Quintus Septimius Florence Tertullian

Dedicated to Valery Semenovich Durov At the end of the 2nd century of the Christian era, despite the fact that the old, increasingly eclectic beliefs succumbed to the onslaught of “totalitarian”, “fundamentalist” religions that came from the East, Greco-Roman paganism continued to play a significant role in shaping the worldview of the inhabitants of the Roman Empire. People did not so much believe in the gods, who became for them characters like our Father Frost and the Snow Maiden, as they considered it necessary to preserve established traditions, to perform time-honored rituals that, in their opinion, ensured the well-being of the Empire. 1 Probably many pagans were ready to laugh, like Lucian, at Jupiter and the other Olympians. However, they did not forgive Christians for their refusal to perform purely symbolic sacrifices, regarding it as a manifestation of extreme disloyalty to the state and dangerous insolence. “Every Christian could be brought to trial for violating the law on the veneration of Caesar, but he was punished not as a Christian and not for Christianity, but only as an opponent of the cult of the Caesars [...].” 2 It was believed that the disdain of the followers of the new religion for the old gods could cause the latter’s anger, expressed in natural disasters and social misfortunes. 3 Thus, Christians became closer in the minds of their contemporaries to villains who practiced magic for criminal purposes. 4 Jesus Christ Himself was considered by many to be a magician, 5 and terrible crimes were attributed to his followers, such as: ritual killings of infants followed by eating their flesh and sexual sin, including incest (since Christians called each other brothers and sisters, and their meals were called “evenings of love” 6). Christians, isolated from other people, unlike the majority, who professed all kinds of religions or did not profess any, aroused suspicion among this majority with their strange behavior. Regarded as an “illegal association,” the Christian “sect” (Tert. Apol., 1, 1; 38, 1) could therefore not count on recognition from the state. The first persecution of Christians was under Nero, who accused them of setting fire to Rome. Subsequently, persecutions constantly broke out, claiming the lives of more and more martyrs. However, pagan resistance to Christianity consisted not only of persecution, but also of literary polemics. Celsus's work, The True Word, was dedicated to the refutation of Christianity. Christians were caricatured in pagan literature (see, for example: Luc. Peregr., 11-13 and 16). Neither Tacitus (Tas. Ann., XV 44) nor Suetonius (Suet. Nero, 16, 2) favored them in their writings. Christians had to accept this literary challenge. If the “apostolic men” (Clement of Rome, Ignatius the God-Bearer, Polycarp of Smyrna, Hermas) wrote only for their coreligionists, then the apologists (Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras, Theophilus of Antioch and others) came out of the “ideological ghetto” to defend Christianity before educated pagans. 7 Tertullian is one of the most prominent figures among the defenders of the new faith; “those provisions or opinions that [he] takes from this or that apologist, [he] develops to the point plus ultra, analyzes them to the last degree of possibility.” 8 According to Paul Monceau, Tertullian changed everything he took from other apologists or pagans, “since he subjected everything to a completely new system of defense.” 9 Timothy David Barnes notes that in Book 2 of To the Gentiles Tertullian “leaves the well-worn paths of Greek apology and takes his material from the antiquarian compilations of M. Terence Varro; from his Greek predecessors the Latin apologist borrows only the idea that the pagan gods were simply deified men.” 10 According to another opinion, in his criticism of pagan gods and superstitions, Tertullian was entirely dependent on his Greek Christian predecessors. 11 It seems more correct to adhere to the first point of view and consider Tertullian as an independent author who transformed the information received in accordance with his own attitudes and goals. The peculiarities of his demonology, the originality of his Euhemerian criticism of the gods will be discussed below. Addressing, first of all, his fellow countrymen, as well as all other Latin-speaking citizens of the empire, Tertullian simply could not blindly follow the Greek Christian writers who did not take into account the Carthaginian specifics and did not pay attention to the Roman gods and heroes. Is Tertullian the first Latin apologist? Regarding which work was written earlier - Tertullian’s “Apologetics” or Minucius Felix’s “Octavius”, which has much in common with him, diametrically opposed opinions are expressed. 12 It can be assumed, however, that regardless of whether Tertullian used the work of Minucius Felix in writing his works or, as Reinhold Aghad thinks, a general source, 13 he gave new meaning to known facts, arranged them as his goal required and was never a simple compiler. Tertullian's polemic (born between 150 and 170 AD in Carthage and died between 220 and 240) 14 with polytheism is uncompromising in nature, most clearly reflecting the struggle of the new religion with traditional beliefs. His interpretation of pagan myths demonstrates the ability of Christian apologetics to move from defense to attack, to exploit the weaknesses of the enemy, to analyze his beliefs, to comprehend the cultural values ​​he created, borrowing one thing and discarding another. “To the Pagans” (two books), “Apologetics,” “On the Witness of the Soul,” and “To Scapula” are devoted to the refutation of paganism and the defense of Christianity. Tertullian, according to J. V. F. Borlefs, understood the so-called “Nero’s Institution (Institutium Neronianum)” directed against Christians “in the sense of a habit, a habit of condemning and punishing them.” 15 He was trying to change public opinion that was hostile towards Christians, rather than seeking the repeal of a specific law. 16 According to Lewis Swift, "the judicial character of the Apologeticus must be understood in the broader sense [...] implied in the concluding statement: cum damnamur a vobis, a Deo absolvimur." 17 The study offered to readers touches on the issue of the relationship between ancient and Christian cultures. The seemingly superficial conflict between outdated myths and the Bible reflects the contradiction between two worldviews, two religious paradigms: Judeo-Christian creationism and pagan manifestationism. As a rule, modern scholars do not consider the personality and work of Tertullian through the prism of his attitude to pagan mythology as such. However, it is precisely this approach that is necessary for a deeper understanding of the psychology of this apologist. Tertullian's criticism of ancient philosophy cannot give us a complete picture of himself and his talent, since he always remained more of a lawyer than a philosopher. The mythological knowledge acquired by the Romans already in early childhood 18 was very firmly rooted in their consciousness. Tertullian's acquaintance with pagan philosophy and jurisprudence occurred earlier than his adoption of Christianity, but much later than his acquaintance with myths, a kind of unwritten “Bible” of polytheism. Not every Christian born into a pagan family experienced a passion for one school of thought or another, but there was probably no one who did not at some time pray to Jupiter, Serapis, or another god. Tertullian's attitude to mythology shows us the attitude of an educated Christian, who lived at the turn of the 2nd-3rd centuries in the western part of the Roman Empire, to his overcome past: “Tertullian is a typical example of those who, after conversion, were most hostile to the liberal arts, which formed and ordered their views.” 19 So, in this work we will primarily talk about the “mythological” component in the work of Tertullian. This element in the works of Quintus Septimius Florens that have survived to this day will be the organizing principle that, like the “wrath of Achilles” in the Iliad, is intended to help reveal the theme stated in the title. In fact, the study of the “philosophical-theological” component, presented more in the dogmatic-polemical works of Tertullian, directed mainly against the Gnostic heretics, is unlikely to help us understand the world gripped by hatred of Christianity in which our Carthaginian lived. In apologetic works, the images of philosophers are stilted, their teachings are presented inaccurately, so that the analysis of the latter is of no interest. At the same time, it is the works “To the Pagans” and “Apologetics” addressed to pagans, as well as the practical-ascetic treatise “On Spectacles” addressed to Christians (former pagans) that allow us to feel the heroism, tragedy, and sometimes the comedy of the era under consideration. However, a significant part of these works is occupied by myths and their refutation. The work will examine some of Tertullian's sources and his method of handling them, and also show the directions of his interpretation of mythological material. For a more complete understanding of the relationship between a Christian and the pagan world, with its images and ideals, it seems important to also establish the purposes of Tertullian’s use of pagan mythology and the reasons for different approaches to certain myths. All this will help us to better imagine the atmosphere in which he lived, the atmosphere that he conveyed in the following words: “We are all born under an idolatrous midwife, when the mother’s wombs themselves, tied with sacred bandages made before idols, declare their offspring dedicated to demons, when Lucina and Diana are invoked during childbirth, when during all seven days Juno is offered a meal, when on the decisive day the Fates are invoked Scribunda, when even the baby’s first step on earth is dedicated to the goddess Statina” (Tert. De an., 39, 2). In fact, the pagan gods surrounded man on all sides. They were even in the sky, and Tertullian considers it necessary to remove Castors, Perseus, Erigone, as well as Ganymede from it (Tert. Ad nat., II 15, 1). The apologist often returned to the topic of star-gods later. 20 Despite the large number of studies devoted to Tertullian, the problem of his use and interpretation of pagan myths has been rarely addressed. Vermander writes on this matter: “[...] despite the importance that must be recognized for it, this polemic (against the pagan gods - A.B.) - as far as Tertullian is concerned at least - has caused almost no in-depth research. It was not analyzed in detail by either C. Guinebert, or P. Monceau, or J. Steinmann, or T.D. Barnes, or J.-C. Freduy." 21 "The Apologetic" is a revised version of "To the Gentiles," his "imperfect sketch." 22 When writing To the Pagans, Tertullian did not fully realize the need to combine material borrowed from Christian and pagan authors, and referred only to Virgil, Herodotus, Plato, Homer, Tacitus and Ctesias; in Apologetics he already names more than thirty pagan authors. 23 In most cases, he borrows information from more than one source. As an example, consider a passage from his earliest surviving work. The number of notes shows how varied the subject matter of the original works and compendia that he could have used in writing this passage must have been. “The father of Indigetus 24 was considered to be Aeneas, who, wounded by a stone (lapide debilitatum), 25 was never a glorious warrior. As much as this weapon is common to the people 26 and suitable for dogs (volgare atque caninum), 27 so shameful is the wound from it. But Aeneas also turns out to be a traitor to the fatherland (proditor patriae), as much Aeneas as Antenor. 28 And even if they don’t want to consider this true, Aeneas really leaves his comrades when the fatherland was on fire. He should prefer the Punic woman who did not accompany her husband Hasdrubal, who begged the enemy with the timidity of Aeneas, 29 and did not have the idea, taking her sons, to save her beauty and father in flight, but threw herself into the fire of burning Carthage, as if into the arms of a dying fatherland. Aeneas is pious (pius Aeneas) 30 because of his only child and an exhausted old man, despite the abandonment of Priam 31 and Astyanax? 32 But he should be all the more hated by the Romans, who swear by the welfare of the emperors and their houses to the detriment of children and wives and everything that is dear to them (adversus liberos et coniuges et omne pignus suum). 33 [The Romans] deify the son of Venus, and Vulcan, knowing this, endures, 34 and Juno humbles himself. If the bearers of parents (baiuli parentum) 35 go ​​to heaven, why not consider the Argive youths rather to be gods because they carried their mother, so that she would not commit blasphemy, harnessed to a cart, 36 which exceeded any requirements of filial piety? Why is she not considered more of a goddess who is more pious - that daughter who feeds her starved father in prison with her breast? What else glorifies Aeneas, if not the fact that he did not appear anywhere during the Laurentian battle? Again, perhaps, as usual, he fled from the battle like a deserter” (Tert. Ad nat., II 9, 12–18). It is believed that it was Tertullian who initiated Christian criticism of Aeneas. The Latin apologist could not have borrowed material for it from his Greek predecessors, since his information is more complete. Pre-Christian criticism of this hero can be traced back to Hellenistic times. The main charge brought against him was that of treason against his hometown of Troy and collaboration with the Greeks. 37 There are several versions of the salvation of Aeneas. According to one, he was spared by the Greeks as a reward for betrayal, according to another - in gratitude for the hospitality shown to Odysseus. 38 The most popular legend was probably dating back to Timaeus. According to this legend, Aeneas received the right to free exit upon surrender and took his old father instead of gold and silver. Touched by this, the Greeks offered him a new choice, and he took the images of the gods. Disarmed by piety, his enemies released him along with all his goods and even offered him a ship. 39 As we see, Tertullian follows the first of these versions of the myth. Among the Greek apologists who lived before Tertullian, we do not find actual criticism of Aeneas, who, being a Roman hero, did not attract their attention. Having spoken about Aeneas, Tertullian leaves for a while his source of information about him. The apologist's information about Hasdrubal's wife 40 was apparently drawn from some historical work devoted to the Third Punic War. 41 After turning to mythology (the husband of Venus and the weakness of Juno), Tertullian returns to history, comparing Aeneas with the Herodotus Argives Cleobis and Biton (Hrd., I 31) 42 and with a daughter breastfeeding her father. 43 Probably, when writing the passage under discussion, Tertullian, among other things, used one of the catalogs widespread in antiquity, which dealt with the devotion of children to their parents. Let's look at a few more places from the works of Tertullian, where, speaking about the gods, he used not a specific author, but a reference book or catalogue. R. Agad, citing quotes from the Christian authors Minucius Felix, Tertullian, Lactantius and Augustine, where we are talking about the deification of people, concludes that the passage from “Octavia” by Minucius (25, 8), which talks about Romulus, Picus, Tiberinus, Cons, Pilumnus, Volumna, Cloacinus, Pavor, Pallor, Febris, Acca Lawrence and Flora, goes back to Varro. “To him,” the scientist believes, “these four fragments 44 from Tertullian also go back.” Aghad does not consider it necessary to show in more detail that they come from the same place, “after all, the gods introduced by Romulus, Tatius and Hostilius, about whom we read in the work Adv. Marc. (I 18, 4), Varro presented, according to Augustine. He stated similar things about Father Liber (Ad nat., I 10.16) in the 14th book of Antiquities, fragments of which are preserved by Augustine (Aug. De civ., VI 9). Finally, speaking about the Egyptian gods (Ad nat., I 10, 17), Tertullian himself refers to Varro. Therefore, I do not hesitate to attribute to Varro what is reported above by Tertullian.” In a note to this passage, Agad says: "Except Antinous [...]." Further, the scientist continues: “From this it follows that Varro set out in turn which gods, in what order and by what right, were accepted among the Roman public gods.” 45 It seems not entirely proven that Tertullian obtained information about Alburn from Varro. In two places (Tert. Apol., 5, l; Ad nat., I 10, 14) Tertullian speaks of Alburn, without mentioning other gods appearing in Minucius, Lactantius and Augustine, where these authors probably used Varro. None of them say anything about Alburn at all. It is not clear why Tertullian chose Alburn from a number of examples proposed by Varro, and referred to him three times, either to prove the power of the Senate over the gods, or when listing the people who established cults. Augustine names Romulus, Titus Tatius, Numa and Hostilius among the perpetrators of deifications (Aug. De civ., IV 23). They were all kings. Lactantium (Lact. Div. Inst., I 20, 11–12) mentions, in addition to Tatius and Tullus Hostilius (who are also spoken of by Minucius Felix: Min., 25, 8), about Marcus Marcellus, but Agade himself does not dare to restore the text of Varro from the words of this church writer. 46 In addition, the deity of Mount Alburn 47 is included in a different series of gods than Cone, Cloacina and Pavor. Metellus (or M. Aemilius), as well as Hadrian, who ranked Antinous among the gods, were not kings, and information about them was probably borrowed by Tertullian from a later catalog of apotheoses. Within the framework of this study, it is impossible and impractical to present to readers all the poets and writers from Tertullian’s “bookshelf.” Let us consider only some of the pagan authors who supplied our apologist with stories and facts. An analysis of his use of Homer, the ancient Greek historians Herodotus (5th century BC) and Timaeus (c. 356 - c. 260 BC), the Roman poet Ovid, the Christian writer Clement of Alexandria, as well as extra-literary sources, it seems, will give a fairly complete picture of how Quintus Septimius Florens disposed of the classical heritage of antiquity and the works of his contemporaries. Homer. Tertullian in two places (Tert. Ad nat., I 10, 38–39; Apol., 14, 2–3) uses Homeric plots with battles of the gods. However, the similarity in the descriptions of these battles in different Christian authors (for example: Min., 23, 3–4; Cl. Protr., 2, 29, 3; 2, 36, 1; 4, 55, 4; 2, 33, 2) suggests that Tertullian in both cases did not use Homer himself, but one of the apologists who lived earlier. According to R. Agada, Latin and Greek church writers go back to a certain philosopher, a supporter of Euhemerus. 48 It should be noted that descriptions of gods possessing human qualities and behaving like mere mortals were often found not only on the pages of Christian writings. Tertullian repeatedly turns to Homeric heroes, including them in the ranks of rhetorical examples. In Ad nat. (II 9, 23) it is said: “The saint, thanks to his hospitality, received the sanctuary from King Plotius: Ulysses could also offer you the most philanthropic Alcinous as another god.” 49 B De pall. (2, 7) we read: “Indeed, the world is a very well cultivated field of this state, after all the poisonous roots of hostility have been uprooted and the thorns and weeds of feigned friendship have been weeded out, more pleasant than the garden of Alcinous 50 and the rose garden of Midas.” In Adv. Val. (12.4) along with Aesop's jackdaw, 51 Hesiod's Pandora, Actium's dish and Ptolemy's mixture, the drink of Nestor (Nestoris cocetum) 52 - another Homeric hero - is mentioned. The mention of the name Alcinous, like many other Homeric characters, was a common place in Roman literature. 53 Tertullian, introducing such examples into his narrative, not necessarily borrowed from Homer himself, uses stereotypes widespread in antiquity in order to ensure that an audience hostile to Christianity pays attention to his words. After all, according to Demetrius, “[...] persuasiveness depends on two qualities: clarity and familiarity, because everything unclear and unusual is unconvincing” (221). 54 Tertullian’s main task was precisely to convince the pagans of the innocence of Christians and, if possible, to win them over to his side. Herodotus. Repeatedly in Tertullian’s works there are passages that evoke associations with Herodotus’ stories. Let us consider these passages to find out with what degree of confidence it can be said that the Carthaginian apologist in his work turned to Herodotus’s “History”. In Ad nat. (I 8) the apologist is outraged by the fact that Christians are called the “third nation” and wants to know about the first and second. Then he writes: “Psammetichus really believed that he had discovered what the first race of people was like. As they say, he, having removed the babies from all communication with people, gave them to be raised by a nurse, whose tongue was cut off in advance, so that they, being completely deprived of the sound of human speech, would themselves form a language and thereby indicate the first people that nature itself taught to speak. The first word spoken was beccos. This is what the Phrygians call bread, which is why the Phrygians are considered the first people. This alone allows us to speak with confidence about the emptiness of your stories, which is why we would like to point out to you that you believe more fiction than reality. Is it even possible to believe that that nurse continued to live after her tongue, that organ of the soul itself, was removed by the roots, and her throat was emasculated, which, in addition, received a dangerous wound, and in connection with this, spoiled blood rushed to her heart, and, finally, her nutrition stopped for some time? But let us assume that her life continued thanks to the drugs of Philomela, about whom reasonable people say that she became dumb not because her tongue was cut out, but because she was very bashful. So, if that nurse remained alive, she could have muttered something unclear, for the pharynx can emit inarticulate sounds with an open mouth and motionless lips and tongue. And it is possible that children, since they did not hear anything else, and they had a language, were able to repeat this without difficulty and more proportionately, and thus they accidentally came to the invention of some meaningful words. But let the Phrygians be the first people, however, even in this case the Christians will not be the third, for where are the second then? 55 This passage was not transferred by Tertullian to the Apologeticus. According to Herodotus (Hrd., II 2), the Egyptian king Psammetichus, wanting to find out which people were the most ancient, came up with the following: he “ordered to give two newborn babies [...] to a shepherd [...]. By order of the king, no one was to utter a single word in their presence. The babies were placed in a separate empty hut, where at a certain time the shepherd brought the goats and, after giving the children milk, did everything else that was necessary. [...] So the shepherd acted on the orders of the king for two years. One day, when he opened the door and entered the hut, both babies fell at his feet and, holding out their little hands, uttered the word “bekos.” The shepherd listened to this word silently at first. When later, when visiting infants to care for them, he heard this word every time, he reported this to the king; and he ordered to bring the babies before his royal eyes. When Psammetichus himself also heard this word, he ordered to ask which people and what exactly they called the word “bekos”, and learned that this is what the Phrygians call bread. From this the Egyptians concluded that the Phrygians were even older than themselves. So I heard from the priests of Hephaestus in Memphis. The Hellenes tell a lot of nonsense stories about this, and, among other things, that Psammetichus ordered the tongues of several women to be cut out and then gave them the babies to raise.” 56 T.D. Barnes explains Tertullian's error in speaking not about the shepherd caring for the children by order of Psammetichus, but about the woman with her tongue cut out as follows: “Tertullian seems to have used Herodotus directly and combined the two versions of the story. Confirmation of this can be found quite unexpectedly. This story is found in ancient literature only in Herodotus and in references to it by other authors.” 57 However, the fact that Tertullian follows the second version, which Herodotus rejects, cannot serve as conclusive evidence of the Christian author's direct use of the text of Herodotus' History. Having outlined the legend of Psammetichus, the nurse and the children, Tertullian claims that it is impossible to survive after the removal of the tongue, and provides medical evidence. Along with the nurse, whose tongue was allegedly cut out, he names Philomela, not mentioned in Herodotus. This may speak in favor of his borrowing these subjects from one of his treatises on medicine or from a catalog of mutilations. 58 Barnes’s words that “this story in ancient literature is found only in Herodotus and in references to it by other authors” do not seem entirely convincing: Herodotus himself reported the existence of “nonsense stories” of the Hellenes about women with their tongues cut out. These stories could form the basis of the literary tradition used by the Christian apologist. In addition, there was at least one more version of the legend about determining which people were the most ancient. It is hinted at by Tertullian’s contemporary Clement of Alexandria (Cl. Protr., 1, 6, 4): “Let the prophetic goats point to the Phrygians as the most ancient people, let the poets point to the Arcadians who describe them as pre-lunar, 59 let the Egyptians learn from dreams that this land was the first to give birth to gods and people, but none of them was before this universe; before the creation of the cosmos we were, first born in God Himself because we were destined to arise.” Clement mentions goats trained for divination below (Cl. Protr., 2.11, 3). In Adv. Marc. (I 1, 3) Tertullian describes the harsh nature and inhabitants of Pontus, declaring that Marcion surpasses them all in his bad qualities. Regarding the words “liquores ignibus / variant: nivibus / redeunt, amnes glacie negantur, montes pruina exaggerantur” Barnes says the following: “[...] along with ice streams and snowy mountains, fiery lakes appear there. Publishers correct the text, replacing fire with snow. In fact, Tertullian’s memory failed him again.” 60 Further, the English scientist refers to Herodotus (Hrd., IV 28, 1), where it is said about the appearance of dirt when lighting a fire, and notes: “Tertullian remembered fire, but used this word inappropriately.” 61 The Latin text, however, can be understood differently: “Liquids return [to their previous state] thanks to fire, rivers do not allow [floating on them] because of ice, mountains become higher because of the snow lying on them.” In this case, Tertullian makes no mistake. Thus, the fragment being analyzed also does not prove the direct use of Herodotus by the Christian author. In Decor. (14.4) Tertullian writes about “centenaries roses collected in the gardens of Midas. Herodotus mentions “the so-called gardens of Midas, son of Gordius”: “In these gardens grow wild roses with sixty petals. Their smell is much stronger than the smell of other roses. According to the Macedonian legend, Silenus was caught in these gardens” 62 (Hrd., VIII 138). Barnes, as usual, sees the reason for this discrepancy in Tertullian’s direct borrowing of information from Herodotus. 63 The ancient Greek philosopher and naturalist Theophrastus (2nd half of the 4th – 1st half of the 3rd centuries BC) also wrote about roses with a hundred petals: “Most roses have five petals, but there are twelve and twenty petals; There are also those that have a much larger number of petals: there are, they say, roses that are called “hundred-petalled.” The largest number of such roses is near Philippi: the local residents transplant them to them from Pangea, where there are a lot of them growing. Their inner petals are very small (these roses develop in such a way that some of their petals grow outside and others inside). These roses are not fragrant and small in size” 64 (Theophr., VI 6, 4). The last phrase does not allow us to identify with complete confidence the type of roses described by Theophrastus with the roses mentioned by Herodotus, as M.E. Sergeenko does in the note to the quoted passage. 65 However, her opinion that “hundred-petalled” simply means “many-petaled” seems correct in relation to Tertullian’s passage. According to the observations of S.A. Izhevsky, Damask rose has 67 petals, and Centifolia roses No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, No. 4, No. 5 have 80, 105, 107, 112 and 136 petals, respectively. 66 The same researcher writes elsewhere that the centifolia rose (R. centifolia) “has been known in culture since ancient times.” 67 According to S. G. Saakov, during the time of Theophrastus, Rosa damascena Mill., R. centifolia L., R. muscosa Ait were common in rose gardens; in Western Europe, the popularity of roses increased in the 8th–12th centuries, when the named roses were brought from the east to Sicily and Spain by Arab caliphs. 68 Although “unlike the damask rose, the centifolia rose is unknown in the wild,” 69 and Herodotus spoke of wild roses, it cannot be ruled out that in his time this species was not yet cultivated. Based on the above, it can be assumed that both the ancient Greek historian and the source of the Christian apologist meant roses related to the species Rosa damascena Mill., R. centifolia L., classified as Gallic roses. 70 Obviously, Tertullian’s mention of hundred-petalled roses instead of sixty-petaled ones, as in Herodotus, is explained by the use of the “round” large number, which was more familiar to his contemporaries, and the decimal counting system that was firmly established by that time. In the same way, Herodotus writes about “sixty-petalled” roses not because all Midas’s roses had exactly 60 petals, but uses the “round” number of the Babylonian counting system, which was more common for his time. The decimal and sexagesimal (as well as the decimal, according to the number of fingers and toes) systems in ancient times existed in parallel and were often combined with each other; Thus, one talent is equal to 6,000 drachmas, and a drachma is equal to six obols. 71 Echoes of the Babylonian system have survived even to this day: one hour is equal to 60 minutes. However, by the time of Tertullian, the decimal, more convenient counting system had almost completely replaced the sexagesimal system and had become familiar to the majority of the population. The apologist's "error" therefore does not stem from his recollection of reading Herodotus in childhood or youth, but is borrowed from the compiler who used the decimal system. It is unlikely that Tertullian himself translated 60 (in the sense of “very many”) into 100 (in the same sense). 72 In De pal. (2, 4) Tertullian alludes to the sandstorm that Herodotus wrote about (Hrd., III, 26). Barnes believes that "the obscurity of the allusion presupposes knowledge." 73 However, it must be borne in mind that the apologist mentioned this storm along with other natural disasters, the entire list of which he probably borrowed from the corresponding catalogue. Having examined those places in Tertullian’s works that, according to T.D. Barnes, talk about Tertullian’s direct acquaintance with the Greek text of the “father of history,” we can conclude that we do not have irrefutable evidence that the reason for Tertullian’s “mistakes” should be sought in the poor memory of the Carthaginian author, who did not quite successfully try to remember the work of the great Halicarnassian read in his youth. Timaeus. If in Apol. (19, 6), speaking about the antiquity of the Jewish religion, Tertullian cites the names of many authors, whom he apparently did not read, then in De spect. (5, 2) after words about “many authors” who spoke about the origin of the games, he names only Timaeus by name: “Timaeus reports that the Lydians, immigrants from Asia, settled in Etruria under the leadership of Tyrrhenus, who, in a dispute about the kingdom, lost it to his brother. In Etruria, among their other superstitious rituals, they also introduced spectacles under the guise of religion. The Romans, having invited experts [in this matter], borrowed [...] their name, so that they began to be called ludii (that is, “actors”) from the Lydians.” Thus, referring to Timaeus, Tertullian speaks of Tyrrhenus, who ceded power to his brother, and of the Lydian origin of games instituted under the guise of religion. We do not know what Timaeus actually wrote about the games borrowed from Lydia, 74 just as we do not know whether in this case Tertullian used Timaeus himself or a compiler. Karol Ludwig Roth, among the surviving fragments from the lost books of Suetonius, cites a fragment of Tertullian's Des pect. (5), which includes the words "Timaeus refert[...]". Thus, the reference to Timaeus, according to Roth, is “blind” in Tertullian at this point. 75 Let's see what other historians say about this. Herodotus wrote that games originated from Lydia. But he did not mention their connection with religion. According to him, during the famine, the Lydians participated in games one day so as not to think about food, and the next day they ate. He did not mention Tyrrhenus’s brother, saying only that the king, having remained in his homeland, appointed his son Tyrrhenus (Herodotus calls him Tyrsenus) the head of the migrants (Hrd., I 94). Strabo cites the name of this king, a descendant of Hercules and Omphale, Atys, who during the famine left with him by lot Lida, one of his sons, and ordered the other, Tyrrhenus, with part of his subjects to leave their homeland. Strabo also reports about the transfer to Rome of fasces, axes, trumpets, sacred rites, art, fortune telling, music, but does not talk about games (Strab., V 2, 2). Titus Livy writes that the Romans, in search of ways to appease the wrath of the gods during a pestilence, instituted stage games; actors invited from Etruria danced to the sounds of a flute (Liv., VII 2, 3–4). Livy, however, does not talk about the Lydian origin of the games, unlike Valerius Maximus, according to whom the dances of these actors were borrowed from the Etruscans, descended from the Curetes and Lydians (Val. M., II 4, 4). In the “Aeneid” we read: “Here in the neighborhood lives, having founded the city of Agilla on ancient cliffs, / a people famous for its military courage: / He arrived from Lydia and settled among the Etruscan mountains” 76 (Verg. Aen., VIII 478–480). A contemporary of Tiberius, Velleius Paterculus, presenting Herodotus' version of the origin of the Etruscans, reports that a crop failure forced the brothers Lida and Tyrrhenus to cast lots as to which of them should leave their fatherland. The lot, according to the historian, fell to Tyrrhenus (Vell., I 1,4). Vellei does not talk about the establishment of games. According to Tacitus, Atis's son Lid remained in his homeland, and Tyrrhenus moved to Italy (Tas. Ann., IV 55). Tacitus does not talk about games. The information about them conveyed by Tertullian is not found in full in any of the named historians. Tertullian talks about Dido throwing herself into the fire to avoid marriage with King Iarbus (Tert. Apol., 50, 5; Admart., 4, 5; De mon., 17, 2; De ex., 13,3). Ancient historians describe her death this way. According to Timaeus, Dido, “having built a great fire near the house and lit [it], she threw herself into it from the house” (F.H.G.fr. 23). According to Justin, Dido ordered a bonfire to be built on the outskirts of the city and, having climbed onto it, committed suicide with a sword (lust. Epit., XVIII 6, 6–7; cf.: Verg. Aen., IV 642–705). In the legend about the founding of Carthage, three options are distinguished: the version of Trogus-Justin, the version of Timaeus, which dates back to the stories of the Carthaginians, and the version of Servius, which probably dates back to Cato. 77 Tertullian, speaking about Dido, does not refer to Timaeus, but his version of the story of the founder of Carthage is very reminiscent of Timaeus’s, a kind of calling card of which is the message that Dido did not stab herself, but threw herself into the fire alive. The absence of a reference to Timaeus can be explained both by the fact that Tertullian did not remember or, believing it to be common knowledge, did not consider it necessary to say where he borrowed this information from, and by the fact that he drew it not from Timaeus himself, but from his tradition. It is unlikely that Tertullian received information about Dido from the contemporary Punic tradition of which Shifman speaks. 78 It is much more plausible that at one time or another in his life he became acquainted with the work of Timaeus, part of whose “History” was dedicated to Carthage. The information conveyed by Tertullian, the source of which is called Timaeus (about the Lydians and the games), as well as information found both in Tertullian and in the Timaeus fragment that has come down to us (about Dido), is conveyed differently by other authors. This coincidence is difficult to explain by mere chance, given that in the first case the Timaeus/Tertullian account differs from the reports of six famous Greek and Roman historians and that Tertullian's short story about Dido, while different from Justin's story (not to mention the Aeneid), does not contradict Timaeus' story. Taking these facts into account, it can be assumed that the Carthaginian apologist was familiar with the latter’s writings. Based on Tertullian's use of certain historians, it is difficult to draw a conclusion about his attitude towards the isocratic (mimetic) or pragmatic direction in historiography. 79 It should be noted, however, that Tertullian the rhetorician attached great importance to historical examples. In this he is similar to Titus Livy, who can be classified as a supporter of the isocratic movement. 80 Ovid. Despite the fact that Tertullian mentions the name of Ovid only once, 81 it can be assumed that he was well acquainted with the work of this poet. Ovidian reminiscences are repeatedly found in Tertullian, for example: “[...] in order to look at others and show themselves (mutuum videre ac videri), everyone goes in crowds to public places [...]” (Tert. De cult., II 11, 1) - cf.: “[women] come to look, they come to be looked at themselves (spectatum veniunt; veniunt spectentur ut ipsae)" (Ov. Ars., I 99). Ernst Nöldechen believes that, having written about the Black Sea: “but there is nothing so barbaric and mournful (triste) on Pontus [...]” (Adv. Marc., 1, 4), Tertullian “looked back at Ovid,” 82 the author of “Sorrowful Elegies” (Tristia) and “Letters from Pontus.” Let us consider those cases of Tertullian's possible use of Ovid, where the apologist's text is quite well preserved. 83 A reminiscence of Ovid's works can be assumed in Apol. (28, 1), where Tertullian says that it is absurd to force a person to worship the gods if he does not want to. Such a person, according to the author, can tell someone forcing him to act against his conscience: “I do not want Jupiter to be merciful to me; Who are you? Let the angry Janus appear to me with whatever face he likes (Ianus iratus qua velit fronte). What do you care about me? This ironic evocation, reminiscent of the invitation of Pushkin’s Don Tuan addressed to the statue of the commander to come to Dona Anna, evokes an association with the following verses of Ovid from the first book of “Fastov”: “How can we glorify you, O Janus, two-formed god? / In Greece there is no deity equal in power to you. / Tell us why, of all the celestial beings, you are the only one / You see what’s behind you, you see what’s in front of you? / So I was thinking, trying to make sense of my tablets, / Suddenly I notice that the house was filled with light: / It was the double amazing face / The sacred Janus appeared before me, and he himself looked straight into my eyes 84 (tunc sacer ancipiti mirandus imagine Ianus / bina repens oculis obtulit ora meis)” (Ov. Fast., I 89–96). On the idea that the mention of Janus in Apol. (28, 1) was caused by the author’s desire to play up the spectacular theophany described by Ovid, the following considerations suggest. First, Janus in Apol. (28, 1) appears as an angry deity, much more similar to the powerful guest of Ovid than to the faceless Tertullian “door” god. It is to this category that Tertullian, who wanted to belittle his own Roman gods and therefore did not pay attention to the colorful figure of the two-faced deity, usually places Janus (Tert. De idol., 15, 5; De cor., 13, 9; cp.: Ad nat., II, 15, 3). In fact, the hospitable Saturn Janus 85 (Ad nat., II 12, 27; Apol., 10, 7) is not mentioned where we are talking about the ancient Roman gods proper: in Apol. (25, 10) Tertullian asks: “Whom did Saturn and Jupiter honor? Some kind of Sterkul, I suppose.” 86 However, being named alongside Jupiter, 87 Janus appears much more like Ovid's powerful guest than the faceless Tertullian "door" god. 88 Apparently, the apologist could not resist the temptation to gracefully end the period with an Ovidian allusion. Secondly, in contrast to the image of the angry Jupiter 89, the image of Janus appearing to the author is found only in Ovid: J.-P. Waltzing, in connection with Tertullian's words about Janus (Tert. Apol., 28, 1) points to three places (Sen. Apocol., 9, 2; Pers., 1, 58; Stat. Silv., IV, 1, 11-16), where Ianus bifrons is mentioned with irony. However, there is no talk about the appearance of God. 90 Thirdly, the problems that arose among Christians because of their refusal to participate in the cult of Janus 91 are hardly comparable to those that arose because of their reluctance to honor Jupiter or make sacrifices for the health of the emperor (the latter are discussed below in the same chapter (Tert. Apol., 28,2)). A little lower, Tertullian returns to Jupiter, claiming that the pagans fear him less than the emperor, but does not say a word about Janus (Tert. Apol., 28, 3). Thus, the appearance of the name Janus in this context cannot be explained by the apologist’s desire to give equivalent examples. Tertullian nowhere in his writings refers to sacrifices and prayers to Janus, while about Jupiter he writes: “What is the annual pronouncement of vows? The first is in principle, the second is on the Capitol. After the places, find out the words. “Now 92 to you, O Jupiter, we promise a bull with horns decorated with gold.” What does this formula mean? Of course, apostasy” (Tert. De cor., 12, 3.) The image of Janus did not interest or disturb Tertullian and is found in Apol. (28, 1) as a tribute to literary tradition, being at the same time a fairly common way to laugh at an opponent who is powerless or does not exist at all, from the speaker’s point of view (remember the above comparison with the “Stone Guest”), We find something similar elsewhere: “We are not able to help both people and your begging gods. We don’t think that it is necessary to give to anyone other than those who ask. Let only Jupiter stretch out his hand and receive, for sometimes our mercy spends more in the streets than your piety in the churches” (Tert. Apol., 42, 8). In De pal. (4, 3), 93 speaking about the shame of changing clothes, Tertullian writes about Hercules’ stay at Omphale: “Where are Diomedes and the bloody stalls? Where are Busiris and the funeral altars (Busiris et bustuaria altaria)? Where is the triune Geryon? The club, offended by the incense, preferred to remain stinking of their brains. Already the old blood of the Hydra and centaurs on the arrows was scraped off with pumice in the triumph of effeminacy, so that after the pierced monsters they could fasten a wreath. And besides, the shoulders of a sensible woman or some heroine would not have been able to withstand the skin taken from such an animal, if this skin had not been kneaded for a long time, lost its strength and was devoid of smell, which, I believe, was done with Omphale using balm or veal. I think that the mane also experienced a comb so that the lion’s skin would not irritate the delicate neck.” So, the victories of Hercules over Diomedes, Busiris, Geryon, Hydra and the centaurs are crossed out by his dressing in women's clothing. The similarity of the quoted passage with Ovid’s “Heroids” (Ov. Heroid., IX 67–118) is striking. Deianira shames Hercules for the same offense as Tertullian. She mentions, among other things, the cruel Diomedes and his fierce horses (67–68, 89–90), Busiris (69–70), Geryon with three bodies (91–92), the snake (i.e. Hydra) (95–96) and the centaurs (99–100). Although the list of exploits given by Ovid is more complete than Tertullian’s, in the latter the order is the same as in the first. For comparison: in the “Mythological Library” of Pseudo-Apollodorus we read about the Lernaean Hydra (Ps.-Apoll., II5, 2), centaurs (II 5, 4), mares of Diomedes (II 5, 8), cows of Geryon (II 5, 10), Busiris (II 5, 11). Ovid himself in his other works gives a different order of the exploits of Hercules than in the "Heroids": in the "Metamorphoses" it is said about Busiris (Ov. Met., IX 182-183), Geryon (IX 184-185), centaurs (IX 191), Hydra (IX 192-193), horses of Diomedes (IX 194–196); in “Ibis” we read about Busiris, Diomedes and the centaurs (Ov. Ibis., 399–404). Tertullian’s words about the club, arrows and lion skin of Hercules are reminiscent of the following verses of Ovid: “The skin of the shaggy lion, your prey of the hunt, / Rubs the soft ones - oh shame! – with coarse wool on the sides [...] / The woman took the arrows, from the black poison of Lernaeus, / In her hands, which were heavy with a skein of spun wool; / She tried to take the club that had tamed many monsters, / The man tried to see all the armor in the mirror” 94 (Ov. Heroid., IX 111–112, 115–118). Tertullian notes that “the club preferred to remain stinking of their brains.” However, the myths about Diomedes, Busiris and Geryon do not talk about killing them with a club. Ovid after Geryon (Ov. Heroid., IX 91–92) before Hydra (IX 95–96) speaks of Cerberus (IX 93–94), and Tertullian in the same place speaks of the brain (cerebrum). This is not accidental, since the Christian author more than once used wordplay and puns. For example, about Marcion he writes: “For what beaver is a greater castrator of the flesh (castrator carnis castor) than the one who abolished marriage” (Tert. Adv. Marc., II, 5). In the passage under analysis we came across the combination Busiris et bustuaria altaria (Tert. De pall., 4, 3). Many similar examples can be found in the Apologetics offered to readers. If Tertullian decided to use the pun on the words "brain" and "Cerberus", he needed to create the appropriate context. The brain may be on the club, and Tertullian makes a sentence about it, into which, to connect with the above, he inserts the pronoun “their.” More than one Tertullian wrote with condemnation about dressing Hercules in a woman's dress. 95 But the similarity in theme (the censure of Hercules for an act unbecoming of a hero, built on a listing of his past exploits, contrasting with his behavior in Omphale), the listing of his deeds in the same order, the curious arrangement of words with a similar sound in the same place in this list in Ovid and Tertullian suggests that the first served in this place as a source for the second. Elsewhere, Tertullian writes: “In any case, this very body of ours - the truth that it was formed from clay penetrated even into the myths of the pagans - testifies to both principles from which it arose: flesh - about its origin from the earth, blood - from water" (Tert. De сarn., 9, 2). Many authors have spoken about the creation of man by Prometheus. 96 It is known that Tertullian, using his source, often gives borrowed material a new form and puts it in his own words. Therefore, it is possible to draw a conclusion about his dependence on a particular writer or poet only after comparing the information conveyed by Tertullian and his alleged source. However, in this case, due to the brevity of the message and the lack of characteristic details in it, even such a comparison cannot be made. Let's consider the context in which this myth is discussed. Tertullian, asserting that the human body is formed from clay, and alluding to the myth of Prometheus, refutes the heretics who spoke of heavenly flesh in Christ. So, our author refers to Prometheus when discussing the question of whether the Savior’s body was of heavenly or earthly origin. Ovid poses a similar question: “And a man was born. Created from the essence of the divine / Was he the creator of the universe, the initiator of a better world, / Or was the young earth, divided with the heavenly ether, / Just now, did the seed still preserve the native sky? / The offspring of Iapetus, mixing it with river water, / Created the likeness of gods who rule everything” 97 (Ov. Met., I 78–83). His Prometheus, like Tertullian's Prometheus, should testify in favor of the second version. It is possible, therefore, that it was an essay. Ovid was what Tertullian had in mind when he spoke of the “myths of the pagans.” 98 Note that in Deearn. (9, 2), where there is no indication of the machinations of demons who distorted Christian teaching, we are faced with a statement about the pre-Christian action of the Logos, similar to Justin’s. It has been argued in scholarship that Tertullian, the first late 2nd-early 3rd century Christian author from Carthage to write in Latin, "does not know or does not want to know" the works of his contemporary Clement of Alexandria. 99 Let's try to find out whether such an acquaintance was possible in principle. It is known that Tertullian followed the events taking place in the world: his notes in Apologetics about one episode of the war with the Marcomanni and the death of Marcus Aurelius near Sirmium speak in favor of the fact that he was knowledgeable in international affairs (Apol., 5, 6; 25, 5). 100 What he knew about the state of affairs in the Empire can also be inferred from his words about the rivals of Emperor Septimius Severus Niger, Albina and their supporters, 101 (Apol., 35, 9-11). Tertullian was also interested in news in church life: his use of the works of Justin, Tatian, Theophilus and Irenaeus has been proven; 102 therefore, he did not ignore the work of his older apologist contemporaries. Clement's "Admonition to the Greeks (that is, the pagans)" appeared shortly after 192: in the Stromata, which was probably written later “Protreptika”, Clement speaks of the death of Emperor Commodus (192) as a recent event (Cl. Strom., I 144, 1–145, 5). Tertullian’s “Apologeticum” (Apologeticum [verbum], that is (Ἀπολογητικὸς λόγος;) was published in 197: J.V.F. Borlefs, based on words about the ongoing persecution of the accomplices of Albinus and Niger (Apol., 35, 11) concludes that the Apologeticus was written a little later than June 197, after the return of Emperor Severus to Rome 103 Based on the reference to the “Moors, Marcomanni and the Parthians themselves,” whom the Christians, spread throughout the world, supposedly outnumbered and could have been more dangerous if they wanted (Apol., 37, 4), we can conclude that Tertullian was working on the Apologetics before the outbreak of the war. Parthians, which began in 197 and turned out to be simple 104. So, Tertullian may have been familiar with Clement's Protrepticus. Was he actually familiar with this work? Tertullian's earlier work, as mentioned above, was called "To the Gentiles." Of the Greek apologies known to the Carthaginian author, Tatian’s “Word to the Hellenes” (Ὁ πρὸς Ἕλληνας λόγος) had a similar title. In addition to the title, there are several other common features in the works of Tertullian and Tatian, including a small number of biblical quotations, the use of rhetorical examples, and more. In general, It should be noted that of all the early Greek apologists, it was Tatian who was closest to Tertullian. Both writers declared their rejection of pagan culture in general and philosophy in particular. Both eventually moved away from orthodox Christianity. V. Friend calls Tertullian a Western counterpart of Tatian. 105 Apparently, when creating his first work, Tertullian was to some extent guided by the “Word”. Tatiana. The reason for the change in title of the revised work cannot be merely a change in content: the later work makes no fewer accusations against the pagans and gives no more arguments in defense of Christians than the earlier one. For Tertullian, the associations that arose when reading the title were probably important. “Apologetic” refers us, on the one hand, to the two “Apologies” of Justin (who was probably guided by Plato’s “Apology of Socrates” 106) and to the “Apology” of Apuleius; on the other hand, to Clement's Protrepticus. It should be noted that the titles of Tertullian’s works are quite similar: 4 of those that have come down to us begin with the word “To...” (Ad...), 5 with the word “Against...” (Adversus...), 20 with the word “O...” (De...); “Apologetic” and “Scorpiacus” (cf. “Θηριακά” by Nikander) are the only two non-repeating names. It was Tertullian's reading of the Protrepticus in the period between the writing of his two books, To the Gentiles and Apologetics, that may have influenced him to make some changes in his later work. Since the same elements in the works of the Greek and Latin apologists may have appeared through the use of some common author or authors, 107 only those similar details in the Protrepticus and Apologetics will be taken into account which are absent from other defenders of Christianity. When comparing texts, it should be borne in mind that Tertullian changed everything that he took from other Christian and pagan writers. Therefore, one should not expect literal borrowings from Protrepticus to appear in Apologetics. Let us note some corrections made by Tertullian to the new work. Passages that contradicted the words of Clement disappeared from Apologetics. Thus, in this work there is no word about the abduction of the priestess of Ceres (Ad nat., II 7, 15; Clement pays great attention to the Eleusinian mysteries); there is no story about Psammetichus and the babies (Ad nat., 18, 2–9, cf.: Protr., 1, 6, 4: “Let the prophetic goats point to the Phrygians as the most ancient people”) and there is no identification of the biblical Joseph with Serapis (Adnat., II 8, 10–19, cf.: Protr., 4, 48, 1–6). Having read Clement’s other version, which was more consistent with the revelation of Serapis, Tertullian chose not to correct his “error”, but simply remove it from the text. Below will be presented excerpts from “Apologetics” that were absent in the first work of the Carthaginian author and similar excerpts from “Protrepticus”. 1. In the words of Tertullian “[...] so that they may be ashamed, accusing - I do not say the worst of the best - but already their equals (non dico pessimi ortimos)” (Apol., 4, I) one can hear an echo of a passage from the Protrepticus: “But you, in all respects the best (ἀμείνους), I’m afraid to say, the worst (ὀκνῶ δὲ εἰπεῖν χείρους) than the Egyptians” (Cl. Protr., 2, 39, 6). 2. Both passages below are placed in chapters that deal with demons: “Indeed, the place does not make a sacrificial animal out of a murder victim. If someone kills a person to Artemis and Zeus on the altar, in a sacred place, and not on the high road to Wrath and Covetousness, other demons similar to these, declaring him a sacrificial animal, such a sacrifice is not a sacred act, but murder and murder” (Cl. Protr., 3, 42, 9). “The difference in places, I think, leads to the fact that you consider as gods thanks to the churches those whom you do not call gods in another place; that in a different way the one who rushes along the sacred towers seems mad to you, in a different way the one who jumps on the neighboring roofs; that another power is declared in the one who cuts the genitals or hands, another in the one who cuts his throat. The result of madness and one motivating reason are the same” (Apol., 23, 3). Compare: “[...] regarding infanticide there is no difference whether it is committed in the sacraments or arbitrarily [...]” (Apol., 9, 6). 3. In both the Apologetics (50, 1–2) and the Protrepticus (11, 116, 2–4), the Christian is compared to a soldier. The following differences between Tertullian's first work and the Apologetics may have arisen under the influence of the Protrepticus. 1. In the essay “To the Pagans” we talk about the absurdity of the opinion according to which the gods gave power over the world to the Romans for their piety; “[...] the subject of Admetus increases the empire for Roman citizens and at the same time fails his worthy admirer Croesus, deceiving him with an ambiguous prediction” (Ad nat., II 17, 9). In Apologetics, the mention of Croesus appears in the context of demonology: “With what ingenuity demons adjust the ambiguity [of the answer] to the result in oracles, Croesus knows, Pyrrhus knows” (Apol., 22, 10). In the chapter devoted to demons, Clement also included an anecdote about Croesus: Phoebus “betrayed his friend Croesus and [...] led him across the river Halys to the stake. Showing their favor in this way, demons lead their admirers into the fire” (Cl. Protr., 3, 43, 3). Tertullian in his first work did not mention Solon and Cyrus: “Thales of Miletus to Croesus, who asked him what he thought about the gods, answered “nothing” after several times receiving a reprieve for reflection” (Ad nat., II 2, 11). Clement also contrasts Cyrus and Solon with “Apollo the soothsayer” (Cl. Protr., 3, 43, 2 and 4). In “Apologetics” (Fulden fragment) both of these names appear: “Zechariah lived during the reigns of Cyrus and Darius, during which Thales, the first natural scientist, could not answer Croesus, who questioned him, with anything reliable about the Divinity, being confused by the words of the prophets. Solon declared to the same king, echoing the prophets, that one must bear in mind the end of a long life” (Apol., 19, 4). Clement seems to remind Tertullian of a famous ancient anecdote that was missed in his earlier work. Note that Tertullian, according to T.D. Barnes, borrowed from the Greek apologists “not their sluggish eloquence, not their sincere and touching naivety, or their boring description of Christian life and philosophy,” but specific facts and names. 108 In his first work, Tertullian says that his opponents place posthumous judgment in the hands of Minos and Rhadamanthus, rejecting the more just Aristides (Ad nat., I19, 5). In Apologetics, gods are contrasted with mortals (Apol., 11, 8 and 15–16). In Clement, as we have seen, Cyrus and Solon were opposed to Apollo. 2. In the essay “To the Gentiles” it is said: “[...] appearance does not matter, since we honor images devoid of appearance (deformia). You have gods with a dog’s head and a lion’s [...]” (Adnat., 114, 4). In the Apologetics an interesting image of hybrid gods appears: “[...] they had to immediately worship the biforme deity (biforme numen), who accept hybrid gods (commixtos) with a dog and a lion head [...]” (Apol., 16, 13). Clement compares “demigods” with “half-donkeys”: “Such are your demons and gods, and some demigods (ἡμίθεοι), named like half-breed mules (ἡμίονοι), for you have no shortage of words to compose blasphemous names” (Cl. Protr., 2, 41, 4). Traces of Clement's influence on Tertullian are found in the treatise On the Soul. Tertullian writes: “The eyes of owls do not know the sun; eagles can withstand its radiance and judge the birth of their children by the fearlessness of their gaze and will not feed, like a degenerate, chick that turns away from the sun’s rays” (8, 4). We find a very similar message in Clement: “[...] as true “children of light” let us raise our eyes and look at Him, so that the Lord does not expose us as illegal, in the same way the sun tests the eagles” (Protr., 10, 92, 5). Probably, the “negative” influence of “Protreptic” can explain the disappearance from “Apologetics” of the phrase “Christian mysteries (Christiana mysteria)” (Adnat., I 7, 25). If the Alexandrian tradition, to which Clement belonged, allowed a comparison for “pedagogical” purposes of Christian worship with the mysteries of the pagans (see, for example: Cl. Protr., 12, 120, 1–2), then Tertullian was more careful in this matter. In his essay “On Prescription Against Heretics” (40.2), he contrasts the Christian “divine sacraments (res sacramentorum diuinorum)” with “idol mysteries (idolorum mysteriis).” About the premonition of truth by philosophers in an earlier work, the apologist said the following: “a certain breath of truth (nonnullus [...] afflatus veritatis) raises them [the philosophers] against the gods” (Adnat., 110, 41). In the corresponding place of “Apologetics” (14, 7) there is no talk of any “breath” anymore. Probably Tertullian did not carry these words into his second work because he considered them to express a concept of revelation alien to him. Attention to them could be attracted, for example, by the following passage from the Protrepticus: “For the knowledge of God by those who are able to discern at least a little of the truth, this is sufficient, by the inspiration (ἐπιπνοίᾳ) of God, written down by philosophers and selected by us” (Cl. Protr., 6, 72, 5). So, in Tertullian’s “Apologetics” we find traces of both “positive” (correcting one’s “mistakes”, using the images one liked) and “negative” influence of the “Protrepticus”: Tertullian, obviously not wanting to enter into open polemics with the authoritative Alexandrian scientist, removes from his work those words that seemed to him to bring his position closer to the position of more Clement, tolerant of pagan culture. Extraliterary sources Tertullian says little about contemporary African cults. According to Ptimangin, “everything looks as if our author, a victim of a pagan pre-Christian literary tradition, created, as best he could, variations on well-known themes.” Ptimangin explains this by Tertullian’s lack of desire to provide external “nuanced evidence” (un témoignage nuancé) about pagan cults. 109 It should be noted that it was generally typical for Christian authors to turn to the works of pagan theologians and antiquarians, looking for details there that could discredit early polytheism. “This determined the one-sided nature of the information they provided, namely the separation of the reported data from the real folk religion.” 110 Tertullian's reports of the so-called Sondergötter are based not on his own observations, but on the theological book of Varro or on the books of the pontiffs. 111 And yet, despite all this, Tertullian is not an “armchair scientist” at all. Proving the truth of Christian teaching, he, unlike the Greek apologists, “does not rummage through the archives of pagan wisdom, does not quote excerpts from ancient philosophers.” 112 He does not neglect the information that he receives from his own experience and which, as a result, is relevant, reflecting the contemporary state of affairs. “The whole of nature, or, rather, the whole world, the cosmos, the human soul, history and social life - this is the vast and varied area from which Tertullian borrows weapons to fight for the truth of Christianity.” 113 He often refers to situations taken from life, to his personal experience. 114 Jean-Claude Frédouille notes that Tertullian turned "to the own memories of the zealous spectator [...] to give material to his polemic with the pagans." 115 Thus, in Apologetics he states: “We once saw the castration of Attis, the famous god from Pessinunta, and the one who was burned alive represented Hercules. During the cruel amusements with the gladiators fighting at noon, we laughed at Mercury, who tested the dead with a red-hot rod. We also saw brother Jupiter, who, with the help of a hammer, removed the corpses of gladiators” (Apol., 15.5). 116 Even if Tertullian did not see all that he describes here, he knew about what was happening in the arenas, probably from the words of his contemporaries, and not from written monuments. For example, the names of the mimes, “Adulterer Anubis”, “Man Moon”, “Diana scourged”, “Reading the will of dead Jupiter”, 117 “Three hungry mocked Hercules” (Tert. Apol., 15, 1) are known to us only from Tertullian. 118 We have the right to assume that he could refer to myths that were not set forth before him in literary works. Below we will look at some of Tertullian's messages about pagan beliefs that are not mentioned elsewhere. Information about them, apparently, was borrowed by the apologist from oral tradition. Thus, when Tertullian writes about a person who joins the teachings of the heretic Valentine: “If the whole myth is already revealed to him, will he not remember that he heard something similar in childhood, when he could not sleep, from his nurse - about the towers of Lamia (Lamiae turres) and about the crests of the sun (pectines Solis)?” (Tert. Adv. Val., 3, 3), there is no point in looking for a connection between his “Lamia” and the “canonical” Lamia, mentioned, for example, by Pausanias, the daughter of Poseidon, who gave birth to Zeus the Sibyl Herophilus (Paus., X 12, 1). In Suda’s dictionary we read: “Lamia: Duris in the 2nd book of the Libyan History says that she was a beautiful woman in Libya. When Zeus married her, Hera became jealous of her and killed those whom she gave birth to. Therefore, because of sadness, she became ugly and destroys, kidnapping, other people’s children.” 119 Strabo speaks of myths that instill fear in children and are intended to distract them from bad deeds, about Lamia, Gorgon, Ephialtes and Mormolik (Strab., I 2, 8). The lamia from similar tales that ate the boy was probably meant by Horace (Hor. Ars., 338–340). Tertullian's compatriot Apuleius calls Aristomenes the witches who killed his companion Socrates as lamias (Apul. Met., I17). Lamia is mentioned in the comedies of Aristophanes (Aristoph. Vespae, 1035, 1177; Aristoph. Pax, 758) and in Plutarch (Plut. Curios., 2). All these authors do not deign to describe her in detail, which speaks in favor of the folklore nature of the “myths” about her that were widely known. Belonging to lower mythology, the image of this monster living in [old] towers (like Baba Yaga - in a hut on chicken legs), Tertullian borrowed, most likely, not from the works of writers or poets, but from folklore, like A. S. Pushkin, who took plots from his nanny’s fairy tales. It is possible that he wrote “won’t he remember that he heard something similar in childhood, when he could not sleep, from his nurse”, influenced by his childhood memories. Here Tertullian points to his source - the nurse (which can be either his own nurse or a generalized image) in the same way as below he names Homer as a possible source for Ennius, who wrote the caenacula maxima caeli (Tert. Adv. Val., 7, l). 120 One of the myths not attested in literary works before Tertullian can be considered the myth of the “rain promise” of the Carthaginian Heavenly Virgin (Virgo Caelestis). This is how the goddess Tinnit began to be called after the Roman conquest of Africa. Before the reign of the African Septimius Severus, the cult of this goddess was almost unknown outside the Roman provinces of Africa, Numidia and Mauritania. 121 In “Apologetics” we read: “This Heavenly Virgin herself, the promise of rains (pluviarum pollicitatrix), this Aesculapius himself, showing drugs, (...) if they do not recognize themselves as demons, not daring to lie to a Christian, then shed the blood of this most impudent Christian!” (Tert. Apol., 23, 6). We do not know of any literary work 122 based on which Tertullian could write about the Heavenly Virgin as the “promiser of rains.” Modern scientists, speaking about this function, refer, in addition to this passage from Apologetics, only to an inscription from Naraggara with a poetic appeal to the rain-giver Juno (C. I. L. Vol. VIII. No. 16810 = 4635). 123 Here is the translation of this inscription: “You set the clouds and winds in motion: for you, Juno, / it is very easy to cause a frightening roar: after all, when your brother enters, / you generously send the moisture born in the sky with thunder to the earth (intonas nubigenam terries largita mado [rem]). / Perhaps earthly things would bring death closer to those on high, / if you had not removed them from him with gentle breaths. / And even the bulk of the sky would hardly have remained strong, / if you, the same queen of the gods, with a bottomless / layer of air, rising, did not support all the stars, O Juno. / Incomprehensible to the eyes, being present, you are not noticed by anyone, / taking care of the successive cycles during the return of the soul, / and commanding to feel that which you refused to be able to discern. / You, so familiar to yours, are unknown: you are so transparent to Phoebus, / so you prevent the sky from closing with the earth with rains (sic pluviis caelum prohibes concurrrere t[errae]), / although you do not close the path of light, and it is impossible to know / why, one and the same force, you equally accept the opposite. / Hello, true queen of the gods, Saturn’s branch.” We see that in Apol. (23, 6) Tertullian called the Heavenly Virgin promising rains, without relying on literary works that existed before him. This (or something similar) could have been called by his Carthaginian contemporaries. However, it seems more likely that Tertullian himself came up with such a name for her, transferring the functions of her priests to herself. In the above inscription from Naraggara, which dates back to a later time than the Apologetic, 124 we are talking about the ability of this goddess not to promise (predict), but to send rain. Let's return to the words from Apol. (23, 6), omitted above when talking about the Heavenly Virgin: “this Aesculapius himself, showing drugs (medicinarum demonstrator), prolonging the life of those who die the next day, with the help of Socordius, Thanatius and Asclepiodotus (alia die morituris Socordio et Thanatio et Asclepiodoto vitae subministrator) [...].” G. Esser’s note to this place says: “According to the reading of “moriturus” in [codex] F, Tertullian means the so-called destruction of Aesculapius by the lightning of Jupiter, which he had already ironized about before (14, 5). R [Paris Code] has "morituris". What is meant by “Socordio, Thanatio, Asclepiodoto” is unknown. According to Kellner, which is the most plausible, as indicated by the word “Asclepiodoto” (“Gift of Aesculapius”), these are medicines. Others believe that this is about people. In Ad nat. (II, 14) it says: “ille (Aesculapius) vivos ad mortem, non mortuos ad vitam praevaricatione venalis medicinae agebat (he [Aesculapius] led the living to death, and not the dead to life, perverting medicine for money).” This text favors the reading “morituris” (“moriturus” is a typo), so it would be necessary to translate: “who helped to prolong the life of those who were supposed to die the next day” or more specifically, “who through Socordius and others helped so much that those who received help were supposed to die the next day.” 125 G. Rauschen notes: “These three names are the cross of despair for interpreters (crux interpretum); according to some, these are people whose life was extended by Aesculapius by several hours; others, like Kellner, understand them to be the names of medicinal herbs.” 126 According to J.-P. Walzing, “these are three persons (trois personnages) who were, without a doubt, brought to life by Aesculapius, in order to die the next day. The legend is found nowhere else.” 127 Karl Becker translates this phrase as follows: “[...] selbst euer Aesculap, der Entdecker von Heilmitteln, der mit Socordium, Thanatium und Asklepiodotum den am nächsten Tage dochd em Tod Verfallenen das Leben zu verschaffen weie[...].” 128 However, it seems unlikely that we are talking about any three people here. First, Tertullian avoids naming little or unknown names. In De idol. (9, 1) he objects to the nameless (quidam) astrologer; Below he writes about a certain Christian: “I know one (quondam), whom may the Lord forgive: when in a public place during an argument someone said to him: “Let Jupiter be angry with you,” he answered: “On the contrary, with you!”” (Tert. De idol., 21.4). Elsewhere (Tert. De spect., 26, 1–2) a case is described of how a woman, whose name is not given, after visiting the theater found herself possessed by a demon. In Depraescr. (39, 4) he speaks of a certain relative of his (meus quidam propinquus), who compiled comments on the “Painting” of Cebes in the form of Virgilian centons. Secondly, the names Socordius and Tanatius can hardly be the names of real people, since they are “speaking”. If these are the names of herbs, then they are probably not medicinal, but poisonous: “socordium” should make a person careless, and “tanatium” should kill. 129 It can be assumed that Tertullian thus (antonyms 130) names the companions of Aesculapius, among whom were (Ὑγίεια) (Salus) and (Τελεσφόρος) 131 or simply personifies what, from his point of view, this god actually brings to man, that is, he himself “creates” gods, 132 like the Romans with their Vidius, who separates soul and body, and the goddess of death (Tert. Ad nat., II 15, 2). As for Asclepiodotus, this name can be translated as “Giver of Asclepius” (̓̕̕Ασκλεπίου δότης) 133 and considered as a common noun denoting the priest Aesculapius. 134 Tertullian often uses Greek etymological research (this will be discussed in more detail below). Taking this into account, the passage Apol. (23, 6) can be interpreted as follows: “[...] this Aesculapius himself, who showed the drugs, is the giver of life for those who, because of [the gods] Socordius [that is, Unreason] and Tanatius [that is, Death] and because of [the priest Aesculapius] Asclepiodotus, will die on the next day." In Arol. (23, 6) we are talking about hypothetical public exorcisms of demons by Christians. It is known, however, that the priests of Aesculapius also practiced exorcism and were, therefore, “competitors” of Christians. 135 If the name of Asclepiodotus hints at them, we see here a very appropriate attempt to compromise not only God, but also his servants, to move from the abstract to the concrete. 136 Let us remember that, speaking of the Heavenly Virgin, the apologist also hinted at the priests of the goddess. The reading "moriturus" is unlikely, since it would indicate that Tertullian was referring to a certain myth in which Asclepius, on the eve of his death, treated someone with the Latin name Socordius or with the help of Socordius. However, this hardly hints at a myth unknown to us: Tertullian's vague references (for example, to the beard turning red in Apol. 22:12) hint at known events or myths. In addition, here we are not talking about a person deified after death, but about a demon. So, Tertullian used everything that he could extract from his memory, from the books that were at his fingertips, or from life situations in which he found himself, or which he could hear about from others, and that could help him express his thoughts more clearly, more clearly demonstrate his rightness and the error of his opponents. He “did not look for inspiration, plot, or beautiful phrases from the authors, but only examples and evidence to support his argument directed against the pagans themselves.” 137 “His mastery of rhetoric and dialectics, his knowledge of secular literature - all this was for him, as a Christian, only a means to an end, external forms, a location for facts and arguments that could be useful to a Christian polemicist in his tireless dispute with his opponent.” 138 Pagan writers and poets became witnesses called by the apologist to testify against pagan superstitions. In a hurry to release the next book, he used compendiums and reference books. He often wrote from memory, but from time to time he gave himself the trouble to cope with the original text. Tertullian's interpretation of myths In refuting their pagan opponents, the defenders of Christianity, among other things, had to explain the emergence of the idea of ​​many gods 139 and the very existence of myths. Tertullian, following Varro, speaks of the gods of philosophers, poets and peoples (Ad nat., II 1, 9–10). The gods of the philosophers could be seen as an attempt by the pagans to explain the absurdities of their myths. So, in Adv. Marc. (I 13, 4) Tertullian notes that the pagans, ashamed of the fables about their gods, try to explain them with the help of allegory, “making from Jupiter a red-hot substance, from his Juno - an airy substance, according to the sound of Greek words, also from Vesta - fire, from Kamen - water, and from the Great Mother - earth from which the harvest has been harvested, plowed with hands, moistened with ablutions.” 140 It goes on to talk about attempts to interpret the funeral and the discovery of Osiris as an allegory of the dying and revival of nature, and the lions of Mithras as a sign of the dry and burning elements (Tert. Adv. Marc., I 13, 5). 141 The apologist criticizes the allegorical interpretation of Saturn as time (Ad nat., II 12, 1723; cf. Cic. De nat., II 25, 64). So, Tertullian, who considered the “gods of the philosophers” to be a product of the later creativity of people, had to deal with the gods of the poets and the gods of the peoples. The latter could be understood by him as ordinary demons (see: Apol., 23, 6 - about the Heavenly Virgin, the goddess of the Africans, Ad nat., II 8, 5). It must be said that in general all the gods were demons in the eyes of Tertullian. However, this generally correct statement needs some correction. Tertullian's teaching, like that of his Greek predecessors, on the origin of the gods and the myths about them cannot be contained in one phrase. Simply identifying gods with demons, firstly, does not explain the emergence of their cults and myths; secondly, the ideas of Euhemerus, popular among many pagans, are not used; thirdly, the works of the “debunker of gods” poets remain unclaimed; fourth, the biblical identification of gods with idols is ignored. An analysis of Tertullian’s interpretation of pagan myths seems very important for understanding the worldview of the first Christians, for whom the idea that gods were just an empty fiction, nothing was unacceptable (cf. 1 Cor. 8:4). After all, it would follow from this that sacrifice to them is a trifle. The Gnostic heretics reasoned in a similar way. The role of poets in the creation of myths, as seen by early Christian authors, will be examined below against the background of the problem of the similarity of biblical stories with stories about the gods. Most often, apologists interpreted such analogies as a consequence of the machinations of demons or plagiarism of poets. In fact, the understanding of gods as deified people did not allow Christians to use the argument of the distorted borrowing of biblical truths by pagans. Poets were often viewed by apologists as tools in the hands of demons who wanted to deceive people. Justin explains the similarity of myths with biblical stories by the fact that demons, having learned some truths from the books of the Old Testament and misunderstood them, inspired fables in the poets to deceive and corrupt the human race (Iust. Apol., 154). Having heard the predictions of the prophets about the coming of Christ, they arranged so that the stories about Him, reminiscent of the fictions of poets, seemed like fairy tales, so that many began to be called the sons of Zeus. Elsewhere, Justin speaks of the falsification of prophecies by the devil himself (I ust. Dial., 69, 1; cf.: 70, 5). Theophilus claims that Homer and Hesiod wrote while deceived by an unclean spirit (Theoph., II 8). We read from the same author that the poets themselves borrowed truth from the books of the Old Testament (Theoph., II 37-38). 142 However, what apologists see as the influence of the Old Testament is not the subjects of myths, as can be seen from quotations of non-mythological content from Homer and other poets. Theophilus declares that the poets and philosophers who lived after the prophets stole the doctrine of punishments from the Holy Scriptures to give credibility to their opinions (Theoph., I 14). 143 The apologist even asks a rhetorical question whether Homer, Hesiod and Orpheus did not admit that they were taught by Divine Providence (Theoph., III 17). But here, too, we are not talking about the myth-making of poets, but about their assimilation of certain biblical truths. Athenagoras calls Orpheus (without giving him an evil spirit as a leader) who invented the names of the gods, told their genealogy and told about the deeds of each of them (Athen., 18, 3). Above, the apologist claims that Orpheus, Homer and Hesiod gave genealogy and names to those whom they called gods, but there is no talk here about the similarity of the myths invented by the poets with biblical stories (Athen., 17, 1). Thus we see that, according to most of the Fathers of the Church, if the poets themselves borrowed the truth from the Old Testament, they did not clothe it in mythological form; if the poets themselves composed myths, they did not use the Bible. There are exceptions. In Justin this can be considered a hint that Erebus was taken by the poets from Moses (Iust. Apol., 59). Jean Pépin points to several passages in the Stromata of Clement of Alexandria, Origen (Orig., IV 21) and Pseudo-Justin (Ps.-Iust., 28) (all of these writings come from the same Alexandrian environment), which speak of the Greek poets stealing information from the Hebrew prophets to create their myths. There is no talk of demonic help. 144 So, as a rule, the similarities between the Bible and myths are explained by church writers as the intervention of demons speaking through the mouths of poets and wanting to discredit Christian teaching. We are faced here with a peculiar theory of a demonic conspiracy against Christians. Justin draws attention to the fact that myths that undermine faith in the truth of the stories about Christ were widespread among the Greeks and other peoples, among whom the majority of believers were supposed to appear, which demons knew about from prophecies (Iust. Apol., I54). Tertullian, speaking about the birth of Saturn from Heaven and Earth with the help of “midwives-poets” (Tert. Ad nat., 11 12, 16), recognizes some role of the latter in the creation of myths. However, below he explains the fact that Saturn is called the son of heaven and earth by the fact that people of unknown origin were so called (Tert. Ad nat., II 12, 30-32; cf. Liυ., 18, 5 and 156, 12). In Apol. (14, 2–3) he retells Homer’s poems about the human actions of the Olympians; then he asks: “After this, what poet has not found himself dishonoring the gods, relying on the authority of his head? This one awards Apollo to graze cattle for King Admetus, who contracts Neptune for construction work at Laomedon” (Tert. Apol., 14, 4). Poets are portrayed here not only as creators of myths, but also as detractors of the gods; At the same time, the special significance of Homer is noted. G. Rahner’s statement about the Greek apologists can also be attributed to Tertullian: “[...] even for the apologists who did not know leniency, Homer was the most ancient sage, the oldest of all poets, who owed his secrets to the Egyptians or to the reading of the Hebrew Scriptures. All the apologists were too Greek or their disciples to cease to understand the poetic greatness of Homer.” 145 Also Pindar, “who did not conceal the guilt of Aesculapius,” is discussed in Ad nat. (II 14, 12) as an exposer of the crime of the villain deified after death and, thus, as an ally of the apologist. Regardless of whether the poets are making things up or telling the truth, Tertullian does not accuse them of collaborating with demons, explaining the similarity of myths with Christian teachings only to the machinations of the forces of evil. He demands that the pagans accept for a time the legend of the incarnation of Christ as similar to their myths, until he shows that these fables were composed by demons to overthrow the truth (Tert. Apol., 21, 14). Tertullian's assessment of the poets' work is ambiguous. On the one hand, he claims that everything with them is unworthy, because it is disgusting (Tert. Ad nat., II 1, 13). On the other hand, recognizing that they lie, he does not consider everything that they write to be a lie (cf.: Tert. Ad nat., II 7, 18). The apologist's attitude towards them on the pages of his writings is clearly less hostile than towards philosophers. 146 Tertullian declares that poets are vain (vani) when in myths they endow the gods with the passions of people, while philosophers are inert (duri) when they knock on the doors of truth (Tert. De test., 1,3). The conclusion suggests itself: since poets are not only engaged in endowing the gods with human qualities, for Tertullian they are not always vain, while philosophers, whose goal is the search for truth, are always stagnant. Here Tertullian’s position differs significantly from the position of Clement of Alexandria, who characterizes poetry as “completely mired in lies and hardly inclined to bear any witness to the truth” (Cl. Protr., 7, 73, 1) and resorts to its help only after an appeal to philosophy. There are two main reasons for Tertullian’s preference for one category of pagan authors over another. Firstly, poets could be seen as assistants in polemics against pagan gods. It is not without reason that “Plato decided to expel the accusers of the gods, the poets, from the threshold, and to remove Homer himself, though crowned, from the state” (Tert.Adnat., II 7, 11). Secondly, their writings, which no one usually took seriously, 147 did not pose a danger to Christian teaching, while philosophy contributed to the emergence of heresies (see: Tert. De praescr., 7, 3). Tertullian criticism “is directed not so much against ancient philosophy in itself, but against its use by the enemies of the Church - the Gnostics [...]. He does not actually touch upon the question of the truth or falsity of the teachings of ancient philosophers; he is more interested in their historical role, which is negative, for philosophers became “patriarchs of heretics” (Tert. De an., 3).” 148 Tertullian also places the heretics themselves lower than the poets: the Valentinians, for example, surpassed Ovid with their fictitious metamorphoses (Tert. Adv. Val., 12, 1). 149 Tertullian says little about the role of poets in the creation of myths, about poetic fiction as the basis of tales about the gods. He is talking more about poetic criticism of mythological characters. Of course, when ridiculing the gods, the poets, according to the apologist, are fantasizing a little, but there is truth in their writings. Who is this truth about? From the point of view of Christians of the first centuries, the true heroes of myths could be (if we do not take into account fictitious persons) either demons or deified people. Demons, according to Christian authors, not only inspired poets to create myths, but could themselves become participants in the events described by poets. In this case, the gods of the pagans were equated with demons. Greek apologists often interpreted myths not as distorted borrowings from the Holy Scriptures or the exploits of people deified after death, but as the acts of the demons themselves, who were real beings for the apologists. According to these authors, demons are the souls of giants, that is, the children of fallen angels from mortal women, or these giants themselves. 150 According to Justin, “angels [...] descended to have relations with women and gave birth to children, who are so-called demons” (I ust. Apol., II 5, 3). These angels themselves take names for themselves and their children, and the crimes of the gods, described by the poets, are the essence of the work of these unclean spirits: “In ancient times, evil demons appeared and committed adultery with women, and seduced boys, and showed horrors to people, so that those who did not try to understand what was happening were amazed, but, being gripped by fear and not knowing that these were evil demons, they called them gods and called everyone by that name, which each of the demons gave to himself" (I ust. Apol., I5, 2); “[...] both poets and mythologists, not knowing that what they described was done to men and women, to cities and peoples by angels and demons born from them, attributed this to God Himself and the sons allegedly born from his seed and from the seed of his so-called brothers, Poseidon and Pluto, as well as their children; after all, they were called by the name that each of the angels gave to himself or to his children” (I ust. Apol., II 5, 5–6). According to Athenagoras, “the so-called giants were born from those who entered into relations with virgins [angels]” (Athen., 24, 3), and “the souls of giants are demons wandering around the Universe” (Athen., 25, 1). Demons usurp the names of dead people who have done what is said in myths: they are the ones who lick the blood of victims offered to idols; “the gods who were popular with the crowd and who gave names to the statues, as can be seen from the stories about them, were people” (Athen., 26, 1). Compare: “[...] the names of the gods [...] are the names of dead people” (Theoph., I 9). Athenagoras believed that demons only use the deceptive movements of the human soul, and blamed not the demons themselves for creating images, but spiritual movements (Athen., 27, 2). Athenagoras is not entirely consistent on this issue; in another place he writes about demonic movements and energies originating from the opposite spirit, producing disorderly onslaughts and disturbing people (Athen., 25, 2). He asks not to be surprised if poets also talk about giants. Indeed, “in agreement with the prince of matter, we know how to say many false things that are similar to the true” (Athen., 24, 3) In the passages quoted we are confronted with a literal understanding of Gen. 6:2: “Then the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they were beautiful, and they took them as wives as any one chose.” This interpretation of this biblical passage owes much to the book of Enoch (6–7). Regarding the origin of demons, Tertullian takes the position of those who understand Genesis. 6, 2 in the light of the words about angels from the book of Enoch. The apologist preferred literal interpretation to allegorical exegesis, “even if it contradicted the most elementary requirements of logic.” 151 According to K. Popov, “in Tertullian’s depiction of the actions of evil demons there is a tendency towards supernaturalism, which goes along with his specifically realistic understanding of everything spiritual.” 152 It is difficult to agree with this remark. In fact, it is difficult to discern in Tertullian a “tendency towards supernaturalism” (that is, towards belief in direct divine revelation, inaccessible to reason) when describing the acts of demons. It is difficult to talk about women’s lovers (cf.: Tert. De idol., 9, 1) as beings whose actions are unknowable. On the contrary, the actions of demons as presented by the apologist are very specific, explainable (and sometimes explainable). In fact, there is not even anything supernatural in them, 153 and the evil spirits themselves, which, according to Tertullian, Christians easily expel through exorcism, surround people from birth. Tertullian is convinced that “the entire social life of pagan society is permeated with demons.” 154 At one time, the angels, taking revenge on the daughters of men for their fall, taught them previously hidden arts, gave them jewelry and cosmetics (Tert. De cult., 12, 1-4). Tertullian's demons are more reminiscent of Homer's gods living as humans than the mysterious "supernaturalistic" angels of the Bible. The Latin apologist adheres to the same point of view as Athenagoras on the issue of the names of demons, supplementing it with the statement that demons even take fictitious names, like Cardea, Forculus and Limentinus (see: Tert. De idol., 15, 5-6; De cor., 13, 9). Tertullian says that demons give themselves names through connection with initiation; not having their own names, demons find support for themselves in strangers (Tert. De idol., 15, 5–6; cf.: De spect., 10, 10). 155 Probably, Tertullian is a lawyer here, for whom the formal act of transferring a thing to a new owner, a kind of mancipation, was important. Like Justin (I ust. Apol., I5, 2), Tertullian believes that the suggestions of demons are to blame for the damage caused to reason (Tert. Apol., 22, 6). It can be said that Tertullian, using, like Athenagoras, Euhemerian ideas, incriminates the fallen angels and demons not only for usurping the names of people deified without their participation, but also for instilling errors that caused these deifications. 156 He also claims that demons prompted the pagans to force Christians to make sacrifices for the emperor (Tert. Apol., 28:2) and planted the idea of ​​theater in human consciousness (Tert. De spect., 10, 12). Hagendahl draws attention to the fact that Tertullian, unlike most church writers, justifies the need to abandon spectacles primarily by their connection with the veneration of the gods and only then by ethical considerations. 157 Pagan mythology for Tertullian is not only the deeds of people who lived earlier (cf.: Athen., 30), but sometimes also the history of demonic intervention in human life. Here he again becomes close to Justin, who considered myths to be a description of demonic atrocities. If, speaking about Saturn the man, the son of unknown parents, which is why he was called the son of heaven and earth (Tert. Ad nat., II 12, 30–31), Tertullian does not deviate from euhemerism, then, calling the Pickaxe a priestess of demons who provided them with a service by establishing a circus, he draws a bridge from the mythology interpreted in the euhemerian spirit (his pickaxe is an ordinary witch) into demonology: “they claim that the spectacles were first established by Kirka in honor of her father the Sun, and they prove that the circus got its name from her. Of course, the sorceress (venefica), having given it, worked for those whose priestess she was, namely, for demons and angels” (Tert. De spect., 8, 2). In the same work, he calls Erichthonius, the son of Minerva and Vulcan from a seed that fell to the ground, a demonic monster and the devil himself, and not a serpent (De spect., 9, 3). The main thing, however, for Tertullian is to point out the demonic origin not of myths, but of certain pagan cults. “Door” gods, such as Janus, Limentin, Forculus, were invented by the devil (Tert. De cor., 13, 9); he also imitates the pettiness of the Jewish law in the superstitions of Numa Pompilius (Tert. De praescr., 40, 6). The devil filled the whole world with false divinity (Tert. Adv. Marc., V 17, 9), he is “the creator of human error” (cf. Tert. Ad nat., II 1, 2). “Demons are the magistrates of this age” (Tert. De idol., 18, 3). Tertullian’s more acute struggle with the ritual side of religion than with faith in the gods is obviously explained by the fact that it was participation in cults that was a stumbling block for Christians. Pagan rituals were a kind of test of citizens' loyalty to the state. Tertullian, following Justin 158 (cf.: I ust. Apol., I 54), writes about the cunning of demons who forged Christian teaching. He alludes to demons as those who presented myths designed to overthrow the truth about the birth of Christ (Tert. Apol., 21, 14). According to the apologist, the spirits of error create counterfeits of saving teachings and introduce certain myths, so that, due to their resemblance to the truth, they weaken faith in it (Tert. Apol., 47, 11). Tertullian notes that Christians who preach the coming judgment of God are laughed at, since poets and philosophers also place the judgment seat in the kingdom of the dead. Gehenna is compared with Pyriphlegethon (Apol., 47, 12). Paradise - with the Elysian Fields (Apol., 47, 13). The apologist explains this similarity between philosophers and poets and Christian teaching by their dependence on it (Apol., 47, 14). Tertullian does not write as definitely as Justin about the collaboration of poets with demons. We see that in the works of the first Latin apologist one can find statements characteristic of both the “euhemerist” Athenagoras and Justin, who believed that myths are stories about demons interfering in people’s lives. Myths as stories of deified people According to M. von Albrecht, Tertullian's Euhemerian criticism of myths comes from Leon of Pella. 159 Let's consider this hypothesis. In De pal. (3, 5) Tertullian refers to a letter allegedly written by Alexander the Great to his mother: “Listen already to yours, to what the Egyptians tell, and Alexander reports, and his mother reads (Alexander digerit et mater legit): about the misfortune of Osiris [...].” And in Decor. (7, 6) there is a reference to Leon of Egypt, whose writings allegedly say that Isis was the first to wear a wreath of ears of grain on her head. In addition to Tertullian, Athenagoras, Minucius Felix, Cyprian, and Augustine wrote that the author of the said “letter” was Alexander. There are also references to Leon in Tatian, Clement of Alexandria, Eusebius and Arnobius. In Augustine, Leon turns out to be an Egyptian priest who told Alexander about the human origin of the gods (Aug. De civ., VIII 5 and 27). J. Pepin, based on such disagreements among church writers, concludes that the latter only heard about this “letter”, the author of which, close in ideas and time to Hecataeus of Abdera and Euhemerus, is unknown. 160 Perhaps Leon (the lion) of Pella originally meant Alexander himself. 161 Tertullian is the only Christian author who mentioned both the Macedonian king and the Egyptian priest without combining them in one story. Obviously, these names were taken by him from different sources, and it did not occur to him to connect them with each other, like Augustine. An educated Carthaginian Christian must have known the Euhemerian view of the gods even before his conversion. 162 Having become a Christian, Tertullian could refresh his knowledge of Euhemerian doctrine by reading Greek apologists. Consequently, the apologist borrowed information about the Egyptian gods from compendia or Greek apologies, 163 and did not read, as M. von Albrecht believes, works of a Euhemerian nature attributed to Alexander and Leon. Euhemerus, Greek philosopher of the late 4th century. BC, in his work (Ἱερὰ ἀναγραφή) he outlined the doctrine according to which gods are people deified after death. This view was very common, along with the opinion that the gods were inanimate matter of statues or demons. 164 Of the Christian authors, probably only Theophilus of Antioch speaks of the wickedness of Euhemerus (Theoph., III 7). 165 Most of the Church Fathers speak favorably of his teaching. Minucius Felix, for example, refers to Euhemerus, who is ranked among the historians and sages, showing that deities are people deified for their virtue or merit (Min., 21, 1). It should be noted that the assessment of the same pagan freethinking writers varies among different church authors. Clement of Alexandria wonders “how Euhemerus the Acragantian [...], Diagoras [...] and many others, who lived their lives prudently and saw better than others the error concerning the gods, were called atheists; after all, although they did not comprehend the truth, they assumed an error. [...] One of them convinced the Egyptians: “If you consider anyone to be gods, do not mourn them [...]. If you mourn, then do not consider them gods.” The other, taking Hercules, made of wood, [...] said: “Come on, Hercules, the time has come for you to perform the thirteenth labor for us, as for Eurystheus, and prepare meat for Diagoras.” And then he put it into the fire like a log” (Cl. Protr., 2, 24, 2–4). Athenagoras evaluates Diagoras' act completely differently, believing that the Athenians accused Diagoras of atheism rightly, since he preached that there is no God (Athen., 4). The fact that Christian authors willingly borrowed the provisions of Euhemerus can be partly explained by the existence of similar statements in Holy Scripture. 166 Typically, Christian authors emphasized not that the "gods" were previously human, but that they died. 167 In the Epistle to the Corinthians, attributed to Clement of Rome, it is said about the mercy of God shown to Christians in that they no longer offer sacrifices to dead gods (Cl. Rom. Cor., II 3, 1). Clement of Alexandria exclaims: “If you are not overcome by any shame for the daring and blasphemous acts you have committed, wander on, truly being dead men who believed dead men” (Cl. Protr., 3, 45, 5). 168 The best evidence of the death of the gods is their tombs. Tatian notes that, despite the words about the deceit of the Cretans, the pagans show the tomb of Olympian Zeus (Tat., 27). Athenagoras reproaches Callimachus for trying to hide the death of this god, who has a tomb (Athen., 30). Clement of Alexandria says: “Your myth is exposed: Leda died, the swan died, the eagle died; look for your Zeus: explore not the sky, but the earth. A Cretan will tell you on whose island he is buried. Callimachus says in the hymns: “O lord, the people of Crete have erected your tomb.” For Zeus died [...]” (Cl. Protr., 2, 37, 3–4). Origen argues at length with Celsus, who accuses Christians of honoring Him who had a tomb and at the same time ridiculing the worshipers of Zeus because of his tomb, which must be understood allegorically (Orig., III 43). Of the Christian writers, apparently only the four named refer to the Hymn to Zeus by Callimachus. 169 Tertullian, like the Greek apologists of Christianity, often characterizes the gods as dead, but this, apparently, was not the main thing for him. He is indignant at the inclusion among gods of those who were not gods from the very beginning (Tert. Ad nat., II 13, I). 170 Regarding Saturn, Tertullian writes: “From his deeds, however, it is known that he was a man. So, if Saturn is a man, then, without a doubt, he was born from a man” (Ad nat., II 12, 29-30). Apparently, the apologist, proving the falsity of the pagan gods, emphasized primarily not the fact of their death, but their original human state due to the fact that he, unlike the Greek defenders of Christianity, saw a danger for the Christian preaching of the crucified Christ in focusing on the fact that the gods died. From the work of Origen it is clear that the pagans sometimes accused Christians of what Christians criticized the pagans for (Orig., III 43). 171 Many apologists probably insisted on the incompatibility of worship of gods and mourning for them because they “did not discuss this dilemma, trustingly borrowing it from the Greek philosophical tradition.” 172 Tertullian, who often had to argue with the Gnostics, was, apparently, more attentive in the dogmatic question of the human nature of Christ in processing the material provided to him by his predecessors, who paid more attention to the identity of Christ and the Logos and to His relation to the Father. It is difficult to imagine, even taking into account the inconsistency characteristic of ecclesiastical authors, that a writer who asserted that the death of the Son of God is certain because it is absurd (et mortuus est dei filius; credibile est, quia ineptum est) (Tert. De carn., 5, 4), would in another place begin to prove the falsity of the gods on the basis of their death. Death did not exclude divinity if it was preceded by a divine incarnation: “[...] Christ, sent to die, had also to be born in order to be able to die” (De carn., 6, 6). Tertullian was not only an apologist, but also a theologian. 173 He states with regret that worldly wisdom “has more confidence in the fact that Jupiter became a bull or a swan than Marcion has in that Christ actually became a man” (De carn., 4, 7). Thus, he compares the mythological “humiliation” of Jupiter with the humiliation of Christ (cf. Phil. 2:6–8). If he drew a parallel between them before their incarnations, he had to admit that it could be drawn further until death. The difference for our author was that the first was never a god, while the second always was. It is characteristic of Tertullian to attach great importance to the original state as unchangeable. Thus, having proved, as it seems to him, that Saturn 174 was a man, Tertullian concludes that Jupiter is also a man, since he was born from a man (Tert. Apol., 10, 11). One can formulate the following principle of the Latin apologist: God could become a man and die, but a man could not become a god. Here lies the line separating Judeo-Christian thinking from Hellenic thinking, according to which there is no fundamental difference between the divine and human essence. 175 Unlike other Christian writers, who were not afraid to insist that the fact of death and burial is the most important proof of human nature, Tertullian emphasizes the human actions of the gods, saying little about their deaths and graves. The link to the tomb is usually not alone, but next to links to other “attractions”. The fact that gods are often born or die on the island is stated in Apol. (12, 5). In Ad nat. (II 17, 5; cf.: Apol., 25, 7) Tertullian mentions the tomb of Zeus, in which his ashes are hidden, after words about the Idean cave, the copper of the Corybantes and the “most pleasant” smell of his nurse. In Apol. (25, 3) he says that foreign gods would not give foreigners their native land, where they were born, raised, became famous and were buried. The main goal is to prove not the fact of the death of the gods, but that they have always been people. The human origin of the gods is also proven by Tertullian with the help of references to pagan rituals, confirming the reality of the events that happened to one or another hero of the myth in his life (Ad nat., 7, 15–17; Apol., 12, l). 176 As confirmation that the gods are dead people, many church writers, following Cicero (Cic. De nat., III 21, 53–23, 60), 177 cite the fact that there are several gods of the same name. About how many Zeus, Athens, Apollos, etc. there were. Clement of Alexandria tells us (Cl. Protr., 2, 28, 1–29, 2). Theophilus of Antioch lists many Zeus (Theoph., I 10). Minucius Felix speaks of different Dianas and Jupiters (Min., 22, 5–6). Tertullian prefers not to go into such details. In Apol. (10, 6) he declares to a friend, however, that he has no need to speak separately about all the gods and list their names. Mentioning the three hundred headless Jupiters whom Varro brings onto the stage (inducit), Tertullian does not speak of the numerous nicknames or types of actions of Jupiter (Ad nat., I 10, 43; cf.: Apol., 14, 9; cf.: Aug. Deciv., VII 11). The word "inducit" refers the reader to Varro's tragedy or Menippean satire, 178 and the words Romanistili Diogenes indicate an imitator of Menippus. 179 Tertullian avoids a monotonous listing of myths. The examples that appear in his writings are usually varied in nature. He did not use the homonymy of the gods as a Euhemerian argument. Our apologist admits the role of some false gods in the invention of certain arts. This confession is quite in keeping with his Euhemerian tendency: “Let Mercury be the first to introduce letters; I recognize them as necessary both for trade and for our theological studies. And although he pulled the strings, I, listening to David, will not deny that this invention helped the saints and served God. Let Aesculapius be the first to study healing remedies; but Isaiah did not refuse to give some medicine to the sick Hezekiah [...]. Let Minerva be the first to equip the ship: I will see Jonah and the apostles sailing” (Tert. De cor., 8, 2; cf. Apol., 11, 8, - about Liber, who showed the people the vine). It is therefore impossible to completely agree with the statement of V.V. Bychkov that “by denying the ancient gods, Christians should have naturally abandoned the ancient myth that the arts and sciences were given to people by the gods,” and that “apologists [...] strive to show that the Greeks and Romans borrowed all sciences from the East.” 180 Tertullian draws attention to the family ties of mythological characters. He writes about Aesculapius: “Although he is the son of Apollo, he is a man as much as he is the grandson of Jupiter, the great-grandson of Saturn” (Ad nat., II 14, 10; cf.: Apol., 14, 5). Father Ditus (that is, Pluto) as an application has an indication of his relationship with Jupiter (Iovis frater) (Ad nat., I 10.47; cp.: Apol., 15, 5). In Apologetics, Tertullian writes: “Socrates [...] already before his death ordered the sacrifice of a rooster to Aesculapius, I think in honor of his father, for Apollo announced that Socrates was the wisest of all” (Apol., 46, 5). Describing the statue of Juno, crowned with a vine, with a lion's skin thrown at the feet of the goddess, belonging to Argus 181, Tertullian notes that she is depicted as a stepmother, mocking the trophies of both her stepsons (that is, Dionysus and Hercules) (De cor., 7, 4). In "Apologetics" he speaks, alluding to Jupiter, about incest with his sister, about debauchery with his daughter and another man's wife (Apol., 21.8). Below he repeats Virgil’s words about Juno “the wife and sister of Jupiter” (Apol., 25, 8). The tendency towards such a “systematization” of mythology is apparently explained by the desire to show the human nature of the gods descended from the man Saturn, and their human relationships. The comparison of God with man obviously served the same purpose: “We can also recall those who, after cutting their mother’s belly, breathed air alive, certain Liberi and Scipios” (Tert. De an., 25, 8). Considering mythological characters as real people, the Fathers of the Church tried to show the priority in time of the characters of the Bible in order to prove the antiquity of the latter. Tertullian writes: “Moses, if you have heard of him, is equal in age to the Argive Inachus, and by almost four hundred years (seven is missing) he lived earlier than Danaus, your most ancient hero. He lived about a thousand years before the defeat of Priam. I could also say, referring to those authors whose testimony I use, that he is another five hundred years older than Homer” (Apol., 19, 3; cf. Apol., 19 [Fuld.], 1-2). According to Barnes, the proof that Moses lived before the Trojan War was taken by Tertullian from Theophilus, 182 additional information that Moses was a contemporary of Inachus, king of Argos, comes from Tatian (Tat., 39). 183 It should be noted that the number of years from Moses to Danaus and from Moses to the capture of Troy by Tertullian coincides with the number of years cited by Josephus: “Thus says Manetho. If you calculate the time according to the years indicated by him, it turns out that the so-called shepherds, who are also our ancestors, having left Egypt, settled in their land three hundred and ninety-three years before Danaus arrived in Argos. 184 [...] Manetho, based on information from Egyptian sources, provides us with two of the most important evidence: firstly, the arrival in Egypt from another country and, secondly, the migration from there, which occurred so long ago that it precedes the events of the Trojan War by almost a thousand years” (Ios. Apion., I16). 185 Josephus says nothing about Inachus. Clement of Alexandria notes that Moses lived at the same time as Inachus (Cl. Strom., 121, 101, 5), and from Inachus to the Trojan events four hundred years or more (Cl. Strom., 121, 102, 3). So, Tertullian, in the question of the number of years separating Moses from the events described by Homer, follows the tradition of Josephus - Theophilus, without forgetting at the same time the tradition presented by Tatian, 186 who, referring to various authors, wrote that Homer lived either 80 years later, or 100, or 140, or 180, or 240, or 317, or in the five hundredth years after the Trojan War (Tat., 31). Tertullian chooses the largest time difference between Homer and Moses presented by his predecessors, that is, 1500 years. He stays true to himself. His message is informative, but biased, and contains only key points: whose contemporary is Moses, how many years older is he than the most ancient hero of Greek myths, Homer, and the Trojan War, the date of which was key to mythological chronology. 187 Interpreting myths as the acts of deified people, Tertullian, like many Christian writers, does not refer to Euhemerus. According to the observations of F. Duker, only Eusebius, Minucius Felix, Lactantius and Augustine were quite familiar with the direction of Euhemerus. For those authors who only name him, he is lost among the rest of the “atheists” (ἄθεοι). Fragments of his work often appear without reference to his name. 188 Apparently, for the Latin apologist, Euhemerian ideas seemed so natural that they could well have had no author. Tertullian most likely became acquainted with the teachings of Euhemerus through intermediaries, who did not always indicate their source. According to Albrecht, Tertullian interprets the pagan gods either as idols, 189 as dead people, or as demons, depending on the need. 190 Ptimangin notes that Tertullian, teaching that through consecration (consecratio) both people and objects can become objects of idolatry, is better than the Greek apologists in reconciling these interpretations with each other. 191 It remains to add to this that Tertullian, who explained the gods in accordance with the task facing him at the moment, most often understood pagan myths as descriptions of the acts of people deified after death, and not of demons, who in most cases only provoked these apotheoses, so that, by taking the names of the dead, “to tear man away from God and become gods themselves.” 192 The Latin apologist, who does not recognize anything incorporeal, but is confident in the existence of demons, finds in the Bible (Gen. 6:2) an explanation of their occurrence devoid of spiritualistic features. But when he is faced with a choice of whom to attribute the acts of the pagan gods to: invisible beings or real people, in most cases he chooses the latter: “Let us remember that all idolatry is the worship of people, since the fact that the gods of the pagans themselves were people is known even among their own” (Tert. De idol., 15, 2). There are certain similarities between the Stoic and Tertullian attitudes towards the gods. The Stoics considered mantics in close connection with their system; heroes and daimons were considered by them as intermediaries between deity and people. 193 The Stoic Lucilius Balbus in Cicero, on the basis of the truth of the predictions, leads listeners to the conclusion about the power of the gods (Cic.Denat., II 3, 7 ff.). The role of Mopsus, Tiresias, Amphiaraus, Calchantes, Helena in Tertullian will be played by Montanist prophetesses. In addition to them, the Christian truth must be confirmed by the Heavenly Virgin and Aesculapius, who had prophets in their cult, 194 recognizing themselves as demons during exorcism (Tert. Apol., 23, 6). Tertullian in his writings devotes more space to criticism of “born gods” than to demon gods, in contrast to Justin, who gravitates towards Plato, who attaches great importance to demonology. Tertullian's criticism of individual myths will be discussed below. First, the apologist's approach to those heroes who have entered literature will be examined. This includes, first of all, the Homeric gods, the main weapon against which is ridicule, and some other mythological characters, often used as rhetorical examples. Then the features of Tertullian criticism directed against the gods and heroes (both native Roman and borrowed) who had popular religious cults will be shown. The review will conclude with an analysis of Tertullian’s attempt to substantiate the Christian belief in the resurrection of the flesh with the help of the myth of the reborn phoenix. Tertullian mentions the gods and heroes of the Roman 195 and “barbarian” proper, 196 including the Egyptian 197 and Carthaginian. 198 Greek mythology also did not escape Tertullian's criticism. 199 Sometimes both Roman and foreign gods appear in the same passage. Yes, in Adnat. (II 7, 15–17) we read about the abduction of Ceres, about the sacrifice of other people’s children 200 to Saturn, 201 who did not spare his own, about the emasculation of a young man (that is, Attis), who rejected the Idean goddess (that is, Cybele), and, finally, about the Lanuvian women who did not eat from the sacrificial meals of Hercules. Unlike the gods of the Roman, Asia Minor, Egyptian or Carthaginian, “according to Herodotus (Hrd., II 53), the Greek gods were created by Homer and Hesiod, and this is to some extent true. The images of the gods created by Homer left an indelible imprint on the minds of people.” 202 Consequently, it can be said that the Greek gods belong to literature no less than to religion, and as literary characters they could sometimes be considered by Tertullian. He, speaking about the mythical kind of gods attributed to poets, notes that pagans consider everything that Christians condemn in these gods to be poetic fiction (Ad nat., II 7, 9). The purpose of this section is to examine Tertullian's approach to that area of ​​pagan mythology that has become part of literature. Homeric gods are described by Tertullian, usually sarcastically. So, in Apol. (14:2-3) he retells the poems of Homer in order to show readers that they themselves despise their gods. In the indicated fragment we read about the gods fighting among themselves like pairs of gladiators; about the injury of Venus; about the fetters of Mars; about Jupiter, saved by a certain monster; about lamentation for Sarpedon; about debauchery with my sister. Then Tertullian, noticing that other poets did not lag behind Homer, speaks of Apollo in the service of Admetus and Neptune in Laomedon (Tert. Apol., 14.4). What follows is the story of Aesculapius (Apol., 14, 5), at the mention of which Tertullian immediately loses his mockery. Elsewhere (Apol., 21, 8) Tertullian contrasts the birth of the Son of God with the pagan myths about Jupiter (cf. Theoph., II 22). Tertullian’s Jupiter “is not the Jupiter of the old Roman religion, it is not even the Hellenized Jupiter, and not the Zeus of Greek religion, but the Zeus of mythology, folklore and less serious forms of literature.” 203 Of course, by ridiculing the mythological Zeus, Tertullian tried to humiliate the cult Jupiter. It should be noted that the criticism of Jupiter in the above fragments is harsher than the criticism of other gods. The Homeric gods as depicted by Tertullian are criminal, vain, and ridiculous: the Romans “deify the son of Venus, and Vulcan, knowing this, endures, and Juno humbles herself” (Ad nat., II 9, 15). The apologist finds nothing positive in them. However, there is no indignation in his words exposing them. Indeed, it would be childish to hate those who, even in the Hellenistic era, began to be perceived as fairy-tale heroes. Speaking about the mortal heroes of myths, Tertullian is less caustic than when describing the gods. The sarcastic tone is often replaced by an ironic one. We are usually talking here not about crimes, but about the difficult situations in which these people find themselves. Several times the apologist refers to the myth of Midas, humorously hinting at the consequences of the “Midas judgment” (cf. Aristoph. Plut., 287). In De pal. (2, 1) he mentions Silenus, who whispered fables in the ear of Midas, suitable for more significant inventions. Elsewhere we read about the Phrygian Silenus, to whom, when the shepherds brought him to Midas, he gave his huge ears (Tert. De an., 2, 3; cf.: Adv. Herm., 25, 5). The Midas Rosary is mentioned in De pall. (2, 7) 204 and Decor. (14, 4). Tertullian's interpretation of the story of Achilles in De pall is interesting. (4, 2). The story of this hero's stay in a woman's dress is used by the author in this case not to criticize the mythological character, but to prove the inadmissibility of dressing up, in which an attempt is made to transform nature. According to the apologist, only custom can be changed: in this essay he seeks to demonstrate the advantages of the cloak over the toga. “The Larisa hero went against nature, turning into a girl, the same one who was fed by the bone marrow of wild animals (where his name comes from, since his lips did not eat from the nipples), the same one who was educated in a harsh school by a rough, monstrous mentor living in the forest. Surrounded in childhood not by maternal care, but by wild animals; probably already matured, having already played the role of a husband for someone, 205 he still agrees to put on the table, do his hair, take care of his skin, consult a mirror, anoint his neck, disgracing, in addition, piercing his ear, which preserves his sculpted bust at Sigei. Of course, later he is a warrior, because necessity returned his gender to him. The sound of battle was heard, and the weapon was nearby. 206 They say that iron itself attracts a husband. However, if after this temptation he also continued to remain a girl, he could get married. So here's the change. A miracle, right, double, a woman from a husband, and soon a husband from a woman, while the truth should not be denied, and deception should not be admitted. Both changes are bad: one is contrary to nature, the other is detrimental to salvation.” Tertullian, in support of his words, refers to the sculptural image of Achilles, who was for him, apparently, not a mythological character, but a real person, whose negative example can be used for greater persuasiveness, just like the positive example of Dido (see: Ad mart., 4, 5; De mon., 17, 2; De ex., 13, 3). Tertullian's remarks about the Dioscuri have a completely different character than the passage about Achilles. Our author mentions Castor and Pollux in passing, without dwelling on their deeds. One might even say that he does not distinguish between them. Turning to ancient mythology, which did not have canonized texts and willingly allowed different versions of the same myth, pagan writers used the version that, in their opinion, most corresponded to their goal. 207 Sometimes they, like Plato, created their own tales. 208 Hellenistic poets often chose some little-known local myth for artistic treatment: “The new epic poets had to demonstrate their thorough knowledge of mythology, the ability to freely present familiar and little-known stories, arbitrarily vary motifs and plots, update well-known artistic techniques in order to impart a flavor of novelty not only to the entire work, but also to each of its episodes.” 209 Sometimes there were errors and inaccuracies. 210 Christian writers used mythological material no less freely, and Tertullian is no exception. Let us consider some passages from his writings where the Dioscuri are discussed, and where, as it may seem at first glance, the apologist makes mistakes. In his treatise “On Spectacles,” Tertullian writes: “The hymnical arts were created by the example of the Castors and Hercules and the Mercurii” 211 (Spect., 11.4). According to Stephen of Auschwitz, the pugilists were patronized by Pollux, 212 named by the author “by mistake or due to negligence (errore quodam aut negligentia), or for some other reason” “Castores”: when speaking of instadio competitions, Tertullian could not mean the equestrian ristanias, of which Castor was the patron. 213 Was Tertullian mistaken here, was he careless, or can this Christian writer, who called the fist fighter Pollux by the name of his elder brother, in the plural, be considered as continuing the tradition 214 which sometimes used this form in relation to both heroes: if Castor and Pollux are “Castors”, then Pollux is in some way “Castor”? Tertullian, in the treatise already quoted, says: “Those who do not blush, believe that the twins were born from an egg from Jupiter, which turned into a swan,” lay eggs in honor of the Castors 215 (De spect., 8, 3); in another place he says that “Castors and Perseus and Erigone must also be removed from heaven” (Ad nat., II 15, 1); when listing the false actions of demons, the “apparitions of the Castors” are mentioned (Apol., 22, 12). Tertullian only once calls each of the twins by his own name: “[...] this idea [of using horses at games] is attributed to Castor and Pollux, to whom, as Stesichorus teaches, Mercury gave horses” (De spect., 9, 2). The fact that Stesichorus actually wrote about this is supported by other evidence. The Etymologicum magnum gives the following explanation ("folk etymology") for the word "(Κύλλαρος)": "Killar: Castor's horse. 216 The name is derived from the verb (κέλλειν) - “drive.” Means "fast". Stesichorus, in his work “Agons in Memory of Pelias,” says that Hermes gave [to the Dioscuri] “Phlogaeus and Harpagus, fast foals born of Podarga, / And Hera - Xanthus and Killara.” 217 So, in the ninth chapter of “On Spectacles,” Tertullian reports that Pollux, together with Castor, is reputed to be the inventor of equestrian competitions, 218 and below, in the eleventh chapter, he declares the “Castors” (together with the “Hercules” and “Mercuries”) the inspirers of the “hymnic arts.” It seems that Tertullian does not differentiate the functions of the sons of Leda at all. Sometimes Quintus Septimius confuses not only the “specialization” of the brothers, but also their origin: “[...] we will be talking about two fathers, God and man, if the mother is not a virgin. After all, she will have a husband, so she is not a virgin; and having a husband, he will give two fathers to the one who is the son of both God and man. The myths attribute such a birth to Castor or Hercules” (Adv. Marc., IV 10, 7). Typically, Pollux and Hercules were considered the sons of Jupiter (from Leda and Alcmene, respectively), while Castor and Iphicles were considered the sons of the mortal spouses of the named women. 219 Tertullian may seem to follow here as in De spect. (8, 3), that version of the myth according to which both twins were sons of Jupiter. 220 However, it must be taken into account that he only calls Castor as such. It is tempting to attribute the confusion to De spect. (11, 3) and Adv. Marc. (IV 10, 7) regarding Tertullian’s inattention and poor memory, to which he himself refers: “And what else should I, a person not distinguished by a good memory (modicaememoriaehomo), add?” (De idol., 4, 5). Noteworthy is the fact that the name of Castor (or Castors) appears six times in Tertullian, while the name of Pollux appears only once, where there is a reference to Stesichorus, which suggests the lack of independence of the Christian author in this place. It has already been said above about two versions of the myth about the birth of the Dioscuri. The Iliad says that both brothers are hidden by the earth (Il., III 243–244); Pausanias calls them the sons of Tyndareus (Paus., III 18, 14; 24, 7). 221 And although the “son of Zeus” Polydeuces is sometimes called “Tyndarides”, 222 and “Tyndarides” are “those who were born from the Olympian,” it is still possible to state the existence of another, third, rationalistic version of this myth. It is no coincidence that Clement of Alexandria uses the above two verses of the Iliad to prove that the Dioscuri were people (Cl. Protr., 2, 30, 4). Tertullian was probably aware of the existence of numerous variants of the Dioscuri myth. 223 No wonder Jerome exclaims: “Who is more educated than Tertullian, who is wittier?” (Hier. Epist., 70, 5). The fact that Tertullian knew different versions is indicated by his messages, either about the birth of both brothers from Jupiter (Despect., 8, 3), or only one (Adv. Marc., IV 10, 7). However, he does not always cite in one place all the legends known to him about any god, hero or holiday in his honor, as he does, for example, in De spect. (5, 5), when he says that Consualia is named so either in honor of Neptune, also called Consus, 224 or in honor of the god of council Consus. Unlike Clement of Alexandria, who was often guided by the rule “so that no one will assume that I unknowingly missed this, I will add [...]” (cf. Cl. Protr., 4, 47, 7), Tertullian is more economical with examples from mythology, citing them only when the purpose set in this work requires it. Tertullian's erudition is not always evident, "because he strives for the effective use of his arguments, and is alien to empty boasting." 225 B. Nisters writes, however, that the apologist “is aware of his learning and is proud of it; sometimes he flaunts it; for example, he demonstrates his knowledge of mythology in De spect. (4–13) and literature in De cor. (7), where in a short chapter, so to speak, in one breath he quotes nine authors.” 226 Let us make the assumption that in the fragments named by Nisters and in other similar places, the abundance of examples was not intended to demonstrate the author’s erudition, but to confirm his correctness. Tertullian, as a rule, does not give mutually exclusive versions of myths. Thus, by giving different etymologies to the word “Consualia,” he seeks to prove that in any case these games are associated with idolatry. In none of the six passages quoted above, in which "Castor", "Castores", "Castor et Pollux" are mentioned, does the presentation of the various hypotheses of the pagans as to who was the father of each of the brothers, and what made each of them famous, answer the purpose of the author. Having before him more than one version of the myth, but not wanting to go into detail even of one of them, Tertullian uses a kind of metonymy, calling Pollux by the more often found name of his brother. A simplification of the myth, in which both characters (the whole) are called by the name of one (part) (“synecdoche”), is found in the work “To the Gentiles,” where Tertullian, outlining the story of Larentina almost in the same way as Plutarch (Plut. Rom., 5), speaks, however, of this harlot, nicknamed the “she-wolf,” as the nurse of Romulus (Tert. Ad nat., II 10, 1), and not Romulus and Remus, although according to Plutarch (Plut. Rom., 4 and 6) the she-wolf (or harlot Larentina) suckled both brothers. Mortal mythological heroes sometimes earn his approval. Thus, he speaks with praise of Penelope, who, “being among so many insignificant admirers, softly defended the chastity they besieged” (Tert. Ad nat., II 9, 22). For Tertullian, Eak is a just husband (De an., 33, 9), and Alcinous is “most loving of mankind” (Tert. Ad nat., II 9, 23). When comparing gods with mythological mortals, the latter are ranked higher. Arachne, for example, wins when compared with Minerva (Tert. De pall., 3, 5). In turn, mythological mortals are inferior to real people. Aristides turns out to be more just than Minos and Rhadamanthus (Tert. Ad nat., I 19, 5; cp.: Apol., 11,8; 15–16). Tertullian repeatedly compares Christian images reinterpreted by heretics with pagan ones. Marcion's god (the god of the New Testament) would have, according to the writer, to give the world at least some kind of rank of his own (cicercula, a genus of herbaceous plant), so that he could be proclaimed the new Triptolemus (Tert. Adv. Marc., I 11, 5). Elsewhere, Quintus Septimius Florence declares that Marcion, based on the tenets of his teaching, must either deny that Christ is the son of God, or make him the Hercules of myth (Tert. Adv. Marc., IV 10, 8). Among the Valentinians, Christ turns out to be, among other things, Hesiod’s Pandora and Nestor’s drink (Tert. Adv. Val., 12, 4), and Tertullian calls their “spiritual,” “soul,” “earthly,” “material” person “the fourfold Geryon” (Tert. Adv. Val., 25, 3). In Dean. (34, 2-5) he comes across an interesting comparison of Simon the Samaritan, whose inventions he despises even more than the inventions of poets, 228 with Menelaus. The author of the treatise ridicules Simon's assertion that Helen, who was ransomed from a brothel, is the incarnation of the wife of Menelaus, “most destructive to Priam, and subsequently to the eyes of Stesichorus” (Da an., 34, 4), who suffered from both poets and heretics, disgraced then by adultery, now by debauchery. “Unless,” the author notes, “she is liberated from Troy more gloriously than from a brothel, with a thousand ships, and not with a thousand denarii.” Simon himself also concedes to Menelaus: “Shame, Simon, slower in seeking, more fickle in deliverance. Menelaus immediately follows the one who was taken away, immediately demands the abducted one back, and saves her with a ten-year war” (Tert. De an., 34, 5). Tertullian emphasizes the weakness of Gnostic similarities compared to their pagan models. Moreover, he apparently felt that the pagans posed less of a danger to the Church than the Gnostics, and accordingly sought to humiliate the latter by exalting both mythological figures and poets. Let us note that when contrasting Ennius, who artlessly announced the “greatest heavenly palaces,” with the heretics who invented many higher entities in the abode of God (Adv. Val., 7, 1), the pagan poet is rated by Tertullian as superior to the Christian Gnostics. 230 Two fragments where the name of Prometheus appears deserve special attention. In “Apologetics” Tertullian calls God, who founded everything, created man from the earth, the true Prometheus (18.2); in another place we read that in Marcion “the true Prometheus (verus Prometheus), God almighty, is tormented by blasphemies” (Adv. Marc., I 1.4). Not a single hero of Greek myths was as lucky as this son of Japetus: 231 he was honored to be the prototype of the Christian God! 232 The object of Tertullian's attacks were deities, the influence of whose cult was very strongly felt in Roman Africa at the turn of the 2nd–3rd centuries. His polemics had nothing in common with the polemics of an armchair scientist. He fought against opponents “regarded as living,” 233 against myths 234 that had not yet turned into fairy tales. Prometheus did not have a popular cult and did not pose a threat to Christianity. Sometimes Tertullian tries to interpret the poems of pagan poets. Thus, he, relying on the words of “more intelligent people,” rationalizes the myth of Philomela, who became mute, in his opinion, not because she lost her language, but because of shame (Ad nat., 18, 6). In De an. (56, 2) he explains the words from Il., XXIII 59–92 about Patroclus’ demand for burial both by poetic license and by the piety of Homer. V.V. Bychkov writes that in Adv. Marc. (13, 1) “Tertullian spoke disapprovingly of “poetic and pictorial arbitrariness” (poetica et pictoria licentia), seeing heresy in it.” 235 It is difficult to agree with this statement if we turn to Quertullian’s text: “[...] the whole dispute is about the number of gods: is it allowed to introduce two gods, be it at the discretion of poets, artists, or now at the discretion of heretics?” Comparing the Marcionites, who demanded faith in their teaching and spoke about it with all seriousness, with people of art, Tertullian does not give any assessment (neither disapproving nor approving) of the work of poets and painters and does not see heresy in their arbitrariness. If someone compares the behavior of an ordinary person with the behavior of, for example, a buffoon, then in this comparison there is no reproach to the latter. It is difficult to speak of condemnation of “poetic tyranny” in a passage where the author speaks with praise of a poet who cares for mourning loved ones, who languish even more when the funeral is postponed (De an., 56, 2). We find examples of Homer's exegesis in Plato. 236 Philosophers, primarily the Stoics, whose influence of ideas on Tertullian is undeniable, 237 understood poetry as encrypted wisdom and used the works of Homer in their ethical teaching. 238 In general, the entire late antique culture was permeated with a hermeneutic spirit. 239 The Latin apologist in the above fragment from a dogmatic-polemical work is less strict towards Homer than, for example, Clement of Alexandria (notable for his tolerance towards his opponents and often resorting to the help of Greek poetry to prove the truth of his God), demanding that Homer stop singing, because “it is bad, it teaches adultery” (Cl. Protr., 4, 59, 2). Christian authors, when addressing non-Christians, had to speak to them in the language of “the common cultural traditions of the Greco-Roman civilization.” 240 Some Church Fathers even borrowed from poets formulas characterizing pagan gods in order to better express their understanding of God. 241 Clement of Alexandria wants to show the mysteries of the Word in accordance with the ideas of his pagan readers (Cl. Protr., 12, 119, 1). Odysseus, who tied himself to the mast in order to escape from the Sirens, appears in him as a prototype of a Christian embracing the wood of the cross and triumphing over death (Cl. Protr., 12, 118, 1–4). 242 Tertullian also sometimes turns to images that existed in pagan mythology in order to more clearly express his thoughts. Thus, he speaks of the two gods of Marcion as the two Symplegadas of his shipwreck (duas Symplegadas naufragii sui) (Tert. Adv. Marc., I 2, 1); calling to hate gold, which destroyed the forefathers (see: Ex. 32), he says that for Christians there is always, and especially now, not a golden age, but an iron one (Tert. De cult., II 13, 6). In a similar way, mythological images were already used by Tatian, who compared the books of the pagans with labyrinths, and their readers with the barrel of the Danaids (Tat., 26). Refuting the belief in the transmigration of souls, Tertullian notes that even Plato, who could be considered Nestor because of the “honey of eloquence,” does not remember who he was in a past life (Tert. De an., 31, 6). Speaking about amazing bodies of water, our author also mentions the Stygian swamps, which remove death, according to the poet, but did not save the son of Thetis (Tert. De an., 50, 3). Further, Tertullian argues that magic does not drive away death and does not renew life: Medea was not given the power to rejuvenate a person, even if she could do this with a ram (De an., 50, 4). In Adv. Marc. (15, 1) Tertullian compares the zones of Valentinus with the offspring of the Aenean pig (cf.: Verg. Aen., VIII 43–45). In Dean. he states: “Those who are mad mistake one for another. So Orestes saw his mother in his sister, Ajax saw Ulysses in his cattle, Athamas and Agave saw beasts in his sons. Will you blame your eyes or your fury for this lie?” (Tert. De an., 17, 9). For Tertullian, Orestes, Ajax, Ulysses, Athamas and Agave (like Augeas 243) are real persons whose names he gives as examples, similar to those often used in Greek and Roman literature. Ancient rhetoricians paid great attention to examples, since the ability to give them was very important for the art of persuasion. 244 In the essay “On Modesty” we find the proverb nihil enim ad Andromacham (8, 11) meaning “[this] is out of place,” “not relevant.” 245 Here the reference to a mythological character is not intended to evoke his image in the reader. When interpreting myths, Tertullian uses Greek and Latin etymological research. Thus, the name of Achilles 246 is explained by the fact that his lips did not eat from the breasts (De pall., 4, 2). 247 Speaking about the origin of the word (θεóς) “god”, he, unlike, for example, Theophilus (Theoph., I 4), mentions only an explanation that traces it back to the verb (θέειν) “to run” (Adnat., II 4, 1). Tertullian does not give the two etymologies that the Romans gave to the word deus (from the words Diovis or (δεóς)), first identifying (θεóς) and deus, “perhaps due to the local (Carthaginian? African?) pronunciation.” 248 As noted above, Tertullian avoided a monotonous listing of myths. Probably, in the case of the etymology of the word “god,” he considered it appropriate to speak only about the etymology that seemed to him most useful in this context. Tertullian gives quite a lot of Latin “etymologies” when he talks about the Roman gods (see, for example: Ad nat., II 11). Let's limit ourselves to a few examples. The name Diespiter is explained as “one who brings a child to birth (qui puerum perducat ad partum)” (Ad nat., II 11, 4). Varro interprets Diespiter differently, “the day of the father (dies pater)” (Varr. De ling., V 66). A comparison with the words of Augustine (Aug. Deciv., IV 11) shows that Varro read rather “he who brings the fruit into the light of day (qui partum perducat ad diem).” 249 To explain the word circus “circus” the name “Circa” is used (De spect., 8, 2); the name of the god Cons is spoken of as coming from the word consilium “council” (De spect., 5, 5; cf.: Ad nat., II 11, 10). Romulus is called Quirinus because because of him the parents raised a cry 250 (parentibus quiritatum est per illum) (Ad nat., II 9, 19). Referring to the etymologies of the names of the gods during polemics with opponents, Tertullian, obviously, in addition to debunking the latter, sought to demonstrate his scholarship in order to give greater authority to his words. A study of the features of Tertullian’s interpretation of literary mythological characters shows the apologist’s attitude both to the works in which these characters appear, and to the entire pagan culture. In fact, when proving certain statements, even in his “intra-church” writings, Tertullian is not afraid to turn to the poems of Greek poets, where myths are set out. Proving the sinfulness of games, he refers to Stesichorus, who said that Mercury gave horses to Castor and Pollux (De spect., 9, 2). When considering the history of the use of wreaths, he draws on secular literature: “If there was a certain Pandora, whom Hesiod 251 calls the first woman, then the first to be crowned with Charites was her head when she was bestowed on everyone - hence Pandora. In our country, Moses, a prophet-shepherd, not a poet-shepherd, writes that the first woman, Eve, covered her shame with leaves, not her churches with flowers. No, therefore, no Pandora. However, one should be ashamed of the origin of the wreath, both on the basis of lies and on the basis of the truth about it” (De cor., 7, 3). 252 Further, with references to Pherecydes, Diodorus, as well as Callimachus and Pindar, Tertullian lists the gods and other mythological characters who wore wreaths and armbands: Saturn, Jupiter, Priapus, Ariadne, Juno, Hercules, Apollo. While prohibiting Christians from being teachers, Tertullian, however, allows them to receive secular education, considering it necessary: ​​“How can we reject secular teaching (saecularia studia), without which there can be no divine thing? So, let us consider the need for grammatical education (necessitate litteratoriae eruditionis) [...]" (De idol., 10, 4-5). Let us remember that St. Augustine complains that the sons of men should teach fiction about the gods, and even for a fee (Aug. Conf., 116, 26). Tertullian himself sometimes tries to enlighten Christians regarding these inventions. Thus, he decides to fill the gap in the knowledge of his readers in the field of pagan literature, informing them of information about the so-called “door gods”: “We must know, if it is hidden from anyone due to ignorance of pagan literature (per ignorantiam litteraturae saecularis), that the Romans even have gods of doors [...]” (De idol., 15, 5). This position of the apologist, who did not want the Christian to remain uncultured, is easy to understand, taking into account the era in which Tertullian wrote, “when Christians still formed only a small community, encapsulated (enkystée) in the body of the pagan empire.” 253 Although Tertullian spoke of the abomination of poems (Adnat., II 1, 12-13), and ironized about pagan writings instructing in prudence and the performance of noble duties (Apol., 14, 2), he did not completely reject art. Here is how he writes about the statue of Zeus: “The hands of Phidias are revered, sculpting the Olympian Jupiter from ivory (Phidiae manus Iovem Olympium ex ebore molitae adorantur), and this is no longer the tusk of a beast, and a very awkward one at that, but the greatest deity of the world (summum saeculi numen), not because it is an elephant, but because Phidias is so great (non quia elephantus, sed quia Phidias tantus)" (De res., 6, 6). Based on the above quote, Adhémar d'Alay and Stephen of Auschwitz come to opposite conclusions. According to the French scientist, Tertullian did not admire Phidias' Jupiter as an object of art. 254 The Polish researcher believes that the words that the apologist says about the Greek sculptor testify to his admiration for the master and his subtle understanding of art. 255 Apparently, in this place S. Auschwitz is closer to the truth. When Tertullian wants to be sarcastic, he does not skimp on barbs. Noticeable, for example, is the difference in Tertullian’s assessment of Phidias (tantus) and the failed painter, the heretic Hermogenes, who provokes satirical reasoning on the part of the apologist. 256 There is nothing offensive in the passage in question either to Phidias or to Jupiter. Light irony (which, of course, could not help but arise from a Christian author when he wrote about the image of a pagan god) is very far from Tertullian’s sarcastic attacks against the same Jupiter, the hero of Homer’s poems. At the same time, talking about the apologist’s admiration for the famous sculptor seems somewhat risky. The apologist probably wanted to draw the attention of readers to the fact that man was able to create a majestic image of God despite the insignificance of his material, and to show that the true God could even more so create man from the earth. Citing the example of the outstanding work of Phidias in the heat of controversy, Tertullian considers it indisputable proof that creativity can elevate material, and he himself is not inclined to question the sculptor’s work. So, mortal heroes of myths, unlike gods, are usually portrayed by Tertullian not with sarcasm, but with humor. Sometimes the apologist condescends to approve of their behavior, sometimes even placing them above heretics (but below ordinary people). He makes Prometheus a kind of prototype of the Christian God. Tertullian often uses mythological heroes as rhetorical examples. Through his ridicule of pagan culture in general and literature in particular, he shows respect for the works of ancient poets, writers and sculptors. Religious cult characters Tertullian's criticism of mythological characters differs markedly from his criticism of religious characters. If the first has a somewhat bookish character, then the latter is real philippics, directed against real and very strong opponents. However, the ferocity of attacks on them is not always directly proportional to the influence and prevalence of their cult. Some popular deities are subject to less attack by the apologist than the Roman gods and heroes, who did not play a major role in the religious life of his contemporaries. Thus, in Carthage, where Tertullian lived and wrote, we do not find the cults of the named deities among the most widespread at that time. 257 Based on the fact that Tertullian’s attitude towards “Roman superstitions” is worse than towards the beliefs of other peoples, for example, towards the popular 258 Heavenly Virgin in Carthage (Ad nat., II 8, 5; Apol., 12, 4; 23, 6; 24, 8), it can be assumed that the special hatred and contempt for these characters is caused by hostility Tertullian the Carthaginian to everything Roman. 259 Aesculapius. Of the non-Roman gods, only Aesculapius, whose cult was widespread in Africa, 260 arouses such strong hatred in Tertullian. 261 Apparently, the difference between Christian invective against Asclepius and their criticism of such gods as Zeus, Apollo, Hera or Athena is explained by the fact that Asclepius, healing the sick and raising the dead, could be seen as the most dangerous rival of Christ. 262 There was even a kind of competition between Christians and the priestly corporation of Aesculapius in the matter of healing. 263 Tertullian retells the myth of Aesculapius as follows, “of whom they said that he, having invented something in medicine, raised the dead. He, although the son of Apollo, is a man as much as he is the grandson of Jupiter, the great-grandson of Saturn (unless he should be considered a bastard, 264 times he is from an unknown father, as Socrates of Argives conveyed); no one can deny that he, thrown, found, fed more shamefully than Jupiter, namely with dog's teats, 265 was a man; he was struck by lightning. [...] Pindar did not hide his guilt: for greed and greed for profit, because of which he led the living to death, not the dead again to life, 266 using his corrupt art for evil (qua quidem ille vivos ad mortem, non mortuos rursus ad vitam, praevaricatione venalis medicinae agebat), he was condemned. 267 They also say that his mother died in the same way, according to her deserts: after all, she gave birth to such a dangerous beast” (Ad nat., II 14, 9-10 and 12-13). If in Lactantius, who conveys the words of Tarquitius/Socrates, we find only a bare listing of facts, 268 then in Tertullian we find a genuine philippic directed against his personal enemy. The story of Coronis's infidelity to Apollo and her punishment, which the apologist considers deserved, was a favorite subject of writers and poets. Pindar (Pind. Pyth., 3), Pseudo-Apollodorus (Ps.-Apoll., III 10, 3), Ovid (Ov. Met., II 599–631), Hyginus (Hyg., 202), Pausanias (Paus., II 26, 6) and others wrote about this. The listed authors note that the unborn Asclepius-Aesculapius was removed from the womb of a dead mother. Tertullian, with regard to the birth and infancy of Aesculapius, follows another version of the myth set forth by Pausanias (Paus., II 26, 4), according to which this god was abandoned by his mother. Tertullian's hatred of Aesculapius is so strong that it literally bursts out of the text, leaving no room in it for either irony or sarcasm, which are usually easy to find on the pages of this apologist dedicated to pagan mythology. Serapis. The image of the popular Hellenistic god Sarapis (or Serapis) was interpreted differently by church writers. Clement of Alexandria cites the version of Athenodorus, according to which the sculptor Briaxides, creating at the behest of the Egyptian pharaoh Sesostris a statue of his ancestor Osiris, fashioned it from sawdust of various metals and crushed precious stones with the addition of a substance left over from the burial of Osiris and Apis. “His name,” writes Clement, “hints at the connection with funerals and at the manufacture of that which has to do with the grave, composed of “Osiris” and “Apis” and becoming “Osyrapis”” (Cl. Protr., 4, 48, 4-6). The same author elsewhere gives two more versions of the myth of Sarapis. According to one, Apis, king of Argos, founded Memphis and, under the name of Sarapis, began to be revered by the Egyptians; according to another, the dead and embalmed bull Apis was placed in an urn (σορός) in the church of the revered deity and was therefore named Soroapis, and then Sarapis (Cl. Strom., 121, 106, 4-6; cf.: Aug. De civ., XVIII 5). According to the Dictionary of the Court (s. v. Σάραπις), some said that Sarapis is Zeus, others that it is the Nile, due to the fact that on his head there is a capacity of water of one modius; others that it is Joseph; “others that Apis was a certain enterprising man and king in the Egyptian city of Memphis; when there was a famine in Alexandria, he provided her with provisions at his own expense. When he died, a church was erected for him, where a bull [...] was kept, which also became known as Apis. The urn containing the body of Apis was transferred to Alexandria, and, making up a name from “urn” and “Apis,” they named him Sorapis. Subsequently, others – Sarapis.” Tertullian (Ad nat., II 8.10) states that Serapis was formerly called Joseph. After this, the apologist retells the biblical story of his being sold to Egypt by his brothers and his deeds there. Moreover, the woman who slandered him turns out to be not Potiphar’s wife (as in Gen. 39:7–18), but the queen herself; Pharaoh marries him to his daughter Taria, although according to the Bible (Gen. 41:45, 50), Joseph was married to the daughter of the priest Asenath. Below (Ad nat., II 8, 16-17) Tertullian says that Joseph was called Serapis from the structure that adorned his head; “the appearance of this structure, with a capacity of one modius, perpetuated the memory of his distribution of grain, and the fact that the care of food was entrusted to him is clear from the ears of corn with which he was surrounded.” For Tertullian this is a rare case. He usually claims that the pagans initiate incesters, adulterers, thieves, and parricides into celestials (cf.: Ad nat., II 7, 7). There is an opinion that here he goes in line with Jewish apologetics, since Serapis was identified with the Patriarch Joseph by Rabbi Judah ben Eli, who lived in Tiberias in the Antonine era: 269 Joseph was a prince (sar) and gave satisfaction ([me]phis) to the world; Joseph was compared twice in the Bible to a bull (Gen. 49:6; Deut. 33:17 270), and this was enough to connect him with the Apis bull. 271 Tertullian always thoroughly processed the information he gleaned from one source or another. If, speaking of Serapis, he deviates from his rule of seeing deified criminals in the gods and follows the version proposed by Jewish apologetics, then he. apparently, he simply did not know other options: stories about the origin of the Hellenistic Serapis, obviously, were not as popular as the myths about the Dioscuri. The assertion that the popular god was really a benefactor of men did little to discredit his cult. The possible reason for the disappearance of the story about Serapis in Apologetics was mentioned above. Saturn. Tertullian's criticism of Saturn, under whose name Baal was worshiped in Africa, was very harsh. 272 All the more strange is the fact that when polemicizing with heretics who reject martyrdom, Tertullian, speaking about the cruelty of the Christian God (crudelem deum, qui non intellegit, credit - Scorp., 7, 5), makes His image similar to the image of Saturn. 273 Below he refers to the human sacrifices of the pagans (Scorp., 7, 6) and asks: “If our God also demanded His own sacrifices under the name of martyrdom, who will reproach Him for a religion stained with bloodshed, for mournful rites, for an altar in the form of a fire, for a priest washing the corpses, and will not rather consider him happy whom God has devoured (quem deus comedisset)? (Scorp., 7, 7). Martyrdom is justified by "an understanding of God that was more influenced by local traditions of the cult of Saturn than by biblical ones." 274 However, to justify his analogy, Tertullian refers specifically to the Bible, changing its text when quoting: “Wisdom, he says, slaughtered (iugulavit) her children” (Scorp., 7.1; cf.: 9, 1). Scholars see here an allusion either to a passage from the book of Proverbs (9:2: “Wisdom slaughtered the sacrifice”) or from the book of Sirach (4:11 / 12: “Wisdom exalts her sons”). Stockmayer believes that "regardless of the solution to the question related to the history of the text, what is important in our connection is the fact that the alleged quotation was used to draw a parallel between the images of the Christian God and Saturn, and thus the gloomy characterization of the "murderer" is biblically justified." 275 It should be noted that, polemicizing with heretics, whom, as stated above, he considered more dangerous enemies of the Church than pagans, Tertullian did not hesitate to use as positive some features of the image of a bloodthirsty pagan god. Saturn, not being, unlike Aesculapius, a “rival of Christ,” does not irritate the apologist as much as the Christian Gnostics. Worse than them for Tertullian is only the devil himself. Since Tertullian, who, as we see, was influenced by local beliefs, is difficult to attribute to the lower strata of society, the statement of J.S. should be expanded. Sventsitskaya that “the lower classes of the population, especially from rural areas where traditional local beliefs were strong, brought elements of pagan ideas into Christianity, naively combining the features of their local deities with the image of the Christian God.” 276 Ceres. Ceres is one of the deities who had numerous cults in the Roman Empire. However, her criticism by Tertullian, like his criticism of the Dioscuri, is not clearly hostile. The apologist insists only that Ceres is a deified mortal woman disgraced by violence. He asks his readers in Ad nat.: “And what is surprising if those (we are talking about the gods - A.B.) who were people are disgraced by human troubles, crimes or inventions?” (Ad nat., II 7, 14). He then continues: “You do not believe the poets even though you have established certain sacraments based on their reports? Why is the priestess of Ceres kidnapped if Ceres has not suffered anything like this (cur rapitur sacerdos Cereris, si nihil tale Ceres passa est)? Why are other people's children sacrificed to Saturn if he spared his own? 277 Why is a man castrated for the Idean [goddess], if the young man who neglected her was not castrated by [her] anger caused by unsatisfied lust? Why do not the Lanuvian women partake of the sacrificial meal of Hercules, if [he] died 278 through no fault of the women? Poets, of course, lie, but not because they told such a thing (mentiuntur sane poetae, sed non ideo, quod talia digesserint) [...]" (Ad nat., II 7, 15-18). Let's pay attention to the phrase: “cur rapitur sacerdos Cereris, si nihil tale Ceres passa est?” What abduction of Ceres are we talking about here? “What mysteries should this be classified as?” asks Martin Person Nilsson 279 and leaves the question unanswered. Let's try to figure this out. It has been suggested that Tertullian wrote about the abduction of Ceres rather than her daughter Proserpina, not only because of the rush in which To the Gentiles was written, but also because the priestesses of Ceres were at the same time the priestesses of her children, Liber and Libera, who were venerated in the churches of Ceres. 280 There are two points of view on how to understand the words about the abduction of Ceres. According to one, Tertullian confused mother and daughter. 281 According to another, the apologist was not mistaken, and his rightness is confirmed by the organization of the Eleusinian priesthood: there was no priestess Kore, only the priestess Demeter existed. The word "rapitur" ("abducted") in this case is seen as a reminder that the original form of marriage was kidnapping, first real, then acted out. 282 According to Paul Foucard, there is no reason to assume that Tertullian names her daughter after Ceres, since there are myths in which Demeter is subjected to violence by the god. What follows is a reference to the “sacred marriage” at Eleusis. 283 Ludwig Deubner believes that Tertullian’s words about the abduction of Ceres were “rightly attributed by Foucart to a marital abduction.” 284 It is unlikely that Tertullian forgot one of the most famous pagan myths, which is mentioned, for example, by Tatian, 285 whose work was used by the Carthaginian apologist. 286 In the analyzed fragment “To the Gentiles” Proserpina could not be called by the name of her mother, as, for example, in “Thebaid” Statius: “an altar is raised for the underground Ceres” (Stat. Theb., IV 459–460); “lower (inferna) Ceres” (Stat. Theb., V 156). Firstly, this is not a poem; secondly, the name of Ceres does not have an epithet indicating that we are talking about the goddess of the underworld. So, speaking of the “abduction of Ceres,” Tertullian most likely had in mind the story popular among Christians about the scandalous affair between Zeus and Demeter, whose “sacred marriage” was played out, according to Asterius, 287 during the Eleusinian Mysteries by the hierophant and the priestess. This is an excellent example of the fact that the pagan gods, who were actually people, are “disgraced by human misfortunes and crimes” - after all, Tertullian talks about the incident with Ceres precisely in order to prove this. In another place in the same Tertullian work we read: “Of course, of so many wives, only Larentina is dear to Hercules, because only she was rich; in any case, she is certainly happier than Ceres, 288 which (quae) the dead man liked” (Adnat., II 10, 10). Did the apologist mean by “dead man” Pluto 289 or not? All pagan gods were equally dead to our apologist. A little lower, Tertullian, addressing the pagans, says about the gods: “the sky is open to the dead among you” (Ad nat., II 10, 12). Above, in the same chapter, we read about Larentina: “She was a corrupt woman either when she was the nurse of Romulus - and therefore a “she-wolf”, like a harlot - or when she became the girlfriend of Hercules, who was already dead, that is, a god” (Ad nat., II 10, 1). Thus, we can say that the dead man liked Larentina rather than Ceres. Since the word “quae” (“which”) still refers to the word “Cerere” (“Ceres”), this means that Ceres was loved either by one of the “gods” or by a mortal (this will be discussed below). There are two opinions regarding whether the “sacred marriage” was an “action” (δρώμενον) of the Eleusinian Mysteries. According to one, (ἱερòς γάμος) (“sacred marriage”) of Zeus and Demeter, enacted by the hierophant and priestess, can be considered as the second (δρώμενον) of these sacraments, despite the fact that only Christian writers speak about it. 290 According to another, the latter’s testimony, due to its polemical nature, raises strong suspicions of dishonesty. “Sacred marriage” could not be part of the mysteries, since its existence in Eleusis would presuppose that the spouse was Zeus, who, however, did not play any role there. 291 The fact that (ἱερòς γάμος) was not actually part of the Eleusinian mysteries does not at all make it impossible to assume that Tertullian, in speaking of the “abduction” of Ceres, was hinting at the ritual that Asterius would later describe. This action could only exist in the imagination of Christian apologists and their uninitiated readers. According to M.P. Nilsson, church authors did not strive for accuracy in the descriptions of rituals and did not check which particular mysteries these rituals belonged to. The goal of Christian writers was to show the reprehensibility of the mysteries. Readers knew practically nothing about this subject and could not verify the accuracy of the information reported. 292 Clement of Alexandria derives the word “orgies” from (ὀργή) – Demeter’s anger at Zeus (Cl. Protr., 2, 13, 1), and also reveals the content of the mysteries of this goddess, saying, in particular, the following: “The mysteries of Demeter are the passionate intercourse of Zeus and his mother Demeter and her anger (I don’t know, however, what to say, as a mother or as a wife), [...] and Zeus' prayers with olive branches, and the drinking of bile, and the extraction of the heart, and ceremonies inexpressible in words. The Phrygians do something similar in honor of Attis, Cybele and the Corybantes. [...] Demeter bears a child, Kore grows up, Zeus again enters into a love affair, this time with Persephone - a parent with his own daughter after Demeter's mother, forgetting about the previous shame. [...] It combines, taking the form of a serpent...” (Cl. Protr., 2, 15, 1–16, I). 293 Athenagoras retells the myth of Zeus, Demeter and Kore as follows: “[...] the daughter of Zeus, whom he gave birth to from her mother Rhea or Demeter, was said to have two eyes in accordance with nature and two on her forehead. [...] Zeus [...] pursued his mother Rhea, who refused to marry him; and since she became a female dragon, Ion, turning into a dragon, [...] combined with her” (Athen., 20). In the above quote, Rhea is confused with Demeter. 294 The story related by Clement and Athenagoras, and erroneously attributed by Asterius to Eleusis, probably had an Orphic basis. Athenagoras, after telling the story of the birth of Proserpina from Demeter and Zeus, and Dionysus from Proserpina and Zeus, quotes Orpheus; Pseudo-Justin says that Orpheus at the beginning of his poem asks the goddess to sing the wrath of the fertile Demeter (Ps.-Iust., 17). Tatian writes about the copulation of Zeus with his daughter and her birth, as evidenced by the Eleusinian mysteries, and Orpheus, who orders the doors to be closed to the uninitiated (Tat., 8). M. P. Nilsson makes the following assumption: “Probably Zeus appears as the consort of Demeter in myths imbued with the Orphic spirit (in orphisch angehauchten Mythen). (...) “sacred marriage” was apparently not included, at least in ancient times, in the Eleusinian mysteries.” 295 Consequently, the author of this story for apologists was most likely Orpheus, “the Phrygian hierophant and at the same time a poet” (Cl. Protr., 7, 74, H). 296 However, in the passage in question Adnat. (II 7, 15) Tertullian absolves the poets of the charge of deliberate deception, since those they spoke about were not gods for them. 297 Orpheus cannot be counted among such “innocent” poets from Tertullian’s point of view, and therefore the abduction of Ceres mentioned by Tertullian cannot be identified with the rites of the Orphic mysteries, which Clement of Alexandria speaks of. In fact, Tertullian, who did not deny the existence of personalities like Orpheus or Musaeus, separated them in his mind from Homer, acting like Horace, whose Orpheus “is placed in the same chronological plane as the wonderful founder of Thebes Amphion,” 298 but for a different reason: Orpheus is a priest, Homer is a poet. In Apol. (21, 29) we read: “Orpheus in Pieria, Musaeus in Athens, Melampodes in Argos, Trophonius in Boeotia obliged people to perform the sacraments.” The words of Clement are very interesting: “about the gathering of flowers by Persephone, [...] and about the abduction by Hades, and about the cleft in the earth, and about the pigs of Eubouleus, swallowed up along with the goddesses (τοῖν θεαῖν)” (Cl. Protr., 2, 17, 1). The Scholiast of Lucian, who apparently had the same source as Clement, 299 speaks of pigs thrown into the chasms of Demeter and Kore at the festival of the Skirophorium. 300 However, the scholiast here obviously meant only that the chasms he mentioned were dedicated to these goddesses, and did not mean by them the gaping “Nisean Valley” (Hymn., 2, 16–20), where Hades kidnapped Persephone. 301 Although Clement uses dualis (τοῖν θεαῖν), he immediately writes that women represent the abduction of Proserpina as a tragedy (Protr., 2, 17, 1). There is no talk of any abduction of Demeter either here or in other places in the Exhortation. Dualis occurs often when talking about Demeter and Kore ((τὼ θεά)), 302 who were also called “two Lawgivers”, τὼ θεσμοφόρω besttsosrorso and even “Demeters”. 303 Clement writes: “Demeter and Kore became characters in a mystical drama, and Eleusis illuminates their (αὐταῖν) wandering, abduction and sorrow with the light of torches” (Protr., 2, 12, 2). Brachylogy is obvious in this phrase: the wandering and sorrow of Demeter (Protr., 2, 20, 1), the abduction of Persephone. So, despite the rapprochement between mother and daughter, Demeter was not abducted in those myths and sacraments that Clement had in mind. Although Ceres was associated with the underworld, 304 and her and Pluto's names appeared together in inscriptions, 305 the existing chthonic cult of Demeter 306 was not associated in the minds of the pagans with her abduction (or violence against her). If there had been a myth about her abduction by the god of the underworld, Cicero, talking about the abduction of the statue of Ceres by Berres, would not have written that the inhabitants of Enna grieved as if the new Orcus, having appeared in their city, had kidnapped not Proserpina, but Ceres herself (Cic.Verr., 111). Below we will consider the evidence of the ancients about two other myths in which Demeter was subjected to violence, and which formed the basis of certain mysteries. 307 1. Demeter and Poseidon. Pausanias reports: “When the goddess wandered the earth, looking for her daughter, they say that Poseidon pursued her, wanting to marry her; then Demeter turned into a mare and grazed with the mares of Onkius; but Poseidon guessed about her deception, he himself became like a stallion and in this form combined with Demeter [...]. According to the legend of the Arcadians, Demeter gave birth to a daughter from Poseidon, whose name they do not consider themselves to have the right to make known among the uninitiated, and the horse Areion” 308 (Paus., VIII 25, 5 and 7; cf.: Paus., VIII 37, 9; 42, 1-2). The commentary by Hermann Gitzig and Hugo Blumner analyzes the legend of these deities. According to him, it has both features of extreme antiquity and later Eleusinian admixtures. According to the original Phelpus myth, Demeter-Erinyes conceives Erion, that is, the son of Erinyes, from Poseidon. There was no talk about the daughter before. The name of the horse Areyon points to a Boeotian legend connecting Demeter with Ares. In the Phigalian myth, the fruit of the relationship between Poseidon and Demeter is called “Mistress” (Paus., VIII 42, 1–2). “The idea that Demeter, while searching for her daughter, was pursued by Poseidon does not belong to the Arcadian legend, but is an infiltration of the Eleusinian one.” 309 Since Pausanias speaks of “uninitiated”, it follows that there were also “initiated” into the sacrament, obviously connected with the myth he described about Poseidon’s violence over Demeter. However, Tertullian could not have hinted at the myth of the transformation of Demeter into a mare, and Poseidon into a stallion 310 in the passage that is now being discussed, and which ends with the words: “Poets, of course, lie, but not because they told it.” 2. Demeter and Iasion. According to Homer, “Jasion was chosen by the beautifully curly Demeter; / Having loved him with her heart, the goddess shared a bed with him / On a field that had been plowed three times; Zeus was soon notified of this, and he killed him, throwing down his fiery thunder” 311 (Od., V 125–128). In Hesiod we read: “Plutus the wealth was born of Demeter, the great goddess. / She mated in passionate love with Iasion the hero / In the rich Cretan region of the thrice-plowed land” 312 (Hes. Theog., 969–971; cf.: Ov. Met., IX 422–423; Hyg., 270). As we see, poets report about the marriage of Iasion and Demeter. Although Homer and Hesiod speak of a voluntary union, there was a later version of the myth, preserved by Pseudo-Apollodorus, according to which Iasion, having fallen in love with Demeter, wanted to dishonor her, but was struck by lightning (Ps.-Apoll., III 12, 1). It is known that Jasion's brother was the founder of the Mysteries. According to Strabo, the brothers Iasion and Dardanus lived in Samothrace. After the death of Iasion from a lightning strike for insulting Demeter, Dardanus settled near Mount Ida and taught the Trojans the Samothrace mysteries (Strab., VII 49, fragmenta). According to Clement of Alexandria, Dardan taught people the mysteries of the Mother of the gods (Cl. Protr., 2, 13, 3). Let us recall other words of Clement, describing the “mysteries of Demeter”: “[...] the Phrygians perform similar things in honor of Attis, Cybele and the Corybantes” (Cl. Protr., 2, 15, 1). So, the sacraments that Dardan taught the Trojans reminded Clement of the rituals he described, reproducing the violence of Zeus over Demeter, his repentance and her anger. Cybele became close and sometimes identified with the Cretan mother of Zeus Rhea. 313 The latter, according to Athenagoras, is the same as Demeter (Athen., 20). On the other hand, the Great Mother of the Gods becomes close to Demeter. 314 Therefore, we can talk about the possibility of an associative connection between Iasion's brother Dardanus and his sacraments in honor of Cybele, on the one hand, and the violence against Demeter carried out by Zeus and the sacraments dedicated to this event, on the other. Let us note that Diodorus Siculus says that Zeus, who wished to respect Jasion, initiated him into the mysteries (Diod., V 48). Below, Diodorus refers to myths according to which Demeter fell in love with Iasion and gave birth to Plutos from him (Diod.., V 49). However, Plutos, as the son of Demeter, is not given any place in Eleusis. 315 The same can obviously be said about Jasion. However, we must remember the freedom with which Christian authors treated material concerning pagan sacraments. The fact that in the third Idyll of Theocritus, after words about Adonis and Cytharea, Endymion and Selene, the goatherd says: “I envy, dear, Iasion, who has comprehended something that you, the uninitiated, do not recognize” (Theocr., 3, 50-51), cannot be considered as an argument in favor of the existence of the mysteries in which Iasion appeared. By “uninitiated” here, obviously, we should understand those who are not involved in the sacraments of love. 316 From these verses alone it cannot be concluded that there are mysteries whose culmination is (ἱερòς γάμος) Iasion and Demeter. Lucian’s mom says to Zeus: “And from the day when you, turning your gaze to mortal women, opened the doors for them, everyone began to imitate you, and not only gods, but also goddesses, which is the most shameful thing of all. For who does not know Anchises, Typhon, Endymion, Jasion and others? 317 (Luc. Deor. cone., 8). We read something similar about the goddesses from Clement of Alexandria: “[...] they indulge in debauchery with all their passion, tying themselves in the bonds of adultery: Eos with Tithon, Selene with Endymion, Nereid with Aeacus, Thetis with Peleus, Demeter with Iasion, Persephone with Adonis” (Cl. Protr., 2, 33, 8). So, we have the humiliating Demeter, “who pleased the dead man,” a connection with a mortal (Demeter’s other lovers, Zeus and Poseidon, were after all gods). The union of the goddess with Iasion, sung by Homer and Hesiod, was sometimes depicted as violence. However, we do not find any indication of the mysteries in honor of Demeter and Jasion either in Tertullian or in other Christian writers. 318 In terms of fame, only the legendary ἱερòς γάμος of Demeter and Zeus during the mysteries, which had an Orphic character, can be placed next to the sacrifices to Saturn and the castration of 319 the so-called Gauls. 320 When speaking of the mysteries of Ceres, Tertullian was no less precise than when he explained the sacrifices to the African deity identified with Saturn by the myth of Kronos devouring his children. For the author, it did not matter who insulted Ceres - Jupiter, Neptune or Iasion. We can highlight several features encountered in Tertullian’s retelling of myths: brevity, maximum compromising information, absence of gross errors. Some of Tertullian's inconsistency can be explained by his arbitrary use of the source. 321 Tertullian probably knew about numerous myths in which Demeter was subjected to violence, knew that poets wrote about her adventures and that there were mysteries during which, according to Christians, a “sacred marriage” took place. All this taken together prompted him to talk about the abduction of the priestess, reproducing the “abduction” of the goddess glorified by the poets. The main thing for him was to show the human essence of the popular goddess. Churched mythological image The myth of the phoenix occupies a special place among other myths. In the city of On (Heliupol) in Egypt, the “Ben-ben” stone was revered as a shrine, on which, according to legend, the sun first appeared in the form of a ben (phoenix) bird. 322 Near the tomb of Osiris, a tree was sometimes depicted on which the soul of Osiris sits in the form of a phoenix. 323 For the Fathers of the Church, as well as for their contemporaries, it was a story about a phenomenon, although mysterious, but real. 324 The desire to avoid fabulousness apparently explains the introduction by some authors into the narrative of a “realistic” motif of the emergence of life from decomposed remains, which was not considered fantastic in a later era. For Tertullian, however, almost all myths could be and often were rationally explainable, either as embellished stories from the lives of ancient kings, or as the machinations of demons, that is, as real events in the eyes of ancient Christians. Church writers gave some such events a positive assessment, considering them signs from above, while others assessed them as the machinations of the devil. The ancient myth of the phoenix, being adapted for the purposes of Christian teaching, is one of the few related to the former. Ancient authors had the following versions of the myth about the phoenix: 1. the phoenix is ​​born (in an unusual way) and has a father, whose body is then carried to the burial place in Egypt; 2. the phoenix, having no father, is reborn: (a) from rotting remains; (b) from the ashes. Let's look at some evidence. Herodotus writes: “There is another sacred bird, which is called the phoenix [...]. They say (this seems unreliable to me) that he does the following: Phoenix, rushing from Arabia, carries his father’s [body] anointed with myrrh to the church of Helios and buries him there” (Hrd., II 73). Tacitus talks about a phoenix, which, sensing the approach of death, makes a nest and pours life-giving power into it. A chick emerges from it. Having matured, he transfers his father's body to the altar of the Sun and burns it there. All this, according to Tacitus, is doubtful and replete with fables (haec incerta et fabulosis aucta) (Tac. Ann., VI 28, 5–6). Achilles Tatius (II–III centuries after AD) in his novel “On the Love of Leucippe and Clitophon” writes that when the phoenix dies, the son carries it to the Nile, making a temporary tomb for it (Ach., III 25). Aelian (3rd century AD), in his essay “On the Nature of Animals,” speaking about the intelligence of the phoenix, exclaims: “By the gods, is it not wisdom to know where Egypt is, where the city of the Sun is (Helioupolis), to which he is destined to come, and where his father should be laid and in what grave?” (Ae1., VI 58). According to Horapollo (2nd half of the 4th century after R. X.), before death, the phoenix “throws itself to the ground and receives a wound from the blow, and from the ichor flowing from the wound another [phoenix] is born.” And he, as soon as he fledges, goes to the city of the Sun in Egypt with his father, who, arriving there with the sunrise, dies there. And after the death of the father, the chick returns to its homeland again, and the Egyptian priests bury that dead phoenix” (Horar., II 57). Artemidorus (2nd half of the 2nd century after Christ), speaking about what a phoenix seen in a dream may portend, gives both versions of the myth; according to one of them, “the phoenix buries its father,” according to another, “the phoenix does not bury its father, and it has no surviving father or any ancestors, but whenever death approaches it, it goes to Egypt (from where, people do not know), and, having created a fire for itself from cinnamon and myrrh, it dies on it. Some time after the fire burns down, from the ashes, they say, a worm is born, which, as it grows, changes and again becomes a phoenix and flies out of Egypt to where the phoenix came from before it” (Art., IV 47). Ovid uses the verb “to be reborn” in relation to the phoenix, but at the same time he speaks of “the father’s grave” (Ov. Met., XV 392–393; 402; 405–407): “Only one bird revives itself with its seed (una est, quae reparet seque ipsa reseminet, ales): / The Assyrians call it “Phoenix”; [...]/ Emerging from the ashes of his father, the little phoenix is ​​reborn (corpore de patrio parvum phoenica renasci). [...] / Piously his cradle and his father’s grave (fertque pius cunasque suas patriumque sepulcrum) / taking [...], / He lays down a gift on the sacred threshold in the church of Hyperion.” 325 According to Pliny the Elder (23/24–79 AD), Senator Manilius reported that the phoenix, having grown old, builds a nest in which it dies among the incense. “Then, from his bones and marrow, a creature resembling a worm (nasci primo ceu vermiculum) is first born, then becomes a chick and first arranges for its predecessor a proper funeral and the entire nest [which] near Panchaea, is transferred to the city of the Sun and there placed on the altar” (Plin., X 2, 4; cf.: Sol., 46.). Pliny also mentions the revival of the phoenix elsewhere (Plin., XIII 42). Pomponius Mela (1st century AD), although he does not speak of a worm, claims that the phoenix is ​​born from “the decay of rotting members” (Mel., III 8, 83–84). He takes the bones of his former body to a flaming altar in the city of the Sun in Egypt. Statius provides us with a poetic version of the rebirth of the mysterious bird: “[...] The Phoenix, not weakened by sluggish old age, / Will enter, striving for bliss, into the fragrant flame (scandet odoratos Phoenix felicior ignes)” (Stat. Silv., II 4, 36–37). We read something similar in Martial: “As fire renews the Assyrian nests with fire, / If ten centuries have already passed for the phoenix, / Likewise, young Rome laid aside its decrepit old age, / And it began to resemble its protector” 326 (Mart. Epigr., V 7, 1–4). For non-Christian authors, the phoenix was associated either with longevity or with something extraordinary. Lucian (c. 120 - c. 190 AD) uses the expression “to live the age of the phoenix” to mean “to live a lot” (Luc.Herm., 53). According to the translation of Hesiod by Ausonius (310–395 A.D.), the “renewable phoenix (reparabiles ales)” lives nine times longer than the raven (Aus., 4, 5–6: cf. Plut. De def., 11, 415c). Martial names the phoenix as an example of something special: “And next to her the peacock seemed disgusting, / And the ugly squirrel, the phoenix vulgar (frequens) - / Erotica, whose ashes were still warm [,..]” 327 (Mart. Epigr., V 37, 12–14). In Lucian, “the phoenix, a bird among the Indians, inaccessible to the eyes of others,” is mentioned along with the vulture, the sources of the Nile and the antipodes living in the southern half of the earth (Luc. Nav., 44). Synesius of Cyrene (c. 370 - c. 415 AD) also emphasizes the rarity of the phoenix (Syn. Dion., 9, 2-3). If for pagans the phoenix was only an amazing bird, included in the catalog of strange or sacred animals, then for Christians it became a symbol of resurrection. 328 Clement of Rome was the first of the church writers (late 1st century) to turn to the image of the phoenix: “Let us look at the extraordinary sign that occurs in the eastern countries, that is, in those near Arabia. For [there] there is a bird called the phoenix. Being the only one, she lives for five hundred years. And having already approached death, he makes himself a nest of Lebanon and myrrh and other incense, into which, when the time is fulfilled, he enters and dies. When the flesh rots, a certain worm is born, which, feeding on the moisture of the dead creature, feathers; then, having become strong, he lifts up the nest where the bones of the one who lived before are located, and, carrying it from the Arabian land to Egypt, he reaches a city called the City of the Sun. And arriving during the day, in full view of everyone, he places the burden on the altar of the Sun and thus goes back. The priests examine the chronicles and discover that he arrives after five hundred years have passed” (Cl. Rom. Cor., I 25). Tertullian turns to the example of the phoenix for help, proving the resurrection of the flesh: “If the universe does not sufficiently show the image of the resurrection, if the creation does not confirm this in any way (for some of its parts undergo not so much death as cessation, and not rebirth, but transformation), then here before you is the fullest and most reliable image of this hope, an animated being, subject to both life and death. I mean a bird that lives in the East, remarkable for its rarity and amazing ability to live: dying of its own free will, it is renewed; dying and returning to the day of its birth, the phoenix appears where no one was already there, again the one who was no longer there, different and the same (qui semetipsum libenter funerans renovat, natali fine decedens atque succedens, iterum phoenix ubi nemo iam, iterum ipse qui non iam, alius idem). What could be clearer and more convincing for our subject? And what else does this proof serve? (Quid expressius atque signatius in hanc causam aut cui alii rei tale documentum?) Even in His Scripture, God says: “you will flourish like a phoenix” (cf. Ps. 92 / 91:13), that is, after death and burial, so that you believe that even fire can take away the substance of the body. The Lord said that we are “better than many sparrows” (cf. Matthew 10:31). If we are no better than many phoenixes, then it doesn’t matter. But should people die forever if the Arabian birds are calm about their resurrection? 329 (De res., 13, 1–4) From the existing versions of this myth, he chooses the most beautiful one, which we find before him in Statius (Stat. Silv., II 4, 36–37) and Martial (Mart. Epigr., V 7, 1–4). Tertullian's Phoenix does not arise from the rotted remains of a deceased predecessor, but appears on the day of his death, apparently from the ashes. Tertullian neglects the version of Herodotus (Hrd., II 73). Unlike Clement, who, like him, uses this legend to justify the belief in the resurrection of the flesh, he does not cite its second part about the phoenix’s journey to Egypt, because in this case we would not be talking about rebirth in the previous body. He also passes over the worm phase in silence. As already mentioned, Tertullian usually gives preference to the literal understanding of a story over the allegorical one. Not only Herodotus (Hrd., II 73) and Tacitus (Tas. Ann., VI 28, 6) were skeptical about this legend. Pliny the Elder says: “The Ethiopians and Indians report very diversely colored indescribable birds and, above all, the famous phoenix from Arabia - I don’t know if this is fiction (haud scio an fabulose), - alone in the whole world […]” (Plip., X 2.3, cf.: XXIX 29). St. Augustine carefully notes “as it is believed”: “After all, what you say about the [bird] phoenix is ​​completely irrelevant to the matter in question, for it signifies the resurrection of bodies, and does not take away the sex of souls, if, after all, as is believed (ut creditur), it is reborn after its death” (Aug. De an., IV [33], 20). Origen, arguing with Kels, turns out to be less gullible than the latter regarding the phoenix (Orig., IV 98). 330 Unlike the named authors, Tertullian does not doubt at all what he writes about (about the revival of the same phoenix). Moreover, he uses the example of a miraculous bird as proof of the resurrection of the dead. The legend, the truth of which was doubted by pagans before him, and later Origen and Augustine would doubt, is considered by him as a strong argument in a dispute with opponents. Apparently, such faith is given to him by the words of the psalm (Ps. 93/92:13), which he translates as “you will flourish like a phoenix.” The recourse to Scripture "indicates to some extent his empirical turn of mind, since such recourse to written documents was one of the forms of 'artless' argumentation used in rhetoric." 331 However, this psalm does not speak of a phoenix; it is translated from Hebrew as: “The righteous will bloom like a palm tree.” The Septuagint (Greek translation of the Bible) allows for a dual understanding of this fragment, since the Greek word (φοῖνιξ); translated both “phoenix” and “date palm”. 332 According to the Vulgate, English 333 and German 334 versions, this also refers to a palm tree. Let us compare the verse of the psalm under discussion with the book of Job (29:18): “And I said: I will die in my nest, and my days will be as numerous as sand.” The English and German translations here are fundamentally different: “Then I said, I shall die in my nest, and I shall multiply my days as the sand” and “Ich hoffte, alt zu werden wie der Phonix und so wie er in meinem Nest zu sterben.” This confusion is explained by the fact that the Hebrew word (חוֹל) [ḥôl] in the book of Job (29:18) means both “sand” and “phoenix”. The Septuagint and Vulgate understand the palm tree as a model of longevity, in contrast to rabbinic exegesis, which interpreted the word (חוֹל) as a phoenix. 335 It is difficult to say how sincere Tertullian was in his belief in the resurgent phoenix and how far he was willing to admit the existence of unprecedented miracles if the words of the Bible hinted at them. One thing is obvious: in his works he always sought to choose the most effective stories, the most striking examples. For him it was important to impress the reader, not to prove, but to speak, to convince, acting on emotions, “to dazzle with brilliant formulations (durch die glӓnzenden Formulierungen blenden).” 336 The emergence of a worm from rotting remains, not considered fantastic until the 19th century, is much more prosaic and “scientific” than its rebirth from the ashes on the day of death. It should also be noted that Tertullian does not always follow the poetic (mythical) version to the detriment of the “scientific” one. Thus, speaking about Dido (Ad nat., I18, 3; Ad mart., 4, 5; De an., 33, 9; De ex., 13, 3; De mon., 17, 2), Tertullian completely ignores Virgil’s story about her and follows a more “historical” version, which we find in Timaeus and Pompey Trogus, a version that turns out to be closer to his theoretical principles. Friedrich Lauchert believes that Latin apologists, including Tertullian, used the Physiologist. 337 However, talking about the dependence of the apologist on this work seems risky. Lauchert, after the phoenix from the work “On the Resurrection of the Dead,” also writes about the snake, hyena and deer, named by Tertullian in the third chapter “On the Cloak” (entire § 2). These three examples, according to the scientist, are also taken from the Physiologist. 338 In my opinion, the similarity of the descriptions of these animals in this work and in Tertullian cannot be a sufficient argument in favor of the dependence of the second on the first. If an apologist had before his eyes the text of the Physiologist, he would write at least as much about the snake, hyena and deer as about the peacock (all of § 1) and the chameleon (all of § 3). However, the volumes of § 1 and § 2 are approximately equal, and the volume of § 3 is twice the volume of § 2. Information about the snake, hyena and deer could well be contained in one of the compilations dedicated to animals. In addition, according to the Physiologist (7), the priest finds the phoenix on the altar in the form of a worm the next day. According to Tertullian, the phoenix is ​​reborn immediately after death: natali fine decedens atque succedens. According to A.G. Yurchenko, there is a striking difference between the ancient and Christian version of the birth of the phoenix. “In the first case, the mythical bird dies naturally, having previously given birth to offspring from its own seed, and in the second, the phoenix burns alive in the fire, being reborn virtually from the ashes.” Below, Yurchenko suggests that one should consider “the concealment of the passage about the birth of a new bird from the father’s seed as a manipulation of the text.” 339 It seems that there is no need to talk about the fundamental difference between the pagan and Christian versions of the birth of the phoenix. We saw that the Christian Clement of Rome did not say a word about the rising of the phoenix from the ashes, while the pagans Statius and Martial wrote exactly about this. The poem “Phoenix,” attributed to Lactantius, but devoid of pronounced Christian features, speaks of double cremation: “They say that from the ashes without limbs a worm first arises, and they also say that its color is white. (101–102) / Transforms afterwards into what he was before; / Having torn his old skin, he became a new phoenix. (105–106) / [...] all that remained of his body - / His bones and ashes, the skin that he himself shed - / With his balsam claw he puts it into myrrh and incense, / With his sacred beak he turns it into a ball. / Carrying the ball in his paws, he rushes towards the sunrise, / Sitting on the altar, he places that holy burden in the church. (117–122) [...]. / He achieved eternal life at his own cost. (170)". Claudian (late 4th - early 5th centuries) does not say about a worm or about birth from rotting remains (however, Claudian says about the burial of the remains of his predecessor by a phoenix): “Soon the fire will give birth, and at the cradle Nature, / So that that eternal bird does not perish, is fussing and asking / The faithful flame to return the immortal adornment of the world. / Immediately life, running through the scattered members, boils up; / And his vessels are filled with renewed blood. / Without coercion, the dust by itself, sensing victory, / suddenly begins to move and hides the ashes with feathers. / He who was a parent now appears to the world as a son... (Claud., I 62–69) / To reverently honor his father’s mans at the Nile / He wants to take the heap in which he arose to Egypt [...] (Claud., I 72–74).” So, although it was not Christian authors who introduced into this myth the motif of the identity of the deceased phoenix with his successor, it was they who were the first to use his image for polemical purposes. The argument “which the Church Fathers wanted to extract from the belief in the resurrection of the phoenix could only be valid for interlocutors who knew this story in advance and considered it true.” 340 Martial would not have used in his panegyric to the emperor who restored the burnt Rome a new, previously unknown motive for the revival of a wonderful bird. 341 It should be noted, however, that the version of the resurrection from the fire found in Martial, being known and suitable for glorifying Caesar, should not necessarily be considered realistic. Thus, from two previously existing versions, church writers could choose the one that, in their opinion, could have a stronger effect on the reader, that is, either convinced with its verisimilitude, or amazed with its beauty and grandeur. Tertullian prefers the latter. He uses the image of this fabulous bird (as the image of Saturn) not to refute the pagans, but to affirm the truths of the Christian faith in polemics with heretics. The legend of the phoenix, borrowed from the pagans by Clement of Rome, poeticized by Tertullian, appealed to Christians. According to A. S. Uvarov, “on the Christian inscriptions of Rome we meet the phoenix for the first time in 385, and, apparently, the typical image is borrowed from Roman coins” (on these coins minted under Emperor Hadrian, the phoenix appeared accompanied by the inscription aeternitas augusta: “sacred eternity”). 342 In the life of St. Cecilia (c. 230) is told that “the saint saw a phoenix on the stone sarcophagi of the martyrs Maximus, Valerian and Tiburtius, which Maximus ordered to be depicted as a symbol of his resurrection. From this we can conclude that the phoenix served as an iconic transmission of all formulas related to the Resurrection.” 343 Ambrose of Milan (IV century) twice refers to the example of the phoenix, but follows the “realistic” version of the myth: “They say that the phoenix bird also lives in Arabia, and it lives for a long century, up to five hundred years. When she notices that the end of her life is approaching, she makes herself a coffin of incense, myrrh and other incense, into which, when the time of her life is up, she enters and dies. From the moisture of her flesh a worm emerges and gradually grows, and after a certain time acquires wings and regains the appearance and form of the former bird. So, may this bird teach us, at least by its example, to believe in the resurrection, which, both without example and without understanding by reason, gives itself a sign of resurrection. Of course, birds exist for the sake of man, not man for the sake of birds. So let this be an example to us, for the Creator and Creator of birds does not allow His saints to perish forever; after all, He, not allowing the only bird to perish, wished that it, rising from its seed, would be restored” (Ambr. Hex., V 23, 79). “A bird in the Arabian country, whose name is the phoenix, emerging again from the moisture of its outlived flesh, although dead, comes to life again. Are we really going to believe that only people are not resurrected? But we know, both from frequent conversations and from authoritative writings, that the said bird has a certain period of life of five hundred years, and that after it knows, through some inherent faculty of its nature, to foresee that the end of its life is approaching, it prepares itself a coffin with incense, myrrh, and other incense, and, when its work and time are completed, it enters into it and dies. From its moisture a worm emerges; gradually, as it grows up, it acquires the appearance and habits of the same bird. Having fledged, he fulfills piety for the sake of the duty of renewed life. After all, that coffin is either a grave for the body, or a cradle for the reborn, in which, dying, he falls, and falling, he rises, and carries it from Ethiopia to Lycaonia. And thus the inhabitants of the area, after the resurrection of this bird, learn that five hundred years have passed. So, for this bird the year of resurrection is the five hundredth, for us - the thousandth, for her - in this century, for us - at the death of the world. Many even believe that this bird sets fire to itself and comes to life again from hot ashes and ash” (Ambr. De mort., II 59). Isidore of Seville (2nd half of the 6th century. – 1st half. VII century according to R. X.) avoids naturalistic details of the revival of the phoenix, speaking of its rise from the ashes (Isid., XII 7, 22). According to a Byzantine author of the 12th century. according to R. X. John Tzetz (Chiliads, V 391–392), after the death of the phoenix, a worm is first born, which in the rays of the sun again becomes a phoenix. See also: John Lawrence Lid (VI century after R. X.) “On the months,” IV 11. If Clement of Rome was still talking about the burial of the bones of the phoenix predecessor, then later church authors, usually following Tertullian, insist on the resurrection of the mysterious bird, because Ambrose is not talking about the burial of the remains, but about the honors shown by the resurrected phoenix to its grave-cradle. The contradictory nature of Tertullian affects his not always consistent attitude towards pagan deities. As a Christian, he shows their weakness and depravity. As an African, he attacks Aeneas and Romulus and says almost nothing about the Heavenly Virgin revered in Carthage. As a former adherent of the cult of Mithras, he attacks this most popular god in the Roman Empire with less force, 344 than, for example, Aesculapius. Although Tertullian fought against pagan religious practices more strongly than against belief in the Homeric gods, he attacked state cults (which included the cults of “foreign gods”) with less fury than he attacked Roman gods and heroes. Gods, when compared with mortals, are always inferior to the latter. Mythological characters turn out to be worse than real people, except when these people are heretics. Tertullian, who did not verbally find anything positive in pagan culture, in fact repeatedly used in his writings not only the achievements of pre-Christian philosophical thought, but also mythology itself. He often used myths as instructive examples to give the text greater expressiveness. Moreover, he addressed them not only in polemics with pagans, but also in discussions with Christians. The assessment of mythological characters is determined by the purpose facing Tertullian in a particular work, and depends little on whether it was written in the “catholic” or “montanist” period of his work. Christianity, even in the person of one of the most irreconcilable fighters against paganism, could not do without not only the achievements of philosophical thought, but also without the mythological images created by poets. Tertullian, despite his intolerance of paganism, found confirmation of the Christian faith in myths. He depicts the fabulous phoenix as a real bird, like the sparrows from the Gospel of Matthew. Using this example, following Clement of Rome, to prove the resurrection of the flesh, the Latin apologist, relying on the misunderstood words of the Psalm, goes further than his predecessor and does not say a word about the burial of the previous body, nor about the stage of the worm. The “churched” image of the mysterious bird shows us the ability of Christian authors, even the most strict in relation to pagan culture, to borrow elements from this culture for their teaching. The apologist constructs a new Christian myth from the ruins of a pagan one. In a similar way, Christian architects rebuilt pagan temples, resulting in, for example, the Roman Pantheon becoming the Church of S. Maria ad Martyres (or “Santa Maria Rotunda”), The struggle between the new and old religions took place on two fronts: everyday life and ideological (philosophical-mythological). The new religion has won. She took numerous elements of the enemy's defense as trophies. It was thanks to this “Hellenization” (or “Romanization”) from the “sect” (Tert. Apol., 1, 1) that the universal Church was able to arise, which did not burn all the monuments of ancient culture (cf. Num. 33:52; Deut. 7:5), but inherited from it the treasures created by many generations of “pagans”. The translation of “Apologetics” was carried out by A. Yu. Bratukhin according to the publication by K. Becker (Tertullianus. 1961) with the assistance of the publication by E. Dekkers (Tertullianus. 1954. Vol. I). When translating unclear passages, their interpretations by translators N. Shcheglov (1910), G. Kellner (N. Kellner, 1915), and A. Souter (A. Souter, 1917) were taken into account. The translation of “To Scapula” was carried out by L. V. Bratukhina according to the edition of E. Dekkers (Tertullianus. 1954. Vol. II). See: Heck E. (Μὴ θεομαξεῖν) oder: Die Bestrafung des Gottesverachters: Untersuchungen zu Bekampfung und Aneignung romischer religio bei Tertullian, Cyprian und Lactanz // Studien zur klassischen Philologie. Frankfurtam Main, Bern, New York, 1987. Bd. 24. S. 30–41. Posnov M.E. History of the Christian Church (before the division of the Churches - 1054). Brussels, 1964. P. 93. Wed: Tert. Apol., 40, 1–2. See: Tert. Apol., 21, 17; 23, 12. 6 Cf.: Basic Decree. Op. pp. 88–89. Dodds E.R. Pagan and Christian in an age of anxiety. Cambridge, 1965. P. 105. Shcheglov N. Apologetician of Tertullian. Kiev, 1888. P. 126. Mopseaich R. Histoire litteraire de l’Afrique chretienne. T. 1: Tertullien et les origines. Paris, 1901. P. 221. Barnes T.D. Tertullian: a historical and literary study. 2nd edition. Oxford, 1985. P. 105. Jaeger W. Early Christianity and Greek paideia. Cambridge, Mass., 1961. P. 33. See, for example: Bychkov V.V. Aesthetics of the Church Fathers. M., 1995. P. 59, 545 approx. 24. Agahd R.M. Terenti Varronis Antiquitatum rerum divinarum libri I XIV XV XVI / Praemissae sunt quaestiones Varronianae auctore R. Agahd. Lipsiae, 1898. P. 44. Albrecht M. von. Geschichte der romischen Literatur. Bern, Miinchen. 1992. 2. Bd. S. 1211. Borleffs J. W. Ph. Institutum Neronianum //Das friihe Christentum im romischen Staat / Hrsg. v. R. Klein. Darmstadt, 1971. Bd. 267. S. 234 16 Cp.:Heck. Op. cit. S. 52. Swift L.J. Forensic Rhetoric in Tertullian’s Apologeticum //Latomus. Revue d'études latines. 1968. T. 27. Fasc. 4. P. 877. See: Aug.Conf., I 13, 20. Laistner M.L.W. Christianity and pagan culture in the later Roman Empire. Ithaca, New York, 1951. P. 51. He will write about the “heavenly people” of the Gnostics: “If I demand to show me these heavenly people, then it will be easier for Aratus to draw Perseus, Kepheus, Erigone and Ariadne among the stars” (Scorp., 10, 4). Ridiculing the heretics who rejected martyrdom in this life, he will say: “If a Christian must be killed, this will be done by the hand of armed Orion; if he must be given over to be torn to pieces by beasts, the seven stars will release their bears, the zodiac - bulls and lions” (Tert. Scorp., 10, 12). He will be ironic about what delayed the coming of Christ, preached by the heretics: “Perhaps he was hindered by Anabibazon or some dangers, or Saturn square, or Mars triangular” (Tert. Adv. Marc., 118, 1; cf., for example: Ου.Ibis., 215-216). He mentions “Ariadne’s crown of gold and precious stones, the work of Vulcan, the gift of Liber, which later became a constellation” (Tert. De cor., 7, 4; cf.: Ου. Met., VIII 178–182; Ου. Fast., III 513–516) and about another world located near Merope (Tert. De pall., 2, 1). While fighting paganism, Tertullian could not help but mention the constellations bearing the names of mythological characters. He needed to debunk the belief in gods both when they were explained allegorically and when they were seen in the constellations. Tertullian considers those who gave their names to the stars to be deified people. Objecting to Christians who are trying to somehow justify their studies in astrology, he asks sarcastically: “We must think that now astrology is from Christ; she observes and predicts from the stars that belong to Christ, and not to Saturn, Mars and any of this series of dead people” (Tert. De idol., 9, 3). On the use by Christians of pagan names of constellations and days of the week, see: Hagendahl N. Latin Fathersandtheclassics. A study on the apologists, Jerome and other Christian writers //Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia. 1958. Vol. 6. P. 382–383. Vermander J.-M. La polémique de Tertullien contre les dieux du paganisme //Revue des sciences religieuses. 1979. T. 53. P. 111. Hagendahl H. Von Tertullian zu Cassiodor. Die profane literarische Tradition in dem lateinischen christlichen Schrifttum // Studia Graeca et Latina Gothoburgensia. 1983. Vol. 44. S. 13. DiiIndigetes - “native gods”, Roman heroes ranked among the gods. Tertullian, who was fond of using puns, wrote indigentem ("deprived") rather than Indigetem. The words “Aeneas was considered the father of Indigetus” and information about the disappearance of Aeneas during the Laurentian battle probably goes back to Varro [Agahd. Op. cit. R. 81]. The wounding of Aeneas with a stone (χερμάδιον) is mentioned in Homer (Il., V 302–310). With a reference to a well-known fact, Tertullian reinforces his statement about the hero’s ignominy. 20 In antiquity, the purpose of weapons was often indicated. Herodotus (Hrd.IV 3) depicts the whip as a weapon against slaves; Jesus Christ (Matthew 26:55) says: “It is as if you came out against a thief with swords and staves—to take Me [...]” (hereinafter the Synodal Translation of the Bible is used). Although the first martyr Stephen was stoned (Acts 7:59), although the stones were used like pagans (Juvenal [Iuυ., V 15, 65–66] lists the heroes who threw stones at the enemy: Turnus [cf.: Verg. Aen., XII 896–907], Ajax, Diomedes (cf.: Il., VII 268–271 and V 302–310]), and among the Jews (1 Sam. 17:49 - about David and Goliath) against enemies, they, indeed, were often considered as telum volgare. Virgil says: “So sometimes among a huge crowd a riot arises, and a rootless mob, blinded by anger, is agitated / Torches and stones fly, turned into weapons by the riot” (Verg. Aen., I 148–150) (translated by S. Osherova). Juvenal also calls stones (saxa) “an ordinary weapon during riots (domestica seditioni tela)” (Iuυ., V 15, 64–65) says that the consuls stopped the fight with their intervention, in which, however, stones were not used. weapons [Liυ.,II 29, 4]. The definition of stone as telum caninum is more rare. It is found, for example, in the surviving fragment of the tragedy of Pacuvius “The Dispute about Weapons” (XIV 38–39 [47]): “If a stone is thrown at a dog (lapide), the dog will quickly attack / Not at the one who threw the stone, but at the stone thrown” (translated by M.L. Gasparov). Tertullian, who once quoted a verse about a turtle from the tragedy of Pacuvius “Antiope” (Tert. De pall., 3, 3), when writing the passage under discussion, could have had in mind textbook lines from the “Dispute about Arms”. In the scholia to Lycophron of Isaac and John Tzetz (Tz.in Lyc., 658) it is said that Antenor gave Odysseus and Diomedes the Palladium of Athens, for Theano, Antenor’s wife, was a priestess of the local Athena. Wed: Sυida s. v. (Παλλάδιον) Tz. Post., 514–516. For Antenor's services to the Greeks, see: Il., III 207; VII 347–353; Ps.-Apoll. Epit., III 29. Wed: “I was stupefied, and for the first time a cruel horror seized me” (Verg. Aen., II 559). “Nowadays I’m afraid of any breezes, any noise: / I’m scared for my burden and scared (timetem) no less” (Verg. Aen., II 728–729) (Translated by S. Osherov). The phrase “pious Aeneas” apparently goes back to Virgil [Agahd. Op. cit. R. 81]. See, for example: Verg. Aen., I 220, 305; V 685; VI 9; 176; 232. Aeneas himself says this about himself: “My name is pious Aeneas” (Verg. Aen., I 378). According to Virgil, Aeneas saw the death of Priam (Verg. Aen., II 499–502). The parallel between Ascanius Yul and Astyanax is also drawn by Virgil (Verg. Aen., III 489), whose Andromache sees in the son of Aeneas the image of her child. Compare: pignera coniugum ac liberorum (Liv., II 1, 5). Homer colorfully talks about Hephaestus’ jealousy (Od., VIII 266–366). In Virgil, however, Vulcan willingly agrees to help Aeneas (Verg. Aen., VIII 395–404). See also: Mart. Epigr., V 7, 5–6. Aeneas carried his father Anchises out of the burning Troy. Wlosok A. Res humanae – res divinae. Kleine Schriften. Heidelberg, 1990. S. 437. n. 1. Heinze R. Virgils epische Technik. Leipzig: Teubner, 1903. S. 29. Cp.: “Aeneas, having saved the paternal and maternal gods, having saved [his] father himself, acquired the glory of a pious man, so that the enemies of him alone, of all whom they defeated in Troy, allowed him to leave unrobbed” (Ps.-Xen., I 15). The death of Hasdrubal's wife is mentioned by Tertullian in other places (Tert. Ad nat., I 18.3; Ad mart., 4, 5) and on another occasion. Polybius speaks of the severe reproaches thrown in the face of Hasdrubal by his wife; then the text breaks off (Plb., XXXIX 4, 7–10). Appian says that before throwing herself into the fire, Hasdrubal’s wife killed and threw her children into it (App. Lyb., 131). In the period of the 51st book of Livy’s History we read: “At the last onslaught, Hasdrubal surrendered to Scipio, and Hasdrubal’s wife, who a few days before had vainly convinced her husband to surrender to the winner, with two children rushed from the fortress wall into the very flames of the burning city” (translated by M.L. Gasparov). Here it is appropriate to recall the story of Valery Maxim: “Perhaps one can highly appreciate what is also reported about the piety of Pero, who breastfed her father Cimon, who experienced a similar misfortune and was also imprisoned, when he was already very old, like a baby” (Val. M., V 4, 1). We read something similar in Hyginus about Xanthippus and Mycon (Hyg., 254). It is curious that just below the mythographer speaks of Aeneas, who carried his father Anchises and son Ascanius out of the fire, and of Cleobis and Biton. The following passages are implied: 1) “However, if a person invents a god in this way, like Romulus Consus and Tatius Cloacinus, and Hostilius Pavor, and Metellus Albournus, and someone not so long ago Antinous, then this will be allowed to others; we know Marcion as a shipowner, and not as a king or emperor” (Tert. Adv. Marc., I 18, 4); 2) “There was an old decree according to which the commander could not classify anyone as a god without the approval of the Senate. This affected M. Aemilius when it came to his god Alburn” (Tert. Apol., 5, 1); 3) Tert. Apol., 6, 7–8 (about the expulsion of Liber the Father, Serapis, Isis and Harpocrates); 4) “[...] as happened with M. Aemilius, who made a vow to the god Alburn” (further about Liber and the Egyptian gods) (Tert. Ad nat., I 10, 14–17). See: Verg. Georg., III146–148. This refers to Aesop’s fable (101) “The Jackdaw and the Birds,” in which the jackdaw, in order for Zeus to choose her as king over the birds, picked up other people’s feathers and decorated herself with them. Wed: Ba.br.,72; Phaedr., I 3; Nor. Epist., I 3, 15–20 (plagiarist). Tertullian refers to Aesopian images only in the indicated place and in Adv. Marc. (IV 23, 2), where he argues that Marcion's Christ has no right to blame people for testing his patience. After all, he appeared like a donkey from Aesop's well (Asinus de Aesopi puteo modo venis et iam exclamas). Regarding the above quotation, A. d'Alais notes that this fable is mentioned only here. See: Ales A. d’. Tertullien helléniste // Revue des études grecques. 1937. T. 50. P. 333. Both times Aesopian characters are used to ridicule Christ of the heretics. It is possible that the apologist was familiar with adaptations of Aesop's fables like those contained in the satires of Ennius and other Roman satirists. For fables in the satires of Ennius, Lucilius and Horace, see: Durov V.S. The genre of satire in Roman literature. L., 1987. pp. 17–18. See, for example: Prop., I 14, 23–24. Ancient theories of language and style. St. Petersburg, 1996. P. 302. Per. G.A. Stratanovsky. Barnes. Op. cit. 1985. P. 198. Cp.: Ov. Ibis., 537–538, 439–440. 59 Cp.: Stat. Theb., IV 275–276. Barnes. Op. cit. 1985. R. 199. 62 Per. G.A. Stratanovsky. 63 Barnes.Op. cit. R. 199. 65 “As for the “hundred-petalled roses,” Herodotus is the first to mention them (VIII 138), talking about the gardens belonging to the Macedonian king Mida, which, one must think, Herodotus visited personally [...] “Hundred-petaled” simply means “many-petaled,” so the roses that Herodotus talks about and the “hundred-petalled” roses of Theophrastus should be considered identical - these are double roses [...]. These roses (Rosa centifolia) have a delicate aroma and large silver-pink multi-petaled flowers. It’s strange why Theophrastus says that they are small and not fragrant [...]” [Theophrastus. Research about plants. Translation of ancient Greek and notes by M. E. Sergeenko. Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1951. P. 468, approx. 51]. Izhevsky S.A. Roses. 2nd revision and additional ed. M., 1958. P. 329. Izhevsky S.A. Park roses. M., 1955. P. 24. At the same time, scientists V.N. and 3.K. Klimenko argue that “hundred-petal, or centifolia, roses (R. centifolia) first appeared in Holland in the 16th century [...]. Damask rose (R. damascena Mill.) is the most ancient in origin, and the exact time of its introduction is unknown.” See: Klimenko V.I., Klimenko Z.K. Roses. Simferopol, 1974. P. 6. Saakov S.G. The origin of garden roses and the direction of work in their selection. M.; L., 1965. P. 5. 69 Izhevsky. Decree. Op. 1958. P. 16. Saakov. Decree. Op. P. 7 ff. Compare: Vygodsky M.Ya. Arithmetic and algebra in the Ancient World. 2nd ed., rev. and additional M., 1967. pp. 234–237. Compare: “Don’t have a hundred rubles, but have a hundred friends.” V. Dahl gives the following figurative meaning of the word “hundred”: “Many, but indefinite.” The following expressions are given as examples: “He has a hundred quirks, a hundred Fridays a week. It has been told to you a hundred times, it is ordered. I’ve seen the watchmen themselves steal a hundred times.” Among the “red words” of this nest we find “Hundred-headed serpent, hydra”, “Hundred-headed cathedral”, “Hundred-headed cathedral”, “Hundred-headed thistle”, “Capital rose, centifolia”, etc. See: Dal V. Explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian language. M., 1980. T. 4. P. 326. Barnes.Op. cit. 1985. R. 199. In Muller's edition, Tertullian is the only witness to the words of Timaeus about the transfer of games from Lydia to Etruria (F.H.G. Vol. I. fr. 19). S. Svetoni. Tranquilli quae supersunt omnia / Rec. C. L. Roth. Lipsiae, 1862, pp. 278–279. See: Shifman I.Sh. The emergence of the Carthaginian state // Palestine collection. Vol. 12 [75]. M.; L., 1963. P. 40. I.Sh. Shifman believes that, despite the impossibility of establishing whether Timaeus used the works of Carthaginian historians, his general familiarity with the Punic tradition is beyond doubt [Shifman. Decree. Op. P. 40]. See: Durov V.S. Artistic historiography of Ancient Rome. St. Petersburg, 1993, pp. 10–15. Durov. Decree. Op. 1993. P. 70. Hagendahl.Op. cit. 1983. R. 18. Cf.: “Ovid would destroy his “Metamorphoses” if today he learned about the great ones [invented by heretics]” (Tert. Adv. Val., 12, 1). Noldechen E. Tertullian’s Erdkunde // Zeitschrift fur kirchliche Wissenschaft und kirchliches Leben. 1886. Heft. 6. S. 320. Hugo Rahner hears in the words of Tertullian, who speaks of Homer: “the head of the poets, the poets of the water and the whole sea (princeps poetarum, poetarum unda et omne aequor)” (Tert. Adnat., I10.37), only an echo of the poems of Ovid, in which the blind poet is honored as the source of all musical powers. At the same time, the German scientist refers to the verses of Ovid, which say that from Homer, “as from an eternal source, / The lips of the poets are watered with Pierian waters” (Ov.Am., III 9, 25–26) [Rahner H. Griechische Mythen in Christlicher Deutung. Darmstadt, Zurich, 1957. S. 422]. However, this passage by Tertullian is greatly flawed. Per. F. Petrovsky. Wed: Nor. Sat., II 6, 20–24; Nor. Epist., I 16, 59. See: Janus's story about the arrival of Saturn in Italy, from whom the people received the name Saturn, which they long retained (Ov. Fast., I 233–240). Compare: “Of course, Sterculus and Mutun and Larentina exalted this power” (Tert.Adnat., II 17.3). Compare: “Listen, O Jupiter, and you, O Janus Quirinus, and all the heavenly gods, and you, earthly, and you, underground, listen!” (From the ambassador’s address to the gods before the declaration of war) (Liv., I 32, 10). See: Tert. De idol., 15, 5; De cor., 13, 9; cp.: Ad nat., II, 15, 3. 89 In Titus Livy, the centurion Marcus Flavoley calls upon himself the wrath of Jupiter the Father, Gradiv Mars and other gods (Iovem patrem Gradivumque Martem aliosque iratos invocat deos), if he lies (Liv., II 45. 14). Cp.: “My work has ended, and neither Jupiter’s malice (Iovis ira) / Will destroy it, nor sword, nor fire, nor greedy old age” (Ov.Met., XV 871–872, trans. S. Shervinsky). In Deidol. (21.4) Tertullian cites the curse “let Jupiter be angry with you!” (Iupiter tibi sit iratus!)." On the appearance of angry Jupiter, see, for example: Liv., II, 36, 2–8. See: Waltzing J.R. Tertullien. Apologetique. II: Commentaire analytique, grammatical et historique par J.P. Waltzing // Bibliothèque de la faculté de philosophie et lettres de l’université de Liège. Liege, Paris, 1919. P. 133. Marcel Legley writes about the presence of the Janus cult in Africa. About this: Leglay M. Saturne Africain. Histoire. Thèse... par M. Leglay. Paris, 1966. P. 246. However, traces of this cult are very rare there. See: Toutain I. Les cultes paiens dans l’empire romain. Paris, 1907. P. 245–246. That is when prayers are heard. T.D. Barnes calls the style of this work full of Greekisms, rare or archaic words and historical, literary or mythological allusions [Barnes T. D. Tertullian the antiquarian // Studia patristica. 1976. Vol. 14. P. 13]. See, for example: “If you [...] sweeten the story with fables and praises, and other kinds of bait, you will make it like Hercules, as he was in Lydia: after all, you, of course, saw him somewhere in a picture in slavery to Omphale, dressed in strange clothes; Omphale has a lion skin thrown over her shoulders, and in her hand she holds a club, as if she were Hercules; he, in saffron and purple clothes, scratches his wool, and Omphale hits him with a sandal. An unpleasant sight is presented by the clothing that lags behind the body and does not fit it, and the masculine body of God, which has taken on feminine forms” (Luc.Hist., 10; trans. S. Tolstoy). 96 See, for example: Ps.-Apoll., I 7, 1; Nor.Od., I 16, 13–16. Compare: Tertullian. Selected works: trans. from lat. / General ed. and comp. A. A. Stolyarova. M., 1994. P. 408, approx. 20. See: Hagendahl. Op. cit. 1983. R. 22. Jung J. Zu Tertullians auswartigen Beziehungen // Wiener Studien. Zeitschrift fur classische Philologie. Vol. 13. Heft. 2. 1891. P.241. Cp.: Borleffs J. W. Ph. De Tertulliano et Minucio Felice. Groningae, 1926. P. 6–9. Hagendahl. Op. cit. 1983. P. 13. Borleffs. Op. cit. 1926. P. 7–9. Borleffs. Op. cit. 1926. P. 9–10. T.D. Barnes believes that “Apologeticus” was written in the fall of 197 or some time later (Barnes. Op. cit. 1985. P. 34), that is, not before the start, but during the Parthian War. Frend W.N.S. Martyrdom and persecution in the early Church. Oxford, 1965. P. 285. Wed: Bolshakov A.P. Early Christian apologies: origin and content // Ancient East and the ancient world. Proceedings of the Department of History of the Ancient World, Faculty of History, Moscow State University. Vol. 5. M., 2002. pp. 154–156. Wed: Agahd. Op. cit. R. 44–45. Barnes. Op. cit. 1985. P. 107. See: Petitmengin M. R. Tertullien et la religion romaine // Revue des études latines. 1967. T. 45. P. 47. Maksimova I. Interpretation of Roman religion in Arnobius and Lactantius // Antiquity of Europe. Interuniversity collection of scientific works. Perm, 1992. P. 109. Laing G. J. Tertullian and the pagan cults // Transactions and proceedings of the American philological association. 1913. Vol. 44. P. XXXVI. Sternov N. Tertullian, presbyter of Carthage. Essay on his scientific and literary activities. Kursk, 1889. P. 62. Balanovsky A. F. Tertullian. Defender of Christianity // Orthodox Review. 1884. August. P. 587. 114 See: Barnes. Op. cit. 1985. R. 95, 203. Fredouille J.-C. Tertullien et la conversion de la culture antique. Paris, 1972. P. 147. 116 Cp.: March. Spect., 5; 7; 8; 21. Cp.: Aristoph. Av., 1641–1670. See: Fredouille. Op. cit. R. 146–147. Sυida s. v. (Λαμία). Cp.: Myth.,II 66, 5–6. Compare: “Claudius will declare that even the sky in Homer’s songs is crowned with stars (Il., XVIII 485), - of course, by God, of course, for man” (Tert.Decor., 13, 8). Tsirkin Yu. B. Carthage and its culture. M., 1986. P. 147. See: Rauschen G. Tertulliani Apologetici recensio nova // Florilegium patristicum / Digessit, vertit, adnotavit G. Rauschen. 1906. Fasc. 6. P. 80. adn. 4. Leglay.Op. cit. P. 171. n. 6. et P. 218. Bénabou M. La résistance africaine à la romanisation. Paris: Maspero, 1976. P. 368. Yu. B. Tsirkin also speaks about this: “The heavenly goddess sent blessed rain to the earth, fertilizing this earth and giving life to all its inhabitants (C. I. L. 1891. VIII (I). No. 16810). Tertullian calls this goddess “promising rain” (Apol. 23:6)” [Tsirkin. Decree, op. P. 149]. Wed: Preobrazhensky P. F. Tertullian and Rome // Preobrazhensky P. F. In the world of ancient ideas and images. M., 1965. P. 231. The text of this inscription is attributed by Bücheler (according to Mommsen’s testimony given in S. I. L. 1891. VIII (I). R. 1604) to the 3rd century. after R. X. Esser G. Bibliothek der Kirchenväter. Tertullians ausgewählte Schrilten ins deutsche Übersetzt / Übersetzt v. H.Kellner. Durchges. u. hrsg. v. G. Esser. Kempten u. Munich, 1915. Bd. 2. 1915. S. 110. n. 2. 126 Rauschen. Op. cit. P. 81.adn. 6. Waltzing. Op. cit. 1919. P. 112–113. The same scientist offers a translation: [...] votre Esculape lui-même, le révélateurdesremèdes, qui rendit la vie à Socordius, à Thanatius et à Asclépiodote destinés à mourir quand mêmele lendemain [...]" [Tertullien. Apologétique / Texte établi et traduit par J.-P. Waltzing. Paris, 1929. P. 57]. Tertullianus. Apologeticum: Verteidigung des Christentums lateinisch und deutsch // Hrsg., übers. u.erl.v.C. Becker. 2., durchges. Aufl. München, 1961. S. 145. According to A Greek-English lexicon (Compiled by H. G. Liddell and R. Scott. A new edition revised and augmented throughout by H. S. Jones. Oxford, 1958), the first meaning of the word (θανατικός) is dead, the second, found in the physician Galen, is fatal. 130 Compare: “Good is Zeus the Soothsayer, Protector of strangers, Patron of those who ask, Merciful to the penitent, Sending all signs, Avenger of crimes! Rather, the Offender, the Lawless, the Criminal, the Impious, the Inhuman, the Rapist, the Molester, the Adulterer, the Voluptuous” (Cl. Protr., 2, 37, 1). Preller L., Jordan H. Römische Mythologie. 3. Aufl. Berlin, 1883. Bd. 2. S. 244. Compare: Trokhachev S. Yu. Baby Telesphorus (Sketch from the history of Greek mythology) // Bulletin of the Russian Christian Humanitarian Institute. 1998. No. 2. pp. 86–95. Wed: Cl. Protr., 3, 42, 9. 133 This is exactly how Yu. I. Serderidi explains this name. See: Serderidi Yu. I. Heritage of Hellas. Krasnodar, 1993. P. 435. 134 Compare: “What should I do to see a doctor? Disperse your Machaons!” (Mart. Epigr., II 16, 5; trans. F.A. Petrovsky). 135 See: Preobrazhensky. Decree. Op. P. 269. 156 Compare: Vermander. Op. cit. R. 119. Oswiecimski S. De scriptorum Romanorum vestigiis apud Tertullianum obviis quaestiones selectae // Polska akademia umiejetnosci. Archiwum Filologiczne. 1951. No. 24. 32–33. Hagendahl.Op. cit. 1983. P. 17. Clement of Alexandria speaks of seven ways for people to create gods. He believes that the following were deified: 1) luminaries; 2) fruits (Demeter as bread among the Athenians and Dionysus as grapes among the Thebans); 3) retribution (Erinyes, Eumenides, etc. among the “poets of the theatrical stage”); 4) passions (fear, love, etc. among some philosophers); 5) abstract concepts (justice, fate, etc.); 6) characters from myths set forth by Hesiod and Homer; 7) benefactors and saviors (Dioscuri, Hercules, Asclepius, named people in the thirtieth chapter) (Cl. Protr., 2, 26, 1–7). V. Burkert writes that castration in the cult of Cybele signified the harvest, the Gauls cutting their hands meant the annual wounding of the earth by a plowshare, and the washing of the Mother of the gods in Almona hinted at the irrigation of the earth. “These explanations, conveyed by Tertullian (cf.: Aug. De civ., VII 24), obviously come from the Gauls or their adherents, who needed to find a system in their madness” [Burkert W. Ancient mystery cults. Cambridge, Mass., 1987. P. 81]. Tertullian's source in writing this passage was apparently Varro, who established a symbolic equivalence between Juno and air, the Great Mother and cultivated earth, who saw in Vesta the image of fire and gave an allegorical meaning to the Kamens [Pépin J. Mytheet Allégorie. Les origines grecques et les contestations judéo-chrétiennes. Paris, 1958. P. 344–345]. Pepin explains Tertullian's words about Jupiter as a symbol of the fire element by the fact that Varro compared this god with ether, while at the same time identifying ether with fire. As for the correspondence based on the play on words (Ζεύς) “Zeus” - (ζέω) “boil” between Zeus and the boiling, red-hot essence, a play used in Stoic allegorism, as shown, for example, by the words of Athenagoras (Athen., 22), then, according to the French scientist, this correspondence was added by Tertullian himself, or was already contained in the work Varro. The allegorical explanation of the burial and resurrection of Osiris and the lions of Mithra could not, Pepin believes, be borrowed from Varro [ibid.]. Tertullian says that the sayings [about the true God] that people often spontaneously pronounce were borrowed from the Bible (Tert. De test., 5, 6). Wed: Tat.,40; I ust. Apol., I 44. Pepin. Op. cit. 1986. VIII. R. 29–30. 146 Although Tertullian often mentions poets and philosophers together. For example, in Apol. (23, 13) poets stand on a par with Plato. In De spect. (30) The apologist anticipates how he will rejoice, seeing the enemies of Christians in hell, including philosophers burning with their disciples, and poets trembling before the judgment not of Minos and Rhadamanthus, but of Christ. Already in the Hellenistic era, “myth was transformed into a fascinating fairy tale” [Chistyakova N.A. Hellenistic poetry. L., 1988. P. 116]. Mayorov G. G. Formation of medieval philosophy (Latin patristics). M., 1979. P. 116. On Tertullian's humor in depicting the Valentinians, see: Osborn E. Tertullian, first theologian of the West. Cambridge, 1997, pp. 191–208. For a review of the demonology of Justin, Tatian, Athenagoras and Origen, see: Daniélou J. Message évangélique et culture hellénistique aux II e tIII e siècles. Tournai, 1961, pp. 391–403. See also: Nat P. G. van der. Geister (Damonen). C. III. Apologeten und lateinische Väter // Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum. Stuttgart, 1976. Bd. 9. Col. 715–761. Mayorov. Decree. Op. P. 113. Popov K. Tertullian, his theory of Christian knowledge and the main principles of his theology. Kiev, 1880. P. 208. “False gods” (falsi dei) existed for Tertullian as truly as counterfeit coins, cf.: Petitmengin. Op. cit. R. 48. Daniélou J. Les origines du christianisme latin. Paris, 1991. P. 328. In this regard, the words of S. S. Neretina, written, however, on a different occasion, are interesting: “The fact that Tertullian draws attention to the idea of ​​a name is not an accidental fact. It is certainly connected with the idea of ​​creation according to the Word, which is both a deed and which can testify to itself through a name. But a name is like the “last word”, having already survived the vicissitudes of pronouncing, thinking, and connecting. A name testifies to that thing only if that thing exists, and the name expresses that existence. Otherwise, the name ceases to cooperate with the truth” [Neretina S.S. Tertullian’s paradoxes // Man. 1996. No. 1. P. 72–73]. See: Nat. Op. cit. Col. 740. 156 See: Nat. Op. cit. Col. 741. Hagendahl. Op. cit. 1983. P. 16. 158 Pepin. Op. cit. 1986. VIII. R. 33. 159 Albrecht. Op. cit. S. 1215. 160 Pépin J. Christianisme et mythologie. L’evhémérisme des auteurs сhrétiens // Pépin J. De la philosophie ancienne à la théologie patristique. Variorum reprints. London, 1986. VII. P. 7–8. 162 Shcheglov. Decree. Op. P. 110. 163 Christian apologists believed that the Euhemerian theory was discovered by Alexander in Egypt. See: Athen.,28; Min.,21. Wed: Tat., 27. Vermander. Op. cit. R. 115–116. 165 Pepin. Op. cit. 1986. VII. P.3. 166 For example, in Wisdom 14:15–20. On this see: Pépin. Op. cit. 1986. VII. R. 4. 167 Pepin. Op. cit. 1986. VII. P.4. 168 Compare: Pépin. Op. cit. 1986. VII. R. 4–5. Athenagoras wrote something similar, although not so definitely, about the gods (Athen., 30, 3). Pepin. Op. cit. 1986. VII., R. 10. “Without a doubt, in Tertullian Saturn occupies first place in the hierarchy of the gods [...]” [Stockemeier P. Gottesverständnis und Saturnkultbei Tertullian // Studia patristica. 1979. Vol. 17. S. 831]. Hornus J.-M. Étude sur la pensée politique de Tertullien // Revue d’histoire et de philosophie religieuses. 1958. T. 38. No. 1. P. 14. Cp.: Vermander. Op. cit. P. 123. 176 Cp.: Pepin. Op. cit. 1986. VII. P. 11. About the “Menippus Satires” by Varro, see: Durov. Decree. Op. 1987. pp. 48–60. Bychkov. Decree. Op. pp. 82–83. Below, Bychkov nevertheless speaks of Tertullian’s recognition of the primacy of deified people in the field of individual arts: “Having shown that antiquity deified many inventors of the arts, Tertullian seeks to prove to his possible pagan opponents the inconsistency of this action. [...] The new, even in the pagan world, seems to him more perfect than the old” [Ibid. P. 188]. Compare: “Demetrius, in the second book of the History of Argolis, writes that the xoan of Hera in Tiryns was made from Argom pear wood” (Cl. Protr., 4, 47, 5). See also: Plin., XIV 9. Theophilus speaks about this. that Moses is nine hundred or a thousand years older than the Trojan War (Theoph., III 21, 29). Barnes. Op. cit. 1985. P. 108. Tatian wrote: “If Moses lived at the same time as Inachus, then he is four hundred years older than the Trojan War” (Tat., 39). 184 According to Theophilus, the exodus of the Jews from the arrival of Danaus in Argos is separated by three hundred and thirty, and not three hundred and ninety-three years (Theoph., III 21). 186 See: Shcheglov. 1888. pp. 116–117. Torililov D. O. Ancient mythography: myths and unity of action. St. Petersburg, 1999. P. 63. Zucker F. Euchemeros und seine (Ἱερὰ ἀναγραφή) bei christlichen Schriftstellern // Philologus. Zeitschrift für das classische Altertum. 1905. Bd. 64. S. 470. While fighting the old ideology, apologists used one of the most effective and simple techniques: they simplified and vulgarized certain features of the culture being criticized [Bychkov. Decree, cit., S. 162]. Albrecht. Op. cit. S. 1219. Petitmengin. 1967. P. 48. See: Kern O. Die Religion der Griechen. Berlin, 1938. Bd. 3. S. 102. 194 See: Waltzing.Op. cit. 1919. P. 112. For example, he speaks of Faunus, the son of Picus, and his daughter (Ad nat., II 9, 21–22). Tertullian often mentions Cybele and Attis. See, for example: Ad nat., I 10, 45; II 7, 16; Apol., 15, 2. Cybele is also mentioned by Tertullian along with Apis and Isis (we are talking about fasts in their honor, during which the consumption of certain foods was excluded) (De iei., 2, 4). In the same work, the similarity of the Montanist “dry diets” with those of Isis and Cybele is explained by the machinations of the devil (De iei., 16, 7). About the Great Mother, who presides over the eurypa (a moat with water that surrounded the circus to protect spectators from animals, see: Suet. Iul., 39, 2), without whom the assembly of demons would decay, we read in De spect., (8, 5). He mentions the myth of Osiris in Adv. Marc. (I 13, 5) and De pall. (3, 5). For example, in Apol. (23, 6) he speaks of the Virgin of Heaven (VirgoCaelestis), who promises rain. On the predominance of Greek cults in the first two centuries of our era in Christian criticism, see: Edelstein E. J., Edelstein L. Asclepius. A collection and interpretation of the testimonies. Baltimore, 1945. Vol. 2 [2]. P. 133.n. 3. Cp.: Apol., 9, 2. Cm.: Barnes. Op. cit. 1985. P. 15–16. The cult of Saturn, like the cult of Ceres, was popular in Roman Africa. See: Barton I. M. Africa in Roman Empire. Accra, 1972, pp. 56–57. Nilsson M.P. Greek folk religion / Transl. from English St. Petersburg, 1998. P. 117. Compare: Preobrazhensky. Decree. Op. P. 274. For Deidamia. See: Ps.-Apoll., III 13, 8. Compare: Bion. For example, Seneca turns to a rare version of the myth of Apollo tending Admetus' flocks out of love for the king's daughter (and not as punishment for killing the Cyclops) (Sen.Phaedr., 296–298). D.V. Panchenko writes about the emergence of one of them - the “philosophical myth” about Atlantis: “In Plato’s story there are details that are certainly the fruit of his creativity and do not go back to any legend” [Panchenko D.V. Plato and Atlantis. L., 1990. P. 28]. Chistyakova. Decree. Op. P. 30. For example, Seneca calls the giant Enceladus buried under Etna titanium (Sen. Med., 410). The names of mythological characters are often in the plural in Tertullian: Juno, Ceres, Diana (Apol., 13, 9); Romuli (Apol., 21,23; Decor., 12, 2); Endymions (Dean., 55, 4); Liberians (De an., 25, 8); Apollo, Minerva, Mercury (De spect., 10, 9). In this way, he probably wanted to express his disdain for them, unlike, for example, Catullus with his “Venuses and Cupids (Veneres Cupidinesque)” (Cat., 3, 1). See: Ps.-Apoll., III 11, 2. Oswiqcimski.Op. cit. P. 79. This tradition comes from Greek sources, where the brothers are often called “Castors (Kάστορες).” Among the Romans, see, for example, Plin., XXXIV 23; XXXV 27. See: Preller L., Jordan N. Römische Mythologie. 3. Aufl. Berlin, 1883. Bd. 2. – 490 S.Quinn-Schofield.1966 – Quinn-Schofield W. K.Ova and Delphini of the Roman Circus // Latomus. 1966. T. 25. Fasc. 1. P. 99–100. 216 Virgil says that Cyllar was tamed by the Amyclaei Pollux (talis Amyclaei domitus Pollucis habenis / Cyllarus) (Verg.Georg., III 89–90). The scholiast notes to this that, according to Alcman, Neptune gave Juno horses: Killar and Xanthus. Killar was given to Pollux, Xanthus was his brother, because Killar was Pollux's horse. However, Killar is usually considered Castor's horse. See, for example: Stat. Theb., IV 215; VI 328–329. Mart, Epigr., IV 25, 6. For the reason for the deviation from the tradition of Alcman, see: Zaitsev A.I. “Hymn to the Dioscuri” of Alcman and his epic sources. Abstract of the dissertation for the degree of candidate of philological sciences. L., 1969. pp. 9–13. 217 Greek Lyric. Stesichorus, Ibycus, Simonides and others / Ed. by D. A. Campbell. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London, England, 1991. Vol. III. P. 60–61. 218 Theocritus declares that both of them are horsemen, cithara players, wrestlers, singers (Theocr., 22, 23–24). Nicole Masquelier calls the brothers, among other things, dieux du cirque. (Masquelier N. Penates et Dioscures // Latomus, 1966. T. 25. Fasc.I. P. 88). Cm.: Ps.-Apoll., III10, 7; II4, 8. Cp., for example: “We glorify the two sons (υἱοί) of Leda and the aegis-sovereign Zeus” (Theocr., 22, 1 and 212–213); see also: lust. Apol., I 21 and Myth., I 77, 2; III 1, 64. See: Hymn., XVII, 1–2; XXXIII 1–2. Wed: Ov. Met., VIII 301–302. See, for example: Apoll., II 41–43. Tertullian, who wrote: “One of my relatives, among other leisure activities of his pen, composed commentaries on the Pinax of Cebes in the form of Virgilian centons” (Praescr., 39, 4), by birth and upbringing belonged to literary circles in Carthage. See: Barnes.Op. cit. 1985. R. 195. Titus Livius speaks of Romulus's preparation of ceremonial games in honor of Neptune Equestrian, called Consualia (Liv., I 9, 6). According to Plutarch, Consus was considered either the god of Good Advice or Poseidon the Horseman (Plut. Rom., 14). Compare: Myth., II 89, 1–4; Tas.Ann., XII 24. Barnes. Op. cit. 1985. R. 204. 220 Nisters V.Tertullian. Seine Persönlichkeit und seine Schicksal. Ein charakterol. Versuch // Münsterische Beiträge zur Theologie. 1950. Vol. 25. P. 60. Catullus addresses Pollux “O brother of Castor!” (Cat.,4, 27). Wed: Ov. Trist., IV 5, 30. R. Graves explains the fact that it is Castor, and not Polydeuces, who is an expert in military affairs, with the changes that occurred in royal power when the king’s younger brother began to serve as vizier and commander-in-chief. See: Graves R. Myths of Ancient Greece. M., 2001. Book. I. P. 287. Wed: AlèsA. d'.Op. cit. R. 332. Despite the harshness of Tertullian’s polemics with heretics, he, as Stanislav Seliga clearly shows, “never forgot about the rules and the measure sanctified by the custom accepted in rhetoric” [Seliga S. De conviciis Tertullianeis// Eos. Kwartalnik klasyczny. Organ polskiego towarzystwa filologicznego. 1936. Vol. 37. Fasc. 3. P. 2731. Krause W. Die Stellung der frühehristliehen Autoren zur heidnischen Literatur. Wien: Herder, 1958. S. 164. Latin pagan authors did not rate Prometheus as highly as the Christian apologist. Wed: Prop., III 5, 7–12; Nor.Od., 13, 27–33 and 116, 13–16. This is not the only bold comparison in Tertullian. In Deap. (53, 6) the angel who calls souls is called the “Mercury of the poets.” Vermander.Op. cit. R. 116. According to A.I. Zaitsev, a myth is “any narrative that exists and is transformed in oral or written tradition, containing elements of the supernatural, and, moreover, such a narrative that at least some of the people who perceive and reproduce it believe in it” [Zaitsev A.I. Myth: religion and poetic fiction // The life of myth in antiquity: Materials of the scientific conference “Vipper Readings - 1985” (issue XVIII). Part I. M., 1988. P. 279]. Wed: “Every myth differs from a simple poetic image, for example, from a metaphor, in that it tells us exactly what really exists” [Losev A.F. History of ancient aesthetics. Results of a thousand years of development: In 2 books. Book 1. M., 1992. P. 405]. Bychkov. Decree. Op. P. 189. See, for example: Polit., IV 441 be. See, for example: Rankin D.Tertuilian and the church. Cambridge, 1995. P. 68. See: Bychkov. Decree. Op. P. 169. Barnes T. D. Tertullian the antiquarian // Studia patristica. 1976. Vol. 14. P. 4. On this see: Hagendahl. Op. cit. 1958. P. 388. Cm.: Pepin. Op. cit. 1986. VIII. P. 21. See: Ad nat., II 9, 20. The image of Augeas was probably often used as a rhetorical example. Wed: Sen. Apocol., 7, 5. See: Carlson M. L. Pagan examples of fortitude in the Latin Christian apologists // Classical Philology. 1948. Vol. 43. No. 2. P. 93. Cp.: (οὐδὲν πρòς τòν Διόνυσον) (C. P. G. P. 137, cl.: P. 454); Strab., VIII 6, 23; Plut. Symp., 11, 5 (615a): “When Phrynichus and Aeschylus began to introduce myths and passions into tragedy, they were told: “What does Dionysus have to do with it?” So I often had to say to those who impose sophistical tricks on symposiums: “My friend, what does Dionysus have to do with it?” (Translated by Ya. M. Borovsky). 246 Kretschmer believes that the name “Achilles” comes from the word (ἄχος), “suffering”, “sorrow” and is associated with ideas about the afterlife [Kretschmer R. Mythische Namen// Glotta. Zeitschrift für griechische und lateinische Sprache. 1913. Bd. 4. S. 305–308]. According to P. Chantraine, the etymology of this word is unknown [Chantraine R. Dictionnaire étymologique de la langue grecque. Histoire des mots. Nouveau edition. Paris, 1983. Vol. 1–2. P. 150. s.v. (Ἀχιλλεύς)]. Compare: “and [Chiron] called him Achilles […] because he did not bring his lips (χείλη) to his chest” (Ps.-Apoll., III13, 6). This was not the only explanation of the name “Achilles” that existed in antiquity. See, for example: “Because of this, Achilles was named so, because he did not receive (χιλοῦ), because (χιλός) means food” ((Μυθόγραφοι). Scriptores poeticae historiae Graeci / Ed. A. Westermann. Brunsvigae, 1843. P. 365). Braun R. "Deus Christianorum". Recherches sur ie vocabulaire doctrinal de Tertullien. Paris, 1962. P. 30 etn.1. Wed: Pozdnev M. M. Explanation of the name of Jupiter in the Latin philosophical tradition / MOYΣEION. To Professor A.I. Zaitsev on his seventieth birthday. Collection of articles. St. Petersburg, 1997. P. 210. According to more common versions, Romulus was named Quirinus for other reasons. Ovid says: “Tomorrow is not given to anyone, but the third is to Quirinus: / Previously Romulus was, who is called so, / Or because the spear of old was called by the Sabines “curis”, / And the warlike god was called after it in the heavens, / Or that the Quirites called their king by this name, / Or that he united Kura with the Roman land” (Ov. Fast., II 475–480) (Translated by F. Petrovsky). According to Plutarch, “some consider the name “Quirinus” adopted by Romulus to correspond to Enialius, others point out that Roman citizens were also called “quirites”, others - that the ancients called a javelin or spear “quiris” [...] and that, therefore, Romulus received the name Quirinus as a warrior god or a spear-bearing god” (Plut. Rom., 29, 1) (Trans. S.P. Markish). Wed: Liv.,I 13, 5. Note that Origen, proving that the story of the creation of Eve (Gen. 2:21–22) has some hidden meaning, refers to Hesiod’s story about the creation of Pandora (Hes.Op., 53–98), which can be understood in a figurative sense (Orig., IV 38). Marrou H.-I. Saint Augustin et la fin de la culture antique. Paris, 1938. P. 397. “Le Jupiter de Phidias, avec ses mains d’ivoire, excite ses sarcasmes comme objet d’idolatrie; il n’excite pas son admiration comme objet d’art” [Alès A. d’. Op. cit. P. 334]. D'Alay does not take into account that the form molitae, "sculpted", is formed from a depositive verb. Oswiecimski.Op. cit. R. 21. 256 See: Preobrazhensky. Decree. Op. P. 319. Clement of Alexandria describes the statue of Phidias in a completely different way. Distinguished by much greater tolerance for pagan culture than Tertullian, he did not, however, find appropriate words to praise the great sculptor: “Do not the makers of statues evoke in the souls of those of you who have reason, contempt for matter? The Athenian Phidias wrote on the finger of Olympian Zeus: “Pantark the Handsome,” for him it was not Zeus who was beautiful, but his favorite” (Cl. Protr., 4, 53, 4). Wed: Barton. Op. cit. R. 56–57. The Punic Queen of Heaven and the wife of Baal, Tanit, under the name of the Heavenly Virgin (Celestis), was revered in North Africa more than all other goddesses. See: Barton.Op. cit. R. 56. For Tertullian's political beliefs and his criticism of the Roman gods and heroes, see: Tertullian. About the soul / Transl. from Latin, intro. Art., comment. and index by A. Yu. Bratukhin. St. Petersburg, 2004. pp. 6–20. An inscription has reached us that begins with the words: “To the Heavenly [Virgin] Lady and Aesculapius the Lord and the genius of Carthage and the genius of the Dacians (Caelesti Augustae et Aesculapio Augusto et genio Carthaginis et genio Daciarum) [...]” (C. I. L., 1873. III. P. 185. No. 993). For connections between Africa and Dacia, see: Jung.Op. cit. R. 234, 237, 242. Compare: Edelstein E. J., Edelstein L.Op. cit. P. 132–133. 262 Ibid. P 132–133. Vermander suggests that Tertullian fought with Kels and that he is aiming at the gods, of whom the pagans made rivals of Jesus Christ: Antinous, Aesculapius [Vermander.Op. cit. R. 120–121]. Wed: Orig., III 24. 263 On this see: Preobrazhensky. Decree. Op. P. 269. 264 Christians had two accusations against Asclepius: his illegitimate birth and his relationship with Hippolytus. See: Edelstein E.U., Edelstein L. Op. cit. R. 74. n. 28. 265 The words of Festus that they keep dogs at the church of Aesculapius because he was suckled by the teats of a dog (Festus S. Pompeius. Deverborum significatu / Ed. By W. M. Lindsay. Lipsiae, 1933. P. 98), are explained by mixing with the Epidaurus goat, the culprit of which is Tarquitius [Thraemer. Asklepios2) // R. E. 1896. 4. Halbband. Sp. 1682]. According to Pausanias, Asclepius, abandoned by his mother, one of the goats grazing on the mountain gave milk, and the dog guarding the herd guarded it (Paus., II 26, 4). Theodoret of Cyrrhus speaks of Asclepius being suckled by a dog (Theod., 8, 19–20). 266. Tertullian obviously liked this contrast. He says sarcastically that Marcion should have represented Christ not as God and man, but only as a man and a magician, not as a priest (pontificem) of salvation, but as a professional actor, not raising the dead, but destroying the living (nes mortuorum resuscitatorem sed vivorum avocatorem) (De carn., 5, 10). The apostles, according to him, revived the dead, and heretics kill the living (De praescr., 30.17). 267 Blessed Jerome writes that a young man who wanted to seduce a girl “was taught by the soothsayers of Aesculapius, who does not heal souls, but destroys” (Hier. Hyl., 21). 268 “Tarquitius, speaking about famous men, says that he [Aesculapius] was born of unknown parents, thrown and found by hunters, fed with dog’s milk [...]” (Lad. Div. Inst., I 10, 2; cp.: Lad. Epit., 8, 1–2). 269 ​​Levy I. Sarapis // Revue de 1'histoire des religions. 1909. T. 60. P. 297. n. 1; cp.: Vermander. Op. cit. P. 118 et n. 38; Pepin. Op. cit. 1986. VIII. P. 30. Tertullian writes regarding the words of Deut. 33:17 that it does not mean “one-horned rhinoceros” or “two-horned minotaur,” but Christ (Adv. Marc., III18, 3; cf.: Adv. Iud., 10, 7). Lévy I. Nebo, Hadaran et Sérapis dans l’apologie du Pseudo-Méliton // Revue de 1’histoire des religions. Paris, 1899. Vol. 40. No. 1. P. 372. See, for example: Ad nat., II 7, 15; II 12, 5–39; Apol., 9, 2–4; 10, 6–11. P. Stockmeier draws attention to this: Stockmeier.Op. cit. S. 830, 832. Sventsitskaya I. S. Early Christianity: pages of history. M., 1987. P. 137. See: Hes. Theog., 459, seq.; compare: Tert. Apol., 9, 4. The sacrifice to Kronos was one of the so-called exempla (“examples”) of cult cruelty, which were used by pagan writers. See: Barnes. Op. cit. 1985. R. 16. The conjecture periit, “perished,” was proposed by J. V. F. Borlefs. Wilhelm Hartel notes that this is one of the examples intended to show that people were guided by poetic works or legends in establishing rituals for the cults of the gods. He further refers to Macrobius, who tells that women were prohibited from participating in the sacrifice to Hercules in Italy, “since the thirsty Hercules, when he was driving Geryon’s cows through the land of Italy, the woman replied that she could not give water, since the day of the female goddess was celebrated, and men were not allowed to eat from this vessel” (Macr..112, 28). According to Hartel, Tertullian wrote this: “if not through the fault of women Hercules forbade [them]” (si non mulierum causa prohibuit [sc. Hercules]) [Hartel W. von. Patristische Studien, III: Zu Tertullian. Ad nations // Sitzungsberichte der philos.-hist. Classe der kaiserlichen Akad. der Wiss. 1890. Bd. 121. Abh. 6. P. 51]. As you can see, the text of the fragment being analyzed is somewhat corrupted. Therefore, only well-preserved parts will be taken into account. Nilsson M. R. Geschichte der griechischen Religion. 3. durchges. und erg. Aufl. Miinchen, 1967. Bd. 1. S. 662. n. 3. Haidenthaller M. Tertullians zweites Buch Ad nationes und De testimonio animae. Paderborn, 1942. S. 119. I. Makhankov translates the phrase in question as follows: “Why is the priest of Ceres kidnapped if this did not happen to Ceres” [Tertullian. Decree. Op. 1994. P. 69]. In the comments to this place we read: “Tertullian is mistaken when speaking about the abduction of Ceres by Pluto: in fact, her daughter Proserpina was abducted” [Tertullian. Decree. Op. 1994. P. 389, approx. 81]. Foucart R. Les mysteres d’Eleusis. Paris, 1914, pp. 476–477. Foucart P. Les grands mysteres d'Eleusis. Paris. 1900. P. 69. Deubner L. Attische Feste. 2 Aufl. Berlin, 1956. S. 84. n. 10. “Hades kidnaps Kore, and his deeds become mysteries” (Tat., 8). 280 Albrecht.Op. cit. S.1216. “Isn’t there [in Eleusis] a dark descent and sacred one-on-one meetings between the hierophant and the priestess?” (Aster.,10). See also: “[...] they [the Great Mysteries] were performed in honor of Demeter and Kore, for the latter was abducted by Pluto, and Zeus was united with Demeter” (Schol. Gorg.,. 497c). We find a comparison of Ceres with Larentina in Apol., 13, 9. This is what I. Makhankov thinks, for example (Tertullian, 1994, p. 391, note 105). See: Deubner. Op. cit. S. 84. See: Nilsson. Op. cit. S. 661–662. See: Nilsson. Decree. Op. P. 60. Compare: “Orpheus, having said that Demeter is one with Rhea, says that before communicating with Cronus, Rhea is the one who produces and gives birth to Zeus - Demeter” (Orphicorum fragmenta / Colegit O. Kern. Berolini, 1922. Fr. 145 / 106. 128 / Procl, in Plat. Cratyl. 403e). Nilsson. Op. cit. S. 122. 296 Compare: Athenagoras claims that the names and genealogy of the “gods” were given by Orpheus, Homer and Hesiod (Athen., 17). See also: Athen.,18. Zaitsev A.I. Horace on the beginning of Greek poetry // Horatiana. St. Petersburg, 1992. (Philologia classica. Issue 4). P. 97. Deubner. Op. cit. S. 42. n. 4. See also: Robert C. Athena Skiras und die Scirophorien // Hermes. Zeitschrift tor classische Philologie. Bd. 20. 1885. 367 ff. Deubner. Op. cit. S. 40. n. 5. We find something similar in Festus: FestusS. Pompeius.De verborum significatu / Ed. by W. M. Lindsay. Lipsiae, 1933. P. 126. Cp., for example: “I swear by both goddesses” (Aristoph.Lys., 51 and in many other places). Compare: Nilsson. Op. cit. S. 461. For example, Servius mentions the wedding of Ceres (the wedding of Orcus), at which the consumption of wine was prohibited (Serv.Georg., 1344). Compare: Plaut., 354 pp. PLVTONI ET CERERI [...]; PLVTONI CYRIAE ET CERERI MATRI DIIS SANCTIS [...] (C. I. L. Vol. VIII. Pars 2. No. 8442, 9020). Compare: “pray to the underground Zeus and pure Demeter” (Wes. Op., 465). “Demeter here is still quite Mother Earth, and in order to give birth to all living things, she must have a spouse below, who bears the name of Zeus only as a powerful god. Poseidon, once the “husband of the Earth,” has been forgotten as such” (Wilamowitz-Möllendorff U. von. Hesiodos. Erga / Erklart von Ul. v. Wilamowitz-Möllendorff. Berlin, 1928. S. 97). 306 Pausanias mentions Demeter – Chthonia, “Underground” (Paus.,II 35, 5; III14,5). There were a lot of sacraments and holidays dedicated to Demeter. We have no idea about the content of most of them. Pausanias, for example, speaks of the sacraments in honor of Demeter in Kelae (Paus., II14, 1); about the sacraments in honor of the Lernaean Demeter (Paus., II 36, 7); about the Great Mysteries among the inhabitants of Phenei (Paus., VIII15, 1–4); about the sacraments in honor of Demeter and the Cabiri (Paus., IX 25, 5); Herodotus - about the secret rites of Demeter of the Achaeans (Hrd., V 61); about the Egyptian mysteries, in which a local goddess appears, called by the author Demeter (Hrd., II 171); about the rites that were performed over the priest of the Egyptian goddess, also called Demeter (Hrd., II 122). Hitzig N., Bluemner N. Pausaniae Graeciae descriptio / Editit... H. Hitzig, commentarium... addiderunt H. Hitziget H. Bluemner. Lipsiae: O. R. Reisland, 1907. Vol. 3. Pars l.P. 198. Cp.: Ov. Met., VI 118–119. 312 Per. V.V. Veresaeva. See, for example: Theocr., 20, 40–43; Ps.-Apoll., III 5, 1; Strab.,X 3, 12 and 15; Ov.Fast., IV 191–202; Athen., 26. Cm.: Eur.Hel., 1301 ff.; Artemidorus reports an island near Brittany, where sacrifices are performed, reminiscent of those on Samothrace in honor of Demeter and Kore (Strab., IV 4, 6); in a letter from Apollonius of Tyana to the inhabitants of Sardis, the city where the church of Cybele existed (see: Hrd., V 102), this goddess is identified with Demeter (Philostr. Epist., 75). Nilsson.Op. cit. P. 662. L. Deubner, however, speaking about the Eleusinian rites, mentions the birth of Plutos as a result of the sacred marriage of Zeus and Demeter. See: Deubner. Op. cit. S. 86. “The words (ὅσ̕̕ οὐ πευσεῖσθε βέβαλοι) can only mean “which you, unfamiliar with the mysteries of love, will not recognize.” Attributing them to any religious acts would entail the absurdity of classifying the singer himself as an initiate” (cf.: Cat., 64, 260) [Cholmeley R. J. The Idylls of Theocritus / Edited with introduction and notes by R. J. Cholmeley. New edition revised and augmented. London, 1919. P. 220]. Of the Christian authors, Clement of Alexandria and Arnobius speak about Demeter’s love for Jasion (Am., IV 27). 319 Which was based on the myth of Attis. Wed: Paus., VII17, 9–12; Cat., 63, 1–5), etc. Christian apologists also spoke about Attis. See: Theoph., I 9; III8; Min., 22, 4. Tertullian mentions Attis several times: Adnat., I 10, 45 and 47; Apol., 15, 2 and 5. The fact that Tertullian, after the words “you do not believe the poets even though you have established certain sacraments on the basis of their reports,” hints at a myth not found among the ancient poets - Hermesianact, who transmitted one of the versions of this myth (Paus., VII 17, 9), cannot be attributed to them - is probably explained by his manner of quickly moving, changing the principles of grouping examples, from the presentation of one material to the presentation of another. Unlike the example of the abduction of Ceres, which immediately follows the words about the poets, the reference to the story of Attis is separated from these words, which introduce the period, by the mention of sacrifices to Saturn. In a study devoted to the work of Varro De rerum divinarum, Aghad, comparing with each other what is reported about the pagan mysteries by Tertullian (Apol., 9; Ad nat., II 7), Minucius Felix (Min., 22, 1 ff.; 30, 3 ff.) and Lactantius (Lact. Div. Inst., I21, 1 ff.), concludes that all of these passages were borrowed by Christian writers from a common source [Agahd.Op. cit. 1898. S. 5964]. The latter obviously spoke of the Eleusinian mysteries, and not of the Orphic ones: Minucius (Min., 22, 2) mentions Ceres, who with lighted torches is looking for her daughter. Here Tertullian deviated greatly from his source. Mathieu M. E. Ancient Egyptian myths. M.; L., 1956. P. 18. Belief in the reborn phoenix is akin to the belief that salamanders live in fire: “After all, it is necessary that the entire universe be animated in all its parts, if each of the primary elements underlying it contains appropriate and appropriate living beings: the earth - terrestrial, the sea and rivers - living in water, fire - fire-born (there is a rumor that they are mostly found in Macedonia), the sky - stars" (Phil., 2, 7). 328 According to A. S. Uvarov, “the ancient symbol of immortality received the same meaning from Christians, but especially the meaning of the resurrection from the dead” (Uvarov A. S. Christian symbolism. St. Petersburg, 2001. P. 233). See: Hubeaux J., Leroy M. Le mythe du phénix dans les litératures grecque et latine // Bibliothèque de la Fac. de philosophie et lettres de l'Univ. de Liège. 1939. Fasc. 82. P. 189. n. 5. Ayers R. N. Language, logic, and reason in the Church Fathers: a study of Tertullian, Augustine, and Aquinas // Altertumswissenschaftliche Texte und Studien. 1979. Bd. 6. P. 59. In the poem "Phoenix", attributed to Lactantius, the name of this tree is derived from the bird that perched on its top (vv. 69–70). The holy Bible. Oxford, 1925. Die Bibel in heutigem Deutsch. Stuttgart, 1990. 335 Hubeaux, Leroy. Op. cit. P. 49 Lauchert F. Geschichte des Physiologus. Mit zwei Textbeilagen. Strassberg, 1889. S. 75. Yurchenko A. G. Aleksandrisky “Physiologist”. Zoological mystery. St. Petersburg, 2001, pp. 107–108. Hubeaux, Leroy. Op. cit. R. 189. Uvarov. Decree. Op. P. 232. See: Tertullian. About the soul. St. Petersburg, 2004. pp. 20–22.