embarrassment precisely because of his concept of Gnosis and the Gnostic. To
Hervet, he is Cervini’s spiritual ancestor: a monument to ancient learning and to
clerical mores. Hervet also sees Clement as useful to the educated public and
to the clergy. As I said, Hervet cannot focus on the central issue of the Gnostic as
one endowed with special knowledge because this would contradict the very aim
of the Counter-Reformation, which is to have as wide an appeal as possible. The
best solution to the problem is to gloss over the question of the Gnostic in the
translation and to present Clement as the most erudite, and therefore one of
the most useful, of early Christian authors. Hervet obviously feels, however, that,
unlike the other ante-Nicene authors, Clement requires guarantors in the post-
Nicene church before he can become respectable. Although hefinds no explicit
theological guarantors, Hervet comes up with some recommendations of Clem-
ent’s usefulness to lay and clerical readers. Referring in passing to the testi-
monies of Eusebius, Theodoret, Jerome, and others, he focuses on Cyril of
Alexandria, who commends Clement as ‘a man who was eloquent and
most learned and who investigated the depths of Greek writings with care and
enthusiasm such as can be rivalled by very few of those who wrote before him’.^47
Indeed, according to Hervet, Clement will provide an inexhaustible source
of knowledge to those interested in Greek histories. He will also interest those
who like Greek poetry because he cites several poets whose works have
perished. Those who want to know about pagan rituals and sacrifices will
find him so accurate as to leave no doubt about Christianity being the only
credible religion. Those who are interested in philosophy willfind that he
knows all the philosophical schools, and they will be able to take it on his
authority that Christian philosophy is truly inspired and promulgated by God,
whatever the sceptics may say. In a word, Clement can be put to a variety of
intellectual and cultural uses, all of them non-theological. Discouraged by the
embarrassing notion of the Gnostic, Hervet makes only a very brief mention of
Clement’s theological and ecclesiastical usefulness: the Alexandrian, according
to him, explains and refutes all the heresies of the early church which have
resurfaced, including Lutheranism. He also has a great deal to say about ethical
norms, so that those who try to institute a reform of the clergy will pray that
the Holy Spirit who inspired Clement, a simple priest, to such heights of virtue
would similarly inspire sixteenth-century Catholic bishops.^48
Hervet’sfirst translation contained a large number of misreadings of
the original, not to mention straightforward errors. The Protestant, classical
scholar Friedrich Sylburg was quick to point this out in his 1592 bilingual
edition, which, like most of his editorial enterprises, contained only a philo-
logical apparatus. However, even before the appearance of Sylburg’s edi-
tion, Hervet was hard at work revising his 1551 translation and adding a
(^47) Hervet (ed.),Clementis Alexandrini omnia(1551), fol. A2.
(^48) Hervet (ed.),Clementis Alexandrini omnia(1551), fol. A2v.
The Church Fathers and the Humanities 51