Tertullian and the Unborn Child

Tertullian of Carthage was the earliest Christian writer to argue against abortion at length, and the first surviving Latin author to consider the unborn child in detail. This book is the first comprehensive analysis of Tertullian’s attitude towards the foetus and embryo. Examining Tertullian’s works in light of Roman literary and social history, Julian Barr proposes that Tertullian’s comments on the unborn should be read as rhetoric ancillary to his primary arguments. Tertullian’s engagement in the art of rhetoric also explains his tendency towards self-contradiction. He argued that human existence began at conception in some treatises and not in others. Tertullian’s references to the unborn hence should not be plucked out of context, lest they be misread. Tertullian borrowed, modified, and discarded theories of ensoulment according to their usefulness for individual treatises. So long as a single work was intern- ally consistent, Tertullian was satisfied. He elaborated upon previous Christian traditions and selectively borrowed from ancient embryological theory to prove specific theological and moral points. Tertullian was more influenced by Roman custom than he would perhaps have admitted, since the contrast between pagan and Christian attitudes on abortion was more rhetorical than real.

Julian Barr is a research fellow at the University of Queensland, where he completed his PhD in classics. He tutors ancient history and classical lan- guages. His research interests include early Christianity, ancient medicine, and the Roman family. Medicine and the Body in Antiquity Series editor: Patricia Baker, University of Kent, UK

Advisory board: Lesley A. Dean-Jones, University of Texas at Austin, USA Rebecca Gowland, University of Durham, UK Jessica Hughes, Open University, UK Ralph Rosen, University of Pennsylvania, USA Kelli Rudolph, University of Kent, UK

Medicine and the Body in Antiquity is a series which aims to foster inter- disciplinary research that broadens our understanding of past beliefs about the body and its care. The intention of the series is to use evidence drawn from diverse sources (textual, archaeological, epigraphic) in an interpretative manner to gain insights into the medical practices and beliefs of the ancient Mediterra- nean. The series approaches medical history from a broad thematic perspective that allows for collaboration between specialists from a wide range of disciplines outside ancient history and archaeology such as art history, religious studies, medicine, the natural sciences, and music. The series will also aim to bring research on ancient medicine to the attention of scholars concerned with later periods. Ultimately this series provides a forum for scholars from a wide range of disciplines to explore ideas about the body and medicine beyond the confines of current scholarship.

Published:

Bodies of Evidence: Ancient Anatomical Votives Past, Present and Future Jane Draycott and Emma-Jayne Graham Tertullian and the Unborn Child Christian and Pagan Attitudes in Historical Perspective

Julian Barr

Julian Barr

Julian Barr Julian Barr Julian Barr First published 2017 by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN and by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2017 Julian Barr The right of Julian Barr to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by him in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data A catalog record for this book has been requested

ISBN: 978-1-472-46740-9 (hbk) ISBN: 978-1-315-61215-7 (ebk)

Typeset in Times New Roman by Taylor & Francis Books Dedicated to Kelly Barr and our wonderful children This page intentionally left blank Contents

Preface ix Acknowledgement x List of abbreviations xii

Introduction 1 Terminology: the ‘unborn child’ 4 Who was Tertullian? 4

1 Rhetoric and the unborn 13 Tertullian and the intellectual world of Roman Carthage 13 The technique of rhetoric 18 Tertullian’s rhetoric concerning the unborn 20 Ad Nationes 21 Apologeticum 26 Ad Uxorem 31 De Exhortatione Castitatis 35 De Virginibus Velandis 38 De Carne Christi 40 De Anima 46 De Resurrectione Mortuorum 50 Adversus Marcionem 54 Conclusions 58

2 The Christian context 70 Jewish literature on abortion 76 The Didache and the Epistula Barnabae 82 Apocalypsis Petri 85 Athenagoras 87 Clement of Alexandria 89 Minucius Felix 92 viii Contents Tertullian’s use of scriptural exempla 95 Conclusions 107

3 Tertullian’s understanding of prenatal biology 116 Tertullian’s main sources on biology 117 Soranus 120 Aristotle 127 Conclusions 131

4 The pagan context 136 Ambiguous terminology 139 What’s in a name? Burial and the dies lustricus 141 Roman law 142 Paternal interests 153 The unborn child and the Roman family 159 The Stoics 162 Gods of the unborn 164 Conclusions 166

Conclusion 174

Bibliography 177 Index 191 Preface

This book grew from my PhD thesis, but ultimately finds its genesis in a waiting room at the Royal Brisbane and Women’s Hospital. At the time I was looking for a suitable topic for my doctoral research. My studies thus far had centred upon Roman social and literary history, and it seemed natural for me to con- tinue on that path. It just so happened that my wife and I were expecting our first child. Waiting to be called in for our first ultrasound, I found myself wondering how the Romans would have conceptualised the foetus and embryo, given that the medical imaging technology we take for granted did not exist. You might have seen a light bulb over my head. What was the unborn child’s place in the Roman family? How did Roman literary tropes affectthedepictionofthe unborn? A few months later, it became clear that I needed to narrow the focus of my research somewhat. My advisors suggested that the project might be more manageable if it revolved around one ancient author. Tertullian was a good choice. Of all the Latin authors I had read, he seemed to have an awful lot to say on the offspring in utero. And so, more by accident than design, I found myself exploring early Christian views of the foetus and embryo. More to the point, I was viewing the origins of Christian opposition to abortion through the lenses of Roman social and literary history. These are perhaps dangerous waters. I cannot pretend this is not a politically contentious issue. Nor can I act as though contemporary readings of early Chris- tian sources occur in isolation from modern controversy. All too often in my readings of the secondary literature I have seen Tertullian and other ancient authors pressed into service as mouthpieces in today’s abortion debate. Tertullian especially has been characterised as ‘pro-life’ or ‘pro-choice’. Yet I suspect these terms would have rather puzzled him, as they are distinctly modern. Rather than follow this anachronistic trend in scholarship, I seek to provide a more thorough and holistic explication of Tertullian’s views on the subject without trying to advocate any political stance of my own. If I have one agenda in writing this book, it is to provide an historical context which may facilitate more informed discus- sion. Although this is ostensibly an historical and literary study, the research pre- sented here will be of value to anybody with an interest in the history of Christian thought concerning abortion. I thus intend for my book to be of use both to specialists and non-specialists in antiquity. All translations, unless otherwise indicated, are my own. Acknowledgement

I wish to acknowledge the assistance and support of several individuals and institutions. This book is based on my PhD thesis: ‘Tertullian’s Attitude toward the Human Foetus and Embryo’ (University of Queensland, 2014). The thesis was written and researched under the careful supervision of Janette McWilliam and Tom Stevenson. They steered me in the direction of Tertullian, for which I am very grateful. The thesis was examined by Geoffrey Dunn and Paul McKechnie. I’d like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to all four of these scholars for their comments on the thesis. Their many excellent suggestions have been imple- mented through the process of turning it into a book. More generally I would like to thank the Classics team at the University of Queensland for their constant support and willingness to discuss ideas, especially Amelia Brown, Caillan Davenport, Alastair Blanshard, Denis Brosnan, Murray Kane, David Pritchard, and Luca Asmonti. Special thanks are also due to Bob Milns, John Whitehorne, Sonia Puttock, and Rick Strelan, whose advice has proven invaluable. I have had the pleasure of corresponding with Zubin Mistry of the Uni- versity of Edinburgh about medieval thought on abortion in anticipation of his recently released book. I have also enjoyed my correspondence with Tommy Heyne about Tertullian’s approach to medicine. Dr Heyne (MD) kindly provided me a copy of his 2011 article on the subject, which has proven very helpful for this thesis. I deeply appreciate the financial support I have received through the Australian Postgraduate Award, the University of Queensland Graduate School’sstart-up grant, and the Queensland Friends of the Australian Archaeological Institute at Athens. The diligent proofreading efforts of my friends, Chris Spensley, Johanna Qualmann, Hollie Thomas, and Katherine Harper, have helped me enormously. I would also like to thank Jeroen Wijnendaele for encouraging me to pitch a monograph. I am yet to meet anybody immune to his enthusiasm for ancient history. I am grateful to the series editor, Patricia Baker, the advisory board, and the peer reviewers whose efforts enhanced my work considerably. I further thank every member of the editorial team at Routledge for their tireless assistance in bringing this book to life, particularly Michael Greenwood, Anna Dolan and Dawn Preston. Acknowledgement xi Finally, I would like to acknowledge the support and fortitude of all my friends and family. Not one but two sets of parents have provided me endless encouragement as well as practical assistance. But without my beloved wife, Kelly, none of this would have been possible – you are my inspiration. Abbreviations

Generally, this book employs the abbreviations used in the Oxford Classical Dictionary. Biblical texts are abbreviated according to the Chicago Manual of Style,16th Edition. Abbreviations of texts not listed in the Oxford Classical Dictionary are as follows:

Apoc. Pet. Apocalypsis Petri August. De haer. Augustine, De Haeresibus Liber Unus Clem. Al. Ecl. Clement of Alexandria, Eclogae Cyp. Ep. Cyprian, Epistularium Festus De sign. verb. Festus, De Verborum Significatu Ep. Barn. Epistula Barnabae Hippoc. Ius. Hippocrates, Ius Iurandum (Oath) Jer. Apolog. Adv. Ruf. Jerome, Apologeticum Adversus Rufinum Juv. Sat. Juvenal, Saturae Mart. Epigr. Martial, Epigrammata Pass. Perp. Passio Perpetuae Pass. Scil. Passio Sanctorum Scilitanorum Philast. Div. haer. Philastrius, Diversarum Haereseon Liber Philo De spec. leg. Philo, De Specialibus Legibus Tert. Ad Scap. Tertullian, Ad Scapulam Tert. Ad ux. Tertullian, Ad Uxorem Tert. Adv. Marc. Tertullian, Adversus Marcionem Tert. Adv. Prax. Tertullian, Adversus Praxean Tert. De an. Tertullian, De Anima Tert. De bapt. Tertullian, De Baptismo Tert. De carn. Tertullian, De Carne Christi Tert. De cor. Tertullian, De Corona Tert. De cult. fem. Tertullian, De Cultu Feminarum Tert. De ex. cast. Tertullian, De Exhortatione Castitatis Tert. De fug. Tertullian, De Fuga in Persecutione Tert. De jej. Tertullian, De Ieiunio Tert. De or. Tertullian, De Oratione Tert. De paen. Tertullian, De Paenitentia Abbreviations xiii Tert. De pall. Tertullian, De Pallio Tert. De pud. Tertullian, De Pudicitia Tert. De res. Tertullian, De Resurrectione Mortuorum Tert. De virg. vel. Tertullian, De Virginibus Velandis Tert. Scorp. Tertullian, Scorpiace This page intentionally left blank Introduction

Scholars of Greek and Roman history have long adhered to the idea that attitudes towards children are not constant throughout history.1 Rather, attitudes towards children which ancient authors express in their literature are subject to numerous factors, such as rhetorical precepts, religious concerns, medical theories, as well as social customs and ideas of family. It is particularly important for historians to recognise the mutability of views concerning children over time when studying ancient authors’ attitudes towards foetal and embryonic life. In any society, the degree to which a foetus or embryo possesses human identity is largely subjective. The foetus or embryo is incapable of defining or justifying its own identity. Therefore, the extent to which the off- spring in utero can or should be viewed as a human being is inevitably deter- mined by others, as is its value to society. The process of assigning value to an embryo or foetus is also inherently influenced by cultural perceptions of the body, the soul, and the relationship between them. The literary works of Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus (c. AD 160–c. 225) represent an important epoch in the history of attitudes towards the foetus and embryo. Though his ideas as presented on the page were far from consistent, Tertullian of Carthage was the first Christian writer to argue rigor- ously that human existence began in the womb and that abortion was there- fore homicide. Moreover, he was the first surviving Latin writer (Christian or pagan) to examine the unborn child at length. Despite the clear significance of this turning point in the history of the family, classical scholars have paid surprisingly little attention to Tertullian’s attitude towards the child in utero. Thus far the issue has mostly been addressed by theologians, and often with a view towards swaying contemporary abortion policies in Western nations. The vast majority of current scholarship related to the topic concerns historical Christian attitudes towards abortion. It is inevitable that these discussions are heavily politicised, since historical attitudes towards abortion often play a large part in determining modern policy. The most famous instance is that of Roe v. Wade in the United States, in which the judges chose history as the basis for the court’s opinion. In theory, historical inquiry afforded the court an opportunity to examine the 2 Introduction issue objectively, without the subjective presuppositions of philosophy or religion. As the court ruling determined:

One’s philosophy, one’s experiences, one’s exposure to the raw edges of human existence, one’s religious training, one’s attitudes toward life and family and their values, and the moral standards one establishes and seeks to observe, are all likely to influence and to color one’s thinking and conclusions about abortion… Our task, of course, is to resolve the issue by constitutional measurement, free of emotion and of predilection. We seek earnestly to do this, and, because we do, we have inquired into, and in this opinion place some emphasis upon, medical and medical-legal history and what that history reveals about man’s attitudes toward the abortion procedure over the centuries.2

Yet the construction of historical narrative too may be skewed to persuade the reader towards a political viewpoint. Much of the existing scholarship on Tertullian’s attitude towards the unborn child gives attention only to those works in which his views can be reconciled with those of modern pro-life or pro-choice movements. Tertullian’s arguments concerning the point of ensoulment in utero are alternately celebrated, defended, and decried by participants on both sides of Western abortion and embryonic stem cell debates. Those considering Tertullian’s treatises concerning unborn children frequently fail to consider the context behind his works: that of his complete corpus, his life and times, and his broad knowledge of Greco-Roman and Judaeo-Christian literature. Instead, writers considering Tertullian’s views of reproduction often simply take one or two sentences from the nineteenth-century Ante-Nicene Fathers translations of Tertullian’s Apologeticum and De Anima. In doing so, they discard the subtle nuances of Tertullian’s arguments that might undermine their own case. In fact, a close reading of Tertullian’s corpus reveals that in some treatises he argued on the basis of embryological theories that favoured a gradual process of embryonic hominisation, while in others he expressed the view that human existence began at conception. Unsurprisingly, authors who have upheld Tertullian as a kind of forerunner to modern opposition to abortion have not often considered the former treatises, but rather focused upon those in which he explicitly argued that ending a pregnancy was murder from conception onward. Isolating these passages from the broader content and structure of the treatises generates the illusion that abortion and the status of the unborn were major preoccupations for Tertullian. Reductionism of this sort has given rise to the misrepresentation of Tertullian as an abso- lutist, fighting stringently against a culture in which abortion was freely practised. The purpose of this study is to provide a fuller picture of Tertullian’s atti- tude towards the unborn child than has previously been achieved. In the process, I wish to keep Tertullian separate from the contemporary abortion debate. In adhering to this principle, I am following in the methodological Introduction 3 footsteps of Konstaninos Kapparis, as laid down in his seminal 2002 book Abortion in the Ancient World. He says:

I am aware that this still is a very controversial subject, and that one person’s strongest convictions may be absolute anathema to someone else. My main objective has been to investigate the historical data with an open mind, beyond entrenched positions or confrontational politics. Objectivity, even if unattainable, is perhaps the most desirable quality in a historian.3

Kapparis thus approaches one of the main problems with previous scholarship on abortion in Greco-Roman antiquity – namely, that it has almost universally been influenced by partisan views concerning the moral and legal accept- ability of abortion in today’s world. Kapparis’ approach is more balanced, as he deliberately avoids this tendency. I aim to adopt his method of avoiding a polemic stance so far as it is possible to do so. In order to accomplish this, I have treated Tertullian’s writings as works of ancient rhetorical literature, rather than looking to them for guidance for the present day. To put it another way, I seek to understand Tertullian on his own terms. Thus his works have been analysed in light of Tertullian’s rhetorical aims, his understanding of prenatal biology, and his engagement with Roman and Christian cultural presuppositions concerning abortion. The study outlines Tertullian’s method and reasons for constructing his arguments concerning antenatal life. It identifies his sources for embryology, the literary traditions in which he engaged, and the various purposes his references to the foetus and embryo served. My argument here is essentially that we can only understand Tertullian’s comments on the unborn if we read them as rhetoric ancillary to his primary arguments, none of which related directly to abortion. Tertullian’s references to the unborn hence should not be plucked out of context, lest they be mis- read. His engagement in the art of rhetoric also explains his tendency towards self-contradiction. Tertullian borrowed, modified, and discarded theories of ensoulment according to their usefulness to individual treatises. So long as a single work was internally consistent, Tertullian was satisfied. It need not surprise us, then, that he argued that human existence began at conception in some treatises and not in others. He elaborated upon previous Christian traditions and selectively borrowed from embryological theory to prove specific theological and moral points. I also believe that Tertullian was more influ- enced by Roman custom than he would perhaps have admitted, since the contrast between pagan and Christian attitudes on abortion was more rheto- rical than real. The sources by Tertullian most thoroughly analysed in this book are of course those in which he mentioned the unborn: Ad Nationes, the Apologeticum, Ad Uxorem, De Exhortatione Castitatis, De Virginibus Velan- dis, De Carne Christi, De Anima, De Resurrectione Mortuorum, and Adversus Marcionem. 4 Introduction Terminology: the ‘unborn child’ Throughout this book I shall refer to the progeny in utero as ‘the unborn child’. It will suffice to adopt Danuta Shanzer’sdefinition. The term ‘unborn’ applies to ‘both the miscarried and the aborted, likewise those yet to be born’.4 In the modern world, an author’s choice to apply the term ‘unborn child’ to the embryo often denotes a judgemental or negative view of abortion. It appears frequently in anti-abortion rhetoric. In English, the application of the term attributes the value of a postpartum infant to the developing embryo. On an implicit level, calling the embryo an ‘unborn child’ thus equates its destruction with infanticide.5 No such value judgement is intended here. The medical terms will be employed when it is possible to determine clearly whether an ancient author made a distinction between the unformed embryo and the more mature foetus; this is not always possible with ancient literature, as Catherine Playoust and Ellen Aitken identify.6 Unfortunately, Latin and Greek terminology for the foetus and embryo were very vague. There was no term in Latin that specifically applied to an unborn child. Rather, Latin authors referred to the child in the womb idiomatically, applying general terms that were often synonyms for later stages of Roman childhood. In his 1985 dissertation on The Nomenclature and Stages of Roman Childhood, Michael Gray-Fow argues that the absence of a noun specifically for an unborn child within the Latin vocabulary indicates a strong degree of uncer- tainty in the Roman mind-set concerning the nature of the foetus or embryo.7 Kapparis holds similar views about Greek vocabulary.8 It is, however, worth bearing in mind the great difference between ancient Roman society and the current period. The technical language medical practi- tioners now use to describe unborn children simply did not exist. The medical terms ‘foetus’ and ‘embryo’ occur fairly frequently in common parlance today. The same was not true for the Romans. Without medical imaging technology such as ultrasounds, there was no way for medical practitioners to observe prenatal growth empirically. Moreover, the legality of abortion, questions of foetal rights, or the reproductive rights of women were not politically con- tentious issues in Roman society as they are today. Scientific education in the principles of sexual reproduction was not part of the curriculum for children as it is in most Western societies of the twenty-first century. For the Romans, there was perhaps simply no need to develop a more complex nomenclature for the unborn child.

Who was Tertullian? It is appropriate to preface my work with a biographical sketch of Tertullian. This sketch will be of particular use to readers considering the overall history of abortion who may not have read the Romano-Carthaginian author in depth. In this space I can do little more than refer to the findings of Timothy Barnes’ excellent biography, initially published in 1971 and revised in 1985, Introduction 5 though I aim to do more than simply paraphrase. The biographical entry on Tertullian by Jerome (c. AD 347–420), though problematic, remains the best starting point. The relevant entry in De Viris Illustribus is the only ancient narration of Tertullian’s life to have survived to the present day. Jerome wrote De Viris Illustribus in AD 393 under the reign of the emperor Theodosius I. The complete text of Jerome’s entry on Tertullian reads:

Now ultimately Tertullian the presbyter is classified as the foremost of the Latin authors behind Victor and Apollonius. He dwelled in the African province, and was of the city of Carthage, where his father was a pro- consular centurion. This man was of a severe and vigorous disposition. He was in his prime under the principate of Severus and Antoninus Caracalla, and he composed many volumes which we (shall) leave aside, because they are well-known to many. For my part, I saw a certain Paul in Concordia, which is a town in Italy. He was an old man, who said that when he was very young, he saw in Rome a man of advanced years who was a scribe of the blessed Cyprian. The old man had testified to Paul that by habit Cyprian never went a single day without perusing Tertullian and said to him, ‘Pass me the master’, by which he clearly meant Ter- tullian. He continued as a presbyter of the Ecclesia right up to his middle age. Afterwards, due to the hatred and jealousy of the clergymen in the Roman Ecclesia, he lapsed into the dogma of Montanus, and in many books he brings up the New Prophecy. Moreover, he specifically wrote against the Church the works De Pudicitia, De Persecutione, De Jejunio, De Monogamia, the six-volume work De Ecstasi,andalsoa seventh which he composed Adversus Apollonium. It is said that he lived to a feeble old age and put together many short tracts which no longer exist.9

Modern scholarship accepted Jerome’s version of Tertullian’s life more or less at face value until the publication of Barnes’ revisionist biography, which makes it clear that Jerome’sentryonTertullianinDe Viris Illustribus is riddled with inaccuracies and anachronisms.10 Consequent scholarship on Tertullian follows Barnes, with an emerging consensus that Tertullian’s life is enigmatic. It is clear that Jerome himself had limited sources for writing Tertullian’s biography. In his preface to De Viris Illustribus Jerome wrote that his main written source was Eusebius’ (c. AD 260–c. 339) Historia Ecclesiastica.11 Yet Jerome could not have relied on Eusebius as a source for Tertullian’s life, as Eusebius simply did not have much to say about Tertullian. Eusebius’ prime concern was not the Latin-speaking Western Church, but the Greek-speaking Eastern Church. For Eusebius, Latinate Christians such as Tertullian were of interest only when they affected the East. Eusebius’ references to Tertullian are hence very limited. Barnes thus suggests that in setting down Tertullian’s biography, Jerome relied instead on a combination of oral traditions sur- rounding Tertullian and information gleaned from Tertullian’s works. It is 6 Introduction clear that Jerome drew upon orally transmitted legends of Tertullian that had developed over the course of nearly two centuries; he himself admitted as such. For the remainder of his biography, Jerome was just as reliant upon infer- ences based on Tertullian’s corpus as modern scholars are. He was well versed in Tertullian’s work, and quite amenable to Tertullian as a scholar. Harnack pointed out in 1895 that Jerome referred to no less than twenty-seven books attributed to Tertullian over the course of his literary career.12 Indeed, Jerome on more than one occasion praised Tertullian greatly in his published Epistulae. This was clearest in his seventieth Epistula, in which he asked, ‘Who is more erudite than Tertullian? Who is more acute? His Apologeticum and his books against the secular Gentiles are the very embodiment of education.’13 In his fifty-fourth Epistula, Jerome hailed Tertullian as an ‘erudite and ardent man’.14 All round, Jerome showed awareness and sensitivity for Tertullian. Yet Jerome was not ignorant of some of Tertullian’s foibles as a scholar. For example, he qualified his praise somewhat by pointing out that although Tertullian was abundant in opinions, he was difficult to read.15 Nor could Jerome entirely ignore the traditions surrounding Tertullian’s heresy. In his work Adversus Rufinum, he iterated, ‘We laud Tertullian’s ingeniousness, but he is damned as a heretic.’16 While he may have respected Tertullian greatly, Jerome never expressed blind devotion. However, it is possible that even Jerome’s reading of Tertullian was incomplete, as a portion of the African author’s corpus might have been lost already by Jerome’s period. As indicated by the last section of the above extract, Jerome indicated that some of Tertullian’s books had not survived even up to the late fourth century. In fact, Jerome mentioned in his letters that he knew of some of Tertullian’s titles solely by reputation, being aware of them only through lists of Tertullian’s works.17 It is of course possible that Jerome was simply engaging in hyperbole in stating that Tertullian had written many books which were no longer available. If so, it would have been a con- venient way for Jerome to increase Tertullian’s standing as a scholar without actually making reference to any specific work. Yet there is no strong evidence to suggest that this was the case. Tertullian himself cross-referenced several of his works of which no trace has survived, including De Censu Animae, De Fato, and De Paradiso. Jerome’s rhetorical aims should be kept in mind whenever dealing with his iteration of Tertullian’s biography. Jerome’s stated aim in writing De Viris Illustribus was to prove unequivocally that Christianity could produce such scholars as to rival and surpass their pagan peers. Being a Christian apologetic, De Viris Illustribus was meant to vindicate its subjects against pagan authors such as Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian.18 Tertullian was a prime candidate for recognition as a great Christian scholar, since he was a prolific author and an expert in the technique of rhetoric. He was also very well read in Silver-Age Latin and Greek philosophical literature. Moreover, Tertullian had an ability to cite Scripture which few could match. Yet Jerome’s intention to defend Christian scholarship through recognition of famous Christian writers Introduction 7 obligated him to promote Tertullian’s fame. He did so by suggesting that Tertullian was a priest descended from a man of high military rank. We shall deal in depth with the question of Tertullian’s priesthood in Chapter 1, but for now it is pertinent to consider the matter of Tertullian’s father. It is possible that Jerome aimed to boost the military auctoritas of Tertullian’s lineage. By suggesting that Tertullian’s father had achieved a high rank under the pro- consul of Africa, Jerome associated Tertullian with a family of high military standing, thereby increasing his prestige. Yet Barnes demolishes Jerome’s story about Tertullian’s father, as the rank of proconsular centurion did not exist during the second century.19 Therefore, Jerome’s suggestion of the rank held by Tertullian’s father was anachronistic, though it remains possible that he was a soldier. It is worth noting that Jerome did not pass over Tertullian’s becoming a Montanist. The exact circumstances of Montanism’s beginnings are not clear. Unfortunately, the sources for Montanism outside of Tertullian himself were hostile. The very name ‘Montanist’ seems to have been a label invented by the movement’s rivals. Montanism was initially founded in Phrygia by the eponymous Montanus, along with two women, Priscilla and Maximilla. The movement was still in its youth at the time Tertullian adopted it, for Montanism had only begun in the late AD 160s.20 One of the distinguishing features of Montanism was its claim to direct prophetic inspiration by the Holy Spirit. Its members participated in ecstatic communion with the Paraclete, whose visions had led them towards a New Prophecy: according to a fragment of an early third-century commentator preserved in Eusebius, the Paraclete spurred Montanus to declare the small Phrygian towns of Pepouza and Tymion as the New Jerusalem foretold in Revelation.21 When the apocalypse inevitably came, Montanists expected that the New Jerusalem would not be established in Judaea, but in Asia Minor.22 Though the movement was ostensibly based in modern Turkey, Montanism won many adherents across the empire, and in North Africa particularly. It is uncertain when or how Montanism came to Carthage, but it was clearly well established by the time Tertullian was writing. As Jerome would have it, Tertullian’s decision to embrace Montanism rendered him schismatic; the Roman Ecclesia was to blame. Yet the image of Tertullian being schismatic or in conflict with the Roman Ecclesia is also hard to swallow. Numerous authors have pointed out the dearth of evidence that Tertullian’s decision to become a Montanist represented a true schism from the Church of the late second and early third centuries.23 Ante-Nicene Christianity was decentralised, hardly the ‘monolith’ of Jerome’sday.24 There was no universally recognised central authority at that point to declare the movement heretical. Moreover, there is no strong evidence from Tertullian’scorpusthathe was ever at odds with Christians in Rome at all. From his work, the most that can be safely said is that Tertullian did not identify with other Christians outside the Montanist sect by the end of his career.25 Yet such a feeling of disillusionment does not necessarily indicate a formal break from wider 8 Introduction Christianity. As Christine Trevett puts it, ‘Tertullian the Montanist was Tertullian the Montanist Catholic’.26 By the time Jerome was writing De Viris Illustribus during the early 390s, it was a very different story. The post-Nicene Church emphasised and enforced a homogenisation of doctrine, Scripture, and practice. Montanism, especially given its proclivity towards ecstatic communion with the Paraclete, unusually stringent moral codes, and unique placing of Easter in the calendar, was rather out of step with post-Nicene conventionalism.27 By the fourth century Mon- tanism had developed a bad reputation among many authorities for upholding heretical doctrines. Firmilian, in his letters to Cyprian concerning false baptism in the early third century, stated that Montanists had formally separated from the Church.28 Many of Jerome’s contemporaries also condemned Montanism as heretical. For instance, Montanists featured prominently in Philastrius’ catalogue of heresies, Diversarum Haereseon Liber, published around AD 380.29 Augustine (AD 354–430) too was less than appreciative of Montanism and of Tertullian in particular. Augustine in his De Haeresibus Liber Unus quite flagrantly condemned Montanism and Tertullian himself as heretical. He also reported that a heretical group known as ‘Tertullianists’ had been shut down only a few years beforehand. According to Augustine, the Tertullianists, originally based in Carthage, were particularly well established in Italy, but in Carthage, under his influence, had repented and surrendered their basilica.30 Admittedly, the precise relationship between these Tertullianists and other Montanist groups is unclear. Augustine’s indication that Tertullian himself founded the Tertullianists as a splinter group from the Carthaginian Montanists is unlikely. It is possible that the term ‘Tertullianist’ was a synonym for African Montanists, or that the Tertullianists were a sect within Carthaginian Montanism, or even that the Tertullianists did not identify themselves as Montanists at all.31 As no Tertullianist sources have survived, it is not possible for scholars to offer any definitive conclusions. Nevertheless, it is clear that by the time of Jerome and Augustine, common opinion held that Montanism was evil. By extension, so was its most prolific author. Nevertheless, Jerome’s authorial intentions in De Viris Illustribus to celebrate Christian scholars such as Tertullian left him in a bind. Jerome would have found it difficult to give due recognition to the man he so respected in a period when Tertullian was branded a heretic. Jerome had to reconcile Tertullian the great scholar and Tertullian the Montanist. He also had to separate Tertullian the man from the movement that bore his name. By suggesting that Rome in some sense pushed Tertullian towards embracing the New Prophecy, Jerome exonerated Tertullian of having wholeheartedly engaged in Montanism. When telling the story of Tertullian’s separation from the Church, Jerome described the behaviour of the Roman clergy using the pejorative terms invidia, ‘hatred’, and contumelia, ‘jealousy’.32 As far as Jerome tells us, it was only in response to such hostility that Tertullian lapsed. Having thus to some extent expunged Tertullian’s record as a heretic, Jerome was at liberty to espouse Tertullian’s extraordinary education and erudition. Introduction 9 Thus far we have focused on the idiosyncrasies and anachronisms of Jerome’s account of Tertullian’s life, but Jerome’s dating and placement of Tertullian are corroborated by Tertullian’s corpus. For example, Jerome’s attribution of Tertullian to the reign of Septimius Severus (AD 193–211) and Caracalla (AD 188–217) is in no doubt since Tertullian made numerous references to these men and the civil war that surrounded their accession in his works. Indeed, he alluded to Severus’ visit to Carthage for the Pythian games in Scorpiace.33 Ad Scapulam too contained a reference to a solar eclipse, which Barnes identifies with the solar eclipse of 14 August AD 212 (NASA catalogue no. 05286).34 Jerome’s suggestion that Tertullian resided in Roman Carthage is obviously valid, as Tertullian referred to the city many times throughout his corpus. It is doubtful, for instance, that Tertullian would write to the African proconsul Scapula asking him to intercede on behalf of Christianity unless he had a vested interest. Moreover, Tertullian referred to specific contemporary events in Carthage, such as the death of the martyr Perpetua in 203.35 This suggests that he himself had witnessed them or had heard first-hand accounts. There are also certain aspects of Jerome’s biography that, though uncorro- borated, cannot be dismissed completely. It is not at all impossible that Jerome was correct in stating that Tertullian was very long-lived, as the date of his death is not certain.36 Nor is it clear-cut how advanced he was in years when he joined the New Prophecy movement. There is nothing to disprove that Tertullian became a Montanist in his middle age. Given the lack of any contrary evidence, these statements by Jerome may be tentatively accepted. However, it should be noted that they probably originated from oral tradi- tions surrounding Tertullian that had been evolving for a long period of time, distorting their accuracy. We’ve seen that there are numerous reasons to be sceptical about the histori- city of Jerome’s biography of Tertullian. Thus the most reliable information on Tertullian’s life comes from his own hand. Perhaps unsurprisingly Tertullian did not often discuss personal matters, as they were rarely appropriate material for polemic treatises. It is to be expected that the chosen subject of his treatises should dominate his writing. Deviating from his nominated topic by making reference to his own personal experiences would have weakened his rhetoric by distracting his reader. From his work, some broad generalisations may be made concerning Tertullian’slife,butfiner details remain elusive. It is probable that Tertullian was raised and educated as a non-Christian. He described this as a sin from which he had repented in response to a single, life-changing incident.37 Unfortunately, Tertullian never discussed what this incident was. Like the majority of Latin writers, Tertullian was well educated and wealthy enough to have leisure time for reading and writing.38 Tertullian’s was the voice of the upper classes in the process of flux, with the education customary to the Roman elite now complimented by Christian teaching. Which echelon of the Roman elite he came from, though, is open to question. It is quite possible, though by no means certain, that Tertullian was a member of the Roman equestrian order. Schöllgen points to a passage from Tertullian’s 10 Introduction De Pallio, in which Tertullian argued (perhaps only semi-seriously) that Chris- tians ought to follow his example in wearing the Punic-style pallium,ratherthan the Roman toga.39 Tertullian sardonically pointed to a mix of lowbrow pro- fessions whose members apparently wore the pallium, saying that adopting the garment would therefore be beneath the dignity of a Roman knight.40 He closed with the suggestion that by adopting the pallium, Christians had redeemed its worth from these low-lives. Schöllgen suggests that the reference to Roman equites in De Pallio only makes sense if Tertullian was referring to himself.41 Barnes in particular has enthusiastically accepted Schöllgen’s idea.42 On the other hand, there are several reasons to be sceptical about the identification. Tertullian’s reference to knighthood was oblique. There is no explicit indication that he intended it as a reference to himself. Indeed, it is worth considering that Tertullian in this treatise did not represent himself as a Roman at all, but rather asserted a local Punic identity. Identifying himself as a member of the Roman upper classes would have undermined this self- representation. Since the entire purpose of De Pallio was to encourage the adoption of non-Roman dress, Tertullian perhaps was using the equites as the standard by which to measure degeneracy. After all, he had previously estab- lished that freedmen could buy the semblance of dignity by adopting the dress of a knight.43 If Tertullian were a Roman knight, then he would have under- cut his own class by suggesting that its normal mode of dress was worthless. It would have been very unusual for Tertullian to engage in the art of self- deprecation, as it might have undermined his authority as a rhetor. In short, I feel there is insufficient evidence to prove Tertullian’s status as an eques one way or the other unequivocally. At some point during his literary career prior to the writing of Ad Uxorem, Tertullian married. His marital status is highly relevant to this study, which addresses the themes of procreation and family in his work. Tertullian’s wife was in all likelihood a Christian. Interestingly, Tertullian never made reference to having children. Nor did he express any desire to become a father. In fact, he urged Christians not to reproduce if they could avoid it, since the respon- sibilities of raising children would be a distraction from service to God.44 Yet as always, it is ambiguous whether this was a reflection of his personal experiences or whether it was simply a rhetorical exhortation.45 Bearing the above in mind, allow me to outline the plan of this book. This study will fill a gap in current scholarship by taking a much more thorough and holistic approach to reconstructing Tertullian’s attitude toward the unborn child. In Chapter 1, we will consider Tertullian’s discussion of the unborn child in light of his rhetorical aims. After that, we shall deal with the question of Tertullian’s so-called dissent on matters related to the unborn in light of his engagement with previous Christian literature. Chapter 3 will be devoted to Tertullian’s understanding of prenatal biology. Chapter 4 will finally assess Tertullian’s engagement with Roman cultural attitudes concerning abortion, considering the question of whether the Romano-African polemicist truly diverged from Roman thought in his attitude toward the unborn. Introduction 11 Notes 1 This theory finds its origins in the French historian Philippe Ariès’ 1960 book, L’Enfant et la vie familiale sous l’ancien regime, and in its 1962 English translation, Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life. Ariès (1962: 125) went so far as to suggest that the concept and experience of childhood is a product of the modern period, and did not exist beforehand. He writes: ‘In medieval society, the idea of childhood did not exist’. Lloyd deMause in 1974 picked up Ariès’ theory in his History of Childhood, arguing that parents of antiquity regarded their children without sentiment, and with an attitude of callous self-interest. In this work, deMause (1974: 1) summarised his viewpoint: ‘The history of childhood is a nightmare from which we have only recently begun to awaken. The further back in history one goes, the lower the level of child care, and the more likely children are to be killed, abandoned, beaten, terrorized, and sexually abused. It is our task here to see how much of this childhood history can be recaptured from the evidence that remains to us.’ The studies of Ariès and deMause sparked a new interest in the concept of childhood in antiquity, prompting subsequent generations of classical scholars to argue that childhood was indeed a concept known in antiquity, though the Greeks and Romans did approach their children with attitudes particular to their times and places, e.g. Néraudau 1984: 13–18; Golden 1988: 152–63; Wiede- mann 1989: 1–3; Dixon 2001a: 9–11; Minten 2002: 9–12; Rawson 2003: 1–13; Bakke 2005; 1–14; Laes 2011: 13–19; Beaumont 2012: 7–9; and Evans Grubbs 2013: 1–17. 2 Roe v. Wade, 410 U.S. 113, p. 116. 1973. 3 Kapparis 2002: viii. 4 Shanzer 2009: 327. 5 Kapparis 2002: 37. 6 Playoust and Aitken 2008: 159–60. 7 Gray-Fow 1985: 57. The Latin terminology for the unborn child will be discussed more fully in Chapter 4. 8 Kapparis 2002: 36–7. 9 Jer. De vir. ill. 53.1–5. ‘Tertullianus presbyter, nunc demum primus post Victorem et Appollonium Latinorum ponitur, provinciae Africae, civitatis Carthaginiensis, patre Centurione Proconsulari. Hic acris et vehementis ingenii, sub Severo principe et Antonino Caracalla maxime floruit, multaque scripsit volumina, quae quia nota sunt pluribus, praetermittimus. Vidi ego quemdam Paulum Concordiae, quod oppidum Italiae est, senem, qui se beati Cypriani, iam grandis aetatis, notarium, cum ipse admodum esset adolescens, Romae vidisse diceret, referreque sibi solitum numquam Cyprianum absque Tertulliani lectione unum diem praeterisse, ac sibi crebro dicere, Da magistrum: Tertullianum videlicet significans. Hic cum usque ad mediam aetatem et contumeliis clericorum Romanae Ecclesiae, ad Montani dogma delapsus, in multis libris Novae Prophetiae meminit, specialiter autem adversum Ecclesiam texuit volumina, de pudicitia, de persecutione, de jejuniis, de mono- gamia, de ecstasi libros sex, et septimum, quem adversum Apollonium composuit. Ferturque vixisse usque ad decrepitam aetatem, et multa, quae non exstant opuscula condidisse.’ 10 Barnes 1985: 1–10. 11 Jer. De vir. ill. Praef 3. 12 Harnack 1895: 568–72. 13 Jer. Ep. 70. ‘Quid Tertulliano eruditius, quid acutius? Apologeticum eius et contra gentes libri cunctam saeculi continent disciplinam.’ 14 Jer. Ep. 84. ‘Eruditus et ardens vir.’ 15 Jer. Ep. 58. 16 Jer. Apolog. adv. Ruf. 3. ‘In Tertulliano laudamus ingenium, sed damnamus haeresin.’ 12 Introduction 17 Jer. Ep. 64.23. 18 Jer. De vir. ill. Praef 7. 19 Barnes 1985: 13. 20 Dunn 2004: 6. 21 Eus. Hist. eccl. 5.18; Rev. 21–22. 22 Tabbernee (2003: 87–9) has identified the ruins of a small hamlet outside of the modern Turkish settlement of Susuzören as Tymion. He believes that it served as the Montanists’ headquarters. He more tentatively identifies the ruins of the nearby mountaintop monastery as Pepouza. He believes the commentator Apollonius was mistaken in calling Pepouza a town; he argues that Apollonius mentioned both Pepouza and Tymion ‘because they marked the northern and southern limits of the geographic area where he expected the “New Jerusalem” to descend out of heaven’. Tabbernee’s conclusion about the location of Tymion is supported by a marble inscription found on site, on which the town’s name was recorded. This inscription, recording an imperial rescript from the Severan period is published in Tabbernee and Lampe (2008: 59–84). 23 Powell 1975: 35; Rankin 1986: 73; Rankin 1995: 27; Trevett 1996: 69; Tabbernee 1997: 54; Osborn 1997: 176; Dunn 2004: 4. 24 Rankin 1995: 30. 25 Dunn 2004: 7. 26 Trevett 1996: 69. 27 Trevett 1996: 198. 28 Cyp. Ep. 75.7. 29 Philast. Div. haer. 49. 30 August. De haer. 86. 31 Barnes 1985: 258. 32 Jer. De vir. ill. 53.4. 33 Tert. Scorp. 6.2. 34 Tert. Ad Scap. 3.3; Barnes 1985: 38. 35 Tert. De an. 55.4. 36 Jer. De vir. ill. 53.5; Barnes 1985: 59. 37 Tert. De paen. 1.1; De fug. 6.2. 38 Dunn 2004: 5. 39 Schöllgen 1985: 176–89. 40 Tert. De pall. 6.2.1–3. 41 Schöllgen 1985: 183–4. 42 Barnes 1998: 293; Barnes 2001: 151. 43 Tert. De pall. 4.8.3. 44 Tert. Ad ux. 1.5, 1.6. 45 Dunn 2004: 5. References 1 Corinthians (ed. K. Aland , M. Black , C.M. Martini , B.M. Metzger , and A. Wikgren ). 1968. Epistula Pauli ad Corinthios I, in The Greek New Testament, Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society. 1 Corinthians (ed. P. Sabatier ). 1751. Epistula Pauli ad Corinthios I, in Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae Versiones Antiquae, Tomus Tertius, Remis: Apud Reginaldum Florentain. Accessed via University of Queensland, 15 April 2014, https://archive.org/details/BibliorumSacrorumLatinaeVersionesAntiquaeSeuVetusItalicaEtCaeter ae 2 Corinthians (ed. K. Aland , M. Black , C.M. Martini , B.M. Metzger , and A. Wikgren ). 1968. Epistula Pauli ad Corinthios II, in The Greek New Testament, Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society. Aeschylus (ed. D.L. Page ). 1972. Eumenides, in Aeschyli Septem Quae Supersunt Tragoedias, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Apocalypse of Peter Akhmim fragment (ed. E. Klostermann ). 1903. Apocrypha I: Reste Des Petrusevangeliums, Der Petrus-Apocakalypse und des Kerygmati Petri, Bonn: Verlag. Apuleius (ed. P. Vallette ). 1960. Apologie, Florides, Paris: Belles Lettres. Aristophanes (ed. N.G. Wilson ). 2007. Acharnenses, in Aristophanis Fabulae, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aristophanes (ed. N.G. Wilson ). 2007. Lysistrata, in Aristophanis Fabulae, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aristophanes (ed. N.G. Wilson ). 2007. Pax, in Aristophanis Fabulae, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aristophanes (ed. N.G. Wilson ). 2007. Thesmaphoriazusae, in Aristophanis Fabulae, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aristophanes (ed. N.G. Wilson ). 2007. Vespae, in Aristophanis Fabulae, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Aristotle (ed. H.J. Drossaart Lulofs ). 1965. Aristotelis De Generatione Animalium, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Aristotle (ed. P. Louis ). 1964. Histoire des Animaux, Paris: Belles Lettres. Aristotle (ed. W.D. Ross ). 1964. Aristotelis Analytica Priora et Posteriora, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Aristotle (ed. W.D. Ross ). 1959. Aristotelis Ars Rhetorica, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Artemidorus (ed. R.A. Pack ). 1963. Artemidori Daldiani Onirocriticon Libri V, Leipzig: Teubner. 178Athenagoras (ed. W.R. Schoedel ). 1972. Legatio and De Resurrectione, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Augustine (ed. B. Dombart , A. Kalb ). 1955. Civitate Dei, Turnholti: Typographi Brepols. Augustine (ed. J. Fraipont and D. De Bruyne ). 1958. Quaestiones Exodi, in Quaestionum in Heptateuchum, Libri VII. Locutionum in Heptateuchum, Libri VII. De Octo Quaestionibus ex Veteri Testamento, Turnholti: Typographi Brepols. Augustine (trans. L.G. Muller ). 1956. De Haeresibus: A Translation with an Introduction and Commentary, Washington, DC: Catholic University of America. Augustine (ed. M. Skutella ). 1996. S. Aureli Augustini Confessionum Libri XIII, Stuttgart: Teubner. Aulus Gellius (ed. P.K. Marshall ). 1990. A. Gellii Noctes Atticae, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Celsus (ed. G. Serbat ). 1995. De La Medécine, Paris: Belles Lettres. Censorinus (ed. N. Sallmann ). 1983. De Die Natali Liber ad Q. Caerellium: Accedit Anonymi Cuiusdam Epitoma Disciplinarum (Fragmentorum Censorini), Leipzig: Teubner. Chariton (ed. B.P. Reardon ). 2004. Charitonis Aphrodisiensis de Callirhoe Narrationes Amatoriae, Munich-Leipzig: K.G. Saur. Cicero (ed. G. Achard ). 1994. De l’invention, Paris: Belles Lettres. Cicero (ed. H. Bornecque ). 1924. Divisions de l’art Oratoire, Topiques, Paris: Belles Lettres. Cicero (ed. H. Bornecque ). 1959–62. De l’orateur, Paris: Belles Lettres. Cicero (ed. G. Ramsay ). 1889. Pro Cluentio, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Cicero (ed. D.R. Shackleton Bailey ). 1965–70. Letters to Atticus, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Clement of Alexandria (ed. L. Früchtel , O. Stählin , and U. Treu ). 1960–70. Eclogae Propheticae, in Clemens Alexandrinus, Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Clement of Alexandria (ed. L. Früchtel , O. Stählin , and U. Treu ). 1960–70. Stromata, in Clemens Alexandrinus, Berlin: Akademie Verlag. Clement of Alexandria (ed. M. Harl , H.I. Marrou , C. Matray , and C. Mondésert ). 1960–70. Clément d’Alexandrie. Le Pedagogue, Paris: Éditions du Cerf. Codex Agobardinus (folios 29r and 29v). Bibliothèque Nationale de France, Département des manuscrits, Latin 1622. Accessed via University of Queensland, 12 April 2014 , http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b85722380/f73.image.r=1622%20tertullianus.langEN Codex Iustinianus (ed. P. Krueger ). 1912–22. In Corpus Iuris Civilis, Berlin: Weidmann. Colossians (ed. K. Aland , M. Black , C.M. Martini , B.M. Metzger , and A. Wikgren ). 1968. Epistula Pauli ad Colossenses, in The Greek New Testament, Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society. Cyprian (ed. G.F. Diercks ). 1972. Epistularium, in Sancti Cypriani Episcopi Opera, Turnholti: Typographi Brepols. Deuteronomy (ed. A. Rahlfs ). 1935. Deuteronomium, in Septuaginta, Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society. Didache (ed. J.P. Audet ). 1958. La Didachè: Instructions des Apôtres, Paris: Lecoffre. Digesta (ed. T. Mommsen and P. Kreuger ). 1985. The Digest of Justinian, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. Epistula Barnabae (ed. K. Lake ). 1912. Barnabae Epistula, in The Apostolic Fathers, London and New York: Heinemann. 179Euripides (ed. J. Diggle ). 1994. Orestes, in Euripidis fabulae, vol. 3, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Eusebius (ed. G. Bardy ). 1952–8. Historia Ecclesiastica, in Eusèbe de Césarée: Histoire ecclésiastique, Paris: Éditions du Cerf. Exodus (ed. A. Rahlfs ). 1935. Exodus, in Septuaginta, Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society. Exodus (ed. P. Sabatier ). 1743. Liber Exodus, in Bibliorum Sacrorum Latinae Versiones Antiquae, Tomus Primus, Remis: Apud Reginaldum Florentain. Accessed via University of Queensland, 15 April 2014 , https://archive.org/details/bibliorumsacroru01saba Festus (ed. W.M. Lindsay ). 1965. De Verborum Significatu Quae Supersunt Cum Pauli Epitome, Hildesheim: Olms. Fronto (ed. M.P.J. Van den Hout ). 1988. Epistulae, Leipzig: Teubner. Galatians (ed. K. Aland , M. Black , C.M. Martini , B.M. Metzger , and A. Wikgren ). 1968. Epistula Pauli ad Galatas, in The Greek New Testament, Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society. Galen (ed. P. De Lacy ). 1978–84. De Placitis Hippocratis et Platonis, in On the Doctrines of Hippocrates and Plato, Berlin: Akademie-Verlag. Galen (ed. C.G. Kühn ). 1822. Claudii Galeni Opera Omnia 4, Leipzig: Cnobloch. Galen (ed. J. Marquardt ). 1967. De Naturalibus Facultatibus, in Claudii Galeni Permaneni Scripta Minora 3, Amsterdam: A.M. Hakkert. Genesis (ed. B. Fischer ). 1952. Vetus Latina Die Reste Der Altlateinischen Bibel 2: Genesis, Freiburg: Verlag Herder. Genesis (ed. A. Rahlfs ). 1935. Genesis, in Septuaginta, Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society. Herodotus (ed. Ph.- E. Legrand ). 1954–64. Hérodote. Histoires, 9 vols, Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Hippocratic Corpus (ed. E. Littre ). 1839–61. Alimento, in Oeuvres Complètes d’Hippocrate, Paris: J.B. Bailliere. Hippocratic Corpus (ed. E. Littre ). 1839–61. De Carnibus, in Oeuvres Complètes d’Hippocrate, Paris: J.B. Bailliere. Hippocratic Corpus (ed. E. Littre ). 1839–61. Iusiurandum, in Oeuvres Complètes d’Hippocrate, Paris: J.B. Bailliere. Hippolytus (ed. M. Marcovich ). 1986. Refutatio Omnium Haeresium, Berlin: De Gruyter. Horace (ed. N. Rudd ). 2004. Odes and Epodes, Cambridge, MA: Heinemann. Isaiah (ed. A. Rahlfs ). 1935. Isaias, in Septuaginta, Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society. James (ed. K. Aland , M. Black , C.M. Martini , B.M. Metzger , and A. Wikgren ). 1968. Epistula Jacobi, in The Greek New Testament, Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society. Jeremiah (ed. A. Rahlfs ). 1935. Jeremias, in Septuaginta, Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society. Jerome (ed. J. Labourt ). 1949–63. Epistulae, in Lettres, Paris: Belles Lettres. Jerome (ed. P. Lardet ). 1983. Apologie Contre Rufin, Paris: Editions du Cerf. Jerome (ed. E.C. Richardson ). 1896. De Viris Illustribus, in Hieronymus: Liber de Viris Inlustribus, Gennadius: Liber de Viris Inlustribus, Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs. Job (ed. A. Rahlfs ). 1935. Job, in Septuaginta, Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society. 180John (ed. K. Aland , M. Black , C.M. Martini , B.M. Metzger , and A. Wikgren ). 1968. Evangelium Secundum Joannem, in The Greek New Testament, Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society. John of Damascus (ed. P.B. Kotter ). 1973. Expositio Fidei, in Die Schriften des Johannes von Damaskos, vol. 2 (Patristische Texte und Studien), Berlin: De Gruyter. Josephus (ed. B. Niese ). 1887–90. Antiquitates Judaicae, in Flavii Iosephi Opera, Berlin: Wiedmann. Josephus (ed. B. Niese ). 1887–90. Contra Apionem, in Flavii Iosephi Opera, Berlin: Weidmann. Judges (ed. A. Rahlfs ). 1935. Iudices, in Septuaginta, Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society. Justin Martyr (ed. E.J. Goodspeed ). 1915. Dialogus cum Tryphone, in Die ältesten Apologeten, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck and Ruprecht. Juvenal (ed. W.V. Clausen ). 1992. A. Persi Flacci et D. Iuni Iuvenalis Saturae, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Lactantius (ed. P. Monat ). 1973. Institutions Divines, Paris: Editions Du Cerf. Lucretius (ed. A. Ernout ). 1959–60. De La Nature, Paris: Belles Lettres. Luke (ed. K. Aland , M. Black , C.M. Martini , B.M. Metzger , and A. Wikgren ). 1968. Evangelium Secundum Lucam, in The Greek New Testament, Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society. Macrobius (ed. J. Willis ). 1963–70. Saturnalia, in Macrobius, Leipzig: Teubner. Marcus Aurelius (ed. A.S.L. Farquharson ). 1944. The Meditations of the Emperor Marcus Aurelius, Oxford: Clarendon. Mark (ed. K. Aland , M. Black , C.M. Martini , B.M. Metzger , and A. Wikgren ). 1968. Evangelium Secundum Marcum, in The Greek New Testament, Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society. Martial (ed. H.J. Izaac ). 1961. Epigrammes, Paris: Belles Lettres. Matthew (ed. K. Aland , M. Black , C.M. Martini , B.M. Metzger , and A. Wikgren ). 1968. Evangelium Secundum Matthaeum, in The Greek New Testament, Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society. Minucius Felix (ed. J. Beaujeu ). 1964. Octavius, Paris: Belles Lettres. Muratorian Fragment (ed. G. Hahneman ). 1992. In The Muratorian Fragment and the Development of the Canon, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Musonius Rufus (ed. O.M. Hense ). 2010. C. Musonii Rufi Reliquiae, Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing. Origen (ed. M. Borret ). 1967–76. Contre Celse, Paris: Editions du Cerf. Ovid (ed. H. Bornecque ). 1961. Les Amores, Paris: Belles Lettres. Ovid (ed. J. Hall ). 1995. P. Ovidi Nasonis Tristia, Stuttgart: Teubner. Ovid (ed. A. Palmer ). 1898. Heroides: With the Greek Translation of Planudes, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Ovid (ed. R.M. Pulbrook ). 1985. Publii Ovidi Nasonis Nux Elegia. Maynooth: Maynooth University Press. Ovid (ed. W.S. Sanderson ). 1977. Metamorphoses, Leipzig: Teubner. Ovid (ed. R. Schilling ). 1992–3. Les Fastes, Paris: Belles Lettres. P.Oxy. 744 (trans. J.A. Shelton ). 1998. As the Romans Did: A Sourcebook in Roman Social History, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 28. Passio Perpetuae (ed. T. Heffernan ). 2012. The Passion of Perpetua and Felicity, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press. Passio Sanctorum Scilitanorum (ed. J. Armitage Robinson ). 1891. The Passion of S. Perpetua. Newly Edited from the Mss. with an Introduction and Notes. Together with 181an Appendix Containing the Original Latin Text of the Scillitan Martyrdom, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Phaedrus (ed. A. Brenot ). 1961. Fables, Paris: Belles Lettres. Philastrius (ed. J. Migne ). 1844–55. Diversarum Haereseon Liber, in Sancti Eusebii Episcopi Vercellensis Opera Omnia Necnon Sancti Philastrii Opera Omnia, Paris: Patrologia Latina. Philip of Side (ed. P. Nautin ). 1992. ‘La continuation de l’Histoire Ecclésiastique d’Eusèbe par Gélase de Césarée’, Revue des Études Byzantines 50: 163–183. Philo (ed. L. Cohn ). 1906. De Specialibus Legibus, in Philonis Alexandrini Opera Quae Supersunt, Berlin: Reimer. Philo (ed. L. Cohn and S. Reiter ). 1915. Hypothetica, in Philonis Alexandrini Opera Quae Supersunt, Berlin: Reimer. Plato (ed. J. Burnet ). 1900. Phaedo, in Platonis Opera, vol. 1, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Plato (ed. J. Burnet ). 1900. Theaetetus, in Platonis Opera, vol. 1, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Pliny the Elder (ed. K. Friedrich and T. Mayhoff ). 1906. Naturalis Historia, Leipzig: Teubner. Pliny the Younger (ed. S. Stout ). 1962. Epistulae, Bloomington: Indiana University Press. Plutarch (ed. J.B. Titchener ). 1935. Quaestiones Romanae, in Plutarchi Moralia, vol. 2.1, Leipzig: Teubner. Psalms (ed. A. Rahlfs ). 1935. Psalmi, in Septuaginta, Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society. Pseudo-Galen (ed. C.G. Kühn ). 1830. Definitiones Medicae, in Claudii Galeni opera omnia, vol. 19, Leipzig: Knobloch. Pseudo-Phocylides (ed. D. Young ). 1971. Sententiae, in Theognis, Leipzig: Teubner. Quintilian (ed. J. Cousin ). 1975. Institution Oratoire, Paris: Belles Lettres. Revelation (ed. K. Aland , M. Black , C.M. Martini , B.M. Metzger , and A. Wikgren ). 1968. Apocalypsis Joannis, in The Greek New Testament, Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society. Rhetorica ad Herrenium (ed. G. Achard ). 1989. Rhetorique a Herrenius, Paris: Belles Lettres. Rufinus (ed. M. Simonetti ). 1961. Commentarius in Symbolum Apostolorum, in Tyrannii Rufini Opera (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina), Turnholti: Brepols. Sanhedrin (trans. I. Epstein ). 1961. In The Babylonian Talmud, London: Soncino Press. Seneca (ed. J.W. Basore ). 1928–35. Ad Helviam, in Seneca: Moral Essays, Cambridge, MA: Heinemann. Seneca (ed. F.R. Chaumartin ). 1996. Phoenissae, in Tragedies, Paris: Belles Lettres. Soranus (ed. J. Ilberg ). 1927. Sorani Gynaeciorum Libri IV, De Signis Fracturarum, De Fasciis, Vita Hippocratis Secundum Soranum, Leipzig: Teubner. Suetonius (ed. B. Jones ). 1996. Domitian, London: Bristol Classical Press. Tacitus (ed. H. Goelzer ). 1965–6. Annales, Paris: Belles Lettres. Tacitus (ed. A. Michel ). 1962. Dialogue des Orateurs, Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. Tertullian (ed. J.G.P. Borleffs ). 1954. Ad Nationes, in Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera Pars II: Opera Montanastica (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina), Turnholti: Brepols. Tertullian (ed. J.G.H. Borleffs ). 1954. De Baptismo, in Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera Pars I: Opera Catholica (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina), Turnholti: Brepols. 182Tertullian (ed. J.G.H. Borleffs ). 1954. De Paenitentia, in Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera Pars I: Opera Catholica (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina), Turnholti: Brepols. Tertullian (ed. J.G.H. Borleffs ). 1954. De Resurrectione Mortuorum, in Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera Pars II: Opera Montanastica (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina), Turnholti: Brepols. Tertullian, (ed. E. Dekkers ). 1954. Ad Scapulam, in Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera Pars II: Opera Montanastica (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina), Turnholti: Brepols. Tertullian (ed. E. Dekkers ). 1954. Apologeticum, in Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera Pars I: Opera Catholica (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina), Turnholti: Brepols. Tertullian (ed. E. Dekkers ). 1954. De Monogamia, in Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera Pars II: Opera Montanastica (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina), Turnholti: Brepols. Tertullian (ed. E. Dekkers ). 1954. De Pudicitia, in Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera Pars II: Opera Montanastica (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina), Turnholti: Brepols. Tertullian (ed. E. Dekkers ). 1954. De Virginibus Velandis, in Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera Pars II: Opera Montanistica (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina), Turnholti: Brepols. Tertullian (ed. G.F. Diercks ). 1954. De Oratione, in Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera Pars I: Opera Catholica (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina), Turnholti: Brepols. Tertullian (ed. A. Gerlo ). 1954. De Pallio, in Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera Pars II: Opera Montanistica (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina), Turnholti: Brepols. Tertullian (ed. A. Kroymann ). 1954. Ad Uxorem, in Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera Pars I: Opera Catholica (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina), Turnholti: Brepols. Tertullian (ed. A. Kroymann ). 1954. Adversus Iudaeos, in Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera Pars II: Opera Montanastica (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina), Turnholti: Brepols. Tertullian (ed. A. Kroymann ). 1954. Adversus Marcionem, in Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera Pars I: Opera Catholica (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina), Turnholti: Brepols. Tertullian (ed. A. Kroymann ). 1954. Adversus Valentinianos, in Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera Pars II: Opera Montanistica (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina), Turnholti: Brepols. Tertullian (ed. A. Kroymann ). 1954. De Carne Christi, in Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera Pars II: Opera Montanastica (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina), Turnholti: Brepols. Tertullian (ed. A. Kroymann ). 1954. De Corona, in Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera Pars II: Opera Montanistica (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina), Turnholti: Brepols. Tertullian (ed. A. Kroymann ). 1954. De Cultu Feminarum, in Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera Pars I: Opera Catholica (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina), Turnholti: Brepols. Tertullian (ed. A. Kroymann ). 1954. De Exhortatione Castitatis, in Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera Pars II: Opera Montanastica (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina), Turnholti: Brepols. 183Tertullian (ed. A. Kroymann and E. Evans ). 1954. Adversus Praxean, in Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera Pars II: Opera Montanastica (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina), Turnholti: Brepols. Tertullian (ed. R.F. Refoule ). 1954. De Praescripione Haereticorum, in Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera Pars I: Opera Catholica (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina), Turnholti: Brepols. Tertullian (ed. A. Reifferscheid and G. Wissowa ). 1954. De Jejunio, in Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera Pars II: Opera Montanastica (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina), Turnholti: Brepols. Tertullian (ed. J.J. Thierry ). 1954. De Fuga in Persecutione, in Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera Pars II: Opera Montanastica (Corpus Christianorum Series Latina), Turnholti: Brepols. Tertullian (ed. J.H. Waszink ). 2007. De Anima, in De Anima: Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Heldesheim, Zurich and New York: Georg Olms Verlag. Rev. edn. First edn pub. 1947. Virgil (ed. R.G. Austin ). 1977. Aeneidos: Liber Sextus, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Wisdom of Solomon (ed. A. Rahlfs ). 1935. Sapientia Salomis, in Septuaginta, Stuttgart: Württemberg Bible Society. Aalders, G.J.D. 1937. ‘Tertullian’s Quotations from St Luke’, Mnemosyne 5: 241–282. Arena, V. 2007. ‘Roman Oratorical Invective’, in W. Dominik and J. Hall, eds, A Companion to Roman Rhetoric, Malden: Blackwell, 149–160. Ariès, P. 1960. L’Enfant et la vie familiale sous l’ancien régime, Paris: Librairie Plon. Ariès, P. 1962. Centuries of Childhood: A Social History of Family Life, trans. R. Baldick, London: Jonathan Cape and New York: Random House. Arkle, J. 1957. ‘The Termination of Pregnancy on Psychiatric Grounds’, British Medical Journal 5018: 558–560. Bakke, O.M. 2005. When Children Became People: The Birth of Childhood in Early Christianity, trans. B. McNiel, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. Baldson, J. 1962. Roman Women: Their History and Habits, London: Bodley Head. Balfour, I.L.S. 1985. ‘The Fate of the Soul in Induced Abortion in the Writings of Tertullian’, Studia Patristica 76: 127–131. Barnes, T. 1968. ‘Legislation against the Christians’, Journal of Roman Studies 58: 32–50. Barnes, T. 1975. ‘The Embassy of Athenagoras’, Journal of Theological Studies 26: 111–114. Barnes, T.D. 1985. Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Rev. edn. First edn pub. 1971. Barnes, T.D. 1998. ‘Constantine and Christianity: Ancient Evidence and Modern Interpretations’, Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 2: 274–294. Barnes, T.D. 2001. ‘Monotheists All?’ Phoenix 55: 142–162. Beaumont, L.A. 2012. Childhood in Ancient Athens: Iconography and History, London: Routledge. Becker, C. 1967. Der “Octavius” des Minucius Felix, Munich: Sitzungsberichte der Bayerische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Bogaert, P.M. 2013. ‘The Latin Bible’, in J. Paget and J. Schaper, eds, The New Cambridge History of the Bible: From Beginnings to 600, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 505–526. 184 Boylan, M. 1984. ‘Galenic and Hippocratic Challenges to Aristotle’s Conception Theory’, Journal of the History of Biology 17: 83–112. Bradley, K. 2001. ‘Children and Dreams’, in S. Dixon, ed., Childhood, Class and Kin in the Roman World, London and New York: Routledge, 43–51. Champlin, E. 1980. Fronto and Antonine Rome, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Church, F. 1975. ‘Sex and Salvation in Tertullian’, Harvard Theological Review 68: 83–101. Cilliers, L. 2004. ‘Vindicianus’ Gynaecia and Theories on Generation and Embryology from the Babylonians up to Graeco-Roman Times’, in H.F.J. Horstmanshoff and M. Stol, eds, Magic and Rationality in Ancient Near Eastern and Graeco-Roman Medicine, Boston, MA: Brill Academic Publishers, 343–367. Clark, G. 1981. ‘Roman Women’, Greece and Rome 28: 193–212. Clarke, G.W. 1962. The Octavius of Minucius Felix, New York: Newman Press. Clarke, G.W. 1974. The Octavius of Minucius Felix, New York: Newman Press. Cohen, D. 1989. ‘Seclusion, Separation and the Status of Women in Classical Athens’, Greece and Rome 36: 3–15. Congourdeau, M. 2007. L’embryon et son âme dans les sources greques, Paris: Association des amis du Centre d’histoire et civilisation de Byzance. Connery, J. 1977. Abortion: The Development of the Roman Catholic Perspective, Chicago, IL: Loyola University Press. Castelli, E. 1998. ‘Gender, Theory, and the Rise of Christianity: A Response to Rodney Stark’, Journal of Early Christian Studies 6: 227–256. Dasen, V. 2009. ‘Roman Birth Rites of Passage Revisited’, Journal of Roman Archaeology 22: 199–214. de Ste. Croix, G.E.M. 1963. ‘Why Were the Early Christians Persecuted?’ Past and Present 26: 6–38. Dean-Jones, L. 1994. Women’s Bodies in Classical Greek Science, New York: Oxford University Press. Deferrari, R. , Barry, M. , and McGuire, M. 1968. A Concordance of Ovid, Hildesheim: Georg Holms. DeMause, L. 1974. ‘The Evolution of Childhood’, in L. DeMause, ed., The History of Childhood, New York: Harper and Row, 1–22. Den Boer, W. 1979. Private Morality in Greece and Rome: Some Historical Aspects, Leiden: Brill. Dixon, S. 1988. The Roman Mother, New York: Routledge. Dixon, S. 2001a. ‘The “Other” Romans and their Family Values’, in S. Dixon, ed., Childhood, Class and Kin in the Roman World, London: Routledge, 1–18. Dixon, S. 2001b. Reading Roman Women: Sources, Genres, and Real Life, London: Duckworth. Dölger, F. 1934. ‘Das Lebensrecht des Ungeborenen Kindes und die Fruchtabtreibungin der Bewertung der Heidnischen und Christlichen Antike’, Antike und Christentum 4: 1–61. Dunn, G. 1998. ‘Tertullian and Rebekah: A Re-Reading of an “Anti-Jewish” Argument in Early Christian Literature’, Vigiliae Christianae 52: 119–145. Dunn, G. 1999. ‘Two Goats, Two Advents and Tertullian’s Adversus Iudaeos’, Augustinianum 39: 245–264. Dunn, G. 2004. Tertullian, London: Routledge. Dunn, G. 2005. ‘Rhetoric and Tertullian’s “De Virginibus Velandis”’, Vigiliae Christianae 59: 1–30. 185 Dunn, G. 2006. ‘Tertullian’s Scriptural Exegesis in De Praescriptione Haereticorum’, Journal of Early Christian Studies 14: 141–155. Dunn, G. 2007. ‘Mary’s Virginity in partu and Tertullian’s Anti-Docetism Reconsidered’, Journal of Theological Studies 58: 467–484. Dunn, G. 2008. Tertullian’s Adversus Iudaeos: A Rhetorical Analysis, Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press. Dunstan, G.R. 1984. ‘The Moral Status of the Human Embryo: A Tradition Recalled’, Journal of Medical Ethics 10: 38–44. Elsakkers, M.J. 2005. ‘Gothic Bible, Vetus Latina and Visigothic Law: Evidence for a Septuagint- based Gothic Version of Exodus’, Sacris Erudiri 44: 37–76. Etienne, R. 1973. ‘La Conscience Medicale Antique et la vie des Enfants’, Annales de Demographie Historique: 15–46. Evans, E. 1956. Tertullian’s Treatise on the Incarnation: The Text Edited with an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, London: S.P.C.K. Evans, E. 1960. Tertullian’s Treatise on the Resurrection: The Text Edited with an Introduction, Translation, and Commentary, London: S.P.C.K. Evans, E. 1972. Tertullian: Adversus Marcionem, London: Oxford University Press. Evans Grubbs, J. 2013. ‘Infant Exposure and Infanticide’, in J. Evans Grubbs and T. Parkin, eds, The Oxford Handbook of Childhood and Education in the Classical World, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 83–107. Evans Grubbs, J. 2013. ‘Introduction’, in J. Evans Grubbs and T. Parkin, eds, The Oxford Handbook of Childhood and Education in the Classical World, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1–16. Eyben, E. 1980. ‘Family Planning in Graeco-Roman Antiquity’, Ancient Society 11: 5–82. Feen, R. 1983. ‘Abortion and Exposure in Ancient Greece: Assessing the State of the Fetus and “Newborn” from Classical Sources’, in W. Bondeson, ed., Abortion and the State of the Fetus, Boston: D. Reidel, 283–300. Ferngren, G. 2009. Medicine and Healthcare in Early Christianity, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. Flemming, R. 2000. Medicine and the Making of Roman Women: Gender, Nature, and Authority from Celsus to Galen. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Flemming, R. 2007. ‘Women, Writing and Medicine in the Classical World’, Classical Quarterly 57: 257–279. Frend, W.H.C. 1965. Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church, Oxford: Blackwell. Frend, W.H.C. 1973. ‘Review of Timothy David Barnes: “Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study”’, Classical Review 24: 72–76. Freund, R. 1983. ‘The Ethics of Abortion in Hellenistic Judaism’, Helios 10: 125–137. Fröhlich, U. 1995, 1996, 1998. Epistula ad Corinthios I, Freiburg/Breisgau: Herder. Gardner, J.F. 1986. Women in Roman Law and Society, London and Sydney: Croom Helm. George, S. 1982. Human Conception and Fetal Growth: A Study in the Development of Greek Thought from the Pre-Socratics through Aristotle, Philadelphia, PA: UMI Dissertation Services. Gill, R. 2005. ‘Response to: The Human Embryo in the Christian Tradition’, Journal of Medical Ethics 31: 713–714. Golden, M. 1988. ‘Did the Ancients Care When Their Children Died?’ Greece and Rome 35: 152–163. 186 González, C.P. 1959. El Aborto en San Augustino, Salamanca: Calatrava. González, J.L. 1974. ‘Athens and Jerusalem Revisited: Reason and Authority in Tertullian’, Church History 43: 17–25. Gorman, M.J. 1982. Abortion and the Early Church: Christian, Jewish and Pagan Attitudes in the Greco-Roman World, Downer’s Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship of the United States of America. Gowland, R.L. , Chamberlain, A. , and Redfern, R.C. 2014. ‘On the Brink of Being: Re- Evaluating Infanticide and Infant Burial in Roman Britain’, Journal of Roman Archaeology Supplementary Series 96: 69–88. Grant, R. 1988. Greek Apologists of the Second Century, Philadelphia, PA: Westminster Press. Gray-Fow, M. 1985. The Nomenclature and Stages of Roman Childhood, Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation Services. Habinek, T.N. 2005. Ancient Rhetoric and Oratory, London and New York: Blackwell. Hanson, E.L. 1987. ‘The Eight Months’ Child and the Etiquette of Birth: Obsit Omen!’ Bulletin of the History of Medicine 61: 589–602. Harnack, A. 1895. Tertullian in der Litteratur der alten Kirchen, Berlin: Sitzungsberichte Preuss. Heine, R. 2004. ‘The Alexandrians’, in F. Young, L. Ayres, and A. Louth, eds, The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature, New York: Cambridge University Press, 113–130. Heyne, T. 2011. ‘Tertullian and Medicine’, Studia Patristica 50: 131–174. Heyne, T. 2013. ‘Tertullian and Obstetrics’, Studia Patristica 53: 419–430. Honore, T. 1982. Ulpian, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Hopkins, K. 1965. ‘Contraception in the Roman Empire’, Comparative Studies in Society and History 8: 124–151. James, M.R. 1915. ‘The Recovery of the Apocalypse of Peter’, Church Quarterly Review: 1–36. Johnston, D. 1999. Roman Law in Context, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Jones, B. and Milns, R. 2002. Suetonius: The Flavian Emperors, London: Duckworth. Jones, D.A. 2004. The Soul of the Embryo: An Enquiry into the Status of the Embryo in the Christian Tradition, London and New York: Continuum. Jones, D.A. 2005. ‘The Human Embryo in the Christian Tradition: A Reconsideration’, Journal of Medical Ethics 31: 710–713. Kaldellis, A. 2012. ‘The Byzantine Role in the Making of the Corpus of Classical Greek Historiography: A Preliminary Investigation’, Journal of Hellenic Studies 132: 71–85. Kampen, N. 1981. Image and Status: Roman Working Women in Ostia, Berlin: Mann. Kapparis, K. 2002. Abortion in the Ancient World, London: Duckworth. Kennedy, G. 1972. The Art of Rhetoric in the Roman World: 300 BC–AD 300, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Kennedy, G. 1994. A New History of Classical Rhetoric, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. King, H. 1998. Hippocrates’ Woman: Reading the Female Body in Classical Greece, London: Routledge. Kitzler, P. 2014. ‘Tertullian and Ancient Embryology in De Carne Christi, 4,1 and 19, 3–4’, Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum/Journal of Ancient Christianity 18: 204–209. 187 Laes, C. 2011. Children in the Roman Empire: Outsiders Within, Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Lenel, O. 1889. Palingenesia Iuris Civilis, Graz: Academische Druck. Reprint 1960. Liddell, H. and Scott, R. 1888. An Intermediate Greek–English Lexicon, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lilla, S. 1971. Clement of Alexandria: A Study in Christian Platonism and Gnosticism, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Lindemann, A. 1995. ‘Do Not Let a Woman Destroy the Unborn Babe in Her Belly: Abortion in Ancient Judaism and Early Christianity’, Studia Theologica 49: 253–271. Malherbe, A.J. 1969. ‘The Structure of Athenagoras, “Supplicatio pro Christianis”’, Vigiliae Christianae 23: 1–20. Manson, M. 1983. ‘The Emergence of the Small Child at Rome’, History of Education 12: 149–159. Marcos, N. 2000. The Septuagint in Context: Introduction to the Greek Version of the Bible, Leiden and Boston, MA: Brill. Matthen, M. 1989. ‘The Four Causes in Aristotle’s Embryology’, Apeiron: A Journal for Ancient Philosophy and Science 22: 159–179. Mays, S. 1993. ‘Infanticide in Roman Britain’, Antiquity 67: 883–888. McKechnie, P. 1992. ‘Tertullian’s De Pallio and Life in Roman Carthage’, Prudentia 24: 44–66. McKechnie, P. 1996. ‘“Women’s Religion” and Second Century Christianity’, Journal of Ecclesiastical History 47: 409–431. McKeown, J.C. 1998. Ovid: Amores. Text, Prolegomena and Commentary. Volume III: A Commentary on Book Two, Prenton: Francis Cairns. McWilliam, J. 2001. ‘Children among the Dead: the Influence of Urban Life on the Commemoration of Children on Tombstone Inscriptions’, in S. Dixon, ed., Childhood, Class and Kin in the Roman World, London and New York: Routledge, 74–98. McWilliam, J. 2013. ‘The Socialization of Roman Children’, in J. Evans Grubbs and T. Parkin, eds, The Oxford Handbook of Childhood and Education in the Classical World, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 264–285. Milavec, A. 2003. The Didache: Text, Translation, Analysis and Commentary. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press. Millett, M. and Gowland, R. 2015. ‘Infant and Child Burial Rites in Roman Britain: a Study from East Yorkshire’, Britannia 46: 171–189. Minten, E. 2002. Roman Attitudes towards Children and Childhood: Private Funerary Evidence c. 50 BC–c. AD 300, Stockholm: Stockholm University Press. Mistry, Z. 2015. Abortion in the Early Middle Ages c. 500–900, Woodbridge: York Medieval Press. Moffatt, J. 1916. ‘Aristotle and Tertullian’, Journal of Theological Studies 17: 170–171. Mohrmann, C. 1951. ‘Saint Jérôme et Saint Augustin sur Tertullien’, Vigiliae Christianae 5: 111–112. Mousourakis, G. 2003. The Historical and Institutional Context of Roman Law, Burlington: Ashgate. Nardi, E. 1971. Procurato Aborto nel Mondo Greco-Romano, Milan: A. Giuffre. Néraudau, J.-P. 1984. Être enfant à Rome, Paris: Les Belles Lettres. Niederwimmer, K. 1998. The Didache: A Commentary, trans. L.M. Maloney, Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press. Noonan, J. 1965. Contraception: A History of Its Treatment by the Catholic Theologians and Canonists, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 188 Noonan, J. 1970. ‘An Almost Absolute Value in History’, in J. Noonan, ed., The Morality of Abortion, London: Oxford University Press, 1–60. Norris, R. 2004. ‘Irenaeus of Lyon’, in F. Young, L. Ayres, and A. Louth, eds, The Cambridge History of Christian Literature, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 45–54. Nunan, M.D. 1957. ‘Termination of Pregnancy’, British Medical Journal 5023: 883. Nutton, V. 2004. Ancient Medicine, London: Routledge. O’Malley, T.P. 1967. Tertullian and the Bible: Language-Imagery-Exegesis, Nijmegen: Dekker. Osborn, E. 1997. Tertullian: First Theologian of the West, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Osborn, E. 2005. Clement of Alexandria, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Otten, W. 1997. ‘Christ’s Birth of a Virgin Who Became His Wife: Flesh and Speech in Tertullian’s “De Carne Christi”’, Vigiliae Christianae 51: 247–260. Paget, J. 1994. The Epistle of Barnabas: Outlook and Background, Tübingen: J.C.B. Mohr. Parkin, T. 1992. Demography and Roman Society, Baltimore, MD and London: Johns Hopkins University Press. Perrin, M. 1991. ‘Un Exemple de l’utilisation de la medicine chez les penseurs Chretiens: Tertullien et l’embryologie’, in P. Dermont, ed., Médecine Antique, Amiens: Centre de recherches sur l’Antiquité Grecque et Latine, 91–110. Playoust, C. and Aitken, E. 2008. ‘The Leaping Child: Imagining the Unborn in Early Christian Literature’, in J.M. Law and V.R. Sasson, eds, Imagining the Fetus: The Unborn in Myth, Religion and Culture, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 157–184. Pomeroy, S. 1975. Goddesses, Whores, Wives and Slaves: Women in Classical Antiquity, New York: Schocken Books. Powell, D. 1975. ‘Tertullianists and Cataphrygians’, Vigiliae Christianae 29: 33–54. Price, S. 1999. ‘Latin Christian Apologetics: Minucius Felix, Tertullian, and Cyprian’, in M. Edwards, M. Goodman, and S. Price, eds, Apologetics in the Roman Empire, Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 105–129. Prioreschi, P. 1995. ‘Contraception and Abortion in the Greco-Roman World’, Vesalius 1: 77–87. Prioreschi, P. 1998. A History of Medicine, vol. 2, Omaha, NE: Horatius Press. Puskas, C. and Robbins, M. 2011. An Introduction to the New Testament, Eugene, OR: Cascade Books. Quasten, J. 1950. Patrology, Vol. I: The Beginnings of Patristic Literature, Antwerp: Spectrum. Quasten, J. 1953. Patrology, Vol. 2: The Ante-Nicene Literature After Irenaeus, Utrecht: Spectrum. Rankin, D. 1986. ‘Was Tertullian a Schismatic?’ Prudentia 18: 73–79. Rankin, D. 1995. Tertullian and the Church, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rankin, D. 1997. ‘Was Tertullian a Jurist?’ Studia Patristica 31: 335–342. Rankin, D. 2006. From Clement to Origen: The Social and Historical Context of the Church Fathers, Aldershot and Burlington, VT: Ashgate. Rawson, B. 2003. Children and Childhood in Roman Italy, London: Oxford University Press. Reynolds, L.D. 1983. Texts and Transmissions: A Survey of the Latin Classics, Oxford: Clarendon Press. 189 Reynolds, L.D. and Wilson, N.G. 1974. Scribes and Scholars: A Guide to the Transmission of Greek and Latin Literature, Oxford: Clarendon Press. 2nd edn. First edn pub. 1968. Richter, D. 1973. ‘The Position of Women in Classical Athens’, Classical Journal 67: 1–8. Riddle, J. 1997. Eve’s Herbs: A History of Contraception and Abortion in the West, London: Harvard University Press. Roe v. Wade, 410 US 113. Supreme Court of the United States. Argued 13 December 1971 and decided 22 January 1973. Russell, D.A. 1990. ‘Introduction: Greek and Latin in Antonine Literature’, in D.A. Russell, ed., Antonine Literature, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1–17. Schiff, D. 2002. Abortion in Judaism, London and New York: Cambridge University Press. Schöllgen, G. 1985. Ecclesia Sordida? Zur Frage Der Sozialen Schichtung Früchristlicher Gemeinden Am Beispiel Karthagos Zur Zeit Tertullians, Munster: Aschendorff. Shanzer, D. 2009. ‘Voices and Bodies: The Afterlife of the Unborn’, Numen 56: 326–365. Sider, R. 1971. Ancient Rhetoric and the Art of Tertullian, London: Oxford University Press. Sider, R. 1980. ‘Credo Quia Absurdum?’ Classical World 73: 417–419. Sider, R. 2001. Christian and Pagan in the Roman Empire: The Witness of Tertullian, Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press. Smith, P. and Kahila, G. 1992. ‘Identification of Infanticide in Archaeological Sites: A Case Study from the Late Roman–Early Byzantine Periods at Ashkelon, Israel’, Journal of Archaeological Science 19: 667–675. Starr, R. 1987. ‘The Circulation of Literary Texts in the Roman World’, Classical Quarterly 37: 213–223. Stark, R. 1996. The Rise of Christianity: a Sociologist Reconsiders History, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Stevens, S. 2013. ‘Stages of Infancy in Roman Amphora Burial’, in J. Evans Grubbs and T. Parkin, eds, The Oxford Handbook of Childhood and Education in the Classical World, Oxford: Oxford University Press, 625–643. Syme, R. 1979. ‘Three Jurists’, in E. Badian, ed., Ronald Syme: Roman Papers, vol. 2, Oxford: Clarendon Press. Tabbernee, W. 1997. Montanist Inscriptions and Testimonia: Epigraphic Sources Illustrating the History of Montanism, Macon, GA: Mercer University Press. Tabbernee, W. 2003. ‘Portals of the Montanist New Jerusalem: The Discovery of Pepouza and Tymion’, Journal of Early Christian Studies 11: 87–93. Tabbernee, W. and Lampe, P. 2008. Pepouza And Tymion: The Discovery and Archaeological Exploration of a Lost Ancient City and an Imperial Estate, Berlin and New York: W. de Gruyter. Trevett, C. 1996. Montanism: Gender, Authority and the New Prophecy, Cambridge, New York and Melbourne: Cambridge University Press. Van der Eijk, P.J. 2005. Medicine and Philosophy in Classical Antiquity: Doctors and Philosophers on Nature, Soul, Health and Disease. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press. Von Staden, H. 1989. Herophilus: The Art of Medicine in Early Alexandria, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Von Staden, H. 2000. ‘Body, Soul, and Nerves: Epicurus, Herophilus, Erasistratus, the Stoics, and Galen’, in J. Wright and P. Potter, eds, Psyche and Soma: Physicians and 190Metaphysicians on the Mind–Body Problem from Antiquity to the Enlightenment, Oxford: Clarendon Press, 79–116. Waszink, J.H. 1947. De Anima: Edited with Introduction and Commentary, Heldesheim: Georg Olms Verlag. Reprint, 2007. Waszink, J.H. 1950. ‘Abtreibung’, in T. Klauser, ed., Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum, Stuttgart: Anton Hiersemann. Waszink, J.H. 1979. ‘Tertullian’s Principles and Methods of Exegesis’, in W.R. Schoedel and R.L. Wilken, eds, Early Christian Literature and the Classical Tradition: In Honorem Robert. M. Grant, Paris: Beauchesne. Watts, W.J. 1973. ‘Ovid, the Law and Roman Society on Abortion’, Acta Classica 16: 89–101. Wiedemann, T. 1989. Adults and Children in the Roman Empire, London: Routledge. Williams, D. 1989. ‘Reconsidering Marcion’s Gospel’, Journal of Biblical Literature 108: 477–496. Williams, G. 1968. Tradition and Originality in Roman Poetry, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wypustek, A. 1997. ‘Magic, Montanism, Perpetua, and the Severan Persecution’, Vigiliae Christianae 51: 276–297.