Table Of ContentClement of Alexandria and the Shaping of Christian
Literary Practice
Clement of Alexandria’s Stromateis were celebrated in antiquity but
modern readers have often skirted them as a messy jumble of notes.
WhenscholarshiponGreco-Romanmiscellaniestookoffinthe1990s,
Clementwasleftoutas‘different’becausehewasChristian.Thisbook
interrogatesthenotionofClement’s‘Christiandifference’bycomparing
hisworkwithclassicRomanmiscellanies,especiallythosebyPlutarch,
Pliny, Gellius and Athenaeus. The comparison opens up fuller insight
into the literary and theological character of Clement’s own oeuvre.
Clement’s Stromateis are contextualised within his larger literary pro-
jectinChristianformation,whichbeganwiththeProtrepticusandthe
Paedagogus and was completed by the Hypotyposeis. Together, this
stepped sequence of works structured readers’ reorientation, purifica-
tionanddeepeningprayerful‘converse’withGod.Clementshapedhis
miscellanies as an instrument for encountering the hidden God in a
hidden way, while marvelling at the variegated beauty of divine work
refractedthroughthevariegatedbeautyofhisowntextuality.
J. M. F. Heath is Associate Professor of Theology and Religion at
Durham University. She is the author of Paul’s Visual Piety: The
MetamorphosisoftheBeholder.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. , on , subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108918640
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. , on , subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108918640
Clement of Alexandria and the Shaping
of Christian Literary Practice
Miscellany and the Transformation of
Greco-Roman Writing
J. M. F. HEATH
UniversityofDurham
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. , on , subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108918640
UniversityPrintingHouse,Cambridgecb28bs,UnitedKingdom
OneLibertyPlaza,20thFloor,NewYork,ny10006,USA
477WilliamstownRoad,PortMelbourne,vic3207,Australia
314–321,3rdFloor,Plot3,SplendorForum,JasolaDistrictCentre,
NewDelhi–110025,India
79AnsonRoad,#06–04/06,Singapore079906
CambridgeUniversityPressispartoftheUniversityofCambridge.
ItfurtherstheUniversity’smissionbydisseminatingknowledgeinthepursuitof
education,learning,andresearchatthehighestinternationallevelsofexcellence.
www.cambridge.org
Informationonthistitle:www.cambridge.org/9781108843423
doi:10.1017/9781108918640
©CambridgeUniversityPress2020
Thispublicationisincopyright.Subjecttostatutoryexception
andtotheprovisionsofrelevantcollectivelicensingagreements,
noreproductionofanypartmaytakeplacewithoutthewritten
permissionofCambridgeUniversityPress.
Firstpublished2020
AcataloguerecordforthispublicationisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.
isbn978-1-108-84342-3Hardback
CambridgeUniversityPresshasnoresponsibilityforthepersistenceoraccuracy
ofURLsforexternalorthird-partyinternetwebsitesreferredtointhispublication
anddoesnotguaranteethatanycontentonsuchwebsitesis,orwillremain,
accurateorappropriate.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. , on , subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108918640
Contents
Acknowledgements pagevii
1 Introduction: AChristian among RomanMiscellanists 1
2 Clement’s Miscellanism and the ScholarlyTrope of
Christian Difference 9
3 Studying AncientMiscellanism: DefiningFeatures, Scope
and Method 23
4 Early Imperial Cultures ofMiscellany-Making: Clement’s
Social and Institutional Contexts 56
5 Self-Introductionsand Clement’sMiscellanisticVocation 81
6 Miscellany Titles and Clement’sDivineParatexts 120
7 The Miscellanist’s Trope of Deselecting Titles and
Clement’s Conversion of Imagery 166
8 Muses inthe Miscellanists’Frame 204
9 Clement’s Theology of Hiddenness and the Logic of
Christian Miscellanism 239
10 Mystery Initiation and Clement’s Literary Paideia:
The Making of aChristian Miscellanist 271
v
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. , on , subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108918640
vi Contents
11 Poikilia: Theological Interpretation of a Miscellanistic
Aesthetic 329
12 Conclusion 376
Appendix TheLiterary Sequence of Protrepticus,Paedagogus,
Stromateis (and Hypotyposeis) 382
Bibliography 394
Index 424
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. , on , subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108918640
Acknowledgements
The initial time and space that were needed to get this project off the
ground came in the form of an Alexander von Humboldt Postdoctoral
ResearchFellowship(2014–2016).Forthis,Iamgratefultomyacademic
hosts, Christoph Markschies and Markus Asper at the Humboldt
University in Berlin, to the trustees of the Foundation for supporting my
work and to my home institution, Durham University, for granting me
leave to take up this post and still welcoming me back at the end of it.
ThankyoutoCarolHarrisonandMichaelSquireforencouragingmeto
pursue this in the first place.
For critique of drafts, I am especially indebted to Lewis Ayres, who
cheerfullyofferedtoreadthewholething...athanklesstaskifeverthere
was one. Likewise, Teresa Morgan provided challenging and gracious
criticism at key points. Others have read and responded helpfully to
portions of the work in earlier versions: thank you especially to George
Boys-Stones, Ruth Edwards, Dawn LaValle Norman and to those who
gave feedback at research seminars and conferences in Berlin, Durham,
Göttingen,Münster,OlomouçandOxford.Forgenerositywiththeirtime
and wisdom in conversation about all this, thank you especially to John
Barclay,JasonKönig,OswynMurray,IlariaRamelliandFrancisWatson.
From 2016 onwards, the opportunity to work with the ACU-funded
research project on ‘Modes of Knowing and Ordering Knowledge in
Early Christianity’ was a particular gift, and I am grateful for discussion
withACUcolleagues,especiallyMatthewCrawford,MichaelChampion,
DawnLaValleNorman,AndrewRadde-Gallwitz,DavidRunia,Jonathan
ZecherandLewis Ayres.Totheanonymous readersforCUP,thankyou
foryourconstructivesuggestions,whichIhavesoughttotakeonboardin
vii
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. , on , subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108918640
viii Acknowledgements
revising the manuscript. It goes without saying that the weaknesses that
remainaremyown(andIdon’tdoubtthattheyaremany).Iamgrateful
to Beatrice Rehl, the contact editor at the press, whose swift and helpful
repliesguidedme so helpfullythroughtheprocess.
The intellectual community in the Department of Theology and
ReligioninDurhamhasbeenablessing.Ourbrilliantstudentshaveboth
challenged and encouraged me in my own endeavours: thank you espe-
ciallytoVictoriaDowney,LukeIrwin,GeorgieMoore,IsaacSoon,Sunny
WangandMatthewWilliams, amongothers.Itisanenormous privilege
to work with such people, and I cherish the opportunity. Among col-
leagues,inadditiontothosewhomImentionedabove,Iowespecialdebts
of thanks to Chris Cook, Robert Hayward, Alec Ryrie, Mike Snape and
Robert Song, who were in different ways kind, patient and generous
friends and mentors along the way. Further afield, I would like to thank
ThirzaHope for her unfailing interest and companionship.
Fortheoriginalintellectualdebtsfromwhichallthiscomes,thankyou
to colleagues in Germany who introduced me to Clement of Alexandria,
firstatthe‘Kirchenväterkolloquium’inHeidelbergin2005–2006,thenas
a guest member in Rainer Hirsch-Luipold’s ‘Ratio Religionis Projekt’ in
2007–2011. Lastly, thank you to my Classics teachers at school and
university, who nurtured skills and enthusiasm for this kind of work,
andthank youtomy parents,who supported myidiosyncraticacademic
pathdespite every hurdle thatstood in the way.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. , on , subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108918640
1
Introduction
A Christian among Roman Miscellanists
It must be confessed that Clement of Alexandria’s literary form in the
Stromateis has found few admirers. Many scholars who have written on
himhavebegunwithanapologiafortheirchoiceoftopic,andoneofthe
things that they have routinely bemoaned is his literary form. ‘The
Stromateis is easily his masterpiece of rambling obscurity’, wrote Robert
Casey, adding that ‘the value of the book, therefore, lies in its ideas’.1
Eugène de Faye acknowledged, ‘Unfortunately, the study of Clement of
Alexandriaisextremelyarduous.Hiswritingsarehardtoreadandoften
dull.Thelengthandendlessdigressionsobscurehisthought.Inaddition,
his style is generally turgid and diffuse ...’.2 Similarly, Johannes Munck
observed, ‘Clement of Alexandria cannot lay claim to any great interest.
He himself took pains to bring that about, inasmuch as he wrote for the
few....Onlyapatientperson,whodoesnotsufferfatigue,willbenefit.’3
And yet, the one thing that we know about Clement’s literary form,
whichcouldhelpmakesenseofitinrelationtootherancientworks,has
neverbeenproperlystudied,namely, thathewas adapting agenreofhis
pagan contemporaries. It is well-recognised that the form of the
1 Casey1925,70.
2 De Faye 1906, 2, ‘malheureusement l’étude de Clément d’Alexandrie est extrêmement
ardue. Ses écrits sont d’une lecture pénible, souvent fastidieuse. Des longueurs et des
digressions interminables obscurcissent sa pensée. Ajoutez que son style est en général
lourdetdiffus...’.
3 Munck 1933, 1, ‘Klemens Alexandrinus kann auf kein grösseres Interesse Anspruch
erheben.Dafürhater selbstSorgegetragen,indemerfür dieWenigenschrieb.... Nur
derGeduldige,dernichtermüdet,wirdbelohnt.’Similarly:Mondésert1949(=SC2),5–8;
Völker1952,12–14.
1
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. , on , subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108918640.001
2 Introduction
Stromateisowesmuchtocontemporarypagan‘miscellany’literature.But
rather thaninterrogatingClement’sreceptionofClassical‘miscellanism’,
scholars have repeatedly stated that Clement was somehow ‘different’
from the pagan authors whom he was imitating. André Méhat, who
wrote the fullest study of the literary form of the Stromateis in the
twentieth century, suggested that the similarities were only superficial;
‘within this literature’, he said, the Stromateis ‘occupy a place apart’,4
such that they had better be compared with such later works as
Augustine’s Civitas Dei, and Montaigne’s Essais.5 Méhat’s emphasis on
Clement’s Christian difference chimed with scholarship both prior6 and
subsequent to his work; in the surge of research interest in Classical
miscellanism at the end of the twentieth century, Clement never received
closeattention:onepagan‘miscellanist’afteranotherbecamethesubject
of investigation, but Clement was left out. He was always bracketed
separately assomehow‘different’.
The trope of Christian difference has thus become a rhetorical com-
monplace in modern scholarship, which has put a stop to conversation
about Clement’s relation to Classical miscellanism before anyone has
closely interrogated his similarities and differences from pagan authors,
orsoughttounderstandhowhewasworkingwithinaClassicalcultureof
miscellany-making. The only partial exceptions of which I am aware are
twooutstandingdoctoralthesesinClassics,byLawrenceEmmett(2001)
andStuartThomson(2014)respectively.Bothauthorstookseriouslythe
idea that Clement was operating within the rhetorical culture of his day.
BothcritiquedthelackofattentiontoChristiantextsinmodernstudyof
theSecondSophistic.7However,neitheroftheirdissertationshasyetbeen
published, and both authors are currentlyworking outside acdemia.8
The present book addresses the need for a better understanding of
Clement’s relation to Classical miscellanism. I suggest that this can con-
tribute tothreeoverlapping conversations.
Firstly,withinthestudyofClement,thereisalongtraditionofreading
him alongside Greek and Roman philosophers to interpret his ideas, but
4 Méhat1966,523,‘àl’intérieurdecettelittérature,ilsoccupentuneplaceàpart’.
5 Méhat1966,525,527. 6 E.g.,Munck1933,76–77;Pohlenz1943,121.
7 Theproblemswiththename‘SecondSophistic’haveoftenbeenrehearsed:theexpression
stems from Philostratus, but it has become a modern technical term that is used with
diversereferents–foraperiod,aculture,astyleofliterature.Alternativenames,suchas
‘Greekrenaissance’and‘Postclassism’,carrydifferentbaggageofunwantedassociations.
See,e.g.,Whitmarsh2001,42–45;2005,4–10;2013,1–5.
8 Emmett2001;Thomson2014.Seefurtherbelow,pp.16–17.
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. , on , subject to the Cambridge Core terms
of use, available at https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108918640.001
