OF DOM NICOLAS LE NOURRY, PRIEST AND MONK OF THE ORDER OF ST. BENEDICT AND THE CONGREGATION OF ST. MAUR: DISSERTATIONS ON ALL THE WORKS OF CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA (Apparatus to the Bibliotheca Maxima Patrum, Vol. I, Book III)
ADMONITION
Although a place was given to all the books of Clement of Alexandria among the works of the ancient Fathers third in the succession of the Church in the Lyons Library; yet we, moved by certain reasons of no small weight, have judged that a discussion of them should take place after other commentaries of the same Fathers, published in the second century. For we are thoroughly persuaded that all of Clement's principal works that have reached us—the Admonition to the Greeks, the three books of the Paedagogus, and the seven books of the Stromata—were written by him, as will be demonstrated later, toward the end of this second century of the Church, and were brought forth into the light. Therefore, since those in charge of the Lyons Library of the Fathers moved them out of their proper place, we have not deemed it right that we should follow in their footsteps, by which some might be led into error.
Furthermore, there is no one who does not know how full of varied and manifold learning and doctrine, both sacred and profane, these works are, and especially the books of the Stromata; how many obstacles of difficulty occur everywhere in them; how frequent the pitfalls; what places are most difficult to explain, attempted by many most learned men, yet remaining passable to none thus far and smoothed by no one; how often even Hervet, though sufficiently instructed in various learning, confesses in his own very long commentaries on these Works that many things were utterly unknown to him, and that for his part he had completely wasted his oil and labor in investigating them with any amount of care and diligence. Therefore, so that we might explain them as best we could, remove the obscurity mostly cast upon the Greek text by design, lay open his hidden meanings—those which the author himself wished to conceal from the pagans—and set forth his sacred and profane teachings more clearly, or confirm them by the authority and testimonies of others, there was indeed need for many words. And so, even against our will and desire, the bulk of this volume, and of the third book of our dissertations, grew, and we could no longer add other things to it, which, God willing, we are soon to make public property regarding the writings of the Fathers of the third century of the Church.
Furthermore, it is unnecessary to apologize for these dissertations of ours, though they are somewhat longer than others, to the learned and kindly reader. For two reasons especially compelled us to be longer than usual in them. First, the greatest and supreme, namely, the difficulties occurring everywhere in these books of our Clement which were to be explained by us. To this, indeed, since many other writers subsequently drew from these same books, no one will doubt that the solution of these difficulties provides a guiding light into their dark and shadowy passages. Wherefore this discourse of ours, which perhaps will not seem longer to all, will make us clearer in these dissertations, and more concise in the subsequent ones.
Yet let no one think we have reached such a pitch of rashness as to believe we have leveled every rugged place of our Clement, or that we have truly attained the mark everywhere and in all things. We are, indeed, more conscious of our own infirmity than to have ever imagined we had achieved that which certain very learned men confess can scarcely ever be accomplished by anyone, except after a long lifetime of labor, carefully spent in perusing the lucubrations of any of the ancients. Therefore, we had no other design or purpose in writing these dissertations than that the obscure writings of Clement, and especially the Admonition to the Greeks and the books of the Stromata, might be read with less weariness and with greater fruit, and that we might pave the way for those who may wish to expend their labor either in the perfect explanation of them or in preparing a new edition of them, which has long been desired by all.
DISSERTATION I. ON THE EXHORTATION TO THE GENTILES AND THE THREE BOOKS OF THE PAEDAGOGUE (1) CHAPTER FIRST. On the Protrepticus or Exhortation to the Gentiles.
2 ARTICLE FIRST. Analysis of this book.
[B] Clement begins this book with those fables A by which the pagans most deceptively proclaimed that Amphion, Arion, and Orpheus had moved trees and stones from their place with their singing, and had tamed wild beasts; and that Eunomus had, in a truly miraculous way, adapted the string of his lyre, which had broken, to the voice of a cicada. He teaches that these fabrications of delirious poets, just like the absurd mysteries of Bacchus, on Helicon itself and Cithaeron—mountains now obsolete—are to be enclosed in such a way that the divine singer, the only Son of God, the eternal Word of the Father, may henceforth be heard by all. For he, when he became man, did not sing the soft and effeminate modes of the musicians—the modes of Terpander or Capito, or of others by whom men were first led into idolatry and other crimes—but a new song, by which he softened the wild and stony hearts of men with his heavenly singing, and led them from servitude to liberty, from impiety to piety, from death to life. That same divine Word, older than Lucifer himself, and coeternal with his supreme Father, before he had assumed human flesh from David—who by spiritual songs called men away from the worship of idols and put demons to flight—had founded the world with that same heavenly harmony, and fashioned man himself in the image of God. Wherefore, even if the old error of the pagans and the new truth of the Christians might appear to be so, our writer most brilliantly demonstrates that the latter, inasmuch as they have always been in the Word, are by far older than all the former, even than those Phrygians and Arcadians who peddled their own false antiquity. But after the devil, he says, by the cunning of the serpent, had cast down Adam and then other men from supreme integrity and holiness into idolatry and every crime; the same Son of God, always having pity on them, did not cease to recall them to the true worship of God and true religion, first through the prophets and later, having become man himself, through his own self, and taught them by what manner man may be made God. From which Clement concludes that all the customs of the pagans are to be rejected, and that Christ alone is to be heard, and that his manner is to be followed by all without any delay.
And that he may persuade the pagans of this more effectively, he undertakes to demonstrate how absurd and heinous their cults are. First, he attacks what were more highly valued among them, and shakes the oracles of the false gods. Indeed, he shows that those things, full of tricks as they were, had for the most part already ceased—namely the Thesprotian cauldron, the Cirrhean tripod, the Dodonean bronze, the Gerandryon, the Castalian spring, and the Colophonian [oracle]; nay, even the Clarian Apollo, B Pythian, Didymean, and Amphiaraus, as well as Amphilochus, and the rest of the types of divination and diviners, augurs, soothsayers, aleuromancers, crithomancers, ventriloquists, the adyta of the Egyptians, the necromancy of the Etruscans, and even goats and deer, and other insane portents of infidel men, are to be proscribed and consigned to eternal oblivion.
Then A he passes on to the shameful, obscene, and cruel mysteries and fables of Bacchus and Ceres and of other gods, and relates them in such a way that, by their description, the pagans—if there remained a shred of sound mind in them—might be suffused with a salutary shame and return to more sensible things. Hence he certainly prays well for that man who had pierced with a spear his fellow citizen who was imitating the rites of the mother of the gods. And he adds that it seems truly strange to him why the Gentiles persecuted Euhemerus, Nicanor, Diagoras, Hippo, Theodorus, and certain others as atheists, for the reason that, living moderately and temperately B, they held these vain opinions about the gods to be suspect and hateful. Finally, he makes it plain to all that the faculty of recognizing the true God is implanted in men: but that they, darkened by perverse opinions, have rushed headlong into the crime of idolatry.
Furthermore, he shows that they were led into idolatry in seven ways. For some, admiring the motions of the stars, judged the sun, moon, and other stars to be gods. Others, reaping the fruits C of the earth, gave the names of Ceres and Bacchus to grain and wine. Some, when they had turned their minds to the punishments and calamities of vice, placed them in the number of the gods, so that from this the origin of the Furies, or Eumenides, and from that the origin of cacodemons and evil spirits, might have sprouted. Poets, moreover, and then some of the philosophers, dared to fashion the figures and images of the gods as if they were those of human affections, fears, loves, joys, and hopes. Indeed, some even erected altars to insult and impudence. By others, men elevated to the order of gods were thereafter represented in human form; and thence [came] Justice, Clotho, Lachesis, Atropos, the Fates, Auxo, Thallo, Attica. Some also introduced twelve gods, whose theogony was sung by Hesiod and Homer. Others, finally, from benefits received—as they thought—divinely, constituted certain saviors, Castor and Pollux, Hercules and Aesculapius, and other such gods. Thus, Clement states without hesitation that through these absurd errors of human ingenuity, almost all were thrust down from heaven into a pit D.
Therefore, in order to deter the pagans more easily from this impiety from which the Christians were freed, he proceeds to represent the gods themselves more clearly and vividly. Wherefore, he first makes it manifest that there were entirely various opinions of them concerning the same gods.
They have indeed invented three Joves, five Minervas, six, nay even countless Apollos, many Aesculapiuses, and many Mercuries and Vulcans. But he demonstrates most invincibly A that these and all others were nothing but men, based on their origin, fatherland, art, mode of life, bonds, servitude, wounds, death, and tombs. What more? He does not even fear to recount the very vices and disgraceful acts of these same gods and goddesses—their lasciviousness, their debaucheries, their adulteries—and other things which, in order to strike the greater horror into all of them, he asserts yet more brightly with their unspeakable crimes. Wherefore, he convicts those impious worshippers of false and wicked divinities of being worse than the Egyptians and others who venerate brute animals, wild beasts, and fish.
Nor does he wish it to be answered by the pagans that these are not gods of the first order, but of the second, to whom for this reason alone they gave the name of demons. For he teaches that these, B as gluttons and lost in wickedness, have perversely extorted for themselves from men honors that are by no means their due. Wherefore he beautifully ridicules Hesiod, who had absurdly sung that three times ten thousand immortal demons were set in charge of human guardianship. He then joins that these demons, or gods or demigods, are of such cruelty that those like Jupiter, Bacchus, the Tauric Diana, and others, have willed for human beings to be sacrificed to them. He therefore demonstrates that Cyrus and Solon are far superior to those cruel and hostile enemies of men. For by the former’s invocation and the latter’s command, Croesus, having been led to the pyre where he was to be cremated by the oracle of Apollo, was liberated from the fire. And he wonders how it ever entered into the mind of men C that they should still command those demons to be worshipped by established law.
Nor does it seem any less strange to him why they wrongly boasted that the first temples were set up for the gods and sacrifices offered, by Phoroneus or Merops, or by any other. For he proves that these are not of such antiquity, by the fact that no one worshipped Love, or Cupid, who is placed by them among the most ancient of gods, before Charmus. Nor did the Athenians know who Pan was before they learned it from Philippides. When this perverse custom had gradually prevailed, then temples were built, and thereafter all the statues. But he has made it clearer than the midday sun, by a brief and certain induction, that these temples were nothing other than the tombs of the gods; from which he deservedly castigates the Gentiles, D because they did not blush to adore as gods those whom they believed to be dead.
But afterward, he skillfully argues that the error of these same pagans in the absurd cult of images was greater. For he reveals clearly and plainly that these were at first mere wood, unworked stones, carved trunks, simple columns, or tablets, or even spears, swords, or scimitars. But after men had learned how to express human form in images and statues, he then most certainly confirms their impious cult, which had spread throughout all parts of the world, by a review of the statues of Olympian Jove, the Samian and Tirynthian Juno, Apollo, Neptune, Dionysus, Minerva, and others fashioned by the most skilled craftsmen. But having made mention there of Serapis, both regarding his image and his burial, he falls more fiercely upon the temples of the gods—and especially that which the emperor had placed for the shameful Antinous—and he proves that these, like pyramids, mausoleums, and labyrinths, are the tombs of the gods, and that the destruction of the temples of the Ephesian Diana and of Serapis had been foretold by the Sibyl.
Returning then to the images, our author clearly convicts how great the impiety in worshipping them is, both because they are treated insultingly by the pagans themselves, as they would be by any most vile animal; and also because many of them have been despoiled by certain men, or defiled by birds, or torn apart by thieves, or overturned by earthquakes, or at length—just as certain most famous ones, which he designates in the same place as temples of the gods—they have been consumed by fire and conflagration, and have perished utterly.
Nor does he strike these same images with a lighter blow, for he demonstrates most invincibly therein that the most skillful craftsmen had expressed in some of the statues, which they were obsessed with, the images of harlots. And he thinks that by the same wanton and unpunished audacity of wicked sculptors it has come to pass that certain men, not only kings, but even private individuals—whom he all calls by their names individually—have believed that the power had been given to them to declare themselves gods. But to these things, he also says that from this it has come about that even cities and entire nations have, by impious flattery, elevated to the register of the gods certain ones, and sometimes those very persons whom, while they were alive, they had clearly despised. He concludes, therefore, that the images of these or other gods, having abandoned Heaven and the true God, should by no means be worshipped. For they are nothing other than earth, to which, by the help of a craftsman, some figure has been added. He confirms this from the point that these statues, fashioned with such art, are so shameful and obscene that some have burned with a wicked and harlot-like love for them. "But," he says, "those who cultivate and adore them are certainly guilty of a greater crime than these craftsmen." Nay, he affirms that these are worse than the beasts, whom the great similarity of the same statues to their archetype has sometimes deceived—if you except the apes, at least.
Furthermore, he asserts that that impiety is no less, by which so many and such pernicious craftsmen of statues, and even painters and poets, brought in an altogether ridiculous crowd of gods, such as satyrs, nymphs, naiads, and nereids; by which even the magi boasted they had made the demons their own slaves; and by which, finally, the poets sang with impunity of the weddings, adulteries, births, and banquets of their gods. But for Christians, who, as he himself adds, are dedicated to God, it is not lawful to defile even their own ears with any base acts or fornications. Conversely, the pagans were not afraid to keep in their homes the most obscene images of the gods—which he there assails very sharply—and the most disgraceful rings, always exposed to the sight of everyone. Wherefore, he teaches that all those things are to be rejected, and that one must serve God alone, who created all things.
Then, for the refutation of the false opinions of the philosophers concerning God, our Clement descends with a not altogether inept transition. And he first briefly touches upon those who thought that the things which are in heaven should be worshipped. Then, he immediately refutes others who opined that the four elements, or one of them, or, besides those, strife and friendship, were the first principles and the gods. For he proves them to be no less foolish and impious than the common run of men who worshipped wood, stones, and earth, or who worshipped Neptune and Vulcan, or, finally, those who worshipped simply water or fire. Furthermore, since the Persians or Sarmatians worshipped fire before the first statue of the Venus of Tanais was made in the likeness of a man, he collects from this that the philosophers derived their opinion concerning first principles from them. He then breaks the sentiments of Anaximander, who thought the infinite was the first principle, and of Anaxagoras and Archelaus, who thought that intelligence together with the infinite were the first principles. Nor does he less clearly repudiate the assertions of Leucippus and Metrodorus regarding the full and the void, and the *eidola*, or species and images, added to both by Democritus and Heraclides. With the same ease he overturns the errors, both of Alcmaeon, who prattled that the stars were gods, and also...
of Xenocrates, who related that there were not only seven planets, but an eighth, namely the world, of which, however, he kept the name silent, into the order of gods. A Afterward, he hisses at and explodes the Stoics, who thought that God permeates absolutely all things, even the vilest. Furthermore, he proves Aristotle to be inconsistent with himself, for as much as he contended that the soul of this world was God Himself, in such a way that His providence was circumscribed within the limits of the lunar sphere. Nor does he consider the opinion of Theophrastus, the close associate of Aristotle himself, to be truer, who asserted that God is in one place heaven, but in another place spirit. Finally, he derides and refutes Epicurus, who stubbornly denied that God cared for human affairs in any way.
Having therefore exploded all these false and futile opinions of the philosophers, he passes on to others who felt and handed down truer things about God. But the first of these who presented himself to our Clement is Plato, from whom, although it is said not obscurely that the divine nature cannot be explained by men, the same Clement denies that they should therefore desist from the inquiry and investigation of it. B For indeed, for all, and especially for those who are versed in learning and literature, a certain effluence of Divinity is so implanted that all must, whether they will or not, confess that God is one, unbegotten, and immortal. But our author especially approves of that which is read in the same Plato, that God is the king, cause, and measure of all things; but he thinks there is no room for doubt that this prince of philosophers easily accepted human sciences from the barbarians, just as he accepted true laws and true knowledge of God from the Hebrews. Nor does he think that this was drawn from any other source than from that one, or from divine instinct, which even Antisthenes taught, that God, being like to nothing, cannot be known from an image; or what Xenophon wrote, that God, by whom all things are moved or consist, is great and powerful, but what form He has is known to none; or that Cleanthes the Stoic 28 in a few verses clearly expressed the true nature of God; or that the followers of Pythagoras openly handed down that God is so one and always, that He is whole in the whole world, the creator, father, mind, animation, and motion of all things.
What indeed of the fact that he demonstrates clearly that not only philosophers, but even poets themselves, though almost always occupied in singing of fables and false narratives, sometimes sang truly about God? For he cites Aratus and Hesiod 29 as witnesses, who affirm that God keeps all things under His rule. C Then, again, he refers to the poems of Hesiod and also of Sophocles and Orpheus, in which they openly proclaimed one God alone, the only immortal one, and the creator of all things. To this he also calls Menander, Euripides, and Homer 31, who did not fear in their verses to deride the gods, and to hiss at and proscribe them not without reproaches and curses.
But after this he fights against the pagans with the divine authority of the Old and certainly the New Testament, and makes it manifest that its sacred authors, inspired by the Holy Spirit, without any gloss, apparatus, and ornamentation of words, not only laid the foundations of true religion, but also called men away from vices and idolatry, and imbued them with the holy precepts and institutions of life and morals. D Which indeed is proven in a wonderful way by him by various testimonies of the Sibyl, Jeremiah, Isaiah, Moses, Amos, Solomon, David, and even the Apostle 32. He adds that he could still bring forward other countless places of the same Scriptures, by which God, with wonderful kindness, admonishes, entreats, insists, urges, and implores men to reject the impious cults of idols and gods and to embrace the true religion. Then our author then deservedly argues against the pagans because they, refusing to hear that most loving father, who by his altogether supreme and incredible goodness wished to bless them for free and quickly with eternal happiness, were throwing themselves headlong into hell of their own accord.
He immediately overturns their vain 33 and frivolous response, who denied that the custom handed down by their fathers should be shaken. For how great, good God, he says, are the changes that occur in the different ages of human life! Why then, he continues, did impious men refuse to approach from vices to piety, from the nefarious cult of idols to the true religion, without which no one will be able to attain eternal salvation? And he shows that, in order to persuade the pagans more easily of this, their presbyters, sacrificing to gods in 5 filthy vestments, seem to lament the gods rather than to honor them; and that they rather show their sepulchers than venerate temples. Wherefore he again, not without certain flowers of eloquence, provokes the Gentiles themselves to correct their previous faults by repenting 34, and to flee to the mercy of God, and he introduces God Himself speaking to them, exhorting them, and promising them the goods of eternal happiness 35, not unelegantly. Therefore, he is an author and persuader to them, that with no procrastination of inconsiderate consultation interposed, they should conduct themselves; nor should they listen any longer to the makers of images and adorers of stones, who have dared to refer Alexander the Great and other men into the number of the gods. For he shows these makers and worshippers of images to be most iniquitous, and more unhappy than the demon itself. For no perversity can be greater than that of those who worship idols, since no artist 36, neither Phidias, nor Apelles, nor any other, ever made a breathing image or statue. But since the divine Word alone, the Son of God, and the true image of God the Father, has expressed in man the living image of Himself, hence he argues that He alone is to be adored, and that the depraved custom of worshipping and adoring idols should be buried in the waters of holy baptism. And if the pagans do not perform this quickly 37, and repent as the Ninevites did of their past life, they will be the less worthy of pardon, the more easily they could have both known God and embraced the true religion. Wherefore he diligently warns them, that returning to saner things, they should no longer spend their faculties and their lives in honoring and adoring idols which are nothing but stones.
For no images or likenesses of gods, nor even the air, rainbow, day, month, year, and time, and consequently not those by which their measure is defined 38, namely the sun and moon, can be said to be gods in any way at all. From which he rightly concludes that the opinion of those who vainly thought that Punishment and Torture, Justice and Nemesis, the Furies, the Fates, Fate, the Republic, Glory, Plutus or riches, Modesty, Love, Venus, Sleep, Death, Enyo or Bellona, Mars, Comets, and Fortune were gods is far more absurd. But if, says Clement, no statue or image among them is God, and yet some divine power is seen in us, what else remains, but that we confess that there is only one true and only God? He prays therefore that the pagans, at last awakened from sleep, may finally know this God, having repudiated idols and other fictitious deities. He demonstrates that this God, and by no means the thousands of demons dwelling on earth, is the lord of the whole world. Men therefore, created by God 39, since they are continually fed by the fruits of the earth, certainly affected by his so many and such great benefits, ought to recognize their author. But the pagans, altogether unmindful of them, and like Niobe and the wife of Lot, devoid of all sense, are not only in an impious cult...
adoring trees, wood, and stones, but have so foolishly persuaded themselves that even the jackdaw and the crow are messengers of God, that they most cruelly persecute men who call them to justice and piety. Wherefore he laments their spiritual blindness and deafness, which is indeed the greatest of all evils, the more so because it is easier and swifter for them to arrive at the knowledge of God. But just as serpents turn away from incantations, so they always close their eyes to the light before them, and their ears to the divine voice, which never ceases to call out. He urges them, therefore, no longer to refuse to hear the divine Word, but, repentant of their former error, to believe in God and in Christ, who, having become man and having died, is the only God out of all mankind. For to those who truly seek Him and obey His laws, eternal life shall be their reward and prize.
Moreover, since there is nothing in His divine precepts that is not entirely upright and holy, all those who violate them are proved to be worse than the beasts, which do nothing contrary to the fixed laws of their nature. He vehemently exhorts the pagans, therefore, that at last casting aside the ancient errors in which they have so long been involved, they may profess the true faith of Christ. For all His disciples attributed their laws—which our Clement proves to be most holy—not to some one of the sages of Greece, as other nations do, but to God Himself. Nor does he suffer it to be held against him that they are too harsh. For Christ, by the highest and most divine benefit of human redemption, has smoothed over whatever was hard and difficult. Whence our author concludes that it is not Athens, nor Greece, nor Ionia, nor the philosophers, but Christ alone who must be heard, and toward Him and His disciples, as they proclaim the truth, faith must be held. And indeed, how far more excellent the precepts of Christ are than all the laws of the pagan sages he clearly reveals, and he shows that Christ is the true sun of justice, who, having put to flight the shadows of errors and affixed death to the cross, of His own accord bestows upon us a divine inheritance. But for such great benefits he says that nothing else is required by Christ Himself, except that we offer Him true piety and the worship that is due to Him. Clement therefore persuades the pagans that, having heard the voice of Christ, no one should be deaf any longer; but that all should obey His divine and saving commands, and each one take up His celestial arms at His signal, namely faith and justice. For with these arms each one will report a certain victory over the spiritual enemy; for having conversed with God and imitated Him, he shall attain eternal salvation.
Furthermore, Christ Himself, who builds up a sanctuary in the regenerated man in which God may dwell, always encourages and incites them. But Clement prudently warns that pleasures and depraved custom are to be shunned like a monstrous Charybdis, and that one must cling to the sacred wood of the cross; so that we may be able to land at the celestial port. There, however, we shall not dance in the foul orgies of Bacchus, but initiated into the most holy mysteries, we shall lead dances with the angels around Him who alone is God and unbegotten.
After Clement has introduced Christ, exhorting all pagans to come to Him and promising that He will make them like Himself, he then immediately urges them to hasten to Him, that they may become pious and religious men, that they may be carried along with a high spirit toward honest and holy things, and never henceforth prefer to them idolatry, which is a disgrace and an impiety. For the worshippers of truth ought to follow God with all their strength, and to yield themselves wholly to Him, and to love Him with their whole heart. For the benefits of friends, A a religious man, the friend of God, will have everything in common with Him. From which Clement concludes that only the Christian, who is pious and religious, is rich, temperate, like to God, and His image. Finally, he perhaps extended his discourse further, yet if a discourse concerning life, which has no end, can be extended further, after he excused himself in a few words, he says that there is absolutely no place for him to doubt but that the Gentiles will choose and embrace that which is more excellent, namely life rather than death.
ARTICLE II. On the author, age, title, and argument of this book, on the division of the whole work, its elegance, its erudition, and its manuscript codices.
That this book was edited by him whose name is inscribed upon it, namely our Clement of Alexandria, there can truly be no controversy—not even the slightest. For it is asserted most invincibly not only by all ancient manuscript codices, but also by writers of every age: Eusebius, Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria, Photius, and countless others subsequently. But what of the fact that Clement himself openly reveals and declares himself to be the author of this book? For these are his other words in the books of the *Stromata*: “And these things concerning the false religion of the Greeks, I think, we have sufficiently demonstrated in the book which is entitled *Protrepticus*, having abundantly made use of the histories which were relevant thereto.” Καὶ περὶ μὲν τῆς Ἑλληνικῆς δεισιδαιμονίας ικανῶς, οἶμαι, ἐν τῷ Προτρεπτικῷ ἐπιγραφομένῳ ἡμῖν λόγῳ παρεστήσαμεν κατακόρως, τῇ κατεπειγούσῃ συγκαταχρώμενοι ἱστορία. By these words he not only testifies that this book was written by him, but he declares, not at all obscurely, the title of it and the argument which is truly treated therein.
No man, however, either too peevish or of unsound mind, should object to us that some other book, other than the one about which we are disputing, is designated by Clement himself and other praised authors. For Eusebius, Cyril of Alexandria, and Theodoret quoted its lengthy fragments in Greek, as is the custom, word for word. But whence, I ask, could they have transcribed them, unless from a true and genuine copy of this work, on the front of which they had recognized—not falsely—the name of our Clement inscribed?
It will seem, therefore, far more difficult to determine anything certain and definite concerning the age of this work. For no traces occur in it of the time when it was edited by its author. From his other studies, however, we gather not obscurely that it was written by Clement before he applied the finishing touch to the books of his *Stromata*. For in these, as we saw a little above, that *Exhortation to the Gentiles* is cited by him in express terms. Before the year 194, therefore, around which more skilled critics, as will be said below, believe the books of the *Stromata* to have been published by the same Clement, this very *Exhortation to the Gentiles* had come forth into the light of day.
Whether it also preceded the three books of the *Paedagogus*, there would certainly be no cause for doubt if the initial phrasing of them, which is read in the edition of Hervet, could be proven to have truly proceeded from Clement himself. But since, as we shall say later, it does not occur in either of our codices written by a Greek hand, and is deservedly rejected in other editions as spurious and adulterine, we judge that nothing certain and indubitable can be derived from it. Photius, however, this *Exhortation*...
he confidently describes. For he speaks thus: *The Pedagogue, in three volumes... and it has, preceding these, and composed as another discourse, the one which refutes the impiety of the Greeks.* The *Pedagogue* in three books... to which he prefixes another, adding a separate book, by which he refutes the impiety of the Gentiles. But trusting to what argument he asserted this in such a way, when he does not in the least explain, what prevents one from concluding that he derived a certain proof of his assertion either from other works and writings of Clement, or from witnesses above all exception? And indeed Clement himself in the prologue to the same *Pedagogue* most clearly teaches that the *exhortatory* discourse, which deters men from false religion, is to be placed before those things which are treated in the books of the *Pedagogue*. Supported, therefore, by this reasoning of our author, and by the authority of Photius himself, we can undoubtingly affirm that this book of which we are speaking is older not only than the *Stromata*, but also than the books of the *Pedagogue*. Further, such is the connection of these books among themselves, that it does not allow them to be said to have been separated from one another by a long interval of time. The *Admonition to the Gentiles*, therefore, must be said to have been published some time, albeit not so long, before the year 194, around which we shall later show the books of the *Stromata* were written.
In confirmation of this opinion, that which Eusebius says can be produced: that Clement—doubtless our [Clement] of Alexandria—was one of those who, before the Roman pontificate of Victor, most constantly championed the supreme divinity of Christ in his books against the Gentiles or heretics. That this book of our Clement, which we are discussing, is indicated by Eusebius—and the title of the same book itself indicates this, and the sum of Christ's divinity asserted in it most clearly, as we shall see below—these things prove by an indication that is not entirely uncertain. Moreover, Victor is said to have been inaugurated in the Roman episcopate in the year of Christ 192. It can therefore be deduced, not altogether ineptly, that this book was made public property by our Clement some time before this year. B Added to this is the fact that this book seems to have been composed of those discourses which he had delivered in public sermons while he held the office of catechist around the year 189. For no one can doubt that that most learned man brought the greatest effort to the performance of that office, by which he might lead the Gentiles from their errors to the profession of the Christian faith. And that what he had delivered to them and his other hearers, he later committed to writing and published so that it might similarly be of benefit to all others, is indeed very probable.
But if you wish to know what title he himself prefixed to this work of his, Eusebius will teach you. For by him it is constantly called *πρὸς Ἕλληνας λόγος ὁ προτρεπτικός*, or *An Exhortatory Discourse to the Gentiles*. At the end of the most ancient Royal codex, this title is indeed read in the same way: but in the most recent hand, in this book, as also in the title of the Claromontanus manuscript after the word *Κλήμεντος*, the surname *στρωματέως* has undoubtedly been added so that our author might be distinguished from others of the same name. But this was certainly no cause, or at least a very slight one, for this addition. On the contrary, however, Jerome, omitting the word *προτρεπτικός*, simply calls this lucubration a book *against the Gentiles*: but everyone sees that this was done by him, without doubt, for the sake of brevity. For this book is called *Προτρεπτικός* by Clement himself, as we were saying a little earlier. But if the words *against the Gentiles* were also omitted by him in the same place C for reasons, you should know that those [words] are to be understood, since he also affirms confidently there in the same book that he had disputed against the false religion of the Greeks. It is clear, therefore, that the true and genuine inscription of this book is that which Eusebius and the most ancient Royal codex have represented in its entirety.
And indeed this epigraph encompasses the entire argument of this commentary. For from its analysis, which we have given, anyone can easily understand that Clement expended all his effort in it, and did nothing else but exhort the Gentiles, having been led away from the impious cult of idols and false gods, to embrace the true faith and religion of Christ. Although, however, Clement pursued this in a continuous discourse and without any division of his speech being made, if anyone, D nevertheless, examines this book most attentively, he will certainly perceive that it was distributed by Clement himself into various parts, sufficiently distinct from one another. Lest, however, it seem too laborious and troublesome to anyone, we have judged that the individual parts of this book should be exhibited separately in its analysis, so that they may be discovered by everyone without so much difficulty. And indeed this distribution of this book into its parts and chapters ought to have been done, at least by some one of those who were in charge of printing it. For by this partitioning, it would not have been far from the author's mind, and it would have anticipated the difficult men who, not without cause, will desire a greater connection of discourse in our Clement's book.
Nor, however, do we think it should be dissembled that some places are found here and there in this book that do not fully cohere with those that precede and follow... Nor will we deny that it could have been reduced by its author to a better order without great labor. But these things are easily to be forgiven a most learned writer who occasionally indulged his own genius. For nowhere, not even in the places that are noted, does he stray from his purpose, nor does he wander too far beyond the limits of his subject. Yet in the whole work he does not prove his argument only by valid and certain reasons: but he also spreads here and there various little flowers of eloquence, by which he attracts, refreshes, and soothes the minds of his readers. Nor should his total and by no means common erudition, with which this book is full and everywhere most replete, be less pleasing to them. And this elegance of style, as well as the erudition of the work, Photius, a critic of both who was neither unfair nor unskilled, sagely noted.
We have found two Greek manuscript codices of this work. The former is a book of the Royal library and of venerable antiquity, in which certain things of Justin Martyr, Athenagoras, and other Fathers were transcribed in the year of Christ 914. But the latter, from the library of the college of the Reverend Fathers of the Society of Jesus in Paris, the Reverend Father Harduin very humanely communicated to us in his customary manner. That book, moreover, is written on papyrus paper and is indeed of a more recent hand: but many variant readings are shown in it, as in the former, which, when the occasion arises, we or others who wish to apply their efforts to the re-editing of our Clement's commentaries shall make public. In the margins of both manuscript codices, certain little notes have been added to explain briefly the more obscure places of the Clementine text, many of which have been published at the end of the works of the same our Clement, printed by Gentianus Hervetus. But if
anyone thinks that we have invented this gratuitously, we have deemed it worth the effort to institute a brief discussion concerning them, before we pass on to other matters. A The first place that occurs to us is that where Clement says concerning the Corybantes: "When they had killed their third brother, they covered the head of the dead man with a purple cloth, and buried him wearing a crown, carrying him on a bronze shield to the foot of Mount Olympus." Hervetus, however, even though he concedes that this word "third" is truly present in the exemplar of Clement and in the bracket? "version," but more correctly "transcription," of Eusebius, yet he says: "We, following Arnobius, translate not 'third,' but 'their own' brother, so that it may be read in Greek not τρίτον, but ἑαυτῶν." But we cannot deny that it is completely unknown to us from which passage of Arnobius he took this amendment. For these are the very words of Arnobius: "Let the Corybantic rites also be given over to oblivion, in which that holy mystery is handed down, of a brother murdered by his brothers, and the parsley sprung from the blood of the slain." But what, I ask you, could Hervetus gather from that against the common reading of the Clementine text, unless he has proven from elsewhere that more than two brothers were slain? C We are, indeed, not unaware that four Cabeiri, who are said to be the same as the Corybantes, are enumerated by the scholiast of Apollonius. But he certainly should have been cited by Hervetus, and not Arnobius. Moreover, even though that authority of the scholiasts were entirely certain, Hervetus could indeed note it in his observations, but nothing from it should have been changed in the text of Clement for that reason. For other writers of no mean name argue in favor of the opinion of our author. And first, what is clearer and more open in his defense than these words of Julius Firmicus? "In the sacred rites of the Corybantes, a parricide is worshipped. For one brother was killed by two; and lest any sign should reveal the slaughter of the fraternal death, he is consecrated by the parricidal brothers under the roots of Mount Olympus." D But, you will say, Julius took these things from a corrupted text of Clement, and with him as a guide, fell into the same error. But, we shall reply, by what argument will you prove that the text of our author was already corrupted then, and that these things which he relates were taken from it by Julius? We are certainly convinced that he did not transcribe these things from Clement, as he immediately adds: "The foolish persuasion of the Macedonians worships this same one, whom the Thessalonians once worshipped with bloody hands."
From which sources and writers he drew these later things, he could easily have drawn the former ones as well, by which only three Cabeiri brothers are said to have existed. A Then, indeed, Strabo relates the same thing clearly, who testifies that he received that not from Clement, but from Acusilaus, in these words: "Acusilaus the Argive says that Camillus was born from Cabeira and Vulcan; from this one, three Cabeiri; from these, the Cabeirid nymphs." But from this passage of Strabo one might not absurdly gather that the father is being confused with the sons by the scholiast of Apollonius and by Mnaseas, who claim that Camillus was the fourth of the Cabeiri.
It certainly does not escape us that the Corybantes were distinguished by some from the Cabeiri, since the same Strabo immediately adds: "Pherecydes [says there were] nine Corybantes from Apollo and Rhytia, who dwelt in Samothrace, and three Cabeiri from Cabeira the daughter of Proteus and Vulcan, and three Cabeirid nymphs." But what do these things do against the purpose of Clement, when he is only arguing about the orgies of the Corybantes, in which the slaughter of the Cabeiri brother was undoubtedly celebrated? Finally, even if the opinion of certain writers on this matter had been different from Clement's, because he had as predecessors many authors of no small weight, there should have been absolutely no change made in his text, which is confirmed by the authority not only of Eusebius, but of our manuscripts. If you ask for more regarding the Corybantes and Cabeiri, consult Vossius, book I, *De idololatriae origine et progressu*, ch. 53 and 57; Natalis Comes, book IX, *Mythologiae*, ch. 7; Caelio Rhodiginus, etc. B The second passage of Clement, which Hervetus judges to be corrupted, is read in the printed editions thus: Πῖσά ἐστιν ὑμῖν τάφος ἐστὶν, ὦ Πανέλληνες, ἡνιόχου Φρυγός, καὶ τοῦ Πέλοπος τὰς χοὰς, τὰ Ὀλύμπια ὁ Φειδίου στολίζεται Ζεύς. "Pisa indeed to you, O Greeks, is the tomb of the Phrygian charioteer, and [for] the drink-offerings of Pelops, the Olympia [which] the Zeus of Phidias adorns." For he thinks it should be read τοῦ Πέλοπος χοαὶ, not δὲ τὰς χοὰς. Wherefore he rendered this passage into Latin thus: "Pisa indeed to you, O Greeks, is the tomb of the Phrygian charioteer, and the drink-offerings of Pelops. The Olympia claims for itself the Jupiter of Phidias." But this emendation of Hervetus is completely vain and useless, which not only the authority of Eusebius, who recorded this passage, and of our manuscripts rejects, but which the true text of Clement itself can never admit. For why, I pray you, in so long a commentary did Hervetus in no way explain what the "drink-offerings of Pelops" signified there, unless it is because he did not grasp the intention of Clement? C But if you ask what that mind and sense of our author was, you ought to remember that the city of Olympia was once situated between Ossa and Mount Olympus, not far from the cities of Greece, Elis and Pisa, where there was a temple of Olympian Jupiter, and a statue of him fashioned by Phidias, the most noble sculptor. Pelops, however, is reported to have been buried at Letrina, which was a city of Elis. He further had a Phrygian charioteer, by name Myrtilus, who was so corrupted by money promised by Pelops that, through his fraud, Oenomaus, the king of Elis and Pisa, crashed and died after the chariot was broken. Afterwards, indeed, when the same Myrtilus importunately demanded of Pelops the price promised for his treachery, he was cast by him into the sea. D Thus this, which in few words attacks these fables and superstitions of the pagans, seems to be the sense of Clement: "Pisa is the tomb of Myrtilus the Phrygian charioteer, and of the one cast into the sea by Pelops, and [is] also [the place of] the drink-offerings of Pelops, just as Olympia claims for itself the statue of Jupiter fashioned by Phidias." Since, however, Pisa [is] not far, as we have said, from Mount Olympus.
A
Regarding the various epithets of Jupiter as recounted by Clement, 71 Hervetus there desires that for the name *Protropaeos*, which is consistently set forth in our published and manuscript codices, the term *Apotropaeos* should be substituted. And indeed, he not unjustly confirms this amendment by bringing forward the testimony of Lucian, by whom Jupiter is so named. But this correction—doubtless not only of this, but of another passage—could have been no less validly established from the text of Clement himself. For he sometimes calls the tutelary gods, or rather the averters of evils, *Protropaeos*, or as it is read in the handwritten codices, *Protopaious*; elsewhere, indeed, *Apotropaeos* 72. Yet who would deny that from this latter reading, which no one will gainsay to be sound and genuine, the two previous passages ought to be corrected? However, since by Budaeus 73 Zevs *Prostropaios* is said to be the Jupiter to whom suppliants or the needy turn, and who is called *Piacularis* (the Expiator), that common reading of the editors and manuscript codices is not so easily to be removed from the midst; perhaps it will even seem necessary for it to be admitted by others who are more skilled.
Hervetus thinks this passage of Clement is gaping and fractured, in which he records that storks are honored by the Thessalians with these words: "The Thessalians have honored storks among you on account of habit: Θεσσαλοὶ μὲν ὑμῶν τοὺς πελάργους τετιμήκασι διὰ τὴν συνήθειαν 74." But what is missing in this context of our author, Hervetus does not point out; he merely considers it to be utterly foreign to the truth that the Thessalians—who, as he himself opines, did not hold storks to be gods—had honored them with some extraordinary honor solely on account of habit. But he does not sufficiently turn his mind to those things which are argued by Clement against the Greeks. For Clement shows that they are not better, or perhaps are even worse, than the Egyptians, whom they never ceased to mock on account of their impious worship of irrational animals. This, indeed, he first proves by the example of the Thessalians, and says that storks are worshipped by them διὰ τὴν συνήθειαν, or rather διὰ τὴν σύνθειαν (due to shared nature), that is, because they attributed to storks the same divinity as the Egyptians did to other animals. And indeed, the sequence of the Clementine oration itself and the argument of the dispute seem to demand this amputation of a single little letter. For he would not be proving by that example of the Thessalians that they were no better than the Egyptians, unless it had been his conviction that they had attributed some divinity to storks, just as the Egyptians did to other living creatures. Nevertheless, if you can elicit a similar sense from the word *synetheia*, we will readily admit that it should be retained along with the published and manuscript codices. Moreover, that the worship exhibited by the Thessalians to storks—because they devoured serpents—is mentioned by many others besides Pliny 75 (cited by Hervetus), you will find documented in Bochart 76.
Hervetus complains of another corruption of the Clementine text where these things are read regarding the images of the Furies, the Patarean Jupiter, and 9 Apollo: "Do not doubt, if of the gods called the Eumenides [Semnai] at Athens, he made two, Scopas, from the stone called *lychnis*. And they record that they have a middle one, by reporting that Polemon shows [it] in the fourth book of his work toward Timaeus. Nor [doubt] that the things at Patara of Lycia, the statues of Jupiter and B Apollo, Phidias again fashioned [in the same way] as the lions that have been dedicated with them." "Do not therefore doubt that Scopas made two of the goddesses who are called the Eumenides at Athens out of the stone which is called *lychnis*. And they say that Polemon, in the fourth of those works he wrote toward Timaeus, shows the one which they are said to have in the middle: nor that Phidias, in turn, fashioned those which are at Patara of Lycia, of Jupiter and Apollo, just as he also did the lions that were dedicated with them." Hervetus and other editors of this work suspect, not without cause, that something of a mistake lies hidden in these words *Polemona deiknynai*, or that some word has dropped out from the author himself or from his copyist scribe. For this reason, Hervetus thinks it should be corrected thus: *hos Polemon deiknysin*, as Polemon shows. Others assert that the word *phasi*, "they say," should be restored. But these amendments are confirmed by the authority of none of our manuscripts. For the same readings occur in them as in the published codices, except that for *ex Phideias* they consistently have *en Phideia*. Furthermore, in the Royal codex, for *semnon* we read *asemnon*, but the letter *e* is undoubtedly missing there: *esemnon*. But these things contribute nothing toward correcting the main error of this passage. Since, however, the sense of it is obvious and open to all, what is the need to linger and tarry longer in seeking out the true reading?
But those things which are subsequently connected by Clement in the same place are affirmed by Hervetus to be so corrupted by the scribes that no one can fix them any longer. For these are read in the Greek in the manuscript and published codices as follows 77: "Furthermore, they recognize that the statues of Neptune and Amphitrite at Tinos, which are worshipped, are the work of Telesius of Athens, nine cubits tall, as Philochorus says." In these words there is certainly no obscurity at all, nor even the slightest suspicion of an adulterated text. But the word *enneapeche*—which Hervetus in fact cut into two parts and rendered in Latin as *in Neapecha*—led him into error. Wherefore, in his observations, he says: "But I do not even understand what *Neapecha* means, about which there is no one who says even a single word." What wonder, then, if Hervetus searched in vain for that which it is certain Clement never said or thought? Therefore, by the true and sincere restitution of this word, the knot of the difficulty proposed by Hervetus is easily solved and overcome.
Subsequently, we are warned by the same Hervetus that Cicero mentions the town of Tinos somewhere 78: "But where it is situated," he says, "I do not find." He had undoubtedly not read the book of Aristotle 79 *On Marvellous Things Heard*. For toward the end of it, the philosopher indicates to us not obscurely that it was once situated in Thessaly. Finally, we learn from this same Clement of ours 80, just as we do from Arnobius 81 and others, that Neptune violated the virginity of Amphitrite. Since Philochorus asserts that the statues of both Neptune and Amphitrite were placed at Tinos, there is certainly no room for doubt on that matter. From this explanation of that location, some light can be brought to another passage where we read these words of our Clement 82: "But Philochorus says that the medicus [physician] Neptune is worshipped at Tinos." For although Hervetus confesses that this is still completely unknown to him, who nevertheless does not see that Clement, concerning that same town of Tinos and that same Neptune of whom [he spoke] above, C D
A cites Philochorus 84 as his witness? But something more will be said below regarding this healing Neptune.
Subsequently, Hervetus denies that, without the aid of some corrected Greek manuscript, any remedy can be applied to this desperate passage of our Clement, where he discourses as follows 85 on the images of the gods: « Τί γὰρ ἡγεῖσθε, ὦ ἄνθρωποι, τὸν Τυφῶνα, καὶ τὸν Ἑρμῆν, καὶ τὸν Ἀνδοκίδην, καὶ τὸν Ἀμύητον; Ἢ παντί τῳ δῆλον ὅτι λίθους, ὥσπερ καὶ τὸν Ἑρμῆν; » "For what do you think, O men, of Typhon, and Mercury, and Andocides, and Amyetus? Or is it not evident to everyone that they are stones, just as Mercury [is]?" In exactly the same way, this passage is represented in our two manuscripts written by a Greek hand, except that instead of ‹Τυφῶνα καὶ τὸν Ἑρμῆν›, they have more simply ‹Τυφώνα Ἑρμῆν›. Although the true meaning of Clement does not seem capable of being explained more easily from this reading than from the other, from it we nevertheless learn that Typhon, and therefore Andocides and Amyetus, are three cognomens of Mercury. Therefore, the entire difficulty lies in explaining that triple name. B
But regarding Mercury Andocides, as Hervetus correctly observes, something is found in Aeschines' oration *Against Timarchus*. For these are the words of Aeschines: "The shrines in Colonus, which are called demonic, have a false name; for they are not of a demon." Then [he says] that the Mercury who is called Andocides is not of Andocides, but belongs to the Aegeid tribe. Therefore, some have believed that a certain Andocides was Mercury.
Regarding Amyetus, Hervetus adds: "What he understands, I do not know; whether it is *amyētos*, 'not initiated' into the mysteries, or a proper name." Doubtless, it had slipped his memory that he had read *amyēton* (that is, uninitiated and profane) in Giraldus 87, whom he cites very often, as being a proper cognomen of Mercury, inasmuch as the Athenians, as Favorinus testifies, set up a statue to him by that name on the Acropolis. Moreover, Erasmus, where he treats the proverb Ἑρμῆς ἀμύθητος, that is, "Mercury the infant," or "tongue-tied," or "unlearned," warns us that *amyētous* is read in the common editions. No one doubts that this was said ironically and by antiphrasis. For who is more knowledgeable and skilled in the mysteries than Mercury, the interpreter of the gods?
Therefore, the third name remains, Typhon, which is certainly far more difficult to explain than the other two. We know indeed that it was the opinion of Hervetus that Clement speaks of Typhon the giant, who is frequently mentioned by poets and other writers. But why would he have made mention of this Typhon, who seemed to have nothing to do with his subject? More correctly, therefore, we learn from our manuscript codices that a certain Mercury was called by this name of Typhon. But who he was, and whether this name was correctly written by the copyists, you could not easily say; for we frankly admit that we have found nothing certain about this Mercury Typhon. But when Cicero mentions that there was a triple Mercury, he certainly declares that the second is called by the name of *Triphonius*. "Mercury," he says 88, "is one, whose father was Coelus... Another is the son of Valentus and Phoronis, he who is held to be in the underworld, the same as Trophonius. The third is from the third Jove, etc." Here, however, the Latin *Triphonius*, with one or another letter perversely changed by the librarians 10, was perhaps the same as the Greek *Typhon*. Yet, since there were various and almost infinite cognomens of this kind for the gods, as Clement himself testifies 89, we commit these conjectures, which we have received from others, to our judgment, and we dare not establish anything certain.
Nor should anyone object to us that, if these are cognomens of Mercury, there would be a useless repetition of Mercury there. For another not entirely dissimilar [passage] occurs earlier, where he writes in this manner 96 concerning the oracles of Apollo: « Narra nobis alia quoque divinationis, vel insanæ potius vanitatis oracula, Clarium, Pythium, Didymæum, Amphionem, Apollinem. » We know indeed that it seemed to some that this last word should be deleted from the Clementine text. But this is completely wrong. For it is confirmed with certain authority not only by our printed and manuscript codices but also by Eusebius, who reported this passage of our Clement.
Wherefore, if someone finds this explanation of the words of our same author pleasing, he will certainly conclude without difficulty that [Clement's] meaning is that there are three Mercuries—Typhon, Andocides, and Amyetus—just as he who was called Mercury simply was nothing else at all than stones and rocks, which were completely devoid of all sense.
Furthermore, while Clement strives to entice the pagans to the faith of Christ, he argues against them thus 91: « Ὁ γὰρ δὴ μύθῳ μὲν ἐπιστεύετε ποιητικῷ τὸν Μίνω τὸν Κρῆτα τοῦ Διὸς ὡς ἄριστον ἀναγράφοντα. » "For you did not believe the poetic fable which writes that Minos the Cretan was the closest friend of Zeus." But a certain scholiast of Clement thinks that the words C ‹ὡς ἄριστον› should be corrected from Homer 92, and that one should read ‹ὀαριστύν›, that is, a disciple or intimate, or interlocutor. And not badly, indeed. For in our manuscripts, one letter *n* being badly changed into *o* by the copyist, we read ‹ὀαριστὸν› instead of ‹ὀαριστύν›. And the subsequent words of Clement certainly seem to demand this. For he adds: "But you do not believe us to have been disciples of God." And our author teaches elsewhere that Minos was a disciple of Zeus: "And they relate that Minos, coming to the cave of Zeus, received laws from Zeus for the space of nine years 93." And again in the following book: "And Minos is celebrated by the Greeks as a king who was familiarly associated with Zeus for nine years 94."
If, finally, any other corruptions are noted in the Clementine text in this his *Exhortation*, we shall dispute them below in their proper place, where the occasion arises. But we shall omit those which are of the slightest [significance], and which neither render the author's meaning more obscure, nor are supported by any probable reason.
ARTICLE IV.
*Who was the author of this Exhortation to the Greeks, the Paedagogus, the Stromata, and other works of this same Clement; who were his teachers; what was his role and office; and where and how he composed this Exhortation to the Greeks.*Since it is certain that Clement is the true and genuine author of this *Exhortation to the Greeks* and of the other works which must be examined henceforth, before we proceed further, we must diligently investigate who he was. Let us begin with his name, which, as Eusebius 95 and Photius 96 testify, was Titus Flavius Clemens; the cognomen, however, if you believe the same Eusebius 97, was Alexandrinus. He is said to be distinguished by this cognomen because he was either born in Alexandria, or, more likely, because he stayed for a long time in this city and was ordained a presbyter there. For it is not so certain that he was actually born there, given that many, as Epiphanius testifies, have believed that his homeland was Athens: « Ὅν φασί τινες Ἀλεξ- » D
or Andrew, others an Athenian, others an Alexandrian.
It is, however, more certain and established among all that Clement, having quickly abandoned the impious superstitions and errors of the pagans, as Eusebius says, embraced the Christian religion. And Eusebius’ words are: “The venerable Clement, in his *Exhortation to the Greeks*, places the vileness of these A things bare and exposed to the eyes of all; for having learned all their ceremonies by his own experience, he quickly raised his head from that infamous error, liberated by the power of the saving Word and evangelical doctrine from such a contagion of so many evils.”
As soon, however, as he gave his name to the Christian faith, he spared no labor or effort, that he might without delay be more fully imbued with its divine precepts and doctrines, visiting and listening to the most learned teachers and preceptors of our religion. For he speaks in this manner of those whom he calls blessed and most worthy of mention: “One of these, indeed, was in Greece, a certain Ionian; but others were in Great Greece. One of them was from Coelesyria, another from Egypt, but others were from the East; and of these one was indeed an Assyrian, but another a Hebrew in Palestine, drawn from an ancient root. But when I arrived at the last—he was, however, the first in power—I rested in Egypt, hunting out those things that had lain hidden. Like a true Sicilian bee, plucking the flowers of the prophetic and apostolic meadow, he engendered a certain sincere and uncorrupted knowledge in the minds of those who heard him.”
But if you ask who all these were, you ask a matter indeed very difficult. For Clement, doubtless because they were still alive and known to all, kept silent their names. And Eusebius declares only the last of them in these words: “Indeed, in the books of the *Institutions* written by himself, he explicitly names Pantaenus his teacher. But he also seems to me to designate the same person in the first book of the *Stromata*, where he enumerates all the most excellent successors of apostolic doctrine by whom he had been instructed.” Eusebius does not dare to state with certainty that Pantaenus is designated in the passage of the *Stromata* we have cited; but from another book by the same Clement, where he is explicitly named, he reasonably collects that this is not entirely without merit.
But there is a far greater contention among the learned concerning the number and names of his other teachers. For although all readily concede that Pantaenus is pointed out, as it were with a finger, by the latter words, some nevertheless wish for us to understand four, others only three men, besides him, who were handed down to him for discipline. For the patrons of the former opinion wish to understand by the name of him who was born in Greece, Dionysius, bishop of the Corinthians, or Caius; by the name of the Syrian, Theophilus of Antioch; by that of the Assyrian, Bardesanes; and finally, by the Palestinian, Theophilus of Caesarea. But others deny that Theophilus of Caesarea and Bardesanes are in any way designated by Clement’s words. For the former is never reported by anyone to have been a Jew or a Hebrew; and that the latter is not an Assyrian, B but an Osrhoenian—that is, from Odessa, which is the capital of Osrhoene—they report.
Therefore, they think the text of Clement in our editions is corrupt, and that instead of these words: *“Of these, one was in Greece, an Ionian; others were in Great Greece,”* it should be read: *“Of these, one was in Greece, the Ionian; another was in Great Greece.”* With the text of Clement thus emended, they assume they can conclude that his first teacher, who originated from Achaia, is called the Ionian by him; that the second is Tatian, as he was an Assyrian; and finally that the third, the Hebrew from Palestine, is none other than Theodotus, because in the *Epitome of the Hypotyposes* of Clement this title is inscribed: *From the eastern teachings of Theodotus*.
But this opinion has no fewer difficulties than the former. For as far as the first is concerned, our manuscript codex represents the text of Clement exactly as the printed ones do. Moreover, who could easily persuade himself that Clement, who passed over in such silence the names of his own preceptors—and even of him whom he recommends above all others—would have only called the former by his surname? C Furthermore, by what argument, I ask you, do they prove that Tatian is designated by Clement? By no argument whatever, except that he was an Assyrian by race. As if, indeed, no Assyrian but Tatian could have been Clement’s teacher at that time. Nor, in truth, is the conjecture offered on behalf of Theodotus of any greater weight. For he appears not undeservedly to have been a follower of the Valentinian heresy. But Clement most constantly asserts that his teachers were most addicted to orthodox and apostolic doctrine.
It must therefore be confessed that, if you except Pantaenus, nothing can be defined with certainty by anyone concerning the names of Clement’s teachers. But since Clement himself very clearly declares who they were and what sort of men they were, we see no reason at all why such and so little useful labor has been expended in searching for their names. For he makes it most manifest to us from where they originated, where he heard them, how sound and catholic their doctrine was, and finally that they were the first successors of the apostles. And Eusebius confirms this admirably with these words: “In the first book of the *Stromata*, speaking of himself, he testifies that he was next to the first successors of the apostles.”
What of the fact that from the cited testimony of our same Clement we learn of various parts of the world traversed by him—Greece, Italy, the East, Palestine, and Egypt—so that he might be imbued with all the monuments of the Christian religion by those most learned teachers? D Being thus perfectly instructed, he settled in Alexandria, and there, after Pantaenus, he was placed in charge of the Christian school and the instruction of the catechumens. While he was performing this duty, he published this *Exhortation to the Greeks*, composed, as we have said, from those catecheses which he had delivered among the same catechumens and other Christians, as well as the three books of the *Pedagogue*, which we shall soon discuss.
CAPUT II.
On the three books of the Pedagogue.The reason why the name and title of *Pedagogue* are placed before these books is clearly explained by Clement at the very beginning of this work. He says that he calls those men, who, having rejected their former errors, have been instructed in the true doctrine of the Christian faith by the *Exhortatory* (or *Protreptic*) discourse.
A Its end, indeed, is that the Pædagogue might heal the diseases and perturbations of the soul, and render it better for the future through virtue and holy actions.
Our author teaches that no one can properly fulfill this office of Pædagogue save Christ the Lord, who, always like unto His eternal Father and Himself God, was later made man, yet remained prone to no sin, no reproach, and no perturbations of mind. And truly He was, to the highest degree, endowed with the gifts of that divine nature and holiness which we ought to imitate, as much as possible, by guarding against all sins, both voluntary and involuntary; and He further restrains us with the greatest gentleness from falling into those very sins; and with Him resides the supreme power of forgiving them and of perfectly healing all the diseases and sicknesses of our soul. Since, however, He Himself is the true God, He remits every sin, and His love for man, whom He created in His own image, is so great that for his sake He became man, that He might always bring him aid, and everywhere support and succor him. Nor, further, is He the Pædagogue of man alone in this manner, but also of woman, whose life, salvation, grace, and indeed all goods, are common with man.
Since, however, only children are handed over to discipline, Clement diligently investigates who those are who are to be instructed by Christ. B He makes it plain that they are those who are truly Christians, and glory in that name, by which is signified not age, but simplicity of morals and integrity and innocence of life. Nor does he less clearly prove that for this same reason they are called in the sacred Scriptures little ones, lambs, and calves, sucklings, simple doves, chicks of doves and hens, infant children, little children, a new or nascent people. He likewise makes it plain that the term *nēpios* (infant) is accepted in the same sense. And this appellation, which some foolishly mocked, appeared clearly glorious to Christians, as it signifies holy simplicity and an eternity free from all old age. For by that name they were distinguished from the old people of the Israelites, and having been generated into the adoption of sons by the Holy Spirit, they were far dearer to God than all others. This, indeed, Clement beautifully confirms with mystical interpretations of Isaac playing and laughing with his wife Rebecca. To this is added that Christ Himself was not ashamed to be called a boy, a young child, a lamb, and an infant. From which our author justly and deservedly concludes that the perfect childish discipline of Christians is declared by this sacred nomenclature.
But he refellects excellently upon those who, on account of this very name, despised the Christians. C For Christian infancy had its beginning from the sacred waters of baptism. And he shows most manifestly, from the various names of the same sacrament, its effect, and the very baptism of Christ, that there is nothing at all imperfect in it, but that it is the sum of perfection. And this he confirms with the words of the Apostle, by which he bids Christians to be infants in vice, but perfect in mind. Yet because some objected that he had written the same things in his Epistle, that he had given them milk, as to infants, and not meat, because they were weaker as Christians; D from hence he proves, by the authority of Homer and the Apostle himself, that milk is a perfect nourishment. And to demonstrate this more plainly, he discourses at length on the production of milk in the breasts of women; and attempts to persuade us by physical considerations that it is always formed from blood, changed into a white color. Furthermore, he concludes from this that just as nothing is more white and sweet than milk, so there is nothing by which man is better nourished. And for this reason, he says, some have called milk manna, and Christ the Lord, in the sacrament of the Eucharist, offered His own body and blood—which is also mystically called wine—to all as both milk and spiritual food to be eaten and drunk. But since the mixture of milk with water and honey, and also with sweet wine, is useful and wholesome, Clement therefore clearly compares it with baptism, the divine Word, and the Christian faith. Finally, although the perfection of Christians from the time of their accepted baptism is great, nevertheless, since it is not the greatest of all, he therefore restrains the pride of those who foolishly boasted themselves to be more perfect than the apostles themselves. For in truth the only perfect one is God the Father, and Christ His Son, our Pædagogue, whose office it is to lead us, His children, to eternal salvation.
What, moreover, and how manifold is His *pædagogia*, or institution, and what is its end, Clement thereafter defines; and he demonstrates that Christ is far more excellent than other pædagogues—Phoenix, Adrastus, Leonidas, Nausithous, Zopyrus, Sicinnus, and the tutors of the kings of the Persians. Which, that he may explain more clearly, he places before the eyes of all the manner in which He once ruled the patriarchs, to whom He showed Himself, and the Israelitish people in the Old Testament, and how He governs and moderates Christians in the new. Moreover, he refutes the objection of those who argued that the same Christ the Lord was not good, inasmuch as He inflicts threats and terrors, and sometimes strikes with a rod. For first he proves invincibly that He is not only good, but that His justice does not in the least detract from the greatest love with which He pursues men. Then immediately, he responds to the proposed objection that His threats, reprehensions, terrors, animadversions, chastisements, and scourges are not signs of hatred, but of benevolence, and a certain salutary medicine by which He deters men from sin, and heals all the diseases and sicknesses of our soul. Clement nevertheless denies that God’s anger can be called anything save metaphorically, or that He avenges and pursues His own injuries. Nor does he make it plain and evident with less certainty that the same is the one true God, who is both good and just at the same time, and that His mercy and justice are altogether one and the same. For both, just as with rebukes and chastisements, always procure our eternal salvation.
Furthermore, all the animadversions and admonitions of that kind are recounted by our author in a long and accurate induction, namely: admonition, vituperation, complaint, increpation, refutation, chastisement, visitation, malediction, accusation, expostulation, detraction, indignation, and their definitions are brought forth by various testimonies of the sacred Scripture. And from these he argues that the Lord is truly good. And this he confirms again by the authority of other parts of sacred Scripture, and even of Plato, and by the example of a good prince and physician. Then indeed he convinces us how good our Pædagogue is, because He is our shepherd, who not only leads, cares for, and feeds, but, having been made man and our brother, died for us. Moreover, he demonstrates to us that not only is His goodness signified by the imposed name of Jesus, but also that no man is recalled to his duty by reprehension and slavish fear—which is far distinct from filial—unless he has despised His goodness. Therefore, in His reprehensions, He is the same both just and good. For just as a mirror, by which deformity is shown, and a physician, by whom a fever is declared, is not evil but good, so also God, when He reproves us, is Himself truly just, He who, before He was creator, was good, and
A afterward sent His Word, from whom justice, first announced to men from the heavens, was sent into the world.
As to how great the gentleness and mildness of our Pedagogue is in His exhortations, Clement concludes from this, that He exhorts men to those things which are useful, gives them salutary counsels, comforts them with the sure hope of eternal salvation, illuminates those wandering from the truth, and leads them to repentance. Furthermore, for the confirmation of this argument, he adds that he could have brought forward the authority of certain philosophers, who asserted that only he who is good is worthy of praise, while he who is evil is worthy of blame. But because they denied the providence of God, and falsely opined that that which is good is not just, he judged that he should refrain from citing them. Nor did he think that the testimonies of others, who believed only God to be wise and worthy of praise, should be brought into the middle. For he judged it to be enough and more than enough for his purpose if he demonstrated that blame and praise are the most necessary medicines for men. This, in turn, he confirms beautifully with the poem of Pythagoras the Samian brought forward. He adds that there are countless other things from which he refers to some, that the Holy Scriptures provide for the acquisition of good things and the fleeing of evils, places in which the institution of the Christian life, and the method appropriate for obtaining the rewards of eternal life, are clearly exhibited. Finally, he said that those things which he had hitherto disputed concerning this manner of informing Christians were sufficient. He adds, however, that corrections are rightly compared by the divine Word to a grain of mustard seed. And indeed, that divine Word, by Moses and the other prophets, but not without the help of threats and terror, by which He might dispose men toward our faith, performed the office of a pedagogue. Now, however, He imbues and informs Christians with divine knowledge, and with the greatest benevolence and freedom of speech in His precepts. These precepts of His 17 are, moreover, neither overly difficult, nor, out of kindness, too dissolute, but are so attempered to each one that they can be easily fulfilled by all. For no other reason has this divine Pedagogue fashioned the earthly man from dust, regenerated him with water, and grown him by the Spirit, than that by the observation of His commandments He might transform him into a supercelestial man.
We must, therefore, listen to Him in such a way that, by fulfilling the will of the Father, we may become like Him. That, moreover, will be truly accomplished by us if, cultivating a simple way of life, rejecting superfluous things, being anxious for nothing concerning the morrow, and always content with our lot, we learn from Him frugality, moderation, a love of freedom, kindness, a pursuit of honesty, and a constant application to virtue, without indolence or negligence. For this is the peculiar manner of living for Christians, that in their gait, their reclining, their food, their sleep, and all the actions of life, they are temperate with a just and equitable moderation. For such was the doctrine of our divine Pedagogue, which refuted sins without dissimulation, indicated the evil affections of the soul, cut out the roots of desires, supplied all remedies for vices in abundance, and clearly demonstrated those things which are to be done by us. For that reason, our author concludes that the greatest thanks are to be rendered to Him.
Finally, so that this may appear still more clearly, he brings forward there the individual definitions of sin, desire, fear, and pleasure. Then he concludes, from the very description of virtue and philosophy, that man, by his disobedience, becomes like the beasts of burden and is deprived of reason because of sin. He then demonstrates what the life of a Christian is, and what his duties are, concerning which a discussion is to be instituted by him individually in the books which follow.
ARTICLE II. Analysis of the Second Book.
What the Christian ought to be during his whole life B is shown, and he takes the beginning of his discourse from external things and from the correct reason of moderating and governing one's own body. 18 And first, indeed, he discourses concerning foods, and teaches that they should be used not for the sake of pleasure, but only for the conservation of our life. Wherefore he shows that it ought to be simple, and indeed not for delights, but apt and convenient for refreshing the strength of the body and maintaining health. Therefore, he wishes an excessive abundance of foods, the various artifices of delicacies and condiments, and other irritants of gluttony, by which it is certain that men have always fallen into every kind of disease and ailment, to be rejected by all. Hence he attacks most bitterly those who always used to not so much furnish as burden their tables with the most exquisite foods, and those brought from any most remote part of the whole earth, such as Sicilian lampreys, Meander eels, Melian kids, Sciathian mullets, and other fish, birds, oysters, and animals of this kind which were very rare. Nor did he think those should be spared who dared to call certain sumptuous little meals, or rather luxurious dinners, *agapai* (love feasts). For he demonstrates that nothing is more abhorrent than such banquets to charity, which is signified by this latter name, and into whose praises he runs not inelegantly in that place. And truly, he says, the dinner of Christians ought to be entirely frugal, and apt for vigils, and not seasoned with that multitude of various foods and delicacies, by which the soul is rendered no less sluggish and inert than the body is rendered languid and diseased. Besides these, moreover, as from all other banquets, he wishes three types of men—flatterers, parasites, and gladiators—to be driven away, as they are fully similar to flies and weasels. And there he incidentally proves that one must always abstain from things sacrificed to idols. Such, however, is his indulgence toward men who are still weaker, that he does not take away from them all apparatus of dishes, but he deeply condemns and proscribes the evil custom of gorging oneself, and of using so many viands, condiments, and more delicate and high-priced foods. Then he makes clear what Christians ought to do if they are invited to dinner even by other, infidel men, or if they themselves invite any people, and how modestly they ought to take food and recline at tables. There, however, he declares that while abstinence from wine and meat is indeed good, those who use them moderately and temperately do not sin. But in all dinners, frugality is to be followed, just as all delights are to be driven away from them and gluttony is to be avoided. He briefly sets forth with what foods the table of Christians should be furnished, and says that the demon of the belly presides over more luxurious foods. Then he proposes various and excellent examples of frugality and abstinence, although the use of all foods is indifferent, in Matthew, John the Baptist, and the apostle Peter. He proves, moreover, that this frugality is not only commended by the Mosaic law, but also that an excessive abundance of food is so harmful to bodies that Plato, instructed by David, judged that more delicate foods should be avoided. Finally, he says that gluttons are similar to the fish which is named the ass-fish, and which is said to have a heart in its belly.
Concerning drink, however, he decides thus 19: Since Paul permitted Timothy to use a little wine only because of his weak and sickly stomach, he concludes from this that water is sufficient for healthy men for quenching thirst. For God did not provide anything else but water to the Hebrews wandering in the desert; nor did He give them, except after countless labors had been endured, that grape which mystically signified both the rest of the Christian faith, liberated from the errors of ethnic superstition, and the wine, diluted with water, in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist, and later converted into the blood of Christ. Wherefore he praises all those who, content with water alone, shunned wine; and he forbids its use entirely to boys and girls.
A Furthermore, he who is in the flower of age should be permitted to take wine at lunch not at all, and at supper only a little; for old men, perhaps a bit more—but to none does he ever permit it to be used without moderation. For just as water, provided it is always tempered, is beneficial to health, so when drunk immoderately it carries and brings the many harms and inconveniences which he recounts. Furthermore, he describes the deeds of drunkards and intoxicated men in a few words, so that he may more easily dissuade everyone from drunkenness, which he shows is forbidden by Holy Scripture. Wherefore he adds that Christ, although He changed water into wine when He attended the wedding, did not thereby grant permission for drunkenness, but rather figuratively declared that life, given through the water of the Old Law, was changed by His blood. He then prescribes how much wine should be drunk in winter or at another time, and forbids that heady and smoky wines—or those brought from other far-distant regions, namely Chian, Ariusian, Thasian, Lesbian, Cretan, Syracusan, Mendesian, Naxian, or Italian wines—should be requested by any man at all. He defines that native wines are sufficient for all, unless perhaps some, like the foolish kings of the Parthians, wish to carry water with them as well. He soon warns how much there ought to be in drinking, with the example of Minerva, and with a care for honesty and decency. For although certain warlike nations indulge in drunkenness, peaceful Christians ought, following the example of Christ who used wine with the greatest moderation, to strive for moderation and temperance. He then inveighs against women who, B drinking improperly from alabaster vessels, would bare their necks. Finally, he compares gluttons to the star wandering with an acephalous one [a comet] and preceding it, and also to Elpenor, and concludes by the example of Noah that drunkenness is to be fled.
After this, he makes plain how vain and useless is the use of vessels of silver, gold, and gems—thericlean cups, antigonides, canthari, lepistae, psycteres, and oenochoae—being difficult to preserve and forbidden to Christians, and he commands that they be sent far away. With no less severity he proscribes silver chairs, basins, vinegar-bowls, saucers, dishes, and other gold and silver vessels intended either for the accustomed use of the table and house, or for other uses which it is shameful to name. For indeed he demonstrates that all these things, no less than excessively proud and overly sumptuous home furnishings and soft beds, have been completely and utterly condemned, both by the authority of Holy Scripture and Plato, and by the very example of Christ the Lord. Moreover, no greater ruin and surer destruction is brought upon man than that which arises from the wicked administration of wealth and the blind greed for gathering money.
C Furthermore, our Clement wishes for all gluttony, lasciviousness, vain and foolish vigils, drunkenness, intemperance, flutes, psalteries, dancing, Egyptian applause, and comic music—every form of excess for either eyes or ears—to be completely banished from Christian banquets. Wherefore, when the king-prophet invites men to praise God with the sound of the trumpet, psaltery, and cithara, with strings and organ, our author teaches that this must be explained mystically. And indeed, if certain nations, whom he names specifically, use some instruments while warring, Christians, always peaceful by contrast, ought to use only one instrument: namely, the divine Word, by which they may piously and holily incite others to praise God, to offer thanks to Him, and to maintain honest association with their neighbor. Nevertheless, he warns that if anyone should know how to play the lyre or cithara and sing, this is not to be rejected outright, provided he imitates the king-prophet by singing divine praises. But just as God must be praised by us before we taste food, so also in drink, just as the Greeks once did in the manner of the Hebrews, and before sleep we must D render returning thanks to Him for benefits received. Finally, our author briefly discusses what songs and harmonies are permitted to a Christian.
He also denies that in banquets any faculty was given to a Christian to laugh absurdly or to move others to laughter. For it is granted to them only to speak urbanely and pleasantly, and never to laugh except at a suitable time, and modestly, and with honest severity—or rather, to smile. Hence he declares that immoderate, lascivious, and forward laughter must be kept far from the Christian republic. Yet he does not for this reason wish the Christian to be sad, but rather to be gifted with such modesty and gravity that he does not laugh in the midst of obscene or bothersome things, nor at all times, nor in the presence of everyone, unless perhaps some elders have said something charmingly and festively, and he smiles. For from immoderate laughter, turpitude easily flows, just as in wine the characters of wicked men are recognized.
Much more, therefore, does our author continue, must the same Christian avoid obscene speech, and shameful spectacles or deeds: nay, rather, the very root of vices, covetousness, must be cut out from the very root. Yet, in no members of the human body, even if they are shameful, is there turpitude, but it is located only in vice and vicious things. Moreover, no one among us, even if offended by someone, ought ever to be mocked at a banquet; and it is better to be silent than to contradict anyone. But teenagers, both boys and girls, are to be kept away from all banquets entirely on account of the weakness of their age, and no one should ever recline in them with another’s wife. If, however, necessity demands it, Clement explains one by one and accurately how this is to be done, and especially how each person—whether man or woman, senior or junior—ought to conduct himself in the same banquets, how to speak, how to compose the voice, and what things he ought to avoid.
He discourses no less clearly on the use of garlands, flowers, and ointments, proving first that it is not at all necessary. But lest anyone object that Christ’s feet were anointed by a woman, he interprets that in a mystical and, as he himself excuses, somewhat lengthy explanation. But he briefly refutes other objections sought from the anointing of kings of the ancient Hebrew people and from Aristippus. Thus he deservedly agitates against the insatiable lust of women who, even if they had very many ointments called by their own names, would nonetheless invent new ones every day. From this he further concludes that perfumers, who were well-banished from moral cities, ought to be so driven out from the Christian republic that no one at all, man or woman, should smell of ointment, but of the anointing of a life of probity and modesty. Yet he says that for this reason all should not reject all ointments, like vultures and beetles; but that they should use them only for those things which can contribute some utility, on the condition that they never give place to pleasure through smell, sight, or any other way. Furthermore, he shows there that certain diseases are cured by ointments and oil; but he rebukes women who dye their hair, and demonstrates that those who anoint their hair turn gray more quickly.
Finally, he comes to garlands fashioned of various flowers, and, since their use is very frequent among pagans at banquets, he says that it is illicit for a Christian, to whom it is permitted to enjoy no delight or scent of flowers, but only their appearance. For the garland of a Christian woman is her husband, and of the man, his marriage; and the flowers of marriage are children, and Christ is the garland of the whole Church. Nevertheless, he warns that there are various virtues of flowers, of which some are useful, others are harmful or dangerous. But to return to the matter more deeply and from its very origin, he touches there briefly upon how and by whom the use of garlands began. And because garlands had been consecrated to false gods who delighted in flowers, and pagans crowned their dead, he proves that the Christian must abstain from all of these things. And surely, when Christ, as he discusses at length in the same place...
A explains, was crowned with thorns, it is not fitting that His disciple be crowned with flowers. He admits, indeed, that some of the things he lists—perfumes made from flowers—are useful to man; but because, for a Christian, it is lawful to use these things only for necessity, and never for pleasure, he concludes that the use of garlands is in no way permitted to him.
Following this, he discusses how a Christian, after finishing supper, ought to compose himself for sleep with a prior prayer. He commands that all luxury, softness, and superfluities be so thoroughly removed from beds that they serve only in their simplicity to protect us from heat and cold. Moreover, one should indulge in sleep in such a way that, being easily awakened from it, like those who are vigilant with the angels, we may rise at night to sing praises to God. Therefore, that Christians may be the more ready and prepared for these night-watches, he vehemently exhorts them to flee immoderate sleep. 15 For he makes it plain and clear by the example of Lot that sleep, which is like death and is excited by excessive food, is of no utility to body or soul. B One should not, therefore, sleep throughout the whole night, much less during the day. But when the day ends, then men ought to apply themselves to letters, and women to spinning. Finally, Clement seriously warns us that it is only our body that requires sleep, and by no means our soul, seeing that it always thinks, and while the body sleeps, it works in such a way by itself that our true dreams are the thoughts of a sober soul.
From that time of sleep, our author, having been given the opportunity to speak concerning the marriage of Christians 27, clearly proves to us that its purpose is the reception of children, and its end the pious instruction of the same. Wherefore, he concludes that every other union between man and woman is illicit, impious, and wicked. He confirms this, not ineptly, from the precept given by Moses regarding abstinence from the hare and the hyena. He argues at greater length there on many points—which are reported by writers of natural history—concerning both that animal and others that change their voice and color. He adds that all intercourse C between man and woman, except that which occurs after legitimate marriage for the sake of procreating children, is most definitely forbidden by the most explicit words of Moses and by the punishment taken upon the Sodomites. Hence he further deduces that it is a grave offense for a man to have relations with his wife while she is suffering from the menstrual flow, or while she is still pregnant, or ever for the sake of pleasure alone. Petulant lust, therefore, called by many names which he cites, must be entirely restrained; since from it, as from immoderate intercourse, many serious diseases and evils—as Holy Scripture and even the philosophers testify—are produced. Not, however, that marriages, which are approved by God, are to be condemned; but that their use ought to be legitimate, and at night, and only at certain times, for the begetting of children. Therefore, Clement proceeds, it is not right for boys or old men to take wives; indeed, spouses ought never to do anything between themselves that is not honest, chaste, and modest. He smartly rebukes those who wrongly denied that pleasures alien to natural reason are either illicit or known to God. He warns, therefore, D that the night should be enlightened by good works, that modesty should not be put off with the tunic, that it is wrong to be overcome by Venusian matters, and that right reason itself and a moderate use of food and clothing are wholesome remedies for intemperance.
Furthermore, at the opportune moment offered there, he inveighs against sumptuous clothes and shows that they are forbidden by Christ. He commends the Spartans on this account, that they once permitted elaborate garments only to harlots; and he says that the Athenians, who did otherwise, cannot be approved by him. For since man needs clothes for no other reason than to cover his body and protect it from the intemperance of the air, whether cold or hot, he concludes that only those that are simple and common ought to be worn. Nevertheless, out of regard for the weakness of women, he concedes the use of softer garments, provided that all luxury is removed from them. But he asserts emphatically that longer, golden, or silken garments, or those elaborated too artificially, are thoroughly proscribed by divine laws; and that by the same plain prohibition, those tinctures of garments that he enumerates there are forbidden, and only the natural and white color is to be retained. From this, therefore—and by the testimony of the Cean sophist—he proves that the woman who is bound by a excessive obsession with ornamentation and dress has fallen away as much from God as from a modest marriage. Nor does he want her to object to him what David sang in the Psalms concerning the dress of royal daughters, which must be understood allegorically. For although our Clement, for the sake of the weaker sex, has yielded something from the severity of the laws, he nonetheless asserts stubbornly that Xystides, ephaptides, pepla, more precious wools, and overly long and flowing garments are licit for no one at any time. Moreover, he dilutes another objection taken there from the seamless tunic of Christ. Yet, although a garment should be simple, it should not be dirty, and all parts of the female body, like the head, must be so covered with a veil that no part of it ever appears naked. Nevertheless, he forbids that this veil be purple, or that any woman use at any time a purple or excessively precious garment with which she might turn the eyes of men toward herself.
Following this, he teaches 28 that luxury, softness, and pride must similarly be avoided in footwear. He orders, therefore, the rejection of the vanity of golden and jeweled sandals, and the artifice of slippers and soles. He deems it noble for a man, unless he is a soldier, to have no footwear, and for the woman, only those to be worn by which all the injuries of the feet—covered without any pride—might be safely repelled. He considers it childish and vain 29 to either admire gems, or to adorn oneself or one’s house with them, whether they have arisen from the surge of the sea or from the debris of the earth. Wherefore he severely castigates the supreme luxury of women in this matter. He admits indeed that the heavenly Jerusalem is described as constructed of precious stones, but he contends that by these the spirit and the immortal creature are signified. But those who say that gems were created for man, and by God, so that he might enjoy and be delighted by them, he declares to be clearly and entirely ignorant of the divine will. For God openly provides all those things which are necessary for human use; as for the rest, like gold, which ants dig up and griffins guard, He hides it either in the bowels of the earth or in the depth of the sea. But men, seeking these things with superfluous concern, neglect true and heavenly goods. Furthermore, the Apostle teaches that not all things, even those granted to us, are always expedient. But God, who created all things common to all, commands first that the kingdom of heaven be sought, and that from our goods those things which are not necessary for us be distributed to the poor. Yet some still insisted and urged: Whose then will these sumptuous and magnificent things be, if everyone has nothing but what is vile and common? But to these Clement replies that they ought to belong to those who can use them without a vehement impulse of the mind or distinction. But as for all those things which bring about satiety of ornament, they are to be rejected by all, since all that is good, beautiful, and honest consists in virtue alone. Wherefore he rebukes soldiers who were also adorned with gold. He chastises women more sharply, whom one could see not so much adorned as burdened by gold, and like criminals and the guilty among the barbarians of old, bound and fettered in golden shackles. He further says that they are now being deceived by the same serpent who first fraudulently circumvented Eve with food. He therefore makes it manifest that golden chains, necklaces, rings, and the rest of all female luxury
A be rejected, both by the authority of the poets and of sacred Scripture, and by certain proofs drawn from right reason. Finally, he concludes that these are the true ornaments of a woman: for the hands, a pious distribution of one’s own goods to the poor, and proper management of the household; for the feet, alacrity in doing good and progress toward justice; for the neck, shame and modesty; for the ears, instruction and the doctrine of the true faith; and lastly, for the eyes, a healthy contemplation of divine things.
ARTICLE III. Analysis of the third book.
Clement follows the argument of the previous book and shows that the true beauty of man is that by which the superior part of his soul, namely reason, so dominates the inferior part, or desire—which always changes itself into various forms like Proteus—that, being properly instructed by the divine Word who donned human flesh, it becomes like God Himself. He also teaches that this same beauty of man is situated in charity, which rejects whatever is superfluous, feigned, and alien to it, and embraces only those things which are right. He proves this by the example of Christ, who, possessing neither an outstanding and beautiful face nor a handsome body, had only the glory and beauty of a soul endowed with every divine virtue.
Necessity, therefore, he says, requires that no one should care for bodily charm, except to decorate his body with the virtue of continence. From there, having slipped into the subject of female dress, he shows us plainly and clearly that women who devote continual effort to curling their hair, anointing their cheeks, painting their eyes, and other enticements of form, are B exactly like the tombs of the Egyptians, which strike the eyes of all with their incredible, outward magnificence, while possessing an horrible and beastly deformity within. For indeed, while these women neglect the care of their home and family and squander not only their property and resources on such shameful expenses, they also corrupt their own appearance with makeup and various concoctions; they contract many illnesses and offer insult to God. The author then sharply attacks this unbridled softness and luxury of women with various testimonies from both pagan poets and divine Scripture. For they, like Plutus, are blind in their eyes, and have reached such a point of impudence that, worse than the beasts themselves, they employ these fallacies of foreign ornamentation for no other purpose than to be seen by men and to please them. Then, he forthwith refutes them with the example of Narcissus and the authority of the sacred books, as they use mirrors to contemplate their painted faces. Furthermore, he mentions that Queen Esther did nothing for her own sake, who, having been decorated mystically so that she might please the king, merited the liberation of her people from the enemy for the price of her beauty. Moreover, after revealing what great evils arise from an immoderate cultivation and ornamentation of form, he concludes from the example of the angels and the Shechemites that the desire for evil must never be indulged by anyone.
Since this vice had seized not only women but also men, he rises up against those who, shorn in the manner of harlots and dressed in most thin and transparent garments, C nourishing their hair just like women, also smelled of the same ointments as they did. He states, furthermore, that cities were filled with these effeminate men, whom Diogenes not unaptly mocked, and who had themselves plucked, shaved, and depilated. He considers it no less of a fault in others that, by painting their gray hairs with another color, they vainly imagined they could divest themselves of an old age that is venerable and like to God Himself. He declares, therefore, that it is womanly to pluck the hair, or to adjust it before a mirror, or to interweave one's dress or its hem with gold. For since God created the woman smooth and hairless, but man hairy and bearded, he proves that causing oneself to be shaved and shorn, or offering oneself to be plucked and pitch-plastered by others, is contrary to the laws of nature and the will of God Himself. To these things, moreover, even if pitch might help someone, he nevertheless ought not on that account to harm his body, but rather to pluck out the hairs of his desire and amputate them at the root. There, our author, having found the opportunity, inveighs against the extreme luxury of his own time, by which the pagans, with the permission of their own laws, wallowed with impunity in every kind of even more profligate and unbridled lust. He argues, therefore, that hair should neither be sheared, nor the beard removed, and that neither should be nurtured with immoderate, effeminate grooming. And he proves this not only by the example of the lion and the boar, but even of the Gauls and Scythians, who flee luxury entirely and are of the highest frugality. He warns Christians, however, that even if they should imitate this virtue of the barbarians, it is not therefore permitted for them, just as it is not for them or for nomads, to drink the blood of animals.
But because Clement had digressed a little from his topic there, he immediately returns to it and attacks the useless multitude of manservants and maidservants, handmaids and footmen. He says that the women who are surrounded by a crowd of them, which is destructive to their home and modesty, or who are carried on the shoulders of the Gauls in a litter through the streets and squares of the city or to the temples to be seen by men, are not to be tolerated. But much less can the most shameful custom of those be tolerated, who were accustomed to join in familiarity and intimacy with the ministers of harlot-like impudence and with catamites. Then he castigates others, even if they were better, who, while they nurtured Indian birds, Median peacocks, parrots, stone-curlews, and other monsters—but high-value animals—exposed their own children, and held the elderly, orphans, and widows, who are far more precious than all these animals, in the highest contempt.
Moreover, men and women squandered their goods not only on these impious expenses, and useless dyes, and purchased slaves, but also on baths, which were constructed with incredible magnificence. Since there were common baths for both sexes there, and countless gold and silver vessels for both washing and eating, the impudence of the women was certainly greater than that of the athletes, so much so that they did not blush to be naked before servants. Wherefore Clement sharply rebukes them and teaches that not only in the baths, but also at home, and in every place, modesty and shame must always be preserved.
Furthermore, he says, we ought to abound in wealth only so far as is consonant with reason, and we should share it with others not sordidly and arrogantly, but kindly and liberally. For, these things excepted, there is clearly no difference between a slave and a master, except that the latter may be the weaker. What then? Is it not true that a just and good man, even if poor and obscure, is rich and blessed: but an unjust and arrogant man, even if he were wealthier than Midas, Cinyras, or the man who despised Lazarus, is poor and miserable? For riches, no differently than a serpent, unless they are handled cautiously, truly bite and wound. From this, therefore, Clement concludes that true riches are situated only within the soul, namely in virtue, justice, and right reason. And since these can be acquired only by a good man, and only the Christian is good, he infers from this that they are possessed by him alone and cannot be taken away, seeing that he possesses God and all things with them.
Immoderate desire, however, for earthly goods drives a man from the kingdom of God and entices and impels him toward illicit delights, shameful pleasures utterly unworthy of a rational creature, toward luxury and gluttony, and toward certain shipwreck. Therefore, our author continues, following the example of Elijah, we ought to possess frugality...
and not boast either in a haughty multitude of silver and gold vessels, or in a crowd of servants, nor be held by excessive care and anxiety for our riches, if we possess them. For those who could object that they faced either a feared poverty or that bread had sometimes failed them, he responds most clearly.
He makes it no less clear B how rich frugality is, by which, being well instructed to bear patiently every labor, anguish, distress, and affliction, we despise earthly goods. He adds that many things have already been discussed by him regarding the duties of spouses and Christian instruction. Wherefore he proposes as an example of frugality Penelope, who, after the long absence of her husband, never wished to marry anyone, and the Spartans, who—in order to deter adolescents from drunkenness—compelled the helots, that is, their slaves, to be intoxicated. He observes, moreover, that there are three kinds of men: some of whom, like Abraham, of their own accord; others, indeed, admonished by others, as were the disciples of Christ, seek and embrace virtue; others finally, like the pagan people, can be swayed or taught neither willfully nor by pious admonitions. Wherefore our divine Pedagogue calls them back from vices or exhorts them to virtue, both by words and by examples. From the various examples of this kind, Clement selects one—namely, that of the Sodomites—by whose punishment others ought surely to become more cautious. For he demonstrates from the Epistle of Jude that those who have not fallen into the same sins as they have not been subjected to similar punishments. He further adds that he could bring forward many other examples of intemperance and luxury, but that he must refrain from them, lest he be too prolix.
He returns C then, after a long digression, which he himself excuses, to the baths 38. He says there are four reasons for them: cleanliness, heat, health, and pleasure. But just as they are permitted to women for the sake of cleanliness, and to men for the sake of health, so, for the sake of heat, they are forbidden as superfluous, and finally, for the sake of pleasure, they are forbidden to all Christians entirely. But since the more frequent use of them weakens and often dissolves the strength of the body, Clement argues that one ought not always to be bathing, but that regard must be had for age, body, and time, and that one should never use foreign help and ministry in the baths. He admonishes us, however, that the washing of the soul is far more excellent than that of the body, inasmuch as the filth and sins of the former are thoroughly washed away.
Furthermore, Clement teaches 39 that the gymnasium, or bodily exercise, which is useful for health, is sufficient for adolescents instead of the bath, and that it is to be preferred to the bath for men. He shows that women also ought to be exercised in weaving, spinning, and other tasks suitable to their sex. Nor does he deem it shameful for them to approach the mill—where Pittacus, King of Mitylene, is said to have ground—and to be occupied in preparing food and drink for their husbands. Through him, it is also permitted for some men at times to exercise by wrestling, or by the game of *pheninda* (or with a small ball), or by agriculture, or at least by taking a walk. What, indeed, of the fact that he considers it fine for them to draw water, chop wood, and read aloud? Yet in these exercises, as in all things, he commands that moderation always be observed. Finally, he considers the art of fishing, if there is leisure, to be commendable, but that art to be far more commendable, as Christ taught, by which not fish, but men are caught.
After this, he reduces to an epitome and compendium what was discussed more extensively in this and the previous book 40. He begins with clothing, and although he does not exclude all gold or softness from it, he nevertheless carefully forbids that anything be added to it which could ever impel anyone toward a soft and luxurious life. The Christian garment, therefore, as he says , A must be simple, clean, honest, frugal, and of one kind only—namely, white in color and natural, alien to the artifice of fullers, and appropriate and suitable to the person, age, dignity, and sex. He shows that earrings are forbidden by the laws of the Pedagogue, and that a man who believes himself adorned by gold proves himself to be inferior to it. Nevertheless, he grants a gold ring to a woman, not for ornament, indeed, nor for the display of her nobility, but so that things which ought to be kept at home may be sealed. Nor does he permit it for other uses to a bachelor or one performing a public office. He wishes this to be worn on the little finger, and that no images or signs of gods or idols be carved or pressed upon it, but only those of a dove, a fish, the sea, an anchor, or things of the same kind. There, moreover, Clement suggests in passing that a certain more beautiful attire and ornament is to be granted to wives, so that they may please only their husbands, and never others, and so that they may be able to lead them little by little to a moderate and temperate manner of living. But he proscribes every absolute luxury and paint, and ornaments that are not sufficiently modest and chaste. Furthermore, he explains in the same place how hair and locks are to be nourished and set, and how the beard is to be grown by men; and how everyone ought to conduct himself in movement, gait, pace, gestures, expressions, voice, appearance, and toward maids and servants. Then he proves that barber shops, taverns, and the playing of dice for the sake of gain are prohibited; that the company of the wicked is to be shunned; and that spectacles, however much some may complain, are forbidden. Following this, he makes plain with what garb and manner men and women ought to come to church and depart from it, what is to be avoided in kisses and greetings, and that the life of a Christian ought to be totally free and released from every suspicion of evil of any kind.
He is, moreover, B a persuader and author 41 for men that they should not kiss their wives before their servants, nor should anyone reject the good and just precepts of the heathens, but should decline their vices, and show himself holy and incorrupt to all. But since it does not suffice to flee and amend only the evils and sins unless all the commandments of God are also fulfilled, Clement places those things before the eyes of all. And first, indeed, he shows these in that common adage: "What you do not wish to be done to you, you shall not do to another," and that they are generally contained in the two commandments of charity. Nevertheless, so that these may be explained more clearly and distinctly, he sets forth all the precepts of our divine Pedagogue one by one, and first mentions certain ones established in the Decalogue, and then those which are sanctioned by the same Pedagogue regarding the mode of prayer, fasting, sacrifices, patience, soldiers, judges, and the rich; regarding the administration of the republic, the taking of oaths, the forgetting of an injury received, lying, pride, mercy, anger; regarding loving one's enemies, the treatment of servants, the rebuking of brothers, the doing of penance, and the imparting of alms to those in need. Here he also gathers various precepts from the Epistles of Paul regarding the institution of the Christian life. But after this, he adds that he could have brought forward many other things which pertain to bishops, deacons, widows, and others from the sacred Scriptures, but that there would be another time to speak of them. He also professes that many things are written in the same Scriptures through enigmas and parables, but that these are to be explained not by the Pedagogue, whose institutes he had already sufficiently set forth, but by the master alone, Christ, namely the Lord, who is the good will and genuine wisdom of the good Father, who imbues us with holy knowledge; and in whom, if we have fulfilled his commandments and have imitated him, we shall remain forever. Then Clement, addressing the Christians, strongly exhorts them to fulfill the role of the Church, to hasten to her, and to follow Christ, whom he there adorns with various titles of the divine nature, with worthy praises always. Finally, the divine Word himself, the Pedagogue,
A having meanwhile led them into the Church, for that reason our author completed his book with a hymn which was to be sung there by all in thanksgiving.
ARTICLE IV.
*On the author, argument, title, and division of these books, and on their distribution into chapters, and the summaries of those same chapters, and at what time, and whether they were composed from discourses delivered publicly, or in what style they are written.*It is certainly established, nor can it truly be a matter of doubt for anyone, that Clement of Alexandria is the true and genuine author of this work. For besides the fact that it is attributed to him by the common testimony of all Greek codices, and by the certain authority of Eusebius, Jerome, Photius, B and other writers, and by the unanimous consent of all, Clement himself clearly makes known and declares in his own words that he is its parent. In the sixth book of the *Stromata*, indeed, he handed down these things in writing: "But the Pedagogue beforehand, which is divided by us into three books, shows the education and instruction which is given from youth—that is, which is given by catechesis, or by doctrine handed down from learning; it increases through faith at the same time, and prepares the soul, adorned with virtue, for the information of life, and for those who are enrolled in the number of men, for the science which offers knowledge to be received." But from these words of our Clement we learn not only that this lucubration truly proceeded from him, but also what its argument and scope are, what its title is, and into how many books it was divided. For in these books he says he has disputed concerning that Christian instruction by which, from the very infancy of our religion, or catechesis, or doctrine handed down in catecheses, each one is so informed by holy precepts of morals and life that he may be prepared for acquiring perfect knowledge and science. And that this is indeed the argument and end of his entire work, Clement clearly opens and explains from its beginning. He says the Pedagogue is entirely concerned with this, that by the right composition of all human actions, he may make the life of a Christian better. Wherefore, as is sufficiently understood from an analysis of them, he puts all his effort in these books into making manifest to the Christian what vices are to be fled, what virtues are to be pursued, and what good things are to be done, or, to speak with him more briefly, what kind of person a Christian ought to be throughout the whole course of his life.
No one, therefore, if he turns his mind to these things, can find it obscure that no other title was inscribed upon this very work by our Clement than the one he puts forward, the *Pedagogue*. And indeed he does not only assert this here and there in this commentary, but he also pronounces the same thing elsewhere most explicitly in his own words, which we have quoted a little earlier. Added to this is the fact that the same inscription of these books is proven most invincibly by the testimony, by no means uncertain, of all manuscript codices, and by the agreement of Eusebius, Jerome, Photius, and others, both ancient and recent.
By the same arguments it is so clearly proven that this work was likewise distributed into three books by its most learned author himself, that to dwell on explaining them at greater length would be entirely superfluous and useless.
You will therefore fall into a greater difficulty if you wish to know whether the division of this work into chapters and the arguments or summaries C of those same chapters truly proceeded from our same author. Since in all codices written by a Greek hand they are exhibited in exactly the same way as they are in the printed editions, they appear to have had no author other than our Clement himself. On the contrary, however, if you examine them a little more accurately, you will not easily recognize that this distribution into chapters is so inept and preposterous, and that the matters disputed in the headings are represented so inadequately by the chapter summaries, that you will easily be led to think that this is the act and work of some unskilled librarian or scribe. For, to pass over many things obvious everywhere, what, I ask you, is more abhorrent to a right division of chapters than a digression on baths, excused in the institution, being distributed so confusedly into various chapters, that the reader’s mind, long distracted from the author’s purpose, can scarcely, if at all, perceive it, unless it often reflects back to what it had read before? And what, indeed, of the fact that, on the contrary, many things that are clearly diverse—namely, concerning the legitimate use of marriage, and concerning garments to be worn by anyone, whether man or woman—are contained in one and the same chapter? What, finally, of the fact that certain beginnings of chapters, placed in an utterly inept position, intersect the thread of the discourse and interrupt it entirely?
Furthermore, that very many of the chapter arguments are so inaccurately thought out is so clear and evident to anyone reading them even lightly and in passing, that it needs no proof. For in them, either only those things treated at the beginning are represented, or many things are omitted, or finally other things are indicated badly; this occurs time and again. It should therefore remain as certain and fixed that these, like all the other chapter summaries, are not to be ascribed to our Clement, just as it is plain and manifest that this work in its entirety, and its division into three books, truly flowed from him.
Furthermore, if anyone asks us at what time or in what manner it was brought to light by the same Clement, we shall observe that it was composed before the books of the *Stromata*, where, as we have seen, it is cited, he himself having applied his hand to it. Nor is it more obscure that not long after that interval of time, before he published these books of the *Pedagogue*, his *Exhortation to the Greeks* had been put forward by him. For from the very beginning of the same books he openly declares that, after men have been taught to abjure and lay aside the former errors and false opinions of ethnic religion and to embrace and profess the truth of the Christian faith, then they must be continuously imbued with the holier precepts of life and morals handed down by the Pedagogue Christ. D Who, however, would deservedly call it into doubt that Clement truly adhered to this order so accurately prescribed by himself? And yet, as is understood from his words cited above, not the slightest affinity and connection intervenes between these and the books of the *Stromata*. What, therefore, remains, except to conclude that the *Pedagogue* was written and made public property a little before those same books of the *Stromata*, which are said to have been edited by him around the year 294, but after his *Exhortation to the Greeks*? And this opinion can indeed be beautifully confirmed by those arguments by which the time of that same *Exhortation* has been demonstrated by us above.
Since, therefore, Clement composed these books during those times when, as we said before, he was still discharging the office of catechist in Alexandria, hence one may not absurdly conclude that they consist of those discourses which he had delivered among the Christian people in the same city. For no one...
in fact, can believe it is either doubtful or uncertain that this most learned man imbued the people entrusted to him with these precepts of Christian life, which we read so carefully collected and explained in this entire work. But what need is there for conjectures, however not entirely uncertain? Does he not himself openly and plainly profess it, where, towards the end of the work, he declares that he and his listeners have been led by the Pedagogue into the Church, and he A has added a hymn to be sung by all in that place? But it is better to hear him speaking: Since, he says, the Pedagogue has led us into the Church, and has joined Himself to Himself—to the Word, I say—who teaches and considers all things, it would be well if we, when we are in this place, were to offer to the Lord the reward of just thanksgiving, the praise fitting for a beautiful pedagogy. But whose words, I ask you, could these be, if not those of a man preaching, and one who, after a public discourse, commended these things, just as he did all the others that he had set forth before, to writing, and arranged the writings into books?
In confirmation of this opinion, another argument can be brought forward, derived from the very style of his oration, which is clearly suited to catechetical instructions. Concerning this, in fact, an excellent judge and a most equitable assessor, Photius, pronounces as follows: “These books have nothing in common with the Hypotyposes, since they are entirely free from those foolish and blasphemous opinions, and the diction itself in them rises more elegantly to a balanced gravity, which is not without pleasantness, and that varied knowledge of things found in them has nothing inappropriate.” How true this opinion of Photius is, no one, surely, who has not perused these books entirely carelessly, will fail to admit.
ARTICLE V
*Concerning the manuscript codices of these books, their integrity, utility, and learning; where certain difficult passages are explained, and whether Clement knew Hebrew.*In three codices we read the three books of the Pedagogue, written out by a Greek hand. But we have already warned who these are, and of what kind the first two are, to which the *Exhortation to the Greeks* of our Clement is also prefixed; but in their oldest Royal codex, the first book is almost totally mutilated, and only the last three chapters of it, excluding however the beginning of the eleventh, have remained entire. The third codex, however, which we obtained from the Royal Library, is more recent, written only on papyrus paper, and exhibits this commentary of our author, but not entirely complete. For certain gaps indeed occur in it, and in the second book the end of the seventh chapter and the beginning of the eighth were omitted by the copyist scribe, and certain white pages were left in that place. Which certainly is a manifest indication to us that this codex was transcribed from some other more ancient one, where the things which the scribe left untouched had either been cut away or could not be read by him. Not once, too, did that scribe err in copying both the text of the author and especially the arguments of the chapters. But these usual errors of such men do not prevent us from having collected from these codices various readings, by which the text of our Clement can be rightly corrected and amended in many places. Finally, certain notes have been inserted into the margin of these codices, similar indeed to those which we mentioned in the *Exhortation to the Greeks* above, but far fewer in number.
As to how much these books of the Pedagogue can serve for the utility of Christians, surely no one, who has either touched them with his fingertips or read the analysis of them exhibited by us, will ever be able to deny. In them, in fact, every single precept and institution of the Christian life, and the most certain rules of morals, are handed down by our author with such caution and prudence B that nothing more moderate and equitable, nothing more accommodated and convenient to the mind of the divine legislator could be desired. For Clement has everywhere so avoided the reef of either a softer or a harder spirit, that he always inclines and leans more toward those things which are of clemency and gentleness. If, however, he seems somewhere to have prescribed something harsher for a more delicate Christian, he admonishes this man, who recognizes his Lord crowned with thorns, that it is not permitted either to be crowned with flowers or to approach Him without blood. Furthermore, lest he make anyone unteachable through excessive severity in Christian discipline, he diligently takes care that if he has ever decreed something heavier or harsher according to the prescription of the laws, he may afterwards, as far as is right, mitigate and soften it. For the sake of the weaker sex, too, he sometimes remits something of the harshness of a harder precept, or grants easier things. Finally, if he can relax nothing, he excuses the severity of the law, and places before one's eyes the eternal rewards, promised by God to anyone who behaves in accordance with it, which are most certainly to be paid. Therefore, after the holy books of the divine covenant, you will find scarcely any work that is more useful for forming the morals of all Christians. For which reason he who translated it a few years ago into our common language for the sake of each individual, to be read with no small fruit, has deserved well of our Gauls.
Furthermore, although Clement in this work is concerned only with instituting the Christian life according to divine laws, he nevertheless everywhere sprinkles his entire commentary with profane learning according to his custom. But this kind of writing must be forgiven to a most learned man, for he did not so much wish to attract and recreate the minds of readers as, by attacking and destroying the impious customs of the pagans, to call away and deter all others from them. But if anything in them, as in the rest of the work, should be difficult and thorny, they will be elucidated in our subsequent observations.
It is therefore helpful now only to touch upon those things which pertain to the integrity of the Greek text of these books, to difficult passages, and to the Latin interpretation. In the Gentianus Hervetus edition, this phrase is prefixed at their beginning: “The basis of truth has been established, O you boys, for us ourselves the unbroken foundation of knowledge of the great temple of God, a beautiful exhortation through obedience to a life consonant with reason, an eternal petition cast into the intelligent domain.” But that, in subsequent editions of this work, is separated from the text of Clement itself at the end of the previous *Admonition to the Greeks*, and is exhibited only in the Greek idiom. But in the Clermont codex, written out by a Greek hand, it was separated from all the rest after the arguments of the chapters of the first book of the Pedagogue: in other codices of the Royal Library, however, it is entirely omitted. From which it is clearly gathered that this same phrase was added by some copyist scribe after the book of the *Admonition to the Greeks* had been transcribed by him, in order to make it plain to everyone that the foundation of truth, and of true science and religion, had been placed in that book. But how ineptly it was intruded into Clement’s text is evident from the fact that it has no affinity or connection either with the end of the previous book or with the beginning of the Pedagogue.
Now, among the corrupt and difficult passages of the same Pedagogue, the first one presents itself to us, where parasites and other gluttons, shamefully hunting after tables, are excoriated by Clement in this manner: “*Musae toutois oikeiai tois onomasi, kai galai, kolakes te, kai monomachai, kai ta agria ton parasitōn phyla: gastros hēdonēs hoi men ton logon, hoi de tēn philian, hoi de to zēn apodidomenoi*.” Which in the latest version of the Clementine works are rendered into Latin thus:
A “Flies also, and gladiators, and an immense tribe of parasites are most aptly so called; of these, some sell their reason, others their friendship, and others their very life, for the pleasure of the belly.” But Hervetus, who had read the punctuation of the Greek text differently, interpreted it thus: “Flies also, most aptly corresponding to these names, and weasels, and gladiators, and the rustic kinds of parasites, for the pleasure of the belly: some indeed selling their reason, others their friendship, others their life.” Now, just as in the former version the word *galai*, that is, weasels or rather cats, is not to be neglected, so perhaps one should not so easily adhere to the faulty punctuation of the Greek codices in the latter.
But these are matters of lesser moment; what is of greater importance is that the same Hervetus suspects that this context does not cohere sufficiently with what precedes it, and that something is missing there. Yet all our manuscript codices refute this suspicion, which, setting aside the errors of copyists, exhibit nothing other than what is in the printed editions. But what of it? If the author’s mind and meaning can be elicited from this very context, what rightfully will be found wanting in it? But if you compare it with what comes before, and weigh it diligently, you will easily understand that Clement is vexing and harasssing the dainty and gluttonous, the epicures and the guzzlers. First, he shows what evils arise from the immoderate use of foods and seasonings, and with what reproaches and curses those addicted to this vice are branded. Then he recounts by what names these infamous table-hangers—namely, parasites—and gladiators and other base kinds of the same breed were accustomed to be called. He rightly says they are called flies and weasels (or cats), who always seek out more delicate foods and gorge themselves on them; for they rightfully deserve to be called so, seeing that for the sake of food and the pleasure of the belly—*gastros hēdonēn*—they sold their friendship, their reason, and their very life. Moreover, since in the Greek text it is written *myiai oikeiai*, we believe this latter word is not an adverb but an adjective, and thereby it better signifies those familiar and domestic flies that rush with unbridled force upon meats and cling to them insatiably.
C Where, however, Clement discusses drink, he gives indulgence to those of more advanced age to use wine a little more cheerily, but on the condition that, as he says, they preserve their reason unimpaired and the memory performing its duty, and their body unshaken and unmoved by wine. Then he immediately adds: *akrothōraka touton kalousin hoi peri tauta deinoi*, “and those who are skilled in this matter call this condition *akrothōrax*.” But some think these Greek words were intruded into the text from the margin. But this is surely in vain and erroneous. For not only do all the manuscripts contend against this conjecture, but also the very authority of Clement himself, with whom it often happens that he inserts such parentheses and explanations of words into his own text. Nor is there any need to prove this with more examples, which occur quite often. For in the passage just cited, he uses and interprets the word *asōtos* in the same manner.
Someone, however, will urge that the word *akrothōrax* cannot be attributed to Clement, who is most learned in the Greek language, since, if we are to believe the lexicographers, it signifies a man who is extremely drunk and, as it were, gorged with wine up to the chest. But Clement is speaking there of an old man, who is neither drunk nor intoxicated—for we shall certainly not deny that this word is sometimes used by some in that sense. Yet it cannot escape anyone learned in Greek that some highly skilled writers have used that word to signify a man not yet filled with wine, but a state midway between the intoxicated and the perfectly sober. For is it not used in that sense by Aristotle, when he writes in this way: *Dia ti ho akrothōrax mallon paroinei tou methyontos, mallon kai hēchountos?* “For what reason do those who are gently held by wine sin or ramble more than those who have either gravely intoxicated themselves or remain sober?” No less clearly does Plutarch says: *Tōn gar akrothōrakōn hē dianoia monon tetaraktai, to de sōma tais hormais exypēretein dynatai, mēpō bebaptismenon; hotan de kataseisthē kai piesthē, prodidōsi tas hormas kai pareitai;* “For the mind of those who are semi-intoxicated is merely disturbed, while their body is still able to serve their impulses—not yet having been overwhelmed. But when it is shaken and pressed by the wine, it fails the mind and betrays its movements.” D From this one testimony of our author, learn how great, as we have already warned, is his leniency and indulgence, and how much he abhors excessive severity.
Regarding corruption, Casaubon also claims another notable passage of our author, which in the printed editions is read as follows: *En de tois agōsi prōton hē tōn athlētōn dosis ēn; deuteron de ho epegermos; triton hē phyllobolia; teleutaion ho stephanos, epidosin labousēs eis tryphēn tēs Hellados meta ta Mēdika.* “In the games, first was the gift of the athletes; second, the applause and excitement; third, the throwing of leaves; last was the crown, after Greece had made a great accession to luxury after the Median times.” But Casaubon contends that the words *athlētōn* and *epegermos* are corrupted, and should be amended thus: *prōton hē tōn athlōn dosis ēn, deuteron de ho epagermos*, so that Clement’s meaning might be that in the most ancient times, gifts were accustomed to be proposed by the contestants, and in their place succeeded *epagermos*, that is, the custom by which athletes would collect small gifts from individual spectators. Then, in place of those, other things which Clement mentions were substituted, but in such a way that, once crowns were invented, the former did not cease to be in use. Moreover, Casaubon attempts to bolster and corroborate this emendation with various testimonies of ancient writers. Nor will this conjecture of a most learned man be considered of minimal weight by many. For if the correction of the latter word is bolstered by the authority of at least one of our Greek codices, if the passage of Eratosthenes cited by him is seen to make as much for Clement’s argument as against it, no one, surely, will deny that it rightly deserves to be admitted. But as far as the emendation of the former word is concerned, the reasoning is not entirely similar. Indeed, since it cannot be a gift of *athla*—that is, contents—unless there were *athlētai* (athletes and contestants), why was Clement not permitted to prefer this word to another? We certainly know the former word has been used by many writers, and is more apt and convenient for his discourse on the games. Nevertheless, because the latter word—approved by the common consent of all the manuscripts—is not in the least contrary to Clement’s purpose, why should we so easily repudiate it by positing something else? Let each person, however, hold his own opinion after he has accurately weighed these matters. Of these games and the origin of crowns, we shall discuss at length in another place.
that gap in the Greek discourse, or the sin of the copyist, neither Hervetus indicates, nor can we in our Greek codices, whose agreement with the edited texts is very great there, detect. Nor again is this passage so shrouded in Cimmerian darkness, as they say, that all hope of perceiving the mind of our author is entirely taken away from us. For Clement explains quite clearly and perspicuously what may be understood by that laughter of Isaac. For he openly teaches that that patriarch, who had laughed after being freed from the imminent danger of losing his wife Rebecca to Abimelech, is a type and figure of the Christian, who, having been delivered by the divine grace of Christ from the greater danger of eternal death, laughs and rejoices. Since, therefore, these things appear clear, true, and certain, and the obscurity lies only in the proof of this mystical explanation, we shall endeavor to the best of our ability to clear it up. But Clement assumed as certain that the name Rebecca sounds in Latin like "patience"; and that Rebecca was a figure of the Church, to which name B of patience was also given for the reasons he adduced. From there, moreover, Clement seems to argue thus: that Isaac, the type of us all, that is, of the Christian people, together with Sarah, or his wife "patience," who was a figure of the Church, laughed, rejoicing and exulting because, with her helping and assisting, he was saved from death. But King Abimelech, that is, Christ the Lord, looking down from his window, or from the assumed flesh, upon our laughter—that is, our thanksgiving, benediction, exultation, and joy—together with "patience" or the Church, showed His face to her and rendered it perfect. But you will say, if this be the mind and meaning of our author, he surely called the Church, which is the mother of all Christians, the bride and wife of the Christian people. But who could easily persuade himself that this came into Clement's mind? But I would like you to notice that Clement speaks of the Church only in the sense in which it is called patience. And what prevents him from calling the Church "the bride of the Christian people" by that name? Furthermore, Hervetus is mistaken there in that he did not sufficiently perceive where this second interpretation of Clement ends and the third begins. If any other passage of Clement’s text should appear to be genuinely contaminated with errors or corruption, we have thought it better to reject that argument, lest we be forced to repeat the same things in our subsequent observations.
Moreover, it is not just the ignorance or negligence of the copyist in transcribing the Clementine text that is called into question, but some even accuse Clement himself of ignorance in explaining the Hebrew word *hosanna*, and of not having known the Hebrew language. "'Light and glory,' he says, 'with supplication to the Lord, this A signifies *hosanna*, if explained in Greek.'" For that word does not mean that, but "save us, I pray," or "save now," as those more skilled in the Hebrew language teach after Jerome. We know, indeed, that there have not been wanting those to whom it seemed not improbable that praise or glory, and grace as well, are signified by that word: but they, and more strongly Clement, who extended the meaning of this word further than others, are said to have been completely ignorant of Hebrew. Nor is the explanation of the word Rebecca, brought forward by him, any more probable, just as it was by Origen and Ambrose: "They translate," he says, "Rebecca as 'patience.'" For that word, to those who know Hebrew, sounds the same as "fattened," or "fat," or "dull contention," or "impeded contention." However, such lapses are very rare in the books of the *Paedagogus*, and Clement, as if distrusting his own natural talent, not being at all versed in Hebrew, gave very few interpretations of Hebrew names. Finally, the Latin translation of these same *Paedagogus* books is not without its own faults and errors. It would be too long to pursue them all, which are sufficiently obvious to those skilled in Greek. Yet, so that less skilled readers may beware of them, let it suffice to have noted this by way of example: that where Clement disputes about the twofold kind of divine exhortation, there was added on his own by Hervetus, who thought something was missing from the Greek text: "But there are twofold dispositions of both kinds." But these, and not all others, are the errors of this version which have been cut away and corrected in the latest editions.
CHAPTER III
New observations on the *Exhortation to the Greeks* and the three books of the *Paedagogus* of Clement of Alexandria, and first concerning those things which pertain to Christian theology.22 ARTICLE I. How Clement believed the sacred authors of the books of the Old and New Testament to have been inspired by the divine Spirit.
The sincerity and authority of the *Exhortation to the Greeks* and of the three books of the *Paedagogus* written by our Clement having been asserted, and the age and integrity of these commentaries established, we must first most diligently examine how in them he everywhere constantly teaches and proclaims that the sacred books of both the Old and New Testaments were composed by their authors under the inspiration of the divine Spirit. Therefore, where he begins to fight against the pagans with their authority and testimonies, he opens his argument with these words: "'Jeremiah the most wise prophet, or rather in Jeremiah the Holy Spirit (μᾶλλον δὲ ἐν Ἱερεμίᾳ τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα), shows God: “I am a God drawing near,” etc.' Then indeed, after he has brought forward various testimonies of the Old Testament and also of the Apostle Matthew and Paul, he straightway adds: D 'I can bring forward to you innumerable Scriptures, not one apex of which shall pass away, which will not be fulfilled. For the Holy Spirit has uttered these things as the mouth of the Lord (τὸ γὰρ στόμα Κυρίου τὸ ἅγιον Πνεῦμα ἐλάλησεν ταῦτα).' But what did Clement intend by this manner of speaking, other than that the divine authors of Holy Scripture handed down nothing at all in their books and epistles that had not been breathed into and dictated to them by the Holy Spirit? And Clement was so persuaded of this fact that he did not hesitate to cite the words of Isaiah as if pronounced by God Himself: 'Be made just,' says the Lord (λέγει Κύριος); 'you who thirst, come to the waters.' Wherefore he says in the most express words: 'He is the Lord speaking in Isaiah, He in Elijah, He in the mouth of the prophets.' And lest anyone argue that this was asserted by him rashly, he teaches elsewhere that the Holy Scriptures are called by the Apostle θεοπνεύστους, 'divinely inspired.' But, someone will say, this was the prerogative of the holy prophets, that they should write nothing at all unless inspired by the Holy Spirit, or...
A under his influence they wrote or spoke. This is indeed entirely correct and beautiful. Yet when Clement refers to the very words of Matthew and Luke, he calls their voice prophetic—that is, inspired by God just as it was in the case of the prophets of old—saying: «Let the prophetic voice come to us as a witness.» And it is no wonder, since he asserts that the Holy Spirit spoke in the writers of the New Testament no less than in those of the Old, in such a way that they committed to writing not just a few prophetic things, but all their words under his impulse and inspiration.
But what of the fact that Clement, in his books of the *Pedagogue*, again and again teaches and repeats that our divine Pedagogue, and the Holy Spirit, spoke not only in the prophets but also in other authors of sacred Scripture, in such a way that he seems to have had nothing nearer to his heart than that this should be most frequently inculcated upon his disciples, so that it might never escape their minds? There is no need, therefore, to gather his various testimonies here, since they occur so frequently that the reader would be overwhelmed by their multitude rather than instructed. But we cannot pass over in silence what the most learned man explicitly proclaims regarding Paul: B «The Holy Spirit who was in the Apostle, using the Lord’s voice, says mystically: 'I gave you milk to drink.'» For if these words, which he was writing in his own name to the Corinthians, were written under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, who would dare to deny that all other things delivered by him in his epistles were also committed to writing under the inspiration of that same divine Spirit? And yet, no person of sound mind would deny that this was truly Clement’s opinion regarding the books and epistles of the evangelists as well as of any other sacred authors.
ARTICLE II. How Clement cited the testimonies of sacred Scripture in his *Exhortation to the Greeks*, and why some things are not found in the common books of the same sacred Scripture, and why he called the author of Proverbs 'the Hebrew boy.'
Things which Clement cited from the Old Testament, not only in his *Exhortation to the Greeks* but also in his other works, he often transcribed from the version of the Seventy Elders in the very same words, though not always. He also sometimes combined various testimonies drawn from different chapters, just as if they were contained in one and the same place. From this it has certainly come to pass that some things are cited by him which could not be found in the sacred books of Scripture.
But to begin our discourse from this very *Exhortation to the Greeks*, we read in it these words of sacred Scripture cited by him: «For your own [land] allows you a legitimate son... to whom alone it also promises, saying: 'And the earth shall be extended for stability, for it is not confirmed for destruction or corruption.'» Concerning this passage Hervet says: «I neither understand what it is, nor do I know where Clement took it from; I leave it to those who are more insightful to discover.» Nor did others discover it, by whom this book of Clement was later printed or who published some commentaries on it. But that passage of Scripture is so difficult to find because it does not seem to be entirely without error as transcribed from memory by our Clement. For in our D manuscripts a negation is added, *καὶ ἡ γῆ οὐ παραστήσεται* ('and the earth shall not pass away'). Perhaps Clement also gathered several passages together there, as he does elsewhere.
It is therefore easier [to explain] that which he cited a little above from the prophecy of Isaiah: «Be made righteous, says the Lord; you who thirst, go to the water, and whoever has no money, go, buy and drink without money.» For the latter words Hervet readily admits are to be found in Isaiah. But he declares that he is utterly ignorant of where the earlier words, «be made righteous,» were written. He observes, however, that in the version of the seventy-two Elders, Isaiah put before the preceding words: *ἔσεσθέ μοι δίκαιοι, λέγει Κύριος* ('you shall be righteous to me, says the Lord'). But we certainly have no doubt that these very words are cited by Clement either from memory or from his own codex, in which *γενέσθε* ('become') was read instead of *ἔσεσθε* ('you shall be'). This can indeed be confirmed not absurdly by the fact that there is no less a discrepancy of readings in the subsequent words. For among those same Elders we read: *βαδίσαντες ἀγοράσατε, καὶ φάγετε* ('go, buy, and eat'), whereas Clement rendered it: *βαδίσατε, καὶ ἀγοράσατε, καὶ πίετε* ('go, and buy, and drink').
We see that he cited the words of the New Testament in no other way than those of the Old. For he cites the apostle Paul as a witness in this manner. By the same reasoning, the Apostle, exhorting the Macedonians, becomes an interpreter of the divine voice, saying: «The Lord has drawn near; take care that we are not found empty.» Hervet, however, notes in the Epistle to the Philippians—who are known to have been Macedonians—that the earlier words are represented in such a way that instead of [the word] which is in Paul’s text, *ἤγγικεν* ('he has drawn near') is placed by Clement. As for the rest, which do not occur there, he suspects they were added by some ignoramus. But since they are found in all manuscripts, both more recent and very ancient, they are not so easily to be rejected from our author’s text. It therefore seems more likely that Clement, if he did not transcribe it from some entirely complete and incorrupt codex of Paul’s epistles, at least alluded to its meaning, or was entirely lapsed in memory.
By a not very dissimilar error of memory, he adduced certain words under the name of the prophet Hosea, which are only to be found in the book of Amos. But it suffices to have noted these in passing. If indeed Clement brought forth any other passages of sacred Scripture in this work that are either faulty or slightly different from the original text, they are accurately annotated in his commentaries, so that it would seem entirely superfluous for us to initiate a long discussion about them.
Moreover, that passage cannot be passed by us without observation where Clement cited the book of Proverbs in a truly singular way: «Why should I announce to you the mysteries of wisdom and the words of the learned Hebrew boy (ἐκ παιδὸς Ἑβραίου σεσοφισμένου)?» It seems beyond doubt that he called Solomon by this name. For he transcribed some things from the eighth chapter of Proverbs which are ascribed to that same Solomon. But why Clement called him by the simple name 'Hebrew boy' is not so prompt and easy to state. It is not unknown to us that it is not at all alien to the custom of Scripture for men, even of more advanced age, to be called so. For of the sons of Eli, who had already themselves sired children, we read it written: «And the sin of the boys (τῶν παιδαρίων) was very great.» But by what reasoning, I ask, will it be proven that Clement wished to use this word to designate Solomon, the Hebrew man and the wisest of all men? It is not unknown to us that many other meanings of the same word are brought forward by our Clement himself, which we will explain elsewhere; but they have no bearing at all on our proposal. If you ask, however, what we think, we will candidly respond that, to our mind, he does not seem to fall far from the truth who says that Clement, by the name 'Hebrew boy,' aimed at these words of the same Solomon: «I was a child of my father, tender and only-begotten before my mother, and he taught me.» For since Solomon there confesses that he was tender and taught by his mother, from this perhaps Cle…
Clement thought that he could be called by the name of a child.
ARTICLE III.
On certain books of the Old Testament cited in the Pædagogus, and how differently from the vulgate edition of them he cited many of their passages, and on some which do not seem to occur even now in it.
Since there remains for us no work of Clement in which he has cited more testimonies of the Holy Scripture than in his Pædagogus, we have thought it worthwhile to discuss them separately; after, however, we have diligently examined those things which have been handed down by memory from him concerning certain books of both Divine Testaments. To begin, then, with the Pentateuch, it is certainly constant that it is most steadfastly attributed by our author to Moses. For does he not openly say, our Pædagogus, that in these books he spoke through Moses, through him, I say, Moses, through whom he led the Israelite people, fleeing from Egypt, in the deserts A? If indeed he gathers anything from the Psalms, then he asserts them for David, their true parent, without doubt B. He likewise adjudicates the book of Proverbs, which in our previous lucubration we saw lauded by him under the name of the learned Hebrew youth, specifically to Solomon C. Furthermore, he openly testifies that this, not otherwise than the other books of either Covenant, was written while the Holy Spirit was breathing upon it D. For which reason the same book is also encountered cited by him at times under the sole name of Wisdom and Scripture. B What then, since he most steadfastly signals not only the books of the great prophets, as they are called, such as Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, but even those of the lesser ones, namely Amos and Hosea, together with those whose names they bear?
Although some exclude the book of Ecclesiasticus from the sacred canon of Hebrew truth, yet our Clement calls the book by the very same names and titles as the Proverbs. For at times it is called Wisdom by our most learned writer, at times Scripture, and what is still more noteworthy, it is affirmed C by him without doubt that the Pædagogus, that is to say Christ the Lord, spoke in it just as in the other books of Holy Scripture. But what else can you gather from this, unless that Clement was entirely persuaded that this book, written by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, was of exactly the same order as the others, by which the first canon of the books of Holy Scripture is said to have been once established and composed?
Furthermore, Clement reports and transcribes all the passages of these and other sacred books, which he has cited, by no other method than that in the previous commentary. For he very often renders them in the same words as they are held in the version of the LXXII Elders, but not without frequent variety of readings. But often he also silences the name of the author, or elsewhere couples and joins the words of different ones, as if of a single prophet; more often he calls one prophet instead of another; sometimes we read that many things are described by him from the same context of Scripture, with, however, intervening words completely omitted. Finally, other things, but few, are reported by him, which either do not exist any longer in the sacred books of our collection, or at least could not be found by us, nor by others. D It is no wonder, therefore, if these things have certainly caused at times very troublesome and laborious work for the learned editors of the Clementine works. And indeed, from what is that A more difficult and thorny place, where he cites the prophecy of Jeremiah, he cites it in this manner: «The divine Pædagogus has used this help, saying through Jeremiah: "Thy appearance was that of a harlot, thou wert shameless toward all, and thou didst not call me in the house, even the father and prince of thy virginity, and a beautiful harlot, and a pleasant leader of poisons."» For here this passage seemed of such difficulty to Hervetus, that he did not believe its knot could be solved except by cutting. For in his commentaries he admonishes us that the last words of this passage: *καὶ πόρνη καλή, καὶ ἐπίχαρις, ἡγουμένη φαρμάκων*, had been omitted by him, since he had found them neither in the Hebrew text, nor in the Septuagint of the Elders, nor in the version of Jerome. But the learned man had not sufficiently observed that these are the words of the prophet Nahum, which were joined by Clement to the text of Jeremiah, just as if they were his, without the name of the author.
Moreover, it can trouble no one even in the slightest, if Clement himself, while transcribing the words of Baruch, has called only the same Jeremiah by name. For that was indeed a most ancient custom of the old Church Fathers, whereby they professed that they were citing the words of Baruch very often as if taken from the book of Jeremiah. If you seek the reason, it will be answered to you at once that Baruch was the amanuensis of Jeremiah, and therefore the work of the copyist could be ascribed to the master. Meanwhile, I would have you observe in passing that the testimony of the same book of Baruch is cited elsewhere by Clement under the sole name of Divine Scripture: *Παγκάλως γοῦν ἡ θεία που λέγει γραφή*, "Most beautifully, however, the divine Scripture said somewhere." Therefore, he held it as evidently fixed and ratified that it was committed to writings by the inspiration of the same Divine Spirit, by which the books of Jeremiah and the other sacred authors were.
But how differently he himself B, our author, has reported many passages of the Old Testament from our Greek version of the LXXII Elders, can be perceived most easily from the scholia relegated to the end of his works. But because many things there most worthy of note are either omitted entirely, or are not sufficiently well unraveled, a discussion must be prepared by us, brief but as accurate as it can be.
Therefore, the first passage of Genesis comes to us, from which Clement narrates that the patriarch Jacob, when he was pasturing the sheep of Laban his father-in-law, had a storax rod. For indeed, Hervetus declares that he could neither read nor divine why he called this rod a "storax" rod. O truly wonderful declaration of a man who annotated such great works of Clement! For what is easier for him than to read in the Septuagint Elders: *Ελαβε δὲ ἑαυτῷ Ἰακὼβ ράβδον στυρακίνην χλωράν, καὶ καρυίνην, καὶ πλατάνου:* For Jacob took for himself a storax rod, green, and a nut branch, and a plane tree? Concerning the storax, you may see Pliny, Dioscorides, and others who have committed something to writing regarding plants and trees. C But the closer Clement approaches there to the Greek version of the Elders, the farther he seems to recede from it, where he has proposed to us again and for a third time certain precepts of the Decalogue, transcribed not without a remarkable addition: "Moses," he says, "with uncovered head prohibited: Thou shalt not commit fornication, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not worship idols, thou shalt not bring shame upon boys." Again, however, afterwards: "Thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not worship idols, thou shalt not bring shame upon boys, thou shalt not steal." And I pray, do not respond that Clement in that work lapsed in memory. In another
book he repeats the same: "Thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not commit adultery, thou shalt not bring shame upon boys, thou shalt not steal." Why then, you will say, are these words, "thou shalt not bring shame upon boys"—*où μὴ παιδοφθήσῃς*—inserted into the sacred text, which you would seek in vain in Exodus and Deuteronomy, or in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke? For they do not occur in these, nor in any other copies or versions of our Bibles. Were they, then, added by Clement for the sake of explanation? But the prohibition of adultery forbids not only the defilement of boys but all illicit sexual intercourse as well. It remains, therefore, to say that Clement received these from some ancient copy of the Septuagint version, perhaps one described from that which, as Jerome teaches, was called the *koinē*, that is, the common version. But let men more skilled than I bear judgment on this matter, if I may.
B From the same version of the Elders, Clement will again appear to diverge in many points, when he recites another law laid down by Moses, saying: "Moses symbolically rejected unfruitful sowing, saying: 'Thou shalt not eat the hare, nor the hyena': *οὐκ ἔδεσαι, λέγων, τὸν λαγῶν, οὐδὲ τὴν ὕαιναν*." For in both Leviticus and Deuteronomy we read *τὸν δασυπόδα καὶ τὸν χοιρογρύλλιον*. Yet Pliny, despite the protests of some, distinguishes the hare (*leporem*) from the *dasypus*. But Bochart proves that, apart from this Roman, Pliny, who distinguished these animals, there was no one else. Nothing therefore prevents us from supposing that Clement read *λαγῶν* in some codex.
C As concerns the word "hyena," Barnabas, just like our Clement, had undoubtedly seen it in the sacred text. For after the law of Moses is mentioned, "thou shalt not eat the *dasypoda*," he added, "but neither shalt thou eat the hyena—*ἀλλὰ οὐδὲ τὴν ὕαιναν φάγῃ*." But Cotelerius does not think that Barnabas, and therefore Clement, refers to the passages from Leviticus and Deuteronomy cited by us, since the hyena and the *choirogryllios* (*hyrax*), by Bochart's testimony, differ from one another. To which law, then, did Barnabas refer? If you ask him, you will immediately receive the answer that it denotes only that law by which it is forbidden to eat animals that neither chew the cud nor divide the hoof. Truly, this conjecture is of no great weight. For Bochart indeed admits that the Hebrew word *saphan* is very often rendered by the Greeks as *choirogryllios*: yet he himself warns us in the same place that some also interpret it by the Greek name *lagōs* (hare). Jerome, however, who interpreted the one hundred and third Psalm, had called the same word "hedgehog" in Latin, yet he wrote to Sunia and Fretella: "For this, *sophannim* is set in the Hebrew, and all have translated it with a similar word, *choirogryllios*. Only the Septuagint interpreted it as hares, *τοῖς λαγίοις*, that is, the rock is a refuge for the hares." Since this Hebrew word was of such doubtful significance, I think it will seem probable to no one that Barnabas and Clement encountered copies of the Greek Old Testament where the aforementioned word *ὕαινα* was written in Greek.
A specimen of frugality, Clement tells us, we have in Elijah, "when he sat under the juniper tree"—*ὅτε ἐκάθισεν ὑπὸ τὸν ῥάμνον*—and brought by an angel to him "was baked bread and a jar of water,"—*ἐγκρυφίας κρίθινος ἦν, καὶ καψάκης ὕδατος*. But those things which are taken from the third book of Kings are found a little differently among the Septuagint: *ἐκάθισεν ὑποκάτω ῥαθμὸν..... ἐγκρυφίας ὀλυφίτης καὶ καψάκης ὕδατος*. "He sat under a *rathmon*... a loaf of spelt baked in ashes, and a cruse of water." In the Latin Vulgate, however: "When he was sitting under a juniper tree... bread baked under ashes, and a vessel of water." But in the Chaldean paraphrase we read: "He sat under a broom-tree... he slept under a broom-tree... bread baked in ashes, roasted on coals, and a cruse of water." But this one difference alone, of the word "barley" (*hordeaceus*) and "spelt" (*siligineus*), between Clement and the Septuagint seventy-two Elders, is of no such moment that it should delay us or anyone else for long.
D To proceed, therefore, to other things gathered from the book of Proverbs, observe, I pray, where our Clement wrote *παιδεύει*, the Septuagint said *ἐλέγχει*. A little later, however, he reports from the twenty-third chapter of that same book the thirteenth and fourteenth verses, in inverted order, thus: "Thou, indeed, strike the son with a rod, and deliver his soul from death; do not cease to instruct a child, but correct him with a rod; for he will not die." The Septuagint, conversely, says: "Do not cease to instruct a child; for if thou strikest him with a rod, he shall not die; for thou indeed shalt strike him with a rod, and shalt deliver his soul from death."
In all editions there is an error of the copyists, where Clement brings forward these words, *μηδὲ ἐπιθύμει τῶν ἐδεσμάτων τῶν πλουσίων*. For these are taken from the book of Proverbs, with the last word changed, in which one can read *μὴ ἐπιθύμει τῶν ἐδεσμάτων αὐτοῦ*. But why this passage of Proverbs is not indicated in any edition of Clement's works, let others see.
Nor is the book of Proverbs yet noted where Clement writes: "Greens with love, or a calf with deceit"—*Λάχανα δὲ μετὰ ἀγάπης, ἢ μόσχων μετὰ δολιότητος· Olera autem cum charitate meliora, quam vitulus cum fraude*. But this is clearly to be easily forgiven, due to the negligence of the editors of all our Clementine editions, since Clement not only omitted the name of the author in that place, but appears to have looked rather to the sense than the words. For in the version of the Septuagint Elders it is read thus: "Better is entertainment with greens for friendship and grace, than a dish of calves with enmity." In some copies *τὸ* (*the*) is missing before *λάχανον*: "Better is hospitality with greens for friendship and grace, than the serving of calves with enmity."
Elsewhere, however, where the Septuagint write *ὁμοίοις ἀφροσιν*, "similarly to the imprudent," Clement in his own copy had consistently read *ὤμοις ἀφρόνων*, "shoulders of the senseless." To his purpose he concludes from these words: "Calling the shoulders the force of intemperance and constant endurance."
Hervetus confesses that he does not know whence Clement drew this dictum: "Poverty, he says, humiliates a man." Therefore he had not added the version of the Septuagint Elders, where these very words are found in the book of Proverbs.
Something in the Greek text of Clement has undoubtedly been omitted by the oversight of copyists, where these things are described from the same book of Proverbs: *κρεῖσσον γὰρ αὐτῆς ἐστι*. For in the manuscripts...
of the Septuagint the passage stands complete as follows: *Better is wisdom than precious stones, and every precious thing is not worthy of it.* In the following verse, however, the text of Clement does not differ from the Septuagint, except that in the former the word *better* is omitted, *and silver* is added, and *ye produce* is put for *to produce*. Finally, Clement inserts these words of Proverbs: *Let thine eyes look straight, and let thy straight eyebrows beckon*, as if they were his own, without citing any author, into his own text in such a way that the editors of his works do not appear to have noticed it.
There is clearly no book, either of the Old or New Testament, from which our author has collected more passages that differ from the sacred text and are more widely at variance than from Ecclesiasticus. But this should surely cause no man any admiration. For such and so manifold is the variety of readings in both the published and the handwritten Greek exemplars of this book that some very learned men have changed their minds and purpose about collecting them, and not all have yet been collected by anyone. Therefore, we have thought it right to exhibit here accurately all of Clement's readings that differ from the sacred text of this book, believing that this collection, even if a little long, will be all the more useful and welcome to all, the greater the authority and diligence of our most learned and ancient author. B Following the order of his books, the first that occurs is: *He that feareth the Lord turneth his heart toward Him.* But the Septuagint reads simply *in his heart*. It differs much more from them in what is afterwards quoted by Clement: *For stripes and instruction are in every time of wisdom; binding together the potsherd, and teaching the fool (leading the earth to perception, and whetting the desperate to understanding).* Therefore he openly added: *rousing a sleeper from deep sleep* (which is especially like death compared to others). *For stripes and curses are at every time of wisdom. He who binds the potsherd, and instructs the fool unto sense, leads the earth, and whets him who is desperate unto prudence.* Therefore he openly added: *Rousing the sleeper from deep sleep, which is of all things most like unto death.* For the things enclosed in brackets are omitted in the common exemplars of the version of the Seventy elders. Nobilius, however, observes that the former words marked with brackets are found in a certain Greek codex of the Bibles. But just as that learned man should have notified his reader that these words are found in our Clement, if indeed he had known it, so it should have been noted by the scholiasts of this same Clement that they differ from the sacred text. Nor should the fact be omitted without some observation that in the common Latin version it is read: *Stripes and doctrine in every time of wisdom. He who teaches a fool is as one who binds a potsherd. He who tells a story to one who is not listening is as one who rouses a sleeper from a heavy sleep.* Where you see that it still recedes from the Greek version in the words noted by us.
Afterwards, truly, Clement testifies that he received these things from the same book of Ecclesiasticus: *The fear of the Lord puts away sins, and he who is without fear will not be able to be justified.* The fear of the Lord extrudes sin. But he who is without fear cannot be justified. But this verse, represented in the Latin version of this work, is not found in the Septuagint C as it occurs. Drusius, however, in the Complutensian codex, but truly in other books they say they have read these things: *The fear of the Lord puts away sins, and abiding with Him (that word is missing from the Complutensian codex) it repels anger. The fear of the Lord repels sin, and when it remains, it averts anger.* Furthermore, all these things are not found in the Syriac and Arabic version.
The Latin version in its place moved those things which Clement brought from the Greek text of the twenty-sixth chapter: *The lecherous horse, and the adulterer assimilated to an irrational beast, neighs at every one who sits upon him.* For in that version in the thirty-third chapter they are exhibited thus: *An emissary horse, so also a mocking friend, neighs under every one who sits upon him.* But it has already been observed by interpreters that many other things from this chapter, and some others, have been similarly translated, just as the various readings of this place have been noted by them and by the scholiasts of our Clement.
26 But by no scholiast of the Clementine works is another passage of Ecclesiasticus quoted by him indicated, which is without doubt: *Do not rejoice in execrable delights.* Where, then, these are derived is very difficult to say. But nothing seems to approach closer to that than this sentence of Ecclesiasticus: *Do not rejoice in much delicate living.* That which Clement quotes: *The exultation of soul and heart is wine created from the beginning if it is drunk as is sufficient;* and a little later: *Wine drunk much, in irritation and every fall it fills up.* These are without doubt excerpted from the thirty-fourth chapter of the version of the Elders, where concerning wine: *And it was created for the delight of men; the exultation of the heart and the joy of the soul is wine drunk in time as is sufficient; the bitterness of the soul is wine drunk much, in irritation and in stumbling.* D But in the Latin version these are exhibited in the thirty-first chapter and separated from each other, nor without some variety of readings.
There seems to be no reason for doubting that this sentence was excerpted by our Clement from the thirty-first chapter of the same book: *In wine do not show yourself a man of strength; for wine has made many useless.* For in the edition of the Septuagint we read the same in the same words, with one exception, *hchreiōsen*, for which is placed *apōlesen*, *it destroyed*. But far otherwise in the common Latin: *Do not provoke those who are diligent in wine; for wine has killed many.*
Indeed, it is easy to find, but none the less diverse from the Septuagint version for that reason, is that which Clement transmits: *A great anger is a drunken woman (as if the wrath of God, a wine-fighting woman)... she does not cover her indecency.* An angry woman is drunken: as the wrath of God is a woman intemperate... she does not hide her own shame. Both the Septuagint and the Latin version are shorter; for the middle words, and those noted by us, it has completely omitted.
A Furthermore, in that place the Latin version has put it thus, as Clement records: “To a man who is educated, wine is sufficient, and he shall rest in his bed.” For the same words are read in the Septuagint in the thirty-first chapter, except that for the article *to* you would read *os*, and *to oligon* for *oinos*, and finally *asthmainei* for *anapausetai*. However, in the Latin version these are rendered in the thirty-fourth chapter only as follows: “How sufficient for an educated man is a little wine, and in sleeping you shall not labor from it.” But whether the editors of Clementine works and the library amanuenses omitted the word *oligos* through no unusual carelessness, you will not wrongly suspect, for this word seems to lead to our author’s goal and to be clearly necessary.
Neither complete, nor in entirely the same words, does Clement exhibit this place of Ecclesiasticus: “Exaudite me, et tanquam rosa plantata in fluentis aquarum germinate. Tanquam Libanus suavem odorem emittite, et benedicite Dominum super opera ejus.” But as for the Septuagint: “Exaudite me, filii sancti, et germinate quasi rosa plantata super rivum agri. Et quasi thus odorem suavitatis emittite, et floresce florem quasi lilium. Diffundite odorem, et collaudate canticum. Benedicite Dominum in omnibus operibus.”
More, however, than what is in the Polyglot and Complutensian edition of the version of the Seventy, Clement represents elsewhere: “Amove a servis tuis spes inanes, et indecoras cupiditates averte a me. Ventris appetitio, et coitus ne me apprehendant.” B And indeed, in the Latin version and in the mentioned editions of the version of the Seventy, these occur nothing more: “Omne desiderium averte a me, aufer a me ventris concupiscentias, et concubitus concupiscentiæ ne apprehendant me.” Drusius, Hoeschelius, and Nobilius, however, testify that in some codices of this book these things are contained, which indeed respond more to the Clementine text, but not entirely: “Kai gigantode psychen aposteson diapantos apo doulon sou; elpidas kenas kai epithymian apostrepson ap' emou (kai krateseis ton thelonta soi douleuein diapantos) koilias etc.” But Nobilius entirely omitted those things which were caught in brackets. Yet those three critics ought not to have passed over this place of our Clement, worthy indeed of remark, in such deep silence.
Nor did they more diligently note this discrepancy of Clement from the seventy-two Elders: “En peribole himatiou ou me kauchese; mede epairou en doxe pasa paranomos ouse.” In amictu vestis ne glorieris, neque in omni gloria quæ est præter leges efferaris. In the Septuagint, indeed, we read: “en hemera doxes,” in the day of honor; the final words, however, are wanting. We are warned, however, by Hoeschelius, that in certain sacred C text exemplars, copied by a Greek hand, [one must] read after the word *kauchese*: “ischyei sou, kai en hemera doxes paranomou me epairou.”
Regarding the words of the Septuagint of the Seventy: “Corona senum est multa experientia,” our Clement added: “kai tou prosopou autou he polia, anthos polypeirias,” and the gray hair of his face is the flower of much experience. Afterward, however, when Clement [says]: “in timore Domini tua permanebit,” the Septuagint rendered *diamenei*—let it be— “sit gloriatio tua.” Others, finally, occur in these books of our Clement, testimonies excerpted from Ecclesiasticus, not entirely consonant with its sacred text and similar things. But because they are noted sufficiently in the scholia and commentaries of the Clementine works, we have judged that we should supersede the need to recount them again.
Let us pass, then, to the prophets, and see what Clement has produced different from their text. And so when he cites that famous oracle of Isaiah, “Puer natus est,” there after the word *arche* he omitted *egenethe*, and for *kaleitai*, or as in other books *kalesei*, he himself put *eklethe*, vocatum est. D More dissimilar is that which he writes: “asebesin ouk estin eirene, legei Kyrios,” Non est pax impiis, dicit Dominus. For the Septuagint have “ouk esti chairein, legei Kyrios, tois asebesin,” Non est gaudere, dicit Dominus, impiis.
Nor without diversity is it also to read: “Ho laos outos tois cheilesi philousi me; he de kardia auton porrotoro estin ap' emou,” Hic populus labiis me amant, cor autem eorum longe est a me. For in the version of the Elders these are exhibited: “Ho laos outos en tois cheilesin auton timosi me, he de kardia auton porrho apechei ap' emou;” Populus iste in labiis suis honorant me; cor autem eorum longe est a me.
From the same chapter our author excerpted these: “Ouai hoi en kryphe boulen poiountes, kai erousi; Tis hemas hora,” Vae iis qui in occulto consilium capiunt, et dicunt; Quis nos videt. But the Septuagint for *en kryphe* read *batheos*, and they intermix many things there, which, although they might contribute not a little to his argument, were completely omitted by Clement.
But if he tacitly omitted some things there, elsewhere more things will occur than in the same interpreters, [which] he has handed down to us in this manner: “Ekplynei Kyrios ton rypon ton huion kai ton thugateron Israel; kai katharei to haima ek mesou auton, to haima tes anomias, kai ton propheton tous phonous,” Abluit Dominus sordes filiorum et filiarum Israel, et mundabit sanguinem ex medio ipsorum, sanguinem iniquitatis, et cædes prophetarum. But the Septuagint: “Ekplynei Kyrios ton rypon ton huion kai ton thugateron Sion, kai to haima ekkatharei ek mesou auton.” These are they, and no more. Whether Clement added the rest for the sake of explanation, let it be the judgment of others.
Finally, out of the first chapter of the same prophet, he expressed some things in the same words, except that for “holokautomaton kai krion, kai arnon... kai eriphon... bdelygma... kai ta sabbata ouk anechomai,” the Septuagint have it a little differently: “Holokautomaton krion, kai stear arnon... kai tragon... bdelygma, kai ta sabbata, kai hemeran megalein ouk anechomai;” Holocaustis arietum et adipum agnorum... hircorum... abominatio... et sabbata, et diem magnum non fero. As concerns Jeremiah, you will remember, seek...
A Theodoret, as Nobilius observes, will easily find.
Clement, therefore, is without doubt to be declared to have written from memory these things, which he clearly indicates he extracted from the same prophet in the same place: “And I shall be,” he says, “their shepherd, and I shall be near them as a tunic is near their body: ‘Καὶ ἔσομαι αὐτῶν ποιμὴν, καὶ ἔσομαι ἐγγὺς αὐτῶν ὡς ὁ χιτὼν τοῦ χρωτὸς αὐτῶν.’” For since he did not commit these to memory, we freely admit that it has remained unknown to us until now from what codex they were taken by him.
It has already been observed by many that certain chapters of this prophet are represented in another order in the Vulgate than in the Septuagint version. Consult, if you wish, the editors of the Polyglot, Nobilius, and other interpreters of this prophecy regarding this matter; since we believe it is sufficient to have noted this once and in passing. Thus, these words are cited by Clement from the sacred book of this prophecy: “ ‘Ὡς μοσχάρια γαλαθηνά’ — As milk-fed calves.” But in the version of the Seventy we read otherwise: “‘Ὥσπερ μόσχοι σιτευτοὶ τρεφόμενοι ἐν αὐτῇ’ — As fatted calves fed in it,” and in the Latin Vulgate: “As fatted calves were they turned.”
Clement brought forward a double passage from the same Jeremiah as if it were one and the same: “‘Καὶ ἐμοίχευον τὸ ξύλον, καὶ τὸν λίθον, καὶ ἐθυμίασαν τῇ Βάαλ’ — And they committed adultery against the wood and the stone, and sacrificed to Baal.” But the Septuagint exhibits the former in the third chapter thus: “Καὶ ἐμοίχευσε τὸ ξύλον καὶ τὸν λίθον,” and the latter in the chapter above the thirtieth, “ἐθυμίασαν ἐπὶ τῶν δωμάτων αὐτῶν τῇ Βάαλ.” These are rendered thus in the Latin version: “In whose houses they sacrificed to Baal.”
A little later Clement says: “ ‘Ἐξέστη ὁ οὐρανὸς ἐπὶ τούτῳ, καὶ ἔφριξεν ἐπὶ πλείω ἡ γῆ’ — The heaven was astonished at this, and the earth shuddered much more.” But the Septuagint says: “ ‘Ἐξέστη ὁ οὐρανὸς ἐπὶ τούτῳ, καὶ ἔφριξεν ἐπὶ πλεῖον σφόδρα’ — The heaven was astonished at this, and shuddered exceedingly, very vehemently.” Nor does the Latin Vulgate version truly agree with them: “Be astonished, O heavens, at this, and let its gates be desolate vehemently.”
The disagreement of those versions is no less in the place where Clement transcribes these words of the same Jeremiah: “ ‘Σπήλαιον ὑαίνης γέγονεν ὁ οἶκός μου’ — My house has become a cave of a hyena.” Indeed, in the Septuagint we read: “ ‘Σπήλαιον ὑαίνης ἡ κληρονομία μου ἐμοί’ — My inheritance has become to me a cave of a hyena.” But in the Latin Vulgate version: “My inheritance is become to me as a speckled bird.” Again, on the following page Clement writes: “ ‘ἵπποι θηλυμανεῖς ἐγενήθητέ μοι’ — Ye have become lust-driven horses to me.” But the Septuagint omits the word “μοι,” and for “ἐγενήθητε” they have “ἐγενήθησαν,” and the Latin version agrees with these. But Clement himself had previously cited this passage in exactly the same way. But what else can you conclude from this way of citing one and the same passage of Scripture differently, unless that Clement produced some at least of the testimonies of the same Scripture from memory?
Finally, Clement reports these from the same prophet: “ ‘Καὶ ἐὰν χρίσῃ στίμμι τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς σου’ — And if you anoint your eyes with stibium,” but the Septuagint rendered it otherwise: “ ‘Καὶ ἐὰν ἐγχρίσῃς τιμῇ τοὺς ὀφθαλμούς σου’ — And if you anoint your eyes with honoring paint.” The Latin version comes closer to Clement: “And paint your eyes with stibium.”
We also happen upon other passages which have altogether escaped our diligence, although it was as great as could be. For in the first book he brings forward this testimony specifically from Isaiah: “ ‘Ἐγκατελίπετε τὸν Κύριον, καὶ παρωργίσατε τὸν ἅγιον τοῦ Ἰσραήλ’ — Ye have forsaken the Lord, and have provoked the Holy One of Israel to indignation.” Whence B these words were plucked by Clement, we do not at all know, unless he was aiming at these: “ ‘Ὑμεῖς δὲ οἱ ἐγκαταλιπόντες με, καὶ ἐπιλανθανόμενοι τὸ ὄρος τὸ ἅγιόν μου’ — But ye who forsake me, and forget my holy mountain.”
Hervetus confesses that he did not find in the Holy Scriptures those things which are narrated here by Clement after this manner: “But concerning him who is against the laws, Scripture says: ‘Γυνὴ μισθία, ἴση σιάλῳ λογισθήσεται, ὅπῳ ἀνδρὸς δὲ, πύργος θανάτου τοῖς χρωμένοις’ — A harlot woman shall be reckoned as spittle, but as to one subject to a man, she is a tower of death to those who use her.” Nor indeed can we deny that those things are lacking in the Latin Vulgate version. But if Hervetus had read the edition of the book of Ecclesiasticus adorned by Hoeschelius and Drusius, or the annotations of Nobilius on this book, he would certainly have found it to be a fact that this passage is to be found in the same words in certain of its codices.
Clement seems to have looked to the twentieth chapter of Ecclesiasticus when he was handing these things down to writing: “ ‘Ἐλεημοσύναι δὲ καὶ πίστις μὴ ἐκλειπέτωσάν σε’ — But let alms and faith never desert you.” But if Clement transcribes the very words of Scripture, it is more likely that he drew these from some codex, clearly different from ours.
He further testifies that he received these from Holy Scripture: “ ‘Τὰ ἔργα τὰ ἄγαθα εὐχὴ Κυρίῳ δεκτή’ — Good works are a prayer acceptable to the Lord.” But he indicates neither the book nor the place. In exactly the same way he brings this forth: “ ‘Μὴ ἐγὼ ἐνετειλάμην τοῖς πατράσιν ὑμῶν, ἐκπορευομένοις ἐκ γῆς Αἰγύπτου προσενέγκαι μοι ὁλοκαυτώματα καὶ θυσίας; Ἀλλὰ τοῦτο ἐνετειλάμην αὐτοῖς· Ἕκαστος ὑμῶν κατὰ τοῦ πλησίου ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ αὐτοῦ μὴ μνησικακείτω, ὅρκον ψευδῆ μὴ ἀγαπάτω’ — Did I command your fathers, when they came out of the land of Egypt, to offer me burnt-offerings and sacrifices? But this I commanded them: Let each one of you not harbor malice against his neighbor in his heart, let him not love a false oath.” These two precepts indeed occur to us in the book of Leviticus: but where all those things were plucked by Clement from one and the same place, it is not so easy to define.
Finally, some who believe this sentence was excerpted by Clement from the book of Ecclesiasticus: “ ‘Ὀσμὴ εὐωδίας τῷ Θεῷ καρδία δοξάζουσα τὸν πεπλακότα αὐτήν’ — An odor of sweetness to God is a heart that glorifies Him who created it.” However, these things are not read in the place designated by them.
It is remarkable indeed how Clement produces these things from the book of Ezechiel in a disturbed and inverted order of the versions: C “ ‘Καὶ τὸ χωλὸν καταδήσω, καὶ τὸ ὀχλούμενον ἰάσομαι, καὶ τὸ πλανώμενον ἐπιστρέψω, καὶ βοσκήσω αὐτοὺς ἐγὼ εἰς τὸ ὄρος τὸ ἅγιόν μου’ — And that which is lame I will bind up, and that which is sick I will heal, and that which wanders I will turn back, and I will pasture them myself upon my holy mountain.” For these are the words of the version of the Elders: “They shall be pastured upon the mountains of Israel. I will pasture my sheep, and I will give them rest (and they shall know that I am the Lord), thus saith the Lord D Lord. That which is lost I will seek, and that which wanders I will turn back, and that which is broken I will bind up, and that which is failing I will strengthen, and that which is strong I will keep, and I will pasture them with judgment.” These things which are enclosed in notes are omitted in the Sixtine and Latin Vulgate editions: but they are in others and in those…
A Eusebius, once seen, or even rejected by many, as Jerome says, Clement nevertheless extracted a fragment from it no less lengthy than the former, nor does he any less unhesitatingly adjudge it to Jude, as its true and genuine author. In his own books, he transcribed these things from it word for word, if you except a very few small things, thus: “For I wish you to know, says Jude,” φησὶν Ἰούδας, “that God, who once saved the people out of Egypt, secondarily destroyed those who did not believe, and the angels who did not keep their own domain, but left their own habitation,” etc. Furthermore, that testimony of our Clement regarding this Epistle of Jude is of greater moment, because in the view of Eusebius, already cited by us: “Truly very few of the ancients made mention of this Epistle of James, as well as of that of Jude, which are themselves also reckoned in the number of the seven Catholic [Epistles].”
Nor of less clarity and evidence is it certainly that he considered these Epistles of the Apostle and the holy books of the Gospels to have been truly composed by those in whose name they circulate. For just as he assigns those to Paul, whom he calls the Apostle by way of antonomasia, so he unhesitatingly ascribes these to their four authors. B Indeed, the first Epistle which has the name of the Apostle Peter prefixed in the Holy Scriptures, he sometimes expressly adjudges to him. For he uses its authority in this manner in one place: “It is commanded to servants that with all fear they be subject to their masters, not only the good and gentle, but also the froward and perverse, says Peter,” φησὶν ὁ Πέτρος, “be subject.” And no one is ignorant that these things have been taken from the second chapter of the same first Epistle.
Nor, furthermore, should you think this was said by him rashly; since you will find it cited by him in the same manner again elsewhere: “And therefore Peter also said: Laying aside all malice, and all guile, and dissimulation, and envy, and detraction, as new-born infants, desire the rational milk; that in it you may grow unto salvation, if you have tasted that Christ is the Lord.” And again: “Knowing, therefore, each one’s own duty, converse in the time of your sojourning, knowing that not with corruptible gold and silver were we redeemed... the past time therefore sufficeth,” says Peter, ὁ Πέτρος φησί.
But he sometimes draws more from it, truly with Peter’s name left silent: but you would do well to observe that they are cited by him as if dictated by our Pedagogue, that is, Christ the Lord: “The Pedagogue commands, however… When they have seen,” he says, φησὶν, “your chaste conversation which is in the word, not of whom it resides, not even external braiding, or putting on of gold, or apparel of garments, but the hidden man of the heart,” etc. Which indeed are transcribed from the third chapter of the same Epistle in exactly the same words. C When he also takes some testimony from the first Epistle of John, he constantly attributes it to him. For so he says: “And this is the love of God, says John,” φησὶν Ἰωάννης, “that we keep his commandments, and his commandments are not grievous.” And below he displays another much longer segment of the same Epistle under the same cited name: “And he is the propitiation for our sins, as says John,” etc.
Although the Epistle of Jude is of far lesser, indeed of entirely dubious authority to many, as Eusebius testifies, yet although few writers before Clement mentioned this Epistle; others, however, after him, with truly great consensus, have approached his sentiment concerning the author of the same Epistle and its divine and canonical authority. Tertullian, indeed, declares openly and plainly concerning it: “Added to this is the fact that Enoch possesses testimony among the Apostle Jude.” Origen, however: “How also can that which the Apostle Jude says in the Catholic Epistle be explained?” Nor would you say that any other Epistle of Jude is indicated by him than that about which we are speaking. For there he received that testimony from it, just as in another book he refers to the words of the former in this manner: “And Jude wrote an Epistle of few indeed lines, but filled with the vigorous words of heavenly grace. Which in the beginning said: Jude a servant of Jesus Christ, brother of James.” What then of the fact that he [the author], just as Athanasius, Innocent I the Supreme Pontiff, Augustine, Cassiodorus and others, places the same Epistle in the number of the other canonical Epistles? For which reason Jerome, already cited by us, says: “It has attained authority by its antiquity and use, and is reckoned among the Holy Scriptures.”
But if anyone should desire anything more clear and express, let him hear Epiphanius disputing against the Gnostics: “Of whom the Holy Spirit appears to me so much moved in the apostle Jude, that is, in his Catholic Epistle (that Jude, moreover, is he who is called the brother of James and even of the Lord), in which through the voice of the apostle, the Holy Spirit, I say, shows that those corrupt people and distorters are described, as he speaks there in that place: For what they do not know,” etc. Nor, furthermore, is the authority of this Epistle confirmed only by these and other writers, but also by various councils, namely of Laodicea, the third and fourth of Carthage, and others in succession. D But let us proceed, and let us reveal to everyone clearly how base and feeble is that which is objected against the opinion of so many and so great men. Jerome did not say that it was rejected by many, as some suppose, because it was neither genuine nor canonical. But because, as Jerome himself says, he assumes testimony in it from the book of Enoch, which is apocryphal. However, this reasoning of theirs to reject it is of no weight. For we read elsewhere written by the same Jerome concerning the Apostle: Paul [cites] many other things from...
concealed and apocryphal works, which are not to be called spurious, nor even in the least non-canonical. Rightly, therefore, other writers, far more skilled than these, have made this argument of absolutely no account.
Nor, indeed, do they use a stronger argument who object to us that Jude in the beginning of his Epistle did not, as others are accustomed to do, call himself an apostle. For what if it be attributed to his modesty that he named himself not an apostle, but a servant of Jesus Christ? What, too, that the most ancient writers most openly call him an apostle? And finally, what that in the same place he calls himself the brother of James? Did he not sufficiently indicate by that name that he was an apostle of Christ? But, they say, these words, "a servant of Jesus Christ," were added by certain library copyists in order to procure greater authority for this Epistle. But by what reasoning do you think they confirm this? By none at all. On the contrary, that these very words are genuine and proceeded from the author himself is most invincibly concluded by the testimonies of Jerome and Epiphanius already brought forward by us.
They urge, however, and, relenting not, say: If this Epistle had been canonical, it would have been rendered into all languages, just as the other Epistles of the apostles were. But what else can be concluded from this, unless that it had not been spread as much, or as quickly, into as many parts of the world as the others? And what if its various translations into other languages have not reached us? Moreover, Eusebius is a witness to us that it was publicly read in many Churches in his time, no less than the letters of James and the other apostles: "But, however," he says, "we know that these too are read in the majority of churches" [supra 39]. And how could it be read in the majority of churches, just as the other canonical Epistles of the apostles, unless it had been turned into the various B languages, just as they were?
Therefore, one must least of all listen to a certain modern writer who, when he cannot elevate the authority of this Epistle, wrongly attempts to weaken the faith of our Clement himself. For toward us he does not fear to frigidly object that his testimony is of the lightest importance; inasmuch as, as Eusebius relates, he sometimes prematurely and inaccurately added adulterated writings to various genuine books of Sacred Scripture. Now these are the words of Eusebius: "In his books of *Hypotyposes*, to say it in one word, he composed a compendious narration of all the Scriptures of both Testaments, not even omitting the Scriptures about which there is dispute among many: I mean the Epistle of Jude, and those of Barnabas, and the remaining Catholic Epistles, and the Revelation which is called of Peter," etc. [supra 40].
But we have demonstrated elsewhere [supra 41] that Clement, in passing judgment on the Epistle of Barnabas, did not stray as far from the truth as some suppose. Yet grant that his opinion concerning this Epistle, as with the Revelation of Peter, was erroneous; is he therefore to be accused of falsehood and error in all other things asserted by him in that same place? Certainly no one, not even the author of this very light reasoning himself, would say that. For although we confess that Clement erred in certain matters, who, therefore, could rightly conclude that he was deceived in others, and in asserting the truth of the Epistle of Jude as well?
For the rest, observe, I ask, how all that which Clement has quoted from this Epistle of Jude has been taken word for word from its Greek text, with the exception of a few points which are annotated in the scholia of the Clementine works. C
We also read many other places of the New Testament set down by him not without some diversity of certain words. But whether that variety of readings is to be attributed to his memory not being sufficiently tenacious, or to a discrepancy in the codices which he used from those of others, is difficult enough to say. However, it seems more probable that this should be ascribed to the latter than to the former. Moreover, we sometimes notice one and the same place of Scripture transcribed by him in a different way. For to omit other things, he rendered the first statement of the Gospel of John in one book thus: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God." In the *Paedagogus*, however: "In the beginning the Word was with God."
Finally, so that you too may not be frequently deceived, we wish to have you warned that the places of Sacred Scripture, and especially those of the Gospels, cited by Clement, are very often indicated incorrectly in the editions of his works. That will suffice for a multitude, which he himself brought forward: "Behold those who dwell in glorious clothing and delights," etc., whereas in the margin, for Luke [supra 47], from which these were drawn, Matthew [supra 47], who spoke far differently, is preemptively cited. We have thought it sufficient to have noted this once.
ARTICLE V.
*Concerning the apostolic law, by which the blood of animals and strangled meat is forbidden.*Although Clement does not at any time transcribe the words of Sacred Scripture, he does, however, somewhere allude not obscurely to them. For when he teaches that for Christian men the drinking and eating of the blood of animals is clearly and thoroughly forbidden thus [supra 48]: "Nor is it right for men to touch blood, for whom their body is nothing other than flesh nourished by blood. Human blood has been a partaker of the Word, and has communion through the Spirit," does he not look to this law written in the Acts of the Apostles: "It has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what is strangled, and from fornication" [Act. xv, 28, 29]? Therefore, no one will deny that this law was observed D by Christians in the time of Clement. But because this same law is mentioned not once by the authors of our *Bibliotheca Patrum*, those things which come into controversy concerning it and this passage of Clement must be examined a little more accurately. For three things in particular are called into dispute: first, whether the expression "and from what is strangled" proceeded from the apostles, or was inserted into the text of the sacred divine book; then, how long that law obtained among Christians; thirdly, finally, of what weight the reasons brought forward by our Clement are.
But as far as concerns the first, the pseudo-Ambrose hesitatingly affirms that the expression "and from what is strangled" was ineptly and altogether wrongly added to the apostolic text by some ill-at-ease little Greek: "Which the sophists of the Greeks," he says, "not understanding, yet knowing that one must abstain from blood, adulterated the Scripture, adding a fourth command, and [that one must abstain] from what is strangled. Which I think they will now, by the will of God, understand, because it had been said above what they added." Yet let no man be so moved by this false usurpation of the name of Ambrose, that he would wish to immediately derogate all faith from a feigned and badly masked writer. But, in truth, Irenaeus, where he refers to this decree of the apostles in these very words, passes over the same expression in deep silence: "It pleased the Holy Spirit," he says, "...to abstain from idolatries, and the shedding of blood, and fornication" [infra 51]. In a similar way also Cyprian...
A At the same time, many with Augustine, Cyril, and others to be cited below, acknowledge that this word truly proceeded from the apostles. Wherefore, in various councils of the Church, we read that it was specifically forbidden for anyone to eat what has been strangled.
If you ask whence this disagreement among the ancient Fathers arose, we shall answer you in the words of Jerome: "History tells in the Acts of the Apostles... that the elders who were in Jerusalem, and the apostles gathered likewise, had decided by letter that the yoke of the Law should not be imposed upon them, nor that they should observe it any further, except that they should keep themselves merely from things sacrificed to idols, and blood, and fornication, or, as it is written in some manuscripts, from what has been strangled." You see, therefore, that this last word, as Jerome attests, is represented in fewer, or as he himself says, in "some" manuscripts of the holy Scripture. What wonder, then, if it was omitted by the Fathers already praised, and cited by others according to the manuscripts of the Scripture that each of them happened to possess? Moreover, it is clear from this same testimony of Jerome that the opinion of pseudo-Ambrose, who contends that this little phrase was added to the sacred text by the sophists of the Greeks, should appear to be little likely. Furthermore, if we believe Augustine, the law prohibiting the drinking of blood also includes what has been strangled. "A precept from the apostles," he says, "that the Gentiles should abstain... from blood, that is, that they should not eat any flesh whose blood had not been poured out."
B When, however, that law began to be abrogated, or anything to be taken away from it, the opinion and sentiment of learned men is not uniform. But it is certainly certain that Christians continued to observe this norm and institution of the apostles long after the times of Clement. If you wish for witnesses of this fact to be cited to you, listen, I pray, to Tertullian: "We do not even have the blood of animals in our food, and for this reason, we abstain from things strangled and carrion, lest we be in any way defiled by blood, even that which is buried within the innards. Finally, among the trials of Christians, you even bring forward sausages filled with blood, certain, no doubt, that it is illicit among them, through which you wish them to stray." No less openly does Minutius Felix say: "To us, he says, it is not lawful even to see or hear of homicide; and we are so cautious about human blood that we do not even know the blood of edible animals in our food." Biblias, indeed, while undergoing martyrdom and tormented by tortures, is reported to have replied thus in the presence of Eusebius: "How could it be that (Christians) would eat infants, to whom it is not permitted to taste even the blood of animals?" Origen also says: C "You see," he says, "this law concerning the observance of blood, which was given commonly both to the children of Israel and to the sojourners, being observed also by us who, from the Gentiles, believe in God through Jesus Christ." To these is added Jerome, who says thus in his commentaries on the prophecy of Ezekiel: "To the whole chosen, royal, and priestly race (which refers properly to Christians), these precepts are fitting: that it should not eat carrion, either of birds or of cattle, whose blood has not been poured out—which in the Acts of the Apostles is called 'strangled'—and which the letter of the apostles from Jerusalem warns must necessarily be observed, as well as an animal caught by a beast, which is likewise strangled; and he condemns the priests who, in their greed of the gullet, do not observe these things regarding thrushes, beccaficos, dormice, and other things of this kind."
D How strictly Christians were convinced in the past that they were held bound by this law one may gather from the fact that the ancient Fathers of the Church, having gathered in many synods, judged that its transgressors should be punished with various and sometimes very grave penalties. Fulfilling the apostolic canon—which leaves to be mentioned—even if we pass over the pseudepigraphal canon of the apostles that subjects priests to the penalty of deposition and laymen to that of segregation, certainly at the Council of Gangra all who are guilty of this transgression are smitten with the sword of anathema. The Trullan synod, moreover, decrees the same penalty against them as the apostolic canon; the second Council of Orléans, however, shuns them from the assemblies of the Church. The supreme pontiff Gregory III acts more mildly, ordering that they be assigned to penance, no doubt public, for only forty days. Finally, we learn from Bede himself that the same had been established by the Church.
However, from these and other similar decrees of the churches, which it is not necessary to amass here, some writers of this our age conclude that this law was not abrogated until four hundred years ago. But that it had begun to be abrogated many centuries before that time, there is clearly no room for doubt. Nor, indeed, can this be obscurely proven by these words of Cyril of Jerusalem: "The apostles and elders write... that in the first place they should abstain from things sacrificed to idols, and then from blood and what has been strangled. For many men, wild and savage, living after the manner of dogs, lap up blood, like wild and fierce beasts, and devour things strangled in abundance. You, however, as a servant of Christ, while eating, eat with reverence and modesty observed." For what else does that most learned man suggest there, except that the wild and savage custom of eating blood and things strangled is to be condemned; and that to a Christian, if modesty and reverence be used, it is permitted to use them? Augustine, however, explains this more clearly and precisely: "In the Acts," he says, "of the Apostles, it was commanded by this law by the apostles that the Gentiles should abstain only from fornication, and from things sacrificed to idols, and from blood—that is, that they should not eat any flesh whose blood had not been poured out. Which others do not understand in this way, but [think] that it was commanded to abstain from blood so that no one should defile himself with homicide. To discuss this is long and not necessary, because even if the apostles at that time commanded that Christians should abstain from the blood of animals so that they might not feed on strangled flesh, they seem to me to have chosen for the time a thing easy and in no way onerous to those observing it, in which, together with the Israelites, the Gentiles—on account of that cornerstone, reconciling two [peoples] in itself—might observe something in common: and at the same time might be admonished from the very ark of Noah, when God commanded this, the Church of all nations was prefigured, the prophecy of which fact began to be fulfilled already as the nations approached the faith. But when that time had passed, in which those two walls, coming one from circumcision, the other from uncircumcision, although they agreed in the cornerstone, yet stood out more distinctly by certain properties of their own; and when the Church of the Gentiles had become such that no carnal Israelite appeared in it, what Christian now observes this, so as not to touch thrushes or smaller birds, unless their blood has been poured out, or not to eat a hare if it has been struck by hand on the neck and killed without a bloody wound? And those few who still fear to touch these things are mocked by the rest; thus that sentiment of Truth has taken hold of the minds of all in this matter: 'Not what enters into your mouth..."
853 OTHER OBSERVATIONS ON THE EXHORTATION AND THE PEDAGOGUE. 854
that defiles you." We have transcribed this passage of Augustine in its entirety, although it is somewhat long, because many things that pertain to our subject are clearly and lucidly explained there. First, he testifies that this law had been abrogated in his own time, so that those who still wished to observe it were mocked by everyone else. For it had been imposed by the apostles only up to that time when the Church was made one from both Jews and Gentiles, and no carnal Israelite existed any longer. A Furthermore, those who believed they were free from this law relied especially on these words of Christ: "Not that which enters into the mouth defiles a man." For they were persuaded that by this judgment of our Lord they were bound and obliged much more strictly than by the law of his apostles, which was broad and for a certain time only.
However, we do not think that Augustine is speaking of all people in general, or of those dispersed throughout the whole world, whether Christians or Churches; rather, he should be understood as speaking of the African and other neighboring ones. For although Cyril of Jerusalem, as we have seen, is a witness for us that no one in his own time was held by that same law, nevertheless Jerome, as we have already observed, testified that among his own people it had not yet been rescinded or weakened. B Therefore, from what has been said, you may not unfairly conclude that this apostolic prescription was diligently observed by Christians for as long as they were harassed by the various persecutions of tyrants and pagans. But when peace was returned to the Churches, they gradually—and in some places sooner, in others later—and even in subsequent centuries, departed from it, until it was finally abrogated by everyone everywhere. Nor can we subscribe to those who, from a collection of canons adorned by Bede and other writers, conclude that the same law was observed by Christians at the time when such compilations were brought to light. For writings of this kind indicate what had been done rather than what was still in use among Christians at that time.
But as far as the reasons brought forward by our Clement for this interdict are concerned, Augustine certainly produced another that is clearly similar to theirs, for which the apostles had long ago forbidden carrion to the patriarchs and Israelites: "I think carrion," he says, "is what has not admitted to food for human use, in that it is not the diseased flesh of slaughtered, but of dead animals, nor is it suitable for the health of the body, for which cause we take nourishment." C But the apostles do not seem to have been led to establish the law we are discussing by these reasons, which are drawn from the very nature of this food. For in promulgating it, as Augustine relates in that same place, they had no other mind or intent than that, by prescribing for Christians for the time being a matter that was easy and by no means burdensome to observers, they might show regard for the infirmity of the Jews, and by that kindness and indulgence might more easily lead them to the profession of the Christian faith. Therefore, we should by no means say that other arguments were devised and put forward by Clement—as often happens in the custom of others—to confirm this law and fix it more deeply in the minds of Christians, rather than to explain the mind of the legislators in writing it.
CAPUT IV
Regarding the divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit, and the sacred mystery of the Trinity, and those things which pertain to Christ.
ARTICLE I.
On the supreme divinity of Christ, asserted in the Exhortation to the Greeks.
Clement asserts and defends the supreme divinity of the Son of God, Christ the Lord, so clearly and openly, so frequently and assiduously in his books, that it is very difficult to say why some even Catholic men have not hesitated to accuse him of some error in explaining this primary article of the Christian faith. For it is not necessary to bring forward into the middle every single one of his absolutely certain and by no means obscure testimonies concerning the supreme divinity of Christ in order to refute entirely the wicked accusation of these people—which would indeed be too long and useless—but it will suffice to select from them only a few, by which it may become as clear as the midday sun to anyone, even to the most stubborn man, that no writer before the Nicene times D ever taught and defended this Catholic dogma more openly and constantly.
So, first we shall set aside those things in which that most learned man proclaims that Christ existed before David, from whose stock he was made man, and before Lucifer. Nor shall we dwell upon those in which he seriously warns the Gentiles that Christ is most certainly proclaimed as God by the apostle Paul. That too, even if it contributes greatly to our subject, we shall voluntarily omit, because Clement most explicitly defines that Christ is God and man, a living God, who suffered and is adored, who alone is God among men.
These things therefore being omitted, let us diligently turn our attention to what he writes in this way concerning Christ the Lord: "But now this same Word has appeared to men, who alone is both, God and man... He appeared who is in Him who is: since the Word, who was with God, appeared as doctor, by which all things were fabricated. The Word: which when once it had given life in creation, as maker; after it had manifested itself as teacher, it taught how to live well, so that afterwards, as God, it might provide eternal life."
I would like you to observe and ponder diligently with us his Greek words, *ἐπεφάνη ὁ ἐν τῷ ὄντι ὢν, ὅτι ὁ Λόγος ὃς ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεὸν, διδάσκαλος ἐπεφάνη* ("Apparuit qui est in eo qui est; quoniam Verbum quod erat apud Deum, magister apparuit"). For to what, I pray, does Clement point with these words other than to that very proper name of God, *ὁ ὤν*, which we read was declared by that very same God to Moses when he asked? Yet Clement not only attributes this name to the Son of God, just as he does to the Father, in reality; but he proves it must be ascribed to him from this, that before he was made man, he himself, the Word, was with God, and through him all things were made. What else can you gather from this, but that Clement attributed the same divinity to the Word and Son of God that is to be attributed to the eternal Father himself? Which things indeed confirm in a wonderful way what he continues to add: "The Word as maker gave life to man by creation, as teacher he..."
A diligently attends: 'Since,' he says, 'he was his Son, true indeed, and proper, genuine, as he had said a little before; and because the Word was in God, so indeed, that he never began to be in him, but was coeternal with him. For neither could the eternal Father exist without his own proper Son, nor could God the Spirit exist without the Word.' B Truly, are not the very titles of honor and praise, with which Clement adorns Christ there, so proper to the supreme and highest God, that they could not be attributed or applied to any other?
ARTICLE II.
How invincibly the same divinity of Christ and the Holy Spirit and the mystery of the most holy Trinity are asserted in the books of the Tutor (Paedagogue).The arguments for the supreme divinity of Christ, which we have brought forward up to this point, asserted by our Clement, have been culled by us from one book of his alone. What then? If his other writings, and especially the books of the Tutor, be perused, so many and such invincible foundations of the same assertion will offer themselves on all sides to those reading them, that he must be utterly blind who does not see them, and utterly foolish of mind who resists them. C For from the very beginning of the Tutor, he depicts Christ the Lord with these native colors and words: "Our Tutor resembles his Father God, whose Son he is, sinless, blameless, and passionless in soul; God in the shape of man, unpolluted, a servant to the Father’s will, the Word, God, who is in the Father, who is at the Father’s right hand, and with the shape, God." Our Tutor is similar to God his Father, whose Son he is, into whom no sin at all falls, and who is immune to any blame, and passionless in spirit; God in the figure of man, unpolluted, serving the Father’s will, the Word, God who is in the Father, who is at the Father’s right hand, and in figure is God. In this place, our author brilliantly proclaims Christ’s nature, both human and especially divine. For he does not merely call him the Word and God simply, but [he calls] the Son of God so like to his Father, such a true God in the figure of man, that he himself is in the Father, just as the Father is in him: "In him," he says again elsewhere, "is the Son, and in the Son is the Father." But who could justly and deservedly believe that these things could have been said by our Clement concerning any creature, or a pure and mere man? D Come now, and see, I pray, with what titles of praise he extols Christ. For he is called by him *anamartetos*, which means one who has not sinned, or rather, who cannot sin. For he immediately adds *anepileptos*, who cannot be refuted or reprimanded, or who is not subject to reproach. Then next, *apathes ten psychen*, who is least subject to the affections and perturbations of the mind. Finally, *achrantos*, unpolluted and immaculate. "But in no way to be capable of sinning at all," says Clement in the same place, "we say belongs to God." And with such care does he strive to persuade his disciples of this, that he repeats the same thing in other words: "This is for us the image in which there is no stain.... And he indeed is free from all perturbations of the human mind. For this reason he alone is judge, because he alone is the one into whom sin does not fall." He looks for knots in a bulrush, therefore, who would deny that Clement has there opened his mind entirely clearly and perspicuously concerning the supreme divinity of Christ. What, then, of the fact that he asserts not only that Christ is not subject to any sin, but that by him also, as true and supreme God, sins are forgiven? "In all things," he says, "he profits, and in all things he helps"
A If, therefore, Clement thought that Christ, being the only one in whom sin does not fall, is truly and supremely God, he was surely the more persuaded of this because in him resided the supreme power of forgiving sins. Wherefore, writing again concerning this same divine physician, he says:
The paternal Word is the sole Paeonian physician of human infirmities, and the holy enchanter of the soul that is sick.
What then, when he also calls him, without hesitation, the Almighty God the Word, "the Almighty God the Word, who can so satisfy the heart of man that it stands in need of nothing else"?
He makes it plain to all that he drew this doctrine from the very deepest fonts of the sacred Scriptures, both of the Old and New Testaments. For after he had said that this was foretold of Christ by Isaiah: "A child is born to us, and a son is given to us, whose government is upon his shoulder, and his name is called the Angel of the Great Counsel," he immediately adds: "Through the same prophet he recounts his greatness:
Wonderful counselor, mighty God, eternal Father, prince of peace... and of his peace there shall be no end.
" Whence he thus exclaims: "O great God! O perfect child! Son in the Father, and Father in the Son." Who, therefore, will deny that Clement was fully persuaded that Christ is declared by Isaiah, most openly, to be the true and supreme God, and the same as the Father?He argues in the very same way from the opening words of the Gospel of John: "God holds nothing in hatred, neither does his Word. For both are one, namely God." He says: "In the beginning was the Word in God, and the Word was God." No one, therefore, unless blinded by the greatest stubbornness, fails to see that Clement concludes from this first pronouncement of John that Christ the Lord is one with God the Father, in such a way that he is of the same nature and divinity as him. B
A For he who sets some on the right and some on the left—insofar as he is understood as Father, being good, is called by that name alone, 'Good'; but insofar as he is the Son, his Word is in the Father, and he is addressed as 'Just,' from the mutual relationship, a name measured by the equality of love, of power. Having subsequently confirmed this with various testimonies of Scripture, he elicits from them this conclusion: "Therefore his Father is the same, who, though one, is signified by many powers, and meant this when he said: 'No one knows the Father,' who indeed was all things before the Son came: so that it might be clear in truth that he who is the God of all is one, alone good, just, the creator, the Son in the Father, to whom be glory for ever and ever, amen." Who, indeed, could rightly desire anything more expressive and significant than these words to declare the one and same nature of the Son and the Father? For there Clement most clearly teaches that the Son of God is one with the Father, with that most simple unity than which no one could ever imagine or devise a greater.
C Let us proceed and see how he overthrows the same point from other passages of the Gospels. But this is demonstrated most lucidly by that reasoning by which he proves from the same divine Scripture that God himself, who is good, is also just. For he proves that he is one by that most simple unity, than which no greater can be conceived: "He calls him one, so that all might be one, as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us... That they may be one, as we are one; I in them, and thou in me, that they may be perfected in one. But God is one, and beyond one, and above unity itself. And therefore that particle, 'thou,' having a demonstrative emphasis, shows God, who truly alone is, who was, and is, and shall be." Then he proves him to be just, whom he had previously demonstrated to be good. He then adds: "For he who sets these on the right, but those on the left; insofar as the Father, who is good, is conceived in the mind, he is called only 'that which is good'; but insofar as he who is the Son, his Word, is in the Father, he is called 'just,' from the mutual relation and habit that exists between them; so that by the equality of love there is a measure given to the name of power."
Non-believing, therefore, is the persistent Arian who will wrongly object to us, from the testimony of John quoted by him, that Clement speaks not of a unity of nature, but only of will and love, or rather of conjunction. For from the whole manner of his argumentation, it is most manifest and clearer than the noonday sun that his intent was none other than to show, from these words of Christ in John, that he had petitioned his eternal Father that men might become one in grace, truth, and love, just as he himself was one God by nature with the same Father of his.
Wherefore, after he had proved more fully that the Father and the Son are one and the same God, just and good: "See," he says, "how the Pedagogue, that is Christ, is shown to be just in his rebukes, and God, who is good, in his acts of mercy." Wherefore David, that is the Spirit who speaks through him, embracing both, sings of the same God: "Justice and judgment are the preparation of thy throne; mercy and truth shall go before thy face." He confesses it to be of the same power to both judge and do good; for the power of both is one at the same time, the judgment of the just which discerns opposing things. And he himself is just, and good, he who is truly God; who is himself all, and he himself is all things; because he himself is God, the only God. D Finally, this zeal for proclaiming the supreme unity of Christ with his Father was so dear to our Clement that he offers this prayer to him: "Be propitious to thy children, O Pedagogue, Father, charioteer of Israel, Son and Father, both one, Lord."
Although that most learned writer so highly commends the supreme unity of the Father and the Son, he declares them, however, not obscurely, to be distinct in person and hypostasis, as theologians say. For he says there is "a relation and habit" between them. Yet who would rightly go to deny that, by a relation and habit of this kind, a true distinction of persons in God is implied? What else, therefore, remains for us, except to conclude with the words of our same Clement against the recent Arians, just as he did against certain ancient heretics: "Will they therefore confess..."
A that the Word is perfect, born of a perfect Father?" that is, that the Word or Christ the Lord was made by his divine generation both a participant in the paternal nature and in all his divine perfections? Therefore, Christ is justly and deservedly called by our Clement "holy God," ἅγιος Θεός, "God the lover of men," ὁ φιλάνθρωπος Θεός, "the only teacher," who, since he was God, it was fitting that he should have learned nothing.
Moreover, Clement opened his opinion and mind no less clearly concerning the Holy Spirit than concerning the divinity of Christ and the most holy mystery of the divine Trinity. For what can be more expressive and lucid than these words? "One indeed is the Father of all, and one also is the Word of all, and the Holy Spirit is one and the same everywhere." B How, however, can the Holy Spirit be everywhere, unless he be of that divine power and nature, which Clement most openly pronounces to be one in Him and in the Father and in the Son?
Finally, at the end of this work, he exhorts Christians in the same thorough manner to praise God and give thanks to Him: "To the only Father and Son, Son and Father, Educator and Teacher Son, together with the Holy Spirit. All to the One; in whom are all things; through whom all things are one; through whom the 'always' is; whose members we all are; whose is the glory, the ages. All to the good, all to the fair, all to the wise; to the just all, to whom be glory both now and forever. Amen." Who has ever more openly professed the mystery of the most holy Trinity, by which the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are believed to be of the same nature? Wherefore Petavius, although he has sometimes shown little favor to Clement, as we shall see, nevertheless from these words of his refutes and chastises Crellius, the most stubborn follower of the Socinian heresy: "He would not, I think, speak these things of a mere efficiency and action; especially since he asserts in the same place that these three are one." And very rightly indeed. For Clement there attributes to the Son and the Holy Spirit those things which Paul had said of the one supreme and highest God: "From him and in him and through him are all things." Indeed, he ascribes these things no otherwise to the Son and Holy Spirit than to the eternal Father himself. Finally, it also adds that our most learned author, lest anyone should argue that the Son is called teacher C at some point as inferior, and the Father, as the greater, is called master, calls the Son by both names there.
ARTICLE III.
*That Christ, before he became man, truly existed, and how he was the leader of the Israelite and Christian people.*Since Clement has asserted the supreme divinity of Christ with such clarity and evidence, it surely seems miraculous to no one why he should write here and there in the *Paedagogus* books that the same Christ not only showed himself to be seen by the patriarchs Abraham, Jacob, Moses, and others, and spoke with them, but even that Moses and all the holy prophets D wrote by his divine spirit. Therefore, there is no need to accumulate all his testimonies here for proof. For some have already been tasted by us, or will be brought forth soon. But the others are so obvious to all that they can be most easily perceived by any reader, even the most tardy and unskilled. Wherefore we shall only observe in passing that the incredible stubbornness of the Photinians and certain others, who have dared to stubbornly deny that Christ ever existed before he was born of Mary, is here clearly and thoroughly refuted and crushed.
And indeed Clement very often testifies that Christ was the leader, director, and educator of the Israelites, no less than of the Christians. However, how our author taught that he performed this office must be weighed for a little while: "In truth," he says, "the Lord was the educator of the ancient people through Moses, but of the new people through himself, face to face. For behold, he said to Moses: 'My angel shall precede you,' representing the evangelical and primary power of the Word; but preserving the Dominical authority and dignity... Therefore, there was an old testament for the ancient people, and the law instructed the people with fear, and the Word was an angel; but for the new and recent people, a new and recent testament has been given, and the Word has been begotten, and fear has been turned into love, and that mystical angel is likewise [the Word]." Therefore the divine Word, before he became man, led the ancient people of the Hebrews under the form of an angel through Moses with fear and trembling; but after he put on human flesh, then he ruled and governed that recent people of the Christians, through himself, face to face with affection and love. But these things, just as they are certain and not in the least doubtful, are also clear and perspicuous to all.
But perhaps it will seem obscure to someone how the same Word and Lord, who was the guide of the Israelites under the appearance of an angel, or rather who was the angel himself, was said by Clement, "representing the evangelical and primary power of the Word; but preserving the Dominical authority and dignity." But since a little later he is called "mystical angel," this seems to be the meaning of that: the Word, lurking in the Old Testament under the figure of a mystical angel, represented the power which he was to have in the New Testament, and the authority which he possessed in the old, he then preserved.
Clement, however, forewarns us that to the same divine Word, although he presented himself to be seen by the patriarchs and other fathers of the Old Testament, there was no name before he was born: "For the God and Lord was yet unnamed, not yet having been made man."
ARTICLE IV.
*In what sense Clement said the body of Christ was deformed.*But if you ask our Clement what kind of body was assumed by Christ, he answers assertively and without any hesitation, that it was not only not beautiful, but was deformed in appearance. And he endeavors to confirm this by the very authority of the Holy Spirit: "But that the Lord himself was deformed in appearance, the Spirit testifies through Isaiah: 'And we saw him and he had no form, nor beauty; but his appearance was vile and failing before men.' Nor did the divine Spirit ...
A content to have confirmed his opinion by the testimony of the holy one, fail to encounter immediately those things which can be objected against it: 'But who is more excellent than the Lord? Yet it is not the beauty of the flesh, which is apprehended by sight, but the true beauty of soul and body that he indicates: the magnificence of the soul, indeed, but the immortality of the flesh.'
That he consistently persevered in this opinion is certain. For in another work he writes in the same manner: 'He Himself, who is the Head of the Church, has passed through in the flesh without form and featureless.' For why he was possessed of a bodily form that was neither noble nor excellent, but plainly deformed, he asserts the same cause in the same place: 'Teaching us to look toward that which is of the divine cause, and cannot be seen, and is incorporeal.' Wherefore in another place he added: 'For the Lord did not wish in vain to use a lowly form of body, so that no one, praising its fairness and admiring its beauty, might turn away from those things that are being said, and, paying heed to what is left behind, be cut off from those things which are perceived by the intelligence.'
What can be plainer and more explicit than these words? But the more clearly it is evident that Clement always remained in this opinion, the more vehemently theologians dispute whether it is true, or whether some mark of error ought to be branded upon it. For it seems incredible to many that 'from all the fullness of the godhead, which, as the Apostle says, dwelt bodily in Christ,' no ray emanated into his body which might have bathed it in some beauty of form and countenance. They think, however, that our Clement was led to the opposite opinion by a very slight argument. For the testimony of Isaiah upon which he relies, they contend, must be understood not of the appearance and form of Christ's body, but of that body when he was being led to the cross, deformed by wounds and sores.
Wherefore very many assert that he was endowed with a most elegant and beautiful bodily form. But some more recent writers think that he was of mediocre form, which would neither offend anyone by its foulness or deformity, nor repel them; nor, by the enticement of an excellent body and superior countenance, prepare any snares for human frailty. And so they judge that all, or the principal part of his beauty, was situated in his innocence, holiness, justice, and the divine combination of all virtues. But these men rely only upon certain conjectures, which, although devised as ingeniously as is often the case with the learned, are nevertheless not of such weight that they can preponderate against the certain authority of the Fathers.
Others, furthermore, who maintain that Christ was a man of excellent form and extraordinary beauty, cite in confirmation of their opinion certain ancient writers, and especially Jerome, who contends against Porphyry and Julian the Emperor that so much of the splendor of majesty and occult divinity shone in Christ that he could draw anyone at first sight: 'Porphyry and Julian the Emperor argue in this place either the ignorance of the lying historian, or the folly of those who immediately followed the Savior, as if they had followed a man inviting anyone without reason; when such great virtues and such great signs had preceded, which it is certain the apostles had seen before they believed. Certainly the radiance itself and the majesty of the occult divinity B which also shone on his human face, could draw them by his first appearance. Nothing, however,' they say, 'can be said more brilliantly to commend the sum of the grace and beauty of Christ's body.'
Nor should you object that Jerome, acting against impious men, was carried away by too much heat of disputation further than was fitting. For he seems to write in the same manner to the virgin Principia: 'Fair in form beyond the sons of men.' In the Hebrew: 'In beauty you are fairer than the sons of men...' But the question is asked how he is fairer than all the sons of men, concerning whom we read in Isaiah: 'We saw him, and he had no appearance nor beauty.' Nor does Scripture immediately seem to be dissonant; because there the ignobility of the body is commemorated on account of the scourges, and spittle, and slaps, and the nails, and the injuries of the gibbet; here the beauty of the virtues in a sacred and venerable body is commemorated, not that the divinity of Christ, when compared to men, is not more beautiful; for this has no comparison; but apart from the passions of the cross, he is more beautiful than all, the virgin born of a virgin, who was born not from the will of man, but from God. For unless he had had something star-like in his countenance, the apostles would never have followed him immediately; nor would those who had come to seize him have fallen. Finally, even in the present testimony, in which he says: 'A man placed in a blow, and knowing how to bear infirmity,' he renders the causes why he suffered this. 'Because he turned away his face, that is, with the divinity a little bit withdrawn, he abandoned his body to injury.'
But we fear that these assertors of the highest beauty of Christ have not pondered with a sufficiently attentive mind that Jerome did not say that the radiance of supreme majesty and occult divinity had always shone in the human face of Christ in such a way that he was always conspicuous to all, or that it had rendered his body always decorated with a most excellent and wonderful beauty of form. For in the same place Jerome openly teaches that this radiance, with the divinity a little bit withdrawn, was sometimes taken away from his sacred body, so that he could be afflicted by the Jews with injury, stripes, and death. Jerome therefore judged that this radiance and that star-like grace of Christ's body was not perpetual, but only for a certain span of time, just as in his admirable transfiguration, when, namely, he wished to attract men to himself, or to terrify them, or to carry them off into admiration of himself.
Then, however, the same Jerome seems to repeat the excellent form of Christ's body from the beauty of his virtues, just as our Clement does. But if he has supported Clement in this matter, he certainly recedes from him entirely in that he has judged that the testimony of Isaiah is to be explained not as regarding the corporeal deformity of Christ, but as regarding his body itself, deformed by stripes and blows before his death.
They also summon Chrysostom as another defender of the corporeal beauty of Christ, who explains why Christ sometimes repelled the crowds from himself with these words: 'For they were attached to him, loving him and admiring him, and wishing always to look upon him. For who would have departed from one performing such miracles? And who would not have wished simply to see his face, and the mouth that spoke such things? For he was not only wonderful when performing miracles, but also simply when appearing he was full of much grace. And the prophet signified this when he said: "Fair in beauty beyond the sons of men." But if Isaiah says: "He had no form nor beauty," he says this either regarding the unspeakable and ineffable glory of his divinity, or D the things in the passion...
namely, that dishonor which he endured while hanging on the cross, and the abjection which he displayed throughout his whole life. He did not, however, order them to go to the other side before he had healed their diseases. For they could not have departed with equanimity, for those who adhered to him on the mountain, not only when he was preaching, but even when there was silence, in the same way remained after the miracles, obtaining no small utility from his mere aspect. For if the face of Moses shone, and the countenance of Stephen appeared as that of an angel, what ought we to estimate concerning the face of the Lord himself 18? etc.
But in these words of Chrysostom, the bodily beauty of Christ is not asserted with such clarity that some might not have been persuaded that he is not there discussing the grace, bodily charm, and beauty that were always in Christ; but rather another sort, which at certain times only—especially those in which he wished to draw men to the greatest admiration of himself—he displayed to them, emanating fleetingly and as though divinely. For first, that most eloquent orator discusses Christ as he was preaching and performing miracles. And what wonder is it, if then he joined to his excellent charms of speech and stupendous miracles a certain divine grace of countenance?
But then, the examples of Moses and Stephen having been brought forward by the same Chrysostom, what else, say the patrons of the contrary opinion, is signified but a certain temporal and quickly vanishing splendor of countenance and facial form? Finally, they observe that this excellent doctor, when explaining these words of the forty-fourth Psalm: "Fair of form above the sons of men," made no mention at all of any bodily beauty of Christ, even though no more suitable place could have been given elsewhere to discuss it; but that it is explained by him, without doubt, only concerning his grace, wisdom, doctrine, and miracles. What indeed of the fact that, in the already cited *Commentaries on Matthew*, he, as we have seen, interprets these same things concerning the plenitude of the grace of Christ? C Wherefore, if that most learned writer, and also Jerome, and certain other Fathers of the Church, held that Christ the Lord, for a certain time only, offered himself to be seen by certain men as a person of excellent beauty; these certainly do not depart so far D from the opinion of our Clement.
Indeed, even if he and other writers seem to differ slightly from our Clement, the defenders of the other opinion contend nevertheless that many others supported him entirely. For they think that the opinion concerning Christ's human form which existed in Origen's time can be gathered from his responses to the objections of Celsus. Celsus argued thus: "Since the divine spirit was in the body of Christ, it ought to have been more excellent than others in stature, form, or strength, or voice, or majesty, or eloquence. For it is incredible that he in whom there was more divinity should have been in no respect more excellent than others. But this one was in nothing superior, but, as they themselves admit, he was small, and deformed, and humble." But Origen answers that impious man thus: "We admit that it is written that the body of Jesus was despicable, although it is not openly written that it was small and vile. But there is a passage in Isaiah predicting that he would come not with decorous appearance beyond measure, nor with excellent beauty... He has no appearance nor beauty, but his appearance is without honor, and failing above the sons of men 19." But it must be diligently noted that Origen testifies in the same place that nothing has been handed down to memory concerning the beautiful or deformed appearance of Christ in the Gospels or other writings of the apostles. He admits, moreover, that Isaiah, in the cited passage, spoke concerning it, but sub-obscurely, and not at all openly. Furthermore, Celsus is chastised by him in the same place for not having sufficiently attended to the Psalmist singing of the beauty of Christ: "In thy beauty and thy comeliness, advance, prosper, and reign 20," and for not having seen the beautiful and excellent form of Christ, useful only to those who could have discerned it according to their capacity. Whence he concludes 21: "Nor is it a wonder that matter, being of its own nature convertible, alterable, mutable into whatever pleases its creator, and capable of whatever quality its artificer wishes to add to it, should at one time have such a quality, according to which it is said not to have had appearance or beauty; and at another time, so glorious, marvelous, and stupendous, that the spectators of such excellent beauty would fall on their faces—I mean those three apostles who ascended the mountain together with Jesus."
Thus, the opinion of Origen was that nothing in the New Testament writings was defined concerning the beauty of Christ: that from the prophecies of the Old Testament it could be gathered that his common form was abject and vile; but yet that another certain excellent form, almost miraculously beautiful and elegant, was sometimes assumed by him, when, that is, he judged that this would conduce to some utility of men. And that opinion does not seem to differ much from the former.
But now let us hear Tertullian discussing the form of Christ. He proves that this was by no means honest and liberal against the heretics who denied his earthly body: "They were astonished at Christ the man by his words and deeds alone, by his doctrine and virtue alone. D Even the novelty [of the flesh] in him was noted, held as a miracle; but not the wonderful condition of earthly flesh: it was this very thing that made his other signs wonderful, when they said: 'Whence this doctrine, and these signs?' Even to those despising him..."
A for the elegance of his face and body, if anyone had believed him to be graced with any outstanding quality, he should not have been compelled to interpret the prior words of David merely to the adornment and glory of spiritual grace. This was the statement regarding his form. Indeed, there was found in him no body of human dignity, let alone celestial brightness. Even with the prophets among us falling silent concerning his ignoble appearance, his own passions and the outrages themselves speak; the passions indeed speak to his human flesh, but the outrages speak to his lack of honor. Who would have dared to graze his new body with the tip of a fingernail, or to contaminate his face with spittle, if not one who was suffering? Do you see how that African writer, Tertullian, not only believed but even argued that the body of Christ was not celestial but of earthly substance, like our own bodies; so that men would admire nothing in Christ except his doctrine, virtue, and miracles? He signifies that this moved them to admiration for the reason that they despised the vile form of his body, and saw nothing beautiful, noble, or honorable in him.
In another place B, certain people think that this same deformity of Christ is asserted by him still further, where he disputes against the Jews as follows: 'We say that two states of Christ are demonstrated by the prophets, and that his advents were foretold as being just as many. One in humility, the first, indeed, when he was to be led as a sheep to the slaughter, and as a lamb before the shearer is dumb, so he opened not his mouth; not even in appearance was he honorable. For we announce, he says, concerning him, as a little child, as a root in thirsty ground, and he had no form nor glory; and we saw him, and he had not form nor beauty, but his form was dishonored, failing beyond the sons of men, a man in a blow, knowing how to bear infirmity; namely, as one set by the Father as a stone of stumbling, and diminished by him a little below the angels, he calls himself a worm and not a man, the shame of man and the abjection of the people. Which arguments of ignobility fit the first advent, just as those of sublimity fit the second.' But some respond that Tertullian is speaking there either about Christ's silence, which was imputed to him as a fault, or about his face, which was clearly deformed by blood and wounds inflicted before death. Nevertheless, since he there opposes the prior advent of Christ to the later one, others contend that he is effectively making his argument concerning that form of Christ which he bore with him throughout the whole time of his human and mortal life. This, indeed, can be confirmed by the fact that he added a little later: 'The first advent, obscured by many figures, and in all dishonor, that is, in the deformity of his body, was sung as prostrate; the second, however, is manifest and worthy of God.' Whence also elsewhere concerning the same Christ the Lord: 'When grown he does not desire to be recognized, but is furthermore shameful to himself.' What, however, is that shame, if not his abject, vile, and deformed figure and appearance?
Is it true that the same Tertullian spoke C only of Christ’s body as being disfigured by blows and by the cross already being applied? 'Whatever that little body of Christ may be, since it had a state and a sight, if it is inglorious, if it is ignoble, if it is dishonorable, Christ will be mine. For in such state and appearance he was announced. Isaiah is present again: We announce, he says, before him as a little child, as a root in dry ground, and there is no form in him, nor glory.' Nor content with having said these things, he proceeds further and says: 'For even if he is timely in beauty according to David above the sons of men, this is in that allegorical state of spiritual grace, when he is girded with the sword of the Word, which truly is his form, and beauty, and glory; but otherwise, in the state that is not capable of incorporation according to the same prophet, he is even a worm, and not a man, the shame of man and the nullity of the people.' Does not that learned man recognize D any other beauty in Christ except that of spiritual grace? And certainly, if he had believed him to be adorned with any outstanding elegance of face and body, he should not have been compelled to interpret the prior words of David to the adornment and glory of spiritual grace alone.
Nor does the mind and opinion of Cyril of Alexandria seem to have been other than that of Tertullian. For where he explains these words of Exodus concerning Moses: 'Seeing him elegant,' he institutes in this way a comparison of the same Moses with Christ the Lord: 'He was, he says, an elegant child. For he is, and is called, Christ, beautiful in form beyond the sons of men. Hence the blessed David addresses him elsewhere: Gird thy sword upon thy thigh, O mighty one in face and beauty. For no one would doubt that the beauty is of that which is in glory, and of the nature of the deity surpassing all things; since no one attributes to Christ the boastings of the flesh, nor considers them to be his glory. Far be it. For the whole mystery of his Incarnation is an emptying and a humiliation, just as Isaiah wrote of him: And we saw him, and he had no form, nor beauty, but his form was below all the sons of men. By no means, however, do we say that the prophetic speech exposes to us the boastings of the deity, but rather it persuades us to understand that those things which are of the flesh, when compared with the glory of the deity, are of absolutely no moment or worth: For the Son appeared in a form very deformed.'
You hear indeed how the words of Isaiah are referred by Cyril, just as by our Clement, 38 not only to the stages preceding the death of Christ, but to the times of his entire mortal life. Cyril therefore teaches that Christ throughout the entire curriculum of his human life was not only not beautiful, but was entirely deformed. Perhaps you will say that he is disputing only about that form of Christ which, even if it were liberal and beautiful in itself, when joined with divinity, ought to have been judged clearly deformed: 'Compared, he says, with the glory of the deity.' Wherefore he added later: 'For though he is God by his very nature, he was made man. For by infinite and incomparable differences, man is lesser than God.' But I would wish you to weigh with an attentive mind that this conclusion concerning Christ's deformity is not deduced by him from this comparison of Christ’s body with the deity alone; for he clearly and openly professes that no 'boastings of the flesh' (σαρκὸς αὐχήματα) can be ascribed to Christ by anyone; that the whole mystery of his Incarnation is an emptying and a humiliation; in one word, that he was of a clearly deformed appearance and body.
Moreover, Basil appears to have conspired with Cyril and the others and to have thought the same. For these are his very words on the forty-fourth psalm: 'He calls the Lord beautiful in form, when he had focused the sight of his mind more closely on his divinity. For he does not praise the beauty of the flesh; for it is written: We saw him, and he had no form, nor appearance, but his form was full of ignominy and lack of decoration. It is therefore plain that the prophet, having inspected this brightness of the Son, and being copiously surrounded by the radiation of the splendor rebounding from thence, and having his soul struck and constrained by this so great beauty, was promoted to the divine love of that spiritual beauty, which, when once it has shone upon the human soul, all other things, which were previously loved, are seen to be base and rejected.' We could, moreover, gather here nearly numberless testimonies of the ancient Fathers who interpreted this same place of the Psalmist not of the corporeal, but of the spiritual and...
have been interpreted as having the divine beauty of Christ. But because that would be a long and perhaps useless task, we have decided to refrain from describing those points about which there can be no dispute or doubt. But why, I ask you, did those most learned men arrive at this opinion with such consensus, if not because they believed that nothing clearly certain and established could be held in the sacred Scriptures regarding the bodily beauty of Christ? And indeed, we have already heard Origen professing this most openly. A Since these things are so, who would dare to count it as a fault or error in our Clement that he said Christ was distinguished by no beauty of bodily form, nor any grace of mouth or countenance, but was in fact unsightly and deformed? You would not be wrong to call into doubt whether this was handed down by him, as the first of all the Church Fathers whose writings have reached our age, for it has been demonstrated by us elsewhere that Justin Martyr, whom we read cited by some in support of this opinion, can be explained in another sense. B Moreover, Clement willingly grants that Christ can be called "beautiful" in the sense that he was entirely immune to all the mind’s affections and perturbations, and was endowed and filled with all the most perfect virtues. But we shall dispute this beauty of Christ in the following dissertation.
ARTICLE IV
The divine Word never deserted the body of Christ, nor his soul; and concerning the tunic of the same Christ.It should not be passed over without some comment that Clement says the following in words concerning the divine Word: "For the living Word, both buried together with Christ and raised together with God." For Hervetus, not without reason, thinks this was our Clement’s intention: that the Word never deserted the body of Christ, not even in the tomb itself. And although it was buried with him, it still lived, inasmuch as it is Life. But when Christ was recalled from death to life, then the Word was raised together with God. But if the Word did not desert the body of Christ C in the tomb, then by stronger reasoning did it not desert his soul, after that soul, having left the body, had descended to the underworld. But a more opportune and fuller place will be given for speaking about this descent of Christ into the underworld.
In the meantime, however, that which our Clement has commended to memory concerning the tunic of the Lord Christ seems worthy of note. For where he teaches that long, magnificent, and overly precious garments are forbidden to a Christian, there he dilutes the objection that could be drawn from the ankle-length tunic of Christ: "But if anyone brings forward the ankle-length, *talarem*, garment of the Lord, that manifold tunic exhibits the flowers of wisdom, and the Scriptures, which do not wither, the sayings of the Lord, which shine with the splendors of truth." This tunic of Christ is called *talarem* by him. Therefore he speaks of the same one about which we read written in John: "The soldiers therefore took his garments and the tunic, now the tunic was seamless, woven from the top throughout." But whence, I ask, did Clement receive that it was ankle-length and variegated? For if you trust the interpreters of John, we have nothing certain or established about the garments of Christ. However, it can be replied that Clement and certain other ancient writers were led into that opinion, both because the priestly tunic of Aaron was considered a type of Christ’s tunic, and because they believed it was foretold in these words of Genesis: "He will wash his robe in wine, and his cloak in the blood of the grape." D The Chaldean paraphrase of this passage is thought to favor their conjecture in a miraculous way: "His garment will be the finest purple, his covering will be silk, dyed with scarlet and various colors." But it seems to us as little probable that our Clement looked to this paraphrase as we believe it certain that he reached this opinion regarding Christ’s tunic either through the arguments we have related, or others no less plausible, and perhaps through the old tradition of his Church. Moreover, if he embraced it on account of the cited words of Genesis, we will not hide the fact that there are very few who have subscribed to it afterward. For most have interpreted these things regarding Christ, the sufferer, or regarding his Church.
CHAPTER V
On certain sacraments of the Church.ARTICLE I
On the various names and effects of baptism; on the distinction between the remission of sin and the penalty owed for sin, which penalty of sins is forgiven by baptism; how sins are blotted out in it; whether catechism, faith, and repentance for sins ought to precede it. Whether Clement speaks of milk and honey being wont to be given after baptism, and regarding the name of the disciples.We clearly understand what was the mind and opinion of our Clement concerning the sacrament of baptism from its various names and effects, which are recounted and explained by him. "Being baptized," he says, "we are enlightened; being enlightened, we are adopted as sons; being adopted, we are perfected; being perfected, we are rendered immortal. 'I,' he says, 'have said, you are gods and all of you sons of the Most High.'" But this work is called by many names: grace, illumination, perfection, and washing. A washing, indeed, through which we cleanse off sins; grace, however, by which the penalties owed to sins are remitted; illumination, moreover, through which we behold that holy and saving light—that is, through which we perceive that which is divine; but we call it perfect, to which nothing is lacking. Clement mentions four Greek names for baptism there, surely *charis*, gift or grace; *photismos*, illumination; *teleion*, perfection; and *loutron*, washing. These he records, not as things invented by him first, but as being common and, in his time, received by Christians in common usage. You see, therefore, how ancient and how honorable are the designations of this first sacrament of the Christian religion, and consequently in how much honor all those professing the Christian faith held it from the very origin of the Church. But regarding the names of baptism, concerning which there is frequent mention among the ancient Fathers of the Church, and concerning which we shall have to speak more than once hereafter, if you wish to know more in the meantime, consult Joseph Visconti, book 1, *De antiquis bapt. rit.*, cap. 3; Estius in *IV Sent.*, dist. 3, § 1, and others.
As many names as A baptism has, so many does Clement show its marvelous effects to be. Among these, I would have you observe especially that he himself says that by this sacrament not only sins, but also the punishments for sins, are remitted: "It is called grace, *xápioua*," he says, "by which the punishments owed for sins are relaxed."
There is, therefore, some distinction established between the sin itself and the punishment owed for the sin. Whether one can conclude from this that he believed sin could be forgiven in some other sacrament, but not the punishment owed for it, we do not dare to affirm with certainty. For since he is arguing about baptism alone, he does not there discourse upon what happens in other sacraments.
But if you ask what those punishments for sins are, the answer is not at all difficult. For in truth, he seems to indicate no other punishments than those which were formerly resolved by public penance. For in those ancient times, and even afterwards, such penance was performed by no one before baptism, but only by those who, after receiving that sacrament, had fallen into sins that were, as they said, canonical.
In what way sins might be washed away by the sacred waters of baptism, Clement explains thus: "But these bonds are remitted most swiftly—by human faith, indeed, but by divine grace—when, to be sure, sins are remitted by one Paeonian medicine, namely, rational baptism. We wash away all sins, therefore, and we are no longer in the wake of evil." First, therefore, he says: "by human faith, *πίστει μὲν ἀνθρωπίνῃ*, whereby a man, schooled in the divine teachings of the Christian religion, believed them to be altogether certain and indubitable."
This doctrine of the Christian faith, furthermore, a man is informed of, as Clement says, by catechisms—that is, by the various discourses which used to be offered to candidates of the same Christian profession. "Catechesis," he says, "or that which is received through hearing, is instruction, and it leads to faith; but faith is taught by the divine Spirit along with baptism." These last words of our author are clearly worth noting. For even though he had previously said that sins are remitted by *human* faith, now, however, it is fitting that this faith be taught by the divine Spirit along with baptism. And rightly so, lest anyone suspect that human faith alone is desired from him for receiving the grace of baptism. He judged, therefore, that human faith, by which indeed we are imbued with the mysteries of our religion in a human manner, ought to precede baptism; but in such a way, however, that while we are washed by its sacred water, the Holy Spirit might infuse into us another, clearly divine and, as theologians say, supernatural faith.
Beyond this faith, however, Clement further requires from him who is to be initiated by baptism: that he be truly and sincerely affected by the sorrow for his sins and that he detest them in such a way that he has a firm and most tenacious resolve never to fall back into them again. "We too," he says, "moved by repentance for our sins, renouncing their destructive effects, and cleansed by baptism, run back also to the eternal light, children to a father."
Three things, therefore, according to our author Clement, must precede baptism. First, the man who wishes to profess the Christian faith must be informed by its sacred teachings, which were then taught by catechisms. Next, there must be had from him a sincere and firm faith in the doctrine handed down. Finally, he must repent of all the sins of his life; and for that reason he must weep for them, abjure them, and detest them.
He, however, who is initiated into baptism under these conditions is perfect; though not with that perfection which the blessed have attained after the resurrection in the highest degree; but yet as great as can be fulfilled in this world: "Insofar," he says, "as it is possible to be done in this world... we believe ourselves to be perfect."
What we have said, moreover, about the catechesis written by Clement, certainly indicates to us not at all obscurely that period of time in which candidates for the Christian religion, having been enrolled in the number of catechumens, were accustomed to listen to the public lectures which our Clement himself used to hold there at Alexandria. Of these, Eusebius, as we have noted elsewhere, writes in this manner: "During the same time, Clement, who had succeeded Pantaenus, was still in charge of the instruction of the catechumens at Alexandria, so much so that Origen was his auditor even then."
Hervetus thinks that our Clement, by the words which are read later: "Milk is also aptly and suitably mixed with honey," alludes to the most ancient custom of the Church, by which honey and milk were accustomed to be offered for tasting to those who had emerged from the laver of baptism. But we cannot disguise that nothing can be gathered from there that concerns this rite. For indeed, he had spoken first of cold water, and later of sweet wine, no less than of the mixing of honey with milk: "Those, therefore, who swallow the bread of cold water in the aforementioned milk are immediately aided." But afterwards: "Furthermore, milk is also mixed with sweet wine; but it is a useless mixture." Moreover, you will by no means conclude that he referred to the rites of baptism with these words rather than with others.
We will not deny, however, that a comparison is made in the same place by Clement of divine Reason and baptism with the mixture of milk and water. But nothing which pertains to the various rites and ceremonies of baptism can be concluded from that.
Regarding that same baptism, however, it seems to refer more to what he says: "We who previously were rude and ignorant are immediately called disciples." For what, I ask, did Clement wish to signify by these words other than that Christians are called disciples immediately after baptism? Some, however, have handed down that they were called by that name while they were still catechumens and before the sacrament of baptism. But what if this appellation be called, as yet, improper and anticipated? But that is not of such moment that it should detain us for long.
ARTICLE II. Clement's orthodox doctrine concerning the sacrament of the Eucharist is explained.
The orthodox dogma of the Catholic Church concerning the divine sacrament of the Eucharist, by which it is defined that the true body and blood of Christ exist under the species of bread and wine, our Clement expounded with such clarity and evidence that it could never be enveloped by the darkness of any heretical men, nor ever be obscured and shaken by any of their subtleties and cavils. For listen to the way in which he demonstrates from this clearly certain and by no means doubtful assertion that the Word is everything to the infant—that is, to the Christian man—both father, and mother, and pedagogue, and nourisher: "The Word is everything to the infant, both father and mother and pedagogue and nourisher. Eat, he says, my flesh, and drink my blood. These apt and suitable foods the Lord provides for us, and he offers his flesh, and sheds his blood, and nothing is lacking for the growth of the infants. O admirable mystery! Ὦ τοῦ παραδόξου μυστηρίου! He bids us cast off the old and carnal corruption, just as also the old nourishment, and as participants in the effects of that other, new diet of Christ, receiving Him if it is possible, he bids us store Him within ourselves and the Savior in
A ter the chest, ‹receiving Him into ourselves so as to store Him, and hold the Savior to our heart›; that we may render the affections of our flesh whole and perfect. 7 Do you hear how clearly and openly Clement teaches that Christians in the sacrament of the Eucharist eat the true flesh of Christ and truly drink His blood, and are invigorated, nourished, and receive true increments for their soul by these foods, which are truly appropriate and clearly suitable? Do you hear with what expressive words he asserts that Christians receive Christ there, deposit Him within themselves, and hold their Savior within their chest and inner heart? Finally, do you hear why the Eucharist is called by him, with such an exclamation of admiration, a ‹miraculous mystery›; unless it is because bread and wine are converted, in a truly miraculous way, into the body and blood of Christ? For, I ask you, what in this sacrament could move our admiration if there were only a representation, type, and image of the body and blood of Christ present there? Albertinus, therefore, is talking nonsense when, relying on no reasoning, he responds coldly that our Clement is discussing there only the spiritual eating of the body of Christ. For why, I beg of you, does he offer neither the slightest proof for his answer, nor care to show how that [spiritual eating] can be elicited from the words of our Clement? Why, I ask, does he spend such great effort in explaining other passages of this same author of ours, and in wrongly dragging them to the erroneous meanings of his own sect? Is that spiritual eating so expressed there by our Clement that everyone can most evidently perceive that a true presence of the body and blood of Christ is entirely excluded from it? No human being would ever have said that. For who, from what we have said, does not see that Clement speaks of an admirable mystery and sacrament, in which the true body of Christ is received by Christians and is actually held within their chest?
But what of the fact that those words of John, which he uses for the proof of his assertion—‹Eat my flesh›—persuade us of this again in an invincible manner? For beyond all controversy, and confessed even by all the heterodox, it is acknowledged that Clement and other writers believed that the body of Christ was in the Eucharist either truly or typically; and that they interpreted the cited words of John in either a natural, an allegorical, or both senses. Yet it is no less certain that they are explained here by the same Clement with both a spiritual and allegorical, as well as a literal and native, signification. For he later added: ‹But you do not wish to understand it this way, but perhaps more commonly. Listen to this in this way too. The Spirit signifies to us the flesh allegorically; for the flesh was fashioned by the Spirit itself. The blood signifies the Word to us›, etc. No heterodox man, therefore, should infer from this latter allegorical explanation that Clement taught that the body of Christ is not truly and in act, but only typically and in figure, in the Eucharist. For indeed, this is the difference between the opinion of Catholics and that of heretics: the latter interpret the words of John only allegorically and mystically, whereas the former interpret them in both an allegorical and a natural sense. And whoever receives those words with this double sense—in which there is certainly no contradiction at all—just as Clement does, must necessarily confess that the true body and blood of Christ exist in the Eucharist. Thus, those who claim that other words of John, ‹The bread, which I will give, is my flesh›, are explained by our Clement in a spiritual sense a little later, gain nothing. B For that interpretation does not exclude the other, literal and natural, one, as we have seen. For who does not know that the same passage of Scripture can be explained by various interpretations—natural, allegorical, and moral? Therefore, that Clement and the other Fathers of the Church might rightly be said to have asserted the true presence of Christ’s body in the Eucharist, it is sufficient that the passages and words of John and the other evangelists concerning this miraculous sacrament have been explained by them at some point in their literal and native sense.
But let us now come to other matters, where our Clement has transmitted and defended this same document of the Catholic faith. In the second book of his *Paedagogus*, although he touches upon that divine sacrament of the Eucharist only in passing, he nonetheless teaches not obscurely that the true blood of Christ is in it. For, having undertaken to prove to a thirsty Christian that water is a sober and necessary drink, and that the use of wine—but modest, and always mixed with water—is granted to one who is languid or infirm, he makes it manifest that at first only water was provided by God to the Hebrews wandering in the desert. But then, after immense labors had been endured, God provided them with a cluster of grapes, which was a figure of the blood of Christ. Then Clement immediately continues: ‹And this is the blood of the Lord: for indeed, there is the carnal part, by which we have been redeemed from corruption; and there is the spiritual, which is that with which we have been anointed. And this is to drink the blood of Jesus: to partake of the Lord’s incorruption. The strength of the Word is the Spirit, as the blood is of the flesh. Proportionally, therefore, the wine is mixed with water, and the Spirit with man, and the mixture rejoices in faith, while the Spirit leads to incorruption. The mixture of both again, of drink and the Word, is called the Eucharist, a grace to be praised and beautiful, which those who partake of according to faith are sanctified in both body and soul; the divine mixture, by the Spirit and the Word, C mystically tempering the human being to the will of the Father; for in truth the Spirit is united to the soul which is borne by Him, and the flesh to the Word, for the sake of which the Word became flesh.› The blood of Christ the Lord is, however, twofold: for one is carnal, by which we have been redeemed from destruction; the other is spiritual, by which, namely, we have been anointed; and this is to drink the blood of Jesus, to be a participant in the Lord’s incorruption. The virtue of the Word is the Spirit, just as blood is the [virtue] of the flesh. Therefore, by apt proportion and convenience, wine is mixed with water, but the Spirit with man. And the tempered wine receives the banquet unto faith; but the Spirit leads to incorruption. The tempering of both, namely of the drink and the Word, is called the Eucharist, which is praised and is a good grace, of which those who are participants through faith are sanctified in body and soul, since the divine will has mystically tempered the human being, namely, through the Spirit and the Word. For in truth the spirit is united with the soul which is borne by Him, and is made familiar; but the flesh with the Word, for the sake of which the Word became flesh. By these words, Clement teaches, as Perronius once observed, that the blood of Christ is twofold: one, the carnal, which was shed for the salvation of men on the cross and was subject to all the conditions and infirmities of human blood; the other, the spiritual, which, even though it does not fall under our senses and is not subject to any change of our blood, is nevertheless truly taken and drunk in the sacrament of the Eucharist. And Clement says that we are anointed by it: ‹By which,› he says, ‹we have been anointed,› that is, as he says—and as Perronius confirms with the testimonies of other Fathers—which we do in fact drink; so that by this enigmatic way of speaking…
he might allude to the Hebrew doorposts, which were smeared with the blood of the paschal lamb, which was a type of the Eucharist. Wherefore he immediately adds: ‹And this is to drink the blood of Jesus, to be a participant in the Lord's incorruption.›
And indeed, that Clement spoke not only in a spiritual way, but in act and reality, of the partaking of the blood and body of Christ, we gather most evidently from his later words: ‹For indeed,› he says, ‹the spirit is truly conjoined and made familiar to the soul that carries it; but the flesh to the Word, on account of which the Word was made flesh.› But how could the flesh of man in the Eucharist be conjoined to the flesh of Christ, just as his spirit is joined to the soul, unless the body of Christ is in reality eaten by man in the Eucharist?
Albertinus, however, rises with great animosity against the opinion of Perronius, and persistently contends that it conflicts with Scripture, with the Fathers, and even with Clement himself. But with what arguments, do you suppose? Certainly with ones so light and infirm that they could create no difficulty for anyone who examines them with even a slightly attentive mind. For he claims, first of all, that this explanation by Perronius is contrary to Scripture; as if he thought it to be thoroughly at odds with those words of Matthew: ‹This is my blood of the new testament, which shall be shed for many unto remission of sins,› regarding which he foolishly dreamed that it signified only a sacramental or typical participation in the blood of Christ. For what, I ask, is weaker than this argumentation, which is a mere begging of the question, as they say? For Albertinus brings up that point in proof of his opinion, about which the question is moved between himself and Catholics; namely, whether Clement considered those words of Matthew to be understood in a literal or an allegorical sense. Therefore, Albertinus ought first to have proven that they are explained by Clement only metaphorically, so that he might thence conclude that the exposition of his words brought forward by Perronius was contrary to them. But he neither proves this by any clear reason, nor has he ever actually thought of proving it.
Moreover, the few testimonies of the Fathers which he cites are of no greater weight; indeed, they tell against Albertinus himself. For those same Fathers of the Church teach us that we eat the flesh of Christ, which after his death was made apt for eating. But what, pray tell, forbids that same flesh of Christ in the Eucharist from being yet more apt for eating, insofar as it does not fall under human sight?
Albertinus, however, thinks that the opinion of Perronius must be rejected for the one reason he brings forward: because he believes this to be the sense of Clement: that we are anointed with the blood of Christ, and drink it, when we are made participants of him by a spiritual virtue. For in this sense only, as he thinks, does Clement wish the blood of Christ to be mingled with us, whereby we are said to be led to incorruption. But this cannot happen otherwise than by the spiritual virtue of the blood of Christ. And he attempts to stabilize and confirm this with the words of our same author: ‹This is to drink the blood of Jesus, to be a participant in the Lord's incorruption.›
But in vain do Albertinus and other men of the same sect think that they can evade, by this vain and futile evasion and sophism A, arguments nearly infinite, drawn from the most invincible and most clarificatory testimonies of the Fathers. For the orthodox do not deny that Clement and many other Fathers of the Church have taught that there is a spiritual virtue of the body and blood of Christ in the sacrament of the Eucharist, which makes us participants of incorruption and grace and other gifts; but they contend that they further taught that it does not exist separated from the body and blood of Christ, which is present in reality under the species of bread and wine. But what, indeed, has Albertinus brought forward against this opinion and assertion of Clement, which is the only one in question? Nothing at all. And what, indeed, could he have muttered against it, when we have seen the same thing formulated most openly there by our Clement: ‹For indeed the spirit is truly conjoined and made familiar to the soul that carries it; but the flesh to the Word, on account of which the Word was made flesh?›
But come, let us follow Clement, and let us listen to what he has said again in the same chapter about the same mystery:
B Пῶς οἴεσθε, πεπωκέναι τὸν Κύριον, ὁπηνίκα δι' ἡμᾶς ἄνθρωπος ἐγένετο; Οὕτως ἀναισχύντως ὡς ἡμεῖς; Οὐχὶ ἀστείως, οὐχὶ κοσμίως; Οὐκ ἐπιλελογισμένως; Εὖ γὰρ, ἴστε, μετέλαβεν οἴνου καὶ αὐτός. Καὶ γὰρ ἄνθρωπος καὶ αὐτός· καὶ εὐλόγησέ τε τὸν οἶνον, εἰπών· «Λάβετε, πίετε, τοῦτό μου ἐστὶν τὸ αἷμα, αἷμα τῆς ἀμπέλου.» Τὸν Λόγον, τὸν περὶ πολλῶν ἐκχεόμενον εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν, εὐφροσύνης ἅγιον ἀλληγορεῖ νάμα. Καὶ ὅτι μὲν σωφρονεῖν τὸν πίνοντα δεῖ, δι' ὧν ἐδίδασκε παρὰ τὰς εὐωχίας ἔδειξε σαφῶς· οὐ γὰρ μεθύων ἐδίδασκεν. Ὅτι δὲ οἶνος ἦν τὸ εὐλογηθὲν ἀπέδειξε πάλιν, πρὸς τοὺς μαθητὰς λέγων· «Οὐ μὴ πίω ἐκ τοῦ γεννήματος τῆς ἀμπέλου ταύτης μέχρις ἂν πίω αὐτὸ μεθ' ὑμῶν ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ Πατρός μου.» Ἀλλ' ὅτι τε οἶνος ἦν τὸ πινόμενον πρὸς τοῦ Κυρίου, πάλιν αὐτὸς περὶ ἑαυτοῦ λέγει, τὴν Ἰουδαίων ἐπονειδίζων σκληροκαρδίαν· «Ἦλθεν γάρ, φησὶν, ὁ Υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου, καὶ λέγουσιν· Ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος φάγος καὶ οἰνοπότης, τελωνῶν φίλος.» Τουτὶ μὲν ἡμῖν καὶ πρὸς τοὺς Ἐγκρατητὰς καλουμένους παραπεπήχθω. ‹How do you think the Lord drank, when for our sake he became man? As shamelessly as we do? Not gracefully, not decorously? Not considerately? For know well, he himself also partook of wine. For he himself was also man; and he blessed the wine, saying: «Take, drink, this is my blood, the blood of the vine.» He allegorizes as the holy stream of joy the Word, who is poured out for many for the remission of sins. And that he who drinks must be sober, he showed clearly by the things he taught at the banquets; for he did not teach while drunk. But that it was wine that was blessed, he showed again, saying to the disciples: «I shall not drink of the fruit of this vine until I drink it with you in the kingdom of my Father.» But that it was wine that was drunk by the Lord, he again says of himself, reproaching the hard-heartedness of the Jews: «For the Son of Man came, and they say: Behold a man gluttonous and a wine-drinker, a friend of publicans.» Let this be fixed for us also against those who are called Encratites.›C [alt-version omitted]
We have presented this passage of our Clement whole, although it might appear rather long, both because certain things are placed there in reverse order, which cannot be easily understood unless they are weighed with an attentive mind; and especially because heterodox men use that perturbation of correct order—which they endeavor to increase, and which is not entirely unusual to writers—as a certain and safe refuge and defense for their error. Therefore, so that this may be entirely obstructed for stubborn men, what the mind, what the sense of our author was, must be clearly opened. D He proposes three things to be examined there, and proves them with as many arguments. His first proposition, therefore, is that Christians must be sober in their drinking. This he shows by the example of Christ the Lord, whom he says was sober, and modest and temperate in his drinking: ‹And that he who drinks must be sober and moderate, he showed clearly by the things which Christ taught at banquets; for he taught not while drunk.›
› A His power in this was sufficient for that which he undertook to prove; yet, given the occasion to refute more effectively the Encratites who prattled that wine is evil in itself, he undertook to demonstrate two other points against this error. His second proposition, therefore, is that Christ frequently drank wine while he lived; and the third, that wine was blessed by him at the Last Supper. But the latter he proves first with these words of Christ: ‹I will not drink of the fruit of this vine, until I drink it in the kingdom of my Father.› Then, with the order slightly changed, he proves the second proposition by the fact that Christ was heard by the Jews to be a man gluttonous and a wine-bibber.
If you distinguish these matters correctly, you will easily understand that Clement treats nothing else regarding the Eucharist there than what he has encompassed in the third proposition, which are matters entirely convenient and thoroughly consistent with the orthodox dogma of the Church. Thus, men addicted to the Calvinist sect can glean nothing thence that contributes in the slightest to their errors, unless they disturb all those things which Clement distinguished quite clearly with a marvelous and altogether preposterous confusion. For Albertinus thinks he has a singular and manifold argument for his cause from these words of our Clement. But if you observe for a while how much he perverts the open mind of our most learned author, you will immediately dissolve and dissipate his vain cavils. B For he objects that Clement there not only teaches that Christ both blessed and drank wine in the Eucharist, but also interprets these very words of Christ, ‹This is my blood,› in an allegorical sense. But if you ask him whence he can prove this, he will proffer no other argument for his opinion, unless it be that where Clement cited those other words of Christ, ‹I will not drink of the fruit of this vine,› he understood nothing by the fruit of the vine other than the wine drunk by Christ in the Eucharist. In truth, from what has been brought forward above and restored to its proper place, both with Clement’s propositions and his proofs, it can no longer be obscure to any, as we think, that these words of Christ were not cited by Clement in order to prove that Christ drank wine in the Eucharist, but to demonstrate that it was blessed by him against the Encratites and therefore was good by its own nature.
Albertinus insists, however, that Clement’s purpose there is not to refute the Encratites deliberately, since he brought forward nothing clearly against them, except for that which was added by him incidentally and by way of a corollary to the end of this passage. Be it so; what then? Is it not enough that Clement, when the occasion arose as we have said, by confuting the Encratites, demonstrates against their heresy that wine was blessed by Christ in the Eucharist, from which we may most invincibly conclude that nothing whatever was asserted by him against our view concerning the sacrament of the Eucharist?
In vain and erroneously, however, does Albertinus insist that Clement C proves that wine was drunk by Christ from nowhere else but the Eucharist. For from these things which we have already related, it ought to be clear to any sincere and sensible man that this is gathered by Clement not from the words brought forward by the same Albertinus, but because the Jews accused Christ of the drinking of wine. Nevertheless, Albertinus still rises up and cries out that it is proved by this argument of Clement that Christ drank wine in the Eucharist: ‹Know for certain that he himself also used wine.› But nothing, in truth, could ever have been feigned more alien to the truth. For Clement does not undertake to prove anything at all with these words, but merely proposes a general thesis, which he then proved by a specific reason, as has been noted.
Although not yet fully vanquished by these strongest of logical points, Albertinus urges and says: When Clement relates that statement of Christ, ‹I will not drink of the fruit of this vine,› he indicates not obscurely that Christ had blessed the very same wine which he had drunk after the blessing. For does he not argue that those words signify that Christ drank wine at the Last Supper, and therefore in the Eucharist? But that weak and inert weapon of Albertinus we have now blunted. Indeed, Clement wished to prove nothing more by these words than that the blessing of wine was performed by Christ. Moreover, it has never been lawful for anyone to infer from the clear and perspicuous words of any writer that he proved more than he intended to prove. For otherwise, from the discourses and arguments of authors, infinite and often most absurd conclusions could be elicited, which it is most certain never entered their minds.
Come now; what forbids Clement from having proved by the cited words of Christ that the wine was blessed by him, which Christ himself drank after consecration, as theologians say, changed into his own blood, and yet still preserving the form and appearance of wine? D Furthermore, let us proceed still further, and acting more liberally with Albertinus, let us grant what he so greatly desires, that Clement said that Christ drank wine in the Eucharist. What, I ask, will he gain from that? Nothing, certainly. For even if this be granted, it will nevertheless still have to be inquired what Clement understood by the name ‹wine,› whether its substance or its remaining appearances. But since it is clear to us from elsewhere that Clement was entirely convinced that in the sacrament of the Eucharist bread and wine are changed into the body and blood of Christ, and that he has handed down nothing in his writings contrary or repugnant to this opinion, what else remains but that we constantly maintain that the same Clement understood merely the appearance and semblance of wine by that name of wine?
Therefore, Albertinus is no longer to be heard, who, whispering the same song to us repeatedly, says that Clement maintained that this is the blood of the vine, of which Christ said: ‹This is my blood.› But the blood of the vine is wine. Therefore, concludes Albertinus, according to Clement’s opinion wine is the blood of Christ, not indeed true and diffused in reality through the veins into the whole body, but only in type and in image and figure.
But how frivolous and nugatory this argumentation is, has already been demonstrated by us. For in order for anything to be concluded from it, it was first for Albertinus, as we have said, to prove that those words of Christ, ‹This is my blood, the fruit of the vine,› were never accepted by Clement in any other than an allegorical sense. But he neither proves this, nor could he ever prove it. On the contrary, we have clearly convicted that it was explained by him in a true and literal sense.
Finally, Albertinus still rejoins to us that it is openly proclaimed by our Clement in the same place that the ‹fruit of the vine› in that pronouncement of Christ signifies allegorically the Word poured out for many; that is, as Albertinus says, that the mystical blood of the Word was poured out for many for the remission of sins. But there Albertinus wrongly abuses a sophism that is usual and repeated to the point of nausea. For does the allegorical interpretation of certain words of Scripture exclude their literal sense? Who is unaware that there is a manifold sense of Scripture, and that one is never, as we have already observed, crowded out by another? Clement, therefore, even if he did interpret Christ's statement allegorically, does not, however, deny that it can and ought to be understood in its literal and native sense. Albertinus has therefore accomplished nothing, nor will any Calvinist accomplish anything, unless he shows us clearly that Clement always explained the words of Christ in that mystical and allegorical sense in such a way that he never handed down that they could be explained in a literal signification even once anywhere. But this, as has been said quite often, no one has ever proved, nor will any be able to prove thereafter. Finally, to no one…
of those who, as they even grant, were fully persuaded by the Calvinists concerning the substantial conversion of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ, is it unknown that many recognized mystical significations of bread and wine, and of the various qualities of both. What, therefore, prevents Clement from having similarly recognized, indicated, and proved some of these?
It is certain, therefore, that nothing at all can be gathered from the words of our Clement that is opposed to the sound and orthodox definition of the sacrament of the Eucharist; rather, indeed, something that is not altogether consistent with it. But if all the testimonies of his concerning the same sacrament of the Eucharist, which have been exhibited thus far, are diligently compared together, any person not entirely blinded by certain false prejudices will see most evidently that the true and catholic doctrine concerning this miraculous sacrament could not have been asserted and explained more clearly by our Clement, especially in these books, where he does not dispute about it A *ex professo*, but only incidentally.
ARTICLE III. On sacred ordinations, and the difference of the order of presbyters and bishops, on the blessing of presbyters, and on the holy use of matrimony.
It must be diligently observed by all that which Clement handed down to memory concerning the various ministers of the Church, for whom various precepts are given in the books of sacred Scripture according to each one's status. "Very many other precepts," he says, "which pertain to chosen persons, are written in the holy books; some indeed for presbyters, others for bishops, others for deacons, and others for widows, concerning whom there will be another time to speak: some for presbyters, some for bishops, some for deacons, others for widows." For since he so openly pronounces that different precepts were given to presbyters than to bishops, it is most invincibly concluded from this that he held for certain that the order of presbyter and bishop was not one and the same from the beginning or even in his own time—as modern heretics, just as the ancient Aerians, contend—but that they were different and clearly distinct orders from one another.
What, therefore, could the mind of even the most obstinate of the B contentious heretics object against so clear and most open a doctrine of Clement? Nothing, certainly. And indeed, Blondellus, who expended such great and useless effort against this most certain dogma of the orthodox faith by collecting from everywhere testimonies of ancient writers, passed over this with the profoundest, but entirely, as it seems, deceitful and fallacious silence. For why, I ask you, did he, having utterly omitted this by no means doubtful and obscure testimony of our author, only thrust forward other things into the patronage of his error, unless because he knew well that these things favor him somewhat, and that this one is clearly contrary to him? But what can such preposterous craftiness and cunning avail him? For the objection and difficulty, if indeed there be any at all, sought by him from other words of Clement, is most easily diluted by these that we have related and C vanishes. But more on these things in the following dissertation.
In the meantime, however, I beg you to turn your mind for a little while to those things which our Clement writes concerning the blessing of presbyters and the imposition of hands upon women who adorn themselves with foreign hair, in these words: "Upon whom does the presbyter lay his hand? And whom will he bless?" Then he immediately added: "Not the woman who is adorned, but with foreign hair, and through those same [foreign hairs] another head."
But concerning matrimony, although Clement most steadfastly hands down and most invincibly demonstrates against heretics that it is good, holy, and approved by God; he teaches, nevertheless, that it is lawful for a Christian man to use it only then when he is able to beget children from his wife. Therefore, this first and general law concerning the use of matrimony is established by him: "Neither touch a woman at all, except thy own wife, from whom alone it is lawful for thee to perceive the pleasures of the flesh, for the sake of begetting a legitimate succession." From this he concludes that it is a sin to embrace a spouse for the sake of pleasure alone: "For pleasure alone," he says, "if anyone uses it even in marriage, is contrary to the laws, and unjust, and alien to reason." What wonder, then, if he declares all other carnal intercourses to be illicit, forbidden, and nefarious? Nay, he declares that it is forbidden for boys and old men to take wives, for they cannot procreate children. "For to these," says he, "he has not yet granted it, and those he does not wish to take wives any longer."
Furthermore, he no less plainly denies that it is lawful for a man to cohabit with his wife at all times in which he might be able to beget children from her, but only at set hours, after having given thanks to God for the gifts received after the meal, never during the day, but at night, not immodestly and intemperately, but with modesty and shame; lest satiety and repentance arise from more frequent conjunction: "For those to whom it is permitted to take wives, there will be need of a pedagogue; so that the mystical orgies of nature may not be celebrated during the day, nor that he should have intercourse like a cock, returning in the morning from the church, for example, or from the forum, when it is the time of prayer, and reading, and the works which are done during the day. In the evening, however, it is necessary to rest after the meal, and after the thanksgiving which is made to God for the goods which we have received." D Nature does not always grant time for the congress of matrimony to be performed; for the union is the more desirable the more prolonged it is; nor indeed should one behave oneself immodestly and intemperately at night as if in darkness, but modesty must be included in the mind like the light of reason. Finally, Clement testifies that he wrote more on this subject in his book *On Nuptials*. But because this study has not come down to us, if you wish to know what Clement taught about it in the *Stromata*, we shall send you to those things which are to be disputed by us in the following dissertation. You can, however, consult vol. II of Theodorus's *Penitential*, and the observations and notes of Petitus, where you will find more things gathered and clarified on this matter.
Chapter VI. On angels, the human soul, and Christian morals.
ARTICULUS I. De angelis, et quinam ex illis, quamque ob causam Egregores appellati, ac de eorumdem angelorum lapsu.
Clement says that Christians, rising at night from their beds to perform vigils to pray to and praise God, are like those angels who were called *Egregors*: "For blessed are those who are awake for Him, likening themselves to the angels, whom we call *egrēgorous*, that is, wakeful ones." Since he was putting these things into writing at that time, it was customary for angels to be called by this name.
Cedrenus also provides testimony that the sons of Seth, whom the ancients called angels, were named *Egregors*. These same *Egregors* are also called sons of God, that is, of the *egrēgorōn* [the wakeful ones], some of whom are called sons of God. But if you were to ask which angels these were, and why they were called by that name, you have asked a difficult question indeed. For it seems that Clement signifies by this term the good angels, since he compares to them the Christians who, as we have said, rise at night to pray to God. And indeed, that he compared those who are thus *awake* not with evil, but with good angels, everyone will—beyond a doubt—easily concede to us.
Yet others, by the name of "Egregors," designate the angels who became evil from being good, or rather the sons of Seth—namely those who, after they had looked upon the daughters of men, as Scripture says, and committed fornication, fell into various sins with them. Wherefore Cedrenus says: "The Egregors, or sons of God, so called on account of the splendor of Seth’s countenance, dwelt in a land higher than Eden, near to Paradise, and led a life similar to the life of the angels until the thousandth year of the world. The author of evils, unable to watch the honest manner of their life, sated them with the beauty of the daughters of men—that is, of Cain." And further below: "The Egregors, the progeny of Seth, led by error, descended and took to themselves wives from the daughters of men, or Cain's, and brought forth those famous giants." Africanus tells the same story, as does, especially, Georgius Syncellus, and he testifies that this opinion arose from the apocryphal book of Enoch concerning the Egregors, of which Scaliger and subsequently Kircher present two long segments that have been transcribed.
Cedrenus therefore thought that the name "Egregors" was imposed upon the sons of God because of the extraordinary beauty of their father Seth’s countenance, or, as he puts it, "on account of the splendor of his face." But Clement repeats it from the very etymology of the Greek name *egrēgoroi*, which in Latin signifies "wakeful ones." Why, indeed, the angels were so called was provided, as some think, by these words of Daniel: "And behold a A *ir* (the version of Symmachus reads *egrēgoros*), and a holy one descended from heaven." This can certainly be confirmed by two Greek scholia which Drusius reported on this passage. The first indeed says: "The word *ir* is interpreted as nothing else than 'wakeful' and 'watchful'." And the second: "Instead of *ir*, the Septuagint interpreted it as 'angel', but the others as 'wakeful one'."
Whether Clement concluded that angels were called *Egregors* from this passage in Daniel is not altogether certain or fully explored. But it should be beyond controversy that he is speaking about the same angels as Daniel, who are called *Egregors* because they are always awake and never sleep or are overcome by slumber. But as regarding the prevaricating angels and those who were the corrupters and adulterers of women, Clement writes elsewhere: "The angels who abandoned the beauty of God for the beauty which withers, and thus fell from heaven to earth." But we have discussed these and other angels not once in previous dissertations, and more will be said in the following. Regarding the *Egregors*, however, besides the authors we have cited, you may read Suicer, Vol. I of his *Thesaurus*, p. 1003, at the word *Egrēgoros*.
ARTICULUS II. De hominis anima, et quæ ejus definitio, quis motus, utrum non aliter quam sensuum ministerio cogitet, an spiritualis sit et incorporea, cur triplex dicatur, ubi sedem suam posuerit, et cur sicca nuncupetur.
Clement discourses clearly and openly B as to what the nature and substance of the human soul is: "One must know that the soul is not something that needs sleep; for it is itself always mobile, but it is the body that is given over to rest and is resolved, while the soul no longer operates corporally, but operates and thinks by itself. From this it follows that what are true dreams, for one who judges rightly, are the sober thoughts of the soul; so that it is not drawn by consent to the affections of the body, and it consults for itself what is best. The destruction of the soul, however, is if it should remain entirely at rest within itself; and therefore, by constantly fixing its mind on God, and by inserting wakefulness into the body through continuous habit, it makes the human being equal to angelic grace, receiving the eternity of life from meditation."
Weigh, I entreat you, each word of our Clement, and see whether any philosopher, ancient or modern, has felt better or more truly concerning the human soul. The human soul, he says, is *aeikínētos autē*—that is, "which is always moved"—and *kath' autēn ennooumenē*—that is, "which thinks by itself." Does he not in these words deliver the true and genuine definition of the rational soul, by which it is said to be a substance that thinks by itself? Moreover, when he C adds that it is always in motion, what else does he signify by these words but that the motion of the soul is its very thought itself, without which it can never exist? Wherefore he says that it is the destruction of the soul if it should remain entirely at rest within itself, *psychēs de olethros to atremēsai autē*. And this, indeed, seems to have been taken from the school of Plato; since this, as Ambrose testifies, was his definition of the soul: "That which moves itself and is not moved by another."
Nor, I entreat you, should you lightly pass over what our same author has so clearly handed down, that the soul sometimes thinks by itself without any help or aid of the senses, and that its thoughts are then better and more subtle: "While the soul is not D
A corporally acting, it operates and thinks by itself... and it consults what is best for itself." What then is more alien to this doctrine of our Clement than that trite philosophical axiom: "There is nothing in the intellect which was not first in the senses"? That statement was certainly unknown to him, or else completely and thoroughly proscribed by him. Finally, from these things, who might not most easily understand how certainly Clement believed the human soul to be of an incorporeal and purely spiritual substance?
Nor, I would hope, would you say that he teaches the soul of man to be threefold: "the soul being of three origins." By that way of speaking, he merely denotes the soul's faculties, and distinguishes them thus: the first is, *to noeron, ho de logistikon kaleitai*, "The intelligence, which is called the reasoning faculty." This, he says, is the interior man, who governs the exterior and is himself moved by God. The second is: *To thymikon kai theriodes on plesion manias oikei*, "That part which they attribute to anger, which is irascible, dwells not far from madness." The third, finally: *Polymorphon de to epithymetikon kai triton, hyper ton Protea ton thalattion daimona poikilon*, "Changing itself into various forms, the third is desire, which is more varied than the sea-god Proteus," etc.
From these things, however, it is clear to Clement that the threefold soul is nothing other than one and the same spiritual and rational soul, endowed with a triple faculty, or, as philosophers and theologians speak, three powers. This opinion also seems to be taken from Plato, of whom Cicero writes: "Plato imagined a threefold soul, whose ruling power—that is, reason—he placed in the citadel, and he desired to separate two parts, anger and desire, which he separated by location, placing anger in the chest and desire beneath the heart." Whether, however, Plato really asserts there that the soul is threefold, or only distinguishes its three faculties, is a question for others, since it contributes nothing to our present matter; let this be the judgment.
We shall observe, however, that our Clement dissents from him in that he affirms the soul has placed its seat in the brain: *Enthronizetai logismos en enkephalo*, "The soul situates its seat in the brain." For to no one from these things said can it be obscure that Clement argues there concerning the whole soul; inasmuch as he was thoroughly persuaded that it is spiritual and therefore simple, not consisting of various parts. Regarding this, furthermore, its proper seat in the human body will be treated in the following dissertation. B
Finally, Clement seems to have drawn from Heraclitus that which he teaches elsewhere: that the soul of a man who uses drink only to satisfy thirst, as is proper, is dry, and therefore the best and most wise: *Aute de psyche xera sophotate kai ariste*, "For the dry soul is the most wise and the best." For among Stobaeus, we read this same opinion of Heraclitus: *Auge xere*, or as another reading suggests: *Auge xere sophotate kai ariste*. "The dry light is the most wise and the best." The latest commentator on the Clementine works, however, collects various observations on this place of our same author, which he suspects to be corrupt, which those who wish to may easily consult; and it suffices for us to have indicated it.
ARTICLE III
Of Christian morals, and first of the custom of rising at night to sing praises to God, and how long that lasted: that one should not sleep the whole night, much less during the day; what Christians ought to do at that time.Clement relates many things pertaining to all Christians in general, which are not altogether unworthy of our observations. For, to pass over the various precepts he has handed down everywhere for living piously and chastely, it is useful to note in the first place that Christians were accustomed, as we have already said, to rise from their beds at night, not once but often, as he himself says, in order to sing praises to God: "One must therefore sleep in such a way," are his words, "that we are easily awakened... for there is no use for a sleeping man, just as there is none for a dead one. Therefore, one must often rise from bed at night and God must be praised; for blessed are those who have kept watch for Him." Nor should this law seem harsh to you. For in the early times of the Church, it was laid down as a custom C for Christians to rise at night to pour out prayers to God. Indeed, the most abundant witness of this custom is Tertullian, who writes to his wife in this manner: "Will you hide... when you rise even through the night to pray?" Ambrose, however, commands husband and wife to rise at night, thus: "You must both rise at night for adoration, and God must be entreated with joined prayers... I did not rise at midnight to confess to thee." Finally, in another book he addresses all Christians thus: "The day is not enough for praying; one must rise at night and at midnight. The Lord Himself spent the whole night in prayer, so that He might invite you to prayer by His own example... The prophet does not tell you to rise only at midnight, but that you should rise at night, and especially at midnight; for He set the example of rising at night, saying: 'I was mindful of thy name at night, O Lord,' and added: 'To confess to thee,' which is to say that at that time we must especially entreat God and weep for our own sins," etc. He repeats the same things in the same work not once, which it is not necessary to describe here. Let it suffice that they be shown to you by us, so that from this and from these things which we have described, you may understand that this custom of rising at night to entreat God with prayers prevailed for a long time among Christians, and up to the times of Ambrose. D
For Jerome also writes to Eustochium: "One must rise twice or thrice at night; one must ponder the things we remember from the Scriptures."
Whether, however, that custom persisted for a long time afterward, is most difficult to say. For Chrysostom, as Palladius testifies, indeed urged the laity to apply themselves to nocturnal vigils in the church; but the more slothful and negligent clerics, accustomed to sleeping whole nights, suffered it with difficulty and annoyance. "He exhorted the faithful laity," are the words of Palladius, "to insist upon nocturnal vigils in the church, but their wives to remain at home praying during the day, because the men did not have leisure during the day. All these things upset the more negligent among the clergy, who were accustomed to sleeping the whole night." From these words, however, one may gather that by then that custom of Christians rising at night had become antiquated, and that only men were accustomed to go to the church at night, so that they could be present at the nocturnal offices which were then to be chanted by the clergy. If you wish to know anything about these nocturnal offices and vigils which seem to have succeeded the ancient custom of rising at night, consult the most learned Cardinal Bona and Thomassin.
Those who committed anything to memory concerning the course and office of the ecclesiastical life. As for nocturnal vigils, since our discourse has lapsed into this, we shall observe one more thing before an end is put to it, namely, that our Clement strictly denies that it is permitted for a Christian to sleep the whole night, and much less during the day: "Those who have within them the reason that dwells and watches," he says, "must not sleep the whole night." Then, a little later: "But it is far from being permitted to those who cut off the greater part of the night for vigils to sleep during the day." But if you ask what a Christian should do in the night time, you will immediately hear: "At night one must especially be awake, when the days end. And to this one, work with letters should be given; to the other, this craft is to be started; but it is fitting for women to engage in wool-work."
ARTICLE IV. On other Christian customs; with what modesty they would approach the church and behave in it; abuses of those departing from it; on the Christian salutation, kisses, feasts, tables, agapes, baths, and clothing.
As regards other Christian customs, Clement beautifully teaches how they ought to come into the church: "It is fitting for man and woman to come into the church decently dressed, with an unassuming gait, embracing silence, possessing unfeigned love, chaste in body, chaste in heart, and apt for praying to God. For this, let the woman have more: that she be ever veiled, unless she is at home." A little later, our Clement greatly commends the total modesty, gravity, and honesty of those in the churches: "Such as they compose themselves in the churches for gravity and honesty, so they ought to be seen and fashioned in their whole life, who are initiated in Christ, and to be—not just appear to be—such, so mild, so pious and religious, so dedicated to charity."
But in the same place he sharply and deservedly chastises those who, departing from the churches, would change their figure, habit, and morals along with their location. For having left this place of piety, they put aside their sanctity—or rather, the mask of sanctity—and "delight themselves outside in impious songs and amatory canticles, filled with the singing of flutes, applause, drunkenness, and any filth and squalor." It is not of all, without doubt, but of some Christians only, whose morals Clement has there noted as so corrupt and depraved. Nor does he obscurely signify that they have fallen into these vices because, upon leaving the church, they joined themselves to pagans or other perverse men: "But now, I know not how, together with the places, they change their figure, habit, and morals; no differently than they say of polyps, which are seen to be the same color as the rocks to which they adhere." After they have departed from the congregation, having put aside that divinely inspired sanctity which was in it, they become assimilated to the multitude with whom they associate. But two things must be noted here: first, that this perverse custom and abuse was not introduced a long time ago, as Clement clearly signifies with the words: "But now, I know not how" (Νυνὶ δὲ οὐκ οἶδ' ὅπως). Second, it is evident from this that in this age of our Clement, there were churches for Christians, ἐν ἐκκλησίαις, to which they gathered, and with supreme and truly wonderful modesty took part in divine mysteries and performed sacred rites.
The ancient custom of Christians greeting one another is also touched upon by Clement in a few words: "To us," he says, "the end is to be free from tumult and trouble; and this is what that means: 'Peace be to you' (εἰρήνη σοι)." With these words, therefore, Christians would greet one another.
Regarding this salutation, we have a clear testimony from Optatus of Milevis: "And you could not omit what is legitimate, for you said: 'Peace be with you'; when God says the contrary: 'Peace, and where is peace?' This is to say: Why do you greet, when you have none of it? Why do you name what you have exterminated? You greet with peace, you who do not love peace. They," he says, "build a ruinous wall." Augustine also seems to allude to the same custom in his letter to Generosus, writing the words: "What is more perverse and insane, than to say to readers who are reading the very epistles of the apostles: 'Peace be with you,' while being separated from the peace of the churches to which those very epistles were written!"
It is certainly less clear whether Tertullian is speaking of this Christian salutation when he so attacks heretics: "They mix peace also with everyone." For the opinion of some is that by this word of Tertullian, not a salutation is meant, but communion and absolution; just as is signified by these words of Cyprian: "Peace given to the lapsed." Wherefore we believe that this testimony of Tertullian should not be urged further than is fair. For it is enough for us to have made plain to everyone, by the triple authority of Clement, Optatus, and Augustine, how ancient and how long in use this mutual Christian salutation has been. Moreover, that old mode of salutation seems to have been derived by Christians from the Hebrews, as Jerome witnesses. What is said in Greek, he says, is *chaire*, and in Latin *ave*, in the Hebrew and Syriac language is called *salomlac*, or *solam imac*, that is: "Peace be with you."
To what sort of salutation, you will say, does that pertain which Clement writes: "Furthermore, as for the salutations of the 'beloved' (τῶν ἀγαπητῶν), who wish to show themselves off through external things, they have not even the slightest grace," etc. We answer that it does not seem entirely obscure to us that Clement is there making a discourse about the salutations of Christians on the road. For since there is no other scope for him in these books, as we have said, than to imbue the Christian with holy precepts of morals; he certainly does not in the least stray from this scope of his, as is clearly understood from those things which precede. Therefore, with these words he prohibits Christians from greeting one another on the road with external signs. One might perhaps suspect that the reason for this prohibition was that Christians, by betraying the profession of their religion through these salutations, might imprudently come into danger for their lives. But from the text of our author himself, it can not absurdly be gathered that he is only prohibiting Pharisaical salutations, with which certain hypocritical and prevaricating Christians, under that symbol and pledge of love and charity—as will soon be said concerning kisses—dissimulated and covered up true hatred and malice.
Christians were indeed accustomed to offer a kiss when greeting one another. Which, because it was a symbol of fraternal charity and mutual love, is called "mystical" by Clement. But the same Clement rightly and deservedly rebukes some, albeit without naming them, who, corrupting this pious and holy custom, concealed hatreds under this sign of love, and disturbed the churches: "But they, by their kissing, do nothing else but disturb the churches, while they do not have friendship within. For this surely stirred up shameful suspicion and slander, that they would impudently use a kiss, which ought to have been mystical; the Apostle called it 'holy'." Wherefore, the pious
A writer cited by Athenagoras, in order to remedy or prevent a danger perhaps already burgeoning or at least impending, exhorted the Christians: "The kiss must be communicated with extreme caution, so that it be held not otherwise than as a pious salutation, or rather a certain adoration, which, if it be defiled by even the slightest impure thought, alienates us from eternal life." Regarding these kisses of the Christians, see, if you please, what we have noted in this place of Athenagoras.
These kisses, moreover, to note this in passing, were imparted in the churches, as our Clement testifies. Whence it may, perhaps, not absurdly be gathered that the salutations of which he speaks in the same place were also performed in those same churches. For of others, indeed, he says a little later: "Furthermore, as for the salutations of the beloved in the way, those who wish to make a show of themselves through external things have not even the slightest grace. For if it is fitting to pray to God mystically at the entrance, it will follow that one should also address the neighbor, whom we are ordered to love in the second place, in the same way, mystically within, lovingly and kindly, redeeming the occasion." Finally, Clement in that same place compares a kiss that is not sufficiently modest to the harmful bite of a spider, of which Aristotle writes in *Hist. anim.*, lib. IX, cap. 39, p. 945; Pliny, *Hist. natur.*, lib. XI, cap. 24, p. 516, and lib. XXIX, cap. 4, p. 692; Dioscorides, lib. II, cap. 57, and others.
Nothing is clearer and more explicit, and nothing more agreeable and consonant with the Gospel institutions, than all that Clement has brought down to us concerning the banquets, lunches, dinners, feasts, and tables of the Christians. For he shows clearly and plainly how great should be the frugality and sobriety, how far a multiple variety of foods should be kept away from them; how far the more delicate foods and drinks should be cast away from them, how far condiments, sweetmeats, and other incitements to gluttony should be removed. Nor does he explain less clearly who are to be invited to supper and feasts, how one should conduct oneself with them, how modestly one must recline at tables, what kind of conversation should be engaged in then, and, in short, what is to be expected from everyone.
These things therefore being passed over, let us proceed to those less obvious and common things which he relates about the agapai. For he rightly censures certain Christians of his own time, all the more pointedly because these agapai, or little dinners, or modest luncheons, originally instituted to nourish and increase fraternal charity, had been undermined by some: "They dare," he says, "to call it an agape, using an unbridled tongue, namely *deipnaria* (little dinners), or rather certain little meals, redolent of savor and sauce, disgracing the beautiful and salutary work of the Word—holy charity—with I know not what pots, liquid sauces, drink, delicacies, and smoke, pursuing that name with slander. They are deceived in their opinion, as those who expected to be able to buy the promise of God with little luncheons, *deipnaria*. For as for the gatherings which are held for the sake of joy, since they themselves also recount both little dinners, and luncheons, and feasts—*deipnaria* and *arista* and *dochai*—we shall rightly call this gathering [the assembly] by following the reasoning. But these feasts, *hestiaseis*, the Lord did not call *agapai*, that is to say, charity." But if you wish to know how far these have departed from the original institute of the Christians, listen to Tertullian: "Our dinner shows the reason for itself by its name; for it is called *agape*, which is A love among the Greeks. Whatever the cost, it is gain to incur expense in the name of piety; since we help all the needy with this refreshment, not as you parasites affect for glory... but as before God there is a higher contemplation of the lowly... it admits nothing of baseness, nothing of immodesty. One does not recline before the prayer to God is tasted first. One eats as much as the hungry desire; one drinks as much as is useful to the chaste; they are so satisfied, as those who remember that they must worship God even through the night, they converse as those who know that the Lord is listening." But as for the fact that Clement in these agapai says that something else was admitted than the once-established laws of piety and charity, he does not agitate and exclaim against all Christians, but only against some, *tines*, who were guilty of this transgression. But whether these were Catholics or heretics, it is very difficult to say. For he argues elsewhere against the Carpocratians, who dared to call their execrable and detestable meetings an agape. But since in the aforementioned book of the *Paedagogus* he notes almost nothing in these Christian agapai other than luxury and intemperance, this seems to refer not so much to heretics as to Catholics. For no one is ignorant that from the very first times of the Church, the Corinthians were rebuked by Paul because in their supper, which he calls *deipnon*, they perpetrated certain things not far removed from these.
Adolescents, however, he keeps away from the baths, for which he decrees that the gymnasium, or exercise of the body and movement, is sufficient: "For adolescents, the gymnasium is sufficient, even if a bath is present." To men also, he is a promoter and persuader, that they should prefer this exercise also to the baths. But he does not rightly forbid Christians from all use of these things entirely, which we have previously shown in our observations on Ambrose were not prohibited to them.
Whatever, further, pertains to the rest of the customs of the Christians, it is easily understood from the analysis of these books given above. But if anything difficult or worthy of note should still occur, a more convenient opportunity will be given below to explain it, lest we repeat the same things.
We cannot, however, pass over all those things which are established by Clement concerning the clothing of Christian people, being wonderfully confirmed by these words of Cyril of Jerusalem: "But as for dress, let it be simple and thin, and prepared not for ornament, but for necessary protection, lest you be dressed luxuriously and softly; but in winter be warmed, and cover the shameful parts of the body. Do not, however, under the pretext of avoiding indecency, entangle yourself in another indecency through elaborate and accurate clothing." Finally, what Clement prescribes concerning the dress and adornment of Christian women is to be compared with those things which Tertullian and Cyprian handed down concerning the same.
CHAPTER VII. On the theology of the Gentiles and their various superstitions.
ARTICLE I. On the origin and beginnings of idolatry and the nefarious worship of many gods.
A Our Clement most clearly demonstrates the falsity of ethnic religion from the impious worship of false gods and idols, and from the various nefarious superstitions of the Gentiles, just as he demonstrates the truth of the Christian profession from due adoration of the true God and His most holy laws and institutions. On this account, he does not fear to investigate with marvelous learning and to uncover all the most flagitious and obscene mysteries of the pagans—even those which, because of their foulness, were more secret among them—so that their execrable turpitude might be set before the eyes of all, and, as Eusebius narrates that it was once known to him, every person might be imbued with a healthy sense of shame and more easily be called away from and deterred from this impious religion. Moreover, the more base and obscene those pagan outrages were, the more surely will many judge it to be more fitting to condemn them all to perpetual silence than to revive the memory of any of them in the chaste minds of Christians. And we, indeed, would have thought that we ought to subscribe to this most just sentiment of pious men, and to satisfy their holy and religious zeal, were it not for the fact that many things occur in the works of our Clement which Hervetus, the writer of such great commentaries upon them, confesses were entirely unknown to him. Therefore, lest so many such rugged and difficult passages turn anyone further away from reading these books, or cause them to think these things were gratuitously invented by our author out of hatred for ethnic religion, we shall endeavor, as far as our strength allows, to investigate and clarify all those things, whether they were entirely unknown and inaccessible to Hervetus himself, and poorly explained by him, or left untouched by others because of their extreme difficulty.
B Furthermore, [concerning] those of other [peoples], namely those who lived many centuries after them, [it is] clearly from the ignorance of that original nature... I also judge that there were some who, worshiping the supreme power of some [being] with every observance, extolling the strength of the body with praises, and admiring the beauty of form, eventually enrolled the one whom they honored into the number of the gods, assuming certain fables for the support and patronage of such imposture. Now, all the most vicious judged their very vices and foul affections to be gods, or at least worshiped them under the name of gods—namely slaughter, lust, drunkenness, and the rest of that kind—having found this to be neither an equitable nor an honest excuse for their crimes. And they partly left them on earth, partly hid them under the earth—this one thing [they did] quite cunningly—and partly raised them to heaven... And then, for the sake of the freedom and license of error, they assigned to every figment some name of either gods or demons, and erected statues besides. Cicero pursues this much more diffusely and clearly in his philosophical works, and especially in the second book of *On the Nature of the Gods*. But so that the description of the words of the Latin orator, which are indeed very long, may not be burdensome, we send those who wish to investigate these things more curiously to his very lucubrations.
C Moreover, when Clement reveals the origin of idolatry in his *Exhortation to the Gentiles*, he shows that it was introduced into various parts of the world in seven ways, which we have reviewed one by one in the analysis of the same book. Regarding these, more has already been argued by us elsewhere, which can bring no small light to this opinion of our Clement. Yet we cannot omit here certain excellent testimonies of both Gregory Nazianzen and Cicero, by which those things which our Clement narrates concerning those various beginnings of idolatry are, in a truly wonderful way, clarified and confirmed. Therefore, let us first listen to Gregory haranguing among the Christians in these words: "Nature indeed desires God, as does everyone who participates in reason... but languishing with desire, and badly affected, and bearing this loss with great difficulty, it begins a second navigation, as it is said; that is, to turn its eyes toward those things which fall under the sense of the eyes, and to worship some of them instead of the Deity... From this, some [worship] the sun, others the moon, others the multitude of the stars, others heaven itself along with them... Others, again, because of necessary use, [worship] earth, water, air, fire... Others, finally, have worshiped whatever appeared to them rashly from among visible things, constituting for themselves as gods all the most beautiful things which they saw. Nor were there wanting those who offered divine honors to statues and figments, first indeed of their kin and relatives... after..."
D But if anyone does not regret comparing those things which are handed down by the sacred author of Wisdom and by Theodoret concerning the origin of idolatry and its various sources, with the words of our Clement, he will easily perceive how consonant they are among themselves, and he will not repent of his labor at all. But besides those seven sources of idolatry, Clement revealed to us others in the same book. For from its beginning, concerning the song of Orpheus, Amphion, and Arion, he has this: "Therefore, it seems to me that that Thracian Orpheus, and the Theban, and the Methymnian were nothing but deceivers, who under the pretext of music... first led men to idols, and thus roused in them a wild custom toward stones and wood—that is, images and shadows." You see indeed the first origin of idolatry traced by our author back to those three singers, who, first dragging men to the worship of idols by their beautiful song and impious poems, led them as if by the hand: *They were the first to lead men by the hand to idols* (Τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐπὶ τὰ εἴδωλα ἐχειραγώγησαν πρῶτοι).
But he explains this impiety of the pagans in the same book somewhat more clearly, where he also repeats the beginnings of the worship of gods, and of images and temples, from their very first origin: "It comes to my mind to marvel by what opinions at last they were seized, those men who were deceived and introduced superstition and the worship of demons to men, ordering them by a passed law to worship wicked demons, whether it was Phoroneus, or Merops, or someone else, who is fabulously said to have been the first to place temples and altars for them, and even to have offered sacrifices to them. For in later times they fashioned gods that they might adore them. Indeed, no one worshiped this Amor or Cupid, who is said to be among the most ancient of gods, before Charmus, after he had obtained a certain youth dear to him, for whom, having attained his desire, he erected a more elegant altar in the Academy. Thus they called the intemperance of disease 'Amor' (Love), and they carried off healthy greed into the number of the gods. The Athenians..."
A And yet they did not know who Pan himself was, before Philippides told them. Therefore, the cult of demons, since it had taken its beginning from elsewhere, was the fountain of a foolish vice. Then, since it had not been cut off, but had received growth and flowed in a great channel, it established many demons by sacrificing hecatombs, and celebrating assemblies, and raising up idols, and building temples. Our Clement discourses on three things there: first, the origins of the impious cult of demons or false gods; second, of the temples dedicated to them; third, finally, the origin of the idols and statues.
And first, indeed, one does not dare to define with certainty whence and from whom the cult of demons or gods took its rise, nor should that seem a wonder to anyone. For, as I said a little before, he reports seven modes by which this insane impiety of erring men, worshipping false gods, is said to have erupted into diverse parts of the world no doubt at various times. But from whom and when, or where the first of these was introduced, neither he discloses there, nor has anyone else made it known or demonstrated it to us with certainty and clarity. We know, indeed, the opinion of many about the gods, observed by Justin Martyr and certain others, as has been noted elsewhere, that these words of Genesis: "And you shall be as gods," are to be B altogether refuted. But when and where this error was first disseminated, we do not read that this has been defined or indicated by him or by any other.
And indeed Eusebius, having most diligently examined the first origin of the gods from pagan writers, narrates that the Phoenicians, and a little later the Egyptians, were the first of all to adjudge divinity to the sun, the moon, and the stars, and were, as he says, the authors of this impiety and crime, more serious even than atheism itself. But at what time those Phoenicians and Egyptians began to ascribe that divinity to the stars, he himself nowhere revealed to us: "The Phoenicians," these are the words of Eusebius, "and the Egyptians are said to have been the first of all to attribute divinity to the sun, and the moon, and the stars, and to have assigned to them alone the cause of the risings and settings of things. Then, indeed, it brought upon the human race those machinations and procreations of the gods which are bandied about here and everywhere..... Nor did the error of men, who followed after, regarding the multitude of gods stop here; but, driven into a deep abyss of impropriety, it gave birth to an impiety even graver than the crime of having denied divinity itself. And the authors of this error were the Phoenicians, and a little later the Egyptians." C Again, however, he says, but more briefly: "Let it remain, therefore, that this error of all nations concerning the multitude of gods did not arise except after a long series of ages, which, having had its beginning from the Phoenicians and Egyptians, propagated itself from them to the remaining nations, and finally to the Greeks themselves." Which, indeed, he later asserts and confirms again by describing the words of Sanchoniathon from Philo.
But although, you will say, Eusebius said nothing there concerning the first origin of the gods, is it not read in the preface of the second book of the Chronicles that he wrote these things? "Therefore, without any ambiguity, Moses and Cecrops, who was the first king of the Athenians, were of the same times... This man first of all called upon Jove, discovered idols, set up an altar, and sacrificed victims, whereas such things had never been seen in Greece." Let us add, if we wish, that the same things were reported later by Cyril of Alexandria and others.
D 50 But before Cecrops gave a name to Jove, certainly among the Egyptians and Phoenicians the impious error concerning the multitude of gods had already prevailed for a long time. Nor do we collect this only from the first testimony of Eusebius, but also from the last words which we cite. For what, I ask you, did he mean by these, other than that these things were first introduced into Greece by Cecrops? Yet the Greeks and others attributed the false names of the gods, as the same Eusebius is the author, as received from the Phoenicians and Egyptians. And indeed, where he explains more clearly and plainly the beginnings of Phoenician theology from Sanchoniathon, he makes it plain that this false multitude of gods had been introduced by the Phoenicians long before the times of the Greeks.
In the same sense, Herodotus writes that it was only yesterday and the day before that he learned whether the gods had always existed, or whence they were, or by what appearance they were once among the Greeks. But he had previously said that the Egyptians had sold themselves as the first to have used the names of the twelve gods, and that the Greeks had borrowed them from them. But when that happened, he himself is also entirely silent.
Lactantius, however, asserts that the superstition of worshipping gods flowed either from Melisseus, king of the Cretans, as Didymus handed down to memory, or from Jove himself, as Euhemerus handed down. But he condemns the same Melisseus a little above for that reason, because he devised new rites and pageants of sacred things. Before those times, therefore, other rites of worshipping gods, by the witness of the same Lactantius, had already obtained elsewhere. Therefore, none of these, nor perhaps of other writers, discourses to us definitively as to who or at what time men, falling away from the worship of the true God, judged that the name of God, and His nature and honors, were to be ascribed to creatures themselves.
However, it was the opinion of the same Lactantius and very many others, both ancient and recent writers, and especially Cyril of Alexandria, and even later Saint Thomas and his followers, that there was no idolatry in the first age of the world, that is, before the times of the flood. For what is more express and clear than these words of Lactantius, by which he narrates how Ham, rejected by his father Noah, first left the ignorance of God to his sons: "This was the first nation that did not know God; because its prince and founder did not accept the worship of God from his father, being cursed by him. Therefore he left the ignorance of divinity to his descendants... They err, therefore, who contend that the worship of the gods was from the beginning of things, and that paganism is prior to the religion of God." Lactantius, therefore, and other authors cited by us, think that the true knowledge of one God, by reason of the recent memory of the creation of the world, was so fixed in the minds of men that at that time no mortal failed from the sincere worship and veneration of God.
But others, indeed in large number, but not all opposing with the same momentum of reasons, resist this opinion. For some suppose that the worship of false gods took its first roots in the time of Enos, who was the son of Seth. They strive to prove that from there, because what is read in the Vulgate version of Genesis concerning the same Enos: "This one began to call upon the name of the Lord," they judge to be not ill rendered by the Chaldean paraphrase: "Then in his days the sons of men desisted from calling upon the name of the Lord." Which, indeed, they think is stabilized from the Hebrew text itself, which they say is to be translated thus: "Then it was profaned in calling the name of Jehovah."
57 But others openly and publicly protest against these, and contend that the sense of the Hebrew text is entirely different, which indeed everyone, from various interpretations of this place
A Hervetus, however, openly and clearly declares that he has nowhere read—as far as he can recall—that which is attributed to our Clement regarding the first of the seven modes of idolatry, namely, that the Phrygians worshipped the moon. What then? Should we say his memory failed him, or that he never read the history of Diodorus Siculus? For what could be clearer and more express than those words of his in which he discusses the worship of the moon and sun? "The birth of this goddess is handed down according to Phrygian tradition." If the Phrygians, as he says, believed the moon was born in their own country, who will deny that some worship was exhibited to the same moon by them? But there is truly no need to prove this with arguments; we see it clearly asserted by Strabo: "There is," he says, "also a temple of the moon there, just as there is one in Albania and one in Phrygia."
ARTICLE II. Concerning the first temples of the gods, and their origin.
To our Clement, nothing seems more certain concerning the temples dedicated to the gods than the origins of their worship. Indeed, he refutes the opinion of those who thought the first origin of temples should be traced back to Phoroneus or Merops: "Whether Phoroneus," these are the words of Clement, "was the one, or Merops, or some other, who placed temples and altars for them and was the first to offer sacrifices to them, these are fabulously related. For in later times, they certainly invented gods to worship." Yet Arnobius defines that the beginning of temples is to be attributed to Phoroneus, or Merops, or, as Varro testifies, to Aeacus, son of Jupiter, with these words: "If you seek to know who was the first builder of temples, either the Egyptian Phoroneus or Merops will be pointed out to you, but Varro, in his *Admiranda*, reports that it was Aeacus, the offspring of Jupiter."
But if you ask at what time Phoroneus lived, you will hear from our Clement himself: "There was in Greece, indeed, in the time of Phoroneus, who was after Inachus, the flood which was in the time of Ogyges, etc.... For Acusilaus says that Phoroneus was the first of men. Whence also the poet of the *Phoronis* said he was the father of mortal men." Hence Plato in the *Timaeus*, following Acusilaus, writes: "And when he wanted at times to lead them to speak of the ancient things of this city, he proceeds to tell of the most ancient things, concerning Phoroneus, who is called the first, and concerning Niobe, and what things were after the flood." Eusebius reports the same testimony of Plato, who maintains that Phoroneus lived 210 years after Abraham, being the son of Inachus and Niobe, or, as others wish, the father of Niobe. But that which Acusilaus writes, that he was the first man, is a fable clearly ridiculous and exploded by all. Scaliger, however, cleverly observes regarding this passage of Eusebius that the Greek words of Plato are twisted into a perverse meaning that is quite alien to his mind.
But if you wish to know what the opinion of Eusebius himself was concerning the origin of temples, he will declare to you most openly that there were no temples among the most ancient men: "The first and most ancient men," he says, "bestowed no effort or study on the building of temples or the erecting of images, since those arts of painting, molding, carving, fashioning statues, and even of building houses and roofs, had not yet been invented or established, as will be easily clear to anyone who considers the matter for himself." D Lactantius, indeed, writes of the things handed down by Eusebius concerning the most ancient men, specifically attributing them to the Egyptians and Hebrews scattered throughout almost the entire globe: "But...
A ...all the first, so he speaks, of those who occupied Egypt, began to acknowledge and adore heavenly things. But others, who were dispersed throughout the earth, admiring the elements of the world—the sky, the sun, the earth, the sea—venerated them without any images or temples, and celebrated sacrifices to them in the open air; until, in the process of time, they made temples and images for the most powerful kings, and instituted the worship of them with victims and incense." Therefore, he testifies that there were temples and images of the gods not only before the flood, but also for a long interval of time after it. For indeed, even before the foundations of kingdoms were laid, by his testimony, there were no houses sacred to the gods; and those which were first seen were built not to the sun and moon, or stars, or whatever other creatures to which divine nature was first ascribed by men, but to the most powerful kings.
Yet we read in the writing of Herodotus that this was the opinion of the Egyptians, that they were the first to establish altars, images, and shrines for the gods; and furthermore, that they carved animals into stone; and they demonstrated that most of these things were done by their work. And this can indeed be confirmed without absurdity by the authority of the most ancient Sanchoniathon, whose words Eusebius recorded from Philo of Byblos. For he relates from both that the Phoenicians and Egyptians offered divine honors to those whom they were B persuaded were the authors of many good things for them himself: "And by the custom of temples," he says, "which had already been constructed before, this was transferred to the function and duty, and they furthermore consecrated columns and wooden statues in their name. And having established the shrines, they transferred them, and consecrated pillars and rods in their name." Regarding the Persians, Herodotus had said in the place we cited before: "It is not their custom to erect statues, nor temples, nor altars; indeed, they attribute this to the insanity of those who do so, for the reason, as is my opinion, that they do not think, like the Greeks, that the gods were born from men." He adds, however, that they offered sacrifices to Jove, the sun, the moon, and others in the open air, and immolated victims with certain rites.
Furthermore, that the first temples of the gods and even images were built first among the Egyptians by Osiris, the son of Jove, Diodorus Siculus signifies not obscurely in these words: "Many hand down that a temple was built by Osiris for his parents, Jove and Juno, noble in size and structure, and they say furthermore that he dedicated two golden shrines to Jove—the larger to the one in heaven, the smaller to his father who reigned there, whom they call Ammon." He also says he established chapels of gold for other gods, with honors attributed to each, and priests set over the care of sacred matters. Moreover, Osiris and Isis were held in singular esteem as the inventors of the arts and of whatever was useful in architecture. Therefore, with foundries of bronze and gold discovered in Thebes, weapons were manufactured... and they also labored over golden images and temple ornaments. However, if you should contend that Diodorus speaks only of golden temples of the gods, we would not dare to oppose you entirely. But since he seems to be discussing those temples which were founded first, he signifies without doubt that nothing of a meaner or other material was erected among them first, according to the vain opinion of the Egyptians.
However, in the age of Diogenes Laertius, a report had spread in the discourse of some that shrines were first built to the gods by Epimenides, the poet and philosopher. For in the life of this philosopher he committed these things to writing: "He is said to have been the first to purify fields and erect shrines." But since Epimenides is said to have lived around the 44th Olympiad, contemporary with the lawgiver Lycurgus, that rumor that shrines were first erected by him is clearly proven to be false.
Therefore, those perhaps do not wander far from the truth who think that the origin and beginning of temples should be assigned long after the opinion regarding many gods was accepted, and perhaps after the first kingly empires had been founded and stabilized. This certainly seems to be the opinion of Cyprian, which he declares at the beginning of his book *On the Vanity of Idols*: "There were kings of old, who, on account of their royal memory, also began to be worshipped by their own people even in death. From there, temples were instituted for them; from there, images were fashioned to hold the countenances of the dead, by which they sacrificed victims and celebrated feast days, giving honors; from there arose sacred rites for posterity, which had been accepted as comforts for the first." If, however, anyone wishes to prove by certain and valid reasons that, before those were built with great expense and royal magnificence in honor of kings, as we have seen, sacrifices were offered in certain places and later in some private houses—which were also called temples—to the stars and to the first gods, as we have said, he will not draw us into his opinion with difficulty. For Varro makes it testified in certain published places, and those placed under the open sky, where augurs observed the flight of birds, that the name of "temple" was imposed: "A temple," he says, "is spoken of in three ways: from nature, from auspices, and from similarity. From nature, in the sky; from auspices, on the earth; from similarity, under the earth." But since the question can only be about temples of the second kind, let us hear what the same Varro says of them: "On earth, a temple is called a place set apart for the sake of an augury or auspice, by certain conceived words. In the making of this temple, it is apparent that trees constituted the boundaries, and within those regions, where the eyes look, that is, we behold; whence it was called a temple and 'to contemplate,' as in Ennius in the *Medea*: 'Contemplate, and look at the temple of Ceres on the left.'" Aulus Gellius also relates that it was handed down in the writings by the same Varro: "Not all sacred houses are temples, and not even the house of Vesta is a temple, but those places which the augurs had constituted." Wherefore he added later: "Therefore, in the Curia Hostilia, and in the Pompeia, and later in the Julia, although they were profane places, they were constituted as temples by the augurs."
ARTICLE III.
That the temples of the gods are the sepulchers of dead men, where it concerns the tomb of Immare, and whether he was the son of Eumolpus and Daira. Of the sepulchers of the daughters of Celeus, and of Hyperoche and Laodice, and also of Clearchus and Leucophryne, and of the prophet Telmesius, and of the king of Cyrene, and with the authors Leandrius and Zeno of Mindus cited.Furthermore, since the sumptuous and magnificent temples of the gods were held in the highest honor among the Gentiles, our Clement, to dissuade them from this error, demonstrates most evidently that they are the sepulchers of dead men. "Which indeed," he says, "for I will not pass them by myself, were called temples under a beautiful name, but were sepulchers, that is, the sepulchers themselves were called temples. But you, even now at least, should forget the worship of demons and superstition, blushing to worship sepulchers." He demonstrates this there by an induction that is as certain as it is long. This proof of Clement was seen to be of such weight by Christian writers that it was not only used by Arnobius, as Hervetus rightly observes, but that entire fragment of Clement was also used by Eusebius and Cyril of Alexandria...
A It is written, as it were, in words. Theodoret also recorded this, but in his own style, so that it seems entirely uncertain whether he borrowed it from Clement rather than from Eusebius or Cyril. This we note by the way, partly because it was overlooked by Hervetus, and partly because certain variant readings can be gathered from Eusebius and Cyril, by which the text of our author can be corrected and illustrated.
For, to omit many things that are easy for one comparing these authors among themselves, it is argued by some that there is a corruption in the text of Clement, where we read concerning the sepulcher of Immarus in the same place: "Immarus, son of Eumolpus and Daira, was he buried in the precinct of the Eleusinion, which is under the citadel?" For in the text of Clement, where he is called Immarus (Ἴμμαρος), Hervetus thought that it could not unreasonably be proven from Pausanias that he should be called Immaradus. He could have supported this opinion in the same way from Cyril, if he had read his book. The text of Eusebius also needs correction, where, by a similar error, the copyists wrote Ismarus (Ἴσμαρος) for Immarus.
B But as to what follows in Clement: "And Immarus, the son of Eumolpus and Daira" (Ἴμμαρος δὲ ὁ Εὐμόλπου καὶ Δαείρας), some still think this is corrupted. For Arnobius testifies that Daira was the brother of Immarachus in these words: "Dairas and Immarachus, brothers in Eleusis, or rather in the Eleusinion," as our Clement has it (Ἐλευσινίου), a concept which is subject to the city. But this is perhaps the error of Arnobius more than of others. For not only in the text of Clement, but also in those of Eusebius and Cyril, do we consistently read: "Immarus or Immaradus, son of Eumolpus and Daira" (Ἴμμαρος δὲ ὁ Εὐμόλπου καὶ Δαείρας). From Pausanias, however, we learn that Immaradus was truly the son of Eumolpus: "The battle having been joined between the Eleusinians and the Athenians, on one side Erechtheus, king of the Athenians, and on the other, the son of Eumolpus, Immaradus, fell." And a little higher up: "Erechtheus holds his place among the Eponymi, he who conquered the Eleusinians in battle and slew their leader, Immaradus, the son of Eumolpus." Therefore, Immaradus or Immarus is rightly said by our Clement and others to be the son of Eumolpus.
Only concerning Daira, therefore, can there be any controversy. For the same Pausanias indicates that she was the wife of Mercury rather than of Immaradus, in these words: "Some think the hero Eleusis, from whom the town has its name, was born to Mercury and Daira, the daughter of Oceanus." But since he says that this is entirely uncertain, and affirms that many things concerning his origins were falsely reported by the Eleusinians, it is very plausible that what Clement says—that Eumolpus sired Immaradus from his wife Daira—was taken by him from other writers. You may see Meursius, Book II *On the Kings of the Athenians*, chapter 8, where he observes certain things concerning Immarus, as also in chapter 4 concerning the sepulcher of Erichthonius, of which our author also makes mention.
Moreover, Clement mentions that the daughters of Celeus were buried in Eleusis. If you ask who these were, the same Pausanias will answer that they were named Diogenea, Pammerope, and Saesara by Pamphos and Homer.
Hervetus does not dare to assert who the wives of the Hyperboreans were, namely Hyperoche and Laodice, whom Clement then testifies were buried in the Artemision and in the temple of the Delian Apollo. But he had undoubtedly not read Herodotus. For he would have received from him the opinion of the Delians that they were sent by the Hyperboreans to bring sacred offerings to Delos, and that they departed from this life there. For which reason the Delians venerated the sepulcher of these virgins: "First," he says, "the Hyperboreans sent two girls to carry these sacred offerings, whom the Delians call Hyperoche and Laodice, and with them, for the sake of protection, five of their own townspeople to escort them... However, the Hyperborean virgins having finished their lives in Delos, the boys and girls of Delos perform funeral rites with shorn hair, which the girls wind on a spindle and deposit upon the monument. The boys, attaching it to a certain herb, place it upon the tomb itself. And the monument is inside the Artemision on the left as one enters, and an olive tree has grown upon it. These virgins are honored with this tribute by the inhabitants of Delos." But who does not see that Clement and those most celebrated writers who later described his words and subscribed to his opinions were aiming at nothing else but this opinion of the Delians, whether true or false?
C Furthermore, it is to be noted in passing that Hyperoche and Laodice are called *tōn Hyperboreōn gunaikas* (wives of the Hyperboreans) by Clement, Eusebius, and others, but by Herodotus, *parthenous* (virgins) and *koras* (girls). Wherefore, the word *gunē* in Clement does not signify "wife," as Hervetus and other interpreters thought, but simply "woman" and "virgin." Therefore, Hervetus entirely wasted his oil and labor in seeking out their husbands.
Let us see, therefore, whether he employed both better in explaining the subsequent words of our Clement. But Clement says: "Leandrius says that Clearchus was buried in the Didymaeum at Miletus." What does Hervetus do here? He doubts whether he is that Clearchus of whom Pausanias makes mention when he speaks of the statue of Leontiscus. But Pausanias records nothing else there except that "it is said that Pythagoras of Rhegium learned the art of sculpture from Clearchus of Rhegium, the disciple of Euchirus." But what did these have to do with his being buried among the gods, as Clement narrates?
Suidas mentions another person marked by the name of Clearchus, who, having gained power among the Heracleots, was most cruel and, inflamed by insuperable pride, wished to be worshipped and honored with the honors of the heavenly gods, and wore clothing familiar to the gods and suitable to their images. However, since it is reported that he was killed by divine vengeance and by the hand of Chion to liberate the fatherland from the tyrant, who would believe that a man of such cruelty was decorated with divine burial?
D Certainly, that honor seems with far better right to be due to and conferred upon Clearchus, the commander of the Greeks, whom Artaxerxes had ordered to be beheaded along with the other commanders and exposed to be mangled by beasts and birds. For Ctesias, as Plutarch witnesses, recorded in public documents that a "whirlwind of wind had raised a mound of earth for the corpse of this Clearchus and cast it upon the body, and covered it; and in that place a palm grove sprang up in a short time and grew into an excellent grove, and overshadowed that place. Therefore, the king, led by great repentance because he had destroyed Clearchus, a man dear to the gods." This, indeed, Alexander ab Alexandro later transcribed more briefly in his books as a thing entirely stupendous and worthy of admiration. Since it cannot be certainly affirmed that this Clearchus was buried at Miletus, as Clement speaks of him, we do not dare to define it. For no other reason are these things brought forward by us, except that it may be plain to all how vain are the conjectures by which Hervetus is generally led and to which he indulges.
Nor, furthermore, does he seem to us to have read or noticed that for the name Clearchus, which is exhibited in the text of our Clement and in that of Cyril of Alexandria, who transcribed his words, the name Cleomachus is held in Eusebius, the transcriber of those same words of Clement.
Κλεόμαχον. A Among the writings of Theodoret also, the same is clearly set forth—though no author is cited—in this way: "And at Miletus, the tomb of Cleomachus (τὸν Κλεόμαχον) is said to be inside the temple of Didymus." Thus, the testimonies of the authors, or rather of the scribes, contend equally for both names, and possess parity and equal authority. Which side we ought to incline toward is certainly most difficult to state. Nevertheless, because Clearchus seems far more illustrious than Cleomachus, we lean more toward retaining his name in the text of our Clement. Yet let each man hold firmly to the opinion he has deemed the stronger.
Furthermore, as for Leandrius or Leander—whom Clement has cited as a witness not only here, but also elsewhere more than once—it is believed he is the same person as he whom Diogenes called the Milesian. Regarding him, Vossius argues at greater length; we believe we should refrain from describing these arguments, as they are accessible to everyone.
Come now, let us also examine what else Clement has handed down regarding other tombs or temples: B "Neither must the monument of Leucophryne, who is buried in the temple of Diana at Magnesia, be passed over here on the authority of Zeno of Myndus." Hervetus, however, warns that while Pausanias indeed makes mention of Diana Leucophryne, who was worshipped at Magnesia, yet regarding the Leucophryne who is said to be buried in the temple of that Diana, he had found absolutely no mention of any monument, neither in Pausanias, nor in Strabo, nor in any other writers whatever.
Nevertheless, besides the passage of Pausanias cited by Hervetus, he mentions the same Diana again elsewhere; yet in such a way that in both places he makes mention not of the temple of Diana, but only of her statue. But Strabo says of this temple: "In that [city]," he says, "which is today Smyrna, there is a shrine of Diana Leucophryne, which, while yielding to the Ephesian temple in size and the multitude of offerings, far surpasses it in elegance and the artistic structure of the shrine, and even in size exceeds everything Asian, with two exceptions: the Ephesian and that of Didymus." Then, indeed, he adds this place, where Smyrna was situated at that time, as having been occupied first by the Magnetes, and later by the Magnesians. Therefore, it can be doubtful to no one that the discourse concerning this temple is being held by Clement. Finally, besides Eusebius and Cyril of Alexandria, who transcribed the words of our same Clement, Theodoret said: "Zeno of Myndus reports that Leucophryne was buried at Magnesia in the shrine of Diana."
But if anyone should ask which Leucophryne was buried there, he will hear from Hervetus that it seems likely to him that she is the woman from whom Diana received the surname Leucophryne. But who would easily persuade himself that the tomb of a woman could have given its name to a temple of Diana that had been founded before? It will seem more plausible to some that the temple took its own name from the place already surnamed Leucophryne. In the Greek scholia of this *Exhortation to the Greeks*, written in the margin of the royal manuscript, we read: "Λευκοφρύνη is called Artemis at Magnesia." But by what authority this is said, we do not see. For Clement explicitly distinguishes her from that one.
Furthermore, even if no one can state with certainty who that Leucophryne was, there is certainly no reason for doubting the narration of Clement, which he confirms with the testimony of Zeno of Myndus. Truth be told, eight writers of this name are listed by Diogenes Laertius. Wherefore, scholars are debating which one of these our Clement truly cited. Menagius, however, thinks this is the seventh, who is said by Diogenes to have been a grammarian and to have written many epigrams. He therefore thinks these words of Arnobius: "Myndius profitetur, ac memorat Zeno," should be restored by transposing them into this order: "Zeno Myndius profitetur et memorat." However, in the first reading there is undoubtedly a hyperbasis, or hyperbaton, which occurs quite often in the writings of Arnobius. Wherefore nothing at all should be changed in the text, which is confirmed by the authority of all the codices.
Those things which the same Arnobius subsequently appended from our Clement are suspected, and with far better right, to be certain errors of the scribes. For in the older editions of his books, these things were read: "Sub Apollinis arula, quæ Telmessi apud oppidum visitur, Telmessum esse conditum vatem non Scriptis constantibus indicatur Agesarchi? Ptolemæus Philopator, quem edidit primo, Cyniram regem Paphi cum familia omni sua, imo cum omni prosapia in Veneris templo situm esse litterarum auctoritate declarat." C But those who were in charge of the latest edition of this book, having been warned of the depravation, emended that passage from the genuine text of our Clement, and of Eusebius and Cyril of Alexandria, as follows: "Sub Apollinis Arula..... indicatur? Ptolemæus Agesarchi de Philopatore, quem edidit primo Cyniram," etc. And rightly so. For these are the very words of Clement: «Οὐδὲ μὴν τὸν ἐν Τελμισσῷ βωμὸν τοῦ ᾿Απόλλωνος, ὃν μνῆμα εἶναι, καὶ αὐτὸν Τελμισσέως τοῦ μάντεως ἱστοροῦσι· Πτολεμαῖος δὲ τοῦ ᾿Αγησάρ- χου ἐν τῷ α' τῶν περὶ τὸν Φιλοπάτορα, ἐν Πάφῳ λέ- γει ἐν τῷ τῆς ᾿Αφροδίτης ἱερῷ Κινύραν, καὶ τοὺς Κινύρου ἀπογόνους κεκρύφθαι.» "Nor, moreover, that altar of Apollo at Telmissus, which they also relate to be the monument of the seer Telmissus; but Ptolemy, son of Agesarchus, in the first of his books concerning Philopator, says that Cinyras, and the descendants of Cinyras, were buried in Paphos, in the temple of Venus."
The meaning of these words of Clement can be obscure to no one. Regarding the seer of Telmissus, however, Hervetus confesses that he has never read anything anywhere; but that he had gleaned from Strabo and from the words of Arrian alone, as reported by Caelius Rhodiginus, that the prophecies of women and boys were most excellent there. What then? Can it be that he had discovered nothing concerning that in the cited testimonies of Arnobius, Eusebius, and Cyril of Alexandria? Can it be that he had never read these words of Theodoret: "They report that the altar of Apollo, which is at Telmissus, is the monument of a certain seer of Telmissus"? Can it be that he had not perused the books of Cicero *On Divination*, or that it had fallen entirely from his memory, what occurs in the first of them written concerning Telmissus and its citizens: "Telmissus is in Caria: in which city the discipline of the haruspices excels... All Caria, and especially Telmissus... were diligent in observing omens"? Wherefore Croesus, according to Herodotus, sent to the Telmissians, who were most skilled in this art, to be consulted. But what of the fact that Tatianus, and after him our own Clement, and Eusebius, as we have observed elsewhere, report that divination, which takes place through dreams, was invented by the Telmissians? Therefore, if Hervetus had read this attentively, he might perhaps have easily persuaded himself that D this seer of Telmissus, whose tomb is indicated by Clement and others, was one of those who so excelled the rest of his fellow countrymen in the science of divination that they received their name from him. Furthermore, concerning this seer in the following dissertation some...
points still remain to be noted.
Regarding Cinyras, he was the son of Thias, king of Cyprus, who is said to have reigned third after his father on the same island of Cyprus. But Clement claims that he was buried in Paphos, which was a city of Cyprus, in the temple of Venus. But that same Clement writes elsewhere that this Cinyras was a lover of Venus, and that he inserted her into the list of the gods, and brought her most obscene mysteries into the light. Who then will deny that some not altogether improbable conjecture might be drawn from this, that the temple of Venus where Cinyras is said to have been entombed was truly the shrine of the Venus with whom he had burned with wicked love? Finally, the sepulchers of some other gods will be discussed below, when the occasion arises.
ARTICLE IV.
On the temples of the gods, and especially those of Bacchus and Serapis, burned and destroyed by fire; whether Clement correctly argues from this against the pagans, and whether there were any temples for Christians at the beginning of the Church.In order for Clement to deter the pagans more effectively from the superstitious worship of their temples, he employs an argument drawn from their disastrous conflagration: "I know," he says, "that fire can convict and heal superstition. If you wish to cease from madness, fire will lead you to it." A Beautifully indeed, and not inelegantly. But how much strength and force there is in this argumentation, we shall soon see.
Furthermore, he enumerates there the temples which were destroyed by avenging and vindicating fire: "This fire," he says, "also burned down the temple which was at Argos, together with the priest Chrysis, and that which was at Ephesus, of Diana, the second after the Amazons, and at Rome it often laid waste the Capitol. But it did not refrain from the temple of Serapis in Alexandria; and the fire destroyed the temple of Bacchus at Athens. But even the Delphic Apollo was previously seized by a storm, and then a wise and tempering fire destroyed it." B
Hervetus remarks more things to this effect, especially from Pausanias. But he candidly confesses that he had never read anything about the temples of Dionysus, or Bacchus Eleutherius, and even Serapis, having been burned by fire before the times of Clement (55). He does, however, warn that ecclesiastical writers, such as Rufinus, Socrates, and Sozomen, have noted another conflagration of the temple of Serapis, which they relate to have happened long after the age of Clement, in the reign of Theodosius the Great.
Therefore, Hervetus had not read the books of Eusebius with sufficient attention, or at least he had forgotten that he had seen certain things in him which could cast light upon this passage of our Clement. For he wrote thus before the reign of Theodosius: "Where is that Delphic temple, celebrated among all Greeks and in every memory? Where is Pythius? Where is Clarius? Where is Dodoneus? For it is a constant rumor that the Delphic oracle had already been burned a third time by the Thracians... History reveals that the same thing happened to the Roman Capitol around the times of the Ptolemies; at which times they also report that the shrine of Vesta burned in the same place. C Besides, in the age of Julius Caesar, that great and Olympian image of Greece, which was seen at Olympia, they report was struck by divine lightning, and that the other temple of Jupiter Capitolinus perished by fire, the Pantheon by the fire of lightning, and the Serapium of Alexandria in no dissimilar conflagration."
Nor had Hervetus read the sixth book of Arnobius, where more things are delivered, and those closer to the mind of Clement. "When the devouring fire seized the Capitol so many times, and Jove himself, the Capitoline, with his wife, he had been snatched away... Where then was the thunderer at that time?... Where was Queen Juno, when the same flame destroyed her famous shrine and the priestess Chrysis in the Argive city? Where was the Egyptian Serapis, when he lay dissolved into ashes on a similar level with all his mysteries and with Isis? Where was Liber Eleutherius with the Athenians? Where was Diana with those at Ephesus? Where was Jupiter Dodoneus with those at Dodona? D Where finally was the divine Apollo when he was thus despoiled and burned by pirates and maritime robbers, such that from those infinite weights of gold which they had gathered for so many centuries, he did not have even one scruple, which, as Varro says in the Menippeans, he might show to his host guests?" These things Arnobius committed to writing not only about the temple of Serapis, burned before the reign of Theodosius, but also about the shrine of Liber or Dionysus Eleutherius.
Against these things, however, we learn from the same Arnobius that the temple which Clement mentions as having been burned at Argos along with the priestess Chrysis was that of Juno Argiva. Nevertheless, both disagree with others about the burned Chrysis. Indeed, Thucydides testifies that she escaped from this fire: "The temple of Juno," he says, "was burned in Argos that same summer, when Chrysis the priestess had placed a certain burning lamp near the fillets and was soon overtaken by sleep; so that she herself, unaware, ignited everything and they were consumed. And Chrysis herself immediately fled by night, fearing the Argives, to Phlius." But Pausanias relates that she did not flee to Phlius, but to Tegea: "And Chrysis indeed," he says, "having departed for Tegea, took refuge as a suppliant of Minerva." This he repeats also elsewhere, where he claims that this temple of Minerva was a sanctuary for those taking refuge there. See also Meursius, in his third book *De archont. Athen.*, chapter 6. Therefore, regarding the diligence of Hervetus, let others see how these things could have escaped him.
But you will say, what could Clement accomplish against the pagans from the destruction and ruin of these temples? Were not the temples and churches of the Christians liable to these same accidents? Did not some perish completely, devastated by fire, flames, and conflagration? Not only Clement, but many other defenders of the Christian religion have used the same argument. But the greatest strength and weight of it lay in the fact that the pagans believed their gods to dwell in the temples dedicated to their name as if in houses proper to themselves, and to be so circumscribed by them, that they were not present or lingering in other shrines of other gods and in other places. Therefore, Clement and other apologists of our religion rightly argued from that false opinion of the pagans that these temples were worshiped and honored by them in vain, since their gods, the lords and inhabitants of those and of no others, could not defend and protect them from fire and conflagration.
Therefore, this weapon against the gentiles could not be turned back against the Christians, who preached that God is by no means circumscribed by temples. Clement teaches this most openly elsewhere: "For shall we not rightly and truly circumscribe him in no place, who cannot be circumscribed? Nor do we conclude in manufactured temples him who contains all things." But what is it that in another book he wisely observes that Moses permitted only one temple to be built to God to signify the unity of Him and the world, and there he also adds that it had been strictly forbidden for temples to be built by God himself! But he had drawn this doctrine from the Apostle, who had these words in his speech to the Athenians: "God who made the world and all things, does not dwell in temples made with hands." And Stephen in
--- OTHER OBSERVATIONS ON THE EXHORTATION AND THE PEDAGOGUE.
the Jews: “Solomon built Him a house, but the Most High dwelleth not in things made with hands” (Acts VII, 47–48). Now, a new force was added to this argument of Clement from the fact that the pagans cast it as a reproach and accusation against the Christians that they had no temples. For, as Minucius Felix testifies, their objection and complaint were: “Why do they have no altars, no temples, no known images, never speak openly, never gather freely?” And Arnobius: “In this regard you are accustomed to level against us the greatest crime of impiety, because we do not construct sacred houses for the offices of worship, do not constitute any image or form of gods, do not fashion altars, nor altars.” Finally, to pass over Lactantius and others, did not Celsus make the Christians guilty of this crime? Hear, I pray you, Origen: “After this, Celsus says that we avoid the dedications of altars, statues, and temples, so that we may pledge the faith of a secret covenant by this token.” Nor does Origen seem to have denied this in his own response, though it is not a little prolix, but rather to concede it altogether. From this conviction of the pagans, it is therefore clear how valid a weapon was wielded by Clement against their temples, and the argumentation he drew from the destruction of those same temples.
What then? You might argue, did the Christians in the first centuries of the Church have no temples in which they gathered and performed divine offices? Did they not have from the very beginning of the infant Church certain places, houses, and buildings, and, as Paul speaks, churches into which all were gathered to perform sacred mysteries, and where they held their meetings and synaxes, as we have said elsewhere? “When you meet,” says Paul, “in the church, I hear that there are schisms... or do you despise the Church of God?” So also Tertullian teaches, asserts, and proclaims by name that the first Christians had their churches: “All day long,” he says, “the zeal of faith will plead for this part, groaning that a Christian comes from the idols into the church, from the workshop of the adversary into the house of God.” And in his book *On the Veiling of Virgins*: “Certainly let them hide their virginity in the church, which they conceal outside the church. Let them fear outsiders, let them be reverent toward brothers, or else let them boldly dare to be seen as virgins in the streets, just as A they [do] in the churches.” And other most ancient Church Fathers concur and support this unanimously and in great numbers. But, you will say, should not these churches have been called the true temples of the Christians? To this, however, we have seen above, from our Clement himself, that in his own time the Christians had their own churches, to which they were obliged not only to come with the greatest modesty, but to be present in them, to depart from them, and to return to their own [homes]. By what reasoning, then, could it be denied that the first followers of the Christian faith had their own temples?
The knot of this argument is solved without much difficulty by a twofold answer. For, in the first place, although the Christians had churches, they nevertheless denied that they were temples in the sense that the heathens were accustomed to use the term—namely, for the sumptuous and magnificent buildings where they thought their gods were completely enclosed and circumscribed, as was observed above. In the second place, the same Christians, in the times of the most bitter and raging emperors, had no fixed and established places to carry out their synaxes; but they were gathered in whatever place they could—in fields, in solitudes, in stables, in ships, in prisons, and at whatever time they were able. For Dionysius, a witness to this matter who is most wealthy and beyond all exception, wrote in this manner in his paschal letter: “Many bitter things happened to us before this calamity. For first they drove us out of the city. And whereas we were being chased and oppressed by everyone alone, we nonetheless celebrated the feast days even then. Finally, any place in which we endured various hardships—a field, I say, a solitude, a ship, a stable, a prison—was like a temple for performing sacred assemblies.” But indeed, if the Christians gave the name of church to these places, they certainly did not do so with right and merit, nor in the sense we have mentioned, nor did they think they were called temples in any clear manner—nay, they did not even think they were temples among the pagans. B Furthermore, let it disturb no one that some of the cited authors deny that not only temples, but even altars, existed among the first Christians. For in what sense their words should be understood has been explained by us elsewhere.
CAPUT VIII On the idols, statues, and images of the pagans.
ARTICLE I. On the origin of idols, statues, and images among the pagans, and that initially Scythians worshipped a sword, Arabs a stone, Persians a river, others wood, Romans a spear; and on the wooden image of Juno Cithaeron and the Samian image.
Clitarchus, in Laertius, testifies that the Magi, although they were devoted to the worship of gods, sacrifices, and prayers, nevertheless rejected signs and statues. But Xenophon challenges them, Zeno forbids them, and Plato condemns them—albeit more obscurely and not without timidity—according to Theodoret. But despite these things, idols, statues, and images of false gods were fabricated everywhere. Now, whether these were prior or posterior to the temples of the pagans is a question one may rightfully, and not altogether without merit, pose. For the testimonies of ancient writers that we cited above C regarding the origins of temples so mix and join images with temples that, in the judgment of those same authors, both seem to have been introduced into the world in almost the same way and at the same time. Our Clement himself might be thought not to have been far from their opinion when he wrote these things: “Therefore, rightly, the worship of demons, since it had taken its beginning from elsewhere, was the fount of foolish vice... erecting images and building temples.” After, therefore, the impious worship of demons had grown, then men began not only to build temples to these same gods and demons, but also to erect images to them.
Yet, very famous writers do teach in great number and by consensus that temples were constructed in honor of the gods long before any of their statues or images were ever made. For Lucian testifies that initially there were no D images in the temples of the Egyptians, which we brought forward, they mix and join images with temples in such a way that both seem, in the judgment of those same authors, to have been introduced into the world in almost the same way and at the same time. But our Clement himself, it is believed, was not far from their opinion, where he handed this down in his writings: “Therefore, rightly, the worship of demons, since it had taken its beginning from elsewhere, was the fount of foolish vice... erecting images and building temples.” After, therefore, the impious worship of demons had grown, then men began not only to build temples to these same gods and demons, but also to erect images to them.
Nevertheless, very famous writers do teach in great number and by consensus that temples were constructed in honor of the gods long before any of their statues or images were ever made. For Lucian testifies that there were initially no images in the temples.
A Before the art of forming and even painting such images of them had been discovered, not a few men, as our own Clement witnesses, used to adore and venerate their gods with certain symbols which were kept in no temple. For the Scythians, he says, used in ancient times to adore a scimitar, the Arabians a stone, the Persians verily a river; and other men, who were even more ancient, erected wooden insignia and set up pillars of stone; which were also called
choana
, because they were scraped and polished from their material. In Icarus, indeed, the statue of Diana was an unworked piece of wood; and the Cithaeronian Juno was a cut trunk at Thespiae, and the Samian Juno, as Aethlius says, was at first but a plank. At Rome, moreover, Varro says that the ancient statue of Mars was a spear, when artists had not yet arrived at this showy, but wicked, artifice B. But again, afterwards, to sacrifice with a naked sword as if to Mars—this, however, is a custom of the Scythians, just as Eudoxus says in his second book *Concerning the Circuit of the Earth*. Among the Scythians, the Sauromatae, as Icesius says in his work *On Mysteries*, adore a scimitar 38. Not only does Arnobius agree with Clement, but he has also rendered his meaning, and nearly his very words, thus: "You mock that in ancient times the Persians adored a river—as written memorials indicate—the Arabians an unformed stone, the nations of Scythia a scimitar, the Thespians a branch for Cinxia, the Icarians an unhewn piece of wood for Diana, the Pessinuntians a flint for the Mother of the Gods, the Romans a spear for Mars, as Varro’s Muses indicate; and as Aethlius records, before the use and discipline of images, the Samians a plank for Juno 39."C But if anyone should wish to weigh these things one by one, let him first hear Ammianus Marcellinus discoursing upon the sword of Mars: "The Alani are almost all handsome... nor is a temple or shrine visited among them, nor can even a hut thatched with straw be seen, but a sword is planted naked in the ground according to a barbarian rite, and they venerate it as the presiding spirit of the regions which they roam with greater reverence 40." He had stated a little earlier that the Alani inhabited the solitudes of Scythia. You see, therefore, how these nations, before any temple was built among them, adored Mars under the symbol of a blade and a sword.
Nor less clearly does Jornandes assert that the same sword was always held sacred by the kings of the Scythians. For where he explains by what manner that sword was discovered by some shepherd and brought to Attila—from Priscus the sophist, who was contemporary with Theodosius the Younger and a writer of Byzantine history—he has handed down in writing these words: "Yet the sword of Mars, which was found—held always sacred by the kings of the Scythians, and which the historian Priscus reports was discovered on such an occasion—added confidence to him 41," etc.
D After temples were constructed by the Scythians, they used to offer greater and more solemn sacrifices to the scimitar than to the other gods, as Herodotus testifies: "Beneath a pile of brushwood an iron scimitar is set up, which is ancient to each individual; and this is the likeness of Mars, to which they offer annual sacrifices of other cattle and also horses, and more to this scimitar than to the other gods 42." If you wish for more, go, if you have the time, to Pomponius Mela, book two, chapter one, to Solinus, chapter twenty, and others.
Regarding the stone which Clement then records the Arabians worshipped, Suidas has handed down these things more explicitly: "The god Mars is worshipped among them (the Arabians). His image, however, is a black square stone, having no shape carved..."
four feet in height and two in width; it rests upon a golden base." Furthermore, Maximus Tyrius and others agree with this.
From the same Herodotus, that which Clement subjoins is excellently established, namely, that the Persians paid divine honors to rivers. "Into a river," he says, "they neither urinate, nor expectorate, nor wash their hands, nor do they do anything similar; but they reverence rivers with the greatest religious devotion of all." "But they reverence rivers most of all."
But come now, let us pursue the rest, if you please. Hear, I entreat you, what Tertullian has left written about the wood which, according to our Clement, is called a symbol of Diana: "How much is the Attic Pallas and the Pharian Ceres distinguished from the stock of the cross, when they are hawked about either in the form of a crude stake or in shapeless wood?"
Then Clement mentions a double wooden image of the Cithæronian and Samian Juno. But they think the former is that which was called the Dædalean, the story of which is described in its entirety by Pausanias and by Plutarch in Eusebius.
Our Clement proves by the authority of Athlius that the later wooden image was that of the Samian Juno, but he does not indicate to us in what book he said this. Yet, if Clement is speaking of the book which bears the title *On the Boundaries of the Samians*, and which is also attributed to the same Athlius, Athenæus certainly calls into question whether it truly proceeded from him. Wherefore, Plutarch, in Eusebius, seems to confirm that more certainly, as it appears, by the testimony of Callimachus: "For the Samians also had a wooden effigy of Juno, as Callimachus writes." B That segment of Plutarch would doubtlessly have brought great light to this passage of our Clement, if the things which follow had not been completely deleted, either by the injury of time or by the carelessness and sloth of the copyists. From it, however, those things which are handed down by our Clement concerning symbolic woods can be established not inappropriately, just as those things which are handed down by him generally concerning stones can be established from Pausanias.
Moreover, Clement narrates that a spear was an ancient image of Mars among the Romans, and he cites Varro as a witness, just as Arnobius does. Indeed, this can be confirmed by these words of the historian Justin: "During those times, namely of King Numa, kings had spears instead of a diadem, which the Greeks called scepters. For from the beginning of things, the ancients worshipped spears in place of the immortal gods; for the memory of which matter, spears are still added to the images of the gods."
As for the columns, Clement himself explains this more fully elsewhere: "Before the habits of images were held accurately and perfectly, the ancients erected columns and worshipped them as statues; and therefore, the one who composed the *Phoronis* writes thus: C
*Callithoe bears the queen of Olympus's key,* *By whom the column of the Argive Juno was first adorned with a garland and a beautiful crown.*
Furthermore, he who wrote the *Europia* signifies that the one which is at Delphi is a column that is an image of Apollo, through these words:
*And the first twelve, we shall dedicate the fruits* *From the most sacred seats, and the column.*
Finally, Pausanias says: "Nearby, he says, are seven pillars, erected in the manner of the ancients, I think, which they say are the figures of the seven stars." Regarding this and other symbolic images of the gods of this kind, consult Vincentius Chartarius, edited in Latin by Antonius Verderius, and Gerard Johannes Vossius, *De idololatriae origine et progressu*, Book IX, chapter 5.
From what has been said, it is clear what credence is to be given to Cedrenus, who committed these things to writing, as he says, from Eusebius Pamphili concerning the origin of images: "From the stock of Japheth there existed a certain Seruch, an orator of Greek custom, and he instituted the worship of images, as Eusebius Pamphili left written. For this Seruch, and those who were with him, honored their ancestors who had performed some deed—perhaps a brave or memorable one—as warriors or emperors, with statues, and worshipped them with divine honors and sacrifices. And when their descendants ignored that this was the original intent—that they were merely honoring the memory of those who were the authors of their race and inventors of good things—they venerated them as celestial gods with honors and sacrifices." For we have made it plain that before images were set up to men or gods, a false worship of gods had been introduced, and divine honors had been transferred to certain symbols.
ARTICLE II.
*On images fashioned in the likeness of men: of the Olympian Jove, and the Patarean, of Apollo the purveyor and the gaping one, and of the Tirynthian Juno; of the Palladium made from the bones of Pelops and deposited with Demophoon; of the statue of Tirynthian Hercules, of Diana of Munichia, of Dionysus Morichus made by Simon, of the great demon Serapis, and of Venus Tanais.*Then Clement moves on to those times in which men, after long cycles of years, as he himself says, learned the art of images, of fashioning them in the likeness of men themselves. But by various examples—some of which we have already touched upon, unknown to Hervetus—he demonstrates that the errors of the pagans, like a torrent, have completely inundated all parts of the world.
He begins his induction from the Olympian Jove, concerning whom we have discoursed above. Wherefore, we shall here observe only certain things which he reported concerning that same Olympian Jove. He says, first, that that image was made from the "bones of an Indian beast." By that name he understands, beyond doubt, the elephant, from whose tooth—that is, ivory—Phidias, as Pliny bears witness, made the statue of Olympian Jove.
Since that Phidias was an Athenian, Clement says secondly that that image of Jove is a "deaf work of Attic hands." He adds, however, that it is an image of an image: "Your Olympic image is an image of an image, far differing from the truth, D a deaf work of Attic hands, an image of an image," he says, because it was an image of a man, who himself was an image of the divine Word. Finally, he calls it a "deaf work," since it was not at all alive or animated. These are so many heads of argument by which he mocks and attacks that Olympian image of Jove—which was considered by far the most outstanding of all—not without wit, nor without Attic salt.
Beyond doubt, concerning the same statue of Olympian Jove, Clement had said earlier: "Dionysius the younger tyrant, when he had taken away the golden garment from Jove in Sicily, ordered him to be clothed in wool, wittily saying that it was better than the golden one, as it would be lighter in summer and warmer in winter." But Cicero...
affirms that this happened not in Sicily, but in the Peloponnesus 63. There is, however, no small contention regarding this matter between Victorius 64 and Lescaloperius. For the latter stands by the side of his Cicero, the former by our Clement, and both attempt to defend their own opinion with various conjectures, and that one especially which is drawn from the fact that the fane of Jupiter Olympius was founded as much in the Peloponnesus as in Sicily. I would wish you to read and weigh the arguments of both, which are easily accessible in their books. But see, I pray, whether the conjecture drawn from the fact that Dionysius occupied the kingdom and tyranny of Sicily A does not seem to outweigh the others.
Nor should that which Clement subsequently narrates be passed over in silence 65, that Phidias wrote upon the finger of this statue: Παντάρκης καλός, that is, "Pantarces is beautiful." He gives the cause for this as follows: "For Jupiter was not beautiful to him, but he who was loved by him," 66 namely Pantarces, who, according to Pausanias, was in the loves of Phidias. And so it seems to be the sense of Clement that Phidias, by this clearly ambiguous inscription, did not allude to Jupiter, as everyone thought, but to his own beloved Pantarces. Observe, however, that this same inscription is attributed by Gregory Nazianzen to the image of Minerva in these two verses:
Καὶ Φειδία τὰ παιδικὰ ἐν τῷ δακτύλῳ Τῆς Παρθένου γραφέντα παντ' ἀρκεῖ καλῶς 67. Which by a Latin interpreter are thus rendered: Thus Phidias, crafty, on the finger ring Of the Maid, inscribed his boy-love's name.
There might, therefore, be some doubt concerning this passage; for since Pliny records in these words that the ivory Minerva was made by Phidias, just as was the statue of Jupiter: "Phidias, besides the Olympian Jupiter, whom no one rivals, also made a Minerva of ivory, which stands in the Parthenon 68." To us, however, it seems more probable that Phidias represented the image of his beloved boy on the statue of Jupiter, as being a man, rather than on the female image of Minerva. B Added to this is the fact that the Greek inscription itself seems to suit Jupiter better than Minerva.
Clement writes that another thing was done by the same Phidias at Patara in Lycia 69, namely an image of the same Jupiter, as well as an Apollo with tamed lions. But Hervetus candidly declares that he has found nothing of this anywhere. Truly, Natalis Comes found something about the Patarean Apollo, which was subsequently consigned to writing by him 70. Giraldus, indeed, skillfully observes that this Apollo was called the Lycian by some 71. For that can be clearly confirmed in this passage of our Clement, where his image is said to be placed at Patara in Lycia. Finally, Pausanias makes mention not only of Apollo, but also of the Lycian Jupiter and of the temples dedicated to each, not once 72. But if you encounter nothing among other writers concerning their statues at Patara, specifically fashioned by Phidias, I pray you do not wonder. For so many statues of the gods were made by the same Phidias that those very authors, while commemorating some, have passed over many others in silence. Hence those verses of Prudentius:
I marvel that Mentore himself has not sacred Temples and altars, nor does Phidias himself, The maker of gods, or the parents of the divine ones. 65 If they had insisted more slowly upon the furnaces, There would not be any cast Jupiter C
Clement speaks likewise of two other statues of Apollo: Πολέμων δὲ κεχηνότος ᾿Απόλλωνος οἶδεν ἄγαλμα, καὶ ὀψοφάγου πάλιν ᾿Απόλλωνος ἄλλο ἐν Ἤλιδι τιμώμενον. "Polemon knows one statue of the 'gaping' Apollo, and another again of the 'gourmand' Apollo, honored in Elis 73." Giraldus teaches that Polemon, in his letter to Atticus, makes mention of the 'gourmand' Apollo, and that by this name a glutton and a devourer of dainties is noted, gaping. It is placed in Elis. However, Suidas observes that the name κεχηναίων, 'the gaping ones,' was formerly imposed at Athens, because the Athenians used to trifle and think of lofty things 74. And so one might suspect that this image of Apollo received its surname from 'gaping' in that way. Nevertheless, because Clement joins it to the statue of the 'gourmand,' it seems more probable that he alluded to the former interpretation.
Afterwards, Clement has this to say concerning the image of the Tirynthian Juno: "Demetrius, however, in the second volume of the Argolica, writes that the material of the Tirynthian Juno's statue was pear-wood, and the artist was Argus 75." Hervetus, however, confesses that he has read absolutely nothing about this Tirynthian Juno, and that Demetrius would have to be raised from the dead if we are unwilling to place faith in Clement. But if Hervetus did not find the very things dictated by Clement, he could nevertheless have read in Eusebius things clearly similar to these, commended to writing by Plutarch: "Pyrus, D however, the prince, is said to have founded the temple of the Argive Juno, and that his daughter Callythia was the priestess, and that from Tirynthian trees he had fashioned from a wild pear-tree an elegant and polished image of Juno 76." For what is more consonant and convenient to the oration of Clement? Therefore, Demetrius need not be raised from the dead, so that we might bring forward as witnesses of at least a similar narration, other men. Again, the same Demetrius is cited by our Clement, and afterwards by Jerome 77: and he is said by both to have written books on the antiquities of the Jewish nation, just as Josephus did.
Moreover, Clement narrates certain things about the Palladium, or the most celebrated image of Pallas, which created no small difficulty for Hervetus: "Many," says Clement, "perhaps will wonder if they learn that the Palladium, which is called Diopetes, as if it had fallen from heaven—which Diomedes and Ulysses are reported to have stolen from Troy, and deposited with Demophoontem—was made from the bones of Pelops... But I can offer Dionysius as the author of this matter in the fifth part of his Cycle 78." But Hervetus declares without any hesitation that he has never read elsewhere that the Palladium was constructed from the bones of Pelops 79.
What, therefore, do those words of Arnobius mean? "Who reported that the Palladium was compacted from the remains of Pelops? Not we 80." Rightly, indeed, someone will argue; but Arnobius drew that from Clement, and he cannot be called a witness entirely different from him. But by what means, I pray, will he prove it? Certainly, Arnobius, without having brought forward the authority of any writer at all, reports and objects to that to the pagans as most certain and conceded by them. Be it so, however, and let us concede that the matter is thus. But we shall immediately cite another witness, Julius.
Firmicus, who recorded the following regarding this same Palladium: A "Hear also what the name of the Palladium is. It is a statue made from the bones of Pelops, which an avaricious Scythian is said to have made. Now, consider what sort of thing it is, that a barbarian Scythian has consecrated. Is there anything constructed by human reason among the Scythians, and could that wild race of men, always active in cruel and inhuman atrocity, have found anything right in the establishment of their religions? An avaricious man sold this statue to the Trojans, promising vain things to foolish men. A god was sold, so that it might profit the buyer, and the buyer simply worshipped whatever he had seen auctioned just a little while before. But is the substance of the statue itself from the bones of Pelops? If human force compels wretched men to venerate bones, at least gather the relics of a purer and chaster man. Add to the idol what you do, a merit from the virtues of a man. Pelops was in the delights of his lover, and for a long time bore the losses of his prostituted modesty. But crime was not lacking even to him as an adult. For he killed with the fraud of a traitor the man whose family he was seeking. He also attacked the traitor himself with perjuries, and lest he should pay the promised rewards, he threw this same man down over steep precipices. Behold whose bones have been selected to be made a god, one who would keep cities and kingdoms." We have transcribed this entire passage of Firmicus, although it is rather long, so that you may clearly understand that these things were not taken from our Clement, and that Hervet could have read elsewhere than in the works of this same Clement that the Palladium was constructed from the bones of Pelops.
However, Hervet thinks that this conflicts with Pausanias, because Diomedes and Ulysses are said by Clement to have deposited the Palladium with Demophoon. But the words of Pausanias, to which Hervet does not refer, must be heard first, so that everyone may understand wherein this disagreement, which is hardly explained by him, lies. He says as follows: "In that forum which they call the Palladium, cases of murder are tried; and in it, no one doubts that Demophoon first pleaded a case. But as to what crime he was guilty of, there is not enough agreement among all. Indeed, they report that Diomedes, when Troy was taken, while returning to his fatherland, arrived at Phalerum by night through a mistake of the way. When the Argives who were with him ran out into the field to plunder as if it were a hostile land, as they believed it to be other than Attic territory in the darkness, they say that Demophoon himself, not knowing that it was an Argive fleet, ran out to repel the incursions. And when some had been killed and the Palladium had been seized, as he was going home, an Athenian man was overturned and crushed by his horse, as he was not seeing well, and died. Therefore, some record that Demophoon was tried by the relatives of him who had been killed, but others by the republic of the Argives." In this, therefore, Clement disagrees with Pausanias, in that the latter says the Palladium was taken from Demophoon by force, but Clement says it was deposited with Demophoon. But what is deposited is not taken away by force. But what of that? Must Clement be accused of falsehood on that account? Not at all. For a witness is cited by him, Dionysius, who elsewhere, he says, is known as an Argive by birth and to have written this history, or rather tale, of the Palladium taken from Troy by design. But who would deny that no less faith is to be placed in him than in Pausanias, who touched upon this only incidentally?
What indeed of the fact that Polyænus has championed Dionysius and our Clement with these words: "Demophoon, when he had received the Palladium, was guarding it as a deposit from Diomedes." We indeed know that certain others have gone over to the opinion of Pausanias. But Clement certainly also had many supporters, and their defenders and patrons. You should read Meursius, *De regib. Athen.*, chapter 6.
He also testifies that the statue of Hercules, which is in Tiryns, and that of Diana in Munichia in Sicyon B were made by the two statuaries Scyllis and Dipœnus. But Hervet signifies not without hesitation that this occurs nowhere else. It is truly wonderful how he did not look through the books of Pliny, or how these words of that most learned writer did not come back to his memory: "First of all, Dipœnus and Scyllis became famous for sculpting in marble; they were born on the island of Crete, while the Medes were still ruling, before Cyrus began to reign in Persia, that is, about the 50th Olympiad. They betook themselves to Sicyon… Immediately, famine and sterility and dire mourning invaded Sicyon. To those seeking a remedy, the Pythian Apollo responded that it would be forthcoming if Dipœnus and Scyllis should complete statues of the gods, which was obtained with great rewards and honors. These statues were of Apollo, Diana, Hercules, and Minerva, which was later struck from heaven." What could be more liquid and clear for the explanation and confirmation of the Clementine text? Therefore, in our codices, written by Greek hand, the word Σκύθης is to be corrected, and it should be read not only with Pliny, but also with Pausanias, Σκύλλης, "Scyllis." Furthermore, regarding the feast day and temple of Diana Munichia, see Fasold, *De festis Græc.*, decad. 2, fest. 3; Meursius, book 5, *Græciæ feriatæ*, and *Piræi* 1, cc. 7 and 9.
But in the latest edition of the Clementine books, one reads a little before that the statue of Morychus Dionysius is the work of Simon, Σίμωνος, by the name Eupalamus. But in our manuscripts, it is consistently written Σίκωνος. What the true and genuine reading of Clement is, is not so easy to say. For those who inserted the former reading into the text try to prove it from the fact that Pausanias recorded in letters: "The Olympic offerings of Phormis are two horses, and the same number of charioteers... The Argive Dionysius made one; Eginetan Simon made the other." Yet what prevents there being another statuary named Sicon, nicknamed Eupalamus, besides this Simon, of whom, as Clement says, Polemon made mention? Besides Pausanias, Pliny mentions Simon the statuary, whom Hardouin also observes was mentioned by Xenophon, more than once. But since he calls him Simon simply, who would dare to define for certain whether he was an Eginetan or Eupalamus?
Those things which Clement discusses more fully regarding the image of Serapis, or, as others write, Sarapis, certainly have less difficulty. For there has been very frequent mention of that among various writers. However, the reason for which Clement has said in the same place "the Egyptian Serapis" should not be passed over without consideration. For there is a contention debated between two of the most celebrated writers of this age, Scaliger and Vossius, whether Serapis is said to be the ancestral or the foreign god of the Egyptians by that name. C For Scaliger, leaning on the authority of Tacitus, contends that this name in its origin was not Egyptian but Sinopian. On the contrary, Vossius, who strives to confirm his view with these following words of our Clement: "For others write that he was a gift sent by the Sinopians to Ptolemy Philadelphus, who obligated them, laboring under famine, by sending grain from Egypt; and that it was a statue of Pluto, which he placed on a promontory, which they now call Racotis, where the temple of Serapis is also accustomed to be worshipped." But if a shrine of Serapis, says Vossius, had been dedicated at Alexandria D before his statue was carried off from Sinope to Alexandria, the Alexandrians would surely have...
A been under no obligation to refer the credit for his acceptance to the inhabitants of Sinope. The force and weight of this argument would indeed be greater if Clement had transmitted this opinion as that of everyone, rather than as that of some. But what must be decided regarding this question, which is certainly of no great moment, nor does it much concern our Clement, we leave to the judgment of others.
Furthermore, if you wish to know why Clement called Serapis a great demon, [μεγαλοδαίμονα], Eusebius will teach you this from Porphyry, who explains that Serapis is no different from Hecate, the prince of evil demons, in these words: "We do not rashly suspect," says Porphyry, "that wicked demons are subject to Serapis; for we are led to this opinion not only by his symbols and insignia, but also because whatever has the power to attract or avert them is all referred to Pluto. And yet," he continues, "that same god is Pluto, and therefore he especially commands demons and assigns certain symbols by which they can be averted and repelled B."
As to when or in what places the statue of Venus Tanaidis was first placed, Clement shows elsewhere, following Berosus, as follows: "Artaxerxes, son of Darius and grandson of Ochus, when he first erected the statue of Venus Tanaidis, showed that it was to be worshipped at Babylon, Susa, Ecbatana, Persia, Bactra, Damascus, and Sardis." But Hervetus denies having found anything at all about this statue anywhere. He might perhaps have lost less time and effort if he had suspected something regarding the corrupt name "Tanaidis." For we are moved by a suspicion that is not entirely uncertain that "Anaitidis" should be read there instead of "Tanaidis." Strabo suggests this emendation to us where he discusses the customs of the Persians: "They worship," he says, "the Moon, Venus, fire... These things happen in the shrines of Anaitis and Omanus." Previously, in the eleventh book of his *Geography*: "The prefects of the Persians... filling in a certain stone mound in a field so that it resembled the shape of a round hill, they surrounded it with a wall; and there they placed the temple of the goddess Anaitis, and at the same altar, of the gods Amani and Anandrati, who are Persian genii." He testifies elsewhere that this same goddess was also held in special honor by the Medes, Armenians, and Zelitai. We also read this about her in Pliny: "The first golden statue of all; without any interior void, and before it was worked in that way from bronze, which they call *helosphyraton*, it is said to have been placed in the temple of Anaitis (we have indicated the location of this country), under a name most sacred to those peoples."
But, you will say, a certain city named Tanais was founded by the Greeks dwelling on the Bosphorus near the river and the Lake Maeotis, according to the same authorities Strabo, Pliny, and also Ptolemy. What, then, do you argue, prevents some effigy of Venus from having been erected there, to which the name Tanais was given by that city? Indeed, we see no contradiction in this matter. But it is incumbent upon you to prove that a likeness of Venus was truly placed there, just as we have proven the statue of Anaitis [was placed]. Finally, there is the fact that Agathias Scholasticus shows, from the same Berosus as Clement, and furthermore from Athenocles and Symmachus, that Venus was called by the Persians by the name Anaitis. By which testimony our conjecture regarding the adulterated word "Tanais" in Clement is C indeed not a little strengthened and confirmed.
ARTICLE III. Concerning other statues which the pagans worshipped, or treated with contempt, of the Furies, of Evil Fortune, of Jove, and the Cnidian Venus.
Where and by whom the figures of the three Furies were fashioned, Clement reports in this manner: "Scopas fashioned two of the 'Severe' goddesses, as they are called at Athens, out of the stone called *lychnites*; but the middle one, which they describe, they say Polemon shows in the fourth book of those things which he wrote to Timaeus." Hervetus notes here that Pausanias and Pliny did indeed make mention of Scopas and Calon. "But," he says, "neither of them says that they made images of the Furies." What, then, does Hervetus mean by these words? Is this account by Clement regarding the statues of the Furies suspect to him because Pausanias and Pliny were silent about them? But he mentions in vain the statues which Scopas made, some indeed erroneously. For Pliny, although he mentions many, nevertheless declares by these words that others were unknown D to him: "But now, besides those mentioned above, which we do not know, there is also the Mars, etc." Pausanias, however, indicates very many statues by the same craftsman without mentioning their names and only in a general way, which he says "Scopas the Parian made, both in many places in old Greece, and especially in Ionia and Caria." What wonder, then, if Clement, relying on the authority of Polemon, asserts that these statues of the Furies were fashioned by Scopas, which Pliny says were unknown to him, or which Pausanias only appellated in a general way? Finally, because Scopas had fashioned the statues of so many men and gods, just as Parrhasius had painted images, Horace sang this about them:
Which either Parrhasius brought forth or Scopas, One with stone, the other with liquid colors, Skilled to set forth now a man, now a god.
Furthermore, as our Clement said: "[τῶν Σεμνῶν Ἀθήνησιν καλουμένων], of the 'Severe' or venerable ones, which are called goddesses at Athens," that can be confirmed by the authority of Pausanias, who testified that they were named *Semnae* by the Athenians, *Erinyes* by Hesiod, and *Eumenides* by the Sicyonians. He adds that a temple was built for them near the Areopagus, in which, without doubt, those statues were placed to which our Clement makes mention.
But he ridicules the Romans not unwittily, who consecrated a statue of Fortune in a dunghill: "The Romans, however," he says, "attribute the greatest and most glorious deeds to Fortune, and consider her a goddess, yet they dedicated her in a dunghill, allotting a place worthy of a goddess [as a privy]." Regarding this passage, Hervetus writes that, having searched through everything diligently, he found nothing about that most sordid dedication. But he might perhaps have spent his oil and labor better if he had reflected with a more attentive mind on whose statue of Fortune Clement is arguing about. For there is no doubt, we think, but that he is speaking of the Fortune which had been made from "good" into "bad," namely that one of which Tully spoke: "We see the altar of Evil Fortune consecrated on the Esquiline." But no one is unaware that there is no ignominy, no reproach, no insult with which the Romans and other pagan men have not afflicted "Evil Fortune." Who, then, would wonder if the same Romans at some time dedicated her in a dunghill?
As for how much contumely other images also sometimes suffered among the pagans themselves, some...
A of Clemens’ examples make manifest. And first indeed: "Dionysius," he says, "the tyrant younger [νεώτερος], when he had taken away the golden garment from Jupiter in Sicily, ordered him to be clad in wool." It is unknown to no one that such was the deed of Dionysius. But Hervetus suspects the word "younger" to be corrupt, seeing that other writers attribute this to the elder Dionysius. Nevertheless, Arnobius supports our Clemens, in whom we read likewise: "That Dionysius, but the younger, when he was despoiling Jupiter of his golden veil," etc. But that this word was badly intruded into the text of both by unskilled scribes is hard to believe. Whether this statue was placed in Sicily, as Clemens says, or in the Peloponnese, as Cicero handed down, and what certain moderns have said about it, we have already observed above.
Clemens our author subjoins in the same place: "Antiochus Cyzicenus, when he was in need of money, ordered the golden statue of Jupiter, which was of fifteen cubits in size, to be melted down, and a statue similar to it made of other, cheaper material, gilded with plates, to be set up in its place." But Hervetus openly declares that this Antiochus Cyzicenus is entirely unknown to him, and that he has found no one who makes mention of him. We indeed wonder at you, Hervetus, who, though you do not read what is obvious to all, or having read it, do not remember these words of Arnobius: "They say that Antiochus Cyzicenus took away the golden Jupiter of fifteen cubits from the shrine, and replaced it with one of bronze, disguised with thin plates." But our wonder is increased all the more because you say you have found no one thus far who treats of the discourse of this Antiochus. Have you then never read the historian Justin? From him you could certainly have learned who he was, and how he was overcome by Gryphus. But because that Cyzicenus is surnamed by Justin, perhaps you did not think he was the Antiochus Cyzicenus. But the C Chronicle of Eusebius could have removed this false suspicion and cleared it from you, where it is written of the same man: "Antiochus Cyzicenus, having ejected Gryphus, obtained Syria; and again Gryphus, having overcome Cyzicenus, received it back. Thus they reigned in succession, fighting against one another." And again a little later: "Syria and Asia [held by] Antiochus Cyzicenus." If these are not yet enough for you, go to the books of the Antiquities of the Jews by Josephus, where you will find this entire history of Antiochus Cyzicenus.
By the example of the Cnidian Venus, he demonstrates afterwards that Clemens considers nothing to be more worthy of contempt and the utmost disdain than those images of the gods: "Praxiteles," he says, "as Posidippus declares in his book on Cnidus, in fashioning the image of the Cnidian Venus, expressed in it the form of Cratina whom he loved; so that the wretched had a source from which to adore the mistress of Praxiteles." Hervetus rightly observes in this place that the same is reported by Athenaeus and Pliny, and by our Clemens, but that both are in conflict with him, since they testify that it was not the image of Cratina, but of Phryne, that was expressed in this statue. But it should not have been enough for Hervetus to point out the knot of the difficulty, without seeking its solution. From Athenaeus himself, who proves in the same place that there were many names for Phryne, he could perhaps have accepted it. For from this, one may not absurdly conclude that she also sometimes had the name of Cratina. And indeed Athenaeus and our Clemens refer to the same D maiden. It is evident from this that both cited the same Posidippus as witness.
Neither should you say that there are things in opposition to this solution that Clemens consecutively added regarding the same Phryne: "When however Phryne, the Thespian harlot, was in her prime, all painters referred the images of Venus to the beauty of Phryne by imitation, just as the stonemasons among the Athenians represented the Mercuries in the likeness of Alcibiades." Since Athenaeus indeed teaches that there were two Phrynes, the former of whom was called Saperdion by Apollodorus, and the latter Clausigelota; and from Herodicus [he teaches] that one was called *onon* [sic: *onon*], and the other Thespian, *Thespian*, and so rich, he says, that she promised she would reconstruct the walls of Thebes if it were inscribed that Alexander the Great had razed them, but Phryne the harlot had rebuilt them. What then prevents Clemens from having mentioned both Phrynes, and having called the former Cratina? Alcibiades, moreover, whom Clemens joins with Phryne, was a general of the Athenians. The mention of him is frequent among various writers, but especially among the historian Justin, Cornelius Nepos, and Plutarch, who committed his entire history to writing.
ARTICLE IV.
On certain obscene images and gestures of Philenis, on the impotent Pygmalion in love, on the statue of a certain mare, and the cow of Daedalus, and on the apes deceived by a likeness neither waxen nor earthen.That idols and images of the gods should be a horror to all, our Clemens proves thoroughly by their obscene and most filthy figures. For he makes it plain with what impudence they adorned bedrooms and bridal chambers with painted tablets, in which a naked Venus, and the debaucheries and adulteries of other gods, and Panics—that is, the woodland gods, or certain small and minute Pans—were represented. But what of the fact that, of completely astonishing obscenity, phalluses and other images of the maddest lewdness and wantonness, both he and most others of his age did not hesitate to object and reproach the pagans? But these things—the commemoration of which was necessary at that time to divert the minds of those same pagans from their impious superstitions—are now to be condemned to perpetual silence, nor is the memory of them, which is perhaps too well known to any Christians whatsoever, to be stirred up in our own writings. Wherefore we shall only briefly advise that some light can be brought to this passage of our Clemens from Suetonius and his scholiast Casaubon, just as one can discern from Athenaeus and Martial what Clemens intended when he says that "the figures and gestures of Philenis were depicted by the pagans just as the labors of Hercules."
Furthermore, neither our same Clemens nor Arnobius feared to set before the eyes of all with what wicked and impotent love some had attempted to satisfy their unbelievable lust upon these statues. Clemens and certain others mention the wicked and insane Pygmalion, king of Cyprus, whose blind and untamed heat of lust Naso sang of more broadly. Pliny, however, and Maximus have made mention of that youth whose name Clemens and others confess to be unknown to all.
se blind and untamed heat of lust Naso sang of more broadly. Pliny, however, and Maximus have made mention of that youth whose name Clemens and others confess to be unknown to all. A
He says, "Quietly the horse stood, the dove was not at all disturbed, and the feather stood motionless." The cow of Daedalus, which had been fashioned out of wood, took the wild bull, and nature, which had deceived the beast, compelled it, being in love, to mount the female. In the same way, Valerius Maximus says: "How much more excusable is the error of the horse, which, upon seeing a painting of a mare, was forced to neigh, and the barking of dogs excited by the sight of a painted dog; and the bull, driven by the goad of excessive likeness, was compelled at Syracuse to love and copulate with the bronze cow." The commentator on Valerius observes that the image of that mare was the work of the very famous Praxiteles. But since our Clemens also made mention of the cow of Daedalus, let us add, if you like, that which Gregory Nazianzen sang in a wonderful depiction against women who adorn themselves too ambitiously:
I believe, indeed, that the artist of old deceived the young bull, Who had fashioned a splendid cow from beams. I am persuaded that once a wise man B Fashioned with colors a wooden heifer for the bull.
Furthermore, we read that it has been observed that the image of that cow of Daedalus was fashioned by Myron, concerning which many have been cited by Hardouin, and even Ovid:
And like to the real one is the cow, the work of Myron.
The fable of the cow of Daedalus is known to all, which is described by Diodorus Siculus in Book IV of his *Bibliotheca*, page 277, and by Natalis Comes in Book VII, chapter 16 of his *Mythology*, and by others.
Clemens adds that monkeys are not deceived by this art: "Now those," he says, "who keep and train monkeys wonder that neither waxen nor clay likenesses, even though ornaments are added, deceive them." Hervet admits that he has found nothing on this matter anywhere. But this is easily forgiven him. For from the passage of Pliny cited by him, which he had read in a state corrupted by scribes, he judged—not altogether unjustly—that nothing pertinent to his subject could be elicited. Nevertheless, that passage of Pliny, as restored by Hardouin, can confirm the opinion of our Clemens. For there Pliny says: "Monkeys, they say, through wonderful cleverness, are smeared with birdlime and ensnared by loops in imitation of hunters; and it is reported that they played at 'robbers' (in French, *aux échecs*), the usage distinguishing the painted images from wax." However, in the old editions, these words, which could be understood neither by Hervet nor by anyone else, were read thus: "To distinguish nuts from painted wax by sight." But since Clemens is discussing waxen likenesses just as Pliny is, perhaps he will not seem to stray far from the truth who says that he, too, was playing at this game of "robbers," concerning which Souterius and Senfleben dispute at length. Be that as it may, if monkeys could not be deceived by images of "robbers" painted in wax, which were sometimes represented in human form, why could/they not be deceived by other feigned and false likenesses? From these things, Clemens concludes quite correctly and aptly against the pagans: "But you will be worse even than monkeys, while you apply your mind to stone, wooden, golden, and ivory idols and paintings." C
ARTICLE V
*Whether the Christians, in the first times of the Church, had certain images, statues, and idols, or whether that was forbidden to them by divine law, and whether the pagans worshipped the statues and images themselves.*But how alien all Christians were from the impious worship of images and idols, Clemens declares in these clear and unambiguous words: Ἡμῖν δὲ οὐχ ὕλης αἰσθητῆς αἰσθητόν· νοητὸν δὲ τὸ ἄγαλμά ἐστιν (manuscript codices add: νοητὸν οὐκ ὕλης αἰσθητόν ἐστιν τὸ ἄγαλμα), ὁ θεὸς ὁ μόνος ὄντως Θεός. "Among us there is no sensible idol made of matter; but He who is perceived only by the intelligence is God, who alone is truly God." There the Latin translator and other editors of this work have not unjustly rejected the addition from the manuscripts which we have noted, as spurious and adulterated. D
And surely, with that removed, the meaning of Clemens appears absolutely clear: that there were clearly no idols among the Christians and no images in their temples, which the same Christians visited as a vice and a crime. Wherefore Arnobius writes that the pagans cast against the Christians the reproach that they had no idol of any god or deity: "For in this part," he says, "you are accustomed to charge us with the greatest crime of impiety, because we do not construct sacred buildings for the duties of veneration, nor do we establish or form an idol of any of the gods." Whence also Caecilius, in Minucius Felix, objected to Octavius and all other Christians: "Why do they have no altars, no temples, no known idols?" To which Octavius immediately responds in the name of the Christians: "But you think that we conceal what we worship, if we do not have shrines and altars. For what idol should I fashion for God, when, if you consider it rightly, man himself is an idol of God?" Celsus also fought against the Christians with these same weapons, and Origen repelled his dart in no very different manner.
Perhaps some will answer that the pagans are refuted by these writers, who, because they worshipped the idols of their gods, openly exposed to all, with impious cult, charged Christians with this crime, because they had no "known idols" of the gods, as Arnobius says, or at least of their God, as Minucius Felix speaks—that is, idols set up in public. This, to be sure, even though the cited authors might have readily granted it to the pagans, they did not, however, deny that Christians retained among themselves and in secret some images of Christ the Lord, or of certain others, for instance, of his most holy mother.
A and it rests within the power of the Church, as she shall have judged more equitably, either to receive and admit them, or to remove and banish them.
But we think we already hear someone objecting that our Clement declares most clearly that the use of images and statues was not only discontinued in the earliest times of the Church, but is also forbidden by divine law, so that no likeness, or representation, or image should ever be made by Christians. For he says: "It is openly forbidden to us to practice a deceptive art. For thou shall not make, says the prophet, the likeness of anything, of those things which are in heaven, and whatever things are in the earth beneath." Wherefore, he elsewhere confirms the precept of Pythagoras regarding not engraving the image of gods on rings with the same law of Moses: "Again, Pythagoras commands that rings should not be worn, nor images of gods engraved upon them; just as Moses, many centuries before, openly established the law that no one should make a carved, or cast, or modeled, B or painted image, or likeness; so that we might not attend to physical things, but pass over to those things which are perceived by the intellect," etc. What then, he will argue, do these words of Clement mean, if not that, by the law of Moses, it was completely forbidden that any image or likeness, either of God himself or of any other thing, should ever be made?
And a new strength is added to this objection from the fact that Clement indicates in the same place that the Hebrews were so observant of this divine law that they placed no image in their temple. For which reason, he says, the wisest of the Egyptian priests also constructed the temple of Minerva under the open sky, just as did the Hebrews, who set up a temple without an image. There are, however, some who, while worshipping God, adore the "facta coli" (the works of heaven), or the effigy which contains the stars; while our Scripture certainly says: "Let us make man according to our image and likeness." There, Hervetus thinks that for *ouranou* should be read *anthropon*. C But what prevents the name *ouranou* from designating Uranus, or, as the Latins used to speak, *Caelum* (Heaven), which was accustomed to be painted in human effigy containing the stars? But nothing follows therefrom against the adversary of images, who will contend that our Clement, not only there, but in many other places as well, most clearly declares that all images entirely were proscribed and forbidden by divine law.
D 64 Nor will he allow himself to be opposed by the fact that the figures of the cherubim were in the Jerusalem temple, veiling the ark of the Old Testament. For he will contend that Clement did not believe them to be images, but only certain symbols, by which the rest of the glorifying spirits, just as their wings—concerning which one should read Kircher—and the ministries and the sublime operations of the powers on both the right and the left were signified.
Moreover, he will still try to prove by these very words that this was also the mind and opinion of Tertullian concerning the prohibition of any images whatsoever: "God forbids an idol to be made just as he forbids it to be worshipped. How much earlier it is that it should not be made, if it is not allowed to be worshipped! For this reason, obviously to eradicate the material of idolatry, the divine law proclaims: 'Thou shalt not make an idol.' And joining it: 'Nor the likeness of those things which are in heaven, and which are in the earth, and which are in the sea.' In the whole world, he forbade to the servants of God arts of this kind." What, however, it is that he is disputing about as an idol, he defines thus: "Nor does it matter whether a potter models, or a carver engraves, or an embroiderer weaves; because it does not matter regarding the material whether an idol is formed from gypsum, or colors, or stone, or bronze, or silver, or thread."
But the whole of the dispute of Clement and Tertullian rests upon this single precept of the Decalogue: "Thou shalt not have strange gods before me. Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven thing, nor the likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or in the earth beneath, nor of those things that are in the waters under the earth." All the difficulty, therefore, revolves around the explanation of this mandate. But although Philo the Jew, Josephus, and other, older Jews teach that by this law all images and likenesses whatsoever, and all statues and any manufactured simulacra at all, are forbidden, yet more recent Jews and our own more learned theologians believe that not every use of images in its entirety, as we have said elsewhere regarding Justin Martyr, is forbidden by this very law, but only those by which some deity or a certain divinity is represented. [alt-version omitted] This opinion they prove with reasons that are neither weak nor insignificant.
For initially, since only those things which relate to the worship of God are comprehended by this precept of the Decalogue, nothing else is forbidden by it than that any image of a created thing, any idol, or simulacrum for the true God, and against Him, and as if through it a divinity were expressed, should be held, worshipped, and adored by anyone. Then, indeed, since God himself commanded both the figure of the bronze serpent to be displayed and the cherubim to be carved, it is surely gathered from this that this law does not forbid all images and simulacra of created things whatsoever, or even symbols, or symbolic likenesses to be expressed.
And that this was indeed the opinion of Clement and Tertullian is easily proven by the fact that where Clement writes that it is forbidden for Christians to practice the deceptive art of expressing simulacra, he is refuting pagans who held and worshipped statues and figures as true gods, or at least thought that true gods were represented by them. Just as, therefore, that was indeed most deservedly proscribed, so he asserts that nothing else was there forbidden to all Christians. Wherefore he immediately adds, if it were not forbidden: "In truth, we would consider the Ceres of Praxiteles, and Proserpina, and the mystic Iacchus to be gods, or the arts of Lysippus, or the hands of Apelles, which have provided the matter with the image of divine estimation." Nor, as we have observed, did he say elsewhere in a different sense that Pythagoras learned from Moses that no image of the gods was to be engraved on rings. For there, indeed, when he disputes concerning only the images of the gods mentioned by Pythagoras, he rightly argues that they were forbidden by the law of Moses. But what was to be decided concerning other images, since that did not serve his purpose, he pronounces nothing except concerning the image of the true and supreme God. For he defined that no corporeal image of Him is to be fashioned, lest the divine majesty be held in contempt, in the words which he adds there: "For the majesty of God, he says, is rendered vile and despised, were it to be effected by the custom of seeing; and to worship the essence perceived by the intellect through matter is to despise it through the senses. Wherefore the wisest of the Egyptian priests also constructed the temple of Minerva under the open sky, as did the Hebrews, who set up a temple without an image." But Clement there, as you see, and in most other places, if they are weighed attentively, is discoursing, as cited above, concerning the nature of the supreme and spiritual God, and not at all concerning images of corporeal things, for instance, of Christ, and of others.
A As regards Tertullian, there is no doubt that his opinion was to this effect, if indeed one maintains that he was always consistent with himself. For in his work against Marcion, he shows that the likeness of the bronze serpent and the cherubim detracted nothing from the Mosaic Law: "The prohibition," he says, "to make any likeness of things in heaven, on earth, and in the waters, sets forth the reasons, namely, those which constitute the essence of idolatry." He adds: "You shall not bow down to them, nor serve them." And the image of the bronze serpent later commanded by the Lord to Moses did not pertain to the heading of idolatry, but to the healing of those who were being infested by serpents—and I pass over the figurative nature of the remedy. Thus, the golden cherubim and seraphim in the form of the Ark were a precedent, surely a simple ornament, adapted to the sacred vessel, having causes far different from the condition of idolatry, for which the likeness is prohibited; they do not seem to run counter to the law of forbidden likenesses, for in them one does not find that state of likeness that the law forbids. B In these words he clearly teaches that not every image at all is prohibited by the very edict of the Mosaic Law, but only those which were used to represent some false divinity, or for which a figure of God was set forth for men to worship.
What, then, of the fact that Tertullian himself, even after his defection to the party of Montanus, when he inveighed more sharply against the Catholics, recognizes that the use of images was widespread among them, yet did not dare to condemn it? "For," he asks, "if by chance, the shepherd, whom you depict on your chalice, will plead his case...?" Good God, what tragedies he would have stirred up against the Catholics, with how many verbal insults and reproaches would he have harassed them, if he had believed that the divine law was being infringed and violated by these images!
Nor did those persons believe that them to be condemned by the same law who, as Eusebius testifies, had for so long before his own time, at Caesarea Philippi, which they call Paneas, preserved the bronze image of the woman suffering from an issue of blood, and of Christ the Lord, by whom she was healed. If you wish to know what and of what kind that image was, hear it from Eusebius himself: "Near the house of that woman, the image of a bronze woman is said to stand, placed upon a stone pedestal, with knees bent and hands outstretched, like one supplicating. Opposite this, the image of a man fashioned from the same metal, standing and gracefully clothed in a robe, and reaching out his hand to the woman. At his feet, upon the very base, a certain unknown plant is said to grow, which, reaching up as far as the hem of the bronze robe, is a most present remedy for diseases of every kind. They said this statue represented the likeness of Jesus Christ." It remained, moreover, even to our own times, and we ourselves, having entered that city, have seen it. But pray, what does that remarkable miracle demand, other than that both that image and statue should have been deemed entirely and fully approved by God Himself? And that which is approved by God certainly cannot be said to be opposed to His law. For it is not read that God ever approved illicit things, or things prohibited by Himself, by means of such approvals and miracles.
Yet some iconoclast, I know not whom, will perhaps arise and object that Eusebius added that the images of Peter and Paul, and even of Christ the Lord, were kept by the pagans, C kept according to gentile custom. But what has this to do with Christians? Just because pagans are said to have set them up with the impious abuse of other images of their gods, are Christians, who kept the statue of that woman and of Christ the Lord among them, therefore to be condemned for the same impiety? No man of sound mind, I think, would say so. For who, indeed, does not see that they retained and kept these statues of Christ and the woman with a different intention and in an entirely different manner and rite?
That argument is diluted with the same ease regarding the Carpocratians, whom you would again object, for they indeed kept images of Christ, and were accused of error and heresy by Irenaeus and other Fathers of the Church. For they were not punished precisely for the reason that they had these images among them, as we have shown elsewhere, but because they kept them secretly with other images of philosophers and worshipped them in the manner of the Gentiles. But the Orthodox held and venerated the images of Christ and the martyrs only in that manner and way which they knew had been handed down from the apostles, as Basil writes, and forbidden by no law: "Whence," says Basil, "I honor and adore the characters of their images, namely of the apostles and martyrs; especially since this has been handed down from the holy apostles, and is not forbidden; rather, it is shown as depicted in all our churches."
It is not our intention to gather here many other examples of the use of images by which they were piously kept by the ancient Christians, and not against the divine law. For by those things which we have brought forward thus far, it is most fully shown that it never entered the mind of our Clement to assert that images, statues, and likenesses of Christ and others were entirely prohibited and forbidden by divine law. But as to why, or for what reason, Christians in the first and other ages of the Church retained images, and what worship they offered to them, a more opportune place for disputing will be given to us later. In the meantime, consult, if you please, and if you have the time, Estius on Book 1 of the Sentences, dist. 9, § 4, and dist. 36, § 10 and 11; Petavius, Vol. IV, part 11, *Theolog. dogm.*, lib. xv, cap. 6, 13, 14 et seq.; Thomassinus, *Theolog. dogm.*, *de incarnat. Verbi*, lib. XII, cap. 9 et seq.; Bellarmin, and others.
Furthermore, before we step to other matters, it is worth observing here that Clement seriously and frequently expostulated with the pagans because they worshipped the idols themselves, in which they believed a certain false divinity resided, not without great impiety: "They who make the gods," he says, "worship not the gods and demons, in my opinion, but the earth and art, which is, in fact, the idols... superstitious worshippers of stones." Nor does he demonstrate this only from their wicked usage, but from the authority of some pagan philosophers themselves, to whom this insane custom of theirs could not have been unknown. Hear their philosopher, Heraclitus the Ephesian, as Clement expresses it, "reproaching the insensible trunk of the idols. And they make these votive offerings to idols just as if one were speaking to buildings. For are they not prodigious, who worship stones? And then, indeed, when they place them even before their doors, just as if they were alive and effective? They worship Mercury as a god, but they make him an *agyeus*, that is, a guardian of the road and of the neighborhood, a doorkeeper. For if they offend them as insensate things, why do they worship them as gods? But if they think they are endowed with sense, why do they make them doorkeepers?"
We have deemed it sufficient to supersede the need to bring forward here many other places in which the same Clement repeats and inculcates this. For those things which we have discussed so far, as we think, suffice abundantly; other matters are indeed easy and obvious to all. If anyone should finally prove that Clement ever taught that statues and images were to be worshipped by the pagans—not as containing gods and divinity, but as expressing the likeness of the gods—he would truly promote nothing by that. For they who worship idols in this manner, as we have shown elsewhere, D [alt-version omitted]
were thought to be exhibiting and representing not the true God, but false and fictitious gods and sometimes men.
CAPUTER IX. Concerning the gods and goddesses of the pagans, their sacrifices and mysteries.
ARTICLE I. Concerning the multiple Jupiter; concerning the Agamemnon Jupiter and Staphylus who mentions him; concerning Jupiter changed into an ant; concerning the insatiable lust of Jupiter, like that of the Tmuitan goat; concerning the chaining of Mars; and also concerning the homeland of Homer, the Sminthean Apollo, Aesculapius and his sepulcher, Neptune the physician, Saturn buried in Sicily, and the heart of Dionysus carried off by Pallas.
From these statues and images of the gods, let us now come to those things which are said by our Clement concerning the gods themselves—whether more obscurely or briefly and strictly—which stand in need of some explanation or confirmation. He assumes as certain, in the first place, that whatever pagans have handed down concerning their gods is entirely false and concocted; or, if they were truly done, that these deeds belong not to gods, but to certain men who had won for themselves no ordinary reputation for name and fame through crimes and flagitious acts: "For very many things," he was saying, "have been handed down to you about the gods, written in a fictitious and fabulous manner. Moreover, whatever deeds are thought to have been done, they are written about base men who lived petulantly and flagitiously." Lest anyone should believe that this was asserted by him rashly and inconsiderately, he demonstrates it by an induction of those who were called the greater gods. For he makes it manifest in the same place that, for the pagans, there are three Jupiters, six Apollos, and several Aesculapiuses, Mercuries, and Vulcans. Nor does he show less evidently that those same heathens disagreed as much among themselves about the homeland of Mars as they unanimously agreed concerning the various battles, wounds, outrages, adulteries, and other crimes of their gods.
Who the triple Jupiter may have been, Cicero explains in these words: "In the beginning, they who are called theologians count three Jupiters, of whom the first and second were born in Arcadia; one from Aether... another from Heaven... the third a Cretan, the son of Saturn, whose sepulcher is shown in that island." Arnobius and Lactantius concur with Cicero. But Epiphanius says otherwise: "There was not one or another Jupiter, but there were three or four. One of them is the Saturnian, who plunged his father into the deep at Mount Caucasus. A second was called Latiaris, from whom the gladiators took their origin; a third was the Tragedian, who burned his hand."
Undoubtedly, one of those Jupiters was he whom Clement mentions as being called Agamemnon and worshiped by the Spartans, according to Staphylus: "Staphylus reports that a certain Jupiter Agamemnon is worshiped at Sparta." But Hervetus frankly admits that he never found anything anywhere concerning both Staphylus and the Jupiter Agamemnon. Who, therefore, would not wonder at these words of Athenagoras—either not read or entirely deleted from memory—from the very beginning of his Apology? "The Lacedaemonians venerate Jupiter Agamemnon and Philonis, daughter of Tyndareus."
But who that Jupiter may have been cannot be defined so easily. For some think that it can be proved from the quoted authority of Athenagoras (to whom they could certainly have added our Clement) that this was the mortal Agamemnon, who, being distinguished by the Spartans with the title of Jupiter, was held as a god. To others, however, it seemed that Jupiter himself was called Agamemnon by them, just as Hector was called so by Sappho and Aristarchus by Simonides; and they perhaps think that this name was attributed to him so that his perseverance, or even his eternity, might be signified. Learned men indeed observe that in Greek *Agamemnon* is said as if *agan menon*, that is, persevering: but let the judgment of others be on this conjecture. See John Meursius, book 1 of *Miscellanea Laconica*, chap. 4.
Finally, Tertullian says that there were not three or four, but three hundred Jupiters, according to Varro: "The Roman scholar Varro brings forward three hundred Jupiters, or should I say Jupiters (Jupiteres), without heads." As for Staphylus, his mention is so frequent in Athenaeus and other authors cited by Vossius and Harduin that it should not have escaped the diligence of Hervetus.
Nor should he have been ignorant of the stupendous transformation of Jupiter into an ant, in whose form he begot Myrmidon from Eurymedusa, daughter of Clitoris, as narrated by both Arnobius and our Clement. For these are the very words of Arnobius concerning that: "Jupiter himself, king of the world... having turned himself now into gold... and because he jumped over all kinds of indignities, into a small ant; so that, clearly, he might return Clitoris, daughter of Myrmidon, as a mother among the Thessalians." Furthermore, Eurymedusa is claimed by some to be the mother of the Graces.
The more Jupiters there were, the less it is certainly to be wondered at if the "Bald Jupiter," about whom Clement speaks— "Is not there a Bald Jupiter at Argos?"—was hitherto unknown to Hervetus. Indeed, Vossius rightly observes that there was not one, but many Argive Jupiters, one of whom is said to have reigned at Argos. Therefore, he will perhaps not depart much from the truth who believes that he is one of these whom Clement calls the Bald.
Clement attacks the untamed and unbridled lust of the Supreme and Greatest Jupiter elsewhere in this way: "Thus he was satisfied with women no less than the goat of the Tmuitans with she-goats." Who that goat may have been, Hervetus declares frankly and simply that he does not know. But that could have been learned from Jerome without, indeed, any great labor. For he narrates that Tmuis was a city of Egypt, which took its name from a goat which its inhabitants worshiped: "For most of their towns," he says—namely, the Egyptians'—"have names taken from beasts and cattle; *Kyon* from dog, *Leon* from lion, *Thmouis* in the Egyptian language from goat, *Lykon* from wolf; to say nothing of the fearsome and horrible onion and the crepitus of the belly when inflated, which is the Pelusiac religion." Furthermore, out of the insatiable lust of this goat, Junius thinks this proverb arose: *Tmuitarum hircus* (The Tmuitan goat).
hircus. Consult your Junius if you wish, but correct the error of his or the printer's, by which he cites our Clement as discoursing on Apollo, when he is nonetheless speaking of Jove himself, the father of gods and men.
After this, Clement thus exaggerates and ridicules Apollo Smintheus: Polemo reports that those who inhabit the region around Troy worship the mice that are in these territories, which they themselves call *sminthoi*, because they gnawed through the bowstrings of their enemies, and hence named Apollo "Smintheus" after those mice. A certain Hervetus notes some things regarding this Apollo from Eustathius and Caelius Rhodiginus; but does not Aristotle, in his *Rhetoric*, aim at the same thing as our Clement with these words: "Polycrates says regarding the mice, because they had brought aid by gnawing the strings"? You might see Vossius, book I, *De origine et progressu idololatriae*, cap. 75, p. 567. Moreover, not only Pausanias and Strabo mention Apollo Smintheus, but also Homer in *Iliad* I; Macrobius, book I, *Saturnalia*, cap. 17; Aelian, book VIII, *De natura animalium*, cap. 10; Arnobius, book IV, *Adversus gentes*, p. 119; Lactantius, book I, *De falsa religione*, cap. 7; Ammianus Marcellinus, book XX, cap. 8. Finally, Ovid celebrates him in these verses: *Consulted is the Sminthean, and in the dark and shaded grove,* *He did not unworthily render these sounds from his mouth.*
Hervetus appears to have sought a knot in a bulrush where he observes these things regarding Asclepius, whom Clement testifies lies dead, struck by a thunderbolt, in the borders of Cynosuris: "Strabo and Pausanias indeed mention Cynosuris; but that Asclepius was buried in its borders, there is not even a word." For what, I ask you, is clearer for the explanation of that place in Clement than these words of Cicero: "The first of the Asclepiads is the son of Apollo, whom the Arcadians worship, who is said to have discovered the probe and to have been the first to bandage a wound; the second is the brother of the second Mercury. He, having been struck by a thunderbolt, is said to have been buried at Cynosuris. The third is the son of Arsippus and Arsinoe," etc. If Hervetus had read these words of the Orator, or if they had not escaped his memory, he would certainly have abstained from this criticism. You may see, if you wish, Lescalopier’s illustrations on this passage of Cicero.
It is certainly less known what Clement subjoined in the same place regarding the physician Neptune and also Saturn: "But Philochorus says that the physician Neptune is worshipped in Tenos, and that Saturn is situated in Sicily, and that he was buried there." Hervetus thinks there is no one who might have made mention of these things besides Philochorus. But nothing is diminished regarding Philochorus and his authority thereby. For besides the most celebrated Neptune, the brother of Jove and son of Saturn, there were nearly as many others—as Vossius duly teaches—as there were island princes. There is, therefore, no room for doubting that a certain physician Neptune was once worshipped in Tenos, which was one of the Cyclades islands.
Indeed, the story of Saturn mentioned by Clement is trite and common: he who, having been driven from his kingdom by his son Jove, "when he had been tossed through all lands," as Lactantius speaks, with armed men following him whom Jupiter had sent to capture or kill him, barely found a place in Italy in which he might hide. This is indeed reported by almost countless ancient and Christian writers—Minucius Felix, Arnobius, Tertullian, Cyprian—but also by Ovid, and by Virgil in these verses: *First came Saturn from ethereal Olympus,* *Fleeing the arms of Jove, and, his kingdom taken, an exile,* *He civilized the unruly race, scattered on the high mountains,* *And gave them laws, and preferred that it be called Latium;* *Since he had lain safe in these shores.*
But as for that conjecture of Vossius, let the judge and arbiter weigh it, whether the "Hero at Phalerum on the poop" is the same Androgeus of whom Pausanias, when he discourses on Phalerum, records these things: "But there exists also an altar of Androgeus, son of Minos, under the name of Hero only; but those who inquire more diligently into the ancient history of the country know that it belongs to Androgeus." Finally, the oft-sung verses concerning the custody of men committed to demons, which Clement cites and refutes there and elsewhere without naming the author, are Hesiod’s. But in his edition, for *athanatoi* (immortals), as it is held in the text of Clement, we read *athanatoi Zenos* (immortals of Zeus), in a not dissimilar sense. Regarding this custody of demons, we shall treat it in the following dissertation.
ARTICLE II.
*Concerning the orgies of Bacchus, the sacrifices in which men were slaughtered, the mysteries of Ceres, and concerning Eetion and Melampus, the arcane matters of Themis, or the symbols of that same Ceres, and concerning Anacharsis, who killed his fellow citizen who was imitating the mysteries of Ceres.*With no other intention, either, than that he might be able to lead the pagans to the worship of the true God, our Clement further objected against them the most cruel and most obscene orgies of Bacchus, and he inveighed against them most vehemently. Which, indeed, although they are unknown to no one, Hervet nevertheless denies anywhere having read what Clement says, that these mysteries are celebrated by the eating of raw flesh. Therefore they were not read by him, or not sufficiently diligently examined, neither those of Epiphanius, soon to be commended, nor these words of Arnobius: "Let us pass over even the monstrous Bacchanalia, for which there is a Greek name, *omophagia* [eating of raw flesh], in which, with feigned fury and with sanity of mind cast aside, you wrap yourselves in snakes, and that you may teach that you are full of the divine power and majesty of God, you tear apart the entrails of goats that are crying out with bloodied mouths." What more apposite to the Greek locution of our Clement, *omophagian ten hieromanian agontes, kai teliskousi tas kreonomias* [celebrating the sacred frenzy of raw-flesh eating, and they perform the sacrificial divisions of meat]? But if anyone should desire another, more ancient, and even pagan author, Theodoret himself will offer Empedocles, whose words he has thus reported: "Indeed, the sacrificial feasts, or the profane and horrible days, in which raw flesh is eaten, *en ais omophagiai* [in which are raw-flesh eatings], and distractions of bodies occur, and fastings and lamentations, and in many places also obscene words, and other madnesses of those acting with turbulence and tossing of the neck, I would say are not consecrated to any of the gods, but are performed to avert evil demons; so that they might be a consolation for the slaughter of men, which was formerly sacrificed to them." Add to these that place of our Clement which is reported by Eusebius in its entirety in the same words.
From that, therefore, Hervet could have learned something else, also unknown to himself, that those men celebrating those insane mysteries were crowned with serpents. If, however, he should demand that another witness be cited for him, let him hear Epiphanius: "There are also other Dionysiacs, who are accustomed to be initiated into the rites of the Curetes and the divisions of flesh, *kreonomian poountes* [performing the division of meat], crowned with serpents, evantes [crying 'Euan'], and shouting 'Ova, Ova,' that is, invoking that Eve whom the serpent deceived." Furthermore, the word *kreonomia* is read there, just as it is in our Clement, and that "crowned with serpents," *oi anestemmenoi tois ophesin*, is held in a not dissimilar way in Epiphanius, *tous opheis anestemmenoi*.
But this ferocity of a monstrous beast, rather than of a man, was surpassed by yet another, which was far more savage, of those same pagans. For Clement writes that in the sacrifices of Bacchus, men, as Dosidas testifies, were...
an of a man, was surpassed by yet another, which was far more savage, of those same pagans. For Clement writes that in the sacrifices of Bacchus, men, as Dosidas testifies, were A slaughtered. But perhaps you will marvel at Hervetus, who asserts that this, apart from Dosidas, is not recorded in writing by anyone else. For to pass over Theodoret, who, in the passage cited by us a little earlier, mentions this most cruel sacrifice, the whole of that fragment of our Clement concerning the ancient custom of sacrificing men to the gods was not only reported by Eusebius, but he also records that the same thing was done by the Chians and Tenedians in these words: "For what, moreover, savors more of a demon, than that cruelty or madness of the Omadian Bacchus, by whom they say that men were torn limb from limb by the Chians, or that other one among the Tenedians, whom they placated in a similar way with the slaughter of men?" But what of the fact that Cyril of Alexandria handed down the exact same thing as our Clement? "Moreover, that the Lesbians also stained the altar of Bacchus with the blood of men." Nor should Plutarch be passed over, who, indeed, at what time and on what occasion a virgin began and ceased to be sacrificed among the Lacedaemonians, according to Aristodemus, narrates thus: "A plague pressing upon the Lacedaemonians, it was divinely signified that the pestilence would cease if they sacrificed a noble virgin according to custom. But when Helena was one time chosen by lot and was being led forth adorned, an eagle flying up snatched the sword, and bearing it into the herd, placed it upon a heifer; from which it came to pass that they abstained from the slaughter." And in the same place he adds why a virgin was sacrificed every year to Juno among the Falerians. But in certain regions that savage custom was abrogated either later or sooner, as we saw above from Empedocles.
Furthermore, these things are marvelously confirmed by these words of Cyril and Plutarch, and from various authors—Porphyry, Philo, Dionysius of Halicarnassus, and Diodorus Siculus—cited by Eusebius, both concerning that B impious and utterly inhuman custom of sacrificing men to the gods which our Clement brought forth in his writings. Besides these writers, you may also, if you wish, consult Tertullian, *Apologeticum*, chap. 9; *Scorpiace*, chap. 7; book II *Ad Nationes*, chap. 7; Lactantius, book I *De falsa religione*, chap. 21; Theodoret, *De Graecorum affectionum curatione*, sermon 7, p. 589; Polydore Vergil, book V *De inventione rerum*, chap. 8; Natalis Comes, book I *Mythologiae*, chap. 17; Vossius, book *De origine et progressu idololatriae*, chap. 14. Finally, that Clement maintains the Attic Erechtheus and the Roman Marius sacrificed their daughters to the gods, that indeed is rightly substantiated from Plutarch in the *Parallels*, p. 310. But Meursius discusses the matter of Erechtheus more fully in book II *De regibus Atheniensium*.
Moreover, concerning other mysteries of Bacchus, or rites of the Bacchanalia, mentioned by Clement in the same place, besides the cited authors, you may read the singular commentary of John Nicolaus on them, and the *Syntagma* of Petrus Castellanus on the festivals of the Greeks. But these words of our same Clement, by which he attacks and explodes those abominable mysteries, should be noted in passing: "But now to those who are initiated, the holy night is speaking of intemperance, and the fire which shines in the torches argues vices and perturbations of the mind. Extinguish the fire, O priest, revere the lamps, O you who bear the torch. The light convicts your Iacchus," etc. For Cicero had spoken previously in this manner about them: "What, therefore, will Iacchus do, and our Eupolmidae, and those august mysteries, if indeed we abolish those nocturnal rites? ... But all nocturnal rites, lest we perhaps seem too harsh, Diagondas the Theban abolished in the middle of Greece by a perpetual law."
Our Clement also agitates against the orgies of the Corybantes in this way: "Calling the Corybantes the Cabeiri, and they announce a Cabeiric C initiation." But Meursius thinks that instead of *teleutēn* (death) it should be read *teletēn* (initiation), because Clement is disputing there about the mysteries of the Cabeiri. But what prevents Clement from saying that the death of the third brother, of whom he also makes mention there, is announced in those mysteries? Therefore, the reading of the editors, which the authority of the manuscripts, not in the least to be spurned, confirms, is not to be rejected so easily. Concerning these mysteries, moreover, read book V of the same Meursius’ *Graecia feriata*.
Furthermore, Clement explains who instituted the orgies of the mother of the gods, or Cybele, or Ceres—mysteries no less impious and obscene than those of Bacchus—in this way: "Perish, therefore, he who was the prince and author of this fraud to men, whether it be Dardanus, who showed the mysteries of the mother of the gods, or Eetion, who suggested the Samothracian orgies and sacred mysteries, or that Phrygian Midas who learned from Odrysus, and then handed down the artful fraud to those who obeyed his dominion." Hervetus, however, not only says that he never found elsewhere these unspeakable mysteries to have been instituted by those whom Clement indicates, but also confesses that he has read nothing at all D anywhere regarding Eetion. What then? Will he count for naught Eusebius, who adopted these words of Clement transcribed by himself and confirmed them with his own calculation? But if he holds them as so trivial, or says they proceeded from one and the same author, let him hear Arnobius speaking about Midas and Dardanus: "Who, when the Punic Hannibal was plundering the Italian lands and demanding the lordship of the world, did you not begin to know and to understand and to sanctify with memorable religion the Phrygian mother, whose founder is judged to be either Midas or Dardanus?" Diodorus Siculus also writes that the Phrygians built a magnificent temple to Cybele in the city of Pessinus and instituted solemn sacrifices and cults for her: "Diligently, he says, with king Midas assisting this matter." This, indeed, we see confirmed not obscurely by Arnobius. Nor does Dionysius of Halicarnassus differ much from our Clement and Arnobius, who testifies that Idaeus, the son of Dardanus, "in the mountains, which now are called Idaean from him, having built a temple to the mother of the gods, instituted orgies and initiations."
Many, moreover, have borne the name of Eetion, one of whom was the father of Andromache and father-in-law of Hector, of whom Homer sang thus in book VI of the *Iliad*, verse 395: Andromache, daughter of magnanimous Eetion, Eetion, who dwelled in Hypoplacus the woody: In Thebe, situated under mount Placus, ruling over the Cilician men.
Concerning the same one is also that song of Ovid, unknown to no one: I filled the Eetionean Thebes with blood.
Herodotus makes mention of another Eetion, and says that he had Labda for a wife, and from her begat Cypselus, who later reigned in Corinth according to the Pythian oracle. But which of these two, or whether some other person is called by Clement the author of the sacred mysteries of Cybele, no one will easily divine. And indeed, he himself did not dare to affirm that as something altogether certain and in no doubt. Wherefore, he also [presents] another opinion on the same matter thus:
A that others believe the genuine and true reading in our Clement to be that which has been corrupted by the scribes in this verse of Arnobius himself: *Quas cava succutiens Baubo manu, nam puerilis / Olli vultus erat.* For instead of "Baubo" they wish "Bacchus" to be substituted. Truly, they believe there is no room for doubt that Bacchus was present in that shameful act, which the poets had invented concerning the lewd party of Ceres and Baubo. But we shall have to speak of Arnobius elsewhere.
Shortly after, Clement related: "But others say that Melampus, son of Amythaon, brought the festival of Ceres from Egypt into Greece, the mourning which is celebrated with praises." Hervetus, however, still denies that he could ever find this, even though he had investigated it diligently. Where he sought for it, we are entirely ignorant. But we have no doubt that he sought nothing regarding this matter in Eusebius, from whom, as we have said, that entire passage of our Clement is described. Nor did he seek it in Tertullian’s *Apologeticus*; or at any rate, not with such diligence as Pamelius, who weighed the words which are read there: "Orpheus in Pieria, Musaeus in Athens, Melampus in Argos, Trophonius in Boeotia, bound men with initiations." For Pamelius rightly observes there that Tertullian is disputing about the same festival of Ceres, mention of which—he ought to have added—was also made by our Clement. B Now they say that this Melampus, or Melampodes, the son of Amythaon and Doryppe, was a seer and a physician. Further, no one is ignorant that Pausanias, Homer, Virgil, and others mention him not infrequently.
That Clement, moreover, defines nothing with certainty_concerning these authors of the impious mysteries should be a surprise to no one. Lucian, indeed, asserts without doubt that the Phrygians and Samothracians received those things from the Lydian Attis, their first inventor and quasi-architect. Others, however, attributed their institution to Erectheus, others to Musaeus, and finally others to Ceres herself, concerning whom Meursius is to be read in his book *De Cerere Eleus.*, chap. 2. Neither, finally, are those unspeakable orgies and mysteries of Ceres unknown to anyone, which Clement, and after him Arnobius, recites at length as a memorial of eternal pagan shame. For they have been divulged by almost countless writers, both pagan and Christian, ancient and recent. If, however, anyone wishes to read them explained in detail, let him go to Natalis Comes, lib. ix *Mythol.*, cap. 5; Vossius, lib. i *De orig. et progr. idolol.*, cap. 20, and lib. ii, cap. 52, 53, and 54; and Meursius in almost his entire book *De Cerere Eleusina*; Fasold, *De festis Graec.*, decade 2; Petrus Castellanus, *De festis Graec.*. From these, however, one will learn that by *potum bilis* (πόμα χολῆς), which Hervetus says he does not sufficiently understand, nothing else is signified by Clement than the anger and fury of Ceres.
Furthermore, we wish you to be warned in a few words about this poem: ' Taurus father of the dragon, and the dragon father of the bull,' which Clement cited without naming the author, but which Arnobius attributes to a certain Tarentine. But Suidas and Vossius have disputed about this Tarentine. Regarding the carmina concerning Ceres seeking the ravished Proserpina, Clement says he transcribed these: *Thus she spoke, raising her garments, and showed the whole / Shameful figure of her body; Iacchus watched, etc.* C Some, however, think that this passage of our Clement is foully corrupted, and they attempt to apply a healing hand to it. But they are tormented first and foremost by the name of Iacchus, which they think has been wrongly intruded into an entirely different history. They think this can be proven as not uncertain by the authority of Arnobius, who omitted that name entirely. But both our manuscript codices and Eusebius, who reported the same Greek verses from our Clement, and who exhibits the same name, Ιακχος, are clearly opposed to this conjecture of learned men.
And they contend that the same sacred rites of Ceres, which were called the Eleusinia, seem to be related by Clement to the Thesmophoria, just as if it were one and the same festival day, and the same mystery and sacred rite. For when he discourses on the Eleusinia, he disputes using these very words: "Do you also wish me to tell you how Proserpina gathered flowers, and [about] her basket, and the abduction by Pluto, and the chasm of the earth, and the swine of Eubuleus, which were devoured by the goddesses; for which cause they expel swine in the Thesmophoria after the manner of the Megarians. Women celebrate the festival day of this fable in various ways, the Thesmophoria, the Scirophoria, singing the abduction of Proserpina tragically in many ways." Truly, Meursius accuses our Clement of error there, as one who has confused the Thesmophoria with the Eleusinia, which were entirely different, altogether preposterously. D "For the Eleusinia," he says, "had been instituted for Ceres seeking the ravished Proserpina, and then for the remembrance of the fruits received; but the Thesmophoria [were instituted] because of the laws received from her." He also charges Arnobius and Theodoret, to whom he could have added many others by far, with a similar error. But perhaps his reasons will not seem of such weight to everyone, that against the authority of so many and such great men, accepted by the common consensus of almost all, he might lead each one into his own opinion. If, however, some are convinced by his arguments, let them subscribe to them, as far as we are concerned.
Moreover, all agree with one mind that for some days before the women celebrated the Thesmophoria, chastity was to be maintained. Which, indeed, can be confirmed by a certain response of Theano the Pythagorean, which our Clement himself produced, provided, however, that to most who are ignorant of this custom it could appear obscure: "Asked," he says, "Theano on what day a woman after congress with her husband can come to the Thesmophorium: 'From her own [husband] indeed,' she immediately subjoined, 'never from another'." For there would have been no cause at all for this question to be put by this philosopher woman, unless women had been required to live chastely and purely before that festival day. But concerning this Theano, [see] in the following dissertation, ch. 18, art. 4.
Furthermore, Hervetus wonders by what reasoning Clement, while disputing about the Eleusinia or the festival of Ceres, slipped into a discourse on Themis: "And furthermore the arcane symbols of Themis, oregano, lamp, sword, cakes for women," etc. He says [D continues] indeed that there is silence among all concerning these arcane symbols of Themis. But the learned man did not know that this surname of Themis, along with many others, is ascribed to Ceres herself by Porphyry: "For since," he says, "the power of predicting certain things was in her, they named her Themis herself, as if she foretold to each one τὰ τεθειμένα, that is, the things appointed by fate and about to happen." And in this way they venerate that power of the earth explained by the variety of so many symbols, and indeed by the name of a virgin, and of Vesta, insofar as it embraces the center of the universe; of Parent, insofar as it provides food to living beings; of Ops, insofar as it produces stones and towers over the mountains; of Ceres, insofar-
as its fruits produce green seedlings; and, finally, of Themis, insofar as it is used for uttering oracles. A Since the mysteries of Ceres were marked by such great impiety, Clement expresses much gratitude to that man who, having seen his fellow citizen at Cyzicus imitating these things, pierced him with arrows: "May many good things come to the king of the Scythians, whoever Anacharsis may have been. He pierced his fellow citizen with arrows for imitating in Scythia the rites of the mother of the gods, which are performed among the Cyzicenes... as one who had himself escaped being effeminate among the Greeks, and who was teaching others the feminine disease in Scythia." Now Hervet and Casaubon think that the word "Anacharsis" was improperly inserted into the text of Clement here. And the former, indeed, because by these words, "whoever he may have been" (*ὅστις ποτέ ην*), Clement signifies that the king of the Scythians was unknown to him. The latter, however, because Laertius writes that Anacharsis himself was killed by his brother, the king of the Scythians, because he wished to introduce Greek laws or Greek mysteries among the Scythians. B Let us add to Laertius, Herodotus, who narrates that he was killed by a shaft from the throne of the Scythian king, who was, as some said, his cousin, when he was performing the mysteries of Ceres in the manner of the Cyzicenes in Scythia. But if these things, as it seems, are more consistent with the truth, it does not follow that the word "Anacharsis" must be excised from the Clementine text; rather, it should be read by the change of a single final letter: "Anacharsin" (*Ἀνάχαρσιν*), and a punctuation mark should be placed before that word in the Greek text. For with this very slight emendation by the scribes, copyists, or typesetters, Clement will in no way differ from Laertius and Herodotus, except perhaps in those matters which they themselves openly admit to be doubtful and uncertain.
ARTICLE III
*Concerning the goddesses of the pagans, concerning the fifth Minerva, concerning another Minerva wounded by Ornytus, and Polemo who mentions her, concerning another Minerva who was venerated with winnowing-fans, concerning the Venus who laid snares for Phaon, concerning Venus Tumborychos, concerning Diana Chelitide, Condylitide, and Podagra.*Concerning the goddesses, that which most prominently occurs to us, and which is proven by a brief and certain induction by Clement, is that they were no more chaste or modest than the gods. But as to what Clement mentions there concerning their shameful acts, adulteries, and other wickedness, Hervet wisely admonishes that this is easily obvious to all who read the poets. C Yet, the fact that Clement has handed down a tradition about a fifth Minerva, having been impiously slain by her father and adorned with her skin as if it were a fleece, he elsewhere professes never to have read. He had not, therefore, read the book of Julius Firmicus Maternus, *On the Error of Profane Religions*, where these things are expressly contained: "Antiquity hands down to you who are reading that there were five Minervas... The fifth was born of the father Pallas and the mother Tritonide, who, having been called by the name of her father, is named Pallas by men. D She, under the instinct of parricidal madness and insane rashness, slaughtered her father Pallas with a cruel death. And not satisfied with the simple death of her father, in order that she might enjoy her evils longer, and that she might triumph more cruelly over the death of her father, she adorned herself with the spoils of his body; so that she might proclaim the deed of parricide by a cruel display." Isaac Tzetzes also writes the same thing in his *Lycophron*, whose words have also been described by Natale Conti. But there he argues about the five Minervas, just as Cicero does in the third book *De natura deorum*. Finally, Epiphanius observes that there were more Minervas, which he lists not individually, but in this way: "As far as Minerva is concerned, she is not unique; but several of the same name are enumerated. For one was a wanderer and roamed to the Tritonian lake. A second was the daughter of Oceanus, another of Saturn, to omit the others."
It does not seem easy to Hervet what Clement has brought forward concerning one of these five Minervas: "Polemo also says that Minerva was wounded by Ornytus." For indeed, he confesses that nothing has occurred to him concerning this Ornytus with Polemo, except in Strabo, who made mention of a certain Polemo, but one who, as it seems to him, was a poet, and therefore clearly different from the one in question. It is truly strange how Hervet, a man of such great erudition, has not read these words of Justin Martyr: "Polemo in the book of Greek affairs." But it is more wonderful, indeed, that he did not see what Casaubon and Vossius saw well, that this author is not only cited elsewhere by our Clement, and more frequently by Athenaeus, but even by Cyril of Alexandria and many others.
From this Polemo, Clement reports that Minerva was wounded by Ornytus; but Arnobius, from our Clement, as they say: "The writings of your Polemo do not indicate that the virgin was killed, bloodied, and harassed by Ornytus?" But furthermore, as we have seen, since there were many Minervas, which one this should be, and who that Ornytus is by whom she was wounded—beyond Polemo, who has handed this down is not so easily said.
Our Clement narrates elsewhere that Minerva, the daughter of Jove, is worshipped with established winnowing-fans, *στατοῖσι λίκνοις*. But since nothing has occurred to Hervet concerning these winnowing-fans, or sieves and baskets, he therefore suspects there that it should be amended by conjecture to *στατοῖσι ὕμνοις*. But such a correction of the Clementine text is vanity. For he does not sufficiently notice the frequent use in the mysteries of Bacchus, Minerva, and other gods, as Vossius wisely observes, not only of baskets or winnowing-fans; but besides, that there are songs of an ancient poet cited there by Clement, whose name is kept silent, which are referred to by Plutarch. Which, indeed, we have thought sufficient to point out to the curious reader.
What, moreover, of the fact that Hervet still says he is clearly ignorant of what Clement mentions there concerning Venus? "Venus set snares for Phaon," *καὶ Φάωντα δὲ ἐλόχα*. But concerning the loves of Venus for Phaon, Athenaeus handed down these things from Cratinus to memory: "Cratinus says that Aphrodite, having fallen in love with Phaon, hid him in beautiful lettuces; but Marsyas the younger, in the green corn." That is, Cratinus says that Venus, when she was pining for Phaon, hid him in beautiful lettuces; but the younger Marsias, in standing green barley. The same thing is also narrated by Aelian, but there he adds these things directly: "Others say that he was a ferryman and undertook this duty. And that Venus once came wanting to cross, and he, not knowing who she might be, willingly and promptly received her, and with great diligence ferried her where she wanted to go. For which merits she gifted him with an alabaster box with ointment, having been anointed with which, Phaon became the most beautiful of all men." Who, therefore, does not now see that these are the snares which Clement says were set by Venus for Phaon?
A Callimachus in his *Aetia*. There is also worshipped in Methymna another Diana, the Condylitis, so called from the fist [*condylos*]. For there is a temple of the other Diana, of the Gout, in Laconia, as Sosibius says. Pausanias, moreover, records in his *Arcadia* why the Diana who was previously called Condyleatis from the village of Condylea, was afterwards called Apanchomene. But Clement says that the Diana Condylitis is different from this one: "And also another Diana, the Condylitis, is honored in Methymna." He says this and nothing more. That which is read, therefore, in the Latin version—“So called from the fist”—is not Clement’s, but is a gloss of the interpreter. Wherefore, the conjecture of those who have said that she was so named by the inhabitants of Methymna, which, as Strabo says, was a city of the Lesbians, because she was believed to cure a certain feminine malady, will perhaps seem no less probable. By the same reasoning, perhaps, she was called Podagra [the Gout] by the Laconians, because they had the conviction that men suffering from the gout could be healed by her. Concerning this and the Chelytis Diana, and others which the Spartans worshipped, see Joannes Meursius, *Miscellanea Laconica*, book one, chapter 2.
ARTICLE IV.
Concerning the averruncating gods, or those who ward off evils, and human passions related to the order of the gods; concerning Jupiter and Hercules *Apomuios* [Averter of flies], concerning Fever, Fear, Paleness, Disease, Punishment, Suffering, Sleep and Death; also concerning Fear and Love, Joy and Hope, Contumely and Impudence.In these conjectures which we have proposed concerning Diana not without some hesitation, if any semblance of truth appears to you, you will be able to bring up, not entirely ineptly for their confirmation, what Clement writes concerning the averruncating gods, or those who ward off evils, in this manner: "The Eleans sacrifice to Jupiter *Apomuios*; the Romans, however, sacrificed to Hercules *Apomuios*, that is, the diverter of flies, and to Fever and Fear, whom they also enroll B in the number of those who were with Hercules." For the pagans did not follow after these deities with such honors for any other reason than that by their divine help and aid these evils might either not harm them, or they might be entirely freed from them. Which will be made most clearly manifest from what is to be said shortly.
But he states that he by no means knows for certain who that Diana Chelytis is, and why *chelattein* signifies to cough. It was observed, however, by Henri Estienne that the verb *chelussomai*, or *cheluttomai*, derived from the noun *chelys*, sounds the same in Latin as to expectorate, to cough up, to eruct. Wherefore, that Diana Chelytis appears without a doubt to be the moon. For moisture, as Plutarch says, diffused from the moon, when it weighs upon the bodies, excites a cough. The Spartans, therefore, worshipped Diana Chelytis, that is, the moon, so that she might ward off the cough from them, no differently than they worshipped other gods who ward off evils.
Clement also mentions three other Dianas a little higher up: "The Diana who is called *Apangchomene*, that is, the throttled, the Arcadians worship, as C Callimachus says in his *Aetia*."
For the rest, we have brought forward the preceding words of our Clement for this reason: because to some, these words, "as also the Argives and the Laconians," seem to be intruded into the text and superfluous. But this error is indeed very ancient. For in both manuscript codices, both the more recent and the more ancient, the same things appear clearly, but with this punctuation: "They worship the *Tymborychos* [the grave-digger] Argives and the Laconians, and also the *Chelutis* Diana." Which punctuation alone can make the carelessness of the copyists manifest to everyone. Hervetus, however, thinks that these things should be referred to Diana.
The first, indeed, concerning Jupiter *Apomuios*, Pausanias discourses thus: "It has been recorded that Hercules, son of Alcmene, while sacrificing to Jupiter, for he could not drive away the flies, either because it was that which first came into his mind at that time, or because it was traditional, sacrificed a victim to the Averter of flies (*Apomuios* is what the Eleans call him); and when the sacrifice was completed, all the flies suddenly flew across the Alpheus." But he whom Pausanias calls *Apomuios*, Pliny calls *Myagron*, or *Myodes*: "The Eleans," he says, "invoke the god Myagron, when a multitude of flies brings a pestilence, and they (*the flies*) immediately die as soon as a sacrifice is made to that god." Aldrovandus, D however, thinks Clement is wrong in that, that he believed the Romans sacrificed to Hercules *Apomuios*; since they performed sacred rites not to Hercules, but to Jupiter *Apomuios*. But Solinus records that in the Forum Boarium at Rome a small shrine had been placed for Hercules, who "is said to have been implored as the god Myiagrios." Wherefore Salmasius observes in this place that, even if no Hercules had been called by that name at Rome, yet from this fact it could have come about that Hercules was surnamed *Apomuios*. And perhaps this conjecture is not entirely absent from all semblance of truth. For Solinus [derives] that from those...
Pisatidian flies, which were wont to depart of their own accord beyond the river Alpheus, at the time when the Olympic festival was being celebrated and sacrifices were being made; see Aelian, *De animalibus*, lib. V, cap. 17.
It is, therefore, easier and more certain as regards Fever, which Clement adds in the same place. For we have A Cicero as a witness that a temple was built by the Romans to this same Fever as if to a true god: "What so great error," says the most eloquent orator, "that not only gods' names were assigned to pernicious things, but also sacred rites were instituted for them? For we see a shrine of Fever on the Palatine, and an edifice of the Lares, and an altar of Evil Fortune consecrated on the Esquiline." The same has been recorded in writing by Pliny, Aelian, Augustine, and others.
As to the reason why those divine honors were paid to Fever, Valerius Maximus discourses as follows: "And the other gods indeed were worshipped for the sake of receiving benefits. But they worshipped Fever in their temples so that it might do less harm; of which [temples] one still exists on the Palatine, another in the area of the Marian monuments, a third at the top of the Vicus Longus; and into this were brought the remedies which had been attached to the bodies of the sick."
Fever B or Terror, just like our Clement, is linked by Augustine and Minutius Felix. "Tullus Hostilius," says the latter, "dedicated [a temple] to Terror and to Paleness; soon after, to Fever, I know not by whom." This is repeated by Cyprian in the same words. But of Terror and Paleness alone, Lactantius says: "Tullus Hostilius fashioned and worshipped Terror and Paleness." Titus Livy provides this explanation for it: "Tullus, in a critical situation, while fighting against the Albans, vowed twelve Salii, and shrines to Paleness and Terror, and with a loud voice, so that his enemies might hear it, commanded them to return to the battle; there was no need for trepidation." C But Varro, in Augustine, so ridicules and dismisses these deities: "Hostilius [worshipped] Terror and Paleness, the most loathsome of human emotions, the one being the movement of a terrified mind, the other the color of the body, not even a disease." What then could be more insipid and foolish than their genealogy, which Hesiod sets forth in this poem:
*And to Mars* *The Piercer of Shields, Cytherea bore Terror and Dread.*
*But to Mars* *Who cleaves the shields, Venus did bring forth Timour and Dread.*
Some, as Augustine testifies, babbled that Fever was born of the mother of the gods: whether even the goddess Fever was born from her, Esculapius, her great-grandson, might look to. But from whatever source she was born, they had the audacity, I think, not to call her an ignoble person, those foreign gods [bestowing] a Roman citizen goddess.
It is no wonder, therefore, that this same Clement of ours writes elsewhere D that the pagans placed Disease, Punishment, and Torment, and even Sleep and Death, in the number of the gods. And this incredible insanity of crazed men is beautifully and clearly mocked and proscribed by Pliny: "To believe in countless [gods], and even to [create them] from the virtues and vices of men, such as Modesty, Concord, Mind, Hope, Honor, Clemency, Faith, or (as it pleases Democritus) entirely two, Punishment and Benefit, adds significantly to human stupidity... And so we discover other names among other nations, and countless divinities among the same, with the infernal powers also partitioned into kinds, along with diseases and many pestilences, which we desire—in trembling fear—to be appeased." Of Death, Virgil sang:
*Many bodies of oxen are slaughtered around Death,* *And bristly swine, and herds snatched from all the fields* *Are slaughtered into the flame.*
Of these matters, Alexander ab Alexandro discourses more fully in *Genialium dierum*, lib. IV, cap. 13; Natalis Comes in *Mythologia*, lib. II, cap. 13 and 14; Vossius in *De ortu et progressu idololatriae*, lib. III, cap. 2 and lib. VIII, cap. 6. Nor are these things merely fiction devised by the poets and rejected by others; rather, it is plain that our Clement considers all the affections of the human soul—even the entirely corrupt and most vicious ones—as having been added by philosophers to the order of the gods: "For now," Clement speaks thus, "certain of the philosophers themselves, following the poets, constitute figures and images of the affections that are in us, namely Fear and Love, and Joy and Hope; just as certainly did the ancient Epimenides, who erected altars to Contumely and Impudence." How deservedly, indeed, he brings this to the charge and reproach of the pagans, as may be learned not only from various of their authors, but especially from these words of Cicero: "But the thing itself, in which some greater power resides, is so called, that this very power is named a god, as Faith, as Mind, which we see consecrated in the Capitol, most recently by M. Aemilius Scaurus; but before that, Faith had been consecrated by Atilius Calatinus. Do you see the temple of Virtue? Do you see that of Honor, restored by M. Marcellus, which many years before had been dedicated by Q. Maximus during the Ligurian war? What of Ops? What of Safety? What of Concord, Liberty, Victory? Because the power of all these things was so great that it could not be governed without a god, the thing itself obtained the name of the gods. From which class the names of Cupid, and Voluptas, and Lubentina Venus were consecrated, names of vicious, not natural things; although Valerius thinks otherwise; yet those very vices often strike nature more vehemently." These things are confirmed not only by him elsewhere, but also by Gregory Nazianzen, who corroborates and wonderfully illustrates this whole passage of our Clement: "For the most vicious of all judged the vices themselves and foul affections to be gods, or at least worshipped them under the name of gods—to wit, Wrath, Slaughter, Lust, Drunkenness, and the rest of this kind—having found this as no fair or honest excuse for their crimes. And they left some on the earth, some they hid under the earth (this one thing they did quite prudently), and some they raised to heaven." If you wish to know more about those ridiculous deities, go to Epiphanius in *Ancoratus*, §105, p. 105; Vossius, lib. VIII, *De origine et progressu idololatriae*, cap. 9 et seq.; the observations of Lescalopier on the aforementioned words of Cicero, and Meursius, lib. I, *Miscellanea Laconica*, cap. 6. Regarding the temple of Contumely and Impudence eventually, which Clement mentioned, that [temple] by Cicero so perspicuously...
recorded in writing, as if it could be seen that it had been taken from him: "For that [action]," he says, "is a vicious Athenian [act], which, after the Cylonian crime had been expiated, at the urging of Epimenides of Crete, they made a temple of Contumely and Impudence. For it is proper to consecrate virtues, not vices." A Hence the common proverb, "Goddess Impudence," regarding which Erasmus aptly [writes in] *Adag. Chiliad. III, cent. 1, adag. 63*.
ARTICLE V.
*On the animals and fish, which the Egyptians and other peoples used to worship; on the phagros and the mœotes, which the Egyptians [worshipped]; on the weasel, which the Thebans [worshipped]; on the sheep, which the Samians [worshipped]; on the doves and fish, which the Syrians used to worship.*Clement rightly says that all those [peoples], as he himself states, were Greeks, or rather pagan men, who worshipped as gods those who were infamous for vices and crimes, and furthermore held vices themselves to be gods, and that they were worse and more wicked than the Egyptians, who worshipped fish, wild beasts, and other most vile living things of the earth. For nothing is worse than crime and vice. However, that our author might more clearly reveal who and what that superstition of the Egyptians was, he industriously examines the various cults of the different peoples of this nation. Cicero, Porphyry, and Eusebius—who reported his fragments—Minutius Felix, Epiphanius, Strabo, Vossius, and very many others have treated the same subject at length. Therefore, we shall deal only with those matters that escaped the diligence of Hervet, B as he himself admits. First, therefore, he says that he found no one who attributes the "Evenitas" to the peoples of Egypt with Clement, and who has handed down in his writings that the *phagros* was worshipped by them. But that learned man had not noticed that the text of our author had been corrupted by the carelessness of the book scribes, and [that it] ought to be corrected thus: "Σέβονται δ’ αὐτῶν Συηνῖται φάγρον τὸν ἰχθῦν." From this, "the Syenites worship the *phagros* fish." For the Syenites honored this fish, as Aelian narrates: "Τοὺς ἰχθὺς τοὺς φάγρους Συηνῖται μὲν Αἰγυπτίων ἱεροὺς νομίζουσι." "Among the Egyptians, the Syenites hold the *phagros* fish as sacred." Moreover, not only does he bring the reason forward in the same place, but Plutarch does as well: "Συηνῖται δὲ φάγρον. Δοκεῖ γὰρ ἐπιόντι τῷ Νείλῳ συνεπιφαίνεσθαι, καὶ τὴν αὔξησιν ἀσμένοις φράζειν αὐτάγγελος ὀφθῆναι." "The Syenites [worship] the *phagros*; for it seems to appear together with the approaching Nile, and [to] announce its desired increase by being seen itself as its own messenger."
From the same Aelian, Hervet could have received that the same honors were exhibited by those who inhabited Elephantina toward the *mœotes* fish, as our Clement says. Indeed, at the passage cited by us, he adds: "Οἱ οἰκοῦντες τὴν καλουμένην Ἐλεφαντίνην τοὺς μαιώτας." "Those indeed who dwell in the region named Elephantina worship the *mœotes*."
Furthermore, just as Strabo [mentions] the *phagros* fish, so too does Athenaeus [mention] the *mœotes*, and also the same *phagros* in these words: "In the Nile there are generated many other species of fish, all most delicious, and especially the *coracini*, which are divided into many kinds, and those which they call *meiotas*, [as] mentioned by Archippus regarding these fish in the words [starting]: *meiotas... phagrus, oxyrrinchus*." Regarding these, furthermore, besides those who have disputed specifically about fish, read, if you have the time and the desire, Vossius, *lib. IV, De orig. et progr. idololat., c. 51*.
We could barely, if at all, be persuaded to believe that the books of Aelian cited a little earlier had been read by Hervet. C For truly it is easy from them to have learned what yet he says he is ignorant of, and [what] is narrated by our Clement thus: "The Thebans worship weasels on account of the birth of Hercules." What, indeed, could be desired more clearly to explain that passage of our Clement than these words of that same Aelian? "The Thebans, being Greeks by nation—to be laughed at—who religiously worship the weasel, say that this [animal] was the nurse of Hercules, or if not the nurse, yet when Alcmene was giving birth to Hercules and could not bring him forth, this [animal] running by dissolved the bonds of delivery, and [thus] it came to be that Hercules came forth into the light more easily." But Aelian himself [writes] in Greek: "Θηβαῖοι σέβουσιν, Ἕλληνες ὄντες, (ὡς ἀκούω) γαλῆν, καὶ λέγουσι γε Ἡρακλέους αὐτὴν γενέσθαι τροφόν, ἢ τροφὸν μὲν οὐδαμῶς· καθημένης δὲ ἐπ’ ὠδῖσι τῆς Ἀλκμήνης, καὶ τεκεῖν οὐ δυναμένης, τήνδε παραδραμεῖν, καὶ τοὺς τῶν ὠδίνων λῦσαι δεσμούς, καὶ προσελθεῖν τὸν Ἡρακλέα, καὶ ἕρπειν." It pleases [the reader] to be able to consult Vossius.
You see, therefore, that these commentaries of Aelian were never perused by Hervet. If you wish for this to be proven to you by some other argument, the following words of the same Clement himself regarding the worship of eggs will immediately supply it to you. For he says: "Nor indeed would I forget the Samians, who worship a sheep, as Euphorion says." Now Hervet denies that this can be found anywhere else at all. Yet among Aelian, it is not only to be found, but also the cause of it, which is brought forward by him in that same place [as] from Aristotle: "Τιμῶσι δὲ ἄρα Δελφοὶ μὲν λύκον, Σάμιοι δὲ πρόβατον... Σαμίοις δὲ καὶ αὐτοῖς τοιοῦτο χρυσίον ἱερὸν κλαπὲν πρόβατον ἀνεῦρε, καὶ ἐντεῦθεν Μανδράβολος ὁ Σάμιος τῇ Ἥρᾳ πρόβατον ἀνάθημα ἀνῆψε." "The Delphians worship a wolf, the Samians a sheep... to the Samians also an ewe found such gold [that had been] stolen. Therefore Mandrabulus the Samian consecrated an ewe as an offering to Juno." You see, therefore, that the Samians, by these witnesses, indeed worshipped an ewe, and that the cause of this cult was the discovery of gold stolen by the Samians.
But if these things escaped the tireless study and diligence of Hervet, he certainly attained the mind of Clement in that [part] when he thought that the fable of Derceto, known to all, should be referred to from Diodorus Siculus and Giraldus, which he continuously appends [to what he says] about the Syrians and their cult of doves and fish: "Those who inhabit the Phoenicia of the Syrians, some worship doves, but others worship fish just as intensely as the Eleans [worship] Jupiter." But for the confirmation of his opinion, he could have added this magnificent testimony of Athenagoras: "Θυγάτηρ ἡ τῆς Δερκέτους Σεμίραμις, λάγνος γυνὴ καὶ μιαιφόνος, ἔδοξε Συρία θεός· καὶ διὰ τὴν Δερκετὼ καὶ τὰς περιστερὰς καὶ τὴν Σεμίραμιν σέβουσι Σύροι· τὸ γὰρ ἀδύνατον, εἰς περιστερὰν μετέβαλεν ἡ γυνή. Ὁ μύθος παρὰ Κτησίᾳ." "The daughter of Derceto, Semiramis, a lustful and murderous woman, was thought to be a Syrian goddess; and because of Derceto and the doves and Semiramis, the Syrians worship [them]; for the impossible thing, the woman changed into a dove. The myth [is] from Ctesias." You will find both passages of Clement and Athenagoras excellently illustrated by Vossius, with various [authors] cited by him. Add to these, if you will, also Cicero, who writes thus concerning the veneration of the Syrians for fish, and even more so that of the Egyptians for every kind of beast: "The Syrians worship a fish; the Egyptians have consecrated almost every kind of beast." To which passage you might go to see the illustrations of Scaliger.
939 IN CLEMENTEM ALEX. D. LE NOURRY DISSERTATIO I.
ARTICLE VI.
Concerning kings and private individuals who were inscribed among the number of the gods; concerning Ceyx and his wife Alcyone, concerning Ptolemy IV and Mithridates, concerning Menecrates the physician, concerning Alexarchus and Nicagoras, concerning King Philip and Demetrius.
From these matters which we have recounted thus far, Clement thinks that it came about, through the impious errors, fables, and ravings of men, that kings A and even private individuals became persuaded that they had the power to enroll themselves without impunity among the order of the gods. And indeed, to say nothing of Alexander the Great—which no one is ignorant of—Ceyx, king of the Trachinians, as our Clement writes, because of his nobility, wealth, and physical beauty, dared to equate himself with the gods; he wanted himself to be called Jupiter, and his wife, Alcyone, to be called Juno. Natalis Comes discusses him after Polycetus, and suspects that the fable of Ceyx and Alcyone, who were turned into birds, which Ovid pursues at length, arose from this. Nor should it disturb you that while this man called Ceyx the son of Lucifer, Clement calls him the son of Aeolus. For the opinion of writers concerning the parentage of Ceyx was not one, nor did they all hand down the same things about him.
Clement then relates that Ptolemy IV and Mithridates were called by the name of the god Dionysus. Eusebius and others make mention of the former, while Cicero speaks of the latter in these words: "They called Mithridates that god, that father, that savior of Asia, that Dionysus, Bacchus, Liber."
Among private individuals who had usurped divinity, Clement first places Menecrates the physician, who was nicknamed Jupiter. He was a Syracusan by birth, and a physician by profession; because he cured people suffering from the "sacred disease," he boasted that he was Jupiter. If you wish for witnesses to be given you of such madness, we shall cite Athenaeus immediately, Aelian, Suidas, and if you have need, Casaubon and many others.
Nor was the deed B of the grammarian Alexarchus less arrogant and insane, for he did not hesitate to fashion himself in the likeness of the Sun. Moreover, Athenaeus provided evidence that Alexarchus, the brother of Cassander, king of Macedonia, wrote these words to the commanders of his same brother: "Alexarchus, a warrior, greets the first-born sons of the Sun." But whether he was the same person as the grammarian of the same name, let that be the judgment of others. Meanwhile, however, you will learn more clearly from that same Athenaeus who that Nicagoras is, whom Clement testifies in that same place had arrogated the name of Mercury to himself. How these matters escaped Hervetus, you might perhaps not consider it unreasonable to marvel.
We read in Diodorus Siculus that Philip, king of Macedonia and father of Alexander the Great, on account of the magnitude of his empire, wished to be added to the number of the twelve gods, as if he were a participant in that same divinity. There is therefore nothing surprising if the Athenians, C as Clement says, decreed with impious adulation that he be worshiped in the Cynosarges, which was the gymnasium of Hercules. Pausanias, however, handed down to memory that there was a shrine of Hercules at Athens, beyond doubt in the gymnasium mentioned by us on the authority of Plutarch, called *Cynosarges* from a white dog. In this temple, therefore, the Athenians decreed that Philip, his statue being undoubtedly placed there, should be worshiped. For the rest, concerning the Cynosarges, see Suidas and Erasmus, *Adagiorum chiliades*, cent. 1, adag. 70, p. 605.
Clement is still our witness that no less honors were conferred by the Athenians upon Demetrius than upon Philip: "Calling Demetrius himself also a god," he says, "and where he dismounted from his horse, entering Athens, is the temple of Demetrius Kataibates [the Descender]." Plutarch writes in almost the same way: "They even consecrated the place where he first descended from his chariot, and placed an altar D there, which they named that of Demetrius Catabates, that is, the dismounter." Indeed, concerning Lamia the harlot, whom Clement says was desperately loved by that same Demetrius, Athenaeus and Diogenes Laertius have made mention. But they, just as Pliny, add that three hundred and sixty statues were placed for this Demetrius by the Athenians, though they were a little while later torn down, sold, submerged, trampled, cut into pieces, and utterly ground to dust by them.
CAPUT X.
Concerning the oracles, games, and contests of the pagans.
ARTICLE I.
Concerning the deficiency of oracles among the pagans, concerning the Thesprotian cauldron, concerning Gerandryus, and the oracle of Jupiter Ammon, concerning the Castalian [fountain], and the fountain of Colophon, Clarius, Didymaeus, and Amphiaraus, concerning goats and ravens practiced for the purpose of divination.Clement demonstrates the falsity of the ethnic religion not only from those insipid and plainly absurd pagan errors and the insane opinions of blinded minds, but also from the deficiency of the oracles which they valued more than all other things. Therefore, he attacks all their impieties and various superstitions, which he is about to uproot to their very foundations in his *Address to the Gentiles*, starting from this as if it were their head; so that, with it amputated, all the members of the monstrous body might the more easily fall and be destroyed. Moreover, whatever he argues against these pagan oracles with a brief induction, anyone will be able to find the whole of it described in the same words by Eusebius, and confirmed and illustrated by Gregory Nazianzen and Theodoret. Nor do Plutarch, in *The Obsolescence of Oracles* and *The Oracles of the Pythia*, nor again Eusebius in *Preparation for the Gospel*, book IV, c. 2 et seq., bring the least bit of light to that same place. Likewise Leo Allatius, *On the Engastrimythus*, Servatius Galleus, *On the Sibyls and Their Oracles*, and finally others, both ancient and more recent, and writers of our own age.
Therefore, Hervetus, [having noticed] some of them—not indeed ones later than his own age, but far superior, and easily accessible to himself, if ever even once, or at [...]
A least had read them more attentively, he would certainly have learned that the Thesprotian cauldron is to be distinguished from the Dodonean bronze, not only by Eusebius, the excerptor of Clement, but also by Theodoret, just as Clement himself distinguishes them. What, then, of the fact that Billius, employing these words of Gregory Nazianzen: *No longer does the oak speak, no longer does the cauldron prophesy*, considers that both are to be separated in the very same way as in the discourse of our Clement? Nor is it established that the Thesprotian cauldron was the same thing as the Dodonean bronze: but some have been persuaded that some difference existed between the two. Regarding this matter, one should consult Suidas at the word *Dodonaian bronze*, and Erasmus, *Adagia*, chil. 1, centur. 1, prov. 7, p. 23. That, however, cannot pass unnoticed by us, that even if Clement and Theodoret speak of the Thesprotian cauldron and the Dodonean bronze, with a few words interposed, it does not follow from this that any distinction is established between them. For it happens not once that they have in truth discussed one and the same thing, with some words occasionally interjected.
Then Clement asserts without any hesitation that the *Gerandryon*, which they say is the oracle of Jupiter Ammon, had vanished in his own time. Nor indeed without reason. For Strabo, who flourished in the age of Augustus and Tiberius, declares that that once most celebrated oracle of Ammon was almost deserted, and that other prophecies of that kind were clearly neglected, in these words: *To the many things said by us about Ammon, we only add this, that among the ancients the entire practice of divination and the oracles were held in the highest honor, [but] now the same are neglected to a great degree; the Romans being content with the Sibylline oracles and Etruscan divination by means of extispicy, auguries, and observations from the sky. And so the oracle of Ammon, which was once in honor, is now almost deserted.* Plutarch, however, around the time of Trajan, introduces Ammonium speaking regarding the oracle of Ammon: *Now indeed it seems to be fading away.* To himCleombrotus replies that almost all the oracles which were in those places, with two or three exceptions, had failed. But no one doubts that all these were utterly abolished by the advent of Christ and the preaching of the apostles, and grew antiquated. Whence Prudentius, in the reign of Theodosius the Great, sang thus: *Nor does Ammon bring back responses among the Libyan peoples.*
What further meaning Hervetus intends, we do not know, since regarding these subsequent words of Clement: *The Castalian spring was certainly consigned to silence*, he observes that Pausanias indeed makes mention of this spring, B but says absolutely nothing about it having been divinatory. But he thinks it similar to this spring, because it was not far from Delphi, and that the power of divination was also attributed to it. But to what end is this useless observation? For what is clearer than those words of Lucian, which Hervetus seems never to have read? *For how can this be done in any way, Momus, with neither the tripod present to us, nor incense, nor the augural spring, of the kind that Castalia is?* Nor less clearly Ammianus Marcellinus: *Julian, being too curious, he says, entered upon a new path of counsel, thinking to reopen the prophetic veins of the Castalian spring, which the Emperor Adrian is said to have obstructed with a huge mass of stones, fearing that if he himself learned of the public affairs that were to be undertaken through the prophetic waters, others might be taught the same things, and he immediately ordered the buried bodies surrounding it to be removed from there with the rite by which the Athenians purified the island of Delos.* We know indeed that this [applies] to C the spring of Colophon, which Clement says in that same place had grown obsolete, [and] regarding how oracles and responses were once rendered, Cornelius Tacitus explains clearly and plainly: *Not a woman there, as at Delphi, but a priest taken from certain families and almost always from Miletus, hears the number and names of those consulting; then, having entered the cave, and having drunk the water of the mysterious spring, although he is mostly ignorant of letters, he gives responses, in verses composed about the matters which each person has conceived in his mind; and he was reported to have predicted to Germanicus, through enigmas, as is the custom for oracles, his timely death.* Regarding this spring, Tertullian writes: *The demonic source of Colophon makes men lymphatic.* Pliny also made mention not only of this spring, but also of the Clarian and Didymean; while Cicero, Diodorus Siculus, and many others, [mention] the Amphiaraus, regarding whom Horace sings these lines: *The house of the Argive augur fell, submerged in destruction because of gain.*
To Hervetus these things seem far more difficult than what Clement afterwards told about goats and ravens: *To this society of the merchandise of jugglery are brought goats, which are practiced in divination, and ravens, which are taught by men to give responses to men.* But the Greek scholiast of Clement, not yet published, thinks that he has alluded to the history of Caranus, the first king of the Macedonians. Which indeed he explains in these words: D *When Caranus, the son of Poias, from Argos, was about to send a colony to Macedonia and had gone to Delphi, Apollo prophesied: "Take heed, divine Caranus, and take into your mind my word: Leave Argos and Greece of the beautiful women, hasten to the springs of the Haliacmon, where you shall first see goats feeding; then it is ordained for you, and for your whole race, to dwell in an enviable land."* *From this oracle, having become more eager, Caranus, having sent a colony with certain Greeks, came into Macedonia and built a city and reigned over the Macedonians, and he renamed the city previously called Edessa, Aegae, from the goats; and Edessa was inhabited of old by Phrygians and Lydians, and by those who were brought across into Europe with Midas. These things Euphorion recounts in his history and in the Inachus.* *When Caranus, son of Poias, was about to lead a colony from Argos into Macedonia, and had come to Delphi, the oracle of Apollo responded:* *Auscultate, divine Caranus, and attend to my words:* *Leave the hearths of Argos and Greece, where the woman was always beautiful; go to the fountains of the Haliacmon, and where you shall first see goats grazing, there* *Stay your steps, and live there as the first among the blessed.* *Made more eager by this oracle, Caranus, having led a colony with some Greeks into Macedonia, built a city there, and, the first to hold power among the Macedonians, he [named] the city, which was previously called Edessa, by changing…*
the name and wishing it to be called Egeae. A Yet in olden times the Phrygians and Lydians, and the others who crossed into Europe with Midas, lived in Edessa. Euphorion records this in his history and in the *Inachus*. The same account is given by the historian Justin, though since the matters dictated by Apollo’s oracle were entirely omitted, it was written somewhat more loosely. But since Clement speaks of goats trained for divination, who would believe that he was alluding to this history of Caranus and the goats, whether true or fictitious?
As for Clement’s meaning, perhaps those things which Diodorus Siculus reports regarding the Delphic oracle discovered by goats, from an ancient tradition of legends, come closer. For he says it often happened that if any of the grazing goats had once looked toward the chasm where the entrance to the Delphic shrine was later opened, B then it would “exult in a wonderful manner, and emit a voice different from the one it was accustomed to before.” If anyone, however, should contend that the *ἐξησκημέναι αἶγες*—trained goats—employed by Clement do not fit these specifically, but rather others trained by human art for divination, we would not dare to contradict this plane and thoroughly. Yet since those goats seem to be called divinely taught and instructed, to speak in the manner of the pagans, perhaps it is not without reason that one might conjecture that this legend, so famous among the pagans, is effectively refuted and exposed there by our Clement.
Perhaps it will not seem likely to many that what is observed by the same Greek scholiast of Clement concerning the crows [can be explained this way]: “The Boeotians, being attacked by the Aeolians, received an oracle [asking] if they should fight. Apollo said to them: ‘When you see white crows, then fight.’ C But at a certain time, some young men as a joke chalked some crows and let them fly. The Boeotians, thinking that this indicated the oracle, went out and fought, and perished. Whence also the proverb, ‘To the crows,’ instead of, ‘to destruction.’ And thus they were considered prophetic crows.” The Boeotians, harassed by the Aeolians in war, consulted the oracle as to whether it was expedient for them to undertake the war. Apollo, however, answered them: When you see white crows, then wage war. But after a certain interval of time passed, youths as a joke released crows that they had smeared with gypsum. The Boeotians, believing this to be the explanation of the oracle, engaged in battle and were slaughtered. Hence the proverb: To the crows, that is, to ruin. But afterwards, crows were held to be augural. Indeed, the interpreter of Aristophanes, cited by Erasmus in the exposition of the same proverb, narrates the matter differently.
But however those things may have been, Clement does not seem to have aimed at this; since he is arguing about crows that were supposedly trained to give answers for men. Moreover, since there was hardly any bird from which the pagans did not derive omens, whether flying from the rising of the sun, or from the setting, or from the right, or from the left, or in any other way, it is not easy to state to which [kind of bird] this passage of our Clement should be understood to refer. D For it is not stated in clear words by him how the crows, whether by a simulated human voice or by other signs, returned answers to men. Concerning these auspices, see, if you have the time, Aldrovandus, *Ornithology*, book x, ch. 1, p. 709 et seqq.; Tiraquellus in Alexander ab Alexandro, *Genial. dier.*, book v, ch. 13, p. 499, etc.; Julius Caesar Bulenger, *De oraculis et vatibus*, and especially ch. 5, 6, 9, 128 and 150; Johannes Antonius Venereus, book *De oraculis et divinat. antiquorum*, and Plutarch’s book *De oraculorum defectu*, vol. II, p. 409 et seqq.
77 ARTICLE II.
Concerning the shameful games and contests among the pagans, the Pythian, Isthmian, Nemean, and Olympic; concerning the mysteries in Sagra and Alimunte.
How shameful, impious, and absurd the origin of the Pythian, Isthmian, Nemean, and Olympic games and contests was among the pagans, Clement reveals in a few words. But what he writes there, these things are transcribed word for word from Eusebius, and can be unknown to no one, we think. However, if you wish to have them explained to you more fully, consult Natalis Comes, who instituted a long discussion about each of them, just as Fasoldus and Meursius did regarding the Olympics. Yet we cannot omit those words of Helladius in Photius concerning these games and contests: “First, indeed, the Panathenaea were instituted; then the Thessalians instituted the Eleusinian contests after the death of Pelias; then the Isthmian in honor of Melicertes; thence the Olympic by Hercules; then the Nemean, after the death of Archemorus; finally, after the fall of Cirrha, the Pythian games were instituted.” But our Clement himself, in the first book of the *Stromata*, teaches that the Isthmian games were established by Glaucus on account of Melicertes 296 years after the leadership of Moses. Regarding these and other games and contests mentioned above, consult William Loya, who published their chronological series at Oxford two years ago.
Furthermore, those things which Clement added created great difficulty for Hervet: “But the mysteries in Sagra, and those in Alimunte of Attica, are circumscribed in Athens, and are the shame and disgrace of the world, both the contests and the phalli consecrated to Dionysus.” For he declares openly and plainly that he had found no writer who had made mention of these mysteries circumscribed within the borders of Attica.
But it does not seem to us that our Clement’s text has been explored with sufficient diligence, as to whether it was whole or corrupted, nor are the mysteries of Eleusinian Ceres and Bacchus sufficiently understood. For our author’s Greek words are read in the editions thus: *Ἀλλὰ τὰ μὲν ἐν Σάγρα μυστήρια, καὶ τὰ ἐν Ἀλιμοῦντι τῆς Ἀττικῆς, Ἀθήνησιν περιώρισται, αἶσχος δὲ κοσμικόν, οἵ τε ἀγῶνες καὶ οἱ φαλλοὶ οἱ Διονύσῳ ἐπιτελούμενοι*. It is clear and manifest, however, that many shameful and obscene mysteries of the heathens are rightly and deservedly attacked and proscribed there by our Clement.
But Meursius demands an adulteration of the earlier words, who contends that *ἐπὶ Σάγρα μυστήρια* should be read as *ἐπὶ Ἄγρα μυστήρια*. Nor indeed without cause. For he strives to prove his emendation with the authority of both Stephanus and Eustathius; and indeed [the former] speaking of Agra: “Agra and Agrae, a place, both singular and plural. It is in Attica before the city, in which the lesser mysteries are celebrated.” Eustathius, however, who notes these things in his commentary on the *Iliad* of Homer: “The name Agra is also Agrae, where the lesser mysteries were celebrated, which are called the mysteries in Agris.” Wherefore the same Meursius himself thinks that Clement is to be understood as speaking of the lesser mysteries of Eleusinian Ceres, which were celebrated at Agra. Nevertheless, in our Greek manuscript codices, the same reading is exhibited most constantly as in the printed editions. Do not say, I pray, that this happened through the customary sleepiness and hallucination of the copyists. For indeed, in the little notes added to the margin, that scholion is read to explain the word *Σάγρα*: “of Italy, from which also the proverb: ‘More true…’”
of the Sagra. This proverb is indeed confirmed and explained by Cicero: “For,” he says, “there is also a common proverb among the Greeks concerning the Sagra: they say that those things which they affirm are more certain than those things which happened at the Sagra.” A Strabo, moreover, explains for us the source of this proverb: “Following the Locrians is the river Sagra, which they speak of in the feminine gender; by it is the temple of the Dioscuri. 200,000 Locrians, having engaged in battle with 130,000 Crotoniates, carried off the victory.” And from this, they say, the expression was derived, disparaging the credibility of the event: “These things are more true than the things done at the Sagra.” But sitting here, as you surely see, he is speaking not of a city but of a river. And, to pass over Pliny, Cicero also had previously said the same thing: “When the Locri had defeated the Crotoniates in a very great battle at the river Sagra, it was recorded in the history of the Olympic games that news of this battle was heard on that very day.” But who would deny that these mysteries, about which our Clement disputes, were performed in the city rather than on the banks of a river? It seems, therefore, that Meursius’s correction is more credible than the reading of the manuscripts, however ancient, B which might have come from some copyist.
As for other mysteries that were accustomed to be performed at Alimunte, these things, unknown to Hervetus, Arnobius consigned to writing: “I am ashamed to bring up those Alimuntian mysteries, in which Greece raises up phalluses in honor of Father Liber.” But many will undoubtedly suspect that these were gleaned from none other than our Clement. If, however, the case be so, one might certainly ask whether Arnobius perceived the true meaning of our author and spoke the truth. For by him, the Alimuntian and Bacchic mysteries are confused, which seem to be distinguished not obscurely by our Clement. But even if Clement separates them from each other, he will certainly seem to have distinguished the Alimuntian from those previously accustomed to be performed at Agra not at all, to many, without doubt. Wherefore, no one will easily persuade us that Clement is speaking of the same mysteries of Eleusinian Ceres that were accustomed to be celebrated both at Alimunte and at Agra, unless someone else demonstrates that in that whole passage he meant to speak of nothing other than the most obscene Bacchic phalluses.
CAPUT XI.
Opinions of heathen philosophers and poets concerning the gods and the first principles of things, and concerning those whom they called atheists.ARTICLE 1.
Of the first class of philosophers, who said that one or many elements were the first principles of things; of the opinion of Thales, Anaximenes, Diogenes of Apollonia, Parmenides, Hyspasus of Metapontum, Heraclitus, and Empedocles; where also of the Macedonians and Sarmatians.Lest anyone should argue that the most absurd opinions of the failing human intellect, which we have discussed thus far, or rather the huge and most foul monsters of human opinions, were asserted and defended only by the lowest rabble or by men of the unlearned common herd; for this reason, Clement undertakes to refute with invincible arguments all the doctrines of the philosophers concerning the first principles of things, or concerning God himself, C and demonstrates that they have departed utterly from truth and right reason. He therefore makes it manifest that the philosophers who had established fire or water as the first principle had received it from the Persians, or Sarmatians, or rather, just as the ignorant multitude was afterwards taught to attribute divinity to Vulcan and Neptune, according to the same opinion of the philosophers. For what, says Clement, is Vulcan, if not an igneous substance; what is Neptune, if not a certain humid substance?
But come now, and consider with us with an attentive mind with what sincerity and diligence he reviews the various opinions of these same philosophers, and impugns, refutes, and utterly overturns them. He distinguishes them into three principal classes, of which the former is of those who falsely believed that the first principles of things were to be established in one or in more elements. He took his beginning, however, from Thales of Miletus, who believed water to be the first principle, and likewise from Anaximenes of Miletus, who believed air to be such. But we have discussed both of those philosophers elsewhere. D
Diogenes of Apollonia, however, he asserts without hesitation to have subscribed to the opinion of Anaximenes. And rightly so, indeed. For Cicero says beautifully of this same Diogenes: “What air, he says, does Diogenes of Apollonia use as God; what sensation can it have, or what form of God?” And yet, Diogenes Laertius testifies that he added to this same air infinite worlds and an infinite void: “Diogenes, son of Apollothenides, was an Apolloniate, a natural philosopher, and famous above all for his eloquence... But the things he opined are these: that air is the element; that there are infinite worlds and an infinite void; and that condensed and rarefied air produces worlds. Nothing comes to be from that which is not; nor does it perish into that which is not.” But if worlds are generated from air, air alone, according to his opinion, and by no means the infinite worlds as well, ought to be called the element and first principle. Which can be seen more clearly from the things which Plutarch recorded at Eusebius regarding this same sentiment of Diogenes: “Diogenes of Apollonia posits air as the element, but affirms that all things are moved, and that there are infinite worlds.” Moreover, he dreams of their creation in this way: namely, that when the universe was thus moved, so that it became rarer here and denser elsewhere, wherever a greater density happened, it produced a certain convolution there, and then did the same to the rest; but those parts which were lightest of all, having occupied the higher region, produced the sun. D Furthermore, Augustine adds that he taught that without divine reason, of which air is possessed, nothing could be produced from it: “He said that air,” are Augustine’s words, “was the matter of things from which all things were made; but he said that it was possessed of divine reason, without which nothing could be produced from it.”
Clement proceeds, and reports that the gods introduced by Parmenides were fire and earth. The same is read as having been handed down before by Laertius: “Parmenides,” he says, “son of Pyretis, an Eleate, was a hearer of Xenophon; albeit...”
A he handed down that the world is spherical and situated in the middle, and that there are two elements, fire and earth; the former keeping the order of the artificer, the latter that of the material. He flourished in the sixty-ninth Olympiad.”
Yet perhaps someone will object to us that one principle alone, namely fire, is posited by this same Parmenides. For does not Cicero record this in these words, one might ask? “Parmenides makes fire, which moves the earth, which is supported by it.” Aldobrandinus replies that Parmenides speaks only of the efficient principle, and because he added that the earth is formed by fire, another principle is indicated by him. But this answer seems rather to cut the knot of the difficulty than to untie it; unless you were to say that the earth is fashioned from fire, as matter, they say, is from form, so that it receives its species and figure from it. For by this explanation you will more easily understand fire, as Laertius said, to hold the rank of the artificer and earth that of the material.
But perhaps time is wasted in elucidating this error of a man who is hardly consistent with himself. For Cicero shows elsewhere that many other gods, or rather monsters of gods, were introduced by that very Parmenides: “Parmenides fashions a certain imaginary crown, which he calls Stephanē, a circle containing the heat of light that girds the heaven, which he calls God. In which no one can suspect any divine figure or sense. Many are his monsters, since he traces war, discord, desire, and other things of the same kind back to God, which are destroyed either by disease, or sleep, or oblivion, or age. The same is true of the stars, which, having already been refuted in another place, may be omitted here.” Finally, besides Aldobrandinus and other scholiasts of Laertius, you may consult Vossius, and also Lescalopier, who tries to interpret this “crown” of Parmenides in a good sense.
Clement is our authority that there was no other God for Hippasus of Metapontum and Heraclitus of Ephesus besides fire. Plutarch, and from Plutarch, Eusebius, sets forth this opinion of both philosophers in a similar way: “Heraclitus and Hippasus of Metapontum,” these are Plutarch’s words, “held fire to be the principle of all things. For they say that all things are born from fire.” But regarding Diogenes Laertius, who discusses both separately, see the reading of Menagius and the observations of others. We, however, have discoursed elsewhere on Heraclitus and Empedocles, whom Clement has subjoined to him, and on their opinions. Therefore we shall here note in passing what Clement added, and which Hervetus declares to be unknown to him: that the Macedonians and Sauromatae worshipped fire; that is explained so clearly by Vossius that it brings no small light to this passage of our Clement.
ARTICLE II.
On the second class of philosophers who said that something more sublime than the elements is the first principle of things; concerning the opinion of Anaximander, Anaxagoras, Archelaus, Leucippus, Metrodorus, Democritus, Heraclitus [sic], and concerning the idols or images of both; whether Metrodorus was a disciple of Heraclitus; concerning the opinion of Alcmaeon, Xenocrates, the Chalcedonian, the Stoics, Aristotle, Theophrastus, and Epicurus.B In the second class of philosophers, Clement places those who determined that something more sublime and excellent than the elements is the first principle of all things. He sets over them three leaders, Anaximander, Anaxagoras, and Archelaus, who held the infinite to be the first principle, yet so that the two latter wished mind to preside over it. Wherefore he says elsewhere concerning Anaxagoras: “First, Anaxagoras applied mind to things.” But Cicero narrates this opinion of his more at length in Book I *De natura deorum*, page 199, and in Book IV *Academicis quaestionibus*, page 33; Diogenes Laertius in Book II *De vitis et dogmatibus philosophorum*, upon whom you may see the various annotations of Menagius and others; Plutarch’s Book I *De placitis philosophorum*; Tertullian’s Book *De anima*, chapter 12; Eusebius’ Book X *Praeparatio evangelica*, page 504. Of those three philosophers we too have touched upon some things in another book.
But them, among our Clement, follow Leucippus and Metrodorus of Chios, who opined that there is a double principle, namely the full and the void. Clement, however, does not venture to assert this as entirely certain and verified. For he added in the same place: “*eoiken*, as it seems.” But Tullius affirms without any hesitation that this was the opinion, or rather the error, of Leucippus; although it is set forth by Diogenes Laertius a little differently in this manner: “He says the universe is infinite: that a part of it is full, and a part void; and he says that the elements and the worlds are infinite from them, and dissolve into them.” Plutarch also clearly signifies in Eusebius that Metrodorus altogether supported him in this.
But whether that same Metrodorus persevered in this view for long can not unjustly be called into doubt. For certain words of his are cited by Cicero, by which he denied that we know anything at all: “Metrodorus of Chios,” so speaks Cicero, “at the beginning of the book which is *De natura*, says: ‘I deny,’ he says, ‘that we know that we know anything, or that we know nothing, nor even do we know whether we know or do not know, nor at all whether there is something or nothing.’” Whence Laertius on the same Metrodorus: “He said that he did not even know this, that he knew nothing.” Menagius, however, suspects that these were inserted into the text of Laertius by some idle writer, because there was no discussion there about the dogmas of Metrodorus. But since it is certain from Cicero that this was the error of Metrodorus, this reasoning of Menagius is certainly of no moment. For what prevents Laertius, when he happens upon the mention of that philosopher, from having thought that this absurd opinion of his should be noted in passing? Be that as it may, Aristocles, in Eusebius, reports that the same Metrodorus had agreed with those who had dreamed: “Of whatever sort anything appears, of that sort also it is. That nothing at all can be affirmed by us [as certain].” Nor should the lightness of an inconstant mind in this philosopher, so great and so astounding, make anyone tarry. For what is the wonder if this and other philosophers, straying wide of the truth, have strayed into such varied and indeed self-contradictory opinions?
To Hervetus, those things which Clement subjoins continuously concerning Democritus certainly seem to have a greater difficulty: “But from these two,” Leucippus and Metrodorus, “added [he who] borrowed idols, or species of things, *ta eidōla*, Democritus of Abdera.” For Hervetus admits that he added to the full and empty, as Aristotle records, the indivisible bodies which are called atoms. But whether Democritus so...
called them, or Clement in jest called them A *idola* (images), he himself denies that it can be asserted for certain. But what is clearer and more luminous than these words of Cicero? “Democritus’ atoms, the void, and images, which they name *idola*, by the incursion of which we not only see, but also think.” Elsewhere, indeed: “Whom do you think is that Marius seen by me? His appearance, I suppose, and his image, as it seems to Democritus. Whence did the image set out? For he wishes images to flow from solid bodies and from certain shapes.” Moreover, the same things are related not only by that man in other books, but also by Augustine. From which it can be gathered that the same thing is signified by Laertius in these words, although slightly more obscure: “We see by the incursion of images,” meaning that we observe by the images of things that fall upon us. Furthermore, Clement writes that Heraclides Ponticus agreed with that opinion of Democritus: “Heraclides Ponticus in some place is carried away to the images of Democritus.” And that this man infected his own books with childish fables, Cicero himself is a witness for us.
That Clement also added in the same place that Democritus took his opinion from Leucippus and Metrodorus might perhaps cause trouble for someone. For not only Suidas, but Clement himself writes elsewhere that Metrodorus was a hearer of Democritus. Wherefore Menagius thinks that another passage of Suidas, where it is held thus: “Alexander’s pupil, of whom Metrodorus of Abdera was the teacher,” B should be amended, and that there one should read: “Democritus of Abdera.” Thus indeed he had it entirely persuaded that Democritus was the teacher of Metrodorus of Chios. That, however, was not so certain that no room remained for doubt. For if we have faith in Laertius, there were various opinions regarding the teacher of the same Metrodorus: “Some,” he says, “tradition that Metrodorus heard Nessus of Chios, others Democritus.” But although Metrodorus heard Democritus, nothing prevents a teacher, having rejected a prior opinion, from subsequently embracing another opinion of his disciple which he thought was truer.
Hervetus writes that it is still unknown to him whence our Clement accepted that Alcmaeon of Croton taught that the stars, inasmuch as they are animate, are truly gods. For he says that nothing concerning that matter has been handed down by Diogenes Laertius or Plutarch. What then was Laertius intending when he wrote of the same Alcmaeon: “He said that this moon has an eternal nature”? Who, I ask you, can have an eternal nature unless God himself, or he who is endowed with a divine nature? But if these things do not satisfy Hervetus, let him approach Cicero, and hear him speaking much more clearly and expressively about this opinion of Alcmaeon: “But Alcmaeon of Croton, who gave divinity to the sun and the moon and the remaining C stars, and moreover to the mind, did not perceive that he was giving immortality to mortal things.” Who would not wonder how these things escaped Hervetus?
Nor would I wish you to object that Xenocrates is cited in the quoted passage by our Clement himself, and elsewhere is surnamed *Carthaginian*: for he is also called *Chalcedonian* by him in some places. Moreover, his opinion concerning the eight gods is explained by the already cited Cicero in this manner: “Xenocrates says there are eight gods: five who are named among the wandering stars, one who is to be thought of as God, simple, from all the stars which are fixed in the heaven, as if from dispersed limbs; he adds the seventh, the sun, and the eighth, the moon: in what sense they can be blessed, cannot be understood.”
But Hervetus does not seem to have understood this passage of Cicero any better than those which Clement connects directly concerning the opinion of the Stoics: “But I will not omit the Stoics, who say that God pervades all matter, however vile and abject it may be, who openly affect their own philosophy with disgrace.” “Rightly indeed,” says Hervetus, “if the Stoics believed that God pervades all things in a corporeal form, but otherwise if, as seems more probable to him, he pervades them in an incorporeal and spiritual manner.” Therefore, he charges Clement with falsehood, D and is of the opinion that the Stoics were undeservedly criticized by him. Did Hervetus, then, when he wrote these things, forget those which Clement so constantly asserted later in his volumes of the *Stromata*? “Moreover, the Stoics do not correctly say that God, since he is a body, has pervaded the most vile matter.” And in another book: “God is not endowed with a human form, so that he hears, nor is there need for senses for him, as it pleased the Stoics, especially hearing and sight; for it is not possible to apprehend in any other way at any time.” Will Hervetus therefore also charge Clement there with error and a slip? Let him therefore charge Aristocles with the same error, who recorded these things about the Stoics in his seventh book *On Philosophy*: “They wish the element of things to be fire, as Heraclitus does, but its principles to be matter, and God, as Plato does; but with this difference, that the Stoics say both of those, as much the efficient as the patient, are bodies; Plato, on the contrary, sets down that the former, the maker, is an incorporeal author.” Let him also accuse those of error who, according to Cicero, say that all things are referred by the Stoics to a fiery force. Whence also Plutarch: “The Stoics,” he says, “more commonly declare that God is an artificial fire, proceeding by a way to the creation of the world, which world contains in itself all the seminal forms, from which individual things are born by fate. But the spirit, indeed, pervades through the whole world, but names are taken from the mutations of the matter which it pervades. To these he adds that God is the world, the stars, the earth, but the supreme of all gods is the mind which is in the ether.”
en from the mutations of the matter which it pervades. To these he adds that God is the world, the stars, the earth, but the supreme of all gods is the mind which is in the ether.” A Yet this Stoic view concerning the ether was not a single one. For Cleanthes, the most celebrated among them, attributed it alone to the ether, as Cicero testifies. To Zeno and the rest of the Stoics, the ether appears to be the supreme God, endowed with mind, by which all things are governed. Cleanthes, who is, as it were, of the elder school of Stoics and a pupil of Zeno, thinks that the sun rules and holds dominion over all things. But furthermore, those who supposed the supreme God to be both spirit and mind, whether in the ether or in the sun, nevertheless called this an igneous and therefore corporeal substance. And certainly, although some of the more acute among them might have thought the supreme God to be nothing but incorporeal spirit, our Clement was not on that account to be accused of error, for he attributed to the Stoics that opinion by which almost all were in truth led. You may see Justus Lipsius and Lescaloperius, who endeavor to exonerate the Stoics somewhat from this error, which most people attribute to them.
Then Clement rightly explodes the varied, flowing, and altogether inconsistent opinion of Aristotle concerning God. This is explained somewhat more clearly by Cicero: Aristotle, he says, in his third book on philosophy, disturbs much, dissenting in only one point from his master Plato; for at one moment he attributes all divinity to mind, at another he says the world itself is God, at another he sets some other being over the world and assigns parts to it, so that by a certain rotation of the world he may rule and govern motion; then he says that the heat of the sky is God, not understanding that the sky is a part of the world, which he himself had designated as God in another place. Regarding what Clement adds, “who defines his providence as extending only to the moon,” that is indeed confirmed twice by the words of Ambrose: Aristotle asserts that his providence descends as far as the moon. Which opinion is still attributed to him by Laertius, as has been demonstrated in our observations on that passage of Ambrose. We know indeed that many disciples of this prince of philosophers have written much in his defense. But whether they have proven that he was consistent with himself and held correct views on God, let others judge.
Neither was the consistency of Theophrastus, his familiar, any greater in his opinion, which Clement writes of in this manner: “But that Eresian Theophrastus, a companion of Aristotle, thinks in one place that the sky, and in another that spirit, is God.” Cicero inveighs against this same levity and mobility of Theophrastus no less severely: For, he says, the inconsistency of Theophrastus is not to be borne; for at one moment he attributes the divine supremacy to mind, at another to the sky, and then again to the signs and celestial stars. If you wish to know who that Theophrastus was, consult Laertius, Vossius, and others.
That there was no providence of God in Epicurus, Clement rightly asserts later on, and Ambrose confirms this with his assent: “The Epicureans say,” he states, “that God cares for nothing concerning us.” But on this impious error of Epicurus, see, if you wish, our observations on this passage of Ambrose.
ARTICLE III. On the third class of philosophers, who taught truer things about God; concerning Plato, Antisthenes, Xenophon, Cleanthes, and Pythagoras, and his followers.
Clement next comes to those philosophers who... taught that there is only one God. B First among all he brings forward Plato, who says that God is altogether difficult to find, or if found by someone, cannot be explained by him. Where Plato said these things, you will learn from Cicero: “He denies that the father of this world can be named in the *Timaeus*, but in the books of the *Laws* he does not think, as regards what God is, that it ought to be inquired into at all.”
Although this may be true, Clement nevertheless shows that one should not therefore desist from the investigation of God, whom all—and especially those who devote themselves to learning and literature—must confess to be one, even if unwillingly. For Plato himself rightly taught in the *Timaeus* that he is not only the king and cause of all things, but also the measure of truth. Clement adds that Plato derived not only this doctrine of true religion from the Hebrews, but also other divine laws, concerning which we have already touched upon something in the previous book, and more remains to be said below.
The second true asserter of the divine nature after Plato is claimed by our Clement to be Antisthenes, concerning whom he says thus: “Antisthenes did not indeed think this as a Cynic, but as one who was a friend of Socrates, he says that God is resembling no one; wherefore no one can learn him from an image.” This can indeed be established and corroborated by the authority of Cicero: “Antisthenes,” he says, “in the book which is inscribed *Physicus*, says that there are many popular gods, but one natural one.” We read nearly the same in Minucius Felix. But when someone asks us why Clement added there, “He did not think this as a Cynic, but as one who was a friend of Socrates,” we will reply that this had been clearly elucidated by the same Clement elsewhere in these words: “When Antisthenes had heard Socrates, he introduced the Cynic sect.” And this is indeed most explicitly asserted by Laertius, although some have called into doubt whether he was truly the prince and founder of the Cynic sect. C But concerning this sect of philosophers and its parent, it will be spoken of in the following dissertation, ch. 17, § 1.
Xenophon, however, continues Clement, although he feared the hemlock of Socrates, nevertheless championed Antisthenes in truth. For he handed down these things openly and clearly in his writings concerning God: “He who moves all things and makes them quiet, he is indeed great and openly powerful, but of what form he is, it appears not.” Cicero, however, recalls that these things were said not in his name, but in the name of Socrates: “Xenophon makes Socrates, in those things which he recorded as said by him, argue that the form of God should not be inquired into, and that the same man calls both the sun and the soul god; and at one time one, but at another time many gods.” But under these, and because of the fear of poison, in obscure modes of speech, his true opinion regarding God—deduced from the Sibylline books, as Clement says—was not so hidden that it could not be easily recognized by others, at least by the more learned. Refer to the notes and observations of Lescaloperius on the cited passage of Cicero.
More daring than Xenophon was Cleanthes, a Pisadean, or rather, as we learn from Laertius and Plutarch, an Assian—D that is, born in the city of Assos, in the Troad, as Strabo says. For Clement makes it attested that he did not conceal what he felt about God, and in verses transcribed by him in the same place, he publicly revealed his opinion concerning him and his divine perfections and attributes. But lest there be anything dissembled...
Cicero nonetheless argues against this Cleanthes—not less than against Xenophon—for levity and inconsistency. Cleanthes, who heard Zeno, says that the world itself is God, and then attributes this name to the mind and spirit of the whole of nature; then he judges that the furthest and highest element, which encompasses all things from every side and binds all things together, and the complex fire which is called ether, is the most certain God. The same man, as if raving in those books which he wrote against pleasure, then fashions a certain form and appearance of gods, then attributes all divinity to the stars, then considers that nothing is more divine through reason. A
But although Cleanthes may have judged by this volatility of words, rather than of mind, that he ought to yield to the blind and stubborn ignorance of the common people, this nevertheless does not prevent him from having, in his writings, sometimes handed down clearly and plainly those things which he felt to be true. And indeed, at the very least, our own Clement was so persuaded of this that he cited the same verses of Cleanthes—from a certain poem of his about God—as certain and as having truly proceeded from him. B
Finally, what was rightly decreed and defined about God by Pythagoras and his followers is thus set forth by our Clement: The followers of Pythagoras say that God is indeed one, not, however, as some opine, as if he were outside the administration of the world, but he is whole in it, in the whole circle, the observer of all generation, the tempering of all things, who always is, and leads his faculties to the work, the illustrator of all works in heaven, the father of all, the mind and animation of the whole circle, the motion of all. Cicero more briefly narrates that dogma of Pythagoras about God thus: "Pythagoras, who judged God to be a mind, intent and moving through the whole nature of things, from which our own minds might be plucked; he did not see that by the distraction of human minds God is torn asunder and lacerated; and since minds were wretched, which happened to most, then a part of God would be wretched: which cannot happen." C
Cicero distinguishes two parts in this sentiment of Pythagoras. The first is that God is a soul, which is present in the whole world and infused into all things; the second, however, is that the human mind is divine, and in some measure a portion of God himself. But Cicero refutes that latter assertion of Pythagoras in such a way that he seems to confirm the former by his tacit assent. From which you may not with difficulty understand that what Clement handed down concerning the Pythagoreans—who acquiesced to all the teachings of their master with a truly wondrous humility of mind—is entirely consistent with the truth. Finally, the opinion of Pythagoras is beautifully explained by Minucius Felix in the *Octavius*, p. 20, in 4; Lactantius, book 1 *De falsa religione*, cap. 5; Salvian, in his book *De gubernatione Dei*, etc. D
Furthermore, Clement says that these are the testimonies of the philosophers selected by him: which, indeed, since they ought to suffice even for the more troublesome, he believed he ought to abstain from bringing forward others in the interim.
ARTICLE IV.
*Concerning the poets who sang truer things about God, or mocked the gods of the pagans: concerning Aratus, Hesiod, Euripides, Sophocles, Orpheus, Menander, and the Metragyrtae, concerning Homer, and again concerning Euripides, who hands down that Hercules ate green figs with meat.*After these things, Clement turns his pen from the philosophers, who boasted themselves to be seekers of wisdom and investigators of truth, to the poets; and he shows that, although they were hardly ever not occupied with singing of fables and false narratives, they nevertheless sometimes sang true things about God. A He begins, however, with Aratus, whom Eusebius testifies to have flourished in the 127th Olympiad, in the year 1745. Furthermore, you will find his verses cited by Clement at the beginning of the poem inscribed *Phaenomena*. But from this same poem of his, as our same author testifies elsewhere, that saying was plucked by the Apostle: *For we are also his offspring*. The memory of this most famous expression is not infrequent among ancient and more recent writers. Regarding it and its author, you may read Jerome, Cicero, the observations of Lescalopier on the same Cicero, Vossius, and others. B
82 Nor is the mention of Hesiod, commended in the same place by Clement, less frequent. According to Eusebius, he is considered famous in the 4th Olympiad, the year 1125, according to some, in whose place you may see the notes of Scaliger. Consult also Vossius in his book *De poetis Graecis*, where he disputes about his age. Moreover, in addition to these, Justin Martyr, Theophilus of Antioch, Irenaeus, and many others have made mention of him, as we have observed elsewhere, among whom Lactantius in book 1 *De vera religione*, chapter 5, strives to show what is true in his opinion about God. Finally, his *Theogonia* and *Argonautica* have been printed with other works of the Greek poets. C
But concerning Euripides, Sophocles, and Orpheus, whom Clement subsequently praised, we have disputed sufficiently elsewhere. However, it must be noted in passing that the verses of Sophocles and Orpheus reported by our same Clement are found cited in Justin Martyr.
Clement also relates that there was another class of poets who, broken and overcome by the power of divine truth, sometimes attacked their own gods not without mockery. He says such a one was Menander, who mocks and hisses out the Metragyrtae, that is, the ridiculous priests of Cybele, or mother of gods, who were collecting alms in her name from door to door. D
Concerning this Menander, whose later verses are transcribed in the book *De monarchia Dei*, praised a little before, we have discussed elsewhere. Tertullian facetiously proscribes the ridiculous custom of the Metragyrtae thus: "And majesty is made a matter of gain; a begging religion goes the rounds of the taverns; you demand payment for the mere temple, for access to the sacred; it is not permitted to know the gods for free, they are for sale." But Cicero reports that these priests in his time, lest they fill minds with superstition, collected this alms only for a few days. Augustine, however, although he confesses that the origin of this custom was unknown to him, testifies that it nevertheless still flourished among the Carthaginians a little before he wrote his books *De civitate Dei*: "And now concerning the eunuchs consecrated to the same Great Mother, contrary to all modesty of men and women, who until today [go about] with damp hair, whitened face, flowing limbs, effeminate gait, through the streets and lanes of Carthage, even demanding from the people whence they might live shamefully—Varro wished to say nothing, nor do I remember reading anywhere." But Vossius discusses this shameful profit of the priests of Cybele and its origin more fully in book IV *Institut. orator.*, cap. 6, § 4, and book I *De orig. et progr. idol.*, c. 53, p. 303.
Nor, furthermore, are we held by the authority of Menander alone, but...
even Antisthenes, of whom we spoke a little before, Clement has proven.
He proceeds, and teaches that the gods were still derived from Homer and A Euripides. We have, we think, sufficiently disputed concerning both already. Wherefore, regarding the latter, we shall note only this: first, that the verses of his cited by Clement are described by the author of the book *De monarchia Dei* not without some variety in the readings. But then Hervetus warns us that he has no recollection at all of that which Clement reports from the same Euripides, that Hercules was insatiable: "Inasmuch as at a banquet he used to eat green figs with meat, shouting many foolish things, and such as might seem so even to a barbarian." Hervetus adds, however, that Hercules is noted by Athenaeus in some place for gluttony and voracity. Therefore, it does not seem that he read the other passage of the same Athenaeus, where he writes this regarding the same Hercules: "We call those *obsophagi* (relish-eaters), not those who eat beef, as was Hercules, who used to eat fresh figs with beef." Nor had he read, or did he remember having read, Plutarch, who says in almost the same way: "We call them *obsonivori* (relish-eaters) and desirous of relishes, not because they delight in beef, like Hercules, who eats green figs after meat." For if Hervetus had read these things, or they had returned to his memory, they would undoubtedly have been cited or noted by him.
ARTICLE V
*Of those whom the pagans called atheists, and attacked under that name: of Evemerus, or Evehemerus, Nicagoras, Diagoras, Hippo, Theodorus, Leon of Pella, and Heraclitus.*Clement says that there were certain others who, although they had not yet attained the truth, because they had suspected or recognized all the false opinions of the pagans concerning the gods, they did not escape the hatred of those same pagans and were called and attacked by them under the name of atheists. He enumerates five of them as follows: Evemerus the Agrigentine, and Nicanor—B *Νικαγόρα*—or Nicagoras the Cypriot, and Diagoras, and Hippo of Melos, and that Cyrenaean after them, whose name was Theodorus. Hervetus notes that mention of Nicagoras the Cypriot and Hippo of Melos is made far less frequently by writers, whether sacred or profane. Arnobius, however, names them all, to which he adds a sixth, Leon of Pella, thus: "And indeed we can show in this place that all those very gods whom you bring forward and call upon were men, by citing the Agrigentine Evemerus—whose books Ennius translated into the Italian tongue, so that it might be clear to all—or Nicagoras the Cypriot, or Leon of Pella, or Theodorus the Cyrenaean, or Hippo and Diagoras of Melos, or a thousand other authors, who with the care of scrupulous diligence brought hidden things to light with candid freedom." Concerning Diagoras, Theodorus, and Evemerus, Plutarch says: "Certain of the philosophers, like Diagoras the Milesian—*Μίλησιος*, for so he calls him—Theodorus the Cyrenaean and Evemerus the Tegeate—*Τεγεάτης*—entirely denied that there are gods," and Callimachus the Cyrenaean also attacked Evemerus, writing in his iambics:
Come in crowds before the temple walls, Where he who formed the ancient Thunderer from bronze, The talkative old man, with impious books, is cold.
C He speaks of these, whom he composed, not being gods. Furthermore, Cicero asserts that the gods were utterly abolished by Diagoras of Melos—of whom we have spoken elsewhere—and by Theodorus the Cyrenaean. But concerning Evemerus, he says: "By Evemerus," he says, "both the deaths and burials of the gods are demonstrated." Does he therefore seem to have confirmed religion, or to have utterly abolished it entirely? If you desire other testimonials concerning him, go to Diodorus Siculus, cited by Eusebius in book I of *Praeparatio evangelica*, chapter 2, page 59; likewise Minucius Felix in his *Octavius*, Lactantius in book I *De falsa religione*, page 62; Augustine in book VI *De civit. Dei*, chapter 7, and book VII, chapter 26.
More things concerning Theodorus have been committed to memory by Diogenes Laertius, Vossius, and very many others. Epiphanius writes, however, that on account of the fact that he denied God, he was the author of others stealing, perjuring themselves, seizing the property of others, D and not dying for their country. Wherefore Hervetus concludes from this that Epiphanius disagrees completely with our Clement on this matter, because he places the same Theodorus in the number of those whom he affirms without doubt to have lived moderately and continently. But what if these words of Clement: "Who lived moderately and continently," are to be referred not to Theodorus and those whom he calls by their names, but to those things which are subjoined, *καὶ τὰ ἑξῆς*? Certainly there will be no disagreement between Clement and Epiphanius. However, in whatever way the matter stands, we shall observe that Vossius did indeed dispute concerning Nicagoras, but that what Clement recorded regarding the same Nicagoras was not read by him, or had slipped from his memory. Lastly, if we have faith in the Greek scholiast of the same Clement, Cratinus remembered Hippo; for he noted these things in the margin of the Clementine text concerning him: *Τοῦ δὲ ἵππωνος καὶ αὐτοῦ ὡς ἀσεβοῦς γενομένου μέμνηται ὁ Κρατίνος.* This person, moreover, was a poet of the Old Comedy, whose memory, as Vossius proves, is celebrated by various writers.
Clement speaks in the same place of two others, without the author's name: of whom the one, that is to say, Heraclitus, pursued all the gods universally, but the other, namely Diagoras, pursued Hercules not without insult and insults. The same things are reported by Epiphanius, but not without a corruption of his text. For in that place, for *Ήράκλητος Αιγύπτω*, one must read *Αἰγυπτίοις*. For he was an Ephesian by nation, not an Egyptian; but those things which he is reported to have said in the same place, these, as our Clement shrewdly holds, he said to the Egyptians. It seems doubtful, however, to Hervetus, whether he is the very same Heraclitus the philosopher whom Clement elsewhere calls an Ephesian, and adds that "he prophesied that death would be for the" nocturnal, rather, the "lenient, the Bacchi, and the mystics," whereas elsewhere he reproached the pagans that the empty images of their gods were destitute of all sense. For Hervetus does not think that Heraclitus the philosopher could be called a prophet. Let us add, if you will, that perhaps no small measure of strength and firmness is added to this conjecture from the fact that more are enumerated by Laertius and afterwards by Menagius, who have shared the same name of Heraclitus. Nevertheless, since no one of those is said to have been an Ephesian by fatherland except the philosopher, it is certainly more likely that Clement made mention of no other than him. And indeed, what prevents him, who refuted the false gods of the pagans, even if he were not a prophet by his profession, from having prophesied death to their various worshippers?
OBSERVATIONS ON THE EXHORTATION AND THE PAEDAGOGUS. CHAPTER XII. ARTICULUS I. Concerning the customs of the pagans. Concerning the luxury and softness of men, and especially those who trimmed their beards, hair, and locks, where it concerns the Scythians and Germans; when the beard began to be shaved, concerning Diogenes’ witticism on this matter, and concerning those who used the hair of others, or dyed their own hair and locks, and concerning women who also painted their eyebrows with rouge.
How great, in his own time, was the corruption of opinions among the pagans, and even the incredible depravity of their life and morals, Clement describes graphically everywhere, and as is right, he argues against it, refuting and thoroughly destroying it with all the nerves and strengths of his genius. And first, he vehemently rebukes the men who were destroyed by luxury and softness no less effeminately than women. Against those, moreover, he inveighs most especially who shaved their beards, hairs, and locks, and were trimmed in a manner plainly meretricious: "The cities are full," he says, "of those who pitch, shave, and pluck these effeminate men. For workshops are built and open everywhere, and the craftsmen of this meretricious fornication earn much money from those who smear themselves with pitch and in every way offer their hair to be plucked by the pluckers." Seneca redargues A the same depraved custom with these words: "What you see those men following, who either pluck their beards or pluck them out in patches, who trim and shave their lips closely, while keeping the rest lowered and downy, who wear the wraps of a base body, who wear a transparent toga, who do not want to do anything that might pass before the eyes of men. They provoke them, and attract attention to themselves; they want even to be reproached, while they are being looked at." Tertullian indeed says: "And this sex acknowledges for itself its own deceits of form: to cut the beard more sharply, to pluck it out in patches, to circle the hair, to arrange it, even to color the grayness, and first of all to remove the down of the whole body, and also to distinguish it with womanly paint, to smooth the rest with the roughness of some dust, then to consult the mirror on every occasion, to inspect it anxiously." There, that excellent African writer touches upon many vices of men in a few words, which Clement has pursued more diffusely.
He teaches, indeed, that our most learned author, that it is diametrically opposed to right reason if a man should lay aside his beard, and be shaved, and be depilated. And indeed, it is no wonder. For Athenaeus narrates from Chrysippus that the custom of shaving the beard had become prevalent in the times of Alexander, and had been unusual in the prior age, since that famous musician Timotheus would blow his pipes with a long beard, and it is observed at Athens that he, the first to be shaved (for which reason he was nicknamed 'Kobs'), was not of very ancient date. Varro also handed down in his writings that this custom was not from the beginning, and when, whence, and by whom it was introduced into Italy: "Barbers are said to have come into Italy for the first time from Sicily, after the four hundred and fifty-fourth year since the founding of Rome, and that they were brought by P. Ticinius Mena." Statues of the ancients attest that there were formerly no barbers, because most of them have hair and a great beard. Pliny recounts these same things from Varro, and adds to them: "The first to institute the daily shaving of all was Africanus the younger. The Divine Augustus always used razors." You may see the annotations of Tiraquellus in *Alexand. ab Alexand.*, lib. 5 *Genial. dier.*, cap. 18, where he also makes some not unskillful observations about the hair of the Scythians and Germans, which Clement mentions in the same place.
B But we shall note in passing that the same peoples are called both Kelts and Germans by Clement. Strabo, however, testifies that both were distinct from each other, but not far separated: "Immediately across the Rhine, toward the east after the Keltikous (the Celtic peoples), the Ger-mani inhabit the lands, little different from the Gauls, if you look at their ferocity, the size of their bodies, and the excellence of their tawny color."
Moreover, Clement reports in the same place this witticism of Diogenes, when he was being sold, to a certain young man who had a shaven beard: "Come, young man, buy yourself a man." But that is told a little differently by Laertius and Athenaeus: "Seeing," says Laertius, "a young man being effeminate at one time: 'Are you not ashamed,' he said, 'to establish something worse than nature itself for yourself? For it made you a man, but you force yourself to become a woman.'" Athenaeus, however, from Chrysippus: "Diogenes, having seen a man whose chin had been thus denuded, said: 'Do you turn it to the fault of nature, that it brought you forth a man, and not a woman?'"
Nor, furthermore, does Clement castigate other men less sharply, who used the hair of others, or were wont to dye or anoint their hair and gray strands so as to change their color: "It is impossible," he says, "that one should show a true soul who has an adulterate head." Which maxim one of our Clement's scholiasts confirms excellently by the apophthegm of Archidamus and the testimony of Tertullian.
Earlier, however, our author had said that women turn gray sooner for this reason: "Foolish women, who dye their gray hairs, and meanwhile anoint their locks, turn gray faster because of the aromatics that dry them out." But if you ask why this happens as a cause of grayness, we shall immediately bring forth to you Aristotle, cited by Athenaeus: "Aristotle, most learned in natural questions, examines this, why those who smear their head with ointment turn gray more. Or is it because the ointment, on account of its fragrance, dries out and parches the squalor? For squalor causes grayness. Now whether grayness of the hair is arid, or a lack of heat, everything withers by dryness. On account of which, for those who cover their head with a cap, grayness is accelerated; because the moisture is consumed which is destined for feeding the hair." We know indeed that it has been observed by Dalecampius that another cause of grayness is brought forth by physicians, namely the serous nourishment of the hair and excessive moisture of the head; but Clement, to establish his own opinion, judged not undeservedly that this testimony of Aristotle or of other writers of similar authority was sufficient for himself. And truly, Casaubon thinks these things were taken and transcribed by our Clement from Aristotle himself.
Moreover, hardly anything else seems to be brought forward for greater condemnation by the same Clement of ours than womanly rouge and their various fabrications, which he shows were plainly condemned by the ethnic poets themselves. But as to what is added there concerning painted eyebrows, this is confirmed D by other writers...
A you will find established in Casaubon, in book XII of Athenaeus, chap. 7, p. 840. Concerning, moreover, the perverse Roman custom of shaving the beard and hair, or of applying rouge, you should read Meursius, *De luxu Romanorum*, chap. 3.
ARTICLE II.
*On the clothing of the Lacedaemonians and Athenians, and other men; on their color, dye, membranes, and animals used in purple; on the crocotum, shoes, sandals, and slippers; on little lampreys [murænulæ] and rings, and their seals, especially those of Polycrates and Seleucus; and by whom rings, and in what manner, they were originally worn.*How different the custom and institutions of the Lacedaemonians were from the Athenians in the wearing of clothing, this Clement writes in these words: "I praise and admire the state of the Lacedaemonians, which permitted only harlots to wear flowered garments and refined gold... In contrast, however, the magistrates of the Athenians, who had cast off the civil form of life, forgetting a manly manner B of life and conversation, wore gold, and were clad in long, sweeping tunics, and wore a *crobylus*—which is a type of garment—and were adorned with attached cicadas, showing their origin to be truly earthly by a certain effeminate pride and arrogance." Nor does Clement mention this Lacedaemonian institution only there, but in another work he recalls it thus: "Unguent and purple the ancient Lacedaemonians deemed and rightly named deceitful garments and deceitful anointings." Hervetus counsels that many have made mention of that perverse custom of the Athenians; but that he has found no author who has written anything about the better custom of the Lacedaemonians. Yet Plutarch does not seem to be far from him, not only in his *Life of Lycurgus*, but also where he holds this discourse concerning the Laconian institutions: "They continued without a toga, and took but a single tunic for the year, bodies unwashed, C and for the most part abstaining from baths and anointing." No less explicitly, Xenophon writes: "They are not adorned by a garment of great price, but by the healthy constitution of the body." Thucydides also narrates these things about both, as much of the Lacedaemonians as the Athenians, and also about the Ionians: "Among the Greeks, the Athenians first laid aside iron, and from that loose manner of life they passed into a more luxurious one. Nor is it much time since their elders—the wealthy, that is—ceased to wear linen tunics, and golden cicadas arranged in a row, and hair curled in a braided fashion. Whence, among the Ionian elders also, this style flourished because of kinship. Lacedaemonians, however, have used a simple garment up to present customs, and, as in other things, so especially in their diet, the wealthy among them are generally similar to the rest." What wonder, then, if men of such modesty and frugality permitted only harlots to wear flowered garments and to carry gold? What, moreover, of the fact that Xenophon testifies that a purple garment was granted by Lycurgus to the soldiers of the Lacedaemonians alone? "He wished them," he says, "to have a purple garment; for he judged that this type of garment had nothing at all in common with the feminine." Furthermore, Athenaeus expressly attributes to the Syracusans the same thing that Clement attributes to the Lacedaemonians: "Philarchus, in the twenty-fourth book of his *Histories*, when he had already written that it was sanctioned by law among the Syracusans that women should not adorn themselves with gold, nor wear garments dyed in a flowered color, nor those to which purple had been attached or sewn, unless one professed herself a prostitute or common harlot."
A Yet Clement elsewhere reproves the Lacedaemonian virgins for immodesty because by their clothing the knee was not covered: "For it is not honest," he says, "as it is for the Lacedaemonian virgins to be dressed above the knee; for it is not seemly for any part of a woman to be bared." But how true and just that accusation of Clement was, this can be confirmed by the testimony of Julius Pollux: "It was called a virgin's tunic, which they would loosen and keep until the thighs were bared near the lower hem, especially [the] Spartan [women], whom for this reason they named *Phanomerides*." But concerning these and other Spartan garments, you should read Cragius, *De repub. Lacedæm.*, book three, tab. G, and Meursius, book I, *Miscellan. Laconic.*, chapters 15 and 19.
Clement continues: "And yet, that utterance might indeed be said to be urbane and witty—that which was said to him who had said, 'A beautiful leg,' [and the reply was:] 'But not for the public;' and to one saying, 'Beautiful calves,' [the reply:] 'But only for my husband;' and, 'A beautiful face,'—it is only for him who has taken me as his wife." Whose voice that was, Clement himself has explained in another work: "For what? Did not the philosophy of Theano the Pythagorean progress to such a point that to him who had looked upon her curiously and had said, 'A beautiful leg,' she replied: 'But not for the public'?" These things perhaps were taken from these words of Plutarch: "Theano, while dressing herself in a tunic, bared her leg, and to a certain man who said, 'A beautiful leg,' she replied: 'But it is not for the public.'" But since, as Suidas and Vossius have noted, there were many women distinguished by the name of Theano, it is certainly doubtful which one it is of whom Clement speaks after Plutarch. For if you observe a little more attentively that she is called a Pythagorean by Clement himself, you will perhaps have no place for doubt that here she must be called the wife of Pythagoras himself, who is indeed known by that surname. Nevertheless, it will seem to some that this is no less aptly suited to another, Theano of Metapontum, whom the same Suidas testifies wrote very much about Pythagoras and the apophthegms of the Pythagoreans, and about virtue. We, however, will be more easily persuaded that these sayings and responses proceeded from the former Theano, the wife of Pythagoras, of whom we shall discuss more in the following dissertation. Moreover, Clement proves by the testimony of a certain poet that a woman who is held by immoderate desire has fallen from both God and a chaste marriage, just like that Argive harlot, Eriphyle, I say, "who took the price of gold for her dear husband." But who that Eriphyle is to be called, and from whom Clement received this verse, you will learn from Pausanias, who narrates the history, or fable, of this Eriphyle, and adds that Homer says that the gold which was given to Eriphyle was in the *Odyssey*: "She accepted the precious gold of her dear husband." From Homer, therefore, Clement has culled this, which we read repeated by him elsewhere.
Regarding the garments themselves, whether simple or dyed, and the various colors of them, our author gathers many things in the same place, which indeed, if they seem to anyone to need any explanation, let him visit Julius Pollux, *Onomast.*, book VII, ch. 13 et seq., and also Alexander ab Alexandro, *Genial. dier.*, book V, and his commentator Andreas Tiraquellus; and also concerning the Sardinian dye, Erasmus’ *Adagia*, chiliad 2, centur. 8, adag. 99, p. 548; Lazarus Baïf, Octavius Ferrarius, Albertus Rubenius, *De re vestiaria*; Stanislaus Kobierzycki, *De luxu Rom.*, book I, in *Thesaurus antiq. Rom.*, vol. VI and VIII; Casaubon’s *Comm. de re vestiaria*, and in book X of Athenaeus, and others.
estiaria*; Stanislaus Kobierzycki, *De luxu Rom.*, book I, in *Thesaurus antiq. Rom.*, vol. VI and VIII; Casaubon’s *Comm. de re vestiaria*, and in book X of Athenaeus, and others.
But we must examine with a little more precision what Clement said a short while ago, and which seems very difficult to Hervetus: "Those garments dyed in purple," our author said, "and those delicacies of animals which are carried by the wind, and that crocus [saffron] soaked in ointments, and those precious membranes," — καὶ τῶν ὑμένων τῶν περιόπτων — "and precious and variegated garments, which have animals in the purple, must be bidden to be valued for the art itself." For Hervetus himself says regarding this passage: "I do not sufficiently understand what those precious membranes are, nor what animals in the purple have, unless perhaps he means garments which are embroidered by the Phrygians." Silburgius, however, thinking that the word *ὑμένων* should be understood as *ὑφασμάτων* [weavings], believes that Clement intended by that manner of speaking to signify thin and subtle garments. Others, however, as Hervetus thinks, believe that by the same word "membranes," that is, certain thin and delicate skins, are designated. It is perhaps not a bad conjecture, if the Greek word *ὑμένιος* were an adjective rather than a noun, which would sound the same as membranaceus or membraneus [membranaceous or membrane-like]. Be that as it may, this question is certainly not of great importance. For the sense of Clement is not obscure; he is openly arguing there about garments of the highest price, which were worked with such art, whether from certain fine skins or from other material, and were so thin and subtle that the woven figures of flowers and animals could be seen on every side.
Moreover, concerning the animals which created a difficulty for Hervetus, we read in Julius Pollux these things, which he perhaps did not pay enough attention to: "A tunic," he says, "is called *distincta* [distinguished] if it has animals or flowers woven into it; it is called *belluata* when it is embroidered with animals." What, therefore, is more prompt and more straightforward for resolving the difficulty of Hervetus? Finally, regarding the same Hervetus, or at least those who published scholia on these books of Clement, the reader should have been reminded in passing that the verse cited by him in the same place from a comedy: "They sit, girt with saffron and painted garments," was taken from Antiphon.
Moreover, what was brought forth in the same chapter by our Clement concerning purple can certainly be illumined, apart from Pliny, by Pausanias, book III, *Laconica*, p. 104, and book X, *Phocica*, p. 355; Athenaeus, book XII, *Deipnosophistae*, p. 88 et seq.; Julius Pollux, *Onomasticon*, book I, cap. 4; Cassiodorus, book I, *Variarum*, ep. 2. Concerning Amorgian cloth and byssus, see the same Julius Pollux, book VII, *Onomasticon*, cap. 16 and 17; Pausanias, book V, *Eliaca*; Pliny, book XIX, *Naturalis Historia*, cap. 1, p. 564.
Furthermore, of what color garments ought to be, our Clement demonstrates from Plato, whom he says was the best imitator of Moses, as follows: "The best imitator of Moses, Plato, admits that texture to which no more work has been added than a modest woman requires. White colors, however, are suitable for honesty." Elsewhere he also says: "And not to apply dyes in the texture, except for the ornaments of war. For peaceful men, that is, Christians, white is suitable, as it is brilliant." Clement related a double testimony of Plato there, but Hervetus declares that he found neither in the writings of that same philosopher. The latter, however, which is: "And not to apply dyes in the weaving, except for the ornaments of war," occurs in the very same words in his twelfth book, *De Legibus*. But the former, though we have searched for it most diligently, we have searched in vain; yet it might perhaps be found if taken from some lost works of this same prince of philosophers. Moreover, some things concerning the white color of garments were long ago noted by us in our notes on Ambrose.
Clement has collected many other things about gems and precious stones, which were accustomed to be set into garments, especially those of women. You may seek the explanation of these things from Athenaeus, book V, *Deipnosophistae*, p. 93 et seqq.; Pliny, book IX, *Naturalis Historia*, cap. 35, and especially book XXXVII, cap. 4 et seqq.; Albertus Magnus, book II, *De mineralibus*; Isidore, book XVI, *Origines*, cap. 6, 7 et seqq.; Marbod, book *De pretiosis lapidibus*.
Nor, furthermore, did the incredible luxury of the pagans shine only in the decoration of valuable and soft clothing, but also in shoes and sandals, which our Clement proscribed thus: "One must say farewell to the empty artifices of golden and jeweled sandals, along with the Attic and Sicyonian slippers, and Persian and Etruscan buskins." Regarding the various kinds of shoes, Julius Pollux and Tiraquellus will provide more, which will hold a torch for you for the easier understanding of this passage of our Clement. But the testimony of both Plutarch and Pliny should not be omitted, in which they assert in almost the same words: "Agnomen Teius, a prefect of Alexander the Great, fastened golden nails to his slippers." Nor will this seem surprising to those who have read in Valerius Maximus that Antiochus and a great part of his army had golden nails attached to their shoes: "His army," these are the very words of Valerius, "imitated his blind and insane luxury, and for the most part had golden nails attached to their shoes." Regarding the luxury of shoes, see Stuchius, book II, *Antiquitates conviviales*, cap. 27; Albertus Rubenius, book II, *De re vestiaria*, cap. 1 et seqq.; Octavius Ferrarius, *Analecta de re vestiaria*, cap. 21.
Clement also censures the empty and overly sumptuous ornaments of women’s finery, and especially the golden "murænulæ" [little lamprey chains]. If you wish to know what these were, hear Jerome: "Gold for the neck, which the common people call a *murænula* [lamprey], because it is woven from metal into little rods that become flexible, and a certain chain of flexible order is constructed." But concerning the names of women’s finery, consult Julius Pollux, from whom also those things which Clement similarly recorded from Nicostratus and Aristophanes can be confirmed. See also Johannes Meursius, *De luxu Romanorum*, cap. 5, where he inserts more about rings, about which something must now be said.
But about how those rings are to be worn, on what finger, and for what reason, after Clement has argued, he added these things concerning the signets of the ring: "For us, our signets are a dove, or a fish, or a ship, which is carried in a swift course by the wind, or a musical lyre, which Polycrates used, or a nautical anchor, which Seleucus used as a seal." Hervetus indeed observes there that Herodotus and Strabo, to whom he could have joined both Cicero and Valerius Maximus, had written more about the ring of Polycrates: but since they were silent about the musical lyre sculpted on that same ring, he suspects that this passage of Clement is incomplete and defective, and that the name of Pyrrhus was omitted by the carelessness of the scribes, concerning whom Pliny, after having spoken of Polycrates, says, "Ha-"
Haupisse," he says, "is said to be the agate, in which the nine Muses and Apollo holding a lyre are to be beheld." But besides the fact that all of Hervetus's conjectures and the hand-written Greek codices are in great agreement against [him], to whom will it be credible that it was ever permitted to Christians to have such a ring from our Clement, who asserts most confidently in that same place that Christians are entirely forbidden from impressing the face of any idols upon their rings? Therefore, it will be easier for us to believe that the image inscribed upon Polycrates's ring, as Clement testifies, was truly an image of a musical lyre, and that especially because no author has ever refuted this opinion at all.
Concerning the ring of Seleucus, besides the Justin cited by Hervetus, listen to Ausonius (Book *On Famous Cities*, § 2), singing thus concerning Antioch and Alexandria:
She names Seleucus, whose sign was the noble anchor, Just as the mark of a family is wont to be branded, certain through all The series of his offspring, the inborn likeness ran.
See also Tiraquellus's commentaries *On Nobility*, chap. 6, § 20. B Furthermore, if you desire to learn something toward a clearer interpretation of Clement concerning the ring and the origin of wearing it—how, by whom, on which finger, and for what reason it is to be worn—you should consult Pliny (Book XXXIII *Natural History*, chap. 1, p. 6; Book XXXVII, chap. 1, p. 355 et seq.); Macrobius (Book V *Saturnalia*, chap. 13); Aulus Gellius (Book X *Attic Nights*, chap. 10); Polydore Vergil (Book II *On the Invention of Things*, chap. 22); Alexander ab Alexandro (Book II *Genial Days*, chap. 19), and his scholiast Tiraquellus.
ARTICLE III
*Concerning the proud furniture of homes among the pagans, where [he treats] of the gaunaces or gausape, and especially of the various kinds of vessels; the Thericlean cup, the cantharus, the lebronium, the lepasta, the psyclere, the oinochoe, and others of alabaster, and less honorable ones, and of those whose use in the baths was common.*The vanity and pride of pagans was not unequal nor less in the entire furniture of their homes than in their clothes. "Chairs," says Clement, "of silver, basins and bowls, plates and dishes, and besides these, vessels of gold and silver, some indeed for the service of food, but others for different uses (which I am ashamed to mention), fitted with cut cedar, thyine wood, ebony, and ivory; tripods, and beds with silver feet, and others compacted of ivory, and inlaid with gold, and bedroom doors variegated with tortoise shell; and purple bedspreads, and those of other colors difficult to prepare—all of which are arguments of insolent luxury, are the insidious advantages of envy and soft sloth, and are all to be dismissed." So indeed our pious and religious author thoroughly rejects and explodes the excessively profuse and almost immense luxury of the pagans.
And he proscribes with no less severity again C "the magnificence of bed-coverings, cushions interwoven with gold, and smooth garments variegated with gold, purple bedspreads and xistides, and most precious gaunaces, τοὺς γαύνακας, and poetic purple cloaks, and garments that are soft and delicate upon the exterior, and sleeping couches softer than sleep itself."
Furthermore, as to this magnificence of furniture, which is to many almost incredible—unless perhaps we might see its equal, or perhaps even greater to the disgrace of our own religion, among the Christians of our own age—Seneca had long ago refuted it more fully. But we send you to him, because his discourse is a little too long, and to the observations of various men on his words, and also to Guilelmus Stuchius (Book II *On Convivial Antiquities*, chap. 15) and Stanislaus Kobierzycki (*On the Luxury of the Romans*, Book II, chap. 7).
In the meantime, however, wonder at Hervetus, who deemed it not worth the effort to inform us neither what gaunaces are, nor of having read anything about them anywhere. For there is frequent mention of gaunaces among various authors and even among the Latin poets. But according to Suidas, they were of a double kind: "A genus," he says, "of cloak, which they also call the Persian. But others [call it] the sisyram thymetidem, which is similar to a morychian sagma; but the sagma itself is a sheath for a weapon." Turnebus teaches, however, that by this word are signified bedspreads, or coverings shaggy on one side, or a kind of cloak.
Furthermore, Pliny is read to have made mention of the gausape somewhere with these words: "Among the ancients the mattress was of straw, just as it is even now in the camps. Gausape began in my father's memory; amphimalla [cloaks] are ours, just as shaggy ventralia [undergarments] are. For the tunic with a broad stripe began to be woven in the manner of a gausape now for the first time." But if gausape is the same as gaunace, Horace sang these things concerning its use as well:
These things being removed for you, boy, tightly girded, he wiped the maple table with a purple gausape.
See furthermore Ovid (Book II *On the Art of Love*), Martial (Book XIV *Epigrams*), Persius, etc. But especially Octavius Ferrarius (Part II, Book I, *On Vestiary Matters*, chap. 7 and 8) is to be read.
But Clement narrates thus what and how precious vessels or cups for drinking were called: "Farewell, therefore, to the Thericlean cups, the Antigonid canthari, the labronii, and the lepastæ, and the innumerable kinds of cups, and besides these, the trullæ and the psyclere, [and] the oinochoe." But Athenæus teaches what, and in what form, and of what material Thericlean cups were made, and he adds from Theophrastus that they were turned from terebinth wood, which no one could distinguish from earthenware. It is rumored that those cups were made by the Corinthian potter Thericles; whence also the name was imposed in the age of the comic poet Aristophanes... Others hand down that the Thericlean cup was so called because there were skins of wild beasts sculpted upon it. You will be able to see still more among the same Athenæus concerning these cups, whose origin is thoroughly uncertain. But again elsewhere he makes mention of them, and Pliny (Book XVI *Natural History*, chap. 4, page 470); Erasmus (*Adagia*, chiliad 3, centur. 3, proverb 53), and Casaubon in the first passage of Athenæus (Book X, chap. 11, p. 791). But that which we read in Plutarch concerning the triumph of Paulus Æmilius cannot be omitted by us: [on] the third day on which he celebrated his triumph, there were carried away in their order Antigonidæ, Seleucidæ, Thericlean [vessels], and golden vessels which Perseus used to use at banquets.
Julius Pollux makes mention of these same Thericlean cups, as also of the antigonidæ, which our codices, written in a Greek hand, annotated as being named from Antigonus, their inventor, and [noting that they] end below in a round shape, but above in a point.
Many things are indeed gathered by Athenæus and his commentator Casaubon from various writers concerning the cantharus, the lebronium, and the lepasta. Athenæus mentions the lepasta again in these words of Anaxandrides: φιάλην τε καὶ λεπαστήν, "a phial and a lepasta," as Casaubon wished it to be corrected. But Julius Pollux [says]: "But that the lepasta is not a drinking [vessel]..."
but merely a wine-pouring vessel, Aristophanes clearly shows in his A *Gerytada*: 'Carry the lepasta around'." Some have thought the *psycter* to be a cup, but others a large vessel in which they washed cups or cooled wine. "A *psycter*," says Suidas, "is a vessel where cups are washed." Athenæus also testifies elsewhere that the *psycter* was a large vessel: "One hundred and sixty *psycteres*, the largest of which held six amphoræ, the smallest two... twenty-two *psycteres*, the largest of which held thirty, the smallest one." Yet he also counts the *psycter* among the cups themselves: "Ulpian asked for wine in a *psycter*, which he might drink. Moreover, there were *psycteres* prepared among the vessels for those propiliations, as well as other cups." You see, therefore, that there were *psycteres* of various kinds: some larger, others smaller; and consequently they were in truth suitable and fitting for drinking, for washing, and, if you wish, for cooling wine. But if anyone listens to Plato arguing in the *Symposium*, he will easily understand that even larger *psycteres* were used for drinking. For these are his very words: "Order a cup to be brought to me, Agatho, if there is a large one here; but there is no need; rather, bring hither, boy, the *psycter*, that one which holds more than eight *cotylæ*." When he had filled that vessel, he drank first himself, then ordered it to be poured for Socrates, and at the same time said: "Against Socrates, banqueters, tricks are of no use. For no matter how much one may order, he will drink it all, and yet you will not see him drunk for all that." B Finally, from Pollux we learn that the *psycter* was called by most people *dinon*, and by others *akratophoron*, or [in Latin] *meroforum*: "But the *psycter*," he says, "is common, which they also call *dinon*, in which pure wine was contained, although most called it *meroforum*, and it does not have a flat bottom for the *astragali*."
Although Hervetus has said that nothing concerning *oinochoai* is to be found in Athenæus, we nevertheless read these words of his taken from Crates: "Congii," as it is said, "were called *pelicæ*. The shape of the vessel was formerly similar to the Panathenaic [vessels], at which time they were called *pelicæ*; but afterwards they were formed in the manner of an *oinochoe*, such as are used now on these feast days, and such as they called *olpai*, using them for pouring wine." Nor do we read that only one mention was made of it by Pollux. Clement writes that there were other vessels "for other uses, which one is ashamed to mention." They were of a double kind: the former were for vomiting, about which Julius Pollux and others [write]; the latter, however, were noted in this epigram of Martial: "The burden of the belly, wretch, and you are not ashamed, you receive in gold." C Pliny, concerning Antony, handed down these things from the writing of Messala: "The orator Messala has reported that Antony the triumvir used gold for all obscene desires, even Cleopatra's." Wherefore Tertullian says: "Even for shameful instruments, he says, a mad abundance of gold and silver served." But first our Clement chides a certain pride of women, who used alabaster [vessels] immodestly for drinking: "Women mindful of honesty and decorum, so that they do not pour forth onto broad cups and have their mouths stretched wide and broken, using instead very narrow alabaster [vessels] at the mouth indecorously, they tilt their heads, but not their necks, as it seems to me, D honestly denuding," etc. Hervetus, from Caelius Rhodiginus, observes on this passage that an alabaster [vessel] is indeed an ointment vessel, but he confesses that he has never found mention anywhere else of an alabaster drinking cup made of white [stone]. But it was not from this single most recent writer that testimony about the ointment vessel, the alabaster, should be taken; since our Clement has openly handed down this about it: "I know that when a woman had brought an alabaster of ointment to the holy supper, she anointed the feet of the Lord." No less clearly, Athenæus [says]: "With the boys carrying about ointments in alabasters and other gold vessels." To these, if you wish, let us join Epiphanius, who writes that the alabaster is a glass ampulla for ointment, "which holds a pound of ointment." On which passage Petavius notes that the alabaster is made from stone of its own kind, not from glass. Not entirely without merit, indeed. For Dioscorides testifies that alabaster is a stone, which by another name is called *onyx*. Pliny supports this with these words: "Our ancestors thought that *onychites* was born only in the mountains of Arabia and nowhere else, [but] find [it] in Germany... first with drinking vessels made from it, then on the feet of couches and chairs. Some call this stone *alabastrites*, which they hollow out for ointment vessels because it is said to keep them best uncorrupted." We have recorded this testimony of Pliny on purpose, as by it the difficulty proposed by Hervetus can be solved without difficulty. For it is most plainly evident from thence that vessels made from alabaster or *onyx* were of a double kind, of which some were in fact ointment vessels, while others were drinking cups, concerning which Athenæus, without doubt, reports this from the philosopher Posidonia: "There were also *onychini* cups piled up in heaps, [those] which held as much as two *cotylæ*." Further, however, not only in houses, but even in baths, as Clement says, there were "innumerable gold and silver vessels, of which these are carried about for drinking, those for eating, and others for washing." Julius Pollux lists the individual names of these vessels in Book X of the *Onomasticon*, chapter 20. And one may read more about them in Joannes Meursius, *De luxu Roman.*, chapters 7 and 8.
ARTICLE IV.
Concerning pagan baths, whether they are mobile and hanging, and common to men and women, concerning physical exercise and games allowed for the baths, concerning the practically infinite multitude of menservants and maidservants, concerning *cinaedi*, and what is *epikinaidisma*, [and] concerning *batalis* and *hilolis*.But since we have fallen into a conversation on baths, come now, and let us see what our author has committed to writing about them: "Houses," he says, "artfully compacted, transparent, and which can be carried about." Hervetus, however, thinks that Clement is speaking there of "hanging" (suspended) baths, which Macrobius and Valerius Maximus reported were first made by Gaius Sergius Orata; but he says he has discovered from no author what these "hanging" baths are, unless perhaps they are the same that Vitruvius calls "suspension for [heated] rooms." However, the interpreters of this writer opine that by those words it is not "hanging" baths that are signified, but their pavement or flat surface. But besides the authors cited by Hervetus, Pliny certainly makes mention of "hanging" baths: "Sergius Orata..."
A the first to invent hanging baths." Elsewhere, however, other things aided Asclepiades... "who for the first time enticed [men] with the use of hanging baths." Seneca also says: "Some things, he says, we know have come forth only in our memory... such as hanging baths and pipes impressed in the walls, through which heat might be diffused, which would warm the lowest and highest parts equally." Nor is there a single opinion among all writers as to what sort of things these bath hangings, or hanging baths, were, nor is it easy to explain. For some say the baths were first built on the ground, then suspended and raised a little from the earth, so that the heat might last longer once the moisture had evaporated. Others think they were built over vaults and hypocausts, so that once fire was placed beneath, they would heat up through the pipes. Finally, some interpret this name as the tubs themselves suspended from the ceilings, to be moved hither and thither with a slight motion. You may see what Lipsius wrote about these to Balthazar Robianus in Epistle 75, Century 3. And may you not be weary of comparing with another of Seneca's epistles the things which our Clement has commended to posterity concerning ancient baths. But perhaps he speaks of baths of the former kind, or certainly those so suspended that they could be carried about into various places.
Although Clement has said most openly: "Baths are open and common to men and women," B yet Hervetus suspects that this is to be understood as if there were two buildings, joined and coupled to each other. But the words of our Clement are clearer, such that they cannot be twisted into this sense. And certainly, Hervetus could have learned from Cyprian that certain baths—but with a truly intolerable abuse—were common to men and women: "But what of those who go to the promiscuous baths, who prostitute their bodies, dedicated to modesty and chastity, to eyes curious for lust? When they see men and are seen by men naked, and in a shameful way, do they not themselves provide an enticement to vice? Do they not solicit and invite the desires of those present to their own corruption and injury?" Moreover, Jerome finds it a reproach and a crime for Jovinian and his disciples that they would frequent baths of this kind: "After your proclamation and the baths which wash men and women together, every impatience, which previously clothed burning lust as if with the garments of modesty, has been stripped naked and exposed; things which were before in secret are now in the open. You have shown such disciples, you have not made them." Finally, besides Pliny, whom we have cited, and again in Book XXV of his Natural History, ch. 7, p. 400, Mercurialis in Book I, *De arte gymnastica*, ch. 10; Alexander ab Alexandro in Book X, *Genial. dier.*, ch. 20, and his scholiast Tiraquellus, Galen in Book X, *De methodo medendi*, ch. 10, and others, whom you may consult if you wish, argue more fully concerning baths.
Furthermore, for baths, Clement grants the gymnasium to adolescents, or exercise of the body; but for men, [he suggests] relaxing the mind D with wrestling, and other ways of exercising the body, and even with the *parius globus*, or the ball game which they called *pheninda*. As to what this game is, by whom it was invented, and whence it was so named, Athenaeus relates in Book I, *Deipnosoph.*, ch. 2, pp. 14 and 15; Julius Pollux, Book VII, *Onom.*, ch. 23, p. 441; Erasmus, Chil. 3, Centur. 1, Adag. 99, page 612. Moreover, this very game seems to be the one that is called *phênis* by Suidas, and is briefly explained by him.
Clement also condemns in that same place certain women of clearly insolent pride and arrogance, who were carried publicly by Gallic and other servants in a litter, raised on shoulders, through the streets and squares of cities, so that they might show themselves to be seen by everyone. From these words of Seneca, gather how deep roots that wicked custom had struck: "He is a rustic, inhuman, and malevolent man, and of an abominable condition among matrons, if any man has forbidden his wife to be displayed in a chair, and to be carried about fully visible to inspectors admitted from the common crowd." But concerning these things, you may see more in Justus Lipsius, Vol. I, Book I, *Electorum*, ch. 19, where he discusses litters, just as Stanislaus Kobierzyckius does in Book II, *De luxu Roman.*, ch. 3, 4, and 5.
Besides this multitude of servants, Clement says: "There flow in, besides, crowds of effeminate men, unbridled in tongue, wicked in body as well as in speech, for lewd services, assisting in adultery, laughing impudently, and whispering, and emitting a sound of fornication and effeminacy towards lasciviousness, attempting to delight [people] with impudent words and gestures, and provoking to that laughter which is the precursor of fornication." Julius Pollux has graphically depicted those most shameful and infamous men, whom you may read if you wish. Athenaeus, indeed, said you call those effeminates who either smell somewhat of perfume or are dressed in clothing that is somewhat more elegant. Lipsius, however, observes that they wore tunics with sleeves, no differently than prostitutes' togas, so that by their clothing they could be recognized by everyone. Concerning these, Clement said: ἐπιψοφοῦντες ἐπικιναίδισμα ("making a lewd noise"). But Hervetus, confessing that he had nowhere encountered this word, thinks it signifies some lewd sound which was emitted by these effeminates through their noses, so that they might provoke others to lust. But it is certain that *kinaidisma* among Eustathius signifies effeminate obscenity, and therefore by the word *epikinaidisma* a greater lewd sound is denoted. Since, therefore, the meaning of this Greek word is established, one need not be very concerned about where it might be found in other writings. For who does not know that there are many compound words of this sort, for which Greek writers gave themselves the power of invention?
Moreover, these effeminate men will perhaps seem to some to be the very same as those whom Clement calls *bataloi* a little earlier, when he discourses about depilated men. "Indeed," he says, "they are not to be called men, but *bataloi* and effeminates, whose voices are compressed and thin, and whose clothing is effeminate both in touch and even in its color. But these men are openly convicted by their external character, by their clothing, footwear, figure, habit, haircut, and aspect." But if anyone contends that by this word eunuchs should be understood—those attached to the service of women and very often serving their pleasure—we will not much resist him. For they were distinguished from other men not only by their effeminate clothing, like the effeminates, but also by their voice. Nor will we argue against those who suggest that many of the effeminates were eunuchs.
Furthermore, Clement rises against the other luxury of the pagans, concerning all those things which thus far...
had been common. But what prevents one from distinguishing the three classes of lost men that our Clement also seems to distinguish quite openly? Far different from all these were the *helots*, the slaves of the Lacedaemonians, whom their masters, as Clement records following Plutarch, forced to become intoxicated, in order that the boys and adolescents, seeing their example, might be diverted from the base vice of drunkenness. A Plutarch says, “Those who were in charge of the Lacedaemonian public messes would bring in one or three helots, full of unmixed wine and drunk, so that by demonstrating to the adolescents what drunkenness really was, they might accustom them to observing temperance.” You may consult him again regarding these matters in the book I argue, just as you may consult Cragius in book I of his *De republica Lacedaemoniorum*, chapters 11 and 12, and Meursius in his book *Miscellanea Laconica*, chapters 6 and 7, if you wish.
ARTICLE V. Concerning the various types of wine that were accustomed to be served at pagan banquets, and concerning Choaspian water, nations prone to drunkenness, gladiators as table companions, the demon of the belly as the leader of gluttons, and the ventriloquist.
Not only by the example of the Lacedaemonians, concerning whose sober diet Cragius and Meursius argue, but also by the authority of many writers, both profane and sacred, and by various reasonable arguments, does Clement prove that not only is drunkenness and the immoderate use of wine to be avoided, but he also clearly convinces us that the various types of wine then served at banquets were by no means required by anyone. “There is no need, therefore,” he says, “for Chian wine to be sought with great care if it be absent, B nor Ariusian if it be not at hand.... nor the fragrant Thasian, nor the well-scented Lesbian, nor a certain sweet Cretan, nor a sweet Syracusan, nor a certain Egyptian Mendesium, nor the insular Naxian, nor some other fragrant wine from Italy.” Regarding Chian, Thasian, and Lesbian wine, Athenaeus discourses in book I of the *Deipnosophistae*, pages 28 and 32; Pliny in *Natural History*, book XIV, pages 135, 136, 144, and 145; and Horace in book III, ode 19: “At what price may we buy a cask of Chian...?” And again in epode 9: “Bring hither, boy, larger cups, and Chian wines or Lesbian.” Athenaeus, on the authority of Cratinus and Hermippus, highly praises Mendaean wine. C But perhaps that was the same as the Mendesium, which had indeed taken its name from the city of Mendes in Egypt. A little later the same Athenaeus relates that Naxian wine was compared by Archilochus to nectar. Concerning Cretan wine, Pliny says: “Passum from Crete is approved, as are the Cilician, the African, and those from Italy and neighboring provinces.” But Athenaeus discourses more fully on Italian wines in the same place, as does Martial in his *Xenia*, and Casaubon and Harduin conduct a discussion on the books of Athenaeus and Pliny that we have cited.
But what of the fact that immoderate human intemperance was not restrained merely by wine, but extended even to water? “Perhaps,” says Clement, “they will even import water, just as the foolish kings.” The Choaspes is a river of India so named, whose Choaspian water is the best for drinking. But you will find this explained more clearly by Herodotus. He says, “Water is carried from the river Choaspes, from which alone of all rivers the king D (Cyrus) drinks.” No less clearly does Pliny state: “The kings of the Parthians drink only from the Choaspes and the Eulaeus, and this (water) accompanies them even to far-off places.” Furthermore, Athenaeus cites the passage praised from Herodotus, where he discourses on the various and best types of water.
Clement marked the nations more prone to drunkenness in this way: “Drunkenness is practiced most of all by the Scythians, Celts, Iberians, and Thracians, all of whom are warlike peoples.” Clement took this from Plato. For that which he subjoins in the same place—*that they considered it a good and happy practice to practice*—is found stated in those very words by the same Plato. See Aelian, book II of *Varia Historia*, § 40.
Someone might ask whether the discourse of our Clement, in which he argues above regarding table companions and gluttons—where among their filthiest company he expressly enumerates sycophants and gladiators and an immense class of parasites; some selling their reason for the pleasure of the belly, others their friendship, and others their very lives—pertains to these or other nations. But we judge that this is not so easy to define. For Clement seems to speak of the most cruel contest of gladiators at banquets, concerning which a certain poet sang: “Moreover, it was the custom of old to exhilarate banquets for men with slaughter, and to mingle dire contests of those fighting with steel into the feasts, often falling upon the very cups, with the tables splattered by no sparing blood.”
Moreover, Strabo attributes that most monstrous type of contest, of more than beastly cruelty at banquets, to the Campanians: “They have progressed so far in luxury,” he says, “that they invite guests to dinner with a promise of gladiators for each person.” Livy has also committed this to memory. Therefore, some opine that this savage and barbarous custom took its origin from this people and was afterwards transmitted to others. [alt-version omitted]
A Nevertheless, it seems to us more likely that the intention of Clement was to explain the earlier type of gladiator. Nor, moreover, did we deem it entirely alien to our purpose to record here what has been handed down by Laertius regarding athletes. For from these facts, indeed, both what was their earlier way of life and by whom it was changed will become plain and clear to all. “Pythagoras,” he says, “is said to have been the first to nourish athletes with meat, whereas previously, as Favorinus says in his third commentary, they were accustomed to nourish their bodies with dry and soft figs and wheat, as the same Favorinus says in the eighth book of his *Omnimoda Historia*. Others, however, say that it was not Pythagoras, but a certain trainer, who was accustomed to nourish athletes in this way.”
Finally, Clement says that a ventridemon (κοιλιοδαίμων) presides over all these gluttons and belly-gods. “But to those,” he says, “who are prone to the luxury of tables and nourish their own diseases, there presides a great glutton-demon, whom I shall not fear to call a ventridemon, the worst and most pernicious of all demons. And he is indeed truly similar to him who is called a ventriloquist.” It has been noted by Casaubon that parasites are called *koiliodaimones* in Eupolis’ play, but that this word is here newly used by our Clement for the demon who presides over gluttons. Regarding the ventriloquist, you may read the treatise of Leo Allatius on the *Engastrimythus*. Finally, to these things which Clement wrote concerning gluttons and men addicted to the vice of gluttony and the belly, not only Stobaeus, but also Basil and Ambrose will bring some light.
ARTICLE VI. On the origin of crowns, and their use in banquets; on the custom of crowning the dead, and testimonies of Sophocles and Sappho on this matter; why crowns were forbidden to Christians, and on flowers.
B Regarding the crowns of banqueters, hear, if you please, Valerius Maximus speaking thus of the Spartan state: “They heard that elegance and immoderate expenses and all kinds of unnecessary pleasures had flowed from there, and that they had discovered the first incentives of luxury, namely the custom of giving ointments and crowns at a banquet, and the serving of a second course.” Furthermore, there is frequent discussion among the most ancient writers concerning that use of crowns. For besides those cited by Athenaeus—Phylenides, Apollodorus, Aelius, Asclepiades—and by Pliny—Menesitheus, Callimachus, and Theophrastus—some of whom had published books on crowns, Tertullian has these things to say about them: “Claudius Saturninus will exhibit all things to those who seek more. For there is his book on crowns, which discusses their origins, causes, species, and solemnities in such a way that you will not find any grace of flower, no joy of foliage, no sod or vine-shoot that has not been consecrated to some head.” Since, however, the writings of these most ancient authors have long since perished, if you wish to consult any of those which still exist, besides the writers just lauded by us a little before, go to Athenaeus, bk. xv, c. 5 et seqq., *Deipnosophistae*, p. 673 et seqq., and the *Animadversiones* of Casaubon upon him, bk. xv, c. 5 et seqq.; Jacobus Philippus Thomassinus, in his book *De tesseris hospitalitatis*, c. 18; and Stanislaus Cobierzyckius, who argues much not only about these things, but also about the extreme luxury of banquets in his book *De luxu Romanorum*, c. 10 et seq.Nor did the pagans crown only the living, but also the dead, who were either gods or humans: “They also crown the dead,” says Clement, “by which name they actually assert by their own testimony that their idols are dead. For those who revel, nor celebrate their orgies without crowns; after they have placed flowers around, at last they are inflamed in a wonderful manner.” Clement therefore rebukes the heathens because, by an impious and vain superstition, they themselves crowned the dead images of their gods and execrable idols. How true this accusation of Clement was, you will learn from these words of Pliny: “And even then crowns were an honor to the gods, and to public and private Lares, and to sepulchres and spirits of the dead.” On which passage the observations of Hardouin should be consulted. About which Tertullian, with no less severity than our Clement, rejects and attacks this wicked custom: “What is as unworthy of God as what is for an idol? What is as worthy of an idol as what is for the dead? For it is the lot of the dead also to be crowned.” Minucius Felix also says: “We do not crown the dead. I marvel at you all the more in this, in how you contribute to them, whether you give them to a face that perceives not, or to one that does not perceive a crown, since the blessed one does not need flowers, and the miserable one does not enjoy them.”
Another vice had become prevalent in the banquets of the pagans, or rather, to speak in the words of our Clement, “The use of crowns, brought about for gluttony and wantonness in wine, has resulted.” Clement also teaches in the same place that those crowns, woven from flowers, were unknown to the men of old, and he explains the first origin of all crowns thus: “Furthermore, there was no use of crowns among the ancient Greeks as yet. For neither the suitors, nor the Phaeacians who lived a luxurious life, used them. But among the athletes, first there was the gift, second the applause and excitement, third the throwing of leaves, and lastly the crown, when after the Median times Greece had made a great accession to luxuries.” Pliny explains the beginnings and invention of crowns somewhat more explicitly: “In ancient times,” he says, “no crown was given except to God. For that reason, Homer attributes them only to heaven and to the entire battle; but to individuals, not even in a contest. And they say that Liber Pater was the first of all to place ivy on his own head. Afterwards, they took them for the honor of the gods, while at the same time crowning the victims. Most recently, they were used in sacred contests, in which even today it is not given to the victor, but it is proclaimed that the fatherland is crowned by him. Thence it was born that they were even conferred upon those about to triumph, to be dedicated in temples; soon that they were given in games, too. It is too long, nor does it serve the task undertaken, to discuss which of the Romans was the first to receive them, for they knew no others than military ones.” Draco of Corcyra, however, testifies in Athenaeus that Janus, as the story went, was the discoverer of crowns. But more about these things can be read in Suidas.
Therefore, Clement shows that all use of crowns was forbidden for that reason, because, as he himself speaks, a crown is dedicated to idols. And he proves that point by the authority of both Sophocles and Sappho: “Sophocles certainly called the narcissus the ancient crown of the great gods, saying this about terrestrial things; but Sappho crowns the muses with the rose: ‘You have no part in the Pierian roses.’”
A And these things have been noted in certain scholia on the works of Clement. It is strange, therefore, that no one else has similarly observed another testimony of Sophocles offered in the same place by the same Plutarch, in these words: “They also spoke of the narcissus, because it induces in the nerves a torpor—which the Greeks call *narke*—and a sluggish heaviness. Whence Sophocles also calls it the ancient crown of the great gods, that is to say, of the shades.” Regarding the time of Sappho, to say this in passing, Eusebius in his *Chronicle* reports at the year 1414: “Sappho and Alcaeus are held to be famous poets.” On which passage you should see the animadversions of Scaliger.
Finally, Tertullian, with the same severity as Clement, forbade the use of crowns to Christians: “Furthermore, what is the savor of a flower on the head? What is the meaning of a crown? Unless it be merely a bond, by which neither color is discerned, nor odor drawn, nor tenderness commended. It is as much against nature to hunt for a flower with the head as for a sound with the nose.” Why, indeed, Christians should utterly reject and despise such crowns, Minutius Felix explained thus: “Forgive us, that we do not crown our heads. We are accustomed to draw the fragrance of a goodly flower with our nostrils, not with the back of the head and the hair.” B Yet Clement gladly concedes one crown to these same Christians: “A beautiful crown,” he says, “is laid up for him who has conducted himself rightly. The earth cannot bear this flower; heaven alone can produce it.” With these words, Clement alludes allegorically to the amaranth, since, as Pliny says, after all the flowers have died, if it is soaked in water it revives and makes winter wreaths. The sum of its nature is in its name, so called because it does not wither. The meaning, therefore, of our author is that those who have conducted themselves rightly in this life will carry away in heaven a crown of amaranth, that is, one never subject to any corruption. In which sense we also read what was said by the prince of the apostles: “an unfading (ἀμαράντινον) crown of glory.” Moreover, what Clement has handed down regarding flowers can be illustrated by Plutarch, *Sympos.*, book II, ch. 1 and 2; Pliny, *Natural History*, book XXI, ch. 18 and following, book XVI, ch. 34; Matthioli on Dioscorides, book I, ch. 102, book II, ch. 175, book IV, ch. 117 and 155.
ARTICLE VII.
On the abuse of ointments, and their various kinds, where it concerns *baccharis* and *metallion*, on the expulsion of ointment-sellers and wool-dyers from cities, on the manner of using ointment and garlic, on the exposure of newborn children, and on the Lex Scantinia.
Not only were the pagans held by an almost incredible desire for flowers, but first of all, women burned with such a great and insatiable craving for ointments that they devised new things daily, nor could they be satisfied by an infinite variety of them. Wherefore our Clement says: “Of these ointments there are infinite differences—*brinthium*, *metallium*, and *regium*, *plangonium* and Egyptian *psagda*... *baccharis*, Cyprian [ointment], *nard*, etc.” He discusses these ointments, besides Pliny, *Natural History*, book XIII, ch. 1, Dioscorides, and Matthioli, and others, Athenaeus in *Deipnosophists*, book XV, p. 688, 689, 690, but previously book XII, p. 553, where he exhibits this verse of Cephisodorus regarding *baccharis*: *And the merchant [sells] the baccharis separately by the feet.* C
Pliny makes us aware that *baccharis* is called by some “rustic nard.” But because in the Greek text of Clement it reads *metallion*, and our Greek manuscripts observe that it is so named from some metal (*ἀπό τινος μετάλλου οὕτω καλουμένου*), some think this has been corrupted by the carelessness of copyists, and that in both published and manuscript codices it should be replaced with *megalion* or *megaliou*. They try to confirm their conjecture with this authority of Pliny: “Afterwards, much later in time, there succeeded for the sake of glory that called *megalium*, from *balaximum* oil, balsam, calamus, reed, xylobalsamum, cassia, resin.” But Athenaeus, as Sosibius testifies, thus witnesses that the nomenclature of this ointment arose from a certain Megalus, whom some reported to have been a Sicilian, others an Athenian: “Sosibius in his *Similitudes* reports that *megaleium* was named from Megalus the Sicilian; some say he was an Athenian.” Julius Pollux, Suidas, and others have willingly subscribed to this opinion. Nevertheless, Hesychius and also Helladius in Photius’ *Bibliotheca*, where he lists some species of ointments, comes closer to the Clementine text and the reading of its Greek manuscript codices: *Metaleion, which Metalus the Syracusan discovered*. Because, however, this word occurs written not in exactly the same way by them as it is by our Clement, D one may not absurdly conclude that they and those other writers we have cited thus far spoke of one and the same ointment.
Furthermore, that insatiable desire for ointments had so taken hold of the pagans that, as our Clement himself testifies, the ointment-sellers, with whom most cities were filled, were driven and cast out only by those which are ruled by good laws and institutions; and likewise even the dyers of flowery wools. In this place, Hervetus writes that he remembers well what is read in Pliny—that P. Licinius Crassus and Julius Caesar, as censors, in the year of the City 565, decreed that no one should sell exotic ointments—but that from his own memory it had completely slipped away which cities had expelled the ointments and the makers of ointments and the dyers of flowery wools. But had he so easily forgotten that, if indeed it was ever read by him, which is written in Athenaeus in these words: “The Lacedaemonians expelled ointment-sellers from Sparta because they corrupt the oil; and the dyers of wool because they blot out the whiteness of the wool. Did not the wise Solon in his laws forbid men to sell ointments?” Wherefore our Clement in another work consigned these things to writing: “The ancient Lacedaemonians repudiated ointment and purple, rightly judging both garments and anointings to be deceitful.”
and naming them A. Moreover, to this, if it pleases, let us add the words of the orator Lysias, by which he attacks Aeschines the Socratic, who wished to devote himself to the trade of perfumery, thus: "He established the beautiful, that is, the end of the blessed life, and that which is worthy of a philosopher, to be the trade of perfumery, [a trade] fitting for the philosophy of Socrates, who censured the use of perfumes, since even the legislator Solon wished to forbid all men from practicing that art."
However, Clement does not wish for all perfumes to be forbidden to Christians entirely: "But one should use perfume," he says, "as a medicine and an aid, for stimulating languid strengths, and for catarrhs, and for chills, and for nausea." For that very same reason, Ambrose said elsewhere concerning garlic: "Let garlic be taken as a medicine, not as food; let it be taken by the sick, not by those feasting." This, of course, was the primary and general law of Clement and other holy Fathers, that, with only the legitimate use of necessary things granted to Christians, they should be kept entirely away from every sense and allure of pleasure.
How far the pagans were from this norm of true religion, Clement clearly shows, where, given the occasion, he inveighs most bitterly against the height of the luxury of his own time, in which they wallowed with impunity, by the permission of their own laws, even in every sort of the most unbridled lust. There, moreover, and again in another place, he attacks their most cruel custom, by which they would expose their own children born at home, while they would keep vile slaves, and Thersites—that is, men of the utmost deformity—and parrots, monkeys, and other animals at no small expense. Such a crime of deep and utterly inhuman cruelty has been frequently reproached by other Fathers to these same pagans. For Justin the most holy martyr says: "We say that it is the act of wicked men even to expose children born at home." Tertullian indeed: "Above all, you expose your sons to be taken up by any passerby out of pity." Minucius Felix also: "Deservedly, therefore, is incest frequently found among you... while you even expose your children born at home to the mercy of others." Lactantius similarly: "Who either strangle the children born to them, or, if they should be too pious, expose them." And in another book: "What of those whom forced false piety compels to expose? They cannot be considered innocent who cast their own flesh as prey to dogs, and as much as lies in them, kill them more cruelly than if they had strangled them... Therefore, it is as wicked to expose as it is to kill." Go, in addition, to Justus Lipsius, vol. II, cent. 1, ep. 85, to Dionysius Ussher, and the observations of Godefridus in the *Codex Theodosianus*, vol. I, read 1 and 2, *De expositis*, page 445 and following.
How moreover, and by what marks children were exposed, the observations of various men on that poem of Terence make manifest: "Go, you, bring out the basket, Pythias, from home with the trinkets."
Far more reasonable than these were the ancient Roman legislators, of whom our Clement [says]: "I admire the old legislators of the Romans; they held in hatred the womanish and effeminate pursuit of life, and judged it just, according to the law of nature, to bury in the earth B the association of the body with a woman." That law, however, which Hervetus declares he has nowhere read, some suspect to be the Scantinian. Regarding this law indeed, Antonius Augustinus disputes, being praised by some scholiast of our Clement, and furthermore Prudentius, who also sang about it thus:
But I believe I embrace the threshold of the great Jove. Who, if he were summoned, guilty by your laws, Entangled in the snares of menacing Julia, Would pay the penalty for the severe and Scantinian [indictment], With you as the judge, worthy to go to prison.
But before that, Juvenal: But if laws and rights are vexed, the Scantinia ought to be cited Before all others.
For that reason some wish the law to be named from a certain Scantinius, its author; others from C. Scantinius Capitolinus, who, when he had attempted to inflict lewdness upon the son of Marcellus, was condemned for it. But Plutarch and Valerius Maximus narrate how that Scantinius, even though a tribune of the plebs, was accused by that one youth as witness and by his own silent sense of shame alone clearly revealing the crime, [and] was rightly condemned by all.
On the other hand, someone might ask, how could this law be cited by our Clement, which had pronounced no punishment of death, as in the *lex Julia* decreed later against adulterers, but, as some say, only a small fine? But to this it can be answered that this law was indeed brought in against that crime which seems to be noted by Clement. Furthermore, Juvenal and Prudentius, already cited by us, not obscurely hint that through this Scantinian law a much heavier penalty was imposed than the fine of some small and trifling sum. You may see, beyond the already praised Ant. Augustinus, the book *De legibus* [and] Paulus Manutius, *De legibus Rom.*, cap. 29.
CHAPTER XIII.
Concerning physical and natural things.
ARTICULUS I.
How milk is made, and formed in the breasts; concerning the fat of milk, namely butter, for use in a lamp.
Although Clement published the books of the *Paedagogus* for the purpose of informing the morals of Christians and handing down the precepts of the Christian life, he nevertheless intermixes many things regarding physical and natural matters, which, with some explanation or confirmation, seem to many to require D further clarification; these ought not to be omitted by us. First, therefore, milk, according to his opinion, is blood itself, converted from a red color into white. But how this change is made, he explains thus: "Blood," he says, "in a pregnant mother, is transmitted through the umbilical cord to nourish her fetus. But immediately after birth, the passage of this same blood is obstructed; wherefore it happens that the blood, the entrance being closed, flows back, and having been infused into the cavities of the breasts, and like a wave [is stirred] by the spirit..."
wherefore it happens that the blood, the entrance being closed, flows back, and having been infused into the cavities of the breasts, and like a wave [is stirred] by the spirit… and is changed into a white color. He proves this with several examples. For in ulcers blood is converted into white pus; the sea, agitated by wind and waves, casts out the spray of salt; rivers also, which are borne along with great force, being buffeted by the obstruction of the air, cast up foam; and finally, the moisture that is in our mouth becomes white when agitated by the breath. Furthermore, although this opinion of Clement regarding the way in which milk is said to be produced is not approved by more recent physicians, it ought to be beyond doubt for everyone that he truly received it from ancient and most celebrated authorities. For what indeed is clearer and more explicit than these words of Galen: "We know that while we are still carried in the womb, we are nourished by blood; but milk is generated from blood, having undergone a slight change in the breasts." Avicenna speaks more fully: "The breast is a body composed of veins, arteries, and nerves, between which there exists a void, which glandular flesh fills, having no sensation, of a white color, and because of its whiteness, when blood is assimilated to it, that which nourishes it is whitened, and that which is superfluous from it is whitened, and it becomes milk. And its comparison to the milk generated from blood is the comparison of the liver to the blood generated from chyle, in that each converts the moisture to its own likeness in nature and color. For the liver makes white chyle red, and makes it blood; and the breast whitens the red blood, and makes it milk." Many others, if need be, could be cited by us as patrons and supporters of this opinion; but we have believed the testimonies we have produced to be sufficient for confirming and explaining the sentiment of our Clement.
Wherefore he thinks that the reason why nurses abound in milk most in winter, but in summer very little, can be taken from this. For in the winter season the heat, being enclosed within, and the food having been better concocted and digested, affords no exit, and for this reason the veins are then filled with blood. But the greater the abundance of blood, the more milk—which is nothing else, as he had said, than blood changed from a red to a white color—must abound. We know, indeed, that it has seemed otherwise to the physicians of this our age, who think that the female chyle, carried from the subclavian artery to the mammary artery, and from this through its own ducts to the glands, where it is perfected, becomes milk, which in nursing infants truly becomes the food of the infant itself. But this new opinion of recent physicians has little or nothing to do with our Clement, who, from the constant and common opinion of the writers of his time, not undeservedly judged that he had sufficiently and more than sufficiently demonstrated that which he had undertaken to prove.
It will therefore seem less common and perhaps entirely singular to many, what he adds a little later: "Not even now have nurses called the milk which is poured out first for drink by the same name as that; they have called it 'manna' (μάννα κεκλήκασι)." For Migne observes that the name "manna" at one time signified the mother; but you would find few indeed, and perhaps hardly any, who have used it in the meaning which Clement hands down.
Furthermore, Clement writes that the fat of milk is butter, which many of his age used for a lamp; "Many use the fat of milk, which they call butter, for a lamp." Whence it is evident that in the region where Clement was writing these things, there was a great abundance of butter.
ARTICLE II.
*Of the gold which ants dig up and griffins guard, of the golden things of the flowing Pactolus, and of Lydian dust, with what profusion and luxury the pagans abused it, and why they were called metoposcopi.*Clement posits as a certainty that gold is hidden in the veins of the earth; but he immediately added: A *And therefore ants dig up gold, and griffins guard gold.* But from what author, you may ask, did Clement receive this, or who can be produced as a witness for him? Certainly, some can be given, neither unknown to you nor of uncertain faith, who have handed down to memory who and of what sort those ants are, and in what regions they dig up gold. Indeed, we shall first cite the witness Strabo to you, who writes thus concerning them: "The skins of the ants that dig up gold (Nearchus) says he saw, similar to the skins of leopards. Megasthenes says of the ants among the Derdae, which is a great nation of Indian mountaineers exposed to the east, that there is a certain mountain plain with a circuit of three thousand stadia, and under it are gold mines, which ants dig up, not smaller in size than foxes, with wonderful speed, procuring food from hunting. They dig the earth B during the winter and accumulate it at the entrance, just as moles are wont to do. The gold dust—for that is what these are—needs little smelting. Neighbors steal it secretly with beasts of burden, for they cannot do so openly, because of the ants, which both fight and pursue those who flee, and when they have caught them, they kill them together with the beasts of burden. Therefore, to hide from them, they lay out wild flesh in many places. And so, the ants being scattered to the booty, they carry off the gold dust, and being ignorant of smelting, sell it as raw material to any merchant whatever."
Pliny tells the same thing, but in other words: "The Indian ants dig out gold from the caverns of the earth in the region of the northern Indians, who are called Dardae. They have the color of cats, and the size of Egyptian wolves. The Indians steal this, which has been dug out by them, during the winter season, since the ants have hidden themselves in tunnels on account of the heat; however, stirred by the scent, they fly out and frequently tear them to pieces, even though they flee on very swift camels." This indeed he drew from Herodotus, who pursues these things more fully. Him, if you wish, just as Solinus and Mela, and others, you will be able to visit, cited by Aldrovandus, who discusses at length whether that is true.
But the question about griffins may be more difficult. For those who hand down that gold is guarded by them, rely either solely on the testimony of the poet Aristeas of Proconnesus, or they consider it doubtful and entirely uncertain. Hear, I pray, Herodotus: "To the north of Europe," he says, "it is certain that there is a very great amount of gold. But how it is produced, I am not able to say that even for certain. They are said, however, to take it from the griffins, one-eyed men of the Arimaspi; but I would not believe this either, that one-eyed men are born, having the rest of their nature equal to other men." And afterwards in the following book: "A certain Aristeas of Proconnesus, a versifier, son of Caistrobius, mentioned that he, having been inspired by Phoebus, came to the Issedones, and that above them dwell the Arimaspi, one-eyed men, and likewise above them are the griffins, D who guard the gold." Pausanias, however, speaks a little more explicitly: "Aristeas of Proconnesus testified in his poems that the griffins, he says, wage constant war over the gold with the Arimaspi, who are above the Issedones; and the gold indeed which...
the griffins guard is born of the earth, and the Arimaspi themselves have only one eye, and the griffins are beasts similar to lions, and have the beak and wings of eagles A. But Pliny, although sufficiently credulous in other matters, nonetheless thought that griffins, or, as it is written in Greek, *grypes*, were fabulous: "I think that winged creatures with the heads of horses, called Pegasi, and griffins with hooked beaks are fabulous; the former are in Scythia, the latter in Ethiopia." Nevertheless, it was the opinion of Philostratus that griffins are real birds dwelling in India, sacred to the sun, and accustomed to digging up gold. In fact, he accurately depicts their form and figure. Yet, he says, that which are called *grypes* that dig up [gold] are stones speckled with minute golden dots, which this beast tears apart with its beak B. Whether, therefore, this species of bird has existed, was and still is a controversy among the learned, to resolve which Aldrovandi collects many things that need not detain us longer. For the things which we have recounted thus far prove abundantly enough with what right or with what injury our Clement said that gold is dug up by ants and guarded by griffins.
Yet he did not think that all gold is hidden in the veins of the earth. For he says there are the golden streams of the Pactolus. Now everyone knows that the Pactolus is a river of Lydia, arising from Mount Tmolus, which, flowing through the Sardian territory into the Hermus, carries golden sands with it, and on that account is called *Chrysorrhous*. From this, furthermore, you may easily understand why elsewhere Clement, because of this same Pactolus, a river of Lydia, called gold by the name of *Lydian scrapings* C. But, you will say, does not Clement reject that in another book as old wives' tales and banish it far away with these words: "Or if one should measure out the entire Pactolus, that mythical stream of gold?" Which Hervet rendered into Latin thus: "Not even if one should measure out the Pactolus, which flows, as it is in fables, with an entirely golden stream"; when he ought rather to have said: "Nor if one should remeasure the entire Pactolus, which is the fabulous golden river." But Clement speaks thus of the Pactolus, without doubt, because very many things—especially by the poets—concerning the way in which it began to roll golden sands, and subsequently carried them along, occur everywhere as gratuitously invented and stridently sung by them. But this does not prevent it from having carried gold scrapings with it, as Herodotus is a witness. Strabo, however, signifies by these words that it did so formerly, but no longer in his own time: "The Pactolus flows down from Tmolus, which in ancient times used to carry down scrapings of gold with it in abundance, whence they say the wealth of Croesus and his ancestors had its famous name; now the scrapings have ceased." You may see further Plutarch *De fluviis*, p. 1151 et seq., Pliny, and others.
With what immoderate luxury and excessive profusion, however, the pagans abused gold in garments, houses, baths, vessels, ornaments, and all their furnishings, our Clement records not once, and not without rebuke. But would that these were only the vices of pagans, and not of Christians! But that seems singular to Hervet which Clement himself added in the same place: "As they say among the barbarians, wicked and evil men are bound with gold D." For he confesses that it is entirely unknown to him from where our author received this. But this public confession of his, to us, if it does not move wonder on account of long usage, it will move no small amount. For Tertullian, when he discourses on the adornment of women, repeats the same thing once and again: "Among certain barbarians," he says, "because gold is common and abundant, they have those who are bound with gold in workhouses, and they burden mules with wealth, being the wealthier the more wicked they are." Again, however: "Gold itself, whose glory occupies you, the literature of the nations reports serves some nation for chains." But if you ask which is that nation, or what are those gentile writings indicated by Tertullian, you will learn from these words of Plutarch: "It is better to remain bound in golden fetters, which happens in Ethiopia, than in the riches of a wife." There you have both the nation, among which the guilty were bound with golden chains, and the gentile author who committed this to memory. But if the testimony of Plutarch should not suffice for Hervet or others, we will give them another witness, Dio Chrysostom, who writes in the same manner: "But if it were beneficial to possess gold, nothing would have prevented the Ethiopians, who live above us, from being seen as the most blessed, where gold is held in less esteem than lead is among us; and they say that criminals are bound in thick fetters; yet they are no less bound and wicked and unjust."
Clement argues elsewhere against pagan men, who, emasculated by plainly womanly luxury and softness, were chewing mastic: "chewing mastic." Which, indeed, he later turns into a reproach for women also: "mastic-chewers." What, however, mastic is, how varied, and in what regions it is produced, he who wishes to know may approach Pliny, book XII *Nat. hist.*, cap. 17, p. 29, and Mattioli, in book I of Dioscorides, cap. 75. But observe in passing how wittily Clement mocks such delicate and soft men: "What would someone say of these, who like a metoposcopus,
μετοποσκόπος,
divines from the figure," that is, who divines the nature and character of a man from the inspection of his forehead. Whence Pliny: "Apelles painted a likeness of such indistinct similarity that, incredible to say, Apion the grammarian left it written that a certain man divining from the face of a human, whom they call *metoposcopi*, said from these things either the years of future death or of past life."Finally, Clement not un-wittily compares those gluttons and voluptuous men with the *Acephalus*: "It seems to me that he who is called by the mathematicians *Acephalus*,
ἀκέφαλος,
who is enumerated before the wandering star, with his head compressed into his chest, signifies gluttonous men, and voluptuaries, and those inclined to drunkenness." Hervet, since nothing at all occurred to him concerning this *Acephalus*, consulted Monantolius, a medical doctor and royal professor of mathematics at Paris. But he answered him that the name *Acephalus* was indeed unknown to mathematicians, but that from the Clementine description it could be gathered that the wandering star itself is the sun, and the *Acephalus* is that image in the sky which is called Taurus.ARTICLE III.
*On certain animals mentioned by Clement, on the hyena changing its sex, on the hare and the dasypus, on the blackbird and the nightingale changing their voice and color, on nightingales speaking in the human manner, on the Median peacock, parrots, plovers, pheasants, and francolins. Things which [are heard] from our author concerning certain animals*these we now must examine in our usual manner. Now, some have held the opinion that the hyena changes its masculine sex into the feminine every other year. But he, following Diodorus Siculus, who is cited by Photius, contends that this is entirely false, being led by this reasoning: "The force of nature can never be constrained so as to change." For what has once been effectuated in nature itself, it is wrong for it to be refashioned into the contrary by [external] affection; for affection is not nature. By whom this or that opinion was asserted and defended, Bochart teaches at length, and after him Cotelerius, whom any curious man will be able to approach and consult.
Yet here, furthermore, it was opined that our Clement there had regard to the epistle of Barnabas; and because he could not subscribe to his opinion, out of his high reverence for an apostolic man, he spared his name. Nor does this conjecture deviate at all from complete plausibility. For what forbids that he should have aimed at that epistle, which it is most certain he himself had read quite often, and many fragments of which were transcribed in his books of the Stromata? Yet since our author himself seems there to follow the opinion of Aristotle B *xatà 66as* [word-for-word/by the hoof], some will perhaps not find it difficult to be persuaded that he had regard to this man rather than to Barnabas, or, if you like, to both. But the reason which is brought forward by the same Clement to establish his own opinion, Hervetus, if it be taken literally, does not judge to be true at all. For he does not believe the things reported by Pliny about females changed into males to be false and gratuitously invented. Indeed, to the various examples of this kind of mutation brought forward by him—add, if you will, those brought forward by Hippocrates and Harduin—he himself subjoins the case of a certain woman who, in the town of Campania which is called Vitriacum, turned into a male and grew a beard, and later took a wife.
Wherefore the same Hervetus wills this to be the sense of our Clement: that nature itself is not changed, but that some things happen sometimes contrary to nature, which are monsters and prodigies. But we cannot conceal that this interpretation is wholly alien to the mind of our author. For he truly, and in the depths of his argument, denies that it can ever happen that a male hyena is converted into a female. "It is not at all to be believed," he says, "that the hyena ever changes its nature," and it is proved by reason: "The force of nature can never be constrained so that it is changed." Nor, furthermore, do the examples proposed by Pliny and even by Hervetus and others seem to oppose this reasoning at all. For even if it were demonstrated from them that a female became a male, yet from that it cannot be concluded that, vice versa, a male has become a female. For without any mutation of nature, a male could be made from a female, when a certain membrane, under which the virility was hidden, was subsequently ruptured.
But Clement, you will say, did not think that a hyena could C also change a female into a male. For he added the Greek word *ἐναλλάξ*, that is, alternatively, interchangeably, and vice versa. We cannot indeed deny that. Wherefore it must be ingenuously confessed that the mentioned examples of this mutation were entirely unknown to him. Yet it is no less clear and perspicuous that he is speaking of that mutation above all, by which, as he himself says, "The figure being changed, a male is made from a female."
Moreover, the things which Clement there narrates concerning the hyena and the hare, D and which he has handed down further, will be easily explainable from those authors cited by Bochart and Cotelerius, and we have already touched upon something concerning them.
Many beasts, our same author hereafter reports to be birds which, with nature unchanged, change both their voice and their color. "The blackbird," he says, "is said to change from a black to a yellow color, and from one which sang sweetly, to become clamorous and producing a turbulent sound." In like manner, it is also asserted that the nightingale changes both its color and its voice by turns. But they do not change their nature itself. Now, it seems Clement drew that from Aristotle, who discusses both those birds similarly in book IX, *De histor. anim.*, ch. 49, nor does Pliny express it less clearly in book X, *Hist. nat.*, ch. 29, p. 419 and seq., as also Aelian in book X, *De animal.*, ch. 27. Concerning the blackbird, indeed, Aldrovandus, book XVI, *Ornithol.*, ch. 6, p. 610, and finally concerning the nightingale, book XVIII, *Ornithol.*, ch. 2, p. 280.
Furthermore, in the following book, Clement not obscurely signifies that certain nightingales spoke in the human manner. For where he sharply rebukes women who incurred great expenses for keeping monkeys and other animals, he subjoins these words: "While it was necessary to feed the elderly... they are more beautiful than monkeys and can speak better than nightingales." Nor ought that, in truth, to lead anyone to great wonder. For Pliny, indeed, writes thus concerning nightingales taught to speak in the Greek and Latin tongue: "The Caesars also had young starlings, and likewise nightingales, teachable in the Greek and Latin tongue; furthermore, they practice throughout the day and incessantly speak new words, even in a longer context. They are taught in private, and where no other voice is mixed in, one who incessantly says repeatedly those things which it wishes to be hidden, and flattering with food." For Aldrovandus teaches that this is not beyond belief, by the example of three other nightingales, which is far more wonderful, which, if you please and have leisure, you will be able to read in his work.
In regard to the nourishment of other birds, Clement also argues against and rails at the no less inhuman than useless expenditures of certain women in that same place: "Those of them," he says, "who are a little more refined, raise Indian birds and Median peacocks... but they do not admit an orphan boy, they who feed parrots and plovers," in the translation of Hervetus, "daws." Those which he calls "Indian birds" *ὄρνεις Ἰνδικούς* above, he calls *ψιττακούς* (parrots) later. And rightly so. For the parrot was indeed called an Indian bird. Whence Pliny: "India," he says, "sends this bird, she calls it Sittace." Concerning that, see Aelian, book XVI, *De animal.*, ch. 2; Aldrovandus, book II, *Ornithol.*, ch. 12, and above all Bochart, tom. II, *De animal. sac. script.*, book II, ch. 30, p. 342.
These also, whom Clement now calls *ταῶνας Μηδικούς* (Median peacocks), elsewhere he calls more simply, and with two letters removed, *Μῆδον ταῶνα* (Mede peacock), that is, born in Media and carried away from there. Concerning other places where peacocks are raised, Aldrovandus collects many things; but concerning Media, he produced no other witness than our Clement. He could, however, have added Suidas, who has these things at the word *Μηδικός*: *Μηδικὸς ὄρνις ὁ ταώς*, the Median bird the peacock. For we can not absurdly infer from that that there was a great swarm and multitude of peacocks in Media, since they derived the name of the Median bird from it. To this, indeed, Clement assigns the peacock among the more delicate and higher-priced foods. And that, indeed, can be confirmed not only from Aelian, Varro, and Macrobius, but also from Athenaeus, book XIV, *Deipnosoph.*
A Moreover, Hervetus has translated the Greek term of Clement, χάραβοι, into Latin as *graculos* (daws), as we have said. Nevertheless, among the more skilled writers on ornithology, or on birds, it is not yet agreed what bird that should be called. Aldrovandi discusses this more fully in his *Ornithologia*, book xiii, ch. 15, book xvii, ch. 11, and book xx, ch. 57, as does Bochart in *De animalibus sacrae Scripturae*, vol. ii, book v, ch. 30, where he reports the opinions of various people regarding the *charadrius*, which is called *anapha* in Hebrew.
We have just observed that the peacock is included by Clement in the number of the more delicate foods: but to this he adds "Phasian birds" and "Egyptian attagens." Jerome supports Clement, writing to Salvina in these words: "Let there be far from your banquets the Phasian birds, fat turtledoves, the Ionian attagen." Athenaeus recounts more about those two birds; but who does not know the Phasian birds, or pheasants? They took their name from the Phasis, a river of the Colchians, and Martial sang thus concerning them: "First I was transported by an Argive keel. Before me, Phasis held nothing I knew."
Pliny testifies that the Ionian attagen is celebrated most of all: "The Ionian attagen is celebrated most of all; in other respects vocal, but once captured, it becomes mute; it was once valued among rare birds." From this comes that line of Horace: "Let not the African bird descend into my stomach, Nor the Ionian attagen, More pleasant than the olive Picked from the fattest branches of the trees."
And also Martial, already praised by us: "Among flavors, the taste of the Ionian attagens Is ranked first of all birds."
However, it is said by Aulus Gellius that the Phrygian attagen is [not far removed from the Ionian] B and that from there attagens could have been brought into Ionia. Finally, Julius Pollux also makes mention of attagens and pheasants.
ARTICLE IV.
Concerning certain fishes and shellfish, and other more delicate foods mentioned by Clement, about lampreys, eels, kids, mullets, Pelorian scallops, Abydenian oysters, *maenides*, scallops, tongue-fish and thrushes, about the *bolus*, beets, *caricae*, and haddock.In the same heat and zeal for piety that we have already noted, our Clement inveighs against the luxury and intemperance of the pagans in the seeking out of fishes, oysters, and more delicate shellfish from everywhere and at immense expense: "When they are in the Sicilian strait," he says, "they seek out lampreys with anxious and troubled mind, and eels of the Maeander, and the kids that are in Melos, and the mullets in Sciathus, the Pelorian conchs, and Abydenian oysters: nor do they pass over the *maenides* which are in Lipara, nor the Mantinean *bolus*, nor the beets which are among the Ascraeans, and they seek the Methymnaean scallops, and the Attic tongue-fish, and the Daphnian thrushes, and the Chelidonian *caricae*, on account of which the unhappy Persian set out for Greece with five thousand thousands." Athenaeus, C indeed, can be excellently confirmed from the opinion of our Clement in the same place: "At banquets," he says, "some had much in their mouth, and they commended Sicilian lampreys, flutes, eels, the bellies of tunny caught at Pachynus, kids from Melos, mullets from the Symaethus, from the vile seashells the Pelorides, *maenides* from Lipara, Theban turnips, beets from Ascra." You see indeed how beautifully Athenaeus and Clement agree with each other, and that they differ in almost nothing except that the latter said mullets in Sciathus (*ἐν Σκιάθῳ*), but the former said in the Symaethus (*ἐν Συμαίθῳ*). Sciathus, then, is an island of the Aegean Sea between Euboea and Thessaly; the Symaethus, however, is a river of Sicily, flowing into the region of Catania. But Casaubon thinks that this is to be attributed to the carelessness of copyists, and that everywhere in the text of Athenaeus one should read *Σκιάθῳ*, or even *Σκιάθῳ*.
Nor is his conjecture light, which is corroborated by the testimony of Julius Pollux. For he, just like Athenaeus, lists many things mentioned by our Clement: "But it must be known that these things were renowned among the ancients: lamprey from the strait—there, perhaps, the word *Sikeliko* was omitted by a slip of the copyist—and the Tartesian lamprey, the Tyrian tunny, mullet from Sciathus, kid from Melos, and Pelorian conchs; from whence, naturally, those which are now called Pelorides took their name, beet from Ascra, *maenides* from Lipara, turnips from Mantinea, Methymnaean scallops, the *galeus* fish from Rhodes, *psittae* from Eleusis... eel from Boeotia," etc. Furthermore, Pliny speaks somewhat on the mullet, but Aldrovandi speaks more on it, who also argues at length concerning lampreys.
Nor does Athenaeus discourse less copiously from various ancient writers about the eel, where he cites these verses of Simonides about the Maeandrian eel, as our Clement speaks: "When the heron had offended the triorchis eel Eating the Maeandrian [prey], it snatched it away."
See Aristotle book viii *Hist. anim.*, ch. 5; Pliny book ix *Histor. natur.*, ch. 21, p. 312; Aldrovandi book v *De piscib.*, ch. 14, p. 545. But the former, in ch. 6, p. 504 and seq., discourses on the mullet. Athenaeus, however, explains the opinions of various people about this fish at length in book vii *Deipnosoph.*, p. 306 and seq.
What more? Are not these verses of the Colophonian, cited by Athenaeus, about the Pelorian conchs? "Or however many feed in the deep sea, Neritae, strombi, peloriades, mussels."
But Athenaeus himself speaks thus a little later: "Pelorides were called so from the word *peloros*, because they are larger than *chamai* and different from them." But concerning these, see Aldrovandi book iii, concerning testaceans, ch. 74, p. 475.
In the same place, Athenaeus introduces Archestratus singing of Abydenian oysters in this way: "Enos has great mussels, Abydos oysters, Paros urchins, Miletus scallops."
Consult, if you wish, Julius Pollux, and see Casaubon's annotations on the cited passage of Athenaeus. But the same Athenaeus adds these verses immediately after: "Philyllius, or whoever is the author of *The Cities*, says," he says, "*chamai*, *lepadas*, *solenas*, mussels, *pinnas*, scallops from Methymna, *ktēnas ek Mēthymnēs*." Aldrovandi says more on these in book iii *De testaceis*, ch. 69, p. 497 and 506, as well as on the *maera* or *maenis*, in book iii *De piscibus*, ch. 39, p. 223 seq., about which also Aristotle in book viii *Histor. animal.*, ch. 34, and more often D Athenaeus, Pliny, and others.
985 ALIÆ IN COHORTATIONEM ET PÆDAGOGUM OBSERVATIONES. 986
Athenæus and Eudemus show that there are four kinds of them, and which ones are superior to the others, according to Theophrastus. Furthermore, Clement mentions Attic lingulaca A, in Greek *psēttas Attikas*, which are grouped among the flatfish. Athenaeus reports that this fish, which the Greeks call *psētta*, is called *rhombus* by the Romans: "The Romans call the *psētta* a *rhombus*, and the name is Greek," and the Romans also call the *passer* (flounder) a *rhombus*, a name without a doubt Greek. You will find these matters sufficiently explained by Aldrovandus.
Someone might perhaps ask us what Clement meant by the name *turdus* (thrush), whether he designated a bird or a fish. For the *turdus*, according to Aristotle, Athenaeus, Pliny, and other witnesses, is a bird, which we call *grive* in French, or a fish, which is likewise called *vieille* in French. Concerning it, Athenaeus (book IV *Deipnosophistae*, p. 136), Pliny (book IX *Historia naturalis*, ch. 15, p. 301), Columella (book VIII, ch. 16), and Aldrovandus (book I *De piscibus*, ch. 4) have held discussions. Therefore, whether Clement is to be understood as speaking of the bird or the fish is certainly not a minor question, nor is it so easy to solve. For the word *daphnis*, added by Clement, which ought to have helped in deciding it, makes it more difficult. Just as *Daphne* signifies an agreeable grove, prepared for delights, among the people of Antioch, so it also signifies a river near Ceos and an island among the Troglodytes. But what of the fact that Aldrovandus candidly confesses that he has never found anyone who has mentioned Daphnic thrushes? He conjectures, however, that these are birds, which are said to have lived in that very pleasant grove. But others may see what weight his conjecture should have. Since our Clement is speaking there primarily about fish and shellfish, we leave it to those more expert to define whether he spoke rather of the *turdus* fish.
Besides shellfish and fish, our same author mentions the *gongyle mantikē*. The later interpreter translated this word as the *Mantinic bolus*, but Hervetus, with better right, rendered it as the *Mantinic turnip*. In the same way, that word has been rendered most consistently in many places, not only by Julius Pollux, who has the exact same term in Greek, but also by the interpreter of Athenaeus. With both writers, then—both Julius Pollux and Athenaeus—Clement makes mention of *teutlōn* (beets), which were better among the Ascraeans.
Finally, our author celebrates *caricae* (dried figs), a kind of fig, and *chelidoniae*: "On account of which," he adds, "the unhappy Persian set out for Greece with five hundred thousand men." But concerning these, we read in Pliny as follows: "The *chelidonia* matures at the very end of winter." In Athenaeus, however, Diagoras commends them highly indeed; but in the same place, Dinon testifies that what Clement asserts regarding the king of the Persians, namely Xerxes, was done in truth on account of the *caricae*, not the *chelidoniae* B, but the *Atticae*. Pollux seems to confuse them, and not sufficiently distinguish them from one another: "*ischades chelidonioi ai Attikai hai kai chelidones kalountai*" (Chelidonian dried figs, which are Attic, which are also called *chelidones*). Consult Aldrovandus, book II of *Dendrologia*, chapter 3, page 472.
Before we put an end to this chapter, we wish you to be warned that what Clement reported about the *asellus* (cod) fish is culled from Athenaeus. For he reports that "gluttons" are similar to the fish which is called *asinus* (ass) in Greek: which, as he speaks, Aristotle says is the only one among other animals to have a heart in its belly. Epicharmus calls this *ektrapezolos gastron*, that is, one who departs from the common custom of the belly. For Athenaeus reports this same thing from both Aristotle and Epicharmus. But Rondelet, Gesner, Jonston, and others who have written books on fish consider this to be false. Therefore, Jonston, following Aldrovandus, argues that the cited text of Athenaeus is corrupt, and they think that one should read *koiliogastres*, that is, "big-bellied," since the *asellus* grows mostly in the belly. But they did not sufficiently note that the primary reading of Athenaeus is clearly established by our Clement, C and therefore, if there is any error, it is to be attributed rather to Epicharmus than to the scribes. However, for our Clement, the authority of Epicharmus was sufficient for attacking gluttons with this example of the *asellus*. And certainly, that proverb arose from there: "Like the *asellus* fish," by which a man devoted to his belly and abdomen is marked. See Junia, following the Adagia of Erasmus, page 1087.
CHAPTER XIV.
Concerning authors, poets, teachers, and sculptors praised by Clement.98 ARTICULUS I. Concerning various authors cited by Clement in the *Exhortation to the Greeks*; concerning Hieronymus, and Dicaearchus, who discoursed about the shape and stature of Hercules, and concerning Sosibius, who mentions Hercules being wounded by the sons of Hippocoon, concerning Eudoxus, Icesius, Patrocles the Thurian, Monimus, Antiochus, Leandrius, Zeno the Mindian, Olympicus, Philochorus, Demetrius, Dionysius, Isidorus, Athenodorus, Diogenes, Dinon, Nymphodorus, Anticlides, and Apella.
Besides the philosophers and poets mentioned by us above, D Clement names other authors of various kinds, concerning whom a brief discussion must be instituted, lest they be unknown to others. Among the philosophers, he praises Hieronymus and Dicaearchus, by whom it was handed down to memory what the figure, form, and stature of Hercules' body was. Cicero mentions the former more than once and says that he was a Rhodian by birth, and that he placed the highest good in that, that we might be completely free from all distress and pain. Laertius also made mention of him; see the notes and observations of various scholars on him. But Cicero and Athenaeus have discoursed more often about the latter, who prided himself on being a disciple of Aristotle, and Vossius has done so more fully—whom anyone can easily consult if he wishes and has the leisure.
A Clemens shows that the same Hercules was wounded by the Hippocoontides through the testimony of Sosibius, unknown to Hervetus, as he himself declares. But how can it be that this writer, whose books *On Alcman*, *On Similarities*, and *On Sacrifices* appear cited quite often by Athenaeus, remained hidden from Hervetus? What of the fact that even Clement himself adduces the authority of this same Sosibius elsewhere in these words: "Sosibius the Lacon, in his description of times, brings Homer back to the eighth year of the reign of Charillus, son of Polydectes"? Nor should you say that many writers by this name existed. For Vossius proves this is the same one who is mentioned by Athenaeus and whom Suidas calls a grammarian. Regarding Hippocoon, moreover, and his sons, read Joannes Meursius in his book *On the Kingdom of Lacedaemon*, chapter 4.
Clement has told us elsewhere of the various opinions of men concerning the gods, which were whistled at and exploded in a wonderful way by Theocritus the Sophist B. But that Sophist is reported to have been Chian by origin, a disciple of Metrodorus the Isocratic, and later an orator. Strabo deals with him in book XIV of the *Geography*, p. 645; Laertius in book V *On the Lives and Doctrines of Philosophers*, in the *Life of Aristotle*; Plutarch in the book *On the Education of Children*, p. 11; Suidas, and finally Vossius in book IV *On Greek Historians*, p. 459, where he discusses his age.
Clement confirms the Scythian custom of sacrificing to Mars with an unsheathed sword from the book of Eudoxus *On the Circuit*. But since there were three writers of this name—one a Rhodian, another a Cyzicene, and the third a Cnidian—if anyone should ask us which one Clement is speaking about, we will respond that it appears more probable to us that he is referring to the third. For the book cited as the second *On the Circuit* (in the second book of the *Circuit*) is without doubt the same as that which is reported by Athenaeus to be titled *Of the Earth's Circuit*. But the author of this book, as everyone easily concedes, is Eudoxus of Cnidus, whose history is briefly described by Laertius. Cicero asserts that he was a hearer of Plato C and, in the judgment of the most learned men, easily the prince of astrologers. Finally, regarding his age, one should read Vossius in his book *On Greek Historians*, chapter 6, page 28 and following.
To Eudoxus, Clement joins Icesius, or Hicesius, whom you will find cited quite often by Athenaeus and Pliny. However, he is cited once by Laertius in book VI *On the Lives and Doctrines of Philosophers*, in the *Life of Diogenes*, and also by Suidas and Vossius in book I *On Greek Historians*, p. 376, and by Harduin in the index of authors cited by Pliny.
Clement demonstrates by the testimony of Patrocles the Thurian that Castor and Pollux were men subject to diseases. D But Strabo mentions a certain Patrocles, by no means unlearned in geographical matters, quite often. However, since he remained entirely silent about his homeland, we do not dare to define with certainty whether this is the same man as Patrocles the Thurian. Read Vossius, book I *On Greek Historians*, chapter 12, page 77, and book III, page 398.
The commentaries of Monimus *On Remarkable Things*, and the books of Dorotheus *On Italian Matters*, we read were cited after our Clement by Eusebius and Cyril of Alexandria. Regarding whether the former is the one who is said by Laertius to be a Syracusan and a disciple of Diogenes, we shall gladly hear from others. But Vossius has judged that the testimony taken from the book of the former is indicated by Plutarch.
988 The same writers, Eusebius and Cyril of Alexandria, to whom Theodoret is also to be joined, produce from the same Clement, as it seems, the writings of Antiochus, Leander, and Zeno of Myndus. But since Clement indeed sends us to the ninth book of the *Histories* of Antiochus, from that point a conjecture perhaps not absurd can be formed that this is the same one who is said to be a most ancient writer and to have written the histories of Sicilian and Italian affairs, according to Diodorus Siculus, Pausanias, and others. For Diodorus writes thus about him: "In this year, the noble writer of Sicilian affairs, Antiochus the Syracusan, brought his *History* to an end, which he had brought down from Concalus the king in nine books." Pausanias indeed adds that he was the son of Xenophanes.
Clement, in others of his books, and also Diogenes Laertius in the *Life of Thales*, make mention of Leander. But we have already discussed Zeno of Myndus above.
Let us proceed, therefore, to others, of whom the first to offer himself to us is Olympicus, whom Clement testifies to have published *Samiaca*. But there exists scarcely any trace of this author among other writers. Pliny indeed calls him Olympicus in one place. But Harduin thinks it should be read *Olympiacus*, and imagines him to be the physician whom Galen speaks of. But it perhaps had not occurred to him that this Olympicus of our Clement, who is without doubt the same as that one lauded by Pliny, could be he.
More famous is the reputation of the author of the *Argolica*, as Clement says, along with Philochorus, of whom we have spoken elsewhere. For he is the one to whose writings he sends us in another work with these words: "Demetrius, however, says in his book on the Kings of Judah," etc. Jerome indeed teaches that this is the same one whom our Clement likewise called in his *Exhortation against the Gentiles*: "And also," he says, "he refers to Aristobulus, a certain man, and Demetrius, and Eupolemus as writers against the Gentiles, who, in the likeness of Josephus, assert the *Archaeology* of the Jews and the Jewish race." If, however, anyone should contend that by these words of Jerome the books of the *Stromata* are meant, and that he can prove with valid arguments that Demetrius the author of the *Argolica* is distinct from this one, we shall not indeed object, provided he makes it clear to us that this man is one of those others named Demetrius, who are not unskillfully enumerated by Vossius.
It seems certainly less doubtful that the fifth part of the *Cycle* cited by Clement proceeded from that Dionysius whom he himself called an Argive elsewhere: "In the eighteenth year of the reign of Agamemnon," he says, "Troy was captured, in the reign of Demophoon, son of Theseus, in the first year, on the twelfth day of the month of Thargelion, as the Argive Dionysius says." Where Clement makes mention of the statue of Serapis, there...
A Isidorus and Athenodorus are referred to for their opinion. The age of the former, who is said by Athenaeus and Lucian to be a Characenian, has been investigated by Vossius. The same Lucian also acts as witness that he was tutor to Augustus Caesar. This, indeed, can be confirmed by the authority of Strabo: "There are two Athenodori," he says, "of whom the one, named Cordylio, lived with M. Cato and died in his house. The other, the son of Sandon (as Clement also relates), whom they also designate as Cananites from a certain village, was tutor to Caesar, and attained great honors. When he was now an old man, he returned to his homeland and changed the state of the republic," etc. Furthermore, mention of him occurs frequently among various authors, Plutarch, Laertius, Suetonius, and others.
Who Diogenes was, by whom Clement writes that books on Persian matters were composed, is certainly very difficult to say. For Laertius indicates many men called by this name; but Menagius refers to still more, passed over by him, among whom he also records this one, praised by our Clement. But who he was, he passes over in the deepest silence. Vossius is also of the opinion that this man is different from those whom Laertius enumerates, though he has not explained more clearly who he ought to be considered.
But Dinon, whom Clement brings forward as a witness, although he cites none of his writings, is reported by Athenaeus to have composed the *Persian History*, or books on *Persian Affairs*. His name you will find not infrequently among many writers, Laertius, Aelian, Pliny, and others. Finally, they also think this is the person whose *Persica* we read cited by Laertius under the name of Dio. B To these last two, Clement adds a third, Nymphodorus, in his *Barbarian Customs*. This work indeed seems to be the same which he similarly attributed to Nymphodorus elsewhere: "Nymphodorus the Amphipolitan in the third book of his *Asian Customs*." See Vossius, *De histor. Græc.*, page 393.
Finally, our author, just as Athenaeus cites the *Nostoi* of Anticlitus, that is, the return to one’s native land, under which title many others also, as Casaubon witnesses, inscribed their commentaries. Moreover, mention of Anticlitus occurs not rarely among various authors cited by Vossius. C Apellas had almost escaped us, whose commentaries on Delphic matters are praised by our Clement. But certain famous critics of our age are of the opinion that this is the same Apellas mentioned by Athenaeus.
ARTICLE II. Concerning the poets cited by Clement in the same book, concerning Empedocles, Panyassis, Phanocles, and his testimony regarding the shrine of Venus Argynnis, concerning Callimachus, Nicander, Alcandrus, Myrsilus, and their diverse opinions regarding the origin of the Muses, concerning Euphorion, and the authors of the Cyprian poems, Hegesias, or Stasinus, concerning Terpander, and Capito, and the musical modes of each.
From these writers of histories to the poets, we pass on, as our Clement likewise cites them, and let us hear with what words he employs the authority of Empedocles: "But you, he says, our own Agrigentine Empedocles D followed afterwards." He was not only a poet, but, as Eusebius says, a distinguished philosopher, whose life Laertius published, and concerning whom we have disputed elsewhere. Furthermore, Lucretius sang wonderful things about him in this manner: "Yet nothing of this did the man possess more excellent, Nor does it seem more sacred, more wondrous, or more grand. Indeed, the songs of his divine heart Cry out, and reveal his distinguished discoveries; So that he seems hardly born of human stock."
Clement has transcribed certain poems of Panyassis, concerning whom, among other things which we pass over, Pausanias has this: "But Panyassis, son of Polyarchus, in the verses which he wrote on Hercules," etc. But Eusebius, toward the 72nd Olympiad and the year 1529, says: "Panyassis is considered a famous poet." Consult, if you like, Vossius, *De poet. Græc.*, ch. 5, p. 27 and 29, and the book *De histor. Græc.*, ch. 6, p. 452 et seq.
A certain poem of Phanocles is read cited by Clement with this inscription: "Phanocles in his *Amores* or *The Beautiful*." But certain people think the text of our author has been corrupted there by the negligence of copyists and should be amended thus: "Phanocles in his *Beautiful Loves*." We will not deny that in our manuscripts, written by a Greek hand, there appears a greater error and greater carelessness of the same copyists. For in them it is written indeed: "Phanocles in *Loves the Beautiful* Agamemnon." But wherefore is that word, *tis*, introduced here, and what does it mean there? But if any credence is to be given to Scaliger, Phanocles had prefixed the title *Erotes* or *The Beautiful* to a certain poem composed by him, and consequently nothing should be changed in the published text of Clement. Two verses of the same poet are also reported by Plutarch, but by this title only: "Phanocles an erotic man." Finally, what Clement taught about the temple of Venus Argynnis by the testimony of this same Phanocles, that is explained more clearly by Athenaeus. Furthermore, concerning the fable of this Venus, there exist poems of Propertius, which Turnebus attempted to explain in his *Adversaria*.
The *Aitia* of Callimachus are likewise praised there by our Clement, just as in this epigram of Martial: "But you do not wish, Mumurra, to know your own ways; Or to know yourself; read the *Aitia* of Callimachus."
Athenaeus mentions other works of this same Callimachus quite often. But who he was, if you wish to know, read Suidas, and Vossius, lib. 1 *De histor. Græc.*, ch. 15, and *De poet. Græc.*, p. 62. Nor is mention of Nicander, also mentioned by our Clement, less frequent among Athenaeus and other ancient 100 writers. But Suidas reports his age, profession, and various works of his in these words: "Nicander of Colophon, son of Xenophanis..."
or as others report, an Aetolian, being at once a grammarian, a poet, and a physician, who lived in the times of Attalus the younger, that is, the last of those conquerors of the Galatians, whom the Romans preceded." He wrote the *Theriaca*, the *Alexipharmaca*, the *Georgica*, five books on *Living in the Manner of Prostitutes* while at Rome, a *Collection of Days*, and *Prognostics* in senarian verse; but these are translated from the *Prognostics* of Hippocrates. He also wrote three books on *All Oracles*, and many A other works in heroic verse. And indeed he omitted not a few things there which are called by Athenaeus Aetolica, Boeotiacus, Glossae, Mutantia, Transformati, Colophoniaca res, Oetaica, Fortuita.
Furthermore, Clement observes that there were diverse opinions held by Alcander and Myrsilus of Lesbos concerning the birth and lineage of the Muses. For he thought that they derived their lineage from Jove and Memory. But other writers, as Cicero testifies, arbitrated that they were born of the three Joves. What Alcander records as having arisen from Jove and Memory, Cicero calls the second lineage. On the other hand, Myrsilus, says Clement—or as it is read in Arnobius, Myrtilus—contended that they were the daughters of Macar and the handmaidens of Megales. Truly, Vossius confesses that this seems to him entirely suspect and a fabrication made by Myrsilus for the sake of his own country. For the rest, concerning the origin and number of the Muses, besides Cicero and Vossius whom we have already praised, you may see Hesiod in the *Theogony*, Arnobius in book III of *Against the Gentiles*, and others cited by Natalis Comes in book VI of his *Mythology*, chapter 15.
Moreover, no one doubts that Myrsilus, who is praised by Pliny, Strabo, and others, was a writer of history. Clement, however, seems to aggregate Alexander into the number of poets. But Vossius does not think that this can be certainly gathered from elsewhere.
Perhaps the name of Euphorion is not unknown to anyone, who to Cicero is heard of as a poet too obscure. But who he was, or at what age he lived, Suidas explains, saying that he was a student of Lacides and Pritanis in philosophy, but in the poetic art, a student of the poet Archebulus of Thana. But Athenaeus sometimes calls him a writer of hexameter poems, and elsewhere a writer of historical commentaries. Furthermore, our Clement not only cites his various books—namely the *Samii*, *On the Aliades*, and his *Inscriptions* to Theodoridas—but he also transcribes various poems of his.
Clement refers to two verses of the Cyprian poems, but with the name of the author passed over in silence; which Athenaeus ascribes to Hegesias or Stasinus. Nevertheless, Proclus, as testified in Photius, says there was not one single opinion among the ancients concerning this matter. You may see Casaubon's *Animadversions* on Athenaeus, book VIII, chapter 3.
Terpander and Capito were not only poets, but most skilled musicians, concerning whose modes of singing Clement hands down to memory these things: "Indeed my Eunomus sings, that is to say the divine Word, not the mode of Terpander, nor the mode of Capito... but the eternal mode of the new harmony." Hervetus, however, says on this passage that he does not know who these modes of Terpander and Capito were, and how they were distinguished by others; nay, he had never read anywhere that Capito was ever placed among the number of musicians.
Truly, if anyone other than Hervetus himself had said this, we could scarcely, or indeed not at all, have placed faith in him. For had that learned man not read Plutarch’s book *On Music*, where these things are held: "The tampering with new things in that art of Terpander introduced a certain charming mode into music"? And a little earlier: "Stesichorus... says that Terpander, the poet of citharoedic modes, sang both his own poems and those of Homer in competitions in a certain mode, and that he was the first to give names to citharoedic modes." To these things, he truly writes elsewhere: "Terpander, a very ancient citharoedus, and in his own age the prince of lyre-players, and a praiser of heroic deeds, was fined by the ephors, and his cithara was affixed in the public square, because he had tightened one string more for the sake of varying the voice; for they only approved of B simple poems." Had Hervetus not also read the words of Aristotle: "Then Terpander, with the third removed, added a note, and in his times this was called the diapason consonance, not an octave; for it consisted of seven, not eight"? Finally, concerning this Terpander, so that we may omit as many witnesses as possible, you may go to Athenaeus, *Deipnosophists*, book XIV, page 174; Eusebius in *Chronicle*, at the year 1370; Suidas at the word *Terpander*; and in Erasmus, the common proverb, "after the Lesbian singer," chiliad 1, century 6.
It is much more difficult to say what the musical *Capito mode* was. Nevertheless, in the as yet unedited Greek scholia (1) of the Clementine book, these things are observed about it: "Capito: a mode of the Terpandrian kind, so named because it is florid and pleasing to the crowds, which they say Terpander discovered, the inventor of the citharoedic modes." But whether it can be gathered from this that this was the one whom Plutarch calls Capito and a disciple of Terpander, who would dare to assert? But Athenaeus asserts without doubt that Capito wrote heroic verses.
We intentionally omit here many other writers cited by our Clement in his *Exhortation to the Greeks*. For we have already disputed concerning those, such as Sophocles, Berosus, and certain others, in the previous book, or the occasion for disputing about them will be given elsewhere more opportunely.
ARTICLE III.
*Concerning the writers and illustrious men praised in the Paedagogus, concerning the poem and abstinence of Pythagoras, concerning the Stoic boys and their opinion on duties, concerning Plato who gleaned many things from the books of Sacred Scripture, concerning Aristippus, Democritus the sophist, Caeo or Prodicus likewise the sophist, Nicostratus, Alexides, Menander, concerning certain ones praised without name, concerning the physicians Antiphon and Artorius, and concerning Paeonius the physician.*We now come to the other writers and celebrated men praised by Clement in the books of the *Paedagogus*. But Pythagoras of Samos was immediately obvious to us, whose poem he cited. But we have already disputed about him. But if anyone should inquire concerning the C disciples of Pythagoras, why Clement wrote these things afterward: "That it is good neither to eat meat nor to drink wine, both the Apostle and the Pythagoreans confess"; we shall respond to this with the words of Origen: "Pythagoras, along with his disciples, forbade himself beans and all animate things; yet it is not believable that they are to be praised more for this reason, or that they are dearer to God." If you ask for the reason, Jerome will give it to you 101: "I will prove that we do not follow the dogma of Empedocles and Pythagoras, who..." D
A regarding re-incarnation do not think that everything which moves and lives should be eaten." Plutarch has treated this argument more extensively in one or two discourses written on this subject.
When Clement unfolds what the Stoics thought about duties, he has this: "What is done rightly and according to virtue from the obedience of reason is appropriate, *prosēkon*, and fitting, *kathēkon*, that is, what is suitable and congruent; this the Stoic boys call duty, *tōn Stōikōn onomazousi paides*." We have warned elsewhere that this is a Greek formula of speech by which the same thing is signified simply as by the Stoics. For it has been observed by us that Ambrose spoke in the same sense, "children of the rustics," and took this manner of speaking from the Greeks. Furthermore, you will find that Stoic opinion on duties explained more fully by Cicero.
Clement has taught so often and repeatedly that Plato drew many things from the authors of the Holy Old Testament, that nothing seems to have been more persuaded to him. For indeed in the *Exhortation to the Gentiles*: "Whence, he says, O Plato, do you derive the truth? ... I know your masters, even if you wish to conceal them. You learn geometry from the Egyptians, astronomy from the Babylonians, you receive righteous and healthy incantations from the Thracians. The Assyrians also taught you many things. But whatever laws are true and whatever opinion there is about God, they were supplied to you by the Hebrews." Therefore, Clement held it for certain that Plato had drawn all true laws and the true opinion about God from the Hebrews. But the truth which he had imbibed in his mind from them, he later taught elsewhere that he had offered to others: "Plato so followed the truth of the philosophers that he stirred up the spark of Hebrew truth." He likewise narrates there how he learned the precepts of frugality from the example of David: "For Plato was not B uninformed about David: *Ou gar apustos ēn ho Platōn tou Dabid*." But our same author says a little more clearly further down that the law of continence and chastity was accepted by Plato from the Mosaic Leviticus; the famous Plato consulted the divine Scriptures, having accepted the law from thence.
Furthermore, far more difficult than these will seem that which he had said previously: "Plato called the wanton and insolent horse of desire [equum], when he had read: 'You have been made horses raging at women'." For these indeed are the words of Jeremiah. But before the death of Plato, the prophecy of Jeremiah had not yet been translated into the Greek language, as Augustine testifies, as has been said elsewhere. How, therefore, could Plato read it? But Clement uses the Greek word *anagnous*, which signifies not only to read, but to recognize and know. But what prevents Plato from having come to the knowledge of that sentiment of Jeremiah, at least through the work of others? If, however, you prove with valid moments of reasoning that Clement truly asserted that the book and prophecy of Jeremiah were read by Plato, we shall candidly admit that this of his, just as of other Church Fathers, as has been said by us elsewhere, was an error. In the following dissertation, moreover, we shall show which thefts Clement thought he had detected from our sacred Scriptures, made both by the same Plato and by other philosophers.
Clement also uses testimony from the philosopher Aristippus once and again. But both C in his Life according to Laertius, by words however somewhat changed, you will find. According to the other, it is rendered again by Seneca thus: "Aristippus, at one time delighted by an ointment: 'Ill,' he said, 'befall those effeminate ones who have brought infamy upon so beautiful a thing'."
But Clement calls Democritus by the name of Abderite alone in this way: "The Abderite sophist called sexual intercourse a small epilepsy, considering it an incurable disease." Galen ascribes this same opinion to the same Democritus. But Stobaeus somewhere attributes it to the same Democritus, if, however, there be no error in the margin, elsewhere to Eryximachus, and finally Aulus Gellius, and after him Macrobius, attribute it to Hippocrates. Furthermore, since Clement has simply called him the Abderite sophist here, Herveus thought that by that name Protagoras, who was also an Abderite, rather than Democritus, a philosopher of great name, was being praised. But he had not sufficiently diligently noted that the name of sophist had once been an honorific one, and had been imposed first upon philosophers and professors of wisdom, and then upon orators. See Suidas under the word *Sophist*.
In the same way, Clement calls Ceum, that is, Prodicus, who was from the island of Ceos and the city of Julis, by an equal title of honor. But Xenophon, Suidas, and Cicero show those things about him more fully, which are touched upon very briefly by our author. But by Xenophon that Prodicus is called not a sophist, but a wise man with the same signification, without a doubt, as was recently said: *Prodikos de ho sophos*.
Clement has cited some poems of the comic poet Nicostratus, and even of Aristophanes, concerning which Herveus said that he kept silent, since both that man's works have perished, and the comedy cited by our author does not now exist in its entirety. But he had read Pollux less accurately, in whom there is more to be found than Clement our author transferred into his books from both Nicostratus and Aristophanes. And certainly from these, some errors in Clement's text can easily be amended.
Furthermore, Nicostratus, with the surname Clytemnestra, is reported to have lived around the one hundred and second Olympiad. But various works of his are cited here and there by Athenaeus and Stobaeus. You may read Suidas, Vossius, and others.
Moreover, Clement cites some verses of Alexis, which you will be able to read in a royal manuscript, described according to the rules of meter, and corrected by Casaubon in Athenaeus. But from which work of Alexis those same verses were taken, the same Athenaeus indicates thus: "Alexis in the play which he titled *Isostasium*." This comic poet flourished in the middle comedy under Alexander, and is cited more than once by Pollux. You may see more about him in Suidas and Vossius.
I would also have you notice that nobody other than the same Alexis is, without a doubt, being addressed by our Clement by the name of the comic poet alone in these words: "Just as the comic poet also says somewhere: 'The hand is anointed with ointments, which is the greatest part of health; so that it may make good odors for the brain'." For indeed among Athenaeus, these things are held under his express name: "Alexis in *The Wicked Woman* said thus:" D
'O odors for the brain, make them good.'" Nor should you, however, induce into your mind that this name of the comic poet was attributed to him by Clement through antonomasia. A Indeed, by the same title, Menander is praised by him thus: "Little thought he forces pure wine, says the comic poet, according to the comic poet, to be wise." Stobaeus teaches that this verse belongs to Menander. In like manner also our Clement produced other verses of poets under solely the name of tragedy or of a tragic poet: "For whoever is drunk, as tragedy says, him anger conquers," etc. In another book also: "The tragic poet is a witness for us, narrating thus: 'And that Phrygian'," etc. Finally, in the same book: "Tragedy says very beautifully: 'O woman, how in affairs'," etc. But just as no one is unaware that the second poet cited by our author is Euripides, so also it is certain that the first is Sophocles, and the third is Apollonides, as we certainly know from Stobaeus, who brought forward the same verses with the express name of each.
Clement also describes some things while omitting the name of the author entirely. For somewhere we read these things cited by him: "Helped by this also, poetry says,"—*the poetic [art] says*: "Wine coming to men," etc. But he exhibits more verses of this author, which Hervet, indeed, did not remember to have read anywhere else. He suspects, however, that they are by Sappho, from whom Sapphic verses are named, and whom they call *poetria*. But of how much weight his conjecture is to be held, you may learn from this: that Athenaeus attributed the first three verses to the Cyrenaean poet, whom the interpreter of the same Athenaeus thinks to be Callimachus; B but Stobaeus adjudicated them to Eratosthenes. Finally, some vindicate other verses for Euripides, others for Aeschylus, as is noted in the Clementine scholia. These words of Clement, therefore, *the poetic [art]*, signify the very art of writing poems.
Later, he again reported two verses, with the author unmentioned, regarding the base effects of wine, which you will also find cited by Plutarch and Stobaeus. But their author is Homer, and they are taken from his works. It might perhaps be a wonder to you how Hervet could have been ignorant of this, unless it were that other verses, not yet named by Clement, were likewise unknown to him—verses which by various writers are adjudicated to the Sibyl: "Furthermore, that which with us is poetic, speaking in a way reproachful of it writes: 'With you is also adultery'," etc.
Besides philosophers and poets, Clement is also read to have praised physicians: "Antiphanes," he says, "the Delian physician, said that this variety of foods is the one cause of diseases." Who this Antiphanes the physician was is most difficult to say. There existed many of this name, C and chiefly a certain very famous comic poet, whose frequent mention is found in Athenaeus, Stobaeus, Pollux, and very many others. Clement elsewhere numbers Antiphanes among those who wrote about inventions; but since he remains silent about who he was or what his profession was, who will teach us whether he ought to be called the same as the Delius physician?
Another, still cited by Clement, is better known: "A certain Artorius in his book *On Long Life* (for so I remember) thinks that one ought to provide only drink until the food is moistened, so that we may procure for ourselves a longer life." Hervet, however, does not dare to define absolutely who he is, but conjectures that he was the physician of Augustus, who, warned in his sleep by Minerva, persuaded the same Augustus to leave the camp and betake himself to another place. And indeed this history, besides Valerius Maximus, Lactantius, Paterculus, and others, Tertullian narrates in these words: "Caesar, ill in the battle of the rebels Brutus and Cassius at Philippi, yet greater in other ways, D was, by the vision of Artorius, removed from the tent." But the cited writers differ somewhat among themselves in the narration of this deed. For us, however, it suffices to have noted that he is Artorius the physician, mentioned by our Clement. For by Lactantius he is expressly called a physician. Eusebius also noted him in the same way in his *Chronicle*: "Artorius, the physician of Augustus, perished in a shipwreck after the victory at Actium." Vossius, however, thinks that this same person is Artorius, or, as he was commonly called, Antonius Musa. But others stubbornly contend that there were two physicians of Augustus, and that they are wrongly confused by Vossius.
Finally, Hervet did not know what *Iatros Paonios*, the "Paeonian physician," is in Clement, whom in his notes he clearly and falsely declares to be Apollo. Now Paeon was a most skillful physician who, at the command of Jove, as Homer sang, healed Mars, who was gravely wounded, by spreading lenient medicines. Wherefore Theodoret says: "Homer, he says, brings in not Aesculapius, but Paeon as the healer of the wounds of Mars." Finally, Pliny makes it testified that the name of the "Paeonian herb" was received from that same physician Paeon.
ARTICLE IV.
*Of certain pagan pedagogues, Phoenice, Adrastus, Leonides, Nausithous, Zopyrus, Sicinnus, and of the pedagogues of royal boys among the Persians.*How unlike the other pedagogues of men our teacher Christ the Lord was, Clement demonstrates clearly in the introduction of certain famous pedagogues. But because some things there occur which are difficult and, as Hervet himself confesses, unknown, something must be said about these according to our custom. Let us see, therefore, what from these has been handed down to posterity by Clement. And indeed, they say that the pedagogue of Achilles—it is his own words—was Phoenice; and of the sons of Croesus, Adrastus; but of Alexander, Leonides; and of Philip, Nausithous. But Phoenix was held by an insane love of women. Moreover, Adrastus was an exile. Leonides, however, did not prune away the arrogance of the Macedonian; nor did Nausithous cure the vice of drunkenness of the Pellaean.
A And thus he begins his discussion concerning various pedagogues. But surely no one who has tasted Homer's works with the tips of his lips, or, as they say, has touched them with the ends of his fingers, is ignorant that Phoenix, the son of Amictor, at his mother's urging, had intercourse with his father's concubine. Wherefore, in order to escape his father's wrath, he fled to Thessaly, where he was kindly received by King Peleus, who later entrusted his own son Achilles to him for instruction. Most excellently, therefore, did Clement write regarding the defilement of his father's concubine: "He was possessed by an insane love of women."
Herodotus does indeed recount the history of Adrastus, but in this he differs from our Clement, in that he mentions only the sons of Croesus, 103 of whom, since one was mute and deaf, the father could appoint Adrastus as guardian only to the other. Therefore, Clement's words, "Adrastus, of the sons of Croesus," are not to be taken in the strictest sense of the law, unless you can prove that Croesus had a third son, or that a mute and blind boy could in some way be trained by certain precepts.
How well known, however, and widespread the name of Leonides is among various writers, while that of Nausithous is so obscure! But just as Leonides did not break nor diminish the pride and arrogance of Alexander, as no one is unaware, so it is proven by many witnesses in Athenaeus that Philip always labored under the vice of drunkenness. Therefore, if you show that Nausithous applied any effort and diligence to healing that vice of his, you must confess that it was utterly wasted.
Hervetus further notes that Plutarch, in his *Life of Alcibiades*, mentions his tutor Zopyrus but is silent about his status. Yet he could have read somewhere that he writes of it in this manner: "They say that the nurse who raised the Athenian Alcibiades was a Laconian woman named Amycla." Moreover, to him, as Plato is the authority, Pericles appointed Zopyrus as moderator and pedagogue, C not a whit more excellent than other slaves. One could also read in Plato, cited by Plutarch, as you see: "To you, however, O Alcibiades, he attached the pedagogue Zopyrus, a Thracian, the most useless of all his slaves because of his old age." Furthermore, that Alcibiades' whoring was not restrained by Zopyrus can be learned with more certainty from the same Plutarch and also from Plato.
Clement continues: "Sicinnus, the pedagogue of Themistocles' children, was a slothful servant. They say he danced, and invented the kind of dance which is called 'Sicinnis' in Greek." Hervetus is stuck as to whether he is the Sicinnus whom Athenaeus records thus: "The satyric dance, which is called Sicinnis, from which the writers of satyr plays were called Sicinnists. The inventor of this was a certain barbarian named Sicinnus; some say he was a Cretan." But Casaubon held it for certain and without any doubt that this was the very person of whom Clement speaks. Yet the same Athenaeus says again of him: "Some say that Sicinnus, a barbarian, was its inventor, others a certain Cretan by nationality named Sicinnus." See Meursius concerning this and other dances of the ancients. Finally, "Among the Persians," says Clement, "the royal pedagogues are called those whom the diligent kings of the Persians would appoint from among all the Persians over their own children. But their sons learn only the art of archery." Hervetus professes that he has discovered nothing about these royal pedagogues among the Persians, even though he searched diligently. Nevertheless, regarding them, these commands are found written in Plato: "After the boy has reached his seventh year, he is sent to masters of horses and equestrian matters, and he begins to go hunting. In his fourteenth year, they receive the boy whom they call the royal pedagogues. They are, indeed, four men selected from the Persians, of mature age, and most wise, and most just, and most temperate, and most valiant. The first of these teaches the magic of Zoroaster; indeed, the worship of the gods resides in this matter; he also teaches the royal customs. The most just one teaches that royal boy to tell the truth throughout his entire life. The most temperate one, so that he may not be subjected to the empire of any pleasure and lust, so that he may maturely become accustomed to being free, and in truth a king. The most valiant one is engaged in making the boy fearless; for he who fears, is a slave." Herodotus, however, says a little differently: "They instruct their children from their fifth year up to their twentieth, in three things only: to ride horses, to shoot arrows from a bow, and to tell the truth." Strabo agrees quite well with this: "From the fifth to the twenty-fourth year they learn to shoot with the bow, to throw the javelin, to ride horses, and above all to tell the truth." But Xenophon follows these things at greater length at the beginning of the first book of the *Histories*, which, if you have the mind, consult. Who, therefore, would not marvel at Hervetus, who has not read these things, or does not remember having read them? For although all those things do not entirely agree to a hair's breadth with the words of our Clement, who does not see that therein the things which he wrote are not inappropriately confirmed?
ARTICLE V.
*Concerning certain statuaries and craftsmen cited by Clement, concerning Euclides, Callon, Phidias, Bryaxis, Thelesius the Athenian, Argus, Polycletus, Lysippus and Apelles.*Finally, to say something concerning certain craftsmen of statues mentioned by our author, he "relates" that the statue of the Samian Juno was made by the chisel of Euclides. But besides the statue mentioned by Clement, Pausanias recalls this statuary, who lists many other images made by him, and testifies that he was Athenian by origin. The same Pausanias, and also Pliny, no less than our Clement, place Callon in the number of these craftsmen. But Pausanias adds that he was an Aeginetan by origin, and the disciple of Tectaeus and Angelion.
However, the memory of Phidias and Bryaxis is so celebrated among various writers that it would seem altogether superfluous and useless to dispute about them. Yet whoever wishes to know something about either of them, let him consult Pliny, Book XXXVI of the *Natural History*, Pausanias, etc.
Next, Clement makes it testified that the nine-cubit statues of Neptune and Amphitrite are the work of Thelesius the Athenian. But Hervetus declares that he has never discovered anything anywhere about these statues and their maker. Nor will he deny that we have hardly encountered anything about them thus far. Nevertheless, because Clement brings forward his witness Philochorus, who would dare to deny him credence? We know indeed that Pausanias wrote that the notable figures of Neptune and Amphitrite were located in the Isthmian Corinth. But these do not seem to be the same as those which Clement records. Furthermore, we showed above that the text of Clement is undeservedly accused of adulteration by Hervetus. D From Demetrius, a witness not at all uncertain, he proves