SOURCE: “Another Look at the Literary Problem in Clement of Alexandria's Major Writings,” in Church History, Vol. XXXVII, No. 3, September, 1986, pp. 251-60.

[In the following essay, Wagner surveys the history of the theses concerning the controversial relationship between Clement's three major works.]

The relationship among Clement of Alexandria's three major works, Protreptikos, Paidagōgos and Stromateis, has vexed scholars for almost a century. Present state of the question reflects the condition of Clement studies as a whole: a welter of promising insights, ingenious theories, many contradictions and frustrating confusion. Recent attempts to approach the Alexandrine through historical-exegetical procedures have reopened Clement studies and have suggested that re-examination and re-evaluation of his theology are in order.¹

The literary question is important to an understanding of Clement's thought, for the relationship of the three works may furnish insight into the structure of his theology. The variety of theories about the relationship indicates that the history of the interpretation of the Church Father is one of disagreements. To clarify the questions involved, the various theses will be surveyed and then another thesis offered.

The traditional position holds the three works to be a trilogy in which the Protreptikos and Paidagōgos serve as exhortation and instruction for converts and the ‘simple faithful,” while the Stromateis is esoteric teaching for the gnostic. The main text for this and other theses is Paid. I, 3, 3

But eagerly desiring, then, to perfect us by a gradation for salvation in an effective discipline, a beautiful oikonomia is joined by the all-philanthropic Logos, first exhorting (protrepōn), then training (paidagōgōn) and finally, teaching (ekdidaskōn).

In the light of earlier statements, Clement clearly depicted the Logos as functioning in three ways. The first two dealt with praktikē, while the last with methodikē. When the Logos acted in the former manner, He assumed the roles of protreptikos and paidagōgos. In dispensing advanced and presumably esoteric guidance, He took the part of didaskalos.

Proponents of the traditional thesis noted that two of the three works were titled Protreptikos and Paidagōgos, that the Stromateis was obviously related to these, and that Clement indicated that blossoms of gnosis could be discerned in the Stromateis. They concluded that the Stromateis should be considered under the title Didaskalos. On the basis of the opening chapter of the paidagōgos they held that Clement not only depicted three functions of the Logos, but also wrote a trilogy which corresponded to those functions.²

The position had two major drawbacks. First, Clement neither called the Stromateis “Didaskalos,” nor is there any reference in his extant works that he projected such a work, nor is any such work mentioned by those who claimed familiarity with his writings. Eusebius and Photius did not connect the Stromateis to the other works and did not indicate that Clement had a well-defined literary plan. Second, Bardenhewer pointed out the disconcerting fact that the Stromateis failed to live up to the expectation of being a discourse on the Logos's role as didaskalos of esoteric gnosis, for it repeatedly lapsed into ethical matters discussed in the previous two works.³ In short, in both title and content the Stromateis did not fit the role scholars expected of the Didaskalos.

Eugene De Faye advanced the view that Clement projected a trilogy, but after completing two-thirds of it was forced into a digression.⁴ The Didaskalos would have made extensive use of philosophy. Because the orthodoxoi and “simple faithful” distrusted philosophy on account of pagan and heretical distortions, Clement undertook a defense of philosophy in God's plan which was to serve as a preface to the Didaskalos. De Faye further suggested that the defense-preface was the Stromateis and that either Clement never wrote the Didaskalos or it is no longer extant. The thesis recognized the lengthy sections, chiefly in Strom. I-IV, which treated philosophy in the context of the Logos's pre and post-parousia activities to justify men. De Faye, however, did not deal as fully with the closing books which were concerned with the character of the true gnostics.

Paul Wendland immediately but incompletely criticized De Faye's thesis and Carl Heussi developed the criticisms and Wendland's suggestions.⁵ The Wendland-Heussi thesis, based on inadequate pre-Stählin texts, examined verb tenses at particular points and came to startling conclusions.⁶ Specifically, they held that Strom. I-IV was written prior to both the Protreptikos and the Paidagōgos, and that after writing the Protreptikos, Clement conceived the idea of a trilogy with the Protreptikos as the first member. The completed trilogy then consisted of the Protreptikos, Paidagōgos and Strom. V-VIII; the Paidagōgos contained the promised writing on marriage, while Strom. V-VII dealt with the passions.⁷

The thesis explained the distracting opening of the Stromateis, preserved the traditional view that the works form a trilogy, and took into account the nature of the material in the closing books of the Stromateis. Stromateis V-VIII, then, was the Didaskalos. But Otto Stählin questioned the thesis's basic assumptions by suggesting that there were references to the Protreptikos and Paidagōgos in the Stromateis prior to Book V.⁸

Next Johannes Munck struck at the logic and psychology of the thesis and then demolished it by demonstrating passages in Strom. I and III reflected and were dependent upon the Paidgōgos.⁹ He then put forward the theory that Clement had planned two necessarily unrelated trilogies. The first, intended for simple believers, was to consist of the Protreptikos, Paidagōgos and Didaskalos. The second, intended solely for gnostics, was to be Strom. I-III, Strom. IV-VII and Physiologia.¹⁰ According to Munck Clement did not write the final members of the trilogies. Stählin gave the view qualified support, and Lazzati, although he accused Munck of rigidly systematizing Clement's thought, agreed that Clement wrote exoteric and esoteric works.¹¹

Friedrick Quatember, frustrated by the proliferation of theories, held that previous scholars consistently misinterpreted the crucial passage in the paidagōgos.¹² He argued that Clement was not proposing a trilogy but was setting forth three forms of the Logos's teaching-drawing men to salvation. Clement described the Logos's dynamic activity and did not want to write three treatises which isolated the instruction proper to each form of that educational activity. On the basis of careful exegesis Quatember claimed that the search for a trilogy, a search which centered on the Stromateis, misunderstood and distorted Clement's purpose and ethical teaching. Thus Clement set forth not a literary plan but a Heilsplan.

Quatember noted that the purpose of the Logos-didaskalos was to lead men into the depths of gnosis. Clement considered attempts to write of such revelation as dangerous and open to misunderstanding, and it is therefore highly doubtful that he intended to write a work which purported to present such a didaskalia.

Because of wartime and post-war conditions and the limited publications of doctoral dissertations, Quatember's work did not come to the attention of other scholars. Walther Völker, who had not seen it, independently attacked Munck's double trilogy thesis and wrecked the assumption that the Stromateis was unrelated to the other two major works.¹³ Exasperated with the multiplication of complex theories, he termed the whole debate a word quarrel which did not contribute to understanding Clement. Yet Völker took a stand on the issue. He returned to the traditional thesis but adopted the qualification of the earlier English scholar, R. E. Tollinton:

In short Clement started on his enterprise without realizing the magnitude and difficulty… he did not live to accomplish the embodiment (and) he had never clearly grasped in all its implications the character of his own great purpose.… Thus the fact that Clement chose to write a series of Stromateis in place of the projected “Master” must in the main be set down to the character of his public.… In a word, the Stromateis are and yet are not the projected “Master.” In writing them Clement realized in part his purpose of higher teaching. In writing them he also came to recognize that his own purpose could never be fully realized at all.¹⁴

In the twenty years since Quatember's too-little known work and Völker's strictures, nothing has been done with the issue of the literary relationship. Quatember's break with the customary interpretation of the key passages, however, opened the way for at least one more attempt to examine the problem.

II

An historical-exegetical study gives full attention both to the writings and the Sitz im Leben in which they were written. The basis for a new view is the recognition of Clement's knowledge and use of contemporary ethical literary forms. It has been recognized that the opening of the Paidagōgos reflects concerns also present in Stoic ethics, but there have been no attempts to delineate these and related aspects in reference to Clement.¹⁵ The suggested thesis acknowledges its debt to the forms of Stoic ethics but holds these forms were in common use, even by Philo. In order to develop the thesis Zeno, Posidonius, Cicero, Seneca and Philo must be cited.

Zeno and many who followed him divided philosophy into three branches: logic, ethics and physics (physiologia). He subdivided ethics into more than eight sections, two of which were aretai and kathēkonta. Aretai consisted of primary virtues (the same as Plato's innate aretai) and particular virtues (magnaminity, self control or egkrateia, endurance, good counsel and presence of mind).¹⁶Kathēkonta were further defined as all actions which logos would have a man do. These were split into absolute and conditional duties. The former were always incumbent upon a man, while the latter were binding only under particular circumstances. Presence of mind was the aretē which found what was kathēkon.

Stoic emphasis on kathēkonta was expressed in literature. Zeno, Cleanthes, Panaetius and Posidonius wrote treatises basically titled Peri Kathēkontōn.¹⁷ It is also clear that philosophical teachers attracted and encouraged new students through a rhetorically ornate work called Protreptikos.¹⁸ Aristotle, Cleanthes, Marcus Brutus and Posidonius all wrote such works.¹⁹

Posidonius held that only man's soul had the rational faculty, although it shared the willing and appetitive faculties with animals.²⁰ The rational faculty increased in greatness and strength by means of proper paideia. Men went through three stages of development, each with its proper form of teaching. In the first, phaulos or low-ranking beginner, threats, promises, compulsion and encouragement were used. The second, prokopos or progressing learner, was based on lessons, arguments, encouragement, praise and admonitions. The final stage, sophos or wiseman, was not dealt with extensively in the extant works, but involved initiation into the dogmata of philosophical-religious truths.

Posidonius retained the three-fold division of philosophy and the subdivision of duties into absolute and conditional. Ethics itself was composed of only two branches, thēoretikē and praktikē. The former involved thorough knowledge of the absolute duties or general principles, which were termed Kathorthōmata. Praktikē was the area of conditional duties for which he used the expression kathēkontōn protropōn te kai apotropōn.²¹ In order to be roused to rational ethical conduct, the soul needed precept-giving, persuasion, consolation, exhortation and investigation of causes (kathēkonta, hypothetikē, paramathetikē, aitologia.)²²

Posidonius's division of ethics into theōretikē which dealt with katorthōmata, and praktikē, which dealt with kathēkonta (now restricted to particular duties) kept the sense of initiation into the mysteries of ethics. Protreptikos and Peri Kathēkontōn therefore were directed chiefly toward praktikē.²³

This two-fold division of ethics was reflected in Posidonius's independently yet syncretistically minded pupil, Cicero. The orator-statesman opened De Officiis by noting that moral treatises were traditionally separated into two parts which correspond to a Peri Kathēkontōn and a Peri Katorthōmatōn.²⁴De Officiis is Cicero's Peri Kathēkontōn. He defined katorthōmata as the fulfillment or goal of all human actions, while kathēkonta were the practical common duties.

Seneca held to the three-fold division of philosophy and concentrated on ethics.²⁵ He indicated there was debate over the relative merits of Katorthōmata and Kathēkonta.²⁶ Common duties, he maintained, were in the realm of praktikē or phronēsis, while general principles were properly included in Sophia or Theōretikē. Seneca took a mediating position in the debate, writing that it was impossible to separate the two and that elements of katorthōmata-theōretikē were mingled with kathēkonta-praktikē so as to excite the student to press on to fulfillment. The student passed through the three stages of beginner, learner and wiseman.²⁷ During the ascent to fulfillment the individual increasingly was brought closer to katorthōmata- theōretikē until he became a sophos. Ethics entailed an esoteric tradition. In discussing the katorthōmata Seneca employed terms from the mysteries. Only the adept knew the katorthōmata fully, while the uninitiated knew the kathēkonta in the phaulos and prokopos stages.²⁸

Philo of Alexandria accepted the three-fold division of philosophy and the two-part sub-division of ethics, but held that the ineffable mysteries of God transcended philosophy.²⁹ Philosophy was only the loving search for wisdom, while wisdom herself led men to initiation into the mystery. He also kept the distinction between katorthōmata-thēoretikē and kathēkonta-praktikē. In the Eden garden-soul the trees which were beautiful to see (theōretike) were the aretai katorthōmata, while those good to eat (praktikē) of kathēkonta.³⁰ Philo thereby equated the primary virtues with kathorthōmata or absolute duties, and the particular virtues with kathēkonta or conditional duties.

In summary, the Sitz im Leben shows that a tri-partite division of philosophy with ethics as one part was commonly accepted. Ethics was split into two portions, one being practical and concerned with specific duties and the other having an esoteric portion and dealing with katorthōmata. Traces of the esoteric portion could be discerned in the elementary practical instruction. Also common was a three-fold view of man's progress, in which man was depicted as coming into greater knowledge of the esoteric foundations and goals of ethics. Philosophy's fulfillment was not attained in ethics but in physiologia. The goal of ethics was aretē, but man's goal was full initiation by wisdom into the gnosis of nature and God. This structure of ethics tended to be expressed in literary form as protreptikoi and two-part ethical treatises. One part of the latter literary form was a Peri Kathēkontōn, while the other discussed katorthōmata more fully. While Protreptikoi and Peri kathēkontōn contained elements of katorthōmata-theōretikē, they were concerned with particular duties and praktikē.

Clement accepted this three part view of philosophy. He considered ethics the gateway to cosmogony (kosmogonia), apparently another term he employed for physiologia. Philosophy in turn led to the highest form of knowledge, Epopteia or initiation into the great mysteries of theology. Epopteia transcended philosophy.³¹ Ethics was fulfilled in the lesser mysteries of katorthōmata, which in turn served as the transition to physiologia-kosmogonia. The supreme mysteries were in the crowing realm of initiation-vision, Epopteia.³²

Clement divided the human career into four stages but actually maintained the basic three-fold structure.³³ He halved the phaulos stage into those who were disobedient (pagans and unconverted Jews) and those who were legal slaves to God (catechumens, i.e., those formally enrolled in the Church for preparation to be enlightened by baptism). The baptized or legal slaves were the prokopoi, the faithful servants of God who were engaged in the ascent of becoming complete men in the image and likeness of the Logos. The sophos or gnostic was the adopted son of God. He was in the Logos's image and likeness as much as was humanly possible.³⁴

The Logos addressed Himself to men in these stages in three ways. To the phauloi of both classes He spoke as protreptikos, while to the prokopoi as paidagōgos and to the sophoi as didaskalos. Such an arrangement was integral to God's loving oikonomia in which the Logos philanthropically improved the soul so that it was drawn willingly to consummation in true manhood.³⁵

This understanding of man and God's plan allows insight into the relationships among the three works. Almost all the extant works are best understood as belonging to the ethical division of philosophy. The Stromateis is clearly an ethical treatise.³⁶ In discussing the nature and title of the Stromateis Clement remarked that the work was properly named, for it contained the seeds of generative doctrine.³⁷

This is the same view which Seneca and Philo had of katorthōmata prior to initiation. Clement indicated that the reader was to make progress not only in the preliminary teaching of the Protreptikos and Paidagōgos, but also in the garden of the Stromateis. The Stromateis contributed to the reader's advance in becoming a gnostic, yet it did not end that advance.³⁸

The three works are ethical treatises and were to be used in the individual's ethical training within the Church with the Logos as healer and guide. Each work had the seeds of katorthōmata-theoretikē planted in kathēkonta-praktikē. To be saved in the proper manner was to know the foundations and goals of the specific duties, i.e., to know the katorthōmata from which the katheokonta came and to which they directed the student.³⁹ The Stromateis dealt more fully with the katorthōmata than the other two works. Clement suggested that the Logos led His children in three general ways: what was useful and advisable, what was praiseworthy, and what was blessed.⁴⁰

The first way involved actions which were to be encouraged (protreptikos) and discouraged (apotreptikos), and the second indicated what was commendable (epainetikos) and worthy of recrimination (psketikos). These two forms were carefully developed in the Paidagōgos and can be seen in an undeveloped manner in the Protreptikos. The third form, makarios, was not handled in those treatises, but the Stromateis discussed the blessed state of the gnostic and his responsibility. The tones of the Stromateis suggest that it may serve as the transition between the Logos's paidagōgia on what is praiseworthy, useful and advisable to what was blessed. It is clear, however, that the work was part neither of physiologia nor epopteia, but of ethics. The Stromateis indicated something of the lesser mysteries of the ethical branch of philosophy, but was not an exposition of the greater mysteries.

In light of the accepted ethically oriented literary practice, therefore, the Protreptikos and the Paidagōgos can be termed Clement's expositions on particular duties with traces of kathorthōmata. Broadly, these two works cover the field of kathēkonta and were aimed at the first two classes of men. More narrowly construed, the Proptreptikos was designed for the two groups in the phaulos stage. The tone, often abusive, threatening and mocking, became ultimately encouraging and hopeful, for it was intended to jab and exhort the phauli to their next stage in God's beautiful oikonomia. Intended for baptized Christians, God's servant-children, the Paidagōgos's tone was pointed but re-assuring and guiding. Particular duties (kathēkonta) dominated the work, although these were preceded and followed by important discussions of God's action and man's responsibility.

Book I supplied the general framework by considering man's habits, actions and passions which were addressed by the Logos's protreptic, hypothetic and paramythetic actions.⁴¹ The theme of the Christ-Logos leading His new children to salvation dominated the whole work. Books II and III handled the specific manners of that leading in terms of kathēkonta. In regard to literary form the Paidagōgos can be considered Clement's Peri Kathēkontōn. The Protreptikos and Paidagōgos together meet the concerns of the branch of ethics called praktikē.

The Stromateis, as Bardenhewer discerned, returned constantly to ethical themes. The work can be seen as Clement's attempt to write the second part of a total ethical discourse, the equivalent of a Peri Katorthōmata. He worked within the limits of the distinctions among ethics, physiologia and epopteia. The treatise is a more fully developed exposition of the religious-ethical foundations of God's plan and man's action. The Stromateis was not a Didaskalos; indeed it is improbable that Clement would have considered writing a work which boasted putting epopteia-revelation into written form.

The Stromateis is instead exactly what Clement said it was—a sheaf of notes, artfully planned, through which the reader could continue his advance in soul-improvement. It was for those already sufficiently trained in kathēkonta and who had the ability to gain from exposure to the katorthōmata which undergirded the specific duties. Yet the work was open to all readers, even non-Christians, but only those subject to the Logos could gain fully from it. The Stromateis was meaningful to the highly trained prokopos, the man whose actions, habits and passions were strengthened and admost completely healed by the Logos. It led him to the fullness of aretē so that he could look forward to advancement in physiologia and then ultimate rest (anapausis) in Epopteia.

The major works, then, are best understood as ethical treatises which respect the traditional divisions of philosophy. Seen from the perspective of those divisions, the treaties fulfill the praktikē portion and direct the reader to the completion of the theoretikē portion of ethics. The Protreptikos and Paidagōgos deal chiefly with kathēkonta, presenting the Logos as praktikē in liberating and healing sinful men. The Stromateis indicates more clearly, but not completely, the katorthōmata-theōretikē of the Logos. Seen from the perspective of the internal relationships, it is clear that the three works are arranged so that the discerning, capable reader ought to move from phaulos to the brink of sophos with their assistance. Since Clement related the three, they actually form one total work. The movement from one to another is similar to the ethical-paidagogical progress man makes in the Church under the gentle guidance of the one Logos in His several roles.

The three works are consequently not a trilogy in the sense of the traditional thesis but are best viewed as ethical treatises which, considered as a whole, satisfy the requirements of writings on particular and absolute duties. The major writings are a thoughtful, fundamentally complete and consistent attempt to present an ethic in Christ.

Notes

1. One noteworthy historical-exegetical study is Georg Kretschmar's unpublished PhD. thesis (University of Heidelberg, 1950), Jesus Christus in der Theologie des Klemens von Alexandrien. The writer is grateful to Dr. Kretschmar for sending a copy to him and for allowing Drew University, Madison, N. J., to microfilm his work.

2. Among the older exponents of the traditional view are John Kaye, Some Account of the Writings and Opinions of Clement of Alexandria (London, 1835) and William Wilson, The Writings of Clement of Alexandria (Edinburgh, 1901).

3. Otto Bardenhewer, Patrologie, 2nd edition (Freiburg im Breisgau) p. 114.

4. Eugene De Faye, Clément d' Alexandrie (Paris, 1898).

5. Paul Wendland, review of De Faye's book in Theologische Literaturzeitung, XXIII, (Dec. 10, 1898) 653f. Carl Heussi, “Die Stromateis des Clemens Alexandrinus und ihr Verhältnis zum Protreptikos und Paedagogos,” Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, XLV, (1902), 465-512.

6. Adolph Harnack, Theodore Zahn and Otto Bardenhewer readily accepted the view as did Francis Havey (“Clement of Alexandria” in the Catholic Encyclopedia, New York, 1908, p. 12) and Simon Wood (Clement of Alexandria. Christ the Educator, New York 1954).

7. They recognized that present Book VIII was not original to the work but considerations on logic.

8. Otto Stählin, Bibliothek der Kirchenvlater… Clemens von Alexandreia, I (Munich, 1934 ed.), 32.

9. Johannes Munck, Untersuchungen über Klemens von Alexandrien (Stuttgart, 1933).

10. Among the treatises Clement proposed to write but which he did not or which are not extant were a Physiologia as well as a Peri Archön.

11. Stählin, I, 33-35. G. Lazzati, Introduzione allo studio di Clemente Alessandrino (Milan, 1939).

12. Friedrich Quatember, S.J., Die christliche Lebenshaltung des Klemens von Alexandreia. Originally a PhD. thesis for the Gregorian University (Rome, 1942), it was published in Vienna in 1947.

13. Walther Völker, Der wahre Gnostiker nach Clemens Alexandrinus (Leipzig, 1952). It was completed during World War II but not published due to production problems.

14. R. B. Tollinton, Clement of Alexandria. A Study in Christian Liebralism. I (London, 1914), 192f. Völker, p. 32, nt. 1.

15. Stählin I, 204, nt. 1; Karl Reinhardt, Posidonius (Munich, 1921), p. 56; Wood, p. 3, nt. 2.

16. Diogenes Laertius (Lives of the Eminent Philosophers, VII, 108) stressed that Zeno was the first to use Kathēkonta (that which is fitting and proper) in ethics.

17. Diogenes Laertius, VII, 4, 91, 92, 166. Cicero, De Officiis I, 7f.

18. Seneca, Epistle XCV, 65 noted protreptikos as one of five things needed to rouse the soul to rational conduct. The literary style and use of protreptikoi is considered by Wilhelm Gehäusser, Der Protreptikos des Posidonius (Munich, 1912) and Ingemar During, Aristotle's Protrepticos. An attempt at Reconstruction (Goteborg, 1961). Helpful considerations are given by G. Pire, Stoïcisme et Pédàgogie (Paris, 1958).

19. Diogenes Laertius, VIII. Seneca, Epistle XCV, 45. Aristotle, Fragment 51.

20. Much debate surrounds Posidonius. Diogenes Laertius XII, 39f. has the bulk of his known views and there are also comments in Sextus Epiricus's Against the Dagmatists, Cicero, Seneca and Galen (De Placitis Hippocrates et Platonis). In addition to Gerhäusser and Reinhardt Posidionius was dealt with by Werner Jaeger, Nemesius von Emessa (Berlin, 1914); J. Dobson, “The Posidonius Myth,” Classical Quarterly (1918) XII, pp. 179-195; Paul Schubert, Die Eschatologie des Posidonius (Leipzig, 1927); Ludwig Edelstein, “The Philosophical System of Posidonius,” The American Journal of Philology (1936) LI, pp. 286-325; and B. Hijmans's “Posidonius' Ethics,” Acta Classica (1959), pp. 27-42. This study is endebted to Hijmans's work.

21. Diogenes Laertius, VII, 84.

22. Seneca, Epistle XCV, 65.

23. Diogenes Laertius, VII, 84.

24. Cicero, De Officiis, 1, 7-8.

25. Seneca's Epistle lxxxix dealt with the parts of philosophy and mentioned the paedagogus of humanity was the philosopher. The moral portion of philosophy had three parts: speculation (thōretikē), impulse (hormētikē) and action (praktikē).

26. Seneca's Epistle xciv defended kathēkonta, while xcv took up the cause of katorthōmata.

27. Seneca, Epistle lii, 3-4.

28. Seneca, Epistle xcv, 64. Plutarch (On the Education of Children, 10) described those who fulfilled their paideia as “hierophants of the gods and torch-bearers of wisdom.”

29. Philo, Legum Allegoria I, 57; De Congressu 14; De Decalogo 20; De Cherubim 12-20; De Virtutibus 3; De Vita Mosis 11; De Posteriatate Caini 6, 38, 42; De Ebrietate 21-22, 39; Quod Ominis Probus 2; De Sacrificii 5, 10, 22-25; De Agricultura 3. Philo also called Deuteronomy Moses's Protreptikos (De Agricultura 17, 39).

    Clement's use of Philo was noted by De Faye, Völker, Wilhelm Boussett (Jüdisch-Christliche Schulbetrieb in Alexandrien und Rom, Göttingen, 1915). Albert Outler (“The ‘Platonism’ of Clement of Alexandria,” Journal of Religion, 1940, XX, 217-240) and Erich Osborn (The Philosophy of Clement of Alexandria, Cambridge, 1957).

30. Philo, Legum Allegoria I, 56-66.

31. Strom. I. 30; 97, 1; 176, 1-3; IV. 104; VI. 84; VII. 4. Clement probably considered logic as prefatory to ethics. Present Strom. VIII may be a portion of his logic.

32. Prot. 118.

    Paid. I. 102-103

    Strom. I. 176; IV. 155; V. 70; VI. 54; 108.

33. Prot. 5; 8; 85; 95.

    Paid. I. 1; 18; 26; 53; 98; III. 37.

    Strom. I. 2; 173; VI. 102.

34. Prot. 117

    Paid. I. 1-3; 98-99; III. 86-101.

    Strom. II. 97.

35. Paid. I. 87. Strom. IV. 3; VI. 50; 78.

36. Strom. IV. 3; VI. 1

37. Strom. IV. 6. Eusebius (Ecclesiastical History VI. 13) felt he called it Stromateis because it contained a variety of pagan opinions, history and specimens of learning.

38. Strom. VI. 1-4; IV. 1.

39. Strom. VI. 111.

40. Paid. I. 75-95.

41. Paid. I. 1f.