.c. 175 ff.;
Monceaux, o.c. 9.
3 P. Monceaux, Revue des 6tudes juives XLII (1902), 17: ‘a en juger par certaines
epitaphes de Gamart . . .’.
4 For the epitaphs, see P. Monceaux, Rev. arch* III (1904), 361 ff., nos. 120-37;
J. Ferron, Cahiers de Byrsa I (1951), 175 ff; VI (1956), 105 ff
5 CIL VIII. 25347, <ff Audollent, o.c. 163.
6 Delattre, o.c. 49 f.
7 e.g., Frend, o.c. (1965), 362, who cites only Monceaux, o.c. (1901), 9 f.
8 Frend, o.c. (1961), 283.
9 J. Ferron, Cahiers de Byrsa VI (1956), 99 ff.
10 P. G. Caron, Rev. int. des droits de I’ant. VI (1951), 7 ff; Frend, o.c. 280 ff.
11 P- Monceaux, Histoire UtUraire de VAfrique chretienne III (1905), 83.
12 Monceaux, ib. 83. 13 Caron, o.c. 9.
—and it becomes impossible to distinguish Jewish influence on its

development in second century Africa (if any) from its ultimate
Jewish origins in the first.
Two items of evidence are invoked for the lay seniores in the second
century.1 Tertullian told his pagan audience that meetings of the
Christians were presided over by ‘probati quique seniores’.2 And
Ambrosiaster, in the late fourth century, might preserve a memory of
their existence in Italy:
apud omnes utique gentes honorabilis est senectus: unde et synagoga, et

postea ecclesia seniores habuit, quorum sine consilio nihil agebatur in
ecclesia. quod qua negligentia obsoleverit nescio, nisi forte doctorum desidia
aut magis superbia, dum soli volunt aliquid videri.3
But are these seniores really the ancestors of the African seniores laid,
or simply presbyters? Contrary opinions are advanced with equal
certitude. For one scholar, Tertullian is clearly speaking of priests.4
For another, ‘Tertullian refers to seniores, who do not seem to be
presbyters’.5 The matter is easily decided in favour of the former.
Ambrosiaster is commenting on the text ‘seniorem ne increpaveris’
(I Timothy 5. 1). Like many another scholiast or commentator, he
has a ready gloss which is based on no evidence beyond the text
under discussion. As for Tertullian, he is describing a Christian
service:
coimus ad litterarum divinarum commemorationem . . . ibidem etiam ex-

hortationes . . . praesident probati quique seniores . . . modicam unusquis-
que stipem menstrua die vel cum velit, et si modo velit et si modo possit,
apponit [Apol. 39. 3 ff.].
Most orthodox Christians in Carthage would have been outraged

if a layman had performed such sacerdotalia munera (Praescr. Haer.
41. 8).6
23. Liturgical Customs

The decline and disappearance of Christian communities in
Africa after the Arab conquest has deprived us of a valuable source
for their history. From ancient Italy and Gaul there still survive
1 Frend, o.c. 282.

2 Apol. 39. 5.
3 Comm, in I Tim. 5. 1 (PL XVII. 502).
4 P. Monceaux, Bull. Soc. JVat. Ant. de France 1903, 283.
5 Frend. o.c. 282. Frend’s further assertion that the seniores were ‘empowered to
excommunicate unworthy members of the Christian community’ (ib. 282) is not
quite borne out by Tertullian’s actual words.
6 Cf. Cor. Mil. 3. 3: eucharistiae sacramentum . . . nec de aliorum manu quam
praesidentium sumimus.
276 APPENDICES
sacramentaries, breviaria and the like which throw light on church
ceremonial through the centuries.1 Even for Spain there is extant the
Liber Mozarabicus to reveal much about Christian liturgy in Spain
before the Arab invasions of the eighth century.2 Nothing similar
exists for Roman Africa. In consequence, details of the rites custom¬
ary there have to be gathered and pieced together from incidental
remarks in Christian authors, principally Augustine.3 The subject is
obscure and contentious. Nonetheless, something important about
the nature of African liturgical practices can be established: so far
from being wholly imported from Rome,4 they differ markedly
from Roman practices.5 First, in the order and precise content of the
communion service.6 Second, in the cycle of lessons read on the
main feast days.7 Third, in the form of the creed.8 Fourth, in the
African insistence on rebaptism for converted heretics.9 Fifth, in the
preparation of catechumens for baptism.10 Derivation of the whole
of African liturgical practices from Rome consequently becomes
impossible.11 Eastern influence must therefore be postulated12—
which is not irrelevant to the origins of the church of Carthage.13
24. The Latin Bible

The New Testament was composed in Greek for Greek-speaking
Christians and Greek remained the normal language of Christian
writers for more than a century. Irenaeus, bishop of Lugdunum in
the reign of Commodus, wrote exclusively in Greek, as did Hippo-
lytus of Rome during the next generation.14 In Carthage too, eastern
1 E. Dekkers, Clavis Patrum Latinorum2 (1961), nos. 1897 ff.

2 lb. no. 1929. Also three other documents (ib. nos. 1930-2).
3 F. Cabrol, Diet. Parch, chrdt. I (1907), 591 ff.; W. C. Bishop, JTS XIII (1911-
12), 250 ff.
4 As assumed by L. Duchesne, Origines du cidte chretien2 (1898), 81 ff.
5 Bishop, o.c. 250 ff.
6 Bishop, o.c. 267.
7 Bishop, o.c. 268.
8 F. J. Badcock, Rev. henedicline XFV (1933), 3 ff.; The History of the Creeds2
(■938), 30 ff. Roman influence becomes clearly apparent, however, in the fourth
century, cf. J. N. D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds2 (i960), 167 ff.
9 Duchesne, o.c. 326.
10 E. Dekkers, Tertullianus en de Geschiedenis der Liturgie (1947), 259. It must in fair¬
ness be conceded that the arguments are tenuous in the extreme, cf. E. Evans,
Tertullian’s Homily on Baptism (1964), xvii ff.
11 Bishop, o.c. 269 f.
12 A. Audollent, Diet, d’hist. et de ge'og. eccl. 1(1912), 709 ff; J. Ferron-G. Lapeyre,
ib. XI (1949), 1180. Badcock asserts, without further amplification, that the
African liturgy ‘can be seen to belong to the Antiochene family’ (o.c. (1938), 30).
13 p. 68.
>4 Their works are listed by B. Altaner-A. Stuiber, Patrologie7 (1966), no ff.;
164 ff.
influences were strong, and Tertullian sometimes wrote in Greek for
the Christians of Carthage.1 Long before the end of the second
century, however, there were many Christians in the western
Empire who lacked any real knowledge of the language. If they
wished to read the Bible or to understand it when it was read to
them, a translation was necessary. Hence a problem to exercise the
ingenuity of linguistic science: when and where was the Bible first
rendered into Latin?2 Posed thus the question becomes unanswer¬
able. It will suffice to establish that the earliest documents of Latin
Christianity display an awareness of a Latin translation of the Bible
—or at least of parts of the Bible. First, Tertullian, whose extant and
datable works span the years 197 to 212.3 Although he sometimes
chose to provide his own spontaneous translation of scriptural texts,
he more often employed an already existing translation.4 Next, the
Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs (of 180).5 Everyone can recall that
Speratus carried with him Tibri et epistulae Pauli viri iusti’ (Acta
Scill. 12). It is not always realized that a direct biblical quotation
lurks in his words:
illi Deo servio, quem nemo hominum vidit nec videre his oculis potest
[ib. 6].
That is a clear reference to I Timothy 6. 16, which appears in most

early Latin versions as
quem vidit nullus hominum sed nec videre potest.6
Tertullian has
quem nemo vidit hominum sed nec videre potest [Prax. 15. 2].
But Quodvultdeus (bishop of Carthage from 437 to 453) quoted the

text in precisely the same words as Speratus, with the addition of the
words ‘his oculis’ (which appear in no other quotation).2 Finally, the
1 pp. 68/9. On the linguistic situation in Africa as a whole, cf. G. Bardy, La

Question des langues dans t’e'glise ancienne I (1948), 52 ff.; F. Millar, JRS LVIII
(1968), 126 ff.
2 For guidance on the vast bibliography, cf. L. Mechinau, Did. de la Bible IV
(1904), 97 ff; B. Botte, ib. Supp. V (1957), 334 ff More recent work is catalogued
in the Bulletin d’ancienne litUrature chretienne latine IV M ff> V (1960-4)
[2] ff. (supplements to Rev. bdnddictine LXXIV (1964), LXXV (1965)).
3 Ch. V.
4 G. J. G. Aalders, Tertullianus’ Citaten uit de Evangelien (1932), 200; T. P. O’Mal¬
ley, Tertullian and the Bible (1967), 63. For an important example of Tertullian’s
use of a pre-existing translation, cf. G. D. Kilpatrick, JTS, N.S. XVI (1965), 127 f.
5 pp. 60-62.
«J. Wordsworth-H. J. White, JVovum Testamentum Latine II (1913-41), 6.11.
2 Sermo III. 3 (PL XL. 662).
T
278 APPENDICES
earliest (and most doubtful) traces of a Latin Bible. The letter of
the Gallic Christians which Eusebius reproduces at length and dates
to 177 [HE V. 1 ff.) presents its biblical allusions in a peculiar
manner: familiar Greek words are consistently replaced by syno¬
nyms. The reason might be purely stylistic. But another explanation
is more attractive. If the writer was accustomed to read the Bible in
Latin, he could easily substitute synonyms when translating into
Greek. This hypothesis was propounded long ago.1 It has often been
overlooked, with unfortunate consequences. One scholar attempted
to prove that the letter was written in Asia Minor,2 and his arguments
have been taken seriously.3 Others continue to believe that a Latin
Bible first appeared in Africa no earlier than the last quarter of the
second century.4 Let it therefore be repeated: a Latin translation of
at least parts of the Bible can be discerned behind the earliest texts
which could reasonably be supposed to show knowledge of one. To
go further back, one must employ purely stylistic criteria to date
extant translations5—a hazardous undertaking.
25. Praxeas
According to Tertullian, one Praxeas came from Asia to Rome on
the Devil’s business. Although the bishop at that time looked favour¬
ably upon the New Prophecy, Praxeas persuaded him to revoke the
approval which he had already dispatched in letters to various
churches. In addition, he perpetrated a vile heresy: by confounding
the persons of the Trinity, he crucified the Father (Prax. 1. 4 f.).
In common terminology, therefore, Praxeas was a Monarchian.6
That ought to have secured him a position of some notoriety among
the heresiologists. In fact, there seems to be only one mention of him
which is independent of Tertullian: the pseudo-Tertullianic Adversus
omnes haereses (8. 4), which was once argued to be a Latin trans¬
lation of a Greek original written in Rome at exactly the same date
as the Adversus PraxeanA Further, Hippolytus offers a full ac¬
count of the Monarchian heresy. One Noetus of Smyrna derived
it from the doctrines of Heraclitus: his disciple Epigonus spread the
1J- A. Robinson, Texts and Studies I. 2 (1891), 97 ff., who quotes the relevant
passages in full. For counter-arguments, and subsequent discussion, see P. de
Labriolle, Bull, d’anc. litt. et d’arch. chrtt. Ill (1913), 199.
2J. Colin, Uempire des Antonins et les martyrs gaulois de 177 (1964).
3 e.g., J. Danielou, Recherches de science religieuse LVII (1969), 82 ff.
4 B. M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament2 (1968), 72, who represents this
as ‘the opinion of most scholars today’.
5 The technique of C. Mohrmann, Etudes sur le Latin des chritiens III (1965) 67 ff.
6 H. Chadwick, The Early Church (1967), 89.
2 E. Schwartz, Sitzungsber. d. bayer. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Miinchen, Phil.-hist. Abt.
•936. 3j 38 ff.
heresy in Rome together with his follower Cleomenes (Ref. omn.
haer. IX. 7. 1; X. 27. 1). Finally, so Hippolytus alleges, the error was
taken up with enthusiasm by his enemy Callistus (Ref. omn. haer. X.
27. 3 ff.).
The problem is perplexing, how to reconcile Tertullian and
Hippolytus, or how to explain their differences.1 A preliminary, and
simple, step can be taken: Tertullian neither states nor implies that
Praxeas ever visited Carthage.2 That merely increases the difficulty.
Perhaps, therefore, Praxeas must be identical with one of the charac¬
ters mentioned by Hippolytus. To equate him with Callistus was
proposed long ago.3 Others preferred to identify him with Epigonus.4
Praxeas’ and Epigonus’ actions appear to tally. But one can find
numerous coincidences between the personality and theology of
Callistus as depicted by Hippolytus and that of Praxeas inTertullian.5
Certainty is unattainable. Yet one ought not to forget that Praxeas
looks like a pseudonym: ‘-n-pageas’, the busybody, who ‘duo negotia
diaboli Romae procuravit’ (Prax. 1. 5).6
26. The Heresy of Gaius

Three passages of Tertullian once seemed to reveal the existence
of a Gnostic by the name of Gaius who originated a ‘Gaiana haeresis’7
—which would have been highly relevant to the situation of
Christianity in Carthage.8 Closer investigation, however, quickly
restored the correct name of the heresy:
Johannes vero in Apocalypsi idolothyta edentes et stupra committentes
iubetur castigare: sunt et nunc alii Nicolaitae, Caina haeresis dicitur
[Praescr. Haer. 33. 10];
nuper conversata istic quaedam de Caina haeresi vipera venenatissima
doctrina sua plerosque rapuit inprimis baptismum destruens \Bapt. 1. 2].9
That happens to correspond to something in Jerome:

et consurgit mihi Caina haeresis atque olim emortua vipera contritum caput
levat [Epp. LXIX. 1].
1 P. de Labriolle, Bull. Pane. litt. et Parch, chrit. I (1911), 228 ff.

2 E. Evans, Tertullian’s Treatise against Praxeas (1948), 184 f.
3 H. Hagemann, Die romische Kirche und ihr Einfluss (1864), 234 ff.
4 G. Esser, Wer war Praxeas? (Prog. Bonn, 1910), 27.
5 de Labriolle, o.c. 232 f.
6 The Greek word appears, however, never to be attested. Esser regarded
‘Praxeas’ as a signum or agnomen'. ‘Epigonus qui et Praxeas’ (o.c. 28).
7 A. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius (1893), 601.
8 pp. 80-82. A. Harnack postulated ‘lokales Interesse’ (Sitzungsber. d. kon.
preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin 1914, 323).
9 Still quoted as evidence of a ‘Gaian heresy’ by W. H. G. Frend, JTS, N.S.
XXI (1070), 93—with appeal to the antiquated text of A. Reifferscheid and
G. Wissowa (CSEL XX. 201).
28o APPENDICES
Mention of the viper is apposite in both places, since the Cainites
were a sort of Ophite (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. I. 31. 1 ff.). Moreover,
Jerome seems to have read ‘Caina’ in his text of Tertullian.1 For he
defines the target of the Scorpiace as ‘quae olim appellabatur Caina
haeresis’ (Contra Vig. 8).2 Though inaccurate,3 this notion implies
that Jerome had seen the name ‘Caina haeresis’ somewhere in
Tertullian.
The third passage remains problematical:
fabulae tales utiles, ut Marcus aut Gaius, in hac carne barbatus et in hac
anima severus maritus pater etc. [Val. 32. 4]
Marcus was a disciple of Valentinus whom Tertullian mentions else¬

where (Val. 4. 2; Res. Mort. 5. i).4 5 But who was Gaius? Without a
‘Gaiana haeresis’ to support him, the answer is not clear. Therefore,
until a better suggestion be propounded, let the words ‘aut Gaius’
(one manuscript has ‘et Gaius’) be deleted as an ignorant gloss.
27. Christians in Mauretania
Christianity had advanced beyond the frontiers of the Roman

Empire to win converts among the nomadic Mauri and Gaetuli
(Jud. 7. 4), and in 212 Christians were being executed in the
province of Mauretania (Scap. 4. 8). Both these statements of
Tertullian fall under suspicion through their vagueness: how did he
ascertain the facts? and which Mauretania had he in mind,
Caesariensis or Tingitana? Confirmation is sought in archaeology
and epigraphy, and the search is not always prosecuted with due
care. One case (not directly relevant) will exemplify. A bishop of
Lepcis in Tripolitania is securely attested in 256.5 No earlier explicit
evidence for Christians in Lepcis happens to exist. Yet at least one
account of the expansion of Christianity in North Africa asserts (at
second hand) that the city contained a Christian community as
early as 200.6 When tracked down, the evidence in question turns
out to be highly dubious: a small Arabic fragment concerning the
celebration of Easter, which a Vatican manuscript ascribes to
‘Archaei qui post discipulos domini episcopus fuit Leptitanae urbis
in Africa’.7 Some take Archaeus as a contemporary of Victor, bishop
1 E. Evans, Tertullian’s Homily on Baptism (1964), 47 f.

2 PL XXIII. 347.
3 Ch. XII.
4 For further testimonia, see Harnack, o.c. (1893), 174 ff.
5 Sententiae Episcoporum LXXXVII 83 ff. (CSEL III. 460).
6 W. H. C. Frend, The Donatist Church (1952), 88.
7 A. Mai, Spicilegium Romanum III (1840), 707.
of Rome in the 190s.1 Others confess themselves perplexed.2 Further
investigation seems required. Recent studies of the Eastern contro¬
versy in which Victor participated contain no mention of Archaeus
or discussion of the fragment.3
A searching enquiry into the funerary inscriptions of Mauretania
has disposed of alleged epigraphical evidence for Christians there in
the early third century.4 Three epitaphs (one of them double) may
be quoted by way of example:
[Au]reliu[s] Donatus v. an. LXXXIIII an. p. CLXIII [CIL VIII. 20278

= ILCV 4038];
Memoriae Praetoriani fili dulcissimi homini ingeniosissimo notario v. an.
XVII m. VIII d. XVII. Romae decessit XV k. Nov. a. p. CLXXXVI;
Memoriae Primae filiae dulcissimae v. an. VIII m. V decessit V kal. Sep.
a. p. CLXXXVII;
Maurusius filis [CIL VIII. 8501 = ILCV 710];
Rasinia Secunda redd. XVI kal. Novem. a. p. CLXXXXVIIII [CIL VIII.
9289b
The dates are, respectively, 202, 225 and 226, and 238, and the texts
come from Ain Kebire (Perigotville), Sitifis and Tipasa. All three
inscriptions have confidently been claimed as Christian.5 But
detailed inspection and comparison of the formulae which they
contain lends no support whatever.6 On the contrary, the earliest
clearly Christian epitaph in Mauretania belongs to 324 {CIL VIII.
20302 = ILCV 3247). This result is not unexpected. For it has long
been recognized that Christian archaeology in Africa begins with
the fourth century.7 Attempts to go further back have always in¬
volved misreporting of evidence.8 Christian epigraphy ought to be
subject to the same limitations as Christian archaeology, and the
■J. Mesnage, UAfrique ckritienne (1912), 101; A. Audollent, Diet, d’hist. et de

ge'og. eccl. Ill (1914), 1528.
2 A. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius (1893), 776, under
the rubric ‘Unsicheres, Missverstandnisse, Fictionen, Curiositaten’.
3 P. Nautin, Lettres et icrivains chritiens des IIe et IIIe siecles (1961), 65 ff.; M.
Richard,L’orientsyrien VI (1961), 179 fF.; C. Mohrmann, Vig. Chr. XVI (1962), 154.tr.
4 P. A. Fevrier, Mil. d’arch. et d’hist. LXXVI (1964), 105 ff.
5 S. Gsell, Mil. d’arch. et d’hist. XIV (1894), 313 f.; P. Monceaux, Histoire
littiraire de I’Afrique chritienne II (1902), 121 f.; A. Harnack, Mission und Ausbreitung
des Christentums4 (1924), 903; Frend, o.c. 88.
6 Fevrier, o.c. 129 ff.
7 J. Gage, Annales de I’Ecole des Hautes Etudes de Gand I (1937)) 183.
8 W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church (1965), 397,
tentatively dates to c. 250 the first Christian buildings in Tipasa and an alleged
Christian cemetery at la Skhira (near Macomades Minores). On a close reading
of the works which he cites in support (ib. 432), it emerges that no clear evidence
exists for Christianity in either place before the fourth century: L. Leschi, Tipasa
(1950), 40 ff.; M. and N. Fendri, Basiliques chritiennes de la Skhira (1961), 56.
282 APPENDICES
paradox is familiar to students of Christianity before Constantine:
although wide diffusion of the religion seems incontestable, the
details cannot now validly be documented.
28. The Jewish Diaspora

Jewish communities established themselves at a very early date
throughout the Hellenistic world.1 Towards the east, Babylonia
supported a strong Jewish culture which flourished for hundreds of
years.2 In the west of the Greek world, large numbers of Jews lived
in Cyrenaica: when they rebelled against Trajan, the total casualties
on both sides amounted to two hundred and twenty thousand
(Dio LXVIII. 32. 2).3 Towards the south, Jews had long been
settled throughout Egypt, ‘from the edge of Libya to the boundaries
of Ethiopia’ (Philo, In Flaccum 43).4 And in the north, Jews had
penetrated beyond the Black Sea and into the Danubian lands:
communities existed in the Cimmerian Bosphorus in the first century
of the Roman Empire (Corp. Inscr. Jud. 683; 690 f.), and synagogues
are attested at Stobi (ib. 694: a.d. 165) and at Intercisa (ib. 677:
222-35).
What of the Latin west? Writing c. 550, Cassiodorus proclaimed
that the Jews were divided and scattered practically over the whole
world {Expos, in Ps. LVIII. 12) ;5 and the diffusion can be abundantly
illustrated with a wealth of detailed documentation.6 Nearly half a
millennium earlier Josephus was even more positive: the Jewish
diaspora was numerous everywhere {Bell. Jud. II. 398; Ant. Jud.
XIV. 115)7. Hence the common belief (which may be correct) that
already in Josephus’ day many Jews could be found in Italy and
Gaul, in Spain and Africa.8 Sound method, however, requires more
precise evidence.
1 E. Schiirer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes im Jeitalter Jesu Christi III4 (1909),
2 ff.
2 J. Neusner, A History of the Jews in Babylonia I (1965), 10 ff.; II (1966), 241 ff.
3 Josephus also alleges that a Flavian governor was able to execute no less than
three thousand wealthy Jews of the province {Bell. Jud. VII. 445 f.).
4 V. A. Tcherikover, Corpus Papyrorum Judaic arum I (1957), 1 ff.
3 CCL XCVII. 525 f.
6 B. Blumenkranz, Juifs et Chretiens dans le monde occidental 430-106g (i960), 1 ff.
7 Also Bell. Jud. VII. 43: to yap 'IovSaicuv yevos noXii p.ev Kara naaav rrjv oli<ovp.dvr]v
rraploTrapTai tols eVtyojptotj. Similarly too, Orac. Sibyllina III 271.
8 P. Monceaux, Revue des itudes juives XLIV (1902), 1 ff; H. Graetz, Geschichte
der Juden V4 (1909), 38; 48; 416 f.; J. Juster, Les Juifs dans I’Empire romain I (1914),
180 ff.; G. Kittel, Forschungen zur Judenfrage V (1941), 290 ff.; S. W. Baron,
A Social and Religious History of the Jews I7 (1952), 165; 176; II7 (1952), 406; III7
(1957)» 34! 47 f-! L. Poliakov, Histoire de I’Antisemitisme (1955), 4; M. Simon,
Recherches de Vhistoire Jude'o-Chrdtienne (1962), 30 ff.
The large Jewish community of Rome is well documented, and
existed from the days of the Republic: its members kept vigil at the
pyre of Julius Caesar (Suetonius, Div.Jul. 84. 5), and under Tiberius
the consuls drafted four thousand young men for military service in
Sardinia (Josephus, Ant. Jud. XVIII. 84, cf. Tacitus, Ann. II. 85. 4).1
For most other Italian cities the record is bare until the late fourth
century. Chance remarks by Josephus reveal the presence of Jews in
Puteoli {Bell. Jud. II. 104; Ant. Jud. XVII. 328), and signs ofjudaism
are claimed for Pompeii.2 Further, a restored inscription from else¬
where (Castel Porziano) appears to attest a Jewish community in
Ostia in the early second century: it records two gerusiarchs and a
‘[universitas] Iudeorum [in col. Ost. commorjantium’ {JVotizie degli
Scavi 1906, 410 ff.). The Jews have left no discernible trace in Ostia
itself—though a synagogue existed outside the town from the first
century.3 Elsewhere, virtually nothing.4 The lack of evidence may
be significant: Rome, Ostia and the bay of Naples (at least in the first
century) differed socially and economically from the rest of the pen¬
insula.
Gaul has even less to offer, the earliest Jewish epitaphs being
Merovingian {Corp. Inscr. Jud. 666, cf. 670). Hence a temptation to
adduce dubious evidence. One historian invoked a letter of Victor,
bishop of Rome c. 190, which is a clear fabrication (PG V. 1488 f.).5
Others deduce the presence of Jews from that of Christians: since
the Christians of Lugdunum observed Jewish food taboos (Eusebius,
HE V. 1. 26), it was asserted that their meat must have been bought
from Jews.6 The fallacy ought to be obvious.7 In fact, the earliest
precise testimony comes from a law of Constantine addressed to the
decurions of Cologne, which concerns Jewish membership of the
curia {Cod. Theod. XVI. 8. 3 (321), cf. XVI. 8. 4 (331): ‘Idem
A[ugustus] hiereis et archisynagogis et patribus synagogarum et
ceteris qui in eodem loco deserviunt’).8 For an earlier period, how¬
ever, there exist at Trier terracotta caricatures of Jews which
apparently belong to the third century.9
The same picture obtains for Spain. If the apostle Paul declared
1 For a full treatment, H. J. Leon, The Jews of Ancient Rome (i960).

2 Schiirer, o.c. 67.
3 M. F. Squarciapino, La sinagoga di Ostia (1964).
4 L. Ruggini, Studia et Documenta Historiae et Juris XXV (1959)) 186 ff.
5 I. Bedarride, Iês Juifs en France, en Italie et en Espagne (1859), 28 f.
6 Schiirer, o.c. 69; Kittel, o.c. 296; W. H. G. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in
the Early Church (1965), 18.
7 F. Millar, JRS LVI (1966), 232.
8 J. Aronius, Regesten zur Geschichle der Juden im frankischen und deutschen Reiche bis
zumjahre 1273 I (1887), 2.
9 R. Altmann, Trierer feitschrift VI (1931), 121 ff.; Kittel, o.c. 296 f.
284 APPENDICES
his intention of journeying thither (Rom. 15. 24; 15, 28), does it
strictly follow that he expected to find Jews there?1 Their presence
cannot validly be documented any earlier than the Council of
Iliberris (c. 300), three of whose canons prohibit Christians from
intermarrying with Jews (XVI), from letting Jews bless their crops
(XLIX), and even from eating with them (L).2 *
What of Africa ? That Tertullian lived in a city which contained a
Jewish community is obvious enough.2 Outside Carthage, however,
none of the available evidence appears to antedate the fourth
century.4
The silence of the evidence can of course be imputed to accident

or explained away.5 * But it can also be given historical significance
from Jewish sources. The Jerusalem (more properly, Palestinian)
Talmud and the Babylonian Talmud reveal a world of scholarship
and culture which provides much valuable historical material for a
period of more than three centuries (respectively, 70 to c. 400 and
70 to c. 525). This world (it emerges) included Carthage but
excluded Gaul and Spain. There is nowhere, for example, any
mention of Narbo, Arelate or Massilia: three towns which possessed
large Jewish communities in the fifth century.* By contrast the
opinions of teachers from Carthage are actually quoted, on several
occasions (Bab. Talmud, Berakoth 29a; Baba Kamma 114b; Jer.
Talmud, Berakoth IV. 3; Shabbath XVI. 1 = Besa I. 6; Toma I. 3;
Kethouboth V. i).7 Two other passages heighten the contrast. Rabb
Eleazar (a pupil of Akiba, who died c. 135) referred to ships plying
between Gaul and Spain as if no Jew were ever likely to be aboard
(Bab. Talmud, Yebamoth 63a). And who, it was asked, were the Ken-
ites, Kenizites and Kadmonites whom the Lord promised to deliver
to the seed of Abraham (Gen. 15. 19)? One rabbi identified them
as the Arabs, the Salmioi (in Adesopotamia)^ and the Nabataeans,
another as the inhabitants of Asia Minor, Apamea and Damascus.
But a third detected a reference to the towns of Asia, of Thrace, and
1 So Graetz deduced (o.c. 416).

2 M. J. Routh, Reliquiae Sacrae IV2 (1846), 262; 268. 3 CR VIII.
4 For the catalogue, Monceaux, o.c. 6 ff.; Juster, o.c. 207 ff.
5 Baron> °-c- 12 O952), 165; II2 (1952), 406; III2 (1957), 34; 47 f.
6 H. Gross, Gallia Judaica (1897), 73 ff.; 366 ff.; 401 ff.
Being ignorant of Hebrew, I have used and cited the English translation of the
Babylonian Talmud (Soncino Press, London, 1935-65) and M. Schwab’s French
translation of the Jerusalem Talmud (Paris, 1871-90). In these works the majority
of the passages here adduced are referred to Cartagena in Spain. The error is
natural, and proved by the comparison of two passages concerning Rabbi Aba:
Jer. Talmud, Berakoth IV. 3; Toma I. 3.
8 A. Neubauer, La gdographie du Talmud (1868), 427; 429.
APPENDIX D: AFRICAN CHRISTIANS 285
Carthage (Jer. Talmud, Shebiit VI. 1). Accordingly, when learned

doctors discussed the consequences of a man leaving his estate in
Palestine and travelling to Spain (Jer. Talmud, Baba Bathra III.
2), Spain signified the remotest ends of the earth.
The three Jewish wars (of 66-73, 115-17 and 132-5) produced vast
numbers of captives. For the earlier revolt, Josephus provides a
precious figure which need not be exaggerated: ninety-seven thou¬
sand [Bell. Jud. VI. 420). Many of these were put to death by Titus
in shows and to celebrate family birthdays (VII. 24; 38 ff.). But
tens of thousands of Jewish slaves must have been diffused through¬
out the Roman world. The establishment of large Jewish com¬
munities in the western provinces may be the direct and gradual
result.
Although this enquiry seems to end in uncertainty, something
important has emerged. Since Rome and Carthage were special
cases, the relations between Jews and Christians in the African
metropolis cannot be taken as a paradigm of what was likely to
happen elsewhere.1 In Africa at least, Jewish proselytism may be the
effect (not the cause) of Christian missionary activities.2 The Jewish
community of Carthage may not have existed before the second
century. On the first Pentecost (so it is reported) the apostles in
Jerusalem were heard by Pilgrims from every land: Parthians,
Medes and Elamites, inhabitants of Mesopotamia, Judaea, Cappa¬
docia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the
parts of Libya around Cyrene, residents of Rome, and Cretans and
Arabians (Acts 2. 9 ff). The list ought accurately to describe the
extent of the Jewish diaspora before the fatal revolt against Rome.
When Tertullian reproduced a Latin version of lol KaroLKovvres ra
ixkprj T7)s Ai^vrjS ttjs tear' Kvprjvrjv (Acts 2. 10), he altered it to
‘regiones Africae quae est trans Cyrenen inhabitantes’ (Jud. 7. 4).
1 As assumed by W. H. C. Frend, Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa IV (1968),

3 ff-
2 For Christian molestation of the Jews in Rome in the reign of Commodus,
P- 93-
EDITIONS, COMMENTARIES AND
TRANSLATIONS
The last complete and homogeneous edition of Tertullian was by

F. Oehler (1853-4), whose text was translated into English by
P. Holmes and S. Thelwall: Ante-Nicene Christian Library (Edinburgh)
VII (1868); XI (1869); XV (1870); XVIII (1870), 1-258; re¬
printed in America as Ante-Nicene Fathers (New York and Buffalo)
III-IV (1884). The following alphabetical list conveys for each work
of Tertullian three items of information:
(i) Details of its publication in CSEL (1890-1957) and CCL
(I954)-
(ii) The fullest or most recent critical edition or commentary.
(iii) The most recent English translation (if not already entered
under (ii)).
Ad Martyr as {Mart.)
V. Bulhart, CSEL LXXVI (1957), 1; E. Dekkers, CCL I. 3.
A. Quacquarelli, Q_. S. F. Tertulliani Ad Martyras. Opuscula Patrum
II (1963).
R. Arbesmann, Fathers of the Church XL (1959), 17.
Ad Nationes {Nat.)
A. Reifferscheid-G. Wissowa, CSEL XX (1890), 59; J. W. P.
Borleffs, CCL I. 9.
A. Schneider, Le premier livre Ad Nationes de Tertullien. Bibliotheca
Helvetica Romana IX (1968).
M. Haidenthaller, Tertullians zweites Buch Ad Nationes und De
Testimonio Animae. Studien zur Geschichte und Kultur des Altertums
XXIII (1942).
P. Holmes, Ante-Nicene Christian Library XI (1869), 416.
Ad Scapulam {Scap.)
V. Bulhart, CSEL LXXVI (1957), 9; E. Dekkers, CCL II. 1125.
A. Quacquarelli, Q. S. F. Tertulliani Ad Scapulam. Opuscula Patrum
1 (1957)-
R. Arbesmann, Fathers of the Church X (1950), 151.
Ad Uxorem {Ux.)
A. Kroymann, CSEL LXX (1942), 96 — CCL I. 371.
EDITIONS, COMMENTARIES AND TRANSLATIONS 287
A. Stephan, Tertulliani ad uxorem libri duo (1954).

W. P. Le Saint, Tertullian: Treatises on Marriage and Remarriage.
Ancient Christian Writers'Kill (1951), 1; 111.
Adversus Hermogenem {Herm.)

A. Kroymann, CSEL XLVII (1906), 126 - CCL I. 395.
J. H. Waszink, Quinti Septimii Florentis Tertulliani Adversus Hermo¬
genem liber. Stromata patristica et mediaevalia V (1956).
J. H. Waszink, Tertullian: The Treatise against Hermogenes. Ancient
Christian Writers XXIV (1956).
Adversus Judaeos {Jud.)

A. Kroymann, CSEL LXX (1942), 251 = CCL II. 1337.
H. Trankle, Q_. S. F. Tertulliani Adversus Judaeos (1964).
S. Thelwall, Ante-Nicene Christian Library XVIII (1870), 201.
Adversus Marcionem {Marc.)1

A. Kroymann, CSEL XLVII (1906), 290 = CCL I. 437.
F. Oehler, Tertulliani quae super sunt omnia II (1854), 45.
P. Holmes, Anti-Nicene Christian Library VII (1868).
Adversus Praxean {Prax.)

A. Kroymann, CSEL XLVII (1906), 227 - CCL II. 1157.2
G. Scarp at, Adversus Praxean. Bibliotheca Loescheriana (1959).
E. Evans, Tertullian’s Treatise against Praxeas (1948).
Adversus Valentinianos {Val.)3

A. Kroymann, CSEL XLVII (1906), 177 = CCL II. 751.
F. Oehler, Tertulliani quae super sunt omnia II (1854), 381.
P. Holmes, Ante-Nicene Christian Library XV (1870), 119.
Apologeticum {Apol.)
H. Hoppe, CSEL LXIX (1939) ; E. Dekkers, CCL I. 77.
C. Becker, Tertullian: Apologeticum2 (1961).
E. J. Daly, Fathers of the Church X (1950), 7.
De Anima {An.)
A. Reifferscheid-G. Wissowa, CSEL XX (1890), 298; J. H.
Waszink, CCL II. 779.
J. H. Waszink, Tertulliani De Anima (1947).
E. A. Quain, Fathers of the Church X (1950), 179.
1 A text with English translation and brief notes has been prepared by E. Evans,
to appear in the series Oxford Early Christian Texts.
2 Much amended to accord with the text of E. Evans (1948).
3 J.-C. Fredouille has promised a new edition (Vig. Chr. XX (1966), 45).
288 EDITIONS, COMMENTARIES AND TRANSLATIONS
De Baptismo {Bapt.)
G. Reifferscheid-G. Wissowa, CSEL XX (1890), 201; J. W. P.
Borleffs, CCL I. 275.
B. Luiselli, Q_. Septimii Tertulliani De Baptismo2. Corpus Scriptorum
Latinorum Paravianum (1968).
E. Evans, Tertullian’s Homily on Baptism (1964).
De Came Christi {Cam. Chr.)

E. Evans, Tertulliari’s Homily on the Incarnation (1956).
De Corona Militis {Cor. Mil.)

A. Korymann, CSEL LXX (1942), 153 = CCL II. 1037.
J. Fontaine, Tertullien Sur la Couronne. Erasme. Collection de textes
latins XVIII (1966).
E. A. Quain, Fathers of the Church XL (1959), 231.
De Cultu Feminarum {Cult. Fern.)

A. Kroymann, CSEL LXX (1942), 59 = CCL I. 341.
W. Kok, De Cultu Feminarum (1934).
De Exhortatione Castitatis {Exhort. Cast.)

Ancient Christian Writers'Kill (1951), 37; 133.
De Fuga in Persecutione {Fug.)

V. Bulhart, CSEL LXXVI (1957), 17; J. J. Thierry, CCL II.
1 r33-
J. Marra, Q_. Septimii Tertulliani de spectaculis, de fuga in persecutione,
de pallio2. Corpus Scriptorum Latinorum Paravianum (1954), 55.
De Idololatria {Idol.)
A. Reifferscheid-G. Wissowa, CSEL XX (1890), 30 = CCL II.
1099.
F. Oehler, Tertulliani quae supersunt omnia I (1853), 67.
S. L. Greenslade, The Library of Christian Classics V: Early Latin
Theology (1956), 83.
De Jejunio (Jej.)
I255-
De Monogamia (Mon.)
Ancient Christian Writers XIII (1951), 65; 150.
De Oratione (Orat.)
A. Reifferscheid-G. Wissowa, CSEL XX (1890), 180; G. F.
Diercks, CCL I. 255.
E. Evans, Tertullian's Tract on the Prayer (1953).
E. J. Daly, Fathers of the Church XL (1959), 157.
De Paenitentia (Paen.)
J. W. P. Borleffs, CSEL LXXVI (1957), 140; id., CCL I. 319.
F. Sciuto, Tertulliano, Tre opere parenetiche: Ad Martyras, De Paeni¬
tentia, De Patientia (1961), xlvii; 71.
W. P. Le Saint, Tertullian: Treatises on Penance. Ancient Christian
Writers XXVIII (1959), 14.
De Pallio (Pall.)
V. Bulhart, CSEL LXXVI (1957), 104; A. Gerlo, CCL II. 731.
A. Gerlo, De Pallio, kritische uitgave met vertaling en commentar (1940).
De Patientia (Pat.)
A. Kroymann, CSEL XLVII (1906), 1; J. W. P. Borleffs, CCL I.
297-
F. Sciuto, Tertulliano, Tre opere parenetiche: Ad Martyr as, De Paeni¬
tentia, De Patientia (1961), xxiii; 21.
E. J. Daly, Fathers of the Church XL (1959), 193.
De Praescriptione Haereticorum (Praescr. Haer.)

A. Kroymann, CSEL LXX (1942), 1; F. R. Refoul£, CCL I. 185.
R. F. Refoule-P. de Labriolle, Tertullien:Traite de la Prescription
contre les heretiques. Sources chretiennes XLVI (1957)-
S. L. Greenslade, The Library of Christian Classics V: Early Latin
Theology (1956), 31.
ago EDITIONS, COMMENTARIES AND TRANSLATIONS
De Pudicitia (Pud.)
A. Reifferscheid-G. Wissowa, CSEL XX (1890), 219; E. Dekkers,
CCL II. 1279.
W. P. Le Saint, Tertullian: Treatises on Penance. Ancient Christian
Writers XXVIII (1959), 41; 189.
De Resurrectione Mortuorum (Res. Mort.)

A. Kroymann, CSEL XLVII (1906), 25; J. W. P. Borleffs, CCL
II. 919.
E. Evans, Tertullian’s Treatise on the Resurrection (i960).
De Spectaculis (Sped.)
A. Reifferscheid-G. Wissowa, CSEL XX (1890), 1; E. Dekkers,
CCL I. 225.
E. Castorina, Tertulliani De Spectaculis. Bibliotheca di studi superiori
XLVII (1961).
R. Arbesmann, Fathers of the Church XL (1959), 47.
De Testimonio Animae (Test. An.)

A. Reifferscheid-G. Wissowa, CSEL XX (1890), 134; R.
Willems,CCL I. 173.
C. Tibiletti, Q_. S. F. Tertulliani de testimonio animae. Pubblicazioni
della Facolta di Lettere e Filosofia dell’ Universita di Torino XI. 2
(1959)-
R. Arbesmann, Fathers of the Church X (1950), 131.
De Virginibus Velandis (Virg. Vel.)

G. F. Diercks, Quinti Septimii Florentis Tertulliani de oratione et de
virginibus velandis libri. Stromata patristica et mediaevalia IV
(*956), 37-
Scorpiace (Scorp.)
1067.
S. Thelwall, Ante-Nicene Christian Library XI (1869), 379.
Fragments
A. Harnack, CCL II. 1331.
Lost works
A. Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur bis Eusebius II
(1893), 671.
E. Dekkers, CCL I. v f.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The student of early Christianity is well equipped with general hand¬

books and classified bibliographies: for example, E. Dekkers, Clavis
Patrum Latinorum2 (Sacris Erudiri III, 1961); K. Baus, Handbook of
Church History I (1965), 447-505. For Tertullian in particular there
exist several recent and very full bibliographies:
J. H. Waszink, Tertulliani de Anima (1947), 597-620.
J. Quasten, Patrology II (1953), 248-340.
CCL I (1954), x-xxv.
B. Altaner-A. Stuiber, Patrologie1 (1966), 149-63.
What follows here does not attempt to cover the same ground yet
again, it is simply a guide to writings cited in the footnotes of the
present work. Periodical articles and reviews, items in Festschriften,
the transactions of academies and the like are included, whatever
their subject. Also books and monographs devoted largely or entirely
to Tertullian, but not editions and commentaries. Books on more
general subjects, however, are omitted.
Aalders, G. J. D. Tertullianus' Citaten uit de Euangelien en de oudlatijnsche

Bijbelvertalingen (1932).
Adam, K. ‘Die Chronologie der noch vorhandenen Schriften
Tertullians.’ Der Katholik 4 XXXVII (1908), 341; 416.
Agahd, R. ‘M. Terenti Varronis Antiquitatun rerum divinarum,
libri I, XIV, XV, XVI.’ Jahrbiicher fiir classiche Philologie, Supp.
XXIV (1898), 1.
Aland, K. ‘Bemerkungen zum Montanismus und zur friihchrist-
lichen Eschatologie.’ Kirchengeschichtliche Entwiirfe (i960), 105.
Ales, A. D’. La theologie de Tertullien (1905).
-‘Tertullien helleniste.’ Rev. et. gr. L (1937), 329.
Alfoldy, G. ‘Septimius Severus und der Senat.’ Bonner Jahrbiicher
CLXVIII (1968), 112.
Alfonsi, L. ‘SulP Ad Martyras di Tertulliano.’ In memoriam A.
Beltrami Miscellanea Philalogica (1954), 39.
Altaner, B. ‘Omnis ecclesia Petri propinqua.’ Theologische Revue
XXXVIII (1939)5 I29* Reprinted in Kleine patristische Schriften

(Texte u. Enters. LXXXIII, 1967), 540.
Altmann, R. ‘Das friiheste Vorkommen der Juden in Deutschland;
Juden im romischen Trier.’ Trierer feitschrift VI (1931), 104.
Anderson, J. G. C. ‘Some Questions bearing on the Date and Place
of Composition of Strabo’s Geography.’ Anatolian Studies presented to
Sir W. M. Ramsay (1923), 1.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 293
Andriessen, P. ‘L’Apologie de Quadratus conservee sous le titre
d’epitre a Diognete.’ Recherches de theologie ancienne et medievale XIII
(1946), 5; 125.
Badcock, F. J. ‘Le Credo primitif d’Afrique.’ Rev. benedictine XLV
(I933)> 3-
Baer, Y. ‘Israel, the Christian Church, and the Roman Empire.’
Scripta Hierosolymitana VII (1961), 79.
Bagnani, G. ‘Peregrinus Proteus and the Christians.’ Historia IV
(1955). io7-
Barnes, T. D. ‘The Family and Career of L. Septimius Severus.’
Historia XVI (1967), 87.
-‘Hadrian and Lucius Verus.’ JRS LVII (1967), 65.
-‘Pre-Decian Acta Martyrum.' JTS, N.S. XIX (1968), 509.
-‘Philostratus and Gordian.’ Latomus XXVII (1968), 581.
——‘Legislation against the Christians.’ JRS LVIII (1968), 32.
-‘Tertullian’s Scorpiaced JTS, N.S. XX (1969), 105.
-‘In Attali gratiam.’ Historia XVIII (1969), 383.
-‘Origen, Aquila and Eusebius’. Harv. Stud. LXXIV (1970), 313.
-‘The lost Kaisergeschichte and the Latin historical tradition.’
Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium ig68l6g (1970), 13.
-‘A Senator from Hadrumetum, and three others.’ Ib. 45.
-‘The Goddess Caelestis in the Historia Augustad JTS, N.S. XXI
(1970), 96.
-‘The Chronology of Montanism.’ Ib. 403.
-‘Three Neglected Martyrs’. JTS, N.S. XXII (1971), 159.
Baus, K. Der Kranz in Antike und Christentum. Eine religionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung mit besonderer Beriicksichtigung Tertullians. Theophaneia
II (1940).
Baxter, J. H. ‘The Martyrs of Madaura. A.D. 180.’ JTS XXVI
(I924/25). 21.
Beck, A. ‘Romisches Recht bei Tertullian und Cyprian.’ Schriften
der Konigsberger gelehrten Gesellschaft, Geisteswiss. Kl. VII/2 (1930).
Becker, C. Tertullians Apologeticum. Werden und Leistung (1954).
-Review of G. Saflund, De Pallio und die stilistische Entwicklung
Tertullians (1955). Gnomon XXVIII (1956), 426.
Berchem, D. Van. ‘Le De Pallio de Tertullien et le conflit du
christianisme et de l’empire.’ Mus. Helv. I (1944), 100.
Berger, A. Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law. Trans. Amer. Phil.
Soc., N.S. XLIII (1953), 333.
Beyschlag, K. ‘Kallist und Hippolyt.’ Theol. Jeitschr. XX (1964),
103.
Bickel, E. ‘Fiunt, non nascuntur Christiani.’ Pisciculi. Studien zur
Religion und Kultur des Altertums F. J. Dolger zum sechzigsten Geburtstage
dargeboten (1939), 54-
u
294 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bill,A. fur Erklarung und Textkritik des I. Buches Tertullians Adversus

Marcionem. Texte u. Unters. XXXVIII. 2 (1911).
Bishop, W. C. ‘The African Rite.’ JTS XIII (1911/12), 250.
Bloch, H. ‘The Pagan Revival in the West at the End of the
Fourth Century.’ The Conflict between Paganism arid Christianity in the
Fourth Century (ed. A. Momigliano, 1963), 193.
Bohlig, A. ‘Der jiidische und judenchristliche Hintergrund in
gnostischen Texten von Nag Hammadi.’ Le Origini dello Gnosticismo
(ed. U. Bianchi): Studies in the History of Religions XII (1967), 109.
Reprinted as two papers in Mysterion und Wahrheit (1968), 80; 102.
Borleffs, J. W. P. De Tertulliano et Minucio Felice (Diss. Groningen,
!925)- _
-‘Institutum Neronianum.’ Vig. Chr. VI (1952), 129.
Bowersock, G. W. ‘Zur Geschichte des romischen Thessaliens.’
Rhein. Mus., N.F. CVIII (1965), 277.
-‘Pseudo-Xenophon.’ Harv. Stud. LXXI (1966), 33.
-‘The Proconsulate of Albus.’ Harv. Stud. LXXII (1967), 289.
Braun, R. ‘Tertullien est-il le redacteur de la Passio PerpetuaeV
Rev. et. lat. XXXIII (1955), 79.
---Deus Christianorum.’ Recherches sur le vocabulaire doctrinal de Ter¬
tullien. Publications de la Faculte des Lettres et Sciences Humaines d’Alger
XLI (1962).
-’Observations sur l’architecture de V Apologeticum'. Hommages a
J. Bayet (1964), 114.
■-‘Aux origines de la chretiente d’Afrique, un homme de combat,
Tertullien.’ Bulletin de VAssociation Guillaume Bude 1965, 189.
Buhler, W. ‘Gibt es einen gemeinsamen Archetypus der beiden
Uberlieferungsstrange von Tertullians Apologeticum ?’ Philologus
CIX (1965), 121.
Bulhart, V. Tertullian-Studien. Sitzungsber. d. oster. Akad. d. Wiss. zu
Wien, Phil.-hist. Kl. CCXXXI. 5 (1957).
Buresch, K. ‘Consolationum a Graecis Romanisque scriptarum
historia critica.’ Leipziger Studien IX (1886), 1.
Bursian, C. ‘Der Rhetor Menandros und seine Schriften.’ Abhand. d.
phil.-hist. Kl. d. kon. bayer. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Miinchen XVI. 3 (1882),
1.
Callewaert, ‘Le Codex Fuldensis, le meilleur manuscrit de
C.
1’Apologeticum de Tertullien.’ Rev. hist. litt. rel. VII (1902), 322.
La valeur du Codex Fuldensis pour le retablissement du texte
de 1’Apologeticum de Tertullien.’ MelangesC. Moeller I (1914), 165.
Cameron, A. D. E. ‘Literary Allusions in the Historia Augusta.’
Hermes XCII (1964), 363.
-‘The Fate of Pliny’s Letters in the Late Empire.’ CO LIX
(1965), 289.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 295
-‘Pliny’s Letters in the Later Empire: an Addendum.’ CQ,LXI
(1967), 421.
Campos, J. ‘El autor de la “Passio SS. Perpetuae et Felicitatis”.’
Helmantica X (1959), 357.
Capua, F. Di. Le clausole metriche nelV ‘Apologetico* di Tertulliano e le
varianti del Codex Fuldensis. Reprinted from La scuola cattolica XL
(1912).
Carcopino, J. ‘Survivances par substitution des sacrifices d’enfants
dans l’Afrique romaine.’ Rev. hist. rel. CVI (1932), 592. Reprinted
in Aspects mystiques de la Rome paienne (1942), 39.
Carlson, M. L. ‘Pagan Examples of Fortitude in the Latin Christian
Apologists.’ Class. Phil. XLIII (1948), 93.
Caron, P. G. ‘Les seniores laid de l’eglise africaine.’ Rev. int. des
droits de l’ant. VI (1951), 7.
Carratello, U. ‘Apuleio mori nel 163-164?’ Giorn. ital. difil. XVI
(1963). 97-
Cintas, P. ‘Le sanctuaire punique de Sousse.’ Rev. africaine. XCI
(1947). i-
-‘Deux campagnes de fouilles a Utique.’ Karthago II (1951), 5.
Clarke, G. W. ‘The Secular Profession of St. Cyprian of Carthage.’
Latomus XXIV (1965), 633.
-‘Some Victims of the Persecution of Maximinus Thrax.’
Historia XV (1966), 445.
-‘The Capitol in 390 b.c.’ CR LXXXI (1967), 138.
-‘Some Observations on the Persecution of Decius.’ Antichthon
III (1969), 63.
Corsaro, F. ‘Note sugli Acta martyrum Scillitanorum.' Nuovo Didaskaleion
IV (1956), 5-
Croix, G. E. M. de Ste. ‘Aspects of the “Great Persecution”.’
Harv. Theol. Rev. XLVII (1954), 75.
-‘Why were the Early Christians persecuted?’ Past and Present
XXVI (1963), 3.
——-‘Christianity’s Encounter with the Roman Imperial Govern¬
ment.’ The Crucible of Christianity (ed. A. J. Toynbee, 1969), 345.
Dani£lou, J. ‘Bulletin d’histoire des origines chretiennes.’ Re-
cherches de science religieuse LVII (1969), 75.
Decarie, V. ‘Le paradoxe de Tertullien.’ Vig. Chr. XV (1961), 23.
Dekkers, E. Tertullianus en de geschiedenis der liturgie. Catholica VI. 2
(:947)-
Dessau, H. ‘liber einige Inschriften aus Cirta.’ Hermes XV (1880),
471.
Dolger, F. J. ‘Gladiatorenblut und Martyrerblut.’ Vortrage der
Bibliothek Warburg 1 §23-24 (1926), 196.
296 BIBLIOGRAPHY
-‘Antike Parallelen zum leidenden Dinocrates in der Passio

Perpetuae.’ Antike und Christentum II (1930), 1.
--‘Tertullian iiber die Bluttaufe.’ Ib. 117.
-‘Der Kampf mit dem Agypter in der Perpetua-Vision. Das
Martyrium als Kampf mit dem Teufel.’ Ib. Ill (1932), 177.
-‘Zu den Zeremonien der Messliturgie. III.’ Ib. VI. 2 (1940), 81.
Domaszewski, A. von. Die Personennamen bei den Scriptores historiae
Augustae. Sitzungsber. d. Heidelberger Akad. d. Wiss., Phil.-hist. Kl.
1918, Abhand. 13.
Duncan-Jones, R. P. ‘The Chronology of the Priesthood of Africa
Proconsularis under the Principate.’ Epigraphische Studien V (1968),
I5I-
Elmslie, W. A. L. The Mishna on Idolatry, ’Aboda Pâra. Texts and
StudiesNlll. 2 (1911).
Esser, G. Wer war Praxeas? (Prog. Bonn, 1910).
Faggiotto, A. ‘La diaspora catafrigia: Tertulliano e la “Nuova
Profezia”.’ Collezione rPA&H IV (1924).
Ferrini, C. ‘Die juristischen Kenntnisse des Arnobius und des
Lactantius.’ £eitsehr. Sav. St., Roman. Abt. XV (1894), 343.
Ferron, J. ‘Inscriptions juives de Carthage.’ Cahiers de Byrsa I (1951),
175-
-‘fipigraphie juive.’ Ib. VI (1956), 99.
-‘Un hypogee juif.’ Ib. 105.
Fevrier, P. A. ‘Remarques sur les inscriptions funeraires datees de
Mauretanie Cesarienne orientale.’ Mel. d’arch. et d’hist. LXXVI
(1964), 105.
Fletcher, G. B. A. ‘Stylistic borrowings and parallels in Ammianus
Marcellinus.’ Rev. philA XI (1937), 377.
Ford, J. M. ‘Was Montanism a Jewish-Christian Heresy?’ JEH
XVII (1966), 145.
Franchi de’ Cavalieri, P. ‘Sopra alcuni passi del De Corona di
Tertulliano.’ Note agiografiche VIII. Studi e Testi LXV (1935), 357.
Frassinetti, ‘L’orazione di Frontone contro i cristiani.’ Giorn. ital. di
JiZ. 11^(1949), 238.
——‘Gli scritti matrimoniali di Seneca e Tertulliano.’ Rend. 1st.
Lombardo, Classe di Lettere LXXXVIII (1955), 151.
-‘Nuovi studi sul testo dell’Apologeticum.’ Ib. XCI (1957), 3.
-‘Nuova e vetera sul testo dell’Apologeticum.’ Le parole e le idee
VIII (1966), 259.
Fredouille, J.-C. ‘Valentiniana.’ Vig. Chr. XX (1966), 45.
-‘Adversus Marcionem I, 29. Deux etats de la redaction du traite.’
Rev. et. aug. XIII (1967). 1.
Frend,W. H. C. ‘The Seniores Laid and the Origins of the Church in
North Africa.’ JTS, N.S. XII (1961), 280.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 297
-Review of M. Sordi, II Cristianesimo e Roma (1965), CR LXXXI
(l9^7), 195 -
-‘Tertulliano e gli Ebrei.’ Rivista di storia e letteratura religiosa IV

(1968), 3.
-‘A Note on Jews and Christians in Third-century North
Africa: JTS, N.S. XXI (1970), 92.
Gage, J. ‘Nouveaux Aspects de l’Afrique chretienne.’ Annales de
VEcole des Hautes-Iitudes de Gand I (1937), 181.
Garnsey, P. D. A. ‘The Lex Julia and Appeal under the Empire.’
JRS LVI (1966), 167.
--‘Adultery Trials and the Survival of the Qiiaestiones in the
Severan Age.’ JRS LVII (1967), 56.
Garcia y Bellido, A. ‘Lapidas votivas a deidades exoticas halladas
recientemente en Astorga y Leon.’ Boletin de la Real Academia de la
Historia CLXIII (1968), 191.
Gatscha, F. ‘Quaestionum Apuleianarum capita triad Dissertationes
philologae Vindobonenses VI (1898), 139.
Gauckler, P. ‘Les fouilles de Tunisie.’ Rev. arch.3 XLI (1902), 269.
Gebhardt, O. von. Der sogenannte Sophronius. Texte u. Unters. XIV.
Ib. (1896).
Geffcken, J. ‘Die Stenographic in den Akten der Martyrer.’
Archiv fur Stenographic LVII (1906), 81.
-Kynika und Verwandtes (1909).
-‘Die christlichen Martyrien.’ Hermes XLV (1910), 481.
Grant, R. M. ‘The Chronology of the Greek Apologists.’ Vig. Chr.
IX (1955), 25.
-‘Gnosis Revisited.’ Church History XXIII (1954), 36. Reprinted
as ‘Gnosticism and the Problem of Methodology’, in After the
New Testament (1967), 195.
-‘Gnostic and Christian Worship.’ Ib. 173. Reprinted from
McCormick Quarterly (1965).
Griset, E. ‘Un cristiano di Sabratha.’ Rivista di studi classici V
(1957)3 35-
Groningen, B. A. van. ‘General Literary Tendencies in the Second
Century a.d.’ Mnemosyne4 XVIII (1965), 41.
Grosso, F. ‘Tertulliano e l’uccisione di Pertinace.’ Rendiconti Acc.
Naz. dei Lincei8 XXI (1966), 140.
Gsell, S. ‘Tipasa, ville de la Mauretanie Cesarienne.’ Mel. d'arch, te
d’hist. XIV (1894), 291.
Guarino, A. ‘L’oggetto del “castrense peculium”.’ Bull. 1st. Dir.
Rom. XLVIII (1941), 41.
C. Tertullien. Etude sur ses sentiments a regard de VEmpire et
Guignebert,
de la societe civile (Diss. Paris, 1901).
298 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Guilloux, P. ‘L’fi volution religieuse de Tertullien.’ Rev. hist. eccl.

XIX (1923), 5; 141.
Hanson, R. P. C. ‘Notes on Tertullian’s Interpretation of Scripture.’
JTS, N.S. XII (1961), 273.
Harnack, A. von. ‘Zur Chronologie der Schriften Tertullians.’
feitschr. fiir Kirchengesch. II (1878), 572.
—-—Die griechische Ubersetzung des Apologeticum Tertullian’s. Texte u.
Unters. VIII. 4 (1892).
-‘Tertullian in der Litteratur der alten Kirche.’ Sitzungsber. d.
kon. preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin XXIX (1895), 545.
-Das Leben Cyprians von Pontius. Texte u. Unters. XXXIX. 3 (1913).
---‘Tertullians Bibliothek christlicher Schriften.’ Sitzungsber. d.
kon. preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin 1914, 303.
-‘Porphyrius, “Gegen die Christen”, 15 Bucher. Zeugnisse,
Fragmente und Referate.’ Abhand. d. kon. preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. zu
Berlin, Phil.-hist. Kl. 1916, 1.
—-Marcion. Das Evangelium vom fremden Gott.2 Texte u. Unters. XLV
(1924).
■-‘Ecclesia Petri propinqua. Zur Geschichte der Anfange des
Primats des romischen Bischofs.’ Sitzungsber. d. preuss. Akad. d.
Wiss. zu Berlin, Phil.-hist. Kl. 1927, 139.
Hartlich, P. ‘De exhortationum a Graecis Romanisque scriptarum
historia et indole.’ Leipziger Studien XI (1889), 207.
Hatch, W. H. P. ‘A Manuscript of Jerome’s De Viris Illustribus
belonging to the General Theological Seminary in New York.’
Harv. Stud. XXIII (1912), 47.
Heer, J. M. ‘Der historische Wert der Vita Commodi in der Samm-
lung der Scriptores Historiae Augustae.’ Philologus, Supp. IX
(1904), 1.
Heinze, R. ‘Tertullians Apologeticum.’ Bericht iiber die Verhandlungen
d. kon. sacks. Ges. d. Wiss. zu Leipzig, Phil.-hist. Kl. LXII (1910),
281.
Helm, R. ‘Apuleius’ Apologie, ein Meisterwerk der zweiten
Sophistik.’ Altertum I (1955), 86.
Herrmann, L. ‘L’Ane d’or et le christianisme.’ Latomus XII (1953),
188.
Hesky, R. ‘Zur Abfassungszeit der Metamorphosen des Apuleius.’
Wiener Studien XXVI (1904), 71.
Hirschfeld, O. ‘Die Sicherheitspolizei im romischen Kaiserreich.’
Sitzungsber. d. kon. preuss. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin XXV (1891), 845.
Reprinted in Kleine Schriften (1913), 576.
Hoffmann, AI. Der Dialog bei den chnstlichen Schrif tstellern der ersten vier
Jahrhunderte. Texte u. Unters. XGVI (1966).
BIBLIOGRAPHY 299
Hohl, E. ‘liber den Ursprung der Historia Augusta.’ Hermes LV
(192°), 296.
■-Kaiser Pertinax und die Thronbesteigung seines Nachfolgers im Lichte
der Herodiankritik. Sitzungsber. d. deut. Akad. d. Wiss. zu Berlin,
Klasse fur Philosophic usw. 1956, Nr. 2.
Holl, K. ‘Tertullian als Schriftsteller.’ Preussische Jahrbiicher
LXXXVIII (1897), 262. Reprinted in Gesammelte Aufsatze III
(1928), 1.
Hoppe, H. De sermone Tertullianeo quaestiones selectae. (Diss. Marburg,
1897)-
-Syntax und Stil des Tertullian (1903).
-Beitrage zur Sprache und Kritik Tertullians. Skrifter utgivna av
Vetenskap-Societeten i Lund XIV (1932).
Hopkins, M. K. ‘The Age of Roman Girls at Marriage.’ Population
Studies XVIII (1965), 309.
Hoppenbrouwers, H. A. M. Recherches sur la terminologie du martyre de
Tertullien a Lactance. Latinitas Christianorum Primaeva XV (1961).
Hornus, J. M. ‘fitude sur la pensee politique de Tertullien.’ Rev.
d’hist. et de phil. rel. XXXVIII (1958), 1.
Huemer, J. ‘Studien zu den altesten christlich-lateinischen Literar-
historikern.’ Wiener Studien XVI (1894), 121.
Instinsky, H. U. ‘Marcus Aurelius Prosenes—Freigelassener und
Christ am Kaiserhof.’ Abhand. d. Akad. d. Wiss. in Mainz, Geistes-
und Sozialwiss. Kl. 1963, Nr. 3, 111.
Jachmann, G. ‘Das Problem der Urvariante in der Antike und die
Grundlagen der Ausoniuskritik.’ Concordia Decennalis, deutsche
Italienforschungen. Festschrift zum 10-jahrigen Bestehen des deutsch-
italienischen Kulturinstituts Petrarcahaus (1941), 47.
Jones, C. P. ‘The Younger Pliny and Jerome.’ Phoenix XXI (1967),
301.
Jung, J. ‘Zu Tertullians auswartigen Beziehungen.’ Wiener Studien
XIII (1891), 231.
Karpp,H. ‘Sorans vier Bucher Hepl Tvxrjs und Tertullians Schrift
De Anima.’ feitschr. fUr neutest. Wiss. XXXIII (1934), 31.
_Schrift und Geist bei Tertullian. Beitrage zur Forderung christlicher
Theologie. XLVII (1955)-
-‘Die Zahl der scilitanischen Martyrer.’ Vig. Chr. XV (1961),
165.
Kellner, H. ‘Uber Tertullians Abhandlung de pallio und das
Jahr seines libertrittes zum Christentum.’ Theol. Quartalschr. LII
(1870), 547.
-‘Organischer Zusammenhang und Chronologie der Schriften
Tertullian’s.’ Der Katholik2 XLII (1879)9 581*
—Chronologiae Tertullianeae Supplementa (Prog. Bonn, 1890).
300 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Keseling, P. ‘Aristoteles bei Tertullian?’ Philosophisches Jahrbuch

LVII (1947), 256.
Kilpatrick, G. D. ‘I Tim. V. 22 and Tertullian, De Baptismo
XVIII. 1.’ JTS, N.S. XVI (1965), 127.
Kittel, G. ‘Die Ausbreitung des Judentums bis zum Beginn des
Mittelalters.’ Forschungen zur Judenfrage V (1941), 290.
Klein, J. Tertullian: Christliches Bewusstsein und sittliche Forderungen
(Diss. Bonn, 1940).
Klein, R. Tertullian und das romische Reich. Bibliothek der klassischen
Altertumswissenschaften, N.F. II. 22 (1968).
Klussmann, M. Curarum Tertullianearum particulae I et II. (Diss.
Halle, 1881).
Knaake, J. A. ‘Die Predigten des Tertullian und Cyprian’. Theolo-
gische Studien und Kritiken LXXVI (1903), 608.
Koch, H. ‘War Tertullian Priester?’ Hist. Jahrbuch der Gorresgesell-
schaft XXVIII (1907), 95.
-——‘Tertullians Laienstand.’ Jeitschr. fiir Kirchengesch. XXXV
(1914), 1 •
-‘Tertullianisches.’ Theologische Studien und Kritiken Cl (1929),
458.
-‘Nochmals: War Tertullian Priester?’ Theologische Studien und
Kritiken CIII (1931), 108.
Kruger, G. Review of E. Noeldechen, Die Abfassungszeit der Schriften
Tertullians (1888). Literarisches Centralblatt fiir Deutschland 1889, 458.
Kuss, O. ‘Zur Hermeneutik Tertullians’. Neutestamentliche Aufsatze.
Festschrift fiir Prof. J. Schmid (1963), 138.
Labriolle, P. de. ‘Tertullien jurisconsulte.’ Nouv. rev. d’hist. de
droit fr. et etr. XXX (1906), 5.
-‘La physiologie dans l’oeuvre de Tertullien.’ Archives generales de
medecine LXXXIII (1906), 1317.
-Review of G. Esser, Wer war Praxeas? (1910). Bull, d'anc. litt. et
d’arch. chret. I (1911), 228.
——‘Tertullien, auteur du prologue et de la conclusion de la Passion
de Perpetue et de Felicite.’ Ib. Ill (1913), 126.
-‘Tertullien etait-il pretre?’ Ib. 161.
---‘Le style de la Lettre des chretiens de Lyon dans Eusebe.’ Ib.
198.
Lehnert, G. ‘Bericht uber die Literatur zu Apuleius und zur
Historia Apollonii regis Tyri aus den Jahren 1897-1914.’ Bursians
Jahresber. CLXXI (1915), 147.
Lejay, P. ‘Les Origines de l’figlise d’Afrique et l’Eglise romaine.’
Melanges G. Kurth II (1908), 41.
Levy,E. ‘Paulus und der Sentenzenverfasser.’ Jeitschr. Sav. St.
Roman. Abt. L (1930), 272.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 301
Lietzmann, H. ‘Die alteste Gestalt der Passio SS. Carpi, Papylae et

Agathonices.’ Festgabe fur K. Muller (1922), 46. Reprinted in
Kleine Schriften I (Texte u. Unters. LXVII, 1958), 239.
Lofstedt, E. Tertullians Apologeticum textkritisch untersucht. Lunds
Universitets Arsskrift, N.F. XI (1915).
-Kritische Bemerkungen zu Tertullians Apologeticum. Ib. XIV (1918).
Lopuszanski, G. ‘La police romaine et les chretiens.’ Ant. class. XX
(!95!)> 5-
Lortz, J. ‘Vernunft und Offenbarung bei Tertullian.’ Der Katholik4
XLII (1913), 124.
---Tertullian als Apologet. Miinsterische Beitrage zur Theologie IX/X
(1927/28).
Mahe, J.-P. ‘Le traite perdu de Tertullien “Adversus Apelleiacos”
et la chronologie de sa triade anti-gnostique.’ Rev. et. aug. XVI
(1970). 3-
Mason, A. J. ‘Tertullian and Purgatory.’ JTS III (1902), 598.
McGann, H. J. ‘The Authorship of Lucan, Fr. 12 (Morel).’ CQ
LI (1957)5 126.
Memoli, A. F. ‘Influssi della scuola asiana e della tradizione
biblica sulla “Parisosis” nelle prose di Tertulliano.’ Aevum XL
(1966), 1.
Merrill, E. T., ‘Zur friihen Uberlieferungsgeschichte des Brief-
wechsels zwischen Plinius und Trajan.’ Wiener Studien XXXI
(1909), 250.
Mertens, P. ‘La damnatio memoriae de Geta dans les papyrus.’
Hommages a L. Herrmann (i960), 541.
Metzger, B. M. ‘Methodology in the Study of the Mystery Reli¬
gions and Early Christianity.’ Harv. Theol. Rev. XLVIII (1955), 1.
Reprinted in Historical and Literary Studies (New Testament Tools and
Studies VIII, 1968), 1.
Millar, F. ‘The Date of the Constitutio Antoninianad Journ. of
Egypt. Arch. XLVIII (1962), 124.
-‘Epictetus and the Imperial Court.’ JRS LV (1965), 141.
-‘The Emperor, the Senate and the Provinces. ’JRS LVI (1966) 156.
-Review of W. H. C. Frend, Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early
Church (1965). Ib. 231.
-‘Emperors at Work.’ JRS LVII (1967), 9.
--Review of A.N. Sherwin-White, The Letters ofPliny(ig66). Ib. 218.
-‘Local Cultures in the Roman Empire: Libyan, Punic and
Latin in Roman Africa.’ JRS LVIII (1968), 126.
_‘P. Herennius Dexippus: The Greek World and the Third-
Century Invasions.’ JRS LIX (1969), 12.
Moffatt,J. ‘Aristotle and Tertullian.’ JTS XVII (1915/16), 170.
302 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Mohrmann, C. ‘Les origines de la Latinite chretienne a Rome.’

Vig. Chr. Ill (1949), 67; 163. Reprinted in Etudes sur le Latin des
Chretiens III (1965), 67.
-‘S. Jerome et S. Augustin sur Tertullien.’ Vig. Chr. V (1951), 111.
Reprinted in Etudes III (1965), 387.
-‘Le conflit pascal au IIe siecle.’ Vig. Chr. XVI (1962), 154.
Moingt, J. Theologie trinitaire de Tertullien I—III, IV. The'ologie
LXVIII-LXX (1966), LXXV (1969).
Momigliano, A. ‘Note sulla leggenda del cristianesimo di
Seneca.’ Rivista storica italiana LXII (1950), 325. Reprinted in
Contributo alia storia degli studi classici (1955), 13.
Monceaux, P. ‘Apulee magicien. Histoire d’une legende africaine.’
Revue des deux mondes LXXXV (1888), 571.
-‘Chronologie des oeuvres de Tertullien.’ Rev.phil.2 XXII (1898),
77-
-Histoire litteraire de UAfrique chretienne I: Tertullien et les Origines
(l9°i).
-‘Les colonies juives dans l’Afrique romaine.’ Rev. et. juives XLIV
(1902), 1.
-‘Les seniores laid.’ Bull. Soc. Nat. Ant. de France 1903, 283.
-‘Enquete sur l’epigraphie chretienne d’Afrique II. Inscriptions
juives.’ Rev. arch A III (1904), 361.
Moreschini, C. ‘Reminiscenze Apuleiane nel De Anima di Ter-
tulliano?’ Maia XX (1968), ig.
-‘L’Adversus Marcionem nell’ ambito dell’ attivita letteraria di
Tertulliano.’ Omaggio a E. Fraenkel (1968), 113.
Nautin, P. ‘La date du De Viris Inlustribus de Jerome, de la mort
de Cyrille de Jerusalem et de celle de Gregoire de Nazianze.’
Rev. hist. eccl. LVI (1961), 33.
Neander, A. Antignostikus. Geist des Tertullianus2 (1849).
Nisters, B. Tertullian. Seine Personlichkeit und sein Schicksal. Ein
characterologischer Versuch. Miinsterische Beitrage zur Theologie XXV
(T95°)-
Nock, A. D. ‘Gnosticism.’ Harv. Theol. Rev. LVII (1964), 255.
Noeldechen, E. ‘Tertullian als Mensch und als Burger.’ Hist.
Zeitschr. LIV (1885), 225.
-‘Die Krisis im karthagischen Schleierstreit. 206.’ Ze^sc^r- for
kirchliche Wissenschaft und kirchliches Leben VII (1886), 46.
-‘Das Odeum Karthagos und Tertullians Scorpiace. 212.’ Ib. 87.
-‘Tertullian von dem Mantel. Eine Prosasatire des Kaiserreiches.’
Jahrbiicher for protestantische Theologie XII (1886), 615.
——‘Tertullians Geburtsjahr.’ Zeitschrift fur wissenschaftliche Theologie
XXIX (1886), 207.
-‘Tertullian vom Fasten.’ Ib. XXX (1887), 187.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 303
-‘Tertullian in Griechenland.’ Ib. 385.
-‘Das romische Katzchenhotel und Tertullian nach dem
Partherkrieg.’ Ib. XXXI (1888), 207; 343.
-Die Abfassungszeit der Schriften Tertullians. Texte u. Unters. V. 2
(1888), 1.
-‘Tertullian und die Kaiser.’ Hist. Taschenbuch6 VII (1888), 157.
-‘Zeitgeschichtliche Anspielungen in den Schriften Tertullians.’
Zeitschr. fur wiss. Theol. XXXII (1889), 411.
-Tertullian (1890).
Onnerfors, A. Review of P. Frassinetti, (X Septimi Florentis Ter-
tulliani Apologeticum (1965). Gnomon XXXVIII (1966), 782.
Oliver, J. H. and Palmer, R. E. A. ‘Minutes of an Act of the
Roman Senate.’ Hesperia XXIV (1955), 320.
O’Malley, T. P. Tertullian and the Bible. Language-Imagery-Exegesis.
Latinitas Christianorum Primaeva XXI (1967).
Opelt, I. ‘Der Christenverfolger bei Prudentius.’ Philologus CXI
(1967), 242.
Orbe, A. Los primer os herejes ante la persecucion. Estudios Valentinianos V
(.Analecta Gregoriana LXXXIII, 1956).
Oswiecimski, S. De scriptorum Romanorum vestigiis apud Tertullianum
obviis quaestiones selectae. Polska Akademia Umiejetnocsi, Archiwum
Filologiczne XXIV (1951).
Paciorkowski, R. ‘L’heroisme religieux d’apres la Passion des
saintes Perpetue et Felicite. Rev. e't. aug. V (1959), 367.
Panvini Rosati, F. ‘Denario inedito di Caracalla—Gaudia Publica. ’
Arch, class. IV (1952), 209.
Pauw, F. de. ‘La justification des traditions non ecrites chez Tertul-
lien.’ Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses XIX (1942), 5.
Pellegrino, M. ‘L’elemento propagandistico e protrettico negli
apologeti greci del II secolo.’ Riv. Jil. XIX (1941), 1; 97.
Reprinted in Studi su V antic a apologetica (1947), 1.
Petre, H. Eexemplum chez Tertullien (1940).
Pflaum, H.-G. ‘Lucien de Samosate, Archistator praefecti Aegypti,
d’apres une inscription de Cesaree de Mauretanie.’ Mel. d1arch, et
ddhist. LXXI (1959), 281.
Piana, G. LA. ‘The Roman Church at the End of the Second Cen¬
tury.’ Harv. Theol. Rev. XVII (1925), 201.
Picard, G. C. ‘Les Sacerdotes Saturni et les Sacrifices Humaines
dans l’Afrique Romaine.’ Recueil de Constantine LXVI (1948), 117.
-‘Civitas Mactaritana.’ Karthago VIII (1957? publ. 1958).
Pichon, R. ‘L’origine du recueil des “Panegyrici Latini”.’ Rev. et.
anc. VIII (1906), 229.

Poinssot, C. ‘Statues du Temple de Saturne (Thugga).’ Karthago VI
(1955). 3°-
3°4 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Poinssot, L. and Lantier, R. ‘Un sanctuaire de Tanit a Carthage.’

Rev. hist. rel. LXXXVII (1923), 32.
Quacquarelli, A. ‘La persecuzione secondo Tertulliano.’ Gre-
gorianum XXXI (1950), 562.
Quispel, G. De Bronnen van Tertullianus’ Adversus Marcionem (1943).
-‘De humor van Tertullianus.’ Nederlands Theologisch Tijd-
schrift II (1947/48), 280.
Ramsay, W. M. ‘Studies in the Roman Province Galatia VI.’ JRS
XIV (1924), 172.
Rauch, G. Der Einfluss der stoischen Philosophic auf die Lehrbildung
Tertullians (Diss. Halle-Wittenberg, 1890).
M. D. ‘Author’s Variants in Longus ?’ Proc. Camb. Phil. Soc.
Reeve,
CXCV (1969), 75.
—‘Seven Notes.’ CR, N.S. XX (1970), 134.
Reichmann,V. Romische Literatur in griechischer Ubersetzung. Philologus,
Supp. XXXIV. 3 (1943).
Reitzenstein, R. Die Nachrichten iiber den Tod Cyprians. Sitzungsber. d.
Heidelberger Akad. d. Wiss., Phil.-hist. Kl. 1913, Abhand. 14.
Richard, M. ‘La question pascale au IIe siecle.’ Uorient syrien VI
(1961), 179-
Richardson, E. C. Hieronymus liber de viris illustribus-Gennadius liber de
viris illustribus. Texte u. Unters. XIV. ia (1896).
Riddle, D. W. ‘Die Verfolgungslogien in formgeschichtlicher und
soziologischer Beleuchtung.’ feitschr. fur neutest. Wiss. XXXIII
(1934), 271.
Ritterling, E. ‘Military Forces in the Senatorial Provinces.’ JRS
XVII (1927), 28.
Robert, L. ‘Pantomimen im griechischen Orient.’ Hermes LXV
(1930), 106.
Robertson, D. S. ‘The Authenticity and Date of Lucian De Salta-
tioned Essays and Studies presented to W. Ridgeway (1913), 180.
Robinson, J. A. The Passion of St. Perpetua, with an Appendix on the
Scillitan Martyrs. Texts and Studies I. 2 (1891).
Rohde, E. ‘Sardinische Sage von den Neunschlafern.’ Rhein. Mus.,
N.F. XXXV (1880), 157; XXXVII (1882), 465. Reprinted in
Kleine Schriften II (1901), 197.
-‘Zu Apuleius.’ Rhein. Mus., N.F. XL (1885), 66. Reprinted in
Kl. Schr. II (1901), 43.
Rordorf, W. ‘Tertullians Beurteilung des Soldatenstandes.’ Vig.
Chr. XXIII (1969), 105.
Ruggini, L. ‘Ebrei e orientali nellTtalia settentrionale fra il IV e
il VI secolo d.Cr.’ Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris XXV
(!959), 186.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 305
Rupprecht, E. ‘Bemerkungen zur Passio SS. Perpetuae et Felici-

tatis.’ Rhein. Mus., N.F. XC (1941), 177.
Saflund, G. De Pallio und die stilistische Entwicklung Tertullians.
Skrifter utguivna av Svenska Institutet i Rom 8° VIII (1955).
Sauneron, S. ‘Les querelles imperiales vues a travers les scenes du
temple d’Esne.’ Bull, de Vinst.fr. d’arch. orient. LI (1952), 111.
Schemmel, F. ‘Die Schule von Karthago.’ Phil. Wochenschrift XLVII
(1927), 1342.
Schlegel, G. D. ‘The Ad Martyras of Tertullian and the Circum¬
stances of its Composition.’ Downside Review LXIII (1945), 125.
Schlossmann, S. ‘Tertullian im Lichte der Jurisprudenz.’ feitschr.
fur Kirchengesch. XXVII (1906), 251; 407.
Schrors, H. fur Textgeschichte und Erklarung von Tertullians Apologeti-
cum. Texte u. Enters. XL. 4 (1914).
Schummer, J. Die altchristliche Fastenpraxis mit besonderer Beriick-
sichtigung der Schriften Tertullians. Liturgiegeschichtliche Quellen und
Forschungen XXVII (1933).
Schwartz, E. ‘Zur Geschichte des Athanasius. V.’ JVachr. d. kdn. Ges.
d. Wiss. zu Gottingen, Phil.-hist. Kl. ioo-s, 164. Reprinted in Ges.
Schr. Ill (1959), 87. _
-‘Zwei Predigten Hippolyts.’ Sitzungsber. d. bayer. Akad. d. Wiss.
zu Miinchen, Phil.-hist. Abt. 1936, Nr. 3.
Seliga, S. ‘De conviciis Tertullianeis.’ Eos XXXVII (1936), 267.
Seston, W. ‘Sur les traces de Marius Maximus I. Marius Maximus
et les consuls de 209.’ Bonner Historia-Augusta-Colloquium igGqjGy
(1966), 211.
Shewring, W. H. ‘Prose Rhythm in the Passio S. Perpetuae.’ JTS
XXX (1928/29), 56.
——-‘En marge de la Passion des Saintes Perpetue et Felicite.’ Rev.
benedictine XLIII (1931), 15.
Sider, R. ‘Structure and Design in the “De Resurrectione Mor-
tuorum” of Tertullian.’ Vig. Chr. XXIII (1969), 177.
Simon, M. ‘Le Juda'isme berbere dans l’Afrique ancienne.’ Rev. hist,
phil. rel. XXVI (1946), 1; 105. Reprinted in Recherches d’Histoire
Judeo-Chretienne. Etudes juives VI (1962), 30.
Simonetti, M. ‘Qualche osservazione a proposito dell’origini degli
Atti dei martiri.’ Rev. et. aug. II (1956), 39.
Siniscalco, P. Ricerche sul ‘De Resurrectione’ di Tertulliano. Verba
Seniorum, N.S. VI (1966).
Skutsch, O. ‘The Fall of the Capitol.’ JRS XLIII (1953), 77.
Soden, H. von. ‘Die Prosopographie des afrikanischen Episkopats

zur Zeit Cyprians.’ Quellen und Forschungen aus italienischen Archiven
und Bibliotheken XII (1909), 247.
306 BIBLIOGRAPHY
Souter, A. ‘A Tenth-Century Fragment of Tertullian’s Apology.’

JTS VIII (1907), 297.
Steinwenter, A. Review of A. Beck, Romisches Recht bei Tertullian
undCyprian (1930). Jeitschr. Sav. St., Roman. Abt. LII (1932), 412.
Stirnimann, J. Die Praescriptio Tertullians im Lichte des romischen Rechts
und der Theologie. Paradosis III (1949).
Syme,R. ‘Personal Names in Annates I-VI.’ JRS XXXIX (1949), 6.
Reprinted in Ten Studies in Tacitus (1970), 60.
--‘Tacfarinas, the Musulamii and Thubursicu.’ Studies in Roman
Economic and Social History in honor of A. C. Johnson (1951), 113.
-‘Proconsuls d’Afrique sous Antonin le Pieux.’ Rev. et. anc. LXI
(1959), 3IO>
-‘Governors of Pannonia Inferior.’ Historia XIV (1965), 342.
-‘Hadrian the Intellectual.’ Les empereurs romains d’Espagne (1965),
243.
-‘Ignotus, the Good Biographer.’ Bonner Historia-Augusta-Collo-
quium ig66\6y (1968), 131. Reprinted in Emperors and Biography
(i97I)> 30.
Telfer, W. ‘The Origins of Christianity in Africa.’ Studia Patristica
IV: Texte u. Unters. LXXIX (1961), 512.
Thornell, G. ‘Kritiska Studier till Tertullianus’ Apologeticum.’
Eranos XVI (1916), 82.
-Studia Tertullianea I-IV. Uppsala Universitets Arsskrifter (1918-26).
Tibiletti, C. ‘Un opusculo perduto di Tertulliano: Ad amicum
philosophum.’ Atti Torino, Ser. ii, XCV (1960/61), 122.
Vaccari, A. ‘Tranelli di citazioni bibliche.’ Scritti di erudizione e di
filologia II (1958), 3.
-‘“Credo quia absurdum”. Chi l’ha detto?’ Ib. 17.
Vitale, E. ‘La storia della versione dei Settanta e l’antichita della
Bibbia nell’Apologetico di Tertulliano.’ Musee beige XXVI (1922),
62.
Vitton, P. I concetti giuridici nelle opere di Tertulliano (1924).
Vliet, J. van der. Studia Ecclesiastica. Tertullianus I. Critica et

Interpretatoria (1891).
Volker, W. Der wahre Gnostiker nach Clemens Alexandrinus. Texte u.
Unters. LVII (1952).
Vogue, A. de. ‘Note sur les necropoles de Carthage.’ Rev. archA XIII
(1889), 163.
Vysoky, Z. K. Remarks on the sources of the works of Tertullian (in
Czech). Prdce z Vedeckych Ustavu XLIV (1937).
-‘The sources of the treatise Ad Martyras by Tertullian’ (in
Czech). Listy filologicke LXXII (1948), 156.
Walsh, P. G. ‘Lucius Madaurensis.’ Phoenix XXII (1968), 143.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 307
Waltzing, J. P. Etude sur le Codex Fuldensis de VApologetique de
Tertullien. Bibl. de la Fac. de Phil, et Lettres de V Univ. de Liege XXI
(I9I4~I7)-
-‘Tertullien et Salvien.’ Musee beige XIX-XXIV (1920), 39.
-‘Pour l’etude de Tertullien. Introduction a l’Apologetique.’
Musee beige XXV (1921), 7.
Waszink, J. H. ‘Varro, Livy and Tertullian on the History of
Dramatic Art.’ Vig. Chr. II (1948), 224.
-‘Observations on Tertullian’s Treatise against Hermogenes.’
Vig. Chr. IX (1955), 129.
Wessner, P. ‘Lucan, Statius und Juvenal bei den romischen Gram-
matikern.’ Phil. Wochenschrift XLIX (1929), 296; 328.
Weyman, C. ‘Studien zu Apuleius und seinen Nachahmern.’
Sitzungsber. d. phil.-phil. u. hist. Cl. d. kon. bayer. Akad. d. IViss. zu
Miinchen 1893. II, 321.
-‘Zu lateinischen Dichtern II.’ Neophilologus Vll (1922), 282.
Williams, B. A. O. ‘Tertullian’s Paradox.’ New Essays in Philosophical
Theology (ed. A. N. Flew and A. MacIntyre, 1955), 187.
Williams, G. W. ‘Aspects of Roman Marriage Ceremonies and
Ideals.’ JRS XLVIII (1958), 14.
Zappala, M. ‘L’ispirazione cristiana del De Pallio di Tertulliano.’
Ricerche religiose I (1925), 132.
-‘Le fonti del De Pallio.’ Ib. 327.
Zimmermann, G. Die hermeneutischen Prinzipien Tertullians. (Diss.
Leipzig, 1937).
INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS
This index is selective and designed for use in conjunction with the lists of,
contents (p. ix), of appendices (pp. 233/4) and of passages of Tertullian discussed
(pp. 319-320). Persons and authors normally appear under the most familiar
forms of their names. For holders of official posts in the Roman Empire and some
others, dates and details not explicitly recorded in the text have often been added
in the index. Subjects have been selected for inclusion by the criterion of relevance
to Tertullian.
Abgar, king of Edessa, 5. Ammianus Marcellinus, 191, 200, 203,

‘Abodah £arah, 97n, g8n, ioon, 273m 204.
Academy, 113, 123. Anaxarchus, 218.
Achilles, 230. Ancharia, 106.
Acilius Severus, 10. Antichrist, 107.
Acta martyrum, 159, 16m, 193, 261, 262- Antioch, 6, 156, 157.
267. Antioch, by Pisidia, 162.
Ado, archbishop of Vienne, 266/7. Anti-semitism, 90-93.
Aelius Aristides, 211. Antoninus Pius, 159, 187; and Jews, 90;
Aelius Seianus, 37. and Christians, 154/3, 156.
‘Aelius Serenianus’, bogus character in Antonius Albus, L., proconsul of Asia
Historia Augusta, 270. (160/1), 13pn, 155.
‘Agape’, 112, 136, 138, 275. Antonius Gordianus, M. (cos. suff. c.
Agricola, 225. 223), 191.
Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage, 71. Antonius Gordianus, M., patron of
Albinus, philosopher, 122, 206. Philostratus, 190/1, 236.
Alexander, emperor, see Severus Antony, 231.
Alexander. Apelles, 121/2, I24n, 125/6, 217.
Alexander, the Great, 214. Apicius, 231.
Alexander, of Abonuteichos, 130. Apion, 196.
Alexander, of Cotiaeum, 187. Apollinaris, of Hierapolis, 6, 103, 106,
Alexander, follower of Valentinus, 126. 108.
Alexander, martyr in Gaul, 68. Apollo, 130, 257.
Alexander, Platonic philosopher, 187. Apollonius, anti-Montanist writer, 3,
Alexandria, 4, 28, 87, 131, 168, 184. 82, 253/4.
Altercatio Heracliani cum Germinio epis- Apollonius, martyr, 3, 6/7, 161.
copo Sirmiensi, 20, 241. Apollonius, of Chalcedon, 187.
Amastris, 152. Apollonius, of Tyana, 256.
Ambrose, 5, 185, 251. Apologists, of the second century, 102-
Ambrosiaster, 275. 104, 107/8.
Amisus, 152. Apostasy, 167-171, 172-176, 182.
X
Apostolic succession, 65-67, 120/1. translated into Latin, 61, 63, 276-278
Apuleius, 24, 67, 192, 194, 195, 228/9, attitude of Gnostics towards, 64-66,
256/7; chronology of his writings, 124, 127
271-273; hatred of Christians, 60, Marcion’s treatment of, 124/5, 126,
160/1, 271-273; contrasted with 128, 222/3, 255
Tertullian, 109, 212/3, 214, 229/30, Tertullian’s use of, 91/2, 106, 123,
257/8. 127, 128/9, 139, 141, 172-176,
Aquilinus, 62. 177, 178-183, 214, 249/50.
Arbogast, 4. Bibulus, 215.
Archaeology, Christian, in Africa, 71, Bruttius, 150m
280-282. Bruttius Praesens, friend of Pliny, 150m
Archaeus, alleged bishop of Lepcis, Brutus, 215.
280/1. Byzacena, 86.
Aristeas, 196. Byzacium, 86.
Aristides, apologist, 102, 164/5. Byzantium, 156.
Aristode, 116, 206, 207, 212, 224n, 226.
Arnobius, 9, 24, 102, 192, 194. Caecilius Africanus, 23.
Arrius Antoninus, proconsul of Asia Caecilius Capella, 156, 268.
( ? 184/5), 146/7. Caecina Severus, 202.
Artemis, 16. Caelestis, in.
Arusianus Messius, 196. Cain, 249.
Asclepiades, 229. ‘Caina haeresis’, 121, 279/80.
Asclepius, in, 113, 134. Callinicus, 196.
Asculum, 106.
Callistratus, 23.
Asia, Christians in, 130/1, 146, 154/5, Callistus, bishop of Rome, 26/7, 7011,
156.
247, 279; molests Jews, 93.
Asinius Celer, 203.
Calvenus Taurus, L., 213.
Aspasius, priest, 75.
Cambyses, 199.
Aspasius Paternus, proconsul of Africa
Capitol, captured in 390 b.c., 108,
(257/8), 261.
204/5-
Astyages, 197.
Cappadocia, 155, 156, 157, 269/70.
Athenagoras, 103, 1390.
Caracalla, 36, 156/7, 244; and Christ¬
Athens, 154, 156, 188.
ians, 6, 70, 248/9; murder of
Atina, 106.
brother, 37, 248, 249, 264/5.
Atlantes, 197.
Cardea, 50.
Attalus, martyr in Gaul, 68, 147.
Carna, 50.
Augustine, 1, 57, 79, 142, 195, 197, 200,
Carneades, 213.
205, 256, 258, 262.
Carpocrates, 216.
Augustus, 108; and Druids, 17.
Carthage:
Aurelius Prosenes, M., 70.
human sacrifice at, 13-19
Ausonius, 15m
as Roman colonia, 19, 67/8, 85-90
Autolycus, 104.
troops in, 19, 132, 159
Avidius Cassius, 33, 49/50, no, 217.
intellectual life, 67, 80-82, 109/10,
Axionicus, 82.
192, 194-196, 228/9, 256/7, 272/3
visit of Septimius Severus, 34/5, 188/9
Baptism, 64, 118/9. Jewish community, 64, 67, 88/9,
Barnus (?), 50. 90/1, 92/3, 273/4.
Baronius, interpolates Roman Martyr- Casinum, 106.
ology, 262n, 269m Cassianus, 238.
Basilides, 167/8, 17 m. Cassiodorus, 282.
Bellona, 112, 219. Cassius Dio, 219, 250, 264/5.
Berossus, 196. Cassius Hemina, 105.
Bible: Cassius Severus, 105, 196.
Castrense peculiwn, 22/3. Clodius Albinus, D., 32-34, 49/50,

Cato, the elder, 204, 212, 214, 230. 110, 217.
Catullus, 212. Codex Agobardinus, 122.
Cebes, Pinax attribited to, 195. ‘Cognitio extra ordinem’, bogus techni¬
Celerinus, 158. cal term, 144/5.
Celsus, 4, 60, 130/1. Commodianus, 192.
Cemeteries in Carthage, Christian, 89, Commodus, 36, 102, 110/1, 155, 156,
124, 274; Jewish, 67, 89, 273/4; 188.
Punic, 35. Confessors, 148, 183.
Censorinus, igo, 192. Constantine, 96, 119, 237.
‘Centurio proconsularis’, 3, 11/12, 19. Constitutio Antoniniana, 248, 249/50.
Cerdo, 125. Corinth, 66.
Ceres, 76, 86, 113. Cornelius, bishop of Rome, 6, 7/8, 238.
Cervidius Scaevola, 23. Cornelius Anullinus, proconsul of
Christ, see Jesus. Africa (192/3), 261.
Christianity, expansion of, 26n, 62-64, Cornelius Labeo, igon.
67-71, 162/3, 280-282, 285. Cornelius Nepos, 105, 196.
Christians: Councils, of African bishops, 71, 269,
legal position, 27/8, 90/1, 143-163, 280.
222 Crassus, the elder, as orator, 215.
and imperial court, 69/70, 93, 102/3, Crates, 229.
157 ‘Credo quia absurdum’, 223/4.
and Jews, 90-93, 106/7, 285. Crispinus, 203.
Chronographer of the year 354, 7, Crispus, Caesar (317-326), 9.
2630, 264. Critias, 207.
Chrysippus, 207. Critolaus, 207.
Churches, 89, 117, 28m. Croesus, 197.
Cicero, 1, 4, 108, 191, 196, 199/200, Ctesias, 105, 196.
206, 208/9, 212, 213, 215, 254. Curio, 215.
Cingius Severus, proconsul of Africa Curius, 231.
(under Commodus), 146. Cybele, 1350.
Cinna, Catulus, 187. Cynics, 229, 231.
Cittinus, 61, 62, 63, 261. Cyprian, 8, 24, 26/7, 62, 102, 157/8,
Claudius, emperor (41-54), 159, 260; 162, 192, 251, 261, 269; reads
and Druids, 17. Tertullian, 3, 5, 194; in Eusebius,
Claudius, emperor (268-70), 102. 6.
Claudius Julianus, prefect of Egypt Cyrene, Jews in, 282, 285.
(203-206), 104m
Claudius Maximus, proconsul of Damasus, 251.
Africa (158/9), 187, 203, 271. Daniel, 106/7, 175, 189.
Claudius Pompeianus Quintianus, David, 174.
11 in. Decius, 151, 157, 158, 162, 237.
Claudius Saturninus, 133, 198. Deinocrates, 73, 77/8.
Claudius Severus, 187. Delphi, 197, 257.
Claudius Xenophon, T., 33/4, no. Delventinus, 106.
Oleander, favourite of Commodus, 159. Demetrius, of Phalerum, 196.
Cleanthes, 196, 207. Demosthenes, 212.
Clement, bishop of Rome, works Deuteronomy, 173.
attributed to, 150, 238. Devil, 42, 74, 78, 94, 95, 131, 134, 137,
Clement of Alexandria, 81, 115, 168, 158, 172, 174, 178/9, 226, 249.
171, 210, 238. Dexter, i.e. Nummius Aemilianus
Cleomenes, 279. Dexter, Pretorian Prefect (395),
Cleopatra, 52, 218, 227. 5) 236.
X*
Didius Julianus, 32. Ezekiel, 209.
Dido, 52, 218, 227.
Dio, ofPrusa, 187, 213, 214. Fabius, acquaintance of Tertullian,
Diocletian, 9, 86, 151, 168, 192. 178, 179, 181.
Diodorus Siculus, 105, 196. Fabius, grammarian, gn.
Diogenes, 196. Fasting, 135/6.
Diognetus, teacher of Marcus Aure¬ Favorinus, 213.
lius, 187. Felicitas, 72, 75, 76, 79, 148.
Diognetus, i.e. Ti. Claudius Diognetus, Felix, 62.
104. Ferreolus, patron saint of Vienne, 185.
Dionysius, bishop of Alexandria, 6, 157. Filastrius, 81.
Dionysius, bishop of Corinth, 119. Firmilian, bishop of Caesarea, 157, 269.
Dolabella, 215. Flavia Domitilla, 150, 266.
Domitian, 36, mn, 150, 211; and Flavius, grammarian, 9.
Christians, 6, 105, 150. Flavius Damianus, 130.
Donata, 61, 62, 261. ‘Flavius Vopiscus’, 204.
Donatists, 62, 63, 262. Flight, from persecution, 164, 168,
Druids, 17. 170/1, 176-183, 184-186.
Florens, as Roman name, 243.
Easter, 133, 280/1. Florilegia, 174, 196.
Ecclesiasticus, 174. Florus, 191, 204.
Ecstasy, 43/4, 77; Tertullian’s lost De Forculus, 50.
Ecstasi, 3, 48, 253/4, 259. Frigidus, battle of, 4.
Edessa, 5. Fronto, i.e. M. Cornelius Fronto (cos.
Egypt, persecution in, 104, 156, 168- suff. 143), 87, 187, 203, 214;
170, 184. attacks Christians, 149, 161.
Elagabalus, 36, 151, 22in. Fufidius, 23.
Elijah, 174. Fuldensis, lost ms. of Apologeticum,
Empedocles, 126, 207, 218, 227. 13—1 5j «9-2i, 239-241.
Ennius, 204/5, 212. Fulvius Plautianus, Pretorian Prefect
Enoch, 97, 209. (?i97-205), 34, 36/7, 250.
Ephesus, 66, 130.
Epictetus, 243. Gaetulians, 88, 280.
Epicureans, 126, 231. Gaius, heretic, his existence ques¬
Epicurus, 196, 207, 230. tioned, 279/80.
Epigonus, 278/9. Gaius, jurist, 28.
Epigraphy, Christian, in Africa, 71, Galen, 165, 167, i76n, 188, 215.
280-282. Galerius Maximus, proconsul of
Epiphanius, 81, 184. Africa (258/9), 261.
Episcopal authority, 78, 83/4, 118, 141, Gamart cemetery at, 89, 273/4.
247- Games, 93-96, 160.
Etna, 245. Gargilius Martialis, 190, 192.
Eubulus, 207. Gaul, 17/18, 68, 88, 131, 156, 278;
Eugenius, 4. Jews in, 283, 284.
Euodus, 70. Gauls, 101, 108; capture Capitol in
Euripides, 212. 390 b.c., 204/5.
Eusebius, 68, 82, 149, 154/5, >57, i6in; Gellius, Aulus, i8in, 190.
knowledge of Tertullian, 6, 20/1, Geminus, of Antioch, 238.
25/6, 57, 201; ignorance of Latin Generosa, 62.
Christianity, 5/6, 9, 155/6; as George, of Cyprus, 63.
source for Jerome, 236-239. Germans, 88, 101.
Exempla, Tertullian’s use of, 15, 52/3, Geta, 36, 37, 71, 248/9; date of birth
i38n, 213/14, 217-219, 249. and death, 263-265.
INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS 3*3
Gladiators, 95/6. 151, 270, 273n; falsification of
Gnosticism, 115-117, 167/8, 205. literary history, 190/1, 203/4.
Gnostics, in Carthage, 64, 80-82, 90, Homer, 88, 105, 212.
116/7, 121, 172. Horace, 200.
Gordian, emperor (238), see Antonius Hostilius, mimographer, 196.
Gordianus, M. Human sacrifice, 14-19, 135, 219.
Gordian, emperor (238-244), 158.
Gorgias, 213. Idolatry, 96-100, 134, 173, 249.
Gracchus, Caius, 85, 212. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, 156, 237,
Greek: 238.
in Carthage, 67/8, 194/5, 276/7 Iliberris, Council of, 284.
used by Christians in Carthage, 68/9 Inachus, 108.
in Gaul, 68, 276 ‘Institutum Neronianum’, 105.
in Rome, 6/7, 68, 276 Irenaeus, 43, 49, 127, 220/1, 232, 276.
Greek works of Tertullian, 68/9, 253, Isaiah, 97, 175.
276/7. Isis, 113, 135m
Gregory of Nazianzus, 251. Isocrates, 213.
Gudden, 266/7.
James, ‘the Just’, 236/7.
Hadrian, 49, 102, 156, 187, 191, 232, Januaria, 62.
273n; rescript to Minicius Fun- Jeremiah, 175.
danus, 145/6, 154, 160. Jerome, 1, 217; his Chronicle 3, 7; De
Hadrumetum, 15, 69, 162, 243, 267/8. Viris Illustribus, 4/5, I02n, 235-
Hasdrubal, wife of, 52, 227. 239; its sources, 5-12, 236-239;
Hegesippus, 6, 150, 236. knowledge of Latin literature,
Heracleon, 82, 168, 17 m. 199-201, 203; on Tertullian, 3, 5,
Heraclitus, 207, 218, 227, 278. 10-12, 19, 20/21, 42, 57, 240,
Herculaneum, 250. 279/80; as evidence for lost works
Hercules, 229, 230. of Tertullian, 250-254.
Herennius Modestinus, gon, 189. Jerusalem, 156, 237.
Heresy, 65. Jesus, 125/6, 158, 164, 171, 175, 179,
Heretics, 64/5, 90, 93, 117, 139, 222. 180, 223/4; founds the Church,
Hermapion, 95m 65/6, 175; letters to Abgar, 5; as
Hermas, 174m paradigm of conduct, 170, 181.
Hermateles, 95m Jews:
Hermippus, of Berytus, 25n, 197/8. in Greek world, 282, 285
Hermogenes, 80, 121, 122-124, 217, in Latin West, 67, 282-285
220. in Carthage, 64, 67, 88/9, 90-93,
Herod, 150. 246, 273/4, 284/5
Herodes Atticus (cos. ord. 143), 187, proselytism, 90, 92, 106, 285
213. relations with Christians, 64, 90-93,
Herodotus, 105, 196, 197-199, 219. 273, 274/5, 285
Hilarianus, imperial procurator, 73, 76, in Tertullian, 91/2, 284, 285.
89, 266; full name, probable Job, 179.
origin and religious opinions, 163. John, apostle, 67, 181, 252.
Hipparchus, 207. Joseph, 106, 171.
Hippias, of Elis, 213, 228, 229. Josephus, 108, 19m, 196, 237, 282/3,
Hippo, 207. 285.
Hippolytus, 7, 193, 276, 278/9. Jovis (?), 121.
Hiram, of Tyre, 196. Juba, King of Mauretania, 196.
Historia Augusta, 218, 238; sources and Judaism, alleged debts of Tertullian to,
reliability, 36n, i88n, 192, 264/5; 9i/2.
inventions concerning Christianity, Julia Maesa, 36.
3H INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS
Julia Mamaea, 36, 157. Luke, relics of, 238.

Julian, 4. Lykaia, 16.
Julius Asper {cos. II ord. 212), 162.
Julius Caesar, 85/6, 215/16, 283. Macrobius, 4, 850.
Julius Solinus, igo. Mactar, 16, ign.
Junius Blaesus, Q_., proconsul of Africa Madauros, 195, 261/2.
(21-23)., 19. Maiolus, martyrs named, 268.
Junius Rusticus, 187. Mamertus, bishop of Vienne, 185.
Juno, 113. Mandane, 197.
Jupiter, 2ig. Manetho, 196.
Justin, 102, 104, 106, 108, 116, i27n, Manuscripts of Tertullian, 13-15, 19-
154/5> 156, 161, 165, 166, 210, 21, 51, 122, 239-241.
232, 237. Marcia, concubine of Commodus,
Justinian, 195. 7°n, 93, 11 in.
Juvenal, 27, 187, 199-201, 202-204. Marcion, 80, 120, 121, 124-129, 199,
Juvencus, 194. 215, 216, 223/4; Tertullian’s three
Juventius Celsus, 23. attacks on him 38/9, 4on, 125,
255/6.
Laberius, mimographer, 196. Marcionites, 81, 121, 124, 125, 217.
Lactantius, 9/10, 24, 26/7, 102, 142, Marcomanni, 33, 130.
l57, 192/3, 194, 203, 205, 257, 270. Marcus, follower of Valentinus, 82, 280.
Laelius, 212, 218. Marcus Aurelius, 130, 156, 187/8, 211,
Laetantius, 62. 213; and Christians, 155, 165, 167;
Laevius, 212. fictions concerning his attitude to
Lambaesis, 11, I32n. Christianity, 6, 109, 151.
Laodicea, 156, 167. Marius Maximus, i88n, 191/2, 200.
Larisa, 154. Marriage, 136-140.
Lars Porsenna, 218. Marrucini, 216.
Last Judgement, 113/14, 165. Martyrdom, 132, 135/6, 162/3, i64~
Law, Tertullian and Roman, 1, 22-29, 186; as second baptism, 8on, 174.
57/8, 64. Martyrs, 60-62, 71-77, 146-148, 156-
Lentulus, mimographer, 196. 161, 261-270; visited in prison,
Lentulus, i.e. Cn. Cornelius Lentulus 72/3, 75/6, 138, i47> 183, 226;
Augur {cos. 14 b.c.), 202. number of, 161/2.
Leo, the Wise, 63. Mary, 79, 171, 223, 257.
Lepcis, 188, 242; Christians at, 280/1. Mauretania, 69, 157, 280/1.
Lepidus, 85, 86. Mauri, see Moors.
Lex Scantinia, 27. Mavilus, of Hadrumetum, 267-269.
Licinius Serenianus, 157, 269/70. Maximilla, 42/3, 131, 137, 177.
Limentinus, 50. Maximin, emperor (235-238), 157,
Liturgy, African, 75, 115, 275/6. 269/70.
Livy, 191, 218, 245. Maximinus Daia, 184.
Lucan, 205. Maximus, of Madauros, 261/2.
Lucian, 147, 214, 243. Mela, see Pomponius Mela.
Lucilla, 11 in. Meletius, 184.
Lucitas, 261/2. Melito, bishop of Sardis, 28, 33n, 103,
Lucius, bishop of Rome, 7. 104/5, 107= I50> I54> 161; pseudo-
Lucius, emperor, see Verus, Lucius. Melito, 157.
Lucretia, 218, 227. Memmius, C., 215.
Lucretius, 200, 207. Memmius Afer, Senecio, {cos. stiff. 99),
Lucullus, 105. 87m
Lugdunum, Christians at, 68, 144, 146, Menander, 181.
283; battle of, 32/3, 101, 248. Menander, of Ephesus, 196.
Menander, rhetorician, 211. Numiternus, 106.

Mercury, 134, 219.
Messiah, 92.
Metallus Pius, Q., 218 Oea, 271.
Midas, 53, 88, 199. Ophites, 121, 280.
Miggin, 261/2. Optatus, bishop of Carthage, 68, 75.
Milan, 195. Optatus, of Milevis, 9.
Military service, 99, 134/5. Oracles, Montanist, 42-44, 131, 139,
Militia Christi, 29.
i8in, 183.
Miltiades, 28, 104, 106, 232. Origen, 78, 115, 148/9, 157, 162, 168,
Minerva, 113, 134. i74n, 189, 210.
Orosius, 142, 205, 218.
Minicius Fundanus, proconsul of Asia
Ostia, 283.
(122/3), 145/6, 154-
Minucius Felix, 5, 7, 26/7, 102, i6in,
192, 194; date, 192, 271, 272. Pacianus, bishop of Barcelona, 5.
Minucius Timinianus, proconsul of Paneg)irici Latini, 189/90.
Africa (202/3), 266/7. Pantaenus, missionary to India, 237,
Modestinus, see Herennius Modestinus. 238.
Montanism, 42/3, 82-84, O1, 177/8; Papinian, 23.
in Carthage, 77, 79, 83, 89/90, 131, Papirius Cursor, 218.
258, 273; in Tertullian, 10/11, Paraclete, 43/4, 46, 83, 132, 139/40,
42-48, 83/4, 100, 129, 131-142, 182, 208, 222.
167, 178, 182/3; chronology of, Parthenius, non.
253/4, 267. Parthians, 32, 33, 88, 244.
Montanus, 43, 82, 131, 177, 253. Paul, apostle, 65, 67, 79, 140/1, 171,
Moors, 33, 88, 280. 176, 181, 247, 249/50; correspon¬
Moses, 108. dence with Seneca, 6, 238.
Mucius, 218, 227. Paul, of Concordia, 3, 5.
Municipal magistrates, 143/4. Paulus, jurist, 23, 189.
Penalties, imposed on Christians, 146-
Namphamo, of Madauros, 261/2. 149-
Narcissus, 111 n. Penitence, 119/20, 141.
Narnia, 106. Pentecost, 64, 133, 285.
Nartzalus, 61, 62, 63, 261. Pepuza, 131.
Nasamones, 197. Peregrinus, 68, 147, 148, 156, 1830,
Necropoleis, see Cemeteries. 218, 219, 227.
Nemesianus, 190, 192. Pergamum, 167.
Nero, 36, 198, 231; execution of Perpetua, 34, 124, 146, 147/8, 163, 226;
Christians, 6, 105, 151/2, 201/2. name and social status, 70, 148;
New Prophecy, 43/4, 120, 129, 130-142, date of martyrdom, 263, 266/7;
172, 210. Passion of Perpetua, 68, 71-80, 83;
Nicomedes, King of Bithynia, 215. its authenticity and authorship,
Nicomedia, g, 792. 79/80, 263-266.
Nigidius, 121. Persecution, 143-186; its nature, 149,
Nigidius Figulus, 12 m. 160-163; its incidence, 155-158.
Noetus, 278. Pertinax, Iio/n.
Nortia, 106. Pescennius Niger, 32, 33/4, 49/50, no,
Novatian, 8/9, 142, 193. , 156, 217.
Novatianists, 258. Peter, apostle, 67, 79, 171, 175, 176;
Novatus, 8/9. his relics, 238.
Nudipedalia, 51. Peter, bishop of Alexandria, 168-171,
Numerian, emperor (283/4), 237. i82n, 184/5.
Numidia, 71, 157- Petronius, 51a
316 INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS
Phaeacia, 88. 266-268; of Asia, 144, 145-147,

Philemon, 229. *54. »55-
Philip, emperor (244-249), 155, 237. Proculus, Christian at the imperial
Philippi, 66. court, 70.
Philippus, Asiarch, 159. Proculus, Montanist pamphleteer,
Philo, 237, 238. 44n> 45. 232.
Philosophy, Tertullian’s knowledge of, Prodicus, Gnostic teacher, 81/2, 121,
113, 116, 121, 123/4, 126, 196, 176, 22in.
205-210, 213, 229-231. Propertius, 212.
Philostratus, 189, 191, 211, 213, 214, Protagoras, 213, 22g.
23m, 236. Protogenes, charioteer, 221.
Philumene, 217. Prudentius, 159.
Phosphorus, 196. Psammetichus, 198.
Physcon, 36. ‘Psychici’, 44, 45, 83, 132, 136, 139,
Pilate, 6, 108, 148, 158. 222/3.
Pindar, 105, 196. Ptolemaeus, follower of Valentinus, 82.
Pisones Frugi, 218. Ptolemy, of Mende, 196.
Pius, see Antoninus Pius. Pudens, soldier, 74.
Plague, 130. Punic culture, 15/16, 85/6, 230m
Plato, 105, 116, 122, 126, 196, 205- Purgatory, 78, 115m
207, 213, 227m Pyrrhon, 196.
Platonism, 116, 122, 206, 210. Pythagoras, 121, 126, 196.
Plautilla, wife of Carracalla, 244. Pythia, at Carthage, 34/5, 189.
Plautus, 24, 200.
Plautianus, see Fulvius Plautianus. Quadratus, apologist, 102, 237/8.
Pliny, the elder, 17, 18, 105, 203. Quadratus, bishop of Athens, 237/8.
Pliny, the younger, 114, 187, 199/200, Quaestiones, genre of juristic literature,
203, 218; and Christians, 6, 145, 22, 23.
152/3> 160; Letters known to Quinctius Flamininus, 218.
Tertullian, 6, 28, 105, 108, 196, Quintilian, 207n, 211, 218, 224/5, 254.
201. Quod xdola dii non sint, 20, 240.
Plotinus, 189. Quodvultdeus, 277.
Polemo, 213.
Polycarp, bishop of Smyrna, 144, 146, ‘Regula fidei’, 46, 65, 66, 139.
148, 154, 159/60. Regulus, 52, 218, 227.
Pompeii, 250, 283. Reticius, of Augustodunum, 194.
Pompey, 85, 95, 105, 218. Revocatus, 72, 76, 148.
Pomponius, deacon, 72, 74, 79/80, 265. Rhetoric, ancient theory and practice
Pomponius, Sextus, jurist, 23, 25, 26. of, 211-218, 224-229, 254/5.
Pomponius Mela, 17, 87. Rhetorical structure, in Tertullian, 126,
Pontius, 8, 192. 128/9, 206-210, 213.
Pontus, 145, 152, 199, 215, 216. Rhone, 33, 185.
Porphyry, 4, 16, 189. Ritual murder, see Human Sacrifice.
Pothinus, bishop of Lugdunum, 68. Roman Empire, Tertullian’s attitude
‘Praedestinatus’, 57, 81, 253, 258/9. towards, 26, 99, 110/11, 118, 219,
Prayer, 117-18. 221/2, 230/1.
Praxeas, 148, 222, 278/9. Rome:
Prisca (or Priscilla), 42/3, 46, 131, Jews in, 93, 283, 285
136/7. 139. 177- Christians in, 6/7, 93, 13«. 151/2, 156
Pristinus, 135/6, 183/4, 216. relation of Roman church to the
Proconsuls, 109, 143, 145, 149, 152, Carthaginian, 66/7
157-161, 211, 260/1; of Africa, alleged presence of Tertullian, 243-
18/19, 144. *46, 162, 163, 261/2, 245-
Rufinus, alleged proconsul of Africa Serenus, Q., 190.
(203/4), 266/7. Serius Augurinus, C., proconsul of
Rufinus, ecclesiastical historian, 20/1, Africa (169/70), i8n.
199. 241. Servius, 245.
Rufus, 231. Severus Alexander, 36, 151, 157, 158,
Rutilius, 59, 186. 269/70.
Sextus, of Chaeronea, 187.
Sabbath, 89, 106. Sextus Empiricus, 16.
Sabratha, 160, 271. Sicca, 9, 192.
Sadducees, 125. Sicinius Aemilianus, 27i/2.
Sallust, 196, 199, 212, 219. Sidonius Apollinaris, 185.
Salvian, 67, 195. Sigerius, 11 on.
Salvius Julianus, 28, 243. Silas, 171.
Samaritans, 151. Silenus, 53.
Sammonicus Serenus, 190, 203; his Silius Italicus, 205.
fictitious library, 190/1, 203. Simon, the magician, 108.
Saname, 261/2. Smyrna, 146, 154, 156, 159/60, 188, 211.
Sardanapallus, 36. Socrates, 213, 257.
Saturn, 13, 15-19, 76. Solun, 212.
Saturninus, 72, 76. Sophists, 69, 130, 189, 211-215, 257.
Saturus, 68, 72, 74/5, 76, 78, 79, 80, Soter, bishop of Rome, 258/9.
263, 265/6. Soranus, 29, 123, 198.
Saul, 179. Soul, 113/14, 123/4, 126, 206-208.
Scapula, i.e. P. Julius Scapula Ter- Spain, Jews in, 283-285.
tullus Priscus (cos. ord. 195), 69/70, Sparta, 218, 227.
166, 222, 248/9, 260/1; date of Speratus, 61/2, 83, 261, 277.
proconsulate of Africa (212/13), Statilius Taurus, 85.
3°n, 31, 38, 5in, 268. Statius, 191.
Scaurus, 231. Stesichorus, 95.
Scilli (or Scillium), 63. Stoicism, 2, 113, 116, 123, 206, 210,
Scillitan Martyrs, 60-63, 148, 245, 261, 212, 231, 246.
262/3, 277- Strabo, 17.
Scopelian, 211. Style, as criterion for dating, 48-54.
Scripture, see Bible. ‘Subnero’, 36.
Scythians, 197. Suetonius, 1, 4, 17, 95, 108, 187, 197,
Second Sophistic Movement, 189, 211 - 198, 202.
215, 256/7. Sulpicius Severus, I58n, 200.
Secunda, 61, 62, 261. Symeon, bishop of Jerusalem, 156.
Secundulus, 72, 75. Symmachus, 195, 200, 204.
Secundus, 82. Syria, 33, 147; division ofprovince, 250.
Seius Fuscianus, Prefect of the City
(?i86-igo), 28, 93m Tacfarinas, 19.
Seleucia, on the Tigris, 130. Tacitus, 1, 114, 187, 191, 199/200, 204,
Seneca, 108, 126, 196, 226, 246, 251; 225, 260; read by Tertullian,
correspondence with Paul, 6, 238. 18/19, 28, 105, 108, 196, 201/2.
Seniores laid, 273, 274/5. Tacitus, emperor (275/6), 204.
Sentius Saturninus, 85/6. Talmud, 284/5.
Septimii, 242. Tatian, 104, 108, 16 in.
Septimius Severus, 22, 32-37, 87/8, Telesphorus, bishop of Rome, 156.
101, no, 156, 188/9, I9C 219, Terence, 196, 200.
242, 244, 248, 261, 264; and Terentianus Maurus, 190.
Christians, 6, 31, 151. Tertullian:
Serapis, 68, 106. name, parentage and provenance, 11,
3l8 INDEX OF NAMES AND SUBJECTS
Tertullian: (cont.) Tibullus, 212.

2i, 86/7, 195, 242/3; social status, Timaeus, 95.
69, 05> 243; date of birth, 25, 58; Timotheus, 214.
marriage, 25, 136-138; conver¬ Tipasa, 281.
sion, 26, 245-247, 252; bio¬ Tradition, 133.
graphical sketch, 57-59; Trajan, 156, 187, 218; rescript to Pliny,
education and learning, 24, 27-29, H5) 152/3. 154. 222.
50/E 52, 95) 97/8, 104-106, 108, Trials, of Christians, 60-62, 143-149,
03/4) l8l> 196-210, 216, 217-219, 262/3.
225-228, 257; as representative Trinity, doctrine of, 141/2.
of Second Sophistic Movement,
Ucres, 261.
109, 212, 213-215; contrasted
Ulpian, 23, 28, 157, 189.
with Apuleius, 109, 212/13,
Ulpius Tertullianus Aquila, M., 243.
229/230, 257/8; place in Latin
Ummidius Quadratus, mn.
literature, 101, 192-194; influence
Utica, 15/16, 38, 69, 162, 260.
on Christian writers, 80, 101/2,
142, 192-194, 265; Valentinians, 81/2, 172, 221.
position in Christian community, 11, Valentinus, 80, 81/2, 116, 120, 121,
117; intellectual and theological 125/6, 175, 176; his angelology,
development, 42, 83/4, 120-122,
125, 175. 220/1.
176-178; as Montanist, 10/11, Valerius Pudens, C., proconsul of
42-48, 131-142, 166/7, 177/8, Africa (c. 210), 144, 146.
182/3, 217, 253/4; ambiguous Varro, 95, 105, 108, 196, 197, 198, 204.
attitude to Roman Empire, 26, 99, Veiling, of virgins, 118, 140/1.
110/11, 118, 136, 219, 221/2, Verus, Lucius, 130, 151, 188, 191.
230/1; knowledge of Judaism, 91/2; Vespronius Candidus, L., proconsul of
lost works, 25, 48, 101, 122, 250-254; Africa (under Commodus), 144.
treatises written in Greek, 68/9,253. Vestia, 61, 62, 261.
Tertulliani, 24, 242/3; in Africa, 87. Vesuvius, 250.
Tertullianistae, 2, 10, 57, 258/9. Veturius, 62.
Tertullianus, jurist, 22-30, 57. Vibii, 70.
Thagaste, 195.
Victor, bishop of Rome, 3, 6, 7, 193,
Thales, 207, 229.
280/1.
Thallus, 196.
Victorinus, bishop of Poetovio, 5, 9,
Theodoret, 81.
193/4-
Theodosius, 4, 235/6.
Vienna, 68, 185.
Theodotus, 116, 167.
Vigellius Saturninus, proconsul of
Theophilus, of Antioch, 80, 104, 108,
Africa (180/1), 60-62, 261/2.
122, 127, 196, 238.
Virgil, 105, 181, 196, 199/200, 212,
Theophrastus, 16, 212.
245; Virgilian centos, 195.
Theopompus, 53.
Visidianus, 106.
Theotimus, 82.
Volusius Maecianus, 23, 188.
Thessalonica, 154, 171.
Vulsinii, 106.
Thignica, 86, 87.
Thuburbo Minus, 720. Women, 100/1.
Thubursicu Bure, 86.
Xenocrates, 207.
Thugga, 86, 87.
Xerophagy, 135.
‘Thundering Legion’, 6, 108.
Thysdrus, ign, 69, 162. Zachariah, 175.
Tiberius, 260; and Christians, 6, 109, Zeno, of Elea, 218.
149; and Druids, 17; and sup¬ Zeno, Stoic, 196, 207, 230.
pression of human sacrifice in Zeugitana, 63, 86.
Carthage, 13-19. Zoroaster, 81, 116.
PASSAGES OF TERTULLIAN DISCUSSED
An., 44-48, 1 23/4, 197/8, 206-208 Fug., 44-48, 178-183, 185/6, 222
i- 5 257 9. 4 131, 177, 181
6. 8 28
9- 4 43, 89, 124 Herm., 53, 122/3
10. 7 ff. 217 1. 2 f. 220
21. 6 40
30. 3 88, 219 Idol., 48, 51, 53/4, 96-100
46. 7 ig8n 15. 7 248
55- 4 34, 80, 124, 131, 265
Jej; 44-48, 135/6
-4M, 13/H,, 49, 107-112, 196, 12. 3 183/4
239-41
1. 1 25, 109 Jud., 51, 53, 106/7
9- 2 12-21, 219, 240 1. 1 f. 92, 106
16. 12 92, 246 7- 4 285
18. 4 245/6
35- 1 ff- 33/4, 88, 110/11 Mzrc., 38/9, 44-48, 12 7-129, 255/6
37- 4 33 I. 1. 1 ff- 128,129,198/9,215
39- 3 ff 112, 117, 275
I- 15- 1 37
40. 8 205 I. 29. 4 46, 129
5°- 5 ff 218, 245
Mart., 52/3, 101, 226-228
Bapt., 118/19 4. 4ff. 218/19
1. 2 279 6. 2 32/3, 219
3. 6 214
Cam. Chr., 4^!, 125/6, 208 Mon., 44-48, 139/40

12. 3 27
5- 1 ff 223/4
7- 1 256
Nat., 49, 104-106
Cor. Mil., 44-48, 132-135 I. 8. 2 f. 198
1. 1 ff. I. 14. 1 f. 92, 246
37/8, 132, 214/15
I. 16. 13 ff. 28/9
Cult. Fern., 51 , 53 I- 17- 4 33
I 137
I. 7. 1 f. 244/5 Orat., 117/18
II 100/1
Paen., J19/20
Exhort. Cast., 44-48, 138/9 1. 1 246

12. 2 f. 250
320 PASSAGES OF TERTULLIAN DISCUSSED
Pall., 54, 229-231 Scap., 45, 52, 142, 166/7, 222, 254
I. 2 85/6 3- 3 38, 260
2. 7 35-37, 88, 219 3- 5 267/8
4- 5 36 4- 3 144, 145, 146, 162
6. 2 210 5- 2 245/6, 261
Pat., 119, 176/7 Scorp., 48, 51, 171-176, 248-250

I. I ff. 246 1. 1 ff. 215
13. 6 177 6. 2 f. 34/5
15. 1 ff. 81, 202
Praescr. Haer., 64-67, 120/1
7- 5 ff- 116,210 Sped., 54, 93-96
30. 13 121 25- 5 96
33- 10 279
39- 4 195 Test. An., 113/14
41. 1 ff. 117
Ux., 25, 1 37/8
Prax., 44- 48,141/2 I. 3. 4 177
1. 4 ff. 82, 83, 131/2,222,278/9
Val., 44-48, 81/2, 220/1
Pud., 30/1 , 44-48,141,221 5- 1 231/2
21. 10 247 7. 6 221
22. 1 183 8. 4 196
32. 4 280
Res. Mart. , 44-48, 126/7,208-210
42. 8 35 Firg. Vel., 44-48, 140/1
59- 3 246 l7- 5 242
Date Due A'
/
W( ' . Hru-, t •/: ,
, /
J OO^F 936
- m j rts?r 1-
■nlfl ,. JUL 1 E 2002 !
N-
_
V<f< ^l •Hff?
—ft£T
r*'V-'
•• r ; __
■
— hAR i"® 19S6—
lilt J
MMH4- JUL 1 2 2002
--
.
T.--
may £4983-
($$ cat. no. as u> TAINTED IN U.E.A.
BR 1720 ,T3 B37 010101 000
Barnes, Timothy David.
Tertullian: a historical and I
TRENT UNIVERSITY
192958

Tertullian - A Historical and Li - Barnes, Timothy David

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Tertullian - A Historical and Li - Barnes, Timothy David

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

TRENT UNIVERSITY

TIMOTHY DAVID BARNES

CLARENDON PRESS • OXFORD

Oxford University Press, Ely House, London W. i

(g) OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 197 I

Printed in Great Britain by

A historical and literary study of Tertullian needs no

The present work is the product of a happy decade spent in

Portions of this book are closely based upon articles published

ii. The Evidence of Jerome 3

iv. The Jurist Tertullianus 22

vi. Tertullian’s Life and Background 57

vii. Christianity in Africa 60

vm. Christians and Pagans in Carthage 85

ix. Knowledge or Revelation? 115

x. The New Prophecy T3°

xi. Persecution *43

xii. Martyrdom x^4

xiii. A Pagan Education x&7

xiv. The Christian Sophist 211

Passages of Tertullian Discussed 3*9

B iography enjoys a permanent popularity. Tacitus wrote

1 Scorp. 15. 3 (p. 202).

Institutions of Justinian. His sympathy with Stoicism made him

The first part of the present work will provide a demolition.

THE EVIDENCE OF JEROME

O f Tertullian’s life very little is known. A single ancient

208: Tertullianus Afer, centurionis proconsularis fxlius, omnium ecclesiarum ser-

Jerome was writing in Bethlehem in 392 or early 393-1 The

With Constantine the Christian church emerged from dark¬

and he could bring Cyprian into his Ecclesiastical History only

1 HE VI. 43. 3; VII. 3.

he was betrayed by a slave and obtained leave to compose a

without a serious blunder: the second letter which Jerome

corrected Eusebius through his knowledge of Cyprian. Eusebius

have taken it from the lost letters of Lactantius, which he had

Jerome’s sources are identifiable. Almost everything comes

■ e.g., P. Monceaux, Rev. philA XXII (1898), 82 ff.; W. H. C. Frend, Martyr¬

reasons) attested as part of the designation of any rank in the

T heApologeticum derides the popular belief that Christian

That, at least, is the text of the main manuscript tradition of the

The text of the Apologeticum presented by the Fuldensis

Fuldense, inserted between 19. 1 and 19. 2). Further, a small

The sacrifice of children to a deity was a custom deeply

Carthage itself, the tophet probably passed out of use even

ted under the Roman Empire: a small piece of pottery allegedly

very early. Roman motives may in part have been moral: as

Nor does the context of Tertullian’s statement wholly lack

eventually referred the matter to Tiberius.1 Tertullian had

‘Patriae nostrae’ is thus established as the correct reading.

1 Ann. III. 32; 35.

of the Apologeticum in Eusebius, Rufinus and Jerome; a close

The Fuldensis had

totum Iudaeis erat apud deum praerogativa ob insignem iustitiam et

But the extant manuscripts have

totum Iudaeis erat apud deum gratia, ubi et insignis iustitia et

Thus the treatise used a text with ‘gratia’, as in the main

existimabant magum de licentia potestatis [Quod idola 13]

corresponds to the Fuldensis’

uti magum existimarent de potestate

against the main tradition’s

uti magum aestimarent de potestate [Apol. 21. 17]-2 3

In brief, the texts of the Apologeticum current in late antiquity