Note on Hermas and Cebes - a reply

ar (eX) TAYLOR NOTE ON HERMAS AND CEBES—A REPLY. Ga À 95 3. Of the Pastor and the Tabula it is said in the Reply, without explanation, that “no two works could well be more unlike” (p. 88). There may be, as I have written, an “essential difference” between them (p. 38), but this does not preclude rew.- San se e Le > + o semblance and organic relationship. The comparatively lengthy Pastor covers more ground than the Tabula, but this and parts LI 4 NOTE ON HERMAS AND CEBES—A of the Pastor have marked features in common, and their REPLY. affinities have to be accounted for. 2. foregoing Reply (pp. 87—9 3) to the article Hermas a Jebes in vol. XXVII. 276—319 is usefu l as calling attention to things in it liable to misco nstruction, whether for want of further explanation or for any othe r reason. 1, To begin with a remark which h i relation of the Pastor to the Tabula, ths niet of he discovery of the close connexion between them is said to b ag secret which is revealed to us at the end” (p. 87) The reader might fairly accept this statement abou t er dr le a matter as not likely to be inexact. But if he shonl d proceed da verify it he will read at the end of vol. xxVIL. “the discover referred to at the beginning of this article is Dr J M. COTTERILL.” Then in the first paragraph (p. 276) he will find the information that the name “ will be given” at the end of the article, viz. on page 319. Ina passage on Mand. i. speciall mes ir in the Reply (p. 89) the initials marent Er 2. J. M. C. (p. 299) of the short summary in terms of the That the Pastor is “constructed the Tabula " (p. 88) is a statemen on the same lines as t into which the Repl reads something very different from what was meant le Th traditional way of quoting the parts of Hermae Pastor being retained, it was pointed out that “ Prop erly speaking ” the so-called Vis. y. belongs to the “Book of the Shepherd” Vis. i—iv. standing apart as an introduction in which the Shepherd does not appear. Traces of the introductory part of the Tabula are then pointed out in Vis. i—iv and it is that this is the corresponding part of the Pastor à nme Patristic writers bring together all manner of forms of the Two Ways. Justin Martyr (quoted in vol. xxI. 245) quotes Xenophon as saying that Hercules at the parting of the ways found riv re "Aperny «al Tir Kaxiav Ev yuvaióv popdais paivouévas xt. His contemporary “ Hermas”, I should say, and “Cebes” before him used the same story as material for their allegories, both replacing Virtue and Vice by a multitude of particular virtues aud vices personified. Hermas in Sim. ix. has twelve Christian graces and their opposites, the four Suvatwrepar in the latter dodecad being 'Arıcria, 'Axpacía, 'Arreídera, "Ardrn. To this group correspond iu the Tabula 'Axpacía, "Acwria, AmAnoria, Kohaxeia, and "Ardrty plays a leading part elsewhere therein. The two writings having this peculiar dramatic element in common, the question naturally arises whether they are independent; and a careful comparison of them seems to me to shew that Hermas, like Lucian in two places (p. 24), imitated Cebes. 4, Of Hermas it is said, “there is no denying that he is a clear writer” (p. 92). Certainly much of the Pastor is plain teaching; but it also, as is well known, contains some enigmas, and in places its imagery is anything but transparent and natural. For example, of the miam and entrance by it Hermas says in Sim. ix. 2—4, 12, according to Dr Harmer's rendering, “ Now this rock was ancient, and had a gate hewn out of it... around the gate stood twelve virgins... Aud I saw six men come... and they summoned a multitude of men... And the six men ordered them to build a tower above the gate... Now the virgins had spread out their hands, as if they would take sume-

NOTE HERMAS AND CEBES—A REPLY. The foregoing Reply (pp. 87—93) to the article Hermas and Cebes in vol. XXVII. 276—319 is useful as calling attention to things in it lable to misconstruction, whether for want of further explanation or for any other reason. 1, To begin with a remark which has no bearing on the relation of the Pastor to the Tabula, the authorship of the discovery of the close connexion between them is said to be “a secret which is revealed to us at the end” (p. 87). reader might fairly accept this statement about so matter as not likely to be inexact. The simple a But if he should proceed to verify it he will read at the end of vol. xxVII., “the discoverer referred to COTTERILL.” at the beginning of this article is Dr J. M. Then in the first paragraph (p. 276) he will find the information that the name “will be given” at the end of the article, viz. on page 319. Ina passage on Mand. 1. specially referred to in the Reply (p. 89) the initials J. M. C. (p. 292) indicate the authorship of the short summary in terms of the pudoroyia of Cebes. 2. That the Pastor is “constructed on the same lines as the Tabula” (p. 88) 1s a statement into which the Reply reads something very different from what was meant by it. The traditional way of quoting the parts of Hermae Pastor being retained, it was pointed out that “ Properly speaking” the so-called Vis. v. belongs to the “Book of the Shepherd”, Vis. i.—iv. standing apart as an introduction in which Shepherd does not appear. the Traces of the introductory part of the Tabula are then pointed out in Vis. 1.—ıv., and it is noted that this is the corresponding part of the Pastor.

NOTE AND CEBES-A REPLY. 95 Of the Pastor and the Tabula it is said in the Reply, without explanation, that “no two works could well be more unlike” (p. 88). There may be, as I have written, an “ essential difference” between them (p. 38), but this does not preclude resemblance and organic relationship. The comparatively lengthy Pastor covers more ground than the Tabula, but this and parts of the Pastor have marked features in common, and their affinities have to be accounted for. Patristic writers bring together all manner of forms the Two Ways. of Justin Martyr (quoted in vol. xx1. 245) quotes Xenophon as saying that Hercules at the parting of the ways found tiv re 'Aperyv cat tHv Kaxiav Ev quvare®v popdpaîs paivouévas x.T.A. His contemporary “ Hermas”, I should say, and “Cebes” before him used the same story as material for their allegories, both replacing Virtue and Vice by a multitude of particular virtues and vices personified. Hermas in Sim. ix. has opposites, twelve Christian graces aud their the four övvarwrepaı in the latter dodecad being "Arıoria, ‘Akpaoia, Areidera, 'Amarn. To this group correspond in the Tabula Akpacia, Acwria, Amdnotia, KoXakeia, and 'Ararn plays a leading part elsewhere therein. The two writings having this peculiar dramatic element in common, the question naturally arises whether they are independent; and a careful comparison of them seems to me to shew that Hermas, like Lucian in two places (p. 24), imitated Cebes. 4. Of Hermas it is said, “there is no denying that he is a clear writer” (p. 92). Certainly much of the Pastor is plain teaching; but it also, as is well known, contains some enigmas, and in places its imagery is anything but transparent and natural. For example, of the run and entrance by it Hermas says in Sim. ix. 2—4, 12, according to Dr Harmer’s rendering, “ Now this rock was ancient, and had a gate hewn out of it... around the gate stood twelve virgins... And I saw six men come,... and they summoned a multitude of men... And the six men ordered them to build a tower above the gate... Now the virgins had spread out their hands, as if they would take some-

thing from the men... And the six men called to the virgins, and ordered them to carry all the stones which should go unto the building of the tower, and to pass through the gate and to hand them to the men that were about to build the tower... For if, [say they,] they be not carried in through the gate by the hands of these virgins, they cannot change their colours. Labour not therefore, [say they,] in vain... This rock, saith he, and gate is the Son of God... Thus, saith he, no one shall enter into the kingdom of God, except he receive the name of His Son. For if thou wishest to enter into any city,... canst thou enter into that city except through the gate which it hath ?” It is not according to nature that the fitness of stones for a building should depend upon their being carried by any person or persons through a gate; nor is men’s entrance into a city “through the gate which it hath” a complete parallel to the conveyance of stones for a tower through a preexistent gate over which it is going to be built. Something simpler must underlie such symbolism. Its incongruities are accounted for by the supposition that Hermas began with the gate of life (Bios) according to Cebes, made the gate stand for the Son of God, and converted the crowd at the gate into stones for the tower (Matt. iii. 9, 1 Pet. ii. 4—5). His use of Cebetis Tabula is then confirmed by verbal coincidences, such as those pointed out in vol. XXVI. 293. My words introduced on page 90 with the remark, “Yet even this feat &c.”, seem to me to express well enough what I meant, which is simply, Given that Hermas was turning the Iliva& into a picture of Christian life, it was natural that he should use Cw) from the New Testament instead of Bios, cf. “strait is the gate and narrow is the way which leadeth eis rnv Siwy.” 5. ww The article Hermas and Cebes is a set of notes on things as they occur in the Iliva&, and not in order of their importance. The Reply follows it a little way “seriatim ” and indiscriminately, but does not rightly represent what I wrote. About words common to Hermas and Cebes I of course do not make the assumption with which I am credited (p. 90). Some

NOTE ON HERMAS AND CEBES—A REPLY. 97 verbal coincidences are merely noted and left to the judgment of the reader. When I conclude that Hermas borrowed from Cebes, there is some reason for it, although it may not be explicitly stated. In vol. xxvit. 294 I wrote, c. 98, 233 aAndıvn odos] Vis. 111. 7. 1 abiovaıv Tr odov avrav THY aAndıvnv, not intending at the time to say anything more on the point. To some readers this use of dandy by the two writers may seem quite unimportant. Commentators however have been struck by the phrase 080 dAin0ivnv in the Pastor and have done their best to illustrate it, but with only partial success (p. 34) The exact parallel in the IlivaË is therefore of some significance, and I think it a tenable and probably right view that Hermas took the phrase “true way” from Cebes. One of the characters common to the Pastor and the Tabula is Eyxpareca. In the Tabula ’Eyxparea and Kaprepia make signs to the ascending pilgrims, and descend and drag them up the steepest part of the way. In the Pustor the virgins, including ’Eryrparea, receive the stones, which represent the climbers of Cebes, and carry them up to the tower. The actions are not altogether different, but as nearly as was possible identical. Compare the versions of this in vol. xxVII. 303, 305 and the Reply (p. 92). I conclude that here, as elsewhere, Hermas is under obligation to Cebes. On the free handling of famous writings by imitators and adapters see the words of Tertullian quoted on page 24. Hermas has been thought to be a very simple, not to say senseless writer; but I have long thought that he had more knowledge and literary skill than he is commonly imagined to have had. 6. Hermas and Cebes presupposes investigations by which the hypothesis that Hermas used the Tabula had been already arrived at. a The chair and the bench (p. 88) were discussed in paper read before the article was written, and sufficient reason (I think) was given for taking the chair to be tripodal.

The argument for an allusion to the Tabula in the Onpiov pérycoror of Hermas does not rest upon or begin with the word mooBarrev (p. 89). Chap. xxII. f. of Cebes on the crowning of those who have prevailed in or over Tovs peyiotous aywvas and ra ueyıora Onpia would have been noticed by Hermas, and reproduced he is supposed variations. As an symbolism to have it with necessary See page 31 and vol. XXVII. 284, 290, 310. instance of the of necessary round stones variation in the take Pastor, also the which 1s accounted for by the Tabula, but, so far as I know, had not been explained by any commentator. See vol. XXVIL 278, 282, 294. Adopting again a method which I had found useful on former occasions, I followed the order of the earlier work in comparing it with the later, and aimed first of all at completeness in the comparison. This involved the inclusion of some things of doubtful validity or minor importance, on which the reader might wrongly suppose that stress was laid. An advantage of the method is that it detects hidden coincidences, and thereby explains the later work by the earlier. For another example of this see Sim. vi. of Hermas, in which the story of ’Avarn and Tiuwpia is found to reappear (XXVII. 294, 297), with sheep for men. C. TAYLOR.