Recognitions of Clement.
Rufinus, Presbyter of Aquileia; His Preface to Clement's Book of Recognitions.
To Bishop Gaudentius.
To thee, indeed, O Gaudentius, thou choice glory of our doctors, belongs such vigour of mind, yea, such grace of the Spirit, that whatever you say even in the course of your daily preaching, whatever you deliver in the church, ought to be preserved in books, and handed down to posterity for their instruction. But we, whom slenderness of wit renders less ready, and now old age renders slow and inactive, though after many delays, yet at length present to you the work which once the virgin Sylvia of venerable memory enjoined upon us, that we should render Clement into our language, and you afterwards by hereditary right demanded of us; and thus we contribute to the use and profit of our people, no small spoil, as I think, taken from the libraries of the Greeks, so that we may feed with foreign nourishment those whom we cannot with our own. For foreign things usually seem both more pleasant, and sometimes also more profitable. In short, almost everything is foreign that brings healing to our bodies, that opposes diseases, and neutralizes poisons. For Judaea sends us Lacryma balsami, Crete Coma dictamni, Arabia her flower of spices, India reaps her crop of spikenard; which, although they reach us in a somewhat more broken condition than when they leave their native fields, yet retain entire the sweetness of their odour and their healing virtue. Receive therefore, my soul, 1 Clement returning to you; receive him now in a Roman dress. And wonder not if haply the florid countenance of eloquence appear less in him than usual. It matters not, provided the sense tastes the same. Therefore we transport foreign merchandise into our country with much labour. And I know not with how grateful countenances my countrymen welcome me, bringing to them the rich spoils of Greece, and unlocking hidden treasures of wisdom with the key of our language. But may God grant your prayers, that no unlucky eye nor any livid aspect may meet us, lest, by an extreme kind of prodigy, while those from whom he is taken do not envy, yet those upon whom he is bestowed should repine. Truly it is right to point out the plan of our translation to you, who have read these works also in Greek, lest haply in some parts you may think the order of translation not kept. I suppose you are aware that there are two editions in Greek of this work of Clement,--the 'Anagnoseis , that is, Recognitions; and that there are two collections of books, differing in some points, but in many containing the same narrative. In short, the last part of this work, in which is the relation concerning the transformation of Simon, is contained in one of the collections, but is not at all in the other. 2 There are also in both collections some dissertations concerning the Unbegotten God and the Begotten, and on some other subjects, which, to say nothing more, are beyond our comprehension. 3 These, therefore, as being beyond our powers, I have chosen to reserve for others, rather than to produce in an imperfect state. But in the rest, we have given our endeavour, so far as we could, not to vary either from the sentiments or even from the language and modes of expression; and this, although it renders the style of the narrative less ornate, yet it makes it more faithful. The epistle in which the same Clement, writing to James the Lord's brother, informs him of the death of Peter, and that he had left him his successor in his chair and teaching, and in which also the whole subject of church order is treated, I have not prefixed to this work, both because it is of later date, and because I have already translated and published it. 4 But I do not think it out of place to explain here what in that letter will perhaps seem to some to be inconsistent. For some ask, Since Linus and Cletus were bishops in the city of Rome before this Clement, how could Clement himself, writing to James, say that the chair of teaching was handed over to him by Peter? 5 Now of this we have heard this explanation, that Linus and Cletus were indeed bishops in the city of Rome before Clement, but during the lifetime of Peter: that is, that they undertook the care of the episcopate, and that he fulfilled the office of apostleship; as is found also to have been the case at Caesarea, where, when he himself was present, he yet had Zacchaeus, ordained by himself, as bishop. And in this way both statements will appear to be true, both that these bishops are reckoned before Clement, and yet that Clement received the teacher's seat on the death of Peter. But now let us see how Clement, writing to James the Lord's brother, begins his narrative.
Var. readings: "magnanimous one," "my lord," "my friend." ↩
[The reference is probably to the transformation of the father of Clement into the appearance of Simon Magus. This is narrated in both the Recognitions (book x. 53, etc.) and in the Homilies (xx. 12, etc.), though the latter book closes without any statement of the restoration. It would seem unlikely, then, that Rufinus refers to the Homilies as the "other" collection. The recovery of the closing portion of that work has given us its account of the transformation.--R.] ↩
[How far Rufinus has omitted portions which occurred in Greek cannot be known. It is quite probable that the apparent heresy of some passages, rather than their incomprehensibility, led him to omit them. This may be urged in favour of the priority of the Homilies, but is not conclusive.--R.] ↩
[There is no good reason for doubting that Rufinus refers to the extant epistle prefixed to the Homilies, and forming, with "the Epistle of Peter to James," which precedes it, a preface and fictitious authentication of that collection.--R.] ↩
[The language of Rufinus confirms that of Irenaeus, Eusebius, and Jerome, as to the episcopal succession at Rome (assuming that Cletus and Anacletus, named by Irenaeus, is identical with Cletus). For other variations, see Church Histories and Encyclopaedias (under Clemens Romanus). The current opinion at Rome in the beginning of the fifth century is evident from this passage. Comp. Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. i. pp. 1, 2.--R.] ↩