Tertullian

TERTULLIANO. — An apologist and polemicist, who lived in Carthage between approximately 160 and 220.

He is one of the most prominent figures of Christian antiquity, the most vigorous of the apologists and polemicists of the early centuries, the first among the Latins to attempt to work out revealed truth through the effort of arduous speculation, and to create a theological language; he was one of the most powerful writers in the whole of Latin literature.

I. LIFE

The principal sources for knowledge of T.’s life are certain references found in his works, as well as: the accounts of St. Jerome (De viris ill., 53; Epist., 70, 5; Chron. ad a. 2224 [=208 A.D.]), Eusebius (Hist. eccl., II, 2, 4), St. Augustine (De haer., 86), Vincent of Lérins (Commonit., 18), and the Praedestinatus (F. Oehler, Corp. haereseolog., I, Berlin 1856, pp. 242, 264).

Quintus Septimius Florens T. was born in Carthage around the middle of the 2nd century to a «proconsular centurion». He shared the pagan milieu’s scorn for Christianity, from which he himself came (Apol., 18, 4; cf. Paen., I, 1); he may have been initiated into the mysteries of Mithras (Praeser., 40, 4); he was an avid spectator of public entertainments (Nat., I, 10, 47; Apol., 15, 5; Spect., 19) and gave himself over to the impulses of a strongly sensual nature (Resurr., 59). His writings demonstrate a thorough cultural education acquired through the study of literature, history, philosophy, and especially law. His identification with the jurist of the same name is uncertain. He learned Greek so well that he composed several works in that language, now lost. He was in Rome (Cult. fem., I, 7), where it is supposed that he practiced law.

There is no precise information concerning the date and process of his conversion to Christianity. The spectacle of the heroic steadfastness of the martyrs (Scop., 4; cf. Apol., 50, 15) may have given him his first impetus, while reading the Bible (Apol., 18) convinced him of the truth of Christianity. According to St. Jerome, T. was a priest; nor does this information appear to be 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 into open rupture with the Church, formally joining Montanism (v. MONTANO E MONTANISMO), for which he had already displayed sympathies at least from 206–207. It was his disposition, inclined to extremes and impatient 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. passed into heresy because of violent conflicts with the clergy of Rome, is rightly regarded as suspect. But, dissatisfied even with this new experience, he established his own little church, whose adherents took the name of «Tertullianists» and whose offshoots lasted until the time of St. Augustine. After 220 there are no further traces of his activity; according to St. Jerome, he died around 240.

II. WORKS

The program of T. as a writer may be summarized in three points: to defend Christianity against the persecutions and accusations of the pagans; to demonstrate, in polemic against the heretics, the truth of Christian dogma and to illustrate its meaning; and to provide norms and exhortations for practical life.

1. Apologetic writings. – T. began his activity as a writer (leaving aside the De pallio, whose date is uncertain) as an apologist. After 180, when, among others, the twelve martyrs of Scillium were beheaded (v. SCILLITANI, MARTIRI), the Church of Africa had enjoyed a certain tranquility; but now the hatred of the mob against Christians not only gave substance to the most infamous accusations (v. ACCUSE CONTRO I CRISTIANI), but often erupted in bloody violence against the faithful, even when they were gathered in prayer, and did not spare even the dead (Apol., 7, 4; 37, 2). In defense of the truth and the rights that had been trampled upon, T. took up his pen, ardent with the enthusiasm of a neophyte, and wrote the two books Ad nationes, that is, addressed 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 for the injustice of the laws by which they persecute it, while giving credence to unfounded rumors, he turns back upon his adversaries the accusations of superstition, cruelty, and treason against the majesty of the state, 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 and foremost those of Africa, with the Apologeticum, in which many themes from the earlier work are taken up again, often in almost the same words, but in a more complete and effective reworking, with closely reasoned logic, juridical rigor, and such passionate fervor as to make this work one of the masterpieces destined to survive through the centuries. After a juridical introduction on the injustice of the laws and procedures by which Christians are persecuted, he refutes the accusations of secret crimes: infanticide, Thyestean banquets, and incest; then those of manifest crimes, namely contempt for the national religion and for the emperor. He demonstrates that the alleged gods are not gods; Christians acknowledge the one true God who has manifested himself in Christ, and they are loyal to the emperor and to their country; their conduct is irreproachable, and fraternal love reigns among them. Christianity is far superior to philosophy, which has drawn from Scripture whatever it contains of good. The work concludes with a passionate exaltation of martyrdom.

One of the themes touched upon in the Apologeticum (c. 17) is developed at length in a short work probably written not long afterward: De testimonio animae. In contrast to the attempts of most earlier apologists to demonstrate the consonance between Christianity’s natural theology and the doctrines of pagan philosophers and poets, he proclaims their uselessness, affirming that openness to Christianity is something spontaneous and connatural to the soul that has not been led astray by prejudices.

The brief work Ad Scapulam, from 212–213, is an open letter to the proconsul of Africa, who persecuted Christians tolerated by his predecessors. In it T. asserts the right to profess one’s religion freely, declares the complete loyalty of Christians to the Empire, and threatens the magistrate with the punishments, already announced by warning signs, that had previously struck the enemies of Christ.

2. Dogmatic and polemical writings. – The works of doctrinal polemic, considerably more numerous and extensive, are no less important than the apologetic works for characterizing T.’s historical significance in the life of the Church and his influence on theological thought.

Here too, the needs of his environment suggested to the writer his themes and their development: Gnosticism (v. GNOSI) is the principal adversary against whom T.’s arrows are directed. It is attacked, together with other errors, in the De praescriptione haereticorum, composed around 200 and regarded as T.’s masterpiece in this genre of writing; it constitutes almost an introduction to the entire polemic against heresy, as is stated in the book’s conclusion. Having set forth the origin of the heresies, born of a foolish and presumptuous philosophy, and explained in what sense a Christian may investigate revealed truth, T. opposes the heretics, by means of a juridical procedure, with a “preliminary objection,” denying them the right to appeal, as innovators, to the Scriptures, which the Apostles entrusted to the true Church, which alone is their legitimate custodian and interpreter.

The Adversus Hermogenem, perhaps from 202–203, is directed against the painter-philosopher who professed the eternity of matter. The Adversus Marcionem has come down to us in the third version prepared by its author, in five books, the first of which was composed in 207 (I, 1). In Books I and II, the absurdity is demonstrated of the doctrine that admitted two gods: the god of the Old Testament, author of evil, and the good god revealed in Christ. Book III, devoted to Christology, has T. combat Docetism (v. DOCETI) and demonstrate that Christ is the Messiah foretold in the Old Testament. In Book IV he criticizes point by point Marcion’s Gospel, a capricious reworking of the Gospel of Luke; in Book V he extends the examination to the text of, and the interpretation given by the heresy to, the epistles of s. Paolo. The date of the Adversus Valentinianos is disputed, since the allusion to Valentino’s defection from the Church (c. 4) would suggest that the author was still Catholic, whereas the praise of the Montanist “Proculus noster” (c. 5) suggests that T. was already a heretic. The refutation of the teachers of Gnosticism is carried out there through a simple exposition of their complicated and fanciful speculations, which T. draws from the first book of Ireneo’s Adversus haereses. The Scorpiace, composed between 211 and 213, offers a “remedy against the sting of scorpions,” that is, of the Gnostics, who denied the merit of martyrdom. In the De carne Christi, of uncertain date, Gnostic Docetism is again attacked; in the De resurrectione carnis, connected with the preceding work (c. 2) and directed against the same adversaries, the reality of the final resurrection is demonstrated from Scripture, and its manner is explained.

Trinitarian doctrine is the subject of the Adversus Praxeam (after 213), directed against a Patripassian from Asia who had come to Rome and Carthage. Although they do not lack polemical elements, the De baptismo and the De anima are predominantly positive and systematic in character. The first, from around 200, demonstrates the necessity of Baptism and treats several disputed questions concerning the value of John’s Baptism and that of heretics, while also providing rules for administering and receiving this Sacrament. The De anima, probably composed between 210 and 213 (v. the introduction by J. H. Waszink to his edition, Amsterdam 1947, p. 6*) is a work of controversy more than of psychology, directed against philosophers and particularly against the Gnostics. In it T. examines the essence, unity, and origin of the soul, combating the theories of preexistence and metempsychosis, and maintaining that the soul is transmitted to children by their parents (v. TRADICUANISMO). He then discusses particular problems: growth, puberty, sin, sleep and dreams, death, and the fate of the soul after death.

The Adversus Iudaeos (ca. 207) belongs more to polemic than to apologetics properly so called. In it T. seeks to demonstrate that the law of Moses was replaced by the new law and that Christ is the Messiah in whom the prophecies were fulfilled. The final chapters (9–14) are taken for the most part from Book III of the Adv. Marcionem: their authenticity is disputed.

3. Writings of a practical and disciplinary character. — These differ from one another more sharply, insofar as they were composed by T. while he was still Catholic or semi-Montanist, and later as a Montanist, because for him Montanism was above all a practical attitude of moral and disciplinary rigorism in relation to pagan society and its customs.

The Ad martyros is a brief writing of consolation and exhortation addressed to the brethren imprisoned for the faith, probably from 197. In the De spectaculis (197–202), Christians are categorically forbidden to participate in any kind of pagan spectacles, which were intimately connected with idolatrous worship and constituted 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 poenitentia (perhaps 203–204) deals with the repentance necessary for forgiveness, both as preparation for Baptism and for sins committed after Baptism. The De patientia, probably contemporary with the preceding work, has a more personal character: the author acknowledges that he himself lacks this virtue, which he extols as belonging to God himself, showing its necessity and its fruits. The two books De cultu feminarum (200–206), of which the second takes up the subject treated in the first, condemn the luxury and vanity of women. In the first of the two books Ad uxorem, composed during the same period as the preceding works, the author exhorts his wife not to remarry after his death, refuting the arguments by which second marriages are justified and extolling chaste widowhood; in the second, he warns the Christian woman against marrying a pagan. In this work T.’s thought is still orthodox; but when, around 207, he returned to the subject of second marriages in the De exhortatione castitatis, he condemned them, under the influence of Montanism, as a kind of adultery. He would maintain the same thesis later (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 the Bible, nature, and the discipline of the Church the duty of virgins to wear the veil. An incident that occurred in 211 gave rise to the De corona, composed to defend the conduct of a Christian soldier who, in Carthage, had come to receive the donative holding the crown in his hand rather than on his head, as was customary, and had consequently been imprisoned; there T. denies the legitimacy of military service for Christians. This subject is also treated in the De idolatria, written shortly afterward, which addresses the entire problem of Christian participation in public life, prohibiting them from every 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 (ca. 212), he maintains that it is not lawful for a Christian to escape persecution by flight, since persecution is sent by God to make us better. In the De ieiunio adversus psychicos (that is, the Catholics), written after 213, T. defends the rigorism of the sect in the practice of fasting. In the De pudicitia (217–22), he attacks a bishop—most identify him as Pope Callistus, while others identify him as Agrippinus, bishop of Carthage—who maintained the Church’s right to admit even those guilty of fornication and adultery to penance. In the De pallio, T. seeks to justify having exchanged the Roman toga for the cloak of the Greek philosophers. It is a work of strongly rhetorical tone, bizarre in its argumentation and style, composed, according to some, when T. converted to Christianity, between 193 and 196; others, however, see in it a sign of the author’s passage to Montanism and date it later, to 209–11. Many hold that the Passio in Perpetuae et Felicitatis is a work of T., in the parts not written by the martyrs themselves (cf. C.I.M.I. Van Beek, Passio sanctorum Perpetuae et Felicitatis, I, Nimega 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.).

1. Apologetics. — As an apologist, T. dwells on the practical aspects of the struggle, setting out to demonstrate the Christians’ right to exist, contested by the unreasonable hatred of the pagans, arising from their ignorance, and the injustice of the persecution, with a legal apparatus unknown to Greek apologetics (Nat., I, 1-7; 20; Apol., 1-4; J. Lortz, op. cit., I, pp. 45-71); he rejects 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.); he refutes accusations of a political and social nature, especially those of lèse-majesté and hostility to the Empire, striving to demonstrate the Christians’ loyalty to the emperor and the State, and explains the Christians’ relations with pagan society (Apol., 28-45).

From the speculative point of view, practical necessities and perhaps also the need to justify his faith to himself, in addition to the customary concerns of apologetics, drew T.’s attention to the rational foundations of Christian dogma. To this end he undertakes the refutation of polytheism, in which T. demonstrates that the gods do not exist (Nat., I, 10, 9; Apol., 10, 2; 27 and passim), resorting to the familiar traditional arguments of philosophical, Jewish, and subsequently Christian polemic: the depravity and cruelties attributed to the supposed gods (Nat., II, 7, 15-18; 10; 12-15; Apol., 9, 4, 16; 11, 10-16; 13, 9; 14, 2-9; 15; 21, 7 ff.); the Euhemeristic theory (v. EVEMERO), which sees in the gods deified men (Nat., II, 14; Apol., 10-11; Idol., 15), alongside which there is also professed, without any problem of reconciliation between the two being raised, the equally traditional view that identifies the gods with demons (Apol., 23; Spect., 8; 10; 13; Scap., 2; Idol., 15); the powerlessness of the gods (Nat., I, 9, 10 ff.; II, 17; Apol., 23, 8; 25, 8; 29) and their ignorance (Apol., 23, 6; 25, 6; 46, 6); the identification, traditional in popular worship and in polemic, of images with the divinities (Apol. 12; 16, 7; 22, 12; 25, 13; 27, 1); and the philosophers’ contradictions concerning religious doctrines (Nat., II, 1, 9-15; 2; Apol., 47). Naturally, this polemic, which often gives rise to literary developments of brilliance and effectiveness, reflects the critical weakness inherent in such a tradition, perhaps aggravated by the fervour of a strongly passionate temperament. The polemicist’s intemperance and his tendency toward a one-sided and pessimistic rigorism explain his negative attitude not only toward official paganism but toward every aspect of culture and life outside Christianity, including philosophy, even in the persons of its most distinguished teachers (Apol., 46; Praescr., 7). This does not prevent him from making extensive use of philosophy and science, as he does especially in the De anima (cf. G. H. Waszink, op. cit. in bibl., pp. 21 6-47°; A. Labhardt, T. et la philosophie ou la recherche d'une «position pure», in Museum Helveticum, 7 [1950], pp. 159-80).

The apologetic purpose influences T.’s presentation of Christianity, suggesting aspects and themes to be brought into prominence. First and foremost, naturally, is monotheism: quod colimus, Deus unus est (Apol., 17, cf. 34, 1; Testim. an., passim; Marc., I, 3 and passim; Adv. Her-

mog., 4, 17; cf. G. Lortz, op. cit., II, p. 1 ff.). The existence of God is demonstrated rationally by the cosmological proof and, even more, by the testimony of conscience and of the human race (Adv. Marc., 1, 10; Testim. an., throughout; An., 41; cf. A. d'Alès, La théologie de Tert., in Bibl. de théol. hist., Paris 1905, p. 37 ff.). The unity of God is proved, against pagan polytheism and Gnostic dualism, in the works already mentioned in this connection. God’s attributes are set forth as in the philosophical tradition: God is invisible, great, eternal, the supreme Good, living, perfect, omnipresent, immutable and blessed, spirit (although this doctrine is obscured by the confusion between corporeality and reality, Adv. Prax., 7; Carn. Chr., 11; cf. A. d'Alès, op. cit., pp. 61-65), creator from nothing of all things, lord of the universe, free, a just judge, good and merciful (v. , for example, Nat., II, 3, 5; 4, 2; 8, 1; Apol., 11, 5; 17; 18, 2-3; 21, 10 ff; 24, 3, 10; 26, 1; 30, 1 ff; 40, 7; 10; 41, 3; 45, 7; 48, 7; Testim. an., 2; Spect., 2; Hermog., 16; Paenit., 1, 2; 2, 7, 4; II). Certain aspects of T.’s thought that serve an apologetic function and have the purpose of anti-heretical polemic and doctrinal elaboration, such as demonology, the resurrection, creation, and Christology, will be mentioned in the exposition of his theology. T. is therefore convinced that reason, when not clouded by prejudices, can arrive at God in order to affirm his existence and recognize his fundamental attributes (v. , in addition to the passages cited above, Nat., II, 1; Res. carn., 3; Adv. Marc., I, 10; cf. G. Lortz, op. cit., I, p. 224 ff., 350 ff).

2. Theology. — This natural knowledge of God is supplemented by Revelation, which alone constitutes the foundation of Christian faith. It is summed up in the “rule of faith,” for which T. gives various formulations here and there, evidently without concern for the literal text (Praescr., 13, 36; Virg. vel., 1; Adv. Prax., 1).

The sources of Revelation and their use are the subject of a specific treatment in the De praescript. (cf. A. d'Alès, op. cit., pp. 201-61; J. P. Stirnmann, Die Praescriptio Tertullians im Lichte des röm. Rechts und der Theologie [Paradox, 3], Freiburg 1949). They are the Scriptures (Praescr., 15 and passim), divinely inspired (Apol., 18), and the teaching entrusted by Jesus to the Apostles and by them to the Churches they founded (Praescr., 20 ff.; Apol., 47, 10; Adv. Marc., IV, 5; Cor., 3): Rome is recognized as having pre-eminence (Praescr., 36; cf. A. d'Alès, op. cit., p. 216 ff.), in which, however, a true primacy of jurisdiction could not be discerned (G. Bardy, s. V. in DThC, XV, col. 140 ff.); such primacy would be openly denied by T. the Montanist (Pad., 21).

The Adv. Praxeam is devoted to the Trinity (A. d'Alès, op. cit., p. 67 ff.). T. asserts the real distinction of the divine persons, demonstrates the divinity of the Son begotten by the Father, and explains the texts that the modalists (v.) cite in their favour, introducing the terms trinitas and persona into theology. The unity of substance is vigorously defended, as is the union of wills. The distinction between the divine persons lies in the distributio (the “economy” of the Greeks: Adv. Prax., 13, 25). The Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son, with whom he sometimes appears to be confused (A. d'Alès, op. cit., p. 98). The equality of the persons is clearly affirmed in some passages, whereas in others subordinationism emerges. The doctrine of the Trinity is connected with that of creation (ibid., pp. 104-12), since in the Word, his reason, wisdom, and speech, God created all things (Apol., 17, 1; 21, 10; 23, 12; O'at., 1).

It is the antignostic works, especially the Adv. Hermog., that develop the doctrine of creation from nothing. The anthropological problem is treated in the De anima and the De carnis resurrectione. In the former T. expounds (cf. G. H. Waszink, op. cit. in the bibliography, pp. 150-20) the nature, qualities, and functions of the soul (1-22), asserting, among other things, that it is corporeal and has shape and color; in the second part (23-37, 4) he studies its origin, refuting the Platonic theory of reminiscence and demonstrating that the soul begins to exist together with the body at conception. Here original sin is mentioned, on account of which man lost his likeness to God; having in a certain way become connatural to man, this sin is transmitted through generation

(16, 21, 27, 39, 41; V. anche Testim. an., 3; Bapt., 5, 6-7); Baptism effaces it, and in the treatise specifically devoted to it T. demonstrates Baptism’s efficacy, necessity, rite, and conditions. After a digression refuting metempsychosis, in the third part he deals particularly with the destiny of the soul; after death souls go to the Inferi, 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 the De anima (ch. 58) the doctrine of purgatory is adumbrated, to which T. also alludes elsewhere (An. 35, 3; Adv. Marc., III, 24, Resurr., 42). In the De resurr. carnis (cf. A. d’Alès, op. cit., pp. 141-53), demonstrating this dogma by metaphysical and moral arguments, T. specifies 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 rational possibility, in accordance with the tradition of apologetics. T.’s relative materialism also appears in his doctrine of the angels, whom he asserts to be corporeal and inferior to the human soul (A. d’Alès, op. cit., pp. 153-61).

Demonology is expounded especially on the occasion of the anti-pagan polemic, through the identification of the gods with demons (v. , ad es., Apol., 22; Testim. an., 3; cf. G. Lortz, op. cit., II, pp. 30-54), the protest against persecutions, attributed to the instigation of demons (Apol., 27, 4-7; 47, 11), and the polemic against heresies, themselves likewise the work of evil spirits (Praescr., 39 ff.).

In Christology T. begins from the history of Revelation, offered to the Jews (Apol., 18 ff.), to whom Christ was sent (ibid., 21; Adv. Jud., throughout). His divinity is demonstrated by the prophecies and miracles (Apol., 21; 23, 12; cf. A. d’Alès, op. cit. pp. 5-33). Christ is the Word, who, generated by the Father in unity of nature as a ray from the sun, descends into the womb of the Virgin (Apol., 21, 7, 12; Paescr., 13, 3), homo Deo mixtus (Apol., 21, 14, cf. Adv. Marc., II, 27), in order to destroy our death and restore life to us (Bapt., 11, 4). In Books III-V of Adv. Marcionem (A. d’Alès, op. cit., pp. 162-85) T. demonstrates the identity of Jesus, 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 Docetism of Apelles and the Christological errors of the Valentinians, elucidating the Incarnation and demonstrating Mary’s virginity, but only up to the time of childbirth. There (ch. 9) T. shares the view of certain Fathers who denied beauty to the Savior’s body.

Among the Sacraments, besides Baptism, in the specific treatise already mentioned, T. speaks of Confirmation, recalling the anointings, the laying on of hands, the blessing and invocation of the Holy Spirit, and the sign of the Cross, which follow Baptism (Bapt., 7 ff.; Resurr., 8; cf. A. d’Alès, op. cit., p. 326 ff.); and of Penance, which restores to man what he lost through sin and is granted only once after Baptism (Paenit., 7, 9 and passim). Only under the influence of Montanism would he assert in De pudicitia the unforgivability of fornication, murder, and idolatry. As for the Eucharist, “in his writings there are several obscure expressions that leave room for objections. But if one considers his doctrine as a whole, there is none of these expressions that cannot and must not be understood in a sense conforming to the Catholic tradition” (A. d’Alès, op. cit., p. 356; there a series of texts is listed 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). Regarding marriage, after the acknowledgments and praises of the Catholic period, especially in Book II of Ad uxorem, once he had become a Montanist he would insist, in the Exhortatio castitatis and De monogamia, on its negative aspects, ultimately presenting it as a tolerated evil.

The thought of T. as a moralist (cf. A. d’Alès, op. cit., p. 262 ff.) is dominated by a concrete view of problems, which gives him a taste for casuistry, as appears from the subjects he treats, and by rigorism, which, encouraged by a nature inclined toward extremes, would be driven to exasperation 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 subjects.

In eschatology, the expectation of the imminent end of the world (Apol., 31, 1; 39, 3; Cult. fom., II, 9; Resurr. carn., 22; Ad ux., I, 2, 5; Orat., 5; Exhort. cast., 6; Monog., 7; Pudic., 1) and millenarianism (Adv. Marc., III, 24) hold a prominent place.

IV. THE WRITER

Until quite recently, it was commonplace to attribute to T. the merit of 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 translations of the Bible and of other writings dating from approximately the middle of the second century. T. was the first to employ, with the intention and ability of a great artist, a group language that had long been evolving; he was “the great initiator, the innovator who introduced the idiom of the Christians, so revolutionary and so little traditional, 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], p. 135 ff.; id., Tertullianus, Apologeticum en andere Geschriften uit T. voor-montanischen Tijd [Monumenta Christiana, 3], Utrecht 1951, pp. LXXXVI-XXCV). He was also the formative creator of theological vocabulary. The first among the Latins to attempt, as an apologist, controversialist, and teacher of practical Christian 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 the elementary concepts to which, as was said, the Christian community had already tried to give Latin form, but also the conceptual refinements and subtle distinctions that the polemic against heresies compelled him to pursue.

T.’s style reveals one of the most powerful and original writers in Latin literature. The conventions of the age and his rhetorical training certainly leave their traces at every turn; but the lucidity of his thought, the impetuosity of a temperament naturally inclined to polemic, his enthusiasm for the cause whose defender he had become, his disdain for beaten paths and conventional means, and his complete mastery of the language give T.’s writing an unmistakably personal imprint. His aphorisms, which distill into the most incisive form the fruit of lengthy meditations or present the happy intuition of a man of genius, have deservedly become commonplaces.

These brilliant qualities must not make us forget his more essential gifts: the solidity of his dialectical framework, the skilful architecture of his compositions, and the clarity with which he aims at the goal of his demonstration without losing sight of the thread or the point of departure, even when, in the heat of polemic, he piles up learned material and, amid the succession of arguments, invective, rhetoric, and sarcasm seem to be at the mercy of a passionate and uncontrolled temperament.

This does not mean that, as readily happens with rich and brilliant minds—especially when, like T., they have been trained in the schools of rhetoricians who aimed to prove any thesis whatsoever at any cost—he does not often indulge in devices more characteristic of a sophist than of a sound reasoner: in a heap of arguments that barely conceals their fragility, and in subtlety and sophistry (cf. P. Monceaux, Hist. litt. de l’Afrique chrétienne, I, Parigi 1901, p. 439 ff.).

parsi); N. Rigaltius, Parigi 1634; J. S. Semler, Halle 1769-76; E. F. Leopold, Lipsia 1838-41; PL 1-2; la migliore delle edizioni complete è quella di F. Oehler, Lipsia 1851-54. Nel CSEL sono usciti finora quattro volumi: XX (Reifferscheid e Wissowa, 1890, con De spectaculis, De idololatria, Ad nationes, De testimonio animas, Scorpines, De oratione, De baptismo, De pudicitia, De ieiunio, De anima; XLVII (Kroymann, 1906), con De patientia, De carnis resurrectione, Adversus Hermagenem, Adversus Valentinianus, Adversus omnes haereses (spurio), Adversus Praxeam, Adversus Marcionem; LXIX (Hoppe, 1939), con l'Apologeticum; LXX (Kroymann, 1942), con De praescriptione, De cultu feminarum, Ad uxorem, De exhortatione castitatis, De corona, De carne Christi, Adversus Iudaeos. Nel Corpus christianorum, F. Borleffs ha pubblicato l'Ad Nationes e E. Dekkers l'Ad Martyras, Turnhout 1952. - Studi: della copiosissima bibl. tertullianea si menzionano solo, oltre quelle citate nel testo, le pubblic. più recenti, non reperibili nei manuali che qui si elencano: A. Harnack, Gesch. der altchristl. Liter., I, 1, Lipsia 1893, pp. 667-87; II, II, ivi 1904, pp. 256-66; Bardenhewer, II, pp. 377-442; Schanz, III, pp. 272-333; Moricca, I, pp. 109-348; U. Mannucci-A. Casamassa, Istit. di patrol., I, 6ª ed., Roma 1948, pp. 108-27; A. Altaner, Patrologie, 3ª ed., Friburgo in Br. 1951, pp. 122-34. Fra le opere speciali: Q. Cataudella, T., Il mantello di saggezza (De Pallio), introd., testo critico, vers. e note, Genova 1947; E. Evans, Adversus Praxeam, introd., testo, traduz. ingl. e ampio commento, Londra 1948; I. Marra, 2ª ed. del De corona e De cultu feminarum (Corpus Parav.), Torino [1951]; O. Tescari, L'Apologetico, testo, trad. e note (Corona Patrum Sales., ser. lat. 13), ivi 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, 7, ibid., p. 49; J. W. Ph. Borleffs, Un nouveau manus. de T. (l'Ottobonianus lat. 25), ibid., pp. 65-79; Ch. Mohrmann, St Jérôme et si Augustin sur T., ibid., p. 111 sg.; R. M. Grant, Two Notes on T. (Apol., 47, 6 sg.; Adv. Marc. 1, 13), ibid., pp. 113-15; G. I. Lieftinck, Un fragment de De Spectaculis de T. procevant 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 Deboeticum, 1 (1944), pp. 100-14; J. M. Vis, Tertullianus de Pallio tegen de achtergrond van zijn overige werken, diss., Nimage 1949; P. Schepens, De Baptismo V. Eriestus, in Rech. de sc. relig., 35 (1948), p. 112 sgg.; F. di Capua, Religiosi crucis: una nota a T. Apol., 16, 6, in Rendic. dell'Arcad. 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. Mohiberg, II, Roma 1949, pp. 7-32; A. Quacquarelli, Libertà, peccato, e penitenza secondo T., in Rass. di scienze filos., 2 (1949), n. 1, pp. 16-37; id., Antropologia ed escatologia secondo T., ibid., 2 (1949), n. 2, pp. 14-47; id., Il paganasimo secondo la concezione di T., ibid., 3 (1950), n. 1, pp. 11-52; id., L'antimonarchianesimo di T. nell'Ado. Prax., ibid., 3 (1950), n. 2, pp. 31-63; id., Gli ideali di vita cristiana secondo T., ibid., 4 (1951), n. 1, pp. 54-89; id., T. contro gli gnostici: Valentino e valentiniani, ibid., n. 2, pp. 63-84; id., L'Adversus Hermagenem 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