De Spectaculis

Sources chrétiennes #332

by Tertullian, S. Thelwall (Translation), D.P. Curtin (Editor)

A treatise by the africian church father, Tertullian of Carthage, outlining his own vision of Christology.

Genres: Theology, History, Christianity, Christian, Religion, Philosophy, Nonfiction

26 pages, Paperback

Published May 22, 2019

About the author

Quintus Septimius Florens Tertullianus, anglicised as Tertullian (c. 160 – c. 220 AD), was a prolific early Christian author from Carthage in the Roman province of Africa. He is the first Christian author to produce an extensive corpus of Latin Christian literature. He also was a notable early Christian apologist and a polemicist against heresy. Tertullian has been called "the father of Latin Christianity" and "the founder of Western theology." Though conservative, he did originate and advance new theology to the early Church. He is perhaps most famous for being the oldest extant Latin writer to use the term Trinity (Latin trinitas), and giving the oldest extant formal exposition of a Trinitarian theology. Other Latin formulations that first appear in his work are "three Persons, one Substance" as the Latin "tres Personae, una Substantia" (itself from the Koine Greek "treis Hypostases, Homoousios"). He wrote his trinitarian formula after becoming a Montanist; his ideas were at first rejected as heresy by the church at large, but later accepted as Christian orthodoxy.

Reviews

[Yann · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tertullien est un auteur berbère chrétien de la fin du deuxième siècle de notre ère. Habitant de l'actuelle Tunisie, il a le premier acclimaté les écrits chrétiens dans la langue latine, lesquelles s'épanouissaient plutôt en grec. A cet époque, dans la partie occidentale de l'Empire, la foule est habituée à ce que lui soient offerts des spectacles dans les cirques, dans des amphithéâtres couverts de toiles pour se protéger de l'ardeur du soleil. Là, ils assistaient à des courses de char, des pantomimes, des combats de gladiateurs, et aux supplices des condamnés livrés aux bêtes féroces. Les paris, l'engouement pour les athlètes, la fascination pour la violence, tout conspirait à captiver les foules. Ovide nous apprend aussi que c'était un très bon endroit pour draguer.

Dans ce texte, Tertulien exhorte ses corréligionnaires chrétiens à fuir ces lieux de perdition que son les spectacles offerts au peuple. Le premier argument qu'il emploie est superstitieux. Bien sûr, les spectacles sont dédiées à des divinités païennes, mais qu'importe pour le chrétien qui, comme l'athée, doit rester impassible devant des marques de piété sans objet, dirigées vers des idoles. Dans le fond, nulle part les écritures ne mettent spécifiquement en garde contre les spectacles. Et après tout, s'il n'existe qu'un Dieu, qu'importent les honneurs rendus à des bouts de bois? Pour les rendre abominables, Tertullien suggère que ce sont des démons qui habitent ces idoles, et qu'elles attendent de fondre sur les âmes innocentes pour s'en emparer, alors qu'elles ont été allanguies et attiréee par le plaisir du spectacle. Pour preuve, il avance le témoignage d'une femme chrétienne qui après être allée au spectacle avait été possédée par un démon. Après l'avoir exorcisée, le démon avait protesté de son bon droit en ce que la femme s'était rendue dans son territoire. Tout est bon pour imprimer une franche horreur des jeux dans l'esprit de ses corréligionnaires.



Mais dans un second temps, il avance des arguments plus substantiels, en montrant en quoi la nature même des spectacles s'oppose à l'éthique que se propose d'adopter les chrétiens. En premier lieu, la violence : comment dans la vie faire preuve de douceur, de patience et de longanimité, alors qu'au spectacle, on rugit de plaisir lorsque les athlètes s'accablent le visage de coups et d'horions, portant atteinte à l'image même de la divinité ? Puis sur la tempérance : comment prôner la mesure et la modestie dans la vie, pour ensuite au cirque devenir le jouet d'engouements, de rivalités, de malveillances ? Sur la pudeur : comment d'un côté prôner la chasteté, et d'un autre entendre aux spectacles vanter le mérite de prostituées, dont ont fait la publicité des appats, et dont on expose les lieux d'exercice à tous, même à ceux qui ne s'y intéressent guère ? C'est enfin le théatre lui-même qui est rejeté en bloc, par le fait même que le fait d'être acteur est une sorte de mensonge qui déplait à la divinité (mais lui ne ment-il pas avec ses fables de démons?). Pour terminer, Tertulien propose aux chrétiens de se réjouir par avance en imagination du spectacle que sera le châtiment des non-chrétiens lors de la fin du monde. Il se délecte avec une véritable joie féroce des tourments que souffriront les puissants qui ont persécuté les chrétiens, mais aussi les satanés philosophes qui osent avancer que l'âme ne puisse être immortelle. Ce déchaînement de sadisme et de sauvagerie est assez inquiétant chez un homme qui se prétend disciple du Christ.

Au final, d'un point de vue moral, ce texte est un peu décevant. Il y aurait beaucoup de choses utiles et profondes à dire sur la distinction à mener entre les bons et les mauvais plaisirs, entre les bons et mauvais spectacles. Quelle différence avec la sagacité de Plutarque! Je suis d'accord sur le fait que lorsque le mal est enraciné, il ne faut pas hésiter à parler avec vigueur. Mais cette vigueur ne doit pas non plus verser dans les défauts qu'on veut dénoncer. Tertulien semble enragé par sa passion et sa volonté de tout accabler sans nuances, et au lieu de nous donner un critère valable de jugement, il nous effraie avec des fariboles de démons. Sa condamnation de la cruauté est très juste, mais il semble que le christianisme n'a pas fait disparaître ce vilain penchant, quand on voit comment ont perduré les châtiments cruels et publics jusqu'à une époque très récente. Enfin, la violence dont il fait preuve à la fin de son exposé le rend repoussant, et on ne peut la comprendre qu'à la lumière des persécutions dont les chrétiens étaient alors les victimes. J'ai par contre beaucoup apprécié, comme dans toute la littérature patristique, les nombreuses allusions savantes qui nous aident à mieux comprendre ces temps anciens, comme l'origine des jeux, ou leur description.

[Daniel · Rating 2 out of 5]

In a day when Christians think that it is okay to watch virtually anything, here is an argument to the other extreme that you can watch virtually nothing. Tertullian makes some good points about the evils associated with theatres and other public shows, but he fails to make any convincing case from scripture that these things are inherently immoral. (The Gladiatorial games are an obvious exception to this general point.) The argument, for instance, that you are responsible for everything that people in a crowd do at such an event is truly absurd, though I agree that we should prudently reprove vice within our sphere of influence.

[Mark · Rating 4 out of 5]

In some ways, the ethics of media consumption in Tertullian's time were much higher stakes: instead of watching movies chock full of flippant death, they stood to witness real brutality, actual deaths and maimings and blood. But for them, there was an extra degree of separation: people had to go to the theater or the arena (i.e. "to go from the Church of God into the Church of the Devil"), whereas we are inundated everywhere with music, ads, and multimedia: distraction via excess and glut is our status quo.

The challenge for Christians always is: where do we draw our lines? Since scripture never speaks explicitly about what media we may consume, it seems up to Christian discretion as to what, where, and when. Many Christians take this in a puritanical direction, consuming only "Christian-media", which sadly is easily the least artistic of that which is produced today. Many more Christians take no heed to any moral imperative, and instead consume just as if they were a heathen.

In Tertullian's time, the festivals were more explicit about which god(s) they they honored; nowadays, things are much better hidden, more implicit, therefore most people falsely assume that their chosen vice doesn't worship a god. The most often decried god that contemporary media worships is some bald-faced political agenda, and even secular commentators often rail against that. But just as often "art for art's sake" or other cliches ("disturbing the comfortable and comforting the disturbed" comes to mind) merely serve as cover for licentiousness and excess.

Of course, to speak like this is untenable, for better or worse, in the 21st century. Tertullian at times comes off as the same finger-wagging naysayer that so often oversimplifies media consumption, but he just as often makes interesting, prescient points. For example, in a paragraph which shocked me, he made a tentative (and thus, I might propose, then-new) metaphor of "media-as-alimentary-consumption:"

If therefore we keep the throat and the belly free from defilements, how much rather do we refrain our more honourable parts, the eyes and the ears, from the pleasures dedicated to idols and to the dead, which are not carried through us by the stomach, but are digested within the very spirit and soul, the cleanness of which pertaineth more to God than doth that of the stomach!


This metaphor is interesting insofar as it evokes a certain scripture which actually downplays consumption, the part where Christ emphasizes what comes out of the person as defiling them. But I think that Tertullian here raises the point that that isn't a one-way road: producing and consuming are reciprocal acts. What we consume, we become: whether visual (close your eyes and picture something after the fact), auditory (hum the melody), or dietary (the food you ingest literally becomes a part of you, builds out new cells to replace your old ones). Thus, Tertullian's argument logically flows to a concern about the false distance of vicarious enjoyment: simply because you aren't doing the thing yourself, doesn't mean you're not partaking in it:

But if all immodesty is to be abominated by us, why should it be lawful to hear those things, which it is not lawful to speak, when we know that even foolish jesting and every vain word is judged, by God? Why in like manner should it be lawful to behold the things, which it is sin to do? Why are those things, which when coming forth from the mouth, defile the man, thought not to defile the man when entering in by the eyes and the ears?


This raises a serious dilemma: is it immoral to take pleasure in media which includes acts that are immoral, or only ones which extol them? Are there multiple kinds of enjoyment, as theorists about tragedy and catharsis have argued since Aristotle? At the very least we shouldn't view such art gleefully or even neutrally; I came to that same conclusion after watching Come and See (1985). In my opinion, the explicit gruesomeness in that film is necessary because it serves as the ultimate antidote to flippant kill-em-all media. If more people saw that single movie, it would probably bankrupt that genre of films.

Despite film's many differences from theater, Tertullian's accusations against the latter often also land solidly on the former. For example, at one point he calls the famous actresses of his day "harlots;" of course this is old-fashioned language, but is he wrong at all? Is there any real difference between a common prostitute on a street corner and a big-time actress, other than the number of cameras on them while they're performing? To a very limited degree, a classicist-minded aesthetician might argue that such beautiful actors and actresses, despite their moral failings, are still worth contemplating for their beauty, but in today's comparison culture, are they not equally also a danger to healthy self-esteem? Surprisingly, in a roundabout way Tertullian speaks of these sorts of actor-athletes (since the lines between the two blur more every day), writing that they engage in "vain runnings , and yet vainer shootings and leapings: strength used for an hurtful purpose, or for no purpose, will in no case please thee; nor again the training of an artificial body, as over-stepping the workmanship of God".


Here we hear not just looksmaxxing being condemned, but also the hollowness of contemporary "fitness" and "sports" culture, both of which are devoid of any right to exist in a supposedly Christian culture. What these (and gluttonous media consumption more generally) cause is a certain desensitization: to someone unaccustomed to these games and popularity contests (like an alien), they're self-evidently ridiculous, especially when magnified (deified?) by the excessive funding and attention paid to them. There's a certain literal level of desensitization where people might assume things in an "entertainment" context aren't real or don't impact them, but arguably the more dangerous aspect is how it shifts values without ever making an explicit argument. Rather than trying to convince us through logic or facts, these sorts of corrosive media use laziness, lust, and pride to lead us down to hell, in through a gaping, gluttonous maw.

Though this might sound excessive, I don't think people realize the countless hours they devote to these minor gods (a sports team, an actor or actress, etc.) instead of God. For, if there's any lesson to take away from all of this, it's that you can only worship one God at a time, and worship doesn't have to be in a church: it can be in a stadium, or even from the comfort of your own couch. The lack of grandiosity doesn't negate the legitimacy of the worship. Thus, it's not an exaggeration to say that sports fans and show-bingers are going to hell, because they're certainly worshiping strange gods...

[Fryderyk Franciszek Adam · Rating 1 out of 5]

ten to miał ale widowisko w bani!

nie powiem – to było nawet momentami zabawne. nie nudziłem się wielce – absurd osiągał takie wyżyny, że aż mi się chciało czytać dalej, coby się przekonać, co jeszcze ten ancymon uwarzy. niestety, zapętla się bardzo w swej myśli zaburzonej. ciężko mu współczuć jednakoż tego umysłowego kalectwa wynikającego z egotyzmu, który to egotyzm objawia się w niezmierzonej„pobożności”, och, ach, „służbie bogu i tylko bogu” (czyli chyba jednak sobie samemu). dziełko to, jak i wszelkie moralizatorskie wczesno- (i nie tylko) chrześcijańskie paplaniny, które roboczo i ahistorycznie nazywam katolskim (!) bajdurzeniem, to – jak zwykle – czysty onanizm. ten jest momentami wyjątkowo smaczny – przez swój komizm.

[Kristina · Rating 4 out of 5]

We are told not engage in shows and entertainment that are detrimental to showing reverence for God. No one can serve both God and mammon (Matthew 6:24). One of the things you read is the absolute travesty in those ancient theaters of men dressing in women’s clothes. If Tertullian isn’t taken with a pinch of Aquinas, the leaven will be poisoned. This leads credence to the possibility that Catholics were the first to make women accessible and worthy of the stage.

[Grant Steiner · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some good things. Some bad things.

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read the translation by S. Thelwall in the Ante-Nicene Fathers, volume 3.

[Collin Smith · Rating 4 out of 5]

Tertullian gives some useful tests for our entertainment: where does it originate from? Does it promote false gods or deny the true one? Does it misuse God’s good gifts? Does it reduce the image of God in the people involved? Are you viewing something you wouldn’t do yourself? Are you listening to something with that you would not say yourself? Do you have faith that the pleasures of doing God’s will, and the pleasures of heaven, will surpass what you are giving up here? I don’t think many will take this work as direct instructions for today, nor should they because our worlds are different, but it’s helpful to see some of the principles applied by ancient Christian’s to think through these things in their day so that we can continue doing so in our own.

[Josiahmeyer · Rating 4 out of 5]

The title is confusing: he is writing against the coliseums of ancient rome. This is a very colourful, short and accessible book by Tertullian. In it, you will get a flavor for this "founder of Latin Christianity," while also getting a taste for the REAL horrors of the Roman "games." Finally, and most importantly, you will get a sense of the actual heartbeat of a real-live pre-nicean Christian, living in the reality of oppression and opposition in ancient Rome.

[Maxime N. Georgel · Rating 3 out of 5]

Traité des spectacles où Tertullien explique pourquoi il ne convient pas au chrétien d’assister aux jeux romains.