Chapter XX: Part 20

The _Hypotyposes_[1] in eight books, have not come down to us.
Cassiodorus translated them into Latin, freely altering to suit his
own ideas of orthodoxy. Both Eusebius and Photius describe the work.
It was a short commentary on all the books of Scripture, including
some of the apocryphal works, such as the Epistle of Barnabas and the
Revelation of Peter. Photius speaks in strong language of the impiety
of some opinions in the book (_Bibl._ cod. 109, p. 89 a Bekker), but
his statements are such as to prove conclusively that he must have had
a corrupt copy, or read very carelessly, or grossly misunderstood
Clement. Notes in Latin on the first epistle of Peter, the epistle of
Jude, and the first two of John have come down to us; but whether they
are the translation of Cassiodorus, or indeed a translation of
Clement's work at all, is a matter of dispute.

The treatise on the Passover was occasioned by a work of Melito on the
same subject. Two fragments of this treatise were given by Petavius,
and are contained in the modern editions.

We know nothing of the work called _The Ecclesiastical Canon_ from any
external testimony. Clement himself often mentions the [Greek:
ekklesiastikos kanon], and defines it as the agreement and harmony of
the law and the prophets with the covenant delivered at the appearance
of Christ (_Strom._ vi. cap. xv. 125, p. 803, P.). No doubt this was
the subject of the treatise. Jerome and Photius call the work
_Ecclesiastical Canons_, but this seems to be a mistake.

Of the other treatises mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome nothing is
known. A fragment of Clement, quoted by Antonius Melissa, is most
probably taken from the treatise on slander.

Besides the treatises mentioned by Eusebius, fragments of treatises on
Providence and the Soul have been preserved. Mention is also made of a
work by Clement on the Prophet Amos, and another on Definitions.

In addition to these Clement often speaks of his intention to write on
certain subjects, but it may well be doubted whether in most cases, if
not all, he intended to devote separate treatises to them. Some have
found an allusion to the treatise on the Soul already mentioned. The
other subjects are Marriage ([Greek: gamikos logos]), Continence, the
Duties of Bishops, Presbyters, Deacons and Widows, Prophecy, the Soul,
the Transmigration of the Soul and the Devil, Angels, the Origin of
the World, First Principles and the Divinity of the Logos, Allegorical
Interpretations of Statements made with regard to God's anger and
similar affections, the Unity of the Church, and the Resurrection.

Two works are incorporated in the editions of Clement which are not
mentioned by himself or any ancient writer. They are [Greek: Ek ton
Theodoton kai tes anatolikes kaloumenes didaskalias kata tous
Oualentinou chronous epitomai], and [Greek: Ek ton prophetikon
eklogai]. The first, if it is the work of Clement, must be a book
merely of excerpts, for it contains many opinions which Clement
opposed. Mention is made of Pantaenus in the second, and some have
thought it more worthy of him than the first. Others have regarded it
as a work similar to the first, and derived from Theodorus.

Clement occupies a profoundly interesting position in the history of Christianity. He is the first to bring all the culture of the Greeks and all the speculations of the Christian heretics to bear on the exposition of Christian truth. He does not attain to a systematic exhibition of Christian doctrine, but he paves the way for it, and lays the first stones of the foundation. In some respects Justin anticipated him. He also was well acquainted with Greek philosophy, and took a genial view of it; but he was not nearly so widely read as Clement. The list of Greek authors whom Clement has quoted occupies upwards of fourteen of the quarto pages in Fabricius's _Bibliotheca Graeca_. He is at home alike in the epic and the lyric, the tragic and the comic poets, and his knowledge of the prose writers is very extensive. Some, however, of the classic poets he appears to have known only from anthologies; hence he was misled into quoting as from Euripides and others verses which were written by Jewish forgers. He made a special study of the philosophers. Equally minute is his knowledge of the systems of the Christian heretics. And in all cases it is plain that he not merely read but thought deeply on the questions which the civilization of the Greeks and the various writings of poets, philosophers and heretics raised. But it was in the Scriptures that he found his greatest delight. He believed them to contain the revelation of God's wisdom to men. He quotes all the books of the Old Testament except Ruth and the Song of Solomon, and amongst the sacred writings of the Old Testament he evidently included the book of Tobit, the Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus. He is equally full in his quotations from the New Testament, for he quotes from all the books except the epistle to Philemon, the second epistle of St Peter, and the epistle of St James, and he quotes from _The Shepherd of Hermas_, and the epistles of Clemens Romanus and of Barnabas, as inspired. He appeals also to many of the lost gospels, such as those of the Hebrews, of the Egyptians and of Matthias.

Notwithstanding this adequate knowledge of Scripture, the modern theologian is disappointed to find very little of what he deems characteristically Christian. In fact Clement regarded Christianity as a philosophy. The ancient philosophers sought through their philosophy to attain to a nobler and holier life, and this also was the aim of Christianity. The difference between the two, in Clement's judgment, was that the Greek philosophers had only glimpses of the truth, that they attained only to fragments of the truth, while Christianity revealed in Christ the absolute and perfect truth. All the stages of the world's history were therefore preparations leading up to this full revelation, and God's care was not confined to the Hebrews alone. The worship of the heavenly bodies, for instance, was given to man at an early stage that he might rise from a contemplation of these sublime objects to the worship of the Creator. Greek philosophy in particular was the preparation of the Greeks for Christ. It was the schoolmaster or paedagogue to lead them to Christ. Plato was Moses atticizing. Clement varies in his statement how Plato got his wisdom or his fragments of the Reason. Sometimes he thinks that they came direct from God, like all good things, but he is also fond of maintaining that many of Plato's best thoughts were borrowed from the Hebrew prophets; and he makes the same statement in regard to the wisdom of the other philosophers. But however this may be, Christ was the end to which all that was true in philosophies pointed. Christ himself was the Logos, the Reason. God the Father was ineffable. The Son alone can manifest Him fully. He is the Reason that pervades the universe, that brings out all goodness, that guides all good men. It was through possessing somewhat of this Reason that the philosophers attained to any truth and goodness; but in Christians he dwells more fully and guides them through all the perplexities of life. Photius, probably on a careless reading of Clement, argued that he could not have believed in a real incarnation. But the words of Clement are quite precise and their meaning indisputable. The real difficulty attaches not to the Second Person, but to the First. The Father in Clement's mind becomes the Absolute of the philosophers, that is to say, not the Father at all, but the Monad, a mere point devoid of all attributes. He believed in a personal Son of God who was the Reason and Wisdom of God; and he believed that this Son of God really became incarnate though he speaks of him almost invariably as the Word, and attaches little value to his human nature. The object of his incarnation and death was to free man from his sins, to lead him into the path of wisdom, and thus in the end elevate him to the position of a god. But man's salvation was to be gradual. It began with faith, passed from that to love, and ended in full and complete knowledge. There could be no faith without knowledge. But the knowledge is imperfect, and the Christian was to do many things in simple obedience without knowing the reason. But he has to move upwards continually until he at length does nothing that is evil, and he knows fully the reason and object of what he does. He thus becomes the true Gnostic, but he can become the true Gnostic only by contemplation and by the practice of what is right. He has to free himself from the power of passion. He has to give up all thoughts of pleasure. He must prefer goodness in the midst of torture to evil with unlimited pleasure. He has to resist the temptations of the body, keeping it under strict control, and with the eye of the soul undimmed by corporeal wants and impulses, contemplate God the supreme good, and live a life according to reason. In other words, he must strive after likeness to God as he reveals himself in his Reason or in Christ. Clement thus looks entirely at the enlightened moral elevation to which Christianity raises man. He believed that Christ instructed men before he came into the world, and he therefore viewed heathenism with kindly eye. He was also favourable to the pursuit of all kinds of knowledge. All enlightenment tended to lead up to the truths of Christianity, and hence knowledge of every kind not evil was its handmaid. Clement had at the same time a strong belief in evolution or development. The world went through various stages in preparation for Christianity. The man goes through various stages before he can reach Christian perfection. And Clement conceived that this development took place not merely in this life, but in the future through successive grades. The Jew and the heathen had the gospel preached to them in the world below by Christ and his apostles, and Christians will have to pass through processes of purification and trial after death before they reach knowledge and perfect bliss.

The beliefs of Clement have caused considerable difference of opinion among modern scholars. He sought the truth from whatever quarter he could get it, believing that all that is good comes from God, wherever it be found. He belongs therefore to no school of philosophers. He calls himself an Eclectic. He was in the main a Neoplatonist, drawing from that school his doctrines of the Monad and his strong tendency towards mysticism. For his moral doctrine he borrowed freely from Stoicism. Aristotelian features may be found but are quite subordinate. But Clement always regards the articles of the Christian creed as the axioms of a new philosophy. Daehne had tried to show that he was Neoplatonic, and Reinkens has maintained that he was essentially Aristotelian. His mode of viewing Christianity does not fit into any classification. It is the result of the period in which he lived, of his wide culture and the simplicity and noble purity of his character.

It is needless to say that his books well deserve study; but the study is not smoothed by simplicity of style. Clement professed to despise rhetoric, but was himself a rhetorician, and his style is turgid, involved and difficult. He is singularly simple in his character. In discussing marriage he refuses to use any but the plainest language. A euphemism is with him a falsehood. But he is temperate in his opinions; and the practical advices in the second and third books of the _Paedagogue_ are remarkably sound and moderate. He is not always very critical, and he is passionately fond of allegorical interpretations, but these were the faults of his age.

All early writers speak of Clement in the highest terms of laudation, and he certainly ought to have been a saint in any Church that reveres saints. But Clement is not a saint in the Roman Church. He was a saint up till the time of Benedict XIV., who read Photius on Clement, believed him, and struck the Alexandrian's name out of the calendar. But many Roman Catholic writers, though they yield a practical obedience to the papal decision, have adduced good reason why it should be reversed (Cognat, p. 451).

EDITIONS.--The standard edition of the collected works will be that of
O. Staehlin (first vol. containing _Protrepticus_ and _Paedagogus_,
Leipzig, 1905). Separate editions of _Strom_. vii., Hort and Major
(1902); _Q.D.S._, Barnard in _Texts and Studies_, v. 2 (1897); W.
Dindorf's edition in 4 vols. (Oxford, 1869) is little more than a
reprint of the text of Bishop Potter, 1715. For the _Fragments_ see
Zahn, _Forschungen zur Gesch. des neut. Kanons_, part iii., or Harnack
and Preuschen, _Gesch. der altch. Litt._, vol. i.

LITERATURE.--A copious bibliography will be found in Harnack,
_Chronologie_, vol. ii., or in Bardenhewer, _Gesch. der altk. Lit._
Either of these will supply the names of works upon Clement's biblical
text, his use of Stoic writers, his quotations from heathen writers,
and his relation to heathen philosophy. A valuable book is de Faye,
_Clem. d'Alex_. (1898). For his theological position see Harnack,
_Dogmengeschichte_; Hort, _Six Lectures on the Ante-Nicene Fathers_;
Westcott, "Clem, of Alex." in _Dict. Christ. Biog._; Bigg, _Christian
Platonists of Alex._ (1886). A book on Clement's relation to Mysticism
is wanted. (C. Bi.; J. D.)

FOOTNOTE:

[1] Zahn thinks we have part of them in the _Adumbrationes Clem.
Alex. in epistolas canonicas_ (Codex Lindum, 96, sec. ix.). They were
perhaps intended as a completion of the preceding course.

CLEMENT, FRANCOIS (1714-1793), French historian, was born at Beze, near Dijon, and was educated at the Jesuit College at Dijon. At the age of seventeen he entered the society of the Benedictines of Saint Maur, and worked with such intense application that at the age of twenty-five he was obliged to take a protracted rest. He now resided in Paris, where he wrote the 11th and 12th vols. of the _Histoire litteraire de la France_, and edited (with Dom Brial) the 12th and 13th vols. of the _Recueil des historiens des Gauls et de la France_. The king appointed him on the committee which was engaged in publishing charters, diplomas and other documents connected with French history (see Xavier Charmes, _Le Comite des travaux historiques et scientifiques_, vol. i., 1886, passim); and the Academy of Inscriptions chose him as a member (1785). Dom Clement also revised the _Art de verifier les dates_, edited in 1750 by Dom Clemencet. Three volumes with the Indexes appeared from 1783 to 1792. He was engaged in preparing another volume including the period before the Christian era, when he died suddenly of apoplexy, at the age of sixty-nine. The work was afterwards brought down from 1770 to 1827 by Julien de Courcelles and Fortia d'Urban.

CLEMENT, JACQUES (1567-1589), murderer of the French king Henry III., was born at Sorbon in the Ardennes, and became a Dominican friar. Civil war was raging in France, and Clement became an ardent partisan of the League; his mind appears to have become unhinged by religious fanaticism, and he talked of exterminating the heretics, and formed a plan to kill Henry III. His project was encouraged by some of the heads of the League; he was assured of temporal rewards if he succeeded, and of eternal bliss if he failed. Having obtained letters for the king, he left Paris on the 31st of July 1589, and reached St Cloud, the headquarters of Henry, who was besieging Paris. On the following day he was admitted to the royal presence, and presenting his letters he told the king that he had an important and confidential message to deliver. The attendants then withdrew, and while Henry was reading the letters Clement mortally wounded him with a dagger which had been concealed beneath his cloak. The assassin was at once killed by the attendants who rushed in, and Henry died early on the following day. Clement's body was afterwards quartered and burned. This deed, however, was viewed with far different feelings in Paris and by the partisans of the League, the murderer being regarded as a martyr and extolled by Pope Sixtus V., while even his canonization was discussed.

See E. Lavisse, _Histoire de France_, tome vi. (Paris, 1904).

CLEMENTI, MUZIO (c. 1751-1832), Italian pianist and composer, was born at Rome between 1750 and 1752. His father, a jeweller, encouraged his son's early musical talent. Buroni and Cordicelli were his first masters, and at the age of nine Clementi's theoretical and practical studies had advanced to such a degree that he was able to win the position of organist at a church. He continued his studies under Santarelli and Carpani, and at the age of fourteen wrote a mass which was performed in public. About 1766 Beckford, the author of _Vathek_, persuaded Clementi to follow him to England, where the young composer lived in retirement at one of the country seats of his protector in Dorsetshire until 1770. In that year he first appeared in London, where his success both as composer and pianist was rapid and brilliant. In 1777 he was for some time employed as conductor of the Italian opera, but he soon afterwards left London for Paris. Here also his concerts were crowded by enthusiastic audiences, and the same success accompanied Clementi on a tour about the year 1780 to southern Germany and Austria. At Vienna, which he visited between 1781 and 1782, he was received with high honour by the emperor Joseph II., in whose presence he met Mozart, and fought a kind of musical duel with him. His technical skill proved to be equal if not superior to that of his rival, who on the other hand infinitely surpassed him by the passionate beauty of his interpretation. It is worth noting that one of the finest of Clementi's sonatas, that in B flat, shows an exactly identical opening theme with Mozart's overture to the _Flauto Magico_.

In May 1782 Clementi returned to London, where for the next twelve years he continued his lucrative occupations of fashionable teacher and performer at the concerts of the aristocracy. He took shares in the pianoforte business of a firm which went bankrupt in 1800. He then established a pianoforte and music business of his own, under the name of Clementi & Co. Other members were added to the firm, including Collard and Davis, and the firm was ultimately taken over by Messrs Collard alone. Amongst his pupils on the pianoforte during this period may be mentioned John Field, the composer of the celebrated _Nocturnes_. In his company Clementi paid, in 1804, a visit to Paris, Vienna, St Petersburg, Berlin and other cities. While he was in Berlin, Meyerbeer became one of his pupils. He also revisited his own country after an absence of more than thirty years. In 1810 Clementi returned to London, but refused to play again in public, devoting the remainder of his life to composition. Several symphonies belong to this time, and were played with much success at contemporary concerts, but none of them seem to have been published. His intellectual and musical faculties remained unimpaired until his death, on the 9th of March 1832, at Evesham, Worcester.

Of Clementi's playing in his youth, Moscheles wrote that it was "marked by a most beautiful _legato_, a supple touch in lively passages, and a most unfailing _technique_." Mozart may be said to have closed the old and Clementi to have founded the newer school of _technique_ on the piano. Amongst Clementi's compositions the most remarkable are sixty sonatas for pianoforte, and the great collection of _Etudes_ called _Gradus ad Parnassum_.

CLEMENTINE LITERATURE, the name generally given to the writings which at one time or another were fathered upon Pope Clement I. (q.v.), commonly called Clemens Romanus, who was early regarded as a disciple of St Peter. Thus they are for the most part a species of the larger pseudo-Petrine genus. Chief among them are: (1) The so-called Second Epistle; (2) two Epistles on Virginity; (3) the _Homilies_ and _Recognitions_; (4) the _Apostolical Constitutions_ (q.v.); and (5) five epistles forming part of the Forged Decretals (see DECRETALS). The present article deals mainly with the third group, to which the title "Clementine literature" is usually confined, owing to the stress laid upon it in the famous Tuebingen reconstruction of primitive Christianity, in which it played a leading part; but later criticism has lowered its importance as its true date and historical relations have been progressively ascertained. (1) and (2) became "Clementine" only by chance, but (3) was so originally by literary device or fiction, the cause at work also in (4) and (5). But while in all cases the suggestion of Clement's authorship came ultimately from his prestige as writer of the genuine Epistle of Clement (see CLEMENT I.), both (3) and (4) were due to this idea as operative on Syrian soil; (5) is a secondary formation based on (3) as known to the West.

(1) _The "Second Epistle of Clement."_--This is really the earliest extant Christian homily (see APOSTOLIC FATHERS). Its theme is the duty of Christian repentance, with a view to obedience to Christ's precepts as the true confession and homage which He requires. Its special charge is "Preserve the flesh pure and the seal (i.e. baptism) unstained" (viii. 6). But the peculiar way in which it enforces its morals in terms of the Platonic contrast between the spiritual and sensuous worlds, as archetype and temporal manifestation, suggests a special local type of theology which must be taken into account in fixing its _provenance_. This theology, the fact that the preacher seems to quote the _Gospel according to the Egyptians_ (in ch. xii. and possibly elsewhere) as if familiar to his hearers, and indeed its literary affinities generally, all point to Alexandria as the original home of the homily, at a date about 120-140 (see _Zeit. f. N. T. Wissenschaft_, vii. 123 ff). Neither Corinth (as Lightfoot) nor Rome (as Harnack, who assigns it to Bishop Soter, c. 166-174) satisfies all the internal conditions, while the Eastern nature of the external evidence and the homily's quasi-canonical status in the Codex-Alexandrinus strongly favour an Alexandrine origin.

(2) _The Two Epistles to Virgins_, i.e. to Christian celibates of both sexes. These are known in their entirety only in Syriac, and were first published by Wetstein (1752), who held them genuine. This view is now generally discredited, even by Roman Catholics like Funk, their best recent editor (_Patres Apost._, vol. ii.). External evidence begins with Epiphanius (_Haer._ xxx. 15) and Jerome (_Ad Jovin._ i. 12); and the silence of Eusebius tells heavily against their existence before the 4th century, at any rate as writings of Clement. The Monophysite Timothy of Alexandria (A.D. 457) cites one of them as Clement's, while Antiochus of St Saba (c. A.D. 620) makes copious but unacknowledged extracts from both in the original Greek. There is no trace of their use in the West. Thus their Syrian origin is manifest, the more so that in the Syriac MS. they are appended to the New Testament, like the better-known epistles of Clement in the Codex Alexandrinus. Indeed, judging from another Syriac MS. of earlier date, which includes the latter writings in its canon, it seems that the Epistles on Virginity gradually replaced the earlier pair in certain Syrian churches--even should Lightfoot be right in doubting if this had really occurred by Epiphanius's day (_S. Clement of Rome_, i. 412).

Probably these epistles did not originally bear Clement's name at all, but formed a single epistle addressed to ascetics among an actual circle of churches. In that case they, or rather it, may date from the 3rd century in spite of Eusebius's silence, and are not pseudo-Clementine in any real sense. It matters little whether or not the false ascription was made before the division into two implied already by Epiphanius (c. A.D. 375). Special occasion for such a hortatory letter may be discerned in its polemic against intimate relations between ascetics of opposite sex, implied to exist among its readers, in contrast to usage in the writer's own locality. Now we know that spiritual unions, prompted originally by highstrung Christian idealism as to a religious fellowship transcending the law of nature in relation to sex, did exist between persons living under vows of celibacy during the 3rd century in particular, and not least in Syria (cf. the case of Paul of Samosata, c. 265, and the Synod of Ancyra in Galatia, c. 314). It is natural, then, to see in the original epistle a protest against the dangers of such spiritual boldness (cf. "Subintroductae" in Herzog-Hauck's _Realencyklopaedie_), prior perhaps to the famous case at Antioch just noted. Possibly it is the feeling of south Syria or Palestine that here expresses itself in remonstrance against usages prevalent in north Syria. Such a view finds support also in the New Testament canon implied in these epistles.

(3)[a] _The Epistle of Clement to James_ (the Lord's brother). This was originally part of (3)[b], in connexion with which its origin and date are discussed. But as known to the West through Rufinus's Latin version, it was quoted as genuine by the synod of Vaison (A.D. 442) and throughout the middle ages. It became "the starting point of the most momentous and gigantic of medieval forgeries, the Isidorian Decretals," "where it stands at the head of the pontifical letters, extended to more than twice its original length." This extension perhaps occurred during the 5th century. At any rate the letter in this form, along with a "second epistle to James" (on the Eucharist, church furniture, &c.), dating from the early 6th century, had separate currency long before the 9th century, when they were incorporated in the _Decretals_ by the forger who raised the Clementine epistles to five (see Lightfoot, _Clement_, i. 414 ff.).

(3)[b] _The "Homilies" and "Recognitions_"--"The two chief extant Clementine writings, differing considerably in some respects in doctrine, are both evidently the outcome of a peculiar speculative type of Judaistic Christianity, for which the most characteristic name of Christ was 'the true Prophet.' The framework of both is a narrative purporting to be written by Clement (of Rome) to St James, the Lord's brother, describing at the beginning his own conversion and the circumstances of his first acquaintance with St Peter, and then a long succession of incidents accompanying St Peter's discourses and disputations, leading up to a romantic recognition of Clement's father, mother and two brothers, from whom he had been separated since childhood. The problems discussed under this fictitious guise are with rare exceptions fundamental problems for every age; and, whatever may be thought of the positions maintained, the discussions are hardly ever feeble or trivial. Regarded simply as mirroring the past, few, if any, remains of Christian antiquity present us with so vivid a picture of the working of men's minds under the influence of the new leaven which had entered into the world" (Hort, _Clem. Recog._, p. xiv.).

The indispensable preliminary to a really historic view of these writings is some solution of the problem of their mutual relations. The older criticism assumed a dependence of one upon the other, and assigned one or both to the latter part of the 2nd century. Recent criticism, however, builds on the principle, which emerges alike from the external and internal evidence (see Salmon in the _Dict. of Christian Biography_), that both used a common basis. Our main task, then, is to define the nature, origin and date of the parent document, and if possible its own literary antecedents. Towards the solution of this problem two contributions of prime importance have recently been made. The earlier of these is by F.J.A. Hort, and was delivered in the form of lectures as far back as 1884, though issued posthumously only in 1901; the other is the elaborate monograph of Dr Hans Waitz (1904).

_Criticism._--(i.) _External Evidence as to the Clementine Romance._ The evidence of ancient writers really begins, not with Origen,[1] but with Eusebius of Caesarea, who in his _Eccl. Hist._ iii. 38, writes as follows: "Certain men have quite lately brought forward as written by him (Clement) other verbose and lengthy writings, containing dialogues of Peter, forsooth, and Apion, whereof not the slightest mention is to be found among the ancients, for they do not even preserve in purity the stamp of the Apostolic orthodoxy." Apion, the Alexandrine grammarian and foe of Judaism, whose criticism was answered by Josephus, appears in this character both in _Homilies_ and _Recognitions_, though mainly in the former (iv. 6-vii. 5). Thus Eusebius implies (1) a spurious Clementine work containing matter found also in our _Homilies_ at any rate; and (2) its quite recent origin. Next we note that an extract in the _Philocalia_ is introduced as follows: "Yea, and Clement the Roman, a disciple of Peter the Apostle, after using words in harmony with these on the present problem, in conversation with his father at Laodicea in the _Circuits_, speaks a very necessary word for the end of arguments touching this matter, viz. those things which seem to have proceeded from _genesis_ (= astrological destiny), in the fourteenth book." The extract answers to _Recognitions_, x. 10-13, but it is absent from our _Homilies_. Here we observe that (1) the extract agrees this time with _Recognitions_, not with _Homilies_; (2) its framework is that of the Clementine romance found in both; (3) the tenth and last book of _Recognitions_ is here parallel to book xiv. of a work called _Circuits_ (_Periodoi_).

This last point leads on naturally to the witness of Epiphanius (c. 375), who, speaking of Ebionites or Judaizing Christians of various sorts, and particularly the Essene type, says (_Haer._ xxx. 15) that "they use certain other books likewise, to wit, the so-called _Circuits_ of Peter, which were written by the hand of Clement, falsifying their contents, though leaving a few genuine things." Here Ephiphanius simply assumes that the Ebionite _Circuits of Peter_ was based on a genuine work of the same scope, and goes on to say that the spurious elements are proved such by contrast with the tenor of Clement's "encyclic epistles" (i.e. those to virgins, (2) above); for these enjoin virginity (celibacy), and praise Elijah, David, Samson, and all the prophets, whereas the Ebionite _Circuits_ favour marriage (even in Apostles) and depreciate the prophets between Moses and Christ, "the true Prophet." "In the _Circuits_, then, they adapted the whole to their own views, representing Peter falsely in many ways, as that he was daily baptized for the sake of purification, as these also do; and they say that he likewise abstained from animal food and meat, as they themselves also do." Now all the points here noted in the _Circuits_ can be traced in our _Homilies_ and _Recognitions_, though toned down in different degrees.

The witness of the Arianizing _Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum_ (c. 400) is in general similar. Its usual form of citation is "Peter in Clement" (_apud Clementem_). This points to "Clement" as a brief title for the Clementine _Periodoi_, a title actually found in a Syriac MS. of A.D. 411 which contains large parts of _Recognitions_ and _Homilies_, and twice used by Rufinus, e.g. when he proposes to inscribe his version of the _Recognitions_ "Rufinus _Clemens_." Rufinus in his preface to this work--in which for the first time we meet the title _Recognition(s)_--observes that there are two editions to which the name applies, two collections of books differing in some points but in many respects containing the same narrative. This he remarks in explanation of the order of his version in some places, which he feels may strike his friend Gaudentius as unusual, the inference being that the other edition was the better-known one, although it lacked "the transformation of Simon" (i.e. of Clement's father into Simon's likeness), which is common to the close both of our _Recognitions_ and _Homilies_, and so probably belonged to the _Circuits_. We may assume, too (e.g. on the basis of our Syriac MS.), that the Greek edition of the _Recognition(s)_ actually used by Rufinus was much nearer the text of the _Periodoi_ of which we have found traces than we should imagine from its Latin form.

So far we have no sure trace of our _Homilies_ at all, apart from the Syriac version. Even four centuries later, Photius, in referring to a collection of books called both _Acts of Peter_ and the _Recognition of Clement_, does not make clear whether he means _Homilies_ or _Recognitions_ or either. "In all the copies which we have seen (and they are not a few) after those different epistles (viz. 'Peter to James' and 'Clement to James,' prefixed, the one in some MSS. the other in others) and titles, we found without variation the same treatise, beginning, I, Clement, &c." But it is not clear that he had read more than the opening of these MSS. The fact that different epistles are prefixed to the same work leads him to conjecture "that there were two editions made of the _Acts of Peter_ (his usual title for the collection), but in course of time the one perished and that of Clement prevailed." This is interesting as anticipating a result of modern criticism, as will appear below. The earliest probable reference to our _Homilies_ occurs in a work of doubtful date, the pseudo-Athanasian _Synopsis_, which mentions "Clementines, whence came by selection and rewriting the true and inspired form." Here too we have the first sure trace of an expurgated recension, made with the idea of recovering the genuine form assumed, as earlier by Epiphanius, to lie behind an unorthodox recension of Clement's narrative. As, moreover, the extant _Epitome_ is based on our _Homilies_, it is natural to suppose it was also the basis of earlier orthodox recensions, one or more of which may be used in certain Florilegia of the 7th century and later. Nowhere do we find the title _Homilies_ given to any form of the Clementine collection in antiquity.

(ii.) _The Genesis of the Clementine Literature._ It has been needful to cite so much of the evidence proving that our _Homilies_ and _Recognitions_ are both recensions of a common basis, at first known as the _Circuits of Peter_ and later by titles connecting it rather with Clement, its ostensible author, because it affords data also for the historical problems touching (a) the contents and origin of the primary Clementine work, and (b) the conditions under which our extant recensions of it arose.

(a) _The Circuits of Peter_, as defined on the one hand by the epistle of Clement to James originally prefixed to it and by patristic evidence, and on the other by the common element in our _Homilies_ and _Recognitions_, may be conceived as follows. It contained accounts of Peter's teachings and discussions at various points on a route beginning at Caesarea, and extending northwards along the coast-lands of Syria as far as Antioch. During this tour he meets with persons of typically erroneous views, which it was presumably the aim of the work to refute in the interests of true Christianity, conceived as the final form of divine revelation--a revelation given through true prophecy embodied in a succession of persons, the chief of whom were Moses and the prophet whom Moses foretold, Jesus the Christ. The prime exponent of the spurious religion is Simon Magus. A second protagonist of error, this time of Gentile philosophic criticism directed against fundamental Judaism, is Apion, the notorious anti-Jewish Alexandrine grammarian of Peter's day; while the role of upholder of astrological fatalism (_Genesis_) is played by Faustus, father of Clement, with whom Peter and Clement debate at Laodicea. Finally, all this is already embedded in a setting determined by the romance of Clement and his lost relatives, "recognition" of whom forms the _denouement_ of the story.

There is no reason to doubt that such, roughly speaking, were the contents of the Clementine work to which Eusebius alludes slightingly, in connexion with that section of it which had to his eye least verisimilitude, viz. the dialogues between Peter and Apion. Now Eusebius believed the work to have been of quite recent and suspicious origin. This points to a date about the last quarter of the 3rd century; and the prevailing doctrinal tone of the contents, as known to us, leads to the same result. The standpoint is that of the peculiar Judaizing or Ebonite Christianity due to persistence among Christians of the tendencies known among pre-Christian Jews as Essene. The Essenes, while clinging to what they held to be original Mosaism, yet conceived and practised their ancestral faith in ways which showed distinct traces of syncretism, or the operation of influences foreign to Judaism proper. They thus occupied an ambiguous position on the borders of Judaism. Similarly Christian Essenism was syncretist in spirit, as we see from its best-known representatives, the Elchasaites, of whom we first hear about 220, when a certain Alcibiades of Apamea in Syria (some 60 m. south of Antioch) brought to Rome the _Book of Helxai_--the manifesto of their distinctive message (Hippol., _Philos._ ix. 13)--and again some twenty years later, when Origen refers to one of their leaders as having lately arrived at Caesarea (Euseb. vi. 38). The first half of the 3rd century was marked, especially in Syria, by a strong tendency to syncretism, which may well have stirred certain Christian Essenes to fresh propaganda. Other writings than the _Book of Helxai_, representing also other species of the same genus, would take shape. Such may have been some of the pseudo-apostolic _Acts_ to which Epiphanius alludes as in use among the Ebionites of his own day: and such was probably the nucleus of our Clementine writings, the _Periodoi_ of Peter.

Harnack (_Chronologie_, ii. 522 f.), indeed, while admitting that much (e.g. in _Homilies_, viii. 5-7) points the other way, prefers the view that even the _Circuits_ were of Catholic origin (Chapman, as above, says Arian, soon after 325), regarding the syncretistic Jewish-Christian features in it as due either to its earlier basis or to an instinct to preserve continuity of manner (e.g. absence of explicit reference to Paul). Hort, on the contrary, assumes as author "an ingenious Helxaite ... perhaps stimulated by the example of the many Encratite _Periodoi_" (p. 131), and writing about A.D. 200.

Only it must not be thought of as properly Elchasaite, since it knew no baptism distinct from the ordinary Christian one. It seems rather to represent a later and modified Essene Christianity, already half-Catholic, such as would suit a date after 250, in keeping with Eusebius's evidence. Confirmation of such a date is afforded by the silence of the Syrian _Didascalia_, itself perhaps dating from about 250, as to any visit of Simon Magus to Caesarea, in contrast to the reference in its later form, the _Apostolical Constitutions_ (c. 350-400), which is plainly coloured (vi. 9) by the Clementine story. On the other hand, the _Didascalia_ seems to have been evoked partly by Judaizing propaganda in north Syria. If, then, it helps to date the _Periodoi_ as after 250, it may also suggest as place of origin one of the large cities lying south of Antioch, say Laodicea (itself on the coast about 30 m. from Apamea), where the Clementine story reaches its climax. The intimacy of local knowledge touching this region implied in the narrative common to _Homilies_ and _Recognitions_ is notable, and tells against an origin for the _Periodoi_ outside Syria (e.g. in Rome, as Waitz and Harnack hold, but Lightfoot disproves, _Clem._ i. 55 f., 64,100, cf. Hort, p. 131). Further, though the curtain even in it fell on Peter at Antioch itself (our one complete MS. of the _Homilies_ is proved by the _Epitome_, based on the _Homilies_, to be here abridged), the interest of the story culminates at Laodicea.

If we assume, then, that the common source of our extant Clementines arose in Syria, perhaps c. 265,[2] had it also a written source or sources which we can trace? Though Hort doubts it, most recent scholars (e.g. Waitz, Harnack) infer the existence of at least one source, "Preachings (_Kerygmata_) of Peter," containing no reference at all to Clement. Such a work seems implied by the epistle of Peter to James and its appended adjuration, prefixed in our MSS. to the _Homilies_ along with the epistle of Clement to James. Thus the later work aimed at superseding the earlier, much as Photius suggests (see above). It was, then, to these "Preachings of Peter" that the most Ebionite features, and especially the anti-Pauline allusions under the guise of Simon still inhering in the _Periodoi_ (as implied by _Homilies_ in particular), originally belonged. The fact, however, that these were not more completely suppressed in the later work, proves that it, too, arose in circles of kindred, though largely modified, Judaeo-Christian sentiment (cf. _Homilies_, vii., e.g. ch. 8). The differences of standpoint may be due not only to lapse of time, and the emergence of new problems on the horizon of Syrian Christianity generally, but also to change in locality and in the degree of Greek culture represented by the two works. A probable date for the "Preachings" used in the _Periodoi_ is c. 200.[3]

If the home of the _Periodoi_ was the region of the Syrian Laodicea, we can readily explain most of its characteristics. Photius refers to the "excellences of its language and its learning"; while Waitz describes the aim and spirit of its contents as those of an apology for Christianity against heresy and paganism, in the widest sense of the word, written in order to win over both Jews (cf. _Recognitions_, i. 53-70) and pagans, but mainly the latter. In particular it had in view persons of culture, as most apt to be swayed by the philosophical tendencies in the sphere of religion prevalent in that age, the age of neo-Platonism. It was in fact designed for propaganda among religious seekers in a time of singular religious restlessness and varied inquiry, and, above all, for use by catechumens (cf. _Ep. Clem._ 2, 13) in the earlier stages of their preparation for Christian baptism. To such its romantic setting would be specially adapted, as falling in with the literary habits and tastes of the period; while its doctrinal peculiarities would least give offence in a work of the aim and character just described.

As regards the sources to the narrative part of the _Periodoi_, it is possible that the "recognition" _motif_ was a literary commonplace. The account of Peter's journeyings was no doubt based largely on local Syrian tradition, perhaps as already embodied in written _Acts of Peter_ (so Waitz and Harnack), but differing from the Western type, e.g. in bringing Peter to Rome long before Nero's reign. As for the allusions, more or less indirect, to St Paul behind the figure of Simon, as the arch-enemy of the truth--allusions which first directed attention to the Clementines in the last century--there can be no doubt as to their presence, but only as to their origin and the degree to which they are so meant in _Homilies_ and _Recognitions_. There is certainly "an application to Simon of words used by or of St Paul, or of claims made by or in behalf of St Paul" (Hort), especially in _Homilies_ (ii. 17 f., xi. 35, xvii. 19), where a consciousness also of the double reference must still be present, though this does not seem to be the case in _Recognitions_ (in Rufinus's Latin.) Such covert reference to Paul must designedly have formed part of the _Periodoi_, yet as adopted from its more bitterly anti-Pauline basis, the "Preachings of Peter" (cf. _Homilies_, ii. 17 f. with _Ep. Pet. ad Jac. 2_), which probably shared most of the features of Ebionite Essenism as described by Epiphanius xxx. 15 f. (including the qualified dualism of the two kingdoms--the present one of the devil, and the future one of the angelic Christ--which appears also in the _Periodoi_, cf. _Ep. Clem. ad Jac. 1 fin._).

(b) That the _Periodoi_ was a longer work than either our _Homilies_ or _Recognitions_ is practically certain; and its mere bulk may well, as Hort suggests (p. 88), have been a chief cause of the changes of form. Yet _Homilies_ and _Recognitions_ are abridgments made on different principles and convey rather different impressions to their readers. "The _Homilies_ care most for doctrine," especially philosophical doctrine, "and seem to transpose very freely for doctrinal purposes" (e.g. matter in xvi.-xix. is placed at the end for effect, while xx. 1-10 gives additional emphasis to the _Homilies_' theory of evil, perhaps over against Manichaeism). "The _Recognitions_ care most for the story," as a means of religious edification, "and have preserved the general framework much more nearly." They arose in different circles: indeed, save the compiler of the text represented by the Syriac MS. of 411 A.D., "not a single ancient writer shows a knowledge of both books in any form." But Hort is hardly right in suggesting that, while _Homilies_ arose in Syria, _Recognitions_ took shape in Rome. Both probably arose in Syria (so Lightfoot), but in circles varying a good deal in religious standpoint.[4] _Homilies_ was a sort of second edition, made largely in the spirit of its original and perhaps in much the same locality, with a view to maintaining and propagating the doctrines of a semi-Judaic Christianity (cf. bk. vii.), as it existed a generation or two after the _Periodoi_ appeared. The _Recognitions_, in both recensions, as is shown by the fact that it was read in the original with general admiration not only by Rufinus but also by others in the West, was more Catholic in tone and aimed chiefly at commending the Christian religion over against all non-Christian rivals or gnostic perversions. That is, more than one effort of this sort had been made to adapt the story of Clement's _Recognitions_ to general Christian use. Later the _Homilies_ underwent further adaptation to Catholic feeling even before the _Epitome_, in its two extant forms, was made by more drastic methods of expurgation. One kind of adaptation at least is proved to have existed before the end of the 4th century, namely a selection of certain discourses from the _Homilies_ under special headings, following on _Recognitions_, i.-iii., as seen in a Syriac MS. of A.D. 411. As this MS. contains transcriptional errors, and as its archetype had perhaps a Greek basis, the _Recognitions_ may be dated c. 350-375[5] (its Christology suggested to Rufinus an Arianism like that of Eunomius of Cyzicus, c. 362), and the _Homilies_ prior even to 350. But the different circles represented by the two make relative dating precarious.

_Summary._--The Clementine literature throws light upon a very obscure phase of Christian development, that of Judaeo-Christianity, and proves that it embraced more intermediate types, between Ebionism proper and Catholicism, than has generally been realized. Incidentally, too, its successive forms illustrate many matters of belief and usage among Syrian Christians generally in the 3rd and 4th centuries, notably their apologetic and catechetical needs and methods. Further, it discusses, as Hort observes, certain indestructible problems which much early Christian theology passes by or deals with rather perfunctorily; and it does so with a freshness and reality which, as we compare the original 3rd-century basis with the conventional manner of the _Epitome_, we see to be not unconnected with origin in an age as yet free from the trammels of formal orthodoxy. Again it is a notable specimen of early Christian pseudepigraphy, and one which had manifold and far-reaching results. Finally the romance to which it owed much of its popular appeal, became, through the medium of Rufinus's Latin, the parent of the late medieval legend of Faust, and so the ancestor of a famous type in modern literature.

LITERATURE.--For a full list of this down to 1904 see Hans Waitz, "Die
Pseudoklementinen" (_Texte u. Untersuchungen zur Gesch. der altchr.
Literatur, neue Folge_, Bd. x. Heft 4), and A. Harnack, _Chronologie
der altchr. Litteratur_ (1904), ii. 518 f. In English, besides Hort's
work, there are articles by G. Salmon, in _Dict. of Christ. Biog._, C.
Bigg, _Studia Biblica_, ii., A.C. Headlam, _Journal of Theol.
Studies_, iii. (J. V. B.)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Dr Armitage Robinson, in his edition of the _Philocalia_
(extracts made c. 358 by Basil and Gregory from Origen's writings),
proved that the passage cited below is simply introduced as a
parallel to an extract of Origen's; while Dom Chapman, in the
_Journal of Theol. Studies_, iii. 436 ff., made it probable that the
passages in Origen's _Comm. on Matthew_ akin to those in the _Opus
Imperf. in Matth._ are insertions in the former, which is extant only
in a Latin version. Subsequently he suggested (_Zeitsch. f. N.T.
Wissenschaft_, ix. 33 f.) that the passage in the _Philocalia_ is due
not to its authors but to an early editor, since it is the only
citation not referred to Origen.

[2] While Hort and Waitz say c. 200, Harnack says c. 260. The reign
of Gallienus (260-268) would suit the tone of its references to the
Roman emperor (Waitz, p. 74), and also any polemic against the
Neoplatonic philosophy of revelation by visions and dreams which it
may contain.

[3] Even Waitz agrees to this, though he argues back to a yet earlier
anti-Pauline (rather than anti-Marcionite) form, composed in
Caesarea, c. 135.

[4] Dom Chapman maintains that the _Recognitions_ (c. 370-390,) even
attack the doctrine of God in the _Homilies_ or their archetype.

[5] Dom Chapman (ut supra, p. 158) says during the Neoplatonist
reaction under Julian 361-363, to which period he also assigns the
_Homilies_.

CLEOBULUS, one of the Seven Sages of Greece, a native and tyrant of Lindus in Rhodes. He was distinguished for his strength and his handsome person, for the wisdom of his sayings, the acuteness of his riddles and the beauty of his lyric poetry. Diogenes Laertius quotes a letter in which Cleobulus invites Solon to take refuge with him against Peisistratus; and this would imply that he was alive in 560 B.C. He is said to have held advanced views as to female education, and he was the father of the wise Cleobuline, whose riddles were not less famous than his own (Diogenes Laertius i. 89-93).

See F.G. Mullach, _Fragmenta Philosophorum Graecorum_, i.

CLEOMENES ([Greek: Kleomenes]), the name of three Spartan kings of the Agiad line.

CLEOMENES I. was the son of Anaxandridas, whom he succeeded about 520 B.C. His chief exploit was his crushing victory near Tiryns over the Argives, some 6000 of whom he burned to death in a sacred grove to which they had fled for refuge (Herodotus vi. 76-82). This secured for Sparta the undisputed hegemony of the Peloponnese. Cleomenes' interposition in the politics of central Greece was less successful. In 510 he marched to Athens with a Spartan force to aid in expelling the Peisistratidae, and subsequently returned to support the oligarchical party, led by Isagoras, against Cleisthenes (q.v.). He expelled seven hundred families and transferred the government from the council to three hundred of the oligarchs, but being blockaded in the Acropolis he was forced to capitulate. On his return home he collected a large force with the intention of making Isagoras despot of Athens, but the opposition of the Corinthian allies and of his colleague Demaratus caused the expedition to break up after reaching Eleusis (Herod. v. 64-76; Aristotle, _Ath. Pol._ 19, 20). In 491 he went to Aegina to punish the island for its submission to Darius, but the intrigues of his colleague once again rendered his mission abortive. In revenge Cleomenes accused Demaratus of illegitimacy and secured his deposition in favour of Leotychides (Herod. vi. 50-73). But when it was discovered that he had bribed the Delphian priestess to substantiate his charge he was himself obliged to flee; he went first to Thessaly and then to Arcadia, where he attempted to foment an anti-Spartan rising. About 488 B.C. he was recalled, but shortly afterwards, in a fit of madness, he committed suicide (Herod. vi. 74, 75). Cleomenes seems to have received scant justice at the hands of Herodotus or his informants, and Pausanias (iii. 3, 4) does little more than condense Herodotus's narrative. In spite of some failures, largely due to Demaratus's jealousy, Cleomenes strengthened Sparta in the position, won during his father's reign, of champion and leader of the Hellenic race; it was to him, for example, that the Ionian cities of Asia Minor first applied for aid in their revolt against Persia (Herod. v. 49-51).

For the chronology see J. Wells, _Journal of Hellenic Studies_ (1905),
p. 193 ff., who assigns the Argive expedition to the outset of the
reign, whereas nearly all historians have dated it in or about 495
B.C.

CLEOMENES II. was the son of Cleombrotus I., brother and successor of Agesipolis II. Nothing is recorded of his reign save the fact that it lasted for nearly sixty-one years (370-309 B.C.).