The So-Called Eighth Stromateus by Clement of Alexandria: Early Christian Reception of Greek Scientific Methodology

387 Pages·2016·2.41 MB·English

by  Matyáš Havrda

TheSo-CalledEighthStromateusbyClementofAlexandria
Philosophia Antiqua
a series of studies on ancient philosophy
EditorialBoard
C.J.Rowe(Durham)
K.A.Algra(Utrecht)
F.A.J.deHaas(Leiden)
J.Mansfeld(Utrecht)
D.T.Runia(Melbourne)
Ch.Wildberg(Princeton)
PreviousEditors
J.H.Waszink†
W.J.Verdenius†
J.C.M.VanWinden†
volume144
Thetitlespublishedinthisseriesarelistedatbrill.com/pha
The So-Called Eighth
Stromateus by Clement
of Alexandria
EarlyChristianReception
ofGreekScientificMethodology
By
MatyášHavrda
leiden | boston
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Names:Havrda,Matyáš,1972-|Clement,ofAlexandria,Saint,approximately
150-approximately215.Stromata.Liber8.|Clement,ofAlexandria,Saint,
approximately150-approximately215.Stromata.Liber8.English.
Title:Theso-calledeighthStromateusbyClementofAlexandria:early
ChristianreceptionofGreekscientificmethodology/byMatyášHavrda.
Description:Leiden;Boston:Brill,[2017]|Series:Philosophiaantiqua,
issn0079-1687;volume44|Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
Identifiers:lccn2016030309(print)|lccn2016035973(ebook)|isbn
9789004310087(hardback:acid-freepaper)|isbn9789004325289(e-book)
Subjects:lcsh:Clement,ofAlexandria,Saint,approximately
150-approximately215.|Philosophy,Ancient.|Science–Philosophy–Early
worksto1800.|Science–Methodology–Earlyworksto1800.|Clement,of
Alexandria,Saint,approximately150-approximately215.Stromata.
Classification:lcc b666.s63 s63 2017(print)|lcc b666.s63(ebook)|ddc
189/.2–dc23
lcrecordavailableathttps://lccn.loc.gov/2016030309
WantorneedOpenAccess?BrillOpenoffersyouthechoicetomakeyourresearchfreelyaccessibleonline
inexchangeforapublicationcharge.Reviewyourvariousoptionsonbrill.com/brill-open.
TypefacefortheLatin,Greek,andCyrillicscripts:“Brill”.Seeanddownload:brill.com/brill-typeface.
issn0079-1687
isbn978-90-04-31008-7(hardback)
isbn978-90-04-32528-9(e-book)
Copyright2016byKoninklijkeBrillnv,Leiden,TheNetherlands.
KoninklijkeBrillnvincorporatestheimprintsBrill,BrillHes&DeGraaf,BrillNijhoff,BrillRodopiand
HoteiPublishing.
Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,translated,storedinaretrievalsystem,
ortransmittedinanyformorbyanymeans,electronic,mechanical,photocopying,recordingorotherwise,
withoutpriorwrittenpermissionfromthepublisher.
AuthorizationtophotocopyitemsforinternalorpersonaluseisgrantedbyKoninklijkeBrillnvprovided
thattheappropriatefeesarepaiddirectlytoTheCopyrightClearanceCenter,222RosewoodDrive,
Suite910,Danvers,ma01923,usa.Feesaresubjecttochange.
Thisbookisprintedonacid-freepaperandproducedinasustainablemanner.
Contents
Preface vii
Abbreviations xi
Introduction.TheRiddleofthe‘EighthStromateus’:Questionsand
Solutions 1
AncientandByzantineTestimonies 1
CompositionandContents 9
ModernInterpretations 11
a EarlyModernReaders:FromHeinsetoBunsen 11
b TheShapingofContemporaryViews:FromZahntoStählin 14
c OtherSolutions:Ernst,Bousset,Nautin 18
Liberlogicus 25
a IntellectualSetting(s) 25
b ThematicDivision 27
c Sources:ReviewofScholarship 29
d HowManySources? 32
e TheGalenHypothesis 34
f ContinuitywiththeStromateis? 50
g ParallelswiththeStromateis 56
h ChristianTraitsinStromateisviii 73
i Conclusions 76
TheSo-CalledEighthStromateus(‘Liberlogicus’)byClementof
Alexandria:GreekText,Translation,andCommentary
PrefatoryNotetotheGreekTextandTranslation 81
GreekTextandTranslation 86
Commentary 128
(i)1,1–2,5:‘SeekandYouWillFind’ 128
(ii)3,1–(iii)8,3:TeachingonDemonstration 145
(iii)8,4–(v)15,1:MethodofDiscovery 174
(v)15,2–163:SuspensionofJudgementi 199
(vi)17,1–21,6:DivisionandDefinition 218
(vii)22,1–4:SuspensionofJudgementii 241
vi contents
(viii)23,1–24,9:Categories 246
(ix)25,1–33,9:Causes 262
Bibliography 313
IndexofModernAuthors 338
IndexofSubjectsandNames 341
IndexofSources 353
Preface
Thisbookisastudyoftheso-calledeighthStromateusbyClementofAlexan-
dria(d.before221c.e.).Itscoreisalemmaticcommentary,accompaniedbythe
Greektext,translation,andanintroduction,whichdealswiththeperplexing
questionoftheoriginandpurposeofthismysterioustext.
The‘eighthbook’isnotastandardbookoftheStromateis.Toallappearances,
itisacollectionofexcerpts,which,forthemostpart,areofapurelyphilosoph-
icalnature.Forvariousreasons(mainly,Isuspect,becauseitfallsin-between
different fields of historical expertise), the text has been rather neglected by
scholars,boththoseworkinginancientphilosophyandtheexpertsonClem-
ent.Thelastmonographdedicatedtoit(oneofthelastGermandissertations
writteninLatin)waspublishedmorethanacenturyago,andthenumberof
scholars who have explored it in detail (apart from a few passages, immor-
talizedbytheirinclusioninvonArnim’scollectionofStoicfragments)would
easilyfitintoamedium-sizedseminarroom.
This obscurity contrasts with the fact that the text deals, in an informed
andintelligentmanner,withanumberoftopicsthatscholars,especiallythose
workingonancientphilosophy,usuallyfindinteresting:demonstration,dialec-
tic,divisionanddefinition,categories,causation,andscepticism.Acloserlook
shows that these topics are treated in a didactic and introductory style, but
notinawaythatcouldbedescribedasnaïveorconventional.Hereisatext
standinginthetraditionofAristotle’sOrganon,combiningfreelybutrigorously
Aristotelian elements with those coming from later sources (Stoic, Platonist,
sceptic,andmedical);chiefly,asitseems,inordertoprovidemethodological
instruction.
Onemightwonder,then,ifthe‘eighthStromateus’hasanythingtodowith
theChristianapologistandbiblicalexegeteunderwhosenameitispreserved.
However,thereisnodoubtthatitwaswrittenbyClement:Firstofall,thereare
severalparallels,someofthemalmostverbatim,betweenthe‘eighthbook’and
theregularbooksoftheStromateis.Second,thefirsttwopagesclearlyconform
to Clement’s style and preoccupations. Third, the hand of a Christian writer
canbeoccasionallyrecognizedeveninmoredenselyphilosophicalparts.Most
likely, the text consists of Clement’s excerpts from a philosophical source,
to which he sometimes added his own gloss or comment. Nonetheless, as I
will argue in this book, it seems unlikely that he ever intended it to be the
continuationoftheStromateis.
Asamatteroffact,theverytitleofourtextisproblematic:IntheByzantine
manuscriptwhichcontainstheStromateis,thetextknownastheeighthbook
viii preface
isplacedatthebeginningofalargersection,whichalsoincludesotherfrag-
mentarymaterialofamoretheologicalnature(theExcerptaexTheodotoand
Eclogaepropheticae).However,thetitle‘eighthStromateus’,writtenatthehead
ofthefirstpageofthatsection,mightwellpertaintothismaterialasawhole,
notjusttoitsfirst,philosophicalpart.Theconventionofusingthetitlewith
referencetothefirstpartonlygoesbackto1550(thefirstprintededitionofthe
Stromateis)anddoesnotseemtohavemuchsupporteitherinthemanuscript
orintheancienttestimoniesonClement’sworks.Thus,whenspeakingofthe
‘eighthStromateus’inthisstudy,wefollowthemodernconvention;however,by
addingthe“so-called”(ortheinvertedcommas)toit,wesignalourreluctance
toacceptthisconventionastrue.Ifonecouldchoosetoreplaceoneconvention
withanother,abettercandidateforatitlewouldbe‘liberlogicus’,adescription
usedbyDanielHeinsein1616.
Thescholarlydebateaboutthe‘eighthStromateus’spansfourcenturies.It
isconcernedchieflywiththefollowingquestions:Howtoexplaintheincoher-
entandfragmentarycharacterofthistext?WhatisitsplacewithinClement’s
œuvre?HowisitrelevanttoClement’sthought?Andwhatareitsphilosophical
sources?Manyconflictinganswerstothesequestionshavebeenproduced—
most of them in the 19th and early 20th century—but rarely has one study
attemptedtodealwiththemall.Today,thestateoftheartishardtodefine.
Some of the questions are occasionally addressed on the margins of other
topics.Othersaredealtwithinconnectionwithbroaderissuesregardingthe
‘meta-Stromatic’material,withoutsufficientattentionbeingpaidtothepecu-
liarcontentsof‘liberlogicus’.Selectedpassageshaveattractedscholarsworking
in ancient philosophy, but few have explored them in their broader context.
Thepresentstudyisanattempttore-visitthesequestions:Inacriticaldialogue
withthefourcenturiesofscholarship,itproposesanargumentwhoseaimis
toaccommodateallthemajorconcernswhichhaveariseninthecourseofthe
debate.
ThemostintriguingaspectoftheriddleisthequestionofClement’sphilo-
sophicalsources.Thetraditionofthesource-criticalinvestigationof‘liberlogi-
cus’,startedbyHansvonArnimandincluding,inourowndays,JaapMansfeld
and Teun Tieleman, has produced a wealth of comparative material, which
enablesustolocalizethemainsourceofthetextinthephilosophicallandscape
ofthe2ndcenturya.d.withreasonableassurance.Ihavearguedinearlierstud-
ies, and continue to argue in this book, that the source, or the main one, is
thelosttreatiseOnDemonstration,writtenbyClement’soldercontemporary,
thegreatdoctor-cum-philosopherGalenofPergamum.Nodoubt,readerswill
approach this proposal with caution and not everyone will be convinced. In
the part of the introduction called ‘The Galen Hypothesis’, I have assembled
preface ix
thereasonsthat,inthecourseofmyworkonthecommentary,haveconvinced
me.Iamawarehowboldtheproposalis.However,otherattemptsatexplaining
theoriginofthetextanditsrelationtoGalen’sworks,suchasthosesubmitted
bySolmsenorTieleman,strikemeaslessplausible.Whetherornoteveryone
elsewillfindthesamereasonsequallycompellingisanothermatter:
…ἢγὰρεὐτυχεῖς
σὺντῷθεῷφανούμεθ’,ἢπεπτωκότες.1
LikeZeus,thisbookwasconceivedinCrete.Istartedmyinvestigationofthe
sources of ‘Stromateis viii’ while a visiting fellow at the University of Crete,
Rethymno,in2009.Asanoutcomeofthis6-monthvisit,generouslyfundedby
theAlexanderS.OnassisFoundation,Iproducedtwoarticlesarguinginfavour
of the Galenic provenance of the text.2 During this happy time, right before
theoutbreakoftheGreekfinancialcrisis,mymainhostsattheDepartmentof
PhilosophyandSocialStudieswereAndreiLebedevandGeorgeKaramanolis.
With George, we met on a regular basis, reading and discussing the ‘eighth
book’together.Hisinterestandencouragementwasimportantformeatthis
earlystage,whenIfeltalittlebitlonelywithatextthatseemedtointerestno
oneelseandthatIfailedtounderstand.
The bulk of the book was written in the years 2012–2015, when I was a
researchfellowattheInstituteforClassicalPhilologyatHumboldtUniversity
Berlin. My research was part of the programme ‘Medicine of the Mind, Phi-
losophyoftheBody’,fundedbytheAlexandervonHumboldtFoundationand
directedbyPhilipvanderEijk.IameternallygratefultoPhilipforaccepting
me into his research group, whose rigorous work ethic combined with self-
less curiosity affected my work daily. In Berlin, I had many opportunities to
presentpartsofmyworkinfrontofalearnedaudience,whetherattheInstitute
forClassicalPhilology,theInstituteforPhilosophyathu,orinseminarsorga-
nizedwithinthe‘Philosophy,Science,andtheSciences’programme.Mywarm
thankstotheorganizersandparticipantsoftheseevents,especiallyStephen
Menn,whosefeedbackIfoundparticularlyuseful.Ofcolleaguesandfriends
whose advice had a direct impact on the book, I would additionally like to
mentionFabioAcerbi,IstvánBodnár,RiccardoChiaradonna,SeanCoughlin,
Philip van der Eijk, Katerina Ierodiakonou, Ricardo Julião, Matteo Martelli,
1 Sophocles,Oed.Tyr.145f.
2 “GalenusChristianus?TheDoctrineofDemonstrationinStromataviiiandtheQuestionof
ItsSource,”VigiliaeChristianae65/4(2011),pp.343–375;“CategoriesinStromataviii,”Elenchos
33/2(2012),pp.197–225.