the source of citations from Greek pagan authors. Having no medieval heri-
tage, Clement, in contrast to Basil, was rediscovered only late on in the
Renaissance. His doctrine proved difficult to integrate into theological debates
and controversies of the period. Thefigure of the Gnostic particularly was
highly ambivalent and could be interpreted to mean either the good Christian
in the accepted sense of the term, or one of the pure on earth, endowed with
a secret knowledge of God. As for the rest of his teaching, Catholic and
Protestant theologians alike tended to pick out this or that aspect of it
according to their specific preoccupations. Thefirst edition of his works
came out during the Tridentine period of the Reformation when confessional
positions were hardening. However, in contrast with other ante-Nicene fathers
such as Irenaeus, Tertullian, or Cyprian—whom both Catholics and Protest-
ants tried to reclaim as‘their own’—the theological reception of Clement
was diffident.
How then was Clement read in the sixteenth century? In keeping with his
rather clandestine reputation, Clement was one of the very rare Greek fathers
who was published in Greek before he was published in Latin. He thus stands in
sharp contrast with the Cappadocians such as Basil of Caesarea or Gregory of
Nazianzus, and in even sharper contrast with Chrysostom, who was not printed
in Greek until Henry Savile’s edition of 1610–13. Thefirst Latin edition of
Clement’s works came out a year after theeditio princeps, in 1551, in Florence.^44
The translator was Gentien Hervet, the well-known post-Tridentine Roman
Catholic controversialist and translator of Aristotle and several Greek fathers.
By the time he produced the translation, Hervet had left the service of Cardinal
Pole and joined that of the Cardinal Marcello Cervini, who was a member of the
Roman curia. Cervini was favourable to learning and extremely keen to imple-
ment the Tridentine decrees, especially those to do with eliminating corruption
among the higher clergy. While Hervet was naturally a supporter of the
Tridentine decrees, he was also, in common with all Roman Catholic translators
and editors active in that period,^45 concerned with purifying the fathers for the
use of the church and with showing that their writings foreshadowed the Roman
Catholic hierarchy as against the ideas of the Reformation.^46
Clement apparently proved resistant to this treatment, because Hervet’s
preface praises mostly the latter’s reformism and his humanist concern with
making ancient authors available for the greater public good. Clement’s use
in confessional struggles or his theological significance is adverted to only
briefly. In fact, as we shall, see Clement proves something of a theological
(^44) Gentien Hervet (ed.),Clementis Alexandrini omnia quae quidem extant opera nunc
primum e tenebris eruta latinitateque donata, Gentiano Herueto Aurelio interprete, Laurentius
Torentinus ducalis typographus excudebat(Florence, 1551). As he explains (fol. A2v), he bases
his edition on theeditio princepsof Pietro Vettori which had appeared in 1550.
(^45) See Backus,Historical Method, 130–79.
(^46) On Gentien Hervet, see, e.g., A. Duval,‘Hervet’,Catholicisme5 (1963), 693–7.
50 Irena Backus