Ongoing Research on the Quod idola dii non sint (CPL 57):

Résumé En

The Quod idola dii non sint (Idol.) has been known to borrow from Minucius Felix and Tertullian; three traditional themes of apologetics are addressed in it. Its attribution to Cyprian has been questioned since the end of the nineteenth century. Today, its composition is usually dated as belonging to the second or third quarter of the fourth century, after Lactantius. The aim of this article is to show the importance of examining the manuscripts again on the basis of the work’s title. Based on a review of the manuscripts, the title’s long form has been attested since Late Antiquity and should therefore probably be endorsed. Whether due to the author or to an editor, this rubric, and the brevity of the remarks, lead us to examine the text’s nature. A rubric in quod is unusual for the title of a work from Late Antiquity. However, such wording was common for chapter headings, since these titles have been known to be longer as attested by Cyprian’s biblical florilegia. Idol. may have simply been an annex to another text which was then attached the letters of Cyprian due to its apologetic bent. But the hypothesis of working notes, which Paul Monceaux formulated, is worth considering again in light of this initial rubric and of its formal similarities with the Ad Fortunatum and the Ad Quirinum. Idol. would then belong to the commentarii genre: reading notes on a precise theme. The question of the text’s nature also leads us to reflect on some of the arguments alleged against its authenticity. For K. Götz, and, later, for H. von Soden, the main argument was the fact that Idol. was absent from the series of treatises and that it was included in the middle of the letters. However, Idol. differs from the treatises since the latter are longer, they are addressed (to the community or to a person in particular) and their dissemination was organised by Cyprian. The early circulation of the text under Cyprian’s name was attested by Jerome and Augustine; it also suggests that it was tied to the works of the bishop of Carthage early on, perhaps as early as the fourth century. Due to considerations on the transmission of the text, we are led to examine the question of authenticity separately from the date. The date that is currently accepted is based on parallels with Lactantius. These parallels are often limited to a word or an expression and are of a different nature than the borrowings from Minucius Felix and Tertullian. Such a difference in treatment must be explained if later dating is to be maintained. Due to the nature of the parallels with Lactantius, we must first revise the text’s edition before advancing solid conclusions on relative chronology.