TERTULLIANO

He is one of the most prominent figures of Christian antiquity, the most vigorous among the apologists and polemicists of the early centuries, the first among the Latins to attempt to elaborate the revealed datum through the effort of a troubled speculation and created a theological language, one of the most powerful writers of all Latinity.

I. Life

The principal sources for the knowledge of the life of T. are some hints found in his works and also: the notices of St. Jerome (De vir. ill., 53; Epist., 70, 5; Chron. ad a. 2224 [=208 AD]), of Eusebius (Hist. eccl., II, 2, 4), of St. Augustine (De haer., 86), of Vincent of Lérins (Commonit., 18), of the Praedestinatus (F. Oehler, Corp. haeres. lat., I, Berlin 1856, pp. 242, 264).

Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullian was born in Carthage around the middle of the 2nd century to a proconsular centurion. He shared the ridicule of the pagan environment, from which he came, toward Christianity (Apol., 18, 4; cf. Paen., I, 1); perhaps he was initiated into the mysteries of Mithras (Praescr., 40, 4); he was a passionate frequenter of spectacles (Nat., I, 10, 47; Apol., 15, 5; Spect., 19) and gave himself over to the instincts of a strongly sensual nature (Resurr., 59). His writings bear witness to a thorough cultural formation acquired through the study of literature, history, philosophy, and particularly law. The identification with the jurist of the same name remains uncertain. He learned Greek so well as to compose in that language some works now lost. He was in Rome (Cult. fem., I, 7), where he is thought to have practiced law.

Precise information is lacking regarding the date and process of his conversion to Christianity. The spectacle of the heroic fortitude of the martyrs (Scap., 4; cf. Apol., 50, 15) perhaps gave him the first impulse, and the reading of the Bible (Apol., 18) convinced him of the truth of Christianity. According to St. Jerome, T. was a priest; and this notice does not seem contradicted by De exhort. cast., 7 (cf. A. De Labriolle, in Bull. d'anc. littér. et d'archéol. chrét., 3 [1913], pp. 161-67).

In 213 he came to an open break with the Church, formally adhering to Montanism (v. MONTERANO e Montanismo), for which he had already shown sympathy at least from 206-207. It was his nature, inclined to excesses and intolerant of the restraint of authority, that drove him toward this movement characterized by fanatical and visionary rigorism. The isolated testimony of St. Jerome that T. turned to heresy because of violent clashes with the clergy of Rome is justly considered suspect. But, even dissatisfied with this new experience, he formed his own little church, whose adherents took the name “Tertullianists,” and whose offshoots lasted until the time of St. Augustine. After 220 no traces of his activity remain; according to St. Jerome he died around 240.

II. Works

Tertullian’s program as a writer can be summarized in three points: to defend Christianity from persecutions and the accusations of pagans, to demonstrate, in polemic against heretics, the truth of Christian doctrine and to illustrate its meaning, and to give norms and exhortations for practical life.

1. Apologetic writings

Tertullian began his activity as a writer (leaving aside the De pallio, of uncertain dating) as an apologist. After 180, when twelve martyrs of Scillium (v. MARTIROLOGIO) were beheaded, among others, the Church in Africa had enjoyed a certain tranquility; but now the hatred of the mob against Christians not only gave rise to the most infamous accusations (v. Accuse contro i cristiani), but often exploded into bloody violence against the faithful even when gathered in prayer and did not even spare the dead (Apol., 7, 4; 37, 2). In defense of the truth and right trampled underfoot, Tertullian took up his pen, burning with the enthusiasm of a neophyte, with the two books Ad nationes, that is, to the pagans, composed in the first half of 197, as appears from the allusion to recent events (Nat., I, 17, 4). After an apologetic section, in which he reproaches the pagans for their culpable ignorance of Christianity and the injustice of the laws by which they strike it, giving credence to unfounded rumors, he turns the accusations of superstition, cruelty, and treason back upon his adversaries and attacks polytheism in all its forms.

A few months later (Apol., 35, 9, 11) the writer addressed the governors (praesides) of the provinces, first of all in Africa, with the Apologeticum, where many motifs of the previous work are taken up almost with the same words, but in a more complete and effective reworking, with tight logic, juridical rigor, and vehemence of passion, so much so that this work makes one of the masterpieces destined to survive through the centuries. After an introduction of a juridical character on the injustice of the laws and the procedures by which Christians are persecuted, he refutes the accusations of secret crimes: infanticide, the Thyestean banquets, incest, then those of manifest crimes, namely, contempt for the national religion and the emperor. He demonstrates that the alleged crimes are not such; Christians acknowledge the one true God who manifested himself in Christ and are loyal to the emperor and to the fatherland; their conduct is blameless and brotherly love reigns among them. Christianity is far superior to philosophy, which has taken from Scripture whatever is good in II. The work concludes with a passionate exaltation of martyrdom.

One of the themes hinted at in the Apologeticum (ch. 17) is developed deliberately in a short work written probably shortly afterward: De testimonio animae. Taking up again the attempts of most of the previous apologists to show the consonance between the natural theology of Christianity and the doctrines of pagan philosophers and poets, he declares them useless, affirming that the openness to Christianity is something spontaneous and innate to the soul that has not been led astray by prejudice.

The brief writing Ad Scapulam, from 212-13, is an open letter to the proconsul of Africa who was persecuting Christians, tolerated by his predecessors. Here Tertullian affirms the right to profess one’s own religion freely, declares the full loyalty of Christians to the Empire, and threatens the magistrate with punishments, already announced by premonitory signs, that have struck the enemies of Christ in the past.

2. Dogmatic-polemical writings

The works of doctrinal polemic, so much more numerous and extensive, are no less important than the apologetic ones for characterizing the historical significance of Tertullian in the life of the Church and his influence on theological thought.

In this field too, it was the exigencies of the environment that suggested to the writer themes and developments: Gnosticism (v. GNOSI) is the great adversary against which, above all, Tertullian directs his barbs. It is targeted, along with other errors, in the De praescriptione haereticorum, composed around 200 and considered Tertullian’s masterpiece in this genre of writing, constituting almost an introduction to the entire polemic against heresy, as is stated in the conclusion of the book. After setting forth the origin of heresies, born from foolish and presumptuous philosophy, and explaining in what sense the Christian may investigate revealed truth, Tertullian opposes the heretics, by a juridical procedure, with a “prejudicial exception,” denying them the right to appeal, as innovators, to the Scriptures, entrusted by the Apostles to the true Church, which alone is their legitimate guardian and interpreter.

The *Adversus Hermogenem*, perhaps dating to 202-203, is directed against the painter-philosopher who professed the eternity of matter. The *Adversus Marcionem* has come down to us, in the author’s third reworking, in five books, of which the first was composed in 207 (I, 1). In Books I and II, the absurdity of the doctrine that admitted two gods—one of the Old Testament, author of evil, and the other good, revealed in Christ—is demonstrated. In Book III, devoted to Christology, T. combats the *doctissimi* (v. DOCETI) and demonstrates that Christ is the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament. In Book IV, he critiques point by point the Gospel of Marcion, a capricious rearrangement of the Gospel of Luke; in Book V, he extends his examination to the text and interpretation given by the heresiarch to the epistles of St. Paul. The date of the *Adversus Valentinianos* is disputed, since the allusion to Valentinus’s defection from the Church (ch. 4) would suppose the author still Catholic, while the praise of the Montanist “Proculus noster” (ch. 5) suggests T. was already a heretic. The refutation of the masters of Gnosticism is achieved through the simple exposition of their complicated and fanciful speculations, which T. drew from the first book of *Adversus haereses* by Irenaeus. The *Scorpiace*, composed between 211 and 213, presents a “remedy against the sting of scorpions,” that is, against the Gnostics, who denied the merit of martyrdom. In the *De carne Christi*, of uncertain date, the Gnostic *doctissimus* is again combated; in the *De resurrectione carnis*, connected with the preceding work (ch. 2) and directed against the same adversaries, the reality of the final resurrection is demonstrated from Scripture, and its manner is explained.

The doctrine of the Trinity is the subject of the *Adversus Praxean* (after 213), a Patripassian from Asia who came to Rome and Carthage. Though not lacking in polemical motifs, the *De baptismo* and the *De anima* have a predominantly positive and systematic character. The former, dating to about 200, demonstrates the necessity of Baptism and treats some debated questions regarding the validity of the Baptism of John, that of heretics, and gives norms on the manner of administering and receiving this sacrament. The *De anima*, probably composed between 210 and 213 (v. the introd. by J. H. Waszink to his edition, Amsterdam 1947, p. 6*), is more a work of controversy than of psychology, directed against philosophers and particularly the Gnostics. Here T. studies the essence, unity, and origin of the soul, combating theories of preexistence and metempsychosis, and maintaining that the soul is transmitted to children by their parents (v. TRADUCIANISM). He then addresses particular problems: growth, puberty, sin, sleep and dreams, death, and the fate of the soul after death.

More concerned with polemic than with apologetics proper is the *Adversus Iudaeos* (c. 207), in which T. seeks to demonstrate that the law of Moses has been superseded by the new law and that Christ is the Messiah in whom the prophecies have been fulfilled. The last chapters (9-14) are largely taken from Book III of the *Adv. Marcionem*; their authenticity is disputed.

3. Writings of a practical and disciplinary nature

These differ more distinctly among themselves, being composed by T. while still Catholic, semi-Montanist, or Montanist, for to him Montanism was above all a practical stance of moral and disciplinary rigorism in relation to pagan society and its customs.

The *Ad martyres* is a brief writing of consolation and exhortation to brothers imprisoned for the faith, probably dating to 197. In the *De spectaculis* (197-202), Christians are resolutely forbidden to attend any sort of pagan spectacles, which are intimately linked to idolatrous worship and are a school of immorality and cruelty. In the *De oratione* (200-202), T. explains the *Pater* to catechumens and gives instructions on prayer in general. The *De paenitentia* (perhaps 203-204) treats of the repentance necessary for forgiveness, both as preparation for Baptism and for sins committed after Baptism. More personal in character is the *De patientia*, probably contemporary with the preceding work: the author confesses his lack of this virtue, which he extols as proper to God Himself, showing its necessity and fruits. The two books *De cultu feminarum* (200-206), of which the second reprises the material treated in the first, censure the luxury and vanity of women. In the first of the two books *Ad uxorem*, composed in the same period as the preceding works, the author exhorts his wife not to remarry after his death, refuting the reasons by which second marriages are justified and extolling chaste widowhood; in the second, he warns the Christian woman against marriage to a pagan. In this work, T.’s thought is still orthodox; instead, when around 207 he takes up the subject of second marriages again in the *De exhortatione castitatis*, he condemns them, under the influence of Montanism, as a kind of adultery. He will later uphold the same thesis (c. 217) in the *De monogamia*.

In the *De virginibus velandis*, written no later than 207, after he had already treated the same subject in Greek, he demonstrates from Scripture, from nature, and from Church discipline the duty of virgins to wear the veil. An incident that occurred in 211 gave occasion for the *De corona*, composed to defend the conduct of a Christian soldier at Carthage who had presented himself to receive the donative holding the crown in his hand rather than on his head, as was customary, and had therefore been imprisoned; here T. denies the liceity of military service for Christians. This subject is also treated in the *De idolatria*, shortly thereafter, which addresses the entire problem of Christian participation in public life, forbidding any activity connected with idolatry.

The *De ecstasi* is lost; in it T. seems to have defended the charismatic and prophetic character of Montanism. In the *De fuga in persecutione* (c. 212), he maintains that it is not lawful for a Christian to flee from persecution, which God sends to make us better. In the *De ieiunio adversus psychicos* (i.e., the Catholics), written after 213, he defends the rigorism of the sect in the practice of fasting. In the *De pudicitia* (217-22), he inveighs against a bishop (most say Pope Callistus, others the bishop of Carthage Agrippinus) who maintained the Church’s right to admit to penance even those guilty of fornication and adultery. In the *De pallio*, T. seeks to justify having exchanged the Roman toga for the philosopher’s mantle. It is a pamphlet of strongly rhetorical tone, bizarre in its argumentation and style, composed by some when T. converted to Christianity, between 193 and 196, while others see it as a sign of the author’s transition to Montanism and date it to 209-11. Many hold that the *Passio ss. Perpetuae et Felicitatis* is a work of T.’s in the parts not written by the martyrs themselves (cf. C.I.M.I. Van Beek, *Passio sanctorum Perpetuae et Felicitatis*, I, Nijmegen 1936, p. 92-96).

III. Thought

In studying T.’s thought, one must constantly bear in mind his habits as a polemicist and rhetorician, which easily lead him to emphasis and hyperbole (J. Lortz, *Tertullian als Apologet*, I, Münster 1927, p. 220 ff.).

### Apologetics

As an apologist, T. dwells on the practical aspects of the struggle, aiming to demonstrate the Christians' right to exist, contested by the unreasoning hatred of the pagans due to their ignorance, and the injustice of persecution, with a legal apparatus unknown to Greek apologetics (Nat., I, 1-7; 20; Apol. I-4; J. Lortz, op. cit., I, pp. 45-71). He refutes the accusations of immorality and cruelty, showing the purity of the moral doctrine to which Christians adhere and turning such accusations against the pagans (Nat., I, 7; Apol., 7-9; J. Lortz, op. cit., pp. 77-120; II, Munich 1927, p. 54 ff.), and refutes accusations of a political and social nature, especially those of treason and hostility to the empire, striving to demonstrate the Christians' loyalty to the emperor and the state. He explains the Christians' relationship with pagan society (Apol., 28-45).

From a speculative standpoint, practical necessities and perhaps the need to justify his own faith, beyond the customary practice of apologetics, drew T.'s attention to the rational foundations of Christian dogma. This is the purpose of his refutation of polytheism, in which he demonstrates that the gods do not exist (Nat., I, 10, 9; Apol., 10, 2; 27 and passim), drawing on the well-known traditional motifs of philosophical, juridical, and later Christian polemics: the turpitudes and cruelties attributed to the supposed gods (Nat., II, 7, 15-18; 10; 12-15; Apol., 9, 4; 16; II, 10-16; 13, 9; 14, 2-9; 15; 21, 7 ff.); the Euhemeristic theory (v. EVEMERO), which sees gods as divinized men (Nat., II, 14; Apol., 10-11; Idol., 15), alongside which is also professed, without addressing the problem of reconciling the two, the theory that identifies the gods with demons, also traditional (Apol., 23; Spect., 8; 10; 13; Scap., 2; Idol., 15); the importance of the gods (Nat., I, 9, 10 ff.; II, 17; Apol., 23, 8; 25, 8; 29) and their ignorance (Apol., 23, 6; 25, 6; 26, 6); the identification, traditional in popular cult and polemics, of idols with deities (Apol. 12; 16, 7; 22, 12; 25, 13; 27, 1), and the contradictions of philosophers on religious doctrines (Nat., II, 1, 9-15; 2; Apol., 47). Naturally, this polemic, which often gives rise to brilliantly effective literary developments, suffers from the critical weakness inherent in such a tradition, aggravated, if anything, by the fervor of a strongly passionate temperament. The intemperance of the polemicist and the tendency toward unilateral and pessimistic rigorism explain his negative stance not only toward official paganism but toward every aspect of culture and life outside Christianity, including philosophy, even its most distinguished masters (Apol., 46; Praescr., 7). This does not prevent him from making extensive use of philosophy and science, as he does especially in *De anima* (cf. G. H. Waszink, op. cit. in bibl., pp. 21-47; A. Labhardt, T. et la philosophie ou la recherche d'une 'position pure', in *Museum Helveticum*, 7 [1950], pp. 159-80).

The apologetic intent influences the presentation T. gives of Christianity, suggesting aspects and motifs to emphasize. First and foremost, there is monotheism: *quod colimus, Deus unus est* (Apol., 17, cf. 34, 1; Testim. an., passim; Marc., I, 3 and passim; Adv. Her. 16, 21, 27, 39, 41; V. also Testim. an., 3; Bapt., 5, 6-7). This is erased by Baptism, the efficacy, necessity, rite, and conditions of which T. demonstrates in the relevant treatise. After a digression refuting metempsychosis, in the third part he addresses the fate of the soul: after death, souls go to Hades, where they await the resurrection; only the souls of martyrs are exempt from this law (cf. Scorp., 12; Adv. Marc., IV, 34). At this point in *De anima* (ch. 58), the doctrine of purgatory is adumbrated, to which T. alludes elsewhere (An. 35, 3; Adv. Marc., III, 24; Resurr., 42). In *De resurr. carnis* (cf. A. d'Alès, op. cit., pp. 141-53), in which he demonstrates this dogma with metaphysical and moral arguments, T. clarifies and completes his anthropology. The resurrection is also affirmed in the apologetic works (Nat., I, 7, 29, 31 ff.; Apol., 18, 3; 23, 13; 45, 6 ff.; 48-50; Spect., 30), with an effort to demonstrate its possibility rationally, in keeping with the tradition of apologetics. T.'s relative materialism is also evident in his doctrine of angels, which he affirms as corporeal and inferior to the human soul (A. d'Alès, op. cit., pp. 153-61).

Demonology is expounded especially in the context of anti-pagan polemics, by virtue of the identification of gods with demons (v. , e.g., Apol., 22; Testim. an., 3; cf. G. Lortz, op. cit., II, pp. 30-54), in protest against persecutions, which are instigated by demons (Apol., 27, 4-7; 47, 11), and in the polemic against heresies, which are also the work of evil spirits (Praescr., 39 ff.).

In Christology, T. begins with the history of the Revelation offered to the Jews (Apol., 18 ff.), to whom Christ was sent (ibid., 21; Adv. Jud., passim). His divinity is demonstrated by prophecies and miracles (Apol., 21; 23, 12; cf. A. d'Alès, op. cit., pp. 5-33). Christ is the Word, begotten by the Father in unity of nature as a ray from the sun, descending into the Virgin's womb (Apol., 21, 7; 12; Praescr., 13, 3), *homo Deo mixtus* (Apol., 21, 14; cf. Adv. Marc., II, 27), to destroy our death and restore us to life (Bapt., 11, 4). In *Adv. Marc.* II-III-V (A. d'Alès, op. cit., pp. 162-85), T. demonstrates the identity of Jesus, the Son of God, with the Christ announced by the prophets, and in *De carne Christi* (A. d'Alès, op. cit., p. 185 ff.) he combats the *doctissimus* of Apelles and the Christological errors of the Valentinians, illustrating the Incarnation and demonstrating the virginity of Mary, though only until childbirth. There (ch. 9) he shares the view of some Fathers who admired the beauty of the Savior's body.

Among the Sacraments, besides Baptism, in the treatise already mentioned T. discusses Confirmation, recalling the unctions, the laying on of hands, the blessing and invocation of the Holy Spirit, the sign of the Cross that follows Baptism (Bapt., 7 ff.; Resurr., 8; cf. A. d'Alès, op. cit., p. 326 ff.); and Penance, which restores to man what he has lost through sin and is granted only once after Baptism (Praescr., 7, 9 and passim). Only under the influence of Montanism will he affirm in *De pudicitia* the unforgivability of fornication, murder, and idolatry. As for the Eucharist, several obscure expressions in his writings lend themselves to objections. But if one considers the whole of his doctrine, none of these expressions can or should be understood in a sense contrary to Catholic tradition (A. d'Alès, op. cit., p. 356; there is a list of texts in which T. alludes to the Eucharist: Praescr., 36; Adv. Marc., I, 14; III, 19; IV, 40; V, 8; Resurr. carn., 8; An., 17; Orat., 6, 19; Ad ux., II, 5; Idol., 7; Pudic., 9). On marriage, after the acknowledgments and praise of his Catholic period, especially in the second book of *Ad uxorem*, as a Montanist he will insist in the *Exhortatio castitatis* and *De monogamia* on its negative aspects, even presenting it as an evil to be tolerated.

T.'s moral thought (cf. A. d'Alès, op. cit., p. 262 ff.) is dominated by a concrete vision of the elements of sin, which gives him a taste for casuistry, as seen in the topics he addresses, and for rigorism, which, fostered by a nature prone to excesses, will be driven to extremes by Montanist doctrine. The virtues and practices on which he most insists are patience, penance, chastity, prayer, and fasting, in the writings devoted to these themes.

In eschatology, the expectation of the imminent end of the world holds notable significance (Apol., 31, 1; 39, 3; Cult. fem., II, 9; Resurr. carn., 22; Ad ux., I, 2, 5; Orat., 5; Exhort. cast., 6; Monog., 7; Pudic., 1) as does millenarianism (Adv. Marc., III, 24).

IV. The Writer

Until recently, it was a commonplace to attribute to T. the credit for having created the language of Latin Christianity. But recent studies have shown that a “Christian Latin” had already begun to take shape, especially in Rome, through the translations of the Bible and other writings dating back to around the mid-2nd century. T. was the first to employ, with deliberate artistic intent and great skill, a group language that had long been evolving; he was “the great initiator,” the innovator who introduced the idiom of Christians—so revolutionary and so unconventional—into Latin literature (Ch. Mohrmann, in Riv. di storia della Chiesa in Italia, 4 [1950], p. 159; id., in Vigiliae Christianae, 3 [1949], pp. 67-106; 162-83; id., in Aevum, 24 [1950], pp. 135 ff.; id., Tertullianus, Apologeticum en andere Geschriften uit T. voor-montanischen Tijd [Monumenta Christiana, 3], Utrecht 1951, pp. LXXXVI-XXV). He then became the shaper of theological vocabulary. The first among the Latins to attempt, as an apologist, controversialist, and teacher of practical life, a systematic exposition and reflective elaboration of Christian content, he had to bend the language of Rome to express not only the novelty of elementary concepts—already, as it were, given a Latin form by the Christian community—but also the deeper conceptual insights and subtle distinctions necessitated by his polemics against heresies.

T.’s style reveals one of the most powerful and original writers of Latinity. The conventions of the time and his rhetorical training certainly leave their mark at every turn; yet the clarity of his thought, the impetuosity of a born polemicist’s temperament, the enthusiasm for the cause he had taken up in defense, the design of the paths pursued and the conventional means employed, and his full command of language give his pages an unmistakable personal imprint. His aphorisms, which most incisively summarize the fruit of long meditation or present the felicitous intuition of a genius, have deservedly become commonplaces.

These brilliant qualities should not make us forget his more essential virtues: the solidity of his dialectical foundation, the skillful architecture of his compositions, and the clarity with which he pursues the goal of his argument without losing sight of the thread and starting point—even when, in the heat of polemic, he piles up erudite material, and as the arguments press forward, invective, retaliation, and sarcasm seem to be at the mercy of a passionate temperament incapable of restraint.

This is not to say that, as often happens with rich and brilliant minds—especially when educated, as T. was, in the schools of rhetoricians who aimed to prove any thesis at any cost—he does not often indulge in sophistic flourishes rather than solid reasoning, with the accumulation of arguments barely concealing their fragility, and with subtlety and quibbling (cf. P. Monceaux, Hist. litt. de l'Afrique chrét., I, Paris 1901, pp. 439 ff.).

); N. Rigaltius, Paris 1634; J. S. Semler, Halle 1769-76; E. F. Leopold, Leipzig 1838-41; PL 1-2; the best of the complete editions is that of F. Oehler, Leipzig 1851-54. In the CSEL, four volumes have appeared to date: XX (Reifferscheid and Wissowa, 1890, containing De spectaculis, De idololatria, Ad nationes, De testimonio animae, Scorpiace, De oratione, De baptismo, De pudicitia, De ieiunio, De anima); XLVII (Kroymann, 1906), containing De patientia, De carnis resurrectione, Adversus Hermogenem, Adversus Valentinianos, Adversus omnes haereses (spurious), Adversus Praxeam, Adversus Marcionem; LXIX (Hoppe, 1939), containing the Apologeticum; LXX (Kroymann, 1942), containing De praescriptione, De cultu feminarum, Ad uxorem, De exhortatione castitatis, De corona, De carne Christi, Adversus Iudaeos. In the Corpus christianorum, F. Borleffs has published the Ad Nationes and E. Dekkers the Ad Martyras, Turnhout 1932. — Studies: from the very copious Tertullian bibliography, only the more recent publications not found in the manuals listed here are mentioned, along with those cited in the text: A. Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Liter., I, 1, Leipzig 1893, pp. 667-87; II, 11, ibid. 1904, pp. 256-96; Rardenhewer, II, pp. 377-442; Schanz, III, pp. 272-333; Moricea, I, pp. 109-348; U. Mannucci-A. Casamassa, Istit. di patrologia, I, 6th ed., Rome 1948, pp. 108-27; A. Altaner, Patrologie, 3rd ed., Freiburg im Br. 1951, pp. 122-34. Among special works: Q. Cataudella, T., Il mantello di saggezza (De Pallio), introd., critical text, translation and notes, Genoa 1947; E. Evans, Adversus Praxeam, introd., text, English translation and extensive commentary, London 1948; I. Marra, 2nd ed. of De corona and De cultu feminarum (Corpus Parav.), Turin [1951]; O. Tescari, L'Apologetico, text, translation and notes (Corpus Patrum: Satire, ser. lat. 13), ibid. 1951; B. Nisters, Tertullian: seine Lehre und sein Schicksal, in Beitr. zur Theol., 25 (1950); A. J. Festugière, La composition et l'esprit du «De anima» de T., in Rev. des sc. philos. et théol., 33 (1949), pp. 129-61; J. H. Waszink, The Technique of the clausula in T. De Anima, in Vigiliae christianae, 4 (1950), pp. 212-45; A. J. B. Higgins, The Latin Text of Luke in Marcion and T., ibid., 5 (1951), pp. 1-42; Th. Verhoeven, Monarchia dans T., Adv. Praxeam, ibid., pp. 42-48; Ch. Mohrmann, T., De Baptismo, II, 2, ibid., p. 49; J. W. Ph. Borleffs, Un nouveau manus. de T. (l'Ottobonianus lat. 25), ibid., pp. 65-79; Ch. Mohrmann, St Féronne et St Augustin sur T., ibid., p. 111 sq.; R. M. Grant, Two Notes on T. (Apol., 47, 6 sq.; Adv. Marc. 1, 13), ibid., pp. 113-15; G. I. Lieftinck, Un fragment de De Spectaculis de T. provenant d'un manus. du neuvième siècle, ibid., pp. 193-203; D. Van Berchem, Le «De Pallio» de T. et le conflit entre le Christianisme et l'Empire, in Museum Helveticum, 1 (1944), pp. 100-14; J. M. Vis, Tertullianus' de Pallio tegen de achtergrond van zijn overige werken, diss., Nijmegen 1949; P. Schepens, De Baptismo V. Eisestos, in Rech. de sc. relig., 35 (1948), p. 112 sqg.; F. di Capua, Religiosi crucis: una nota a T. Apol., 16, 6, in Rendic. dell'Accad. di Archeol., Lettere e Belle Arti di Napoli, 24-25 (1949-50), pp. 105-18; J. Beran, De ordine Missae secundum Tertulliani «Apologeticum», in Miscell. Möhlberg, II, Rome 1949, pp. 7-32; A. Quacquarelli, Libertà, peccato, e penitenza secondo T., in Rass. di scienze filosof. 2 (1949) n. 1, pp. 16-37; id., Antropologia ed escatologia secondo T., ibid., 2 (1949) n. 2, pp. 14-47; id., Il paganismo secondo la concezione di T., ibid., 3 (1950) n. 1, pp. 11-52; id., L'antimonarchianesimo di T. nell'Adv. Prax., ibid., 3 (1950) n. 2, pp. 31-63; id., Gli ideali di vita cristiana secondo T., ibid., 4 (1951) n. 1, pp. 54-59; id., T. contro gli gnostici: Valentino e valentiniani, ibid., n. 2, pp. 63-84; id., L'Adversus Hermogenem di T., ibid., n. 4, pp. 61-69; id., La persecuzione secondo T., in Gregorianum, 31 (1950), pp. 562-589; G. De Plinval, T. et le scandale de la couronne, in Mél. De Ghellinck, Gembloux 1951, pp. 183-88.

MICHELE PELLEGRINO TERTULLO (Τέρτυλλος). — An orator, chosen for his familiarity with Roman forensic customs and the Greek language as the advocate of the Sanhedrin against St Paul before the procurator of Judea, Antonius Felix, at Caesarea in Palestine in AD 58 (Acts 24:1-9). It is uncertain whether he was a Jew, Greek, or Latin; various indications tend to exclude the first hypothesis; the name Tertullus (from Tertius) was common among Romans. His indictment, very skillful, began with a captatio benevolentiae too flattering in comparison with the procurator’s real merits (cf. FELIX, ANTONIUS); the accusations against Paul, shrewdly kept on a political level, were three: he fomented sedition among the Jews of the Empire; he was the leader of the sect of the Nazarenes (here only in the New Testament as an equivalent of “Christians”); he had attempted to violate the Temple. As to the authenticity of vv. 6c-8a, manuscripts and scholars are divided, but with a clear tendency toward inauthenticity, chiefly for internal reasons: thus T. would invite the procurator to investigate the accused himself, without involving the tribune Lysias. St Luke reported the indictment very briefly, perhaps basing it on notes taken during the trial, to which he may have been present.

TERUEL

, DIOCESE of — Ceiling in “mudejar” style (first half of the 15th century) — Teruel, Cathedral.