Identity and Religion in Roman North : the apologetics of

by

John Elmer P. Abad

A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctorate of Philosophy

Graduate Department of Classics University of Toronto

@ copyright by John Elmer Abad (2018)

John Elmer Abad

Doctor of Philosophy

Department of Classics University of Toronto

2018

Abstract

This dissertation examines the strategies employed by Tertullian in the construction and articulation of Christian identity in the pluralistic Roman North African society. The focus will be the apologetic works of Tertullian, the Ad Martyras, the Ad Nationes and the Apologeticum written around 197 A.D. Popular biases against Christians, the Romanizing tendencies of local elites in North Africa, the marginalization of sub-elites, the influence of cultural and intellectual revolution known as the Second Sophistic Movement, and the political ideologies and propaganda of emperor – all these influenced Tertullian’s attempt to construct and articulate a Christian identity capable of engaging the ever changing socio- political landscape of North African at the dawn of the third century A.D. I shall examine select areas in antiquity where identities were explored, contested and projected namely, socio- cultural, religious, and political. I have identified four spheres which I refer to as “sites” of identity construction, namely paideia, the individual, community and “religion”.

Chapter One provides a brief survey of the various contexts of Tertullian’s literary production. It includes a short description of the socio-political landscape during the reign of

Emperor Septimius Severus, a brief in Roman North Africa, an introduction to the person of Tertullian, and his place within the “apologetic” tradition. I shall,

ii then, explain the methodologies that will be employed and the concept of “identity” as heuristic tool.

Chapter Two discusses Tertullian’s reappropriation of classical culture for the purpose of self-presentation. Christian rhetoric accommodates itself to contemporary social and political realities. The question of Tertullian’s relationship with the Second Sophistic Movement will be revisited. Chapter Three explores the topic of individuality as an apologetic discourse. Aware of the popular philosophical currents of his time which emphasized “the self” or “selfhood,”

Tertullian presents the Christian individual as paradigm of individual virtue, especially for the

Roman elite preoccupied with the cultivation of the self (souci de soi).

In Chapter Four, contrary to contemporary scholarship, I shall argue that Tertullian took a less revisionist approach in his representation of Christian community’s relationship with the

Roman empire, both in its dynamics of community formation and its role in society. In chapter

Five, I shall examine how Tertullian elaborates on his claim of Christianity as “vera religio.” Two aspects of his discourse on “religion” will be examined: his argument for libertas religionis and what constitutes a holy man. I conclude that the layering and fusion of legal, philosophical, cultural, and theological topics in Tertullian’s apologetic works underscore the complex processes of negotiation and articulation of Christian identity in a pluralistic society. Truth

(veritas) serves as the stabilizing point of reference. Hence, harmony and tension characterize

Tertullian’s articulation of Christian identity for it is forged in the hearth of the social, cultural, and religious ferment of his time.

iii

Acknowledgements

Over the course of this dissertation, I have accumulated a number of debts. I would like to thank my dissertation supervisor, Professor Andreas Bendlin. His extraordinary patience with my early drafts, his encouragement and important guidance in critically evaluating vast amount of modern scholarship on Tertullian allowed me to identify various lacunas and reconsider popular assumptions and arguments. The strength of this work owes to his insightful comments. Any error or misjudgement remains my own. I am also grateful to my dissertation committee for their unwavering support: Professors Christer Bruun and John Magee. I benefited greatly from the suggestions and criticism of my external: Prof. Elizabeth DePalma

Digeser.

This project would not have reached its completion without the assistance of three individuals: my cousin Carmencita Magallon, Msgr. Kenneth Robitaille and the late Fr. George

Lawless, OSA who taught me early Christian literature and generated my interest in Late

Antiquity. To them, I dedicate this work.

iv

Table of Contents

Introduction and Plan of Study vii

Chapter One: Tertullian, Christian Apologetics, and Identity I. Introduction 1 II. The Severan Landscape 5 III. Christianity in Roman North Africa 10 IV. Tertullian: the author 16 V. Tertullian and the “apologetic” tradition 19 VI. Identity as methodology and the processes of socio-cultural and political developments in Roman society. 27

Chapter Two: Paideia I. Introduction 43 II. The Second Sophistic Movement and the role of Paideia in Tertullian’s apologetic writings 46 III. The Rhetoric of Masculinity 58 IV: Consulite commentarios vestros (Apol. 5.3): historical exempla and the politics of historical interpretation 75 V. The perils of myth and the use of myth in the articulation of Christian identity 86 VI. Summary 99

Chapter Three: Individuality as an Apologetic Discourse I. Introduction 102 II. Christianus sum: the philosophical individual 112 III. Souci de soi 123 a. Carcerem nobis pro palaestra interpretamur (Mart. 3.5): the Christian reappropriation of προσοχή 125 b. Meditatio: ut est aemulatio divina rei et humana (Apol. 50.16) 130 IV. Summary 139

Chapter Four: Christian Community and Roman Society I. Introduction 142 II. Memory and Writing: Constructing Christian Identity and Social Relationships 147 III. Cohabitamus hoc saeculum (Apol. 42.2): Christianity and their contemporary Society 156 IV. Summary 171

Chapter Five: “Religion” I. Introduction 174

v II. Vera Religio 179 III. Libertas religionis and the Imperial Cult 183 IV. Contending Holiness 199 V. Summary 210

Conclusion 213

Figures 219 Editions and Translations 222 Bibliography 223

vi

Introduction and Plan of Study

This dissertation evaluates Tertullian’s construction of Christian identity and its articulation in a pluralistic North African society at the dawn of the third century.1 The primary focus is the earliest works of Tertullian: Ad Martyras, Ad Nationes and the Apologeticum, all written circa 197 A.D.2 The phrase “construction of identity” best describes my intention to investigate how Tertullian articulated, negotiated, and affirmed Christian identity. Tertullian’s articulation of Christian identity had already been studied.3 But, no systematic attempt was made to examine and identify Tertullian’s apologetic strategies in articulating Christian identity and its relationship with various identities in a pluralistic society. Such study helps unravel the mindset of early Christian intellectuals dealing with their desire to be considered part of the

Roman society yet distinct from it. Indeed, popular biases against Christians, the romanizing tendencies of local elites in North Africa, the marginalization of sub-elites, the influence of the cultural and intellectual development known as the Second Sophistic Movement, and the political ideologies and propaganda of Emperor Septimius Severus — all of these factors made up the socio-political landscape of Roman North Africa at the dawn of the third century. More than just vitriol against his non-Christian society, can Tertullian’s apologetic discourse be seen likewise as a literary mechanism to engage and address the social, cultural, and religious

1 My use of the modern term “identity” as a heuristic tool in evaluating individual self-identification and group formation during the imperial period will be discussed extensively in chapter one. 2 On the problem of chronology of Tertullian’s work see Tertulliano: opere apologetiche (2006: 134–137). Likewise, Barnes (1985: 30–56); and Fredouille (1972: 487–488). 3 Norris (2004: 71–90).

vii concerns of his society? Seen this way, Christian identity will not be trapped in an exclusivistic interpretation of binary opposition to the Roman state.4

Hence, I shall examine select areas in antiquity where identities were explored, contested, and projected, namely socio-cultural, religious, and political spheres of Roman North society. I have identified four spheres that I refer to as “sites” of identity construction, namely paideia, the individual, community, and religion. The relevance of these “sites” of identity construction, which constitute Chapters Two to Five of the dissertation, construction will be explained further along.

Chapter One provides a brief general survey of modern scholarship in Tertullian. I shall describe the politics and socio-cultural developments during the reign of Severus as the matrix for Tertullian’s construction and articulation of Christian identity. This approach provides the background to situate Tertullian’s work within the apologetic tradition, both non-Christian and

Christian. This is followed by a brief history of Christianity in Roman North Africa and an introduction to the person of the author. Next, I shall explain the methodologies employed in this study and the concept of “identity” as a heuristic tool.

Chapter Two discusses Tertullian’s reappropriation of classical culture for the purpose of self-presentation. Paideia becomes an important medium in the construction of Christian identity. Christian rhetoric accommodates itself to contemporary social and political realities.

However, unlike Greek sophistic writers who viewed their literary production as an expression of Hellenism, a sophist, like Apuleius, is “fundamentally Roman in cultural identity and a

4 Sider’s careful study of Tertullian’s rhetoric (1971: 128) similarly corroborates Tertullian’s concern to integrate Christianity with classical culture.

viii native speaker and writer of Latin.”5 If paideia allowed individuals from diverse locations and ethnicities to acquire “ Greekness” by virtue of education, it likewise enabled Tertullian to exhibit the “fundamental Roman-ness” of Christianity, for example, in its participation in the

Roman cultural system of “exemplarity.”6 The use of exempla provided the Christian Tertullian, an outsider, with topics and cultural capital whereby issues of consensus and communication among Roman elites can be engaged. As a corollary, Christianity participates in the emergence of a new culture wherein myths of origin, history, morality, and polity are continuously redefined. An analysis of Tertullian’s use of exempla will show that in as much as exemplification invests Tertullian with literary authority it likewise validates Christian innovation whereby the present was refashioned by recalling the past: a dialectic of not only

“what to remember but how the past should be remembered.”7 Claiming literary reputation allowed Tertullian to explore various strategies to construct Christian identity. Non-Christian recognition of “Christian literature” empowers Christian writers, like Tertullian, to participate and perform the Christian ideals of a cultivated individual in the Roman fora.

Chapter Three explores the topic of individuality as an apologetic discourse. While scholars in various fields of classical antiquity—notably philosophy and literature—for the last thirty years have to be credited for our understanding of the development of the idea of the individual,8 the concept of individuality is relatively new in the study of early Christian

5 Harrison (2000: 3). 6 The study of exemplum among early Christian authors has been underdeveloped and at times ignored in the scholarship of early Christian literature. On this topic see Hamblenne (1996: 93–146). 7 Gowing (2005: 10). 8 To name a few, cf. Gill (2006); Sorabji (2006); (2008: 13–34); Bartsch and Wray (2009); (2008 322–352).

ix literature.9 Group identity, for example, has been the traditional working framework for historians of the early church.10 Foucault referred to the first three centuries of the common era as an age where people accorded “more importance to the private aspects of existence, to the values of personal conduct and to the interest people focused on themselves.”11 We can also add the preponderance of biographical writings during this period, most notably Plutarch’s

Lives and Philostratus’ Lives of the Sophists. Finally, it was a period when various philosophical schools, considered by the Romans as important cultural artefacts, were absorbed into the

Roman elite culture.12 These various imperial-period philosophiae supplied strategies of

“approaching the issue of what is it to be a person, and to be or have self.”13 Aware of these various philosophical currents, Tertullian offered his own philosophical conceptualization of

“the self” or “selfhood” — his own interpretation of the Christian individual as an active social agent. Furthermore, he presented Christianity as a viable option for the Roman elite preoccupied with the cultivation of the self (souci de soi).14

In Chapter Four, I shall argue that Tertullian, contrary to the claim of Perkins (2010, 1-

13), took a less revisionist approach in his representation of Christian community, both in its dynamics of community formation and its role in society. The construction of the identity of a

Christian community rests on two suppositions. First, I shall look at the role of writing (the

9 Recent studies which discussed aspects of individualization in early Christian literature include Cary (2000); Miller (2009: 171–193); Reis (2009: 563–603). 10 Pliny’s letter seems to imply that Christian assembly falls under the umbrella term of hetairia (ep. 10.96.7). Upon notice, Christians desisted, which implies that they do not consider their assembly as a sort of a hetairia. On the political status of religious association see Bendlin (2005). Similarly, Wilken’s (2003) comparison of Christian gathering to a Roman collegia, such as a burial society, lost traction in the light of new studies on the voluntary nature of collegia and funerary associations. See for example, Bendlin (2011a) on the collegium of Diana and Antinuous in Lanuvium. 11 Foucault (1986: 39–45). 12 Trapp (2007a: x). 13 Ibid. 99 14 Cf. Hadot (1995: 206–213).

x agency of the author) — i.e., how writing forms a community. We can think of a putative textual community both of Christians and non-Christians, i.e., the readers and interpreters of

Tertullian’s writing.15 This includes how Tertullian problematized and re-appropriated the

Roman elite’s utilization of memoria.16 Second, Tertullian’s relationship with the political order will be examined. Is there a framework for the relationship between Christianity and the Roman society at large? As a corollary, we need to inquire how Tertullian negotiated with the role of the emperor and various imperial ideologies, specifically the imperial cult. Finally, can we justify the claim of finding in Tertullian the idea of a Christian empire?17 My analysis of Tertullian’s use of saeculum aims to clarify this debatable speculation.

The last chapter concerns the construction of “Christian religious identity.” There are various strategies of articulating religious identity in the ancient world.18 For Tertullian,

Christianity is the vera religio. The argument is rhetorical for the purpose of constructing and articulating Christian identity.19 I shall examine two important components of his religious discourse: his conceptualizations of libertas religionis and what constitutes holiness (sanctus).

The indeterminacy of the imperial cult created an opportunity for Tertullian to argue for the primacy of individual right to worship and investigate the veracity of religious beliefs. The phrase libertas religionis appears for the first time in Latin literature in the Apologeticum (24.6).

Tertullian informs us that the two major accusations lodged against the Christians are the

15 Cf. Stock (1990: chapter 7) 16 Cf. Gowing (2005: 10–11). 17 Cf. Klein (1968). This functional approach to the history of early Christianity finds in the Severan period the beginnings of the rise of Christianity and the “decline” of empire. For example, see Rives (1995: passim). 18 Representatives of numerous works on this topic are: Beard, North, and Price (1998: 41–42, 212–214; 288–289); for North Africa: Picard (1954); Le Glay (1971: 48–55); (1971: 60–69). 19 Before Tertullian, the expression vera religio is alien to the mentality of the inhabitants of the ancient world. See Barton and Boyarin (2016) and Nongbri (2013). For a through discussion of the concept of religio and its historical development, see Feil (1986).

xi crimes of sacrilege and treason.20 The first concerns impiety against the Roman gods and the second, the refusal to offer sacrifice to the emperors. A close reading of the text demonstrates that the author used libertas in the context of the latter. Tertullian argued that individual freedom is not only important, but it also becomes the foundation of truth that leads to worship.

Next, I shall investigate the role of holiness, specifically the portrait of a Christian holy man, in Tertullian’s religious propaganda.21 The two prototypical “divine men” in late antiquity were Plato and Pythagoras. Both were philosophers. The holy man during the imperial period usually combined the attributes of holiness and learning.22 Expertise in theology and philosophical dialectic were considered prerequisite for divinization.23 However, it was not only philosophical acumen that constituted the idea of holiness, but also personal conduct. Early

Christian writers, in their biographies of holy men, such as the Octavius of Minucius Felix, sought to “Christianize” the ideal individual of Greco-Roman society. What distinguishes the ideal Christian individual from its non-Christian counterpart? More importantly, how did

Tertullian articulate the identity of a Christian individual as paragon of virtue and carrier of paideia? The fusion of Christianity with Roman North African society depends on the success of such endeavour.

20 Apol. 10.1: Deos, inquitis, non colitis, et pro imperatoribus sacrificia non penditis. Sequitur ut eadem ratione pro aliis non sacrificemus, quia nec pro nobis ipsis, semel deos non colendo. Itaque sacrilegii et maiestatis rei convenimur. 21 Cf. Brown (1971: 100). 22 Fowden (2005a: 525). 23 Fowden (1982: 34-35).

xii Chapter One

Tertullian, Christian Apologetics and Identity

I. Introduction

Tertullian remains an enigmatic figure and his writings paradoxical to many scholars of early Christianity. More than a century ago, Guignebert, in a lengthy work on Tertullian’s sentiment towards the Roman state argued that the apologist presented Christianity as irreconcilable with the values of Roman society.24 There is also a study which portrays

Tertullian’s complicated and disordered personality,25 while another questioned the soundness of his ethics.26 Tertullian was likewise labelled a fideist, where no possibility of fusion between

Christianity and traditional philosophy exists.27 Recently, his writings have been portrayed as an example of “African identity and theology” in opposition to Rome through the optic of post- colonial study.28

Taking a more nuanced approach, scholars who placed Tertullian’s literary endeavour within his socio-political context argued that he was often misrepresented or misunderstood by his critics. For example, against scholarship that portrayed Tertullian’s writings as representative of the conflict between Christianity and the , Klein depicted

Tertullian as more conciliatory, having been influenced by Greek apologists such as Melito of

24 Guignebert (1901: 584). 25 Nisters (1950). 26 Rambaux (1979). 27 Cf. Labhardt (1950: 159–180). Mozzillo (1997), however, defends Tertullian from the accusation of fideism and argues that the Carthaginian advocated, instead, freedom of conscience. For Tertullian’s positive utilization of the tools of classical civilization (philosophy, literature, law and rhetoric) see Osborn (2003: esp. chapters 3 and 4); Kouri (1982); Steiner (1989). On the influence of Stoicism in Tertullian see Osborn (1997b: 322-34). 28 Wilhite (2007). Pollmann (2003, second edition 2007) employed similar methodology in reading Augustine’s writings. For a brief introduction to postcolonial theory see Styers (2009: 849–854).

1 Sardis.29 Likewise, Fredouille, in his important book, Tertullien et la conversion de la culture antique, demonstrated that Tertullian did not reject “pagan culture,” but that he proposed a new logic in the establishment of an effective social order drawn from the marriage of classical culture and Christianity.30 Sider, elaborating on Klein’s thesis, demonstrated Tertullian’s extensive use of classical rhetoric in his effort to synthesize classical culture and Christian beliefs. Tertullian’s reappropriation of traditional Graeco-Roman themes from a Christian perspective stands as one of his important contributions to early Christian literature.31 Finally,

Barnes’ historical and literary study of Tertullian’s work argues for a strong influence of the

Second Sophistic movement.32 Indeed, Tertullian showed himself to be Apuleius’ equal with his extensive classical education and erudition.33

This dissertation builds on the works of the aforementioned scholars. I aim to investigate the encounter, which is the continuities and discontinuities, between classical culture and Tertullian’s “Christianity.” Tertullian’s apologetic undertaking seeks to identify areas of Christianity’s compatibility and uniqueness within the landscape of Graeco-Roman civilization. The heart of Tertullian’s apologetic work can be summarized in his query: cur nos

Romani negamur?34 Tertullian’s construction, negotiation, and literary performance

29 Klein (1968). Guignebert (1901) represents the opposite of Klein’s position. Fredouille argued for a via media between these two interpretations. The rigorist tone of Tertullian was not political ideology but a moral issue. See Fredouille (1984: 111–131). Likewise, Tertullian viewed the Roman Empire as an integral aspect of the history of salvation. Cf. Osborn (1997a:231–248). 30 Fredouille (1972: 481–485). 31 Sider (1971: 126–132). 32 Cf. Barnes (1985: ch. 14). 33 Barnes (1976: 3–20) and Steiner (1989). 34 Apol. 36.1.

2 (communication) of Christian identity aimed to reconcile, re-appropriate, and bridge the gap between Christianity and his Romano-African society.35

There exists an abundance of scholarship on early Christian identity. One of the important studies in English language is a three-volume work on Jewish and Christian self- definition, which was published in the 1980s.36 Another study focusing on the discursive function of early Christian texts demonstrates how it shaped Christian identity, unstable as it was.37 To my knowledge, there is no standalone work on identity in Tertullian aside from

Wilhite’s work cited above. However, Wilhite’s deployment of modern theoretical approaches, especially post-colonial theories, as hermeneutical tools can be problematic because their major themes of political opposition, cultural resistance, and domination can easily occlude social life, cooperation, and reciprocity between the Romans and the natives.38 My interest is to investigate Tertullian’s sensitivity to the fusion of various cultural models, symbols, ideologies, and religious elements in the meeting of diverse cultures and his creativity in integrating

Christian discourse within this web of dynamic encounters.

Identity is a notoriously fluid concept. This issue merits broader discussion further on in the chapter. I shall approach the question of Christian identity through case studies to better

35 For a brief introduction to Christian identity vis-à-vis Roman civilization in the first three centuries, see Markus (1980: 1–15); Grant (1980: 16–29). For Roman North Africa see Burns, Jr. and Jensen (2014). 36 See Sanders (1980); Sanders, Baumgarten and Mendelson (1981); and Meyer and Sanders (1982). 37 See Lieu (2004). While I agree with Lieu’s argument on the function of literary narrative in shaping ‘Christian’ community, her strong identification of identity with narrative (p. 315–316) unduly emphasized the fluidity of “identity” to the detriment of its substantial integrity. Tertullian, on the other hand, though cognizant of diverse and developing elements of identity, argued for an objective reality which he calls the truth (Apol. 1. 1–2) and which forms the core of Christian identity. In my opinion, in talking about identity, one must consider both the essentialist and the fluid interpretation. Likewise, Rebillard (2012: 1–2) points out that many modern scholars interpret and frame the opposition between Christians and non-Christians as discursive construct (hence, usually failing to acknowledge extra-textual realities or social experience). Aside from Lieu, notable scholars with similar approaches are Kahlos (2007) and Perkins (2009). 38 I shall explain this aspect further on in the chapter.

3 understand the construction and negotiation of identity in concrete situations. This method aims at answering questions concerning individual identity formation (self-perception), the relational capabilities of individual, the formation of Christian community, and its relationship with the Roman world at large. Each chapter of this dissertation describes how Tertullian constructed, articulated, and negotiated Christian identity with his Roman-African society.

Hence, first, it is important to investigate Tertullian’s relationship with the Second Sophistic movement.39 While Barnes called Tertullian a Christian sophist and Sider demonstrated the expertise of Tertullian in classical rhetoric, no further study has been conducted on the stock themes of the Second Sophistic, such as gender, myth, as well as the use of historical exempla.40 Second, the period that included the floruit of Tertullian has fascinated historians of antiquity.41 Foucault referred to the first two centuries of the imperial epoch as the golden age of the cultivation of the self.42 It is basically the pursuit of eudaimonia through the acquisition of techne provided by various philosophical schools.43 The chapter on individuality and the

“care of the self” fills a dearth in Tertullian scholarship on how our author from a Christian perspective addressed this popular concern among the imperial elites. Third, I shall investigate how apologetic writing legitimated Christianity, shaped Christian self-definition (the formation

39 The importance of paideia and the so called “Second Sophistic movement” during the Severan dynasty provide an important background for the emergence of Christianity and Tertullian’s literary milieu. For a wide-ranging discussion of literature, art, and religion during the Severan period see, Swain, Harrison, and Elsner (2007). 40 Barnes (1985: chapter 14) and Sider (1971). On familiar literary themes of the Second Sophistic movement, see Anderson (1989); (1993) and Sandy (1997). 41 Among others, Dodds (1965) famously described the time between the accession of Marcus Aurelius to the emergence of Constantine as an age of anxiety. Far from such one-sided opinion, this dissertation will demonstrate how social and cultural developments in the second and third centuries A.D. contributed to the proliferation of Christian faith. 42 Foucault (1986: 45). On philosophy (especially Hellenistic schools of philosophy) as development of individual virtue and pursuit of happiness see Nussbaum (1994). Likewise, on the development of self and politics, see Star (2012). 43 Trapp (2007a) offers an important introduction to this philosophical movement.

4 of Christian community) and provided a blueprint for external categorization (the relationship of Christian community with the Roman world). Finally, the reconstruction and description of the cultural, political, and religious terrain of Tertullian’s period provides important background for his claim of vera religio for Christianity. I shall focus on three major arguments in his apologetic writings namely, his critique of the imperial cult, the call for libertas religionis, and the conceptualization and contention of holiness.

The remainder of this chapter will talk about the historical background and the methodology employed in this dissertation: a broad description of the socio-political climate under Severus; the beginnings of Christianity in Roman North Africa; Tertullian and his contribution to Christian apologetics; identity as a heuristic tool in mapping the sameness and the distinction between Christianity and Roman-African culture.

II. The Severan Landscape

We cannot talk of Tertullian’s construction of Christian identity without considering the political landscape dominated by the Roman emperor, Septimius Severus. Tertullian had only praises for the reigning emperor of the period.44 He called him constantissimus principum (Apol.

4.8) and invoked him as the defender of Christians: et populo furenti in nos palam (Severus) restitit (Scap. 4.6).45 A conscientious reader of Tertullian must consider the policies and propaganda of Severus and how Tertullian filtered them in his articulation of Christian identity.

44 Interestingly, Barnes claims that way before the Edict of Toleration of 311 A.D., Christians had already achieved respectability and “toleration” during the Severan period. See Barnes (2009: 3–19). 45 Spartianus’ account in Severus, Historia Augusta 17.1 (Iudaeos fieri sub gravi poena vetuit. Idem etiam de Christianis sanxit) suggests that Severus persecuted Christians around 202 A.D. The majority of scholars maintain that Spartianus’ account cannot be historically proven. See Barnes (1985:31) and Dal Covolo (1989: 38–43).

5 Septimius Severus, the first truly provincial emperor, is a “remarkable phenomenon” of the Roman imperial period.46 Cassius Dio paints a pessimistic description of the reign of Severus by comparing it to a sudden deterioration from the golden age of the Antonines to an age of iron. Like and Vespasian, Septimius Severus clinched imperial power by defeating his rivals in a bloody civil war. He was acclaimed emperor by the legions in Pannonia on April 9, 193

A.D. Four years after, on February 19, the Severan forces defeated Clodius Albinus in a decisive battle at Lugdunum, after enormous casualties on both sides. In the aftermath of his victory,

Severus ruthlessly punished the supporters of Niger (Herodian, 4.7f); this was followed by widespread confiscations and violent reprisals against the partisans of Albinus. Cassius Dio reports that twenty-nine senators were put to death (76.8.4).47 More than a third of them were connected by birth or by property ownership with Africa, while some with Gaul and Spain.48

Though Septimius Severus was born to a wealthy family in Lepcis Magna around 145 A.D., his obscure origin was a handicap.49 He adopted Marcus Aurelius as his father and was instrumental in the deification of Commodus to address this issue.50 The fragmentation of the empire during the period of the civil war, the provincial origin of Severus, the political dealings with various governors of provinces, and Severus’ aim to present himself as the continuator of

46 Birley (1988: 200). The African origin of Severus’ family has been conclusively argued by Birley notwithstanding Letta’s precautions. See Letta (1986: 511ff.). 47 On the discrepancy of number of senators put to death by Severus between Cassius and H.A., see Alfödy (1970: 1–11). 48 Dio, 75.8.5; HA Sev. 13.4; Alfödy (1969: 145). 49 HA Sev. 1. 2–3; Cassius Dio 77.17.4. Cf. Daguet-Gagey (2000: 37-56); Birley (1988:18-22); Barnes (1967: 87–107). 50 Inscriptions dated around 195 A.D. declares Septimius Severus as the son of Marcus Aurelius (e.g., CIL X, 6079 (= ILS 420) and CIL III, 218 (= ILS 422). Coins struck on the same year support the evidence for a Severan propaganda of adopting Severus into the genealogy of gens Aurelia (RIC IV, 1, 185, no. 8658; 187, nos. 700-702a; 188, no. 712). Likewise, an inscription found in Caesarensis in North Africa, dated on the same year, ascribes Septimius to an imperial lineage, incorporating the whole gens Aurelia as far as the divine Nerva proclaiming Severus as “brother of divine Commodus” (CIL VIII, 9317).

6 the Antonines rather than starting a new era for the empire were the factors that impinged upon the politics of Severus.51

There is, likewise, a strong argument for a deliberate and consistent policy of Severus to present himself as the second Augustus.52 Severus’ attempt to revive Augustus’ marriage legislation and the celebration of ludi saeculares in 204 A.D. among others stand as proof for this propaganda. I would like to indicate, however, that comparison with the first princeps was not conspicuous until the battle of Lugdunum in 197 A.D. decided who would become emperor among the various pretenders to the throne. The propaganda that propelled Severus to the throne was the image of a preserver of the Antonine heritage rather than inaugurating a new era just like Augustus and a new age proclaimed by the ludi saeculares. From the time of his imperial proclamation at Carnuntum in 193 A.D. until his victory at Lugdunum in early 197 A.D.,

Severus’ position was untenable.53 Initially, no single political program or policy was adopted.

To solidify his auctoritas as emperor, he gave donatives to the people, ensured the loyalty of the army and provincial governors and assured the city of Rome steady grain supply.54

No monograph has been dedicated to the socio-political climate in Roman North Africa during the period of Severus’ accession to power and the production of Tertullian’s apologetic works. Historians are hampered by several limitations: first, our knowledge of those who occupied the office of the proconsul of Africa Proconsularis from 193 A.D. to 198 A.D. are at

51 For a comprehensive history of the empire under Severus, see Potter (2014). 52 Barnes (2008: 251–267). 53 In 193 A.D., Severus minted coins honoring the legions that supported him. The absence of X Gemina, stationed in Upper Pannonia, is noticeable, seeing that its neighbor XIII Gemina supported Severus. Perhaps, there was a certain hesitancy of the legion in joining and leaving their fate to the chance of Severus. See Ritterling (1924–1925: cols. 1186–1829); and Murphy (1945:18). 54 See Moran (1999: 31–38).

7 best speculative and there is a paucity of information on their political career.55 Second, although the protagonists of the civil war had North African connections, the province was spared from the bloody conflict that afflicted the Eastern provinces and Gaul. The historians of the period, both Cassius Dio and Herodian, ignored North Africa in their account of the civil war.

Third, no general statement can describe the socio-political landscape of North Africa. The situation was as diverse as the number of cities and provinces in the region. For example, Le

Bohec pointed out Benabou’s oversight in distinguishing the political climate of Africa

Proconsularis from the two provinces of Mauretania afflicted by the highly volatile relationship between the Roman government and the Mauri in the mid-second century.56 Likewise, no general policy was adopted by Severus for Roman North Africa. The emperor from Lepcis

Magna favored several colonies located in the northeastern part of the Proconsularis by granting them the status of municipia in contrast to just one colony () in the Mauretania raised to the same rank.57 The practice of granting juridical status to various villages in North

Africa, especially in the Proconsularis, which reached its acme during the reign of Severus, in a way anticipated and mitigated the effects of “enforced romanization” brought about by

Constitutio Antoniana.58 Finally, this grant of citizenship to individuals and municipalities blurred the distinction that Rostovtzeff laid out between peasants in the countryside and the bourgeoisie that dominated the cities.59

55 See Thomasson (1996); and Le Bohec (2005: 93–95). 56 CIL, 14395. See Le Bohec (2005: 69–70) and Benabou (1976: 251). 57 Various cities, pagi and castella were separated from the Carthaginian pertica and were given municipal status. Cf. Cordovana (2007: 227); Briand-Ponsart and Hugoniot (2005: 70–73). For a comprehensive treatment of the phenomenon of municipalization in Roman North Africa, see Aounallah (2010). 58 Gascou (1982: 271 ff). 59 Rostovtsev (1957).

8 Hence, the socio-political history of Roman North Africa, especially during the reign of

Severus, lacks a straightforward description. Although a gradual development or evolution of its social structures can be traced from the colonial settlements of Caesar and the subsequent re- shaping of Africa as an imperial province,60 Leglay argued that the romanization of the region, i.e., the popularization of Roman cults and the adaptation of Roman laws to name a few, did not come about until the period of the Flavians.61 Romanelli adds that the epoch of the

Antonines and the Severans witnessed the acme of the province’s splendor.62 Various studies on second- and third-century North Africa supported Romanelli’s claim.63 However, Barnes claims that neither Septimius Severus showed any special favor to Africa nor did Africa play a major part in the policies of the emperor.64 Evidence from the inscriptions of this period demonstrates that Africans, especially the citizens of Lepcis Magna who called themselves

Lepcitani Septimiani after the ius italicum was granted to the city in 202 A.D., were indeed economically prosperous and showed enthusiasm for the African emperor. This popular adulation, in Barnes’ opinion, was not reciprocated by the Lepcitanian emperor.65 Nevertheless,

Severus’ grant of ius italicum to the cities of Lepcis Magna, , and Utica and the promotion of smaller communities to civitates, civitates to municipia, and municipia to colonia, albeit mostly in the area of Proconsularis, testify to his desire to emancipate satellite communities in the Carthaginian pertica and to promote municipal life through the fusion of

60 Romanelli (1959: 285). 61 Leglay (1968). 62 Romanelli (1959: 285). Likewise, Hugoniot (2000: 94–147). 63 For the most recent scholarship on this subject with an up-to-date bibliography, see Le Bohec (2005: 88–189). 64 Barnes (1967: 87–107). 65 Ibid.

9 their inhabitants with various legal statuses and cultural backgrounds.66 The rapid evolution of

Carthage and the surrounding communities of its pertica may help explain why individual

Africans, like Tertullian, constantly vacillated between participatory and resistant attitudes toward the state. The amalgamation of various elements in Carthaginian society created an atmosphere wherein individuals and communities needed to constantly redefine and articulate their newly-acquired status.67

III. Christianity in Roman North Africa

The origin of Christianity in Roman North Africa is difficult to ascertain.68 Neither

Tertullian nor his readers possessed knowledge about how Christianity arrived in Africa.69

Moreover, no epigraphic or archaeological evidence of Christians in North Africa can be found before the fourth century.70 The earliest account of Christian presence in North Africa comes to us through the Acta of the martyrs of Scilli, an obscure town near Carthage, during the reign of

Emperor Commodus. The governor presiding over the trial, Vigellius Saturninus, proconsul in

180/1 A.D., was the first magistrate to execute Christians. The presence of Christians in a small

66 Cf. Beschaouch (1995: 861–870). For example, an in-depth analysis of archaeological evidence from Thugga, an ancient Libyan city in the Carthaginian pertica, reveals the fusion of cultural, juridical, and especially religious elements during the Roman period. See Saint-Amans (2004). 67 It is notable that, while Africa enjoyed great urban prosperity under the Severan dynasty, inscriptional evidence demonstrates that Severus’ direct funding of monuments in Africa pales in comparison to previous rulers. Rather, most of the constructions were shouldered by the cities themselves or wealthy individuals. Cf. Wilson (2007). 68 Henne (2011: 19). See as well, Burns, Jr. and Jensen (2014: esp. ch. 1) and Quispel (1982: 257–335). On the argument of the irrelevance of Christianity for Apuleius and his Carthaginian society, see Hunink (2000: 80–94). 69 Barnes (1985: 67). Some scholars suggest a Jewish origin of Christianity in North Africa. See Henne (2011: 19–20) and Frend (1965: 361ff.). Barnes (1985: 273–5), however, challenges this claim. No archeological evidence supports the alleged claim that Christians were buried in the Jewish cemetery of Gamart and the origin of seniores laici, prominent in the African Church, especially in the fourth century, is vague enough to conclusively posit a Jewish origin. Barnes conceded that we can only postulate, based on the liturgical practices of Christians in Africa, an Eastern influence. That Tertullian wrote in Greek must be taken into consideration (Barnes [1985: 68–9]). For a Greek origin of African Christianity, see Telfer (1961: 512–517). On the history of Judaism in Roman North Africa, see Le Bohec (1993: 551–566). 70 Barnes (1985: 280–282).

10 village near the great metropolis of Carthage points to the diffusion of Christianity in the African countryside. Indeed, the Passio of the martyrs of Scilli and that of Perpetua and Felicity, during the Severan period, reveal that Christians could not only be found in urban Carthage, but also in the villages of Carthaginian pertica.71 It is worth noting that the martyrs of Scilli spoke Latin instead of Greek.72 African Christians counted among their members not only rural inhabitants, perhaps descendants of Italian coloni, but also slaves and nobles.73 Some scholars argue that

Perpetua might have belonged to a senatorial family.74

The association of martyr acts with the origin of Christianity in North Africa creates an impression of the church of North Africa as a church of martyrs and identifies it with “protest against the world.”75 Lieu points out the role of the martyr acts in the construction of Christian identity through the technique of “othering” and the creation of boundaries between the

Christians and their non-Christian environment.76 Tertullian states that just as the renunciation of a political title was admired (Apol. 38.3), heavenly citizenship had to be favored over one’s

71 Aside from Barnes’ (1985) study of Christianity in Roman North Africa, see, as well, Georges (2011: 23–25). The “distinction” between the two broad groups of texts of early Christian martyr literature, the Acta, and the passiones are discussed in Kitzler (2015: 1–6). 72 The martyrs of Scilli were found possessing a Latin translation of Paul’s letters. See Burns Jr. and Jensen (2014: 3–4). Barnes (1985: 277–278) maintains that the evidence from Tertullian’s use of the sacred scripture and the account of the martyrs of Scilli point to an already existing Latin translation of the scripture during the period of Tertullian. See likewise, O’Malley (1967). 73 Scholars are divided whether to accept Tertullian’s statements as evidence of the conversion of upper classes in Carthage or just a mere rhetorical discourse. As example of the latter, see Grant (1970: 191–192). For the former, see Braun (1965: 192); Spanneut (1969: XI); and Groh (1976: 41–47). Schöllgen (1984: 268) argues that the Christian community included rich widows and speakers of Greek. 74 Barnes (1985: 70) and Heffernan (2012: 28-35). The Acta (Pass. 2) described Perpetua as: honeste nata, liberaliter instructa, matronaliter nupta. On the other hand, Ameling’s (2012: 78–102) study of the phrase “liberaliter instituta” arrives to a more modest education and provenance of Perpetua. 75 See Frend (1982: 154–167); (1965: 361). One must inquire, however, how Christian martyrdom was perceived by the general population and to what extent it swayed popular opinion. While Bowersock (1995) emphasized the civic role of martyrs and their public visibility within the Roman urban culture, he argues that martyrdom was alien to both the Greeks and the Jews. Boyarin (1999) contests this claim of Bowersock. 76 Lieu (2011: 205–223). An example is the evolution of Perpetua’s identity, from her dependence on the traditional Roman paterfamilias to her autonomy and role as an advocate for the Christian community. See Irwin (1999: 251–260) and Vierow (1999: 600–619).

11 earthly allegiance (Cor. 13.4); likewise, celibacy (cast. 1) and sexual abstinence within marriage

(ux. 1.6) are sure paths to holiness. But Christians did not possess the monopoly of these moral prerequisites, and the interaction with society at large was more complex.77 Social boundaries were permeable and differences existed together with similarities.78 For example, the suffering and death of Perpetua in her passio not only imitated Christ but also evoked the memory of the

Roman “martyr” Lucretia.79 The deployment of non-Christian exemplarity to interpret and provide rhetorical value to Christian martyrdom functioned as an effective literary strategy in

Tertullian’s Ad martyras.

Christians of African origin were also found in Rome during the time of Tertullian. Aside from Minucius Felix, Victor, an African, was the bishop of Rome from 189–198 A.D.80

Christianity in Africa, however, was never monochromatic or monolithic in their beliefs and practices. Tertullian’s treatises against various heresies testify to the existence of various

Christian groups in Carthage: Catholics, Montanists, and various Gnostic groups.81 In fact,

Montanism, a brand of Christianity from Phrygia, would later claim Tertullian as one of its adherents. Tertullian, in his early apologetic works, repeatedly boasted about the number of

Christians in Africa: hesterni sumus, et vestra omnia implevimus.82 Allowance can be made for

Tertullian’s rhetorical hyperbole. But, certainly, his claim is not far from reality if we are to

77 Among the many “philosophical groups” of the time, I have in mind, for example, the Cynics. On the Cynics and early Christianity, see Downing (1993: 281–304). 78 Moulding, accentuating, and negotiating identity in antiquity involved complex and diverse processes. One can either demonize the other and/or place less emphasis on distinctiveness and reiterate shared heritage. Cf. Gruen (2011). 79 Cf. Weigel (2012: 180–200). 80 Moreschini (2006) 10. 81 Cf. Burns Jr. and Jensen (2014). 82 Apol. 37.4; 42.3; Scap.5.2. Tertullian likewise states that Christianity found converts among the nomadic tribes of Mauri and the Gaetuli (Jud. 7.4) and that the province of Mauretania witnessed executions of Christian martyrs (Scap. 4.8). However, Barnes (1985: 280–282) points out the difficulty of verifying the historicity of Tertullian’s claim.

12 consider Tertullian’s audience who would have experienced first-hand the presence of

Christians in their locality.83

The growth of Christianity in North Africa in the third century is well attested. Both

Cyprian and Augustine testified to a synod of seventy African bishops, sometime between 190

A.D. or 230 A.D.84 Another council held in Carthage in 256 A.D. brought together eighty-five bishops from proconsular Africa and .85 The minutes of the said council provide information of the distribution of Christian communities in Africa: populous in the area of Africa

Procunsularis and Numidia, but scanty in the regions of the Mauretanias and Tripolitana.86

Tertullian also attests to the organization of the church, whereby probati seniores presided over the assembly.87 In De Baptismo, Tertullian specifies that the hierarchy of the church consisted of the bishop, priests, and deacons.88 Likewise, he suggested that the persecutors of Christians knew where to locate the Christian assembly: everyday we stand siege; everyday we are betrayed; above all in our gatherings and our assemblies are surprised (Apol. 7.4).89 But no building has been identified archeologically as the location of the Christian assembly in

Carthage during the time of Tertullian.90 Perhaps no architectural feature distinguishes such a building as the place for Christian worship.91

83 For the discussion of Tertullian’s audience, see pages 22-23. 84 Cyprian, Ep. 71.4; 73.3 and Augustine, De unico baptismo 13.22. See Barnes (1985:71). 85 Barnes (1985: 71). 86 Cyprian, Sent. Cf. Burns and Jensen (2014: 5). 87 Apol. 39.5. The role of seniores led Quispel (1982: 257–335) to argue for a “Palestinian/Jewish influence”in the formation of early Christian community in Africa. This argument, however, was inconclusive in the light of meager archeological evidence for a thriving Jewish community during the period of Tertullian (Cf. Lassère [1977: 413ff]). In fact, Barnes (1985: 330) contends that in the second century Jews and Christians were seen more as rivals and competitors rather than “as parent and daughter communities.” 88 Bapt. 17.1. Henne (2011:20). 89 Likewise, Nat. 1.7.19. 90 Rebillard (2012: 14). 91 See White (1996: 143–144).

13 The relationship between Christians and their socio-political context will be discussed at length in Chapter Four. But briefly, it must be noted that in his Ad Scapulam (5.2), Tertullian not only boasted about the growing number of Christians but also the fact that they came from a cross-section of his society, including the elite.92 Moreover, Tertullian and the anonymous author of Ad Diognetum argued that although the moral and religious ethos of Christians were distinct compared to other members of society, such differences did not preclude similarities and shared social conventions (cf. Apol. 42. 1-9). One only needs to read Tertullian’s De idolatria to appreciate the nuances and complexities of Christian self-definition in a culturally and religiously heterogenous society.93 Unless a Christian confessed “Christianus sum” before the magistrate, it was difficult to identify a Christian from among the many individuals who would mill around daily in marketplaces.94 In fact, not even names, in second-century Carthage, were used as external markers of Christians, as is evidenced by the Scillitan martyrs.95

Furthermore, an excavation in the late 1800’s of an ancient necropolis in Gammarth

() yielded images of menorot and led to a convenient hypothesis that the subterranean tombs belonged to first “Jewish Christians” in the area.96 Recent scholarship has questioned this long-held assumption.97 Further evaluation of the available evidence suggests that, rather than being a monolithic assertion of Jewishness, it suggests an important local representation of diverse religious cultures.98

92 Barnes (1985: 69–71). Tertullian’s claim echoes Pliny’s letter concerning Christians in Bithynia (ep. 10. 96.9). 93 See Stroumsa (1998: 173–184) and Luijendijk (2008: 25–55). Similarly, in a study of Jewish identity in the first century A.D, Cohen (1993: 1–45) argues that there were no unequivocal exterior markers of Jewish identity. 94 Trajan’s reply to Pliny’s letter concerning Christians is informative: conquirendi non sunt (ep. 10.97). 95 Rives (1995: 223–224). 96 See Delattre (1895) and Delattre (1904). 97 For example, Stern (2008); Stern (2010: 307–334). 98 Stern (2010: 320–322).

14 This brings us to Tertullian’s account of the populace’s outcry against Christians: Areae non sint (Scap. 3.1.). Unpopular sentiment against the Christians created difficulties in burying their dead.99 Can we assume that Christians had a collective and exclusive burial ground during

Tertullian’s time?100 There is no evidence, however, that Christians in Africa referred to their cemetery as area.101 It is more probable that some Christian families, like their wealthy non-

Christian neighbors, possessed burial enclosures in the necropolis. Rebillard claims that

Christians were buried side by side with their non-Christian neighbors.102

This statement calls for further clarification and may be nuanced by emphasizing developments in the funerary and burial practices of Christians in Roman North Africa.

Tertullian dissuaded Christians from taking part in funeral oblation, feasts, or games (Spect. 13).

Although our author did not oppose the traditional use of incense and anointing of the corpse, he nonetheless specified that the body must not be crowned as per the custom.103 Minucius

Felix seemed to agree with his contemporary and he likewise prohibited adorning the tombs with garlands.104 Tertullian, moreover, asserted that providing burial for the poor members of the community was of utmost importance (Apol. 39.6).105 By the time of Cyprian, the emphasis

99 Cf. Apol. 3. 1-4. Likewise, Tertullian tells us that some members of the populace violated the tombs of Christians (Apol. 37.2). 100 For argument that the population of Carthage decried the building of areae for exclusive use by Christians, see Brandenburg (1994: 212–213) and Duval (2000: 448–450). On the contrary, Rebillard states that the practice of Christian funeral enclosures was rare and appeared, archaeologically speaking, a century after Tertullian. Cf. Rebillard (2009: 8–11). 101 Rebillard (1996: 175–189). Similarly, Barnes (1985:274) argues that no Christian epitaph has been found in Gamart. 102 Rebillard (2012: 17). 103 Cor. Mil. 10, 1; Idol. 11.2; Apol. 42.4; Res. Mort.27. On the Roman practice of crowning the dead, see Leg. 2. 24. 60. 104 Minucius Felix, Oct. 12.6; 38.34. 105 Early Christian communities were compared by many scholars to a sort of a burial society. E.g. Gagé (1964: 308) and Wilken (2003: 31-47). Examining a vast amount of primary source material, Rebillard (2009), argues that burial practices were not instrumental in the formation of Christian identity (except the cult of martyrs).

15 was on burying the deceased with members of the same faith.106 The evolution of Christian funerary practices in Roman North Africa seems to reflect the development of Christian self- definition.

IV. Tertullian: the author

Knowledge about Tertullian is scanty.107 He was most likely born in Carthage.108 His works can be dated between 196/7 and 212 A.D.109 Jerome offers an important account of his life in chapter fifty-three of his De Viris Illustribus. He claims that Tertullian was a son of a centurio proconsularis and was a priest. He wrote numerous works, during the reign of Severus and Caracalla, then turned to Montanism and died in his old age. Barnes disproved Jerome, noting that Tertullian never described himself as a priest and numbered himself among the laity.110 There is, likewise, no valid evidence that Tertullian’s father was a soldier.111 However,

Tertullian may have enjoyed the status of an eques Romanus (De Pallio 6.2-3: omnis liberalitas

106 Cyprian, ep. 67.6.2. 107 Tertullian’s Virg. Vel (17.5) reveals his gentilicium (Septimius Tertullianus) although medieval manuscripts provide a full name: Q. Septimius Florens Tertullianus. Barnes’ (1985: 242–243) analysis of the name of Tertullian found nothing worthy of consideration concerning his origins. 108 Moreschini (2006: 11) estimates that Tertullian was born around 150–160 A.D. in Carthage and died around 240 A.D. Jerome states that Tertullian originates from Carthage in Africa Proconsularis (De Vir. Il. 53.1). 109 See Barnes (1985: 54–56) and Georges (2011: 16). 110 Cf. Barnes (1985: 11). 111 Jerome’s account that Tertullian’s father was a soldier was accepted by the scholarship of the early twentieth century. For example, Bardenhewer (1908). Barnes disproved Jerome’s claim (that Tertullian’s father was a centurio proconsularis) by pointing out that such an office did not exist. The difficulty lies in Jerome’s use of the phrase patris nostri, which differs from the main manuscript tradition’s patriae nostrae in the context of Apologeticum 9.2. The former would place the suppression of child sacrifice during the time of Tertullian’s father; the latter put it back a century earlier during the reign of Emperor Tiberius. Barnes presents evidence that child sacrifice had since ceased to accept Tertullian’s father as a witness. Hence, the reading patris nostri, which is preserved in the Fuldensis manuscript, is improbable and with it goes the plausibility that Tertullian’s father was a soldier. See Barnes (1985: 13–21). On the textual tradition of the Apologeticum, see Becker (1954) and Georges (2011: 1–8).

16 studiorum quattuor meis angulis tegitur. Plane post Romanos equites).112 Tertullian’s writings offer meager details about his life. As a young man, he frequented public spectacles (Apol. 15.5;

Spect. 19.5). Scholars also claimed that Tertullian visited Rome.113 Tertullian demonstrated discrete deference to classical discipline and his desire to engage with it.114 Finally, Tertullian had a Christian wife.115

Notwithstanding Barnes’ demolition of the traditional claim that Tertullian was a lawyer,116 one cannot deny Tertullian’s mastery of rhetoric and forensic argumentation.117

Among an extensive list of classical authors, he was familiar with Virgil, Terence, Sallust, and

Cicero whom Arusianus Messius (395 A.D.) singled out as the “quadriga” of standard authors in the handbook he had written for use in schools. An analysis of the Apologeticum of Tertullian, for example, yields more than thirty citations of literary authorities from classical antiquity.118

The erudition of the author and his rhetorical skills not only makes the Apologeticum a defense of Christianity, but, likewise, a literary synkrisis with the best of classical literature.119

112 This line from De Pallio only makes sense for the Carthaginian audience of Tertullian if he was an eques Romanus. See Schöllgen (1984). 113 E.g., Quasten (1963: 246) and Henne (2011: 33). Barnes (1985: 243–245) questioned the phrase “vidimus Romae” from Tertullian’s Cult. Fem. I.7.2 as evidence for the claim. He suggests that the phrase could be a rhetorical device rather than as a statement of an eye-witness. 114 E.g., Idol. 10.5: Videamus igitur necessitate litteratoriae eruditionis, respiciamus ex parte eam admitti non posse, ex parte vitari. 115 Ux. 1.1.1. See Georges (2011: 17). 116 The claim that Tertullian was a lawyer dates back to Eusebius of Caesarea (Hist. Eccl. 2.2.4). Cf. Barnes (1985:22–29). Long after Barnes’ work, scholars are still divided on the issue; see, for example, Angelelli (2001). Regardless whether Tertullian was a lawyer or not his indisputable mastery of rhetoric provides him sufficient knowledge of . On Tertullian’s legal acumen, see Cadoppi (1996: 153–65) and Chapot (2005: 3–24). On his use of juridical language and legal concepts in a non-technical and even vulgar manner, see Martini (1975: 79– 124). 117 There is strong evidence that Tertullian may have frequented rhetorical school in Carthage (cf. Val. 8.3). See, likewise, Sider (1971). 118 Barnes (1985: 196). 119 Braun (1992a: 129).

17 Tertullian became a Christian around 190 A.D.120 Some of his works depict a man penitent of his former life.121 Perhaps witnessing how Christians faced their martyrdom with courage convinced Tertullian about the veracity of their faith. He would later write in the

Apologeticum (50.13): semen est sanguis Christianorum. After his conversion, he sought to buttress the faith of his fellow Christians and defend it from its detractors. Within a span of two years (ca. 197-198 A.D.) he wrote the Ad Martyras, Ad Nationes, and the Apologeticum – the heart of his apologetic endeavor.122 The Corpus Christianorum Series Latina carries thirty-two of his extant works in two volumes. But a good number of his works were lost123, among which three were written in Greek for the Greek-speaking Christians of Carthage.124 Around 207 A.D.

Tertullian turned to Montanism.125 It is difficult to ascertain why Tertullian became a Montanist.

Jerome, however, blames the invidia and contumeliae of the Roman clergy for why Tertullian lapsed into Montanism and attacked his former faith, whose members the apologist calls psychici.126

120 The date is hypothetical. Moreschini assumed that Tertullian became a Christian as an adult. See Moreschini (2006: 12). That Tertullian had pagan parents can be gleaned from his writings, Cf. Apol. 18.4; 50.15; Paen. 1.1; Ad Scap. 5.5; Res. Mort. 59.3; Pat. 1.1. Unfortunately, as Barnes (1985: 247) points out, Tertullian has left no clear account of the stages his own conversion. 121 For example, Apol. 15.5; Spect. 19.5; Res. Mort. 59.1. 122 For chronology, see Fredouille (1972: 487) and Barnes (1985: 55). Fredouille reproduced Braun’s chronology of Tertullian’s works. I cite here Tertullian’s apologetic works and several works most pertinent to this study. 197 A.D.: Ad martyras, Ad Nationes I and II, Apologeticum; 198-206 A.D.: De testimonio animae, Adversus Iudaeos, De spectaculis, De patientia; 212 A.D.: Ad Scapulam; 217 A.D. (?): De Pallio. Cf. Braun (1962: 563–577). 123 For a list of these lost works, see Quinti Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Opera. Pars I Opera Catholica Advesus Marcionem. Corpus Christianorum Series Latina (1954: V–VI). 124 Barnes (1985: 68–69). For a general introduction to the literary activity of Tertullian, see Fredouille (2008: 1– 29). 125 Aside from Jerome’s testimony (De. Vir. Ill. 53) Barnes presents evidence in Tertullian’s work which demonstrate his turn toward Montanism (1985: 46). Some scholars however argue that the idea that Tertullian left the church and became a Montanist is exaggerated. e.g., Rankin (1995). 126 Jerome, De Vir. Ill. 53. There is an abundance of literature on Tertullian and Montanism. An excellent introduction is Braun (1985: 245–257). Several studies point out that Tertullian’s engagement with Montanism did not represent a radical break from his former faith but a development owing more to his personal rigorism. For example, Micaelli (2002: 15–49). In the same vein, Osborn (2003: 209–213) argues that more than influencing, the

18 V. Tertullian and the “apologetic” tradition

The second century has traditionally been considered the golden age of Christian apologetics.127 However, the terms “apology” and “apologetic literature” require clarification.

The noun ἀπολογία and its verbal form ἀπολογέομαι were first used by the rhetorician

Antiphon of Rhamnus (480-411 B.C.).128 Ἀπολογία is a judicial discourse aimed to refute accusations (κατηγορίαι).129 Christian apologetics find their precedence in the judicial speeches of Greek orators, for example, Lysias, Isaeus, Isocrates, and Demosthenes among others. The defense of Socrates, written by his pupils, Plato and Xenophon, gave birth to the understanding of apologetic writing.130 Socratic apologetics lend structure to Christian apologetics.131

However, Aristotle, Cicero, and Quintilian would cast the strongest influence on Tertullian’s rhetorical style, especially his forensic oratory.132 Stoicism, likewise, provided important philosophical themes to articulate and defend Christian doctrines, especially metaphysics, anthropology, and ethics.133

New Prophecy confirmed Tertullian’s ascetic views on martyrdom, marriage, fasting, and forgiveness of sins. Jerome (De Vir. Ill. 53), likewise, provides an interesting account that Cyprian used to read Tertullian, referring to him as “Master.” This anecdote places caution in assuming Tertullian’s schismatic break from the orthodox church. 127 Fredouille (1995: 201–202) problematizes this opinion because of the difficulty of classifying the apologetic genre. There were numerous Greek apologists during the period: Justin Martyr, Tatian, Athenagoras, the author of the Epistle to Diognetus and Theophilus. For a brief description of Greek apologetics in the early church, see Young (2002: 81–104). 128 Fiedrowicz (2000: 18). 129 Fredouille (1992: 223). Recall, for example, Quintillian’s statement (Inst. Or. 5.13.1): Pars defensoris tota est posita in refutatione. 130 A judicial event, the trial, and death of Socrates in Plato’s Theaetetus, Euthyphro, Apology, Crito and Phaedosupply important topics for philosophical reflections. Cf. Nails (2013: 323–338). 131 Fiedrowicz (2000: 19). 132 Sider (1971: chapt. 2). 133 Colish (1985: 9–10).

19 But, one has to bear in mind the “elasticity” and the “extensive” use of the terms

“apology” and “apologetics.”134 Early Christian writers who sought to defend the Christian faith from accusations brought by “pagan” authorities did not possess literary paradigm or a lex generis.135 In his analysis of early Christian “apologetics,” Fredouille pointed out that Christian authors in the second century used the terms ἀπολογία and ἀπολογεῖσθαι (defensio, defendere, refutatio, etc.) as functional terms and not as a generic classification (non comme denominations génériques).136 Similarly, a collection of papers has argued that there was no formal genre of apologetic in the ancient world,137 and Cameron highlights the lack of utility in classifying “apologetic” works as a genre or as a literary form; rather, it is preferable to speak of an “apologetic method” and analyze the various strategies or methods of argumentation.138

Indeed, in evaluating Tertullian’s apologetic writings, I propose a close consideration of the Apuleian corpus.139 Apuleius’ peculiar scheme in his Apology, where both forensic and epideictic elements are mixed, resonates in the style of writing and themes of Tertullian’s

Apologeticum.140 I shall endeavor to explore traces of Apuleian themes in this dissertation, especially in my chapter on paideia.

134 Fredouille (1992: 234). 135 Fredouille (1995: 202). 136 Fredouille (1992: 227). 137 Edwards, Goodman, Price and Rowland (1999: 1–2). 138 Cameron (2002: 219–227, esp. 221). On the question of the utility of an “apologetic genre” the editors of the Apologetics in the Roman empire (1999: 2) point out that classifying a text by genre and identifying the literary strategies used by the author are not incompatible: “Genre should not be seen as a mechanical recipe-book for the production of text, but rather as a discursive form capable of constructing a coherent model of the world in its own image. Genre is thus best seen as a way of talking about the strategies of writers (and readers) in different cultural traditions and particular contemporary situations.” 139 Very few scholars studied Tertullian’s debt to Apuleius. For a positive recognition of Apuleian influence, see Barnes (1985: 256–258). 140 See Harrison (2000: ch. 2). Apuleius’ desire to flaunt his learning and use recherché vocabulary even within a “judicial speech” is highlighted in his statement (Apol. 87): Cur praeterea tam vitiosis verbis, tam barbaro sermone ego scriberem...?

20 A juridical refutation of accusations has rich historical precedence. Fredouille traced the influence of Socratic apologetics in Cicero’s work Pro Sulla (69), where the aim of the judicial defense is not only meant to refute accusations, but also to take the initiative to highlight and promote the character and the way of life of the accused.141 One has to consider another North

African author, Lactantius, to find the first discussion on the meaning of “apologetics” in

Christian Latin.142 In his Divine Institutes, Lactantius presented three works, without classifying them under the “apologetic genre,” as his paradigms in the apologetic enterprise of the Divine

Institutes.143 These works include Tertullian’s Apologeticum, Minucius Felix’s Octavius, and

Cyprian’s Ad Demetrianum. Tertullian’s Apologeticum, addressed to the governor of Carthage, is a departure from the traditional judicial defense in the sense that the target audience was not just the judicial tribunal but also his readers through what Tertullian described as “occulta via tacitarum litterarum.”144 Minucius Felix’s Octavius adopted the format of a philosophical and religious dialogue among three friends. Cyprian’s Ad Demetrianum was a letter addressed to a non-Christian. Fredouille synthesized the influence of these three works into four elements that describes what “Christian apologetics” meant, at least in Lactantius’ interpretation.145 First,

Lactantius expanded the connotation of “apologetics” from a defense to include instruction and edification (un paradigme littéraire élargi).146 Second, Lactantius’ Institutes is more ambitious in

141 Pro Sylla 69: Iam enim faciam criminibus omnibus fere dissolutis, contra atque in ceteris causis fieri solet, ut nunc denique de vita hominis ac de moribus dicam. 142 Fredouille (1992: 228). 143 Inst. Div. 5.1.22–28; 5.4.3–7. Cf. Fredouille (1992: 228). Arnobius’ Adv. Nat., however, cannot be considered a Christian apology because the work aims to attack paganism rather than acting as a defence of Christianity. See Simmons (1995: 22). 144 Apol. 1.1. 145 Fredouille (1992: 228–229). 146 Inst. Div. 5.4.3: aliud est accusantibus respondere, quod in defensione aut negatione sola positum est, aliud instituere, quod nos facimus, in quo necesse est doctrinae totius substantiam contineri.

21 its scope (une finalité plus ambitieuse). It not only aimed to respond to accusations but also to present the entire Christian doctrine to both non-Christians and Christians. Third, apologetics became more of a disputatio wherein less scriptural citations were used and the arguments were geared more toward a philosophical and rational debate. Finally, more emphasis was placed on rhetorical skills. In fact, on account of the purity of his style, Jerome called Lactantius the “Christian Cicero.”147

A closer examination of the Apologeticum reveals that Tertullian used the same strategies and classical paradigms to compose his most elaborate apologetic work.148 The title liber Apologeticus was derived from Jerome (ep. 70.5.1): Quid Tertulliano eruditius, quid acutius? Apologeticus eius et contra gentes libri cunctam saeculi continent disciplinam.149

However, the manuscript tradition carries the neuter title Apologeticum.150 Determining the intended readership of the Apologeticum is difficult. Moreschini argued that the primitive

Christology in the Apologeticum pointed to a non-Christian readership.151 In an earlier study,

Becker had refuted Mohrmann’s conclusion that the Apologeticum was addressed chiefly to

Christian rather than “non-Christian” readers.152 Barnes maintains that a non-Christian target audience did not necessarily preclude a Christian audience who could learn from Tertullian how

147 Ep. 58.10. 148 Barnes (1985: 33–34) argues that the Apologeticum was written after Albinus’ defeat and while Severus was still hunting down the supporters of Albinus and Niger. Hence, the most plausible date of composition was the autumn of 197 A.D. On the influence of classical literature in Tertullian’s Apologeticum, aside from Fredouille (1972), see Barnes (1976: 3–20). 149 For example, Mayor (1917). 150 Georges (2011: 9–10). On the manuscript tradition of the Apologeticum and Adversus Nationes consult, Moreschini and Podolak (2006: 172–175 and 354, respectively). 151 Moreschini (2006: note 126, page 253). 152 See Becker (1954) and Mohrmann (1951). Tertullian notably used two different expressions to refer to the sacred day of Christians. In the Apologeticum (ch. 16) he spoke of the day of the sun (which would be familiar to pagans), while in his works addressed to Christians he used the term “day of the Lord” (Cor. Mil. 3.4; Idol. 14) and the expression “the day of the Lord’s resurrection” (Orat. 23.2).

22 to engage with a society inimical to them.153 Georges has developed Barnes’ argument further.154 Tertullian respected the sophistication and intelligence of the inhabitants of Roman society. The Apologeticum, Georges reasons, was written by Tertullian to lead the non-Christian members of his society to recognize the truth and value of Christianity (expolitos et ipsa urbanitate deceptos in agnitionem veritatis ocularet).155 The inclusion of non-Christian readership is adduced by the readers’ familiarity with Graeco-Roman cult, mythology, philosophy, and Roman imperial politics.156 Tertullian’s wide-ranging approach was instructive to Christians as well, providing them with a certain social perspective (an Umwelt) to interpret

Christianity’s relationship with the Roman society.157

Various themes explored by Tertullian in the Apologeticum were already present in his predecessors’ work, the Greek Christian apologists, especially Justin Martyr and Tatian.158 But

Moreschini points out the novelty of Tertullian’s apologetic oeuvre. Aside from being the first

Christian apologetics to be written in Latin, unlike his Greek predecessors who addressed their work to the emperors, Tertullian, instead, addressed the governor of Carthage.159 This originality will be reiterated later in his polemic against Scapula (Ad Scapulam, 212 A.D.), the proconsul of Africa.160 In this way, Tertullian demonstrates similar sentiment with Apuleius in

153 Barnes (1985: 110). 154 Georges (2011: 44–47). 155 Apol. 21.30. 156 Georges (2011: 45). See Apol. 9.10 (on pagan cult), 14.2-9 (on mythology), 48.1–15 (philosophy) and 35.1–13 (politics). 157 On this regard, Georges (2011) follows the argument of Dunn (2008: 40–3), proposing that Tertullian wrote for both an imaginary and intended audience. Zilling (2004) argues that the fictive tribunal in Tertullian’s apologetic writings helped to construct a rhetorical narrative aimed to console and affirm Christian communities under persecution. 158 Moreschini (2006: 162). On the patristic sources of Tertullian, see Georges (2011: 32-35). For various themes in Greek Christian apologetics, see Malingrey (1996). 159 Ibid. 160 Cf. Waszink (1959: 46–57).

23 his attachment to the city of Carthage. And, while Moreschini may have found the tone of the

Apologeticum too confrontational with the Roman society compared to the irenic approach of

Greek Christian apologists, especially Justin Martyr, its elaborate structure and argumentation produced a Christian apologetics sui generis.161

The argumentatio of the work is divided into a two–part structure: chapters seven to nine which talk about the occulta facinora lodged against the Christians (infanticide, cannibalism, and incest)162 and chapters ten to forty-five address the manifesta facinora, namely laesa religio (chapts. 10-27) and laesa maiestas (chapts. 28–45).163 Georges claims that

Tertullian laid the groundwork of the Apologeticum by discussing the veracity of “hidden crimes” (occulta facinora) to introduce the role of the demons who enslave the accusers’ minds against the Christians.164 Hence, the lengthy discussion on the “manifest crimes” (manifesta facinora) allows Tertullian to display his genius in forensic argumentation, contesting the truth about Christianity and at the same time illustrating the crippling effect of demonic influence on its accusers. Thus, the Apologeticum boasts of a double-layered argumentation: both legal and theological/philosophical. Indeed, the complex architecture of the Apologeticum led Braun to propose three main themes in the work: ἀπολογία, ἐπίδειξις and σύγκρισις.165 The last of the three showed the affinity of Tertullian with his predecessors, the Greek Christian apologists, where classical philosophy encounters and is compared with Christianity. Meanwhile, the role

161 Ibid. 163. 162 Apol. 7.1. 163 For the structure of the Apologeticum, see Becker (1992: 24); Waltzing and Severyns (2003: XXXIV–LI); Georges (2009: 35–48) 164 Georges (2009: 43–44). Cf. Apol. 7.12. 165 Braun (1992a: 127–134).

24 of ἐπίδειξις not only defends Christianity but also demonstrates its value as a positive component of society.

Tertullian’s other apologetic works substantiated the sophisticated strategies our author utilized in the Apologeticum. The Ad Nationes, which Fredouille considered to be one of

Tertullian’s triptyque apologétique,166 made Tertullian the first Christian apologist to write an opus dedicated to exposing the ignorance of Christian persecutors.167 Most modern scholars agree that the Ad Nationes served as Tertullian’s preparatory work in view of the more concise and organized Apologeticum.168 However, the merit of the two books of the Ad Nationes is the discussion of Christianity through the optic of philosophy, morality, and law. The highly epideictic tone of the Ad Nationes and the author’s insistence on the role of rhetoric in the service of truth become the hallmark of Tertullian in his later writings. The Ad Martyras, a work composed within a matter of months of the Ad Nationes and the Apologeticum, was occasioned by the arrest of a number of Christians in 197 A.D.169 In comparison to his subsequent

“apologetic” works, the Ad Nationes and the Apologeticum, the Ad Martyras is distinguishable

166 Fredouille (1972: 68). The other two are the Apologeticum and the De Testimonio animae. The work was written after the Ad Martyras and before the Apologeticum (Cf. Fredouille [1972: 69]). 167 Ibid. 87-88. The Ad Nationes survives in a single damaged manuscript (, Lat. 1622), which attests to the author with an almost illegible word TERTULIANI at the top of a damaged page. Jerome referred to the work as contra gentes libri (ep. 70.5). The title Ad Nationes, however, is attested in the manuscript comments and table of contents. Likewise, the work frequently used the word nationes instead of gentes. 168 Moreschini (2006: 350). See also Becker (1954: 58ff). For a synoptic comparison of the themes between the Ad Nationes and the Apologeticum, see Moreschini (2006: 348–351). 169 Internal evidence from Mart. (6.2: Nemo non etiam hominis causa pati potest … praesentia nobis tempora documenta sint) refers to the execution of the supporters of Clodius Albinus after Severus won the civil war on 19 February 197 A.D. Three works were written by Tertullian in that same year: The Ad Martyras, the Ad Nationes, and the Apologeticum. The Apologeticum was last to be written because the Ad Nationes served as its blueprint while various exempla from the Mart. reappear in the Apol. (Scaevola: [Mart. 4.4; Apol. 50.4] and Empedocles: [Mart. 4.5; Apol. 50.5]). The difficulty is the question of priority between the Ad Martyras and Ad Nationes. Scholarship is divided. Becker (1954: 351–352) and Moreschini (2006: 134–137) favour the priority of the former; while Barnes (1985:32–33; 52–53) and Braun (1978: 221–231) the latter. This issue is negligible in my research (given that the three works were composed in the same year). But for the sake of argument, I lean toward Moreschini’s hypothesis in support of literary continuity between the Ad Nationes and the Apologeticum.

25 by literary elements typical of consolatio and protreptic literature or exhortatio.170 Through the invocation and use of exemplary martyrs from the Greco-Roman tradition to fortify the resolve of Christians, Tertullian demonstrates his respect for the noble figures in Roman history and his desire to graft “pagan” virtues into Christian ethos. This conscious and circumspect attitude toward history is also shown in his address to Scapula (Ad Scapulam), almost fifteen years after he wrote the Apologeticum.171 While the work was coloured by a strong Montanist sentiment,172 Tertullian manifests unquestionable loyalty to imperial Rome. In fact, the work provides an important account of various governors of Africa who persecuted or tolerated

Christians. Scapula must look to the past, to the exemplary governors as models of governance.

Tertullian’s apologetic endeavour reached the height of literary creativity in his work the De

Testimonio Animae.173 Depicting an imaginary judicial tribunal, Tertullian called the soul as witness to the veracity of Christian faith. While the literary setting is judicial, the themes explored are philosophical. In fact, strong resonances with the Stoic theory of prolepsis emerge from Tertullian’s pen.174 Here, Tertullian anticipated St. Augustine’s argument on the ability of the soul to attain knowledge and wisdom (Contra Academicos) and the true worship of God (De vera religione). My brief survey of Tertullian’s apologetic undertaking demonstrates a sophisticated and innovative mind, which adopted various strategies to defend and articulate

Christian faith.

170 Moreschini (2006, 137–140). As well, Alfonsi (1954: 39–49) and Braun (1978: 221–242). 171 For the date of composition and argument, see Moreschini (2006: 579–581). 172 Moreschini (2006: 580). Likewise, Waszink (1959: 46–57); Heine (1989) and Micaelli (2002: 15–49). 173 Both Fredouille (1972: 487) and Barnes (1985: 55) dated the work around 198 A.D. Moreschini (2006: 471) placed the composition of the work toward the end of 197 A.D. or in early 198 A.D. 174 Tibeletti (1959–1960: 290–330).

26

VI. Identity as methodology and the processes of socio-cultural and political developments in Roman society

Despite its “modern connotation”, I employ “identity” as a heuristic tool to analyze how

Tertullian presented Christianity not only as reconcilable with Greco-Roman culture,175 but also to evaluate Christianity’s claim as an ethical option for ideal comportment in Roman society.176

Hence, there is a need to describe the term “identity” as a historical and sociological tool in interpreting both historical data and literary narratives.177 I shall, likewise, discuss various sociological theories utilized by modern scholars of the early Christian period in the conceptualization of individual and communal identities.

The word identity (identitas in Latin) did not exist in Classical Latin and was only introduced in the fourth century A.D.178 The context is theological in a letter by Eusebius of

Nicomedia.179 He used the term identitas to express the Greek concept ταὐτότης to describe

“sameness” in a theological dispute about the nature of the Trinity.180 In the modern era,

“identity” became a popular social-science catchword in the 1950s.181 The term was useful to locate one’s self within society or that which identifies a particular group within a pluralistic society. For this reason “identity” figured prominently in the discussion on particular

175 For example, see Tertullian Apol. 42. 2–3 and Nat. 1. 10.3. On the history of identity as a heuristic tool, see Gleason (1983: 910-931). For the modern usage of the term, see Niethammer (2000). 176 Apol. 39.1-21, also Ad Scapulam 2, 10. 177 The use of identity as a tool in interpreting literary and material evidence in the ancient world is a flourishing field in early Christianity. See for example, Frakes and DePalma Digeser (2006). Two other works, already cited above, stand out; although, I have some reservations because their use of the concept of identity lacks clarity. Cf. Lieu (2004) and Perkins (2009). 178 See Barlow (2004: 501–2). 179 Ibid., 501. 180 It is not my intention to discuss the theological disputes from the Council of Nicea to Chalcedon, but to point out that the term “identity” saw the light of day in a theological debate on the nature of God. 181 Cf. Gleason (1983).

27 uniqueness against the collective association, especially in the multi-ethnic reality of North

America.182 Yet, the concept remained ambiguous because, as Erikson points out, it describes

“a process located in the core of the individual but also in the core of his communal culture.”183

While Erikson emphasizes the element of interiority in the conceptualization of identity, that is the inner sameness and continuity of an individual,184 sociologists, on the other hand, view identity as a product of interaction between the individual and society. Hence, for sociologists, identity is something socially bestowed.185 This divergent opinion was mirrored in the discussion on ethnic identity, whether it is “something primordially given” or optionally cultivated.186 Anthropologists, however, combined psychological assumptions (the individual) and ethnographic observation (society) in studying how an individual’s identity is shaped by his or her socio-cultural milieu.187

The term identity, therefore, brings to the fore the relationship between an individual and society and what links these two elements.188 As a result, historians must be aware of three important considerations when using identity as a conceptual framework: first, a historical approach is necessary to clarify the ambiguity of the concept; second, identity denotes both psychological and sociological perspectives; and third, the term identity can be used in a variety of ways — to describe the individual or community and their contingent features such as

182 E.g. Vann Woodward (1958: 321-38) and Morton (1961). 183 Erikson (1959: 22); Erikson (1974). 184 Gleason (1983: 918). 185 Ibid., Likewise, Foote (1951: 14–21) and Berger (1963). 186 Gleason (1983: 919). 187 Ibid., 924. See Mead (1942). 188 This is a general statement that does not eschew various complementary and conflicting theories on identity. For the evolution of theories on identity, see Stets and Burke (2003: 128–152).

28 ethnic, cultural, and religious.189 These three factors take into perspective two variables in the construction of identity: the agency of the individual who enacts a particular role in community or society and the various social structures created and sustained by socio-political values and ideologies.190 All these demonstrate the complexity and relevance of using “identity” in interpreting artefacts and narratives about the past.

Classical studies have proposed various frameworks to explain socio-cultural change in the Roman world. Over a century ago, Mommsen and Haverfield suggested that intensive socio-cultural development was brought about by Roman expansion in the provinces, a phenomenon they conveniently called “romanization.”191 This phenomenon can be briefly summarized as the voluntary aspect of the natives to aspire for the benefits of the Roman civilization. Roman rule was, then, legitimized as it was considered to be beneficial, bringing civilization to the “savages.”192 The conquered and the subalterns acquired “Roman identity” when they learned and re-appropriated the Roman mos maiorum, the role of the emperor, and imperial ideologies such as pax, iustitia, and concordia. The patronizing role of Rome as the harbinger of peace and civilization193 was constantly reaffirmed and legitimized in various rituals and practices, such as the imperial cult and the cult of domus divinae.194

189 Gleason (1983: 930). 190 Cf. Stets and Burke (2000: 224–237). 191 See Haverfield (1923) and Mommsen (1909). 192 Haeussler (2013: 20–21). 193 Pliny, Nat. Hist. 3.5.39; , Agricola 21 and Aristides, To Rome 93.7. 194 Important evidence from this period is the Arch of Septimius found in Libya. See Ward-Perkins (1951: 226–231). We also have material evidence for the role of the imperial cult during the visit of the imperial family in 203 A.D. in (CIL VIII 2563) and even at the municipal level through the construction of a temple of Gens Septimia Aurelia in Cuicul (CIL VIII 8322 = AE 1913, 120). Cf. Fishwick (1986: 367–371).

29 Subsequent studies demonstrated the dangers of monolithic construction of cultures and identity.195 Already in his study of the “romanization” of Africa Proconsularis, published in

1929, Broughton contends that romanization failed to penetrate deeply into the cultural landscape of North Africa. The Romans were not successful in making Africa Roman.196 Indeed, archaeology, inscriptions, and other material evidence in Roman North Africa demonstrate the lack of uniformity and the diversity of situations in the region.197 At best, one can speak of a

“discrepant experience of Roman imperialism” to describe “the interplay of resistance and accommodation and the gradations of behaviour in between opposite reaction toward Roman rule.”198

For example, Le Bohec indicates that there were four types of pre-Roman writings that survived through the Roman occupation of Africa.199 Likewise, the “naturalist character” of

African religion persisted in the continued worship of high places, mountains, and caves like that of Bou Kornine in Tunis and the Genius Montis of .200 And while the grant of

Roman citizenship assured the inhabitants of an occupied territory the right to marry

(conubium), to make a testament (testamentum), to own properties (commercium), and to carry the tria nomina — a veritable sign of Roman influence —, indigenous elements survived this process. An inscription was found in Africa Proconsularis of a certain African elite with the

195 An outstanding representive of these studies is Mattingly (2011: esp. 203–245). 196 Cf. Broughton (1929). 197 The bibliography on this topic is vast, but in particular, I would like to point the reader to a collection of articles on Roman North Africa in Afrique du Nord Antique et Médiévale (1990). Likewise, Février (1982: 321–396). 198 Mattingly (2011: 166). Likewise, Monceaux and Frend pointed out that the opulence of Africa is a false image of a region deeply divided by uneven distribution of wealth. Cf. Monceaux (1901: 8) and Frend (1971: esp. chs. 2 and 3). 199 Le Bohec (2005:164) refers to the writings of the Masaesyles in Numidia, the Massyles from to Thurbusicu Bure, the Getulian in the area of to the west of Tacapae and Libyan. Likewise, Courtois (1950: 259-282). 200 Ibid., 165.

30 name of Publius Iddibalius Victorinus (CIL VIII, 12376).201 Another phenomenon widely attested by inscriptions was the conflation of the name of the ancient Punic office of sufet with the

Roman equivalent magistratus.202 African cities usually have two sufetes just like two Roman consuls at a given year. Evidence, like the above, leads one to question the advantages of using

“romanization” in evaluating North African society during the imperial period.

A parallel and comparable phenomenon in Gaul, likewise, has prompted Woolf to problematize “romanization” as a heuristic tool.203 For Woolf, cultural relativism offers the best working hypothesis.204 Furthermore, he reiterates that the transcultural interaction created a

“cosmopolitan or global repertoire” which in turn provided a common language for communicating identities and statuses all over the empire.205 This exclusive elite culture made the upper classes in the empire similar to each other and marginalized those without education in their communities.206 Hence, one can speak of a “trans-imperial elite identity.” The voluntary process of individuals from the provinces to adopt Roman culture and progress via the cursus honorum prompted Torelli to call this phenomenon auto-Romanizzazione or “self- romanization.”207 Even an individual of a humble origin could certainly, as Tacitus claims, access and become a part of the emperor’s circle (Dial. 8).

201 The nomen Iddibalius is a contraction of Adonibal ( is my Lord). Both Roman and Punic elements can be seen, likewise, in the name of C. Aurelius (H)annibal, a soldier of the III Legio Augusta. See BCTH (1917: 276, no. 9, 8). 202 See Belkahia and Di Vita-Èvrard (1995: 255–274). 203 Woolf (1998). On problematizing the concept of “romanization”in provinces, see Millet (1990). 204 Ibid., especially chapter 1. 205 Ibid., 54–60. 206 Ando (1990: 101–151). 207 See Torelli (1999). Haeussler (2013: 56–59) assumes that self-assimilation to what is “Roman” was not so much a collective phenomenon as it was a personal choice. For example, the successful liberti across the empire might have achieved both economic and social success yet continued to be betrayed by their original status, such as Trimalchio in Petronius’ Cena Trimalchionis (Satyricon 29.5; 30.1; 60.9).

31 But assimilating Roman identity can never be a static endeavour because identity was constantly negotiated in a globalized and competitive world. Examples are numerous: , according to Aulus Gellius, described himself as having three hearts because he knew three languages: Greek, Oscan, and Latin.208 Cicero speaks of two patriae, one by nature and the other by citizenship (Leg. 2.5). Apuleius offers an interesting case. Most probably his family was indigenous in origin.209 Yet, he learned letters, grammar, and rhetoric in Carthage (Flor. 18.15,

20.3) and in Athens he honed his skills in poetry, geometry, music, dialectic, and philosophy

(Flor. 20.4). Indeed, he was an ideal Roman citizen of provincial origin. Similar to Apuleius,

Tertullian was fluent in Greek and Latin, but he seldom refers to his provincial origin. Another polymath, Favorinus boasted that though a Gaul, he lived the life of a Hellene.210 The complex layering of various identities in an imperial province like Africa indicates that Roman and indigenous elements were not mutually exclusive. Severus, an African elite from Lepcis Magna, could, therefore, ascend to the imperial throne although he spoke Latin with a distinct African accent throughout his life.211

In his argument for the co-existence of Roman and native culture, Wallace-Hadrill alludes to the pattern of oscillation characterized as “code-switching.”212 This description underscores the freedom of individuals and communities to choose language and culture appropriate to diverse and constantly evolving social contexts. In his study of Christian burial and identity in Roman North Africa, Rebillard has reached the same conclusion. The choice of

208 Noctes Att. 17.17.1. Wallace-Hadrill (2008: 3) observes that what is so striking about the statement is not Ennius’ trilingual skill, but the fact that he felt that these languages represented hearts. 209 His family may have gained its name and citizenship from the gens Apuleia. See Harrison (2000: 4). 210 Philostratus, VS 23. 211 SHA, Sev. 19.9. 212 Wallace-Hadrill (2008: 13).

32 burial place had no major relevance for early Christians.213 Christianity was “only one of a plurality of identities available to be activated in a given situation.”214 This situation adumbrates architectural practices in North Africa, where Punic, Hellenistic, and Roman influences could be seen with regularity.215 Thus, there is danger of misinterpreting Tertullian’s rhetoric of the superiority of Christian heaven over temporal affairs associated with Rome216 without considering his optimism about the progress Roman civilization had brought into Africa (ubique domus, ubique populus, ubique respublica, ubique vita).217 In Tertullian’s apologetic works,

Rome did not represent the antithesis of Christianity.

Another term used by historians to evaluate and describe identity amidst social diversity and a “globalized experience” of the late second-century Roman North Africa is culture. Picard claims that Tertullian inherited the intellectual and cultural background of Apuleius.218 But what do we mean by culture? In Cicero, the Latin word cultura implies cultivation, such as cultura animi philosophia est (Tusc. 2.13). Culture, at least for Cicero, is what brought civilization to a wild and rustic way of life.219 From the standpoint of a cultural anthropologist, Geertz offers a working definition:

“Culture is an historically transmitted pattern of meanings embodied in symbols, a system of inherited conceptions expressed in symbolic forms by means of which men

213 Rebillard (2009). A common burial ground for Christians is alluded in a letter by Cyprian where he denounced Martialis, a Spanish bishop, for burying his son among the pagans (ep. 67.6.2). 214 Rebillard (2012: 92). On the relationship between Christianity and the Roman state during the Severan period, the work of Munier has yet to be surpassed. See Munier (1979). For the multiplicity of identities from a sociological point of view, see Stryker (2000: 21–40). 215 See Ward-Perkins (1994: 370–413). 216 Mart. 2.5: Nihil interest, ubi sitis in saeculo, qui extra saeculum estis. 217 An. 30.3. For example, Louth (2014: 109–119). 218 Picard (1990: 271). 219 Cicero, Or. 1:33: homines a fera agrestique vita ad humanum cultum civilemque deducere.

33 communicate, perpetuate and develop their knowledge about and attitudes toward life.”220 However, like identity, culture has various internal contradictions and regional variations.221

This is because culture is not only descriptive of individuals and communities but it also articulates what an individual is in relation to others. It is about proximities, as well as differences.222 Therefore, culture should be seen as a unity, which entails “a whole web of cultural models, symbols, discourses, ideologies, rules of conduct and religious understandings.”223

And thus, instead of thinking about a progressive and unilateral adoption of “Roman culture” we need to reexamine the idea of two or three cultures colliding in a colonial encounter and focus instead on the creativity of individuals and communities to reappropriate language, myths, history, and other cultural models.224 Indeed, the difficulty lies in the assumption that culture is unitary and that an individual has to choose between two cultures without considering that one can be Roman and African at the same time.225 The reality of this cultural bricolage and dynamism of cultural encounters gives credibility to Tertullian’s enquiry of why Christians were not considered Roman when Rome allowed various provinces to retain their own way of life and beliefs.226

However, unlike Greeks who vaunted cultural superiority through paideia (a rigorous formation in literature, music, and arts), Romans introduced the moral concept of humanitas,

220 Geertz (1973: 89). 221 Haeussler (2013: 24). 222 Wallace-Hadrill (2008: 28). 223 Haeussler (2013: 24). 224 Ibid. 225 Wallace-Hadrill (2008: 27). 226 Apol. 24.7–9.

34 which gained traction during the Ciceronian period.227 The concept involves gentleness of behaviour and cultivation of the intellect.228 Both the Latin theatre and Cicero contributed to the development of this moral concept. Terence, an African playwright, gives humanitas the meaning of benevolence (humani ingeni/ mansuetique animi officia),229 responsibility (hocinest humanum factu aut inceptu? hocinest patris?),230 moderation (vix humane patitur),231 and the famous synthesis of humanitas as a universal value applicable to everyone (homo sum: humani nihil a me alienum puto).232 For Cicero, humanitas requires otium for cultural and literary formation.233 Together with the cultivation of the intellect, the individual must undergo moral formation reflected in Cicero’s De officiis: intellegitur, quod verum, simplex sincerumque sit, id esse naturae hominis aptimissimum.234 Humanitas, therefore, involves both studia and mores.

This formation is summed up in the Roman conceptualization of mos maiorum, which includes not only ethics and aristocratic values but also the very art of living drawn from Rome’s ancient customs, including technical skills.235

227 See Schadewaldt (1973: 43–62). Jaeger’s identification of humanitas with Greek paideia was convincingly refuted by a subsequent study on the subject. Cf. Jaeger (1934); For a critique of Jaeger, see Haffner (1956: 287– 304, esp. 292). 228 Wallace-Hadrill (2008: 34–35). Like identity and culture, the term humanitas is difficult to define. Woolf (1998, 55) argues that the word is loaded with significations pointing to the Roman concepts of religio, fides, and mores and the Greek philanthrophia and paidea. Hence, humanitas “thus distinguised an elite as cultivated, enlightened, humane and so fitted to rule and lead by example, but it also encapsulated a set of ideals to which all men might aspire.” 229 Andria 113f. 230 Ibid. 236. 231 Adelphoe 143. 232 Heautontimorumenos 77. 233 De Orat. 1. 35; 1. 71; 1. 256. See Boyance (1970). 234 De officiis 1. 13. 235 The importance of tradition in the formation of an ideal Roman individual can be gleaned in Cicero’s declaration (Rep. 5.1): moribus antiquis res stat Romana virisque. See Marrou (1956: 312).

35 Picard, in his study of Roman–African civilization, emphasized the importance of humanism drawn from “Roman” literature and reappropriated by the Africans.236 To cite some of the evidence surrounding this cultural phenomenon, a mosaic of Virgil writing the Aeneid and flanked by two muses, Clio and Melpomene, was discovered in .237 It is conceivable that for the artist, Virgil represents a link between Rome and Africa, just as the character of Aeneas will always be inextricably associated with Dido. The pietas of Aeneas and the literary skill of Virgil formed a part of the Roman ideals the North Africans strived to emulate. Likewise, Platonism provided to the North African elites concepts in their cultural and ethical pursuits. Apuleius’ myth of Eros and Psyche testifies to the cultured taste of his readers.238

Tertullian’s use of humanitas and its cognates illustrates his understanding of the concept as intrinsic to humanity and nurtured by education and moral upbringing. In the Ad

Nationes, Tertullian employed the term humanitas to refer to the knowledge and techne of the

Platonists in their supposition that the world was created by some divine being.239 It, likewise, refers to the benevolence of the Romans in divinizing mortal men.240 Moreover, reminiscent of

Terence’s description of humanitas above, Tertullian reminded Scapula, the governor of Africa, to practice lenience when judging the case of the Christians.241 In his polemic against Marcion,

Tertullian used again the term humanitas to signify the munificence of releasing slaves after

236 Picard (1990: 261–266) called this phenomenon la mystique de l’humanisme. 237 Foucher (1960: n.57, 104). 238 Cf. Apuleius’ Metamorphoses 4.28-6.24. See Kenney (1990). A mosaic found in Byrsa carries the popular Neoplatonic maxim: Omnia dei sunt, agimur non agimus. Cf. Picard (1990: 264). 239 Nat. 2.3.4. 240 Ibid. 2.13.8. 241 Scap. 4.1: Potes et officio iurisdictionis tuae fungi et humanitatis meminisse, vel quia et vos sub gladio estis.

36 seven years of service.242 For, indeed, how can we justify kindness toward animals when we cannot practice kindness (humanitas) toward our fellow human beings?243 For Tertullian, the possession of humanitas was comparable to human sense perceptions.244 Hence, Tertullian’s accusation that those who engaged in lost humanitas along with other traditional

Roman virtues, such as modestia, patientia, and gravitas, and he caricatured the non-Christians as not only betraying their Roman values but also being bereft of cognitive ability.245 By contrast, Christian faith did not supplant one’s humanitas but both together constituted the ideal beatus vir.246

My use of the term “identity” invokes a contextual approach to the complex socio- cultural processes during the imperial period. Foremost among these socio-cultural processes is the importance of the notion of culture, which distinguishes the elite litterati from the lower class of society.247 For, while culture creates boundaries, it also gives access to groups below and outside the elite to re-appropriate paideia and humanitas and establish a redefined and reconstituted elite. One of the remarkable hallmarks of the Roman Empire is that “the power system was constantly permeable to the energy of new elites from the peripheries.”248 This must have been one of the social experiences of Christians during the time of Tertullian. His ambivalence toward Greco-Roman culture can be attributed to this socio-cultural dynamic:

242 Marc. 2.17.4. 243 Ibid. 244 An. 46.3: Quis autem tam extraneus humanitatis, ut non aliquam aliquando visionem fidelem senserit? In Marc. (2.27.3) Tertullian argues that the passions of Christ demonstrated his humanity. 245 Idol. 14.4. 246Pud.6.4: Manet lex tota pietatis sanctitatis humanitatis veritatis castitatis iustitiae misericordiae benevolentiae pudicitiae. In qua lege beatus vir qui meditabitur die ac nocte. 247 On the typical social hierarchy in Roman North Africa, see Le Bohec (2005: 155–163). 248 Cf. Wallace-Hadrill (2008: 36). The same author (2008: 10) argued for the “dialectic of appropriation by which cultural goods and traits of the conquering power are taken on by the conquered to serve specific ends, and one may add reciprocally the process whereby the conquering power takes over traits from the conquered to accommodate conquest.”

37 while he prohibited Christians from teaching Graeco-Roman literature, he insisted that

Christians must be proficient in it (Idol. 10). Such subtle negotiations between the demands of faith and social obligations painted Christians as desirous of being integrated into the life of their civic communities.249

We need to inquire, therefore, whether modern studies on ‘identity’ in Roman North

Africa and Tertullian consider these persistent subtleties and daily realities of what is meant to be a Roman and/or Christian in second–century North Africa. In 2007, a colloquium on

“provincial identity in North Africa” was held at the University of Caen under the direction of the two leading scholars of Roman North Africa, Claude Briand-Ponsart and the late Yves

Modéran.250 The latter proposed two approaches to using the concept of ‘identity’: objective identity (l’identité objective) and subjective identity (l’identité subjective/vécue). The first follows the “traditional approach” whereby an observer distinguishes a community or region based on their original or specific traits; the second, a “more modern approach,” is a product of the social consciousness or mentality of the individuals that forms the community or region.251

Likewise, Rives, the first among anglophone scholars to write about religious identity in Roman

North Africa, assumed that religious identity has both collective (reinforcement of a collective identity within a group) and social forms (identity viewed from the perspective of the individual): i.e., “the integration of the individual into group” and “the individual adherence to a particular group.”252

249 Tertullian likewise wrote a treatise against participation in holidays and public festivals, as these were tainted by idolatry (cf. Spect. and Idol. 13–14). But he considered the importance of attending marriages and name-giving ceremonies, even if there was always the danger of idolatry, due to social duty (Idol. 16). Cf. Stroumsa (1998). 250 Briand-Ponsart and Modéran (2011). 251 Modéran (2011: 9–40, esp. 15–23). 252 Rives (2001: 3–4).

38 But the use of the term identity by scholars as diverse in their methodological outlook as

Modéran and Rives raises an important question: Can one speak of a homogenous identity in third–century Roman North Africa, especially in urban centers like Carthage? Indeed, it is difficult to ascertain what was truly Roman from what was indigenous. In fact, what do we mean by the designation “African” or “Afri”? The terms Africus and Africanus are attested as early as the mid-first century BC,253 and “Africa” as a province is mentioned in the Lex Agraria of

111 B.C.254

Both Apuleius and Tertullian, however, shied away from using the term “African” to refer to themselves. “Africa” was merely a geographical name to designate the Roman proconsular province. Interestingly, Apuleius used the word “African” to denigrate his accuser

Aemilianus (Apol. 66). Meanwhile, Tertullian used the same word as a geographical reference and not for self-identification (Nat. 2.8.5; Scorp. 6.2 and 7.6).255 Apuleius jokingly asserted that he was half Numidian and half Gaetulian.256 He, then, reminded his readers that one must not be judged on account of his origin but his disposition—not where but how one lives.257 Indeed, terms such as “African” could be manipulated as part of the language-game.

In fact, the putative literary style distinctively African, known as Africitas, continues to generate debate among scholars.258 Lancel expertly contested this claim by pointing out instead

253 The playwright Terentius received the cognomen Afer although he never referred to anyone as “African” or the place “Africa.” Likewise, Publius Cornelius Scipio took on the cognomen Africanus in honor of his victory over Carthage in 201 B.C. Shaw (2014: 528) maintains that this was the earliest evidence for the usage of the term. 254 CIL I2 585, chs. 52. 60. 86. 255 Shaw (2014: 530). 256Apol. 24. 257 Ibid. For example, Apuleius decided to end his Metamorphoses in Rome rather than in Carthage. Rome did not represent a sort of “metropolitan parochialism.” Its values had universal significance throughout the empire. Cf. Graverini (2012: 183–5). 258 The purported African literary style includes preference for superlatives, pleonasms, neologisms, and rhythmical cursus. The term Africitas was coined in the first half of the sixteenth century by the Spanish humanist Juan Luis

39 to the vigour of rhetorical schools in Africa.259 This is attested in Hoppe’s analysis of Tertullian’s

Latin vocabulary, which found an astonishing 982 new lexical formulations (509 nouns, 284 adjectives, 28 adverbs, and 161 verbs).260 Taking one’s lead from Apuleius, one could argue that the how of living does not exist in a vacuum but is formed and molded in the cultural and religious cocoon of a community or a society. Moreover, how can one explain why an individual would choose a particular identity when his multiple identities come into conflict? When a

Christian confesses Christianus sum, as in the case of Scillitan martyrs, was the statement a rejection of his other identities or a declaration of the primary understanding of his individuality informed by religious beliefs and perhaps by cultural and ethical formation?

Tertullian blames the profession of being a Christian as the source of biases and accusations against his faith.261 This argument recalls Pliny’s account to Trajan that Christians were punished not because of any crimes but because of the “presumed” offenses attached to the name.262 For Tertullian, Christians were victims of mistaken assumptions about their identity. Furthermore, the timbre of the period characterized by political and social unrest in the wake of the civil war that ushered Severus to the imperial throne did not help Christians’ cause. Tertullian’s task was to demonstrate that Christianity is not a threat to the state. In this regard, Tertullian, argues that Christianity is not a “third genus” (Nat. 1. 8.1–13) — for it has no

Vives in his book De tradendis disciplinis. The notion of a local variant of Latin in Africa was popularized in a study by Sittl (1882). For further reading on the topic, see Conybeare (2015: 111–130). 259 See Lancel (1985: 161–82). The issue however was again revived in Adams (2007). 260 Hoppe (1932: 132–149). 261 Nat. 1.3.1: iam apparet omne in nos crimen non alicuius sceleris, sed nominis dirigi. Likewise, Apol. 2.3…sed illum solum expectatur quod odio publico necessarium est, confessio nominis, non examinatio criminis. 262 Pliny ep. 10.96. Barnes (1968: 32–-50) convincingly argued that there was no legislation against professing the name of Christians until the time of Emperor Decius.

40 cultural or ethnic boundaries.263 Tertullian’s argument marks an important shift from Greek

Christian apologetics, where ethnicity serves as an important rhetorical trope.264 Christianity is common to all just as all human souls come from one divine creator (O testimonium animae naturaliter Christianae!).265 If identity is a social construct, Tertullian presents Christian identity as an intellectual and ethical option for a society geared in building a humane civilization. In other words, for Tertullian, Christianity offers a better understanding of what is to become human (Homo est enim et Christianus, et quod et tu).266

In the remainder of my dissertation, I examine Tertullian’s various apologetic strategies.

The next chapter surveys Tertullian’s reappropriation of Classical paideia aimed to enhance the reputation of Christians, create media for dialogue, and engage the intellectual and cultural current of his time. The chapter on individuality locates the genesis of Christian conversion in the individual’s adherence to conscience and truth. This philosophical quest provides the individual “philosophical tools” or “spiritual exercises” to manage inner life and conquer or navigate through a demon-infested society. Next, contrary to the claim of Guignebert and subsequent scholarships, Tertullian, at least in his apologetic writings, laboured to reconcile

Christianity with its socio-political context.267 This is the topic of Chapter Four. I shall examine the role of Roman exempla and cultural memory in Tertullian’s apologetic writing. Another source of the alienation of Christians from Roman society is emperor worship. Tertullian’s

263 The concept of ethnic identity is problematic and eludes straight-forward definition being discursively constructed. More so, it is reliant on the fluctuating combinations of “common factors, such as shared land, descent, language, customs, religion, name, and history.” Cf. Wallace-Hadrill (2008: 9). On ethnic identity as a constructed discourse, see Hall (2000: 2). On the use of ethnicity in Christian rhetoric of identity, see Buell (2005). 264 For example, Aristides, Apol. 2 and Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 6.5.41. Cf. Lieu (2004: esp. ch. 8). 265 Apol. 17.6 266 Ibid., 8.5. Likewise, Minucius Felix argued that a Christian individual was an ideal Roman: vir eximius et sanctus (Octavius 1,3). 267 See pages 1-3.

41 treatment and innovation of the mechanics of imperial ideology will likewise be described. The last chapter will discuss Tertullian’s definition of Christianity as vera religio (Apol. 35.1). There are two major themes in Tertullian’s apologetic writing that I shall consider. First, is his rhetoric of libertas religionis where individual claim to freedom serves as the foundation for true faith.

Coercion toward emperor worship exemplifies the opposite. Second, Tertullian substantiates his claim of Christianity as the vera religio through its ability to “divinize” the individual.

However, unlike the non-Christian holy men, like Apollonius of Tyana, Tertullian proposes instead a “sequela Christi”. The egocentric philosophical quest of traditional philosophy is answered by Tertullian’s theocentric description of a holy individual.

42 Chapter Two

Paideia

Tertulliano quid eruditius? Quid acutius? Jerome (ep. LXX.2)

I. Introduction

The second and early third centuries A.D. have been described as the age of ambition,268 as the elites used to bid with each other for social status and reputation.269 Writers of this period were influenced by the literary phenomenon known as the Second Sophistic, where individual and communal identities were “constructed and vied for in social space.”270 This cultural phenomenon likewise accentuated the importance of eleutheria and parrhesia in the public sphere.271 Paideia offers various strategies for self-making and self-promotion with the view of empowering the individual or community. For example, literary production served as an important tool of constructing, reifying and articulating political, economic and religious identities.272 Perkins, for instance, sees in Christian martyr texts a similar preoccupation to

Aristides’ Sacred Discourses when they talk about the significance of bodily suffering.273 In these texts, the suffering body offered an important topic for literary production and became a prime site of ideological and cultural conflict.

268 Brown (1978: passim). 269 The rise of North Africa as an economic power in the second century spurred the rise of the local elites, the dynamic municipal life, and literary development. See for example, Gascou (1972); Le Bohec (1990: 291–313); Lepelley (1990: 403–421). 270 Cf. Whitmarsh (2001: 295). I shall briefly describe the cultural phenomenon called the Second Sophistic movement further in this chapter. 271 Ibid., 142. 272 The bibliography on identity and the second sophistic movement is vast. The following are mere representative of this flourishing field: Bowersock (1969); Bowie (1970: 3–41); Sirago (1989: 36–78); Anderson (1993); Gleason (1995); Swain (1996); Korenjak (2000); Goldhill (2001); Borg (2004); Whitmarsh (2005); Eshleman (2012). 273 Perkins (1995: esp. 173–89).

43 Past scholarship of Tertullian attempted to contextualize his literary production within this literary setting with varying and often contrasting conclusions. To give a broad picture of the diversity of opinion, Norden, more than a century ago, pointed out that although Tertullian was the most difficult author to read in the whole of Latin literature, his skill as a writer clearly represented the Sophistic tradition.274 Similarly, Lortz’s examination of the Apologeticum described Tertullian’s writing skill as influenced by the literary techniques of the sophistic period.275 On the other hand, Labhardt, in his study of Tertullian and philosophy, argued that traditional philosophy, sophistic, or rhetoric cannot be reconciled with Christian faith. Hence,

Christianity and Classical culture are incompatible.276 Similarly, another author saw total opposition in Tertullian’s attitude to secular values.277

Three important studies in the 1970’s strengthened the argument of scholarship for

Tertullian’s indebtedness to Greco-Roman culture. First, Sider convincingly argued that

Tertullian’s rhetorical technique followed the classical model in matters of style, structure, and method of argumentation.278 He, likewise, claims that Tertullian tried to “rewrite pagan themes from a Christian perspective.”279 In the same vein, Fredouille demonstrated that Christian faith, for Tertullian, did not negate classical culture but brought about its development. Classical

274 See Norden (1915: 606–615) and Moreschini (1999: 197–206). Quacquarelli’s study of Tertullian’s use of rhetorical figures demonstrates the apologist’s debt to classical literature, likewise his novelty in fashioning a distinctive Christian Latin, especially in creating Latin theological terminologies. See Quacquarelli (1957); (1963). Another scholar called Tertullian an “inventor of new theological terminology.” See Morgan (1928: 53). 275 Lortz (1927). For studies that accentuate positive influence of Classical paideia on early Christian literature, see Pernot (2002); Lechner (2011); and Pietzner (2013). Steiner’s book (1989) reaffirms the works of Fredouille (1972) and Barnes (1985), but he does not provide a detailed description of Tertullian’s reappropriation of Classical paideia. 276 Labhardt (1950: 159–180). 277 Cochrane (1940: 227). 278 Sider (1971). 279 Ibid., 130.

44 discipline eventually leads to Christian faith.280 Lastly, a chapter in Barnes’ work offers a broad literary survey of Tertullian’s work and recognized him as a Christian sophist.281

But the debate is far from over. Although more recent scholarship has investigated the links between early Christian apologetics and the culture of the so-called Second Sophistic, contemporary scholars continue to disavow the relationship between Tertullian and the sophistic movement. Dunn, for example, argues that there is little similarity between Tertullian and his fellow North African writers of the second century, notably Apuleius and Fronto.282

Why revisit the knotty issue of Tertullian and paideia? Why add another voice to the ongoing debate among scholars concerning the apologetic writings of Tertullian and the Second

Sophistic movement? The issue is at the heart of Tertullian’s apologetic writing and will be discussed in this chapter. A positive public opinion of Christian faith depends upon the success of Christian apologetics in wielding the accoutrements of paideia. While the question of the genre of apologetic writing in the ancient world is far from neatly defined,283 Tertullian states that his objective is to clear the name of Christians against false accusations (nomen in causa est).284 Sophistic erudition offered tools to achieve this purpose. The contribution of Tertullian lies in his vision of clothing Christian identity with sophistic garment. To the non-Christian readers of Tertullian, Christianity might be seen as a novelty yet credible because of its proximity to the best of classical culture. This strategy aimed to catch the attention of the

280 Fredouille (1972: 485): la conversion religieuse de Tertullien n’impliquait pas le reniement de son passé. Elle était vécue par lui, moins comme une metanoia que comme une prokope – ou, plutôt, comme une metanoia qui ne cessait pas d’être une prokope. 281 Barnes (1985: 211–232). 282 See Dunn (2008: esp. 34–36). For a similar opinion, see Goldhill (2001: 181–184) and Schwartz (2001: 337). 283 On the question of genre of apologetic writings, see pages 19 - 27. 284 Nat. 1.3.1. The accusation lodged against the Christian name provided Tertullian an opportunity to articulate Christian identity. On the rhetorical and linguistic analysis of the accusation of the Christian name, see Chapot (2009: 264–281).

45 cultured elites reflective of Apuleius’ achievement. Foremost among the characteristics of

Tertullian’s retorica cristiana are veritas and brevitas, both meant to persuade his readers.285

In addition, as I shall demonstrate in this chapter, Tertullian’s familiarity with the cultural canons of the elite allowed him to deploy historical exempla, moralizing anecdotes, a discriminatory use of language, and several other techniques as effective means of persuasion.286 Paidea offered a common ground — a linguistic capital familiar to the elite — which served as a communicative device for Tertullian to articulate Christian identity and establish proximities as well as differences with Roman North African society. Tertullian was cognizant that Christianity’s future depended on the employment of the classical past, not only in presenting itself as the custodian and interpreter of Rome’s history, but also as a participant in Roman cultural evolution, that is, a προκοπή of the classical past.287

II. The Second Sophistic Movement and the role of Paideia in Tertullian’s apologetic writings

Before discussing Tertullian’s use of sophistic techniques in his articulation of Christian identity, it is important to describe what the word “sophist” meant and to further define the so- called Second Sophistic movement.288 The proximity between Roman culture and identity in the

285 Fredouille (1972: 29–35). Certainly, the importance of veritas finds resonance in Apuleius’ platonizing distinction of the objectives of rhetoric, between disciplina contemplatrix bonorum from what is an adulandi scientia which he calls captatrix verisimilium (cf. De Platone 2.8). Meanwhile brevitas (συντομία) was an important rhetorical device in Seneca (ep. 38.2; 59.5) and Marcus Aurelius (Med. 4.51) among others. 286 On the role of the rhetoric of persuasion in early Christian literature, see Arnal (2005: 27–47). 287 See Fredouille (1972: 481–485). 288 To my knowledge, the first Anglophone monograph on the Second Sophistic Movement and is the work of Brent (2006). However, he does not provide a definition of the Second Sophistic Movement.

46 public sphere begs this clarification.289 There is a need to establish the role of a “sophist” during the imperial period and the literary tools offered by the Second Sophistic movement.

Modern scholarship highlights the difficulty in defining the term Second Sophistic.290

Philostratus coined the term ‘Second Sophistic’291 to refer to a literary phenomenon characteristic of imperial Greece which reached its peak in the second and third centuries

A.D.292 For Philostratus, however, the term sophist was fluid and artificial and could refer to expertise in rhetoric, philosophy, and other sciences.293

Scholarship on this literary phenomenon offers two contrasting perspectives. Bowersock argues for the important role of the sophists as mediators between the provincial cities and

Rome.294 Bowie and Swain, on the other hand, maintain that sophistry was a response to

Roman occupation whereby Greek identity was preserved through the Hellenic past.295

However, both schools of thought affirmed the historical fact that Greece was a conquered land. The Second Sophistic was a response to this historical condition. Greece and “Greekness” or Greek identity continued to exist in the realm of literary imagination. In this respect, Rome failed to conquer Greece, at least culturally.296 But since Greek identity had to be constructed and articulated, “Greekness” or Greek identity became “a locus of conflict between various

289 In a landmark study on Apuleius and paideia, Riess (2008: X) suggests that paideia was not just a literary phenomenon, but also an indispensable tool in identity construction within the competitive and culturally conservative climate of the second century. 290 For example, see Anderson (1993); Schmitz (2011: 304–316); Whitmarsh (2005: 4–5). 291 VS 481; 507. 292 Whitmarsh (2005: 5); (2001: 41–45). 293 See Anderson (1993:16). Whitmarsh (2005:8–10) argues that the term second sophistic was simply Philostratus’ description of the form of display oratory by the fourth century B.C. orator, Aeschines. However, it reached its peak in the second and third centuries A.D. 294 Bowersock (1969). 295 See Bowie (1974: 166–209); Swain (1996). 296 Hence, the famous line from Horace (ep. 11.1): Graecia capta ferum victorem cepit.

47 definitions of what consists to being Greek.”297 Hence, paideia served as an ideological battleground on proper comportment and way of life (a combination of manliness, elitism and

“Greekness”).298 This is the reason why writers during this period, Philostratus and Cassius Dio, to name but two, excavated and used the Greek past to establish individual power in the present.299 Philostratus recorded the lives of the sophists — starting from the reign of Nero — who vied for influence to become the political and cultural leaders of the elites in the Greek

East. Paideia was a cultural capital that empowered an individual who wielded it with skill.300

The end product was not only material gain, but also the establishment of strong elite networks and social prestige.

The Second Sophistic had a strong influence on Latin writers, specifically in the first and second century of the common era.301 I shall focus largely on Apuleius whose historical and cultural milieu is no different from that of Tertullian.302 Although, Apuleius’ name was not included in the list of sophists in Philostratus’ Lives of the Sophists, his antiquarian interests, his philosophical eloquence, and his linguistic skills makes him tout court a Latin sophist.303

Carthage was already an important cultural center in the second century A.D.304

Apuleius boasted of his educated audience in Carthage (Flor. 18.1–2) and of the grandeur of the senate house and the library (Flor. 18. 8–9). The Roman theater at Carthage, where Apuleius

297 Whitmarsh (2001: 26–29). 298 Ibid. 90-130. Apollonius of Tyana, for example, declares that what made Greeks Greeks were “particular customs, laws, language and way of life (Philostratus ep. 71).” On the relationship between paideia and religion, see Marrou (1964: 137–146). 299 Swain (1996: esp. chs. 12 and 13). 300 Bourdieu (1993) called “capital” the stakes in social struggle. It comes in different forms — social, symbolic, cultural, and economic. Cf. Calhoun (2011: 361–394, esp. 379–384). 301 See Harrison (2000); Sandy (1997); and Champlin (1980). 302 One of the glaring lacunas in the scholarship of Tertullian is a study of the historical, literary, and cultural connection with his fellow African Apuleius. There is however a brief article by Ramelli (2013: 145–173). 303 See Bradley (2005: 1–3). On the meaning of the term “Latin sophist,” see Sandy (1997: esp. ch. 1). 304 Sandy (1997: 16–20); Le Bohec (2005: ch. 6); Lancel (1995), and Gros (2000: 534–544).

48 must have performed, had an estimated seating capacity of 11,000.305 The Byrsa, an elevated summit of around 30,000 square meters, formed the heart of Carthage. During the time of

Tertullian, its unmistakable Roman features included a colonnade and , a tabularium, a circus, an amphitheatre, and two grand temples, perhaps a Capitolium and the other intended for the imperial cult.306 The transformation of this acropolis of the old Punic city testifies to the vibrant culture and civilization of Carthage during the imperial age.

While Carthage could not compete with Rome or Athens as centers for classical education, big cities in North Africa, at the time of Tertullian, could claim a number of academic institutions.307 Apuleius and Tertullian, in their tender years, were initially schooled in

Carthage.308 Thus, Apuleius declared: “Carthage, the respected teacher of our province;

Carthage, the heavenly Muse of Africa; Carthage, the inspiration of those who wear the toga

(Flor. 20.10).” This period likewise witnessed African litterati making their mark among the intellectual elite of the empire. These included, Annaeus Cornutus from Lepcis, the teacher of

Lucan and Persius, and Sulpicius Apollinaris from Carthage, who instructed Aulus Gellius and the emperor Pertinax. Two Africans taught Marcus Aurelius: Fronto and Tuticius Proculus of

Sicca Veneria.310

Like many sophists and pepadeumenoi of the Greek East, the African litterati enjoyed the benefits of the Roman Empire, such as the spread and promotion of learning (e.g. the Greek and Latin languages, literature and philosophy). But, although Latin writers shared the same

305 Bradley (2005: 9). See Picard and Baillon (1990:11–27); and Ros (1996: 449–489). 306 Cf. Bradley (2005: 10–11); Le Bohec (2005: 116–118); Gros (1985); (1997: 341–350); (2000: 534–544). 307 See Vössing (1997). On the intellectual life of Roman North Africa, see Le Glay (1960: 485–491); Thieling (1964); Picard (1990: 251–271); Vössing 1996: 127–154); Le Bohec (2005: 155–178). 308 Vössing (1997: 690). 310 Champlin (1980: esp. ch. 1). On the elite culture in Roman North Africa, see Lassère (1990: 49–61).

49 socio-cultural atmosphere of the imperial period with their Greek counterparts, they lacked the ideological agenda of nostalgia or the assertion of a superior culture that characterized Greek sophists. In fact, Apuleius and Tertullian were both utraque lingua eruditi (skilled in Latin and

Greek) and both belonged to the mainstream of Latin culture.311

But what is the value of paideia and the accumulation of encyclopedic knowledge of the past for the Latin writers of this period? A recent study has suggested that the notion of paideia in the Latin world is under-researched.312 The same study, however, informs us that although the quest for “cultural identity” was not the primary motivation for the Latin practitioners of sophistic techniques, yet constructing identity through a display of paideia was nevertheless one of their primary aims.313 The construction of identity lies at the heart of Apuleius’ works, notably the Apology, the Golden Ass and Florida.314 The Greek East saw a parallel development in the Latin world, whereby education and rhetorical skills facilitated individuals to climb the political ladder. Such was the case of the orator Fronto from , a tutor to Marcus Aurelius, who became suffect consul in 142 A.D. Indeed, owing to his popularity, Apuleius was honored with a prestigious position as sacerdos of the imperial cult of his province (Flor. 16).315

Apuleius’ status as a star performer, his aggressive self-promotion, and the establishment of a cult of his own personality, and most importantly his encyclopedic

311 Harrison (2000:3) presents a convincing argument for the fundamental Roman cultural identity of Apuleius. In the same vein, Picard (1990: 255) maintains that: la culture africaine est donc entièrement classique et latine. Likewise, Kotula (1969: 240–255). 312 Riess (2008: XI). 313 Ibid. 314 See Graverini (2007). While problematizing the term “identity” as vague and difficult to define, Stone (2014: 154–157), in his reading of Apuleius, advocates instead the use of the term “identification” because of its connotation as an active process. 315 Rives (1994: 273–290) maintains, however, that Apuleius was conferred the priesthood of Aesculapius instead of sacerdotium provinciae. In contrast, Harrison (2000: 8, note 30) gives credence to Augustine’s testimony (ep. 138.19) and the fact that other sophists in the Greek East were honored with provincial priesthood, like Favorinus (Philostratus, VS 1.8.490), Scopelian (VS 1.21.515) and Heraclides the Lycian (VS 2.26.613).

50 knowledge together paint a picture of an urbane, sophisticated individual who commanded the attention of the city where he operated.316 Likewise, his deliberate construction of amicitia between himself and the presiding magistrate (in the Apologia), the proconsul Claudius

Maximus, through flattery and shared interests in literary and philosophical topics created a cultural barrier between his learned circle and the ignorance and rusticity of his accusers.317

Apuleius wielded captatio benevolentiae with much relish. Finally, Apuleius’ Metamorphoses demonstrated the symbiotic relationship, or rather interaction, between literary production and religious practices.318 His discourse on religion provides a creative narrative about how religious beliefs and practices impacted culture and vice versa. It has been suggested that

Apuleius’ penchant to talk about daimones, something Fronto and Aulus Gellius ignored, solidified his appeal as philosophus platonicus, since the daimon-theory belonged to the province of Platonism.319 Apuleius was aware that talking about this particular feature of

Hellenistic philosophy and religion strengthened his appeal as an intellectual. But it likewise tells us something about the sentiments of his audience who considered listening to such discourses as an opportunity for cultural enhancement.320 I shall return to the topic of demonology in Chapter Three, where, as I shall demonstrate, its popularity offered a conventional background for Tertullian’s discussion of Christian meditatio.

316 Harrison (2000: 38). 317 Claudius Maximus was consul in 142 A.D. and proconsul in 158-9 A.D. Apuleius’ appeal to the great learning of Maximus was not without basis. He was one of the teachers of Marcus Aurelius (Med. 1.17.5). 318 Bradley (1997: 203–223). 319 On Apuleius and Platonic theology, see Mortley (1972: 584–590); Portogalli (1963: 227–241); Brenk (1986: 2068–2145); Regen (1971); Moreschini (1978). On middle Platonism during the imperial period, see Dillon (1996). Finamore (2006: 33–48) argues that Apuleius was an independent Platonic philosopher with his unique personal Middle Platonic reading of Plato. 320 Florida 9, for example, describes the high standard of Apuleius’ audience. Cf. Sandy (1997: 42–91); O’ Brien (1991: 39–50).

51 Tertullian never called himself a sophist. This is likewise true with Apuleius, although he prided himself as a philosophus platonicus (Apol. 10.6).321 While Barnes, as I have mentioned earlier, called Tertullian a “Christian sophist,” he only employed the term sophist to demonstrate some aspects of sophistic techniques used by Tertullian, namely the use of encomium or vituperation, defamation, and techniques of slander.322

The word sophist usually had a negative connotation among the Greek apologists in the early Church. It means false wisdom in Tatian (Orat. ad Graecos 25), or a pejorative term used to refer to the Gnostics (Iraenaeus, Adv. Haer. III.5.1; IV.1.1; IV.2.1; V.20.2) and worldly knowledge in opposition to divine revelation (Iraenaeus, Adv. Haer. III.38.2). Similarly, Tertullian derided the intellectual skills of the sophists when compared with the wisdom offered by the

Christian faith (post evangelium nusquam invenias aut sophistas aut Chaldeos aut incantatores).323 Moreschini (1999), however, points out a particularity in Tertullian’s use of the phrase “ecclesiarum sophista” (Val. 5.1). The recipient of the title, Miltiades, wrote against the

Valentinian heretics and defended the Christian faith. Miltiades, henceforth, was a sophist in so far as he defended Christian teachings — the Christian philosophy — which Tertullian called melior philosophia (Pall.6.2). The role of a Christian sophist is to correct traditional Graeco-

Roman philosophy.

There was, however, an “ambiguous” rivalry between eloquence and philosophy, especially during the imperial period.324 Earlier, I mentioned Apuleius’ allegiance to philosophy;

321 On Apuleius’ allegiance to Plato and Socrates, see Flor. 2 and Flor. 15.26. Cf. Hijmans Jr. (1987: 395–475). 322 Barnes (1971: 214). 323 Idol 9.7. On Tertullian’s negative use of the term sophist, see Moreschini (1999: 197–206). 324 Cf. Moreschini (1994: 1234–1247); (Sandy (1997: 177). On the rivalry between philosopy and rhetoric, see for example, Seneca, ep. 108.6 and Epictetus, Arrian, Epict. 3.23.17. Likewise, Apuleius (Apol. 4.1) was accused as an eloquent philosopher (philosophum formunsum…disertissimum).

52 but Fronto, his contemporary, condemned it (I,2). He would later regret that his pupil, the future emperor Marcus Aurelius, would choose philosophy over eloquence (II, 67). On the other hand, Aulus Gellius, criticized the sophists for their false arguments and aporias (IX, 12; IX, 15).

Yet, many sought to combine philosophy and eloquence. Maximus of Tyre and especially Dio

Chrysostom were able to incorporate serious philosophical topics with catchy rhetorical embellishments.325 Similarly, Apuleius could discuss esoteric Platonic conception of daimones in de Deo Socratis while offering a teasing remark about the production of poison from a fish in the Apologia (5. 29-42).

Tertullian was conscious of the subtleties involved in the question of compatibility between philosophy and eloquence. His interest, however, lay in the exposition of truth (Apol.

1.1–2).326 Hence, he declared Christianity to be a sort of philosophy (Nat. 1.1.7) and criticized sophistic excess (Nat. 1.7.1). But to construct Christian identity, Tertullian needed scaffoldings, which could be provided by sophistic techne, to give form to the structure.327 He needed a

“Christian Apuleius”– a sophist–who could wield sophistic tools and engage with pertinent issues in second century Carthage and thereby compell his readers to see Christianity in a different light.328

As pointed out in the introduction, various scholars have discussed the relationship between Tertullian and the literary movement during the imperial period. However, none, to

325 Sandy (1997: ch. 5). The platonizing oratory of Dio Chrysostom is a good example. See Trapp (2000: 213–239). 326 Tertullian defines truth as sempiterna et antiqua res (Virg. 1.2). On Tertullian’s use of veritas, see the erudite work of Chapot (2009). 327 On deploying paideia as a tool in creating religious identity, see Brent (2006) and Galli (2004: 315–356). 328 The obvious difficulty in using Apuleius’ Apology to read Tertullian’s Apologeticum rests on the interpretation that Apuleius’ work was a mere sophistic exercise, an epideictic not a forensic work. Two studies argued that sophistic ornamentations, on the contrary, did not water down Apuleius’ forensic argumentation. See Noreña (2014: 35–51); and Rives (2008: 17–49).

53 my knowledge, has shown how Tertullian utilized commonplace sophistic themes and the appeal of a “Christian sophist” to construct Christian identity.

A consideration of how Tertullian distinguishes and reconciles Christianity with Roman

North African society must appreciate the role of paideia as an important factor of social cohesion and transformation. This notion distinguishes my approach from contemporary studies aimed at establishing Tertullian’s construction of Christian identity using the methods of post-colonial theories. The latter emphasizes how local culture shaped Tertullian’s writings and referred to Rome as the “Other” vis-à-vis what is African and Christian.329 Consequently, such methodology resurrects Benabou’s argument for African resistance to Roman occupation.330

Gauging the experience of Africans through the optic of resistance and accommodation fails to tell the whole story. Rather, African experience of Roman rule was discrepant especially in the negotiation of power between Rome and the Romanized African elite and the participation of indigenous Africans who formed the socio-political landscape of second and third century

Africa.331 Revell identifies three major structures or ideologies where negotiation for identity and power in imperial provinces are usually contested, namely urbanism or the experience of living in a local town, the emperor, and religion.332

329 For example, Wilhite (2007: 150–176, esp. 163). 330 Benabou (1976). 331 Mattingly (2011: esp. chapt. 4). A study of Apology, Florida, and Metamorphoses suggests that in Apuleius’ construction of his characters’ identity, he was less motivated to distinguish them by national or ethnic origins, but used identifiers such as rich and poor, urban and rustic, literate and illiterate, male and female, moral and corrupt, and educated and boorish. See Stone (2014: 154–173). 332 Revell (2009: 192). Although Miles (1990: 629–659) argues that one cannot speak of a unified national identity in imperial Rome, he identifies the role of local elites and the urbs represented by the emperor as meeting points between Rome and its provinces.

54 Apuleius’ Apologia and Florida attest to the importance of the aforementioned loci of identity negotiation singled out by Revell.333 Urbanism, the emperor, and religion constituted the most important civic interest of a sophist during the imperial period.334 First, there was an exceptional involvement of sophists in the affairs of their cities or adopted localities.335 Hence,

Aelius Aristides made an appeal to Marcus Aurelius on behalf of the city of Smyrna that was struck by an earthquake.336 In the same vein, Apuleius represented himself as a spokesman for the province of Africa (Flor. 9.36-40) and regularly attended meetings of the Carthaginian senate (Flor. 16.1). Indeed, Apuleius did not shy away from declaring his deep affection for his home city (Flor. 20.10).337 Moreover, the virtues and vices of the sophists, popularized through biographical literature, guided and spurred many of the elites in their city to attain individual repute, the possession of sophisticated urbanity, and an active role in the life of the city.338 Of course, the example par excellence is the travelling sophist, Apollonius of Tyana.339

Second, the figure of the emperor loomed large in the career of sophists. Dio, in his four

Kingship Orations dedicated to Trajan, put great importance on amicitia as the basis for relationship between the Emperor and his subjects.340 However, this ideal relationship he

333 In his literary works, especially, the Apologia and Florida, Apuleius flaunted his urbane identity and polymath learning against his accusers; in his address to the proconsul Claudius Maximus, he constantly appealed to Stoicism and his knowledge of Plato and Aristotle; and finally, Apuleius could casually talk about magic distinguishing it from proper religious practice. See Harrison (2008: esp. chs. 1–3). 334 See Eshleman (2012); Anderson (1989: 79–208); Bowie (2009: 19–32). Bendlin (2011b) presents a compelling study of the confluence of paideia, religious beliefs and practices, and euergetism (i.e., civic duties) of cultured elite in the second century A.D. 335 Anderson (1993: 24-28). On Roman power and urban culture in imperial provinces, see Perkins and Nevett (2000: 213-244) 336 Philostratus, VS 582. 337 On Roman urbanisation of African cities, see Lassus (1965: 245–259); Février (1982: 321–396). 338 On the popularity of biographical literature during the imperial period, see Momigliano (1993); Cox (1983). 339 Cf. Dzielska (1986); Talbert (1978: 1619–1651). 340 Cf. Salmeri (2000: 53–92, esp. 89).

55 envisioned did not deter him from criticizing the tyranny of Nero and .341 Fronto’s rise to power began as a courtier in Hadrian’s court, where he was subsequently appointed as tutor to Marcus Aurelius. He, then, continued to exert influence in the imperial circle as evidenced by his correspondence with the emperor Lucius Verus.342 Likewise, Apuleius’ constant appeal to the high learning of Maximus, the representative of the emperor as proconsul for Africa, and thereby his building of affinity with him through paideia, was central to his defense in the

Apologia (e.g. 19.1).

Finally, in matters of religion, Anderson provides a list of examples wherein sophists signified divine support for their endeavor.343 Apuleius boasted of having been initiated into many Greek mystery cults (Apol. 55). More importantly, he owed his authority to discourse about religion (and “magic”) in the Apologia to his encyclopedic knowledge as a travelling sophist.344 In my opinion, these three important elements of Roman institutions during the imperial period served as literary signposts in Tertullian’s apologetic writing.

It was incumbent upon Tertullian to establish his pedigree as a “sophist” to better articulate Christian identity and sway the sentiments of his readers.345 For a sophist, the opinion of the audience was everything. His performance could either impress his audience or expose himself to the risk of public contempt. Certainly, Apuleius provided Tertullian a template for the successful manipulation of rhetorical techniques, and more importantly the kind of audience he needed to persuade.346 Testimony from Apuleius provides a description of Carthaginian society.

341 Cf. Salmeri (1982: 113–114). 342 Cf. Champlin (1980: chapter 7). 343 Anderson (1993: 200–203). 344 See Bradley (1997: 203–223) and Harrison (2000-1: 245–259). 345 On the presumptive readers of Tertullian’s apologetic works, see above, pages 22-23. 346 On the interaction of sophists and their audience during the imperial period, see Korenjak (2000).

56 Apuleius spoke glowingly about the enthusiasm of his audience who filled the auditorium of

Carthage (Flor. 18. 3-5). Apuleian speech covered a wide range of topics from pedantic lessons of daily life, to moralizing anecdotes, it also recycled stories from Greek myths and history.347

His audience was ennobled by the story of Crates the Cynic who abandoned material wealth in favor of philosophy (Flor. 14). Tall stories, such as the feat of Asclepiades of Prusa bringing back to life a dead man, are part of Apuleian repertoire (Flor. 19). Moralistic injunctions were to be expected, like the importance of social responsibility (Flor. 6), hearing as more important than seeing (Flor. 2), the pursuit of the golden mean (Flor. 15), and that one’s success is no protection against misfortune (Flor. 23). Apuleius’ audience did not just consist of the elite of the city, but also included craftsmen and artisans (Flor. 9), farmers (Flor. 6.8), sailors (Flor. 23), shopkeepers (Flor. 7.13), travelers (Flor. 21), and even caretakers of public baths (Flor. 9.26).348

This is the same audience that Tertullian must have had in mind. Tertullian aimed at acquiring social and cultural capital for Christians, mindful of the politics of urban living, the potestas of the emperor and the religious practices of his fellow citizens. In the next section, I shall describe how Tertullian engaged these ideals through his engagement with major sophistic themes of gender or issues of masculinity, his use of historical exempla, and his criticism of mythical narratives. These themes form the sub-topics for the rest of this chapter.

347 On the function of classical canon in Apuleian literature, see Sandy (1997: 42–91). A recent study argues that Apuleius drew literary motifs from native African literature, see Plantade (2014: 174–202). 348 For the argument of a mass public audience of sophists, and not just the urban elite, during the imperial period, see Schmitz (1997).

57 III. The Rhetoric of Masculinity

Manliness in the imperial period was about the struggle and contest for the acquisition of political and cultural capital. The public sphere, notably the popular assemblies and law courts, served as an arena where Roman elites sparred with words, witticism, and bodily deportment.349 In her groundbreaking study on the role of gender in sophistic rhetoric, Gleason claims that “manliness was not a birth right” but a “competitive masculine activity” where rhetoric turned into a spectator sport.350 A passage in Apuleius’ Apologia best illustrates how articulating one’s manliness and rhetorically castrating an opponent destroys the merits of a plaintiff’s forensic argumentation. Responding to the intimidation of Sicinius Aemilianus (his accuser), Apuleius labeled him “the most effeminate of men (effeminatissime) attempting to kill a (real) male (of course, referring to Apuleius).”351

The success of Apuleius’ defense hinged on the portrayal of his accusers as rustic troublemakers while vaunting his superior cultural pedigree and connections within a tightly knit community of Roman elites.352 Here, paideia functions as a mark of distinction between the educated and the vulgar and the acquisition of which raised individual repute before society.

Paideia represents power and the ability to command the ears of the citizens in imperial Rome

349 Cf. Connolly (2003: 287–317). Bartsch (2006: esp. ch. 3), in a recent study on the importance of gaze in the public sphere, demonstrates how the ability to sway public perception strengthens or weakens one’s male civic identity. 350 Gleason (1995: 159). 351 Apol. 78: Tune, effeminatissime, tua manu cuiquam viro mortem minitari? At qua tandem manu? Philomelae an Medeae an Clytemnestrae? 352 Apuleius’ Apologia and the Florida give frequent evidence of social transactions among the litterati and Roman elites in North Africa. One of the more interesting proofs for such phenomenon was the practice of letter-writing. Apol. 94, for example, talks about the correspondence between the former consul Avitus and Apuleius. The Apuleian corpus has more to say on the subject of social relationship and interaction in antiquity and scholarship on Apuleius needs to address this lacuna.

58 is its manifestation. Hence, paideia is associated with masculinity, while the lack of sophistication and education signals its deprivation or effeminacy.353

Furthermore, there are many instances in the Ciceronian corpus where oratory is considered vis (force) and exemplary orators identified with masculinity (e.g. Opt. Gen. Orat. 8,

Orat. 228, Brut. 93, De Or. 3.74–6). The conceptualization of “masculinity” implies social and political clout acquired through prestige in war or public fora. “Becoming Roman” or romanitas necessitated the construction and articulation of one’s “masculinity” in the public stage.

Romans have pervasive anxiety of correctly projecting masculine identity in the public sphere.354 Seneca, for example, advised Lucilius that his speech in public must be robusta, fortis, virilis (ep. 114.22). Masculine propriety demanded by Roman oratory originated from

Roman political ideology, which equated masculinity and its virtues with the order of society itself.355 That is why the rhetoric of masculinity was inseparably tied to the politics of intra-elite rivalry, where the acquisition of political influence and status enhanced one’s “masculinity” and vice-versa. The act of rhetorically establishing masculine identity implies an engagement in a particular elite activity where masculinity is contested and vied for:

“What is being shaped is not a “man” in the biological sense but a person of class with

proper authority, the legal capacity, and the social capital that combine to give him a

public voice: the elite-citizen man.”356

353 A similar phenomenon can be observed in religious narratives where the acquisition of paideia liberates individuals from the grip of sexual desire and other inordinate mundane passions. See Burrus (2007: 1–10, esp. 6- 8). 354 A great deal of scholarship has been written on Roman rhetoric and masculine deportment. For example, see Steel (2006: esp. 45–61); Edwards (1993: 63–97); Gleason (1995); Gunderson (2000) and Dugan (2005). 355 Connolly (2010: 91). 356 Ibid., 96.

59 But, the importance of paideia in articulating one’s persona in the public sphere brought the necessity to safeguard this “constructed identity” as well. Gleason points out the ambiguities inherent in gendered rhetoric.357 Masculine integrity was both a natural phenomenon and a cultural construct. For the Romans, the enhancement and showcasing of one’s virility could be achieved either through keen awareness of physical deportment (physiognomics) or

“philosophical virility,” especially in the case of the Stoics, who taught the inviolability of the body and mental impenetrability.358

These distinctions were important, especially in the case of Tertullian where Christians were not allowed to defend themselves publicly (non vultis audire)359 and hence the only way of claiming “masculinity” in the eyes of the public is either to suffer a martyr’s death or to put into writing what is not allowed to be heard in public. The gruesome death of a Christian martyr, his/her unshakeable mental endurance, and the narrative of this feat showcased the virility of Christianity in everyone’s eyes.360

Therefore, we encounter the paramount importance of writing for Tertullian, and other

Christian writers, to claim and articulate the “masculinity” of Christians who were disenfranchised of their right to speak.361 By muting Christian narratives and denying them their

357 Gleason (1995: 70–130). 358 Bartsch (2006: 164–182). The importance of individual autonomy from passion and emotion especially in the face of danger and threats to one’s life led Tertullian to develop seminal ideas on individuality, which will be discussed in the following chapter. 359 Scap. 2.1. 360 On the reproduction and popularity of Christian martyrdom in the early Church, see Castelli (2004). Recently, scholars have challenged the popular notion of a persecuted church and instead advanced an argument for a romanticized account of early Christian martyrs. Cf. Moss (2013). 361 There are many parallels and similar themes between the apologetic writings of Early Christians and the literary production of those forced into exile, notably Ovid, the de Exilio of Plutarch, and the sophist Favorinus to name a few. This notion merits further research. See Gaertner (2007).

60 right to speak, an inalienable right for any Roman male citizen, Roman authorities effectively effeminized them.

How did Tertullian address this dilemma? First, I shall describe how Christians were

‘effeminized’ by their detractors — how they were denied of their claim to “virility” in the public sphere by taking away their right to speak and portraying them as “dangerous” to society. Next, I shall demonstrate how Tertullian turned the table against the accusers of

Christians through the rhetoric of retorsion.362 Finally, I shall consider Tertullian’s re- appropriation of the rhetoric of masculinity which bestowed authority to Christian messages and claim virility in a gendered discourse.

Barnes has suggested that there was no juridical basis for the persecution of Christians before 250 A.D.,363 and Pliny’s letter to Trajan exculpated the Christians of any criminal misbehaviour.364 Two early accounts on Christian martyrdom from North Africa, the Acts of the

Scillitan Martyrs and the Martyrdom of Perpetua and Felicity, however, confirm that the mere confession of Christianus sum brought about punishment.365 That said, Tertullian notes that incidents of persecution were infrequent, such as the case of the Christian soldier in De Corona, some peril to Christians in Numidia and Mauretania (Scap. 4.8) during reign of Caracalla, and a certain Mavilus, a Christian from Hadrumetum, who was fed to the beast (Scap. 3.5). Though scholars continue to debate the reason for Christian persecution before Decius, Barnes pointed out that “it is in the minds of men, not in the demands of Roman law, that the roots of the

362 See Sider (1971: esp. ch. 4). 363 Cf. Barnes (1968). 364 Pliny, ep. 96.8: Nihil aliud inveni quam superstitionem pravam et immodicam. 365 Scill. 15 and Pass. Perp. 3.3.

61 persecution of Christians in the Roman Empire are to be sought.”366 In an opinionated culture like Rome, a mere hearsay could easily shape public perception about the dangers Christians posed to society (odium humani generis).367 Christian apologetics repeatedly insisted that there was no specific crime involved except the ones generated by hearsay (fama).368 Hearsay and caricatures of Christians, such as the one seeing them as worshippers of an ass, emasculated them in the public fora.369

The ‘feminization’ of Christians should be compared to the status of women in Roman society: they were marginalized and kept away from the public sphere.370 This is the claim of

Tertullian (e.g. Apol. 1.2; 1.9 and 2.13). Hence, the apologist argues that Christians were not allowed to speak by the Roman judge.371 Women were confined to the private and domestic sphere and when they conspicuously stepped into the public fora, it was considered a disruption of Roman mores.372 The public sphere and the liberty of discourse were carefully gendered spaces in antiquity.373 It was considered a moral transgression to violate the decorum that separated the private from the public domain.374 Aemilia Pudentilla, Apuleius’ wife, for example, was a voiceless apparatus and a silent witness in the criminal proceedings brought

366 Barnes (1968: 50). Various hypotheses for the persecution of Christians are discussed in de Ste. Croix (1963: 6– 38). Likewise, see Frend (1967) and Burns and Jensen (2014: 7–12). 367 Tacitus, Ann. 15.44. 368 Cf. Apol. 7.8 and 7.13. 369 Ibid. 16.1; Nat. 1.11.1. Tertullian blames Tacitus for spreading this rumor (Apol. 16.1): Hanc Cornelius Tacitus suspicionem huiusmodi inseruit. 370 Here, I use the term “feminization” to refer to the absence of opportunity to address public assembly and the stereotyping of women as slaves to their passions. When applied to males it signifies “failure to live up to standards of masculine comportment.” See Williams (2010: 137). 371 Apol. 2.3: Sed Christianis solis nihil permittitur loqui quod causam purget, quod veritatem defendat, quod iudicem non faciat iniustum. 372 Milnor (2011: 610).) 373 Lardinois and McClure (2001). 374 Milnor (2011:613).

62 against Apuleius for reason of his marriage to her.375 In the same vein, Tertullian tells us that allowing a Christian to defend himself publicly rendered the Roman magistrate fearful; he would even blush at the mere mention of Christians publicly.376 Just as the public sphere was gendered to ensure the primacy and distinction of male elite citizens from the common people,

Christians had to be kept in the periphery to ensure Roman domination and class distinction.

Second, the allegations of infanticide, incest and secrecy hurled against Christians place them in the periphery of society and effeminized them in the public eye.377 Tertullian’s Ad

Nationes and Apologeticum list popular opinions about the nature of Christian assembly: the secrecy of their gatherings masked uncivilized and criminal activities, such as infanticide

(Apologeticum chaps. 2, 3 and 9), incest (Apologeticum ch. 8 and Ad Nationes 1 ch. 2), and even magic (Apologeticum 23.12).378 Similarly, the non-Christian interlocutor in the Octavius of

Minucius Felix described Christians as a crowd that furtively lurked in hiding places, shunning the light, speechless in public but garrulous in hidden corners (latebrosa et lucifugax natio, in publicum muta, in angulis garrula).379

375 See Fantham (1995: 220–232). 376 Apol. 1.1: …si ad hanc solam speciem auctoritas vestra de iustitiae diligentia in publico aut timet aut erubescit inquirere… 377 See Apol. 8, 1–9; Nat. 1.2.8. The charge of cannibalism is reported by various Christian apologists (Justin, Apol. 1.26; Tatian, Or. 25; Athenagoras, Leg. 31; Theophilus, Ad Autol. 3.4; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 5.1.1–4, Origen, C. Cels. 6.27 and Minucius Felix, Oct. 9.5). The accusation of ritual murder is common in religious polemic, for example against the Jews (Josephus, Contra Ap. 2.91ff.) The rumour of killing new born babies as ritual sacrifice further emphasized the distance between Christianity and the Roman culture. Romans frowned on infant sacrifice – a religious custom traditionally attributed to the Africans. However, that the practice was carried on during the imperial period has been questioned by scholars. See Le Glay (1966); Briand-Ponsart and Hugoniot (2005:157– 159); Le Bohec (2005: 180–181). 378 Heinze (1962), long ago, pointed out that in comparison to his predecessors who wrote Christian apologetics in Greek, Tertullian was not so much concerned with the criminal acts lodged against Christians as with the hatred of masses fuelled by prejudice against Christians. 379 Minucius Felix, Octavius 8.4.

63 Interestingly, the charge of magia brought against Apuleius (which he described as magica maleficia)380 bears a semblance to Suetonius’ description of Christians (genus hominum superstitionis novae ac maleficae).381 Casting Christian gathering as a magical ritual brought various legal and cultural ramifications against it. Secrecy and magic underscored the

“foreignness” of Christianity to the Roman ways.382 There was likewise a tradition which attributed the efficacy of magic to the agency of demons.383 Both Minucius Felix (Oct. 26.10) and Tertullian (Apol. 22.2; 23.1) corroborate on the influence of demons in magical ritual.

Tertullian attests that such rites involved the invocation of the spirit of the dead and ritual killing of babies (si pueros in eloquium oraculi elidunt).384 Anything that put into question the proper use of reason and self-control was considered antithetical to Roman ways, and thus those accused of magic were effeminized. The sophist Polemo ‘effeminized’ his rival Favorinus by portraying him as a charlatan in the magical arts.385 Classical literature tends to characterize practitioners of magic as antisocial, effeminate, and dangerous.386 These traits can be observed in Euripides’ characterization of Medea or ’ wife Deianeira in Sophocles’ Trachiniae. In

Roman literature ‘witches’ committed infanticide, lurked in cemeteries, and terrorized men

380 Apol. 1.5. 381 Nero 16. 2. The archaic Laws of the Twelve Tables prohibited magical practices. Likewise, there was a specific law against magic, the Lex Cornelia de sicariis et veneficis. Aside from Apuleius, some orators in the period of the Second Sophistic had been likewise accused of practicing magic. On Apuleius and magic, see Hunink (1997: 12–14). On the accusation of magic lodged against the sophists, see Hijmans, Jr. (1994: 1708–1784). 382 Christ himself was misunderstood as a magician (magus): Tertullian, Apol. 21.17; Origen, C. Cels. 1.6; 1.68; 2.48 ff.; Arnobius 1.52; Lactantius, Div. Inst. 5.3. 383 Cf. Apuelius, De deo Socr. 133. Early Christian writers subscribed to this opinion, Tatian, Or. 17; Clement of Alexandria Protr. 4.58.3; Origen, C. Cels. 1.60. 384 Apol. 23.1. 385 Polemo, De Physiognomia (Förster [1893: 160–4]). 386 Cf. Stratton (2007a); Dickie (2001: esp. 27–33).

64 they used to lust after.387 Being liminal acts, sexual immorality and magic were used by the elite to define and police what was considered Roman.388 Hence, the accusation of magic, sexual immorality, and infanticide, was basically a discourse of alterity which influence public opinion to cast the irregularity of Christian assembly as criminal and “effeminate.”389

How did Tertullian disavow these negative opinions about Christians? The rhetoric of retorsion served as his principal weapon.390 If the credibility of the accusers of Christians fuelled rumors, only a systematic “character disempowerment” may sway public opinion. Thus,

Tertullian portrayed the accusers of Christians as the real culprits of the crime. His strategy involves a demonstration that Christians share the same sentiment and angst over practices that transgressed “Roman” civility while implying that Christians have become the voice of reason and culture. This literary tactic allows Tertullian to endow “masculinity” to Christian discourse.

While the use of retorsion belongs to the genre of forensic oratory, Tertullian’s discursive strategy against the enemies of Christians was a deliberate and skillful epideictic commentary on the vices that threatened to destroy the moral fabric of his society.391 First,

Tertullian called into question the reason and logic behind the accusations of Christians, thereby destabilizing the integrity of the plaintiffs.392 Repeatedly, he emphasized that rumor

387 For example, Canidia in Horace’s eight Satire (1.8.23–50). An excellent introduction to the topic is Stratton (2007b: 89–114). 388 Cf. Knust (2006: 431–456). 389 Nat. 1.1.3: non licet rectius suspicari, non libet proprius experiri, hic tantum curiositas humana torpescit. 390 On retorsio as a rhetorical device, see Georges (2011: 170–186; 270–279; 401–405). 391 In his Rhetoric (1399a 15), Aristotle defines retorsion as a sophistic strategy meant to turn back the argument against the one who makes it. See Georges (2007: 223–235); Fredouille (1972:329–333). 392 The ad hominem argumentation is a common sophistic technique. Cf. Rocca (2005: 13–77).

65 (fama) created many false assumptions against the Christians.393 Rumor fabricates lies and muddles the minds of men. Tertullian portrayed the persecutors of Christians as influenced by hearsay and acting “mad like the bacchanals”.394 The loss of perspective and susceptibility to emotional upheaval signaled the loss of virility.395 Here Tertullian adopts Livy (39.8–19) who had previously described the bacchanals as irrational and effeminate.

Negative stereotypes of Christians can only gain credibility in the minds of the ignorant.396 Tertullian went beyond mere rebuttal of the accusations against Christians and pointed out the moral decadence of Roman society due to ignorance. Very much in the tradition of a pepaideumenos, like Apuleius, who personified the conscience of the citizens of

Carthage, Tertullian rebuked the ignorance of history and the corrupt moral values of his fellow citizens:397 the biases of the Roman magistrates against the Christian name was due to ignorance (Apol.1.4; 2.5; 3.2); ignorance led the Romans to transgress their forefathers and overturn the laws that were handed on to them, as in the case of the restoration of the worship of Bacchus, Serapis, Isis, and Harpocrates and the presence of pervasive ‘foreign elements’ in

Roman society (Apol. 6. 7-8); the same disregard for Roman ancestral values led to the deprivation of women afflicted by the vices of luxury, drunkenness, lust, and divorce comparable to dangerous women in Roman literature (Apol. 6.6); public spectacles stirred the passion of onlookers and civility in social transactions was compromised (Spect. 20.5); and even

393 Apol. 7.14: Merito igitur fama tamdiu conscia sola est scelerum Christianorum. See likewise Apol. chapter 8 and Nat. chapter 7. 394 Apol. 37.2: Quotiens etiam praeteritis vobis suo iure nos inimicum vulgus invadit lapidibus et incendiis? Ipsis Bacchanalium furiis nec mortuis parcunt Christianis. 395 Williams (2010: 151–176). 396 For example, Apol. 3.2. 397 Tertullian’s self-presentation as censor and arbiter of culture and moral values of his fellow citizens will be discussed further in the Chapter 4 on community.

66 the worship of Bellona where blood was consumed offered an occasion for Tertullian to suggest political conspiracy similar to that of Catiline’s (Apol. 9.9).398

For Tertullian, Satan and his minions had contaminated Roman society.399 Although he famously declared the necessary existence of the Roman Empire for the benefit of human civilization (Apol. 32.1), ignorance however brought moral decadence to it. Ignorantia signaled the lack of paideia and consequently the loss of virtue and virility. This is the reason why in the

Apologeticum, Tertullian presented Christianity as the voice of reason and Christ as the logos of

God (Apol. 31.17). Thus, Christians re-appropriated the role of the philosophers who personified the conscience of society, excoriated the vices of the period (parrhesia), and brought enlightenment (paideia) to those under the sway of ignorance.

After undermining the intellectual pedigree of the accusers of Christians, Tertullian proceeds to condemn them of the very crimes the Christians were accused of (retorsio). First,

Tertullian gives credence to rumor concerning the sacrifice of infants in a religious ritual. But,

Christians were not the ones guilty of such monstrosity (sacrum facinus).400 Rather, he argues that in Africa, infants were sacrificed to “under the proconsulship of Tiberius.”401 More importantly, Tertullian demonstrated that the practice of human sacrifice traversed cultural

398 McDonnell (2006: 1) argued that the Catilinarian conspiracy was a crisis about manliness. 399 Spect. 8.7: Animadverte, Christiane, quot numina inmunda possederint circum. Aliena est tibi regio, quam tot diaboli spiritus occupaverunt. 400 Apol. 9.2. 401 The phrase “usque ad proconsulatum Tiberii” (Apol. 9.2) is controversial because Tiberius was never a proconsul of Africa. Barnes suggested a textual emendation which reads “usque ad proconsulatum Blaesi” which would refer to Q. Junius Blaesus (proconsul of Africa from 21–23). Given that he was tasked to put down the rebellion of Tacfarinas which might have encouraged a revival of some Punic traditional practices. See Barnes (1985: 18–19). Otherwise, the same author argues that long before the middle of the second century, the open sacrifice of children had ceased in Carthage (page 21).

67 and political boundaries. The Gauls offered human sacrifice to Mercury,402 while the Romans sprinkled images of Jupiter with human blood.403 The anachronism and sweeping generalizations of Tertullian’s testimony hardly account for veracity but show that he could invent and manipulate facts and history (just like the opponents of Christians) to prove his arguments, and in the case of human sacrifice, to highlight the failure of the Romans to bring civilization to those they rule.

Tertullian then turns to the more serious crime of laesa maiestas brought against the

Christians.404 The events that plunged the empire into civil strife after the death of Commodus and before Severus’ rise to power were still fresh on people’s mind. The persona of the emperor guaranteed peace and Tertullian claimed the emperor for the Christians (Apol. 33.1):

Noster est magis Caesar. Loyalty to the emperor is measured not by exterior ritual (that is, emperor worship) but by a sincere heart.405 To prove his point, Tertullian alluded to the seditious practice of consulting astrologers, soothsayers, , and magicians concerning the life of the emperor.406 The objective of retorsio was attained in Tertullian’s accusation that many a Cassius, Niger, or Albinus (pretenders to the imperial throne in recent memory) could surely be found in the senate, among the equites, in the camps and the imperial palace.407

Meanwhile, occult practices (astrologers, soothsayers, augurs and magicians) are prohibited by

402 This cult, which worshipped Teutates, was prohibited by Augustus and Claudius: cf. Caesar, Bell. Gall. 6. 16–17; Suetonius, Claud. 25. See Moreschini (2006: 209, n. 43). 403 This ritual refers to the cult of Iuppiter Latiaris. 404 Apol. 28.3: Ventum est igitur ad secundum titulum laesae augustioris maiestatis. 405 Ibid. 36. 1–3. Addressing the issue of emperor worship was a major concern in Tertullian’s apologetic discourse. This topic will be discussed extensively in Chapter five. 406 Ibid., 35.12. Tacitus tells us that the practice of consulting astrologers and soothsayers with regards to the life of the emperor was severely punished (Tac. Ann. 12. 52). This prohibition was sustained by Severus (Hist. Aug., Sev. 4.3 and 15.5). Tertullian associates astrology with magic (Nat. 2.6.3; Apol. 35.12). In Idol. (9.3) Tertullian wrote “scimus magiae et astrologiae inter se societatem.” He explains further that astrology was punished because it was a “species” of magic (9.6–7). 407 Ibid. 35.10.

68 the Christian faith.408 Tertullian’s rhetorical reconstruction of history implies that emperor worship did not necessarily generate loyal feelings towards the emperor; rather, only a declared disinterest in any form of magic, which is both dangerous and effeminate, could guarantee genuine loyalty to Rome and the emperor.

Thus far, I have identified two apologetic strategies used by Tertullian to question the credibility of the accusers of Christians and rhetorically emasculate them. However, the most important strategy Tertullian used was to portray enemies of Christians under the influence of demons, which was manifested by their lack of self-control and the passion that consumed them.

Cicero associates emotional outbursts with effeminacy, while reason and self-control with masculinity.409 In addition, for Sallust, luxury, hedonism, avarice are characteristics foreign to Roman virtues that can eventually lead to sedition.410 Dio Chrysostom notes that slavery to pleasure and luxury is a manifestation of effeminacy (μαλακός).411 Fear of death, likewise, is considered to be a sure sign of effeminacy.412 Against this background, Tertullian questions the emotional state of his enemies based on their erratic judgments contrary to the psyche of a virtuous person. Echoing the preoccupation of the philosophy of the period for self-control and management of passion,413 Tertullian writes that libido engulfed the world and thus held captive everyone’s soul: “The world has the greater darkness, blinding one’s heart. The world

408 Ibid. 35.12: Quas artes, ut ab angelis desertoribus proditas et a deo interdictas ne suis quidem causis adhibent Christiani. 409 Cicero, Tusc. 2.47–48. 410 Sallust, Cat. 5. 1–9. 411 Or. 3.56; 6.25. 412 Valerius Maximus, 9.13.pr: verum quia excessus e vita et fortuitos et viriles, quosdam etiam temerarious oratione attigimus, subiciamus nunc aestimationi enerves et effeminatos. 413 For an excellent summary of the importance of controlling emotion among various philosophical systems during the imperial period, see Trapp (2007a: ch. 3).

69 imposes the more grievous fetters, binding one’s very souls. The world breathes out the worst impurities – human lusts.”414

Human tendency to diverge from reason and prudence could be verified in spectacles and other forms of entertainment all over the empire.415 So is the case with the trials of

Christians. Roman magistrates gave verdicts not for the sake of truth but out of shame and fear of public opinion.416 Likewise, the emperors who actively promoted the persecution of

Christians – Nero and Domitian – were known to be unjust, impious and “effeminate”.417

Philosophers, too, who peddled wisdom were, in reality, corrupted (Apol. 47.3). Christians, on the other hand, found God who, according to Plato, is difficult to be discovered and described.418 Truth, therefore, distinguishes Christians from philosophers whose chief aim is mere glory.419 They were merely philosophers not Christians.420 Regardless, Christian message garners contempt, while philosophers earn accolades.421

Tertullian attributes the loss of self-control and reason to the influence of demons.422

The demonic origin of “pagan” religion was a locus classicus in early Christian literature.423

414 Mart. 2.2: Maiores tenebras habet mundus, quae hominum praecordia excaecant; graviores catenas induit mundus, quae ipsas animas hominum constringuunt; peiores immunditias exspirat mundus, libidines hominum. 415 Spect. 25.2: Ipsa consessio, ipsa in favoribus aut conspiratio aut dissensio inter se de commercio scintillas libidinum conflabellant. 416 Apol. 1.1. Tertullian’s remark reflects the reasons Apuleius gave for his own trial: Inde omnis huiusce accusationis obeundae ira et rabies et denique insania exorta est (Apol. 28,6). 417 Ibid. 5.3–5. Cassius Dio alluded to the effeminacy of Nero by citing his homosexual tendencies (61.9.2) and having been emasculated by Boudicca’s speech (61.10.3). Cf. Gowing (1997: 2580–2583). 418 Ibid. 46. 9: licet Plato adfirmet factitatorem universitatis neque inveniri facilem et inventum enarrari in omnes difficilem. 419 Ibid. 46.7: Quam inlusores et corruptores inimice philosophi adfectant veritatem et adfectando corrumpunt, ut qui gloriam captant. 420 Ibid. 46.4: Philosophi enim non Christiani cognominantur. 421 Ibid. 46.6: In quantum odium flagrat veritas, in tantum qui eam ex fide praestat offendit; qui autem adulterat et adfectat, hoc maxime nomine gratiam pangit apud insectatores veritatis. 422 Ibid., 22.4: Operatio eorum est hominis eversio. Sic malitia spiritalis a primordio auspicata est in hominis exitium.

70 Demons mislead the mind and bring a person to ruin.424 A person possessed by the demons loses self-control, and thus, is overcome with passion, lust, and various errors (Apol. 22.6).

Public spectacles and other forms of entertainment reveal how demons pervert men by promoting effeminate gestures and gait (Spect. 10), and overwhelm them with emotion (Spect.

16). But, again, only the ignorant are susceptible to the infiltration of these malevolent spirits.425 The loss of reason and self-control in demonic possession are highly suggestive of the feminity of Christian persecutors.

I shall now demonstrate how Tertullian bestows “virility” on Christian discourse. First, the ad hominem invectives by Tertullian were meant not only to cast doubt on the masculinity of his opponents, but it also enabled the Christian voice to compete in the discourses of the public fora. But, there was one obstacle. Gleason points out the importance of public speaking in the Roman fora, where “maleness” or male identity was constructed, reiterated, and nurtured.426 Public speaking was public performance, hence the reason for the competing paradigms of masculinity between Favorinus and Polemo. Vocabulary, the modulation of voice and various physiognomic features of a speaker were constantly scrutinized by the public audience. Tertullian lamented that no opportunity was given to the Christians to defend their

423 Ferguson (1984: 111). There are numerous works on demons and early Christianity. For example, Kelly (1968); Vos and Otten (2011); Kalleres (2015). The shortcoming common to these three well argued works is that their treatment of sources from Tertullian’s works is marginal, emphasizing more late antiquity and medieval period. Likewise, two other old but still useful references are Andres (1914) and Danièlou (1953). 424Apol. 22.4: Nunc de operatione eorum satis erit exponere. Operatio eorum est hominis eversio; sic malitia spiritalis a primordio auspicata est in hominis exitium. 425 Apol. 2.18; Minucius Felix (27.8) provides a more elaborate description of demonic possession: Ideo inserti mentibus imperitorum odium nostri serunt occulte per timorem: naturale est enim et odisse quem timeas, et quem metueris infestare, si possis. Sic occupant animos et obstruunt pectora, ut ante nos incipient homines odisse quam nosse, ne cognitos aut imitari possint aut damnare non possint. On the significance of demons in the popular mindset during the imperial period, see Apuleius, De Deo Socrate (esp. 6–7). 426 Gleason (1999: 67–84, esp. 70)

71 case publicly.427 Rather, silence was enforced upon them (Apol. 1.1; 2.2). Thus, Tertullian took to the pen to speak on behalf of the voiceless Christians. Written text replaced oral communication. Hence, silence became a type of rhetorical performance, for in silence Truth enters the ears of Tertullian’s readers (Apol. 1.1: liceat veritati vel occulta via tacitarum litterarum ad aures vestras pervenire). Similarly, the power of the written word to move and persuade led Apuleius to declare that words, when suppressed, fly and fill the whole forum with turmoil.428 The silence of Christians exists as a rebuttal of traditional means of eloquence where Truth probes the integrity of rhetoric.429

If writing, as Habinek asserts, is an ‘ideological discourse’ where elite moral and political hegemony are sustained, in the case of Tertullian, writing produced an alternative elite where the traditional Roman ethos was challenged, sustained, and re-appropriated.430 The obvious result of writing is that it helps authors transcend both temporal and geographical boundaries.431 Moreover the circulation of the text democratizes an elite monopoly on ideas

(history and culture). By engaging in writing, Tertullian not only reappropriated one of classical culture’s traditional value systems but he also contributed to the gradual opening of the cultural cocoon that was to be one of the main characteristics of the period of the Second

Sophistic. Hence, Cameron argued that the story of Christianization of the Roman Empire is about how the Christians talked and wrote concerning themselves as belonging among the elite

427 Apol. 2.3: Sed Christianis solis nihil permittitur loqui quod causam purget, quod veritatem defendat, quod iudicem non faciat iniustum. 428 Apuleius, Apol. 83: verba suppressa de Rufini minibus foras evolassent, totum forum tumultu complessent. 429 Tertullian, Apol. 46.1: Qui nos revincere audebit, non arte verborum, sed eadem forma qua probationem constituimus, de veritate? 430 Habinek (1998: ch. 5). 431 Ibid. 103.

72 of Roman society.432 More importantly, writing allowed Tertullian to recover the freedom of speech (parrhēsia), which was guaranteed to every male citizen of the empire. Writing bestowed Tertullian with the ability to perform his “masculinity” before the eyes of his readers, and as a consequence, the Roman tribunal. Reading gives rise to an interpreting community.433

The masculinity of the author was not only reclaimed, but the author was also empowered (among his readers) to perform Christian masculinity. First, Christians are portrayed as paradigms of self-control and courage even in the face of death. Christian martyrs dragged into the arena to meet death were comparable to the gladiators whom the spectators exhorted (Mart. 1.2). Only, in this case, silence and courage were the weapons Christian martyrs wielded as a tool to articulate virility in the face of death. Both males and females demonstrate the same virtues.434

The Passio of Perpetua and Felicity substantiates Tertullian’s claim.435 Christian virility transcends distinction in gender.436 In fact, the account of Perpetua’s passion validates my argument concerning Christian rhetoric of gender. Perpetua’s act of writing her own martyrdom underscored and performed her virility in the face of Christian deprivation of the right to speak.437 Furthermore, the martyrdom itself was viewed as an exemplum for the edification of people (Pass. Perp. 1.1). Finally, Perpetua’s controversial claim: et expoliata sum, et facta sum

432 See Cameron (1991). 433 Likewise, text forms community. Cf. Bartsch (2006: 130); likewise, Castelli (2004). 434 Mart. 4.3: nec a viris tantum, sed etiam a feminis, ut vos quoque, benedictae, sexui vestro respondeatis. Minucius Felix echoes the words of Tertullian in Oct. 37.5. 435 There is an abundance of scholarship on this literary gem. I suggest two recent works on the subject: Bremmer and Formisano (2012) and Farina (2009). For the most recent edition and commentary, see Heffernan (2012). 436 St. Paul in his letter to the Galatians 3.28 claims that “there can be neither Jew nor Greek, there can be neither slave nor freeman, there can be neither male nor female – for you are all one in Christ Jesus.” Likewise, Seneca (Dial. 12.16.2, 5) declares that women who display virtues rise to the level of great men. 437 Pass. Perp. 2.3: haec ordinem totum martyrii sui iam hinc ipsa narravit, sicut conscriptum manu sua et suo sensu reliquit. Cf. Dunn (2010).

73 masculus (10.7) equates virility with Perpetua’s spiritual transformation that entails “power, force, strength, and courage” in her hour of martyrdom.438

Second, demons flee before Christians. While demons are associated with discord and irrational behavior, Christians teach concord and strength of character (Mart. 1.5). Moreover, the name of Christ brings fear to the demons (Apol. 23.15). Christ is the logos of God who alone can restore men to their proper senses (Apol. 21.17). In his Ad Martyras Tertullian uses the prison as a literary motif to refer to the decadence of the world. Hence, the imprisonment of

Christians was not merely physical, but also descriptive of their constant agon against the world under the sway of demons. The prison cell, therefore, objectifies the power of demonic malevolence vanquished and put to flight by Christian endurance.439 Similarly, Tertullian points out that magicians had no use of their crafts where Christians abound (Apol. 43.1). If demons are associated with loss of masculinity, Christian faith represents its gain.

Third, Osborn argues that a positive anthropology lies behind Tertullian’s relationship with Roman society.440 Human being placed at the apex of creation and laws, which is a product of its rationality, must always mirror what is good (Apol. 4.5). The character and moral development of an individual was a prevalent theme in Tertullian’s apologetic works.441 The interest of the elite in personal development provided an important cultural crossroad for negotiating and constructing Christian identity. An outstanding example is Tertullian’s notion of

438 Heffernan (2012: 262); likewise, Vierow (1999: 600–619). The vivid account of martyrdom, like that of Perpetua, further strengthens its claim to virility. Dio Chrysostom (Or. 32.54), similarly, praised the morality (“virility”) of the Rhodians on account of their visual self-presentation, i. e. their modest gait and hairstyle. 439 Mart. 1:4: Domus quidem diaboli est et carcer, in qua familiam suam continet. Sed vos ideo in carcerem pervenistis, ut illum etiam in domo sua conculcetis. Similarly, Perpetua sees her imprisonment as an opportunity to commune with the Holy Spirit (Pass. Perp. 3.5). 440 Osborn (2003: 85). For a brief survey of Tertullian’s anthropology, see Minnerath (2006: 33–44); Spanneut (1957: 150–166). 441 A good example is De test. animae.

74 the self which will be discussed in the following chapter. For now, it suffices here to point out that Tertullian defines the human person as the apex of creation (Res. 6.3f.). The human individual is a rational being most capable of sensation and knowledge (Tes. an. 1.5: sensus et scientiae capacissimum).442 Hence, freedom of conscience is an inalienable right of every individual (Scap. 2.2). This exercise of freedom allows Christians to express loyalty to the emperor (Apol. 33.1) and contribute to the preservation of the Roman Empire (Apol. 32.1).

Tertullian’s argument that a human being is rationis capax bestows dignity to Christian “voice” and reclaims its “masculinity” in the public eye. I shall now move to the other two “cultural spheres” in my discussion of Tertullian’s utilization of paideia: the use of historical exempla and the role of mythical narratives.

IV. Consulite commentarios vestros:443 historical exempla and the politics of historical interpretation I have demonstrated that literary production was considered a privilege of the Roman elite and that it necessarily implicated the notion of masculinity.444 In this respect, writing can be considered an ideological discourse. However, among the elites, there was a prevalent anxiety about how to sustain and promote their moral and political hegemony.445 The use of historical exempla was one of the most effective strategies in this pursuit. Exemplarity is a discourse that organizes and represents the past in a particular way, which then facilitates a distinct way of

442 Minucius Felix (16.5) offers the same argument: sciat omnes homines sine dilectu aetatis, sexus, dignitatis, rationis et sensus capaces et habiles procreatos nec fortuna nanctos, sed natura insitos esse sapientiam. That human beings are “natura insitos esse sapientiam” is a notion taught by the Stoics (cf. Seneca, ep. 90.1f., 44.3; Dio Chrys. Or. 12.27, 39). 443 Apol. 5.3. 444 Cf. Gleason (1999: 67). 445 Habinek (1998: ch. 5).

75 knowing it.446 Roller describes four sequences of producing exempla in antiquity: first, an individual action gets the attention of the Roman community (emphasis on the elite), which then evaluates the significance of the event as a medium in transmitting the value of the community; then, the deed is monumentalized through titles, statues, temples, rituals, or narrative historiography; and, finally the exemplum becomes a moral standard or model for the rest of the members of the community.447

Much can be said about the manner in which early Christians re-appropriated traditional

Graeco-Roman exempla as part of their religious discourse and how they attempted to

“negotiate their identity” within the culture which viewed them with contempt and indifference.448 However, scholarship on the use of exempla among early Christian authors is underdeveloped.449 My interest is to investigate how Tertullian utilized historical exempla as a rhetorical tool in his apologetics and the strategies he adopted in re-appropriating non-

Christian exempla.

446 Roller (2009: 216). 447 Ibid., 216–217. Notice the dynamics between the individual (the actor) and community (the evaluator and propagandist of the exemplum) here. 448 Hagiography and the establishment of the pantheon of Christian exempla address one of the lacunas in early Christian historiography. Any community or institution needs and feeds off of stories about its origins and accounts of the heroic virtues of its ancestors for the preservation and transmission of their ideals. Christianity, for example, is a religion with stories. The accounts of the life, deeds and sayings of Christ canonized into four , the Acts of the Apostles and the Acta martyrum, to name a few, constitute the corpus of Christian narratology. Such a literary enterprise not dissimilar to Homer’s Iliad and Odyssey demonstrates that Christians are people with history and that Christians, contrary to the usual accusation from the Romans, have members who can stand on equal footing with the best men Classical civilization had produced. A valuable introduction to how Christian texts served as discursive tool in constructing Christian identity is Perkins (2009: 28–41). 449 Since 1940, there have been only two works: Pétré’s l’exemplum chez Tertullien (1940) — the fruit of her doctoral dissertation – and Hamblenne’s (1996: 93–146) comprehensive article on the use of exemplum in the omnia opera of Jerome. We can add Pétré’s (1961: 1885–1892) short article on exemplum in the Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, Ascétique et Mystique. The article offers a synopsis of her work mentioned above coupled with brief analyses of the works of Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine. Out of the four Christian authors mentioned, Augustine takes prominence for providing positive samples of exempla taken from figures of the past, both pagan and Christian. Pétré’s dissertation offers a sweeping survey of the use of exempla drawn from nature, history, the sacred scripture, and Christ.

76 The juxtaposition of classical culture and Christianity adumbrates Tertullian’s appreciation of Rome’s past and his idea for the Roman society of the future where Christianity incribes itself in the enterprise of exemplification and the celebration of the virtues of exemplary figures in history. This vision was concretized in his articulation of Christian individuality and the relationship of Christian community to its North African socio-political sphere. Thus, Tertullian claimed for Christianity the task of image-making and the use and creation of exempla, which were usually the preserve of the Roman aristocracy through literary production.450

In Tertullian’s rhetorical use of exempla, three common strategies can be observed.

First, he placed side-by-side traditional and Christian exempla (a literary synkrisis), thereby articulating the validity and superiority of Christian virtue vis-à-vis other exempla. This strategy serves as an important justification for the ascendancy of the virtues of a Christian individual apropos the notion of self and self-improvement. Second, Tertullian’s copious use of foreign

(non-Roman) exempla in conjunction with Roman exempla reflects the pre-occupation of the intellectuals of his time in exploring ideas of a unified world, a Greco-Roman oikoumene.451

Finally, Tertullian instructs his readers to read their history (consulite commentarios vestros)452 as an invitation to review Roman history and the importance of historical interpretation. Thus,

450 Habinek (1998: 45) asserts that in Roman culture “an aristocrat is someone who lays claim to special privileges on the basis of a connection with an authorizing past. Literature is an important means of both preserving (or, as is more often the case, inventing) that past and of asserting its authority.” 451 For example, Richter (2011: ch.3). 452 Apol. 5.3.

77 Tertullian takes on the mantle of a paidagogus showcasing his sophistic erudition in the mould of Fronto, Aulus Gellius, and Apuleius to showcase a Christian historical narrative.453

History is about performing memory. Cicero claims that the orators are the best suited to write history because of their training in memory.454 By portraying his Roman contemporaries not only as forgetful of their past but also as having excluded deliberately aspects of their civic history, Tertullian conveniently argues that Roman collective memory is in jeopardy.455 In this vein, Tertullian demonstrates his skill in not only remembering history, but likewise reproducing history for his readers. It is helpful to consider that memory in classical culture is a process in which an individual mnemonic act represents a specific memory of the past, embodies this memory in a new form appropriate to the present, and produces new memories destined to serve the future.456 For example, in a typical exuberant display of paideia in his Florida, Apuleius refers to an exemplum of Alexander the Great’s refusal to be painted except by artists he approved in his argument that only genuine philosophers should be allowed to teach.457 Can Tertullian achieve the standard of his fellow African?

Tertullian deploys the strategies mentioned above by selecting individual exempla and exempla taken from events and shared experience of his North African audience, that is both the individual and communal exempla. Furthermore, Tertullian manipulates both exempla

453 See Champlin (1980: chs. 3 and 4); Vessey (1994: 1863–1917); Sandy (1997: ch. 2). For classical education in and the role of sophists, see Marrou (1956: esp. part 3). 454 de Orat. 2.36: Historia…vita memoriae…qua voce alia, nisi oratoris, immortalitati commendatur? 455 Nat. 1.10.6: Exclusa ubique antiquitas, in negotiis, in officiis: totam auctoritatem maiorum vestra auctoritas deiecit. 456 Farrell (1997: 373–383). 457 Florida 7.

78 domestica (Roman) and exempla externa (foreign) as an argument for the universality of virtues and vices.458

The most outstanding individual exempla in Tertullian’s apologetic writings are occasioned by his description of the character of Christian martyrdom. An examination of Ad

Martyras, Apologeticum, Ad Nationes, and Ad Scapulam results in a curious observation: although Tertullian repeatedly speaks about Christian persecution, no Christian martyr or group of martyrs is ever mentioned by name. Rather, Tertullian names various non-Christian historical personages to exemplify the virtues of the Christian martyrs. Most probably, Tertullian had in mind his ‘non-Christian’ readership, who would have been familiar with these historical characters. In his Ad Martyras, considered the first work of Tertullian,459 he consoles Christians who were incarcerated for their faith by comparing their experience with virtuous personages in the annals of history.460 Tertullian extols the chastity of Lucretia, the patriotism of Mucius

Scaevola, the courage of philosophers (Heraclitus, Empedocles and Peregrinus), the faithfulness of Dido, the Carthaginian queen, the suicide of the wife of Hasdrubal after the fall of Carthage,

Regulus’ amor patriae, and even the negative exemplum provided by Cleopatra’s escape from capture with a snake bite.461

However, all these exempla of fearlessness in the precipice of death pale in comparison to those of the Christians because what matters is not temporal fame (terrena gloria) but

458 See for example, the distinction between exempla domestica from exempla externa in Valerius Maximus’ Facta et Dicta Memorabilia. 459 Against Barnes supposition, Moreschini (2006: 134–137) supports the traditional chronology of Tertullian’s work wherein our author embarked on his literary pursuit by writing Ad Martyras. 460 Moreschini (2006: 133) argues for Christian persecution in Carthage around 197 A.D. 461 Mart. 4.4–6.

79 eternal glory (gloria caelestis et divina merces).462 Unlike gladiators who win fame and freedom from spectators and the emperor, Christians fight for their faith (bonum agonem subituri estis) where God renders the verdict (agonothetes deus vivus est) and the prize is citizenship in heaven and eternal glory (politia in caelis, gloria in saecula saeculorum).463

As these instacnes demonstrate, Tertullian musters both Roman and non-Roman exempla, thereby demonstrating that the courage to face death does not discriminate ethnos or gender. Indeed, the Christian church produces and nourishes martyrs (Christian exempla) from her own breasts (domina mater ecclesia de uberibus suis).464

Likewise, the individual exempla of Roman emperors provided Tertullian the opportunity to map the history of Christian persecution through their historical persona. In other words, the blood of Christians functioned as a litmus test for the virtue and vices of various emperors. In his rebuttal of society’s hatred of the nomen Christianum, Tertullian presented Tiberius as an exemplum:

“It was in the age of Tiberius, then, that the Christian name (nomen Christianum) went out into the world, and he referred to the Senate the news which he had received from Palestine, which had revealed the truth of Christ’s (ipsius) divinity; he did this exercising his prerogative in giving it his endorsement. The Senate had not approved beforehand and so rejected it. Caesar held to his opinion and threatened danger to accusers of the Christians.”465

462 Ibid. 4.9. 463 Ibid. 3.3. 464 Ibid. 1.1. 465 Apol. 5.2.

80 The account most probably is a literary invention by Tertullian, if it was not taken from an earlier apocryphal source.466 Notwithstanding the historicity of this account, what is important is singling out Tiberius as a defender of Christianity. It is not far off to deduce that Tertullian denigrates the first recorded persecution of Christians under Nero467 by “inventing” Tiberius’ imperial favor toward Christians. He then adds a historical narrative about the plight of

Christians from the Julio-Claudian dynasty to the era of Septimius Severus.

Tertullian singled out Domitian whom he sarcastically referred to as “a bit of a Nero in cruelty” (portio Neronis de crudelitate).468 In contrast, Tertullian presented Marcus Aurelius as

“protector” of Christians, who testified in his letter about the role of Christians in the miracle of rain during his campaign against the Quadi in 174 A.D.469 Tertullian includes important information that though the emperor did not openly remove the penalty from Christians,

Marcus Aurelius imposed harsh condemnation to their accusers.470 Likewise, Trajan decreed that Christians should not be sought out and the same tolerance was practiced by Hadrian,

Vespasian, Pius, and Verus.471 The persecution of Christians mirrored the chaotic age of Nero, while toleration recalled the period of the five good emperors.

Curiously, Tertullian ignored a chronological presentation of the emperors, mentioning

Marcus first among the Antonines. As I have pointed out in Chapter One, the persona of Marcus

466 Cf. Arbesmann, Daly and Quain (1950: 21 n.2). Barnes (1985: 149) maintains that the Tiberian favor toward Christians is mere invention. The account does not reconcile with Fronto’s strident criticism of Christians (cf. Minucius Felix, Oct. 9.6; 31.2). 467 Apol. 5.3: illic reperietis primum Neronem in hanc sectam cum maxime Romae orientem Caesariano gladio ferocisse. 468 Ibid. 5.4. Not dissimilar to Tertullian, Dio Chrysostom likewise criticized the tyranny of Nero and Domitian but never calling into question their right to rule. See Salmeri (1982: 113–114, note 97). 469 There are various versions of the rain miracle but none supports Tertullian’s claim. See Cassius Dio (71. 8–10), SHA (Ant. 24.4) and Themistius (Or. 15.191b). 470 Apol. 5.6. 471 Ibid. 5.7.

81 Aurelius loomed large in Severan ideology. Tertullian was conscious of the contemporary political issues and raised Marcus Aurelius as the foremost exemplum of Christian toleration.

Fifteen years later, in Tertullian’s letter to Scapula (Ad Scapulam), the governor of Africa, he would employ a similar historical strategy by recalling the imperial protection rendered by

Severus to Christians (et populo furenti in nos palam restitit) and then deploy the account of the rain miracle during the time of Marcus Aurelius.472

A similar rhetorical strategy is likewise applied to the various governors of Africa.

Tertullian reminds Scapula of the tolerance Christians enjoyed under his predecessors and opines that although Vigellius Saturninus drew the first sword against Christians,473 other administrators of the province of Africa (Cincius Severus, Vespronius Candidus, Asper, and

Pudens) offered possibilities for Christians to be saved.474 Our knowledge about the aforementioned governors of Africa is scant and too limited in order to verify Tertullian’s statement. That said, it is not improbable that the governors (and more importantly, the emperors) who persecuted Christians were singled out by Tertullian because of the taint of damnatio memoriae attached to them. By the same token, aligning Christians with political leaders judged by history as virtuous can easily gain positive opinion. In fact, Tertullian craftily insisted that Caecilius Capella, the governor of Byzantium and supporter of Pescennius Niger (a

472 Scap. 4.6. 473 Ibid. 3.4. The event took place in 17 July 180 A.D. and recorded to us in the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs. See Barnes (1971: 60–67). To this exemplum we can add Hilarian, governor of Africa from 202–203 A.D. when Perpetua and Felicity suffered martyrdom and when there was a tumult against Christian cemetery. Cf. Rebillard (1996). 474 Ibid. 4.3. Cincius Severus succeeded Vigellius Saturninus as governor of Africa during the reign of Domitian; Vespronius Candidus was proconsul of Africa from 180–192 A.D.; Asper was consul during the time of Commodus and awarded the office a second time in 212 A.D.; Pudens was proconsul perhaps in 210–211 A.D. or 211–212 A.D. For the background of governors in Roman Africa, see Thomasson (1996).

82 dangerous competitor of Severus to the throne) was shouting Christiani gaudete when

Byzantium fell to the forces of Septimius Severus.475

Exemplification, likewise, provided tools for responding to an important historical criticism, where Christianity was portrayed as new and lacking in antiquity. I have already cited

Suetonius who called Christianity nova. Celsus, likewise, the second century Christian critic, mocked Christians for the lack of historical leverage and their obscure origins.476 Far from just being a forensic defense of Christianity, the apologetic writings of Tertullian are likewise a treatise of origin whose aim was to construct a history of Christianity.477

Such strategy is clearly shown in Tertullian’s use of Moses as an exemplum. Tertullian explained that in matters of antiquity Moses precedes the arrival of Danaus in Argos by 400 years.478 Moses, therefore, lived a thousand years before the war in Troy and was older than

Saturn himself.479 He wrote about the foundation of the world, the production of mankind, and the cataclysm that befell it.480 It was through Moses that Yahweh gave his law to the Jews.481

Based on the interpretation of history where precedence becomes the seed for what succeeds

(Quod prius est, hoc sit semen necesse est),482 Tertullian concludes that the laws and studies of the Romans henceforth derived from the Jews.483 The archives of the most ancient ethnicities

(Egyptians, Chaldaeans, and Phoenicians) attest to the precedence of Moses. To wit, verifying

475 Ibid. 3.4. 476 Origen, Contra Celsum Book 2. 477 Burrows (1988: 210). 478 Apol. 19. 1 (Ful. 1). Danaus is the eponym of the Danaans, the word used by Homer to refer to Greeks. 479 Ibid.19.1 (Ful. 2): Troiano denique proelio ad mille annos ante est, unde et ipso Saturno. 480 Ibid. 481 Ibid: per hunc Moysen etiam illa lex propria Iudaeis a deo missa est. 482 Ibid 19.1 (Ful. 5). 483 Ibid: Adeo respici potest tam iura vestra quam studia de lege deque divina doctrina concepisse.

83 this would involve an excavation into the histories and literatures of the world.484 Yet, despite their noble origin exemplified by Moses, the Jews fell into disrepute because of pride and forgetfulness of Yahweh (Apol. 21.4-6). So, Christians inherited what belonged to the Jews because Christ, the Son of God, who spoke to Moses, renewed God’s covenant.485 And what was bestowed to Moses solely for the Jews is now made available to all (Jud. 1.2).

Tertullian’s historical analysis comes full circle. The history of Moses and Jewish heritage and its influence upon Greco-Roman culture run on a linear historical process. Christianity, however, is a synthesis of Jewish and Greco-Roman historical narratives: while it looks back to

Moses as its source, at the same time it continues to preserve the divine heritage lost by the

Jews and presently germinates in the seedbed of Greco-Roman culture for everyone to avail.

Hence, by ascribing value and recalling the exemplum of Moses (memoria), Christians are made aware about their identity and mission in the present world.486

The importance of antiquity and the exigencies of contemporary issues are likewise shown in the exempla drawn from the history of jurisprudence. The criminalization of Christians occasions Tertullian’s critique of the Roman laws.487 Antiquity cannot be a defense for the viability of law. An adept scholar of the past, Tertullian utilized historical exempla to describe the mutation and eventual disuse of laws. Tertullian deployed historical exempla to disarm legal arguments based on antiquity. For example, Lycurgus went into a voluntary exile and

484 Ibid. 19.7: peregrinandum est in historias et litteras orbis. 485 Ibid. 21. 5–7; Jud. 9.22. 486 This is my interpretation of a difficult sententia offered by Tertullian: Idonea est enim recognitio praeteritorum ad disponendam fiduciam futurorum (Apol. 19.1. Ful. 8). 487 Apol. 4.4: Iam primum cum dure definitis dicendo: Non licet esse vos! Et hoc sine ullo retractatu humaniore praescribitis, vim profitemini et iniquam ex arce dominationem, si ideo negatis licere, quia vultis, non quia debuit non licere.

84 condemned himself to starve to death when the Spartans altered the laws he wrote.488 A recent exemplum is provided by the emperor Severus who corrected the anomaly of the lex Papia

Poppaea and lex Iulia de maritandis ordinibus.489 The above exempla demonstrate that laws are human constructs and not divine.490 Thus, laws must be based on equity (Apol. 4.10: sed aequitas sola) for they exist to serve society which in turn owes obedience to them as the guardian of justice.491

One might easily argue that Tertullian’s philosophy of history is facilitated by his eschatological reinterpretation of history.492 My survey of the various exempla utilized by

Tertullian, especially the exempla of Christian martyrs and the narrative of a Christian origin in the persona of Moses, attest to Tertullian’s historical template where Christianity propositions itself as the point of confluence between Judaism and Greco-Roman civilization. Yet, Tertullian was not just a historian anxious to create a new Christian historical narrative from various disparate historical accounts. Rather, Tertullian was a pragmatist and very much in touch with contemporary socio-political issues. Hence, his exempla drawn from political and religious figures and jurisprudence, both local and foreign, underscore a desire to present himself as a person knowledgeable of Greco-Roman culture, bestowing upon himself credibility to interpret historical processes.

488 Tertullian provides a different version from that of Plutarch (Vita Lyc. 29, 4ff) where Lycurgus made the Spartans swear an oath not to change the laws he wrote until he returned from Delphi. 489 The lex Papia Poppaea (9 A.D.) permits a widower to inherit the patrimony of his spouse but only if they have children. The lex Iulia de maritandis ordinibus (18 B.C.) declares that no unmarried man may inherit property after he turns 25; an unmarried woman may not do so if she turned 20. Severus corrected the anomaly created by these two laws for a childless widower cannot inherit if he has not reached 25 yrs. old but could have done so if he were a celibate. 490 Apol. 4. 5: Si lex tua erravit, puto, ab homine concepta est; neque enim de caelo ruit. 491 Ibid. 4.13: Nulla lex sibi soli conscientiam iustitiae suae debet, sed eis a quibus obsequium expectat. Ceterum suspecta lex est quae probari se non vult, inproba autem, si non probata dominetur. 492 Burrows (1988: 229). Likewise, Pelikan (1952: 108–122).

85

V. The perils of myth and the use of myth in the articulation of Christian identity.

So far, I have presented the rhetoric of masculinity and the utilization and interpretation of Roman historical exempla which align Tertullian with the sophistic tradition of his time. This is true as well with Tertullian’s critique and re-appropriation of myth. An outstanding sophist must be adept in deploying the Classical period’s foremost cultural capital: myth.493

Familiarity with mythological narratives played an important part in the sophistic repertoire, especially in the sophists’ role as custodians of the past.494 Ewald, for example, demonstrates the connection between myth and the rhetoric of masculinity in the context of the Second Sophistic where the acquisition of various Attic sarcophagi featuring various mythical figures not only advertised a Roman elite’s philhellenism, but also enhanced their cultural identity.495 Likewise, Apuleius, who, with Lucius acting as his mouthpiece, teases his readers about his identity (Met. 1.1.3: quis ille?) navigating between myth and philosophy, between the experience of an initiate in the mysteries of Isis and Osiris and a Platonic philosopher.496 In fact, how could Apuleius satisfy the intellectual range of his readers, establish his fame as pepaideumenos, and amuse his readers (Met. 1.1: lector intende: laetaberis!) without the didactic and narrative pathos of mythical figures?497 The account of Cupid and

493 For a description of the importance of myth in sophistic repertoire, see Whitmarsh (2005) and Whitmarsh (2001: 41–130). 494 On the second sophistic and the cult of the past, see Anderson (1997: 2173–2185); Vessey (1994). 495 Ewald (2004: 229–276). 496 See Harrison (2000: 210–259). 497 See Zimmerman (2013: 43–47). On the possible function of Metamorphoses as a literary piece for intellectual dinner conversations, see Zimmerman (2008: 133–155).

86 Psyche embedded in the novel allows Apuleius to weave literary, philosophical, and theological themes.498

Roman North Africa offers an important case study in the evolution of mythical narratives (Punic, Greek, Egyptian, and Roman) and how they helped shape the culture in the region during the second and third centuries A.D. Unfortunately, we have yet to see a study dedicated to mythology in this particular region during the imperial period. What follows are mere tentative steps.

Tertullian testifies to the role of theatres in Africa in popularizing mythical narratives, such as “Anubis the adulterer,” “The Gentleman Moon,” “Diana Lashed,” “The will of the late

Jove,” and “The three hungry Herculeses.”499 Cadotte’s work offers an important aid in understanding the value of myth, the process of romanization, and syncretism in North

Africa.500 Apuleius’ syncretistic portrayal of Isis with Iuno Caelestis, for example, clearly show the malleability and interchangeability of the attributes and categories of the deities in the region.501 Material culture, likewise, witness to the influence and ubiquity of myth. The popularity of Hercules in Africa owes to his identification with the Punic god as evidenced by a bronze statue found in Thibar.502 The village of Soliman (Cape Bon) yielded a terra cotta figure of Dea Nutrix which could either represent Demeter and Damophon or Isis

498 The best edition is Kenney (1990). On the Platonic allusions in the narrative, see De Filippo (1990: 471–492); Hooker (1955: 24–38); O’Brien (2002). 499 Apol. 15.1. Tertullian tells us that these were written by Lentulus and Hostilius, mime writers during the imperial period (Cf. Moreschini [2006: 392, note 34]). 500 Cadotte (2007). 501 See Le Glay (1983: 61). There are numerous studies on Dea Caelestis but Halsberghe (1984: 2203–2223) provides a good introduction. 502 The statue known as “Hercules mingens” is dated around second century A.D. and is now in Bardo Museum. See Ben Khader and Soren (1987: 200–201).

87 and Horus.503 The resilience of Punic element in the pantheon of Roman North Africa is attested by the relief of the Seven Berber Gods (Dii Mauri) dated around third century A.D.504 Mythical figures were not only used for religious or cultic purposes. They also penetrated the secular lives and whet the sophisticated taste of the elites. The mosaic found in the House of Silenus and the Ass in Jem, dated to the third century A.D., features the gods Dionysus and Bacchus with the winged victory.505 And the discovery of a votive stele dedicated to Saturn dated in the fourth century A.D. proves that the Christianization of the region failed to eradicate the influence of traditional myth and the cult to Africa’s primary deity.506

My evaluation of the role of myth in Tertullian’s apologetic writings has two aims. First, I shall demonstrate Tertullian’s place within the tradition of early Christian apologetics’ criticism of Greco-Roman myths. Second, I shall argue that myth can be a “virtual learning environment” which the sophists used to teach their listeners about ethics, politics, and religion in the formation of an ideal citizen.507 Is it possible to speak of re-appropriation of mythical narratives in Tertullian? In other words, what is the role of myths in Tertullian’s construction and articulation of Christian identity?

But, to begin, a caveat is in order. There is paucity of scholarship in the study of Greek and Roman myths in the writings of early Christian authors.508 To my knowledge, there has

503 The statuette, now kept in Bardo museum, is dated around second or first century B.C. Cf. Ben Khader and Soren (1987: 154). 504 Though the inscription is written in Latin, the names of the gods are clearly indigenous. This votive relief, found in Beja, now rests in the Bardo museum. Cf. Ben Khader and Soren (1987: 139–140). 505 Cf. Ben Khader and Soren (1987: 171–172). 506 The artifact was found in El Ayaida, not far from the ancient town of Vaga. Cf. Ben Khader and Soren, (1987: 219). 507 Dowden and Livingstone (2014: 11). 508 As far as I know, there are only three works. The book published in 1957 by the German patristic scholar Hugo Rahner and two survey articles by Graf and Liebeschuetz. All of them lack a general synthesis or detailed study. See Rahner (1963); Graf (2014: 319–337); Liebeschuetz (1995: 193–208).

88 been no specific study on myth in Tertullian, despite the fact that his writings are pregnant with mythological references and that book two of Adversus Nationes remains an invaluable reference for the tripartite theology of Varro.509 In a recent work by Graf that attempted to give a synthesis of myth and early Christian literature, references to Tertullian are negligible.510

Generally, the early Christians were critical of mythology because of the adulteries of the gods, their incest, homosexuality, their disgraceful behavior, their display of human emotions, and their servitude like Hercules.511 Ancient Christian condemnation of classical mythology is not a novelty. Prior to the Christians, Greek prompted Xenophanes of

Colophon (6th century BC) to attack the truth of traditional Greek tales.512 Plato, likewise, denounced myth for presenting a false image of reality.513 Other philosophers like Plato’s successors in the Academy, Heracleitus, Theocritus of Chios, Musonius Rufus, and Lucretius — all shared scorn against how gods were presented in myths.

Both Tertullian and Minucius Felix, following the thesis of Euhemerus,514 argue that the gods honored by the Romans were mere glorified mortals. For Tertullian, the apotheosis of dead mortals was impugned by the success of tales and the perpetuation of a cult (Apol. 12.1: fabulas audio, et sacra de fabulis recognosco). Likewise, Athenagoras, Greek Christian apologist

509 On Varro’s tripartite theology in Tertullian, see Fredouille (1988: 220–235); Lieberg (1973: 63–115); Pépin (1956: 265–294). 510 Graf (2014: 319–337). However, there are a number of studies in Tertullian which discuss mythology as an auxiliary discipline, see, for example, Uglione (1999: 504–522). 511 For a detailed treatment of the topic, see Vermander (1982: 3–128). 512 Cf. Diels and Kranz (1966–1967: fr.21 B 14–16) and Diels and Kranz (1966–1967: fr. 21 B 23). 513 E.g. Plato Rep. 607b5–6. 514 Euhemerus of Messene, a late 4th century B.C. writer wrote Sacra Historia where he narrated how, in his travels, he came to the knowledge that Uranus, , and were mere mortal rulers deified by their grateful constituents. This thesis was used by various Christian writers to demonstrate the error of Roman religion: Minucius Felix, Oct. 21.2; Tertullian, Apol. 10.3ff; Theophilus, Ad Autol. 1.9f; Athenagoras, Leg. 28ff; Clement of Alexandria, Protr. 2.24.2; Lactantius, Div. Inst. 1.11.44; Arnobius of Sicca, 1.37f. For introduction to the study of Euhemerism in Classical Antiquity, see Vallauri (1960) and Winiarczyk (2013).

89 and older contemporary of Tertullian, accused the Greek poets of inventing the gods of the

Greek pantheon.515 Minucius Felix echoed the same sentiment, pointing out that the poets were responsible for popularizing false belief in the gods (Oct. 24.1-2). Mythical accounts are absurd because gods cannot be born, die, or behave immorally.516 Indeed, Tertullian himself chided the Romans for putting lightning in the hands of Jupiter (Apol. 11.6), or for the fact that next to Juno, Ceres, and Diana equal worship was offered to Larentina, a prostitute (Apol. 13.9).

At most, according to Tertullian, these gods – especially the polyadic gods of Carthage: Caelestis and Aesculapius – were mere demons (Apol. 12.4; 23.6). Minucius Felix reiterates that impure spirits or demons lurked behind the graven images of gods (Oct. 27.1). While the daemones may have had an ambiguous reception in the religious minds of the second century Romans, especially its celebrated locus classicus in the daemonium of Socrates (Plato. Apol. 19), the emphasis of the Christian apologists was on instructing how demons pervert the minds of the people.517

Tertullian’s critique of myths rests on their important role as didactic tools and a source of exempla that present danger to the integrity and formation of individual conscience and its maintenance thereof (circa conscientiae pudorem et pudoris defensionem).518 Myths lack the ability to form individual conscience and its religious beliefs are not concurrent to ethics.519

Related to this argument is the spirit of the period in which the elites considered the

515 Athenagoras, Supplicatio 13.1.2. 516 Oct. 23. 1–4. This argument is shared by other Christian writers, Arnobius, Adv. Nat. 4.21; Origen, Contra Celsum 1.17.25; Athanasius, Contra Gentes 10.30-37, 12, 1-28. 517 In Spect. 12, Tertullian said of the Capitol as “capitolium omnium daemonorum templum est.“ Another important account of demons from the same period is Minucius Felix, Octavius chs. 26 and 27. 518 Nat. 2.7.8. Tertullian repeated this concern in Apologeticum 14.2: Sed conversus ad litteras vestras, quibus informamini ad prudentiam et liberalia officia, quanto invenio ludibria. Quacquarelli (1950: 27) observes that “non si può staccare tradizione religiosa da tradizione familiare e quindi sociale.” 519 Quacquarelli (1950: 36). Similarly, Carrié (1999: 433–434); Vernant (1996).

90 development of virtue as one of their primary objectives.520 Therefore, by pointing out the moral pitfalls of mythological narratives, Tertullian presented Christianity as more credible in the instruction and development of “individual conscience.”

According to Tertullian, mythological narratives blind the eyes to truth. If historical exempla are supposed to be sources of stability and reassurance in the midst of changes in society,521 Tertullian argues that mythology destabilizes the moral integrity of an individual.

Jupiter provides the most notorious exempla.522 Myths condone incestuous relationships among gods. Jupiter hated his father because of incest; yet he himself united with his own sister.523 Such an act defines what piety means: tam pius pater quam pius filius!524 The brazen conduct of Jupiter did not end with incest, but he likewise indulged himself in adultery and debauchery.525 He transformed himself into a bull to mate with Pasiphae and Europa, into a shower of gold to copulate with Danäe, an eagle swooping down on Ganymede, and a swan for

Leda.526 How could Virgil call Jupiter aequus Iuppiter?527 Indeed, all gods are like Jupiter, incestuous, unchaste, impious, unjust!528 No one is worthy to be called a God, unless, according to myths (fabulas), conspicuous infamy is attached to them.529

520 See Gill (2005: 597–615). 521 See Bell (2008: 1–39). 522 Underlining Jupiter’s exempla as nefarious to the morals of the Romans, Tertullian argued: Proinde incesti qui magis quam quos ipse Iupiter docuit? (Apol. 9.16). 523 Nat. 2.13.15. 524 Ibid. 525 Ibid. 2.13.16: dubitaret libidine ab incesto corroborata in leviora, id est et stupra diffundere? 526 Ibid. 2.13.18. 527 ibid. 2.13.20. 528 Ibid. 2.13.21. 529 Ibid. 2.13.21.

91 Tertullian, likewise accuses Homer of representing gods with human weaknesses and passions:530 a mere mortal was able to wound Venus with arrows, was put in chains for thirteen months, Jupiter almost suffered the same fate from his fellow gods, or that he cried for

Sarpedon, or burned with lust for Juno.531 Hercules, who enjoyed immense popularity together with Liber Pater in Severus’ ideology,532 is an example of madness (furia) after killing his wife and children.533 Even Romulus, the legendary founder of Rome, killed his own brother and was guilty of seizing the female progenies of an entire nation.534 In short, while Tertullian argues that gods were but mere deified human beings,535 he also claims that their mortal lives were not even worthy of emulation.

However, one must ask whether the attack of Christians, or Tertullian for that matter, against Greco-Roman myths was warranted. Did the Romans believe in their myths?536 Cicero opines that a literal reading of myth is not only absurd, but also vulgar and unworthy.537 No educated audience would believe that the poets’ myths were true in a historical sense.538 But, a long tradition of allegorizing flourished from the time of Pherecydes and Anaxagoras in the fifth and sixth centuries B.C.539 Christian writers frequently criticized philosophical attempts to

530 Ibid. 1.10.38: Adhuc meminimus Homeri: ille, opinor, est qui divinam maiestatem humana condicione tractavit, casibus et passionibus humanis deos imbuens. 531 Ibid. 1.10.39. 532 See Lichtenberger (2011); and Coltelloni-Trannoy (2002: 41–58). 533 Nat. 1.14.8. 534 Ibid. 2.9.19. 535 Ibid. 2.12.4. 536 See Veyne (1988). 537 Cicero, 2.28. 538 Hanson (1980: 922–923). 539 See Pépin (1976). Christian authors beginning with Clement of Alexandria and Origen adapted allegorical interpretation as a hermeneutical tool in the interpretation of the sacred scripture. The most recent and complete study is a two-volume work of Kannengiesser (2004); Likewise, Hanson (1959) and Daniélou (1960).

92 salvage myths by allegorizing them.540 Tertullian likewise denounced poetic license (allegatione poeticae licentiae)541 in the interpretation of myths, not only because people were taught to respect such stories (fabulas) but more importantly they became the very foundation of literature in the education of the elite in society (ingenuitatis studia).542

However, already before Tertullian, well-educated Christian apologists recognized the importance of mythical narratives as a didactic tool for teaching about the truth of Christ.

Hence, Justin Martyr could compare Jesus, the word of God, with Hermes, the messenger and son of Zeus; the death of Christ with the death of Asklepios, Dionysus and Heracles; even the virgin birth of Christ is modeled after that of Perseus (Cf. 1 Apology 21). Likewise, for Tatian the figure of Heracles, son of Zeus, helps explain why Jesus could be called the son of God (cf.

Oration 21).

Christian writers in late antiquity saw no reason in rejecting myth as a rhetorical device.

Ambrose of Milan, for instance, used the story about the fall of Icarus from the sky as a warning to those who easily yielded to worldly temptations.543 Odysseus’ encounter with the Sirens served as a reminder about the perils of the earthly journey.544 But it would be Tertullian’s fellow Africans who would find great use of myth in their literary pursuit. Dracontius, the fifth century poet from Carthage, wrote poems on Medea, Helen, Hylas, and Orestis tragoedia.545

540 Hanson (1980: 922–924). 541 Nat. 2. 7.9. 542 Ibid. 2.7.10. Another important issue related to this topic, but which Tertullian glossed over in his apologetic writings, is the relationship between myths and the imperial cult. We know, for example, that imperial cult enjoyed immense popularity in North Africa compared to other provinces in the third century. There are in fact thirty-four flamines or sacerdotes Augusti in North Africa during the period compared to six in the province of Gaul. See Frézouls (1987: 3–26). 543 Commentary on the Song of Songs 16. 544 Tobit 1.5. 545 See Kaufmann (2006).

93 Around 500 A.D., Fulgentius of wrote Mitologiae, a three-book work on allegorical interpretation of “pagan” mythology. Choricius of Gaza, a pupil of Procopius of Gaza, around

530 A.D., celebrated the marriage of a Christian couple with a speech embellished with plenty of references to Eros and Aphrodite.

When Tertullian compared the Christian Sunday to the feast of Saturn (Apol. 16.11), he used an analogy popular among his readers, given especially the revitalization of the cult of

Saturn in North Africa under the patronage of Severus.546 More than just a conventional use of a popular religious symbol, Tertullian placed himself within the sophistic tradition when he chose to exploit mythology as a vehicle of self-presentation.547 Sophistic auctoritas allowed

Tertullian to deploy mythical narrative to construct and articulate Christian identity vis-à-vis

Roman identity. Sophistic eloquence was utilized in the service of Christian apologetics.

Against the popular argument that the Roman Empire reached its grandeur and held the world due to its religious attitude (pro merito religiositatis diligentissimae),548 Tertullian reminded the Romans that at the beginning there were only Sterculus, Mutunus, and Larentina, native deities of Rome, to extend their empire. He points out that Roman religio flourished only after the empire was achieved (Apol. 25.12). In fact, until the time of Numa, service of the gods

(res divina) among the Romans boasted of no statues nor temples.549

“It was frugal religion, the rites of poverty, no capitol vying with the sky, but chance altars of turf, pottery still Samian, and the smell rising from the pots, and the God

546 Le Glay (1966: 89–95). 547 See Weiss (1984: 179–208). 548 Apol. 25.2. See likewise Cicero, De Nat. Deorum 2.3.8. 549 Ibid.

94 himself nowhere! Not yet had men of genius, Greek and Tuscan, flooded the city, to make images.”550 Tertullian’s condemnation of the poverty of Roman religio includes the traditional myths. Varro, in his tripartite theology, introduced myth as one of its three components. Tertullian criticizes

Roman myths popularized by poets as disgraceful.551 For Tertullian, religio must not be contaminated by unworthy accounts about the divine.552 Tertullian’s discussion of Varro’s tripartite theology in the Ad Nationes provides additional information how Tertullian problematizes mythical narratives. While most modern scholars consider the Adversus Nationes a template for Tertullian’s Apologeticum, it is interesting that Tertullian left out the important discussion of Varro’s theologia tripartita in his more popular work.

In Adversus Nationes II.7, Tertullian offers an important critique of Varro’s mythical theology. Euhemerus’ standard argument comes in handy in Tertullian’s criticism of mythical theology invented and popularized by poets. The gods of the poets were mere mortals and owing to their meritorious lives should have been called heroes and not gods.553 Though it is hard to believe that the educated would simply believe the silly account of poets, Tertullian points out that myths provide the narratives to the ritual practices of the community.554 It was in its auxiliary role in religious rituals that mythical narratives formed a social relationship and could sustain civic bonds. Two conclusions can be deduced: first, Tertullian characterized

Varro’s mythical theology as commonly shared by those instructed by the poets. This is also true for Varro’s philosophical theology. In fact, the deities listed in both the philosophical and

550 Ibid. 25.13. Dio Chrysostom (Or. 25.8) described the origin of Rome as inhabited by a mob of poor and wild men. 551 Nat. 2.1.13: apud poetas omnia indigna, quia turpia. 552 Ibid. 2.1.14: Porro divinitas…neque fabulis indignis contaminetur. 553 Nat. 2.7.2. 554 Ibid. 2.7.15: Non creditis poetis, cum de relationibus eorum etiam sacra quaedam disposueritis?

95 mythical theologies were reclassified by Tertullian as dii communes.555 Second, these dii communes were really dii Romani (in fact, the Romans share these gods with other people); while the second category, the dii proprii, were specific to the Romans alone. Based on

Tertullian’s re-categorization of Varro’s theologia tripartita, both philosophical and mythical theologies are encompassed by civic theology, if by civic theology we understand the gods of

Rome. Later, Augustine, likewise, maintains that the civic theology, in the mind of Varro, is really a combination of both the philosophical and the mythical.556

But what is the objective in Tertullian’s complicated analysis of Varro’s theologia tripartita? I suggest that his aim is to underscore the diversity of beliefs within the Roman religious system – a diversity that testified not to the piety of the Romans, which allowed them to conquer many nations (Ad. Nat. 2.17.1–2), but to the conquest of many nations and the subjugation of their gods (Ad. Nat. 2.17.15–18). For Tertullian, civic theology undercuts this diversity. Rives argues that the civic model of religion allowed the elite in Carthage to align themselves as a group with Rome,557 and mythical narratives provide literary implements to sustain this ideology. Saturn, the principal god of the Africans, offers an important example.558

Saturn was considered the counterpart of the punic deity Baal-Hammon.559 Le Glay points out that Tertullian’s Apologeticum (9.2–3) was the earliest document to attest to the cult of Saturn

555 Tertullian reclassified Varro’s theologia tripartita into two classes: dii communes and dii proprii (Nat. 2.9.6). The gods of the philosophers and poets belong to the first category, while the gods of the city belong to the second category. See Fredouille (1988). 556 De Civitate Dei 6.6. 557 Rives (1995: chs. 1–3). 558 Brian-Ponsart and Hugoniot (2005:152): Saturn occupies preeminence in the African pantheon except in the province of Tripolitania. 559 Cadotte (2007:25–29); Le Glay (1966: 62–67).

96 in Africa.560 But in Tertullian’s Adversus Nationes the Saturn described is not the African Saturn

(the counterpart of Baal-Hammon), but the Italian (Roman) Saturn.561

Two details support this finding. First, Tertullian made no mention of Caelestis (the counterpart of who is the consort of Baal Hammon).562 Second, he directed his readers to read the works of Cassius Severus, Nepos, Tacitus, and Diodorus among the Greeks to learn the origin of Saturn.563 Tertullian’s account states that Saturn settled in Italy after having travelled widely to places, including Athens. The hill on which he settled is called Saturnius and the city he founded Saturnia.564 Writing to an African audience, Tertullian’s strategy to present a Roman version of the myth of Saturn lampoons the elite’s program of Romanizing Baal Hammon and producing an “official” mythical narrative.565

According to Le Glay, this scheme failed.566 It is rather strange for Tertullian to use the argument of “religious diversity” in his 97ndeavor for the consideration of the Christian faith.

But the plurality of religious narratives in Carthage helps the case of Tertullian to likewise include a Christian narrative (fabula) about Christ. The scheme may have been inopportune and

560 Le Glay (1966: 61). 561 For the difference between the Roman Saturn from the African Saturn, see Le Glay (1966: 449–478.) Likewise, Stockmeier (1981/1982: 829–835). 562 See Cadotte (2007: 65–111); likewise, Bullo (1994: 1597–1628) and Halsberghe (1984: 2203–2223). 563 Nat. 2.12.26: Exstat apud litras vestras usquequaque Saturni census. Legimus apud Cassium Severu, apud Cornelios Nepotem et Tacitum, apud Graecos quoque Diodoru, quive alii antiquitatum canos collegerunt. 564 Ibid. 2.12.27-29. 565 In his analysis of the concept of the romanisation of African religion, Le Glay (1966) suggests that such a phenomenon at best was superficial. Yet, I would like to qualify that the effort of the North African elite to “Romanize” North African religion involved two processes: (1) the recognition of the religious landscape and diversity of religious practices; and (2) the “attempt” of the imperial government to harmonise these diversities. For example, it was in the intent of the elite to harmonise discrepant religion and culture in North Africa that we find one of the motives for a proactive promotion of imperial cult in the region. Similarly, Cadotte’s (2007: 39) analysis of African inscriptions dedicated to Saturn demonstrates that from the second century A.D. a romanization of the cult can be observed both in language and artistic depiction. Likewise, a study of the North African Saturn stelai arrived at a similar conclusion. Cf. Wilson (2003: 403–408). Fevrier (1976: 305–336) provides a critical examination of the role of religion in the “Romanization” of Roman North Africa. 566 Le Glay (1966: 482–487).

97 paradoxical, but it demonstrates Tertulian’s apologetic craft in testing the flexibility of religious pluralism.

Having established that the traditional gods are not genuine or in reality demons (Apol.

23.11: quos enim praesumpseratis deos esse iam daemonas esse cognoscitis), Tertullian invites his readers to apply the same critical lens concerning the story of Christ (Apol. 23.12: quis ille

Christus cum sua fabula). Myth helps clarify the birth of Christ. He is proclaimed the son of God without the immorality and shame attached to the name of Jupiter (Apol. 21. 7–9).567 In fact,

Christ is compared to Zeno’s logos (Apol. 21. 10–12).568 The word of God entered the womb of a virgin and became a man united to God (Apol. 21. 14: et in utero eius caro figuratus nascitur homo deo mixtus). Christ, also, went through the normal process of human growth.569 After he was sentenced to death by Pontius Pilate, his resurrection achieved in fact what Romulus, the legendary founder of Rome, was thought to accomplish through the tale of Proculus (Apol.

21.23). Tertullian endeavoured to inject the narrative of Christ (fabula) to the embryo of the cultural and collective memory of his audience.

A more thorough study of mythology in Tertullian’s opera omnia than what I attempted here can facilitate a better understanding of the polysemy of myth and its capacity as a virtual learning environment to mediate the Christian message. Hence, Tertullian can insist that Homer copied from Moses or that Serapis is actually another name for the biblical Joseph.570 While

Tertullian was wary about the illusion of truth that myths apparently creates, he was likewise

567 Justin Martyr offered a similar argument (1 Apol. 21.2; 22.5). 568 On Tertullian’s logos theology, see Cantalamessa (1962); Osborn (2003: ch. 6). 569 Apol. 21.14: Caro spiritu structa nutritur, adolescit, affatur, docet, operatur et Christus est. 570 Nat. 2.8.10. Unfortunately, Tertullian’s apologetic ouevre provide scanty biblical references. An examination of his omnia opera however holds promising topic for future study.

98 cognizant of its effective function as a rhetorical device and a symbolic language, in articulating

Christian faith.

VI. Summary

The relationship of Tertullian with Classical literature has elicited huge interest from modern scholarship. Broadly speaking there are two schools of thought: scholars who recognize

Tertullian’s debt to his Roman North African culture and those who argue for discontinuity between Tertullian and his cultural milieu. Recent studies have widened the gap between the

Christian and African identity of Tertullian from that of the Roman colonizers in Africa. Without occluding the particularities of Christian faith and the uniqueness of being “African,” I demonstrate in this chapter how Tertullian adopted and reappropriated Roman cultural constructs, such as rhetoric and history, in order to articulate Christian identity in a pluralist and

“culturally malleable” society. I took the figure and the literary production of Apuleius as guide in understanding Tertullian’s rhetoric and the expectations of his presumptive readers.

One of the hurdles in reconciling Christian faith with Classical rhetoric is the contraposition of (Christian) philosophy to the stereotypical image of sophists during the imperial period. Scholarship on Apuleius, however, demonstrates that philosophy and sophistic eloquence are not incompatible. Apuleius’ literary works exemplify the rhetorical strategies of self-fashioning and furnishes evidence of a “Latin sophist.” I argue in this chapter that Tertullian used similar sophistic topoi to construct Christian identity for public consumption. Tertullian’s

99 strategy underscores Christianity’s continuity with Classical tradition.571 Three sophistic themes in Tertullian’s apologetic writing are examined in this chapter to describe his mechanism of reappropriating Classical culture: the rhetoric of masculinity, the use of historical exempla, and the art of de-authorizing and reappropriating mythical narratives to articulate Christian faith.

The main objective of Tertullian’s apologetic writings is to address false opinion about

Christianity (e.g. Apol. 1.9). However, Christians were not allowed to defend themselves in the public forum.572 The muting of Christian discourse was not only unjust but it “effeminized”

Christians, the public forum being a sexualized sphere. To be able to speak in public was identified with power and its deprivation subjugation or alienation. Tertullian reclaimed virility for Christianity through literary production. Indeed, there is something “manly” in Tertullian’s audacity to write what is not allowed to be spoken.573 Christian virility was likewise paraded in

Tertullian’s description of Christian self-control and adherence to veritas even at the cost of their lives. Certainly, another aspect of “literary virility” worth investigating is the Latin style of

Tertullian’s apologetic writings. Did he write in grand style, with much pathos and comparable to Ciceronian sublimity? I am however limited by the scope of this dissertation to further investigate this issue.

Next, my analysis of Tertullian’s use of exempla in this chapter reveals that he utilized both Roman and non-Roman exempla. Aware that exemplification provides moral standards

571 Certainly, Tertullian’s great esteem for philosophy and rhetoric as important tools in articulating Christian identity was not a novelty. In Adversus Valentinianos (5.1), Tertullian names several Christian authors who utilized Classical learning to expound on Christian faith. Tertullian aligns himself in this tradition: ut Iustinus, philosophus et martyr, ut Miltiades, ecclesiarum sophista, ut Irenaeus, omnium doctrinarum curiosissimus explorator; ut Proculus noster, virginis senectae et Christianae eloquentiae dignitas, quos in omni opere fidei quemadmodum in isto optaverim adsequi. 572 Apol. 2.3: Sed Christianis solis nihil permittitur loqui. 573 The act of writing itself can be considered an articulation of identity, especially for someone considered a subaltern. See Cribiore (2001).

100 and serves as a repository of values in Roman society, Tertullian encoded Christian virtues into his society’s system of preserving, interpreting, and performing accounts of exemplary individuals, such as identifying the value of Christian martyrdom with the exemplary lives of

Roman and Carthaginian heroes. Tertullian’s rhetoric of history includes as well the mapping of

Christian persecution against the memories of good and bad emperors.

Thirdly, along the tradition of sophists who used myths to teach or expound on philosophy, Tertullian demonstrates that he can rise above mere criticism of the immoral accounts of myth.574 Myths can be used to describe the person of Christ, figures in the scriptures, or even Christian ritual such as the eucharist. Tertullian claimed for Christians what is reserved to scholars of Roman history, the authority to critique or re-appropriate mythical narratives. This chapter illustrated how Tertullian manipulated the mechanisms of Roman North

African culture. Tertullian’s reappropriation of sophistic tools demonstrates that through paideia Christianity could identify with “globalized” aspects of Roman identity. Tertullian’s apologetic strategies go beyond the rhetoric of “otherness” or binary opposition. Rather, his writings convey Tertullian’s sensitivity to the cultural and political developments of his time.

Tertullian’s insight into the evolution of his society is clearly expressed in his rhetoric of individuality and community which will be discussed in the succeeding chapters.

574 I have in mind, for example, Dio Chrysostom who utilized mythical accounts into a parable of something real (Or. 5.1) or used to them to explain philosophical concepts (Or. 60.9).

101 Chapter Three

Individuality as an apologetic discourse

I. Introduction

In this chapter, I shall discuss Tertullian’s rhetoric of individuality as another locus of identity construction. The choice of posing the question of individuality to North African society during the imperial period may seem arbitrary and anachronistic. In fact, one scholar contends that individuality, in modern discussions of self and personhood, was “not a deep concern in the first and second centuries.”575 While it is difficult to define the term “individuality” as a heuristic tool, given its modern connotation, I contend that the absence of a “theory of individuality” in the ancient world does not preclude areas of intensified discourse about the value of the individual and individual differences in society.576 These areas include, for example, the relationship between individual rights and laws in the discussions of human dignity and human liberty,577 the conscious representation of the self in a pluralistic society in art, , onomastics, and material culture,578 and even the challenge to the status quo posed by itinerant philosophers (especially the Cynics) and ascetics.579 In matters of religion, one

575 Trapp (2007a: 99). “Individualization” is likewise a term peculiar to . See Rüpke (2013: 7). 576 On individualization as a tool for historical research, see Rüpke (2013: 3–38). Le Bart (2008) offers a general introduction to the concept of individualisation in social science, religious and political history, and in the field of economics. 577 See Cartledge and Edge (2013: 149–163); Cancik (2002: 19–40). 578 Cf. Haeussler (2013: 48–51). An example is the inscription of Q. Apuleus Maxssimus (CIL, VIII, 22758) found in El- Amrouni in Tripolitana in both Latin and Neo-Punic. The dedicator deliberately opted for a “Roman” way of honoring the dead (the mausoleum and inscription in Latin) without neglecting his Punic culture. 579 On this topic, see the excellent work of Francis (1995). Brown (1988) provides an important study on the relationship between sexuality and the human body in the early Church.

102 should consider as well individual expectations concerning the afterlife or “well-being” and the individual as subject of specific rituals, religious training, and spiritual exercise.580

Current research into Classical literature shows increasing interest in the investigation of individuality or the self, and much attention has been directed toward the importance of the person and the individual in ancient philosophical thought.581 Various studies have shown a growing self-consciousness and uniqueness of the individual person from the period of the early Roman Empire onward.582 Conceptualizations of selfhood, however, can be traced back to the rhetorical schools of the fourth century B.C. and to the trend to canonize as philosophical models individuals such as Socrates and Pythagoras or as idial rulers individuals such as

Evagoras and Agesilaus. This trend is propagated in biographical writing.583 Porphyry’s

Pythagoras, Philo’s Moses, Philostratus’ Apollonius of Tyana, and the Christian account of Jesus’ life in the Gospels, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Acts of Christian Martyrs, demonstrate the popularity of biographical writing especially during the first three centuries A.D. These writings also attest to the widespread esteem and persuasive power of exemplary individuals as instruments of philosophical education or religious proselytization.584

I start by categorising what I mean by individuality and the rationale for choosing this concept as heuristic tool to describe Tertullian’s construction of Christian identity. Rüpke has identified five types of individuality in the imperial period: practical, moral, competitive,

580 See Rüpke (2015: 438). 581 The bibliography on this topic is vast but as representative, see Gill (2006); Sorabji (2006) and (2008, 13–34); Bartsch and Wray (2009); Inwood (2008, 322–352). 582 On the nascent idea of personality and selfhood centered on self-consciousness in the first and second centuries A.D. see Kahn (1988: 234–259); Long (1996: esp. ch. 12); Foucault (1988); Perkins (1996); Toohey (2004). 583 See Momigliano (1993: esp. 101–104). 584 See Talbert (1978). Likewise, Brakke, Satlow and Weitzman (2005); Rebillard and Rüpke (2015).

103 representative, and reflexive.585 They range from individual choice based on legal status

(citizens, freedmen, slaves) to competition for aristocratic capital, and philosophical and religious persuasions. Social dynamics provide the background for this theory of individuality, where, in my opinion, akin to Durkheim’s thesis, the rights, capacities, and civic engagements of the individual depend upon social organization.586 In other words, talking about individuality necessitates social setting and interaction. Rüpke’s classification of individuality demonstrates that the term involves a wide range of applications and interactions regardless of gender and social status.

However, it is difficult to imagine a stable or static personal identity when an individual is confronted with complex and conflicting choices in one’s personal and social life. Indeed, I have shown in Chapters One and Two that Roman North African society was a tapestry of cultural, linguistic, and religious elements. Rüpke’s broad categorisation of “individuality” indicates a wide-ranging applicability of the term as heuristic method, but for the purpose of narrowing the scope of this research, I shall rather refer to Vernant’s description of the term

“individual.” Vernant’s definition of individuality considers three important aspects: (1) the accidental function of the Individual in community or society; (2) the uniqueness of the individual as subject (with all its legal, social and religious ramifications); and (3) the inwardness of the individual as a psychological phenomenon.587

585 Rüpke (2013: 14) maintains that identities vary according to gender, one’s position in society, and are found in the elite or in the margins. They likewise interact. 586 Cf. Durkheim (1898/1975: 59–73). Also, Milbrandt and Pearce (2011: 242). 587 Vernant (1991: 321): “(a) The individual, stricto sensu. His place and role in his group or groups; the value accorded him; the margin of movement left to him; his relative autonomy with respect to his institutional framework. (b) The subject. When the individual uses the first person to express himself and, speaking in his own name, enunciates certain features that make him a unique being. (c) The “ego,” the person. The ensemble of psychological practices and attitudes that give an interior dimension and a sense of wholeness to the subject.”

104

Various forms of individuality as described by Vernant can be identified in Tertullian’s apologetic works: Tertullian’s act of writing (personal agency) and forming his opinion as an author (Vernant’s b); his struggle to reconcile Christian community with the wider Roman-

African society and navigating the “ambiguities” and “opportunities” presented by being both

Roman-African and Christian (Vernant’s a); and, as I shall demonstrate further in this chapter, the role of Christian faith for moral progress and as an ethical option in society (Vernant’s c).

This last category of individuality typifies Stroumsa’s argument that the “Christian self does not disappear into the community; it becomes, on the contrary, emblematic.”589 Moreover,

Stroumsa points to the change of perception about the individual self with the advent of

Christianity, an event which he calls “the great caesura in the self,” where individual progress was no longer concerned in the dichotomy between the body and soul but between the sinning self and the saved self.590

The Apologeticum exemplifies Tertullian’s conceptualization of a Christian individual. A

Christian individual is an inimicus erroris, veritatis integrator et expressor, and veritatis custos

(Apol. 46.18).591 Amidst various possibilities of identity offered by a cosmopolitan society,

Christian faith offers truth to those who were deceived, according to Tertullian, by their very culture (ipsa urbanitas).592 Created by God, human beings are capable of truth — an important

589 Stroumsa (2009: 25). 590 Ibid. In contrast, Vernant (1991:318) argues that from the Hellenistic period onward, a sage (a religious individual) is defined by his opposition to the secular world. In this respect, Christianity did not break radically with the pagan thought but continues in a similar pattern. Likewise, Tertullian stridently argued against dichotomizing body and soul as taught by Gnostic sects like the Valentinians. See Osborn (2003: ch. 8). 591 On the importance of veritas in Tertullian’s polemics, see Chapot (2009: esp. 303–305). 592 Apol. 21.30. Osborn (2003: 77–83).

105 aspect in Tertullian’s argument for the value of an individual.593 While the Apologeticum does not possess the anthropological sophistication of Tertullian’s later works — such as the De anima and Adversus Marcionem, which posit that a human being is a composite of body and soul —,594 the Apologeticum argues for the divine origin of the human soul and its capacity to recognize its maker.595 Hence the innate value of individual qua individual is guaranteed by his metaphysical mode of being as having been created by God.596

This distinctly Christian appreciation of a human being, which has no parallel in Roman and Greek thought, is derived from Jewish tradition.597 Rist makes the compelling argument that Classical antiquity had no theory of the value of man before the advent of Christianity.598

At the core of the Christian concept of human value is the incarnation of Jesus, bridging the gap between the human and the divine. This theory of a relationship between the creature and creator distinguished Christianity from various religious belief systems in antiquity and provided a unique statement about the individual and his value. This concept of individuality provides as well an ethical framework concerning the value of a human being.

Tertullian’s originality depends on his resourcefulness in introducing/applying this

Christian understanding of innate individuality to the public sphere. Hence, Tertullian’s statement, De vestris sumus. Fiunt, non nascuntur Christiani (Apol. 18.4), does not only claim

593 For example, Marc. 2.4.4: Eam quoque bonitas et quidem operantior operata est, non imperiali verbo, sed familiari manu, etiam verbo blandiente praemisso: faciamus hominem ad imaginem et similitudinem nostram. Bonitas dixit; bonitas finxit de limo in tantam substantiam carnis, ex una materia tot qualitatibus exstructam; bonitas inflavit in animam, non mortuam, sed vivam. 594 For example, An. 37.5; 38.1; 40.1; 58.4 and Marc. 1.24.3–4. Spanneut’s (1957: 150–166) work on Tertullian’s anthropology remains the most exhaustive treatment of the subject. 595 Apol. 17.5-6:…cum tamen resipiscit (anima), ut ex crapula, ut ex somno, ut ex aliqua valetudine, et sanitatem suam patitur, deum nominat, hoc colo, quia proprie verus hic unus. 596 Genesis 1.26-27 speaks of man as created in the image and likeness of God. For a general introduction to early Christian anthropology, see Hamman (1987). 597 A good example is the majesty of man over all creatures in Psalm 8. 598 Rist (1982: 1).

106 Romanitas as Christian heritage, but is also descriptive of a process whereby a Christian individuality becomes a product of tension in what Bhabha calls the social and cultural interstices (in Tertullian’s case, the encounter of Roman, Christian, and African elements) where the idea of personal identity, community, cultural, and religious values were constantly negotiated.599

Next, one must ask whether individuality as a heuristic concept is a valid tool for investigation of socio-political developments during the period of Tertullian’s floruit and helpful in interpreting his apologetic writings. Both Foucault and Sorabji argue that the first three centuries of the common era bear witness to the explosion of ideas about the self and the importance of the individual.600 One of the reasons for the advent of “individualism” during this period, according to Foucault, was the weakening of the political and social framework of the empire.601 However, he failed to substantiate this claim. Contemporary scholarship argues that the bureaucratization of the empire had one important drawback — elites gradually lost their voice in the political forum. This situation served as catalyst for a movement of retreat into self.602 Foucault explains that such political developments challenged the aristocracy to reconceptualize their status, their functions, and their obligations.603 These interpretations of

599 Bhabha (1994: 1–2). 600 Foucault (1988: part two) and Sorabji (2006: ch. 2). Foucault’s thesis has its fair share of criticism, among others, its lack of historical references. For example, Porter (2005: 121–132). 601 Foucault (1988: 41). Ando (2012:14) cautions us from jumping to generalization about the crisis of the empire during this period. Rather, one must examine evidence region by region and conclusion varies. 602 Among the important political developments during the Severan period are the increasing role of the princeps, especially in appointing provincial administrators and tax farming which was slowly replaced by direct administration. These changes must have affected the local elites. See Lo Cascio (2005: 131–155, esp. 142–146). Cordovana (2007: esp. 200), based on a Severan inscription from Ain Ouassel, argues that Severus imposed restrictions and controlled the political and economic power of the local elite in North Africa. 603 Foucault (1988: 86).

107 politics and society of the second and third century A.D., however, are not without critics.604 I do not wish to extend the debate here but merely take Foucault’s argument as one of the perspectives in evaluating the notion of individuality in Tertullian’s society. Ando, however, offers additional information that reinforces Foucault’s premise of the emphasis of individuality during the imperial period. He argues that the growing significance of self-understanding and self-fashioning of persons was the result of the operation of government in categorizing individuals through censuses and other analytic indices.605 Moreover, in his examination of the legal practices during the imperial period, he points out that social status (for example the binary humiliores and honestiores) conditioned the penal system.606 This prevalent situation furthered social differentiation and the importance of social prestige for individual elites.607

Furthermore, modern historians need to account for the growing popularity of various philosophical schools during the first three centuries A.D. which subscribed to the Socratic notion of “taking care of oneself” as their common and universal objective.608 Pursuit of true happiness was achieved through a cultivation of virtuous character and just actions in everyday life. These individual ethical programs formed the heart of philosophia during the imperial period.609 For the elite, the cultivation of the self was an important preoccupation. Considering themselves as bearers and custodians of culture, learning was an important cultural capital.

604 E.g., Dondin-Payre (1990: 333–349) argues that Roman authority, the senate or the emperor rarely intervened in the local affairs of African municipalities. On the contrary, Potter (2004) claims that the Severans and subsequent Roman rulers failed in their effort to centralize power in the imperial court. 605 Ando (2012: 176–186). 606 Likewise, Taylor (2016: 349–361). 607 Ando (2012:182–186). 608 Foucault (1988: 16–49, esp. 26–27). Likewise, Potter (2014: 172–210); Trapp (2007b: 470–488). For Roman North Africa, see Picard (1990: 251–296). 609 Trapp (2007a: 6).

108 For example, the growing market of philosophical schools in the second century presented an object of ridicule for Lucian, who criticized their disinterested pursuit of truth and love of fame and money.610 Another second century author, Maximus of Tyre, testifies to the importance of philosophy in the pursuit of paideia. His work, the Dialexeis, is a mine of information in the history of epideictic oratory and philosophical sermons.611 But philosophia was not just an accumulation of knowledge, but also a pursuit of individual happiness and a cultivation of right living. Hence, Maximus of Tyre defines philosophia as “precise knowledge of matters human and divine, the source of virtue and noble thoughts and a harmonious style of life and propitious pursuits.”612 Addressing his Carthaginian audience, Apuleius, who speaks about the importance of erudite learning tempered by philosophy, taught that speaking well and living well go hand in hand.613 Individual training in the exercise of moral choice between the way of life and the way of death is at the heart of the exhortation of Didache, a second century Christian document.614 Later on, in this chapter, I shall likewise demonstrate how the accoutrements of philosophia allowed Tertullian to present individual choice, especially in matters of faith, as a pursuit of virtue. Henceforth, the socio-political issues of Tertullian’s period and the ethical and spiritual concerns of a second-century individual justify the use of individuality as a heuristic tool.

However, to my knowledge no study on the aspect of individualization in Tertullian exists. Most scholarship on Tertullian has utilized the available materials as a source of early

610 Cf. Lucian’s Hermotimus and the Sale of Philosophers. 611 Cf. Trapp (1997: 1945–1976). 612 Or. 26.1; similarly, Seneca, Ep. 90.3. The first and second centuries A.D. provide numerous thinkers and writers whose output is predominantly on the province of ethics: Seneca, Demetrius, Musonius Rufus, Arrian’s Epictetus, Dio Chrysostom, Hierocles, and Marcus Aurelius. Cf. Trapp (2007a: 10–13). 613 Florida 9. On Apuleius as representative of popular philosophy, see Moreschini (2015: 29-57). 614 The second century date of composition is suggested by Holmes (2007: 337–338).

109 Christian theology and for data on religious group identity in relation to the socio-political structure. Scholars have quarried his writings to investigate the nature of Christian initiation, the process of canonizing Christian literature, orthodoxy in religious beliefs, and the formation of the Church’s hierarchy in contrast to the authority structure of imperial Rome.615 There is a need, therefore, to seek the role and function of the individual which has been ignored in the traditional interpretation of religious discourse, for instance religious conversion, in terms of cultural transformation or group formation.616 This approach identifies the continuities and discontinuities of the phenomenon of Christian conversion to various phenomena of

“individuality” in the antiquity, such as the exercise of choice in the face of various religious options and the ethical development of the person.

There are two areas of individuality in Tertullian’s apologetic writings that I propose to examine. First, the Christian declaration Christianus sum (Apol. 2.13) before the Roman magistrate performs his/her individuality and articulates his/her identity. Was the statement a manifestation of deviant behaviour or of opposition to the Roman state?617 Tertullian himself admits that the mere name of Christian, in the mind of the populace, is equal to a crime (Apol.

2.3: sed illud solum exspectatur, quod odio publico necessarium est: confessio nominis, non examinatio criminis). How did Tertullian then explain the declaration of Christianus sum by the individual Christian? More so, if the demands of Christian faith are considered incommensurable to Roman mores, how did Tertullian defend Christian conversion as not

615 The following are representative works recently published. On theology: Dunn (2003b: 140-155) and (2003a: 61-86); Alexandre (2003: 5–23); (2004); Ruggiero (2003: 51–59). On Christianity and Roman society: Zilling (2004); Grosse (2004: 161–173); Chapot (2007: 7–26). 616 Such an approach has been influenced by the works of Bardy (1946) and Nock (1933). On the contrary, von Harnack (1972: esp. ch. 2) pointed out that the third century was an age of continuous individual conversions. 617 See Bremmer (1991: 11–20).

110 antithetical to the Roman state?618 Philosophia allows Tertullian to argue for the importance of individual agency and choice (conscientia) as I will show in the following section.

Second, both Hadot and Foucault took credit for introducing the concept of souci de soi as an important theme in evaluating the literature of the imperial period.619 The concept is a translation of the Greek notion of ἐπιμέλεια ἐαυτου — translated in Latin as cura sui. I mentioned above that ancient philosophy aimed to achieve a virtuous life, which could be attained through the control of passion by reason. Souci de soi refers to the attention to one’s body and soul, which includes, among others, the exercise of abstinence, examination of conscience, the filtering of representations, and the conversion and possession of one’s self.620

Foucault calls these practices, aimed to give reason control over emotion and hence achieving a harmonious life, as τέχνη — a technology of the self.621 Moreover, he maintains that such practices and philosophical methodologies constitute a social practice — for they are nurtured and developed by a select social group.622

The practice of philosophia and the preservation of paideia were part of the elite’s attempt to reconceptualize and articulate their identity and status during the imperial period.623 I shall argue that Tertullian, aware of the philosophical pursuits of the elites, styled

618 The most important sententia from Tertullian concerning this paradox is Test. An. 1.7: Non es, quod sciam, christiana; fieri enim, non nasci solet christiana. This statement echoes Apol. 18.4: De vestris sumus: fiunt, non nascuntur Christiani. 619 See Foucault (1988) and Hadot (2008: esp. 79–144). 620 Hadot (1995: 206). Trapp (2007a: ch. 3) devotes a whole chapter on the theme of passions among various schools of philosophy during the imperial period. Likewise, Fitzgerald (2008) and Wessel (2016). 621 Foucault (1988a). 622 Foucault (1988b). 623 On the importance of paideia among the Roman elite, see pages 43-46. For example, Bendlin (2011b) locates Diogenes of Oenoanda’s construction of identity within the phenomena of the resurgence of mantic practices within the late first and mid third century A.D. and the so called Second Sophistic movement. The culture of self- promotion of the elite, likewise, led Foucault (1988b: 84) to argue that the practice of souci de soi allowed the elite

111 his apologetics to present the Christian individual and his martyrdom as exempla par excellence of such pursuit.

In summary, these two types of individuality (i.e. the Christian testimony in the statement Christianus sum and the philosophical pursuit of care for one’s self) are representative of Vernant’s description of the individual. The declaration of Christianus sum does not only reiterate individual right, but it also identifies the individual with the Christian community. Τhe fact that a Christian faced trial before a Roman magistrate meant that recognition was given to an otherwise nondescript group of people (Vernant’s a). Likewise,

Tertullian, by exercising his liberty to write becomes a prime example of individualization

(Vernant’s b). Finally, the virtues and exemplary conduct of Christian martyrs were proposed and marketed as veritable guides for ethical and spiritual progress of individuals (Vernant’s c).

II. Christianus sum: the philosophical individual

Tertullian’s philosophy is not systematic; as Spanneut lamented, ses oeuvres reflètent des influences diverses, successives et mal coordonnèes.625 This observation, however accurate, must take into consideration the task of the apologist. Tertullian improvised and coined words and terminologies to express Christian teachings in Latin.626 His important contribution to the development of Christian literature is to articulate in Latin, for the first time, philosophical and theological concepts about Christian faith. For example, he stamped his mark on Christian

to recover their status, function and role in a society like the imperial Rome where the growing emphasis on the role of the emperor limited their influence. 625 See Spanneut, (1957: 150). Likewise, Colish (1985: 9-29). 626 Braun’s (1977) study of Tertullian’s vocabulary arrives at this conclusion.

112 anthropology by arguing for the corporeality of the soul against the Platonizing Gnostic sects.627

However, Tertullian, likewise, affirmed that the soul is created by God (i.e. quite different from the Stoic teaching that the soul is part of the universal logos).628 Thus, by nature the soul is capable of knowing its creator. This is akin to the doctrine of humanity’s common knowledge about God (sensus communes) typical of second century Platonism.629 Osborn observes that his concepts of being, soul, knowledge, God, and goodness bear strong Stoic influence, and while

Tertullian’s anthropology draws from Stoicism, which maintains that individuals are psychosomatic entities without any dichotomy between mental and corporeal activities,630

Tertullian’s use of philosophy is more utilitarian and eclectic.631

Notably, while Tertullian is extremely familiar with scripture, especially the New

Testament,632 biblical citations are sparse in the Apologeticum and in his other apologetic writings. Likewise, Tertullian does not utilize the rich anthropology offered by the Pauline corpus. Instead, he uses the philosophical term conscientia to refer to personal choice.

Individual choice informed by conscientia leads those philosophically inclined to the truth, and in the case of persecuted Christians, makes them stand by it against the demands of the (Nat. 1.20.6: redigit conscientia veritatem et ad constantiam veritatis). Hence, any

627 Spanneut (1957: 165–166). Likewise, Kitzler (2009: 145–169); Seyr (1937: 51–74). Tertullian affirms the corporeality of the soul in Apol. ch. 48 and especially in his subsequest treatises, Carn. Chr. and Res. Mort. 628 Test. an. 5.2; Marc. I. 10.3. Cf. Moreschini (2005: 193). On the Stoic conceptualization of soul and body, see Long (1996: 224–249). 629 Cf. Moreschini (2005: 193–194) and Andresen (1952–1953: 157–195). On the development and influence of Platonism in the first and second centuries A.D., see also Boys-Stones (2001). 630 Spanneut (1957: 150–166). 631 Osborn (2003: 35). On the eclecticism of Tertullian’s philosophy, see Moreschini (1979: 367–379). 632 See O’Malley (1967).

113 religious practice contrary to reason and truth, as in the case of imperial worship, cannot be enforced on the good conscience of Christians.633

In the exordium of the Apologeticum, Tertullian appeals to his readers to allow the truth to be heard: liceat veritati…ad aures vestras pervenire (Apol. 1.1). Reception of truth involves erroris inspectio and veritatis recognitio (Nat. I. 20.13-14). Thus, Tertullian talks of Christian faith as veritas nostra, veritas Christiana, and doctrina veritatis.634 To be a Christian is to adhere to the truth (Apol. 30.7).

The arraignment of Christians dramatized the primacy of truth. The Roman tribunal provides an opportunity for the exercise of individualization. Here a Christian is called to witness the truth and disclose his identity. Remarkably, Tertullian used as an analogy the gladiatorial contest to describe the trial of Christians, where the winner is monumentalized

(and “individualized”).635 Christian faith too, as one of the many identities a Romano-African citizen may have possessed, is singled out and presented as supreme over other personal identities. To declare Christianus sum is to identify the primacy of allegiance to one’s faith over many other identities an individual may possess. Arguably, Christian identity reifies the social, subjective and psychological make-up of Vernant’s individual. But does the objectification of

Christian identity elide other (non-Christian) identities of the individual?

The articulation of Christian identity did not necessarily dismantle other identities of the individual. Citizens during the Roman imperial period were familiar with the hierarchy of

633 E. g. Apol. 27.1. 634 Veritas nostra: Apol. 4.3; 46. 2; Res. 38.7; Marc. I. 3. 5; V. 19.8; veritas christiana: Test. An. 1.1; Marc. I. 3.1; doctrina veritatis: An. 35.4. Hence, Tertullian calls the Christians veritatis cultores (Apol. 15.8). Christians are willing to suffer for the sake of truth (Mart. 5.2) because truth is predicated on God. The God of Christians is called sapientiae et veritatis pater (Nat.2.2.2). 635 Apol. 50.2.

114 identities. Panaetius’ four personae theory provides an important example. For Panaetius, selfhood is connected with complex personae or roles.636 Social roles are diverse, temporary, and sometimes artificial (the third and fourth personae of Panaetius). What takes primacy is the ethical option—the individual use of reason in conjunction with the truth (the first persona).637

Panaetius’ first persona serves as the fulcrum, the core identity of an individual. Tertullian used the term conscientia to refer to this innate individuality. The function of conscientia is to orient the individual’s social roles in accordance with his innate self. The statement Christianus sum affirms an individual’s adherence to his conscientia. Thus, Tertullian depicts Christians in possession of truth and reason through the exercise of their individual conscience; the Roman magistrates and the accusers of Christians, on the other hand, lost this perspective due to demonic influence. Hence, Tertullian characterized them as lacking in judgment, blinded by hatred and ambition, in short, incapable of achieving the philosophical ideal. I hazard to say that Tertullian caricatures the enemies of Christians as examples of the absence of individualization.

But how did Tertullian describe this inner self, i.e. the prime identity of a Christian? And, can the understanding of this individuality facilitate social interaction, Christian and non-

Christian alike? Tertullian sought in philosophy appropriate language to articulate Christian

636 In Cicero’s De Officiis (1.107-21) Panaetius distinguished four types of personae, namely: (1) the persona common to all human beings endowed with reason; (2) the persona assigned to each individual by nature; (3) the persona imposed by some chance or circumstance; (4) the persona assumed by deliberate choice. See Dyck (1996: 269–271). Cicero used the four personae theory of Panaetius in his discussion of decorum in the De Officiis. Similarly, in his Apologeticum, Tertullian aims to demonstrate that Christian practices fall within the boundaries of acceptable behaviour in Roman society. On the Stoic personae, see De Lacy (1977: 163–172); Gill (1988: 169–199); Alesse (1994: esp. 267–278). 637 In Panaetius’ four personae theory, the mind (dianoia), which is basically the self, is at the center of this concentric circle. Cf. Sorabji (2006: 43–44).

115 identity and avoid portraying it as antithetical to Roman ways.638 I select two arguments in his apologetic writings that describe Christian individuality through dialectic — a language understandable to savants of philosophy. First, Tertullian appeals to the role of conscientia in individual choice. Second, Tertullian argues that names do not capture the essence of reality, in this case, the nomen Christianum. A name can be misrepresented by popular opinion unlike veritas.

As mentioned earlier, Tertullian frequently uses the term conscientia to refer to the innate individuality of a Christian under trial. Interestingly, persona, a term favored by

Tertullian in his later works to specify individuality, is never used in the Apologeticum.639 On the other hand, conscientia occurs around a hundred times in his entire corpus. Indeed, the frequency of its use in the Apologeticum — it appears sixteen times in all — is notable.640

Stelzenberger points out that conscientia has a variety of meanings in Tertullian.641 In the

Apologeticum, Tertullian uses conscientia in conjunction with justice and knowledge. He thus argues that law is not impersonal (nulla lex sibi soli conscientiam iustitiae suae debet), for it takes into account the individual obliged to follow it.642 The attribution of conscientia to an abstract principle such as justice underscores the importance of individual choice of a

638 Philosophical language allows Tertullian to communicate the truth of Christian faith to the intellectuals of his time. The reappropriation of philosophy by Christians authors, however, will create, a generation later, animosity towards Christianity from Neoplatonist philosophers and intellectuals, like Porphyry of Tyre, who believed that Christianity undermined the foundation of Hellenic philosophy. See DePalma Digeser (2006). 639 Persona is a common and important term in other works of Tertullian especially in Prax. 27.11 in which he talks about the union of the two natures of Christ: Videmus duplicem statum, non confusum sed coniunctum in una persona, Deum et hominem Iesum. 640 Stelzenberger (1956: 29–30). 641 Ibid. 43: Überblickt man die conscientia-Stellen bei Tertullianus, so ist folgendes klar: in den seltensten Fällen bedeutet das Wort eigentliches moralisches Gewissen. Vorherrschend ist die Sinngebung von Inneres (Herz), Gesinnung, Denkart, Überzeugung usw. Oft ist conscientia Bezeichung für Bewußtein. 642 Apol. 4.13.

116 person.643 As such, the universal application of law results in the universal freedom of an individual to act and to make a choice.644 Moreover, law and reason must be geared towards the truth.645 Knowledge of the truth leads to the recognition of the veracity of Christian faith.

Becoming Christian is more than simply assuming an “external” identity; it is about the innate disposition of conscientia to recognize the truth. Therefore, for example, Tertullian argues that

Pilate himself, in conscience, was already a Christian by virtue of his recognition of truth (pro sua conscientia Christianus).646 The search for truth legitimizes Christian beliefs and practices.647

Moreover, it is a process that originates in the private realm, i.e., in the internal forum of an individual. Individual judgment underscores the role of conscientia as superseding external gestures, like ritual sacrifice in imperial worship which constitute, according to

Tertullian, the Roman understanding of religio.648 This aspect, thus far ignored in modern scholarship on Tertullian, explains his repeated emphasis on cognition as an important element of Christian faith, which he portrays as wanting in traditional religious rituals.649 Tertullian’s anthropology offers further clarification.

The starting point in Tertullian’s anthropology is the union of body and soul. The soul, although immortal, is also corporeal.650 The corporeality of the soul allows for the joining of a substantial nature with the body. In one of his later works, Tertullian reiterates that homo qua

643 Seneca uses the word conscientia as an “organ of human personality” and to refer to the “cooperating factor in the development of human personality.” Cf. Molenaar (1969: 174). 644 Likewise, Epictetus in Discourse 2.10.1, points out that moral choice must be free from slavery and subjection. 645 Apol.46.1–18. 646 Ibid. 21.24. 647 Minucius Felix (Oct. 1.4) described his conversion to Christianity in the same way: et cum discussa caligine de tenebrarum profundo in lucem sapientiae et veritatis emergerem. 648 Apol. 27.1; 35.1. 649 Cf. Apol. 27.7. Tertullian’s emphasis on knowledge and cognition distinguishes Christianity from the Cynic movement in Late Antiquity. 650 The materiality of the soul is a concept influenced by Stoic doctrine. See Spanneut (1957: 146–148).

117 homo is a fibula — a bolt or peg — which unites body and soul.651 In many instances, Tertullian labels the individual — the locus of the unity of body and soul — as societas.652 But, while

Tertullian sustains the substantial union of body and soul, he likewise specifies that the governing principle of the soul is ἡγεμονικόν, i.e. reason.653 Hence, the individual is summoned to a life of self-improvement in obedience to reason.654 Thus, in his argument for freedom of religion (libertas religionis), moral choice based on reason determines individual integrity and not the predetermined civic roles or expectations imposed by society.655 Thereby, a Christian, when arraigned before the magistrate, must stand “immobile in loyalty to his conscience”656 — his ἡγεμονικόν, to employ a Stoic terminology. I also suggest that in Tertullian this dialectic moral tension between the intrinsic and the external self provides a model for social relationships.

For Tertullian, as in Stoicism, the world is comparable to a human individual.657 The union of the body and soul of a person, which is substantial and likewise ethical (this latter accounting for the growth and maturity of the rationality of an individual),658 becomes a

651 Res. 40.3: Porro nec anima per semetipsam homo, quae figmento iam homini appellato postea inserta est, nec caro sine anima homo, quae post exilium animae cadaver inscribitur. Ita vocabulum homo consertarum substantiarum duarum quodammodo fibula est, sub quo vocabulo non possunt esse nisi cohaerentes. 652 An. 37. 5; 38. 1; 40. 1; 43.4. 653 Apol. 15.1: Imprimis an sit aliqui summus in anima gradus vitalis et sapientalis, quod hegemonikonappellant, id est principale, quia si negetur, totus animae status periclitatur. 654 See Inwood (2008: 249–250). 655 This line of reasoning follows the Stoic theory of oikeiosis wherein one’s internal virtue commands priority over one’s external circumstances. The application of the theory of oikeiosis may help explain Tertullian’s complex relationship with the Roman state. On the theory of oikeiosis, see Schofield (2006: esp. 243); Inwood and Donini (2005: 677–682); and Long (1996: 250–263). On the application of the theory of oikeiosis in patristic writings (although the emphasis of the author is on the approximation of the individual to the divine), see Elm (2015: 89– 107). 656 Apol. 27.7. 657 Apol. 48.7. See Spanneut (1957: 390). 658 Cf. Tertullian’s de Anima. See Spanneut (1957: 150-166). On the relationship of soul and body in Stoicism, see Long (1996: 224–249).

118 microcosmic equivalent for Stoic cosmology under the governance of universal reason.659

Diogenes Laertius reports the contention of Chrysippus that the nous permeates every part of the cosmos, a parallel to the relationship of the soul to the human body.660 Hence, Tertullian can assert that God created the entire universe and his divine reason bestows order upon it.661

Thus, the Stoic ideal city can be compared to the Christian heaven and the Stoic divine logos which governs the world is likened to the God of Abraham.662 Moreover, just as the cultivation of reason becomes the ethical principle of a Stoic sage and the Stoic cosmic city his “real” home, a Christian individual must be guided by his conscientia and live his life on earth as a peregrinus in anticipation of heaven. This juxtaposition of Stoic philosophy alongside Christian theology superimposes the Christian individual to the Stoic sage and Christianizes Stoic political concepts. In this light, Tertullian’s dictum anima naturaliter Christiana (Apol. 17.6) — that the soul is the governing principle of the human individual as well as, on the macrocosmic level, the governing principle of the world — is a Christian application of the Stoic understanding of the individual and politics.663

A Christian individual, therefore, is a citizen of two cities: heaven and the world created by God (Apol. 17.1), i.e., the ideal and the secular.664 By the term secular, I refer to what Markus

659 On Stoic physics and cosmology, see White (2006: 1124–1152). 660 Diogenes Laertius 7. 138. Cleanthes’ Hymn to Zeus captures the essence of this teaching wherein Zeus’ koinos logos (12–13) penetrates and blends with the world. 661 Apol. 17.1. 662 Cf. Schofield (1991: esp. 57–92). 663 Cf. Apol. 17.6. 664 Was Tertullian’s notion of an ideal city influenced by Platonism, Stoicism, or a combination of both? The Stoics, of course, being opponents of the metaphysical, located their ideal city in the cosmos. On the other hand, Vogt (2008: 63-7) argues that Plato’s ideal city in the is something that could and should be established. But once Plato’s ideal city exists it would inevitably deteriorate. Given the complexity of the problem, only a detailed and comprehensive study of Tertullian’s works can clarify this issue. I limit myself in pointing out the influence of various schools of philosophy on Tertullian’s politeia. Furthermore, it seems to me that Schofield (1991: ch. 2), in

119 calls “the temporal life (the world where human beings live) in its interwoven, perplexed and only eschatologically separable reality.”665 Or simply what can be shared with non-Christians.666

However, the secular sphere must be geared towards the ideal.667 For Tertullian, an individual who listens to the voice of conscience and operates in the light of truth is the ideal civis of the

State.668 The perfection of the individual rests on the harmonization of his secular obligations with his philosophical ideals. The politics promoted by Tertullian and Minucius Felix emphasize this dual citizenship wherein Christian identity serves as the equivalent to the commitment of a

Stoic sage to the philosophical life.669

On the other hand, the foil to Christian individuality, an individual equipped with functional conscience, is the Roman magistrate. Fear compels the latter to perform and coerce imperial worship.670 Imperial worship represents the disenfranchisement of reason and the loss of individuality. The obligation to worship a deified person is really an act of perjury because of fear.671 To lose one’s freedom and be controlled by fear signals a loss of one’s individuality.

Hence, even a wicked act escapes recognition because of blunted conscience (Nat. 1.16.3). Lack

reading Zeno’s concept of utopian city, interpreted Zeno’s ideal city as a sketch of a real city where people live in the same location and interact with each other. 665 Markus (1970: 71). 666 Markus (2006: 6). De Lubac (1989: 251–4) criticized Markus’ definition of saeculum as inconsistent with Christian theology of history and especially Markus’ interpretation of the writings of St. Augustine. 667 This important theme in Tertullian’s apologetics will be discussed further in the following chapter on community. 668 See Chapot (2009: 93–121). For Ahondopke (1992), a Christian individual for Tertullian will always live in a constant tension between the tenets of his faith and what is expected of him as citizen of Rome. Tertullian describes the Christian community as: corpus sumus de conscientia religionis et disciplinae unitate et spei foedere (Apol. 39.1). 669 For example, Octavius 34. 670 Apol. 28.2: siquidem maiore formidine et callidiore timiditate Caesarem observatis quam ipsum de Olympo Iovem…sed nec hoc vos ratione facitis potius quam respectu praesentaneae potestatis. 671 Ibid. 28.2–3.

120 of reason renders judgment susceptible to external influence.672 Repeatedly, Tertullian claims that rumor (fama) had supplanted the truth in the trials of Christians.673 Rumor gains force when individuals in society who fail to think independently give credence to it.674 Tertullian’s portrayal of a biased magistrate turns to a critique of Roman society where dialogue is nonexistent.675 A society that does not enable dialogue resembles a vulgus, a collection of impersonal individuals. More importantly, dialogue is made impossible because the persecutors of Christians are not in possession of their conscientia (Nat. 1.6.1).

The trial of a Christian before a Roman magistrate created an interesting case of a trial of identity. It was a conflict between an individual’s secular obligation and his “philosophical” ideal. The phrase — Christianus sum — which was considered equivalent to the confession of a crime, underlies Tertullian’s discussion of the distinction between opinio and veritas.676

This distinction echoes the contrast between δόξα and ἀλήθεια in Plato’s Symposium

(198e-199a).677 Opinion is generated by common people; while only the philosophers can determine what is true (esse). The biases towards the nomen Christianum belonged to popular opinion. Tertullian proceeds to critique popular understanding of the nomen Christianum by

672 Seneca (De Otio 1.2-3) argues for a dependence on aliena iudicia when one’s own judgment is corrupt. 673 Apol. 7.8–11: Natura famae omnibus nota est…quae ne tunc quidem, cum aliquid veri adfert, sine mendacii vitio est, detrahens, adiciens, demutans de veritate…Fama, nomen incerti, locum non habet ubi certum est. An vero famae credat nisi inconsideratus? Quia sapiens non credit incerto. 674 Ibid. 7.12. 675 The dialogue between Christianity and Classical culture was a familiar topos among early Christian apologists: foremost, are Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho and Minucius Felix’s Octavius. On the importance of dialogue for Christians in Late Antiquity, see Cameron (2014). 676 Nat. 1.5.6: Multum distantiae inter crimen et nomen, inter opinionem et veritatem. Nam et nomina sic sunt instituta, ut fines suos habeant inter dici et esse. 677 In his criticism of Homeric mythology, Zeno (Dio Chrysostom, Orationes 53.4) applied the same principle where some verses are considered merely opinions (κατὰ δόξαν) and some according to the truth (κατὰ ἀλήθειαν). Cicero, likewise, talked about this distinction (Part. Or. 90; De inventione II, 21; De nat. Deo. I, 61).

121 appealing to Stoic dialectic.678 Nomen christianum as a referent does not capture the reality of what a Christian is (esse). On the accusation that some Christians fell prey to the vices of avaritia, luxuria, and improbitas, Tertullian admits the guilt of some Christians (non negabimus quosdam). However, these are not real Christians but a mole, wart or freckles in an otherwise pure and blameless body.679 Indeed, there are likewise those who confess to be philosophers but, in reality, do not practice it.680 Names do not necessarily correspond to reality.681

Tertullian’s analysis of the ambiguity of nomen allows him to demonstrate the distinction between crimen and nomen which entails that the nomen Christianum does not imply culpability.682 It is the act that matters not the appelation. Furthermore, Tertullian aligns again the nomen Christianum with veritas (ἀλήθεια). Hence, the declaration Christianus sum reiterates the individuality of the person and his commitment to his ethical pursuit.

“A man shouts, “I am a Christian.” He says what he is. You, sir, wish to hear what he is not. Presiding to extort the truth, you take infinite pains in our case, and ours alone, to hear a lie…You are playing fast and loose with the laws. You want him, then, to deny that he is guilty, in order to make him innocent — and quite against his will, too, by now; and even his past is not to count against him. What is the meaning of this confusion? This failure to reflect that more credence is to be given to a voluntary confession than a forced denial?”683

678 On the Stoic theory of sign, see Sextus Empericus, Adv. Mathematicos VIII, 11-12; and Origen, Comm. Io. Ev. IV, 1. Cf. Gourinat (2000: esp. 111–122). On Tertullian’s use of the Stoic theory of sign, see Chapot (2009: 138–145). 679 Nat. 1.5.1. 680 Ibid. 1.5.7: Quot denique philosophi dicuntur nec tamen legem philosophiae adimplent. 681 Ibid. 1.5.8: Omnes nomen de professionibus gestant: sed ducant nomen sine professionis praestantia. 682 For Chapot (2009: 139) the phrase inter crimen et nomen (Nat. 1.5.6) acts as a rhetorical device, a homoioteleuton. 683 Apol. 2.13–17 [trans. Glover]: Vociferatur homo: Christianus sum. Quod est dicit; tu vis audire quod non est. Veritatis extorquendae praesides de nobis solis mendacium elaborates audire…Praevaricaris in leges. Vis ergo neget se nocentem, ut eum facias innocentem, et quidem invitum eam, nec de praeterito reum. Unde ista perversitas, ut etiam illud non recogitetis, sponte confesso magis credendum esse quam per vim neganti?

122 Names are merely external tags. Precision is obtained when they are linked to the individuals, specifically their bodies. Indeed, Christianity was defined and marketed in society through the body of a martyr or the sexual renunciation of a Christian ascetic or virgin.684 The action of the individual Christian defines Christianity and not the false hearsay or the rumours and biases sowed by their persecutors.685 The ritual posture of a Christian serves as a portrait of individual integrity: “Looking up to heaven the Christians (pray)–with hands outspread, because innocent, with head bare because we do not blush, yes! And without one to give the form of words, for we pray from the heart.”686

III. Souci de soi

I have described above how philosophy provided Tertullian with concepts and a language to deliver his argument for the importance of individual choice in matters of religious belief and practices. But Tertullian’s utilization of individuality as an apologetic discourse goes beyond mere theoretical argumentation. In the introduction to the chapter, I singled out the elite preoccupation of managing emotion and bursts of passions which Foucault calls souci de soi (“care of the self”). Rüpke refers to this practice as a “classical topos of individuation and individuality.”687 As much as s/he is endowed with reason and conscience, an individual is likewise susceptible to violent tumults caused by love, fear, grief, ambition, or anger. Various

684 Perkins (2009: 41) argues that the body during the imperial period served as an instrument of power and the vulnerability of the body – when hurt, destroyed, obliterated – meant a loss of individual power; on the other hand, the Christian’s denial of the body’s vulnerability to pain and death demonstrates power and constructs a new cosmopolitan identity. On the notion of individuality in sexual renunciation, see Brown (1988: 65–82). 685 Apol. 1.2–13. 686 Ibid. 30.4: Illuc suscipientes Christiani manibus expansis, quia innocuis, capite nudo, quia non erubescimus, denique sine monitore, quia de pectore oramus, precantes sumus. 687 Rüpke (2013: 22).

123 schools of Hellenistic philosophy agree that while philosophia is a reasoned and reasonable pursuit of the good life, the good life can only be sustained by a state of inner poise.688 The swelling of passion and desire, for the Stoics, was a threat to the cognitive process, which lies at the center of a virtuous life.689 Philosophy, therefore, offers techniques to help individuals control surges of emotion.690

The portrayal of the accusers of Christians as lacking self-control and overwhelmed by ambition is a typical apologetic strategy of Tertullian. These are familiar arguments in

Tertullian’s rhetoric of masculinity and exemplarity (see Chapter Two). Christians, on the other hand, are characterized by their state of inner peace. This rhetorical tactic gains two advantages. First, Christians are redeemed from biases that portrayed them as subversive, subversion being associated with lack of self-control. More importantly, and this is my second point, this line of argumentation furnished Tertullian with the opportunity to demonstrate

Christian discipline which avails individual peace, or in short, mental practices which aim to cultivate the self.

I now analyse the various disciplines in Tertullian’s apologetic tract to reconstruct his practical ethics. This analysis is divided into two parts: first, I shall argue that Tertullian employed the philosophical exercise of continuous vigilance and presence of mind otherwise known as προσοχή (attention).691 Hadot pointed out that the Stoic attitude of προσοχή empowers the philosopher “to be fully aware of what he does at each instant and wills his

688 Trapp (2007a: 63). 689 Cf. Inwood and Donini (2005: 708–709); Krentz (2008: 122–135). 690 Cf. Nussbaum (1994). 691 Philo of Alexandria (Quis rerum divinarum heres 253) listed προσοχή as one of the fundamental elements in philosophical therapeutics.

124 actions fully.”692 Christian martyrs are the foremost example of this exercise. The second part explores the psychagogic techniques employed by the Christians in the face of adversity.693 This includes among other things the exercise of meditatio (μελέτη) and the training for death.694

Tertullian’s ability to weave philosophical and ethical norms of his time, such as προσοχή and

μελέτη, into his apologetic works demonstrate his project to articulate the proximity of

Christian ethics to the Roman elite’s preoccupation in cultivating a virtuous character and action. The Christian individual is celebrated and marketed as proof of this achievement.

a. Carcerem nobis pro palaestra interpretamur (Mart. 3.5): the Christian re-appropriation of προσοχή

The goal of philosophical discipline is freedom from unregulated desires and exaggerated fear. This is the essence of the Stoic teaching on apatheia.695 Pathos is a disturbance or “disease” that affects basic human impulses.696 Classical literature is replete with examples of emotional upheavals that generate pathos: themes of wrath, grief, ambition, and hubris in the Iliad; lust, longing, and revenge in the Odyssey; and the anger of Juno in Book One of Virgil’s Aeneid. To liberate the individual from the grip of passion, the Stoics prescribed continuous vigilance and presence of mind to control and supervise the self. This spiritual

692 Hadot (1995: 84). 693 On the employment of psychagogic techniques to attain a virtuous life, see Trapp (2007a: 54–62) and Hadot (1995: 84–89). 694 Newman (1993: 1471–1517) offers an expansive and thorough analysis of the exercise of meditatio among Stoic authors of the imperial period. On the training for death, see Hadot (1995: 93–101). 695 While the Stoics, the Epicureans, and Platonists differed in their anthropology and the role of philosophy, mutatis mutandis controlling emotion, in general, was an important objective for various schools of philosophy of the period. Latin writers employed various terminologies or phrases to translate apatheia in Latin. Cicero’s Cato for example in De Finibus (3.35) translates pathos as morbus. Cicero prefered to translate pathos to perturbatio (Cf. Rist 1969: 26–27). For the application of apatheia in Christian literature, see Maier (1994: 737–39) and Aune (2008: 221–237). 696 Rist (1978: 259).

125 vigilance, otherwise known as προσοχή, instructs the individual to focus on the present moment and apply rules of discernment to the present situation.697 Indeed, Seneca’s ideal of securitas and perpetua tranquilitas are attained when an individual concentrates on the here and now and takes an attitude of indifference to the past and the future.698 Attention to the present circumstance, especially misfortune, or persecution in the case of Christians, equips the individual to respond with serenity to the unexpected turn of events, being aware that such things are beyond one’s control.699 This serenity is achieved though philosophical exercise that raises the mind from individual and particular concerns to what is universal and objective.700 In their Christian incarnation, ἀπάθεια and προσοχή provided consolation to martyrs and their persecution and suffering, although beyond one’s control, finds meaning in God’s universal dominion.701

In the Ad Martyras, Tertullian describes the imprisonment of Christians as a palaestra (a place of exercise), which allow Christians to hone their virtue amidst adversity.702 Tertullian qualifies the importance of this mental or spiritual exercise — for while the flesh may be weak, the spirit ought to be alert (quod caro infirma sit, spiritus promptus).703 Tertullian, like his predecessors, the Greek Christian apologists, used agonistic and athletic imagery in depicting

Christian discipline in the face of martyrdom.704 Christians were called to a divine combat (ad

697 See for example Marcus Aurelius, Med. 7. 54; 3. 12; 8. 36; 9. 6. 698 Cf. Seneca, Ep. 92.3. Passions are always caused by anxiety about the past and future – two areas beyond one’s control. See Marcus Aurelius, Med. 2. 14; 4. 26, 5; 12. 26 and Seneca, De Beneficiis 7. 2. 4. 699 See Rabbow (1954: 169–170). 700 Hadot (1995: 238–250). 701 Cf. Kelley (2006: 736–737). 702 Mart. 3.5: Et illi, inquit Apostolus, ut coronam corruptibilem consequantur; nos aeternam consecuturi carcerem nobis pro palaestra interpretamur, ut ad stadium tribunalis bene exercitati incommodis omnibus producamur, quia virtus duritia exstruitur, mollitia vero destruitur. 703 Ibid. 4.1. 704 Cf. Stewart (1984: 119–124). Likewise, Bowersock (1995).

126 militiam dei)705 and the life of a Christian is comparable to a militia Christi signified by an oath

(in sacramenti verba)706 similar to that of a soldier. In the Ad Scapulam, Tertullian compares conversion to Christian faith similar to an engagement at close quarters.707 Hence, like a soldier on the battlefield, a Christian must endure all kinds of difficulty and discomfort.708 Such discipline aims to strengthen both the body and soul from the terrors of persecution.709 For a

Christian, imprisonment is a sort of a rhetorical school (Tertullian plays with the double meaning of palaestra being both a gymnasium or place of rhetorical training), where the mind is constantly exercised by spiritual admonition to control one’s passion and emotion. In this regard, the literary function of the acta martyrum and the peculiar genre of Tertullian’s Ad

Martyras in the mould of exhortatio aim to instruct and persuade their readers and listeners to a regimental life and to commit to spiritual exercise.710

The juxtaposition of the persecution of Christians and Tertullian’s admonition to his fellow believers to bear their suffering with serenity (aequo animo)711 contrast with Tertullian’s depiction of the world and the enslavement of many to their passions: “The world has the greater darkness, blinding men’s heart. The world imposes the more grievous fetters, binding men’s very souls. The world breathes out the worst impurities — human lusts.”712 Because the purpose of προσοχή is to bring the individual to a constant vigilance over his emotions by

705 Mart. 3.1 706 Ibid. 707 Scap. 1.1. 708 Mart. 3.1-2: Nemo miles ad bellum cum deliciis venit, nec de cubiculo ad aciem procedit, sed de papilionibus expeditis et substrictis, ubi omnis duritia et inbonitas et insuavitas constitit. Etiam in pace labore et in commodis bellum pati iam ediscunt, in armis deambulando, campum decurrendo, fossam moliendo, testudinem densando. 709 Ibid. 3.2: ne corpora atque animi expavescant. 710 Castelli (2007: 28) noted that the Acta Martyrum cannot be divorced from their “impulse to persuade” the readers’ view about themselves and the world. 711 Mart. 4.3. 712 Ibid. 2.2: Maiores tenebras habet mundus, quae hominum praecordia excaecant; graviores catenas induit mundus, quae ipsas animas hominum constringunt; peiores immunditias exspirat mundus, libidines hominum.

127 means of persuasion, the deployment of rhetorical devices becomes important.713 Tertullian mined history and unpacked negative exempla to prove his point. He remarks that Trajan’s decree, in response to Pliny’s letter, not to seek out Christians, yet to punish them when discovered, twists the truth: O sententiam necessitate confusam!714 The confused judgment of

Trajan exemplifies the vulnerability of the Romans to misrepresentations.715 In the previous chapter I have pointed out how the ignorance of truth is associated with effeminacy. Here,

Tertullian suggests that the unjust decision of Trajan and Pliny was spawned by ignorance, hence inattention. Following this line of argumentation, one can relate ignorance with inattention and a lack of self-discipline with tyranny and excessive use of power.

Tertullian’s polemic against imperial authorities reaches a crescendo in his criticism of

Nero whom he portrayed as the initiator of Christian persecution.716 In a paradox aimed to ridicule Nero’s ignorance, Tertullian adds that anyone who knew Nero could understand that unless a thing was very good, Nero would not condemn it.717 Domitian, likewise, shared the weaknesses of Nero. Emperors who persecuted Christians were branded by Tertullian as unjust

(iniusti), impious (impii), and foul (turpes).718 The three aforementioned descriptions of

Christian persecutors contrast with the virtues aimed at by the Stoic exercise of προσοχή: wisdom, self-control, courage, and justice.719 More importantly, the tyranny of these rulers

713 Newman (1993: 1478–1479). 714 Apol. 2.8. 715 Ibid: Negat inquirendos ut innocentes, et mandat puniendos ut nocentes. Parcit et saevit, dissimulat at animadvertit. 716 The role of Nero in the persecution of Christians is an important argument in Tertullian’s apologetics. See Apol. 5.3-4; Nat. 1.7.8; Iud. 8.16. 717 Apol. 5.3. 718 Ibid. 5.4. 719 The perfection of the whole person brought about by the perfection of rational faculty brings about the traditional schema of four virtues: wisdom (sophia), self-control (sôphrosynê), courage (andreia) and justice (dikaiosynê). See Trapp (2007a: 32).

128 created an atmosphere of fear and deception among the populace—a sociological and psychological crises that prevented the citizens from leading lives in accordance to the tenets of philosophia and develop their individuality.720

Myth, likewise, supplied Tertullian with abundant negative exempla of passion overhelming the individual. As I pointed out in the previous chapter, Tertullian, in the tradition of Greek philosophers, criticized Homer for portraying gods with proclivities and passion typical of human beings.721 For example, Tertullian effeminized Roman divinities by emphasizing their lack of self-control and vulnerability to passion.722 Hercules offers an enticing example of

Tertullian’s apologetic strategy.723 In the Ad Nationes (2.2.14), Tertullian points out the human origin of Hercules. In fact, Hercules was, according to literary tradition, a lover of Larentina—a wanton prostitute (scortum). Tertullian draws attention to the lack of decency of authors in representing the divine Hercules copulating with a prostitute (non puduit auctores vestros).724

Hercules’ lack of propriety (pudor) stained the glory of his labors: this includes the rape of virgins and wives,725 crossdressing as woman under the order of Omphale, and the abandonment of the Argonauts (Nat. 2.14.7). Insanity (furias eius) took hold of Hercules’ mind and he killed his own children and wife.726 Yet despite all these, Hercules enjoyed apotheosis—

720 See Apol. 28.3 and 30.7. 721 Nat. 1.10.38: Adhuc meminimus Homeri: ille, opinor, est qui divinam maiestatem humana condicione tractavit. Tertullian repeats this argument in his later work Test. An. 1.3: Tunc vani poetae, cum deos humanis passionibus et fabulis designant. 722 Jupiter, for example, wept for Sarpedon and was inflamed by an incestuous desire for his own sister (Apol. 14.3). 723 Hercules, syncretized with the Punic deity Melquart, was one of the more important deities in North African pantheon. Cf. Corbier (1974: 95–109); and Coltelloni-Trannoy (2002: 41–58). 724 Nat. 2.10.1. I am indebted to Prof. Moreschini’s (2006) reconstruction of the badly damaged manuscript of the Ad Nationes. 725 Tertullian referred here to the daughters of King and Hercules’ adultery with Iole. 726 Nat. 2.14.8.

129 affirmed and popularized by classical literature.727 In a splendid rhetorical display of retorsio,

Tertullian not only exhibited the failure of the heroes of classical literature to attain inner peace, but he also demonstrated that the minds of many moulded by such narrative became vulnerable to the same disease of passion.

b. Meditatio: ut est aemulatio divina rei et humanae.728

Cultivating a virtuous life and keeping oneself alert (προσοχή) over indiscriminate passion require various techniques to maintain such vigilance. One of the important disciplines in the

“care for the self” is the exercise of meditatio (μελέτη). Meditatio was a primary ethical tool for healing the soul and giving it a life of virtue, especially during the imperial period when personal virtue, instead of civic, had become the chief aim of Stoic philosophy.729

Hadot describes meditatio as an exercise involving a daily regimen that begins with mental planning and projection of one’s daily activities in the morning and an evaluation of its achievement or failure at the end of the day.730 This philosophic exercise basically is a form of dialogue with one’s self. Various auxiliary disciplines are required to create an individualized ethical program. These include practices of regular reading, listening (to a spiritual guide), research, investigation, the more exterior discipline of writing, and forming social bonds.731

In his examination of the theory and practice of meditatio among three imperial authors

(Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius), Newman points out that, aside from being a

727 Ibid. 2.14.9. 728 Apol. 50.16. 729 Newman (1993: 1474). 730 Hadot (1995: 85). To emphasize the constant exercise of meditatio, Seneca associated it with the words cotidie and cotidiana (cf. Seneca, ep. 16.1; 107.3; De ira 2.10.7). 731 Ibid. 86-89. The social aspect of meditatio was an important ingredient in Epicurean communities where mutual correction and friendship contribute to the intellectual pleasure of philosophia.

130 quotidian praxis, meditatio is not only a theoretical practice but involves the total individual.732

However, he notes that the practice of meditatio during the imperial period was not standardized.733 Because the aim of meditatio is the achievement of inner peace and harmony through a systematic control of emotions and passion (varied and complex as they are), practitioners of meditatio differ in their emphasis and therapeutic tools. Seneca, for example, sees the goal of meditatio in the attainment of securitas and perpetua tranquilitas (ep. 92.3).

Indifference to the externals brings about correct judgment which in turn takes away anxiety about the future.734 Meditatio therefore produces a state of securitas for the individual. And since the function of meditatio is to persuade, Seneca employed various rhetorical devices such as sententiae, metaphors, and exempla.735 Epictetus, on the other hand, directed meditatio toward the achievement of freedom.736 The most important rhetorical device he used was the dialogue. Dialogue enhances the student’s imagination through a dialectic of question and answer and arriving toward assent.737 By contrast, the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius record the actual meditation of the emperor during his Danubian campaign. Compared to the two authors above, who treated their work as a lecture between teacher and student, Marcus

732 Newman (1993: 1475). Hadot (1995: 85-86) describes meditatio as an act where an individual attains ethical progress by means of dialogue with himself, or with others, as well as by writing, to “carry on his reflections in due order” and finally to arrive at a complete transformation of his representation of the world, his inner climate, and his outer behaviour. 733 Newman (1993: 1515) argues that the details of meditatio were controlled by individual philosopher who choose the method most convenient to himself. Indeed, this type of meditatio cannot be compared to the highly structured and monolithic form found in the exercitia of Ignatius of Loyola. 734 Ibid.1486. 735 Ibid. 1488–1493. 736 Ibid. 1501–1502. 737 Ibid. 1502–1503.

131 Aurelius’ work was unique in that he wrote it for himself in order to exhort himself to a life of meditation. He was both teacher and student.738

This excursus on the exercise of meditatio during the imperial period demonstrates its importance in the pursuit and maintenance of a virtuous life for a philosophical individual. But more interestingly, the fact that the method of meditatio lacked systematization, owes, in my opinion, to its growing popularity in the “koine of religious and social experience of the third century.”739

The unimportance of human affairs, both socially and politically, is also common topos in Tertullian’s apologetic discourse.740 This theme continues to raise interest among scholars who are divided into two camps: those who see in Tertullian’s writing an opposition between

Christianity and classical culture and those who argue for continuity and reappropriation.741 It easy to interpret, for example, Tertullian’s statement (Apol. 50.16: ut est aemulatio divina rei et humanae) as a rivalry between God’s plan and human affairs — a call for rejection of Greco-

Roman culture. Yet, read through the lens of philosophical discipline of the period aimed at the care of the self, Tertullian’s statement represents the ethical paradigm which posits the importance of individual freedom vis-à-vis the state (especially an oppressive form of government) without being necessarily subversive.742

Tertullian’s apologetic discourse envisaged to strengthen the resolve of Christians under persecution and, not unlike Seneca, provide consolatio to those about to suffer death. The first

738 Ibid. 1507. 739 Brown (1978: 7). 740 For example, Mart. 2.5. Tertullian concludes the Apologeticum (50.16) with the following declaration: Inde est, quod ibidem sententiis vestris gratias agimus. Ut est aemulatio divinae rei et humanae, cum damnamur a vobis, a deo absolvimur. 741 See pages 44–45. 742 My argument qualifies Wilhite’s opinion (2007: 164) concerning the subversive tone of Tertullian’s Ad Martyras.

132 step in Christian meditatio, therefore, is to inculcate a hierarchy of values where worldly things pale in comparison to God’s reward reserved for the just. In Chapter Two, I point out the abundance of Graeco-Roman exempla which Tertullian deployed to strengthen the fortitude of

Christian martyrs. But, if the non-Christian martyrs died for worldly honor, Christians need to have greater motivation to achieve eternal recompense.743 Imprisonment, therefore, becomes an ideal place for Christians to align their mind according to the spirit of the . Like the prophets who ventured to the desert to communicate with God, imprisonment provides a place of solitude for Christians.744 The analogy of the desert does not imply exclusion or isolation.

Rather, the desert becomes an opportune place where one sheds off the cares of the world and the wilderness amplifies one’s senses to open a dialogue with one’s self and with God. Calling the prison cell a desert invites the Christians to hone their senses to listen to the voice of the spirit.745

Dialogue is one of the basic forms of meditatio.746 This dialogue can be either internal or done with an interlocutor. The Octavius of Minucius Felix provides an example of dialogue between friends (contubernales) which includes contrasting opinions, the use of historical exempla to reinforce one’s argument, critique of myths and philosophical discussions, and the denouement of the whole process in winning over an adversary toward the truth. In Tertullian’s

Ad Martyras, imprisonment allows the Christian to dialogue with the Holy Spirit.747 Perpetua’s

Passio, on the other hand, attests to the importance of dialogue among the imprisoned

743Mart. 4.9: Si tanti vitrum, quanti verum margaritum? 744 Ibid. 2.8: Hoc praestat carcer Christiano, quod eremus prophetis. 745 Ibid. 1.3: Inprimis ergo, benedicti, nolite contristare Spiritum sanctum, qui vobiscum introit carcerem…et ideo date operam ut illic vobiscum perseveret et ita vos inde perducat ad dominum. 746 Newman (1993: 1480). 747 Mart 1.3.

133 Christians, where mutual support highlights the social aspect of meditatio.748 In the same vein, the first lines of Ad Martyras emphasize the important role of the Christian community in its rhetoric of consolatio: “Along with the provision which our lady mother the Church from her bountiful breasts, and each brother out of his private means, makes for your bodily wants in the prison, accept also from me some contribution to your spiritual sustenance; for it is not good that the flesh be feasted and the spirit starve.”749 For Tertullian, imprisonment, is not only a test of individual spiritual stamina, but also the importance of common bond in an ecclesia.

Personal meditatio is supported, nourished and affirmed by communal meditation, and this shared meditatio reinforces individual effort to attain virtue.

Rejection of worldly cares forms one of the basic aspects of μελέτη. While Tertullian did not advocate a “libertarian ideology” against secular order and governance, he certainly argued that the freedom to seek eternal truth has greater weight in the development of the individual.750 In the exercise of meditatio, scrutiny and care for the soul of the individual take the center stage.

In this regard, Tertullian’s unique treatise De Testimonio Animae, written either in late

197 A.D., or early 198 A.D., offers salient points.751 It is an imagined dialogue with the soul tasked to give witness to the veracity of Christian faith. Tertullian, arguing for the

748 For example, Pass. Perp. 15.3-4. 749 Mart. 1.1 [Thelwall]: Inter carnis alimenta, benedicti martyres designati, quae vobis et domina mater ecclesia de uberibus suis et singuli fratres de opibus suis propriis in carcerem subministrant, capite aliquid et a nobis quod faciat ad spiritum quoque educandum. Carnem enim saginari et spiritum esurire non prodest. The corporate character of meditatio is, likewise, reflected in Tertullian’s description of Christian assembly characterized by reading the scripture, mutual correction, and exhortation under the leadership of individuals of proven character (Apol. 39. 1-4). 750 On whether Tertullian envisioned a separate Christian world in Carthage, see Rebillard (2012: 31–33). 751 Moreschini (2006: 471).

134 foreknowledge of the soul (which enjoys pristine nature before worldly affairs obscure it)752 rendered the soul of the individual the essence of its identity, providing the senses and rationality to the individual.753 An individual, henceforth, as long as he maintains the integrity of his soul can access the truth.754 The preservation of one’s soul from the influence of the world is one of the important objectives of meditatio.755 Tertullian maintains that the purity of the soul of Christians puts to flight demons which, on the other hand, operate on those who lack self-control, overwhelmed by passion, and are possessed by the desire to persecute

Christians.756 Demons work to destroy the integrity of the individual by corrupting the soul—the pivot of individual identity.757 In other words, persons, whose souls are under the sway of demons, lose their individuality by becoming incapable of responding to the dictates of their conscience and unable to resist errant desire and emotion.758

Notice that, going back to the theme of masculinity discussed in Chapter Two, the integrity of the person’s soul both implies individuality and masculinity. Recalling the significance of προσοχή, Christians must be alert not to let their souls be contaminated by the cares of the world. In a language laced with hyperboles, Tertullian reminds the Christians that they are separated from the world (exinde 135editatio estis ab ipso mundo)759 for the world is

752 Tertullian piggybacked on the Stoic theory of prolepsis. See Hankinson (2003: 59–84, esp. 76–77). 753 Test. An. 1.5: Consiste in medio, anima, seu divina et aeterna res es secundum plures philosophos…undeunde et quoquo modo hominem facis animal rationale, sensus et scientiae capacissimum. 754 On this topic see the important study of Rambaux (2005). 755 Test. An. 6.5–6. 756 Ibid. 3.1. 757 Ibid. 3.2–3. Minucius Felix (Oct. 27.8) describes how demons infiltrate the mind. 758 The attendant daimon of Socrates is a classic example among Christian authors. Minucius Felix (Oct. 26.9), for example, declares that Socrates declined or pursued certain courses of action at the instigation and will of his attendant demon. 759 Mart. 2.1.

135 the real imprisonment (Si enim recogitemus ipsum magis mundum carcerem esse)760 where the soul is entrapped by worldly allurements. Tertullian sees the world as a perilous place inhabited by the demons.761 But because the soul of a Christian is preserved from the influence of the demons through vigilance and meditation, it is called to witness to the truth in the secular world.762

Another function of 136editation (μελέτη) is to train individuals to face death.

Anticipating death is a common theme of meditation in Epictetus (e.g. 2.1.37), Seneca (e.g. Nat.

Quaest. 2.59.3), and Marcus Aurelius (e.g. Med. 10.36).763 According to Cicero, the Cyrenaics taught that the exercise of reflection about misfortune and death that is yet to come

(praemeditatio futuri mali) reduces its impact on the psyche of the individual.764 The Stoics, on the other hand, consider the exercise of praemeditatio futuri mali as an actual rehearsal for the tragedy that may happen.765

In a study of the internalization of the values of Christian martyrs, Perkins has demonstrated how the early Christians constructed their identity and reconfigured their status by cultivating the idea of a suffering self.766 One can only imagine how reading or hearing the

Acta Martyrum or the rhetoric of martyrdom of Christian apologists like Tertullian shaped the minds of early Christians. Confronting death goes at the heart of religious beliefs, especially for

760 Ibid. 761 Ibid. 2.2. 762 Test. An. 2.7: O testimonium veritatis (anima), quae apud ipsa daemonia testem efficit Christianorum! 763 Cf. Benz (1946). 764 Tusc. Disp. 3.28–31. 765 Newman (1993: 1478). Compared to the passive reaction toward death of their Cyrenaic forebears, the Stoics insist on an active disposition whereby they see death as a means to exercise individual virtue. This is so because the Stoics teach that virtue is the only good and the rest, including misfortune or death, are without moral value, an indifferent (adiaphora). 766 Perkins (1995).

136 the early Christians.767 And, the Christian readiness for death is a spectacle of liberty where the martyrs rise to the full heights of their individuality.768

In his apologetic writings, Tertullian employs the terms patientia and tolerantia to describe Christian endurance in the face of adversity and death. In the Ad Martyras (5.1), he uses the term patientia to compare the endurance of Christians to individuals subjected to the whips of gladiators in the arena. The same term makes a single appearance in the Apologeticum

(46.2), where Christianity is compared to schools of philosophy; and patience, together with innocence, justice, sobriety, and chastity comprise their ethical program.769 The word tolerantia on the other hand refers to tenacity in punishment (Apol. 50.9) and endurance of pain and death (Apol. 50.13). However, unlike the traditional Stoic teaching, endurance and fortitude in the face of misfortune and the threat of death do not have intrinsic value on their own unless qualified by faith in God.770 Dying for one’s faith is an articulation of an inward process whereby individuality is defined by desire for heaven. The Christian martyr, henceforth, turns his gaze not to the capitol but to heaven.771 The act of dying is depicted on a cosmic scale — and the cosmo-spiritual significance of dying for one’s faith bestows consolatio.

767 Castelli’s (2007) book argues that the accounts of martyrdom during the early Christian period create ideologies of gender, power, and sanctity. 768 For example, Minucius Felix, Oct. 37.1: Quam pulchrum spectaculum deo, cum Christianus cum dolore congreditur, cum adversum minas et supplicia et tormenta componitur, cum strepitum mortis et horrorem carnificis inridens inculcat, cum libertatem suam adversus reges et principes erigit, soli deo, cuius est, cedit, cum triumphator et victor ipsi, qui adversum se sententiam dixit, insultat! 769 Apol. 46.2. 770 Ware (2008: 267–83) argues that unlike their predecessors, the later Stoics, especially Seneca, gave importance to the role of the divine in moral progress. This kind of progress as well has been compared to the role of the Holy Spirit in Christian’s pursuit of holiness. Augustine would finally spell out clearly the primacy of faith in the act of martyrdom: martyrem non facit poena sed causa (Serm. 285.2). 771 Apol. 17.5.

137 In the Passio of Perpetua and Felicity, Perpetua’s dream not only rehearses Christian

(mis)fortune in the arena, but the imagery of the serpent (draco cubans mirae magnitudinis),772 her trasformation to a man (facta sum masculus)773 and the outlandish description of her opponent in the arena (vir quidam mirae magnitudinis)774 also bestow upon the narrative of martyrdom an immeasurable spatial breadth and timelessness.775 The use of metaphors and other rhetorical devices relocate the event of persecution and martyrdom to the spiritual realm. Hence, Tertullian sees in the obstinacy of Christians and their condemnation a triumph over demons.776 The eclipse of the sun is interpreted as a manifestation of divine displeasure over the persecution of Christians.777 And Tertullian intimates, anticipating Augustine’s philosophy of time in the Confessions, that Christianity would survive its present misfortune because God ordains time.778

Finally, meditatio mortis was aimed to remove fear and anxiety about death in an individual.779 As previously indicated, meditatio likewise has a social aspect. The process of meditation must not be confined to oneself but must be verified, affirmed, or corrected by others.780 This comes in the form of face-to-face dialogue or mutual correspondence. In the

Christian literary context, Justin’s Dialogue with Trypho and the Octavius of Minucius Felix are classic examples of the former. Tertullian wrote his apologetic discourses not as a one-way

772 Pass. Perp. 4.4. 773 Ibid. 10.7. See Irwin (1999: 251–260). 774 Ibid. 10.8. 775 In my opinion, the dream account of Perpetua can be interpreted as a sort of praemeditatio. 776 Apol. 27.7. 777 Ad Scap. 3.3. The eclipse happened in August 212 A.D. 778 Nat. 2.17.19: Sors temporum ita voluit <….>. Quaerite quis temporum vices ordinavit: idem regna dispensat, et nunc penes Romanos eam summam, tamquam pecuniam de multis nominibus exactam in unam arcam congregavit. On Augustine’s philosophy of time, see Knuuttila (2001). 779 Seneca, Nat. Quaest. 2.59.3. See Newman (1993:1486–1488). 780 Newman (1993: 1482).

138 response to the persecution of Christians but as an invitation to dialogue with himself and with his readers.781 The act of writing, being an exercise of self-introspection, is a form of meditatio and vigilance over one’s self.782 Writing about the life of a martyr is also an act of self- persuasion. The one holding the pen internalizes a martyr-event and is persuaded toward the value or virtue of the martyr. This is how Tertullian described his “conversion” to Christianity.783

The success of meditatio hinges on its ability to persuade, both the individual (in this case, the author) and the readers.784 The persona of the martyr and the accounts of martyrdom function as rhetorical device for the affirmation and promotion of Christian discipline. Tertullian clearly expresses this sentiment in his peroration in the Apologeticum:

“But nothing whatsoever is accomplished by your cruelties, each more exquisite than the last. It is the bait that wins men for our school. We multiply whenever we are mown down by you; the blood of Christians is seed. Many among you preach the endurance of pain and of death — such as Cicero in his Tusculans, Seneca in his Fortuita, Diogenes, Pyrrho, Callinicus. And yet their words never find so many disciples as the Christians, who teach by deeds.”785

IV. Summary

How can a study of the notion of Individuality in Tertullian’s apologetic writings clarify his articulation of Christian identity? This question best summarizes my objective for this chapter.

781 See my description of apologetic literature, pages 19–27. 782 Foucault (1988: 28). 783 Apol. 15.5. Cf. Moreschini (2006: 11–12). According to Tertullian (Scap.5), many individuals converted to the Christian faith after witnessing, reading or hearing spectacles of Christian martyrdom: Quisque enim tantam tolerantiam spectans, ut aliquo scrupulo percussus, et inquirere accenditur quid sit in causa, et ubi cognoverit veritatem et ipse statim sequitur. 784 Newman (1993: 1478). 785 Apol. 50. 13-14: Plures efficimur, quotiens metimur a vobis: semen est sanguis Christianorum. Multi apud vos ad tolerantiam doloris et mortis hortantur, ut Cicero in Tusculanis, ut Seneca in Fortuitis, ut Diogenes, ut Pyrrhon, ut Callinicus; nec tamen tantos inveniunt verba discipulos, quantos Christiani factis docendo.

139 The multitude of ideas about the (philosophical) self and the elite’s anxiety of articulating one’s identity in the public sphere (economic, civic or religious) during the imperial period warrant my foray into reading Tertullian’s apologetics through the lens of these social phenomena. This approach demonstrates that Tertullian was keenly aware and utilized the tools of popular philosophy during his time. This study, likewise, fills one of the lacunas in the scholarship of

Tertullian where the role and significance of the individual was lost in the traditional emphasis on group conversion or communal identity of Christians. Discourses about the self creates a value system which in turn shapes social understanding about the importance of the individual.

Here I examine two approaches of signifying Individuality in Tertullian’s apologetics, namely the implication of the statement Christianus sum in the trials of Christians and the

Roman elite’s preoccupation with care for the self, popularized in Foucault’s souci de soi. First, the trial of Christians offers a “performance” of their individuality before the imperial magistrate especially in their declaration Christianus sum. I demonstrate that more than just group identification, this statement articulates Christian identity by associating it with the philosophical concepts of conscientia and veritas (in contrast to opinio). It likewise presents

Christian faith as something similar to individual commitment to ethical pursuit.

Second, I situate Tertullian’s discourse on Christian persecution and martyrdom within the popular philosophical pursuits of προσοχή and meditatio. I argue that Tertullian’s employment of these philosophical exercises proposes Christianity as an ethical option in his society. The importance of προσοχή is aimed towards controlling swells of passions or emotions through vigilance and presence of mind. It keeps the individual from the snares of worldly allurements. Tertullian saw fit to include a discussion about demons whom he blames for the

140 persecution of Christians. In popular philosophy, demons were considered subject to passions and were propriated with the spilling of blood.786 Christian endurance in the face of death conquered demonic influence (and thus demonstrates that they are not divine) and presents

Christianity as prime example of προσοχή. The important characteristic of meditatio as a dialogue with one’s self or with an interlocutor allows Tertullian to introduce the daily spiritual regimen required of a Christian. The isolation of a prison cell allows for the Christian self- examination and dialogue with God. This exercise of “self-information” raises one’s consciousness from individual perspective to communal and universal. That is why, performing one’s individuality necessarily leads to a conceptualization of community. This is the topic for the next chapter.

786 Cf. Moreschini (2015: 126–7). See Plutarch, De defectu oracularum 14.417c and Apuleius, Socr. 14.148–9. Maximus of Tyre (Dissertationes 9.4) maintains that Gods must be impassible. Hence, demons are not immortal.

141 Chapter Four

Christian Community and Roman society

I. Introduction

While Chapters Two and Three, on paideia and individuality, discuss, respectively, the cultural and philosophical elements in Tertullian’s construction of Christian identity, this chapter aims to describe how the Christian reappropriation of this cultural capital facilitated and created a framework of relationships among Christians and between Christians and other non-Christian members of Roman North African society. In short, this chapter looks to examine the socio- political aspects of Tertullian’s apologetic works.

The relationship between Christianity and the Roman state in Tertullian’s thought continues to generate studies with varying conclusions.787 In fact, the latest monograph on early Christianity in North Africa calls for a reading of Tertullian’s works through the optics of

“African identity” to recover his presumptive non-Roman identity.788 The depiction of Tertullian as hostile to the Roman state is not a novelty. Already in 1901, Guignebert, in his conclusion to a lengthy study on Tertullian, claimed that the apologist from Carthage found no reconciliation between Christianity and his contemporary society.789 On the other hand, I have established in the preceeding two chapters Tertullian’s indebtedness to the culture of his environment.

The apologist’s zealous desire to distinguish Christian values from the vices of his society can easily be perceived as revolutionary. On this account, Fredouille maintains: mais le rigorisme est une attitude morale et <>, non une prise de position

787 See pages 44–45. 788 Wilhite (2017: 127). 789 Guignebert (1901: 573–593).

142 <>.790 Notwithstanding the strong current of apocalypticism in Tertullian’s thought, finely argued by Guignebert, I contend that Tertullian recognized the temporal goods present in and guaranteed by civitas Romana. Furthermore, in Tertullian’s mind, Christian faith and political society would continue to overlap, although not coincide, until the second coming of

Christ.791 This historical and eschatological tension between Christianity and the political order explains why Tertullian could write that Roman-ness is a benefit for all.792

Lepelley indicates that la vie municipale in Carthage filters through Tertullian’s writings.793 A brief description of the social life of North African society provides helpful background. I shall examine representations of North African society portrayed in mosaics from the region.

In her seminal work on provincial peasantry in Roman North Africa, Dossey compared two North African mosaics, the early second century El Alia Nilotic mosaic (figs. 1 and 2) and the

Dominus Julius mosaic from late fourth century Carthage (fig. 3) as representative of the economic and social relationship between landowners and peasants within the course of the two periods.794 The earlier El Alia mosaic depicts peasants hard at work. They wear mere loincloths and live in small huts made of reeds and brushwood. Their masters recline relaxingly

790 Fredouille (1984: 113); also, Hornus (1958: 1–38). Fredouille (1984: 112) explains that Tertullian was not merely writing about the rapport of Christians with the empire. The apologist at the same time aimed to instruct and reinforce disciplina on his Christian readers. Hence, Fredouille concludes: on ne peut donc séparer le moraliste de l’apologiste. 791 For example, Apol. 20.5: Apud homines, si forte, distinguitur, dum expungitur, dum ex futuro praesens, dehinc ex praesenti praeteritum deputatur. Quid delinquimus, oro vos, futuro quoque credentes, qui iam didicimus illi per duos gradus credere? Fredouille (1984: 116) explains that Tertullian inscribed Christianity in the evolution of human history of which the contemporary Roman state contributes to this historical process. 792 Pall. 4.1: Romanitas omni salus. 793 Lepelley (1990: 403–421). 794 Dossey (2010: 1–2). The El Alia mosaic, now located in the museum of Bardo, is reproduced in Gauckler (1910: pl. 92). While, the famous Dominus Julius mosaic, preserved in Bardo museum, is reproduced in Blanchard-Lemée, Ennaïfer, Slim and Slim (1996: fig. 121).

143 in their villas made of stone and tiled roofs. Though there is an explicit contrast between the peasants and their landowners, the impression given by the mosaic is “that of a relaxed, elegant landowning class living peacefully side by side with their hardworking, hut dwelling, minimally dressed peasants.”795 The Dominus Julius mosaic, on the other hand, portrays the peasants as well dressed, wearing tailored clothes and decorated with vertical clavi. Prosperity and a very visual depiction of “romanization” characterize the working class. Yet, there is as well a noticeable uneasiness in the image of rural population with emphasis on servility and subordination to their masters and mistresses.

Both mosaics celebrate the status of Africa as an important source of food and oil in the empire.796 The peaceful depiction of the relationship between the native peasants and the

Roman landowners in the El Alia mosaic has been attributed to the Lex Manciana where the native tenants (coloni) were granted security of tenure in return for a percentage of their crops as a form of payment for cultivating land on imperial estates.797 Certainly, cultural peculiarities are exhibited in the diverse lifestyles between the native peasants and their Roman landlords.

Yet, no antagonism between various groups is discernible. The mosaic testifies to the condition of municipal life during the second century A.D.

On the other hand, in the late fourth-century mosaic from Carthage, the tailored clothes with vertical clavi and jewelry worn and displayed by the peasants demonstrate economic affluence and the influence of the Roman lifestyle on the native population. This development

795 Dossey (2010: 1). 796 The author of the biography of Commodus (H. A. Comm. 17.7–8) tells us that the emperor furnished an African fleet (classis) to ensure the transport of corn from Africa to Rome. The UNESCO project in Carthage excavated a circular harbor in Carthage (ca. second century A.D.) where the fleet might have docked. For the African economy during the imperial period and the various legislation and taxes in Africa, see Whittaker (2000: 531–546). 797 See Kehoe (1984: 241–263).

144 however failed to hide the tension brought about by the visually portrayed asymmetrical power relations and makes one question to what extent the natives were “Romanized.”

This is also the social milieu of Tertullian’s literary production. Tertullian’s act of writing was not meant merely to answer the accusations against Christians but his writing involves a

“process of legitimation” for Christianity in Carthaginian society.798 But legitimation can only occur within the realm of a community — for community is a necessary condition for communication. A community is formed when individuals and “groups of persons” share among others common language, symbols, and rituals.799 Similar to the social dynamics and transformations signaled by the two mosaics above, Tertullian and his literary production were created and implicated in the political and cultural developments of the period.

I have two aims in this chapter: the first is to ask how Tertullian’s act of writing created possibilities for civic interaction — the social aspect of paideia. In the ancient world, both the author and the readers engaged in a dialectical relationship. Writing was a public performance and readers affirmed the author. Reading established “a common set of values and expectations.”800 In my discussion of paideia, I pointed out that writing was a claim for masculinity. In this chapter, I shall explore the phenomenon of writing as a social performance by evaluating the role of memoria as a cultural capital in constructing Christian identity. Just as we have seen in Chapter Two how historical exempla and Roman myths were deployed by

Tertullian to open a dialogue with the litterati of his time, the mnemonic technique of recalling history and myth implicated Christianity in the historical narrative of imperial Rome. Hence, the

798 Tertullian, thus, argues: De vestris sumus: fiunt non nascuntur Christiani (Apol. 18.4). Cf. Stock (1990: 2). 799 Cf. Markus (1996: 105–124). 800 Hedrick (2011: 186).

145 process of sharing memory, or in the case of Tertullian, claiming memory and reappropriating memory created a cultural space for Christians and other inhabitants of the empire for dialogue.

The second aim of this chapter is to explore the tension but also the process of urbanization of North African society. Here, I would like to investigate what was the significance of society in Tertullian’s apologetic writings? Instead of a one-sided view provided by the rhetoric of binary opposition, is it possible to speak of conflation, or dynamics of encounter, between the civitas dei and the civitas terrena?801 Both in the Adversus Nationes and the

Apologeticum, Tertullian boasts about the number of Christians of every sex, age, condition

(condicio), and rank (dignitas) found in every part of the African population.802 Tertullian paints a picture of Christians as active agents in the cities and towns of the region. Can we justify the claim of one scholar of Tertullian that “true religion exists for Tertullian in a sphere outside that of Roman society, politics and status”?803 I suggest otherwise. Amidst the tension between

Christianity and the Roman state, Tertullian sought a common space, a sphere of encounter where Christianity existed in constant tension and dialogue with its pluralist society.

801 This study limits itself to the earlier apologetic writings of Tertullian and certainly his apologetic works do not represent the antagonistic attitude toward the State characteristic of his later writings like the De Corona (211 AD). Barton and Boyarin (2016) provide a synthesis of Tertullian’s relationship with the Roman state. While a diachronic interpretation of Tertullian’s works, certainly, clarifies the processes and evolution of Tertullian’s political thoughts, but by limiting the scope of this study to the apologetic works, the importance of Tertullian’s rhetoric of accomodation to the politics of Severus emerges, while recognizing the complexity of Tertullian’s task: enforcing Christian discipline among his correligionists while claiming romanitas for Christians. 802 Apol. 1.7; Nat. 1.1.2. Weiss (2015) attempts to show that already in the first and second centuries, Christians can count among its members senators and local officials. The earliest description of a typical African Christian congregation is a record of court proceedings of a Church in Cirta in the fourth century (Cf. Act. Zeno). It shows that the congregation was made up of members from modest backgrounds. See Burns and Jensen (2014: 6). 803 This is one of the principal arguments by Groh (1970: 76). Likewise, Louth (2014: 109–119, esp. 110) suggests that for Tertullian a Christian community “consisted of those who had left their natural communities and joined the community of the Church.”

146 II. Memory and Writing: Constructing Christian Identity and social dynamics

Memory is one of the important pillars of classical education. Orators underwent rigid training in memory which constitutes one of the five components of rhetoric.804 Likewise, Hadot has argued that memorization (μνήμη) goes hand in hand with meditation (μελέτη) in the exercise of προσοχή.805 Farrell holds that memoria in classical culture was a phenomenon wherein “an individual mnemonic act represents a specific memory of the past, embodies this memory in a new form appropriate to the present, and produces new memories destined to serve the future.”806 The importance of memory in Tertullian’s apologetic ouevre explains the abundant use of historical exempla and myths culled from his cultural milieu. It stands as a creative response to the accusation of Christianity as nova (e.g. Nat. 1.8.10 and Apol. chapter 6). To be accused of being nova implies no origin, no tradition, and bereft of memory. An individual or group plagued by cultural amnesia or worse ignorant of the history of their community cannot engage in dialogue. Moreover, Halbwachs, one of the first scholars to engage in memory studies, asserted that memory is not merely a phenomenon in the individual but is also shared by groups. In addition, memory does not provide a genuine copy of the past but reconstructs it in the light of the present. In other words, memory continuously engages in renewal and reconstruction of the past.807 Hence, memory has individual, collective/social, and cultural dimensions.808

804 Cicero, Brut. 215; Inv. 1.7.9; de Orat. 1.142–3; Rhet. Her. 1.3. 805 See Hadot (1995: 85). The importance of remembering occurs frequently in Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius and Galen. Cf. Hadot (1995: 112, n. 37). 806 Cf. Farrell (1997: 373–383). 807 Cf. Halbwachs (1952) and (1968). Likewise, Galinsky (2016: 7–10). 808 In the elite’s habit of sharing, circulating, and commenting on literature (sometimes on their own works), memorizing some passages or excerpts was a common expectation and formed a ‘reading community.’ For

147 To appreciate the role of memory in the construction of Christian identity, a passage from the Octavius of Minucius Felix provides a salient example.809

“As in thought I pondered and reflected over memories of my good and trusty comrade, Octavius, such an impression of sweetness and charm remained with me that I seemed somehow reliving in the past, rather than recalling to memory things over and done; so vividly did his image, though withdrawn from the eyes, remain imprinted on my heart and inmost sense. No wonder that on his departure so excellent and saintly a man has left behind him a measureless sense of loss; the fact is that he cherished such warm affection for me that, both in our amusements and serious occupations, our wills were turned to perfect concert, whether of likes or dislikes; you might have thought a single mind had been parted into two.”810

The opening lines of the Octavius demonstrate the intimacy of the narrator/author with his deceased character (Octavius). This is illustrated by Minucius Felix’s encomiastic intent of bringing Octavius back to life not only to address the “sense of loss” for Octavius but also to share his experience of Octavius with his readers. The phrases cogitanti mihi (as I pondered), mihi viderer in praeterita redire (I seemed somehow reliving in the past), and immensum sui desiderium (a measureless sense of longing for Octavius) underscore the emotion, vividness, and the subjective attempt of the author to recall and experience once again an event in the example, Pliny, ep. 6.3.11: memoriter tenes omnes; 9.18: qua intentione, quo studio, qua denique memoria legeris libellos meos. On how the elite’s reading habits form community see Johnson (2010: 56–62). 809 The application of memory studies in early Christian literature is rather new. Cf. Galinsky (2016) and Lewis (2016: 263–285). For the discussion of priority between the Octavius of Minucius Felix and the Apologeticum of Tertullian see Axelson (1941); likewise, Simonetti and Prinzivalli (1999: 572). Sordi (1964: 169) asserts that both the Octavius of Minucius Felix and the Apologeticum of Tertullian depended on a third work by the Roman martyr Apollonius. 810 Minucius Felix, Octavius 1.1–3 (trans. Glover): Cogitanti mihi et cum animo meo Octavi boni et fidelissimi contubernalis memoriam recensenti tanta dulcedo et adfectio hominis inhaesit, ut ipse quodammodo mihi viderer in praeterita redire, non ea quae iam transacta et decursa sunt, recordatione revocare: ita eius contemplatio quantum subtracta est oculis, tantum pectori meo ac paene intimis sensibus inplicata est. Nec inmerito discedens vir eximius et sanctus inmensum sui desiderium nobis reliquit, utpote cum et ipse tanto nostri semper amore flagraverit, ut et in ludicris et seriis pari mecum voluntate concineret eadem velle vel nolle: crederes unam mentem in duobus fuisse divisam.

148 past which has made Octavius his bonus et fidelissimus contubernalis (good and most trusty comrade). The pathos of Minucius Felix resembles the panegyrical discourse of an orator in a laudatio funebris.811 The aim is to elicit the same emotional response from his listeners. In this case, however, it is not the imagines (wax figures of Roman ancestors) that brings about the desire to “relive the past/return to the past” (in praeterita redire) but the text which evokes the experience and appeals to the power of memory.812 Henceforth, the mnemonic program of

Minucius Felix is aimed toward presenting his experience of Octavius to his readers as a sort of a spectaculum — a literary performance in mind’s eye with the view of eliciting the conversion to Christianity. The experience of Minucius Felix and Caecilius in their encounter with Octavius is rehearsed.813 Minucius’ treatment of his characters was not so much about retrieving and restoring memories, but more about performing them.

The singular literary event of dialogue, debate, and communion of friendship in the

Octavius finds no parallel in Tertullian.814 But Tertullian’s writings certainly utilized the classical technique of the mnemonic act described by Farrell above.815 Valerius Maximus’ Facta et dicta memorabilia describes the embellishment and empowerment of a narrative through the use of memoria, that is, “drawing from memoria, preserving memoria, and in some cases denying

811 On pathos as a rhetorical tool see Olbricht (2001: 7–22) and Fortenbaugh (1970: 40–70). On the significance of pathos in the literature of the early Church, see DiCicco (1995) and Kendeffy (2000: 113–129). 812 See Gowing (2005: 10–11). 813 Octavius 1.4–5: Sic solus in amoribus conscius, ipse socius in erroribus: et cum discussa caligine de tenebrarum profundo in lucem sapientiae et veritatis emergerem, non respuit comitem, sed quod est gloriosius, praecucurrit. 814 There are, however, nondescript contestations between two individuals in Jud. 1.1 and Marc. 4.4.1. I agree with Arbesmann’s (1950: 314) argument that the Octavius “was written in the literary form of a dialogue, which is, however, sui generis.” 815 Cf. page 147.

149 memoria.”816 Tertullian’s introduction to De Testimonio Animae, written in the same year as the

Apologeticum, echoes the same principle:

“If, with the object of convicting the rivals and persecutors of Christian truth, from their own authorities, of the crime of at once being untrue to themselves and doing injustice to us, one is bent on gathering testimonies in its favor from the writings of the philosophers, or the poets, or other masters of this world's learning and wisdom, one has need of a most inquisitive spirit, and a still greater memory to carry out the research. Indeed, some of our people, who still continued their inquisitive labors in ancient literature, and still occupied memory with it, have published works we have in our hands of this very sort; works in which they relate and attest the nature and origin of their traditions, and the grounds on which opinions rest, and from which it may be seen at once that we have embraced nothing new or monstrous — nothing for which we cannot claim the support of ordinary and well-known writings, whether in rejecting error from our creed, or admitting truth into it.”817

In his use of memoria, Tertullian attempts to show that Christianity is not incompatible with the mos maiorum of the Romans. He, likewise, aligns himself with the literary tradition started by his predecessors, the Greek Christian apologists, who sought affirmation of the Christian discipline in classical tradition.818 Tertullian’s declaration, in the passage from the De Testimonio

Animae above, to imitate the example of Greek Christian apologists and to work in their literary

816 Gowing (2005: 49). 817 Test. An. 1.1–2 [trans. Thelwall]: Magna curiositate et maiore longe memoria opus est ad studendum, si qui velit ex litteris receptissimis quibusque philosophorum vel poetarum vel quorumlibet doctrinae ac sapientiae saecularis magistrorum testimonia excerpere Christianae veritatis, ut aemuli persecutoresque eius de suo proprio instrumento et erroris in se et iniquitatis in nos rei revincantur. Nonnulli quidem, quibus de pristina litteratura et curiositatis labor et memoriae tenor perseveravit, ad eum modum opuscula penes nos condiderunt commemorantes et contestificantes in singula rationem et originem et traditionem et sententiarum argumenta, per quae recognosci possit nihil nos aut novum aut portentosum suscepisse, de quo non etiam communes et publicae litterae ad suffragium nobis patrocinentur, si quid aut erroris eiecimus aut aequitatis admisimus. For the date of composition, see Moreschini (2006: 471). 818 Here, Tertullian had in mind the works of Justin Martyr, Athenagoras and Tatian.

150 milieu ascribed him into their “literary community.”819 An important bond that unites this literary community is their defense of Christianity using paideia as their principal tool.

I shall now discuss select examples of the functions of memoria in Tertullian’s apologetic writings. My chapter on paideia, above, described Tertullian’s use of historical exempla to bestow historicity to Christianity. In this chapter, I shall prove that Tertullian does not merely employ Roman history but likewise offers an interpretation of history as a continuous process of juxtaposition between tradition and innovation.820

Tertullian mapped the tragedy of Christian persecutions according to the reputation of emperors and governors.821 Good emperors tolerated Christians, while authorities with questionable character persecuted them. Three emperors figured prominently in Tertullian’s argument: Tiberius, Marcus Aurelius, and Severus.822 In the Ad Scapulam, written almost 15 years after the Apologeticum, Tertullian claims that Severus opposed publicly those who persecuted Christians (et populo furenti in nos palam restitit).823 Tertullian reminds Scapula that in Africa Christians could now be found among one’s family and friends.824 Severus, Tertullian asserts, has become favorable to Christians.825 Next, he used the rain miracle that purportedly saved Marcus Aurelius’ army in Germania as a rhetorical device to inscribe the role of Christians

819 Scholarship on Greek Christian apologetics is vast. As representative see Young (2002: 81–104); Malingrey (1996); Grant (1955: 25–33) and (1988: 1–17); and Joly (1973). 820 I cite in full Fredouille’s opinion (1972: 242): Le mérite de Tertullien, son originalité aussi, ont été précisément de faire prendre conscience aux Romains du role et de l’importance des nova par rapport aux vetera, dans toute leur civilisation, mais d’abord dans le domaine juridique. Ando (2000: 4–5), in his seminal work on ideology and the creation of consensus in imperial Rome, asserts that one of Gibbon’s missteps in his historical interpretation is the assumption that Roman culture was static and remained impervious to external influences. 821 See pages 80-82. 822 Tertullian (Apol. 5.6–7) likewise states that Trajan, Hadrian, Vespasian, Pius, and Verus did not persecute Christians. 823 Scap. 4.6. Barnes (2009:3) argues that during the dynasty of the Severans, “Christians had achieved both respectability and a large measure of the de facto toleration in Roman society.” 824 Scap. 5.3. 825 Tertullian described Severus as Christianorum memor (Scap. 4.5).

151 in the event.826 The fortunes of Christians, once persecuted, allegedly changed because Marcus

Aurelius did not only remove the penalty against them, but he also attached severe condemnation to their accusers.827 Emperor Tiberius was similar to Severus and Marcus

Aurelius. Like the latter, Tiberius endorsed Christianity before the senate and threatened harm to those who would do otherwise (Apol. 5.2). Indeed, as I have suggested in Chapter two,

Tertullian may well have invented the “favor of Tiberius,” just as he invented other imperial benefactions towards Christianity, to deflate the importance of the first persecution of

Christians under Nero.828

On the other hand, Tertullian commanded his readers to refresh their memories about

Nero (Consulite commentarios vestros).829 The rhetoric had two objectives: first, to call upon readers to remember what had been forgotten (Nero having been condemned of damnatio memoriae); second, to remember Nero only to condemn him again (intellegere potest non nisi grande aliquod bonum a Nerone damnatum). By erecting and dismantling a literary “memorial” to Nero, Tertullian trivialized the Neronian exemplum in the persecution of Christians

(institutum Neronianum).830 Both the positive and negative exempla of the emperors allowed the Christians to define their identity with respect to the secular power. Not only was their relationship with the Roman state clarified, but it also provided possibilities wherein being

826 Apol. 5.6. The rain miracle is celebrated in the column of Marcus Aurelius and narrated in Historia Augusta (Ant. 24.4) and Cassius Dio (71.8-10). However, there are no evidence for the role of Christians. Perhaps, this is another case of Tertullian claiming a popular exemplum. See Moreschini (2006: 196–7, n. 25). 827 Apol. 5.6. 828 See pages 80-81. 829 Apol. 5.3. Similarly, Octavius asked Caecilius, his pagan interlocutor, to revise his knowledge of history: lege historicorum scripta vel scripta sapientium: eadem mecum recognosces (21.1). 830 Nat. 1.7.8.

152 Roman was not incompatible to being Christian.831 Hence, Tertullian’s discourse on memory becomes tout court a construction of Christian identity favorable to Roman opinion.

The utilization of collective memory in constructing Christian identity finds similar approach in Tertullian’s reappropriation of mythical narratives. In Chapter Two, I demonstrated that Tertullian, like many other Christian apologists, criticized myths for their immoral accounts of the Gods.832 The functional value of myths in preserving aristocratic ideology and promoting consensus in community were problematized by Tertullian, especially in his critique of Varro’s theologia tripartita (Nat. 1.2.1–8.19), by pointing out that a homogenous civic religion was not possible in the face of diverse religious beliefs brought about by Roman conquest.833

Notwithstanding Tertullian’s formal critique of the tradition of Roman mythology, I maintain that Tertullian “Christianized” mythical narratives to serve as rhetorical tools aimed to present

Christian faith in a language familiar to the elites, or his readers.834 Similar to the technique he employed on pagan historical exempla, Tertullian’s utilization of mythological figures demonstrates that he drew from the same cultural stream popular in his time.

In the Apologeticum, Tertullian criticizes the restoration of the cults of Isis and Serapis in

Rome after having been proscribed by the consuls Piso and Gabinius in 58 BC.835 He, then, adds that the altar in Rome built for the cult was dedicated to the Romanized Serapis.836 Ramarkably,

Tertullian compares the Christian banquet to the smoke created by dinners in honor of

831 See Schöllgen (1985). 832 See pages 86-99. 833 See page 95-97. 834 See Liebeschuetz (1995: 193–208). 835 Apol. 6. 8–10. 836 Ibid.6.10.

153 Serapis.837 Furthermore, in the Ad Nationes, Tertullian claims that Serapis is actually the biblical

Joseph.838 Serapis’ image adorned with modius represents Joseph’s office as the administrator of the granary in Egypt.839 Jewish tradition, as well, provides a useful narrative in the construction of Christian identity. Noting the importance of circumcision as an important manifestation of Jewish identity,840 Tertullian argues that Christians, like Abraham, are circumcised not according to the flesh but according to the spirit.841 Here, Jewish history is likewise reappropriated.

Similarly, Roman myths provide a trove of allegories applicable to Christian discipline.

The feast day of Saturn (Saturni dies) is compared to Sunday, the day Christians celebrate the resurrection of Jesus from the dead.842 The Stoic logos, expounded by Zeno and Cleanthes explains the divinity of Jesus. The origin of Christ is couched in a language typical of second century Stoicism.843 Finally, the supremacy of Jupiter over all Olympians provides an argument for monotheism.844 Tertullian’s positive use of myth echoes that of Diodorus and the Hellenistic tradition, where myths were considered scholarly material and whose deployment was controlled by the elites.845 Tertullian appreciated myths from a measured distance, recognizing their capability to disseminate information after they had been “rationalized” and divested of meaning contrary to Christian faith (a process of filtering collective memory). For the first time

837 Ibid. 39.15. 838 Nat. 2.8.10–16. Moreschini claims that the identification of Serapis with Joseph is very particular and merits further investigation. See Moreschini (2006: 436–437, n. 97). 839 Ibid. 2.8.16. 840 Jud. 3.1–13. 841 Ibid. 3.7: Sicut enim circumcisio carnalis quale temporalis erat imbuta est in signum populo contumaci, ita spiritalis data est in salutem populo obaudienti. 842 Apol. 16.11. 843 Ibid. 21.13-14. For a brief introduction to the doctrine of Logos in early Christianity, see Moreschini (2005: 13–98). 844 Ibid. 24.3–5; 28.2. 845 Marincola (1997: 119).

154 in Latin Christianity, Tertullian’s literary work recognizes myth as an indispensable literary apparatus to find common ground with the larger world.

Finally, another function of memoria is to provide consolatio. In Minucius Felix’s

Octavius, consolatio is related to the genre of laudatio funebris. Both Cicero and Seneca wrote consolatory works to address bereavement and grief.846 Polybius, however, saw a wider application of consolatory works — not only in the loss of loved ones, but also in the loss of one’s honor or exile from one’s country.847 For a community which was often misunderstood and victimized by intermittent persecution, the consolatory function of biographical accounts like the Octavius, the Passio Perpetuae et Felicitatis, and even the Acta Martyrum of the

Scillitan martyrs played an important role in keeping Christians steadfast in their faith. In these works, the heroism of individual Christians provides consolation. Tertullian, however, favored a communal act of “remembering” as a source of consolation.848 The recalling of Christ’s teaching in the sacred scripture and the exempla from the prophets characterized the assembly of Tertullian’s Christian community.849 Communal gathering such as this and the

Christian practices of προσοχή and μελέτη, which I described in Chapter Three, provide consolation and galvanized Christian resolve to face persecution and martyrdom. These spiritual and philosophical exercises employ memoria as an important didactic device.

846 Cicero wrote De Consolatione (now lost) in his grief for the death of his daughter Tullia. He, likewise, discussed the same theme in books 1 and 3 of his Tusculan Disputations. Seneca, on the other hand, wrote two works on the topic, De Consolatio ad Marciam and De Consolatio ad Polybium. On consolatio as a literary genre see Atkinson (1977: 860–884); Ochs (1993); and Gregg (1975). 847 Polybius, Hist. 2.1–5.5; 9.1–3. 848 The only account of individual martyrdom in the Apologeticum pertains to a Christian girl who was not only condemned to death but also forced into prostitution (50.12). 849 Apol. 39.16-21.

155 The weakness of the above argument, at least for Tertullian’s Apologeticum, would be the question of readership. If non-Christian litterati were the target readers, how do we explain

Tertullian’s strategy? The question of readership of the Apologeticum is difficult to ascertain.850

Yet, both non-Christians and Christians could benefit from the theme of consolatio in the

Apologeticum, the former as propaganda for the elites who were philosophically inclined, while the latter could have certainly used a vademecum when confronting the reality of persecution.851 In both cases, the appeal of consolatio respectively creates and reinforces communities. Tertullian considers his apologetic writing “a hidden path of silent literature.”852

The phrase describes the condition of Christians in society: hidden and silent. But, Tertullian’s apologetic endeavour bestows literary capital to what is concealed – this is the path towards the recognition of Christianity.

III. cohabitamus hoc saeculum:853 Christianity and its contemporary society

The previous section described how Tertullian may have appropriated the cultural memory of his society for different audiences and communities. In this section, I shall investigate another social dimension of literary writing. The interplay of resistance and accommodation in North

African society that filtered through Tertullian’s apologetic writings will be examined. Is it

850 See pages 22–23. 851 On the question of readership of the Apologeticum, Barnes (1985: 110) asserts: “If Tertullian appeared to invoke Roman magistrates and to address the pagan world, most of his statements were also designed to encourage Christians. They felt confidence in a spokesman who could prove their respectability, both social and intellectual, by his (Tertullian’s) very existence.” 852 Apol. 1.1: occulta via tacitarum litterarum. Literature, as well, creates community. Stock (1990: 23) provides a description of a “textual community:” “These textual communities were not entirely composed of literates. The minimal requirement was just one literate, the interpres, who understood a set of texts and was able to pass his message verbally to others.” 853 Ibid. 42.2.

156 possible to speak of an “imagined community” in Tertullian (a constructed literary social interaction) where, notwithstanding the tension and differences brought by the cultural and religious tapestry of a pluralist society, the possibility of dialogue can be established? This hypothesis rests on the assumption that the circulation of texts in antiquity implied the sharing of content, reinforcement of relationships, and the creation of media for social interaction.854

The circulation and spread of Christian literature certainy created a reading community; and the act of reading or listening potentially reinforced this community of readers (or listeners). From the perspective of non-Christians, the same literature which could convict a Christian was also capable of converting a non-Christian reader to join the faith.

Literary production, circulation and the creation of a reading community illustrate the potential for literature to construct, negotiate, and articulate identity. Being necessarily a product of his socio-cultural milieu, Tertullian’s apologetic discourse cannot but reveal his sentiment towards his society. What image of second century North African society emerges from Tertullian’s apologetic writings? How did he negotiate with the charismatic power of the emperor? Did he share the positive sentiment (or rhetoric) of living in a cosmopolitan empire with Apuleius and Aelius Aristides? Do we find indications of agitation exhibited in the Dominus

Julius mosaic in his writings? Does he acknowledge the role of Rome as a catalyst of civilization and guarantor of a unified Greco-Roman oikoumene?855

To put these questions into perspective, Apuleius’ relationship with Carthage invites comparison:

854 Cf. Hedrick (2011: 167–190, esp. 185). 855 Richter (2011: 112) maintains that Dio Chrysostom and Aelius Aristides when writing about Rome were not so much anxious about their own identities as much as their literary agenda to construct “the idea of a unified Greco- Roman oikoumene.”

157 “This is the kind of payment I make to you, Carthaginians, all over the world, for the education I received among you in my boyhood. Everywhere I go I present myself as an alumnus of your city; everywhere I go I celebrate your praises of every kind. I enthusiastically admire the education you offer, I boastfully parade your wealth and I religiously venerate your gods.”856 Akin to the cultural encounter and fusion depicted in the Dominus Julius mosaic above,

Apuleius, “half Numidian and half Gaetulian” in origin (Apol. 24), proclaims the greatness of

Carthage in a language typically Roman.857 Apuleius is an important witness to the vitality of the culture and economy of Carthage and its pedigree as a cosmopolitan city in the Mediterranean basin. Similar to Aelius Aristides’ panegyric to the civilizing effect of Roman imperial power,

Apuleius celebrates the fruits of the pax romana brought by the Antonine emperors.858

Two contemporary scholars on Tertullian and North African society offer contrasting opinions regarding his relationship with the social order. Wilhite, reading Tertullian through the lens of post-colonial hermeneutics, writes that the apologist understood himself as an indigenous African and rejected not only Rome, but also the pursuits of the new Romanized

856 Florida 18.36. 857 Coming from , it is possible that Apuleius spoke Punic as his vernacular language. Yet his fluency in Latin and Greek relates him “not to an African sub-culture but to the mainstream of Latin culture.” See Harrison (2008: 2). Graverini (2014: 112–128), likewise, demonstrates how Apuleius, through literary models, removed the traditional hostility between Rome and Carthage. 858 The civilization of Roman North Africa resulted from the dynamic encounter of various cultures guaranteed by the peace and order maintained by Rome and Africa’s important role in the economy of the empire (Cf. Chapter One, especially pages 27–42). I quote in full Picard’s (1990: 46) description of Roman Africa’s political, social, and cultural dynamism: La transformation des populations libyco-puniques, l’adhèsion profonde de leur majorité à l’orde imperial n’a pas été imposeé par la contrainte administrative ou militaire. Elles sont le résultat d’une mutation de cette race humaine sous l’action spontanée d’organismes libres et vivants, insérés dans leur sein, proliférant et absorbant leur entourage à la façon de cellules qui conquièrent un milieu biologique et le transforment en un organisme supérieur. L’emprise de Rome sur les autres cites n’a pas entraîne leur mort comme on le croit souvent. Elle leur a, au contraire, donné une vie nouvelle, a multiplié infiniment leur puissance de rayonnement, leur a permis de conquérir les elements humains attardés jusque-là dans un niveau culturel inférieur. La paix romaine repose, non sur la force, mais sur le consentement des hommes encadrés dans la république urbaine et convertis par elle á l’humanisme civilisateur.

158 elites in Africa.859 On the other hand, in his study of the construction of Christian identity in

North Africa, Rebillard suggests that it is difficult to assume that membership in a Christian community involved excluding one’s self from other civic associations in the city.860 Likewise,

Christian membership did not imply separating one’s self from the world but entailed a “higher level of integration within local society.”861 I already criticized previously the methodology espoused by Wilhite.862 The weakness in Rebillard’s thesis is the trivialization of the tension between Christian faith and Roman politics and culture. As I pointed out in Chapter One, Roman culture was neither monolithic nor static, but involved various internal contradictions and regional variations. The chapters on paideia and individuality find a common thread in

Tertullian’s attempt to engage with his cultural and social milieu. But, certainly, Tertullian did not advocate a “wholesale integration” with the values of his society. Rather, the Christian individual and community stand on the constantly shifting tectonic plates of the culture and politics in the imperial period. Thus, side-stepping the ongoing debate of opposite scholarship mentioned above, my objective is to describe the processes of tension and harmonization in the interaction of Christians with diverse elements in Tertullian’s society without undermining his claim for Christians as caeli discipuli (Apol. 46.18).

The above considerations will be explored in two subtopics: first, I shall examine how

Tertullian engaged with the ideology surrounding loyalty towards the emperor, to which the

859 Wilhite (2007: 59). Van Berchem (1944: 110–114) gives similar arguments concerning Tertullian’s advocacy for the use of the pallium over the Roman toga as a manifestation of a rejection of Rome and its citizenship. On the other hand, Daniel-Hughes (2016: 15–26), claims that while Tertullian’s promotion of the pallium cultivated adherence to Christian community, it did not negate Christian civic engagement in Carthage’s polytheistic society. 860 Rebillard (2012: 33) and (2009: 50–56). 861 Ibid. Similarly, Harland (2009). 862 See page 3.

159 idea of the empire as a communis patria was predicated.863 Tertullian’s sentiment toward the emperor was likewise descriptive of his relationship with his society — the persona of the emperor being a guarantor of the political order. Next, the tension created by the dual obligations of Christians as citizens of heaven and citizens of the empire will be evaluated in

Tertullian’s use of the word saeculum.

Tertullian joins Apuleius and Aelius Aristides, two of the most celebrated stars of the second sophistic movement, in praising Rome’s hegemony and its benefits to the world:

“Surely it is obvious enough, if one looks at the whole world, that it is becoming daily better cultivated and more fully peopled than anciently. All places are now accessible, all are well known, all open to commerce; most pleasant farms have obliterated all traces of what were once dreary and dangerous wastes; cultivated fields have subdued forests; flocks and herds have expelled wild beasts; sandy deserts are sown; rocks are planted; marshes are drained; and where once were hardly solitary cottages, there are now large cities. No longer are (savage) islands dreaded, nor their rocky shores feared; everywhere are houses, and inhabitants, and settled government, and civilized life (ubique domus, ubique populus, ubique respublica, ubique vita).”864

The above text from Tertullian’s De Anima finds an analogue in his Apologeticum.865 Christians are not exiles from life.866 In fact, it is impossible for Christians to withdraw themselves from civic life since they live with everybody else and their livelihood depends on civic enterprise.867

In a later work, while Tertullian forbids Christians to assume public office and enlist into military

863 Cf. Ando (2000: chs. 4 and 5). 864 An. 30.3 [Holmes]. See as well Nat. 2.16.7 and Pall. 2.7. Cf. Lassere (1977); Fevrier (1982: 321–396). 865 Moreschini (2010: 17) suggests that the De anima was written between 210–213 A.D. 866 Apol. 42.1. Octavius (Oct. 38.4), answering Caecilius’ accusation of Christians alienating themselves from (public) life (Oct. 12.6: nec interim vivitis), responds that a Christian way of life is a bliss to all. 867 Apol. 42.3.

160 service,868 he, likewise, exhibits understanding why Christians had to attend “pagan ceremonies” like the assumption of the toga, betrothals, marriages, and naming ceremonies.869

And if, by chance, a Christian happened to be present during a religious sacrifice, he comes merely as a spectator, not a participant in the idolatry.870 Indeed, Tertullian cautioned

Christians about the hazards of joining civic and imperial celebrations not only because of idolatry and demonic influence but also because of the importance he placed on Christian discipline, comparable to philosophical exercise.871 However, in Tertullian’s view, these oppositions are moral and religious, never political.872 Given the status of the emperor and the nature of the oaths made in his name, Tertullian’s statement needs to be qualified. How did

Tertullian engage with the ideology of loyalty to the emperor and justify his role in society?

In an encompassing study on the ideology of loyalty and the role of the emperor, Ando asserts that the emperor and the governing class at Rome, to unite Rome’s diverse subjects, provided them with a system of concepts to shape the universality of Rome and her emperors in their mind. This “generative grammar” of loyalty features two important elements: the existence of a shared history and a common political theology.873 I already discussed the former in Tertullian’s reappropriation of historical exempla and mythical narratives. The latter calls for an examination of how Tertullian engage with the difficult issue of emperor worship.

868 Idol. 18.8; 19.1. 869 Ibid. 16.1ff. 870 Idol. 16.5: si propter sacrificium vocatus adsistam, ero particeps idololatriae: si me alia causa coniungit sacrificanti, ero tantum spectator sacrificii. 871 Cf. Fredouille (1984: 129). 872 Ibid. 122; 113. My statement takes a different view from Guignebert’s claim (1901: 178–179) that Tertullian lacked patriotism and manifested hostility to the empire. 873 Ando (2000: 23).

161 This is not a consideration of imperial cult, per se, which will be discussed extensively in

Chapter Five. Rather, I am interested in how Tertullian dealt with the manifestation of loyalty to the emperor, which should have been unproblematic to provincials through the rites of imperial cult.874 One important factor of the ideology of imperial worship was the customary performance of an oath to the genius of the emperor. This included not only the oath required when filing any official declaration through imperial bureaucracy, but also the annual oaths of loyalty performed by the provincials.875 Indeed, in the persecution of early Christians in North

Africa, refusal to perform an oath to the emperor brought condemnation to the martyrs of Scilli and to Perpetua and her companions a few years later.

Bowersock has argued that the imperial cult “provided an unparalleled guarantee of loyalty throughout a vast and varied empire, and it served to engage the more affluent and better educated individuals in the ceremonies of devotion to the ruling power.”876 The difficulty however was that the liturgies and ceremonials varied between places and contexts.877

Likewise, the cult of the emperor was fused with other (local) divinities. Smadja studied the combination of the cult of the emperors with various traditional deities of North Africa.878 His faith in one god led Tertullian to declare that his fellow North Africans worshiped false deities

(e.g. Apol. 13–15). This included the emperor (Nat. 1.17.7: sed non dicimus deum imperatorem).

The difficulty then was in finding another means of articulating Christian loyalty to the emperor.

It seems that the only alternative for a Christian was a new and experimental claim where the

874 Cf. Fishwick (1978: 1201–1253). Pliny ordered the Christians in Bithynia-Pontus to venerate an image of the emperor ture ac vino (ep. 10.96.5). Cf. Fishwick (1984 [1990]: 123–130). 875 Ando (2000: 359–361). 876 Bowersock (1982: 172). 877 Fishwick (1991b: 475–590). 878 Smadja (1985: 540–555).

162 political had to be divorced from the religious: to acknowledge the rule of the emperor without recognizing his divine status.879 But the imperial cult was embedded in the religious practices of the period and it was difficult to separate religion from political power in the consciousness of the inhabitants of the imperial period. In fact, they expected political power to have a religious dimension and vice versa.

In his Apologeticum, Tertullian identifies the accusation of refusal to worship the emperor, laesa maiestas, as a major issue to be dealt with (28–45). Tertullian never advocated rebellion against the emperor. His statement in the Apologeticum underscores his loyalty and he disavows any act of subversion.

For we, on behalf of the safety of the Emperors, invoke the eternal God, the true God, the living God, whom the Emperors themselves prefer to have propitious to them beyond all other gods…we pray for the emperors. We pray for them long life, a secure rule, a safe home, brave armies, a faithful senate, an honest people, a quiet world – and everything for which a man and a Caesar can pray.880

Tertullian’s declaration of loyalty to the emperor echoes the precept of Mt. 22.21

(Ἀπόδοτε οὖν τὰ Καίσαρος Καίσαρι καὶ τὰ τοῦ θεοῦ τῷ θεῷ). Christian loyalty to the empire was a common trope in the literature of the early Church. Paul, for example, implored the

Christians of Rome to respect the governing authorities for they had been instituted by God

(Rom. 13.1). The author of the First Letter of Peter (2.17) made an appeal: “Fear God and honor the king!” And, Theophilus, Bishop of Antioch and early contemporary of Tertullian, instructed

879 Ando (2012: 125) 880 Apol. 30.1, 4: Nos enim pro salute imperatorum deum invocamus aeternum, deum verum, deum vivum, quem et ipsi imperatores propitium sibi praeter ceteros malunt…precantes sumus semper pro omnibus imperatoribus vitam illis prolixam, imperium securum, domum tutam, exercitus fortes, senatum fidelem, populum probum, orbem quietum, quaecumque hominis et Caesaris vota sunt.

163 his pagan friend Autolycus that the emperor deserved loyalty and honor, but God alone must be worshipped (Ad Autolycum 11).

It is not my intention to determine the success of Tertullian’s (and other Christians’)

“innovation” in declaring loyalty to the emperor, but to determine how this strategy fits into his apologetic endeavour. First, Tertullian attempts to engage with both systems of loyalty and imperial ideology by articulating and affirming the civic role of the emperor within the temporal order:881

“I will frankly call the Emperor Lord, but only in the ordinary way (sed more communi), but only when force is not brought to bear on me to call him Lord in the sense of God.”882 For Tertullian, the emperor performs an important role in maintaining peace and stability in the empire.883 In his letter to the Roman governor Scapula, Tertullian bolsters his claim by noting that no Christians fought for the rivals of Severus.884 Tertullian’s description of a harmonious society under a just ruler extends to Christians as well. I have already discussed Tertullian’s reappropriation of the imperial ideology through a narrative of imperial favors bestowed on

Christians.885 Is Tertullian engaging in empty rhetoric? Ando, taking his lead from Edward

Gibbon, talks about the accessibility of Roman paradigms for manipulation by non-Romans.886

Can the Roman administrative rituals be altered? Tertullian’s attempt to devise a “Christian” mechanism of obeisance to the emperor tests the flexibility of imperial ideology. Note, likewise,

881 Hornus (1958: 14) remarking on Tertullian’s argument writes: Cette position allait en plein contre l’esprit du temps… Ainsi, reconnaître la divinité de l’Empereur devenait simplement reconnaître l’étendue et l’authenticité de son pouvoir. 882 Apol. 34.1. 883 Ibid. 32.1. 884 Scap. 4.3–6. 885 See pages 80-82. 886 Ando (2000: 14)

164 that while Tertullian calls for the separation of the secular from the celestial, the emperor, instead of functioning as a usurper of the spiritual realm, becomes a guarantor for a just and harmonious secular society.887 A just society allows and protects various institutions in its diversity, and this does not preclude the Christian community. Seen through this lens the emperor functions, for Christians, as a divinely sanctioned office, which must be maintained and supported.888

In the imperial ideology of loyalty, politics and religion are inseparable. Did the Christian refusal to perform imperial worship amount to separating religion from politics? Or was

Tertullian’s declaration, Nos enim pro salute imperatorum deum invocamus aeternum (Apol.

30.1), an attempt to articulate the role of the emperor already present in the faith system of the Christians? Was this acknowledgement of imperial power even plausible? This issue merits further research beyond the scope of my work. But, what is certain is that Tertullian recognized the power of written words to shape reality and thus engaged with the conundrum Christian loyal to the empire faced.

Discourse is an event and writing gives discourse permanency.889 Just as imperial worship is an (annual) event, writing about the loyalty of Christians to the emperor becomes an

(permanent) event. In Tertullian’s constructed literary world, Christians are not only loyal but the ideal citizens. Caesar is more ours than yours (Apol. 33.1: noster est magis Caesar, a nostro

Deo constitutus). Moreover, this “constructed” North African society resonates the ideals and realities of Roman society. First, the long quotation from the De anima above celebrates

887 Apol. 21.24: Sed et Caesares credidissent super Christo, si aut Caesares non essent necessarii saeculo, aut si et Christiani potuissent esse Caesares. 888 Apol. 32.2. 889 Cf. Ricouer (1976: 12).

165 Christian membership in the Roman orbis.890 Tertullian’s statement referring to the Roman empire, ubique domus, ubique populus, ubique respublica, ubique vita (An. 30.3), clearly identifies the civilized world with Rome.

Second, it is important to recognize how the structures of community or associations in

Rome and provincial cities influenced the organization of the early Christian communities.

Tertullian utilized the Roman curia as an analogy to describe the Christian assembly (Apol.

39.21: Cum probi, cum boni coeunt, cum pii, cum casti congregantur, non est factio dicenda, sed curia).891 He likewise used the term ordo, borrowed from the language of Roman politics, to describe the Christian clergy.892 The Roman system of governance was reappropriated to articulate the corporate identity of Christians. A seminal study by Galinsky on the reappropriation of socio-political concepts culled from the imperial ideology by early Christian writers arrives at the same conclusion.893 Most importantly, Tertullian did not see himself as merely an inhabitant in the Roman Empire, but as an active participant in its bureaucratic procedure. He viewed the regular taking of census (and payment of taxes) as a legitimate undertaking of the government to sustain Severan rule.894 Writing about Rome and engaging in the dialogue of imperial loyalty were convenient strategies for legitimizing Christianity. A loyal and exemplary Roman citizen is what Tertullian wanted his readers to think of a Christian.

But how did Tertullian reconcile the dual Christian allegiance to both the civitas terrena and civitas Dei? Can we speak of a “theory of overlapping consensus” between the

890 Here, Tertullian’s sentiment to the empire echoes that of the Roman panegyric of Aristides (Or. 26.94). 891 Galinsky (2011a: 14) argues, as well, that the metaphor deliberately echoes Augustus’ Res Gestae, which proclaims Rome’s liberation from bondage. 892 Exhort. Cast. 7.2; Marc. 4.5.2; and Idol. 7.3. 893 Galinsky (2011b: 10–17). 894 Pall. 2.7: Deo tot Augustis in unum favente, quot census transcripti, quot populi repurgati, quot ordines illustrati, quot barbari exclusi!

166 transcendent sphere and the immanent realm of human existence in Tertullian? I propose that an analysis of Tertullian’s use of the Latin concept of saeculum might prove useful to explore this idea.895 Given the apocalyptic exuberance in Tertullian’s writings, like the Ad Martyras and the Apologeticum (8.4; 50.2 and 18.2f.), how did he describe his contemporary age

(saeculum)?896

A linguistic analysis of Tertullian’s use of saeculum helps clarify his position on the relationship between Christianity and its ambient Roman North African society. The word saeculum and its cognates appear nine times in the Ad Martyras, five times in the Ad Nationes, nineteen times in the Apologeticum and several times in Tertullian’s later works; most notably, twenty-three times in De Spectaculis where Tertullian’s principal aim is to lay the foundation of

Christian ethical discipline. Orban, in an important study of saeculum in early Christian authors, notes that Tertullian often associates saeculum with the Greek concept of αἰών to refer to the

895 The word saeculum has a wide range of meaning. In the Oxford Latin Dictionary, it can mean a generation within a family, a breed or race, the present time or the contemporary age, or a period of time applied to the reign of an emperor. The significance of the term in Tertullian’s usage evolved but in his apologetic writings it refers to the contemporary age (in contrast to heaven). See Orban (1970). 896 My inquiry is influenced by the scholarly debate on the significance of saeculum in Augustine. Although, North African society during the Severan period was quite different from the fourth and fifth century of Augustine, both Tertullian and Augustine could identify with the ambiguity of Christian faith — citizenship of heaven and Rome. This issue has been a contentious topic among scholars of Augustine. For a brief summary, see Dodaro (2012: 386– 397); and Bruno (2014). Marrou (1957: 342–350) put forward an interesting idea of a putative space, a third place, between the city of God and the human city in the writings of Augustine — a tertium quid. He would eventually argue that such a neutral third space between the heavenly and earthly cities is not possible. Marrou qualifies his argument, inferring from Augustine’s use of saeculum, by proposing instead a historical reality where the city of God and the domain of evil are inextricably mixed. He calls this “le donné empirique de l’histoire.” In a different opinion about Augustine’s political view, Markus (1970) proposed a secularist reading of Augustine’s writings. For Markus (2006:37), asserting the autonomy of the secular means “to resist any hostile take-over of this middle ground between sacred and profane from either side.” During the age between the incarnation of Christ and the parousia, history, in Markus’ (2006:36) interpretation of Augustine, is “totally secular, containing no signposts to sacred meaning and no landmarks in the history of salvation.” The contrasting of theories about the political thought of Augustine and the potential offered by a semantic and philosophical analysis of the concept of saeculum prompted me to explore the possibility of examining Tertullian’s apologetic works under the lens of these methodologies.

167 universe or the created existence, such as the phrase saeculi auctor deus (Spect. 2.9).897

However, as Tertullian evolves as a writer and especially when he became a Montanist, saeculum took on a negative meaning. This is adduced by the phrase liberantur de saeculo nationes per aquam (Bapt. 9.1) to describe how Christian baptism frees the individual from sin or demons, here represented by saeculum. The Montanist exerted influence in the negativization of the meaning of saeculum where Tertullian used the word mundus to refer to the world without moral judgment.898 Curiously, in his apologetic works, Tertullian avoids using the word saeculum in the negative sense. Orban suggests that Tertullian had in mind his pagan readers who might misunderstand the Christian usage of the term.899

In his apologetic works, Tertullian never referred to the present age (saeculum) as the place of damnation or the realm of the profane.900 Rather, both Christians and non-Christians live together in the world (saeculum). What distinguishes Christians from other inhabitants of the saeculum is their virtue and responsibility towards God’s creation:

We remember that we owe gratitude to God, the Lord, the Creator. We reject no fruit of his labors. We are of course temperate — not to use His gifts to excess or amiss. So, not without your forum, not without your meat-market, not without your baths, shops, factories, your inns and market days, and the rest of the life of buying and selling, we live with you in this world (cohabitamus in hoc saeculo). We sail ships, we as well as you, and along with you; we go to the wars, to the country, to market with you. Our arts and yours work together; our labor is openly at your service.901

897 Cf. Orban (1970: 165–192). 898 For example: Heredes Dei servus desiderabit, qui semetipsum de saeculo exhereditavit (Cast. 12.3). On Tertullian’s use of the word mundus see Orban (1970: 214–221). 899 Orban (1970: 183). 900 On Tertullian’s use of the term profanus, see Braun (1992d: 278-279). 901 Apol. 42.2–3.

168 Augustine, writes in the City of God that inhabitants of this world use the same finite goods for different ends, with a different faith, a different hope, and a different love.902 Anticipating

Augustine, Tertullian declares that goodness and evil in the world are the common lot of the followers of Christ and the profane (profanis) where there will be no separation until the end of the world.903 Rather, the trials of the present age (saeculum) are meant to admonish Christians to a life of virtue and chastise those who despise the truth.904

Henceforth the present age (saeculum), in Tertullian’s apologetic writings, is a moral, cultural and political space where good and bad are inextricably intertwined. Fredouille claims that Tertullian expressed optimism in the progress of civilization brought by Rome.905 One must be cautious, however, to assume that Tertullian shares the same sentiment of his contemporary Christian apologists. Unlike Melito of Sardis before him or Origen after him,

Tertullian’s positive opinion about Roman civilization is not colored by a political interpretation where pax romana is seen as a providential plan to favor the birth and diffusion of

Christianity.906 The agenda of “Christianising” the Roman empire has no basis in Tertullian’s apologetic writings.907 Christianity cannot present itself as humanity’s pretension towards a sacred destiny. While Christianity certainly contributes to the development of human

902 Civ. Dei 18.54. 903 Apol. 41.3: Qui enim semel aeternum iudicium destinavit post saeculi finem, non praecipitat discretionem, quae est condicio iudicii, ante saeculi finem. Aequalis est interim super omne hominum genus, et indulgens et incessens; communia voluit esse et commoda profanis et incommoda suis, ut pari consortio omnes et lenitatem eius et severitatem experiremur. 904 Ibid. 41.4. 905 The statement challenges Guignebert’s (1901: 111) claim that Tertullian was an anarchist. Indeed, Fredouille (1984: 114) writes: Dès l’Ad nationes, mais surtout dans le De anima et le De pallio, résonne l’écho de l’enthousiasme qu’éprouve Tertullien au spectacle des progress de la civilisation. 906 On Melito’s interpretation of Roman civilization and Christianity, see Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 4.26.8. For Origen, see Contr. Cels. 2.30. 907 Fredouille (1984: 115) criticizes Klein’s argument (1968: 47) which finds Tertullian arguing for a Christianized Roman empire.

169 civilization, Tertullian’s diachronic interpretation of history is tempered by the urgency of

Christ’s second coming (parousia). This aspect of historical interpretation, availed through the lens of a synchronic mindset, led Tertullian to argue that this saeculum will have its imminent end (Apol. 21.15) and God will redeem his own people at the end of this generation (Apol.

21.6). What then is the role of political and social institutions that belong to this saeculum? Are they doomed to become moral failures?

Unlike the dualist metaphysics of Neo-Platonism and Gnosticism that view the world as impure, Tertullian sees the world in a constant tension between the good and the bad.908 The mission of Christianity to inform and enlighten humanity lies at the core of Tertullian’s positive appreciation of human civilization. For example, against the disincarnate Christ of Marcion,

Tertullian preaches that the word of God embraced the human flesh — the divine humiliation

— out of solidarity with mankind.909 Hence, against Marcion, Tertullian can praise the dignity of the world (Marc. I. 14.1–5). That truth is most hateful to the world (Nat. 1.4.5) is a consequence of the fact that Satan and his angels inhabit the saeculum (Spect. 8), while God allows these things to happen in the world (Mart. 5.2).

Stoic cosmology provides Tertullian with a template to view the world in constant evolution.910 But unlike the Stoics who believe that the world will meet its end in a universal conflagration (ekpurosis) and be reborn again, the whole of creation marches on a linear path towards the second coming of Christ (parousia).911 For Tertullian, the world itself and human

908 Cf. Spanneut (1957: 364). 909 Marc. 4.21.12. 910 The Stoics call this diakosmèsis — the organization of the world under the logos. See Spanneut (1957: 353ff.). 911 Apol. 18.3. The theory of ekpurosis was a popular topic among early Christian writers. See Minucius Felix, Oct. 34.2; Pseudo-Clement, Sermons 16.3; Hermas, Past. 4.3.3; Justin, 1 Apol. 20.4; Tatian, Or. 6. Cf. Spanneut (1957: 358–360).

170 civilization tend towards this historico-theological denouement. Therefore, the sapientia saecularis bears witness to the truth of Christianity;912 and the saeculum provides proof for the veracity of Christian scriptures.913 Thus, the saeculum can never be neutral for it can either lean towards the good or the bad. The constant tension between the elements that promote a higher consciousness of being human — what Picard calls l’humanisme civilisateur914 — and the elements that corrupt humanity allow Tertullian’s positive sentiment towards political institutions. The emperor and the Roman Empire guarantee that the continuous evolution of cultural, political and social values will not shift irrevocably into one polar opposite. For

Tertullian, stability in the empire means the preservation of this moral tension — the tectonic plate of not only Roman but human civilization.915

IV. Summary

The relationship of Christians with the Roman state and their role as citizens within it present the most challenging topic in this research. The obvious hurdle is the difficulty of reconstructing the socio-political milieu of Tertullian’s writings so as to give justice to his rhetoric. Lack of contemporary material evidence and the paucity of parallel literature on the social life of North

African Christians during the time of Tertullian blindsided many contemporary scholars to employ modern theories of binary opposition or colonialism. My research on the relationship of

Tertullian and the Roman state struggles with the same handicap. Moreover, the ambiguous

912 Test. An. 1.1. 913 Apol. 20.1. 914 Picard (1990: 46) 915 Apol. 39.2.

171 status of Christians as both citizens of Rome and of heaven demands theoretical explanation rather than factual analysis.

I reconstruct two strategies in Tertullian’s apologetic works: first, how Tertullian’s literary enterprise created possibilities for a cultural link with Roman African society, the social aspect of paideia. This is achieved through the rhetoric of memoria. By appealing to the hallowed Roman exempla in his work, Tertullian ascribed the Christians into the literary community. The same approach is utilized in Tertullian’s historical interpretation with emphasis on the juxtaposition of tradition and innovation. With Tertullian, Christians become a part of

Roman history. In other words, I explore in this chapter the function of apologetic texts as mediators between Rome and Christianity.

Second, I discuss the role of Roman society in Tertullian’s apologetic tracts. Given the ambivalence of Christians as both citizens of heaven and earth, instead of mere opposition or alienation, is it also possible to speak of a conflation or dynamics of encounter between the civitas Dei and civitas Romana? I considered two instances of this encounter. First, although,

Tertullian’s declaration of fealty to the emperor might not have legal leverage, nevertheless it engaged the charismatic element of the imperial cult. The discursive nature of this apologetic strategy allows for the possibility of theorizing Tertullian’s political thought. Second, the term saeculum is usually identified with the contemporary age. An analysis of Tertullian’s utilization of the term saeculum clarifies his sentiment towards the Roman state. Tertullian did not reject the importance of the Roman state to preserve and promote civilization. Although good and evil exist in the saeculum Tertullian recognized that this moral tension continues until the

172 second coming of Christ. Christians, therefore, have the moral responsibility to provide paradigms of the virtuous life in the civitas Romana.

173 Chapter Five

“Religion”

I. Introduction

The polytheistic character of the Roman religion and the “multicultural” nature of the Roman empire provides an important background for Tertullian’s defense of Christianity.916 Any investigation of Tertullian’s conceptualization of religion proceeds from his experience of the ubiquity and variety of religious practices and Christianity’s engagement with this phenomenon of plurality.917 Awareness of the embeddedness of religion lends credibility to Tertullian’s apologetic discourse. Religious practices cannot be isolated from the cultural and ideological spectrum of the North African society.918 A description, even just in broad strokes, of the important features of religious practices in Roman Africa, helps clarify the nuances of

Tertullian’s argument and evaluate the claim of Christianity for a place in the religious landscape of its time.

916 Apol. 24.7: Unicuique… provinciae et civitati deus suus est, ut Syriae Atargatis…, ut Africae Caelestis, ut Mauritaniae reguli sui. The major difficulty in examining how Tertullian views Christianity amidst its polytheistic environment is his conceptualization and use of “religio.” Barton and Boyarin (2016: 55-118) demonstrate that Tertullian’s use of religio was ambiguous: in his writings, he preserved some of the ancient significations of the term, such as pudor, but he, likewise, used the word to serve new functions to resemble our modern concept of religion. 917 For a summary of the religious landscape of Roman North Africa, see the classic work of Picard (1954) and the important ouevre of Rives (1995). To the existence of many religious options in Carthage, I include the popularity of magic and astrology as well. See Mura (1994: 1535–1546). On the evangelistic fervor of early Christian writings, various Christian apologists take parallel approaches to that of Tertullian in their dealings with the secular world. For example, the disputants in the Octavius of Minucius Felix and Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho. 918 On the relationship of religious practices, either Roman, indigenous, or hybrid, with culture, society, and politics in a provincial setting see Cancik and Rüpke (1997). For a North African context, see Fevrier (1976: 305–336); and Le Glay (1984) 47–61.

174 First, actions and performances tied to religious practices underscore and demonstrate the identities of the participants. For example, Apuleius’ careful account of the festival of the navigum Isidis describes how processions, prayers, lustrations, and offerings become social markers and establish the identities of the participants and spectators.919 Modern scholarship must be attentive to the relationship between ritual and public/state cults and the private and domestic life of the citizens.920 Another important feature of Roman religious practices is the

“theological process” that modern historians call syncretism and the phenomenon of interpretatio.921 Cadotte’s work on interpretatio in Roman North Africa unveils the rich amalgam of religious practices and solidifies the claim that no culture is homogeneous, including Roman North Africa’s.922

The patroness of Carthage, Dea Caelestis, is an outstanding example. While retaining some of her Punic characteristic as the goddess Tanit, the partner of Baal, she was identified with many other divinities, especially Juno.923 Indeed Tertullian parodies the Roman writer

Varro’s introduction of 300 types of Joves into the Roman pantheon.924 This religious phenomenon is observable in architecture as well. The sanctuary of Saturn, the principal

919 Apuleius, Met. 11.8–17. For a discussion of these religious actions, see Rüpke (2009: 86–116). Likewise, there is a series of articles on religious practices and the significance of actors and actions in Rüpke (2011: 203–331). 920 Cf. Beard, North and Price (2004: 48–54). 921 There are numerous works on in Roman North Africa. An excellent introduction is Le Glay (1975: 121–151). Though one can speak of cultural and religious conservatism in the third century of the common era, ideas and the result of an encounter of various cultures knew no territorial loyalties. Cf. Macmullen (1975: 405–410). 922 Cf. Cadotte (2007). Syncretism during the Severan period is attested by an inscription (AE 1985, 494) found in Lugo, in Galicia: “To the divine powers of Augusti, Juno regina, Venus Victrix, Africa Caelestis, Frugifer, Augusta Emerita and the Lares of the Callaeciae.” On the question of homogeneity of provincial culture see Mattingly (2004: 5–25). For a discussion of the plurality of identities of Christians in North Africa, see Rebillard (2012). 923 Ibid, 65–111. See as well, Bullo (1994) 1597–1628. Caelestis’ association with Tanit is discussed in Bisi (1967). Caelestis appears several times in Tertullian’s apologetic works: Apol. 12. 4; 23. 6; 24. 8 and Nat. 2. 8. 5. Likewise, Minucius Felix, Oct. 25.9. 924 Apol. 14.9.

175 African deity, constructed in Thugga, sometime in the late second century A.D. peculiarly features a cella tripartita, a veritable sign of Roman influence.925 The question of the management of religious practices must likewise be taken into consideration. Was there an authority (or authorities) that policed religious rituals and asserted control on what the people believed and practiced? If so, what was the extent of this control? Modern scholars agree that there was no ironclad rule on religious practices nor any monopoly on religious power.926 In fact, no real control of religious practices can be asserted in multicultural cities and towns of the empire. Could the many private devotions and individual practices considered “magic,” such as the defixiones that were very popular in Roman North Africa, be controlled?927

Tertullian observes that the question of the divinity of various deities depends on the whims of individual worshippers (de humano arbitratu divinitas pensitatur).928 Emperor worship, however, seems to be exceptional because of its characteristic as a supra-regional religious practice familiar all over the empire. More than a century ago, Wissowa suggested that ruler worship, along with the Roman cult of Jupiter, provided religious “homogeneity” between Rome and the provinces.929 The problem in this argument, however, is how

“homogeneity” was defined. If it meant the acknowledgment and popularity of the “power” of the princeps empire-wide, Fronto can certainly attest to the ubiquity of imperial portraits (ep.

925 Khanoussi (2003: 131–155). 926 For example, Beard, North, Price (1998: 54–61; 320–321) and Rives (2007: 43–47). Moreover, Rives (2001: 9), passim) argues for the relative homogeneity of religious practices empire wide based on the model of civic religion. However, Bendlin (1997: 35–68, esp. 47–48) points out that such interpretation excludes private religion and voluntary religious belief systems of the time. 927 Apuleius describes his personal devotion in the form of a wooden statuette (Apol. 61–65). Lassère (2011: 299– 303) provides several examples of epigraphic evidence of the popularity of magic in Roman North Africa. Similarly, Ogden (2009). 928 Apol. 5.1. 929 Wissowa (1912: 87).

176 4.12.4). But if homogeneity meant uniformity in imperial rituals and its contents, my discussion on imperial ideology in the previous chapter and the deliberation on the imperial cult in this chapter problematize this claim.

Tertullian stands as a witness to the performance of annual vota (pro salute imperatoris) in North Africa.930 Related to this religious festival were special occasions, such as the accession of the new emperor and his dies natalis.931 But because of its association with a wide range of local gods as well as from the Greco-Roman pantheon, it is difficult to consider the imperial cult as representative of religious homogeneity. Beard, North, and Price contend that “there is no such thing as the imperial cult”932 because various forms existed. Likewise, the emperor hardly exercised control over the imperial cult at the provincial or local level.933 Inscriptional evidence demonstrate that real power locally rested in the hands of the local ordo.934 Rives’ examination of religious practices in North Africa established the importance of the local ordo in the organization of sacra publica in Carthage. Doubtless, when Marcus Aurelius dedicated the temple of Caelestis at Carthage, it was done at the behest of the local ordo, i.e., as a result of decurial activity.935 The addressees of Tertullian’s De Pallio — principes semper Africae, viri

930 Cor. 12.3 and Apol. 35.4. 931 An inscription was found in Lambaesis that celebrates the anniversary of Severus’ natalis (AEpig, 1912, no. 19). For the importance of vota in the context of imperial cult, see Fishwick (1991: 482–518). 932 Beard, North and Price (1998: 348). On the variety of liturgies and ceremonials of the cult see Fishwick (1991b: 475–590). 933 Rives (1995: 63). 934 Two inscriptions found in Gytheion in the Peloponnese (SEG xi. 922–923) led Price (1984: 72 and 210f.) to this conclusion. I would, however, add that the power of this ordo is not absolute. 935 Rives (1995: 72). Tertullian (Nat. 2.8.7) expressed incredulity towards the authority of local decurions over religious matters: Satis rideo etiam os decuriones cuiusque municipii, quibus honor intra muros suos deteratur.

177 Carthaginiensis — demonstrate the apologist’s acknowledgment of the authority of the members of the city’s ordo decurionum.936

Lastly, the period of Apuleius and Tertullian represents the acme of a popular phenomenon created by the intellectual and religious sensibilities of their society. I refer to what Picard called la mystique de l’humanisme, which was a marriage of ethics grounded on philosophical doctrines, notably, Stoicism and Platonism, with religion.937 The North African elite harbored a predilection for a Latinized Hellenistic culture.938 One of its prominent features was the reconciliation of the dichotomy between philosophy and popular religious beliefs and the interpretation of the latter as mere expressions of the ancient doctrine (alethes logos) concerning the nature of the gods and their relation to humanity.939

It is, however, impossible to talk about this intellectual and religious phenomenon without taking into consideration the role of the roving philosophers and its popularizers.

Anderson calls these learned men, whose way of life engendered their philosophical learning, as “virtuoso religious activists.”940 The holy man during the imperial period usually combined

936 Pall. 1.1. See Kotula (1979: 237–245); Hugoniot (2006: 385–415). Among its many political functions, this local body can send an appeal to the governor or the Emperor himself. 937 Picard (1990: 261–265) demonstrates how literature (notably Homer, Virgil and many philosophical writings) was thought to contain divine revelation. A mosaic, dating from the Severan period, was discovered in Hadrumetum featuring Virgil inspired by divine muses. See Dunbabin (1978: 131 and appendix IV, page 242). I have discussed aspects of this phenomenon in Chapter Three above in the section on souci de soi. For example, Apuleius’ writes about the popularity of Platonism and the platonic theory of Divine Love (cf. Plato’s Symposium and Phaedo). Worth mentioning is the myth of Eros and Psyche in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses. In Florida 10, Apuleius explains that this supreme God works through intermediate divine powers. For Apuleius’ Cupid and Psyche I recommend the edition and commentary by Kenney (1990). 938 See Vössing (1997) and Irmscher (1996: 111–125). Likewise, Le Glay (1960: 485–491); Kotula (1969: 240–255). 939 Francis (1995: 186–187). The foundation of ethical living based on Platonic-Peripatetic-Stoic doctrine is a life patterned after the law of nature or an assimilation of oneself to God (homoiôsis/homoiôthênai theôi). For example, Alcinous, Didask. 28 and Arrian, Disc. of Epict. 2.14.12–13. For a brief discussion of the subject see Trapp (2007a: 3-–32). 940 Anderson (1994: 3).

178 the attributes of holiness and learning.941 Indeed, reflections on theological and philosophical truths were widely accepted as a prerequisite for divinization.942 These men, such as Apollonius of Tyana, were itinerant preachers known for their knowledge and miracles. One cannot underestimate the “authority” and influence of these holy sages in shaping public opinion.943

Unfortunately, modern scholarship on Tertullian has largely ignored this important religious facet of Roman North African society.

In evaluating Tertullian’s articulation of Christian identity, it is important not to lose sight of the religious landmarks described above. They are important tools in “mapping” the discourses of Tertullian within the cultural, religious, and intellectual matrices of his time.

II. Vera Religio

In the Apologeticum, Tertullian designates the Christians as verae religionis homines.944 The non-biblical phrase vera religio occurs for the first time in Western literature in Tertullian and

Minucius Felix (Oct. 1.5). In distinguishing Christian religio as vera, Tertullian singled out

Christianity from the various religious practices of the period. But why is it important to qualify

Christianity as vera? Did this claim build the case of Christians before the Roman tribunal and

941 Fowden (2005a: 525). 942 Fowden (1982: 34–35). 943 Cf. Brown (1971); and the subsequent emendation of some of his position in Brown (1998: 353–376). Elm (1998: 343–351) argues that because the holy man was the carrier of paideia and cultural memory, he became an arbiter of social change. As examples of the popularity of these so called “holy men” in the North African context, Apuleius praised the way of life of gymnosophists (Florida 6) and Pythagoras (Florida 15). 944 Apologeticum 35.1. Arnobius, another North African writer during the reign of Diocletian, argues for the truthfulness of Christian religion against the conjectural character of Roman religion (Adversus Nationes 2.73): Religio nostra nunc nata est: nunc enim missus advenit qui eam nobis ostenderet, qui in eius induceret veritatem, qui deus monstraret quid sit, qui ad eius nos cultum ab rebus opinabilibus avocaret.

179 sway popular opinion? Notably, Tertullian did not offer a precise definition of religio.945 His use of religio has a universal application: it can refer to the faith of the Jews (Nat. 1.11.2); a blanket term for Roman religious practices (Apol. 6.1; 9.5; 13.6; 14.6; 15.4); the cult of various nations like the Assyrians, Medes, and Persians (Nat. 2.17.18); the imperial cult (Apol. 34.3); and the

Christian faith (Apol. 39.1).

An analysis of the word religio and its cognates in his apologetic works yields the following observations. First, Tertullian emphasizes that the Romans cannot claim a monopoly on “religion”, for many nations, before Rome subjugated them, had their own religiones.946 The evolution of Roman religious laws is owed to Rome’s conquest and its encounter with other cultures.947 In the case of Rome, the origin of her religion was simple and lacking in sophistication.948 Second, antiquity proves the authenticity of religious practice.949 Jewish faith testifies to the ancient origin of Christianity, and the former finds continuity in the followers of

Christ.950 Finally, any religio must pass the crucible of truth.951 This argument of Tertullian is revolutionary. Religio, as a traditional Roman concept, involves honor and worship of the gods and fellow citizens, religious scruple and ritual practice; prior to Tertullian, it is never qualified as “vera.”952 Moreover, Tertullian asserts that Numa Pompilius taught the Romans ridiculous

945 Speaking about Christianity as religion, Tertullian articulates that upon baptism a Christian catechumen must denounce idolatry and make a commitment to Christ (Spect. 4.3). 946 Apol. 25.17: Etiam illi, quorum regna conflata sunt in imperii Romanii summam, cum ea amitterent, sine religionibus non fuerunt. 947 Nat. 2.17.13 and Apol. 25.13. 948 Ibid. 25.13. The poverty of Roman religion (and Tertullian’s comparison to it like a Samian vase, that is not made of precious metal) was a literary topos in antiquity. Cf. Georges (2011: 428–430). 949 Ibid. 19.1: Primam instrumentis istis auctoritatem summa antiquitas vindicat. 950 Chapter 21 of the Apologeticum is a lengthy discourse on the relationship between Judaism and Christianity. 951 Apol. 21.27: …nec fas est ulli de sua religione mentiri. 952 Barton and Boyarin (2016: 15-52).

180 beliefs which he describes as superstitio.953 Tertullian uses superstitio as the antithesis of religio. In reality, the former, however, is not the opposite of religio but its excess.954 Identifying

Christianity as religio and the rest of Roman religious practices as superstitiones, allows

Tertullian to claim Christianity as the only religio. Tertullian’s rhetoric means that there is no such thing as falsa religio because religio is necessarily veritas.

Similarly, in the De Spectaculis, Tertullian employs three phrases to describe

Christianity: the conditions of faith, the reason inherent in truth and the law of discipline.955

While faith in the divine (fides) and discipline (disciplina) are important features of any religious system, Christianity distinguishes itself from other belief systems with its claim to truth. For

Tertullian, God is the father of wisdom and truth.956 That is why Christians are called veritatis cultores.957 Henceforth, Christianity is a vera religio because it proclaims verum Deum which demands assent to the truth (verum obsequium).958

953 Apol. 21.29. On superstitio, see Martin (2004); Lieberg (1963: 62–79); and Beard, North, and Price (2004: 214– 227). In Minucius Felix, the use of the term superstitio does not necessarily have a negative connotation even when juxtaposed with religio. It is only when Minucius Felix distinguishes a religious action between “proper” and “improper” that superstitio takes a pejorative meaning as an opposite concept to religio (e.g. Oct. 1.5; 13.5; 38.7). While Tertullian employs the term religio equivocally, the word superstitio, in his apologetic writings, is always associated with something negative. Hence, Tertullian repudiates the phrase tertium genus, applied to Christians among the Greek Christian apologists, by demonstrating that such identification is based de superstitione (Nat. 1.8.11). He likewise employs the term superstitio to refer to foreign Gods introduced to the Roman pantheon (Nat. 1.8.12). He cites Seneca’s now lost work on superstition in his criticism of contemporary Roman religious practices (Apol. 12.6). Superstitio also works as an umbrella term to refer to the absurdities Numa taught the Romans (Apol. 21.29) and the idolatries committed in Roman spectacles (Apol. 38.4). It must be noted, however, that the term frequently used by Tertullian to refer to Christians is not religio but secta (e.g. Apol. 3.8), which is an equivalent of the Greek word hairesis. By doing so, Sachot (1985: 111) argues, Tertullian aims to portray Christianity as a school of philosophy par excellence. 954 See Barton and Boyarin (2016: 33-7). 955 Spect. 1: status fidei, ratio veritatis, praescriptum disciplinae. 956 Nat. 2.2.2. 957 Apol. 15.8. The only crime Christians can be accused of is the pursuit of truth (Apol. 30.7). The Roman tribunal presents an opportunity to articulate this claim (Apol. 50.2). Martyrdom for the faith is witness to its veracity (Nat. 1.4.15). 958 Spect. 1. Minucius Felix (Oct. 1.5) narrates that the debate between his friends, the pagan Caecilius and the Christian Octavius, resulted in the conversion of Caecilius to the faith (ad veram religionem reformavit).

181 Was Tertullian’s apologetic strategy successful? Calling the Christians verae religionis homines problematizes religious plurality. Syncretism and the discrepant voices of philosophers who call for moderation in matters of religion, like Tertullian’s Seneca, filled the air of second and third century Roman society.959 Lucian’s Peregrinus, for example, was not an isolated case.

If we are to believe Celsus, the period witnessed many fake proselytizers, magicians, and inconsequential philosophers.960 The Passio Perpetuae reveals the penchant of society for prophecy and divinely inspired dreams. In this jagged terrain of religious and cultural fervor,

Tertullian establishes the philosophical and rational (forensic) foundation of Christianity. In this vein, the apologist from Carthage continues Justin Martyr’s positive approach toward the encounter between Christianity and philosophy.961

In what follows, I shall discuss two major themes in Tertullian’s apologetic writings aimed to reinforce its claim that Christianity was a vera religio. First, Tertullian coined the phrase libertas religionis.962 The phrase serves as a discursive device in his evaluation of Roman religion and the rationality of Christian faith. Rhetoric provides the framework and philosophy the substance. This is attested, most clearly, in Tertullian’s argument for individual choice (and his conceptualization of individuality) against the “coercive character” of the imperial cult. As a corrollary, the Roman authorities may have believed that the Christians are rightly accused of non-conformity with religious traditions, but in a pluralist society it is very difficult to articulate the standard and parameters of what is acceptable and what is not. Carthaginian religious

959 An. 20.1: Seneca saepe noster. Scholarship of the past century refer to Late Antiquity as Roman society’s collapse into the vortex of the irrational. E.g. Festugière (1944: 1–18). 960 See Origen, Contra Celsum 7.9 and Tertullian, Apol. 23.1. I have in mind the frustrating intellectual journey of Menippus (e.g. Lucian, Menippus 3–7). For a brief discussion of these vagabond miracle workers see MacMullen (1966: esp. ch. 4). On magic during the Severan period, see Ogden (2007). 961 Cf. Dialogue with Trypho. 962 Apol. 24.6.

182 identity is loosely defined.963 Tertullian’s rhetoric of individual choice attempts to exploit the weakness of a polytheistic belief system.

Second, the philosophical and ethical pursuits of the elite, which I discussed in Chapters

Two and Three, likewise, provided Tertullian the opportunity to introduce the Christian notion of a life of virtue or “holiness.” Christ’s incarnation is a linchpin in Tertullian’s rhetoric of a

Christian individual. Because he is the Son of God, Christ, and his Church can heal the human soul, the bone of contention of ancient philosophical schools964 To claim holiness or the possession of religious discipline that leads towards it legitimizes the authority of Christians in matter of religious beliefs. The Christian “holy man” personifies an integration of ethical living, culture, and spiritual progress. The concepts of libertas religionis and the Christians’ claim to holiness or a life of virtue constitute subsequent topics in this chapter.

III. Libertas religionis and the imperial cult

Tertullian used the phrase libertas religionis (Apol. 24.6) to defend Christians from being compelled to worship other deities. Specifically, Tertullian’s call for freedom of religious practice occured within the context of Christians being accused of refusing to offer sacrifice to the emperor.965 In fact, the apologist states that sacrilegium and maiestas (that is, against the emperor) constitute the chief accusation against Christians (Apol. 10.1: itaque sacrilegii et

963 Rives (1995: ch. 3). In the same vein, against a monolitihic interpretation of Romano-African religion, Le Glay’s study of religious practices in Roman Africa, (1975) and (1991), identified various types of syncretism (syncrétisme d’assimilation, d’association, and juxtaposition). The religious practices in the African city of present an example of syncrétisme d’association of Dea Africa, Aesculapius and Serapis, three deities with different origins. 964 Aside from moral conversion, the efficacy of Christian exorcism must be included. 965 Apol. 24.1–6. For a general introduction to the subject see Jones (1980:1023–1054); and Brent (1999: 1201– 1253).

183 maiestatis convenimur).966 Fifteen years later, in Tertullian’s short work dedicated to the Roman governor Scapula, imperial worship resurfaces as an important issue.967 It is, therefore, tantamount to examine the role of the imperial cult in the persecution of Christians and ask why Tertullian considered it critical in his argumentation.

Scholars of early Christianity continue to debate the significance of the imperial cult in

Christian persecution before the reign of Decius.968 There is an abundance of evidence for the role of the imperial cult in the earliest accounts of the Christian persecution in North Africa. The

Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs, which we encountered before, maintain that the governor Vigellius

Saturninus employed imperial worship to test the religious and political loyalty of Christians.

Saturninus the proconsul said: “We too are religiosi, and our religio is a simple one (simplex est religio nostra): we swear by the genius of our lord the emperor and we offer prayers for his health (iuramus per genium domni nostri imperatoris et pro salute eius supplicamus) — as you also ought to do.”969

966 One might conclude that the terms sacrilegium and maiestas are merely hendiadys. Tertullian, however, exhibits legal wit by using sacrilegium (basically nothing more than temple robbery) as a substitute for the accusation of crimen laesae Romanae religionis (Apol. 24.1). Christians, therefore, were accused of refusing to offer to the gods of Rome and to the emperor. Cf. Bauman (1967: 175–183); and Georges (2011: 446–457). The preface to his lengthy discussion of laesa maiestas in the Apologeticum (28.3) underscores the importance of the subject: ventum est igitur ad secundum titulum laesae augustioris maiestatis. 967 Scap. 2.6–8. 968 Scholarship in the early seventies examined literary sources and found scanty references to imperial worship in the accounts of Christian persecution. Millar (1973: 143–165) argues that the imperial cult played a minor role in the persecution of Christians before Decius and that flagitia cohaerentia (associated crimes), cannibalism or incest rather than the non-observance of the imperial cult constituted the bulk of accusations against Christians. Similarly, Beaujeau (1973: 101–136) pointed out that Christian apologists used the imperial cult to illustrate the irony of the charges brought against them (disloyalty against the emperor) and as a model of the theory of Euhemerism. Otherwise, the imperial cult played an insignificant role in the actual persecution of Christians. Critics of the methodology employed by Millar and Beaujeau have demonstrated that an understanding of the role of the imperial cult requires other elements, aside from political or religious constructs, to be taken into consideration in evaluating its significance. They showed how such scholarly tunnel vision was coupled by the failure to appreciate the relationship between imperial rituals and the concept of romanization. E.g. Harland (1996: 319–334); and Alfödy (1996: 254–261). 969 Scill. 9–11. Barnes (1985: 60) dates the document to around 180 A.D. Notably, the Christians involved come from the countryside. Aside from the Passio Perp. discussed in various parts of the dissertation, the account from Acta Cypriani seems to imply an enforcement of imperial rituals as well (Cf. Acta Cypriani 3–4).

184

The statement of the proconsul provides three important details: first, the Romans considered themselves religious (religiosi sumus). Second, Saturninus qualified the phrase simplex religio — to swear by the genius of the emperor and to offer prayers for his health. Finally, as subjects of

Rome, Christians were expected to do the same. Likewise, in the Passio of Perpetua and Felicity,

Hilarianus, the Governor, ordered Perpetua: fac sacrum pro salute imperatorum.970

The imperial cult constituted one of the most prominent aspects of sacra publica in

Carthage and was highly pertinent to the issue of imperial authority in North Africa.971 Fishwick provides epigraphical evidence for the foundation of the provincial cult in Africa Proconsularis.

A series of inscriptions were found in the temple of Mercury at Furnos Maius (CIL VIII.12039,

12027, 12028, 12029 and 12030).972 The inscriptions attest to the office of flamen held by a certain Mummius Saturninus, dating back to early in the reign of Vespasian some time in 70–72

A.D. This is relevant because Africa supported Otho; moreover, Tacitus narrates that Vespasian was unpopular in this part of the empire.973 This suggests that the establishment of the imperial cult in Africa Proconsularis by Vespasian represented an outstanding example of the imposition of collective unity upon a certain territory through the medium of emperor worship.

The early period of the Severan dynasty was no less critical. After Septimius Severus won an important battle at Lugdunum, the period was characterized by widespread

970 Pass. Perp. 6.3. Similarly, in the account of the Martyrdom of Polycarp, Christians were forced to offer incense and declare that Caesar is Lord. Pliny, as governor of Bithynia, ordered Christians to supplicate the emperor’s image ture ac vino (ep. 10.96.5). 971 Cf. Rives (1995: 51–76). Fishwick (2004: 351–352), however, points out the difficulty of reconstructing the content and character of the provincial cult in the West due to the dearth of evidence. This situation is created by human failure to preserve a practice that is normal and customary. 972 See Fishwick (1987: 257–268). 973 Tacitus, Hist. 2.97: quippe integrum illic ac favorabilem proconsulatum Vitellius, famosum invisumque Vespasianus egerat.

185 confiscations and reprisals against the senators and prominent provincials who had supported

Albinus. In criticizing the imperial cult, however, Tertullian furnished no evidence that the emperor himself made imperial worship obligatory. Tertullian suggests that it was the Roman magistrates and the elites who promoted the imperial cult, especially during the trials of the

Christians. But did the political climate of the period and the policies of Severus warrant

Tertullian’s strong emphasis on the imperial cult? A brief examination of the role of the imperial cult during the reign of Severus helps clarify this issue.

Perhaps the best starting point for the study of the imperial cult and the Severan dynasty in North Africa is the Arch of the Severi at , constructed just before the

African tour of Severus in 203 A.D. (figure 4).974 The arch was built to honor the divine Gens

Septimia.975 In one of the panels, Severus and his wife are depicted as two of the Capitoline gods, namely Jupiter and Juno (figure 5).976 Doubtless, the arch functioned as an outward manifestation of the loyalty and faith of the citizens of Leptis to the first African Emperor.

Likewise, the tradition of identifying the living Emperor and his house with various deities came in handy when justifying his ascension to power after a bloody struggle.977 The official coinage bear witness to the propaganda of Severus, who is portrayed as Jupiter Sarapis and Hercules

974 The Severan arch at Leptis Magna is considered to be contemporary to the famous Roman arch of Septimius Severus at the northwest end of the Roman forum. See Ward-Perkins (1951: 226–231); also, Townsend (1938: 512–524). Consider likewise the artistic portrayals of Severus in Baharal (1989: 566–580). For the origin of imperial worship at Leptis Magna, see Smadja (1978: 171–186). 975 Townsend, (1938: 524). 976 Ward-Perkins (1951: 229). 977 Smadja (2005: 237) thus concludes her study of the imperial cult in Roman North Africa: La grande popularité des Sévères en Afrique a sans doute accentué une évolution perceptible dans l’empire, le rapprochement de l’empereur vivant avec les dieux. Likewise, an ensemble of statuettes found in Gamarth (North East of Carthage), dating from the second to third century A.D., invokes various gods indigenous to North Africa, Saturn and Caelestis among others, for the protection (pro salute) of the emperors, among them Severus.

186 while Julia Domna was identified with various goddesses.978 Evidence from inscriptions demonstrates that the formula devotus numini maiestatique eius (DNME or DNMQE) first appeared during the reign of Severus.979 The use of the term maiestas in the context of imperial worship underscores its importance in Severan propaganda.

Like Augustus and Vespasian, Septimius Severus clinched imperial power by defeating his rivals in a bloody civil war. The legions of Pannonia acclaimed him emperor in April of 193

A.D. This civil war lasted until February 197 A.D. when Severus defeated Clodius Albinus, the last rival to the throne. As the sole ruler, he strove to bring together various disparate elements of Roman society to buttress his auctoritas as emperor.980 Foremost among these was to ensure the loyalty of the army.981 Gradually, Severus filled the ranks of the army with provincials and appointed commanders of provincial origin.982 Severus’ attention and generosity to the army popularized the ruler cult among them.983 Epigraphic evidence attest to the rise of the cult of the imperial numen in military camps in Britain during the period.984

After his imperial acclamation at Carnuntum in 193 A.D. he added the name Pertinax to show himself as the avenger of the murdered emperor. The name Pertinax added weight to his imperial claim and served as an effective overture to the troops in Illyricum, who were loyal to

Pertinax.985 He, then, celebrated the funeral of Pertinax in Rome and deified him.986 An

978 See McCann (1968: esp. 53ff., 65f., 86f., 109f). 979 Fishwick (1978: 1244). On the use of this formula see Gundel (1953: 128–150). 980 See Moran (1999: 31–38). 981 For the role of the army during the reign of Severus, see Southern (2001: 45–49). 982 Cf. Lo Cascio (2005: 141). Barnes (1967: 103) argues that none of the generals of Severus, except Plautianus, were his close intimates before 193 A.D. It was opportunism that led these individuals to ally themselves to Severus. 983 Fishwick (1978: 1244). 984 Fishwick (1991b: 413–422). Indeed, Tertullian declared: Religio tota castrensis signa veneratur (Apol. 16.8). See, likewise, Min. Felix, Octavius 29.6–7 and Tacitus, Ann. 25.16; Hist. 1.55–6. 985 BMC V.20 ff.

187 inscription found in Mauretania Caesarensis, around 195 A.D., enrolled Septimius into an imperial lineage incorporating the whole gens Aurelia as far back as the divine Nerva and proclaiming Severus a “brother of divine Commodus.”987 This fraternal relationship between

Emperor Severus and the divine Commodus is well attested in Africa.988

Such developments may help explain Tertullian’s “literary exaggeration” of the imperial cult. Tertullian provides the earliest account of the confrontation between the imperial cult and

African Christianity.989 The Apologeticum describes the Roman magistrates as unwilling partners in this encounter. They were influenced by biases and refused to hear the truth about Christian faith:990

“You do not say,” say you, “worship the gods; you do not offer sacrifice for the Emperors.” It is followed by parity of reasoning that we do not sacrifice for others because we do not for ourselves — it follows from our not worshipping the gods. So, we are accused of sacrilege and treason at once. That is the chief of the case against us — the whole of it, in fact; and it in any case deserves investigation, unless the judgment is

986 On the details of this ceremony see Cassius Dio 74.4–5. Likewise, Birley (1988: 105–106). 987 CIL VIII.9317. Coins struck in the same year attest to the adoption of Severus into the genealogy of the gens Aurelia (RIC IV.1.185, no. 8658; 187, nos. 700–702a; 188, no. 712). Dio tells us that Severus demanded that the senate recognize him as son of Marcus and brother to Commodus (74.2.1). Barnes (2008: 3–21) argues for a deliberate and consistent policy of Severus to present himself as a second Augustus. He points out Severus’ attempt to revive Augustus’ marriage legislation and the celebration of ludi saeculares in 204 A.D. among others as proof of this propaganda. 988 C 44482 (Tubunae); ILAlg II.1.559 (Cirta); ILAlg II.1.3393 (Celtianis); C 2307 (Hr Ain Zusa); C 4596 and 4597 (Diana); ILA 26 (Bezereos); AE 1989, 900 (Cuicul); C 14695 (); C 4826 (Civitas Nattabutum); AE 1951, 75 (Thugga). 989 Based on his reading of the Acts of the Scillitan Martyrs, Barnes (1985: 60–63) holds that African Christianity is characterized by its dominant motif of rejection of the world. The argument of the Apologeticum, however, is not a repudiation of the world, but Tertullian criticizes the arbitrary use of imperial cult as the only mediator of the dialogue of power between the Roman emperor and the citizens. For the role of religion in integrating Africa to Roman imperialism, see Fevrier (1976). 990 Apologeticum. 2.3: Sed Christiani s solis nihil permittitur loqui quod causam purget, quod veritatem defendat, quod iudicem non faciat iniustum, sed illum solum expectatur quod odio publico necessarium est, confessio nominis, non examinatio criminis.

188 to be given by prejudice or injustice, the one despairing of the truth, the other refusing it.991 Tertullian singles out two charges brought against the Christians: failure to worship the gods and refusal to offer sacrifice to the emperor. He does not deny the accusation of declining to worship the gods (in plural) but criticizes coercion in worshipping the emperor.992 Tertullian’s emphasis on the obligation to sacrifice to the emperor projects Roman religious practices primarily as cult acts centered on the emperor.993 While Tertullian’s account is a deliberate misrepresentation of Roman “religion”, the purpose is rhetorical. As I shall show, this conceptualization of Roman “religion” allowed Tertullian not only to defend Christians from treason against the emperor but also to criticize the gods of Rome.

Since the Roman pantheon was populated by various gods and goddesses and the

Roman emperor is considered part of them, Christians could not offer sacrifice to the emperor, much less to the gods of Rome.994 Tertullian distinguished between homage towards the divinity and honor bestowed on rulers.995 Kings are mere mortals while gods belong to the realm of the divine.996 Tertullian reminds his readers that Augustus himself refused to be called

991 Ibid. 10.1: Deos, inquitis, non colitis, et pro imperatoribus sacrificia non penditis. Sequitur ut eadem ratione pro aliis non sacrificemus, quia nec pro nobis ipsis semel deos non colendo. Itaque sacrilegii et maiestatis rei convenimur. Summa haec causa, immo tota est, et utique digna cognosci, si non praesumptio aut iniquitas iudicet, altera quae desperat, altera quae recusat. 992 This is the core argument of Chs. 31– 36 of the Apologeticum. 993 Smadja (1985: 541, n. 1) citing Tertullian, Apol. 24.1. See Galinsky (2011: 1–21). 994 Apol. 5.1: Facit et hoc ad causam nostram, quod apud vos de humano arbitratu divinitas pensatur. Nisi homini dues placuerit, dues non erit; homo iam deo propitious esse debebit; 15.10: Plures deos vestros regnasse certum est. igitur si conferendi imperii tenet potestatem, cum ipsi regnarent, a quibus acceperant eam gratiam?; 10.11: Etiam Iovem ostendimus tam hominem quam ex homine, et deinceps totum generis examen tam mortale quam seminis sui par. 995 Ibid. 35. 1–4. Minucius Felix, Oct. 29.5. 996 Ibid. 21. 4–31. The Christian apologist Athenagoras advanced similar argument stating that “the divine is uncreated and eternal and can be contemplated only by thought and reason, whereas matter is created and perishable” (Legatio 4.1).

189 dominus because it is also a name of God.997 In the same vein, taking his cue from Euhemerus’ argument for the mortal origins of pagan gods, Tertullian argues that Roman gods are not real gods but rulers or heroes divinized for their greatness and virtue.998

Hence, the imperial cult served not only as a “literary tool” in Tertullian’s critique of the gods of Rome — it was also an epideictic instrument. The issue of imperial cult offered

Tertullian the opportunity to construct and negotiate Christian identity utilizing a religious and political language germane to the period. Tertullian portrayed Christians as loyal subjects of the emperor. The persona of the emperor was a battleground in the socio-political upheaval in the second and third centuries.999 Religion was utilized to confirm and strengthen imperial control.

Hence, the Emperor was presented as an earthly counterpart of Zeus.1000 It was under the

Severi that the identification of the living emperor and his house with several deities was made explicit.1001 Tertullian was aware that loyalty to the emperor connotes legitimation or exclusion in the Roman society. Ritual sacrifice, being a public event, stressed the communal aspect of

Roman religion and hence, constructed and confirmed the identity of those who participated in

997 Ibid. 34.1. The account survives in Suetonius, Augustus 53. 998 Cf. Apol. 10.3. It is notable that Tertullian conflates traditional Roman religiones with imperial worship. Barton and Boyarin (2016, 39-59) argue that a Ciceronian and Varronian systematization of religio as a civic phenomenon created an ambiguity whereby the failure of Christians to recognize the divinity of the emperor can be construed as outright rejection of Roman society. 999 For the development of the divinized status of the emperor from Augustus to third century see Fischwick (1978: 1201–1253). For Minucius Felix (Octavius 22.5), the rationale behind the imperial cult is not the desire of the emperor to be proclaimed divine, but in the motivation of those who promote his apotheosis (that is, the provincial administrators): Nisi forte nondum deus saxum est vel lignum vel argentum. Quando igitur hic nascitur? Ecce funditur, fabricator, sculpitur: nondum deus est: ecce plumbatur, construitur, erigitur: nec adhuc deus est; ecce ornatur, consecratur, oratur: tunc postremo deus est, cum homo illum voluit et dedicavit. 1000 Fowden (2005b: 553–554). 1001 Fishwick (1978: 1242–1243).

190 them, especially in the case of the imperial cult.1002 Tertullian provided a colorful description of these sollemnia Caesarum:

“(They) bring braziers and couches out into the open air, street by street to dine together to make the city look like nothing but a tavern, to make mud with wine, to rush about in droves for outrage, impudence and incitements to lust. Is it thus that a people’s joy is expressed in public shame? …Men who maintain order out of regard for Caesar, are they to abandon it for Caesar’s sake? Shall their good feeling (pietas) for him be their licence to follow bad ways? Shall religio be reckoned as an occasion for indulgence (occasio luxuriae religio deputabitur)?”1003 Recalling the bloody episodes of the recent civil war, Tertullian argues that the individuals who participated in the imperial celebration (pro auctoritate religiosi ex fide)1004 were also the ones who plotted against the emperor (nomen principis in corde mutantes).1005 On the contrary,

Tertullian’s description of the Christian Eucharist serves as discourse on Christian loyalty. The gathered assembly of Christians are described as probi, boni, pii, and casti (Apol. 39.21).

Participation in the Christian Eucharist is voluntary (Apol. 39.5–6). Most importantly, Christians pray for the emperors, their officials, and those in authority.1006 Tertullian negotiates for

Christian exemption from imperial rituals on the basis that Christians have proven to be loyal to

1002 There is no evidence, however, that the public was compelled to attend provincial or municipal sacrifices. See Fishwick (1991b: 501–532, esp. 530). Ando (2012: 141) correctly observes that Tertullian’s argument for Christian loyalty attempts to disaggregate civic duty from religion, something inconceivable in Roman society. 1003 Apol. 35. 2–3. These public celebrations are typical of the natalis Caesaris (birthday of the emperor), dies imperii (anniversary of accession to power) or the vota publica, annualia or quinquennalia (Cf. Tacitus, Ann. 15.3.1; Ios. Flav. De bell. Iud. 7.73). 1004 Ibid. 35.8. 1005 Ibid. 35.11. 1006 Ibid. 39.2. For the nature of Christian assembly and Eucharist in North Africa during the time of Tertullian, see Burns Jr. and Jensen (2014: 233–246).

191 the emperor and the historical precedents of similar privileges accorded to Jewish communities.1007

Second, my analysis of Tertullian’s use of terminologies associated with the imperial cult, genius, numen, and pro salute, reveals the skill of Tertullian in navigating technical and theological nuances of the ritual. Tertullian used the terms genius and numen and their cognates sparingly. Genius occurs only five times in the whole opera of Tertullian, while numen appears seven times. Both terms, however, are well attested in formulas associated with the imperial cult.1008 It is difficult to define them.1009 Fishwick, however, offers a working

“definition.” Genius is something external to the man and understood as “his comes, guiding star, or spiritual companion, under whose tutela he lived.”1010 It is something akin to the Lares,

Penates, Manes and the Greek concept of daimon.1011 Meanwhile, numen resides in the person and is understood primarily as “the functional property of a god and therefore akin to vis divina and sanctitudo.”1012

1007 Sacrifices were offered at the Jerusalem temple on behalf of the emperor. McLaren (2005) presents several evidences that the Jews practiced a parallel but separate ritual from the imperial cult. Notably, Herod was able to create a separate but parallel sacred space, both for the imperial cult and Jewish worship, through the offering of sacrifices on behalf of the emperor and Rome on a daily basis in the Jerusalem temple. 1008 See an excellent study on genius and numen in Fishwick (1991b: 375–387). Likewise, Brahmi (2004: 2183– 2200). 1009 Usually, a cult is offered to the genius of the living emperor and numen to the deified emperors. But there are scholars who argue that both the genius Augusti and the numen Augusti mean the same thing. See Pippidi (1931: 83–112); Scott (1936). An inscription from Bourges attests to both the numen and genius of Lucius Caesar (ILTG 160). Likewise, the college of Augustales at Aquincum set up a dedication to the numen and genius of Hadrian (CIL III.3487). 1010 Fishwick (1991b: 382). Swearing by the genius of the emperor started officially under Domitian (Cf. P.Oxy. 27.2472; P. Oxy. 12.1445). 1011 See Otto (1910: 1155–1170). 1012 Fishwick (1991b: 383).

192 Tertullian uses numen as a referent to divinity, but never in the context of the imperial cult.1013 Instead, Tertullian preferred the term genius when he talks about the imperial cult.1014

Why this deliberate choice of term? Tertullian worked the technical language of imperial cult to his advantage. Refusing to use the term numen reinforced his statement that he did not put

Caesar on equal footing with God (Non enim deum imperatorem dicam).1015 By employing genius, instead, Tertullian avoided attributing divinity as an innate quality of the Emperor.1016

He, then, informs his readers that the term genius is another name for demon (Apol. 32.2).

Through prayers, Christians can exorcize demons or geniuses (Apol. 32.3) — a veritable proof that the God of the Christians is a better guardian of the emperor. Tertullian proposed an alternative and parallel gesture of demonstrating loyalty to the emperor that does not impugn

Christianity:

We make our oaths too, not by the genius of Caesar but by his well-being, which is more august than any genius.1017 Tertullian’s alternative strategy was to establish the right of Christians to honor the emperor according to their faith, like all the others.1018 Was this endeavor a novelty? The expression pro salute imperatoris was widely used in the Latin West. Fishwick informs us that the formula pro salute imperatoris was addressed to a wide range of deities followed by the name of the

1013 For example, Tertullian used the phrase biforme numen to refer to the famous ass-begotten god of Christians. (Cf. Apol. 16.12). 1014 For example, Tertullian chides his readers that it is easier for them to commit perjury in the name of the gods than by the genius of a single Caesar (Apol. 28.3: per unum genium Caesaris). 1015 Apol. 33.3. See Fishwick (1991a: 196–200); (1969: 356–367). In the context of North Africa, see Fishwick (1992: 83–94). 1016 An inscription found in Narbo (CIL 12.4333/ILS 112, Narbo), dated 12/13 A.D., states that prayers and sacrifices were offered to the numen of Augustus. It is clear that Augustus was treated in the same way as a traditional god with offerings of sacrifices and prayers. It was not the genius of the emperor that was worshipped but the divine property, numen, dwelling immanently in the persona of the deified emperor. See Nicolet (1963: 721–732). 1017 Apol. 32.2: Sed et iuramus, sicut non per genios Caesarum, ita per salutem eorum, quae est augustior omnibus geniis. 1018 Ibid. 24.9: Sed nos soli arcemur a religionis proprietate.

193 petitioner and is attested from the early principate and reached its acme during the period of the Severi.1019

There are, however, many ways to express honor to the Emperor.1020 Freedmen and strangers, normally excluded from the municipal cult, establish collegia of Augustales to perform ritual activities for the emperor.1021 Rives points to a private shrine in Carthage dedicated to the gens Augusta by Perelius Hedulus (ILAfr 353). It stands as an outstanding example of an individual who devised and performed his pietas toward the emperor on a

“personal initiative.”1022 Moreover, in Intercisa, an altar was dedicated by a spondilla of a

Jewish synagogue to the Eternal God for the salus of Alexander Severus.1023 Also, the Christian martyr Achatius declared to the Roman legate in 250 A.D. that he prayed to the living and sovereign God on behalf of the emperor’s salus.1024 Despite the paucity of similar evidence, the peculiarities mentioned above suggest that the imperial cult was pliant and far from monolithic.1025 The example from Intercisa and that of Achatius testify that homage and prayers were offered for the Emperor without compromising the faith of the dedicator. Similarly,

Tertullian’s statement (non per genios Caesarum, ita per salutem eorum) was a Christian adaptation and reinterpretation of rendering honor to the Emperor.1026 He understood the

1019 Fishwick (2004: 352). 1020 Cf. Beard, North, and Price (1998: 348). 1021 See Le Bohec (1998: 357–358). 1022 Rives (1995: 57). Hedulus was a freedman who built and established the cult to the emperor, on his own accord, on his private property. Such an act highlighted the autonomy of Hedulus and his astute decision to engage the imperial cult perhaps for his own benefit. Rives (1995: 57) surmises that Hedulus, having created a relationship with the emperor, became its lifelong priest and reaped whatever prestige was inherent in the title. 1023 Turcan (1978: 1056, n. 498). 1024 Cf. Fishwick (2004: 354). 1025 Momigliano (1986: 191) argued that Christian emperors reapproriated the imperial cult for themselves. 1026 Rankin (2001: 211) points out Tertullian’s unique expression, per salutem, and not the traditional pro salute. Fishwick, however, (2004: 352–355) considers the difference between per and pro unremarkable. I found only one inscriptional evidence for the expression per salutem. The inscription, found in Petelia, Italy and dated during the

194 powerful function of the ritual of emperor worship as a tool for communicative action, both in its political and religious dimensions. Christians recognized the importance of the emperor and his role as a divinely ordained ruler (Apol. 21.24; 32.1; 33.1). The Emperor guaranteed unity among Christians and the Roman society as a whole (Apol. 36.1; 39.3). Tertullian’s difficulty in articulating the relationship of Christianity with the ruling power finds clarity a century later in

Galerius’ edict of Toleration. In the processes of legalization of Christian cult practices, DePalma

Digeser underscores the importance of Galerius’ stipulation for Christians to pray for the safety of the emperor and the state (pro salute nostra).1027 Tertullian’s dealing with the difficult issue of imperial worship impacted his Christian reinterpretation of the political and religious symbolism of imperial ritual, where the primacy of individual freedom took an important consideration.1028 This is synthesized in Tertullian’s call for libertas religionis.1029

reign of Antoninus Pius, used the phrase per salutem (AE 1894, 148) as an expression to render sollemnity to the dedicator’s testament. The same phrase is found in Pliny (ep. 2.20 and 10.59) where it was used in the context of an oath with no association to the imperial cult. In my opinion, Tertullian employed the phrase per salutem for the following reasons. First, he was aware of its popularity and hence it was easily recognizable. Cf. Turcan (1978: 1057–1058) and Smadja (1985: 543–545). Second, Fishwick (2004: 353) argues that the expression was associated with the issue of conspiracy against the emperor. Pro salute emphasizes the citizens’ concern for the safety of the emperor and invoes the gods for his protection. Christians were considered disloyal (Apol. 35.1); hence Tertullian chose an appropriate formula to express Christian adherence to the emperor. Third, Tertullian was familiar with the traditional expression pro salute (Scap. 2. 5), but he used the phrase per salutem in the Apologeticum in order to avoid a formula (pro salute) associated with various Gods and risks considering the Christian God as merely one of the deities favoring the emperor. Hence, it is not the case, as suggested by Rankin (2001: 216), that Tertullian shifted the charge from religio to imperium but that Tertullian proposed a “Christian interpretation” of the role and authority of the emperor in the empire with the expression per salutem. Beare (1978: 106–110) offers a similar opinion to my argument above, although emphasizing the “affective significance” of the phrase in discussion. 1027 Cf. Lactantius, Mort. 34. See DePalma Digeser (2011). 1028 Succeeding African Christian writers contributed to this development. The acme, of course, is Augustine’s De Civitate Dei. For Lactantius see DePalma Digeser (1999). 1029 My investigation of the role of the imperial cult in Tertullian’s apologetics reveals that, far from outrightly rejecting Roman mores, our apologist sought to negotiate and even adapt the existing socio-political constructs. On the contrary, Wilhite (2007: 59) interprets it as evidence for Tertullian’s rejection of the Roman colonizers and the new elites who supported them.

195 The word libertas and its cognates appear four times in the Apologeticum. Tertullian uses the word libertas to illustrate the indissoluble complex of truth, freedom, and moral choice that defines the ideal individual.1030 Tertullian’s arguments in these four passages merit a closer inspection. First, in Chapter 28, Tertullian demonstrates that an individual must be free to choose or refuse the worship of a deity.1031 Hence, the imposition of imperial worship negated individual choice. Secondly, Tertullian spoke of libertas as an important character of Christian assembly. In comparison to a Christian coena (banquet), Roman dinner had become an assembly of parasites willing to give up individual autonomy with respect to religious practices to fill their bellies.1032 In contrast, Christian gatherings were distinguished from seditious groups that threatened the stability of the state and the authority of the Emperor.1033 Thirdly, the religious freedom granted to the Jews was owed through the fiscus Iudaicus.1034 Tertullian juxtaposed the freedom of worship with the imposition of taxes by referring to them as vectigalis libertas (freedom in return for tribute).1035 Tertullian’s phrase vectigalis libertas is an oxymoron to underscore this paradoxical transaction. Moreover, it portrays the ruler cult as something that can be auctioned. Lastly, Tertullian used the phrase libertas religionis to refute

1030 See Bélanger (1985: 281–291). 1031 Apol. 28.1: Certe ineptum existimaretur, si quis ab alio cogeretur ad honorem deorum, quos ultro sui causa placare deberet, ne prae manu esset iure libertatis dicere: Nolo mihi Iovem propitium; tu quis es? Me conveniat Ianus iratus ex qua velit fronte. The reference to Jupiter and Juno here is a word-play for imperial cult. During the Antonine period, several coins depict the apotheosis of Antoninus and Faustina as Jupiter and Juno carried into heaven by eagles. Cf. Strack (1937); Mattingly (1948: 147–151). 1032 Ibid. 39.16: parasiti ad gloriam famulandae libertatis. 1033 Ibid. 39.20: Haec coitio Christianorum merito sane inlicita, si inlicitis par, merito damnanda, si quis de ea quaeritur eo titulo quo de factionibus querela est. The nomen Christianum was sufficient enough to merit sanction against Christian believers. See Bendlin (2005: 103). 1034 Ibid. 18.8: sed et Iudaei palam lectitant. 1035 Ibid.

196 the accusation of “irreligion” against Christians.1036 Just as the Egyptians, Tertullian reasons, have full freedom to practice their superstitious beliefs, so Christians must be given the same freedom to worship.1037

Before Tertullian, no one in the ancient world claimed individual freedom to worship as a right. What came nearest was a request for Roman acknowledgement of the rights of Jewish communities to live according to their ancestral religious tradition or according to their Law. It is this practice Josephus is referring to when he narrates how a Jew named Nicolaos of

Damascus, in his speech to Agrippa after Judea had been made a , asked that the right of a natio to maintain its ancestral customs be granted.1038 But, Nicolaos asked for religious liberty for the Jews as a natio. Tertullian’s argument was rooted in the premise of individual freedom as a condition for the validity of a religious act.

Tertullian’s understanding of libertas realigns the boundaries between the status of the individual in relation to the state. Wirszubski demonstrated that libertas at Rome and regarding

Romans “is not an innate faculty or right of man, but the sum of civic rights granted by the law of Rome.”1039 Libertas cannot be separated from an individual’s legal status as a citizen

(civis).1040 To the Romans, an individual’s libertas operates within the political structure of the

Roman state and is controlled by it. Tertullian challenges this status quo; his vision is that of an empire populated by free citizens and not constrained by the politics of provincial

1036 Ibid. 24. 6: Videte enim ne et hoc ad inreligiositatis elogium concurrat, adimere libertatem religionis et interdicere optionem divinitatis. 1037 Ibid. 24.6-7. 1038 Jewish Antiquities 1.31–57. 1039 Wirszubski (1950: 7). 1040 Ibid. 3–4.

197 administrators: “This empire, of which you are the ministers, is a government controlled by free citizens, not by tyrants.”1041

As pointed out earlier, Tertullian did not deny the role of the state nor the emperor to guarantee and preserve public order.1042 Tyranny, however, brings chaos and disorder. In discussing loyalty to the emperor, Tertullian accentuates the importance of true intention as opposed to the implements of imperial imagines (wax figures) that were meant to flatter.1043

Sycophancy is a mark of a slave who has no freedom. Rather, an individual was free even with respect to the emperor (Ceterum liber sum illi).1044 Hence, Tertullian presents the Roman magistrates as exempla of negative individualization: their desire for self-promotion and self- preservation dictated their action.1045 Compare this with the resiliency of Christian martyrs. It is obstinacy, rather than impunity, in opposition to the magistrate. The term contumacia

(obstinacy) recalls Pliny’s letter to Trajan in which he described the crime of Christians as stubbornness and unshakable obstinacy.1046

The arguments for libertas allowed Tertullian to locate the importance of the individual in the socio-political grid of Roman society. The shift of emphasis from the persona of the emperor to the importance of self-assertion and the right of an individual is reminiscent of

Seneca’s epistolary writings. In as much as Seneca’s letters formed a literary presentation of a philosophical exchange which was imaginary,1047 by invoking truth and justice Tertullian raised the level of argumentation to a philosophical plane by introducing ratio (reason) as an invisible

1041 Apol. 2.14: Hoc imperium, cuius ministri estis, civilis, non tyrannica dominatio est. 1042 Ibid. 33.1–2. 1043 Ibid. 35.2. 1044 Ibid. 34.1. 1045 Ibid. 2.12. 1046 Pliny, ep. 10.96.3: pertinaciam certe et inflexibilem obstinationem. 1047 Inwood (2009: 58).

198 interlocutor. Through Tertullian’s pen, Christian apologetics turned into a philosophical dialogue wherein the individual Christian recreated his world. It is another example of the

Christian paideutic experiment. Cicero in the De Officiis established reason and speech as the first principle of nature applicable to all members of the human race, uniting all people.1048 But, only free individuals enjoy the freedom of thought and speech.

Christian conversion does not imply the negation of one’s previous identity, whether

Roman or African: “we are from your ranks: Christians are made, not born.”1049 Instead of subverting established mores, Christianity, in the mind of Tertullian, presents itself as a continuation of philosophical tradition. By resisting the imperial pressure but at the same time promoting Christians as loyal citizens of the empire, Tertullian attempts to mark out boundaries of what is acceptable and what is not. Individual choice serves as the marker. Thereby, libertas religionis is virtually synonymous with freedom of conscience. That is why it is in the individual that the raison d’etre of religio can be found: “Even if I do not attend your rituals, well, I am a man on that day as much as any other.”1050

IV. Contending Holiness

I have described above Tertullian’s argument for Christian loyalty in response to the issue of emperor worship. Tertullian’s discourse of loyalty to the emperor proves that political ideology was not immune to subversion and alternatives. It is an outstanding example of how Tertullian constructed, negotiated, and articulated the civic identity of Christians. But Tertullian’s

1048 Cicero, De Officiis 1.50–52. 1049 Apol. 18.4: Fiunt, non nascuntur Christiani. 1050 Apol. 42.4: Sed si caerimonias tuas non frequento, attamen et illa die homo sum.

199 construction of Christian identity is not merely polemical. He also linked Christian identity with the ideals of philosophical tradition especially in its pursuit of an ideal individual — the holy man. Brown argues that the period between the reign of Marcus Aurelius and the death of

Constantine marked a shift in the understanding of where to locate “religious authority.” From the perennially established religious institutions in antiquity, the inhabitants of the

Mediterranean world gradually considered exceptional individuals as agents and the medium of the relationship between the earthly and supernatural world.1051

Tertullian’s period can be placed between the two poles of religious development, namely the physical asceticism and cerebral moral rigor of Epictetus and Philostratus’ rehabilitation of Apollonius of Tyana, the Pythagorean holy man and traveling sophist. While

Epictetus’ literary output cannot be compared to the display of learning of his contemporaries,

Plutarch, Aulus Gellius, and Dio Chrysostom to mention a few, he had important influence on the morality of the period, especially “the traditional Roman virtues of rectitude in public and domestic life, material simplicity and self-discipline.”1052 Epictetus anchored his teachings on the capacities and limitations of human nature (his practical ethics) on his providential and personalist conceptualization of divinity.1053 On the other hand, Philostratus’ Life of Apollonius of Tyana was a biographical endeavor, which provided an account of Apollonius’ ascetical practices, his paideia, his claim for “authority” vis-à-vis the Roman rulers and the veracity of his miracles. More importantly, Philostratus meant to defend the person of Apollonius from the

1051 Brown (1978) and (1971: 80–101); Elm (1998: 343–351). 1052 Long (2002: 15). 1053 Ibid. 180. Time and again Epictetus (1.12.5; 1.30.4; 4.7.20) would remind his students that the ultimate goal of human life is to “follow the gods.”

200 accusation of being a magician (magos) or false philosopher.1054 Epictetus and Philostratus, and the intelligentsia of their time bear witness to the confluence of philosophy, paideia, and religion. The aim of the conventional elite culture to master paideia and cultivate philosophical learning necessarily involved a vocation to a life of holiness.1055

Anderson calls the second-century practitioner of paideia, philosophy, and religion a holy man.1056 Bieler, however, popularized the term Theios aner in modern scholarship.1057 The two-prototypical divine men of late paganism were both philosophers, Plato and

Pythagoras.1058 Knowledge of philosophical and theological truths was a prerequisite for divinization. Fowden’s contribution to the study of the holy men emphasizes the role of

διαδοχή (succession), especially among the interpreters of Platonic philosophy. The dynamics of the teacher/guide taking a disciple and the repetition of the process when the disciple becomes the master himself warrants the purity of the teaching. The Neoplatonists used the

Homeric image of the “golden chain” when they desire to convey the nature of this succession.1059 But the reputation for holiness did not merely reside in adherence to a spiritualized intellectual tradition. Personal conduct was equally important, especially ascetic

1054 Philostratus, VA I.2. An inscription dating to the third or fourth century A.D., now in the museum of Adana, portrays Apollonius as a sort of healer for all humanity and a wise man very dear to the Gods. The following is the translation of Jones (1980: 190–4): “This man, named after Apollo, and shining forth from Tyana, extinguished the faults of men. The tomb in Tyana (received) his body, but in truth heaven received him so that he might drive out the pains of men (or: drive pains from among men).” 1055 Kirschner (1984: 106). Likewise, Fowden (1982: 33) suggested that the association of philosophical learning with holiness “determined the essentially urban and privileged background of the pagan holy man.” The importance and popularity of philosophical and rhetorical education during this period is highlighted by Emperor Aurelius’ decision to endow salaried chairs in all branches of learning. Cf. Trapp (2007b: 470–488). 1056 Cf. Anderson (1994). 1057 Bieler (1967). 1058 Fowden (1982: 34). 1059 Ibid. 34. Similarly, Lévêque (1959: 41–43).

201 practices.1060 Anderson describes a typical feature of a holy man during the imperial period: he is supernaturally inspired, which gives him access to some information; he delivers his message at a prominent time and place; he engenders opposition to status quo, and he engages the attention of authorities and ends his life with a spectacular death.1061 Because of their personal discipline and pursuit of wisdom, the holy men were considered repositories of knowledge; hence, they perform important roles in civic society, such as counselors and paradigms of truth.1062

Christians recognized the influence “holy men” exercised in the minds of the inhabitants of the Roman imperial period. Christian martyrs and saints vied with “pagan” holy men for popularity.1063 In his later work, the Adversus Valentinianos (5.1), Tertullian used the phrase viri sanctitate et praestantia insignes to refer to Christian intellectuals known for their Christian discipline (virginis senectae et Christianae eloquentiae dignitas) such as Justin and Irenaeus.

Indeed, Cameron points out the Christian reappropriation of the role of non-Christian holy men through the narratives of exemplary individuals.1064 The lives of the Christian martyrs and saints served as an epideictic tool, which in turn provided a “mechanism” whereby the values of

Christian individuals and communities were formed and regulated.1065 Tertullian, however, never wrote a biography of a holy individual, similar to Athanasius’ Life of St. Anthony. A

1060 Ibid. 36. 1061 Anderson (1994: 1–2). 1062 Bieler (1967: 20). 1063 Brown (1978: 12–13) maintains that the apostles, the martyrs, the formidable bishops of third century and the numerous holy men and women known for their asceticism and wisdom, served as “tangible links between heaven and earth.” See likewise Brown (1981). 1064 Cameron (1991: ch. 3). 1065 See Urbano (2013).

202 Christian example from the same period and North African milieu is provided by Minucius

Felix’s Octavius.

Minucius Felix characterizes Octavius, the main protagonist of his narrative, as vir sanctus et eximius.1066 The dramatic setting of the narrative shares common topoi with the biographical accounts of holy men. First, amicitia was the pervading theme among three friends, two Christians (Octavius and Minucius Felix) and a pagan (Caecilius). Next, the dialogue and debate about philosophical and theological matters brought about enlightenment and conversion; and finally, true religion (vera religio) is found. Minucius Felix credits Octavius for his personal illumination (de tenebrarum profundo in lucem sapientiae et veritatis emergerem).1067 The sophisticated elegance of dialogue, but an almost pedestrian description of religious conversion, speaks abundantly about Octavius as “vir eximius et sanctus.” Octavius earns the description of eximius because as a citizen of Rome, he is an expert of its history and tradition. Both pagan Caecilius and Octavius could lay rightful claim to this heritage. But,

Octavius is, likewise, a vir sanctus. The former label refers to his social identity as a Roman, while the latter to the Christian community where he belongs. The former reflects the social ethic expected of every Roman citizen, especially the elite, while the latter suggests a reappropriation of the traditional mode of conduct, that is a “Christianized” ethics.1068

Tertullian left no encomium of an exemplary Christian individual. However, he worked within this tradition. Like Minucius Felix, Tertullian’s vision of an ideal Christian individual is a person characterized by civility (paideia), temperance and fairness, and sincerity in his religious

1066 Octavius 1.3. 1067 Ibid. 1.4. 1068 Ibid. 38.6.

203 faith. I shall employ two approaches to tease out a rough sketch of an ideal Christian individual in Tertullian’s apologetic oeuvre. Firstly, Tertullian’s rhetoric of retorsio (Apol. 9.1) is not only meant to turn the table against the accusers of Christians but to show that the Christian way of life epitomizes the ideals of exemplary and “holy individuals”, while pagans fall under the axe of

Tertullian’s invectives (and psogos). In other words, his apologetic literature was not merely legalistic but theological as well.1069 Secondly, it is important to inquire the role of Christ in the pursuit of holiness. How is the Christian life of holiness different from its non-Christian neighbors? These interrogatives help chart the continuities and discontinuities of a Christian individual from the ideal man of classical culture.

Chapter Two demonstrated how Tertullian emasculated the accusers of Christians by denying their claim for cultural capital (paideia).1070 In his endeavor to debunk the claim that

Rome’s greatness was owed to her pietas toward the gods,1071 Tertullian employed an array of invectives and literary psogos (blame). This is meant to take away Roman pretense to civility and thereby cast doubt on the integrity of their religious practices. Against the accusation that

Christians were engaged in Thystean banquet, Tertullian reminded his readers that infants were used as sacrificial victims in Africa, not a long time ago.1072 Indeed, such uncivilized practice was not only prevalent in Africa but likewise in other parts of the Roman Empire as well, where human sacrifice was procured for the Gods.1073 Moreover, while Christians are guarded by chastity (diligentissima et fidelissima castitas)1074 from random intercourse, and incestuous

1069 Osborn (2003: 32). 1070 See above, pages 58-75. 1071 Apol. 25.2. Also, Minucius Felix, Octavius 25. 1–7. 1072 Apol. 9.2. 1073 Ibid. 9.5. 1074 Ibid. 9.19.

204 relationship, examples from Classical literature allow incest,1075 and even adulteries were arranged in the temple.1076 While early Rome experienced happiness of marriage when no divorce ever occurred for six hundred years since its foundation, Tertullian bewailed that in his time, frivolous display of jewelry, lack of modesty and divorce have become the proper sequel to marriage.1077 Tertullian’s description of his fellow citizens as lacking self-control and virtue criticizes contemporary Roman comportment as an antithesis to ideal individualism, both non-

Christian and Christian.1078

Furthermore, Tertullian, dedicates the last five chapters of the Apologeticum to his critique of the philosophers. Osborn correctly observed that Tertullian neither rejected nor accepted philosophy as a whole; in fact, Tertullian knew the teachings of various philosophers more than his older contemporaries, the Greek Christian apologists.1079 The proof that a

Christian is a person of deeds while the philosopher is merely that of words is the inability of philosophers to drive out demons (Apol. 46.4). Tertullian enumerates the scandals of philosophers in Chapter 46 of the Apologeticum, and calls the followers of Plato and Aristotle gloriae animal (an. 1.2).1080 Tertullian cast doubt on the claim of traditional philosophy and their followers to a life of holiness. I shall now examine Tertullian’s conceptualization of

“holiness.”

1075 Ibid. 9.16-17. 1076 Ibid. 15.7. 1077 Ibid. 6.6. 1078 Ibid. 1.9. 1079 Osborn (2003: 31). Tertullian’s ambivalent attitude towards philosophy is conditioned by his acknowledgement that philosophy offers the first step towards Christianity, a propaedeutic tool to the knowledge of God. But Christianity is a melior philosophia (De pallio 6.2) because it provides a synthesis of philosophical knowledge and faith. Likewise, Fredouille (1972: 337–357). Moreschini (2005: 181–185), on the other hand, sees in the writings of Tertullian rabid resistance and criticism of philosophy to safeguard the identity of Christians, especially in his writings against various heretical groups. 1080 Similarly, Nat. 1.4.5; 2.2.5; Mart. 4.9; Test. 1.5.

205 In his study of the concepts of sacrality and sanctity in Tertullian, Braun makes the following observations:1081 first, the Carthaginian rejected the traditional concept of sacred (this involves the adjective sacer, the noun sacrum, the verb consecrare, and their cognates) because of its rapport with demons.1082 Then, Tertullian reconceptualized the meaning of the sacred by taking inspiration from the Bible. The Septuagint rendered the term not by its traditional nomenclature hieros but by the terminology hagios, which is rare in classical Greek. Christian

Latin translates this term into sanctus.1083

I shall now consider the term sanctus in Tertullian’s apologetic oeuvre. The adjective sanctus appears twice in the Ad Martyras and it describes the role of the Holy Spirit.1084 In the

Ad Nationes, the term is used to illustrate Joseph, who was chosen by God from a holy race (de genere sanctorum)1085 and hence, exhibited the familiar characteristics of a “holy man”

(prudentem et sanctum et necessarium).1086 Clearly, based on the above examples, sanctity, for

Tertullian, is an immanent quality, which God bestows, specifically in the case of Joseph. Such is true, as well, in Tertullian’s description of the Christian assembly. Tertullian uses the analogy of pasturing a flock to refer to the church fed by “holy voices/words” from the sacred scripture

(certe fidem sanctis vocibus pascimus).1087

Tertullian’s conceptualization of holiness pivots on his characterization of Christ.

Notably, like other Christian apologists in the first three centuries of the Church’s existence, the

1081 Braun (1992c: 281–286). 1082 Ibid. 282. 1083 Ibid. 283. 1084 Mart. 1.3; 3.3. 1085 Nat. 2.8.10. 1086 Ibid. 2.8.15. 1087 Apol. 39.3.

206 centrality of Christ, as Christ the Victor, shaped Tertullian’s theology.1088 While Tertullian’s theology of recapitulation, i.e., the summing up of all things in Christ, is not explicit in his apologetic writings compared to his later works,1089 already in the Apologeticum Tertullian writes that Christ, the Son of God, came to illuminate humankind.1090 Christ becomes the dispenser and teacher of divine discipline to guide humanity.1091 Like Apollonius of Tyana, whose mother received a vision of an Egyptian divinity when she was carrying her child,

Tertullian emphasized the divine origin of Christ, whose mother was touched by no impurity.1092 Christ’s birth was prophesied, and in his mother’s womb man mingled with

God.1093 Similar to other wandering holy men (like Apollonius and Peregrinus), Christ was accused of being a magician because of his miracles.1094 Yet again, like Apollonius of Tyana, his presence was a service to the people of towns he visited by driving out demons, giving sight to the blind, healing the lepers and the paralytic, and restoring dead persons to life.1095 If

Apollonius had rough dealings with Roman authorities (Emperors Domitian and Vespasian),

Christ likewise incensed Jewish authorities.1096 But in a remarkable way, and cementing his claim to his reputation as holy man, Christ rose from the dead and after forty days in Galilee, he was taken up into heaven.1097

1088 Osborn (2003: 21). 1089 For example, in his Marc. (5.17.1) Tertullian writes that the human race is revised from the beginning in Christ and is reformed (3.9.5). Hence, Christ can reconcile humanity to God (Marc. 5.19.5) because he is clothed with humanity (Prax. 12.3). 1090 Apol. 21.7. 1091 Ibid. 1092 Ibid. 21.9 1093 Ibid. 21.14 1094 Ibid. 21.17. 1095 Ibid. 1096 Ibid. 21.18 1097 Ibid. 21.21–23.

207 To understand how Christ’s holiness impinges upon the spiritual pursuit of Christians, we need to shift our attention to Tertullian’s treatise on the virtue of patience, the De patientia, the first tract on Christian spirituality written in Latin.1098 Tertullian asserts that the discipline of patience is an imitation of Christ’s patience.1099 Patience is God’s nature (patientiam Dei esse naturam).1100 On the other hand, the opposite, impatience, belongs to the devil.1101 The virtue of patience consists of self-control (patientia animi, chapters 7–12) and the capacity to bear corporeal vicissitudes, which includes martyrdom (patientia corporis, chapter 13). But patience as a virtue is not a Christian novelty. Indeed, Fredouille saw in this particular work of Tertullian traces of traditional philosophical teaching, especially the Stoic doctrines of apatheia, constantia, and aequanimitas.1102 Yet again, this shows the deep influence of culture and secular learning on Tertullian. The novelty however is how Tertullian reappropriated these philosophical tenets and “baptized” them.

The key lies in Tertullian’s anthropology. The ideal man of the imperial period — the holy man in the mold of Apollonius of Tyana or a man of letters bent on a life of asceticism — embarks on self-improvement through paradigms provided by the doctrines of various philosophical schools. The emphasis is on the constant practice of self-betterment.1103

Philosophical practices, such as patientia, has more to do with “self-witnessing than with seeing

1098 Fredouille (1972: 363) dates the tract between 198 to 206 A.D., hence it belongs to one of Tertullian’s early writings. Fredouille (1984) offers the best critical edition. 1099 Pat. 3.1–11. 1100 Ibid. 3.11. 1101 Ibid. 5.5. 1102 Fredouille (1972: 368–399). 1103 Bartsch (2006: 193) argues: “The practice of meditatio as Seneca describes it, accordingly, often relies on hortatory self-communion in the form of a dialogue held by the self with the self to rid the soul of the passions and the fear of death, and to rekindle in it a sense of duty.”

208 oneself in a divine mirror.”1104 Indeed, Tertullian points out that the patientia he is preaching is unlike the Cynic aequanimitas but a divina dispositio of the living and heavenly discipline.1105

Hence, the brand of Christian patience cannot be separated from faith in Christ and the divine grace that sustains it.1106 Indeed, without Christ, Tertullian himself admits, this virtue is impossible to attain because of his own personal weakness (homo nullius boni).1107 Thus,

Tertullian refers to Christ as Christus medicus for he comes to heal human weakness.1108 The egocentric philosophical quest of traditional philosophy is reappropriated with Tertullian’s theocentric description of the holy man.

One can see in the dual aspect of patience (patientia animi and patientia corporis), a synthesis of the ideals of a philosophical individual and a man of culture. Yet, quite dissimilar to the acquisition of technical skill in living a virtuous life, as in the case of a philosopher or the sophistication of a man of letters, an encounter with Christ is not just a mere exemplary didacticism, but a path towards God (Apol. 21. 28). Tertullian, however, does not propose a mere imitation of Christ. Instead it is more of a “veritable participation mystique á la vie meme du Christ.”1109 Hence, faith in Christ brings endurance, and patience becomes a sign of sanctity.

Through patience, sanctity can be predicated to mortal flesh. This is true in the continence of the flesh that keeps the widow pure, sets on the virgin the seal and raises the eunuch to

1104 Ibid. 192. 1105 Pat. 2.1: Nobis exercendae patientiae auctoritatem non adfectatio humana caninae aequanimitatis stupore formata, sed vivae ac caelestis disciplinae divina dispositio delegat, Deum ipsum ostendens patientiae exemplum. 1106 Fredouille (1972: 390). 1107 Pat. 1.1. 1108 Ibid. 15.1: si iniuriam deposueris penes eum, ultor est; si damnum, restitutor est; si dolorem, medicus est; si mortem, resuscitator est. On the theme of Christus medicus in the early Church see Arbesmann (1954). 1109 Fredouille (1972: 401).

209 heaven.1110 The moral rectitude of Epictetus in the civic sphere and the roving holy man of

Philostratus both find resonances in the Christian individual imbued with Christian patience.

Furthermore, the Christian virtue of patience does not necessarily reject the secular world

(saeculum) but patience allows the Christian individual to treat vicissitudes inherent in the saeculum as propaedeutic in the exercise of generosity and civility.1111 If one has to look for a definition of what religio means in Tertullian, it is that which distinguishes the virtue of a

Christian individual in the public realm — a difference that does not nullify the claim of traditional philosophical practices yet is ineffectual without the grace of Christ to bind human follies.

V. Summary

The difficulty of talking about Christian faith in its Roman North African religious milieu lies in

Tertullian’s understanding of religio which is quite different from that of his fellow citizens. This issue comes to a head in the refusal of Christians to perform non-Christian religious rituals.

Tertullian presents religious faith as a search for truth while his contemporaries view it within the “normative structures of social and political power,”1112 as in the case of imperial cult.

Moreover, as Tertullian attests, no Christian was arraigned for refusing to worship any deity except in conjunction with the imperial cult. Tertullian took the opportunity to open a discourse on the veracity of Christian faith. Hence, the Apologeticum can be appropriately called a rhetorical piece on religio.

1110 Pat. 13.5. 1111 Ibid. 7.9: Patientia in detrimentis exercitatio est largiendi et communicandi: non piget donare eum qui non timet perdere. 1112 Cf. Ando (2012: 131).

210 I analyzed two important discourses in Tertullian’s work in his attempt to establish

Christianity as vera religio.1113 First, Tertullian’s writings seem to exhibit the antithesis between

Athens and Jerusalem (Praescr. Haer. 7.9), philosophy and Christian faith, and the difference between the person who corrupts the truth from the one who restores and proclaims it (Apol.

46.18). But as I have demonstrated in the previous chapters, this apologetic strategy of

Tertullian did not represent a rejection of paideia and classical culture.1114 Rather, Christianity is presented as the better philosophy (Pall. 6.2). In the Apologeticum, Tertullian coined the phrase libertas religionis.1115 With the aid of philosophy and forensic argumentation, libertas religionis demonstrates the encounter between Tertullian’s notions of individuality (anthropology) and the “coercive aspects” of civic religion, such as the imperial cult. The key term in the articulation of Christian faith is veritas. Tertullian’s lengthy discourse on religious freedom of the individual is anchored in the exercise of personal choice based on truth. Generations of

Christian apologists were influenced by Tertullian’s rhetoric of vera religio especially Lactantius in his Institutiones Divinae. (V.19.23: nihil est enim tam voluntarium quam religio).1116

Second, another important strategy is the establishment of the authority of Christ reflected in the Christian notion of holiness and the exemplary life of a holy man. While his argument for libertas religionis and his criticism of imperial cult aimed to carve out a place for

Christianity in the political and religious negotiations of Roman society, the Christian notion of holiness proposed Christian faith as an integration of ethical living, culture, and spiritual progress germane to the pursuit of virtue by intellectuals of the imperial period. That is why for

1113 Minucius Felix’s experience spurred him to write the Octavius (1.4: de tenebrarum profundo in lucem sapientiae et veritatis emergerem). 1114 See especially Chapter two. 1115 Apol. 24.6. 1116 V.19.23: nihil est enim tam voluntarium quam religio. Cf. DePalma Digeser (2000: 107–114).

211 Tertullian, Christian identity is not an exclusivist term but a synthesis of Christian faith and classical thought.

212 Conclusion

In the proemium of the Apologeticum, Tertullian stated the primary objective of his apologetic enterprise: “One thing meanwhile (Truth) is eager – not to be condemned without being known.”1117 The key word is ignorata and the whole of Tertullian’s apologetic endeavor was aimed to drive away the mist of ignorance about Christianity and earn assent to the truth of what was once hated.1118 Christian faith, as presented by Tertullian, is a dialectic of truth; and

Christian identity an expression and legitimisation of the Christian’s claim as part of the fabric of Roman North African society. Epideictic discourse provided an important tool in Tertullian’s creation of Christian narrative and articulation of identity.

The composite and seemingly disorganised treatment of various topics in the

Apologeticum and the Ad Nationes can be blamed to the desire of the African apologist to provide a Christian reflection or synthesis of the complex culture, politics, and religious practices of the Roman North African society. In my discussion of identity as a methodology in

Chapter One, I mentioned the various social and anthropological vectors that must be considered in using identity as a heuristic tool: historical, psychological, sociological, and religious. The chapters on Paideia, Individuality, Community, and Religion demonstrated that individual and communal identities are products of transcultural interaction and rely on the cosmopolitan repertoire of social and cultural capital.1119 The layering and fusion of legal, philosophical, cultural, and theological topics in the Apologeticum corroborate the complex processes of negotiation and articulation of Christian identity in Roman North African society.

1117 Apol. 1.2: Unum gestit interdum, ne ignorata damnetur. 1118 Nat. 1.1: …desinunt odisse qui desinunt ignorare, immo fiunt et ipsi quod oderant. 1119 Cf. pages 28–42.

213 Recently, various approaches to the reading of late ancient Christian texts have used social scientific tools, such as ethnography, gender, post-colonial theories, and power relations.

While these approaches generate immense benefits in recovering and understanding the role of the subalterns, women, and the humiliores in an otherwise elite-dominated narrative, their common pitfall is to forget that “late ancient Christianity deals not with native informants, nor with masses of data amenable to statistical analysis, but with texts … of a highly literary, rhetorical and ideological nature.”1120 The hypothesis that Tertullian was anti-Roman or that

Christianity was incompatible with classical culture are symptomatic of a failure to appreciate

Tertullian’s rhetoric and the complex socio-political processes within a heterogenous society.

Cameron argued that the notion of difference between pagans and Christians, in the work of

Christian authors, “must be read as a rhetorical device and a symptom of adjustment rather than as a description of a real situation.”1121 Of course, Guignebert, in his lengthy treatise on

Tertullian and Roman society, more than a century ago, detailed Tertullian’s immense effort to distinguish la vie chrétienne from la vie romaine.1122 Recently, it has been suggested that

Tertullian constructed Christian identity by creating boundaries between Christians and the rest of the world through the rhetoric of “Otherness.”1123 My work, by contrast, affirms that indeed la vie chrétienne and la vie romaine run on discrete tracks, but sometimes they converge, and are often parallel, at least in Tertullian’s apologetic writings. The rhetoric of binary opposition between Christianity and the “pagan” world does not give justice to the intricacy of Tertullian’s apologetic strategies.

1120 Clark (2004: 159). 1121 Cameron (1991: 7). 1122 Guignebert (1901). 1123 Cf. Jacobsen (2011).

214 My contribution to the scholarship on early Christianity, and specifically on Tertullian, is to bring out notions of collective consciousness without trivializing distinctions through literary topoi, such as the rhetoric of masculinity and the use of exempla and myth. Even Tertullian’s difficulty in engaging with the mechanics of the imperial cult is a positive indication of his sentiment to reconcile Christian beliefs with the ideologies and culture of his society. Harmony and tension characterize Tertullian’s construction of Christian identity for it is forged in the hearth of the social, cultural, and religious ferment of his time. Thus, for Tertullian, while

Christians call heaven their homeland (Mart. 3.3: politeia in caelis), they also walk on the same road with the rest of humanity (An. 35.2: incedens in eadem via vitae communis). This pronounced ambiguity already has its roots in the New Testament and the sub-apostolic period.1124 Both Hornus (1958) and Fredouille (1984) who studied the relationship between the

Roman state and Christianity in the writings of Tertullian concluded that the African apologist did not have a proper political advocacy against the ruling authority. Therefore, one must resist a totalitarian interpretation of Tertullian. The intricacies of Tertullian’s rhetoric and his protean mind led Osborn to describe him as “a complicated man in a complicated culture.”1125

Just as Tertullian’s understanding of Christian faith and what it meant to be a Christian constantly evolved, the Christian identity that emerged from his writing is a product of his dialectic with the truth. His unique treatise, the De Testimonio Animae, best exemplifies this

1124 Young (2000: 635–641) points out that name with an —anos ending in Latin, like Christianos, normally connotes membership in a political faction and the book of Revelation where Babylon is compared to Rome (Rev. 18: 10) depicts Christianity as an apocalyptic sect. However, both the 1 Pet. 2.17 and Rom. 13 call on Christians to respect the established authorities. This attitude is reflected in the accounts of Mart. of Polycarp. 1125 Osborn (2003: 34). The intricacies created by the demands of his faith on the one hand and his appreciation of Classical culture on the other is best described in Tertullian’s own words in Idol 14.5: Convivamus cum omnibus, conlaetemur ex comunione naturae, non superstitionis; pares anima sumus, non disciplina, compossessores mundi, non erroris.

215 approach.1126 The work appeals to the Aristotelean and Stoic conceptualization of human beings as capable of intellection and knowledge (Test. An. 1.5: animal rationale, sensus et scientiae capacissimum). This intellectual capacity of the soul is shared by all; hence, Tertullian could argue for the universality of veritas (Test. An. 6.3). Christianity is presented as a secta

(Test. An. 3.3) to qualify conversion to Christian faith as a search for truth, characteristic of philosophical schools. The individual soul, freed from the biases of culture, can verify the truth of Christian faith.1127 Hence, applied to my discussion of the primacy of individual choice in matters of faith, Tertullian can say that no one is born a Christian – rather, an individual becomes one.1128

Far from being inimical to classical culture, Tertullian did not attempt to deconstruct societal norms; but in his appreciation of the society where he was born, found within

Christianity a place for classical tradition and vice-versa. Although Tertullian believed that

Christian teachings were superior to Roman culture and values, they did not supplant them but offered a new logic of interpreting the past and so became effective agents of civilization. What was a nascent idea in Tertullian reached its full maturity generations later in Augustine’s De

Civitate Dei. Christian identity is a result of an ongoing process, but it was forged in the encounter between Christianity and Classical culture.

Tertullian continues to generate immense interest among modern scholars. But he remains elusive. He skilfully weaves his arguments between rhetoric and reality. Christian

“culture” in Roman North Africa developed through the skill of negotiation and through the

1126 Moreschini (2006) dated the work towards the end of 197 A.D. or the beginning of 198 A.D. 1127 Test. An. 1.6: Sed non eam te (anima) advoco, quae scholis formata, bybliothecis exercitata, academiis et porticibus Atticis pasta, sapientiam ructas. Te simplicem et rudem et impolitam et idioticam compello. 1128 Test. An. 1.7: fieri enim, non nasci solet christiana.

216 influence of Christian rhetoric in Roman society. This dissertation examined various aspects of this cultural engagement.

In the process of my investigation, other possibilities of evaluating this encounter emerged. First, Tertullian’s tendency to use Roman political analogies to refer to Christian assembly such as in Apol. 39.21: non est factio dicenda, sed curia, is not only highly suggestive of his desire to approximate Christianity to Roman society but also reflects the political dynamics of a Roman African civitas. This is especially true in the light of a recent study on inscriptions from the Severan period that argues that the ordo did not monopolise public honours but usually allowed the populus, the curiae and the individuals to do likewise.1129

Second, one can explore further the link between Tertullian’s rhetoric of individuality in his apologetic works with his theological and anthropological tracts on the resurrection of the body and the relationship between body and soul (e.g. De Carnis resurrectione and Adversus

Marcionem). There is need to examine the function of the Christian individual as a discursive device to disseminate Christian anthropology and encode Christian faith as the ideal expression of individuality within the value system of the Roman elite, for example the transition of “care for self” to “care for soul.”

Third, a latent assumption in my work, which can be emphasized even further, is the significance of Tertullian’s elite status. One study argues that Tertullian was an eques.1130 The ability of a provincial elite to haggle and negotiate with the ruling power proves that there was much flexibility in the dynamics of center and periphery of imperial Rome.1131 Tertullian tried all

1129 See, Dawson (2016). 1130 Schöllgen (1984). 1131 See, Bendlin (1997).

217 means at his disposal to influence popular opinion about Christians. He may exhibit negative sentiment towards Rome, but this always happened within the boundaries his status allowed him. That is why the Christian identity that emerged from his pen, far from being monolithic, constantly evolves and adapts to the complexity of his society.

218 Figures:

Figure 1: El Alia, Nilotic mosaic (panel 2). Bardo Museum, Tunis. Copyright by Nicolas Fauqué/ www.imagesdetunisie.com.

Figure 2: El Alia, Nilotic mosaic (panel 1). Bardo Museum. Copyright by Nicolas Fauqué/ www.imagesdetunisie.com.

219 Figure 3: Carthage, Dominus Julius mosaic. Bardo Museum, Tunis. Digital Image. Web. 30 Oct. 2017. < https://www.pinterest.ca/pin/524669425312576664/>

Figure 4: The Arch of Septimius Severus at Lepcis Magna, seen from the south-west. Marco Prins. Arch of Septimius Severus. Livius. 4 May 2017. Web. 1 June 2017.

220

Figure 5 (above) Severus and his wife Julia Domna depicted as Jupiter and Juno (Arch of Severus, Lepcis Magna). Marco Prins. Arch of Septimius Severus. Livius. 5 May 2017. Web. 1 June 2017. http://www.livius.org/articles/place/lepcis-magna/photos/lepcis-magna-arch-of-septimius-severus/

221 Editions and Translations (unless noted, I used the Latin text edited by Moreschini in the bilingual series of Città Nuova Editrice):

Tertullian, Apology, De Spectaculis; Minucius Felix, Octavius. Translated by T. R. Glover and G. H. Rendall, Cambridge, M.A., Harvard University Press, 1931.

Tertulliani Opera I-II, Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina, I-II, Turnhout 1954.

Tertulliano, Opere Apologetiche (Ad Martyras, Apologeticum, Ad Nationes, De Testimonio Animae, Adversus Iudaeos, Ad Scapulam). A cura di C. Moreschini and P. Podolak, Roma, Città Nuova Editrice, 2006.

Tertulliano, Opere Catechetiche (De Spectaculis, De Oratione, De Baptismo, De Patientia, De Poenitentia, Ad Uxorem, De Cultu Feminarum). A cura di S. Isetta, S. Matteoli, T. Piscitelli and V. Sturli, Roma, Città Nuova Editrice, 2008.

Tertulliano, Opere Dottrinali 3/2a (De Praescriptionibus, Adversus Hermogenem, Adversus Valentinianos, De Carne Christi). A cura di C. Micaelli, C. Moreschini. C. Tommasi Moreschini, 2010.

Tertulliano, Opere Dottrinali 3/2b (De Anima, De Carnis Resurrectione, Adversus Praxean). A cura di C. Moreschini and P. Podolak, Roma, Città Nuova Editrice, 2010.

Tertulliano, Opere Montaniste 4/1 (De Exhortatione Castitatis, De Corona, Scorpiace, De Fuga in Persecutione, De Idolatria). A cura di G. Azzali Bernardelli, F. Ruggiero, E. Sanzi, C. Schipani, Città Nuova Editrice, 2011.

Tertulliano, Opere Montaniste 4/2 (De Virginibus Velandis, De Monogamia, De Iuiunio Adversus Psychicos, De Pudicitia, De Pallio). A cura di A. Capone, S. Isetta, S. Matteoli, A. Persic, R. Uglione, Città Nuova Editrice, 2012.

222 Bibliography

Académie des inscriptions & belles-lettres (France), Georges Lafaye, Adrien Blanchet, Paul Gauckler, Félix Georges de Pachtère, and A. Merlin. Inventaire des mosaïques de la Gaule et de l'Afrique. Vol. 2 Paris: E. Leroux, 1910.

Adams, J. N. The Regional Diversification of Latin, 200 BC-AD 600. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Ahondopke, A. Z., La vision de Rome chez Tertullien. 2 vols. Lille: Université de Lille III, 1992.

Alesse, Francesca. Panezio di Rodi e la tradizione stoica. [Napoli]: Bibliopolis, 1994.

Alexandre, Jérôme. “L’étonnement chez Tertullien. Une categorie fondamentale de la conaissance et de la foi.” Revue des Études Augustiniennes 49 (2003): 5-23.

___. Le Christ de Tertullien. Paris: Desclée, 2004.

Alfödy, Géza. “Eine Proskriptionliste in der Historia Augusta.” BHAC 7 (1968-1969 [1970]) 1-11.

___. Fasti Hispanienses; senatorische reichsbeamte und offiziere in den Spanischen Provinzen des Römischen Reiches von Augustus bis Diokletian. Wiesbaden: F. Steiner, 1969.

___. “Subject and ruler, subjects and methods: an attempt at a conclusion.” in Subject and ruler: the cult of the ruling power in classical antiquity, edited by Alastair Small. 254-261. Ann Arbor, MI: Journal of Roman Archaeology, 1996.

Alfonsi, L. “Sull’ Ad martyras di Tertulliano.” in In memoriam A. Beltrami: miscellanea philologica. 39-49. Genova: Università di Genova, Facoltà di lettere, Istituto di filologia classica, 1954.

Ameling, W. “Femina liberaliter instituta: Some thoughts on a martyr’s liberal education.” in Perpetua’s Passions: Interdisciplinary Approaches to Passio Perpetuae et Felicitatis, edited by Jan Bremmer and Marco Formisano, 78-102. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Anderson, Graham. “The pepaideumenos in action: sophists and their outlook in the early Empire.” ANRW 2.33.1 (1989): 79-208.

___. The Second Sophistic: A Cultural Phenomenon in the Roman Empire. London: Routledge, 1993.

___. Sage, Saint, and Sophist: Holy Men and Their Associates in the Early Roman Empire. London: Routledge, 1994.

223 ___. “Athenaeus: the Sophistic Environment.” ANRW II. 34. 4 (1997): 2173-2185.

Ando, Clifford. Imperial Ideology and Provincial Loyalty in the Roman Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000.

___. The Matter of the Gods: Religion and the Roman Empire. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2008.

___. Imperial Rome AD 193 to 284: The Critical Century. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2012.

Andres, Friedrich. Die engel- und dämonenlehre der griechischen apologeten des zweiten jahrhunderts und ihr verhältnis zur griechisch-römischen dämonologie. Breslau: R. Nischkowsky, 1914.

Andresen, C. “Justin und der mittlere Platonismus.” ZNW 44 (1952-53): 157-195.

Angelelli, Franco. Tertulliano giurista e Padre della Chiesa, una unica figura storica. Roma: Pontificia Università Lateranense, 2001.

Aounallah, Samir. Pagus, castellum et civitas: études d'épigraphie et d'histoire sur le village et la cité en Afrique romaine. Pessac: Ausonius, 2010.

Apuleius, and John Arthur Hanson. Metamorphoses. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1996.

Apuleius, S. J. Harrison, John Hilton, and Vincent Hunink. Apuleius: Rhetorical Works. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Apuleius, and Vincent Hunink. Pro Se De Magia: Apologia. Amsterdam: J.C. Gieben, 1997.

Apuleius, and E. J. Kenney. Cupid & Psyche. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Arbesmann, Rudolph. “Minucius Felix: Octavius.” in Tertullian, Apologetical Works and Minucius Felix Octavius. New York: The Fathers of the Church, 1950.

___. “The concept of Christus Medicus in St. Augustine.” Traditio Vol. 10 (1954): 1-28.

Arnal, William. “The rhetoric of social construction: language and society in the Gospel of Thomas.” In Rhetoric and Reality in Early Christianities, edited by Willi Braun, 27-47. Waterloo, Ont: Published for the Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion/Corporation canadienne des sciences religieuses by Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2005.

Atkinson, J. E. “Seneca’s ‘Consolatio ad Polybium.” ANRW II.32.2 (1977): 860-884.

224

Aune, D. C. “Passions in the Pauline Epistles: the current state of research.” In Passions and Moral Progress in Greco-Roman Thought, edited by John T. Fitzgerald, 221-237. London: Routledge, 2008.

Axelson, Bertil. Das Prioritätsproblem Tertullian-Minucius Felix. Lund: H. Ohlssons boktryckeri, 1941.

Baharal, D. “Portraits of the Emperor L. Septimius Severus (193-211 A.D.) as an Expression of his Propaganda.” Latomus 48 (1989): 566-580.

Bardenhewer, Otto, and Thomas J. Shahan. Patrology: The Lives and Works of the Fathers of the Church. Freiburg im Breisgau: B. Herder, 1908.

Bardy, Gustave. La conversion au christianisme durant les premiers siècles. Paris: Aubier, 1949.

Barlow, Jonathan. “The Emergence of Identity/Alterity in Late Roman Ideology.” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte Bd. 53, H. 4 (2004): 501-502.

Barnes, Timothy David. “The Family and Career of Septimius Severus.” Historia: Zeitschrift für Alte Geschichte (1967): 87-107.

___. “Legislation against Christians.” Journal of Roman Studies 58 (1968): 32-50.

___. “Tertullian the Antiquarian.” Studia Patristica 14/3 (1976): 3-20.

___. Tertullian: A Historical and Literary Study. Second Edition. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985.

___. “Aspects of the Severan Empire, Part I: Severus as a New Augustus.” In New England Classical Journal 35.4 (2008): 251-67.

___. “Aspects of the Severan Empire, Part II: Christians in Roman Provincial Society.” In New England Classical Journal 36.1 (2009): 3-19.

Barton, Carlin and Boyarin, Daniel. Imagine No Religion. How modern abstractions hide ancient realities. New York: Fordham University Press, 2016.

Bartsch, Shadi. The Mirror of the Self: Sexuality, Self-Knowledge, and the Gaze in the Early Roman Empire. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006.

___; and David Wray. Seneca and the Self. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Bauman, R. A. “Tertullian and the crime of Sacrilegium.” JRH 4.3 (1967): 175-183.

225 Beard, Mary, John North, and S. R. F. Price. Religions of Rome. Vol. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Beare, R. “The Meaning of the oath by the safety of the Roman Emperor.” AJPh 99 (1978): 106- 110.

Becker, Carl. Apologeticum. Werden und Leistung München: Kösel-Verlag, 1954.

___. Tertullian: Apologeticum Verteidigung des Christentums. Lateinisch und deutsch. München: Kösel-Verlag, 1992.

Bélanger, R. “Le plaidoyer de Tertullien pour la liberté religieuse.” Sciences Religieuses 14/3 (1985): 281-291.

Belkahia, S. and Di Vita-Èvrard, G. “Magistratures autochtones dans les cités peregrines de l’Afrique proconsulaire.” In l’Afrique du Nord antique et médiévale, VIe colloque international, Pau, octobre, 1993, 118e congrès, Monuments funéraires, Institutions autochtones, éditions du CTHS (1995): 255-274.

Bell, Sinclair. “Role models in the Roman world.” in Role Models in the Roman World. Identity and Assimilation, edited by Sinclair Bell and Inge Lyse Hansen, 1-39. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2008.

Ben Khader, Aïcha Ben Abed, David Soren, and Martha Cooper. Carthage: A Mosaic of Ancient Tunisia. New York: American Museum of Natural History in association with W.W. Norton, 1987.

Bénabou, Marcel. La résistance africaine à la romanisation. Paris: F. Maspero, 1976.

Bendlin, Andreas. “Peripheral-Centres-Central Peripheries: Religious Communication in the Roman Empire.” in Römische Reichsreligion und Provinzialreligion, edited by Hubert Cancik and Jörg Rüpke, 35-68. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997.

___. “Looking beyond the civic compromise: Religious pluralism in late Republican Rome.” In Religion in Archaic and Republican Rome and Italy, edited by E. Bispham and C. Smith, 115-135. Edinburgh: Edinburg University Press, 2000.

___. “Eine Zusammenkunft um der religio willen ist erlaubt? zu den politischen und rechtlichen Konstruktionen von (religiöser).” In Die verrechtlichte Religion, edited by Hans Kippenberg and Gunnar Schuppert, 65-107. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.

___. “Associations, funerals, sociality, and Roman law: the collegium of Diana and Antinous in Lanuvium (CIL 14.212).” in Aposteldekret Und Antikes Vereinswesen: Gemeinschaft und ihre Ordnung, edited by Markus Ohler, 207-96. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011a

226

___. “On the uses of and disadvantages of divination: oracles and their literary representation in the time of the Second Sophistic.” In The Religious History of the Roman Empire: Pagans, Jews, and Christians, edited by J. A. North and S.R.F. Price, 175-250. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011b.

Benz, Ernst. Das todesproblem in der stoischen philosophie. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1929.

Berger, Peter L. Invitation to Sociology. A Humanistic Perspective. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1963.

Beschaouch, A. “Note sur le territoire de Carthage sous le Haut-Empire.” CRAI (1995): 861-870

Bhabha, Homi K. The Location of Culture. London: Routledge, 1994.

Bieler, Ludwig. Theios anēr. Das Bild des "Göttlichen Menschen" in Spätantike und Frühchristentum. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1967.

Birley, Anthony. Septimius Severus: The African Emperor. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1988.

Bisi, Anna Maria. Le stele puniche. Roma: Istituto di studi del vicino Oriente, Università, 1967.

Blanchard-Lemée, Michèle. Mosaics of Roman Africa: Floor Mosaics from Tunisia. 1996.

Borg, Barbara. Paideia: the world of the second sophistic. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004.

Bourdieu, Pierre, Outline of a Theory of Practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Bowersock, G. W. Greek Sophists in the Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1969.

___. “The imperial cult: perceptions and persistence.” In Jewish and Christian Self-definition vol. 3, edited by Ben Meyer and E. P. Sanders, 171-82. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982.

___. Martyrdom and Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Bowie, Ewen. “Greeks and their Past in the Second Sophistic.” Past and Present 46 (1970): 3-41.

___. “The Greeks and their Past in the Second Sophistic.” in Studies in Ancient Society, edited by M. I. Finley, 166-209. London: Routledge and K. Paul, 1974.

___. “Philostratus: the life of a sophist,” in Philostratus, edited by Ewen Bowie and Jaś Elsner, 19-32. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

227 Boyarin, Daniel. Dying for God: Martyrdom and the Making of Christianity and Judaism. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press, 1999.

Boys-Stones, G. R. Post-Hellenistic Philosophy. A Study of its Development from the Stoics to Origen. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001.

Bradley, Keith. “Law, Magic and Culture in the Apologia of Apuleius.” Phoenix 51 (1997): 203- 223.

___. “Apuleius and Carthage.” Ancient Narrative 4 (2005): 1-29.

Brahmi, N. “Genius et numen: deux manifestations du culte imperial à Volubilis.” L’Africa romana 16 (2004): 2183-2200.

Brakke, David, Michael L. Satlow, and Steven Weitzman. Religion and the Self in Antiquity. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2005.

Brandenburg, H. “Coemeterium: Der Wandel des Bestattungswesens als Zeichen des Kulturumbrucks der Spätantike.” Laverna 5 (1994): 206-232.

Braun, René. “Aux origines de la Chrétienté d’Afrique: un homme de combat.” Bulletin Budé 1.2 (1965): 189-208.

___. Deus Christianorum: recherches sur le vocabulaire doctrinal de Tertullien. Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1977.

___. “Sur la date, la composition et le texte de l’Ad Martyras de Tertullien.” REAug 24 (1978): 221-242.

___. “Tertullien et le Montaniste: Église institutionelle et église spirituelle.” RSLR 21 (1985) 245- 257.

___. “Observations sur L’architecture de l’Apologeticum.” In Approches de Tertullien. Vingt-six études sur l’auteur et sur l’oeuvre (1955-1990), 127-134. Paris: Institut d'études augustiniennes, 1992a.

___. “Sacralité et sainteté chez Tertullien.” In Approches de Tertullien. Vingt-six études sur l’auteur et sur l’oeuvre (1955-1990), 281-286. Paris: Institut d'études augustiniennes, 1992b.

___. “Sacré et Profane chez Tertullien.” In Approches de Tertullien. Vingt-six études sur l’auteur et sur l’oeuvre (1955-1990), 273-280. Paris: Institut d'études augustiniennes, 1992c.

228 Bremmer, J. “Christianus sum: the early Christian martyrs and Christ.” In Eulogia. Instrumenta patristica 24, edited by G. J. M. Bartelink, A. Hillhorst and C. Kneepkens, 11-20. Hague: Nijhoff International, 1991.

___., and Marco Formisano. Perpetua's Passions: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Passio Perpetuae Et Felicitatis. 2012.

Brenk, F. E. “In the light of the moon: Demonology in the Early Imperial Period.” ANRW II, 16.3 (1986): 2069-2145.

Brent, Allen. The Imperial Cult and the Development of Church Order: Concepts and Images of Authority in Paganism and Early Christianity Before the Age of Cyprian. Leiden: Brill, 1999.

___. Ignatius of Antioch and the Second Sophistic: A Study of an Early Christian Transformation of Pagan Culture. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006.

Briand-Ponsart, Claude, and Christophe Hugoniot. L'Afrique romaine: de l'Atlantique à la Tripolitaine 146 av. J.-C. - 533 ap. J.-C. Paris: A. Colin, 2005.

___; and Modéran, Yves. Provinces et identités provincials dans l’Afrique romaine. Caen: CRAHM, 2011.

Broughton, T. Robert S. The Romanization of Africa Proconsularis. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1929.

Brown, Peter. “The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity.” The Journal of Roman Studies Vol. 61 (1971): 80-101.

___. The Making of Late Antiquity. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1978.

___. The Body and Society: Men, Women, and Sexual Renunciation in Early Christianity. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988.

___. “The Rise and Function of the Holy Man in Late Antiquity, 1971-1997.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 6 (1998): 353-376.

Bruno, Michael J. S. Political Augustinianism: Modern Interpretations of Augustine's Political Thought. 2014.

Buell, Denise. Why this new race: Ethnic reasoning in early Christianity. New York: Columbia University Press (2005).

Bullo, S., “La Dea Caelestis nell’epigrafia Africana.” in L’ Africa Romana 11 (1994): 1597-628.

229 Burns Jr., J. P. and Jensen, R. Christianity in Roman Africa: the development of its practices and beliefs. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014.

Burrows, M. “Christianity in the Roman Forum: Tertullian and the Apologetic Use of History.” Vigiliae Christianae 42 (1988): 209-235.

Burrus, V. “Mapping as Metamorphosis: Initial Reflections on Gender and Ancient Religious Discourses.” In Mapping Gender in Ancient Religious Discourses, edited by Todd Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele, 1-10. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

Cadoppi, I. “Sul lessico giuridico nell’Apologeticum di Tertulliano.” Acme 49 (1996): 153-165.

Cadotte, Alain. La romanisation des dieux: l'interpretatio romana en Afrique du Nord sous le Haut-Empire. Leiden: Brill, 2007.

Calhoun, C. “Pierre Bourdieu.” In The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Major Social Theorists, edited by George Ritzer and Jeffrey Stepnisky, 361-394. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.

Cameron, Averil. Christianity and the Rhetoric of Empire: The Development of Christian Discourse. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991.

___. “Apologetics in the Roman Empire – a Genre of Intolerance?” in Humana Sapit. Études d’antiquité tardive offertes à Lellia Cracco Ruggini, edited by Lellia Cracco Ruggini, Jean-Michel Carrié, and Rita Lizzi Testa, 219-227. Turnhout, Belgium: Brepols, 2002.

___. Dialoguing in Late Antiquity. Washington, D.C.: Center for Hellenic Studies, Trustees for Harvard University, 2014.

Cancik, Hubert. “<> and <> in Stoic Anthropology: Some Remarks on Cicero, De Officiis I. 105-07.” in The Concept of Human Dignity in Human Rights Discourse, edited by David Kretzmer and Eckart Klein, 19-40. The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2002.

___; and Jörg Rüpke. Römische Reichsreligion und Provinzialreligion. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1997.

Cantalamessa, Raniero, and Tertullian. La cristologia di Tertulliano. Freiburgo, Svizzera: Edizioni universitarie, 1962.

Carrié, Jean-Michel and Aline Rousselle, L’empire romain en mutation des Sévères à Constantin 192-337. Paris: Éditions Seuil, 1999.

Cartledge, P., and M. Edge. “<>, Individuals, and Communities in Ancient Greece.” in A Companion to Greek and Roman Political Thought, edited by Ryan K. Balot, 149-163. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013.

230

Cary, Phillip. Augustine's Invention of the Inner Self: The Legacy of a Christian Platonist. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Castelli, Elizabeth A. Martyrdom and Memory: Early Christian Culture Making. New York: Columbia University Press, 2004.

Champlin, Edward. Fronto and Antonine Rome. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1980.

Chapot, Frédéric. “Langue du droit et littérature latine. À propos de quelques mots du vocabulaire de la propriété chez Tertullien.” In Antiquité tardive et humanisme: de Tertullien à Beatus Rhenanus: mélanges offerts à François Heim à l'occasion de son 70e anniversaire, edited by Yves Lehmann, Gérard Freyburger, James Hirstein, and François Heim, 3-24. Turnhout: Brepols, 2005.

___. “Ouverture et résistance. Deux approches de la relation de l’Église avec l’extérieur aux II – III siècles.” Revue des Sciences Religieuses 81 (2007): 7-26.

___. Virtus veritatis: langage et vérité dans l'œuvre de Tertullien. Paris: Institut d'études augustiniennes, 2009.

Clark, Elizabeth A. History, Theory, Text: Historians and the Linguistic Turn. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2004.

Cochrane, Charles Norris. Christianity and Classical Culture: A Study of Thought and Action from Augustus to Augustine. Oxford: The Clarendon Press, 1940.

Cohen, Shaye. “Those who say they are Jews and are not: How do you know a Jew in Antiquity when you see one?.” In Diasporas in Antiquity, edited by Shaye Cohen and Ernest Frerichs, 1-45. Atlanta, Ga: Scholars Press, 1993.

Colish, Marcia L. The Stoic Tradition from Antiquity to the Early Middle Ages. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1985.

Coltelloni-Trannoy, M. “Hercule en Maurétanie: mythe et géographie au début du principat.” In L’Afrique du nord antique et médievale: mémoire, identité et imaginaire : actes des journées d'études organisées par le GRHIS, Université de Rouen, 28 janvier 1998 et 10 mars 1999, edited by Claude Briand-Ponsart and Sylvie Crogiez, 41-58. [Rouen?]: Publications de l'université de Rouen, 2002.

Connolly, J. “Like the Labours of Heracles: andreia and paideia in Greek Culture under Rome.” In Andreia: Studies in Manliness and Courage in Classical Antiquity. Penn-Leiden Colloquium on Ancient Values, edited by Ralph Mark Rosen and I. Sluiter, 287-317. Leiden: Brill, 2003.

231

___. ‘Virile Tongues: Rhetoric and Masculinity’, in A Companion to Roman Rhetoric, edited by William Dominik and Jon Hall. Malden, 83-97. MA: Blackwell (2010) 83-97.

Conybeare, C. “Augustini Hipponensis Africitas.” The Journal of Medieval Latin 25 (2015): 111- 130.

Corbier, P. “Hercule africain, divinité indigene?” DHA (1974): 95-109.

Cordovana, Orietta Dora. Segni e immagini del potere tra antico e tardoantico: i Severi e la provincia Africa proconsularis. Catania: Prisma, 2007.

Courtois, C. “Saint Augustin et le problème de la survivance du punique.” in Rev. Af. 94 (1950): 259-282.

Cribiore, Raffaella, “Windows on a Woman’s World: some letters from .” In Making Silence Speak: Women’s Voices in Greek Literature and Society, edited by A. Lardinois and L. McClure, 223-239. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2001.

Daguet-Gagey, Anne. Septime Sévère: Rome, l'Afrique et l'Orient. Paris: Payot, 2000.

Dal Covolo, Enrico. I Severi e il cristianesimo: ricerche sull'ambiente storico-istituzionale delle origini cristiane tra il secondo e il terzo secolo. Roma: Las, 1989.

Daniel-Hughes, Carly. “The perils of idolatrous garb: Tertullian and Christian belonging in Roman Carthage.” In Religious Competition in the Greco-Roman World, edited by Nathaniel DesRosiers and Lily Vuong, 15-26. Atlanta: SBL Press, 2016.

Danièlou, Jean. Les anges et leur mission d’après les pères de l’église. Salzburg: Müller (1953).

Dawson, Christopher David. Intimate Communities. Honorific Statues and the Political Culture of the Cities of Africa Proconsularis in the First Three Centuries CE. Ph.D. Dissertation. York University, 2016.

De Filippo, J. “Curiositas and the Platonism of Apuleius’ Golden Ass.” AJPh 111 (1990): 471-492.

De Lacy, P. “The four Stoic personae.” Illinois Classical Studies 2 (1977) 163-172

Delattre, Alfred Louis. Gamart ou la nécropole juive de Carthage. Lyon: Mougin-Rusand, 1895.

___. “Deux hypogées de Gamart.” Revue Tunisienne (1904): 187-191.

DiCicco, Mario M. Paul's Use of Ethos, Pathos, and Logos in 2 Corinthians 10-13. Lewiston: Mellen Biblical Press, 1995.

232

Dickie, Matthew. Magic and Magicians in the Greco-Roman World. London: Routledge, 2001.

Diels, Hermann, and Walther Kranz. Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, griechisch und deutsch. [Berlin]: Weidmann, 1951.

Digeser, Elizabeth DePalma. The Making of a Christian Empire: Lactantius & Rome. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2000.

___. “Hellenes, Barbarians, and Christians: Religion and Identity Politics in Diocletian’s Rome.” In Shifting Frontiers VI, edited by R. Mathisen and D. Shanzer, 121-132. Surrey: Ashgate, 2011.

___. “Christian or Hellene? The Great Persecution and the Problem of Christian Identity.” In Religious Identity in Late Antiquity, edited by R. M. Frakes and Elizabeth DePalma Digeser, 36- 57. Toronto: Edgar Kent, 2006.

Dillon, John M. The Middle Platonists: A Study of Platonism, 80 B.C. to A.D. 220. London: Duckworth, 1996.

Dodaro, Robert. “Augustine on the Statesman and the Two Cities.” in A Companion to Augustine, edited by Mark Vessey and Shelley Reid, 386-397. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley- Blackwell, 2012.

Dodds, E. R. Pagan and Christian in an Age of Anxiety: Some Aspects of Religious Experience from Marcus Aurelius to Constantine. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1965.

Dondin-Payre, M. “L'intervention du proconsul d'Afrique dans la vie des cités.” In L'Afrique dans l'Occident romain (1er siècle av. J.-C. - IVe siècle ap. J.-C.): actes du colloque organisé par l'École française de Rome sous le patronage de l'Institut national d'archéologie et d'art de Tunis (Rome, 3-5 décembre 1987). École française de Rome, and Maʻhad al-Qawmī lil-Athār wa-al- Funūn bi-Tūnis, 333-349. Rome: École française de Rome, Palais Farnèse, 1990.

Dossey, Leslie. Peasant and Empire in Christian North Africa. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2010.

Dowden, K., and Niall Livingstone. “Thinking through myth, thinking myth through,” in A Companion to , edited by Ken Dowden and Niall Livingstone, 3-23. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.

Downing, F. G. “Cynics and Early Christianity.” In Le Cynisme ancien et ses prolongements: actes du colloque international du CNRS (Paris, 22-25 juillet 1991), edited by Marie-Odile Goulet-Cazé and Richard Goulet, 281-304. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1993.

233 Dracontius, Blossius Aemilius, and Helen Kaufmann. Dracontius, Romul. 10 (Medea): Einleitung, Text, Übersetzung und Kommentar. Heidelberg: Winter, 2006.

Dugan, J. Making a New Man: Ciceronian Self-Fashioning in the Rhetorical Works. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005.

Dunbabin, Katherine M. D. The Mosaics of Roman North Africa: Studies in Iconography and Patronage. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1978.

Dunn, Geoffrey. “A Survey of Tertullian’s soteriology.” Sacris Erudiri 42 (2003a): 61-86.

___. “<>. The Fulfilment of Daniel’s Prophetic Time-Frame in Tertullian’s Adversus Iudaeos.” Zeitschrift für Antikes Christentum 7 (2003b): 140-155.

___. Tertullian's Aduersus Iudaeos: A Rhetorical Analysis. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University of America Press, 2008.

Dunn, Shannon. “The female martyr and the politics of death: an examination of the martyr discourses of Perpetua and Wafa Idris.” Journal of the American Academy of Religion 78.1 (March 2010): 202-225.

Durkheim, Émile. “Individualism and the intellectuals.” In Durkheim on Religion: A Selection of Readings with Bibliographies, edited by W. S. F. Pickering, 59-73. London: Routledge & K. Paul, 1975.

Duval, Yvette. Chrétiens d'Afrique à l'aube de la paix constantinienne: les premiers échos de la grande persécution. Paris: Institut d'études augustiniennes, 2000.

Dzielska, Maria. Apollonius of Tyana in Legend and History. Roma: "L'Erma" di Bretschneider, 1986.

Edwards, C. The Politics of Immorality in Ancient Rome. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.

Edwards, M., Martin Goodman, Simon Price, and Christopher Rowland. “Introduction: Apologetics in the Roman World.” In Apologetics in the Roman Empire. Pagans, Jews and Christians, edited by Mark Edwards, Martin Goodman, S. R. F. Price, and Christopher Rowland, 1-13. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.

Elm, Susanna. “Introduction.” in The Holy Man Revisited (1971-1997): Charisma, Texts and Communities in Late Antiquity: Journal of Early Christian Studies 6:3, edited by Susanna Elm and Naomi Janowitz (1998): 343-351.

234 ___. “Gregory of Nazianzus: Mediation between Individual and Community.” in Group Identity and Religious Individuality in Late Antiquity, edited by Eric Rebillard and Jörg Rüpke, 89-107. Washington, D.C.: The Ctaholic University of America Press, 2015.

Erikson, Erik H. Identity and the Life Cycle: Selected Papers. New York: International Universities Press, 1959.

___. Dimensions of a New Identity. New York: Norton, 1974.

Eshleman, K., The Social World of Intellectuals in the Roman Empire. Sophists, Philosophers and Christians. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012.

Ewald, B. “Men, muscle and myth.” In Paideia: the World of the Second Sophistic, edited by Barbara Borg, 229-276. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004.

Fantham, E. “Aemilia Pudentilla: or the wealthy widow’s choice.” In Women in Antiquity. New assessments, edited by Richard Hawley and Barbara Levick, 220-232. London: Routledge, 1995.

Farina, William. Perpetua of Carthage: Portrait of a Third-Century Martyr. Jefferson, N.C.: McFarland, 2009.

Farrell, J. “The Phenomenology of Memory in Roman Culture.” Classical Journal vol. 92.4 (1997): 373-383.

Feil, Ernst. Religio. Die Geschichte eines neuzeitlichen Grundbegriffes vom Frühchristentum bis zur . Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1986.

Ferguson, Everett. Demonology of the Early Christian World. New York: E. Mellen Press, 1984.

Festugière, A. J. Le revelation d'Hermes Trismégiste. Paris: Gabalda, 1944.

Février, P. –A. “La religion et domination dans l’Afrique romaine.” Dialogues d’histoire ancienne vol. 2 (1976): 305-336.

___. “Urbanisation et urbanisme de l’Afrique romaine.” ANRW II, 10.2 (1982): 321-396.

Fiedrowicz, Michael. Apologie im frühen Christentum: die Kontroverse um den christlichen Wahrheitsanspruch in den ersten Jahrhunderten. Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2000.

___. “Introduction.” in On Christian Belief. The Works of Saint Augustine I/8, edited by Boniface Ramsey, 15-28. Hyde Park, N. Y.: New City Press, 2005.

Finamore, J. F. “Apuleius on the Platonic Gods.” in Reading Plato in Antiquity, edited by Harold Tarrant and Dirk Baltzly, 33-48. London: Duckworth, 2006

235

Fishwick, Duncan. “Genius and numen.” Harvard Theological Review 62 (1969): 356-367.

___. “The Development of Provincial Ruler Worship in the Western Roman Empire.” ANRW II.16.2 (1978): 1201-1253.

___. “Pliny and the Christians: the Rites ad imaginem principis.” American Journal of Ancient History 9 (1984 [1990]): 123-130.

___. “Une dédicace à la domus divina de Lambèse.” Histoire et archéologie de l'Afrique du Nord (actes du IIIe Colloque international réuni dans le cadre du 110e Congrès National des Sociétés Savantes, Montpellier 1-5 avril 1985), 367-372. Paris: C. T. H. S., 1986.

___. The Imperial Cult in the Latin West: Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire. Vol. 1.2. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1987.

___. “Sanctissimum numen: emperor or god?” ZPE 89 (1991a): 196-200.

___. The Imperial Cult in the Latin West: Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire. Vol. 2.1. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1991b.

___. “Le numen impérial en Afrique Romaine.” In Histoire et archéologie de l'Afrique du Nord Spectacles, vie portuaire, religions (Colloque international sur l'histoire et l'archéologie de l'Afrique du Nord), 83-94. Paris: Éd. du CTHS, 1992.

___. The Imperial Cult in the Latin West: Studies in the Ruler Cult of the Western Provinces of the Roman Empire. Vol. 3.3. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 2004.

Fitz, Jenö. Les Syriens à Intercisa. Bruxelles: Latomus, 1972.

Fitzgerald, John T. Passions and Moral Progress in Greco-Roman Thought. London: Routledge, 2008.

Foote, N. N. “Identification as the basis for a Theory of Motivation.” American Sociological review 16 (Feb. 1951): 14-21.

Fortenbaugh, W. W. “Aristotle’s Rhetoric on Emotions.” AGP (1970): 40-70.

Foucault, Michel. “L’ecriture de soi.” in Corps écrit 5 (1983): 3-23.

___. The History of Sexuality. Vol. 3. New York: Pantheon Books, 1988a.

___; Luther H. Martin, Huck Gutman, and Patrick H. Hutton. Technologies of the Self: A Seminar with Michel Foucault. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 1988b.

236

Foucher, Louis. Inventaire des mosaïques, feuille no 57 de l'Atlas archéologique: . Tunis: Institut national d'archéologie et arts, 1960.

Fowden, G. “The Pagan Holy Man in Late Antique Society.” Journal of Hellenic Studies Vol. 102 (1982): 33-59.

___. “Late Polytheism: The World-View.” In The Cambridge Ancient History. Second Edition Vol. XII, edited by A. Bowman, P. Garnsey, and A. Cameron, 521-537. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005a.

___. “Public Religion.” In The Cambridge Ancient History. Second Edition Vol. XII, edited by A. Bowman, P. Garnsey, and A. Cameron, 553-572. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005b.

Francis, James A. Subversive Virtue: Asceticism and Authority in the Second-Century Pagan World. University Park, Pa: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1995.

Fredouille, Jean-Claude. Tertullien et la conversion de la culture antique. Paris: Études augustiniennes, 1972.

___. “Tertullien et l’Empire.” Recherches Augustiniennes 19 (1984): 111-131.

___. “La théologie tripartite, modèle apologétique (Athénagore, Théophile, Tertullien).” In Res Sacrae. Hommages à Henri Le Bonniec, edited by Henri Le Bonniec, Danielle Porte, and Jean- Pierre Néraudau, 220-235. Bruxelles: Latomus, 1988.

___. “L’apologétique chrétienne antique: naissance d’un genre littéraire.” REAug 38 (1992): 219-234.

___. “L’apologétique chrétienne antique: metamorphoses d’un genre polymorphe.” REAug 41 (1995): 201-216.

___. “L’activité littéraire de Tertullien: les traités perdus.” Revue d’études augustiniennes et patristiques 54 (2008): 1-29.

Frend, W. H. C. Martyrdom and Persecution in the Early Church; A Study of a Conflict from the Maccabees to Donatus. [New York]: New York University Press, 1967.

___. The Donatist Church: A Movement of Protest in Roman North Africa. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1971.

___. “The North African Cult of Martyrs. From Apocalyptic to Hero-Worship.” Jenseitvorstellungen in antike und Christentum: gedenkschrift für Alfred Stuiber, edited by T.

237 Klauser, E. Dassmann and K. Thraede, 154-167. Münster Westfalen: Aschendorffsche Verlagsbuchhandlung, 1982.

Frézouls, Edmond. “Les sacerdoces païens traditionnels au IIIe s.: un dossier épigraphique.” Miscellanea historia ecclesiasticae VIII (1987): 3-26.

Gaertner, Jan Felix. Writing Exile: The Discourse of Displacement in the Greco-Roman Antiquity and Beyond. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2007.

Gagé, Jean. Les classes sociales dans l'Empire romain. Paris: Payot, 1964.

Galinsky, Karl. “Continuity and Change: Religion in the Augustan Semi-Century.” in A Companion to Roman Religion, edited by Jörg Rüpke, 71-82 Oxford: Blackwell, 2011a.

___. “The Cult of the Roman Emperor: Uniter or Divider.” In Rome and Religion: a cross- disciplinary dialogue on the imperial cult, edited by Jeffrey Brodd and Jonathan L. Reed, 1-21. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011b.

___. “Introduction.” In Memory in Ancient Rome and Early Christianity, edited by Karl Galinsky, 7-10 Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.

Galli, M. “Creating religious identities: Paideia e religione nella Seconda Sofistica.” In Paideia: The World of Second Sophistic, edited by B. Borg, 315-356. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 2004.

Gascou, J. “La politique municipale de Rome en Afrique de Nord.” ANRW II. 10. 2 (1982): 136- 320.

Geertz, Clifford. The Interpretation of Cultures: Selected Essays. 1973.

Georges, Tobias. “Retorsio aus theologischer Perspektiv. Gerichtsszene und maiestas in Tertullians Apologeticum.” In Früchristentum und Kultur, edited by Ferdinand-Rupert Prostmeier, 223-235. Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2007.

___. ‘Occultum and manifestum: Some Remarks on Tertullian’s Apologeticum,’ in Continuity and Discontinuity in Early Christian Apologetics, edited by J. Ulrich, A.-C. Jacobsen, M. Kahlos, 35-48. Frankfurt am Main: Lang, 2009.

Gill, Christopher. “Personhood and personality: the four-personae theory in Cicero De Officiis 1.” Oxford Studies in Ancient Philosophy 6 (1988): 169-99.

___. “Stoic writers of the imperial era.” in The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought, edited by C. Rowe and M. Schofield, 597-615. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

238 ___. The Structured Self in Hellenistic and Roman Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

Gleason, Maud. Making Men: Sophists and Self-Presentation in Ancient Rome. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1995.

___. “Elite Male Identity in the Roman Empire.” In Life, Death, and Entertainment in the Roman Empire, edited by D. Potter and D. Mattingly, 67-84. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1999.

Gleason, P. “Identifying Identity. A Semantic History.” Journal of American History 69 (1983): 910-931.

Goldhill, Simon. “The erotic eye: visual stimulation and cultural conflict.” In Being Greek Under Rome: Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic and the Development of Empire, edited by Simon Goldhill, 154-194. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Gourinat, Jean-Baptiste. La dialectique des Stoïciens.Paris. Librairie philosophique Vrin. 2000.

Gowing, Alain. “Cassius Dio on the reign of Nero.” ANRW II. 34.3 (1997): 2558-2590.

___. Empire and Memory: The Representation of the in Imperial Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Graf, F. “Myth in Christian Authors.” A Companion to Greek Mythology, edited by Ken Dowden and Niall Livingstone, 319-337. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell, 2014.

Grant, Robert M. “The Chronology of the Greek Apologists.” VC 9 (1955): 25-33.

___. Augustus to Constantine; The Thrust of the Christian Movement into the Roman World. New York: Harper & Row, 1970.

___. “The Social Setting of Second-Century Christianity.” in Jewish and Christian Self-Definition: The Shaping of Christianity in the Second and Third Centuries, edited by E. P. Sanders, 16-29. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.

___. “Five apologists and Marcus Aurelius.” VC 42 (1988): 1-17.

Graverini, Luca. Le Metamorfosi di Apuleio: letteratura e identità. Ospedaletto (Pisa): Pacini, 2007.

___. “The negotiation of Provincial Identity through Literature: Apuleius and Vergil.” In Apuleius and Africa, edited by B. T. Lee, E. Finkelpearl and L. Graverini, 112-128. New York; London: Routledge, 2014.

239

___, and Benjamin Todd Lee. Literature and Identity in the Golden Ass of Apuleius. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 2012.

Gregg, Robert C. Consolation Philosophy: Greek and Christian Paideia in Basil and the Two Gregories. Cambridge, Mass: Philadelphia Patristic Foundation, 1975.

Groh, D. E., Christian Community in the writings of Tertullian. An Inquiry into the nature and problems of community in North African Christianity. unpublished PhD dissertation. Chicago, Illinois: Northwestern University, 1970.

___. “Upper Class Christians in Tertullian’s Africa: some observations.” in Studia Patristica vol. 14 (1976): 41-47.

Gros, Pierre. Byrsa: mission archéologique française à Carthage III, CÉFR, 41. Rome, 1985.

___. “Les bātiments administratifs de la Carthage romaine.” MDAI (R) 104 (1997): 341-350.

___. “Carthage romaine: Résurrection d’une capitale.” In Mégapoles méditerranéennes: Géographie urbaine rétrospective, edited by Jean-Charles Depaule, Robert Ilbert, and Claude Nicolet, 534-544. Rome: École Française de Rome, 2000.

Groslambert, A. “Lambèse: statut et institutions de l’époque de Septime Sévère à celle de Constantin.” In L’Empire romain de la mort de Commode a Concile de Nicée, edited by Marie- Pierre Arnaud-Lindet and Yann Le Bohec, 61-74. Paris: Editions du Temps, 1997.

Grosse, S. “Christliche Apologetik als Integration und Konfrontation. Grundstrukturen der Apologetik Tertullians.” Theologie und Philosophie 79 (2004): 161-173.

Gruen, Erich S. Cultural Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2011.

Guignebert, Charles. Tertullien; étude sur ses sentiments à l'égard de l'empire et de la société civile. Paris: E. Lereux, 1901. Gundel, H. G. “Devotus numini maiestatique eius.” Epigraphica 15 (1953): 128-150.

Gunderson, Eric. Staging Masculinity: The Rhetoric of Performance in the Roman World. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2000.

Habinek, Thomas N. The Politics of Latin Literature: Writing, Identity, and Empire in Ancient Rome. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1998.

Hadot, Pierre, and Arnold I. Davidson. Philosophy As a Way of Life: Spiritual Exercises from Socrates to Foucault. Malden, MA: Blackwell, 1995.

240

Haeussler, Ralph. Becoming Roman? Diverging Identities and Experiences in Ancient Northwest Italy. Walnut Creek, CA: Left Coast Press, 2013.

Haffter, H. “Neue Arbeiten zum Problem der Humanitas.” Philologus vol. 100 (1956): 287-304.

Halbwachs, Maurice. Les cadres sociaux de la mémoire. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1952.

___. La Mémoire collective. Paris: Presses universitaires de France, 1968.

Hall, Jonathan M. Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Halsberghe, G. H. “Le culte de Dea Caelestis.” ANRW II 17.4 (1984): 2203-2223.

Hamblenne, P. “L’Exemplum formel dans l’oeuvre conservé de Jérome.” Augustinianum 36.1 (1996): 93-146.

Hamman, A.-G. L'homme, image de Dieu: essai d'une anthropologie chrétienne dans l'Eglise des cinq premiers siècles. Paris: Desclée, 1987.

Hankinson, R. J. “Stoic Epistemology.” in The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics, edited by Brad Inwood, 59-84. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Hanson, R. P. C. Allegory and Event; A Study of the Sources and Significance of Origen's Interpretation of Scripture. Richmond: John Knox Press, 1959.

Harland, Philip. “Honours and worship: Emperors, imperial cults and associations at Ephesus (first to third centuries C.E.).” Studies in Religion 25.3 (1996): 319-334.

___. Dynamics of Identity in the World of the Early Christians: Associations, Judeans, and Cultural Minorities. New York: T & T Clark, 2009.

Harnack, Adolph von. Der Vorwurf des Atheismus in den drei ersten Jahrhunderten Leipzig: J. C. Hinrichs, 1905.

___. The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries. London: Williams and Norgate, 1972.

Harrison, S. J. Apuleius: A Latin Sophist. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

___. “Apuleius, Aelius Aristides and Religious Autobiography.” Ancient Narrative 1 (2000-1): 245-259.

241

Haverfield, F. The Romanization of Roman Britain. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1923.

Hedrick, Jr., C. “Literature and Communication.” In The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World, edited by Michael Peachin, 167-190. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Heffernan, Thomas J. The Passion of Perpetua and Felicity. New York: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Heinze, R. Tertullians Apologeticum. Leipzig, 1910.

Henne, Philippe. Tertullien L’Africain. Paris. Cerf. 2011.

Hijmans, Jr., B. L. “Apuleius, philosophus platonicus.” ANRW II. 36.1 (1987): 395-475.

___. “Apuleius orator: Pro se de magia and Florida.” in ANRW II. 34.2 (1994): 1708-1784.

Hoffmann, Ernst. Leben und Tod in der stoischen Philosophie: Vortrag gehalten am 5. April 1946 im Vorsemesterkurs der Universität Heidelberg. Heidelberg: F.H. Kerle Verlag, 1946.

Holmes, Michael W. The Apostolic Fathers: Greek texts and English translations. Grand Rapids, Mich: Baker Books, 1999.

Hooker, W. “Cupid and Psyche as a Platonic myth.” The Bucknell Review 5.3 (1955): 24-38.

Hoppe, Heinrich. Beiträge zur Sprache und Kritik Tertullians. Lund: Berlingska boktryckeriet. 1932.

Hornus, J. M. “Etude sur la pensée politique de Tertullien.” RHPR 38 (1958): 1-38.

Hugoniot, C. “Decuriones splendidissimae coloniae Karthaginis: les décurions de Carthage au IIIè siècle.” In La « crise » de l'Empire romain de Marc Aurèle à Constantin. Mutations, continuités, ruptures, edited by Marie-Henriette Quet, 385-415. Paris: Presses de l'Université Paris- Sorbonne, 2006.

Hunink, Vincent. “Apuleius, Pudentilla and Christianity.” VChr 54 (2000): 80-94.

Inwood, Brad. Reading Seneca: Stoic Philosophy at Rome. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2005.

___. “Seneca and Self-assertion.” in Seneca and the Self, edited by Shadi Bartsch and David Wray, 39-64. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

___. and Pierluigi Donini. “Stoic Ethics.” In The Cambridge History of Hellenistic Philosophy, edited by Keimpe Algra, 675-738. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

242

Irmscher, J. “Das römische Karthago als Zentrum der Wissenschaften.” L’africa Romana 11 (1996): 111-125.

Irwin, E. “Gender, status and identity in a North African Martyrdom.” in Gli imperatori Severi: storia, archeologia e religione, edited by Enrico Dal Covolo and Giancarlo Rinaldi, 251-260. Roma: LAS, 1999.

Jacobsen, Anders-Christian. “Images of the Others in Tertullian.” In The Faces of the Other: religious rivalry and ethnic encounters in the later Roman world, edited by M. Kahlos, 105-134. Turnhout: Brepols, 2011.

Jaeger, Werner, and Gilbert Highet. Paideia: The Ideals of Greek Culture. Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1934.

Johnson, William. Readers and Reading Culture in the High Roman Empire. A study of Elite Communities. New York: Oxford University Press. 2010.

Joly, Robert. Christianisme et philosophie: études sur Justin et les apologistes grecs du deuxième siècle. Bruxelles: Éditions de l'Université de Bruxelles, 1973.

Jones, C. P. “An Epigram on Apollonius of Tyana.” JHS 100 (1980): 190-194.

Jones, D. “Christianity and the Roman Imperial Cult.” ANRW II.23.2 (1980):1023-1054.

Kahlos, Maijastina. Debate and Dialogue: Christian and Pagan Cultures C. 360-430. Aldershot, England: Ashgate Pub., 2007.

Kahn, C. “Discovering the Will: From Homer to Augustine.” in The Question to ‘Eclecticism’: Studies in Later Greek Philosophy, edited by John Dillon and A. A. Long, 234-259. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988.

Kannengiesser, Charles. Handbook of Patristic Exegesis: The Bible in Ancient Christianity. Vols. 1 and 2. Leiden: Brill, 2004.

Kehoe, D. “Private and Imperial Management of Roman Estates in North Africa.” Law and History Review Vol. 2, No. 2 (Autumn, 1984): 241-263.

Kelley, N. “Philosophy as training for death: reading the ancient martyr Acts as spiritual exercise.” Church History 75.4 (2006): 723-747.

Kendeffy, G. “Lactantius on the Passions.” Acta Classica Universitatis Scientiarum Debreceniensis 26 (2000): 113-129.

243 Khanoussi, M. “L'évolution urbaine de Thugga () en Afrique proconsulaire: de l'agglomération numide à la ville africo-romaine.” Comptes rendus des séances de l'Académie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres 147 (2003): 131-155.

Kirschner, R. “The vocation of Holiness in Late Antiquity.” Vigiliae Christianae 38.2 (June 1984): 105-124.

Kitzler, Petr. “Nihil enim anima si non corpus. Tertullian und die Körperlichkeit der Seele.” in Wiener Studien 122 (2009): 145-169.

___. From ‘Passio Perpetuae’ to ‘Acta Perpetuae’: Recontextualizing a Martyr Story in the Literature of the Early Church. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015.

Klein, Richard. Tertullian und das römische Reich. Heidelberg: C. Winter, 1968.

Knust, J. “Enslaved to Demons: Sex, Violence and the Apologies of Justin Martyr.” in Mapping Gender in Ancient Religious Discourses, edited by Todd Penner and Caroline Vander Stichele, 431-456. Leiden: Brill, 2006.

Knuuttila, S. “Time and creation in Augustine.” In The Cambridge Companion to Augustine edited by Eleonore Stump and Norman Kretzmann, 103-115. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Korenjak, Martin. Publikum und Redner: ihre Interaktion in der sophistischen Rhetorik der Kaiserzeit. München: C.H. Beck, 2000.

Kotula, T. “Utraque lingua eruditi.” in Hommages á Marcel Renard vol.2, 386-392. Bruxelles, 1969.

___. “Principales almae Karthaginis.” AA 14 (1979): 237-245.

Kouri, E. I., Tertullian und die römische Antike Luther-Agricola-Gesellschaft. 1982.

Krentz, E. M. “ΠΑΘΗ and ΑΠΑΘΕΙΑ in Early Roman Empire Stoics.” in Passions and Moral Progress in Greco-Roman Thought, edited by John Fitzgerald, 122-135. London: Routledge, 2008.

Labhardt, A. “Tertullien et la philosophie ou la recherché d’une ‘position pure.” MH 7 (1950): 159-180.

Lancel, Serge. “Y a-t-il une Africitas?.” REL 63 (1985): 161-182.

___. Carthage: A History. Oxford, UK: Blackwell, 1995.

244 Lardinois, A. P. M. H., and Laura McClure. Making Silence Speak: Women's Voices in Greek Literature and Society. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2001.

Lassère, Jean-Marie. Ubique populus: peuplement et mouvements de population dans l'Afrique romaine de la chute de Carthage à la fin de la dynastie des Sévères (146 a.C.-235 p.C.). Paris: Editions du Centre national de la recherche scientifique, 1977.

___. “La culture latine des citoyens romains d’Afrique d’après les poèmes du mausolée des Flavii à Cillium (CIL VIII, 212-213).” in L’Afrique dans l’Occident romain. 1er siècle av. J. –C. –IVe siècle ap. J.-C. CÉFR 134 (1990): 49-61.

___. Manuel d’épigraphie romaine. Vol. 1. Paris: Picard, 2011.

Lassus, J., “Adaptation à l’Afrique de l’urbanisme romain.” Actes du VIIIe Congrès international d’archéologie classique, 245-259. Paris, 1965.

Le Bart, Christian. L'individualisation. Paris: Sciences Po, les presses, 2008.

Le Bohec, Yann. “De Sila à Gadiaufala: urbanisation et municipalisation dans la Numidie cirtéene méridionale.” In L'Afrique dans l'Occident romain (1er siècle av. J.-C. - IVe siècle ap. J.- C.): actes du colloque organisé par l'École française de Rome sous le patronage de l'Institut national d'archéologie et d'art de Tunis (Rome, 3-5 décembre 1987). École française de Rome, and Maʻhad al-Qawmī lil-Athār wa-al-Funūn bi-Tūnis, 291-313. Rome: École française de Rome, Palais Farnèse, 1990.

___. “Bilan des recherches sur le judaïsme au Maghreb dans l’Antiquité.” Espacio, Tiempo y Forma, Serie II, Antigua 16 (1993): 551-566.

___. Histoire de l'Afrique romaine: 146 avant J.-C.-439 après J.-C. Paris: Picard, 2005.

Le Glay, Marcel. “La vie intellectuelle d’une cite africaine.” Latomus 44 (1960): 485-491.

___. Saturne africain, histoire. Paris: E. de Boccard, 1966.

___. “Les Flaviens et l’Afrique.” MEFR 80 (1968): 201-246.

___. “Les dieux de l’Afrique romaine.” Archeologia 39 (1971): 48-55; and 40 (1971): 60-69.

___. “Les syncrétismes dans l’Afrique ancienne.” in Les syncrétismes dans les religions de l’Antiquité, Colloque de Besançon (22-23 Octobre 1973), edited by Françoise Dunand and Pierre Lévêque, 121-151, Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1975.

___. “Les religions de L’Afrique romaine au II siècle d’après Apulée et les inscriptions.” L’Africa romana 1 (1983): 47-61.

245

___. “Un centre de syncrétisme en Afrique: Thamugadi de Numidie.” L’Africa Romana 8 (1991) 67-78.

Leal, Jerónimo. La antropologı́a de Tertuliano: estudio de los tratados polémicos de los años 207- 212 d.C. Roma: Institutum Patristicum Augustinianum, 2001.

Lechner, Thomas. “Very sophisticated? Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in der Welt der Zweiten Sophistik.” Millenium 8 (2011): 51-86.

Lepelley, Claude. “Ubique respublica. Tertullien, témoin méconnu de l’essor des cites africaines à l’époque sévérienne.” In L'Afrique dans l'Occident romain (1er siècle av. J.-C. - IVe siècle ap. J.- C.): actes du colloque organisé par l'École française de Rome sous le patronage de l'Institut national d'archéologie et d'art de Tunis (Rome, 3-5 décembre 1987). École française de Rome, and Maʻhad al-Qawmī lil-Athār wa-al-Funūn bi-Tūnis, 403-421. Rome: École française de Rome, Palais Farnèse, 1990.

Letta, C. “La famiglia di Settimio Severo.” L’Africa Romana IV (1986): 531-545.

Lévêque, Pierre. Aurea catena Homeri: une étude sur l'allégorie grecque. Paris: Les Belles lettres, 1959.

Lewis, N. D. “The Crafting of Memory in Late Roman Mortuary Spaces.” In Memory in Ancient Rome and Early Christianity, edited by Karl Galinsky, 263-285. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.

Lichtenberger, Achim. Severus Pius Augustus: Studien zur sakralen Reprasentation und Rezeption der Herrschaft des Septimius Severus und seiner Familie (193-211 n. chr.). Leiden: Brill, 2011.

Lieberg, G. “Die römische Religion bei Minucius Felix.” RhM 106 (1963): 62-79.

___. “Die theologia tripartita in Forschung und Bezeugung.” ANRW I. 4 (1973): 63-115.

___. “Considerazione sull’etimologia e sul significato di religio.” Rivista di Filologia e di Istruzione Classica (1974): 34-57.

Liebeschuetz, W. “Pagan Mythology in the Christian Empire.” IJCT 2.2 (Fall 1995): 193-208.

Lieu, Judith. Christian Identity in the Jewish and Graeco-Roman World. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

___. Neither Jew nor Greek? Constructing Early Christianity. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2005.

246 ___. “The Audience of Apologetics: the Problem of the Martyr Acts.” In Contextualising Early Christian Martyrdom, edited by Jakob Engberg, Vera Eriksen, and Anders Klostergaard Petersen, 205-223. Frankfurt am Main: B Peter Lang, 2011.

Lo Cascio, E. “The Age of the Severans.” In The Cambridge Ancient History. Second Edition. Vol. XII, edited by A. Bowman, P. Garnsey, and A. Cameron, 131-155. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Long, A. A. Stoic Studies. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press, 1996.

___. Epictetus: A Stoic and Socratic Guide to Life. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2002.

Lortz, Joseph Adam. Tertullian als Apologet 1. 1. Münster (Westf.): Aschendorff, 1927.

Louth, A. “Fiunt, non nascuntur Christiani: Conversion, Community and Christian Identity In Late Antiquity.” Being a Christian in Late Antiquity. A Festschrift for Gillian Clark, edited by C. Harrison, C. Humfress and I. Sandwell, 109-119. Corby: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Lubac, Henri de. Theological Fragments. San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1989.

MacMullen, Ramsay. Enemies of the Roman Order: Treason, Unrest, and Alienation in the Empire. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1966.

___. “Tertullian and National Gods.” JTS 26 (1975): 405-410.

Maier, H. “Clement of Alexandria and the Care of the Self.” in Journal of Academy of Religion 62.3 (1994): 719-745.

Malingrey, Anne Marie. La littérature grecque chrétienne. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1996.

Marincola, John. Authority and Tradition in Ancient Historiography. Cambridge: Cambridge Univesity Press, 1997.

Markus, R. A. Saeculum: History and Society in the Theology of St. Augustine. Cambridge [England]: University Press, 1970.

___. “The Problem of Self-Definition: from Sect to Church.” In Jewish and Christian Self- Definition: The Shaping of Christianity in the Second and Third Centuries vol. 1, edited by E. P. Sanders, 1-15. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.

___. Signs and Meanings: World and Text in Ancient Christianity. Liverpool: Liverpool University Press, 1996.

___. Christianity and the Secular. Notre Dame, Ind: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006.

247

Marrou, Henri Irénée. “Civitas Dei, civitas terrena: num tertium quid?” Stud. Patr. 2 (TU 64) (1957): 342-350.

___ . A History of Education in Antiquity. [New York]: New American Library, 1964.

Martin, Dale B. Inventing Superstition: From the Hippocratics to the Christians. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 2004.

Martini, R. “Tertulliano giurista e Tertulliano padre della Chiesa.” Studia et Documenta Historiae et Iuris XLI (1975): 79-124.

Mattingly, D. J. “Being Roman: Expressing identity in a provincial setting.” JRA 17 (2004): 5-25.

___. Imperialism, Power, and Identity: Experiencing the Roman Empire. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 2011.

Mattingly, H. “The Consecration of Faustina the Elder and her Daughter.” HTR 41 (1948): 147- 151.

McCann, A. M. The Portraits of Septimius Severus, AD 193-211 (Mem. Amer. Acad. Rome 30) Rome: American Academy in Rome, 1968.

McDonnell, Myles Anthony. Roman Manliness: Virtus and the Roman Republic. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

McLaren, J. “Jews and the Imperial Cult: From Augustus to Domitian.” Journal for the Study of the New Testament 27.3 (2005): 257-278.

Mead, Margaret. And Keep Your Powder Dry. An Anthropologist Looks at America. New York: W. Morrow and Co, 1942.

Meyer, B. F., and E. P. Sanders. Jewish and Christian Self-Definition. Vol. 3. Philadelphia: Fortress Press. 1982

Micaelli, C. “Tertulliano e il montanismo in Africa.” in Africa cristiana. Storia, religione, letteratura, edited by M. Marin and C. Moreschini, 15-49. Brescia: Morcelliana, 2002.

Milbrandt, T., and F. Pearce. “Émile Durkheim.” The Wiley-Blackwell Companion to Major Social Theorists. First Edition, edited by G. Ritzer and J. Stepnisky, 236-282. MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2011.

Miles, G. “Roman and Modern Imperialism: a Reassessment.” Comparative Studies in Society and History vol. 32, no. 4 (Oct. 1990): 629-659.

248

Millar, F. “The Imperial Cult and the Persecutions.” in Le Culte des Souverains dans L’empire Romain (Entretiens sur l’Antiquité Classique Tome XIX), edited by E. J. Bickerman, Denis van Berchem, and Willem den Boer, 143-165. Genève: Hardt, 1973.

Miller, Patricia Cox. Biography in Late Antiquity: A Quest for the Holy Man. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983.

___. “On the Edge of Self and Others: Holy Bodies in Late Antiquity.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 17. 2 (2009): 171-193.

Millett, Martin. The Romanization of Britain: An Essay in Archaeological Interpretation. Cambridge [England]: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Milnor, K. “Women in Roman Society.” in The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World, edited by M. Peachin, 609-22. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Minnerath, R. “Un premier essai d’anthropologie chrétienne: Tertullien.” In Conceptualization of the Person in Social sciences (The proceedings of the Eleventh Plenary Session of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences November 2005), edited by Edmond Malinvaud and Mary Ann Glendon, 33-44. Vatican City: Pontifical Academy of Social Science, 2006

Modéran, Y. “La province, troisième patrie?” in Provinces et identités provincials dans l’Afrique romaine, edited by C. Briand-Ponsart and Y. Modéran, 9-40. Turnhout: Brepols, 2011

Mohrmann, C. Tertullianus. Apologeticum en andere geschriften ait Tertullianus' voor- montanistischen tijd Utrecht: Het Spectrum, 1951.

Molenaar, G. “Seneca’s use of the term ‘Conscientia’.” in Mnemosyne vol. 22, fasc. 2 (1969): 170-180.

Momigliano, A. “How Emperors became Gods.” American Scholar 55 (1986) 181-193.

___. The Development of Greek Biography. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1993.

Mommsen, Theodor, and William P. Dickson. The provinces of the Roman empire from Caesar to Diocletian. London: Macmillan, 1909.

Monceaux, Paul. Histoire littéraire de l'Afrique chrétienne depuis les origines jusquä l'invasion arabe. Paris: E. Leroux, 1901.

Moran, J. “Severus and Traditional Auctoritas.” in Gli imperatori Severi. storia, archeologia, religione, edited by E. Dal Covolo and G. Rinaldi, 31-38. Roma: LAS, 1999.

249 Moreschini, Claudio. Apuleio e il platonismo. Firenze: L.S. Olschki, 1978.

___. “Tertulliano tra Stoicismo e Platonismo.” in Kerygma und Logos: Festschrift für Carl Andresen zum 70. Geburtstag, edited by Carl Andresen and Adolf Martin Ritter, 367-379. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1979.

___ “Elio Aristide tra Retorica e Filosofia.” ANRW 2.34.2 (1994): 1234-1247.

___. “Tertulliano christianorum sophista.” in Gli imperatori Severi: Storia, Archeologia, Religione, edited by E. dal Covolo and G. Rinaldi, 197-206. Roma: LAS. 1999.

___. Storia della filosofia patristica. Brescia: Morcelliana, 2005.

___. Apuleius and the Metamorphoses of Platonism. Turnhout: Brepols, 2015.

Morgan, James. The Importance of Tertullian in the Development of Christian Dogma. London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner, 1928.

Mortley, R. “Apuleius and Platonic Theology.” AJP 93 (1972): 584-590.

Morton, W. L. The Canadian Identity. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1961.

Moss, Candida. The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians invented a story of Martyrdom. New York: HarperOne, 2013.

Mozzillo, Luigi. Dio e stato nel "tribunale" di Tertulliano: filosofia, religione e politica in una rilettura antropologica dell'Apologetico. Napoli: Luciano, 1997.

Munier, Charles. L'Église dans l'Empire Romain: (IIe-IIIe siècles). Paris: Cujas, 1979.

Mura, M. I. “Le tabellae defixionum africane come fonte di storia sociale: nota preliminare.” L’ Africa romana 11 (1994): 1535-1546.

Murphy, Gerard James. The Reign of the Emperor L. Septimius Severus, From the Evidence of the Inscriptions. 1945.

Nails, D. “The Trial and Death of Socrates.” in A Companion to Greek and Roman Political Thought, edited by R. K. Balot, 323-338. Malden:MA: Wiley-Blackwell, 2013.

Newman, R. “Cotidie meditare, Theory and Practice of the meditatio in Imperial Stoicism.” ANRW 34.1 (1993): 1471-1517.

Nicolet, C. “L’inscription de l’autel de Narbonne et la <> des chevaliers.” Latomus 22.4 (1963): 721-732.

250

Niethammer, Lutz, and Axel Dossmann. Kollektive Identität: heimliche Quellen einer unheimlichen Konjunktur. Reinbek: Rowohlt Taschenbuch Verlag, 2000.

Nisters, Bernhard. Tertullian, seine Persönlichkeit und sein Schicksal; ein charakterologischer Versuch. Münster Westf: Aschendorff, 1950.

Nock, Arthur Darby. Conversion: The Old and the New in Religion from Alexander the Great to . 1933.

Nongbri, Brent. Before Religion. A History of Modern Concept. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2013.

Norden, Eduard. Die antike kunstprosa vom VI, jahrhundert V. Chr. bis in die zeit der renaissance. B.G. Teubner, 1915.

Noreña, C. F. “Authority and Subjectivity in the Apology,” in Apuelius and Africa, edited by B. T. Lee, E. Finkelpearl and L. Graverini, 35-51. New York; London: Routledge, 2014.

Norris, Jr., R. “Articulating identity.” In The Cambridge History of Early Christian Literature, edited by F. Young, L. Ayres, A. Louth, 71-90. Cambridge, U. K.: Cambridge University Press, 2004.

Nussbaum, Martha Craven. The Therapy of Desire: Theory and Practice in Hellenistic Ethics. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1994.

O’Brien, M. “Apuleius and the concept of a Philosophical Rhetoric.” Hermathena 151 (1991): 39-50.

___. Apuleius' Debt to Plato in the Metamorphoses. Lewiston. N.Y. Edwin Mellen (2002).

O'Malley, Thomas P. Tertullian and the Bible. Language, Imagery, Exegesis. Nijmegen: Dekker & Van de Vegt, 1967.

Ochs, Donovan J. Consolatory Rhetoric: Grief, Symbol, and Ritual in the Greco-Roman Era. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1993.

Ogden, Daniel. “Magic in the Severan Period.” In Severan Culture, edited by S. Swain, S. J. Harrison, and Jaś Elsner, 458-469. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

___. Magic, Witchcraft, and Ghosts in the Greek and Roman Worlds: A Sourcebook. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009.

251 Olbricht, T. H. “Pathos as Proof in Greco-Roman Rhetoric.” in Paul and Pathos, edited by T. H. Olbricht and J. L. Sumney, 7-22. Atlanta, Ga: Society of Biblical Literature, 2001.

Orban, A. P. Les Dénominations du Monde chez les premiers auteurs Chrétiens Nijmegen: Dekker & Van de Vegt, 1970.

Osborn, Eric. “Tertullian as a Philosopher and a Roman.” in Die Weltlichkeit des Glaubens in der Alten Kirche: Festschrift für Ulrich Wickert zum siebzigsten Geburtstag, edited by Barbara Aland, Christoph Schäublin, and Dietmar Wyrwa, 231-248. Berlin: De Gruyter, 1997a.

___. “Was Tertullian a Philosopher?” Studia Patristica 31 (1997b): 322-334.

___. Tertullian, First Theologian of the West. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Otto, W. F. “Genius.” RE 7.1 (1910): 1155-1170.

Patout Burns Jr., J. and Robin Jensen. Christianity in Roman Africa: the development of its practices and beliefs. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2014.

Pelikan, J. “The Eschatology of Tertullian.” Church History 21.2 (June, 1952): 108-122.

Pépin, Jean. “La théologie tripartite de Varron. Essai de reconstruction et recherché des sources.” RÉAug 2 (1956): 265-294.

___. Mythe et allégorie; les origines grecques et les contestations judéo-chrétiennes. [Paris]: Éditions Montaigne, 1976.

Perkins, Judith. The Suffering Self: Pain and Narrative Representation in Early Christian Era. London: Routledge, 1995.

___. Roman Imperial Identities in the Early Christian Era. Abingdon; New York: Routledge, 2009.

___. and L. Nevett. “Urbanism and urbanization in the Roman world.” Experiencing Rome: Culture, Identity and Power in the Roman Empire, edited by Janet Huskinson, 213-244. London: Routledge in association with Open University Press, 2000.

Pernot, Laurent. “Christianisme et sophistique.” In Papers on Rhetoric IV, edited by L. C. Montefusco, 245-262. Rome: Herder, 2002.

Pétré, H. L’exemplum chez Tertullien. Neuilly-Sur-Seine: En Dépot chez L’auteur, 1940.

252 ___. “Exemplum.” In the Dictionnaire de Spiritualité, Ascétique et Mystique Tome IV. Deuxième Partie, edited by, M. Viller, F. Cavallera, J. De Guibert, SJ, 1885-1892. Paris: G. Beauchesne et ses fils, 1961.

Picard, Gilbert-Charles. Les religions de l'Afrique antique. Paris: Plon, 1954.

___. La Civilisation de l'Afrique romaine. Paris: Études Augustiniennes, 1990.

___. and Baillon, M. “Le théâtres romain de Carthage.” in Afrique du Nord: Antique et Medievale: spectacles, vie portuaire, religions. Actes du Ve colloque international sur l’histoire et l’archéologie de l’afrique du nord, 11-27. Paris: Editions du C. T. H. S., 1992.

Pietzner, Katrin. Bildung, Elite und Konkurrenz: Heiden und Christen vor der Zeit Constantins. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013.

Pippidi, D. M. “Le Numen Augusti.” REL 9 (1931): 83-112.

Plantade, E. and N. “Libya Psyche: Apuleius’ Narrative and Berber Folktales.” in Apuleius and Africa, edited by, B. Todd Lee, E. Finkelpearl, and L. Graverini, 174-202. New York; London: Routledge, 2014.

Polemo, Antonius, Georg Hoffmann, Richard Foerster, Abū Bakr Muḥammad ibn Zakarīyā Rāzī, Aristotle, and Adamant. Scriptores physiognomonici Graeci et Latini. Lipsiae: In aedibus B.G. Teubneri, 1893.

Pollmann, Karla. St Augustine the Algerian. Göttingen: Duehrkohp & Radicke, 2003.

Porter, J. “Foucault’s Ascetic Ancients.” Phoenix 59/ 1-2 (2005): 121-132.

Portogalli, B. “Sulle fonti della concezione teologica e demonologica di Apuleio.” Studi classici e orientali 12 (1963): 227-241.

Potter, D. The Roman Empire at Bay, AD 180-395. London: Routledge, 2014.

Price, S. R. F. Rituals and Power: The Roman Imperial Cult in Asia Minor. Cambridge [Cambridgeshire]: Cambridge University Press, 1984.

Quacquarelli, Antonio. “Il paganesimo secondo la concezione di Tertulliano.” Rassegna di scienze filosofiche 3 (1950): 3-44.

___. Tertulliani ad Scapulam. Paris: Desclée et Cie., 1957.

___. Tertulliani ad Martyras. Rome: Desclée, 1963.

253 Quasten, Johannes. Patrology. Vol. 2. Westminster, MD: Christian Classics, Inc, 1963.

Quispel, G. “African Christianity before Minucius Felix and Tertullian.” In Actus: Studies in Honour of H. L. W. Nelson, edited by J. Den Boeft and A.H.M. Kessels 257-335. Utrecht: Instituut voor Klassieke Talen, 1982.

Rabbow, Paul, Seelenführung: Methodik der Exerzitien in der Antike. München: Kösel, 1954

Rahner, Hugo. Greek Myths and Christian Mystery. New York: Biblo and Tannen, 1963.

Rambaux, Claude. L'accès à la vérité chez Tertullien. Bruxelles: Éditions Latomus, 2005.

___. Tertullien face aux morales des trois premiers siècles. Paris: Les Belles lettres, 1979.

Ramelli, I. L. E. “Apuleius and Christianity: The Novelist Philosopher in front of a New Religion.” In Intende, Lector –Echoes of Myth, Religion and Ritual in the Ancient Novel, edited by M. F. Pinheiro, A. Bierl and R. Beck, 145-173. Boston: De Gruyter, 2013.

Rankin, David. “Tertullian and the Imperial Cult.” Studia Patristica 34 (2001): 204-216.

___. Tertullian and the Church. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995.

Rebillard, Éric. “Les areae carthaginoises (Tertullien, Ad Scapulam 3,1): Cimitières communautaires ou enclos funéraires de chrétiens?” Antiquité 108 (1) (1996): 175-189.

___. The Care of the Dead in Late Antiquity. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2009.

___. Christians and Their Many Identities in Late Antiquity, North Africa, 200-450 CE. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2012.

___; and Jörg Rüpke. Group Identity and Religious Individuality in Late Antiquity. Washington, D. C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2015.

Regen, Frank. Apuleius philosophus Platonicus. Untersuchungen z. Apologia (De magia) und z. De mundo. Berlin: de Gruyter, 1971.

Reis, D. “Thinking with Soul: Psyche and Psychikos in the Construction of Early Christian Identities.” Journal of Early Christian Studies 17. 4 (2009): 563-603.

Revell, Louise. Roman Imperialism and Local Identities. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Richter, Daniel. Cosmopolis: Imagining Community in Late Classical Athens and the Early Roman Empire. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2011.

254

Ricœur, Paul. Interpretation Theory: Discourse and the Surplus of Meaning. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1976.

Riess, Werner. “Introduction.” In Paideia at Play: Learning and Wit in Apuleius, edited by W. Riess, ix-xxi. Groningen: Barkhuis Publishing, 2008.

Rist, John M. Stoic Philosophy. London: Cambridge U.P., 1969.

___. “The Stoic Concept of Detachment.” in The Stoics, edited by J. Rist, 259-272. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1978.

___. Human Value: A Study in Ancient Philosophical Ethics. Leiden: E.J. Brill, 1982.

Ritterling, E. “s.v. Legio.” in RE 12.1-2 (1924-1925): 1186-1829.

Rives, J. B. “The Priesthood of Apuleius.” AJP 115 (1994): 273-290.

___. Religion and Authority in Roman Carthage from Augustus to Constantine. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.

___. Religion in the Roman Empire. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub, 2007.

___. “Legal Strategy and Learned Display in Apuleius’ Apology.” In Paideia at Play: Learning and Wit in Apuleius, edited by W. Riess, 17-49. Groningen: Barkhuis Publishing, 2008.

Roller, M. “The exemplary in Roman historiography and culture.” in The Cambridge Companion to the Roman Historians, edited by Andrew Feldherr, 214-230. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2009.

Romanelli, Pietro. Storia delle province romane dell'Africa. Roma: L'Erma di Bretschneider, 1959.

Ros, K. E. “The Roman Theater at Carthage.” AJP 115 (1996): 449-489.

Rostovtzeff, Michael Ivanovitch, and P. M. Fraser. The Social and Economic History of the Roman Empire. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1957.

Ruggiero, F. “Chiesa e sinagoga in Tertulliano.” Quaderni di San Sigismundo 4 (2003): 51-59.

Rüpke, Jörg. A Companion to Roman Religion. Oxford: Blackwell, 2011.

___. “Individualization and Individuation.” in The Individual in the Religions of the Ancient Mediterranean, edited by J. Rüpke, 1-38. New York: Oxford University Press, 2013.

255

___. “Individual Choices and Individuality in the Archaeology of Ancient Religion.” in A Companion to the Archaeology of Religion in the Ancient World, edited by R. Raja and J. Rüpke, 437-450. Chichester, West Sussex: Wiley Blackwell, 2015.

___; and R. L. Gordon. Religion of the Romans. Cambridge: Polity, 2007.

Sachot, M. “Comment le christianisme est-il devenu religio?” RSR 59.2 (1985): 95-118.

Saint-Amans, Sophie. Topographie religieuse de Thugga (Dougga): ville romaine d'Afrique proconsulaire (Tunisie). Pessac: Ausonius, 2004.

Salmeri, G. La politica e il potere. Saggio su Dione di Prusa. Catania: Facoltà di Lettere e Filosofia, Università di Catania, 1982.

___. “Dio, Rome and the Civic Life of Asia Minor.” In Dio Chrysostom. Politics, Letters and Philosophy, edited by Simon Swain, 53-92. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

Sanders, E. P. Jewish and Christian Self-Definition. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980.

___; Albert I. Baumgarten, and Alan Mendelson. Jewish and Christian Self-Definition. Vol. 2. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1981.

Sandy, Gerald N. The Greek World of Apuleius: Apuleius and the Second Sophistic. Leiden: Brill, 1997.

Schadewaldt, W. “Humanitas Romana.” in ANRW I. 4 (1973): 43-62.

Schmitz, Thomas. Bildung und Macht: zur sozialen und politischen Funktion der zweiten Sophistik in der griechischen Welt der Kaiserzeit. München: Verlag C.H. Beck, 1997.

___. “The Second Sophistic.” in The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations in the Roman World, edited by M. Peachin, 304-316. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011.

Schofield, Malcolm. The Stoic Idea of the City. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991.

___. “Stoic Ethics.” in The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics, edited by Brad Inwood, 233-256. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

Schöllgen, Georg. Ecclesia sordida? zur Frage der sozialen Schichtung frühchristlicher Gemeinden am Beispiel Karthagos zur Zeit Tertullians. Münster: Aschendorff, 1984.

Schwartz, S. “The Rabbi in Aphrodite’s Bath: Palestinian society and Jewish identity in the High Roman Empire.” in Being Greek under Rome: Cultural Identity, the Second Sophistic and the

256 Development of Empire, edited by Simon Goldhill, 335-361. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001.

Scott, Kenneth. The Imperial Cult Under the Flavians. Stuttgart: W. Kohlhammer, 1936.

Seyr, F. “Die Seelen und Erkenntnislehre Tertullians und die Stoa.” in Commentationes Vindobonenses 3 (1937): 51-74.

Shaw, B. “Who are You? Africa and Africans.” in A Companion to Ethnicity in the Ancient Mediterranean, edited by J. McInerney, 527-540. Chichester, West Sussex: John Wiley & Sons Inc., 2014.

___. “The Myth of the Neronian Persecution.” JRS 105 (2015): 73-100.

Sider, Robert D. Ancient Rhetoric and the Art of Tertullian. London: Oxford University Press, 1971.

Simmons, Michael Bland. Arnobius of Sicca: Religious Conflict and Competition in the Age of Diocletian. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1995.

Simonetti, Manlio, and Emanuela Prinzivalli. Storia della Letteratura cristiana Antica. Roma: Piemme, (1999).

Sirago, V. A. “La seconda sofistica come espressione culturale della classe dirigente del II sec.” ANRW II. 33.1 (1989): 36-78.

Sittl, Karl. Die lokalen Verschiedenheiten der lateinischen Sprache: Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung des afrikanischen Lateins Hildesheim: H.A. Gerstenberg. 1882.

Smadja, E. “L’inscription du culte imperial dans la cité: l’example de Lepcis Magna au début de l’émpire.” Dialogues d’Histoire Ancienne 4 (1978): 171-186.

___. “L’empereur et les dieux en Afrique romaine.” Dialogues d’histoire ancienne Vol. 11 (1985): 540-555.

___. “Culte impérial et religion en Afrique du Nord sous le Haut Empire romain.” Dialogues d’Histoire Ancienne. suppl. 1 (2005): 225-237.

Sorabji, R. Self: Ancient and Modern Insights about Individuality, Life and Death. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2006.

___. “Greco-Roman Varieties of Self.” In Ancient Philosophy of the Self, edited by P. Remes and J. Sihvola, 13-34. Dordrecht; London: Springer, 2008.

257 Sordi, M. “L’apologia del martire romano Apollonio come fonte dell’ Apologeticum di Tertulliano e i rapporti fra Tertulliano e Minucio Felice.” Rivista di Storia della Chiesa in Italia 18 (1964): 169-188.

Southern, Pat. The Roman Empire from Severus to Constantine. London: Routledge, 2001.

Spanneut, Michel. Le stoĭcisme des Peres de l'Église; de Clément de Romè a Clément d'Alexandrie. Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1957.

___. Tertullien et les premiers moralistes Africains Paris, P. Lethielleux ; Gembloux, J. Duculot, 1969.

Star, C. The Empire of the Self. Self-Command and Political Speech in Seneca and Petronius. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012

Ste. Croix, G. E. M. de. “Why were the Early Christians Persecuted?” Past and Present 26 (Nov. 1963): 6-38.

Steel, Catherine. Roman Oratory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press for the Classical Association, 2006.

Steiner, H. Das Verhältnis Tertullians zur antiken Paideia. St. Ottilien: EOS Verlag, 1989.

Stelzenberger, J. “Conscientia bei Tertullianus.” Vitae et Veritati: Festgabe für Karl Adam zum 80. Geburtstag 22. Oktober 1956, 28-43. Düsseldorf: Patmos-Verlag, 1956.

Stern, Karen. Inscribing Devotion and Death: Archeological Evidence for Jewish Populations of North Africa Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2008.

___. “Keeping the Dead in their Place: Jewish Commemoration and Cultural Identity in Roman North Africa.” in Cultural Identity in the Ancient Mediterranean, edited by E. Gruen, 307-334. Los Angeles: Getty Research Institute, 2011.

Stets, J. E., and P. J. Burke. “A sociological approach to Self and Identity.” in Handbook of Self and Identity, edited by M. Leary and J. Tangney, 128-152. New York: Guilford Press, 2003.

Stewart, Z. "Greek Crowns and Christian Martyrs.” in Mémorial André-Jean Festugière: Antiquité Païenne et Chrétienne, edited by A. J., Enzo Lucchesi, and H. D. Saffrey, 119-124. Genève: P. Cramer, 1984.

Stock, Brian. Listening for the Text. On the Uses of the Past Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990.

258 Stockmeier, P. “Gottesverständnis und Saturnkult bei Tertullian.” Studia Patristica XVII.2 (1981/1982): 829-835.

Stone, D. “Identity and Identification in Apuelius’ Apology, Florida, and Metamorphoses.” in Apuleius and Africa, edited by B. T. Lee, E. Finkelpearl, and L. Graverini, 154-173. London; New York; Routledge, 2014.

Strack, von Paul. Die Reichsprägung zur Zeit des Antoninus Pius. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1937

Stratton, Kimberley. Naming the Witch: Magic, Ideology and Stereotype in the Ancient World New York: Columbia University Press, 2007a.

___. “The Rhetoric of “Magic” in Early Christian Discourse: Gender, Power and the Construction of “Heresy”.” in Mapping Gender in Ancient Religious Discourses, edited by T. Penner and C. Vander Stichele, 89-114. Leiden: Brill, 2007b.

Stroumsa, Guy. “Tertullian on Idolatry and the Limits of Tolerance.” in Tolerance and Intolerance in Early Judaism and Christianity, edited by G. N. Stanton and G. C. Stroumsa, 173- 84. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

___. The end of sacrifice. Religious transformation in Late Antiquity Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2009.

Stryker, S. “Identity competition: Key to differential social movement involvement.” in Identity, self and social movement, edited by S. Stryker, T. Owens, and R. White, 21-40. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2000.

Styers, R. “Postcolonial Theory and the Study of Christian History.” Church History 78.4 (2009): 849-854.

Swain, Simon. Hellenism and Empire. Language, Classicism, and Power in the Greek World AD 50-250 Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. ___; S. J. Harrison, and Jaś Elsner. Severan Culture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Talbert, C. “Biographies of Philosophers and Rulers as Instruments of Religious Propaganda in Mediterranean Antiquity.” ANRW 16.2 (1978): 1619-1651.

Taylor, T. “Social status, legal status, legal privilege.” In Oxford Handbook of Roman Law and Society, edited by P. du Plessis, C. Ando and K. Tuori, 349-361. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016.

Telfer, W. “The Origins of Christianity in Africa.” SP 4 (1961): 512-517.

259

Tertullian, and Jean Claude Fredouille. De la patience. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1984.

___., and Tobias Georges. Tertullian "Apologeticum". Freiburg im Breisgau: Herder, 2011.

___., Franz Oehler, John E. B. Mayor, and Alexander Souter. Q. Septimi Florentis Tertulliani Apologeticus: the text of Oehler. Cambridge [England]: University Press, 1917.

___., Octavius Minucius Felix, Rudolph Arbesmann, Emily Joseph Daly, Edwin A. Quain. Tertullian: Apologetical Works and Minucius Felix Octavius (Trans.) R. Arbesmann, E. J. Daly and E. Quain New York: Fathers of the Church, 1950.

Thieling, W. Der Hellenismus in Kleinafrika. Roma: "L'Erma," 1964.

Thomasson, B. E. Fasti Africani, Senatorische und ritterliche Amtsträger in den römishchen Provinzen Nordafrikas von Augustus bis Diokletian. Stockholm, Sweden Svenska institutet i Rom, 1996.

Tibeletti, C. “Tertulliano e la dottrina dell’anima naturaliter Christiana.” in Atti dell’Academia delle Scienze di Torino 94 (1959-1960): 290-330.

Toohey, P., Melancholy, Love, and Time: Boundaries of the Self in Ancient Literature. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2004.

Torelli, M. Tota Italia: essays in the cultural formation of Roman Italy Oxford; New York: Clarendon Press, 1999.

Townsend, P. W. “The Significance of the Arch of the Severi at Lepcis.” AJA 42.4 (Oct. – Dec. 1938): 512-524.

Trapp, Michael. “Philosophical Sermons: The <> of Maximus of Tyre.” ANRW II.34.3 (1997): 1945-1976.

___. “Plato in Dio.” Dio Chrysostom. Politics, Letters and Philosophy, edited by Simon Swain, 213-239. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000.

___. Philosophy in the Roman Empire. Ethics, Politics and Society Aldershot, England: Ashgate, 2007a.

___. “Philosophy, scholarship, and the world of learning in the Severan period.” In Severan Culture, edited by Simon Swain, S. J. Harrison and Jaś Elsner, 470-488. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007b.

Turcan, R. “Le culte impérial au IIIe siècle.” ANRW II, 16. 2 (1978): 996- 1084.

260

Urbano, A., The Philosophical Life: Biography and the crafting of intellectual identity in late antiquity Washington, D.C.: The Catholic University of America Press, 2013.

Uglione, Renato. “Virgilio in Tertulliano. Intertestualità e riscrittura.” Bolletino di Studi Latini 29 (1999) 504-522.

___. Tertulliano: teologo e scrittore. Brescia: Morcelliana, 2002.

Vallauri, Giovanna. Origine e diffusione dell'evemerismo nel pensiero classico. Torino: G. Giappichelli, 1960.

Vann Woodward, C. “The Search for Southern Identity.” Virginia Quarterly Review, 34 (Summer, 1958): 321-338.

Vermander, J. –M. “La polémique des Apologistes contre les Dieux du paganisme.” RechAug. 17 (1982): 3-128.

Vernant, Jean-Pierre. Entre mythe et politique Paris: Seuil, 1996.

___; Froma Zeitlin. Mortals and Immortals: collected essays Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1991.

Vessey, D. W. T. “Aulus Gellius and the Cult of the Past.” ANRW II.34.2 (1994): 1863-1917.

Veyne, Paul; Paula Wissing. Did the Greeks Believe in their myths?: an essay on the Constitutive Imagination. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.

Vierow, H. “Feminine and Masculine voices in the Passion of Sts. Perpetua and Felicitas.” Latomus 58 (1999): 600-619

Vogt, Katja Maria. Law, Reason and the Cosmic City. Political Philsophy in the Early Stoa New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008

Vos, Nienke, and Willemien Otten. Demons and the Devil in ancient and medieval Christianity. Leiden: Brill, 2011.

Vössing, Konrad. “Africa nutricula causidicorum?” L’Africa Romana 11. 1 (1996): 127-154.

___. Schule und Bildung im Nordafrika der römischen Kaiserzeit. Bruxelles: Latomus, 1997.

Wallace-Hadrill, Andrew. Rome’s Cultural Revolution Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008.

261 Waltzing, J. P. and Severyns, A. Tertullien, Apologétique. Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2003

Ward-Perkins, J. B. “The Arch of Septimius Severus at Lepcis Magna.” Archaeology 4 (1951): 226-231.

___. Roman Imperial Architecture. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994.

Ware, J. “Moral Progress and Divine Power in Seneca and Paul.” in Passions and Moral Progress in Greco-Roman Thought, edited by J. T. Fitzgerald, 267-283. London: Routledge, 2008.

Waszink, J. H. “Some Observations on Tertullian ‘Ad Scapulam’.” VChr 13 (1959): 46-57.

Weigel, S. “Exemplum and Sacrifice, Blood Testimony and Written Testimony: Lucretia and Perpetua as transitional figures in the cultural history of Martyrdom.” Perpetua's Passions: Multidisciplinary Approaches to the Passio Perpetuae et Felicitatis, edited by J. Bremmer and M. Formisano, 180-200. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012.

Weiss, Alexander. Soziale Elite und Christentum: Studien zu ordo-Angehörigen unter den frühen Christen Berlin: De Gruyter, 2015.

Weiss, P. “Lebendiger Mythos. Gründerheroen und städtische Gründungstraditionen im griechisch-römischen Osten.” in WJA 10 (1984): 179-208.

Wessel, Susan. Passion and Compassion in Early Christianity New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2016.

White, L. M. The Social Origins of Christian Architecture vol. 1. Valley Forge, Pa.: Trinity Press, 1996.

White, M. ‘Stoic Natural Philosophy’, in The Cambridge Companion to the Stoics, edited by Brad Inwood, 124-152. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Whitmarsh, Tim. Greek Literature and the Roman Empire: The Politics of Imitation Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2001.

___. The Second Sophistic. Greece and Rome. Oxford: Published for the Classical Association [by] Oxford University Press, 2005.

Whittaker, R. “Africa.” in The Cambridge Ancient History. Second Edition. Vol. XI, edited by A. Bowman, P. Garnsey, and D. Rathbone, 531-546. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

Wilhite, David. Tertullian the African: an anthropological reading of Tertullian’s Context and Identities Berlin; New York: De Gruyter, 2007.

262 ___. Ancient African Christianity. London: Routledge, 2017.

Wilken, Robert Louis. The Christians as the Romans saw Them. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003

Williams, Craig. Roman Homosexuality. New York: Oxford University Press, 2010.

Wilson, A. “Romanizing Baal: the art of Saturn worship in North Africa.” In Proceedings of the 8th International Colloquium on Problems of Roman Provincial Art, Zagreb 2003, edited by M. Sanader et al., 403-408, Zagreb: Opuscula archaeologica, 2005.

___. “Urban development in the Severan empire.” In Severan Culture, edited by S. Swain, S. J. Harrison, and Jaś Elsner, 290-326. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

Winiarczyk, Marek. The “Sacred History” of Euhemerus of Messene. Berlin: De Gruyter: 2013.

Wirszubski, Chaim. Libertas as a Political Idea at Rome during the Late Republic and Early Principate Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1950.

Wissowa, Georg. Religion und Kultus der Römer. München: C.H. Beck, 1912.

Woolf, Greg. Becoming Roman. The origins of provincial civilization in Gaul Cambridge, U.K.; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998.

Young, Frances. “Christianity.” In The Cambridge History of Greek and Roman Political Thought, edited by C. J. Rowe and Malcolm Schofield. 635-660. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000.

___. “Greek apologists of the Second Century.” In Apologetics in the Roman Empire, edited by M. Edwards, M. Goodman and S. Price, 81-104. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2002.

Zehnacker, Hubert. Les statues de sanctuaire de Kamart. Bruxelles: Latomus, Revue d'études latines, 1965.

Zilling, Henrike Maria. Tertullian. Untertan Gottes und des Kaisers. Paderborn: Schöningh, 2004.

Zimmerman, M. “Cenatus solis fabulis: A Symposiastic Reading of Apuleius’ Novel.” In Paideia at play: Learning and wit in Apuleius, edited by Werner Riess, 133-155. Groningen: Barkhuis Publishing, 2008.

___. “Mythical Repertoire and its functions in Apuleius’ Metamorphoses.” in Intende, Lector- Echoes of Myth, Religion and Ritual in the Ancient Novel, edited by M. Pinheiro, A. Bierl and R. Beck, 43-49. Boston: De Gruyter, 2013.

263

264