commentary on Clement’s text. The new Latin edition was published posthu-
mously by his nephew, Simon Hervet, who was a medical doctor. It was he
who edited Hervet’s manuscript with the help of the Jesuit scholar Fronton du
Duc, who abridged Hervet’s voluminous paraphrase in a rather cavalier
fashion.^49 Be that as it may, the paraphrase sheds no light on Clement’s
specificity or on aspects of his doctrine that might be questionable. Hervet
does, however, emphasize the philosophical bent of his works more strongly
than in thefirst edition. In fact, his main contribution is to add further
classical examples to those cited by Clement, showing that most pagan authors
foreshadowed Christian thought.
This portrayal of Clement as an encyclopaedic exemplar and a fund of
knowledge about pagan civilization, which was in perfect continuity with
Christianity, did not improve the father’s theological status. Despite the
popularity of Hervet’s editions, both Protestant and Catholic authors were
reluctant to make use of him in their theological writings. He was cited
sparingly, if at all. However, from the 1550s up until the early seventeenth
century we see some interest in assessing Clement among both Roman
Catholic and Protestant theologians. This results in him either being forced
into a position of anauctoritas, in which he is inevitably found wanting, or
simply being used as a source of citations andexemplafrom antiquity, more
suitable for lay than for theological use.
I shall now discuss two of the more characteristic ways Clement was used by
both Catholics and Protestants. Of Catholic authors who took an interest in him,
one Jesuit controversialist, the cardinal Bellarmine, is particularly worth singling
out as one who tries unsuccessfully to force Clement into a theological framework.
In Bellarmine’sControversies of the Christian Faith^50 ‘the teacher of Origen’,
as he calls Clement, is an authority like any other. The cardinal obviouslyfinds
him to be important as an ante-Nicene father, but uses him sparingly and does
not hesitate to draw the reader’s attention to what he considers Clement’s
doctrinal aberrations. This does not stop him, however, from making an
attempt to get Clement involved in characteristic Reformation controversies.
The best examples of this are his chapters on the papacy, on the mediatorship
of Christ, and on Christ’s descent into hell. In the section‘On the Roman
(^49) Simon Hervet and Fronton du Duc (eds),T. Flauii Clementis Alexandrini Presbyteri et
ecclesiasticae scholae magistri qui Pantaeni quidem martyris fuit discipulus, praeceptor vero
Origenis, Opera omnia ante annos qudraginta e Graeco in Latinum conuersa, nunc vero recognita
interpretatione, amplissimis commentariis illustrata. A Gentiano Herueto Aureliano, ecclesiae
Rhemensis Canonico. Adiecta sunt collectanea variorum scriptorum qui multa eiusdem loca in
suis commentariis exposuerunt(Paris: Sebastian Niuellus, 1590).
(^50) Robert Bellarmine,De controuersiis Christianaefidei aduersus huius temporis haereticos
liber primus...editio vltima Controuersiarum ab ipso authore aucta et recognita...(Lyon: apud
Ioannem Pillehote, 1610).
52 Irena Backus