ABSTRACT
The lack of unity in Tertullian's views concerning embryology becomes particularly clear when considering the chronology of his works. While in the earlier work Tertullian argued on the basis of a gradualist theory of hominisation, in the later work he completely contradicted himself. Tertullian, frankly, had no real interest in establishing or maintaining a coherent dogma about the timing of human ensoulment or the physical nature of the human embryo, but was satisfied with maintaining each treatise's internal consistency. From the outset it is worth re-emphasising the centrality of rhetoric in Tertullian's treatises. Tertullian's knowledge of embryology was derived not from Soranus alone, but also from natural philosophy. Tertullian could hardly be said to have rejected philosophical testimony wholesale, for he selectively relied upon Aristotle's biology. In De Anima, Tertullian's arguments diverged further from Soranus concerning the point of development at which an embryo became physically human.
