On the Dress of Women 1.1–1.9
Latin text: Oehler 1 (Latin text: Franz Oehler (Oehler 1, 1853), digitized by the Perseus Digital Library (canonical-latinLit), CC BY-SA 4.0).English: Claude (claude-opus-5-5), public domain (CC0). Compare: Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 4 (1885).
Chapter 1
1.1Oehler 1:701–703
Si tanta in terris moraretur fides, quanta merces eius expectatur in caelis, nulla omnino vestrum, sorores dilectissimae, ex quo deum vivum cognovisset, et de sua, id est de feminae conditione didicisset, laetiorem habitum, ne dicam gloriosiorem appetisset, ut non magis in sordibus ageret, et squalorem potius affectaret, ipsam se circumferens Evam lugentem et paenitentem, quo plenius id quod de Eva trahit (ignominiam dico primi delicti et invidiam perditionis humanae) omni satisfactionis habitu expiaret. In doloribus et anxietatibus paris, mulier, et ad virum tuum conversio tua, et ille dominatur tui. Et Evam te esse nescis? Vivit sententia dei super sexum istum in hoc saeculo; vivat et reatus necesse est. Tu es diaboli ianua, tu es arboris illius resignatrix tu es divinae legis prima desertrix, tu es quae eum suasisti quem diabolus aggredi non valuit. Tu imaginem dei, hominem, tam facile elisisti. Propter tuum meritum, id est mortem, etiam filius dei mori habuit: et adornari tibi in mente est super pelliceas tuas tunicas? Age nunc, si ab initio rerum et Milesii oves tonderent, et Seres arbores nerent, et Tyrii tinguerent, et Phryges insuerent, et Babylonii intexerent, et margaritae canderent, et ceraunia coruscarent, si ipsum quoque aurum iam de terra cum cupiditate prodisset, si iam et speculo tantum mentiri liceret, et haec Eva concupiit de paradiso expulsa, iam mortua, opinor? Ergo nec nunc appetere debet aut nosse, si cupit reviviscere, quae nec habuerat nec noverat quando vivebat. Ideo omnia ista damnatae et mortuae mulieris impedimenta sunt, quasi ad pompam funeris constituta.
If there dwelt on earth a faith as great as the reward of faith that is expected in heaven, not one of you, dearest sisters, from the time she came to know the living God and learned of her own condition, that is, the condition of woman, would have sought a more cheerful dress, not to say a more glorious one; rather she would go about in mean attire and affect squalor, carrying herself about as Eve mourning and repenting, so as to expiate more fully, by every garb of penitence, what she derives from Eve: I mean the disgrace of the first sin and the odium of human ruin. “In pains and anxieties you bear children, woman; and your turning is to your husband, and he rules over you.” And do you not know that you are Eve? The sentence of God on this sex lives on in this age; the guilt must live on too. You are the devil's gateway; you are the unsealer of that tree; you are the first deserter of the divine law; you are she who persuaded him whom the devil was not strong enough to attack. You so easily crushed the image of God, man. Because of your desert, that is, death, even the Son of God had to die; and it is in your mind to adorn yourself over your tunics of skins? Come now: if from the beginning of things the Milesians had been shearing sheep, and the Seres spinning trees, and the Tyrians dyeing, and the Phrygians embroidering, and the Babylonians weaving, and pearls gleaming, and onyx-stones flashing; if gold itself had already come forth from the earth with covetousness; if the mirror too had already been allowed to lie so much: would Eve, expelled from paradise and already dead, have coveted these things, I suppose? So neither ought she now to seek or know, if she wishes to live again, what she neither had nor knew when she was alive. Therefore all these things are the trappings of a condemned and dead woman, arranged as if for the pomp of a funeral.
Gen 3:16 (quotation, high confidence) · Gen 3:1–6 (allusion, high confidence) · Gen 3:21 (allusion, high confidence) · 1 Tim 2:14 (echo, medium confidence)
Notes and citation
Summary: Tertullian tells Christian women that, as daughters of Eve bearing the guilt of the first sin, they should dress in penitence rather than finery.
- The quotation is Gen 3:16; the allusions are Gen 3:1–6, 3:21 (tunics of skins), and 1 Tim 2:14. The “Seres” (Chinese) were thought to comb silk from trees. The treatise is usually dated ca. 197–206; Book 1 (“On the Apparel of Women”) is sometimes treated as a separate work. Its harsh address to women as “Eve” is translated as written.
Notes on the original text
- Digital text corrected (uncertain character in the digital text): Milesi(??) oves → Milesii oves.
Topics: Ethics
Cite (SBL): Tertullian, Cult. fem. 1.1 (Oehler 1:701–703; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-cultu/1-1/#p-1-1).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-tertullian-cultu-1-1) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of Oehler 1; made independently of existing English translations.
1.2Oehler 1:703–705
Nam et illi qui ea constituerunt damnati in poenam mortis deputantur, illi scilicet angeli qui ad filias hominum de caelo ruerunt, ut haec quoque ignominia feminae accedat. Nam cum et materias quasdam bene occultas et artes plerasque non bene revelatas saeculo multo magis imperito prodidissent, siquidem et metallorum opera nudaverant et herbarum ingenia traduxerant et incantationum vires provulgaverant et omnem curiositatem usque ad stellarum interpretationem designaverant, proprie et quasi peculiariter feminis instrumentum istud muliebris gloriae contulerunt, lumina lapillorum quibus monilia variantur, et circulos ex auro quibus brachia artantur, et medicamenta ex fuco quibus lanae colorantur, et illum ipsum nigrum pulverem quo oculorum exordia producuntur. Haec qualia sunt, interim iam ex doctorum suorum qualitate et conditione pronuntiari potest, quod nihil ad integritatem peccatores, nihil ad castitatem adamatores, nihil ad timorem dei desertores spiritus aut monstrare potuerunt aut praestare. Si doctrinae dicendae sunt, mali magistri male docuerint necesse est; si mercedes pro libidine, nullius rei turpis merces decora est. Quid autem tanti fuit ista monstrare sicut conferre? utrumne mulieres sine materiis splendoris et sine ingeniis decoris placere non possent hominibus, quae adhuc incultae et incompositae et, ut ita dixerim, crudae ac rudes angelos moverant? anne sordidi et per gratuitum usum contumeliosi amatores viderentur, si nihil feminis in connubium allectis contulissent? Sed haec non capit aestimare. Nihil plus desiderare poterant quae angelos possidebant, magno scilicet nupserant. Enimvero qui utique interdum cogitabant unde cecidissent et post libidinum vaporata momenta caelum suspirabant, illud ipsum bonum feminarum naturalis decoris, ut causam mali, sic remuneraverunt, ne eis profuisset felicitas sua, sed ut devectae de simplicitate et sinceritate una cum ipsis in offensam dei pervenirent. Certi erant omnem et gloriam et ambitionem et affectionem per carnem placendi deo displicere. Hi sunt nempe angeli quos iudicaturi sumus, hi sunt angeli quibus in lavacro renuntiamus, haec sunt utique per quae ab homine iudicari meruerunt. Quid ergo faciunt apud iudices suos res eorum? quod est commercium damnaturis cum damnandis? opinor, quod Christo et Beliae. Qua constantia tribunal illud ascendimus decreturi adversus eos quorum munera appetimus? Nam et vobis eadem tunc substantia angelica repromissa, idem sexus qui et viris, eandem iudicandi dignationem pollicetur. Nisi ergo hic iam praeiudicaverimus res eorum praedamnando quas in illis damnaturi sumus, illi potius nos iudicabunt atque damnabunt.
For those too who introduced these things are condemned and consigned to the penalty of death, namely those angels who rushed down from heaven to the daughters of men, so that this disgrace too might attach to woman. For when they had disclosed to an age far more ignorant certain materials that were well hidden and many arts not well revealed (for they had laid bare the workings of metals, had passed on the properties of herbs, had spread abroad the powers of incantations, and had pointed out every curious art down to the interpretation of the stars), properly and as a special gift they conferred on women this equipment of womanly glory: the lights of the little stones with which necklaces are varied, the bracelets of gold with which arms are clasped, the dyes of the orchil with which wool is colored, and that very black powder with which the lines of the eyes are lengthened. What sort these things are can be declared already from the quality and condition of their teachers: that sinners could show or supply nothing for integrity, lovers nothing for chastity, deserters of the spirit nothing for the fear of God. If they are to be called teachings, bad masters must have taught badly; if payment for lust, the payment for no base thing is seemly. But what was so important to show these things as to bestow them? Could women not please men without the materials of splendor and the devices of beauty, women who, still unadorned and unarranged and, so to speak, raw and crude, had moved angels? Or would the lovers have seemed mean and insulting in taking their pleasure free, if they had given nothing to the women drawn into union with them? But this is not for us to reckon. Those who possessed angels could desire nothing more; they had married grandly, of course! But those angels, who at times surely thought of where they had fallen from and, after the heated moments of their lusts, sighed for heaven, repaid that very good of women's natural beauty, as the cause of their evil, in such a way that their good fortune should not profit them, but that, led away from simplicity and sincerity, they should arrive together with the angels at the offense of God. They were sure that all glory, ambition, and desire to please by the flesh displeases God. These, surely, are the angels whom we are to judge; these are the angels whom we renounce in the washing; these are the very things through which they deserved to be judged by man. What then are their goods doing with their judges? What commerce have those who will condemn with those who are to be condemned? The same, I think, as Christ with Belial. With what consistency shall we mount that tribunal to pass sentence against those whose gifts we covet? For to you too the same angelic substance is promised then, the same sex as to men, and the same dignity of judging is pledged. Unless, then, we prejudge here and now their goods, condemning beforehand what we are to condemn in them, they will rather judge and condemn us.
Gen 6:1–4 (allusion, high confidence) · 1 Cor 6:3 (allusion, high confidence) · 2 Cor 6:15 (allusion, high confidence) · Matt 22:30 (allusion, medium confidence)
Notes and citation
Summary: The fallen angels of Genesis 6 taught women jewelry, dyes, and cosmetics; Christians, who will judge those angels, should not covet their gifts.
- The allusions are Gen 6:1–4, 1 Enoch 8:1–3 (the Watchers teaching metalwork, cosmetics, sorcery, and astrology), 1 Cor 6:3, 2 Cor 6:15, and Matt 22:30. “Renounce in the washing” refers to the renunciation of the devil and his angels at baptism.
Notes on the original text
- Digital text corrected (OCR misreading of u as n): eandem indicandi dignationem → eandem iudicandi dignationem.
Extrabiblical texts: 1 En. 8.1-3 (1 Enoch [in the ETH canon]; allusion)
Cite (SBL): Tertullian, Cult. fem. 1.2 (Oehler 1:703–705; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-cultu/1-1/#p-1-2).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-tertullian-cultu-1-2) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of Oehler 1; made independently of existing English translations.
1.3Oehler 1:705–706
Scio scripturam Enoch, quae hunc ordinem angelis dedit, non recipi a quibusdam, quia nec in armarium Iudaicum admittitur. Opinor, non putaverunt illam ante cataclysmum editam post eum casum orbis omnium rerum abolitorem salvam esse potuisse. Si ista ratio est, recordentur pronepotem ipsius Enoch fuisse superstitem cataclysmi Noë, qui utique domestico nomine et haereditaria traditione audierat et meminerat de proavi sui penes deum gratia et de omnibus praedicatis eius, cum Enoch filio suo Matusalae nihil aliud mandaverit, quam ut notitiam eorum posteris suis traderet. Igitur sine dubio potuit Noë in praedicationis delegatione successisse, vel quia et alias non tacuisset tam de dei conservatoris sui dispositione quam de ipsa domus suae gloria. Hoc si non tam expedite haberet, illud quoque assertionem scripturae illius tueretur. Proinde potuit abolefactam eam violentia cataclysmi in spiritu rursus reformare, quemadmodum et Hierosolymis Babylonia expugnatione deletis omne instrumentum Iudaicae litteraturae per Esdram constat restauratum. Sed cum Enoch eadem scriptura etiam de domino praedicarit, a nobis quidem nihil omnino reiciendum est quod pertineat ad nos. Et legimus omnem scripturam aedificationi habilem divinitus inspirari. A Iudaeis potest iam videri propterea reiecta, sicut et cetera fere quae Christum sonant. Nec utique mirum hoc, si scripturas aliquas non receperunt de eo locutas quem et ipsum coram loquentem non erant recepturi. Eo accedit, quod Enoch apud Iudam apostolum testimonium possidet.
I know that the scripture of Enoch, which has given this order to the angels, is not received by some, because it is not admitted into the Jewish canon either. They did not think, I suppose, that a book published before the flood could have survived safe after that disaster of the world, which abolished all things. If that is the reason, let them remember that Noah, who survived the flood, was the great-grandson of Enoch himself, and had surely heard and remembered, by family name and hereditary tradition, about his great-grandfather's grace with God and all his preaching, since Enoch charged his son Methuselah with nothing else than to hand on knowledge of these things to his descendants. So without doubt Noah could have succeeded to the trust of the preaching, or at any rate would not have kept silent about the dispensation of God his preserver, nor about the glory of his own house. Even if he did not have this so readily, there is another thing that would defend the claim of that scripture: he could have formed it anew in the Spirit after it had been destroyed by the violence of the flood, just as, when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Babylonian conquest, it is agreed that every document of Jewish literature was restored through Ezra. But since Enoch in the same scripture preached also about the Lord, nothing at all that concerns us is to be rejected by us. And we read that every scripture fit for edification is divinely inspired. By the Jews it may now seem to have been rejected for that very reason, like almost everything else that speaks of Christ. Nor is this surprising, if they did not receive some scriptures that spoke of him whom they were not going to receive even when he spoke in their presence. Add to this that Enoch has a testimony in the apostle Jude.
Gen 5:21–29 (allusion, high confidence) · 2 Tim 3:16 (allusion, high confidence) · Jude 1:14–15 (allusion, high confidence)
Notes and citation
Summary: Tertullian defends the Book of Enoch as Scripture, though the Jews exclude it: Noah could have preserved or restored it, it speaks of Christ, and Jude quotes it.
- The allusions are Gen 5:21–29, 2 Tim 3:16, and Jude 14–15 (quoting 1 En. 1:9); Ezra's restoration of the Scriptures is told in 2 Esd 14:19–48. Tertullian's acceptance of 1 Enoch is his own view; the book is outside the Protestant canon and is treated here as an extrabiblical text.
Extrabiblical texts: 1 En. 1.9 (1 Enoch [in the ETH canon]; allusion); 2 Esd 14:19-48 (2 Esdras [in the ETH canon]; allusion)
Topics: Scripture and canon
Cite (SBL): Tertullian, Cult. fem. 1.3 (Oehler 1:705–706; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-cultu/1-1/#p-1-3).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-tertullian-cultu-1-3) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of Oehler 1; made independently of existing English translations.
1.4Oehler 1:706
Nulla nunc muliebri pompae nota inusta sit praedamnationis de exitu auctorum. Nihil angelis illis imputetur praeter repudium caeli et matrimonium carnis: rerum ipsarum qualitates examinemus, ut consilia quoque concupiscentiae earum deprehendamus. Habitus feminae duplicem speciem circumfert, cultum et ornatum. Cultum dicimus quem mundum muliebrem vocant, ornatum, quem immundum muliebrem convenit dici. Ille in auro et argento et gemmis et vestibus deputatur, iste in cura capilli et cutis et earum partium corporis quae oculos trahunt. Alteri ambitionis crimen intendimus, alteri prostitutionis: ut iam hinc prospicias, dei ancilla, quid ex his disciplinae tuae conveniat, quae de diversis institutis censearis, scilicet humilitatis et castitatis.
Let no mark of prior condemnation, derived from the fate of its authors, now be branded on women's finery. Let nothing be charged to those angels except their repudiation of heaven and their marriage of flesh: let us examine the qualities of the things themselves, so that we may detect also the purposes of the desire for them. A woman's appearance involves two kinds: dress and adornment. By dress we mean what they call “womanly finery”; by adornment what it is fitting to call “womanly unfinery.” The one is reckoned in gold and silver and gems and clothes; the other in the care of the hair and skin and of those parts of the body that attract the eyes. Against the one we bring the charge of ambition, against the other that of prostitution; so that already from this you may see, handmaid of God, which of these suits your discipline, since you are rated by different principles, namely those of humility and chastity.
Notes and citation
Summary: Tertullian distinguishes “dress” (gold, jewels, clothes), which shows ambition, from “adornment” (hair and skin), which invites lust.
- The wordplay is on mundus muliebris (“womanly finery,” a legal term for a woman's toilet articles) and immundus (“unclean”); “unfinery” imitates it.
Topics: Ethics
Cite (SBL): Tertullian, Cult. fem. 1.4 (Oehler 1:706; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-cultu/1-1/#p-1-4).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-tertullian-cultu-1-4) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of Oehler 1; made independently of existing English translations.
1.5Oehler 1:706–707
Aurum et argentum principes materiae cultus saecularis id sint necesse est unde sunt, terra scilicet, plane gloriosior, quoniam in maledictorum metallorum feralibus officinis poenali opera deplorata nomen terrae in igni reliquit, atque exinde de tormentis in ornamenta, de suppliciis in delicias, de ignominiis in honores metalli refuga mutatur. Sed et ferri et aeris et aliarum vilissimarum materiarum par conditio est, et terreni generis et metallici operis, quo nihilo generosior iudicari possit auri et argenti substantia penes naturam. Quod si de qualitate usus gloria est auro et argento, atquin magis ferro et aeri, quorum ita disposita est utensilitas, ut et proprias operas plures et necessariores exhibeant rebus humanis et nihilominus auri et argenti de suo vicem accommodent iustioribus causis. Nam et annuli ferro fiunt, quaedam esui et potui vascula ex aere adhuc servat memoria antiquitatis. Viderit, si etiam ad spurca instrumentis auri et argenti demens copia deservit. Certe nec ager auri opere paratur, nec navis argenti vigore contexitur. Nullum bidens aurum demergit in terram, nullus clavus argentum intimat tabulis. Taceo totius vitae necessitates ferro et aere innixas, cum ipsae illae divites materiae, et de metallis refodiendae et in quocunque usu procudendae, sine ferri et aeris operario vigore non possint. Iam igitur aestimandum est, unde obveniat tanta dignitas auro et argento, cum et consanguineis, quantum ad genus, et potioribus, quantum ad utensilitatem, materiis praeferantur.
Gold and silver, the chief materials of worldly dress, must be the same as that from which they come, namely earth; plainly more glorious earth, since, wept over with penal labor in the deadly workshops of accursed mines, it has left the name of earth in the fire, and thereafter the fugitive metal is changed from torments into ornaments, from punishments into delights, from disgraces into honors. But iron and bronze and other the cheapest materials have an equal condition, being of earthly kind and the work of mines, so that the substance of gold and silver can be judged no nobler in nature. But if gold and silver have glory from the quality of their use, iron and bronze have more, whose usefulness is so arranged that they both render more and more necessary services of their own to human affairs and nonetheless supply, on their own, the place of gold and silver for juster causes. For rings are made of iron, and the memory of antiquity still preserves certain small vessels of bronze for eating and drinking. Let it see to it if a mad abundance of gold and silver serves even filthy uses with its vessels. Certainly no field is prepared by the work of gold, nor is a ship put together by the strength of silver. No mattock sinks gold into the earth, no nail drives silver into planks. I say nothing of the necessities of all life resting on iron and bronze, when those rich materials themselves, both to be dug out of the mines and to be forged for any use, cannot do without the working strength of iron and bronze. We must now reckon, then, where such dignity comes to gold and silver, when they are preferred to materials both akin to them in kind and more powerful in usefulness.
Notes and citation
Summary: Gold and silver are only earth, mined by convicts, and less useful than iron and bronze; their prestige is baseless.
- Condemnation to the mines was a Roman penalty, often inflicted on Christians.
Notes on the original text
- Digital text corrected (word split in the digital text): mate riae → materiae; procuden dae → procudendae.
Topics: Ethics
Cite (SBL): Tertullian, Cult. fem. 1.5 (Oehler 1:706–707; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-cultu/1-1/#p-1-5).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-tertullian-cultu-1-5) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of Oehler 1; made independently of existing English translations.
1.6Oehler 1:707–709
Sed et lapillos istos, qui cum auro superbiam iungunt, quid aliud interpreter, nisi lapillos et calculos et eiusdem terrae minutalia, nec tamen aut fundamentis demandandis aut parietibus moliendis aut fastigiis sustinendis aut tectis densandis necessaria? Solum hunc mulierum stuporem aedificare noverunt, quia tarde teruntur ut niteant, et subdole substruuntur ut floreant, et anxie forantur ut pendeant, et auro lenocinium mutuum praestant. Sed si quid de mari Britannico aut Indico ambitio piscatur, conchae genus est, non dico conchylio aut ostreo, sed nec peloride gratius de sapore. Ad hoc enim conchas noverim maris poma. Quod si concha illa aliquid intrinsecus pustulat, vitium magis eius debet esse quam gloria. Et licet margaritum vocetur, tamen aliud intellegendum quam conchae illius aliqua dura et rotunda verruca. Aiunt et de frontibus draconum gemmas erui, sicut et in piscium cerebris lapidositas quaedam est. Hoc quoque deerat Christianae, ut de serpente cultior fiat. Sic calcabit diaboli caput, dum de capite eius cervicibus suis aut ipsi capiti ornamenta struit?
And these little stones too, which join their pride with gold, what else shall I call them but pebbles and stones and fragments of the same earth, yet not necessary for laying foundations or building walls or supporting gables or thickening roofs? The only thing they know how to build is this stupidity of women, since they are slowly rubbed to make them shine, cunningly set to make them bloom, anxiously bored to make them hang, and they lend gold a mutual allurement. But if ambition fishes anything from the British or Indian sea, it is a kind of shellfish, not, I say, pleasanter in taste than the purple-fish or the oyster, nor even than the giant mussel. For I know shellfish as fruits of the sea for this purpose. But if that shell pushes out a pimple inside, that ought to be its defect rather than its glory. And though it be called a pearl, it must be understood as nothing other than some hard, round wart of that shell. They say too that gems are dug from the foreheads of dragons, just as there is a certain stoniness in the brains of fish. This too the Christian woman lacked, to be made more elegant by a serpent! Is this how she will tread on the devil's head, while she builds ornaments from his head for her neck or for her very head?
Gen 3:15 (allusion, high confidence)
Notes and citation
Summary: Gems are mere pebbles and pearls a shellfish's wart; a Christian woman who wears a gem from a serpent's head cannot tread on the devil's head.
- The allusion is Gen 3:15. The belief that gems came from serpents' heads was current in ancient natural history (compare Pliny, Natural History 37.158).
Topics: Ethics
Cite (SBL): Tertullian, Cult. fem. 1.6 (Oehler 1:707–709; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-cultu/1-1/#p-1-6).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-tertullian-cultu-1-6) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of Oehler 1; made independently of existing English translations.
1.7Oehler 1:709–710
Haec omnia de raritate et peregrinitate sola gratiam possident. Denique intra terminos suos patrios non tanti habentur. Semper abundantia contumeliosa in semetipsam est. Apud barbaros quosdam, quia vernaculum est aurum et copiosum, auro vinctos in ergastulis habent, et divitiis malos onerant, tanto locupletiores, quanto nocentiores. Aliquando revera inventum est, quomodo et aurum non ametur. Gemmarum quoque nobilitatem vidimus Romae de fastidio Parthorum et Medorum ceterorumque gentilium suorum coram matronis erubescentem, nisi quod nec ad ostentationem fere habentur. Latent in cingulis smaragdi, et cylindros vaginae suae solus gladius sub sinu novit, et in peronibus uniones emergere de luto cupiunt. Nihil denique tam gemmatum habent, quam quod gemmatum esse non debet, si non comparet, aut ideo comparet, ut neglectum quoque ostendatur.
All these things have their charm only from rarity and foreignness. Indeed within their native borders they are not held in such esteem. Abundance is always insulting to itself. Among certain barbarians, because gold is native and plentiful, they keep men bound with gold in their workhouses, and load criminals with riches, the richer the guiltier. At last a way has really been found for gold not to be loved! We have also seen the nobility of gems at Rome blushing before the matrons at the disdain of the Parthians and Medes and the rest of their countrymen, except that they hardly wear them even for display. Emeralds lie hidden in their belts, and only the sword under the cloak knows the cylinders of its scabbard, and pearls on their boots long to emerge from the mud. In short, they have nothing so jeweled as what ought not to be jeweled, since it either does not show, or shows only so that it may be seen to be despised.
Notes and citation
Summary: Where gold and gems are common, as among barbarians and Parthians, they are despised; their value is only rarity.
Topics: Ethics
Cite (SBL): Tertullian, Cult. fem. 1.7 (Oehler 1:709–710; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-cultu/1-1/#p-1-7).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-tertullian-cultu-1-7) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of Oehler 1; made independently of existing English translations.
1.8Oehler 1:710–712
Perinde et vestium de coloribus honorem servi etiam eorum terunt. Sed et parietes Tyriis et hyacinthinis et illis regiis velis, quae vos operose resoluta transfiguratis, pro pictura abutuntur. Vilior est apud illos purpura quam rubrica. Quis enim est vestium honor iustus de adulterio colorum iniustorum? Non placet deo quod non ipse produxit. Nisi si non potuit purpureas et aerinas oves nasci iubere. Si potuit, ergo iam noluit; quod deus noluit, utique non licet fingi. Non ergo natura optima sunt ista quae a deo non sunt, auctore naturae. Sic a diabolo esse intelleguntur, ab interpolatore naturae. Alterius enim esse non possunt, si dei non sunt, quia aemuli sint necesse est, quae dei non sunt. Alius autem praeter diabolum et angelos eius aemulus dei non est. Ceterum si materiae ex deo sunt, non statim et huiusmodi fructus illarum in hominibus. Quaeritur et unde sint conchae, et qua dispositione decorent, et ubi speciem suam collocent. Nam et omnes istae profanae spectaculorum saecularium voluptates, sicut de illis suum volumen edidimus, ipsa etiam idololatria ex rebus dei constat. Non tamen ideo circi furoribus aut arenae atrocitatibus aut scenae turpitudinibus Christianum affici oportet, et quod et equum et pantheram et vocem homini deus dedit, sicut nec ideo idololatrian impune faciat Christianus, quia dei conditio est et tus et merum et ignis qui vescitur, et animalia quae victimae fiunt, cum et ipsa materia quae adoratur dei sit. Sic ergo et circa actum materiarum census a deo descendens propterea excusat, ut deo extraneum, ut reum scilicet gloriae saecularis?
In the same way, even their slaves wear out the honor of colored garments. Even walls are misused for painting with Tyrian and violet and those royal hangings which you laboriously unravel and transform. Among them purple is cheaper than red ochre. For what just honor is there in garments from the adultery of unjust colors? What God did not himself produce does not please him. Unless he could not order sheep to be born purple and sky-blue! If he could, then he did not will it; what God did not will surely must not be fashioned. So these things are not best by nature, since they are not from God, the author of nature. Thus they are understood to be from the devil, the corrupter of nature. For they cannot belong to another if they are not God's, since what is not God's must be a rival's. And there is no other rival of God except the devil and his angels. For the rest, if the materials are from God, it does not at once follow that such uses of them among men are too. One asks also where the shellfish come from, in what arrangement they adorn, and where they place their beauty. For all those profane pleasures of worldly spectacles too, as we have published a volume on them, and even idolatry itself, consist of things of God. Yet a Christian ought not on that account to be affected by the frenzies of the circus or the atrocities of the arena or the obscenities of the stage, because God gave the horse and the panther and the voice to man; just as a Christian may not commit idolatry with impunity because incense and wine and the fire that feeds on them, and the animals that become victims, are God's creation, since even the very material that is worshiped is God's. So then, in the use of materials, does their origin, coming down from God, excuse it, as if it were not foreign to God, that is, not guilty of worldly vainglory?
Notes and citation
Summary: Dyed cloth is an “adultery of colors” God did not make; that materials come from God no more justifies vanity than it justifies spectacles or idolatry.
- Tertullian refers to his own treatise On the Spectacles. The last sentence is difficult in the Latin and is translated tentatively; its sense is that God's creation of the materials does not excuse their misuse. The digital text's “a(??)rinas” is read as “aerinas” (“sky-blue”).
Notes on the original text
- Digital text corrected (uncertain character in the digital text): a(??)rinas → aerinas.
Extrabiblical texts: Tertullian, Spect. (On the Shows; allusion)
Topics: Ethics
Cite (SBL): Tertullian, Cult. fem. 1.8 (Oehler 1:710–712; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-cultu/1-1/#p-1-8).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-tertullian-cultu-1-8) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of Oehler 1; made independently of existing English translations.
1.9Oehler 1:712–713
Nam ut quaedam rerum per singulas quasque terras et unamquamque regionem maris a deo distributa sunt invicem sibi peregrina, apud exteros mutuo rara, apud suos iure, si utique, vel negleguntur vel appetuntur, quia non tantus est in illis gloriae fervor, inter domesticos frigidae. Sed enim ex possessionum distributione, quam deus ut voluit ordinavit, raritas et peregrinitas apud extraneos semper gratiam inveniens de simplici causa non habendi quae deus alibi collocavit concupiscentiam concitat habendi. Ex hac vitium aliud extenditur, immoderate habendi. Quod etsi forte habendum sit, modus tamen debetur. Haec erit ambitio, unde et nomen eius interpretandum est, quod concupiscentia apud animum ambiente nascatur ad gloriae votum, grande scilicet votum, quod, ut diximus, non natura, nec veritas, sed vitiosa animi passio concupiscentia commendavit. Et alia vitia ambitionis et gloriae. Sic et pretia rebus inflammavit, ut se quoque accenderet. Nam tanto maior fit concupiscentia, quanto magno fecit quod concupivit. De brevissimis loculis patrimonium grande profertur. Uno lino decies sestertium inseritur. Saltus et insulas tenera cervix circumfert. Graciles aurium cutes kalendarium expendunt, et sinistra per singulos digitos de saccis singulis ludit. Hae sunt vires ambitionis, tantarum substantiarum usuram uno et muliebri corpusculo baiulare.
For as certain things have been distributed by God through the various lands and each region of the sea, foreign to one another, rare to outsiders in turn, while among their own people they are rightly either neglected or sought, if at all, because there is no such heat of vainglory for them among those at home, for whom they are cold: so, from the distribution of possessions which God has ordered as he willed, rarity and foreignness, always finding favor among outsiders, stir up, from the simple cause of not having what God placed elsewhere, the desire of having. From this another vice spreads, that of having immoderately. Even if something must perhaps be had, yet a measure is due. This will be ambition, from which its very name is to be interpreted, because desire is born in a mind that goes round about (ambiens) toward the wish for glory; a great wish, of course, which, as we have said, not nature nor truth but desire, a vicious passion of the mind, has commended. And there are other vices of ambition and vainglory. So it has inflamed the prices of things, so as to set itself on fire as well. For desire grows greater the more it has made great what it desires. A great patrimony is brought out of the tiniest little box. A million sesterces is strung on a single thread. A tender neck carries round forests and islands. The thin lobes of the ears spend a ledger of loans, and the left hand plays away a sack of money on each finger. These are the strengths of ambition: to carry on one small woman's body the use of such great fortunes.
Notes and citation
Summary: Rarity breeds covetousness and ambition, which inflate prices until a woman wears estates and fortunes on her neck, ears, and fingers.
- The etymology of ambitio from ambire (“to go round”) is Tertullian's. “Kalendarium” is a register of loans due on the Kalends, i.e. a fortune in interest-bearing capital.
Topics: Ethics
Cite (SBL): Tertullian, Cult. fem. 1.9 (Oehler 1:712–713; trans. Sophia Scriptura, https://sophiascriptura.com/fathers/tertullian-cultu/1-1/#p-1-9).
BibTeX · RIS (whole work; this passage's key: sophiascriptura-tertullian-cultu-1-9) · Report an error
Translation: Translated by Claude from the Latin text of Oehler 1; made independently of existing English translations.