"Stromata" by Clement of Alexandria

Contents Stromats and their place among Clement's legacy Structure Stromat and manuscript tradition Text Stromat: editions, translations and bibliography Clement of Alexandria came to Christian theology through philosophy. This determined the style and content of his works. He embodied his complex and varied ideas in an equally complex and intricate form. Avoiding beaten paths and established concepts, he never stopped in his search. The questions he asked himself often remained unanswered; the meaning of many of his passages is a mystery to the reader. However, despite, or perhaps thanks to, such qualities, Clement was able in his works to discover and establish many philosophical positions that were subsequently inherited by Christian theologians. His works were very popular; his name could be found in lists of saints until the ninth century. Clement spent most of his life in Alexandria, without exaggeration, the most remarkable city of the Roman Empire of his time. In Clement's time it was a metropolis whose population probably numbered a million inhabitants of a wide variety of nationalities. “I saw among you not only Hellenes and Romans, but also Syrians, Libyans, Sicilians, inhabitants of more distant countries, Ethiopians and Arabs, Bactrians, Scythians, Persians and even a few Indians,” - this is how Dio Chrysostom describes (Oration., 32, 40) the multinational character of Alexandria. In this list he forgot to mention the Jews, probably also quite numerous 2, and the Copts, the indigenous population of Egypt 3. In Alexandria there was a Museum and a Library, famous scientists, philosophers, writers and poets lived here, many of whom were contemporaries of Clement. Alexandria was also a religious center, or rather, a center where different religions mixed like wine and water in a crater. It was the Alexandrian culture that gave birth to such a phenomenon as Hermeticism, uniting the Egyptian God Thoth and the Greek Hermes in one person, Hermes the Thrice Greatest. Clement himself, as several remarkable pages from the fifth book of Stromatus show, is far from indifferent to Egyptian religion and culture. The second century, the reign of the Antonines, is a period of temporary stabilization of the Roman Empire, relative peace and calm compared to the storms of the era of the Claudians and Flavians. At this time, contacts between the eastern and western parts of the empire were improving, and an inherently cosmopolitan unified culture was developing. Knowledge of Greek becomes almost mandatory for all educated people of the empire. Roman orators and philosophers quoted Greek texts in abundance in their writings and used philosophical terms without providing translations. The process of blurring the boundaries between different philosophical schools continues and even intensifies, and they themselves are moving closer to various religious and mystical communities. Generally speaking, the Stoics, Platonists or Neo-Pythagoreans differ from each other at this time only in their confidence that they (nominally) belong to one or another school 4 . Classical philosophical positions are being rethought at this time in a new way: first of all, the dominant desire is to “bring everything together”, to show that the basic ideas of the main philosophical teachings are identical and ultimately go back to the same source. There are widespread ideas about the existence of an ancient secret tradition, thanks to which perfect knowledge was preserved, transmitted from teacher to student. It has been argued that Pythagoras, Plato, Moses and other Hellenic and "barbarian" thinkers and prophets belonged to such schools. All these trends are clearly visible in the works of Clement. He was a man of his time, deeply and sincerely immersed in his own – Alexandrian – culture. Convinced of the historical mission of Christianity as a world religion of one God, addressed to the entire “human race” (Strom. VI 159, 9), Clement devoted his entire life to what can be called “spiritual monasticism.” His perception of Christianity in a very personal and non-dogmatic form, as well as his membership in the circle of people who can be called the “cultural bohemians” of Alexandria, contributed greatly to the accomplishment of this task. Indeed, apparently, Clement, although well educated, did not belong to scientific circles and hardly had much in common with the scientific and philosophical schools of Alexandria 5 . His name is associated with a certain Christian school that existed in Alexandria and was founded by the mysterious person Panten, whom Clement calls his teacher 6. The status of this school, as well as the content of the disciplines taught there, cannot be established with a sufficient degree of certainty. The testimony of later authors, primarily Eusebius, should hardly be taken literally 7 . Nevertheless, it is obvious that in the time of Clement, and after him, Origen, there was a certain learned community in Alexandria, the purpose of which was the propaganda of Christianity and the education of those who converted to the Christian faith. What we know of Clement's life is a symbol of the journey: a long search for the meaning of life and a mentor who could reveal it. He says that he was born in Athens (which probably means only that he considers himself a Hellenic by origin), received a traditional education, was initiated into the Hellenic mysteries, traveled for a long time (among the points of his wanderings he mentions almost all the provinces of the Greek part of the Roman Empire), trying to comprehend the wisdom of various philosophical and religious schools and find himself a teacher who could initiate him into the mysteries of knowledge. After a long search, Clement finally met his future teacher Panten, who was “hiding” (Strom. I 11, 1–2) in Alexandria (thus confirming that the best way to hide from human eyes is to settle in the pandemonium of a huge city). Thus, a decisive step was taken that determined the entire future fate of Clement. Panten, says Clement, surpassed all the teachers he had previously met in the art of interpreting Scripture, but at the same time he fundamentally refrained from expressing his teachings in writing. Panten saw his mission in the transmission of secret knowledge that he received from the apostles themselves (Strom. I 11, 3; Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI 13, 2). If this is so, then he undoubtedly had weight in Christian circles. He taught what is hidden behind the letter of scripture, the ability to understand it correctly. Hermeneutic science was considered by him as part of the oral church tradition. Clement, according to him, was honored with this teaching, and he constantly appeals to the “apostolic authority” of his interpretations in the process of polemics with the “false”, as he calls them, Gnostics, who allow themselves too free interpretations, neglecting tradition and destroying it. Alexandria was an ideal place for such figures as Panten and Clement. Against the backdrop of enormous cultural diversity and considerable free-thinking, the new Christian doctrine could easily be accepted by an educated public. To do this, it was necessary to express it in a language they understood and fit it into the circle of late antique religious and general cultural ideas, without losing its original originality and without losing the “new word” that it contains. Only in this case could Christianity, in the eyes of an educated Hellenic, cease to be a Jewish sect of dubious content and turn into a new religious and philosophical worldview. Like his older contemporary Justin, an inhabitant of another great city of Rome, Clement found himself at the very peak of this process, by and large, among its executors. Apparently, Clement was a professional mentor. Following the gospel commandment, he never calls himself a teacher, reserving this word exclusively for the heavenly mentor, but his followers call him that. Clement's former student, Bishop Alexander of Jerusalem, calls him presbu/thj 8. It is noteworthy that this title reflects a typically Egyptian tradition 9 according to which “old man” does not necessarily mean old age, but serves as an indication of special respect, the glory of “first among equals” earned by knowledge and righteous life. This is precisely the role Clement assigns to the true Gnostic in the Stromata. It should be noted that such an independent position and spiritual authority already in the time of Clement could have been the cause of a conflict with the “official” bishop, an overseer performing an administrative function, but often claiming full power 10 . A true teacher, according to Clement, must be able to graft new knowledge onto the tree of a culture alien to him, keeping it viable and fruitful. The student may be a Hellenic or a Jew, but regardless of this, the teacher must be able to use and direct in the right direction what he inherited from his culture, thus planting the new without destroying the old. Further, this knowledge will find its own way and develop. The Jewish prophets in Stromata speak in one voice with Hellenic philosophers and poets. God is the only creator of everything beautiful, so what is said is important, not by whom. Therefore, those who are afraid of science and philosophy like children of a mask are ridiculous. You just need to know what is acceptable and what is not. And if everything is created for good, then why should a person deny himself the pleasure of using it. However, the main thing must be separated from the secondary, the internal from the external. You can be rich and poor at the same time, own goods and not own them. Everything external can be neutral, “being present, absent.” A person can be free from it, which does not mean indifferent to it (like God, who, being at peace, does not cease to do good). Such neutrality promotes liberation from what is harmful and the acquisition of what is necessary. The subjects that Clement dealt with in his writings are mainly related to the ideas of the secret life, secret knowledge and the esoteric tradition of this knowledge, which leads to true gnosis. This determines the non-academic and unsystematic nature of his style. An element of esotericism is constantly present in his texts. Clearly, Clement placed personal experience and inner life so much above anything verbally expressible that under such conditions any systematic philosophy or theology would hardly be appropriate. “Only a weakening memory,” as our author says, “and numerous requests from friends,” already in adulthood or even old age, inspired him to literary works and forced him to publish some of his thoughts. These works (with the exception of the sermon On How the Rich Man Will Be Saved and the speeches on the Hellenes 11) were originally planned by him as working notes and materials for lectures. The materials included by Clement in the Stromata obviously took him quite some time to collect. However, the relative integrity of the work suggests that it acquired literary form in a fairly short period of time, perhaps in two stages: books one through four, then books five through seven. The so-called eighth book, as it currently exists, is an extract from some logical studies and is clearly not finished. Clement himself explains what made him choose such a literary form. At the very beginning of the first book of Stromat, he writes that the subjects in his treatise, on the one hand, were presented in the form in which they “came to the mind” of the author, and on the other hand, they were purposefully mixed in order to hide their true meaning from the uninitiated and to force students who want to understand to first work hard. As a result, everything in the Stromata is mixed “in the manner of meadow flowers” ​​and in order to make something whole out of them, they must first be found and then arranged in the proper order. The method corresponds to the task of the treatise, because since we are talking about a mysterious reality, it is impossible to openly present it. It is appropriate to remain silent about such things, but the text may turn out to be a “spiritual spark” for the reader, but only for one who already has the personal experience necessary for this. And since real knowledge, and especially the highest gnosis, can only be obtained through communication with a knowledgeable mentor or a heavenly Teacher, written works will bring little benefit to those who are unable to understand them, and may even cause harm. For this reason, says Clement, he cares little about what the “Hellenes” who have not comprehended its meaning will think about this work, as well as those Christians who, out of false devotion to Christianity, fear Greek philosophy as an invention of the devil: Those who claim that philosophy was invented by the devil, let them remember what is said in scripture, that the devil himself takes the “form of an angel of light.” But why? Clearly, in order to prophesy. But if he prophesies as an angel of light, then he speaks the truth. If he speaks angelically and luminously, then he prophesies and brings good, having changed according to the nature of the action, although remaining different in his essence due to the falling away. How else can he achieve deception except by first making friends with a lover of knowledge and then pushing him into error? It is natural to conclude that he knows the truth, perhaps without understanding it, but without being completely alien to it. Philosophy, therefore, is not a lie, but expresses the truth, albeit in a distorted way. And therefore one should not dismiss out of ignorance what is said [by the philosophers] and the prophets, but one should carefully consider everything said to see if it contains the truth (Strom. VI, 66, 1-5). The situation is almost Faustian. Truth, like the “kingdom of heaven” (according to the Gospel saying) “is taken by force,” therefore the weak in this struggle are doomed to destruction. Such people should not even try to enter into combat with the devil. It is better for them to wait for salvation and limit themselves to “pure faith.” However, the Gnostic cannot afford this and he has no choice: like a farmer, he must plow the field and sow it, then be able to distinguish good shoots from weeds. Only by getting rid of these latter will he reap the harvest of knowledge. Despite the unsystematic nature of his work, Clement quite often discusses the need for a systematic study of various sciences, moving from simple to complex. This scheme is quite traditional: education begins with moral purification, followed by instructions in various sciences (physics, mathematics, astronomy), then philosophy and dialectics, and finally moral philosophy and theology: As necessary, the Gnostic turns to what allows him to exercise gnosis, learning from each science that which leads to the truth. Thus, by studying music, he comprehends harmonic relationships, through arithmetic he discerns the laws of addition and subtraction of numbers, their mutual relations and how various things fall under the same proportion; through geometry he learns to contemplate pure essences and comprehends continuous extensions and motionless bodies, different from physical bodies. And through the science of astronomy, having raised his mind above the earth, he rises to the heavens and follows their movement, exploring the eternal divine phenomena and comprehending their mutual relationship: Using dialectics, the Gnostic, isolating species and genera, comprehends the division of essences, reaching the knowledge of the very first and simplest (Strom. VI, 80.1-4): Therefore, dialectics is a defense against the sophists, so that they do not trampled the truth with impunity (Strom. VI, 81.5) Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. VI 18, 3) describes the organization of Origen’s “school” in exactly this way. Such education is necessary, but should be considered as a preparatory stage leading to true knowledge - gnosis. The philosophizing Greeks deliberately close their ears and do not hear the truth: The apostle calls this sensual and self-loving philosophy “the wisdom of this age,” since it teaches only about this world and what is in it, following the instructions of those who rule in this world. Therefore, this particular philosophy is very elementary, while truly perfect knowledge goes beyond the world, turning to the intelligible and more spiritual: And I am not afraid to say (for such is the Gnostic faith) that such a person knows everything and understands everything, reliably grasping what is difficult for us to achieve. He is a true Gnostic, and so were James, Peter, John, Paul and the other apostles: Gnosis is nothing more than something characteristic of the rational soul, aimed at its exercise, so that thanks to gnosis it can achieve participation in immortality (Strom. VI 67, 1 - 68.3). The Gnostic allows himself to “have fun” with Hellenic sciences in rare moments of rest from his main labors. Such amateurism and knowledge are welcomed 12. It is likely that Clement himself followed exactly this path in his education. “Philosophy and Hellenic science” for Clement is primarily Platonism and Pythagoreanism. It is from them that the Gnostic must learn the art of comprehending the sensory world and its laws, leading to the science of contemplation of simple intelligible entities. According to Clement, Plato, like many other Hellenic philosophers, were followers of Pythagoras and thanks to him they comprehended the secrets of eastern (Jewish and barbarian) teachings. This idea was popular among the neo-Pythagoreans contemporary with Clement. This is the opinion, for example, of the neo-Pythagorean Numenius (see fr. 24 Des Places), known to Clement 13. Clement devotes several chapters of his main work to Pythagorean philosophy and symbolism. This plot is especially interesting in the context of the problem of philosophical education. First of all, according to tradition, education in the Pythagorean school included several stages, gradually passing through which the student achieved, if he was capable of it, true knowledge. This knowledge was not revealed to everyone, and not because it was a secret society of conspirators, but because of the complexity of the subject itself, which could only be comprehended after much work. Clement tells us (and this is confirmed by other ancient sources 14) that the Pythagorean league was divided into two “degrees of initiation” - acousmatics and mathematicians (Strom. V 56, 1). The former are presented to them as students who have just embarked on the path of improvement and whose task is to “listen” to and fulfill the religious and ethical instructions contained in the “akusmas” or symbols, a set of ancient Orphic and Pythagorean maxims. This preparatory stage lasted quite a long time - five years (Strom. V 67, 3). During this period, the student finally comprehended the science of self-concentration and “pure contemplation.” The Pythagorean Union serves as a model for Clement that illustrates his favorite subject: the difference between secret and explicit knowledge. We have seen that he explains even the deliberately “esoteric” style of his work in terms of this division 15. What are the purposes of symbolic and secret teachings? First of all, says Clement, “the highest truths require an appropriate attitude towards them,” which is why from ancient times they have been hidden from the gaze of those who are unable to treat them with due respect. The Egyptians kept them in the sanctuaries, the Jews covered them with a curtain, behind which only a select few were allowed (Strom. V 19, 4; Strom. V 56, 3). People inclined to evil and ill-disposed can pervert the teacher’s instructions, so it is better to try to avoid this danger (Strom. I 13, 2; VI 124, 6). In short, one should not “throw pearls before swine.” Further, since spiritual experience is largely inexpressible in words, a teacher, interpreter and mentor is needed to help master it. Thanks to such guidance, the student is not only more diligent in his studies, but also does not risk going astray, since he is led by a person who has already walked this path (Strom V 56, 4). But on the other hand, attempts to retell inexpressible spiritual experiences often provoke false interpretations. By taking the symbolic too literally, the listeners turn out to be innocent victims of an inept teacher, who then deserves punishment for his negligence. Therefore, the keeper of the tradition is responsible not only for preserving the exact meaning of the knowledge transmitted to him, but his functions include protecting this knowledge from the ignorant and malicious and transferring it into the hands of the worthy. And the best means for this, since ancient times, has been a cipher, the key to which is given only to a select few. These technical considerations are followed by reasons of a psychological and epistemological nature. “Hidden things, shining through the veil,” says Clement, “make a more impressive impression” (Strom. V 56, 5), that is, they seem more mysterious and attractive than those fully illuminated and exposed to public view 16. The trick is that these objects seem better and more significant than they really are (like rotten fruit at the bottom of a stream seems attractive only until it is removed from the water). Full illumination reveals defects in everything, and nothing in this world is free from them 17 . Human actions, if their motives are hidden, also make a more significant impression. Contemplation of the mysterious has a certain effect on the soul, allowing it to achieve greater “spirituality”, breaking away from the material and sensual and overcoming the shackles of sober reflection, soaring above the routine of everyday life. Indeed, even familiar things can be looked at differently, not as usual. This effect is achieved by the ritualism of the action. During the mystery, not the things themselves change, but their meaning. Ordinary things lose their inherent form and meaning in the eyes of the initiate and manifest qualities that cannot be seen in them in an ordinary everyday state. In addition to the ability to “awaken the soul,” the symbolic is capable of showing “many things at the same time.” Clear things have a very definite meaning. In principle, various allegories, metaphors or allegories are also unambiguous, since they are specially created in order to figuratively point to something specific. A symbol is capable of including many interpretations and at the same time not being reduced to any of them separately, nor to their “sum”. “The general meaning, “hidden behind the veil of allegories” (Strom. V 57.5 – 58.6), cannot be interpreted, but only in some way “found” or understood. And what is understood, as we know, is not always verbally expressible. In turn, such symbolic knowledge is also a preliminary and preparatory stage on the path to pure contemplation - theory. The one who sees with the mind does not need any symbols or similarities, since he sees everything clearly, in full light. Noetic objects do not have defects inherent in material nature, so there is no need to veil them. They open in daylight. This is my view of the main ideas contained in the central part of the Stromat, dedicated to symbolism and philosophy of education. I would not be surprised if the opinion of my readers turns out to be different from what has just been stated. Clement is a complex author, difficult to describe and generalize. Further details are discussed in the notes to the text, which I have tried to keep to a minimum, dealing mainly only with literary parallels and comparative observations. In conclusion, I will dwell on a few technical details. Stromata and their place among Clement's legacy The work of Clement, two books of which are offered to the reader, has the following title: ..., which means: A mixture of various notes concerning knowledge (gnosis), compiled in accordance with true philosophy. Strwma means bedding, carpet, but its derivative o(strwmateu/j, strwmateij, pl. is quite rare and means, in fact, a mixture, including literary 18. How the author himself explains the “patchwork” nature of his work has already been discussed. The word u(po/mnhma or, more often, pl. u(pomnh/mata is more common and means notes for memory, that is, a notebook. In this case, the name oi(twn u(pomnhma/twn strwmateij) must ultimately mean “various extracts from notebooks.” It is quite likely that this was the case. Obviously, no work, especially one as complex as the Stromates, can be written without preliminary preparations. In antiquity, as now, the accumulation of material, the compilation and methodological selection of various excerpts constituted a large, if not the main, part of literary work. I will give one well-known example illustrating the methods of work of ancient authors - collectors of knowledge. In one of his letters, Pliny the Younger describes the methods of work of his uncle (one of the most encyclopedic minds of antiquity), which allowed him to write such a number of books. for employment and active participation in politics: On summer days, free from various worries, he loved to sit in the fresh air and, having ordered a book to be read, took notes and wrote out quotations (adnotabat excerpebatque). He wrote out quotations from all the books that came his way (nihil enim legit quod non excerperet): He wrote short (or cursive?) notes during meals (super hanc liber legebatur adnotabatur, et quidem cursum): As a result of such labor, he left me 160 notebooks (commentarios), covered in small handwriting on both sides, which doubles their actual number 19 . Pliny the Younger tells us several interesting details. First, note that notebooks could be wax tables (pugillares), used repeatedly, or scrolls, intended for longer-term storage. Pliny specifically notes the fact that these notebooks (in this case, scrolls) were written on both sides, since this was at odds with the usual practice of book production. Typically, only one side of the scroll was used for writing. This can be explained by the fact that the outer side of the scroll wore out quickly and was of poorer quality. Further, it is obvious that notebooks in the form of a codex, seemingly more convenient for such records, were not used in the time of Pliny and came into circulation only at the turn of the second - third centuries 20 . So Clement most likely used writing material in the form of a codex or what was called di/ptuxon, tri/ptuxon k.t.l., that is, a kind of notebook made up of several sheets or wax tables. Now let’s imagine that we connected several of these notebooks together and intertwined them - we get a book quite in the modern sense of the word. Having sketched out a preliminary plan and having a sufficient number of such notes at hand, you can use them to compose an essay like Stromat in a fairly short time. What books did Clement use? Most likely, everything that came to hand. Indeed, books at that time were a much greater luxury than now, even in such a book city as Alexandria. Therefore, every work that fell into the hands of, or was specially obtained from somewhere, was probably read by such a writer as Clement with great attention. It was necessary to remember what was read and take notes, since at the right time this book could no longer be available. Notebooks thus replaced personal libraries and were valued no less than the actual published works. The same Pliny the Younger further says that during the procuratorate of Pliny the Elder in Spain, he was offered a significant sum for these notebooks. If Pliny had sold his notes or allowed them to be copied, another anthology would have arisen. The line between publication and a manuscript intended for private use was very thin. Various excerpta could form the material for a more formalized literary work, or, in almost unchanged form, as in the case of the three surviving notebooks of Clement, they could be circulated along with works intended for publication, sometimes without the knowledge or even against the wishes of their author 21 . Extracts from books or notes from oral presentations (a)po? fwnhj) could later also be used in a literary work, or even published as “lectures”. Arrian recorded and published the lectures of Epictetus, Amelius recorded the speeches of his teacher Plotinus. According to Lucian, Hermotimus was an eternal student and lived by writing down and correcting other people's lectures 22 . Clement quotes the letters and sermons of Valentine. Could they also have been preserved in precisely such notebooks of listeners? The lack of literary texts, on the one hand, and the growing interest in education, on the other, are the main reasons that explain the proliferation that various anthologies and textbooks received in late antiquity, compiled by people who had access to a fairly extensive library. Clement probably also used anthologies like Florilegium of Stobaeus 23, and not at all because of his superficiality, but simply because he hardly had direct access to the entire abundance of literature he used 24. This may apply not only to “rare” or, conversely, “textbook” authors, but also to quotes from the Holy Scriptures. The same fundamental sayings of Jesus or the apostles are repeated very often in the Stromata, and this suggests that Clement could well have used some kind of summary of the books of the Old Testament and excerpts from Christian literature, including apocryphal literature, which were organized according to some thematic principle as a kind of Christian anthology. Clement often quotes from memory. First of all, this applies to excerpts from the Holy Scriptures and Homer 25. Very often these texts and poetic lines are retellings close to the text. It is possible that in some other cases the quotations were “verified” by editors and copyists, because we should not forget that the text of the Stromatus that has come down to us has an immensely long history, and every ancient copyist was also an editor, especially if he made a copy for himself. Even modern publishers, and even more so translators, tend to “correct errors” of ancient authors based on well-known texts or provide a quotation instead of a paraphrase 26 . So, Stromata are “notes and memories compiled on the basis of notebooks.” Clement specifically emphasizes that his work is Gnostic notes, in accordance with true philosophy. The ideas contained in the Stromata as a whole constitute a fairly coherent teaching about Christian knowledge, which Clement calls true gnosis. It is clear that false gnosis receives considerable attention in this regard. In fact, the concept of “true” crystallizes in the Stromata in comparison with the false aberrations and distortions inherent in “false” gnosis. Clement talks about the Gnostics constantly. The information he gives about Gnosticism, especially about Valentinus, Basilides and Isidore, the Carpocrats and Marcion, as far as comparison with other sources shows, is quite accurate. In addition to numerous testimonies about gnosis, Clement has a detailed analysis of their teaching, which is also very remarkable, since, on the one hand, Clement was sufficiently well informed and educated to understand what he was talking about, and on the other hand, unlike, for example, Origen or Tertullian, he was sufficiently independent and eclectic in his views to be a good witness. Moreover, he often consciously assigns this role of witness to himself: The Stromata were written by him as u(pomnh/mata notes for memory and “memories” of what he learned from more worthy men. The names of these men are not mentioned in the Stromata themselves, Clement only hints that they had apostolic authority. The Gnostics (Marcion, Basilides and Valentinus) are reproached precisely for the fact that they boast of their teachers (Strom. VII 108, 1) Too often mentioning a name means doubting its authority, like the admiration for good education that Clement experiences and constantly professes. Constantly indicating the source of quotation, in the case of, for example, the Holy Scriptures, Plato or Homer, seems indecent to him. Educated people should know their classics. Hence such phenomena, not uncommon in the Stromata, as the casual remark: “Plato said somewhere,” followed by a half-page quotation “from memory.” A. van den Hoek's detailed analysis of quotations, paraphrases and various allusions in the Stromata shows very well the peculiarities of the citation technique that Clement uses 27 . For example, of the 1,273 instances of citations from the Apostle Paul noted in the O. St?hlin Index, Clement mentions his name (or at least says that he is an apostle) only 309 times (while 13 times the name is simply mentioned, and no quotation follows). Plato is quoted (verbatim or not) 618 times, but is mentioned directly or indirectly (Pla/twn, o(filo/sofoj, oi(filo/sofoi, o(e)c (Ebrai/wn filo/sofoj k.t.l.) only 139 times (and again, “naked” mention of the name is observed in 41 cases out of these 139). Quotation of Plato is usually accompanied by an exact indication dialogue, letter, or even a book (with references to the State or Laws). It can be assumed that Clement had constant access to the works of Plato or used a fairly good selection of quotations. Clement resorts to Plato almost exclusively for the purpose of confirming his opinion. Only in the rarest cases is the classic criticized. Clement prefers not to notice the disagreements between Platonism and Christian doctrine, and tries to eliminate the most obvious of them by hermeneutical means, sometimes even referring to the “mistakes” of copyists. Philo of Alexandria is a special case. Clement uses it quite often (more than 200 times, according to O. St?hlin), but mentions the name only four times (and twice he calls him a Pythagorean). Probably, such silence can be explained by special reasons 29. However, as Hoek notes, these four references are followed by extensive borrowings and multi-page paraphrases, so that Clement "confesses" to approximately 38% of the material used from Philo. Homer and Euripides are Clement's favorite poets. Of the 243 cases of citation from Homer, his name (or at least an indication that the Poet said it) occurs in 37%. The title (Iliad or Odyssey) is hardly mentioned. Simply: “A poet said somewhere:” Euripides is quoted 117 times, and his name (Euripides, tragedian, stage philosopher, tragedy, etc.) is mentioned 59 times (52%). Lesser-known authors are usually listed by name. In fact, the general rule applies: if the source is not indicated, then the author is known. Quoted and mentioned: the poets Homer, Orphica, Hesiod, Pherecydes, the legendary Terpander, elegy (Solon, Theognidea 30), Anacreontea 31, Archilochus 32, Simonides of Amorgos, Phocylides, Melanippides, of course, Bacchylides and Pindar and a number of other little-known poets; tragedy and comedy (from Aeschylus to Hellenistic and Jewish imitations); Hellenistic authors such as Callimachus and Aratus; historians Herodotus, Thucydides, Hecataeus, Theopompus, Alexander Polyhistor and others; philosophers of various schools, starting with the seven sages and ending with Numenius 33; rhetoricians (for example, Isocrates), grammarians, physicians, geographers, etc. The total number of authors exceeds four hundred. The set of literary sources that Clement refers to is fairly standard, so to speak, school-based. I indicate all citations in page-by-page notes to the text. When necessary, further details are given in notes 34. Along with the books that were later included in the Christian canon, the Old Testament and New Testament apocrypha are quoted (for example, the Apocalypse of Zephaniah, the Sermons of Peter, the Acts of Paul, the Shepherd of Hermas, the letter of Barnabas, the Gospel of the Egyptians, etc.). Many of these quotations are unique: Clement is our only source. Gnostic literature (Valentine, Basilides, Isidore, Epiphanes, Marcion, excerpts from Gnostic myths, etc.) is quoted very often and constitutes a significant part of the second, third and fourth books of the Stromata. Unlike the classics and allies (for example, Philo), Clement always gives an exact reference to the works of his opponents. Typically this is kata? le/cin literally (of the 24 uses of this expression, 12 refer to the Gnostics, the rest to various not very well-known Greeks and prophetic books), sometimes w(de/ pwj (which can be translated simply by a colon). On the contrary, expressions like a)/ntikruj, diarrh/dhn are openly, clearly reserved exclusively for good characters such as Plato, Homer or Euripides, and are never used when quoting a Gnostic text. Numerous fasi/, fhsi/, le/gei, le/gousi k.t.l. the expressions are ambivalent and defy any classification. For example, quoting from the book On the Justice of the Gnostic Epiphanes, Clement first notes that he has this book ()Epifa/nhj ou(toj, ou( kai? ta? suggra/mmata komi/zetai, u(io?j h)n Karpokra/touj, k.t.l.), and a little further says: “Then he adds literally the following - w(de/ pwj e)pife/rei kata? le/cin" (Strom. III 5.1; 9.3). When commenting on a source, Clement quite often provides a series of quotes and more or less literal retellings. Hoek demonstrated this well using the example of Philo (fortunately, his texts have been preserved and there is something to compare with). Sometimes Clement, apparently remembering a phrase, begins his commentary with it, then, apparently turning to the text itself, successively unfolds the scroll, writing out quotes. This process is observed several times, and in one case Clement apparently rolled up the scroll rather than unrolling it, since the quotations are in reverse order. Notes (u(pomnh/mata) in the time of Clement is not just a notebook or outline, but a kind of literary genre 36, very well, as the author himself notes, suitable for philosophical reflection (in fact, I believe, due to the lack of writing material). It is known that Plutarch composed Notes of this kind. They say that the (lost) works of the Stoic Chrysippus were famous for the number of quotations in them contained. The Attic Nights of Aulus Gellius are another example of a pseudo-notebook. As Martha Turner 37 notes, the trick is that the proliferation of semi-private notebooks, anthologies and various collections led to original writings beginning to imitate the u(pomnh/mata) genre. The books could simply consist of a set of maxims (for example, the Sentences of Sextus or the Gnostic Gospel of Philip). In addition to simply reflecting literary fashion, texts of this kind served a dual purpose: this genre allowed the author to express his views and, at the same time, provide the reader with a mass of useful information, which, given the literary shortage, significantly increased the value of a relatively elementary or even mediocre composition. Finally, they used style as a shield to protect them from the arrows of critics. The unsystematicity and darkness of the style, they say, are due to the genre, so those who cannot understand should not read. As we have seen, Clement repeatedly presents all these arguments to the reader in various places. In the preface to Noctes Atticae, Gellius says 38: I place these excerpts here in the same order in which I collected them. Every time I came across a Greek or Latin book, or heard something worthy of attention, I wrote down without a specific plan everything that pleased me, no matter what field it came from, in order to use it later as subsidium memoriae: so that, if necessary, I could find and reproduce various information or words, even if I forgot them, and the book in which it was written was not at hand: Indeed, at first glance, the Attic Nights give the impression of an extremely chaotic collection of various information, but the internal structure in them, as researchers note, is present and betrays conscious literary creativity. Gellius continues Some call their books Muses, Forests (Silvarum), others – Stromat, Helikon, Problems, Memories (Memoriales), Beginnings, Random Notes (Pa/rerga) and Instructions: I titled my essay in a simple and even somewhat rustic manner (subrustice). The title Attic Nights indicates only the time and place of my nocturnal activities: Remembering the famous words of the Ephesian philosopher that much knowledge does not teach the mind [quoted by Gellius in Greek], I carefully looked through many scrolls, devoting all my free time to this occupation, but took from it a little - only what can easily push active and sensitive readers to independent research: and save too busy people from not knowing what is shameful not to know: We see, firstly, that the name Stromata was traditional in a general series of various collections 39, and secondly, the goal that Gellius sets for himself, namely, to encourage those capable of independent research, exactly coincides with the purpose of writing the Stromata, which Clement proclaims: Meadow flowers grow as they please, and fruit trees in the garden are not arranged in separate plantations, according to their type, as if someone had compiled a scientific collection: Meadows, Helicons, Apiaries, Veils, etc. In the same way, since we write down objects as we remember them and do not follow any particular order or sequence of presentation, but, on the contrary, deliberately mix them up, our notes are as varied in form as a meadow. These notes are, in a sense, like the first spark that ignites a fire, since one who is ready to perceive gnosis, if he happens to read them, will be rewarded for his efforts and the study will benefit him (Strom. VI 2, 1-2) If this were not a commonplace reflecting an already established literary tradition, one would have to conclude that Gellius was retelling Clement or vice versa (they were contemporaries). Let us note in conclusion that, unlike Aulus Gellius, who assumes that his readers, in the words of Cicero, neque doctissimi, neque indoctissimi, sed viri boni et non illiterati, Clement raises the bar to an immeasurable height: only “touched by thyrsus and initiated into the mysteries of gnosis” is ultimately able to understand the depth of the teaching he professes. Stromat structure and manuscript tradition The seven books of "Gnostic Notes on True Philosophy" are not a complete treatise. Rather, they can be called a Collected Works of different years, a kind of Variorum, compiled and edited by the author himself. Each Stromat book is devoted to a specific problem and can (albeit at the cost of losing the richness and variety of content) be briefly summarized and titled. Stromat's text has a high degree of repetition: the same ideas, sometimes almost literally, appear in different books, within the same book, or even within the same chapter. In fact, without tiring of repeating several of his favorite thoughts, Clement illustrates them each time with new material, obviously using preliminary preparations. We can say that Stromats have a holographic nature: each part of them, to some extent, reflects the whole. After reading one or two books, you can encounter (more than once) absolutely all of Clement’s ideas, presented with varying degrees of detail. The reader can verify this by looking at a brief outline of all Stromat books (below). Stromates are sometimes said to be "chaotically organized". Of course, this is a metaphor or even hyperbole. Although chaos, as we know, can also be organized: against the background of obvious disorder, a certain structure can be traced and crystallized. This does not mean at all that chaos itself becomes less chaotic; however, it loses its homogeneity and exhibits some internal symmetry. Order from chaos, like the cells of Binar. The chaotically scattered “flowers of the literary meadow” freeze for a moment before the reader’s gaze in an unstable balance, only to scatter and mix again the next moment. Like organization and self-organization, structure can be internal or external. The internal structure of the text follows its own elusive laws, while the external structure is introduced consciously and expressed explicitly. Stromata have a general preface, where the author talks about the features, goals and objectives of his work (Strom. I 1.1 – 21.2). Further, almost every book has a separate preface and conclusion. Clement quite often clearly expresses his future plans. The last preface (to the seventh book) poses a problem: Clement promises and plans clearly more than he actually says in this last book. The most natural assumption is that the author intended to write more, but for some reason did not do so. Given the fact that this is not the only unfulfilled promise in the Stromata, it can be assumed that Clement simply abandoned some of the ideas expressed at the very beginning, perhaps due to lack of material. Talk about philosophical metaphysics Clement tries several times, but never does it. The reason seems to be clear: his interests lie exclusively in the field of ethics, everything else is presented very superficially. The hypothetical continuation of the Stromat, if it existed, disappeared without leaving any trace. I believe he was not there 40. Following the seventh and last book of the Stromata, notes compiled on the basis of notebooks, there are three notebooks themselves: a summary of some logical studies (the so-called eighth book of the Stromata), Extracts from the works of the Gnostic school of Valentine Theodotus and the Eclogue, excerpts from various prophetic writings. These texts are clearly unfinished, but along with various quotes they contain the thoughts of Clement himself, sometimes quite interesting. Extracts from Theodotus will be useful to us more than once when commenting on the text of the fifth and sixth books of the Stromat. It is difficult to say to what extent this order of Clement’s writings was generally accepted. The Ueberlieferunggeschichte of the text of the Stromat is very simple: all our information is based on a single manuscript dating from the 11th century (L Laurentianus V 3, Florence) and containing the complete text of the Stromat and the above three notebooks. Another manuscript dating from the 16th century, Parisinus Supplementum Graecum 250, is a copy of the previous one 41 . However, Photius reports, for example, that in the manuscript he used, immediately following the seventh and last book of the Stromatus there is a sermon on How the Rich Will Be Saved. On the other hand, various ancient authors from the middle of the fourth century quote from the Eclogue, saying that it is the eighth book of the Stromat. It seems to me that the volume and content of the notes preserved under the title of the eighth book of Stromata do not allow the idea that this is really the final book. This would be a highly strange conclusion, although Pierre Nautin 42 makes an attempt to resolve this riddle by presenting the situation as follows: He believes that the ancient copyist (for some reason) after the seventh book decided to shorten the remaining part and began to rewrite with abbreviations. The result of this activity is a very fragmentary text, which, however, reflects what Clement promised at the beginning of the fourth book of the Stromata and in some other places, namely, after describing the “true Gnostic”, move on to (1) the doctrine of first principles, (2) the refutation of some heterodoxies and (3) the explanation of subjects related to cosmology and theology. The same promise is repeated in the conclusion to the seventh book: Clement says that having finished ethics (to which most of this book is devoted), he intends to move on to what he previously promised and mysteriously adds that he is going to “begin again.” Nautin believes that next come (1) first principles, that is, the doctrine of reasons and logic (the first part of the eighth book - Strom. VIII 1.1 - 24.6), (2) criticism of heterodoxy (that is, Extracts from Theodotus) and (3) Eclogues, part of which is actually devoted to theology and cosmology. The remaining part of the “eighth book” is some part of the Hypotyposes, a work of Clement that has not reached us, which is mentioned and quoted by Eusebius and other ancient authors 43 . This explanation seems to me unnecessarily complicated, and not only because it is based on the inexplicable selectivity of the scribe. The Eighth Book, Extracts and Eclogues are an order of magnitude less organized than the Stromata. These are precisely notebooks, raw and unstructured material, and their nature is not explained by any supposed “abbreviations”: if they have not yet moved from a state of chaos to order, why postulate the opposite? Text of Stromat: editions, translations and bibliography So, the Stromata consist of seven books, and this division belongs to the author himself. The division into chapters, paragraphs and subparagraphs, as currently adopted, is the product of the work of scholars and editors of Clement's text, from the editio princeps to the edition of Otto St?hlin 44 . The division of books into chapters, dating back to the Oxford edition of 1715, is not always adequate and the headings reflect the actual content of a particular chapter very approximately. A more fractional division (O. St?hlin) is more of an external grid, convenient for quoting and does not fully reflect the semantic structure of the text. Adopting an external division into chapters (Roman numerals), paragraphs (Arabic numerals in bold) and subparagraphs (Arabic numerals), I provided the translation with headings that, in my opinion, reflected the development of the plot. This was done solely for the convenience of readers. I emphasize: these headings are not part of the text. The main Stromatus manuscript mentioned above, although well preserved, is very carelessly executed and contains a large number of errors and omissions. Over the past three centuries, the publishers of the Stromat text have done a herculean job of putting all this in order. When preparing his edition, O. St?hlin took into account the work of previous researchers and re-checked the text with the manuscripts. All previously proposed fixes are provided in the lower app. crit., while the top app. indicates quotations and literary parallels. The famous German scientist can be reproached with only one thing: quite in the spirit of the German philological school of the last century, he makes too many corrections to the original text, trying with all his might to make it “clear.” These corrections not only fill gaps and restore damaged text, but also “improve” the grammar and semantic content. Work on the Stromat text was continued by the author of the second and third editions, L. Fr?chtel (1960). Work on a new critical edition of the Stromat, complete with translation and commentary, was begun by C. Mond?sert, P. Caster, P. Camelot 45 and led, it seems to me, to very satisfactory results. The fifth book was edited and translated by P. Voulet and, together with a lengthy commentary, published by A. Le Boulluec (1981). There is a separate edition of the seventh book (F. Hort, J. Mayor, 1902). Unfortunately, commented editions of the fourth and sixth books have not yet been published 46. While working on the sixth book of Stromat, I had before me the edition of St?hlin-Fr?chtel, using the German translation by O. St?hlin and the English translation by W. Wilson for reference. Of course, I also know the Russian translation by N. Korsunsky. The work on the fifth book was greatly facilitated by the publication of Voulet - Le Boulluec. I would like to conclude by mentioning the new English translation by J. Ferguson (1991), which has compact and very useful notes 47 . A lot of research has been devoted to Clement’s texts and his views, the main ones of which are indicated in the bibliography. For a brief overview of the most important work up to 1982, the reader will find E. Osborn, 'Clement of Alexandria A Review of Research, 1958–1982' 48 . Clement himself speaks little and very vaguely about himself and his life. Some biographical information is given by Eusebius in Church History. A pagan by upbringing and education, probably from a noble family, Titus Flavius ​​Clement, after long wanderings (apparently for the purpose of education), converted to Christianity (Paed. I, 1; Eusebius, Demonstratio evangelica II 2, 64) and around 175/80. settled in Alexandria (Strom. I 11, 2). According to the official church version, here he studied under Panten, taught and subsequently became the head of the Alexandrian Christian School, founded by his teacher. During the persecution of Christians under Septimius Severus (202–203), he was forced to leave Alexandria (Eusebius, Historia ecclesiastica VI 1–3). He was no longer destined to return back. The year and place of his death are unknown, but in a letter from Alexander, Bishop of Jerusalem, friend and former student of Clement, which Eusebius quotes, he is spoken of as “having already completed the journey” (Euseb., Hist. Eccl. VI 11, 6). This letter dates back to 216. For more details see, for example: R. van den Broek, 'Juden und Christen in Alexandrien im 2. und 3. Jahrhundert', in: J. van Amersfoot und. J. van Oort (hrsg), Juden und Christen in der Antike (Kampen, 1990), 101–115. As recent discoveries show, Christian and Gnostic literature in Coptic was in full bloom during Clement's time. Alexandrian Christianity undoubtedly had deep connections with non-traditional Judaism, such as the Essenes sect: R.M. Grant, 'Theological Education at Alexandria, in B. Pearson (ed.), The Roots of Egyptian Christianity (Philadelphia, 1986), 180. On the school divisions of late antique philosophy, see John Glucker, Antiochus and Late Academy (Hypomnemata, Heft 56, G?ttingen, 1978), p. 134–135, 192 ff. Cf. Alain Le Boulluec, La notion d'h?r?sie dans la literature grecque IIe – IIIe si?cles. Tome 1–2. ?tudes Augustiniennes, Paris, 1985, t. I, pp. 48–57. For more information on Clement's supposed cultural background, see A. van den Hoek, 'How Alexandrian was Clement of Alexandria? Reflections on Clement and his Alexandrian Background', Heythrop Journal 31.1 (1990) 179–194. See also: . M. S. Enslin, 'A Gentleman among the Fathers', Harvard Theological Review 47 (1954) 213–241. It should be noted that Clement himself does not use this term, with the exception of a single time to the Teacher (Paed. III 97.3 - 98.1). However, even in this case, as Annewies van den Hoek rightly notes, this correction of the MS ei)j kalo/n is not necessary: ​​A. van den Hoek, 'The 'Catechetical' School of Early Christian Alexandria and Its Philonic Heritage, Harvard Theological Review 90 (1997) 59–87, p. 65. The reader will find a detailed but uncritical presentation of information about this school in the book: V. F. Levitsky and V. Dmitrievsky, Alexandria School (Kazan, 1884). A good statement of the problem is contained in a short account by R. van den Broek, 'The Christian School of Alexandria in the Second and Third Centuries', Studies in Gnosticism and Alexandrian Christianity (Leiden, 1996) 197–205. A detailed analysis of the evidence and texts of Clement himself is given in the above-mentioned article by A. van den Hoek, which deserves special attention in this regard. Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI 11.6; 14, 2–4. See R. van den Broek, The Christian 'School' of Alexandria, p. 201. This was the situation in which Origen found himself, who was forced to leave Alexandria in 234, no longer having the strength to withstand the pressure. Could this happen to Clement? We do not have reliable information, but Pierre Nautin, for example, admits the possibility that an internal church conflict, and not another persecution (as reported by Eusebius), could be the real reason why Clement was forced to leave Alexandria. See Pierre Nautin, Lettres et ?crivains chr?tiens des II-e et III-e si?cles. (Paris, 1961) 18, 140. These two texts, and especially protreptiko?j lo/goj, compiled according to all the rules of rhetoric, would be quite suitable as “speeches” of the head of the school. Therefore, contrary to the opinion of some researchers, I believe that the Protrepticus cannot in any way be an early work of Clement. Perhaps the first in the hypothetical trilogy of Protreptic - Teacher - Mentor, which was never completed, it looks like a mature work, precisely a speech written by a person who has weight in certain circles and knows that his opinion will be listened to. I am sure that this composition was at least intended for public performance. See the last chapter of the sixth book of Stromat. In the first book of Stromatus, Clement quotes the famous statement of Numenius: “Who is Plato if not Moses, speaking the Attic dialect” (Numenius, fr. 8, 4 Des Places Strom. I 150, 4). In fact, this is the first mention of Numenia that we know of. Unfortunately, this single quotation, almost a general place, does not allow us to say with certainty how well Clement knew the texts of his remarkable contemporary. For more on Clement and the Pythagorean tradition, see the notes to the passages indicated. For a comprehensive account of the Pythagorean tradition, see W. Burkert, Weisheit und Wissenschaft: Studien zu Pythagoras, Philolaos und Platon (N?rnberg, 1962), English translation, revised and expanded: Lore and Science in Ancient Pythagoreanism (Cambridge, MA, 1972), pp. 97–208. For more information about the Stromat style, see below. The semi-hidden was valued in Greek art and literature. Let us remember the moment of Penelope’s appearance in front of the suitors: “she, covering her face with a veil, towering over the maids accompanying her, came closer. Their knees gave way: “(Od. 18, 187–213), or the description of Helen “: like an immortal goddess:” (Il. 3, 153–4), that is, indescribable. In hidden forms there is simultaneously sexual attraction and unknown power, and the secret here is mystery and inaccessibility, obscurity and incomprehensibility, which intrigue and frighten. Wed. Ovid's remarkable observation: Do not trust the light of deceptive lamps. Drunkenness and darkness harm objective assessment. I saw the goddess Paris [open and] illuminated by heavenly light. (luce deas caeloque Paris spectavit aperto), only then did he say: “Venus, you are the best.” The night hides flaws, forgives all sins, At the midnight hour any woman is good: (Ars amatoria I 245–250) Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, besides, of course, the title of our author's work, indicates only two additional relevant cases. According to Eusebius (Prep. Evang. I 7, 16), one of the (not preserved) works of Plutarch was called Stromata. Athenaeus uses this word in a gastronomic sense, meaning assorted fish (Athenaeus, VII, PG 322a). Aulus Gellius also speaks of a literary mixture (Noctes Atticae, Pref. 6–8). C. Plinius C. Secundus (minor), Epistulae, III 5, 10 – 17 (with significant abbreviations). The first known mention of the code is found in Martial (Epigr. I 2): C.H. Roberts, T.C. Skeat, The Birth of Codex (London: Oxford University Press, 1987), pp. 24–29 In addition to Extracts from Theodotus, Clement also owns Eclogae propheticae and certain logical studies, which are traditionally placed at the end of the Stromatus as the “eighth book.” Lucian, Hermotimos, 2. This fact was reported to me by Annewies van den Hoek. It is not surprising, therefore, that the selection and even the sequence of poetic quotations in Clement and Stobaeus sometimes coincide. Indeed, Clement quotes four hundred different authors, from poets to physicians to geographers. It took the author of these lines several months to find the relevant publications in the Bodlean Library, Oxford. This is not surprising. Anyone who graduates from a Russian school will be able to reproduce from memory many of Pushkin’s poems. Greek education began with Homer. Everyone deals with the text to the extent of their scrupulousness. Serious and responsible philologists of the “German school”, such as Otto St?hlin, rarely allow themselves such liberties. Translators (for example, Korsunsky or W. Wilson) correct many quotations, and for doctrinal reasons. To the best of my ability, I tried not to repeat the mistakes of my predecessors and, when translating, to reflect the degree of literalness of the quote. The translation of passages from the books of the Old and New Testaments usually corresponds to the text of Clement, and not to the Synodal translation. Sometimes such discrepancies are important for understanding Clement’s thought; in other cases, exact adherence to the text is a matter of philological accuracy. Why, for example, correct Solon's elegy on the basis of the text of Philo of Alexandria, as St?hlin does? Couldn't Clement have quoted a slightly different text? And where is the guarantee that the text Philo cites is more correct? 'Technique of Quatation in Clement of Alexandria, Vigiliae Christianae 50 (1996) 223–243. See also her book: Clement of Alexandria and his Use of Philo in the Stromateis. Leiden: Brill, 1988. For example, in the third book, Stromat for his approval of the Pythagorean doctrine that birth is evil and the body is the tomb of the soul. Cf. D. Runia, “Why does Clement call Philo 'the Pythagorean?'”, Vigiliae Christianae 49 (1995) 1–22. Clement, of course, considers all the writings attributed to Theognis to be authentic. However, based on the edition of M. West, we can conclude that in at least one case he accidentally quotes Theognis himself (Strom. VI 18, 6). As in the previous case, it is presented as the writings of Anacreon himself. Another ancient iambigrapher, Hipponax, is mentioned once as an example of debauched poetry, which is entirely true. In the first book, Stromatus Clement simply rewrites some textbook and gives a brief history of philosophy. For collections of fragments and editions used, see list of abbreviations and bibliography. Strom. II 5.3 – 6.4. A. van den Hoek, 'Techniques of Quotation', p. 235. The Stromat genre has been discussed by many scholars of Clement's works. See, for example, Louis Roberts, 'The Literary Form of Stromateis', The Second Century 1 (1981) 211 ff. The Gospel According to Philip: The Sources and Coherence of an Early Christian Collection (Leiden: Brill, 1996) 75. Noctes Atticae, Pref. 2–12 (abbreviated). Various “nights” and “vigils”, by the way, too. This phenomenon is not uncommon. Ovid, for example, also says that he completed all twelve books of the Fasti, but books VII - XII disappeared without leaving a trace. It is logical to assume that they simply did not exist: the author intended to write them, but either did not have time to do so, or stopped halfway. For more details on the manuscript tradition, see: Clemens Alexandrinus. Stromata, Buch I-VI, hrsg. O. St?hlin, L. Fr?chtel (Berlin, 1960), vi-xv and Clemens Alexandrinus, Protrepticus und Paidagogus, hrsg. O. St?hlin, U. Treu (Berlin, 1970), xxix-xlii. 'La fin des Stromates et les Hypotyposes de Clément d'Alexandrié, Vigiliae Christianae 30 (1976) 268–302. According to Eusebius, it was a fairly extensive work, consisting of at least seven books, devoted to the exegesis of various Christian texts, including dubious works such as the Epistle of Jude, the Revelations of Peter, or the Epistle of Barnabas. Specifically, Clement says that the book of Hebrews was originally written in Hebrew and then translated into Greek by Luke. And proof of this is the stylistic similarity between the Greek text of this letter and the Acts of the Apostles. Paul does not call himself an apostle in the original, says Clement, because he does not want to scare away the most distrustful of the Jews from the very beginning with careless actions or dubious statements (Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. VI 14). Clement expresses similar ideas in various parts of the Stromata. The Hypotyposes appear to have been more notes than a coherent treatise. First edition – Petrus Victorinus (Florence, 1550), then F. Sylburg (Helderberg, 1592), D. Heinsius (Leyden, 1616), J. Potter (Oxford, 1715), R. Klotz (Leipzig, 1831–34), W. Dindorf (Oxford, 1869) O. St?hlin (Leipzig, 1904–36), O. St?hlin, L. Fr?chtel, U. Treu (Berlin, 1960). Individual Stromat books gradually appear in the Sources Chr?tiennes series (for more details, see the bibliography). Books One and Two (Sources Chr?tiennes, Paris, 1951–54) Prepared respectively by A. van den Hoek (Divinity School, Harvard) and P. Descourtieux (Vatican). Unfortunately, this author managed to translate only the first three books of Stromat. The Second Century 3 (1983) 219–240.