¹ Texts and editions: Smith, T. (trans.), Pseudo-Clementine LiteratureGoogle Scholar, reprinted in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, viii (Grand Rapids, 1978)Google Scholar; Rehm, B., Die Pseudoklementinen, i: Homilien, (Berlin/Leipzig, 1969)Google Scholar; Die Pseudoklementinen, ii: Rekognitionen (Berlin, 1965)Google Scholar. Studies of origins include: Salmon, G., ‘Clementine Literature’Google Scholar in Smith, W. and Wace, H., Dictionary of Christian Biography, i (London, 1987), pp. 566–78Google Scholar; Waitz, H., Die Pseudoklementinen, Homilien und Rekognitionen. Eine Quellenkritische Untersuchung (Leipzig, 1906)Google Scholar; Cullmann, O., Le problème littéraire et historique du roman pseudo-clémentin (Paris, 1930)Google Scholar; Rehm, B., ‘Zur Entstehung der pseudoclementinischen Schriften’, ZNTW 37 (1938), 77–184CrossRefGoogle Scholar. A recent review of scholarship is Jones, F. S., ‘The Pseudo-Clementina: A History of Research’, Second Century 2 (1982), 1–34 and 63–96Google Scholar. I have, however, cited a number of works here which do not appear in these articles, and have preferred not to speak of ‘Pseudo-Clementin’ literature: we do not ascribe the Republic to ‘Pseudo-Socrates’ or the Satyricon to ‘Pseudo-Encolpius’, and the fact that later readers took these novels for Clement's own work does not mean that the first-person voice was used with intent to deceive.

² Reardon, B. P., Collected Ancient Greek Novels (Berkeley, 1989), p. 3Google Scholar, concedes the omission.

³ Perry, B. E., The Ancient Romances (Berkeley, 1967) pp. 285–93Google Scholar; T, Hägg, The Novel in Antiquity (Oxford, 1983), pp. 154–65.Google Scholar

⁴ The floruit of Rufinus, the translator of the Recognitions, is about A.d. 380. His preface to Gaudentius shows that two versions, the Recognitions and the Homilies, were already extant in Greek.

⁵ The following is a digest of the chief narrative passages in both the novels. In parenthetic reference an R. denotes the Recognitions, an H. the Homilies. I have used the Greek form of the name Nicetes and the Latin form of Aquila. See further n. 19.

⁶ For the Book of the Laws of Countries see the translation by Drijvers, H. J. W. (Assen, 1956)Google Scholar, and for discussion of the relation to the work On Fate, which is mentioned by Eusebius, , see the same author's Bardesanes of Edessa (Amsterdam, 1966), pp. 60–75Google Scholar. Drijvers maintains that one work is in question, as does Rehm, B., ‘Bardesanes in den Pseudo-Clementinen’, Philologus 93 (1938), 218–47Google Scholar. Rehm argues that the Book of the Laws of Countries is an expanded version, incorporating additions by Bardesanes' pupil Philip, while the Recognitions preserves an earlier and shorter form. It seems to me that his arguments on pp. 232–3 are too quick to discount the capacity of the Clementine editor to omit the passages which did not conduce to his purpose. On the astrological learning of Bardesanes see Schoeps, H. J., ‘Astrologisches im pseudo-klementinischen Roman’, Vigiliae Christianae 5 (1951), 88–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁷ See e.g. Quispel, G., ‘L'Evangile selon Thomas et les Clementins’, Vigiliae Christianae 12 (1958), 181–96Google Scholar. For the view that the works originated among the Elchasaites see Salmon (1876). This hypothesis has received support from the Cologne Mani Codex, which reveals that the Mani was reared among the Elchasaites, and believed himself the latest in a succession of prophets dating back to Adam. The Manichaeans, like Peter in the Clementina, held that God was an extended body, although his substance was a form of light (cf. Homilies 17.8–10). Rehm (1938), 152–3Google Scholar, maintains that another Jewish Christian sect, the Ebionites, was largely responsible for the theology of these writings, and is followed by Hennecke, E. and Schneemelcher, W., New Testament Apocrypha, ii (trans. McL. Wilson, R., London, 1964), pp. 533–4.Google Scholar

On Jewish Christianity see Daniélou, J., The Theology of Jewish Christianity (London, 1964)Google Scholar and Klijn, A. F. J. and Reinink, G. J., Patristic Evidence for Jewish Christian Sects (Leiden, 1973)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The term is not deprived of its utility by the fact that it denotes neither a sect nor a school, though the latter point is well made by Taylor, J. E., ‘The Phenomenon of Jewish Christianity: Reality or Scholarly Invention?’, Vigiliae Christianae 44 (1990), 313–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁸ For discussion see Salles, A., ‘Simon le Mage ou Marcion?’, Vigiliae Christianae 12 (1958), 197–214Google Scholar. The fact that Simon resembles Marcion only in some of his cardinal tenets hardly proves that the latter is not the object of the polemic, but it seems reasonable to conjecture that, since Simon was reckoned the father of all the heresies (Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 1.23.2), the novels are intended to annihilate many foes with a single weapon. If, as Salles argues, the heresiarchs would not have acknowledged Peter as an authoritative figure, we must conclude that the novels are aimed at those who did.

⁹ E.g. van Amersfoot, J., ‘Traces of an Alexandrian Orphic Cosmogony in the Pseudo-Clementines’, in Vermaseren, M. J. (ed.), Studies in Gnosticism and Hellenistic Religion (Leiden, 1981), pp. 13–30Google Scholar. Eusebius, HE 3.38.5 employs the form Apion. He seems to make Peter the other participant in the dialogue, but this may be a lapse; it is clear that he did not have a high esteem for the Clementina, and he may therefore not have recalled their contents very accurately.

¹⁰ See Origen, Contra Celsum 6.42 and the discussion in Fédou, M., Christianisme et religions païennes dans le Contre Celse d'Origène (Paris, 1988), pp. 116–39.Google Scholar

¹¹ Rehm (ZNTW, 1938) distinguishes: (a) a narrative Grundschrift; (b) the dispute with Appion; (c) Peter's preaching in Tripolis; (d) his preaching in Laodicea; (e) the contest with Simon. A second-century work called the Preaching of Peter is attested: see Hennecke and Schneemelcher (1964), pp. 94–102. Portions of the Clementina are translated on pp. 102–28 of this collection under the title Kerygmata Petrou Cf. also Eusebius, HE 3.3, which mentions four apocryphal works purporting to contain the preaching of Peter.

¹² It is difficult to imagine any reason for the prominence of Clement in early Christian literature than his elevation to the see of Rome, from which he wrote his epistle to the Corinthians. The omission of any reference to his destiny (or Peter's) in the Clementina is therefore remarkable, and not the less so because, being said to be of the family of Caesar, he seems to have been taken for the executed dignitary of Domitian's household, Titus Flavius Clemens. No account of Clement's place in history and legend has superseded Lightfoot, J. B., The Apostolic Fathers, i. Pt 1 (London, 1890), pp. 14–103.Google Scholar

¹³ So Perry (1967). Both novels turn on the separation of relatives, but the plots are so dissimilar as to suggest that the Historia Apollonii is at most an inspiration, not a source. On the evolution of the Historia Apollonii see the introduction to the edition of Kortekaas, G. A A. (Gröningen, 1984).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Eusebius, HE 3.36.2. For the tradition of Peter's preaching in the Asiatic provinces see ibid. 3.1.

¹⁵ On the independence of Antioch, both in politics and in theology, see e.g. Millar, F., ‘Paul of Samosata, Zenobia and Aurelian: the Church, Local Culture and Political Allegiance in Third-Century Syria’, JRS 61 (1971), 1–17Google Scholar; Frend, W. H. C., The Rise of Christianity (London, 1984), pp. 385–7.Google Scholar

¹⁶ See for Simon's feats Justin, I Apol 26; for his fatal match with Peter see Hippolytus, Refutatio 6.19, the Acts of Peter and Paul and Eusebius, HE 2.14.

¹⁷ Perry (1967). The most celebrated parallel would be the Menaechmi of Plautus.

¹⁸ See 2 Timothy 3.8, and for allusions to the pair in pagan authors Numenius Frr, 9 and 10a Des Places. Jannes and Jambres are associated with Balaam (a mightier figure, comparable to Simon) in Targum Yerushalmi to Numbers 22.22.

¹⁹ The father is called Faustinianus in the Recognitions, but it seems more natural to follow the Homilies in allotting to him the shortest name, and its derivatives to his sons.

²⁰ ‘Nicetes’ has been a hearer of the Epicureans, ‘Aquila’ of the Pyrrhonists. Rehm (ZNTW, 1938), 128–34 observes that the attack on the mythographers which is conducted by Nicetes in the Recognitions is the passage that matches Clement's discourse against Appion in the Homilies.

²¹ The name Justa, given to the woman who reared the infant twins at Recognitions 7.32 and Homilies 2.19, would seem to be another that is significant to those who understand Latin.

²² See e.g. the quotations of Homer by the Valentinians (Irenaeus, Adversus Haereses 1.9.4) and in the Exegesis on the Soul (Nag Hammadi Codices 2.6).

²³ Especially the Orphic lore, which appears as Frr. 55–6 Kern (see n. 30). On Orphic literature and Christian heterodoxy see Edwards, M. J., ‘Gnostic Eros and Orphic Themes’, ZPE 88 (1991), 25–40.Google Scholar

²⁴ For the name Aradus see Recognitions 7.12; at Homilies 12.1 it appears as Antaradus. The imprisonment of Callirhoe in Aradus is described by Chariton at 7.4.13, and her deliverance by Chaereas occupies the narrative up to 8.5.

²⁵ See the Suda, under Achilles Tatius; for Hippolytus, Socrates, Historia Ecclesiastica 5.22. It need hardly be said that neither identification is secure.

²⁶ Hikichi, M., ‘Eros and Tyche in Achilles Tatius’, JCS 13 (1965), 116–26Google Scholar, is one of the few studies on this subject. Since certain points require emphasis for the purpose of this essay, I have collected all my evidence (including that in Achilles Tatius) directly from the texts.

²⁷ See Plato, Rep. 413b; Plotinus, Enneads 2.9.13.7; Numenius Fr. 21.6 Des Places. For studies on the opposition of Platonists to tragic fatalism see Halliwell, S., ‘Plato and Aristotle on the Denial of Tragedy’, PCPS 30 (1984), 49–71Google Scholar; Edwards, M. J., ‘Aidös in Plotinus’, CQ 39 (1989), 228–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar. On the use of terms from the stage in the Greek novelists see Walden, J. W. H., ‘Stage-terms in Heliodorus' Aethiopica', HSCP 5 (1894), 1–43Google Scholar; Bartsch, S., Decoding the Ancient Novel (Princeton, 1989), pp. 109–43.Google Scholar

²⁸ De Platone 12; Dillon, J., The Middle Platonists (London, 1977), pp. 320–6.Google Scholar

²⁹ A critical text of these can be found in Kern, O., Orphicorum Fragmenta (Berlin, 1922), pp. 132–7Google Scholar (= Frr. 55 and 56).

³⁰ See e.g. Bartsch (1989); Sandy, G. N., Heliodorus (Boston, Mass., 1982), pp. 33–74.Google Scholar

³¹ See Winkler, J. J., Auctor & Actor (Berkeley, 1988), pp. 135–79Google Scholar; Laird, A., ‘Person, Persona and Representation in Apuleius' Metamorphoses’, Materiali e Discussioni 25 (1990), 129–64Google Scholar. Laird maintains, perhaps with an excess of ingenuity, that there is no lacuna (or rather an artificial one) at [Lucian] Onos 55 (p. 337.4 Jacobitz), so that the name of the narrator remains unspoken.

³² See Bartsch (1989), pp. 80–108. At Homilies 17.17 it is asserted that the wicked sometimes have veracious dreams.

³³ Longus, , Daphnis and Chloe 1.1Google Scholar; Achilles Tatius 1.1–2. On the role of the mimetic arts in Longus see Zeitlin, F., ‘The Poetics of Eros: Nature, Art and Imitation in Longus’, in Halperin, D. M., Winkler, J. J. and Zeitlin, F. I. (eds.), Before Sexuality (Princeton, 1990), pp. 417–64.Google Scholar

³⁴ On the use of Hellenistic figures in Longus see Bowie, E. L., ‘Theocritus' Seventh Idyll, Philetas and Longus', CQ 35 (1985), 67–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁵ See for the phallus Fr. 80 Kern. On the character of Phanes see Guthrie, W. K. C., Orpheus and Greek Religion (London, 1935), pp. 95–102Google Scholar. If the Clementina could be securely dated to the second century, they would afford the earliest attestation of the name, but the character is much older.

³⁶ See Reardon (1989), p. 177.

³⁷ Thus Clitophon at 2.36 appropriates the distinction between the Uranian and the Pandemic Aphrodite, but it is only in Apuleius, Metamorpheses 4.28, that this commonplace has been thought to foreshadow an allegory which challenges the profundity and beauty of the Platonic original.

³⁸ I have discussed this relation in my ‘Locus Horridus and Locus Amoenus’, in Whitby, L. M. et al. . (eds.), Homo Viator: Classical Essays for John Bramble (Bristol, 1987), pp. 267–76Google Scholar. The sea shore is more frequently a scene of lamentation than of deliverance in pagan writing: see e.g. Iliad 1.348f; Odyssey 5.151–3; Theocritus, Idyll 9.17f.

³⁹ See e.g. Plotinus, Enneads 4.4.40; Porphyry, Vita Plotini 10; Zosimus Panopolitanus, Treatise on the Omega 7.

⁴⁰ For consultation of Thessalian witches see e.g. Propertius 1.1.19ff., and for a witch in love any telling of the story of Medea.

⁴¹ A Simonian (or Pseudo-Simonian) text interpreting the treachery of Helen on the night of the sack of Troy was current in the fourth century A.d. See Epiphanius, Panarion 21.3.

⁴² The argument for the immortality of the soul at Homilies 2.29 is followed by Simon's admission that he conjured, not a human soul, but a daemon (2.30–1). See further Rehm (ZNTW, 1938), 130.

⁴³ I am grateful to the referees of Classical Quarterly for comments on an earlier version of this article.