Chapter 21

See E. Casanova,Lettere di Carlo V. a Clemente VII.(Florence, 1893); Hugo LÃ¤mmer,Monumenta Vaticana, &c (Freiburg, 1861); P. Balan,Monumenta saeculi XVI. hist. illustr.(Innsbruck, 1885); ib.Mon. Reform. Luther(Regensburg, 1884); Stefan Ehses,RÃ¶m. Dokum. z. Gesch. der Ehescheidung Heinrichs VIII.(Paderborn, 1893);Calendar of State Papers(London, 1869, &c.); J.J.I. von DÃ¶llinger,BeitrÃ¤ge zur politischen, kirchlichen und Kulturgeschichte(3 vols., Vienna, 1882); F. Guicciardini,Istoria dâ€™Italia; L. von Ranke,Die rÃ¶mischen PÃ¤pste in den letzten vier Jahrhunderten, andDeutsche Gesch. im Zeitalter der Reformation; W. Hellwig,Die politischen Beziehungen Clements VII. zu Karl V., 1526(Leipzig, 1889); H. Baumgarten,Gesch. Karls V.(Stuttgart, 1888); F. Gregorovius,Geschichte der Stadt Rom, vol. viii. p. 414. (2nd ed., 1874); P. Balan,Clemente VII. e lâ€™ Italia deâ€™ suoi tempi(Milan, 1887); E. Armstrong,Charles the Fifth(2 vols., London, 1902); M. Creighton,Hist. of the Papacy during the Period of the Reformation(London, 1882); and H.M. Vaughan,The Medici Popes(1908). Further references will be found in Herzog-Hauck,RealencyklopÃ¤die, s. Clemens VII. See alsoCambridge Modern History, vol. ii. chap. i. and bibliography.

(W. A. P.)

ClementVIII. (Aegidius MuÃ±oz), antipope from 1425 to the 26th of July 1429, was a canon at Barcelona until elected at PeÃ±iscola by three cardinals whom the stubborn antipope Benedict XIII. had named on his death-bed. Clement was immediately recognized by Alphonso V. of Aragon, who was hostile to Pope Martin V. on account of the latterâ€™s opposition to his claims to the kingdom of Naples, but abdicated as soon as an agreement was reached between Alphonso and Martin through the exertions of Cardinal Pierre de Foix, an able diplomat and relation of the kingâ€™s. Clement spent his last years as bishop of Majorca, and died on the 28th of December 1446.

See. L. Pastor,History of the Popes, vol. i. trans, by F.I. Antrobus (London, 1899); M. Creighton,History of the Papacy, vol. ii. (London, 1899); and consult bibliography onMartin V.

(C. H. HA.)

ClementVIII. (Ippolito Aldobrandini), pope from 1592 to 1605, was born at Fano, in 1535. He became a jurist and filled several important offices. In 1585 he was made a cardinal, and subsequently discharged a delicate mission to Poland with skill. His moderation and experience commended him to his fellow cardinals, and on the 30th of January 1592 he was elected pope, to succeed Innocent IX. While not hostile to Philip II., Clement desired to emancipate the papacy from undue Spanish influence, and to that end cultivated closer relations with France. In 1595 he granted absolution to Henry IV., and so removed the last objection to the acknowledgment of his legitimacy. The peace of Vervins (1598), which marked the end of Philipâ€™s opposition to Henry, was mainly the work of the pope. Clement also entertained hopes of recovering England. He corresponded with James I. and with his queen, Anne of Denmark, a convert to Catholicism. But James was only half in earnest, and, besides, dared not risk a breach with his subjects. Upon the failure of the line of Este, Clement claimed the reversion of Ferrara and reincorporated it into the States of the Church (1598). He remonstrated against the exclusion of the Jesuits from France, and obtained their readmission. But in their doctrinal controversy with the Dominicans (seeMolina, Luis) he refrained from a decision, being unwilling to offend either party. Under Clement the publication of the revised edition of the Vulgate, begun by Sixtus V., was finished; the Breviary, Missal and Pontifical received certain corrections; the Index was expanded; the Vatican library enlarged; and the Collegium Clementinum founded. Clement was an unblushing nepotist; three of his nephews he made cardinals, and to one of them gradually surrendered the control of affairs. But on the other hand among those whom he promoted to the cardinalate were such men as Baronius, Bellarmine and Toledo. During this pontificate occurred the burning of Giordano Bruno for heresy; and the tragedy of the Cenci (see the respective articles). Clement died on the 5th of March 1605, and was succeeded by Leo XI.

See the contemporary life by Ciaconius,Vitae et res gestae summorum Pontiff. Rom.(Rome, 1601-1602); Francolini,Ippolito Aldobrandini, che fu Clemente VIII.(Perugia, 1867); Rankeâ€™s excellent sketch,Popes(Eng. trans. Austin), ii. 234 seq.; v. Reumont,Gesch. der Stadt Rom, iii. 2, 599 seq.; Brosch,Gesch. des Kirchenstaates(1880), i. 301 seq.

(T. F. C.)

ClementIX. (Giulio Rospigliosi) was born in 1600, became successively auditor of the Rota, archbishop of Tarsusin partibus, and cardinal, and was elected pope on the 20th of June 1667. He effected a temporary adjustment of the Jansenist controversy; was instrumental in concluding the peace of Aix-la-Chapelle (1668); healed a long-standing breach between the Holy See and Portugal; aided Venice against the Turks, and laboured unceasingly for the relief of Crete, the fall of which hastened his death on the 9th of October 1669.

See Oldoin, continuator of Ciaconius,Vitae et res gestae summorum Pontiff. Rom.; Palazzi,Gesta Pontiff. Rom.(Venice, 1687-1688), iv. 621 seq. (both contemporary); Ranke,Popes(Eng. trans. Austin), iii. 59 seq.; and v. Reumont,Gesch. der Stadt Rom, iii. 2, 634 seq.

(T. F. C.)

ClementX. (Emilio Altieri) was born in Rome, on the 13th of July 1590. Before becoming pope, on the 29th of April 1670 he had been auditor in Poland, governor of Ancona, and nuncio in Naples. His advanced age induced him to resign the control of affairs to his adopted nephew, Cardinal Paluzzi, who embroiled the papacy in disputes with the resident ambassadors, and incurred the enmity of Louis XIV., thus provoking the long controversy over the regalia (seeInnocent XI.). Clement died on the 22nd of July 1676.

See Guarnacci,Vitae et res gestae Pontiff. Rom.(Rome, 1751), (contin. of Ciaconius), i. 1 seq.; Palazzi,Gesta Pontiff. Rom.(Venice, 1687-1688), iv. 655 seq.; and Ranke,Popes(Eng. trans. Austin), iii. 172 seq.

(T. F. C.)

ClementXI (Giovanni Francesco Albani), pope from 1700 to 1721, was born in Urbino, on the 22nd of July 1649, received an extraordinary education in letters, theology and law, filled various important offices in the Curia, and finally, on the 23rd of November 1700, succeeded Innocent XII. as pope. His private life and his administration were blameless, but it was his misfortune to reign in troublous times. In the war of the Spanish Succession he would willingly have remained neutral, but found himself between two fires, forced first to recognize Philip V., then driven by the emperor to recognize the Archduke Charles. In the peace of Utrecht he was ignored; Sardinia and Sicily, Parma and Piacenza, were disposed of without regard to papal claims. When he quarrelled with the duke of Savoy, and revoked his investiture rights in Sicily (1715), his interdict was treated with contempt. The prestige of the papacy had hardly been lower within two centuries. About 1702 the Jansenist controversy broke out afresh. Clement reaffirmed the infallibility of the pope, in matters offact(1705), and, in 1713, issued the bullUnigenitus, condemning 101 Jansenistic propositions extracted from theMoral Reflectionsof Pasquier Quesnel. The rejection of this bull by certain bishops led to a new party division and a further prolonging of the controversy (seeJansenismandQuesnel, Pasquier). Clement also forbade the practice of the Jesuit missionaries in China of â€œaccommodatingâ€ their teachings to pagan notions or customs, in order to win converts. Clement was a polished writer, and a generous patron of art and letters. He died on the 19th of March 1721.

For contemporary lives see Elci,The Present State of the Court of Rome, trans, from the Ital. (London, 1706); Polidoro,De Vita et Reb. Gest. Clem. XI.(Urbino, 1727); Reboulet,Hist. de Clem. XI. Pape(Avignon, 1752); Guarnacci,Vitae et res gest. Pontiff. Rom.(Rome, 1751); Sandini,Vitae Pontiff Rom.(Padua, 1739); Buder,Leben u. Thaten Clementis XI.(Frankfort, 1720-1721). See alsoClementis XI. Opera Omnia(Frankfort, 1729); the detailed â€œStudii sul pontificato di Clem. XI.,â€ by Pometti in theArchivio della R. Soc. romana di storia patria, vols. 21, 22, 23 (1898-1900), and the extended bibliography in HergenrÃ¶ther,Allg. Kirchengesch.(1880), iii. 506.

(T. F. C.)

ClementXII. (Lorenzo Corsini), pope from 1730 to 1740, succeeded Benedict XIII. on the 12th of July 1730, at the age of seventy-eight. The rascally Cardinal Coscia, who had deluded Benedict, was at once brought to justice and forced to disgorge his dishonest gains. Politically the papacy had sunk to the level of pitiful helplessness, unable to resist the aggressions of the Powers, who ignored or coerced it at will. Yet Clemententertained high hopes for Catholicism; he laboured for a union with the Greek Church, and was ready to facilitate the return of the Protestants of Saxony. He deserves well of posterity for his services to learning and art; the restoration of the Arch of Constantine; the enrichment of the Capitoline museum with antique marbles and inscriptions, and of the Vatican library With oriental manuscripts (seeAssemani); and the embellishment of the city with many buildings. He died on the 6th of February 1740, and was succeeded by Benedict XIV.

See Guarnacci,Vitae et res gestae Pontiff. Rom.(Rome, 1751); Sandini,Vitae Pontiff. Rom.(Padua, 1739); Fabroni,De Vita et Reb. Gest. Clementis XII. (Rome, 1760); Ranke,Popes(Eng. trans. Austin), iii. 191 seq.; v. Reumont,Gesch. der Stadt Rom, iii. 2, 653 seq.

(T. F. C.)

ClementXIII. (Carlo della Torre Rezzonico), pope from 1758 to 1769, was born in Venice, on the 7th of March 1693, filled various important posts in the Curia, became cardinal in 1737, bishop of Padua in 1743, and succeeded Benedict XIV. as pope on the 6th of July 1758. He was a man of upright, moderate and pacific intentions, but his pontificate of eleven years was anything but tranquil. The Jesuits had fallen upon evil days; in 1758 Pombal expelled them from Portugal; his example was followed by the Bourbon countriesâ€”France, Spain, the Two Sicilies and Parma (1764-1768). The order turned to the pope as its natural protector; but his protests (cf. the bullApostolicum pascendi munus, 7th of January 1765) were unheeded (seeJesuits). A clash with Parma occurred to aggravate his troubles. The Bourbon kings espoused their relativeâ€™s quarrel, seized Avignon, Benevento and Ponte Corvo, and united in a peremptory demand for the suppression of the Jesuits (January 1769). Driven to extremities, Clement consented to call a Consistory to consider the step, but on the very eve of the day set for its meeting he died (2nd of February 1769), not without suspicion of poison, of which, however, there appears to be no conclusive evidence.

A contemporary account of Clement was written by Augustin de AndrÃ¨s y SobiÃ±as, ...el nacimiento, estudios y empleos de ... Clem. XIII. (Madrid, 1759). Ravignanâ€™sClement XIII. e Clement XIV.(Paris, 1854) is partisan but free from rancour; and appends many interesting documents. See also the bibliographical note under Clement XIV.infra.; and the extended bibliography in HergenrÃ¶ther,Allg. Kirchengesch.(1880), iii. 509.

(T. F. C.)

ClementXIV. (Lorenzo Ganganelli), pope from 1769 to 1774, son of a physician of St Arcangelo, near Rimini, was born on the 31st of October 1705, entered the Franciscan order at the age of seventeen, and became a teacher of theology and philosophy. As regent of the college of S. Bonaventura, Rome, he came under the notice of Benedict XIV., who conceived a high opinion of his talents and made him consulter of the Inquisition. Upon the recommendation of Ricci, general of the Jesuits, Clement XIII. made him a cardinal; but, owing to his disapproval of the popeâ€™s policy, he found himself out of favour and without influence. The conclave following the death of Clement XIII. was the most momentous of at least two centuries. The fate of the Jesuits hung in the balance; and the Bourbon princes were determined to have a pope subservient to their hostile designs. The struggle was prolonged three months. At length, on the 19th of May 1769, Ganganelli was chosen, not as a declared enemy of the Jesuits, but as being least objectionable to each of the contending factions. The charge of simony was inspired by Jesuit hatred; there is absolutely no evidence that Ganganelli pledged himself to suppress the order.

The outlook for the papacy was dark; Portugal was talking of a patriarchate; France held Avignon; Naples held Ponte Corvo and Benevento; Spain was ill-affected; Parma, defiant; Venice, aggressive; Poland meditating a restriction of the rights of the nuncio. Clement realized the imperative necessity of conciliating the powers. He suspended the public reading of the bullIn Coena Domini, so obnoxious to civil authority; resumed relations with Portugal; revoked themonitoriumof his predecessor against Parma. But the powers were bent upon the destruction of the Jesuits, and they had the pope at their mercy. Clement looked abroad for help, but found none. Even Maria Theresa, his last hope, suppressed the order in Austria. Temporizing and partial concessions were of no avail. At last, convinced that the peace of the Church demanded the sacrifice, Clement signed the briefDominus ac Redemptor, dissolving the order, on the 21st of July 1773. The powers at once gave substantial proof of their satisfaction; Benevento, Ponte Corvo, Avignon and the Venaissin were restored to the Holy See. But it would be unfair to accept this as evidence of a bargain. Clement had formerly indignantly rejected the suggestion of such an exchange of favours.

There is no question of the legality of the popeâ€™s act; whether he was morally culpable, however, continues to be a matter of bitter controversy. On the one hand, the suppression is denounced as a base surrender to the forces of tyranny and irreligion, an act of treason to conscience, which reaped its just punishment of remorse; on the other hand, it is as ardently maintained that Clement acted in full accord with his conscience, and that the order merited its fate by its own mischievous activities which made it an offence to religion and authority alike. But whatever the guilt or innocence of the Jesuits, and whether their suppression were ill-advised or not, there appears to be no ground for impeaching the motives of Clement, or of doubting that he had the approval of his conscience. The stories of his having swooned after signing the brief, and of having lost hope and even reason, are too absurd to be entertained. The decline in health, which set in shortly after the suppression, and his death (on the 22nd of September 1774) proceeded from wholly natural causes. The testimony of his physician and of his confessor ought to be sufficient to discredit the oft-repeated story of slow poisoning (see Duhr,Jesuiten Fabeln, 4th ed., 1904, pp. 69 seq.).

The suppression of the Jesuits bulks so large in the pontificate of Clement that he has scarcely been given due credit for his praiseworthy attempt to reduce the burdens of taxation and to reform the financial administration, nor for his liberal encouragement of art and learning, of which the museum Pio-Clementino is a lasting monument.

No pope has been the subject of more diverse judgments than Clement XIV. Zealous defenders credit him with all virtues, and bless him as the instrument divinely ordained to restore the peace of the Church; virulent detractors charge him with ingratitude, cowardice and double-dealing. The truth is at neither extreme. Clementâ€™s was a deeply religious and poetical nature, animated by a lofty and refined spirit. Gentleness, equanimity and benevolence were native to him. He cherished high purposes and obeyed a lively conscience. But he instinctively shrank from conflict; he lacked the resoluteness and the sterner sort of courage that grapples with a crisis.

Caraccioliâ€™sVie de ClÃ©ment XIV(Paris, 1775) (freq. translated), is incomplete, uncritical and too laudatory. The middle of the 19th century saw quite a spirited controversy over Clement XIV.; St Priest, in hisHist. de la chute des JÃ©suites(Paris, 1846), represented Clement as lamentably, almost culpably, weak; Cretineau-Joly, in hisHist. ... de la Comp. de JÃ©sus(Paris, 1844-1845), and hisClÃ©ment XIV et les JÃ©suites(Paris, 1847), was outspoken and bitter in his condemnation; this provoked Theinerâ€™sGesch. des Pontificats Clemensâ€™ XIV.(Leipzig and Paris, 1852), a vigorous defence based upon original documents to which, as custodian of the Vatican archives, the author had freest access; Cretineau-Joly replied withLe Pape ClÃ©ment XIV; Lettres au P. Theiner(Paris, 1852). Ravignanâ€™sClem. XIII. e Clem. XIV.(Paris, 1854) is a weak, half-hearted apology for Clement XIV. See also v. Reumont,Ganganelli, Papst Clemens XIV.(Berlin, 1847); and Reinerding,Clemens XIV. u. d. Aufhebung der Gesellschaft Jesu(Augsburg, 1854). The letters of Clement have frequently been printed; the genuineness of Caraccioliâ€™s collection (Paris, 1776; freq. translated) has been questioned, but most of the letters are now generally accepted as genuine; see alsoClementis XIV. Epp. ac Brevia, ed. Theiner (Paris, 1852). An extended bibliography is to be found in HergenrÃ¶ther,Allg. Kirchengesch.(1880), iii. 510 seq.

(T. F. C.)

CLEMENT OF ALEXANDRIA(Clemens Alexandrinus), Greek Father of the Church. The little we know of him is mainly derived from his own works. He was probably born aboutA.D.150 of heathen parents in Athens. The earliest writer after himself who gives us any information with regard to him is Eusebius. The only points on which his works now extant inform us are his date and his instructors. In theStromateis,while attempting to show that the Jewish Scriptures were older than any writings of the Greeks, he invariably brings down his dates to the death of Commodus, a circumstance which at once suggests that he wrote in the reign of the emperor Severus, from 193 to 211A.D.(seeStrom.lib. i. cap. xxi. 140, p. 403, Potterâ€™s edition). The passage in regard to his teachers is corrupt, and the sense is therefore doubtful (Strom.lib. i. cap. i. 11, p. 322, P.).

â€œThis treatise,â€ he says, speaking of theStromateis, â€œhas not been contrived for mere display, but memoranda are treasured up in it for my old age to be a remedy for forgetfulness,â€”an image, truly, and an outline of those clear and living discourses, and those men truly blessed and noteworthy I was privileged to hear. One of these was in Greece, the Ionian, the other was in Magna Graecia; the one of them was from Coele Syria, the other from Egypt; but there were others in the East, one of whom belonged to the Assyrians, but the other was in Palestine, originally a Jew. The last of those whom I met was first in power. On falling in with him I found rest, having tracked him while he lay concealed in Egypt. He was in truth the Sicilian bee, and, plucking the flowers of the prophetic and apostolic meadow, he produced a wonderfully pure knowledge in the souls of the listeners.â€

Some have supposed that in this passage seven teachers are named, others that there are only five, and various conjectures have been hazarded as to what persons were meant. The only one about whom conjecture has any basis for speculating is the last, for Eusebius states (H.E.v. 11) that Clement made mention of Pantaenus as his teacher in theHypotyposes. The reference in this passage is plainly to one whom he might well designate as his teacher.

To the information which Clement here supplies subsequent writers add little. By Eusebius and Photius he is called Titus Flavius Clemens, and â€œthe Alexandrianâ€ is added to his name. Epiphanius tells us that some said Clement was an Alexandrian, others that he was an Athenian (Haer.xxxii. 6), and a modern writer imagined that he reconciled this discordance by the supposition that he was born at Athens, but lived at Alexandria. We know nothing of his conversion except that he passed from heathenism to Christianity. This is expressly stated by Eusebius (Praep. Evangel.lib. ii. cap. 2), though it is likely that Eusebius had no other authority than the works of Clement. These works, however, warrant the inference. They show a singularly minute acquaintance with the ceremonies of pagan religion, and there are indications that Clement himself had been initiated in some of the mysteries (Protrept.cap. ii. sec. 14, p. 13, P.). There is no means of determining the date of his conversion. He attained the position of presbyter in the church of Alexandria (Eus.H.E.vi. 11, and Jerome,De Vir. Ill.38), and became perhaps the assistant, and certainly the successor of Pantaenus in the catechetical school of that place. Among his pupils were Origen (Eus.H.E.vi. 7) and Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem (Eus.H.E.vi. 14.). How long he continued in Alexandria, and when and where he died, are all matters of pure conjecture. The only further notice of Clement that we have in history is in a letter written in 211 by Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem, to the Antiochians, and preserved by Eusebius (H.E.vi. 11). The words are as follows:â€”â€œThis letter I sent through Clement the blessed presbyter, a man virtuous and tried, whom ye know and will come to know completely, who being here by the providence and guidance of the Ruler of all strengthened and increased the church of the Lord.â€ A statement of Eusebius in regard to the persecution of Severus in 202 (H.E.vi. 3) would render it likely that Clement left Alexandria on that occasion. It is conjectured that he went to his old pupil Alexander, who was at that time bishop of Flaviada in Cappadocia, and that when his pupil was raised to the see of Jerusalem Clement followed him there. The letter implies that he was known to the Antiochians, and that it was likely he would be still better known. Some have conjectured that he returned to Alexandria, but there is not the shadow of evidence for such conjecture. Alexander, writing to Origen (c. 216), mentions Clement as dead (Eus.H.E.vi. 14, 9).

Eusebius and Jerome give us lists of the works which Clement left behind him. Photius has also described some of them. They are as follows:â€”(1)Î Ïá½¸Ï‚ ÎˆÎ»Î»Î·Î½Î±Ï‚ Î»ÏŒÎ³Î¿Ï‚ á½ Ï€ÏÎ¿Ï„ÏÎµÏ€Ï„Î¹ÎºÎ¿Ï‚,A Hortatory Address to the Greeks. (2)ÎŒ Î Î±Î¹Î´Î±Î³Ï‰Î³ÏŒÏ‚,The Tutor, in three books. (3)Î£Ï„ÏÏ‰Î¼Î±Ï„Îµá¿–Ï‚, orPatch-work, in eight books. (4)Î¤á¼°Ï‚ á½¸ ÏƒÏ‰Î¾á½€Î¼ÎµÎ½Î¿Ï‚ Ï€Î»Î¿ÏÏƒÎ¹Î¿Ï‚;Who is the Rich Man that is Saved?(5) Eight books ofÎŽÏ€Î¿Ï„Ï…Ï€ÏŽÏƒÎµÎ¹Ï‚,Adumbrations or Outlines.(6)On the Passover.(7)Discourses on Fasting.(8)On Slander.(9)Exhortation to Patience, or to the Newly Baptized.(10) TheÎšÎ±Î½á½¼Î½ á¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·ÏƒÎ¹Î±ÏƒÏ„Î¹ÎºÏŒÏ‚, theRule of the Church, or to those who Judaize, a work dedicated to Alexander, bishop of Jerusalem.Of these, the first four have come down to us complete, or nearly complete. The first three form together a progressive introduction to Christianity corresponding to the stages through which theÎ¼á½ÏƒÏ„Î·Ï‚passed at Eleusisâ€”purification, initiation, revelation. TheHortatory Address to the Greeksis an appeal to them to give up the worship of their gods, and to devote themselves to the worship of the one living and true God. Clement exhibits the absurdity and immorality of the stories told with regard to the pagan deities, the cruelties perpetrated in their worship, and the utter uselessness of bowing down before images made by hands. He at the same time shows the Greeks that their own greatest philosophers and poets recognized the unity of the divine Being, and had caught glimpses of the true nature of God, but that fuller light had been thrown on this subject by the Hebrew prophets. He replies to the objection that it was not right to abandon the customs of their forefathers, and points them to Christ as their only safe guide to God.ThePaedagogueis divided into three books. In the first Clement discusses the necessity for and the true nature of the Paedagogus, and shows how Christ as the Logos acted as Paedagogus, and still acts. In the second and third books Clement enters into particulars, and explains how the Christian following the Logos or Reason ought to behave in the various circumstances of lifeâ€”in eating, drinking, furnishing a house, in dress, in the relations of social life, in the care of the body, and similar concerns, and concludes with a general description of the life of a Christian. Appended to thePaedagogueare two hymns, which are, in all probability, the production of Clement, though some have conjectured that they were portions of the church service of that time.ÏƒÏ„ÏÏ‰Î¼Î±Ï„Îµá¿–Ï‚were bags in which bedclothes (ÏƒÏ„ÏÏŽÎ¼Î±Ï„Î±) were kept. The phrase was used as a book-title by Origen and others, and is equivalent to our â€œmiscellanies.â€ It is difficult to give a brief account of the varied contents of the book. Sometimes Clement discusses chronology, sometimes philosophy, sometimes poetry, entering into the most minute critical and chronological details; but one object runs through all, and this is to show what the true Christian Gnostic is, and what is his relation to philosophy. The work was in eight books. The first seven are complete. The eighth now extant is really an incomplete treatise on logic. Some critics have rejected this book as spurious, since its matter is so different from that of the rest. Others, however, have held to its genuineness, because in a Patch-work or Book of Miscellanies the difference of subject is no sound objection, and because Photius seems to have regarded our present eighth book as genuine (Phot. cod. iii. p. 89b, Bekker).The treatiseWho is the Rich Man that is Saved?is an admirable exposition of the narrative contained in St Markâ€™s Gospel x. 17-31. Here Clement argues that wealth, if rightly used, is not unchristian.TheHypotyposes1in 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 Clementâ€™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 calledThe Ecclesiastical Canonfrom any external testimony. Clement himself often mentions theá¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·ÏƒÎ¹Î±ÏƒÏ„Î¹Îºá½¸Ï‚ ÎºÎ±Î½ÏŽÎ½, 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 workEcclesiastical 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 tothem. Some have found an allusion to the treatise on the Soul already mentioned. The other subjects are Marriage (Î³Î±Î¼Î¹Îºá½¸Ï‚ Î»ÏŒÎ³Î¿Ï‚), 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 Godâ€™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 areÎˆÎº Ï„á¿¶Î½ Î˜ÎµÎ¿Î´ÏŒÏ„Î¿Ï… ÎºÎ±Î¯ Ï„á¼¦Ï‚ á¼€Î½Î±Ï„Î¿Î»Î¹Îºá¼¦Ï‚ ÎºÎ±Î»Î¿Ï…Î¼ÎÎ½Î·Ï‚ Î´Î¹Î´Î±ÏƒÎºÎ±Î»Î¯Î±Ï‚ ÎºÎ±Ï„á½° Ï„Î¿á½ºÏ‚ ÎŸá½Î±Î»ÎµÎ½Ï„Î¯Î½Î¿Ï… Ï‡ÏÏŒÎ½Î¿Ï…Ï‚ á¼Ï€Î¹Ï„Î¿Î¼Î±Î¯, andÎˆÎº Ï„á¿¶Î½ Ï€ÏÎ¿Ï†Î·Ï„Î¹Îºá¿¶Î½ á¼ÎºÎ»Î¿Î³Î±á¼°. 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.

Of these, the first four have come down to us complete, or nearly complete. The first three form together a progressive introduction to Christianity corresponding to the stages through which theÎ¼á½ÏƒÏ„Î·Ï‚passed at Eleusisâ€”purification, initiation, revelation. TheHortatory Address to the Greeksis an appeal to them to give up the worship of their gods, and to devote themselves to the worship of the one living and true God. Clement exhibits the absurdity and immorality of the stories told with regard to the pagan deities, the cruelties perpetrated in their worship, and the utter uselessness of bowing down before images made by hands. He at the same time shows the Greeks that their own greatest philosophers and poets recognized the unity of the divine Being, and had caught glimpses of the true nature of God, but that fuller light had been thrown on this subject by the Hebrew prophets. He replies to the objection that it was not right to abandon the customs of their forefathers, and points them to Christ as their only safe guide to God.

ThePaedagogueis divided into three books. In the first Clement discusses the necessity for and the true nature of the Paedagogus, and shows how Christ as the Logos acted as Paedagogus, and still acts. In the second and third books Clement enters into particulars, and explains how the Christian following the Logos or Reason ought to behave in the various circumstances of lifeâ€”in eating, drinking, furnishing a house, in dress, in the relations of social life, in the care of the body, and similar concerns, and concludes with a general description of the life of a Christian. Appended to thePaedagogueare two hymns, which are, in all probability, the production of Clement, though some have conjectured that they were portions of the church service of that time.ÏƒÏ„ÏÏ‰Î¼Î±Ï„Îµá¿–Ï‚were bags in which bedclothes (ÏƒÏ„ÏÏŽÎ¼Î±Ï„Î±) were kept. The phrase was used as a book-title by Origen and others, and is equivalent to our â€œmiscellanies.â€ It is difficult to give a brief account of the varied contents of the book. Sometimes Clement discusses chronology, sometimes philosophy, sometimes poetry, entering into the most minute critical and chronological details; but one object runs through all, and this is to show what the true Christian Gnostic is, and what is his relation to philosophy. The work was in eight books. The first seven are complete. The eighth now extant is really an incomplete treatise on logic. Some critics have rejected this book as spurious, since its matter is so different from that of the rest. Others, however, have held to its genuineness, because in a Patch-work or Book of Miscellanies the difference of subject is no sound objection, and because Photius seems to have regarded our present eighth book as genuine (Phot. cod. iii. p. 89b, Bekker).

The treatiseWho is the Rich Man that is Saved?is an admirable exposition of the narrative contained in St Markâ€™s Gospel x. 17-31. Here Clement argues that wealth, if rightly used, is not unchristian.

TheHypotyposes1in 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 Clementâ€™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 calledThe Ecclesiastical Canonfrom any external testimony. Clement himself often mentions theá¼ÎºÎºÎ»Î·ÏƒÎ¹Î±ÏƒÏ„Î¹Îºá½¸Ï‚ ÎºÎ±Î½ÏŽÎ½, 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 workEcclesiastical 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 tothem. Some have found an allusion to the treatise on the Soul already mentioned. The other subjects are Marriage (Î³Î±Î¼Î¹Îºá½¸Ï‚ Î»ÏŒÎ³Î¿Ï‚), 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 Godâ€™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 areÎˆÎº Ï„á¿¶Î½ Î˜ÎµÎ¿Î´ÏŒÏ„Î¿Ï… ÎºÎ±Î¯ Ï„á¼¦Ï‚ á¼€Î½Î±Ï„Î¿Î»Î¹Îºá¼¦Ï‚ ÎºÎ±Î»Î¿Ï…Î¼ÎÎ½Î·Ï‚ Î´Î¹Î´Î±ÏƒÎºÎ±Î»Î¯Î±Ï‚ ÎºÎ±Ï„á½° Ï„Î¿á½ºÏ‚ ÎŸá½Î±Î»ÎµÎ½Ï„Î¯Î½Î¿Ï… Ï‡ÏÏŒÎ½Î¿Ï…Ï‚ á¼Ï€Î¹Ï„Î¿Î¼Î±Î¯, andÎˆÎº Ï„á¿¶Î½ Ï€ÏÎ¿Ï†Î·Ï„Î¹Îºá¿¶Î½ á¼ÎºÎ»Î¿Î³Î±á¼°. 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 Fabriciusâ€™sBibliotheca 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 Godâ€™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 fromThe 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 Clementâ€™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 worldâ€™s history were therefore preparations leading up to this full revelation, and Godâ€™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 Platoâ€™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 Clementâ€™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 manâ€™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; butthe 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 thePaedagogueare 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 Alexandrianâ€™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.â€”The standard edition of the collected works will be that of O. StÃ¤hlin (first vol. containingProtrepticusandPaedagogus, Leipzig, 1905). Separate editions ofStrom. vii., Hort and Major (1902);Q.D.S., Barnard inTexts and Studies, v. 2 (1897); W. Dindorfâ€™s edition in 4 vols. (Oxford, 1869) is little more than a reprint of the text of Bishop Potter, 1715. For theFragmentssee Zahn,Forschungen zur Gesch. des neut. Kanons, part iii., or Harnack and Preuschen,Gesch. der altch. Litt., vol. i.Literature.â€”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 Clementâ€™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,ClÃ©m. dâ€™Alex. (1898). For his theological position see Harnack,Dogmengeschichte; Hort,Six Lectures on the Ante-Nicene Fathers; Westcott, â€œClem, of Alex.â€ inDict. Christ. Biog.; Bigg,Christian Platonists of Alex.(1886). A book on Clementâ€™s relation to Mysticism is wanted.

Literature.â€”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 Clementâ€™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,ClÃ©m. dâ€™Alex. (1898). For his theological position see Harnack,Dogmengeschichte; Hort,Six Lectures on the Ante-Nicene Fathers; Westcott, â€œClem, of Alex.â€ inDict. Christ. Biog.; Bigg,Christian Platonists of Alex.(1886). A book on Clementâ€™s relation to Mysticism is wanted.

(C. Bi.; J. D.)

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

CLÃ‰MENT, FRANÃ‡OIS(1714-1793), French historian, was born at BÃ¨ze, 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 theHistoire littÃ©raire de la France, and edited (with Dom Brial) the 12th and 13th vols. of theRecueil 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 ComitÃ© des travaux historiques et scientifiques, vol. i., 1886, passim); and the Academy of Inscriptions chose him as a member (1785). Dom ClÃ©ment also revised theArt de vÃ©rifier les dates, edited in 1750 by Dom ClÃ©mencet. 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 dâ€™Urban.

CLÃ‰MENT, 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 ClÃ©ment 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 ClÃ©ment 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. ClÃ©mentâ€™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 sonâ€™s early musical talent. Buroni and Cordicelli were his first masters, and at the age of nine Clementiâ€™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 ofVathek, 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 Clementiâ€™s sonatas, that in B flat, shows an exactly identical opening theme with Mozartâ€™s overture to theFlauto 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 celebratedNocturnes. 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 Clementiâ€™s playing in his youth, Moscheles wrote that it was â€œmarked by a most beautifullegato, a supple touch in lively passages, and a most unfailingtechnique.â€ Mozart may be said to have closed the old and Clementi to have founded the newer school oftechniqueon the piano. Amongst Clementiâ€™s compositions the most remarkable are sixty sonatas for pianoforte, and the great collection ofÃ‰tudescalledGradus 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) theHomiliesandRecognitions; (4) theApostolical Constitutions(q.v.); and (5) five epistles forming part of the Forged Decretals (seeDecretals). The present article deals mainly with the third group, to which the title â€œClementine literatureâ€ is usually confined, owing to the stresslaid upon it in the famous TÃ¼bingen 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 â€œClementineâ€ 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 Clementâ€™s authorship came ultimately from his prestige as writer of the genuine Epistle of Clement (seeClement 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 â€œSecond Epistle of Clement.â€â€”This is really the earliest extant Christian homily (seeApostolic Fathers). Its theme is the duty of Christian repentance, with a view to obedience to Christâ€™s precepts as the true confession and homage which He requires. Its special charge is â€œPreserve the flesh pure and the seal (i.e.baptism) unstainedâ€ (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 itsprovenance. This theology, the fact that the preacher seems to quote theGospel 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 (seeZeit. 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 homilyâ€™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 Clementâ€™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 churchesâ€”even should Lightfoot be right in doubting if this had really occurred by Epiphaniusâ€™s day (S. Clement of Rome, i. 412).

Probably these epistles did not originally bear Clementâ€™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 Eusebiusâ€™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 writerâ€™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. â€œSubintroductaeâ€ in Herzog-Hauckâ€™sRealencyklopÃ¤die), 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 Lordâ€™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 Rufinusâ€™s Latin version, it was quoted as genuine by the synod of Vaison (A.D.442) and throughout the middle ages. It became â€œthe starting point of the most momentous and gigantic of medieval forgeries, the Isidorian Decretals,â€ â€œwhere it stands at the head of the pontifical letters, extended to more than twice its original length.â€ This extension perhaps occurred during the 5th century. At any rate the letter in this form, along with a â€œsecond epistle to Jamesâ€ (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 theDecretalsby the forger who raised the Clementine epistles to five (see Lightfoot,Clement, i. 414 ff.).

(3)[b]The â€œHomiliesâ€ and â€œRecognitionsâ€â€”â€œThe 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 â€˜the true Prophet.â€™ The framework of both is a narrative purporting to be written by Clement (of Rome) to St James, the Lordâ€™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 Peterâ€™s discourses and disputations, leading up to a romantic recognition of Clementâ€™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 menâ€™s minds under the influence of the new leaven which had entered into the worldâ€ (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 theDict. 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.â€”(i.)External Evidence as to the Clementine Romance.The evidence of ancient writers really begins, not with Origen,1but with Eusebius of Caesarea, who in hisEccl. Hist.iii. 38, writes as follows: â€œCertain 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.â€ Apion, the Alexandrine grammarianand foe of Judaism, whose criticism was answered by Josephus, appears in this character both inHomiliesandRecognitions, though mainly in the former (iv. 6-vii. 5). Thus Eusebius implies (1) a spurious Clementine work containing matter found also in ourHomiliesat any rate; and (2) its quite recent origin. Next we note that an extract in thePhilocaliais introduced as follows: â€œYea, 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 theCircuits, speaks a very necessary word for the end of arguments touching this matter, viz. those things which seem to have proceeded fromgenesis(= astrological destiny), in the fourteenth book.â€ The extract answers toRecognitions, x. 10-13, but it is absent from ourHomilies. Here we observe that (1) the extract agrees this time withRecognitions, not withHomilies; (2) its framework is that of the Clementine romance found in both; (3) the tenth and last book ofRecognitionsis here parallel to book xiv. of a work calledCircuits(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 â€œthey use certain other books likewise, to wit, the so-calledCircuitsof Peter, which were written by the hand of Clement, falsifying their contents, though leaving a few genuine things.â€ Here Ephiphanius simply assumes that the EbioniteCircuits of Peterwas 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 Clementâ€™s â€œencyclic epistlesâ€ (i.e.those to virgins, (2) above); for these enjoin virginity (celibacy), and praise Elijah, David, Samson, and all the prophets, whereas the EbioniteCircuitsfavour marriage (even in Apostles) and depreciate the prophets between Moses and Christ, â€œthe true Prophet.â€ â€œIn theCircuits, 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.â€ Now all the points here noted in theCircuitscan be traced in ourHomiliesandRecognitions, though toned down in different degrees.

The witness of the ArianizingOpus Imperfectum in Matthaeum(c. 400) is in general similar. Its usual form of citation is â€œPeter in Clementâ€ (apud Clementem). This points to â€œClementâ€ as a brief title for the ClementinePeriodoi, a title actually found in a Syriac MS. ofA.D.411 which contains large parts ofRecognitionsandHomilies, and twice used by Rufinus,e.g.when he proposes to inscribe his version of theRecognitionsâ€œRufinusClemens.â€ Rufinus in his preface to this workâ€”in which for the first time we meet the titleRecognition(s)â€”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 â€œthe transformation of Simonâ€ (i.e.of Clementâ€™s father into Simonâ€™s likeness), which is common to the close both of ourRecognitionsandHomilies, and so probably belonged to theCircuits. We may assume, too (e.g.on the basis of our Syriac MS.), that the Greek edition of theRecognition(s)actually used by Rufinus was much nearer the text of thePeriodoiof which we have found traces than we should imagine from its Latin form.

So far we have no sure trace of ourHomiliesat all, apart from the Syriac version. Even four centuries later, Photius, in referring to a collection of books called bothActs of Peterand theRecognition of Clement, does not make clear whether he meansHomiliesorRecognitionsor either. â€œIn all the copies which we have seen (and they are not a few) after those different epistles (viz. â€˜Peter to Jamesâ€™ and â€˜Clement to James,â€™ prefixed, the one in some MSS. the other in others) and titles, we found without variation the same treatise, beginning, I, Clement, &c.â€ 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 â€œthat there were two editions made of theActs of Peter(his usual title for the collection), but in course of time the one perished and that of Clement prevailed.â€ This is interesting as anticipating a result of modern criticism, as will appear below. The earliest probable reference to ourHomiliesoccurs in a work of doubtful date, the pseudo-AthanasianSynopsis, which mentions â€œClementines, whence came by selection and rewriting the true and inspired form.â€ 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 Clementâ€™s narrative. As, moreover, the extantEpitomeis based on ourHomilies, 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 titleHomiliesgiven 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 ourHomiliesandRecognitionsare both recensions of a common basis, at first known as theCircuits of Peterand 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 ourHomiliesandRecognitions, may be conceived as follows. It contained accounts of Peterâ€™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 revelationâ€”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 Peterâ€™s day; while the rÃ´le 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, â€œrecognitionâ€ of whom forms thedÃ©nouementof 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 theBook of Helxaiâ€”the manifesto of their distinctive message (Hippol.,Philos.ix. 13)â€”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 theBook of Helxai, representing also other species of the same genus, would take shape. Such may have been some of the pseudo-apostolicActsto which Epiphanius alludes as in use among the Ebionites of his own day: and such was probably the nucleus of our Clementine writings, thePeriodoiof Peter.

Harnack (Chronologie, ii. 522 f.), indeed, while admitting that much (e.g.inHomilies, viii. 5-7) points the other way, prefers the view that even theCircuitswere 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 â€œan ingenious Helxaite ... perhaps stimulated by the example of the many EncratitePeriodoiâ€ (p. 131), and writing aboutA.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 Eusebiusâ€™s evidence. Confirmation of such a date is afforded by the silence of the SyrianDidascalia, itself perhaps dating from about 250, as to any visit of Simon Magus to Caesarea, in contrast to the reference in its later form, theApostolical Constitutions(c. 350-400), which is plainly coloured (vi. 9) by the Clementine story. On the other hand, theDidascaliaseems to have been evoked partly by Judaizing propaganda in north Syria. If, then, it helps to date thePeriodoias 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 toHomiliesandRecognitionsis notable, and tells against an origin for thePeriodoioutside 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 theHomiliesis proved by theEpitome, based on theHomilies, 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. 265,2had 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, â€œPreachings (Kerygmata) of Peter,â€ 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 theHomiliesalong 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 â€œPreachings of Peterâ€ that the most Ebionite features, and especially the anti-Pauline allusions under the guise of Simon still inhering in thePeriodoi(as implied byHomiliesin 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 â€œPreachingsâ€ used in thePeriodoiis c. 200.3

If the home of thePeriodoiwas the region of the Syrian Laodicea, we can readily explain most of its characteristics. Photius refers to the â€œexcellences of its language and its learningâ€; 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 thePeriodoi, it is possible that the â€œrecognitionâ€motifwas a literary commonplace. The account of Peterâ€™s journeyings was no doubt based largely on local Syrian tradition, perhaps as already embodied in writtenActs of Peter(so Waitz and Harnack), but differing from the Western type,e.g.in bringing Peter to Rome long before Neroâ€™s reign. As for the allusions, more or less indirect, to St Paul behind the figure of Simon, as the arch-enemy of the truthâ€”allusions which first directed attention to the Clementines in the last centuryâ€”there can be no doubt as to their presence, but only as to their origin and the degree to which they are so meant inHomiliesandRecognitions. There is certainly â€œan application to Simon of words used by or of St Paul, or of claims made by or in behalf of St Paulâ€ (Hort), especially inHomilies(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 inRecognitions(in Rufinusâ€™s Latin.) Such covert reference to Paul must designedly have formed part of thePeriodoi, yet as adopted from its more bitterly anti-Pauline basis, the â€œPreachings of Peterâ€ (cf.Homilies, ii. 17 f. withEp. 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 kingdomsâ€”the present one of the devil, and the future one of the angelic Christâ€”which appears also in thePeriodoi, cf.Ep. Clem. ad Jac. 1 fin.).

(b) That thePeriodoiwas a longer work than either ourHomiliesorRecognitionsis practically certain; and its mere bulk may well, as Hort suggests (p. 88), have been a chief cause of the changes of form. YetHomiliesandRecognitionsare abridgments made on different principles and convey rather different impressions to their readers. â€œTheHomiliescare most for doctrine,â€ especially philosophical doctrine, â€œand seem to transpose very freely for doctrinal purposesâ€ (e.g.matter in xvi.-xix. is placed at the end for effect, while xx. 1-10 gives additional emphasis to theHomiliesâ€™ theory of evil, perhaps over against Manichaeism). â€œTheRecognitionscare most for the story,â€ as a means of religious edification, â€œand have preserved the general framework much more nearly.â€ They arose in different circles: indeed, save the compiler of the text represented by the Syriac MS. of 411A.D., â€œnot a single ancient writer shows a knowledge of both books in any form.â€ But Hort is hardly right in suggesting that, whileHomiliesarose in Syria,Recognitionstook shape in Rome. Both probably arose in Syria (so Lightfoot), but in circles varying a good deal in religious standpoint.4Homilieswas 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 thePeriodoiappeared. TheRecognitions, 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 atcommending 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 Clementâ€™sRecognitionsto general Christian use. Later theHomiliesunderwent further adaptation to Catholic feeling even before theEpitome, 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 theHomiliesunder special headings, following onRecognitions, i.-iii., as seen in a Syriac MS. ofA.D.411. As this MS. contains transcriptional errors, and as its archetype had perhaps a Greek basis, theRecognitionsmay be dated c. 350-3755(its Christology suggested to Rufinus an Arianism like that of Eunomius of Cyzicus, c. 362), and theHomiliesprior even to 350. But the different circles represented by the two make relative dating precarious.

Back to Index Next